C. equitius Cato quirites S.P.D.

Salvete omnes.

So a Roman, a Carthaginian, and an Egyptian walk into a bar...



Valete,

Cato

Scaevola Piscinus SPD.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 11:37:32AM -0000, marcushoratius wrote:
> Salve Scaevola
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Benjamin A. Okopnik" <ben@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Bottom line is that a civis has a right to pursue
> > > claims against other cives if he or she so wishes. It is not a
> > > right to be used frivolously, nor is it a right that should be
> > > summarily dismissed.
> >
> > My problem with the process as it stands is that there's protection
> > against the latter - but none against the former.
>
> I agree. The only other protection against harassing litigations
> that is currently available is the auxilium of the Tribuni Plebis.
> Granted, this does not always work either and could conceivably be
> abused. What Nova Roma has not done yet, but what was developed in
> Roma antiqua because of a problem with harassing litigations, was
> the passage of a lex whereby an individual Actor who could not prove
> his claim against the Reus would suffer the same penalty as was
> intended to be inflicted on the Reus.

This would be, in my eyes, a move in the right direction. Not all that
satisfactory to someone who's been falsely accused... but the law is
about justice, not satisfying the revenge motive, so it seems like an
excellent idea.

> What I referred to earlier is
> that under current circumstances, a Reus in one case could
> conceivably file suit against the Actor, reversing roles, with a
> claim that the failed attempt at prosecution was an offense that
> unjustly sought to curtail the rights of the Reus as a civis.

Oh, if I was going to play the game out to its fullest, I'd file against
Fuscus for Laesa Patriae rather than some lesser offense. His ridiculous
suit, if seen by anyone from the outside, creates more damage to the
Republic than almost anything else I can think of; it destroys any
perception that anyone might have had of Nova Roma as an organization
with serious, real-world aims.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Duo cum faciunt idem, non est idem.
When two do the same thing, it isn't the same (i.e. one can get away with doing
something while another cannot).
-- Terence, "Adelphoe". Cf. "quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi."

A. Apollonius C. Equitio omnibusque sal.

> So a Roman, a Carthaginian, and an Egyptian walk
> into a bar...

Ouch!



___________________________________________________________
Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now. http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:38:31PM -0000, Timothy P. Gallagher wrote:

> Salve
>
> Tribune Marcus Horatius said in part
>
> "Personal conflicts need to be handled differently, rather than
> allow them to disrupt the lists or tolerate their needlessly tying
> up our legal system."
>
> WHAT??

Just what it says above.

> The only people who are keeping this conflict alive on the main list
> are the Reus and his supporters.

Nice try at redrawing the lines there. The reason the conflict exists in
the first place is that you've decided to grant official status to
vapor; otherwise, it would have been just another one of the hundred
thousand exchanges on the ML.

> They and they alone are "disrupt
> the lists" with this issue. This is long after my request that it be
> limited to court list.

Your "requests" - more accurately, veiled threats - are not only
worthless but illegal. You have no right, in your official position, to
demand that the list members here stop discussing something that you
don't like for that reason alone.

> As to "their needlessly tying up our legal system." This is the
> first court case to be heard in the EIGHT year history of Nova Roma.
> The system is not exactly over burdened and is this not why we have
> a legal system?

For baseless, vacuous lawsuits filed in order to harass someone? Bravo!
You've just managed to support my point in full.


Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Inventas vitam iuvat excoluisse per artes.
Let us improve life through science and art.
-- Inscription on the Nobel Prize winner medals. After Vergil, "Aenis."

F. Galerius Aurelianus S.P.D.

I am back from sabbatical and find that Nova Roma has continued on in its own unique fashion.

To the Consuls: the Lex Salicia Iudiciara dealing with judicial matters is a bit of a joke considering our small membership consisting primarily of on-line citizens. Furthermore any one who has actually formed a real world group would be hampered by having to follow the procedures outlined in this lex and the subsequent lex dealing with legal proceedings by provincial governors. Also, this lex was passed by a vote of 18 to 16 which clearly demonstrates that at the time it was passed, almost half of the Comitia Populi Tributa thought it was bad idea. I am sure that the majority of active citizens would vote for the following changes within the body of a new lex.

I propose that the Consuls formulate a new lex to be presented to the Comitia Populi Tributa as soon as feasible. This would leave the majority of the Lex Salicia Iudiciara intact but would eliminate sections XIV, XV, XVI, XVIII (since blasphemy did not exist as such in the Republic), and XXI. The section dealing with slander, libel, and falsification be re-written to reflect that the praetores will decided on moderation based upon complaints and that the person can have their moderated status renewed based on future complaints. At such time as Nova Roma moves from a primarily on-line organization to a real world organization, we can worry about assault and misappropriation of public funds.

Vadete in pacem Cereri.


-----Original Message-----
From: Domitius Constantinus Fuscus <dom.con.fus@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:49:47 +0100
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: De petitione: sundry comments


Salve Agricola

On 3/13/06, M. Lucretius Agricola <wm_hogue@...> wrote:
>
> I would strongly support the notion that Praetors would refer
> litigants to non-binding mediation as a preliminary step. It is a
> sensible procedure that is consistant with the assumption of good
> faith on the part of all Citizens.
>
> I urge the Praetors to take note of this wise suggestion on the part
> of Tribune Piscinus.
>


Mediation is indeed a valuable resource and was also looked for in the
specific case that raised this topic, but unfortunately it is only possible
between reasonable people, tho. When one comes out with public "I prefer to
die than doing something" or closer statements, usually embellished with
colorful name-calling, mediation is hardly a viable option.

vale,

DCF


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




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

F. Galerius Aurelianus quirites S.P.D.


C. equitius Cato quirites S.P.D.

So a Roman, a Carthaginian, and an Egyptian walk into a bar...

FGA: and the owner of the caupone says, "Ercule! Is this some kind of a joke?"

Valete,

Cato






Yahoo! Groups Links






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

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:50:14PM +0000, A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:

> A. Apollonius C. Equitio omnibusque sal.
>
> > So a Roman, a Carthaginian, and an Egyptian walk
> > into a bar...
>
> Ouch!

Yeah, you'd think one of them would have looked...


Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hoc coactus sum.
To this, I am forced and compelled.
(According to legend, a secret reservation written by bishop Hans Brask of
Link�ping and hidden under his seal on a document he was reluctant to sign.)

F. Galerius Aurelianus S.P.D.

With all due respect to my patron and friend who formulated the Lex Fabia de Censu during his Consulship, the idea of socii just didn't work out and has kept our membership numbers artificially inflated.

To the Consuls: I respectfully submit that the Lex Fabia de Censu needs some adjustment and a new lex needs to be formulated and presented to the Comitia Populi Tributa as soon as possible with the following changes:

Item III.B.4.c needs to be eliminated.

Item VI currently reads:
If a citizen fails to respond to the contact attempts, that person will be considered a "Socius" (Ally), but not a citizen. If he/she is a Pater/Materfamilias, he/she shall lose this position immediately and the Censors will abide by the Constitution, any laws, and any Censorial edict if the appointment of a Paterfamilias is necessary. However, the Censors have the discretion to waive this clause if both Censors feel there are legitimate reasons for the citizen to remain incommunicado.

This would need to be written in the new lex to reflect that after all normal attempts to contact the inactive citizen have failed, the Censors will treat them as someone who has resigned all their offices both civil and religious, barring only those that are held for life & they to be treated as sacer but without the ability to perform their offices until reviewed by the CP or CA to have their ability to practice their office restored following their restoration of citizenship. Furthermore, even if granted restoration as a pontifex or augur, they shall be treated as the most junior member of their college. Also, the Censors shall NOT have the discretion to waive this clause even if both Censors feel there are legitimate reasons for the citizen to remain incommunicado.

Item VIII currently reads:
At any time, a Socius may contact the Censores and ask to regain his/her Citizenship, which will then be granted unless there are compelling reasons otherwise.

This should be changed in the new lex to reflect that a former member must join Nova Roma through the provisional citizenship program the same as any new citizen unless there is a special consideration under another lex.

Item IX currently reads:
In the Album Civium it shall be clearly indicated whether an individual is a Civis (citizen) or a Socius.

This should be changed in the new lex to show that the former citizen is stricken from the membership rolls of Nova Roma and all references in the Album Civium should reflect their departure from Nova Roma. The Album Civium is for citizens only, whether they are neither assidui or capite censi.

I respectfully request that the Consuls consult with each other on this proposal and, if they choose not to act on it, that they present their reasons on declining it on the ML within five days.

Vadete in pacem Cereri.


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

A. Apollonius C. Minucio M. Moravio omnibus sal.

Scaevola amice, we're already talking about most of
this privately, so I'll omit to reply to most of it
and concentrate on the item which might lead to useful
reform of the law. But if you think there's anything
outstanding that's relevant to our private discussion,
tell me and I'll reply to it in the course of that.

Piscine, you have said:

> ... What Nova Roma has not done yet, but what
> was developed in
> Roma antiqua because of a problem with harassing
> litigations, was
> the passage of a lex whereby an individual Actor who
> could not prove
> his claim against the Reus would suffer the same
> penalty as was
> intended to be inflicted on the Reus.

This fits with what Scaevola has mentioned several
times, namely the absence in the current system of any
significan deterrent for frivolous or malicious
prosecutions. What you're talking about here - I'll
explain for the benefit of those who don't know - is
calumnia. Confusingly, 'calumnia' is currently the
Latin name erroneously given to our offence of
defamation. This is not what the ancient legal term
'calumnia' meant. Calumnia was one of three offences
which might be committed by a prosecutor in the course
of a trial.

At the end of a criminal prosecution in the judicia
publica (standing criminal courts) the judices, after
having voted on whether the defendant should be
condemned or absolved, voted on two further items:
praevaricatio and calumnia. A related item, though
arising at a different point, was tergiversatio.

Tergiversatio was the offence of starting a case and
then dropping it before the end without permission
from the praetor, thus wasting the court's time. A
prosecutor who did this could be punished for doing
so. If the trial got to the end and the defendant was
absolved, the judices would then vote on praevaricatio
and calumnia. Praevaricatio was the offence committed
by a prosecutor who conspired with a defendant to
deliberately lose the case and thus help the defendant
get absolved. Calumnia, on the other hand, was the
offence committed where the prosecutor made a
malicious prosecution on charges which he knew to be
false.

There would certainly be no harm in introducing these
three features into our judicial system. We should be
careful to note, however, that they are only
applicable in the criminal courts. Defamation should,
I have already suggested, be a civil action and would
therefore not be covered by these.

The other thing which has been discussed is the
possibility of the praetores trying to resolve the
dispute extrajudicially. I do think there's a lot of
merit in this idea in general, but we must note that
it is not currently an option which is available to
the praetores. The lex Salicia gives them only 72
hours to decide whether a petitio is to be accepted or
rejected, and that is clearly nowhere near long enough
to effect any adequate mediation. So to make this
possible there would need to be some extension in the
time allowed for this stage of proceedings.

To be honest I think many of these problems would be
solved, or at least reduced, if we were to remodel the
entire system based on the republican judicial system.



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

Salvete,

Are there any active temples that are specifically for the Roman
religion? As there's many independant churchs around I was wondering
if there are actually any temples or places of 'worship' that are
actually used (other than private home shrines)for the worship of the
Roman gods.

Salve Tribune,

Thank you for the report. However, Item XIV appears to be cut off mid-sentence. Can you fill in the
blanks for us please?

<Item XIV This item serves as an option to the Senatores to write in any existing Governor by name
for proroguement who either:

< [Note of Tribunus Plebis: three former propraetores in particular were considered for write-in by
some of the Senatores. Those Senatores who wrote in one of <the names are indicated below.]

Vale,
Diana

---
Salvete Galerius Aurelianus Quiritibus:

Welcome back.

I understand, and I officially acknowledge your requests made
today. Keep in mind though, that our Tabularium is home to several
laws in need of review, for one reason or another.

However, I shall advise you outright, with respect, rather than wait
5 days to report back to you, as you ask in a subsequent post, that
this will take time, but be assured that these problems are being
examined. I will in all likelihood not have a solution for the
people in less than a week.

It took many years for these laws to collect, and so they will take
some time to review, and indeed, more than a few people share your
exasperation.

We are attending to forthcoming election proceedings also, by the
way.

Valete,
Pompeia Minucia Strabo
Consul Minor



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

>
> F. Galerius Aurelianus S.P.D.
>
> I am back from sabbatical and find that Nova Roma has continued on

in its own unique fashion.

>
> To the Consuls: the Lex Salicia Iudiciara dealing with judicial

matters is a bit of a joke considering our small membership
consisting primarily of on-line citizens. Furthermore any one who
has actually formed a real world group would be hampered by having
to follow the procedures outlined in this lex and the subsequent lex
dealing with legal proceedings by provincial governors. Also, this
lex was passed by a vote of 18 to 16 which clearly demonstrates that
at the time it was passed, almost half of the Comitia Populi Tributa
thought it was bad idea. I am sure that the majority of active
citizens would vote for the following changes within the body of a
new lex.

>
> I propose that the Consuls formulate a new lex to be presented to

the Comitia Populi Tributa as soon as feasible. This would leave
the majority of the Lex Salicia Iudiciara intact but would eliminate
sections XIV, XV, XVI, XVIII (since blasphemy did not exist as such
in the Republic), and XXI. The section dealing with slander, libel,
and falsification be re-written to reflect that the praetores will
decided on moderation based upon complaints and that the person can
have their moderated status renewed based on future complaints. At
such time as Nova Roma moves from a primarily on-line organization
to a real world organization, we can worry about assault and
misappropriation of public funds.

>
> Vadete in pacem Cereri.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Domitius Constantinus Fuscus <dom.con.fus@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:49:47 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: De petitione: sundry comments
>
>
> Salve Agricola
>
> On 3/13/06, M. Lucretius Agricola <wm_hogue@...> wrote:
> >
> > I would strongly support the notion that Praetors would refer
> > litigants to non-binding mediation as a preliminary step. It is a
> > sensible procedure that is consistant with the assumption of good
> > faith on the part of all Citizens.
> >
> > I urge the Praetors to take note of this wise suggestion on the

part

> > of Tribune Piscinus.
> >
>
>
> Mediation is indeed a valuable resource and was also looked for in

the

> specific case that raised this topic, but unfortunately it is only

possible

> between reasonable people, tho. When one comes out with public "I

prefer to

> die than doing something" or closer statements, usually

embellished with

> colorful name-calling, mediation is hardly a viable option.
>
> vale,
>
> DCF
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

F. Galerius Aurelianus flamen Cerialis to the flamen Florialis. Salve.

I recently emailed you privately, Iulianus, but did not receive a
reply. Please contact me as I need your assistance on an event I am
sponsoring in April that is under the auspices of your Goddess. If
anyone knows how to get in touch with the flamen Florialis, please
forward this email to him. Thank you.

Vadete in pacem Cereri.

I, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar (Nigel Kell) do hereby solemnly swear to
uphold the honor of Nova Roma, and to act always in the best
interests of the people and the Senate of Nova Roma.

As a magistrate of Nova Roma, I, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar (Nigel Kell)
swear to honor the Gods and Goddesses of Rome in my public dealings,
and to pursue the Roman Virtues in my public and private life.

I, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar (Nigel Kell), swear to uphold and defend the
Religio Romana as the State Religion of Nova Roma and swear never to
act in a way that would threaten its status as the State Religion.

I, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar (Nigel Kell), swear to protect and defend the
Constitution of Nova Roma.

I, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar (Nigel Kell), further swear to fulfill the
obligations and responsibilities of the office of Propraetor to the
best of my abilities.

On my honor as a Citizen of Nova Roma, and in the presence of the
Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people and by their will and favor,
do I accept the position of Propraetor and all the rights, privileges,
obligations, and responsibilities attendant thereto.

Salvete omnes,

I am going to be in Calgary tomorrow and part of Wednesday. I have a
meeting then it will be off to the barbarian wilderness again for a
week or so on the weekend. Oh well, one has to make the garum in this
industry whilst the sun shines and its better to be wanted than
unwanted. I should be having the internet on location as usual.

Congratulations to Gnaeus Iulius Caesar! I know he shall be a great
propraetor for Canada Occidentalis and will certainly have our upmost
cooperation.


Regards,

Quintus Suetonius Paulinus

Marcus Iulius Severus Quiritibus S.P.D.

