Salve Placide!

>I'm pretty sure your son looks awfully good in an all-white toga >virilis. Why would he want to look like a soldier? Does he feel like >one?

He's 18, who can tell? He borrowed his togas from a local theater stock and they did have Roman soldier uniforms/gear but it was not very authentic looking. I do believe he would like to take part in a Legio reconstruction sometime in the furture.
He's a musician and a writer - including music and lyrics even though he will be a psychology major at Uni in the fall. We have discussed his interest in learning to play the Aulos and/or the Auenis and possibly write some Roman music.
Thank you so very much for taking the time to address this!

Vale bene,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Ugo" <ugo.coppola@...> wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
> > He has chosen some photos to post, they include last year's prom photo in a black tux, photos in a toga virilis and his favorite - and the reason for this post - a red tunica and toga - which is his first choice to post in the Album Civium.
> >
> > I am asking the forum for feedback regarding this to help with this decision.
> > I have seen red tunica on both females and males (in various media), also on Sacerdotes - not that I am certain one way or another of their authenticity.
> > And recently Drusus posted a video of a Conferratio (which I have seen before) where Red garments are worn: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/74692
> > Thank you in advance for any feedback~
> >
> > Curate ut valeatis optime,
> >
> > Julia
>
> Salve, Iulia. I may be terribly wrong about this (and if I am, I surely expect someone to correct me!), but, as far as I recall, red tunicæ are typically worn by soldiers and people in the military. Indeed, the only red tunica sold by the web shop Armillum (which right now seems to be offline) is a military model. I'm not sure whether or not it's worn by women, I've never seen on a woman. And I've never seen a red toga either. I'm pretty sure your son looks awfully good in an all-white toga virilis. Why would he want to look like a soldier? Does he feel like one?
>
> Optime vale,
> Placidus
>

L. Iulia Aquila Q. Fabio Maximo C. Mariae Caecae M. Hortensiae Maiori S.P.D.

Thank you all so much for taking the time to answer my query.
And to you Gaia Maria, thank you for the congrats!

Vale optimé,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, QFabiusMaxmi@... wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:38:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> dis_pensible@... writes:
>
> I am asking the forum for feedback regarding this to help with this
> decision.
> I have seen red tunica on both females and males (in various media), also
> on Sacerdotes - not that I am certain one way or another of their
> authenticity.
>
>
>
>
> Colors of Tunics depended how rich you were in the Republic and early
> Principate.
>
> Red in this case likely would be for banquets, orgies and feast days. Red
> was said to be the color of Mars, but for every comment I read that says
> so, I have found one that says not.
>
> The toga was proof of Roman citizenship. It was white, dusted by
> pipeclay. A colored toga would be worn by a prostitute, the opinion that a Flamen
> wore color is made by inference and not direct comment. All the surviving
> frescos and statues exposed to spectrography, has revealed that the color
> was white, probably a dingy gray. Animal urine was used to bleach wool,
> and so there would be likely there was a slight yellow cast. My own togas
> are cream colored with the obligatory purple (reddish brown) stripes.
>
> Soldiers wore red by the late Empire, yet the Praetorians at the Bridge in
> 312 AD wore still wore white. (Maybe because of tradition.)
>
> The Italian legionaries wore white, likely to show they were Roman
> citizens. Recovered tunicas from Egypt dated to 80 BC showed this to be true.
> Tacitus also confirms this while describing an Ovation.
> We have no real idea what the Socii wore. My educated guess is they
> followed the Hellenic practice of colored cloth material in strips sown as
> edging for sleeves and tunic hems.
>
> I hope this helps
>
> Q. Fabius Maximus
>
> Sent from my Blackberry
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

L. Iulia Aquila L. Liviae Plautae S.P.D.

What a wealth of information! Multas gratias!
I forgot you knew so much! Including the material - I remember past discussions.
I sent you the photos via email, of course they are just shoulder/head images - so you can see for yourself. He is 6'6" so he may be hard to fit whenever we get a chance to get him his own toga.
Thank you again,

Vale bene,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> L. Livia Plauta L. Iuliae Aquilae S.P.D.
>
> According to all my research any colour is acceptable for tunics, including
> red as long as it's not purpura. Red obtained from other dyes like cynaber,
> kermes, madder is acceptable. Just the one obtained from the little murex is
> not, or anything resembling that hue.
>
> This for the tunics. Togas, however, were always white, except for togae
> pullae, which were dark brown and used only in mourning.
>
> A red toga was, ehm, the prerogative of (female) prostitutes in the
> republican period, so it's not a good idea for your grandson to wear one.
>
> But while a toga was formal wear, and very codified, a pallium, the informal
> overgarment most often worn by men, could be any colour (again, with the
> exception of purple).
>
> I'm always suspicious of what people call "toga". If your grandson's garment
> is a rectangular piece of cloth, shorter than 5 metres, and it doesn't have
> rounded corners, then it's safe to call it a pallium, and it has nothing to
> do with a toga.
>
> In that case your young grandson would be wearing a fashionable "synthesis"
> a combination of tunica and pallium of the same colour, which was usually
> worn at banquets.
>
> The draping is also relevant: for a pallium disregard all the instructions
> on our wiki on how to drape a toga. A pallium can be draped very easily: in
> this photo
> http://floralia2009.ap-claudia-alba.fotoalbum.hu/viewpicture/pictureid/6819424
> you can see A. Apollonius Cordus wearing a Pallium. Actually he didn't have
> much practice: the fabric end you can see down at his elbow should have
> draped evenly from his left shoulder down to the left arm. He could also
> have worn it over his right arm too, if it hadn't been so hot that day.
>
> Optime vale,
> Livia
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "luciaiuliaaquila" <dis_pensible@>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 10:37 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] The Color Red: Tunica and Toga
>
>
> L. Iulia Aquila A. Tulliae Scholasticae L. Liviae Plautae amicae et amici
> omnnibusque S.P.D.
>
> Some of you already know that my grandson Marcus Iulius Aquila, who turned
> 18 the end of January, passed his exam and is now a full citizen of the Nova
> Roma!
>
> He has chosen some photos to post, they include last year's prom photo in a
> black tux, photos in a toga virilis and his favorite - and the reason for
> this post - a red tunica and toga - which is his first choice to post in the
> Album Civium.
>
> I am asking the forum for feedback regarding this to help with this
> decision.
> I have seen red tunica on both females and males (in various media), also on
> Sacerdotes - not that I am certain one way or another of their authenticity.
> And recently Drusus posted a video of a Conferratio (which I have seen
> before) where Red garments are worn:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/74692
> Thank you in advance for any feedback~
>
> Curate ut valeatis optime,
>
> Julia
>

Aeterniae Iuliae Aquilae sal,

Congrats to you and your grandson, welcome novus civis...Although being 6'6"
that is super tall wow, that's a legion all on its own.. Again welcome.


Vale Optime,
Aeternia

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:37 PM, luciaiuliaaquila
<dis_pensible@...>wrote:

>
>
> L. Iulia Aquila A. Tulliae Scholasticae L. Liviae Plautae amicae et amici
> omnnibusque S.P.D.
>
> Some of you already know that my grandson Marcus Iulius Aquila, who turned
> 18 the end of January, passed his exam and is now a full citizen of the Nova
> Roma!
>
> He has chosen some photos to post, they include last year's prom photo in a
> black tux, photos in a toga virilis and his favorite - and the reason for
> this post - a red tunica and toga - which is his first choice to post in the
> Album Civium.
>
> I am asking the forum for feedback regarding this to help with this
> decision.
> I have seen red tunica on both females and males (in various media), also
> on Sacerdotes - not that I am certain one way or another of their
> authenticity.
> And recently Drusus posted a video of a Conferratio (which I have seen
> before) where Red garments are worn:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/74692
> Thank you in advance for any feedback~
>
> Curate ut valeatis optime,
>
> Julia
>
>
>

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

Salve Piscine,

You say, "this notion being the idea of a rapture, not found in sacred texts" and yet you have it right in Paul, 1Thess 4:17, "Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever." It doesn't get more clear than that.

In Paul you next refer to 1Corinthians 15, especially 42ff (seriously, you need to start putting in proper citations since most people won't be able to guess). 1Cor 15 has certainly, as you yourself do, been used by gnostics to argue that Paul really supported their allegorized notion of resurrection, for whom the PsUXIKOI and PNEUMATIKOI are separate folks, the former, being the "dead", "resurrecting" into the latter (Pagels, ""The Mystery of the Resurrection": A Gnostic Reading of 1 Corinthians 15" JBL 93.2 (1974) 283ff), but, mind you, these are *second* century interpretations. They are contemporary with Ignatius and Irenaeus. His reference to "psychic" and "spiritual" bodies finds no parallel anywhere in Plato; indeed, the phrases SWMA PsUXIKON and SWMA PNEUMATIKON never occur in Plato (the opposition between "psychic" and "pneumatic" are actually Aristotelian (Nich. Ethics 1117b)). If Paul were using "body" here in an allegorical sense, the questions of his opponents, "how are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?", in 15:35 would make no sense. The distinction he is making is that one type of body is perishable and mortal, the other imperishable and immortal, but it doesn't follow that this body is somehow immaterial--indeed, the only abstract sense in which Paul ever uses SWMA is to refer to a corporate totality, like the body of the church; when he refers to individual bodies, they are always material (notice the binary "soul and body" in 1Thess 5:23). In 1Cor 15:54 he says that "this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality", which clearly implies that there is continuity between the present body and the future body, the distinction only being that it transforms and takes on qualities of immortality.

Next, it becomes all the more clear that you are thinking of 2nd century gnostic interpretations when you cite "the one gospel" (hardly precision at its best). Which "gospel" exactly were you thinking of? Certainly none of the canonical ones. Maybe you were thinking of Irenaeus' description of the theology of Basilides (AH 1.24.4) where, according to Basilides, Jesus swapped places with Simon of Cyrene and stood by and laughed. Or maybe you had in mind "The Second Treatise of the Great Seth" which relates the same episode (VII,2,56)? Neither, however, mention Peter, and Basilides hardly constitutes "original" Christianity. Indeed, when you say "What you refer to is a notion that developed later and that has nothing to do with the forms of Christianity that prevailed in the early centuries of the common era" it seems you are wholly unfamiliar with Ignatius and Irenaeus (or Tertullian, for that matter) who attest to the belief in a bodily resurrection in the second century CE; or, what of the ending of the gospel of Luke, where in 24:39 we read Jesus saying, "look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." The word for "ghost" here is PNEUMA; the resurrected Jesus has more than a PNEUMA, but also SARKA KAI OESTEA, so it is clear that at least as early as Luke (90s CE) the proto-Orthodox position was around. If you want to make a gnostic claim for "original" Christianity you're going to have to try harder than referring to second century Gnostic sources or dubious Platonic interpretations of Paul.

Finally, your exploitation of Plato in relation to the term "resurrection" is, in the nicest terms, a plain abuse of language. Let us look closely at how your argument proceeds:

"Redemption is the discarding of the soul, and its return back into the World Soul. Resurrection, from resurgere, resurrecturus esse, means "to rise up again," or "to reascend," but not in the sense of a physical rebirth, or reconstitution of the physical form. Instead the Platonists and Neoplatonists speak of the individual pneuma ascending back to the pneumatic realms of its origin as a resurrection"

What you have done is to take a Latin term, translate it into English, and then apply that English term ("ascend") to Plato's philosophy in order to link the term "resurrection" to him. This approach is linguistic nonsense, and a simple glance at the Greek will reveal it as such. Firstly, the Greek for resurrection, whether the noun (ANASTASIS) or verb (ANISTHMI) do not mean "ascend" but, literally, to "stand up", and this is emphasized by the verb EGEIRW often used as a synonym, whose meaning is a mundane "to rouse/wake up". Plato does not use this term to talk about the ascent of the soul, but rather ANODOS, which means a "going up" (e.g. Republic 517b THS PsUXHS ANODON, "the ascent of the soul"). ANASTASIS is already in Plato's day associated with the notion of material reanimation of the body, as you see it used in Herodotus 3.62.4, where the speaker quips that unless the dead can rise out of the grave, then Smerdis, whom he has buried, will not be able to harm the interlocutor. And what of the Latin? Resurrectio is not a classical word; it is first used by none other than Tertullian!

-Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> M. Moravius Gualtero Graeco s. p. d.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@> wrote:
> >
> <snipped>
> >
> > Furthermore, you keep talking about the "resurrection" issue in as much an apologetic tone as Cato. The hard fact is that the notion of salvation through resurrection is a Christian idea, and the Latin and Greek terminology behind the English word point to reconstitution of the body.
> >
>
> Reconstitution of the physical body, if that is what you mean, is an absurdity. Such a ridiculous notion might be original to the misunderstanding of modern Christians, the most extreme form of this notion being the idea of a rapture, not found in sacred texts, but it was not what the ancient philosophers, specifically the Platonists and Neoplatonist, meant by resurrection.
>
> Matter, void of form, was taken as something that potentially corrupts the spirit. The spirit, coming from the pneumatic realms, was supposedly composed of celestial fire. Through its descent to the material world, the spirit, or individual pneuma, attained a soul, or soulful body to act as a vehicle for the spirit and also as a mediator between the spirit and the physical body in which it was entombed. The dual-natured soul came from Plato's World Soul. The only "body" to be reconstituted was the World Soul as the individual souls are "redeemed" back into their origin. Even Paul spoke of this, although not quite in the same way. He said in first Corinthians that the soulful body, or psychicon would be replaced at death by a pneumicon, or spiritual body to serve as a new vehicle for the spirit ascend in as it returned into the pneumatic world. Paul specifically denounces the notion of "resurrection" as a "reconstitution of the body," that is, of the physical body.
>
> Such a notion as you claim for Christianity was not held by Christians originally. Even in speaking about Jesus, he supposedly reappeared to his disciples with a pneumatic form, not a reconstituted physical body. In fact, in the one gospel, Jesus is not even crucified. He stands with Peter, laughing, as the physical body of the man he inhabited is crucified and the real Jesus, the one who is a spiritual being, is untouched. What you refer to is a notion that developed later and that has nothing to do with the forms of Christianity that prevailed in the early centuries of the common era.
>
> Redemption is the discarding of the soul, and its return back into the World Soul. Resurrection, from resurgere, resurrecturus esse, means "to rise up again," or "to reascend," but not in the sense of a physical rebirth, or reconstitution of the physical form. Instead the Platonists and Neoplatonists speak of the individual pneuma ascending back to the pneumatic realms of its origin as a resurrection, a rebirth as a spiritual being, which is to say that at death the individual pneuma is released from the physical body that holds it down in the physical world so that it has an opportunity to ascend "back to the Fatherland."
>
> As I demonstrated earlier by citing some Neoplatonists, the myth of Attys was taken by them as an allegory concerning the ascent and resurrection of Attys. Symbolically, castration removes him from the physical body of the realm of generation, and thereby is he freed for his ascension as a God. His physical body dissolves. Its elements are to be reused by Nature. So his blood turns into flowers, in one myth, other parts of the physical body may be reformed by Nature into the form of a pine tree or of anything else. That is inconsequential because Attys, the true being of Attys, is not a physical body. And it certainly is not meant in any literal sense as a transformation of Attys into a tree or into a zombie. The real resurrection, the one symbolised in the myth, is the resurgence, the ascent of the pneumatic and divine Attys. The divine which is in all of us, what Plotinus called the True Being of a person, is "reborn" at death. Although this is a Greek interpretation of the myth of Attys, in a cultus that was Greek as well, the same notion exists in the religio Romana as the genius of a person was considered to be reborn as a lar. That is why the anniversary of a person's death was celebrated as a dies natalis of his genius.
>
> As in your citation of Alvar, "the offer of resurrection need not only be made by deities that have themselves experienced death and resurrection" (138). True, but the myths are allegories for every person who will necessarily pass through death and will naturally resurrect in some form. Jesus, Attys, Adonis, et cetera are merely allegorical figures who represent the Everyman since everyone suffers 'crucifixion' and the cross of physicallity, descends, and will resurrect to live among the Gods eventually.
>
> You also mention how myth "suggests various levels of ambiguity and interpretation." True, but that does not mean that the misinterpretation of a myth by Christian conveys what the myth meant to the mystae. First, one has to understand how the ancients thought of their universe. Clearly the mystae thought differently than what Christians tried to represent of the mysteries. Although the words might be the same, the understanding of terms is quite different between what the Platonists said and how modern Christians misuse the words for their own vanities. "Reconstitution of the physical body" is simply absurd. Dissolution of the physical body is inevitable. But "the offer of resurrection" as taught in the mysteries is that one will live a new life following the death of the physical body, since his genius will be released from its imprisonment in the physical world and free then to choose whether to ascend to its home among the Gods, to become a God itself as Attys, Hercules, and others had before, or to ascend only so far to become a spiritual being, like a lar, or to descend once more in a transmigration to another physical form, as one may think of a genius locii or as the Pythagoreans thought even to devolve to a lesser life form. Actually, I find little difference in this regard of the mysteries to the understanding found in Buddhist and Hindu thought. If one wishes to understand the mysteries and lend an interpretation on what they "offered," then one should not confuse their meaning with the notions of modern Christians. These are quite different.
>

Lentulus Iuliae et Liviae suis sal.


