OSD C. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

Hodie est ante diem V Kalendas Sextilis; haec dies comitialis est.

"The senate again, which possesses such great power, is obliged in the
first place to pay attention to the commons in public affairs and
respect the wishes of the people, and it cannot carry out inquiries
into the most grave and important offences against the state,
punishable with death, and their correction, unless the senatus
consultum is confirmed by the people. The same is the case in matters
which directly affect the senate itself. For if anyone introduces a
law meant to deprive the senate of some of its traditional authority,
or to abolish the precedence and other distinctions of the senators or
even to curtail them of their private fortunes, it is the people alone
which has the power of passing or rejecting any such measure. And what
is most important is that if a single one of the tribunes interposes,
the senate is unable to decide finally about any matter, and cannot
even meet and hold sittings; and here it is to be observed that the
tribunes are always obliged to act as the people decree and to pay
every attention to their wishes. Therefore for all these reasons the
senate is afraid of the masses and must pay due attention to the
popular will.

Similarly, again, the people must be submissive to the senate and
respect its members both in public and in private. Through the whole
of Italy a vast number of contracts, which it would not be easy to
enumerate, are given out by the censors for the construction and
repair of public buildings, and besides this there are many things
which are farmed, such as navigable rivers, harbours, gardens, mines,
lands, in fact everything that forms part of the Roman dominion. Now
all these matters are undertaken by the people, and one may almost say
that everyone is interested in these contracts and the work they
involved. For certain people are the actual purchasers from the
censors of the contracts, others are the partners of these first,
others stand surety for them, others pledge their own fortunes to the
state for this purpose. Now in all these matters the senate is
supreme. It can grant extension of time; it can relieve the contractor
if any accident occurs; and if the work proves to be absolutely
impossible to carry out it can liberate him from his contract. There
are in fact many ways in which the senate can either benefit or
indicate those who manage public property, as all these matters are
referred to it. What is even most important is that the judges in most
civil trials, whether public or private, are appointed from its
members, where the action involves large interests. So that all
citizens being at the mercy of the senate, and looking forward with
alarm to the uncertainty of litigation, are very shy of obstructing or
resisting its decisions. Similarly everyone is reluctant to oppose the
projects of the consuls as all are generally and individually under
their authority when in the field." - Polybius, "The Roman Histories"
VI.16-17

Valete bene!

Cato



SOURCES

Polybius

Paulinus--*laughs* I had wanted to include _Roots,_ _Barber Shop,_ and
that excellent movie about the Navy diver with the prosthetic leg, but
I realized my post was getting way too long.

Hm. _Tuskegee Airmen_ would have been a good addition, too.

Paulla Corva Gaudialis

Salve Silvana,

C. Aurelia Falco Silvana wrote:

> 1) Include in the initial application for citizenship, an
> essay question (250 - 500 words) on the topic of "Why I want
> to join Nova Roma."

As the censor who's been in charge of citizen applications for over a
year now, I'll allow that this would require me to have more scribes
capable of reading more languages than I seem able to recruit. As it is
right now my Spanish and Portugese language scribes are having to work
very hard to keep up with the flow of applications. Not only do they
handle their own language area, but they've also had to take on the
French and Italian applications due to a lack of active scribae for
those languages.

So until such time as Nova Roma has a fairly large cadre of dedicated
people willing to read and respond to such essays, I'd be against
implementing such a requirement.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Matt Hucke wrote:

> > 2) [Technical question] I am no computer expert--my
> > machine and I tolerate each other. But I have learned
> > that each computer has a MAC (machine access code?).
>
>
> True - but this isn't transmitted all the way across the
> network. It is stripped off at the first router encountered
> (which is generally within the user's house). Thus it isn't
> visible to us at all.

Salvete,

As an aside, here's how you change that code if, say, someone's trying
to block yours, or if you want to appear as another computer on the same
network:

http://www.tech-faq.com/change-mac-address.shtml

Valete, Titus Octavius Pius.

Posted to the Colosseum, where Appius and A. Apollonius Cordus
were engaged on odd terms (Appius insisted on corresponding
using me as his middleman). I was able to confirm his identity
(Joseph C. Keller) by sending a copy of his email to his
kellerj at iastate dot edu address and asking him to confirm
the sending of his email. Given how dirty Pagan infighting
can get, it's a reasonable precaution to take.

Given that address, a webpage at iastate.edu on which Keller
names himself and the results of a Google search, one can
put together a somewhat fleshed out picture of Appius' past.
Watching him rant in the most bizarre way about how the
Jews want to make white men disappear by encouraging black
male on white female coupling fleshed it out some more.

It was the most peculiarly offbase portrayal of the Jewish
people I can remember seeing in a long time - and I've lived
in Appalacia. There's some fairly solid competition for the
title of "weirdest thing I've heard yet" and Keller's missives
are solidly in the running. I don't think that you guys needed
to out him or beat him up as thoroughly as you did. But there
is more at issue with Keller than mere conservatism.

The discussion continued briefly, then I decided to respond.
For reasons detailed below, not only do I agree with the
idea of putting him on moderation, were I making the decision,
I would show him the door. The modstaff obviously feels
otherwise, and I will grant that this is a judgement call, but
I think that the case can be made for a particular judgement.



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



OK, I've tried to pay lip service to neutrality on this one
throughout, for reasons that anybody familiar with Robert's
Rules of Order can probably guess at. As a moderator, I'm
something like a chairman. But, at this point I think that
both sides have said all that they will say and we're
just headed for repetition, now. That having been said, I'm
less concerned about my own involvement having a chilling
effect on what really never seems to have been a discussion.
I usually mock people who write these words, which usually
are an expression of cowardice, but in this case they fit.
Both sides in this conflict were wrong.

I've wondered - and not really been told - why Appius would
see fit to write to me, the "half Jew" of all people, about
such a business. I hadn't posted to Nova-Roma ever, as far
as I can remember, so the "he wrote to everybody" explanation
doesn't persuade. I don't know, but I can reasonably guess
based on the quotes taken out of context on the Stormfront
site, by white supremacists who seem to think that I'm in
their corner, possibly because of some often skimmed and
seldom understood passages I'e written about there being
a place in the world for everybody, xenophobes included.
That is true, but the place is not necessarily one of their
own choosing. The issue of reciprocity does arise.

Yes, I would agree that if Appius'/Keller's community
doesn't want Jews or people fully or partially of any
kind of color living in their midst, they are entitled
to that wish and should not be pressured to yield on it.
This particular Jew of mixed ancestry, who would most
likely be excluded from Mr.Keller's community of choice,
certainly would not mind being excluded outright from
a place where he would be resented, and having lived
through that experience would rather get the heads-up
that bluntly expressed racism offers, than to get
blindsided again, and find himself trapped in Hell for
a few years until he can afford to move on. I do not
believe in the fair housing laws for a number of
reasons, not the least of which being that in practice
they are no gift to the chronically mistreated.

If a community, like Keller's, is going to tell me that I'm
not welcome in it because of what I am, I'm just going to
shrug and walk on to a place where I am welcome. I'll do
this without judgement - a planet without cultural barriers
is a planet that would, in time, become homogenized and so
even if I don't like Mr.Keller or people like him, I
can't deny that they need to exist, if for no other reason
then to serve as a counterbalance against the Politically
Correct. BUT ... and here comes the other side of the
issue, Mr. Keller.

You can't have it both ways. You can't assert a right to
exclude others from your own midst based on things that
in no way negatively reflect on their character, and
expect to not be excluded yourself. That isn't reasonable.
If you're going to try to keep the membership of Beth
Shalom out of your town, for example, don't be too shocked
if the membership of Beth Shalom returns the favor. There's
even an applicable philosophical concept for this one, one
which should be familiar to any conservative, that of the
social contract. In declining to be accepting of the great
diversity of the American public, you've forfeited the right
to be accepted in the diverse setting of that general
public. You may view this as being an acceptable tradeoff,
the price you need to pay to enjoy the blessings of
a familiar setting, but real conservatives believe in paying
their bills, in one sense or another, not in crying when
accounts come due to be payed.

You buy that familiarity of your surroundings at the expense
of your connection to a bigger and in some ways more colorful
world, because while you will rightly assert your right to
find a place in the world for yourself, what some of your
friends at Stormfront will refer to as being "the whining
Juden" will do the exact same thing, for the exact same
reason, with the exact same right. What kind of home can we
expect to enjoy if we are expected to welcome those into
our own midst, who would never welcome us into theirs? On
those terms, we would be random walking our way into
oblivion, driven out of one place after another never to
return, each time a creeping majority of those who would
drive us out arose. It is neither whining nor weakness for
us to say that we shall act more firmly on our own behalves
than that, that in the rough and tumble of cultural clashes
we shall stand our ground and provide you with stronger
opposition than you would have ever imagined us capable of.

My people will not go off into that good night any more
willingly than yours would, and if you doubt our resolve
to live, just remember that we have survived a long line
of those who have desired our destruction, going back to
a time when neither Athens nor Rome were even villages, yet.
We know a thing or two about survival, and we know better
than to agree to double standards, such as the one you
request. We know better than to ask others to do so, either.

Nova Roma, whatever one might think of the concept of hard
reconstructionism, is devoted to the reconstruction of
one of antiquity's most noteworthy multicultural and
multiethnic societies, one that spanned Western Europe,
North Africa and much of the Near East, Israel included,
a clear majority of its population consisting of people
white supremacists would not be happy to see move in next
door. It takes a vivid imagination to see racialism in
such a project. Even were 100% of the Nova Roman population
of Germanic descent, I would be amazed to see you lining
up to join an organization with such a mission statement,
given what Rome was. But the fact of the matter is that
a great many people from Latin and Mediterranean backgrounds
will look to Rome, and see their own roots, roots which
they are interested in exploring. Why, knowing what your
views of them are, should they or their friends be in any
more of a rush to include you, than would the membership
of my old synagogue? This, I and they would ask of you,
not because we hate or resent you, but because we love
ourselves, and if we are not for ourselves, then who is?

You were attacked in very coarse terms, being referred to as a
"neo-nazi" with all of the Mengele-loaded baggage that term
implies, without being allowed to talk back freely. That,
I will concede, is an injustice and that is why I've been
willing to forward your e-mail to this list. But Nova Roma
would do you no injustice by excluding you from its ranks or
its events. I certainly would not welcome you as a guest,
myself, even if you would feel comfortable at an event with
the ethnic mix one would tend to find at mine, presided over
as it would be by somebody of debatable caucasianness. How
comfortable would I be if you were still hanging around as
my half-thai nephews dropped by? How comfortable should
I or they be with such a prospect?

While I agree with your opposition to the concept of open
borders, when I see your rhetoric about Jewish conspiracies
to do away with the white man, I draw on a base of experience
of hearing that rhetoric and come to certain conclusions.
Maybe I do so mistakenly, but I do so honestly and not
really capriciously. In this, I suspect I and the officials
in Nova Roma are of one mind.



Antistoicus

For those who have not seen this material, yet, this is
what Keller asked me to post for him., and yes, I
asked for and got a confirmation letter, making certain that
he wasn't being spoofed. This is wild and whacky stuff.

I would agree that he should have the freedom to write this,
but the freedom to write this and still be invited just
anywhere he wants to be? No. This guy seems more than a
little unstable.



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



Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Joe Keller" <appiusclaudiuspriscus at yahoo.com>

Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by
yahoo.com. Learn more

Subject: Re: notice
To: "Antistoicus Demipagan" <antistoicus at yahoo.com>,
appiusclaudiuspriscus at yahoo.com, kellerj at iastate.edu

Salve Demipagan and salvete omnes,

Would you post this to your board for me? Partly because
of my delicate political position, I'm making it a policy
not to join any "adults only" boards, not that those are
all bad, necessarily.

"Consequently, he [Priscus] did not win any trial." -
Tullia Scholastica, sentence from recent post to
NewRoman board.

My comment: I won the trial, the one and only trial
I've ever had in Nova Roma. The accuser didn't come
to court on the trial day. I came to court as ordered
on the scheduled trial day and gave my defense. Then
the charges were dropped. There was a trial messageboard,
a judge who acknowledged receiving my defense, and the
jury had been selected.

"However, I will remove you [Priscus] in a trice if you
continue your lies and your insinuations which are far
from the truth as both Masters Cordus, and Censor Marinus
have indicated." - Marcus Audens, sentence from recent
post to NewRoman board.

My comment: Audens expelled me from the Egressus board
before I even tried to post anything, and he removed my
post from the NewRoman board. Here is part of my unanswered
private reply to Audens regarding the above. (If you want
to see the whole letter, email me and I'll consider your
request.)

"[1st sentence] You're always talking about my lies.
What lies? Would you allow me to defend myself against
any accusation that any specific thing I've said is a
lie? I doubt it. I'm probably wrong about some things,
but I'm not lying. ...

"Some of your friends are liars and here's a lie: the
[censor's] nota [against Priscus] scissored the quote
about Hitler's internment of Jews to omit my qualification
"though not to abuse (Jews)". And there's a lot of you
trying really hard to suppress the correct quote and to
continue making me wear a bag over my head (no picture
in the Album Gentium) and a gag in my mouth (I may be
attacked but I may not make any substantive rebuttal)
while one "politically correct" blowhard after another
denounces me. What do you think "the Silent Majority"
in your group thinks about it? Does it remind them of
Red China? I bet it reminds the Korea vets of Red
China more than of Rome. ..."

Here is my entire last post to the Southeastern US
province board, before I was expelled from that board:


"Since you let the cop attack me maybe you'll post this:

Salvete omnes!

Thank you for your astute observations, Flavius Leviticus.

The moderator reposted the censorial nota, but he was not
able to withstand the political pressure to delete my post,
thus people will not know that:

1. The censorial nota misquoted my statement about Hitler
interning Jews: if you want to know what I really said
about Hitler interning Jews, ask Consul Modianus, he knows.

2. The censorial nota misquoted my statement about divorce
custody: if you want to know what I really said, check the
Kansas City Star archives (front page article in 2000), about
"Joseph C. Keller".

To allow attack after verbal attack on a citizen, and to gag
any substantive rebuttal of those attacks, proves that this
organization is becoming a tragicomic travesty of the real
ancient Rome. Too many Nova Romans are terrified that I will
say something in my own defense, that upsets their fragile
beliefs, their fragile arguments, or their fragile egos."

As I recall, in 2000 I described my divorce reform policy
as giving custody to fathers. That's not the same as taking
it from mothers. Giving custody usually to fathers, as a
century ago in the U.S., empirically and logically reduces
the divorce rate and means fewer parents lose their children.
Why did the censors change my words?

Here is my prior post to that board, in response to a post
by a female citizen accusing me of making the messageboard
a "crying hut":

other citizen:

> I don't think
> your personal beliefs alone should be any concern
> of mine, and I actually agree with you that they
> should have no impact on your citizenship-as long
> as you do not preach them on the NR lists.

"Salve,
I agree, as far as that goes. I didn't preach my personal
beliefs very much on NR lists, until I was googled, asked
privately about my beliefs by an NR official, and, when I
admitted what they were, then denounced on the NR lists,
put on trial, and deprived of my vote. Since the NR
administration started prosecuting me for my personal
beliefs, yes, I've been defending my beliefs on the
lists when it's been allowed.

This list is the only one that consistently allows me to
post rebuttals. The other lists sometimes have allowed
attacks on me and then not allowed me to make a substantive
rebuttal. Does that seem fair? If the censor misquotes me
in an email condemning me and sent to all Nova Romans, should
I correct the misquotation on an NR list, if emailing all
Nova Romans individually is impractical for me?

I think some Nova Romans support me, even support racism
(whatever that is, exactly) to some degree, but being a
racist is like being a heretic in the Middle Ages. So
just because none post, doesn't mean none agree. It means
someone might google them, see a racist statement, and kick
them out of a club, or not hire them (then how can they
support their families?) - and they know that.

I don't like requiring new citizens to take this new oath
about their personal beliefs. Maybe it is better, just to
require them to take an oath not to preach their personal
beliefs on NR lists - and an oath not to attack other
members for their personal beliefs, either."


My friend Brian Phillips of the Revolutionary Union of
Fascists says that he was expelled from Nova Roma and/or
the messageboard, solely because he is a fascist. He joined
before the "political correctness" oath was required.

Due to time constraints, this might be my only post to
this board, so I would like to make a general comment
which I think is more important than my own case. I don't
think that Nova Roma is a dilettante organization. If it
were, the "politically correct", controlling minority
wouldn't be on such a witch-hunt. Because Nova Roma
addresses important issues - Roman law, society, religion -
some forces within our society seem to have targeted Nova
Roma for neutralization. I've seen this neutralization
process at work in several minor political parties over
the years. Neutralization is achieved chiefly through
control of communications, but also by outright intimidation:
Censor Germanicus denounced me publicly for (this quote might
be approximate) "adding a page to [Nova Roma's] FBI file".
Triarius, the #2 in the Southeast US province, identified
himself as a law-enforcement officer and said on that board
that he would tell the FBI if I, basically, said anything
racist: he even said that "the 14 words" ["We must secure
the existence of our race and a future for White children."
- David Lane (who robbed banks to finance pro-White
political groups)] were forbidden. So we have two overt
attempts to use the name of the FBI to scare Nova Romans
into "political correctness".

It should be permissible to oppose women's voting in a
historical society devoted to recreating Rome: Rome
opposed women's voting. To my knowledge there was never
one single female Roman consul. Yet Censor Germanicus
(means, "conqueror of the Germans"; he claims to be German,
but is he really a Jew?) announced, that [verbally] opposing
women's voting, is a crime that is "prosecuted" in Nova Roma.
A check of any men's-rights website, or even the mainstream
media, shows that government divorce policy (voted by the
female majority) is drastically depressing birth rates as men
in Western (i.e., White) societies increasingly realize that
fatherhood has been made into a slow form of "suicide by cop".
The president of Harvard, a courageous Jew named Larry Summers,
has posted on the internet his speech saying, politely and
carefully, that women are being pushed too hard to go into
science and that little girls should have dolls. I encourage
you to read the speech yourself, but I think that's a fair
summary of what Summers said. Harvard's alumni magazine
admitted that this simple speech might well have been the
main reason Summers was fired, yet Summers' true words are
so taboo today that the ten-page article about Summers'
firing, did not dare quote a single word of the speech
that got him fired.

"Womyn's lib" is a fiendishly ingenious genocide program.
Resistance to it is ruthlessly crushed.

And "The Holocaust" is a hoax. Jews suffered and died, but
in ways and numbers comparable to the suffering and death
experienced by many groups for many reasons in total war
scenarios. I refer you to organizations such as, among
many others, the National Alliance or NSDAP-AO for
documentation; the evidence that the Holocaust is a hoax,
is too extensive for me to type in a lifetime. Even a
recent popular book by a Jew named Klemperer, greatly
contradicts the "Hollywood" Holocaust scenario. The
truth doesn't need to be propped up with gaggings,
beatings and jailings. But the Holocaust lie needs to
be so propped up.

The "Holocaust" lie continues a cycle of violence, by
allowing the (politically mighty) Jews to feel justified
pursuing genocidal "politically correct" policies toward
Aryans. What will happen to Jews when Aryans have been
exterminated through "womyn's lib", race-mixing (especially
Black male on White female) and open borders, and replaced
with Mexicans in North America and Arabs in Europe? The
"Holocaust" lie is maddening Jews with hate, causing them
to sink their own ship.

Valete,
Appius Claudius Priscus
(Joseph C. Keller, M. D.; B. A. Harvard 1977)

Salve Cato

No, not really. What Cordus explained does apply in Nova Roma.
First, if you look at the Constitution, there is no mention of a
right to "free speech." The right is to participate in discussions
in an orderly and civil forum supported by the State, and reasonably
moderated by the magistrates. The right of all Cives to have
available an orderly and civil forum is thus weighed against any
individual's right to participation. And one determining factor
here is the proper exercise of the rights of magistrates to fulfill
their responsibilities to maintain that orderly and civil forum.

So in the matter of Pricus, viewing this whole affair from the
perspective of a Tribunus Plebis, the first question of concern is
whether any magistrate exceeded his or her authority in exercising
the ius of a respective office. No, none did.

Secondly, then is the question of whether through magisterial
actions the Cives were denied their right to have available a civil
and orderly forum. No. The Praetores gave some flexbility, at
their discretion. They can limit discussions, requiring subscribers
to remain on-topic, to cut off any discussions that, in their
opinion, become disruptive or uncivil. They can set guidelines on
acceptable list behavior. They can discipline individuals through
warnings, moderations, or expulsion from a list, because the right
of all Cives to a civil and orderly forum comes before any
individual's right to free expression.

The third question then, and the only one that really pertains here,
is whether the right of Priscus to participate in list discussions
was wrongfully curtailed. This question falls back on the first
two, becuase it becomes a matter of whether due process was
exercised, with just cause, in curtailing the individual's right to
participation. When there is a conflict between the ius of a
magistrate and the ius of an individual Civis, that is when the
Tribuni Plebis are to review the actions of both and intervene if
any law was violated. There was a succession of incidents, where it
appears that Priscus tried to go around and/or defy the authority of
the Praetores to fulfill their responsibilities, and the responses
made by the Praetores appear to have been reasonable reactions to
actions made by Priscus. Some have made claims against Priscus,
which may yet be taken up in some judicial procedure. And if
Priscus wishes to contend that he was wrongfully denied his right to
participation, he could bring claims against the Praetores after
their terms of office expire. But at the moment, Priscus' right to
participate in forum discussions has not been entirely denied, and
any temporary curtailment of his right was imposed by due process
under Nova Roma law. It could be argued that Priscus gave up his
right when he failed to comply with Praetorial instructions and list
decorum. This, I think, is something that has yet to be clarified,
but none of the Tribuni Plebis saw any violation of the law that
warranted their intervention against the discretionary powers
afforded to the Praetors in performing their duties.

