On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:51 PM, deciusiunius <bcatfd@...> wrote:

Paulinus unilaterally creates senators. "Illegal! Tyranny! Veto!"
Modinaus (sorry, this is just an example Modiane) unilaterally creates senators. The same people say: "Clearly legal! Proper use of power! Don't question the censor!"

Sigh. Such is the way of things in Nova Roma. Always has. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

I may do what you and Modianus and others did and take a leave of absence for a time. Restores the sanity.

Vale,

Palladius

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Equitius Marinus" <gawne@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Caesar,
>
> You wrote:
> >I note that Censor Paulinus stated that he had been, very recently,
> > asked by one of the Consuls to issue a nota against someone whilst
> > he was the SOLE censor.
>
> Whichever consul asked for that was in the wrong, had he asked me I'd have advised him that no censor acting alone can issue a nota.
>
> [...]
> > Now if this nota that was requested was say against Sulla, Cato,
> > Poplicola, or myself I am sure all those clamoring about how
> > terrible Censor Paulinus' actions are now
>
> I can't speak for anyone else, but you can bet I'd be right there telling Paulinus he was in the wrong, just as I did (via private message, hoping that he'd realize his error and withdraw the edict) this morning.
>
> There's a lot more at stake here than a specific instance of some senatorial appointments. This bears on the dignity and authority of the Censura itself. Having held that office for two years, and worked very hard to uphold that dignity and authority, I feel I have a stake in the matter.
>
> Vale,
>
> Gn. Equit. Marinus
> Censorius
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> I don't like you example, I never appointed senatores without a colleague
> and I tried to be fair about the appointments. Look who I appointed...
>
> Also, what is wrong with taking a break. It didn't mean I didn't read
> everything, or that I wasn't in contact with people. I just didn't post on
> the main list everyday!
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:51 PM, deciusiunius <bcatfd@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Paulinus unilaterally creates senators. "Illegal! Tyranny! Veto!"
> > Modinaus (sorry, this is just an example Modiane) unilaterally creates
> > senators. The same people say: "Clearly legal! Proper use of power! Don't
> > question the censor!"
> >
> > Sigh. Such is the way of things in Nova Roma. Always has. Plus ça change,
> > plus c'est la même chose.
> >
> > I may do what you and Modianus and others did and take a leave of absence
> > for a time. Restores the sanity.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Palladius
> >
>

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Robert Woolwine <l_cornelius_sulla@...> wrote:

As the first Nova Roman to complete the term of censor - and also being without a colleague for at time. I think I have an appropriate perspective on this. One of the foremost legacies of the ancients is the rule of law and consistently the magistrates and those like Modianus, Marinus, the Consuls and their lapdogs have shown a double standard - whether it be for moderation and the Stalinist revision of history to now the LEGAL actions of Censor Galerius.

This is just another example of how Nova Roma has failed to establish a means of dispensing justice in a dispassionate manner. The Consul(s) request a nota - HEY - no big deal if there is one Censor.

Here is the rub - consistency is not something the magistrates care about. Consistency is the same as a 4-letter word in Nova Roma. The magistrates twist the law to serve their own ends and here we are. Consistency would dictate that if Galerius cannot issue his LAWFUL edict - then all of his actions as Censor are invalid.

But, again - we are talking a 4 letter word! You want to know why I said most citizens do not trust the Praetors and consuls - its because they will lie, twist the facts, and do everything to silence their critics. These are the SAME people that put Cincinnatus on trial. That removed the rightful Pontifex Maximus and created the Anti-Pope. These are the people that brought NR to the brink of a lawsuit for violating its own bylaws and Maine law.

These people are the true role-players - if they respected Nova Roma - Nova Roma would not be in decline. If these people cared about Nova Roma - the law would be respected and equally administered. If these people cared about Nova Roma - there would be Concordia. If these people cared about Nova Roma - we would be corporate compliant. If these people cared about Nova Roma - There would be no reason for a back alley.

Instead - it has been proven time and again that these people do not care about Nova Roma. This is Nova Roma - the home of double standards.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Robert Woolwine <l_cornelius_sulla@...> wrote:

No Mr. Lawbreaker you just removed them regardless if you had the consent of your colleague or not.

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

> I don't like you example, I never appointed senatores without a colleague
> and I tried to be fair about the appointments. Look who I appointed...
>
> Also, what is wrong with taking a break. It didn't mean I didn't read
> everything, or that I wasn't in contact with people. I just didn't post on
> the main list everyday!
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

> After a day away from the forum I see that we have a few extra posts ;>

>> While may have been covered and explained away cleverly, in the mass of posts, I note that Censor Paulinus stated that he had been, very recently, asked by one of the Consuls to issue a nota against someone whilst he was the SOLE censor.<<

>> Now looking at this fact this from the Censor, the Constitution states that the issuing of a nota is a "collegial" action, so why was it acceptable to ask ONE censor to issue a nota when the Constitution says the action MUST be collegiate, yet not acceptable to appoint Senators when the neither the Constitution nor the laws of Nova Roma prohibit this?<<

> Now if this nota that was requested was say against Sulla, Cato, Poplicola, or myself

> So, one action that was desired was thus constitutional suddenly,

> even though clearly it is unconstitutional, yet something isn't desired which is constitutional, as it isn't prohibited, is suddenly unconstitutional.?

> Now call me a tad suspicious...

>>> Petronius Dexter, you can write a law that would force a sitting censor to step down if his colleague resigns or dies. You can then give it to the consuls, or a tribune, and they can present it for a vote!<<<

>>> Every citizen has this access.<<<

On 5/1/09, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:

 
I believe I have acted legally and morally in making these Senate appointments.
 
I was elected, as all Censors are, to a two year term of office. Nova Roman law does not ask nor require that I step down when my colleague resigned. I have listened to the comments of those who both support my edict and more importantly to those who do not.
 
If the FIVE Tribunes, by majority vote, inform me, in private, that I have violated the law I will withdraw my edict.
 