Amicae, I can't but repeat myself: it would indeed be a good idea to add a modest modification to the words "independent and sovereign", something that reflects more to the CURRENT reality that we are only on the way but have not arrived to the destination so far. But what is important, we started it! We must reflect to this fact by all means. This new proposal doesn't reflect to the fact that we have started to become a nation.

People from opposite sides agree in this. We see Hortensia Maior and Q. Maximus opposing this change the same way! You see me and the Founder Vedius opposing the change! Something is wrong with the proposed preamble that's sure.

This proposal of the consul doesn't reflect to the fact that we have started to become a nation. There have been evolved a Nova Roman identity, a citizenship in the nation, government and state-cult, laws and sacred rites for our nation, so we can't say we are not a nation. We can say only that we don't have land. Our sovereignty is shown in several ways, for example in that Nova Roma makes its own laws as She wishes, but in other things we are not sovereign at all.

So if we want to be realistic, this is what should be in the constitution:

1) reference to the Declaration
2) we have symbolic and limited sovereignty and nationhood
3) the goal of Nova Roma is to develop this limited nationhood to become a reality.

These things must be in the constitution, and I would welcome a proposal that includes these very realistic and very honest things, as this is why we are here in the ML.

Or I just believed that this is?

There are several solution to have a realistic preamble that reflects to the reality better, and underlines that we are not completely and factually sovereign but only in theory and heart.

There are several ways to do this, but this current proposal is not one of them.

I proposed that we may add "limited sovereignty" or "symbolic", to the constitution. There can be other solutions.


But to this one, we have to vote with "no".


Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
PONTIFEX
legatus pro praetore
magister aranearius
accensus, scriba

Lentulus Aemiliae sal.


Thank you for your kind words, Aemilia, but it's entirely not about me.

It's about the idea of what Nova Roma is. Why it worth our times and dedication. I need Nova Roma only if it is a nation, and I dedicate my time to NR only if it is a nation. Otherwise I will retain my membership in a Roman club like the Hungarian "Gladius" or the Italian "Pomerium", and I will sacrifice less from my time.

I would never have spent such a lot of time and effort, passion and enthusiasm for a club.

I give my heart to the high and sublime concept "Nova Roma", the republic and spiritual nation. Not to an unclear and obscure concept "revivalist group".

CN LENTVLVS



--- Gio 1/4/10, Lyn <ldowling@...> ha scritto:

Da: Lyn <ldowling@...>
Oggetto: RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: Against the proposed changes in the Constitution's preamble
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Data: Giovedì 1 Aprile 2010, 02:53







 









Salvete omnes,



Indeed. Lentulus, that man of vision and wisdom, has put our thoughts into

words, eloquently as ever. Concordia smiles every time he takes to the

keyboard.



Valete,



L. Aemilia



_____



From: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf

Of rory12001

Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 8:36 PM

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com

Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Against the proposed changes in the

Constitution' s preamble



Maior Lentulo spd;

O, you have said what is in my heart & mind, why I and others joined Nova

Roma . I think this is one of the noblest efforts of our time.

I stand beside you , Lentule, as a fellow Nova Roman, sharing our great

vision.

vale

Maior

>

> Thank you for reinforcing what I have said!

>

> There is no other home for us: for our Roman sentiment and spirituality.

We are refugees of a culture that is part of all modern cultures in the

West, yet it is so exotic and alien for the modern mind. That culture is a

new perspective to see things from another point of view, a point of view

that is new today, but it's very ancient, and European way of thinking: the

Roman perspective. We are both anachronistic and very actual, up to date,

too. The current world is similar to the ancient Roman world in so many

ways, I think this age is when the Western Civilization can find again its

roots, not forgetting about its entire history, but reinforcing the core

elements. It needs the exotic so much, while it needs its own roots, its own

identity desperately as well.

>

> Romanitas is exotic AND very familiar in the same time. That's how we can

be the pioneers of a new spirituality and western identity.

>

> But until we live in our "Roman diaspora", there is no other home for us

than the nation Nova Roma, so we have to embrace it proudly as the only

thing that currently is able to express the uniqueness and sovereignty of

our identity.

>

> Because even if our state is existing only in theory, and our political

sovereignty is purely symbolic, our identity, however, is unique, new and

sovereign, not subject to any other entity, independent and free.

>

> A new Roman identity.

>

>

>

> --- Gio 1/4/10, rory12001 <rory12001@. ..> ha scritto:

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Â

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> --- Maior Lentulo spd;

>

> I agree with you 1,000% amice, Nova Roma is a spiritual home. It makes it

unique and not just another Roman org, where people are back to Atilla and

Rory on the weekdays.

>

> vale

>

> Maior

>

>

>

> , so I would support, for example, instead of taking the sovereignty

clause out of the constitution, the addition of "limited sovereignty" . Thus

we would not betray our spiritual nation Nova Roma, and still we could show

a more modest, more realistical face.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > More about the law proposals later!

>

> >

>

> > CN LENTULUS

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > --- Mar 30/3/10, publiusalbucius <albucius_aoe@ ...> ha scritto:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > ÂÂ

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Salvete Quirites,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Here is below the 5th Law proposal:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Item V â€" Lex Memmia de novo proemio constitutionis

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > [Constitution â€" New preamble]

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > The current preamble of our Constitution still contains a few elements

whose most emblematic one is probably the affirmation that Nova Roma is "an

independent and sovereign nation".

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > If this affirmation may have helped us to gather, ten years ago, our

energies to build our community, we are well aware now that such assessment

cannot, juridically, be received by both national and international laws:

most of national laws, included the U.S. and Italy ones consider our

community for what it is, an association, a non profit making corporation

which lives and works in the frame of the national legal systems. If

International Law may recognize Nova Roma as a community, we still miss the

territorial element and, overall, the international recognition.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Drawing quietly the consequences of a legal situation will help us

underlining the fact that our institutions are now skilled enough and our

res publica both adult enough and conscious of its force, to state this

situation in its fundamental act - our Constitution - and, at the same time,

to reword it in a legal and more dynamic way, in order to open the second

decenium of our common life. Such a renewed text, in addition, will fit with

the intended adoption of Nova Roma inc. bylaws.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > In view of the Constitution, specially its Preamble,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > After due consultation of the Senate, the Comitia centuriata decides:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Article 1: The current Preamble of the Constitution is replaced by the

following text:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > " IN THE NAME OF THE SENATE AND PEOPLE OF ROME, the present

Constitution is enacted as the keystone of Nova Roma and her

institutions.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Nova Roma is, within the constraints of current international and

national laws, the revival of ancient Rome.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > This revival encompasses Republican Roman institutions and civilization

from the foundation of the City in 753 BCE to the deposition of Romulus

Augustulus in 1229 AUC (476 CE), and is inclusive, but not limited to,

history, culture, languages, economy, institutions, beliefs, virtues andÂÂ

religions, and especially the Roman religion.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > It may also include the interactions of other civilizations and nations

of that time period with Rome.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > The Nova Roman res publica shall encourage the daily life of a

community of persons interested in the knowledge of the civilization of

ancient Rome, the conservation and the promotion of its cultural heritage,

and the promotion, in our own time, of Republican Roman virtues. "

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Article 2 : Every officer of Nova Roma is charged of the good execution

of the present law, which shall be applicable from its ratification by Nova

Roma senate on, and published in the Tabularium Nova Romae (Laws section).

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > APPENDIX: Current preamble of the Constitution

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > ''We, the Senate and People of Nova Roma, as an independent and

sovereign nation, herewith set forth this Constitution as the foundation and

structure of our governing institutions and common society. We hereby

declare our Nation to stand as a beacon for those who would recreate the

best of ancient Rome. As a nation, Nova Roma shall be the temporal homeland

and worldly focus for the Religio Romana. The primary function of Nova Roma

shall be to promote the study and practice of pagan Roman civilization,

defined as the period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to

the removal of the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and

encompassing such fields as religion, culture, politics, art, literature,

language, and philosophy.

>

> >

>

> > As the spiritual heir to the ancient Roman Republic and Empire, Nova

Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all manners practical and acceptable, as

the modern restoration of the ancient Roman Republic. The culture, religion,

and society of Nova Roma shall be patterned upon those of ancient Rome.''

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > You may find the previous versions via the page:

>

> >

>

> > http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Category :Constitution_ %28Nova_Roma% 29

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > ____________ _________ _________ _____

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Valete omnes,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Albucius cos.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

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

>

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2782 - Release Date: 03/31/10

14:32:00



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

























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

Caesar S.P.D.

No to fiddling around trying to keep this childish delusion alive. No to trying desperately to keep this tattered security blanket stuck in Nova Roma's mouth. Yes to removing the child from the nursery and putting it into the real world, not the world of dreams. Any dilution of this will simply only perpetuate this myth, a myth that has been at the route of so much diversion and dispute. It is time for Nova Roma to face reality and construct a new future, one unencumbered by childish toys. We need our focus firmly on the realities of life and what we can do within the constraints of what we ARE. Only then can we see realistic planning for a future grounded in the world we live in, not one of shadows, myths and dreams.

It is time to wake Nova Roma up citizens. This phrase and all that lies behind it has caused Nova Roma to slip into a coma of comfortable lethargy. Enough. cast it out and let us make a future based in the world around us. Only then can Nova Roma hope to have a mission and an achievable one.

Vote YES citizens!

Optime valete




From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 1:50 AM
To: NovaRomaComitiaCenturiata@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Nova Roma ML
Subject: [Nova-Roma] VOTE "NO" for changing the preamble of the Constitution


Lentulus Iuliae et Liviae suis sal.


Amicae, I can't but repeat myself: it would indeed be a good idea to add a modest modification to the words "independent and sovereign", something that reflects more to the CURRENT reality that we are only on the way but have

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

Lentulus Caesari sal.


Why we are here? For a club, or for being members in an online special interest group? It doesn't event worth that time of effort we've spent on Nova Roma.

This a symbolic vote.

We have to choose between citizen or member. Nation or club.

>>> No to fiddling around trying to keep this childish delusion alive. <<<

There is no childish delusion. There is a belief in a majestic idea that makes Nova Roma special. Remove it: nothing remains, because that belief is why we are here.

>>> Yes to removing the child from the nursery and

putting it into the real world, not the world of dreams. <<<


Nobody thinks Nova Roma is sovereign like the USA.

We have to put our dreams into the real word, not those things that are already realized. There are already Roman groups everywhere. There is no need for Nova Roma, if we renounce our belief.

>>> Any dilution

of this will simply only perpetuate this myth, a myth that has been at
the route of so much diversion and dispute. <<<<


You have never seen so strong, so stubborn and infinite disputes that will come once this proposal is accepted. The myth is what gives us the spirit, the enthusiasm. Take it away, and all that remains: fight

Prepare to a new dimension of antagonism, new an unseen depth of infighting in Nova Roma. That's what I can foresee, once this proposal is accepted.

>>> It is time for Nova Roma to

face reality and construct a new future, one unencumbered by childish
toys. <<<


Where do the difference start between precious and impressive ideals, symbols and beliefs, and "childish toys"?

Is a Roman name a childish game? From YOUR perspective it is. It is very much. It is even ridiculous, if we would accept your point of view about Nova Roma.

No Roman names anymore. It is time to face reality, and call each other Nigel and Attila. Why to pretend? (End of irony.)

>>> It is time to wake Nova Roma up citizens. <<<

In this, we agree.

But why do you call them citizens of Nova Roma. Only states have citizens. Be consistent and call them corporate members.

You criticize the idea of what NR is, yet you can't abandon it. Because it is impossible. THIS IDEA IS NOVA ROMA. If you would abandon it, you would no longer be here.

Return to your fellow citizens, Caesar, and forget about corporate members.

>>> This phrase and all that lies

behind it has caused Nova Roma to slip into a coma of comfortable
lethargy. <<<


It's interesting because this phrase was always there. So, before NR slipped into a coma, why it was not a problem?

The answer is that NR has never slipped into a coma. We are here now, we organize events, celebrate feasts, and live our Roman lives. Reforms are needed, but not renouncing of our selves.

Nova Roma will loose a lot of energy, passion, enthusiasm and dedication if this law passes.


















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

Lentulus P. Memmio consuli s. d.


Consul, I have thought about your words, and what you say sounds fine in many points, but what the PROPOSAL says it is not the same.

This proposal is takes away things, and does not give us anything in exchange.

I understand what you write about sovereignty, and you are right in many things, but this form, this current proposal is not the solution.

We can't accept it, and most surely it won't be accepted.

Another proposal is needed.




















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

Caesar Lentule sal.

If you include in any form the words SOVEREIGN, NATION or INDEPENDENT it is not a symbolic vote, it is a vote to perpetuate a myth. Your concept that this is a majestic idea is equally misplaced. This is a hollow claim, symbolic or otherwise and it aids and abets us deluding ourselves that we are special. we are NOT special. Until we drop that arrogance we will remain a complacent gaggle of 200 or so taxpayers and a bunch of others that float in and out, according to their level of boredom, going around in circles.

The ancient Romans were famed for their hard nosed practicality. They would have sneered at this nonsensical claim as un-Roman pretentious nonsense and condemned us all as a bunch over inflated windbags, possibly of Parthian origin. Eastern potentates awarding themselves grand titles and parading around wrapped in the mantle of a hollow empty title.

Nova Romans have a choice. Create a future for this community, group club, whatever, or remain mired in the comfortable yet stagnant mud of a symbolic claim to be an independent sovereign nation. From that phrase has sprung so much posturing and still it continues, and still we don't have the courage to look ourselves firmly in the mirror and accept ourselves for what we are and build a plan for expansion based on the starting point that legally we are NOT special, nor independent, and nor are we a nation, symbolic or otherwise. Eleven years of delusion have cost us dear in that respect. We need to remove this phrase to remove the impediment to developing a sane and rational plan.

Lastly, we are here to build a group that has no peer, whose internal mechanisms are Roman and republican, and which actively promotes and supports the worship of the Gods, and protects the rights of all its citizens to believe what they will about divinity as a private belief and to be tolerant of those beliefs, as mature functioning adults. What we are NOT here to do in my view is to posture and preen about our special status based on a statement the ancient Romans would have considered bizarre and un-Roman.

Support the consul citizens, vote YES,

Optime vale



From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 3:05 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Why we are here? For a club or interest group?


Lentulus Caesari sal.


Why we are here? For a club, or for being members in an online special interest group? It doesn't event worth that time of effort we've spent on Nova Roma.


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

Lentulus Caesari s.d.


What you it is not something that I reject in itself, but unlike you, I do see reason for symbols and myths and I do think they make our heart.

What is however very strange to me, it's that with your one hand, you reject these symbolisms, while with your other hand you you point to citizens, you speak about "working in the form of a Roman state", you speak about citizens, "Nova Romans", consul, senate, law.

Then reject all. They are all coming from our nationhood concept.

