L. Livia Plauta omnibus sal.

I post here with permission links to the albums by M. Iulius Perusianus.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/milkoan/sets/72157617180833722/

These are from the tour of aqueducts last Friday.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/milkoan/sets/72157617181084774/

These are the ones that should make you all green with envy.
On Friday afternoon we visited the sets of the HBO serial "Rome" in Cinecittà.
I can't begin to tell you hiow realistic they are, and what a feeling it was to see the rostra, the temple of Juppiter Capitolinus, and walk around in the Suburra.
Some of us changed into their roman attire. Wait until you see my photos too!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/milkoan/sets/72157617090589307/

Some more "cyclobigae" here.

Optime valete,
Livia

L. Livia Plauta omnibus sal.

Here are the videos C. Aurelius Vindex shot these days.
The last two ones are of the Feriae Latinae ceremony. Unfortunately the audio is very bad quality.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEQkGW9w46c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRLER1iZgdA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIgePuhDzY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTs4xEnf76U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v9xdNl8udA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLxi79H26xc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80rB_NiVC-o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx0V52MxjcI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6007p9H3uFY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17revoRkNt4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUZ5Xjtvrg8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RdEs48mx2A

Optime valete,
Livia

Pr. P. Memmius Albucius omnibus s.d.

You will find in the files section of this Forum, at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/files/

the following document:
Edictum_de_sermone_GEM-PMA ad VIII Kal. Maias.doc

This file is the corrected praetorian joint edictum de sermone, that I have the honor to issue here officially.

Thanks for every one who has contributed with good will to this draft.
Our wish, Pr. Marinus' and mine, has been that the result of several hours of work be at everybody's disposal.

We have been informed that one of our tribunes could intend vetoing this text. At this step, and after a first unsuccessful first discussion begun with Tribune Fl. Galerius Aurelianus, we have wished that every concerned magistrate take his responsibilities towards the People.

A successful veto would "freeze" the situation back into the current situation.

You will find below, in this mind, the last exchange of letters between Tribune Fl. Galerius Aurelianus and I on the matter.


Thanks and valete omnes,


P. Memmius Albucius
for the joint praetura

--------------------------------------------------------------------
[sent today 10:10 pm Rome time]

Tribuno Galerio Aureliano s.d.

Thanks for your response, even it seems, using provokating expressions like "sounds like a cheap lawyer trying to sound impressive" etc., rather aiming worsening our working relation than easing it up.

When you say, commenting the article 10: "FlGA: This is not what I wrote to you or the ML. I stated that the Responsum de Collegium Diebus defines the different days that are used in the Calendar. It doesn't say that the Praetura can be closed on certain days, just that you cannot perform certain actions as defined. If you cannot understand this, you have bigger problems than simply using wordy and confusing language, you do not comprehend it."

you do not seem understanding that your opinion is your personal one, which may happen to differ with Praetor Marinus' one and mine.

As elected magistrates, you, or Praetor Marinus and I, are to collaborate together at best for the interests of the Republic, but respecting each other our field of competency.

As I may have mistaken on the nature of the relations that I have wished, in this spirit, building with you, I will take my responsibilities and issue the edictum as it is, regretting that, at this step, we have not found a common language, be able to better it up together.

But things will be more transparent like this. This edictum, how long it be, gives our cives an opportunity to see their rights better protected.
It is however your full right, and full responsibility, vetoing it.

If you do, and if the tribunes agree on this veto, Pr. Marinus and I will respect the tribunate position. We will then come back to the previous state of things, and the ruling of the current Edictum de sermone. In this frame, we will be naturally, Pr. Marinus and I, ready to go on, as long as necessary, working with you in the frame of a more respectful relation.


Vale Tribune,


Albucius pr.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Tb Aurelianus are inserted below as 'FIGA']

Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:30:03 -0500
From: Patrick.Owen@...
To: albucius_aoe@...
CC: brotherpaganus@...
Subject: Re: Draft new edictum de sermone


Fl. Galerius Aurelianus sal.

Here is my response to your new edictum but the bottom line is don't issue it. It needs to be scrapped and started from scratch.

Ex officio praetorum Novae Romae:



In view of:

- the Constitution of Nova Roma (http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_(Nova_Roma)), especially its article IV, A.3;

- the laws of Nova Roma, especially leges Vediae de ratione edictorum, Cornelia de linguis publicis, Saliciae, Arminia Equitia de imperio,

- the mos maiorum, especially its rules relative to the praetorian powers and the official calendar of the Roman republic.

- the edictum de sermone GEM/PMA 2762-02 prorogating the edictum MCC/MIS a.d. XV Kal. Feb. MMDCCLXII a.u.c. (19 Ian. 2009 c.c.),



we, Gn. Equitius Marinus and P. Memmius Albucius, praetors for the year 2762 a.u.c.,



issue this edict:





Article 1:



The former edictum de sermone (2762-02, a.d. XV Kal. Feb. MMDCCLXII a.u.c. (19 Ian. 2009 c.c.)), proroging the praetorian edicts issued for 2761 auc, is rescinded and replaced by the following rules.



Article 2 :



The list hosted on Yahoo! network at the address "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma", and whose communications, also called "messages", are displayed at: "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/messages" is the main forum of the Republic of Nova Roma. As such it is ruled by this edict, in due conformity with the Nova Roman constitution and laws. This forum is either called the "Main List" (abbreviation 'ML') or the "Forum Romanum" (abbreviation 'FR'). Being a member of Nova Roma and therefore accepting its rules, especially to obey the internal rules defined by NR Inc. and among them its legal system setting the resolution of the possible differences in the frame of Nova Roma before any claim towards the national courts,

the individual who has created or is currently the main moderator of the ML in the frame of the hosting electronic provider rules (Yahoo! or any other corporation or company), thus accepts that all her/his moderation powers on the ML are placed into the control of, and delegated to, the legally elected praetors in charge.



FlGA: Technically, the praetors are moderators for all the official for of Nova Roma which means you should probably just provide a list of all the official websites of Nova Roma that were created or claimed following the Senate Consultum last year. I could be wrong but this article also seems to be pointed primarily at Cincinnatus and Cassius. Your entire language is overly complicated and sounds like a cheap lawyer trying to sound impressive. Also since many of those who are on the official lists are not members of Nova Roma, you should probably change this article to say all members of all the official lists that you have listed.



Article 3 :



The ML (FR) welcomes everybody who wishes discussions of romanitas, such as defined below, whether a citizen (or 'civis') of Nova Roma or not. By subscribing to this FR, the people who are civis or not yet Nova Roma citizens, accept to abide its rules.



The "romanitas" field means that the FR welcomes every topic and intervention, inside a topic, related to the organization or life of Nova Roma and to the general or thematic knowledge of Rome, from its origins and historical creation to its end, as defined by the constitution of Nova Roma (see its text, as mentioned above), as well as the ones dealing with the influence that Rome as a global civilization has had and keep having on the current world. Are also welcome every contribution on the current practice and development of the Roman values (or 'virtues'), as defined by Nova Roma mos maiorum and practice (see at: http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Roman_Virtues) and of romanitas, generally speaking.



FlGA: Again you are overlooking that some members on some of the lists are not interested in the Virtues but are there because of an interest in history, religion, cooking, et cetera. You could probably leave out this article altogether.





Article 4 :



By accepting to abide by the ML rules, every user of this list accepts that her/his violation of the rules mentioned in the present edict, or which would be issued by the moderators of this FR, be sanctioned by a corrective action which would be defined, as appropriate, by these moderators. This action will be found on a range of measures, from a simple reminder to a definitive exclusion ('ban') from the FR.



The moderators of this ML are the two praetors of Nova Roma, and every officer who they would have given, in the due legal forms, mandate to moderate the FR or a part of it. Every praetorian decision shall be assumed to be taken by one of the praetors, unless a praetor repeals or vetoes this decision.



The citizens of Nova Roma have the privilege being protected by the Constitution and the laws of Nova Roma, and can, within the framework of the Constitution and laws, contest and/or appeal any such limiting measure issued by a moderator.



New members of a public forum are placed under a specific moderation status described in the article 12 below.



FlGA: Once again this is too wordy and is also confusing. You could have stopped with "if you are on this list, you accept the terms and conditions of use as defined by the Yahoogroups policies and the rules of moderation as prescribed by the Praetores. These include private and/or public warnings as well as moderation for up to 90 days."





Article 5 :



The violation of the FR rules described above is generally committed by posting a message into the ML. The word "message" includes the whole contents of the information sent to the ML, contents of the message itself with its forms, title and any attached files or other features. Every other kind of violation will also fall in the scope of the present edict.



The user of the ML, whatever be her/his status -- civis of Nova Roma or not -- becomes responsibility when (s-)he sends, intentionally or not, a message to the ML. The simple fact that the message has been sent, from the electronic sending box of the sender to Nova Roma ML (in-)box, creates this responsibility, regardless of whether or not this message, due to the intervention of the praetorian office, is publicly displayed or not in the forum. The issuing of a message which would have violated the rules of the present edict becomes the full responsibility of the sender, without regard to the moderation status imposed by the praetors and of their assistants.



FlGA: Too wordy.





Article 6 :



As an international community, Nova Roma allows in its fora, including the present FR, every language, as long as the use of this language does not lead to a technical problem for the ML or a serious difficulty, for the members of the Forum, to read a message posted in this language.



Though the official and governmental communication of the Republic of Nova Roma is not supposed to be sent in this FR, but in the Yahoo! list called "NovaRoma Announce", whose address is NovaRoma-Announce@yahoogroups.com, and in the special relevant provincial or thematic lists, such communications are accepted. They will then be sent in English, the official business language in Nova Roma, and in Latin, the official ceremonial language of Nova Roma, for every message related to ceremonial acts.



Despite the general freedom to post in whatever language that currently exists, the sender is recommended, when the contents of her/his message seems to need such a translation, to translate it in English, for example to avoid every confusion or misunderstanding.



The moderators (praetors) hold the authority to ask a sender that (s-)he translate a message, or that (s-)he limits sendings, when the volume of such sendings appear as disproportioned towards the profile of the members of the ML, who, in majority, read the English language. A sender who would then refuse the praetorian request may then be moderated, as the praetors would see fit in the legal framework of this edictum.





Article 7 :



In order that the FR maintain a reasonable flow of useful information for its users, senders are recommended to avoid all unnecessary features such as file attachments, especially large file attachments such as videos or images, which would increase the size of the communication. Hypertext links are recommended, inside the corpus of the message. For long hypertext links, we recommend users utilize the services of www.tinyurl.com to convert their long links into short ones.



In case of difficulty, the moderators may refuse a message in the FR and/or ask a sender to re-post it without the problematic files or features.





Article 8 :



The topics of discussion authorized in the FR are defined in the article 3 above.



Others topics are defined as 'off-topic'.



Exceptionally, 'off-topic' messages are accepted. Such messages must be clearly however identified by the mention 'off-topic' inserted in the title of the message. The moderators may ask for such insertion, or any modification of the contents of the message from the sender, either privately or publicly, or to refuse them at any time.





Article 9 :



Every message sent outside of the field defined in the article 8 above is forbidden, and, as such, falls, as a violation of the present edict, in the scope of the moderation powers of the praetors of Nova Roma, such as defined in the article 4, as well, for Nova Roma citizens, under their general constitutional and legal powers.



Items covered by this prohibition :



- commercial sendings which would have not been authorized by a curule aedile, or any magistrate of Nova Roma who can legally rule the status of the sellers who are legally recognized as Equites and/or merchants inside Nova Roma. Such an authorization should have been notified to the praetor(s). Such a prohibition concerns messages such as Unsolicited Commercial E-mail

UCE (aka spam), and similar mass mailings or messages from spoofed addresses.

- every behavior which could be identified, by the moderators of the ML, as rudeness, disrespect or an anti-social behavior. Are considered as such, every behavior, which:

. whatever the quality of the infringer (citizen or not), falls under the penal sanction of the lex Salicia poenalis, "pars altera" (http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Salicia_Poenalis_(Nova_Roma));

. is or looks like, in the moderators' view, an insult, an harassment, an assaulting behavior or a provocation, is considered as a provocation:

. . any reference or discussion to pornographic material(s), or material(s) of a sexual nature that is not strictly within the context of a historical discussion, for example supported by historical or scholars' quotations, unless the material is a matter of common knowledge, at least in the country where the sender lives.

. . without prejudice of the normal application of Lex Salicia poenalis, the public promotion, in the ML, of an non-official cult, belief or philosophy, especially proselytism and regular promotions, is defined as "non-official cults." Every religious tradition which is not the Religio Romana, i.e. the cult of the Roman gods, as publicly worshipped during the historical Roman Republican period by such institutions as the religious colleges (pontiffs and augurs), the magistrates, the curiae, the specialized colleges or the pater- and mater- familiae. The word "gods" includes naturally, here, the goddesses.