You could interject that this same portion of the Constitution,
II.B.4, includes the statement that, "Such communications,
regardless of their content, may not be restricted by the State,
except where they represent an imminent and clear danger to the
Republic." This might be argued to infer an implicit right to "free
speech," but it is qualified. The Praetores are within their right,
and possibly could argue in this case, that when advocacy turns
against principles that are established within the Constitution and
would cause divisiveness and disruption of the general community,
then the Praetores are required, not simply allowed, to restrict
such offensive communications. For example, the Constitution
provides that membership is open to everyone irregardless of
religious affiliation. Our community is composed of cultores
Deorum, Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists and others. So if
someone advocated that the rights of worshippers of Jabubba should
be restricted or lessened inside Nova Roma; i.e. that they not be
allowed to vote or hold office, or that they should be expelled
simply for being a worshipper of Jabubba, then that would violate
our constitutional principle of religious tolerance in Nova Roma, it
would threaten the Respublica by attempting to deny some of our
Cives their constitutional rights, could possibly create
divisiveness and disruption among our Cives, and thus threaten the
general well-being of our Respublica. Priscus has expressed certain
views that can be said to conflict with our constitutional
principles, in regard to his not embracing the equality of women in
Nova Roma and in suggesting that someday "yet" they might be
restricted from holding positions of authority in Nova Roma. It
would be a matter of opinion, but I don't think he particularly went
over the line in what he said. He is entitled to his opinions, and
came close but didn't particularly advocate infringing upon the
rights and privileges of our female Cives. Some of his other
comments upset members of our community, creating some disruption in
our fora. So the Praetores were justified to limit some of that
discussion. In doing so, the Praetor did not at first come down on
Priscus alone, but tried to end certain topics of discussion that
were begining to cause a problem, or that potentially would have
caused a problem. The problem that the Praetores had with Priscus
was that he persisted to interject into his posts off-topic subjects
that were disruptive in nature and content within this community,
and knowing that as he did, he should have respected the
instructions of the Praetores rather than persist in causing more of
what he knew to be disruptive. By our own constitutional
principles, Priscus' affiliation with any other organization does
not disbar him from membership or from exercising his rights as a
Civis within Nova Roma. But some of his actions have been
questionable, and may eventually come up for adjudication. And I
think that it is more a matter of his actions rather than his
affilitions or views that has become the question of whether he
represents any potential harm to our Respublica.

I think Cordus was entirely correct on how the law is understood in
Nova Roma, how it has been applied in the past, and on how it was
written for Nova Roma. The intention was to provide each individual
Civis and every magistrate with their own respective ius, within
their own respective spheres. Whenever the exercise of the ius of
one individual may conflict with the exercise of the ius of another,
then we can go back to the traditions of Roma antiqua, where it was
stated that "these are the principles of law: to live honestly, to
harm no one one, and to give each his due." These principles apply
just as much on the part of the individual towards the community as
a whole, as the community is to apply them towards any individual
Civis. In this situation I think that there are some questions on
whether an individual Civis disrepected the ius of certain
magistrates, and the ius of the whole community, and it not simply a
question of an infringement upon an individual's ius. So this has
to be sorted out yet, and the one place available to us to address
such questions is in the Senate.

Vale optime
M Moravius Piscinus




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

>
> Equitius Cato A. Apollonio sal.
>
> Corde, you wrote:
>
> "In modern thinking, only citizens (and to some extent legal
> corporations) have rights; in Roman law, however, both citizens and
> magistrates have jura. This shows that a jus is not best seen as a
> freedom with which others must not interfere, but a power which

others

> must recognize."
>
> and
>
> "Rather than saying 'has Claudius' freedom of speech been

violated?',

> we should say 'has a magistrate used his powers to prevent Claudius
> from speaking freely?'; and rather than saying 'was that violation
> justified?', we should say 'was the magistrate using his powers
> appropriately?' When we approach the issue from that angle, we see
> that the crucial question is not 'how much freedom should Claudius
> be allowed?' but 'what can and should magistrates do or not do

about

> Claudius?'"
>
>
> Now, I understand where you're going with the concept of ius as it
> applies to the power - or sphere of influence - of a particular

entity

> (citizen or magistrate). But in practical terms, it seems to

amount

> to the same thing: if a magistrate has overstepped their power,

then

> they have, by default, infringed upon the power of those affected

by

> that act by which the magistrate's power was overstepped. The

effect

> is the same, whether or not the question is.
>
> The second section (well, the last sentence, really) is a

particularly

> interesting one. Our legal cornerstone is precisely at odds with

your

> proposed "Roman solution": the exisence of the lex Constitutiva in

its

> present form establishes and enshrines the very modern

understanding

> of individual rights that you have explained is so un-Roman. The

lex

> Constitutiva was written by citizens so immersed in the assumption

of

> the necessity of a written and absolutely authoritative

constitution

> that it is natural that they would superimpose that legal

framework on

> the new Republic.
>
> The very language of the lex Constitutiva - "The following rights

of

> the citizens shall be guaranteed", for instance, as opposed to the
> "honors, powers, and obligations" of magistrates - reaffirms the
> Republic's commitment to the modern legal concept of individual
> rights. So while you make complete sense in describing how the
> ancient Romans might have looked at the question of Ap. Claudius

(and

> thanks, by the way, for that clarification; I still get confused

with

> the name thing but figure [as always] that it's better to "sin

boldly"

> than remain silent), our current law is more in tune with modern

legal

> constructs than ancient Roman ones.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>

M. Hortensia Praetoribus spd;
this non-citizen is posting material from a civis under a Nota.
Please do something about this, it's extremely upsetting to have to
face this awful material in our own forum. It has absolutely nothing
to do with Rome!
Marca Hortensia Maior

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

>
>
>
> For those who have not seen this material, yet, this is
> what Keller asked me to post for him., and yes, I
> asked for and got a confirmation letter, making certain that
> he wasn't being spoofed. This is wild and whacky stuff.
>
> I would agree that he should have the freedom to write this,
> but the freedom to write this and still be invited just
> anywhere he wants to be? No. This guy seems more than a
> little unstable.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Joe Keller" <appiusclaudiuspriscus at yahoo.com>
>
> Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by
> yahoo.com. Learn more
>
> Subject: Re: notice
> To: "Antistoicus Demipagan" <antistoicus at yahoo.com>,
> appiusclaudiuspriscus at yahoo.com, kellerj at iastate.edu
>
> Salve Demipagan and salvete omnes,
>
> Would you post this to your board for me? Partly because
> of my delicate political position, I'm making it a policy
> not to join any "adults only" boards, not that those are
> all bad, necessarily.
>
> "Consequently, he [Priscus] did not win any trial." -
> Tullia Scholastica, sentence from recent post to
> NewRoman board.
>
> My comment: I won the trial, the one and only trial
> I've ever had in Nova Roma. The accuser didn't come
> to court on the trial day. I came to court as ordered
> on the scheduled trial day and gave my defense. Then
> the charges were dropped. There was a trial messageboard,
> a judge who acknowledged receiving my defense, and the
> jury had been selected.
>
> "However, I will remove you [Priscus] in a trice if you
> continue your lies and your insinuations which are far
> from the truth as both Masters Cordus, and Censor Marinus
> have indicated." - Marcus Audens, sentence from recent
> post to NewRoman board.
>
> My comment: Audens expelled me from the Egressus board
> before I even tried to post anything, and he removed my
> post from the NewRoman board. Here is part of my unanswered
> private reply to Audens regarding the above. (If you want
> to see the whole letter, email me and I'll consider your
> request.)
>
> "[1st sentence] You're always talking about my lies.
> What lies? Would you allow me to defend myself against
> any accusation that any specific thing I've said is a
> lie? I doubt it. I'm probably wrong about some things,
> but I'm not lying. ...
>
> "Some of your friends are liars and here's a lie: the
> [censor's] nota [against Priscus] scissored the quote
> about Hitler's internment of Jews to omit my qualification
> "though not to abuse (Jews)". And there's a lot of you
> trying really hard to suppress the correct quote and to
> continue making me wear a bag over my head (no picture
> in the Album Gentium) and a gag in my mouth (I may be
> attacked but I may not make any substantive rebuttal)
> while one "politically correct" blowhard after another
> denounces me. What do you think "the Silent Majority"
> in your group thinks about it? Does it remind them of
> Red China? I bet it reminds the Korea vets of Red
> China more than of Rome. ..."
>
> Here is my entire last post to the Southeastern US
> province board, before I was expelled from that board:
>
>
> "Since you let the cop attack me maybe you'll post this:
>
> Salvete omnes!
>
> Thank you for your astute observations, Flavius Leviticus.
>
> The moderator reposted the censorial nota, but he was not
> able to withstand the political pressure to delete my post,
> thus people will not know that:
>
> 1. The censorial nota misquoted my statement about Hitler
> interning Jews: if you want to know what I really said
> about Hitler interning Jews, ask Consul Modianus, he knows.
>
> 2. The censorial nota misquoted my statement about divorce
> custody: if you want to know what I really said, check the
> Kansas City Star archives (front page article in 2000), about
> "Joseph C. Keller".
>
> To allow attack after verbal attack on a citizen, and to gag
> any substantive rebuttal of those attacks, proves that this
> organization is becoming a tragicomic travesty of the real
> ancient Rome. Too many Nova Romans are terrified that I will
> say something in my own defense, that upsets their fragile
> beliefs, their fragile arguments, or their fragile egos."
>
> As I recall, in 2000 I described my divorce reform policy
> as giving custody to fathers. That's not the same as taking
> it from mothers. Giving custody usually to fathers, as a
> century ago in the U.S., empirically and logically reduces
> the divorce rate and means fewer parents lose their children.
> Why did the censors change my words?
>
> Here is my prior post to that board, in response to a post
> by a female citizen accusing me of making the messageboard
> a "crying hut":
>
> other citizen:
>
> > I don't think
> > your personal beliefs alone should be any concern
> > of mine, and I actually agree with you that they
> > should have no impact on your citizenship-as long
> > as you do not preach them on the NR lists.
>
> "Salve,
> I agree, as far as that goes. I didn't preach my personal
> beliefs very much on NR lists, until I was googled, asked
> privately about my beliefs by an NR official, and, when I
> admitted what they were, then denounced on the NR lists,
> put on trial, and deprived of my vote. Since the NR
> administration started prosecuting me for my personal
> beliefs, yes, I've been defending my beliefs on the
> lists when it's been allowed.
>
> This list is the only one that consistently allows me to
> post rebuttals. The other lists sometimes have allowed
> attacks on me and then not allowed me to make a substantive
> rebuttal. Does that seem fair? If the censor misquotes me
> in an email condemning me and sent to all Nova Romans, should
> I correct the misquotation on an NR list, if emailing all
> Nova Romans individually is impractical for me?
>
> I think some Nova Romans support me, even support racism
> (whatever that is, exactly) to some degree, but being a
> racist is like being a heretic in the Middle Ages. So
> just because none post, doesn't mean none agree. It means
> someone might google them, see a racist statement, and kick
> them out of a club, or not hire them (then how can they
> support their families?) - and they know that.
>
> I don't like requiring new citizens to take this new oath
> about their personal beliefs. Maybe it is better, just to
> require them to take an oath not to preach their personal
> beliefs on NR lists - and an oath not to attack other
> members for their personal beliefs, either."
>
>
> My friend Brian Phillips of the Revolutionary Union of
> Fascists says that he was expelled from Nova Roma and/or
> the messageboard, solely because he is a fascist. He joined
> before the "political correctness" oath was required.
>
> Due to time constraints, this might be my only post to
> this board, so I would like to make a general comment
> which I think is more important than my own case. I don't
> think that Nova Roma is a dilettante organization. If it
> were, the "politically correct", controlling minority
> wouldn't be on such a witch-hunt. Because Nova Roma
> addresses important issues - Roman law, society, religion -
> some forces within our society seem to have targeted Nova
> Roma for neutralization. I've seen this neutralization
> process at work in several minor political parties over
> the years. Neutralization is achieved chiefly through
> control of communications, but also by outright intimidation:
> Censor Germanicus denounced me publicly for (this quote might
> be approximate) "adding a page to [Nova Roma's] FBI file".
> Triarius, the #2 in the Southeast US province, identified
> himself as a law-enforcement officer and said on that board
> that he would tell the FBI if I, basically, said anything
> racist: he even said that "the 14 words" ["We must secure
> the existence of our race and a future for White children."
> - David Lane (who robbed banks to finance pro-White
> political groups)] were forbidden. So we have two overt
> attempts to use the name of the FBI to scare Nova Romans
> into "political correctness".
>
> It should be permissible to oppose women's voting in a
> historical society devoted to recreating Rome: Rome
> opposed women's voting. To my knowledge there was never
> one single female Roman consul. Yet Censor Germanicus
> (means, "conqueror of the Germans"; he claims to be German,
> but is he really a Jew?) announced, that [verbally] opposing
> women's voting, is a crime that is "prosecuted" in Nova Roma.
> A check of any men's-rights website, or even the mainstream
> media, shows that government divorce policy (voted by the
> female majority) is drastically depressing birth rates as men
> in Western (i.e., White) societies increasingly realize that
> fatherhood has been made into a slow form of "suicide by cop".
> The president of Harvard, a courageous Jew named Larry Summers,
> has posted on the internet his speech saying, politely and
> carefully, that women are being pushed too hard to go into
> science and that little girls should have dolls. I encourage
> you to read the speech yourself, but I think that's a fair
> summary of what Summers said. Harvard's alumni magazine
> admitted that this simple speech might well have been the
> main reason Summers was fired, yet Summers' true words are
> so taboo today that the ten-page article about Summers'
> firing, did not dare quote a single word of the speech
> that got him fired.
>
> "Womyn's lib" is a fiendishly ingenious genocide program.
> Resistance to it is ruthlessly crushed.
>
> And "The Holocaust" is a hoax. Jews suffered and died, but
> in ways and numbers comparable to the suffering and death
> experienced by many groups for many reasons in total war
> scenarios. I refer you to organizations such as, among
> many others, the National Alliance or NSDAP-AO for
> documentation; the evidence that the Holocaust is a hoax,
> is too extensive for me to type in a lifetime. Even a
> recent popular book by a Jew named Klemperer, greatly
> contradicts the "Hollywood" Holocaust scenario. The
> truth doesn't need to be propped up with gaggings,
> beatings and jailings. But the Holocaust lie needs to
> be so propped up.
>
> The "Holocaust" lie continues a cycle of violence, by
> allowing the (politically mighty) Jews to feel justified
> pursuing genocidal "politically correct" policies toward
> Aryans. What will happen to Jews when Aryans have been
> exterminated through "womyn's lib", race-mixing (especially
> Black male on White female) and open borders, and replaced
> with Mexicans in North America and Arabs in Europe? The
> "Holocaust" lie is maddening Jews with hate, causing them
> to sink their own ship.
>
> Valete,
> Appius Claudius Priscus
> (Joseph C. Keller, M. D.; B. A. Harvard 1977)
>

> A. Tullia Scholastica Antistoico quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque omnibus
> s.p.d.
>
> Since I am not only mentioned, but quoted, in the material copied below
> from Claudius, I shall respond, and add further comments.
>
>
>
>
>
> For those who have not seen this material, yet, this is
> what Keller asked me to post for him., and yes, I
> asked for and got a confirmation letter, making certain that
> he wasn't being spoofed. This is wild and whacky stuff.
>
> I would agree that he should have the freedom to write this,
> but the freedom to write this and still be invited just
> anywhere he wants to be? No. This guy seems more than a
> little unstable.
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Joe Keller" <appiusclaudiuspriscus at yahoo.com>
>
> Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by
> yahoo.com. Learn more
>
> Subject: Re: notice
> To: "Antistoicus Demipagan" <antistoicus at yahoo.com>,
> appiusclaudiuspriscus at yahoo.com, kellerj at iastate.edu
>
> Salve Demipagan and salvete omnes,
>
> Would you post this to your board for me? Partly because
> of my delicate political position, I'm making it a policy
> not to join any "adults only" boards, not that those are
> all bad, necessarily.
>
> "Consequently, he [Priscus] did not win any trial." -
> Tullia Scholastica, sentence from recent post to
> NewRoman board.
>
>
>
>
> My comment: I won the trial, the one and only trial
> I've ever had in Nova Roma. The accuser didn't come
> to court on the trial day.
>
>
> ATS: This is not true. The list on which the trial was to be conducted
> was fully moderated, that is, everyone was moderated, and the messages posted
> by Proconsul Astur were not released for posting until after the decision was
> made not to conduct the trial. He did list the charges, though none of us
> was allowed to see them until the matter was moot. There were political
> reasons for this, including, but perhaps not limited to, some feeling on the
> part of the praetores that conducting trials was their job, not that of either
> consul, though one, Praetor Paulinus, was busy conducting a different trial at
> the time.
>
>
> I came to court as ordered
> on the scheduled trial day and gave my defense. Then
> the charges were dropped. There was a trial messageboard,
> a judge who acknowledged receiving my defense, and the
> jury had been selected.
>
> ATS: And I was selected for that jury, so I know whereof I speak. If
> memory also serves, Claudius¹ defense was also withheld. It is, however, in
> my folder from this list.
>
> Further comments below regarding suffrage; due to the nature of this
> material, I shan¹t snip it as is usual.
>
>
> "However, I will remove you [Priscus] in a trice if you
> continue your lies and your insinuations which are far
> from the truth as both Masters Cordus, and Censor Marinus
> have indicated." - Marcus Audens, sentence from recent
> post to NewRoman board.
>
> My comment: Audens expelled me from the Egressus board
> before I even tried to post anything, and he removed my
> post from the NewRoman board. Here is part of my unanswered
> private reply to Audens regarding the above. (If you want
> to see the whole letter, email me and I'll consider your
> request.)
>
> "[1st sentence] You're always talking about my lies.
> What lies? Would you allow me to defend myself against
> any accusation that any specific thing I've said is a
> lie? I doubt it. I'm probably wrong about some things,
> but I'm not lying. ...
>
> "Some of your friends are liars and here's a lie: the
> [censor's] nota [against Priscus] scissored the quote
> about Hitler's internment of Jews to omit my qualification
> "though not to abuse (Jews)". And there's a lot of you
> trying really hard to suppress the correct quote and to
> continue making me wear a bag over my head (no picture
> in the Album Gentium) and a gag in my mouth (I may be
> attacked but I may not make any substantive rebuttal)
> while one "politically correct" blowhard after another
> denounces me. What do you think "the Silent Majority"
> in your group thinks about it? Does it remind them of
> Red China? I bet it reminds the Korea vets of Red
> China more than of Rome. ..."
>
> Here is my entire last post to the Southeastern US
> province board, before I was expelled from that board:
>
> "Since you let the cop attack me maybe you'll post this:
>
> Salvete omnes!
>
> Thank you for your astute observations, Flavius Leviticus.
>
> The moderator reposted the censorial nota, but he was not
> able to withstand the political pressure to delete my post,
> thus people will not know that:
>
> 1. The censorial nota misquoted my statement about Hitler
> interning Jews: if you want to know what I really said
> about Hitler interning Jews, ask Consul Modianus, he knows.
>
> 2. The censorial nota misquoted my statement about divorce
> custody: if you want to know what I really said, check the
> Kansas City Star archives (front page article in 2000), about
> "Joseph C. Keller".
>
> To allow attack after verbal attack on a citizen, and to gag
> any substantive rebuttal of those attacks, proves that this
> organization is becoming a tragicomic travesty of the real
> ancient Rome. Too many Nova Romans are terrified that I will
> say something in my own defense, that upsets their fragile
> beliefs, their fragile arguments, or their fragile egos."
>
> As I recall, in 2000 I described my divorce reform policy
> as giving custody to fathers. That's not the same as taking
> it from mothers. Giving custody usually to fathers, as a
> century ago in the U.S., empirically and logically reduces
> the divorce rate and means fewer parents lose their children.
> Why did the censors change my words?
>
> Here is my prior post to that board, in response to a post
> by a female citizen accusing me of making the messageboard
> a "crying hut":
>
> other citizen:
>
>> > I don't think
>> > your personal beliefs alone should be any concern
>> > of mine, and I actually agree with you that they
>> > should have no impact on your citizenship-as long
>> > as you do not preach them on the NR lists.
>
> "Salve,
> I agree, as far as that goes. I didn't preach my personal
> beliefs very much on NR lists, until I was googled, asked
> privately about my beliefs by an NR official, and, when I
> admitted what they were, then denounced on the NR lists,
> put on trial, and deprived of my vote. Since the NR
> administration started prosecuting me for my personal
> beliefs, yes, I've been defending my beliefs on the
> lists when it's been allowed.
>
> This list is the only one that consistently allows me to
> post rebuttals. The other lists sometimes have allowed
> attacks on me and then not allowed me to make a substantive
> rebuttal. Does that seem fair? If the censor misquotes me
> in an email condemning me and sent to all Nova Romans, should
> I correct the misquotation on an NR list, if emailing all
> Nova Romans individually is impractical for me?
>
> I think some Nova Romans support me, even support racism
> (whatever that is, exactly) to some degree, but being a
> racist is like being a heretic in the Middle Ages. So
> just because none post, doesn't mean none agree. It means
> someone might google them, see a racist statement, and kick
> them out of a club, or not hire them (then how can they
> support their families?) - and they know that.
>
> I don't like requiring new citizens to take this new oath
> about their personal beliefs. Maybe it is better, just to
> require them to take an oath not to preach their personal
> beliefs on NR lists - and an oath not to attack other
> members for their personal beliefs, either."
>
> My friend Brian Phillips of the Revolutionary Union of
> Fascists says that he was expelled from Nova Roma and/or
> the messageboard, solely because he is a fascist. He joined
> before the "political correctness" oath was required.
>
> Due to time constraints, this might be my only post to
> this board, so I would like to make a general comment
> which I think is more important than my own case. I don't
> think that Nova Roma is a dilettante organization. If it
> were, the "politically correct", controlling minority
> wouldn't be on such a witch-hunt. Because Nova Roma
> addresses important issues - Roman law, society, religion -
> some forces within our society seem to have targeted Nova
> Roma for neutralization. I've seen this neutralization
> process at work in several minor political parties over
> the years. Neutralization is achieved chiefly through
> control of communications, but also by outright intimidation:
> Censor Germanicus denounced me publicly for (this quote might
> be approximate) "adding a page to [Nova Roma's] FBI file".
> Triarius, the #2 in the Southeast US province, identified
> himself as a law-enforcement officer and said on that board
> that he would tell the FBI if I, basically, said anything
> racist: he even said that "the 14 words" ["We must secure
> the existence of our race and a future for White children."
> - David Lane (who robbed banks to finance pro-White
> political groups)] were forbidden. So we have two overt
> attempts to use the name of the FBI to scare Nova Romans
> into "political correctness".
>
> It should be permissible to oppose women's voting in a
> historical society devoted to recreating Rome: Rome
> opposed women's voting. To my knowledge there was never
> one single female Roman consul.
>
> ATS: Historically, this is likely to be accurate, but we have a
> constitution which arranges things a little differently from the way in which
> they were in ancient Rome, an agrarian society, not an industrial or
> post-industrial one. Women in antiquity were not educated past elementary
> school; all education for girls past that stage was in the home. Marriage
> often took place shortly after menarche, if I¹m not mistaken. There is not
> much in the way of valid comparison between ancient Roman (Greek, Sumerian,
> Hittite...) women and those of today. The physical form is similar, but the
> cranial contents have been profoundly altered. Some men don¹t like this,
> however...
>
> ATS: Now, some here, and some good citizens, don¹t like our constitution,
> but IMHO, it is better present than absent, if only for those and similar
> reasons. Laws can be changed, and if all we had to guarantee equality for
> women, the disabled, persons of varying sexual orientations, etc., were laws,
> they might be changed someday, as some of our citizenship resignation laws
> were changed last year, changed for the worse, but perhaps without full
> understanding on the part of the electorate. There is no question that we
> have among us those who still think that women are inferior, still think that
> those whose sexuality doesn¹t fit their ideas of correctness are to be
> spurned, still think that nonwhites are inferior (for the record, I am hetero.
> I am also not stupid or uneducated or inferior, except in physical strength.
> Likely I have some far Eastern ancestry, long ago...). Then again, our
> colonial ancestors speak of king bees and lazy female drone bees,
> too...operating on the assumption that the biggest and most important
> individual among the social honey-gathering insects were (of course!) dominant
> males, the workers were non-dominant males, while the drones were
> females...except of course that they were wrong on all counts. Apparently
> they never caught the so-called king bee laying eggs...
>
>
> Yet Censor Germanicus
> (means, "conqueror of the Germans"; he claims to be German,
> but is he really a Jew?)
>
> ATS: Apart from the fact that we no longer allow those ­icus names
> because they do mean conqueror of whatever nation is mentioned in the
> stem...since when are the terms German and Jew mutually exclusive? My
> grandmother was ethnically Franco-German, and spoke German, and could have
> passed for Jewish...but wasn¹t. And who cares whether or not Octavius
> Germanicus is Jewish by origin‹if he is?
>
> announced, that [verbally] opposing
> women's voting, is a crime that is "prosecuted" in Nova Roma.
>
>
> ATS: Well, yes. We have this constitution which guarantees the franchise
> to all adults who behave themselves.
>
> A check of any men's-rights website, or even the mainstream
> media, shows that government divorce policy (voted by the
> female majority) is drastically depressing birth rates as men
> in Western (i.e., White) societies increasingly realize that
> fatherhood has been made into a slow form of "suicide by cop".
>
>
> ATS: Now, there¹s a piece of fine logic. One should perhaps wonder about
> this in Augustus¹ day.
>
> The president of Harvard, a courageous Jew named Larry Summers,
> has posted on the internet his speech saying, politely and
> carefully, that women are being pushed too hard to go into
> science and that little girls should have dolls.
>
>
> ATS: And so should some little boys. They just call them action figures
> instead of dolls. Little girls should have microscopes (I did, by the time I
> was 8 or so, and managed to surprise Ms. Dracula when I told her exactly what
> she was going to do with my blood when she put it on a microscope slide) and
> telescopes and other such things...though not all will be interested, just as
> not all little boys will. I also recommend books on various subjects, and
> the removal of the idiot box. I would have liked a book on ancient Greek when
> I was in the fourth grade, when I taught myself the Greek alphabet...but then
> I¹m just a dumb blonde goy to some...(though there are those to whom goyim are
> far superior to Juden und Judinnen).
>
>
> I encourage
> you to read the speech yourself, but I think that's a fair
> summary of what Summers said. Harvard's alumni magazine
> admitted that this simple speech might well have been the
> main reason Summers was fired, yet Summers' true words are
> so taboo today that the ten-page article about Summers'
> firing, did not dare quote a single word of the speech
> that got him fired.
>
> "Womyn's lib" is a fiendishly ingenious genocide program.
> Resistance to it is ruthlessly crushed.
>
> And "The Holocaust" is a hoax. Jews suffered and died, but
> in ways and numbers comparable to the suffering and death
> experienced by many groups for many reasons in total war
> scenarios. I refer you to organizations such as, among
> many others, the National Alliance or NSDAP-AO for
> documentation; the evidence that the Holocaust is a hoax,
> is too extensive for me to type in a lifetime. Even a
> recent popular book by a Jew named Klemperer, greatly
> contradicts the "Hollywood" Holocaust scenario. The
> truth doesn't need to be propped up with gaggings,
> beatings and jailings. But the Holocaust lie needs to
> be so propped up.
>
> The "Holocaust" lie continues a cycle of violence, by
> allowing the (politically mighty) Jews to feel justified
> pursuing genocidal "politically correct" policies toward
> Aryans. What will happen to Jews when Aryans have been
> exterminated through "womyn's lib", race-mixing (especially
> Black male on White female) and open borders, and replaced
> with Mexicans in North America and Arabs in Europe? The
> "Holocaust" lie is maddening Jews with hate, causing them
> to sink their own ship.
>
> Valete,
> Appius Claudius Priscus
> (Joseph C. Keller, M. D.; B. A. Harvard 1977)
>
>
>
>
> ========
>
> Vale, et valete,
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica
>
>

