Salve Maior.

No - it was a question of fact. A self-evident fact I might add
defined clearly in the constitution (a rare event). That is not
interpretation, which as I think you know is an entirely different
beast.

Vale
Caesar

> Caesar; it was a matter of interpretation! The very same
> thing going on here. Both Tribunes Arminius Faustus and Apulus
> Caesar agreed I had a right to provocatio. Tribune Paulinus
> disagreed he interpeted differently. He denied me my day before the
> people....
>

Salve Caear et Buteo Minorque;
First my apologies to Buteo Minor, he was not pontiff but a
flamen and a tribune, civil magistate.

As I said Caesar it is a diputable question. Not to you. But two
Tribunes thought my case had merit.
So there was a diputable question of interpretation. Two
tribunes wished to let my provocatio go forward: Arminius Faustus
and Apulus Caesar..Paulinus did not.
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus has nothing to complain about, he did
the very same to me. I ask him for the good of the res publica to
accept the decision of the tribunes. I ask no more of him than I did
myself.
bene valete
Marca Hortensia Maior

> No - it was a question of fact. A self-evident fact I might add
> defined clearly in the constitution (a rare event). That is not
> interpretation, which as I think you know is an entirely different
> beast.
>
> Vale
> Caesar
>
> > Caesar; it was a matter of interpretation! The very same
> > thing going on here. Both Tribunes Arminius Faustus and Apulus
> > Caesar agreed I had a right to provocatio. Tribune Paulinus
> > disagreed he interpeted differently. He denied me my day before

the

> > people....
> >

A. Apollonius Cn. Caesari C. Buteoni omnibus sal.

It's important to remember that in the republican
period the word "pietas" in fact meant dutiful and
loving behaviour toward one's family, friends, and
fatherland only, and not to the gods at all. The
proper word for a dutiful attitude to the gods was
"religio". The transformation of the word "pietas" to
include respect for the gods was a symptom of the
transformation of the proud and independent republican
ideology into a subservient imperial culture in which
political leaders demanded divine honours and
obedience. To use the word "pietas" to refer to
religious piety in our republic is inappropriate,
whether to support one side of an argument or the other.



___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com

G. Equitius Cato M. Hortensiae Maiori S.P.D.

Salve tribune.

Marca Hortensia, if there were two tribunes in favor and only one
against, your appeal should have gone through. Why did it not?

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> Salve Caear et Buteo Minorque;
> First my apologies to Buteo Minor, he was not pontiff but a
> flamen and a tribune, civil magistate.
>
> As I said Caesar it is a diputable question. Not to you. But two
> Tribunes thought my case had merit.
> So there was a diputable question of interpretation. Two
> tribunes wished to let my provocatio go forward: Arminius Faustus
> and Apulus Caesar..Paulinus did not.
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus has nothing to complain about, he did
> the very same to me. I ask him for the good of the res publica to
> accept the decision of the tribunes. I ask no more of him than I did
> myself.
> bene valete
> Marca Hortensia Maior
>
>
> > No - it was a question of fact. A self-evident fact I might add
> > defined clearly in the constitution (a rare event). That is not
> > interpretation, which as I think you know is an entirely different
> > beast.
> >
> > Vale
> > Caesar
> >
> > > Caesar; it was a matter of interpretation! The very same
> > > thing going on here. Both Tribunes Arminius Faustus and Apulus
> > > Caesar agreed I had a right to provocatio. Tribune Paulinus
> > > disagreed he interpeted differently. He denied me my day before
> the
> > > people....
> > >

A. Apollonius Ser. Caesari omnibusque sal.

> I am curious as to whether the Romans had an appeals
> court like we are trying to label provocatio. Or if
> they used other legal procedures, such as criminal
> law, for the grievance's of private citizens against
> a magistrate or political/legal bodies. Or possibly
> they brought the issue before the proper (to
> individual situations) magistrate and then he would
> address, maybe, the proper committee? I do not know
> the answer myself, but I've found this very
> interesting, and I'm hoping to add a bit to my
> understanding of roman law.

Ah, it's almost as if I've heard my name called! ;)

The institution of provocatio is said to have
originated under the kings and to have been reasserted
by the lex Valeria de provocatione in 509 B.C., the
first year of the republic. Some scholars have doubted
that it was really as ancient as this, but to my mind
Cornell has demonstrated that there is no good reason
for such doubt. The lex Valeria of 509, as far as we
can tell, stated that if a magistrate was about to
execute a Roman citizen within the city of Rome, that
citizen had the right to plead his case before the
assembly, which would then either uphold or overturn
the sentence of execution.

In 300 another lex Valeria de provocatione extended
the right of provocatio to include not only execution
but also flogging.

In the early second century B.C. there were three
leges Porciae on the subject. The dates are not known
exactly, and it's not certain which lex did what, but
we can say with some confidence that, between the
three of them, they did the following:

They clarified a dispute over the interpretation of
the lex Valeria of 300, which some people had
interpreted as saying that a citizen had a right to
provocatio against a penalty of flogging and execution
together, but was *not* entitled to provocatio against
a penalty of just flogging on its own, or against a
penalty of just execution on its own (a rather literal
interpretation); the lex Porcia stated that provocatio
was available against flogging, *or* execution, *or*
both.

They also extended the right of provocatio to proect
Roman citizens not only within the city but outside it
as well. One of them created a penalty for any
magistrate who ignored an appeal by provocatio;
another increased the penalty.

By the end of this period of legal development, then,
any magistrate who wanted to execute or flog a Roman
citizen was legally required to submit the case to the
comitia for a final ruling if the citizen so asked. If
the proposed penalty was execution, the comitia
centuriata would hear the case, since the Twelve
Tables contained a rule that cases touching on the
life and death or the citizenship of a Roman citizen
could only be heard by that comitia; cases where the
penalty was flogging could be heard by any comitia.

So you can see that provocatio, though a very
important and ancient right, was quite limited in its
scope, and certainly did not provide a way for
citizens to air their general grievances against the
behaviour of magistrates. To do that, there were
various options. The most usual method by which a
private citizen could complain about the actions of
magistrates was by appealing to the tribunes. The
office of tribune was elected differently to our
current system, and had somewhat different powers, the
overall result being that a person could usually find
a tribune to take up his case, and that tribune would
usually be able to make some progress with the issue.
In Nova Roma the authors of our current constitution
decided to "limit" the powers of the tribunes by
imposing unhistorical restrictions on them, thus
making it in practice impossible for an ordinary
citizen of our republic to get any useful help from
the tribunes at all and turning the tribunes instead
into a sort of ineffectual committee for scrutinizing
legislation to death.

Also an issue which became contentious among the
people would often be discussed by the senate, which
had great moral authority and could often act as an
effective mediator between disputing parties to try to
find a solution to the problem.

Finally, it was possible for a private citizen to
prosecute an ex-magistrate for political crimes such
as treason, abuse of power, defiance of tribunician
veto, and even gross incompetence. This had to wait
until the magistrate in question was out of office,
however, because a serving magistrate was normally
immune to prosecution. So sometimes our ancestors just
had to be patient. One of the ways in which the powers
of the magistrates were limited was by the fact that
they only lasted for one year. This meant that however
bad a magistrate was it was never very long before he
would be out and someone else would be in.
Unfortunately nowadays some people seem unwilling to
wait that long and insist that there must be something
that can be done now, but the simple answer is that,
under ancient Roman law and custom, the power of
magistrates was very considerable and sometimes all
one could do was to sit tight and wait for the year to
end.

P.S. I shall get to your comment about M. Aurelius
tomorrow if I can!





___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

M .Hortensia Maior Catoni spd;
Salve, didn't say that Cato, I believe Buteo Minor (then
Modius) interposed intercessio, Paulinus was a tribune who's vote
would have been crucial to my provocatio going before the people.

Paulinus as tribune saw there were differing points of view, and
stopped my appeal for provocatio. He now claims he has a 'right' for
justice, that he denied me.
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus stop this and accept what I accepted
M. Hortensia Maior

> Marca Hortensia, if there were two tribunes in favor and only one
> against, your appeal should have gone through. Why did it not?
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> > Salve Caear et Buteo Minorque;
> > First my apologies to Buteo Minor, he was not pontiff but a
> > flamen and a tribune, civil magistate.
> >
> > As I said Caesar it is a diputable question. Not to you. But

two

> > Tribunes thought my case had merit.
> > So there was a diputable question of interpretation. Two
> > tribunes wished to let my provocatio go forward: Arminius

Faustus

> > and Apulus Caesar..Paulinus did not.
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus has nothing to complain about, he

did

> > the very same to me. I ask him for the good of the res publica

to

> > accept the decision of the tribunes. I ask no more of him than I

did

> > myself.
> > bene valete
> > Marca Hortensia Maior
> >
> >
> > > No - it was a question of fact. A self-evident fact I might

add

> > > defined clearly in the constitution (a rare event). That is

not

> > > interpretation, which as I think you know is an entirely

different

> > > beast.
> > >
> > > Vale
> > > Caesar
> > >
> > > > Caesar; it was a matter of interpretation! The very

same

> > > > thing going on here. Both Tribunes Arminius Faustus and

Apulus

> > > > Caesar agreed I had a right to provocatio. Tribune Paulinus
> > > > disagreed he interpeted differently. He denied me my day

before

> > the
> > > > people....
> > > >

A. Apollonius M. Regi omnibusque sal.

While I don't want to challenge your general argument,
there is one point I must pick up simply because it's
a common misconception:

> A Tribune has the power AND obligation to pronounce
> intercessio when
> the spirit and/or letter of the Constitution is
> being violated
> thereby. That is directly quoted from the
> Constitution of NR.

In fact the constitution doesn't say that. It says
that the tribunes "shall have the following honors,
powers, and obligations", and then goes on to list
various things.

The phrase "the following honors, powers, and
obligations" is ambiguous in English. It could either
mean "each one of the following things is an honour
*and* a power *and* an obligation" or it could mean
"each one of the following things is *either* an
honour *or* a power *or* an obligation, or some
combination of those three things". There is no way to
decide, merely by looking at the words themselves,
which meaning is intended.

So we have to look at the list of things which are
"following". They are:

- "To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto)
against the actions of any other magistrate (with the
exception of the dictator and the interrex), Senatus
consulta, magisterial edicta, religious decreta, and
leges passed by the comitia when the spirit and/or
letter of this Constitution or legally-enacted edicta
or decreta, Senatus Consulta or leges are being
violated thereby..."

- "To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto)
against another Tribune using the same mechanism as
described in paragraph IV.A.7.a. above"

- "To be immune from intercessio pronounced by other
magistrates, except as described in paragraphs
IV.A.7.a. and IV.A.7.b. above"

- "To be privy to the debates of the Senate, and keep
the citizens informed as to the subjects and results
thereof, in such manner and subject to such
restrictions as may be defined by law"

- "To call the Senate to order"

- "To call the comitia plebis tributa to order, except
when the Patrician order shall constitute more than
ten percent (10%) of the total population, in which
case the power shall be altered to calling the comitia
populi tributa to order"

- "To administer the law"

- "To appoint scribae (clerks) to assist with
administrative and other tasks, as they shall see fit"

So when we see what the "following" things actually
are, we see that they cannot possibly all be honours
*and* obligations *and* powers. It would be absurd to
say that a tribune has an obligation to appoint
scribae, or to call the senate or the comitia to
order, or to pronounce intercessio against his
colleagues, or to be immune to intercessio; it would
be absurd to say that a tribune has the power to be
privy to meetings of the senate (since being privy is
a passive state and cannot be a power according to the
meaning of the word "power"); it would be absurd to
say that appointing scribae is an honour. Clearly
there are some things on this list which are not
honours, some which are not powers, some which are not
obligations.

The problem is that the constitution gives us no help
at all in deciding which ones are which. Some, like
the ones I've mentioned, are obvious. But others, like
the one we're talking about ("to pronounce
intercessio"), could be obligations or could merely be
discretionary powers. There is absolutely no way to
tell. We simply have to choose which intepretation we
prefer. One may be better than another. But it is
absolutely incorrect to assert categorically that the
constitution unambiguously gives the tribunes the
obligation to veto illegal or unconstitutional acts.
It does not say that.



___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

G. Equitius Cato quirites Novae Romae S.P.D.

Salvete omnes.

The nundinum during which I held that I would continue to ask for my
client's appeal to be heard closes tomorrow. I would like to say a
few VERY brief things in regards to the whole situation.

Good things: the Forum certainly has come back to life! While it may
be true that we tend to talk more when we are arguing, this is both a
natural human state and evidence of the seriousness and care in which
all of us hold the Republic. Pompeia Minucia-Tiberia Strabo, Marca
Hortensia, Gaius Buteo, and the surprise Guest Star re-appearance of
Constantinus Fuscus have kept me on my toes; Gnaeus Caesar, with whom
I have shared many a withering exchange, found common ground (!), and
Apollonius Cordus once again showed his intensity of mind and clarity
of reasoning. All of this has once again re-affirmed my belief that
the great virtues of Rome are alive and kicking (and shouting) to the
long-term benefit of the res publica.

New citizens have popped in and voiced their thoughts on both sides;
some venerable citizens have turned their pens and voices back to the
Forum; humor and satire have abounded; learned discourse (and brave
attempts at the same) has shaken off some of the drowsy heat of
Summer.

Serious discussion has turned to the inability of our Constitution, as
it is, to address the life and breath of a living, restored Roman
Republic. We have much to look forward in the future in our work to
move our legal existence closer and closer to that of our forebears
--- as close as is humanly possible given the macronational restraints
we might encounter; after all, we are not the corpse of the ancient
Republic merely endued with the shuffling, stumbling gait of a zombie,
but a full, living, creation with energy and passion and the will and
spirit to try to bring those great virtues to a chaotic, angry, and
sometimes frighteningly desperate world.

If I have spoken heatedly and immoderately at times, I apologize to
any against whom my hard words may have struck; I cannot emphasize
enough the fact that I have endeavored to approach this as
impersonally (though not un-impassionedly) as possible, with an eye
only to try to express fully and clearly the reasoning behind my
approach to the issue.

Galerius Paulinus does, I believe, deserve to be heard by the People.
Whether or not that will happen, I do not know. Not because I want
to overthrow the tribunes, not because I harbor any deep-seated
dislike for any person or persons, but because I truly believe it is
mandated under our Constitution.

On a very bright note, Marcus Iulius Perusianus and I have been
discussing the possibility of staging, at the Conventus, what in the
U.S. might be called a Grand Jury hearing regarding this issue. A
Grand Jury is called so that a group of citizens (the
not-too-surprisingly called "grand jurors") are presented with
evidence in order to decide if, in fact, a trial should take place.
It would NOT, in any way, shape or form, try to actually make a
decision happen. It would ONLY be the equivalent of a theatre-piece
in which the style, drama, action and rhetoric of an actual Roman
contio would be presented --- something to bring the dry and
(sometimes) wearisome arguing that we've had here in the Forum to
life. Marcus Perusianus is getting the final OK from our Consul
Apulus Caesar, and if it happens, the transcript (maybe even recording
on tape and video) would be presented to the People in some format. I
am almost puppy-like in anticipation that the Consul will give a
favorable reply :-)

Finally (I know that those of you who are not asleep are saying,
"thank the Gods"), I want to make it perfectly clear that the
continued life and health and vigor of the Republic are utmost in my
mind; we have been given, by our Patres Patriae and those intrepid
first citizens who followed, a glorious chance to bring back onto this
planet (and in our own hearts and minds) the soul of something which
was lost in the mire of greed and viciousness and treachery of the
first century B.C. Our magistrates bear titles which once shook the
foundations of the known world; our edicts and leges bear names in a
tongue which created a common heritage for countless millions of
people over three millenia; we are the new Romans.

Vivat Nova Roma.

Valete,

Gaius Equitius Cato

Salve

> all of us hold the Republic. Pompeia Minucia-Tiberia Strabo, Marca
> Hortensia, Gaius Buteo, and the surprise Guest Star re-appearance of
> Constantinus Fuscus have kept me on my toes;

A guest star, no less. I hope it does mean I get my name in th
eopening titles. I didn't realize, and I bet neither did the co-stars
of this production of yours, we were participating to a show for your
entertainment and benfit. Had we known, maybe we would had been more
glad to waste so much time on it, or we could have opted out from the
beginning. I guess that shows how serious the whole thing was. I'm
glad you are actually organizing to move the production from here to
real life in Rome, nothing like good costumes to make even more of a
mockery of Nova Roma institutions. Who's writing the script?

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus

Founder of Gens Constantinia
Tribunus Plebis
Aedilis Urbis Iterum

Salve Romans

"that a man appeals to justice, and goes to law," CICERO

Tribune Marca Hortensia Maior said in part

"Paulinus is not in the forum as he cannot explain why it was fine for
him not to support my claim to 'justice' while it is all important for
him."

TGP Actually I am and actually I can although is has already been pointed out to you that we are talking apple and oranges.

"This Constitution shall be the highest legal authority within Nova Roma, apart from edicts issued by a legally appointed dictator."

