Salve Servili Prisce

I fully agree with you. We obviously need some virtual sign, such as

"THIS WEASEL BITES - DO NOT FEED"

Vale
Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Servilius" <quintus@...>
wrote:

>
> Salve,
>
> I for one am getting very _tired_ of the discussion about the

_other_

> Priscus. Let's not rehash this topic again, PLEASE!
>
> Vale,
> Quintus Servilius Priscus - The First Priscus
>

OSD C. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

Hodie est Kalendis Sextiliis; haec dies fastus est.

"The Sun with sultry Sirius now doth rise
And Jove's red lightning flashes from the skies:
The angry gods heaven's arm'ry open flings,
And whizzing bolts ride forth on burning wings." - Anson Allen,
"Newtonian Reflector" (AD 1825)

"Whereas the Emperor Augustus Caesar, in the month of
Sextillis...thrice entered the city in triumph...and in the same month
Egypt was brought under the authority of the Roman people, and in the
same month an end was put to the civil wars; and whereas for these
reasons the said month is, and has been, most fortunate to this
empire, it is hereby decreed by the senate that the said month shall
be called Augustus."

On this day, temples were dedicated to Spes, the Victories, and Mars
Ultor.

"The woman [Pandora], with her hands lifting away the lid from the
great jar, scattered its contents, and her design was sad troubles for
mankind. Elpis (Hope) was the only spirit that stayed there in the
unbreakable closure of the jar, under its rim, and could not fly forth
abroad, for the lid of the great jar closed down first and contained
her; this was by the will of cloud-gathering Zeus of the aegis." -
Hesiod, Works and Days

"Elpis (Hope) is the only good god remaining among mankind; the others
have left and gone to Olympos. Pistis (Trust), a mighty god has gone,
Sophrosyne (Restraint) has gone from men, and the Kharites, my friend,
have abandoned the earth. Men's judicial oaths are no longer to be
trusted, nor does anyone revere the immortal gods; the race of pious
men has perished and men no longer recognize the rules of conduct or
acts of piety. But as long as man lives and sees the light of the sun,
let him show piety to the gods and count on Elpis (Hope). Let him pray
to the gods and burn splendid thigh bones, sacrificing to Elpis (Hope)
first and last." - Greek Elegaic Theognis, Frag 1.1135

Spes is the goddess of hope. She was traditionally defined as "the
last goddess" (Spes, ultima dea), meaning that hope is the last
resource available to men. Her temple was in the Forum Holitorium. In
art, Spes was depicted hitching her skirt while holding a cornucopia
and flowers. Spes personified hope for good harvests, and for
children, and was invoked at births, marriages, and other important
times. Her Greek equivalent is Elpis.


The Temple of Mars Ultor (the Avenger) was built by the Emperor
Augustus for a variety of reasons. Of course it served as the focal
point of his forum, located in the centrally and the rear (following
the example set by Iulius Caesar with his Temple of Venus Genetrix)
and closing off the space at the back of the forum in this manner
blocked the view of the Roman tenements.

But the reasons for this temple go far beyond the practical ones. By
making his temple to Mars the Avenger, Augustus pointedly reminded the
Roman people of that he had avenged the death of Iulius Caesar who had
recently been canonized by the Roman Senate. He also reminded the
Senate and the People that he stuck his oath before the battle of
Actium, remaining faithful to the Roman religion; he clearly believed
in the Roman Virtues, especially Pietas, Gravitas, and Dignitas. These
blunt statements made by Augustus in the temple gave himself a
glorified and deified ancestry, characteristics, and persona, all
suggesting his own worthiness as an Imperator and a potential deity.

Valete bene!

Cato



SOURCES

Hesiod, Theognis, Wikipedia

EDICTVM PROCONSVLARIS I DE CONSILIO PROCONSVLARE

Premessa:
Le seguenti nomine di ufficiali provinciali vengono fatte seguendo le
norme stabilite dalla Lex Fabia Centuriata.

I. Marcus Iulius Perusianus è nominato Legatus e Vicarius
Propraetoris, ed è considerato ufficiale di primo grado.

II. Aelius Solaris Marullinus è nominato Legatus e Curator Arenae
(webmaster), ed è considerato ufficiale di secondo grado.

III. Caius Ianus Flaminius è nominato Legatus, ed è considerato
ufficiale di secondo grado.

IV. Lucius Iulius Sulla è nominato Scriba e Curator Differium ed è
considerato ufficiale di terzo grado.

V. Marcus Quirinus Sulla e Aurelia Iulia Pulchra, in qualità di
Decuriones, sono considerati ufficiali di quarto grado.

VI. I precedenti Legati e Scriba sono sciolti da ogni carica.

Kal. SEXTILES MMDCCLIX a.u.c.

GAIO FABIO BUTEONE MODIANO POMPEIA MINUCIA-TIBERIA STRABONE
CONSULIBUS

Franciscus Apulus Caesar
Proconsul Italiae



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



EDICTVM PROCONSVLARIS I DE CONSILIO PROCONSVLARE

Premessa:
The following appointments of provincial magistrates have been
composed following the Lex Fabia Centuriata.

I. Marcus Iulius Perusianus is appointed Legatus and Vicarius
Propraetoris, (Official of 1st level).

II. Aelius Solaris Marullinus is appinted Legatus and Curator Arenae
(webmaster), (Official of 2nd level).

III. Caius Ianus Flaminius is appointed Legatus, (Official of 2nd
level).

IV. Lucius Iulius Sulla is appointed Scriba and Curator Differium
(Official of 3rd level).

V. Marcus Quirinus Sulla and Aurelia Iulia Pulchra are Decuriones,
(Official of 4th level).

VI. the previous Legati and Scriba are dismessed by any office and
duty.

Kal. SEXTILES MMDCCLIX a.u.c.

GAIO FABIO BUTEONE MODIANO POMPEIA MINUCIA-TIBERIA STRABONE
CONSULIBUS

Franciscus Apulus Caesar
Proconsul Italiae

Salve bene Cato

The Constitution is not the rule book to some game where everything
has to be spelled out in detail. It is only a framework. The
particular language giving the Praetores their authority is found in
IV.A.3:

Praetor. Two praetors shall be elected by the Comitia Centuriata to
serve a term lasting one year. They shall have the following honors,
powers, and obligations:

To hold Imperium and have the honor of being preceded by six
lictors;

To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to engage in those tasks
which advance the mission and function of Nova Roma and to
administer the law (such edicts being binding upon themselves as
well as others);

A "strict" interpretation of praetorial imperium? They can do
whatever they want, so long as it advances the mission and purpose
of Nova Roma, or that enforces the law, does not exceed any
limitations placed on them by the Constitution, by leges and
plebiscita passed in Comitia, or by edicta that are in effect, and
meets with the approval of his or her colleague, the Consules, and
the Tribuni Plebis. And if anyone else disagrees with the Praetor's
decision, then what do you think those six lictores are for?

In a very strict interpretation of the Constitution, a Praetor's
imperium gives him or her authority to determine what is an imminent
and clear danger to Nova Roma, and to use his or her imperium to
restrict an individual's right to participation whenever a Praetor
considers some action to pose a danger to the social order.

In the Roman view of the matter, that imperium is an extension of
the power of the Gods, expressed as the will of the Gods through the
voice of the People that elected the Praetor to serve with such
imperium in order to maintain the social contract between the Gods
and the Populi Romani, the Quirites, and, in lieu of tossing any
thunderbolts around, the exercise of imperium was implicitly backed
by a very heavy bundle of elm branches. Or in the case of a
Praetor, six very heavy bundles of elm branches. In fact, in the
Roman view, when lightning bolts were being tossed around, it was
perceived as the displeasure of the Gods over some discord in the
contract between the Gods and the Populi Romani, the Quirites, and
the Praetores had better apply their imperium to correct it. The
Romans also had the fine old tradition of tossing people from the
Tarpeian Heights if they thought an individual might have offended
the Gods. The Romans did have the concept of Cives having rights
and certain privileges, as stories in Livy relate, and also the
concept that one gives up those rights when they are misused. But
they did not have modern conceptions of certain rights. The same
channel through which the Praetores received imperium from the Gods,
i. e. through the People, could limit or revoke such imperium - thus
the provocatio that is a direct appeal to the People, and what was
also the basis for the institution of the Tribuni Plebis, and also
why, you may not realize, that the office of a Tribune held a
certain religious significance, which in turn was backed up by a vow
of the People before the Gods.

The Romans did not have a written Constitution as does Nova Roma.
Instead they had a multitude of vows made with the Gods as the
framework for their institutions. Imperium is not an absolute
power, as with the Gods, but a discretionary power granted by the
Gods. This is why there were a series of steps that had to be taken
before imperium was granted to the Consules and Praetores, most
importantly the fulfillment of their religious obligations to the
Gods. Election alone did not grant any magistrate imperium, and
also does not in Nova Roma.

Vale bene
Piscinus


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

>
> Cato M. Piscino sal.
>
> Piscine, you did not show me a single instance in which the lex
> Constitutiva itself, not some "combination of things", supports

your

> interpretation - in other words, you did not answer my request.

You

> seem to be confusing past practice with legality.
>
> My view of the lex Constitutiva is not "absolutist", it is simply a
> strict interpretation of that document, one supported *by* that
> document. And I wish to be shown - again, *by* that document -

why I

> am incorrect.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Cato, where in the US Constitution does it define and clarify some
> of its terms?"
>
> Precisely. The US Constitution uses the language echoed by our lex
> Constitutiva (in regards to the involuntary revocation of

citizenship)

> to the effect that anything not explicitly stated may "by those

means

> that shall be established by law" be further defined. There is no
> such clause in the lex Constitutiva regarding any of the

magisterial

> powers you are so cavalierly tossing about.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Responsible participation, responsible speech, conscious of the
> rights of others."
>
> Ummm..."responsible" as defined by whom, Piscine? The lex
> Constitutiva does not define "imminent and clear danger", yet that

is

> the *only* circumstance under which the lex Constitutiva grants

that

> the guarantee of free, unrestricted participation in the fora of

the

> Republic may be curtailed.
>
> Again, please use the lex Constitutiva to support your claims.
>
>
> You wrote (regarding the interchange between Christ and Pilate):
>
> "So any allusion you would make to your particular mythology would
> not be readily recognizable to me."
>
> Well, now you know :-)
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>

> Salve Peregrine,

Spectate Agricola, I am sorry but I am a citizen, member of the Italian Gens Solaria.

So the point is of interest to me. Great interest.

The simple and plain question is: Is it possible to be fascist and a member of Nova Roma?

Something like YES; or NO; nothing more.

Gallus Solaris Alexander

ITALIA

>

EDICTVM•PROPRÆTORICIVM•XXXI (A C•ARMINIVS•RECCANELLVS XIII)
CAIVS•ARMINIVS•RECCANELLVS•PROPRÆTOR•BRASILIƕOMNIBVS•CIVIBUS•S•P•D

By this edictum, and using my Imperium (given to my by Senatus e
Populusque Romanum), I decide:

I nomeate, for the position of SCRIBA PROPRAETORIS PROCURATOR RETIS,
the citizen DECIMVS VALERIVS THOMAS BRUNUS.

DATVM•SVB•MANV•MEA•KAL•SEXTILIS•MMDCCLIX•A•V•C

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

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

EDICTVM•PROPRÆTORICIVM•XXXI (A C•ARMINIVS•RECCANELLVS XIII)
CAIVS•ARMINIVS•RECCANELLVS•PROPRÆTOR•BRASILIƕOMNIBVS•CIVIBUS•S•P•D

Por meio do presente, e utilizando o Imperium que me foi conferido
pelo Senado e pelo Povo de Roma, decido:

Tendo em vista seu interesse nos assuntos provinciais, nomeio para o
cargo de SCRIBA PROPRAETORIS PROCURATOR RETIS o cidadão DECIMVS
VALERIVS THOMAS BRUNUS.

DATVM•SVB•MANV•MEA•KAL•SEXTILIS•MMDCCLIX•A•V•C

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

> 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

Spectate Brute,

I respectfully would like to underline that the length afore mentioned is of tres ulnae, that is to say six cubits.

I am not good at foot, inches, stones, gallons and all that sort of British measures.
But, six cubits, or three ulnae, are nearly three metres. That's not a short toga for sure!

Horace is disgusted by that person, once a slave and now rich: and you can see is rich on account of a long, wealthy toga.

Reverenter

Gallus Solaris Alexander

ITALIA!

Hey, fellow citizens, I guess something hard passed that I have missed.

I repeat: it's a simple question after all.

I would like to know if it is possible to be a fascist and a member of Nova Roma at the same time.

Yes or no. Nothing more.

I feel something like Nova Roma just issued a discriminatory law, a kind of a fascist law, and people are very touchy about it.

Anyway I only want to know what the situation is, but nobody is replying.
Funny, isn't it?

Gallus Solaris Alexander

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.

" Anyway I only want to know what the situation is, but nobody is replying.
Funny, isn't it?"

Funny in what way? Not responding? Some of us in Nova Roma live in
different time zones. Some work, some have family commitments. You
yourself have been away by your own admission ("...something...I have
missed."), why do you hold everyone else to a different standard?

To answer your question it is possible to be a fascist and still a member of
Nova Roma. However, it will become increasingly more difficult to join Nova
Roma with attitudes that are inimical to established mores within Nova
Roma: racial tolerance, sexual and gender equality, etc... A citizen was
recently the recipient of a Censorial Nota for his inimical beliefs.

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus
Consul

On 8/1/06, sa-mann@... <sa-mann@...> wrote:
>
> Hey, fellow citizens, I guess something hard passed that I have missed.
>
> I repeat: it's a simple question after all.
>
> I would like to know if it is possible to be a fascist and a member of
> Nova Roma at the same time.
>
> Yes or no. Nothing more.
>
> I feel something like Nova Roma just issued a discriminatory law, a kind
> of a fascist law, and people are very touchy about it.
>
> Anyway I only want to know what the situation is, but nobody is replying.
> Funny, isn't it?
>
> Gallus Solaris Alexander
>


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

I am not a citizen (I am waiting for approval) but I have been following this
in silence. I will answer that I certainly hope that a fascist is not welcome
here. I believe the good people of NR have been far more lenient and careful
of protocol then I would be in their situation. I would have banned the
racist / fascist with no apologies but then again, this isnÂ’t Imperial Rome...

Dru




On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:24:07 +0200, sa-mann\@libero\.it wrote

>
> I would like to know if it is possible to be a fascist and a member
> of Nova Roma at the same time.
>
> Yes or no. Nothing more.
>
> I feel something like Nova Roma just issued a discriminatory law, a
> kind of a fascist law, and people are very touchy about it.
>
> Anyway I only want to know what the situation is, but nobody is replying.
> Funny, isn't it?
>
> Gallus Solaris Alexander

Salve Galle Solari,

Gallus Solaris Alexander (sa-mann@...) wrote:

> I would like to know if it is possible to be a fascist and a member
> of Nova Roma at the same time.
>
> Yes or no. Nothing more.

Yes.

Vale,

Gn. Equitius Marinus
Censor

Salve Galle Solari

Yes. There is a distinction to be made of fascisim from other
movements that espouse race-hatred or other agendas that are
inimical to the principles of Nova Roma. That is not the issue,
however, in the ongoing matter with one Civis. Rather it is his
conduct in Nova Roma, not his beliefs, that has drawn concern.

Vale bene
M Moravius Piscinus
Tribunus Plebis


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "David Kling (Modianus)"
<tau.athanasios@...> wrote:

>
> Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.
>
> " Anyway I only want to know what the situation is, but nobody is

replying.

> Funny, isn't it?"
>
> Funny in what way? Not responding? Some of us in Nova Roma live

in

> different time zones. Some work, some have family commitments.

You

> yourself have been away by your own admission ("...something...I

have

> missed."), why do you hold everyone else to a different standard?
>
> To answer your question it is possible to be a fascist and still a

member of

> Nova Roma. However, it will become increasingly more difficult to

join Nova

> Roma with attitudes that are inimical to established mores within

Nova

> Roma: racial tolerance, sexual and gender equality, etc... A

citizen was

> recently the recipient of a Censorial Nota for his inimical

beliefs.

