Excuse me, but since when are Vestals "irrelevant"? They are a very necessary part of making the dream come true! You can't have a new Rome without them.
You really are hung up on that UN observer thing. So we're not doing that one thing right now. So what? Lots more is being done and has been done. You need to take a fresh look. Your cynicism is getting the better of you. Patience. All in good time.
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina 
 
 

--- On Sun, 4/4/10, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:


From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The lex de novo proemio constitutionis (New Constitution Preamble)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 9:27 AM


 



Caesar Messallinae sal.

Interesting, but utterly irrelevant to taking practical steps to making the "dream" a reality. Where for example is the plan to achieve recognized nation status, or even observer status, at the UN? Got one have we? Or is it just doing the same old things year after year and claiming that this is progress? Oh now I forgot, we say it exists now and if we all join hands in a big circle and chant the mantra "we are a sovereign independent nation" enough times we can make our nation appear in a puff of smoke. Or maybe some people like playing dress up and take enough intoxicants that they believe they are in the New Rome? No action, no progress.

The plan is "pass the bong"?

Optime vale

From: Maxima Valeria Messallina
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 10:21 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The lex de novo proemio constitutionis (New Constitution Preamble)

Well, without Vestals, there is no Roma and I have not only put my own plan of action into being, I've also put my money into it by the hundreds. In speaking with other Citizens, they are doing their own part according to their own talents. Did you see Lentulus' video on March 1st? That was wonderful. This is all nation-building - one baby step at a time. We'll get there someday. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither will Nova Roma.

Maxima Valeria Messallina




--- On Sun, 4/4/10, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@ yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The lex de novo proemio constitutionis (New Constitution Preamble)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 9:08 AM

Caesar Messallinae sal.

Again, more vagueness. What part? What plan? You know there is NO plan. There never was, just a shopping list from Cassius to by apple seed. No one even saved the money to buy the seed. see my other post for you comparison with the Founding Fathers.

It is all smoke and mirrors, no practical efforts to advance nationhood. Just thousands of words, vague phrases and generalities.

Optime vale

From: Maxima Valeria Messallina
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 9:59 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The lex de novo proemio constitutionis (New Constitution Preamble)

That's your opinion. Others would say they have done everything they are able to at this time. Certainly, I have. I have worked very hard to bring forth a new College of Vestals and to understand what they did and how to implement this into the modern world. Such a huge enterprise like Nova Roma takes time. We have lots of very dedicated persons here and everyone is trying to do their part and make use of their own talents and gifts for the benefit of Nova Roma. You want it all right this second. Patience. What if the Founding Fathers of America had wanted a complete Nation by July 5, 1776? America would not exist today. Patience is a virtue. Things take time and the bigger the goal, the more time it takes.

Maxima Valeria Messallina

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

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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

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











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

M. Hortensia Maior L. Julia Aquila;
Recte fecit!

Julia Aquila this is truly well done. You are a great example of Romanitas.
vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@...> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:20 PM, luciaiuliaaquila
> <dis_pensible@...>wrote:
>
> > L. Iulia Aquila Quiritibus S.P.D.
> >
> > I, L. Iulia Aquila, will NOT accept the "appointment" of Curule Aedile.
> >
> > Vox populi, vox Rei Publicae!
> >
>
> You and I have not always been on the same side but I truly respect your
> decision and your actions in this matter.
>
> Thank you
> Flavia Lucilla Merula
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Uh, you are obviously not aware of what Citizens have been doing in the real world at their own expense? I am a real Vestal, I perform twice daily rituals to Vesta on behalf of Nova Roma and there are other good people who are devoted to the Gods of Rome doing their rituals and posting about them, too. That's a necessary first step. There are a lot of good Citizens doing all sorts of real life things that further Nova Roma along in the real world. You're way too impatient. You want the whole kit and caboodle right now and because you don't get it right this very second, therefore you declare it will never be. Well, not with that kind of attitude.
Fortunately for Nova Roma, the rest of us are not so negative. And being negative is not being practical. The two are not one and the same.
Ok, you feel better now?
Now I need to get to work. 
Vale!
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina
 
 

--- On Sun, 4/4/10, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:


From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma the Nation
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 9:48 AM


 



Caesar Messallinae sal.

No baby was born but regardless both parents announced to the world that it had been born. What was created was an online group, a web page and some e-lists. Delusional statements we are something we are clearly not inhibits progress and keeps us stuck in fantasy land.

No nation, then, no nation now, no nation in the future, because nothing practical to achieve the goal was done, is being done, will be done. No plan, no action, just a large narcotic cloud wrapped around the heads of the adherents of this phrase, and choking out all possibility of grounding Nova Roma in reality.

Support the consul. Vote YES.

Optime vale

From: Maxima Valeria Messallina
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 10:40 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma the Nation

The Baby was born 12 years ago or you and I would not be here right now having this discussion. I have been saying over and over again that NR is in her infancy. You really need to pay attention if you're going to go 10 rounds with me.

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











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

Caesar Messallinae sal.

I don't think patience was the word you are looking for, but prevarication. Nova Roma excels at that. We have been prevaricating and deluding ourselves for 12 years we are a nation. The UN example was one of the most practical steps the adherents of this fantasy could take to achieving recognition of this supposed "fact" of our nationhood. Vestals alone will not achieve nation status, unless it us just in our own minds. That is normally classified as a hallucination.

Optime vale



From: Maxima Valeria Messallina
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 10:59 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The lex de novo proemio constitutionis (New Constitution Preamble)


Excuse me, but since when are Vestals "irrelevant"? They are a very necessary part of making the dream come true! You can't have a new Rome without them.


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

Salve Consul et Amice!

I read my mails _many_ times aday. I _never_ got this mail. And You
still gave me another reason in your last mail when You concluded the
discussion. I think You had already decided.

By the way what did Vedius say?

*******

4 apr 2010 kl. 18.53 skrev Publius Memmius Albucius:

Collegae omnibusque s.d.

I am sorry that you bring me underlining that either your mailing box
does not work or that you do not open it regularly: here is the
message that I sent to you on 04:05 Rome time.

The reason why I renounced presenting the amended version that we
worked on is, here also, specified in the letter below: Vedius'
correct remark expressed in the CC forum.


(For every one's info, Pius handles the Voting cista.)





Valete omnes,


Albucius cos.

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

De :Publius Memmius Albucius (albucius_aoe@...)
Envoyé :dim. 04/04/10 04:05
À :Titus Pius Octavius (from@...)
Cc :Caeso Fabius Quintilianus (christer.edling@...)
Pio Quintilianoque s.d.

PIUS : Do not take in account my message below: i just saw that one of
the opponents to the preamble draft evoked "the rights" (of the
citizens) to have another discussion from the moment a new text is
presented. On the matter, they are right.

[..]

So we change nothing, and vote on the initial version.

QUINTILIANUS : I am sorry for this time we spent together working on
this last amended version. But I know that you will understand that,
while I was open to include any reasonable amendment occurred during
the contio, Vedius message in Centuriata forum let me see that the
risk exists. The consulate has no vocation to offer his opponents both
cheeks to be hit at the same time.

Let us the vote decides. Sry again.


Valete ambo,


Albucius cos.


*****************
Vale

Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

Consul Iterum
Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
Civis Romanus sum
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
************************************************
Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae






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

M. Hortensia quiritibus spd;

Please read the definition below. Posting someone is mentally ill, a drug addict, an alcoholic, having a transmittable sexual disease, untrustworthy etc can make you open to a suit of libel.

In the U.S. an attorney will take your case for free & get paid 1/3 if you win. So it is very easy to sue. And people do - frequently.

Please think before you post. Free speech means the responsibility rests upon the individual.

Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium

Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.

Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:

Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude


This is the 1st day of the Megalesia, the feria devoted to the Mother of the gods, let's respect this and all of us enjoy it.
M. Hortensia Maior
Praetrix

Salve Prator Maior



You said in part that "He ( ie Caesar ) and Cato want to disestablish the state cultus deorum"

This is also libel unless you can prove it. Can you?



Vale



Ti. Galerius Paulinus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: rory12001@...
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 17:28:41 +0000
Subject: [Nova-Roma] From the Praetrix - the legal definition of defamation & Libel





M. Hortensia quiritibus spd;

Please read the definition below. Posting someone is mentally ill, a drug addict, an alcoholic, having a transmittable sexual disease, untrustworthy etc can make you open to a suit of libel.

In the U.S. an attorney will take your case for free & get paid 1/3 if you win. So it is very easy to sue. And people do - frequently.

Please think before you post. Free speech means the responsibility rests upon the individual.

Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium

Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.

Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:

Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude

This is the 1st day of the Megalesia, the feria devoted to the Mother of the gods, let's respect this and all of us enjoy it.
M. Hortensia Maior
Praetrix






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

Caesar Maiori sal.

Libel? Best you take your own advice then "Please think before you post". That would be novel.

Optime vale



From: rory12001
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 11:28 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] From the Praetrix - the legal definition of defamation & Libel


M. Hortensia quiritibus spd;

Please read the definition below. Posting someone is mentally ill, a drug addict, an alcoholic, having a transmittable sexual disease, untrustworthy etc can make you open to a suit of libel.



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

Collegae s.d.

>I _never_ got this mail.

In this case, you should check the technical settings of your mailbox. This is not the first time, if I well remember. It may happen everybody, but pls check them. In the best situation, you have technical problems.

>By the way what did Vedius say?

Lol... in addition, you would like that I also report for you what our cives say in the Comitia forum?!!

Please consult the CC forum.



(I have stopped the cc'ing to NR Centuriata: let us the vote process quietly pls).





Vale,





Albucius cos.











CC: NovaRomaComitiaCenturiata@yahoogroups.com; nr_senaculum@yahoogroups.com
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: christer.edling@...
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 19:23:29 +0200
Subject: [NR_Senaculum] Re: New to me - as for your mailbox? ;-)





Salve Consul et Amice!


I read my mails _many_ times aday. I _never_ got this mail. And You still gave me another reason in your last mail when You concluded the discussion. I think You had already decided.


By the way what did Vedius say?


*******



4 apr 2010 kl. 18.53 skrev Publius Memmius Albucius:
Collegae omnibusque s.d.

I am sorry that you bring me underlining that either your mailing box does not work or that you do not open it regularly: here is the message that I sent to you on 04:05 Rome time.

The reason why I renounced presenting the amended version that we worked on is, here also, specified in the letter below: Vedius' correct remark expressed in the CC forum.


(For every one's info, Pius handles the Voting cista.)







Valete omnes,


Albucius cos.

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

De :Publius Memmius Albucius (albucius_aoe@...)
Envoy� :dim. 04/04/10 04:05
� :Titus Pius Octavius (from@...)
Cc :Caeso Fabius Quintilianus (christer.edling@...)
Pio Quintilianoque s.d.

PIUS : Do not take in account my message below: i just saw that one of the opponents to the preamble draft evoked "the rights" (of the citizens) to have another discussion from the moment a new text is presented. On the matter, they are right.

[..]

So we change nothing, and vote on the initial version.

QUINTILIANUS : I am sorry for this time we spent together working on this last amended version. But I know that you will understand that, while I was open to include any reasonable amendment occurred during the contio, Vedius message in Centuriata forum let me see that the risk exists. The consulate has no vocation to offer his opponents both cheeks to be hit at the same time.

Let us the vote decides. Sry again.


Valete ambo,


Albucius cos.













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



Vale


Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus


Consul Iterum
Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
Civis Romanus sum
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
************************************************
Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae









_________________________________________________________________
Consultez gratuitement vos emails Orange, Gmail, Free, ... directement dans HOTMAIL !
http://www.windowslive.fr/hotmail/agregation/

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

Salve,

I pointed out that changing the text of the proposed changes to the
Constitution would only leave us with four hours to discuss them before
the vote began. I then suggested that, given the import of the changes,
the vote should be postponed and a new contio begun, to discuss the
changed language. See message 75048 in the list archives.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus

Christer Edling wrote:

> Salve Consul et Amice!
>
> I read my mails _many_ times aday. I _never_ got this mail. And You
> still gave me another reason in your last mail when You concluded the
> discussion. I think You had already decided.
>
> By the way what did Vedius say?
>
> *******
>
> 4 apr 2010 kl. 18.53 skrev Publius Memmius Albucius:
>
> Collegae omnibusque s.d.
>
> I am sorry that you bring me underlining that either your mailing box
> does not work or that you do not open it regularly: here is the
> message that I sent to you on 04:05 Rome time.
>
> The reason why I renounced presenting the amended version that we
> worked on is, here also, specified in the letter below: Vedius'
> correct remark expressed in the CC forum.
>
>
> (For every one's info, Pius handles the Voting cista.)
>
>
>
>
>
> Valete omnes,
>
>
> Albucius cos.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> De :Publius Memmius Albucius (albucius_aoe@...)
> Envoyé :dim. 04/04/10 04:05
> À :Titus Pius Octavius (from@...)
> Cc :Caeso Fabius Quintilianus (christer.edling@...)
> Pio Quintilianoque s.d.
>
> PIUS : Do not take in account my message below: i just saw that one of
> the opponents to the preamble draft evoked "the rights" (of the
> citizens) to have another discussion from the moment a new text is
> presented. On the matter, they are right.
>
> [..]
>
> So we change nothing, and vote on the initial version.
>
> QUINTILIANUS : I am sorry for this time we spent together working on
> this last amended version. But I know that you will understand that,
> while I was open to include any reasonable amendment occurred during
> the contio, Vedius message in Centuriata forum let me see that the
> risk exists. The consulate has no vocation to offer his opponents both
> cheeks to be hit at the same time.
>
> Let us the vote decides. Sry again.
>
>
> Valete ambo,
>
>
> Albucius cos.
>
>
> *****************
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
>
> Consul Iterum
> Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
> Civis Romanus sum
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
> ************************************************
> Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
> Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Salve,