Ego, Marcus Iulius Severus (Luis Gutiérrez Esparza), hac re ipsa
decus Novae Romae me defensurum, et semper pro populo senatuque
Novae Romae acturum esse sollemniter IVRO.

Ego, Marcus Iulius Severus (Luis Gutiérrez Esparza), officio
Propraetor Provincia Mexico Novae Romae accepto, Deos Deasque Romae in omnibus meae vitae publicae temporibus culturum, et virtutes Romanas publica privataque vita me persecuturum esse IVRO.

Ego, Marcus Iulius Severus (Luis Gutiérrez Esparza), Religioni
Romanae me fauturum et eam defensurum, et numquam contra eius
statum publicum me acturum esse, ne quid detrimenti capiat IVRO.

Ego, Marcus Iulius Severus (Luis Gutiérrez Esparza) officiis
muneris Propraetor me quam optime functurum esse praeterea IVRO.

Meo civis Novae Romae honore, coram Deis Deabusque Populi Romani,
et voluntate favoreque eorum, ego munus Propraetor Provincia Mexico una cum iuribus, privilegiis, muneribus et officiis comitantibus ACCIPIO.

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

I, Marcus Iulius Severus (Luis Gutiérrez Esparza), do hereby
solemnly swear to uphold the honor of Nova Roma, and to act always
in the best interests of the people and the Senate of Nova Roma.

As a magistrate of Nova Roma, I, Marcus Iulius Severus (Luis
Gutiérrez Esparza), swear to honor the Gods and Goddesses of Rome
in my public dealings, and to pursue the Roman Virtues in my public
and private life.

I, Marcus Iulius Severus (Luis Gutiérrez Esparza), swear to uphold
and defend the Religio Romana as the State Religion of Nova Roma
and swear never to act in a way that would threaten its status as
the State Religion.

I, Marcus Iulius Severus (Luis Gutiérrez Esparza), swear to protect
and defend the Constitution of Nova Roma.

I, Marcus Iulius Severus (Luis Gutiérrez Esparza), further swear to
fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of the office of
Propraetor Provincia Mexico to the best of my abilities.

On my honor as a Citizen of Nova Roma, and in the presence of the
Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people and by their will and favor,
do I accept the position of Propraetor Provincia Mexico and all the rights, privileges, obligations, and responsibilities attendant thereto.

Sworn this day, March 14, in the consulship of G. Fabius Buteo
Modianus and Pompeia Minucia Strabo.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yo, Marcus Iulius Severus (Luis Gutiérrez Esparza), juro
solemnemente defender el honor y la integridad de Nova Roma y
actuar siempre en favor de los mejores intereses del pueblo y el
Senado de Nova Roma.

Como magistrado de Nova Roma, yo, Marcus Iulius Severus (Luis
Gutiérrez Esparza), juro honrar a los Dioses y Diosas de Nova Roma
en mis funciones públicas y apegarme a las Virtudes Romanas, tanto
en mi vida pública como en la privada.

Yo, Marcus Iulius Severus (Luis Gutiérrez Esparza), juro
salvaguardar y defender la Religio Romana como religión del Estado
de Nova Roma y juro que jamás actuaré de manera tal, que amenace su
calidad de religión del Estado.

Yo, Marcus Iulius Severus (Luis Gutiérrez Esparza), juro proteger y
defender la Constitución de Nova Roma.

Yo, Marcus Iulius Severus (Luis Gutiérrez Esparza), juro asimismo
cumplir las obligaciones y responsabilidades del cargo de Propraetor de la Provincia México, al máximo de mis capacidades.

Por mi honor como ciudadano de Nova Roma y en presencia de los
Dioses y Diosas del pueblo romano y por su gracia y favor, acepto
con este juramento el cargo de Propraetor de la Provincia México, con todos sus derechos, privilegios, obligaciones y responsabilidades.

Jurado este día, 14 de marzo de 2006, en el consulado de G. Fabius
Buteo Modianus y Pompeia Minucia Strabo.

M•IVL•SEVERVS
PROPRAETOR•PROVINCIA•MEXICO
ROGATOR
SCRIBA•CENSORIS•GEM
MVSÆVS•COLLEGII•ERATOVS•SODALITATIS•MVSARVM
SOCIVS•CHORI•MVSARVM
NOVƕROMƕSPQR

--
_______________________________________________
Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.linuxmail.org
This allows you to send and receive SMS through your mailbox.

Powered by Outblaze

EDICTVM.PROPRÆTORICIVM.XXIX (A C.ARMINIVS.RECCANELLVS XI)
CAIVS.ARMINIVS.RECCANELLVS.PROPRÆTOR.BRASILIÆ.OMNIBVS.CIVIBUS.S.P.D
 
By this edictum, and using my Imperium (given to me by Senatus and Populus Romanum), I decide:

As permited by iten IV.B.4 of LEX EQVITIA DE TIROCINIO CIVIVM NOVORVM, and considering her exceptional academic qualification, GAIA ARMINIA FLAVA don't need to pass by the probationary period. By this way, he must be considered a complete nova-romam citizen, using all her rights and duties.

DATVM.SVB.MANV.MEA.PRIDIE.ID.MARTIAS.MMDCCLIX.A.V.C
GAIO.FABIO.BUTEONE.MODIANO.POMPEIA.MINUCIA-TIBERIA.STRABONE.CONSULIBUS

C.ARMINIVS.RECCANELLVS
PROPRAETOR.PROVINCIAE.BRASILIAE
QUAESTOR.NOVAE.ROMAE
"Quousque tandem, Lula, abutere patientia nostra?"
 
=========================================================================
 
EDICTVM.PROPRÆTORICIVM.XXIX (A C.ARMINIVS.RECCANELLVS XI)
CAIVS.ARMINIVS.RECCANELLVS.PROPRÆTOR.BRASILIÆ.OMNIBVS.CIVIBUS.S.P.D
 
Por meio do presente, e utilizando o Imperium que me foi conferido pelo Senado e pelo Povo de Roma, decido:
 
Utilizando a prerrogativa concedida pelo item IV.B.4 da LEX EQVITIA DE TIROCINIO CIVIVM NOVORVM, e tendo em vista sua notória e excepcional qualificação acadêmica, GAIA ARMINIA FLAVA está dispensada do período probatório de 90 dias exigido em lei, pelo que deverá ser considerada cidadã plena, com todos os direitos e deveres decorrentes desta condição.

DATVM.SVB.MANV.MEA.PRIDIE.ID.MARTIAS.MMDCCLIX.A.V.C
GAIO.FABIO.BUTEONE.MODIANO.POMPEIA.MINUCIA-TIBERIA.STRABONE.CONSULIBUS

C.ARMINIVS.RECCANELLVS
PROPRAETOR.PROVINCIAE.BRASILIAE
QUAESTOR.NOVAE.ROMAE
"Quousque tandem, Lula, abutere patientia nostra?"


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

CN EQVITIVS MARINVS C ARMINIO RECCANELLO SPD:

Your edictum is illegal Propraetor. If you read the law you qoute,
you'll see that the section you quote gives the Senate the authority to
waive the probationary period in exceptional cases. Not the provincial
governors.

See http://novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2004-10-07-iv.html

"IV. A. These requirements may be wholly or partially waived by the
Senate in exceptional circumstances."

I recommend you withdraw this unlawful edictum.

Vale,

Gn. Equitius Marinus
Censor

C·ARMINIVS·RECCANELLVS wrote:

> EDICTVM.PROPRÆTORICIVM.XXIX (A C.ARMINIVS.RECCANELLVS XI)
> CAIVS.ARMINIVS.RECCANELLVS.PROPRÆTOR.BRASILIÆ.OMNIBVS.CIVIBUS.S.P.D
>
> By this edictum, and using my Imperium (given to me by Senatus and Populus Romanum), I decide:
>
> As permited by iten IV.B.4 of LEX EQVITIA DE TIROCINIO CIVIVM NOVORVM, and considering her exceptional academic qualification, GAIA ARMINIA FLAVA don't need to pass by the probationary period. By this way, he must be considered a complete nova-romam citizen, using all her rights and duties.
>
> DATVM.SVB.MANV.MEA.PRIDIE.ID.MARTIAS.MMDCCLIX.A.V.C
> GAIO.FABIO.BUTEONE.MODIANO.POMPEIA.MINUCIA-TIBERIA.STRABONE.CONSULIBUS
>
> C.ARMINIVS.RECCANELLVS
> PROPRAETOR.PROVINCIAE.BRASILIAE
> QUAESTOR.NOVAE.ROMAE
> "Quousque tandem, Lula, abutere patientia nostra?"
>
> =========================================================================
>
> EDICTVM.PROPRÆTORICIVM.XXIX (A C.ARMINIVS.RECCANELLVS XI)
> CAIVS.ARMINIVS.RECCANELLVS.PROPRÆTOR.BRASILIÆ.OMNIBVS.CIVIBUS.S.P.D
>
> Por meio do presente, e utilizando o Imperium que me foi conferido pelo Senado e pelo Povo de Roma, decido:
>
> Utilizando a prerrogativa concedida pelo item IV.B.4 da LEX EQVITIA DE TIROCINIO CIVIVM NOVORVM, e tendo em vista sua notória e excepcional qualificação acadêmica, GAIA ARMINIA FLAVA está dispensada do período probatório de 90 dias exigido em lei, pelo que deverá ser considerada cidadã plena, com todos os direitos e deveres decorrentes desta condição.
>
> DATVM.SVB.MANV.MEA.PRIDIE.ID.MARTIAS.MMDCCLIX.A.V.C
> GAIO.FABIO.BUTEONE.MODIANO.POMPEIA.MINUCIA-TIBERIA.STRABONE.CONSULIBUS
>
> C.ARMINIVS.RECCANELLVS
> PROPRAETOR.PROVINCIAE.BRASILIAE
> QUAESTOR.NOVAE.ROMAE
> "Quousque tandem, Lula, abutere patientia nostra?"

> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus wrote:
>
> CN EQVITIVS MARINVS C ARMINIO RECCANELLO SPD:
>
> Your edictum is illegal Propraetor. If you read the law you qoute,
> you'll see that the section you quote gives the Senate the
> authority to waive the probationary period in exceptional cases.
> Not the provincial governors.
> Vale,
> Gn. Equitius Marinus
> Censor

Well, I have antecipated a step!!! Sorry!!! I'll send to Senatus my
petition.

Sorry!

C•ARMINIVS•RECCANELLVS
PROPRAETOR•PROVINCIAE•BRASILIAE
QUAESTOR•NOVAE•ROMAE
"Quousque tandem, Lula, abutere patientia nostra?"

Because I have made a wrong step, I cancel my last Edictum.

I'll wait for a senatus answer about my question.

Sorry for the trouble

C•ARMINIVS•RECCANELLVS
PROPRAETOR•PROVINCIAE•BRASILIAE
QUAESTOR•NOVAE•ROMAE
"Quousque tandem, Lula, abutere patientia nostra?"

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, C·ARMINIVS·RECCANELLVS
<c.arminius.reccanellus@...> wrote:

>
> EDICTVM.PROPRÆTORICIVM.XXIX (A C.ARMINIVS.RECCANELLVS XI)
> CAIVS.ARMINIVS.RECCANELLVS.PROPRÆTOR.BRASILIÆ.OMNIBVS.CIVIBUS.S.P.D
>  
> By this edictum, and using my Imperium (given to me by Senatus and

Populus Romanum), I decide:

>
> As permited by iten IV.B.4 of LEX EQVITIA DE TIROCINIO CIVIVM

NOVORVM, and considering her exceptional academic qualification, GAIA
ARMINIA FLAVA don't need to pass by the probationary period. By this
way, he must be considered a complete nova-romam citizen, using all
her rights and duties.

>
> DATVM.SVB.MANV.MEA.PRIDIE.ID.MARTIAS.MMDCCLIX.A.V.C
> GAIO.FABIO.BUTEONE.MODIANO.POMPEIA.MINUCIA-

TIBERIA.STRABONE.CONSULIBUS

>
> C.ARMINIVS.RECCANELLVS
> PROPRAETOR.PROVINCIAE.BRASILIAE
> QUAESTOR.NOVAE.ROMAE
> "Quousque tandem, Lula, abutere patientia nostra?"
>  
>

======================================================================
===

>  
> EDICTVM.PROPRÆTORICIVM.XXIX (A C.ARMINIVS.RECCANELLVS XI)
> CAIVS.ARMINIVS.RECCANELLVS.PROPRÆTOR.BRASILIÆ.OMNIBVS.CIVIBUS.S.P.D
>  
> Por meio do presente, e utilizando o Imperium que me foi conferido

pelo Senado e pelo Povo de Roma, decido:

>  
> Utilizando a prerrogativa concedida pelo item IV.B.4 da LEX EQVITIA

DE TIROCINIO CIVIVM NOVORVM, e tendo em vista sua notória e
excepcional qualificação acadêmica, GAIA ARMINIA FLAVA está
dispensada do período probatório de 90 dias exigido em lei, pelo que
deverá ser considerada cidadã plena, com todos os direitos e deveres
decorrentes desta condição.

>
> DATVM.SVB.MANV.MEA.PRIDIE.ID.MARTIAS.MMDCCLIX.A.V.C
> GAIO.FABIO.BUTEONE.MODIANO.POMPEIA.MINUCIA-

TIBERIA.STRABONE.CONSULIBUS

>
> C.ARMINIVS.RECCANELLVS
> PROPRAETOR.PROVINCIAE.BRASILIAE
> QUAESTOR.NOVAE.ROMAE
> "Quousque tandem, Lula, abutere patientia nostra?"
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiritibus salutem dicit


CAERIMONIA EQUIRRIAE (secunda)

I bathed in preparation, then, garbed in toga praetexta, cinctu Gabino,
capite velato, I began the praefatio.

Praefatio

"Iane Pater, te hoc ture commovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies volens
propitius mihi et Senatui Populoque Novae Romae"
[Father Ianus, by offering this incense to you I pray good prayers, so that you may be willingly propitious to me and the Senate and People of Nova Roma"].
I placed incense in the focus of the altar.

"Iuppiter Optime Maxime, te hoc ture commovendo bonas preces precor, uti
sies volens propitius mihi et Senatui Populoque Novae Romae"
[Iuppiter Best and Greatest, by offering this incense to you I pray good prayers,
so that you may be willingly propitious to me and the Senate and People
of Nova Roma"].
I placed incense in the focus of the altar.

"Iuno Dea, te hoc ture commovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies volens
propitia mihi et Senatui Populoque Novae Romae"
[Goddess Iuno, by offering this incense to you I pray good prayers, so that you may be willingly propitious to me and the Senate and People of Nova Roma"].
I placed incense in the focus of the altar.

"Minerva Dea, te hoc ture commovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies volens
propitia mihi et Senatui Populoque Novae Romae"
[Goddess Minerva, by offering this incense to you I pray good prayers, so that you may be willingly propitious to me and the Senate and People of Nova Roma."
I placed incense in the focus of the altar.

"Quirine Pater, te hoc ture commovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies
volens propitius mihi et Senatui Populoque Novae Romae"
[Father Quirinus, by offering this incense to you I pray good prayers, so that you may be willingly propitious to me and the Senate and People of Nova Roma.]"
I placed incense in the focus of the altar.

"Iane Pater, uti te ture commovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto"
[Father Ianus, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be honored by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

"Iuppiter Optime Maxime, uti te ture commovendo bonas preces bene
precatus sum, eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto"
[Iuppiter Best and Greatest, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be honored by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

"Iuno Dea, uti te ture commovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum, eiusdem
rei ergo macte vino inferio esto"
[Goddess Iuno, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be honored by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

"Minerva Dea, uti te ture commovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto"
[Goddess Minerva, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be honored by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

"Quirine Pater, uti te ture commovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto"
[Father Mars, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be honored by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

I washed my hands in preparation for the praecatio.

Precatio

"Mars Pater, te precor uti fortitudine et peritia horum equitum
Equirriae Senatus Populusque Norvorum Romanorum Quiritum iniciantur et
sies volens propitius mihi et Senatui Populoque Novorum Romanorum
Quiritum. Mars Pater, qui currui temporis equos citos suos iungit ut
mensem Martii adduucat, tibi fieri oportet culignam vini dapi, eius rei
ergo hac illace dape pullucenda esto"
[Father Mars, I pray you that the Senate and People of the Nova Romans, the Quirites, may be inspired by the courage and skill of these horsemen of the Equirria and that you may be propitious to the Senate and People of the Nova Romans, the
Quirites. Father Mars, who hitches his swift horses to the chariot of time to bring on the month of March, to you it is proper for a cup of wine to be given, for the sake of this thing therefore may you be honored by this feast offering]."
I poured a libation on the altar and added laurel for Mars.