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

"Tiberius Galerius Paulinus" <spqr753@...> wrote:

> Another post by a person named Antistoicus
> antistoicus@... is calling for us to defend,
> in another arena, our moderation of Appius
> Claudius Priscus.

No, I offered you the opportunity to do so. That's not the
same thing at all, and I believe you know that, Tiberius.
I offered Mr.Keller the use of the Colosseum list before
I so much as knew his name, not because I felt any sort
of great love or admiration for Keller or his cause, such
as it is. Given my background, I think that you can guess
exactly what I think of the man's cause. However, he claimed,
apparently doing so with some measure of justice, that
he wasn't being allowed to speak freely in his own defense
in a place where he was being attacked. My own experience
allows me no doubt on that point.

I invited him to use the Colosseum because that is
precisely the kind of scenario that list was created for.
Having done so, I then offered your side the same invitation
out of simple fairness. It's called "equal time", and to
portray my willingness to extend that consideration to the
management of this list and its supporters as being some
sort of advocacy on Appius' behalf is to stand reality on
its head. Were I to make the mystifying decision to act
as an advocate on behalf of somebody who would portray
me and mine as being enemies of the American people, the
last thing that I would be inviting any of you to offer
would be a rebuttal. How would that have served my cause?

To some of our European friends who seem to think that
real free speech is the end of the world, I would offer
the observation of just how quickly Appius hung himself
with the rope I handed him. One needs no censors present
for a fool to look foolish. To Tiberius I would present
the question of how long I will have to wait for an apology,
if experience did not provide with me an answer to all
such questions, but consider my protest lodged.

> I believe that Appius Claudius Priscus and this
> Antistoicus are one and the same.

What I find truly disturbing in the context of this list
is just how lightly you jumped to that conclusion, and
just how easy it was for you to get action taken based on
it. Let's take a look at the flimsy rationale

> In the macro world Appius Claudius Priscus is or was
> a recent grad student in Mathematics so is Antistoicus.
> I find that just a little to coincidental.

I could offer some amused commentary about the wisdom
of Mr Keller's latest career choice, given how
disproportionately many Jews go into that field. What
I don't find amusing is the above being offered as proof
of anything. There are a great many Mathematicians in
the world, most of whom are not named Keller, and
practically none of whom would subscribe to his brand
of politics. In fact, he's the only one who I can think
of who even comes close to doing so.

The argument you offered and others accepted was "these
two have this thing in common, therefore they are one and
the same". Look hard enough, and I think that you'll find
that any two people you choose have something in common.

> While I believe this Nazi nut should be ignored and
> treated like mushrooms,

Fried in olive oil with parsley and garlic?

> I have received a couple of complaints that his
> "messages' are " of a disturbing nature" and
> "which cause fear or revulsion in the recipient.

In Appius' case, I can see that. In my own, we have
Maior losing her mind because I offered Appius a chance
to speak freely and let people see exactly what he is
about. Certainly no favor to Appius, as it turns out.

> In accordance with the list guidelines and Nova Roma
> law on SOLLICITVDO (Electronic Harassment) I am using
> the Imperium of my office to suspend Appius Claudius
> Priscus and Antistoicus posting privileges to any and
> all Nova Roma communication fora. The webmaster will
> restrict any email postings from the Nova Roma
> website by either of these two individuals.
>
> He will still be able to send private emails to any
> person whose email address he already has and nothing
> can stop that but your delete button. I suggest you use it.

More or less insuring that were I to speak up
on my own behalf, nobody would have been listening.
Germanicus showed some real class by taking a political
risk and speaking up on my behalf, and that speaks well
of Germanicus. What does not speak well of the system,
as it exists, is that somebody had to go out on a limb
to make it work. The truly impartial administration
of justice should be a routine enough matter as to
seldom merit much comment, much less praise. Courage
is not something that one can count on making an
appearance, almost anywhere.

It's a moment that lifted my spirits, but the system
does need work, or at least some of the thinking that goes
into applying it does.



Antistoicus

SALVETE QUIRITES !

We are at the end of the contest. This is the last set of questions.
With the hope that the contest was an interesting one, I wish you
succes.

After the conquest Dacia was transformed in a Roman province. The
spirit of the conquerors, backed by the diligence of the local
population, proved very profitable for the country: Dacia reached a
high level of material and spiritual culture.

a) How many days Trajan celebrated his victory against dacians ? ( 1
point )

b) Which it was the capital of the new province ? ( 1 point )

c) What monument was erected in Rome to celebrate the victory and in
what year ? ( 1 point )

d) Which important roman legion was garrisoned at Apulum ? ( 1
point )

e) Which Roman Emperor minted the first coin with " Dacia Felix "
legend ? ( 1 point )

f) How long Dacia was a roman province ? ( 1 point )

VALETE,
IVL SABINVS

Salve Antistoicus

I have deleted your repost from Appius Claudius Priscus.

You and everybody else on this list, who are not citizens of Nova Roma are here as our guests.

Appius Claudius Priscus a citizen of Nova Roma has had his posting privileges restricted for past actions. You may post on anything pertaining to ROME or NOVA ROMA. This does not include reposting for Appius Claudius Priscus.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Praetor

I couldn't help but notice that my messages suddenly stopped
appearing. So this is how it's going to be? I'm going to get
put on moderation every time Rory goes into hysterics,
regardless of whether or not there is any factual basis
for the hysterics?

That is not justice, and you know it. I'm going to check back
in a few hours and if my extremely reasonable messages have not
posted by then, don't waste any more breath trying to persuade
me that Nova Roma is anything other than the mob justice driven
virtual banana republic it has been accused of being. I've been
more than fair about giving you guys more chances, but
eventually enough is enough. No more games.




Antistoicus

Moderators Note:

Yes this is your last post on Appius. Please move on to another subject say the 2nd Punic War and it effect on wine prices, HannibalÂ’s effect on Roman children down through the ages, the size of a Roman legion Republican vs Imperial
Cokeus vs Pepsius

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Praetor
*******************************************************************
"Oh, one last note on this subject, assuming that Maior's latest
bit of crankery gets nowhere ... not that I'm sure of that ..."

I don't know where Appius got the idea that I was some kind of
court of appeals for Nova Roman decisions that he didn't care
for, but I'm not and have never pretended to be. The yahoogroup
I mentioned (HPGripe) is for everybody's use should they feel
the need in such a case, but aside from that, if you guys
have a war, please leave me out of it.

I'm Switzerland, and hope that my paternal grandmother will
forgive me for saying that. Know what I mean? I'm neutral
and would ask any future combatants to respect the fact that
the only side I favor is that of free communication and
justice, however that turns out. The Colosseum was set
up as an adult list so that we could walk off and leave
it unmoderated and mainly ignored, while others use it s
they feel the need. Good enough? Because henceforth, it
has to be. I've had enough of this c**p.



Antistoicus

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus Antistoico salutem dicit

"I couldn't help but notice that my messages suddenly stopped appearing. So
this is how it's going to be?"

When you rejoined the list you were allowed on, by mistake, without
moderation. It is, I believe, the policy of the Praetores to place
non-citizens of Nova Roma on moderated status to avoid potential spam. As a
moderator of a list surely you can understand this. The Nova Roma list has
over 1000 people subscribed to it.

"I'm going to get put on moderation every time Rory goes into hysterics,
regardless of whether or not there is any factual basis for the hysterics?"

Non-citizens should all be on moderated status. This list is first and
foremost a Nova Roma list for Nova Roma citizens. However, those not in
Nova Roma are welcome but they are here as our guests.

"That is not justice, and you know it."

This is not a contest, or a battle of wills. Citizens of Nova Roma have a
RIGHT to our forums. We are not compelled by any force, be it justice or
otherwise, to allow non-citizens use our e-mail lists as their own
"soapbox." I'm not accusing you of anything, keep this in mind. I simply
want you to be aware that moderation on this list does not necessarily mean
a "punishment."

"I'm going to check back in a few hours and if my extremely reasonable
messages have not posted by then, don't waste any more breath trying to
persuade me that Nova Roma is anything other than the mob justice driven
virtual banana republic it has been accused of being. I've been more than
fair about giving you guys more chances, but eventually enough is enough. No
more games."

No more games indeed. I view the above comment as a threat of sorts and
simply unnecessary. I have read your blog and have seen your views on Nova
Roma. There is no need for you to issue a veiled threat. It seems as
though you already believe what you post, and that is unfortunate. I have
been involved in Nova Roma since 2002 and stand firm to my conviction that
it is a great an noble Civitas. It is a truly an excellent community, I am
sorry that you do not seemingly agree with my personal assessment of Nova
Roma.

Vale:

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus
Consul

On 7/28/06, antistoicus <antistoicus@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I couldn't help but notice that my messages suddenly stopped
> appearing. So this is how it's going to be? I'm going to get
> put on moderation every time Rory goes into hysterics,
> regardless of whether or not there is any factual basis
> for the hysterics?
>
> That is not justice, and you know it. I'm going to check back
> in a few hours and if my extremely reasonable messages have not
> posted by then, don't waste any more breath trying to persuade
> me that Nova Roma is anything other than the mob justice driven
> virtual banana republic it has been accused of being. I've been
> more than fair about giving you guys more chances, but
> eventually enough is enough. No more games.
>
> Antistoicus
>
> Get the latest
>
> national news now
> Yahoo! 360°
>
> Get Started<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hqn9eo1/M=493064.8985654.9760645.8674578/D=groups/S=1705313712:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1154130535/A=3848502/R=0/SIG=10mmpqqkm/*http://360.yahoo.com>
>
> Your place online
>
> To share your life
> Y! GeoCities
>
> Create a Web Site<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hth9u3h/M=493064.8985658.9760664.8674578/D=groups/S=1705313712:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1154130535/A=3848531/R=0/SIG=11vts2tqq/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=42416/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/>
>
> Easy-to-use tools.
>
> Get started now.
> .
>
>
>


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

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

>
> Moderators Note:
>
> Yes this is your last post on Appius.

F... you. I'm out of here.


Moderators note: He did not use F... you. he spelled it out

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Preator

A. Apollonius homini antistoico sal.

Once again I fear you are misunderstanding the nature of our constitution. You object to the way you are being treated and regard it as unjust. Fine. But you are not being treated in this way by Nova Roma, you are being treated in this way by one of our magistrates. We have 22 ordinary magistrates, each independent with his own discretionary powers, and each of those magistrates changes every year. To regard Nova Roma as a "banana republic" driven by "mob justice" (what mob, anyway?) on the basis of the actions of one magistrate is simply ridiculous.

You may regard yourself as having been mistreated *in* Nova Roma, but you have no justification whatsoever for saying that you have been mistreated *by* Nova Roma.

P.S. You might take the time to learn about the local etiquette. It's offensively over-familiar to not call a Roman by his first name on its own unless you are his close relative.

P.P.S. Claudius has been put on moderation so that he can't address this forum. More or less your first act after returning to this forum was to forward messages from him to this forum, thus effectively circumventing the decision to put him on moderation. Are you surprised that your own access to this forum has now been restricted?

A. Apollonius Paullae Corvae sal.

> ... on the whole, I have been very impressed with the

caliber of discussion in the latest digest, particularly from G (or is
it C?) Equitius Cato... <

He's Gaius Equitius, so his abbreviated name is C. Equitius. The standard praenomina have standard abbreviations:

Gaius -> C.
Lucius -> L.
Marcus -> M.
Publius -> P.
Quintus -> Q.
Titus -> T.
Tiberius -> Ti.
Sextus -> Sex.
Aulus -> A.
Decimus -> D.
Gnaeus -> Cn.
Spurius -> Sp.
Manius -> M'.
Servius -> Ser.
Appius -> Ap.
Numerius -> N.
Vibius -> V.

A. Apollonius C. Equitio sal.

> ... But in practical terms, it seems to amount to the same thing: if a magistrate has overstepped their power, then they have, by default, infringed upon the power of those affected by that act by which the magistrate's power was overstepped. The effect is the same, whether or not the question is. <

The problem with that statement is contained within the statement itself: "infringed upon the power of those affected". Infringing a power is a nonsensical concept. A power can't be infringed.

It's true that the way of looking at a problem does not necessarily make a difference to the outcome, but often it does. Some maps are better than others. A less good map may get you to the right destination on a particular occasion, but on average a good map will get you there more often.

> The second section (well, the last sentence, really) is a particularly interesting one. Our legal cornerstone is precisely at odds with your proposed "Roman solution": the exisence of the lex Constitutiva in its present form establishes and enshrines the very modern understanding of individual rights that you have explained is so un-Roman. <

Yes. This is another illustration of the basic problem with our constitution. We have tried to take the ancient republican constitution and make a number of apparently minor and superficial changes without properly understanding what we were doing. The consequence is that our constitution now contains a large number of rather troublesome internal contradictions which stop it working properly. What we're discussing is one of those. A superficial reading of our legal documents makes it clear that we are in some way supposed to adhere to a modern conception of civil liberties; but our institutions are largely identical to those which were developed on the basis of a set of assumptions to which that conception is alien. No attempt has been made to alter the institutions in a way which actually facilitates this new way of thinking. It's as though you were to insert a new clause in the U.S. Constitution saying "All law shall be based on the Koran and the Hadith" but leave it
otherwise unchanged.

Consequently when we try to put a civil-liberties concept into practice we encounter unexpected problems. That's precisely what has happened here, and that was my point: not that we will necessarily find the situation easier to deal with if we look at it from the Roman point of view (though I think in this case it does help) but that looking at it from the Roman point of view will help us to understand why we are having the problems we are having.

The moral of the story is that the Roman constitution is a finely crafted machine which we should alter as little as possible and only with extremely careful thought about the knock-on effects of any alteration.

Guest, citizens of the Res Publica have Roman names. You should know
that to address a citizen in the way you have here is rather bad manners.

M. Lucretius Agricola

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "antistoicus" <antistoicus@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I couldn't help but notice that my messages suddenly stopped
> appearing. So this is how it's going to be? I'm going to get
> put on moderation every time Rory ...

Of course in Rome, troublemakers sometimes simply disappeared into the
sewers. Well according to HBO at any rate.

What would the modern "virtual" on-line equivalent of assassination be?
--

>|P. Dominus Antonius|<

Tony Dah m

Si vis pacem, para bellum - Vegetius
Islam religio pacis, nex omnibus dissentint.


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

Salvete;
I made a mistake & want to apologize to all Asatru & Odinists, I was
wrong to indicate they are racists, that's my ignorance for which I am
truly sorry.
Marca Hortensia Maior

"What would the modern "virtual" on-line equivalent of assassination be?"

I think we would replace your Yahoo!360 pages with a photo of the
Cloaca Maxima.

optime vale

Agricola

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "P. Dominus Antonius"
<marsvigilia@...> wrote:

>
> Of course in Rome, troublemakers sometimes simply disappeared into the
> sewers. Well according to HBO at any rate.
>
> What would the modern "virtual" on-line equivalent of assassination be?
> --
> >|P. Dominus Antonius|<
> Tony Dah m
>
> Si vis pacem, para bellum - Vegetius
> Islam religio pacis, nex omnibus dissentint.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salvete omnes!

Here are the answers to yesterday's questions and today's rankings.
A warm welcome to Andrew Swidzinski, who is new to Nova Roma and does not yet have a Roman name.

Question #5:

Gaius Marius served as consul a record seven times and was given a triumph for his defeat of Jugurtha, but he is best known for military reforms.

a) Name five of the reforms.

There were a good deal more than five reforms, and everyone who answered the question earned the point, but Marius:

Opened up military service to all Roman males, not just the landowners. This turned the citizen militia into a professional army where the soldiers made a career of the military.

Restructured the legions, including replacing the maniple with the cohort as the basic army unit and forming auxiliary units of spectialized fighters--including cavalry.

Standardized weapons (the pilum and gladius) and training for all infantry.

Improved the pilum by weaking the connection between the head and shaft, essentially turning it into a one-time use weapon, thereby preventing its being "returned" by the enemy.

Shortened the baggage trains by having the men carry their own equipment, rather than hauling it in a wagon.

Standardized the standards, so to speak, by replacing the various animal standards with the aquila--the eagle.