I pointed out that changing the text of the proposed changes to the
Constitution would only leave us with four hours to discuss them before
the vote began. I then suggested that, given the import of the changes,
the vote should be postponed and a new contio begun, to discuss the
changed language. See message 75048 in the list archives.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus

Christer Edling wrote:

> Salve Consul et Amice!
>
> I read my mails _many_ times aday. I _never_ got this mail. And You
> still gave me another reason in your last mail when You concluded the
> discussion. I think You had already decided.
>
> By the way what did Vedius say?
>
> *******
>
> 4 apr 2010 kl. 18.53 skrev Publius Memmius Albucius:
>
> Collegae omnibusque s.d.
>
> I am sorry that you bring me underlining that either your mailing box
> does not work or that you do not open it regularly: here is the
> message that I sent to you on 04:05 Rome time.
>
> The reason why I renounced presenting the amended version that we
> worked on is, here also, specified in the letter below: Vedius'
> correct remark expressed in the CC forum.
>
>
> (For every one's info, Pius handles the Voting cista.)
>
>
>
>
>
> Valete omnes,
>
>
> Albucius cos.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> De :Publius Memmius Albucius (albucius_aoe@...)
> Envoyé :dim. 04/04/10 04:05
> À :Titus Pius Octavius (from@...)
> Cc :Caeso Fabius Quintilianus (christer.edling@...)
> Pio Quintilianoque s.d.
>
> PIUS : Do not take in account my message below: i just saw that one of
> the opponents to the preamble draft evoked "the rights" (of the
> citizens) to have another discussion from the moment a new text is
> presented. On the matter, they are right.
>
> [..]
>
> So we change nothing, and vote on the initial version.
>
> QUINTILIANUS : I am sorry for this time we spent together working on
> this last amended version. But I know that you will understand that,
> while I was open to include any reasonable amendment occurred during
> the contio, Vedius message in Centuriata forum let me see that the
> risk exists. The consulate has no vocation to offer his opponents both
> cheeks to be hit at the same time.
>
> Let us the vote decides. Sry again.
>
>
> Valete ambo,
>
>
> Albucius cos.
>
>
> *****************
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
>
> Consul Iterum
> Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
> Civis Romanus sum
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
> ************************************************
> Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
> Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Salve Pauline;

Today is the Megalesia in honor of the Great Mother of the gods, I am now going out and enjoying myself.

I would hope that your holiday in conjunction with one of the most important feria to the Great Mother will allow Nova Romans some kind of enjoyment.
vale
Maior

Ask E. Iunia Laeca since you seem not to understand the legalalities.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salve Prator Maior
>
>
>
> You said in part that "He ( ie Caesar ) and Cato want to disestablish the state cultus deorum"
>
> This is also libel unless you can prove it. Can you?
>
>
>
> Vale
>
>
>
> Ti. Galerius Paulinus
>
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> From: rory12001@...
> Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 17:28:41 +0000
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] From the Praetrix - the legal definition of defamation & Libel
>
>
>
>
>
> M. Hortensia quiritibus spd;
>
> Please read the definition below. Posting someone is mentally ill, a drug addict, an alcoholic, having a transmittable sexual disease, untrustworthy etc can make you open to a suit of libel.
>
> In the U.S. an attorney will take your case for free & get paid 1/3 if you win. So it is very easy to sue. And people do - frequently.
>
> Please think before you post. Free speech means the responsibility rests upon the individual.
>
> Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium
>
> Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.
>
> Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:
>
> Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
> Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
> Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
> Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude
>
> This is the 1st day of the Megalesia, the feria devoted to the Mother of the gods, let's respect this and all of us enjoy it.
> M. Hortensia Maior
> Praetrix
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salve Aquila;

Brava!!!

Principle before expeniency, gratias tibi ago, an example of true Romanitas.

in amicitia - Venator


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

Speaking of mental health, Caesar, you really need a vacation. Too much winter dreariness. Go somewhere nice and sunny. How about Florida? Take Cato with you. You two really need a good rest and then you will feel so much better and less negative and you can come back to the challenges of Nation building all refreshed and ready to go!
Since today is Easter, how about you grabs yourself a box of yellow Peeps? They're a buck a box at Target. In these tough economical times, can't beat the price! (Well, actually you could if they gave them away for half price and they probably will tomorrow if you can wait that long.) 
In any case, you can keep sending me your concerns and I will keep trying to help you all I can. Feel better now? Ok!
Now it's back to work for me.
 
Vale bene,
Maxima Valeria Messallina
 
 

--- On Sun, 4/4/10, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:


From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The lex de novo proemio constitutionis (New Constitution Preamble)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 10:11 AM


 



Caesar Messallinae sal.

I don't think patience was the word you are looking for, but prevarication. Nova Roma excels at that. We have been prevaricating and deluding ourselves for 12 years we are a nation. The UN example was one of the most practical steps the adherents of this fantasy could take to achieving recognition of this supposed "fact" of our nationhood. Vestals alone will not achieve nation status, unless it us just in our own minds. That is normally classified as a hallucination.

Optime vale

From: Maxima Valeria Messallina
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 10:59 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The lex de novo proemio constitutionis (New Constitution Preamble)

Excuse me, but since when are Vestals "irrelevant" ? They are a very necessary part of making the dream come true! You can't have a new Rome without them.

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











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

Salve,

Such are the subtleties of the ars augorum. It is not a question of
seeing something odd and then running off believing that what you want
is what the Gods are telling you.

There are ways to confirm, and re-confirm interpretations of omens.

As for the rest, we shall see how the vote goes. I still maintain both
measures to change the constitution should be voted down, for the
reasons I have already stated.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus

L. Livia Plauta wrote:

> Salve Vedi,
> interpretation of omens is a two-edged weapon. Maybe the gods are trying to
> signal that we should get rid of the people who confuse reality with wishes,
> in order to have a basis for real progress.
> Optime vale,
> Livia
>
>
>
>> Salve Consul,
>>
>> Your course would then seem to be clear; cancel the vote completely, and
>> then restart it with the new language once the deis nefasti issue has
>> passed. Surely matters that have stood since the foundation of Nova Roma
>> will not suffer for the delay of another week or two...
>>
>> I confess to being quite concerned about these unfavorable omens that
>> have been reported (and I can personally attest to the fact that others
>> have gone unreported, as in my own case; I can only assume others have
>> seen the same sorts of omens that I have). Might I entreat you to shed
>> some more light on these? If it is a matter of consequence to the nation
>> as a whole, I would hope their revelation could be expedited.
>>
>> Vale,
>>
>> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
>>
>> Publius Memmius Albucius wrote:
>>
>>> Vedio P.P.
>>>
>>> I have initially wished proposing our People a final version,
>>> including a few amendments. This amended draft has been worked a few
>>> hours ago with my colleague, Hon. Fabius Buteo, that I thank once
>>> again for his availibility.
>>>
>>> Having now carefully read your intervention, that I took knowledge of
>>> after my annoucement of a modified publication, I must agree with you:
>>> legally, bringing a new version would require a new full contio on the
>>> same item.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, our following nefasti dies cannot allow the re-opening
>>> of a new contio, even on one item. I do not want to take this risk,
>>> after the defavorable signs recently evoked by the Pontifex Maximus in
>>> the Curia, and even if our Senate has not issued a position on them.
>>>
>>> As I also attach the utmost importance to the respect of our law, I
>>> will thus take in good consideration your advice, for which I thank
>>> you, and will maintain the current proposal, which our Quirites have
>>> discussed about.
>>>
>>> Vale Pater,
>>>
>>>
>>> P. Memmius Albucius
>>> consul
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>>> CC: novaromacomitiacenturiata@yahoogroups.com
>>> From: vedius@...
>>> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 22:09:51 -0400
>>> Subject: [NovaRomaComitiaCenturiata] Re: [Nova-Roma] Preamble item
>>>
>>>
>>> So we get a grand total of four hours to debate the final version of the
>>> language before the voting starts? After all the debate we have had on
>>> the old language? The subtle shading of a single word has enormous
>>> consequences.
>>>
>>> Please, Publius Memmius, surely even you must realize the unfairness and
>>> unjustness of this. Delay the vote and restart the contio.
>>>
>>> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
>>>
>>> Publius Memmius Albucius wrote:
>>>
>>>> Omnibus s.d.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A final version of the Preamble rogatio shall be published in this
>>>>
>>> list around noon Rome time this Sunday.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The cista will be modified in consequence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Valete omnes,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Albucius cos.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________________
>>>> Découvrez comment SURFER DISCRETEMENT sur un site de rencontres !
>>>> http://clk.atdmt.com/FRM/go/206608211/direct/01/
>>>>
>>> <http://clk.atdmt.com/FRM/go/206608211/direct/01/>
>>>
>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Acheter en ligne en toute sécurité ? Internet Explorer 8 vous protège
>>> gratuitement ! <http://clk.atdmt.com/FRM/go/206608211/direct/01/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Whoops! Sorry 'bout that. Not sure why this message got sent twice.

FVG

Vedius wrote:

> Salve,
>
> I pointed out that changing the text of the proposed changes to the
> Constitution would only leave us with four hours to discuss them before
> the vote began. I then suggested that, given the import of the changes,
> the vote should be postponed and a new contio begun, to discuss the
> changed language. See message 75048 in the list archives.
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
>
> Christer Edling wrote:
>
>> Salve Consul et Amice!
>>
>> I read my mails _many_ times aday. I _never_ got this mail. And You
>> still gave me another reason in your last mail when You concluded the
>> discussion. I think You had already decided.
>>
>> By the way what did Vedius say?
>>
>> *******
>>
>> 4 apr 2010 kl. 18.53 skrev Publius Memmius Albucius:
>>
>> Collegae omnibusque s.d.
>>
>> I am sorry that you bring me underlining that either your mailing box
>> does not work or that you do not open it regularly: here is the
>> message that I sent to you on 04:05 Rome time.
>>
>> The reason why I renounced presenting the amended version that we
>> worked on is, here also, specified in the letter below: Vedius'
>> correct remark expressed in the CC forum.
>>
>>
>> (For every one's info, Pius handles the Voting cista.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Valete omnes,
>>
>>
>> Albucius cos.
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>>
>> De :Publius Memmius Albucius (albucius_aoe@...)
>> Envoyé :dim. 04/04/10 04:05
>> À :Titus Pius Octavius (from@...)
>> Cc :Caeso Fabius Quintilianus (christer.edling@...)
>> Pio Quintilianoque s.d.
>>
>> PIUS : Do not take in account my message below: i just saw that one of
>> the opponents to the preamble draft evoked "the rights" (of the
>> citizens) to have another discussion from the moment a new text is
>> presented. On the matter, they are right.
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> So we change nothing, and vote on the initial version.
>>
>> QUINTILIANUS : I am sorry for this time we spent together working on
>> this last amended version. But I know that you will understand that,
>> while I was open to include any reasonable amendment occurred during
>> the contio, Vedius message in Centuriata forum let me see that the
>> risk exists. The consulate has no vocation to offer his opponents both
>> cheeks to be hit at the same time.
>>
>> Let us the vote decides. Sry again.
>>
>>
>> Valete ambo,
>>
>>
>> Albucius cos.
>>
>>
>> *****************
>> Vale
>>
>> Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
>>
>> Consul Iterum
>> Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
>> Civis Romanus sum
>> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
>> ************************************************
>> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
>> "I'll either find a way or make one"
>> ************************************************
>> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
>> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
>> ************************************************
>> Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
>> Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Caesar Messallinae sal.

I could take a vacation for 12 years and come back and find exactly the same situation - no progress and still the same vague statements and promises.

Optime vale



From: Maxima Valeria Messallina
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 12:06 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The lex de novo proemio constitutionis


Speaking of mental health, Caesar, you really need a vacation. Too much winter dreariness. Go somewhere nice and sunny. How about Florida? Take Cato with you. You two really need a good rest and then you will feel so much better and less negative and you can come back to the challenges of Nation building all refreshed and ready to go!


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

C. Maria Caeca M. Hortensiae Maori omnibusque sal,

sigh. I had *really* hoped not to have to post the following.

Praetrix: Your actions calumniate your office and bring shame to Nova Roma. Disagreeing with proposals or political positions expressed by any citizen is perfectly legitimate and acceptable. Vicious, personal attacks on a Consul (or anyone) is emphatically not, and by doing so, specifically in your series of posts early this morning, you have tarnished your own dignitas and that of your office.

In addition, considering those posts, and a multitude of others I have seen from you, over the past few years, a lecture from you on the meaning of defamation of character, etc. is ...mind boggling.

C. Maria Caeca



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

Kudos to you!
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina
 
 


<<--- On Sun, 4/4/10, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:

Salve Aquila;

Brava!!!

Principle before expeniency, gratias tibi ago, an example of true Romanitas.

in amicitia - Venator>>




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

Cato Messallinae sal.

Then you don't understand what a proxy is.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:
>
> What are you talking about, Cato? I've gone over the Senate vote (as part of my Tribune's duty) and Maior voted once and corrected her vote once. All the others were proxy votes she was delivering. There's a difference between casting a vote and delivering a proxy vote. She did not, herself, vote six times. That's all I am saying. As for whether she understood something, only she can say. But with regard to the number of times she voted, she did not vote six times. Period.
>  
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
>  
>  
>
>
> <<--- On Sun, 4/4/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Messallinae sal.
>
> What a sad attempt to wrap some sort of sense around Maior's actions. She voted six times; three times for the entire agenda and then three times SPECIFICALLY regarding the SCU - the very item she now claims she didn't understand.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> >
> > That is not true. Again, you twist the facts around to give an erroneous impression. Maior voted once, but because of the voting problems, which you might have noticed, she corrected her vote. The others were proxy votes.
> > You are always misrepresenting the facts. Like I said, it's old hat with you.
> >  
> > Maxima Valeria Messallina
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >
> > --- On Sun, 4/4/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Cato <catoinnyc@ ..>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The SCU
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 4:15 AM
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Cato Maiori sal.
> >
> > Actually, you voted SIX times - on two separate occasions: three times in favor of the SCU and then three times in favor of appointing Iulia Aquila if the SCU passed.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maior Liviae spd;
> > > you are right I blame no one but myself. And I was wrong. I should have researched the history of the SCU.
> > >
> > > But look we had the proposed lex changing the Preamble before us and I'm the only one who saw that by removing nation we'd be disestablishing the state cultus deorum.
> > >
> > > So no one is all-knowing, but we can admit our mistakes and learn from them.
> > > vale
> > > Maior
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Praetricum Equestria Iunia Laeca M. Hortensia Maioris salutem plurimam
dicunt

This is the start of the Megalesia, the ludi in honour of the Mother
of the gods, please respect your fellow citizens during these times of
celebration.

