Selected messages in Nova-Roma group. Aug 5-14, 2010

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79170 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: New Site Design
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79172 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79173 From: Gaius Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: PETITIO ACTIONIS
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79174 From: qvalerius Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79175 From: qvalerius Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79176 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79177 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79178 From: Cato Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79179 From: Cato Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79180 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Test message
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79181 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Test message
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79182 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: To our Sarmatians Cives, please ...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79183 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: To our Sarmatians Cives, please ...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79184 From: Christina Moseley Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79185 From: Christina Moseley Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: PETITIO ACTIONIS
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79186 From: Vedius Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: A Missed Communication?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79187 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79188 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Test message
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79189 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: A Missed Communication?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79190 From: eagled2 Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: New Site Design
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79191 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: To our Sarmatians Cives, please ...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79192 From: qvalerius Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79194 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: New Site Design
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79195 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: New Site Design
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79196 From: eagled2 Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: New Site Design
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79197 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: a. d. VIII Eidus Sextiliae: Tullius' Wars with Alba Longa and Lavini
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79198 From: aerdensrw Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: A Missed Communication?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79199 From: Cato Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: August 6th
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79200 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: August 6th OT
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79201 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: To our Sarmatians Cives, please ...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79202 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79203 From: gualterus_graecus Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79204 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: August 6th
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79205 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79206 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79207 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79208 From: gualterus_graecus Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79209 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: a. d. VII Eidus Sextiliae: Battle of Crannon
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79210 From: Kirsteen Wright Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79211 From: aerdensrw Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79212 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79213 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79214 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79215 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79216 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79217 From: Kirsteen Wright Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79218 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79219 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-08-08
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79220 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-08
Subject: Classic Poetry, Prose, Proems, Literature Excerpts
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79221 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-08
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79222 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-08-08
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79223 From: gualterus_graecus Date: 2010-08-08
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79224 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-08-08
Subject: a. d. VI Eidus Sextiliae: Coriolanus, Foruna Mulieris & the Matrons
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79225 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2010-08-08
Subject: FW: [Explorator] explorator 13.16
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79226 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2010-08-09
Subject: herb lore?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79227 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-09
Subject: Re: herb lore?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79228 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-09
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79229 From: eagled2 Date: 2010-08-09
Subject: Re: New Site Design
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79230 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-08-09
Subject: Re: New Site Design
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79231 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-08-09
Subject: a. d. V Eidus Sextiliae: Battle of Pharsalia; Battle of Hadrianopoli
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79232 From: Cato Date: 2010-08-09
Subject: a.d IV Id. Sext.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79233 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Crescat scientia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79234 From: eagled2 Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Re: New Site Design
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79235 From: eagled2 Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Re: herb lore?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79236 From: gualterus_graecus Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Re: Crescat scientia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79237 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: a. d. IV Eidus Sextilias: The Raven
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79238 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Re: herb lore?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79239 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: flaminica quiritisbus spd
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79240 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Question on Apology Re: [Nova-Roma] flaminica quiritisbus spd
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79241 From: ti_ovidivs_aqvila Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Caesary
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79242 From: marcus.lucretius Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79243 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Re: Caesary
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79244 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Re: On the trial of M. Hortensia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79245 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Re: On the trial of M. Hortensia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79246 From: Cato Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Re: On the trial of M. Hortensia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79247 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Re: On the trial of M. Hortensia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79248 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-08-11
Subject: a. d. III Eidus Sextiliae: Hercules and Playing Dice
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79249 From: eagled2 Date: 2010-08-11
Subject: Re: a. d. III Eidus Sextiliae: Hercules and Playing Dice
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79250 From: marcus.lucretius Date: 2010-08-11
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79251 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-11
Subject: Edict 2063-03: Edict Aedile Curule L. Iulia Aquila Appointing of Scr
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79252 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-11
Subject: piaculum flaminicae
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79253 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-11
Subject: Re: piaculum flaminicae
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79254 From: mcorvvs Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Tribunician report for July session of the Senate (Corrected)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79255 From: mcorvvs Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79256 From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Office of Dictator illegal under Maine law
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79257 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: FALSE Tribunician report for Illegal session of the Senate
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79258 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Office of Dictator illegal under Maine law
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79259 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: [CPT] FALSE Tribunician report for Illegal session of the Senate
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79260 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Pridie Eidus Sextiliae: Hercules, Venus, Honos, Virtus, Felicitas
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79261 From: Michael Kassus Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Caesary
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79262 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Office of Dictator illegal under Maine law
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79263 From: Publius Memmius Albucius Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: On the renunciation of GEM to the illegal position of dictator
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79264 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Tribunician report for July session of the Senate (Corrected)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79265 From: Cato Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Tribunician report for July session of the Senate (Corrected)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79266 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Office of Dictator illegal under Maine law
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79267 From: M. Octavius Gracchus Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Office of Dictator illegal under Maine law
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79268 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Ancient Studies
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79269 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Videos about Ancient Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79270 From: Kirsteen Wright Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Ancient Studies
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79271 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Ancient Studies
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79272 From: Kirsteen Wright Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Ancient Studies
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79273 From: Hermione Volino Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Ancient Studies
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79274 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Ancient Studies
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79275 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Ancient Studies
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79276 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79277 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79278 From: Christer Edling Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: [CollPontificumNR] Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79279 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79280 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79281 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79282 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79283 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: IDUS SEXTILIAE Vertumnus Pomona Diana Castor Pollux Hercules Flora
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79284 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: May Maxima visit us from time to time... get well soon positively.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79285 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: May Maxima visit us from time to time... get well soon positivel
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79286 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: May Maxima visit us from time to time... get well soon positivel
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79287 From: Kirsteen Wright Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: May Maxima visit us from time to time... get well soon positivel
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79288 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: May Maxima visit us from time to time... get well soon positivel
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79289 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79290 From: M•IVL•SEVERVS Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79291 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79292 From: Lyn Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79293 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79294 From: James Hooper Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79295 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79296 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79297 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79298 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79299 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Angels and Demons and exhibition in Bible Lands Museum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79300 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79301 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79302 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79303 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79304 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79305 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79306 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79307 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79308 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79309 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79310 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79311 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79312 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79313 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79314 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79315 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79316 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79317 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79318 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79319 From: enodia2002 Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79320 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79321 From: mcorvvs Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Tribunician report for July session of the Senate (Corrected + S
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79322 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79323 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Tribunician report for July session of the Senate (Corrected + S
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79324 From: enodia2002 Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79325 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79326 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79327 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79328 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79329 From: gualterus_graecus Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79330 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79331 From: Kirsteen Wright Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79332 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79333 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: To all Culters
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79334 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79335 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Culters
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79336 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Culters
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79337 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Culters
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79338 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Offering to Vesta
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79339 From: Kirsteen Wright Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Culters
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79340 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Culters
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79341 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Culters
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79342 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Cultores Deorum and to the Forum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79343 From: Lyn Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Culters
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79344 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Cultores Deorum and to the Forum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79345 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Culters
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79346 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Cultores Deorum and to the Forum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79347 From: Cato Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79170 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: New Site Design
Well, I'm not sure if you've been following what's going on, but one of the
things the Senate is supposed to be dealing with is a plan for the website.
It might have been done by now had the plan not become mired in the
possibility of corruption where the $10,000 was concerned and the efforts of
an obstructionist clique to take over the government with a dictatorship.
Now that the attempted coup has been derailed and those behind it have lost
all credibility in the eyes of the people of Nova Roma, we must hope that
Consul Albucius and the Senate can get back to productive work soon.

As far as the forum idea is concerned, surely you are aware that Nova Roma
had one of those at the start? The switch to a Yahoogroup has not been
universally appreciated, but for the most part seems far more popular than
having to go to a web forum every time one wants to catch up on NR. It's
just easier for most people to have it in their e-mail inbox.

Cheers,
~ Valerianus

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:57 AM, eagled2 <eagled2@...> wrote:

>
>
> I can and am willing to setup a forum and customize it for our group, but
> the problem is getting people to use it. From what i've heard many people
> have tried to start one up and it has never went anywhere. Unless you can
> get citizens to start using it I was looking for one built or at least
> officially recognized by the government of nova roma. I believe that's the
> only way to get people to trust it enough to actually use it. Like I said
> before someone had told me that they were in the process of re-designing the
> entire nova roma website and I haven't seen any evidence or updates of that
> in the years since I was told that.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stefn
> Ullarsson Piparskeggr" <famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Barbatus;
> >
> > Here's one I set up (at a freeserve) in less than an hour.
> >
> >
> http://tavernaromana.netboards.org/index.php?sid=d26b6626878077031dc6dd8a9067e1c2
> >
> > ...and a blog I set up before my dad got ill and I lost the energy to
> > work on it...
> >
> > http://confoederatio-romana.webs.com/
> >
> > The tools are out there to come up with a site (or interlinked sites),
> > which will work with a group our size.
> >
> > =====================================
> > In amicitia et fide
> > Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator
> > Civis circa Quintilis MMDCCLI a.u.c.
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79172 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
M. Hortensia A. Tulliae spd;
R. optimé factum, hahahae

R= ridens, that was a hoot. I last took German (for grad students) at Duke and Intermediate Latin at UNC and both times was taught by graduate students, the same when I was an undergraduate.
I think it's time to pass out the Estradiol;-)
vale
Maior
> >
> > ATS: I wouldn¹t say that. On top of her academic preparation elsewhere,
> > Plauta has successfully completed an extremely rigorous Latin course devised
> > by a major European Latinist, all of whose graduates immediately qualify for
> > the First Decuria of Latinitas, and is a fine Latinist. Perhaps your graduate
> > school requires this sort of thing, but I certainly encountered no such thing
> > anyplace in graduate school, including at some rather selective institutions
> > of higher learning. Most of us are fully capable of correcting our mistakes
> > once they have been pointed out (and sometimes groaning over them). Those who
> > have difficulty spotting their own errors, who cannot distinguish right from
> > wrong in any of several fields, may require such additional therapy, but some
> > of us do quite well on basics without that sort of remediation, though matters
> > of style and the like really do need correction by a more practiced hand.
> > When you finish your masters¹ degree, perhaps you should hone your abilities
> > by taking Sermo Combined. By now you must have learnt the declensions and
> > conjugations and installed the principal parts of the most common Latin verbs
> > into your head, so you would be ahead of the game. Let¹s see how well you do.
> > You did make some mistakes on such matters in the past.
> >
> > Vale.
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Maior Scholasticae Liviaeque spd;
> >> > my gratitude to you both. I've studied French, Italian, Russian and
> >> German in high school and university and always had my mistakes corrected.
> >> It's the only way to learn. I appreciate the help and support.
> >> > If only the rest of this list were like you two!
> >> > optime vale
> >> > Maior
> >> >
> >> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> >> "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > C. Petronius L. Liviae s.p.d.,
> >>> > >
> >>>> > > > I have been a language teacher for 15 years, and I assure you that
> >>>> the correct attitude is to provide corrections to mistakes. The habit of
> >>>> letting students guess where their mistakes are drives them up the wall. (I
> >>>> will let you look up the meaning of this expression, since this is the
> >>>> method you are so fond of).
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I have not such experience, I never wanted to teach anything... but
> >>> after 7 years of studying English language I was not able to follow a
> >>> discussion. And that is the sort of all the French pupils studying
> >>> English... so, I learnt Latin alone, with my own method, and now I write
> >>> poetries and novels in latin, the last "de Saturnalibus cruentis" will be
> >>> available on the Circulus website on the beginning of september...
> >>> > >
> >>>> > > > I never withdrew my statement. I firmly believe that it's not my
> >>>> place to decide whether a senate session was legal or not.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > It is not the point... you witness an act which did not happened.
> >>> > >
> >>>> > > > I did correct "Magisterum" with "Magistrum" before posting, though.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I have to register you in the first Latinitatis decuria.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Optime vale.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > C. Petronius Dexter
> >>> > > Arcoiali scribebat
> >>> > > Nonis Sextilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> >>> > >
> >> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79173 From: Gaius Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: PETITIO ACTIONIS
It doesn't have to be physical harm. Someone could have a compromising photo for example.

I was just commenting on the meaning of coerce, which is here from the english dictionary:

co·erce (k-ûrs)
tr.v. co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es
1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.
3. To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.

However, I do believe removing lictors from their office was mentioned which could be seen ans an attempt as coercion.

Vale,

Laenas
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79174 From: qvalerius Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Q. Valerius A. Tulliae sal.

If you were to read correctly, you would have known the response was to Hortensia, and not to Livia at all.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > A. Tullia Scholastica Q. Valerio Poplicolae quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque
> > bonae voluntatis S. P. D.
> >
> > My goodness! I thought you had shaken the virtual dust of Nova Roma out
> > of your caligae, and gone on your way!
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > In grad school, the professors force you to learn how to correct your own
> > mistakes. Your "training" must have been elementary at best.
> >
> > ATS: I wouldn¹t say that. On top of her academic preparation elsewhere,
> > Plauta has successfully completed an extremely rigorous Latin course devised
> > by a major European Latinist, all of whose graduates immediately qualify for
> > the First Decuria of Latinitas, and is a fine Latinist. Perhaps your graduate
> > school requires this sort of thing, but I certainly encountered no such thing
> > anyplace in graduate school, including at some rather selective institutions
> > of higher learning. Most of us are fully capable of correcting our mistakes
> > once they have been pointed out (and sometimes groaning over them). Those who
> > have difficulty spotting their own errors, who cannot distinguish right from
> > wrong in any of several fields, may require such additional therapy, but some
> > of us do quite well on basics without that sort of remediation, though matters
> > of style and the like really do need correction by a more practiced hand.
> > When you finish your masters¹ degree, perhaps you should hone your abilities
> > by taking Sermo Combined. By now you must have learnt the declensions and
> > conjugations and installed the principal parts of the most common Latin verbs
> > into your head, so you would be ahead of the game. Let¹s see how well you do.
> > You did make some mistakes on such matters in the past.
> >
> > Vale.
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Maior Scholasticae Liviaeque spd;
> >> > my gratitude to you both. I've studied French, Italian, Russian and
> >> German in high school and university and always had my mistakes corrected.
> >> It's the only way to learn. I appreciate the help and support.
> >> > If only the rest of this list were like you two!
> >> > optime vale
> >> > Maior
> >> >
> >> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> >> "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > C. Petronius L. Liviae s.p.d.,
> >>> > >
> >>>> > > > I have been a language teacher for 15 years, and I assure you that
> >>>> the correct attitude is to provide corrections to mistakes. The habit of
> >>>> letting students guess where their mistakes are drives them up the wall. (I
> >>>> will let you look up the meaning of this expression, since this is the
> >>>> method you are so fond of).
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I have not such experience, I never wanted to teach anything... but
> >>> after 7 years of studying English language I was not able to follow a
> >>> discussion. And that is the sort of all the French pupils studying
> >>> English... so, I learnt Latin alone, with my own method, and now I write
> >>> poetries and novels in latin, the last "de Saturnalibus cruentis" will be
> >>> available on the Circulus website on the beginning of september...
> >>> > >
> >>>> > > > I never withdrew my statement. I firmly believe that it's not my
> >>>> place to decide whether a senate session was legal or not.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > It is not the point... you witness an act which did not happened.
> >>> > >
> >>>> > > > I did correct "Magisterum" with "Magistrum" before posting, though.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I have to register you in the first Latinitatis decuria.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Optime vale.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > C. Petronius Dexter
> >>> > > Arcoiali scribebat
> >>> > > Nonis Sextilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> >>> > >
> >> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79175 From: qvalerius Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Poplicola Catoni suo SPD

Move to California then. Or Memphis (while Herenton was still Mayor).

Cura ut ualeas!

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Tulliae Scholasticae sal.
>
> I must disagree heartily on one point: I don't think a more dysfunctional government than NYS's is possible. I often find myself read The Post (a guilty pleasure) and thinking, "Even Nova Roma isn't this bad."
>
> :)
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > A. Tullia Scholastica C. Petronio Dextro quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque
> > > bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > C. Petronius L. Liviae s.p.d.,
> > >
> > >> > I have been a language teacher for 15 years, and I assure you that the
> > >> correct attitude is to provide corrections to mistakes. The habit of letting
> > >> students guess where their mistakes are drives them up the wall. (I will let
> > >> you look up the meaning of this expression, since this is the method you are
> > >> so fond of).
> > >
> > > I have not such experience, I never wanted to teach anything... but after 7
> > > years of studying English language I was not able to follow a discussion.
> > >
> > >
> > > ATS: They must have been using one of these dumbed-down FL methods such
> > > as have been inflicted on our students for these many years: tourist phrases
> > > and such, useful up to a point, but never suitable to produce fluency in
> > > reading or writing, to say nothing of speaking.
> > >
> > >
> > > And that is the sort of all the French pupils studying English... so, I learnt
> > > Latin alone, with my own method, and now I write poetries and novels in latin,
> > > the last "de Saturnalibus cruentis" will be available on the Circulus website
> > > on the beginning of september...
> > >
> > > ATS: Evidently your own method is far superior to that employed in the
> > > schools. Of course, you have the Assimil text, too, if memory serves, and
> > > that is the same one we use...but with errors corrected by Avitus. You, too,
> > > might like to solidify your knowledge of modern Latin by joining us in Sermo.
> > >
> > >> > I never withdrew my statement. I firmly believe that it's not my place to
> > >> decide whether a senate session was legal or not.
> > >
> > > It is not the point... you witness an act which did not happened.
> > >
> > > ATS: On this you have a point, one with which Marinus appears to agree.
> > > He cannot be appointed to any magistracy until he takes the oath, let alone be
> > > invested with imperium. Unfortunately, the same is true of other magistrates,
> > > and a similar situation prevails with regard to other issues of importance to
> > > the Res Publica...but as long as we have a government more dysfunctional than
> > > that of NYS, one which will not allow a proper Senate session even on a
> > > subject utterly lacking in controversy, we will continue to look ridiculous in
> > > the eyes of the observers and be unable to conduct government business.
> > >
> > >> > I did correct "Magisterum" with "Magistrum" before posting, though.
> > >
> > > I have to register you in the first Latinitatis decuria.
> > >
> > > ATS: Indeed you do, and a couple of the Sermo I graduates in the second
> > > decuria, since there is no second decurio. Plauta had to write a 300 word
> > > essay in Latin for her examination, and is fully qualified for the first
> > > decuria, more so than some who are there, and some who have been there in the
> > > past.
> > >
> > >
> > > Optime vale.
> > >
> > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > Nonis Sextilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> > >
> > > Optime vale(te).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79176 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica C. Equitio Catoni quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque
> bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> Cato Tulliae Scholasticae sal.
>
> I must disagree heartily on one point: I don't think a more dysfunctional
> government than NYS's is possible. I often find myself read The Post (a
> guilty pleasure) and thinking, "Even Nova Roma isn't this bad."
>
> :)
>
> ATS: LOL! NYS is doing a fine job of dysfunctional governance! We DO,
> however, have the three men in a room syndrome both in NR and NYS...it¹s just
> that their names are different. Things might be different if it were three
> women in a room; we wouldn¹t put up with that crud. ;-) It¹s just SO
> childish.
>
> Now, maybe if Paladino gets elected, he will put on the toga in which he
> would look so appropriate, and actually DO something in NYS. He sure LOOKS
> like an ancient Roman.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "A.
> Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@...> wrote:
>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > A. Tullia Scholastica C. Petronio Dextro quiritibus, sociis,
>>> peregrinisque
>>> > > bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > C. Petronius L. Liviae s.p.d.,
>>> > >
>>>>> > >> > I have been a language teacher for 15 years, and I assure you that
the
>>>> > >> correct attitude is to provide corrections to mistakes. The habit of
>>>> letting
>>>> > >> students guess where their mistakes are drives them up the wall. (I
>>>> will let
>>>> > >> you look up the meaning of this expression, since this is the method
>>>> you are
>>>> > >> so fond of).
>>> > >
>>> > > I have not such experience, I never wanted to teach anything... but
>>> after 7
>>> > > years of studying English language I was not able to follow a
>>> discussion.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > ATS: They must have been using one of these dumbed-down FL methods
>>> such
>>> > > as have been inflicted on our students for these many years: tourist
>>> phrases
>>> > > and such, useful up to a point, but never suitable to produce fluency in
>>> > > reading or writing, to say nothing of speaking.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > And that is the sort of all the French pupils studying English... so, I
>>> learnt
>>> > > Latin alone, with my own method, and now I write poetries and novels in
>>> latin,
>>> > > the last "de Saturnalibus cruentis" will be available on the Circulus
>>> website
>>> > > on the beginning of september...
>>> > >
>>> > > ATS: Evidently your own method is far superior to that employed in
the
>>> > > schools. Of course, you have the Assimil text, too, if memory serves,
and
>>> > > that is the same one we use...but with errors corrected by Avitus. You,
>>> too,
>>> > > might like to solidify your knowledge of modern Latin by joining us in
>>> Sermo.
>>> > >
>>>>> > >> > I never withdrew my statement. I firmly believe that it's not my
>>>>> place to
>>>> > >> decide whether a senate session was legal or not.
>>> > >
>>> > > It is not the point... you witness an act which did not happened.
>>> > >
>>> > > ATS: On this you have a point, one with which Marinus appears to
>>> agree.
>>> > > He cannot be appointed to any magistracy until he takes the oath, let
>>> alone be
>>> > > invested with imperium. Unfortunately, the same is true of other
>>> magistrates,
>>> > > and a similar situation prevails with regard to other issues of
>>> importance to
>>> > > the Res Publica...but as long as we have a government more dysfunctional
>>> than
>>> > > that of NYS, one which will not allow a proper Senate session even on a
>>> > > subject utterly lacking in controversy, we will continue to look
>>> ridiculous in
>>> > > the eyes of the observers and be unable to conduct government business.
>>> > >
>>>>> > >> > I did correct "Magisterum" with "Magistrum" before posting, though.
>>> > >
>>> > > I have to register you in the first Latinitatis decuria.
>>> > >
>>> > > ATS: Indeed you do, and a couple of the Sermo I graduates in the
>>> second
>>> > > decuria, since there is no second decurio. Plauta had to write a 300
>>> word
>>> > > essay in Latin for her examination, and is fully qualified for the first
>>> > > decuria, more so than some who are there, and some who have been there
>>> in the
>>> > > past.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Optime vale.
>>> > >
>>> > > C. Petronius Dexter
>>> > > Arcoiali scribebat
>>> > > Nonis Sextilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>>> > >
>>> > > Optime vale(te).
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
>
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79177 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Salve Poplicola,
do they also teach you how to pull yourself out of the water by your hair?
Because *that* would definitely make grad school attractive to me.

Optime vale,
Livia


----- Original Message -----
From: "qvalerius" <q.valerius.poplicola@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:21 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witnessing appointment


Salve,

In grad school, the professors force you to learn how to correct your own
mistakes. Your "training" must have been elementary at best.

Vale.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Maior Scholasticae Liviaeque spd;
> my gratitude to you both. I've studied French, Italian, Russian and
> German in high school and university and always had my mistakes corrected.
> It's the only way to learn. I appreciate the help and support.
> If only the rest of this list were like you two!
> optime vale
> Maior
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> >
> > C. Petronius L. Liviae s.p.d.,
> >
> > > I have been a language teacher for 15 years, and I assure you that the
> > > correct attitude is to provide corrections to mistakes. The habit of
> > > letting students guess where their mistakes are drives them up the
> > > wall. (I will let you look up the meaning of this expression, since
> > > this is the method you are so fond of).
> >
> > I have not such experience, I never wanted to teach anything... but
> > after 7 years of studying English language I was not able to follow a
> > discussion. And that is the sort of all the French pupils studying
> > English... so, I learnt Latin alone, with my own method, and now I write
> > poetries and novels in latin, the last "de Saturnalibus cruentis" will
> > be available on the Circulus website on the beginning of september...
> >
> > > I never withdrew my statement. I firmly believe that it's not my place
> > > to decide whether a senate session was legal or not.
> >
> > It is not the point... you witness an act which did not happened.
> >
> > > I did correct "Magisterum" with "Magistrum" before posting, though.
> >
> > I have to register you in the first Latinitatis decuria.
> >
> > Optime vale.
> >
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> > Arcoiali scribebat
> > Nonis Sextilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79178 From: Cato Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Cato Tulliae Scholasticae sal.

That's very true, he does. His head shots look like he's posing for a bust. :)

Vale,

Cato


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > A. Tullia Scholastica C. Equitio Catoni quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque
> > bonae voluntatis S.P.D.

> > Now, maybe if Paladino gets elected, he will put on the toga in which he
> > would look so appropriate, and actually DO something in NYS. He sure LOOKS
> > like an ancient Roman.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79179 From: Cato Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Cato Liviae Plautae sal.

You'd probably have to go to Hogwarts for that. :)

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Poplicola,
> do they also teach you how to pull yourself out of the water by your hair?
> Because *that* would definitely make grad school attractive to me.
>
> Optime vale,
> Livia
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "qvalerius" <q.valerius.poplicola@>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:21 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witnessing appointment
>
>
> Salve,
>
> In grad school, the professors force you to learn how to correct your own
> mistakes. Your "training" must have been elementary at best.
>
> Vale.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Maior Scholasticae Liviaeque spd;
> > my gratitude to you both. I've studied French, Italian, Russian and
> > German in high school and university and always had my mistakes corrected.
> > It's the only way to learn. I appreciate the help and support.
> > If only the rest of this list were like you two!
> > optime vale
> > Maior
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> > >
> > > C. Petronius L. Liviae s.p.d.,
> > >
> > > > I have been a language teacher for 15 years, and I assure you that the
> > > > correct attitude is to provide corrections to mistakes. The habit of
> > > > letting students guess where their mistakes are drives them up the
> > > > wall. (I will let you look up the meaning of this expression, since
> > > > this is the method you are so fond of).
> > >
> > > I have not such experience, I never wanted to teach anything... but
> > > after 7 years of studying English language I was not able to follow a
> > > discussion. And that is the sort of all the French pupils studying
> > > English... so, I learnt Latin alone, with my own method, and now I write
> > > poetries and novels in latin, the last "de Saturnalibus cruentis" will
> > > be available on the Circulus website on the beginning of september...
> > >
> > > > I never withdrew my statement. I firmly believe that it's not my place
> > > > to decide whether a senate session was legal or not.
> > >
> > > It is not the point... you witness an act which did not happened.
> > >
> > > > I did correct "Magisterum" with "Magistrum" before posting, though.
> > >
> > > I have to register you in the first Latinitatis decuria.
> > >
> > > Optime vale.
> > >
> > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > Nonis Sextilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> > >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79180 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Test message
Salvete;

Just a test message as Yahoo seems to be intermittently rejecting
Gmail messages.

Valete - Venator
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79181 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Test message
recieved.

~~Aeternia

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <
famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salvete;
>
> Just a test message as Yahoo seems to be intermittently rejecting
> Gmail messages.
>
> Valete - Venator
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79182 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: To our Sarmatians Cives, please ...
Caeca Aeterniae S. P. D.

thank you for that, Aeternia. I did, and do, understand that everyone
involved is extremely busy, but ...well, I am what I am, and, logical or
not, I worry, just a bit, especially when I realized that they began that
trip on a dark day ...although I tried to convince myself that it wasn't
*really* a beginning of a project, and that the trip was just part of the
ongoing plan. Still and all, I'm glad to know this.

Vale Quam Optime,
Maria Caeca
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79183 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: To our Sarmatians Cives, please ...
Maior Caecae Aeterniaeque spd; starting a trip on a dies ater isn't a good thing, but i assume the couples are married now and let's all wish them well.
vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> Caeca Aeterniae S. P. D.
>
> thank you for that, Aeternia. I did, and do, understand that everyone
> involved is extremely busy, but ...well, I am what I am, and, logical or
> not, I worry, just a bit, especially when I realized that they began that
> trip on a dark day ...although I tried to convince myself that it wasn't
> *really* a beginning of a project, and that the trip was just part of the
> ongoing plan. Still and all, I'm glad to know this.
>
> Vale Quam Optime,
> Maria Caeca
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79184 From: Christina Moseley Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Salvete,

I'm back from my recluse with babysitting the dog, Moses.

I think you are right, Poplicola, when it comes to be trained. It's like
the metaphoric analogy about a beauty school in Missouri. The best ones
are usually hired out to the best companies. The poorly trained ones
either get expelled or have to be taught again. It's how you cut hair to
how the person likes it.

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:32:58 -0500, L. Livia Plauta
<livia.plauta@...> wrote:

> Salve Poplicola,
> do they also teach you how to pull yourself out of the water by your
> hair?
> Because *that* would definitely make grad school attractive to me.
>
> Optime vale,
> Livia
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "qvalerius" <q.valerius.poplicola@...>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:21 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witnessing appointment
>
>
> Salve,
>
> In grad school, the professors force you to learn how to correct your own
> mistakes. Your "training" must have been elementary at best.
>
> Vale.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>>
>> Maior Scholasticae Liviaeque spd;
>> my gratitude to you both. I've studied French, Italian, Russian and
>> German in high school and university and always had my mistakes
>> corrected.
>> It's the only way to learn. I appreciate the help and support.
>> If only the rest of this list were like you two!
>> optime vale
>> Maior
>>
>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > C. Petronius L. Liviae s.p.d.,
>> >
>> > > I have been a language teacher for 15 years, and I assure you that
>> the
>> > > correct attitude is to provide corrections to mistakes. The habit of
>> > > letting students guess where their mistakes are drives them up the
>> > > wall. (I will let you look up the meaning of this expression, since
>> > > this is the method you are so fond of).
>> >
>> > I have not such experience, I never wanted to teach anything... but
>> > after 7 years of studying English language I was not able to follow a
>> > discussion. And that is the sort of all the French pupils studying
>> > English... so, I learnt Latin alone, with my own method, and now I
>> write
>> > poetries and novels in latin, the last "de Saturnalibus cruentis" will
>> > be available on the Circulus website on the beginning of september...
>> >
>> > > I never withdrew my statement. I firmly believe that it's not my
>> place
>> > > to decide whether a senate session was legal or not.
>> >
>> > It is not the point... you witness an act which did not happened.
>> >
>> > > I did correct "Magisterum" with "Magistrum" before posting, though.
>> >
>> > I have to register you in the first Latinitatis decuria.
>> >
>> > Optime vale.
>> >
>> > C. Petronius Dexter
>> > Arcoiali scribebat
>> > Nonis Sextilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>> >
>>
>
>
>


--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79185 From: Christina Moseley Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: PETITIO ACTIONIS
So does piracy of internet files or smoking pot or cigarettes. It doesn't
take a stranger a long time to get me coerce me to smoke again or even the
brain telling me to get ciggaretes from the stranger.

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:27:41 -0500, Gaius <gaiuspopillius@...> wrote:

> It doesn't have to be physical harm. Someone could have a compromising
> photo for example.
>
> I was just commenting on the meaning of coerce, which is here from the
> english dictionary:
>
> co·erce (k-ûrs)
> tr.v. co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es
> 1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure,
> threats, or intimidation; compel.
> 2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into
> compliance. See Synonyms at force.
> 3. To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.
>
> However, I do believe removing lictors from their office was mentioned
> which could be seen ans an attempt as coercion.
>
> Vale,
>
> Laenas
>


--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79186 From: Vedius Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: A Missed Communication?
Salvete omnes,

I have noticed with increasing interest the slow trickle of witnessing
statements by our various lictores concerning the appointment of Gnaeus
Equitius Marinus to the post of Dictator, despite the fact that he
himself has stated that the vote in the Senate was improperly called.

Have the lictores perhaps just missed that statement by the Dictator
Presumptive?

Gnaeus Equitius Marinus, may I ask why you have not been more visible in
your corrections to these erroneous witnessing statements? A more
cynical man than I might think that you had calculated that you had
already made your pro forma denial, and were simply waiting for the
Dictatorship to drop into your hands like an overripe peach. Having
denied the grass crown once, you were free to pick it up when offered
again. I believe you are not such a person.

I would urge you to definitively tell these lictores, every time one of
them follows the apparent instructions of the Pontifex Maximus in
contravention of both the laws of Nova Roma and the rules of the Senate,
that they are in error in witnessing an act that has not, in fact, taken
place.

I wouldn't think it would be necessary to do so repeatedly, but
apparently the lictores didn't get the message. For the sake of the
appearance of propriety, and to reassure us all that your protestations
were not merely some sort of sham to ease your way into the dictator's
box on the organizational chart, please correct these lictores and once
more denounce the Senate's unconstitutional vote. If necessary, each and
every time a lictor acts improperly on this matter.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Pater Patriae
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79187 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
>
>
>
> A.Tullia Scholastica C. Equitio Catoni quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque
> bonae voluntatis (praesertim illis Novi Eboraci habitantibus) S.P.D.
>
> Cato Tulliae Scholasticae sal.
>
> That's very true, he does. His head shots look like he's posing for a bust.
> :)
>
> ATS: LOL! I have never seen any living person look more like an ancient
> Roman than he does. He should ditch that shirt and tie and get a nice tunica
> and toga. Now, maybe that (or CP ipse) is not appreciated in certain
> quarters, for some R pol in training approached me with about 15 petitions to
> sign, but said I didn¹t have to sign the one for Carl Paladino...we can guess
> why.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "A.
> Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@...> wrote:
>> >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > A. Tullia Scholastica C. Equitio Catoni quiritibus, sociis,
>>> peregrinisque
>>> > > bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>>> > > Now, maybe if Paladino gets elected, he will put on the toga in
>>> which he
>>> > > would look so appropriate, and actually DO something in NYS. He sure
>>> LOOKS
>>> > > like an ancient Roman.
>
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79188 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: Test message
>
> Scholastica Venatori omnibusque S.P.D.
>
>
>
> Salvete;
>
> Just a test message as Yahoo seems to be intermittently rejecting
> Gmail messages.
>
> ATS: It¹s not just gmail; I couldn¹t post to a list last night. The
> Yahoo team sent us a message about this, but of course they have not yet
> discovered the reason.
>
> Valete ­ Venator
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79189 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: A Missed Communication?
Salve et Salvete;

As a Lictor who pays attention to the propriety of things, when called
to witness Imperium for something not passed by a vetoed Senate
session, I simply replied "No."

===========================
In amicitia et fide
Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator
Civis et Lictor
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79190 From: eagled2 Date: 2010-08-05
Subject: Re: New Site Design
I was aware that the senate was working on a new site quite a while ago that's why I was suprised to see no changes. I have not had time to follow many messages for a while and am just getting back. I'm glad everything is worked out now and they can make some progress now. I was not aware that they had a forum site in the beginning. I understand why a lot of people would prefer email but for myself still prefer something more organized. I'm sure i'm not the only one but we do have to keep everyone in mind. Surely there is an option that will allow those that prefer email to read from email and still have everything posted on a forum site. My idea was to integrate a forum program in the new site but still keep yahoo groups for the main topics. Then have those groups automatically get posted on the forum. Then everyone gets what they want. I had a forum that did something like that with rss feeds that worked out well. It would probably take a bit of work to figure out how to securely allow members to recieve emails of new posts and keep it organized on the forum but with all of us members someone ought to be able to figure it out.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gaius Tullius Valerianus <gaius.tullius.valerianus@...> wrote:
>
> Well, I'm not sure if you've been following what's going on, but one of the
> things the Senate is supposed to be dealing with is a plan for the website.
> It might have been done by now had the plan not become mired in the
> possibility of corruption where the $10,000 was concerned and the efforts of
> an obstructionist clique to take over the government with a dictatorship.
> Now that the attempted coup has been derailed and those behind it have lost
> all credibility in the eyes of the people of Nova Roma, we must hope that
> Consul Albucius and the Senate can get back to productive work soon.
>
> As far as the forum idea is concerned, surely you are aware that Nova Roma
> had one of those at the start? The switch to a Yahoogroup has not been
> universally appreciated, but for the most part seems far more popular than
> having to go to a web forum every time one wants to catch up on NR. It's
> just easier for most people to have it in their e-mail inbox.
>
> Cheers,
> ~ Valerianus
>
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:57 AM, eagled2 <eagled2@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I can and am willing to setup a forum and customize it for our group, but
> > the problem is getting people to use it. From what i've heard many people
> > have tried to start one up and it has never went anywhere. Unless you can
> > get citizens to start using it I was looking for one built or at least
> > officially recognized by the government of nova roma. I believe that's the
> > only way to get people to trust it enough to actually use it. Like I said
> > before someone had told me that they were in the process of re-designing the
> > entire nova roma website and I haven't seen any evidence or updates of that
> > in the years since I was told that.
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stefn
> > Ullarsson Piparskeggr" <famila.ulleria.venii@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve Barbatus;
> > >
> > > Here's one I set up (at a freeserve) in less than an hour.
> > >
> > >
> > http://tavernaromana.netboards.org/index.php?sid=d26b6626878077031dc6dd8a9067e1c2
> > >
> > > ...and a blog I set up before my dad got ill and I lost the energy to
> > > work on it...
> > >
> > > http://confoederatio-romana.webs.com/
> > >
> > > The tools are out there to come up with a site (or interlinked sites),
> > > which will work with a group our size.
> > >
> > > =====================================
> > > In amicitia et fide
> > > Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator
> > > Civis circa Quintilis MMDCCLI a.u.c.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79191 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: To our Sarmatians Cives, please ...
C. Petronius C. Mariae Caecae s.p.d.,

You are right to be anxious and to note that religio Romana is often neglected, certainly more by ignorance than by bad spirit.
But Cn. Cornelius is not a novice nor M. Octavius Corvus. They certainly assume their errors. Now, Gods for me give us signs of their celestian anger, since long time now. Sarmatia is on fires.

Unfortunately, the tribune Corvus, citizen of Sarmatia, is both involved in a bad senate affair, a tendancious tribune reporting in which he made many errors, and in these wedding parodies... but Gods here are not understood, even by some members of the Collegium Pontificum...

In this confarreationes affair, I have my opinion and my opinion is to update this sort of marriages in Nova Roma. If you want to know the strict rights towards the wives married under a confarreatio, read the Institutes of Gaius. The rights of wife married under confarreatio are similar to the right of a woman married under the muslim wedding, for the best...

Your respect for the religio Romana is very apprecied.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Flamen Portunalis Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. VIII Idus Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79192 From: qvalerius Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
No, they teach you to swim. And look up words like "coercion" in the dictionary, but really, you should have been doing that years ago.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Poplicola,
> do they also teach you how to pull yourself out of the water by your hair?
> Because *that* would definitely make grad school attractive to me.
>
> Optime vale,
> Livia
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "qvalerius" <q.valerius.poplicola@>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:21 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witnessing appointment
>
>
> Salve,
>
> In grad school, the professors force you to learn how to correct your own
> mistakes. Your "training" must have been elementary at best.
>
> Vale.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Maior Scholasticae Liviaeque spd;
> > my gratitude to you both. I've studied French, Italian, Russian and
> > German in high school and university and always had my mistakes corrected.
> > It's the only way to learn. I appreciate the help and support.
> > If only the rest of this list were like you two!
> > optime vale
> > Maior
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> > >
> > > C. Petronius L. Liviae s.p.d.,
> > >
> > > > I have been a language teacher for 15 years, and I assure you that the
> > > > correct attitude is to provide corrections to mistakes. The habit of
> > > > letting students guess where their mistakes are drives them up the
> > > > wall. (I will let you look up the meaning of this expression, since
> > > > this is the method you are so fond of).
> > >
> > > I have not such experience, I never wanted to teach anything... but
> > > after 7 years of studying English language I was not able to follow a
> > > discussion. And that is the sort of all the French pupils studying
> > > English... so, I learnt Latin alone, with my own method, and now I write
> > > poetries and novels in latin, the last "de Saturnalibus cruentis" will
> > > be available on the Circulus website on the beginning of september...
> > >
> > > > I never withdrew my statement. I firmly believe that it's not my place
> > > > to decide whether a senate session was legal or not.
> > >
> > > It is not the point... you witness an act which did not happened.
> > >
> > > > I did correct "Magisterum" with "Magistrum" before posting, though.
> > >
> > > I have to register you in the first Latinitatis decuria.
> > >
> > > Optime vale.
> > >
> > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > Nonis Sextilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> > >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79194 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: New Site Design
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica Aquilae D quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
> It would be helpful if you would supply us with your name so that we might
> address you correctly.
>
>
> I was aware that the senate was working on a new site quite a while ago that's
> why I was suprised to see no changes.
>
> ATS: You wouldn¹t be if you were in the Senate. We have not been allowed
> to discuss this issue, or any other, due to squabbling between the consules
> and among others. Albucius vetoed discussion of this issue in one Senate
> session, then vetoed the next Senate session altogether, though it was jointly
> convened by the tribuni, and then conducted a Senate session whose auspices
> did not meet with the approval of the augures. Thus all recent Senate
> sessions have been held under various clouds, and even in one which was fully
> legal, the matter of IT issues could not be addressed.
>
>
>
> I have not had time to follow many messages for a while and am just getting
> back. I'm glad everything is worked out now and they can make some progress
> now.
>
> ATS: Sorry to rain on your parade, but very little, if anything, has been
> worked out on the IT issue, the entry of the tribunes into office, the
> ratification of the praetorial election, the minor matter of appointing a
> dictator to put an end to this paralysis... We have schoolboy squabbles, and
> the government of NR is paralyzed as if stricken by some Harry Potter spell.
> Some like it that way, and some don¹t care, but those of us who do care have a
> different take on this mess. Several of us senators have practically begged
> for a proper Senate session minus the vetoes and the auspice problems, but no
> movement appears to have occurred on that front. Oh, and the genuine
> obstructionists don¹t seem to belong to the group which proposed a
> dictatorship (not that a Roman one should be confused with the modern
> version), and I seriously doubt that any corruption would be involved with the
> party who offered a good deal on the cybernetic makeover. Even in my own
> field, some folks have hyperactive imaginations. There are those who seem to
> be reading their own ideas and motivations into the minds of others, and that
> is not a good thing to do.
>
>
> I was not aware that they had a forum site in the beginning. I understand why
> a lot of people would prefer email but for myself still prefer something more
> organized.
>
> ATS: We apparently did (before my time), and one province still has
> one...unused. I am on over 80 Yahoo lists as well as supposedly receiving
> posts from my five online classes, though the ISP is not being helpful about
> the latter. Fortunately school is out, but I am registering students and have
> some site work to perform, and would be pleased if my messages landed in my
> mailbox. Like many others here, I do not have time to patrol dozens of fora
> in order to read the mail...or even one! Some have claimed that they can send
> e-mail to those who prefer it from these fora, but I have seen no evidence
> thereof.
>
>
> I'm sure i'm not the only one but we do have to keep everyone in mind. Surely
> there is an option that will allow those that prefer email to read from email
> and still have everything posted on a forum site.
>
> ATS: Some claim that they could, but I seem to recall that they
> encountered considerable difficulty, and found this impossible. This topic
> comes up periodically, but is not a realistic option, especially for those
> with limited cybernetic expertise. Not everyone here is a 25 year old male
> with five computers and two dozen game machines. One must also consider our
> visually-impaired, blind, and otherwise handicapped members, who almost
> certainly would find navigating such a system even more challenging than
> dealing with the present one.
>
>
>
> My idea was to integrate a forum program in the new site but still keep yahoo
> groups for the main topics. Then have those groups automatically get posted on
> the forum. Then everyone gets what they want. I had a forum that did something
> like that with rss feeds that worked out well. It would probably take a bit of
> work to figure out how to securely allow members to recieve emails of new
> posts and keep it organized on the forum but with all of us members someone
> ought to be able to figure it out.
>
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , Gaius
> Tullius Valerianus <gaius.tullius.valerianus@...> wrote:
>> >
>
>> > As far as the forum idea is concerned, surely you are aware that Nova Roma
>> > had one of those at the start? The switch to a Yahoogroup has not been
>> > universally appreciated, but for the most part seems far more popular than
>> > having to go to a web forum every time one wants to catch up on NR. It's
>> > just easier for most people to have it in their e-mail inbox.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > ~ Valerianus
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:57 AM, eagled2 <eagled2@...> wrote:
>> >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > I can and am willing to setup a forum and customize it for our group,
but
>>> > > the problem is getting people to use it. From what i've heard many
>>> people
>>> > > have tried to start one up and it has never went anywhere. Unless you
can
>>> > > get citizens to start using it I was looking for one built or at least
>>> > > officially recognized by the government of nova roma. I believe that's
the
>>> > > only way to get people to trust it enough to actually use it. Like I >>>
said
>>> > > before someone had told me that they were in the process of re-designing
the
>>> > > entire nova roma website and I haven't seen any evidence or updates of
>>> that
>>> > > in the years since I was told that.
>>> > >
>>> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stefn
>>> > > Ullarsson Piparskeggr" <famila.ulleria.venii@> wrote:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Salve Barbatus;
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Here's one I set up (at a freeserve) in less than an hour.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>>
http://tavernaromana.netboards.org/index.php?sid=d26b6626878077031dc6dd8a906>>>
7e1c2
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > ...and a blog I set up before my dad got ill and I lost the energy to
>>>> > > > work on it...
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > http://confoederatio-romana.webs.com/
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > The tools are out there to come up with a site (or interlinked >>>>
sites),
>>>> > > > which will work with a group our size.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > =====================================
>>>> > > > In amicitia et fide
>>>> > > > Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator
>>>> > > > Civis circa Quintilis MMDCCLI a.u.c.
>>>> > > >
>>> > >
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79195 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: New Site Design
C. Petronius A. Scholasticae s.p.d.,

>> ATS: Some like it that way, and some don¹t care, but those of us who do care have a different take on this mess. Several of us senators have practically begged for a proper Senate session

CPD: As tribune of the Plebs, I am the one who begged this too...

ATS: Oh, and the genuine obstructionists don¹t seem to belong to the group which proposed a dictatorship (not that a Roman one should be confused with the modern version),

CPD: Yes they are, because they did not give to the Consul veto its entire and constitutional consequences and made a very tendancious report of this vetoed Senate session. Secondly, about dictatorship, the Item III, although void because vetoed, is not the best way to show us what were a true Roman dictatorship. Too many tasks for a 6 months extraordinary magistracy, and worst a "carte blanche" dictatorship is also given in the tasks wirth this unconstitutional sentence:
"The Senate conveys resolution of the following tasks, *although not
limited to these alone*, to Cn. Equitius Marinus:"

*although not limited to these alone*... id est more and not precised tasks. So it is absolutely not Roman, in which the lex de imperio was always very precise. Here the text leaves all powers to the "dictator" even in tasks not voted by senators.

But, fortunately, this session was vetoed and is absolutely void.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Tribunus Plebis Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. VIII Idus Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79196 From: eagled2 Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: New Site Design
Aulus Valerius Barbatus S.P.D.
Sorry about forgetting my name. I put it on the first post and then just spaced it cause I don't check this group from my email account. Thank you for your information. That answers a lot of questions I had regarding the matter. As you said there are certainly a lot of things to consider. I have done some research on my own and as you said a forum that meets all the needs of this community is not an easy task.

I also would not want to have to go to several different forums everytime I want to check up on nova roma. That's why a was hoping for an officially recognized forum. That way we can setup areas for all the different groups and let those group leaders control who gets access to there part of the site.

I also understand that some people may not want to leave this system for whatever reason. One possible solution I have found that would be practical is to make an RSS feed of the mailing groups and have that auto posted to the forum. There are forums that make auto posting from rss feeds very simple.

One solution to making the rss feed is to use a gmail account. Gmail has the option to check your email from an rss feed. With this you could setup an account that recieves all the messages for the group one at a time and use that rss feed. Since the url of the feed includes the password you would want this to be an account dedicated for this purpose only. The address would only be visible to those you want to have access to that part of the forum. All this would be fairly simple to setup and someone with a little php programming experiance could probably make a custom theme to make it look like the rest of the website.

What are your thoughts on this idea? Do you think it would be beneficial to our members and do you think the citizens would use it?