Introduced the concept of promoting from within the ranks.

b) Which battle did Marius win that resulted in the mass suicide of enemy women, rather than be taken captive by Rome?

Answer: The battle of Aquae Sextiae.

Question #6

During the Second Macedonian War, Titus Quintius Flamininus became both a hero to Rome and to Greece when he defeated Philip V in Thessaly.

a) Which two generals preded him in engaging Philip in Macedonia?

Sulpicius and Publius Villius.

b) Flamininus was accompanied to Boeotia by Attalus--what happened to Attalus during the visit?

He had fainted during an oration and later died.

c) The Battle of Cynoscephalae is named, as are most battles, for the location at which is was fought. What does cynoscephalae mean?

Dog's heads, due to the shape of the hills.

The current standings:

Titus Iulius Sabinus -- 13 points
Cn. Equitius Marinus -- 13 points
C. Aurelia Falco Silvana -- 6 points
Publius Livius Triarius -- 5 points
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus --5 points
Livia Aurelia Procula --5 points
Andrew Swidzinski -- 5 points
Marius -- 3 points

Valete bene,
Artoria Marcella

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

Salve et salvete!

>I think we would replace your Yahoo!360 pages with a photo of the
>Cloaca Maxima.

Gods, I nearly spat wine on my brand new keyboard.... Gratias, Agricola!

Vale et valete bene,
Artoria

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

Valetudo quod fortuna Marca Hortensia;

On 7/28/06, Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete;
> I made a mistake & want to apologize to all Asatru & Odinists,
> I was wrong to indicate they are racists, that's my ignorance
> for which I am truly sorry.
> Marca Hortensia Maior
>

Having deleted the bulk of some recent threads, I did not see the
words you say may have been offensive to me and my coreligionists.

There does exist a standard litany of misconceptions about the Religio
Septentrionalis; one of which is that there is a large segment who are
violent racists.

As with any community, marginal personalities are attracted,
especially in the early days when a hint of rebellion towards the rest
of society is part of the mindset.

As the community grows and gains confidence in itself, the dross is
shed, leaving a broad middle.

But, there will always be cranks at both ends of the spectrum.

Unfortunately the cracked pates are the one the media loves; so their
presence is magnified.

I have seen that you are passionate about your faith, and your world
view, as it should be.

I for one, accept your apology, and am firmly among those who are
seeking to shrink the margins.

=========================================
In amicitia quod fides -
Stephanus Ullerius Venator Piperbarbus
Civis, Patrician, Paterfamilias et Lictor

Religio Septentrionalis - Poet

Dominus Sodalitas Coquuorum et Cerevisiae Coctorum
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq/

http://anheathenreader.blogspot.com/
http://www.catamount-grange-hearth.org/
http://www.cafepress.com/catamountgrange
--
May the Holy Powers smile on our efforts.
May the Spirits of our family lines nod in approval.
May we be of Worth to our fellow Nova Romans.

And thank YOU for that! Now stop wasting wine. <G>

Optime Vale!

Agricola


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Artoria Marcella" <icehunter@...>
wrote:

>
> Salve et salvete!
>
> >I think we would replace your Yahoo!360 pages with a photo of the
> >Cloaca Maxima.
>
> Gods, I nearly spat wine on my brand new keyboard.... Gratias,

Agricola!

>
> Vale et valete bene,
> Artoria
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>
> A. Tullia Scholastica A. Apollonio Cordo homini antistoico quiritibus,
> sociis, peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> A. Apollonius homini antistoico sal.
>
> Once again I fear you are misunderstanding the nature of our constitution. You
> object to the way you are being treated and regard it as unjust. Fine. But you
> are not being treated in this way by Nova Roma, you are being treated in this
> way by one of our magistrates. We have 22 ordinary magistrates, each
> independent with his own discretionary powers, and each of those magistrates
> changes every year. To regard Nova Roma as a "banana republic" driven by "mob
> justice" (what mob, anyway?) on the basis of the actions of one magistrate is
> simply ridiculous.
>
> You may regard yourself as having been mistreated *in* Nova Roma, but you have
> no justification whatsoever for saying that you have been mistreated *by* Nova
> Roma.
>
> P.S. You might take the time to learn about the local etiquette. It's
> offensively over-familiar to not call a Roman by his first name on its own
> unless you are his close relative.
>
> ATS: And this seems to be the prevailing form of address on many of our
> lists...
>
>
> P.P.S. Claudius has been put on moderation so that he can't address this
> forum.
>
> ATS: I must correct you on this. Claudius HAD BEEN put on moderation,
> and we scribae had been instructed to leave his messages for the praetores to
> deal with at their discretion. He has since been banned from the ML, hence
> his farewell message text post. As has happened elsewhere with other people,
> he reappeared under another identity, and was banned again.
>
>
>
> AAC: More or less your first act after returning to this forum was to forward
> messages from him to this forum, thus effectively circumventing the decision
> to put him on moderation. Are you surprised that your own access to this forum
> has now been restricted?
>
> ATS: I do think it¹s rather extreme to do this; antistoicus has been on
> the ML for a long time, and was apparently unmoderated. Now, I don¹t agree
> with the concept that everyone should be unmoderated after a specified period,
> say six months, nor do I agree with that which says that the peregrini should
> always be moderated, but citizens don¹t have to be. There are valid reasons
> for keeping those who do not post on moderation, whether or not they are
> citizens, and for doing this indefinitely. The issues raised by Claudius,
> some of which appeared much earlier in a moderation notice whose post seems
> not to have made it to the list, should be addressed. He is not the only
> sexist around here, and doesn¹t seem to be the only racist or whatever. The
> citizens have the right to know why this issue just won¹t go away, and why
> these actions were taken. Arbitrary imposition of universal moderation and
> blocking access to the ML website, etc., to everyone aren¹t the best way of
> dealing with this; we need a more targeted version of Round-up (preferably one
> which removes purveyors of the likes of enhancement products from the
> moderators¹ box...).
>
> I will, however, confirm that a seemingly innocuous post from antistoicus
> did not appear (perhaps Yahoo problems; we know about the lost, strayed, or
> stolen mail we send), and that inappropriate vocabulary was used by
> antistoicus (f-word, spelled out in the original message, as verified in the
> moderation notice), and that his arguments, which seemed much more sensible,
> lose that edge when such behavior appears. Likewise, bad-mouthing NR because
> one or another magistrate has acted in a heavy-handed or precipitous manner is
> overkill, to say the least. There are many good things about NR, and many
> good people here; I would not have stayed more than the six weeks after which
> I was viciously assailed for no good reason had that not been the case. One
> must control one¹s emotions, and one must not tar everyone with the same
> brush. One must also realize that there are cybernetic reasons why messages
> do not appear, not anthropogenic ones alone‹and that the latter may also be
> due to the fact that the moderators have been known to sleep upon occasion.
> Several may do so at similar times, too.
>
> Valete,
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica

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

Salve !!
i am looking ofr roman feast gear if that even exist? what materials
would i look for or should i stick with the res style gear wooden
bowls and plates etc?

OSD C. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

Hodie est ante diem IV Kalendas Sextilis; haec dies comitialis est.

"Such being the power that each part has of hampering the others or
co-operating with them, their union is adequate to all emergencies, so
that it is impossible to find a better political system than this.
For whenever the menace of some common danger from abroad compels them
to act in concord and support each other, so great does the strength
of the state become, that nothing which is requisite can be neglected,
as all are zealously competing in devising means of meeting the need
of the hour, nor can any decision arrived at fail to be executed
promptly, as all are co-operating both in public and in private to the
accomplishment of the task which they have set themselves; and
consequently this peculiar form of constitution possesses an
irresistible power of attaining every object upon which it is
resolved. When again they are freed from external menace, and reap
the harvest of good fortune and affluence which is the result of their
success, and in the enjoyment of this prosperity are corrupted by
flattery and idleness and wax insolent and overbearing, as indeed
happens often enough, it is then especially that we see the state
providing itself a remedy for the evil from which it suffers. For
when one part having grown out of proportion to the others aims at
supremacy and tends to become too predominant, it is evident that, as
for the reasons above given none of the three is absolute, but the
purpose of the one can be counterworked and thwarted by the others,
none of them will excessively outgrow the others or treat them with
contempt. All in fact remains in statu quo, on the one hand, because
any aggressive impulse is sure to be checked and from the outset each
estate stands in dread of being interfered with by the others. . . ."
- Polybius, "The Roman Histories"
VI.18

Valete bene!

Cato



SOURCES

Polybius

Cato A. Apollonio Moravio Piscino sal.

Corde, you wrote:

"The problem with that statement is contained within the statement itself:
"infringed upon the power of those affected". Infringing a power is a
nonsensical concept. A power can't be infringed."

Hmmmm.....I'm not sure if these terms are legally equivalent in
American (US) and British jurisprudence, but in the United States a
power can certainly be legally infringed upon. The US Constitution is
a veritable hotbed of descriptions of ways in which various organs of
government are *not* allowed to infringe upon each other's powers.
But for the sake of a common understanding, perhaps I might better use
the word "impede".


Moravius Piscinus' post may fit in here at this point: the idea that
the guarantee of un-impeded participation in the fora of the Republic,
which is given to all citizens by the lex Constitutiva, can somehow be
legally curtailed by the activities of the moderators of those fora.

Piscine, you wrote:

"They [the moderators] can discipline individuals through warnings,
moderations, or expulsion from a list, because the right of all Cives
to a civil and orderly forum comes before any individual's right to
free expression."

and

"The Praetores are within their right, and possibly could argue in
this case, that when advocacy turns against principles that are
established within the Constitution and would cause divisiveness and
disruption of the general community, then the Praetores are required,
not simply allowed, to restrict such offensive communications."


The difficulty with thiese two statements is again the lex
Constitutiva's position: remember that it is the "highest legal
authority" and that "should a lower authority conflict with a higher
authority, the higher authority shall take precedence." (lex Const.
I.B) The lex Constitutiva grants citizens - all citizens - "The right
to participate in all public forums and discussions, and the right to
reasonably expect such forums to be supported by the State. Such
communications, regardless of their content, may not be restricted by
the State, except where they represent an imminent and clear danger to
the Republic" (lex Const. II.B.4), as you yourself pointed out.

No other legal pronouncement, be it edict, law passed in comitia,
senatus consultum, &c., may legally impede a citizen from exercizing
this right. A legal pronouncement which gives the praetors the power
to moderate the fora of the Republic cannot take precedence over the
lex Constitutiva. It is necessary, according to our highest legal
authority, to prove that any restrictions placed upon a citizen's
communication present some kind of protection against an "imminent and
clear danger" to the Republic; and yet, of course, in the case of Ap.
Claudius no trial has taken place which has found this to be true.

No magistrate has yet officially declared that in Ap. Claudius'
published speeches an "imminent and clear danger" to the Republic
exists - and, in keeping with the best tradition of the lex
Constitutiva, no magistrate is actually given the authority to decide
for him- or herself exactly what *does* constitute an "imminent and
clear danger".

It is not enough to say that something is "uncivil" or "disruptive",
because it is entirely possible to have views that are unimaginable
repugnant yet present them in language that is perfectly civil and
decorous. It is not necessary to use profanity to express the profane.

Valete bene,

Cato

Salve!

These people can probably answer your question:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq/

They are the cooks and brewers.

Vale

Agricola

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Nikki" <ebonyenchantress1@...> wrote:
>
> Salve !!
> i am looking ofr roman feast gear if that even exist? what materials
> would i look for or should i stick with the res style gear wooden
> bowls and plates etc?
>

A. Apollonius--Thank you for the helpful list of name abbreviations!

Vale,

Paulla Corva

Could the violation of the Yahoo Terms of Service and the resulting
potential loss of Yahoo! as a group forum be considered an imminent and
grave threat? As Nova Roma exists largely as a virtual entity, I would
think the loss of a primary communication mode would represent such a
threat.
--

>|P. Dominus Antonius|<

Tony Dah m

Si vis pacem, para bellum - Vegetius
Islam religio pacis, nex omnibus dissentint.


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

Cato Domino Antonio sal.

Interesting question. Even if it does, there would need to be some
specific action taken by the appropriate magistrate to declare that
such an "imminent and clear danger" exists, after some kind of legal
proceeding through which it was proven that a citizen actually acted
in such a way as to cause that danger to arise.

Vale bene,

Cato


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "P. Dominus Antonius"
<marsvigilia@...> wrote:

>
> Could the violation of the Yahoo Terms of Service and the resulting
> potential loss of Yahoo! as a group forum be considered an imminent and
> grave threat? As Nova Roma exists largely as a virtual entity, I would
> think the loss of a primary communication mode would represent such a
> threat.
> --
> >|P. Dominus Antonius|<
> Tony Dah m
>
> Si vis pacem, para bellum - Vegetius
> Islam religio pacis, nex omnibus dissentint.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Antistoicus--What you wrote regarding Appius Claudius about social
contracts was very well said, I thought.

Paulla Corva

Salvete omnes,

I hope the moderators will permit these observations from a non-citizen
- but a group member for over a year.

I wish to refer to Item II of the present Senate Agenda, namely
'Disassociation with the term "Micronation".' It is my earnest hope that
this matter receives serious attention, and that you, the reader of this
message, will permit me to express my thoughts and observations on this
point – whilst that of an outsider.

I am sure I am not alone in watching Nova Roma develop as a product of
the Internet micronational boon of the late 1990s into what it is has
become today.

However, it is my assertion that these micronational characteristics are
now a hindrance to the progress of Nova Roma.

The Sovereignty issue:

I wish to draw reference to a provision in the Founders Declaration of
28.02.1998 (Declaratio Novae Romae II Kal. Mar.2753)

'Further, in order that our world presence may be established, Nova Roma
claims our physical territory to be extant and manifest through those
places that our State, Citizens, and religious organizations may
physically own, occupy, and maintain throughout the world. These
territories shall exist in a status of Dual Sovereignty, being under the
cultural and spiritual administration of Nova Roma, even as they remain
under the civil dominion and laws of other hosting nations.'

In my opinion, this provision was remarkably far sighted. While
excluding the terminology used i.e. 'Dual sovereignty' and territorial
claims - what was attempted was the establishment of a virtual parallel
entity. What makes this provision different from the rest of the
micronational aspirations contained in this particular document is a
clear and implicit accommodation allowing people to subscribe to this
community in a virtual manner. The significance of this provision lies
in its 'dual' nature.

At present, for a 'state' to be recognised requires either recognition
by other legitimate 'recognised' states or an acknowledgement, that as a
state contains the features of a state e.g. land/people/government; it
must in fact be a 'state' (If it looks like an elephant, it must be an
elephant). In general, the former test applies. Various attempts to
validate the latter test have failed.

As of late, academics have argued over the plausibility and nature of
'virtual'/post national states. In general, these virtual states contain
the same characteristics of a micronation - the difference being they
allow for a compromise on the notion of sovereignty.

From a legal purist point of view, the concept of state sovereignty
implies a limitless source of power emanating directly from the people -
who are therefore entitled to make laws for whatever reason on whatever
topic. Of course, in modern reality, this perception is not realistic
– either by way of constitutional documents, e.g. the US
Constitution or international law e.g. the UN Charter et al. – both
of which oblige a state to behave in a certain manner.

'Virtual' sovereignty is however, very attainable. A few days ago, P.
Memmius Albucius & A. Apollonius Cordus both referred to a 'social
contract' that exists within this community. This is the fundamental
basis of a virtual state. People who would subscribe to a virtual state
would do so freely, and maintain national citizenship.

I believe Section II (B) (2) of the present Constitution (as imperfect
as it is), derives from this provision – "The following rights of
the citizens shall be guaranteed, but this enumeration shall not be
taken to exclude other rights that citizens may possess Â…'2. The
right and obligation to remain subject to the civil rights and laws of
the countries in which they reside and/or hold citizenship, regardless
of their status as dual citizens of Nova Roma.' ''

You may now ask, what is the point I am seeking to make? It is quite
possible for a community to be virtually sovereign by means of a social
contract as opposed to the form of sovereignity annunciated by a
micronational declaration.


The Micronational issue:

The first sentence of the Constitution preamble states 'We, the Senate
and People of Nova Roma, as an independent and sovereign nation,
herewith set forth this Constitution as the foundation and structure of
our governing institutions and common society' Note this sentence
remains unaltered since the Constitution of 1998(2753).

From my outside perspective, this assertion of sovereignty makes me
cringe in despair. Asserting national sovereignty invariably implies
secession - and this generally is the realm of lunatics, eccentrics and
fantasists or at worst, terrorists.

To illustrate my point, the Micronation entry in Wikipedia has a general
caveat at the top of the page that states, "This article is about
entities that are not recognized by any world governments or major
international organizations." It is this precise notion of illegitimacy
that besets the entire micronational concept.

Even among micronational 'friendly' organisations, one has only to read
the legal disclaimer on 'The Microfreedom Index'
(http://www.angelfire.com/nv/micronations/) to understand the general
apprehension: "The manager of this website takes no responsibility
should anyone be inspired to commit himself to a sedition, micronation
or independence organization, project, group, movement and/or campaign
after visiting this website."

I think it is fair to state, that unless the public perceive natural
injustices against an ethnic group of people, any assertion of
illegitimate sovereignty is both undesirable and dangerous.

Moreover, on a point of law, as Nova Roma incorporated itself into a
legal jurisdiction – it rendered itself subservient to the laws of
the State of Maine, and the US Constitution. Therefore, any claims of
sovereignty are de jure defeated and de facto nominal.

Nova Roma is in a unique position - a substantial number of people have
an interest in all things classical. From architecture to zoology -
people can trace a definitive route back to classical times. Nova Roma
has a unique potential to, for the want of a better word, 'showcase' all
of these elements - in reconstructionist manner, whilst being mindful of
modernity.

It is my belief that to disassociate this community from its
micronational nature would be a step in the right direction. Nova Roma
needs to engender a culture among its people, not to stifle by
conceptual means, any chance it has to become something other than just
another failed project.

In conclusion:

Please do not misunderstand these comments as an affront to the
achievements that this community have thus far made. I may be peregrine
to Nova Roma, but this does not mean that I aspire to less of a Nova
Roma ideal than its citizens do.

Someday, when we can walk down the cardo of a vibrant Nova Roma town,
then, in my opinion, would be the appropriate time for Nova Roma to
consider something more than just virtual sovereignty.

Valate,

Delphicus



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

SALVE !

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "delphicus" <delphicus@...> wrote:
> I hope the moderators will permit these observations from a non-
citizen - but a group member for over a year.

Our high magistrates, no less than that week, named the non citizens
from Forum as our guests. And they are our guests. More, when they
come with interesting debates,discussions, concerns or advices, in
good conection with this mailing list purposes, they are ours special
guests.

VALE,
IVL SABINVS

Check out Iulia's work at the Venetian Cat Studios: http://
venetiancat.com/
http://venetiancat.com/Price-List.html takes you right to her Roman
page.
I have some of her Samian ware, and love it. Love the cook pots too.
Tchipakkan
Margaret Mead quote, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful,
committed people can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing
that ever has."




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

Salve Delphice,

> However, it is my assertion that these micronational characteristics are
> now a hindrance to the progress of Nova Roma.
>
> The Sovereignty issue:

Thanks for your thoughtful analysis.

We have no plans at present to alter any of the statements about
sovereignity. For some of us, particularly our Patres Patriae, it
is at the core of Nova Roma's identity; for others, it is unimportant
but not a cause for complaint. It is best to leave it intact.

We're looking at the word "Micronation", specifically, because most
other entities calling themselves micronations are nothing more than
children's games. A few years ago, we discovered that some people
had set up a Micronation called "Imperium of Nova Roma", which mainly
consisted of a message board where they declared war on other
nations that existed on some fantasy map that they had drawn up.

The reason for getting rid of Micronation is that it implies, in the
minds of most outside observers, either non-serious fantasy games
(such as the now-defunct INR) or efforts to evade national laws
(such as Sealand and Melchizidek).

The original Nova Roma article on Wikipedia was deleted a while
back, with some of the votes for deletion saying "NO to all
micronations". This hurt our credibility. While we have an new
article there now, and it has managed to survive for the past few
months, eschewing the M-word will help its survival, and thus, our
reputation.

Vale, Octavius.


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

"What is the difference? What indeed is the point? ...The
clarity is devastating. But where is the ambiguity? It's
over there, in a box." -- J. Cleese

Salve Publi Domine

Yes, it would, and this issue has been brought up by one, if not by
both of the Consules. If Nova Roma promoted race-hatred, or even if
it allowed an individual to use its lists to promote race-hatred,
then we would be in violation of the Yahoo Terms of Service and
could potentially lose Yahoo's services.

There is a distinction to be made, however, between race-hatred and
racism. This is a point that Priscus is making, that in his own
understanding he is a racist because he promotes his own race, while
he does not promote race-hatred towards any other group. Others
have a very different opinion on some of Priscus' comments as to
whether they were expressions of only racism or if they crossed the
line into race-hatred. He did declare the Holocaust to have been a
hoax, while not denying that Jews and others died during the war,
comparing those deaths to other acts that he characterized as being
genocide. So, for now, the ambiguity of his comments, in the way
that he has been careful to word some of his comments, I do not
think he specifically violated Yahoo's Terms of Service. If the
Praetores saw his comments as potentially leading into race-hatred,
then they could justifiably have seen his comments as posing a
threat to Nova Roma, and therefore would be compelled to take some
action to avoid such a threat.

Vale optime
M Moravius Piscinus







--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "P. Dominus Antonius"
<marsvigilia@...> wrote:

>
> Could the violation of the Yahoo Terms of Service and the resulting
> potential loss of Yahoo! as a group forum be considered an

imminent and

> grave threat? As Nova Roma exists largely as a virtual entity, I

would

> think the loss of a primary communication mode would represent

such a

> threat.
> --
> >|P. Dominus Antonius|<
> Tony Dah m
>
> Si vis pacem, para bellum - Vegetius
> Islam religio pacis, nex omnibus dissentint.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salvete omnes!

I have a correct, perhaps only the first, to the current standings.