I will, however, never resign as Censor.
 
Valete
 
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Censor 

As has probably been clear from my postings, I too believe you have acted both legally and morally. As you say our law does not ask you to step down nor does it say what you can or cannot do while in office alone.  I don't personally know the people you have appointed so I have no ax to grind. I do hope the tribunes will let this edict stand and let us all move on.  I'm glad you're not resigning. I was sorry your colleague resigned; I'm glad you're not following him.

Flavia Lucilla Merula

On 5/1/09, galerius_of_rome <galerius_of_rome@...> wrote:

So what the law says further? What is this "only" way to add a new senator to
the list? How can you "only" add a senator to the list?

"...with the agreement of both censores."

But the law nowhere states what to do when there is only one censor. This situation simply isn't covered by our laws so therefor nothing prohibits it.

if there are no two censors, just one
censor, he can't appoint senators because it is not written in the law that
there would be another way to appoint a senator than through an agreement of two
sitting censors.

As I said nothing covers this situation therefor nothing prohibits it.

And ancient
republican law forbids the censor to make an unilateral appointment or to
appoint a senator where he doesn't have a colleague.

It very clearly does NOT do so as under ancient republican law there could never have been pnly one censor (something Nova Roma allows) so again nothing coves this situation and your statement is patently false.

In light of all these arguments, I respectfully join my hand with my Colleague;
Gaius Pompeius Marcellus in his Veto.

I am sorry you are doing this.

Flavia Lucilla Merula

On 5/1/09, Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:

But you see if there is neither Nova Roman law nor Nova Roman mos then we are left in the hands of someone who can do whatever he wishes. What kind of legal precedent is that?

It's a legal precedent that ought to be changed, I think we all probably agree on that.  however at the moment that appears to be how the law stands and wishing it was different won't change it. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming you don't like it, won't change it. I thought you said you had a law degree, forgive me if I'm mistaken, but, if you do, you must have come across many laws that we would like to change but it has to be done correctly. What court could you stand up in and say 'I don't like the way this law is written so I'm going to pretend it's different' and not be laughed out of court?

So if Paulinus doesn't respect Nova Roma law or mos or even that of Roma Antiqua, I think this is a profound comment on his character and dignitas.

You've just bemoaned the fact that there is neither Nova Roman law nor mos to cover this situation and now you accuse Paulinus of not respecting something that is nonexistent.  I've seen some very flimsy excuses for attacking people but not respecting something that doesn't exist that definitely takes the biscuit.

Flavia Lucilla Merula

On 5/1/09, Titus Annaeus Regulus <t.annaevsregvlvs@...> wrote:

I suppose one could interpret it to mean that actions could only be completed by two Censors. I would tend to read it as stressing that one Censor may not act without the consent of his colleague. In the lack of a colleague I don't think this was meant to cripple the sole Censor, it was simply never considered by those who framed the law. The law talks of 'they' and 'both', but not of 'he' and 'alone'. Show me a law that speaks of these and you will have a definitively relevant law

That is exactly my point. Our laws don't cover this situation therefor how can you perform an illegal act against a non applicable law?  Until the law is clarified we cannot apply it in this situation so no law has been broken

In Roma Antiqua one Censor stepping down means the other must step down as well, I know this. That is not how we do things here and now. The new reality that this creates, having a single Censor, is completely unaddressed in our laws. The assumption that all his powers are stripped until a colleague is elected seems both presumptuous and misguided from my knowledge of Roman magistracies. In the Republic, magistrates held authority that derived from their office.

I agree. In Nova Roma we allow a single censor. We therefor have no right to try to strip him of power while he is still in office unless we pass a law specifically limiting his powers.  So far we have not done so. The censor has therefor acted in complete harmony with the law.

Flavia Lucilla Merula

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "enodia2002" <walkyr@...> wrote:
>
> This morning I got up and read through the posts from the ML, looked at the number of taxpayers, walked over and shredded the proposal I was working on for a US$12,000 grant for Nova Roma.
>
> If this organization has any hope at all of being respected in academic and archeological circles, then it must start playing by the rules those circles respect. This means following the best practices of non-profit and charitable organizations. This means having the right credentials, the proper registrations and becoming a rated non-profit.
>
> If Nova Roma is to survive and make any progress towards its goals the minimum, MINIMUM amount of new money it needs to bring in during the next 7 months is US$10,000. Divided by 180 assidui that comes to US$55.55. Let's be generous and round it up to US$60. If each & every citizen/member of Nova Roma is not capable of bringing in $60 in NEW money then this organization does not deserve to survive. Over the course of the last year Nova Roma has suffered a 22% loss of membership, down from 662 active participants in 2005. That number showed a loss of 85% of the membership over the preceding five years. 85%!!!!
>
> If you care in any way for the future of Nova Roma, then start working for her. None of the edicts, appointments, or anything else will matter if the organization dies from neglect.
>
> Each and every citizen/member must accept the responsibility and challenge to bring in at least US$60 in new money (that's money from a new donor, not out of your own pocket) by the end of the year. If you get more, wonderful!
>
> Nova Roma is an organization with huge potential, but it will be destroyed by internal squabbles if we don't start taking fundraising seriously. It does not matter who is right over some picayune matter if the organization dies.
>
> Time to start acting like Romans, folks. Stop worrying over the internal battles, and go deal with the war. Otherwise, the people who came to do serious work will go elsewhere with their skills, and Nova Roma loses.
>
> V Rutilia
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Caesar Modiano SPD
>
> Leaving aside the now all too familiar refrain that it's all Sulla's fault, we are still left with one of the Consuls feeling quite comfortable about asking ONE Censor to do something that required a COLLEGIATE decision - clearly stated in the constitution - and thus comfortable with an illegal act, yet now suddenly ONE Censor cannot appoint Senators - despite no one being able to conclusively point to any section that says this isn't permitted.
>
> I'd point out - again - that these Consuls were the ones who tried Cincinnatus and engaged in some very "creative" interpretations of the law and Constitution during that whole process. So either, one or both of them were not after all competent and well read in our laws, evidenced by one of them (or both) asking ONE censor to illegally issue a nota. In that case I'd say a massive injustice was done to Cincinnatus - or this attempt to use Paulinus to issue a nota ON HIS OWN was a singular and pointed example of unconstitutional, illegal self-serving abuse of the law. This clearly means incompetency or double standards. They ask for something that was clearly illegal and would have followed it through and defended it, yet oppose, along with you and others, something that isn't prohibited under the constitution or the law.
>
> I'd say this is a clear example of double standards and just faux outrage over a possibly reduced voting majority in the Senate. That's what all this flapping and wailing is really about isn't it?
>
>
>
>
> From: David Kling
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 11:10 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Double standards and Nova Roma
>
>
>
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae
>
> The only decline of Nova Roma has been since you returned after many years off -- while Paulinus paid your taxes for you with the glee hoping that you would someday return to Nova Roma.
>
> Last year saw tremendous strides in professionalizing the senate and making Nova Roma stream-lined and efficient. The systems put in place by Marinus and Quintilianus while they were censores made it easy for me to take over as censor handling citizen approvals. The efficiency developed by Marinus and Quintilianus professionalized the administrative aspects of citizen approvals and the valiant efforts of some of the best people here in Nova Roma have worked with the censores for years (myself included) silently making sure the administrative side of Nova Roma worked seamlessly. If Paulinus has any shred of dignity left he will testify that what I write is true!
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete:
>
> By this LOGIC our lone censor COULD issue an nota against every senator who
> opposed him and his agenda, have a friendly tribune call the senate to order
> and then have a dictator approved of his choosing. This could be done. IF
> and only IF it is seen as acceptable for a censor to issue notae and appoint
> senatores alone.
>
> By allowing these senate appointments to go through then we set a precedent
> for the above scenario to happen. Is this what we want? Giving one person
> the authority to cripple the senate with multiple notae?
>
> Seems far fetched? A few years ago a lone censor making senate appointments
> would have seemed unthinkable.