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > A. Tullia Scholastica Aquilae D quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
> >
> > It would be helpful if you would supply us with your name so that we might
> > address you correctly.
> >
> >
> > I was aware that the senate was working on a new site quite a while ago that's
> > why I was suprised to see no changes.
> >
> > ATS: You wouldn¹t be if you were in the Senate. We have not been allowed
> > to discuss this issue, or any other, due to squabbling between the consules
> > and among others. Albucius vetoed discussion of this issue in one Senate
> > session, then vetoed the next Senate session altogether, though it was jointly
> > convened by the tribuni, and then conducted a Senate session whose auspices
> > did not meet with the approval of the augures. Thus all recent Senate
> > sessions have been held under various clouds, and even in one which was fully
> > legal, the matter of IT issues could not be addressed.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have not had time to follow many messages for a while and am just getting
> > back. I'm glad everything is worked out now and they can make some progress
> > now.
> >
> > ATS: Sorry to rain on your parade, but very little, if anything, has been
> > worked out on the IT issue, the entry of the tribunes into office, the
> > ratification of the praetorial election, the minor matter of appointing a
> > dictator to put an end to this paralysis... We have schoolboy squabbles, and
> > the government of NR is paralyzed as if stricken by some Harry Potter spell.
> > Some like it that way, and some don¹t care, but those of us who do care have a
> > different take on this mess. Several of us senators have practically begged
> > for a proper Senate session minus the vetoes and the auspice problems, but no
> > movement appears to have occurred on that front. Oh, and the genuine
> > obstructionists don¹t seem to belong to the group which proposed a
> > dictatorship (not that a Roman one should be confused with the modern
> > version), and I seriously doubt that any corruption would be involved with the
> > party who offered a good deal on the cybernetic makeover. Even in my own
> > field, some folks have hyperactive imaginations. There are those who seem to
> > be reading their own ideas and motivations into the minds of others, and that
> > is not a good thing to do.
> >
> >
> > I was not aware that they had a forum site in the beginning. I understand why
> > a lot of people would prefer email but for myself still prefer something more
> > organized.
> >
> > ATS: We apparently did (before my time), and one province still has
> > one...unused. I am on over 80 Yahoo lists as well as supposedly receiving
> > posts from my five online classes, though the ISP is not being helpful about
> > the latter. Fortunately school is out, but I am registering students and have
> > some site work to perform, and would be pleased if my messages landed in my
> > mailbox. Like many others here, I do not have time to patrol dozens of fora
> > in order to read the mail...or even one! Some have claimed that they can send
> > e-mail to those who prefer it from these fora, but I have seen no evidence
> > thereof.
> >
> >
> > I'm sure i'm not the only one but we do have to keep everyone in mind. Surely
> > there is an option that will allow those that prefer email to read from email
> > and still have everything posted on a forum site.
> >
> > ATS: Some claim that they could, but I seem to recall that they
> > encountered considerable difficulty, and found this impossible. This topic
> > comes up periodically, but is not a realistic option, especially for those
> > with limited cybernetic expertise. Not everyone here is a 25 year old male
> > with five computers and two dozen game machines. One must also consider our
> > visually-impaired, blind, and otherwise handicapped members, who almost
> > certainly would find navigating such a system even more challenging than
> > dealing with the present one.
> >
> >
> >
> > My idea was to integrate a forum program in the new site but still keep yahoo
> > groups for the main topics. Then have those groups automatically get posted on
> > the forum. Then everyone gets what they want. I had a forum that did something
> > like that with rss feeds that worked out well. It would probably take a bit of
> > work to figure out how to securely allow members to recieve emails of new
> > posts and keep it organized on the forum but with all of us members someone
> > ought to be able to figure it out.
> >
> >
> > Vale, et valete.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , Gaius
> > Tullius Valerianus <gaius.tullius.valerianus@> wrote:
> >> >
> >
> >> > As far as the forum idea is concerned, surely you are aware that Nova Roma
> >> > had one of those at the start? The switch to a Yahoogroup has not been
> >> > universally appreciated, but for the most part seems far more popular than
> >> > having to go to a web forum every time one wants to catch up on NR. It's
> >> > just easier for most people to have it in their e-mail inbox.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > ~ Valerianus
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:57 AM, eagled2 <eagled2@> wrote:
> >> >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I can and am willing to setup a forum and customize it for our group,
> but
> >>> > > the problem is getting people to use it. From what i've heard many
> >>> people
> >>> > > have tried to start one up and it has never went anywhere. Unless you
> can
> >>> > > get citizens to start using it I was looking for one built or at least
> >>> > > officially recognized by the government of nova roma. I believe that's
> the
> >>> > > only way to get people to trust it enough to actually use it. Like I >>>
> said
> >>> > > before someone had told me that they were in the process of re-designing
> the
> >>> > > entire nova roma website and I haven't seen any evidence or updates of
> >>> that
> >>> > > in the years since I was told that.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stefn
> >>> > > Ullarsson Piparskeggr" <famila.ulleria.venii@> wrote:
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > Salve Barbatus;
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > Here's one I set up (at a freeserve) in less than an hour.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>>
> http://tavernaromana.netboards.org/index.php?sid=d26b6626878077031dc6dd8a906>>>
> 7e1c2
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > ...and a blog I set up before my dad got ill and I lost the energy to
> >>>> > > > work on it...
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > http://confoederatio-romana.webs.com/
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > The tools are out there to come up with a site (or interlinked >>>>
> sites),
> >>>> > > > which will work with a group our size.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > =====================================
> >>>> > > > In amicitia et fide
> >>>> > > > Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator
> >>>> > > > Civis circa Quintilis MMDCCLI a.u.c.
> >>>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79197 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: a. d. VIII Eidus Sextiliae: Tullius' Wars with Alba Longa and Lavini
M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Sapite animo; fruamini anima.

Hodie est ante diem VIII Eidus Sextiliae; haec dies fastus aterque est:

AUGURIUM SALUTIS

Temporarily the Romans had a respite from war for the remainder of the year, so that they even held the so called augurium salutis after a very long interval. This is a kind of augury, which is in the nature of an inquiry whether the God permits them to ask for prosperity for the people, as if it were unholy even to ask for it until permission is granted. It was observed on that day of each year on which no army was going out to war, or was preparing itself against any foes, or was fighting a battle. For this reason, amid the constant perils, especially those of civil strife, it was not observed. For it was very difficult for them in any case to determine accurately upon a day free from all such disturbances, and furthermore it would be most absurd, when they were voluntarily causing one another unspeakable woes through party strife and were destined to suffer ills whether they were defeated or victorious, that they should still ask Heaven for safety. Nevertheless, it was in some way possible at that time for the divination to be held; but it did not prove to be regular, since some birds flew up from an unlucky quarter, and so it was repeated. Other unlucky omens, too, occurred. Many thunderbolts fell from a clear sky, the earth was mightily shaken, and human apparitions were visible in many places, and in the west flashes of fire darted up into heaven, so that anyone, even a layman, was bound to know in advance what was signified by them. ~ Cassius Dio 37.24.1-2


AUC 80 / 673 BCE: Servius Tullius and the Wars with Alba Longa and Lavinium

"Both sides made extraordinary preparations for a war, which closely resembled a civil war between parents and children, for both were of Trojan descent, since Lavinium was an offshoot of Troy, and Alba of Lavinium, and the Romans were sprung from the stock of the kings of Alba. The outcome of the war, however, made the conflict less deplorable, as there was no regular engagement, and though one of the two cities was destroyed, the two nations were blended into one. The Albans were the first to move, and invaded the Roman territory with an immense army. They fixed their camp only five miles from the City and surrounded it with a moat; this was called for several centuries the 'Cluilian Dyke' from the name of the Alban general, till through lapse of time the name and the thing itself disappeared. While they were encamped Cluilius, the Alban king, died, and the Albans made Mettius Fufetius dictator. The king's death made Tullus more sanguine than ever of success. He gave out that the wrath of heaven which had fallen first of all on the head of the nation would visit the whole race of Alba with condign punishment for this unholy war. Passing the enemy's camp by a night march, he advanced upon Alban territory. This drew Mettius from his entrenchments. He marched as close to his enemy as he could, and then sent on an officer to inform Tullus that before engaging it was necessary that they should have a conference. If he granted one, then he was satisfied that the matters he would lay before him were such as concerned Rome no less than Alba. Tullus did not reject the proposal, but in case the conference should prove illusory, he led out his men in order of battle. The Albans did the same. After they had halted, confronting each other, the two commanders, with a small escort of superior officers, advanced between the lines. The Alban general, addressing Tullus, said: "I think I have heard our king Cluilius say that acts of robbery and the non-restitution of plundered property, in violation of the existing treaty, were the cause of this war, and I have no doubt that you, Tullus, allege the same pretext. But if we are to say what is true, rather than what is plausible, we must admit that it is the lust of empire which has made two kindred and neighbouring peoples take up arms. Whether rightly or wrongly I do not judge; let him who began the war settle that point; I am simply placed in command by the Albans to conduct the war. But I want to give you a warning, Tullus. You know, you especially who are nearer to them, the greatness of the Etruscan State, which hems us both in; their immense strength by land, still more by sea. Now remember, when once you have given the signal to engage, our two armies will fight under their eyes, so that when we are wearied and exhausted they may attack us both, victor and vanquished alike. If then, not content with the secure freedom we now enjoy, we are determined to enter into a game of chance, where the stakes are either supremacy or slavery, let us, in heaven's name, choose some method by which, without great suffering or bloodshed on either side, it can be decided which nation is to be master of the other." Although, from natural temperament, and the certainty he felt of victory, Tullus was eager to fight, he did not disapprove of the proposal. After much consideration on both sides a method was adopted, for which Fortune herself provided the necessary means. ~ Titus Livius 1.23

"These were the reasons urged by the two generals to support the pretensions of their respective cities to the supremacy; and the outcome of the discussion was the adoption of the plan Tullius proposed. For both the Albans and Romans who were present at the conference, in their desire to put a speedy end to the war, resolved to decide the controversy by arms. This also being agreed to, the question arose concerning the number of the combatants, since the two generals were not of the same mind. For Tullius desired that the fate of the war might be decided by the smallest possible number of combatants, the most distinguished man among the Albans fighting the bravest of the Romans in single combat, and he cheerfully offered himself to fight for his own country, inviting the Alban leader to emulate him. He pointed out that for those who have assumed the command of armies combats for sovereignty and power are glorious, not only when they conquer brave men, but also when they are conquered by the brave; and he enumerated all the generals and kings who had risked their lives for their country, regarding it as a reproach to them to have a greater share of the honors than others but a smaller share of the dangers. The Alban, however, while approving of the proposal to commit the fate of the cities to a few champions, would not agree to decide it by single combat. He owned that when commanders of the armies were seeking to establish their own power a combat between them for the supremacy was noble and necessary, but when states themselves were contending for the first place he thought the risk of single combat not only hazardous but even dishonorable, whether they met with good or ill fortune. And he proposed that three chosen men from each city should fight in the presence of all the Albans and Romans, declaring that this was the most suitable number for deciding any matter in controversy, as containing in itself a beginning, a middle and an end. This proposal meeting with the approval of both Romans and Albans, the conference broke up and each side returned to its own camp.

"After this the generals assembled their respective armies and gave them an account both of what they had said to each other and of the terms upon which they had agreed to put an end to the war. And both armies having with great approbation ratified the agreement entered into by their generals, there arose a wonderful emulation among the officers and soldiers alike, since a great many were eager to carry off the prize of valour in the combat and expressed their emulation not only by their words but also by their actions, so that their leaders found great difficulty in selecting the most suitable champions. For if anyone was renowned for his illustrious ancestry or remarkable for his strength of body, famous for some brave deed in action, or distinguished by some other good fortune or bold achievement, he insisted upon being chosen first among the three champions. This emulation, which was running to great lengths in both armies, was checked by the Alban general, who called to mind that some divine providence, long since foreseeing this conflict between the two cities, had arranged that their future champions should be sprung of no obscure families and should be brave in arms, most comely in appearance, and distinguished from the generality of mankind by their birth, which should be unusual and wonderful because of its extraordinary nature. It seems that Sicinius, an Alban, had at one and the same time married his twin daughters to Horatius, a Roman, and to Curiatius, an Alban; and the two wives came with child at the same time and each was wrought to bed, at her first lying-in, of three male children. The parents, looking upon the event as a happy omen both to their cities and families, brought up all these children till they arrived at manhood. And Heaven, as I said in the beginning, gave them beauty and strength and nobility of mind, so that they were not inferior to any of those most highly endowed by Nature. It was to these men that Fufetius resolved to commit the combat for supremacy." - Dionysius of Halicarnassus 3.12-13


Today's thought is from Epicurus, the Vatican Sayings 14:

"We have been born once and cannot be born a second time; for all eternity we shall no longer exist. But you, although you are not in control of tomorrow, are postponing your happiness. Life is wasted by delaying, and each one of us dies without enjoying leisure."
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79198 From: aerdensrw Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: A Missed Communication?
P. Corva Gaudialis Flavie Vedie Germanice sal.

If Marinus had to correct a lictor every time they posted a witness statement for this dictatorship vote, he'd have to do it repeatedly, which would get tedious for him to do and for us to read.

It would be easier to manage as a sticky post in a forum, but that's not possible here. My feeling is, the remaining lictores will figure it out, as I did.

It is unusual, though, since the vote was taken on July 19, and the statements are still coming in. Usually, it happens all within a day or two. It might be that people were on vacation and are only just now getting back to their computers. Or maybe my thinking is a decade behind the times. :)

Vale

Paulla


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Vedius <vedius@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> I have noticed with increasing interest the slow trickle of witnessing
> statements by our various lictores concerning the appointment of Gnaeus
> Equitius Marinus to the post of Dictator, despite the fact that he
> himself has stated that the vote in the Senate was improperly called.
>
> Have the lictores perhaps just missed that statement by the Dictator
> Presumptive?
>
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus, may I ask why you have not been more visible in
> your corrections to these erroneous witnessing statements? A more
> cynical man than I might think that you had calculated that you had
> already made your pro forma denial, and were simply waiting for the
> Dictatorship to drop into your hands like an overripe peach. Having
> denied the grass crown once, you were free to pick it up when offered
> again. I believe you are not such a person.
>
> I would urge you to definitively tell these lictores, every time one of
> them follows the apparent instructions of the Pontifex Maximus in
> contravention of both the laws of Nova Roma and the rules of the Senate,
> that they are in error in witnessing an act that has not, in fact, taken
> place.
>
> I wouldn't think it would be necessary to do so repeatedly, but
> apparently the lictores didn't get the message. For the sake of the
> appearance of propriety, and to reassure us all that your protestations
> were not merely some sort of sham to ease your way into the dictator's
> box on the organizational chart, please correct these lictores and once
> more denounce the Senate's unconstitutional vote. If necessary, each and
> every time a lictor acts improperly on this matter.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> Pater Patriae
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79199 From: Cato Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: August 6th
Cato omnibus in foro SPD

"... now I am become Shiva, the Destroyer of worlds." - Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, quoting the Bhagavad-Gita on 16 July AD 1945 upon witnessing the successful testing of the first atomic weapon

Although it is not a Roman topic, per se, I would like to take just a moment to remember those who died on this day.

The United States detonated the atomic bomb over Hiroshima, Japan, at 8.15am on August 6th 1945.

Valete,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79200 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: August 6th OT
Salve Cato,

And lets us also remember the millions of people who's lives were saved by the dropping of this bomb. Almost 100 percent of the Japanese defenders of Iwo Jima and Okinawa died defending these small portions of the home islands. How many do you think would have perished in an allied invasion of Japan?

In the book Downfall, Richard Frank, the estimates for Allied casualties was in the millions and for Japanese casualties in the tens of millions. Downfall, p. 340. In addition to Japanese and American lives saved nearly 100,000 people were dying in Japanese occupied territory each month that the war went on.

On a personal note my Uncle Harold was on Iwo Jima and my father was on Okinawa . All but one of their six children were born after 1945. As members of the USMC both would have been a part of any invasion of the Japanese homeland and not likely to have survived.

Vale

Paulinus




To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: catoinnyc@...
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 16:10:15 +0000
Subject: [Nova-Roma] August 6th






Cato omnibus in foro SPD

"... now I am become Shiva, the Destroyer of worlds." - Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, quoting the Bhagavad-Gita on 16 July AD 1945 upon witnessing the successful testing of the first atomic weapon

Although it is not a Roman topic, per se, I would like to take just a moment to remember those who died on this day.

The United States detonated the atomic bomb over Hiroshima, Japan, at 8.15am on August 6th 1945.

Valete,

Cato





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79201 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: To our Sarmatians Cives, please ...
C. Maria Caeca M. Hortensiae Maori Salutem plurimam dicit,

I must ask you, Hortensia Maior, to never again patronize or condescend to me. I was concerned. I expressed my concern. At no time have I wished the newly weds anything but lifelong joy, and I made that clear, in public and private, as well.

It is your right to find my concerns trivial. It is even your right to say so ...and it is my right to find your tone offensive. I do find it so.

Vale
C. Maria Caeca
----- Original Message -----
From: rory12001
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:18 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: To our Sarmatians Cives, please ...



Maior Caecae Aeterniaeque spd; starting a trip on a dies ater isn't a good thing, but i assume the couples are married now and let's all wish them well.
vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> Caeca Aeterniae S. P. D.
>
> thank you for that, Aeternia. I did, and do, understand that everyone
> involved is extremely busy, but ...well, I am what I am, and, logical or
> not, I worry, just a bit, especially when I realized that they began that
> trip on a dark day ...although I tried to convince myself that it wasn't
> *really* a beginning of a project, and that the trip was just part of the
> ongoing plan. Still and all, I'm glad to know this.
>
> Vale Quam Optime,
> Maria Caeca
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79202 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
Livia Catoni sal.

Well, I thought that since Gualterus' grad school teaches impossible things
like correcting your own mistakes (when learning a language) they might have
been the ones who taught the Baron of Munchausen.
Of course I wouldn't mind going to Hogwarts. However, I'm afraid that school
has rather strict entrly requirements.

Vale,
Livia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cato" <catoinnyc@..>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:54 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witnessing appointment


Cato Liviae Plautae sal.

You'd probably have to go to Hogwarts for that. :)

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...>
wrote:
>
> Salve Poplicola,
> do they also teach you how to pull yourself out of the water by your hair?
> Because *that* would definitely make grad school attractive to me.
>
> Optime vale,
> Livia
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "qvalerius" <q.valerius.poplicola@>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:21 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witnessing appointment
>
>
> Salve,
>
> In grad school, the professors force you to learn how to correct your own
> mistakes. Your "training" must have been elementary at best.
>
> Vale.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Maior Scholasticae Liviaeque spd;
> > my gratitude to you both. I've studied French, Italian, Russian and
> > German in high school and university and always had my mistakes
> > corrected.
> > It's the only way to learn. I appreciate the help and support.
> > If only the rest of this list were like you two!
> > optime vale
> > Maior
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > C. Petronius L. Liviae s.p.d.,
> > >
> > > > I have been a language teacher for 15 years, and I assure you that
> > > > the
> > > > correct attitude is to provide corrections to mistakes. The habit of
> > > > letting students guess where their mistakes are drives them up the
> > > > wall. (I will let you look up the meaning of this expression, since
> > > > this is the method you are so fond of).
> > >
> > > I have not such experience, I never wanted to teach anything... but
> > > after 7 years of studying English language I was not able to follow a
> > > discussion. And that is the sort of all the French pupils studying
> > > English... so, I learnt Latin alone, with my own method, and now I
> > > write
> > > poetries and novels in latin, the last "de Saturnalibus cruentis" will
> > > be available on the Circulus website on the beginning of september...
> > >
> > > > I never withdrew my statement. I firmly believe that it's not my
> > > > place
> > > > to decide whether a senate session was legal or not.
> > >
> > > It is not the point... you witness an act which did not happened.
> > >
> > > > I did correct "Magisterum" with "Magistrum" before posting, though.
> > >
> > > I have to register you in the first Latinitatis decuria.
> > >
> > > Optime vale.
> > >
> > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > Nonis Sextilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> > >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79203 From: gualterus_graecus Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
What are you talking about? What do I or my school have to do with the childish argument going on on this thread?

-GG

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> Livia Catoni sal.
>
> Well, I thought that since Gualterus' grad school teaches impossible things
> like correcting your own mistakes (when learning a language) they might have
> been the ones who taught the Baron of Munchausen.
> Of course I wouldn't mind going to Hogwarts. However, I'm afraid that school
> has rather strict entrly requirements.
>
> Vale,
> Livia
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cato" <catoinnyc@>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:54 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witnessing appointment
>
>
> Cato Liviae Plautae sal.
>
> You'd probably have to go to Hogwarts for that. :)
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Poplicola,
> > do they also teach you how to pull yourself out of the water by your hair?
> > Because *that* would definitely make grad school attractive to me.
> >
> > Optime vale,
> > Livia
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "qvalerius" <q.valerius.poplicola@>
> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:21 AM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witnessing appointment
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > In grad school, the professors force you to learn how to correct your own
> > mistakes. Your "training" must have been elementary at best.
> >
> > Vale.
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maior Scholasticae Liviaeque spd;
> > > my gratitude to you both. I've studied French, Italian, Russian and
> > > German in high school and university and always had my mistakes
> > > corrected.
> > > It's the only way to learn. I appreciate the help and support.
> > > If only the rest of this list were like you two!
> > > optime vale
> > > Maior
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > C. Petronius L. Liviae s.p.d.,
> > > >
> > > > > I have been a language teacher for 15 years, and I assure you that
> > > > > the
> > > > > correct attitude is to provide corrections to mistakes. The habit of
> > > > > letting students guess where their mistakes are drives them up the
> > > > > wall. (I will let you look up the meaning of this expression, since
> > > > > this is the method you are so fond of).
> > > >
> > > > I have not such experience, I never wanted to teach anything... but
> > > > after 7 years of studying English language I was not able to follow a
> > > > discussion. And that is the sort of all the French pupils studying
> > > > English... so, I learnt Latin alone, with my own method, and now I
> > > > write
> > > > poetries and novels in latin, the last "de Saturnalibus cruentis" will
> > > > be available on the Circulus website on the beginning of september...
> > > >
> > > > > I never withdrew my statement. I firmly believe that it's not my
> > > > > place
> > > > > to decide whether a senate session was legal or not.
> > > >
> > > > It is not the point... you witness an act which did not happened.
> > > >
> > > > > I did correct "Magisterum" with "Magistrum" before posting, though.
> > > >
> > > > I have to register you in the first Latinitatis decuria.
> > > >
> > > > Optime vale.
> > > >
> > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > > Nonis Sextilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79204 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-06
Subject: Re: August 6th
C. Maria Caeca Cn. Equitio Catoni Sal,

(I hope I remembered your name correctly! I am so used to think of you as just ...Cato ...I have to think when wishing to formally addressing you!). Thank you for this reminder. This is a date I don't usually forget, but this year, I did.

CMC, who very strongly believes that those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79205 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Cn. Lentulus pontifex, M. Lucretius augur, M. Octavius sacerdos Iovis et omnes Sarmatici, Pannonii Poltava Q V I R I T I B V S s. d. p.

A very quick but verz warm greetings from Poltava (Sarmatia), from our part! We are well and we are very, very, very glad here, all events went wonderfully, including the weddings, the investiture of augur M. Lucretius Agricola, a Sarmatian votum, and the foundation of a Nova Roma REAL temple. Corvus is a wonderful houselord, we enjoy his hospitatality beyond words.
I tell you we experience the real one and truly existing side of Nova Roma, friends, Roman brothers and sisters together from Japan to Budapest, in Ukrain, to celebrate our Republic, which I tell you, is more living than anyone could imagine.
We will leave Poltava soon within a few hours, Agricola remains some more days, though.
Hail Nova Roma, long live the Republic, vivat Nova Roma!
With hugs and gladdest emotion, Corvus and his family, Agricola, the Sarmatians (many), the Pannonians, Q. Arrius, and M. Antonius, and I Lentulus, we all salute you!!
Ex Sarmatia, Poltava









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79206 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica L. Liviae Plautae C. Equitio Catoni quiritibus, sociis,
> peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
>
> Livia Catoni sal.
>
> Well, I thought that since Gualterus' grad school teaches impossible things
> like correcting your own mistakes (when learning a language) they might have
> been the ones who taught the Baron of Munchausen.
>
> ATS: Here I think you may be slightly confused, Plauta; it was Poplicola
> who said his graduate school taught such things. Rest assured that that sort
> of thing is highly unlikely at the University of Chicago, where Gualterus is
> apparently pursuing his doctorate. The U of Chi is one of the finest
> universities in this country, home of the renowned Oriental Institute (inter
> alia), and is not a place where one would expect that sort of thing. Last I
> heard, there were no fancy sports teams there, with athletes who had to be
> passed because they were skilled at some silly game or other, and no teaching
> assistants, though it seems that some have now been added. The University of
> Chicago has very high standards, and does not teach underwater basket weaving
> or leave error correction in the hands of any but the most competent TA¹s (if
> indeed they have them). Normally only the professors teach there. Other
> colleges and universities may well do otherwise, but not UC. Crescat
> scientia; vita excolatur.
>
>
> Of course I wouldn't mind going to Hogwarts. However, I'm afraid that school
> has rather strict entrly requirements.
>
> ATS: So does the U of Chicago. Maybe you should check them out. Now
> Poplicola goes elsewhere, near San Francisco, if I am not mistaken, and
> probably is at a state college or university. There is a world of difference
> between the quality schools like Chicago and Yale and Princeton and Hahvahd
> and some others (not that all state schools are bad; many are quite good, even
> excellent), but one should not assume that a university, whether or not it
> bears a toponym, is automatically inferior.
>
> Vale,
> Livia
>
> Valete.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cato" <catoinnyc@..>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:54 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witnessing appointment
>
> Cato Liviae Plautae sal.
>
> You'd probably have to go to Hogwarts for that. :)
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "L.
> Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...>
> wrote:
>> >
>> > Salve Poplicola,
>> > do they also teach you how to pull yourself out of the water by your hair?
>> > Because *that* would definitely make grad school attractive to me.
>> >
>> > Optime vale,
>> > Livia
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "qvalerius" <q.valerius.poplicola@>
>> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:21 AM
>> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witnessing appointment
>> >
>> >
>> > Salve,
>> >
>> > In grad school, the professors force you to learn how to correct your own
>> > mistakes. Your "training" must have been elementary at best.
>> >
>> > Vale.
>> >
>> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
>> "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Maior Scholasticae Liviaeque spd;
>>> > > my gratitude to you both. I've studied French, Italian, Russian and
>>> > > German in high school and university and always had my mistakes
>>> > > corrected.
>>> > > It's the only way to learn. I appreciate the help and support.
>>> > > If only the rest of this list were like you two!
>>> > > optime vale
>>> > > Maior
>>> > >
>>> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
>>> "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@>
>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > C. Petronius L. Liviae s.p.d.,
>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > I have been a language teacher for 15 years, and I assure you that
>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > correct attitude is to provide corrections to mistakes. The habit
of
>>>>> > > > > letting students guess where their mistakes are drives them up the
>>>>> > > > > wall. (I will let you look up the meaning of this expression,
since
>>>>> > > > > this is the method you are so fond of).
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > I have not such experience, I never wanted to teach anything... but
>>>> > > > after 7 years of studying English language I was not able to follow a
>>>> > > > discussion. And that is the sort of all the French pupils studying
>>>> > > > English... so, I learnt Latin alone, with my own method, and now I
>>>> > > > write
>>>> > > > poetries and novels in latin, the last "de Saturnalibus cruentis"
will
>>>> > > > be available on the Circulus website on the beginning of september...
>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > I never withdrew my statement. I firmly believe that it's not my
>>>>> > > > > place
>>>>> > > > > to decide whether a senate session was legal or not.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > It is not the point... you witness an act which did not happened.
>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > I did correct "Magisterum" with "Magistrum" before posting,
though.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > I have to register you in the first Latinitatis decuria.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Optime vale.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > C. Petronius Dexter
>>>> > > > Arcoiali scribebat
>>>> > > > Nonis Sextilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>>>> > > >
>>> > >
>> >
>
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79207 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica Cn. Cornelio Lentulo quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> Cn. Lentulus pontifex, M. Lucretius augur, M. Octavius sacerdos Iovis et omnes
> Sarmatici, Pannonii Poltava Q V I R I T I B V S s. d. p.
>
> A very quick but verz warm greetings from Poltava (Sarmatia), from our part!
> We are well and we are very, very, very glad here, all events went
> wonderfully, including the weddings, the investiture of augur M. Lucretius
> Agricola, a Sarmatian votum, and the foundation of a Nova Roma REAL temple.
> Corvus is a wonderful houselord, we enjoy his hospitatality beyond words.
>
> ATS: I am delighted that you arrived safely and are enjoying your stay.
> My congratulations to the happy couples and all concerned!
>
>
> I tell you we experience the real one and truly existing side of Nova Roma,
> friends, Roman brothers and sisters together from Japan to Budapest, in
> Ukrain, to celebrate our Republic, which I tell you, is more living than
> anyone could imagine.
> We will leave Poltava soon within a few hours, Agricola remains some more
> days, though.
> Hail Nova Roma, long live the Republic, vivat Nova Roma!
>
> ATS: Recté vivat Nova Roma! Utinam omnes tam bene impedimenta deleant!
>
>
> With hugs and gladdest emotion, Corvus and his family, Agricola, the
> Sarmatians (many), the Pannonians, Q. Arrius, and M. Antonius, and I Lentulus,
> we all salute you!!
> Ex Sarmatia, Poltava
>
> Vale, et valete!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79208 From: gualterus_graecus Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
There are TAs here; I was a TA in Greek last year, but there is a strict oversight by some senior faculty member. Sometimes I graded quizzes or homeworks, which were reviewed by my senior before they were handed back to the students.

Next academic year I will be an instructor in Greek, but what usually happens is that there are two sections for a course where one is taught by the advanced grad student and another by a faculty member, and the faculty member sets the agenda, the texts and writes the midterm and final exams which are graded together by the instructor and professor... at least in the Classics dept. I can't speak for other depts.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > A. Tullia Scholastica L. Liviae Plautae C. Equitio Catoni quiritibus, sociis,
> > peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
> >
> >
> >
> > Livia Catoni sal.
> >
> > Well, I thought that since Gualterus' grad school teaches impossible things
> > like correcting your own mistakes (when learning a language) they might have
> > been the ones who taught the Baron of Munchausen.
> >
> > ATS: Here I think you may be slightly confused, Plauta; it was Poplicola
> > who said his graduate school taught such things. Rest assured that that sort
> > of thing is highly unlikely at the University of Chicago, where Gualterus is
> > apparently pursuing his doctorate. The U of Chi is one of the finest
> > universities in this country, home of the renowned Oriental Institute (inter
> > alia), and is not a place where one would expect that sort of thing. Last I
> > heard, there were no fancy sports teams there, with athletes who had to be
> > passed because they were skilled at some silly game or other, and no teaching
> > assistants, though it seems that some have now been added. The University of
> > Chicago has very high standards, and does not teach underwater basket weaving
> > or leave error correction in the hands of any but the most competent TA¹s (if
> > indeed they have them). Normally only the professors teach there. Other
> > colleges and universities may well do otherwise, but not UC. Crescat
> > scientia; vita excolatur.
> >
> >
> > Of course I wouldn't mind going to Hogwarts. However, I'm afraid that school
> > has rather strict entrly requirements.
> >
> > ATS: So does the U of Chicago. Maybe you should check them out. Now
> > Poplicola goes elsewhere, near San Francisco, if I am not mistaken, and
> > probably is at a state college or university. There is a world of difference
> > between the quality schools like Chicago and Yale and Princeton and Hahvahd
> > and some others (not that all state schools are bad; many are quite good, even
> > excellent), but one should not assume that a university, whether or not it
> > bears a toponym, is automatically inferior.
> >
> > Vale,
> > Livia
> >
> > Valete.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Cato" <catoinnyc@>
> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:54 PM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witnessing appointment
> >
> > Cato Liviae Plautae sal.
> >
> > You'd probably have to go to Hogwarts for that. :)
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "L.
> > Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@>
> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Salve Poplicola,
> >> > do they also teach you how to pull yourself out of the water by your hair?
> >> > Because *that* would definitely make grad school attractive to me.
> >> >
> >> > Optime vale,
> >> > Livia
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "qvalerius" <q.valerius.poplicola@>
> >> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >> > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:21 AM
> >> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witnessing appointment
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Salve,
> >> >
> >> > In grad school, the professors force you to learn how to correct your own
> >> > mistakes. Your "training" must have been elementary at best.
> >> >
> >> > Vale.
> >> >
> >> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> >> "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Maior Scholasticae Liviaeque spd;
> >>> > > my gratitude to you both. I've studied French, Italian, Russian and
> >>> > > German in high school and university and always had my mistakes
> >>> > > corrected.
> >>> > > It's the only way to learn. I appreciate the help and support.
> >>> > > If only the rest of this list were like you two!
> >>> > > optime vale
> >>> > > Maior
> >>> > >
> >>> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> >>> "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@>
> >>> > > wrote:
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > C. Petronius L. Liviae s.p.d.,
> >>>> > > >
> >>>>> > > > > I have been a language teacher for 15 years, and I assure you that
> >>>>> > > > > the
> >>>>> > > > > correct attitude is to provide corrections to mistakes. The habit
> of
> >>>>> > > > > letting students guess where their mistakes are drives them up the
> >>>>> > > > > wall. (I will let you look up the meaning of this expression,
> since
> >>>>> > > > > this is the method you are so fond of).
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > I have not such experience, I never wanted to teach anything... but
> >>>> > > > after 7 years of studying English language I was not able to follow a
> >>>> > > > discussion. And that is the sort of all the French pupils studying
> >>>> > > > English... so, I learnt Latin alone, with my own method, and now I
> >>>> > > > write
> >>>> > > > poetries and novels in latin, the last "de Saturnalibus cruentis"
> will
> >>>> > > > be available on the Circulus website on the beginning of september...
> >>>> > > >
> >>>>> > > > > I never withdrew my statement. I firmly believe that it's not my
> >>>>> > > > > place
> >>>>> > > > > to decide whether a senate session was legal or not.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > It is not the point... you witness an act which did not happened.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>>> > > > > I did correct "Magisterum" with "Magistrum" before posting,
> though.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > I have to register you in the first Latinitatis decuria.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > Optime vale.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> >>>> > > > Arcoiali scribebat
> >>>> > > > Nonis Sextilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> >>>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79209 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: a. d. VII Eidus Sextiliae: Battle of Crannon
M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Di vos servavissent semper.

Hodie est ante diem VII Eidus Sextiliae; haec dies comitialis est:

"The immortal Gods have mighty power, but They are not expected to be more indulgent than our parents. But parents, if their children persist in wrong-doing, disinherit them. What different application of justice then are we to look for from the immortal Gods, unless we put an end to our evil ways? Those alone may fairly claim the favor of the Gods who are not their own worst enemies. The immortal Gods ought to support, not supply, virtue." ~ Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae 1.6.8


PUBLIC AUSPICIA EX CAELI

"Public divination was obtained from the sky and from certain other sources, as I have said, but that of the sky had the greatest authority — so much so, in fact, that while the other auguries were many in number and were taken for each action, this one was taken but once and for the whole day. This was the most peculiar feature about it; but there was the further difference that whereas in reference to all other matters sky-divination either allowed things to be done, in which case they were carried out without consulting any individual augury further, or else would prevent and hinder something, yet it stopped the voting of the people altogether, serving always as a portent to check them, whether it was of a favorable or unfavorable nature." ~ Cassius Dio 38.13.3-4


AUC 431 / 322 BCE: Battle of Crannon

Following the death of Alexander the Great, Athens, led by Leosthenes and Hyperides, revolted against Macedonian hegemony of Greece. They were soon joined by Demosthenes who returned to Athens from exile. Aetholians and Thessalians joined the revolt under Athenian leadership. The core of the Greek army was a force of veteran mercenaries who had served in Alexander's campaigns in Asia. Upon his death they then found themselves unemployed, which was one cause of the revolt. The initial campaign brought Leosthenes and the Greek army to the mountain pass at Thermopylae. The Macedonians, under an aged Antipater and reinforced by Leonatus from Asia, were outmaneuvered and forced back into the fortress of Lamia where they were besieged. In the following year a second Macedonian army arrived under Craterus from Asia. Smaller than the army under Antipater, Craterus had the cream of the Macedonian veterans, supported by Persian archers and Asian cavalry. He was able to lift the siege, and thereby joined forces with Antipater. On the plains of Thessaly came the final battle, in Crannon. Antipater had an army of around 45,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry by August 322. The Greeks, under the command of Hyperides after the death of Leosthenes, had around 25,000 infantry and 3,500 cavalry. The Macedonians, with the better army, the larger army, and better leadership, simply overwhelmed the Athenians and ended the revolt.


AUC 870 / 117 CE: Death of Traianus

"There was, to be sure, a widely prevailing belief that Trajan, with the approval of many of his friends, had planned to appoint as his successor not Hadrian but [the jurist] Neratius Priscus, even to the extent of saying to Priscus: 'I entrust the provinces to your care in case anything happens to me'. And, indeed, many aver that Trajan had purposed to follow the example of Alexander of Macedonia and die without naming a successor. Again, many others declare that he had meant to send an address to the senate, requesting this body, in case aught befell him, to appoint a ruler for the Roman empire, and merely appending the names of some from among whom the senate might choose the best. And the statement has even been made that it was not until after Trajan's death that Hadrian was declared adopted, and then only by means of a trick of Plotina's; for she smuggled in someone who impersonated the Emperor and spoke in a feeble voice." ~ Historia Augusta, Hadrianus 4.8-10


Today's thought is from L. Annaeus Seneca, Epistle 27: On the Good that Abides:

"Just as crimes, even if they have not been detected when they were committed, do not allow anxiety to end with them; so with guilty pleasures, regret remains even after the pleasures are over. They are not substantial, they are not trustworthy; even if they do not harm us, they are fleeting. Cast about rather for some good that will abide. But there can be no such good except as the soul discovers it for itself within itself. Virtue alone affords everlasting and peace-giving joy."



Visit Religio_Romana_Cultorum_Deorum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79210 From: Kirsteen Wright Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
That's wonderful! I'm so glad it all went well. Congratulations to all
involved.

Cheers
Flavia lucilla Merula

On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Cn. Cornelius Lentulus <
cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:

> Cn. Lentulus pontifex, M. Lucretius augur, M. Octavius sacerdos Iovis et
> omnes Sarmatici, Pannonii Poltava Q V I R I T I B V S s. d. p.
>
> A very quick but verz warm greetings from Poltava (Sarmatia), from our
> part! We are well and we are very, very, very glad here, all events went
> wonderfully, including the weddings, the investiture of augur M. Lucretius
> Agricola, a Sarmatian votum, and the foundation of a Nova Roma REAL temple.
> Corvus is a wonderful houselord, we enjoy his hospitatality beyond words.
> I tell you we experience the real one and truly existing side of Nova Roma,
> friends, Roman brothers and sisters together from Japan to Budapest, in
> Ukrain, to celebrate our Republic, which I tell you, is more living than
> anyone could imagine.
> We will leave Poltava soon within a few hours, Agricola remains some more
> days, though.
> Hail Nova Roma, long live the Republic, vivat Nova Roma!
> With hugs and gladdest emotion, Corvus and his family, Agricola, the
> Sarmatians (many), the Pannonians, Q. Arrius, and M. Antonius, and I
> Lentulus, we all salute you!!
> Ex Sarmatia, Poltava
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79211 From: aerdensrw Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
P. Corva Gaudialis Cn. Cornelio Lentulo sal.

I am so glad to hear everything went well in Sarmatia. Congratulations to the newlyweds, and much happiness to you all!

Vale,

Paulla

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Lentulus pontifex, M. Lucretius augur, M. Octavius sacerdos Iovis et omnes Sarmatici, Pannonii Poltava Q V I R I T I B V S s. d. p.
>
> A very quick but verz warm greetings from Poltava (Sarmatia), from our part! We are well and we are very, very, very glad here, all events went wonderfully, including the weddings, the investiture of augur M. Lucretius Agricola, a Sarmatian votum, and the foundation of a Nova Roma REAL temple. Corvus is a wonderful houselord, we enjoy his hospitatality beyond words.
> I tell you we experience the real one and truly existing side of Nova Roma, friends, Roman brothers and sisters together from Japan to Budapest, in Ukrain, to celebrate our Republic, which I tell you, is more living than anyone could imagine.
> We will leave Poltava soon within a few hours, Agricola remains some more days, though.
> Hail Nova Roma, long live the Republic, vivat Nova Roma!
> With hugs and gladdest emotion, Corvus and his family, Agricola, the Sarmatians (many), the Pannonians, Q. Arrius, and M. Antonius, and I Lentulus, we all salute you!!
> Ex Sarmatia, Poltava
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79212 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
C. Maria Caeca Cn. Cornelio Lentulo Omnibusqe in Sarmaciaqe S. P. D.

What delightful news! I am very happy that all went well, and, again, I extend my best wishes to all celebrants in Sarmatia, but especially to the newlyweds! May your lives be filled with happiness, and may Vesta bless your hearths and homes with the light and warmth of live!

Valete quam optime,
C. Maria Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79213 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
M. Hortensia M. Lucretio M. Octavio spd;

what marvellous news. I can't wait to see all the photos and see the ceremonies; the wedddings, the inauguration of an augur, the votum!

These are 3 major steps for our community, which as you say is all about real life. May our internet community wither away! May the examples of the Sarmati, the sacerdos Concordae et Iovis inspire us all!
di nobis faveant
M. Hortensia Maior

>
> A very quick but verz warm greetings from Poltava (Sarmatia), from our part! We are well and we are very, very, very glad here, all events went wonderfully, including the weddings, the investiture of augur M. Lucretius Agricola, a Sarmatian votum, and the foundation of a Nova Roma REAL temple. Corvus is a wonderful houselord, we enjoy his hospitatality beyond words.
> I tell you we experience the real one and truly existing side of Nova Roma, friends, Roman brothers and sisters together from Japan to Budapest, in Ukrain, to celebrate our Republic, which I tell you, is more living than anyone could imagine.
> We will leave Poltava soon within a few hours, Agricola remains some more days, though.
> Hail Nova Roma, long live the Republic, vivat Nova Roma!
> With hugs and gladdest emotion, Corvus and his family, Agricola, the Sarmatians (many), the Pannonians, Q. Arrius, and M. Antonius, and I Lentulus, we all salute you!!
> Ex Sarmatia, Poltava
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79214 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Sta, Cornelia Aeternia Cn. Lentulo M. Lucretio M.Octavio et omnibus s.p.d.


Awesome! Congrats to all the married couples. And all the celebrations,
safe return trip back home Lentulus and Agricola!


Vale,
Sta. Cornelia Aeternia


On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Cn. Cornelius Lentulus <
cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cn. Lentulus pontifex, M. Lucretius augur, M. Octavius sacerdos Iovis et
> omnes Sarmatici, Pannonii Poltava Q V I R I T I B V S s. d. p.
>
> A very quick but verz warm greetings from Poltava (Sarmatia), from our
> part! We are well and we are very, very, very glad here, all events went
> wonderfully, including the weddings, the investiture of augur M. Lucretius
> Agricola, a Sarmatian votum, and the foundation of a Nova Roma REAL temple.
> Corvus is a wonderful houselord, we enjoy his hospitatality beyond words.
> I tell you we experience the real one and truly existing side of Nova Roma,
> friends, Roman brothers and sisters together from Japan to Budapest, in
> Ukrain, to celebrate our Republic, which I tell you, is more living than
> anyone could imagine.
> We will leave Poltava soon within a few hours, Agricola remains some more
> days, though.
> Hail Nova Roma, long live the Republic, vivat Nova Roma!
> With hugs and gladdest emotion, Corvus and his family, Agricola, the
> Sarmatians (many), the Pannonians, Q. Arrius, and M. Antonius, and I
> Lentulus, we all salute you!!
> Ex Sarmatia, Poltava
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79215 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
C. Maria Caeca M. Hortensiae Maiori omnibusque S. P. D.

sigh. The internet community exists, alongside the physical communities, for very good reasons. It can, should, and sometimes does, act to bring scattered groups together to foster creative ideas when planning physical events. It allows us to be a truly international community, not a scattering of isolated small groups of people who would, inevitably, because of the tendency of isolated communities to become insular, become something other than Nova Romans. It brings together people from all over the world who have expertise lacking in one or another of those physical communities.

Rather than wishing that half of our presence would wither, it would be better, I think, to foster the physical communities, so that *both* aspects of this Nation function, as they should, in tandem and with equal importance.

Respectfully,
C. Maria Caeca, whose life would be less rich, had internet community not brought me friends from far places where I am never likely to go.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79216 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Well said, Gaia Maria Caeca!

I have recently been involved in several discussions about various online
communities and their benefits and drawbacks, and so this topic has been
much on my mind. I live in an area with very little interest in Latin or
Roman matters, and I am financially unable to travel much (or at all,
really), so online community is essential to people in isolated places and
of limited means (such as myself).

I am glad that our online presence has allowed me to "meet" wonderful people
(such as yourself, Caeca!), and has led to some real-world meetings (albeit
with people who don't live close enough to form an offline community, but
nice visits). I was very happy to recently meet Policola and Aurelia in
person, who are both Roman although no longer citizens of Nova Roma. Years
back I remember meeting Mincius Hadrianus in Plymouth. These things would
not have happened had we Romans not had an online community. The Back Alley
has done as much to promote real meetings and community as Nova Roma itself
(maybe it's sad that a private, unaffiliated group brings as many Romans
together as the mighty Nova Roma, but personally, I'm just glad its
happening).

And yet I hold out hope for the future, that our offline communities will
grow, and as you said, become equal partners of our online communities.

~ Valerianus


On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 2:59 PM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

>
>
> C. Maria Caeca M. Hortensiae Maiori omnibusque S. P. D.
>
> sigh. The internet community exists, alongside the physical communities,
> for very good reasons. It can, should, and sometimes does, act to bring
> scattered groups together to foster creative ideas when planning physical
> events. It allows us to be a truly international community, not a scattering
> of isolated small groups of people who would, inevitably, because of the
> tendency of isolated communities to become insular, become something other
> than Nova Romans. It brings together people from all over the world who have
> expertise lacking in one or another of those physical communities.
>
> Rather than wishing that half of our presence would wither, it would be
> better, I think, to foster the physical communities, so that *both* aspects
> of this Nation function, as they should, in tandem and with equal
> importance.
>
> Respectfully,
> C. Maria Caeca, whose life would be less rich, had internet community not
> brought me friends from far places where I am never likely to go.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79217 From: Kirsteen Wright Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 7:59 PM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

> C. Maria Caeca M. Hortensiae Maiori omnibusque S. P. D.
>
> sigh. .......Rather than wishing that half of our presence would wither,
> it would be better, I think, to foster the physical communities, so that
> *both* aspects of this Nation function, as they should, in tandem and with
> equal importance.
>
> Thank you. I am really glad that you and Valerianus brought this up.
Believe me, I am really pleased that physical communities are growing, that
people are meeting up and I think Lentulus travelling all that distance is
fantastic. However *all* my social interactions take place online. When on
the very best of days you only make it out of bed for about 6 hours a day
and out the house maybe one day a week, it severely restricts all social
interaction. I can't even make my daughter's civil partnership so there's no
chance I'd manage to meet up with other citizens.


As i said, I'm really, really pleased for those that can meet up but please
spare a thought for those of us who can't. Without online communities, I'd
have no life at all. I really appreciate the fact that we do have so much
online interaction.