Again I washed my hands in preparation for the redditio.

Redditio

"Mars Pater, qui in campo suo certamen Equirriae semper prospicit, macte
istace dape pollucenda esto, macte vino inferio esto"
[Father Mars, who always observes from afar the race of the Equirria on his own field, may you be honoured by this feast offering, may you be honoured by the
humble wine.]"
I offered Mars Pater laurel, cakes and wine on the altar.

"Quirine Pater, uti te ture commovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto"
[Father Mars, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

"Minerva Dea, uti te ture commovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto "
[Goddess Minerva, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

"Iuno Dea, uti te ture commovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum, eiusdem
rei ergo macte vino inferio esto"
[Goddess Iuno, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

"Iuppiter Optime Maxime, uti te ture commovendo bonas preces bene
precatus sum, eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto"
[Iuppiter Best and Greatest, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

"Iane Pater, uti te ture commovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto"
[Father Ianus, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

"Vesta Dea, custos ignis sacri, macte vino inferio esto"
[Goddess Vesta, guardian of the sacred fire, be honoured by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

"Illicet" [It is permitted to go.]"

I profaned wine and cakes, and I partook of the epulum with Mars Pater,
praying as I ate and offering libations in my private devotions.

Piaculum

Since the historical caerimonia of the feria of the Equirria has not yet
been recovered (in fact we know virtually nothing about it; a few
formulae here have been adapted from Ovid's _Fasti_) , I offered a
piaculum to Mars Pater if anything in this caerimonia should offend him:

"Mars Pater, si quidquam tibi in hac caerimonia displicet, hoc ture
veniam peto et vitium meum expio"
[Father Mars, if anything in this ceremony is displeasing to you, with this incense I ask forgiveness and expiate my fault.]"
I offered incense on the altar.

"Mars Pater, si quidquam tibi in hac caerimonia displicet, hoc vino inferio veniam peto et vitium meum expio"
[Father Mars, if anything in this ceremony is displeasing to you, with this humble wine I ask forgiveness and expiate my fault.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.


Valete

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

Salve F. Galerius Aurelianus, Amice!

Yes You are my friend, but patron I don't really know about. ;-)

Let me comment as short as possible.

I think we first should look for the reasons for the category
"socii". even before I became a Consul I had found that many citizens
disappeared and then returned. I has always been very interested in
this phenomena. Why did people behave like this. I found out that
many of these people had to do military duty and disappeared to do
so, other suddenly lost a relative or underwent a divorce. This way
many disappeared, when they came back there was at least some
bureaucracy to get "their" name back. No Census had ever been been
executed before in Nova Roma and when I studied the Census rule at
that time, they seemed lack a few things. So there was no surprise
that the Censor the year before hadn't held any Census at all. When
we started to study the system I felt that loosing people because the
Census would make it hard for people to come back didn't make sense
at all. Because of that the Socii were created.

During my two years term as Censor I once again saw the same thing
happening, good people disappearing and then coming back to ask for
their old name. That citizens should have one name an only one name
should be the ideal I think and under the new lex that was no problem.

I honestly admit that some of the Socii are deadwood. But we have
really got some very productive citizens back through this system,
without obstacles, the most famous name is the present Tribune Marcus
Moravius Piscinus Horatianus. who came back to be my Censorial Scribe
and to then assist me heavily in executing last year's Census in a
more than splendid way. I wouldn't like to miss the opportunity to
re-recruit such a splendid person, who also has excelled as a
Praeceptor (teacher) in Religio Romana in Academia Thules, there are
also other examples.

So please let me say that there is a good reason to keep the Socii
system, but I recognize that the group of Socii might have grown too
big and in the risk that will be a "overload". To fix this I think we
instead should keep the Socii system, but only allow people to remain
socii for one Census period or two. I would suggest one period at
least on try. This would allow valuable citizens to return.

Dear F. Galerius Aurelianus, amice, I think your search for a change
in the Census system mostly has developed form the effects of a
recent return, the return of our Pater Patriae, Flavius Vedius
Germanicus. He returned to Nova Roma not too long ago and has been
reinstated in most of his old positions, except the Augurship. When
the present Senior Consul supported his interpretation that Flavius
Vedius Germanicus already was an Augur and also should be fully
reinstate as one both as an individual and colleague in the Collegium
Augurum, it lead to to some strife in the Collegium Pontifeces (at
least I think so). I have the feeling that You want to see to it that
some like that never might happen again.

Now I need to be open and honest with You. I really don't think this
is the real problem. The real problem is Senator Lucius Equitius
Cincinnatus Augur, for a long time our only Augur, who doesn't want
to see any other augur. How can I say so, well as far as I know he
has thrown out our present Senior Consul from the Collegium Augurum,
so in effect there is no Collegium at all. Further he has also
blocked every new candidate for Augurship. When it comes to Flavius
Vedius Germanicus the conflict between these two individuals are well
known. This is the real reason it became so complicated to reinstate
Flavius Vedius Germanicus, something that should have been look at
with satisfaction as this citizen is our founding Father and also
well versed in augury as far as i know. There is however also another
problem included in this the fact that a political faction, which
could be named the ex-boni seek to control the priesthood of Nova
Roma as their last political stronghold.

>F. Galerius Aurelianus S.P.D.
>
>With all due respect to my patron and friend who formulated the Lex
>Fabia de Censu during his Consulship, the idea of socii just didn't
>work out and has kept our membership numbers artificially inflated.
>
>To the Consuls: I respectfully submit that the Lex Fabia de Censu
>needs some adjustment and a new lex needs to be formulated and
>presented to the Comitia Populi Tributa as soon as possible with the
>following changes:
>
>Item III.B.4.c needs to be eliminated.
>
>Item VI currently reads:
>If a citizen fails to respond to the contact attempts, that person
>will be considered a "Socius" (Ally), but not a citizen. If he/she
>is a Pater/Materfamilias, he/she shall lose this position
>immediately and the Censors will abide by the Constitution, any
>laws, and any Censorial edict if the appointment of a Paterfamilias
>is necessary. However, the Censors have the discretion to waive this
>clause if both Censors feel there are legitimate reasons for the
>citizen to remain incommunicado.
>
>This would need to be written in the new lex to reflect that after
>all normal attempts to contact the inactive citizen have failed, the
>Censors will treat them as someone who has resigned all their
>offices both civil and religious, barring only those that are held
>for life & they to be treated as sacer but without the ability to
>perform their offices until reviewed by the CP or CA to have their
>ability to practice their office restored following their
>restoration of citizenship. Furthermore, even if granted
>restoration as a pontifex or augur, they shall be treated as the
>most junior member of their college. Also, the Censors shall NOT
>have the discretion to waive this clause even if both Censors feel
>there are legitimate reasons for the citizen to remain incommunicado.
>
>Item VIII currently reads:
>At any time, a Socius may contact the Censores and ask to regain
>his/her Citizenship, which will then be granted unless there are
>compelling reasons otherwise.
>
>This should be changed in the new lex to reflect that a former
>member must join Nova Roma through the provisional citizenship
>program the same as any new citizen unless there is a special
>consideration under another lex.
>
>Item IX currently reads:
> In the Album Civium it shall be clearly indicated whether an
>individual is a Civis (citizen) or a Socius.
>
>This should be changed in the new lex to show that the former
>citizen is stricken from the membership rolls of Nova Roma and all
>references in the Album Civium should reflect their departure from
>Nova Roma. The Album Civium is for citizens only, whether they are
>neither assidui or capite censi.
>
>I respectfully request that the Consuls consult with each other on
>this proposal and, if they choose not to act on it, that they
>present their reasons on declining it on the ML within five days.
>
>Vadete in pacem Cereri.

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

Senator, Censorius et Consularis
Accensus GFBM, Scriba Censoris GEM
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
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

F. Galerius Aurelianus C. Fabio Buteo Quintiliano. Salve.

Yes You are my friend, but patron I don't really know about. ;-)

FGA: Actually, I do regard you as my patron in the sense that the
first civil appointment I ever received was as a member of your
cohors.

I think we first should look for the reasons for the category
"socii". even before I became a Consul I had found that many
citizens disappeared and then returned. I has always been very
interested in this phenomena. Why did people behave like this. I
found out that many of these people had to do military duty and
disappeared to do so, other suddenly lost a relative or underwent a
divorce. This way many disappeared, when they came back there was at
least some bureaucracy to get "their" name back. No Census had ever
been been executed before in Nova Roma and when I studied the Census
rule at that time, they seemed lack a few things. So there was no
surprise that the Censor the year before hadn't held any Census at
all. When we started to study the system I felt that loosing people
because the Census would make it hard for people to come back didn't
make sense at all. Because of that the Socii were created.

During my two years term as Censor I once again saw the same thing
happening, good people disappearing and then coming back to ask for
their old name. That citizens should have one name an only one name
should be the ideal I think and under the new lex that was no
problem.

I honestly admit that some of the Socii are deadwood <snip>.

FGA: MOST socii are deadwood. Horatianus is the exception and not
the rule. We currently have the census which allows anyone really
interested in remaining as a member to do so with very little
effort. We have the 9-day option to allow someone who resigns or
quits a grace period to realize their mistake and make it right.
There have not been more enough socii becoming active again to
justify continuing to keep so many names on the rolls. Furthermore,
I believe that if the socii no longer exist as a long term safety
net, citizens will be less willing to consider resigning or going
inactive for long periods of time until the atmosphere calms down
enough for a return.

Dear F. Galerius Aurelianus, amice, I think your search for a change
in the Census system mostly has developed form the effects of a
recent return, the return of our Pater Patriae, Flavius Vedius
Germanicus. He returned to Nova Roma not too long ago and has been
reinstated in most of his old positions, except the Augurship. When
the present Senior Consul supported his interpretation that Flavius
Vedius Germanicus already was an Augur and also should be fully
reinstate as one both as an individual and colleague in the
Collegium Augurum, it lead to to some strife in the Collegium
Pontifeces (at least I think so). I have the feeling that You want
to see to it that some like that never might happen again.

FGA: Actually, my dear Quintilianus, you are DEAD WRONG. Germanicus
has nothing to do with this as I raised the issue of doing away with
the socii to Modianus Consul & Paulinus Praetor before the last
election. Personally, I always believed that Germanicus' person
remained sacer and I ultimately suggested to the CP that Germanicus
be allowed to resume his duties & prerogatives as an Augur with no
loss of time. I had many reservations initially about his return
based on his prior resignations and his renouncment of the Religio
Romana but he gave me his private promise to work with the CA if
restored. However, he chose to withdraw his wish to become an augur
again before the CP could vote on a decretum about his augurship.
L. Equitius Cincinnatus Augur has resumed active participation in
his duties as the flamen of Mars and any magistrate who wishes to
have him perform his office of Augur has but to ask him to do so.
There are definitely some unresolved issues between our two current
Augurs but that is for them to settle and not for someone outside of
the CP or CA to comment upon without full knowledge or both sides of
the arguments. I will say as a member of the CP, I do not find
either Modianus Augur's or Cincinnatus Augur's behavior to be very
admirable but that is a personal viewpoint.

Now I need to be open and honest with You. I really don't think this
is the real problem. The real problem is Senator Lucius Equitius
Cincinnatus Augur, for a long time our only Augur, who doesn't want
to see any other augur. How can I say so, well as far as I know he
has thrown out our present Senior Consul from the Collegium Augurum,
so in effect there is no Collegium at all. Further he has also
blocked every new candidate for Augurship. When it comes to Flavius
Vedius Germanicus the conflict between these two individuals are
well known. This is the real reason it became so complicated to
reinstate Flavius Vedius Germanicus, something that should have been
look at with satisfaction as this citizen is our founding Father and
also well versed in augury as far as i know. There is however also
another problem included in this the fact that a political faction,
which could be named the ex-boni seek to control the priesthood of
Nova Roma as their last political stronghold.

FGA: My dear Quintilianus, while I respect that one should always
support and uphold one's family, your last statement shows that you
have been woefully misinformed about the current situation within
the CP and the CA.
Primus, Cinncinatus Augur did toss Modianus Augur off the CA list he
owned. I agree that this is a tacky sort of way to treat someone
who should be on the College of Augurs list.
Secundus, the CP votes on petitions for new Augurs not just the
current Augurs. It would not be possible for Cinncinatus Augur to
be able to block any new petitions with just his vote. It would
take the majority of the voting members of the CP to block any new
petitions for an Augurship.

HOWEVER, my post on the ML and to the Consuls about eliminating the
Socii was based on my personal belief that the Socii serve no
purpose in Nova Roma and a new lex needs to be formulated to remove
them. If the Consuls formulate a new lex to be voted on, any Socii
will have plenty of notice so they can rejoin NR as active citizens
before they and their names are eliminated permanently.

Be well, Quintilianus. Vadete in pacem Cereri, you Patrician hoot.

> >F. Galerius Aurelianus S.P.D.
> >
> >With all due respect to my patron and friend who formulated the

Lex

> >Fabia de Censu during his Consulship, the idea of socii just

didn't

> >work out and has kept our membership numbers artificially

inflated.

> >
> >To the Consuls: I respectfully submit that the Lex Fabia de

Censu

> >needs some adjustment and a new lex needs to be formulated and
> >presented to the Comitia Populi Tributa as soon as possible with

the

> >following changes:
> >
> >Item III.B.4.c needs to be eliminated.
> >
> >Item VI currently reads:
> >If a citizen fails to respond to the contact attempts, that

person

> >will be considered a "Socius" (Ally), but not a citizen. If

he/she

> >is a Pater/Materfamilias, he/she shall lose this position
> >immediately and the Censors will abide by the Constitution, any
> >laws, and any Censorial edict if the appointment of a

Paterfamilias

> >is necessary. However, the Censors have the discretion to waive

this

> >clause if both Censors feel there are legitimate reasons for the
> >citizen to remain incommunicado.
> >
> >This would need to be written in the new lex to reflect that

after

> >all normal attempts to contact the inactive citizen have failed,

the

> >Censors will treat them as someone who has resigned all their
> >offices both civil and religious, barring only those that are

held

> >for life & they to be treated as sacer but without the ability to
> >perform their offices until reviewed by the CP or CA to have

their

> >ability to practice their office restored following their
> >restoration of citizenship. Furthermore, even if granted
> >restoration as a pontifex or augur, they shall be treated as the
> >most junior member of their college. Also, the Censors shall NOT
> >have the discretion to waive this clause even if both Censors

feel

> >there are legitimate reasons for the citizen to remain

incommunicado.

> >
> >Item VIII currently reads:
> >At any time, a Socius may contact the Censores and ask to regain
> >his/her Citizenship, which will then be granted unless there are
> >compelling reasons otherwise.
> >
> >This should be changed in the new lex to reflect that a former
> >member must join Nova Roma through the provisional citizenship
> >program the same as any new citizen unless there is a special
> >consideration under another lex.
> >
> >Item IX currently reads:
> > In the Album Civium it shall be clearly indicated whether an
> >individual is a Civis (citizen) or a Socius.
> >
> >This should be changed in the new lex to show that the former
> >citizen is stricken from the membership rolls of Nova Roma and

all

> >references in the Album Civium should reflect their departure

from

> >Nova Roma. The Album Civium is for citizens only, whether they

are

> >neither assidui or capite censi.
> >
> >I respectfully request that the Consuls consult with each other

on

> >this proposal and, if they choose not to act on it, that they
> >present their reasons on declining it on the ML within five days.
> >
> >Vadete in pacem Cereri.
>
> --
>
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
>
> Senator, Censorius et Consularis
> Accensus GFBM, Scriba Censoris GEM
> 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
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
>

Salvete omnes, et salve F. Galeri,

> FGA: MOST socii are deadwood.

But not all, and the exceptions are more than a handful. Just today I've
restored to active citizenship yet another citizen who did not reply to last
year's census because he's not had access to e-mail between then and now. I
get about one such contact every week. Most -- though not all -- of these
are people who've been away on active military service and were not able to
respond to the census.

Right now I can restore these people to active citizenship with a few
keystrokes. If we purge them from the database it will require vastly more
effort on the part of the censors and rogators to bring a person back into
the fold. As far as I know it costs us nothing to keep these records, and it
would be folly to delete them.