Valete.

Cato Iuliae aquilae sal.

I have the utmost respect for this action, Iulia Aquila, and though we often differ bitterly on issues, I am proud to count you among the citizens of our Respublica. *This* is dignitas.

Of course, I'm still going to run against you :)

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <dis_pensible@...> wrote:
>
> L. Iulia Aquila Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> I, L. Iulia Aquila, will NOT accept the "appointment" of Curule Aedile.
>
> Vox populi, vox Rei Publicae!
>
> I publicly hereby submit my candidacy for that of Aedile Curule to be decided through the process of election by the citizens of Nova Roma.
>
> Vivat Res Publica nostra prosperrime!
>
> L. Iulia Aquila
> Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus
>

Cato Maiori sal.

Unless they are provable, which in your case - the fact that you have lied repeatedly and publicly - is absolutely provable, as your posts are forever retained in our archives. The truth is the best defense in a case of defamation, and the truth is not on your side.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> M. Hortensia quiritibus spd;
>
> Please read the definition below. Posting someone is mentally ill, a drug addict, an alcoholic, having a transmittable sexual disease, untrustworthy etc can make you open to a suit of libel.
>
> In the U.S. an attorney will take your case for free & get paid 1/3 if you win. So it is very easy to sue. And people do - frequently.
>
> Please think before you post. Free speech means the responsibility rests upon the individual.
>
> Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium
>
> Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.
>
> Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:
>
> Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
> Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
> Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
> Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude
>
>
> This is the 1st day of the Megalesia, the feria devoted to the Mother of the gods, let's respect this and all of us enjoy it.
> M. Hortensia Maior
> Praetrix
>

Cato Iuniae Laecae sal.

Could you explain from ancient sources where this idea that political argument - or argument of any kind, for that matter - was restricted or prohibited during the Megalesian Games?

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Deandrea Boyle <deandreaboyle@...> wrote:
>
> Praetricum Equestria Iunia Laeca M. Hortensia Maioris salutem plurimam
> dicunt
>
> This is the start of the Megalesia, the ludi in honour of the Mother
> of the gods, please respect your fellow citizens during these times of
> celebration.
>
> Valete.
>

Equestria Catoni sal.

That message is not intended to restrict or prohibit arguments of any
type. It is a reminder that Nova Roma has begun the Megalesia
celebration. And asks that everyone keep this in mind while
participating within the fora and wherever possible, be more kind to
their fellow citizens while engaging in current discussions during
this time.

Vale.

On Apr 4, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Cato wrote:

> Cato Iuniae Laecae sal.
>
> Could you explain from ancient sources where this idea that
> political argument - or argument of any kind, for that matter - was
> restricted or prohibited during the Megalesian Games?
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Deandrea Boyle <deandreaboyle@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Praetricum Equestria Iunia Laeca M. Hortensia Maioris salutem
>> plurimam
>> dicunt
>>
>> This is the start of the Megalesia, the ludi in honour of the Mother
>> of the gods, please respect your fellow citizens during these times
>> of
>> celebration.
>>
>> Valete.
>>
>
>

I perfectly understand what a proxy is.

--- On Sun, 4/4/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:


From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The SCU
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 11:36 AM


 



Cato Messallinae sal.

Then you don't understand what a proxy is.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@... > wrote:
>
> What are you talking about, Cato? I've gone over the Senate vote (as part of my Tribune's duty) and Maior voted once and corrected her vote once. All the others were proxy votes she was delivering. There's a difference between casting a vote and delivering a proxy vote. She did not, herself, vote six times. That's all I am saying. As for whether she understood something, only she can say. But with regard to the number of times she voted, she did not vote six times. Period.
>  
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
>  
>  
>
>
> <<--- On Sun, 4/4/10, Cato <catoinnyc@. ..> wrote:
>
> Cato Messallinae sal.
>
> What a sad attempt to wrap some sort of sense around Maior's actions. She voted six times; three times for the entire agenda and then three times SPECIFICALLY regarding the SCU - the very item she now claims she didn't understand.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> >
> > That is not true. Again, you twist the facts around to give an erroneous impression. Maior voted once, but because of the voting problems, which you might have noticed, she corrected her vote. The others were proxy votes.
> > You are always misrepresenting the facts. Like I said, it's old hat with you.
> >  
> > Maxima Valeria Messallina
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >
> > --- On Sun, 4/4/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Cato <catoinnyc@ ..>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The SCU
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 4:15 AM
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Cato Maiori sal.
> >
> > Actually, you voted SIX times - on two separate occasions: three times in favor of the SCU and then three times in favor of appointing Iulia Aquila if the SCU passed.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maior Liviae spd;
> > > you are right I blame no one but myself. And I was wrong. I should have researched the history of the SCU.
> > >
> > > But look we had the proposed lex changing the Preamble before us and I'm the only one who saw that by removing nation we'd be disestablishing the state cultus deorum.
> > >
> > > So no one is all-knowing, but we can admit our mistakes and learn from them.
> > > vale
> > > Maior
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>











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

Cato Equestriae sal.

Gratias tibi ago.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Deandrea Boyle <deandreaboyle@...> wrote:
>
> Equestria Catoni sal.
>
> That message is not intended to restrict or prohibit arguments of any
> type. It is a reminder that Nova Roma has begun the Megalesia
> celebration. And asks that everyone keep this in mind while
> participating within the fora and wherever possible, be more kind to
> their fellow citizens while engaging in current discussions during
> this time.
>
> Vale.
>
>
> On Apr 4, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Cato wrote:
>
> > Cato Iuniae Laecae sal.
> >
> > Could you explain from ancient sources where this idea that
> > political argument - or argument of any kind, for that matter - was
> > restricted or prohibited during the Megalesian Games?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Deandrea Boyle <deandreaboyle@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Praetricum Equestria Iunia Laeca M. Hortensia Maioris salutem
> >> plurimam
> >> dicunt
> >>
> >> This is the start of the Megalesia, the ludi in honour of the Mother
> >> of the gods, please respect your fellow citizens during these times
> >> of
> >> celebration.
> >>
> >> Valete.
> >>
> >
> >
>

How about just out of respect for the Mother of the Gods? Oh, but you don't believe in them. Hey, since it's Easter, how about we skip the arguments for the holiday you do believe in? Have some Peeps instead!
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina
 
 

--- On Sun, 4/4/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:


From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Beginning of the Megalesia
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 11:57 AM


 



Cato Iuniae Laecae sal.

Could you explain from ancient sources where this idea that political argument - or argument of any kind, for that matter - was restricted or prohibited during the Megalesian Games?

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Deandrea Boyle <deandreaboyle@ ...> wrote:
>
> Praetricum Equestria Iunia Laeca M. Hortensia Maioris salutem plurimam
> dicunt
>
> This is the start of the Megalesia, the ludi in honour of the Mother
> of the gods, please respect your fellow citizens during these times of
> celebration.
>
> Valete.
>











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

Cato Messallinae sal.

Then you would not have said what you did. Maior, holding the proxies, voted *in their stead*, she did not simply cut-and-paste their own votes. Agricola, whose proxy she held, even announced that he agreed with the way *she* had voted.

Wait a minute! Are you putting on one of those farcical comedies so perfectly suited for the Megalesian Games? If so, well done!

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:
>
> I perfectly understand what a proxy is.
>
>
> --- On Sun, 4/4/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The SCU
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 11:36 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Cato Messallinae sal.
>
> Then you don't understand what a proxy is.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> >
> > What are you talking about, Cato? I've gone over the Senate vote (as part of my Tribune's duty) and Maior voted once and corrected her vote once. All the others were proxy votes she was delivering. There's a difference between casting a vote and delivering a proxy vote. She did not, herself, vote six times. That's all I am saying. As for whether she understood something, only she can say. But with regard to the number of times she voted, she did not vote six times. Period.
> >  
> > Maxima Valeria Messallina
> >  
> >  
> >
> >
> > <<--- On Sun, 4/4/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Messallinae sal.
> >
> > What a sad attempt to wrap some sort of sense around Maior's actions. She voted six times; three times for the entire agenda and then three times SPECIFICALLY regarding the SCU - the very item she now claims she didn't understand.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > That is not true. Again, you twist the facts around to give an erroneous impression. Maior voted once, but because of the voting problems, which you might have noticed, she corrected her vote. The others were proxy votes.
> > > You are always misrepresenting the facts. Like I said, it's old hat with you.
> > >  
> > > Maxima Valeria Messallina
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > > --- On Sun, 4/4/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Cato <catoinnyc@ ..>
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The SCU
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > > Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 4:15 AM
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cato Maiori sal.
> > >
> > > Actually, you voted SIX times - on two separate occasions: three times in favor of the SCU and then three times in favor of appointing Iulia Aquila if the SCU passed.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@ ..> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maior Liviae spd;
> > > > you are right I blame no one but myself. And I was wrong. I should have researched the history of the SCU.
> > > >
> > > > But look we had the proposed lex changing the Preamble before us and I'm the only one who saw that by removing nation we'd be disestablishing the state cultus deorum.
> > > >
> > > > So no one is all-knowing, but we can admit our mistakes and learn from them.
> > > > vale
> > > > Maior
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Cato Messallinae sal.

Believe me, having this discussion in no way impairs or mars the holidays I am celebrating. I'm trying to keep away from too much sugar, but I finally get to eat meat again! Hooray!

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:
>
> How about just out of respect for the Mother of the Gods? Oh, but you don't believe in them. Hey, since it's Easter, how about we skip the arguments for the holiday you do believe in? Have some Peeps instead!
>  
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
>  
>  
>
>
> --- On Sun, 4/4/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Beginning of the Megalesia
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 11:57 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Cato Iuniae Laecae sal.
>
> Could you explain from ancient sources where this idea that political argument - or argument of any kind, for that matter - was restricted or prohibited during the Megalesian Games?
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Deandrea Boyle <deandreaboyle@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Praetricum Equestria Iunia Laeca M. Hortensia Maioris salutem plurimam
> > dicunt
> >
> > This is the start of the Megalesia, the ludi in honour of the Mother
> > of the gods, please respect your fellow citizens during these times of
> > celebration.
> >
> > Valete.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Wow, a 12 year vacation! Well, I guess you could see a lot of the world traveling around for 12 years. We'll miss you, but have fun! See ya in 12 years!
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina
 
 

--- On Sun, 4/4/10, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:


From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The lex de novo proemio constitutionis
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 11:14 AM


 



Caesar Messallinae sal.

I could take a vacation for 12 years and come back and find exactly the same situation - no progress and still the same vague statements and promises.

Optime vale

From: Maxima Valeria Messallina
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 12:06 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The lex de novo proemio constitutionis

Speaking of mental health, Caesar, you really need a vacation. Too much winter dreariness. Go somewhere nice and sunny. How about Florida? Take Cato with you. You two really need a good rest and then you will feel so much better and less negative and you can come back to the challenges of Nation building all refreshed and ready to go!

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











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

Ædilis Curulis P. Annæus Constantinus Placidus omnibus civibus, peregrinisque bonæ voluntatis salutem plurimam dicit.

Salvete omnes!

This week we honor the Sacred Protectress of Rome.
Today is the start of the Ludi Megalesia in honor of the Great Mother, the Magna Mater, the Mother of all living creatures and the less tame aspects within nature. Over the next 7 days with the last day being April 10th we will have games in the honor of She who in antiquity was worshipped from the highest mountaintops to the depths of her beloved virgin forests of pine, fir and maple. She was honored in 5 Temples in Rome
In ancient times the arrival of the statue of the Goddess was celebrated in a glorious procession, lectisernia and games! Citizens and visitors alike crowded Rome to lay gifts at the feet of the Great Mother on the Captitol.

This is the time of great rejoicing, participation in games and feasting for all Novi Romani! Our games will include theatric and scenic themes of ancient Roman and Nova Roman life in keeping the spirit of the games of antiquity when pastoral plays were held in on the Palatine in front of Magna Mater's temple and also in the theaters.

This is a time of good will for all Novi Romani, for getting along with our fellow citizens and for joy and happiness! Let us all enjoy this feast and join in the games forgetting for a least a little while the mundane!

Without any further delay I offer to you all a warm and heartfelt WELCOME to this new edition of the LUDI MEGALESE!

Hereby I do declare the Ludi Megalese of Nova Roma OPEN!

Optime valete omnes!

P. Annæus Constantinus Placidus
Ædilis Curulis Novæ Romæ

You really do need a vacation. Caesar is going on a 12 year one. I'm sure he wouldn't mind the company. Have a great time! See ya in 12 years!
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina
 
 

--- On Sun, 4/4/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:


From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The SCU
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 12:39 PM


 



Cato Messallinae sal.

Then you would not have said what you did. Maior, holding the proxies, voted *in their stead*, she did not simply cut-and-paste their own votes. Agricola, whose proxy she held, even announced that he agreed with the way *she* had voted.

Wait a minute! Are you putting on one of those farcical comedies so perfectly suited for the Megalesian Games? If so, well done!