Cheers
Merula


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79218 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-08-07
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica M. Cornelio Gualtero Graeco quiritibus, sociis,
> peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
>
> There are TAs here; I was a TA in Greek last year, but there is a strict
> oversight by some senior faculty member. Sometimes I graded quizzes or
> homeworks, which were reviewed by my senior before they were handed back to
> the students.
>
> ATS: And you didn¹t compel the students to find their own errors? ;-)
> Now, this is proper supervision of TA¹s. But quizzes? At the hallowed 1050
> E. 59th? Not hourlies or midterms or finals? Mere quizzes? Don¹t these kids
> have anything more challenging than that...even at the College? ;-)
>
>
> Next academic year I will be an instructor in Greek, but what usually happens
> is that there are two sections for a course where one is taught by the
> advanced grad student and another by a faculty member, and the faculty member
> sets the agenda, the texts and writes the midterm and final exams which are
> graded together by the instructor and professor... at least in the Classics
> dept. I can't speak for other depts.
>
> ATS: The Classics Department is more sensible, but I find it difficult to
> envision anything resembling a TA at UC. Hope they are not running short of
> full professors...I surely can¹t see a TA teaching Sanskrit, or Hittite, or
> Akkadian...
>
> At my undergrad U, we had one section of beginning Greek (baby Greek, as
> one of the profs called it), conducted in a none-too-elegant classroom in the
> basement of the engineering building...at a time when that discipline was
> forbidden to women.
>
>
> Vale,
>
> Gualterus
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "A.
> Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@...> wrote:
>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > A. Tullia Scholastica L. Liviae Plautae C. Equitio Catoni quiritibus,
>>> sociis,
>>> > > peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Livia Catoni sal.
>>> > >
>>> > > Well, I thought that since Gualterus' grad school teaches impossible
>>> things
>>> > > like correcting your own mistakes (when learning a language) they might
>>> have
>>> > > been the ones who taught the Baron of Munchausen.
>>> > >
>>> > > ATS: Here I think you may be slightly confused, Plauta; it was
>>> Poplicola
>>> > > who said his graduate school taught such things. Rest assured that that
>>> sort
>>> > > of thing is highly unlikely at the University of Chicago, where
>>> Gualterus is
>>> > > apparently pursuing his doctorate. The U of Chi is one of the finest
>>> > > universities in this country, home of the renowned Oriental Institute
>>> (inter
>>> > > alia), and is not a place where one would expect that sort of thing.
>>> Last I
>>> > > heard, there were no fancy sports teams there, with athletes who had to
be
>>> > > passed because they were skilled at some silly game or other, and no
>>> teaching
>>> > > assistants, though it seems that some have now been added. The
>>> University of
>>> > > Chicago has very high standards, and does not teach underwater basket
>>> weaving
>>> > > or leave error correction in the hands of any but the most competent
>>> TA¹s (if
>>> > > indeed they have them). Normally only the professors teach there. >>>
Other
>>> > > colleges and universities may well do otherwise, but not UC. Crescat
>>> > > scientia; vita excolatur.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Of course I wouldn't mind going to Hogwarts. However, I'm afraid that
>>> school
>>> > > has rather strict entrly requirements.
>>> > >
>>> > > ATS: So does the U of Chicago. Maybe you should check them out.
Now
>>> > > Poplicola goes elsewhere, near San Francisco, if I am not mistaken, and
>>> > > probably is at a state college or university. There is a world of
>>> difference
>>> > > between the quality schools like Chicago and Yale and Princeton and
>>> Hahvahd
>>> > > and some others (not that all state schools are bad; many are quite
>>> good, even
>>> > > excellent), but one should not assume that a university, whether or not
it
>>> > > bears a toponym, is automatically inferior.
>>> > >
>>> > > Vale,
>>> > > Livia
>>> > >
>>> > > Valete.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > > From: "Cato" <catoinnyc@>
>>> > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> >
>>> > > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:54 PM
>>> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witnessing appointment
>>> > >
>>> > > Cato Liviae Plautae sal.
>>> > >
>>> > > You'd probably have to go to Hogwarts for that. :)
>>> > >
>>> > > Vale,
>>> > >
>>> > > Cato
>>> > >
>>> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "L.
>>> > > Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@>
>>> > > wrote:
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> > Salve Poplicola,
>>>>> > >> > do they also teach you how to pull yourself out of the water by
>>>>> your hair?
>>>>> > >> > Because *that* would definitely make grad school attractive to me.
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> > Optime vale,
>>>>> > >> > Livia
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> > ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> > >> > From: "qvalerius" <q.valerius.poplicola@>
>>>>> > >> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> >
>>>>> > >> > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:21 AM
>>>>> > >> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witnessing appointment
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> > Salve,
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> > In grad school, the professors force you to learn how to correct
>>>>> your own
>>>>> > >> > mistakes. Your "training" must have been elementary at best.
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> > Vale.
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
,
>>>> > >> "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Maior Scholasticae Liviaeque spd;
>>>>>>> > >>> > > my gratitude to you both. I've studied French, Italian,
>>>>>>> Russian and
>>>>>>> > >>> > > German in high school and university and always had my
mistakes
>>>>>>> > >>> > > corrected.
>>>>>>> > >>> > > It's the only way to learn. I appreciate the help and support.
>>>>>>> > >>> > > If only the rest of this list were like you two!
>>>>>>> > >>> > > optime vale
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Maior
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
>>>>> > >>> "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@>
>>>>>>> > >>> > > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > C. Petronius L. Liviae s.p.d.,
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > I have been a language teacher for 15 years, and I
assure you that
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > the
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > correct attitude is to provide corrections to
>>>>>>>>>>> mistakes. The habit
>> > of
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > letting students guess where their mistakes are
>>>>>>>>>>> drives them up the
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > wall. (I will let you look up the meaning of this
expression,
>> > since
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > this is the method you are so fond of).
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > I have not such experience, I never wanted to teach
>>>>>>>>> anything... but
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > after 7 years of studying English language I was not able
to follow a
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > discussion. And that is the sort of all the French pupils
studying
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > English... so, I learnt Latin alone, with my own method,
and now I
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > write
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > poetries and novels in latin, the last "de Saturnalibus
cruentis"
>> > will
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > be available on the Circulus website on the beginning of
september...
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > I never withdrew my statement. I firmly believe that
it's not my
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > place
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > to decide whether a senate session was legal or not.
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > It is not the point... you witness an act which did not
happened.
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > I did correct "Magisterum" with "Magistrum" before
posting,
>> > though.
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > I have to register you in the first Latinitatis decuria.
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > Optime vale.
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > C. Petronius Dexter
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > Arcoiali scribebat
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > Nonis Sextilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > >




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79219 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-08-08
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica C. Mariae Caecae M. Hortensiae Majori quiritibus bonae
> voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> C. Maria Caeca M. Hortensiae Maiori omnibusque S. P. D.
>
> sigh. The internet community exists, alongside the physical communities, for
> very good reasons.
>
> ATS: Indeed it does.
>
>
>
> It can, should, and sometimes does, act to bring scattered groups together to
> foster creative ideas when planning physical events. It allows us to be a
> truly international community, not a scattering of isolated small groups of
> people who would, inevitably, because of the tendency of isolated communities
> to become insular, become something other than Nova Romans. It brings
> together people from all over the world who have expertise lacking in one or
> another of those physical communities.
>
> ATS: And, as you are well aware, it allows those who are not necessarily
> geographically isolated, but unable to travel for one reason or another, to
> convene in Romanitas via cybernetic means.
>
> Rather than wishing that half of our presence would wither, it would be
> better, I think, to foster the physical communities, so that *both* aspects of
> this Nation function, as they should, in tandem and with equal importance.
>
> ATS: I agree completely. We must not forget that there are places (even
> entire countries), where there is only one citizen, or one active citizen, or
> that some among us are elderly and / or handicapped, and rely on the computer
> and such devices for such interactions. Even apart from physical
> impossibility, not everyone can travel at will, or meet other Roman citizens,
> no matter how much he or she might desire this. There are times when the
> mountain must come to Moses, not the other way around.
>
> Respectfully,
> C. Maria Caeca, whose life would be less rich, had internet community not
> brought me friends from far places where I am never likely to go.
>
> ATS: Nor are you alone in that.
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79220 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-08
Subject: Classic Poetry, Prose, Proems, Literature Excerpts
Salvete quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque salutem plurimam dicit

Tonight's offering are two as we approach the darkness of the New Moon:

Sexti Properti Elegiarum Liber 1:11

Quid iuvat ornato procedere, vita, capillo
et tenues Coa veste movere sinus?
aut quid Orontea crines perfundere murra,
teque peregrinis vendere muneribus ;
naturaeque decus mercato perdere cultu,
nec sinere in propiis membra nitere bonis ?
crede mihi, non ulla tua est medicina figure:
nudus Amore formae non amat artificem.
aspice quos summittat humus formosa colores;
ut veniant hederae sponte sua melius,
surgat et in solis formosius arbutus antris,
et sciat indociles currere lympha vias.
litora nativis persuadent pieta lapillis,
et volucres nulla dulcius arte canunt.

The Elegies of Propertius Book I:II

What boots it, light of my life, to go forth with locks adorned, and to rustle in slender folds of Coan silk? Or avails it aught to steep they tresses in the myrrh of Orontes, to parade thyself in the gifts that aliens bring, to spoil the grace of nature by the charms that gold can buy nor allow they limbs to shine in the gory that is their own? Believe me, thou hast no art can make they form more fair; Love himself goes naked and hates those that make a craft of beauty. See what hues lovely earth sends for the; `tis the wild ivy springs fairest ever: loveliest the arbutus that grows in the caverns of the wilderness, and all untaught are the channels where the waters run. Begemmed with native pebbles the shores beguile our eyes, and birds sing sweetlier from their lack of art.

********************************************************************
From the Greek Alexandrian Erotic Fragment by Longus:

[…] Love, the stablisher of friendship, overcame me; I do not deny that I have him ever within my soul. Ye dear stars, and thou, lady night, partner of my love, bring me – even now to him to whom Cypris leads me as slave and the great love that has taken hold upon me; to light me on my way I have the great fire that burns in my soul[…]

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

Valete,

Julia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79221 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-08
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Salvete Amici!

Congratulations on the three weddings! May your arms always hold each other tight, may the fire in your eyes always burn for each other and may your hearts always beat as one but may your minds hold the independent wisdom to guide and nurture each other to your highest potential!

With warmest regards!

Valete optime,

Julia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79222 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-08-08
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
C. Petronius L. Iuliae s.p.d.,

> may the fire in your eyes always burn for each other

I agree with that! But, was it necessary to burn all Sarmatia?

Optime valete.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. VI Idus Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79223 From: gualterus_graecus Date: 2010-08-08
Subject: Re: Witnessing appointment
As far as I know, the Oriental Institute doesn't have TAs teaching anything; the fact is, people entering programs with oriental languages typically don't have the same undergrad preparation as those entering Classics simply because there aren't enough undergrad programs that offer Akkadian, etc (although, I was lucky enough to have an Assyriologist at my undergrad school such that I was able to take a semester in Sumerian!).

As for students finding their own errors, the homeworks and quizzes were all corrected as one would expect. But, when I did the mandatory weekly drill sessions in the evening and some poor, nervous soul screwed up on the board, I'd try to have the person identify the problem by dropping hints; if that failed, I'd try to get someone else in the class to find the problem.

-GG

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > A. Tullia Scholastica M. Cornelio Gualtero Graeco quiritibus, sociis,
> > peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
> >
> >
> >
> > There are TAs here; I was a TA in Greek last year, but there is a strict
> > oversight by some senior faculty member. Sometimes I graded quizzes or
> > homeworks, which were reviewed by my senior before they were handed back to
> > the students.
> >
> > ATS: And you didn¹t compel the students to find their own errors? ;-)
> > Now, this is proper supervision of TA¹s. But quizzes? At the hallowed 1050
> > E. 59th? Not hourlies or midterms or finals? Mere quizzes? Don¹t these kids
> > have anything more challenging than that...even at the College? ;-)
> >
> >
> > Next academic year I will be an instructor in Greek, but what usually happens
> > is that there are two sections for a course where one is taught by the
> > advanced grad student and another by a faculty member, and the faculty member
> > sets the agenda, the texts and writes the midterm and final exams which are
> > graded together by the instructor and professor... at least in the Classics
> > dept. I can't speak for other depts.
> >
> > ATS: The Classics Department is more sensible, but I find it difficult to
> > envision anything resembling a TA at UC. Hope they are not running short of
> > full professors...I surely can¹t see a TA teaching Sanskrit, or Hittite, or
> > Akkadian...
> >
> > At my undergrad U, we had one section of beginning Greek (baby Greek, as
> > one of the profs called it), conducted in a none-too-elegant classroom in the
> > basement of the engineering building...at a time when that discipline was
> > forbidden to women.
> >
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Gualterus
> >
> > Vale, et valete.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "A.
> > Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@> wrote:
> >> >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > A. Tullia Scholastica L. Liviae Plautae C. Equitio Catoni quiritibus,
> >>> sociis,
> >>> > > peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Livia Catoni sal.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Well, I thought that since Gualterus' grad school teaches impossible
> >>> things
> >>> > > like correcting your own mistakes (when learning a language) they might
> >>> have
> >>> > > been the ones who taught the Baron of Munchausen.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > ATS: Here I think you may be slightly confused, Plauta; it was
> >>> Poplicola
> >>> > > who said his graduate school taught such things. Rest assured that that
> >>> sort
> >>> > > of thing is highly unlikely at the University of Chicago, where
> >>> Gualterus is
> >>> > > apparently pursuing his doctorate. The U of Chi is one of the finest
> >>> > > universities in this country, home of the renowned Oriental Institute
> >>> (inter
> >>> > > alia), and is not a place where one would expect that sort of thing.
> >>> Last I
> >>> > > heard, there were no fancy sports teams there, with athletes who had to
> be
> >>> > > passed because they were skilled at some silly game or other, and no
> >>> teaching
> >>> > > assistants, though it seems that some have now been added. The
> >>> University of
> >>> > > Chicago has very high standards, and does not teach underwater basket
> >>> weaving
> >>> > > or leave error correction in the hands of any but the most competent
> >>> TA¹s (if
> >>> > > indeed they have them). Normally only the professors teach there. >>>
> Other
> >>> > > colleges and universities may well do otherwise, but not UC. Crescat
> >>> > > scientia; vita excolatur.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Of course I wouldn't mind going to Hogwarts. However, I'm afraid that
> >>> school
> >>> > > has rather strict entrly requirements.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > ATS: So does the U of Chicago. Maybe you should check them out.
> Now
> >>> > > Poplicola goes elsewhere, near San Francisco, if I am not mistaken, and
> >>> > > probably is at a state college or university. There is a world of
> >>> difference
> >>> > > between the quality schools like Chicago and Yale and Princeton and
> >>> Hahvahd
> >>> > > and some others (not that all state schools are bad; many are quite
> >>> good, even
> >>> > > excellent), but one should not assume that a university, whether or not
> it
> >>> > > bears a toponym, is automatically inferior.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Vale,
> >>> > > Livia
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Valete.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > ----- Original Message -----
> >>> > > From: "Cato" <catoinnyc@>
> >>> > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >>> > > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:54 PM
> >>> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witnessing appointment
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Cato Liviae Plautae sal.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > You'd probably have to go to Hogwarts for that. :)
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Vale,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Cato
> >>> > >
> >>> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "L.
> >>> > > Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@>
> >>> > > wrote:
> >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>> > >> > Salve Poplicola,
> >>>>> > >> > do they also teach you how to pull yourself out of the water by
> >>>>> your hair?
> >>>>> > >> > Because *that* would definitely make grad school attractive to me.
> >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>> > >> > Optime vale,
> >>>>> > >> > Livia
> >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>> > >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>> > >> > From: "qvalerius" <q.valerius.poplicola@>
> >>>>> > >> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >>>>> > >> > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:21 AM
> >>>>> > >> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witnessing appointment
> >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>> > >> > Salve,
> >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>> > >> > In grad school, the professors force you to learn how to correct
> >>>>> your own
> >>>>> > >> > mistakes. Your "training" must have been elementary at best.
> >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>> > >> > Vale.
> >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>> > >> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> >>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> ,
> >>>> > >> "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Maior Scholasticae Liviaeque spd;
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > my gratitude to you both. I've studied French, Italian,
> >>>>>>> Russian and
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > German in high school and university and always had my
> mistakes
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > corrected.
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > It's the only way to learn. I appreciate the help and support.
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > If only the rest of this list were like you two!
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > optime vale
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Maior
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> >>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> >>>>> > >>> "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@>
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > C. Petronius L. Liviae s.p.d.,
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > I have been a language teacher for 15 years, and I
> assure you that
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > the
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > correct attitude is to provide corrections to
> >>>>>>>>>>> mistakes. The habit
> >> > of
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > letting students guess where their mistakes are
> >>>>>>>>>>> drives them up the
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > wall. (I will let you look up the meaning of this
> expression,
> >> > since
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > this is the method you are so fond of).
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > I have not such experience, I never wanted to teach
> >>>>>>>>> anything... but
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > after 7 years of studying English language I was not able
> to follow a
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > discussion. And that is the sort of all the French pupils
> studying
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > English... so, I learnt Latin alone, with my own method,
> and now I
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > write
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > poetries and novels in latin, the last "de Saturnalibus
> cruentis"
> >> > will
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > be available on the Circulus website on the beginning of
> september...
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > I never withdrew my statement. I firmly believe that
> it's not my
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > place
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > to decide whether a senate session was legal or not.
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > It is not the point... you witness an act which did not
> happened.
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > I did correct "Magisterum" with "Magistrum" before
> posting,
> >> > though.
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > I have to register you in the first Latinitatis decuria.
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > Optime vale.
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > Arcoiali scribebat
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > Nonis Sextilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79224 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-08-08
Subject: a. d. VI Eidus Sextiliae: Coriolanus, Foruna Mulieris & the Matrons
. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus Quiritibus cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Optime vos omnes.

Hodie est ante diem VI Eidus Sextiliae; haec dies comitialis est:

AUC 265 / 488 BCE: Coriolanus and the Matrons of Rome

"When Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus, who had been exiled, was made leader of the Volscians and led an enemy army against the city, first envoys were sent, then priests, begging him not to attack his own country, but he did not return until his mother Veturia and wife Volumnia asked the same." ~ T. Livius, Perioche 2.23


FORTUNA MULIEBRIS AND THE MATORNS OF ROME

"It occurred to the women after some deliberation to ask for no invidious gift, but to request of the senate permission to found a temple to Fortuna Muliebris on the spot where they had interceded for their country, and to assemble and perform annual sacrifices to Her on the day on which they had put an end to the war. However, the senate and people decreed that from the public funds a precinct should be purchased and consecrated to the Goddess, and a temple and alter erected upon it, in such manner as the pontiffs should direct, and that sacrifices should be performed at the public expense, the initial ceremonies to be conducted by a woman, whichever one the women themselves should choose to officiate at the rites. The senate having passed this decree, the woman then chosen by the others to be priestess for the first time was Valeria, who had proposed to them the embassy and had persuaded the mother of Marcius to join the others in going out of the city. The first sacrifice was performed on behalf of the people by the women, Valeria beginning the rites, upon the altar raised in the sacred precinct, before the temple and the statue were erected, in the month of December of the following year, on the day of the new moon, which the Greeks call noumênia and the Romans calends; for this was the day which had put an end to the war. The year after the first sacrifice the temple built at public expense was finished and dedicated about the seventh of the month Quintilis, reckoning by the course of the moon; this, according to the Romans' calendar, is the day before the nones of Quintilis. The man who dedicated the temple was Proculus Verginius, one of the consuls.

"It would be in harmony with a formal history and in the interest of correcting those who think that the Gods are neither pleased with the honors They receive from men nor displeased with impious and unjust actions, to make known the epiphany of the Goddess at that time, not once, but twice, as it is recorded in the books of the pontiffs, to the end that by those who are more scrupulous about preserving the opinions concerning the Gods which they have received from their ancestors such belief may be maintained firm and undisturbed by misgivings, and that those who, despising the customs of their forefathers, hold that the Gods have no power over man's reason, may, preferably, retract their opinion, or, if they are incurable, that the may become still more odious to the Gods and more wretched. It is related, then, that when the senate had ordered that the whole expense both of the temple and of the statue should be defrayed from the public treasury, and the women had caused another statue to be made with the money they themselves had contributed, and both statues had been set up together on the first day of the dedication of the temple, one of them, the one which the women had provided, uttered some words in Latin in a voice both distinct and loud, when many were present. The meaning of the words when translated is as follows: "You have conformed to the holy law of the City, matrons, in dedicating Me." The women who were present were very incredulous, as usually happens in the case of unusual voices and sights, believing that it was not the statue that had spoken, but some human voice; and those particularly who happened at the moment to have their mind on something else and did not see what it was that spoke, showed this incredulity toward those who had seen it. Later, on a second occasion, when the temple was full and there chanced to be a profound silence, the same statue pronounced the same words in a louder voice, so that there was no longer any doubt about it. The senate, upon hearing what had passed, ordered other sacrifices and rites to be performed every year, such as the interpreters of religious rites should direct. And the women upon the advice of their priestess established it as a custom that no women who had been married a second time should crown this statue with garlands or touch it with their hands, but that all the honor and worship paid to it should be committed to the newly-married women." ~ Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 8.55.3-56.4


Our thought for today comes from Sextius, Pythagorean Sentinces 17:

"You will not be concealed from divinity when you act unjustly, nor even when you think of doing so."
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79225 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2010-08-08
Subject: FW: [Explorator] explorator 13.16
Salvete

FYI

Valete

Ti. Galerius Paulinus



To: explorator@yahoogroups.com; BRITARCH@...
From: rogueclassicist@...
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 09:50:51 -0400
Subject: [Explorator] explorator 13.16






================================================================
explorator 13.16 August 8, 2010
================================================================
Editor's note: Most urls should be active for at least eight
hours from the time of publication.

For your computer's protection, Explorator is sent in plain text
and NEVER has attachments. Be suspicious of any Explorator which
arrives otherwise!!!
================================================================
================================================================
Thanks to Arthur Shippee, Dave Sowdon,Donna Hurst,
Edward Rockstein, Rick Heli,Hernan Astudillo, Kurt Theis,
Robert T White, John McMahon, Barnea Selavan,Joseph Lauer,
Mike Ruggeri,Bob Heuman, Rochelle Altman, and Ross W. Sargent
for headses upses this week (as always
hoping I have left no one out).

n.b. I'm in a different time zone and in a low bandwidth situation
this week and next ... I have not been able to check some links
with the thoroughness (such as it is) that I usually do ...
================================================================
EARLY HUMANS
================================================================
Checking out Otzi's dna:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/five-millennia-on-iceman-of-bolzano-gives-up-dna-secrets-2041236.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38578491/ns/technology_and_science-science/

A Neanderthal 'bedroom' find:

http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/neanderthal-bedroom-house.html

Feature on sediba:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/40260/

Eating meat made us smarter:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128849908

On the whys of domestication:

http://www.physorg.com/news198857237.html

================================================================
ANCIENT NEAR EAST AND EGYPT
================================================================
Recent finds by Polish archaeologists in Egypt:

http://en.naukawpolsce.pl/palio/html.run?_Instance=cms_naukapl.pap.pl&_PageID=1&s=szablon.depesza&dz=archeology&dep=374434&data=&lang=EN&_CheckSum=882016613

An update from KV 63

The mummy of Tasherytpanenekh is heading to the hospital:

http://annistonstar.com/view/full_story/9007251/article-Anniston-mummy-headed-to-hospital?instance=1st_left

A 3000 y.b.p. Canaanite bracelet from Israel:

http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=39696
http://www.antiquities.org.il/about_eng.asp?Modul_id=14
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/culture/2010-08/03/c_13428487.htm
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138923

Important 6th/5th century B.C.E. cemetery find from Tarous:

http://www.english.globalarabnetwork.com/201008086827/Culture/syrian-archaeologists-discovery-of-cemetery-building-casts-light-on-phoenician-religious-traditions.html

Not sure if we've mentioned this Philistine temple from Gath find:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3927273,00.html
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100804/archaeologists-uncover-philistine-temple-in-goliaths-hometown/

Claims of extracts from the Cyrus Cylinder being found in China (hmmmm):

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Extracts-of-Cyrus-Cylinder-found-in-China_/21147
http://www.iranian.com/main/news/2010/08/04/british-museum-curator-has-identified-cuneiform-text-inscribed-horse-bones

The focus on this one is ANE items but it looks like Xray fluorescence can
be used to
determine the origins of assorted items (in this case a late Bronze Age
letter):

http://www.physorg.com/news200229766.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100805143059.htm
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1901707/reading_the_zip_codes_of_3500yearold_letters/index.html?source=r_science
http://www.aftau.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12647
http://yubanet.com/scitech/Reading-the-zip-codes-of-3-500-year-old-letters.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-08/afot-rtz080510.php
Feature on the Burnt City:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=137556§ionid=3510304

Feature on the Tel Beth Shemesh dig:

http://www.yorknewstimes.com/articles/2010/08/06/news/doc4c5a0b8779d9c381138275.txt

Interview with Oded Borowski about his dig near Kibbutz Lahav and other
things:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/News.aspx/2428

Interesting feature about/interviews with some of the folks of the IAA:

http://www.archaeology.org/israel_antiquities_authority/

Not really an archaeology story per se, but if this report is accurate,
things
are going to get even more complicated in Israel:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138949

... seems it's related to this:

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=183704

... and the Temple Mount saga continues:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/government-tried-to-bury-report-on-temple-mount-excavations-1.305298
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=183575

More on who wrote the DSS:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/07/100727-who-wrote-dead-sea-scrolls-bible-science-tv/

Egyptology News Blog:

http://egyptology.blogspot.com/

Egyptology Blog:

http://www.egyptologyblog.co.uk/

Dr Leen Ritmeyer's Blog:

http://blog.ritmeyer.com/

Paleojudaica:

http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/

Persepolis Fortification Archives:

http://persepolistablets.blogspot.com/

Archaeologist at Large:

http://spaces.msn.com/members/ArchaeologyinEgypt/
================================================================
ANCIENT GREECE AND ROME (AND CLASSICS)
================================================================
New findings from an Etruscan tomb:

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/08/05/New-findings-from-ancient-tomb-in-Italy/UPI-42701281054685/
http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=196066

They're hoping some digs in Malta will shed light on ancient wine
production:

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100806/local/digs-may-throw-more-light-on-ancient-wine-production

Not sure about this report of 'illegal digs' leading to the discovery of the
tomb of King Hekataios near Milas:

http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=196061&catid=62

A survey has found Roman remains near Cockermouth and Papcastle:

http://www.timesandstar.co.uk/news/other/survey-shows-up-roman-remains-near-cockermouth-and-papcastle-1.743189?referrerPath=news/

There's a new Classics major at Canisius College:

http://www.canisius.edu/newsevents/display_story.asp?iNewsID=6448&strBack=%2FDefault.asp

The blog for the Mt Lykaion dig is up and running:

http://mountlykaion.wordpress.com/

Why learn Greek:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/dons_life/2010/08/why-learn-ancient-greek.html

The Colosseum will be open late:

http://www.artdaily.com/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=39817
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38595903/ns/travel-destination_travel/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20100806/ap_tr_ge/eu_travel_brief_italy_colosseum_by_night_1

Some more coverage of that students-train-as-gladiators thing:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/837023-students-test-their-strength-as-they-train-as-gladiators

More on Cleopatra's pearls:

http://news.discovery.com/history/cleopatra-pearl-cocktail.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38536846/ns/technology_and_science-science/

More on Alexander and the Styx:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/7924855/Alexander-the-Great-poisoned-by-the-River-Styx.html
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/world/Alexander+killed+poison+gods/3354870/story.html

More on the (most-recently-found) remains of John the Baptist:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10849211
http://paper.standartnews.com/en/article.php?d=2010-07-30&article=33767
http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n226749
http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/08/02/14162182.html
http://eu.greekreporter.com/2010/08/02/remains-of-saint-john-the-baptist-were-found-in-sozopol/
http://www.novinite.com/newsletter/print.php?id=118869
http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/john-the-baptists-bones-discovered.html

... and I'm not sure this is genuine or not (NSFW language):

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=118913

An interview with Adrienne Mayor:

http://www.unrv.com/book-review/interview-adrienne-mayor.php

Review of Goldsworthy's *Antony and Cleopatra*:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/191756/The-Real-Antony-and-Cleopatra

Review of Simon Price, *The Birth of Classical Europe*:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/7926897/The-Birth-of-Classical-Europe-by-Simon-Price-and-Peter-Thonemann-review.html

Review of Vicki Leon, *How to Mellify a Corpse*:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129024911

Review of Robert OConnell, *The Ghosts of Cannae*:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-06/hannibal-killed-100-romans-per-minute-at-cannae-lewis-lapham.html

Latest reviews from Scholia:

http://www.classics.ukzn.ac.za/reviews/

Latest reviews from BMCR:

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/recent.html

Visit our blog:

http://rogueclassicism.com/
================================================================
EUROPE AND THE UK (+ Ireland)
================================================================
14 000 y.b.p. dog remains from a Swiss cave:

http://www.physorg.com/news199964650.html

Plans to probe a possible Saxon hall site in Powys:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-10837347

Evidence of early Scots decorating:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/08/03/archaeologists-uncover-decorations-on-orkney-stones-86908-22460847/

A Byzantine winery on St Atanas Cape (Bulgaria):

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=118852
http://www.balkantravellers.com/en/read/article/2176

The dig at Marden Henge is wrapping up:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/wiltshire/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8892000/8892445.stm

Some medieval burials and a coin from Chernogorovo:

http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n227523

A medieval roof finial from near the Thames:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/03/medieval-roof-finial-found-thames
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10860459

Medieval site from the Isle of Man:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-10879580

Latest facial (and voice?) reconstruction is of Gristhorpe Man:

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8310552.Scientists_give_face_and_voice_to_Bronze_Age_man/

Archaeology in Europe Blog:

http://archaeology-in-europe.blogspot.com/

================================================================
ASIA AND THE SOUTH PACIFIC
================================================================
A foot bone is suggesting the Phillippines may have been settled
67 000 y.b.p.:

http://www.physorg.com/news200028897.html
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20100803/tap-philippines-archaeology-human-histor-5cc1ef8.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/philippines/7924538/Archaeologists-unearth-67000-year-old-human-bone-in-Philippines.html
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/7696110/ancient-bone-find-may-change-human-history/
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/197541/researchers-discover-fossil-of-human-older-than-tabon-man
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=599836&publicationSubCategoryId=200

... and they're arguing about Murray River Man:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/evolutionary-dispute-shapes-up/story-e6frgcjx-1225900776432

They're digging up some 1200 y.b.p. ponds in Bangalore:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Bangalores-1200-year-old-secret/articleshow/6270586.cms

Flooding threatens Mohenjodaro:

http://www.newkerala.com/news2/fullnews-15922.html
http://www.newkerala.com/news2/fullnews-15963.html
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=378819&version=1&template_id=41&parent_id=23

A Shaolin temple in China has made the World Heritage List:

http://www.newkerala.com/news2/fullnews-12063.html

Plans to look for an ancient city off Tamil Nadu's coast:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Port-town-buried-under-the-sea/articleshow/6270629.cms

East Asian Archaeology:

http://eastasiablog.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/east-asian-archaeology-cultural-heritage-%E2%80%93-2052010/

Southeast Asian Archaeology Newsblog:

http://www.southeastasianarchaeology.com/

New Zealand Archaeology eNews:

http://www.nzarchaeology.org/netsubnews.htm
================================================================
NORTH AMERICA
================================================================
Native American artifacts from Terre Haute:

http://www.wthitv.com/dpp/news/local/Native-American-ancient-artifacts-found

Possible War of 1812 wreck from the Patuxent River:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/04/AR2010080407095.html
http://feeds.nbcwashington.com/click.phdo?i=e363492568cee4b4d0de8c03475eebe4

The World Trade Center ship dates back to the 1780s:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6452535-ship-found-at-ground-zero-dates-back-to-1780s

Some video of the HMS Investigator:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2dFcNWO8tQ

.... and a slideshow:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10899878

... and the 'dig' has wrapped up:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/Scientists+wrap+Arctic+Investigator+exploration/3351171/story.html
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20100803/investigator-ship-wreck-100803/
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/most-important-shipwreck-in-history-found-in-arctic-14898464.html
http://hqyellowknife.com/news/6844/Historic%20ship%20may%20remain%20at%20bottom%20of%20Mercy%20Bay,%20NWT/

New treasure/salvage laws in New Brunswick:

http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/news/article/1166880

================================================================
CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA
================================================================
Excitement over what may lie within some sealed tunnels at Teotihuacan:

http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=39718
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/tunnel-at-ancient-mexican-site-may-hold-tombs-2043562.html
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/08/04/tunnel-teotihuacan-mexico.html?ref=rss
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38579850/ns/technology_and_science-science/
http://news.therecord.com/article/756031
http://www.canadaeast.com/rss/article/1161620
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_15672001?source=rss
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/accent/travel/mexico-finds-tunnel-possible-tombs-under-ruins-839771.html
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sci-tech/archeologists-excavate-tunnels-and-ancient-tomb-in-mexico_100407662.html

Easter Island's demise is blamed on 'outsiders' (again):

http://www.physorg.com/news199976923.html

More on that Moche sacrifice hall:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/07/photogalleries/100730-human-sacrifice-chamber-peru-presentation-science-pictures

More on that Maya 'tapestry':

http://www.artdaily.com/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=39630
Mike Ruggeri's Ancient Americas Breaking News:

http://web.mac.com/michaelruggeri

Ancient MesoAmerica News:

http://ancient-mesoamerica-news-updates.blogspot.com/
================================================================
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
================================================================
General coverage of the lates UNESCO Heritage Site selections (these are all
quite different):

http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=39757
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/08/01/world/AP-LT-Brazil-UNESCO.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-10850633
http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n227527
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/03/travel/main6740777.shtml
http://www.france24.com/en/20100801-unesco-adds-new-sites-world-heritage-list-includes-historic-french-city-albi-culture

... and some reaction from Australia's Aborigines:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/7924242/Aborigines-claim-Unesco-list-whitewashes-Australias-cultural-heritage.html

Plans for a tourist centre at Peperikon have appaently stalled:

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=118920

Digging in Greenland presents some unique challenges:

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/337990,polar-bear-attack-greenland.html
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100805/world-news/archaeologist-shoots-polar-bear-in-greenland
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Archeologist+shoots+dead+rampaging+polar+bear/3361956/story.html

Humans were lucky to survive an ancient climate crisis, apparently:

http://www.physorg.com/news200216929.html
================================================================
TOURISTY THINGS
================================================================
Lycian Way:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/activityandadventure/walkingholidays/7923876/Turkeys-Lycian-Way-Walking-on-the-trail-of-ghosts.html
================================================================
BLOGS AND PODCASTS
================================================================
About.com Archaeology:

http://archaeology.about.com/

Archaeology Briefs:

http://archaeologybriefs.blogspot.com/

Naked Archaeology Podcast:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/podcasts/archaeology/

Taygete Atlantis excavations blogs aggregator:

http://planet.atlantides.org/taygete/

Time Machine:

http://heatherpringle.wordpress.com/
================================================================
CRIME BEAT
================================================================
Concerns for sites in Cambodia:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/03/cambodia-khmer-heritage-unesco-angkor

... and concerns for Egyptian antiquities:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/culture/2010-08/04/c_13429830.htm

More sentencing in the Utah case:

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/Another-sentenced-in-4-Corners-artifacts-case/QDwSGkFShU2SZjEU-uyAtw.cspx?rss=20
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50061295-76/probation-patterson-benson-antiquities.html.csp

Bulgaria is demanding Canada return some items recovered in a smuggling
attempt:

http://www.novinite.com/newsletter/print.php?id=118882
http://www.novinite.com/newsletter/print.php?id=118873
http://www.novinite.com/newsletter/print.php?id=118921

Latest in the Raphael Golb trial:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/08/06/2010-08-06_manhattan_lawyer_raphael_golb_charged_with_impersonating_dead_sea_scrolls_reject.html
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/accused_dead_trial_scrolls_identity_EGuHNd1T8NVwbZlU5L1oOJ

Vandals hit a Dumfries church site:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-10879610

Looting Matters:

http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/

Illicit Cultural Property:

http://illicit-cultural-property.blogspot.com/
================================================================
NUMISMATICA
================================================================
A 1773 Virgina copper halfpenny from a dig in Trappe:

http://www.phoenixvillenews.com/articles/2010/08/05/news/doc4c56fc377a0fc882853070.txt

I think we've mentioned at least one of these Republican coins found near
Manchester before:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8893000/8893100.stm

Clumsy archaeologists have found a hoard of 166 silver coins at a medieval
fortress in Bulgaria:

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=118833
http://www.sofiaecho.com/2010/08/04/942267_archaeology-medieval-treasure-found-in-north-eastern-bulgaria

Latest eSylum newsletter:

http://www.coinbooks.org/club_nbs_esylum_v13n31.html

Ancient Coin Collecting:

http://ancientcoincollecting.blogspot.com/

Ancient Coins:

http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/

Coin Link:

http://www.coinlink.com/News/
================================================================
EXHIBITIONS, AUCTIONS, AND MUSEUM-RELATED
================================================================
Tut's chariot:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/arts/design/03chariot.html
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/08/03/king-tuts-chariot-arrives-in-nyc/
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/around-town/events/King-Tuts-Chariot-on-Display-at-Times-Square-99847434.html

Mummies:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38545449/ns/travel-destination_travel/

Major restorations going on/complete at Berlin's Tell -Halaf archaeological
museum
(or rather, the things in it that were bombed during WWII):

http://www.physorg.com/news200029044.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g64nabXIrmauK2XZjXDNxRN5JMyg
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100804/world-news/ancient-treasure-rises-from-berlin-rubble

Funding concerns for Segontium Roman Fort and Caernarfon Maritime Museum:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/northwestwales/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8880000/8880885.stm

Some 'new' items at the Reading Museum:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/berkshire/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8885000/8885667.stm

A Pictish throne is on display at a Highlands museum threatened with
closure:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-10879788

Struggles elsewhere affect Maryport's Senhouse Roman Museum too:

http://www.timesandstar.co.uk/news/other/funding-shortage-hits-roman-museum-project-1.743122?referrerPath=news/

Feature on a visit to the Met:

http://www1.voanews.com/learningenglish/home/Visiting-the-Met-99884049.html

Feature on the renovated Israel Museum:

http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=39804

Feature on the remodelled antiquities at the CMA:

http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2010/08/01/life/nh2828687.txt

A History of the World (BM)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/explorerflash/
================================================================
PODCASTS
================================================================
The Book and the Spade:

http://www.radioscribe.com/bknspade.htm

The Dig:

http://www.thedigradio.com/

Stone Pages Archaeology News:

http://news.stonepages.com/

Archaeologica Audio News:

http://www.archaeologychannel.org/AudioNews.asp
================================================================
EXPLORATOR is a weekly newsletter representing the fruits of
the labours of 'media research division' of The Atrium. Various
on-line news and magazine sources are scoured for news of the
ancient world (broadly construed: practically anything relating
to archaeology or history prior to about 1700 or so is fair
game) and every Sunday they are delivered to your mailbox free of
charge!
================================================================
Useful Addresses
================================================================
Past issues of Explorator are available on the web via our
Yahoo site:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Explorator/

To subscribe to Explorator, send a blank email message to:

Explorator-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

To unsubscribe, send a blank email message to:

Explorator-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

To send a 'heads up' to the editor or contact him for other
reasons:

rogueclassicist@...
================================================================
Explorator is Copyright (c) 2010 David Meadows. Feel free to
distribute these listings via email to your pals, students,
teachers, etc., but please include this copyright notice. These
links are not to be posted to any website by any means (whether
by direct posting or snagging from a usenet group or some other
email source) without my express written permission. I think it
is only right that I be made aware of public fora which are
making use of content gathered in Explorator. Thanks!
================================================================

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





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79226 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2010-08-09
Subject: herb lore?
Salvete omnes,

My wife is looking for information and sources on Roman herbal lore,
especially medicinal uses. She's somewhat familiar with modern holistic
medicine, and a degree of Western herbal lore, but she's looking for sources
for specifically Roman material. As it is not something I've ever researched
myself, I figured I would put the question out to the list. I can sort of
guess at some things - like I'm guessing Pliny the Elder might be a good
source, but I've never read anything but short excerpts from him. Any ideas?

~ Gaius Tullius Valerianus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79227 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-09
Subject: Re: herb lore?
Salve Valeriane,

In addition to Pliny the Elder, A. Cornelius Celsus' De Medicina is another resource. Soranus(fragments & Gynaecia through Aurelianus ), Caelius Aurelianus(De morbis acutis et chronicis) and as you know many Roman physicians learned from Galen(Claudii Galeni opera omnia) and Dioscorides (his Herbal Medicine text is studied by Ayurvedists and alt. healers). Other sources: Heron of Alexandria (Pneumatica et Automata)Hippocrates (Decorum & On the Sacred Disease)fragments from Onbasius. The Extant works of Aretaeus of Cappadocia is another studied by Ancient Romans. I think that is a good beginning.
This thread, which has many posts, has some info to also help your uxor get started:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/10553

Vale,

Julia


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gaius Tullius Valerianus <gaius.tullius.valerianus@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> My wife is looking for information and sources on Roman herbal lore,
> especially medicinal uses. She's somewhat familiar with modern holistic
> medicine, and a degree of Western herbal lore, but she's looking for sources
> for specifically Roman material. As it is not something I've ever researched
> myself, I figured I would put the question out to the list. I can sort of
> guess at some things - like I'm guessing Pliny the Elder might be a good
> source, but I've never read anything but short excerpts from him. Any ideas?
>
> ~ Gaius Tullius Valerianus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79228 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-09
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Salve Gai Petroni care amice,

There are probably many things that could be attributed to the fires in Sarmatia - going back to approx 900 CE when the Slavic gods were abandoned.
A quote I find poignant in such circumstances is by Neil Gaiman (from his book "American Gods"):
"Gods die. And when they truly die they are unmourned and unremembered."

If the fires are the acts of the Gods there are many reasons why they may take out their wrath on Sarmatia - but not all of the provincia is burning. The location of the wedding is free from any seemingly natural disaster. The Gods are remembered and sacrificed to in the Ukraine regularly.

So, for this discussion's sake, going on the premise the Gods are responsible for the fires I say that Venus herself can be very formidable in her protection of her children. I can discern many favorable signs that bear the earmarks of benevolent Gods, particularly the Mother of the Roman people. Certainly Cupid is in attendance as well Erotes and Nymphs. When I am not so tired, and when I see photos, I will be more specific. The fact the ceremonies went off beautifully is a huge sign of Venus' favor – for she is known to intercede and has shown great bravery even when entering a battlefield in favor of her children. We are her children. Those three lovely couples are her children and their ceremony and their land has been spared. It can be interpreted as a sign that Venus, our Mother, will protect, nurture and provide new beginnings for her children to generate more children. By doing so the Gods will be revered more often and by more people – and being remembered, through ritual and sacrifice, the gods will grow stronger as their children flourish. Venus may be small, female and beautiful but she knows how to deal with male Gods, angry Gods, if need be.

Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus – in the darkness Venus is with me:)

Cura ut valeas my dear Petroni,

Julia


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius L. Iuliae s.p.d.,
>
> > may the fire in your eyes always burn for each other
>
> I agree with that! But, was it necessary to burn all Sarmatia?
>
> Optime valete.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. VI Idus Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79229 From: eagled2 Date: 2010-08-09
Subject: Re: New Site Design
I assume the lack of responses means nobody thought much of my idea. I still hold firm in the belief that an email group does not keep the messages organized in any fashion and makes it harder to sort through the messages. What other ideas are out there that would allow us to better organize the messages from all groups onto one site while still allowing those that need access from email to be unhindered?

