No plotting against the emperor this time! or was that
your name sake? :-]
--- Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
<legio_vi_tribunis@...> wrote:

> Salvette,
>
> We thank you all for the encouragement. I spoke

with my

> armorer/blacksmith and got new ideas from him, then

myself and the

> better half went down to Caesars and had my picture

taken with the

> emperor and cleopatra....wait thats not the

important part. Actually

> I spoke with the PR manager (Pete Rose and Billy Dee

Williams were

> there). After a short chat, I have an appointment

next week with the

> PR committee to discuss this idea. Apparently they

tried something in

> the past but had no one who was willing to do the

leg work. So it

> seems were off and running. I'll keep you all

updated as we go.

>
> Marcus Sejanus Marcellus
>
>
>

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

Salvete, omnes.

I've been fairly quiet for a while regarding the recent threads on
this list, as most of them are reiterations of old arguments or
discussions in which I feel I could add little.

However, having reviewed a few of the prospective leges, I've come to
a conclusion that they are, in general, redundant. And, for lack of a
better term, the wording is indeed "sloppy". I have to agree
whole-heartedly with Caesar on this.

Not only does this further complicate the mess our tabularium is, but
it leaves the interpretation of the law open to numerous loopholes.
Anyone who's had a long debate with Cordus, or done work within the
tabularium can see how this could further complicate things.

I do have a question; who in the Censor's office (or otherwise) is
writing these leges? As far as vocabularly, grammar, and general legal
clarity go, they should consult with someone as well-versed as Cordus
or Metellus before drafting them into a proposed law. These laws are
almost "conversational" in their language, and should be voted against
(at least until they undergo revision) on that basis alone. And yes,
Scholastica, I did understand when you indicated Italian is their
first language. Still, they should consult someone well-versed in both
legal matters and competent in the English language before putting
them to a vote.

Citizens, use discretion and reason when casting your ballot, and
personally decide which laws might present further legal frustration
in the future, and if they do, if the concern outweighs a [possible]
immediate need for them to come into effect.

As to this particular law affecting moderation, the language is far
too broad, redundant, and incomplete. In addition, some parts of the
lex are not even necessary, while others dictate criteria and courses
of action that are so vague as that many of you would probably be
forcefully moderated on an almost daily basis.

I kindly refer all the citizens to Caesar's original critique of the
document, and encourage you to read through it completely. Scholastica
does make a few valid points, but does little to actually address the
points of contention.

Obviously, I'm not going to detail the points of my concern and repeat
most of what Caesar said. But I will provide this hypothetical example:

As for the prohibition of discussing alcohol or portraying 'excessive'
drinking in a "postive light"... What about the sacred act of sharing
bier and mead among fellow Heathens if you prescribe to Asatru belief?
Should these people be moderated for discussing, openly and honestly,
their religious beliefs or the events of a gathering at which alcohol
was consumed in this manner? The same goes for devotees of Bacchus/Liber.

The definitions of what consitutes as an offense, what is "polite",
and the prescribed method of avoiding conflicts in discussion are
lacking, and potentially confusing and I daresay might even disrupt
the usual flow of conversation on the Main List.

Further, I believe the moral points of this document (except for those
refering explicity to the Yahoo! list guidelines) smack of an ethical
character that is, to some extent, incompatible with a Roman
worldview. This should be seriously looked at, and it should be seen
that we don't try to superimpose the morality derived from various
religions in our macronational world which are at odds with the
classical values we are trying to renew.

Again, I acknowlege the intended contribution and work put into this
document, and the points made by Scholastica, but I think they fall
short of something we could use without a great deal of future
conflict in interpretation.

I urge citizens to vote against this Lex.

Valete,
L.M. Kaelus

Any law that limits what we can say should be shot or
shouted down! Moderating the ML more than it already
is is the mark of an oligarchy that only wants their
topics heard. Is that what the Quirites want? I think
not. The very idea of censorship by choice is not only
communist, its un Roman and boring!
--- Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <xkaelusx@...>
wrote:

>
> Salvete, omnes.
>
> I've been fairly quiet for a while regarding the

recent threads on

> this list, as most of them are reiterations of old

arguments or

> discussions in which I feel I could add little.
>
> However, having reviewed a few of the prospective

leges, I've come to

> a conclusion that they are, in general, redundant.

And, for lack of a

> better term, the wording is indeed "sloppy". I have

to agree

> whole-heartedly with Caesar on this.
>
> Not only does this further complicate the mess our

tabularium is, but

> it leaves the interpretation of the law open to

numerous loopholes.

> Anyone who's had a long debate with Cordus, or done

work within the

> tabularium can see how this could further complicate

things.

>
> I do have a question; who in the Censor's office (or

otherwise) is

> writing these leges? As far as vocabularly, grammar,

and general legal

> clarity go, they should consult with someone as

well-versed as Cordus

> or Metellus before drafting them into a proposed

law. These laws are

> almost "conversational" in their language, and

should be voted against

> (at least until they undergo revision) on that basis

alone. And yes,

> Scholastica, I did understand when you indicated

Italian is their

> first language. Still, they should consult someone

well-versed in both

> legal matters and competent in the English language

before putting

> them to a vote.
>
> Citizens, use discretion and reason when casting

your ballot, and

> personally decide which laws might present further

legal frustration

> in the future, and if they do, if the concern

outweighs a [possible]

> immediate need for them to come into effect.
>
> As to this particular law affecting moderation, the

language is far

> too broad, redundant, and incomplete. In addition,

some parts of the

> lex are not even necessary, while others dictate

criteria and courses

> of action that are so vague as that many of you

would probably be

> forcefully moderated on an almost daily basis.
>
> I kindly refer all the citizens to Caesar's original

critique of the

> document, and encourage you to read through it

completely. Scholastica

> does make a few valid points, but does little to

actually address the

> points of contention.
>
> Obviously, I'm not going to detail the points of my

concern and repeat

> most of what Caesar said. But I will provide this

hypothetical example:

>
> As for the prohibition of discussing alcohol or

portraying 'excessive'

> drinking in a "postive light"... What about the

sacred act of sharing

> bier and mead among fellow Heathens if you prescribe

to Asatru belief?

> Should these people be moderated for discussing,

openly and honestly,

> their religious beliefs or the events of a gathering

at which alcohol

> was consumed in this manner? The same goes for

devotees of Bacchus/Liber.

>
> The definitions of what consitutes as an offense,

what is "polite",

> and the prescribed method of avoiding conflicts in

discussion are

> lacking, and potentially confusing and I daresay

might even disrupt

> the usual flow of conversation on the Main List.
>
> Further, I believe the moral points of this document

(except for those

> refering explicity to the Yahoo! list guidelines)

smack of an ethical

> character that is, to some extent, incompatible with

a Roman

> worldview. This should be seriously looked at, and

it should be seen

> that we don't try to superimpose the morality

derived from various

> religions in our macronational world which are at

odds with the

> classical values we are trying to renew.
>
> Again, I acknowlege the intended contribution and

work put into this

> document, and the points made by Scholastica, but I

think they fall

> short of something we could use without a great deal

of future

> conflict in interpretation.
>
> I urge citizens to vote against this Lex.
>
> Valete,
> L.M. Kaelus
>
>
>
>

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

Salvete Omnes,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, raymond fuentes
<praefectus2324@y...> wrote:

>
> Any law that limits what we can say should be shot or
> shouted down! Moderating the ML more than it already
> is is the mark of an oligarchy that only wants their
> topics heard. Is that what the Quirites want? I think
> not. The very idea of censorship by choice is not only
> communist, its un Roman and boring!

I agree completely with the arguments presented against this law by
all those who are opposed to it, and I entreat the citizens to vote "NO".

This law is an illustration of the strong tendency of the modern
states, like France, to control the thought, the expression and the
behavior of the citizens to make them more flexible: such a law makes
disappear the personal liability for each one, establishes an
artificial, official and conventionnal speech, often stupid, and which
masks realities; this law is, thus, in no case, in the spirit of the
Romans.

Nova-Roma should not be let contaminate by the worst aspects of the
modern society: we are there, on the contrary, to regenerate this one
with the ancient virtues, among them are at the forefront freedom and
responsibility.

Valete,

Lucius Rutilius Minervalis
Aedilician Quaestor

C. Equitius Cato quirites S.P.D.

Salvete omnes.

Domini et dominae, an earlier post supporting this proposed lex makes
several points, which all boil down to a sort of blanket "well, people
should be forcibly taught how to speak correctly --- and I'll decide
what is correct for them".

The author uses the words "sensible", "order", "civility", "proper",
"appropriate", "civilized", and (unfortunately) "ridiculous" as if
every single one of these words has a meaning that is unquestionably
absolute, precise, and crystal clear --- but that in fact can each be
defined in almost limitless ways.

"I'll know it when I see it" may be an ingenious phrase, but it is
certainly no basis for a lex. Leave it to the praetors.

I urge you to vote NO on this proposed lex.

Valete,

Cato

Salvete Omnes,

I agree with all the posts against this lex. I do not think that more censorship on the
ML will do any good as what is proper or not is too subjective.

However, I would like to stress out that too many posts are non Roman related. This is
time consuming for the magistrates.(although this is getting better by now, thanks to the
polls)
I suggest that a citizen willing to post a message obviously non Roman related to mention
it in the subject line. This is quick, effective, protect our freedom of speech and
legally would allow a magistrate to push the delete button right away.

I hope this proposal will be considered.

Valete,

Sextus Apollonius Scipio
Propraetor Galliae

--- gaiusequitiuscato <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:

> C. Equitius Cato quirites S.P.D.
>
> Salvete omnes.
>
> Domini et dominae, an earlier post supporting this proposed lex makes
> several points, which all boil down to a sort of blanket "well, people
> should be forcibly taught how to speak correctly --- and I'll decide
> what is correct for them".
>
> The author uses the words "sensible", "order", "civility", "proper",
> "appropriate", "civilized", and (unfortunately) "ridiculous" as if
> every single one of these words has a meaning that is unquestionably
> absolute, precise, and crystal clear --- but that in fact can each be
> defined in almost limitless ways.
>
> "I'll know it when I see it" may be an ingenious phrase, but it is
> certainly no basis for a lex. Leave it to the praetors.
>
> I urge you to vote NO on this proposed lex.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
>

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

Salve Romans

Sextus Apollonius Scipio point is well taken. While I firmly believe
that our forum should be open to almost any topic and while I still
oppose the adoption of the list guidelines as a Lex I can see how
hundreds of post can make the life of a magistrate more time
consuming.

I do not think it is too much to ask that the words "Off Topic" be
placed in the subject heading for any post that is absolutely non
Roman or non Nova Roman.

If elected Praetor I would be willing to discuss, with my colleague,
adding this as a moderate refinement of the forum guidelines .

What do you think?

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Candidate for Praetor
Fortuna Favet Fortibus



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Sextus Apollonius Scipio
<scipio_apollonius@y...> wrote:

>
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> I agree with all the posts against this lex. I do not think that

more censorship on the

> ML will do any good as what is proper or not is too subjective.
>
> However, I would like to stress out that too many posts are non

Roman related. This is

> time consuming for the magistrates.(although this is getting

better by now, thanks to the

> polls)
> I suggest that a citizen willing to post a message obviously non

Roman related to mention

> it in the subject line. This is quick, effective, protect our

freedom of speech and

> legally would allow a magistrate to push the delete button right

away.

>
> I hope this proposal will be considered.
>
> Valete,
>
> Sextus Apollonius Scipio
> Propraetor Galliae
>
> --- gaiusequitiuscato <mlcinnyc@g...> wrote:
>
> > C. Equitius Cato quirites S.P.D.
> >
> > Salvete omnes.
> >
> > Domini et dominae, an earlier post supporting this proposed lex

makes

> > several points, which all boil down to a sort of blanket "well,

people

> > should be forcibly taught how to speak correctly --- and I'll

decide

> > what is correct for them".
> >
> > The author uses the

words "sensible", "order", "civility", "proper",

> > "appropriate", "civilized", and (unfortunately) "ridiculous" as

if

> > every single one of these words has a meaning that is

unquestionably

> > absolute, precise, and crystal clear --- but that in fact can

each be

> > defined in almost limitless ways.
> >
> > "I'll know it when I see it" may be an ingenious phrase, but it

is

> > certainly no basis for a lex. Leave it to the praetors.
> >
> > I urge you to vote NO on this proposed lex.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

OSD C. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

Hodie est ante diem III Idus Decembris; haec dies nefastus publicus est.

"The Samnites clearly saw that instead of the peace which they had so
arrogantly dictated, a most bitter war had commenced. They not only
had a foreboding of all that was coming but they almost saw it with
their eyes; now when it was too late they began to view with approval
the two alternatives which the elder Pontius had suggested. They saw
that they had fallen between the two, and by adopting a middle course
had exchanged the secure possession of victory for an insecure and
doubtful peace. They realised that they had lost the chance of doing
either a kindness or an injury, and would have to fight with those
whom they might have got rid of for ever as enemies or secured for
ever as friends. And though no battle had yet given either side the
advantage, men's feelings had so changed that Postumius enjoyed a
greater reputation amongst the Romans for his surrender than Pontius
possessed amongst the Samnites for his bloodless victory. The Romans
regarded the possibility of war as involving the certainty of victory,
whilst the Samnites looked upon the renewal of hostilities by the
Romans as equivalent to their own defeat. In the meantime, Satricum
revolted to the Samnites. (The latter made a sudden descent on
Fregellae and succeeded in occupying it in the night, assisted, there
is no doubt, by the Satricans. Mutual fear kept both the Samnites and
the Fregellans quiet till daylight, with the return of light the
battle began. For some time the Fregellans held their ground, for they
were fighting for their hearths and homes and the noncombatant
population assisted them from the roofs of the houses. At length the
assailants gained the advantage by adopting a ruse. A proclamation was
made that all who laid down their arms should depart unhurt, and the
defenders did not interfere with the crier who made it. Now that there
were hopes of safety they fought with less energy and in all
directions arms were thrown away. Some, however, showed more
determination and made their way fully armed through the opposite
gate. Their courage proved a better protection than the timid
credulity of the others, for these were hemmed in by the Samnites with
a ring of fire, and in spite of their cries for mercy were burnt to
death. After arranging their respective commands, the consuls took the
field. Papirius marched into Apulia as far as Luceria, where the
equites who had been given as hostages at Caudium were interned;
Publilius remained in Samnium to oppose the legions who had been at
Caudium. His presence made the Samnites uncertain how to act; they
could not march to Luceria for fear of exposing themselves to a rear
attack, nor did they feel satisfied to remain where they were, as
Luceria might in the meantime be lost. They decided that the best
course would be to try their fortune and hazard a battle with
Publilius." - Livy, History of Rome 9.12


Today is a celebration of the Agonalia, during which the rex sacrorum
would offer as sacrifices animals which had never been yoked, usually
a ram. Although the precise meaning of this observance has been lost,
Smith's Dictionary states: "The ram was the usual victim presented to
the guardian gods of the state, and the rex sacrificulus and the regia
could be employed only for such ceremonies as were connected with the
highest gods and affected the weal of the whole state."