"The right of provocatio; to appeal a decision of a magistrate that has a
direct negative impact upon that citizen to the comitia populi tributa;

The constitution says MAGISTRATE and none of the Religious leaders of the CP
are listed in the constitution as MAGISTRATES. The Magistrates are listed as

Censors, Consuls, Praetors. Aediles Curules , Aediles Plebis , Quaestors (currently 8) , Five Tribunes of the Plebs and The extraordinarii
Dictator and Interrex

You were removed by the Collegium Pontificum NOT by any of these magistrates.

I was the only citizen who expressed the intent to stand for election as Tribune now that a vacancy had come about because of a resignation. The Tribunes act to co-op a person into the Tribuneship without benefit of an election caused me a direct negative impact and I have appealed to the comitia populi tributa.

If I am right they will say so

IF I AM WRONG , AND THAT IS A POSSIBILITY, THEY WILL SAY THAT ALSO WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?????

To co-opt someone into the Tribuneship is as the dictionary states: "to appoint somebody to a body by agreement with the other members."

No where does the Nova Roman constitution grant them this power NO WHERE

TGP You were removed by the CP a religious institution of the Republic ,
THE leading religious institution of the republic that is granted the SOLE power
under the Nova Roman Constitution to

"The collegiums pontificum (college of pontiffs) shall be the highest of the priestly collegial ....The collegium pontificum shall appoint its own members. The collegium pontificum shall have the following honors, powers, and responsibilities: "

"To control the calendar, and determine when the festivals and dies fasti and dies nefasti shall occur, and what their effects shall be, within the boundaries of the example of ancient Rome; "

"To have ritual responsibilities within the Religio Romana; and general authority over the institutions, rites, rituals, and priesthoods of the public Religio Romana;"

"To issue decreta (decrees) on matters relevant to the Religio Romana and its own internal procedures (such decreta may not be overruled by laws passed in the comitia or Senatus consultum)."

A Religious Decreta MAY be vetoed by the Tribunes as the constitution empowers them

"To pronounce intercessio ... religious decreta, and leges passed by the comitia when the spirit and/or letter of this Constitution or legally-enacted edicta or decreta, Senatus Consulta or leges are being violated thereby; ....

TGP At the time of the Decreta I don't remember anybody suggesting that the CP had over stepped their authority
I do remember a large number of citizens complaining that the process DID NOT APPEAR FAIR

M. Hortensia Maior "As I said Caesar it is a disputable question. Not to you. But two
Tribunes thought my case had merit."

TGP But there are five Tribune what about the others?

M. Hortensia Maior "So there was a disputable question of interpretation. Two
tribunes wished to let my provocatio go forward: Arminius Faustus
and Apulus Caesar. Paulinus did not."

TGP That's not what I said . I said the following:


From: "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@...<mailto:spqr753@...>>
24427 of 36645

Date: Thu Jun 3, 2004 1:36 am
Subject: Fabia Vera and the CP


Tribunus Plebis Tiberius Galerius Paulinus Omnibus SPD

I have read and reread everything that has been said on this list as well as the discussions that the Tribunes have been having on the issue of Fabia Vera.

It is my belief that nothing can be done constitutionally at this point to change what has occurred. The CP has every right to appoint the priests of Nova Roma and therefore they have the corresponding right to remove them.

In my opinion, most people who objected to this action did so out of a profound and sincere believe that Roman fair play was not involved in this process NOT that the action could not be undertaken. If the CP decides to adopt a written procedure in the future it may help to alleviate some of the misgivings that some citizens have felt over last few days.

It is my sincere desire that this issue come to an end now for nothing good can come about by prolonging it. Calling the Comitia, which in this instance could only ASK the CP to do this or that but cannot command them to do so would be a waste of time and would increase the likelihood of an even more poisonous atmosphere.

I would have asked that we drop this in honor of Concordia but I do not believe there is very much of that left in Nova Roma or at least we have not seen it here for sometime.


Curate ut valeatis
*************************************************************************************************************


Tribune as you and others have pointed out the constitution also says


Citizens shall have the ....."The right to seek and receive assistance and advice from the State in matters of religious and social disputes occurring both within and outside the direct jurisdiction of Nova Roma; ...

You have I believe appealed a number of times, and you may have appealed privately I do not know, to the CP to remove their finding against you and to allow you to resume a formal role in The Religio Romana. As of this date the Collegium Pontificum have repeatedly stated that they will not change your status. You have gotten a great deal farther with your appeal than I have with mine.

When the CPT convenes to hear my appeal then and only then will I have "nothing to complain about"

"This Constitution shall be the highest legal authority within Nova Roma, apart from edicts issued by a legally appointed dictator."

"The right of provocatio; to appeal a decision of a magistrate that has a direct negative impact upon that citizen to the comitia populi tributa; "...

M. Hortensia Maior "To disregard the tribunate is the end of the Res Publica.
I respected Tiberius Galerius Paulinus and the other tribune's decision last year
why cannot he?'

TGP Because we are talking apple and oranges and if I am interfering in any way with the functions of the Tribunes PLEASE take me to court.

I hope that there will come a time when the Constitution, flawed as it is, will be obeyed and my right of provocatio recognized and allowed to go to the comitia populi tributa. To that end I respectfully request that all magistrates who are empowered to call the comitia populi tributa to state publicly if they intend to do so.


"Fight without quarter, pursuit without rest, justice without qualification."

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

M. Hortensia Maior T. Galerio Paulino spd;

Salve; the plain fact is Tiberi Galeri by not joining with
tribunes Arminius Faustus and Apulus Caesar you denied me my
provocatio, my 'justice'!

Now you come into the forum complaining endlessly that you were
denied your 'justice' by the tribunes. None of whom want to pursue
this. I at least had two!

Who has suffered a greater harm, you with your unreasonable
expectation or me? You can run for office in November. I'm
still 'nefas'.
bene vale
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP

>
> "Fight without quarter, pursuit without rest, justice without

qualification."

>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Citizen
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Tribune

As I said Tribune I was one of FIVE. What happen to the other two? If you had the support of two Tribunes and I was neutral what happen to the other two?

The Tribunes are the magistrates who made the decision I am appealing.

It's why most organizations do not allow the defendant ie Tribunes to also be the Judge. Its called a conflict of interest .

The Tribunes no matter what they think of me or my appeal needed to pass this on the the CPT to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest

And if you are still under the delusion that this is about me standing for election for Tribune your ( fill in blank) that you sound.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: Maior<mailto:rory12001@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 1:29 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: "that a man appeals to justice, and goes to law,"


M. Hortensia Maior T. Galerio Paulino spd;

Salve; the plain fact is Tiberi Galeri by not joining with
tribunes Arminius Faustus and Apulus Caesar you denied me my
provocatio, my 'justice'!

Now you come into the forum complaining endlessly that you were
denied your 'justice' by the tribunes. None of whom want to pursue
this. I at least had two!

Who has suffered a greater harm, you with your unreasonable
expectation or me? You can run for office in November. I'm
still 'nefas'.
bene vale
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
>
> "Fight without quarter, pursuit without rest, justice without
qualification."
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Citizen
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




SPONSORED LINKS Roman empire<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Roman+empire&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=s9DkW3PR0MeX4fZ4UZe9EA> Ancient history<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Ancient+history&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=T8d6dssgLGGoWt2zpkjQHg> Fall of the roman empire<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=lkon-I5r06QC135bGP9VxA>
The roman empire<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=The+roman+empire&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=05P7CzbfFR9zuI9NrTql0g>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Nova-Roma<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma>" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

<sigh>



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
<dom.con.fus@g...> wrote:

> Salve
>
>
> > all of us hold the Republic. Pompeia Minucia-Tiberia Strabo, Marca
> > Hortensia, Gaius Buteo, and the surprise Guest Star re-appearance of
> > Constantinus Fuscus have kept me on my toes;
>
> A guest star, no less. I hope it does mean I get my name in th
> eopening titles. I didn't realize, and I bet neither did the co-stars
> of this production of yours, we were participating to a show for your
> entertainment and benfit. Had we known, maybe we would had been more
> glad to waste so much time on it, or we could have opted out from the
> beginning. I guess that shows how serious the whole thing was. I'm
> glad you are actually organizing to move the production from here to
> real life in Rome, nothing like good costumes to make even more of a
> mockery of Nova Roma institutions. Who's writing the script?
>
> Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
>
> Founder of Gens Constantinia
> Tribunus Plebis
> Aedilis Urbis Iterum

(I apologize...I had to reforward this as I got rerooted by a mailer demon....this from May31/June 1 2004)





---Salvete M. Hortensia Maior, Galerius Tiberius et omnes:

Fortunately, or unfortunately, I am suffering from a bit of insomnia
as of late so I'm up again and reading....I won't get into biological clock stuff...anyway...
Here is a forward, atleast of mine, citing that there was a question
of whether or not the Lex salicia should be employed, not in the
matter of the CP's dismissal of Hortensia, but what role the Lex
Salicia came into play afterward....regarding her alleged perpetual
nefarities. So, and Tiberius Galerius, you may not remember,but at
the time you had indicated you read all the posts in the forum on
her issue and I issued this one containing many details, requesting
appeals

Might I suggest that you take a gander through the archives, Tiberi Galeri, before
you make a statement citing more or less 'not remembering' the
circumstances Hortensia refers to you in this post. This does not
mean they were not presented to you. I can't remember everything
either...but that doesn't mean this aspect of her appeal was not
presented. I happen to clearly remember the main elements of the appeal and I'm up, so I can give them to you.

I took great pains to say recently that you would not support a
visit to comitia, as opposed to actually veto Provocatio yourself...you didnt say this... as you felt
that contesting the CP would do more harm than good. But if you
examine the Lex Salicia....major nefarities are supposed to be, and
were in antiqua tried, and the Blasphemy decretum of NR cites that
legal routes of NR are the course it will take in soliciting remedy
for religious crimen.

M. Hortensia Maior is saying, if I read her correctly, that if you
felt at liberty not to lend your potestas/jurisdictio to a
collective agreement of the Tribunes to visit the CPT, then you, in
the remotest of your 'tit for tat' understanding, can hopefully appreciate
that perhaps you must accept that fact that your appeal was seen as
inappropriate (although for different reasons)....to wit... where
the constitutional language was not applicable in your perceived
direct negative impact. I am sorry you were not inately provided
with the vacancy you anticipated to run for tribune, whilst running
for the Quaestorship....but if you feel directly impacted fine...the
darned thing is, nobody did anything to you to cause such, in the
eyes of the tribunes. There's are the eyes with the postestas and
iurisdictio, whether your advocatus or you, wish to acknowledge this
authority or not. There was no A which could clearly be established
to cause a B.

I don't care for the term co-opt either, but this doesn't negate my
opinion, after careful examination of leges presented and
interpretations of same to the contrary, that Saturninus was indeed
retentive of his potestas, and really, in the absence of any legal
language compelling the tribunes to observe his status
otherwise....could they legally do anything else?

Again, I have never said that you vetoed provocatio....no you
didn't; but you openly stated, and why, that you would not support
an appeal to comitia...a day in court....the provocatio, after due
interpretation, by the tribunes (rather easy) is my boo boo, and not
hers, but the appeal of apello has constitutional merit.

The point in common regarding provocatio of both cases is that you were both missing elements of the language
of Provocatio: Hortensia's negative impact was not as a result of
magisterial action,but that of a Pontifices.... you have claim of a
direct negative impact which was not caused by a magistrate...
consider that nobody officially recognized Saturninus' potestas for
the express purpose of causing you torment resulting from plans to
run for tribune. Both decisions subject to the examination and
judment of the Tribunes. Both were denied provocatio and trips to
comitia...so there is no point, in my view in ragging on Hortensia as a Tribune
this year, when you as a Tribune last year, saw fit to determine
whether or not a visit to comitia was appropriate.



So, if you can see where she was denied 'her day in court', surely
you can succumb to the same jurisdictional potestas you once
posessed.... get over it, Quaestor, and better luck next time. You
can't do Quaestor and Trib at the same time I don't think...check
the tabularium.

For the moment, there has been enough bullying all around....this
has been hard for many, and it appears it was all just a joke
anyway, if I read one post, and so I sympathize for any genuine
suffering people endured over what was suggested to be an
entertaining fiasco or performance, and by your advocatus Tiberius
Galerius no less...complete with special guest stars.

In the meantime, below is the information containing stuff you were
indeed informed about. I post here my just primary post regarding
appeal, but there are other posts in the archives worth reading
which entertain the legal elements surrounding this, including those
of your advocatus, which are presented in a bit more reverent and
sedate manner than what we have seen as of late.



Pompeia.




In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia"

wrote:
---Salvete Francisce Apule, all other Tribunes and Consuls :

Thanks for the enlightenment about the timeframe; frankly, I had a
busy weekend, and I figured intercessio would have been called by
now,
if there was a plan in place amongst the Tribunes. I am not being
sarcastic by any means, don't get me wrong, just stating facts.

I don't think I would be altogether erroneous in stating that by
Tribune Modius' posts on the issue that he was in a hurry to
pronounce
intercessio.

However, I do think that Fabia Vera is entitled to Provacatio ad
Populum: B5 of the constitution:

"the right to appeal the decision of a magitrate which has a direct
negative impact upon that citizen to the Comitia Popli Tributa.
Semantics might be a problem as technically Pontiffs are not
magistrates per se, but this appeal is age old and a fundamental of
the Roman justice system....moreover this is justified further in
section 7:"

"The 'right' to seek and receive assistance and advice from the State
in matters of RELIGIOUS and social dispute occuring both within and
outside the direct jurisdiction of... (Nova Roma)"

The preamble states that the Constitution is the highest authority,
and when a lower authority comflicts with a higher authority, the
higher authority serves as the most legal and therefore acceptable.
By this, the decision of the collegium cannot interfere with rights
contained in the constitution, and therefore such rights as
provocatio
and the 'right to seek assistance and advice in religious disputes'
from the state cannot be altered by them.

I am not quibbling over the Collegium's ability or authority to
discipline Fabia Vera, but the 'extent' to which she is being
punished, and how, in light of what the Pontifex Maximus wrote
yesterday, she was treated during these proceedings and the extent of
their judgement.

He indicated she received no advocacy, nor any official notice...'the
right to seek and receive assistance and advice' was not provided by
the Collegium in the form of advocacy

In 24263, Fabia Vera alluded to having written the Collegium for
advice in mediation of all this and received no assistance; if this
can be proven via her email to them...her rights under the
Constitution are being denied.

In message 24258 Tribune/Pontifex Modius alludes to having written
her
privately and in an unsolicited fashion, but since by his own
admission he was not officially acting as her advocus, or offering
his
services as such, this cannot be counted as officially appointed
help.
Clearly, he was just, as he explains, being a lover of Plebs, more
or
less.

There is no decretum under which a person may be deemed Nefas in
perpertuum, to wit, forbidden from holding an office for life in a
religious capacity. So, as in other areas of the Collegial
judgements, the Lex Salicia proceedings must be employed

It would seem to me, that if one were to be banned forever from the
Religious life, one would have to be deemed "blasphemous", and such
is a charge covered under the Lex Salicia. I submit that the
Collegium put the cart before the horse...they should have charged
her
with Blasphemy, and requested the forumula take the wishes of the
collegium into account..


Even Exactio, Imprudens Dalo Mallo ( decretum addressing magistrates
refusing to submit auguries where they are indicated..see Religious
Decretum in the Tabularium) are subject to trial by the Lex
Salicia....why...why, isn't Fabia Vera entitled to the same degree of
judicial proceeding as someone whose 'really' done a 'major', like
failing to take auspices? All of these things are subject to trial,
advocacy and a vote....she did not receive these, by proper lawful
means ...and she is entitled to Provocatio.

Again, I am appealing the legal proceedings, and the gravity of the
sentence and I am not disputing the collegial authority to discipline
its members.. I am not excusing that what she did was entirely
appropriate...I do not believe she needs to 'hang' to satisfy
justice,
religous, social, judicial or otherwise, as she admits that she did
not mean to blaspheme, but to joke, and unfortunately, it went over
like a lead balloon.

Consider this: I am a registered member of the College of
Nurses...they can discipline me, and tell me what I need to do to
correct my license standing and return to work, if I am behaving
improperly. If they wish to do any more than that, it goes to a
court
of law, which is like out constitution and laws, it is the higher
voice on matters outside the juridiction of my practise as an RN...it
would be the same if I were a nun, a doctor, a minister, Wiccan
priestess, RR Priestess.

Tribunes, I will make an appeal for intercessio to the Tribunes, for
s
a dismissal of the Collegial decisions as they stand and a proper
trial of this, OR,I will urge Fabia Vera to appeal for such under
Provocatio to the Consuls, and that is something I 'surely' hope,
with
due respect and sincerity will not be vetoed, because it is a
fundamental right...no provacatio is unconstitutional, is it?