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "eagled2" <eagled2@...> wrote:
>
> Aulus Valerius Barbatus S.P.D.
> Sorry about forgetting my name. I put it on the first post and then just spaced it cause I don't check this group from my email account. Thank you for your information. That answers a lot of questions I had regarding the matter. As you said there are certainly a lot of things to consider. I have done some research on my own and as you said a forum that meets all the needs of this community is not an easy task.
>
> I also would not want to have to go to several different forums everytime I want to check up on nova roma. That's why a was hoping for an officially recognized forum. That way we can setup areas for all the different groups and let those group leaders control who gets access to there part of the site.
>
> I also understand that some people may not want to leave this system for whatever reason. One possible solution I have found that would be practical is to make an RSS feed of the mailing groups and have that auto posted to the forum. There are forums that make auto posting from rss feeds very simple.
>
> One solution to making the rss feed is to use a gmail account. Gmail has the option to check your email from an rss feed. With this you could setup an account that recieves all the messages for the group one at a time and use that rss feed. Since the url of the feed includes the password you would want this to be an account dedicated for this purpose only. The address would only be visible to those you want to have access to that part of the forum. All this would be fairly simple to setup and someone with a little php programming experiance could probably make a custom theme to make it look like the rest of the website.
>
> What are your thoughts on this idea? Do you think it would be beneficial to our members and do you think the citizens would use it?
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > A. Tullia Scholastica Aquilae D quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
> > >
> > > It would be helpful if you would supply us with your name so that we might
> > > address you correctly.
> > >
> > >
> > > I was aware that the senate was working on a new site quite a while ago that's
> > > why I was suprised to see no changes.
> > >
> > > ATS: You wouldn¹t be if you were in the Senate. We have not been allowed
> > > to discuss this issue, or any other, due to squabbling between the consules
> > > and among others. Albucius vetoed discussion of this issue in one Senate
> > > session, then vetoed the next Senate session altogether, though it was jointly
> > > convened by the tribuni, and then conducted a Senate session whose auspices
> > > did not meet with the approval of the augures. Thus all recent Senate
> > > sessions have been held under various clouds, and even in one which was fully
> > > legal, the matter of IT issues could not be addressed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have not had time to follow many messages for a while and am just getting
> > > back. I'm glad everything is worked out now and they can make some progress
> > > now.
> > >
> > > ATS: Sorry to rain on your parade, but very little, if anything, has been
> > > worked out on the IT issue, the entry of the tribunes into office, the
> > > ratification of the praetorial election, the minor matter of appointing a
> > > dictator to put an end to this paralysis... We have schoolboy squabbles, and
> > > the government of NR is paralyzed as if stricken by some Harry Potter spell.
> > > Some like it that way, and some don¹t care, but those of us who do care have a
> > > different take on this mess. Several of us senators have practically begged
> > > for a proper Senate session minus the vetoes and the auspice problems, but no
> > > movement appears to have occurred on that front. Oh, and the genuine
> > > obstructionists don¹t seem to belong to the group which proposed a
> > > dictatorship (not that a Roman one should be confused with the modern
> > > version), and I seriously doubt that any corruption would be involved with the
> > > party who offered a good deal on the cybernetic makeover. Even in my own
> > > field, some folks have hyperactive imaginations. There are those who seem to
> > > be reading their own ideas and motivations into the minds of others, and that
> > > is not a good thing to do.
> > >
> > >
> > > I was not aware that they had a forum site in the beginning. I understand why
> > > a lot of people would prefer email but for myself still prefer something more
> > > organized.
> > >
> > > ATS: We apparently did (before my time), and one province still has
> > > one...unused. I am on over 80 Yahoo lists as well as supposedly receiving
> > > posts from my five online classes, though the ISP is not being helpful about
> > > the latter. Fortunately school is out, but I am registering students and have
> > > some site work to perform, and would be pleased if my messages landed in my
> > > mailbox. Like many others here, I do not have time to patrol dozens of fora
> > > in order to read the mail...or even one! Some have claimed that they can send
> > > e-mail to those who prefer it from these fora, but I have seen no evidence
> > > thereof.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm sure i'm not the only one but we do have to keep everyone in mind. Surely
> > > there is an option that will allow those that prefer email to read from email
> > > and still have everything posted on a forum site.
> > >
> > > ATS: Some claim that they could, but I seem to recall that they
> > > encountered considerable difficulty, and found this impossible. This topic
> > > comes up periodically, but is not a realistic option, especially for those
> > > with limited cybernetic expertise. Not everyone here is a 25 year old male
> > > with five computers and two dozen game machines. One must also consider our
> > > visually-impaired, blind, and otherwise handicapped members, who almost
> > > certainly would find navigating such a system even more challenging than
> > > dealing with the present one.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My idea was to integrate a forum program in the new site but still keep yahoo
> > > groups for the main topics. Then have those groups automatically get posted on
> > > the forum. Then everyone gets what they want. I had a forum that did something
> > > like that with rss feeds that worked out well. It would probably take a bit of
> > > work to figure out how to securely allow members to recieve emails of new
> > > posts and keep it organized on the forum but with all of us members someone
> > > ought to be able to figure it out.
> > >
> > >
> > > Vale, et valete.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , Gaius
> > > Tullius Valerianus <gaius.tullius.valerianus@> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >
> > >> > As far as the forum idea is concerned, surely you are aware that Nova Roma
> > >> > had one of those at the start? The switch to a Yahoogroup has not been
> > >> > universally appreciated, but for the most part seems far more popular than
> > >> > having to go to a web forum every time one wants to catch up on NR. It's
> > >> > just easier for most people to have it in their e-mail inbox.
> > >> >
> > >> > Cheers,
> > >> > ~ Valerianus
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:57 AM, eagled2 <eagled2@> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > I can and am willing to setup a forum and customize it for our group,
> > but
> > >>> > > the problem is getting people to use it. From what i've heard many
> > >>> people
> > >>> > > have tried to start one up and it has never went anywhere. Unless you
> > can
> > >>> > > get citizens to start using it I was looking for one built or at least
> > >>> > > officially recognized by the government of nova roma. I believe that's
> > the
> > >>> > > only way to get people to trust it enough to actually use it. Like I >>>
> > said
> > >>> > > before someone had told me that they were in the process of re-designing
> > the
> > >>> > > entire nova roma website and I haven't seen any evidence or updates of
> > >>> that
> > >>> > > in the years since I was told that.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >>> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stefn
> > >>> > > Ullarsson Piparskeggr" <famila.ulleria.venii@> wrote:
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > Salve Barbatus;
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > Here's one I set up (at a freeserve) in less than an hour.
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>>
> > http://tavernaromana.netboards.org/index.php?sid=d26b6626878077031dc6dd8a906>>>
> > 7e1c2
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > ...and a blog I set up before my dad got ill and I lost the energy to
> > >>>> > > > work on it...
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > http://confoederatio-romana.webs.com/
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > The tools are out there to come up with a site (or interlinked >>>>
> > sites),
> > >>>> > > > which will work with a group our size.
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > =====================================
> > >>>> > > > In amicitia et fide
> > >>>> > > > Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator
> > >>>> > > > Civis circa Quintilis MMDCCLI a.u.c.
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79230 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-08-09
Subject: Re: New Site Design
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastic A. Valerio Barbato quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> I assume the lack of responses means nobody thought much of my idea.
>
> ATS: Well, I would hesitate to draw such a hasty conclusion. For one
> thing, the Europeans are on a month-long vacation, and so are a lot of others,
> though they may not be roaming for such a long time. For another, some of us
> have other, more pressing matters, as in my case. My webmaster and I have
> been corresponding frequently all day about matters relating to our course
> site, and I have done further site preparation for one of the classes.
> Moreover, I am not a cybernaut, and am not familiar with numerous
> alternatives, so cannot propose them.
>
>
>
> I still hold firm in the belief that an email group does not keep the messages
> organized in any fashion and makes it harder to sort through the messages.
>
> ATS: Well, these groups organize mail chronologically (at least when they
> work properly), and that is a help.
>
>
>
> What other ideas are out there that would allow us to better organize the
> messages from all groups onto one site while still allowing those that need
> access from email to be unhindered?
>
> ATS: There are some other issues which are involved here: we have
> magisterial lists which are restricted to the cohors of the magistrate in
> question, and we have sodalitas lists which are restricted, or at least
> limited, to members. Moreover, many lists are moderated to keep spam and
> other problematic material out. How could this be done on a forum? The last
> time the recurring question about fora was brought up, these matters were
> discussed, and if I remember correctly, there did not seem to be much of any
> way to limit access to these and other restricted lists. There also did not
> seem to be a way to get e-mail to those who prefer it. This type of
> communication may work for those with lots of time and a handful of lists, but
> not for those with little time and lots of lists. I leave the resolution of
> such matters to those more knowledgeable about them. Perhaps one needs an
> e-mail program which sorts things by topic.
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "eagled2" <eagled2@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Aulus Valerius Barbatus S.P.D.
>> > Sorry about forgetting my name. I put it on the first post and then just
>> spaced it cause I don't check this group from my email account. Thank you for
>> your information. That answers a lot of questions I had regarding the matter.
>> As you said there are certainly a lot of things to consider. I have done some
>> research on my own and as you said a forum that meets all the needs of this
>> community is not an easy task.
>> >
>> > I also would not want to have to go to several different forums everytime I
>> want to check up on nova roma. That's why a was hoping for an officially
>> recognized forum. That way we can setup areas for all the different groups
>> and let those group leaders control who gets access to there part of the
>> site.
>> >
>> > I also understand that some people may not want to leave this system for
>> whatever reason. One possible solution I have found that would be practical
>> is to make an RSS feed of the mailing groups and have that auto posted to the
>> forum. There are forums that make auto posting from rss feeds very simple.
>> >
>> > One solution to making the rss feed is to use a gmail account. Gmail has
>> the option to check your email from an rss feed. With this you could setup an
>> account that recieves all the messages for the group one at a time and use
>> that rss feed. Since the url of the feed includes the password you would want
>> this to be an account dedicated for this purpose only. The address would only
>> be visible to those you want to have access to that part of the forum. All
>> this would be fairly simple to setup and someone with a little php
>> programming experiance could probably make a custom theme to make it look
>> like the rest of the website.
>> >
>> > What are your thoughts on this idea? Do you think it would be beneficial to
>> our members and do you think the citizens would use it?
>> >
>> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "A.
>> Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@> wrote:
>>> > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > A. Tullia Scholastica Aquilae D quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > It would be helpful if you would supply us with your name so that
>>>> we might
>>>> > > > address you correctly.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > I was aware that the senate was working on a new site quite a while
>>>> ago that's
>>>> > > > why I was suprised to see no changes.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > ATS: You wouldn¹t be if you were in the Senate. We have not
>>>> been allowed
>>>> > > > to discuss this issue, or any other, due to squabbling between the
>>>> consules
>>>> > > > and among others. Albucius vetoed discussion of this issue in one
>>>> Senate
>>>> > > > session, then vetoed the next Senate session altogether, though it
>>>> was jointly
>>>> > > > convened by the tribuni, and then conducted a Senate session whose
>>>> auspices
>>>> > > > did not meet with the approval of the augures. Thus all recent >>>>
Senate
>>>> > > > sessions have been held under various clouds, and even in one which
>>>> was fully
>>>> > > > legal, the matter of IT issues could not be addressed.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > I have not had time to follow many messages for a while and am just
>>>> getting
>>>> > > > back. I'm glad everything is worked out now and they can make some
>>>> progress
>>>> > > > now.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > ATS: Sorry to rain on your parade, but very little, if anything,
>>>> has been
>>>> > > > worked out on the IT issue, the entry of the tribunes into office,
the
>>>> > > > ratification of the praetorial election, the minor matter of
>>>> appointing a
>>>> > > > dictator to put an end to this paralysis... We have schoolboy
>>>> squabbles, and
>>>> > > > the government of NR is paralyzed as if stricken by some Harry Potter
>>>> spell.
>>>> > > > Some like it that way, and some don¹t care, but those of us who do
>>>> care have a
>>>> > > > different take on this mess. Several of us senators have practically
>>>> begged
>>>> > > > for a proper Senate session minus the vetoes and the auspice
>>>> problems, but no
>>>> > > > movement appears to have occurred on that front. Oh, and the genuine
>>>> > > > obstructionists don¹t seem to belong to the group which proposed a
>>>> > > > dictatorship (not that a Roman one should be confused with the modern
>>>> > > > version), and I seriously doubt that any corruption would be involved
>>>> with the
>>>> > > > party who offered a good deal on the cybernetic makeover. Even in my
own
>>>> > > > field, some folks have hyperactive imaginations. There are those who
>>>> seem to
>>>> > > > be reading their own ideas and motivations into the minds of others,
>>>> and that
>>>> > > > is not a good thing to do.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > I was not aware that they had a forum site in the beginning. I
>>>> understand why
>>>> > > > a lot of people would prefer email but for myself still prefer
>>>> something more
>>>> > > > organized.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > ATS: We apparently did (before my time), and one province still
has
>>>> > > > one...unused. I am on over 80 Yahoo lists as well as supposedly
>>>> receiving
>>>> > > > posts from my five online classes, though the ISP is not being
>>>> helpful about
>>>> > > > the latter. Fortunately school is out, but I am registering students
>>>> and have
>>>> > > > some site work to perform, and would be pleased if my messages landed
in my
>>>> > > > mailbox. Like many others here, I do not have time to patrol dozens
>>>> of fora
>>>> > > > in order to read the mail...or even one! Some have claimed that they
>>>> can send
>>>> > > > e-mail to those who prefer it from these fora, but I have seen no
>>>> evidence
>>>> > > > thereof.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > I'm sure i'm not the only one but we do have to keep everyone in
>>>> mind. Surely
>>>> > > > there is an option that will allow those that prefer email to read
>>>> from email
>>>> > > > and still have everything posted on a forum site.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > ATS: Some claim that they could, but I seem to recall that they
>>>> > > > encountered considerable difficulty, and found this impossible. This
topic
>>>> > > > comes up periodically, but is not a realistic option, especially for
those
>>>> > > > with limited cybernetic expertise. Not everyone here is a 25 year
>>>> old male
>>>> > > > with five computers and two dozen game machines. One must also
>>>> consider our
>>>> > > > visually-impaired, blind, and otherwise handicapped members, who >>>>
almost
>>>> > > > certainly would find navigating such a system even more challenging
than
>>>> > > > dealing with the present one.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > My idea was to integrate a forum program in the new site but still
>>>> keep yahoo
>>>> > > > groups for the main topics. Then have those groups automatically get
>>>> posted on
>>>> > > > the forum. Then everyone gets what they want. I had a forum that did
>>>> something
>>>> > > > like that with rss feeds that worked out well. It would probably take
>>>> a bit of
>>>> > > > work to figure out how to securely allow members to recieve emails
>>>> of new
>>>> > > > posts and keep it organized on the forum but with all of us members
>>>> someone
>>>> > > > ought to be able to figure it out.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Vale, et valete.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , Gaius
>>>> > > > Tullius Valerianus <gaius.tullius.valerianus@> wrote:
>>>>>> > > >> >
>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > >> > As far as the forum idea is concerned, surely you are aware that
>>>>>> Nova Roma
>>>>>> > > >> > had one of those at the start? The switch to a Yahoogroup has
not been
>>>>>> > > >> > universally appreciated, but for the most part seems far more
>>>>>> popular than
>>>>>> > > >> > having to go to a web forum every time one wants to catch up on
NR. It's
>>>>>> > > >> > just easier for most people to have it in their e-mail inbox.
>>>>>> > > >> >
>>>>>> > > >> > Cheers,
>>>>>> > > >> > ~ Valerianus
>>>>>> > > >> >
>>>>>> > > >> > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:57 AM, eagled2 <eagled2@> wrote:
>>>>>> > > >> >
>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > >>> > > I can and am willing to setup a forum and customize it for
our group,
>>> > > but
>>>>>>>> > > >>> > > the problem is getting people to use it. From what i've
heard many
>>>>>> > > >>> people
>>>>>>>> > > >>> > > have tried to start one up and it has never went anywhere.
Unless you
>>> > > can
>>>>>>>> > > >>> > > get citizens to start using it I was looking for one built
or at least
>>>>>>>> > > >>> > > officially recognized by the government of nova roma. I
>>>>>>>> believe that's
>>> > > the
>>>>>>>> > > >>> > > only way to get people to trust it enough to actually use
>>>>>>>> it. Like I >>>
>>> > > said
>>>>>>>> > > >>> > > before someone had told me that they were in the process of
>>>>>>>> re-designing
>>> > > the
>>>>>>>> > > >>> > > entire nova roma website and I haven't seen any evidence or
updates of
>>>>>> > > >>> that
>>>>>>>> > > >>> > > in the years since I was told that.
>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > >>> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>> > > >>> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stefn
>>>>>>>> > > >>> > > Ullarsson Piparskeggr" <famila.ulleria.venii@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > Salve Barbatus;
>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > Here's one I set up (at a freeserve) in less than an
hour.
>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >
>>>>>> > > >>>
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >>">http://tavernaromana.netboards.org/index.php?sid=d26b6626878077031dc6d
>>>>> d8a906>>>
>>>>>
<http://tavernaromana.netboards.org/index.php?sid=d26b6626878077031dc6dd8a906>
>>> > > 7e1c2
>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > ...and a blog I set up before my dad got ill and I
>>>>>>>>>> lost the energy to
>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > work on it...
>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > http://confoederatio-romana.webs.com/
>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > The tools are out there to come up with a site (or
>>>>>>>>>> interlinked >>>>
>>> > > sites),
>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > which will work with a group our size.
>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > =====================================
>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > In amicitia et fide
>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator
>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > Civis circa Quintilis MMDCCLI a.u.c.
>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>> > >
>> >
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79231 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-08-09
Subject: a. d. V Eidus Sextiliae: Battle of Pharsalia; Battle of Hadrianopoli
M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus Quiritibus cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Di vos salvam et servatam volunt

Hodie est ante diem V Eidus Sextiliae; haec dies comitialis est: Sol Indiges; Venus Cloacina; feriae quod eo die Caius Caesar Cai filius Pharsali devicit

AUC 705 / 48 BCE: Battle of Pharsalia

"Fortune now demanding that the destined pair of combatants should meet, Pompeius had chosen Epirus as the scene of operations, and Caesar was not slow to face him. . . .

"The fates thus forcing on an issue, Thessaly was chosen as the scene of the battle, and the destiny of the city, the empire and the human race was entrusted for decision to the plains of Philippi. Never did Fortune see so much of the might and dignity of the Roman people collected in one place; more than 300,000 men were assembled in the two armies as well as auxiliary troops, kings and senate. Never were the portents of impending disaster more clearly manifest, victims escaping from slaughter, bees swarming upon the standards, and darkness coming on in the daytime. Pompeius himself dreamed that he was surrounded in his own theatre by a clapping of hands which resembled the beating of breasts, and in the morning appeared at his headquarters clad in a dark cloak — an omen of misfortune. Caesar's army was never more eager and alert, and it was from his side that the first trumpet-call was sounded and the first weapons were discharged. The javelin of Crastinus was noted as that of the man who started the battle, and the strangeness of the wound which he received — he was found among the dead with a sword thrust into his mouth — showed the zeal and rage with which he had fought. Nor was the issue of the campaign less wondrous; for although Pompeius had such a superiority in cavalry that he thought he could easily surround Caesar,he was himself surrounded. For when the fight had continued for a long time without advantage to either side and, by Pompeius' order, his cavalry had poured forth in an onslaught from the wing, suddenly at a given signal the German cohorts made so violent an attack from that quarter on the cavalry as they rushed out that the latter seemed but infantry, while their assailants seemed to be mounted on horseback. The slaughter of the retreating cavalry was accompanied by the destruction of the light infantry; then the panic extended further and, one body of troops spreading confusion to another, the slaughter of the rest was accomplished as though by one sweep of the hand, and the very size of the army contributed more than anything to its destruction. Caesar was everywhere in the battle and combined the functions of a general and of a common soldier. Some of his remarks too, made as he rode about, are preserved. One of them, 'Soldiers, strike the foe in the face,' was cruel but judicious and conducive to success. Another, 'Spare your fellow-citizens,' uttered when he was himself pursuing Pompeius (who would have been lucky in his misfortunes if the same fate which overtook his army had fallen upon himself), was intended merely as a boast. As it was, Pompeius survived his honours, only to suffer the still greater disgrace of escaping on horseback through the Thessalian Tempe; of reaching Lesbos with one small vessel; of meditating at Syedra, on a lonely rock in Cilicia, an escape to Parthia, Africa or Egypt; and finally of dying by murder in the sight of his wife and children on the shores of Pelusium, by order of the most contemptible of kings and by the advice of eunuchs, and, to complete the tale of his misfortunes, by the sword of Septimius, a deserter from his own army." ~ Florus, Epitome 2.13.35, 43-52


AUC 1136 / 378 CE: Battle of Andrianople

"The cavalry of the Goths had returned with Alatheus and Saphrax, and with them a battalion of Alani; these descending from the mountains like a thunderbolt, spread confusion and slaughter among all whom in their rapid charge they came across.

"And while arms and missiles of all kinds were meeting in fierce conflict, and Bellona, blowing her mournful trumpet, was raging more fiercely than usual, to inflict disaster on the Romans, our men began to retreat; but presently, roused by the reproaches of their officers, they made a fresh stand, and the battle increased like a conflagration, terrifying our soldiers, numbers of whom were pierced by strokes from the javelins hurled at them, and from arrows.

"Then the two lines of battle dashed against each other, like the beaks (or rams) of ships, and thrusting with all their might, were tossed to and fro, like the waves of the sea. Our left wing had advanced actually up to the wagons, with the intent to push on still further if they were properly supported; but they were deserted by the rest of the cavalry, and so pressed upon by the superior numbers of the enemy, that they were overwhelmed and beaten down, like the ruin of a vast rampart. Presently our infantry also was left unsupported, while the different companies became so huddled together that a soldier could hardly draw his sword, or withdraw his hand after he had once stretched it out. And by this time such clouds of dust arose that it was scarcely possible to see the sky, which resounded with horrible cries; and in consequence, the darts, which were bearing death on every side, reached their mark, and fell with deadly effect, because no one could see them beforehand so as to guard against them.

"But when the barbarians, rushing on with their enormous host, beat down our horses and men, and left no spot to which our ranks could fall back to deploy, while they were so closely packed that it was impossible to escape by forcing a way through them, our men at last began to despise death, and again took to their swords and slew all they encountered, while with mutual blows of battle-axes, helmets and breastplates were dashed in pieces.

"Amidst all this great tumult and confusion our infantry were exhausted by toil and danger, till at last they had neither strength left to fight, nor spirits to plan anything; their spears were broken by the frequent collisions, so that they were forced to content themselves with their drawn swords, which they thrust into the dense battalions of the enemy, disregarding their own safety, and seeing that every possibility of escape was cut off from them.

"The ground, covered with streams of blood, made their feet slip, so that all that they endeavored to do was to sell their lives as dearly as possible; and with such vehemence did they resist their enemies who pressed on them, that some were even killed by their own weapons. At last one black pool of blood disfigured everything, and wherever the eye turned, it could see nothing but piled-up heaps of dead, and lifeless corpses trampled on without mercy.

"The sun being now high in the heavens, having traversed the sign of Leo, and reached the abode of the heavenly Virgo, scorched the Romans, who were emaciated by hunger, worn out with toil, and scarcely able to support even the weight of their armor. At last our columns were entirely beaten back by the overpowering weight of the barbarians, and so they took to disorderly flight." ~ Ammianus Marcellinus, 21.12.17-13.7


Today's thought is from Stobaeus, Ethical Sentences 22:

"Endeavour not to conceal your errors by words, but to remedy them by reproof."



Visit Religio_Romana_Cultorum_Deorum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79232 From: Cato Date: 2010-08-09
Subject: a.d IV Id. Sext.
Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Speaking of Celsus...

Hodiernus dies est ante diem IV Idus Sextilis; haec dies comitialis est.

"So then spring is the most salubrious, next after it comes winter;
summer is rather more dangerous than salubrious, autumn is by far the
most dangerous. But as regards weather the best is that which is
settled, whether cold or hot, the worst that which is the most
changeable, and that is why autumn brings down the greatest number.
For generally about midday there is heat, but at night and in the
early morning, cold, as also in the evening. Thus the body, relaxed by
the preceding summer, and now by the midday heat, is caught by the
sudden cold. But while this chiefly occurs at this season, so whenever
the like happens harm is done.

In settled weather fine days are the most salubrious, rainy better
than foggy or cloudy days; and in winter the best days are those in
which there is an entire absence of wind, in summer those in which
westerly winds blow. As for the other winds, the northerly are more
salubrious than those from the sunrising or south; nevertheless, these
vary somewhat according to the character of the district. For almost
everywhere wind when coming from inland is salubrious, and injurious
when from the sea. And not only is health more assured in settled
weather, but pre-existing diseases also, if there have been any, are
milder and more quickly terminated. But the worst weather for the sick
man is that which has p89caused his sickness, so much so that a change
to weather of a naturally worse sort may be, in his condition, salutary.

The middle period of life is the safest, for it is not disturbed by
the heat of youth, nor by the chill of age. Old age is more exposed to
chronic diseases, youth to acute ones. The square-built frame, neither
thin nor fat, is the fittest; for tallness, as it is graceful in
youth, shrinks in the fulness of age; a thin frame is weak, a fat one
sluggish.

In spring those diseases are usually to be apprehended which are
stirred up anew by movement of humor. Consequently there tend to arise
runnings from the eyes, pustules, haemorrhages, congestions in the
body, which the Greeks call apostemata, black bile, madness, fits,
angina, choked nostrils, runnings from the nose. Also those diseases which affect joints and sinews, being at one time troublesome, at another quiescent, then especially both begin and recur.

But summer, while not wholly exempt from most of the foregoing
maladies, adds to them fevers whether continued or ardent or tertian,
vomitings, diarrhoeas, earaches, oral ulcerations, cankers which occur
on other parts but especially upon the pudenda, and whatever exhausts
the patient by sweating.

In autumn there is scarcely one of the foregoing which does not
happen; but at this season in addition there arise irregular fevers,
splenic pain, subcutaneous dropsy, consumption, called by the Greeks
phthisis, urinary difficulty, which they call strangury, the small
intestine malady which they term ileos, the intestinal lubricity which
they call leienteria, hip-pains, fits. Autumn too is a season fatal
to those exhausted by chronic diseases and overwhelmed by the heat
just past, others it weakens by fresh maladies; and it involves some
in very chronic ones, especially quartan fevers, which may last even
through the winter. Nor is any other period of the year more exposed
to pestilence of whatever sort; although it is harmful in a variety of
ways.

Winter provokes headache, coughs, and all the affections which attack
the throat, and the sides of the chest and lungs." - A. Cornelius
Celsus, "On Medicine" II.1-9

Valete bene!

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79233 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Crescat scientia
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica M. Cornelio Gualtero Graeco quiritibus, sociis,
> peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> As far as I know, the Oriental Institute doesn't have TAs teaching anything;
> the fact is, people entering programs with oriental languages typically don't
> have the same undergrad preparation as those entering Classics simply because
> there aren't enough undergrad programs that offer Akkadian, etc (although, I
> was lucky enough to have an Assyriologist at my undergrad school such that I
> was able to take a semester in Sumerian!).
>
>
> ATS: Indeed you were fortunate! These days it¹s even harder to get the
> proper prerequisites for the Oriental languages earlier on, too...they just
> don¹t seem to have very many high schools which teach Akkadian, Egyptian,
> Hittite, Sumerian, or any of those other goodies imparted at 1130 E 59th (I
> think I got the addresses right; it¹s been a long time since I was in
> Chicago). ;-))) Heck, it¹s getting hard to find them which teach Latin,
> whereas we used to have even public schools which taught Greek at that level.
>
> As for students finding their own errors, the homeworks and quizzes were all
> corrected as one would expect. But, when I did the mandatory weekly drill
> sessions in the evening and some poor, nervous soul screwed up on the board,
> I'd try to have the person identify the problem by dropping hints; if that
> failed, I'd try to get someone else in the class to find the problem.
>
> ATS: Good idea. I hate to embarrass students, especially when they are
> shy, but one must also ensure that everyone does the work, and doesn¹t slack
> off. Sometimes one must walk a fine line.
>
> -GG
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "A.
> Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@...> wrote:
>> >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > A. Tullia Scholastica M. Cornelio Gualtero Graeco quiritibus, sociis,
>>> > > peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > There are TAs here; I was a TA in Greek last year, but there is a strict
>>> > > oversight by some senior faculty member. Sometimes I graded quizzes or
>>> > > homeworks, which were reviewed by my senior before they were handed back
to
>>> > > the students.
>>> > >
>>> > > ATS: And you didn¹t compel the students to find their own errors?
;-)
>>> > > Now, this is proper supervision of TA¹s. But quizzes? At the hallowed
>>> 1050
>>> > > E. 59th? Not hourlies or midterms or finals? Mere quizzes? Don¹t
>>> these kids
>>> > > have anything more challenging than that...even at the College? ;-)
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Next academic year I will be an instructor in Greek, but what usually
>>> happens
>>> > > is that there are two sections for a course where one is taught by the
>>> > > advanced grad student and another by a faculty member, and the faculty
>>> member
>>> > > sets the agenda, the texts and writes the midterm and final exams which
are
>>> > > graded together by the instructor and professor... at least in the
>>> Classics
>>> > > dept. I can't speak for other depts.
>>> > >
>>> > > ATS: The Classics Department is more sensible, but I find it
>>> difficult to
>>> > > envision anything resembling a TA at UC. Hope they are not running
>>> short of
>>> > > full professors...I surely can¹t see a TA teaching Sanskrit, or Hittite,
or
>>> > > Akkadian...
>>> > >
>>> > > At my undergrad U, we had one section of beginning Greek (baby
>>> Greek, as
>>> > > one of the profs called it), conducted in a none-too-elegant classroom
>>> in the
>>> > > basement of the engineering building...at a time when that discipline
was
>>> > > forbidden to women.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Vale,
>>> > >
>>> > > Gualterus
>>> > >
>>> > > Vale, et valete.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "A.
>>> > > Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@> wrote:
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > > A. Tullia Scholastica L. Liviae Plautae C. Equitio Catoni
>>>>>>> quiritibus,
>>>>> > >>> sociis,
>>>>>>> > >>> > > peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Livia Catoni sal.
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Well, I thought that since Gualterus' grad school teaches
>>>>>>> impossible
>>>>> > >>> things
>>>>>>> > >>> > > like correcting your own mistakes (when learning a language)
>>>>>>> they might
>>>>> > >>> have
>>>>>>> > >>> > > been the ones who taught the Baron of Munchausen.
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > > ATS: Here I think you may be slightly confused, Plauta; it
was
>>>>> > >>> Poplicola
>>>>>>> > >>> > > who said his graduate school taught such things. Rest assured
that that
>>>>> > >>> sort
>>>>>>> > >>> > > of thing is highly unlikely at the University of Chicago,
where
>>>>> > >>> Gualterus is
>>>>>>> > >>> > > apparently pursuing his doctorate. The U of Chi is one of the
finest
>>>>>>> > >>> > > universities in this country, home of the renowned Oriental
Institute
>>>>> > >>> (inter
>>>>>>> > >>> > > alia), and is not a place where one would expect that sort of
thing.
>>>>> > >>> Last I
>>>>>>> > >>> > > heard, there were no fancy sports teams there, with athletes
>>>>>>> who had to
>> > be
>>>>>>> > >>> > > passed because they were skilled at some silly game or other,
and no
>>>>> > >>> teaching
>>>>>>> > >>> > > assistants, though it seems that some have now been added.
The
>>>>> > >>> University of
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Chicago has very high standards, and does not teach underwater
basket
>>>>> > >>> weaving
>>>>>>> > >>> > > or leave error correction in the hands of any but the most
competent
>>>>> > >>> TA¹s (if
>>>>>>> > >>> > > indeed they have them). Normally only the professors teach
>>>>>>> there. >>>
>> > Other
>>>>>>> > >>> > > colleges and universities may well do otherwise, but not UC.
Crescat
>>>>>>> > >>> > > scientia; vita excolatur.
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Of course I wouldn't mind going to Hogwarts. However, I'm
>>>>>>> afraid that
>>>>> > >>> school
>>>>>>> > >>> > > has rather strict entrly requirements.
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > > ATS: So does the U of Chicago. Maybe you should check
them out.
>> > Now
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Poplicola goes elsewhere, near San Francisco, if I am not
>>>>>>> mistaken, and
>>>>>>> > >>> > > probably is at a state college or university. There is a
world of
>>>>> > >>> difference
>>>>>>> > >>> > > between the quality schools like Chicago and Yale and
>>>>>>> Princeton and
>>>>> > >>> Hahvahd
>>>>>>> > >>> > > and some others (not that all state schools are bad; many are
quite
>>>>> > >>> good, even
>>>>>>> > >>> > > excellent), but one should not assume that a university,
>>>>>>> whether or not
>> > it
>>>>>>> > >>> > > bears a toponym, is automatically inferior.
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Vale,
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Livia
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Valete.
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > > ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> > >>> > > From: "Cato" <catoinnyc@>
>>>>>>> > >>> > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>>> > >>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> >
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:54 PM
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witnessing appointment
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Cato Liviae Plautae sal.
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > > You'd probably have to go to Hogwarts for that. :)
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Vale,
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Cato
>>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>> > >>> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>>> > >>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "L.
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@>
>>>>>>> > >>> > > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > Salve Poplicola,
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > do they also teach you how to pull yourself out of
the water by
>>>>>>> > >>>>> your hair?
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > Because *that* would definitely make grad school
>>>>>>>>>>> attractive to me.
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > Optime vale,
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > Livia
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > From: "qvalerius" <q.valerius.poplicola@>
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>>> > >>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:21 AM
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witnessing appointment
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > Salve,
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > In grad school, the professors force you to learn how
to correct
>>>>>>> > >>>>> your own
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > mistakes. Your "training" must have been elementary
at best.
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > Vale.
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>>> > >>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > ,
>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > >> "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > Maior Scholasticae Liviaeque spd;
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > my gratitude to you both. I've studied
French, Italian,
>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Russian and
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > German in high school and university and always
had my
>> > mistakes
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > corrected.
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > It's the only way to learn. I appreciate the
help and support.
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > If only the rest of this list were like you
two!
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > optime vale
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > Maior
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@>
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > C. Petronius L. Liviae s.p.d.,
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > I have been a language teacher for 15
years, and I
>> > assure you that
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > the
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > correct attitude is to provide
corrections to
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> mistakes. The habit
>>>>> > >> > of
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > letting students guess where their
mistakes are
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> drives them up the
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > wall. (I will let you look up the
meaning of this
>> > expression,
>>>>> > >> > since
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > this is the method you are so fond
of).
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > I have not such experience, I never wanted
to teach
>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> anything... but
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > after 7 years of studying English language
I was not able
>> > to follow a
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > discussion. And that is the sort of all
the French pupils
>> > studying
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > English... so, I learnt Latin alone, with
my own method,
>> > and now I
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > write
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > poetries and novels in latin, the last "de
Saturnalibus
>> > cruentis"
>>>>> > >> > will
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > be available on the Circulus website on
the beginning of
>> > september...
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > I never withdrew my statement. I
firmly believe that
>> > it's not my
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > place
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > to decide whether a senate session
was legal or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > It is not the point... you witness an act
which did not
>> > happened.
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > I did correct "Magisterum" with
"Magistrum" before
>> > posting,
>>>>> > >> > though.
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > I have to register you in the first
Latinitatis decuria.
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > Optime vale.
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > C. Petronius Dexter
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > Arcoiali scribebat
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > Nonis Sextilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II
coss.
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79234 From: eagled2 Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Re: New Site Design
Thanks for your feedback. I don't know about other forums but the forum I have used in the past will have no problem restricting different groups to the appropriate people. The forum i'm referring to is an open source forum called SMF. It allows you to create multiple groups which can be assigned to members and boards where messages are posted. Each member can be a member of an unlimited number of groups. In this way we can restrict messages that are only for certain people such as the senate, web admins, people of a specific region, from viewing and posting in that area of the site.

This forum is also designed to be easily modified with custom made mods that anyone programmer is free to make. The only problem I foresee is integrating the ability to post from email and view posts from email into the forum. This seems to be a rather difficult task that no one has yet undertaken. In addition I think it would be easier for those that need the easier access while not at home if they could continue to use the email groups as they have been to post to the forum.

My suggestion would involve making emails from each group go to a specific section of the forum which would have restrictions set on it so only the appropriate people can view it. We would also setup administrator or moderator groups so only those with the appropriate authority are allowed to put people in these groups.

Since this forum is open source, has integrated mods, and is made with customizable themes, it would not only be free but relatively simple to integrate into the existing or a new site. For the programmers out there the themes are all done in css and php and each has some of it's own customized pictures. If you don't need to make a change to any part of the theme you just don't do anything with that file.

Setting up the groups and making our own custom theme would be the only parts that take up much time in setting this up. Again I believe that this idea would only work if it included all groups with appropriate restrictions so all posts can be accessed from one place. In addition to integrating the email groups we could also make more specific groups if needed to organize them even more. Here is the official link for that forum where you can download mods, themes, and the forum itself. http://www.simplemachines.org/. What are your thoughts?

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > A. Tullia Scholastic A. Valerio Barbato quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
> >
> >
> > I assume the lack of responses means nobody thought much of my idea.
> >
> > ATS: Well, I would hesitate to draw such a hasty conclusion. For one
> > thing, the Europeans are on a month-long vacation, and so are a lot of others,
> > though they may not be roaming for such a long time. For another, some of us
> > have other, more pressing matters, as in my case. My webmaster and I have
> > been corresponding frequently all day about matters relating to our course
> > site, and I have done further site preparation for one of the classes.
> > Moreover, I am not a cybernaut, and am not familiar with numerous
> > alternatives, so cannot propose them.
> >
> >
> >
> > I still hold firm in the belief that an email group does not keep the messages
> > organized in any fashion and makes it harder to sort through the messages.
> >
> > ATS: Well, these groups organize mail chronologically (at least when they
> > work properly), and that is a help.
> >
> >
> >
> > What other ideas are out there that would allow us to better organize the
> > messages from all groups onto one site while still allowing those that need
> > access from email to be unhindered?
> >
> > ATS: There are some other issues which are involved here: we have
> > magisterial lists which are restricted to the cohors of the magistrate in
> > question, and we have sodalitas lists which are restricted, or at least
> > limited, to members. Moreover, many lists are moderated to keep spam and
> > other problematic material out. How could this be done on a forum? The last
> > time the recurring question about fora was brought up, these matters were
> > discussed, and if I remember correctly, there did not seem to be much of any
> > way to limit access to these and other restricted lists. There also did not
> > seem to be a way to get e-mail to those who prefer it. This type of
> > communication may work for those with lots of time and a handful of lists, but
> > not for those with little time and lots of lists. I leave the resolution of
> > such matters to those more knowledgeable about them. Perhaps one needs an
> > e-mail program which sorts things by topic.
> >
> > Vale, et valete.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "eagled2" <eagled2@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Aulus Valerius Barbatus S.P.D.
> >> > Sorry about forgetting my name. I put it on the first post and then just
> >> spaced it cause I don't check this group from my email account. Thank you for
> >> your information. That answers a lot of questions I had regarding the matter.
> >> As you said there are certainly a lot of things to consider. I have done some
> >> research on my own and as you said a forum that meets all the needs of this
> >> community is not an easy task.
> >> >
> >> > I also would not want to have to go to several different forums everytime I
> >> want to check up on nova roma. That's why a was hoping for an officially
> >> recognized forum. That way we can setup areas for all the different groups
> >> and let those group leaders control who gets access to there part of the
> >> site.
> >> >
> >> > I also understand that some people may not want to leave this system for
> >> whatever reason. One possible solution I have found that would be practical
> >> is to make an RSS feed of the mailing groups and have that auto posted to the
> >> forum. There are forums that make auto posting from rss feeds very simple.
> >> >
> >> > One solution to making the rss feed is to use a gmail account. Gmail has
> >> the option to check your email from an rss feed. With this you could setup an
> >> account that recieves all the messages for the group one at a time and use
> >> that rss feed. Since the url of the feed includes the password you would want
> >> this to be an account dedicated for this purpose only. The address would only
> >> be visible to those you want to have access to that part of the forum. All
> >> this would be fairly simple to setup and someone with a little php
> >> programming experiance could probably make a custom theme to make it look
> >> like the rest of the website.
> >> >
> >> > What are your thoughts on this idea? Do you think it would be beneficial to
> >> our members and do you think the citizens would use it?
> >> >
> >> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "A.
> >> Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > A. Tullia Scholastica Aquilae D quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > It would be helpful if you would supply us with your name so that
> >>>> we might
> >>>> > > > address you correctly.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > I was aware that the senate was working on a new site quite a while
> >>>> ago that's
> >>>> > > > why I was suprised to see no changes.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > ATS: You wouldn¹t be if you were in the Senate. We have not
> >>>> been allowed
> >>>> > > > to discuss this issue, or any other, due to squabbling between the
> >>>> consules
> >>>> > > > and among others. Albucius vetoed discussion of this issue in one
> >>>> Senate
> >>>> > > > session, then vetoed the next Senate session altogether, though it
> >>>> was jointly
> >>>> > > > convened by the tribuni, and then conducted a Senate session whose
> >>>> auspices
> >>>> > > > did not meet with the approval of the augures. Thus all recent >>>>
> Senate
> >>>> > > > sessions have been held under various clouds, and even in one which
> >>>> was fully
> >>>> > > > legal, the matter of IT issues could not be addressed.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > I have not had time to follow many messages for a while and am just
> >>>> getting
> >>>> > > > back. I'm glad everything is worked out now and they can make some
> >>>> progress
> >>>> > > > now.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > ATS: Sorry to rain on your parade, but very little, if anything,
> >>>> has been
> >>>> > > > worked out on the IT issue, the entry of the tribunes into office,
> the
> >>>> > > > ratification of the praetorial election, the minor matter of
> >>>> appointing a
> >>>> > > > dictator to put an end to this paralysis... We have schoolboy
> >>>> squabbles, and
> >>>> > > > the government of NR is paralyzed as if stricken by some Harry Potter
> >>>> spell.
> >>>> > > > Some like it that way, and some don¹t care, but those of us who do
> >>>> care have a
> >>>> > > > different take on this mess. Several of us senators have practically
> >>>> begged
> >>>> > > > for a proper Senate session minus the vetoes and the auspice
> >>>> problems, but no
> >>>> > > > movement appears to have occurred on that front. Oh, and the genuine
> >>>> > > > obstructionists don¹t seem to belong to the group which proposed a
> >>>> > > > dictatorship (not that a Roman one should be confused with the modern
> >>>> > > > version), and I seriously doubt that any corruption would be involved
> >>>> with the
> >>>> > > > party who offered a good deal on the cybernetic makeover. Even in my
> own
> >>>> > > > field, some folks have hyperactive imaginations. There are those who
> >>>> seem to
> >>>> > > > be reading their own ideas and motivations into the minds of others,
> >>>> and that
> >>>> > > > is not a good thing to do.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > I was not aware that they had a forum site in the beginning. I
> >>>> understand why
> >>>> > > > a lot of people would prefer email but for myself still prefer
> >>>> something more
> >>>> > > > organized.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > ATS: We apparently did (before my time), and one province still
> has
> >>>> > > > one...unused. I am on over 80 Yahoo lists as well as supposedly
> >>>> receiving
> >>>> > > > posts from my five online classes, though the ISP is not being
> >>>> helpful about
> >>>> > > > the latter. Fortunately school is out, but I am registering students
> >>>> and have
> >>>> > > > some site work to perform, and would be pleased if my messages landed
> in my
> >>>> > > > mailbox. Like many others here, I do not have time to patrol dozens
> >>>> of fora
> >>>> > > > in order to read the mail...or even one! Some have claimed that they
> >>>> can send
> >>>> > > > e-mail to those who prefer it from these fora, but I have seen no
> >>>> evidence
> >>>> > > > thereof.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > I'm sure i'm not the only one but we do have to keep everyone in
> >>>> mind. Surely
> >>>> > > > there is an option that will allow those that prefer email to read
> >>>> from email
> >>>> > > > and still have everything posted on a forum site.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > ATS: Some claim that they could, but I seem to recall that they
> >>>> > > > encountered considerable difficulty, and found this impossible. This
> topic
> >>>> > > > comes up periodically, but is not a realistic option, especially for
> those
> >>>> > > > with limited cybernetic expertise. Not everyone here is a 25 year
> >>>> old male
> >>>> > > > with five computers and two dozen game machines. One must also
> >>>> consider our
> >>>> > > > visually-impaired, blind, and otherwise handicapped members, who >>>>
> almost
> >>>> > > > certainly would find navigating such a system even more challenging
> than
> >>>> > > > dealing with the present one.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > My idea was to integrate a forum program in the new site but still
> >>>> keep yahoo
> >>>> > > > groups for the main topics. Then have those groups automatically get
> >>>> posted on
> >>>> > > > the forum. Then everyone gets what they want. I had a forum that did
> >>>> something
> >>>> > > > like that with rss feeds that worked out well. It would probably take
> >>>> a bit of
> >>>> > > > work to figure out how to securely allow members to recieve emails
> >>>> of new
> >>>> > > > posts and keep it organized on the forum but with all of us members
> >>>> someone
> >>>> > > > ought to be able to figure it out.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > Vale, et valete.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , Gaius
> >>>> > > > Tullius Valerianus <gaius.tullius.valerianus@> wrote:
> >>>>>> > > >> >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>>>> > > >> > As far as the forum idea is concerned, surely you are aware that
> >>>>>> Nova Roma
> >>>>>> > > >> > had one of those at the start? The switch to a Yahoogroup has
> not been
> >>>>>> > > >> > universally appreciated, but for the most part seems far more
> >>>>>> popular than
> >>>>>> > > >> > having to go to a web forum every time one wants to catch up on
> NR. It's
> >>>>>> > > >> > just easier for most people to have it in their e-mail inbox.
> >>>>>> > > >> >
> >>>>>> > > >> > Cheers,
> >>>>>> > > >> > ~ Valerianus
> >>>>>> > > >> >
> >>>>>> > > >> > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:57 AM, eagled2 <eagled2@> wrote:
> >>>>>> > > >> >
> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > >
> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > >
> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > > I can and am willing to setup a forum and customize it for
> our group,
> >>> > > but
> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > > the problem is getting people to use it. From what i've
> heard many
> >>>>>> > > >>> people
> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > > have tried to start one up and it has never went anywhere.
> Unless you
> >>> > > can
> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > > get citizens to start using it I was looking for one built
> or at least
> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > > officially recognized by the government of nova roma. I
> >>>>>>>> believe that's
> >>> > > the
> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > > only way to get people to trust it enough to actually use
> >>>>>>>> it. Like I >>>
> >>> > > said
> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > > before someone had told me that they were in the process of
> >>>>>>>> re-designing
> >>> > > the
> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > > entire nova roma website and I haven't seen any evidence or
> updates of
> >>>>>> > > >>> that
> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > > in the years since I was told that.
> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > >
> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>>> > > >>> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stefn
> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > > Ullarsson Piparskeggr" <famila.ulleria.venii@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > Salve Barbatus;
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > Here's one I set up (at a freeserve) in less than an
> hour.
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > >
> >>>>>> > > >>>
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> >>">http://tavernaromana.netboards.org/index.php?sid=d26b6626878077031dc6d
> >>>>> d8a906>>>
> >>>>>
> <http://tavernaromana.netboards.org/index.php?sid=d26b6626878077031dc6dd8a906>
> >>> > > 7e1c2
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > ...and a blog I set up before my dad got ill and I
> >>>>>>>>>> lost the energy to
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > work on it...
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > http://confoederatio-romana.webs.com/
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > The tools are out there to come up with a site (or
> >>>>>>>>>> interlinked >>>>
> >>> > > sites),
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > which will work with a group our size.
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > =====================================
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > In amicitia et fide
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > > Civis circa Quintilis MMDCCLI a.u.c.
> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>> > >
> >> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79235 From: eagled2 Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Re: herb lore?
Aulus Valerius Barbatus S.P.D.
Thanks that post has some interesting information. I will be checking some of this out myself as well.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Valeriane,
>
> In addition to Pliny the Elder, A. Cornelius Celsus' De Medicina is another resource. Soranus(fragments & Gynaecia through Aurelianus ), Caelius Aurelianus(De morbis acutis et chronicis) and as you know many Roman physicians learned from Galen(Claudii Galeni opera omnia) and Dioscorides (his Herbal Medicine text is studied by Ayurvedists and alt. healers). Other sources: Heron of Alexandria (Pneumatica et Automata)Hippocrates (Decorum & On the Sacred Disease)fragments from Onbasius. The Extant works of Aretaeus of Cappadocia is another studied by Ancient Romans. I think that is a good beginning.
> This thread, which has many posts, has some info to also help your uxor get started:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/10553
>
> Vale,
>
> Julia
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gaius Tullius Valerianus <gaius.tullius.valerianus@> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete omnes,
> >
> > My wife is looking for information and sources on Roman herbal lore,
> > especially medicinal uses. She's somewhat familiar with modern holistic
> > medicine, and a degree of Western herbal lore, but she's looking for sources
> > for specifically Roman material. As it is not something I've ever researched
> > myself, I figured I would put the question out to the list. I can sort of
> > guess at some things - like I'm guessing Pliny the Elder might be a good
> > source, but I've never read anything but short excerpts from him. Any ideas?
> >
> > ~ Gaius Tullius Valerianus
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79236 From: gualterus_graecus Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Re: Crescat scientia
Salve,

Actually, if I may boast a tiny bit, I also did 2 years of Egyptian at PSU since we had Donald Redford as an Egyptologist (whose book _Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times_ I think is pretty well known). He's quite masterful and even keeps his personal journal in Egyptian. I did Middle and Late Egyptian with him, but in the end, the writing system defeated me. He made an off-hand comment once that you need about 10 years of study before you get a decent competence in reading the language and this was proven true when after two years I visited the Met in NYC and could barely read anything except a few titles and phrases here and there.

As for the address, it's 1155 East 58th. :)

Vale,

GG

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > A. Tullia Scholastica M. Cornelio Gualtero Graeco quiritibus, sociis,
> > peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
> >
> >
> > As far as I know, the Oriental Institute doesn't have TAs teaching anything;
> > the fact is, people entering programs with oriental languages typically don't
> > have the same undergrad preparation as those entering Classics simply because
> > there aren't enough undergrad programs that offer Akkadian, etc (although, I
> > was lucky enough to have an Assyriologist at my undergrad school such that I
> > was able to take a semester in Sumerian!).
> >
> >
> > ATS: Indeed you were fortunate! These days it¹s even harder to get the
> > proper prerequisites for the Oriental languages earlier on, too...they just
> > don¹t seem to have very many high schools which teach Akkadian, Egyptian,
> > Hittite, Sumerian, or any of those other goodies imparted at 1130 E 59th (I
> > think I got the addresses right; it¹s been a long time since I was in
> > Chicago). ;-))) Heck, it¹s getting hard to find them which teach Latin,
> > whereas we used to have even public schools which taught Greek at that level.
> >
> > As for students finding their own errors, the homeworks and quizzes were all
> > corrected as one would expect. But, when I did the mandatory weekly drill
> > sessions in the evening and some poor, nervous soul screwed up on the board,
> > I'd try to have the person identify the problem by dropping hints; if that
> > failed, I'd try to get someone else in the class to find the problem.
> >
> > ATS: Good idea. I hate to embarrass students, especially when they are
> > shy, but one must also ensure that everyone does the work, and doesn¹t slack
> > off. Sometimes one must walk a fine line.
> >
> > -GG
> >
> > Vale, et valete.
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "A.
> > Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@> wrote:
> >> >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > A. Tullia Scholastica M. Cornelio Gualtero Graeco quiritibus, sociis,
> >>> > > peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > There are TAs here; I was a TA in Greek last year, but there is a strict
> >>> > > oversight by some senior faculty member. Sometimes I graded quizzes or
> >>> > > homeworks, which were reviewed by my senior before they were handed back
> to
> >>> > > the students.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > ATS: And you didn¹t compel the students to find their own errors?
> ;-)
> >>> > > Now, this is proper supervision of TA¹s. But quizzes? At the hallowed
> >>> 1050
> >>> > > E. 59th? Not hourlies or midterms or finals? Mere quizzes? Don¹t
> >>> these kids
> >>> > > have anything more challenging than that...even at the College? ;-)
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Next academic year I will be an instructor in Greek, but what usually
> >>> happens
> >>> > > is that there are two sections for a course where one is taught by the
> >>> > > advanced grad student and another by a faculty member, and the faculty
> >>> member
> >>> > > sets the agenda, the texts and writes the midterm and final exams which
> are
> >>> > > graded together by the instructor and professor... at least in the
> >>> Classics
> >>> > > dept. I can't speak for other depts.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > ATS: The Classics Department is more sensible, but I find it
> >>> difficult to
> >>> > > envision anything resembling a TA at UC. Hope they are not running
> >>> short of
> >>> > > full professors...I surely can¹t see a TA teaching Sanskrit, or Hittite,
> or
> >>> > > Akkadian...
> >>> > >
> >>> > > At my undergrad U, we had one section of beginning Greek (baby
> >>> Greek, as
> >>> > > one of the profs called it), conducted in a none-too-elegant classroom
> >>> in the
> >>> > > basement of the engineering building...at a time when that discipline
> was
> >>> > > forbidden to women.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Vale,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Gualterus
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Vale, et valete.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "A.
> >>> > > Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@> wrote:
> >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > A. Tullia Scholastica L. Liviae Plautae C. Equitio Catoni
> >>>>>>> quiritibus,
> >>>>> > >>> sociis,
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Livia Catoni sal.
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Well, I thought that since Gualterus' grad school teaches
> >>>>>>> impossible
> >>>>> > >>> things
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > like correcting your own mistakes (when learning a language)
> >>>>>>> they might
> >>>>> > >>> have
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > been the ones who taught the Baron of Munchausen.
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > ATS: Here I think you may be slightly confused, Plauta; it
> was
> >>>>> > >>> Poplicola
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > who said his graduate school taught such things. Rest assured
> that that
> >>>>> > >>> sort
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > of thing is highly unlikely at the University of Chicago,
> where
> >>>>> > >>> Gualterus is
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > apparently pursuing his doctorate. The U of Chi is one of the
> finest
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > universities in this country, home of the renowned Oriental
> Institute
> >>>>> > >>> (inter
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > alia), and is not a place where one would expect that sort of
> thing.
> >>>>> > >>> Last I
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > heard, there were no fancy sports teams there, with athletes
> >>>>>>> who had to
> >> > be
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > passed because they were skilled at some silly game or other,
> and no
> >>>>> > >>> teaching
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > assistants, though it seems that some have now been added.
> The
> >>>>> > >>> University of
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Chicago has very high standards, and does not teach underwater
> basket
> >>>>> > >>> weaving
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > or leave error correction in the hands of any but the most
> competent
> >>>>> > >>> TA¹s (if
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > indeed they have them). Normally only the professors teach
> >>>>>>> there. >>>
> >> > Other
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > colleges and universities may well do otherwise, but not UC.
> Crescat
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > scientia; vita excolatur.
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Of course I wouldn't mind going to Hogwarts. However, I'm
> >>>>>>> afraid that
> >>>>> > >>> school
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > has rather strict entrly requirements.
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > ATS: So does the U of Chicago. Maybe you should check
> them out.
> >> > Now
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Poplicola goes elsewhere, near San Francisco, if I am not
> >>>>>>> mistaken, and
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > probably is at a state college or university. There is a
> world of
> >>>>> > >>> difference
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > between the quality schools like Chicago and Yale and
> >>>>>>> Princeton and
> >>>>> > >>> Hahvahd
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > and some others (not that all state schools are bad; many are
> quite
> >>>>> > >>> good, even
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > excellent), but one should not assume that a university,
> >>>>>>> whether or not
> >> > it
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > bears a toponym, is automatically inferior.
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Vale,
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Livia
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Valete.
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > From: "Cato" <catoinnyc@>
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> >>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>> > >>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:54 PM
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witnessing appointment
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Cato Liviae Plautae sal.
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > You'd probably have to go to Hogwarts for that. :)
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Vale,
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Cato
> >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> >>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>> > >>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "L.
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@>
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > Salve Poplicola,
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > do they also teach you how to pull yourself out of
> the water by
> >>>>>>> > >>>>> your hair?
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > Because *that* would definitely make grad school
> >>>>>>>>>>> attractive to me.
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > Optime vale,
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > Livia
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > From: "qvalerius" <q.valerius.poplicola@>
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>>>> > >>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:21 AM
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witnessing appointment
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > Salve,
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > In grad school, the professors force you to learn how
> to correct
> >>>>>>> > >>>>> your own
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > mistakes. Your "training" must have been elementary
> at best.
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > Vale.
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>>>> > >>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> > ,
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > >> "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > Maior Scholasticae Liviaeque spd;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > my gratitude to you both. I've studied
> French, Italian,
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Russian and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > German in high school and university and always
> had my
> >> > mistakes
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > corrected.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > It's the only way to learn. I appreciate the
> help and support.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > If only the rest of this list were like you
> two!
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > optime vale
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > Maior
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > C. Petronius L. Liviae s.p.d.,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > I have been a language teacher for 15
> years, and I
> >> > assure you that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > correct attitude is to provide
> corrections to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> mistakes. The habit
> >>>>> > >> > of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > letting students guess where their
> mistakes are
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> drives them up the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > wall. (I will let you look up the
> meaning of this
> >> > expression,
> >>>>> > >> > since
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > this is the method you are so fond
> of).
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > I have not such experience, I never wanted
> to teach
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> anything... but
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > after 7 years of studying English language
> I was not able
> >> > to follow a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > discussion. And that is the sort of all
> the French pupils
> >> > studying
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > English... so, I learnt Latin alone, with
> my own method,
> >> > and now I
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > write
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > poetries and novels in latin, the last "de
> Saturnalibus
> >> > cruentis"
> >>>>> > >> > will
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > be available on the Circulus website on
> the beginning of
> >> > september...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > I never withdrew my statement. I
> firmly believe that
> >> > it's not my
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > place
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > to decide whether a senate session
> was legal or not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > It is not the point... you witness an act
> which did not
> >> > happened.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > > I did correct "Magisterum" with
> "Magistrum" before
> >> > posting,
> >>>>> > >> > though.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > I have to register you in the first
> Latinitatis decuria.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > Optime vale.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > Arcoiali scribebat
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > > Nonis Sextilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II
> coss.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79237 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: a. d. IV Eidus Sextilias: The Raven
M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus Quiritibus cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Deae vos salvas et servatas volunt.