In the context of this paragraph, a "public promotion" includes every call to the practice of a non-official cult, belief or philosophy, as well as every argument who tends, explicitly or incidentally, to lead the reader of the concerned message to think that the following of such cult, belief or philosophy is good in itself or could bring her/him to compare the interests of following this one and, on the other hand, the Religio Romana. Also considered as "public promotion" is the sending of a message or a series of messages whose effect, if not intention, would be to bring the discussion on a non-official cult, belief or philosophy, or to encourage another member of the ML discussing about it, or using arguments that enter in the ideology of this non-official cult, belief or philosophy.



FlGA: You would have been better off just copying the rules that are used off the Moderators Group in Yahoo.



Article 10 :



While the praetura is legally required to manage the moderation of Nova Roma public fora, such a task is not possible on 'dies vitiosi' and 'dies nefasti publici', for, during these days, the praetura and every other public institution's offices are closed.



In this strict context, the praetors may put under a specific moderation status one or several citizens who they may suppose, based on prior behavior, will not respect, during these days, all the rules of the present edictum and thus create situations that the praetura would not been able to react to before the next open day. Such action will be limited in time and not been allowed to exceed the limit of the concerned day.



If necessary, such measure may be taken exceptionally during the concerned dies vitiosus or nefastus publicus if necessary and if no better solution is available.



FlGA: This is not what I wrote to you or the ML. I stated that the Responsum de Collegium Diebus defines the different days that are used in the Calendar. It doesn't say that the Praetura can be closed on certain days, just that you cannot perform certain actions as defined. If you cannot understand this, you have bigger problems than simply using wordy and confusing language, you do not comprehend it.





Article 11 :



In case of violation of the present edict and inside its frame, the praetors are allowed to take against the infringer one or several among the following measures:



1/ a private reminder of the rules promulgated by the present text

2/ a public reminder of the rules promulgated by the present text

3/ a modification of the posting status of the infringer

4/ the removal of the infringer from the ML.

5/ the ban of the infringer from the ML.





The modification of the posting status of the infringer can, independently of her/his general status (for example as a civis of Nova Roma), be the following one:



- the moderation of her/his messages, i.e. the fact that these ones be checked, before being issued in the FR, by one of the moderation praetorian office;

- the ban from posting any message to the FR: the sent message will be refused by the technical server, without any praetorian specific intervention.



Moderation and ban measures have no mandatory limitation of time, except for Nova Roma citizens. The citizens are placed under a moderation or/a ban measure whose time length is set by the praetors, but cannot be longer than 90 days. This length must be proportional with the committed violation. Such a measure or such a length may be contested or appealed by the concerned citizen directly towards the concerned praetor and/or according to the general laws of Nova Roma.



The removal of the infringer from the ML removes her/him from the ML. This ex-member will then be obliged to request the praetors, if (s-)he wants to come back into the FR, for her/his reintegration. Such reintegration will lead to the requestor being placed, in the NMMS status evoked below in the article 12. The praetors may refuse such reintegration or accept it, either by a direct act, or keeping silence. Such praetorian acts cannot be appealed or contested, except by Nova Roma citizens in the context of the laws of Nova Roma.



The ban of the infringer from the ML prevents technically this one to request her/his reintegration in the forum.

Such praetorian acts cannot be appealed or contested, except by Nova Roma citizens, in the framework of the laws of Nova Roma.



FlGA: You have posted that moderation would be limited to a maximum of 90 days. However, the words "ban" and "removal" are in conflict with the limitations because they imply removal and expulsion. Also, the phrasing of "proportional with the committed violation" is too vague. You should be specific about what the violations are: profanity, material unsuitable for minors, using uncivil language, implying in a post that someone is dishonest or lying, et cetera. Also, "keeping silent" is just not right. If you are not going to let someone off moderation or you have removed them (which you do not technically have the authority to do per the Constitution and leges), you really need to tell them.



Article 12 :



Every new member of a public forum administered by the praetors of Nova Roma is automatically put under a moderation status, in order to let the new member be aware of the rules of the present edictum and of the 'etiquette' of such fora.



This moderation status, as known as "new member moderation status" (NMMS), lasts 30 days, from the entry in the concerned forum of the new member, and is not therefore linked to any infringement committed by the member.



If the new member has already been a member of this forum in the past, and for one reason or another, he has left it, the praetors may accept or take the initiative by shortening this NMMS for the concerned member.





Article 13 :



This edict takes effect immediately.



Article 14 :


Every Nova Roman public officer shall, as far as their duties require, enforce the present edict, which will be published in the Tabularium Novae Romae and in Nova Roma relevant internet 'discussion' lists.

Pr. Memmius omnibus s.d.

Another nefastus publicus dies tomorrow (Robigalia), the last of April. The next one will be Idus Maias (May 15th).

The now ordinary rules of this Forum apply on this Saturday.

Have a good Saturday all.


Valete omnes,


Albucius pr.

Salve, Thanks, at least somebody has something interesting to say and share.   A political observation: a corporation and a republic are two different things. One needs a mission statement, strategic plan, and consensus about what the objectives are. A republic, at least a healthy one, is always a debate about what it is or should be. The contending parties are agreed in their loyalty and heartfelt identification with the republic (and that is the bond) but have different views about what it should be. As long as a republic is healthy, it thrives on debate. What happened in ancient Rome might be a lesson too. A few thought the republic should be more like a corporation (atype of one their families had already defined -- the struggle between Octavian and Mark Antony was between CEOs already part of a conspiracy, of sorts, maybe a pact or consensus that the republic should be a corporation) -- that is the way to empire.   Vale, A. Sempronius Regulus --- On Fri, 4/24/09, livia_plauta <livia.plauta@...> wrote: From: livia_plauta <livia.plauta@...> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Parilia and Feriae Latinae videos To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, April 24, 2009, 8:56 PM L. Livia Plauta omnibus sal. Here are the videos C. Aurelius Vindex shot these days. The last two ones are of the Feriae Latinae ceremony. Unfortunately the audio is very bad quality. http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=DEQkGW9w46c http://www..youtube. com/watch? v=LRLER1iZgdA http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=8mIgePuhDzY http://www.youtube.. com/watch? v=xTs4xEnf76U http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=6v9xdNl8udA http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=YLxi79H26xc http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=80rB_NiVC- o http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=Vx0V52MxjcI http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=6007p9H3uFY http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=17revoRkNt4 http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=KUZ5Xjtvrg8 http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=0RdEs48mx2A Optime valete, Livia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Lucius Coruncanius Cato <l.coruncanius_cato@...> wrote:

>
> Lucius Coruncanius Cato Catoni spd
>

This list here is a private owned list you call the Forum.this list is not owned by by NR.It is owned as it has aways been by the (ex) PM
, you know one of the people who started NR.
MCF

> First phrase:
>
> "The right to participate in all public fora and discussions, and the
> right to reasonably expect such fora to be supported by the State."
>
> This shows where issues regarding NR must be talked. This does not mean inciting people to join private lists. This does not mean incite defection from the official lists... exactly the things you've been doing for weeks.
>
> Private discussions=private owned lists. Public discussions, in the Forum.
>
> --
>
> Di te incolumem custodiant.
>
> L. Coruncanius Cato
>
> Candidate to Aedilis Curulis
>
> --- El vie, 24/4/09, Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@...> escribió:
> De: Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@...>
> Asunto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone
> Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Fecha: viernes, 24 abril, 2009 2:31
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cato Coruncanio sal.
>
>
>
> Salve!
>
>
>
> You wrote:
>
>
>
> "For discussing issues within (about) NR, the Constitution is clear."
>
>
>
> Why, yes indeed it is:
>
>
>
> "The right to participate in all public fora and discussions, and the right to reasonably expect such fora 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 fora may be expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of maintaining order and civility;" - Const. N.R. II.B.4
>
>
>
> The end. This does not require five pages of rambling pseudo-legal- speak for clarification.
>
>
>
> Vale,
>
>
>
> Cato
>

L. Coruncanius Cato Cn. Iulio Caesar S.P.D. Regarding point one, in my first rebuttal I stated clearly that anyone is free to go wherever they want. I don't remember saying anything more, as for example, people should stay in the ML. Being that said, I must ask why so much interest about "inviting" everyone to a private list, owned by Senator Sulla who, by the way, refuses to answer questions, as usual. This is why I use the word "incite". About perceived performances, I'm sure we all could fill any list with empty posts. As I said earlier, the bigger is not always the better. And finally, why are you talking about "success" and "failure"? Are there any prices, like "the first to reach 5000 posts gets a teddybear"? Are we talking about discussion lists, or are we talking about games and competitions? -- Di te incolumem custodiant. L. Coruncanius Cato Candidate to Aedilis Curulis --- El vie, 24/4/09, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> escribió: De: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> Asunto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Fecha: viernes, 24 abril, 2009 10:56 Cn. Iulius Caesar L. Coruncanio Catoni SPD.   Three points.   Firstly, your use of "defection" seems to have the smack of disloyalty or even that much abused word in NR, treason. Joining the Main List is not mandatory and if people find that the Main List no longer holds their interest, they are free to move at will. There is no disloyalty in leaving the Main List, or any other list - official or not - nor is it a defection".   Secondly, in much the same way, your use of "incite" seems to imply an act of subversion, whereas an more correct term would be "invite". People have been invited to join the Backalley. No one is compelled to remain on the Main List or join the Backalley. Freedom of choice exists and should be validated not eroded through use of terms like "incite" and "defection".   Lastly, the success or failure of a list is simply an expression of overall preference, based on perceived performance. Those that have left the Main List and found they preferred the Backalley have simply found a venue they feel is more active, lively and to their personal taste. Those that have remained on the Main List I hope feel that they too have found their niche.   To each their own.   Optime vale --- On Fri, 4/24/09, Lucius Coruncanius Cato <l.coruncanius_ cato@yahoo. com> wrote: From: Lucius Coruncanius Cato <l.coruncanius_ cato@yahoo. com> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com Date: Friday, April 24, 2009, 2:27 PM Lucius Coruncanius Cato Catoni spd First phrase: "The right to participate in all public fora and discussions, and the right to reasonably expect such fora to be supported by the State." This shows where issues regarding NR must be talked. This does not mean inciting people to join private lists. This does not mean incite defection from the official lists... exactly the things you've been doing for weeks. Private discussions= private owned lists. Public discussions, in the Forum. -- Di te incolumem custodiant. L. Coruncanius Cato Candidate to Aedilis Curulis --- El vie, 24/4/09, Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@gmail. com> escribió: De: Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@gmail. com> Asunto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com Fecha: viernes, 24 abril, 2009 2:31 Cato Coruncanio sal. Salve! You wrote: "For discussing issues within (about) NR, the Constitution is clear." Why, yes indeed it is: "The right to participate in all public fora and discussions, and the right to reasonably expect such fora 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 fora may be expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of maintaining order and civility;" - Const. N.R. II.B.4 The end. This does not require five pages of rambling pseudo-legal- speak for clarification. Vale, Cato

Really, what in the world are you talking about?

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Lucius Coruncanius Cato" <l.coruncanius_cato@...>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 5:09 PM
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone

> L. Coruncanius Cato Cn. Iulio Caesar S.P.D.
>
> Regarding point one, in my first rebuttal I stated clearly that anyone is
> free to go wherever they want. I don't remember saying anything more, as
> for example, people should stay in the ML.
> Being that said, I must ask why so much interest about "inviting" everyone
> to a private list, owned by Senator Sulla who, by the way, refuses to
> answer questions, as usual. This is why I use the word "incite".
>
> About perceived performances, I'm sure we all could fill any list with
> empty posts. As I said earlier, the bigger is not always the better.
>
> And finally, why are you talking about "success" and "failure"? Are there
> any prices, like "the first to reach 5000 posts gets a teddybear"?
> Are we talking about discussion lists, or are we talking about games and
> competitions?
>
> --
>
> Di te incolumem custodiant.
>
> L. Coruncanius Cato
>
> Candidate to Aedilis Curulis
>
> --- El vie, 24/4/09, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> escribió:
> De: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> Asunto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone
> Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Fecha: viernes, 24 abril, 2009 10:56
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cn. Iulius Caesar L. Coruncanio Catoni SPD.
>
> Three points.
>
> Firstly, your use of "defection" seems to have the smack of disloyalty or
> even that much abused word in NR, treason. Joining the Main List is not
> mandatory and if people find that the Main List no longer holds their
> interest, they are free to move at will. There is no disloyalty in leaving
> the Main List, or any other list - official or not - nor is it a
> defection".
>
> Secondly, in much the same way, your use of "incite" seems to imply an act
> of subversion, whereas an more correct term would be "invite". People have
> been invited to join the Backalley. No one is compelled to remain on the
> Main List or join the Backalley. Freedom of choice exists and should be
> validated not eroded through use of terms like "incite" and "defection".
>
> Lastly, the success or failure of a list is simply an expression of
> overall preference, based on perceived performance. Those that have left
> the Main List and found they preferred the Backalley have simply found a
> venue they feel is more active, lively and to their personal taste. Those
> that have remained on the Main List I hope feel that they too have found
> their niche.
>
> To each their own.
>
> Optime vale
>
> --- On Fri, 4/24/09, Lucius Coruncanius Cato <l.coruncanius_ cato@yahoo.
> com> wrote:
>
> From: Lucius Coruncanius Cato <l.coruncanius_ cato@yahoo. com>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> Date: Friday, April 24, 2009, 2:27 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lucius Coruncanius Cato Catoni spd
>
> First phrase:
>
> "The right to participate in all public fora and discussions, and the
> right to reasonably expect such fora to be supported by the State."
>
> This shows where issues regarding NR must be talked. This does not mean
> inciting people to join private lists. This does not mean incite defection
> from the official lists... exactly the things you've been doing for weeks.
>
> Private discussions= private owned lists. Public discussions, in the
> Forum.
>
> --
> Di te incolumem custodiant.
> L. Coruncanius Cato
> Candidate to Aedilis Curulis
>
> --- El vie, 24/4/09, Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@gmail. com> escribió:
>
> De: Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@gmail. com>
> Asunto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone
> Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> Fecha: viernes, 24 abril, 2009 2:31
>
>
>
>
> Cato Coruncanio sal.
>
> Salve!
>
> You wrote:
>
> "For discussing issues within (about) NR, the Constitution is clear."
>
> Why, yes indeed it is:
>
> "The right to participate in all public fora and discussions, and the
> right to reasonably expect such fora 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 fora may be expected to be reasonably
> moderated in the interests of maintaining order and civility;" - Const.
> N.R. II.B.4
>
> The end. This does not require five pages of rambling pseudo-legal- speak
> for clarification.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Salve MCF, "one of the people who started NR." And for that I am grateful to him. So? -- Di te incolumem custodiant. L. Coruncanius Cato Candidate to Aedilis Curulis --- El vie, 24/4/09, wuffa2001 <magewuffa@...> escribió: De: wuffa2001 <magewuffa@...> Asunto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Fecha: viernes, 24 abril, 2009 11:35 --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Lucius Coruncanius Cato <l.coruncanius_ cato@...> wrote: > > Lucius Coruncanius Cato Catoni spd > This list here is a private owned list you call the Forum.this list is not owned by by NR.It is owned as it has aways been by the (ex) PM , you know one of the people who started NR. MCF > First phrase: > > "The right to participate in all public fora and discussions, and the > right to reasonably expect such fora to be supported by the State." > > This shows where issues regarding NR must be talked. This does not mean inciting people to join private lists. This does not mean incite defection from the official lists... exactly the things you've been doing for weeks. > > Private discussions= private owned lists. Public discussions, in the Forum. > > -- > > Di te incolumem custodiant. > > L. Coruncanius Cato > > Candidate to Aedilis Curulis > > --- El vie, 24/4/09, Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@.. .> escribió: > De: Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@.. .> > Asunto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone > Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com > Fecha: viernes, 24 abril, 2009 2:31 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cato Coruncanio sal. > > > > Salve! > > > > You wrote: > > > > "For discussing issues within (about) NR, the Constitution is clear." > > > > Why, yes indeed it is: > > > > "The right to participate in all public fora and discussions, and the right to reasonably expect such fora 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 fora may be expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of maintaining order and civility;" - Const. N.R. II.B.4 > > > > The end. This does not require five pages of rambling pseudo-legal- speak for clarification. > > > > Vale, > > > > Cato >

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Salvete.

Well, fellow citizens, I have just received this:

___________________________________________________________________

Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Gaio Equitio Cato salutem plurimam dixit

Senator Praetoris Cato,

It is my duty to inform you that I have received a petitio actionis charging you with Laesa Patriae, and after a careful review of all applicable laws I have today accepted the petitio. I am writing to make you aware of this, in accordance with the requirements of the Lex Salicia Iudiciaria.

I will have to begin selecting iudices soon. This process involves you and your advocatus, should you wish to engage one. I will initially select ten iudices and you may choose to dismiss up to three of those.

It is my intention to begin selecting iudices on Sunday, the 25th, since that is the next dies comitialis after today. If you will not be ready to participate in the selection process by then please let me know as soon as you receive this message.


CN-EQVIT-MARINVS
Praetor, Novae Romae

___________________________________________________________________

"Laesa Patriae" is treason.


Salvete,

Cato

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Salvete!

Just so you know, "Laesa Patriae" is defined as:

"1. The definition of laesa patriae includes, but is not limited to, any overt act by a citizen which a reasonable person would conclude to be damaging or defamatory to the republic, its religio, or its institutions, including acts which may expose the republic, its religio, or its institutions to macronational legal action, if such act is not legally authorised by the republic or its agents, and/or acts which endanger the ability of the republic, its religion, or its institutions to perform its legal functions;

2. The offense may be aggravated for purposes of penalty by any citizen who openly declares enmity to the republic, its religio, or its institutions in connection with an act described in (1); and that

3. The penalty for laesa patriae shall be not less than deprivation of citizenship for one year nor more than permanent deprivation of citizenship, according to the formula of the praetor. Whoever acts in such a manner as to seriously and explicitly endanger the continued existence of the Republic of Nova Roma, its properties, its institutions, its constitution, or the position of the Religio Romana as the state religion shall suffer EXACTIO for a period up to life.

No one shall be prosecuted under this offence for any legislative proposal or peaceful attempt to reform the State by means of legislation." - lex Salicia poenalis 21

Valete,

Cato

With this laughable and despicable act, the panjandrums of Nova Roma have
retaliated against a director of this corporation, because he dared to speak
to real-world attorneys.

Not only this, but they chose to do so only days after he announced his
candidacy for Censor, in an obvious attempt to derail his candidacy.

I wonder - which of them will be first to announce that they are running
against Cato? For which of the panjandrums is this crucifixion of an honest
citizen in aid of?

Who stands to profit by sabotaging Cato's campaign?

Who engaged in a conspiracy to smear the name of a candidate, thus paving the
way for him to himself obtain that office?

Come on - announce yourself, oh most sublime wearer of the pointy hat.

Which of them will dare to stand against Cato for Censor after smearing
his name?

M. Octavius Gracchus at 18.34 CDT,
once consul,
twice censor.

--
Matt Hucke (hucke@...), programmer.
author, Graveyards of Illinois - http://www.graveyards.com/
CYNICO.NET - hosting from $8.33/month; domains $13 - http://cynico.net/

Salve, Livia Plauta   Thank you for sharing all the photos and videos. Awesome! Yes, you are right. I am a little green with envy. Incidently, I had no problem with the audio. I would like to comment on the video of the ceremony; when Petronius Dexter places the offerings, I could not help but notice the white cat close to him and how intently the cat watched Petronius pour the wine. Then the cat scurried off as if quite content. I have learned to pay attention to any animal that makes its presence known during a ritual, as I take them to be omens, and I think your visiting happy, white cat was a good omen! :-)   Vale bene in pace Deorum,   Maxima Valeria Messallina Sacerdos Vestalis     From: livia_plauta <livia.plauta@...> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Parilia and Feriae Latinae videos To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, April 24, 2009, 1:56 PM L. Livia Plauta omnibus sal. Here are the videos C. Aurelius Vindex shot these days. The last two ones are of the Feriae Latinae ceremony. Unfortunately the audio is very bad quality. http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=DEQkGW9w46c http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=LRLER1iZgdA http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=8mIgePuhDzY http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=xTs4xEnf76U http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=6v9xdNl8udA http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=YLxi79H26xc http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=80rB_NiVC- o http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=Vx0V52MxjcI http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=6007p9H3uFY http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=17revoRkNt4 http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=KUZ5Xjtvrg8 http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=0RdEs48mx2A Optime valete, Livia

Cn. Iulius Caesar L. Coruncanio Catoni SPD.

That is good to know you were not implying, through the use of your
terminology, that there is any requirement or duty upon a Nova Roman citizen
to be subscribed to this list. As to the interest, well I am sure you
wouldn't be surprised that someone would make the distinction between incite
and invite.

Bigger is indeed not always better, but we can all form individual opinions
whether that is the case. Perceptions differ. I mention success or failure
because people who stay or leave lists seem to form these judgments. The
Main List has failed, the Backalley is a success or vice versa etc.

Are you offering to donate a teddybear then?

Optime vale


From: Lucius Coruncanius Cato
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 4:09 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone


L. Coruncanius Cato Cn. Iulio Caesar S.P.D.

Regarding point one, in my first rebuttal I stated clearly that anyone is
free to go wherever they want. I don't remember saying anything more, as for
example, people should stay in the ML.

Venator scripsit;

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Gaius Equitius Cato wrote:
>
> Cato omnibus in foro SPD
>
> Salvete.
>
> Well, fellow citizens, I have just received this:
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Gaio Equitio Cato salutem plurimam dixit
>
> Senator Praetoris Cato,
>
> It is my duty to inform you that I have received a petitio actionis charging
> you with Laesa Patriae, and after a careful review of all applicable laws I
> have today accepted the petitio. I am writing to make you aware of this, in
> accordance with the requirements of the Lex Salicia Iudiciaria.
>
> [excision]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
(some will understand)

A member of the Board of Directors has written truths as he has found
them to be about the way this corporation is being managed by the duly
elected executive officers, and sadly, the lapse of responsibilty of
his fellow board members, of which I am one.

He has gone to authorities who, by US federal and Maine state law, are
above and beyond this corporations charter and by-laws. I am given to
understand from his writings that he has done this because of
the,shall we say, unease with mechanisms outside the corporation's
internal boundaries shown by the directors and officers.

Said member has declared his candidacy for a vacancy within the
corporate executive structure, the filling of which will be filled by
the votes of the membership.

Now, instead of just trying to "shout him down," a "magistrate of Nova
Roma" has accepted a "lawsuit" against him for "treason!?"

To the lesser educated eye, which I possess, this looks like unlawful
retaliation in an effort to silence a whistle-blower.

I seem to recall reading about certain federal protections for folks
who go to the authorities with concerns about improprieties within
corporations. I also do not recall any prohibitions on doing so
should it offend the sensibilities of directors or officers of the
subject corporation because internal protocols were not followed
slavishly.

Of course, standards may be different in countries other than where
Nova Roma is incorporated, but, at least for now, US and Maine State
Law trump all suits.

Nova Roma has less than 200 dues paying members out of 4000 or so
potential "full members" over the years.

We have a problem.

Could this disease of too much law and not enough justice, be a part thereof?

Could this disease of thinking that titles within a voluntary
association are worth a bucket of warm spit beyond our "rules of
play," be a part thereof?

Could trying to have a system, which was for a cast of millions,
instead of the dozens who are really involved, be a part thereof?

Could substituting "accomplishment" here in Nova Roma for lackings in
the rest of life, be a part thereof?

Again I ask; Whiskey Tango Foxtrot???

As I have written numerous times before, I DO NOT NEED Nova Roma.

I have a good marriage (27 years this coming June) and a sound, loving
relationship with my family and friends.

I am content with my job, have the respect of co-workers and my bosses
like what I do.

I am pleased that there are folks who like what I write; poetry and prose.

I am proud of my service to the broader community in both military and
civilian roles.

I have a faith, which has sustained and helped fulfill me; plus my
parents think I am a better man because of the beliefs.

I have many skills, the practice of which bring me pleasure.

My cats deign to acknowledge me.

I do not NEED Nova Roma, but I want Nova Roma, not just to survive, but thrive.

"Lawsuits" and our so-called legal system are counter productive to this aim.

The organization has drifted, nay, sped, away from the principles upon
which it was founded; hence my desire that only those from the
founding months be involved in any restorative work on our structures.

Enough for now a few sesterces worth - Venator

When there was an important issue before the law (e.g. a trial of an important person) there were two things Romans loved to do: engage in rhetorical speechifying and observe the proceedings.

Both these are well within the traditions of the ancients whom we wish to emulate, but in my mind the second is far more productive than the first, not least because of the influence of goddess Rumor, which can be more destructive than not.

We have a legal system and some people have actually used it. My first observation is that some people who used it, and even some who built it, sometimes speak passionately against it, in some cases.

My second observation is that by watching the workings of our system we can see just how hard it is to create a legal system; how hard it is even to write a law that actually does what the writer intends it to do. My take away point is that of all those everywhere who study Roman law, only we are engaged in a serious attempt to make it work, and we are seeing what difficulties our ancestors faced, and only we can really appreciate the magnificent achievement of theirs, that they made a system that worked.

I don't think our system is perfect, in fact, I don't think it is particularly good, but I love watching it work, so that we can continue to learn and to improve it. I personally don't find rhetorical posturing to be particularly helpful.

MLA

C. Petronius Cn. Sullae s.p.d.,

> But hey lets begin the funeral rite for the ML with this little statistic:
> BA list for April - 3974 messages
> ML for April - 1232 messages

1200 messages by month is not a proof of announced death nor 4000 messages a proof of real vitality. You can have 4000 messages with only 10 people sending every day 13 messages each and, in another hand, 1200 messages with 20 people sending 2 messages every days.