Two contestants have contacted me to ask if I received their answers, and I had not. I'm not sure why this is happening, but I've turned of Earthlink's spam blocker in case it is the cause of the disappearing mail. Has anyone else sent in answers and not seen their score updated?

C. Aurelia Falco Silvana has copied me her entries, and I have accepted them as valid and I am hoping to hear from Livia Aurelia Procula soon. I am not sure what the problem or problems may be, since I have received mail from other entrants in the certamen. I have e-mailed both these cives in the past day, and hope they have receive my messages.

The new standings are:

C. Aurelia Falco Silvana -- 17 points
Titus Iulius Sabinus -- 13 points
Cn. Equitius Marinus -- 13 points
Publius Livius Triarius -- 5 points
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus --5 points
Livia Aurelia Procula --5 points
Andrew Swidzinski -- 5 points
Marius -- 3 points

Valete,
Artoria Marcella

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

Salve bene Cato

This is a valid point and, as in most such situations concerning
civil liberties in modern states, there is a conflict between the
constitutional right of an indvidual vs the constitutional rights of
the community, where the rights and powers granted to the
magistrates also enter into it. Those rights and powers of the
magistrates, and their authority to exercise these, also come from
the Constitution. No one, to the best of my knowldege, is denying
that Priscus has the rights of a Civis, but you cannot say that the
right of the individual is any greater than the right of the
magistrate when both were granted under the same constitutional
authority.

There is also a process by which such conflicts are sorted out. It
is not the process found in the US legal system, or in that of the
legal system of any other modern state. It is Nova Roma's own legal
process, established under the Constitution, which thus far has not
been violated. The definitions and understandings that we use in
interpreting our own law is in our own terms with a Nova Roman
understanding of our Constitution.

Yes, one could be very civil and decorous in making some
reprehensible statement. And one could be very vulgar while
expressing a commendable sentiment. Either statemnt might lead to
the moderation of the author, but for different reasons. I do not
think that is the real issue here. The Praetores have discretionary
authority to determine what is civil or uncivil language on our
lists, and also to determine what might be taken as inappropriate
statements. The same discretionary authority is not granted to each
and every Civis who participates in list discussions. Just because
one non-civis thought that the use of an expletive was appropriate
in a given situation, would that overrule the Praetor's authority to
adjudge it uncivil?

Are you saying that a Praetor would have to prosecute an individual
before a tribunal each time before being allowed to exercise his or
her constitutional authority to act? That is not how the system set
up by the Constitution works. It might be so in the US system,
where a federal agency has to get court approval before taking
certain actions. They also have some discretionary authority.
Every a police officer has some discretionary power, and also some
degree of authority to interpret law, each time he or she has to
decide whether to make an arrest or not. The individual Civis
exercised his ius to participate. The Praetor exercised his ius to
perform what he saw as his duty, and there is nothing in the
Constitution that requires that a Praetor seek further authority
from any other body before exercising his authority. He was not
overruled by his colleague, or by either of the Consules, as any one
of them has the authority to exercise a veto of a decision by an
equal or lower magistrate. The Tribuni Plebis exercised their
collective ius to review the actions of both the Civis and the
magistrates. Just as in the US legal system to which you refer, the
questions you raise are being worked through the system we have
esteblished under the Constitution. And I dare say that it will be
resolved more quickly here in Nova Roma than similar issues are
resolved in the US system.

Vale optime
Piscinus


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

>
> Cato A. Apollonio Moravio Piscino sal.
>
> Corde, you wrote:
>
> "The problem with that statement is contained within the statement

itself:

> "infringed upon the power of those affected". Infringing a power

is a

> nonsensical concept. A power can't be infringed."
>
> Hmmmm.....I'm not sure if these terms are legally equivalent in
> American (US) and British jurisprudence, but in the United States a
> power can certainly be legally infringed upon. The US

Constitution is

> a veritable hotbed of descriptions of ways in which various organs

of

> government are *not* allowed to infringe upon each other's powers.
> But for the sake of a common understanding, perhaps I might better

use

> the word "impede".
>
>
> Moravius Piscinus' post may fit in here at this point: the idea

that

> the guarantee of un-impeded participation in the fora of the

Republic,

> which is given to all citizens by the lex Constitutiva, can

somehow be

> legally curtailed by the activities of the moderators of those

fora.

>
> Piscine, you wrote:
>
> "They [the moderators] can discipline individuals through warnings,
> moderations, or expulsion from a list, because the right of all

Cives

> to a civil and orderly forum comes before any individual's right to
> free expression."
>
> and
>
> "The Praetores are within their right, and possibly could argue in
> this case, that when advocacy turns against principles that are
> established within the Constitution and would cause divisiveness

and

> disruption of the general community, then the Praetores are

required,

> not simply allowed, to restrict such offensive communications."
>
>
> The difficulty with thiese two statements is again the lex
> Constitutiva's position: remember that it is the "highest legal
> authority" and that "should a lower authority conflict with a

higher

> authority, the higher authority shall take precedence." (lex Const.
> I.B) The lex Constitutiva grants citizens - all citizens - "The

right

> to participate in all public forums and discussions, and the right

to

> reasonably expect such forums to be supported by the State. Such
> communications, regardless of their content, may not be restricted

by

> the State, except where they represent an imminent and clear

danger to

> the Republic" (lex Const. II.B.4), as you yourself pointed out.
>
> No other legal pronouncement, be it edict, law passed in comitia,
> senatus consultum, &c., may legally impede a citizen from

exercizing

> this right. A legal pronouncement which gives the praetors the

power

> to moderate the fora of the Republic cannot take precedence over

the

> lex Constitutiva. It is necessary, according to our highest legal
> authority, to prove that any restrictions placed upon a citizen's
> communication present some kind of protection against an "imminent

and

> clear danger" to the Republic; and yet, of course, in the case of

Ap.

> Claudius no trial has taken place which has found this to be

true.

>
> No magistrate has yet officially declared that in Ap. Claudius'
> published speeches an "imminent and clear danger" to the Republic
> exists - and, in keeping with the best tradition of the lex
> Constitutiva, no magistrate is actually given the authority to

decide

> for him- or herself exactly what *does* constitute an "imminent and
> clear danger".
>
> It is not enough to say that something is "uncivil"

or "disruptive",

> because it is entirely possible to have views that are unimaginable
> repugnant yet present them in language that is perfectly civil and
> decorous. It is not necessary to use profanity to express the

profane.

>
> Valete bene,
>
> Cato
>

SALVETE QUIRITES !

I want to present you two works received to Ludi Victoriae Cultural
Award( organizer : Iulia Cytheris ). Thanks to participats. The
works will be posted to the Aediles website.


" CARRIED FORWARD "

by C. Aurelia Falco Silvana.

Four young slaves filed in bearing food. Two boys, two girls, all
of the same family. This was not their first attendance, but they
were still a little awestruck.
The eldest of the ones they were serving raised his head, caught the
blue eyes of the youngest child peeking from under tangled golden
curls. He nodded deeply, telling her wordlessly to approach. At
the flash of joy in her eyes, he smiled broadly, exposing strong
teeth that were just beginning to show yellow.
Behind her, the oldest boy blurted, "We are so proud to serve
you!" Abruptly he flushed red, tucked his head as if caught being
foolish.
The elder sister whispered, "It's alright, Gerd. They understand
our language, and they are kind."
The four diners exchanged glances. The gray-haired one indicated
the empty drink containers.
"Yes, immediately!" Gerd signaled his siblings. Little Mina's
eyes were glued to the one she served, to the long scar down his
neck, disappearing over his shoulder.
"Stay, littlest one. We will talk."
Mina jumped, not sure she believed her ears.
The speaker shifted right, ensuring a space for the girl. When
Gerd nodded, she grinned hugely, then settled on the floor as the
other children went to fetch drinks.
The diners bent to their meals. The scarred one looked
thoughtfully over at Mina, chewing slowly, swallowed.
"What do you wish to ask?"
"Only about your lives . . . and I am sorry, I cannot say
long Roman names."
"You may call me Scar."
The eldest with the ready grin nodded, "Felix," and tossed hair
from his eyes. "Fortis" was solid muscle. "Ingens" had eyes that
smoldered like coals about to burst into flame.
Mina hugged herself in wonder.
Scar continued.
"The battles are carved forever into each of us, even those
who have no scars. By thousands we raced into the field—terror
and ecstasy, deafening roars and total silence, all in one instant."
"You see, little one," Fortis rumbled into the conversation,
"in battle we must face terror squarely, yet we know it makes us
most alive. In the most violent noise, we must find silence within,
to hear the Gods and heed them."
Mina blinked.
"Fortis, she is young for such deep thoughts."
"And you, Ingens . . . ?"
The smoldering eyes sparkled. "Are you brave, Mina?"
"In. . .Ingens, sir, I don't know."
"Have you ever been afraid?"
"Yes, very – after father's last race." She paled, remembering.
"Did you cry? Weep and moan? Close your eyes? Run away?"
Mina took a long, deep breath, stared at her crossed ankles,
whispered, "No . . ."
"What did you do?"
"I helped mother and sister Greta cut off his clothes. We
washed away the blood. I cut sinew for mother, and she made me
watch how to sew up a head wound."
"How did you feel?"
"I felt sick, but I helped and I did not cry."
"And afterward?"
"I felt very proud."
"And your mother?"
"She was very calm, very quiet. Sometimes her hands shook,
but . . . it was like she passed strength to Papa."
Felix tossed his unruly hair back once more.
"A race, a battle—they are the same, small one. For a time it is
all glory and noise and masses of people, horses galloping til their
hearts near bursting. But the crash of men and horses, the terror—
it must come, yet you know this is your path, and you carry your
fear and strength and pride in your one heart. Because you carry
inside you a spark of the Gods, a bit of divinity, We all do, even
those we must kill."
Scar picked at his food. "You say . . . Gerd says . . . we are
glorious. But glory is like a great olive tree. Where to trees
grow,small one?"
Blue eyes blinked solemnly.
"In the earth?"
"And so for glory. It grows only in the good earth of courage,
and bears fruit for others. At the heart of the olive tree, making
it tall and enduring, is the dignity we carry, each inside our own
being. Dignitas is inside, personal, like heartwood."
Fortis huffed. "You call me a philosopher!" He leaned closer to
the solemn-faced girl.
"Think of your adopted father's last race . . . glory?"
"Mother says all the owners still talk about him – they say he
did the impossible, even if he crashed afterwards . . and you all—"
Ingens cut her off.
"So glory is not always about winning, eh? Now think about
courage — when you held terror, strength and pride in your one
small heart."
"So it was courage to help mother and Greta . . . "
"Well, `courageous' . . . "
" . . . even if I felt sick because of the blood, and terrified of
Mama sewing Papa's flesh?"
"You do understand, small one."
Fortis rumbled, "Now think of your mother. What did you feel,
watching her?"
"It was like there was something inside her, holding her up,
making her calm and strong . . . making Papa strong . . .and me—"
"That, small one, is Dignitas – the heartwood inside us that grows
out of courage, It makes us straight and tall, as you shall one
day be. Glory without Dignitas is a small and twisted thing."
The outer door creaked. The three older children staggered in,
each burdened by a large bucket of water. The fourth bucket swung
from Papa's hand.
Only the munching of the horses broke the silence of the sunlit
stable. Dust motes turned in a shaft of sunlight. After a time, he
put his bucket down for one of the horses, and the children followed
suit.
"You carry your mother's blood, not mine, but I think you hear
them, as I do . . . " Spandex gently swept the tiny girl into his
arms."Horses are very wise, you know, " he said, to every one of
them.



____________________________________


" RECOLLECTIONS FROM SAGUNTUM "

By Lucius Vitellius Triarius.

Introduction

This dialogue is set in the city of Saguntum in Provincia Hispania
Tarraconensis during the mid-1st Century CE. Spurius Mercurius
Pilatus, a recent veteran and Optio of Legio IV Macedonia, sees his
old friend and former Centurio, Marcus Capenius Seneca, now a
private civis and member of the local decurio, sitting on the steps
of the Forum in Saguntum. He stops to speak with him about the
future of the Republic and reflect on the successes of the past.


The Dialogue


PILATUS: Salve, old friend!

SENECA: How are things since you left the Legio?

PILATUS: Much quieter...and more peaceful now. The Pax Pilatus I
think they call it. (both laugh)

SENECA: The Army is a funny thing, isn't it?

PILATUS: How so?

SENECA: The Republic has accomplished so many things, yet, one can
look at the Army and wonder how.

PILATUS: Yes, organization was a problem. Being seldom at our
recommended strengths, it was often difficult to manage tasks. With
attrition, detachments being away from the Legio, the wild
fluctuations in attached auxilii, it is amazing that anything was
accomplished.

SENECA: Patientia et Providentia, old friend.

PILATUS: And Spes, let us not forget Spes!

SENECA: Let us not forget Virtus as well, my friend. We must
educate youth in the ways of courage, so they may advance our
Republic through the coming ages.

PILATUS: Yes, courage in many ways. Courage as we used with the
Gauls, Germans and Cathaginians. Courage to use more flexible
tactics than usually allowed...to be inherently flexible and highly
adaptable to different battlefield conditions and styles of warfare.

SENECA: One must attack at the earliest convenience, even against a
supreme force and often after an apparent tactical defeat.

PILATUS: So what is it that makes a Roman more likely to make that
heroic plunge into the ranks of the enemy?

SENECA: Great tasks.

PILATUS: Great tasks are most often completed through the efforts
of great leaders, are they not, counselor?

SENECA: True, very true. But it is important to understand that
great leaders are not always Consuls and Generals, and each battle
is a collection of smaller, different styled battles.

PILATUS: Agreed.

SENECA: In every battle there are three battles. First, the
General's battle, involving the trials and tribulations one must
overcome when placed in such a responsible, demanding and
unforgiving position. Second, the unit's battle with requirements
for success being outlined by a superior dictate, which may not be
the best option for the unit's fate, depending upon the severity of
battle and chaotic nature of warfare.

PILATUS: And lastly?

SENECA: The most important of all, the soldier's battle. The
soldier must obey the commands and follow the guidance of his
leader, yet, must also maintain and survive. Many times, this is
against all odds and can only be explained as the will of the
Gods. Most often, the successes of our Legiones have been
primarily through the individual actions of soldiers working in
harmony with the predetermined goals of their leaders.

PILATUS: Battles are frequently turned on the actions of individual
soldiers or small groups of men, but what leads these peoples to
seize the advantage of a minor breach in the enemy's front line and
quickly turn an indecisive confrontation into a successful rout?

SENECA: First, a good commander. One with the good senses of
Gravitas, Severitas, Industria and Clementia. In the Battle of Mons
Algidus, Cincinnatus turned a Roman defeat into an important
victory. The Aequi, who had besieged the Romans under Minucius,
were themselves besieged by the forces of Cincinnatus. Cincinnatus
ordered his men, who had marched and worked for an entire day
without rest, to attack the Aequi. The Aequi, unable to sustain a
double attack, surrendered. Cincinnatus let them go, then resigned
as Dictator after serving only sixteen days.

PILATUS: There is no doubt that the actions of Cincinnatus and
other leaders spurred our forces on to greater achievements, but
there is more, is there not?

SENECA: Yes, it is that which makes Romans different than many
other peoples. It is what has allowed our Republic's military
ventures to expand into the Romanisation of many regiones from
barbaric to civilised. It is what our soldiers have carried from the
Legiones into their daily lives as cives of the Republic.

PILATUS: And that is?

SENECA: Fear, shame, coercion, boldness...all inspired and
encouraged by good commanders, but most of all morale...good
morale. Most often, our battles have been won by the projection of
superior confidence and high spirits of the Legiones.

PILATUS: The decision to turn and run indicates the dissolution of
confidence and represents the actual moment of tactical victory.

SENECA: True, just as in the Battle of Lake Regillus with the
Latins and Etruscans. Postumius pressed on, eventually sending his
personal bodyguard into battle. The Latins turned to retreat, and
at that moment, Postumius was assured his triumphal return to Rome.

PILATUS: One must also remember the Battle of Zela. When Caesar
defeated Pharnaces, he exclaimed, "Veni, vidi, vici!" This display
of Firmitas over his adversaries seemed to guide his successes.

SENECA: One should always be able to say "veni, vidi, vici" when
striving to further the advancement of the Republic. Many have
stood in glorious awe and wonder after a campaign when looking at
the final results. The journeys have been long, hard and trying,
but they have accomplished many great tasks for our future
generations.

PILATUS: These hard tasks have Romanised the barbarians and led to
a great Pax. A large collection of Pax Pilatii throughout the
Republic. (both laugh)

SENECA: Yes, by improving roads, we have improved communications
and trade. With aqueducts we have improved sanitation and
agriculture through irrigation. With replacement of tribal customs,
we have instituted public order and improved the quality of life
through rights and laws for all of our expanded citizenry.

PILATUS: All through the efforts of many unknown legionairii,
working together in harmony throughout the Republic.

SENECA: Recently, I traveled to Tarraco. Walking along the
wharves, I noticed many fishing boats with their nets hoisted. I
observed how they blended together, appearing as one solid net down
the entire length of the docks. One large net, worked by many
fishermen at the same time. In a vision, I could see that one day
we will, through some miracle or at least help from the Gods, be
able to work with each other in different parts of the Republic at
the same time, discuss problems together from afar, develop public
works projects and enjoy victories. Everyone working together like
the intertwined ropes of the fishermen's net.

PILATUS: This seems greatly impossible, but think of spreading the
Virtues along the Via Romana simultaneously. What great things
could be accomplished via this internetworking.

______________________________

VALETE,
IVL SABINVS

Salvete omnes!

Here are the last two questions of the certamen.

Question #7

As Octavian sought to destroy Marcus Antonius and Lepidus, he brought back his friend--General Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa--from Gaul. Agrippa was an excellent military commander and a brilliant engineer. Some of his major engineering contributions involved water, including building and repairing acquaducts, baths, ships, and cleaning and enlarging Rome's sewer system--the Cloaca Maxima.

One point each:

a) Why did Agrippa join two lakes together and what were the lakes called?

b) What new weapon did he design for use in naval warfare?

c) Lost to history, Agrippa had a map made that became world famous--where was it kept in Rome?

Question #8

Although not the last rebellion against Rome to occur in Britain, Boudicca's Revolt is the most famous. It fell to Gaius Suetonius Paulinus to put an end the Iceni attacks.

One point each:

a) Who did Suetonius wish to be compared to?

b) Which legions were involved and which Roman officer, as a result of the revolt, took his own life and where had he been stationed (Latin name)?

c) What omen took place in Camulodunum that cheered the local Britons?

Send the answers only to this address: icehunter@...

Good luck!

Vale bene,
Artoria Marcella

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

QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO QUIRITIBVS
The Collegium Pontificum having met in order to vote on RESPONSVM DE
QVATTVOR SVMMIS COLLEGIIS and RESPONSVM DE COLLEGIO PONTIFICVM, convened
by Pontifex C. Fabius Buteo Modianus, the decision was that both items
were approved.

RESPONSVM DE QVATTVOR SVMMIS COLLEGIIS

PROEMIVM (Preamble)

The objective of this legislative proposal is to amend the Constitution
of Nova Roma in order to provide a framework for a more faithful
reconstruction of the religious institutions of the Roman Republic.

The first paragraphs deal with the elimination of "priestly decrees" as
a source of law in Nova Roma. The last one substitutes the current
paragraphs of the Constitution that define the religious institutions of
Nova Roma.

-------

I. The paragraph I.A. of the Constitution of Nova Roma shall be amended
to read as follows:

"A. This Constitution shall be the basic authority for all
decision-making within Nova Roma and shall limit the authority of all
magistrates and bodies, and all leges (laws) passed by the comitia,
magisterial edicta (edicts) and Senatus consulta shall be subject to it
except as provided by the following three provisos: [...]"

II. The paragraph I.B. of the Constitution of Nova Roma shall be amended
to read as follows:

"B. Legal precedence. This Constitution shall be the highest legal
authority within Nova Roma, apart from edicts issued by a legally
appointed dictator. It shall thereafter be followed in legal authority
by edicta issued by consuls acting under the Senatus consulta ultima,
laws properly voted and passed by one of the comitia, Senatus consulta,
and magisterial edicta (in order of descending authority as described in
section IV of this Constitution), in that order. Should a lower
authority conflict with a higher authority, the higher authority shall
take precedence. Should a law passed by one of the comitia contradict
one passed by another or the same comitia without explicitly superseding
that law, the most recent law shall take precedence."

III. The paragraph III.A. of the Constitution of Nova Roma shall be
amended to read as follows:

"A. The Comitia Curiata (Assembly of Curiae) shall be made up of thirty
lictores curiati (lictors of the Curia), appointed to their position by
the Senatus following a responsum from the Collegium Pontificum (College
of Pontiffs). It shall be called to order by the Pontifex Maximus, who
shall set the rules by which the Comitia Curiata shall operate
internally following the pertinent responsa from the Collegium
Pontificum. It shall have the following responsibilities:
[...]"

IV. The paragraph VI. of the Constitution of Nova Roma shall be amended
to read as follows:

"VI. Public Religious Institutions

A. The Cultus Deorum Romanorum, the worship of the Gods and Goddesses of
Rome, shall be the official religion of Nova Roma. All magistrates and
senators, as officers of the State, shall be required to publicly show
respect for the Cultus Deorum and the Gods and Goddesses that made Rome
great, and to perform the public religious rites and ceremonies
established by the law. Magistrates, senators, and citizens need not be
practitioners of the Cultus Deorum in the their private lifes, but may
not engage in any activity that intentionally blasphemes or defames the
Gods, the Cultus Deorum, or its practitioners.

B. The priesthoods of the Gods of Rome shall be organized as closely as
practical on the ancient Roman model. The institutions of the Cultus
Deorum shall have authority over religious matters on the level of the
State only, maintaining the religious rites of the State and providing
resources pertaining to the Cultus Deorum which citizens may make use of
if they so choose. Nova Roma shall approach all other religions with a
syncretistic outlook, offering friendship to all paths which acknowledge
the right of those who practice and honor the Cultus Deorum to do so and
respect the beliefs thereof. Only citizens of Nova Roma may be members
of the public institutions of the Cultus Deorum.