Hodie est ante diem IV Eidus Sextiliae; haec dies comitialis est: feriae quod eo die arae Cereri Matri et Opi Augustae ex voto suscepto constitutae sunt Cretico et Longo consulibus

AUC 760 / 7 CE: The altar of Ceres and Ops dedicated.

"O Ceres and Libera, whose sacred worship, as the opinions and religious belief of all men agree, is contained in the most important and most abstruse mysteries; You, by whom the principles of life and food, the examples of laws, customs, humanity, and refinement are said to have been given and distributed to nations and to cities; You, whose sacred rites the Roman people has received from the Greeks and adopted, and now preserves with such religious awe, both publicly and privately, that they seem not to have been introduced from other nations, but rather to have been transmitted from hence to other nations. You, again and again I implore and appeal to, most holy Goddesses, who dwell around those lakes and groves of Enna, and who preside over all Sicily,Â… You whose invention and gift of corn, which You have distributed over the whole earth, inspires all nations and all races of men with reverence for Your divine power;--And all the other Gods, and all the Goddesses, do I implore and entreat." ~ Cicero In C. Verrem IV.72. 187-8


The Raven

"All the other birds of the same kind drive their young ones from their nest, and compel them to fly; the raven, for instance, which not only feeds on flesh, but even drives its young, when able to fly, to a still greater distance. Hence it is that in small hamlets there are never more than two pairs to be found; and in the neighbourhood of Crannon, in Thessaly, never more than one, the parents always quitting the spot to give place to their offspring. There have been some differences observed between this and the bird last mentioned. Ravens breed before the summer solstice, and continue in bad health for sixty days--Being afflicted with a continual thirst more particularly--Before the ripening of the fig in autumn; while, on the other hand, the crow is attacked by disease after that period. The raven lays, at most, but five eggs. It is a vulgar belief, that they couple, or else lay, by means of the beak; and that, consequently, if a pregnant woman happens to eat a raven's egg, she will be delivered by the mouth. It is also believed, that if the eggs are even so much as brought beneath the roof, a difficult labour will be the consequence. Aristotle denies it, and assures us in all good faith that there is no more truth in this than in the same story about the ibis in Egypt; he says that it is nothing else but that same sort of billing that is so often seen in pigeons. Ravens are the only birds that seem to have any comprehension of the meaning of their auspices; for when the guests of Medus were assassinated, they all took their departure from Peloponnesus and the region of Attica. They are of the very worst omen when they swallow their voice, as if they were being choked." ~ C. Plinius Secundus, Historia Naturalis. 10.15


Weather Signs from Ravens and Crows

"It is a sign of rain when a crow puts back its head on a rock which is washed by waves, or when it often dives or hovers over the water. It is a sign of rain if the raven, who is accustomed to make many different sounds, repeats one of these twice quickly and makes a whirring sound and shakes its wings. So too if, during a rainy season, he utters many different sounds, or if he searches for lice perched in an olive-tree. And if, whether in fair or wet weather, he imitates, as it were, with his voice falling drops, it is a sign of rain. So too is it if ravens or jackdaws fly high and scream like hawks. And, if a raven in fair weather does not utter his accustomed note and makes a whirring with his wings, it is a sign of rain." ~ Theophratus, Weather Signs 16

AUC 788 / 35 CE: The Remarkable Raven

"Let us do justice, also, to the raven, whose merits have been attested not only by the sentiments of the Roman people, but by the strong expression, also, of their indignation. In the reign of Tiberius, one of a brood of ravens that had bred on the top of the temple of Castor, happened to fly into a shoemaker's shop that stood opposite: upon which, from a feeling of religious veneration, it was looked upon as doubly recommended by the owner of the place. The bird, having been taught to speak at an early age, used every morning to fly to the Rostra, which look towards the Forum; here, addressing each by his name, it would salute Tiberius, and then the Cæsars Germanicus and Drusus, after which it would proceed to greet the Roman populace as they passed, and then return to the shop: for several years it was remarkable for the constancy of its attendance. The owner of another shoemaker's shop in the neighbourhood, in a sudden fit of anger killed the bird, enraged, as he would have had it appear, because with its ordure it had soiled some shoes of his. Upon this, there was such rage manifested by the multitude, that he was at once driven from that part of the city, and soon after put to death. The funeral, too, of the bird was celebrated with almost endless obsequies; the body was placed upon a litter carried upon the shoulders of two Æthiopians, preceded by a piper, and borne to the pile with garlands of every size and description. The pile was erected on the right-hand side of the Appian Way, at the second milestone from the City, in the field generally known as the "field of Rediculus." Thus did the rare talent of a bird appear a sufficient ground to the Roman people for honouring it with funeral obsequies, as well as for inflicting punishment on a Roman citizen; and that, too, in a city in which no such crowds had ever escorted the funeral of any one out of the whole number of its distinguished men, and where no one had been found to avenge the death of Scipio Æmilianus, the man who had destroyed Carthage and Numantia." ~ C. Plinius Secundus, Historia Naturalis 10. 60. (43.)


Today's thought is from Epictetus, Enchiridion 28:

"If a person had delivered up your body to some passer-by, you would certainly be angry. And do you feel no shame in delivering up your own mind to any reviler, to be disconcerted and confounded?"

Visit Religio_Romana_Cultorum_Deorum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79238 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Re: herb lore?
Salve Gai Tulli,

You're welcome. (but I am not Barbatus;))

There are many excellent modern studies and trials that support the efficacy of many of the herbs cited in these ancient texts –not always for the uses noted but certainly beneficial. I have seen good results with many patients who have not had success with traditional treatments for one reason or another. Traditional medicine often treats the symptoms while most herbalists (preferably those that are also physicians) aim to heal the cause of the disease which is also the goal of Ayurvedists who have also studied the ancient texts of Greece and Rome in additional to the Eastern texts. Although there may differences, mainly from a medical philosophical viewpoint, in Greek and Roman physicians, most Roman physicians and healers were schooled by the Greeks or by those schooled by the Greeks. But I believe you already know this.

Vale optime,

Julia


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "eagled2" <eagled2@...> wrote:
>
> Aulus Valerius Barbatus S.P.D.
> Thanks that post has some interesting information. I will be checking some of this out myself as well.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Valeriane,
> >
> > In addition to Pliny the Elder, A. Cornelius Celsus' De Medicina is another resource. Soranus(fragments & Gynaecia through Aurelianus ), Caelius Aurelianus(De morbis acutis et chronicis) and as you know many Roman physicians learned from Galen(Claudii Galeni opera omnia) and Dioscorides (his Herbal Medicine text is studied by Ayurvedists and alt. healers). Other sources: Heron of Alexandria (Pneumatica et Automata)Hippocrates (Decorum & On the Sacred Disease)fragments from Onbasius. The Extant works of Aretaeus of Cappadocia is another studied by Ancient Romans. I think that is a good beginning.
> > This thread, which has many posts, has some info to also help your uxor get started:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/10553
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Julia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79239 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: flaminica quiritisbus spd
M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
I heartily apologize to those I apostrophized as 'atheists' and 'atheist-monotheism' it was unfair and wrong.
M. Hortensia Maior
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79240 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Question on Apology Re: [Nova-Roma] flaminica quiritisbus spd
Ave,

As one of those who have so been labelled, I have a concern. Is this
apology an apology to earn your vote back from the CP? Or is this a freely
given apology, in that you will never make these accusations again? Or try
to foster insurrection against this segment of Nova Roma's population?

Is this a non apology apology or is this a truly heartfelt one?

Vale,

Sulla

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:08 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> I heartily apologize to those I apostrophized as 'atheists' and
> 'atheist-monotheism' it was unfair and wrong.
> M. Hortensia Maior
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79241 From: ti_ovidivs_aqvila Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Caesary
Salvete Onmes,

I found a new roman themed browser game to play at work or what not. It is called Caesary the URL is http://caesary.aeriagames.com/ . It is your classic city building/strategy type game but with a Roman theme. If you have played Evony or similar games it is very close to those but has a little more depth.

I'm currently on Server 4 and my name is Vae_Victis if anyone plays send me a message and We'll see if we can't band together and destroy some 'barbarians' :P.

Valete

Ti.OVIDIVS AQVILA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79242 From: marcus.lucretius Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
M. Lucretius Agricola Omnibus SPD

I have just returned from Sarmatia, and before I sleep I want to add my voice to that of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus. I specifically want to thank M. Octavius Corvus and his household for their wonderfully generous hospitality. It was a real pleasure to meet so many Sarmatians and Nova Roma citizens from other provinces as well.

There is so much more to write, but that must wait. It must suffice now to say that my expectations were exceeded in every way. This was a week that will be hard to surpass.

valete in cura deorum


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Lentulus pontifex, M. Lucretius augur, M. Octavius sacerdos Iovis et omnes Sarmatici, Pannonii Poltava Q V I R I T I B V S s. d. p.
>
> A very quick but verz warm greetings from Poltava (Sarmatia), from our part! We are well and we are very, very, very glad here, all events went wonderfully, including the weddings, the investiture of augur M. Lucretius Agricola, a Sarmatian votum, and the foundation of a Nova Roma REAL temple. Corvus is a wonderful houselord, we enjoy his hospitatality beyond words.
> I tell you we experience the real one and truly existing side of Nova Roma, friends, Roman brothers and sisters together from Japan to Budapest, in Ukrain, to celebrate our Republic, which I tell you, is more living than anyone could imagine.
> We will leave Poltava soon within a few hours, Agricola remains some more days, though.
> Hail Nova Roma, long live the Republic, vivat Nova Roma!
> With hugs and gladdest emotion, Corvus and his family, Agricola, the Sarmatians (many), the Pannonians, Q. Arrius, and M. Antonius, and I Lentulus, we all salute you!!
> Ex Sarmatia, Poltava
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79243 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Re: Caesary
Aeternia Ti. Ovidio Aquilae sal:


Hmm is this MMORPG? As a player of Evony, it was good but lacked
strategy.. I shall check this out.... Now do you have to be on the same
server to gather allies? Does this play in real time? Or I could play for
myself :-)

Will let you know, thank you for passing along the link..

Vale Optime,
Aeternia

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:51 AM, ti_ovidivs_aqvila <stricklin_c@...
> wrote:

>
>
> Salvete Onmes,
>
> I found a new roman themed browser game to play at work or what not. It is
> called Caesary the URL is http://caesary.aeriagames.com/ . It is your
> classic city building/strategy type game but with a Roman theme. If you have
> played Evony or similar games it is very close to those but has a little
> more depth.
>
> I'm currently on Server 4 and my name is Vae_Victis if anyone plays send me
> a message and We'll see if we can't band together and destroy some
> 'barbarians' :P.
>
> Valete
>
> Ti.OVIDIVS AQVILA
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79244 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Re: On the trial of M. Hortensia
Salve Pauline,
of course: she's the one who killed Christ, destroyed the library of
Alexandria, and killed off all native Americans .... Come on!
Your phrase below is an example of the irrational attitude some people have
against Hortensia Maior.

Vale,
Livia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Timothy or Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@...>
To: "Nova-Roma" <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 8:03 AM
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] On the trial of M. Hortensia



Salve

"I suppose the reason might have been one of political expediency: probably,
though both magistrates knew that Major was innocent of the crime she was
accused of, ...

The ONLY thing that Maior is INNOCENT of is the Lindbergh kidnapping.

Vale

Paulinus





To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: livia.plauta@...
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 20:08:38 +0200
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] On the trial of M. Hortensia






L. Livia Plauta omnibus sal.

As usual it's a pleasure to read a post by A. Apollonius Cordus.

It was very interesting to read what happened "behind the scenes" of the
trial (even though more things might have been happening that even
Apollonius didn't know about).

When the sentence was published I was traveling, with little Internet
access, so I missed the window of opportunity to comment, but I did find
weird that the sententia by Sabinus had exactly the same wording as the call
for a sententia by Albucius.

I'm not really familiar with the leges Saliciae, so I wasn't aware of the
extent to which the call for a sententia was incompatible with said leges.

I know Sabinus as a very intelligent and independent man, who is not afraid
of acting according to his own opinions, even at the cost of getting in
conflict with others, and I know that by no means does he always agree with
Albucius, so when I saw the sententia I assumed that he must have had a
compelling reason for following Albucius' instructions to the letter, and I
suspected that the sententia had been agreed on by both magistrates before
the "call" was published.
I suppose the reason might have been one of political expediency: probably,
though both magistrates knew that Major was innocent of the crime she was
accused of, they thought she deserved a lesson for acting several times
without much diplomacy, and possibly they feared a negative reaction by
public opinion in case she was aquitted.
They were probably right in their assessment, since public opinon in the
whole doesn't seem very outraged by Major's condemnation.
However, whatever the reason for their behaviour, I now realize that the two
magistrates did create a dangerous precedent.

For the situation at hand the only solution seems to be a lex invalidating
the sentence.
For the future we have to hope that the situation will be solved by having
praetors, and that the praetors will follow procedure and nobody will think
of suggesting in public, word by word, the sentence to a judge.

I also suggest that the accused in future learn from Major's mistake, and do
not agree to a jury composed by one judge only.

Optime valete,
Livia

----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Apollónius Cordus" <jamie.k.johnston@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 1:10 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] On the trial of M. Hortensia

A. Apollonius omnibus sal.

As you may remember, I don't like participating in this e-mail list these
days. Some of you may be able to sympathize. So I hope you'll understand
that I wouldn't be here, and wouldn't trouble you with this message, if I
didn't think it fairly important.

I say that at the outset because it's going to be a very long message - I
could split it into sections but that would unnecessarily fill the inboxes
of those who have no interest in the topic - and because I want to encourage
you to read it anyway. I want you to read it whether or not you like M.
Hortensia, whether or not you believe she committed the crime for which she
was prosecuted, whether or not you care. I want you to read it if you care
about standards of fairness and justice in this community.

And one last thing before I start: this message is not about whether M.
Hortensia is guilty. As her advocate, it was my duty to argue that she was
not. The trial is over, and I am not her advocate any more. She is still
my friend, but so is Q. Metellus, who prosecuted her, and so (I hope) is C.
Equitius, who was the person whose rights she was prosecuted for infringing.
In short, I have no professional or personal stake in this case any more.
I'm here as a private individual who happens to have considerably more
knowledge of what went on during these legal proceedings than almost all of
you, and who is troubled by that knowledge, and who thinks you should be
troubled too.

At some time before 17 June this year the consul P. Memmius received a
petitio actionis from Q. Metellus. A petitio actionis, literally 'the
seeking of a judicial process', is essentially a request for permission to
take somebody to court. The receipt of such a request triggers the
beginning of the process prescribed by the lex Salicia judiciaria
(supplemented by the lex Salicia poenalis). Now, anyone at all familiar
with Roman legal procedure will recognize the process set out there as a
very close copy of what's called the 'formulary system', which was one of
the main ways ancient Roman magistrates administered justice from about 125
BC to the end of the republic and after. In fact the Salician procedure is,
on paper, quite possibly Nova Roma's most accurate legislative reproduction
of an ancient Roman institution or process. But of course the lex Salicia
isn't a complete description of every detail and every contigency of the
formulary system, and its English is occasionally imperfect or imprecise, so
it still needs to be interpreted by the magistrates who are applying it in a
given case.

The need for interpretation evidently arose as soon as Albucius received
this petitio. Because, you see, he was a consul, and the lex Salicia
doesn't give consules any power to accept or reject or otherwise deal with
petitiones actionis. It only mentions praetores. But at that time there
were no praetores. What was he to do? Other leges were of no assistance.
The lex constitutiva says nothing at all about judicial proceedings, and
does not give any magistrate any power to deal with such proceedings.
Within the written law of Nova Roma there is nothing that explicitly gives
any ordinary magistrate any judicial powers except the leges Saliciae. Now,
some people in Nova Roma believe that the lex constitutiva and the written
leges made under its authority are the only legitimate source of any
magistrate's power, and that if neither the lex constitutiva nor any other
lex explictly says that a magistrate can do something then that magistrate
can't do that thing. There are others who say that there are other sources
of law, principally ancient Roman law and custom, that can properly be used
to supplement the written law as long as the written law doesn't explicitly
contradict them. We don't need to consider which of those groups is right.
We need only observe that the consul must be in the latter group, because
after due consideration he decided that he, as consul, did have the power to
deal with the petitio, despite the fact that nothing can be found in the
written law of Nova Roma that gives him this power. He must, in fact, have
drawn this power from ancient Roman law and practice: of course in the
ancient republic a consul did have the power to preside over judicial
proceedings. Personally, for what it's worth, I agree with him.

So Albucius then had to consider whether to accept or reject the petitio,
applying the test in chapter II of the lex Salicia judiciaria. The lex
Salicia doesn't say that the accused person needs to be notified at this
stage or allowed to say anything about it. But of course we should bear in
mind that in the formulary procedure, on which the lex Salicia is very
closely based, the accused person would necessarily have been physically
present at this stage and would have been able to (and in fact would have
been asked to) participate in the discussion. We should also bear in mind
that, regardless of Roman precedent, it is probably sensible for a
magistrate to involve the accused person at this stage, in case that person
is able to point out a good reason why the petitio should not be accepted;
otherwise the the good reason will only be pointed out *after* the
magistrate has already accepted the petitio, and the magistrate will have
revisit the decision to accept it. Nonetheless, I don't say that there was
any legal obligation on Albucius to involve Major in things at this stage,
and he decided not to. Whether he had any discussions with Metellus about
it I don't know. But he accepted the petitio and, in accordance with the
lex, told Major that he had done so.

This is, of course, where I became involved, because Major asked me to be
her advocate. I quickly got in touch with Albucius and Metellus to say that
I was acting as advocate and that the first thing I would be doing was to
request a reconsideration of the decision to accept the petitio because it
did not, I argued, pass the legal test in ch. II of the lex. At this point
two curious and surprising things happened.

The first was that Albucius indicated that he was not prepared to
communicate with me directly about the case at this stage. This was, he
later explained, because the lex Salicia does not explicitly say that
advocates can be used until the trial itself begins, and he did not want to
do anything that was not explicitly required by the lex. If you contrast
this with his decision that he had the power to deal with the petitio
despite having no explicit authority in written law to do so, you will see
why I call this curious and surprising.

The second curious and surprising thing was that Albucius told Major that he
would not consider any challenge to his acceptance of the petitio. He had
not given her, or anyone else as far as I know, a chance to make any
comments before he accepted the petitio about whether it passed the legal
test for acceptance, and he was not going to give her a chance to make such
comments after he had accepted it. There was to be no opportunity for Major
to point out what she said were solid legal reasons why the petitio was not
acceptable according to the test set out in the lex Salicia. Albucius did
not explain his refusal to hear these arguments. He had decided that the
petitio passed the test. He must presumably have believed, therefore,
either that it was totally impossible that he had missed anything when he
made that decision, or else that it didn't matter whether his decision was
legally right or wrong. Curious and surprising, I say again; and I'm going
to go a little further and suggest that perhaps it's beginning to be
slightly worrying.

So the process continued. P. Memmius invited both parties to make
representations to him before he drew up the formula. The lex Salicia did
not explicitly require him to do this: in fact it gives no indication at all
that anything should be done between notifying the parties that the petitio
has been accepted and issuing the formula. But neither does the lex say
that this should not happen, and it is both eminently sensible and in
accordance with the way the Roman formulary procedure worked, and I praise
Albucius for doing it. I do note, however, that - as I'm sure you've
noticed already - his position regarding exactly how the lex should be
interpreted and applied seemed at this point to be oscillating quite
dramatically between 'I shall do nothing that the lex does not explicitly
require me to do' and 'I shall do what I think appropriate so long as the
lex does not forbid it.'

Anyway, I did duly make representations to him on M. Hortensia's behalf.
Some of them were about procedure. I argued, for example, that there was a
substantial risk that he would be seen as prejudiced against Major, in the
sense that he would appear to have already made up his mind about important
disputed issues in the case: he had made public statements criticizing
Major's decisions to place people on moderation (which was what the case was
all about) and had vetoed two of those decisions himself, and moreover there
were indications that Metellus would actually be using those vetoes as
evidence that the decisions in question were illegal. This raised the
possibility that the court would be considering questions that its presiding
magistrate had already expressed his opinion about in public, and making its
decision based on evidence that included statements and actions by the
presiding magistrate; clearly, I said, there was a serious risk that the
court would not be seen as independent and unbiased. I also argued that the
petitio actionis was too vague for Major to respond to it or to make useful
suggestions about what the formula ought to say, and more detail ought to be
provided by Metellus before the formula was drawn up. In particular, I
proposed that Albucius adopt the procedure that was followed at this point
under the formulary system, namely that the prosecutor should write a
proposed formula and the accused should then respond to it. I had real
hopes that he might do this, since he had already followed the formulary
procedure by holding this discussion before writing the formula. At the
same time, I also put forward as much of a defence to the substance of the
charge as Major was able to provide at that point, given the vagueness of
the allegations. This included raising various issues related to the
interpretation of the offence as it was defined in the lex Salicia poenalis,
ch. 17.1.

To my considerable surprise, the next thing Albucius did was to issue a
formula. In this formula, he said he had 'duly taken in account' my
arguments, but he did not say what his decisions were about any of the
questions they raised, let alone give any reasons for those decisions. He
simply did not give any indication of having made any attempt to resolve
them. He had evidently decided to go ahead as presiding magistrate in spite
of my suggestion that he might appear prejudiced: had he decided that there
was no risk, or that there was a risk but it didn't matter, or something
else? He had evidently decided not to ask Metellus to give any more detail
about his allegations or to propose a draft formula, but he hadn't told
Major that he wasn't going to do this, so right up to the issuing of the
formula we had no idea whether we were going to get any more details or not
and whether we would have to respond to a proposed formula. Does it matter?
you may ask. It does matter, for three main reasons. First, any decision
by a magistrate can be overruled by that magistrate's colleague, and appeal
to another magistrate to do exactly this was a well-established part of
ancient Roman judicial process. But in order to ask a magistrate to
overrule his colleague's decision, you have to actually know what that
decision is. By not telling us what he had decided, Albucius made it
impossible for us to do anything to challenge those decisions. Secondly,
even if we had not wanted to appeal against any of those decisions, we
needed to know what they were in order to know how the trial was going to
proceed. For example, I had also put forward various arguments about what
would happen if the case were transferred to another presiding magistrate.
I'd done this partly in case Albucius accepted my argument that he should
not preside over the case himself, and partly because elections for the
praetura were coming up and I thought it was quite possible that he was
intending to issue the formula, then give Metellus some time to collect
evidence (which was normal in ancient Roman trials), and then, after new
praetores had been elected, to hand over the case to one of them. His
failure to respond to these arguments or tell us what he had decided meant
that we had no idea how he intended to deal with this issue: would he
transfer it to another magistrate or keep it himself? If he transferred it,
would he expect the new magistrate to follow his formula? We didn't know,
and therefore we couldn't plan. And the third reason this failure matters,
which is perhaps the most important reason, is that without giving
on-the-record responses to my arguments he left the questions I'd raised
unresolved, as far as anyone could tell (or can tell now). How can we be
satisfied that these questions were properly dealt with, especially when one
of them concerns doubts about the independence and objectivity of the
presiding magistrate himself, if we have no idea what his decisions were and
how he justified them? At this point I can tell you that I was very
seriously worried about the way these proceedings were being conducted.

At the same time that Albucius said he had 'duly taken in account' the
documents I'd sent him, he also said that these 'will be sent to the
tribunal', i.e. to the judex, who was to be T. Julius. The person who was
going to actually decide the outcome of the case. There are two things
about this that are a bit worrying. One is that there was no reason to send
the documents to Sabinus. They were documents about the formula, how it
should be written, whether it should be written at all, what should be in
it. Those things were a matter for Albucius alone to decide, and he had
done so. He did not give any indication in advance that they would be given
to the judex. There was no reason to give them to the judex because they
were not designed to have anything to do with the matters that the judex had
to consider. In this particular case I couldn't see anything that would
actually cause a problem if the judex saw it, so I didn't make any formal
objection; but the fact that Albucius decided, without consultation and
without warning, to send the judex documents that weren't intended for his
consumption is another indication of a not entirely reassuring attitude to
the proceedings. What's more important - and this really is important - is
that the judex should on no account have had access to any documents that
were not also available to both parties. And it seems that he did. Because
Albucius' comment about taking the documents into account and sending them
to the judex was not just about the documents I'd sent, but about 'the
various documents sent to me, specially by the reus'. Which implies, at
least to me, that there were some other documents that were *not* sent by
the accused, Major, which must presumably have been sent by the only other
person involved, namely Metellus. We had not seen these documents. We had
had no opportunity to respond to them. And, for all I know, Metellus would
never have seen the documents I sent either, if not for the fact that I had
sent him copies myself. Now, it would have been bad enough if Albucius had
received documents that we hadn't seen; but what's much worse is that these
documents were then sent to the judex, and we still hadn't seen them.
Meaning that the judex, who had to make the ultimate decision, would be
making that decision based on documents that we hadn't seen and couldn't
challenge, disagree with, explain, accept, agree with, or respond to in any
way at all. That would not have been allowed in an ancient Roman court, it
would not be allowed in the criminal courts where I work in the UK, and
there is nothing anywhere in the written law of Nova Roma that suggests it
should happen here.

At this point I should say something about the appointment of the judex. I
think someone may have pointed out on this e-mail list already that this is
in contravention of the lex Salicia poenalis, ch. 10.1, which says that a
case like this ought to have been heard by a panel of ten judices. Albucius
was aware of this, and discussed it with me (and perhaps with Metellus too:
I don't know, because this was another occasion on which things were allowed
to be said by one party without the other party knowing what was said), and
after I had consulted my client I informed him that she did not object to
having T. Julius as a single judex. So I do not complain about this. But
once again I note that this appears to be Albucius not only adding to but
actually pretty much overriding the written law according to his own view of
what was appropriate. I just ask you to remember this if we ever in this
story find him justifying any particular procedural decision by saying that
he did exactly what was required by the lex and did not feel that he could
legitimately do anything different.

Now, let's talk about the formula itself, shall we? I think we should,
because it's a remarkable document. It's remarkable in bearing almost no
resemblance whatsoever to an ancient Roman formula, to what the lex Salicia
judiciaria clearly intends a formula to be, or to anything that could
possibly make sense within the system that the leges Saliciae create. But
before we look at the formula in detail, we need to take a step back and
look at the Salician system as a whole. Because one of the best ways to
understand a piece of legislation, and therefore to interpret it when it is
unclear, is to look at it as a whole and try to understand what it is
supposed to accomplish. I've already said something about its similarity to
the ancient Roman formulary system, but let's put that aside for a moment
and just look at it in its own terms. Its first substantive provision, ch.
I, says, 'Any citizen of Nova Roma shall be able to bring an action against
another citizen of Nova Roma.' So it's clear immediately that we're dealing
with a system that's fundamentally about disputes between citizens. It
isn't about the state against the citizen, or the citizen against the state.
It isn't about the court having to deal with a certain situation with the
help of citizens. It's about two citizens having a dispute about a
particular thing and the court providing a mechanism to settle that dispute.
More light is shed on the nature of the system by ch. III: 'If the claim is
dismissed by the praetores, the actor shall be able to present his case
again to the praetores in the future, waiting for two new praetores to be
elected by the Comitia if necessary.' What that tells us is this: if
someone brings a complaint to the court and that complaint is badly framed
or doesn't fit within the framework of the law or has some other flaw, it is
not up to the court to investigate or to try to help that person shape his
complaint into something that would be valid and acceptable. The court is
not supposed to help the parties or take over parts of their jobs. It's
their dispute, and the court's job is simply to arbitrate by choosing one
side or the other as the winner. I'll pass over the chapters that deal
specifically with the formula because I'll need to come back to them soon,
but it's enough for now to say that the formula 'instructs the judices on
the decision they must take'. Let's move on to the trial itself, and to ch.
XII: 'The actor shall present evidence to back his demands, and then the
reus shall present evidence to back his defense.' This will sound very
familiar to North Americans, Britons, Australians, New Zealanders, and many
others, but we should bear in mind that it isn't the way all trials work in
every part of the world. There are some legal systems, called inquisitorial
systems, in which the judge will take an active role in investigating the
complaint that's been raised by gathering facts, questioning witnesses, and
ordering documents to be produced. The alternative, namely an adversarial
system, is what is familiar in countries that inherited the British legal
system, as well as in many international tribunals and others: the judge is
expected to act as a detached arbiter, letting the two sides produce their
own evidence and ultimately choosing between them. The lex Salicia quite
clearly envisages an adversarial system, not an inquisitorial one. It's up
to the two parties to put forward their own evidence and arguments. The
court is not there to help either side or to become involved in the case.
Nor is anyone else expected to get involved or put forward evidence or
arguments. No one else is mentioned in the section that deals with the
trial process except the praetor, and the only thing it says about that is
that '[t]he praetor shall be the final judge to determine what pieces of
evidence are relevant to the case.' Nothing about producing evidence or
putting forward arguments or making statements. So it's very clearly an
adversarial system. And a final thing that makes this even clearer is what
happens at the end of the trial. According to ch. XV, after the parties
have finished presenting their evidence and arguments the praetor then
'call[s] for sententia' and the judices vote. They have only two options:
to condemn or to absolve the accused. They can't give reasons for their
decision; they can't decide that the truth lies somewhere in between the two
options they've been presented with. All they can do is award the victory
to one side or the other. Another feature of the system that's evident from
the lex is that there's a division of labour between the praetor and the
judex. The praetor is in charge at the initial stage of receiving the
petitio, deciding whether it's acceptable, and, if it is, drawing up a
formula. After that the praetor continues to be involved, but only on
procedural and technical points: whether evidence is or is not admissible,
deciding whether the trial should be public or secret, when to call for the
judices to vote. In other words the magistrate is in charge of procedure
and of keeping the trial running. What the judex does is to actually hear
the evidence and the arguments and make the decision. There's no indication
that the judex is supposed to have anything to do with procedure: all the
procedural points that are mentioned are explicitly assigned to the praetor.
The only thing the judex is explicitly commanded to do is to vote.

Let's now go back to that point about the resemblance to ancient Roman
procedure. Because it's possible that many of the things the lex
specifically says are consistent with the ancient procedure but it still has
a different over-all character. Except, no, it has exactly the same
over-all character! The formulary system was adversarial, not
inquisitorial. The formulary system didn't involve the magistrate helping
either side or taking over any part of their jobs. The formulary system
didn't allow anyone to present evidence and arguments except the two parties
involved in the dispute. The formulary system had a separation of roles
between the magistrate and the judex, in which the magistrate handled
procedure and technical points while the judex listened to the evidence and
arguments and then made the decision, which could only be one option or the
other. The whole design of the system is the same. But still, if only we
had some sort of hint that this was what the lex was intended to do. Maybe
if we look at the preamble, where it says, 'These procedures are based on
the Roman republican procedural model, both because it probably is the model
that best suits Nova Roma and because it is the basis for all the procedural
systems of modern Western nations. Some concessions to Nova Roma's
particular structure have had to be made; but, in spirit, it follows the
ancient Roman procedure.' Yeah, that would do. In fact I'd say that's
pretty much the legislative equivalent of hitting a magistrate round the
face with a kipper and saying 'Interpret this lex in accordance with the
spirit of the ancient procedures it's explicitly based on!' Wouldn't you?

It's important to get all that clear in our minds before we look at what the
lex says the formula should be like, because this bit of the lex is, if you
look at it on its own, not all that clear. I'm going to quote it in full:

---
V. Once a claim has been accepted by a praetor, that same praetor shall
prepare a formula to present to the iudices. The formula shall consist of a
logical statement that instructs the iudices on the decision they must take.
The formula shall be structured into four parts: institutio iudicis,
intentio, demonstratio and condemnatio. An explanation of each part follows:

A. INSTITVTIO IVDICIS: This clause appoints a certain iudex to judge the
case (see below).

B. INTENTIO: This part expresses the claim of the actor; i.e., it shall
express what the actor seeks by petitioning the praetor. There are two kinds
of intentio: intentio certa, when the facts that lead to the actor's claim
are so obvious that they do not need to be proved, and intentio incerta,
when the actor must prove the facts that justify his claim.

Example: Intentio Certa: "According to the contract signed by Titius..."
Intentio Incerta: "If it is proved that Ticius owes Gaius 1,000 sestertii,
Gaius shall pay Ticius that same amount".

C. DEMONSTRATIO: This is the clause that further defines an intentio
incerta.

D. CONDEMNATIO: This is the clause that allows the iudices to condemn or
absolve.

Example: a formula could be something like this: "Let Sulpicius be the
iudex. If it is proved that Ticius owes Gaius 1,000 sestertii, you, iudex,
shall condemn Ticius to pay 1,000 sestertii to Gaius; else, you shall acquit
Ticius."

The clauses would be: Institutio Iudicis: "Let Sulpicius be the iudex."
Demonstratio: "If it is proved that ..." Intentio: "... Ticius owes Gaius
1,000 sestertii ..." Condemnatio: "... you, iudex, shall condemn Ticius to
pay 1,000 sestertii to Gaius; otherwise, you shall acquit Ticius."
---

There it is. Now, you can get bogged down in some of these phrases. What
does 'express' mean in B? What does 'further define' mean in C? And so on.
But the lex also gives you a handy example, which makes it pretty clear:
'Let Sulpicius be the judex. If it is proved that Ticius owes Gaius HS
1,000, you, judex, shall condemn Ticius to pay HS 1,000 to Gaius; otherwise,
you shall acquit Gaius.' And it tells you which bit is which. 'Let
Sulpicius be the judex'. That's the institutio judicis, the clause that
'appoints a certain judex to judge the case'. Okay, so you choose a judex
and then you say 'Let [that person] be judex', that's pretty simple. Next
you have a demonstratio that 'further defines' the next bit. How does it do
that? Well, apparently it does that by saying 'If it is proved that...' I
admit I'm not entirely sure how that counts as 'further defining', but I
suspect it probably means that it further limits (which is what 'defines'
literally means) the grammatical and procedural role of the next clause. So
without the 'If' clause you'd just have a formula saying 'Ticius owes Gaius
HS 1,000'. But then you add the demonstratio and it says 'If it is proved
that Ticius owes Gaius...' So it makes it clear (demonstrat) that the
following clause is what the prosecutor has to prove. The next bit, the
intentio, 'express the claim of the actor' by basically summarizing the
prosecutor's allegations. The prosecutor says 'Ticius owes me HS 1,000!'.
The intentio says 'Ticius owes Gaius HS 1,000'. Very straightforward. And
finally the condemnatio, which 'allows the judices to condemn or absolve'.
So it says that the judex can condemn Ticius, and says what to condemn him
to do (i.e. what the penalty is), or acquit him. And combined with the
demonstratio (the 'if' clause) it tells the judex in what circumstances to
condemn and in what circumstances to acquit. It all makes a fair bit of
sense when you use the helpful example. And you can cross-check this with
the wider overview of the system that we've just looked at to make sure it
fits with that. Which it does! It's an adversarial system, hence the
instruction to the judex is to wait and see whether the prosecutor proves
his allegation or not, and then to give the appropriate verdict by choosing
one or the other option (he has proved it, condemno, or he hasn't proved it,
absolvo). It's got that division of labour, because it contains the judex'
instructions for the whole trial: just sit there and work out whether Gaius
has proved it or not. It doesn't say anything about making procedural
decisions or managing the progress of the case. Just one simple but
important task. And, just in case we aren't completely happy with that
interpretation, let's cross-check it again by considering the ancient
formulary procedure that the lex itself explicitly tells us is the spirit of
the system it creates. What do we find? We find that the example given is
pretty much a direct translation of an actual Roman formula from an actual
Roman legal text-book, and that it's analyzed into exactly the same
constituent parts as the Romans analyzed their formulae into. Success! Now
we understand what a formula should do: it should name the judex, take the
allegation of the prosecutor, put it into the form of a conditional
sentence, and tell the judex to condemn the accused if the allegation is
proved and to acquit if it isn't. So in the the case of M. Hortensia I was
expecting a formula something like this: 'Let [name] be judex. If it is
proved that M. Hortensia [did something that amounts to abusus potestatis],
you, judex, shall condemn M. Hortensia to [some specific penalty];
otherwise, you shall acquit her.' I didn't know quite what was going to go
into those brackets because, as I've said, the allegation in the petitio
actionis was pretty vague, but I expected that the necessary detail would be
given so that the judex would know what he was actually supposed to be
doing.

Shall we look at the actual formula? Let's do that. Here it is. Please
read it. All of it:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Novaromatribunalis/message/314

Finished? Well, that wasn't quite what we were expecting, was it? In fact
it looks nothing like a Roman formula, nothing like the sort of formula the
lex appears to have in mind, and nothing like the example that is
specifically set out in the lex. Its article 2 merely states that 'the
present case is... an "intentio incerta"', which shows an obvious failure to
understand the lex. The lex says very clearly that 'intentio' is the name
of part of the formula and an 'intentio incerta' is a type of intentio to be
used in certain types of case: an intentio incerta is not a type of case, it
is a type of intentio. The lex does not require the formula to specify
whether the intentio is certa or incerta, and the example provided in the
lex doesn't do this. The section of the formula titled 'demonstratio' has
nothing whatsoever in common with the demonstratio of the example in the
lex, and in fact nowhere in the entire formula is there even a trace of an
'if' clause. Nor does the formula tell the judex in what circumstances to
absolve or condemn: it simply advises him to do one and not to do the other.
And in fact this brings me to what's even worse about this formula: it isn't
just utterly inadequate, it's completely incompatible with the obvious
interpretation of the lex and of the principles of the system the lex is
there to create. It clearly has no truck at all with the idea of the
presiding magistrate being an impartial figure who doesn't intervene to help
either side or to contribute his own arguments or evidence. It 'interprets'
Q. Metellus' petitio (thus implicitly supporting my earlier point that the
petitio in itself was not sufficiently clear), and then goes into extensive
discussion of whether the legal reasoning in the petitio is correct and
whether Metellus has produced any evidence to support it. There is not the
slightest indication in the lex that a formula should do this, and there is
every indication that it should not, especially if we interpret it in the
way I've suggested above as the obvious, sensible, coherent, and Roman way
to read it. It was unfair to Metellus to criticize him at that stage for
failing to produce evidence: the lex doesn't say that the prosecutor has to
produce any evidence until the trial begins, the sensible interpretation of
the lex doesn't require it, the Roman formulary system did not require it,
and as far as I know Metellus had never been told by Albucius that he should
produce any. Nor was it remotely appropriate to discuss the legal reasoning
of the petitio in the formula. The lex does not provide any room at all for
such discussions in its description of the formula or in its example. The
place for analysis of the legal basis of the petitio is clearly chapter II
of the lex judiciaria, where the presiding magistrate has to decide whether
the petitio is 'incongruent', i.e. 'not supported by law, precedent or
common sense'. It could hardly be clearer in the lex: if a petitio says
that someone should be punished for X and the presiding magistrate's
intepretation of the law is that X is not illegal, then that's an
incongruent claim and the magistrate should dismiss it. What the magistrate
should not do is accept the petitio and then write a formula in which he
says that in his opinion the claim is legally flawed (i.e. incongruent)!
And then, finally, the formula fails to tell the judex what his task is at
all, which is the whole point of the formula. It does not give the judex
two clear options to choose between, which is what the judex needs because
the lex quite clearly gives him only two possible options when returning his
sententia. It does not specify any penalty to be imposed if the judex
condemns the accused, which is what the condemnatio is for and which is also
plainly required elsewhere in the lex, which refers in ch. XV and XVII to
the inclusion of a penalty in the formula. In short, the formula that was
issued in this case does not do *any* of the things the lex required it to
do except naming the judex, and it *does* do several things that are not
only not required by the lex but are clearly incompatible with it and that
betray at best a complete misunderstanding of the lex, including things that
were unfair in themselves such as criticizing the prosecutor for failing to
do something he wasn't required or asked to do, giving an opinion about the
prosecutor's legal reasoning, and, worst of all, utterly compromising the
impartiality of both the magistrate and the judex by telling the judex what
decision he should make about the case.

Well, when I saw that I was pretty perplexed, I can tell you. But even then
I hadn't fully understood the extent of Albucius' misinterpretation of the
Salician system. I did my best to make sense of the formula within the
context of the lex, and what I came up with was this: for some reason he
must have decided that, rather than dismissing the petitio, the appropriate
thing to do was to accept the petitio but then order the judex to
automatically absolve M. Hortensia on the grounds that the petitio was
incongruent. It was a bizarre way of doing things, but it was at least a
way of arriving at the same result as what ought to have happened earlier,
namely dismissing the petitio. It also had analogies in modern legal
systems: in many 'common law' countries, for example, if a jury has been
empanelled to hear a case and then it becomes clear to the judge that the
prosecution has no merit at all the judge will often order the jury to find
the accused not guilty without further ado. I thought Albucius was doing
something like that, because, well, that was the only way I could make any
sense at all of what he was doing.

The next step, then, was obviously for T. Julius the judex to do what the
presiding magistrate had instructed him to do. But this didn't happen. In
fact, what happened - imagine my bafflement, folks! - was that the trial
went ahead. Yes, that's right: the presiding magistrate had issued a
formula telling the judex that the prosecution had no merit and was legally
flawed, and then the trial carried on as if nothing had happened. What? I
mean, what? At this stage I could no longer make any sense at all of what
was going on, and I wrote to P. Memmius and to T. Julius to express my
concerns. Their responses showed several things. First, they showed that
neither of them was observing the clear division of roles in the lex
judiciaria between the judex (whose duty is to choose between the
prosecutor's case and the defence case) and the presiding magistrate (whose
duty is to ensure proper procedures are followed and to make decisions about
the admissibility or evidence, the management of the schedule, &c.). It was
clear, on the contrary, that the judex was making decisions about procedure
and was in charge of the schedule, and that the presiding magistrate
accepted no responsibility for ensuring that the judex applied the correct
interpretation of the law (in fact Albucius explicitly said that he could
not impose his interpretation of the law on Sabinus, although this is
precisely what he was supposed to do). In fact Sabinus, on top of making
decisions about procedure, even said that he had the power to decide what
penalty to impose, and could change his mind about this at any time during
the trial, showing a total misunderstanding of the leges Saliciae, which
make it quite clear that the penalty is to be determined by the presiding
magistrate in the formula and not by the judex, and that the penalty stated
in the formula is to be imposed automatically when the accused person is
condemned, with no possibility of changing it during the trial. Meanwhile
Albucius said that he could not disregard or radically reinterpret the leges
of Nova Roma in order to follow Roman custom or his own idea of what was
best, even though, as I've mentioned earlier, this is exactly what he had
done at least twice before in the court of these judicial proceedings. He
also said that the ancient Roman formulary system did not work like the
system created by the leges Saliciae, which shows, I suggest, that he had
completely misunderstood the leges Saliciae since they patently intend to
create, and do create, a system that works very very like the formulary
system. What's more, Albucius himself said during this discussion that he
found the lex judiciaria very difficult to understand, and expressed the
thought that perhaps part of the problem was his understanding of English.
And yet he was not prepared to enter into any discussion with me about what
the lex meant or how it ought to be interpreted, and he rejected the
possibility of using the ancient Roman system, which the preamble of the lex
specifically cites, as a guide to its interpretation. In fact he even
rejected the guidance that was included within the lex itself: when I
pointed out that the formula didn't match the example provided in ch. V of
the lex, or the explanation of how the example related to the earlier
provisions about the contents of the formula, he said that he regarded these
things as a non-mandatory explanation designed to help the magistrate, and
therefore he didn't feel obliged to follow them. Yes, you read that
correctly: he said he had a lot of trouble understanding the lex, and he
said that the example in the lex was there to help him understand it, and he
said that this was why he thought it was okay to do something completely
different from the example. I know, my mind boggled too. And perhaps even
more mind-boggling was the moment when he basically agreed with me that when
he interpreted the lex judiciaria in the way he had done he discovered that
the lex required him to do things that made very little sense and were often
entirely pointless, whereas my interpretation was coherent and made sense.
This did not, apparently, make him consider that there was any chance of his
interpretation being wrong and mine being right.

Well, after a few e-mails that discussion was duly closed down by both P.
Memmius and T. Julius, who made it clear that they did not want to hear any
more about it. So, on we went with the trial. There was still no clear
definition of what Q. Metellus had to prove before Sabinus could condemn M.
Hortensia. There was still no specified penalty to be imposed if he did.
We still had a judex who thought he was in charge of questions of procedure,
schedule, and law, and we still had a presiding magistrate who let the judex
carry on in this way. In fact I know, because Albucius told me, that they
had had some private e-mail correspondence about the case before the trial
began, and it may well be that they carried on doing so. You remember that
earlier I complained about the judex being given documents that had not been
seen by both parties. Private (i.e. secret) correspondence between the
judex and the presiding magistrate is even more worrying, because it means
the judex has seen things that *neither* party has seen. I have no idea
what they discussed, except that I know they talked about the schedule. I
suspect they also talked about the role of the judex, because otherwise it's
unlikely that both of them would have independently come up with the same
completely misconceived interpretation of the lex. They may have talked
about any number of things, including the merits of the case. We already
know that Albucius saw nothing wrong with giving Sabinus advice about what
decision to make, because that is precisely what he did in the formula, and
that is precisely what he would later do again in his call for a sententia.
Perhaps he did it privately as well. In any case, any correspondence
between the judex and the presiding magistrate should be shown to the
parties, otherwise they can have no idea what is being said and no
opportunity to respond to any points that might affect the judex' opinion
about the case. This is very basic stuff, people. Any lawyer in any
civilized country would be appalled at what was going on in this court.