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@... > wrote:
>
> I perfectly understand what a proxy is.
>
>
> --- On Sun, 4/4/10, Cato <catoinnyc@. ..> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@. ..>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The SCU
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 11:36 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Cato Messallinae sal.
>
> Then you don't understand what a proxy is.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> >
> > What are you talking about, Cato? I've gone over the Senate vote (as part of my Tribune's duty) and Maior voted once and corrected her vote once. All the others were proxy votes she was delivering. There's a difference between casting a vote and delivering a proxy vote. She did not, herself, vote six times. That's all I am saying. As for whether she understood something, only she can say. But with regard to the number of times she voted, she did not vote six times. Period.
> >  
> > Maxima Valeria Messallina
> >  
> >  
> >
> >
> > <<--- On Sun, 4/4/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Messallinae sal.
> >
> > What a sad attempt to wrap some sort of sense around Maior's actions. She voted six times; three times for the entire agenda and then three times SPECIFICALLY regarding the SCU - the very item she now claims she didn't understand.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > That is not true. Again, you twist the facts around to give an erroneous impression. Maior voted once, but because of the voting problems, which you might have noticed, she corrected her vote. The others were proxy votes.
> > > You are always misrepresenting the facts. Like I said, it's old hat with you.
> > >  
> > > Maxima Valeria Messallina
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > > --- On Sun, 4/4/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Cato <catoinnyc@ ..>
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The SCU
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > > Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 4:15 AM
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cato Maiori sal.
> > >
> > > Actually, you voted SIX times - on two separate occasions: three times in favor of the SCU and then three times in favor of appointing Iulia Aquila if the SCU passed.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@ ..> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maior Liviae spd;
> > > > you are right I blame no one but myself. And I was wrong. I should have researched the history of the SCU.
> > > >
> > > > But look we had the proposed lex changing the Preamble before us and I'm the only one who saw that by removing nation we'd be disestablishing the state cultus deorum.
> > > >
> > > > So no one is all-knowing, but we can admit our mistakes and learn from them.
> > > > vale
> > > > Maior
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>











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

Lentulus Caesari sal.


Caesar, you possibly misunderstand things.

1. The first thing you misunderstand is what I, and I think most of the Pro Nation side, think about "independent and sovereign nation".

We agree with you that right now we aren't independent, nor sovereign, and our nationhood is mostly cultural and spiritual, and is still in the process of creation. We can accept altering these words into something like "spiritual nation with symbolic sovereignty" etc. But not complete deletion of it.

Our main point is to assure that the principles and goals fixed in the Declaration are expressed in the preamble. So we do not go against the reality that we are not yet a real state or nation. We go against THIS, and exactly THIS proposal that entirely removed all hardcore principles of Nova Roma and its final goal of creating a physical Nova Roman entity. So our views are not so terribly far from each other regarding nationhood, independence and sovereignty. We just insist they shall be there in the preamble as the final goals of Nova Roma, and as partly realized things (as for the nationhood).

2. Your other misunderstanding is how nationhood is created and what the way is to realize it.

The realization that we can have a cultural (Nova) Roman national identity happens through learning, through creating common traditions, common history and myths, a sense of identity, a faith in the concept, a consciousness of that identity and nationality. Do you see what I say? It's completely a CULTURAL thing. Creating a country, however, is another, mostly political, diplomatic
(and military) process, which is not discussed here because we speak
about nationhood only, not about becoming a country. Each nation is created by ideologies, myths and religions, symbolism and tradition.

We made a huge progress in that. I personally made so with myself. I have learned a lot while participating in Nova Roma, meeting people, sharing common ideas, getting to love each other and feeling the unity, that we are indeed one "new people", a new cultural and spiritual nation, that is, in the same time, the revival of a very ancient one, so new and old simultaneously.

We made many steps in this direction. Each conventus, meeting or sacrifice, each e-mail discussion and each act of our republic are creating our common history, and if we overwhelm these events, these acts, our community life with our own culture, with Nova Romanitas, with the ideas of our intended nationhood, if we feed this identity, build the community in this direction, then these things are the creation of the Nova Roman nation. These are the steps themselves towards our goals.

You say there are no actual steps. There are.

But until we will have a strong sense of cultural nationhood in Nova Roma, our main job is to feed the community with events, culture, to create the spirit. Creating this kind of nation does not start with buying land, or petition the UN! It starts with team building, creating the culture, the identity and the community that learns it! (BTW, to this kind of nationhood we intend, I'm not sure if we ever shall petition the UN. It's a spiritual thing and question of culture, belief and identity, not geo-politics.)

Currently Nova Roma's main tasks are teaching and learning, experience and finding out what a modern Roman nation shall be. We are going very slowly in that way. But we are going! I feel and experience that identity, and others do as well.

I did not feel it really when I had joined, then year after year it grew. I had a great debate with Cordus about it on the ML in 2006, when I said what you say now, and I objected Cordus who spoke about that we were really a new Roman republic and nation. I opposed him, then at the end of the debate, my views slightly changed. After many years of being in NR, participating, immersing in events, community, friendships and in the spirit of Nova Roma, at one point I realized we are actually some kind of nation, really. A renascent, "in progress", "under construcion" nation. We are really going on this direction. We are going, but very slowly.

A Nova Roman's criticism should go against the slowness of this process. Yes, we should do this process in a much better way, we should have much more of such events that develop our identity and sense of nationhood. There should be better recruitment, better organization, more professionalism. Well, these are that need reforms.

There is progress made towards being a nation, and this progress is cultural at this stage, not political, nor should it be political as it would be very premature. Until we don't have at least a 15,000 citizens and a 1000 of active citizens, I see no reason why should we think about "recognized nation status" what you have mentioned.

Our steps currently shall be those what I've mentioned above: recruitment, education, cultural absorption etc.
 
3. The third thing what you misunderstand is how people can believe in, or experience, or understand this kind of nationhood that Nova Roma is.

You say we just chant a mantra and take intoxicants to believe in the nation concept. This is nonsense. You can believe in things yet you aren't a lunatic. Churches promote various concepts about symbolic realities, or spiritual realities that are not tangible, not always understandable by logical approach, or not supported by hardcore material, physical facts. And that's quite in its place in Nova Roma, as Nova Roma, first and foremost, is a religious endeavor.

And Nova Roma is not even that radical in its claims about spiritual reality!

Nova Roma does not claim we have a living God within a meal, or that we know the absolute truth about divine, nor we claim many things. We also do not claim (although the current preamble is unclear about it and I agree as I have said many times that it should be adjusted to a more realistic wording) we don't claim that we are already a "country", or really sovereign, or really independent, or a completely real nation. All these are ongoing projects, some of these is very far from realization and shall remain so, some of these, especially the becoming a nation, however, is quite perceptible through immersion in NR community life, and through absorbing the myths (call of the Gods for refounding Rome), the common NR history, the NR social and cultural traditions, the ideology (Declaration of NR, Declaration of Roman Paganism), and the identity (Roman-ness).

These were some points, Senator Cn. Julius Caesar, of your misunderstandings. I hope you will now see more moderately my (or our) ideas about Nova Roman nationhood, and you'll realize that these thoughts are normal, enthusiast but realistic, and characteristic of religious and symbolic approaches. Our thoughts are the direct consequence of understanding what the name Nova Roma means, why it was founded and what "the Gods are calling again" mean.



--- Dom 4/4/10, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> ha scritto:









 









Caesar Messallinae sal.



Interesting, but utterly irrelevant to taking practical steps to making the "dream" a reality. Where for example is the plan to achieve recognized nation status, or even observer status, at the UN? Got one have we? Or is it just doing the same old things year after year and claiming that this is progress? Oh now I forgot, we say it exists now and if we all join hands in a big circle and chant the mantra "we are a sovereign independent nation" enough times we can make our nation appear in a puff of smoke. Or maybe some people like playing dress up and take enough intoxicants that they believe they are in the New Rome? No action, no progress.



The plan is "pass the bong"?



Optime vale



From: Maxima Valeria Messallina

Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 10:21 AM

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com

Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The lex de novo proemio constitutionis (New Constitution Preamble)



Well, without Vestals, there is no Roma and I have not only put my own plan of action into being, I've also put my money into it by the hundreds. In speaking with other Citizens, they are doing their own part according to their own talents. Did you see Lentulus' video on March 1st? That was wonderful. This is all nation-building - one baby step at a time. We'll get there someday. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither will Nova Roma.



Maxima Valeria Messallina





















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

Oh, I'm so sorry, I forget to explain to you what a proxy is. How remiss of me. That way you won't be so confused by the appearance of all those votes you see next time you are in the Senate voting. 
Definition of proxy, as used in this instance, is someone authorized to act on behalf of another party. He or she may choose to vote by proxy by allowing someone else to cast votes on his or her behalf. 
If you will look at Dexter's forthcoming Tribunician report on the last Senate session, you will see at the end of the list of Senators those who voted by proxy. It will also state who delivered their votes to the Senate. Those proxy votes are counted to the Senators who authorized the proxy votes, not to the Senators who delivered the proxy votes. Thus, although Maior delivered the votes for two other Senators, they are not her votes. They are the votes of the Senators who voted by proxy and authorized her to deliver them in their stead. She did not vote for them; she delivered their votes. Two different things.
As to what sort of arrangement was made between the Senator authorizing the proxy and the Senator who delivers the proxy, well, that is between them.
 
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina


 
 


<<--- On Sun, 4/4/10, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:

You really do need a vacation. Caesar is going on a 12 year one. I'm sure he wouldn't mind the company. Have a great time! See ya in 12 years!
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina>>
 
 

>>>--- On Sun, 4/4/10, Cato <catoinnyc@gmail. com> wrote:

From: Cato <catoinnyc@gmail. com>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The SCU
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 12:39 PM

 

Cato Messallinae sal.

Then you would not have said what you did. Maior, holding the proxies, voted *in their stead*, she did not simply cut-and-paste their own votes. Agricola, whose proxy she held, even announced that he agreed with the way *she* had voted.

Wait a minute! Are you putting on one of those farcical comedies so perfectly suited for the Megalesian Games? If so, well done!

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@... > wrote:
>
> I perfectly understand what a proxy is.
>
>
> --- On Sun, 4/4/10, Cato <catoinnyc@. ..> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@. ..>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The SCU
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 11:36 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Cato Messallinae sal.
>
> Then you don't understand what a proxy is.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> >
> > What are you talking about, Cato? I've gone over the Senate vote (as part of my Tribune's duty) and Maior voted once and corrected her vote once. All the others were proxy votes she was delivering. There's a difference between casting a vote and delivering a proxy vote. She did not, herself, vote six times. That's all I am saying. As for whether she understood something, only she can say. But with regard to the number of times she voted, she did not vote six times. Period.
> >  
> > Maxima Valeria Messallina
> >  
> >  
> >
> >
> > <<--- On Sun, 4/4/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Messallinae sal.
> >
> > What a sad attempt to wrap some sort of sense around Maior's actions. She voted six times; three times for the entire agenda and then three times SPECIFICALLY regarding the SCU - the very item she now claims she didn't understand.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > That is not true. Again, you twist the facts around to give an erroneous impression. Maior voted once, but because of the voting problems, which you might have noticed, she corrected her vote. The others were proxy votes.
> > > You are always misrepresenting the facts. Like I said, it's old hat with you.
> > >  
> > > Maxima Valeria Messallina
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > > --- On Sun, 4/4/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Cato <catoinnyc@ ..>
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The SCU
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > > Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 4:15 AM
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cato Maiori sal.
> > >
> > > Actually, you voted SIX times - on two separate occasions: three times in favor of the SCU and then three times in favor of appointing Iulia Aquila if the SCU passed.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato





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

In a message dated 4/4/2010 12:44:02 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dis_pensible@... writes:

This week we honor the Sacred Protectress of Rome.





Umm Point of Reply.

Roma and Vesta are the Sacred Protectresses of Rome.

The Great Mother was included in the Religion only because the Books of
Prophecy said if her Image was brought to Rome, Rome would prevail over the
Carthaginians, who with Hannibal Barca was giving Rome a bad time. The
Games were instituted as welcome, and were later on after Hannibal's expulsion
from Bruttia to Africa, were formalized.

Q. Fabius Maximus
Pontifice



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

The Magna Mater Idaeae, the Great Idaean Mother was indeed brought to Rome because of terrible omens & the Sibylline books were consulted. Her temple was on the Palatine, the heart of Rome, which is pretty amazing for a foreign deity.

The long-standing cultus of Cybele; Meter in Greece & Matar in Anatolia, was as a civic deity protecting the polis. And of course with Hannibal's defeat, this instensified this aspect of her cultus.

In fact she shared her temple with Bellona, the goddess of war, in her Temple outside the Pomerium. Magna Mater was so popular that her car was paraded through the streets up to the 4th Century C.E.
May the Mother of the gods protect Nova Roma!
here is Magna Mater's statue and lions that would be carried in processions; it is fantastic
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Image:Magna_Mater_courtesy_of_Vroma.jpg
vale
Maior

> Umm Point of Reply.
>
> Roma and Vesta are the Sacred Protectresses of Rome.
>
> The Great Mother was included in the Religion only because the Books of
> Prophecy said if her Image was brought to Rome, Rome would prevail over the
> Carthaginians, who with Hannibal Barca was giving Rome a bad time. The
> Games were instituted as welcome, and were later on after Hannibal's expulsion
> from Bruttia to Africa, were formalized.
>
> Q. Fabius Maximus
> Pontifice
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

EX OFFICIO AEDILIS P. ANNAEI


L. Iulia Aquila Quiritibus s. p. d.

Citizens, in the name of Aedilis P. Annaeus Constantinus Placidus I send you salutations of good will and with great honor for the Magna Mater announce the opening of the Satura (mixed bag of Roman life) Game!