C. The four major priestly colleges of Nova Roma shall be, in order of
precedence:

1. The Collegium Pontificum
2. The Collegium Augurum
3. The Collegium Decemvirorum Sacris Faciundis
4. The Collegium Septemvirorum Epulonum

Besides these four colleges, there shall be other religious collegia,
sodalitates and sacerdotes, both public and private.

D. Each Collegium shall have a particular area of responsibility,
authority and expertise. Consultations formulated to a given Collegium
may be referred to a different Collegium if, according to a majority of
the members of the Collegium expressing their opinion, they do not
correspond to the sphere of that Collegium.

1. The Collegium Pontificum shall have the following duties and
responsibilities:

a. To respond, upon the request of the magistrates, the Senate, or
private citizens, to consultations about the sacra publica, the sacra
privata, burial practices and all the religious practices that do not
explicitly fall in the sphere of a different Collegium.

b. To issue and maintain the official religious calendar, indicating all
religious festivals, dies fasti, nefasti, comitiales and endotercisi.

c. To take care of the festivities and the temples that do not have a
specific priest assigned to them.

2. The Collegium Augurum shall have the following duties and
responsibilities:

a. To respond, upon the request of the magistrates, the Senate, or
private citizens, to consultations about divination public divination
practices and the consecration of spaces and magistrates (jus augurum).

b. To celebrate the Augurium Salutis in times of peace for the
well-being of the Roman people.

c. To perform the inauguratio of cities, temples, priests and magistrates.

d. To oversee and advise the magistrate (auspex) with jus auspicium when
he takes the auguries upon calling a comitia to assemble, upon taking
office as a magistrate, at the erection of a temple, and on other
occasions, seeing that the rite was done correctly and that nothing
might invalidate it. They shall not take the auspices themselves, nor
determine how the signs should finally be read.

3. The Collegium Decemvirorum Sacris Faciundis shall have the following
duties and responsibilities:

a. To maintain the Libri Sibyllini. To propose to the Senate the
inclusion of new texts into the Libri Sibyllini. To maintain other
officially approved prophetic texts.

b. To consult, at the request of the Senate, the Libri Sibyllini in
order to discover the religious observances necessary to avert
extraordinary calamities and to expiate ominous prodigies.

c. To verify the application of the Sibylline oracles. To preside over
the religious practices prescribed by them.

d. To preside over the cleaning of the Black Stone of Pesinunte.

e. To celebrate the games of Apollo and the Ludi Saeculares.

4. The Collegium Septemvirorum Epulonum shall have the following duties
and responsibilities:

a. To organize the banquets of public festivals and games, especially
the Epulum Jovis.

E. Whenever a conflict concerning jurisdiction occurs between two
Collegia, the Senate of Nova Roma shall, through senatus consultum, be
the ultimate judge on which Collegium should be consulted."


F. The various Collegia shall have the following maximum number of members:

1. In the Collegium Pontificum there shall be a maximum of nine (9)
Pontifices, including one (1) Pontifex Maximus.

2. In the Collegium Augurum there shall be a maximum of nine (9) Augures.

3. In the Collegium Decemvirorum Sacris Faciundis there shall be a
maximum of ten (10) Decemviri Sacris Faciundis.

4. In the Collegium Septemvirorum Epulonum there shall be a maximum of
seven (7) Septemviri Epulones.

G. Each Collegium shall be responsible in front of the Senate and the
Comitia of recruiting and providing the means to instruct prospective
new members, so that the maximum number of members for each Collegium is
kept at all times.

H. Whenever a new member has to be coopted into one of the Quattuor
Summa Collegia, with that Collegium having at least three current
members, two members of that Collegium shall be selected by all the
current members and, between them, the two selected members shall draw
up a shortlist of three candidates. All the members shall then elect a
candidate from the shortlist. The candidate receiving the most votes
shall then be inaugurated as member of the Collegium within one month,
with all the duties and privileges associated with the position.

I. Should at any time one of the Quattuor Summa Collegia, excluding the
Collegium Pontificum, have less than three (3) members, the following
process shall be followed:

1. The members of the Collegium Pontificum shall issue a responsum
indicating their recommendations to the Senate on who might be adlected
to the other collegia.

2. The Senate shall appoint through a senatus consultum the members
necessary to reach three (3) members in the specific collegium.

3. The consules shall call the Comitia Populi Tributa to order to
confirm the Senate's selections.

J. Should the Collegium Pontificum at any time have less than (3)
members, Senate shall appoint the members necessary to reach that
number, and the consules shall call the Comitia Populi Tributa to order
to confirm the Senate's selections.


K. The members of each one of the Quattuor Summa Collegia shall have the
duty to respond, upon request from the magistrates or private citizens,
to questions about Roman ritual practice. These responses shall be
called "decreta" (sing. "decretum") or "responsa" (sing. "responsum").
For an official responsum to be issued, the consultation must be
officially presented, either by the consultor or by a member of the
Collegium, to all the members of that Collegium as a whole through the
public mailing list indicated for this purpose by the internal rules of
the Collegium Itself.

L. Responsa shall not state any conclusions about particular facts or
situations, but shall only state general rules of religious law. It
shall not be the task of the members of the Quattuor Summa Collegia to
apply these rules to specific situations.

M. No responsum shall be given within the first seventy-two (72) hours
from the time when the consultation is presented to the members of a
given Collegium. During that time any member of the Collegium may
request, on the same mailing list, a delay so that the question can be
discussed by all the members of the Collegium who wish to discuss it.

N. If, after the seventy-two (72) hours have passed, no member of the
Collegium has requested a delay, any member of the Collegium may issue a
responsum.

O. If, within the seventy-two (72) hours, any member of the Collegium
requests a delay, a discussion shall take place among those members who
wish to discuss the issue. Together they shall formulate a responsum.
Once that responsum has been agreed by a majority of those members of
the Collegium involved in the discussion, that responsum shall be issued
formally and collectively by all the members of the Collegium involved
in the discussion.

P. Responsa are interpretations of jus sacrum (sacred law) that
pre-exists the decision of a Collegium and are immanent. Therefore,
previous responsa issued by at least three members of a Collegium shall
not be contradicted by later responsa. However, it is possible that a
Collegium may occasionally make mistakes in its interpretation of jus
sacrum. If, as a result of further research, at least three members of
that Collegium consider that a previous responsum was mistaken, the
Collegium shall reconsider the responsum using the same procedure stated
in E. If they conclude that the previous responsum was mistaken, they
shall formulate a new responsum and it shall be issued collectively by
all the Pontifices involved in the discussion. The Collegium shall
perform expiation for its mistake, and shall declare the appropriate
expiation for any private individual who has acted improperly on the
basis of the mistaken responsum.

Q. Each Collegium shall maintain a collection of previously delivered
responsa to consultations on religious issues. All the information
contained in those books shall be readily available to the public
through the Nova Roma web site.

R. The members of each Collegium shall be entitled to wear, during the
celebration of sacra publica, the insignia that mark them as members of
each one of the Quattuor Summa Collegia. These insignia shall be:

1. For the Collegium Pontificum: the tunica praetexta.

2. For the Collegium Augurum: the toga trabea, the capis and the lituus.

3. For the Collegium Septemvirorum Epulonum: the toga praetexta and the
patera."

-----

RESPONSVM DE COLLEGIO PONTIFICVM

PARS PRIMA
DE COLLEGIO PONTIFICO

I. De Membris Collegii

The Collegium Pontificum shall be formed by eight (8) Pontifices and one
(1) Pontifex Maximus; these shall be the members of the Collegium
Pontificum as far as the issuing of responsa and the cooption of new
Pontifices is concerned. However, the following sacerdotes shall also be
associated to the Collegium Pontificum, shall be privy to its
discussions and be allowed to express their opinion during them, and
shall take part in those rituals in which the Collegium Pontificum as a
whole is involved:

1. The Rex Sacrorum
2. The Flamen Dialis
3. The Flamen Martialis
4. The Flamen Quirinalis

II. De Fastis

A. Upon request from the consules, the Collegium Pontificum shall issue
a decretum defining the official fasti (calendar) of Nova Roma. Said
fasti shall be based on available historical evidence. If, as a result
of further research, at least three pontifices consider that different
fasti must be issued, the Collegium shall reconsider the responsum that
defines the fasti using the same procedure stated in paragraph III of
the RESPONSVM DE QVATTVOR SVMMIS COLLEGIIS.

B. The fasti shall specify the feriae to be observed by Nova Roma,
except for the movable feriae, which shall be announced by the Pontifex
Maximus on the kalends of January (kalendas Januarias).

III. De Libris Pontificiis

A. The Collegium Pontificum shall issue and maintain the books
containing the ritual ordinances. These shall receive the name of Libri
Pontificii or Libri Pontificales. The regulations which serve as a guide
to the Pontifices in their deliberations (Jus Pontificium) shall form
part of the Libri Pontificii.

B. The Collegium Pontificum shall issue and maintain the books that
contain the names of the Gods as well as the manner in which these names
are to be used in public worship. These shall receive the name of
Indigitamenta.

C. The Collegium Pontificum shall maintain a record of the official
actions taken by the Collegium and the Pontifex Maximus. These shall
receive the name of Acta Pontificum.

D. The Collegium Pontificum shall maintain a collection of previously
delivered responsa to consultations on religious issues. These shall
receive the name of Commentarii Pontificum.

E. All the information cited in A, B, C & D shall be readily available
to the public through the Nova Roma web site.

IV. De Feriis

A. The members of the Collegium Pontificum shall take care of all the
public religious ceremonies (sacra publica) indicated in the fasti or
declared as a moveable feria that have not explicitly been assigned to a
specific priesthood or magistracy, or whenever such priesthood or
magistracy is vacant.

B. The members of the Collegium Pontificum shall decide among themselves
how their workload shall be divided, and shall issue a decretum
detailing which person shall be considered responsible for each set of
sacra.

PARS SECVNDA
DE REGE REGINAQVE SACRORVM

V. De captione Regis Reginaeque Sacrorum

The Pontifex Maximus may, through a public announcement, appoint any
citizen to the position of Rex Sacrorum as long as said citizen meets
the following conditions:

1. The Rex Sacrorum shall be a patrician citizen.

2. The Rex Sacrorum shall not be a magistrate or senator of Nova Roma.
If he is a magistrate or a senator in the moment of his appointment as
Rex Sacrorum, he shall resign his magistracy or
his membership of the Senate before he is eligible to be inaugurated as
Rex Sacrorum.

3. The Rex Sacrorum shall be married through confarreatio. His wife
shall automatically receive the title of Regina Sacrorum, and the rights
and duties associated with that title.

After being appointed by the Pontifex Maximus, the Rex and Regina
Sacrorum shall be properly inaugurated following the prescriptions of
the Libri Pontificii.

VI. De officiis Regis Reginaeque Sacrorum

A. The Rex Sacrorum shall have the following duties:

1. To perform the rituals for Janus and Jupiter prescribed by the Libri
Pontificii, described in III.A., on the kalendae and nonae of each
month, and to announce on the kalendae of each month the day on which
the nonae of that month shall take place.

2. To preside the Comitia Calata in the nonae of each month and to
announce the festivals to be held in that month.

3. To try to propitiate, upon the request of the Senatus and following
the prescriptions of the Libri Pontificii, the anger of the Gods when
extraordinary portenta may seem to announce some general calamity.

4. To take part in the traditional festivities associated with the office:

a) The Agonium
b) The Consualia
c) The Regifugium
d) The dies Q.R.C.F. in Martius
e) The dies Q.R.C.F. in Majus.
f) as well as in any additional sacra publica explicitly prescribed for
the Rex Sacrorum by the Libri Pontificii.

B. The Regina Sacrorum shall have the following duties:

1. To perform the rituals for Juno prescribed by the Libri Pontificii in
the kalendae and the nonae of each month, as well as in the festival of
Juno Covella.

2. To perform those other rituals specifically prescribed for the Regina
Sacrorum by the Libri Pontificii.

PARS TERTIA
DE PONTIFICE MAXIMO

VII. De electione Pontificis Maximi

A. Whenever the position of the Pontifex Maximus is vacant, the most
recently co-opted pontifex shall temporarily be given by consular
edictum the jus agendi cum populo to convene the Comitia Populi Tributa.
The pontifex that presides over the election shall not be eligible as
Pontifex Maximus.

B. One half (rounding fractions down) of the tribes of the Comitia
Populi Tributa shall be selected by lot and shall be thereby convened to
elect a new Pontifex Maximus among the current pontifices, following the
same procedures followed to elect magistrates through the Comitia Populi
Tributa.

C. Once a Pontifex Maximus has been elected, he shall be properly
inaugurated following the prescriptions of the Libri Pontificii.

D. The Pontifex Maximus shall hold his office for life. However, he
shall be deprived of his office if he, for whatever reason, looses his
citizenship.

VIII. De officiis Pontificis Maximi

The Pontifex Maximus shall have the following duties:

1. To act as a spokesman of the Collegium Pontificum.

2. To be responsible for the public hearth in the Aedes Vestae. To
instruct and supervise the Virgines Vestales.

3. To select and to preside over the induction rituals of the Virgines
Vestales, the Rex Sacrorum, the Flamines Majores and the Flamines Minores.

4. To oversee the celebration of the sacra publica, and to have
disciplinary authority over the priests responsible for their
celebration, according to the Libri Pontificii. Disciplinary measures
may include fines and/or expulsion from priesthood.

5. To record the significant events of each year in the Annales Maximi,
and to present the Annales Maximi of the previous year to the public
before the kalendae Martias.

6. To be present in every marriage by confarreatio, and to take part in
the ritus prescribed for such occasions by the Libri Pontificii.

7. To watch over sacra familiares and the rituals of the dead practiced
by the citizens of the Res Publica, including the specific duty of
approving or rejecting applications for adrogatio.

PARS QVARTA
DE FLAMINIBVS

IX. De numero captioneque Flaminum

A. The Pontifex Maximus shall appoint three (3) Flamines Majores, that
shall be named, in order of precedence:

1. Flamen Dialis
2. Flamen Martialis
3. Flamen Quirinalis

The Flamines Majores shall be members of the Ordo Patricius, sons of
parents married by confarreatio, and be married by confarreatio. The
last two conditions might be waived through a special dispense through a
responsum from the Collegium Pontificum.

B. The Pontifex Maximus shall appoint, among the members of the Ordo
Plebejus, twelve (12) Flamines Minores, that shall be named:

1. Flamen Carmentalis
2. Flamen Cerealis
3. Flamen Falacer
4. Flamen Floralis
5. Flamen Furrinalis
6. Flamen Lucularis
7. Flamen Palatualis
8. Flamen Pomonalis
9. Flamen Portunalis
10. Flamen Virbialis
11. Flamen Volcanalis
12. Flamen Volturnalis

C. After being appointed by the Pontifex Maximus, a new Flamen shall be
properly inaugurated following the prescriptions of the Libri Pontificii.

D. The office of Flamen is understood to last for life; but a flamen may
be compelled to resign (flaminio abire) for a breach of duty, or even on
account of the occurrence of an ill-omened accident while discharging
his functions. The final decision on whether a certain Flamen must
resign shall be in the hands of the Pontifex Maximus.

X. De officiis Flaminis Dialis

A. The Flamen Dialis shall have the following duties:

1. To wear, during official acts, the insignia of his office: toga
praetexta and apex. He shall also have the right to sit on a sella
curulis, be escorted by one lictor and take part in the deliberations
of the Senate.

2. To preside, together with the Flaminica Dialis (the wife of the
Flamen Dialis, to whom he must be married by confarreatio), over the
rites of confarreatio.

3. To follow the traditional prohibitions of his office, as prescribed
by the Libri Pontificii.

4. To leave office if his wife dies or if he divorces.

5. To take part in the traditional festivities associated with the office:

a) the Lupercalia
b) the Vinalia
c) the Fidei Solemne
d) the Ovis Idulis

as well as in any additional sacra publica explicitly prescribed by the
Libri Pontificii.

6. On each nundina a sacrifice to Jupiter shall be performed by the
Flaminica Dialis according to the prescriptions of the Libri Pontificii.
The Flaminica Dialis shall also take part in the following
traditional festivities:

a) the Itur ad Argeos
b) the Ancilia Moventia
c) the Februa Poscens

She shall be subject to some special taboos (defined in the Libri
Pontificii) during June until the end of the Vestalia.

B. Should the office of the Flamen Dialis be vacant, the duties of the
office shall be discharged by the Pontifex Maximus.

XI. De officiis Flaminis Martialis

The Flamen Martialis shall have the following duties:

1. To wear, during official acts, the insignia of his office: toga
praetexta and apex.

2. To take part in the traditional festivities associated with the office:

a) the Octobris Equus
b) the Fidei Solemne

as well as in any additional sacra publica explicitly prescribed by the
Libri Pontificii.

3. The Flamen Martialis must be married by confarreatio, and his wife
shall receive the title of Flaminica Martialis, and shall perform the
duties explicitly prescribed for that position in the Libri Pontificii.

XII. De officiis Flaminis Quirinalis

The Flamen Quirinalis shall have the following duties:

1. To wear, during official acts, the insignia of his office: toga
praetexta and apex.

2. To take part in the traditional festivities associated with the office:

a) the Robigalia
b) the Consualia
c) the Latentalia
b) the Fidei Solemne

as well as in any additional sacra publica explicitly prescribed by the
Libri Pontificii.

3. The Flamen Quirinalis must be married by confarreatio, and his wife
shall receive the title of Flaminica Quirinalis, and shall perform the
duties explicitly prescribed for that position in the Libri Pontificii.

XIII. De officiis Flaminum Minorum

The Flamines Minores shall have the following duties:

1. To wear, during official acts, the insignia of his office: toga
praetexta and apex.

2. To take part in the traditional festivities associated with the
office, as well as in any additional sacra publica explicitly prescribed
by the Libri Pontificii.

-----

Announced by Q. Caecilius Metellus and C. Fabius Buteo Modianus,
Pontifex, in the absence of the Pontifex Maximus.

A. Apollonius C. Equitio sal.

> Hmmmm.....I' m not sure if these terms are legally equivalent in

American (US) and British jurisprudence, but in the United States a
power can certainly be legally infringed upon. The US Constitution is
a veritable hotbed of descriptions of ways in which various organs of
government are *not* allowed to infringe upon each other's powers.
But for the sake of a common understanding, perhaps I might better use
the word "impede". <

Ah! I think you mean "impinge" rather than "infringe". That explains why you say "infringe upon", which is an impossible construction, whereas "impinge upon" is perfectly proper. Yes, a power can probably be impinged upon, although it would probably be more accurate to say that what is impinged upon is the discretionary area of judgement about when and how to use that power. This is, I think, what you mean about the U.S. Constitution: the President must not try to take measures within the area which is the proper responsibility of the Congress and within which only the Congress has power to act, and so on, is that the sort of thing you have in mind? In that case I quite agree, if we can substitute the word "impinge" for "infringe".

However this hardly helps your suggestion that there is no real difference between a rights-analysis and a powers-analysis. You said "if a magistrate has overstepped their power, then they have, by default, infringed [i.e. impinged] upon the power of those affected by that act by which the magistrate's power was overstepped". This now makes sense, but is not relevant to your point. If a consul unilaterally banishes a citizen from Nova Roma ignoring the citizen's provocatio, then the rights-analysis and the powers-analysis yield quite different results. On a rights-analysis we would say that the consul has infringed the citizen's right to provocatio. On a powers-analysis we would say that the consul has exceeded his powers and impinged upon the discretion of the comitia, which is the body with the power to banish citizens. The person whose rights are infringed is not the person whose power (or rather discretion) is impinged upon. The rights-analysis focusses on the person
principally affected by the magistrate's action; the powers-analysis focusses on the magistrate.

I do not think your analysis of the lex constitutiva, as set out in your reply to M. Moravius, is correct. If it were, then Nova Roma would be not only totally unhistorical but totally ungovernable because no magistrate would have any discretionary powers at all. If you are genuinely convinced of the accuracy of this argument then you must, as far as I can see, believe that just about every magistrate in our history has violated the lex constitutiva.

A. Apollonius P. Dominio sal.

> What would the modern "virtual" on-line equivalent of assassination be? <

Unwise.

A. Apollonius Delphico peregrino sal.

Very interesting comments. I agree with a lot of this, and only wish I had time to discuss your points more fully. For now I must simply say, very briefly, my own view: Nova Roma is not, should not seek to be, and should not depict itself as, a modern nation-state as understood in international law and political philosophy. It (arguably) is, should be, and should depict itself as, a res publica as the Romans understood that concept. In the Roman way of thinking membership of a res public is essentially voluntary and has very little to do with physical control of territory backed up by military force, whereas the modern nation-state is based largely on physical control of territory backed up by military force and with very little to do with what the inhabitants want. A nation-state is content if the inhabitants of its territory obey its laws whether they wish to or not; meanwhile a res publica is content if its citizens, wherever they may be, voluntarily conduct themselves
as its citizens. Thus it is entirely possible for a modern nation-state and a Roman res publica to coexist in fully realized form, and to consist of the very same individuals, without either having any cause to object to the existence of the other.

If this conversation is still going after the 10th of next month then I shall have time to participate more expansively!

A. Apollonius Q. Metello pontificibusque aliis sal.

These responsa incorporate none of the minor alterations which I suggested in this forum, and many of which Cn. Salvius appeared to accept, when the draft was initially circulated. In particular an over-elaborate and unhistorical method for co-opting new pontifices (see chapter VI.H of the amended constitutional text). Was this deliberate?

A. Apollonius Q. Metello pontificibusque aliis sal.

Sorry, one more question. The first responsum purports to amend the lex constitutiva. Is it the opinion of the pontifices that this responsum has in fact amended the lex constitutiva without any need for further action by the comitia, or should this responsum be taken, contrary to its own wording, as a mere proposal for an amendment?

Salve Corde,

I am writing to publically congratulate you on this post.