So the more living forum, in my opinion, is the list where more people is unscribed not the number of messages. In BA you have the quantity of messages, indeed, but quantity is not quality.

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

Cato Petronio Dextero sal.

Salve!

and welcome back! You wrote:

"quantity is not quality."

which is EXACTLY how I feel about the new edict!

Carry on!

Vale,

Cato

Cato Lucretio Agricolae sal.

Salve!

Well said - but your speech is, in and of itself, rhetorical of course.

The reason I posted my mail from Marinus is precisely because I want to squash Rumor and let the People see exactly how their magistrates react to a call for compliance with the law.

If there is a trial, I will ask that it be open for all citizens to see and hear.

Vale!

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. Lucretius Agricola" <marcus.lucretius@...> wrote:
>
> When there was an important issue before the law (e.g. a trial of an important person) there were two things Romans loved to do: engage in rhetorical speechifying and observe the proceedings.
>
> Both these are well within the traditions of the ancients whom we wish to emulate, but in my mind the second is far more productive than the first, not least because of the influence of goddess Rumor, which can be more destructive than not.
>
> We have a legal system and some people have actually used it. My first observation is that some people who used it, and even some who built it, sometimes speak passionately against it, in some cases.
>
> My second observation is that by watching the workings of our system we can see just how hard it is to create a legal system; how hard it is even to write a law that actually does what the writer intends it to do. My take away point is that of all those everywhere who study Roman law, only we are engaged in a serious attempt to make it work, and we are seeing what difficulties our ancestors faced, and only we can really appreciate the magnificent achievement of theirs, that they made a system that worked.
>
> I don't think our system is perfect, in fact, I don't think it is particularly good, but I love watching it work, so that we can continue to learn and to improve it. I personally don't find rhetorical posturing to be particularly helpful.
>
> MLA
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Lucius Coruncanius Cato <l.coruncanius_cato@...> wrote:

>
> Salve MCF,
>
> "one of the people who started NR."
>
> And for that I am grateful to him.
>
> So?
>

UNDER US law he owns the ML
NR does not.this is a private owned list
so what is talked about here is ok as it is private owned
point/game
MCF

> --
>
> Di te incolumem custodiant.
>
> L. Coruncanius Cato
>
> Candidate to Aedilis Curulis
>
> --- El vie, 24/4/09, wuffa2001 <magewuffa@...> escribió:
> De: wuffa2001 <magewuffa@...>
> Asunto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone
> Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Fecha: viernes, 24 abril, 2009 11:35
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Lucius Coruncanius Cato <l.coruncanius_ cato@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Lucius Coruncanius Cato Catoni spd
>
> >
>
>
>
> This list here is a private owned list you call the Forum.this list is not owned by by NR.It is owned as it has aways been by the (ex) PM
>
> , you know one of the people who started NR.
>
> MCF
>
>
>
> > First phrase:
>
> >
>
> > "The right to participate in all public fora and discussions, and the
>
> > right to reasonably expect such fora to be supported by the State."
>
> >
>
> > This shows where issues regarding NR must be talked. This does not mean inciting people to join private lists. This does not mean incite defection from the official lists... exactly the things you've been doing for weeks.
>
> >
>
> > Private discussions= private owned lists. Public discussions, in the Forum.
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> >
>
> > Di te incolumem custodiant.
>
> >
>
> > L. Coruncanius Cato
>
> >
>
> > Candidate to Aedilis Curulis
>
> >
>
> > --- El vie, 24/4/09, Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@ .> escribió:
>
> > De: Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@ .>
>
> > Asunto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone
>
> > Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
>
> > Fecha: viernes, 24 abril, 2009 2:31
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Cato Coruncanio sal.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Salve!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > You wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > "For discussing issues within (about) NR, the Constitution is clear."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Why, yes indeed it is:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > "The right to participate in all public fora and discussions, and the right to reasonably expect such fora 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 fora may be expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of maintaining order and civility;" - Const. N.R. II.B.4
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The end. This does not require five pages of rambling pseudo-legal- speak for clarification.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Vale,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Cato
>
> >
>

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Salve!

Just to make sure everyone knows, I am absolutely firm in my candidacy for censor suffectus.

Here is the latest I have heard:

_______________________________________________________________
Apr 23

M. Cur. Complutensis Consul C. Equitio Catonis sal

your name will be included in the ballot when the Rogatores have checked your elegibility.

VAle

Gaius Equitius Cato escribió:
Salve consul.

I hereby announce my candidacy for Censor Suffectus.

Vale,

Cato

_________________________________________________________________

The consul has, in an interesting peculiarity of timing, still not yet sent me an "official" notice accepting my candidacy. An lo! there appears a charge of treason!

Coincidence? :)

I'll let you decide.

Now, more than ever, we need someone to help Galerius Paulinus watch over the morals and ethics of the res publica.

Valete!

Cato

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Salvete omnes!

Hodiernus dies est ante diem VII Kalendas Maius; haec dies nefastus publicus est.

"When six days of April remain,
The Spring season will be half-over,
And you'll look for Helle's Ram in vain:
The rains will be your sign, when the Dog's mentioned.
On this day, returning to Rome from Nomentum,
A white-robed throng blocked my road.
A priest was going to the grove of old Mildew (Robigo),
To offer the entrails of a dog and a sheep to the flames.
I went with him, so as not to be ignorant of the rite:
Your priest, Quirinus, pronounced these words:
`Scaly Mildew, spare the blades of corn,
And let their tender tips quiver above the soil.
Let the crops grow, nurtured by favourable stars,
Until they're ready for the sickle.
Your power's not slight: the corn you blight
The grieving farmer gives up for lost.
Wind and showers don't harm the wheat as much,
Nor gleaming frost that bleaches the yellow corn,
As when the sun heats the moist stalks:
Then, dreadful goddess, is the time of your wrath.
Spare us, I pray, take your blighted hands from the harvest,
And don't harm the crop: it's enough that you can harm.
Grip harsh iron rather than the tender wheat,
Destroy whatever can destroy others first.
Better to gnaw at swords and harmful spears:
They're not needed: the world's at peace.
Let the rural wealth gleam now, rakes, sturdy hoes,
And curved ploughshare: let rust stain weapons:
And whoever tries to draw his sword from its sheath,
Let him feel it wedded there by long disuse.
Don't you hurt the corn, and may the farmer's
Prayer to you always be fulfilled by your absence.'
He spoke: to his right there was a soft towel,
And a cup of wine and an incense casket.
He offered the incense and wine on the hearth,
Sheep's entrails, and (I saw him) the foul guts of a vile dog.
Then the priest said: `You ask why we offer an odd sacrifice
In these rites' (I had asked) `then learn the reason.
There's a Dog they call Icarian, and when it rises
The dry earth is parched, and the crops ripen prematurely.
This dog is set on the altar to signify the starry one,
And the only reason for it is because of the name.'" - Ovid, Fasti IV


"Robigalia Numa constituit anno regni sui XI, quae nunc aguntur a. d.
VII kal. Mai., quoniam tunc fere segetes robigo occupat." - Pliny,
Natural History 18.285

Today is the celebration of the Robigalia, a public festival in honour
of the god Robigus to preserve the fields from mildew, wheat rust, and
blight is said to have been instituted by Numa. It started with a
procession that left Rome by the Flamian gate, crossed the Milvian
bridge, and proceeded to the fifth milestone on the Claudian Way where
the sacrifices offered on this occasion consisted of the entrails of a
rust-colored dog (or puppy) and a sheep, accompanied with frankincense
and wine: a prayer was presented by a flamen in the grove of the
ancient deity.

Valete bene!

Cato

Salve Livia;
I turned on my big screen laptop to watch the videos - and they were amazing! I agree with Messalina and found the sound very clear, and the photography great, oh it looked so beautiful! I'm envious too and dead set on getting over there.

The last 2 videos are of G. Petronius Dexter's ceremony to Iuppiter Latiaris, it's wonderful to see real cultores performing ritual to the gods!
Action not words! Facta non Verba (is that correct I hope)
Marca Hortensia Maior

>
>
> Salve, Livia Plauta
>  
> Thank you for sharing all the photos and videos. Awesome! Yes, you are right. I am a little green with envy.
> Incidently, I had no problem with the audio.
> I would like to comment on the video of the ceremony; when Petronius Dexter places the offerings, I could not help but notice the white cat close to him and how intently the cat watched Petronius pour the wine. Then the cat scurried off as if quite content. I have learned to pay attention to any animal that makes its presence known during a ritual, as I take them to be omens, and I think your visiting happy, white cat was a good omen! :-)
>  
> Vale bene in pace Deorum,
>  
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
> Sacerdos Vestalis
>  
>  
> From: livia_plauta <livia.plauta@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Parilia and Feriae Latinae videos
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, April 24, 2009, 1:56 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> L. Livia Plauta omnibus sal.
>
> Here are the videos C. Aurelius Vindex shot these days.
> The last two ones are of the Feriae Latinae ceremony. Unfortunately the audio is very bad quality.
>
> http://www.youtube com/watch? v=DEQkGW9w46c
>
> http://www.youtube com/watch? v=LRLER1iZgdA
>
> http://www.youtube com/watch? v=8mIgePuhDzY
>
> http://www.youtube com/watch? v=xTs4xEnf76U
>
> http://www.youtube com/watch? v=6v9xdNl8udA
>
> http://www.youtube com/watch? v=YLxi79H26xc
>
> http://www.youtube com/watch? v=80rB_NiVC- o
>
> http://www.youtube com/watch? v=Vx0V52MxjcI
>
> http://www.youtube com/watch? v=6007p9H3uFY
>
> http://www.youtube com/watch? v=17revoRkNt4
>
> http://www.youtube com/watch? v=KUZ5Xjtvrg8
>
> http://www.youtube com/watch? v=0RdEs48mx2A
>
> Optime valete,
> Livia
>

Cato Liviae Plautae sal.

Salve!

Fun videos. And interesting what the Virgo Maxima Messalina said about cats. I found this:

"Despite their less demonstrative nature, the Romans admired the cat almost as much as the Egyptians. They certainly appreciated them more than the Greeks did. For instance, Romans considered the cat to be a the god of liberty. Cats were the only animal allowed in Roman temples. Some Romans considered the cat a household god representing the warmth and security of the home. At Roman funerals, sacrifices were made to the cat insuring protection in the afterlife for the deceased. At Roman weddings, sacrifices were made to the cat insuring a prosperous future." (full article on Roma cat names here):

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/6913/rome.htm

I am now looking through sources to find out more about the Romans and cats. I'm more a dog person myself but wonder if there's a connection between the Romans' apparent fondness for cats and the infamous squadrons of wild cats in Rome to this day.

Vale,

Cato

C. Catoni C. Petronius s.p.d.,

You wrote:

> which is EXACTLY how I feel about the new edict!

And Romans said :
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

In fact, laws must be very simple and few at the strict necessary. Your favourite God give us only ten, and, in my opinion, it is too much. Some of those ten are not necessary, for example all those about his exclusive cult... so I think only one law must be used :
"Ne fais pas à autrui, ce que tu ne voudrais pas qu'il te fasse".

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

Unfortunately, there's great quality over at the BA. When Vedius posted his
ideas for NR reform, it got very little attention here, and a full blown
discussion there.

The only thing that caused any major discussion here was...the Back Alley!

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@...>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 10:22 PM
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone

> C. Petronius Cn. Sullae s.p.d.,
>
>> But hey lets begin the funeral rite for the ML with this little
>> statistic:
>> BA list for April - 3974 messages
>> ML for April - 1232 messages
>
> 1200 messages by month is not a proof of announced death nor 4000 messages
> a proof of real vitality. You can have 4000 messages with only 10 people
> sending every day 13 messages each and, in another hand, 1200 messages
> with 20 people sending 2 messages every days.
>
> So the more living forum, in my opinion, is the list where more people is
> unscribed not the number of messages. In BA you have the quantity of
> messages, indeed, but quantity is not quality.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

C. Petronius Q. Valerio s.p.d.,

> Unfortunately, there's great quality over at the BA.

Funny, you seems regret it. "Unfortunately" you wrote.

It actually is a pity if messages of such quality are not shared in the ML, but it is not because of moderation, because I am sure that the praetores should let on the ML all messages of quality.

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

Cato C. Petronio Dextero sal.

Salve!

And so the logical and correct response to a call for compliance with the Constitution and laws of the res publica is...

a charge of treason *against* the res publica?


I have been working with others (until this charge of treason was thrown at me) on precisely that: clarifying, simplifying, and creating a logical progression of judicial thought to replace some of the overblown pieces of law that we have now. The recent parody of legalese that has been fobbed off on us known as the "edictum de sermone" is just the latest example of ludicrous waving-about of the Virtual Magical Imperium Stick using lots and lots of words...or, as the Bard would say,

"...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.".