Vale, et valete,

CN•EQVIT•MARINVS

In a message dated 3/14/2006 9:22:54 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
christer.edling@... writes:

There is however also another
problem included in this the fact that a political faction, which
could be named the ex-boni seek to control the priesthood of Nova
Roma as their last political stronghold.


Q. Fabius Maximus SPD

Salvete

Fabius, unless you have a shred of proof that the above is the case which
you do not, I'd stop making such misinformed statements. Last time I looked,
there were reconstructionists in all offices of Nova Roma, so, if being a
reconstructionist is your idea of a faction, we are everywhere politically not
just in the College.

Lucius Equitius cannot block anybody. The CP votes on Augurs based on
qualifications, not their own College as it was in the ancient time. Get your
facts straight.

Valete



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

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus Quinto Fabio Maximo salutem dicit

Please tell me what these qualifications are?

Marcus Cassius Julianus applied to be an Augur and was denied.

Patricia Cassia applied to be a Pontifex and was denied, after waiting
six months to a year on her application.

Is the founder of Nova Roma (i.e., Marcus Cassius), and our Pontifex
Maximus, not qualified to be an Augur? Is not Patricia Cassia, who
has been a long time Sacerdos, not qualified to be a Pontifex. We
have a lot of diversity within the Collegium Pontificum, and if we can
have a 20 year old as a Pontifex (and a good Pontifex at that) what
makes Patricia Cassia UN-qualified to be a Pontifex? What makes
Marcus Cassius UN-qualified to be an Augur?

Vale:

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus
Consul

On 3/14/06, QFabiusMaxmi@... <QFabiusMaxmi@...> wrote:
> In a message dated 3/14/2006 9:22:54 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> christer.edling@... writes:
>
> There is however also another
> problem included in this the fact that a political faction, which
> could be named the ex-boni seek to control the priesthood of Nova
> Roma as their last political stronghold.
>
>
> Q. Fabius Maximus SPD
>
> Salvete
>
> Fabius, unless you have a shred of proof that the above is the case which
> you do not, I'd stop making such misinformed statements. Last time I looked,
> there were reconstructionists in all offices of Nova Roma, so, if being a
> reconstructionist is your idea of a faction, we are everywhere politically not
> just in the College.
>
> Lucius Equitius cannot block anybody. The CP votes on Augurs based on
> qualifications, not their own College as it was in the ancient time. Get your
> facts straight.
>
> Valete

Salve Romans

In early March I shared this with the Magistrates list. What do you
think?

I had my staff pull together some research on the general
principles of Roman citizenship during the republic.

My thanks to A. Apollonius Cordus for his efforts in this matter.


"Roman citizenship during the republic could only be acquired in
three ways (apart from by birth). One way was for the person
acquiring it to be given it, either specifically or as part of a
defined group such as a town, by a lex passed by the comitia
centuriata.

The second way was for the person to be given it by a
magistrate who had been authorized to award citizenship to non-
citizens under a lex passed by the comitia centuriata. The third way
was for a person who already had the jus migrationis (this is a
modern term - we don't know what the Romans called it) to come to
live in Rome. The jus migrationis was a right which the Romans gave
to their key allies, for instance the members of the Latin
federation in the early republic.

It was given by treaty, and such treaties had to be ratified by the
comitia centuriata. Thus it seems that Roman citizenship could only
be awarded by the comitia centuriata one way or the other, directly
or indirectly. The jus migrationis was effectively a form of
suspended Roman citizenship.

A person who had the jus migrationis was effectively already a Roman
citizen, except for the rule of Roman law which said that no one
could be a citizen of two states at once. So as long as he lived in
his home state, his Roman citizenship was in a state of indefinite
suspension. As soon as he left his own city, however, and came to
live in Rome, his Roman citizenship was triggered and became fully
operative without any further paperwork. Similarly, a Roman citizen
who left Rome and went to live in another state, or who was captured
in war and taken as a slave to live elsewhere, did not automatically
lose his citizenship - it was merely suspended until such time as he
came back. When he came back his Roman citizenship would be resumed.
This resumption of citizenship was called postliminium.

No formalities were necessary: the mere act of returning was enough.
As time went on a body of rules grew up around postliminium to deal
with unusual cases. comitia centuriata, so too only the comitia
centuriata could take it away. This principle was recognized in the
XII tables and remained valid throughout the republic. But, like
awarding citizenship, removing it could be authorized indirectly: a
court of law established by a lex passed by the comitia centuriata
could deprive a convict of his citizenship if the lex which
established the court gave it the authority to do so."

In support of citizenship reform I submit the following draft lex .

This will end forever ( I hope) the drama of public resignations.


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus


*********************************************************************


Here's a first draft: LEX DE CIVITATE

I. Loss and restoration of citizenship

A.

Article II.A.4 of the constitution is amended to read: "No citizen
can lose his citizenship except as a result of a lex enacted by the
comitia centuriata which explicitly deprives him of his citizenship
or as a result of the decision of a court of law which has been
explicitly empowered to deprive citizens of their citizenship by a
lex enacted by the comitia centuriata."

B.

Article II.A.5 of the constitution is amended to read: "No citizen
deprived of his citizenship under II.A.4 shall regain citizenship
except as a result of a lex enacted by the comitia centuriata which
explicitly restores his citizenship."

C. Article III.B.3 of the constitution is amended to read: "To try
legal cases in which the sentence would deprive the defendant of his
citizenship."

D. Article III.C.3 of the constitution is amended to read: "To try
legal cases which involve only members of the plebeian order and in
which the sentence would not deprive the defendant of his
citizenship."

E. Article III.D.3 of the constitution is amended to read: "To try
legal cases in which the sentence would not deprive the defendant of
his citizenship."

II. Suspension of citizenship

A.

An article II.A.6 is added to the constitution reading: "A citizen's
citizenship may be placed in suspension and subsequently resumed by
such means as shall be provided by law."

B. A citizen may place his citizenship in indefinite suspension by
means of written notice to the censores stating his intention to do
so.

C. A citizen who is not registered at the census is considered to
have placed his citizenship in indefinite suspension.


D. A citizen whose citizenship is in suspension may not exercise any
of the rights of citizenship except the right to resume his
citizenship according to the provisions of this lex.

E. The lex Cornelia Maria de civitate eiuranda is repealed.

F. The lex Equitia de civitate eiuranda is repealed. G. Any person
who resigned his citizenship under the provisions of the lex
Cornelia Maria de civitate eiuranda or under the provisions of the
lex Equitia de civitate eiuranda shall be considered to have placed
his citizenship in indefinite suspension and shall be treated
according to the provisions of this lex.

H. Articles VI, VIII, and IX of the lex Fabia de censu are repealed.

III. Postliminium (resumption of suspended citizenship)

A.

A citizen whose citizenship is in suspension may resume full
citizenship at any time by means of a written notice to the censores
stating his intention to do so or by responding to the census.

B. A citizen who resumes his citizenship shall immediately resume
all the rights of citizenship.

C.

The position of a citizen who resumes his citizenship with respect
to such private legal entitlements, obligations, and relationships
as he held before his citizenship was suspended shall be determined
according to the law of the ancient Roman republic except where the
written law of Nova Roma shall provide otherwise.

D.

The effect of suspension and resumption of citizenship upon the
tenure of public priesthoods shall be determined by the collegium
pontificum.

E.

Article VI.B.2 of the constitution is amended to read: "The
Collegium Augurum (College of Augurs) shall be the second-highest
ranked of the priestly Collegia. The eldest member of the Collegium
shall be the Magister Collegii. The Collegium Augurum shall consist
of nine Augurs, five from the Plebeian order and four from the
Patrician order.


They shall be appointed by the Collegium Pontificum. a. The
collegium augurum shall have the following honors, powers, and
responsibilities: i. To research, practice, and uphold the ars
auguria (the art of interpreting divine signs and omens, solicited
or otherwise); ii. To issue decreta (decrees) on matters of the ars
auguria and its own internal procedures (such decreta may not be
overruled by laws passed in the comitia or Senatus consultum). b.
Individual augurs shall have the following honors, powers, and
responsibilities: i. To define templum (sacred space) and celebrate
auguria (the rites of augury); ii. To declare obnuntiatio (a
declaration that unfavorable and unsolicited omens have been
observed that justify a delay of a meeting of one of the comitia or
the Senate)."

F. Galerius Aurelianus Cn. Equitio Marino. Salve.

I have asked the consuls to look into a new lex about the Census. One consul has responded and the other has plenty of time to let me know if my request will be acted upon. What happens next is up to the Consuls.

My suggestion to the Consuls may act as a wake up call for socii who have been considering coming back and a proposed lex to eliminate their class may cause even more to come back and stay active. However, I still believe the majority of the socii are deadwood and deadwood needs to be pruned.

Vadete in pacem Cereri.



-----Original Message-----
From: CN•EQVIT•MARINVS (Gnaeus Equitius Marinus) <gawne@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:13:59 -0500
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Cutting the Dead Wood-New lex to change the Lex Fabia de Censu


Salvete omnes, et salve F. Galeri,

> FGA: MOST socii are deadwood.

But not all, and the exceptions are more than a handful. Just today I've
restored to active citizenship yet another citizen who did not reply to last
year's census because he's not had access to e-mail between then and now. I
get about one such contact every week. Most -- though not all -- of these
are people who've been away on active military service and were not able to
respond to the census.

Right now I can restore these people to active citizenship with a few
keystrokes. If we purge them from the database it will require vastly more
effort on the part of the censors and rogators to bring a person back into
the fold. As far as I know it costs us nothing to keep these records, and it
would be folly to delete them.

Vale, et valete,

CN.EQVIT.MARINVS



Yahoo! Groups Links






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

F. Galerius Aurelianus G. Fabio Buteo Modiano. Salve.

<snip>

Please tell me what these qualifications are?

FGA: Presumably this has to be a rhetorical question since you are both a pontifex and and an augur so you know the qualifications.

Marcus Cassius Julianus applied to be an Augur and was denied.

Patricia Cassia applied to be a Pontifex and was denied, after waiting
six months to a year on her application.

FGA: You know the reason, Modianus Pontifex et Augur, since you are privy to the votes and findings of the College of Priests. Are you just playing to the citizens with your display? Or have you been possessed by the spirit of someone of our mutual aquaintaince from the Bulldog State?

Is the founder of Nova Roma (i.e., Marcus Cassius), and our Pontifex
Maximus, not qualified to be an Augur? Is not Patricia Cassia, who
has been a long time Sacerdos, not qualified to be a Pontifex. We
have a lot of diversity within the Collegium Pontificum, and if we can
have a 20 year old as a Pontifex (and a good Pontifex at that) what
makes Patricia Cassia UN-qualified to be a Pontifex? What makes
Marcus Cassius UN-qualified to be an Augur?

FGA: Marcus Cassius Julianus and Patricia Cassia can re-apply to the College of Priests again just as someone who was rejected the first time from our fraternity, brother, can re-apply for membership. I appeal to you to remain calm as you are the one of the two top administrators of our organization and not Dick Cheney.

Vadete in pacem Cereri.


Vale:

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus
Consul


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

---Salve Praetor Tiberius Galerius Paulinus:

Ok. You present this to us on the Magistrates List, and you receive
responses to it from presiding magistrates, who are perhaps working
on some of the ideas presented therein, and now you are suddenly
taking it and pulling it out onto the ML for public contio? I am
totally confused.

You want me, the other Consul or Tribunes to promulgate this
verbatim, without even looking at it? Do you mind if this is
discussed first? Apparently you do. Sorry, but I read before
promulgating .... another one of my quirks.

Unfortunately, as far as I am concerned. the Magistrates List may as
well be deleted if you are going to just amalgamate the topics
discussed, be they initiated from you or someone else, right onto
the ML. This is the second time you've done this...first time you
took some conversation of the Censor and pasted it on here. Judging
by his reaction, I don't think you obtained his permission.

For someone who is supposed to be legal, let me ask you...do you
consider your actions herein to be 'right?'

Pompeia Minucia Strabo
Consul Minor





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

>
> Salve Romans
>
> In early March I shared this with the Magistrates list. What do

you

> think?
>
> I had my staff pull together some research on the general
> principles of Roman citizenship during the republic.
>
> My thanks to A. Apollonius Cordus for his efforts in this matter.
>
>
> "Roman citizenship during the republic could only be acquired in
> three ways (apart from by birth). One way was for the person
> acquiring it to be given it, either specifically or as part of a
> defined group such as a town, by a lex passed by the comitia
> centuriata.
>
> The second way was for the person to be given it by a
> magistrate who had been authorized to award citizenship to non-
> citizens under a lex passed by the comitia centuriata. The third

way

> was for a person who already had the jus migrationis (this is a
> modern term - we don't know what the Romans called it) to come to
> live in Rome. The jus migrationis was a right which the Romans gave
> to their key allies, for instance the members of the Latin
> federation in the early republic.
>
> It was given by treaty, and such treaties had to be ratified by the
> comitia centuriata. Thus it seems that Roman citizenship could only
> be awarded by the comitia centuriata one way or the other, directly
> or indirectly. The jus migrationis was effectively a form of
> suspended Roman citizenship.
>
> A person who had the jus migrationis was effectively already a

Roman

> citizen, except for the rule of Roman law which said that no one
> could be a citizen of two states at once. So as long as he lived in
> his home state, his Roman citizenship was in a state of indefinite
> suspension. As soon as he left his own city, however, and came to
> live in Rome, his Roman citizenship was triggered and became fully
> operative without any further paperwork. Similarly, a Roman citizen
> who left Rome and went to live in another state, or who was

captured

> in war and taken as a slave to live elsewhere, did not

automatically

> lose his citizenship - it was merely suspended until such time as

he

> came back. When he came back his Roman citizenship would be

resumed.

> This resumption of citizenship was called postliminium.
>
> No formalities were necessary: the mere act of returning was

enough.

> As time went on a body of rules grew up around postliminium to deal
> with unusual cases. comitia centuriata, so too only the comitia
> centuriata could take it away. This principle was recognized in the
> XII tables and remained valid throughout the republic. But, like
> awarding citizenship, removing it could be authorized indirectly: a
> court of law established by a lex passed by the comitia centuriata
> could deprive a convict of his citizenship if the lex which
> established the court gave it the authority to do so."
>
> In support of citizenship reform I submit the following draft lex .
>
> This will end forever ( I hope) the drama of public resignations.
>
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
>
>

*********************************************************************

>
>
> Here's a first draft: LEX DE CIVITATE
>
> I. Loss and restoration of citizenship
>
> A.
>
> Article II.A.4 of the constitution is amended to read: "No citizen
> can lose his citizenship except as a result of a lex enacted by the
> comitia centuriata which explicitly deprives him of his citizenship
> or as a result of the decision of a court of law which has been
> explicitly empowered to deprive citizens of their citizenship by a
> lex enacted by the comitia centuriata."
>
> B.
>
> Article II.A.5 of the constitution is amended to read: "No citizen
> deprived of his citizenship under II.A.4 shall regain citizenship
> except as a result of a lex enacted by the comitia centuriata which
> explicitly restores his citizenship."
>
> C. Article III.B.3 of the constitution is amended to read: "To try
> legal cases in which the sentence would deprive the defendant of

his

> citizenship."
>
> D. Article III.C.3 of the constitution is amended to read: "To try
> legal cases which involve only members of the plebeian order and in
> which the sentence would not deprive the defendant of his
> citizenship."
>
> E. Article III.D.3 of the constitution is amended to read: "To try
> legal cases in which the sentence would not deprive the defendant

of

> his citizenship."
>
> II. Suspension of citizenship
>
> A.
>
> An article II.A.6 is added to the constitution reading: "A

citizen's

> citizenship may be placed in suspension and subsequently resumed by
> such means as shall be provided by law."
>
> B. A citizen may place his citizenship in indefinite suspension by
> means of written notice to the censores stating his intention to do
> so.
>
> C. A citizen who is not registered at the census is considered to
> have placed his citizenship in indefinite suspension.
>
>
> D. A citizen whose citizenship is in suspension may not exercise

any

> of the rights of citizenship except the right to resume his
> citizenship according to the provisions of this lex.
>
> E. The lex Cornelia Maria de civitate eiuranda is repealed.
>
> F. The lex Equitia de civitate eiuranda is repealed. G. Any person
> who resigned his citizenship under the provisions of the lex
> Cornelia Maria de civitate eiuranda or under the provisions of the
> lex Equitia de civitate eiuranda shall be considered to have placed
> his citizenship in indefinite suspension and shall be treated
> according to the provisions of this lex.
>
> H. Articles VI, VIII, and IX of the lex Fabia de censu are

repealed.