What we should do is greatly narrow the path to the Senate. Reduce it so the only means of admission is election to the office of praetor or consul (censor should at least be a former consul or at least praetor).

Mass appointments should go the way of the Dodo bird.

Vale,

Palladius

> What we should do is greatly narrow the path to the Senate. Reduce it so the only means of admission is election to the office of praetor or consul (censor should at least be a former consul or at least praetor).
>
> Mass appointments should go the way of the Dodo bird.
>
> Vale,
>
> Palladius
>

>
> I don't like you example, I never appointed senatores without a colleague
> and I tried to be fair about the appointments. Look who I appointed...

> Also, what is wrong with taking a break. It didn't mean I didn't read
> everything, or that I wasn't in contact with people. I just didn't post on
> the main list everyday!

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Palladio sal.
>
> Salve,
>
> The only problem with that is that it goes against ancient practice as well. Here's an excerpt from Smith's Dictionary:
>
> "On the establishment of the republic the election of senators passed from the hands of the kings into those of the magistrates, the consuls, consular tribunes, and subsequently the censors (Liv. II.1; Festus, s.v. Praeteriti senatores). But the power of electing senators possessed by the republican magistrates was by no means an arbitrary power, for the senators were always taken from among those who were equites, or whom the people had previously invested with a magistracy, so that in reality the people themselves always nominated the candidates for the senate. From the year 487 B.C. the princeps senatus was no longer appointed for life, but became a magistrate appointed by the curies, and the patres minorum gentium were likewise eligible to this dignity (Niebuhr, II. p119). It moreover appears, that all the curule magistrates from the quaestors upwards had by virtue of their office a seat in the senate, which they retained after the year of their office was over, and it was from these ex-magistrates that the vacancies occurring in the senate were generally filled up."
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
>
> > What we should do is greatly narrow the path to the Senate. Reduce it so the only means of admission is election to the office of praetor or consul (censor should at least be a former consul or at least praetor).
> >
> > Mass appointments should go the way of the Dodo bird.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Palladius
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@...> wrote:
>
> On 5/1/09, Titus Annaeus Regulus <t.annaevsregvlvs@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I suppose one could interpret it to mean that actions could only be
> > completed by two Censors. I would tend to read it as stressing that one
> > Censor may not act without the consent of his colleague. In the lack of a
> > colleague I don't think this was meant to cripple the sole Censor, it was
> > simply never considered by those who framed the law. The law talks of 'they'
> > and 'both', but not of 'he' and 'alone'. Show me a law that speaks of these
> > and you will have a definitively relevant law
> >
>
> That is exactly my point. Our laws don't cover this situation therefor how
> can you perform an illegal act against a non applicable law? Until the law
> is clarified we cannot apply it in this situation so no law has been broken
>
> In Roma Antiqua one Censor stepping down means the other must step down as
> > well, I know this. That is not how we do things here and now. The new
> > reality that this creates, having a single Censor, is completely unaddressed
> > in our laws. The assumption that all his powers are stripped until a
> > colleague is elected seems both presumptuous and misguided from my knowledge
> > of Roman magistracies. In the Republic, magistrates held authority that
> > derived from their office.
> >
>
> I agree. In Nova Roma we allow a single censor. We therefor have no right to
> try to strip him of power while he is still in office unless we pass a law
> specifically limiting his powers. So far we have not done so. The censor
> has therefor acted in complete harmony with the law.
>
> Flavia Lucilla Merula
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Palladio sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> I hope that last didn't seem dismissive. Your idea carries merit, especially since we are so small compared with the ancients' population. The size of the Senate is set by the lex Popillia, which tries to adjust it based on population; maybe its percentage needs to be made smaller, or the number of senators allowable may naturally decrease if the population shrinks.
>
> I know galerius Paulinus has prepared a proposal regarding tightening up the cursus honorum, and that may have a beneficial effect as well.
>
> We are in a constant state of unease regarding exactly how closely we should mirror the ancients...