SATURA (MIXED BAG of ROMAN LIFE)
The game is a series of 12 different questions with 1 – 4 parts including bonus questions regarding various aspects of basic Roman life that every ancient Roman would know. 1 – 2 will be offered each day. It is designed to be fun and educational.

TOPIC:
Various aspects of everyday Ancient Roman life which include numerals, Latin terms – a mixed bag!

RULES:
1) Everyday during the Ludi one or two questions will be posted. You may answer them as they are posted or when you have time as long as they are answered by the Deadline as indicated below. Some are easy, some not so.

2) 12 questions, some with multiple answers earn 2 – 16 points including bonus questions for a total of 100 points.

THE WINNER

The winner is the citizen who earns the most points!

DEADLINE
QQS 1 – 11 The 9th of April, 24:00 – Rome Time
Q 12 - The 10th of April, 24:00 - Rome Time
Results will be posted within a few days of the close of the Ludi
Please send your submissions to
luciajuliaaquila@...
PRIVATELY!

Question #1 (2 pts)

1) What number system did the Romans use for architectural calculations?

Good luck to all!

Vale optimé,

L. Iulia Aquila

EX OFFICIO AEDILIS P. ANNAEI




C. Maria Caeca Quiritibus s. p. d.

Citizens, in the name of aedilis P. Annaeus Constantinus Placidus I salute
you, and proudly open the FIRST Theatrical Comedy Sketch Writing Contest!


ADUMBRATIO COMOEDIA (THEATRICAL COMEDY SKETCH):

These sketches or plays are to be composed in the spirit of friendship and
camaraderie and above all with a sense of humor. They are to make us laugh -
at ourselves and each other in a good natured fashion setting aside all
loathing and dislike. Laughter of well written parodies and comedies bring
people together



TOPIC:

Contestants will submit a script for a short comedy or parody sketch
suitable to be performed on a stage in the spirit of the plays performed in
ancient Rome on the Megalesia.

The plays were usually pastoral in nature but we will leave that optional.
However they must be set in a Roman setting, for example: the forum, the
country side, a domus where a Megalesia party is occurring or even the
baths.



RULES:

1) Limit of 1000 words.



2) They must be written in sketch or play form for example:

Cato: I'm the Aedile

Julia: No, I'm the Aedile

Cato: Give me that Aedile stick!

Julia: You'll have to catch me first!

If you choose to include a pastoral scene then you can include short
descriptions between "actors" dialogue.



3) The purpose of each submission is to make us laugh out loud, that rolling
on the floor, tears of laughter kind. No mean, hurtful or malevolent words.
Work that contains rude, offensive, evil or hurtful elements will be
excluded from the competition.

Remember: the purpose of the game is writing intelligent, stylish, amusing,
witty and radiant comedies and parodies, NOT ridiculing others.


THE WINNER

The winner will be selected by a jury composed of people with some knowledge
of literature. The best submissions will be published.

DEADLINE submissions must be received no later than April 9, and will be
presented very soon after the games have been concluded.



Please send your submissions to

luciajuliaaquila@...

PRIVATELY!

A. Apollonius Cordus omnibus sal.

Some of you will remember know that I used to be a frequent speaker from these rostra, as it were, and that I withdrew from the public life of Nova Roma some time ago after realizing that the political institutions and political culture of Nova Roma were in fact making it harder, and not easier, for me (and others) to live in a Roman way as part of a Roman community. Nonetheless, I did not try to leave Nova Roma. That was partly out of duty and devotion, and partly because it still seemed genuinely valuable to me, even if only in a rather abstract way, to be a member of a group that aspired to be a Roman republican cultural, civic, and political community. Because that must - and there are no two ways about it, it absolutely must - be the goal of anyone who wants to live a life that the great Romans of the old republic would have considered worthwhile. Ancient Roman culture, and especially republican culture (of which the best elements of imperial culture were merely survivals and elaborations), was a civic culture and a political culture. A Roman life, therefore, can only be fully lived as part of a self-governing community of Roman citizens: a republic.

I occasionally hear scraps of news from the political life of Nova Roma, and two days ago my dear friend Cn. Lentulus told me that there is about to be voted on, or perhaps already being voted on, a proposal to change the preamble of what I used to call the lex constitutiva of Nova Roma. Some of you perhaps remember that I do not think much of the lex constitutiva, not only in its particular incarnation but as a general proposition, for the very idea of a binding, overriding, supreme constitutional statute is utterly alien to the Roman way of thinking about government and public institutions. You may also remember that one of the things I concluded not long before withdrawing from public life here was that using statutes and written regulations to make Nova Roma more Roman was a self-defeating exericse, because a true Roman civic community would be one that made decisions by reference to ancient example, pragmatic reasoning, and moral principle, not by careful scrutiny of the words of this or that legal text. So I had no time for the lex constitutiva, or even, in the end, for leges of any kind, and certainly not for the preamble, which seemed to me a mere puff of air. But Cn. Lentulus has drawn my attention to one particular feature of the proposed change: the removal, or at least obfuscation, of any suggestion that Nova Roma is or seeks to be a republic, a political community of citizens.

So I don't address you about what the lex constitutiva should say: in my opinion it should say nothing at all because it should not exist. Still less do I tell you what the preamble should say, for even if the lex constitutiva cannot be removed I do not see what benefit any preamble can possibly bring except to make its interpretation still more opaque and give rise to still more arguments that have nothing at all to do with the Romans of the ancient republic and their thoughts and deeds. Do what you want with these pieces of text. Let me talk to you, though, about Nova Roma's image of itself and Nova Roma's hopes and goals.

Perhaps Nova Roma is currently nothing but a talking-shop or a role-playing game or a members' club for people interested in studying and attempting to 'mock up' certain aspects of ancient Roman culture. Perhaps it is not. Not having participated for some time, I cannot say. But for me its sole value, except as a community in which I have made good friends whose desire to live more Roman lives I share, is its potential: the fact that it hopes to be, and may some day actually approximate to, a Roman republic. By that I don't mean a nation-state recognized by the United Nations and governing a particular patch of territory over which it exercises supreme jurisdiction: that is not only a fantasy but entirely unnecessary. What I mean is a community of people who, regarding themselves as fellow Roman citizens, voluntarily join together (in the same place ideally, but not necessarily) in a consensus about justice and the common good (M. Cicero de re publica 1.39): a consensus that accords in most respects with that of the Romans of the ancient republic. People, in other words, who choose to live as if they were citizens of a Roman republic whether the outside world treats them as such or not. Because that is the only way to live like a L. Brutus or P. Valerius, a P. Scipio or Cornelia P. f. or M. Cato, a Cn. Pompejus or M. Cicero.

If that is not what Nova Roma hopes one day to be, then it has no value. It is not by any means the best place to learn about ancient Rome if all one wishes to do is study it like an academic or pick up morsels of knowledge like a keen amateur. Since the time I joined Nova Roma I have learned a huge amount about the ancient Roman republic, but not because Nova Roma has taught me: on the contrary, it was largely because I continually found that nobody in Nova Roma knew the answers to vital and fundamental questions and therefore my only option was to find the answers myself, from other sources. Nor is Nova Roma by any means the best place to try Roman reenactment, if by that we mean dressing up like ancient Romans and cooking Roman food and making or using Roman tools or ornaments or weapons. In fact it is almost singularly bad for that, since its members are so few widely dispersed that reenactment on a serious scale must almost always be done in collaboration with external groups. Nor is it even, I suspect, the best or most effective way to learn about, promote, or engage in the worship of the Roman gods (which in any case can hardly be done to its full extent without the existence of the sort of political community Nova Roma should aspire to be). So if Nova Roma should now, by its change to this useless preamble of this self-defeating document, tell the world, and its own members, that it abandons any hope of becoming a republican community of self-governing citizens, and to be merely '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' - in short, a group of people who find the Romans interesting and even admirable but are not themselves Romans nor hope ever to be Romans - then it will cease to have any significant value to me or to anyone who, like me (and like, if I may presume to speak for him, Cn. Lentulus, who is a shining example and has worked perhaps harder than I ever did to make Nova Roma into what it ought to be), wants to live a life worthy of the great Romans of the ancient republic.

EX OFFICIO AEDILIS P. ANNAEI




C. Maria Caeca Quiritibus s. p. d.

Citizens, in the name of aedilis P. Annaeus Constantinus Placidus I salute
you, and proudly open the Visual Arts Contest!


LUSTRATIO ROMAE (VIEW OF ROME OR ROME THROUGH YOUR EYES)

Visual Arts reflect how different individuals view our organization, or
community, or "nation" The range of views submitted will reflect the nature
of our Nova Roma will foster new meanings and a new strength impacting
further understanding of each other as fellow citizens.



TOPIC:

Visual Arts that reflect various aspects of Roman and Nova Roman life.





RULES:

1) Photographs - your own or from other media such as books and the internet
(just make sure you have the rights and permissions to use them)



2) Photographs of Original Artwork or Sculpture in the media you desire from
ink to paint to mosaic tiles to clay and marble.



3) Photographs of Artwork or Sculpture (just make sure you have the rights
and permissions to use them, most artwork over 100 years old is safe)



4) Please remember that while nudity is ok in classical depictions of Gods
and ancient Romans, no lewd acts or overt sexual content allowed.



Remember: the purpose of the game is to inspire each of us, your fellow
citizens.


THE WINNER

The winner will be selected by a jury composed of your peers who include
artists and citizens with good taste! The best submissions will be
published.

DEADLINE

The 10th of April, 24:00 - Rome Time

Please send your submissions to

luciajuliaaquila@...

PRIVATELY!

Christians on this List;

I wish for you a bright and enjoyable holiday,
Although, I am observant of the Roman Virtues,
I am also very impressed with the Ten
Commandments, as well as the "Golden Rule"
which, it would appear, that many here have
never heard of. The Roman Virtues from my
Roman Studies here and elsewhere and the
others from my personal views of the world. So
from my studies in the books of the bible I am
pleased to wish all of you the Best of an Easter
Holiday and would ask that in your considerations
on this and other NR Lists you respect other's
beliefs, as was first guaranteed by the founders
of NR, and supposedly still holds true today.

Respectfully;

Marcus Audens



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

Caesar Lentulo sal.

I misunderstand nothing. We differ in viewpoints.

Re your points:

1. The preamble says we are an independent sovereign nation. Glad to see you agree we are not two of those things at least. Amend the preamble to accurately reflect that fact. The easiest way is to remove the words that are patently false.

2. Nations need land and recognition to be nations. Otherwise declaring yourself a nation is an exercise in semantics and delusion.

3. You can believe you are the King of Siam but if you tell others enough you are they think you are a lunatic. Believe what you will as an individual, but ensure that the preamble is an accurate reflection of facts, which it is not.

Optime vale

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Lentulus Caesari sal.

Salvete omnes,

I was just thinking (yes, I know, very dangerous), and it occurs to me that
many cives have conducted sacred rituals, held gatherings, parties ...and
created Roman clothing. Do we have all these videos and pictures collected
in 1, easy to find place? Can Do we have appropriate places in which to
gather these things? If we don't, can we created them? If so ...why not
make every attempt to collect, copy and place these things here, where any
interested person can go to 1 video channel, or 1 photo album, and take a
look at what we are doing? I would suggest, also, that each video and
picture be explained, with particular attention to the steps taken to ensure
historical accuracy, if appropriate, so that we can display not only our
activities, but the effort that went into producing them. If this is, or
has already been, done ...please excuse the redundant suggestion.

Respectfully,
C. Maria Caeca

>
> A. Tullia Scholastica Cn. Cornelio Lentulo quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
>
> Cn. Lentulus Tulliae Scholasticae senatrici sal.
>
>  I am pleased that some revision is in the works, and not only because the
> title is misspelled (it comes from the Greek pro-oimion, and therefore must be
> prooemium in Latin, with another o, though the Latin equivalent is actually
> exordium).
>
> Indeed. But there are so many problems with greater importance that it is now
> the less urgent question. The other proposals, too, have some Latin strange,
>
> ATS: Yes; the gerundive should be used in at least a couple of them: de
> numero quaestorum diminuendo, de rogaturá abolendá /rogatoribus abolendis or
> the like.
>
>
> and I think the English of them should also be proofread by a native speaker
> with good sense of English style.
>
> ATS: I agree.
>
>
> The language of the original preamble is quite lovely, whereas that of the
> proposed replacement is less so...and if we utterly remove these concepts, we
> do indeed tear the heart and soul out of Nova Roma.
>
> I agree with you, the elevated and impressive style of the current preamble
> shall be kept. The new text doesn't flow. And isn't inspiring what a preamble
> usually is.
>
> ATS: Yes. Those of us who have studied literature know that the preamble
> is the most difficult part to write or translate, for its language must be
> elevated as well as descriptive of the contents.
>
>   As is the case with several who have written here and on the Comitia list,
> I find myself agreeing with elements proposed by members of several different
> political persuasions. I think we need more time to hash this out, and would
> request you, consul Albuci, to withdraw this for the time being and let us
> have some more time to work on it. That is all the more necessary as this is
> a vacation period when many potential contributors are away, and as such
> smacks of some of the tactics employed by macronational governments and other
> entities when they have to deal with the delivery of unpleasant or startling
> news, etc.: they release the information on the eve of a major holiday, and
> pray that it gets buried. 
>
> Hope we are better here in Nova Roma.
>
> ATS: Utinam! However, one has to wonder...
>
> As Lentulus (I believe) said; (it¹s hard to keep these messages all straight),
>  this is a bit premature.
>
> Yes I did. The proposal came very premature and immature, too.
>
> ATS: Indeed.
>
>
> It shall be refined in a great extent. Let's wait what the consuls propose
> after their discussion!
>
> ATS: Unfortunately, we are not going to have that chance. It would have
> been better for this proposal at least to have been separated, and discussed
> when the calendar was more forgiving.
>
> Vale!
>
> Vale, et valete!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

C. Petronius Tulliae Scholasticae et Cn. Lentulo suo s.p.d.,

> > and I think the English of them should also be proofread by a native speaker with good sense of English style.
> >
> > ATS: I agree.