Pompeia (who will crosscopy this to the Consuls)




In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "FAC"
wrote:

> Salvete Omnes,
> the Decretum "Sp. Veria Fausta is Removed from Priesthood" wasn't
> published in this mailing list, the official public list. However
> the Lex Octavia de Sermone says:
>
> "a. Public fora under the jurisdiction of the Praetores shall
> include the general discussion mailing list
> (currently "novaroma@yahoogroups.com"), the announcements mailing
> list (currently "novaroma-announce@yahoogroups.com"), the web-

based

> message board linked to from www.novaroma.org, any chat system in
> use on www.novaroma.org, and any other means of communications
> designated as "public fora" by the Senate, except as detailed

below."

>
> This means that each official document must to be published in

this

> two mailing lists. Let's visit the archive of the NovaRoma-

announce.

> The Decretum was sent at Fri May 28, 2004 3:50 pm but it was
> published in teh mailing list at Saturday May 29 in the early
> afternoon (time of Rome).
>
> So the time to intercessio will expire in a couple of hours.
>
> However we should consider the correction sent 30 minutes after

the

> first message. It isn't a commentary, it's an official correction

so

> the Decretum started from this time.
>
> This is my personal opinion
>
> In my opinion the Ambarualia didn't influenced the time and it

can't

> stop the official duties of teh Tribunes.
>
> Valete
> Fr. Apulus Caesar

--- End forwarded message ---







---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

G. Equitius Cato P. Minuciae-Tiberiae Straboni D. Constantino Fusco
quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salvete omnes.

"A guest star, no less. I hope it does mean I get my name in th
eopening titles. I didn't realize, and I bet neither did the co-stars
of this production of yours, we were participating to a show for your
entertainment and benfit..." - D. Constantino Fusco

"For the moment, there has been enough bullying all around....this
has been hard for many, and it appears it was all just a joke
anyway, if I read one post, and so I sympathize for any genuine
suffering people endured over what was suggested to be an
entertaining fiasco or performance, and by your advocatus Tiberius
Galerius no less...complete with special guest stars." - P.
Minucia-Tiberia Strabo

You know, Pompeia and Domitius, I have tried my damnedest to be civil
and ride the waves of the nonsense and vitriol the two of you have
been spouting. Now, when I try to bring this to a peaceful, hopeful,
encouraging conclusion, and (tongue firmly in cheek) mention Fuscus in
passing as a "special Guest Star" --- because frankly kids he's been
AWOL for a long time considering he's a tribune --- not surprisingly
the two of you jump on it like vampires to an exposed vein, mocking me
in an attempt to retain some shred of dignitas after not being able to
prove either legally or logically why you support the dismissal of a
right guaranteed in the Constitution.

Nor does it surprise me that neither of you have the common sense (or
sense of humor) to recognize the generally light tone of my speech
with regards to the sparring in the Forum, or to appreciate the
attempt to relieve some of the built-up tension that has been present.
You should be ashamed of yourselves. I'm certainly ashamed of you.

Domitius, you're young, and can be excused much; eventually you will
learn to interact with grown-ups in a manner befitting a civilized
society. Pompeia, try to attend to your dignity as a mater conscripta.
The Republic deserves better than this from her senators.

Vale,

Cato

P. Memmius Albucius omnibus s.d.

S.V.G.E.R.


Some of you has sent me contributions to the draft lex currently
debated in the contio. Modifications have been made. I think that the
new version may be considered as improved.

You will thus find this actualised text below.

I have the pleasure, also, to inform you that I have decided to extend
the end of the voting period from 9th August to 14th August. The
extension is an answer to the citizens who have underlined the fact
that, being in European Roma conventus from 4th to 11th of this month.

Although Italy has access to internet, Rome many "cyber points" and
our citizens their feet, I have thought that the different Italian
beverages that the particpants are to drink could create a so strange
effect that they would vote contrary to what they have first intended.

My edict modifying the end date follows.


---------------------------------------------
LEX MEMMIA DE PROVOCATIONE

The comitia tributa populi have adopted by XX votes
against YY with WW abstentions the following text.

Tribune P. Memmius Albucius, as presiding magistrate,

in order to more clearly specify the scope of the jus
provocationis, as enshrined in the laws and customs of
ancient Roma and as guaranteed by article II.B.5 of
the Constitution, and the circumstances in which it
may be exercised,

promulgates the law in the following terms :


Article 1

The right of provocatio defined by the article II. B.5 of the
Constitution of Nova Roma does not concern, by essence :

- the acts edicted by a magistrate who has, for these edicts, no
freedom of judgment or option to choose one legal solution rather than
another, and are thus not « decisions » in the sense of the
Constitution ;

- the acts which deny a citizen an opportunity he might
otherwise have had, or deprive him of a gain he might
have made, but which do not leave the citizen lacking
any right or good that was his before the act. Such acts are not
considered to have«a direct negative impact upon » the citizen
concerned.


Article 2

The magistrates authorized by the Constitution to convene the comitia
populi tributa must refuse to call them for order upon a appeal of
provocatio which would examine a magisterial act excluded from
provocatio by article 1 above.


Article 3

This law does not prevent the citizen concerned from using every other
legal means offered by the laws of Nova Roma.

The present law shall be executed as a law of the Republic of Nova
Roma.


Romae, a. d. XII Kal. Sept. 2758 a.u.c. (August 21st 2005)
Fr. Apulus Caesar and G. Popillius Laenas consulibus

Magistratus praeses,
P. Memmius Albucius
Tribunus Plebis


------------------------------------------------------------------



Valete omnes.

Publius Memmius Albucius
Tribunus Plebis

C. Fabius Buteo Modianus A. Apollonio Cordo salutem dicit

Here we are in partial disagreement.

According to John Scheid in his book "An Introduction to Roman Religion:"

"The term 'piety' has a wider sphere of reference than 'religion': it
covered the correct relations with parents, friends and fellow citizens as well as
the correct attitude with regard to the gods. Piety functioned as a form of
distributive justice , regulating men's obligations towards the gods.
'Piety is justice with regard to the gods', Cicero wrote (On the Nature of the
Gods, 1.116)..."

In a message dated 7/29/2005 8:24:31 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
a_apollonius_cordus@... writes:

A. Apollonius Cn. Caesari C. Buteoni omnibus sal.

It's important to remember that in the republican
period the word "pietas" in fact meant dutiful and
loving behaviour toward one's family, friends, and
fatherland only, and not to the gods at all. The
proper word for a dutiful attitude to the gods was
"religio". The transformation of the word "pietas" to
include respect for the gods was a symptom of the
transformation of the proud and independent republican
ideology into a subservient imperial culture in which
political leaders demanded divine honours and
obedience. To use the word "pietas" to refer to
religious piety in our republic is inappropriate,
whether to support one side of an argument or the other.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

C. Fabius Buteo Modianus Tiberio Galerio Paulino salutem dicit

This is why I don't think you were negatively impacted...

Because you cannot "stand" for election unless an election is called. The
tribunes never called for an election, and they never requested candidates for
election to step forward. You assumed that there was an opening, and you
assumed you could run for office. Any negative impact is a result of your
assumption, and not the decision of the tribunes. At least, that is how I see it.

In a message dated 7/30/2005 12:35:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
spqr753@... writes:

I was the only citizen who expressed the intent to stand for election as
Tribune now that a vacancy had come about because of a resignation. The Tribunes
act to co-op a person into the Tribuneship without benefit of an election
caused me a direct negative impact and I have appealed to the comitia populi
tributa.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve C. Fabius Buteo Modianus

There is no legal or constitutional basis for their action. They made it up out of thin air.

A vacancy came into being the moment he posted his resignation to the main list of Nova Roma.

NOWHERE in any lex does it say that a magistrate has nine days to reconsider a resignation.

The bottom third of the lex they used as justification had been repealed the previous fall and didn't help their case anyway, It is a lex about resigning and regaining CITIZENSHIP.

If in the past magistrates were allowed to "withdraw" a resignation because people got it wrong is no reason to keep getting it wrong.

The major difference between this years resignation and those of the past is that the constitution has been amended to read:

"An office becomes vacant if the magistrate resigns or dies." He resigned period.


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: AthanasiosofSpfd@...<mailto:AthanasiosofSpfd@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] "that a man appeals to justice, and goes to law,"



C. Fabius Buteo Modianus Tiberio Galerio Paulino salutem dicit

This is why I don't think you were negatively impacted...

Because you cannot "stand" for election unless an election is called. The
tribunes never called for an election, and they never requested candidates for
election to step forward. You assumed that there was an opening, and you
assumed you could run for office. Any negative impact is a result of your
assumption, and not the decision of the tribunes. At least, that is how I see it.

In a message dated 7/30/2005 12:35:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
spqr753@... writes:

I was the only citizen who expressed the intent to stand for election as
Tribune now that a vacancy had come about because of a resignation. The Tribunes
act to co-op a person into the Tribuneship without benefit of an election
caused me a direct negative impact and I have appealed to the comitia populi
tributa.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Nova-Roma<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma>" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

C. Fabius Buteo Modianus Tiberio Galerio Paulino salutem dicit

He resigned, and he changed his mind. The constitution is unclear regarding
rescinding a resignation.

You can look at it this way...

Saturninus made an action of resigning as tribune, he later rescinded his
resignation. In all practicality the other tribunes "vetoed" his resignation
by accepting his rescinded appeal to return to the tribunate -- after a short
lapse.

This is were I think humanity and compassion should come into question.
Saturninus was under a substantial amount of personal duress. He made a
mistake, and that mistake was fixed.

You an call for justice, and I know you believe yourself sincere. I do not
like resignations, and I do not like it when people resign from elected
office. I was disappointed when Leanas did it, Scaurus did it, Diana Octavia did
it, and I was disappointed when Saturninus did it.

None of us are paid to be here. None of us truly NEED to be here. We are
here because we want to. To think we are a "real" nation is an illusion. We
are an organization founded to promote Rome and the Religion of Rome. Do we
need all this conflict?

Vale;

C. Fabius Buteo Modianus

In a message dated 7/30/2005 9:27:51 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
spqr753@... writes:

"An office becomes vacant if the magistrate resigns or dies." He resigned
period.


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

G. Equitius Cato G. Fabio Buteoni Modiano Ti. Galerio Paulino
quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salvete omnes.

Gaius Buteo, I can entirely understand the ideas you expressed
regarding sympathy for Curius Saturninus; it is inevitable that events
in our lives occur which necessitate our being taken from one focus to
another. Since the very beginning of this issue, back in January, I
have tried to make clear that the person of Curius Saturninus is not
the issue; by every account he is a kind, generous, hard-working and
extraordinarily capable man. There is absolutely no question about it.

I also agree with you when you say we do not "need" to be here, that
we come by choice.

Where we part company is in your understanding of why we are here. I
can find hundreds, if not thousands, of venues in which I can join
with others to "promote" Rome. I am not here to do that. I am here
because I want to be a part of Rome; to be a citizen in the Republic
restored; to make it as real as possible.

That is why to me, even if I described it as a "theatre-piece", the
idea of holding a contio in the Roman model is a step in the right
direction --- it is bringing just one more piece of our heritage to
life in a way that writing these words cannot. That does not diminish
the event (if it occurs) into "play acting"; instead, it allows us to
practice, in real life, what we are preaching. We can learn rhetoric
by speaking in front of people; we can learn the actions and rituals
associated with the calling of citizens before a magistrate; we can
learn what it is like to have to answer a specific question from a
magistrate with a specific example from Nova Roman law. We create one
more tangible link between the ether-based Forum and the stones upon
which we walk, the world in which we live and move and have our being.

Here I am getting angry at people I do not know and who live thousands
of miles away from me --- who have no apreciable impact on my life,
except that we are all struggling to understand what it means to be
Nova Roman citizens living under Nova Roman law --- and this would not
be true if I considered the Republic something that disappeared when I
logged off my computer. It is something much greater than that.

That is why I become so strident about the law; that is why I find the
discussions and arguments valuable; I am thinking in the long term,
with the repercussions of what we say and do today rippling outward
through the future of the Republic. That is why I find a "go along to
get along" attitude insufficient for the health of the Republic,
indeed, not just insufficient but dangerous. We're not here to hug
and kiss and "play nice" with each other; we are here as magistrates
and priests to continually improve the Republic for the benefit of the
People; we are here as the People to continually offer ourselves in
service for the improvement of the Republic.

It is no-ones fault that the Republic has outgrown the usefulness of
the Constitution we have; our work now is to correct the problems
legally, carefully, with an eye to the way our forebears did things.
Popillius Laenas has offered a solid leap in the right direction with
regards to the Senate; Memmius Albucius has done so with the attempt
to clasrify the right of provocatio; and again Popillius Laenas is
working with Apulus Caesar to correct the issue of magisterial
resignations. Along the way, however, we are bound to obey the
Constitution and laws as they exist. Without the law we are brute
creatures, slaves to passion and uncivilized acts, bound only by our
base desires. With the law, we become men (and women) capable of
building a society of civilized human beings.

Do we believe the Republic exists? That is the fundamental question
we must ask ourselves, for it shepherds every other action and
reaction we have. I believe it does. And because of that, I will
fight to ensure that the People receive the legal protection and aid
that are theirs by right of citizenship.

Vale et valete,

Cato

Salve Tribune

Your proposed lex seems to be making it harder for citizens to appeal the actions of the magistrates of Nova Roma.
You seem to be stating that the right of provocation will or does depend on the "opinion", ruling or interpretation of a magistrate.
The Constitution gives us the right to appeal to the CPT. It needs to be clear that any magistrate who is a "party" to a call for provocatio
can not in any way decide if the appeal can go through and that no body other than the CPT can rule on the merits of a case.



The right of provocatio defined by the article II. B.5 of the
Constitution of Nova Roma does not concern, by essence :

" the acts edicted by a magistrate who has, for these edicts, no
freedom of judgment or option to choose one legal solution rather than
another, and are thus not « decisions » in the sense of the
Constitution ;"


I am sorry Tribune but I have no ideal what this passage is saying could you please explain what you are saying?



"the acts which deny a citizen an opportunity he might
otherwise have had, or deprive him of a gain he might
have made, but which do not leave the citizen lacking
any right or good that was his before the act. Such acts are not
considered to have «a direct negative impact upon » the citizen
concerned"


Again I am not sure what you mean can you please explain it for me.



Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus














LEX MEMMIA DE PROVOCATIONE

The comitia tributa populi have adopted by XX votes
against YY with WW abstentions the following text.

Tribune P. Memmius Albucius, as presiding magistrate,

in order to more clearly specify the scope of the jus
provocation is, as enshrined in the laws and customs of
ancient Roma and as guaranteed by article II.B.5 of
the Constitution, and the circumstances in which it
may be exercised,

promulgates the law in the following terms :


Article 1


Article 2

The magistrates authorized by the Constitution to convene the comitia
populi tributa must refuse to call them for order upon a appeal of
provocatio which would examine a magisterial act excluded from
provocatio by article 1 above.


Article 3

This law does not prevent the citizen concerned from using every other
legal means offered by the laws of Nova Roma.

The present law shall be executed as a law of the Republic of Nova
Roma.


Romae, a. d. XII Kal. Sept. 2758 a.u.c. (August 21st 2005)
Fr. Apulus Caesar and G. Popillius Laenas consulibus

Magistratus praeses,
P. Memmius Albucius
Tribunus Plebis


------------------------------------------------------------------



Valete omnes.

Publius Memmius Albucius
Tribunus Plebis






SPONSORED LINKS Roman empire<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Roman+empire&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=s9DkW3PR0MeX4fZ4UZe9EA> Ancient history<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Ancient+history&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=T8d6dssgLGGoWt2zpkjQHg> Fall of the roman empire<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=lkon-I5r06QC135bGP9VxA>
The roman empire<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=The+roman+empire&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=05P7CzbfFR9zuI9NrTql0g>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Nova-Roma<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma>" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Romans

The following citizens have been added to the list of taxpayers and their status changed to Assidui.

Thank you for you support of Nova Roma

Lucius Sicinius Drusus
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Marcus Martianus Gangalius
Gaia Martiana Gangalia
Leona Martiana Gangalia.
Gaia Gladia Oceana
Titus Octavius Decula
Helena Galeria
G. Aurelia Falconis Silvana
Lucius Vitellius Triarius
Numerius Gladius Bibulus

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Consular Quaestor


Attention

Marcus Martianus Gangalius
Gaia Martiana Gangalia

Could you please e-mail your Macro names please. Thanks

Titus Octavius Decula

Could you please e-mail your phone number. Thanks



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Cato. I have pretty much given up posting for
these reasons.Someone is ALWAYS offended & they pout &
spew insults & big words. NoNY wit,they dont get it.
--- Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mlcinnyc@...>
wrote:

> G. Equitius Cato P. Minuciae-Tiberiae Straboni D.