Today is also the Septimontium, which celebrates the inclusion of the
final Hill of Rome, the Colline, bringing the total to seven.
The Seven Hills of Rome east of the Tiber form the heart of Rome. They
figure prominently into Roman mythology, religion, and politics; the
Seven Hills are: the Palatine Hill (Collis Palatinus), the Aventine
Hill (Collis Aventinus), the Capitoline Hill (Collis Capitolinus), the
Quirinal Hill (Collis Quirinalis), the Viminal Hill (Collis
Viminalis), the Esquiline Hill (Collis Esquilinus), and the Caelian
Hill (Caelius Mons; Collis Caelius).

King Numa Pompilius established the festival of the Septimontium that
was celebrated on the 11th of December by doing the round of the
graves of the Argei on some hills. The Argei were the heroes that
according to the legend took possession of some hills of future Rome
from the Siculi and Liguri. There are different versions, but it
seems probable that the festival was celebrated on the three rises of
the Palatine (Germalus or Cermalus, Palatium and Velia), on the three
ones of the Exquilinus (Fagutal, Oppius, cispius) and on the Caelius.

The Septimontium was originally a festival of the people who lived in
those places, and this should prove that it dated back to an
intermediate period, between the epoch in which only the Palatine was
inhabitated, and later times in which people started to occupy other
hills. King Servius Tullius, who made a new constitution for the city,
extended the participation to the Septimontium to the Sabine
inhabitants of the Quirinalis, but the feast remained a memory of the
"old" palatinal Rome, as distinguished from its Sabine part.



This day is also sacred to Ianus, the god of Beginnings, and is a
festival day. Ianus was the porter of heaven and the guardian deity of
gates. He is commonly represented with two heads because every door
looks both ways. There were numerous temples to Ianus in Rome, and in
wartime the gates of the principle temples of Ianus were always open,
while in times of peace the doors were closed but not locked.


Valete bene!

Cato






SOURCES

Livy, Agonalia
(http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Agonalia.html),
Septimontium (http://www.the-colosseum.net/architecture/septimontium.htm)

Salvete Omnes,

I agree; Scipio's proposal and yours are much better solutions than a
law,for all the reasons you say !

Valete,

Lucius Rutilius Minervalis
Aedilician Quaestor

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy P. Gallagher"
<spqr753@m...> wrote:

>
> Salve Romans
>
> Sextus Apollonius Scipio point is well taken. While I firmly believe
> that our forum should be open to almost any topic and while I still
> oppose the adoption of the list guidelines as a Lex I can see how
> hundreds of post can make the life of a magistrate more time
> consuming.
>
> I do not think it is too much to ask that the words "Off Topic" be
> placed in the subject heading for any post that is absolutely non
> Roman or non Nova Roman.
>
> If elected Praetor I would be willing to discuss, with my colleague,
> adding this as a moderate refinement of the forum guidelines .
>
> What do you think?
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Candidate for Praetor
> Fortuna Favet Fortibus
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Sextus Apollonius Scipio
> <scipio_apollonius@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete Omnes,
> >
> > I agree with all the posts against this lex. I do not think that
> more censorship on the
> > ML will do any good as what is proper or not is too subjective.
> >
> > However, I would like to stress out that too many posts are non
> Roman related. This is
> > time consuming for the magistrates.(although this is getting
> better by now, thanks to the
> > polls)
> > I suggest that a citizen willing to post a message obviously non
> Roman related to mention
> > it in the subject line. This is quick, effective, protect our
> freedom of speech and
> > legally would allow a magistrate to push the delete button right
> away.
> >
> > I hope this proposal will be considered.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Sextus Apollonius Scipio
> > Propraetor Galliae
> >
> > --- gaiusequitiuscato <mlcinnyc@g...> wrote:
> >
> > > C. Equitius Cato quirites S.P.D.
> > >
> > > Salvete omnes.
> > >
> > > Domini et dominae, an earlier post supporting this proposed lex
> makes
> > > several points, which all boil down to a sort of blanket "well,
> people
> > > should be forcibly taught how to speak correctly --- and I'll
> decide
> > > what is correct for them".
> > >
> > > The author uses the
> words "sensible", "order", "civility", "proper",
> > > "appropriate", "civilized", and (unfortunately) "ridiculous" as
> if
> > > every single one of these words has a meaning that is
> unquestionably
> > > absolute, precise, and crystal clear --- but that in fact can
> each be
> > > defined in almost limitless ways.
> > >
> > > "I'll know it when I see it" may be an ingenious phrase, but it
> is
> > > certainly no basis for a lex. Leave it to the praetors.
> > >
> > > I urge you to vote NO on this proposed lex.
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>

A. Apollonius M. Minucio omnibusque sal.

Not to worry - no harm done! Many thanks for making
the correction so quickly. :)



___________________________________________________________
NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/

Salvete omnes,

Sometimes criticism or negative attitudes can be a good thing or
work in one's favour. I was reflecting the other day how I got into
Nova Roma. I belonged to an MSN Roman history group that several
dozen people. One day, I believe Marcus Cassius let the group know
about NR there but I gave it little thought at the time until
another member of the list came on with quite the negative speal on
NR. He said essentially Rome was Rome, had its day but the past was
the past. He politely equated Nova Romans to those frustrated
Saturday afternoon commando types who really could never be Roman as
Rome was known. He said the citizens and administration were
probably a big group of souls with not enough to do in the real
world or too much free time on their hands.

Well as they say, negative publicity as in books and movies only
enchances more curiosity so off I went to visit the Nova Roman web
pages and I stumbled into the ML. I got interested and addicted and
never looked back ever since. As for my old MSN group? Ah, you are
lucky to see one posting a month, in most cases from mail order
brides to wild gals peddling their web cam rear ends!

Regards,

Quintus Suetonius Paulinus

Salve Romans

FYI

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

[snip]
================================================================
ANCIENT GREECE AND ROME (AND CLASSICS)
================================================================
Five Hellenistic sarcophagi were found in Turkey this week:

http://www.basilicatanet.it/news/article.asp?id=381923<about:blank> (Italian)

Report on the season's excavations of the lower city of
Amathous (Cyprus):

http://tinyurl.com/do6gz<about:blank> (Press release)
http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=23200&cat_id=1<about:blank>

A number of Roman sarcophagi were found in a hypogeum in Rome:

http://tinyurl.com/9d54e<about:blank> (ANSA)
http://tinyurl.com/7zw6e<about:blank> (Herald)
http://qn.quotidiano.net/art/2005/12/06/5393852<about:blank> (Italian)
http://www.wantedinrome.com/news/news.php?id_n=1225<about:blank>
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/3515649.html<about:blank>

Another Roman brick factory has been excavated, this time near
Emilia Romagna:

http://tinyurl.com/e4las<about:blank> (ANSA)
http://tinyurl.com/c2jsg<about:blank> (LA Times)

Hints about Plotinopolis:

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/news/content.asp?aid=63985<about:blank>

Greece honoured various 'schools' digging in Greece:

http://tinyurl.com/b4c99<about:blank> (AFP via Yahoo)
http://tinyurl.com/dw5qy<about:blank> (Peninsula)

Bulgaria has opened up one of those Thracian tombs to the public:

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=56111<about:blank>

An awfully long piece on Socrates used to make a two-sentence
point:

http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/religion/ci_3291944<about:blank>

One of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography biographies this
week was of Claudius (not sure how much longer it will be up):

http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/lotw/<about:blank>

The importance of Classics:

http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2005/12/6/115439/943<about:blank>

Review of Joy Connolly's Catullus translation:

http://www.bookforum.com/connolly.html<about:blank>

Review of Robin Lane Fox, *The Classical World*:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-1910955,00.html<about:blank>

Review of Fik Meijer, *The Gladiators: History's Most Dangerous
Sport*:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/books/09book.html<about:blank>

Recent reviews from BMCR:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/recent.html<about:blank>

Recent reviews from Scholia:

http://www.classics.und.ac.za/reviews/2006.htm<about:blank>

Visit our blog:

http://www.atrium-media.com/rogueclassicism<http://www.atrium-media.com/rogueclassicism>

================================================================
Explorator is Copyright (c) 2005 David Meadows. Feel free to
distribute these listings via email to your pals, students,
teachers, etc., but please include this copyright notice. These
links are not to be posted to any website by any means (whether
by direct posting or snagging from a usenet group or some other
email source) without my express written permission. I think it
is only right that I be made aware of public fora which are
making use of content gathered in Explorator. Thanks!
================================================================













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

Salve Gaius Minicius Paullus

Could you please send me your macro nation name as I need if for your tax records.


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Consular Quaestor

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

The Attachment off topic or OT to a non NR topic is
absolutely reasonable.
--- Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <pjtuloup@...>
wrote:

> Salvete Omnes,
>
> I agree; Scipio's proposal and yours are much better

solutions than a

> law,for all the reasons you say !
>
> Valete,
>
> Lucius Rutilius Minervalis
> Aedilician Quaestor
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy P.

Gallagher"

> <spqr753@m...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Romans
> >
> > Sextus Apollonius Scipio point is well taken.

While I firmly believe

> > that our forum should be open to almost any topic

and while I still

> > oppose the adoption of the list guidelines as a

Lex I can see how

> > hundreds of post can make the life of a magistrate

more time

> > consuming.
> >
> > I do not think it is too much to ask that the

words "Off Topic" be

> > placed in the subject heading for any post that is

absolutely non

> > Roman or non Nova Roman.
> >
> > If elected Praetor I would be willing to discuss,

with my colleague,

> > adding this as a moderate refinement of the forum

guidelines .

> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > Candidate for Praetor
> > Fortuna Favet Fortibus
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Sextus

Apollonius Scipio

> > <scipio_apollonius@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salvete Omnes,
> > >
> > > I agree with all the posts against this lex. I

do not think that

> > more censorship on the
> > > ML will do any good as what is proper or not is

too subjective.

> > >
> > > However, I would like to stress out that too

many posts are non

> > Roman related. This is
> > > time consuming for the magistrates.(although

this is getting

> > better by now, thanks to the
> > > polls)
> > > I suggest that a citizen willing to post a

message obviously non

> > Roman related to mention
> > > it in the subject line. This is quick,

effective, protect our

> > freedom of speech and
> > > legally would allow a magistrate to push the

delete button right

> > away.
> > >
> > > I hope this proposal will be considered.
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > >
> > > Sextus Apollonius Scipio
> > > Propraetor Galliae
> > >
> > > --- gaiusequitiuscato <mlcinnyc@g...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > C. Equitius Cato quirites S.P.D.
> > > >
> > > > Salvete omnes.
> > > >
> > > > Domini et dominae, an earlier post supporting

this proposed lex

> > makes
> > > > several points, which all boil down to a sort

of blanket "well,

> > people
> > > > should be forcibly taught how to speak

correctly --- and I'll

> > decide
> > > > what is correct for them".
> > > >

=== Message Truncated ===


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

On 12/11/05, raymond fuentes <praefectus2324@...> wrote:

>
> Any law that limits what we can say should be shot or
> shouted down! Moderating the ML more than it already
> is is the mark of an oligarchy that only wants their
> topics heard. Is that what the Quirites want? I think
> not. The very idea of censorship by choice is not only
> communist, its un Roman and boring!

Don't faint but actually I totally agree with you on this.

Flavia Lucilla Merula


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

Salve Modianus,

you're correct, maybe we should had to propose the laws before but
many reasons incurred.
First of all you have to consider that our laws were written,
checked and discussed with many magistrates correcting errors,
releases, form, etc. They're the result of an hard job during the
last year.

Secondly we (I suppose Consul Laenas and Praetor Perusianus too) had
the laws ready for september/october. Unluckly the former webmaster
resigned and we needed an official curator to organize the
votations. The burochracy for the appointment of a new webmaster was
long and puted us november, very soon to the annual elections.

In order to create no confusion in the Comitia, we prefered to
called them now.

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Consul



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@g...>
wrote:

>
> Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.
>
> This year within Nova Roma has seen little activity compared to

previous

> years. This being the case, WHY are so many laws being proposed

now with

> only a few weeks left in the year? There is a LOT to digest, and

only a few

> days for some of us to consider them before voting starts. What

is the

> reason for waiting until the last minute?
>
> I understand the legislation submitted by the Censors has been two

years in

> the making, and I am fully aware of the evolution of that

particular

> proposal. However, I don't see a reason to wait so long. I

understand we

> have been without a webmaster until just recently, but we did have

a

> webmaster for some time before his official resignation. Why does

it *seem*

> that everything is voted upon at the end of the year?
>
> I'm just curious why it all had to wait until the last minute.
>
> Valete:
>
> Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Equestria Iunia Laeca omnibus sal.

I have been offline for most of the past six weeks recovering from an
accident that impaired my vision. With the election upon us, I have come
online to stand in support of candidate Quintus Valerius Callidus for the
position of Magister Aranearius (webmaster).

I had the pleasure of meeting him in person at the last provincial event
held in Connecticut. We engaged in a lengthy discussion about web design
and Nova Roma. After spending a full day with him, I realized that his
extensive programming knowledge would be a valuable asset to the province.

I asked him to manage the provincial website without changing the site,
design, graphics and overall impression built by the original site designer.
Working thoughtfully within these guidelines, Quintus Valerius Callidus
devised a plan to improve accessibility allowing more browsers to view pages
in a uniform presentation, as well as streamlined the content management
system.

As my scribe, he has always performed his duties with an open mind and a
strict discipline for detail. His input has been critical on many
occasions. His dedication and enthusiasm for Nova Roma is only matched by
his love for programming.