>
> Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus
> Consul
>
> On 8/1/06, sa-mann@... <sa-mann@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hey, fellow citizens, I guess something hard passed that I

have missed.

> >
> > I repeat: it's a simple question after all.
> >
> > I would like to know if it is possible to be a fascist and a

member of

> > Nova Roma at the same time.
> >
> > Yes or no. Nothing more.
> >
> > I feel something like Nova Roma just issued a discriminatory

law, a kind

> > of a fascist law, and people are very touchy about it.
> >
> > Anyway I only want to know what the situation is, but nobody is

replying.

> > Funny, isn't it?
> >
> > Gallus Solaris Alexander
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salve,

Then I am very sorry. I had tried to find your name the way you
spelled it before in the Album Civium and I did not find it. Among the
Solarii I can find only Sempronia Solaria Messalina and Spuria Solaria
Amanda. Perhaps you should confirm this with the Censores. I would be
happy to see your name listed there.

My comment remains; anyone who wants to know what happened can read
the past messages. For my part, I prefer to look ahead.

To answer your question, it is my opinion that Citizens of Nova Roma
can *BE* whatever they want to be, in private. I hope that is sufficient.

Optime vale,

Agricola

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "sa-mann\@...\.it" <sa-mann@...> wrote:
>
> > Salve Peregrine,
>
>
>
> Spectate Agricola, I am sorry but I am a citizen, member of the
Italian Gens Solaria.
>
> So the point is of interest to me. Great interest.
>
> The simple and plain question is: Is it possible to be fascist and a
member of Nova Roma?
>
> Something like YES; or NO; nothing more.
>
> Gallus Solaris Alexander
>
> ITALIA
>
>
> >
>

Salvete omnes.

First of all thanks to all the cives that replied to me.

As I Had wrote I missed ALL the Priscus affaire, not only something. Reading a post by chance I feared that was not possible to be fascist and a citizen.

This interests me for a couple of reasons.

The last reply I had was in my opinion perfect.

I agree Fascism is today a word enormously vague: it can mean the most different things; moreover it can be derogatory, if you're not a fascist; it can be a valuable appreciation if you are. It could even be a boast, if you would like to be, but don't succeed.

Being obviously off topic discussing here about kinds of fascism, I find the most sensible and appropriate thing to judge people by their behaviour and not by their ideas. Behaving diffrently would easily lead to dangerous situations.

Thank you all, honour to LIBERTAS and I think this topic can now be considered over.

Gallus Solaris Alexander
Bononiae
ITALIA




___________________________________________________________________
30 euro di sconto sull'abbonamento annuale, solo fino al 31/8! Cogli subito la grande offerta SKY
http://click.libero.it/sky

Ah and I see Servius Solaris Mercator and Aelius Solaris Marullinus...

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. Lucretius Agricola"
<wm_hogue@...> wrote:

>
> Salve,
>
> Then I am very sorry. I had tried to find your name the way you
> spelled it before in the Album Civium and I did not find it. Among the
> Solarii I can find only Sempronia Solaria Messalina and Spuria Solaria
> Amanda. Perhaps you should confirm this with the Censores. I would be
> happy to see your name listed there.
>
> My comment remains; anyone who wants to know what happened can read
> the past messages. For my part, I prefer to look ahead.
>
> To answer your question, it is my opinion that Citizens of Nova Roma
> can *BE* whatever they want to be, in private. I hope that is

sufficient.

>
> Optime vale,
>
> Agricola
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "sa-mann\@...\.it" <sa-mann@> wrote:
> >
> > > Salve Peregrine,
> >
> >
> >
> > Spectate Agricola, I am sorry but I am a citizen, member of the
> Italian Gens Solaria.
> >
> > So the point is of interest to me. Great interest.
> >
> > The simple and plain question is: Is it possible to be fascist and a
> member of Nova Roma?
> >
> > Something like YES; or NO; nothing more.
> >
> > Gallus Solaris Alexander
> >
> > ITALIA
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>

Salvete

I read today:

France's new Stonehenge: Secrets of a neolithic time machine


A spectacular discovery of Stone Age menhirs in Brittany could unlock
the code to one of the most puzzling chapters of human development,
and transform our knowledge of mankind's early history ...

The rest at http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1205976.ece

Optime valete

Agricola

F. Galerius Aurelianus Propraetor Austrorientalis S.P.D.

Just prior to dawn, I arrived at the site of the religiosum to be
dedicated to Neptunus. I offered incense and prayed good prayers at
the altars and drew the celestial templum. I poured libations and
made offerings to the Manes. I sat upon the stone bench and took the
auspices from the Gods to see if They approved of this place becoming
a templum to Neptunus. I received favorable signs in the flight of a
crow (ex avibus avientes), the sound of crows (ex avibus oscines),
the sound of dogs and the sight of three horses (ex quadripedibus),
and saw no signs that would be considered unfavorable. After a long
hour, I arose from the bench and rested.

Later I help Violentilla's husband, Corry, to prepare for the
Neptunalia by cutting grass and setting up the pavilions. Q.
Caecilius Metellus Pontifex, Violentilla Galeria Saltarix, Mania
Galeria Corva, Aula Galeria Renata, Lucia Galeria Mira & her husband,
and several friends attended the Neptunalia. We drank cups of
mulsum, ate well of many dishes, and enjoyed good company. Neptunus
had given us rain to cool the heat of high summer the day before His
sacred day. We offered good prayers to the Giver of Waters, both
open and hidden.

In the late afternoon, we processed into the sacred area and asperged
it with water from the four rivers and water from a thunderstorm.
Incense was offered on the altars, good prayers were prayed to Ianus,
Iuppiter & Diana and libations were poured. A votive image of a
horse was given to Neptunus Equester on His altar. Violentilla laid
her hand upon the Altar of Neptunus and consecrated the templum. She
dedicated it with the law of the templum.

Anyone could repair, restored, and adorn it with wreaths. Anyone
could sacrifice there for any purpose and offer prayers for whatever
purpose they could choose as long as the property stays in her
family. She would offer a sacrifice there every year on the
Neptunalia. She willingly fulfilled her vow to Neptunus to dedicate
this templum with altars and a locus. She vowed two new altars to
Iuppiter Summanus and Diana Dea.

Metellus Pontifex announced that the offerings, purification,
consecration, and dedication of the templum were lawful by the
ancient laws.

This templum is open to any Nova Romans who travel through this land
so that they may honor Neptunus or any other God they wish.
Violentilla is the keeper of this shrine under the authority of the
Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma. Anyone may contact her via the
internet to arrange to visit and make offerings; to offer good
prayers.

Valete.

Hi all,

Miss me? I was away for more than a month, first on
vacation and then in Romania for work.

So still the same crap with the Priscus fellow.It
looks like I didn't miss much....

Vale,
Diana


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

Aurelianus Aventina sal.

You missed the Neptunalia in Austrorientalis. We now have a very fine
templum to Neptunus on my sister's land in Lebanon, Tennessee. She was elected by
the CP as one of the two new Neptuni Aedis Sacerdotes and is neocora there.
She, her husband, and I laid out a very nice shrine beneath a split tree
claimed by a lightning strike by Iuppiter Summanus & the two of them did the
construction--altars to the Penates, Celestial Gods, Neptunus, aedes Silvani, an
stone bench for taking the auspices all enclosed in a nice fence. She has
vowed to erect altars to Iuppiter Summanus and your patroness, Diana. Should
you ever have the opportunity to travel to Nashville, I would be very honored
to take you there for a visit. You and my sister, Violentilla Galeria
Saltarix, have much in common as you are both dancers and are of Italian descent.
You both have a similar sense of humor.

The matter with Priscus is not too different from the matters that we have
both seen with individuals like Drusus or Taurinus and like them, he will be
forgotten within a year.

I have missed you on the ML and Praetorium so I hope to be reading your
messages again soon. Be well, domina.

Vadite in pace Cereris.


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

Cato M. Piscino sal.

Salve Piscinus.

You wrote:

"The Romans did not have a written Constitution as does Nova Roma.
Instead they had a multitude of vows made with the Gods as the
framework for their institutions.

And here you make my point exactly, Piscine. We are *not* ancient
Rome, nor is our legal framework that of ancient Rome. Our lex
Constitutiva does not allow it to be.

You wrote:

"A 'strict' interpretation of praetorial imperium? They can do
whatever they want...[i]n a very strict interpretation of the
Constitution, a Praetor's imperium gives him or her authority to
determine what is an imminent and clear danger to Nova Roma, and to
use his or her imperium to restrict an individual's right to
participation whenever a Praetor considers some action to pose a
danger to the social order."

Please show me in the lex Constitutiva where you find this definition
of "imperium". Please show me in the lex Constitutiva where "imminent
and clear" are defined. Please show me in the lex Constitutiva where
the praetors are given the right to define this term, or where any
magistrate is given the power to do so.

Piscine, you repeatedly bring up out powers and definitions that are
not found anywhere in the lex Constitutiva. You create a system of
powers and authority where none exist in the lex Constitutiva, yet you
are willing to strike at the rights guaranteed in that document - our
highest legal authority, taking precedence over all other legal
instruments - based on a legal construct unsupported by the lex
Constitutiva.

The long paragraph regarding the gods and the ancient Romans &c. is
lovely and informative and has nothing to do with the qestion of the
authority to curtail rights guaranteed by the lex Constitutiva. We
are not ancient Romans, nor can we ever truly mirror the governmental
processes of the ancient Romans while the lex Constitutiva exists in
its current form and position.

Vale bene,

Cato

OSD C. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

Hodie est postridie Kalendas Sextilis; haec dies fastus est.

"Then there was flight in all directions; 7000 men escaped to the
smaller camp, 10,000 to the larger, and about 2000 to the village of
Cannae. These latter were at once surrounded by Carthalo and his
cavalry, as the village was quite unfortified. The other consul, who
either by accident or design had not joined any of these bodies of
fugitives, escaped with about fifty cavalry to Venusia; 45,500
infantry, 2700 cavalry - almost an equal proportion of Romans and
allies - are said to have been killed. Amongst the number were both
the quaestors attached to the consuls, L. Atilius and L. Furius
Bibulcus, twenty-nine military tribunes, several ex-consuls,
ex-praetors, and ex-aediles (amongst them are included Cn. Servilius
Geminus and M. Minucius, who was Master of the Horse the previous year
and, some years before that, consul), and in addition to these, eighty
men who had either been senators or filled offices qualifying them for
election to the senate and who had volunteered for service with the
legions. The prisoners taken in the battle are stated to have amounted
to 3000 infantry and 1500 cavalry. Never before, while the City
itself was still safe, had there been such excitement and panic within
its walls. I shall not attempt to describe it, nor will I weaken the
reality by going into detailsÂ… it was not wound upon wound but
multiplied disaster that was now announced. For according to the
reports two consular armies and two consuls were lost; there was no
longer any Roman camp, any general, any single soldier in existence;
Apulia, Samnium, almost the whole of Italy lay at Hannibal's feet.
Certainly there is no other nation that would not have succumbed
beneath such a weight of calamity." - Livy, History of Rome XXII.49-50

"Such was the end of the battle of Cannae, in which both sides fought
with the most conspicuous gallantry, the conquered no less than the
conquerors. This is proved by the fact that, out of six thousand
horse, only seventy escaped with Caius Terentius to Venusia, and about
three hundred of the allied cavalry to various towns in the
neighborhood. Of the infantry ten thousand were taken prisoners in
fair fight, but were not actually engaged in the battle: of those who
were actually engaged only about three thousand perhaps escaped to the
towns of the surrounding district; all the rest died nobly, to the
number of seventy thousand, the Carthaginians being on this occasion,
as on previous ones, mainly indebted for their victory to their
superiority in cavalry: a lesson to posterity that in actual war it is
better to have half the number of infantry, and the superiority in
cavalry, than to engage your enemy with an equality in both. On the
side of Hannibal there fell four thousand Celts, fifteen hundred
Iberians and Libyans, and about two hundred horse.

The ten thousand Romans who were captured had not, as I said, been
engaged in the actual battle; and the reason was this. Lucius Aemilius
left ten thousand infantry in his camp that, in case Hannibal should
disregard the safety of his own camp, and take his whole army onto the
field, they might seize the opportunity, while the battle was going
on, of forcing their way in and capturing the enemy's baggage; or if,
on the other hand, Hannibal should, in view of this contingency, leave
a guard in his camp, the number of the enemy in the field might
thereby be diminished. These men were captured in the field in the
following circumstances. Hannibal, as a matter of fact, did leave a
sufficient guard in his camp; and as soon as the battle began, the
Romans, according to their instructions, assaulted and tried to take
those thus left by Hannibal. At first they held their own: but just as
they were beginning to waver, Hannibal, who was by this time gaining a
victory all along the line, came to their relief, and routing the
Romans, shut them up in their own camp; killed two thousand of them;
and took all the rest prisoners. In like manner the Numidian horse
brought in all those who had taken refuge in the various strongholds
about the district, amounting to two thousand of the routed cavalry."
- Polyibius, "The Roman Histories" III.117

Today is the anniversary of the Battle of Cannae, the greatest defeat
Rome ever suffered. The newly elected Roman Consuls, Gaius Terentius
Varro and Lucius Aemilius Paullus, who had both run on a platform of
taking the war to Hannibal, were anxious to begin their tenure with
military achievement. Counter to the delaying tactics of the Dictator
Fabius Maximus, Varro and Paulus immediately formed a large force to
deal with the Carthaginians ravaging southern Italy. While ancient
sources offer conflicting reports, it can be safe to assume that
between the two, Consuls, they levied a force of nearly 80,000 men.

Hannibal meanwhile, still attempting to subvert Roman authority in the
allied areas of Italy, was waiting for the Roman with approximately
40,000 men; Gauls, Carthaginians and Numidian cavalry. Despite the
popular conception that the elephants played a major role in the
campaign, by this time, all of his elephants had died. Hannibal,
despite his numerical inferiority had such an overwhelming strategic
edge, that he was eager to meet the new Roman challenge.
Theoretically, the Roman tactic of crushing Hannibal between two large
armies should have spelled his doom, but Hannibal's brilliance allowed
him to turn the tables once the engagement got under way.

On August 2, 216 BC, in the Apulian plain, near Cannae and near the
mouth of the Aufidus River, the 2 great armies came face to face. The
Consul Varro was in command on the first day for the Romans, as the
consuls alternated commands as they marched. Paullus, it has been
suggested, was opposed to the engagement as it was taking shape, but
regardless still brought his force to bear. The two armies positioned
their lines and soon advanced against one another.

The cavalry was to meet first on the flanks. Hasdrubal, commanding the
Numidians, quickly overpowered the inferior Romans on the right flank
and routed them. Pushing them into the river and scattering any
opposing infantry in his path, Hasdrubal dominated the right flank and
was quickly able to get in the rear of the enemy lines. While the much
superior Numidians dealt quickly with their Roman counterparts, such
was not the case with the infantry.

As Hasdrubal was routing the Roman horse, the mass of infantry on both
sides advanced towards each other in the middle of the field. The
Iberian and Gallic Celts on the Carthaginian side, while fierce, were
no match for Roman armament and close-quartered combat. Initially, the
vast numerical advantage of the Legions pushed deep into the middle of
the Carthaginians. While the Celts were pushed back, they didn't
break, however. They held as firm as they could, while Hasdrubal's
cavalry pushed around to the rear of the enemy and the Carthaginian
infantry held firm on the immediate flanks. The Romans soon found that
their success in the middle was pushing them into a potential
disaster. As they victoriously fought farther into the center of
Hannibal's lines, they were actually walking themselves right into
being completely encircled.

Just as the Romans were on the brink of crushing the enemy center, the
Carthaginian flanks were brought to bear and the pressure pinned in
the Roman advance. Hasdrubals' cavalry completed the circle by forcing
the rear of the Roman line to turn back and form a square. All around,
the massive bulk of the Roman army was forced into confined space.
Hannibal brought his archers and slingers to bear and the result in
the confines was devastating. Unable to continue the original break
through against the Celts in the center of Hannibal's lines, the
Romans were easy prey for the Carthaginians. Hannibal, with complete
fury, encouraged his own men, under fear of the lash, if they weren't
zealous enough in the slaughter.