Constantino Fusco

> quiritibusque S.P.D.
>
> Salvete omnes.
>
> "A guest star, no less. I hope it does mean I get my

name in th

> eopening titles. I didn't realize, and I bet neither

did the co-stars

> of this production of yours, we were participating

to a show for your

> entertainment and benfit..." - D. Constantino Fusco
>
> "For the moment, there has been enough bullying all

around....this

> has been hard for many, and it appears it was all

just a joke

> anyway, if I read one post, and so I sympathize for

any genuine

> suffering people endured over what was suggested to

be an

> entertaining fiasco or performance, and by your

advocatus Tiberius

> Galerius no less...complete with special guest

stars." - P.

> Minucia-Tiberia Strabo
>
> You know, Pompeia and Domitius, I have tried my

damnedest to be civil

> and ride the waves of the nonsense and vitriol the

two of you have

> been spouting. Now, when I try to bring this to a

peaceful, hopeful,

> encouraging conclusion, and (tongue firmly in cheek)

mention Fuscus in

> passing as a "special Guest Star" --- because

frankly kids he's been

> AWOL for a long time considering he's a tribune ---

not surprisingly

> the two of you jump on it like vampires to an

exposed vein, mocking me

> in an attempt to retain some shred of dignitas after

not being able to

> prove either legally or logically why you support

the dismissal of a

> right guaranteed in the Constitution.
>
> Nor does it surprise me that neither of you have the

common sense (or

> sense of humor) to recognize the generally light

tone of my speech

> with regards to the sparring in the Forum, or to

appreciate the

> attempt to relieve some of the built-up tension that

has been present.

> You should be ashamed of yourselves. I'm certainly

ashamed of you.

>
> Domitius, you're young, and can be excused much;

eventually you will

> learn to interact with grown-ups in a manner

befitting a civilized

> society. Pompeia, try to attend to your dignity as a

mater conscripta.

> The Republic deserves better than this from her

senators.

>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>

S P Q R

Fidelis Ad Mortem.

Marcvs Flavivs Fides
Roman Citizen



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

From of the Sodalis Coq et Coq

For those who are new to Nova Roma or have found a new interest in the Roman culinary arts you should subscribe to:

Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq-subscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>


Our Statement of Purpose (Adapted from the Magna Carta Sodalis)
By Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator, Dominus Sodalis

"The Sodalis pro Coqueror et Coquus (Sodalis hereafter) shall be devoted to the research into and preparation & enjoyment of, the beverages, foods and dining methods of Roma Antiqua, those of cultures with which she came into contact, those of Nova Roma and the host cultures of Nova Roma's Cives. The main emphasis of all efforts will be Roma Antiqua, with an eye to the future of Nova Roma. The Sodalis shall provide a forum for improved communication and exchange of information between the brewers and cooks of Nova Roma, and to the benefit of the general population. The Sodalis shall also strive to act as a training ground for Cives considering service as Curule Aediles. The Sodalis shall strive to help the members to improve in their skills of research, preparation and presentation, thereby helping all Romans to increase their enjoyment of drink, food, feasting and celebration."

"To further this, we do have two chats schedules each month: A get-acquainted session on the 1st Sunday and an official session on the 3rd Sunday. These are opened at the 9th hour past Noon, Central US time. The chat room is open at any time, for any member's use"

"The chat room can be found at the Sodalis Yahoo Groups home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq/<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq/> , which does see some good traffic."


From time to time I will be posting From the Archives of the Sodalis Coq et Coq

In vino veritas

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Romans

From the Archives of the Sodalis Coq et Coq

Regi Dean's Recipes

Recipe: ALITER BAEDINAM SIVE AGNINAM EXCALDATAM (Steamed Lamb)

(Apic. 8, 6, 2)

10 lamb cutlets
1 l white wine
100ml oil
2 big onions, diced
2 tblsp ground coriander
1 tsp ground pepper
1 tblsp Liebstoeckl
1 tsp ground cumin
200ml Liquamen (or 2 tsp salt)

Put cutlets into pot, together with diced onion and spices. Add
Liquamen, oil and wine. Cook 45-60 minutes. Pour sauce into a pan and
thicken it with starch. Serve cutlets together with the sauce.


In vino veritas

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A. Apollonius P. Memmio omnibusque sal.

> I have the pleasure, also, to inform you that I have
> decided to extend
> the end of the voting period from 9th August to 14th
> August. The
> extension is an answer to the citizens who have
> underlined the fact
> that, being in European Roma conventus from 4th to
> 11th of this month.

Evax! Thank you very much.

> Although Italy has access to internet, Rome many
> "cyber points" and
> our citizens their feet, I have thought that the
> different Italian
> beverages that the particpants are to drink could
> create a so strange
> effect that they would vote contrary to what they
> have first intended.

Haha! In fact I shall be trying to stay far away from
all computers during the Conventus. We can talk to
each other by e-mail any time, but when we're actually
there in the same place, why not make the most of it?

Of course I realize that we must make allowances for
magistrates to slip away sometimes to do their e-mail,
since they have responsibilities the rest of us are spared.





___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salve Tribune Albuci, et salvete quirites,

Tribune Albucius wrote:

> Some of you has sent me contributions to the draft lex currently
> debated in the contio. Modifications have been made. I think that the
> new version may be considered as improved.

It does seem to have improved, yes. I apologise in advance for not
having written to you in greater detail about it before now, but my
computer time has been limited and I've been preparing for the fall
semester.

> LEX MEMMIA DE PROVOCATIONE
>
> The comitia tributa populi have adopted by XX votes
> against YY with WW abstentions the following text.

This paragraph is not necessary and should be removed. If the lex
passes and goes into the tabularium, this information will be provided
at the bottom of the page, but the Xs and Ys ought not to be there,
because if they are the people will vote on them, and they will then
become part of the law. That would be a nonsensical result that I'm
sure nobody wants.

> Tribune P. Memmius Albucius, as presiding magistrate,
>
> in order to more clearly specify the scope of the jus
> provocationis, as enshrined in the laws and customs of
> ancient Roma and as guaranteed by article II.B.5 of
> the Constitution, and the circumstances in which it
> may be exercised,
>
> promulgates the law in the following terms :

This last sentence is also unnecessary and complicating verbage. Of
course a lex passed in comitia is a promulgated law.

> Article 1
>
> The right of provocatio defined by the article II. B.5 of the
> Constitution of Nova Roma does not concern, by essence :

I understand that you're trying to fix an existing problem, but I'd feel
much better if you were to define what provocatio *is* rather than what
it *is not*. Or if you must include a specific paragraph on what is
excluded, that ought to only come after explaining what it is.

> - the acts edicted by a magistrate who has, for these edicts, no
> freedom of judgment or option to choose one legal solution rather than
> another, and are thus not « decisions » in the sense of the
> Constitution ;

I interpret this to mean that, for example, a consul calling for
elections to elect the next year's magistrates could not be subject to a
provocatio action from a citizen, right? Any action that a magistrate
takes in order to carry out their legally obligated responsibilities is
thus outside the scope of provocatio?

> - the acts which deny a citizen an opportunity he might
> otherwise have had, or deprive him of a gain he might
> have made, but which do not leave the citizen lacking
> any right or good that was his before the act. Such acts are not
> considered to have«a direct negative impact upon » the citizen
> concerned.

This, of course, is the real gist of the lex. I agree with it. But as
I said earlier, I would also like to see some clear statement of what
provocatio is before we tell people what it is not.

> Article 2
>
> The magistrates authorized by the Constitution to convene the comitia
> populi tributa must refuse to call them for order upon a appeal of
> provocatio which would examine a magisterial act excluded from
> provocatio by article 1 above.

I'd prefer that you simply get rid of this. A magistrate with the
authority to call the Comitia may call the comitia at any time, for any
reason. That is a core principle of Roman law.

> Article 3
>
> This law does not prevent the citizen concerned from using every other
> legal means offered by the laws of Nova Roma.

This article is also unnecessary verbage, and ought to be removed.

> The present law shall be executed as a law of the Republic of Nova
> Roma.

More unnecessary verbage.

Vale, et valete,

-- Marinus

P. Memmius Albucius omnibus quiritibus s.d.

Here is below the edict confirming officially what I have announced
to you in a previous message : more time to vote (one week).

When this vote is over mid-August and the results published, we will
then begin a new rich period before the annual elections.

Valete omnes, Quirites.


P. Memmius Albucius



__________________________________________________
TRIBUNE P. MEMMIUS ALBUCIUS EDICT (n° 58-16)
AMENDING THE EDICT 58-15 CONVENING THE COMITIA TRIBUTA POPULI
(Latin text available on demand)

I, Publius Memmius Albucius, Tribune of the Plebs, by the authority
vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of Nova Roma,

In view of edict 58-15, a.d. VIII Kal. Sextiles 2758 a.u.c. on the
convening of the comitia tributa populi,

Considering that it is useful to extend the period of the vote
called on lex Memmia de provocatione so that, at the same time,
European citizens attending the conventus Romae (August 4-11) and
other citizens in holidays may vote in the best conditions,

Edicts :

Article 1

The article 2 of the edict n° 58-15 is replaced by the following
provisions :


« The schedule of this comitial session is the following one :
- debates (contio) :
. beginning on July 27, 2005, at 22 : 00 Rome time ;
. ending on July 31, 2005, at 22 : 00 Rome time.
- vote :
. beginning on August 3, 2005, at 00 : 00 Rome time ;
. ending on August 4, 2005, at 24 : 00 Rome time.
. beginning on August 7, 2005, at 00 : 00 Rome time ;
. ending on August 14, 2005, at 24 :00 Rome time. »

Article 3

The other provisions of the edict 58-15 are unchanged.

Article 4

The appropriate magistrates of Nova Roma and their departments are
responsible, as far as each one is concerned by the present edict,
and in due consideration of the constitution, for executing it. This
edict will be published in the Tabularium of Nova Roma.


Issued in Cadomago, Gallia, this thirtieth day (30th) of July, 2005
C.E. (a.d. III Kal. Sextiles 2758 a.u.c.), during the consulate of
Fr. Apulus Caesar and Ga. Popillius Laenas
___________________________________________________

A. Apollonius C. Buteoni omnibusque sal.

> Here we are in partial disagreement.
>
> According to John Scheid in his book "An
> Introduction to Roman Religion:"
>
> "The term 'piety' has a wider sphere of reference
> than 'religion': it
> covered the correct relations with parents, friends
> and fellow citizens as well as
> the correct attitude with regard to the gods. Piety
> functioned as a form of
> distributive justice , regulating men's obligations
> towards the gods.
> 'Piety is justice with regard to the gods', Cicero
> wrote (On the Nature of the
> Gods, 1.116)..."

Scheid isn't wrong, but he's speaking of the broad
sweep of Roman history. In fact this quotation from
Cicero is very much to the point, for it was only in
the last years of Cicero's life that the word "pietas"
started to be used regularly with religious
connotations. Wagenvoort's article "Pietas" (in his
book "Pietas: Selected Studies In Roman Religion",
1980) argues demonstrated quite conviningly that prior
to Cicero's later years the meaning of the word
"pietas" had been overwhelmingly non-religious. The
work of Cicero that Scheid quotes is, of course, one
of the last Cicero wrote before his death.

I hope you'll forgive me if, to save time and
repetition, I re-post what I wrote in reply to A.
Sempronius a few months ago on the same subject. To
see the message in its original context, find it at
number 34632 in the archives:

My point about "pietas" was merely that its primary
meaning until late in Cicero's life appears to have
been concerned with relationships among human beings,
and those between human beings and the community as a
whole. There are examples of the religious meaning
before that time, but they are not very numerous, and
Cicero himself explicitly defines "pietas" as:

"quae erga patriam aut parentes aut alios sanguine
conjunctos officium conservare moneat" (Cic. de Inv.
II.22.66)

("that which admonishes us to do our duty to our
country or our parents or other blood-relations")

... and places this in contrast to "religio", which he
calls:

"quae in metu et caerimonia deorum sit" (loc. cit.)

("that which exists in fear and reverence of the
gods").

Again, in another work, he says:

"Justitia dicitur... erga deos religio, erga parentes
pietas" (Partit. Orat. 22.78)

("Righteousness towards the gods is called religio,
towards parents is called pietas").

And again,

"Justitiam cole et pietatem, quae cum magna in
parentibus et propinquis, tum in patria maxima est"
(de Re Pub. VI.16)

("Observe righteousness and pietas, which is not only
strictly due to parents and relations, but also to
one's country").

Only around 46 B.C. does he begin to use "pietas" in a
religious sense, initially qualifying it as "pietas
adversum deos" (de Fin. III.22.73), and later
explicitly defining "pietas" as "justitia adversus
deos" (Deor. Nat. I.41.116), in total contradiction to
his earlier definition.

This is a summary of an article entitled "Pietas" by
Hendrik Wagenvoort, 1924, published in a collection of
his essays also titled "Pietas", 1980.

It's possible, of course, that Cicero was simply wrong
about the meaning of the word and had a sudden
revelation of the truth around 46 B.C., but it seems
unlikely, and his earlier definitions fit well with
the evidence of usage from other sources (as far as I
know), so the most obvious explanation is that the
word simply changed its primary meaning around that
time. Wagenvoort suggests that Cicero may even have
deliberately changed the meaning himself.



___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

M. Hortensia Maior T. Galerio Paulino spd;
Salve; it does not matter what Julilla or Buteo Minor did,
you are the one complaining now, for exactly what you did to me
Pauline!
You were NOT 'neutral' your vote would have meant 'justice'
for me! By not giving it you denied my provocatio.

Tribunes are Roman magistrates who protect the rights of
the plebs. We agree you don't have a case. You decided I did not
have one when you were tribune. I respected the decision of the
tribunes it's time for you to do the same! There is no special
justice just for you Pauline.

We're all tired of this, please stop. I don't like going
on about my provocatio last year, but I will do it every single time
you come here and complain you had no justice! You gave me yours as
tribune now respect the magistrates!
bene vale
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP

>
> As I said Tribune I was one of FIVE. What happen to the other

two? If you had the support of two Tribunes and I was neutral what
happen to the other two?

>
> The Tribunes are the magistrates who made the decision I am

appealing.

>
>
>
>

A. Apollonius Ser. Caesari omnibusque sal.

> Now this is very interesting. I am familiar with
> Marcus Aurelius and his meditations, but I never
> considered this pov. I'd love to hear more. Maybe
> I'll ask some questions.

Well, to get the conversation started (in case anyone
else wants to join it!), I'll try to sketch out what I
suggested a bit more clearly.

During the third century A.D. the Roman empire
suffered a severe economic collapse, the chief symptom
of which was galloping inflation caused by constant
devaluation of the currency. I'm not an economist, but
let me try to explain very broadly how that happens.
The imperial treasury finds that it hasn't got enough
money. To get more, it decreases the amount of
precious metal in the coinage while leaving the face
value of the coins the same. This means they can make
more coins out of the same amount of metal. It seems
like a good idea, doesn't it? The problem is that it
puts more coins into general circulation than there
were before. Everyone has more coins. If everyone has
more coins, shopkeepers can put up their prices.
Things get more expensive. The value of the coins in
people's pockets therefore goes down in terms of how
many loaves of bread it can buy. So although people
appear to be getting richer, it's actually just that
the coins in their pocket are worth less than they
were before, so they can afford more of them.

If this gets particularly noticeable, people soon
begin to lose confidence in the currency itself: they
don't know what the coins in their pockets will be
worth from one year to the next. This makes it very
difficult for normal economic life to continue.

Now, the imperial treasury had been losing money
fairly steadily for some decades before M. Aurelius,
but only at a very slow rate. Thus it was possible for
the treasury, by small, careful, and infrequent
devaluations, to increase the amount of currency
available without undermining public confidence in it.
The beginning of an emperor's reign was a particuarly
expensive time, since he was customarily obliged to
give very large gifts to just about everyone,
especially the army. This was a common time for
devaluation, but in the early empire it was only
short-term: after the immediate expenses had been
defrayed, the treasury usually revalued the currency
to bring it back up to its original value, or at least
to somewhere near its original value. After a while it
became less common to revalue, but it still happened
from time to time.

When M. Aurelius came to power he, like other
emperors, spent a lot of money on gifts. He devalued
the currency to pay for it. His reign, however, was
almost entirely taken up with warfare on the Rhine
frontier, and of course warfare is expensive. The
currency wasn't revalued; in fact, if I recall
correctly, it was devalued again later in the reign.
During Aurelius' lifetime economic problems started to
appear. Aurelius very nobly sold off much of his
personal possessions to raise money, but of course the
amount of money this actually made was negligible
compared to the amount being lost. By the time he
died, the currency was in what turned out to be a
near-terminal decline: it kept getting devalued and
devalued until eventually, in the middle of the third
century, the empire was virtually back to trade and
barter without a functioning currency at all.