Otherwise, they serve nothing, but as you say, delusion.

You say "citizens".

Citizens of what state?

You say "Nova Romans". Is there a nationality "Nova Roman"? If yes, why to deny it in the constitution.

You say consul that means president of a Roman state. Isn't it childish, RPG-ish and overly grandiose to call the administrator of an online based special interest group a consul? Dictator? Senator? Pontifex? Of what? For what? Why?

It seems you accept these symbolisms of nationhood, while you refuse the word "nation".

It is symple logic. If there is Nova Roman, there is Nova Roman nation, too.

If there is citizen, law, flamen and consul, there is state, too.

If we followed your suggestion, we would have to abandon almost everything that Nova Roma is. Even the name "Nova Roma" claims that we are a "state", the symbolic city state of New Rome. Once we are not a nation, we have to chose a new name.

A new name, like "Roman Hobbyist Worldwide".


















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

M. Moravius Piscinus cultoribus Deorum, Quiritibus et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Di vos tuentur.

Hodie est Kalendae Aprilae; haec dies fastus est: DIE QUINTI TE KALO, IUNO COVELLA : Veneralia; Veneri Verticordiae; Fortunae Virili

"Come to us Venus, O Queen of Cnidos and Paphos, leave Cyprus, though the isle is dear to you, come instead to where the incense is thick and Glycera sings to you, that you may transfer your home to your new shrine among us. Bring along for your company desirous Cupid, with loose-girdled Graces and laughing Nymphs, youthful Juventus and Mercury, who without you are graceless." ~ Horace Carminum Liber I: 30.1-8

VENERALIA

"Perform the rites of the Goddess, Roman brides and mothers, and you who must not wear the headbands and long robes. Remove the golden necklaces from Her marble neck, remove Her riches: the Goddess must be cleansed, complete. Return the gold necklaces to her neck, once it's dry: Now She's given fresh flowers, and new-sprung roses. She commands you too to bathe, under the green myrtle, and there's a particular reason for Her command (learn, now!). Naked, on the shore, She was drying Her dripping hair: The Satyrs, that wanton crowd, spied the Goddess. She sensed it, and hid Her body with a screen of myrtle: Doing so, She was safe: She commands that you do so too. Learn now why you offer incense to Fortuna Virilis, in that place that steams with heated water. All women remove their clothes on entering, and every blemish on their bodies is seen: Virile Fortune undertakes to hide those from the men, and She does this at the behest of a little incense. Don't begrudge Her poppies, crushed in creamy milk, and in flowing honey, squeezed from the comb: When Venus was first led to Her eager spouse, She drank so: and from that moment was a bride. Please Her with words of supplication: beauty, virtue, and good repute are in Her keeping. In our forefather's time Rome lapsed from chastity: and the ancients consulted the Sibyl of Cumae. She ordered a temple built to Venus: when it was done Venus took the name of Verticordia. Most Lovely Venus, always gaze benignly on the sons of Aeneas, and safeguard their many wives." ~ P. Ovidius Naso, Fasti 4.133-164

Ovid here has combined, or purposely confused, three or more different celebrations held on the kalends of April. The oldest is apparently that performed by women to Fortuna Virilis. Several temples and shrines were dedicated to Fortuna in Her many diverse forms. Severally of these were attributed to Servius Tullius in the sixth century. (See Plutarch below.) On the one hand, ladies of upper society attended rites for Fortuna Virilis at Her temple. They invoked Fortuna Virilis to temper their husbands anger toward themselves. Plebeian women, on the other hand, took a different approach towards the same end. They attended the male baths, after the men had left, wearing only wreathes of myrtle. Bathing then in the bath waters last used by men, they hoped to make themselves more appealing to their husbands. In a later period the sweat of gladiators was collected with the same thought in mind, the oils and grime of such virile men then made into perfumes. Perhaps in an instance of sympathetic magic, or just from the excitation of swimming in strange waters, evoking interest, or perhaps the jealousy of their husbands, this ritual bath was suppose to spark excitement back into marital relations.

The earliest known Temple of Venus was that dedicated in 295 BCE in the Circus Maximus for Venus Obsequens. This dedication is celebrated on 19 August. Temples for Venus Libitina and for Venus Cloaca were likewise dedicated in the third century, and probably celebrated on the same day. Venus Erucina first arrived in 215 BCE on the Capitoline, and a gain on 23 April 181 BCE at a second temple near the Porta Collina. It was not until 114 BCE that a temple was dedicated on the kalends of April for Venus Verticordia. It is debatbale whether the Veneralia refers to the dedication of this temple, or whether the Temple of Verticordia was dedicated on this day because it was a festival of Venus. I would think that the later is the case. A century earlier, the Decemviri sacris faciundis had been consulted following the revelation that two Vestals had been unchaste. The Senate, advised by the Decemviri, erected a statue of Venus Verticordia. In compliance with the Sibylline Oracle, one hundred matrons were chosen by lot to select who, in their opinion, was the most chaste woman of Rome. Sulpicia, daughter of Servius Paterculus and wife of Q. Fulvius Flaccus, was the one chosen to be most chaste, and therefore the one to dedicate the statue [Val. Max. 8.15.12; Plin. H. N. 7.35 (120 )]. Venus Verticordia was invoked to "more easily turn the minds of virgins and matrons from lust to chastity." By this time the nobiles (those whose families had produced a consul) were both patricians and plebeians. Where plebeian women and those patrician women who had married plebeians, were excluded by patrician matrons in some rites, those dedicated to Venus Verticordia would seem to have been for women of both Orders, but mainly for upper class women. This cultus was related to the Vestales Virgines, who originally came from only patrician families, but who would have been selected from senatorial families by 114 BCE, whether they were patrician or plebeian.

This still leaves open what the women of the lower classes would have celebrated. In the Early and Middle Republic the plebeians were often the leading part of society to introduce new culti Deorum. But the patricians likewwise introduced some new culti, such as the one for the Magna Mater before it was adopted by other elements of Roman society. In the Late Republic and imperial era it is the upper classes who more willingly embraced new culti Deorum while the plebeians more readily preserved what were their traditional rites. Servius Tullius modelled his rule after eastern tyrrants, calling himself magister populi rather than rex and appealling to the urban society against the patrician gentry. This lived on in the cultus for Fortuna Virilis by the `humiliores' in the Principate, as recorded in the fasti Praenestini in an annotation by M. Verrius Flaccus (55 BCE – 20 CE) under the Venalia.


Fortuna Brevis

"Why did King Servius Tullius build a shrine of Little Fortune, which they call Brevis? Is it because although, at the first, he was a man of little importance and of humble activities and the son of a captive woman, yet, owing to Fortune, he became king of Rome? Or does this very change reveal the greatness rather than the littleness of Fortune, and does Servius beyond all other men seem to have deified the power of Fortune, and to have set her formally over all manner of actions? For he not only built shrines of Fortune the Giver of Good Hope, the Averter of Evil, the Gentle, the First-Born, and the Male; but there is also a shrine of Private Fortune, another of Attentive Fortune, and still another of Fortune the Virgin. Yet why need anyone review her other appellations, when there is a shrine of the Fowler's Fortune, or Viscata, as they call her, signifying that we are caught by Fortune from afar and held fast by circumstances? Consider, however, whether it was not that Servius observed the mighty potency of Fortune's ever slight mutation, and that by the occurrence or non-occurrence of some slight thing, it has often fallen to the lot of some to succeed or to fail in the greatest enterprises, and it was for this reason that he built the shrine of Little Fortune, teaching men to give great heed to events, and not to despise anything that they encountered by reason of its triviality." ~ Plutarch, Roman Questions 74


Life of Numa Pompilius

Numa resided at a famous city of the Sabines called Cures, whence the Romans and Sabines gave themselves the joint name of Quirites. Pomponius, an illustrious person, was his father, and he the youngest of his four sons, being (as it had been divinely ordered) born on the twenty-first day of April, the day of the foundation of Rome. He was endued with a soul rarely tempered by nature, and disposed to virtue, which he had yet more subdued by discipline, a severe life, and the study of philosophy; means which had not only succeeded in expelling the baser passions, but also the violent and rapacious temper which barbarians are apt to think highly of; true bravery, in his judgment, was regarded as consisting in the subjugation of our passions by reason." ~ Plutarch, Life of Numa 3.4


AUC 1039 / 286 CE: Ascension of Maximianus


Today's thought comes to us from Epicurus, Vatican Sayings 65:

"It is pointless for a man to pray to the Gods for that which he has the power to obtain by himself."

M. Moravius Piscinus cultoribus Deorum, Quiritibus et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Di vos tuentur.

Hodie est Kalendae Aprilae; haec dies fastus est: DIE QUINTI TE KALO, IUNO COVELLA : Veneralia; Veneri Verticordiae; Fortunae Virili

"Come to us Venus, O Queen of Cnidos and Paphos, leave Cyprus, though the isle is dear to you, come instead to where the incense is thick and Glycera sings to you, that you may transfer your home to your new shrine among us. Bring along for your company desirous Cupid, with loose-girdled Graces and laughing Nymphs, youthful Juventus and Mercury, who without you are graceless." ~ Horace Carminum Liber I: 30.1-8

VENERALIA

"Perform the rites of the Goddess, Roman brides and mothers, and you who must not wear the headbands and long robes. Remove the golden necklaces from Her marble neck, remove Her riches: the Goddess must be cleansed, complete. Return the gold necklaces to her neck, once it's dry: Now She's given fresh flowers, and new-sprung roses. She commands you too to bathe, under the green myrtle, and there's a particular reason for Her command (learn, now!). Naked, on the shore, She was drying Her dripping hair: The Satyrs, that wanton crowd, spied the Goddess. She sensed it, and hid Her body with a screen of myrtle: Doing so, She was safe: She commands that you do so too. Learn now why you offer incense to Fortuna Virilis, in that place that steams with heated water. All women remove their clothes on entering, and every blemish on their bodies is seen: Virile Fortune undertakes to hide those from the men, and She does this at the behest of a little incense. Don't begrudge Her poppies, crushed in creamy milk, and in flowing honey, squeezed from the comb: When Venus was first led to Her eager spouse, She drank so: and from that moment was a bride. Please Her with words of supplication: beauty, virtue, and good repute are in Her keeping. In our forefather's time Rome lapsed from chastity: and the ancients consulted the Sibyl of Cumae. She ordered a temple built to Venus: when it was done Venus took the name of Verticordia. Most Lovely Venus, always gaze benignly on the sons of Aeneas, and safeguard their many wives." ~ P. Ovidius Naso, Fasti 4.133-164

Ovid here has combined, or purposely confused, three or more different celebrations held on the kalends of April. The oldest is apparently that performed by women to Fortuna Virilis. Several temples and shrines were dedicated to Fortuna in Her many diverse forms. Severally of these were attributed to Servius Tullius in the sixth century. (See Plutarch below.) On the one hand, ladies of upper society attended rites for Fortuna Virilis at Her temple. They invoked Fortuna Virilis to temper their husbands anger toward themselves. Plebeian women, on the other hand, took a different approach towards the same end. They attended the male baths, after the men had left, wearing only wreathes of myrtle. Bathing then in the bath waters last used by men, they hoped to make themselves more appealing to their husbands. In a later period the sweat of gladiators was collected with the same thought in mind, the oils and grime of such virile men then made into perfumes. Perhaps in an instance of sympathetic magic, or just from the excitation of swimming in strange waters, evoking interest, or perhaps the jealousy of their husbands, this ritual bath was suppose to spark excitement back into marital relations.

The earliest known Temple of Venus was that dedicated in 295 BCE in the Circus Maximus for Venus Obsequens. This dedication is celebrated on 19 August. Temples for Venus Libitina and for Venus Cloaca were likewise dedicated in the third century, and probably celebrated on the same day. Venus Erucina first arrived in 215 BCE on the Capitoline, and a gain on 23 April 181 BCE at a second temple near the Porta Collina. It was not until 114 BCE that a temple was dedicated on the kalends of April for Venus Verticordia. It is debatbale whether the Veneralia refers to the dedication of this temple, or whether the Temple of Verticordia was dedicated on this day because it was a festival of Venus. I would think that the later is the case. A century earlier, the Decemviri sacris faciundis had been consulted following the revelation that two Vestals had been unchaste. The Senate, advised by the Decemviri, erected a statue of Venus Verticordia. In compliance with the Sibylline Oracle, one hundred matrons were chosen by lot to select who, in their opinion, was the most chaste woman of Rome. Sulpicia, daughter of Servius Paterculus and wife of Q. Fulvius Flaccus, was the one chosen to be most chaste, and therefore the one to dedicate the statue [Val. Max. 8.15.12; Plin. H. N. 7.35 (120 )]. Venus Verticordia was invoked to "more easily turn the minds of virgins and matrons from lust to chastity." By this time the nobiles (those whose families had produced a consul) were both patricians and plebeians. Where plebeian women and those patrician women who had married plebeians, were excluded by patrician matrons in some rites, those dedicated to Venus Verticordia would seem to have been for women of both Orders, but mainly for upper class women. This cultus was related to the Vestales Virgines, who originally came from only patrician families, but who would have been selected from senatorial families by 114 BCE, whether they were patrician or plebeian.

This still leaves open what the women of the lower classes would have celebrated. In the Early and Middle Republic the plebeians were often the leading part of society to introduce new culti Deorum. But the patricians likewwise introduced some new culti, such as the one for the Magna Mater before it was adopted by other elements of Roman society. In the Late Republic and imperial era it is the upper classes who more willingly embraced new culti Deorum while the plebeians more readily preserved what were their traditional rites. Servius Tullius modelled his rule after eastern tyrrants, calling himself magister populi rather than rex and appealling to the urban society against the patrician gentry. This lived on in the cultus for Fortuna Virilis by the `humiliores' in the Principate, as recorded in the fasti Praenestini in an annotation by M. Verrius Flaccus (55 BCE – 20 CE) under the Venalia.


Fortuna Brevis

"Why did King Servius Tullius build a shrine of Little Fortune, which they call Brevis? Is it because although, at the first, he was a man of little importance and of humble activities and the son of a captive woman, yet, owing to Fortune, he became king of Rome? Or does this very change reveal the greatness rather than the littleness of Fortune, and does Servius beyond all other men seem to have deified the power of Fortune, and to have set her formally over all manner of actions? For he not only built shrines of Fortune the Giver of Good Hope, the Averter of Evil, the Gentle, the First-Born, and the Male; but there is also a shrine of Private Fortune, another of Attentive Fortune, and still another of Fortune the Virgin. Yet why need anyone review her other appellations, when there is a shrine of the Fowler's Fortune, or Viscata, as they call her, signifying that we are caught by Fortune from afar and held fast by circumstances? Consider, however, whether it was not that Servius observed the mighty potency of Fortune's ever slight mutation, and that by the occurrence or non-occurrence of some slight thing, it has often fallen to the lot of some to succeed or to fail in the greatest enterprises, and it was for this reason that he built the shrine of Little Fortune, teaching men to give great heed to events, and not to despise anything that they encountered by reason of its triviality." ~ Plutarch, Roman Questions 74


Life of Numa Pompilius

Numa resided at a famous city of the Sabines called Cures, whence the Romans and Sabines gave themselves the joint name of Quirites. Pomponius, an illustrious person, was his father, and he the youngest of his four sons, being (as it had been divinely ordered) born on the twenty-first day of April, the day of the foundation of Rome. He was endued with a soul rarely tempered by nature, and disposed to virtue, which he had yet more subdued by discipline, a severe life, and the study of philosophy; means which had not only succeeded in expelling the baser passions, but also the violent and rapacious temper which barbarians are apt to think highly of; true bravery, in his judgment, was regarded as consisting in the subjugation of our passions by reason." ~ Plutarch, Life of Numa 3.4


AUC 1039 / 286 CE: Ascension of Maximianus


Today's thought comes to us from Epicurus, Vatican Sayings 65:

"It is pointless for a man to pray to the Gods for that which he has the power to obtain by himself."

Sorry, I meant in the first sentence:  "What you _say_..."