I fully support Quintus Valerius Callidus. He is a candidate that I
consider not only a valued citizen, but also an ideal choice for the
position of webmaster.

Salve Paulinus,

> Proposed CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #1
>
> As the co-author of the current constitution provision (Article

IV) which is just one year old and reads

>
> "An office becomes vacant if the magistrate resigns or dies"
>
> I respectfully submit that this simpler language is better and

leaves less room for misinterpretation and removes all other
magistrate from the process if another official wishes to resign.
Any magistrate is free to ask others for advice but as the "gift" of
the people of Nova Roma he needs to submit his resignation to them
and no one else.

>
> A resignation once posted is an announcement that one has vacated

the office in question. The proposed change seems to be saying that
an announced resignation is not now legal when in fact it is.

>
> I respectfully request that you vote against this proposed change.

I very respect your opinion about but I have to recall you that one
of the point creating many problems at the begin of the year was the
interpratation of the article IV of the Costitution.
A more detailed paragraph should clarify better the roles of the
law about this matter forward the methods and details to it.

I don't see any problem or confusion or waste of time and efforts
modifying the article as proposed by me.

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar

Salve Cordus,

honestly I don't see why really the people shouldn't give their vote
(their own opinion) about the financial matters of this
organization. We're not talking here about the goals of the money,
the methods of investments, the fincial programs, etc. interesting
maybe less the citizens.
We're here involving all the citizens in a process requesting money
to them. Voting this lex by the comitia would mean permit to the
citizens to be directly involved in a situation where they pay
volunterly.

Secondly this law details all the method of payment, the sources and
the involvements with other rules.

Thirdly (but in my opinion the most important point) it finds a
solution against the problem of elected capite censi magistrates. In
fact we meet often citizen elected in december (when they were
assidui for the previous year) which don't pay their own taxes in
april of the next year.
Moving the tax-raising in september-october would permit us to elect
only assidui magistrates and avoid magistrates capite censi in april.

So I invite all the citizens to vote for this law recalling them
that IMHO voting NOT would mean vote against the volunteer taxation.

Valete
FAC


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:

>
> A. Apollonius omnibus sal.
>
> There's a large pile of legislation being put in front
> of us here, quirites. At the risk of (a) taking up a
> lot of bandwidth and (b) imagining that people are
> more interested in my opinion than they really are,
> I'm going to beg your indulgence while I go through
> each proposed lex in a separate message.
>
> The first the is lex Apula de tributis. This proposal
> concerns the annual tax (membership feee, tributum),
> the way it is calculated, the way it is levied, and so
> on. It largely builds on established practice, and at
> first reading I see nothing very objectionable about
> it.
>
> However, I urge you very strongly to vote NO to this
> proposal. In the ancient republic the legislative
> power of the populus was very broad, but it was
> subject to certain limitations. One of the most
> important of those limitations was that certain key
> areas of policy were left entirely in the hands of the
> senate and were *not* dealt with by legislation. The
> two most important areas of policy which were left to
> the senate were foreign policy and fiscal policy.
>
> There are very good reasons why this was done. The
> senate is the only body in the Roman republican
> constitution which is really suitable for taking a
> long view and managing policies which take effect over
> many years. Foreign and fiscal policies are the most
> obvious examples of areas in which long-term planning
> are crucial.
>
> Allowing people to vote for their own rate of taxation
> is self-evidently unwise. No one wants to be taxed.
> Taxation is something we put up with because we want
> the public treasury to spend money on things we
> support. If you want a sandwich, you pay the price of
> the sandwich. You can choose which sandwich you want,
> and you can take into account the price when you're
> choosing. But you don't get to choose the sandwich
> *and* the price. It's obvious. But if the comitia
> start legislating on tax-policy, that's exactly the
> situation we risk ending up with.
>
> The rate of taxation proposed in the lex Apula is a
> very reasonable one, and optional at that. But what
> if, as Nova Roma's activities and services expand, the
> treasury gets drained and the rate of taxation needs
> to be raised? Since the current rate will be fixed in
> a lex, it will only be possible to raise the rate with
> another lex. Have you ever tried asking people to vote
> for higher taxes? Not an easy task. There are a lot of
> people in Nova Roma at the moment who don't think
> there should be any taxes at all.
>
> And let's come back to the historical point. When did
> the Roman comitia first legislate concerning economic
> policy? It was during the tribunate of Ti. Gracchus in
> 133 - the year which is widely accepted as the
> beginning of the end for the Roman republic. It was a
> year in which many people from many different parts of
> the political spectrum did unconstitutional and
> unconscionable things. A tribune used his veto
> unconstitutionally; another tribune unconstitutionally
> deposed his colleague; in the end a tribune was
> murdered. It was a year in which almost every ancient
> rule which had sustained the repuyblic for hundreds of
> years was broken. And one of the things which was done
> in that terrible year was that the comitia were for
> the first time asked to legislate both on foreign
> policy and on fiscal policy. That is a very, very bad
> precedent.
>
> So, whether you agree with what this lex says or not,
> I urge you to vote NO. It should NOT be a lex. The
> comitia should NOT legislate on economic policy. The
> consul should NOT ask us to break one of the
> fundamental principles of the republican constitution,
> and when he asks us to do so we should NOT do it.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all

new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

>

Salve Cordus,

your suggestions are interesting, I'll study them before the begin
of the voting period. Thank you.

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:

>
> A. Apollonius omnibus sal.
>
> The last proposal brought forward for our
> consideration is the lex Apula de assiduis et capite
> censis.
>
> This is, by and large, a good proposal, and a sensible
> one. It tightens up the rules which encourage people
> to pay taxes, and in particular on the rules which
> require magistrates and other public servants to be
> assidui (tax-payers). However, it suffers from two
> flaws, one minor, one fatal.
>
> The first is, I think, merely an error of drafting.
> Article II says that:
>
> > No special
> > conditions shall be placed on assidui in regards to
> > their
> > placement
> > in centuries and tribes or their ability to run for
> > or hold
> > office.
>
> The problem with this is that it would unintentionally
> destroy the current system of giving citizens with
> more century-points greater voting-power in the
> comitia centuriata. If "no special conditions" are
> placed on assidui "in regards to their placement in
> centuries", then it follows that all assidui must be
> placed equally in centuries without discrimination.
> But in order for our system to function it is
> fundamental that citizens with more century-points are
> placed in higher centuries and that the higher
> centuries contain fewer citizens than the lower
> centuries. This system exists to replicate the
> historical functioning of the comitia centuriata. This
> piece of wording would seriously interfere with that
> function.
>
> But that is, I believe, an unintentional one and
> easily remedied. The more serious problem is this:
>
> > D. Members of the Senate and Ordinarii
> > Sitting magistrates of the ordinarii and Senatores
> > who become
> > members of the Capite Censi due to non-payment of
> > taxes may be removed from office by the Censors.
>
> The power to make and unmake magistrates of the Roman
> people lies entirely and solely with the Roman people.
> A magistrate can only be created by election in the
> comitia, and once created he cannot be deprived of his
> office except by his own resignation, death, or
> disappearance. The idea that the censores can deprive
> an elected magistrate of his office is absolutely
> abhorrent to the principles of the ancient republican
> constitution.
>
> Ancient magistrates did some terrible things - much
> worse than failing to pay their taxes. But they were
> never, *never* removed from office at the discretion
> of some other magistrate. No magistrate has ever had
> the power to depose another magistrate. It is simply
> intolerable.
>
> Quirites, unless this provision is revised, I can only
> urge you to ignore the otherwise considerable merits
> of this proposal and vote NO if you value the
> republican constitutional principles which preserved
> the republic of our ancestores for hundreds of years.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all

new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

>

F. Galerius Aurelianus flamen Cerealis A. Tulia Scholastica Gn. Iulio Caesari
et SPQNR. Salvete.

I must come down on the side of experience and state with historical
certainty that logic, good judgment, sensibility, and sensitivity are not traits that
have been consistently demonstrated by citizens, magistrates, or Senators on
the NR ML and other subordinate lists.
Any lex that is not very clear and concise in language, intent, and can be
easily translated should not be presented to the populace and should definitely
not be approved. Nova Roma is too diverse an organization with too many
citizens from different cultural, ethnic, and language groups to have laws that can
be too freely interpreted.
As the flamen Cerealis and a citizen, I strongly encourage my fellow citizens
to vote against the Lex Iulia de Foro et Moderatione in its present form and
not to vote for it in any other form without close scrutiny of any future law
of a similar nature. It is not a good nor a necessary law for Nova Roma at
this time, in my opinion.

Valete


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

I actually had Po and you agree with me in one month!
I am going to have to invest in O2 canisters cause I
am sure to hyperventilate... LOL.
--- Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
<kirsteen.falconsfan@...> wrote:

> On 12/11/05, raymond fuentes

<praefectus2324@...> wrote:

> >
> > Any law that limits what we can say should be shot

or

> > shouted down! Moderating the ML more than it

already

> > is is the mark of an oligarchy that only wants

their

> > topics heard. Is that what the Quirites want? I

think

> > not. The very idea of censorship by choice is not

only

> > communist, its un Roman and boring!
>
>
> Don't faint but actually I totally agree with you on

this.

>
> Flavia Lucilla Merula
>
>
> [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

Pompeia Minucia Tiberia Omnibus Novae Romae S.P.D.

I wanted to write a few more words on the candidates standing for election in these comitiae.

When I look over the roster of citizens willing to donate time and effort into working for Nova Roma, I am, as a fellow citizen pleased and very thankful.

It is hard for me because I look at the names and it is, in most places very hard to judge between 'best' and 'bestest'. I am thankful that there are multiple spots for some of these positions, because in most cases its so terribly difficult for me to choose. I can and will say that I've had the pleasure of working with Marcus Iulius Persianus, G. Cornelius Lentulus, L. Rutilius Minervalis, Emilia Curia Finnica, Titus Iulius Sabinus, and of course, our senior Consul F. Apulus Caesar, to whom I had the pleasure of being accensus. It is good to see the Propraetor Brasilia Caius Arminius offering to serve as Quaestor.

There are some of you, of course, I've not had the pleasure of working with in the past, but those who have worked with you, whom I know, have indeed had positive things to say.

My best in the forthcoming elections. And with a roster of candidates such as this, NR as a whole is in a win/win situation

***
And we have some former Tribunes standing to serve again. It is good to see G. Salvius Astur, Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus, and Marcus Arminius Maior on the ballot. You've all done great things for NR to date. Now that I think of it, though, I'll share one thing in particular. It was Marcus Arminius Maior who, during his last Tribuneship settled the age-old debate of the legal elements of an edictum ...the subject of many discussions in NR. Well, he quietly, yet effectively, went to work and promulgated the Lex Arminia De Rationem Edictibus in 2755, which passed, and thus settled the matter officially for NR, once and for all. I am sure that you three would be good mentors to first-time Tribunes, and will work to provide excellent administration to the benefit of both Plebian and Patrician alike.

All my best

Valete



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

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

pompeia_minucia_tiberia wrote:

> Salvete Omnes:
>
> This question is for the Pontifices and/or other Religio scholars.
>
> In light of the multitude of restrictions, rules/regulations imposed
> upon the Flamen Dialis and his wife, is it even 'possible' to
> reconstruct this role with any accuracy? I don't see it as
> awfully 'probable' based on what I know of the position, which,
> admittedly is likely less than the people to whom I'm addressing this
> question....but is it even possible?
>
> Thanks et valete
> Po

C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix Pompeiae Minuciae Tiberae et Quiritibus S.P.D.

Salvete.

I agree with my colleague Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus's statement on
this matter, and I'd like to expand on it a bit. Nova Roma can never
completely recreate the Religio Publica of ancient Rome for a number of
reasons. One reason is that lack all of the necessary information. While
we know quite a bit thanks to the availability of the large number of
surviving of primary source texts, epigraphic and archaeological
evidence, there are still huge gaps in our knowledge regarding many of
the details of the Religio. Another is that many of the various
caerimonae, feriae, and priesthoods of ancient Rome were intrinsically
associated with the geography of the city itself, and once separated
from the city of Rome lose their relevance.

The Religio Publica of Nova Roma, while modeled on that of the ancient
Romans really must be regarded as new Religio. The Res Publica of
ancient Romans is gone, and the "contract" it had established with the
Gods is gone with it. Simply trying to duplicate the Religio Publica of
ancient Rome would makes no sense for Nova Roma. We are a new community
of Romans, a new Res Publica, and our needs and circumstances are very
different from those of the ancient Romans. Certainly we should look to
the Mos Maiorum of the ancients for inspiration in creating our own
traditions, but we need to apply that inspiration to the realities of today.

To this end I have made a proposal within the Collegium Pontificum to
re-evaluate all of the various priesthoods within Nova Roma (many which
are unfilled, and IMHO are unfillable) and determine which ones make
sense for our Res Publica, which ones should be kept but need to be
reinterpreted, and which ones are either irrelevant or simply
impossible to reconstruct. I have also proposed that the CP explicitly
state the duties, roles and responsibilities of each priesthood within
Nova Roma, something that has never really been before and is long overdue.

The Religio Publica of Nova Roma is need of a lot of work, but I feel
that in the coming year we all all will see a great deal of progress
towards the goal of a complete, and full functional Religio for our Res
Publica.

Valete,
--
Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix
Candidate for Censor
Pontifex et Minervae Aedis Sacerdos
Legate Massachusetts Regio
c.minucius.hadrianus@...

"We are all, so far as we inherit the civilization of Europe,
still citizens of the Roman Empire, and time as not yet proved
Virgil wrong when he wrote /nec tempora pono: imperium sine fine dedi./"

-T.S. Eliot

"/His ego nec metas rerum nec tempora pono: imperium sine fine dedi./"

"For the achievement of these people I fix neither spatial boundaries or
temporal limits: I have given them empire without end."

-Virgil, /Aeneid/ I.278,279

Salvete quirites,

Tomorrow at 6:00 pm Central European Time the cista will open and the
Centuria Praerogativa will begin voting. At this time I'm endorsing the
following candidates for the centuriate magistracies.

Censor: Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix

Consul: Pompeia Minucia-Tiberia Strabo and Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus

Praetor: Caius Curius Saturninus and Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus

I wish we had four vacancies for praetor, because I think all four
candidates would serve well. I've had to think long and hard about
which two of the four I consider best for the job.