One may ask whether there was anything Aurelius could
really have done about it. Well, there probably was if
he had not been such a "good" emperor. The reason he
is regarded as a "good" emperor is that the
contemporary and near-contemporary sources regard him
as a good emperor, and those sources were, of course,
all written by aristocrats from the senatorial class.
To them, being a good emperor didn't mean running the
empire well, it meant deferring to the senatorial
class. If anything could have saved the imperial
economy, or at least postponed its crash, it would
have been a sharp increase in taxation on the rich
(who were actually taxed less heavily than the poor
because they complained more loudly). But this was
something a "good" emperor would never do. The
senatorial class in the high imperial era was not
really interested in the welfare of the empire - it
was something they took for granted. It was interested
primarily in the preservation of its own social and
cultural values, and these included the right to have
an awful lot of money and to keep most of it for
yourself. They did, it's true, spend money on public
buildings and so on, but they regarded taxation as
basically evil and immoral, and were not remotely
interested in paying taxes to benefit other people. So
Aurelius, who was himself one of the senatorial
aristocracy, simply could not bring himself to do what
was necessary for the well-being of the empire, which
was to raise taxes for his own social peers.

In fact he probably didn't even perceive the problem.
The philosophy he followed, stoicism, contains as an
important element the idea that, to put it crudely, a
person should accept his fate and his place in the
social hierarchy rather than trying to rebel against
these things. Many Romans had managed to combine this
philosophy with political careers, but it is a
philosophy profoundly unsuited to the ruler of a state
which is on the verge of a serious crisis. It turned
his mind inward. When one reads the Meditations one
sees, perhaps, many reassuring words and advice on how
to be a nice person, but one would hardly know that it
was written by an emperor. He tried to teach himself
to accept things as they were, not to get angry or to
feel any emotion at all, and to be basically
indifferent to everything but his own personal virtue,
because this is more or less what stoicism teaches.
Well, in a crisis this is not the sort of leader one
wants! A person who is unemotional, indifferent, and
accepting of the ways things are will never have any
motivation to do anything! I said that stoicism was
logically inconsistent, and I haven't really addressed
that point because it doesn't bear directly on M.
Aurelius' reputation as an emperor; but if someone
wants to have a conversation about the logical
consistency of stoicism, I'll be happy to do that, if
we can agree to wait until after the Conventus!

My final charge against Aurelius was that he allowed
the throne to go to an incompetent. It's no secret
that Commodus was totally unsuited to being emperor,
even more so than Aurelius: he not only did nothing,
he did just about everything wrong. More importantly,
he got himself assassinated, and this led to the most
disastrous civil war the empire had witnessed for many
generations. The civil war and the economic decline
became entangled and mutually sustaining. In times of
trouble and fear, civil order breaks down and theft,
pillage, and robbery increase. Large areas of
territory become battlegrounds, and people flee. They
hide their money, hoping to come back one day. This
takes large sums of money out of the economic system
completely, at a time when money is exactly what is
needed: if a stash of coins in buried in the ground,
it isn't generating any interest, it isn't buying
anyone any food, it simply isn't doing anything useful
at all. It's basically the same as if large sums of
money had been destroyed. And of course poverty
exacerbates the effects of war on ordinary people. It
also means that generals have less money to pay their
soldiers, so they need plunder more badly, and you
only get plunder by defeating enemies, so the fighting
is intensified and prolonged.

The military crisis was temporarily solved by the
victory of Septimius Severus, who belatedly took some
of the drastic steps which Aurelius should have taken
(this is why he is a "bad" emperor), but he too badly
botched his own succession and essentially doomed his
dynasty to collapse after a single generation, after
which the empire slipped further and further into the
chaos in which it remained for most of the third
century. When the empire was revived by Diocletian at
the end of the century it was a very different place
to the one M. Aurelius and his senatorial friends had
enjoyed.

Hope that will get some fingers tapping! I fully
expect my suggestions to be demolished, since I'm not
very strong on imperial history or economics; I'll
fight my corner on philosophy, though.





___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

G. Equitius Cato M. Hortensiae Maiori S.P.D.

Salve Marca Hortensia!

With due respect, tribune, what you are saying is the equivalent of a
parent telling a child "Because I said so, that's why!" I know we've
all heard that one, in every house and in every tongue --- I believe
that all mothers are granted unique powers to access a vast databank
of responses to every situation a child can find itself in :-) ---
but when it comes to the law it is not good enough.

Roman law is remarkable for the detailed yet succinct way one treated
cases. One looked principally at things by dealing with concrete or
imaginary cases --- but always dealing with a specific train of cause
and effect. This casuistic aspect is more important than any
systematic view. One did not write a theory of damage, but about a
chariot driven by Citizen X hitting Citizen Y in the Forum. Of course,
in a written Constitution, we have tried to systematize Roman law, and
this is the fundamental problem we are facing. Roman law is first and
foremost private law, law of and between citizens. In relation to it
public law and the law of nations are less important, as Roman law is
concerned with the relationships between people and their legal actions.

Roman law was formal in the sense that it seldom looked behind the
external manifestations of a legal act in order to determine its
validity. So if, as a result of the case of Citizen Y getting hit by
a chariot driven by Citizen X in the Forum, a law was passed stating
that chariots could not be driven faster than an easy canter in the
Forum, then even Citizen Z, driving a fire brigade chariot rushing to
put out a fire could be found guilty if he broke that law. If THAT
happened, a new law could be passed specifically exempting fire
brigade chariots, &c. ad infinitum, which is why we have such a huge
corpus of Roman law.

So. What happened last year is of no consequence to something that is
happening now. You had a chance to pursue it yet did not; this now
makes you no different from any citizen who has NOT been in that
position, as the end result is the same: no court case. Galerius
chooses to pursue it, which you find annoying, and it is OK on both
counts: he has the right to do what he wants as a citizen, and you
have the right to be annoyed and express that annoyance. You do not
have the right to silence him --- and I'd like to see ANYBODY try to
silence you! :-)


Vale bene,

Cato

> We're all tired of this, please stop. I don't like going
> on about my provocatio last year, but I will do it every single time
> you come here and complain you had no justice! You gave me yours as
> tribune now respect the magistrates!
> bene vale
> Marca Hortensia Maior TRP

P. Memmius Albucius Quaestori Paulino s.d.


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, you wrote, Hon. Galerius :

(..)

>Your proposed lex seems to be making it harder for citizens to
>appeal the actions of the magistrates of Nova Roma.
>You seem to be stating that the right of provocation will or does

depend on the "opinion", ruling or interpretation of a magistrate.

>The Constitution gives us the right to appeal to the CPT. It needs
>to be clear that any magistrate who is a "party" to a call for
>provocatio can not in any way decide if the appeal can go through
>and that no body other than the CPT can rule on the merits of a
>case.

The proposal intends to give the opportunity to the People to remind
to us all what He, through the constitution, has intended to do.

Naturally, it is no question that a law may pretend modifying the
constitution. Furthermore, the first must respect the second.

In our current situation, the constitution is the only rule existing
in the field of provocatio. This is not the same situation in
various fields, for example in family matters, convening of comitia
or powers of some magistrates. In these last scopes, the
constitution sets the fundamental rule, then the laws adopted by the
comitia apply this rule. What these laws do is to translate the rule
set by the constitution as truly as possible.

This is the intent of the proposed law.

Currently, as you well know it, since I have received your appeal
for provocatio, the only existing rule tells us that « The
following rights of the Citizens who have reached the age of 18
shall be guaranteed, (..) : to appeal a decision of a magistrate
that has a direct negative impact upon that citizen to the comitia
populi tributa ».

My analysis has not changed since 10 days : in the absence of
another text, this provision *must* be applied on the benefit of the
citizen, who has the right to have her/his appeal examined by the
comitia. This sentence does not explicitly say that any magistrate
has the right to do what the constitution has asked the *comitia* to
do. And, as the comitia seem to me be the expression of the People,
it seems that a (lower) delegate power (consul praetor tribune) is
not allowed to take a power given to a (higher) delegating power
(assembly).

What has recently prevented the pure application of the
constitutional text is the fact that, in order to convene the
comitia, we need a convening act made by a relevant magistrate (in
the current state of our society, a consul, a praetor or a tribune).
Here, we have a first problem : a magistrate may have the temptation
not to answer an appeal or not to convene. We have already 2
material possibilities of denial of the right of provocatio.

Then, if a good willing magistrate receives an appeal and convenes
the comitia, both acts can be vetoed by a majority of the tribunes.
That is what has happened with my edict convening the comitia to
hear your claim. We get here a 3rd material possibility which
obstruct the jus provocationis.

I do not know if you have, Hon. Quaestor, exhausted all the legal
means in your claim.

Anyway, I just state that we all are in the situation where, as NR,
like ancient Rome, has no regulating process (constitutional court,
use of force, etc.), the constitution states a right without
providing the means to make it fully applied at the precise time
when one magistrate does not want to convene the CTP or is vetoed.

Then I have looked back to the constitutional text itself. It speaks
of « decision » and « direct negative impact ». What a magistrate is
not allowed to do - in my mind, contrary to the veto of my
colleagues - i.e. analysing the contents of the text, a law may do
it : that is what for laws are made.

Tribune Fuscus has been right when underlining the incoherences of
our current provision : for example, each time that a censor will
intervene on the album civium or senatorium, each time the results
of a vote is published, and so on, provocatio might be used.

We all agree, I think, that this is not why this right has been
provided by the People.

On another hand, we must not say less than the constitution.

So my intent is to convene as soon as possible the People. He is the
sole power to be authorised to say : « well, as Constitution maker,
I, the People of Nova Roma, reminds why I have intended in the
provocatio provision ».

Thus, the 2 paragraphs below just remind what are « decisions »
and « direct negative impact », and the last provision asks the
presiding magistrate not to convene if these 2 conditions are not
obtained.

>> The right of provocatio defined by the article II. B.5 of the
>> Constitution of Nova Roma does not concern, by essence :
>> " the acts edicted by a magistrate who has, for these edicts, no
>> freedom of judgment or option to choose one legal solution rather

than

>> another, and are thus not « decisions » in the sense of the
>> Constitution ;"

> I am sorry Tribune but I have no ideal what this passage is
>saying could you please explain what you are saying?

Yes, naturally. Magistrates make, in their office as any juridical
actors, « acts » (=manifestations of will which intends to create
law consequences). There are 2 categories of acts : these for which
the magistrate has a choice - this is the meaning of « decision »
(for example, to choose an assistant, change the governement of a
province, dismiss a scriba, or convene a comitium to vote a new
law) ; and those for which the magistrate has no choice (for
example, for tribunes reporting the Senate sessions).
So, this paragraph says : « well, the constitution speaks of «
decisions » : so other « non-decisional » acts cannot be appealed.
This may restrict the scope of the possibilities, but in due
application of the constitution.

>> "the acts which deny a citizen an opportunity he might
>> otherwise have had, or deprive him of a gain he might
>> have made, but which do not leave the citizen lacking
>> any right or good that was his before the act. Such acts are not
>> considered to have «a direct negative impact upon » the citizen
>> concerned"

> Again I am not sure what you mean can you please explain it for me.

Yes, again ! The « direct negative impact » asks 3 elements :
- a direct prejudice ;
- a negative one ;
- a prejudice.

The text (tries to !) say : if you suffer an immediate prejudice,
i.e. if you have less rights or goods than before the act, o.k.,
your prejudice is direct and negative, so you may use provocatio.
But if you consider that you are loosing an opportunity or a
possible (future) gain, you may not.
This restricts the scope of the possibilities in due application of
the constitution.
As I said above, this may restrict the scope of the possibilities,
but in due application of the constitution.

So the proposal :

- remains in the strict frame of the constitution and is an
application of this text ;
- reminds that the constitution has not intended providing a full
open wide field for jus provocationis ;
- will give a *legal* and *no contestable* right to relevant
magistrates to interprete the « direct negative impact », because
they will do this according a law, and no more according the
constitution, which they cannot currently do (in my view ;-) ).

I have written a lot, but a last word, Hon. Quaestor : naturally, my
proposal does not let us get to the ancient definition of
provocatio : breach of a right of a citizen in criminal affairs,
made by (generally) a consul, in the scope of his imperium.

This move, sole the comitia centuriata, called to modify the
constitution, could do it.

I think that we must solve the current debate *now*, and, for some
months or more, remind the constitutional will through a law, voted
by the comitia.

I remain at your disposal.

Vale, Quaestor.

P. Memmius Albucius

C. Minucius Hadrianus Quiritibus S.P.D.

Salvete.

This may be of some interest...

*Scientists Claim Discovery of 10th Planet*

By ALICIA CHANG, AP Science Writer Sat Jul 30,11:35 AM ET

"LOS ANGELES - It's icy, rocky and bigger than Pluto. And according to
scientists who found it orbiting the sun, it's the newest planet on our
solar system's block. The planet — the farthest-known object in the
solar system — is currently 9 billion miles away from the sun, or about
three times Pluto's current distance from the sun.

"This is the first object to be confirmed to be larger than Pluto in the
outer solar system," Michael Brown, a planetary scientist at the
California Institute of Technology, said Friday in a telephone briefing
announcing the discovery.

Brown labeled the object as a 10th planet, but there are scientists who
dispute the classification of Pluto as such.

Astronomers do not know the new planet's exact size, but its brightness
shows that it is at least as large as Pluto and could be up to 1 1/2
times bigger. The research was funded by
NASA.

Brown has submitted a name for the new planet to the International
Astronomical Union, which has yet to act on the proposal, but he did not
release the proposed name Friday."


Since the planets have been traditionally named after Roman deities, I
thought it might be fun to guess what name this new planet would (or
perhaps should) receive.

My pick is Prosperina (Persephone) because of her role as part-time
consort to Pluto (Hades).

What's your choice?

Valete bene,

Hadrianus

M. Hortenia A. Apollonio optimo suo spd;
Salve; now this sort of discussion is definitely my cup of
tea. I remember reading was it Rist on stoicism (or epicureanism)
while I was recuperating in hospital years ago and thinking how
depressing & useless a philosophy it was. It does not inspire you to
get well, get up and do anything.
How can you be a magistrate and a stoic? Climb the cursus honorum.
I know neo-pythagoreans were considered recherche, but at least they
had ideals about governing, a moral philosophy; if you did not do
positive good in this life, you'd transmigrate to something nasty.
I'd rather follow their ideal any day. Actually why is Marcus
Aurelius considered so wonderful?
optime vale,
Marca Hortensia


! A person who is unemotional, indifferent, and

> accepting of the ways things are will never have any
> motivation to do anything! I said that stoicism was
> logically inconsistent, and I haven't really addressed
> that point because it doesn't bear directly on M.
> Aurelius' reputation as an emperor; but if someone
> wants to have a conversation about the logical
> consistency of stoicism, I'll be happy to do that, if
> we can agree to wait until after the Conventus!
>
>

Salvete omnes,

Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix wrote:

> This may be of some interest...

> Since the planets have been traditionally named after Roman deities, I
> thought it might be fun to guess what name this new planet would (or
> perhaps should) receive.

> What's your choice?

My choice is to let the planetary naming commission of the International
Astronomical Union do its work.

Wm. C. Gawne
Full Member, American Astronomical Society

Salvete omnes,

Gnaeus Equitius Marinus wrote:

>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix wrote:
>
> > This may be of some interest...
>
> > Since the planets have been traditionally named after Roman deities,
> I
> > thought it might be fun to guess what name this new planet would (or
>
> > perhaps should) receive.
>
> > What's your choice?

A harmless suggestion on how to have some fun anticipating the new
planet's name.

>
> My choice is to let the planetary naming commission of the
> International
> Astronomical Union do its work.
>
> Wm. C. Gawne
> Full Member, American Astronomical Society
>

Do the words "pompous ass" come to anyone else's mind?

Valete,
Ambrosius Celetrus

Salve Ambrosi Celetre,

Ambrosius Celetrus wrote:

> Do the words "pompous ass" come to anyone else's mind?

How about the words "utter nonsense"?

I realize you have utterly no idea how much of the past 72 hours of my
life have been spent on Nova Roma, or how much I do around here. But
surely you're aware that this main mailing list has been innundated with
a flood of e-mail generated by a small number of stubborn people who
can't take their discussion elsewhere. I've been having to read through
all of that, since I happen to be an elected magistrate, while at the
same time continuing to do a number of other Nova Roma related things.

The process for naming planets is a well established process. It does
not involve Nova Roma. I do happen to be in possession of some expert
knowledge on the matter that gives me knowledge of how these things are
done. That was my point.