>
> III. Postliminium (resumption of suspended citizenship)
>
> A.
>
> A citizen whose citizenship is in suspension may resume full
> citizenship at any time by means of a written notice to the

censores

> stating his intention to do so or by responding to the census.
>
> B. A citizen who resumes his citizenship shall immediately resume
> all the rights of citizenship.
>
> C.
>
> The position of a citizen who resumes his citizenship with respect
> to such private legal entitlements, obligations, and relationships
> as he held before his citizenship was suspended shall be determined
> according to the law of the ancient Roman republic except where the
> written law of Nova Roma shall provide otherwise.
>
> D.
>
> The effect of suspension and resumption of citizenship upon the
> tenure of public priesthoods shall be determined by the collegium
> pontificum.
>
> E.
>
> Article VI.B.2 of the constitution is amended to read: "The
> Collegium Augurum (College of Augurs) shall be the second-highest
> ranked of the priestly Collegia. The eldest member of the Collegium
> shall be the Magister Collegii. The Collegium Augurum shall consist
> of nine Augurs, five from the Plebeian order and four from the
> Patrician order.
>
>
> They shall be appointed by the Collegium Pontificum. a. The
> collegium augurum shall have the following honors, powers, and
> responsibilities: i. To research, practice, and uphold the ars
> auguria (the art of interpreting divine signs and omens, solicited
> or otherwise); ii. To issue decreta (decrees) on matters of the ars
> auguria and its own internal procedures (such decreta may not be
> overruled by laws passed in the comitia or Senatus consultum). b.
> Individual augurs shall have the following honors, powers, and
> responsibilities: i. To define templum (sacred space) and celebrate
> auguria (the rites of augury); ii. To declare obnuntiatio (a
> declaration that unfavorable and unsolicited omens have been
> observed that justify a delay of a meeting of one of the comitia or
> the Senate)."
>

G. Popillius Laenas Ca. Fabio Bueto Quintiliano et Quirites salutem
dicit,

>> Now I need to be open and honest with You. I really don't think

this
is the real problem. The real problem is Senator Lucius Equitius
Cincinnatus Augur, for a long time our only Augur, who doesn't want
to see any other augur.<<

Although I am not a practitioner of the Religo, I feel I should say
a few things here in support of mi amice, L. Equitius Cincinnatus
Augur.

The entire CP, not just existing Augurs, votes on new Augurs. If
nothing else, I know Cincinnatus Augur to be a man of complete
integrity and devotion to the Religio. If he has opposed candidates
for Augur or Pontifix (and I am not privy to the proceedings of the
CP), I feel certain it is because he feels they are not qualified
and/or not sufficiently devoted the the Religio Romanna, not because
he wants to be the sole Augur.

Ca. Fabius Bueto Quintilianus is a man I respect, and if he
reexamines the statement above, I believe he will see that it is
unfair to Cincinnatus Augur and his substantial dignitas.

Valete.

Salve Consul Pompeia Minucia Strabo

There is currently an ongoing discussion on "socii" on the main list and last time I checked "socii" is an aspect of our citizenship process. I was adding to the discussion.

Where have I asked that anything be done verbatim? You said you would consider my approach and that is all I have ever asked.

How has anything changed?

Since when is the discussion of laws the preview of a select few?

Last time I checked Roman history magistrates were always taking to the people about legislation and for two simple reasons

1 In a Republic the citizens are the "sovereign" and 2 they are the ones who will enact or reject the laws that were placed before them.

"For someone who is supposed to be legal, let me ask you...do you consider your actions herein to be 'right?'

Almost always.... just like you.

Consul you also said

"I am totally confused."

On this we are in total and absolute agreement.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia<mailto:pompeia_minucia_tiberia@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:10 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Roman citizenship during the republic.


---Salve Praetor Tiberius Galerius Paulinus:

Ok. You present this to us on the Magistrates List, and you receive
responses to it from presiding magistrates, who are perhaps working
on some of the ideas presented therein, and now you are suddenly
taking it and pulling it out onto the ML for public contio? I am
totally confused.

You want me, the other Consul or Tribunes to promulgate this
verbatim, without even looking at it? Do you mind if this is
discussed first? Apparently you do. Sorry, but I read before
promulgating .... another one of my quirks.

Unfortunately, as far as I am concerned. the Magistrates List may as
well be deleted if you are going to just amalgamate the topics
discussed, be they initiated from you or someone else, right onto
the ML. This is the second time you've done this...first time you
took some conversation of the Censor and pasted it on here. Judging
by his reaction, I don't think you obtained his permission.

For someone who is supposed to be legal, let me ask you...do you
consider your actions herein to be 'right?'

Pompeia Minucia Strabo
Consul Minor





In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy P. Gallagher" <spqr753@...>
wrote:
>
> Salve Romans
>
> In early March I shared this with the Magistrates list. What do
you
> think?
>
> I had my staff pull together some research on the general
> principles of Roman citizenship during the republic.
>
> My thanks to A. Apollonius Cordus for his efforts in this matter.
>
>
> "Roman citizenship during the republic could only be acquired in
> three ways (apart from by birth). One way was for the person
> acquiring it to be given it, either specifically or as part of a
> defined group such as a town, by a lex passed by the comitia
> centuriata.
>
> The second way was for the person to be given it by a
> magistrate who had been authorized to award citizenship to non-
> citizens under a lex passed by the comitia centuriata. The third
way
> was for a person who already had the jus migrationis (this is a
> modern term - we don't know what the Romans called it) to come to
> live in Rome. The jus migrationis was a right which the Romans gave
> to their key allies, for instance the members of the Latin
> federation in the early republic.
>
> It was given by treaty, and such treaties had to be ratified by the
> comitia centuriata. Thus it seems that Roman citizenship could only
> be awarded by the comitia centuriata one way or the other, directly
> or indirectly. The jus migrationis was effectively a form of
> suspended Roman citizenship.
>
> A person who had the jus migrationis was effectively already a
Roman
> citizen, except for the rule of Roman law which said that no one
> could be a citizen of two states at once. So as long as he lived in
> his home state, his Roman citizenship was in a state of indefinite
> suspension. As soon as he left his own city, however, and came to
> live in Rome, his Roman citizenship was triggered and became fully
> operative without any further paperwork. Similarly, a Roman citizen
> who left Rome and went to live in another state, or who was
captured
> in war and taken as a slave to live elsewhere, did not
automatically
> lose his citizenship - it was merely suspended until such time as
he
> came back. When he came back his Roman citizenship would be
resumed.
> This resumption of citizenship was called postliminium.
>
> No formalities were necessary: the mere act of returning was
enough.
> As time went on a body of rules grew up around postliminium to deal
> with unusual cases. comitia centuriata, so too only the comitia
> centuriata could take it away. This principle was recognized in the
> XII tables and remained valid throughout the republic. But, like
> awarding citizenship, removing it could be authorized indirectly: a
> court of law established by a lex passed by the comitia centuriata
> could deprive a convict of his citizenship if the lex which
> established the court gave it the authority to do so."
>
> In support of citizenship reform I submit the following draft lex .
>
> This will end forever ( I hope) the drama of public resignations.
>
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
>
>
*********************************************************************
>
>
> Here's a first draft: LEX DE CIVITATE
>
> I. Loss and restoration of citizenship
>
> A.
>
> Article II.A.4 of the constitution is amended to read: "No citizen
> can lose his citizenship except as a result of a lex enacted by the
> comitia centuriata which explicitly deprives him of his citizenship
> or as a result of the decision of a court of law which has been
> explicitly empowered to deprive citizens of their citizenship by a
> lex enacted by the comitia centuriata."
>
> B.
>
> Article II.A.5 of the constitution is amended to read: "No citizen
> deprived of his citizenship under II.A.4 shall regain citizenship
> except as a result of a lex enacted by the comitia centuriata which
> explicitly restores his citizenship."
>
> C. Article III.B.3 of the constitution is amended to read: "To try
> legal cases in which the sentence would deprive the defendant of
his
> citizenship."
>
> D. Article III.C.3 of the constitution is amended to read: "To try
> legal cases which involve only members of the plebeian order and in
> which the sentence would not deprive the defendant of his
> citizenship."
>
> E. Article III.D.3 of the constitution is amended to read: "To try
> legal cases in which the sentence would not deprive the defendant
of
> his citizenship."
>
> II. Suspension of citizenship
>
> A.
>
> An article II.A.6 is added to the constitution reading: "A
citizen's
> citizenship may be placed in suspension and subsequently resumed by
> such means as shall be provided by law."
>
> B. A citizen may place his citizenship in indefinite suspension by
> means of written notice to the censores stating his intention to do
> so.
>
> C. A citizen who is not registered at the census is considered to
> have placed his citizenship in indefinite suspension.
>
>
> D. A citizen whose citizenship is in suspension may not exercise
any
> of the rights of citizenship except the right to resume his
> citizenship according to the provisions of this lex.
>
> E. The lex Cornelia Maria de civitate eiuranda is repealed.
>
> F. The lex Equitia de civitate eiuranda is repealed. G. Any person
> who resigned his citizenship under the provisions of the lex
> Cornelia Maria de civitate eiuranda or under the provisions of the
> lex Equitia de civitate eiuranda shall be considered to have placed
> his citizenship in indefinite suspension and shall be treated
> according to the provisions of this lex.
>
> H. Articles VI, VIII, and IX of the lex Fabia de censu are
repealed.
>
> III. Postliminium (resumption of suspended citizenship)
>
> A.
>
> A citizen whose citizenship is in suspension may resume full
> citizenship at any time by means of a written notice to the
censores
> stating his intention to do so or by responding to the census.
>
> B. A citizen who resumes his citizenship shall immediately resume
> all the rights of citizenship.
>
> C.
>
> The position of a citizen who resumes his citizenship with respect
> to such private legal entitlements, obligations, and relationships
> as he held before his citizenship was suspended shall be determined
> according to the law of the ancient Roman republic except where the
> written law of Nova Roma shall provide otherwise.
>
> D.
>
> The effect of suspension and resumption of citizenship upon the
> tenure of public priesthoods shall be determined by the collegium
> pontificum.
>
> E.
>
> Article VI.B.2 of the constitution is amended to read: "The
> Collegium Augurum (College of Augurs) shall be the second-highest
> ranked of the priestly Collegia. The eldest member of the Collegium
> shall be the Magister Collegii. The Collegium Augurum shall consist
> of nine Augurs, five from the Plebeian order and four from the
> Patrician order.
>
>
> They shall be appointed by the Collegium Pontificum. a. The
> collegium augurum shall have the following honors, powers, and
> responsibilities: i. To research, practice, and uphold the ars
> auguria (the art of interpreting divine signs and omens, solicited
> or otherwise); ii. To issue decreta (decrees) on matters of the ars
> auguria and its own internal procedures (such decreta may not be
> overruled by laws passed in the comitia or Senatus consultum). b.
> Individual augurs shall have the following honors, powers, and
> responsibilities: i. To define templum (sacred space) and celebrate
> auguria (the rites of augury); ii. To declare obnuntiatio (a
> declaration that unfavorable and unsolicited omens have been
> observed that justify a delay of a meeting of one of the comitia or
> the Senate)."
>






SPONSORED LINKS Roman empire<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Roman+empire&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Citizenship+test&w4=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w5=The+roman+empire&c=5&s=113&.sig=V_ohQEPlKSUophzoyeKo7A> Ancient history<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Ancient+history&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Citizenship+test&w4=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w5=The+roman+empire&c=5&s=113&.sig=qUOMYbt4Zn7Yl_BI9eyvCA> Citizenship test<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Citizenship+test&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Citizenship+test&w4=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w5=The+roman+empire&c=5&s=113&.sig=i89al2nzLhouXVUtOu-wDQ>
Fall of the roman empire<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Citizenship+test&w4=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w5=The+roman+empire&c=5&s=113&.sig=cvvUbwFz4SII0tNReHlQkw> The roman empire<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=The+roman+empire&w1=Roman+empire&w2=Ancient+history&w3=Citizenship+test&w4=Fall+of+the+roman+empire&w5=The+roman+empire&c=5&s=113&.sig=o0D-t5cCQCdxurytCXSC7Q>


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

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

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

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


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



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

In a message dated 3/14/2006 12:11:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pompeia_minucia_tiberia@... writes:
Ok. You present this to us on the Magistrates List, and you receive
responses to it from presiding magistrates, who are perhaps working
on some of the ideas presented therein, and now you are suddenly
taking it and pulling it out onto the ML for public contio? I am
totally confused.
He probably got tired of waiting for some feedback. So he adopted the time
honored tradition here in Nova Roma, try it front of the masses.

Q. Fabius Maximus


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

---Salve Quinte Fabi Maxime:

Hey.

Suits me just fine. So he may approach the masses first, rather than
placate a collaboration amongst magistratures for which his respect
and commitment to is sure to wax and wane according to his whims and
agendae.

Ahh, well, it was worth a try. Good to know fairly early in the year
that this will not work.

And he is Praetor...I think he should be able to defend his own
actions, don't you?

Pompeia Minucia Strabo
Consul Minor



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

>
> In a message dated 3/14/2006 12:11:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> pompeia_minucia_tiberia@... writes:
> Ok. You present this to us on the Magistrates List, and you receive
> responses to it from presiding magistrates, who are perhaps working
> on some of the ideas presented therein, and now you are suddenly
> taking it and pulling it out onto the ML for public contio? I am
> totally confused.
> He probably got tired of waiting for some feedback. So he adopted

the time

> honored tradition here in Nova Roma, try it front of the masses.
>
> Q. Fabius Maximus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

L Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiritibus salutem dicit

I also noted that my comments were deleted from the report.

"Cincinnatus Augur: VTI ROGAS G. Iulius Caesar
"G. Iulius Caesar's interest and commitment to NR is unquestionable. I know
he shall make an excellent proparaetor and it will be an honor to work with
him in future." Idem in me

Mars nos protegas"

In any case, I'm proud to congratulate Gnaeus Iulius on his appointment and
commend him on his prompt beginning in organizing his provincia.

In this example I trust that the call for a replacement of the resigned
Censor is planned and the call for the centuries will soon follow.

Valete bene


________________________________________________________________________

Message: 16
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:53:08 +0100
From: "Diana Octavia Aventina" <diana@...>
Subject: Re: Results of Senate Votes

Salve Tribune,

Thank you for the report. However, Item XIV appears to be cut off
mid-sentence. Can you fill in the
blanks for us please?

<Item XIV This item serves as an option to the Senatores to write in any
existing Governor by name
for proroguement who either:

< [Note of Tribunus Plebis: three former propraetores in particular were
considered for write-in by
some of the Senatores. Those Senatores who wrote in one of <the names are
indicated below.]

Vale,
Diana

________________________________________________________________________

Message: 19
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:19:27 -0000
From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
Subject: Oath of Office

I, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar (Nigel Kell) do hereby solemnly swear to
uphold the honor of Nova Roma, and to act always in the best
interests of the people and the Senate of Nova Roma.

>SNIP<

Salve Conusl

I did. It posted before your did.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia"
<pompeia_minucia_tiberia@...> wrote:

>
> ---Salve Quinte Fabi Maxime:
>
> Hey.
>
> Suits me just fine. So he may approach the masses first, rather

than

> placate a collaboration amongst magistratures for which his

respect

> and commitment to is sure to wax and wane according to his whims

and

> agendae.
>
> Ahh, well, it was worth a try. Good to know fairly early in the

year

> that this will not work.
>
> And he is Praetor...I think he should be able to defend his own
> actions, don't you?
>
> Pompeia Minucia Strabo
> Consul Minor
>
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, QFabiusMaxmi@ wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 3/14/2006 12:11:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > pompeia_minucia_tiberia@ writes:
> > Ok. You present this to us on the Magistrates List, and you

receive

> > responses to it from presiding magistrates, who are perhaps

working

> > on some of the ideas presented therein, and now you are

suddenly

> > taking it and pulling it out onto the ML for public contio? I

am

> > totally confused.
> > He probably got tired of waiting for some feedback. So he

adopted

> the time
> > honored tradition here in Nova Roma, try it front of the masses.
> >
> > Q. Fabius Maximus
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

---Pompeia Minucia Strabo Lucio Equitio Cincinnato Quiritbus S.P.D.