As for the various laws being proposed, I think Cordus has done a
masterful job of analysis. If you haven't already read his reviews
already, you should.

Valete,

-- Marinus

Q. Caecilius Metellus Postumianus Quiritibus sal.

It's that time of year again, so, of course, I'd like to offer my
endorsements of candidates for offices elected by the Centuries and by
the Tribes. I'll offer my endorsements for the Plebeian magistracies on
the Comitia Plebis Tributa list. So, without more preface, on to the
endorsements.

Censor (Comitia Centuriata)

C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix

Consul (Comitia Centuriata)

C. Fabius Buteo Modianus

Praetor (Comitia Centuriata)

Ti. Galerius Paulinus

Aedilis Curulis (Comitia Populi Tributa)

C. Equitius Cato

Quaestor (Comitia Populi Tributa)

A. Apollonius Cordus
Cn. Cornelius Lentulus

=====

De C. Hadriano Felici

I am nothing if not happy to offer my endorsement to this fine
candidate. In the years that I have had the pleasure of dealing with
Felix, and all the more so in having met him at the Elysium Gathering of
this year, I have known him to be well spoken, of sound judgement, and
an exemplary citizen, sacerdos, and Pontifex. C. Felix has always been
a loyal servant to the Gods and to the Republic, and I have no doubts
that he will continue to do so as Censor. I ask you, Quirites, to cast
your votes for this honest citizen, Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix.

De C. Buteoni Modiano

Buteo and I have met on at least three occasions, and have spoken more
than a few times. Buteo is, indeed, a great man, and I dare say more
deserving of the agnomen "Pius" than I. Fabius Buteo has served the
Republic as Tribune, and currently serves as governor of the Provincia
Lacus Magni, Flamen Pomonalis, Augur, and as a Pontifex. Fabius Buteo
has never shirked from service to the Republic, nor, do I suspect, will
he ever. Fabius Buteo is a leader, and one who will undertake any task
fearlessly, and with the utmost dedication. Fabius Buteo is also a man
of sound judgement, a man who sets goals and does whatever is necessary
to see to their achievement. If no one else, I believe Fabius Buteo
will lead Nova Roma much closer to acheiving its full potential, and to
accomplishing its goals. There are no reservations, as I feel, to be
had about Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus, and I ask you to cast your votes
in his favor.

De Ti. Galerio

Another man who has faithfully served the Republic, Tiberius Galerius
has a proven record of service to the Republic. We have elected him to
the Quaestorship, and I have not seen anything which even insinuates
that he has failed in his duties in that office. On the contrary, in
fact. The evidence shows me that he has gone above and beyond his
duties as Quaestor, and I believe he will continue to do so as Praetor.
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus will have my vote for the Praetorship, and
I hope he will have your votes as well.

De C. Catone

This is a man whose reputation preceedes him. Of all the citizens that
come to my mind who are of faiths other than the Religio Romana, no one
is more supportive of the Religio than Gaius Equitius Cato. Cato has
taken upon himself a task which I, a Pontiff, am unable to do, in his, I
daresay, almost religious posting of the calendar each and every day
(though I am told he enjoys the punishment!). Cato too has a proven
record of service, and I look forward to seeing his election to the
Curule Aedileship. I know, as well as do you, that Cato will do the
office nothing but honor, and I hope to see him elected to the office
not by default, but by the overwhelming number of votes cast in his
favor, your votes! Cato for Curule Aedile!

De A. Cordo

I look forward to the day I am able to greet my friend Cordus as Consul.
Of course, for now, Quaestor will have to suffice. Aulus Apollonius
Cordus has been among us now for three years, as have I, and I can
safely say that the Republic is far better now than it would be were it
not for his being among us. Aulus Cordus is a young man for whom I just
do not have the right words, simply because the words do not exist.
With no disrespect for anyone else running for any office, if I were
allowed only one vote, for only one office, my vote would lie here. I
am truly unable to find the words which come to the level of our Cordus.
I must apologise to him, for not being able to adequately endorse him.
So I leave it to you, Quirites, to endorse Cordus in my place, by
electing Aulus Apollonius Cordus to the Quaestorship, with all your votes.

De Cn. Cornelio

A fine young man, and a better Latinist than I, Cn. Cornelius Lentulus,
currently governing our fine citizens in Pannonia, stands for the
Quaestorship as well, and I am happy to offer him my support. An
enthusiastic supporter of the Republic, and her endeavors, Lentulus has
done nothing in his time as a citizen but strive to serve the Republic
and add the the knowledge and stature of our Republic, and for his past
service, and the service I know he will offer us in the future, I am
proud to offer my support to Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus for Quaestor.

Salve Romans

I would like to recommend the following action on the legislation
submitted for adoption.

Please vote YES on the lex Popillia senatoria.

A great deal of time and effort has gone in to making this
reasonable proposal including presenting it earlier this year for
comments something that might have helped some of the other
legislation that has been introduced at the very end of the year.

Please vote YES on the lex Popillia de magistratu ejurando.

I strongly support the adoption of the Lex Popillia de Magistratu
Ejurando. It is a reasonable solution to our ongoing resignation of
magistrates problem.

Please vote YES on "Constitutional Amendment #2".

I have no objection to this proposed change.


Please vote YES on the lex Apula de magistro araneario

This is a good change that will serve the Republic well.


Please vote YES on the lex Fabia de nominibus approbationibusque.

Please vote NO on "Constitutional Amendment #1".

As I stated earlier as the co-author of the current constitutional
provision (Article IV) I respectfully submit that this simpler
language is better and leaves less room for misinterpretation and
removes all other magistrate from the process if another official
wishes to resign. Any magistrate is free to ask others for advice
but as the "gift" of the people of Nova Roma he needs to submit his
resignation to them and no one else.

A resignation once posted is an announcement that one has vacated
the office in question. The proposed change seems to be saying that
an announced resignation is not now legal when in fact it is.


Please vote NO to the lex Julia de foro et moderatione.

Both as a citizen and as a candidate for Praetor I strongly oppose
this proposal to adopt the main list guidelines as a Lex .

This is one lex that we surely do not need.


Please vote NO to the lex Apula de tributis.

This legislation has some of the same drawbacks as the proposal to
change the list guidelines from a Praetorian Edict to a lex. The
first is easily changed as circumstance dictate but a lex is not
changed very easily at all. I do like the provision that sets a
deadline for the payment of taxes in a given year but this can be
done without a lex. Having served as Consular Quaestor this year and
being responsible for processing tax payments I do not see how this
proposal would have made a difference.


Please vote NO to the lex Apula de abdicatione magistratuum.

I respectfully oppose this Lex as an unnecessary complication of a
simple proposition.

Its title indicates that it is about the abdication of a magistrate
i.e. a resignation and yet 40 % is addressed to the resignation of
citizens and not magistrates.

If a magistrate wishes to resign for what ever reason the procedure
should be simple and straightforward.

Please vote NO to the lex Apula de assiduis et capite censis.

As usual Cordus has provided sufficient reasons to voting NO on this
proposal.


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Candidate for Praetor
Fortuna Favet Fortibus

On 12/12/05, raymond fuentes <praefectus2324@...> wrote:

>
> I actually had Po and you agree with me in one month!
> I am going to have to invest in O2 canisters cause I
> am sure to hyperventilate... LOL.

LOL Don't worry - I'll pass you the brown paper bag. :-)

Merula


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

M IVL PERVSIANVS PRAET QVIRITIBVS SPD

I'm sorry I could not and cannot reply, due to macronational duties,
to all the messages sent against the Lex Iulia de Foro et Moderatione.

In the next hours I'm going to read better those messages against the
proposed law and see if there are valid critics, IMHP, so that the Lex
as it is may be retired.

I can just add that such a text, as many of you have seen, is just
what currently governs this list as an edict, with minor adds. The Lex
is supposed to give a permanent status to those guidelines, and the
minor adds try to clarify things from a more confused text.

respectfully
valete

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@a... wrote:
>
> F. Galerius Aurelianus flamen Cerealis A. Tulia Scholastica Gn.
Iulio Caesari
> et SPQNR. Salvete.
>
> I must come down on the side of experience and state with historical
> certainty that logic, good judgment, sensibility, and sensitivity
are not traits that
> have been consistently demonstrated by citizens, magistrates, or
Senators on
> the NR ML and other subordinate lists.
> Any lex that is not very clear and concise in language, intent, and
can be
> easily translated should not be presented to the populace and should
definitely
> not be approved. Nova Roma is too diverse an organization with too
many
> citizens from different cultural, ethnic, and language groups to
have laws that can
> be too freely interpreted.
> As the flamen Cerealis and a citizen, I strongly encourage my fellow
citizens
> to vote against the Lex Iulia de Foro et Moderatione in its present
form and
> not to vote for it in any other form without close scrutiny of any
future law
> of a similar nature. It is not a good nor a necessary law for Nova
Roma at
> this time, in my opinion.
>
> Valete
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salve Cordus

catching up with the main list after being back from Germany and not having
been able to check my emails for several days, I found several things I
think I must reply to. Most are private mails, but then there is this:

> Indeed it probably would have been made
> simpler and more coherent if it had not spent such a
> very long time, both in the form of individual edicta
> and as a compilation, being scrutinized by the
> tribunes, who have this year insisted on being given
> advance copies of legislation and have then held up
> the progress of that legislation while they check it
> for things they might like to veto. This move on their
> part has been, I don't doubt, entirely
> well-intentioned and meant to produce better
> legislation, but I hope they will recognize that in
> many cases it has merely slowed down the legislative
> process so much that proposals are all coming out at
> the very end of the year and, in some cases, in a
> decidedly unfinished state.

I feel the need to reply to this.

There is an, at least partial, untrue statement there and the answer to the
implicit question is, regardless, "No".

"being scrutinized by the tribunes, who have this year insisted on being
given advance copies of legislation"

First of all, personally I did not, and I do not think any of my collegues
did, insisted in having advanced copies of edicts and legislations. We might
have suggested, once, that it would had been better and more sound to do so,
but that was it. So, it is definitely an untrue statement if with "the
tribunes" it's meant "all the tribunes", and in an official way.

I did recieve, sometimes, pieces of intended edicts and legislations,
especially from one Censor and one Praetor, but I never did seek them, nor
demanded or insisted on having them. I took them as a courtesy and I did
think it was a wise behaviour of the magistrates to have a preventive check
rather than having their proposals struck down over the public forum.

So much it's true that I have not seen several of the pieces of legislation
proposed now before they were issued over the main list... so much for the
tribunes insistances and demands.

"I hope they will recognize that in many cases it has merely slowed down the
legislative process"

So, No. In fact, I believe a preventive check (which, again, was not
required, but usually requested) makes things faster than having a proposal
vetoed, re-written, possible vetoed again and so on and so forth.

Frankly, I find it odd that the "blame" of the present mass and
ramblessness of the proposed legislation coming from magistrates who all
have a plethora of assistants is put over the Tribunes, who do their job by
themselves, on the basis of an asserted and non existant requirement that
we'd have put on new legislation.

I find it odd and offensive, actually. The magistrates were always free to
present their legislations without consulting the Tribunes, they were also
free to issue their proposals pending the Tribunes' replies to THEIR
requests for opinions, if they felt the tribunes were taking too much
time. They did choose otherwise, let's not blame the Tribunes for that,
thank you.

Finally, the duty of the Tribunes is to check the proposed laws and enacted
edicts for their consistency with the legal framework of Nova Roma. If the
Tribunes before this year had done otherwise and therefore this year
Magistrates were taken by a panic that the Tribunes were actually doing
their job (and not, as suggested, having fun checking "for things they might
like to veto") and feared their laws would had been systematically checked
and cut down, if necessary, and therefore were maybe slower in proposing the
first thing passing thro her minds (which I see as a good thing, actually)
it's not the Tribunes' fault.

I found it very wrong, Cordus, for a candidate for a public position, any
public position, to make such statements, truly.

valete,

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus

Founder of Gens Constantinia
Tribunus Plebis
Aedilis Urbis Iterum


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

OSD C. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

Hodie est pridie Idus Decembris; haec dies endotercisus est. Ante
meridian est nefastus publicus, et post meridian est fastus.


"The three kinds of government, monarchy, aristocracy and democracy,
were all found united in the commonwealth of Rome. And so even was the
balance between them all, and so regular the administration that
resulted from their union, that it was no easy thing to determine with
assurance, whether the entire state was to be estimated an
aristocracy, a democracy, or a monarchy. For if they turned their view
upon the power of the consuls, the government appeared to be purely
monarchical and regal. If, again, the authority of the senate was
considered, it then seemed to wear the form of aristocracy. And,
lastly, if regard was to be had to the share which the people
possessed in the administration of affairs, it could then scarcely
fail to be denominated a popular state. The several powers that were
appropriated to each of these distinct branches of the constitution at
the time of which we are speaking, and which, with very little
variation, are even still preserved, are these which follow.

The consuls, when they remain in Rome, before they lead out the armies
into the field, are the masters of all public affairs. For all other
magistrates, the tribunes alone excepted, are subject to them, and
bound to obey their commands. They introduce ambassadors into the
senate. They propose also to the senate the subjects of debates; and
direct all forms that are observed in making the decrees. Nor is it
less a part of their office likewise, to attend to those affairs that
are transacted by the people; to call together general assemblies; to
report to them the resolutions of the senate; and to ratify whatever
is determined by the greater number. In all the preparations that are
made for war, as well as in the whole administration in the field,
they possess an almost absolute authority. For to them it belongs to
impose upon the allies whatever services they judge expedient; to
appoint the military tribunes; to enroll the legions, and make the
necessary levies, and to inflict punishments in the field, upon all
that are subject to their command. Add to this, that they have the
power likewise to expend whatever sums of money they may think
convenient from the public treasury; being attended for that purpose
by a quaestor; who is always ready to receive and execute their
orders. When any one therefore, directs his view to this part of the
constitution, it is very reasonable for him to conclude that this
government is no other than a simple royalty. Let me only observe,
that if in some of these particular points, or in those that will
hereafter be mentioned, any change should be either now remarked, or
should happen at some future time, such an alteration will not destroy
the general principles of this discourse.