A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:

> A. Apollonius P. Dominio sal.
>
>
>>What would the modern "virtual" on-line equivalent of assassination be? <
>
>
> Unwise.

This is a perfect post. Not only does it say what needs to be said, it
does so concisely. (And it's humorous!)

I am now going to save this. I'd frame it, but that might be going too
far. Congratulations, and thank you.

Vale,

-- Marinus

SALVETE QUIRITES !

Here are the answers for the last part of this contest. I want to
belive that it was an enjoyable one. I want to belive that the
participants discovered some interesting dates about the roman
history of Dacia. In the same time, I want to belive that not only
the participants were in conection with the contest.

My wish, for the future, is to have more participants to Ludi. That
is a recommendation : new citizens and peregrini, maybe you don't
know from where to start in Nova Roma. Ludi represent a good
ocassion. Participate !

The answers and the final clasification :

After the conquest Dacia was transformed in a Roman province. The
spirit of the conquerors, backed by the diligence of the local
population, proved very profitable for the country: Dacia reached a
high level of material and spiritual culture.

a) How many days Trajan celebrated his victory against dacians ?
ANSWER : 123 days.
b) Which it was the capital of the new province ?
ANSWER : Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegethusa.
c) What monument was erected in Rome to celebrate the victory and in
what year ?
ANSWER : Trajan's Column, 113 AD.
d) Which important roman legion was garrisoned at Apulum ?
ANSWER : Legio XIII Gemina.
e) Which Roman Emperor minted the first coin with " Dacia Felix "
legend ?
ANSWER : Trajan Decius.
f) How long Dacia was a roman province ?
ANSWER : 165 years.

The final clasification is :

C. Aurelia Falco Silvana - 21,1 points.
Quintus Suetonius Paulinus - 14,6 points.
Livia Aurelia Procula - 8,8 points.
Cn. Ambrosia Crinita - 9,5 points ( she participated only to III &
IV contest)
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus - 3,6 points.

Congratulations to all participants and thank you.

VALETE,
IVL SABINVS

Cato M. Piscino A. Apollonio sal.

Piscine, you wrote:

"...but you cannot say that the right of the individual is any greater
than the right of the magistrate when both were granted under the same
constitutional authority."

Here's the sticky point, I think: the magistrates are *not* given
these powers by the lex Constitutiva, but rather by leges passed in
comitia, which define and expand upon the language of the lex
Constitutiva. Because the lex Constitutiva declares itself to be the
highest legal authority, and because the order of legal precedence
contained within the lex Constitutiva declares that when conflict
occurs, the higher legal authority applies, then any lex (or other
legal instrument) which curtails the rights defined by the lex
Constitutiva must be overruled by the lex Constitutiva itself.

Corde, in you description of powers vs. rights, the case you use
(banishment) is of quite a different legal nature than the question
regarding the right to participate freely in the fora.

The lex Constitutiva gives a legal opening - "Citizenship may be
involuntarily revoked by those means that shall be established by law"
(lex Const. II.A.4) - for further definition and expansion by leges
passed in comitia which is *not* echoed in regards to the right to
participate freely in the fora of the Republic. The lex Constitutiva
simply states that "communications, regardless of their content, may
not be restricted by the State", with the *only* cause for such a
right to be restricted is if an "imminent and clear danger to the
Republic" is shown. The writers of the lex Constitutiva obviously
considered the right of participation so important, so valuable, that
only a specific circumstance would allow this right to be impeded
upon. And, unfortunately, they gave us no indication as to who or
what might judge when that specific circumstance occured - nor did
they even define of what that circumstance consists.

As far as being ungovernable...as a certain Someone said to the Roman
governor: "Thou hast said it."

Valete bene,

Cato

Salve Gaius Equitius Cato et al


I believe you have missed on vital passage from the section of the constitution that you have quoted

It says that

" The right to participate in all public forums<http://www.novaroma.org/vici/index.php?title=Public_Forums_%28Nova_Roma%29&action=edit> and discussions, and the right to reasonably expect such forums to be supported by the State. "

and as you pointed out states that

"Such communications, regardless of their content, may not be restricted by the State, except where they represent an imminent and clear danger to the Republic."

But this clause is modified and limited by the very next clause which states

"Such officially sponsored forums may be expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of maintaining order and civility;"

The constitution grants the authority to moderate the fora of Nova Roma and our laws outline how and by whom moderation is to be performed .


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: gequitiuscato<mailto:mlcinnyc@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 7:51 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: edicta ad personam


Cato M. Piscino A. Apollonio sal.

Piscine, you wrote:

"...but you cannot say that the right of the individual is any greater
than the right of the magistrate when both were granted under the same
constitutional authority."

Here's the sticky point, I think: the magistrates are *not* given
these powers by the lex Constitutiva, but rather by leges passed in
comitia, which define and expand upon the language of the lex
Constitutiva. Because the lex Constitutiva declares itself to be the
highest legal authority, and because the order of legal precedence
contained within the lex Constitutiva declares that when conflict
occurs, the higher legal authority applies, then any lex (or other
legal instrument) which curtails the rights defined by the lex
Constitutiva must be overruled by the lex Constitutiva itself.

Corde, in you description of powers vs. rights, the case you use
(banishment) is of quite a different legal nature than the question
regarding the right to participate freely in the fora.

The lex Constitutiva gives a legal opening - "Citizenship may be
involuntarily revoked by those means that shall be established by law"
(lex Const. II.A.4) - for further definition and expansion by leges
passed in comitia which is *not* echoed in regards to the right to
participate freely in the fora of the Republic. The lex Constitutiva
simply states that "communications, regardless of their content, may
not be restricted by the State", with the *only* cause for such a
right to be restricted is if an "imminent and clear danger to the
Republic" is shown. The writers of the lex Constitutiva obviously
considered the right of participation so important, so valuable, that
only a specific circumstance would allow this right to be impeded
upon. And, unfortunately, they gave us no indication as to who or
what might judge when that specific circumstance occured - nor did
they even define of what that circumstance consists.

As far as being ungovernable...as a certain Someone said to the Roman
governor: "Thou hast said it."

Valete bene,

Cato





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

Salvete omnes,

I just want to point various lists are for various things so I do
not know how freedom of speech is being thwarted by having
limitations on what is being presented or discussed. For example on
a Latin grammar list one does not or is discouraged from talking
about nuclear physics or the environment, no need to discuss the
middle east crisis on a cooking list or womens studies on the
military list. The ML needs some limitations also since there are
young kids, their parents and other adults sensitive to certain
issues and language.

In fairness there is a venue called the back alley set up by Senator
Sulla where everything can be discussed with no moderation or no
holds barred. It is not part of or condoned by NR being what it is
but there are times one can go there and scrap over issues from
jihad to wife swapping neo-nazi cross dressers. For those opposed to
moderation on the ML or have things to say way off topic, that is
this place:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BackAlley/?yguid=115252440


Regards,

Quintus Suetonius Paulinus








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

>
> Salve Gaius Equitius Cato et al
>
>
> I believe you have missed on vital passage from the section of the

constitution that you have quoted

>
> It says that
>
> " The right to participate in all public

forums<http://www.novaroma.org/vici/index.php?title=Public_Forums_%
28Nova_Roma%29&action=edit> and discussions, and the right to
reasonably expect such forums to be supported by the State. "

>
> and as you pointed out states that
>
> "Such communications, regardless of their content, may not be

restricted by the State, except where they represent an imminent and
clear danger to the Republic."

>
> But this clause is modified and limited by the very next clause

which states

>
> "Such officially sponsored forums may be expected to be reasonably

moderated in the interests of maintaining order and civility;"

>
> The constitution grants the authority to moderate the fora of Nova

Roma and our laws outline how and by whom moderation is to be
performed .

>
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: gequitiuscato<mailto:mlcinnyc@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 7:51 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: edicta ad personam
>
>
> Cato M. Piscino A. Apollonio sal.
>
> Piscine, you wrote:
>
> "...but you cannot say that the right of the individual is any

greater

> than the right of the magistrate when both were granted under

the same

> constitutional authority."
>
> Here's the sticky point, I think: the magistrates are *not* given
> these powers by the lex Constitutiva, but rather by leges passed

in

> comitia, which define and expand upon the language of the lex
> Constitutiva. Because the lex Constitutiva declares itself to be

the

> highest legal authority, and because the order of legal

precedence

> contained within the lex Constitutiva declares that when conflict
> occurs, the higher legal authority applies, then any lex (or

other

> legal instrument) which curtails the rights defined by the lex
> Constitutiva must be overruled by the lex Constitutiva itself.
>
> Corde, in you description of powers vs. rights, the case you use
> (banishment) is of quite a different legal nature than the

question

> regarding the right to participate freely in the fora.
>
> The lex Constitutiva gives a legal opening - "Citizenship may be
> involuntarily revoked by those means that shall be established

by law"

> (lex Const. II.A.4) - for further definition and expansion by

leges

> passed in comitia which is *not* echoed in regards to the right

to

> participate freely in the fora of the Republic. The lex

Constitutiva

> simply states that "communications, regardless of their content,

may

> not be restricted by the State", with the *only* cause for such a
> right to be restricted is if an "imminent and clear danger to the
> Republic" is shown. The writers of the lex Constitutiva obviously
> considered the right of participation so important, so valuable,

that

> only a specific circumstance would allow this right to be impeded
> upon. And, unfortunately, they gave us no indication as to who or
> what might judge when that specific circumstance occured - nor

did

> they even define of what that circumstance consists.
>
> As far as being ungovernable...as a certain Someone said to the

Roman

> governor: "Thou hast said it."
>
> Valete bene,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

A. Apollonius C. Equitio sal.

> Corde, in you description of powers vs. rights, the case you use

(banishment) is of quite a different legal nature than the question
regarding the right to participate freely in the fora. <

I know; the example was merely to contradict your general statement that a rights-analysis and a powers-analysis are effectively the same thing.

"wife swapping neo-nazi cross dressers"???

And I thought I had a strange imagination.
--

>|P. Dominus Antonius|<

Tony Dah m

Si vis pacem, para bellum - Vegetius
Islam religio pacis, nex omnibus dissentint.

On 7/30/06, Quintus Suetonius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) <mjk@...>
wrote:

>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> I just want to point various lists are for various things so I do
> not know how freedom of speech is being thwarted by having
> limitations on what is being presented or discussed. For example on
> a Latin grammar list one does not or is discouraged from talking
> about nuclear physics or the environment, no need to discuss the
> middle east crisis on a cooking list or womens studies on the
> military list. The ML needs some limitations also since there are
> young kids, their parents and other adults sensitive to certain
> issues and language.
>
> In fairness there is a venue called the back alley set up by Senator
> Sulla where everything can be discussed with no moderation or no
> holds barred. It is not part of or condoned by NR being what it is
> but there are times one can go there and scrap over issues from
> jihad to wife swapping neo-nazi cross dressers. For those opposed to
> moderation on the ML or have things to say way off topic, that is
> this place:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BackAlley/?yguid=115252440
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Suetonius Paulinus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stephen
> Gallagher" <spqr753@...>
>
> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Gaius Equitius Cato et al
> >
> >
> > I believe you have missed one vital passage from the section of the
> constitution that you have quoted
> >
> > It says that
> >
> > " The right to participate in all public forums of Nova Roma and discussions, and the right to
> reasonably expect such forums to be supported by the State. "
> >
> > and as you pointed out states that
> >
> > "Such communications, regardless of their content, may not be
> restricted by the State, except where they represent an imminent and clear danger to the Republic."
> >
> > But this clause is modified and limited by the very next clause
> which states
> >
> > "Such officially sponsored forums may be expected to be reasonably
> moderated in the interests of maintaining order and civility;"
> >
> > The constitution grants the authority to moderate the fora of Nova
> Roma and our laws outline how and by whom moderation is to be
> performed .
> >
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: gequitiuscato<mailto:mlcinnyc@...>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:
> Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 7:51 AM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: edicta ad personam
> >
> >
> > Cato M. Piscino A. Apollonio sal.
> >
> > Piscine, you wrote:
> >
> > "...but you cannot say that the right of the individual is any
> greater
> > than the right of the magistrate when both were granted under
> the same
> > constitutional authority."
> >
> > Here's the sticky point, I think: the magistrates are *not* given
> > these powers by the lex Constitutiva, but rather by leges passed
> in
> > comitia, which define and expand upon the language of the lex
> > Constitutiva. Because the lex Constitutiva declares itself to be
> the
> > highest legal authority, and because the order of legal
> precedence
> > contained within the lex Constitutiva declares that when conflict
> > occurs, the higher legal authority applies, then any lex (or
> other
> > legal instrument) which curtails the rights defined by the lex
> > Constitutiva must be overruled by the lex Constitutiva itself.
> >
> > Corde, in you description of powers vs. rights, the case you use
> > (banishment) is of quite a different legal nature than the
> question
> > regarding the right to participate freely in the fora.
> >
> > The lex Constitutiva gives a legal opening - "Citizenship may be
> > involuntarily revoked by those means that shall be established
> by law"
> > (lex Const. II.A.4) - for further definition and expansion by
> leges
> > passed in comitia which is *not* echoed in regards to the right
> to
> > participate freely in the fora of the Republic. The lex
> Constitutiva
> > simply states that "communications, regardless of their content,
> may
> > not be restricted by the State", with the *only* cause for such a
> > right to be restricted is if an "imminent and clear danger to the
> > Republic" is shown. The writers of the lex Constitutiva obviously
> > considered the right of participation so important, so valuable,
> that
> > only a specific circumstance would allow this right to be impeded
> > upon. And, unfortunately, they gave us no indication as to who or
> > what might judge when that specific circumstance occured - nor
> did
> > they even define of what that circumstance consists.
> >
> > As far as being ungovernable...as a certain Someone said to the
> Roman
> > governor: "Thou hast said it."
> >
> > Valete bene,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
> Messages in this topic
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/44968;_ylc=X3oDMTM2NW90cmt0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzYyODgwMzkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNjAwMzEzNzEyBG1zZ0lkAzQ0OTY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE1NDI3MzU1OAR0cGNJZAM0NDk2OA-->(
> 2) Reply (via web post)
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxcGxiOGI5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzYyODgwMzkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNjAwMzEzNzEyBG1zZ0lkAzQ0OTY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTE1NDI3MzU1OA--?act=reply&messageNum=44969>| Start
> a new topic
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlc3RvN3RnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzYyODgwMzkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNjAwMzEzNzEyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE1NDI3MzU1OA-->
>

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

A. Apollonius P. Dominio sal.

> "wife swapping neo-nazi cross dressers"??? <

Sounds like a lost scene from Kander & Ebb's "Cabaret". All together now... "Wilkommen, bienvenue, welcome..."

OSD C. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

Hodie est ante diem III Kalendas Sextilis; haec dies fastus est.

"Whenever any illustrious man dies, he is carried at his funeral into
the forum to the so‑called rostra, sometimes conspicuous in an upright
posture and more rarely reclined. Here with all the people standing
round, a grown-up son, if he has left one who happens to be present,
or if not some other relative mounts the rostra and discourses on the
virtues and successful achievements of the dead. As a consequence the
multitude and not only those who had a part in these achievements, but
those also who had none, when the facts are recalled to their minds
and brought before their eyes, are moved to such sympathy that the
loss seems to be not confined to the mourners, but a public one
affecting the whole people. Next after the interment and the
performance of the usual ceremonies, they place the image of the
departed in the most conspicuous position in the house, enclosed in a
wooden shrine. This image is a mask reproducing with remarkable
fidelity both the features and complexion of the deceased. On the
occasion of public sacrifices they display these images, and decorate
them with much care, and when any distinguished member of the family
dies they take them to the funeral, putting them on men who seem to
them to bear the closest resemblance to the original in stature and
carriage. These representatives wear togas, with a purple border if
the deceased was a consul or praetor, whole purple if he was a censor,
and embroidered with gold if he had celebrated a triumph or achieved
anything similar. They all ride in chariots preceded by the fasces,
axes, and other insignia by which the different magistrates are wont
to be accompanied according to the respective dignity of the offices
of state held by each during his life; and when they arrive at the
rostra they all seat themselves in a row on ivory chairs. There could
not easily be a more ennobling spectacle for a young man who aspires
to fame and virtue. For who would not be inspired by the sight of the
images of men renowned for their excellence, all together and as if
alive and breathing? What spectacle could be more glorious than this?
Besides, he who makes the oration over the man about to be buried,
when he has finished speaking of him recounts the successes and
exploits of the rest whose images are present, beginning with the most
ancient. By this means, by this constant renewal of the good report
of brave men, the celebrity of those who performed noble deeds is
rendered immortal, while at the same time the fame of those who did
good service to their country becomes known to the people and a
heritage for future generations. But the most important result is
that young men are thus inspired to endure every suffering for public
welfare in the hope of winning the glory that attends on brave men.
What I say is confirmed by the facts. For many Romans have voluntarily
engaged in single combat in order to decide a battle, not a few have
faced certain death, some in war to save the lives of the rest, and
others in peace to save the republic. Some even when in office have
put their own sons to death contrary to every law or custom, setting a
higher value on the interest of their country than on the ties of
nature that bound them to their nearest and dearest.

Many such stories about many men are related in Roman history, but one
told of a certain person will suffice for the present as an example
and as a confirmation of what I say. It is narrated that when
Horatius Cocles was engaged in combat with two of the enemy at the far
end of the bridge over the Tiber that lies in the front of the town,
he saw large reinforcements coming up to help the enemy, and fearing
lest they should force the passage and get into town, he turned round
and called to those behind him to retire and cut the bridge with all
speed. His order was obeyed, and while they were cutting the bridge,
he stood to his ground receiving many wounds, and arrested the attack
of the enemy who were less astonished at his physical strength than at
his endurance and courage. The bridge once cut, the enemy were
prevented from attacking; and Cocles, plunging into the river in full
armour as he was, deliberately sacrificed his life, regarding the
safety of his country and the glory which in future would attach to
his name as of more importance than his present existence and the
years of life which remained to him. Such, if I am not wrong, is the
eager emulation of achieving noble deeds engendered in the Roman youth
by their institutions." - Polybius, "The Roman Histories" VI.53-55

Valete bene!

Cato



SOURCES

Polybius

It looks to me like someone is running on a Roman
Catholic Vatican I model of pontiffs vs. Republican
Rome. Of course, scholarship over most of the 19th
century on Roman religion and college of pontiffs was
a battle field over what pontiffs could and could not
do in ancient Rome since whether the "historical and
legal precedent" cited (ambiguously) by the papacy was
fact or fiction rode upon the outcome. Pontiffs are
legislatively powerless contrary to the views
encouraged by 19th century papal politics in
historical research into Roman religion and law.
So, the responsa pontificum seems to be utterly
unhistorical in procedure. Either it is an accident
due to historical ignorance or someone wants for the
college of pontiffs what it never had in ancient Rome
but fictionally was given to it by the papacy (to
serve the political agenda of the papacy).

--- "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@...> wrote:

> A. Apollonius Q. Metello pontificibusque aliis sal.
>
> Sorry, one more question. The first responsum
> purports to amend the lex constitutiva. Is it the
> opinion of the pontifices that this responsum has in
> fact amended the lex constitutiva without any need
> for further action by the comitia, or should this
> responsum be taken, contrary to its own wording, as
> a mere proposal for an amendment?
>

A. Sempronius Regulus

America Austrorientalis


Vincit qui se vincit. - Seneca
Astra inclinant, non necessitant. - Albinus
Hodie bonum est esse Romanum.

MMDCCLIX Anno urbis conditae (AUC)




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

SALVETE !

Curule Aediles, T. Iulius Sabinus and C. Equitius Cato, declare Ludi
Victoriae 2759 a.U.c closed.

Our thanks to participants and to our united Cohorts for their great
job.
For details, visit the Curulis Aediles website :
http://www.crystalwebvision.com/aedil/
Section dedicated to Ludi Victoriae :
http://www.crystalwebvision.com/aedil/ludi.htm

The Ludi results and comments will be posted tommorow in conformity
with the Ludi Victoriae program.

Quirites, we thank you ! See you soon in September at Ludi Romani !

VALETE,
Curulis Aediles
Aedilician Cohorts.

VALETE,
IVL SABINVS

Cato Ti. Galerio Paulino sal.

Praetor, you wrote:

"The constitution grants the authority to moderate the fora of Nova
Roma and our laws outline how and by whom moderation is to be performed."

The lex Constitutiva only says that we may "expect" the fora to be
"reasonably moderated" to ensure "order" and "civility". This tells
us nothing about 1) who is to moderate them or 2) what the definitions
of "reasonable", "order" or "civility" are.

Unlike the issue of non-voluntary revocation of citizenship, the lex
Constitutiva says nothing about establishing further laws to expand or
define this statement. You might take the tack that it is a natural
assumption that we would define those particular words and decide by
whom the fora should be moderated, but once again, without the express
consent of the lex Constitutiva - our highest legal authority - we
must by necessity fall back upon the rights guaranteed to citizens by
that authority.

Even if we accept the lex which gives moderative power to the
praetors, passed in comitia, if that lex impedes upon the right of
free participation in the fora, then the guarantees of the lex
Constitutiva take precedence over the powers granted by that lex.

To use one of Apollonius Cordus' favorite examples:

If the lex Constitutiva guarantees that "all citizens may wear hats",
and a subsequent lex is passed in which "the praetors shall determine
whether or not a citizen may wear a hat", the lex Constitutiva takes
precedence, and all citizens may, in fact, wear hats to their heart's
content.

Vale bene,

Cato

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


Another Ludi Victoria has come to an end. Another page in the history of our Republic..a memory of us celebrating a very important aspect of both the lives of the Ancients and our lives today, that aspect being the spiritual component.

This component is a mystery... Does any one of us have a complete handle on spiritual and religious matters? Although we have many in NR who are learned in these areas , I nonetheless think a safe bet is 'no'......yet..... neither did the Romans of old; what they 'did' know, obviously, is that this pursuit was a key element of life, which in turn was the most important grain of knowledge they could posess in all of this..