As I indicated in a post yesterday, calls for candidates/election
proceedings shall begin soon.

Valete




In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Equitius" <vergil96@...>
wrote:

>
> L Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiritibus salutem dicit
>
> I also noted that my comments were deleted from the report.
>
> "Cincinnatus Augur: VTI ROGAS G. Iulius Caesar
> "G. Iulius Caesar's interest and commitment to NR is

unquestionable. I know

> he shall make an excellent proparaetor and it will be an honor to

work with

> him in future." Idem in me
>
> Mars nos protegas"
>
> In any case, I'm proud to congratulate Gnaeus Iulius on his

appointment and

> commend him on his prompt beginning in organizing his provincia.
>
> In this example I trust that the call for a replacement of the

resigned

> Censor is planned and the call for the centuries will soon follow.
>
> Valete bene
>
>
>

_____________________________________________________________________
___

>
> Message: 16
> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:53:08 +0100
> From: "Diana Octavia Aventina" <diana@...>
> Subject: Re: Results of Senate Votes
>
> Salve Tribune,
>
> Thank you for the report. However, Item XIV appears to be cut off
> mid-sentence. Can you fill in the
> blanks for us please?
>
> <Item XIV This item serves as an option to the Senatores to

write in any

> existing Governor by name
> for proroguement who either:
>
> < [Note of Tribunus Plebis: three former propraetores in

particular were

> considered for write-in by
> some of the Senatores. Those Senatores who wrote in one of <the

names are

> indicated below.]
>
> Vale,
> Diana
>
>

_____________________________________________________________________
___

>
> Message: 19
> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:19:27 -0000
> From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> Subject: Oath of Office
>
> I, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar (Nigel Kell) do hereby solemnly swear to
> uphold the honor of Nova Roma, and to act always in the best
> interests of the people and the Senate of Nova Roma.
>
> >SNIP<
>

Salvete

Ego Appius Iulius Priscus civis Novae Romae hodie factus sum. vos
omnes libente animo saluto.

Valete quam optime

Ap. Priscus

IVL SABINVS QUIRITIBUS SPD

I want to add my congratulation for Iulius Caesar. Between Dacia and Canada Occidentalis a great colaboration started more than one year ago.

VALETE.



Lucius Equitius <vergil96@...> wrote:
L Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiritibus salutem dicit

I also noted that my comments were deleted from the report.

"Cincinnatus Augur: VTI ROGAS G. Iulius Caesar
"G. Iulius Caesar's interest and commitment to NR is unquestionable. I know
he shall make an excellent proparaetor and it will be an honor to work with
him in future." Idem in me

Mars nos protegas"

In any case, I'm proud to congratulate Gnaeus Iulius on his appointment and
commend him on his prompt beginning in organizing his provincia.

In this example I trust that the call for a replacement of the resigned
Censor is planned and the call for the centuries will soon follow.

Valete bene


________________________________________________________________________

Message: 16
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:53:08 +0100
From: "Diana Octavia Aventina" <diana@...>
Subject: Re: Results of Senate Votes

Salve Tribune,

Thank you for the report. However, Item XIV appears to be cut off
mid-sentence. Can you fill in the
blanks for us please?

<Item XIV This item serves as an option to the Senatores to write in any
existing Governor by name
for proroguement who either:

< [Note of Tribunus Plebis: three former propraetores in particular were
considered for write-in by
some of the Senatores. Those Senatores who wrote in one of <the names are
indicated below.]

Vale,
Diana

________________________________________________________________________

Message: 19
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:19:27 -0000
From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
Subject: Oath of Office

I, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar (Nigel Kell) do hereby solemnly swear to
uphold the honor of Nova Roma, and to act always in the best
interests of the people and the Senate of Nova Roma.

>SNIP<

SPONSORED LINKS
Roman empire Ancient history Citizenship test Fall of the roman empire The roman empire

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


Visit your group "Nova-Roma" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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







NOVA ROMANI !
Add the new logo and link for the Magna Mater Project support page to your websites.
http://www.dacia-novaroma.org/draft.htm

"Every individual is the arhitect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Travel
Find great deals to the top 10 hottest destinations!

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

---Salvete Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiritibus:

Strange that you are asking about the status of the election
proceedings. It would be helpful to have more augurs for this very
purpose, from this consular perspective. We can't count on the
perpetual availability of one Augur, now that I think of it, can we?

Pompeia Minucia Strabo
Consul Minor


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia"
<pompeia_minucia_tiberia@...> wrote:

>
> ---Pompeia Minucia Strabo Lucio Equitio Cincinnato Quiritbus S.P.D.
>
> As I indicated in a post yesterday, calls for candidates/election
> proceedings shall begin soon.
>
> Valete
>
>
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Equitius" <vergil96@>
> wrote:
> >
> > L Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiritibus salutem dicit
> >
> > I also noted that my comments were deleted from the report.
> >
> > "Cincinnatus Augur: VTI ROGAS G. Iulius Caesar
> > "G. Iulius Caesar's interest and commitment to NR is
> unquestionable. I know
> > he shall make an excellent proparaetor and it will be an honor

to

> work with
> > him in future." Idem in me
> >
> > Mars nos protegas"
> >
> > In any case, I'm proud to congratulate Gnaeus Iulius on his
> appointment and
> > commend him on his prompt beginning in organizing his provincia.
> >
> > In this example I trust that the call for a replacement of the
> resigned
> > Censor is planned and the call for the centuries will soon

follow.

> >
> > Valete bene
> >
> >
> >
>

_____________________________________________________________________

> ___
> >
> > Message: 16
> > Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:53:08 +0100
> > From: "Diana Octavia Aventina" <diana@>
> > Subject: Re: Results of Senate Votes
> >
> > Salve Tribune,
> >
> > Thank you for the report. However, Item XIV appears to be cut

off

> > mid-sentence. Can you fill in the
> > blanks for us please?
> >
> > <Item XIV This item serves as an option to the Senatores to
> write in any
> > existing Governor by name
> > for proroguement who either:
> >
> > < [Note of Tribunus Plebis: three former propraetores in
> particular were
> > considered for write-in by
> > some of the Senatores. Those Senatores who wrote in one of <the
> names are
> > indicated below.]
> >
> > Vale,
> > Diana
> >
> >
>

_____________________________________________________________________

> ___
> >
> > Message: 19
> > Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:19:27 -0000
> > From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@>
> > Subject: Oath of Office
> >
> > I, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar (Nigel Kell) do hereby solemnly swear to
> > uphold the honor of Nova Roma, and to act always in the best
> > interests of the people and the Senate of Nova Roma.
> >
> > >SNIP<
> >
>

Salve, Pompeia Minucia Strabo Consul -

On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 08:10:53PM -0000, pompeia_minucia_tiberia wrote:
> ---Salve Praetor Tiberius Galerius Paulinus:
>
> Ok. You present this to us on the Magistrates List, and you receive
> responses to it from presiding magistrates, who are perhaps working
> on some of the ideas presented therein, and now you are suddenly
> taking it and pulling it out onto the ML for public contio? I am
> totally confused.
>
> You want me, the other Consul or Tribunes to promulgate this
> verbatim, without even looking at it? Do you mind if this is
> discussed first? Apparently you do. Sorry, but I read before
> promulgating .... another one of my quirks.
>
> Unfortunately, as far as I am concerned. the Magistrates List may as
> well be deleted if you are going to just amalgamate the topics
> discussed, be they initiated from you or someone else, right onto
> the ML. This is the second time you've done this...first time you
> took some conversation of the Censor and pasted it on here. Judging
> by his reaction, I don't think you obtained his permission.

Actually, it's the third time - at the very least; see today's post of
his (Subject: HI). A _praetor_ is forwarding material from what is
nominally a _private_ list to the ML (or, if it's excused as a
mis-addressing mistake, to a person who is not on the list.)

So much for anyone's privacy here being respected. I don't really care
one way or the other about my NR-related info being bandied about - but
the fact that the magistrate who is supposed to protect the cives'
rights makes a habit of casually and regularly violating basic list
protocol demonstrates the quality of his ethics quite clearly.

> For someone who is supposed to be legal, let me ask you...do you
> consider your actions herein to be 'right?'

With all due respect, Consul, I don't think that this is the right
question to ask; I suspect that the praetor does indeed consider himself
to be right (most likely, at all times.) The pertinent question here is,
can he tell the difference between right and wrong when there's any
degree of complexity (or when his self-interest is involved) in the
situation? I think that the answer is generally self-evident by now.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.
Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
-- Principle known as Occam's Razor, "used for example in physics."

Pompeia Minucia Strabo Quiritibus Novae Romae S.P.D.

Perhaps the post below from the past will suffice as 'shreds of truth' regarding concerns about the influences of Collegium Pontificium policy by members who once took part in the organization known as the Boni. Atleast this will suffice that there were indeed internally-observed concerns, and the observations being challenged today in 42694, et al. are not as fictitious as one might suppose. Some members of the Boni, now apparently the ExBoni today, remain in the Collegium Pontificium in priestly capacity. So is it totally untoward for veteran citizens to wonder if these same policies remain a goal amongst some members of the CP, ExBoni today?

pompeia_minucia_tiberia <pompeia_minucia_tiberia@...> wrote:
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:31:28 -0000
From: "pompeia_minucia_tiberia" <pompeia_minucia_tiberia@...>
To: Pompeia_Minucia_Tiberia@...
Subject: Fwd: Re: Opportunity (The Boni)

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, cassius622@... wrote:

Gaius Popillius Laenas writes:

Laenas: Well I do not know what Fabius Maximus wrote to you on
Sept. 10. As far as I know the Boni only share two
overall "policies": (1) protection and promotion of the Religio and
(2) a strict reconstructionist approach when possible and practical
(that and mutual friendship). If you, or someone else, unfairly
(IMO)stereotypes me, I'll probably post something similar to the one
that prompted your reply.

Salve,

It is perhaps helpful to recognize that these two overall policies
by
default cover a fair amount of *specific* policies that seem to be
agreed upon by a
majority of the Boni.

Here is a partial list of the general sentiments that I believe are
shared
by a majority of this particular "group of friends." Please DO note
that these
are NOT official policies - they just generally seem to be points
that most
of the "Friends" agree about and have acted upon:

1. A tacit agreement that women should not occupy the office
of "Pontifex"
because it is unhistorical, even though Nova Roma was specifically
set up to
recognize the modern status of equality between genders.

2. A tacit agreement that women should not occupy any of
the "Flamen"
positions, also on grounds of such gender roles being unhistorical.
This includes
the not inconsiderable number of Flaminates who serve Goddesses.

3. A tacit agreement that Citizens who do not practice the Religio
Romana
should not ascend the Curusus Honorum, (meaning that they should
not hold any
Magistrates, up to and including the office of Consul) as they
believe it is
crucial that magistrates perform all historical religious roles
themselves,
rather than allow another to perform them.

4. A tacit agreement that anyone with connections to another
Polytheistic
religion other than the Religio Romana should not become a member
of the
Priesthood. (Unless of course they are extremely conservative and
join the Boni.)
This is particularly strongly felt in the case of anyone with a
Wiccan or
other non-reconstructionist background, regardless of how much
reconstructionist
knowledge they might have or if they agree to act only in a
reconstructionist manner within the public Religio.

5. A tacit agreement that the Religio Romana should have no
representation
in or outreach to modern Pagan community, for fear that our
"reconstructionist" stance might become tainted with modern thought.

6. A tacit agreement that Citizens who are non-practitioners are
potentially
dangerous to the Religio Romana, either as potential direct
opponents, or
potential subversives which might sway us away from a
reconstructionist path.
(This has, in my opinion, lead to many arguments between Boni
representatives
of the Religio and various Citizens.)

7. A return to official live animal sacrifice as a common practice
(rather
than as a rare or occasional practice) as the best means of
reviving proper
religious rites. (There also *may* be a tacit understanding that it
will
eventually be *required* of all members of the Priesthood, but the
few remarks I've
seen that seem to speak of that as a given fact may well be merely
the
opinion of only a few of the "Friends" rather than the majority.)

8. A publicly stated agreement that Nova Roma should remove one of
its
cornerstones by ceasing all claims to Sovereignty and Statehood,
and stop trying
to be in any way an independent nation. (The "Friends" seem to
believe that
this has built a strong governmental/political aspect to Nova Roma
which
threatens the Religio.)

Those are at least the major points that come to mind at this
moment. As can
be seen, such things simply "agreed upon by friends" and acted upon,
can
(and in my opinion do) have a fairly substantial impact on Nova Roma
as a whole.
In other words, a group of people working loosely together just from
mutual
friendly discussion can have an effect here.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator, Pater Patriae




The Nova Religio Romana list: an "unofficial" Religio Romana group
for the
discussion of modern Religio topics, Imperial religion, Mystery
Religions,
Philosophy, Theurgy and more. URL:
_http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaReligioRomana/_
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaReligioRomana/) or subscribe by
sending a blank email to: NovaReligioRomana-
subscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

--- End forwarded message ---








---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

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

Pompeia Minucia Strabo Quiritibus Sal.

Here is another post below, which alludes to various elements of concern in the past. These, by the way, are archived posts made in this forum...they are not crossposts from other lists.







pompeia_minucia_tiberia <pompeia_minucia_tiberia@...> wrote:

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, cassius622@... wrote:

Diana writes:
I would very politely like to disagree with you on you rlist of Boni
policies which you wrote below. Either I have been totally sleeping
as a Boni or most of your list are not in fact 'Boni' Policies at
all.

Cassius respondit:
I'll agree that some of points haven't seen much discussion on the
main
list, but are rather policies that I have seen spoken about and
acted on
repeatedly in the Collegium Pontificum. I could give more evidence
by publicly
reposting from that private list and from private correspondences,
but such an act
would do me no credit. (But I do have that final disrespectable
option should
it come to it.)

But I really don't see why any of the points should be a surprise
or a
controversy. The Boni have all shown that they are the most
conservative and
reconstructionist minded people in Nova Roma. Is it really that
unbelievable when
I say that on the whole they seem to prefer that ancient gender
roles should
remain in place, etc? None of those points, not even all of them
together,
constitute a "nefarious plot," they simply constitute the most
conservative
stance on the Religio Romana that can possibly be taken.


1. A tacit agreement that women should not occupy the office
> recognize the modern status of equality between genders.

I can mention who doesn't agree with that one! :-)

Cassius respondit:
There has been at least one female Pontifex application holding for
at least
a year. The Boni in the Collegium all agreed that a female holding
this
position was "unhistorical," and that no more females should be
elected to the
position of Pontifex.

After a huge fight, Pontifex Scarus agreed to "research" the
possibility of
women holding the position. The only point he has come up with is
that
Pontifices sometimes did sacrifices to Hercules, which women could
not attend. My
suggestion that female Pontifices simply would not attend
sacrifices to
Hercules, (which have never yet been done in NR) met with little
response. A year
later, "research" into this is still going on, and no female
Pontifex will be
approved. I don't expect that this will happen any time soon, and
feel it
constitutes a de-facto policy at this point.

> 2. A tacit agreement that women should not occupy any of

Cassius respondit:
Basically the same situation as above. The "Friends" in the
Collegium seem
to feel that female Flamines are unhistorical, and should not be
allowed. I
have heard no reasoning for this other than it is the "tradition of
the Mos
Maiorum."

In my own opinion, Nova Roma was built with a very specific
understanding
that we would recognize modern gender roles. We have female
Senators, and could
have female Consuls should any of our women Citizens care to run. I
find
that the top two levels of the Religio Romana being unavailable to
women by "a
majority conservative preference" among the Pontifices who happen
to be
"Friends" is a de-facto policy that is against the founding
policies of Nova Roma.

> 3. A tacit agreement that Citizens who do not practice the

That is simply not true.

Cassius:
May I ask what reason I would have to lie? Several of the Boni have
mentioned that they believe that since most of the Roman
magistracies have at least
some religious function as part of their public duties, and
therefore these
offices should be held by practitioners of the Religio only.

The "Friends" that have advanced this idea seem to believe that not
only
would it constitute the most accurate reconstruction of the "Mos
Maiorum", it
would also ensure the safety of the Religio Romana from potential
political
attacks from hostile non-practitioners.

I don't for a moment believe that this "opinion among many of the
Friends"
is a deliberate attack against their fellow Citizens; instead I
believe they
hold it out of a desire to protect the Religo and be as
conservative in
reconstruction as possible.