To the senate belongs, in the first place, the sole care and
management of the public money. For all returns that are brought into
the treasury, as well as all the payments that are issued from it, are
directed by their orders. Nor is it allowed to the quaestors to apply
any part of the revenue to particular occasions as they arise, without
a decree of the senate; those sums alone excepted. which are expended
in the service of the consuls. And even those more general, as well as
greatest disbursements, which are employed at the return every five
years, in building and repairing the public edifices, are assigned to
the censors for that purpose, by the express permission of the senate.
To the senate also is referred the cognizance of all the crimes,
committed in any part of Italy, that demand a public examination and
inquiry: such as treasons, conspiracies, poisonings, and
assassinations. Add to this, that when any controversies arise, either
between private men, or any of the cities of Italy, it is the part of
the senate to adjust all disputes; to censure those that are deserving
of blame: and to yield assistance to those who stand in need of
protection and defense. When any embassies are sent out of Italy;
either to reconcile contending states; to offer exhortations and
advice; or even, as it sometimes happens, to impose commands; to
propose conditions of a treaty; or to make a denunciation of war; the
care and conduct of all these transactions is entrusted wholly to the
senate. When any ambassadors also arrive in Rome, it is the senate
likewise that determines how they shall be received and treated, and
what answer shall be given to their demands.

In all these things that have now been mentioned, the people has no
share. To those, therefore, who come to reside in Rome during the
absence of the consuls, the government appears to be purely
aristocratic. Many of the Greeks, especially, and of the foreign
princes, are easily led into this persuasion: when they perceive that
almost all the affairs, which they are forced to negotiate with the
Romans, are determined by the senate." - Polybius, Histories, bk. VI
sec. 1


The festivities surrounding the Agonalia and Septimontium continued
into the day today. In the afternoon, preparations for the
celebration of the Ides began.



Adding to the list of odd characters who pop up in this season and a
hearty "ho ho ho" to Salvius Astur for his Spanish addition), today is
marked in Iceland by the arrival of the Icelandic "jolasveinar"
(Yuletide Lads), who have absolutely nothing to do with the
international red-clothed Santa Claus or St. Nicholas. The Yuletide
Lads are descended from trolls, and orginally they were bogeymen who
were used to scare children. During this century they have mellowed,
and they sometimes wear their best --- bright red suits --- but they
still tend to pilfer and play tricks. The number of Yuletide Lads
varied in olden times from one region of Iceland to another. The
number 13 is first seen in a poem on Gryla (the Lads' mother) in the
18th century, and their names were published by Jon Arnason in his
folklore collection in A.D. 1862. About 60 different names of Yuletide
Lads are known.

They visit Iceland on each of the 13 days before Christmas. They
usually wear their old Icelandic costumes, and try to pilfer the
goodies each likes best. Gryla and Leppaludi are the parents of the
Yuletide Lads, and their pet is the Christmas Cat; children feared all
these characters in times past.

On December 12 the Yuletide Lads begin to come to town. The first is
Stekkjarstaur (Sheepfold Stick), who would try to drink the milk from
the farmers' ewes.

On December 13 Giljagaur (Gully Oaf) arrives. Before the days of
milking machines, he would sneak into the cowshed and skim the froth
off the pails of milk.

The Lad who arrives on December 14 is Stufur (Shorty), who, as his
name implies, is on the small side. He was also known as Pönnuskefill
(pan-scraper), as he scraped scraps of food of the pans.

On December 15, Svorusleikir (Spoon-licker) comes down from the
mountains. He would steal the wooden spoon that had been used for
stirring. When he visits, he goes looking for wooden spoons.

On December 16, Pottasleikir (Pot-licker) comes visiting. He tried to
snatch pots that had not been washed, and lick the scraps from them.

Askasleikir (Bowl-licker) arrives on December 17. He hid under beds,
and if someone put his wooden food-bowl in the floor, he grabbed it
and licked it clean.

Hurdaskellir (Door-slammer) comes on December 18. He is an awfully
noisy fellow, who is always slamming doors and keeping people awake.
Door Slammer.

The Lad who is expected on December 19 is called Skyrgamur (Curd
Glutton), because he loves skyr (milk curd) so much that he sneaks
into the pantry and gobbles up all the skyr from the tub there.
Bjúgnakrækir (Sausage Pilferer) comes on December 20. He loves
sausages of all kinds, and steals them whenever he can.

On December 21, Gluggagaegir (Peeper) arrives. He is not as greedy as
some of his brothers, but awfully nosy, peeping through windows and
even stealing toys he likes the look of.

On December 22 Gattappefur (Sniffer) comes calling. He has a big nose,
and he loves the smell of cakes being baked for Christmas. He often
tries to snatch a cake or two for himself. December 22 was sometimes
called Hlakkandi (looking forward), because the children had started
looking forward to Christmas.

On 23 December, Ketkrokur (Meat Hook) arrives. He adores all meat. In
olden days he would lower a hook down the kitchen chimney and pull up
a leg of lamb hanging from a rafter, or a bit of smoked lamb from a
pan, as smoked lamb was traditionally cooked on this day.

Kertasníkir (Candle Beggar) comes on Christmas Eve, December 24. He
looks for scraps of candles, as candle light was once the brightest
light available.

Valete bene!

Cato



SOURCES

Polybius (Oliver J. Thatcher, ed., The Library of Original Sources
(Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co., 1907), Vol. III: The
Roman World, pp. 166-193), jolasveinar
(http://jol.ismennt.is/english/christmas-lads-museum.htm)

A. Apollonius Domitio Constantino omnibusque sal.

You're right to say that my statement was over-general
and to that extent misleading - I apologise.

I apoligise particularly to those of your colleagues
who have not been involved in this new process of
private tribunician scrutiny, since, as you rightly
say, it has not been all of you. I can only say in my
defence that it is you, Domiti Constantine, who have
throughout this year insisted that the tribunes are a
single unit and should issue joint statements, sort
out their differences in private, and present a united
front. I'm glad to say that it has not, by and large,
worked out as you wished, but you yourself can hardly
spend a year promoting the idea of the tribunes as a
single unit and then complain when other people impute
the actions of one or two tribunes to the whole lot.

As I said, my statement that the tribunes have
insisted on scrutinizing legislation in advance was
over-general. I must say, however, that there is not
nearly so great a gulf as you make you between
insisting on being given advance copies of legislation
and what you call "suggest[ing]... that it would [be]
better and more sound to" submit such copies for
scrutiny. It is worth mentioning that at least one of
these "suggestions" was made to a magistrate
immediately after you had vetoed a proposal by that
magistrate, and my own impression at that time was
that this "suggestion" was rather akin to an "offer
you can't refuse" - something along the lines of
"we've just vetoed your proposal, what a shame, but
such unpleasantness could be avoided in future if you
would only not be so foolish as to do things without
our approval".

Whether you made the suggestion overtly only once, as
you say, or more times, I don't know, but if you made
it only once then it was remarkably effective, for it
seems that more or less every lex and edictum I've
helped to work on this year has been delayed by
tribunician scrutiny. It may well be that magistrates
have submitted these texts to you of their own free
choice, if we can consider a choice between two evils
a free one. My own experience, watching the behaviour
of magistrates this year, has been that many, if not
most, have felt that the result of failing to comply
with your "suggestion" would probably be a veto. And
indeed, even while denying any such thing, you say "I
did think it was a wise behaviour of the magistrates
to have a preventive check rather than having their
proposals struck down over the public forum". Could
this sound any more like a threat?

It may be that this is not the impression you have
meant to give. But I still think you must take most of
the responsibility for giving it. The tribunes this
year, or at least one or two of them, have shown a
consistent tendency to expand both their reach and
their powers. When I say that they have tended to
expand their reach, I think for instance of your
instance earlier this year that the tribunes should
have scrutiny of the censores' handling of every
single application for citizenship; I think also of
the way in which you, at least, and occasionally also
P. Memmius, have spoken of the tribunate as some kind
of judicial body, thus seeking to expand the reach of
that office so that it encompasses not only legislate
and executive but also judicial powers. When I say
that they have tended to extend their powers, I am
thinking of the way in which you have consistently
depicted the tribunes as the supreme arbiters of
whatever matter you become involved in, including the
interpretation of the lex constitutiva, by which means
you have sought to make the tribunes not only into a
court but into a supreme court; and, when an appeal
(provocatio) for trial by a higher court, the populus
itself, threatened to displace the tribunes' role as
supreme judicial body by making their decisions
subject ot its scrutiny, this threat was quickly
quashed by a refusal to allow any such appeal.
Finally, I don't think you will deny that you, at
least, among the tribunes, have consistently expressed
a strong preference for doing things in private - one
might say in secret - and by arrangement rather than
doing things openly and by argument.

I don't say that any of this has been done maliciously
or in bad faith. But you must acknowledge that over
the year the decisions you have made, in seeking to do
your duty in the way you honestly interpret it, add
together, whether you intend it or not, to make an
agenda in which the tribunes (a) acquire more power,
(b) acquire power over things over which they never
had power before, and (c) exercise that power less
openly and away from the public eye.

In this light, is it at all surprising that
magistrates should be under the impression, whether
rightly or wrongly, that your "suggestion" amounted to
little more than a demand that all proposed
legislation should go through the tribunes or else
risk veto? It would be entirely in tune with the
general trend I've outlined above. It would (a) expand
the powers of the tribunes by giving them the
opportunity not only to strike down proposals they
don't like - a negative power which they have always
had - but to propose, and indeed insist on, amendments
to such proposals, which would give them a positive
power which they have never had. It would (b) extend
the role of the tribunes by allowing them to insert
themselves into the legislative process as a sort of
preliminary filter through which all proposals must
pass - thus, indeed, allowing the tribunes to usurp
the role which has always traditionally belonged to
the senate. And it would (c) move tribunician
participation in the legislative process from its
traditional place in public, where vetoes or threats
of veto can themselves be scrutinized and discussed by
the people, into a private, closed setting in which
what passes between the tribunes and the proposer of
the measure may never see the light of day.

You may well think that it is in magistrates'
interests to work in this way, and indeed it may be. I
can see many advantages for both magistrates and
tribunes. For the tribunes, there is a chance to exert
what they no doubt believe - and not necessarily
wrongly - to be their constructive and benign
influence on legislative proposals at their formative
stage, thus perhaps improving those proposals. There
is also, for the tribunes, the chance to do this all
in private, where there is no fear that the
troublesome and largely ignorant masses will object to
the tribunes' very reasonable suggestions, as they
have had the annoying tendency to do this year
whenever the tribunes have acted openly. And then for
the magistrates there is the advantage that by doing
what the tribunes want they can avoid potentially
embarrassing vetoes and public arguments, and the hope
that if they go out of their way to "voluntarily" ask
the tribunes' opinion beforehand the tribunes may
therefore be more kindly disposed toward their
legislation, whereas if they "bypass" the tribunes and
go directly to the voters the tribunes may feel
slighted by this lack of "courtesy" and thus been all
the more eager to find grounds for a veto. So the
arrangement seems to suit everyone.

The problem is that it does not suit the public of
this Roman republic. You say that it is "wise" for
magistrates to give you scrutiny of their proposals
"rather than having their proposals struck down over
the public forum". That tends to suggest that it is a
bad thing for a magistrate to have a proposal struck
down in the public forum. Well, maybe it is for that
magistrate, and indeed maybe it is for the tribunes
who have to face the criticism of the public for
striking it down, but it certainly not a bad thing for
the republic. It encourages open debate and allows all
the magistrates concerned to hear the views of the
voters. It often ends up with useful amendments being
made, or with alternative solutions being found. At
the very worst it ends up with nothing happening at
all, which is sometimes not such a bad thing. But
whichever way it works out it has the one great virtue
of getting the issue out in the open. Things are
almost invariably better out in the open. The Romans
knew that - they conducted public business in public.
Closed discussions, secret committees, private
hearings, these are all characteristic of the
principate, not the republic; and even in the
principate they were criticised (under the emperor
Claudius, for example).

I don't know exactly which of the legislative
proposals before us now have been through this process
of private tribunician scrutiny and which haven't. But
I very strongly doubt whether those which have been
through that process have benefitted very greatly from
it. I know the lex Popillia senatoria was sent to the
tribunes; it was also discussed extensively in the
senate and in the public forum in two contiones. As a
result of all these discussions it was extensively
amended and seems now, if a member of the consul's
staff may say so without hubris, to be regarded
generally as a sound piece of legislation. At least
90% of the useful revisions made to the text came not
from private discussions with the tribunes but from
debate in the senate and in the forum, plus follow-up
conversations with private citizens.

The lex Popillia de magistratu ejurando did not go
through the tribunician sausage-machine. It has been
published here recently, and has already benefitted
from suggestions arising from that publication, none
of which came from tribunes.

You say that you received advance scrutiny of
legislation from "one praetor", which I think tells us
without much doubt that we are talking about the lex
Julia before us now. If so, I can only say that that
particular proposal doesn't seem to have received much
benefit from tribunician scrutiny.

You also said you had received some matter from a
censor. If this includes the proposed lax Fabia, again
I struggle to see what benefit has been derived from
your scrutiny of that proposal, since it is very
largely identical to various edicta which had already
been published.

The above is to some extent speculative, but this
itself shows one of the main problems. You say that
you are only doing your duty "to check the proposed
laws and enacted edicts for their consistency with the
legal framework of Nova Roma". Well, this is an
incomplete statement - the point is that you are doing
this *in private*, and, frankly, *in secret*. The fact
that I have to speculate on what difference your
scrutiny may or may not have made to the proposals
before us today is the result of that secrecy, for if
you had done your duty in the way it has always been
done before (and I mean not only for seven years
before but for several hundred years before that), in
public, we would all know exactly what had been going
on and would be able to make up our own minds, fully
informed, about whether this new arrangement is
beneficial or not. As it is, no one knows, and you
produce no evidence to back up your assertion that it
has been beneficial, so we must take your word for it
or not.

Whether or not this new process of tribunician
scrutiny which you have tried, partially successfully,
to establish has substantially slowed down the
legislative process I cannot say for certain,
precisely because it has all been done behind closed
doors. All I can say is that such is my impression.
But I can say without any hesitation that the process
as a whole, involving as it does an extension of
tribunician power in both size and reach and a
simultaneous movement of an important part of the
legislative process out of the public gaze, can hardly
fail to be contrary to the public interest and, in the
long run, harmful to our constitution. I very much
hope that next year's tribunes will reverse the trend.