In the midst of the battle the Consul, Paullus, was wounded (either
early or late depending on Livy or Polybius as the source). He
valiantly attempted to maintain the Roman ranks, though vainly. While
the commander of the day, Varro, fled the battle, Paullus stayed the
course trying to save his army. In the end, it was a terrible
slaughter and Paullus would be dead with the bulk of his men. Romans
trying to escape were hamstrung as they ran, so the Carthaginians
could concentrate on those who were still fighting, but allow time to
return and kill the crippled later. In a fast and furious display of
death, Hannibal ordered his men to stand down only a few short hours
after they originally encircled the enemy.

On a small strip of land where the Romans were bottled up, estimates
as high as 60,000 corpses were piled one on top of another. Another
3,000 Romans were captured and more staggered into villages
surrounding the battlefield. Hannibal, however, still trying to win
the hearts of the Italian Roman allies, once again released the
prisoners, much to the dismay of his commanders. In salute to the
fallen Paullus, Hannibal also honored him with ceremonial rituals in
recognition of his valiant actions.

In the end, perhaps only as many as 15,000 Romans managed to escape
with Varro. These survivors were later reconstituted as two units and
assigned to Sicily for the remainder of the war as punishment for
their loss. Along with Paullus, both of the Quaestors were killed, as
well as 29 out of 48 military tribunes and an additional 80 other
senators (at a time when the Roman Senate was no more than 300 men).
The rings signifying membership in the Senate and from those of
Equestrian (Knight class or the elite class after Patrician) status
were collected from the dead in baskets and later thrown onto the
floor of the Carthaginian Senate in disrespect. In contrast,
Hannibal's losses numbered only between 6,000 and 7,000 men, of whom,
these were mostly his Celtic recruits. Once again Hannibal proved
brilliant in battlefield strategy, using the enemy's tactics against
itself and routing an army twice the size of his own. In less than a
year since the disaster at Trasimenus, the Roman's greatest loss was
in history put the state into a panic. There was nothing keeping
Hannibal from sacking Rome itself at this point, other than Hannibal.
His generals again urged him to not waste any more effort and go for
the final kill, but Hannibal was reluctant. Still believing he
couldn't take Rome itself, he preferred his strategy of pursuing
revolt among the Roman allies.

Despite this tremendous loss, the following defection of many allied
cities, and the declaration of war by Philip of Macedon that was soon
to come, the Romans showed a resiliency that defined them as people.
According to Livy, "No other nation in the world could have suffered
so tremendous a series of disasters and not been overwhelmed." The
truth of that nature was self evident. While some in the Senate, such
as Lucius Caecilius Metellus were ready to abandon the Republic as a
lost cause, others like Scipio propped up the flagging Roman spirit
with encouragement and undying oaths of loyalty to Rome.

Shortly after Cannae, the Romans rallied back, declaring full
mobilization. Another dictator, M. Junius Pera, was elected to
stabilize the Republic. New legions were raised with conscripts from
previous untouched citizen classes. As the land owning population was
heavily diminished by losses to Hannibal, the Romans took advantage of
the masses. Those in debt were released from their obligations,
non-land owners were recruited and even slaves were freed to join the
legions. In so doing, the Romans also refused to pay ransoms to
Hannibal for any captured legionaries who still remained. Hannibal, it
was suggested, lost his spirit, understanding that Rome would rather
sacrifice its own than surrender anything to him. While fortune would
still be with Hannibal for some time, the war of attrition would only
benefit Rome.

Valete bene!

Cato



SOURCES

Livy, Polybius, Wikipedia

Salve.
When someone started those mores against Priscus, it was an imminent and clear danger for the pax novaromana.
Now that danger is a damage: Priscus, because a lot of frustrated sexist and racist of the opposite ideas began to offend him and to incite Censores against him, got a capitis deminutio without a trial; our free speech is limitated; in this mailing list people is asking if a fascist could be a member of Nova Roma and answers can be offensive for fascists members; someone will ask if a jew or other monotheists can be members of Nova Roma or Religio Romana and answers could be offensive too; there were edicta against fascism and against negotiorum gestio.
There is an imminent and clear danger that Senatus will do something against Priscus and what he is representing.
I'm not worried of Priscus: he was not offensive and didn't threaten. I'm worried of censores and of those influential people that showed and are going to show their hate flags against our/someone cultus.
Vale
Appius Claudius Cicero
From Italia

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

Salve Galle Solare Alexander!

Grazie for your reply. In British imperial measurements nine feet is indeed slightly less than 3 metres. As a good European I do try to use metric measures but sometimes forget. They teach us metres, kilos and so on in school but outside everyone still uses the old inches and gallons!

I understand that in the late Republic togae could be very long indeed - 8 metres and more - and I wondered whether shorter togae were worn by people of lower social status.

I was also interested as my own toga is exactly three metres long which makes it difficult to wear 'cinctu Gabino' for rituals etc.,

Vale!

Caius Moravius Brutus

"sa-mann@..." <sa-mann@...> wrote:

> 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

Spectate Brute,

I respectfully would like to underline that the length afore mentioned is of tres ulnae, that is to say six cubits.

I am not good at foot, inches, stones, gallons and all that sort of British measures.
But, six cubits, or three ulnae, are nearly three metres. That's not a short toga for sure!

Horace is disgusted by that person, once a slave and now rich: and you can see is rich on account of a long, wealthy toga.

Reverenter

Gallus Solaris Alexander

ITALIA!






"It's all right,lads: the chickens say it's going to be all right..."

The Emperor Claudius

---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine

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

A. Apollonius omnibus sal.

I shall be away until about the 10th.

SALVE !

Have a good time and salute all.

VALE BENE,
IVL SABINVS

"A. Apollonius Cordus" <a_apollonius_cordus@...> wrote:
A. Apollonius omnibus sal.

I shall be away until about the 10th.







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

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





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

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

OSD C. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

It has been pointed out that the recent affair involving Ap. Claudius
should not stain the name "Priscus", and here I offer one of the great
statesmen of Rome...

HELVIDIUS PRISCUS

"As I have again happened to mention a man of whom I shall often have
to speak, the subject seems to demand that I should give a brief
account of his life and pursuits, and of his fortunes. Helvidius
Priscus was a native of the town of Carecina in Italy, and was the son
of one Cluvius, who had been a centurion of the first rank. In early
youth he devoted his distinguished talents to the loftiest pursuits,
not wishing, as do many, to cloak under an imposing name a life of
indolence, but to be able to enter upon public life with a spirit
fortified against the chances of fortune. He followed those teachers
of philosophy who hold nothing to be good but what is honourable,
nothing evil but what is base, and who refuse to count either among
things good or evil, power, rank, or indeed any thing not belonging to
the mind. While still holding the quaestorship, he was selected by
Paetus Thrasea to be his son-in-law, and from the example of his
father-in-law imbibed with peculiar eagerness a love of liberty. As a
citizen and as a senator, as a husband, as a son-in-law, as a friend,
and in all the relations of life, he was ever the same, despising
wealth, steadily tenacious of right, and undaunted by danger." -
Tacitus, "The Histories" IV.5

"Helvidius Priscus, the son-in‑law of Thrasea, had been brought up in
the doctrines of the Stoics and imitated Thrasea's frankness of
speech, sometimes unseasonably. He was at this time praetor, but
instead of doing aught to increase the honour due to the emperor he
would not cease reviling him. Therefore the tribunes once arrested him
and gave him in charge of their assistants, a procedure at which
Vespasian was overcome by emotion went out of the senate-chamber in
tears, saying merely: 'My successor shall be my son or no one at
all.'" - Dio Cassius, "Histories" LXV.12

Helvidius Priscus was a Stoic philosopher and statesman, living during
the reigns of Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian.

Like his father-in-law, Thrasea Paetus, he was distinguished for his
ardent and courageous republicanism. Although he repeatedly offended
his rulers, he held several high offices. During Nero's reign he was
quaestor of Achaea and tribune of the plebs (AD 56); he restored peace
and order in Armenia, and gained the respect and confidence of the
provincials. His declared sympathy with Brutus and Cassius occasioned
his banishment in 66.

Having been recalled to Rome by Galba in 68, he at once impeached
Eprius Marcellus, the accuser of Thrasea Paetus, but dropped the
charge, as the condemnation of Marcellus would have involved a number
of senators. As praetor elect he ventured to oppose Vitellius in the
senate, and as praetor (70) he maintained, in opposition to Vespasian,
that the management of the finances ought to be left to the discretion
of the senate; he proposed that the capitol, which had been destroyed
in the Neronian conflagration, should be restored at the public
expense; he saluted Vespasian by his private name, and did not
recognize him as emperor in his praetorian edicts.

At length he was banished a second time, and shortly afterwards was
executed by Vespasian's order. His life, in the form of a warm
panegyric, written at his widow's request by Herennius Senecio, caused
its author's death in the reign of Domitian.

Valete bene!

Cato



SOURCES

Tacitus, Dio Cassius, Wikipedia

Salvete Omnes,

*PRISCUS <http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/2862.html>*, SERVlLIUS.
The Prisci were an ancient family of the Servilia
gens<http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/3126.html>,
and filled the highest offices of the state during the early years of the
republic. They also bore the agno­men of
Structus<http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/3261.html>,
which is always appended to their name in the Fasti, till it was supplanted
by that of Fidenas <http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/1257.html>,
which was first obtained by Q. Servilius
Priscus<http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/2862.html>
Structus <http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/3261.html>, who took
Fidenae in his dictatorship, b. c. 435 and which was also borne by his
descendants.

Valete,

Quintus Servilius Priscus

From Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mytholog:
http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/2861.html

On 8/2/06, gequitiuscato <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> OSD C. Equitius Cato
>
> Salvete omnes!
>
> It has been pointed out that the recent affair involving Ap. Claudius
> should not stain the name "Priscus", and here I offer one of the great
> statesmen of Rome...
>
> HELVIDIUS PRISCUS
>
> "As I have again happened to mention a man of whom I shall often have
> to speak, the subject seems to demand that I should give a brief
> account of his life and pursuits, and of his fortunes. Helvidius
> Priscus was a native of the town of Carecina in Italy, and was the son
> of one Cluvius, who had been a centurion of the first rank. In early
> youth he devoted his distinguished talents to the loftiest pursuits,
> not wishing, as do many, to cloak under an imposing name a life of
> indolence, but to be able to enter upon public life with a spirit
> fortified against the chances of fortune. He followed those teachers
> of philosophy who hold nothing to be good but what is honourable,
> nothing evil but what is base, and who refuse to count either among
> things good or evil, power, rank, or indeed any thing not belonging to
> the mind. While still holding the quaestorship, he was selected by
> Paetus Thrasea to be his son-in-law, and from the example of his
> father-in-law imbibed with peculiar eagerness a love of liberty. As a
> citizen and as a senator, as a husband, as a son-in-law, as a friend,
> and in all the relations of life, he was ever the same, despising
> wealth, steadily tenacious of right, and undaunted by danger." -
> Tacitus, "The Histories" IV.5
>
> "Helvidius Priscus, the son-in‑law of Thrasea, had been brought up
> in
> the doctrines of the Stoics and imitated Thrasea's frankness of
> speech, sometimes unseasonably. He was at this time praetor, but
> instead of doing aught to increase the honour due to the emperor he
> would not cease reviling him. Therefore the tribunes once arrested him
> and gave him in charge of their assistants, a procedure at which
> Vespasian was overcome by emotion went out of the senate-chamber in
> tears, saying merely: 'My successor shall be my son or no one at
> all.'" - Dio Cassius, "Histories" LXV.12
>
> Helvidius Priscus was a Stoic philosopher and statesman, living during
> the reigns of Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian.
>
> Like his father-in-law, Thrasea Paetus, he was distinguished for his
> ardent and courageous republicanism. Although he repeatedly offended
> his rulers, he held several high offices. During Nero's reign he was
> quaestor of Achaea and tribune of the plebs (AD 56); he restored peace
> and order in Armenia, and gained the respect and confidence of the
> provincials. His declared sympathy with Brutus and Cassius occasioned
> his banishment in 66.
>
> Having been recalled to Rome by Galba in 68, he at once impeached
> Eprius Marcellus, the accuser of Thrasea Paetus, but dropped the
> charge, as the condemnation of Marcellus would have involved a number
> of senators. As praetor elect he ventured to oppose Vitellius in the
> senate, and as praetor (70) he maintained, in opposition to Vespasian,
> that the management of the finances ought to be left to the discretion
> of the senate; he proposed that the capitol, which had been destroyed
> in the Neronian conflagration, should be restored at the public
> expense; he saluted Vespasian by his private name, and did not
> recognize him as emperor in his praetorian edicts.
>
> At length he was banished a second time, and shortly afterwards was
> executed by Vespasian's order. His life, in the form of a warm
> panegyric, written at his widow's request by Herennius Senecio, caused
> its author's death in the reign of Domitian.
>
> Valete bene!
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> SOURCES
>
> Tacitus, Dio Cassius, Wikipedia
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


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

Salve Cato

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

>
><snipped> Please show me...

We can forego where all you have to say is rhetorical repitition

><snipped>

> Piscine, you repeatedly bring up out powers and definitions that

are

> not found anywhere in the lex Constitutiva. You create a system of
> powers and authority where none exist in the lex Constitutiva, yet

you

> are willing to strike at the rights guaranteed in that document -

our

> highest legal authority, taking precedence over all other legal
> instruments - based on a legal construct unsupported by the lex
> Constitutiva.
>

Nonsense. Go back to what Cordus wrote on ius. The system of
powers and authority that you claim does not exist in the
Constitution is precisely what it lays out. Each individual Civis
and each magistrate have their own powers and authority to exercise
within a system of checks and balances. OTOH what you claim as
unrestricted rights do not appear in the Constitution.

> The long paragraph regarding the gods and the ancient Romans &c. is
> lovely and informative and has nothing to do with the qestion of

the

> authority to curtail rights guaranteed by the lex Constitutiva. We
> are not ancient Romans, nor can we ever truly mirror the

governmental

> processes of the ancient Romans while the lex Constitutiva exists

in

> its current form and position.
>
>

And here, mi amice, is where lies your problem. Look again at the
Preamble of the Constitution

"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. We hereby declare our Nation to stand as a beacon for those
who would recreate the best of ancient Rome. As a nation, Nova Roma
shall be the temporal homeland and worldly focus for the Religio
Romana. The primary function of Nova Roma shall be to promote the
study and practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as the
period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the
removal of the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and
encompassing such fields as religion, culture, politics, art,
literature, language, and philosophy.

"As the spiritual heir to the ancient Roman Republic and Empire,
Nova Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all manners practical and
acceptable, as the modern restoration of the ancient Roman Republic.
The culture, religion, and society of Nova Roma shall be patterned
upon those of ancient Rome."

And I would also point you to that part of the website that deals
with the Roman Virtues http://www.novaroma.org/wiki/Roman_Virtues

Where the introduction says, "These are the qualities of life to
which every Citizen (and, ideally, everyone else) should aspire.
They are the heart of the Via Romana — the Roman Way — and are
thought to be those qualities which gave the Roman Republic the
moral strength to conquer and civilize the world. Today, they are
the rods against which we can measure our own behavior and
character, and we can strive to better understand and practice them
in our everyday lives."

During this whole affair, some of us said that Nova Roma would do
well to forego denouncing the inimical attitudes of one individual
and instead turn its attention to once more promoting the very
values upon which Nova Roma was founded. That same advice has been
advanced on more than one occasion in the Senate by your fellow
Christian, Senator Audens, vir clarissimus for whom I have a great
deal of respect. The reason why I bring this up is that it has
become quite apparent that our divergent views over what the
Constitution does say or not, and its place within the entire body
of law, and how our system of law actually works, is due to a much
more fundamental difference of understanding. That poses that we
will enter into a very lengthy discussion. You do not see why my
digression on imperium being derived from the Gods relates to our
Constitution? Well, then you probably will also have a very
different view than I of the Preamble's meaning of "common
society," "temporal homeland ... for the Religio Romana,"
and "spiritual heir." I would more likely look towards
Philodemus' "On Piety" for my examples than to a book by Mark, or
look to Seneca, Cicero, and any number of other Roman authors than
to what some 18th century Americans had to say. To me, "common
society" and "spiritual heir" are not vague, undefined terms, any
more than is imperium. No, we will have much more to talk about
than just the repetition of a few rhetorical phrases.