--- Gio 1/4/10, Cn. Cornelius Lentulus <cn_corn_lent@...> ha scritto:







 









Lentulus Caesari s.d.



What you it is not something that I reject in itself, but unlike you, I do see reason for symbols and myths and I do think they make our heart.



What is however very strange to me, it's that with your one hand, you reject these symbolisms, while with your other hand you you point to citizens, you speak about "working in the form of a Roman state", you speak about citizens, "Nova Romans", consul, senate, law.



Then reject all. They are all coming from our nationhood concept.



Otherwise, they serve nothing, but as you say, delusion.



You say "citizens".



Citizens of what state?



You say "Nova Romans". Is there a nationality "Nova Roman"? If yes, why to deny it in the constitution.



You say consul that means president of a Roman state. Isn't it childish, RPG-ish and overly grandiose to call the administrator of an online based special interest group a consul? Dictator? Senator? Pontifex? Of what? For what? Why?



It seems you accept these symbolisms of nationhood, while you refuse the word "nation".



It is symple logic. If there is Nova Roman, there is Nova Roman nation, too.



If there is citizen, law, flamen and consul, there is state, too.



If we followed your suggestion, we would have to abandon almost everything that Nova Roma is. Even the name "Nova Roma" claims that we are a "state", the symbolic city state of New Rome. Once we are not a nation, we have to chose a new name.



A new name, like "Roman Hobbyist Worldwide".



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

























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

Salve Lentule!



The current text is not closed, and every one may suggest constructive amendments.



I will not commit that every proposal will be taken in consideration, nor that we will re-write the whole text here, in the contio. But there is a margin, from the moment the essential is kept (for example on the point you pointed out) on the fact that we must get rid of this counter-productive auto-suggestion motto of "independent and sovereign nation".



As I have underlined it, for I sincerely and strongly believe it, if the text is adopted, you, me, and each of one will not be different compared to now. Your commitment, mine, do not need such empty phraseology, which make us look more like a Byzantine Palace than in Rome. We feel Romans, we are Romans.



We will just be all in Nova Roma more efficient, with an organization which will insert better in our current world legal context.



If ever the text were not adopted? Well it would not be the end of Rome, but I think that it might create a difficult situation.

I cannot refrain thinking of the current political majority, that I naturally need and humbly require the support.



This vote is, after the recent Senate session, an important period in my view, for we are at the time of the year where we must have opened or open our main workshops. I have launched the Bylaws group since mid-January, with a first draft written at this time, and am waiting - I cannot hide to you that this is with some impatience - that the group may react on the 2nd version issued in February. The Budget has been adopted, with introduced non minor changes in our administration. Things will go on forward if they are not blocked by a majority of us so, necessarily, by the current electoral majority.



Every one will in conscience take her/his decision: the supporters of our Opposition will see if they may, considering that our House will be reinforced by these proposals, walk along with the consulate to concur improving the Republic. On the majority's side, every member will have to ask her-/him self 2 simple main questions :

- does the proposal upset the Republic (as we would for ex. creating a dictatorship, or deciding having a king, or deleting dual magistracies, etc.) ? The objective answer should be "no" ;

- must I bring, in this situation, my support to the consuls, leaders of the majority? In every political majority, at the moment we cast a vote, the answer would be "naturally, yes", and the rest has not much importance. :-)





Vale bene Lentule,







Albucius cos.



































To: NovaRomaComitiaCenturiata@yahoogroups.com
CC: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com
From: cn_corn_lent@...
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 09:18:24 +0000
Subject: [NovaRomaComitiaCenturiata] Another proposal is needed









Lentulus P. Memmio consuli s. d.


Consul, I have thought about your words, and what you say sounds fine in many points, but what the PROPOSAL says it is not the same.

This proposal is takes away things, and does not give us anything in exchange.

I understand what you write about sovereignty, and you are right in many things, but this form, this current proposal is not the solution.

We can't accept it, and most surely it won't be accepted.

Another proposal is needed.












_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail arrive sur votre t�l�phone ! Compatible Iphone, Windows Phone, Blackberry, �
http://www.messengersurvotremobile.com/?d=Hotmail

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

Salve, consul Memmi, vir illustris.


Here is something I would be able to support, of course, the wording should be revised by a native speaker:


''We, the Senate and People of Nova Roma, as a spiritual Nation with symbolic sovereignty and independence, herewith set forth this Constitution as the foundation and structure of our governing institutions and common society.''


The rest should remain as it is currently in the present Constitution, at least until we will have a longer discussion about its modification.

Salve Consul,

I have been reading the post and everything adjacent to it.

I must say that I agree with Lentulus. Nova Roma should be a nation, a gathering of people, Nova roman thier second (or third) nationality.

I say this, as you noted, as a constructive suggestion.

Vale bene,
C. Cocceius Spinula

Provincia Hispania, Lusitania

Praefectus Regionis Lusitaniae

Senior Scriba Censoris TIS

--- Cn. Cornelius Lentulus wrote:

From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus <cn_corn_lent@...>
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Proposing suggestions and the electoral test
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, April 1, 2010, 2:14 PM







 









Salve, consul Memmi, vir illustris.



Here is something I would be able to support, of course, the wording should be revised by a native speaker:



''We, the Senate and People of Nova Roma, as a spiritual Nation with symbolic sovereignty and independence, herewith set forth this Constitution as the foundation and structure of our governing institutions and common society.''



The rest should remain as it is currently in the present Constitution, at least until we will have a longer discussion about its modification.

























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

Vedio s.d.

> The place to discuss laws is where the people are.

Yes, the People, Vedi, hence my question: where were you, all these years? Where were you, during our 10th Birthday, when we celebrated Rome re-birth, having called you and expecting your presence?

>If the people are here, then let the discussion be held here, and >not in some conveniently circumspect backwater.

I understand that you may not be that aware of Nova Roma current Law, specially since you decided to resign from the Senate years ago, but the Comitia centuriata list is not a "backwater", as you design this forum in a pejorative manner, which we would not expect in the mouth of a Pater Patriae. It is just an "official forum" of Nova Roma, you know, where the Quirites are called to assemble. Please respect our institutions, Vedi.

> You say that Nova Roma shouldn't think of itself as a sovereign >nation, for a variety of reasons with which I happen to disagree. I >have to wonder why, then, you didn't go some place where a claim of >sovereignty isn't in place. Why do you feel the need to change that >one fundamental aspect of Nova Roma? Why not go where you'd feel >more comfortable? Why change what Nova Roma *is*?

You cannot argue on the matter, on the notion of the sovereignty, specially for you do not want to make the effort checking, legally, if your arguments are founded.

Second, you cannot demonstrate that the "nation sovereignty" (expression which is for a part, as I have shown it, a non-sense) is linked to the existence of a public religion, for this is not exact, as I showed it in my answer to you in the Comitia centuriata forum.

So, what remains in your arguments? The very primary classical one of people who cannot bring logical argumentation and see that they are stepping backwards: "why you didn't go some place"?

It is a bit pitiful, but let us trying answering your arguments.

I feel much comfortable here. Nova Roma is, like for most of us I suppose, my home. But this is not why we cannot, inside this home, have different views on our Rome.

What you fail to understand, Vedi, is that such a community, nation, group of people around a common project, goes on living and changing. You cannot freeze things as they were when they were created. This is, to use metaphors like you, as children: they are beautiful as babies, but you cannot keep them eternal babies.

I think that there is one of your main difficulties: you would like having given, the children we are, a schoolyard and that we play the game you set, in the defined limits you set.

No, Vedi, things do not work like this, specially when the founders themselves have not been able to provide strict limits, I mean incoming conditions.

If you just had provided strict citizenship conditions, and decided that no one would be accepted in NR if (s)he has not agreed a strict admission form with, for ex., the 'sovereign nation', maybe. But yet,
I would myself being unable to check off such box in the form, just for this expression is largely inexact, and has no real legal meaning.
In addition, you should have inserted all such conditions in the constitution and be obliged, as now, to come and fight so that your creation be not modified.

As you did not block the access to NR citizenship (but honestly, I think that, if ever you had thought about it, you could hardly succeed, because the risk was having just a handful citizens), you were obliged to let people, who are true Romans, in, but who do not necessarily share every detail of our earlier documents.

Are the ones who think that we are not a sovereign nation not NovaRomans? No. Are the ones who are not RR practitioners not NovaRomans? No.

You know why? Because we are Rome, and Rome was a various society, with people more interested in this or that field, but who shared every one a same feeling to be a part of a same community.


What will happen with our commitment if the text is voted or refused? Nothing at all. Lentulus will remain the true Roman I know he is, Cato idem, Livia also, Iulius Caesar no doubt, Maximus more than ever, as will Caeca, Livia, Paulinus, Piscinus or Maior, etc.

Will Nova Roma stop being a sovereign nation? No, just because it never was. Will we stop being a close community? Not either. Are our common values upset or destroyed? Not at all.

So, Vedi, let us go on developing wisely, open eyes, and as adults.

Vale,


P. Memmius Albucius cos.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Vedius <vedius@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> The place to discuss laws is where the people are. If the people are
> here, then let the discussion be held here, and not in some conveniently
> circumspect backwater. Why not have a discussion in front of everyone?
> Surely you have nothing to hide.
>
> As far as my "obsolete view", I submit that that is precisely the issue
> at hand. Is my view, that an undisputed statement of sovereignty is a
> requirement "obsolete" as you say? I say it is essential to the pursuit
> of the Religio Publica, and I laid out my case why that is so. It was,
> in fact, the very reason for the formation of Nova Roma. It would not
> have existed otherwise. You, in turn, just gave some condescending and
> dismissive remarks.
>
> You say that Nova Roma shouldn't think of itself as a sovereign nation,
> for a variety of reasons with which I happen to disagree. I have to
> wonder why, then, you didn't go someplace where a claim of sovereignty
> isn't in place. Why do you feel the need to change that one fundamental
> aspect of Nova Roma? Why not go where you'd feel more comfortable? Why
> change what Nova Roma *is*?
>
> You still have yet to answer that question, Consul.
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> Pater Patriae
>
> publiusalbucius wrote:
> > Salvete omnes,
> >
> > I have answered Pater Patriae Vedius in the frame of the Comitia Centuriata, which is the place to discuss about our rogationes.
> >
> > I think having shown there, as Cato has here but with another point of view, that Vedius confused sovereignty and State, and had an obsolete view of the relation State-RR, for nobody does not contest any more the role and place of the RR in our State.
> >
> > I may have shaked a bit our Pater Patriae ;-), but, as my answer let understand it, I consider that Nova Roma has kept on living and developing in his absence and that we missed Vedius when we needed him.
> >
> > On the matter, nothing has changed between us:
> > 1/ we all share the same strong relation with our commmunity, that we may also call a "nation", if we prefer
> > 2/ this community, called Nova Roma, is Rome
> > 3/ there is just one Rome, ours
> > 4/ our *goal* is still recovering a territory and a sovereignty, which means international recognition, but we are wise enough to state that this target is not a short-term one, and may take generations.
> > 5/ meanwhile, we face the reality and place our action in the frame of current national and international Laws.
> >
> > Valete sincerely omnes,
> >
> >
> > Albucius cos.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

> Vedio s.d.
>
>> The place to discuss laws is where the people are.
>
> Yes, the People, Vedi, hence my question: where were you, all these years?
> Where were you, during our 10th Birthday, when we celebrated Rome
> re-birth, having called you and expecting your presence?

I was here, of course, but with the sort of noxious welcome you and your
ilk give me whenever I post, I can hardly be blamed for not doing it all
that often.

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Pater Patriae

Salve Spinula,

Well seen.

But care that "nationality" and "nation" are different concepts:

- nationality is about the fact you have an administrative link with a country and its state. One its manifestations is your passport. Nova Roma Senate currently refuses to issue passports.. even if I had proposed this several years ago ;-).

- nation is a less strict concept which designs a group of ppl having a same community in origins, traditions, history, culture, sometimes language, and forming a political community. Now some scholars think that you need to add a territory, other ones not.
I let you ;-) see if you consider that you can call the Kurds, for ex., as a nation (they have all except the unified territory).

Vale,


Albucius cos.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C. Cocceius Spinula" <cocceius.spinula@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Consul,
>
> I have been reading the post and everything adjacent to it.
>
> I must say that I agree with Lentulus. Nova Roma should be a nation, a gathering of people, Nova roman thier second (or third) nationality.
>
> I say this, as you noted, as a constructive suggestion.
>
> Vale bene,
> C. Cocceius Spinula
>
> Provincia Hispania, Lusitania
>
> Praefectus Regionis Lusitaniae
>
> Senior Scriba Censoris TIS
>
> --- Cn. Cornelius Lentulus wrote:
>
> From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus <cn_corn_lent@...>
> Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Proposing suggestions and the electoral test
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, April 1, 2010, 2:14 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Salve, consul Memmi, vir illustris.
>
>
>
> Here is something I would be able to support, of course, the wording should be revised by a native speaker:
>
>
>
> ''We, the Senate and People of Nova Roma, as a spiritual Nation with symbolic sovereignty and independence, herewith set forth this Constitution as the foundation and structure of our governing institutions and common society.''
>
>
>
> The rest should remain as it is currently in the present Constitution, at least until we will have a longer discussion about its modification.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Lentulus Albucio cos. sal.


Consul, you should see from now that the problem is not with acknowledging that we are not really sovereign. We are not, because our sovereignty is symbolic and ritualistic in sense.

We are mostly concerned with the word "nation". To be a nation, one does not have to be completely sovereign, nor independent.

The constitution has to reflect to the Declaration, too.

Another problem is that we are not Rome, but the commonwealth of Nova Romans. (A proposito, the word commonwealth is also a very good term to include in the preamble.)You say in your proposal that our constitution is issued in the name of the senate of Rome, although we don't have the senate of Rome, just that of Nova Roma. That's very delusional. (A proposito, the word commonwealth is also a very good term to include in the preamble.)

About the dedication, whether we remain the same way dedicated or not.

I will certainly not spend as much energy on a nation-less Nova Roma than before. My faith in Nova Roma will be questioned, and I will focus in one thing only in NR, to restore the concept of Nova Roman nation of hearts.


















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

Lentulo caro s.d.

Not time right now, sorry. May you re-post in the CC list?

Thanks and vale bene,


Albucius cos.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Lentulus Albucio cos. sal.
>
>
> Consul, you should see from now that the problem is not with acknowledging that we are not really sovereign. We are not, because our sovereignty is symbolic and ritualistic in sense.
>
> We are mostly concerned with the word "nation". To be a nation, one does not have to be completely sovereign, nor independent.
>
> The constitution has to reflect to the Declaration, too.
>
> Another problem is that we are not Rome, but the commonwealth of Nova Romans. (A proposito, the word commonwealth is also a very good term to include in the preamble.)You say in your proposal that our constitution is issued in the name of the senate of Rome, although we don't have the senate of Rome, just that of Nova Roma. That's very delusional. (A proposito, the word commonwealth is also a very good term to include in the preamble.)
>
> About the dedication, whether we remain the same way dedicated or not.
>
> I will certainly not spend as much energy on a nation-less Nova Roma than before. My faith in Nova Roma will be questioned, and I will focus in one thing only in NR, to restore the concept of Nova Roman nation of hearts.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salvete Omnibus!