Interestingly enough, I have been one of the longest proponents of eliminating the leges Saliciae :)

Carry on.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Catoni C. Petronius s.p.d.,
>
> You wrote:
> > which is EXACTLY how I feel about the new edict!
>
> And Romans said :
> Summum ius, summa iniuria.
>
> In fact, laws must be very simple and few at the strict necessary. Your favourite God give us only ten, and, in my opinion, it is too much. Some of those ten are not necessary, for example all those about his exclusive cult... so I think only one law must be used :
> "Ne fais pas à autrui, ce que tu ne voudrais pas qu'il te fasse".
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

Q. Valerius C. Petronio sal.

Indeed, it is unfortunate that the Back Alley flourishes while Nova Roma
only can gossip about the Back Alley and decry it, not to mention that it is
under horrible praetorian tyranny. The BackAlley should be a place for
people to come to in order to chill, while the main forum ought to be the
place of politics and excitement. It's sad that the ML is being chocked off
slowly.

Also, it's hard to share conversations. When Vedius made wrote his messages,
he sent it to both the Back Alley and the Main List. My amendments to it was
sent likewise to both places. All the main action, though, took place in the
Back Alley, and no one really mentioned it at all here. Not even you. It's
simply unreasonable to expect that everyone send their messages to both
places when quite simply the good discussion is only happening at the Back
Alley. Any one person on the Main List could have commented on Vedius' good
suggestions, whether they agreed with them or not. But the Back Alley
shouldn't have to "subsidize" ML discussions. That's quite absurd.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@...>
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:38 AM
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone

> C. Petronius Q. Valerio s.p.d.,
>
>> Unfortunately, there's great quality over at the BA.
>
> Funny, you seems regret it. "Unfortunately" you wrote.
>
> It actually is a pity if messages of such quality are not shared in the
> ML, but it is not because of moderation, because I am sure that the
> praetores should let on the ML all messages of quality.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>
>
>
>

Salve,

I suspect part of the quiet in response to interesting political and religious topics here is that people are afraid of responding due to the censorship. Since the ML and BA share most of the same active members, explanations about personal interest, sample bias, etc don't seem to have sufficient explanatory force.

For new citizens who don't know what the BA is, go here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BackAlley/

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Valerius Poplicola" <q.valerius.poplicola@...> wrote:
>
> Q. Valerius C. Petronio sal.
>
> Indeed, it is unfortunate that the Back Alley flourishes while Nova Roma
> only can gossip about the Back Alley and decry it, not to mention that it is
> under horrible praetorian tyranny. The BackAlley should be a place for
> people to come to in order to chill, while the main forum ought to be the
> place of politics and excitement. It's sad that the ML is being chocked off
> slowly.
>
> Also, it's hard to share conversations. When Vedius made wrote his messages,
> he sent it to both the Back Alley and the Main List. My amendments to it was
> sent likewise to both places. All the main action, though, took place in the
> Back Alley, and no one really mentioned it at all here. Not even you. It's
> simply unreasonable to expect that everyone send their messages to both
> places when quite simply the good discussion is only happening at the Back
> Alley. Any one person on the Main List could have commented on Vedius' good
> suggestions, whether they agreed with them or not. But the Back Alley
> shouldn't have to "subsidize" ML discussions. That's quite absurd.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@...>
> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:38 AM
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone
>
> > C. Petronius Q. Valerio s.p.d.,
> >
> >> Unfortunately, there's great quality over at the BA.
> >
> > Funny, you seems regret it. "Unfortunately" you wrote.
> >
> > It actually is a pity if messages of such quality are not shared in the
> > ML, but it is not because of moderation, because I am sure that the
> > praetores should let on the ML all messages of quality.
> >
> > Vale.
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

-Salve:
false assumption, most people are turned off due to the constant political infighting, threats, crises, all the overdone drama, and are, rightly, sick of it.

Previously we were having some great discussions of Roman cookery, philosophy, Latin etc...but were drowned out.
Marca Hortensia Maior

>
>
> Salve,
>
> I suspect part of the quiet in response to interesting political and religious topics here is that people are afraid of responding due to the censorship. Since the ML and BA share most of the same active members, explanations about personal interest, sample bias, etc don't seem to have sufficient explanatory force.
>
> For new citizens who don't know what the BA is, go here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BackAlley/
>
> Vale,
>
> Gualterus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Valerius Poplicola" <q.valerius.poplicola@> wrote:
> >
> > Q. Valerius C. Petronio sal.
> >
> > Indeed, it is unfortunate that the Back Alley flourishes while Nova Roma
> > only can gossip about the Back Alley and decry it, not to mention that it is
> > under horrible praetorian tyranny. The BackAlley should be a place for
> > people to come to in order to chill, while the main forum ought to be the
> > place of politics and excitement. It's sad that the ML is being chocked off
> > slowly.
> >
> > Also, it's hard to share conversations. When Vedius made wrote his messages,
> > he sent it to both the Back Alley and the Main List. My amendments to it was
> > sent likewise to both places. All the main action, though, took place in the
> > Back Alley, and no one really mentioned it at all here. Not even you. It's
> > simply unreasonable to expect that everyone send their messages to both
> > places when quite simply the good discussion is only happening at the Back
> > Alley. Any one person on the Main List could have commented on Vedius' good
> > suggestions, whether they agreed with them or not. But the Back Alley
> > shouldn't have to "subsidize" ML discussions. That's quite absurd.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > From: "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@>
> > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:38 AM
> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone
> >
> > > C. Petronius Q. Valerio s.p.d.,
> > >
> > >> Unfortunately, there's great quality over at the BA.
> > >
> > > Funny, you seems regret it. "Unfortunately" you wrote.
> > >
> > > It actually is a pity if messages of such quality are not shared in the
> > > ML, but it is not because of moderation, because I am sure that the
> > > praetores should let on the ML all messages of quality.
> > >
> > > Vale.
> > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Salve,

the BA gets much more volume and interesting discussions still don't get drowned out, so I find it curious when most of the same people populate both lists. Maybe the discussions you cited died because of lack of interest, or they moved to more private lists. Either way, I think there are some fundamental problems with the dynamics of this list since it can't seem to sustain extensive discussion unless it is some political controversy.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> -Salve:
> false assumption, most people are turned off due to the constant political infighting, threats, crises, all the overdone drama, and are, rightly, sick of it.
>
> Previously we were having some great discussions of Roman cookery, philosophy, Latin etc...but were drowned out.
> Marca Hortensia Maior
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > I suspect part of the quiet in response to interesting political and religious topics here is that people are afraid of responding due to the censorship. Since the ML and BA share most of the same active members, explanations about personal interest, sample bias, etc don't seem to have sufficient explanatory force.
> >
> > For new citizens who don't know what the BA is, go here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BackAlley/
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Gualterus
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Valerius Poplicola" <q.valerius.poplicola@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Q. Valerius C. Petronio sal.
> > >
> > > Indeed, it is unfortunate that the Back Alley flourishes while Nova Roma
> > > only can gossip about the Back Alley and decry it, not to mention that it is
> > > under horrible praetorian tyranny. The BackAlley should be a place for
> > > people to come to in order to chill, while the main forum ought to be the
> > > place of politics and excitement. It's sad that the ML is being chocked off
> > > slowly.
> > >
> > > Also, it's hard to share conversations. When Vedius made wrote his messages,
> > > he sent it to both the Back Alley and the Main List. My amendments to it was
> > > sent likewise to both places. All the main action, though, took place in the
> > > Back Alley, and no one really mentioned it at all here. Not even you. It's
> > > simply unreasonable to expect that everyone send their messages to both
> > > places when quite simply the good discussion is only happening at the Back
> > > Alley. Any one person on the Main List could have commented on Vedius' good
> > > suggestions, whether they agreed with them or not. But the Back Alley
> > > shouldn't have to "subsidize" ML discussions. That's quite absurd.
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > From: "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@>
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:38 AM
> > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone
> > >
> > > > C. Petronius Q. Valerio s.p.d.,
> > > >
> > > >> Unfortunately, there's great quality over at the BA.
> > > >
> > > > Funny, you seems regret it. "Unfortunately" you wrote.
> > > >
> > > > It actually is a pity if messages of such quality are not shared in the
> > > > ML, but it is not because of moderation, because I am sure that the
> > > > praetores should let on the ML all messages of quality.
> > > >
> > > > Vale.
> > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

A. Tullia Scholastica Q. Caeliae Laetae quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
  
Q. Caelia Laeta omnibus spd;

I haven't been to the BA,

    You might run away if you saw what it really is.  

 but I think Cn. Ambrosia Crinita's observation brings up an excellent point. My experiences with Nova Roman lists outside of the ML have been excellent. I doubt any moderation has been necessary there. There is no reason for NR's most public face to be its ugliest.

    ATS:  You might be surprised to find far uglier ones than the ML.  I might add that (as often, with any praetores in office), moderation is misunderstood.  Some believe that all posters are moderated, which is not the case; others believe that messages from moderated members are being blocked as a rule (ditto), and so it goes.  In reality, a tiny number of posts on all moderated lists are not allowed for very good reasons, impartially applied...and not only on the ML.  EVERYONE  is moderated on that hotbed of raging flame wars,  ;-) the Announcements list, for that is the way the list has always been set up.  There is no censorship, just good sense.  
    
My first contact in Nova Roma was with Cn. Cornelius Lentulus. He helped guide me to an appropriate Roman name, administered my citizenship test, and responded favorably every time I contacted him with questions about the respublica and the Latin language. He recently extended an offer to all Nova Romans to join him for the Floralia, for free. It is an amazing opportunity and an act of great generosity. If I had the means to make it, I'd be there in a heartbeat.

    ATS:  Lentulus is one of our finest citizens, and among our finest Latinists as well.  His commitment to Romanitas and Latinitas shine forth in virtually everything he does, but on that very same Back Alley list where Crinita speaks so positively of its supposed Comitas, young Lentulus was abused and insulted in terms I will not allow myself to repeat here, nor would I be allowed to repeat them, for this is an open list available to everyone of all ages, whereas said comments are unsuitable for minors and civilized adults.  Suffice it to say that they involved the worst words in English, and descriptions of activities best left unsaid.   His Romanitas was dragged in the dirt, and he was characterized as a disgrace to his very name...a name he bore for years before he ever heard of Nova Roma, a name, and a love for Rome, he held dear for over ten years, when he was just an adolescent.  If this is BA comitas, please spare the rest of us from it.  

    

Over the few months I've been reading the main list, I have seen many insightful posts by Q. Valerius Poplicola and M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus, both of whom I respect as a scholars and men of the Religio. I enjoyed interacting with them on the few occasions we had to chat with one another.  I am looking forward to seeing what they might accomplish for the res publica.

    ATS:  If you had been here longer, you would have seen many insightful posts by the likes of A. Apollonius Cordus, another of our finest young citizens.  We have many fine people here, but many, like Cordus, are caught up in their real-world situations at present, and do not have time to expound on the ML.  Too, you might enjoy the scholarly presentations by A. Sempronius Regulus, a professor of philosophy, who in the past made some interesting observations on the parallels between Hinduism and the RR.  You might care to look them up.  Unfortunately, the Saturday Night Fights (24/7/365) are what seems to prevail.  

Seeing such excellent citizens set at odds made me despair of Nova Roma. I thank all of those who have extended and accepted apologies, and beg that all continue to work towards establishing greater amicitia. I don't expect everything to be sunshine and roses, and I believe that differences in opinion are vital to the continued growth of the res publica. However, I also believe that we can be open-minded and capable of discussing these things in a calm and mature manner. Indeed, that seems to be the case of late, and I applaud you all for that. It's a pleasure to read a digest that doesn't make me aim immediately for the 'delete' button.

    ATS:  There will always be differences of opinion, and at times they become extremely strident.  As I noted earlier, self-control is a characteristic of adults, and adults should exercise that.  We have among us some very vociferous citizens who like to attack others for imagined insults, who need external stimulation as apparently they don’t have enough to do, and /or who cannot see anything wrong with their own behavior (however outrageous) and yelp about moderation.  At least some of the latter haven’t heard about the cardinal principles of public speech, and resent having to consider their audience.  Often the subject of religion brings a hail of outbursts, while more recently a contingent unable to accept rules of civilized discourse has been railing against same.  All too often it seems that the chief deity of NR is Eris rather than anything or anyone more constructive.  I agree that we may be able discuss relevant subjects calmly, and that more amicitia (and comitas of the true, rather than BA, sort) is desirable, but while hopeful, I am not convinced that this will occur.  I’ve been here long enough to see that.

Optime valete.

  Optime vale et valete.
    