Vale et vade in Deos
Piscinus

Salve,

I apologize for all the links that showed up in my reply to the
original e-mail. I did not see any URL's in the section I copied and
pasted. The only link that should have showed was in my PS.

Vale,
Quintus Servilius Priscus

Salve,

sa-mann@... schrieb:

> I am not good at foot, inches, stones, gallons and all that sort of British measures.

But you do have access to the internet, right? Google is a great tool,
not only for searching the web, but also for converting measurements.
Just type something like "3 meters in feet", and Google will give you "3
meters = 9.84251969 feet" as a result. Works for most modern units.

--
Vale!
Titus Flavius Calvus

OSD C. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

Hodie est ante diem III Nonas Sextilis; haec dies comitialis est.

"For when the sun was suddenly obscured and darkness reigned, and the
Athenians were overwhelmed with the greatest terror. Pericles, who was
then supreme among his countrymen in influence, eloquence, and wisdom,
is said to have communicated to his fellow-citizens the information he
had received from Anaxagoras, whose pupil he had been -- that this
phenomenon occurs at fixed periods and by inevitable law, whenever the
moon passes entirely beneath the orb of the sun." - Cicero, De Rerum
Naturae; on this day in 431 BC an eclipse occurred.

"And Leto was joined in love with Zeus who holds the aigis, and bare
Apollon and Artemis Iokheaira (delighting in arrows), children lovely
above all the sons of Heaven." - Hesiod, Theogony 918

"Blessed Leto, you bare glorious children, the lord Apollon and
Artemis Iokheaira (who delights in arrows); her in Ortygia, and him in
rocky Delos." - Homeric Hymn 3 to Delian Apollo

"Neat-ankled Leto bare children [Apollon & Artemis] supreme among the
immortals both in thought and in deed." - Homeric Hymn 27 to Artemis 14

"Hail. O heaven-built isle, most lovely scion of the children of
bright-haired Leto, O daughter of the sea, thou unmoved marvel of the
spacious earth, by mortal men called Delos, but by the blessed gods of
Olympos known as the far-seen star (astra) of the dark-blue sea ...
For aforetime, that isle was tossed on the waves by all manner of
whirling winds; but, when Leto, the daughter of Koios, in the frenzy
of her imminent pangs of travail, set foot on her, then it was that
four lofty pillars rose from the roots of earth, and on their capitals
held up the rock with their adamantine bases. There it was that she
gave birth to, and beheld, her blessed offspring [Apollon and
Artemis]." - Pindar, Processional Song on Delos

"Artemis became a practised huntress [after her birth] and remained a
virgin." - Apollodorus, The Library 1.21

"[Artemis] sitting on her father's knees - still a little maid - she
spake these words to her sire [Zeus]: `Give me to keep my maidenhood,
Father, forever ... And her father smiled and bowed assent." -
Callimachus, Hymn 3 to Artemis

"And both Athene and Artemis ... made the same choice of maidenhood as
had Kore and were reared together with her." - Diodorus Siculus,
Library of History 5.2.3

In Greece today was the Festival of Artemis, known to the Romans as
Diana. Artemis is the virgin daughter of Zeus and Leto (Latona), by
the common account born a twin-sister of Apollo, and just before him,
at Delos. The Ortygia named in another tradition as her birthplace was
interpreted to mean Delos, though several other places where the
worship of Artemis had long prevailed put forward pretensions to that
name and its mythological renown, especially the well-known island of
Ortygia off Syracuse. She, as well as her mother, was worshipped
jointly with her brother at Delos, Delphi, and all the most venerable
spots where Apollo was honoured. She is armed, as he is, with bow and
arrows, which, like him, and often together with him, she wields
against monsters and giants; hence the pæan was chanted to her as well
as to him. Like those of Apollo, the shafts of Artemis were regarded
as the cause of sudden death, especially to maidens and wives. But she
was also a beneficent and helpful deity. As Apollo is the luminous god
of day, she with her torch is a goddess of light by night, and in
course of time becomes identified with all possible goddesses of moon
and night.

Her proper domain is that of nature, with its hills and valleys,
woods, meadows, rivers, and fountains; there, amid her nymphs, herself
the fairest and tallest, she is a mighty huntress, sometimes chasing
wild animals, sometimes dancing, playing, or bathing with her
companions. Her favourite haunt was thought to be the mountains and
forests of Arcadia, where, in many spots, she had sanctuaries,
consecrated hunting-grounds, and sacred animals. To her, as goddess of
the forest and the chase, all beasts of the woods and fields --in
fact, all game -- were dear and sacred; but her favourite animal was
held all over Greece to be the hind. From this sacred animal and the
hunting of it, the month which the other Greeks called Artemision or
Artemisios (March-April) was named by the Athenians Elaphebolion, and
her festival as goddess of game and hunting, at which deer or cakes in
the shape of deer were offered up, Elaphebolia. As goddess of the
chase, she had also some influence in war, and the Spartans before
battle sought her favour by the gift of a she-goat. Miltiades, too,
before the battle of Marathon, had vowed to her as many goats as there
should be enemies fallen on the field; but the number proving so great
that the vow could not be kept, five hundred goats were sacrificed at
each anniversary of the victory in the month of Boedromion. Again, she
was much worshipped as the goddess of the moon. At Amarynthus in
Euboea the whole island kept holiday to her with processions and
prize-fights. At Munychia in Attica, at full moon in the month of
Munychion (April-May), large round loaves or cakes, decked all around
with lights as a symbol of her own luminary, were borne in procession
and presented to her; and at the same time was solemnized the festival
of the victory of Salamis in Cyprus, because on that occasion the
goddess had shone in her full glory on the Greeks. An ancient shrine
of the Moon-goddess at Brauron in Attica was held in such veneration
that the Brauronia, originally a merely local festival, was afterwards
made a public ceremony, to which Athens itself sent deputies every
five years, and a precinct was dedicated to "Artemis of Brauron" on
the Acropolis itself. At this feast the girls between five and ten
years of age, clad in saffron-coloured garments, were conducted by
their mothers in procession to the goddess and commended to her care;
for Artemis is also a protectress of youth, especially those of her
own sex. As such she patronized a nurses' festival at Sparta in a
temple outside the town, to which little boys were brought by their
nurses; while the Ionians at their Apaturia presented her with the
hair of boys. Almost everywhere young girls revered the virgin goddess
as the guardian of their maiden years, and before marriage they
offered up to her a lock of their hair, their girdle, and their maiden
garment. She was also worshipped in many parts as the goddess of good
repute, especially in youths and maidens, and was regarded as an enemy
of all disorderly doings.

With her attributes as the goddess of the moon, and as the promoter of
healthy development, especially in the female frame, is connected the
notion of her assisting in childbirth. In early times human
sacrifices had been offered to Artemis. A relic of this was the yearly
custom observed at Sparta of flogging the boys till they bled at the
altar of a deity not unknown elsewhere and named Artemis Orthia (the
upright), probably from her stiff posture in the antiquated wooden
image. At Sparta, as in other places, the ancient image was looked
upon as the same which Iphigenia and Orestes brought away from Tauris
(the Crimea) -- viz., that of the Tanric Artemis, a Scythian deity who
was identified with Artemis because of the human sacrifices common in
her worship. The Artemis of Ephesus, too, so greatly honoured by all
the Ionians of Asia (Acts, xix. 28), is no Greek divinity, but Asiatic.

Valete bene!

Cato



SOURCES

Cicero, Pausanius, Apollodorus, Homer, Callimachus, Diodorus Siculus,
Hesiod, Pindar, Wikipedia

Cato M. Piscino sal.

Piscine, you wrote:

"Each individual Civis and each magistrate have their own powers and
authority to exercise within a system of checks and balances. OTOH
what you claim as unrestricted rights do not appear in the Constitution."

Yet you still have not given me any reference found within the lex
Constitutiva which supports your assignation of the power to restrict
the guarantee of free participation found in the lex Constitutiva to
any magistrate. The lex Constitutiva is our highest legal authority,
and takes precedence over every other legal authority. And as far as
unrestricted speech, please read the lex Constitutiva again:

"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)


The lengthy rhetoric regarding the Virtues &c. is again
well-written and obviously heartfelt, but has nothing to do with the
simple question of where, in the lex Constitutiva, do you find the
powers - specifically the power to curtail unrestricted participation
in the fora - defined and assigned to a particular magistrate.
Neither have you shown me where "imminent and clear" is defined, nor
where the magisterial power to either define or enforce this clause is
found.

You wrote:

"I would more likely look towards Philodemus' 'On Piety' for my
examples than to a book by Mark, or look to Seneca, Cicero, and any
number of other Roman authors than to what some 18th century Americans
had to say."

And you are certainly free to look wherever you like for whatever you
like. The problem, of course, is that the lex Constitutiva is a
direct legal descendent of what some "18th century Americans had to
say", so although theoretically your stance is admirable, in fact you
are in no position to simply decide whether or not to apply the
guarantees - unhistoric though they may be - that the lex Constitutiva
gives the citizens of the Republic.

Vale bene,

Cato

C.Moravius Brutus Equitio Cato Sal.

If I may butt in I feel we are getting tangled up in legalisms here. Surely the right (or obligation) to restrict the access of any citizen to any forum or list rests with the moderators or censors of that forum or list by virtue of their appointment to that position. Surely this is self evident whether the forum or list is Nova Roman or not. I assume that, with any such group, mechanisms must exist whereby unsatisfactory moderators can be removed. This is more to do with yahoo than with NR.

In addition may I say that I wholly support the actions of the officials involved from the honoured Consuls down and regret only that they haven't been quite as successful in quieting this matter and this individual down as I would have hoped. Certainly having received two of his messages in my private mail over the last week I can't see that his right to free speech is being impeded even if as under British law (under which authority I and my computer abide) some of his rants would be considered illegal as being offensive and likely to foster racial hatred.

gequitiuscato <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:
Cato M. Piscino sal.

Piscine, you wrote:

"Each individual Civis and each magistrate have their own powers and
authority to exercise within a system of checks and balances. OTOH
what you claim as unrestricted rights do not appear in the Constitution."

Yet you still have not given me any reference found within the lex
Constitutiva which supports your assignation of the power to restrict
the guarantee of free participation found in the lex Constitutiva to
any magistrate. The lex Constitutiva is our highest legal authority,
and takes precedence over every other legal authority. And as far as
unrestricted speech, please read the lex Constitutiva again:

"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)

The lengthy rhetoric regarding the Virtues &c. is again
well-written and obviously heartfelt, but has nothing to do with the
simple question of where, in the lex Constitutiva, do you find the
powers - specifically the power to curtail unrestricted participation
in the fora - defined and assigned to a particular magistrate.
Neither have you shown me where "imminent and clear" is defined, nor
where the magisterial power to either define or enforce this clause is
found.

You wrote:

"I would more likely look towards Philodemus' 'On Piety' for my
examples than to a book by Mark, or look to Seneca, Cicero, and any
number of other Roman authors than to what some 18th century Americans
had to say."

And you are certainly free to look wherever you like for whatever you
like. The problem, of course, is that the lex Constitutiva is a
direct legal descendent of what some "18th century Americans had to
say", so although theoretically your stance is admirable, in fact you
are in no position to simply decide whether or not to apply the
guarantees - unhistoric though they may be - that the lex Constitutiva
gives the citizens of the Republic.

Vale bene,

Cato






"It's all right,lads: the chickens say it's going to be all right..."

The Emperor Claudius

---------------------------------
Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail - quick, easy and free. Do it now...

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

Cato C. Moravio Bruto sal.

Moravius Brutus, you wrote:

"Surely the right (or obligation) to restrict the access of any
citizen to any forum or list rests with the moderators or censors of
that forum or list by virtue of their appointment to that position."

With all due respect, that right does *not* exist according to the lex
Constitutiva. Citizens of the Republic are guaranteed the right to
"participate in all public forums and discussions" - and "[s]uch
communications, regardless of their content, may not be restricted by
the State". The only circumstance under which this right may be
impeded upon is when there is an "imminent and clear danger" to the
Republic.

The lex Constitutiva does not define what this "danger" might be, nor
does it give any magistrate the right to define or enforce this
clause. Any lex which attempts to curb the rights of citizens is
overruled by the lex Constitutiva, as the legal order of precedence is
set.

The phrase that such fora "may be expected to be reasonably moderated
in the interests of maintaining order and civility;" is a very nice
one, but once again, the lex Constitutiva defines none of these
phrases - and exactly what constitutes "order", "civility", and
"reasonably" is highly subjective.

The basic argument here is between what seems to be intuitive and
obvious versus what is actually written in the lex Constitutiva;
because of the inherent un-historicity of a written and authoritative
constitution, the framework of a governmental system based on a Roman
Republic sits very precariously on top of an 18th-century
philosophical and legal foundation.

Moravius Piscinus is absolutely right in one important way - we
*should* be looking to Cicero and Cato and Polybius &c. to create the
basis of our government; instead, we are saddled with a document that
does not reflect the actual practice of the ancient Romans.

Vale bene,

Cato

It would seem to me that this question boils down to whether:

1. The constitution says "X" is allowed.
or
2. The constitution says "X" is forbidden.

Since the constitution is a document that can not speak for itself,
(being an inanimate object)
then it is up to some person, (or persons) to decide which statement
is true. Perhaps that is the Senate. Perhaps no one. I don't know.
Of course in the US, it is the Supreme Court. If there is no person
(or persons) specifically charged with this task then the Constitution
becomes more of a guideline which is subject to the interpretation of
the officials in question, and whatever officials of higher authority
there may be to overrule these officials, and in time of course the
voting citizens as a whole.

But to say that the Constitution itself over-rules any particular
action or law makes no sense to me at all.

But then again, I may be completely wrong. I eagerly await enlightenment.
--

>|P. Dominus Antonius|<

Tony Dah m

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

On 8/3/06, gequitiuscato <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:
> Cato C. Moravio Bruto sal.
>
> Moravius Brutus, you wrote:
>
> "Surely the right (or obligation) to restrict the access of any
> citizen to any forum or list rests with the moderators or censors of
> that forum or list by virtue of their appointment to that position."
>
> With all due respect, that right does *not* exist according to the lex
> Constitutiva. Citizens of the Republic are guaranteed the right to
> "participate in all public forums and discussions" - and "[s]uch
> communications, regardless of their content, may not be restricted by
> the State". The only circumstance under which this right may be
> impeded upon is when there is an "imminent and clear danger" to the
> Republic.
>
> The lex Constitutiva does not define what this "danger" might be, nor
> does it give any magistrate the right to define or enforce this
> clause. Any lex which attempts to curb the rights of citizens is
> overruled by the lex Constitutiva, as the legal order of precedence is
> set.
>
> The phrase that such fora "may be expected to be reasonably moderated
> in the interests of maintaining order and civility;" is a very nice
> one, but once again, the lex Constitutiva defines none of these
> phrases - and exactly what constitutes "order", "civility", and
> "reasonably" is highly subjective.
>
> The basic argument here is between what seems to be intuitive and
> obvious versus what is actually written in the lex Constitutiva;
> because of the inherent un-historicity of a written and authoritative
> constitution, the framework of a governmental system based on a Roman
> Republic sits very precariously on top of an 18th-century
> philosophical and legal foundation.
>
> Moravius Piscinus is absolutely right in one important way - we
> *should* be looking to Cicero and Cato and Polybius &c. to create the
> basis of our government; instead, we are saddled with a document that
> does not reflect the actual practice of the ancient Romans.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato

Salve

The full passage of this section of the constitution.

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

The constitution states in the very next line that you quote that the "officially sponsored forums may be expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of maintaining order and civility;"

The constitution allows laws to be enacted and one has been enacted that assigns Praetors as the moderators of the fora of Nova Roma. This is in fulfillment of the constitutional mandate that the "officially sponsored forums may be expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of maintaining order and civility;"

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: gequitiuscato<mailto:mlcinnyc@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 5:37 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Founding Virtues [was: edicta ad personam]


Cato C. Moravio Bruto sal.

Moravius Brutus, you wrote:

"Surely the right (or obligation) to restrict the access of any
citizen to any forum or list rests with the moderators or censors of
that forum or list by virtue of their appointment to that position."