< 4. A tacit agreement that anyone with connections to another


That is simply not true. I think that you are confusing not wanting
Priests who want to make a Wicca Religio Romana for not wanting any
Priest who is a part of another polytheistic religion.

Cassius:
I have seen variations of this situation a couple dozen times now,
and am
pretty sure by now I'm not "confused." This particular "opinion
among many of
the Friends" seems to extend beyond those who are "part" of another
polytheistic religion - to those who "have in the past been part",
or "were once
trained in", or "occasionally attend meetings of" (because they're
the only public
pagan events going, etc.)

My difficulty with this "opinion among many of the Friends" is that
people
have to come to the Religio Romana from *somewhere*. If you
automatically
disqualify anyone who's ever been part of another polytheistic
religion in any
way, there go about 90% of your possible people. I believe that our
very
conservative Friends want to see only those who have come to the
Religio through
scholarly study, or from other established traditional religions
such as
Santeria. I contend that those paths bring their own sort of
baggage, and that
candidates should be evaluated on their skills rather that
instantly disqualified
for past associations.


> 5. A tacit agreement that the Religio Romana should have no

No way, as a Boni I have often been at many many pagan
conferences 'preaching' :-) the Relgio Romana. No Boni has ever made
any negative comments about that whatsoever.

Cassius respondit:
Actually, to my knowledge there are THREE members of the Boni,
(well, one
has quit now) that do such outreach - yourself, Pontifex Hadrianus,
and
Pontifex Athanasius who has since left the Friends. I don't imagine
you're getting
much grief over it, that's true. However, others of the Boni have
often
expressed that it is either a waste of time or an outright danger
to traditional
reconstructionism to mix with other modern Polytheists. I therefore
believe
that my point is valid by at least a slim majority among
the "Friends."

I quite applaud the actions of you three, for without you the Boni
would
seem to be quite the religious separatist group. Most of the
other "Friends"
that I've ever had contact with have only the lowest opinion of
other modern
day polytheists, either on the grounds that they aren't
reconstructionist
enough, or on the grounds that they simply aren't Roman.


> 6. A tacit agreement that Citizens who are non-practitioners are


That one is simply a huge exaggeration. We have non-practiioners in
the Boni. It is not that the Boni do not want citizens who are not
practioners, but all of us feel that the non practicing citizens
should have respect for the Religio. The Catholic and Jewish Boni
feel the same way.

Cassius:
I will be the first to agree that you have some non Religio
practitioners in
the Boni. (And that your Jewish contingent consists solely of
Lucius
Cornelius Sulla.) However, aside from the acceptance of those few
non-practitoners
who are obviously among our most conservative Citizens, I still
submit that I
do not exaggerate overall. My guess is that the number of non-
religio or
"moderate Religio" Citizens argued with vehemently on the lists
outnumbers the
amount of (dare I say!) token Non-Religio members of the Boni by a
great
amount.


> 7. A return to official live animal sacrifice as a common


Hmm, well maybe, but I am a Boni and have already stated more than
once to all of them that I could not do an animal sacrifice. No one
of the Boni tried to "throw me out".

Cassius:
Nor would I, if you supported 90 percent of the other conservative
policies
I stood for! That doesn't mean that common animal sacrifice would
not remain
a serious goal of mine, even that it be "required" for members of
the
Priesthood so that religious reconstruction would be *completely*
accurate in the
future. I'd simply leave that hurdle to be dealt with at a later
date, and
enjoy your comradeship on all the other important issues now.

> 8. A publicly stated agreement that Nova Roma should remove one

I didn't know that was a Boni policy but I certainly agree with
that. I think the idea of an independent nation of NR is a bit of a
joke and firmly places us in fantasy land. Let's get our act
together as an organization dedicated to all things Roman then we
can see what happens down the road in twenty years. And with all of
the arguing going on, I wouldn't even want to live in the country of
NR jsut like I wouldn't want to live in the US. :-p

Cassius:
That Nova Roma should work toward at least partial sovereignty has
been a
goal since the founding. There are many here (myself included) that
feel this
goal is not only important in itself, but also that it is what
gives any
validity at all to the rebuilding of the Religio Romana. As I've
said many times
before, you can't have a State (or government) religion without a
State or
government.



<(The "Friends" seem to believe that this has built a strong

Again, that is simply not true.

Cassius:
I'm afraid I believe it is indeed true. From everything I've seen,
the
majority of the Boni don't seem to be against Sovereignty and NR
having a working
"government" simply because they think it is "silly." They rather
see it as a
secular threat to the supremacy of the Religio, and the authority
of the
Collegium Pontificum. Think of it - in the absence of sovereign
government, the
Collegium Pontificum would surely be the guiding body of Nova Roma.

I don't know Cassius. I think that it is clear that our Boni
Pontiffs have given you a hard time in the CP, but I really think
that most of what you've written above as Boni policies are
exaggerations or based on the opinions of one of two Boni.

Cassius:
Actually, I'm trying my best not to exaggerate. None of the things
I've said
here are inconsistent with an extremely conservative
reconstructionist view.
Again, none of these things constitute a "plot," but rather a
conservative
mindset that the "Friends" have found that they generally share
overall.


The Boni as a collective is much more open minded than you think. I
may not agree with my Boni colleagues at all times, but I consider
many of them to be good friends. And friends can disagree with
eachother and it doesn't reflect negatively on their relationship.

Cassius:
I am quite sure that all the members of the Boni are indeed good
friends,
and that your association has many more aspects to it than I have
brought up. I
also don't believe that you all agree on every point!

The Boni are by no means evil plotters. Nor are they "wrong" simply
because
I don't agree with many of the things that they seem to believe.
The Boni
aren't even all that organized, other than merely sharing some very
basic
opinions, and having a private mailing list!

However, like it or not, the Boni do *for the most part* act
together, and
seem to constitute what comes closest to an organized block of
Citizens in all
of Nova Roma. That's not a bad thing necessarily, but it shouldn't
be
ignored. I've seen several people argue that the Boni are not
organized and
therefore should not be a point of attention. I've also seen it
raised that any
attempt to imitate the Boni would lead to a "Balkanization" of Nova
Roma.

To ignore the Boni, or to leave them as the only organized faction
(no
matter how loosely organized they may be) could very well end up
being a conscious
choice to agree with them and accept the things they seem to want.
Maybe
that IS what everyone wants, and I stand alone. I honestly don't
know, but I
certainly can't ignore the issue and let things continue as quietly
as they have
been.

One last thing, Diana. I know you to be a good person, and to be
truly
dedicated to the Religio. I think you'd do us all a favor by
standing for the
office of Pontifex, or one of the Flaminates. Not only would you be
able to open
the door for other women to hold such offices should they be
qualified, you'd
also go a long way toward diffusing some of the ideas about the
Boni which
you say are mistaken.

Vale,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pontifex Maximus



The Nova Religio Romana list: an "unofficial" Religio Romana group
for the
discussion of modern Religio topics, Imperial religion, Mystery
Religions,
Philosophy, Theurgy and more. URL:
_http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaReligioRomana/_
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaReligioRomana/) or subscribe by
sending a blank email to: NovaReligioRomana-
subscribe@yahoogroups.com


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

--- End forwarded message ---







---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

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

Salve TMF
Is there an english translation for the Sertorius site?
Vale
Sertorius

From: "Titus Marcius Felix"
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Asking about the roman legions in Lusitania
Salve Gaius Cassius Piso
I am of the Brasilia province and on legions in lusitani. you go to like
it below link (in Portuguese)
http://www.marcius.felix.nom.br/TextRead.php?IdText=38
It is a biography on Quintus Sertórius.
also I want invites it to participate it of the group of discursão of the
Brasilia province
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nrbrasil/
T.MARCIVS.FELIX
LEGATVS.PROVINCIAE.BRASILIAE
QUAESTOR.NOVAE.ROMAE

Salve, A. Apollonius Cordus; salvete, omnes -

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 03:23:43PM +0000, A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:
> A. Apollonius C. Minucio M. Moravio omnibus sal.
>
> Scaevola amice, we're already talking about most of
> this privately, so I'll omit to reply to most of it
> and concentrate on the item which might lead to useful
> reform of the law. But if you think there's anything
> outstanding that's relevant to our private discussion,
> tell me and I'll reply to it in the course of that.

I think that the point you cite just below covers one of the key issues.

> To be honest I think many of these problems would be
> solved, or at least reduced, if we were to remodel the
> entire system based on the republican judicial system.

I disagree. Having a "justice system" in Nova Roma outside the bounds of
what can actually be enforced simply makes us look like children playing
a game - period. I've noted your repeated argument - if everyone obeys
the law, then the system will be effective - but it makes no sense: if
everyone obeyed the law, there would be no need for a justice system in
the first place! The system is there to deal with those who *break* the
law - and they, by definition, are not obeying it. If the system can't
deal with them - and a system that relies on voluntary compliance can
not - then it's not a justice system, it's a game.

What Nova Roma needs is to scrap the current self-contradictory mess,
define some basic rules *within the scope of enforceability*, and have a
few moderators who enforce those rules as necessary. As Nova Roma grows
- *thus expanding its scope* - more rules, or laws if you prefer, can be
added if they're found to be necessary.

Basing that long-term process in the republican judicial system may be a
wise policy; however, trying to force it into that mold when it doesn't
fit (how did that system deal with spammers? How about phishers?) would
make no sense. This is one of the reasons that we have this
self-perpetuating mess now.


Valete,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Canis timidus vehementius latrat quam mordet.
A timid dog barks more violently than it bites.
-- Curtius Rufus

Salve Caius Minucius Scaevola

If you had read the misdirected post of mine you would have seen
that I was asking one of my staff memebers about the Roman calendar
and how it will effect the trial.

You know that legal obigation YOU will not take part in.

As soon as the Consul pointed out that I posted it to the main list
I removed it.


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus





--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Benjamin A. Okopnik" <ben@...>
wrote:

>
> Salve, Pompeia Minucia Strabo Consul -
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 08:10:53PM -0000, pompeia_minucia_tiberia

wrote:

> > ---Salve Praetor Tiberius Galerius Paulinus:
> >
> > Ok. You present this to us on the Magistrates List, and you

receive

> > responses to it from presiding magistrates, who are perhaps

working

> > on some of the ideas presented therein, and now you are

suddenly

> > taking it and pulling it out onto the ML for public contio? I

am

> > totally confused.
> >
> > You want me, the other Consul or Tribunes to promulgate this
> > verbatim, without even looking at it? Do you mind if this is
> > discussed first? Apparently you do. Sorry, but I read before
> > promulgating .... another one of my quirks.
> >
> > Unfortunately, as far as I am concerned. the Magistrates List

may as

> > well be deleted if you are going to just amalgamate the topics
> > discussed, be they initiated from you or someone else, right

onto

> > the ML. This is the second time you've done this...first time

you

> > took some conversation of the Censor and pasted it on here.

Judging

> > by his reaction, I don't think you obtained his permission.
>
> Actually, it's the third time - at the very least; see today's

post of

> his (Subject: HI). A _praetor_ is forwarding material from what is
> nominally a _private_ list to the ML (or, if it's excused as a
> mis-addressing mistake, to a person who is not on the list.)
>
> So much for anyone's privacy here being respected. I don't really

care

> one way or the other about my NR-related info being bandied about -

but

> the fact that the magistrate who is supposed to protect the cives'
> rights makes a habit of casually and regularly violating basic list
> protocol demonstrates the quality of his ethics quite clearly.
>
> > For someone who is supposed to be legal, let me ask you...do you
> > consider your actions herein to be 'right?'
>
> With all due respect, Consul, I don't think that this is the right
> question to ask; I suspect that the praetor does indeed consider

himself

> to be right (most likely, at all times.) The pertinent question

here is,

> can he tell the difference between right and wrong when there's any
> degree of complexity (or when his self-interest is involved) in the
> situation? I think that the answer is generally self-evident by

now.

>
>
> Vale,
> Caius Minucius Scaevola
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

=-

> Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.
> Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
> -- Principle known as Occam's Razor, "used for example in

physics."

>

Q. Caecilius Metellus Pompeiae Straboni Consuli Quiritibusque salutem.

To my mind, at least, I would dare say that perhaps the real question of
the matter is whether or not these "policies" are still goals (or, I
dare say, policies), amongst these members. Of course, the best way to
know, so far as I have found, is to ask them. If I am wrong, please
feel free to correct me, surely. So speaks the (not quite yet)
twenty-year-old pontiff.

Valete Bene,

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius

> Perhaps the post below from the past will suffice as 'shreds of
> truth' regarding concerns about the influences of Collegium
> Pontificium policy by members who once took part in the organization
> known as the Boni. Atleast this will suffice that there were indeed
> internally-observed concerns, and the observations being challenged
> today in 42694, et al. are not as fictitious as one might suppose.
> Some members of the Boni, now apparently the ExBoni today, remain in
> the Collegium Pontificium in priestly capacity. So is it totally
> untoward for veteran citizens to wonder if these same policies remain
> a goal amongst some members of the CP, ExBoni today?

[Post cut for brevity]

OSD C. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

Hodie est Idibus Martiis; haec dies nefastus publicus est.


"The happy feast of Anna Perenna is held on the Ides,
Not far from your banks, Tiber, far flowing river.
The people come and drink there, scattered on the grass,
And every man reclines there with his girl.
Some tolerate the open sky, a few pitch tents,
And some make leafy huts out of branches,
While others set reeds up, to form rigid pillars,
And hang their outspread robes from the reeds.
But they're warmed by sun and wine, and pray
For as many years as cups, as many as they drink.
There you'll find a man who quaffs Nestor's years,
A woman who'd age as the Sibyl, in her cups.
There they sing whatever they've learnt in the theatres,
Beating time to the words with ready hands,
And setting the bowl down, dance coarsely,
The trim girl leaping about with streaming hair.
Homecoming they stagger, a sight for vulgar eyes,
And the crowd meeting them call them 'blessed'.
I fell in with the procession lately (it seems to me worth
Saying): a tipsy old woman dragging a tipsy old man."
- Ovid, Fasti III

"Huius etiam prima die ignem novum Vestae aris accendebant, ut
incipiente anno cura denuo servandi novati ignis inciperet: eodem
quoque ingrediente mense tam in regia curiisque atque flaminum domibus
laureae veteres novis laureis mutabantur: eodem quoque mense et
publice et privatim ad Annam Perennam sacrificatum itur, ut annare
perennareque commode liceat." - Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.XII.6


Today is held in honor of Anna Perenna, the goddess of the new year.
The Romans gave various explanations to the origin or her name, "amnis
perennis" ("eternal stream"): she was a river nymph; her name was
derived from annis ("year"); she was a moon-goddess of the running
year; also, she was equated with Anna, the sister of Dido, who was
received in Latium by Aeneas, but drowned herself in a river. In the
class-struggle between the patricians and plebeians she chose the side
of the plebeians.

Macrobius (Saturnalia 1.12.6) related that offerings were made to her
"ut annare perannareque commode liccat" ("that the circle of the year
may be completed happily") and that people sacrificed to her both
publicly and privately. Ovid in his Fasti provides a vivid
description of the revelry and licentiousness of her outdoor festival
where tents were pitched or bowers built from branches, where people
asked that Anna bestow as many more years to them as they could drink
cups of wine at the festival.

Ovid then tells that Anna Perenna was the same Anna who appears in
Virgil's Aeneid as Dido's sister and that after Dido's death, Carthage
was attacked by the Numidians and Anna was forced to flee. Eventually
Anna ended up in ship which happened to be driven by a storm right to
Aeneas' settlement of Lavinium. Aeneas invited her to stay, but his
wife Lavinia became jealous. But Anna, warned in a dream by Dido's
spirit, escaped whatever Lavinia was planning by rushing off into the
night and falling into the river Numicus and drowning. Aeneas and his
folk were able to track Anna part way. Eventually Anna's form appeared
to them and Anna explained that she was now a river nymph hidden in
the "perennial stream" (amnis perennis) of Numicus and her name was
therefore now Anna Perenna. The people immediately celebrated with
outdoor revels. Ovid then notes that some equate Anna Perenna with the
Moon or with Themis or with Io or with Amaltheia, but he turns to what
he claims may be closer to the truth, that during the Plebeian revolt
the rebels ran short on food and an old woman of Bovillae named Anna
baked cakes and brought them to the rebels every morning. The
Plebeians later set up an image to her and worshipped her as a goddess.