The Egyptians built their pyramids, and it is likely that there were slaves and indentured servants working cheek by jowl with the native freeborn Egyptians. Before the Old Kingdom we have some archaeological matter and ruins but little to nothing in textual evidence besides some proto-hieroglyphs. The town of builders has been found by the pyramids, as has the cemetery for the builders. There is plenty of evidence and history for this. "Mountains of the Pharaohs" by Zahi Hawass (Doubleday/Random House, ©2006 Zahi Hawass, ISBN -13:978-0-385-50305-1) is one of the more easily available books that one can borrow from a library or purchase. Page 158: "One of the most enduring myths about the Great Pyramids is that they were built by slaves. This is not true. Slavery, while it existed in ancient Egypt, was not an important part of the economy especially in the Old Kingdom. The pyramids were the national project of Egypt, symbolizing the might and power of the ruling house, ensuring the rebirth of the king as a god, and thus magically maintaining the universe as it should be; the entire country would have participated in their erection, each extended family paying their dues by sending food, materials, and manpower. From hieroglyphic inscriptions and graffiti we infer that skilled builders and craftsmen probably worked year-round at the pyramid construction site. Peasant farmers from the surrounding villages and provinces rotated in and out of the labor force. The pyramid project must have been a tremendous socializing force in the early Egyptian kingdom - young conscripts from hamlets and villages far and wide taking leave of their families and traveling to Giza, then returning full of the latest ideas and fashions from the royal capital. The workforce would have welled during akhet, the season of the flood, when the fields lay under water and the farmers could not tend their crops. Careful census records would have been kept of every household in the land, and their contributions to the project would have been carefully noted."

page 159 - "Herodotus was told by the guides who showed him the monuments at Giza that one hundred thousand slaves toiled for twenty years to build the Great Pyramid. A more reasonable estimate, based on Scientific calculations of the amount of stone that would have had to be moed per day in order to finish the pyramid during Khufu's reign, is in the realm of twenty thousand workers."

Is it surprising that sometimes a tourist is gullible, even if he keeps a written record of his travels? Is it surprising that tour guides want to impress the rube who has come to the civilized side of the Mediterranean? It is not surprising that the rise of European colonial power and the attitude of having to prove to themselves that they were "better" than those whose lands they colonized would lead to Orientalism, the romance and concurrent diminishing of the equality (or superior) of the Egyptians and other non-Europeans. If you don't care for Mr. Hawass's book, try "The Complete Pyramids: Solving the Ancient Mysteries", Mark Lehner, Pub. Thames & Hudson, ©1997.

There is no lie in saying one's ancestors were enslaved, rebelled, and left servitude. Jolly good for them because freedom is the best of all things for the nurturing of the mind and spirit! There could have been a freeing of many debtors at one time, a la the Jubilee. Hightailing it out of town after being freed seems the prudent thing to do in many cases.

It is a nigh-universal complaint of humans that one's ancestors were evil slave owners or victims of slavery. It's happened to every tribe or nation at some point in time that they are the conquered or the conquerors. It's the 27th century, y'all, get on over the ethnic pissing contest and get back to happy holidays to all who share this current culture and cyber civilization.

Seneb, Seneb ti,
Vale,
Phoenix

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> M. Moravius M. Hortensiae s. p. d.
>
> I have always wondered why those texts neglected to mention that Egypt ruled Judea and Israel after Moses supposedly left the pharoah's domain, and also fail to mention the later contest between the Egyptians and Hittites to the north of 'the promised land.' That is, if one were to mistake such texts as history rather than myth.
>
> Ah, but the myth of Moses was told centuries before he was supposedly born from a river, as his Egyptian name 'meses' means; the very same myth was told of Sargon the Great who even had his story carved on a mountainside. The same myth told of Sargon and the mythical Moses is like that told of Romulus and Remus being cast in a river, discovered by a shepherd and raised in squalid conditions, only to rise to kinghood due to their natural and noble heritage. Actually it was a myth common in the region. Even that of Horus, hidden by Isis in the Sea of Reeds, later to become Pharoah of the Two Lands, is a related myth. But then that is the myth of Tammuz, too, or Adonis if you prefer, abandoned in a river, discovered and raised by shepherds. The myth is celebrated, as with the March celebration for Attys, with a procession of people carrying reeds to represent His discovery alongside the river's edge.
>
> First people take myth as literal and then confuse it as history and wrap it all up as faith. Faith: the suspencion of disbelief, belief in the unbelievable.
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Maior quiritibus spd;
> > Judaean Passover is a nation-building myth, which has kept Jews together for Millenia.
> > The stories in the Hebrew Scriptures have no facts to back them up. So they are myths but as we can see myths are tremendously powerful. And the Egyptians paid their skilled labourers;-)
> >
> > Here is a repost of a great link to an anthropology blog
> > http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/09/ashg-2009-abstracts.html
> > showing that European Jews are genetically closest to Tuscan Italians. The destruction of the Temple and the subsequent diaspora led to intermarriage, before that was forbidden by Constantine & later christian emperors.
> > vale
> > Maior
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Hey! Who are going build our Pyramids now!"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That would be the Goa'uld!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Vale
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Paulinus
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > From: QFabiusMaxmi@
> > > Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:19:50 -0400
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Pesach Tov!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In a message dated 3/30/2010 6:13:45 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> > > catoinnyc@ writes:
> > >
> > > Today is the first day of the great commemoration of the rescue of Israel
> > > out of their slavery in Egypt, called "Pesach" in Hebrew or "Passover" in
> > > English. I wish a very blessed and happy Passover to all our Jewish
> > > citizens!
> > >
> > > Hey! Who are going build our Pyramids now!
> > >
> > > Pharaoh
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>

Salvete,

I am posting this to both the CC and ML. Vedius is right, this should be discussed in front of the people. There are only 61 people on the CC list.

I've been thinking about what everyone has posted here, especially Vedius. I've missed his passion. Those of you who were not here at the beginning of Nova Roma I think cannot fully appreciate the thought and effort that went into creating the idea of Nova Roma out of thin air and should not dismiss his words so lightly.

Vedius and Lentulus are right, to remove the word nation would be to remove the life out of Nova Roma, what makes us unique. The problem is the word independent and especially the word, "sovereign." The latter brings to mind currency, armies, a state with land. Albucius and Caesar are right, it has brought out the worst in many--lawsuits, claims of the precedence of Nova Roman law over macro law, etc. Beyond a 108 acre *spiritual* forum we never aspired to be a "state," sovereign and independent under international law. Vedius will admit that, I think.

We need to keep the word nation. We need to drop the word sovereign, we've never been sovereign, likely never will. Vedi, in your self-induced exile you've missed the damage that word has caused, the whackos that keep coming out of the woodwork. Do you remember the Roman miltia, replete with uniforms and guns ready to defend Nova Romans? I think you were still here then.

Below I am suggesting a text. It is primarily the old preamble. I see no reason to change more than a sentence of the current one. We should not go completely rewriting our founding documents from scratch. Change a word here or there but no more. It disrespects our history and is not necessary.

I have not changed the dates of focus though I am not dead set against that.

Suggested text:

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

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

Valete optime,

Palladius

--- In NovaRomaComitiaCenturiata@yahoogroups.com, "publiusalbucius" <albucius_aoe@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete Quirites,
>
> Here is below the 5th Law proposal:
>
> ________________________________________
>
> Item V â€" Lex Memmia de novo proemio constitutionis
>
> [Constitution â€" New preamble]
>
>
> The current preamble of our Constitution still contains a few elements whose most emblematic one is probably the affirmation that Nova Roma is "an independent and sovereign nation".
>
> If this affirmation may have helped us to gather, ten years ago, our energies to build our community, we are well aware now that such assessment cannot, juridically, be received by both national and international laws: most of national laws, included the U.S. and Italy ones consider our community for what it is, an association, a non profit making corporation which lives and works in the frame of the national legal systems. If International Law may recognize Nova Roma as a community, we still miss the territorial element and, overall, the international recognition.
>
> Drawing quietly the consequences of a legal situation will help us underlining the fact that our institutions are now skilled enough and our res publica both adult enough and conscious of its force, to state this situation in its fundamental act - our Constitution - and, at the same time, to reword it in a legal and more dynamic way, in order to open the second decenium of our common life. Such a renewed text, in addition, will fit with the intended adoption of Nova Roma inc. bylaws.
>
>
> In view of the Constitution, specially its Preamble,
>
> After due consultation of the Senate, the Comitia centuriata decides:
>
>
>
> Article 1: The current Preamble of the Constitution is replaced by the following text:
>
> " IN THE NAME OF THE SENATE AND PEOPLE OF ROME, the present Constitution is enacted as the keystone of Nova Roma and her institutions.
>
> Nova Roma is, within the constraints of current international and national laws, the revival of ancient Rome.
>
> This revival encompasses Republican Roman institutions and civilization from the foundation of the City in 753 BCE to the deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 1229 AUC (476 CE), and is inclusive, but not limited to, history, culture, languages, economy, institutions, beliefs, virtues and religions, and especially the Roman religion.
>
> It may also include the interactions of other civilizations and nations of that time period with Rome.
>
> The Nova Roman res publica shall encourage the daily life of a community of persons interested in the knowledge of the civilization of ancient Rome, the conservation and the promotion of its cultural heritage, and the promotion, in our own time, of Republican Roman virtues. "
>
>
> Article 2 : Every officer of Nova Roma is charged of the good execution of the present law, which shall be applicable from its ratification by Nova Roma senate on, and published in the Tabularium Nova Romae (Laws section).
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> APPENDIX: Current preamble of the Constitution
>
> ''We, the Senate and People of Nova Roma, as an independent and sovereign nation, herewith set forth this Constitution as the foundation and structure of our governing institutions and common society. We hereby declare our Nation to stand as a beacon for those who would recreate the best of ancient Rome. As a nation, Nova Roma shall be the temporal homeland and worldly focus for the Religio Romana. The primary function of Nova Roma shall be to promote the study and practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as the period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such fields as religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy.
> As the spiritual heir to the ancient Roman Republic and Empire, Nova Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all manners practical and acceptable, as the modern restoration of the ancient Roman Republic. The culture, religion, and society of Nova Roma shall be patterned upon those of ancient Rome.''
>
>
> You may find the previous versions via the page:
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Category:Constitution_%28Nova_Roma%29
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
> Valete omnes,
>
>
>
> Albucius cos.
>

Salve amice.

I can see the same issues arising. The use of the word "independent" will be cited as evidence for independence of our laws (b-laws) from macronational laws. This like Rhodesia - it will be seen as our declaration of UDI, and divisions will occur over that. The use of the word "nation" will be likely citred as implying that the rights of a nation are due to Nova Roma, and that includes soverignty over its people and laws.

Which ever way you cut this unless we excise the whole of this phrase, in my opnion we lay the foundations for continuing disputes over Nova Roma's realtion to the rest of the world, particuarly the nation/state it is incorporated in. I therefore beg to differ and feel that the whole phrase needs to go in its totality.

Vale bene
Caesar  



----- Original Message ----
From: deciusiunius <bcatfd@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 9:32:38 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] On the proposed changes to the preamble


Salvete,

I am posting this to both the CC and ML. Vedius is right, this should be discussed in front of the people. There are only 61 people on the CC list.

Citizens of Nova Roma;

I too have been giving the words posted here a great deal of thought
and attention. I am in agreement with Senator Palladius and am most
appreciative of his recent comments as I am very aware that he has
stated the situation and it's idea far better than I am able to.
However, I support fully his comments and suggestions.

Respectfully;

Marcus Audens



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

Salvete,



My good friend Senator Palladius has suggested a very good

compromise. I support it. I respectfully ask others to do so as well.



Valete



Ti. Galerius Paulinus





To: NovaRomaComitiaCenturiata@yahoogroups.com
From: bcatfd@...
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 15:32:24 +0000
Subject: [NovaRomaComitiaCenturiata] Re: 5th Law : de novo proemio constitutionis (New Constitution Preamble)






Salvete,

I am posting this to both the CC and ML. Vedius is right, this should be discussed in front of the people. There are only 61 people on the CC list.

I've been thinking about what everyone has posted here, especially Vedius. I've missed his passion. Those of you who were not here at the beginning of Nova Roma I think cannot fully appreciate the thought and effort that went into creating the idea of Nova Roma out of thin air and should not dismiss his words so lightly.

Vedius and Lentulus are right, to remove the word nation would be to remove the life out of Nova Roma, what makes us unique. The problem is the word independent and especially the word, "sovereign." The latter brings to mind currency, armies, a state with land. Albucius and Caesar are right, it has brought out the worst in many--lawsuits, claims of the precedence of Nova Roman law over macro law, etc. Beyond a 108 acre *spiritual* forum we never aspired to be a "state," sovereign and independent under international law. Vedius will admit that, I think.

We need to keep the word nation. We need to drop the word sovereign, we've never been sovereign, likely never will. Vedi, in your self-induced exile you've missed the damage that word has caused, the whackos that keep coming out of the woodwork. Do you remember the Roman miltia, replete with uniforms and guns ready to defend Nova Romans? I think you were still here then.

Below I am suggesting a text. It is primarily the old preamble. I see no reason to change more than a sentence of the current one. We should not go completely rewriting our founding documents from scratch. Change a word here or there but no more. It disrespects our history and is not necessary.

I have not changed the dates of focus though I am not dead set against that.

Suggested text:

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

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

Valete optime,

Palladius

--- In NovaRomaComitiaCenturiata@yahoogroups.com, "publiusalbucius" <albucius_aoe@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete Quirites,
>
> Here is below the 5th Law proposal:
>
> ________________________________________
>
> Item V � Lex Memmia de novo proemio constitutionis
>
> [Constitution � New preamble]
>
>
> The current preamble of our Constitution still contains a few elements whose most emblematic one is probably the affirmation that Nova Roma is "an independent and sovereign nation".
>
> If this affirmation may have helped us to gather, ten years ago, our energies to build our community, we are well aware now that such assessment cannot, juridically, be received by both national and international laws: most of national laws, included the U.S. and Italy ones consider our community for what it is, an association, a non profit making corporation which lives and works in the frame of the national legal systems. If International Law may recognize Nova Roma as a community, we still miss the territorial element and, overall, the international recognition.
>
> Drawing quietly the consequences of a legal situation will help us underlining the fact that our institutions are now skilled enough and our res publica both adult enough and conscious of its force, to state this situation in its fundamental act - our Constitution - and, at the same time, to reword it in a legal and more dynamic way, in order to open the second decenium of our common life. Such a renewed text, in addition, will fit with the intended adoption of Nova Roma inc. bylaws.
>
>
> In view of the Constitution, specially its Preamble,
>
> After due consultation of the Senate, the Comitia centuriata decides:
>
>
>
> Article 1: The current Preamble of the Constitution is replaced by the following text:
>
> " IN THE NAME OF THE SENATE AND PEOPLE OF ROME, the present Constitution is enacted as the keystone of Nova Roma and her institutions.
>
> Nova Roma is, within the constraints of current international and national laws, the revival of ancient Rome.
>
> This revival encompasses Republican Roman institutions and civilization from the foundation of the City in 753 BCE to the deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 1229 AUC (476 CE), and is inclusive, but not limited to, history, culture, languages, economy, institutions, beliefs, virtues and religions, and especially the Roman religion.
>
> It may also include the interactions of other civilizations and nations of that time period with Rome.
>
> The Nova Roman res publica shall encourage the daily life of a community of persons interested in the knowledge of the civilization of ancient Rome, the conservation and the promotion of its cultural heritage, and the promotion, in our own time, of Republican Roman virtues. "
>
>
> Article 2 : Every officer of Nova Roma is charged of the good execution of the present law, which shall be applicable from its ratification by Nova Roma senate on, and published in the Tabularium Nova Romae (Laws section).
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> APPENDIX: Current preamble of the Constitution
>
> ''We, the Senate and People of Nova Roma, as an independent and sovereign nation, herewith set forth this Constitution as the foundation and structure of our governing institutions and common society. We hereby declare our Nation to stand as a beacon for those who would recreate the best of ancient Rome. As a nation, Nova Roma shall be the temporal homeland and worldly focus for the Religio Romana. The primary function of Nova Roma shall be to promote the study and practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as the period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such fields as religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy.
> As the spiritual heir to the ancient Roman Republic and Empire, Nova Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all manners practical and acceptable, as the modern restoration of the ancient Roman Republic. The culture, religion, and society of Nova Roma shall be patterned upon those of ancient Rome.''
>
>
> You may find the previous versions via the page:
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Category:Constitution_%28Nova_Roma%29
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
> Valete omnes,
>
>
>
> Albucius cos.
>






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

Salve amice,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

> Which ever way you cut this unless we excise the whole of this >phrase, in my opnion we�lay the foundations for continuing disputes >over Nova Roma's realtion to the rest of the world,�particuarly the >nation/state it is incorporated in. I therefore beg to differ and feel >that�the whole phrase�needs to go in its totality.