It's never an easy issue where we should mirror the ancients and where we should go our own way with what works better for us. I think with our small population and the need to keep the size of the senate proportionate, that might be the best solution.

Vale,

Palladius

On 5/1/09, Lucius Coruncanius Cato <l.coruncanius_cato@...> wrote:

Lucius Coruncanius Cato Fl. Lucillae Merulae SPD Sorry... are you questioning a tribune of the pleb's veto?

No absolutely not. I'm sorry if I gave anyone that impression. The tribunes have ruled and I wholeheartedly uphold their right to do so regardless of my personal feelings in the matter. Again I apologise if anyone thought I was questioning the veto.

Flavia Lucilla Merula

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 11:38 AM, deciusiunius <bcatfd@...> wrote:

What we should do is greatly narrow the path to the Senate. Reduce it so the only means of admission is election to the office of praetor or consul (censor should at least be a former consul or at least praetor).

Mass appointments should go the way of the Dodo bird.

Vale,

Palladius

  A. Tullia Scholastica C. Equitio Catoni C. Petronio Dextro quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.

    My comments are interleaved.

  

Cato Petronio Dextero sal.

Salve.

Here is your proposal, with some English grammar etc. corrections, and some smoothing out:

__________________________________________________________

Lex de binis magistratibus.

    ATS:  Hmmm...well, this does work as meaning a pair, but does it do justice to paired?  Perhaps paribus or geminis?  

"This law concerns the official activities of the following ordinarii in collegial magistracies: the consuls, praetors and censors.

1. Any act made ex officio by a consul, praetor, or censor must be made with the public written consent of each of the magistrates in that office; no edictum or other instrument with the force of law may be enacted or promulgated by any single consul, praetor, or censor.  If a consul, praetor, or censor promulgates any edictum or legal instrument with the force of law, a message concurring with that promulgation or edictum must be made within twenty-four (24) hours of the original promulgation.
   

                        ATS:  As you, Cato, should be aware, this would prohibit these magistrates from appointing apparitores without the consent of the other member of the pair, and might prevent such things as banning of spammers by the praetor.  We had another spammer yesterday or the day before.  Possibly, too, you recall the long absence of praetor Noricus, and the extraordinary efforts to locate him.  Such absences (hospitalizations minus net access, for few of them have such amenities for the residents, and other such things) might conceivably make such concurrence impossible.  

2. As each of these magistracies requires collegial action, if one of them becomes vacant through resignation, removal, or death, a special election shall be held within twenty-four (24) days to fill the vacancy under applicable election law.  During such time that an office is vacant, the single magistrate still in office may not enact or promulgate any edictum or instrument with force of law.

    ATS:   One would have to specify a given number of dies comitiales, for there are months (February, April, and December, just to name a few off the top of my head) which have virtually no dies comitiales on which elections can be held.  Granted, it is highly unlikely that an election would have to be held in December (appointments may be made if vacancies occur), but April, too, is often busy, and one must allow for all foreseeable contingencies.  If one resigns (etc.) at or near the end of such a period, it might be difficult to set up another election; tribes and centuries may have to be realigned, and the cista must be prepared.  Secondly, one must add disappearance to the list, for several of our magistrates simply disappear, and one quaestor (I believe it was) just arrived, complaining that no one had informed him of his duties.  

3. The sole exception to this law is the ability of a single consul or, in the absence of both consuls, a single praetor to call to order either the Senate to conduct business or the appropriate comitia necessary to allow a vote of the People.

    ATS:  Here we must add routine duties, such as apparitor appointment, banning, etc.  In reality, the only magistracy in which both members HAD to act collegially was the censura, and then only for the notae and sublectio.  That is the one where this is crucial, and where a colleague was, and should be, required.  There should be no need for a colleague with regard to citizenship approvals, banning, making apparitor appointments, and the like.  We also need not add the ancient rule about the censor resigning when a colleague is missing; our practices are different.  

3. This law is effective immediately.

    ATS:  This would almost certainly have to state something more like effective upon approval by the relevant comitia.  

__________________________________________________________

There are several problems with this concept in my view, but this is how it might properly read.

    ATS:  I agree that there are several problems, some of which I have addressed.

Vale,

Cato

  
  Valete.  