How can you feel English style behind Latin? That is interesting to me. In my opinion, I thought that our Consul, who knows some Latin, wrote himself the titles of his laws.

Optime valete.

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

>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica A. Apollonio Cordo optimo suo quiritibus bonae
> voluntatis S.P.D.
>
> Gratissimus redis, Corde. I shall interleave some brief comments into
> your (as usual) excellent exposition. We have missed you.
>
>
> A. Apollonius Cordus omnibus sal.
>
> Some of you will remember know that I used to be a frequent speaker from these
> rostra, as it were, and that I withdrew from the public life of Nova Roma some
> time ago after realizing that the political institutions and political culture
> of Nova Roma were in fact making it harder, and not easier, for me (and
> others) to live in a Roman way as part of a Roman community. Nonetheless, I
> did not try to leave Nova Roma. That was partly out of duty and devotion, and
> partly because it still seemed genuinely valuable to me, even if only in a
> rather abstract way, to be a member of a group that aspired to be a Roman
> republican cultural, civic, and political community. Because that must - and
> there are no two ways about it, it absolutely must - be the goal of anyone who
> wants to live a life that the great Romans of the old republic would have
> considered worthwhile. Ancient Roman culture, and especially republican
> culture (of which the best elements of imperial culture were merely survivals
> and elaborations), was a civic culture and a political culture. A Roman life,
> therefore, can only be fully lived as part of a self-governing community of
> Roman citizens: a republic.
>
> ATS: Rectissimé.
>
> I occasionally hear scraps of news from the political life of Nova Roma, and
> two days ago my dear friend Cn. Lentulus told me that there is about to be
> voted on, or perhaps already being voted on, a proposal to change the preamble
> of what I used to call the lex constitutiva of Nova Roma. Some of you perhaps
> remember that I do not think much of the lex constitutiva, not only in its
> particular incarnation but as a general proposition, for the very idea of a
> binding, overriding, supreme constitutional statute is utterly alien to the
> Roman way of thinking about government and public institutions. You may also
> remember that one of the things I concluded not long before withdrawing from
> public life here was that using statutes and written regulations to make Nova
> Roma more Roman was a self-defeating exercise, because a true Roman civic
> community would be one that made decisions by reference to ancient example,
> pragmatic reasoning, and moral principle, not by careful scrutiny of the words
> of this or that legal text. So I had no time for the lex constitutiva, or
> even, in the end, for leges of any kind, and certainly not for the preamble,
> which seemed to me a mere puff of air. But Cn. Lentulus has drawn my
> attention to one particular feature of the proposed change: the removal, or at
> least obfuscation, of any suggestion that Nova Roma is or seeks to be a
> republic, a political community of citizens.
>
> ATS: Precisely.
>
> So I don't address you about what the lex constitutiva should say: in my
> opinion it should say nothing at all because it should not exist. Still less
> do I tell you what the preamble should say, for even if the lex constitutiva
> cannot be removed I do not see what benefit any preamble can possibly bring
> except to make its interpretation still more opaque and give rise to still
> more arguments that have nothing at all to do with the Romans of the ancient
> republic and their thoughts and deeds. Do what you want with these pieces of
> text. Let me talk to you, though, about Nova Roma's image of itself and Nova
> Roma's hopes and goals.
>
> Perhaps Nova Roma is currently nothing but a talking-shop or a role-playing
> game or a members' club for people interested in studying and attempting to
> 'mock up' certain aspects of ancient Roman culture. Perhaps it is not. Not
> having participated for some time, I cannot say. But for me its sole value,
> except as a community in which I have made good friends whose desire to live
> more Roman lives I share, is its potential: the fact that it hopes to be, and
> may some day actually approximate to, a Roman republic. By that I don't mean
> a nation-state recognized by the United Nations and governing a particular
> patch of territory over which it exercises supreme jurisdiction: that is not
> only a fantasy but entirely unnecessary.
>
> ATS: Indeed, and one which almost certainly would run afoul of
> macronational government(s).
>
>
> What I mean is a community of people who, regarding themselves as fellow Roman
> citizens, voluntarily join together (in the same place ideally, but not
> necessarily) in a consensus about justice and the common good (M. Cicero de re
> publica 1.39): a consensus that accords in most respects with that of the
> Romans of the ancient republic. People, in other words, who choose to live as
> if they were citizens of a Roman republic whether the outside world treats
> them as such or not. Because that is the only way to live like a L. Brutus or
> P. Valerius, a P. Scipio or Cornelia P. f. or M. Cato, a Cn. Pompejus or M.
> Cicero.
>
> ATS: Exactly.
>
> If that is not what Nova Roma hopes one day to be, then it has no value.
>
> ATS: Indeed.
>
> It is not by any means the best place to learn about ancient Rome if all one
> wishes to do is study it like an academic or pick up morsels of knowledge like
> a keen amateur. Since the time I joined Nova Roma I have learned a huge
> amount about the ancient Roman republic, but not because Nova Roma has taught
> me: on the contrary, it was largely because I continually found that nobody in
> Nova Roma knew the answers to vital and fundamental questions and therefore my
> only option was to find the answers myself, from other sources. Nor is Nova
> Roma by any means the best place to try Roman reenactment, if by that we mean
> dressing up like ancient Romans and cooking Roman food and making or using
> Roman tools or ornaments or weapons. In fact it is almost singularly bad for
> that, since its members are so few widely dispersed that reenactment on a
> serious scale must almost always be done in collaboration with external
> groups. Nor is it even, I suspect, the best or most effective way to learn
> about, promote, or engage in the worship of the Roman gods (which in any case
> can hardly be done to its full extent without the existence of the sort of
> political community Nova Roma should aspire to be).
>
> ATS: And this change in the preamble makes that, too, a serious issue for
> the cultores.
>
> So if Nova Roma should now, by its change to this useless preamble of this
> self-defeating document, tell the world, and its own members, that it abandons
> any hope of becoming a republican community of self-governing citizens, and to
> be merely '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' - in short, a group of people who find the Romans interesting and
> even admirable but are not themselves Romans nor hope ever to be Romans - then
> it will cease to have any significant value to me or to anyone who, like me
> (and like, if I may presume to speak for him, Cn. Lentulus, who is a shining
> example and has worked perhaps harder than I ever did to make Nova Roma into
> what it ought to be), wants to live a life worthy of the great Romans of the
> ancient republic.
>
> ATS: Without that vision, Nova Roma would become little more than just
> another Roman-based interest group, of which there are many. I suspect that
> Lentulus and you are not the only ones who would think twice about expending
> time and effort on Nova Roma if our vision were removed from the Constitution.
> I think there must be a way to retain this mission statement or whatever
> without running afoul of macronational law and whatnot, but this proposal is
> not it. Perhaps, Corde, you could work together with Lentulus and the
> consules to produce something more suitable. Those of us who have been here a
> while know very well about your dislike for the Constitution, but we have one
> as our supreme law, and it is best to get it right when any changes are
> proposed in that document. Your legal training and intellectual excellence,
> not to mention your English language abilities, would seem to be highly
> beneficial in this endeavor...if you have the time, and think that NR is still
> worth the effort.
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>
>
>

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

>
> A. Tullia Scholastica C. Petronio Dextro quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
>
> C. Petronius Tulliae Scholasticae et Cn. Lentulo suo s.p.d.,
>
>>> > > and I think the English of them should also be proofread by a native
>>> speaker with good sense of English style.
>>> > >
>>> > > ATS: I agree.
>
> How can you feel English style behind Latin?
>
> ATS2: We were talking about the text of the laws, especially the
> prooemium, not the titles. A preamble should use elevated language, and can
> really be written only by a native speaker of the relevant language. The
> text was English, not Latin.
>
> That is interesting to me. In my opinion, I thought that our Consul, who knows
> some Latin, wrote himself the titles of his laws.
>
> ATS2: Presumably he did, but we were not talking about the titles...nec
> omnia ibi tam bona ut meliora fieri non possint.
>
> Optime valete.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> Nonis Aprilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>
>
>

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

C. Petronius Tulliae Scholasticae s.p.d.,

> > ATS2: We were talking about the text of the laws, especially the prooemium, not the titles. A preamble should use elevated language, and can really be written only by a native speaker of the relevant language. The text was English, not Latin.

Sorry, I thought the discussion more elevated, I did not understand that all excuses were good to reject this preamble and perhaps all the laws, even the native English style. But, obviously, nobody of us is native English speaker and can offer himself to correct the form?

I think when the form prevails over the content, it is the sign that the arguments against the laws are poor.

Optime vale.

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

Cn. Lentulus C. Petronio sal.


It is only one and the minutest of the arguments. The real arguments against the law were not against form but against the content.

We argued many days against the content not against the form.

So the arguments against the content hugely prevail over the form. But the form, too, has to be god. Imagine the French constitution with a foreign accent in style, or with grammtic mistakes! Do you agree that as far we have English document it must be in correct, pleasant an pure English? This is a secondary thing in comparison with the importance of the content: but not unimportant.

VALE!

--- Lun 5/4/10, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...> ha scritto:

Da: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Rejecting the law proposal
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Data: Lunedì 5 Aprile 2010, 11:36







 









C. Petronius Tulliae Scholasticae s.p.d.,

> > ATS2: We were talking about the text of the laws, especially the prooemium, not the titles. A preamble should use elevated language, and can really be written only by a native speaker of the relevant language. The text was English, not Latin.

Sorry, I thought the discussion more elevated, I did not understand that all excuses were good to reject this preamble and perhaps all the laws, even the native English style. But, obviously, nobody of us is native English speaker and can offer himself to correct the form?



I think when the form prevails over the content, it is the sign that the arguments against the laws are poor.



Optime vale.



C. Petronius Dexter

Arcoiali scribebat

Nonis Aprilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

























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

Salve Corde, et salvete omnes

Cordus has made a detailed and passionate statement. To help me understand his arguments, I have tried to summarise his exact words, and have set this out in the form of an interview.

Q. What must our aim be?
A. A Roman republican cultural, civic, and political community. A Roman life can only be fully lived as part of a self-governing community of Roman citizens:

Q. Do we need a law for this?
A. I had no time for the lex constitutiva, or even, in the end, for leges of any kind, and certainly not for the preamble, which seemed to me a mere puff of air.

Q. So you don't like these texts at all. If we are going to change them, what must we avoid and what must we keep?
A. We must avoid the removal, or at least obfuscation, of any suggestion that Nova Roma is or seeks to be a republic, a political community of citizens.

Q. What should our founding documents say?
A. The Lex Constituva should not exist. Even if it cannot be removed I do not see what benefit any preamble can possibly bring except to make its interpretation still more opaque and give rise to still more arguments that have nothing at all to do with the Romans of the ancient republic and their thoughts and deeds. Do what you want with these pieces of text.

Q. But how then should we define Nova Roma's image of itself and Nova Roma's hopes and goals?
A. For me its sole value, except as a community in which I have made good friends whose desire to live more Roman lives I share, is its potential: the fact that it hopes to be, and may some day actually approximate to, a Roman republic.

Q.Does that mean we should declare an independent and sovereign state?
A. No. By that I don't mean a nation-state recognized by the United Nations and governing a particular patch of territory over which it exercises supreme jurisdiction: that is not only a fantasy but entirely unnecessary.

Q. So what do you mean?
A. What I mean is a community of people regarding themselves as fellow Roman citizens who voluntarily join together and choose to live as if they were citizens of a Roman republic whether the outside world treats them as such or not. If that is not what Nova Roma hopes one day to be, then it has no value.

Q. Does this mean that we should be merely a club?
A. If Nova Roma should now, by its change to this useless preamble of this self-defeating document, tell the world, and its own members, that it abandons any hope of becoming a republican community of self-governing citizens, and to be merely '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' - in short, a group of people who find the Romans interesting and even admirable but are not themselves Romans nor hope ever to be Romans - then it will cease to have any significant value to me or to anyone who, like me wants to live a life worthy of the great Romans of the ancient republic.

Q. OK, so not a club, and not an independent sovereign nation either. I think you must therefore mean we need to set out some sort of spiritual vision. How do we legislate for that?

A. You must use an appropriate form of words.

Thank you Corde. Perhaps you will be able to help us there. We hope to see more of you in the near future.

Vale, et valete omnes.

Crispus

C. Petronius Cn. Lentulo suo s.p.d.,

> So the arguments against the content hugely prevail over the form. But the form, too, has to be god. Imagine the French constitution with a foreign accent in style, or with grammatic mistakes!

One day it is grammaticaly wrong, one day later it is right. That is the evolution of the language. But you are right, the Constitution must be written in a perfect language. But also in a very clear language, without dubious words, obfuscations as wrote Cordus... the current Nova Roma Constitution is not anywhere clear. Remember the "Shall" Cato's controversy. And many things must be corrected. And, moreover, this Constitution must be translated in the languages we use.

Our Constitution becomes with the definition clear of the French sovereignty. A language, an emblem, a national anthem, the motto of the French république: "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité", etc, after that we have many (too) articles about the powers of the magistrates, parliament, etc.

It is a text of law it is not a text of hopes nor dreams. For that, we obviously have our eternal and magistral 1789 "Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen".

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

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

First, thanks to Crispus for his digest.

After I read Cordus' speech, my first thought was "What about the proposal contradicts what Cordus has said?"

Look closely, and tell me what the difference between these two concepts is:

"...a community of people regarding themselves as fellow Roman citizens who voluntarily join together and choose to live as if they were citizens of a Roman republic whether the outside world treats them as such or not."

and

"...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."