You wouldn't know Laesa Patriae if it strangled your "Republic" and buried
her in Mare Nostrum.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Titus Flavius Aquila" <titus.aquila@...>
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 3:01 AM
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: AW: [Nova-Roma] Cato Treason

> Salve Gracchus,
>
>
> treason is laughable ? Laesa Patriae is despicable, that is right.
>
> I expect from our Preatores to protect our Republic from Laesa Patriae.
> They have done so, I commend them for this.
>
> Vale
> Titus Flavius Aquila
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Von: Matt Hucke <hucke@...>
> An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> CC: BackAlley@yahoogroups.com
> Gesendet: Samstag, den 25. April 2009, 03:35:18 Uhr
> Betreff: Re: [Nova-Roma] Treason
>
>
>
>
>
>
> With this laughable and despicable act, the panjandrums of Nova Roma have
> retaliated against a director of this corporation, because he dared to
> speak
> to real-world attorneys.
>
> Not only this, but they chose to do so only days after he announced his
> candidacy for Censor, in an obvious attempt to derail his candidacy.
>
> I wonder - which of them will be first to announce that they are running
> against Cato? For which of the panjandrums is this crucifixion of an
> honest
> citizen in aid of?
>
> Who stands to profit by sabotaging Cato's campaign?
>
> Who engaged in a conspiracy to smear the name of a candidate, thus paving
> the
> way for him to himself obtain that office?
>
> Come on - announce yourself, oh most sublime wearer of the pointy hat.
>
> Which of them will dare to stand against Cato for Censor after smearing
> his name?
>
> M. Octavius Gracchus at 18.34 CDT,
> once consul,
> twice censor.
>
> --
> Matt Hucke (hucke@cynico. net), programmer.
> author, Graveyards of Illinois - http://www.graveyar ds.com/
> CYNICO.NET - hosting from $8.33/month; domains $13 - http://cynico. net/
>
>
>
>
>

C. Petronius C. Catoni sal.,

> And so the logical and correct response to a call for compliance with the Constitution and laws of the res publica is...
>
> a charge of treason *against* the res publica?

I just returned to the ML list and, despite the fact that some said the ML is full of messages when you are away during a week, so I am not able to take a part in your controversy about the well-founded or not laesa patriae action against you.

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

This speech here is borderline treasonous. Anyone who denies that Nova Roma, Inc. is a corporation commits "treason" against Nova Roma. Go ahead, Aquila. Do something contrary to American law. Why don't you declare war on America for 'prosecuting' NR while you're at it.

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Titus Flavius Aquila <titus.aquila@...> wrote:

Salvete Quirites,

 

Laesa Patriae !

 

Both Praetores Marinus and Albucius are the most noble, honourable citizen we do possess. If they ,after an indepth investigations, charge

Cato for treason, you can be sure it needs to be done to keep danger away from our Patria.

 

I have always as Tribunus Plebis supported a strong Republic, an Republic with honour,dignitas and vigor, following the roots of our Ancestors,

fighting for our Gods.

 

We are an Republic and not an Corporation per se ! The republic must have the means to defend itself, if not, we just would be an RPG.  

 

I for sure do not want to be part of an RPG, but maybe for some citizens that is a big game indeed. 

 

Gaius Equitius Cato put our Republic down, in going against our republic, its elected Magistrates, elected by you, the citizens of Nova Roma, causing Laesa Patriae .

 

I call upon you to support our res publica it its fight for honour and strength..  

 

Support the Praetores, support Nova Roma  !

Optime valete

Titus Flavius Aquila

 

<\. How can somebody, charged for treason against Nova Roma, against our
republic,

>be a candidate for censor suffectus.

That is exactly why he is being accused. These accusations are made so that
citizens won't vote for him or that he gets so fed up that he'll quit the
race. Luckily Cato has a fighting spirit and will not drop out.

Treason. Great. Then we wonder why other Roman cultural organizations in the
world think that NR is a joke.

Vale.
Diana Octavia

Q Caecilius Metellus Postumianus Quiritibus salutem plurimam dicit.

Saluete, Quirites.

It is today the seventh day before the Kalends of May, in the two thousand seven hundred sixty-second year since the founding of our Eternal City, a day on which, I fear, I have taken up my toga for the last time. To say that I am sincerely moved would be an understatement; I would think that I could not very well overstate the extent to which I have been moved at the very core of my self over the course of even the last few weeks, to say nothing of the past few years. Our Republic has denigrated, to the point where laws which were installed for the benefit and, indeed, the very protection of our Republic are being used by some to bring about its demise. Indeed, I am moved to tears.

We had come together, all of us, across the world as we know it, a world much greater than was known to our ancestors, in the pursuit of those great traditions which our ancestors laid for and passed down to us. We had come together for something which would have truly been nothing short of immeasurably greater than the sum of all its parts. We had come together for something that can only appropriately be described in one sentiment -- indeed in only one word: Rome. Yet what have we done? We are on the very brink of our own destruction.

By so many, it has been demonstrated that we are in the most perilous jeopardy, and a number of the reasons for which that is the case too have been demonstrated. Time and time again, calls have been made to those elected for the very purpose of preserving our Republic to resolve those situations which cause our dangers. Time and again, opportunities have presented themselves and been presented by others to bring our Republic to safety. Yet, sadly, so far as has been seen, no heed has been given to this. In how ruined a state are we when the request of a citizen is answered by spite, anger, utter disrespect, and, truly, ignorance?

It must come to an end, Quirites. Any continuation down the path we presently travel only injures us greater and more deeply with every dangerous step. We must end our travel down the path of our own destruction, swiftly reverse course, and move with nothing but the utmost caution and speed toward our goal of reconstructing Rome, lest our great dream become no more than writing on a sea.

The ius fetiale as it was applied in the foreign relations of Rome, developed from the courtesies and traditions which were applied between families, and between individuals. If a family felt an injustice had been done to it by a member of another family, the injured family first sought redress from the family by whom it had been injured. Only when that redress, sought no less than three times, was not made, were other courses of action taken. This too was seen in the practice of the ius fetiale, when the Fetiales sought redress from a community who committed an injustice against Rome. These practises, and the entire body of practises attendant to them, which comprised the ius Fetiale, derived from what I call the ius inter homines, indeed maintained Rome from its founding, even when Rome itself may have been on the injuring side of these traditions. Let us apply them in our dealings with each other, and all our internal dealings, and maintain our Republic.

In the spirit of the ius fetiale which I am sworn to uphold, let me ask publicly for these things, that our Republic may be saved, and that we may indeed reconstruct our Rome:

I. that the charge of Laesa Patriae, brought against C. Equitius Cato, be laid aside;
II. that the requests that our elected officers resign, be removed, or otherwise depart office early, be laid aside;
III. that the efforts by some citizens, seeking redress from outside our Republic, be laid aside;
IIII. that our Senate review the greater legal situation of our Republic, and act to ensure that the necessary legal compliance is achieved and maintained;
V. that our magistrates act with transparency, so that the People are assured that all laws are followed; and,
VI. that the People act in good faith toward each other, with honour and integrity as befits us as Romans.

I realise that I ask much, and I expect there will be hostility in some quarters against what I have said, given that many have been very patient in trying to allow what should have been done at the outset. I realise too that, at least in the first three things for which I ask, there are time constraints involved. I also realise that there is so much to be done, and so few by whom the work may be done, and even fewer funds with with the necessary work may be done. Yet I cannot be dissuaded from the belief that, if we meet these six things, our Republic will be emerge stronger than before, and that indeed too all the Gods, whether God, Zeus, Amun, Odin, or Iuppiter is of your belief and acceptance, will only favour our undertakings because we have done this. I also cannot be dissuaded from the belief, and nor should anyone, that it is better to pay what amounts to nearly nothing, to ensure our safety now, than to completely and irreversibly bankrupt ourselves later in trying to recoup and reorganise after the wrath that will come down upon us should we choose otherwise. Our Republic absolutely can, and must, be saved.

With what I am asking, I am asking only that we treat each other with respect, and that we all work diligently towards the saving of our Republic, which lies prostrate on her deathbed. Yet it need not be such a bed of death; it can truly be the bed of rebirth, as it ought.

Quirites, we are at the point of final decision. As a Republic, we must decide our fate, may it be Destruction, or else may it be Construction. We must decide. Shall it be Death, or Shall it be Life?

Cato Hortensiae Maiori sal.

Salve!

But that doesn't stop *you* from having a long (two or three dozen posts long and counting) discussion of feminism, Islam, Herod the Great, Christianity, or Jewish identity on the Back Alley, does it?

You wear your hatred of the Back Alley like a medal, and announce publicly how terrible the discussions there are and how subversive those who are there are, yet you yourself are neck deep in it.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> -Salve:
> false assumption, most people are turned off due to the constant political infighting, threats, crises, all the overdone drama, and are, rightly, sick of it.
>
> Previously we were having some great discussions of Roman cookery, philosophy, Latin etc...but were drowned out.
> Marca Hortensia Maior
> >

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Salvete!

"And the rule of law, it is argued, is preferable to that of any individual. On the same principle, even if it be better for certain individuals to govern, they should be made only guardians and ministers of the law...Therefore he who bids the law rule may be deemed to bid God and Reason alone rule, but he who bids man
rule adds an element of the beast; for desire is a wild beast, and passion perverts the minds of rulers, even when they are the best of men. The law is reason unaffected by desire." - Aristotle, "Politics"

Valete,

Cato

Cato Flvio Aquilae sal.

Salve!

Titus Flavius, please re-read this. You need to understand this clearly:

I want to try to impress upon us all forever an ever and ever the fact that the res publica *is* the corporation; the Senate *is* the Board of Directors; the magistrates *are* the legal officers of the corporation; the Constitution *is* the bylaws of the corporation. To continue to act as if these are somehow separable - that the corporation can act in violation of US law and yet somehow the res publica can go by untouched - is the height of folly.

The idea that some magistrates hang on to like a pit bull, that their "imperium" or "auctoritas" or "potestas" somehow makes them immune from obeying the laws of the United States, is obscene in its stupidity.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Titus Flavius Aquila <titus.aquila@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete Quirites,
>
> Laesa Patriae !
>
> Both Praetores Marinus and Albucius are the most noble, honourable citizen we do possess. If they ,after an indepth investigations, charge
> Cato for treason, you can be sure it needs to be done to keep danger away from our Patria.
>
> I have always as Tribunus Plebis supported a strong Republic, an Republic with honour,dignitas and vigor, following the roots of our Ancestors,
> fighting for our Gods.
>
>
> We are an Republic and not an Corporation per se ! The republic must have the means to defend itself, if not, we just would be an RPG.  
>
> I for sure do not want to be part of an RPG, but maybe for some citizens that is a big game indeed. 
>
> Gaius Equitius Cato put our Republic down, in going against our republic, its elected Magistrates, elected by you, the citizens of Nova Roma, causing Laesa Patriae .
>
> I call upon you to support our res publica it its fight for honour and strength.  
>
> Support the Praetores, support Nova Roma  !
> Optime valete
> Titus Flavius Aquila
>

C. Equitius Cato Q. Caecilio Metello Postumiano Pio quiritibusque SPD

Salve et salvete.

Caecilius Metellus wrote (in part):

"I. that the charge of Laesa Patriae, brought against C. Equitius Cato, be laid aside;
II. that the requests that our elected officers resign, be removed, or otherwise depart office early, be laid aside;"


I have the utmost respect for Caecilius Metellus. He is an honorable, just man who serves the res publica ceaselessly and with great honor to her and her Gods, and I will not have his departure as a blemish on my person or my conscience.

If the charge of treason is withdrawn by 2300h New York time, I swear by that God Whom I serve that I will drop the action outside the res publica to have a vote of the People in the comitia centuriata called for the removal of magistrates.

I will speak to the Attorney General's Office in Maine and let them know that this issue of the People voting in the comitia centuriata on the removal of officers has been settled internally.

I was already on a consular committee devoted to improving our legal and judicial system both along the lines of simplicity and with respect towards bringing us closer to ancient Roman practices, and will resume my part there.

I remain steadfast in my candidacy for censor suffectus, to work with Galerius Paulinus and the Senate to see a greater awareness of, and respect for, the ethical obedience to our laws and the rights and privileges of the People.

I cannot speak for anyone else, or on any other issue.

But on this, you have my solemn and sacred vow.

It is now 0730h in New York.

Valete,

Gaius Equitius Cato

> <\. How can somebody, charged for treason against Nova Roma, against our
> republic,
>> be a candidate for censor suffectus.
>
> That is exactly why he is being accused. These accusations are made so that
> citizens won't vote for him or that he gets so fed up that he'll quit the
> race. Luckily Cato has a fighting spirit and will not drop out.
>
> Treason. Great. Then we wonder why other Roman cultural organizations in the
> world think that NR is a joke.

Who is this other candidate for Censor, who stands to profit from pillorying
Cato? The slimy coward has yet to announce himself.

Did this person have foreknowledge of the attack on Cato? Did this person
go so far as to conspire with the one who calls himself a praetor, to bring
this action?

The stench of corruption is stronger than it has ever been. A critic of the
clownish administration announces a candidacy; and suddenly, from nowhere, comes a
ridiculous and overblown charge of "treason"; a blatant and obvious attempt to
sabotage his campaign.