With all due respect, that right does *not* exist according to the lex
Constitutiva. Citizens of the Republic are guaranteed the right to
"participate in all public forums and discussions" - and "[s]uch
communications, regardless of their content, may not be restricted by
the State". The only circumstance under which this right may be
impeded upon is when there is an "imminent and clear danger" to the
Republic.

The lex Constitutiva does not define what this "danger" might be, nor
does it give any magistrate the right to define or enforce this
clause. Any lex which attempts to curb the rights of citizens is
overruled by the lex Constitutiva, as the legal order of precedence is
set.

The phrase that such fora "may be expected to be reasonably moderated
in the interests of maintaining order and civility;" is a very nice
one, but once again, the lex Constitutiva defines none of these
phrases - and exactly what constitutes "order", "civility", and
"reasonably" is highly subjective.

The basic argument here is between what seems to be intuitive and
obvious versus what is actually written in the lex Constitutiva;
because of the inherent un-historicity of a written and authoritative
constitution, the framework of a governmental system based on a Roman
Republic sits very precariously on top of an 18th-century
philosophical and legal foundation.

Moravius Piscinus is absolutely right in one important way - we
*should* be looking to Cicero and Cato and Polybius &c. to create the
basis of our government; instead, we are saddled with a document that
does not reflect the actual practice of the ancient Romans.

Vale bene,

Cato





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

Salve Antoni, et salvete omnes,

P. Dominus Antonius wrote:

> Since the constitution is a document that can not speak for itself,
> (being an inanimate object)
> then it is up to some person, (or persons) to decide which statement
> is true. Perhaps that is the Senate. Perhaps no one. I don't know.
> Of course in the US, it is the Supreme Court.

Yes, and most modern democracies have some kind of Constitutional Court
set up to decide these things. Nova Roma, however, does not. Our
Tribunes are charged with insuring the constitutionality of matters, but
they have no authority to review laws. They can only pronounce
intercessio within 72 hours of the promulgation of a law or edict.

We have, in the past, debated the idea of creating a constitutional
court. For a variety of reasons it's never gone anywhere.

Vale, et valete,

-- Marinus

So if I am understanding you correctly then hypothetically if:

1. The Senate passes a law that is clearly unconstitutional.
2. The Tribunes fail (for whatever reason) to pronounce intercessio
within 72 hours.
3. The law is the law of NR, until such time as the Senate changes it.

Do I have this correct?

If so, then that really does indicate to me that the Constitution is
not a higher law, but actually a guideline for behavior. Thus to say
that the Constitution is the highest authority to which all lower
authorities must conform is not strictly correct. So when one says a
certain edict or law is unconstitutional, this is not to say that that
it is an invalid edict or law but is more in the way of appealing to
the predisposition to have edicts and laws conform to the
Constitution. Perhaps a stronger way of saying "That's not cricket."

In the US a law is valid if it is passed by the Legislature, signed by
the President, and not (fully or partially) struck down by the Court.
If I am understanding correctly, NR appears to have simply eliminated
the third step in comparison to the US system.

I am in no way criticizing.

Can Tribunes pronounce intercessio on part of a law (as US courts
can), or must they strike the entire law down (as a US President
vetoing a bill)?

On 8/3/06, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...> wrote:
> Salve Antoni, et salvete omnes,
>
> P. Dominus Antonius wrote:
>
> > Since the constitution is a document that can not speak for itself,
> > (being an inanimate object)
> > then it is up to some person, (or persons) to decide which statement
> > is true. Perhaps that is the Senate. Perhaps no one. I don't know.
> > Of course in the US, it is the Supreme Court.
>
> Yes, and most modern democracies have some kind of Constitutional Court
> set up to decide these things. Nova Roma, however, does not. Our
> Tribunes are charged with insuring the constitutionality of matters, but
> they have no authority to review laws. They can only pronounce
> intercessio within 72 hours of the promulgation of a law or edict.
>
> We have, in the past, debated the idea of creating a constitutional
> court. For a variety of reasons it's never gone anywhere.
>
> Vale, et valete,
>
> -- Marinus
>
>


--
>|P. Dominus Antonius|<
Tony Dah m

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

Cato D. Antonio sal.

A couple of answers :-)

Only the People, in comitia, can pass laws. The Senate has no
legislative power. But yes, if a law is passed in comitia that
violates the lex Constitutiva (or "conflicts" with it, to use the
language of the lex Const. itself), it is still the law as long as the
process by which it *became* law is valid.

Tribunes cannot pronounce intercessio against a "thing", only an
action taken by a magistrate. In other words, if a tribune sees that
a proposed law conflicts with the lex Const., he/she may pronounce
intercessio on the calling of the comitia in which the proposed lex is
to be voted upon.

As Censor Marinus has pointed out, the existence of an authoritative
constitution is usually paired with a body empowered to enforce
obedience to that authority. But because a "constitutional court" is
another unhistoric entity with regards to ancient Roman governance, it
is generally seen as undesirable because we would be stacking one
unhistoric entity upon another, driving us further and further away
from the practice of the ancients.

So we are in the ludicrous position of having a document which
guarantees the citizens if the Republic certain things yet no way of
ensuring that that document is obeyed.

Vale bene,

Cato

OSD C. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

Hodie est pridie Nonas Sextilis; haec dies comitialis est.

"Remember, Roman, that it is for thee to rule the nations. This shall
be thy task, to impose the ways of peace, to spare the vanquished, and
to tame the proud by war." - Polybius, "The Roman Histories" 6.11-18

"Though all the world exclaim against me, I will say what I think:
that single little book of the Twelve Tables, if anyone look to the
fountains and sources of laws, seems to me, assuredly, to surpass the
libraries of all the philosophers, both in weight of authority, and in
plenitude of utility." - Cicero, de Oratore I.44

"The Greek cities are thought to have flourished mainly on account of
the felicitous choice made by their founders, in regard to the beauty
and strength of their sites, their proximity to some haven, and the
fineness of the country. But the Roman prudence was more particularly
employed on matters which have received but little attention from the
Greeks---such as paving their roads, constructing aqueducts, and
sewers. In fact they have paved the roads, cut through hills, and
filled up valleys, so that the merchandise may be conveyed by carriage
from the ports. The sewers, arched over with hewn stones, are large
enough in parts for actual hay wagons to pass through, while so
plentiful is the supply of water from the aqueducts, that rivers may
be said to flow through the city and the sewers, and almost every
house is furnished with water pipes and copious fountains.

We may remark that the ancients [of Republican times] bestowed little
attention upon the beautifying of Rome. But their successors, and
especially those of our own day, have at the same time embellished the
city with numerous and splendid objects. Pompey, the Divine Caesar
[i.e. Julius Caesar], and Augustus, with his children, friends, wife,
and sister have surpassed all others in their zeal and munificence in
these decorations. The greater number of these may be seen in the
Campus Martius which to the beauties of nature adds those of art. The
size of the plain is remarkable, allowing chariot races and the
equestrian sports without hindrance, and multitudes [here] exercise
themselves with ball games, in the Circus, and on the wrestling
grounds. The structures that surround [the Campus], the greensward
covered with herbage all the year around, the summit of the hills
beyond the Tiber, extending from its banks with panoramic effect,
present a spectacle which the eye abandons with regret.

Near to this plain is another surrounded with columns, sacred groves,
three theaters, an amphitheater, and superb temples, each close to the
other, and so splendid that it would seem idle to describe the rest of
the city after it. For this cause the Romans esteeming it the most
sacred place, have erected funeral monuments there to the illustrious
persons of either sex. The most remarkable of these is that called the
"Mausoleum" [the tomb of Augustus] which consists of a mound of earth
raised upon a high foundation of white marble, situated near the
river, and covered on the top with evergreen shrubs. Upon the summit
is a bronze statue of Augustus Caesar, and beneath the mound are the
funeral urns of himself, his relatives, and his friends. Behind is a
large grove containing charming promenades. In the center of the plain
[the Campus Martius] is the spot where this prince was reduced to
ashes. It is surrounded by a double enclosure, one of marble, the
other of iron, and planted within with poplars. If thence you proceed
to visit the ancient Forum, which is equally filled with basilicas,
porticoes, and temples, you will there behold the Capitol, the
Palatine, and the noble works that adorn them, and the piazza of
Livia, each successive work causing you speedily to forget that which
you have seen before. Such then is Rome!

In Rome there is continual need of wood and stone for ceaseless
building caused by the frequent falling down of houses, and on account
of conflagrations and of sales which seem never to cease. These sales
are a kind of voluntary falling-down of houses, each owner knocking
down and rebuilding according to his individual taste. For these
purposes the numerous quarries, forests, and rivers in the region
which convey the materials, offer wonderful facilities." - Strabo

Valete bene!

Cato



SOURCES

Strabo, Cicero, Polybius

Salve Antoni,

P. Dominus Antonius wrote:

> So if I am understanding you correctly then hypothetically if:
>
> 1. The Senate passes a law that is clearly unconstitutional.
> 2. The Tribunes fail (for whatever reason) to pronounce intercessio
> within 72 hours.
> 3. The law is the law of NR, until such time as the Senate changes it.
>
> Do I have this correct?

You do.

> Can Tribunes pronounce intercessio on part of a law (as US courts
> can), or must they strike the entire law down (as a US President
> vetoing a bill)?

The Tribunes can state that a portion of a lex or edictum or senatus
consultum is unconstitutional, but in practice they've generally vetoed
the entire thing.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Salve Cato,

gequitiuscato wrote:

> Only the People, in comitia, can pass laws. The Senate has no
> legislative power.

Then why do Senatus Consulta have legal authority?

Vale,

-- Marinus

Cato E. Marino censore sal.

Salve censor.

You wrote:

"Then why do Senatus Consulta have legal authority?"

Very interesting question. But of what exactly does their legal
authority consist?

The senatus consulta are placed sixth in order of legal precedence,
above only magisterial edicta. The lex Constitutiva describes the use
of the senatus consultum this way:

1. to "impose taxes, fees, or other financial requirements on the
citizens in order to maintain the financial welfare of the state",

2. to "modify the annual budget",

3. to "create provinciae for administrative purposes and appoint
provincial governors therefor [sic]", and

4. to "enact rules governing its own internal procedures"

There is nothing which indicates that the Senate may actually act with
any kind of legislative authority. So while a senatus consultum has a
place in the order of legal precedence, it has specific and limited
effect, and they are executive acts, not legislative.

The senatus consultum ultimum is an odd kettle of fish. It carries no
weight in and of itself; it can only empower a magistrate (the
consuls) to act with ultimate authority, and only then for a specific
reason in order to resolve a specific situation - it is severely
limited in scope. Again, this is the act of the executive branch of
the government, not the legislative one.

Vale bene,

Cato

Salve Cato,

> Salve censor.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Then why do Senatus Consulta have legal authority?"
>
> Very interesting question. But of what exactly does their legal
> authority consist?
>
> The senatus consulta are placed sixth in order of legal precedence,
> above only magisterial edicta.

The way you write that suggests that edicta are of little consequence, but
that's not true. Edicta are law.

> The lex Constitutiva describes the use
> of the senatus consultum this way:
>
> 1. to "impose taxes, fees, or other financial requirements on the
> citizens in order to maintain the financial welfare of the state",
>
> 2. to "modify the annual budget",
>
> 3. to "create provinciae for administrative purposes and appoint
> provincial governors therefor [sic]", and
>
> 4. to "enact rules governing its own internal procedures"
>
> There is nothing which indicates that the Senate may actually act with
> any kind of legislative authority.

But an examination of the historical record in Nova Roma will show that the
Senate has legislated by consultum in the past, and the constitution has
never been amended to prevent it. (Though fortunately the Senate seems to
have avoided the practice in recent years.)

> So while a senatus consultum has a
> place in the order of legal precedence, it has specific and limited
> effect, and they are executive acts, not legislative.

Consider, if you will, the requirement for the Senate to approve by
supermajority any Constitutional amendment. Isn't that a legislative action?

> The senatus consultum ultimum is an odd kettle of fish.

Indeed it is. I'd rather it be done away with.

--
Marinus

Cato E. Marino censore sal.

Salve censor.

You wrote:

"The way you write that suggests that edicta are of little
consequence, but that's not true. Edicta are law."

But an edict is only in force as long as the magistrate who
promulgated it s in office - and only if he decides to enforce it.
Edicta are a much lesser rank, legally speaking, than a law passed by
the People in comitia. Not of "little consequence" by any means, but
last in order of legal authority in the view of the lex Constitutiva.

You also wrote:

"But an examination of the historical record in Nova Roma will show
that the Senate has legislated by consultum in the past, and the
constitution has never been amended to prevent it. (Though fortunately
the Senate seems to have avoided the practice in recent years.)"

And I answer that precedence does not invalidate the law; even if it
were done every day by every magistrate as long as the Republic has
existed, it is still a violation of the lex Constitutiva.
Historically, although the decrees of the Senate were held in the
highest regard, they were still technically only advice given to the
magistrates, not any kind of law unto themselves.

Take a look at Polybius again; he says:

"Again it is the people who bestow office on the deserving, the
noblest regard of virtue in a state; the people have the power of
approving or rejecting laws, and what is most important of all, they
deliberate on the question of war and peace. Further in the case of
alliances, terms of peace, and treaties, it is the people who ratify
all these or the reverse...[t]he 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, 2and
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 Histories" VI.15-16, ed.)

And in fact, our own lex Constitutiva, in a surprising burst of
historical accuracy, allows only the People in comitia to enact
legislation.

Vale bene,

Cato

Ah. Clear as mud.

On 8/4/06, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...> wrote:
> Salve Cato,
>
> > Salve censor.
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > "Then why do Senatus Consulta have legal authority?"
> >
> > Very interesting question. But of what exactly does their legal
> > authority consist?
> >
> > The senatus consulta are placed sixth in order of legal precedence,
> > above only magisterial edicta.
>
> The way you write that suggests that edicta are of little consequence, but
> that's not true. Edicta are law.
>
> > The lex Constitutiva describes the use
> > of the senatus consultum this way:
> >
> > 1. to "impose taxes, fees, or other financial requirements on the
> > citizens in order to maintain the financial welfare of the state",
> >
> > 2. to "modify the annual budget",
> >
> > 3. to "create provinciae for administrative purposes and appoint
> > provincial governors therefor [sic]", and
> >
> > 4. to "enact rules governing its own internal procedures"
> >
> > There is nothing which indicates that the Senate may actually act with
> > any kind of legislative authority.
>
> But an examination of the historical record in Nova Roma will show that the
> Senate has legislated by consultum in the past, and the constitution has
> never been amended to prevent it. (Though fortunately the Senate seems to
> have avoided the practice in recent years.)
>
> > So while a senatus consultum has a
> > place in the order of legal precedence, it has specific and limited
> > effect, and they are executive acts, not legislative.
>
> Consider, if you will, the requirement for the Senate to approve by
> supermajority any Constitutional amendment. Isn't that a legislative
> action?
>
> > The senatus consultum ultimum is an odd kettle of fish.
>
> Indeed it is. I'd rather it be done away with.
>
> --
> Marinus
>
>


--
>|P. Dominus Antonius|<
Tony Dah m

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

Salve Cato,

> But an edict is only in force as long as the magistrate who
> promulgated it s in office

Or if that magistrate's successor decides to continue the edictum, as most
clearly shown by the Praetorian Edicta of antiquity which were continued for
hundreds of years.

> Edicta are a much lesser rank, legally speaking, than a law passed by
> the People in comitia.

Binding law is binding law. While I agree that a lex passed in comitia can
override an edictum, it's also true that the edictum is just as much "the
law" as any lex.

> Not of "little consequence" by any means, but
> last in order of legal authority in the view of the lex Constitutiva.

You use the term "lex Constitutiva" as if it had some specific legal meaning,
and it does not. I know your intent is to distinguish our written
constitution from the more general idea of an unwritten constitution, but I
think the term doesn't help.

As for the rest, you seem to be going on in your usual way. I've no interest
in talking past you, so I shall end this here.