Let me ask those who clamor for some sort of recognition of our intent to become...something else, which is neither a sovereign nation ("I don't mean a nation-state recognized by the United Nations and governing a particular patch of territory over which it exercises supreme jurisdiction: that is not only a fantasy but entirely unnecessary") nor a "club":

What about the proposal suggests that we are *not* a respublica? Right now, we *do* govern ourselves in a Roman way; right now we *do* have the sacra publica (and privata) being offered by citizens and magistrates; right now we *do* fulfill Cicero's definition of a respublica.

Cordus wrote: "What I mean is a community of people who, regarding
themselves as fellow Roman citizens, voluntarily join together (in the same place ideally, but not necessarily) in a consensus about justice and the common good (M. Cicero de re publica 1.39)"

I have written the same thing several times; what in the proposal denies, ignores, or obfuscates this?

Nevertheless, perhaps something like this might be more palatable:

"IN THE NAME OF THE SENATE AND PEOPLE OF NOVA ROMA. Within the constraints of current international and national laws, Nova Roma is the restoration of an ancient Roman Republic. This restoration encompasses republican Roman institutions and civilization from the foundation of the City in 753 BCE to the deposition of the emperor Romulus Augustulus in 1229 AUC (476 CE) and shall bring life to the religion, history, culture, languages, economy, and political institutions of the Roman Republic. Nova Roma is the cornerstone of the revival of the sacra publica of ancient Rome, in which the Gods and Goddesses of Rome shall be honored and the pax deorum restored. Nova Roma is the cornerstone of revived Roman republican political and social institutions, which shall model themselves after the Roman Republic and shall encourage the daily life of a community of persons living as a restored Roman republic, the conservation and the promotion of its cultural heritage, and the promotion, in our own time, of Republican Roman virtues."

Valete,

Cato

M. Moravius Piscinus Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Diis bene iuvantibus sitis

Hodie est Nonae Apriliae; haec dies nefastus est: Fortunae Publicae; Ludi Megalesiaci. Hoc biduo sacrificium maximum Fortunae Primigeniae utro eorum die oraculum patet, II viri vitulum L.

When the stars have vanished, and the Moon unyokes
Her snowy horses, and the next dawn shines in the sky,
He'll speak true who says: On this day long ago
The temple of Public Fortune was dedicated on the Quirinal.
~ Publius Ovidius Naso, Fasti 4.373-376


Fortuna Primigenia at Praeneste

Ovid refers to the dedication day of a Temple of Fortuna Publica, one of three temples on the Quirinal that were dedicated to this Goddess.

Today is also noted on the fasti Praenestini as a day when the oracle of Fortuna Primigenia was opened. Her oracle at Praeneste was the foremost of Italy. For the oracle, lots were mixed in a cista filled with water. In response to inquiries a youth was selected to draw lots (Cicero, De Divinatione 2.86). Such is depicted on a third century bronze cista where a youth hands a lot to a figure in a toga. Young children, having reborn geniuses, are considered to be closer to the Gods than adults, and thus children were often used in drawing lots and in other forms of divination as mediators between the divine and mortals (Tibullus 1.3.10-12). Praeneste was a nearby Latin city of prominence, and yet it was still regarded a foreign city in 242/241 BCE:

"Lutatius Cerco, who ended the First Punic War, was prohibited by the Senate from consulting the lots of Fortuna at Praeneste. For they judged it right that the State be administered with ancestral auspices, not foreign ones." ~ Valerius Maximus 1.3.2

Lutatius Catullus, consul of 242, ended the First Punic War. His brother, Lutatius Cerco was consul in the following year and handled negotiations of the peace treaty. It was less than an hundred years at that time since Rome had defeated the Latin League and gained complete hegemony over the Latins. Fortuna Primigenia at Praeneste became more integrated into Roman practice by the Late Republic.


Claudia Quinta

Yesterday, in telling of the arrival of the Magna Mater to Rome, Livy mentioned Claudia Quinta as a particularly virtuous woman among the matrons of the City. Just as Scipio Nasica was said to have been chosen as the most noble man of Rome, worthy to receive the Goddess, in Livy Claudia Quinta seems to have been thought the most noble of patrician matrons. Earlier than Livy, Cicero, addressing his remarks to Clodius, wrote:

"Formerly, then, by the advice of this prophetess, when Italy was wearied by the Punic war and harassed by Hannibal, our ancestors imported that sacred image and those sacred rites from Phrygia, and established them at Rome, where they were received by that man who was adjudged to be the most virtuous of all the Roman people, Publius Scipio Nasica, and by the woman who was considered the chastest of the matrons, Quinta Claudia; the old-fashioned strictness of whose sacrifice on that occasion your sister is considered to have imitated in a wonderful manner." ~ M. Tullius Cicero, De Haruspicum Responsis 27

Then in April 56 BCE, Cicero, while defending Caelius, attacked Clodia (made famous by Catullus) by contrasting her with Claudia Quinta who he holds up as an example of "the womanly glory of domestic praise (pro Caelio 14.34)." With Cicero, as with Livy later, Claudia Quinta was noted as the most chaste matron and one most worthy to receive the image of the Goddess. Shortly after Livy wrote Ovid tells a very different story as it was revealed in the scaena testificata, or sacred drama of the Ludi Megalesia.

"For a long time there'd been a drought: the grass was dry and scorched: the boat stuck fast in the muddy shallows. Every man, hauling, laboured beyond his strength, and encouraged their toiling hands with his cries. Yet the ship lodged there, like an island fixed in mid-ocean: and astonished at the portent, men stood and quaked. Claudia Quinta traced her descent from noble Clausus, and her beauty was in no way unequal to her nobility: She was chaste, but not believed so: hostile rumour Had wounded her, false charges were levelled at her: her elegance, promenading around in various hairstyles, and her ready tongue, with stiff old men, counted against her. Conscious of virtue, she laughed at the rumoured lies,
But we're always ready to credit others with faults. Now, when she'd stepped from the line of chaste women, taking pure river water in her hands, she wetted her head three times, three times lifted her palms to the sky, while everyone watching her thought she'd lost her mind, and then, kneeling, fixed her eyes on the Goddess's statue, and, with loosened hair, uttered these words: 'Kind and fruitful Mother of the Gods, accept a suppliant's prayers, on this one condition: They deny I'm chaste: let me be guilty if You condemn me: convicted by a Goddess I'll pay for it with my life. But if I'm free of guilt, grant a pledge of my innocence by Your action: and, chaste, give way to my chaste hands.' She spoke: then gave a slight pull at the rope, a wonder, but the sacred drama attests what I say, the Goddess stirred, followed, and, following, approved her:
witness the sound of jubilation carried to the stars." ~ P. Ovidius Naso, Fasti 4.299-328

This story about Claudia Quinta may have been given greater prominence in the years that followed when Emperor Claudius reorganized the cultus Matri Deum, established the dendroforii, and more. However, already at some time before 111 BCE a statue of Claudia Quinta was erected in the vestibule of the Palatine Temple of Magna Mater. In that year, and again in 3 CE, the temple burnt to the ground but the statue of Claudia Quinta remained miraculously undamaged (Val. Max. 1.8.11).

"This, it was said, had formerly happened to Claudia Quinta; her statue which had twice escaped the violence of fire, had been dedicated by our ancestors in the Temple of Magna Mater Deorum, hence the Claudii had been accounted sacred and numbered among the Gods." ~ P. Cornelius Tacitus, Annales 4.64.4

These fires, and what was taken to have been a miracle that the statue of Claudia Quinta should survive, led to tfurther embellishment of her story. In the first century version by Silius Italicus, Scipio Nasica enjoins the crowd to tow the ship of Magna Mater to Rome by first warning them:

"Spare your guilty palms from touching these ropes. Away from here, I warn you, go far away from hence, whosoever among you is unchaste, do not share in this sacred task."

It was then that Claudia Quinta, a matron falsely accused of being unchaste, picked up the tow-rope alone and prayed:

"O Great Mother of the Heavenly Host, Genetrix of all the divine powers, whose children cast lots to see who should rule over land, and seas, and the stars, and the nether world of the Manes, if without violation my body is free of all unchaste crimes, may You be my witness, dear Goddess, and testify on my behalf of my innocence by the ease with which I now draw this vessel." ~ Ti. Catius Asconius Silius Italicus, Punica 17.27-29; 35-40

With P. Papinius Statius, also in the first century, Claudia Quinta is a 'virgo' rather than a matron, but not a Vestal (Silvae 1.2.245-246). By the third century Claudia Quinta was made over into a Vestal Virgin who had been accused of being unchaste and thus condemned to be buried alive. "She took off her sash and threw it onto the prow of the ship with a prayer that, if she were still an innocent virgin the ship would respond to her. The ship readily followed, attached to the sash. The Romans were astounded, both by the manifestation of the Goddess and by the sanctity of the Virgin (Herodian, Historia 1.11)."

Here Claudia Quinta would seem to have been confused with either of two Vestales Claudiae. The more famous Vestal Claudia interposed her sacrosanct person into her father's chariot to prevent a tribune of the plebs from denying him his triumph in 143 BCE (Val. Max. 5.4.6; Livy, Perioche 53; Cicero, pro Caelio 14.34). The other Claudia, if not a Vestal was noted as a virgin nevertheless, dedicated the Aventine Temple of the Bona Dea (Ovid, Fasti 5.155-158). [Cicero instead identified her as Vestal Licinia, daughter of a tribune of 145 BCE (De Domo 136).] But the story of a Vestal Virgin Claudia Quinta would seem to have been modeled more after that of Vestal Virgin Tuccia who famously proved her innocence by carrying water in a sieve from the Tiber to the Temple of Vesta [Val. Max. 8.1.5 (absol)]. The story of Claudia Quinta and how it evolved over the years is an example of how a tradition like the religio Romana tends to evolve over time.

http://dictynna.revue.univ-lille3.fr/1Articles/4Articlespdf/Winsor.pdf


Thought of the day from Epictetus, Enchiridion 12

"If you would improve, lay aside such reasonings as these: "If I neglect my affairs, I shall not have a maintenance; if I do not punish my servant, he will be good for nothing." For it were better to die of hunger, exempt from grief and fear, than to live in affluence with perturbation; and it is better that your servant should be bad than you unhappy.

"Begin therefore with little things. Is a little oil spilt or a little wine stolen? Say to yourself, "This is the price paid for peace and tranquility; and nothing is to be had for nothing." And when you call your servant, consider that it is possible he may not come at your call; or, if he does, that he may not do what you wish. But it is not at all desirable for him, and very undesirable for you, that it should be in his power to cause you any disturbance."

Salve Cato, et salvete omnes

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

> "IN THE NAME OF THE SENATE AND PEOPLE OF NOVA ROMA. Within the constraints of current international and national laws, Nova Roma is the restoration of an ancient Roman Republic. This restoration encompasses republican Roman institutions and civilization from the foundation of the City in 753 BCE to the deposition of the emperor Romulus Augustulus in 1229 AUC (476 CE) and shall bring life to the religion, history, culture, languages, economy, and political institutions of the Roman Republic. Nova Roma is the cornerstone of the revival of the sacra publica of ancient Rome, in which the Gods and Goddesses of Rome shall be honored and the pax deorum restored. Nova Roma is the cornerstone of revived Roman republican political and social institutions, which shall model themselves after the Roman Republic and shall encourage the daily life of a community of persons living as a restored Roman republic, the conservation and the promotion of its cultural heritage, and the promotion, in our own time, of Republican Roman virtues."

I like this. I can live comfortably as a full republican citizen (not merely a club member) with this.It makes a statement of what we are, a living nation with its own culture, religion and political institutions. It does all this without macronational conflict. I think very many of us can sign up to this.

This seems to me to be a major step forward, moving on from the bickering and backbiting that has generated words without proposing an acceptable solution.

OK, so maybe this can be improved on still further, but lets try and work together to bring forward something that we, and successive generations of citizens, can live their lives by in the years to come.

Vale, et Valete optime,
Crispus

Ludi Megalesia: SATURA (MIXED BAG of ROMAN LIFE) Day 2

EX OFFICIO AEDILIS P. ANNAEI


L. Iulia Aquila Quiritibus s. p. d.


This is the 2nd day of the Megalesia, the feria devoted to the Mother of the gods, Magna Mater!

Welcome to the Satura game, Day 2 questions follow the info!

SATURA (MIXED BAG of ROMAN LIFE)
The game is a series of 12 different questions with 1 – 4 parts including bonus questions regarding various aspects of basic Roman life that every ancient Roman would know. 1 – 2 will be offered each day. It is designed to be fun and educational.

TOPIC:
Various aspects of everyday Ancient Roman life which include numerals, Latin terms – a mixed bag!

RULES:
1) Everyday during the Ludi one or two questions will be posted. You may answer them as they are posted or when you have time as long as they are answered by the Deadline as indicated below. Some are easy, some not so.

2) 12 questions, some with multiple answers earn 2 – 16 points including bonus questions for a total of 100 points.

THE WINNER

The winner is the citizen who earns the most points!

DEADLINE
QQS 1 – 11 The 9th of April, 24:00 – Rome Time
Q 12 - The 10th of April, 24:00 - Rome Time
Results will be posted within a few days of the close of the Ludi
Please send your submissions to:
luciajuliaaquila@...
PRIVATELY!

Day 2 Questions, the last "math" questions.

2) Name the two Roman numerals that can be written in two different but correct ways (include the two different ways).
1.
2.
(6 pt)

3) Name four ways Roman numerals are used today.
1.
2.
3.
4.
(8 pt)


Good luck to all!

Vale optimé,

L. Iulia Aquila

Salvete omnes,

Email clarification -

luciaiuliaaquila AT hotmail.com - remember to replace AT with @ and remove the spaces or you can simply go to the right naventry under my name and click on email and send your answers that way.

Valete et habete fortunam bonam!

Julia

P.S. Please remember that all questions may be submitted anytime before the end of the Ludi!