Gn. Equitius Marinus

Salve omnes,

for those of you who still want to propose a name for the tenth
planet: you can do it on my forum:
http://www.takeforum.com/forum/?mforum=novaroma :-)

I see no harm in mulling about a possible name...

vale

Publius Minius Mercator

On 7/30/05, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...> wrote:
> Salve Ambrosi Celetre,
>
> Ambrosius Celetrus wrote:
>
> > Do the words "pompous ass" come to anyone else's mind?
>
> How about the words "utter nonsense"?
>
> I realize you have utterly no idea how much of the past 72 hours of my
> life have been spent on Nova Roma, or how much I do around here. But
> surely you're aware that this main mailing list has been innundated with
> a flood of e-mail generated by a small number of stubborn people who
> can't take their discussion elsewhere. I've been having to read through
> all of that, since I happen to be an elected magistrate, while at the
> same time continuing to do a number of other Nova Roma related things.
>
> The process for naming planets is a well established process. It does
> not involve Nova Roma. I do happen to be in possession of some expert
> knowledge on the matter that gives me knowledge of how these things are
> done. That was my point.
>
> Gn. Equitius Marinus
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "Nova-Roma" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
> ________________________________
>

>
> Salve,

I have got very intrest subject. Question is if is democracy able to be
function. I think that democracy is very nice dream and goal for every good
Roman. But practically is impossible. Ceasar Augustus said : "I will want
restore republic". Augustus wanted like Claudius, one day restore republic
and return power to senat. But he knew that democracy isnt never strong for
justice. Democracy create political parties. And their problem than isnt
justice for every man but justice for them.
What you think ?
Vale



--
Sextus Lucilius Tutor
Scriba Propraetoris Pannoniae
http://rimskyobcan.ic.cz


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve

If the new 10th planet is really a planet then they should call it Pluto as some scientist want to downgrade Pluto.

Our Astronomer Censor should be able to shed some light on this.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix<mailto:c.minucius.hadrianus@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 3:01 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] What should the new 10th planet be named?


C. Minucius Hadrianus Quiritibus S.P.D.

Salvete.

This may be of some interest...

*Scientists Claim Discovery of 10th Planet*

By ALICIA CHANG, AP Science Writer Sat Jul 30,11:35 AM ET

"LOS ANGELES - It's icy, rocky and bigger than Pluto. And according to
scientists who found it orbiting the sun, it's the newest planet on our
solar system's block. The planet � the farthest-known object in the
solar system � is currently 9 billion miles away from the sun, or about
three times Pluto's current distance from the sun.

"This is the first object to be confirmed to be larger than Pluto in the
outer solar system," Michael Brown, a planetary scientist at the
California Institute of Technology, said Friday in a telephone briefing
announcing the discovery.

Brown labeled the object as a 10th planet, but there are scientists who
dispute the classification of Pluto as such.

Astronomers do not know the new planet's exact size, but its brightness
shows that it is at least as large as Pluto and could be up to 1 1/2
times bigger. The research was funded by
NASA.

Brown has submitted a name for the new planet to the International
Astronomical Union, which has yet to act on the proposal, but he did not
release the proposed name Friday."


Since the planets have been traditionally named after Roman deities, I
thought it might be fun to guess what name this new planet would (or
perhaps should) receive.

My pick is Prosperina (Persephone) because of her role as part-time
consort to Pluto (Hades).

What's your choice?

Valete bene,

Hadrianus



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
<font face=arial size=-1><a href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hgs15bg/M=362335.6886444.7839734.2575449/D=groups/S=1705313712:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1122757342/A=2894362/R=0/SIG=138c78jl6/*http://www.networkforgood.org/topics/arts_culture/?source=YAHOO&cmpgn=GRP&RTP=http://groups.yahoo.com/">What<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hgs15bg/M=362335.6886444.7839734.2575449/D=groups/S=1705313712:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1122757342/A=2894362/R=0/SIG=138c78jl6/*http://www.networkforgood.org/topics/arts_culture/?source=YAHOO&cmpgn=GRP&RTP=http://groups.yahoo.com/">What> would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good</a>.</font>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

P. Memmius Albucius S. Lucilio Tutori s.d.

S.V.G.E.R.


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Scriba Propraetoris Pannoniae
<phorus@g...> wrote:
(..) I think that democracy is very nice dream and goal for every good

> Roman. But practically is impossible. Ceasar Augustus said : "I will

want

> restore republic". Augustus wanted like Claudius, one day restore

republic

> and return power to senat. But he knew that democracy isnt never

strong for

> justice. Democracy create political parties. And their problem than

isnt

> justice for every man but justice for them.
> What you think ?

I think first that there are several forms of democracy : Athens 500
BC was not the same that Roma 50 BC or this type that our
representative modern democracies apply or, at last, what planned
economy countries call "peopls's democracy". So, two persons wishing
to speak on democracy have to precise each other what kind of
democracy is evoked.
Then, that representative democracy is the place for parties and
factiones. One does not go without the others.
Third, that the idea of justice is not the same as having a working
judicial system.
Last, that it is not because I tell you that the forest is blue that
you must believe me : similarly, when Augustus told that he want to
restore democracy, we are not obliged to believe him, but we must
recognise that he has a real sense of humor. ;-)

Vale, Tutor.

P. Memmius Albucius

Salvete omnes.

Hmmmm ... I wonder ... with a few changes....

"It's icy, rocky and bigger than (Nova Roma). And according to
scientists who found it orbiting (reality), it's the newest planet on
our (republic's) block. The planet — the farthest-known object in the
(republic) — is currently 9 billion miles away from (Nova Roma), or
about three times (Nova Roma's) current distance from (reality)."

>
> My pick is Prosperina (Persephone) because of her role as part-

time consort to Pluto (Hades).

>
> What's your choice?

Ummm...Tribunon? (doffing hat to Planet Crypton of Superman fame)

Vale
Caesar

Tribune Albucius Censori Marino s.d.

S.V.G.E.R.


Dear Censor Marinus, you have written :

>It does seem to have improved, yes. I apologise in advance for not
>having written to you in greater detail about it before now, but my
>computer time has been limited and I've been preparing for the fall
>semester.

I know, like we all, that this year is a hard working one for you
both censores. Thanks for your observations !

>> The comitia tributa populi have adopted by XX votes
>> against YY with WW abstentions the following text.

>This paragraph is not necessary and should be removed. If the lex
>passes and goes into the tabularium, this information will be

provided

>at the bottom of the page, but the Xs and Ys ought not to be there,
>because if they are the people will vote on them, and they will then
>become part of the law. That would be a nonsensical result that I'm
>sure nobody wants.

I am not opposed to this withdrawal, and thank you for your remark.

>> Tribune P. Memmius Albucius, as presiding magistrate,

>> in order to more clearly specify the scope of the jus
>> provocationis, as enshrined in the laws and customs of
>> ancient Roma and as guaranteed by article II.B.5 of
>> the Constitution, and the circumstances in which it
>> may be exercised,

>> promulgates the law in the following terms :

>This last sentence is also unnecessary and complicating verbage. Of
> course a lex passed in comitia is a promulgated law.

Let us say that I have not read « verbage ».
On the matter, I beg to differ, Censor : a lex voted in the comitia
could happened not to be promulgated. The vote of a law and the
edict of promulgation are two different times and acts.
That is why the mention « promulgates.. » has been provided.
Anyay, I believe that this detail is not important in your mind.

>I understand that you're trying to fix an existing problem, but I'd

feel

>much better if you were to define what provocatio *is* rather than

what

>it *is not*. (..)

I am limited by the current wording of the constitution : what this
proposal is allowed to do is reminding the meaning of the contents
of the constitutional definition, here the words « decisions » and «
direct negative impact ». To precise what provocatio « is » could
let us fall in 2 types of traps : either paraphrasing the
constitutional article, which is not very interesting ; or creating
law, and betray the constitution, and thus be unconstitutional.

>> - the acts edicted by a magistrate who has, for these edicts, no
>> freedom of judgment or option to choose one legal solution rather

than

>> another, and are thus not « decisions » in the sense of the
>> Constitution ;

>I interpret this to mean that, for example, a consul calling for
>elections to elect the next year's magistrates could not be subject

to a

>provocatio action from a citizen, right?

Yes, right.

>Any action that a magistrate takes in order to carry out their

legally >obligated responsibilities is thus outside the scope of
provocatio?

Yes. The example that I have given recently is the reporting by
Tribunes of the sessions of the Senate : it is a « bound
competency » with no power of saying : « well, this time, I will
not ».

> - the acts which deny a citizen an opportunity he might
> otherwise have had, or deprive him of a gain he might
> have made, but which do not leave the citizen lacking
> any right or good that was his before the act. Such acts are not
> considered to have«a direct negative impact upon » the citizen
> concerned.

This, of course, is the real gist of the lex. I agree with it. But as
I said earlier, I would also like to see some clear statement of what
provocatio is before we tell people what it is not.

Yes. On the second sentence, see above, please.

>> Article 2

>> The magistrates authorized by the Constitution to convene the

comitia

>> populi tributa must refuse to call them for order upon a appeal of
>> provocatio which would examine a magisterial act excluded from
>> provocatio by article 1 above.

>I'd prefer that you simply get rid of this. A magistrate with the
>authority to call the Comitia may call the comitia at any time, for

any

>reason. That is a core principle of Roman law.

Maybe in ancient law, yes. But we must consider our constitution,
and its application, to which this proposal contributes.
This provision is a key point of the present text. What is debated
in the situation that we have lived these days is the fact that the
magistrates may/may not interpret/decide or not to convene the CTP
on a appeal for provocatio.
This debate will end when this law is voted. The above provision
does not contest the general power of the magistrates to convene,
but tells : « as decisions X and Y do not enter the scope of
provocation, there is no ground for you to convene. ».
I think this solution is better than having magistrates take what
could be seen by some as unconstitutional positions, and will help
us all (magistrates and citizens).

>> Article 3
>>
>> This law does not prevent the citizen concerned from using every

other

>> legal means offered by the laws of Nova Roma.

This article is also unnecessary verbage, and ought to be removed.


Let us say that I have not read, again, the word « verbage ».
I understand what you are thinking, Marinus. In the current context,
I have thought that this reminding would be well welcomed by our
citizens who could wonder whether their constitutional rights will
be maintained. I thus think that it is a positive sign for them.
These two lines do not cost a lot, and are surely as useful as many
and many lines in our previous and existing legislation. ;-)

>> The present law shall be executed as a law of the Republic of Nova
>> Roma.

>More unnecessary verbage.

Let us say that I have not read, for the third time, the word «
verbage ».
But, as I am more relax that you seem to be, dear Censor, I am ready
to delete this sentence. ;-)

Thanks again for your constructive observations.

Vale ac valete omnes,


P. Memmius Albucius
Tribune Plebis

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
<gn_iulius_caesar@y...> wrote:

(..)

> "It's icy, rocky and bigger than (Nova Roma).(..)the farthest-known
>object in the (republic) — is (..) about three times (Nova Roma's)

current distance from (reality)."
(..)

> Ummm...Tribunon? (doffing hat to Planet Crypton of Superman fame)

Lol. "Tribunon" as a whole or do you have a more precise view ? (joke).
If it may freeze the burning turmoil of our last debate, I accept
being icy and rocky, knowing that it "Tribunon" may appear bigger, it
is because Tribunon is at the same time so close to the People that it
seems such, and, as we are on a closed orbit, for every far far away
celestial body comes back to us at the end of its revolution.

Vale, Caesar

PMA

avete Catoni omnesque,

> On a very bright note, Marcus Iulius Perusianus and I have been
> discussing the possibility of staging, at the Conventus, what in

the

> U.S. might be called a Grand Jury hearing regarding this issue. A
> Grand Jury is called so that a group of citizens (the
> not-too-surprisingly called "grand jurors") are presented with
> evidence in order to decide if, in fact, a trial should take

place.

> It would NOT, in any way, shape or form, try to actually make a
> decision happen. It would ONLY be the equivalent of a theatre-

piece

> in which the style, drama, action and rhetoric of an actual Roman
> contio would be presented --- something to bring the dry and
> (sometimes) wearisome arguing that we've had here in the Forum to
> life. Marcus Perusianus is getting the final OK from our Consul
> Apulus Caesar, and if it happens, the transcript (maybe even

recording

> on tape and video) would be presented to the People in some

format. I

> am almost puppy-like in anticipation that the Consul will give a
> favorable reply :-)

first, I'd like to thank you for the original idea. I mean, we
organizing the Dies Romanus, will offer activities e.g. a military
training with the partecipants, guided tours, etc. We've only simply
thought why can't we represent a process/trial or whatever as an
historical and educational example for the comers (some of them even
playing as actors!). No more no less!
Probably we will be discussing about what's lately the main topic on
this ML; this is just because, as seen, people is interested in the
argument.
I'd like to underline that IS NOT an act by NR, it'll be just (if
done... we still miss Sr Consul OK and Cato's counterpart, don't
we?) an event offered for educational purposes for the coming NR
Conventus in Europa.

M IVL PERVSIANVS
Praetor

---P. Minucia Tiberia M Iulio Perusiano S.P.D.

Salvete Honoured Praeter et Omnes:

Thank you.

I am very relieved to read this ex officium statement from you in
this regard. I very much appreciate the Praetor's clarification of
the purpose/objectives of this proposed legal exercize planned for
the upcoming conventus in Roma.

valete


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Marcus Iulius Perusianus"
<m_iulius@y...> wrote:

> avete Catoni omnesque,
>
> > On a very bright note, Marcus Iulius Perusianus and I have been
> > discussing the possibility of staging, at the Conventus, what in
> the
> > U.S. might be called a Grand Jury hearing regarding this issue.

A

> > Grand Jury is called so that a group of citizens (the
> > not-too-surprisingly called "grand jurors") are presented with
> > evidence in order to decide if, in fact, a trial should take
> place.
> > It would NOT, in any way, shape or form, try to actually make a
> > decision happen. It would ONLY be the equivalent of a theatre-
> piece
> > in which the style, drama, action and rhetoric of an actual Roman
> > contio would be presented --- something to bring the dry and
> > (sometimes) wearisome arguing that we've had here in the Forum to
> > life. Marcus Perusianus is getting the final OK from our Consul
> > Apulus Caesar, and if it happens, the transcript (maybe even
> recording
> > on tape and video) would be presented to the People in some
> format. I
> > am almost puppy-like in anticipation that the Consul will give a
> > favorable reply :-)
>
> first, I'd like to thank you for the original idea. I mean, we
> organizing the Dies Romanus, will offer activities e.g. a military
> training with the partecipants, guided tours, etc. We've only

simply

> thought why can't we represent a process/trial or whatever as an
> historical and educational example for the comers (some of them

even

> playing as actors!). No more no less!
> Probably we will be discussing about what's lately the main topic

on

> this ML; this is just because, as seen, people is interested in

the

> argument.
> I'd like to underline that IS NOT an act by NR, it'll be just (if
> done... we still miss Sr Consul OK and Cato's counterpart, don't
> we?) an event offered for educational purposes for the coming NR
> Conventus in Europa.
>
> M IVL PERVSIANVS
> Praetor

Salve Albuci.

Oh I think that a chunk of Tribunon became detached and is currently
orbiting very close to NR. It is at least 1/5th of the original
size - it may even be 3/5ths ;)

Vale
Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Tribune Albucius"

<albucius_aoe@h...> wrote:

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
> <gn_iulius_caesar@y...> wrote:
>
> (..)
>
> > "It's icy, rocky and bigger than (Nova Roma).(..)the farthest-

known

> >object in the (republic) — is (..) about three times (Nova

Roma's)

> current distance from (reality)."
> (..)
> > Ummm...Tribunon? (doffing hat to Planet Crypton of Superman fame)
>
>
> Lol. "Tribunon" as a whole or do you have a more precise view ?

(joke).

> If it may freeze the burning turmoil of our last debate, I accept
> being icy and rocky, knowing that it "Tribunon" may appear bigger,

it

> is because Tribunon is at the same time so close to the People

that it

> seems such, and, as we are on a closed orbit, for every far far

away

> celestial body comes back to us at the end of its revolution.
>
> Vale, Caesar
>
> PMA

Salve Tribune P. Memmicus Albucius et Salvete Omnes:

Is it ok if I render a few comments on this lex? It may not be
anything you haven't thought of already, and perhaps I'm just looking
at the same things in a different way.

I don't want to just jump in ....I am not a curule magistrate for one
thing, and I think they have more reason to publically opine than I
do, as I believe Censor Marinus is so justified, but as one who is not
posessive of imperium other than provincially, I am not one who wants
to appear as though they are unnecessarily interferring with your
potestas.

Or would you like me to share my thoughts with you privately?

Po

Salvete omnes, et salve Tiberi Galeri,

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus writes:

> If the new 10th planet is really a planet then they
> should call it Pluto as some scientist want to downgrade Pluto.
>
> Our Astronomer Censor should be able to shed some light on this.

I'm in the camp that considers Pluto a planet, since it is in orbit
around the Sun, and sufficiently self-gravitating that it pulls itself
into a spherical shape. Back in the 19th century the designation 'minor
planet' was coined to describe those objects we know in common parlance
as asteroids. A minor planet is distinguished from a planet by its
mass. Minor planets lack sufficient mass to provide the self-gravity
that pulls the larger (major) planets into spherical shape. The largest
minor planets are Ceres, Vesta, and Pallas. These were the first
asteroids to be discovered, back in the very early 19th century CE.

The contention from those who would like to see Pluto demoted from
'planet' to something else is based on the fact that Pluto is much less
massive than originally thought. Pluto has a moon, Charon, which is
almost half its size and was originally thought to be part of Pluto's
mass. Charon also appears to be roughly spherical, placing it just at
the ragged limit of 'planet' eligibility if it were not the moon of a
planet already. Some planetary astronomers refer to the 'Pluto-Charon
double planet system.'