Vale,

-- Marinus

F. Galerius Aurelianus S.P.D.

Nova Roma is a club, a private cultural & educational organization, an affiliation of individuals with similar interests. It is not the United State of freaking America! We only have about 500 active members, people, and this talk about Constitutional Courts and Judicial Systems is just a little ridiculous. Why do we even need a judicial system? So far, it has been regarded by most citizens hardly at all, by many others as an entertainment, and by others as a bad joke. I still do not understand how it was ever made into one of our by-laws. I suggested to the Consuls earlier this year that new by-laws be created to essentially dump the judicial system until such time as we moved off the internet & our membership was much larger but neither of them ever made any efforts to seriously pursue the matter. Instead, we got more by-laws concerned with the resignation of officers.
There has got to be a balance in our organization between historical accuracy and the realities of modern life. Our incoming magistrates need better written instruction as to what is expected of them and their specific powers of authority. Finally, we need to concentrate less on the internet aspects of our organization and more on some real life activities. Just do it, folks. Don't wait for the central administration to tell you it is o.k. for your province or local group to hold an event. Talk to your provincial governor and agitate for events. Get him or her to gather the taxes within the province & hold on to your share. An event with five or ten Nova Romans is still more than nothing & creates better emotions that five times as much internet debate. Talk to your paterfamilias or materfamilias about family events. We have to re-build our organization from the bottom up and keep our magistrates in their place as our elected officers. Let us go back to having the magistrates stand down a year between offices so they can reconnect with us. This back to back is not only wearing on them emotionally but is not historical. They can propose all the new leges that they want but we do not have to vote them into place. We can say no! The officers of any organization have only as much authoritas as we, the membership, wish to give them.

Vadite in pace Cereris.




-----Original Message-----
From: marsvigilia@...
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 12:06 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lack of a Constitutional Court


So if I am understanding you correctly then hypothetically if:

1. The Senate passes a law that is clearly unconstitutional.
2. The Tribunes fail (for whatever reason) to pronounce intercessio
within 72 hours.
3. The law is the law of NR, until such time as the Senate changes it.

Do I have this correct?

If so, then that really does indicate to me that the Constitution is
not a higher law, but actually a guideline for behavior. Thus to say
that the Constitution is the highest authority to which all lower
authorities must conform is not strictly correct. So when one says a
certain edict or law is unconstitutional, this is not to say that that
it is an invalid edict or law but is more in the way of appealing to
the predisposition to have edicts and laws conform to the
Constitution. Perhaps a stronger way of saying "That's not cricket."

In the US a law is valid if it is passed by the Legislature, signed by
the President, and not (fully or partially) struck down by the Court.
If I am understanding correctly, NR appears to have simply eliminated
the third step in comparison to the US system.

I am in no way criticizing.

Can Tribunes pronounce intercessio on part of a law (as US courts
can), or must they strike the entire law down (as a US President
vetoing a bill)?

On 8/3/06, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...> wrote:
> Salve Antoni, et salvete omnes,
>
> P. Dominus Antonius wrote:
>
> > Since the constitution is a document that can not speak for itself,
> > (being an inanimate object)
> > then it is up to some person, (or persons) to decide which statement
> > is true. Perhaps that is the Senate. Perhaps no one. I don't know.
> > Of course in the US, it is the Supreme Court.
>
> Yes, and most modern democracies have some kind of Constitutional Court
> set up to decide these things. Nova Roma, however, does not. Our
> Tribunes are charged with insuring the constitutionality of matters, but
> they have no authority to review laws. They can only pronounce
> intercessio within 72 hours of the promulgation of a law or edict.
>
> We have, in the past, debated the idea of creating a constitutional
> court. For a variety of reasons it's never gone anywhere.
>
> Vale, et valete,
>
> -- Marinus
>
>


--
>|P. Dominus Antonius|<
Tony Dah m

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





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]

Cato omnes sal.

OK, I get the hint. I shut up now.

Valete bene,

Cato

Salve Romans

FYI from the Yahoo Imperial Rome 2 list :

How exciting! Using a new X-Ray technique, scientists have discovered some ancient Archimedes texts hidden beneath some paintings and later manuscripts:

Mary Harrsch


BBC NEWS <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5235894.stm>: "A series of hidden texts written by the ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes are being revealed by US scientists.

Until now, the pages have remained obscured by paintings and texts laid down on top of the original writings.

Using a non-destructive technique known as X-ray fluorescence, the researchers are able to peer through these later additions to read the underlying text.

The goatskin parchment records key details of Archimedes' work, considered the foundation of modern mathematics.

The writings include the only Greek version of On Floating Bodies known to exist, and the only surviving ancient copies of The Method of Mechanical Theorems and the Stomachionom

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

also from Mary Harrsch

Oh, Oh! It looks like I need to try to find time to visit Atlanta, Georgia soon!

"The Weekly Online!<http://www.theweekly.com/news/2006/August/02/Imperial_Rome.html>: "Fernbank Museum of Natural History presents 350 years of illustrious world history with the world-premiere of a special exhibition that explores the legacy of the Roman Empire. Featuring 450 artifacts that range from small coins to larger-than-life statues, Imperial Rome showcases the brilliance of ancient Roman society during its glory days. The exhibition will open on the 2069th birthday of Caesar Augustus, Rome's first emperor, and will be on view from September 23, 2006-January 3, 2007.

Created through a collaboration between Italy's Contemporanea Progetti, Florence, and Atlanta's Fernbank Museum of Natural History, the exhibition examines life during the era of Imperial Rome through a series of galleries showcasing the legendary emperors, gods, households, lifestyles, and peace, or Pax Romana, established by the powerful military. "

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

"I received the latest catalogue of "Great Courses" from the Teaching
Company last night and saw that they have added a new course entitled
"Classical Archaeology of Ancient Greece and Rome" presented by
Professor John R. Hale of the University of Louisville."

"In these 36 half-hour lectures, archaeologist John R. Hale of the
University of Louisville guides you through dozens of ancient sites
with the skill of a born storyteller. Dr. Hale mixes the exotic
adventures, unexpected insights, and abiding mysteries of
archaeology's fabled history with anecdotes of his own extensive field
experience to create an extremely fast-paced narrative that unfolds
like a series of detective stories.

The detective metaphor is particularly apt because archaeologists
approach their work like sleuths at a crime scene, using a range of
tools, techniques, and technologies to piece together clues that paint
a vivid portrait of life during the formative era of Western civilization.

For example, in Lecture 18, Dr. Hale recounts his own search with
geologist Jelle de Boer for the secret behind the ecstatic trances of
the Oracle of Delphi-a project celebrated in the recent book The
Oracle: The Lost Secrets and Hidden Message of Ancient Delphi by
Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter William J. Broad of The New York
Times. Dr. Hale and Dr. de Boer used traditional archaeological
techniques, combined with geological mapping and chemical analysis of
rock and water samples, to solve the mystery of the priestess's famous
altered states.

Dr. Hale's other research includes a long-running position as field
director for the University of Louisville's excavations at Torre de
Palma, and he is a participant in the search for sunken ships from the
armada that attacked Greece during the Persian Wars, as recounted by
the ancient Greek historian Herodotus. The winner of many classroom
teaching awards, Dr. Hale has also lectured widely beyond the
university, bringing archaeological discoveries to the general public."

Sounds pretty interesting so I've got my copy ordered!

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

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus























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

OSD C. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

Hodie est Nonis Sextiliis; haec dies fastus est.

"Asklepios, the most famous god - ie Paian! By him were fathered ...
children of Epione, along with Hygieia (Health), all-glorious,
undefiled ... Greetings I give you [Asklepios]: graciously visit our
widespaced city - ie Paian! - and grant that we look on the sun's
light in joy, approved with the help of Hygieia, all-glorious,
undefiled: ie Paian!" - Greek Lyric V Anonymous, Fragments 939
(Inscription from Erythrai)

"Bright-eyed mother, highest queen of Apollon's golden throne,
desirable, gently-laughing Hygeia." - Greek Lyric V Licymnius Frag 769
(from Sextus Empiricus, "Against the Ethicists"")

"Hygeia, most revered of the blessed ones among mortals, may I dwell
with you for what is left of my life, and may you graciously keep
company with me: for any joy in wealth or in children or in a king's
godlike rule over men or in the desires which we hunt with the hidden
nets of Aphrodite, any other delight or respite from toils that has
been revealed by the gods to men, with you, blessed Hygeia, it
flourishes and shines in the converse of the Kharites; and without you
no man is happy." - Greek Lyric V Ariphron, Frag 813 (from Athenaeus,
Scholars at Dinner)

"He [the corrupt physician] made a pretence of dispending the
celebrated potion called by more learned people `The Health Offering'
(Salus Sacra), a drug necessary for easing gastric pains and
dissolving bile; but in its place he substituted another draught, `The
Death Offering' (Proserpina Sacra)." - Apuleius, The Golden Ass 10.25

This day was dedicated to Salus, the abstract deification of Health
and Wealth. Salus was a Roman goddess who may originally have been a
fertility and agricultural goddess but who was known as a
personification of health and preservation. Salus is associated with
the Greek goddess Hygeia. She was called Salus Publica Populi Romani
and was often shown on coins feeding a snake. Early coins show Hygeia
with ears of ceral crops. From the name salus comes our word
salubrious, meaning good health. A temple to Salus was consecrated on
the Quirinal.

Valete bene!

Cato



SOURCES

Greek Lyricists, Apuleius, Wikipedia

Salve Cato

I am aware that you do not understand from what direction I am
coming, but I do not come from a tradition that relies on so literal
an interpretation of texts as do you. And what you pose is not even
a literal interpretation for it is not to be found in the
Constitution.

Once again, in your comments below, you have interjected the idea
of "unrestricted speech" where the Constitution says participation.
There is a difference. Participation in Nova Roma entails behaving
in a manner that exemplifies the Founding Virtues, both on our lists
and in our personal lives. Understanding those Founding Virtues is
therefore more important in understanding the meaning of the
Constitution than anything you wish to interject from American
political theory.

You on the other hand claim "that the lex Constitutiva is a direct
legal descendent of what some "18th century Americans had to say,."
This I dispute as in direct conflict with what the Constitution does
say. Nova Roma is not an American organization. The ideas of your
18th century Founding Fathers, who were only inspired by Rome, do
not apply. Instead we look to the advice of the Maiores, with whom
we share a common society, as the spiritual heirs of Roma antiqua.
One of the Maiores instructs us, "Virtute utere," or "Pratice
Virtue." He also advised, "Datum serva," "Preserve that which is
given to you." The stated purpose of Nova Roma is to preserve all
the best that we received from our Roman ancestors. Show me, Cato,
where the lex Constitutiva says we are to preserve what some
Americans had to say.

The lex Constitutiva is not the highest legal authority in Nova
Roma, the People are, as they may amend the lex Constitutiva
whenever they may deem necessary. It has the highest precedence
over any other written laws in Nova Roma, but you seem to confuse
that precedence with the source of authority.

As to your other questions and comments, repeated once more, the
Constitution does give the magistrates distretionary power to define
any dangers as clear and imminent, and discretionary power to act
accordingly. That discretionary power is imperium. It is stated so
in the Constitution that certain magistrates receive imperium.

The other side of receiving such discretionary powers is the
responsibility that come with it. That same advisor from among the
Maiores said, "Nihil arbitrii virium feceris." "Do not abuse your
power and authority against anyone." Would you care to venture a
guess, Cato, as to who among the Maiores said this? Imperium is not
an absolute and unrestricted power. Nor is the right of
participation. What sets limits on both is the practice of the
Founding Virtues. This is why it is important for every Civis and
Magistratus to have a good understanding, and to ground their
actions in, the Founding Virtues. The right to participate in the
fora is not absolute, unrestricted, and free. It, too, comes with
responsibilities, as the Constitution says, and thus is it more a
right of responsible participation; never free and unrestricted
participation. An individual Civis cannot abuse his or her right to
participate in the forum, and if anyone does, the magistrates have
every right, and the discretionary power to take appropriate and
responsible action. They also have the duty and the responsibility
to act under such circumstances, in order to preserve what has been
handed down to us.


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

>
> Cato M. Piscino sal.
>
> Piscine, you wrote:
>
> "Each individual Civis and each magistrate have their own powers

and

> authority to exercise within a system of checks and balances. OTOH
> what you claim as unrestricted rights do not appear in the

Constitution."

>
> Yet you still have not given me any reference found within the lex
> Constitutiva which supports your assignation of the power to

restrict

> the guarantee of free participation found in the lex Constitutiva

to

> any magistrate. The lex Constitutiva is our highest legal

authority,

> and takes precedence over every other legal authority. And as far

as

> unrestricted speech, please read the lex Constitutiva again:
>
> "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)
>
>
> The lengthy rhetoric regarding the Virtues &c. is again
> well-written and obviously heartfelt, but has nothing to do with

the

> simple question of where, in the lex Constitutiva, do you find the
> powers - specifically the power to curtail unrestricted

participation

> in the fora - defined and assigned to a particular magistrate.
> Neither have you shown me where "imminent and clear" is defined,

nor

> where the magisterial power to either define or enforce this

clause is

> found.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "I would more likely look towards Philodemus' 'On Piety' for my
> examples than to a book by Mark, or look to Seneca, Cicero, and any
> number of other Roman authors than to what some 18th century

Americans

> had to say."
>
> And you are certainly free to look wherever you like for whatever

you

> like. The problem, of course, is that the lex Constitutiva is a
> direct legal descendent of what some "18th century Americans had to
> say", so although theoretically your stance is admirable, in fact

you

> are in no position to simply decide whether or not to apply the
> guarantees - unhistoric though they may be - that the lex

Constitutiva

> gives the citizens of the Republic.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>

Cato M. Piscino sal.

Piscine, you wrote:

"Participation in Nova Roma entails behaving in a manner that
exemplifies the Founding Virtues, both on our lists and in our
personal lives."

An admirable sentiment, but an interpretation that is torturous
compared to the simple wording of the Constitution. As the old saying
goes, if you hear hoofbeats do not look for zebras. The Constitution
says "The right to participate in all public forums and
discussions...", not a nebulous lifestyle choice but an actual
activity based on our spheres of communication, the fora.

You wrote:

"The lex Constitutiva is not the highest legal authority in Nova
Roma..."

Yet the Constitution says "This Constitution shall be the highest
legal authority within Nova Roma..."

You wrote:

"As to your other questions and comments, repeated once more, the
Constitution does give the magistrates distretionary power to define
any dangers as clear and imminent, and discretionary power to act
accordingly. That discretionary power is imperium. It is stated so
in the Constitution that certain magistrates receive imperium."

You still have not shown me where imperium is defined in the
Constitution, either to embrace those powers you say it bestows or in
any way whatsoever. I am particularly personally interested in your
definition of imperium and the powers you would ascribe to it, as I,
under the Constitution, hold imperium. I would like you to tell me of
what my imperium consists, and back up your assertions with the
Constitution.

You wrote:

"The right to participate in the fora is not absolute, unrestricted,
and free. It, too, comes with responsibilities, as the Constitution
says, and thus is it more a right of responsible participation; never
free and unrestricted participation."

Piscine, you keep saying this yet you still have not used the
Constitution to support your claims. You throw out words like
"responsible" &c., as if there is a single objective immutable
definition of such words. Please, if you want to make claims like
this, I am asking you to show me where you find this in our
Constitution. Otherwise you are simply describing what you *think*
should be the case, rather than making any kind of valid point. For
the last time, the Constitution says:

"Such communications, REGARDLESS OF THEIR CONTENT, MAY NOT BE
RESTRICTED BY THE STATE [my emphasis], except where they represent an
imminent and clear danger to the Republic..."


Now, I said I'd shut up, and from the remarks I've received I think
it's best that I do. This discussion can go nowhere. But it is
certainly frustrating to ask you to simply supply cited legal support
for your sweeping generalizations only to be met by more rhetoric.

Vale bene,

Cato

M. Hortensia quiritibus spd;
testing to see if this message is posted....

Salve,

I read you loud and clear ;-)

Vale,

Quintus Servilius Priscus "The First Priscus"

On Aug 5, 2006, at 9:11 PM, Maior wrote:

M. Hortensia quiritibus spd;
testing to see if this message is posted....






Yahoo! Groups Links

I have recieved an off list e mail from mr keller calling for members of this list to join RUF.I just want to warn other list members to watch for the same.


---------------------------------
Groups are talking. We´re listening. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.