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > A. Tullia Scholastica C. Equitio Catoni C. Petronio Dextro quiritibus bonae
> > voluntatis S.P.D.
> >
> > My comments are interleaved.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cato Petronio Dextero sal.
> >
> > Salve.
> >
> > Here is your proposal, with some English grammar etc. corrections, and some
> > smoothing out:
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> >
> > Lex de binis magistratibus.
> >
> > ATS: Hmmm...well, this does work as meaning a pair, but does it do
> > justice to paired? Perhaps paribus or geminis?
> >
> > "This law concerns the official activities of the following ordinarii in
> > collegial magistracies: the consuls, praetors and censors.
> >
> > 1. Any act made ex officio by a consul, praetor, or censor must be made with
> > the public written consent of each of the magistrates in that office; no
> > edictum or other instrument with the force of law may be enacted or
> > promulgated by any single consul, praetor, or censor. If a consul, praetor,
> > or censor promulgates any edictum or legal instrument with the force of law, a
> > message concurring with that promulgation or edictum must be made within
> > twenty-four (24) hours of the original promulgation.
>
> ATS: As you, Cato, should be aware, this would
> prohibit these magistrates from appointing apparitores without the consent
> of the other member of the pair, and might prevent such things as banning of
> spammers by the praetor. We had another spammer yesterday or the day
> before. Possibly, too, you recall the long absence of praetor Noricus, and
> the extraordinary efforts to locate him. Such absences (hospitalizations
> minus net access, for few of them have such amenities for the residents, and
> other such things) might conceivably make such concurrence impossible.
> >
> > 2. As each of these magistracies requires collegial action, if one of them
> > becomes vacant through resignation, removal, or death, a special election
> > shall be held within twenty-four (24) days to fill the vacancy under
> > applicable election law. During such time that an office is vacant, the
> > single magistrate still in office may not enact or promulgate any edictum or
> > instrument with force of law.
> >
> > ATS: One would have to specify a given number of dies comitiales, for
> > there are months (February, April, and December, just to name a few off the
> > top of my head) which have virtually no dies comitiales on which elections can
> > be held. Granted, it is highly unlikely that an election would have to be
> > held in December (appointments may be made if vacancies occur), but April,
> > too, is often busy, and one must allow for all foreseeable contingencies. If
> > one resigns (etc.) at or near the end of such a period, it might be difficult
> > to set up another election; tribes and centuries may have to be realigned, and
> > the cista must be prepared. Secondly, one must add disappearance to the list,
> > for several of our magistrates simply disappear, and one quaestor (I believe
> > it was) just arrived, complaining that no one had informed him of his duties.
> >
> > 3. The sole exception to this law is the ability of a single consul or, in the
> > absence of both consuls, a single praetor to call to order either the Senate
> > to conduct business or the appropriate comitia necessary to allow a vote of
> > the People.
> >
> > ATS: Here we must add routine duties, such as apparitor appointment,
> > banning, etc. In reality, the only magistracy in which both members HAD to
> > act collegially was the censura, and then only for the notae and sublectio.
> > That is the one where this is crucial, and where a colleague was, and should
> > be, required. There should be no need for a colleague with regard to
> > citizenship approvals, banning, making apparitor appointments, and the like.
> > We also need not add the ancient rule about the censor resigning when a
> > colleague is missing; our practices are different.
> >
> > 3. This law is effective immediately.
> >
> > ATS: This would almost certainly have to state something more like
> > effective upon approval by the relevant comitia.
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> >
> > There are several problems with this concept in my view, but this is how it
> > might properly read.
> >
> > ATS: I agree that there are several problems, some of which I have
> > addressed.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> > Valete.
>

> Salve Tribunes,
>
> Ouch a veto! Do I get any century points for being a Senator for 18 hours?
> Vale,
> Diana Octavia
>
>

>Please accept my aplogies on the recient

>
>
> Salve Modianus
>
> If memory serves the year that Pius and I were elected Praetors we became
> the
> last elected magistrates to enter the Senate on "autopilot" as it were. The
> law at the time said any person elected Censor, Consul or Praetor who was
> not already a Senator was automatically added to the list.
>
> Does that sound right? Do you remember that Lex?
>
> Vale
>
> Paulinus
>
> ________________________________
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> From: tau.athanasios@...
> Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 16:12:51 -0400
> Subject: Re: R: [Nova-Roma] EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE SENATORIBVS ADLEGENDIS pr.
> Kal. Mai.
>
>
>
> Salve:
>
> I'm inclined to agree with you on this.  Something needs to be done to
> narrow the path.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 11:38 AM, deciusiunius <bcatfd@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> What we should do is greatly narrow the path to the Senate. Reduce it so the
> only means of admission is election to the office of praetor or consul
> (censor should at least be a former consul or at least praetor).
>
> Mass appointments should go the way of the Dodo bird.
>
> Vale,
>
> Palladius
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
> Salve Quintus Servilius Priscus
>
> Yes it was.
>
> Vale
>
> Paulinus
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> From: oldroman@...
> Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 18:28:14 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Moving Forward
>
>
>
> Salve,
>
> Was it the Lex Vedia Senatoria?
>
> LEX VEDIA SENATORIA
>
> (Enacted by dictatorial edictum 7/30/99 with the force and authority of
> law.)
>
> In accordance with paragraph IV.A.2.c. of the Constitution of Nova
> Roma, the Lex Vedia Senatoria is hereby enacted to establish the
> guidelines by which the censors may add names to the list of Senators
> which they maintain.
>
> 1. Any individual elected to the office of consul, censor, or
> praetor shall automatically be included in the album Senatorum
> (assuming that the individual was not already a member of the Senate).
> 2. Any individual elected to the office of curule aedile or
> appointed to the office of provincial governor may, at the discretion
> of the censors, be included in the album Senatorum six months after
> assuming office (assuming that the individual was not already a member
> of the Senate).
> 3. Upon issuance of a Senatus consultum nominating an individual to
> membership in the Senate, the censors may, at their discretion,
> include that individual in the album Senatorum.
>
> Passed by Dictatorial Edictum
>
> 30 Quintilis MMDCCLII
>
> Vale,
> Quintus Servilius Priscus
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 15:42, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher
> <spqr753@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Salve Modianus
>>
>> If memory serves the year that Pius and I were elected Praetors we became
>> the
>> last elected magistrates to enter the Senate on "autopilot" as it were.
>> The
>> law at the time said any person elected Censor, Consul or Praetor who was
>> not already a Senator was automatically added to the list.
>>
>> Does that sound right? Do you remember that Lex?
>>
>> Vale
>>
>> Paulinus
>>
>> ________________________________
>> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>> From: tau.athanasios@...
>> Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 16:12:51 -0400
>> Subject: Re: R: [Nova-Roma] EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE SENATORIBVS ADLEGENDIS
>> pr.
>> Kal. Mai.
>>
>>
>>
>> Salve:
>>
>> I'm inclined to agree with you on this.  Something needs to be done to
>> narrow the path.
>>
>> Vale;
>>
>> Modianus
>>
>> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 11:38 AM, deciusiunius <bcatfd@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> What we should do is greatly narrow the path to the Senate. Reduce it so
>> the
>> only means of admission is election to the office of praetor or consul
>> (censor should at least be a former consul or at least praetor).
>>
>> Mass appointments should go the way of the Dodo bird.
>>
>> Vale,
>>
>> Palladius
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Deism: A Non-Prophet Religion
>
>
>
>

> Here is your proposal, with some English grammar etc. corrections, and some smoothing out:

>
> Lex de binis magistratibus.
>
> "This law concerns the official activities of the following ordinarii in collegial magistracies: the consuls, praetors and censors.