Planet comes from the Greek 'planetes' which means 'wanderer.' The
planets were originally called wanderers because they appear at times to
'go retrograde' and their apparent motion is counter to the apparent
motion of everything else in the sky. The famous philosopher Claudius
Ptolemy, an Alexandrian greek, devised an elaborate model involving
cycles and epicycles that the planets moved on in orbits around the
Earth. This was the generally accepted model of the heavens for about
1600 years, but was eventually displaced by the Heliocentric model first
put forth by Nicholas Copernicus and later refined by Johannes Kepler,
Gallileo Gallilei, and Isaac Newton. With our current understanding of
celestial mechanics we know that the wandering motion of planets is
really just a consequence of the relative motions of the planets and the
Earth as they orbit the Sun. Because of this, the International
Astronomical Union has adopted the position that all naturally occuring
bodies in closed orbits around their parent stars are to be considered
either planets (if they are spherical) or minor planets (if they lack
the self-gravitation to maintain rough sphericity).

Planets and minor planets are named by their discovers, according to
rules developed by the IAU, with the chosen names then confirmed by the
IAU executive board. When my former colleague Charlie Kowal discovered
the minor planet Chiron in 1977 he named it. In doing so he instituted
the centaur class of objects, and since then another 18 minor planets
with orbits outside of the orbit of Neptune have been named.

Valete,

-- Marinus

G. Equitius Cato Gn. Equitio Marino quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salvete omnes.

Hold on a second. Are you implying that the stars and planets do NOT
circle around the earth? That is, I'm afraid, logically impossible,
as I will demonstrate:

Since

A) New York City (hereinafter referred to as "NYC") is the center of
the known universe, and

B) NYC is located on the planet Earth,

Therefore

the Earth must be at the center of the known universe.

Unassailable logic, Censor, as you must agree, no?

Vale et valete,

Cato

Salvete,

Ummm...I was thinking...

Since it is far to the rear of the sun and the last line of orbital
defense ...maybe it should be named:

TRIARIUS!!!

Vale optime,
Triarius

G. Equitius Cato P. Minuciae-Tiberiae Straboni quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve Pompeia Strabo et salvete omnes.

Yes indeed; the activity would, as I mentioned, NOT have any kind of
"legal" standing WHATSOEVER (emphasis, not shouting). It would be
what was known as a "contio", a simple meeting over which a magistrate
presided and to which all citizens were invited (even women, children
and slaves in the ancient Republic) and at which both formal and
informal discussion could be had. It was a kind of mix between a New
England Town Meeting and a Grand Jury hearing.

Vale et valete,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato" <mlcinnyc@y...>
wrote:

> Hold on a second. Are you implying that the stars and planets do NOT
> circle around the earth? That is, I'm afraid, logically impossible,
> as I will demonstrate:

YES...I KNEW THE ANCIENTS WERE RIGHT!!!

Valete,
Triarius

Salve Tribune Albuci, et salvete quirites,

Tribune Albucius wrote:

[snipping matters where we either agree, or I consider the disagreement
of minor importance.]

> a lex voted in the comitia could happened not to be promulgated.

Only if the presiding magistrate of the comitia is delinquent in the
performance of duty.

> The vote of a law and the
> edict of promulgation are two different times and acts.

Would you please provide an example of this from the Roman republic?

[Why the law defines what provocatio is not, rather than what it is]

> I am limited by the current wording of the constitution:

So why not propose a Constitutional amendment? I feel sure either
consul would be willing to work with you to help us get out of the
current mess. You might note that I did such a thing last year with
then-Tribune Galerius. It could be done in fairly short order, though
it would have to go to the Comitia Centuria and then the Senate rather
than being voted on in the Comitia Populi Tributa.

I do think that the concept of provocatio is sufficiently enshrined in
ancient roman custom and practice to rise to the point of deserving a
proper definition in constitutional law.

[Article 2]

>>I'd prefer that you simply get rid of this. A magistrate with the
>>authority to call the Comitia may call the comitia at any time, for
>> any reason. That is a core principle of Roman law.
>
>
> Maybe in ancient law, yes. But we must consider our constitution,
> and its application, to which this proposal contributes.

I appreciate that. I don't see where the principle that a magistrate
can call a comitia over which he prisides at any time for any reason
conflicts with anything in our constitutional law.

> This provision is a key point of the present text. What is debated
> in the situation that we have lived these days is the fact that the
> magistrates may/may not interpret/decide or not to convene the CTP
> on a appeal for provocatio.

I'm firmly convinced that under our present laws an appeal to provocatio
should be placed before the Comitia Populi Tributa. I also recognize
the right of the Tribunes to interpose their veto against anything they
wish to. As I see it, a Tribune decided to convene the CPT when
provocatio was invoked. Then another Tribune interposed his veto
against the meeting, with a majority of Tribunes concurring. While I
consider a veto of a call to comitia to be ahistorical and utterly
immoral, I also respect the sacrosanctity of the Tribunes and their
right to interpose veto whenever they wish as provided by our current
laws. Furthermore I recognize that my opinion is of no immediate
consequence to the situation.

> This debate will end when this law is voted.

I think you're engaging in wishful thinking. My suspicion is that this
debate will reemerge whenever a magistrate does something similar to
what Tribune Saturninus did early this year.

> The above provision
> does not contest the general power of the magistrates to convene,
> but tells : « as decisions X and Y do not enter the scope of
> provocation, there is no ground for you to convene. ».

That is a decision for a magistrate to make.

[...]

> Thanks again for your constructive observations.

You're most welcome. Thank you for the effort you've put into this.

Vale, et valete,

-- Marinus

M.Hortensia Maior Gn.Marino spd;
Salve Marine; this is an excellent idea. Why don't we have a
Constitutional amendment and restore historical provocatio?
bene vale
Marca Hortensia Maior




So why not propose a Constitutional amendment? I feel sure either

> consul would be willing to work with you to help us get out of the
> current mess.
>
> I do think that the concept of provocatio is sufficiently

enshrined in

> ancient roman custom and practice to rise to the point of

deserving a

> proper definition in constitutional law.
>
>

Certainly has a more favorable ring to it than 2003 UB313.

"Ex iniuria ius non oritur." (Right cannot grow out of injustice.)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

---Salvete Omnes:

Thank you G. Equitius Cato Quaestor for clarification regarding
position and description of the matter. But in light of your words in
message in 36728 I was equally, in fact, actually, more consoled to
hear the ex officum stance of the Praetor, Marcus Iulius Perusianus,
which served to carve the legal gravity of the event ant is and
resultant resolutions a bit deeper in stone, by virtue of his imperium.

Valete,
Po


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato" <mlcinnyc@y...>
wrote:

> G. Equitius Cato P. Minuciae-Tiberiae Straboni quiritibusque S.P.D.
>
> Salve Pompeia Strabo et salvete omnes.
>
> Yes indeed; the activity would, as I mentioned, NOT have any kind of
> "legal" standing WHATSOEVER (emphasis, not shouting). It would be
> what was known as a "contio", a simple meeting over which a

magistrate

> presided and to which all citizens were invited (even women, children
> and slaves in the ancient Republic) and at which both formal and
> informal discussion could be had. It was a kind of mix between a New
> England Town Meeting and a Grand Jury hearing.
>
> Vale et valete,
>
> Cato

In a message dated 7/30/2005 12:02:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
c.minucius.hadrianus@... writes:
Since the planets have been traditionally named after Roman deities, I
thought it might be fun to guess what name this new planet would (or
perhaps should) receive.

My pick is Prosperina (Persephone) because of her role as part-time
consort to Pluto (Hades).

What's your choice?


Vulcanus :-)

QFM


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete Omnes, I say Mithras, to honor the later
Legions & one of thier favorite Gods. But what do I
know?
--- Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <QFabiusMaxmi@...>
wrote:

> In a message dated 7/30/2005 12:02:44 PM Pacific

Daylight Time,

> c.minucius.hadrianus@... writes:
> Since the planets have been traditionally named

after Roman deities, I

> thought it might be fun to guess what name this new

planet would (or

> perhaps should) receive.
>
> My pick is Prosperina (Persephone) because of her

role as part-time

> consort to Pluto (Hades).
>
> What's your choice?
>
>
> Vulcanus :-)
>
> QFM
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

>

S P Q R

Fidelis Ad Mortem.

Marcvs Flavivs Fides
Roman Citizen



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Salve Cato,

> CATO: A valid point; however, a tribune is not
> authorized to prohibit
> the exercize of the right of provocatio invoked
> under the
> Constitution. The Constitution does not allow it.

Well said. Whether I agree with Tiberius's complaint
or not, the Tribunes need to follow the law, which in
my opinion they have not done. This is what I've been
thinking a few times this year.

Vale,
Diana



__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail

Salve Fuscus,

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it.

<To say that

> tribunes haven't listened to him is just as false as
> saying they have
> acted for personal reasons, personal grudges,
> personal agenda or
> anything else than what their considered the best
> way to keep to their
> duties.

For the record, in my opinion Saturninus is legally a
Tribune. That said, the problem is it *appears* that
the Tribunes are vetoing the provocatio in order to
protect their own. Because of that, the Tribunes
should not be blocking Tiberius as it is a conflict of
interests. They should allow him to have his day in
court in the name of unbiasness and let the people
decide.

Trust me I realize that being a Tribune is not easy.
Unlike this year, during my term there were countless
times that the Tribunes were called upon. Sometimes I
disagreed entirely with the complaints that citizens
came to me with. But as a Tribune it was not my job to
take sides as far as what I thought was good for
myself or the Tribunes.The decisions that I made were
based on the law.

Vale,
Diana



____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Salve P. Memmius Albucius,
Thank you for reply. Can you explain me whats kind of democracy was in
Athens and in Roma republic ? Where was differnce ?
Thank you
Vale
--
Sextus Lucilius Tutor
Scriba Propraetoris Pannoniae
http://rimskyobcan.ic.cz


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete all,

I say that it should be named 'Diana' since up until
now, other than Venus, the planets are a boys club.

Valete,
Diana
(who is not a planet and a Goddess to but a few ha ha
!)




____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Salvete;

Prosperina would make sense.... but I would like to see it named after
Pomona :)

Valete;

C. Fabius Buteo Modianus

In a message dated 7/30/2005 3:02:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
c.minucius.hadrianus@... writes:

My pick is Prosperina (Persephone) because of her role as part-time
consort to Pluto (Hades).

What's your choice?

Valete bene,

Hadrianus






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

P. Memmius Albucius Aventinae s.d.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, you wrote:

> I say that it should be named 'Diana' since up until
> now, other than Venus, the planets are a boys club.


But you are so bright, dear Diana, that it would seem more reasonable
to give your name to a star, not to a planet... ;-)

Optime vale Diana,

PMA

Salvete omnes,

The discoverer has tentatively named it Xena, after his favorite TV
character. Fortunately the IAU will not accept that.

If there ends up being a public write-in effort to "name the new planet"
I'll post information here.

Valete,

Marinus

Salvete omnes,

Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix wrote:

> My pick is Prosperina (Persephone) because of her role as part-time
> consort to Pluto (Hades).
>
> What's your choice?

If Pluto remains the 10th planet, then I would hope that this would be
the name chosen (though it's Dea Proserpina, Hadrianus, not
"Prosperina."). It's the logical choice, and also adds another Goddess
(and an important one) to the list.

Any science fiction fans out there (books, not movies)? I absolutely
KNOW I read a story, some years ago, in which a 10th planet was indeed
named for Dea Persephone. I'm thinking it was by Larry Niven. Does this
ring a bell with anyone else?

Of course, it was some time ago. Conceivably the International
Astronomical Union, and "Wm. C. Gawne Full Member, American Astronomical
Society," have acted to get the book banned, seeing as it usurped their
prerogatives.

Valete,
Ambrosius Celetrus

In a message dated 7/31/2005 8:42:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
gawne@... writes:
The discoverer has tentatively named it Xena, after his favorite TV
character. Fortunately the IAU will not accept that.
Fortunately, indeed.

What about calling it Ops?

VRE

"Ex iniuria ius non oritur." (Right cannot grow out of injustice.)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete omnes, et salve Ambrosi Celetre,

Ambrosius Celetrus wrote:

> Any science fiction fans out there (books, not movies)?

Yes.

> I absolutely
> KNOW I read a story, some years ago, in which a 10th planet was indeed
> named for Dea Persephone. I'm thinking it was by Larry Niven. Does this
> ring a bell with anyone else?

I don't recall it from a Niven book, but Persephone is a name commonly
used in SF/F for a hypothetical 10th planet. It's also been reserved
for some time now as a name to be given a 10th planet if one is found.
Most asteroids are named after goddesses, and therefore names like Juno,
Pallas, and Ceres are already in use. It's likely that once this object
currently being called Xena is recognized as a planet that it will be
given the name Persephone.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Salve Romans

A very interesting discussion

From the web FYI

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus



"Many people seem interested in how Pluto got its name - here is a quote from the book Pluto and Charon by Alan Stern and Jacqueline Mitton, Cambridge University Press<http://www.cambridge.org/>, 1998 (this is a great book by the way, easy to read and full of good stuff about Pluto, Charon and how they were explored) : - "

Something deep-seated in human nature calls on us to name things. It's almost as if a thing isn't real, or whole, until we name it - and so, X had to have a name.
Suggestions flooded in: "Zeus," "Cronos," "Lowell," "Minerva." Widow Lowell first liked "Zeus," but later suggested "Percival," then "Lowell," and then, finally, "Constance," her own name.
Dozens of other well-meaning suggestions came pouring in as well. Then there were hundreds, then thousands. But when all was said and done, the moniker for the newly discovered X that the Lowell staff preferred was the one suggested* by 11-year-old Venetia Burney of Oxford, England: Pluto - Pluto, the Greek god of the Underworld; the brother of Jupiter, Neptune, and Juno; and third son of Saturn, who was able, when he wished, to render himself invisible.
Both the American Astronomical Society and the UK's Royal Astronomical Society adopted Pluto as the official name and as the official symbol for the new world. was Percival Lowell's monogram.

_____________
*The French astronomer P. Reynaud had suggested Pluto as the natural mythic name for Lowell's putative Planet X in 1919, but this was not remembered until 1930.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

S Pilatus Barbatus Flaviae Tulliae Scholasticae salutem dicit, sperans ut
semper eam optime valere .

Tibi gratias ago propter tuam fiduciam mei atque honorem quem mihi
tribuisti. me piget responsum meum tam sero venire - quippiam occupatus
nuper fui.

Laetus ero agere sicut vis.

Vale optime!

Sextus Pilatus Barbatus



_____

From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Flavia Scholastica
Sent: 29 July 2005 00:31
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] de creatione scribarum




EDICTVM INTERPRETIS LINGVAE LATINAE

E paragrapho IV.1. Legis Corneliae de Linguis Publicis, licet
interpretibus scribas suas creare.

Ex hoc ergo Sextum Pilatum Barbatum Gnaeum Cornelium Lentulum scribas
seniores, et Quintum Caecilium Metellum Postumianum Pium scribam iuniorem
creo.

Hoc edictum statim valet.

Datum sub manu mea ante diem V Kalendas Sextiles MMDCCLVIII.


According to Paragraph IV.1 of the Lex Cornelia de Linguis Publicis,
interpreters may appoint their own scribae.

Therefore, by this edict I appoint Sextus Pilatus Barbatus and Gnaeus
Cornelius Lentulus senior scribae, and Quintus Caecilius Metellus
Postumianus Pius junior scriba.

This edict takes effect immediately.

Given under my hand this 28th day of July 2005 C.E.

Flavia Tullia Valeria Scholastica
Interpres Linguae Latinae
Magistra Decuriae Interpretum






SPONSORED LINKS


Roman
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Roman+empire&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient
+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=s9DkW
3PR0MeX4fZ4UZe9EA> empire

Ancient
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Ancient+history&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Anci
ent+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=T8
d6dssgLGGoWt2zpkjQHg> history

Fall
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w1=Roman+empir
e&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=9
1&.sig=lkon-I5r06QC135bGP9VxA> of the roman empire


The
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=The+roman+empire&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Anc
ient+history&w3=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w4=The+roman+empire&c=4&s=91&.sig=0
5P7CzbfFR9zuI9NrTql0g> roman empire







_____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



* Visit your group "Nova-Roma
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma> " on the web.

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



_____



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

P. Memmius Albucius omnibus s.d.

S.V.G.E.R.

The contio of the comitia tributa populi is now closed.

You will find there, dear Quirites, the last version of the text
submitted to your vote. My thanks go to every citizen who has
contributed, by posting her/his thoughts about our debate upon the
provocatio, to let us going forward all together. Special gratitude,
also, to all of you that have contributed to improve the text below,
from, for example, writeers as Hon. A.Apollonius Cordus to Censor
Marinus, without forgetting Hon. Equitius Cato. Even if this text is
rather short in itself, it has passed through ten or so versions
thanks to the contributions received.