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <dis_pensible@...> wrote:
>
> EX OFFICIO AEDILIS P. ANNAEI
>
>
> L. Iulia Aquila Quiritibus s. p. d.
>
> Citizens, in the name of Aedilis P. Annaeus Constantinus Placidus I send you salutations of good will and with great honor for the Magna Mater announce the opening of the Satura (mixed bag of Roman life) Game!
>
> SATURA (MIXED BAG of ROMAN LIFE)
> The game is a series of 12 different questions with 1 – 4 parts including bonus questions regarding various aspects of basic Roman life that every ancient Roman would know. 1 – 2 will be offered each day. It is designed to be fun and educational.
>
> TOPIC:
> Various aspects of everyday Ancient Roman life which include numerals, Latin terms – a mixed bag!
>
> RULES:
> 1) Everyday during the Ludi one or two questions will be posted. You may answer them as they are posted or when you have time as long as they are answered by the Deadline as indicated below. Some are easy, some not so.
>
> 2) 12 questions, some with multiple answers earn 2 – 16 points including bonus questions for a total of 100 points.
>
> THE WINNER
>
> The winner is the citizen who earns the most points!
>
> DEADLINE
> QQS 1 – 11 The 9th of April, 24:00 – Rome Time
> Q 12 - The 10th of April, 24:00 - Rome Time
> Results will be posted within a few days of the close of the Ludi
> Please send your submissions to
> luciajuliaaquila@...
> PRIVATELY!
>
> Question #1 (2 pts)
>
> 1) What number system did the Romans use for architectural calculations?
>
> Good luck to all!
>
> Vale optimé,
>
> L. Iulia Aquila
>

Salvete omnes,

1) Email clarification -

luciaiuliaaquila AT hotmail.com - remember to replace AT with @ and remove the spaces or you can simply go to the right naventry under my name and click on email and send your answers that way.

2) There are actually 4 answers total - two different numerals and each one has two different ways of being written. for example:

1. ** is also written as ****
2. ** is also written as *****

Yes, this is a hint.

Valete et habete fortunam bonam!

Julia

P.S. Please remember that all quaetions may be submitted anytime before the end of the Ludi!

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <dis_pensible@...> wrote:
>
> Ludi Megalesia: SATURA (MIXED BAG of ROMAN LIFE) Day 2
>
> EX OFFICIO AEDILIS P. ANNAEI
>
>
> L. Iulia Aquila Quiritibus s. p. d.
>
>
> This is the 2nd day of the Megalesia, the feria devoted to the Mother of the gods, Magna Mater!
>
> Welcome to the Satura game, Day 2 questions follow the info!
>
> SATURA (MIXED BAG of ROMAN LIFE)
> The game is a series of 12 different questions with 1 – 4 parts including bonus questions regarding various aspects of basic Roman life that every ancient Roman would know. 1 – 2 will be offered each day. It is designed to be fun and educational.
>
> TOPIC:
> Various aspects of everyday Ancient Roman life which include numerals, Latin terms – a mixed bag!
>
> RULES:
> 1) Everyday during the Ludi one or two questions will be posted. You may answer them as they are posted or when you have time as long as they are answered by the Deadline as indicated below. Some are easy, some not so.
>
> 2) 12 questions, some with multiple answers earn 2 – 16 points including bonus questions for a total of 100 points.
>
> THE WINNER
>
> The winner is the citizen who earns the most points!
>
> DEADLINE
> QQS 1 – 11 The 9th of April, 24:00 – Rome Time
> Q 12 - The 10th of April, 24:00 - Rome Time
> Results will be posted within a few days of the close of the Ludi
> Please send your submissions to:
> luciajuliaaquila@...
> PRIVATELY!
>
> Day 2 Questions, the last "math" questions.
>
> 2) Name the two Roman numerals that can be written in two different but correct ways (include the two different ways).
> 1.
> 2.
> (6 pt)
>
> 3) Name four ways Roman numerals are used today.
> 1.
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> (8 pt)
>
>
> Good luck to all!
>
> Vale optimé,
>
> L. Iulia Aquila
>

<<--- On Mon, 4/5/10, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@...> wrote:
 [cut]
 
ATS: Without that vision, Nova Roma would become little more than just
another Roman-based interest group, of which there are many. I suspect that
Lentulus and you are not the only ones who would think twice about expending
time and effort on Nova Roma if our vision were removed from the Constitution.
I think there must be a way to retain this mission statement or whatever
without running afoul of macronational law and whatnot, but this proposal is
not it. Perhaps, Corde, you could work together with Lentulus and the
consules to produce something more suitable. Those of us who have been here a
while know very well about your dislike for the Constitution, but we have one
as our supreme law, and it is best to get it right when any changes are
proposed in that document. Your legal training and intellectual excellence,
not to mention your English language abilities, would seem to be highly
beneficial in this endeavor...if you have the time, and think that NR is still
worth the effort.>>
 
Oh, your help would be really good! I hope you will consider it.
 
Vale bene,
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina




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

EX OFFICIO AEDILIS P. ANNAEI




C. Maria Caeca Quiritibus s. p. d.

Citizens, in the name of aedilis P. Annaeus Constantinus Placidus I salute
you, and proudly open the FIRST Theatrical Comedy Sketch Writing Contest!


ADUMBRATIO COMOEDIA (THEATRICAL COMEDY SKETCH):

These sketches or plays are to be composed in the spirit of friendship and
camaraderie and above all with a sense of humor. They are to make us laugh -
at ourselves and each other in a good natured fashion setting aside all
loathing and dislike. Laughter of well written parodies and comedies bring
people together



TOPIC:

Contestants will submit a script for a short comedy or parody sketch
suitable to be performed on a stage in the spirit of the plays performed in
ancient Rome on the Megalesia.

The plays were usually pastoral in nature but we will leave that optional.
However they must be set in a Roman setting, for example: the forum, the
country side, a domus where a Megalesia party is occurring or even the
baths.



RULES:

1) Limit of 1000 words.



2) They must be written in sketch or play form for example:

Cato: I'm the Aedile

Julia: No, I'm the Aedile

Cato: Give me that Aedile stick!

Julia: You'll have to catch me first!

If you choose to include a pastoral scene then you can include short
descriptions between "actors" dialogue.



3) The purpose of each submission is to make us laugh out loud, that rolling
on the floor, tears of laughter kind. No mean, hurtful or malevolent words.
Work that contains rude, offensive, evil or hurtful elements will be
excluded from the competition.

Remember: the purpose of the game is writing intelligent, stylish, amusing,
witty and radiant comedies and parodies, NOT ridiculing others.


THE WINNER

The winner will be selected by a jury composed of people of knowledgeable of
literature. The best submissions will be published.

DEADLINE submissions must be received no later than April 9, and will be
presented very soon after the games have been concluded.



Please send your submissions to:



luciaiuliaaquila@...

PRIVATELY!

Salve Cato,

I don't see where this helps at all. This is even worse than the consul's proposed preamble and far worse than the existing preamble. We're better off keeping the original preamble while excising independent and sovereign than this verbiage.

Vale,

Palladius

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

> "IN THE NAME OF THE SENATE AND PEOPLE OF NOVA ROMA. Within the constraints of current international and national laws, Nova Roma is the restoration of an ancient Roman Republic. This restoration encompasses republican Roman institutions and civilization from the foundation of the City in 753 BCE to the deposition of the emperor Romulus Augustulus in 1229 AUC (476 CE) and shall bring life to the religion, history, culture, languages, economy, and political institutions of the Roman Republic. Nova Roma is the cornerstone of the revival of the sacra publica of ancient Rome, in which the Gods and Goddesses of Rome shall be honored and the pax deorum restored. Nova Roma is the cornerstone of revived Roman republican political and social institutions, which shall model themselves after the Roman Republic and shall encourage the daily life of a community of persons living as a restored Roman republic, the conservation and the promotion of its cultural heritage, and the promotion, in our own time, of Republican Roman virtues."
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>

EX OFFICIO AEDILIS P. ANNAEI




C. Maria Caeca Quiritibus s. p. d.

Citizens, in the name of aedilis P. Annaeus Constantinus Placidus I salute
you, and proudly open the Visual Arts Contest!


LUSTRATIO ROMAE (VIEW OF ROME OR ROME THROUGH YOUR EYES)

Visual Arts reflect how different individuals view our organization, or
community, or "nation" The range of views submitted will reflect the nature
of our Nova Roma will foster new meanings and a new strength impacting
further understanding of each other as fellow citizens.



TOPIC:

Visual Arts that reflect various aspects of Roman and Nova Roman life.





RULES:

1) Photographs - your own or from other media such as books and the internet
(just make sure you have the rights and permissions to use them)



2) Photographs of Original Artwork or Sculpture in the media you desire from
ink to paint to mosaic tiles to clay and marble.



3) Photographs of Artwork or Sculpture (just make sure you have the rights
and permissions to use them, most artwork over 100 years old is safe)



4) Please remember that while nudity is ok in classical depictions of Gods
and ancient Romans, no lewd acts or overt sexual content allowed.



Remember: the purpose of the game is to inspire each of us, your fellow
citizens.


THE WINNER

The winner will be selected by a jury composed of your peers who include
artists and citizens with good taste! The best submissions will be
published.

DEADLINE

The 10th of April, 24:00 - Rome Time

Please send your submissions to:



luciaiuliaaquila@...





PRIVATELY!

C. Petronius Iunio Palladio s.p.d.,

>We're better off keeping the original preamble while excising independent and sovereign than this verbiage.

Cato? A verbiage? I do not believe!

Optime vale.

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

L. Livia Plauta custos omnibus quiritibus S.P.D.

Diribitrix M. Claudia Laurentia earlier today, after a dedication and an
offering to Jupiter, completed the sortition process in order to choose a
centuria praerogativa.

The Centuria Praerogativa is number III.

Tomorrow we will announce the result of the voting of the Centuria
Praerogativa.

Optime valete,
Livia

Cato Iumio Palladio sal.

Well... OK. Whatever. Just putting it out there. You don't have to like it, but at least I'm trying.

Vale,

Cato

P.S. - it's not "far worse" than the current mess. GEC

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salve Cato,
>
> I don't see where this helps at all. This is even worse than the consul's proposed preamble and far worse than the existing preamble. We're better off keeping the original preamble while excising independent and sovereign than this verbiage.
>
> Vale,
>
> Palladius
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
>
> > "IN THE NAME OF THE SENATE AND PEOPLE OF NOVA ROMA. Within the constraints of current international and national laws, Nova Roma is the restoration of an ancient Roman Republic. This restoration encompasses republican Roman institutions and civilization from the foundation of the City in 753 BCE to the deposition of the emperor Romulus Augustulus in 1229 AUC (476 CE) and shall bring life to the religion, history, culture, languages, economy, and political institutions of the Roman Republic. Nova Roma is the cornerstone of the revival of the sacra publica of ancient Rome, in which the Gods and Goddesses of Rome shall be honored and the pax deorum restored. Nova Roma is the cornerstone of revived Roman republican political and social institutions, which shall model themselves after the Roman Republic and shall encourage the daily life of a community of persons living as a restored Roman republic, the conservation and the promotion of its cultural heritage, and the promotion, in our own time, of Republican Roman virtues."
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>

Salve Livia,

So anyone who has already voted will have to vote again at the appropriate time. Generally the centuria praerogativa is announced prior to the cista being opened.

Vale

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> L. Livia Plauta custos omnibus quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> Diribitrix M. Claudia Laurentia earlier today, after a dedication and an
> offering to Jupiter, completed the sortition process in order to choose a
> centuria praerogativa.
>
> The Centuria Praerogativa is number III.
>
> Tomorrow we will announce the result of the voting of the Centuria
> Praerogativa.
>
> Optime valete,
> Livia
>

Salvete!

No, no, we have a new system, everyone votes together in the same time.

No one has to repeat his vote.


VALETE!

--- Mar 6/4/10, luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...> ha scritto:

Da: luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Centuria Praerogativa
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Data: Martedì 6 Aprile 2010, 01:00







 









Salve Livia,



So anyone who has already voted will have to vote again at the appropriate time. Generally the centuria praerogativa is announced prior to the cista being opened.



Vale



Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@ ...> wrote:

>

> L. Livia Plauta custos omnibus quiritibus S.P.D.

>

> Diribitrix M. Claudia Laurentia earlier today, after a dedication and an

> offering to Jupiter, completed the sortition process in order to choose a

> centuria praerogativa.

>

> The Centuria Praerogativa is number III.

>

> Tomorrow we will announce the result of the voting of the Centuria

> Praerogativa.

>

> Optime valete,

> Livia

>

























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

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

> No, no, we have a new system,

I hope it cheap...

> everyone votes together in the same time.

Poor server...

> No one has to repeat his vote.

Dii te audiant.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
A. d. VIII Idus Apriles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Salve Iulia,
no, we have dispensed with consequential voting.
Now everybody votes at the same time. The result of the centuria
praerogativa will be simply announced first. Then we will announce the
result of the first class centuries, and finally of all the centuries.

Nobody has to vote again. Unless they want to change their votes, that is.
If I'm correct the last vote is the one that counts.

Optime vale,
Livia

----- Original Message -----
From: "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 1:00 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Centuria Praerogativa


Salve Livia,

So anyone who has already voted will have to vote again at the appropriate
time. Generally the centuria praerogativa is announced prior to the cista
being opened.

Vale

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...>
wrote:
>
> L. Livia Plauta custos omnibus quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> Diribitrix M. Claudia Laurentia earlier today, after a dedication and an
> offering to Jupiter, completed the sortition process in order to choose a
> centuria praerogativa.
>
> The Centuria Praerogativa is number III.
>
> Tomorrow we will announce the result of the voting of the Centuria
> Praerogativa.
>
> Optime valete,
> Livia
>