The Romans of the old republic were a mighty people, but they were quick to admit when they didn't have all the answers; in humility and faith they would look beyond their own means and ask for assistance.

Roman history has landmark accounts of their enlisting the assistance of the Gods and Goddesses, sometimes consulting the Sybilline Books for help in their most challenging plights. And in this particular festival just behind us, we celebrated Victoria as the Ancients did. For those who are new to NR, festivals are held to honour others, such as the Magna Mater, Ceres, Apollo...these celebrations being either on line or in a face-to-face setting.

On behalf of both Consuls, a special thank you is extended to the Curule Aediles and their respective Cohors for their sacrifice of time and research in presenting such a beautiful festival. And our congratulations to the victors of the various games and contests of this Ludi.

Somewhat related but digressing a little, I would like to share with you a story... of an event which has rather touched me, and I doubt very much it would have happened had it not been for my affiliation with Nova Roma. And it seemed to defy all odds in its outcome. I rather consider it a mystery of sorts. See what you think.

During a gathering in Canada Orientalis in 2002, a ritual to one of the Provincia Patron Deities,Ceres, was performed by Valeria Secunda, assisted by her husband Festus. Since Valeria doesn't reside in the provincia, it was decided that someone living in Canada Orientalis should inter some items used in the ceremony..... a small bundle of wheat, a wine bottle from the wine she used for libation, etc.

I had just purchased a couple of trees, and I live next to a public field, so I said that I would inter these items for the provincia under a tree in good faith, myself being Governor at the time. ( I am appreciative of the Religio but I am not a practitioner of the Religio Privata,so I apologize if my religious descriptions seem a little 'off'). So, a Japanese Maple was planted just a couple of feet off my property in public provincia land for this purpose. The second of my trees, a Japanese Maple also, was planted right on my property... how I remember which is which.

The next year I had concerns about the tree's survival and it needed some extra attention. While watering the tree one day, I noticed a small developing plant underneath it...it appeared to be similar to a Blanket Flower, of which I have many. I figured it was from a seed nature sowed from one of the nearby plants. I had, now that I think about it, sowed some various seeds the same year I planted the tree, but as I recall that was earlier in the year. I planted the tree in September, and any seeds landing or deliberately sown that late in the year have little chance of developing enough to survive the Canadian winter....under the shelter of a tree or not.

I moved the plant to a sunnier spot in my garden in 2003, hoping for blooms, which I didn't get that year.

In 2004, the plant bloomed...2 or 3 blooms. My first reaction was 'Wow, what is this?" And then I recalled moving the little plantling the year before. It is not a Blanket Flower (for nongardeners that's a small yellow and burgandy brown daisy)....it is not a Purple Coneflower (I have lots of those...purple daisies :>)) and it is not a Blackeyed Susie (a yellow daisy of sorts with brown centers)....The bloom appears almost to be a bit of all three of them. It is really beautiful...a queen....it is a large daisy-like flower, 9-14 cm diameter, a large chocolate brown, cone- like center, velvety soft , surrounded by a reddish brown colour, followed by a circling of an orangy yellow colour..but the hues are blending into one another...its leaves are pale green, large, very soft....fuzzy ...with burgandy stems, thick and also fuzzy..you can see the soft, white hairy projections from the stems and leaves...

2005 was like the Sahara, but I got about 5 blooms I'd say.

This year, my mystery perennial is about 3 feet tall, and has given me 15 blooms with two more to come that I can see. It is in full bloom earlier than usual (I think we are headed for an early fall)...and these flowers are one of my longer blooming perennials.

I have had no seedlings/ plantlings of this nature show up since then, although I intend to try to propogate the plant by cuttings this year and harvest some seeds. I'd like to send Valeria Secunda some seeds or be able to give her an actual plant. I don't want to divide the plant yet.

Anyway....

Things that make you go ...."hmmm". This is one special flower for sure. Its a beaut. And when I want to see something magnificent, something nice, something mysteriously defiant of the odds, and something totally undeserved for which I am grateful to posess, I have but to go to my backyard..

I will say that when I look at this beautiful plant, which has bloomed since 2004 and gets bigger and bigger, I remember some special people in NR. And this experience would not be mine to enjoy had it not been for NR.

There is good in our republic. Often the challenges and difficult situations....these 'weeds' of sorts we encounter obscure our vision of a prettier focal point. We grow tired and disenchanted. This does not mean that we should ignore our problems and not look for solutions, but that we should retreat from that battle from time to time for just a little while and view the 'flowers' of our experiences here....our joys, laughters, jokes...whether its having a chat with someone on the phone, skype, IM, or feasting at a gathering.

I think the Ludi serve as an oasis of retreat....they give us a chance to reflect on our most important priorities...to remind us why we are here...to celebrate our collective appreciation of the special things Rome left for us to appreciate. And friendship. Whether we are hosting, participating or just enjoying the spectacles...we enjoy each other, share a few much needed laughs and renew ourselves. And we often manage to learn a little along the way too.

On behalf of both Consuls, may you have good fortune and many blessings ( and for those of us in the summer season, do enjoy the rest of it...I really do think we are headed for an early fall.)

Valete!












if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['YxloAs6.Irg-']='&U=128d4cqcf%2fN%3dYxloAs6.Irg-%2fC%3d-1%2fD%3dMSMS%2fB%3d-1'; if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['XhloAs6.Irg-']='&U=1275o8glo%2fN%3dXhloAs6.Irg-%2fC%3d-2%2fD%3dSW5%2fB%3d-2'; if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['XxloAs6.Irg-']='&U=1274o7f58%2fN%3dXxloAs6.Irg-%2fC%3d-2%2fD%3dSW6%2fB%3d-2'; if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['YxloAs6.Irg-']='&U=128d4cqcf%2fN%3dYxloAs6.Irg-%2fC%3d-1%2fD%3dMSMS%2fB%3d-1'; var oReplyTop = MenuButton('replytop',Reply_Click,'replymenu',ReplyMenu_Click); var oReplyBottom = MenuButton('replybottom',Reply_Click,'replymenu',ReplyMenu_Click); var oForwardTop = MenuButton('forwardtop',Forward_Click,'forwardmenu',ForwardMenu_Click); var oForwardBottom = MenuButton('forwardbottom',Forward_Click,'forwardmenu',ForwardMenu_Click); var oMoveTop =
MenuButton('movetop',Move_Click,'movemenu',DestinationFolder_Click); var oMoveBottom = MenuButton('movebottom',Move_Click,'movemenu',DestinationFolder_Click); if(window.yzq_p==null)document.write(""); if(window.yzq_p)yzq_p('P=qUa1gs6.JUuoHLAmRMY5LgCjGG0LaUTNOvMAA1Sy&T=13ptfkequ%2fX%3d1154300659%2fE%3d150500004%2fR%3dmail%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d1.1%2fW%3dJ%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d266764253%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d4127BECE'); if(window.yzq_s)yzq_s();

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.

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

Q. Caecilius A. Cordo A. Sempronio sal.

Regarding the amendment to the lex constitutiva in the first responsum,
there was a pivotal phrase which was part of the pontifical agenda which
I have unfortunately left out in publishing the responsa. Before each
responsum should be the words:

"In passing this responsum, the Collegium Pontificum urges the Senate
and the People to adopt this measure per legem."

For that omission, you have my apologies.

As for why, my good Corde, the alterations you proposed, many of which I
accepted as well, were not included, I can not say other than an
oversight on the part of the College. I will, though, forward a copy of
your comments from the archives, as well as an amended version following
them, both to the College and the Consuls, the latter in the hopes that
the amendments will be implemented before submission to the Senate and
the People.

Salvete omnes!

Here are the final set of answers and the final standings for the certamen. I thank everyone who has participated and I hope you enjoyed researching the answers as much as I did formulating the questions.

Note: The technical problem experienced was, in fact, a type made on one of my posts, which is why not everyone was affected. I somehow misspelled "earthlink" and did not catch it during a proof-read. I apologize to the cives affected by this error. During the Ludi Romani I will be using a tagline with the correct e-mail address to post answers to, just to be safe.

The answers:

Question #7

As Octavian sought to destroy Marcus Antonius and Lepidus, he brought back his friend--General Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa--from Gaul. Agrippa was an excellent military commander and a brilliant engineer. Some of his major engineering contributions involved water, including building and repairing acquaducts, baths, ships, and cleaning and enlarging Rome's sewer system--the Cloaca Maxima.

a) Why did Agrippa join two lakes together and what were the lakes called?

To create a safe harbor--one that was large enough allow the training of the fleet. The two lakes were the Avernus and the Lucrinus and they were connected via a canal, with the latter also connected to the sea.

b) What new weapon did he design for use in naval warfare?

The Harpax--a catapult fired harpoon with an attached rope, meant to be fired into allowing the two to be drawn close enough to permit boarding.

c) Lost to history, Agrippa had a map made that became world famous--where was it kept in Rome?

Agrippa's world map was installed in the Porticus Vipsania--the colonnade built after his death by his sister, Polla.

Question #8

Although not the last rebellion against Rome to occur in Britain, Boudicca's Revolt is the most famous. It fell to Gaius Suetonius Paulinus to put an end the Iceni attacks.

a) Who did Suetonius wish to be compared to?

Answer:

Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo, another great military stategist.

b) Which legions were involved and which Roman officer, as a result of the revolt, took his own life and where had he been stationed (Latin name)?

Answer:

Legio IX Hispana--under the command of Petilius Cerialis, the legion was ambushed by Boudicca and nearly destroyed, with only Cerialis and the cavalry managing to escape.

The Legio XIV Gemina and detachments from Legio XX fought in the final battle with Bouddica.

Legio II Augusta was stationed at Isca Dumnoniorum under the command of Poenius Postumus and was called on to join Suetonius near Verulamium. For reasons unknown, he did not obey the order and, learning of the Roman victory, fell on his sword.

Note: Isca Dumnoniorum is modern day Exeter, but I specified the Roman name, so Exeter is incorrect. As is "Isca" alone, as the II AVG was later stationed at Isca Silurum.

c) What omen took place in Camulodunum that cheered the local Britons?

Answer:

The statue of Victory inexplicably fell forward--her back to the approaching enemy.

Final standings:

C. Aurelia Falco Silvana -- 22 points
Titus Iulius Sabinus -- 17 points
Cn. Equitius Marinus -- 16 points
Publius Livius Triarius -- 5 points
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus --5 points
Livia Aurelia Procula --5 points
Andrew Swidzinski -- 5 points
Gaius Marcus Crispus -- 3 points
Marius -- 3 points

Vale bene,
Artoria Marcella

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

Salve bene Cato

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

>
> Cato M. Piscino A. Apollonio sal.
>
> Piscine, you wrote:
>
> "...but you cannot say that the right of the individual is any

greater

> than the right of the magistrate when both were granted under the

same

> constitutional authority."
>
> Here's the sticky point, I think: the magistrates are *not* given
> these powers by the lex Constitutiva, but rather by leges passed in
> comitia, which define and expand upon the language of the lex
> Constitutiva.

MMPH: This is incorrect. It is the Constitution that gives the
Praetores imperium in order to carry out their responsibilities, as
outlined in the Constitution. Imperium is a far ranging
discretionary power.

The Constitution also places authority within the comitia to pass
laws that define and expand upon how the provisions of the
Constitution are to be implimented, saying that comitia may "enact
laws binding upon the entire citizenry," which of course includes
the magistrates in the performance of their duties.

The Comitia did not extend the powers of the Praetores when it
assigned to them the responsibility to maintain civil and orderly
fora as is mandated by the Constitution. Neither did the comitia
curtail the constitutional imperium of the Praetores when it made
this assignment.


Because the lex Constitutiva declares itself to be the

> highest legal authority, and because the order of legal precedence
> contained within the lex Constitutiva declares that when conflict
> occurs, the higher legal authority applies, then any lex (or other
> legal instrument) which curtails the rights defined by the lex
> Constitutiva must be overruled by the lex Constitutiva itself.
>

MMPH: Magisterial edicta must remain within the provisions of leges,
and leges must remain within the provisions of the Constitution.
There has been no violation of that relationship of legal
precedence. The only conflict that you pose is what you are
mistakeningly reading into the law that is not present.

> Corde, in you description of powers vs. rights, the case you use
> (banishment) is of quite a different legal nature than the question
> regarding the right to participate freely in the fora.
>
> The lex Constitutiva gives a legal opening - "Citizenship may be
> involuntarily revoked by those means that shall be established by

law"

> (lex Const. II.A.4) - for further definition and expansion by leges
> passed in comitia which is *not* echoed in regards to the right to
> participate freely in the fora of the Republic.

MMPH: "Participate freely"? The Constitution does not exactly say
that, Cato, no more than it says anything about a right to "free
speech" as you earlier posed. Since you are interested in posing US
legal concepts into Nova Roma's Constitution, what did the US
Supreme Court decide on this issue? I believe that the example used
so long ago was in the instance of an individual shouting "fire" in
a crowded theater. The Supreme Court gave its opinion that with
every right there also comes a responsibility. This same idea has
been expressed on more than one occasion in Nova Roma as well. And
in the Constitution where it does speak of an individual's right to
participate in our fora, there is also an implicit responsibility to
abide by the Constitution, the leges, and magisterial edicta that
enable civil and orderly fora. The right to participate is not
unlimited, unrestricted, and without any responsibility to use it
properly. And as in all other societies, when an individual does
not comply with his responsibilities, he also forfeits his rights.

You pose what the Constitution expressly states against what is
implicit throughout Nova Roma law, i. e. that the rights of
citizenship can become involuntarily forfeit through means that are
established by law. Cato, as an Aedilis Curule, you have imperium to
exercise in a sphere of a responsibility "to ensure order at public
religious events." You are obligated by the Constitution to
maintain order during the Ludi, and here we have had two Ludi
presented under the auspices of the Aediles Curules while this
affair over Priscus has been going on. How, may I ask, do you
reconcile your obligatory responsibility to maintain order against
the limited right of an individual to participate in the Ludi?


The lex Constitutiva

> simply states that "communications, regardless of their content,

may

> not be restricted by the State", with the *only* cause for such a
> right to be restricted is if an "imminent and clear danger to the
> Republic" is shown. The writers of the lex Constitutiva obviously
> considered the right of participation so important, so valuable,

that

> only a specific circumstance would allow this right to be impeded
> upon. And, unfortunately, they gave us no indication as to who or
> what might judge when that specific circumstance occured - nor did
> they even define of what that circumstance consists.
>
> As far as being ungovernable...as a certain Someone said to the

Roman

> governor: "Thou hast said it."
>

MMPH: To whom do you refer, and what was the Roman governor's
response to someone who posed that the Respublica was incapable of
governing itself? The Constitution, along with the leges and edicta
form the framework of our civits. It is not, as you claim, that we
are without any officials or bodies to make such determinations, or
to act in order to preserve the Respublica. There is a complex of
interrelationships among the various magistrates and comitia, along
with the Cives, their laws, customs, and conventions, and this has
served the Respublica well in maintaining itself.

> Valete bene,
>
> Cato
>

Vale optime
Piscinus

Cato M. Piscino sal.

Piscine, you wrote:

"It is the Constitution that gives the Praetores imperium in order to
carry out their responsibilities, as outlined in the Constitution.
Imperium is a far ranging discretionary power."

Please show me in the lex Constitutiva where the praetors are given
the power to moderate the fora of the Republic. Please also show me
where the lex Constitutiva defines "imperium" in such a way that the
power to moderate the fora of the Republic is given to *any*
magistrate. In fact, please show me where the lex Constitutiva
defines "imperium". We once had leges that defined terms like
"imperium" and "sanctitatis", but these were repealed by the passage
of the lex Minucia Moravia Eiuratione Magistratum, so we are left
without any definition of the imperium granted to magistrates (myself
as Curule Aedile included).

You also wrote:

"The Constitution also places authority within the comitia to pass
laws that define and expand upon how the provisions of the
Constitution are to be implimented..."

The lex Constitutiva indeed says that the comitia are empowered to
"pass laws [or plebiscites] that are binding upon the entire
citizenry", but does *not* say that these laws may define or interpret
the lex Constitutiva in such a way as to limit or reduce the rights of
the citizens which are guaranteed by the lex Constitutiva. Any leges
which did so would be amendmending the lex Constitutiva, which has its
own clearly defined process. Otherwise, any leges passed by the
comitia which conflict with the guarantees of the lex Constitutiva
must be overruled by the lex Constitutiva in compliance with the legal
precedence clause in the lex Constitutiva.

You also wrote:

"'Participate freely'? The Constitution does not exactly say
that, Cato, no more than it says anything about a right to "free
speech" as you earlier posed."

This is a bit of semantics, Piscine. The lex Constitutiva says that
citizens are guaranteed "The right to participate in all public forums
and discussions, and the right to reasonably expect such forums to be
supported by the State. Such communications, regardless of their
content, may not be restricted by the State..." (lex Const. II.B.4)
If a citizen is guaranteed the right to participate in all public fora
unrestricted by the State, it is self-evident that this amounts to the
equivalent of "free participation" and "free speech", whether or not
these are (ancient) Roman concepts.

The use of the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre" example is
applicable *only* if the "imminent and clear danger" has been proven,
as this is the sole instance in which the lex Constitutiva provides
for the free participation in the fora to be restricted; and once
again, the lex Constitutiva does not define of what exactly this
danger consists nor does it explain by whom this definition may be
made or enforced.

Piscine, we have a nineteenth-century AD legal document superimposed
upon a 2500-year-old system of government, and the two do not
complement each other.

As far as the quote goes, it was Christ speaking to Pontius Pilate;
Pilate said to Him, "Then Thou art a king?", and Jesus replied, "Thou
hast said it" (in some translations "The words are yours.") - in other
words, that Pilate had spoken the truth and there was no need for
Jesus to explain Himself further.

Vale bene,

Cato

P.S. - Paulla Corvina, I neglected to thank you for your kind words.
Whether I am correct or not, I very much enjoy discussing this kind of
thing with minds as engaging and intelligent as Moravius Piscinus,
Apollonius Cordus, Seutonius Paulinus, &c. I think these can only
help us further understand the necessity of clarity and directness in
creating and defining our legal processes. And you can call me just
"Cato" :-)

OSD C. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

Hodie est pridie Kalendas Sextilis; haec dies comitialis est.

"Why is it forbidden to mention or to inquire after or to call by name
that deity, whether it be male or female, whose especial province it
is to preserve and watch over Rome? This prohibition they connect with
a superstition and relate that Valerius Soranus came to an evil end
because he revealed the name.

Is it because, as certain Roman writers have recorded, there are
certain evocations and enchantments affecting the gods, by which the
Romans also believed that certain gods had been called forth from
their enemies, and had come to dwell among themselves, and they were
afraid of having this same thing done to them by others? Accordingly,
as the Tyrians are said to have put chains upon their images, and
certain other peoples are said to demand sureties when they send forth
their images for bathing or for some other rite of purification, so
the Romans believed that not to mention and not to know the name of a
god was the safest and surest way of shielding him.

Or as Homer has written,

'Earth is yet common to all,'

so that mankind should reverence and honour all the gods, since they
possess the earth in common, even so did the Romans of early times
conceal the identity of the god who was the guardian of their safety,
since they desired that not only this god, but all the gods should be
honoured by the citizens?" - Plutarch, "The Roman Questions" 61

Valete bene!

Cato



SOURCES

Plutarch

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, gequitiuscato wrote:

> OSD C. Equitius Cato
>
> Salvete omnes!
>
> Hodie est pridie Kalendas Sextilis; haec dies comitialis est.
>
> "Why is it forbidden to mention or to inquire after or to call by name
> that deity, whether it be male or female, whose especial province it
> is to preserve and watch over Rome? This prohibition they connect with
> a superstition and relate that Valerius Soranus came to an evil end
> because he revealed the name.

Even that wasn't necessary (though easier to prove). It was a capital
offense to _try_ to find out the name of Rome's guarding deity.

BTW if you ever go to Rome and take the cassette-recorded tour of the
Forum you may at one point catch sight of the Black Stone (Lapis Niger) on
which that Name was engraved in a forgotten alphabet. It is now buried in
a cavern under the old Forum; I saw it back in 1968.

-- P. Livius Triarius

Salvete Omnes!

"Videsne, Sacram metiente te Viam
cum bis trium ulnarum toga,
ut hora vertat huc et huc euntium
liberrima indignatio?"

[Do you notice how, as you stride along the sacred Way in your nine-
foot toga, people walking this way and that turn their faces toward
you in the most undisguised indignation?]

I've been trying to make sense of this passage from Horace's Epode 4
and in particular the reference to the toga. What is the significance
of its length? I would have thought that nine feet was very short for
a toga at this time (713-723 AVC, 40-30 BCE). Is that the point and
is the wearing of such a short toga, by a clearly very wealthy man, a
confirmation of his disreputable past? I'd be grateful if anyone
could shed some light on this.

Valete!

Caius Moravius Brutus

By Horace's day, the toga had become an item that would be our equivalent of formal dress. The only people who absolutely had to wear it were Senators, Magistrates, Priests, Candidates for Public Office. Most Romans would only wear a toga when they were dead. Clients would receive short togas from their patrons but they were rarely worn except at political gatherings but these were usually 12 foot togas. I do not know about the 9 foot toga.

Aurelianus


-----Original Message-----
From: crwbanmor@...
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:37 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Nine Foot Toga


Salvete Omnes!

"Videsne, Sacram metiente te Viam
cum bis trium ulnarum toga,
ut hora vertat huc et huc euntium
liberrima indignatio?"

[Do you notice how, as you stride along the sacred Way in your nine-
foot toga, people walking this way and that turn their faces toward
you in the most undisguised indignation?]

I've been trying to make sense of this passage from Horace's Epode 4
and in particular the reference to the toga. What is the significance
of its length? I would have thought that nine feet was very short for
a toga at this time (713-723 AVC, 40-30 BCE). Is that the point and
is the wearing of such a short toga, by a clearly very wealthy man, a
confirmation of his disreputable past? I'd be grateful if anyone
could shed some light on this.

Valete!

Caius Moravius Brutus









Yahoo! Groups Links




________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


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