Next wednesday 3th begins the vote with a first period of 2 days for
casting your ballots (3th 00:00 -4th 24:00); then the second voting
period will last from Sun. 7 th 0:00 to Su 14 th (August)24:00.
Please, citizens outside Europe, care : this time is Rome time. You
have to convert these hours into your local time !

Thanks to all ac valete.


P. Memmius Albucius

_________________________________________________

LEX MEMMIA DE PROVOCATIONE


Tribune P. Memmius Albucius, as presiding magistrate,

in order to more clearly specify the scope of the jus
provocationis, as enshrined in the laws and customs of
ancient Roma and as guaranteed by article II.B.5 of
the Constitution, and the circumstances in which it
may be exercised,

promulgates the law in the following terms :


Article 1

The right of provocatio defined by the article II. B.5 of the
Constitution of Nova Roma does not, essentially, concern the acts
issued by magisterial enactement :

- for which the magistrate has no freedom of judgment or choice
between one legal solution or another, and are thus not
« decisions » in the sense meant by the Constitution ;

- which deny a citizen an opportunity which she/he might
otherwise have had, or which deprive her/him of a gain that she/he
might have made, but which do not leave the citizen lacking any
right or good that was her/his before the act. Such acts are not
considered to have a « direct negative impact upon » on the citizen
concerned, in the sense meant by the Constitution,

Article 2

The magistrates authorized by the Constitution to convene the
comitia populi tributa must refuse to call them for order upon a
appeal of provocatio which would examine a magisterial act excluded
from provocatio by article 1 above.

Article 3

This law does not prevent the citizen concerned from using every
other legal means offered by the laws of Nova Roma.


Romae, a. d. XV Kal. Sept. 2758 a.u.c. (August 18 th 2005)
Fr. Apulus Caesar and G. Popillius Laenas consulibus

Magistratus praeses,
P. Memmius Albucius
Tribunus Plebis

Q. Metellus Quiritibus sal.

For the Month of Sextilis (August):

Kalendis Sextilibus : 01 Aug 2005 : F
a.d. IV Non. Sex. : 02 Aug 2005 : F (Ater)
a.d. III Non. Sex. : 03 Aug 2005 : C
pr. Non. Sex. : 04 Aug 2005 : F (Nun.)*
Nonis Sextilibus : 05 Aug 2005 : F
a.d. VIII Id. Sex. : 06 Aug 2005 : F (Ater)
a.d. VII Id. Sex. : 07 Aug 2005 : C
a.d. VI Id. Sex. : 08 Aug 2005 : C
a.d. V Id. Sex. : 09 Aug 2005 : C
a.d. IV Id. Sex. : 10 Aug 2005 : C
a.d. III Id. Sex. : 11 Aug 2005 : C
pr. Id. Sex. : 12 Aug 2005 : F (Nun.)
Idibus Sextilibus : 13 Aug 2005 : NP
a.d. XIX Kal. Sep. : 14 Aug 2005 : F (Ater)
a.d. XVIII Kal. Sep. : 15 Aug 2005 : C
a.d. XVII Kal. Sep. : 16 Aug 2005 : C
a.d. XVI Kal. Sep. : 17 Aug 2005 : NP
a.d. XV Kal. Sep. : 18 Aug 2005 : C
a.d. XIV Kal. Sep. : 19 Aug 2005 : F
a.d. XIII Kal. Sep. : 20 Aug 2005 : F (Nun.)
a.d. XII Kal. Sep. : 21 Aug 2005 : NP
a.d. XI Kal. Sep. : 22 Aug 2005 : EN
a.d. X Kal. Sep. : 23 Aug 2005 : NP
a.d. IX Kal. Sep. : 24 Aug 2005 : C (Religiosus)
a.d. VIII Kal. Sep. : 25 Aug 2005 : NP
a.d. VII Kal. Sep. : 26 Aug 2005 : C
a.d. VI Kal. Sep. : 27 Aug 2005 : NP
a.d. V Kal. Sep. : 28 Aug 2005 : F (Nun.)
a.d. IV Kal. Sep. : 29 Aug 2005 : C
a.d. III Kal. Sep. : 30 Aug 2005 : C
pr. Kal. Sep. : 31 Aug 2005 : C

* Nun. = Nundinae

Valete Bene!

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius
Fetialis

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato" <mlcinnyc@y...>
wrote:

> G. Equitius Cato Gn. Equitio Marino quiritibusque S.P.D.
>
> Salvete omnes.
>
> Hold on a second. Are you implying that the stars and planets do NOT
> circle around the earth? That is, I'm afraid, logically impossible,
> as I will demonstrate:

Salve,

It is logically impossible for the stars and the planets to revolve
around the earth as we all know that the earth is flat and is carried
on the back of 4 elephants which in turn stand on the back of the
Great A'Tun which is a turtle approx 10000 miles in diameter.

Vale,

Calvus

Salve Romans

From the New Today

Vale
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


A genius of satire
V SUNDARAM

Horace was a genius of satire.

During the reign of Augustus (BC 31-AD 14) many commentators proclaimed the arrival of a new Golden Age as Romans returned to traditional values. These values included religion, family, and an appreciation of the Italian countryside and its agrarian roots. Writers and artists from all parts of Italy came to Rome, where generous patronage helped to encourage extraordinary achievements. The Augustan peace and the prosperity that accompanied it brought about the revival of patriotic literature that hailed the triumphs of Rome, its people, and its new leader.

Augustus gave the southern Italian poet Horace sufficient property to allow him the leisure to write. Horace's most famous poetic works, the Odes (23 BC), often drew on Greek verse in praising love, wine, and the simple life of the countryside. He turned common ideas into great lyric poetry by expressing them with exquisite form and verbal elegance. Horace believed that the Roman people and his own work were eternal. 'I will not entirely die,' he aptly wrote, 'since my poetry will be a monument more lasting than bronze.'



In Horace, as in Virgil, we trace the power of Greece. Most of his ablest productions are adaptations from Greek models. Yet all that he has written is so enlivened by his own wisdom, and keen love of the beautiful and the truth that no one can miss the flavour and the charm imparted by his creative personality. With consummate skill he brings out in his lyrics, the music of Greece in the language of Rome. The stately pomp of the Latin tongue, solemn and grand as the tread of its legions, is suffused with rare delicacy and grace in all the works of Horace. No one who ever lived knew so well how and when to say the most delicate, the most good-natured, and wisest things. Like all the great poets, Horace reflects his age as well as moulds it; and yet he is not for an age but for all time, since he deals with principles of action, which recur wherever civilized men are found. He opens for us the doors of the common Roman houses, as they were when Virgil and Pollio walked in company along the long white street in Rome, and yet his counsels are as fresh and relevant as if he conversed with us today under the portico of a Madras Club or a New Delhi Hotel.

This wisest poet of the golden age of Augustus - who as he could survey wealth and luxury without envy, so he could dispense with it without regret - sprang from the ranks of the people. His father was a freed slave, who had purchased a small farm near Venusium in Apulia, where the poet was born on December 8th, 65 BC. His father conferred upon him liberal education. His father took him to Rome to have him instructed in every branch of culture. When he was 20, in accordance with the then prevailing custom, he was sent to Athens, which was then the capital of literature and philosophy, as Rome was of political power.

In 44 BC Julius Caesar was assassinated. Brutus went to Athens with the view of securing the military support of the young patricians there. At his instance, Horace went to command one of the legions of the Roman Republic. It soon became clear that his fit weapon was the pen and not the sword. Brutus was defeated at Philippi and Horace withdrew from the battlefield. On returning to Rome, he found his father was dead and his property was confiscated. When he was in difficult economic position, he came out with satirical verse. It was during this time he penned the following lines:

Bated in spirit and with pinions clipped,

Of all the means my father left me stripped,

Want stared me in the face, so then and there

I took to scribbling verse in sheer despair.

Some of the satirical verses written by Horace during this difficult time were charged with a bitterness which was little less than merciless, creating life-long enemies, while their recall or remembrance meant a sigh of pain.

Horace excels most as a poet when he assumes the dignity of a patriot. His odes throb with a grandeur of music when he exercises the charm of poesy to open the dim eyes of rulers to the majesty of justice or to allay the dangerous passions of the people or to plead for the safety of the Roman Empire. He paid tribute to his country in a famous poem called 'The Ship of State'. This phrase has become now a part of all the languages of the world. Walt Whitman in 1865 wrote a poem called 'The Ship of State': 'Sail on! Oh! Ship of State, Sail on! Oh! Union strong and great! Humanity with all its hopes and fears is hanging breathless on thy fate!' Can any one doubt that Walt Whitman was influenced by his Roman ancestor who lived 1900 years before him?

Horace enjoyed the friendship of Augustus Caesar, the great Roman Emperor. Augustus Caesar has been immortalized in Horace's poetry. All monuments to Augustus Caesar are either defaced or buried. But in the verse of Horace or Virgil, he enjoys a fame, which is immortal.

Horace knew his limitations and did not seek to transcend them. His natural good sense prevented him from attempting too high a flight in poesy. He does not hope to rival the mighty masters on whose works his genius has been fed. Hence he writes:

To think of adding to the mighty throng

Of the great paragons of Grecian song

Were no less mad an act than his who should

Into a forest carry logs of wood.

On all his works, however, we find the stamp of a great poetic artist. His odes and epistles in Latin are beautifully finished. Nothing which is slight or slovenly comes from his pen. It is not surprising that Horace has never lacked an audience for the last 2000 years. Dante, Dryden, Montaigne, Chesterfield, Wordsworth, Gladstone, H G Wells and several other great men have acknowledged the magical power of his words. Gladstone, the great British Prime Minister often turned aside from the cares of State to master the reflective wisdom of Horace and to weave it into rhythmic music for his English readers.

In 39 B C Varius and Virgil introduced Horace to Maecenas in Rome, who was a great patron of men of letters and an aristocrat. He was a Minister in the Roman Government. The warm and close friendship between Maecenas and Horace is one of the most beautiful in the annals of literature. As a personal tribute to the poetic genius of Horace, Maecenas gave him a splendid gift in the shape of that Sabine Farm with a beautiful bungalow on the top of a hill set in beautiful and natural surroundings. It was 30 miles from Rome. It was sheltered in a quiet spot amidst the song of birds and the gleam of waters.

In many a graceful stanza Horace highlighted the duties of a worthy citizen and a true patriot. He rose to the truly Roman conception that every noble life should be consecrated in some way or other to the service of the State. In his pleadings, amidst the vices of a corrupt and decaying empire, for purer and simpler living he is specially attractive. A notable feature in his poetry is presented in those flashes of timeless wisdom into which is frequently packed a wealth of experience with regard to the proper conduct of life. He is not just a poet. He is also a great philosopher. He accomplished small but continual miracles in tremendous trifles, in the merging of the inane and the inexplicable, the lost humour, the suppressed trepidation and the unspoken anguish. His was the genius of a style, the biography of a mood, the slice of life - which gave rise to a new and enlarging literature of sensibility in Rome.

His most important and lasting work is 'The Epistle to the Pisos', or 'Art of Poetry'. Its interest and value are considerably enhanced in view of the fact that it is the only complete example of literary criticism that we have from any Roman writer in the classical age. The fact that critical activity in nearly all the countries of western Europe seems to have been ushered in by the translation of Horace's Art of Poetry into the vernacular tongues is yet another proof of the popularity of this work.

The death of his generous friend and Minister Maecenas took place on 2 November 8 BC. On the 27th day of the same month Horace also passed away. All that was mortal of the great poet was buried in the Esquiline Mount, near the Tomb of Maecenas, and the Emperor Augustus Caesar erected a noble monument in honour of the man whose genius had shed a more brilliant lustre on his reign than all his munificent patronage of the arts and all his splendid military victories.

(The writer is a retired IAS officer)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GO TOP<http://newstodaynet.com/16jul/ss1.htm#pagetop> / HOME<http://newstodaynet.com/160705.htm> / OTHER SPECIAL STORIES<http://newstodaynet.com/160705.htm#SPECIAL STORY>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

salve Romans FYI
Vale
TGP

Press Release Source: The History Channel

New Special on the History Channel, Rome: Engineering an Empire
Thursday July 14, 5:28 pm ET
On The History Channel (R)
"The Things That Made Them Great Were the Same Things That Brought Them Down."
September 5, 2005 at 9:00 P.M. ET/PT


LOS ANGELES, July 14 /PRNewswire/ -- For more than 500 years, Rome was the most powerful and advanced civilization the world had ever known, ruled by visionaries and tyrants whose accomplishments ranged from awe-inspiring to deplorable. But the primary elements of Rome's rise to power were its consistently masterful use of engineering and labor, used to build cities and works of architecture that still stand today. Go inside the remarkably advanced culture of the Roman Empire as The History Channel presents ROME: ENGINEERING AN EMPIRE, premiering Monday, September 5th at 9:00 p.m. ET/PT.
The death of Julius Caesar, who found himself on the receiving end of twenty-three stab wounds on the floor of the Roman Senate in 44 B.C., touched off a 600-year succession of Roman dictators that was a historical roller coaster ride of extraordinary proportions. These men pushed the Roman borders past unseen frontiers, built its cities to heights never before seen, and installed astonishing public works such as sewers, running water and heated pools. But the drive for power and growth wrought enemies, decay, and betrayal as well as Rome often saw its leadership fall to the unfit hands of men who murdered enemies, oppressed citizens, and even burned Rome to the ground. ROME: ENGINEERING AN EMPIRE chronicles the rich history of the Roman Empire from the reign of Caesar in 44 B.C. to its eventual fall around 537 AD, detailing the remarkable works of architecture and technology in between that helped create Rome's indelible mark on the world.


Highlights include:

* Digital re-creations of some of Rome's greatest engineering feats,
beginning with Caesar's bridge across the Rhine River, a 1,000-foot
long wooden passageway built in just ten days to allow thousands of
troops to cross the river and conquer Germania.

* Shocking tales of the brutality of some of Rome's most notorious
leaders, including the teenage emperor Nero, whose reign included:
presenting the severed head of an ex-wife to a future wife as a gift;
kicking a wife to death while she was pregnant; murdering his mother;
and allegedly burning much of Rome to the ground to make room for a new
palace.

* The revolutionary Roman aqueduct system, which provided 200 million
gallons of running water per day into Rome (as much as was provided to
New York City as recently as 1985), and a sewer system built 2,500
years ago that still functions today.

* The creation of the Roman Highway, or Via Appia, the first modern
highway in the world and the passageway that laid the foundation for
Roman expansion.

* Explanation of one of the main secrets of Rome's architectural
proficiency: the use of durable, waterproof concrete that still
sustains many of its key structures today.

* Detailed renderings and explanations of the masterworks of some of
Rome's most prolific emperors, including: Vespasian's Roman Colosseum,
which featured a retractable roof; Trajan's Roman Forum, featuring a
160-store shopping mall; Hadrian's Wall, protecting Rome's borders in
Brittania, and his Pantheon, which stood as the largest unsupported
concrete dome on earth; and Caracalla's Baths, a magnificent recreation
area the size of a small town that featured, among other things,
several heated pools.

* Historians' ideas on the fall of Rome, ranging from theories that the
population was subject to large-scale lead poisoning to the notion that
the empire simply grew too big and complex to be centrally governed
anymore.
Ancient Rome was an empire of architectural brilliance and modernized culture that still affects the world today. Its story is also one of the violence, vindictiveness, greed, and ego that contributed to its ultimate fall. ROME: ENGINEERING AN EMPIRE presents the full picture of one of the truly rich civilizations of all time.

ROME: ENGINEERING AN EMPIRE was produced for The History Channel by KPI. Executive Producer for The History Channel is Dolores Gavin.

Now reaching more than 88 million Nielsen subscribers, The History Channel®, "Where the Past Comes Alive®," brings history to life in a powerful manner and provides an inviting place where people experience history personally and connect their own lives to the great lives and events of the past. In 2004, The History Channel earned five News and Documentary Emmy® Awards and previously received the prestigious Governor's Award from the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences for the network's "Save Our History®" campaign dedicated to historic preservation and history education. The History Channel web site is located at http://www.HistoryChannel.com<http://www.historychannel.com/>. Press Only: For more information and photography please visit us on the web at http://www.historychannelpress.com<http://www.historychannelpress.com/>.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: The History Channel

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Romans FYI

From David Meadow's Explorer

Handy little lexicon of Latin (and Greek) phrases:

http://www.sacklunch.net/Latin/index.html<about:blank>

Audio files for Wheelock:

http://www.wheelockslatin.com/chapters/one/index.html<about:blank>




Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 7/31/2005 6:26:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
richmal@... writes:
It is logically impossible for the stars and the planets to revolve
around the earth as we all know that the earth is flat and is carried
on the back of 4 elephants which in turn stand on the back of the
Great A'Tun which is a turtle approx 10000 miles in diameter.
Oh please. It is an orb supported by a tree, which a serpent is slowly
gnawing through. Of course they can revolve around it.

Q. Fabius Maximus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]