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

Same here. His address is on permanent "bounce" now.

On 6 Aug 2006, at 0315, Legere_Umbrae wrote:

> I have recieved an off list e mail from mr keller calling for
> members of this list to join RUF.I just want to warn other list
> members to watch for the same.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Groups are talking. We´re listening. Check out the handy
> changes to Yahoo! Groups.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete:

What exactly is RUF?

Valete:

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus

On 8/6/06, Legere_Umbrae <legere_umbrae@...> wrote:
>
> I have recieved an off list e mail from mr keller calling for members of
> this list to join RUF.I just want to warn other list members to watch for
> the same.
>


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

OSD C. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

Hodie est ante diem VIII Idus Sextilis; haec dies comitialis est.

"The Romans are magnanimous. For, whereas nearly all others both in
the public relations of their states and in their private lives change
their feelings according to the latest developments, often laying
aside great enmities because of chance acts of kindness and breaking
up long-standing friendships because of slight and trivial offences,
the Romans thought they ought to do just the opposite in the case of
their friends and out of gratitude for ancient benefits to give up
their resentment over recent causes for complaint." - Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, "Roman Antiquities" XIV.6

Valete bene!

Cato



SOURCES

Dionysius of Halicarnassus

Salve!

Thanks for the warning, but I use Yahoo mail and it has a block list.

Optime vale!

Agricola

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Legere_Umbrae <legere_umbrae@...> wrote:
>
> I have recieved an off list e mail from mr keller calling for
members of this list to join RUF.I just want to warn other list
members to watch for the same.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Groups are talking. We´re listening. Check out the handy
changes to Yahoo! Groups.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salve Gai Fabi Buteo Modiane!

I received one of these as well. The RUF apparently stands for the Revolutionary Union of Fascists. This is the third e-mail I've received from him in the last week.

Vale!

Brutus

"David Kling (Modianus)" <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
Salvete:

What exactly is RUF?

Valete:

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus

On 8/6/06, Legere_Umbrae <legere_umbrae@...> wrote:
>
> I have recieved an off list e mail from mr keller calling for members of
> this list to join RUF.I just want to warn other list members to watch for
> the same.
>

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






"It's all right,lads: the chickens say it's going to be all right..."

The Emperor Claudius

---------------------------------
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal

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

Salve mi frater Brute

Or perhaps more historicisms than legalisms. Cato and I continue a
fine old American tradition, one actually begun in your country with
the publication of "Cato's Letters" by John Trenchard and Thomas
Gordon in 1755. They wrote under the name of 'Cato' to promote
capitalist ideas. In the period leading up to the War for
Independence it became fashionable to compare the British
administration of the colonies with that of an Imperial Rome, with
George III as Julius Caesar, in pamphlets for rebellion written
under pseudonyms like 'Cato'. The practice has continued, the last
I recall during the Nixon administration, to conduct discourses on
political philosophy under such pseudonyms.

The height of this practice came in the period when the US was
arguing over whether to adopt the US Constitution. The Federalists -
Madison, Hamilton, and John Jay, supporting the Constitution, wrote
under the name of "Publius" (Valerius Poplicola) to suggest, after
Plutarch, that he had "consummated the revolution (of Brutus) by
establishing a stable and just republican government."

"Republicans," opposed to adopting the Constitution, wrote under
such pseudonyms as 'Cato' (George Clinton, governor of New
York), 'Brutus' (Patrick Hery), another 'Brutus' (Robert
Yates), 'Publius' (Richard Henry Lee), as well as unknown others
under such names as Cincinnatus, Rusticus, Agrarius, and
Philanthropus.

It is more in this vein that Gaius Cato and I now debate over the
merits of having a lex Constitutiva in Nova Roma.

Vale optime
M Moravius Piscinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Brutus <crwbanmor@...> wrote:
>
> C.Moravius Brutus Equitio Cato Sal.
>
> If I may butt in I feel we are getting tangled up in legalisms
here. Surely the right (or obligation) to restrict the access of any
citizen to any forum or list rests with the moderators or censors of
that forum or list by virtue of their appointment to that position.
Surely this is self evident whether the forum or list is Nova Roman
or not. I assume that, with any such group, mechanisms must exist
whereby unsatisfactory moderators can be removed. This is more to do
with yahoo than with NR.
>
> In addition may I say that I wholly support the actions of the
officials involved from the honoured Consuls down and regret only
that they haven't been quite as successful in quieting this matter
and this individual down as I would have hoped. Certainly having
received two of his messages in my private mail over the last week I
can't see that his right to free speech is being impeded even if as
under British law (under which authority I and my computer abide)
some of his rants would be considered illegal as being offensive and
likely to foster racial hatred.
>
> gequitiuscato <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:
> Cato M. Piscino sal.
>
> Piscine, you wrote:
>
> "Each individual Civis and each magistrate have their own powers
and
> authority to exercise within a system of checks and balances. OTOH
> what you claim as unrestricted rights do not appear in the
Constitution."
>
> Yet you still have not given me any reference found within the lex
> Constitutiva which supports your assignation of the power to
restrict
> the guarantee of free participation found in the lex Constitutiva
to
> any magistrate. The lex Constitutiva is our highest legal
authority,
> and takes precedence over every other legal authority. And as far
as
> unrestricted speech, please read the lex Constitutiva again:
>
> "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)
>
> The lengthy rhetoric regarding the Virtues &c. is again
> well-written and obviously heartfelt, but has nothing to do with
the
> simple question of where, in the lex Constitutiva, do you find the
> powers - specifically the power to curtail unrestricted
participation
> in the fora - defined and assigned to a particular magistrate.
> Neither have you shown me where "imminent and clear" is defined,
nor
> where the magisterial power to either define or enforce this
clause is
> found.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "I would more likely look towards Philodemus' 'On Piety' for my
> examples than to a book by Mark, or look to Seneca, Cicero, and any
> number of other Roman authors than to what some 18th century
Americans
> had to say."
>
> And you are certainly free to look wherever you like for whatever
you
> like. The problem, of course, is that the lex Constitutiva is a
> direct legal descendent of what some "18th century Americans had to
> say", so although theoretically your stance is admirable, in fact
you
> are in no position to simply decide whether or not to apply the
> guarantees - unhistoric though they may be - that the lex
Constitutiva
> gives the citizens of the Republic.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "It's all right,lads: the chickens say it's going to be all
right..."
>
> The Emperor Claudius
>
> ---------------------------------
> Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail -
quick, easy and free. Do it now...
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 02:29:17 -0000, appiusclaudiuspriscus wrote

> Salvete fellow citizens of Nova Roma and fellow members of the "New
> Roman" Yahoo group!
>
> Rome was of, by and for the White male. Join the Revolutionary
> Union of Fascists (RUF) and their Yahoo group.
>
> Valete,
> Appius Claudius Priscus

The simple flaws in this desperate cry for attention in the form of such
rhetoric would be almost laughable if not so terribly sad when put into
context. Such a transparent attempt to twist this group and push an ignorant
agenda. My assertion is that this man has little in his life to be proud of,
few accomplishment or real pursuits or contributions to make him stand out as
he would like. Like anyone who stresses his race as superior, he has little
to be proud of as a person thus he some how fools himself into believing that
something he had no control over, something that takes no effort on his part,
his skin color is something for him to feel proud of, thinking that any great
thing that a ‘white’ man might have accomplished in history has any bearing
what so ever on him. He seems to think those accomplishments of other men are
some how transferred to him by right of skin color, maybe that is why he
feels no need to accomplish much more than harassing a list of people simply
trying to enjoy themselves and celebrate the real accomplishments of real
people long ago with something so trivial and unimportant (as it pertains to
this topic) as skin color. Instead of using that passion to accomplish
something beneficial (which is difficult) he chose to use his passion for
something that is destructive and divisive (which is so very easy).


If we look at Rome like Priscus and I assume we are we are talking the
Republic, It was also only for those who inhabit the continent of Europe. Am
I incorrect in assuming Priscus is from America? I can assure you, no
Americans were ever a part of the Roman Republic...OR Empire. While the
Empire came, in time, to include North Africa, Thrace, Gaul, Germans....I
hate to inform him but there were no Americans, Australians, Canadians,
etc... So some might say the Roman Republic was of, by and for those from
ROME, those from the Italian peninsula, in time the Romans included those
from Africa and the near East, but NEVER an American. I guess it depends on
how far you would like to take your exclusion and how biased and 2
dimensional you see this online endeavor called Nova Roma.

Ancient Romans were products of a time in which we do not live anymore with
different rules that are different for a reason. As I would not trust a
doctor working with only the knowledge of medicine known during the Roman
Republic, nor would I accept a concept as expressed above even if it werenÂ’t
so transparent as a having such biased and flawed logic and lacking in any
validity as it pertains to the modern NEW Rome as it exist in our time, or I
would hope. It is not even worth debate as I would think most would agree. It
would be like making an argument that slavery, because Romans practiced it,
is okayÂ…its absurd as I am sure we can all agree.

As this pertains to the reality of this list: since I have joined Priscus
has been an issue and I am now receiving what would be called offensive,
unsolicited 'spam' as I would ads for porno or penis enlargement because of
my membership on this list and I am not even approved for membership. I see
no reason for debate as to this matter, unless Nova Roma truly would accept a
person like this as a member then in terms of this list and organization he
is nothing more than random ‘spam’ now. The list owner / moderator should
simply report him to yahoo with his racist spam as evidence, all should block
his adresses (in whatever form they appear) and move on. List owner plays
Marius if you must and takes emergency action against a minor insurrection, a
threat to the peace and condemn this man to silence as it pertains to this
body. If Priscus was a true Roman he should be condemd, proclaimed and enemy
to Rome and censored (exiled, sentenced to death) and if Pricus was a true
Roman he would soon be dead in a warm tub by his own doing.

Pardon my possible harsh opinion, from one who isnÂ’t a citizen yet but felt a
need to comment on something that is now affecting me. I wonÂ’t waste another
word on Priscus.

Dru

Salve;
gosh he never writes to me *sob*;-)
Marca Hortensia Maior

- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. Lucretius Agricola"
<wm_hogue@...> wrote:

>
> Salve!
>
> Thanks for the warning, but I use Yahoo mail and it has a block

list.

>
> Optime vale!
>
> Agricola
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Legere_Umbrae <legere_umbrae@>

wrote:

> >
> > I have recieved an off list e mail from mr keller calling for
> members of this list to join RUF.I just want to warn other list
> members to watch for the same.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Groups are talking. We´re listening. Check out the handy
> changes to Yahoo! Groups.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Salve!


You wrote in the matter of spam from a certain person:

> all should block
> his adresses (in whatever form they appear) and move on.

Wise advice indeed.

> List owner plays
> Marius if you must and takes emergency action against a minor

insurrection, a

> threat to the peace and condemn this man to silence as it pertains

to this

> body. If Priscus was a true Roman he should be condemd, proclaimed

and enemy

> to Rome and censored (exiled, sentenced to death) and if Pricus was

a true

> Roman he would soon be dead in a warm tub by his own doing.

He is under a Censorial nota. Those who want more are not few.

>
> Pardon my possible harsh opinion, from one who isn't a citizen yet

but felt a

> need to comment on something that is now affecting me. I won't waste

another

> word on Priscus.
>

Your final decision is a wise one. Many good works await our
attention. Let us focus our energies there.

Optime vale, and welcome, et valete omnes

Agricola

> Dru
>

Salve mi frater Marce Horati

Well, I feel guilty for interrupting now!!! To be honest what I really feel is that the whole Priscus matter needed to be dealt with and put behind us. The time for debate on this particular issue seemed to have passed. With regards to the wider constitutional issues please do carry on!

I must admit that my pre-Civil War American history is scratchy but your comments are very interesting. I note that none of your men chose to write under populist pseudonyms - no Gracchi, no Clodius or Marius, no Caesar!

In the UK now some 'Roman' references do still exist although primarily on the political left. Within the Labour Party which traditionally was, until relatively recently, a socialist party drawing its support from the poorer sections of society there exist two appropriately named 'factions' I can think of. The Tribune Group is an association of left wing Members of Parliament, while the Fabian Society advocates a more softly-softly approach to political conflicts and opposes more aggressive confrontations.

Vale!

Caius Moravius Brutus


marcushoratius <mhoratius@...> wrote:
Salve mi frater Brute

Or perhaps more historicisms than legalisms. Cato and I continue a
fine old American tradition, one actually begun in your country with
the publication of "Cato's Letters" by John Trenchard and Thomas
Gordon in 1755. They wrote under the name of 'Cato' to promote
capitalist ideas. In the period leading up to the War for
Independence it became fashionable to compare the British
administration of the colonies with that of an Imperial Rome, with
George III as Julius Caesar, in pamphlets for rebellion written
under pseudonyms like 'Cato'. The practice has continued, the last
I recall during the Nixon administration, to conduct discourses on
political philosophy under such pseudonyms.

The height of this practice came in the period when the US was
arguing over whether to adopt the US Constitution. The Federalists -
Madison, Hamilton, and John Jay, supporting the Constitution, wrote
under the name of "Publius" (Valerius Poplicola) to suggest, after
Plutarch, that he had "consummated the revolution (of Brutus) by
establishing a stable and just republican government."

"Republicans," opposed to adopting the Constitution, wrote under
such pseudonyms as 'Cato' (George Clinton, governor of New
York), 'Brutus' (Patrick Hery), another 'Brutus' (Robert
Yates), 'Publius' (Richard Henry Lee), as well as unknown others
under such names as Cincinnatus, Rusticus, Agrarius, and
Philanthropus.

It is more in this vein that Gaius Cato and I now debate over the
merits of having a lex Constitutiva in Nova Roma.

Vale optime
M Moravius Piscinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Brutus <crwbanmor@...> wrote:
>
> C.Moravius Brutus Equitio Cato Sal.
>
> If I may butt in I feel we are getting tangled up in legalisms
here. Surely the right (or obligation) to restrict the access of any
citizen to any forum or list rests with the moderators or censors of
that forum or list by virtue of their appointment to that position.
Surely this is self evident whether the forum or list is Nova Roman
or not. I assume that, with any such group, mechanisms must exist
whereby unsatisfactory moderators can be removed. This is more to do
with yahoo than with NR.
>
> In addition may I say that I wholly support the actions of the
officials involved from the honoured Consuls down and regret only
that they haven't been quite as successful in quieting this matter
and this individual down as I would have hoped. Certainly having
received two of his messages in my private mail over the last week I
can't see that his right to free speech is being impeded even if as
under British law (under which authority I and my computer abide)
some of his rants would be considered illegal as being offensive and
likely to foster racial hatred.
>
> gequitiuscato <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:
> Cato M. Piscino sal.
>
> Piscine, you wrote:
>
> "Each individual Civis and each magistrate have their own powers
and
> authority to exercise within a system of checks and balances. OTOH
> what you claim as unrestricted rights do not appear in the
Constitution."
>
> Yet you still have not given me any reference found within the lex
> Constitutiva which supports your assignation of the power to
restrict
> the guarantee of free participation found in the lex Constitutiva
to
> any magistrate. The lex Constitutiva is our highest legal
authority,
> and takes precedence over every other legal authority. And as far
as
> unrestricted speech, please read the lex Constitutiva again:
>
> "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)
>
> The lengthy rhetoric regarding the Virtues &c. is again
> well-written and obviously heartfelt, but has nothing to do with
the
> simple question of where, in the lex Constitutiva, do you find the
> powers - specifically the power to curtail unrestricted
participation
> in the fora - defined and assigned to a particular magistrate.
> Neither have you shown me where "imminent and clear" is defined,
nor
> where the magisterial power to either define or enforce this
clause is
> found.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "I would more likely look towards Philodemus' 'On Piety' for my
> examples than to a book by Mark, or look to Seneca, Cicero, and any
> number of other Roman authors than to what some 18th century
Americans
> had to say."
>
> And you are certainly free to look wherever you like for whatever
you
> like. The problem, of course, is that the lex Constitutiva is a
> direct legal descendent of what some "18th century Americans had to
> say", so although theoretically your stance is admirable, in fact
you
> are in no position to simply decide whether or not to apply the
> guarantees - unhistoric though they may be - that the lex
Constitutiva
> gives the citizens of the Republic.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "It's all right,lads: the chickens say it's going to be all
right..."
>
> The Emperor Claudius
>
> ---------------------------------
> Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail -
quick, easy and free. Do it now...
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>






"It's all right,lads: the chickens say it's going to be all right..."