Next Ovid relates that soon after old Anna had become a goddess, the
god Mars attempted to get Anna to persuade Minerva to yield to him in
love. Anna at last pretends that Minerva has agreed and the wedding is
on. But when Mars' supposed new wife was brought into his chamber and
Mars removed the veil he found to his chagrin that it was not Minerva
but old Anna, which is why people tell coarse jokes and sing coarse
songs at Anna Perenna's festivities. Since the fesitval of Anna
Perenna is in the month of Mars, it is reasonable that the Mars and
Anna Perenna should be associated, at least in some rites at that
time, as cult partners.

Two places of worship of Anna Perenna are attested. One in Buscemi,
Sicily, where in 1899 some inscriptions to Anna and Apollo were found,
and in Rome, where a fountain devoted to Anna Perenna rites was
unearthened in 1999.


"Beware the ides of March." - William Shakespeare, "Julius Caesar"
(Soothsayer at I.ii)

"A certain seer warned Caesar to be on his guard against a great peril
on the day of the month of March which the Romans call the Ides; and
when the day had come and Caesar was on his way to the senate-house,
he greeted the seer with a jest and said: "Well, the Ides of March are
come," and the seer said to him softly: "Ay, they are come, but they
are not gone." Moreover, on the day before, when Marcus Lepidus was
entertaining him at supper, Caesar chanced to be signing letters, as
his custom was, while reclining at table, and the discourse turned
suddenly upon the question what sort of death was the best; before any
one could answer Caesar cried out: "That which is unexpected." After
this, while he was sleeping as usual by the side of his wife, all the
windows and doors of the chamber flew open at once, and Caesar,
confounded by the noise and the light of the moon shining down upon
him, noticed that Calpurnia was in a deep slumber, but was uttering
indistinct words and inarticulate groans in her sleep; for she
dreamed, as it proved, that she was holding her murdered husband in
her arms and bewailing him...

It was Casca who gave him the first blow with his dagger, in the neck,
not a mortal would, nor even a deep one, for which he was too much
confused, as was natural at the beginning of a deed of great daring;
so that Caesar turned about, grasped the knife, and held it fast. At
almost the same instant both cried out, the smitten man in Latin:
"Accursed Casca, what does thou?" and the smiter, in Greek, to his
brother: "Brother, help!"

So the affair began, and those who were not privy to the plot were
filled with consternation and horror at what was going on; they dared
not fly, nor go to Caesar's help, nay, nor even utter a word. But
those who had prepared themselves for the murder bared each of them
his dagger, and Caesar, hemmed in on all sides, whichever way he
turned confronting blows of weapons aimed at his face and eyes, driven
hither and thither like a wild beast, was entangled in the hands of
all; for all had to take part in the sacrifice and taste of the
slaughter. Therefore Brutus also gave him one blow in the groin. And
it is said by some writers that although Caesar defended himself
against the rest and darted this way and that and cried aloud, when he
saw that Brutus had drawn his dagger, he pulled his toga down over his
head and sank, either by chance or because pushed there by his
murderers, against the pedestal on which the statue of Pompey stood.
And the pedestal was drenched with his blood, so that one might have
thought that Pompey himself was presiding over this vengeance upon his
enemy, who now lay prostrate at his feet, quivering from a multitude
of wounds. For it is said that he received twenty-three; and many of
the conspirators were wounded by one another, as they struggled to
plant all those blows in one body." - Plutarch, Lives, "Caesar"
63.5-9, 66.7-14

"The Senate rose in respect for his position when they saw him
entering. Those who were to have part in the plot stood near him.
Right next to him went Tillius Cimber, whose brother had been exiled
by Caesar. Under pretext of a humble request on behalf of this
brother, Cimber approached and grasped the mantle of his toga, seeming
to want to make a more positive move with his hands upon Caesar.
Caesar wanted to get up and use his hands, but was prevented by Cimber
and became exceedingly annoyed. That was the moment for the men to
set to work. All quickly unsheathed their daggers and rushed at him.
First Servilius Casca struck him with the point of the blade on the
left shoulder a little above the collar-bone. He had been aiming for
that, but in the excitement he missed. Caesar rose to defend himself,
and in the uproar Casca shouted out in Greek to his brother. The
latter heard him and drove his sword into the ribs. After a moment,
Cassius made a slash at his face, and Decimus Brutus pierced him in
the side. While Cassius Longinus was trying to give him another blow
he missed and struck Marcus Brutus on the hand. Minucius also hit out
at Caesar and hit Rubrius in the thigh. They were just like men doing
battle against him. Under the mass of wounds, he fell at the foot of
Pompey's statue. Everyone wanted to seem to have had some part in the
murder, and there was not one of them who failed to strike his body as
it lay there, until, wounded thirty-five times, he breathed his last."
- Nicholas of Damascus, The Assassination of Caesar

Today is, of course, infamous now because in 44 B.C., Gaius Iulius
Caesar was murdered outside the Senate House under the statue of
Pompey Magnus.

Valete bene!

Cato

N.B. - I apologize for having missed posting the second Equirria,
which was yesterday (and missed meeting Marca Hortensia for lunch!),
due to a friend's emergency. I am grateful to L. Equitius Concinnatus
Augur for having posted the rites proper to honor Mars, whose festival
the Equirriae are. GEC




SOURCES
Ovid, Macrobius, Anna Perenna
(http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/anna_perenna.html) and
(http://www.answers.com/topic/anna-perenna), Plutarch, Nicholas of
Damascus

Cn. Cornelius Lentulus quaestor Ap. Iulio Prisco sal.:

<<< Ego Appius Iulius Priscus civis Novae Romae hodie factus sum. vos omnes libente animo saluto. <<<

Et nos omnes libentissime te salutamus! Puta temet, quaesumus, hic eo esse animo, quasi domi esses! Si autem lingua Latina loqui velis, optimus est locus tibi Sodalitas Latinitatis: ad quam adjunge te, si non adhuc es adjunctus!

Vale!



Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus,
Q U A E S T O R
-------------------------------
Propraetor Provinciae Pannoniae
Sacerdos Provinciae Pannoniae
Accensus Consulis C. Fabii Buteonis
Scriba Censoris C. Minucii Hadriani Felicis
Scriba Aedilis Curulis T. Iulii Sabini
Scriba Interpretis Linguae Latinae Tulliae Scholasticae
-------------------------------
Sodalis Sodalitatis Latinitatis
Latinista, Classicus Philologus


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi, antispam, antivirus, POP3

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

Salve,

On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 03:38:56AM -0000, Timothy P. Gallagher wrote:
> Salve Caius Minucius Scaevola
>
> If you had read the misdirected post of mine you would have seen
> that I was asking one of my staff memebers about the Roman calendar
> and how it will effect the trial.

I quote myself:

"[ ...] or, if it's excused as a mis-addressing mistake, to a person who
is not on the list."

Nothing wrong with asking a staff member about the calendar. What is
wrong is your repeatedly-demonstrated habit of violating others' privacy
and trust by forwarding material from private lists. I am completely
unsurprised that you ignored the real issue here; from where you sit, it
must be completely invisible.

> You know that legal obigation YOU will not take part in.

[laugh] Shame, shame... oh, so much shame on me for not playing the game
your way! I've agreed to involve myself to the extent of having an
advocatus; this is all that is required of me legally. I will neither
pretend to believe that this mess can grant anything resembling justice,
nor that you have any ability to determine what _is_ just (although I
will certainly grant you great tenacity once you *think* you've got
something figured out. This is NOT necessarily a compliment.)

> As soon as the Consul pointed out that I posted it to the main list
> I removed it.

The horse had already been stolen, sold, worked to death, and the
carcass used for dog food. Locking the barn door now has very little, if
any, effect.


Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.
Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
-- Principle known as Occam's Razor, "used for example in physics."

A. Apollonius Ap. Julio omnibusque sal.

> Ego Appius Iulius Priscus civis Novae Romae hodie
> factus sum. vos
> omnes libente animo saluto.

Salve, Prisce: te gratulor propter civitatem novam
tuam. :)



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

A. Apollonius Pompejae Minuciae C. Minucio omnibus
sal.

A few diverse comments on this.

First, it's a shame that discussion of a potentially
beneficial legislative proposal has so quickly been
side-tracked into yet another 'process' argument, but
such is life and such are politics. I understand that
you both have reasonable and legitimate worries about
the way in which Ti. Galerius has released this
material, and I wouldn't want to be taken as saying
that you shouldn't express those worries. I just hope
that the 'process' discussion won't entirely eclipse
discussion of the actual proposal, which I think is a
good one.

Secondly, I suggest that perhaps you worry unduly
about the process here. You know that I personally
don't regard cross-posting from one list to another as
a terribly heinous act anyway, unless of course the
list of origin is subject to an explicit or implicit
agreement of confidentiality. But surely it is
permissible for a person to publish material on one
list, even if on a confidential list, and then publish
the same material again on another list? It's not as
if he's revealing anyone else's confidential remarks,
merely his own. It seems strange to criticise a person
for breaching confidentiality by revealing his own
confidential remarks.

Strabo, you expressed a slightly different and more
serious worry: if I've understood you correctly, your
concern is that Paulinus has cut short a private
discussion of this proposal in order to 'go public'
with it, thus effectively going over the heads of
those he was discussing it with privately and
appealing to their boss, the populus. Allow me to
paint a different picture. I can't say for certain
which is correct - we would have to read the praetor's
mind - but I hope I can persuade you that to accuse
Paulinus of bad faith may be jumping the gun.

You were, you say, discussing the proposal privately
on the magistrates' list. A highly relevant topic then
also came up for discussion on this list. Paulinus
published the proposal on this list. He did not, I
think it should be observed, say that he was calling a
contio or promulgating this proposal for an immediate
vote. He just informed the inhabitants of this forum
that he was currently in favour of the proposal. Nor
did he say that he would not accept any amendments
which others might suggest. On the basis of these two
omissions, I think we may reasonable imagine that he
actually did not mean to put an end to the private
discussion at all, but only to broaden the discussion.
If you try, you may find that he is still perfectly
willing to listen to your comments on the magistrates'
list, but he also wants to hear comments from the man
in the street, as it were.

While we're on this subject, I'd like to broaden the
issue myself a little. I've heard of the magistrates'
list. I don't know what it is. It seems, from what
I've heard, that the consules, the praetores, the
censores, and the tribuni plebis are on it. I don't
know whether the aediles, vigintisexviri, or
provincial governors are on it. I know that the
quaestores are not on it - or at least, this one
quaestor isn't! So it seems a funny sort of list. It
contains some magistrates, but not all magistrates.
It's not just a list for the higher magistrates
because it contains the tribuni plebis, who are lower
magistrates. It's not just a list for the magistrates
with imperium, because it contains the censores and
the tribuni plebis, who have no imperium. It's not a
list for legislative magistrates, because it contains
the censores, who have no legislative power. What, I
wonder, is the logic for deciding who should be there
and who should not be there? I ask this purely out of
my own interest.

Finally, I'd like to repeat something I've said before
but which (if I may say so without sounding unbearably
self-important) not enough people have taken notice
of. Secrecy and confidentiality are totally alien to
the process of Roman law-making. The sources are quite
clear. Legislative proposals, from the earliest stages
of their drafting, were discussed and passed around
without the slightest attempt to keep them from public
knowledge. While Cicero was in exile he was sent draft
copies of proposals to recall him from exile. He was
not sent these as a matter of courtesy by the drafters
- he was sent them, it seems, by his friend Atticus,
who had obtained them in turn from another friend.
They were in common circulation. The drafters made no
attempt to conceal them. This happened not once or
twice but with the five or six different drafts which
were being written by different magistrates. There are
other examples and other evidence, well summarized in
Callie Williamson's recent book "The Laws of the Roman
People".

Contrast this with Bismarck's famous joke about laws
and sausages (no one should see how they're made).
That is a profoundly un-Roman attitude, and frankly a
rather patronising and paternalistic one. The Romans
had no such insecurities: they were quite happy for
all and sundry to see their proposals as they were
worked on, and to receive feedback from anyone who
wanted to give it. There is too much Bismarck and too
little Cicero in Nova Roma. Too much is kept secretand
confidential. Nova Roma claims to be an improved Rome,
and yet in the field of transparent and open
government we are a long way behind the ancients. This
is easy to change: it requires no legislation. All it
requires is for our magistrates to take a Roman
attitude to the legislative process: don't worry about
keeping your proposals confidential until they're
ready - don't get hung up about people seeing you in
the process of doing your job - don't be afraid to
discuss public business in public - in short, relax!



___________________________________________________________
Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now. http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus A. Apollonio Cordo salutem dicit

I created the NRMagistrates list. It contains the Censors, Consuls,
Praetors, Tribunes, Aediles, and our webmaster. At the moment I don't
see a cogent reason to include the Quaestors. The purpose of the list
is for the magistrates of Nova Roma to communicate more effectively.

Vale:

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus

On 3/15/06, A. Apollonius Cordus <a_apollonius_cordus@...> wrote:
> A. Apollonius Pompejae Minuciae C. Minucio omnibus

>
> While we're on this subject, I'd like to broaden the
> issue myself a little. I've heard of the magistrates'
> list. I don't know what it is. It seems, from what
> I've heard, that the consules, the praetores, the
> censores, and the tribuni plebis are on it. I don't
> know whether the aediles, vigintisexviri, or
> provincial governors are on it. I know that the
> quaestores are not on it - or at least, this one
> quaestor isn't! So it seems a funny sort of list. It
> contains some magistrates, but not all magistrates.
> It's not just a list for the higher magistrates
> because it contains the tribuni plebis, who are lower
> magistrates. It's not just a list for the magistrates
> with imperium, because it contains the censores and
> the tribuni plebis, who have no imperium. It's not a
> list for legislative magistrates, because it contains
> the censores, who have no legislative power. What, I
> wonder, is the logic for deciding who should be there
> and who should not be there? I ask this purely out of
> my own interest.

A. Apollonius C. Minucio omnibusque sal.

> > To be honest I think many of these problems would
> be
> > solved, or at least reduced, if we were to remodel
> the
> > entire system based on the republican judicial
> system.
>
> I disagree. Having a "justice system" in Nova Roma
> outside the bounds of
> what can actually be enforced simply makes us look
> like children playing
> a game - period. ...

Sorry, amice - I've failed to make myself clear. My
suggestion is that the processes and structures which
we use to achieve resolution of otherwise insoluble
disputes should be based on the Roman system which
existed for the same purpose. That doesn't necessarily
mean that the content of what is treated as 'legal'
and 'illegal' should be identical. It would, you're
right, be pointless to have laws against murder and so
on. There's no need for such things. But there is
undoubtedly a need for mechanisms to resolve disputes
over the sale and purchase of goods in the Macellum,
accusations that magistrates have misbehaved, and
other things which can and do happen in our community
from time to time. These, I suggest, should be dealt
with in a Roman way and not, as currently, by a
judicial system which is a hybrid of republican,
imperial, and modern legal procedures.

> What Nova Roma needs is to scrap the current
> self-contradictory mess,
> define some basic rules *within the scope of
> enforceability*, and have a
> few moderators who enforce those rules as necessary.
> As Nova Roma grows
> - *thus expanding its scope* - more rules, or laws
> if you prefer, can be
> added if they're found to be necessary.

A fair suggestion, and one which is in principle
entirely compatible with mine.

> Basing that long-term process in the republican
> judicial system may be a
> wise policy; however, trying to force it into that
> mold when it doesn't
> fit (how did that system deal with spammers? How
> about phishers?) would
> make no sense. This is one of the reasons that we
> have this
> self-perpetuating mess now.

I disagree about that last point: the current problems
certainly don't arise out of excessive adherence to
historical example. If anything, the opposite is true.
The republican system had far more scope than the
current one for informal, extrajudicial resolution of
disputes. It was in general a less formal system than
the one we have now.

But you're right that the actual substantive law, as
opposed to procedural law, cannot always be based on
republican law. Still, republican law is a logical
starting point. The ancient Romans of the republic
didn't have spammers, but they certainly had people
who hawked their wares in public in an undesirable
way. They didn't have phishing (I had to look this one
up!), but they had people who fraudulently acquired
and abused confidential information and who tried to
pass themselves off as others. The way they dealt with
these problems can tell us how a republican Roman
would regard the problems and what sort of solutions
he would think of: that's a good place to start.



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