So, anyway, it was time for opening speeches, and Metellus made his speech.
And now, at last, came the clarifications that I had been consistently
asking Albucius to require and that Albucius had not required: Metellus
voluntarily gave them, because he saw that it wouldn't be a fair trial
without them. He abandoned the original vague scope of the petitio actionis
and now said that there was only one act that he said was an abusus
potestatis, namely the second edictum issued by Major on 6 June. It was an
abusus potestatis, he argued, because she restricted C. Equitius' freedom to
participate in a public forum and because - and this is crucial - she knew
that it was illegal to do so. He asked Sabinus to condemn her only if he,
Metellus, could prove beyond reasonable doubt not only that she restricted
Cato's freedom but also that she knew it was illegal to do so. In my
opening argument I accepted and adopted this approach, and agreed that
Sabinus should not condemn Major unless Metellus proved beyond reasonable
doubt that she knew or believed she was doing something illegal. And I also
said this: 'In view of the agreement between the two parties about this
element - the necessity of knowledge, i.e. intention - I do not suppose it
is necessary to spend any more time on the point. But if, despite our
agreement, you feel inclined to doubt that this element is a necessary and
fundamental part of the case that must be proven to you, then I ask you to
say so now in order that I may try to persuade you of it.' Sabinus did not
say anything about it. But just to make absolutely sure, I contacted him
privately (sending a copy also to Albucius and to Metellus, because, as I've
mentioned, it is not appropriate for one party to say things to the judex
without the other party knowing) before I closed my case, and I asked, 'May
I assume that you do not need to be persuaded any further on this point, or
would you like to hear more argument about it?' He replied (again with
copies to Metellus and Albucius) that there was no need for me to say
anything more about it. So right up until the end of the trial, after
Metellus and I had both had our last opportunity to address any remaining
points of law or fact, both I and Metellus believed that if Sabinus was not
persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that Major believed she was doing
something illegal then he would absolve her, and we both believed that
Sabinus agreed.

Obviously this meant that Major's state of mind was an important issue in
the case: did she do something she believed to be illegal? Without proving
that, Metellus could not win the case. So I called various witnesses to
give evidence about this. I asked them whether they thought she would do
anything she believed was illegal. They all said they thought it was very
unlikely. Naturally enough, Metellus wanted to cross-examine them. But
Sabinus prevented him, saying, 'I'm sorry to say that the
questions you presented here have not any connection with the case...
Therefore these questions are not allowed.' There are two things to notice
here. The first is that Sabinus was making a decision about the
admissibility of evidence. The lex Salicia gives the judex no power to make
such a decision. On the contrary, every decision of this kind that is
specifically mentioned in the lex is said to be within the power of the
praetor, not of the judex. This is also in agreement with the Roman
formulary system. Moreover, ch. XIII says 'The praetor shall be the final
judge to determine what pieces of evidence are relevant to the case.' So
decisions about the relevance of evidence are not only implicitly but
explicitly the preserve of the presiding magistrate, not the judex. Sabinus
exercised a power that was not his, and Albucius allowed him to do so. The
second point is that Sabinus was, at least arguably, wrong. The questions
Metellus asked were designed to rebut Major's case that she did not do, and
would not have done, anything she thought was illegal - which, as I said
above, was a crucial part of what Metellus had to disprove in order to win.
He wanted to do this by undermining the credibility of one of my witnesses
and by directly challenging the statement of another who said that he had
never heard any suggestion that Major was contemplating acting illegally.
The questions, in my opinion, were entirely relevant to the case, and
Metellus ought to have been allowed to ask them. It was unfair to prevent
him, and it was also contrary to the lex Salicia for this decision to be
made by the judex.

And the trial went on. We made our closing remarks. Then came the part of
the process described by the lex judiciaria, ch. XIV: 'Once both parties
have presented their evidence, each party shall have the opportunity to make
one final statement in front of the judices, with the actor speaking in the
first place. Then the praetor shall call for a sententia (sentence) from the
judices, according to paragraph XV, reminding the judices that, in case of
doubt, they must *not* condemn the reus.' I'm just going to repeat that
last sentence: 'Then the praetor shall call for a sententia (sentence) from
the judices, according to paragraph XV, reminding the judices that, in case
of doubt, they must *not* condemn the reus'. What, then, does the presiding
magistrate have to do at this stage? He has to call for a sententia, i.e.
ask the judex to deliver his verdict, and he had to remind the judex not to
condemn the accused if he has any doubt about her guilt. Those are the two
things, and the only two things, that the lex calls for the presiding
magistrate to do at this stage.

Let's see what Albucius did:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Novaromatribunalis/message/360

Did you read it? All of it. Please, do read the whole thing. This is
important. We're near the end of my message, and this is possibly the most
important part of the whole thing.

Okay, now what did Albucius do here? What he did was this: he took over
Metellus' job of prosecuting the case, and he also took over Sabinus' job of
settling the case. Metellus, as I mentioned earlier, began the trial by
clarifying exactly what his accusation was: Major's second edictum of 6 June
was illegal, he said, and she knew it was illegal. That's what he set out
to prove, and that's the basis on which he wanted Sabinus to condemn her,
not on any other basis. Issuing that edictum is the only thing he said
amounted to a criminal offence, nothing else. If he didn't prove that
beyond reasonable doubt, then she should be absolved. That's what he said,
and that's what I said, and that's what Sabinus indicated he accepted. So
that's what he argued for, and that's what I argued against. That's what he
produced evidence to support, and that's what I produced evidence to refute.
Like good lawyers, we did not waste the court's time with anything that was
not directly relevant to that central question: was the second edictum of 6
June illegal, and did Major believe it was illegal? That's what the whole
trial was about, from start to finish. But the presiding magistrate
obviously wasn't happy with the way Metellus was doing his job, because
after all the evidence had been produced and all the arguments made, he
decided to mount a whole different prosecution of his own. He talks about
'a last argument of the actor, according which the violation, by Hortensia,
of the laws of Nova Roma would result first of the fact that her moderation
decisions have been vetoed, and second that she would have refused to obey
these vetos'. He 'considers' it, and he decides that 'it has been
demonstrated, from the pieces of evidence brought by both parties, that, on
this only point, former praetor Hortensia Maior "used (her) magisterial
powers to act against the lawful rights of a person", here G. Equitius Cato,
by re-issuing twice on June 6, and without legal base a measure of
moderation which should have been considered by her as having ended on June
1.' Let's be clear what's happening here. This is not 'a last argument of
the actor'. Metellus *never* argued that Major had committed any crime
whatsoever by means of refusing to obey vetoes. He made it absolutely clear
throughout the trial that the only relevance of the vetoes was as evidence
that she must have known she was doing something illegal. According to his
case, her refusal to obey vetoes was evidence of a crime, but it was not a
crime itself. The argument that 'the violation, by Hortensia, of the laws
of Nova Roma would result... of the fact... that she would have refused to
obey these vetoes' was *invented by the presiding magistrate of the this
trial* and was never even hinted at in this court until after both the
prosecutor and the advocate for the defence had closed their cases.

And there's a second point. At the risk of being tedious, let me remind you
once again that Metellus consistently throughout the trial said that there
was only one criminal edictum and it was the second edictum of 6 June. Only
one. I specifically asked him about this (message 323 in the court archive)
and he confirmed it (message 328). So all our arguments on both sides were
concerned with whether that one edictum was criminal or not. But what does
the presiding magistrate say? 'Hortensia Maior "used (her) magisterial
powers to act against the lawful rights of a person"... by re-issuing twice
on June 6... a measure of moderation...' *By re-issuing twice*. What he's
saying here is that the crime was issuing *both* the edicta of 6 June. That
is another thing that Metellus *never* said. This is not Albucius agreeing
with Metellus' argument; this is Albucius making up a whole new argument of
his own. And look, here's a third example of the same thing: 'its cause
cannot be find but in the will that Hortensia had at this time that G.
Equitius Cato be sanctioned, whatever the legality of such sanctions'.
*Whatever the legality of such sanctions*. In other words, he is saying
that Major is guilty because she did not care whether her actions were legal
or not. But once again this has nothing to do with what Metellus said. He
said that she was guilty because she knew, she *actually knew*, that she was
doing something illegal. Once again, I specifically asked him (message 323
again) to clarify this point: did he say that she could be found guilty on
the basis that she didn't care whether her actions were illegal or not, or
did he say she could only be guilty if she actually knew they were illegal;
again, he confirmed that his argument was based solely on the allegation
that she actually knew they were illegal (message 328). So once again all
our arguments and evidence on both sides were concerned with that point.
But then Albucius says she is guilty because she decided to sanction Cato
'whatever the legality of the sanctions'. Because she acted without caring
whether she was acting illegally or not. The prosecutor of the case - the
person whose very job it is to prove the accused guilty - said that this
would not be enough to make her guilty. But the presiding magistrate, whose
job is to be impartial, overruled the prosecutor and put forward his own
argument that she was guilty even if she didn't think she was acting
illegally.

Folks, there is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start,
but let's stick with the point I've just alluded to. The presiding
magistrate in a trial should not be putting forward prosecution arguments at
any stage. He is not the prosecutor. There's already somebody doing that
job, and, as it happens in this case, doing it well. It is not the
presiding magistrate's job. In fact if the presiding magistrate is doing
that then not only is he doing something that isn't his job, he's doing the
exact opposite of his job. He's supposed to be independent, impartial,
sitting above the arguments and just making sure the trial runs smoothly.
That's how it was in Roman times, and that's how it's clearly meant to be
under the leges Saliciae even if you read them in complete isolation from
Roman law, which they specifically tell you not to do. If the presiding
magistrate doesn't occupy that role and only that role, the whole system
makes absolutely no sense. It's like having a tennis match in which the
umpire suddenly climbs down from his chair, picks up a racket, and goes and
joins one of the players. Not only have you then got two players unfairly
competing against one, you've also got *no umpire*. And in fact it's worse
than that, because Albucius didn't just become a second prosecutor here. He
became a super-prosecutor. Because he's started out as the boss of the
whole show. He gave Sabinus his instructions. He talked him through the
schedule of the trial, not to mention anything else he may have said to him
in private e-mails that we don't know about. He is a magistrate with the
highest imperium you can get in peace-time, and this court was his court
that he created and that he was running. That's a huge amount of power and
influence. And then he deployed it on behalf of one party against the
other. This is not just some random guy turning up at court and having a go
at prosecuting after the first prosecutor has finished: this is Sabinus'
boss, who is also the highest magistrate in the state, telling Sabinus what
the right answer is. If you think that's fair, I know some delightful
military dictatorships where you'd absolutely love being put on trial.

But let's forget for a minute that the presiding magistrate should not have
been doing this at all. *When* did he do it? He did it after both parties
had closed their cases and there could be no more argument or evidence from
either side. We had spent the whole trial completely focused on proving or
disproving the case as Metellus had argued it. For every argument that
Metellus put forward I had an opportunity to respond to it. For every piece
of evidence he produced I had an opportunity to criticize it. And for every
argument and piece of evidence I deployed Metellus had an opportunity to
deal with it (except for Sabinus' improper rejection of his
cross-examination, which I've already mentioned). And *then* Albucius
reaches into his top hat and pulls out a whole new prosecution case, and I
had absolutely no chance whatsoever to say anything about it. I couldn't
point out its logical flaws, I couldn't say anything about how it misapplied
and misinterpreted the law, I couldn't produce any evidence to rebut its
factual allegations. It was pretty much the equivalent of putting Major on
trial a second time, with a whole new prosecution case, and not letting her
say a single word in her own defence. Have another look at that 'call for a
sententia'. See how it carefully examines and rejects my arguments against
the case it's putting forward? No, you don't, because there were no
arguments against that case, because I wasn't allowed to make any, because I
didn't have even the tiniest hint that that case was going to be happening
until it was too late.

And let's not even get into whether Albucius' arguments were right or not.
We really haven't got time for that. Let's not even ask ourselves whether
it's at all dodgy that Albucius decided Major was guilty because she
disobeyed vetoes, and whose vetoes were they exactly? Oh, that's right,
some of them were Albucius' vetoes! So basically he decided that she was
guilty because she did something he told her not to do. That doesn't in any
way undermine the impartiality and independence of this verdict, does it?
Oh, right, it does. Well, if only somebody had pointed out right at the
beginning of these proceedings that maybe it was a bad idea to have the
trial being presided over by a magistrate who had issued vetoes that were
likely to be used as evidence in the case! Oh, right, somebody did. But
never mind that. Let's move on to what happened next.

What happened next was Sabinus giving a verdict after hearing two different
prosecution cases: one by Metellus, one by Albucius. He condemned Major, so
he must have agreed with one of them but which one? What has Major actually
been found guilty of doing? This is important, people, because part of the
purpose of our criminal law is to deter people from doing things we don't
want them to do. And in order to be deterred, people need to know what it
actually is that they're being deterred from doing. Albucius said Major was
guilty because she disobeyed (his) vetoes, but Metellus never suggested
that. So was she condemned because she disobeyed vetoes or not? Does this
verdict mean that disobeying a veto is a criminal offence or doesn't it? We
have no idea. Metellus said that the crime was issuing the second edictum
of 6 June, but Albucius said that it was only a crime if you look at the two
edicta together. These are not only two different bases of guilt, they're
actually contradictory. Think about it: if both the edicta together make
one crime, then each edictum separately is not a crime (otherwise they'd be
two crimes, not one). So Metellus is saying that the second edictum on its
own was a crime, and Albucius is saying that the second edictum on its own
was *not* a crime. Which version did Sabinus find her guilty of? We don't
know. What is a future magistrate supposed to do with this information?
What exactly is a future magistrate supposed to be deterred from doing? We
have no idea! This verdict has no deterrent effect whatsoever because we
simply don't know what Major has actually been condemned for. By setting
himself up as a second prosecutor Albucius has not only achieved the unfair
and wrongful conviction of M. Hortensia, he has also single-handedly
defeated a major part of the social usefulness of the trial that he was in
charge of. And not only has this verdict, because of the way it came about,
been unfair to Major and unhelpful to the entire community, it's also done
no favours at all for the prosecutor. I want to say for the record that in
my opinion Metellus conducted himself unimpeachably throughout the trial.
He was cooperative and polite at every stage. When Sabinus set an
unrealistic schedule that would have been completely physically impossible
for me to meet, Metellus could have sat back and watched me miss the
deadlines and lose the case as a result, but he didn't: he supported my
objections and asked for a more realistic schedule. He clarified his
specific allegations and explicitly identified his interpretation of the
law, even when the presiding magistrate had consistently failed to require
him to do so, because he knew that justice demanded it. Metellus wanted a
fair fight, and he wanted to win it fairly. He didn't get one. He has been
cheated by this unfair judicial process just as M. Hortensia has, and just
as you have.

Wait, I feel like I've forgotten something. Oh yes, the call for a
sententia. Remember a little while ago I went over what the lex Salicia
says has to be in the call for a sententia, and then I mentioned the fact
that Albucius issued one that contained a whole load of stuff that shouldn't
have been in it, and that's what I've been talking about for the last six
paragraphs? Well, before we finish, let's just check whether the call for a
sententia at least did manage to include all the things the lex required.
It shouldn't be hard, because, remember, there were only two of them. It
had to 'call for a sententia' and it had to 'remind... the judices that, in
case of doubt, they must *not* condemn the reus'. Wait, what was that
second one? Hmm, I don't remember seeing anything like that in Albucius'
call for a sententia. Let's just check... nope, nothing. Nothing at all.
So, folks, if you've stuck with me this far and you've been saying to
yourse<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79245 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Re: On the trial of M. Hortensia
Irrational attitude? Oh really? And you base this on???

Vale,

Sulla

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...>wrote:

> Salve Pauline,
> of course: she's the one who killed Christ, destroyed the library of
> Alexandria, and killed off all native Americans .... Come on!
> Your phrase below is an example of the irrational attitude some people have
> against Hortensia Maior.
>
> Vale,
> Livia
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Timothy or Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@...>
> To: "Nova-Roma" <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 8:03 AM
> Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] On the trial of M. Hortensia
>
>
>
> Salve
>
> "I suppose the reason might have been one of political expediency:
> probably,
> though both magistrates knew that Major was innocent of the crime she was
> accused of, ...
>
> The ONLY thing that Maior is INNOCENT of is the Lindbergh kidnapping.
>
> Vale
>
> Paulinus
>
>
>
>
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> From: livia.plauta@...
> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 20:08:38 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] On the trial of M. Hortensia
>
>
>
>
>
>
> L. Livia Plauta omnibus sal.
>
> As usual it's a pleasure to read a post by A. Apollonius Cordus.
>
> It was very interesting to read what happened "behind the scenes" of the
> trial (even though more things might have been happening that even
> Apollonius didn't know about).
>
> When the sentence was published I was traveling, with little Internet
> access, so I missed the window of opportunity to comment, but I did find
> weird that the sententia by Sabinus had exactly the same wording as the
> call
> for a sententia by Albucius.
>
> I'm not really familiar with the leges Saliciae, so I wasn't aware of the
> extent to which the call for a sententia was incompatible with said leges.
>
> I know Sabinus as a very intelligent and independent man, who is not afraid
> of acting according to his own opinions, even at the cost of getting in
> conflict with others, and I know that by no means does he always agree with
> Albucius, so when I saw the sententia I assumed that he must have had a
> compelling reason for following Albucius' instructions to the letter, and I
> suspected that the sententia had been agreed on by both magistrates before
> the "call" was published.
> I suppose the reason might have been one of political expediency: probably,
> though both magistrates knew that Major was innocent of the crime she was
> accused of, they thought she deserved a lesson for acting several times
> without much diplomacy, and possibly they feared a negative reaction by
> public opinion in case she was aquitted.
> They were probably right in their assessment, since public opinon in the
> whole doesn't seem very outraged by Major's condemnation.
> However, whatever the reason for their behaviour, I now realize that the
> two
> magistrates did create a dangerous precedent.
>
> For the situation at hand the only solution seems to be a lex invalidating
> the sentence.
> For the future we have to hope that the situation will be solved by having
> praetors, and that the praetors will follow procedure and nobody will think
> of suggesting in public, word by word, the sentence to a judge.
>
> I also suggest that the accused in future learn from Major's mistake, and
> do
> not agree to a jury composed by one judge only.
>
> Optime valete,
> Livia
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "A. Apollónius Cordus" <jamie.k.johnston@...>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 1:10 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] On the trial of M. Hortensia
>
> A. Apollonius omnibus sal.
>
> As you may remember, I don't like participating in this e-mail list these
> days. Some of you may be able to sympathize. So I hope you'll understand
> that I wouldn't be here, and wouldn't trouble you with this message, if I
> didn't think it fairly important.
>
> I say that at the outset because it's going to be a very long message - I
> could split it into sections but that would unnecessarily fill the inboxes
> of those who have no interest in the topic - and because I want to
> encourage
> you to read it anyway. I want you to read it whether or not you like M.
> Hortensia, whether or not you believe she committed the crime for which she
> was prosecuted, whether or not you care. I want you to read it if you care
> about standards of fairness and justice in this community.
>
> And one last thing before I start: this message is not about whether M.
> Hortensia is guilty. As her advocate, it was my duty to argue that she was
> not. The trial is over, and I am not her advocate any more. She is still
> my friend, but so is Q. Metellus, who prosecuted her, and so (I hope) is C.
> Equitius, who was the person whose rights she was prosecuted for
> infringing.
> In short, I have no professional or personal stake in this case any more.
> I'm here as a private individual who happens to have considerably more
> knowledge of what went on during these legal proceedings than almost all of
> you, and who is troubled by that knowledge, and who thinks you should be
> troubled too.
>
> At some time before 17 June this year the consul P. Memmius received a
> petitio actionis from Q. Metellus. A petitio actionis, literally 'the
> seeking of a judicial process', is essentially a request for permission to
> take somebody to court. The receipt of such a request triggers the
> beginning of the process prescribed by the lex Salicia judiciaria
> (supplemented by the lex Salicia poenalis). Now, anyone at all familiar
> with Roman legal procedure will recognize the process set out there as a
> very close copy of what's called the 'formulary system', which was one of
> the main ways ancient Roman magistrates administered justice from about 125
> BC to the end of the republic and after. In fact the Salician procedure is,
> on paper, quite possibly Nova Roma's most accurate legislative reproduction
> of an ancient Roman institution or process. But of course the lex Salicia
> isn't a complete description of every detail and every contigency of the
> formulary system, and its English is occasionally imperfect or imprecise,
> so
> it still needs to be interpreted by the magistrates who are applying it in
> a
> given case.
>
> The need for interpretation evidently arose as soon as Albucius received
> this petitio. Because, you see, he was a consul, and the lex Salicia
> doesn't give consules any power to accept or reject or otherwise deal with
> petitiones actionis. It only mentions praetores. But at that time there
> were no praetores. What was he to do? Other leges were of no assistance.
> The lex constitutiva says nothing at all about judicial proceedings, and
> does not give any magistrate any power to deal with such proceedings.
> Within the written law of Nova Roma there is nothing that explicitly gives
> any ordinary magistrate any judicial powers except the leges Saliciae. Now,
> some people in Nova Roma believe that the lex constitutiva and the written
> leges made under its authority are the only legitimate source of any
> magistrate's power, and that if neither the lex constitutiva nor any other
> lex explictly says that a magistrate can do something then that magistrate
> can't do that thing. There are others who say that there are other sources
> of law, principally ancient Roman law and custom, that can properly be used
> to supplement the written law as long as the written law doesn't explicitly
> contradict them. We don't need to consider which of those groups is right.
> We need only observe that the consul must be in the latter group, because
> after due consideration he decided that he, as consul, did have the power
> to
> deal with the petitio, despite the fact that nothing can be found in the
> written law of Nova Roma that gives him this power. He must, in fact, have
> drawn this power from ancient Roman law and practice: of course in the
> ancient republic a consul did have the power to preside over judicial
> proceedings. Personally, for what it's worth, I agree with him.
>
> So Albucius then had to consider whether to accept or reject the petitio,
> applying the test in chapter II of the lex Salicia judiciaria. The lex
> Salicia doesn't say that the accused person needs to be notified at this
> stage or allowed to say anything about it. But of course we should bear in
> mind that in the formulary procedure, on which the lex Salicia is very
> closely based, the accused person would necessarily have been physically
> present at this stage and would have been able to (and in fact would have
> been asked to) participate in the discussion. We should also bear in mind
> that, regardless of Roman precedent, it is probably sensible for a
> magistrate to involve the accused person at this stage, in case that person
> is able to point out a good reason why the petitio should not be accepted;
> otherwise the the good reason will only be pointed out *after* the
> magistrate has already accepted the petitio, and the magistrate will have
> revisit the decision to accept it. Nonetheless, I don't say that there was
> any legal obligation on Albucius to involve Major in things at this stage,
> and he decided not to. Whether he had any discussions with Metellus about
> it I don't know. But he accepted the petitio and, in accordance with the
> lex, told Major that he had done so.
>
> This is, of course, where I became involved, because Major asked me to be
> her advocate. I quickly got in touch with Albucius and Metellus to say that
> I was acting as advocate and that the first thing I would be doing was to
> request a reconsideration of the decision to accept the petitio because it
> did not, I argued, pass the legal test in ch. II of the lex. At this point
> two curious and surprising things happened.
>
> The first was that Albucius indicated that he was not prepared to
> communicate with me directly about the case at this stage. This was, he
> later explained, because the lex Salicia does not explicitly say that
> advocates can be used until the trial itself begins, and he did not want to
> do anything that was not explicitly required by the lex. If you contrast
> this with his decision that he had the power to deal with the petitio
> despite having no explicit authority in written law to do so, you will see
> why I call this curious and surprising.
>
> The second curious and surprising thing was that Albucius told Major that
> he
> would not consider any challenge to his acceptance of the petitio. He had
> not given her, or anyone else as far as I know, a chance to make any
> comments before he accepted the petitio about whether it passed the legal
> test for acceptance, and he was not going to give her a chance to make such
> comments after he had accepted it. There was to be no opportunity for Major
> to point out what she said were solid legal reasons why the petitio was not
> acceptable according to the test set out in the lex Salicia. Albucius did
> not explain his refusal to hear these arguments. He had decided that the
> petitio passed the test. He must presumably have believed, therefore,
> either that it was totally impossible that he had missed anything when he
> made that decision, or else that it didn't matter whether his decision was
> legally right or wrong. Curious and surprising, I say again; and I'm going
> to go a little further and suggest that perhaps it's beginning to be
> slightly worrying.
>
> So the process continued. P. Memmius invited both parties to make
> representations to him before he drew up the formula. The lex Salicia did
> not explicitly require him to do this: in fact it gives no indication at
> all
> that anything should be done between notifying the parties that the petitio
> has been accepted and issuing the formula. But neither does the lex say
> that this should not happen, and it is both eminently sensible and in
> accordance with the way the Roman formulary procedure worked, and I praise
> Albucius for doing it. I do note, however, that - as I'm sure you've
> noticed already - his position regarding exactly how the lex should be
> interpreted and applied seemed at this point to be oscillating quite
> dramatically between 'I shall do nothing that the lex does not explicitly
> require me to do' and 'I shall do what I think appropriate so long as the
> lex does not forbid it.'
>
> Anyway, I did duly make representations to him on M. Hortensia's behalf.
> Some of them were about procedure. I argued, for example, that there was a
> substantial risk that he would be seen as prejudiced against Major, in the
> sense that he would appear to have already made up his mind about important
> disputed issues in the case: he had made public statements criticizing
> Major's decisions to place people on moderation (which was what the case
> was
> all about) and had vetoed two of those decisions himself, and moreover
> there
> were indications that Metellus would actually be using those vetoes as
> evidence that the decisions in question were illegal. This raised the
> possibility that the court would be considering questions that its
> presiding
> magistrate had already expressed his opinion about in public, and making
> its
> decision based on evidence that included statements and actions by the
> presiding magistrate; clearly, I said, there was a serious risk that the
> court would not be seen as independent and unbiased. I also argued that the
> petitio actionis was too vague for Major to respond to it or to make useful
> suggestions about what the formula ought to say, and more detail ought to
> be
> provided by Metellus before the formula was drawn up. In particular, I
> proposed that Albucius adopt the procedure that was followed at this point
> under the formulary system, namely that the prosecutor should write a
> proposed formula and the accused should then respond to it. I had real
> hopes that he might do this, since he had already followed the formulary
> procedure by holding this discussion before writing the formula. At the
> same time, I also put forward as much of a defence to the substance of the
> charge as Major was able to provide at that point, given the vagueness of
> the allegations. This included raising various issues related to the
> interpretation of the offence as it was defined in the lex Salicia
> poenalis,
> ch. 17.1.
>
> To my considerable surprise, the next thing Albucius did was to issue a
> formula. In this formula, he said he had 'duly taken in account' my
> arguments, but he did not say what his decisions were about any of the
> questions they raised, let alone give any reasons for those decisions. He
> simply did not give any indication of having made any attempt to resolve
> them. He had evidently decided to go ahead as presiding magistrate in spite
> of my suggestion that he might appear prejudiced: had he decided that there
> was no risk, or that there was a risk but it didn't matter, or something
> else? He had evidently decided not to ask Metellus to give any more detail
> about his allegations or to propose a draft formula, but he hadn't told
> Major that he wasn't going to do this, so right up to the issuing of the
> formula we had no idea whether we were going to get any more details or not
> and whether we would have to respond to a proposed formula. Does it matter?
> you may ask. It does matter, for three main reasons. First, any decision
> by a magistrate can be overruled by that magistrate's colleague, and appeal
> to another magistrate to do exactly this was a well-established part of
> ancient Roman judicial process. But in order to ask a magistrate to
> overrule his colleague's decision, you have to actually know what that
> decision is. By not telling us what he had decided, Albucius made it
> impossible for us to do anything to challenge those decisions. Secondly,
> even if we had not wanted to appeal against any of those decisions, we
> needed to know what they were in order to know how the trial was going to
> proceed. For example, I had also put forward various arguments about what
> would happen if the case were transferred to another presiding magistrate.
> I'd done this partly in case Albucius accepted my argument that he should
> not preside over the case himself, and partly because elections for the
> praetura were coming up and I thought it was quite possible that he was
> intending to issue the formula, then give Metellus some time to collect
> evidence (which was normal in ancient Roman trials), and then, after new
> praetores had been elected, to hand over the case to one of them. His
> failure to respond to these arguments or tell us what he had decided meant
> that we had no idea how he intended to deal with this issue: would he
> transfer it to another magistrate or keep it himself? If he transferred it,
> would he expect the new magistrate to follow his formula? We didn't know,
> and therefore we couldn't plan. And the third reason this failure matters,
> which is perhaps the most important reason, is that without giving
> on-the-record responses to my arguments he left the questions I'd raised
> unresolved, as far as anyone could tell (or can tell now). How can we be
> satisfied that these questions were properly dealt with, especially when
> one
> of them concerns doubts about the independence and objectivity of the
> presiding magistrate himself, if we have no idea what his decisions were
> and
> how he justified them? At this point I can tell you that I was very
> seriously worried about the way these proceedings were being conducted.
>
> At the same time that Albucius said he had 'duly taken in account' the
> documents I'd sent him, he also said that these 'will be sent to the
> tribunal', i.e. to the judex, who was to be T. Julius. The person who was
> going to actually decide the outcome of the case. There are two things
> about this that are a bit worrying. One is that there was no reason to send
> the documents to Sabinus. They were documents about the formula, how it
> should be written, whether it should be written at all, what should be in
> it. Those things were a matter for Albucius alone to decide, and he had
> done so. He did not give any indication in advance that they would be given
> to the judex. There was no reason to give them to the judex because they
> were not designed to have anything to do with the matters that the judex
> had
> to consider. In this particular case I couldn't see anything that would
> actually cause a problem if the judex saw it, so I didn't make any formal
> objection; but the fact that Albucius decided, without consultation and
> without warning, to send the judex documents that weren't intended for his
> consumption is another indication of a not entirely reassuring attitude to
> the proceedings. What's more important - and this really is important - is
> that the judex should on no account have had access to any documents that
> were not also available to both parties. And it seems that he did. Because
> Albucius' comment about taking the documents into account and sending them
> to the judex was not just about the documents I'd sent, but about 'the
> various documents sent to me, specially by the reus'. Which implies, at
> least to me, that there were some other documents that were *not* sent by
> the accused, Major, which must presumably have been sent by the only other
> person involved, namely Metellus. We had not seen these documents. We had
> had no opportunity to respond to them. And, for all I know, Metellus would
> never have seen the documents I sent either, if not for the fact that I had
> sent him copies myself. Now, it would have been bad enough if Albucius had
> received documents that we hadn't seen; but what's much worse is that these
> documents were then sent to the judex, and we still hadn't seen them.
> Meaning that the judex, who had to make the ultimate decision, would be
> making that decision based on documents that we hadn't seen and couldn't
> challenge, disagree with, explain, accept, agree with, or respond to in any
> way at all. That would not have been allowed in an ancient Roman court, it
> would not be allowed in the criminal courts where I work in the UK, and
> there is nothing anywhere in the written law of Nova Roma that suggests it
> should happen here.
>
> At this point I should say something about the appointment of the judex. I
> think someone may have pointed out on this e-mail list already that this is
> in contravention of the lex Salicia poenalis, ch. 10.1, which says that a
> case like this ought to have been heard by a panel of ten judices. Albucius
> was aware of this, and discussed it with me (and perhaps with Metellus too:
> I don't know, because this was another occasion on which things were
> allowed
> to be said by one party without the other party knowing what was said), and
> after I had consulted my client I informed him that she did not object to
> having T. Julius as a single judex. So I do not complain about this. But
> once again I note that this appears to be Albucius not only adding to but
> actually pretty much overriding the written law according to his own view
> of
> what was appropriate. I just ask you to remember this if we ever in this
> story find him justifying any particular procedural decision by saying that
> he did exactly what was required by the lex and did not feel that he could
> legitimately do anything different.
>
> Now, let's talk about the formula itself, shall we? I think we should,
> because it's a remarkable document. It's remarkable in bearing almost no
> resemblance whatsoever to an ancient Roman formula, to what the lex Salicia
> judiciaria clearly intends a formula to be, or to anything that could
> possibly make sense within the system that the leges Saliciae create. But
> before we look at the formula in detail, we need to take a step back and
> look at the Salician system as a whole. Because one of the best ways to
> understand a piece of legislation, and therefore to interpret it when it is
> unclear, is to look at it as a whole and try to understand what it is
> supposed to accomplish. I've already said something about its similarity to
> the ancient Roman formulary system, but let's put that aside for a moment
> and just look at it in its own terms. Its first substantive provision, ch.
> I, says, 'Any citizen of Nova Roma shall be able to bring an action against
> another citizen of Nova Roma.' So it's clear immediately that we're dealing
> with a system that's fundamentally about disputes between citizens. It
> isn't about the state against the citizen, or the citizen against the
> state.
> It isn't about the court having to deal with a certain situation with the
> help of citizens. It's about two citizens having a dispute about a
> particular thing and the court providing a mechanism to settle that
> dispute.
> More light is shed on the nature of the system by ch. III: 'If the claim is
> dismissed by the praetores, the actor shall be able to present his case
> again to the praetores in the future, waiting for two new praetores to be
> elected by the Comitia if necessary.' What that tells us is this: if
> someone brings a complaint to the court and that complaint is badly framed
> or doesn't fit within the framework of the law or has some other flaw, it
> is
> not up to the court to investigate or to try to help that person shape his
> complaint into something that would be valid and acceptable. The court is
> not supposed to help the parties or take over parts of their jobs. It's
> their dispute, and the court's job is simply to arbitrate by choosing one
> side or the other as the winner. I'll pass over the chapters that deal
> specifically with the formula because I'll need to come back to them soon,
> but it's enough for now to say that the formula 'instructs the judices on
> the decision they must take'. Let's move on to the trial itself, and to ch.
> XII: 'The actor shall present evidence to back his demands, and then the
> reus shall present evidence to back his defense.' This will sound very
> familiar to North Americans, Britons, Australians, New Zealanders, and many
> others, but we should bear in mind that it isn't the way all trials work in
> every part of the world. There are some legal systems, called inquisitorial
> systems, in which the judge will take an active role in investigating the
> complaint that's been raised by gathering facts, questioning witnesses, and
> ordering documents to be produced. The alternative, namely an adversarial
> system, is what is familiar in countries that inherited the British legal
> system, as well as in many international tribunals and others: the judge is
> expected to act as a detached arbiter, letting the two sides produce their
> own evidence and ultimately choosing between them. The lex Salicia quite
> clearly envisages an adversarial system, not an inquisitorial one. It's up
> to the two parties to put forward their own evidence and arguments. The
> court is not there to help either side or to become involved in the case.
> Nor is anyone else expected to get involved or put forward evidence or
> arguments. No one else is mentioned in the section that deals with the
> trial process except the praetor, and the only thing it says about that is
> that '[t]he praetor shall be the final judge to determine what pieces of
> evidence are relevant to the case.' Nothing about producing evidence or
> putting forward arguments or making statements. So it's very clearly an
> adversarial system. And a final thing that makes this even clearer is what
> happens at the end of the trial. According to ch. XV, after the parties
> have finished presenting their evidence and arguments the praetor then
> 'call[s] for sententia' and the judices vote. They have only two options:
> to condemn or to absolve the accused. They can't give reasons for their
> decision; they can't decide that the truth lies somewhere in between the
> two
> options they've been presented with. All they can do is award the victory
> to one side or the other. Another feature of the system that's evident from
> the lex is that there's a division of labour between the praetor and the
> judex. The praetor is in charge at the initial stage of receiving the
> petitio, deciding whether it's acceptable, and, if it is, drawing up a
> formula. After that the praetor continues to be involved, but only on
> procedural and technical points: whether evidence is or is not admissible,
> deciding whether the trial should be public or secret, when to call for the
> judices to vote. In other words the magistrate is in charge of procedure
> and of keeping the trial running. What the judex does is to actually hear
> the evidence and the arguments and make the decision. There's no indication
> that the judex is supposed to have anything to do with procedure: all the
> procedural points that are mentioned are explicitly assigned to the
> praetor.
> The only thing the judex is explicitly commanded to do is to vote.
>
> Let's now go back to that point about the resemblance to ancient Roman
> procedure. Because it's possible that many of the things the lex
> specifically says are consistent with the ancient procedure but it still
> has
> a different over-all character. Except, no, it has exactly the same
> over-all character! The formulary system was adversarial, not
> inquisitorial. The formulary system didn't involve the magistrate helping
> either side or taking over any part of their jobs. The formulary system
> didn't allow anyone to present evidence and arguments except the two
> parties
> involved in the dispute. The formulary system had a separation of roles
> between the magistrate and the judex, in which the magistrate handled
> procedure and technical points while the judex listened to the evidence and
> arguments and then made the decision, which could only be one option or the
> other. The whole design of the system is the same. But still, if only we
> had some sort of hint that this was what the lex was intended to do. Maybe
> if we look at the preamble, where it says, 'These procedures are based on
> the Roman republican procedural model, both because it probably is the
> model
> that best suits Nova Roma and because it is the basis for all the
> procedural
> systems of modern Western nations. Some concessions to Nova Roma's
> particular structure have had to be made; but, in spirit, it follows the
> ancient Roman procedure.' Yeah, that would do. In fact I'd say that's
> pretty much the legislative equivalent of hitting a magistrate round the
> face with a kipper and saying 'Interpret this lex in accordance with the
> spirit of the ancient procedures it's explicitly based on!' Wouldn't you?
>
> It's important to get all that clear in our minds before we look at what
> the
> lex says the formula should be like, because this bit of the lex is, if you
> look at it on its own, not all that clear. I'm going to quote it in full:
>
> ---
> V. Once a claim has been accepted by a praetor, that same praetor shall
> prepare a formula to present to the iudices. The formula shall consist of a
> logical statement that instructs the iudices on the decision they must
> take.
> The formula shall be structured into four parts: institutio iudicis,
> intentio, demonstratio and condemnatio. An explanation of each part
> follows:
>
> A. INSTITVTIO IVDICIS: This clause appoints a certain iudex to judge the
> case (see below).
>
> B. INTENTIO: This part expresses the claim of the actor; i.e., it shall
> express what the actor seeks by petitioning the praetor. There are two
> kinds
> of intentio: intentio certa, when the facts that lead to the actor's claim
> are so obvious that they do not need to be proved, and intentio incerta,
> when the actor must prove the facts that justify his claim.
>
> Example: Intentio Certa: "According to the contract signed by Titius..."
> Intentio Incerta: "If it is proved that Ticius owes Gaius 1,000 sestertii,
> Gaius shall pay Ticius that same amount".
>
> C. DEMONSTRATIO: This is the clause that further defines an intentio
> incerta.
>
> D. CONDEMNATIO: This is the clause that allows the iudices to condemn or
> absolve.
>
> Example: a formula could be something like this: "Let Sulpicius be the
> iudex. If it is proved that Ticius owes Gaius 1,000 sestertii, you, iudex,
> shall condemn Ticius to pay 1,000 sestertii to Gaius; else, you shall
> acquit
> Ticius."
>
> The clauses would be: Institutio Iudicis: "Let Sulpicius be the iudex."
> Demonstratio: "If it is proved that ..." Intentio: "... Ticius owes Gaius
> 1,000 sestertii ..." Condemnatio: "... you, iudex, shall condemn Ticius to
> pay 1,000 sestertii to Gaius; otherwise, you shall acquit Ticius."
> ---
>
> There it is. Now, you can get bogged down in some of these phrases. What
> does 'express' mean in B? What does 'further define' mean in C? And so on.
> But the lex also gives you a handy example, which makes it pretty clear:
> 'Let Sulpicius be the judex. If it is proved that Ticius owes Gaius HS
> 1,000, you, judex, shall condemn Ticius to pay HS 1,000 to Gaius;
> otherwise,
> you shall acquit Gaius.' And it tells you which bit is which. 'Let
> Sulpicius be the judex'. That's the institutio judicis, the clause that
> 'appoints a certain judex to judge the case'. Okay, so you choose a judex
> and then you say 'Let [that person] be judex', that's pretty simple. Next
> you have a demonstratio that 'further defines' the next bit. How does it do
> that? Well, apparently it does that by saying 'If it is proved that...' I
> admit I'm not entirely sure how that counts as 'further defining', but I
> suspect it probably means that it further limits (which is what 'defines'
> literally means) the grammatical and procedural role of the next clause. So
> without the 'If' clause you'd just have a formula saying 'Ticius owes Gaius
> HS 1,000'. But then you add the demonstratio and it says 'If it is proved
> that Ticius owes Gaius...' So it makes it clear (demonstrat) that the
> following clause is what the prosecutor has to prove. The next bit, the
> intentio, 'express the claim of the actor' by basically summarizing the
> prosecutor's allegations. The prosecutor says 'Ticius owes me HS 1,000!'.
> The intentio says 'Ticius owes Gaius HS 1,000'. Very straightforward. And
> finally the condemnatio, which 'allows the judices to condemn or absolve'.
> So it says that the judex can condemn Ticius, and says what to condemn him
> to do (i.e. what the penalty is), or acquit him. And combined with the
> demonstratio (the 'if' clause) it tells the judex in what circumstances to
> condemn and in what circumstances to acquit. It all makes a fair bit of
> sense when you use the helpful example. And you can cross-check this with
> the wider overview of the system that we've just looked at to make sure it
> fits with that. Which it does! It's an adversarial system, hence the
> instruction to the judex is to wait and see whether the prosecutor proves
> his allegation or not, and then to give the appropriate verdict by choosing
> one or the other option (he has proved it, condemno, or he hasn't proved
> it,
> absolvo). It's got that division of labour, because it contains the judex'
> instructions for the whole trial: just sit there and work out whether Gaius
> has proved it or not. It doesn't say anything about making procedural
> decisions or managing the progress of the case. Just one simple but
> important task. And, just in case we aren't completely happy with that
> interpretation, let's cross-check it again by considering the ancient
> formulary procedure that the lex itself explicitly tells us is the spirit
> of
> the system it creates. What do we find? We find that the example given is
> pretty much a direct translation of an actual Roman formula from an actual
> Roman legal text-book, and that it's analyzed into exactly the same
> constituent parts as the Romans analyzed their formulae into. Success! Now
> we understand what a formula should do: it should name the judex, take the
> allegation of the prosecutor, put it into the form of a conditional
> sentence, and tell the judex to condemn the accused if the allegation is
> proved and to acquit if it isn't. So in the the case of M. Hortensia I was
> expecting a formula something like this: 'Let [name] be judex. If it is
> proved that M. Hortensia [did something that amounts to abusus potestatis],
> you, judex, shall condemn M. Hortensia to [some specific penalty];
> otherwise, you shall acquit her.' I didn't know quite what was going to go
> into those brackets because, as I've said, the allegation in the petitio
> actionis was pretty vague, but I expected that the necessary detail would
> be
> given so that the judex would know what he was actually supposed to be
> doing.
>
> Shall we look at the actual formula? Let's do that. Here it is. Please
> read it. All of it:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Novaromatribunalis/message/314
>
> Finished? Well, that wasn't quite what we were expecting, was it? In fact
> it looks nothing like a Roman formula, nothing like the sort of formula the
> lex appears to have in mind, and nothing like the example that is
> specifically set out in the lex. Its article 2 merely states that 'the
> present case is... an "intentio incerta"', which shows an obvious failure
> to
> understand the lex. The lex says very clearly that 'intentio' is the name
> of part of the formula and an 'intentio incerta' is a type of intentio to
> be
> used in certain types of case: an intentio incerta is not a type of case,
> it
> is a type of intentio. The lex does not require the formula to specify
> whether the intentio is certa or incerta, and the example provided in the
> lex doesn't do this. The section of the formula titled 'demonstratio' has
> nothing whatsoever in common with the demonstratio of the example in the
> lex, and in fact nowhere in the entire formula is there even a trace of an
> 'if' clause. Nor does the formula tell the judex in what circumstances to
> absolve or condemn: it simply advises him to do one and not to do the
> other.
> And in fact this brings me to what's even worse about this formula: it
> isn't
> just utterly inadequate, it's completely incompatible with the obvious
> interpretation of the lex and of the principles of the system the lex is
> there to create. It clearly has no truck at all with the idea of the
> presiding magistrate being an impartial figure who doesn't intervene to
> help
> either side or to contribute his own arguments or evidence. It 'interprets'
> Q. Metellus' petitio (thus implicitly supporting my earlier point that the
> petitio in itself was not sufficiently clear), and then goes into extensive
> discussion of whether the legal reasoning in the petitio is correct and
> whether Metellus has produced any evidence to support it. There is not the
> slightest indication in the lex that a formula should do this, and there is
> every indication that it should not, especially if we interpret it in the
> way I've suggested above as the obvious, sensible, coherent, and Roman way
> to read it. It was unfair to Metellus to criticize him at that stage for
> failing to produce evidence: the lex doesn't say that the prosecutor has to
> produce any evidence until the trial begins, the sensible interpretation of
> the lex doesn't require it, the Roman formulary system did not require it,
> and as far as I know Metellus had never been told by Albucius that he
> should
> produce any. Nor was it remotely appropriate to discuss the legal reasoning
> of the petitio in the formula. The lex does not provide any room at all for
> such discussions in its description of the formula or in its example. The
> place for analysis of the legal basis of the petitio is clearly chapter II
> of the lex judiciaria, where the presiding magistrate has to decide whether
> the petitio is 'incongruent', i.e. 'not supported by law, precedent or
> common sense'. It could hardly be clearer in the lex: if a petitio says
> that someone should be punished for X and the presiding magistrate's
> intepretation of the law is that X is not illegal, then that's an
> incongruent claim and the magistrate should dismiss it. What the magistrate
> should not do is accept the petitio and then write a formula in which he
> says that in his opinion the claim is legally flawed (i.e. incongruent)!
> And then, finally, the formula fails to tell the judex what his task is at
> all, which is the whole point of the formula. It does not give the judex
> two clear options to choose between, which is what the judex needs because
> the lex quite clearly gives him only two possible options when returning
> his
> sententia. It does not specify any penalty to be imposed if the judex
> condemns the accused, which is what the condemnatio is for and which is
> also
> plainly required elsewhere in the lex, which refers in ch. XV and XVII to
> the inclusion of a penalty in the formula. In short, the formula that was
> issued in this case does not do *any* of the things the lex required it to
> do except naming the judex, and it *does* do several things that are not
> only not required by the lex but are clearly incompatible with it and that
> betray at best a complete misunderstanding of the lex, including things
> that
> were unfair in themselves such as criticizing the prosecutor for failing to
> do something he wasn't required or asked to do, giving an opinion about the
> prosecutor's legal reasoning, and, worst of all, utterly compromising the
> impartiality of both the magistrate and the judex by telling the judex what
> decision he should make about the case.
>
> Well, when I saw that I was pretty perplexed, I can tell you. But even then
> I hadn't fully understood the extent of Albucius' misinterpretation of the
> Salician system. I did my best to make sense of the formula within the
> context of the lex, and what I came up with was this: for some reason he
> must have decided that, rather than dismissing the petitio, the appropriate
> thing to do was to accept the petitio but then order the judex to
> automatically absolve M. Hortensia on the grounds that the petitio was
> incongruent. It was a bizarre way of doing things, but it was at least a
> way of arriving at the same result as what ought to have happened earlier,
> namely dismissing the petitio. It also had analogies in modern legal
> systems: in many 'common law' countries, for example, if a jury has been
> empanelled to hear a case and then it becomes clear to the judge that the
> prosecution has no merit at all the judge will often order the jury to find
> the accused not guilty without further ado. I thought Albucius was doing
> something like that, because, well, that was the only way I could make any
> sense at all of what he was doing.
>
> The next step, then, was obviously for T. Julius the judex to do what the
> presiding magistrate had instructed him to do. But this didn't happen. In
> fact, what happened - imagine my bafflement, folks! - was that the trial
> went ahead. Yes, that's right: the presiding magistrate had issued a
> formula telling the judex that the prosecution had no merit and was legally
> flawed, and then the trial carried on as if nothing had happened. What? I
> mean, what? At this stage I could no longer make any sense at all of what
> was going on, and I wrote to P. Memmius and to T. Julius to express my
> concerns. Their responses showed several things. First, they showed that
> neither of them was observing the clear division of roles in the lex
> judiciaria between the judex (whose duty is to choose between the
> prosecutor's case and the defence case) and the presiding magistrate (whose
> duty is to ensure proper procedures are followed and to make decisions
> about
> the admissibility or evidence, the management of the schedule, &c.). It was
> clear, on the contrary, that the judex was making decisions about procedure
> and was in charge of the schedule, and that the presiding magistrate
> accepted no responsibility for ensuring that the judex applied the correct
> interpretation of the law (in fact Albucius explicitly said that he could
> not impose his interpretation of the law on Sabinus, although this is
> precisely what he was supposed to do). In fact Sabinus, on top of making
> decisions about procedure, even said that he had the power to decide what
> penalty to impose, and could change his mind about this at any time during
> the trial, showing a total misunderstanding of the leges Saliciae, which
> make it quite clear that the penalty is to be determined by the presiding
> magistrate in the formula and not by the judex, and that the penalty stated
> in the formula is to be imposed automatically when the accused person is
> condemned, with no possibility of changing it during the trial. Meanwhile
> Albucius said that he could not disregard or radically reinterpret the
> leges
> of Nova Roma in order to follow Roman custom or his own idea of what was
> best, even though, as I've mentioned earlier, this is exactly what he had
> done at least twice before in the court of these judicial proceedings. He
> also said that the ancient Roman formulary system did not work like the
> system created by the leges Saliciae, which shows, I suggest, that he had
> completely misunderstood the leges Saliciae since they patently intend to
> create, and do create, a system that works very very like the formulary
> system. What's more, Albucius himself said during this discussion that he
> found the lex judiciaria very difficult to understand, and expressed the
> thought that perhaps part of the problem was his understanding of English.
> And yet he was not prepared to enter into any discussion with me about what
> the lex meant or how it ought to be interpreted, and he rejected the
> possibility of using the ancient Roman system, which the preamble of the
> lex
> specifically cites, as a guide to its interpretation. In fact he even
> rejected the guidance that was included within the lex itself: when I
> pointed out that the formula didn't match the example provided in ch. V of
> the lex, or the explanation of how the example related to the earlier
> provisions about the contents of the formula, he said that he regarded
> these
> things as a non-mandatory explanation designed to help the magistrate, and
> therefore he didn't feel obliged to follow them. Yes, you read that
> correctly: he said he had a lot of trouble understanding the lex, and he
> said that the example in the lex was there to help him understand it, and
> he
> said that this was why he thought it was okay to do something completely
> different from the example. I know, my mind boggled too. And perhaps even
> more mind-boggling was the moment when he basically agreed with me that
> when
> he interpreted the lex judiciaria in the way he had done he discovered that
> the lex required him to do things that made very little sense and were
> often
> entirely pointless, whereas my interpretation was coherent and made sense.
> This did not, apparently, make him consider that there was any chance of
> his
> interpretation being wrong and mine being right.
>
> Well, after a few e-mails that discussion was duly closed down by both P.
> Memmius and T. Julius, who made it clear that they did not want to hear any
> more about it. So, on we went with the trial. There was still no clear
> definition of what Q. Metellus had to prove before Sabinus could condemn M.
> Hortensia. There was still no specified penalty to be imposed if he did.
> We still had a judex who thought he was in charge of questions of
> procedure,
> schedule, and law, and we still had a presiding magistrate who let the
> judex
> carry on in this way. In fact I know, because Albucius told me, that they
> had had some private e-mail correspondence about the case before the trial
> began, and it may well be that they carried on doing so. You remember that
> earlier I complained about the judex being given documents that had not
> been
> seen by both parties. Private (i.e. secret) correspondence between the
> judex and the presiding magistrate is even more worrying, because it means
> the judex has seen things that *neither* party has seen. I have no idea
> what they discussed, except that I know they talked about the schedule. I
> suspect they also talked about the role of the judex, because otherwise
> it's
> unlikely that both of them would have independently come up with the same
> completely misconceived interpretation of the lex. They may have talked
> about any number of things, including the merits of the case. We already
> know that Albucius saw nothing wrong with giving Sabinus advice about what
> decision to make, because that is precisely what he did in the formula, and
> that is precisely what he would later do again in his call for a sententia.
> Perhaps he did it privately as well. In any case, any correspondence
> between the judex and the presiding magistrate should be shown to the
> parties, otherwise they can have no idea what is being said and no
> opportunity to respond to any points that might affect the judex' opinion
> about the case. This is very basic stuff, people. Any lawyer in any
> civilized country would be appalled at what was going on in this court.
>
> So, anyway, it was time for opening speeches, and Metellus made his speech.
> And now, at last, came the clarifications that I had been consistently
> asking Albucius to require and that Albucius had not required: Metellus
> voluntarily gave them, because he saw that it wouldn't be a fair trial
> without them. He abandoned the original vague scope of the petitio actionis
> and now said that there was only one act that he said was an abusus
> potestatis, namely the second edictum issued by Major on 6 June. It was an
> abusus potestatis, he argued, because she restricted C. Equitius' freedom
> to
> participate in a public forum and because - and this is crucial - she knew
> that it was illegal to do so. He asked Sabinus to condemn her only if he,
> Metellus, could prove beyond reasonable doubt not only that she restricted
> Cato's freedom but also that she knew it was illegal to do so. In my
> opening argument I accepted and adopted this approach, and agreed that
> Sabinus should not condemn Major unless Metellus proved beyond reasonable
> doubt that she knew or believed she was doing something illegal. And I also
> said this: 'In view of the agreement between the two parties about this
> element - the necessity of knowledge, i.e. intention - I do not suppose it
> is necessary to spend any more time on the point. But if, despite our
> agreement, you feel inclined to doubt that this element is a necessary and
> fundamental part of the case that must be proven to you, then I ask you to
> say so now in order that I may try to persuade you of it.' Sabinus did not
> say anything about it. But just to make absolutely sure, I contacted him
> privately (sending a copy also to Albucius and to Metellus, because, as
> I've
> mentioned, it is not appropriate for one party to say things to the judex
> without the other party knowing) before I closed my case, and I asked, 'May
> I assume that you do not need to be persuaded any further on this point, or
> would you like to hear more argument about it?' He replied (again with
> copies to Metellus and Albucius) that there was no need for me to say
> anything more about it. So right up until the end of the trial, after
> Metellus and I had both had our last opportunity to address any remaining
> points of law or fact, both I and Metellus believed that if Sabinus was not
> persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that Major believed she was doing
> something illegal then he would absolve her, and we both believed that
> Sabinus agreed.
>
> Obviously this meant that Major's state of mind was an important issue in
> the case: did she do something she believed to be illegal? Without proving
> that, Metellus could not win the case. So I called various witnesses to
> give evidence about this. I asked them whether they thought she would do
> anything she believed was illegal. They all said they thought it was very
> unlikely. Naturally enough, Metellus wanted to cross-examine them. But
> Sabinus prevented him, saying, 'I'm sorry to say that the
> questions you presented here have not any connection with the case...
> Therefore these questions are not allowed.' There are two things to notice
> here. The first is that Sabinus was making a decision about the
> admissibility of evidence. The lex Salicia gives the judex no power to make
> such a decision. On the contrary, every decision of this kind that is
> specifically mentioned in the lex is said to be within the power of the
> praetor, not of the judex. This is also in agreement with the Roman
> formulary system. Moreover, ch. XIII says 'The praetor shall be the final
> judge to determine what pieces of evidence are relevant to the case.' So
> decisions about the relevance of evidence are not only implicitly but
> explicitly the preserve of the presiding magistrate, not the judex. Sabinus
> exercised a power that was not his, and Albucius allowed him to do so. The
> second point is that Sabinus was, at least arguably, wrong. The questions
> Metellus asked were designed to rebut Major's case that she did not do, and
> would not have done, anything she thought was illegal - which, as I said
> above, was a crucial part of what Metellus had to disprove in order to win.
> He wanted to do this by undermining the credibility of one of my witnesses
> and by directly challenging the statement of another who said that he had
> never heard any suggestion that Major was contemplating acting illegally.
> The questions, in my opinion, were entirely relevant to the case, and
> Metellus ought to have been allowed to ask them. It was unfair to prevent
> him, and it was also contrary to the lex Salicia for this decision to be
> made by the judex.
>
> And the trial went on. We made our closing remarks. Then came the part of
> the process described by the lex judiciaria, ch. XIV: 'Once both parties
> have presented their evidence, each party shall have the opportunity to
> make
> one final statement in front of the judices, with the actor speaking in the
> first place. Then the praetor shall call for a sententia (sentence) from
> the
> judices, according to paragraph XV, reminding the judices that, in case of
> doubt, they must *not* condemn the reus.' I'm just going to repeat that
> last sentence: 'Then the praetor shall call for a sententia (sentence) from
> the judices, according to paragraph XV, reminding the judices that, in case
> of doubt, they must *not* condemn the reus'. What, then, does the presiding
> magistrate have to do at this stage? He has to call for a sententia, i.e.
> ask the judex to deliver his verdict, and he had to remind the judex not to
> condemn the accused if he has any doubt about her guilt. Those are the two
> things, and the only two things, that the lex calls for the presiding
> magistrate to do at this stage.
>
> Let's see what Albucius did:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Novaromatribunalis/message/360
>
> Did you read it? All of it. Please, do read the whole thing. This is
> important. We're near the end of my message, and this is possibly the most
> important part of the whole thing.
>
> Okay, now what did Albucius do here? What he did was this: he took over
> Metellus' job of prosecuting the case, and he also took over Sabinus' job
> of
> settling the case. Metellus, as I mentioned earlier, began the trial by
> clarifying exactly what his accusation was: Major's second edictum of 6
> June
> was illegal, he said, and she knew it was illegal. That's what he set out
> to prove, and that's the basis on which he wanted Sabinus to condemn her,
> not on any other basis. Issuing that edictum is the only thing he said
> amounted to a criminal offence, nothing else. If he didn't prove that
> beyond reasonable doubt, then she should be absolved. That's what he said,
> and that's what I said, and that's what Sabinus indicated he accepted. So
> that's what he argued for, and that's what I argued against. That's what he
> produced evidence to support, and that's what I produced evidence to
> refute.
> Like good lawyers, we did not waste the court's time with anything that was
> not directly relevant to that central question: was the second edictum of 6
> June illegal, and did Major believe it was illegal? That's what the whole
> trial was about, from start to finish. But the presiding magistrate
> obviously wasn't happy with the way Metellus was doing his job, because
> after all the evidence had been produced and all the arguments made, he
> decided to mount a whole different prosecution of his own. He talks about
> 'a last argument of the actor, according which the violation, by Hortensia,
> of the laws of Nova Roma would result first of the fact that her moderation
> decisions have been vetoed, and second that she would have refused to obey
> these vetos'. He 'considers' it, and he decides that 'it has been
> demonstrated, from the pieces of evidence brought by both parties, that, on
> this only point, former praetor Hortensia Maior "used (her) magisterial
> powers to act against the lawful rights of a person", here G. Equitius
> Cato,
> by re-issuing twice on June 6, and without legal base a measure of
> moderation which should have been considered by her as having ended on June
> 1.' Let's be clear what's happening here. This is not 'a last argument of
> the actor'. Metellus *never* argued that Major had committed any crime
> whatsoever by means of refusing to obey vetoes. He made it absolutely clear
> throughout the trial that the only relevance of the vetoes was as evidence
> that she must have known she was doing something illegal. According to his
> case, her refusal to obey vetoes was evidence of a crime, but it was not a
> crime itself. The argument that 'the violation, by Hortensia, of the laws
> of Nova Roma would result... of the fact... that she would have refused to
> obey these vetoes' was *invented by the presiding magistrate of the this
> trial* and was never even hinted at in this court until after both the
> prosecutor and the advocate for the defence had closed their cases.
>
> And there's a second point. At the risk of being tedious, let me remind you
> once again that Metellus consistently throughout the trial said that there
> was only one criminal edictum and it was the second edictum of 6 June. Only
> one. I specifically asked him about this (message 323 in the court archive)
> and he confirmed it (message 328). So all our arguments on both sides were
> concerned with whether that one edictum was criminal or not. But what does
> the presiding magistrate say? 'Hortensia Maior "used (her) magisterial
> powers to act against the lawful rights of a person"... by re-issuing twice
> on June 6... a measure of moderation...' *By re-issuing twice*. What he's
> saying here is that the crime was issuing *both* the edicta of 6 June. That
> is another thing that Metellus *never* said. This is not Albucius agreeing
> with Metellus' argument; this is Albucius making up a whole new argument of
> his own. And look, here's a third example of the same thing: 'its cause
> cannot be find but in the will that Hortensia had at this time that G.
> Equitius Cato be sanctioned, whatever the legality of such sanctions'.
> *Whatever the legality of such sanctions*. In other words, he is saying
> that Major is guilty because she did not care whether her actions were
> legal
> or not. But once again this has nothing to do with what Metellus said. He
> said that she was guilty because she knew, she *actually knew*, that she
> was
> doing something illegal. Once again, I specifically asked him (message 323
> again) to clarify this point: did he say that she could be found guilty on
> the basis that she didn't care whether her actions were illegal or not, or
> did he say she could only be guilty if she actually knew they were illegal;
> again, he confirmed that his argument was based solely on the allegation
> that she actually knew they were illegal (message 328). So once again all
> our arguments and evidence on both sides were concerned with that point.
> But then Albucius says she is guilty because she decided to sanction Cato
> 'whatever the legality of the sanctions'. Because she acted without caring
> whether she was acting illegally or not. The prosecutor of the case - the
> person whose very job it is to prove the accused guilty - said that this
> would not be enough to make her guilty. But the presiding magistrate, whose
> job is to be impartial, overruled the prosecutor and put forward his own
> argument that she was guilty even if she didn't think she was acting
> illegally.
>
> Folks, there is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start,
> but let's stick with the point I've just alluded to. The presiding
> magistrate in a trial should not be putting forward prosecution arguments
> at
> any stage. He is not the prosecutor. There's already somebody doing that
> job, and, as it happens in this case, doing it well. It is not the
> presiding magistrate's job. In fact if the presiding magistrate is doing
> that then not only is he doing something that isn't his job, he's doing the
> exact opposite of his job. He's supposed to be independent, impartial,
> sitting above the arguments and just making sure the trial runs smoothly.
> That's how it was in Roman times, and that's how it's clearly meant to be
> under the leges Saliciae even if you read them in complete isolation from
> Roman law, which they specifically tell you not to do. If the presiding
> magistrate doesn't occupy that role and only that role, the whole system
> makes absolutely no sense. It's like having a tennis match in which the
> umpire suddenly climbs down from his chair, picks up a racket, and goes and
> joins one of the players. Not only have you then got two players unfairly
> competing against one, you've also got *no umpire*. And in fact it's worse
> than that, because Albucius didn't just become a second prosecutor here. He
> became a super-prosecutor. Because he's started out as the boss of the
> whole show. He gave Sabinus his instructions. He talked him through the
> schedule of the trial, not to mention anything else he may have said to him
> in private e-mails that we don't know about. He is a magistrate with the
> highest imperium you can get in peace-time, and this court was his court
> that he created and that he was running. That's a huge amount of power and
> influence. And then he deployed it on behalf of one party against the
> other. This is not just some random guy turning up at court and having a go
> at prosecuting after the first prosecutor has finished: this is Sabinus'
> boss, who is also the highest magistrate in the state, telling Sabinus what
> the right answer is. If you think that's fair, I know some delightful
> military dictatorships where you'd absolutely love being put on trial.
>
> But let's forget for a minute that the presiding magistrate should not have
> been doing this at all. *When* did he do it? He did it after both parties
> had closed their cases and there could be no more argument or evidence from
> either side. We had spent the whole trial completely focused on proving or
> disproving the case as Metellus had argued it. For every argument that
> Metellus put forward I had an opportunity to respond to it. For every piece
> of evidence he produced I had an opportunity to criticize it. And for every
> argument and piece of evidence I deployed Metellus had an opportunity to
> deal with it (except for Sabinus' improper rejection of his
> cross-examination, which I've already mentioned). And *then* Albucius
> reaches into his top hat and pulls out a whole new prosecution case, and I
> had absolutely no chance whatsoever to say anything about it. I couldn't
> point out its logical flaws, I couldn't say anything about how it
> misapplied
> and misinterpreted the law, I couldn't produce any evidence to rebut its
> factual allegations. It was pretty much the equivalent of putting Major on
> trial a second time, with a whole new prosecution case, and not letting her
> say a single word in her own defence. Have another look at that 'call for a
> sententia'. See how it carefully examines and rejects my arguments against
> the case it's putting forward? No, you don't, because there were no
> arguments against that case, because I wasn't allowed to make any, because
> I
> didn't have even the tiniest hint that that case was going to be happening
> until it was too late.
>
> And let's not even get into whether Albucius' arguments were right or not.
> We really haven't got time for that. Let's not even ask ourselves whether
> it's at all dodgy that Albucius decided Major was guilty because she
> disobeyed vetoes, and whose vetoes were they exactly? Oh, that's right,
> some of them were Albucius' vetoes! So basically he decided that she was
> guilty because she did something he told her not to do. That doesn't in any
> way undermine the impartiality and independence of this verdict, does it?
> Oh, right, it does. Well, if only somebody had pointed out right at the
> beginning of these proceedings that maybe it was a bad idea to have the
> trial being presided over by a magistrate who had issued vetoes that were
> likely to be used as evidence in the case! Oh, right, somebody did. But
> never mind that. Let's move on to what happened next.
>
> What happened next was Sabinus giving a verdict after hearing two different
> prosecution cases: one by Metellus, one by Albucius. He condemned Major, so
> he must have agreed with one of them but which one? What has Major actually
> been found guilty of doing? This is important, people, because part of the
> purpose of our criminal law is to deter people from doing things we don't
> want them to do. And in order to be deterred, people need to know what it
> actually is that they're being deterred from doing. Albucius said Major was
> guilty because she disobeyed (his) vetoes, but Metellus never suggested
> that. So was she condemned because she disobeyed vetoes or not? Does this
> verdict mean that disobeying a veto is a criminal offence or doesn't it? We
> have no idea. Metellus said that the crime was issuing the second edictum
> of 6 June, but Albucius said that it was only a crime if you look at the
> two
> edicta together. These are not only two different bases of guilt, they're
> actually contradictory. Think about it: if both the edicta together make
> one crime, then each edictum separately is not a crime (otherwise they'd be
> two crimes, not one). So Metellus is saying that the second edictum on its
> own was a crime, and Albucius is saying that the second edictum on its own
> was *not* a crime. Which version did Sabinus find her guilty of? We don't
> know. What is a future magistrate supposed to do with this information?
> What exactly is a future magistrate supposed to be deterred from doing? We
> have no idea! This verdict has no deterrent effect whatsoever because we
> simply don't know what Major has actually been condemned for. By setting
> himself up as a second prosecu<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79246 From: Cato Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Re: On the trial of M. Hortensia
Cato omnibus in foro SPD