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

A. Apollonius Francisco Apulo consuli omnibusque sal.

> honestly I don't see why really the people shouldn't
> give their vote
> (their own opinion) about the financial matters of
> this
> organization.

It may be that you don't see why, but I'm sure you
would agree that none of us can be sure that we see
everything there is to see. That is why it is so
important, in this Roman republic, to look carefully
at what was done in past centuries. The Romans had
hundreds of years of experience - we have only eight
years. So when we find that there was something which
the Romans could have done but never, never did, we
should think very carefully before we do it ourselves.

This is one of those things. The Romans did not allow
the comitia to vote on taxation or on economic policy
in general. Not only that, but the first time the
comitia *did* vote on such matters was during the
tribunate of Ti. Gracchus, that year which did so much
harm to the republic. I believe Gracchus was a
well-intentioned man, like yourself. And I am sure
that if we could ask him, he too would say, as you
have said, that he didn't see why the people shouldn't
give their vote on the subject. But he knew,
nonetheless, that it had never been done before, and
he should have trusted that there was a good reason
for that, just as you, too, should trust that there
was a good reason.

Consul, you are, I believe, a member of the "Libra
Alliance". Let me remind you of the fifth point of
that alliance's statement of belief:

"The Res Publica should aspire to the Roman political
equilibrium described by Polybius."

Polybius, of course, described the republican
constitution as consisting of three tendencies: the
monarchic, the aristocratic, and the democratic. Each
counterbalanced the other two, creating a stable
constitution. He describes all this in book 6 of his
history. In chapters 12, 13, and 14 of book 6 he sets
out the features of the republican constitution which
were, respectively, monarchic, aristocratic, and
democratic.

And what are the first two sentences of chapter 13?
They are:

"To pass to the senate. In the first place it has the
control of the treasury, all revenue and expenditure
being regulated by it."

The senate's control of *all revenue and expenditure*
is the very first thing Polybius mentions about the
senate, which represents in his analysis the
aristocratic element of the constitution.

In other words, by seeking to remove control of
taxation from the senate and place it in the hands of
the people you, having signed up to a statement
emphasising the importance of the Polybian balance,
are undermining one of the features which Polybius
identified as crucial to that very balance.

But if it is not enough that you are proposing to do
something the Romans never did until a disastrous year
which precipitated the collapse of the republic, and
if it is not enough that your proposal threatens the
Polybian balance you have signed up to protecting, let
me try to explain why the Romans never did it and why
it is so important to the Polybian balance.

You are not asking the populus by this vote to approve
the idea of being taxed. You are also asking the
populus to fix the *rate* of taxation. That means that
in future it will be impossible to change the rate of
taxation without another lex, and that lex may be
refused. I'm sure it has been said before that asking
people to vote for higher taxes is like asking turkeys
to vote for Christmas - it's not too great an
exaggeration.

But this lex doesn't only mean that any future changes
to the rate of taxation would have to be approved by
the voters. It also means that any future change would
have to be proposed by a magistrate. And do you think
it will be easy for any magistrate to get elected on a
manifesto of increasd taxes? Or, on the contrary, do
you think, as I do, that this will just become a
strong temptation for future candidates to increase
their popularity by promising to cut taxes? Of course
it's true that not all tax-cuts are bad and not all
tax-rises are good, but it can hardly be helpful to
create a system which provides magistrates with an
incentive to favour cuts even where they are
unnecessary or unhelpful.

Control of the treasury lies with the senate for good
reason. The senate is the only body in the republican
constitution which doesn't change annually and doesn't
have to compete for popularity in order to get
elected. It is in a unique position to make and
supervise policies in the long term. Long-term
planning is one of the great weaknesses of the Roman
republican constitution, in view of its principle of
annual tenure and its prohibition on continuatio. The
existence of the senate is the remedy to that
weakness, because the senate is capable of taking a
long view. And economic policy is exactly the sort of
policy which needs a long view, because by their
nature economic policies take time to bear fruit.
Taxes are collected in one year but may not be spent
until the next year, or the year after, or may indeed
be invested for decades. This is precisely the sort of
thing the senate is good at.

You set out some good arguments in favour of the
*content* of this proposal. I quite agree with those
arguments. The content of this proposal is excellent
and has many advantages. But it should not be a lex.
It should be a senatus consultum. As long as you are
proposing it as a lex, I (and, I hope, others) will
argue against it, no matter how excellent its
contents, because as long as it proposes to let the
comitia legislate concerning economic policy it will
be fundamentally contrary to the principles of the
republican constitution. The moment you withdraw it as
a lex and propose it as a senatus consultum, I shall
be the first to urge the senatores to vote in favour
of it.

No lex should ever deal with economic policy. That was
one of the basic principles of the Roman republic for
hundreds of years. Please, consul, don't break that
principle now.



___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Exclusive Xmas Game, help Santa with his celebrity party - http://santas-christmas-party.yahoo.net/

A. Apollonius C. Equitio omnibusque sal.

Ah, Cato amice, I see you've chosen as today's
quotation precisely the passage of Polybius I was just
mentioning to the consul. Well, great minds and all
that... it's no wonder people sometimes imagine we
deliberately coordinate our efforts. :)



___________________________________________________________
NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/

Ma adresez voua in latina (latina mea vulgara, singura pe care o
cunosc). Desi sunt un membru nou, sunt cetatean roman prin nastere
(fiind descendent al unor colonisti romani si avand un nume oficial
roman). La toti cei de fata si viitori, sanatate!

Salve Cordus

I must admit i have not read the whole mail of yours, nor I intend to.
Generally speaking, I think that anything meaningful can be expressed
in 4 paragraphs and hardly anything needs 14 of them, at least 3 of
which probably entitled, by theirlenght, to be divided in two, making
20 of them. So I tell you right away I did read 5 of them and ignored
the rest. I hope I didn't miss anything important in the rest.

So, to teh point. While I did think it was indeed a good idea in
general for the Tribunes to issue joint statements when possible (and
that was something that along the year evidently failed, anyway), I
thought intelligent people, like you indeed are, would had been able
to distinguish between public joint statements and private practices.
Apparently, I was wrong.

Also, the suggestion that it could had been wise to, peraphs show us
pieces of legislations before making them public came after, if I
remember correctly (well, has been a year and i've no intention of
reading thro archives atm), a proposed law by consul Apulus, I think
the first ever of this year, was struck down by my collegue Albucius
(and not me, as you again wrongly, if I'm correct, stated). I thought,
once again, that intelligent people, like you indeed are, would have
seen the difference between a suggestion made mostly in the interest
of the magistrates and what apparently was percieved by you as a
mafia-like treath of "submit or be interceded". Apparently, I was
wrong again, but most magistrates actually seemed to have percieved
this difference. Maybe not you, ok. Incidentally, I know that the
Godfather is a popular movie in most anglo-saxon world, but only
because I'm italian, you shouldn't automatically make assumptions, you
know.

And now, given I've already reached 3 paragraphs and that you indeed
apologized for your statements being over general and misleading, I'll
close it here.

Have a good day,

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus

Founder of Gens Constantinia
Tribunus Plebis
Aedilis Urbis Iterum

C. Equitius Cato A. Apollonio Cordo quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve et salvete.

To dispel any speculation: it was purely and utterly by chance that I
decided this morning to use Polybius; it just seems reasonable to hear
one of the ancients speak about our form of government during a time
in which we are addressing so many issues relevant to that text.

I will be continuing with Polybius over the next couple of days :-)

I think next year we'll do Horace's Odes or Hesiod's Theogony...

Vale et valete,

Cato

P.S. - have I missed the posting of which days the cista will be open?
I'm assuming (even without the benefit of a pontifical decree) that
it was closed yesterday and this morning (Rome time) in honor of the
Agonalia, and that it will be closed a.d. XVIII Kal Ian. (15 December)
and a.d. XVI, XV, and XIV Kal. Ian. (17-19 December, inclusive) in
observance of the Consualia, first day of the Saturnalia, Market Day,
and the Opalia, which fall on those respective days. They are dies
nefasti publici (fastus for the Market Day), and therefore it is
contrary to custom to hold meetings of the comitia populi tributa or
comitia centuriata.

GEC


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:

>
> A. Apollonius C. Equitio omnibusque sal.
>
> Ah, Cato amice, I see you've chosen as today's
> quotation precisely the passage of Polybius I was just
> mentioning to the consul. Well, great minds and all
> that... it's no wonder people sometimes imagine we
> deliberately coordinate our efforts. :)
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used

cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/

>

F. Galerius Aurelianus flamen Cerealis S.P.D.

I endorse the following candidates for office and strongly urge my fellow citizens to vot for them. These are the individuals I feel can best serve Nova Roma to grow and prosper in the coming year. I do not comment on all the candidates but only those I feel most strongly about in this election.

Censor
G. Minucius Hadrianus Felix

Consul
G. Fabius Buteo Modianus
Pompeia Minucia-Tiberia Strabo

Praetor
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Caius Curius Saturinus

Rogator
Aula Tullia Scholastica
M. Iulius Severus

May the Ceres Mater grant peace, prosperity, and joy to the Plebeian Order in the coming year and may all the gods grant Nova Roma magistrates who are embued with the virtues necessary for good government.

Valete.


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

A. Apollonius Domitio Constantino omnibusque sal.

> I must admit i have not read the whole mail of
> yours, nor I intend to.

And that tells the quirites everything they need to
know about the usefulness of your reply.



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

> And that tells the quirites everything they need to
> know about the usefulness of your reply.

*lol* Luckily, the quirites are smarter than you presume and concede them to be.

Again, have a good day,

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus

Founder of Gens Constantinia
Tribunus Plebis
Aedilis Urbis Iterum

M IVL PERVSIANVS PRAET QVIRITIBVS SPD

> I can just add that such a text, as many of you have seen, is just
> what currently governs this list as an edict, with minor adds.

As an edict, it works well enough; the language does not have to be as
precise as a law, and any ambiguities or errors can be resolved as the
need arises, with later edicts. As a law, though, it's horrid.

> The Lex is supposed to give a permanent status to those guidelines,

WHY? What is the need for this? Do you not trust the judgement of future
praetores, and seek to make them mere functionaries that implement
the policies of their predecessors, without being able to deviate from
them?

Why must a set of guidelines and advice be etched in stone?

There is simply no need for this as a lex. It accomplishes nothing,
other than to bind the hands of future praetores and to create opportunity
for confusion and legal wrangling - for its language is far too muddled to
be a good law.

Vale, Octavius.

--
hucke@...
http://www.graveyards.com

"The day will come when our silence will be more powerful than the
voices you are throttling today." -- August Spies, 1887

Salvete Omnes,

I would like to recommend to your vote to the candidacy of Gnaeus
Iulius Caesar for Questor. This well-knowned citizen and very active
within NR have all qualities and all knowledge to be an exemplary
Quaestor.

Valete,

Lucius Rutilius Minervalis
Aedilician Quaestor

A. Apollonius Domitio Constantino omnibusque sal.

> > And that tells the quirites everything they need
> to
> > know about the usefulness of your reply.
>
> *lol* Luckily, the quirites are smarter than you
> presume and concede them to be.

A shame, then, that you have spent so much of this
year trying to keep the activities of the tribunes
away from the Quirites' eyes - one of the points I
discussed in the part of my message which you declined
to read. :)



___________________________________________________________
NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/

Salvete Quirites!

I have made it my routine in whatever position I have had to always
check my proposed edicta or leges with the Tribunes before I actually
publish them. I have done so out of my free will, out courtesy and
because I think it is in the best interest of Nova Roma. I have never
ever been forced to do so, neither would I allow anyone to force my
to do anything. Still I find it better to do so then to risk to have
go through a much longer and more complicated process. I totally
agree with Domitius Constantinus Fuscus in this and I have had _no_
problems in my contacts with Domitius Constantinus Fuscus in any
respect. Rather have our contact through the year and before had the
all signs of a professional and friendly relation.

On the other hand it is true that when a magistrate, as I do, choose
to go this way it will take more time than without it. Still in the
long run I think one might avoid future problems by doing so, but to
some it might seem to take too much time. Further the more people,
outside a inner circle, You involve in legislative processes, the
longer time it will take. Issues outside the immediate issues will
influence the process. In my case among other things my mother's
serious and long time sickness which has keep my own hands bound at
times. I am sure that I am not the only one who at times has been
"slowed" by serious personal problems and it is far from me to accuse
anyone else for any delays. When I start a legislative process I and
only _I_ will have the responsibility.

Let me end this thanking the Tribunes both from last year and this
year, fully including Domitius Constantinus Fuscus, for their
understanding and good cooperation!

>So, No. In fact, I believe a preventive check (which, again, was not
>required, but usually requested) makes things faster than having a proposal
>vetoed, re-written, possible vetoed again and so on and so forth.
>
>valete,
>
>Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
>
>Founder of Gens Constantinia
>Tribunus Plebis
>Aedilis Urbis Iterum

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

Censor, Consularis et Senator
Praeses, Triumvir et Praescriptor Academia Thules ad S.R.A. et N.
Editor-in-Chief, Publisher and Owner of "Roman Times Quarterly"
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Cohors Censoris CFBQ
http://www.hanenberg-media-webdesign.com/cohors/index_uk.htm
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Salve Censor

> I have made it my routine (...)

I thank you for confirming that I, or the Tribunes, have not insisted,
requested, ordered, demanded or anyway acted to be given previews of
any act coming from you.

> Let me end this thanking the Tribunes both from last year and this
> year, fully including Domitius Constantinus Fuscus, for their
> understanding and good cooperation!

And, given we are at that, I would like to say that I also enjoyed
cooperating with you this year and I thank you for the courtesy and
respect you showed to me, and I think I'm allowed to say to my
collegues as well, all thro the year. I hope you always felt treated
in a similar way by us.

Vale Bene,

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus

Founder of Gens Constantinia
Tribunus Plebis
Aedilis Urbis Iterum

Dear Cordus

> A shame, then, that you have spent so much of this
> year trying to keep the activities of the tribunes
> away from the Quirites' eyes - one of the points I
> discussed in the part of my message which you declined
> to read. :)

It's amazing.