So what ARE we without the word nation? A club, group, a people? The RR does need a state to survive, doesn't it?

You COULD excise the word nation and still keep us close to what we are. A sample blow. Not sure I like it.

''We, the Senate and People of Nova Roma, herewith set forth this Constitution as the foundation and structure of our governing institutions and common society. We hereby declare our that we stand
as a beacon for those who would recreate the best of ancient Rome.
Nova Roma shall be the temporal homeland and worldly focus for the Religio Romana. The primary function of Nova Roma shall be to promote the study and practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as the period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such fields as religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy.
As the spiritual heir to the ancient Roman Republic and Empire, Nova Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all manners practical and acceptable, as the modern restoration of the ancient Roman Republic. The culture, religion, and society of Nova Roma shall be patterned upon those of ancient Rome.''


Vale,


Palladius



>
> Vale bene
> Caesar��
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: deciusiunius <bcatfd@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 9:32:38 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] On the proposed changes to the preamble
>
>
> Salvete,
>
> I am posting this to both the CC and ML. Vedius is right, this should be discussed in front of the people. There are only 61 people on the CC list.
>

SALVETE!
 
I join near Decius Iunius wise words. I appreciate consul Memmius Albucius proposal because represents a step forward and I respect the basic principle Nova Roma was founded.
The middle way where Nova Roma can move on, more professional and benefiting of all advantages can result from that and our spiritual love for " a nation of the mind and spirit ", to use the Gnaeus Iulius’ words said five years ago, it's possible solution.
 
In the same way I don't enjoy the usage of other various lists for major issues in connection with our community daily life but our Main one, considered as our Forum, where all people can hear, discuss and participate to the decisional level. Consul Memmius Albucius is meticulous and wants to pay attention even to small details, fixing all the things in the best possible way, giving a sense and legal frame to each NR corner, but let's not forget our human nature directed to simple and easy understanding things, as well as our indisputable desire to stay, to live together, even if that is possible only using virtual ways.

 
VALETE,
T. iulius Sabinus
 

 



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

--- On Thu, 4/1/10, deciusiunius <bcatfd@...> wrote:


From: deciusiunius <bcatfd@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] On the proposed changes to the preamble
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, April 1, 2010, 6:32 PM


 




Salvete,

I am posting this to both the CC and ML. Vedius is right, this should be discussed in front of the people. There are only 61 people on the CC list.

I've been thinking about what everyone has posted here, especially Vedius. I've missed his passion. Those of you who were not here at the beginning of Nova Roma I think cannot fully appreciate the thought and effort that went into creating the idea of Nova Roma out of thin air and should not dismiss his words so lightly.

Vedius and Lentulus are right, to remove the word nation would be to remove the life out of Nova Roma, what makes us unique. The problem is the word independent and especially the word, "sovereign." The latter brings to mind currency, armies, a state with land. Albucius and Caesar are right, it has brought out the worst in many--lawsuits, claims of the precedence of Nova Roman law over macro law, etc. Beyond a 108 acre *spiritual* forum we never aspired to be a "state," sovereign and independent under international law. Vedius will admit that, I think.

We need to keep the word nation. We need to drop the word sovereign, we've never been sovereign, likely never will. Vedi, in your self-induced exile you've missed the damage that word has caused, the whackos that keep coming out of the woodwork. Do you remember the Roman miltia, replete with uniforms and guns ready to defend Nova Romans? I think you were still here then.

Below I am suggesting a text. It is primarily the old preamble. I see no reason to change more than a sentence of the current one. We should not go completely rewriting our founding documents from scratch. Change a word here or there but no more. It disrespects our history and is not necessary.

I have not changed the dates of focus though I am not dead set against that.

Suggested text:

''We, the Senate and People of Nova Roma, as an independent spiritual nation, herewith set forth this Constitution as the foundation and structure of our governing institutions and common society. We hereby declare our Nation to stand as a beacon for those who would recreate the best of ancient Rome. As a nation, Nova Roma shall be the temporal homeland and worldly focus for the Religio Romana. The primary function of Nova Roma shall be to promote the study and practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as the period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such fields as religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy.
> As the spiritual heir to the ancient Roman Republic and Empire, Nova Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all manners practical and acceptable, as the modern restoration of the ancient Roman Republic. The culture, religion, and society of Nova Roma shall be patterned upon those of ancient Rome.''

Valete optime,

Palladius

--- In NovaRomaComitiaCent uriata@yahoogrou ps.com, "publiusalbucius" <albucius_aoe@ ...> wrote:
>
> Salvete Quirites,
>
> Here is below the 5th Law proposal:
>
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _
>
> Item V â€" Lex Memmia de novo proemio constitutionis
>
> [Constitution â€" New preamble]
>
>
> The current preamble of our Constitution still contains a few elements whose most emblematic one is probably the affirmation that Nova Roma is "an independent and sovereign nation".
>
> If this affirmation may have helped us to gather, ten years ago, our energies to build our community, we are well aware now that such assessment cannot, juridically, be received by both national and international laws: most of national laws, included the U.S. and Italy ones consider our community for what it is, an association, a non profit making corporation which lives and works in the frame of the national legal systems. If International Law may recognize Nova Roma as a community, we still miss the territorial element and, overall, the international recognition.
>
> Drawing quietly the consequences of a legal situation will help us underlining the fact that our institutions are now skilled enough and our res publica both adult enough and conscious of its force, to state this situation in its fundamental act - our Constitution - and, at the same time, to reword it in a legal and more dynamic way, in order to open the second decenium of our common life. Such a renewed text, in addition, will fit with the intended adoption of Nova Roma inc. bylaws.
>
>
> In view of the Constitution, specially its Preamble,
>
> After due consultation of the Senate, the Comitia centuriata decides:
>
>
>
> Article 1: The current Preamble of the Constitution is replaced by the following text:
>
> " IN THE NAME OF THE SENATE AND PEOPLE OF ROME, the present Constitution is enacted as the keystone of Nova Roma and her institutions.
>
> Nova Roma is, within the constraints of current international and national laws, the revival of ancient Rome.
>
> This revival encompasses Republican Roman institutions and civilization from the foundation of the City in 753 BCE to the deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 1229 AUC (476 CE), and is inclusive, but not limited to, history, culture, languages, economy, institutions, beliefs, virtues and religions, and especially the Roman religion.
>
> It may also include the interactions of other civilizations and nations of that time period with Rome.
>
> The Nova Roman res publica shall encourage the daily life of a community of persons interested in the knowledge of the civilization of ancient Rome, the conservation and the promotion of its cultural heritage, and the promotion, in our own time, of Republican Roman virtues. "
>
>
> Article 2 : Every officer of Nova Roma is charged of the good execution of the present law, which shall be applicable from its ratification by Nova Roma senate on, and published in the Tabularium Nova Romae (Laws section).
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
>
> APPENDIX: Current preamble of the Constitution
>
> ''We, the Senate and People of Nova Roma, as an independent and sovereign nation, herewith set forth this Constitution as the foundation and structure of our governing institutions and common society. We hereby declare our Nation to stand as a beacon for those who would recreate the best of ancient Rome. As a nation, Nova Roma shall be the temporal homeland and worldly focus for the Religio Romana. The primary function of Nova Roma shall be to promote the study and practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as the period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such fields as religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy.
> As the spiritual heir to the ancient Roman Republic and Empire, Nova Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all manners practical and acceptable, as the modern restoration of the ancient Roman Republic. The culture, religion, and society of Nova Roma shall be patterned upon those of ancient Rome.''
>
>
> You may find the previous versions via the page:
> http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Category :Constitution_ %28Nova_Roma% 29
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ _____
>
> Valete omnes,
>
>
>
> Albucius cos.
>











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

Caesar Sabino sal..

Indeed I did say that - and that is my personal view. I would hesitate to saddle us with that phrase in our constitution, again because in that document even that, excellent :}, phrase could be used to support the same arguments over independence of legal systems etc.

Vale bene.

Caesar
 



----- Original Message ----
From: iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 10:40:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] On the proposed changes to the preamble

SALVETE!
 
I join near Decius Iunius wise words. I appreciate consul Memmius Albucius proposal because represents a step forward and I respect the basic principle Nova Roma was founded.
The middle way where Nova Roma can move on, more professional and benefiting of all advantages can result from that and our spiritual love for " a nation of the mind and spirit ", to use the Gnaeus Iulius’ words said five years ago, it's possible solution.
 
In the same way I don't enjoy the usage of other various lists for major issues in connection with our community daily life but our Main one, considered as our Forum, where all people can hear, discuss and participate to the decisional level. Consul Memmius

Salve amice

If Rome had been totally destroyed by the Gauls, burned to the ground and a straggling group of refugees taken to the hills, would the worship of the Gods continued? Would the Ancient Romans have checked themselves and effetively said "Oh rats, we are no longer a "nation", all is lost, we cannot continue with our religion"? Not a bit of it. worship would likely have continued unchecked.

There is nothing special about declaring ourselves a 'nation" to be able to centrally worship the Gods through the ancient offices of the religio. Simply writing "nation" neither empowers nor prevents us from using the old offices and engaging in state worship. What we are is a community, and communities can have leaders and structure and purpose. Communities can worship together, and frequently do.

There is no bar to us taking this out, other than nostaglia on the part of some others and a love for a dream, which while noble I am sure, is now counter-productive becuase of what this leads to. Let dreams be personal, but let our consttition reflect reality, for it is at its heart a by-law in the State of Maine. That we give it a greater worth is understandable, but its contents MUST ensure that there is no room for an inherent and serious conflict with macronational laws, for macronational law will win and our by-law will lose. Such is the reality we must live in.

Vale bene
Caesar



----- Original Message ----
From: deciusiunius <bcatfd@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 10:16:14 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: On the proposed changes to the preamble

Salve amice,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

> Which ever way you cut this unless we excise the whole of this >phrase, in my opnion we�lay the foundations for continuing disputes >over Nova Roma's realtion to the rest of the world,�particuarly the >nation/state it is incorporated in. I therefore beg to differ and feel >that�the whole phrase�needs to go in its totality.

So what ARE we without the word nation? A club, group, a people? The RR does need a state to survive, doesn't it?

You COULD excise the word nation and still keep us close to what we are. A sample blow. Not sure I like it.

Salve amice,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Salve amice
>
> If Rome had been totally destroyed by the Gauls, burned to the ground and a straggling group of refugees taken to the hills, would >the worship of the Gods continued? Would the Ancient Romans have >checked themselves and effetively said "Oh rats, we are no longer a >"nation", all is lost, we cannot continue with our religion"? Not a >bit of it. worship would likely have continued unchecked.


They wouldn't have said that because they still would have been a nation. Landless but a nation nonetheless. You are confusing state with nation.

Vale,

Palladius

Aeterniae sal,

Thank you so very much for your kind words~

Vale bene

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Jennifer Harris <cyannerose@...> wrote:
>
> Aeterniae Iuliae Aquilae sal,
>
> Congrats to you and your grandson, welcome novus civis...Although being 6'6"
> that is super tall wow, that's a legion all on its own.. Again welcome.
>
>
> Vale Optime,
> Aeternia
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:37 PM, luciaiuliaaquila
> <dis_pensible@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > L. Iulia Aquila A. Tulliae Scholasticae L. Liviae Plautae amicae et amici
> > omnnibusque S.P.D.
> >
> > Some of you already know that my grandson Marcus Iulius Aquila, who turned
> > 18 the end of January, passed his exam and is now a full citizen of the Nova
> > Roma!
> >
> > He has chosen some photos to post, they include last year's prom photo in a
> > black tux, photos in a toga virilis and his favorite - and the reason for
> > this post - a red tunica and toga - which is his first choice to post in the
> > Album Civium.
> >
> > I am asking the forum for feedback regarding this to help with this
> > decision.
> > I have seen red tunica on both females and males (in various media), also
> > on Sacerdotes - not that I am certain one way or another of their
> > authenticity.
> > And recently Drusus posted a video of a Conferratio (which I have seen
> > before) where Red garments are worn:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/74692
> > Thank you in advance for any feedback~
> >
> > Curate ut valeatis optime,
> >
> > Julia
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Iulia Sabino Palladio Caesari S.P.D.

I agree with Palladius that an accepted English definition of "nation" is that it is a reference to the politcal and social characteristics of the entity involved. However this may not be how most will interpret this - they will interpret "nation" as a place. So perhaps considering the insertion of "symbolic" before the word nation would clarify the meaning. Symbolic nation would include the embodiment of the mind and spirit of Rome.

Valete optime,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salve amice,
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve amice
> >
> > If Rome had been totally destroyed by the Gauls, burned to the ground and a straggling group of refugees taken to the hills, would >the worship of the Gods continued? Would the Ancient Romans have >checked themselves and effetively said "Oh rats, we are no longer a >"nation", all is lost, we cannot continue with our religion"? Not a >bit of it. worship would likely have continued unchecked.
>
>
> They wouldn't have said that because they still would have been a nation. Landless but a nation nonetheless. You are confusing state with nation.
>
> Vale,
>
> Palladius
>

Omnibus Quiritibus s.d.

As I told it in the Comitia centuriata forum, I am not sure being able to catch every reaction, and every interesting proposal of amendment, on the proposed rogationes, that would be made here, on our main Forum.

As I well understand the legitimate wish to discuss in the place which welcomes most of our cives, I reiterate here my wish being addressed a copy, at my personal address albucius_aoe@..., of every constructive proposal that would be made on any of the proposed rogationes.

Thanks for your understanding.

Valete omnes,


Albucius cos.

Salve amice

Well I think that is my point - the confusion between state and nation. In Nova Roma I fear they have become interchangeable. You say nation, someone else implies state.

Seeing as how there are now a number of suggestions for alternatives bandying around, let me reiterate that personally I believe that it is best we excise the whole phrase and replace it with nothing. Realistically I scent the liklihood of a compromise phrase being cobbled together to try to appease the heart, rather than the logic (which I believe we need more of in Nova Roma). If that is the case then I will reluctantly suggest this as an amendment:

''We, the Senate and People of Nova Roma, herewith set forth this Constitution as the foundation and structure of our governing institutions. We declare that we are a diaspora and that further this diaspora has as its foundations a belief that we are bound in the commonality of a fellowship based on the culture and society of Ancient Rome. We further declare that this diaspora is a nation of the mind and spirit, laying no claim to independence, sovereignty or statehood and forsesaking any claimed rights, privilges or benefits that might flow from any such claim. We hereby declare our that we stand as a beacon for those who would recreate the best of ancient Rome. Nova Roma shall be the temporal homeland and worldly focus for the Religio Romana. The primary function of Nova Roma shall be to promote the study and practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as the period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the
altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such fields as religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy. As the spiritual heir to the ancient Roman Republic and Empire, Nova Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all manners practical and acceptable, as the modern restoration of the ancient Roman Republic. The culture, religion, and society of Nova Roma shall be patterned upon those of ancient Rome.''

Vale bene
Caesar


----- Original Message ----
From: deciusiunius <bcatfd@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 11:11:42 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: On the proposed changes to the preamble


Salve amice,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Salve amice
>
> If Rome had been totally destroyed by the Gauls, burned to the ground and a straggling group of refugees taken to the hills, would >the worship of the Gods continued? Would the Ancient Romans have >checked themselves and effetively said "Oh rats, we are no longer a >"nation", all is lost, we cannot continue with our religion"? Not a >bit of it. worship would likely have continued unchecked.


They wouldn't have said that because they still would have been a nation. Landless but a nation nonetheless. You are confusing state with nation.

Vale,

Palladius





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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Salve Iulia.

I have suggested an alternative that works the word nation in, with what I consider to be a necessary disclaimer. It is in another post. If I could feel confident that symbolic would always be taken as that with no claims to the rights and benefits of a nation, that might work, but while mine is longer slightly I think it hopefully captures the true essence of what Nova Romaq is in reality.