>>> 1. Any act made ex officio by a consul, praetor, or censor must be made with the public written consent of each of the magistrates in that office; no edictum or other instrument with the force of law may be enacted or promulgated by any single consul, praetor, or censor.<<<

>>>If a consul, praetor, or censor promulgates any edictum or legal instrument with the force of law, a message concurring with that promulgation or edictum must be made within twenty-four (24) hours of the original promulgation.<<<

>>> 2. As each of these magistracies requires collegial action, if one of them becomes vacant through resignation, removal, or death, a special election shall be held within twenty-four (24) days to fill the vacancy under applicable election law.<<<

>>> During such time that an office is vacant, the single magistrate still in office may not enact or promulgate any edictum or instrument with force of law.<<<

>>> 3. The sole exception to this law is the ability of a single consul or, in the absence of both consuls, a single praetor to call to order either the Senate to conduct business or the appropriate comitia necessary to allow a vote of the People.<<<

> 3. This law is effective immediately.

> There are several problems with this concept in my view, but this is how it might properly read.

>> I was elected,

> And I voted for you.

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 09:25, Sean Post <post.sd@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salve Cato,
>
> You wrote "The new law could be a single line: "When a citizen says he
> resigns anywhere in public, he has resigned."   Not fifteen paragraphs
> describing how it only takes effect if he declares his resignation on a
> video made by his oldest relative holding a red umbrella in front of a
> pregnant cow on a rainy day."
>
> ~~~
>
> Now, don't be silly, Cato. Such a law in Nova Roma would not be 15
> paragraphs long.
>
> Considering you'd need paragraphs dealing with the exact natures of the
> video camera in question (model, format, manufacturer), the recording media
> (dvd, memory stick, tape, etc), defining how closely related the relative
> must be, the exact shade of red (pantone, RGB, etc) of the umbrella, what
> size the umbrella must be and what materials it would be made of, and of
> course, there would need to be 24 pages alone for the cow, determining
> breed, color, length of pregnancy, method of impregnation, and most
> importantly, which direction the cow is facing (true or magnetic direction?
> measured in what unit? to what accuracy?
>
> I won't even get started on the rain.. define exactly what is rain, mist,
> sleet, etc. Oh my head hurts just thinking about it. Yahoo would need to
> invest in hundreds of new servers and additional bandwidth to handle such a
> document.
>
> All in all, such a law, written in the style befitting Nova Roma, would take
> 1,000,000 marmosets at 1,000,000 laptops 300 years to compose.
>
> Then the discussion on the merits of the law could begin!
>
> Vale,
>
> Sex. Postumius Albus.
>
>



--
Deism: A Non-Prophet Religion

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Cornelio Lentulo sal.
>
> Salve!
>
> You also wrote something very interesting here:
>
> "And finally, to those who want to eliminate the leges Saliciae: do it! Eliminate it [sic], but in eother way we will have a new lex poenalis and a lex iudiciaria, because either as a republic, or as an organization we NEED regulations of how to handle conflicts and how to punish rebellish or antisocial citizens, or citizens who violate certain rules."
>
> How about the Roman model? Something like:
>
> --------------
>
> Any citizen (the "actor") may bring a charge against any other citizen (the "reus") by claiming the right of provocatio to the praetors. The sole exception shall be sitting magistrates.
>
> The praetors shall decide if they will accept the case and will publicly announce their decision within 72 hours of having received it.
>
> If the praetors do not accept the case, the actor may appeal to the People.
>
> A tribune shall call the People to order in comitia within 8 calendar days (or the next dies comitialis after that) to decide by vote whether the case should be heard. Each side may present evidence, and the contio and voting period shall be 8 days, respectively. The decision of the People will be final.
>
> If a case is accepted, within 8 calendar days of its acceptance the praetors shall appoint a panel of 5 iudices. The praetor shall create a timeline for the presentation of evidence, allowing each side the same amount of time to present their case.
>
> All trials without exception shall be held in a public forum for all citizens to witness. Only the actor, the reus, and the iudices will be allowed to address the court, except in matters of procedure when the praetor may answer a question directed at him.
>
> Within 8 calendar days of the conclusion of each side being heard, the iudices will announce a verdict, and a sentence will be decided and announced by the praetor who appointed the iudices within 72 hours of the verdict being reached.
>
> Any sentence of banishment may be appealed to the People.
>
> ------------------
>
> Very rough, but you get the idea.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Charlie Collins <oldroman@...> wrote:

Salve,

LOL, Also don't forgot the Aardvarks needed to proofread the final document's.

Vale,
Quintus Servilius Priscus

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 09:25, Sean Post <post.sd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Salve Cato,
>
> You wrote "The new law could be a single line: "When a citizen says he
> resigns anywhere in public, he has resigned."   Not fifteen paragraphs
> describing how it only takes effect if he declares his resignation on a
> video made by his oldest relative holding a red umbrella in front of a
> pregnant cow on a rainy day."
>
> ~~~
>
> Now, don't be silly, Cato. Such a law in Nova Roma would not be 15
> paragraphs long.
>
> Considering you'd need paragraphs dealing with the exact natures of the
> video camera in question (model, format, manufacturer), the recording media
> (dvd, memory stick, tape, etc), defining how closely related the relative
> must be, the exact shade of red (pantone, RGB, etc) of the umbrella, what
> size the umbrella must be and what materials it would be made of, and of
> course, there would need to be 24 pages alone for the cow, determining
> breed, color, length of pregnancy, method of impregnation, and most
> importantly, which direction the cow is facing (true or magnetic direction?
> measured in what unit? to what accuracy?
>
> I won't even get started on the rain.. define exactly what is rain, mist,
> sleet, etc. Oh my head hurts just thinking about it. Yahoo would need to
> invest in hundreds of new servers and additional bandwidth to handle such a
> document.
>
> All in all, such a law, written in the style befitting Nova Roma, would take
> 1,000,000 marmosets at 1,000,000 laptops 300 years to compose.
>
> Then the discussion on the merits of the law could begin!
>
> Vale,
>
> Sex. Postumius Albus.
>
>