You made a statement that even you had to admit was too general and
misleading (that the tribunes had insisted in having legislation sent
to them for review), a statement that Censor Quintilianus has just
confirmed to be simply untrue, and yet, unable to simply admit you
were wrong and leave the thing at that, you spend, so far, 18
paragraphs in three mails, in which, for what I cared to read, you
basically assimilate me to the Mafia and now (or, as well, whatever)
you accuse me of having basically turned the tribunate a secretive
association... which is simply ridicolous, obviously, considering I
had no power to do so in a college where all the members are equal in
potestas. but words are cheap, indeed (and that's a good thing, or
you'd be ruined, by now).

At least, there is a good thing to it: we can be sure you are bound
for a good academic career.. you are often loghorroic, convoluted,
pedantic and absolutely unable to admit a mistake and live with it...
at most it's a "ok, I was wrong, but...eventually I was right anyway".

You'll grow up, at some point, and discover one can say he's wrong
without having to drown people in a tidal wave of words in order to
have everyone forgetting that, and that saying a stupid thing and
being called to it is not the end of the world.

And now, frankly, I feel this discussion has outlived its usefulness,
I'll gladly leave you the last, long I assume, words.

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus

Founder of Gens Constantinia
Tribunus Plebis
Aedilis Urbis Iterum

A. Apollonius Domitio Constantino omnibusque sal.

> I'll gladly leave you the last, long I assume,
> words.

Thank you. I'll use them simply to point out that all
the words you have used in this discussion have been
devoted to attacking me personally rather than
addressing the substance of what I said, which you
admit that you haven't even bothered to read. If you
had read it, you would have noticed that I made it
clear throughout that I was not questioning your good
faith or good intentions. It's a shame you couldn't
reciprocate, but a shame on you, not on me.





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

P. Memmius Albucius Censori Fabio, Tribuno Fusco Cordoque s.d.

S.V.G.E.R.

Obvious things need sometimes to be told or re-told. So thanks, dear
Quintiliane, for reminding everyone that first, discussing is longer
(when an action begins) than no discussion, and, second, that such
discussions between NR magistrates are often better than no discussion
at all, particularly when the involved magistrates are sincere and
conscious of their own duty. This observation works at the same time
inside a collective magistracy as between constitutional magistrates.
For the tribunate, that has been the way Tribune Fuscus has seen
things, and this has been my point of view, too.

Please, Quintiliane, let me thank you sincerely for thus having this
year seen things like that : a so obviously useful collaboration
between, as far as I have been concerned, the censorate and the
tribunate. Thanks, too, to Censor Marinus, for his efficiency.

Last, I would like to confirm totally the view precised by Hon. Tribune
Fuscus : the tribunate has not delayed the some (and very few)drafts of
edicts or laws which have been communicated to it. There are already so
much opportunities of loss of time and delay inside our different
magistracies ! I think that this working field may be an interesting
one for the magistrates who are going to enter in office soon. ;-)

Valete omnes,


P. Memmius Albucius


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
<christer.edling@t...> wrote:

>
> Salvete Quirites!
>
> I have made it my routine in whatever position I have had to always
> check my proposed edicta or leges with the Tribunes before I actually
> publish them. I have done so out of my free will, out courtesy and
> because I think it is in the best interest of Nova Roma. (..)

> On the other hand it is true that when a magistrate, as I do, choose
> to go this way it will take more time than without it.

C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix Quiritibus S.P.D.

Salvete

Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix wrote:

> To this end I have made a proposal within the Collegium Pontificum to
> re-evaluate all of the various priesthoods within Nova Roma (many which
> are unfilled, and IMHO are unfillable) and determine which ones make
> sense for our Res Publica, which ones should be kept but need to be
> reinterpreted, and which ones are either irrelevant or simply
> impossible to reconstruct. I have also proposed that the CP explicitly
> state the duties, roles and responsibilities of each priesthood within
> Nova Roma, something that has never really been before and is long
> overdue.
>

Right after posting this, I discovered that my friend and colleague Gn.
Salvius Astur was already working on a similar measure which he will be
presenting to the CP shortly. He and Q. Caecilius Metellus have also
been working on updating the calendar, a project which should also be
completed in the near future. These two gentleman, while being our
newest Pontifices, have done an immense amount work towards getting the
Religio Publica of Nova Roma where it needs to be, and I think that our
Res Publica should count itself lucky having citizens of this caliber
working behind the scenes to establish and maintain our Pax Deorum.

Salvete,

--
Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix
Candidate for Censor
Pontifex et Minervae Aedis Sacerdos
Legate Massachusetts Regio
c.minucius.hadrianus@...

"We are all, so far as we inherit the civilization of Europe,
still citizens of the Roman Empire, and time as not yet proved
Virgil wrong when he wrote /nec tempora pono: imperium sine fine dedi./"

-T.S. Eliot

"/His ego nec metas rerum nec tempora pono: imperium sine fine dedi./"

"For the achievement of these people I fix neither spatial boundaries or
temporal limits: I have given them empire without end."

-Virgil, /Aeneid/ I.278,279

P. Memmius Albucius Consuli Caesari s.d.


Some observations and questions to you, Consul Caesar, as presiding
magistrate of next comitia centuriata, whose answers will help me
precising my position towards this draft :


1/ Have you corrected the text?
a) « the the » sitting magistrates : one « the » seems
sufficient...
b) pls add a « n » to the title « costitutional amendment » (I
know : italian...)

2/ a) Was the expression « sitting magistrate » accurate in
ancient Roma ? Is not it a « modern » creation (i.e. the opposition,
sepcially in justice word, between « sitting » magistrates and
accusators) ?
b) « Upon » : would not « after » be more precise, even « upon » is
correct ?
c) « Pursuant » : which is the *precise* meaning (my english
dictionary is too « short » on this point !) ? Does it mean that the
law comes after in terms of (voting) time, or that it is an
application of the constitution ? Whatever your answer, is this
meaning fully clear ?

3/ Far more important, I think that when we make modifications
in a (so major) text, we need to be the more precise as possible.
The paragraph IV of the Constitution speaks of the magistrates, all
of them, and not only of the ordinarii. We must not forget that it
contains a paragraph « B », which concerns the extraordinarii
(dictator and interrex ).
Then we see that the proposed modification seems having forgotten
this paragraph B, for we cannot write « An office becomes vacant when
the magistrate resigns or dies » for the dictator or the interrex.,
because both extraordinary positions are, in their essence, time
limited.
We have all understood that you were aiming the *ordinarii* «
resignation case ».
So, dear Consul, you have two alternative solutions : either keeping
the sentence in the introductory paragraph, but adding some words
like « except for extraordinary magistrates, for which.. etc. » ; or
keeping the proposed sentence unmodified, but inserting it in the
part « A » of the paragraph IV.

Vale Consul,

P. Memmius Albucius
______________________

COSTITUTIONAL AMENDEMENT #1

The Par. IV of Constitution of Nova Roma is amended as follows.
The line:

'An office becomes vacant when the magistrate resigns or dies.'
(Article IV, Preface)

is hereby replaced by:

'An office becomes vacant when the the sitting magistrate dies or
upon a legally valid resignation as defined by pursuant law''"

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "FAC" <fraelov@y...> wrote:
>
> Franciscus Apulus Caesar Consul Omnibus SPD
>
> The Comitia Centuriata will assemble to vote for the ordinary
> Centuriate magistracies for calendar year 2759 auc.
(..)
> At the same time the citizens are convened to vote for the following
> leges and amendements:

> COSTITUTIONAL AMENDEMENT #1
>
> The Par. IV of Constitution of Nova Roma is amended as follows.
> The line:
>
> 'An office becomes vacant when the magistrate resigns or dies.'
> (Article IV, Preface)
>
> is hereby replaced by:
>
> 'An office becomes vacant when the the sitting magistrate dies or
> upon a legally valid resignation as defined by pursuant law''"

P. Memmius Albucius Consuli Caesari s.d.


Some observations and questions to you, Consul Caesar, as presiding
magistrate of next comitia centuriata, whose answers will help me
precising my position towards this draft :


1/ Have you corrected the text?
a) « the the » sitting magistrates : one « the » seems
sufficient...
b) pls add a « n » to the title « costitutional amendment » (I
know : italian...)

2/ a) Was the expression « sitting magistrate » accurate in
ancient Roma ? Is not it a « modern » creation (i.e. the opposition,
sepcially in justice word, between « sitting » magistrates and
accusators) ?
b) « Upon » : would not « after » be more precise, even « upon » is
correct ?
c) « Pursuant » : which is the *precise* meaning (my english
dictionary is too « short » on this point !) ? Does it mean that the
law comes after in terms of (voting) time, or that it is an
application of the constitution ? Whatever your answer, is this
meaning fully clear ?

3/ Far more important, I think that when we make modifications
in a (so major) text, we need to be the more precise as possible.
The paragraph IV of the Constitution speaks of the magistrates, all
of them, and not only of the ordinarii. We must not forget that it
contains a paragraph « B », which concerns the extraordinarii
(dictator and interrex ).
Then we see that the proposed modification seems having forgotten
this paragraph B, for we cannot write « An office becomes vacant when
the magistrate resigns or dies » for the dictator or the interrex.,
because both extraordinary positions are, in their essence, time
limited.
We have all understood that you were aiming the *ordinarii* «
resignation case ».
So, dear Consul, you have two alternative solutions : either keeping
the sentence in the introductory paragraph, but adding some words
like « except for extraordinary magistrates, for which.. etc. » ; or
keeping the proposed sentence unmodified, but inserting it in the
part « A » of the paragraph IV.

Vale Consul,

P. Memmius Albucius
______________________

COSTITUTIONAL AMENDEMENT #1

The Par. IV of Constitution of Nova Roma is amended as follows.
The line:

'An office becomes vacant when the magistrate resigns or dies.'
(Article IV, Preface)

is hereby replaced by:

'An office becomes vacant when the the sitting magistrate dies or
upon a legally valid resignation as defined by pursuant law''"

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "FAC" <fraelov@y...> wrote:
>
> Franciscus Apulus Caesar Consul Omnibus SPD
>
> The Comitia Centuriata will assemble to vote for the ordinary
> Centuriate magistracies for calendar year 2759 auc.
(..)
> At the same time the citizens are convened to vote for the following
> leges and amendements:

> COSTITUTIONAL AMENDEMENT #1
>
> The Par. IV of Constitution of Nova Roma is amended as follows.
> The line:
>
> 'An office becomes vacant when the magistrate resigns or dies.'
> (Article IV, Preface)
>
> is hereby replaced by:
>
> 'An office becomes vacant when the the sitting magistrate dies or
> upon a legally valid resignation as defined by pursuant law''"

P. Memmius Albucius Consuli Caesari s.d.

S.V.G.E.R.

Your Cst amdt n° 2 proposal is a wise one.

Just one demand, which confirms what I have asked you privately these
last days : just please correct the draft before asking the cives to
vote it, and replace "Capiti Censi" by "CapitE censi" (this is a
singular neutral ablative, not a plural nominative ; furthermore, if
is was, it would make "capitA").

Thanks a lot.

Vale Consul.

P. Memmius Albucius


______________________

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "FAC" <fraelov@y...> wrote:
>
> Franciscus Apulus Caesar Consul Omnibus SPD
>
> The Comitia Centuriata will assemble to vote for the ordinary
> Centuriate magistracies for calendar year 2759 auc.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> COSTITUTIONAL AMENDEMENT #2
>
> The Constitution of Nova Roma is amended as follows.
> The line:
>
> "E. Tribes and Centuries
>
> 1. There shall exist thirty-five tribes, into which the censors
> shall divide all of the citizens. Thirty-one of these tribes shall
be
> designated the Rural tribes, and shall be assigned by the censors as
> directed by law passed by the comitia populi tributa. Four of these
> tribes shall be designated the urban tribes, and shall be made up of
> those citizens who fail to vote in the annual magisterial elections.
> Should a member of an urban tribe subsequently vote in an annual
> magisterial election, he or she shall be reassigned to a rural
> tribe."
>
> is hereby replaced by:
>
> "E. Tribes and Centuries
>
> 1. There shall exist thirty-five tribes, into which the censors
> shall divide all of the citizens. Thirty-one of these tribes shall
be
> designated the Rural tribes, and shall be assigned as directed by
law
> passed by the comitia populi tributa. Four of these tribes shall be
> designated the urban tribes, and shall be made up of those citizens
> designated as Capiti Censi as defined by applicable law."

Salvete Omnes,

I can only answer for my own part.

The Lex Senatoria was proposed early in the year but was withdrawn
after consideration of the comments received. It was revised and
sent to an extended contio becuase it had originally appeared to be
controversial. Just as I was ready to call for a vote, our
webmaster resigned.

As for the Lex on resignations, Consul Caesar and I ahave been
discussing it most of the year and finally decided we have to agree
to disagree.

> This year within Nova Roma has seen little activity compared to

previous

> years.

Jist a comment that this was intentional at least on my part.

Valete,

G. Popillius Laenas

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@g...>
wrote:

>
> Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.
>
> This year within Nova Roma has seen little activity compared to

previous

> years. This being the case, WHY are so many laws being proposed

now with

> only a few weeks left in the year? There is a LOT to digest, and

only a few

> days for some of us to consider them before voting starts. What

is the

> reason for waiting until the last minute?
>
> I understand the legislation submitted by the Censors has been two

years in

> the making, and I am fully aware of the evolution of that

particular

> proposal. However, I don't see a reason to wait so long. I

understand we

> have been without a webmaster until just recently, but we did have

a

> webmaster for some time before his official resignation. Why does

it *seem*

> that everything is voted upon at the end of the year?
>
> I'm just curious why it all had to wait until the last minute.
>
> Valete:
>
> Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salve Luci Servili, et salvete omnes,

Lucius Servilius <primus@...> writes:

> Please forgive me for asking this question. But this is the first time I
> will be able to vote in N.R. and I am a (little) confused as to when I
> will be voting. As in which time frame alloted. I am in Tribe: XX Plobilia-
> Century 50 - Assidui - Pleblian.

The Cista should open soon. Once it does, the presiding magistrates or their
representatives will announce that voting has begun for the respective
comitia.

Once the cista is open all citizens are welcome to vote in the Comitia Populi
Tributa, and all plebeian citizens are welcome to vote in the Comitia Plebi
Tributa (aka the Concilium Plebis).