Vale bene
Caesar



----- Original Message ----
From: luciaiuliaaquila <dis_pensible@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 11:45:14 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: On the proposed changes to the preamble

Iulia  Sabino Palladio Caesari S.P.D.

I agree with Palladius that an accepted English definition of "nation" is that it is a reference to the politcal and social characteristics of the entity involved. However this may not be how most will interpret this - they will interpret "nation" as a place. So perhaps considering the insertion of "symbolic" before the word nation would clarify the meaning. Symbolic nation would include the embodiment of the mind and spirit of Rome.

Valete optime,

Julia

Maior Omnibus spd;
I posted this separately as this isn't a legal argument but one about
the profound power of myth. I agree wholeheartedly with Gn.Cornelius Lentulus.
The power of myth can indeed make & remake nations. All I have to think about is modern day Israel. Every Passover holiday for thousands of years Jews would say at the end of the meal: Next Year in Jerusalem.

And this aspiration, a dream started in the 19th century with a few armchair Zionist intellectuals. Why not us? I believe it absolutely can happen. I know the living power of myth. It is not fantasy rather a possible future.
Fortuna Novae Romae favent!
M. Hortensia Maior

Caesar SPD.

It took the tacit consent of the occupying power, Britain, the backing of the USA and most sadly of all the Holocaust to generate the conditions for the creation of Israel. Simply declaring it so will not increase the chances of our achieving nationhood one whit, and will in turn ensure in the more immediate future the continuation of issues and disputes over what nationhood means, what it implies in terms of rights and obligations as well as the scope of this claim.

Why not us? For the reasons above and because it is counter-productive. There is no profound power of myth that will assist us. Ultimately what assisted the Jewish diaspora was not this written belief, nor any myth, but the desire for security in the land they claimed as their own, so that never again would they become victims. This was a very real and immediate benefit. Nova Romans are not in the same league as the Jewish people, with years of persecution behind them culminating in the atrocity of 1933-1945.

This is another apples and organes argument.

Optime valete.



----- Original Message ----
From: rory12001 <rory12001@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 12:23:30 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Are we a nation; a state?

Maior Omnibus spd;
  I posted this separately as this isn't a legal argument but one about
the profound power of myth. I agree wholeheartedly with Gn.Cornelius Lentulus.
    The power of myth can indeed make & remake nations. All I have to think about is modern day Israel. Every Passover holiday for thousands of years Jews would say at the end of the meal: Next Year in Jerusalem.

C. Petronius Hortensiae Maiori s.p.d.,

If Nova Roma is nor a nation neither a state, she does not need a Constitution.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Kalendis Aprilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Caesar SPD

A further thought.

Without the displacement of the jewish people from all over Europe, some during and more after the end of the Holocaust, I doubt that there would ahve been the impetus or reason for many Jews comfortbaly settled prior to 1933, and successful, throughout Europe. the horror and displacement of the Holocaust provided the spring board that made many surviovrs opt for Palestine as a destination. One can reasonably speculate that had the Holocaust not occurred it is doubtful whether Israel would have been successful, even if created (and that in itself is doubtful), becuase many Jews would have had no reson to uproot themselves from their homes, societies and businesses throughout Europe to travel into an unfamiliar wilderness. Before the Holocaust not all Jews were Zionists, far from it.

Optime valete




----- Original Message ----
From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 12:35:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Are we a nation; a state?

Caesar SPD.

It took the tacit consent of the occupying power, Britain, the backing of the USA and most sadly of all the Holocaust to generate the conditions for the creation of Israel. Simply declaring it so will not increase the chances of our achieving nationhood one whit, and

Salvete omnes,
it is such a rare event for me to be in total agreement with Cn. Iulius
Caesar, that I'm determined to enjoy it fully. So I will repeat it here,
after stating it on the Comitia centuriata list.
I agree with everything below. I specially like the paragraph about the
"King of Siam".

Please citizens, vote yes to the Lex Memmia de novo proemio constitutionis!

And also please vote yes to all the other leges with the aim of reducing the
number of magistrates!

Optime valete,
Livia

> Caesar Maximo SPD
>
> I think you need to re-read what I said. I made no mention of anyone
> moving on. I simply stated that to claim we are an independent sovereign
> nation is in my view - and others from across the whole spectrum of Nova
> Roma - bogus. It is misleading, romantic nonsense that has been a major
> contributing factor that has deflected us from achieving anything of
> substantive note, because we are too busy picking over the fluff of what
> we are in our collective navel. Frankly I don't care if individuals here
> want to believe that we are an independent sovereign nation, but I do care
> that an organization as small as ours stops pretending to be an elephant
> and accepts it is a mouse, and instead of claiming its tail is a large
> trunk, puts itself on a rigorous course of exercise to build itself up to
> be the biggest mouse in town. I am sure that doesn't have the grandeur of
> making wild claims about sovereignty and it pricks the delusional bubble
> of some and robs others of a claimed importance this phrase brings to Nova
> Roma, but its about time that Nova Roma woke up and lived in the reality
> of its own existence, size and potential (or lack thereof while we
> continue to pay lip service to a pipe dream), in order that we can
> formulate clear plans for the future development of this as a structure.
>
> Read again Maxime. I did not cite this change as going hand in hand with
> wing nuts moving on. I did argue for a wing nut statement to be moved on
> however. I think this set the stage for more credibility for NR. It won't
> on its own create credibility, but the existence of this phrase is to me a
> direct and clear impediment to achieving that.
>
> Vote for this lex and let Nova Roma move out of the wardrobe mentality of
> Narnia into the reality of the 21st century and build something relevant
> as a structure, instead of living in a fantasy land that has directly led
> to a lot of very silly statements about Nova Roman law taking precedence
> over macronational law, and judgments and policy decisions being taken
> based on this bogus claim.
>
> I can believe I am the King of Siam. Amongst friends who believe I am too,
> then I might 'feel" that I was King. Amongst those whose friends who
> humour me, but don't believe I am, I am just a friend with a rather
> strange outlook on life. At the point I start posting this to the wider
> world, I am judged a lunatic. One consistent feature though is that
> whatever I "feel" or say, I am NOT the King of Siam. So to with Nova Roma.
> believe what you want as individuals but let us not paint Nova Roma with
> the brush of imbecility by making these claims.
>
> Citizens - vote yes to this lex.
>
> Optime vale
>
> From: QFabiusMaxmi@...
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 5:06 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Against the Attack on Nova Roma's Sovereignty
>
>
>
> Bravo Vedius!
>
> I love Caesar like a brother, but I disagree with him that our problems
> would be less if the dysfunctional delusional people here would move on.
> The
> Sovereignty Clause did not attract the wing-nuts, an on-line organization
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Salve Maior,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Maior Omnibus spd;
> I posted this separately as this isn't a legal argument but one about
> the profound power of myth. I agree wholeheartedly with Gn.Cornelius Lentulus.
> The power of myth can indeed make & remake nations. All I have >to think about is modern day Israel. Every Passover holiday for >thousands of years Jews would say at the end of the meal: Next Year >in Jerusalem.
>
> And this aspiration, a dream started in the 19th century with a few >armchair Zionist intellectuals. Why not us? I believe it absolutely >can happen. I know the living power of myth. It is not fantasy rather >a possible future.

Wow. A few more posts like this and I will change my mind and be convinced Caesar is right. What myth are we talking about? What homeland can we be hoping to reclaim 2,000 years hence? Next year in Rome? It seems that city is already the center of an historic, vibrant civilization.

Myth without basis, logic or forethought such as in your message is why this is being proposed. I am trying to limit the damage to our foundational principles but frankly you are not helping but instead illustrating why that phrase in the preamble has been so damaging. (I'm sure Caesar will offer his thanks)

Vale,

Palladius

Hear, hear!

In fact, some of the very old-timers still around to read this might
remember the phrase "Next year in the Forum!" from our early days, evoking
precisely that sentiment.

Vale, and Next Year in the Forum!

Flavius Vedius Germanicus

> Maior Omnibus spd;
> I posted this separately as this isn't a legal argument but one about
> the profound power of myth. I agree wholeheartedly with Gn.Cornelius
> Lentulus.
> The power of myth can indeed make & remake nations. All I have to
> think about is modern day Israel. Every Passover holiday for
> thousands of years Jews would say at the end of the meal: Next Year
> in Jerusalem.
>
> And this aspiration, a dream started in the 19th century with a few
> armchair Zionist intellectuals. Why not us? I believe it absolutely can
> happen. I know the living power of myth. It is not fantasy rather a
> possible future.
> Fortuna Novae Romae favent!
> M. Hortensia Maior
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Salvete;
I would be more than happy to make a big sale of a book & start a NR colonia, it wouldn't have to look like ancient Rome, just be a group of people who wanted to live their Romanitas and speak Latin, on their holidays. I thought Avitus' link some years ago of an abandoned town in Navarre, wonderful.

Already you have a people with a shared culture, language, with modern communications, global travel, it's not hard to put this into action. You just need the will. To dream the big dream.

I've always thought the big divide in NR is those who play Roman and those who live Roman.
vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, vedius@... wrote:
>
> Hear, hear!
>
> In fact, some of the very old-timers still around to read this might
> remember the phrase "Next year in the Forum!" from our early days, evoking
> precisely that sentiment.
>
> Vale, and Next Year in the Forum!
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
>
>
> > Maior Omnibus spd;
> > I posted this separately as this isn't a legal argument but one about
> > the profound power of myth. I agree wholeheartedly with Gn.Cornelius
> > Lentulus.
> > The power of myth can indeed make & remake nations. All I have to
> > think about is modern day Israel. Every Passover holiday for
> > thousands of years Jews would say at the end of the meal: Next Year
> > in Jerusalem.
> >
> > And this aspiration, a dream started in the 19th century with a few
> > armchair Zionist intellectuals. Why not us? I believe it absolutely can
> > happen. I know the living power of myth. It is not fantasy rather a
> > possible future.
> > Fortuna Novae Romae favent!
> > M. Hortensia Maior
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Exactly!

Nor it needs citizens and senators.

Nor any of us.

Good point, Dexter.


VALE
CN. LENT.

--- Gio 1/4/10, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...> ha scritto:







 









C. Petronius Hortensiae Maiori s.p.d.,



If Nova Roma is nor a nation neither a state, she does not need a Constitution.



Optime vale.



C. Petronius Dexter

Arcoiali scribebat

Kalendis Aprilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

























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

Salve Vedi,

I remember. In the forum, not living in our nation state or colonia with our sovereign land guarded by our praetorians. There's nothing like a post like Maior's to bring vividly to mind all that is wrong with Nova Roma.

Vale bene,


Palladius

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, vedius@... wrote:
>
> Hear, hear!
>
> In fact, some of the very old-timers still around to read this might
> remember the phrase "Next year in the Forum!" from our early days, evoking
> precisely that sentiment.
>
> Vale, and Next Year in the Forum!
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
>
>
> > Maior Omnibus spd;
> > I posted this separately as this isn't a legal argument but one about
> > the profound power of myth. I agree wholeheartedly with Gn.Cornelius
> > Lentulus.
> > The power of myth can indeed make & remake nations. All I have to
> > think about is modern day Israel. Every Passover holiday for
> > thousands of years Jews would say at the end of the meal: Next Year
> > in Jerusalem.
> >
> > And this aspiration, a dream started in the 19th century with a few
> > armchair Zionist intellectuals. Why not us? I believe it absolutely can
> > happen. I know the living power of myth. It is not fantasy rather a
> > possible future.
> > Fortuna Novae Romae favent!
> > M. Hortensia Maior
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Caesar SPD.

"Next year in the Forum!" is a charming phrase but means nothing. The Italians own the Forum. I doubt they are giving it up. Citing this as support for retaining this phrase only underscores to me and I think others why we need to at best rid ourselves of it. Next Year in the Forum we are going to do what? Squat in tents and refuse to move? Climb the trees there and live in them as Roman tree people? Even as a exhortation it is presumptious and flawed.

Eleven years on and we are repeating the same phrase? We cannot seriously base any plan for a revivial of our fortunes on something not far removed than a chant in a soccer stadium, or the sentiment that this evokes.

And yes Palladi, amice, it is interesting that as this discussion progresses that the rate of proof being offered for the disconnect with reality that exists is increasing. Maior, now Vedius. You must be prophetic amice, you had just mentioned this very phrase and lo, it pops up...again.

Optime valete



----- Original Message ----
From: "vedius@..." <vedius@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 1:02:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Are we a nation; a state?

Hear, hear!

In fact, some of the very old-timers still around to read this might
remember the phrase "Next year in the Forum!" from our early days, evoking

Maior,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete;
> I would be more than happy to make a big sale of a book & start a NR colonia, it wouldn't have to look like ancient Rome, just be a group of people who wanted to live their Romanitas and speak Latin, on their holidays. I thought Avitus' link some years ago of an abandoned town in Navarre, wonderful.
>
> Already you have a people with a shared culture, language, with modern communications, global travel, it's not hard to put this into action. You just need the will. To dream the big dream.
>
> I've always thought the big divide in NR is those who play Roman and >those who live Roman.

And you have always fallen in the latter camp. Always. You just don't know it. Can you please offer something constructive to the discussion other than trite comments?


Palladius

Reminder from:		Nova-Roma Yahoo! Group
Title:		After every Kalends, Nones, Ides, the next day is "Ater"
Date:		Friday April 2, 2010
Time:		All Day
Repeats:		This event repeats every month.
Notes:		Ater (unlucky) *Gods or Goddesses should not be invoked by name while indoors, and no celestial God or Goddess should be invoked by name while outdoors. *Sacrifices should not be made. *These days are ill-omened to begin any new project since any new project would necessarily begin by performing a rite calling for the assistance of the gods. Such religious rites, beginning something new, are not to be performed. *Avoid making journeys, or doing anything risky. NOTA BENE: Normal work would still be performed on dies atri, and as part of performing any work one performs rites for the patron deities, geni locii, and other appropriate deities. Likewise, the daily routine is also performed before the lararium
Get reminders on your mobile, Yahoo! Messenger, and email. Edit reminder options

Copyright © 2010  Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

Lentulus omnibus sal.

We can see that from both points of view, there is a consensus that this proposal about changing the constitution is immature (i.e. not ready for vote): more work is needed, more debate, more consultation.

Palladius' suggestion is almost OK, I could accept it as a compromise.

But more work on these proposals is needed.


Valete!

Lentulus















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

Caesar sal.

Clearly it is becoming infectious to believe that just because we say something we can make it come true. I don't believe there is a consensus on this claim. Simply typing it won't necessarily make it so. The consul's lex is perfectly fine as it is and until he withdraws this proposed lex, then it is still up for a vote and if so, I encourage everyone to vote in support of it (as for the other items I will post on them later).

Optime valete



----- Original Message ----
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus <cn_corn_lent@...>
To: NovaRomaComitiaCenturiata@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Nova Roma ML <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 3:54:48 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Immature proposal, more time is needed

Lentulus omnibus sal.

We can see that from both points of view, there is a consensus that this proposal about changing the constitution is immature (i.e. not ready for vote): more work is needed, more debate, more consultation.

Livia Maiori sal.

Yes, a republican toga is more or less 5 metres long. In can be longer or
shorter for extremely fat or extremely short people, but 5 metres will fit
most sizes.

I know we've had this discussion before, but women wore pallae not togae. We
don't know what the very ancient "togae" women supposedly wore looked like.
Maybe they were just rectangular, like later pallae/pallii, and only later
the shape diversified ad men adopted the rounded corners design.
For a woman the palla is Roman. Even if I was a man I wouldn't want to wear
a toga. I'm not one for formal dress: the toga is the equivalent of a suit
for a contamporary man.

Black sheep are not a separate breed. Every herd has the proverbial, well
... black sheep! No sheep in your area? If there are any, just look for the
black sheep.

Optime vale,
Livia

----- Original Message -----
From: "rory12001" <rory12001@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 2:29 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Color Red: Tunica and Toga


Maior Liviae spd;
yes, that's my height. I see. then a Republican toga no matter what
your size is 5 meters of fabric.
Heh, I want to wear a toga, it's a huge signifier of Rome, all it
stands for. Our history, institutions, religio, virtues...It's so Roman!