As the one on whose behalf, so to speak, the trial itself was held and about whom the most vicious of her attacks have been generated, I am willing to accept the apology offered by Maior. Let's see if it actually sticks.

"Then Peter came and said to Him, 'Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?' Jesus said to him, 'I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.'" - Matt. 18:21-22

"If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him." - Luke 17:3-4

Valete,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79247 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-10
Subject: Re: On the trial of M. Hortensia
M. Hortensia L. Liviae spd;

Maximas Gratias Livia amica:) Can't wait to hear all about Sarmatia, from Lentulus and Agricola, supposedly it was fabulous!
vale
Maior


>
> Salve Pauline,
> of course: she's the one who killed Christ, destroyed the library of
> Alexandria, and killed off all native Americans .... Come on!
> Your phrase below is an example of the irrational attitude some people have
> against Hortensia Maior.
>
> Vale,
> Livia
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Timothy or Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@>
> To: "Nova-Roma" <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 8:03 AM
> Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] On the trial of M. Hortensia
>
>
>
> Salve
>
> "I suppose the reason might have been one of political expediency: probably,
> though both magistrates knew that Major was innocent of the crime she was
> accused of, ...
>
> The ONLY thing that Maior is INNOCENT of is the Lindbergh kidnapping.
>
> Vale
>
> Paulinus
>
>
>
>
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> From: livia.plauta@...
> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 20:08:38 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] On the trial of M. Hortensia
>
>
>
>
>
>
> L. Livia Plauta omnibus sal.
>
> As usual it's a pleasure to read a post by A. Apollonius Cordus.
>
> It was very interesting to read what happened "behind the scenes" of the
> trial (even though more things might have been happening that even
> Apollonius didn't know about).
>
> When the sentence was published I was traveling, with little Internet
> access, so I missed the window of opportunity to comment, but I did find
> weird that the sententia by Sabinus had exactly the same wording as the call
> for a sententia by Albucius.
>
> I'm not really familiar with the leges Saliciae, so I wasn't aware of the
> extent to which the call for a sententia was incompatible with said leges.
>
> I know Sabinus as a very intelligent and independent man, who is not afraid
> of acting according to his own opinions, even at the cost of getting in
> conflict with others, and I know that by no means does he always agree with
> Albucius, so when I saw the sententia I assumed that he must have had a
> compelling reason for following Albucius' instructions to the letter, and I
> suspected that the sententia had been agreed on by both magistrates before
> the "call" was published.
> I suppose the reason might have been one of political expediency: probably,
> though both magistrates knew that Major was innocent of the crime she was
> accused of, they thought she deserved a lesson for acting several times
> without much diplomacy, and possibly they feared a negative reaction by
> public opinion in case she was aquitted.
> They were probably right in their assessment, since public opinon in the
> whole doesn't seem very outraged by Major's condemnation.
> However, whatever the reason for their behaviour, I now realize that the two
> magistrates did create a dangerous precedent.
>
> For the situation at hand the only solution seems to be a lex invalidating
> the sentence.
> For the future we have to hope that the situation will be solved by having
> praetors, and that the praetors will follow procedure and nobody will think
> of suggesting in public, word by word, the sentence to a judge.
>
> I also suggest that the accused in future learn from Major's mistake, and do
> not agree to a jury composed by one judge only.
>
> Optime valete,
> Livia
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "A. Apollónius Cordus" <jamie.k.johnston@>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 1:10 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] On the trial of M. Hortensia
>
> A. Apollonius omnibus sal.
>
> As you may remember, I don't like participating in this e-mail list these
> days. Some of you may be able to sympathize. So I hope you'll understand
> that I wouldn't be here, and wouldn't trouble you with this message, if I
> didn't think it fairly important.
>
> I say that at the outset because it's going to be a very long message - I
> could split it into sections but that would unnecessarily fill the inboxes
> of those who have no interest in the topic - and because I want to encourage
> you to read it anyway. I want you to read it whether or not you like M.
> Hortensia, whether or not you believe she committed the crime for which she
> was prosecuted, whether or not you care. I want you to read it if you care
> about standards of fairness and justice in this community.
>
> And one last thing before I start: this message is not about whether M.
> Hortensia is guilty. As her advocate, it was my duty to argue that she was
> not. The trial is over, and I am not her advocate any more. She is still
> my friend, but so is Q. Metellus, who prosecuted her, and so (I hope) is C.
> Equitius, who was the person whose rights she was prosecuted for infringing.
> In short, I have no professional or personal stake in this case any more.
> I'm here as a private individual who happens to have considerably more
> knowledge of what went on during these legal proceedings than almost all of
> you, and who is troubled by that knowledge, and who thinks you should be
> troubled too.
>
> At some time before 17 June this year the consul P. Memmius received a
> petitio actionis from Q. Metellus. A petitio actionis, literally 'the
> seeking of a judicial process', is essentially a request for permission to
> take somebody to court. The receipt of such a request triggers the
> beginning of the process prescribed by the lex Salicia judiciaria
> (supplemented by the lex Salicia poenalis). Now, anyone at all familiar
> with Roman legal procedure will recognize the process set out there as a
> very close copy of what's called the 'formulary system', which was one of
> the main ways ancient Roman magistrates administered justice from about 125
> BC to the end of the republic and after. In fact the Salician procedure is,
> on paper, quite possibly Nova Roma's most accurate legislative reproduction
> of an ancient Roman institution or process. But of course the lex Salicia
> isn't a complete description of every detail and every contigency of the
> formulary system, and its English is occasionally imperfect or imprecise, so
> it still needs to be interpreted by the magistrates who are applying it in a
> given case.
>
> The need for interpretation evidently arose as soon as Albucius received
> this petitio. Because, you see, he was a consul, and the lex Salicia
> doesn't give consules any power to accept or reject or otherwise deal with
> petitiones actionis. It only mentions praetores. But at that time there
> were no praetores. What was he to do? Other leges were of no assistance.
> The lex constitutiva says nothing at all about judicial proceedings, and
> does not give any magistrate any power to deal with such proceedings.
> Within the written law of Nova Roma there is nothing that explicitly gives
> any ordinary magistrate any judicial powers except the leges Saliciae. Now,
> some people in Nova Roma believe that the lex constitutiva and the written
> leges made under its authority are the only legitimate source of any
> magistrate's power, and that if neither the lex constitutiva nor any other
> lex explictly says that a magistrate can do something then that magistrate
> can't do that thing. There are others who say that there are other sources
> of law, principally ancient Roman law and custom, that can properly be used
> to supplement the written law as long as the written law doesn't explicitly
> contradict them. We don't need to consider which of those groups is right.
> We need only observe that the consul must be in the latter group, because
> after due consideration he decided that he, as consul, did have the power to
> deal with the petitio, despite the fact that nothing can be found in the
> written law of Nova Roma that gives him this power. He must, in fact, have
> drawn this power from ancient Roman law and practice: of course in the
> ancient republic a consul did have the power to preside over judicial
> proceedings. Personally, for what it's worth, I agree with him.
>
> So Albucius then had to consider whether to accept or reject the petitio,
> applying the test in chapter II of the lex Salicia judiciaria. The lex
> Salicia doesn't say that the accused person needs to be notified at this
> stage or allowed to say anything about it. But of course we should bear in
> mind that in the formulary procedure, on which the lex Salicia is very
> closely based, the accused person would necessarily have been physically
> present at this stage and would have been able to (and in fact would have
> been asked to) participate in the discussion. We should also bear in mind
> that, regardless of Roman precedent, it is probably sensible for a
> magistrate to involve the accused person at this stage, in case that person
> is able to point out a good reason why the petitio should not be accepted;
> otherwise the the good reason will only be pointed out *after* the
> magistrate has already accepted the petitio, and the magistrate will have
> revisit the decision to accept it. Nonetheless, I don't say that there was
> any legal obligation on Albucius to involve Major in things at this stage,
> and he decided not to. Whether he had any discussions with Metellus about
> it I don't know. But he accepted the petitio and, in accordance with the
> lex, told Major that he had done so.
>
> This is, of course, where I became involved, because Major asked me to be
> her advocate. I quickly got in touch with Albucius and Metellus to say that
> I was acting as advocate and that the first thing I would be doing was to
> request a reconsideration of the decision to accept the petitio because it
> did not, I argued, pass the legal test in ch. II of the lex. At this point
> two curious and surprising things happened.
>
> The first was that Albucius indicated that he was not prepared to
> communicate with me directly about the case at this stage. This was, he
> later explained, because the lex Salicia does not explicitly say that
> advocates can be used until the trial itself begins, and he did not want to
> do anything that was not explicitly required by the lex. If you contrast
> this with his decision that he had the power to deal with the petitio
> despite having no explicit authority in written law to do so, you will see
> why I call this curious and surprising.
>
> The second curious and surprising thing was that Albucius told Major that he
> would not consider any challenge to his acceptance of the petitio. He had
> not given her, or anyone else as far as I know, a chance to make any
> comments before he accepted the petitio about whether it passed the legal
> test for acceptance, and he was not going to give her a chance to make such
> comments after he had accepted it. There was to be no opportunity for Major
> to point out what she said were solid legal reasons why the petitio was not
> acceptable according to the test set out in the lex Salicia. Albucius did
> not explain his refusal to hear these arguments. He had decided that the
> petitio passed the test. He must presumably have believed, therefore,
> either that it was totally impossible that he had missed anything when he
> made that decision, or else that it didn't matter whether his decision was
> legally right or wrong. Curious and surprising, I say again; and I'm going
> to go a little further and suggest that perhaps it's beginning to be
> slightly worrying.
>
> So the process continued. P. Memmius invited both parties to make
> representations to him before he drew up the formula. The lex Salicia did
> not explicitly require him to do this: in fact it gives no indication at all
> that anything should be done between notifying the parties that the petitio
> has been accepted and issuing the formula. But neither does the lex say
> that this should not happen, and it is both eminently sensible and in
> accordance with the way the Roman formulary procedure worked, and I praise
> Albucius for doing it. I do note, however, that - as I'm sure you've
> noticed already - his position regarding exactly how the lex should be
> interpreted and applied seemed at this point to be oscillating quite
> dramatically between 'I shall do nothing that the lex does not explicitly
> require me to do' and 'I shall do what I think appropriate so long as the
> lex does not forbid it.'
>
> Anyway, I did duly make representations to him on M. Hortensia's behalf.
> Some of them were about procedure. I argued, for example, that there was a
> substantial risk that he would be seen as prejudiced against Major, in the
> sense that he would appear to have already made up his mind about important
> disputed issues in the case: he had made public statements criticizing
> Major's decisions to place people on moderation (which was what the case was
> all about) and had vetoed two of those decisions himself, and moreover there
> were indications that Metellus would actually be using those vetoes as
> evidence that the decisions in question were illegal. This raised the
> possibility that the court would be considering questions that its presiding
> magistrate had already expressed his opinion about in public, and making its
> decision based on evidence that included statements and actions by the
> presiding magistrate; clearly, I said, there was a serious risk that the
> court would not be seen as independent and unbiased. I also argued that the
> petitio actionis was too vague for Major to respond to it or to make useful
> suggestions about what the formula ought to say, and more detail ought to be
> provided by Metellus before the formula was drawn up. In particular, I
> proposed that Albucius adopt the procedure that was followed at this point
> under the formulary system, namely that the prosecutor should write a
> proposed formula and the accused should then respond to it. I had real
> hopes that he might do this, since he had already followed the formulary
> procedure by holding this discussion before writing the formula. At the
> same time, I also put forward as much of a defence to the substance of the
> charge as Major was able to provide at that point, given the vagueness of
> the allegations. This included raising various issues related to the
> interpretation of the offence as it was defined in the lex Salicia poenalis,
> ch. 17.1.
>
> To my considerable surprise, the next thing Albucius did was to issue a
> formula. In this formula, he said he had 'duly taken in account' my
> arguments, but he did not say what his decisions were about any of the
> questions they raised, let alone give any reasons for those decisions. He
> simply did not give any indication of having made any attempt to resolve
> them. He had evidently decided to go ahead as presiding magistrate in spite
> of my suggestion that he might appear prejudiced: had he decided that there
> was no risk, or that there was a risk but it didn't matter, or something
> else? He had evidently decided not to ask Metellus to give any more detail
> about his allegations or to propose a draft formula, but he hadn't told
> Major that he wasn't going to do this, so right up to the issuing of the
> formula we had no idea whether we were going to get any more details or not
> and whether we would have to respond to a proposed formula. Does it matter?
> you may ask. It does matter, for three main reasons. First, any decision
> by a magistrate can be overruled by that magistrate's colleague, and appeal
> to another magistrate to do exactly this was a well-established part of
> ancient Roman judicial process. But in order to ask a magistrate to
> overrule his colleague's decision, you have to actually know what that
> decision is. By not telling us what he had decided, Albucius made it
> impossible for us to do anything to challenge those decisions. Secondly,
> even if we had not wanted to appeal against any of those decisions, we
> needed to know what they were in order to know how the trial was going to
> proceed. For example, I had also put forward various arguments about what
> would happen if the case were transferred to another presiding magistrate.
> I'd done this partly in case Albucius accepted my argument that he should
> not preside over the case himself, and partly because elections for the
> praetura were coming up and I thought it was quite possible that he was
> intending to issue the formula, then give Metellus some time to collect
> evidence (which was normal in ancient Roman trials), and then, after new
> praetores had been elected, to hand over the case to one of them. His
> failure to respond to these arguments or tell us what he had decided meant
> that we had no idea how he intended to deal with this issue: would he
> transfer it to another magistrate or keep it himself? If he transferred it,
> would he expect the new magistrate to follow his formula? We didn't know,
> and therefore we couldn't plan. And the third reason this failure matters,
> which is perhaps the most important reason, is that without giving
> on-the-record responses to my arguments he left the questions I'd raised
> unresolved, as far as anyone could tell (or can tell now). How can we be
> satisfied that these questions were properly dealt with, especially when one
> of them concerns doubts about the independence and objectivity of the
> presiding magistrate himself, if we have no idea what his decisions were and
> how he justified them? At this point I can tell you that I was very
> seriously worried about the way these proceedings were being conducted.
>
> At the same time that Albucius said he had 'duly taken in account' the
> documents I'd sent him, he also said that these 'will be sent to the
> tribunal', i.e. to the judex, who was to be T. Julius. The person who was
> going to actually decide the outcome of the case. There are two things
> about this that are a bit worrying. One is that there was no reason to send
> the documents to Sabinus. They were documents about the formula, how it
> should be written, whether it should be written at all, what should be in
> it. Those things were a matter for Albucius alone to decide, and he had
> done so. He did not give any indication in advance that they would be given
> to the judex. There was no reason to give them to the judex because they
> were not designed to have anything to do with the matters that the judex had
> to consider. In this particular case I couldn't see anything that would
> actually cause a problem if the judex saw it, so I didn't make any formal
> objection; but the fact that Albucius decided, without consultation and
> without warning, to send the judex documents that weren't intended for his
> consumption is another indication of a not entirely reassuring attitude to
> the proceedings. What's more important - and this really is important - is
> that the judex should on no account have had access to any documents that
> were not also available to both parties. And it seems that he did. Because
> Albucius' comment about taking the documents into account and sending them
> to the judex was not just about the documents I'd sent, but about 'the
> various documents sent to me, specially by the reus'. Which implies, at
> least to me, that there were some other documents that were *not* sent by
> the accused, Major, which must presumably have been sent by the only other
> person involved, namely Metellus. We had not seen these documents. We had
> had no opportunity to respond to them. And, for all I know, Metellus would
> never have seen the documents I sent either, if not for the fact that I had
> sent him copies myself. Now, it would have been bad enough if Albucius had
> received documents that we hadn't seen; but what's much worse is that these
> documents were then sent to the judex, and we still hadn't seen them.
> Meaning that the judex, who had to make the ultimate decision, would be
> making that decision based on documents that we hadn't seen and couldn't
> challenge, disagree with, explain, accept, agree with, or respond to in any
> way at all. That would not have been allowed in an ancient Roman court, it
> would not be allowed in the criminal courts where I work in the UK, and
> there is nothing anywhere in the written law of Nova Roma that suggests it
> should happen here.
>
> At this point I should say something about the appointment of the judex. I
> think someone may have pointed out on this e-mail list already that this is
> in contravention of the lex Salicia poenalis, ch. 10.1, which says that a
> case like this ought to have been heard by a panel of ten judices. Albucius
> was aware of this, and discussed it with me (and perhaps with Metellus too:
> I don't know, because this was another occasion on which things were allowed
> to be said by one party without the other party knowing what was said), and
> after I had consulted my client I informed him that she did not object to
> having T. Julius as a single judex. So I do not complain about this. But
> once again I note that this appears to be Albucius not only adding to but
> actually pretty much overriding the written law according to his own view of
> what was appropriate. I just ask you to remember this if we ever in this
> story find him justifying any particular procedural decision by saying that
> he did exactly what was required by the lex and did not feel that he could
> legitimately do anything different.
>
> Now, let's talk about the formula itself, shall we? I think we should,
> because it's a remarkable document. It's remarkable in bearing almost no
> resemblance whatsoever to an ancient Roman formula, to what the lex Salicia
> judiciaria clearly intends a formula to be, or to anything that could
> possibly make sense within the system that the leges Saliciae create. But
> before we look at the formula in detail, we need to take a step back and
> look at the Salician system as a whole. Because one of the best ways to
> understand a piece of legislation, and therefore to interpret it when it is
> unclear, is to look at it as a whole and try to understand what it is
> supposed to accomplish. I've already said something about its similarity to
> the ancient Roman formulary system, but let's put that aside for a moment
> and just look at it in its own terms. Its first substantive provision, ch.
> I, says, 'Any citizen of Nova Roma shall be able to bring an action against
> another citizen of Nova Roma.' So it's clear immediately that we're dealing
> with a system that's fundamentally about disputes between citizens. It
> isn't about the state against the citizen, or the citizen against the state.
> It isn't about the court having to deal with a certain situation with the
> help of citizens. It's about two citizens having a dispute about a
> particular thing and the court providing a mechanism to settle that dispute.
> More light is shed on the nature of the system by ch. III: 'If the claim is
> dismissed by the praetores, the actor shall be able to present his case
> again to the praetores in the future, waiting for two new praetores to be
> elected by the Comitia if necessary.' What that tells us is this: if
> someone brings a complaint to the court and that complaint is badly framed
> or doesn't fit within the framework of the law or has some other flaw, it is
> not up to the court to investigate or to try to help that person shape his
> complaint into something that would be valid and acceptable. The court is
> not supposed to help the parties or take over parts of their jobs. It's
> their dispute, and the court's job is simply to arbitrate by choosing one
> side or the other as the winner. I'll pass over the chapters that deal
> specifically with the formula because I'll need to come back to them soon,
> but it's enough for now to say that the formula 'instructs the judices on
> the decision they must take'. Let's move on to the trial itself, and to ch.
> XII: 'The actor shall present evidence to back his demands, and then the
> reus shall present evidence to back his defense.' This will sound very
> familiar to North Americans, Britons, Australians, New Zealanders, and many
> others, but we should bear in mind that it isn't the way all trials work in
> every part of the world. There are some legal systems, called inquisitorial
> systems, in which the judge will take an active role in investigating the
> complaint that's been raised by gathering facts, questioning witnesses, and
> ordering documents to be produced. The alternative, namely an adversarial
> system, is what is familiar in countries that inherited the British legal
> system, as well as in many international tribunals and others: the judge is
> expected to act as a detached arbiter, letting the two sides produce their
> own evidence and ultimately choosing between them. The lex Salicia quite
> clearly envisages an adversarial system, not an inquisitorial one. It's up
> to the two parties to put forward their own evidence and arguments. The
> court is not there to help either side or to become involved in the case.
> Nor is anyone else expected to get involved or put forward evidence or
> arguments. No one else is mentioned in the section that deals with the
> trial process except the praetor, and the only thing it says about that is
> that '[t]he praetor shall be the final judge to determine what pieces of
> evidence are relevant to the case.' Nothing about producing evidence or
> putting forward arguments or making statements. So it's very clearly an
> adversarial system. And a final thing that makes this even clearer is what
> happens at the end of the trial. According to ch. XV, after the parties
> have finished presenting their evidence and arguments the praetor then
> 'call[s] for sententia' and the judices vote. They have only two options:
> to condemn or to absolve the accused. They can't give reasons for their
> decision; they can't decide that the truth lies somewhere in between the two
> options they've been presented with. All they can do is award the victory
> to one side or the other. Another feature of the system that's evident from
> the lex is that there's a division of labour between the praetor and the
> judex. The praetor is in charge at the initial stage of receiving the
> petitio, deciding whether it's acceptable, and, if it is, drawing up a
> formula. After that the praetor continues to be involved, but only on
> procedural and technical points: whether evidence is or is not admissible,
> deciding whether the trial should be public or secret, when to call for the
> judices to vote. In other words the magistrate is in charge of procedure
> and of keeping the trial running. What the judex does is to actually hear
> the evidence and the arguments and make the decision. There's no indication
> that the judex is supposed to have anything to do with procedure: all the
> procedural points that are mentioned are explicitly assigned to the praetor.
> The only thing the judex is explicitly commanded to do is to vote.
>
> Let's now go back to that point about the resemblance to ancient Roman
> procedure. Because it's possible that many of the things the lex
> specifically says are consistent with the ancient procedure but it still has
> a different over-all character. Except, no, it has exactly the same
> over-all character! The formulary system was adversarial, not
> inquisitorial. The formulary system didn't involve the magistrate helping
> either side or taking over any part of their jobs. The formulary system
> didn't allow anyone to present evidence and arguments except the two parties
> involved in the dispute. The formulary system had a separation of roles
> between the magistrate and the judex, in which the magistrate handled
> procedure and technical points while the judex listened to the evidence and
> arguments and then made the decision, which could only be one option or the
> other. The whole design of the system is the same. But still, if only we
> had some sort of hint that this was what the lex was intended to do. Maybe
> if we look at the preamble, where it says, 'These procedures are based on
> the Roman republican procedural model, both because it probably is the model
> that best suits Nova Roma and because it is the basis for all the procedural
> systems of modern Western nations. Some concessions to Nova Roma's
> particular structure have had to be made; but, in spirit, it follows the
> ancient Roman procedure.' Yeah, that would do. In fact I'd say that's
> pretty much the legislative equivalent of hitting a magistrate round the
> face with a kipper and saying 'Interpret this lex in accordance with the
> spirit of the ancient procedures it's explicitly based on!' Wouldn't you?
>
> It's important to get all that clear in our minds before we look at what the
> lex says the formula should be like, because this bit of the lex is, if you
> look at it on its own, not all that clear. I'm going to quote it in full:
>
> ---
> V. Once a claim has been accepted by a praetor, that same praetor shall
> prepare a formula to present to the iudices. The formula shall consist of a
> logical statement that instructs the iudices on the decision they must take.
> The formula shall be structured into four parts: institutio iudicis,
> intentio, demonstratio and condemnatio. An explanation of each part follows:
>
> A. INSTITVTIO IVDICIS: This clause appoints a certain iudex to judge the
> case (see below).
>
> B. INTENTIO: This part expresses the claim of the actor; i.e., it shall
> express what the actor seeks by petitioning the praetor. There are two kinds
> of intentio: intentio certa, when the facts that lead to the actor's claim
> are so obvious that they do not need to be proved, and intentio incerta,
> when the actor must prove the facts that justify his claim.
>
> Example: Intentio Certa: "According to the contract signed by Titius..."
> Intentio Incerta: "If it is proved that Ticius owes Gaius 1,000 sestertii,
> Gaius shall pay Ticius that same amount".
>
> C. DEMONSTRATIO: This is the clause that further defines an intentio
> incerta.
>
> D. CONDEMNATIO: This is the clause that allows the iudices to condemn or
> absolve.
>
> Example: a formula could be something like this: "Let Sulpicius be the
> iudex. If it is proved that Ticius owes Gaius 1,000 sestertii, you, iudex,
> shall condemn Ticius to pay 1,000 sestertii to Gaius; else, you shall acquit
> Ticius."
>
> The clauses would be: Institutio Iudicis: "Let Sulpicius be the iudex."
> Demonstratio: "If it is proved that ..." Intentio: "... Ticius owes Gaius
> 1,000 sestertii ..." Condemnatio: "... you, iudex, shall condemn Ticius to
> pay 1,000 sestertii to Gaius; otherwise, you shall acquit Ticius."
> ---
>
> There it is. Now, you can get bogged down in some of these phrases. What
> does 'express' mean in B? What does 'further define' mean in C? And so on.
> But the lex also gives you a handy example, which makes it pretty clear:
> 'Let Sulpicius be the judex. If it is proved that Ticius owes Gaius HS
> 1,000, you, judex, shall condemn Ticius to pay HS 1,000 to Gaius; otherwise,
> you shall acquit Gaius.' And it tells you which bit is which. 'Let
> Sulpicius be the judex'. That's the institutio judicis, the clause that
> 'appoints a certain judex to judge the case'. Okay, so you choose a judex
> and then you say 'Let [that person] be judex', that's pretty simple. Next
> you have a demonstratio that 'further defines' the next bit. How does it do
> that? Well, apparently it does that by saying 'If it is proved that...' I
> admit I'm not entirely sure how that counts as 'further defining', but I
> suspect it probably means that it further limits (which is what 'defines'
> literally means) the grammatical and procedural role of the next clause. So
> without the 'If' clause you'd just have a formula saying 'Ticius owes Gaius
> HS 1,000'. But then you add the demonstratio and it says 'If it is proved
> that Ticius owes Gaius...' So it makes it clear (demonstrat) that the
> following clause is what the prosecutor has to prove. The next bit, the
> intentio, 'express the claim of the actor' by basically summarizing the
> prosecutor's allegations. The prosecutor says 'Ticius owes me HS 1,000!'.
> The intentio says 'Ticius owes Gaius HS 1,000'. Very straightforward. And
> finally the condemnatio, which 'allows the judices to condemn or absolve'.
> So it says that the judex can condemn Ticius, and says what to condemn him
> to do (i.e. what the penalty is), or acquit him. And combined with the
> demonstratio (the 'if' clause) it tells the judex in what circumstances to
> condemn and in what circumstances to acquit. It all makes a fair bit of
> sense when you use the helpful example. And you can cross-check this with
> the wider overview of the system that we've just looked at to make sure it
> fits with that. Which it does! It's an adversarial system, hence the
> instruction to the judex is to wait and see whether the prosecutor proves
> his allegation or not, and then to give the appropriate verdict by choosing
> one or the other option (he has proved it, condemno, or he hasn't proved it,
> absolvo). It's got that division of labour, because it contains the judex'
> instructions for the whole trial: just sit there and work out whether Gaius
> has proved it or not. It doesn't say anything about making procedural
> decisions or managing the progress of the case. Just one simple but
> important task. And, just in case we aren't completely happy with that
> interpretation, let's cross-check it again by considering the ancient
> formulary procedure that the lex itself explicitly tells us is the spirit of
> the system it creates. What do we find? We find that the example given is
> pretty much a direct translation of an actual Roman formula from an actual
> Roman legal text-book, and that it's analyzed into exactly the same
> constituent parts as the Romans analyzed their formulae into. Success! Now
> we understand what a formula should do: it should name the judex, take the
> allegation of the prosecutor, put it into the form of a conditional
> sentence, and tell the judex to condemn the accused if the allegation is
> proved and to acquit if it isn't. So in the the case of M. Hortensia I was
> expecting a formula something like this: 'Let [name] be judex. If it is
> proved that M. Hortensia [did something that amounts to abusus potestatis],
> you, judex, shall condemn M. Hortensia to [some specific penalty];
> otherwise, you shall acquit her.' I didn't know quite what was going to go
> into those brackets because, as I've said, the allegation in the petitio
> actionis was pretty vague, but I expected that the necessary detail would be
> given so that the judex would know what he was actually supposed to be
> doing.
>
> Shall we look at the actual formula? Let's do that. Here it is. Please
> read it. All of it:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Novaromatribunalis/message/314
>
> Finished? Well, that wasn't quite what we were expecting, was it? In fact
> it looks nothing like a Roman formula, nothing like the sort of formula the
> lex appears to have in mind, and nothing like the example that is
> specifically set out in the lex. Its article 2 merely states that 'the
> present case is... an "intentio incerta"', which shows an obvious failure to
> understand the lex. The lex says very clearly that 'intentio' is the name
> of part of the formula and an 'intentio incerta' is a type of intentio to be
> used in certain types of case: an intentio incerta is not a type of case, it
> is a type of intentio. The lex does not require the formula to specify
> whether the intentio is certa or incerta, and the example provided in the
> lex doesn't do this. The section of the formula titled 'demonstratio' has
> nothing whatsoever in common with the demonstratio of the example in the
> lex, and in fact nowhere in the entire formula is there even a trace of an
> 'if' clause. Nor does the formula tell the judex in what circumstances to
> absolve or condemn: it simply advises him to do one and not to do the other.
> And in fact this brings me to what's even worse about this formula: it isn't
> just utterly inadequate, it's completely incompatible with the obvious
> interpretation of the lex and of the principles of the system the lex is
> there to create. It clearly has no truck at all with the idea of the
> presiding magistrate being an impartial figure who doesn't intervene to help
> either side or to contribute his own arguments or evidence. It 'interprets'
> Q. Metellus' petitio (thus implicitly supporting my earlier point that the
> petitio in itself was not sufficiently clear), and then goes into extensive
> discussion of whether the legal reasoning in the petitio is correct and
> whether Metellus has produced any evidence to support it. There is not the
> slightest indication in the lex that a formula should do this, and there is
> every indication that it should not, especially if we interpret it in the
> way I've suggested above as the obvious, sensible, coherent, and Roman way
> to read it. It was unfair to Metellus to criticize him at that stage for
> failing to produce evidence: the lex doesn't say that the prosecutor has to
> produce any evidence until the trial begins, the sensible interpretation of
> the lex doesn't require it, the Roman formulary system did not require it,
> and as far as I know Metellus had never been told by Albucius that he should
> produce any. Nor was it remotely appropriate to discuss the legal reasoning
> of the petitio in the formula. The lex does not provide any room at all for
> such discussions in its description of the formula or in its example. The
> place for analysis of the legal basis of the petitio is clearly chapter II
> of the lex judiciaria, where the presiding magistrate has to decide whether
> the petitio is 'incongruent', i.e. 'not supported by law, precedent or
> common sense'. It could hardly be clearer in the lex: if a petitio says
> that someone should be punished for X and the presiding magistrate's
> intepretation of the law is that X is not illegal, then that's an
> incongruent claim and the magistrate should dismiss it. What the magistrate
> should not do is accept the petitio and then write a formula in which he
> says that in his opinion the claim is legally flawed (i.e. incongruent)!
> And then, finally, the formula fails to tell the judex what his task is at
> all, which is the whole point of the formula. It does not give the judex
> two clear options to choose between, which is what the judex needs because
> the lex quite clearly gives him only two possible options when returning his
> sententia. It does not specify any penalty to be imposed if the judex
> condemns the accused, which is what the condemnatio is for and which is also
> plainly required elsewhere in the lex, which refers in ch. XV and XVII to
> the inclusion of a penalty in the formula. In short, the formula that was
> issued in this case does not do *any* of the things the lex required it to
> do except naming the judex, and it *does* do several things that are not
> only not required by the lex but are clearly incompatible with it and that
> betray at best a complete misunderstanding of the lex, including things that
> were unfair in themselves such as criticizing the prosecutor for failing to
> do something he wasn't required or asked to do, giving an opinion about the
> prosecutor's legal reasoning, and, worst of all, utterly compromising the
> impartiality of both the magistrate and the judex by telling the judex what
> decision he should make about the case.
>
> Well, when I saw that I was pretty perplexed, I can tell you. But even then
> I hadn't fully understood the extent of Albucius' misinterpretation of the
> Salician system. I did my best to make sense of the formula within the
> context of the lex, and what I came up with was this: for some reason he
> must have decided that, rather than dismissing the petitio, the appropriate
> thing to do was to accept the petitio but then order the judex to
> automatically absolve M. Hortensia on the grounds that the petitio was
> incongruent. It was a bizarre way of doing things, but it was at least a
> way of arriving at the same result as what ought to have happened earlier,
> namely dismissing the petitio. It also had analogies in modern legal
> systems: in many 'common law' countries, for example, if a jury has been
> empanelled to hear a case and then it becomes clear to the judge that the
> prosecution has no merit at all the judge will often order the jury to find
> the accused not guilty without further ado. I thought Albucius was doing
> something like that, because, well, that was the only way I could make any
> sense at all of what he was doing.
>
> The next step, then, was obviously for T. Julius the judex to do what the
> presiding magistrate had instructed him to do. But this didn't happen. In
> fact, what happened - imagine my bafflement, folks! - was that the trial
> went ahead. Yes, that's right: the presiding magistrate had issued a
> formula telling the judex that the prosecution had no merit and was legally
> flawed, and then the trial carried on as if nothing had happened. What? I
> mean, what? At this stage I could no longer make any sense at all of what
> was going on, and I wrote to P. Memmius and to T. Julius to express my
> concerns. Their responses showed several things. First, they showed that
> neither of them was observing the clear division of roles in the lex
> judiciaria between the judex (whose duty is to choose between the
> prosecutor's case and the defence case) and the presiding magistrate (whose
> duty is to ensure proper procedures are followed and to make decisions about
> the admissibility or evidence, the management of the schedule, &c.). It was
> clear, on the contrary, that the judex was making decisions about procedure
> and was in charge of the schedule, and that the presiding magistrate
> accepted no responsibility for ensuring that the judex applied the correct
> interpretation of the law (in fact Albucius explicitly said that he could
> not impose his interpretation of the law on Sabinus, although this is
> precisely what he was supposed to do). In fact Sabinus, on top of making
> decisions about procedure, even said that he had the power to decide what
> penalty to impose, and could change his mind about this at any time during
> the trial, showing a total misunderstanding of the leges Saliciae, which
> make it quite clear that the penalty is to be determined by the presiding
> magistrate in the formula and not by the judex, and that the penalty stated
> in the formula is to be imposed automatically when the accused person is
> condemned, with no possibility of changing it during the trial. Meanwhile
> Albucius said that he could not disregard or radically reinterpret the leges
> of Nova Roma in order to follow Roman custom or his own idea of what was
> best, even though, as I've mentioned earlier, this is exactly what he had
> done at least twice before in the court of these judicial proceedings. He
> also said that the ancient Roman formulary system did not work like the
> system created by the leges Saliciae, which shows, I suggest, that he had
> completely misunderstood the leges Saliciae since they patently intend to
> create, and do create, a system that works very very like the formulary
> system. What's more, Albucius himself said during this discussion that he
> found the lex judiciaria very difficult to understand, and expressed the
> thought that perhaps part of the problem was his understanding of English.
> And yet he was not prepared to enter into any discussion with me about what
> the lex meant or how it ought to be interpreted, and he rejected the
> possibility of using the ancient Roman system, which the preamble of the lex
> specifically cites, as a guide to its interpretation. In fact he even
> rejected the guidance that was included within the lex itself: when I
> pointed out that the formula didn't match the example provided in ch. V of
> the lex, or the explanation of how the example related to the earlier
> provisions about the contents of the formula, he said that he regarded these
> things as a non-mandatory explanation designed to help the magistrate, and
> therefore he didn't feel obliged to follow them. Yes, you read that
> correctly: he said he had a lot of trouble understanding the lex, and he
> said that the example in the lex was there to help him understand it, and he
> said that this was why he thought it was okay to do something completely
> different from the example. I know, my mind boggled too. And perhaps even
> more mind-boggling was the moment when he basically agreed with me that when
> he interpreted the lex judiciaria in the way he had done he discovered that
> the lex required him to do things that made very little sense and were often
> entirely pointless, whereas my interpretation was coherent and made sense.
> This did not, apparently, make him consider that there was any chance of his
> interpretation being wrong and mine being right.
>
> Well, after a few e-mails that discussion was duly closed down by both P.
> Memmius and T. Julius, who made it clear that they did not want to hear any
> more about it. So, on we went with the trial. There was still no clear
> definition of what Q. Metellus had to prove before Sabinus could condemn M.
> Hortensia. There was still no specified penalty to be imposed if he did.
> We still had a judex who thought he was in charge of questions of procedure,
> schedule, and law, and we still had a presiding magistrate who let the judex
> carry on in this way. In fact I know, because Albucius told me, that they
> had had some private e-mail correspondence about the case before the trial
> began, and it may well be that they carried on doing so. You remember that
> earlier I complained about the judex being given documents that had not been
> seen by both parties. Private (i.e. secret) correspondence between the
> judex and the presiding magistrate is even more worrying, because it means
> the judex has seen things that *neither* party has seen. I have no idea
> what they discussed, except that I know they talked about the schedule. I
> suspect they also talked about the role of the judex, because otherwise it's
> unlikely that both of them would have independently come up with the same
> completely misconceived interpretation of the lex. They may have talked
> about any number of things, including the merits of the case. We already
> know that Albucius saw nothing wrong with giving Sabinus advice about what
> decision to make, because that is precisely what he did in the formula, and
> that is precisely what he would later do again in his call for a sententia.
> Perhaps he did it privately as well. In any case, any correspondence
> between the judex and the presiding magistrate should be shown to the
> parties, otherwise they can have no idea what is being said and no
> opportunity to respond to any points that might affect the judex' opinion
> about the case. This is very basic stuff, people. Any lawyer in any
> civilized country would be appalled at what was going on in this court.
>
> So, anyway, it was time for opening speeches, and Metellus made his speech.
> And now, at last, came the clarifications that I had been consistently
> asking Albucius to require and that Albucius had not required: Metellus
> voluntarily gave them, because he saw that it wouldn't be a fair trial
> without them. He abandoned the original vague scope of the petitio actionis
> and now said that there was only one act that he said was an abusus
> potestatis, namely the second edictum issued by Major on 6 June. It was an
> abusus potestatis, he argued, because she restricted C. Equitius' freedom to
> participate in a public forum and because - and this is crucial - she knew
> that it was illegal to do so. He asked Sabinus to condemn her only if he,
> Metellus, could prove beyond reasonable doubt not only that she restricted
> Cato's freedom but also that she knew it was illegal to do so. In my
> opening argument I accepted and adopted this approach, and agreed that
> Sabinus should not condemn Major unless Metellus proved beyond reasonable
> doubt that she knew or believed she was doing something illegal. And I also
> said this: 'In view of the agreement between the two parties about this
> element - the necessity of knowledge, i.e. intention - I do not suppose it
> is necessary to spend any more time on the point. But if, despite our
> agreement, you feel inclined to doubt that this element is a necessary and
> fundamental part of the case that must be proven to you, then I ask you to
> say so now in order that I may try to persuade you of it.' Sabinus did not
> say anything about it. But just to make absolutely sure, I contacted him
> privately (sending a copy also to Albucius and to Metellus, because, as I've
> mentioned, it is not appropriate for one party to say things to the judex
> without the other party knowing) before I closed my case, and I asked, 'May
> I assume that you do not need to be persuaded any further on this point, or
> would you like to hear more argument about it?' He replied (again with
> copies to Metellus and Albucius) that there was no need for me to say
> anything more about it. So right up until the end of the trial, after
> Metellus and I had both had our last opportunity to address any remaining
> points of law or fact, both I and Metellus believed that if Sabinus was not
> persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that Major believed she was doing
> something illegal then he would absolve her, and we both believed that
> Sabinus agreed.
>
> Obviously this meant that Major's state of mind was an important issue in
> the case: did she do something she believed to be illegal? Without proving
> that, Metellus could not win the case. So I called various witnesses to
> give evidence about this. I asked them whether they thought she would do
> anything she believed was illegal. They all said they thought it was very
> unlikely. Naturally enough, Metellus wanted to cross-examine them. But
> Sabinus prevented him, saying, 'I'm sorry to say that the
> questions you presented here have not any connection with the case...
> Therefore these questions are not allowed.' There are two things to notice
> here. The first is that Sabinus was making a decision about the
> admissibility of evidence. The lex Salicia gives the judex no power to make
> such a decision. On the contrary, every decision of this kind that is
> specifically mentioned in the lex is said to be within the power of the
> praetor, not of the judex. This is also in agreement with the Roman
> formulary system. Moreover, ch. XIII says 'The praetor shall be the final
> judge to determine what pieces of evidence are relevant to the case.' So
> decisions about the relevance of evidence are not only implicitly but
> explicitly the preserve of the presiding magistrate, not the judex. Sabinus
> exercised a power that was not his, and Albucius allowed him to do so. The
> second point is that Sabinus was, at least arguably, wrong. The questions
> Metellus asked were designed to rebut Major's case that she did not do, and
> would not have done, anything she thought was illegal - which, as I said
> above, was a crucial part of what Metellus had to disprove in order to win.
> He wanted to do this by undermining the credibility of one of my witnesses
> and by directly challenging the statement of another who said that he had
> never heard any suggestion that Major was contemplating acting illegally.
> The questions, in my opinion, were entirely relevant to the case, and
> Metellus ought to have been allowed to ask them. It was unfair to prevent
> him, and it was also contrary to the lex Salicia for this decision to be
> made by the judex.
>
> And the trial went on. We made our closing remarks. Then came the part of
> the process described by the lex judiciaria, ch. XIV: 'Once both parties
> have presented their evidence, each party shall have the opportunity to make
> one final statement in front of the judices, with the actor speaking in the
> first place. Then the praetor shall call for a sententia (sentence) from the
> judices, according to paragraph XV, reminding the judices that, in case of
> doubt, they must *not* condemn the reus.' I'm just going to repeat that
> last sentence: 'Then the praetor shall call for a sententia (sentence) from
> the judices, according to paragraph XV, reminding the judices that, in case
> of doubt, they must *not* condemn the reus'. What, then, does the presiding
> magistrate have to do at this stage? He has to call for a sententia, i.e.
> ask the judex to deliver his verdict, and he had to remind the judex not to
> condemn the accused if he has any doubt about her guilt. Those are the two
> things, and the only two things, that the lex calls for the presiding
> magistrate to do at this stage.
>
> Let's see what Albucius did:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Novaromatribunalis/message/360
>
> Did you read it? All of it. Please, do read the whole thing. This is
> important. We're near the end of my message, and this is possibly the most
> important part of the whole thing.
>
> Okay, now what did Albucius do here? What he did was this: he took over
> Metellus' job of prosecuting the case, and he also took over Sabinus' job of
> settling the case. Metellus, as I mentioned earlier, began the trial by
> clarifying exactly what his accusation was: Major's second edictum of 6 June
> was illegal, he said, and she knew it was illegal. That's what he set out
> to prove, and that's the basis on which he wanted Sabinus to condemn her,
> not on any other basis. Issuing that edictum is the only thing he said
> amounted to a criminal offence, nothing else. If he didn't prove that
> beyond reasonable doubt, then she should be absolved. That's what he said,
> and that's what I said, and that's what Sabinus indicated he accepted. So
> that's what he argued for, and that's what I argued against. That's what he
> produced evidence to support, and that's what I produced evidence to refute.
> Like good lawyers, we did not waste the court's time with anything that was
> not directly relevant to that central question: was the second edictum of 6
> June illegal, and did Major believe it was illegal? That's what the whole
> trial was about, from start to finish. But the presiding magistrate
> obviously wasn't happy with the way Metellus was doing his job, because
> after all the evidence had been produced and all the arguments made, he
> decided to mount a whole different prosecution of his own. He talks about
> 'a last argument of the actor, according which the violation, by Hortensia,
> of the laws of Nova Roma would result first of the fact that her moderation
> decisions have been vetoed, and second that she would have refused to obey
> these vetos'. He 'considers' it, and he decides that 'it has been
> demonstrated, from the pieces of evidence brought by both parties, that, on
> this only point, former praetor Hortensia Maior "used (her) magisterial
> powers to act against the lawful rights of a person", here G. Equitius Cato,
> by re-issuing twice on June 6, and without legal base a measure of
> moderation which should have been considered by her as having ended on June
> 1.' Let's be clear what's happening here. This is not 'a last argument of
> the actor'. Metellus *never* argued that Major had committed any crime
> whatsoever by means of refusing to obey vetoes. He made it absolutely clear
> throughout the trial that the only relevance of the vetoes was as evidence
> that she must have known she was doing something illegal. According to his
> case, her refusal to obey vetoes was evidence of a crime, but it was not a
> crime itself. The argument that 'the violation, by Hortensia, of the laws
> of Nova Roma would result... of the fact... that she would have refused to
> obey these vetoes' was *invented by the presiding magistrate of the this
> trial* and was never even hinted at in this court until after both the
> prosecutor and the advocate for the defence had closed their cases.
>
> And there's a second point. At the risk of being tedious, let me remind you
> once again that Metellus consistently throughout the trial said that there
> was only one criminal edictum and it was the second edictum of 6 June. Only
> one. I specifically asked him about this (message 323 in the court archive)
> and he confirmed it (message 328). So all our arguments on both sides were
> concerned with whether that one edictum was criminal or not. But what does
> the presiding magistrate say? 'Hortensia Maior "used (her) magisterial
> powers to act against the lawful rights of a person"... by re-issuing twice
> on June 6... a measure of moderation...' *By re-issuing twice*. What he's
> saying here is that the crime was issuing *both* the edicta of 6 June. That
> is another thing that Metellus *never* said. This is not Albucius agreeing
> with Metellus' argument; this is Albucius making up a whole new argument of
> his own. And look, here's a third example of the same thing: 'its cause
> cannot be find but in the will that Hortensia had at this time that G.
> Equitius Cato be sanctioned, whatever the legality of such sanctions'.
> *Whatever the legality of such sanctions*. In other words, he is saying
> that Major is guilty because she did not care whether her actions were legal
> or not. But once again this has nothing to do with what Metellus said. He
> said that she was guilty because she knew, she *actually knew*, that she was
> doing something illegal. Once again, I specifically asked him (message 323
> again) to clarify this point: did he say that she could be found guilty on
> the basis that she didn't care whether her actions were illegal or not, or
> did he say she could only be guilty if she actually knew they were illegal;
> again, he confirmed that his argument was based solely on the allegation
> that she actually knew they were illegal (message 328). So once again all
> our arguments and evidence on both sides were concerned with that point.
> But then Albucius says she is guilty because she decided to sanction Cato
> 'whatever the legality of the sanctions'. Because she acted without caring
> whether she was acting illegally or not. The prosecutor of the case - the
> person whose very job it is to prove the accused guilty - said that this
> would not be enough to make her guilty. But the presiding magistrate, whose
> job is to be impartial, overruled the prosecutor and put forward his own
> argument that she was guilty even if she didn't think she was acting
> illegally.
>
> Folks, there is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start,
> but let's stick with the point I've just alluded to. The presiding
> magistrate in a trial should not be putting forward prosecution arguments at
> any stage. He is not the prosecutor. There's already somebody doing that
> job, and, as it happens in this case, doing it well. It is not the
> presiding magistrate's job. In fact if the presiding magistrate is doing
> that then not only is he doing something that isn't his job, he's doing the
> exact opposite of his job. He's supposed to be independent, impartial,
> sitting above the arguments and just making sure the trial runs smoothly.
> That's how it was in Roman times, and that's how it's clearly meant to be
> under the leges Saliciae even if you read them in complete isolation from
> Roman law, which they specifically tell you not to do. If the presiding
> magistrate doesn't occupy that role and only that role, the whole system
> makes absolutely no sense. It's like having a tennis match in which the
> umpire suddenly climbs down from his chair, picks up a racket, and goes and
> joins one of the players. Not only have you then got two players unfairly
> competing against one, you've also got *no umpire*. And in fact it's worse
> than that, because Albucius didn't just become a second prosecutor here. He
> became a super-prosecutor. Because he's started out as the boss of the
> whole show. He gave Sabinus his instructions. He talked him through the
> schedule of the trial, not to mention anything else he may have said to him
> in private e-mails that we don't know about. He is a magistrate with the
> highest imperium you can get in peace-time, and this court was his court
> that he created and that he was running. That's a huge amount of power and
> influence. And then he deployed it on behalf of one party against the
> other. This is not just some random guy turning up at court and having a go
> at prosecuting after the first prosecutor has finished: this is Sabinus'
> boss, who is also the highest magistrate in the state, telling Sabinus what
> the right answer is. If you think that's fair, I know some delightful
> military dictatorships where you'd absolutely love being put on trial.
>
> But let's forget for a minute that the presiding magistrate should not have
> been doing this at all. *When* did he do it? He did it after both parties
> had closed their cases and there could be no more argument or evidence from
> either side. We had spent the whole trial completely focused on proving or
> disproving the case as Metellus had argued it. For every argument that
> Metellus put forward I had an opportunity to respond to it. For every piece
> of evidence he produced I had an opportunity to criticize it. And for every
> argument and piece of evidence I deployed Metellus had an opportunity to
> deal with it (except for Sabinus' improper rejection of his
> cross-examination, which I've already mentioned). And *then* Albucius
> reaches into his top hat and pulls out a whole new prosecution case, and I
> had absolutely no chance whatsoever to say anything about it. I couldn't
> point out its logical flaws, I couldn't say anything about how it misapplied
> and misinterpreted the law, I couldn't produce any evidence to rebut its
> factual allegations. It was pretty much the equivalent of putting Major on
> trial a second time, with a whole new prosecution case, and not letting her
> say a single word in her own defence. Have another look at that 'call for a
> sententia'. See how it carefully examines and rejects my arguments against
> the case it's putting forward? No, you don't, because there were no
> arguments against that case, because I wasn't allowed to make any, because I
> didn't have even the tiniest hint that that case was going to be happening
> until it was too late.
>
> And let's not even get into whether Albucius' arguments were right or not.
> We really haven't got time for that. Let's not even ask ourselves whether
> it's at all dodgy that Albucius decided Major was guilty because she
> disobeyed vetoes, and whose vetoes were they exactly? Oh, that's right,
> some of them were Albucius' vetoes! So basically he decided that she was
> guilty because she did something he told her not to do. That doesn't in any
> way undermine the impartiality and independence of this verdict, does it?
> Oh, right, it does. Well, if only somebody had pointed out right at the
> beginning of these proceedings that maybe it was a bad idea to have the
> trial being presided over by a magistrate who had issued vetoes that were
> likely to be used as evidence in the case! Oh, right, somebody did. But
> never mind that. Let's move on to what happened next.
>
> What happened next was Sabinus giving a verdict after hearing two different
> prosecution cases: one by Metellus, one by Albucius. He condemned Major, so
> he must have agreed with one of them but which one? What has Major actually
> been found guilty of doing? This is important, people, because part of the
> purpose of our criminal law is to deter people from doing things we don't
> want them to do. And in order to be deterred, people need to know what it
> actually is that they're being deterred from doing. Albucius said Major was
> guilty because she disobeyed (his) vetoes, but Metellus never suggested
> that. So was she condemned because she disobeyed vetoes or not? Does this
> verdict mean that disobeying a veto is a criminal offence or doesn't it? We
> have no idea. Metellus said that the crime was issuing the second edictum
> of 6 June, but Albucius said that it was only a crime if you look at the two
> edicta together. These are not only two different bases of guilt, they're
> actually contradictory. Think about it: if both the edicta together make
> one crime, then each edictum separately is not a crime (otherwise they'd be
> two crimes, not one). So Metellus is saying that the second edictum on its
> own was a crime, and Albucius is saying that the second edictum on its own
> was *not* a crime. Which version did Sabinus find her guilty of? We don't
> know. What is a future magistrate supposed to do with this information?
> What exactly is a future magistrate supposed to be deterred from doing? We
> have no idea! This verdict has no deterrent effect whatsoever because we
> simply don't know what Major has actually been condemned for. By setting
> himself up as a second prosecutor Albucius has not only<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79248 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-08-11
Subject: a. d. III Eidus Sextiliae: Hercules and Playing Dice
M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Pontifex Maximus Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Hercules virtutem in nos addat.