The Emperor Claudius

---------------------------------
Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail.

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

OSD C. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

Hodie est ante diem VII Idus Sextilis; haec dies fastus est.

"All good things, my dear Clea, sensible men must ask from the gods;
and especially do we pray that from those mighty gods we may, in our
quest, gain a knowledge of themselves, so far as such a thing is
attainable by men. For we believe that there is nothing more
important for man to receive, or more ennobling for God of His grace
to grant, than the truth. God gives to men the other things for which
they express a desire, but of sense and intelligence He grants them
only a share, inasmuch as these are His especial possessions and His
sphere of activity. For the Deity is not blessed by reason of his
possession of gold and silver,3 nor strong because of thunder and
lightning, but through knowledge and intelligence. Of all the things
that Homer said about the gods, he has expressed most beautifully this
thought:

'Both, indeed, were in lineage one, and of the same country,
Yet was Zeus the earlier born and his knowledge was greater.' [Homer,
Iliad XIII.354]

Thereby the poet plainly declares that the primacy of Zeus is nobler
since it is elder in knowledge and in wisdom. I think also that a
source of happiness in the eternal life, which is the lot of God, is
that events which come to pass do not escape His prescience. But if
His knowledge and meditation on the nature of Existence should be
taken away, then, to my mind, His immortality is not living, but a
mere lapse of time.

Therefore the effort to arrive at the Truth, and especially the truth
about the gods, is a longing for the divine. For the search for truth
requires for its study and investigation the consideration of sacred
subjects, and it is a work more hallowed than any form of holy living
or temple service; and, not least of all, it is well-pleasing to that
goddess whom you worship, a goddess exceptionally wise and a lover of
wisdom, to whom, fas her name at least seems to indicate, knowledge
and understanding are in the highest degree appropriate. For Isis is a
Greek word, and so also is Typhon, her enemy, who is conceited, as his
name implies, because of his ignorance and self-deception. He tears to
pieces and scatters to the winds the sacred writings, which the
goddess collects and puts together and gives into the keeping of those
that are initiated into the holy rites, since this consecration, by a
strict regimen and by abstinence from many kinds of food and from the
lusts of the flesh, curtails licentiousness and the love of pleasure,
and induces a habit of patient submission to the stern and rigorous
services in shrines, the end and aim of which is the knowledge of Him
who is the First, the Lord of All, the Ideal One. Him does the god
urge us to seek, since He is near her and with her and in close
communion. The name of her shrine also clearly promises knowledge and
p11comprehension of reality; for it is named Iseion, to indicate that
we shall comprehend reality if in a reasonable and devout frame of
mind we pass within the portals of her shrines.

Moreover, many writers have held her to be the daughter of Hermes, and
many others the daughter of Prometheus, because of the belief that
Prometheus is the discoverer of wisdom and forethought, and Hermes the
inventor of grammar and music. For this reason they call the first of
the Muses at Hermopolis Isis as well as Justice: for she is wise, as I
have said, and discloses the divine mysteries to those who truly and
justly have the name of "bearers of the sacred vessels" and "wearers
of the sacred robes." These are they who within their own soul, as
though within a casket, bear the sacred writings about the gods clear
of all superstition and pedantry; and they cloak them with secrecy,
thus giving intimation, some dark and shadowy, some clear and bright,
of their concepts about the gods, intimations of the same sort as are
clearly evidenced in the wearing of the sacred garb. For this reason,
too, the fact that the deceased votaries of Isis are decked with these
garments is a sign that these sacred writings accompany them, and that
they pass to the other world possessed of these and of naught else. It
is a fact, Clea, that having a beard and wearing a coarse cloak does
not make philosophers, nor does dressing in linen and shaving the hair
make votaries of Isis; but the true votary of Isis is he who, when he
has legitimately received what is set forth in the ceremonies
connected with these gods, uses reason in investigating and in
studying the truth contained therein." - Plutarch, "Isis and Osiris" I.1-3

In ancient Egypt, today was the Festival of Opet, also known as the
"Breaking of the Nile". Centered in Thebes, this boisterous festival,
known as the Beautiful Feast of the Opet, held in the second civil
month and was set according to a lunar calendar. It was perhaps not as
old a celebration as some of the other feasts, though during the New
Kingdom particularly, the celebration of Opet was predominate. Its
duration of twenty-seven days in the 20th Dynasty shows how
significant the celebration became. However, we know virtually nothing
about the celebration prior to the 18th Dynasty and the rise of Thebes.

Theban citizens and their guests from afar celebrated the fruitful
link between their pharaoh and the almighty god, Amun, who in the New
Kingdom became a state god. During the celebration it was thought that
the might and power of Amun were ritually bequeathed to his living
son, the pharoah. Therefore, the celebration belonged to the official
royal ideology of the state and, not surprisingly, witnessed the
personal involvement of the pharaoh.

Because of the flooding, work was temporarily suspended in fields. The
people joined in a dramatic procession honoring Amun that began at the
Temple of Amun in Karnak and ended at Luxor Temple one and a half
miles away at the south end of the city.

At Karnak, the people watched the high priests disappear in the
temple. Inside, the priests bathed the image of the god and dressed
him in colorful linen and adorned him with jewelry from the temple
treasury including magnificent necklaces, bracelets, scepters, amulets
and trinkets of gold or silver encrusted with lapis lazuli, enamel,
glass and semi-precious gems. The priests then enclosed the god in a
shrine and then placed the shrine on top of a ceremonial barque or
boat, often supported by poles for carrying.

When the priests emerged from the temple, they carried the barque on
their shoulders throughout the pillared halls and courtyards of
Karnak. Then they moved into the crowded streets where people elbowed
each other to catch a glimpse of the sacred vessel. Many a small
Egyptian child was lucky to be placed on his or her parent's shoulder
to be able to see.

In Hatshepsut's time, the complete journey was accomplished on foot,
while stopping at different resting stations. Later, the boat was
carried to the Nile and then towed upriver to Luxor Temple by high
government officials who vied for the enviable honor. The pharaoh
himself was there to greet Amun and escort him to Luxor Temple. The
people heard the steady beat of soldier's drums and watched as men
from Nubia danced to songs of devotion sung by the priests.

After reaching Luxor, the pharaoh and priests left the crowd behind
and maneuvered the boat into the dark recesses of the temple. Incense
filled the air. There was a ceremony communing with another holy image
of Amun, Amun-Min, who inseminated the earth, according to the ancient
beliefs of creation, and brought about plentiful harvests.

Now the pharaoh emerged from the sanctuary. The citizens greeted him
wildly and praised his accomplishments; any wrongs he had committed
were automatically forgiven. "He was once more the embodiment of
divine strength and generosity, the source of bounty and well-being
for Egypt."

During the Festival of Opet, Thebans could ask the god questions
(oracles) that could be answered by a simple yes or no. A man might
ask if his brother in another town was in good health, If the barge
dipped forward, the answer was yes; if it backed away, the reply was
no. Commoners were also allowed to put questions to a god in his
temple. For these exceptional times, the fortunate citizens who were
allowed into the temple were escorted to special audience rooms. The
priests would convey the answers either through a concealed window
high up in the wall or from inside a hollow statue.

More than anything, the ancient Egyptian population enjoyed the
generosity of the gods during these festivals. During one Opet
festival in the 12th century BC, it is recorded that temple officials
distributed 11,341 loaves of bread and 385 jars of beer to the citizens.

Valete bene!

Cato



SOURCES

Plutarch, "Grand Festivals in Ancient Egypt", Ilene Springer and Jimmy
Dunn

Salve Cato

Certain specific matters will best be addressed elsewhere for now, and
some other matters we will have to come back to as time permits. But,
in general, an ongoing discussion on the lex Constitutiva is a good
exercise for all Cives.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gequitiuscato" <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:
>
I am particularly personally interested in your
> definition of imperium and the powers you would ascribe to it, as I,
> under the Constitution, hold imperium.
>

Ah, that is one of those ahistorical aspects of the lex Constitutiva
that you so enjoy bringing up, since in Roma antiqua an aedilis did
not hold imperium.

Imperium in a specific sense of meaning is the power to issue commands
to an army that has been assembled under proper auspices. Imperium
goes hand in hand with the power of auspicium, for one could not
receive imperium without first receiving auspicium. Originally only
the consules held imperium as they alone received the special power of
auspicium to interact with the Gods on behalf of the Roman State. At
the beginning of the Republic, the term actually used for the highest
offical was praetor. The term consul emerged later and became a more
specific term to designate an office with the leges Licinia Sextia of
371 BCE. In 366 BCE, when the first plebeian was elected consul under
the lex Licinia-Sextia, the office of praetor was created to assist
the consules. At that time the consules and praetores came under the
same auspices and were distinguished only by their separate
provincia. By 241 BCE, if not sooner, a distinction was made between
the imperium minus of a praetor from that of the imperium maior of a
consul, as in the mean time, by then a distinction between the
auspices of praetores was separate from that of consules.

In order to receive imperium a consul had to progress through several
steps. Election to office only granted an individual the right to
assume the office. He next had to consult with his Lares by taking
his family auspices. His own Maiores had to approve before he could
take office. He then had to perform certain rites to the Gods and
take the public auspicia. He had to perform those rites vowed by his
predecessor in the previous year and make new solemn vows at the
Capitolium, and he had to visit with Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Visiting
with the Senate, he had to formally ask for its advice, and a
sortition was then performed by which the consules and praetores
received their provincia. Imperium can only be exercised in a
specified provincia. The rite of sortition is itself a form of
auspicium whereby the Gods give Their approval of a person holding
imperium and designate where he was permitted to employ it. He had
next to designate the dates of the feriae Latinae and perform the
sacrifice to Jupiter Latinus upon Mount Alba. Only then was he
permitted to take the auspices for assembling the Comitia Centuriata.
Only then could he formally don the paludatus of a general, or be
proceded by lictores, as he assumed his imperium and was permitted to
assemble an army by first calling the Comitia Centuriata to assemble.
In one sense, imperium is the authority to assemble the Comitia
Centuriata. You might look at Livy 21.63 where complaint is made over
Flaminius not following this regimen of rites, and later in Livy where
his defeat is blamed on his not properly taking the auspices or
performing his rites, and thus that he did not technically hold
imperium to command an army. The view was that since the Gods did not
confer imperium on Flaminius, They deserted the army that was under
his command. it simply was not a Roman army in a proper sense.

Earlier, at Livy 6.41, an Appius Claudius tried to argue against
plebeians being allowed to hold the office of consul based on what he
claimed was the exclusive right of patricians to take the auspicia. A
different Appius Claudius made the same argument earlier when the
Decemviri tried to outlaw intermarriage of patricians and plebeians,
and other Appi Claudii are posed by Livy making the same argument each
time that an issue arises over whether some position should be open to
plebeians. It was a false argument. The first consul, Brutus, was a
plebeian, as were others after him, before plebeians became excluded.
And plebeians intermarried with patricians by confarreatio, which
implies that they also took auspicia, before the Decemviri ever tried
to set exclusionary limitations against plebeians. In every case that
an Appius Claudius is seen making such a claim in Livy, Livy also
shows that this view was overruled by tradition. But it does serve to
point out how imperium related back to the Gods, as a power granted by
the Gods alone, and that it was dependent upon a person also holding
the power of auspicium. Auspicium is a power conferred by the Gods,
because what the term implies is that the Gods concede to confer with
the person. If he were to perform the rite wrongly, then the Gods
might convey Their displeasure as They did with Tullus Hostilius. But
if They were to send him signs, then it is assumed he has the
auspicium.

Imperium was conferred on consules who possessed the power of
auspicium by the Comitia Curiata. This much older comitia represented
the organization of Rome under the original three tribe (ten curiones
each for a total of thirty curiones). Besides conferring imperium,
their other function was to witness wills and adoptions. It was
chaired by the Rex Sacrorum, and in the Late Republic by the Pontifex
Maximus, because it was essentially a religious assembly. Roman law
on wills and adoption was more concerned with the transfer of the
obligations of continuing the cultus of a family than with any concern
over the transfer of property. You can compare this with the emphasis
that Cicero placed on maintaining ritus familiae patrumque in De
Legibus as essential for preserving the Pax Deorum. Recall, too, the
comment by Festus that "the Di Manes are invoked in all auguries,
because it is believed that all things on earth and beneath the sky
proceed through them (157a)." The "common society" that the Romans
knew included the Gods with the People of Rome, and the People of Rome
included the Manes. There was no distinguishing between living and
deceased members of a family, or of the City. The genius of every
man, and the juno of every woman, is received partly from the Gods and
partly from the Manes through our parents, according to Aufustius,
writing to Asinius Pollio (GRF 2; Festus p. 94, 16 Paul.), where
others said that these come from the Gods, including the Di Manes
among Them. And the Romans also held a view that a person's genius was
reincarnated from an ancestor - the idea behind what Tacitus relates
on "soldiers, who bore auspicious names" (Historiae 4.53). There was
an idea that certain individuals were destined to hold imperium
becuase their genius had already done so in the past, or at the very
least that one could not attain imperium without approval of those who
had held it in the past. At any rate, all of the various religious
notions that Romans had came together in the Comitia Curiata that
imperium is a heavenly power that can only be temporarily conferred
upon a person, exercised, and retained with the approval of the Gods
and the Maiores. Imperium is comparable to the baraka, that mystical
power or luck granted by Allah to a sherif with the same tribal
connotation as a heavenly grace that designates a person to possess
the right to be chief, rather than empowers a person any right to
rule. Imperium, and baraka, is not a Chinese "mantle of Heaven." In
order to possess it, you really need some divine sign showing that you
do possess it.

In Nova Roma, whoever came up with the idea of connecting imperium
with an aedilis certainly misused the term. I suppose, in a certain
sense every magistrate who is elected comes under the auspices of the
presiding magistrate of his or her election. But that would not mean
that any of them hold imperium. Before the Comitia Curiata can confer
imperium on any curule magistrate that magistrate has to take his or
her own auspicium. That formality is more often neglected today than
followed, and in the past Nova Roma has also allowed others to takes a
magistrate's auspicium for him, which is improper. The intent of
using imperium as a term was to convey the notion of an approval of an
individual to hold and exercise the power of a curule office, that
approval coming from the Comitia Curiata, with a degree of religious
connotation behind this approval. But election to office alone does
not confer imperium on any curule magistrate in Nova Roma any more
than it did in Roma antiqua. Once recognized by the Comitia Curiata to
possess imperium you have the power to command, but solely within your
own specified area of responsibility, which for an Aedilis Curule is
really only in the area of maintaining order at public festivals.
Remember that an aedilis was originally a religious office, one who
cared for a temple precinct, maintaining its rule (lex templi),
oversaw maintainance of any of its buildings, handled its finances and
any of its personel. An aedilis did have a discretionary power
comparable to that of a praetor's within a temple precinct, in as much
as he could levy fines on anyone who broke the lex templi. And there
is one incident in Livy (4.30.9) where the Senate commissioned the
aediles of the City "to see to it that none but Roman Gods should be
worshipped (in the City), nor in any but the ancestral way." This
supposedly took place in 427 BCE, before curule aediles were even
established and before the plebeian aediles were recognized into the
State religion, but would probably refer to aediles and curatores of
all the temples and shrines, as well as to the curiones who had both a
civic and religious function. In specified religious areas (places
and festivals) the aediles had what we could call a "policing power"
and also some "regulatory power," which is all as far as the Nova Roma
Constitution also grants you. Your imperium, as an aedilis, does not
give you any sort of authority to command armies (unless you include
re-enactors at a festival), or call comitia to assemble, or attend the
Senate, let alone address it directly. There is another incident that
might interest you, I forget whether in Livy or Valerius Maximus,
where some patricians were not paying proer respect to a curule
aedilis who happened to be a plebeian. So he ordered his curule seat
brought forth and sat on it, at which time the patricians had no
choice but to defer to him. So the curule office of an aedilis did
carry with it some form of authority no matter where the aedilis was.
But it should not be called imperium.

Vale
Piscinus