--
Deism:  A Non-Prophet Religion

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

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/

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Sean Post <post.sd@...> wrote:
>
> I neglected to add that there would be very vigorous discussion concerning
> the proposed marmosets, brand of laptop, and word processing software
> involved... these arguments would be about 95% of the discussion, with a
> stray message here or there on the actual proposed law.
>
> There would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, accusations of treason,
> carjacking and devil worship from all sides against the other.
> And just looking at the wikipedia page on Marmosets, there'd be at least 4
> factions each backing a specific sub-genus of Marmoset that would be doing
> the typing. It could lead to another civil war.
>
> Personally, I'm pro *Callithrix (Callithrix) flaviceps, *and think those who
> favor* Callithrix (Mico) melanura* are a bunch of chowder heads. Let the
> flame wars begin!
>

> But, I don't think even this is necessary - the people most likely to abuse the rights of a citizen ARE magistrates.

>>> I have a few new books out of the libarary and this topic appealed to me. Just as Napoleon when he conquered Egypt started French and later British Egyptomania, so did the Romans have it, also anxieties..<<<

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Christer Edling <christer.edling@...> wrote:
>
> Salavet Omnes!
>
> More than a week ago I asked about memories of trips to Rome. Not many
> answered. Are there so few that has visited Roma Aeterna or are
> planning to? Please let us hear more stories of trips to our Mother
> City!
>
> *****************
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
>
> Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
> Civis Romanus sum
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
> ************************************************
> Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
> Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
>

>
> C. Petronius Maiori s.p.d.,
>
> >>> I have a few new books out of the libarary and this topic appealed to me. Just as Napoleon when he conquered Egypt started French and later British Egyptomania, so did the Romans have it, also anxieties..<<<
>
> What Egypt were knowing the Romans? Not the Egypt of the Pharao, but the Ptolemaic Egypt with the queen Cleopatra which was more Greek than Egyptian. Since the death of Alexander the Great, the Macedon dinasty of the Ptolemaeos held Egypt as her kingdom, but all those kings and queens were Greek.
>
> They did not know the hieroglyphic writing, but their names was written in this writing by Egyptian scribes, and because the French soldiers of Bonaparte (he was not yet Napoleon) had found the "pierre de Rosette", written in Hieroglyphic, in demotic Egyptian and in Greek J-F Champollion could find the meanings of the hieroglyphic writing. A great step in the knowledge of the old Egyptian history.
>
> Romans knew the Egyptians through the Greeks. So the text of the obelisc of Ramses II brought in Rome in the time of the emperor Constance, son of Constantine, was translated in Greek in the History book of Ammianus Marcellinus.
>
> Nevertheless the cult of Isis and Serapis was important in Rome.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius Maiori s.p.d.,
>
> >>> I have a few new books out of the libarary and this topic appealed to me. Just as Napoleon when he conquered Egypt started French and later British Egyptomania, so did the Romans have it, also anxieties..<<<
>
> What Egypt were knowing the Romans? Not the Egypt of the Pharao, but the Ptolemaic Egypt with the queen Cleopatra which was more Greek than Egyptian. Since the death of Alexander the Great, the Macedon dinasty of the Ptolemaeos held Egypt as her kingdom, but all those kings and queens were Greek.
>
> They did not know the hieroglyphic writing, but their names was written in this writing by Egyptian scribes, and because the French soldiers of Bonaparte (he was not yet Napoleon) had found the "pierre de Rosette", written in Hieroglyphic, in demotic Egyptian and in Greek J-F Champollion could find the meanings of the hieroglyphic writing. A great step in the knowledge of the old Egyptian history.
>
> Romans knew the Egyptians through the Greeks. So the text of the obelisc of Ramses II brought in Rome in the time of the emperor Constance, son of Constantine, was translated in Greek in the History book of Ammianus Marcellinus.
>
> Nevertheless the cult of Isis and Serapis was important in Rome.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

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

> another dinner arguing Constitutional law with Agricola, Cordus, Laureatus, and Astur...Sabinus, and I arguing with the lady guard at the Senate House in the Roman Forum that our togas were *not* costumes but, in fact, our real clothes :)>>>

That moment was really funny! I with Cato (it was his idea, because who else can have crazy ideas) decided to visit the Roman Forum wearing our togas. Cato was so proud about his toga just received from La Wren's!
All the things were all right, we visited the most part of Forum, we took some photos in front of the Curia and after that moment...a 'nice' girl from Sovraintendenza (the Administration of the Forum) came there and she invited us to leave the Forum immediately. With all efforts done to explain, especially of Serapio and Cato, we were not able to convince her that we are tourists, members of an organization in connection with Roman culture and civilization and our visit is one organized! She believed that we were in Forum, wearing Roman clothes, to make some money taking photos with the tourists! Indeed, I saw later, near Colosseum, some guys equipped as soldiers, offering photo services. I took a photo with them but they didn't ask me for money. At that time, I was sure they were fascinated by my senatorial toga. Well my friends, the truth is, they offered me a photo for free believing I'm another one, like them, who make some honest money with a small investment in a roman costumeÂ…you know how these works, free services among colleagues!
You see, Cato, we were not inspired at that moment to ask for a license for these photo services in Forum. The NR treasury was different todayÂ….