In ancient times women were togas and in the Republic young girls wore
them. In fact there is some scholarly discussion in regard to married
adulterous women who supposedly wore the toga that this signified they were
not under anyone's tutelage...

Do you know the name of the breed(s) of Italian sheep? Maybe I can get a
picture so I can see the color. Par of me wishes I knew or had a loom, that
would be pretty great to weave one.
thanks for your expertise amica!
vale
Maior


> Why do you hate the pallium (in your case it's a palla anyway)?
> I think you miscalculated your size, if you mean that's your height.
> For a republican toga you need 5 metres of standard height fabric (150
> cm),
> for an imperial one 10 metres. But the good news is that you don't need a
> toga, since you are a woman.
>
> So for a palla 4,5 metres of fabric are usually enough.
>
> Nobody knows exactly what the hue of the toga pulla was. We based on the
> one
> seen on Cato in the HBO series "Rome". That one looked plausible, as it
> was
> the colour of natural wool from a black sheep.
>
> Optime vale,
> Livia
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "rory12001" <rory12001@>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 12:09 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Color Red: Tunica and Toga
>
>
> M. Hortensiaa L.Liviae spd;
> eh apologies Livia amica, I thought you were over at couch-surfing forum.
> You know your clothing & dyes and the entire business.
>
> So nowplease help me with your expertise!. I have a pallium which I
> hate,
> but given my size 152 centimeters I don't know how much cloth I need for a
> toga...also can you give me a clue about the range of dark brown for the
> toga pulla as Pythagoreans wore one in the Republic & I've always wanted
> to
> wear one.
> optime vale
> Maior
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@>
> wrote:
> >
> > L. Livia Plauta L. Iuliae Aquilae S.P.D.
> >
> > According to all my research any colour is acceptable for tunics,
> > including
> > red as long as it's not purpura. Red obtained from other dyes like
> > cynaber,
> > kermes, madder is acceptable. Just the one obtained from the little
> > murex
> > is
> > not, or anything resembling that hue.
> >
> > This for the tunics. Togas, however, were always white, except for togae
> > pullae, which were dark brown and used only in mourning.
> >
> > A red toga was, ehm, the prerogative of (female) prostitutes in the
> > republican period, so it's not a good idea for your grandson to wear
> > one.
> >
> > But while a toga was formal wear, and very codified, a pallium, the
> > informal
> > overgarment most often worn by men, could be any colour (again, with the
> > exception of purple).
> >
> > I'm always suspicious of what people call "toga". If your grandson's
> > garment
> > is a rectangular piece of cloth, shorter than 5 metres, and it doesn't
> > have
> > rounded corners, then it's safe to call it a pallium, and it has nothing
> > to
> > do with a toga.
> >
> > In that case your young grandson would be wearing a fashionable
> > "synthesis"
> > a combination of tunica and pallium of the same colour, which was
> > usually
> > worn at banquets.
> >
> > The draping is also relevant: for a pallium disregard all the
> > instructions
> > on our wiki on how to drape a toga. A pallium can be draped very easily:
> > in
> > this photo
> > http://floralia2009.ap-claudia-alba.fotoalbum.hu/viewpicture/pictureid/6819424
> > you can see A. Apollonius Cordus wearing a Pallium. Actually he didn't
> > have
> > much practice: the fabric end you can see down at his elbow should have
> > draped evenly from his left shoulder down to the left arm. He could also
> > have worn it over his right arm too, if it hadn't been so hot that day.
> >
> > Optime vale,
> > Livia
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "luciaiuliaaquila" <dis_pensible@>
> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 10:37 PM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] The Color Red: Tunica and Toga
> >
> >
> > L. Iulia Aquila A. Tulliae Scholasticae L. Liviae Plautae amicae et
> > amici
> > omnnibusque S.P.D.
> >
> > Some of you already know that my grandson Marcus Iulius Aquila, who
> > turned
> > 18 the end of January, passed his exam and is now a full citizen of the
> > Nova
> > Roma!
> >
> > He has chosen some photos to post, they include last year's prom photo
> > in
> > a
> > black tux, photos in a toga virilis and his favorite - and the reason
> > for
> > this post - a red tunica and toga - which is his first choice to post in
> > the
> > Album Civium.
> >
> > I am asking the forum for feedback regarding this to help with this
> > decision.
> > I have seen red tunica on both females and males (in various media),
> > also
> > on
> > Sacerdotes - not that I am certain one way or another of their
> > authenticity.
> > And recently Drusus posted a video of a Conferratio (which I have seen
> > before) where Red garments are worn:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/74692
> > Thank you in advance for any feedback~
> >
> > Curate ut valeatis optime,
> >
> > Julia
> >
>

Salve Caesar,
yes, and this needs to be repeated as frequently as possible.
Ceterum censeo ...

If and when NR becomes a sovereign nation, we'll definitely be able to
change the constitution again. Until then, better have a wording that
reflects reality and not wishful thinking.

Optime vale,
Livia

>Caesar sal.

>Clearly it is becoming infectious to believe that just because we say
>something we can >make it come true. I don't believe there is a consensus
>on this claim. Simply typing it won't >necessarily make it so. The consul's
>lex is perfectly fine as it is and until he withdraws this >proposed lex,
>then it is still up for a vote and if so, I encourage everyone to vote in
>support >of it (as for the other items I will post on them later).

>Optime valete

Maior Liviae spd;
in the Republic girls wore the toga praetexta until marriage. They would dedicate their togas to Fortuna in the temple of Fortuna Virginalis in the Forum Boarum. Arnobius Adversus nationes 2.67 Sebesta in World of Roman Costume notes that adulterous women wore the plain toga. Cic. Phillipics I.18. 44, Juvenal 2.68, Martial 2.39, 10.52

But for sure it is a personal matter & I appreciate your help, I just thought 5 meters of fabric would swamp me, but I want to be civis togata;-) And yes there are sheep about I'll take a look.
vale
Maior


there are sheep about, I definitely need to look.

>
> Yes, a republican toga is more or less 5 metres long. In can be longer or
> shorter for extremely fat or extremely short people, but 5 metres will fit
> most sizes.
>
> I know we've had this discussion before, but women wore pallae not togae. We
> don't know what the very ancient "togae" women supposedly wore looked like.
> Maybe they were just rectangular, like later pallae/pallii, and only later
> the shape diversified ad men adopted the rounded corners design.
> For a woman the palla is Roman. Even if I was a man I wouldn't want to wear
> a toga. I'm not one for formal dress: the toga is the equivalent of a suit
> for a contamporary man.
>
> Black sheep are not a separate breed. Every herd has the proverbial, well
> ... black sheep! No sheep in your area? If there are any, just look for the
> black sheep.
>
> Optime vale,
> Livia
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "rory12001" <rory12001@>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 2:29 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Color Red: Tunica and Toga
>
>
> Maior Liviae spd;
> yes, that's my height. I see. then a Republican toga no matter what
> your size is 5 meters of fabric.
> Heh, I want to wear a toga, it's a huge signifier of Rome, all it
> stands for. Our history, institutions, religio, virtues...It's so Roman!
>
> In ancient times women were togas and in the Republic young girls wore
> them. In fact there is some scholarly discussion in regard to married
> adulterous women who supposedly wore the toga that this signified they were
> not under anyone's tutelage...
>
> Do you know the name of the breed(s) of Italian sheep? Maybe I can get a
> picture so I can see the color. Par of me wishes I knew or had a loom, that
> would be pretty great to weave one.
> thanks for your expertise amica!
> vale
> Maior
>
>
> > Why do you hate the pallium (in your case it's a palla anyway)?
> > I think you miscalculated your size, if you mean that's your height.
> > For a republican toga you need 5 metres of standard height fabric (150
> > cm),
> > for an imperial one 10 metres. But the good news is that you don't need a
> > toga, since you are a woman.
> >
> > So for a palla 4,5 metres of fabric are usually enough.
> >
> > Nobody knows exactly what the hue of the toga pulla was. We based on the
> > one
> > seen on Cato in the HBO series "Rome". That one looked plausible, as it
> > was
> > the colour of natural wool from a black sheep.
> >
> > Optime vale,
> > Livia
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "rory12001" <rory12001@>
> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 12:09 AM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Color Red: Tunica and Toga
> >
> >
> > M. Hortensiaa L.Liviae spd;
> > eh apologies Livia amica, I thought you were over at couch-surfing forum.
> > You know your clothing & dyes and the entire business.
> >
> > So nowplease help me with your expertise!. I have a pallium which I
> > hate,
> > but given my size 152 centimeters I don't know how much cloth I need for a
> > toga...also can you give me a clue about the range of dark brown for the
> > toga pulla as Pythagoreans wore one in the Republic & I've always wanted
> > to
> > wear one.
> > optime vale
> > Maior
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > L. Livia Plauta L. Iuliae Aquilae S.P.D.
> > >
> > > According to all my research any colour is acceptable for tunics,
> > > including
> > > red as long as it's not purpura. Red obtained from other dyes like
> > > cynaber,
> > > kermes, madder is acceptable. Just the one obtained from the little
> > > murex
> > > is
> > > not, or anything resembling that hue.
> > >
> > > This for the tunics. Togas, however, were always white, except for togae
> > > pullae, which were dark brown and used only in mourning.
> > >
> > > A red toga was, ehm, the prerogative of (female) prostitutes in the
> > > republican period, so it's not a good idea for your grandson to wear
> > > one.
> > >
> > > But while a toga was formal wear, and very codified, a pallium, the
> > > informal
> > > overgarment most often worn by men, could be any colour (again, with the
> > > exception of purple).
> > >
> > > I'm always suspicious of what people call "toga". If your grandson's
> > > garment
> > > is a rectangular piece of cloth, shorter than 5 metres, and it doesn't
> > > have
> > > rounded corners, then it's safe to call it a pallium, and it has nothing
> > > to
> > > do with a toga.
> > >
> > > In that case your young grandson would be wearing a fashionable
> > > "synthesis"
> > > a combination of tunica and pallium of the same colour, which was
> > > usually
> > > worn at banquets.
> > >
> > > The draping is also relevant: for a pallium disregard all the
> > > instructions
> > > on our wiki on how to drape a toga. A pallium can be draped very easily:
> > > in
> > > this photo
> > > http://floralia2009.ap-claudia-alba.fotoalbum.hu/viewpicture/pictureid/6819424
> > > you can see A. Apollonius Cordus wearing a Pallium. Actually he didn't
> > > have
> > > much practice: the fabric end you can see down at his elbow should have
> > > draped evenly from his left shoulder down to the left arm. He could also
> > > have worn it over his right arm too, if it hadn't been so hot that day.
> > >
> > > Optime vale,
> > > Livia
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "luciaiuliaaquila" <dis_pensible@>
> > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 10:37 PM
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] The Color Red: Tunica and Toga
> > >
> > >
> > > L. Iulia Aquila A. Tulliae Scholasticae L. Liviae Plautae amicae et
> > > amici
> > > omnnibusque S.P.D.
> > >
> > > Some of you already know that my grandson Marcus Iulius Aquila, who
> > > turned
> > > 18 the end of January, passed his exam and is now a full citizen of the
> > > Nova
> > > Roma!
> > >
> > > He has chosen some photos to post, they include last year's prom photo
> > > in
> > > a
> > > black tux, photos in a toga virilis and his favorite - and the reason
> > > for
> > > this post - a red tunica and toga - which is his first choice to post in
> > > the
> > > Album Civium.
> > >
> > > I am asking the forum for feedback regarding this to help with this
> > > decision.
> > > I have seen red tunica on both females and males (in various media),
> > > also
> > > on
> > > Sacerdotes - not that I am certain one way or another of their
> > > authenticity.
> > > And recently Drusus posted a video of a Conferratio (which I have seen
> > > before) where Red garments are worn:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/74692
> > > Thank you in advance for any feedback~
> > >
> > > Curate ut valeatis optime,
> > >
> > > Julia
> > >
> >
>

Salve Livia

Indeed. I agree totally. I prefer no mention as my first choice, but if the consul were to entertain a revision then I would argue strongly for my suggested amendment.

My rationale for my suggestion was that using the term diaspora, while not emotionally as charged and appealing to some as 'nation", is never the less an accurate reflection of how we are scattered across the globe. Equally looking to the example of Israel that Maior raised, the Jews were intiailly solely a diaspora, but now have a homeland. At the point, if ever, that we achieve that goal is the time as you so correctly say to revisit our constitution and make the necessary changes.

Practically there is no benefit to putting the cart before the horse. Were we ever to attain that goal we would have to look at what the circumstances of our "nation" were, before even deciding on what to write. Would we be a nation in name only or a nation with land? If land, how much land and where? So many questions exist in the unknown that to address them now is wishful thinking as you say, and most likely whatever we would pen now would be hopelessly off the mark and we would have to re do it anyway.

So - first choice remains nothing, second choice (if the consul amends the proposed lex) a statement as I suggested reflecting our existence as a diaspora - and at best a nation of mind and spirit with the very precise disclaimers I included to ensure absolutely no misunderstanding.

Vale bene
Caesar



----- Original Message ----
From: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...>
To: NovaRomaComitiaCenturiata@yahoogroups.com; Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 4:46:23 PM
Subject: Re: [NovaRomaComitiaCenturiata] Re: [Nova-Roma] Immature proposal, more time is needed

Salve Caesar,
yes, and this needs to be repeated as frequently as possible.
Ceterum censeo ...

If and when NR becomes a sovereign nation, we'll definitely be able to
change the constitution again. Until then, better have a wording that
reflects reality and not wishful thinking.

Optime vale,
Livia

Cn Iulius Caesar SPD.

And here is the very real consequence of wildly optimistic statements about nationhood etc. Any citizen of the countries quoted below could very well potentially be charged under their respective criminal codes. There are many countries in the world where this sort of wording isn't just winked at as the work of a bunch of eccentrics and harmless kooks. Instead it could be viewed very seriously. So in our wilful drive to pursue unattainable goals these citizens put themselves at risk by their association with Nova Roma. That is unacceptable.

This phrase must be removed, whether it is removed in its totality or reworded to provide citizens with an adequate explanation for police and prosecutors. Some countries take this sort of thing very seriously, and could jump quickly to associate this statement with insurrection or seccession. Not all countries enjoy rights of appeal or a criminal justice system that fully protects the rights of individuals. in some countries the rights of the state squash the rights of citizens, flatter than a pancake. Some countries - Russia especially are suffering the effects of terrorist movements dedicated to the same sort of goals that we are discussing here. In this highly charged sort of atmosphere police and prosecutors in thsoe countries may only read these words, and ignore the claims of renunciation of violence, and reach the totally wrong conclusion, but an understandle one given local conditions.

It is would be the height of selfish indulgent disregard for our fellow citizens not to take remedial action to protect them. This the consul's proposed lex does, and if it comes to an amendment I hope that would too.

Optime valete.

----- Original Message ----
From: "usievalad@..." <usievalad@...>
To: NovaRomaComitiaCenturiata@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 4:43:40 PM
Subject: [NovaRomaComitiaCenturiata] Re: 5th Law : de novo proemio constitutionis (New Constitution Preamble)

Salvete!

When I read the present constitution, these two words "nation" and "sovereignty" drawn my attention.

Our province Sarmatia consists of three countries, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, each of these countries has own legal space. Any of these countries does`t recognise any other sovereignty in own territory. In Russia, statement and active upholding non russian sovereignty - actually the criminal offence; organisation establishment which declares the sovereignty and defends it - it is  organisation of extremist community, i.e. a criminal offence. In Belarus the situation is even worse.

Even the status of nation in these countries is different legal categories. In Russia the status of nation actually is not settled by the law. But in Ukraine and Belarus the nation status should be confirmed by state structures.

The present formulation seriously contradicts national legislation, so we can`t deal with government bodies. With this  formulation it is very difficult to register our province, as public organisation. From the point of view of the governments of Ukraine, Russia, Belarus it is criminal offence.

So I am sincerely glad that we discuss this theme.