Now, we're waiting for the other shoe to drop. Which fellow-traveler
will now seek to benefit from the attack on Cato?

M. Octavius Gracchus at 07.33.
--
Matt Hucke (hucke@...), programmer.
author, Graveyards of Illinois - http://www.graveyards.com/
CYNICO.NET - hosting from $8.33/month; domains $13 - http://cynico.net/

M. Moravius Horatianus Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum, et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Aspera Robigo, parcas Cerialibus herbis et tu ne viola Cererem

Hodie est ante diem VII Kalendas Maias; haec dies nefastus est: ROBIGALIA Feriae Robigo via Claudia ad milliarium V ne Robigo frumentis noceat. Sacrificium et ludi cursoribus maioribus minoribusque fiunt. Festus est puerorum lenoniorum, quia proximus superior meretricum. Prima nocte Fidicula apparet, tempestatem significat.

ROBIGALIA

Ut mala culmos esset Robigo ~ P. Vergilius Maro, Georg. 1.151

"Spare Ceres' grain, O scabby Robigo, let the tips of sprouting shoots gently quiver above rich soil. Let the crops grow, nurtured in turn as each star passes through the heavens, until full and ripe they are readied for the scythe. Your power is not light. What grain You touch, the farmer notes as lost. Wind and rain damage Ceres' grain enough, and by glistening white snow is burnt. Worst still if the stalks are damp when the Titan sears them, Your season of anger, fearful Goddess, when Sirius rises with the sun, spare them, I pray. Away with scabrous hands from the harvest. Do not harm the cultivated fields. The power to harm is enough. May You not grasp the crops, but embrace hard iron. Destroy first whatever else is able to destroy.
Better to seize the destructive spear and sword, for they have no use, when the world puts forth quiet peace. Now may glimmer the light hoes and rough two-pronged hoes and let the arcing plow shine, polished from rural work. Corrupt iron weapons instead with Your rust.
And may any impulse to draw sword be thwarted by sheaths rusted from long neglect. Do not violate Ceres, but allow the farmer time to fulfill his vows for Your absence." ~ P. Ovidius Naso, Fasti 4.911-32


With the evening setting of the Dog Star, Siris, spring tempests begin that could threaten new crops with mildew. In particular wheat was susceptible to a fungal rust at this time of year. By the Julian calendar Robigalia would fall on 6 May. The evening setting of Siris, that is, during dusk, within one hour of the sun setting, would likewise occur on or about 6 May today.

The Flamen Quirinalis therefore went out in the evening along the Via Claudia to the fifth mile where Robigo had a sanctuary north-west of Rome. There he offered sacrifice to Robigus and/or Robigo. Verrius Flaccus (CIL 1: 236, 316) and Varro (Ling. Lat. 6.16) considered today's sacrifices as offered to the god Robigus. Ovid (Fasti 4.907-932) and Columella (Rust. 10.342), among others, instead addressed their prayers to the goddess Robigo. The sacrifice was the exta of sheep and of suckling puppies. Festus informs us that preferred were "reddish puppies wholly burnt in sacrifice, in order to induce the red-haired grain, when matured, to ripen into a golden wheat crop (p. 285)."

An Augurium Canarium, mentioned by Pliny as made from the exta of a female dog, was made around this time, too:

"We read in the Commentarii Pontificum to the following effect: 'For deriving an augury from the sacrifice of a bitch, a day should be set apart before the ear of corn appears from out of the sheath, and then again before it enters the sheath.'" ~ G. Plinius Secundus, Historia Naturalis 18.3 (14)

This excerpt indicates that Robigalia was not held on a fixed date, as in imperial times, but relied instead on observance of Siris, just as other festivals were set by observance of other stars.


AUC 349 / 404 BCE: End of the Peloponnesian War; Athens surrenders to Sparta.


AUC 821 / 68 CE: Traditional date of the death of Mark the Evangelist

John Mark of Cyrene, attributed as the author of the earliest canonical gospel, was said to have been a companion of Paul (Acts 12: 25). Passing through Alexandria, he angered the local Jewish community by arguing against the traditions of their forefathers and that they adopt the new religion of Paul. The crowds were said to have tied him to horses and dragged him through the street of the city until he died. Later myths painted a different story of who he was and how he died.


AUC 970 / 217 CE: Festival of Serapis and Isis

The Temple of Serapis on the Quirinal was dedicated on this date in 217 CE. However, a century prior to that dedication, a late April festival for Serapis and Isis Pharia is noted on a calendar from Rome (ILS 8745).


Our thought for today is from Epictetus, Enchiridion 39

"The body is to everyone the proper measure of its possessions, as the foot is of the shoe. If, therefore, you stop at this, you will keep the measure; but if you move beyond it, you must necessarily be carried forward, as down a precipice; as in the case of a shoe, if you go beyond its fitness to the foot, it comes first to be gilded, then purple, and then studded with jewels. For to that which once exceeds the fit measure there is no bound."

Salve Titus Flavius Aquila

"....It means that I, like God, do not play with dice and I don't believe in coincidences."
From the movie "V". which by the way is about resistant to a totalitarian regime.
 
Please remember that Senator Cato was a candidate for Censor and then he was charged
with a crime. I respectfully call on the Consuls to use their superior Imperium to end this persecution out right or to set aside this trial until after the Lex in question has had an up or down vote on its repeal as it currently before the people.
 
If the Consuls will not act I respectfully request that the Tribunes intervene for the good of the republic.
 
Valete
 
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Censor et Senator 

---

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: titus.aquila@...
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:56:31 +0000
Subject: AW: [Nova-Roma] Candidacy for censor suffectus

> Please remember that Senator Cato was a candidate for Censor and then he was charged

This.

This is an outrage. A transparent ploy to derail the campaign of a candidate for
office, perpetrated by the person who most despises him.

Should this action be allowed to stand, there will never again be a fair election -
once it becomes known that any candidate for office may be neutralized, or have
a shadow cast upon him, by a legal action, however frivolous.

I call upon the Tribunes to veto this shameful, cowardly act, this attempt to smear
a candidate for office.

Tribunes, consider this issue on its own merits: whatever you think of the charge
against Cato, whatever you think about him personally, put that aside for the moment
and consider solely the question of whether you will allow a candidate for office
to be so easily neutralized by any random person who has the ear of a praetor.

Tribunes, if you fail to veto this obscenity, there will likely never again be
a contested election in Nova Roma. Allowing it to stand will give the current
regime absolute control of the candidate lists in perpetuity.

M. Octavius Gracchus,
once consul, twice censor.
08:42 CDT

--
Matt Hucke (hucke@...), programmer.
author, Graveyards of Illinois - http://www.graveyards.com/
CYNICO.NET - hosting from $8.33/month; domains $13 - http://cynico.net/

> first of all Gaius Equitius Cato Cato is charged with treason, Laesa Patriae,
> in my eyes in makes it impossible to accept him further as a candidate
> for the elections as censor suffectus.
> He is acting against the interest of the res publica.

Guilty until proven innocent, right?

I thank the gods that you're not in any position of authority.


--
Matt Hucke (hucke@...), programmer.
author, Graveyards of Illinois - http://www.graveyards.com/
CYNICO.NET - hosting from $8.33/month; domains $13 - http://cynico.net/

Salvete omnes

I pronounce intercessio against the actions of Praetor Gnaeus Equitius Marinus in accepting the petitio against Senator Gaius Equitius Cato.

This action has been requested by numerous citizens including Marcus Octavius Gracchus and Senator Tiberius Galerius Paulinus.

The charge of treason cannot be applied to the exercise of a constitutional right, namely an application to state authorities to force a vote. Knowing that Marinus failed to abide by the requirement of Section II.C of the PARS PRIMA: DE PETITIONE ACTIONIS, Lex Salicia iudiciaria where if the claim is unsupported by law he should have dismissed the petitio. Cato exercised the right of access to law and that access is supported by the Nova Roman constitution and the lex. No implied right can overcome the constitution of Nova Roma and no by-law of a corporation registered in the USA can overcome State law and the Constitution of the USA.

Cato has exercised the following macronational rights.

1. Title 13-B: MAINE NONPROFIT CORPORATION ACT §704-A. Removal of directors by judicial proceeding where Section 2. Who may bring action states that : "Two-thirds of the members entitled to vote for that director or a lesser number as provided in the articles of incorporation of the corporation for removal of a director pursuant to section 704".
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/13-B/title13-Bsec704-A.html

The praetors and consuls are directors of Nova Roma Inc. as well as being officers this year. Cato is a member entitled to vote within the corporate setting of Nova Roma and as a 'citizen". His eligibility to exercise this section of macronational law, his right and thus a right under the constitution is clear and supported by Maine AG.


2. The Constitution of the State of New York §11. "No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. "
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/constitution.htm

Nova Roma Inc. a Maine registered US corporation cannot deny Cato, a resident of the State of New York, access to the protection of the laws based on any inequality of a presumed, and false, renunciation of access implicit in a corporation by-law, as claimed by Abucius.


3. The Constitution of the United States of America Article IV Section 2 "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html#section2

This ensures that the statute 13-B in Maine can be accessed by a citizen of New York. Gaius Equitius Cato therefore had the right to seek to enforce §704-A.


Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
Tribune of the Plebs

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:

>
> Cato Lucretio Agricolae sal.
>
> Salve!
>
> Well said - but your speech is, in and of itself, rhetorical of course.
>

Thank you. Of course all speech is rhetorical, in a sense of the word.

> The reason I posted my mail from Marinus is precisely because I want to squash Rumor and let the People see exactly how their magistrates react to a call for compliance with the law.
>
> If there is a trial, I will ask that it be open for all citizens to see and hear.

I think we both agree that it is better to observe than to imagine and it is better to debate than to rant. Some of us actually made the laws, many of us voted on them and I think we all tacitly agree to respect them when we become citizens. Let's see where this latest episode gets us.

be well

MLA

>
> Vale!
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. Lucretius Agricola" <marcus.lucretius@> wrote:
> >
> > When there was an important issue before the law (e.g. a trial of an important person) there were two things Romans loved to do: engage in rhetorical speechifying and observe the proceedings.
> >
> > Both these are well within the traditions of the ancients whom we wish to emulate, but in my mind the second is far more productive than the first, not least because of the influence of goddess Rumor, which can be more destructive than not.
> >
> > We have a legal system and some people have actually used it. My first observation is that some people who used it, and even some who built it, sometimes speak passionately against it, in some cases.
> >
> > My second observation is that by watching the workings of our system we can see just how hard it is to create a legal system; how hard it is even to write a law that actually does what the writer intends it to do. My take away point is that of all those everywhere who study Roman law, only we are engaged in a serious attempt to make it work, and we are seeing what difficulties our ancestors faced, and only we can really appreciate the magnificent achievement of theirs, that they made a system that worked.
> >
> > I don't think our system is perfect, in fact, I don't think it is particularly good, but I love watching it work, so that we can continue to learn and to improve it. I personally don't find rhetorical posturing to be particularly helpful.
> >
> > MLA
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Matt Hucke <hucke@...> wrote:

>
>
> Tribunes, consider this issue on its own merits: whatever you think of the charge
> against Cato, whatever you think about him personally, put that aside for the moment
> and consider solely the question of whether you will allow a candidate for office
> to be so easily neutralized by any random person who has the ear of a praetor.
>

As a patrician I won't express an opinion about what the Tribues could or should do. I do have to say that if this were any other praetor, I would be inclined to agree. But it is Gnaeus Equitius Marinus, Senator, consularius, censorius, in short, one of the most accomplished, respected, hard-working and level-headed citizens we have, and not a person known for frivolous action. His opinion carries a lot of weight with me. If he thinks we should go forward, then I'm inclined to agree, and watch the process carefully. If anyone thinks the laws need revision, I'm inclined to agree to that too.

http://www.novaroma.org/civitas/album?id=2356

MLA

Cato Lucretio Agricolae sal.

Salve!

So because someone has the ear of a "good guy", it's OK to act this way? I'm surprised that you of all people would appeal to such a combination of fallacies: the appeal to emotion and the argumentam ad verecundiam.

The argumentum ad verecundiam ("well, he's smart / powerful / famous / important / surrounded by a mystical haze of sanctity and he says it so it must be right") is not a rational way to put forward an argument - nor is the appeal to emotion ("I really feel this way about him so it must be right and you should feel this way too").