Here are some photos from then:
http://www.dacia-novaroma.org/roma.htm

VALETE,
T. Iulius Sabinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Titus Iulius Sabinus" <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
>
> SALVE ET SALVETE!
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@> wrote:
>
> > another dinner arguing Constitutional law with Agricola, Cordus, Laureatus, and Astur...Sabinus, and I arguing with the lady guard at the Senate House in the Roman Forum that our togas were *not* costumes but, in fact, our real clothes :)>>>
>
> That moment was really funny! I with Cato (it was his idea, because who else can have crazy ideas) decided to visit the Roman Forum wearing our togas. Cato was so proud about his toga just received from La Wren's!
> All the things were all right, we visited the most part of Forum, we took some photos in front of the Curia and after that moment...a 'nice' girl from Sovraintendenza (the Administration of the Forum) came there and she invited us to leave the Forum immediately. With all efforts done to explain, especially of Serapio and Cato, we were not able to convince her that we are tourists, members of an organization in connection with Roman culture and civilization and our visit is one organized! She believed that we were in Forum, wearing Roman clothes, to make some money taking photos with the tourists! Indeed, I saw later, near Colosseum, some guys equipped as soldiers, offering photo services. I took a photo with them but they didn't ask me for money. At that time, I was sure they were fascinated by my senatorial toga. Well my friends, the truth is, they offered me a photo for free believing I'm another one, like them, who make some honest money with a small investment in a roman costumeÂ…you know how these works, free services among colleagues!
> You see, Cato, we were not inspired at that moment to ask for a license for these photo services in Forum. The NR treasury was different todayÂ….
>
> Here are some photos from then:
> http://www.dacia-novaroma.org/roma.htm
>
> VALETE,
> T. Iulius Sabinus
>

>
> Salve,
>
> Well, first, to correct a glaring historical error, it was not the Rosetta stone that allowed Champollion to decipher the hieroglyphs, primarily for two reasons: firstly, he did not see the actual stone during his years of decipherment work, only having poorly made copies to work from (the British had captured the stone along with many other items when they caught the French fleet anchored in Egypt), and secondly, the hieroglyphic section is badly broken and so didn't allow for good comparative work. Indeed, Champollion primarily used other, bilingual, texts and confirmed against other inscriptions, such as those in Abu Simbel. In fact, it was after he had found that his system works for Abu Simbel inscriptions that he wrote his famous letter to M. Dacier about the phonetic component of the writing system. The notion that the Rosetta Stone was the key to decipherment is a popular myth.
>
> Secondly, while you are right that much about Egypt was transmitted through Greek eyes, so to speak, more direct access to native Egyptian thought and culture was possible. It is a common trope in the classical literature that those traveling to Egypt would seek out native priests as essentially tour-guides. Even if this didn't always take place, it would not have been hard to find knowledgeable locals. The Demotic and Greek magical papyri attest to a flourishing bilingual community that could essentially act as a portal to more native knowledge about Egypt.
>
> Finally, to call Ptolemaic Egypt "Greek" is a gross mischaracterization. The traditional Egyptian institutions continued, the temple estates flourished, and new monumental work and inscriptions were generally done in the traditional style. The Ptolemies fully took over the native roles as Pharaohs and were recognized as such. If anything, the Ptolemies were more Egyptian than Greek in terms of the kingdom's administration, their support for institutions, and how they presented themselves to the masses. Plus, in terms of dynastic lines, to call them "Greek" is also misleading since they widely intermarried.
>
> By the way, as a point of trivia, Ammianus' translations are not very accurate. They're more of a very loose paraphrase, in some points not corresponding at all to the hieroglyphic text.
>
> Vale,
>
> Gualterus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> >
> > C. Petronius Maiori s.p.d.,
> >
> > >>> I have a few new books out of the libarary and this topic appealed to me. Just as Napoleon when he conquered Egypt started French and later British Egyptomania, so did the Romans have it, also anxieties..<<<
> >
> > What Egypt were knowing the Romans? Not the Egypt of the Pharao, but the Ptolemaic Egypt with the queen Cleopatra which was more Greek than Egyptian. Since the death of Alexander the Great, the Macedon dinasty of the Ptolemaeos held Egypt as her kingdom, but all those kings and queens were Greek.
> >
> > They did not know the hieroglyphic writing, but their names was written in this writing by Egyptian scribes, and because the French soldiers of Bonaparte (he was not yet Napoleon) had found the "pierre de Rosette", written in Hieroglyphic, in demotic Egyptian and in Greek J-F Champollion could find the meanings of the hieroglyphic writing. A great step in the knowledge of the old Egyptian history.
> >
> > Romans knew the Egyptians through the Greeks. So the text of the obelisc of Ramses II brought in Rome in the time of the emperor Constance, son of Constantine, was translated in Greek in the History book of Ammianus Marcellinus.
> >
> > Nevertheless the cult of Isis and Serapis was important in Rome.
> >
> > Vale.
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> >
>

> SALVE ET SALVETE!
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:
>
>> another dinner arguing Constitutional law with Agricola, Cordus, Laureatus, and Astur...Sabinus, and I arguing with the lady guard at the Senate House in the Roman Forum that our togas were *not* costumes but, in fact, our real clothes :)>>>
>
> That moment was really funny! I with Cato (it was his idea, because who else can have crazy ideas) decided to visit the Roman Forum wearing our togas. Cato was so proud about his toga just received from La Wren's!
> All the things were all right, we visited the most part of Forum, we took some photos in front of the Curia and after that moment...a 'nice' girl from Sovraintendenza (the Administration of the Forum) came there and she invited us to leave the Forum immediately. With all efforts done to explain, especially of Serapio and Cato, we were not able to convince her that we are tourists, members of an organization in connection with Roman culture and civilization and our visit is one organized! She believed that we were in Forum, wearing Roman clothes, to make some money taking photos with the tourists! Indeed, I saw later, near Colosseum, some guys equipped as soldiers, offering photo services. I took a photo with them but they didn't ask me for money. At that time, I was sure they were fascinated by my senatorial toga. Well my friends, the truth is, they offered me a photo for free believing I'm another one, like them, who make some honest money with a small investment in a roman costume…you know how these works, free services among colleagues!
> You see, Cato, we were not inspired at that moment to ask for a license for these photo services in Forum. The NR treasury was different today….
>
> Here are some photos from then:
> http://www.dacia-novaroma.org/roma.htm
>
> VALETE,
> T. Iulius Sabinus
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Charlie Collins <oldroman@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> Finally! I can put a face to Cato. It's nice to see the real thing
> rather than an "strange e-mailer" after all this time.
>
> Vale,
> Quintus Servilius Priscus
>