In the Comitia Centuriata, only the Centuria Praerogativa may vote between the
opening of the cista and 6:00 pm in Rome two days from now. (6 pm Central
European Time corresponds to noon Eastern Standard Time). After 6 pm in Rome
on the 14th, all of the other First Class centuries may vote. Citizens who
are not in First Class centuries must wait until general voting begins at 6
pm in Rome on the 17th of December. General voting will continue until 6 pm
in Rome on the 21st.

My general recommendation is for people to wait until it's time for their
century to vote, and then vote in all three (two for patricians) elections.

Vale, et valete,

CN•EQVIT•MARINVS

Salvete Omnes,

following the useful suggestions of Apollonius Cordus, I asked to
Curator Scaevola to modify the lex Apula de assidius et capite censi.
Please, note the new release of the law proposed to the Comitia.

Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Consul

C. Equitius Cato Cn. Equitio Marino censore magistrati quiritibusque
S.P.D.

Salvete omnes.

Censor, thank you for that information; however, as I pointed out
earlier today, the cista *ought* to be closed on a.d XVIII Kal. Ian.
(15 December) and a.d. XVI, XV, and XIV Kal. Ian. (17-19 December,
inclusive) in observance of the Consualia, first day of the
Saturnalia, Market Day, and the Opalia, which fall on those respective
days. They are dies nefasti publici (fastus for the Market Day), and
therefore it is contrary to custom to hold meetings of the comitia
populi tributa or comitia centuriata.

Again, the magistrates empowered to call the elections may decide that
since we have no "official" religious calendar (the College having
declined to announce one for a while) they are free to do so even on
the dies nefasti publici and a diem fastus; I would strongly caution
against it, as we would be commiting (an) act(s) that could only be
defined as nefas --- not a good way to begin the Saturnalia.

I would even go so far as to suggest that, if a magistrate issues an
edict which calls for the cista to be open on these days, any other
magistrate empowered to do so should issue an intercessio against it
until it conforms to these observances.

Valete,

Cato

Salvete Omnes,

please accept my sincere apologies for the delay, the cista should be
open since 1 hour and 30 minutes but it seems that our webmaster
haven't do it. We're waiting for technical updates about it.

Obviously, the calendar would suffer a modification which will be
announced when the cista will be open.

Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Consul

Salve Tribunus Albucius,

thank you very much for your grammatical corrections, I sent them to
the webmaster for the modification.

In any way, if they couldn't be modified, I recall you that the
current laws permit us to modify the grammatical and latin errors in
a second moment.

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Consul



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Tribune Albucius"
<albucius_aoe@h...> wrote:

>
> P. Memmius Albucius Consuli Caesari s.d.
>
>
> Some observations and questions to you, Consul Caesar, as

presiding

> magistrate of next comitia centuriata, whose answers will help me
> precising my position towards this draft :
>
>
> 1/ Have you corrected the text?
> a) « the the » sitting magistrates : one « the » seems
> sufficient...
> b) pls add a « n » to the title « costitutional amendment » (I
> know : italian...)
>
> 2/ a) Was the expression « sitting magistrate » accurate

in

> ancient Roma ? Is not it a « modern » creation (i.e. the

opposition,

> sepcially in justice word, between « sitting » magistrates and
> accusators) ?
> b) « Upon » : would not « after » be more precise, even « upon »

is

> correct ?
> c) « Pursuant » : which is the *precise* meaning (my english
> dictionary is too « short » on this point !) ? Does it mean that

the

> law comes after in terms of (voting) time, or that it is an
> application of the constitution ? Whatever your answer, is this
> meaning fully clear ?
>
> 3/ Far more important, I think that when we make modifications
> in a (so major) text, we need to be the more precise as possible.
> The paragraph IV of the Constitution speaks of the magistrates,

all

> of them, and not only of the ordinarii. We must not forget that it
> contains a paragraph « B », which concerns the extraordinarii
> (dictator and interrex ).
> Then we see that the proposed modification seems having forgotten
> this paragraph B, for we cannot write « An office becomes vacant

when

> the magistrate resigns or dies » for the dictator or the

interrex.,

> because both extraordinary positions are, in their essence, time
> limited.
> We have all understood that you were aiming the *ordinarii* «
> resignation case ».
> So, dear Consul, you have two alternative solutions : either

keeping

> the sentence in the introductory paragraph, but adding some words
> like « except for extraordinary magistrates, for which.. etc. » ;

or

> keeping the proposed sentence unmodified, but inserting it in the
> part « A » of the paragraph IV.
>
> Vale Consul,
>
> P. Memmius Albucius
> ______________________
>
> COSTITUTIONAL AMENDEMENT #1
>
> The Par. IV of Constitution of Nova Roma is amended as follows.
> The line:
>
> 'An office becomes vacant when the magistrate resigns or dies.'
> (Article IV, Preface)
>
> is hereby replaced by:
>
> 'An office becomes vacant when the the sitting magistrate dies or
> upon a legally valid resignation as defined by pursuant law''"
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "FAC" <fraelov@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Franciscus Apulus Caesar Consul Omnibus SPD
> >
> > The Comitia Centuriata will assemble to vote for the ordinary
> > Centuriate magistracies for calendar year 2759 auc.
> (..)
> > At the same time the citizens are convened to vote for the

following

> > leges and amendements:
>
> > COSTITUTIONAL AMENDEMENT #1
> >
> > The Par. IV of Constitution of Nova Roma is amended as follows.
> > The line:
> >
> > 'An office becomes vacant when the magistrate resigns or dies.'
> > (Article IV, Preface)
> >
> > is hereby replaced by:
> >
> > 'An office becomes vacant when the the sitting magistrate dies or
> > upon a legally valid resignation as defined by pursuant law''"
>

Salve P. Memmius Albucius!

>P. Memmius Albucius Censori Fabio, Tribuno Fusco Cordoque s.d.
>
>S.V.G.E.R.
>
>Obvious things need sometimes to be told or re-told. So thanks, dear
>Quintiliane, for reminding everyone that first, discussing is longer
>(when an action begins) than no discussion, and, second, that such
>discussions between NR magistrates are often better than no discussion
>at all, particularly when the involved magistrates are sincere and
>conscious of their own duty. This observation works at the same time
>inside a collective magistracy as between constitutional magistrates.
>For the tribunate, that has been the way Tribune Fuscus has seen
>things, and this has been my point of view, too.
>
>Please, Quintiliane, let me thank you sincerely for thus having this
>year seen things like that : a so obviously useful collaboration
>between, as far as I have been concerned, the censorate and the
>tribunate. Thanks, too, to Censor Marinus, for his efficiency.

I thank You too for a good cooperation! I wish You all the best in
your future work for Nova Roma.

>Last, I would like to confirm totally the view precised by Hon. Tribune
>Fuscus : the tribunate has not delayed the some (and very few)drafts of
>edicts or laws which have been communicated to it. There are already so
>much opportunities of loss of time and delay inside our different
>magistracies ! I think that this working field may be an interesting
>one for the magistrates who are going to enter in office soon. ;-)
>
>Valete omnes,
>
>P. Memmius Albucius
>
>
>--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
><christer.edling@t...> wrote:
>>
>> Salvete Quirites!
>>
>> I have made it my routine in whatever position I have had to always
>> check my proposed edicta or leges with the Tribunes before I actually
>> publish them. I have done so out of my free will, out courtesy and
>> because I think it is in the best interest of Nova Roma. (..)
>
>> On the other hand it is true that when a magistrate, as I do, choose
>> to go this way it will take more time than without it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

Censor, Consularis et Senator
Praeses, Triumvir et Praescriptor Academia Thules ad S.R.A. et N.
Editor-in-Chief, Publisher and Owner of "Roman Times Quarterly"
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Cohors Censoris CFBQ
http://www.hanenberg-media-webdesign.com/cohors/index_uk.htm
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

A. Apollonius Francisco Apulo consuli omnibusque sal.

> following the useful suggestions of Apollonius
> Cordus, I asked to
> Curator Scaevola to modify the lex Apula de assidius
> et capite censi.
> Please, note the new release of the law proposed to
> the Comitia.

That's very welcome news! Is there anywhere we can see
the new text other than on the ballot itself?



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

A. Apollonius omnibus sal.

The polls are almost open, so let me throw my little
weight behind those candidates I think most deserve
it.

Now, I had intended to be rather stern this year and
simply refuse to endorse anyone who tried to skip a
step of the cursus honorum. I know a lot of people
think that it's too soon to insist on the full ancient
cursus because it would leave us with too few
qualified candidates for the highest offices. The
problem with this argument is that it is
self-fulfilling. If, for example, there are not enough
former praetores to fill the vacancies for consul, the
long-term solution must surely be to produce more
former praetores, and this can't be achieved by
encouraging candidates to skip the praetura and go
direct from aedile or tribune to consul. That's a
solution that perpetuates the problem.

Irritatingly, it turns out that taking that stance
would leave me a rather limited choice of candidates,
and not the choice I would prefer to make. So I shall
have to be less stern than I meant to be. But I still
want to stress that we should all consider proper
qualification under the traditional cursus an
extremely important criterion in deciding who should
hold office.

Well, on to the specifics. For censor, C. Minucius
Hadrianus. I know from my year as his colleague
counting votes that he will perform the time-consuming
and repetitious tasks of the censura with diligence;
more importantly, everything I've seen of him makes me
think he has the moral seriousness and uprightness we
should look for in a censor.

For consul, C. Buteo. Though I would have preferred
him to run for praetor, I think he will make an
excellent consul, and his candidacy is particularly
welcome to me as the candidacy of our leading
independent, non-partisan statesman. I wish him
success not just for himself but also to open the way
for more non-party men and women.

For praetor there is a clear choice between a pair of
candidates who have completed the proper steps of the
cursus and a pair who have not. Ti. Galerius Paulinus
and C. Curius Saturninus have both been tribune, an
office which is, no doubt, at least as good a
preparation for the office of praetor as it was in
antiquity. They are also in themselves outstanding
candidates, and I have no hesitation in endorsing them
both. I must say that I really feel for a third
candidate, T. Octavius Pius, who has tried twice to be
elected aedilis curulis (and who really ought to have
won at least one of those races) and can hardly be
blamed for not wanting to try a third time; but such
is the nature of the cursus.

Our candidates for aediles curules are a fine pair,
although of course one would have preferred T. Julius
to hold the quaestura first. It's rare to find a
candidate for aedilis curulis who seems equally well
equipped to organize games and to resolve commercial
disputes, but here we have two of them. I commend to
you both C. Equitius Cato and T. Julius Sabinus.

For aedilis plebis, the very same could be said for
our sole candidate Julilla Sempronia, who is if
anything over-qualified for the job, which I'm sure
she will do splendidly. I also very much hope she will
be able to rely on the assistance of M. Hortensia
after the by-election.

The candidates for tribuni plebis are all eminently
qualified for the office, and indeed two of them have
held it before, which must be some sort of record. I
particularly look forward to the fulfillment of Cn.
Salvius' promise to open a debate on the role of the
tribunate in our constitutional system, and I must
also mention Q. Svetonius and M. Moravius, both of
whom I have had the pleasure of corresponding with
privately from time to time and both of whom have
struck me as people with much to give the republic.

For the quaestura, again, a fine set of candidates (I
make no comment on myself, though): let me mention
particularly M. Julius Perusianus, Cn. Julius Caesar,
Q. Fabius Allectus, and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus.

For magister aranearius I don't doubt either candidate
would be a good one, but my vote will go to D.
Claudius, whose work I have seen in action in the
sodalitas Musarum, where he recently took over as
webmaster with great energy and effectiveness.

One of my main impressions of M. Cassius Philippus is
that he is interested in many different things, and
that strikes me as a quality particularly suited to
the editor of a general-purpose newsletter, so he too
has my vote.

Two of the candidates for rogator have had hands-on
experience of the work the office involves, and I
think this is an office in which prior experience is
particularly useful: they are A. Tullia and M. Julius.
One need hardly add that A. Tullia's command of Latin
also equips her particularly well for the part of the
job which involves working with applicants to find
suitable Roman names.

Lastly there are the two types of electoral official,
the diribitor and the custos. Again, it's hard to find
fault with any of the candidates here, particularly
with such illustrious ones as L. Rutilius the former
provincial governor and of course Franciscus Apulus
the consul! I would just say that, as far as
diribitores go, Stephanus Ullerius Venator was my
colleague when we did the same job (it had a different
name then) a couple of years ago, and he did it very
well, in spite of various difficulties beyond his
control. I must also mention Emilia Curia, whose
patience and equanimity are excellent qualities for a
custos.

Good luck to them all. Thanks for listening.



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

Salve Cato, et salvete quirites,

gaiusequitiuscato <mlcinnyc@...> writes:

> Censor, thank you for that information; however, as I pointed out
> earlier today, the cista *ought* to be closed on a.d XVIII Kal. Ian.
> (15 December) and a.d. XVI, XV, and XIV Kal. Ian. (17-19 December,
> inclusive) in observance of the Consualia, first day of the
> Saturnalia, Market Day, and the Opalia, which fall on those respective
> days. They are dies nefasti publici (fastus for the Market Day), and
> therefore it is contrary to custom to hold meetings of the comitia
> populi tributa or comitia centuriata.

Your dedication to the customs of antiquity is admirable amice, but your
appreciation for practicality is a bit lacking. In antiquity elections were
held on a single day, with all the people gathering in their tribes and
centuries in Rome to vote. In Nova Roma we have elections that run for many
days, and in the case of the Centuria which require periodic reports on the
progress of the voting. So it has been customary for many years to *begin*
the elections on days that are comitialis, and after that to let the election
run.

It's true that last year when I was Consul I closed the cista on the dies
nefasti, but that was my own decision and not something required by our laws.
Since our current consuls have waited so long to hold these elections,
there's just not much time left between now and the end of the year. Since
the auspicia were taken for elections running through the dates announced and
no bad signs were observed, let's trust that the Dii Immortales are not
objecting to the published timetable.

I think the better time to raise objections to the schedule would have been
when Consul Caesar posted his call. Right now the contio is over and it's
time to vote.

For those concerned about piety, I recommend voting on a day that is
traditionally comitialis. Those can be identified here:

http://novaroma.org/bin/calendar/cal

The dies comitalis are identified in green.

Vale, et valete,

CN•EQVIT•MARINVS