"Therefore he who bids the law rule may be deemed to bid God and Reason alone rule, but he who bids man rule adds an element of the beast; for desire is a wild beast, and passion perverts the minds of rulers, even when they are the best of men. The law is reason unaffected by desire." - Aristotle, "Politics"

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. Lucretius Agricola" <marcus.lucretius@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Matt Hucke <hucke@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Tribunes, consider this issue on its own merits: whatever you think of the charge
> > against Cato, whatever you think about him personally, put that aside for the moment
> > and consider solely the question of whether you will allow a candidate for office
> > to be so easily neutralized by any random person who has the ear of a praetor.
> >
>
> As a patrician I won't express an opinion about what the Tribues could or should do. I do have to say that if this were any other praetor, I would be inclined to agree. But it is Gnaeus Equitius Marinus, Senator, consularius, censorius, in short, one of the most accomplished, respected, hard-working and level-headed citizens we have, and not a person known for frivolous action. His opinion carries a lot of weight with me. If he thinks we should go forward, then I'm inclined to agree, and watch the process carefully. If anyone thinks the laws need revision, I'm inclined to agree to that too.
>
> http://www.novaroma.org/civitas/album?id=2356
>
> MLA
>

Salvete omnes, May be could that be lack of interest on those proposals? -- Di te incolumem custodiant. L. Coruncanius Cato Candidate to Aedilis Curulis --- El sáb, 25/4/09, Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...> escribió: De: Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...> Asunto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Fecha: sábado, 25 abril, 2009 7:18 Unfortunately, there's great quality over at the BA. When Vedius posted his ideas for NR reform, it got very little attention here, and a full blown discussion there. The only thing that caused any major discussion here was...the Back Alley! -------------------------------------------------- From: "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 10:22 PM To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone > C. Petronius Cn. Sullae s.p.d., > >> But hey lets begin the funeral rite for the ML with this little >> statistic: >> BA list for April - 3974 messages >> ML for April - 1232 messages > > 1200 messages by month is not a proof of announced death nor 4000 messages > a proof of real vitality. You can have 4000 messages with only 10 people > sending every day 13 messages each and, in another hand, 1200 messages > with 20 people sending 2 messages every days. > > So the more living forum, in my opinion, is the list where more people is > unscribed not the number of messages. In BA you have the quantity of > messages, indeed, but quantity is not quality. > > Vale. > C. Petronius Dexter > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:Nova-Roma-digest@yahoogroups.com mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Cato Coruncanio sal.

Salve!

Well, Titus Flavius - quite the vociferous opponent of mine here - was certainly getting into the intelligent spirit of discussing improvements to the legal system in the consular committee, and the Back Alley is quite alive with all kinds of ideas, so, no. I'd have to say it's the atmosphere here.

It's kind of like going from the muted clinking of pints of ale in the Bell in Hand under the gaze of the army to the boisterous and healthy - and ultimately nation-inspiring - arguments out in the open under the Liberty Tree.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Lucius Coruncanius Cato <l.coruncanius_cato@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> May be could that be lack of interest on those proposals?
>
> --
>
> Di te incolumem custodiant.
>
> L. Coruncanius Cato
>
> Candidate to Aedilis Curulis
>
> --- El sáb, 25/4/09, Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...> escribió:
> De: Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...>
> Asunto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone
> Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Fecha: sábado, 25 abril, 2009 7:18
>
> Unfortunately, there's great quality over at the BA. When Vedius posted his
> ideas for NR reform, it got very little attention here, and a full blown
> discussion there.
>
> The only thing that caused any major discussion here was...the Back Alley!
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@...>
> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 10:22 PM
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone
>
> > C. Petronius Cn. Sullae s.p.d.,
> >
> >> But hey lets begin the funeral rite for the ML with this little
> >> statistic:
> >> BA list for April - 3974 messages
> >> ML for April - 1232 messages
> >
> > 1200 messages by month is not a proof of announced death nor 4000 messages
>
> > a proof of real vitality. You can have 4000 messages with only 10 people
> > sending every day 13 messages each and, in another hand, 1200 messages
> > with 20 people sending 2 messages every days.
> >
> > So the more living forum, in my opinion, is the list where more people is
> > unscribed not the number of messages. In BA you have the quantity of
> > messages, indeed, but quantity is not quality.
> >
> > Vale.
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

Salve Titus Flavius Aquila
 
In this as in many things you are just plain wrong. If the Lex in question is repealed then the "case" against Senator Cato disappears because the constitution states that:
 

a. No one shall suffer a penalty for an action which was not subject to a penalty when the action was performed. If an action was subject to a penalty when the action was performed but is no longer subject to any penalty, no penalty shall be applied for that action.

b. No one shall suffer a greater penalty for an action than the penalty which was applicable when the action was taken. If an action was subject to a penalty when the action was performed but is now subject to a lesser penalty, the lesser penalty shall be applicable for that action.

BWT I co-wrote this amendment to the constitution with Praetor Marinus years ago.
 
You may want to spend some time READING our laws and constitution in stead of talking about them as though you know what you are talking about. It is apperant you need to spend more time in the library.
 
Vale
 
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
 

 

---

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: titus.aquila@...
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:21:13 +0000
Subject: AW: AW: [Nova-Roma] Cato Treason Laesa Patriae & Candidacy for censor suffectus

Cato Flavio Aquilae sal.

Salve!

Titus Flavius, you wrote (in part):

"first of all Gaius Equitius Cato Cato is charged with treason, Laesa Patriae, in my eyes in makes it impossible to accept him further..."

Ye gods and little fishes! What kind of government do you live under? A totalitarian dictatorship?

"A reus shall be presumed innocent until guilt is determined by the iudices beyond a reasonable doubt." - lex Salicia poenalis 6.2

Read the law before you go and start making noises like this!

I am at a loss. Titus Flavius, you engaged in spirited and intelligent discussion, asking serious questions and making thoughtful comments and suggestions in the consular committee on the law. What happens to people when they get to this Forum?

Vale,

Cato

Salve Livia!

Thank you for the heads up;) I have so little to go on in the way of proper accent. The actors are Italian, am I correct? The accent sounds Italian to me and from what I have been told, Italian is the closest to what we know of proper pronunciation.
My father, my grandfather, uncles and great uncles would speak Latin (Classical pronunciation) on the infrequent occasions when business was briefly discussed with the family present. I learned to discern this from the Italian which was used when adults did not want the children to know what they were speaking about. In addition my maternal grandmother spoke a very old "latinic" French, an archaic dialect, which was different still and different from modern French, although I was told her Latin was flawless and she had no problem interjecting her own opinions when speaking with her son-in-law and the very competant Latinists on my paternal side. I spoke this French "dialect" almost solely until I was four years of age.
Even though I grew up with all the musical sounds of the motherland, my own Latin pronuciation is horrid. I have a friend who was reared bilingually in both Italian and German, I listened to his Latin pronunciation, tried to emulate it and mine became even worse;)
I have practiced with Wheelocks and was told there were some problems with that pronunciation also.
My sound files from Magistra Scolastica do not seem to want to work anymore so I am hoping that dear Lentulus and our dear Magistra will put some sound files up on the NR site. I would also like to hear your pronunciation as well, I think it would be very helpful.
I would like to mention Maior, I have no earthly idea how accurate her pronunciation is, but it sounds lovely. I am a big fan of Ativus, whom I am told has perfect pronunciation and who I could listen to for hours as it is truly musical.

Vale!

Julai

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "livia_plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Iulia,
> the video is really a little masterpiece, with a wonderful selection of basic vocabulary and of known Latin phrases, understandable by all and amusing, but be careful when imitating their pronounciation.
> There are no big problems with the pronounciation in itself, but they only get the accents right in maybe 15% of the cases.
>
> Vale,
> Livia

Salvete omnes!

Tibullus Book X Make Peace Not War

Who was he, who first forged the fearful sword?
How iron-willed and truly made of iron he was!
Then slaughter was created, war was born to men.
then a quicker road was opened to dread death.
But perhaps it's not the wretch's fault we turn to evil
what he gave us to use on savage beasts?
That's the curse of rich gold: there were no wars
when the beech-wood cup stood beside men's plates.
There were no fortresses or fences, and the flock's leader
sought sleep securely among the diverse sheep.
I might have lived then, Valgius, and not known
sad arms, or heard the trumpet with beating heart.
Now I'm dragged to war, and perhaps some enemy
already carries the spear that will pierce my side.
Lares of my fathers, save me: you are the same
that reared me, a little child running before your feet.
Don't be ashamed that you're made from ancient wood:
so you were when you lived in my grandfather's house.
Then faith was better kept, when a wooden god
poorly dressed, stood in a narrow shrine.
He was placated, if someone offered the first grapes
or placed the garland of wheat-ears on his sacred head:
and whoever gained his wish brought the honey-cakes
himself, his little daughter behind, with the pure comb.
Turn the bronze spears away from me, Lares,
and (accept) a sacrifice of a hog from the full sty.
I will follow in pure clothing, carrying the basket
bound with myrtle, myrtle binding my own head.
So I may please you: let another be brave in war,
and topple hostile generals with Mars' help,
then he can tell me his military deeds while I drink,
and draw his camp on the table with wine.
What madness to summon up dark Death by war!
It menaces us, and comes secretly on silent feet.
There are no cornfields down there, no trim vineyards,
only bold Cerberus, and the foul ferryman of Styx's stream.
There, with eyeless sockets and scorched hair,
a pallid crowd wanders by the lakes of darkness.
No he's more to be praised whom, blessed with children,
a long old age keeps occupied in his humble cottage.
He tends the sheep, and his son the lambs,
and his wife provides hot water for weary limbs.
So let me be, and may my head whiten with snowy temples,
and recall old things from ancient deeds.
Meanwhile let peace tend the fields. Bright peace first
bowed the oxen for ploughing under the curved yoke.
Peace nurtured the vines and laid up the juice of the grape
so the son's wine might pour from the father's jar.
Hoe and ploughshare gleam in peace, but rust seizes
the grim weapons of the cruel soldier in darkness.
The countryman drives home from the wood,
himself half-sober, with wife and children in his cart,
but then they summon love's war, and the woman
bewails her torn hair and the broken doors.
The bruised girl weeps for her tender cheeks, but the victor
weeps himself that his hands were so strong in his madness.
And impudent Love supplies evil words to the quarrel,
and sits indifferent between the angry pair.
Ah, he's stone and iron, whoever would strike his girl:
that action draws down the gods from the heavens.
let it be enough to have torn the thin cloth from her limbs,
enough to have disordered the arrangement of her hair,
enough to have caused her tears: he's four times blessed
whose anger can make a tender girl weep.
But he whose hands are cruel, should carry shield and pike,
and stay far away from gentle Venus.
Then come, kindly Peace, hold the wheat-ear in your hand,
and let your radiant breast pour out fruits before us.

Valete,
Julia

Salve, This ML is supported by the Constitution and leges. Other ones not. set/match? -- Di te incolumem custodiant. L. Coruncanius Cato Candidate to Aedilis Curulis --- El sáb, 25/4/09, wuffa2001 <magewuffa@...> escribió: De: wuffa2001 <magewuffa@...> Asunto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Fecha: sábado, 25 abril, 2009 5:20 --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Lucius Coruncanius Cato <l.coruncanius_ cato@...> wrote: > > Salve MCF, > > "one of the people who started NR." > > And for that I am grateful to him. > > So? > UNDER US law he owns the ML NR does not.this is a private owned list so what is talked about here is ok as it is private owned point/game MCF > -- > > Di te incolumem custodiant. > > L. Coruncanius Cato > > Candidate to Aedilis Curulis > > --- El vie, 24/4/09, wuffa2001 <magewuffa@. ..> escribió: > De: wuffa2001 <magewuffa@. ..> > Asunto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone > Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com > Fecha: viernes, 24 abril, 2009 11:35 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Lucius Coruncanius Cato <l.coruncanius_ cato@> wrote: > > > > > > Lucius Coruncanius Cato Catoni spd > > > > > > > This list here is a private owned list you call the Forum.this list is not owned by by NR.It is owned as it has aways been by the (ex) PM > > , you know one of the people who started NR. > > MCF > > > > > First phrase: > > > > > > "The right to participate in all public fora and discussions, and the > > > right to reasonably expect such fora to be supported by the State." > > > > > > This shows where issues regarding NR must be talked. This does not mean inciting people to join private lists. This does not mean incite defection from the official lists... exactly the things you've been doing for weeks. > > > > > > Private discussions= private owned lists. Public discussions, in the Forum. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Di te incolumem custodiant. > > > > > > L. Coruncanius Cato > > > > > > Candidate to Aedilis Curulis > > > > > > --- El vie, 24/4/09, Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@ .> escribió: > > > De: Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@ .> > > > Asunto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Draft of a new edictum de sermone > > > Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com > > > Fecha: viernes, 24 abril, 2009 2:31 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cato Coruncanio sal. > > > > > > > > > > > > Salve! > > > > > > > > > > > > You wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > "For discussing issues within (about) NR, the Constitution is clear." > > > > > > > > > > > > Why, yes indeed it is: > > > > > > > > > > > > "The right to participate in all public fora and discussions, and the right to reasonably expect such fora 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 fora may be expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of maintaining order and civility;" - Const. N.R. II.B.4 > > > > > > > > > > > > The end. This does not require five pages of rambling pseudo-legal- speak for clarification. > > > > > > > > > > > > Vale, > > > > > > > > > > > > Cato > > > >