Hodie est ante diem III Eidus Sextiliae; haec dies comitialis est:

AUC 327 / 426 BCE: Appointment of Aemilius as Dictator in the Veientine War

"Four consular tribunes were elected -T. Quinctius Poenus, who had been consul, C. Furius, M. Postumius, and A. Cornelius Cossus. Cossus was warden of the City, the other three after completing the levy advanced against Veii, and they showed how useless a divided command is in war. By each insisting on his own plans, when they all held different views, they gave the enemy his opportunity. For whilst the army was perplexed by different orders, some giving the signal to advance, whilst the others ordered a retreat, the Veientines seized the opportunity for an attack. Breaking into a disorderly flight, the Romans sought refuge in their camp which was close by; they incurred more disgrace than loss. The commonwealth, unaccustomed to defeat, was plunged into grief and shock. The people cursed the hated tribunes and demanded a Dictator; all their hopes depended on him. But once again a religious impediment was met since a Dictator could only be nominated by a consul. The augurs were consulted and said that on this religious point an exception could be made and thereby removed the difficulty. A. Cornelius nominated Mamercus Aemilius as Dictator, he himself was appointed by him Master of the Horse. This proved how powerless the action of the censors was to prevent a member of a family unjustly degraded from being entrusted with supreme control when once the fortunes of the State demanded real courage and ability." ~ T. Livius 4.31


HERCULES

"O Hercules, energetic Alcidean, unwearied after so many labors, so they recall, even so You laid aside Your cares and made delightful play with a tender girl, having forgotten the Nemean lion, and also the Erymanthian boar. What should come afterward? Twisting spindles with Your thumbs, biting smooth the rough threads in Your mouth. Lydian Omphale beat you for repeatedly knotting and breaking the thread with Your rough hands. Often she would lead You as one of her spinning maidens dressed in flowing robes. Your knotty club together with the lion's skin was thrown down to the ground, and Amor danced upon them with light feet. Who would have thought that would come about when as a babe You strangled monstrous serpents with hands that could barely grasp, or when You swiftly cut off the heads of the Hydra as each grew back again? or conquered the savage steeds of Diomede, or when alone You fought the three brothers who shared a common body and contended with six hands? After the Lord of Olympus routed the sons of Aloeus they say He rested on a bed until the bright of day, and then sent His eagle in search and bring back anyone worthy to lovingly serve Jove, until in an Idaean valley he found You, handsome priest, and gently carried You away in his talons." ~ Anomynous Elegy to Maecenus 1.57-68


PLAYING DICE

"He threw a most losing cast. I took up the dice, and invoked Hercules as my genial patron; I threw a first-rate cast, and pledged him in a bumping cup; in return he drank it off, reclined his head, and fell fast asleep. I slyly took away from him the ring, and took my legs quietly from off the couch, so that the Captain mightn't perceive it. The servants enquired whither I was going; I said that I was going whither persons when full are wont to go. When I beheld the door, at once on the instant I took myself away from the place." ~ T. Maccius Plautus, Curculio 358

Tali was a Roman game of gambling. The tali refer to the 'knucklebones' in the feet of pigs, each 'talus' having only four marked sides. Four knucklebones were thrown at a time. A "first-rate cast" as Plautus mentions above was called Venereus iactus when the dice came up 2, 3, 4, and 5. This was also called Basilicus, or "the king's throw," as it was the throw used to choose the King of the Feast.

A "most losing throw" was known as the Volturii quatuor – the four vultures. This throw is believed to have been four ones.

Hercules was the God who was most often called upon in games of chance, not fickle Fortuna, as He was the God who overcame impossible situations and poor odds. Persius, and Horace after him, scold people who prayed to Hercules for an unexpected gain, such as turning up a silver urn filled with gold coins on their small plot of land or inheriting wealth from some unknown relative. In spite of such moralizing, their words show that to the common people Hercules acted in a manner similar to how some Christians today might call upon St. Jude to overcome any difficult situation. Hercules, having overcame His Twelve Labors, is invoked when faced with serious health problems, or when caught in any difficult situation, so it naturally follows that Romans also called upon Him in gaming, as virile Hercules, once mortal Himself, is a friend to mankind.


AUC 870 / 117 CE: The Senate recognized Hadrianus as emperor following the death of Trajan on 22 June at Cilicia.

"On the fifth day before the Ides of August, while he was governor of Syria, he learned of his adoption by Trajan, and he later gave orders to celebrate this day as the anniversary of his adoption. On the third day before the Ides of August he received the news of Trajan's death, and this day he appointed as the anniversary of his accession.

"On taking possession of the imperial power Hadrian at once resumed the policy of the early emperors, and devoted his attention to maintaining peace throughout the world. For the nations which Trajan had conquered began to revolt; the Moors, moreover, began to make attacks, and the Sarmatians to wage war, the Britons could not be kept under Roman sway, Egypt was thrown into disorder by riots, and finally Libya and Palestine showed the spirit of rebellion. Whereupon he relinquished all the conquests east of the Euphrates and the Tigris, following, as he used to say, the example of Cato, who urged that the Macedonians, because they could not be held as subjects, should be declared free and independent. And Parthamasiris, appointed king of the Parthians by Trajan, he assigned as ruler to the neighbouring tribes, because he saw that the man was held in little esteem by the Parthians.

"Moreover, he showed at the outset such a wish to be lenient, that although Attianus advised him by letter in the first few days of his rule to put to death Baebius Macer, the prefect of the city, in case he opposed his elevation to power, also Laberius Maximus, then in exile on an island under suspicion of designs on the throne, and likewise Crassus Frugi, he nevertheless refused to harm them. Later on, however, his procurator, though without an order from Hadrian, had Crassus killed when he tried to leave the island, on the ground that he was planning a revolt. He gave a double donative to the soldiers in order to ensure a favourable beginning to his principate. He deprived Lusius Quietus of the command of the Moorish tribesmen, who were serving under him, and then dismissed him from the army, because he had fallen under the suspicion of having designs on the throne; and he appointed Marcius Turbo, after his reduction of Judaea, to quell the insurrection in Mauretania.

"After taking these measures he set out from Antioch to view the remains of Trajan, which were being escorted by Attianus, Plotina, and Matidia. He received them formally and sent them on to Rome by ship and at once returned to Antioch; he then appointed Catilius Severus governor of Syria, and proceeded to Rome by way of Illyricum.

"Despatching to the senate a carefully worded letter, he asked for divine honours for Trajan. This request he obtained by a unanimous vote; indeed, the senate voluntarily voted Trajan many more honours than Hadrian had requested." ~ Historia Augusta, Hadrianus 4.6-6.1


Today's thought is from Epictetus, Discourses 3.7.35-36:

"'Do this; do not do that, or I will throw you into prison.' This is not the way to govern men as rational creatures. No, but what you should be saying is, 'Do as Zeus has ordained, or you will be punished, you will be harmed.' Harmed? In what way? In this alone, in not doing what you ought, you will destroy in yourself the man of good faith, the man of honor, the man of moderation. Look for no greater harm than this."



Visit Religio_Romana_Cultorum_Deorum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79249 From: eagled2 Date: 2010-08-11
Subject: Re: a. d. III Eidus Sextiliae: Hercules and Playing Dice
Aulus Valerius Barbatus S.P.D.
Thanks for the post. That was interesting. I haven't heard that story before. Is that actual history or roman mythology?

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Pontifex Maximus Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Hercules virtutem in nos addat.
>
> Hodie est ante diem III Eidus Sextiliae; haec dies comitialis est:
>
> AUC 327 / 426 BCE: Appointment of Aemilius as Dictator in the Veientine War
>
> "Four consular tribunes were elected -T. Quinctius Poenus, who had been consul, C. Furius, M. Postumius, and A. Cornelius Cossus. Cossus was warden of the City, the other three after completing the levy advanced against Veii, and they showed how useless a divided command is in war. By each insisting on his own plans, when they all held different views, they gave the enemy his opportunity. For whilst the army was perplexed by different orders, some giving the signal to advance, whilst the others ordered a retreat, the Veientines seized the opportunity for an attack. Breaking into a disorderly flight, the Romans sought refuge in their camp which was close by; they incurred more disgrace than loss. The commonwealth, unaccustomed to defeat, was plunged into grief and shock. The people cursed the hated tribunes and demanded a Dictator; all their hopes depended on him. But once again a religious impediment was met since a Dictator could only be nominated by a consul. The augurs were consulted and said that on this religious point an exception could be made and thereby removed the difficulty. A. Cornelius nominated Mamercus Aemilius as Dictator, he himself was appointed by him Master of the Horse. This proved how powerless the action of the censors was to prevent a member of a family unjustly degraded from being entrusted with supreme control when once the fortunes of the State demanded real courage and ability." ~ T. Livius 4.31
>
>
> HERCULES
>
> "O Hercules, energetic Alcidean, unwearied after so many labors, so they recall, even so You laid aside Your cares and made delightful play with a tender girl, having forgotten the Nemean lion, and also the Erymanthian boar. What should come afterward? Twisting spindles with Your thumbs, biting smooth the rough threads in Your mouth. Lydian Omphale beat you for repeatedly knotting and breaking the thread with Your rough hands. Often she would lead You as one of her spinning maidens dressed in flowing robes. Your knotty club together with the lion's skin was thrown down to the ground, and Amor danced upon them with light feet. Who would have thought that would come about when as a babe You strangled monstrous serpents with hands that could barely grasp, or when You swiftly cut off the heads of the Hydra as each grew back again? or conquered the savage steeds of Diomede, or when alone You fought the three brothers who shared a common body and contended with six hands? After the Lord of Olympus routed the sons of Aloeus they say He rested on a bed until the bright of day, and then sent His eagle in search and bring back anyone worthy to lovingly serve Jove, until in an Idaean valley he found You, handsome priest, and gently carried You away in his talons." ~ Anomynous Elegy to Maecenus 1.57-68
>
>
> PLAYING DICE
>
> "He threw a most losing cast. I took up the dice, and invoked Hercules as my genial patron; I threw a first-rate cast, and pledged him in a bumping cup; in return he drank it off, reclined his head, and fell fast asleep. I slyly took away from him the ring, and took my legs quietly from off the couch, so that the Captain mightn't perceive it. The servants enquired whither I was going; I said that I was going whither persons when full are wont to go. When I beheld the door, at once on the instant I took myself away from the place." ~ T. Maccius Plautus, Curculio 358
>
> Tali was a Roman game of gambling. The tali refer to the 'knucklebones' in the feet of pigs, each 'talus' having only four marked sides. Four knucklebones were thrown at a time. A "first-rate cast" as Plautus mentions above was called Venereus iactus when the dice came up 2, 3, 4, and 5. This was also called Basilicus, or "the king's throw," as it was the throw used to choose the King of the Feast.
>
> A "most losing throw" was known as the Volturii quatuor – the four vultures. This throw is believed to have been four ones.
>
> Hercules was the God who was most often called upon in games of chance, not fickle Fortuna, as He was the God who overcame impossible situations and poor odds. Persius, and Horace after him, scold people who prayed to Hercules for an unexpected gain, such as turning up a silver urn filled with gold coins on their small plot of land or inheriting wealth from some unknown relative. In spite of such moralizing, their words show that to the common people Hercules acted in a manner similar to how some Christians today might call upon St. Jude to overcome any difficult situation. Hercules, having overcame His Twelve Labors, is invoked when faced with serious health problems, or when caught in any difficult situation, so it naturally follows that Romans also called upon Him in gaming, as virile Hercules, once mortal Himself, is a friend to mankind.
>
>
> AUC 870 / 117 CE: The Senate recognized Hadrianus as emperor following the death of Trajan on 22 June at Cilicia.
>
> "On the fifth day before the Ides of August, while he was governor of Syria, he learned of his adoption by Trajan, and he later gave orders to celebrate this day as the anniversary of his adoption. On the third day before the Ides of August he received the news of Trajan's death, and this day he appointed as the anniversary of his accession.
>
> "On taking possession of the imperial power Hadrian at once resumed the policy of the early emperors, and devoted his attention to maintaining peace throughout the world. For the nations which Trajan had conquered began to revolt; the Moors, moreover, began to make attacks, and the Sarmatians to wage war, the Britons could not be kept under Roman sway, Egypt was thrown into disorder by riots, and finally Libya and Palestine showed the spirit of rebellion. Whereupon he relinquished all the conquests east of the Euphrates and the Tigris, following, as he used to say, the example of Cato, who urged that the Macedonians, because they could not be held as subjects, should be declared free and independent. And Parthamasiris, appointed king of the Parthians by Trajan, he assigned as ruler to the neighbouring tribes, because he saw that the man was held in little esteem by the Parthians.
>
> "Moreover, he showed at the outset such a wish to be lenient, that although Attianus advised him by letter in the first few days of his rule to put to death Baebius Macer, the prefect of the city, in case he opposed his elevation to power, also Laberius Maximus, then in exile on an island under suspicion of designs on the throne, and likewise Crassus Frugi, he nevertheless refused to harm them. Later on, however, his procurator, though without an order from Hadrian, had Crassus killed when he tried to leave the island, on the ground that he was planning a revolt. He gave a double donative to the soldiers in order to ensure a favourable beginning to his principate. He deprived Lusius Quietus of the command of the Moorish tribesmen, who were serving under him, and then dismissed him from the army, because he had fallen under the suspicion of having designs on the throne; and he appointed Marcius Turbo, after his reduction of Judaea, to quell the insurrection in Mauretania.
>
> "After taking these measures he set out from Antioch to view the remains of Trajan, which were being escorted by Attianus, Plotina, and Matidia. He received them formally and sent them on to Rome by ship and at once returned to Antioch; he then appointed Catilius Severus governor of Syria, and proceeded to Rome by way of Illyricum.
>
> "Despatching to the senate a carefully worded letter, he asked for divine honours for Trajan. This request he obtained by a unanimous vote; indeed, the senate voluntarily voted Trajan many more honours than Hadrian had requested." ~ Historia Augusta, Hadrianus 4.6-6.1
>
>
> Today's thought is from Epictetus, Discourses 3.7.35-36:
>
> "'Do this; do not do that, or I will throw you into prison.' This is not the way to govern men as rational creatures. No, but what you should be saying is, 'Do as Zeus has ordained, or you will be punished, you will be harmed.' Harmed? In what way? In this alone, in not doing what you ought, you will destroy in yourself the man of good faith, the man of honor, the man of moderation. Look for no greater harm than this."
>
>
>
> Visit Religio_Romana_Cultorum_Deorum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79250 From: marcus.lucretius Date: 2010-08-11
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
M. Lucretius Agricola Omnibus SPD


It comes to mind now that I should publicly congratulate the following couples because of their marriages, and also thank them for permitting me, in a small way, to participate in their ceremony.

Thanks, congratulations and good fortune to

T. Iunius Brutus et C. Lucilia Severa,

Ap. Furius Lupus et L. Cassia Dives,

M. Octavius Corvus et Ap. Flavia Gemella



valete in cura deorum



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcus.lucretius" <marcus.lucretius@...> wrote:
>
> M. Lucretius Agricola Omnibus SPD
>
> I have just returned from Sarmatia, and before I sleep I want to add my voice to that of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus. I specifically want to thank M. Octavius Corvus and his household for their wonderfully generous hospitality. It was a real pleasure to meet so many Sarmatians and Nova Roma citizens from other provinces as well.
>
> There is so much more to write, but that must wait. It must suffice now to say that my expectations were exceeded in every way. This was a week that will be hard to surpass.
>
> valete in cura deorum
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@> wrote:
> >
> > Cn. Lentulus pontifex, M. Lucretius augur, M. Octavius sacerdos Iovis et omnes Sarmatici, Pannonii Poltava Q V I R I T I B V S s. d. p.
> >
> > A very quick but verz warm greetings from Poltava (Sarmatia), from our part! We are well and we are very, very, very glad here, all events went wonderfully, including the weddings, the investiture of augur M. Lucretius Agricola, a Sarmatian votum, and the foundation of a Nova Roma REAL temple. Corvus is a wonderful houselord, we enjoy his hospitatality beyond words.
> > I tell you we experience the real one and truly existing side of Nova Roma, friends, Roman brothers and sisters together from Japan to Budapest, in Ukrain, to celebrate our Republic, which I tell you, is more living than anyone could imagine.
> > We will leave Poltava soon within a few hours, Agricola remains some more days, though.
> > Hail Nova Roma, long live the Republic, vivat Nova Roma!
> > With hugs and gladdest emotion, Corvus and his family, Agricola, the Sarmatians (many), the Pannonians, Q. Arrius, and M. Antonius, and I Lentulus, we all salute you!!
> > Ex Sarmatia, Poltava
> >
> >
> >
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79251 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-11
Subject: Edict 2063-03: Edict Aedile Curule L. Iulia Aquila Appointing of Scr
Edictum 2063-03: Edictum Aedilis Curulis L. Iuliae Aquilae De scribis creandis.

Ego, L. Iulia Aquila, aedilis curulis, decrevi ut cives

C. Petronius Dexter
A. Decia Scriptrix
Ti. Claudius Drusus
C. Iulia Agrippa
C. Aquillius Rota

scribae in aedilicia cohorte mea crearentur, omnibus officiis privilegiisque muniti, quae legibus Novae Romae praescripta sunt.

Nullum ius iurandum poscetur.
Hoc edictum statim valet.

Datum sub manu mea a.d. III Id. Sex. ‡ P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss. ‡ MMDCCLXIII a.u.c.

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

Edict 2063-03: Edict Aedile Curule L. Iulia Aquila On the Naming of Scribae:

I hereby appoint the following citizens as my scribae together with all the obligations and privileges prescribed by the laws of Nova Roma:

C. Petronius Dexter
A Decia Scriptrix
Ti. Claudius Drusus
G. Iulia Agrippa
C. Aquillius Rota

No oath shall be required of them.
This edict is effective immediately.

Given under my hand 10 August ‡ P. Memmio K. Buteone (II) cos. ‡ 2010
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79252 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-11
Subject: piaculum flaminicae
Performed this morning, a.d. III Id. Sex.at my lararium:

Jane pater, te hac strue obmovenda bonas preces precor, uti sis volens propitius mihi domo familiaeque meae.

Jane pater, macte istace libatione pollucenda esto, macte vino inferio esto.

Vesta mater, macte istace libatione pollucenda esto, macte vino inferio esto
Carmenta, macte istace libatione pollucenda esto, macte vino inferio esto
Mens bona, macte istace libatione pollucenda esto, macte vino inferio esto

Di Penates meium parentum, familiai Lar pater, vobis mando, meum parentum rem bene ut tutemini.

Larem venerare ut nobis haec habitatio bono fausta felix fortunataque evenat.

Deae Vesta, Carmenta et Mens, si quidquam vobis ut admisi displicet, hoc lacte inferio veniam peto et vitium meum expio.

Macte esto.

M. Hortensia Maior Fabiana
Flaminica Carmentalis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79253 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-11
Subject: Re: piaculum flaminicae
Umm...yet you have failed to answer the questions from those who you have
insulted. Interesting. Does anyone believe this was done for any reason
other than for Maior to get her right to vote back?

This is the worst kind of non-apology apology.

Vale,

Sulla

2010/8/11 rory12001 <rory12001@...>

>
>
> Performed this morning, a.d. III Id. Sex.at my lararium:
>
> Jane pater, te hac strue obmovenda bonas preces precor, uti sis volens
> propitius mihi domo familiaeque meae.
>
> Jane pater, macte istace libatione pollucenda esto, macte vino inferio
> esto.
>
> Vesta mater, macte istace libatione pollucenda esto, macte vino inferio
> esto
> Carmenta, macte istace libatione pollucenda esto, macte vino inferio esto
> Mens bona, macte istace libatione pollucenda esto, macte vino inferio esto
>
> Di Penates meium parentum, familiai Lar pater, vobis mando, meum parentum
> rem bene ut tutemini.
>
> Larem venerare ut nobis haec habitatio bono fausta felix fortunataque
> evenat.
>
> Deae Vesta, Carmenta et Mens, si quidquam vobis ut admisi displicet, hoc
> lacte inferio veniam peto et vitium meum expio.
>
> Macte esto.
>
> M. Hortensia Maior Fabiana
> Flaminica Carmentalis
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79254 From: mcorvvs Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Tribunician report for July session of the Senate (Corrected)
Salvete omnes,

due to my mistake in calcullating the time the votes of Senator C. Popillius Laenas were counted vrongly. Below is July session report corrected. My apologies to Senator Laenas.

Tribunus Plebis Marcus Octavius Corvus Quiritibus S.P.D.

Citizens of Nova Roma,

Here is the Tribunician report of the Senate session of July 19 – July 25,
2763

The votes have been tallied and the results are as follows:

Formal debate ended at Friday 00.01 hrs CET Roma, 23 July 2010 2763.
Voting began at Friday 23 July 2010 at 00.02 hrs CET Roma 2763
and was concluded at Sunday 25 July 2010 at 00.02 CET Roma 2763.

The following XX Senators cast their votes on time. They are referred to by
their initials which are listed in alphabetical order (with the exception of the
presiding magistrate who will be listed first):

*KFBQ: K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus, Presiding Magistrate
C0-presiding magistrates:
Max. Valeria Messallina, Tribuna Plebis
C. Curius Saturninus, Tribunus Plebis
C. Aquillius Rota, Tribunus Plebis
M. Octavius Corvus, Tribunus Plebis


*ATS: A. Tullia Scholastica
*CCS: C. Curius Saturninus
*CEC: C. Equitius Cato
*CnEM: Cn. Equitius Marinus
*CPL: C. Popillius Laenas
*EmCF: Em. Curia Finnica
*FrAC: Fr. Apulus Caesar
*KFBM: K. Fabius Buteo Modianus
*MAM: M. Arminius Maior
*MCC: M. Curiatius Complutensis
*MHM: M. Hortensia Maior
*MIP: M. Iulius Perusianus
*MIS: M. Iulius Severus
*MLA: M. Lucretius Agricola
*MMPH: M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
*QSP: Q. Suetonius Paulinus
*TiGP.: Ti. Galerius Paulinus
*TIS: T. Iulius Sabinus

The following Senator (I) voted by proxy:
*ArnMA: Arn. Moravia Aurelia (Proxy vote delivered by K. Fabius Buteo
Quintilianus)


The following Senatores (X) did not vote:

*CFD: C. Flavius Diocletianus
*CMM: C. Marius Merullus
*CnIC: Cn. Iulius Caesar
*CVP: C. Vipsanius Agrippa
*DIPI: Dec. Iunius Palladius Invictus
*FlGA: Fl. Galerius Aurelianus
*LCSF: L. Cornelius Sulla Felix
*MMA M. Minucius Audens
*PMA: P. Memmius Albucius
*QFM: Q. Fabius Maximus


_________________________________________

"VTI ROGAS" indicates a vote in favor of an item,
"ANTIQVO" is a vote against,
"ABSTINEO" is an open abstention.
__________________________________________

All decisions were made with a majority of Uti Rogas votes.

Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.

Correction of the Constitution IV, a:
"Elections of the ordinarii shall take place no later than December
15th, and newly-elected officials shall assume their offices on
January 1st."

Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.

"Elections of the ordinarii shall take place no later than December
1st, and newly-elected officials shall assume their offices on January
1st, except Plebeian Aediles and Tribunes of the Plebs who shall assume
their offices on December 10th."

UTI ROGAS: 16
ANTIQUO: 0
ABSTINEO: 4

The result of the voting is Item I PASSED

KFBM: On both items I vote UTI ROGAS.
KFBQ: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. UTI ROGAS
MHM: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. UTI ROGAS
CnEM: I Uti Rogas
MLA: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. UTI ROGAS. Although I am a patrician myself I am happy to lend my vote to this fine lex which moves us closer to historical practice and I think may provide a help in smoothing our annual transition of magistrates.
MMPH: Item I. For the proposed Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. ADSENTIOR UTI ROGAS
CPL: I Uti Rogas
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
TiGP: Uti Rogas on all three agenda items.
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
ATS: Item I: Uti rogas. This is long overdue, and should bring us closer to ancient Roman practice.
MIS: Item I. For the proposed Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. ADSENTIOR VTI ROGAS
CCS: Item I: Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis Uti rogas.
TIS: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. Uti rogas.
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
ArnMA: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. UTI ROGAS
MCC: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. UTI ROGAS
QSP: > I Uti Rogas>
MIP: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. VTI ROGAS
EmCF: Item I: Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis Uti rogas.
FrAC: Item I1. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. VTI ROGAS
CEC: Item I - VTI ROGAS
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
MAM: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. Uti Rogas.

_________________________________________


Item II. The IT-project

The Senate appoints Kristoffer From (formerly known within Nova Roma
as Senator Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus) as the programmer who will
develop and set up a new IT-system, consisting of an automated
election-system and a new citizen database with tools for our
magistrates and citizens.

The Senate affirms that the cost for the IT-project executed by
KristofferFrom will be paid for with 10 000 USD.

The Senate requests the project to be completed in time for the fall
elections in November 2010, but understands that if the new system is
not ready in time, Kristoffer From will arrange the elections and run-
off elections in the current system. Kristoffer From will, in addition
to the fall elections and run-off elections, set up no more than one
session in each Comitia each month during his work on the project.

The Senate orders the CIO to choose the most advantageous pay model
for Nova Roma, either the mentioned Swedish NPO or another solution.
Guarantees by the CIO will be given to assure that any chosen solution
is irreproachable. A registered accountant who will check on the
correctness may need separate pay though.

Kristoffer From will leave reports on the progress of the project to
the CIO who will share these reports with the Senate. There will be
five such short reports, these reports will be sent to the CIO at the
following occasions and when the following milestones are completed
(but probably not working together yet):

1. Database (the backbone of the new site)
2. Access control (a basic website with an authentication method)
3. Server-side daemon (to enable automation of time-sensitive tasks)
4. Election system (automated running of elections)
5. Administrative tools (so magistrates can access the system)
6. Documentation (so Kristoffer is not the only one who knows how it
works)

These milestones may be reported in any order and they only have a
partial connection to the payment of Kristoffer From. The reports will
serve the purpose of keeping the Senate informed of progress of the
IT-project. Still, the work is too complicated to connect the
milestones too strictly to payments.

Kristoffer From may report on the milestones in any order, as they are
reached. The last payment will however not be made until the CIO has
stated that the work is finished.

The Senate orders the CFO or someone appointed/approved by the Senate
instead of a CFO to immediately set aside the full 10 000 USD and upon
the start of the project pay 2 500 USD for salary, social costs and
taxes for Kristoffer From. The next payment of 2500 will be paid as
soon as Kristoffer From reports on one milestone and a third payment
of 2 500 USD will be paid as soon as Kristoffer From reports on a
second milestone. When the project is completed to the satisfaction of
the CIO, the remaining 2 500 USD will be paid according to the chosen
pay-model.

Kristoffer From will do after-work checks and surveillance checks for
at least three months to see to it that the new IT-system really
works in actual use. Nova Roma may also be asked to assist in
performing tests of the system during this period.


Uti rogas: 15
Antiquo: 0
Abstineo: 5
The result of the voting is Item II PASSED


KFBM: On both items I vote UTI ROGAS.
KFBQ: Item II. The IT-project UTI ROGAS
MHM: Item II. The IT-project UTI ROGAS
CnEM: I Uti Rogas
MLA: Item II. The IT-project UTI ROGAS. I have had a closer view than most as this project has gone ahead. Saturninus has done a top-rate job and I am happy to lend my vote in support of this long-overdue measure.
MMPH: Item II. For the IT-project ADSENTIOR UTI ROGAS
CPL: I Uti Rogas
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
TiGP: Uti Rogas on all three agenda items.
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
ATS: Item II: Uti rogas. It seems that we have reached the point where it is better to start anew than attempt to repair the existing programs or whatever despite the expense. Appliances and automobiles have similar problems; we should not expect our IT infrastructure to last forever, no matter how well maintained.
MIS: Item II. For the IT-project ADSENTIOR VTI ROGAS
CCS: Item II: The IT-project Uti rogas. This is the most important improvement into our infrastructure ever since first Album Civium and Cista.
TIS: Item II. The IT-project TIS: Uti rogas.
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
ArnMA: Item II. The IT-project UTI ROGAS
MCC: Item II. IT-project UTI ROGAS
QSP: > I Uti Rogas>
MIP: Item Item II. The IT-project VTI ROGAS
EmCF: Item II: The IT-project Uti rogas. This is an very drastic improvement that can be no longer delayed. The existing system is completely out of date, poorly documented and there is only one individual who is actually able to use it somehow. Wihout a new IT-system there will be no further elections.
FrAC: Item Item II. The IT-project ABSTINEO As professionist of this commercial area, I would like to read the concrete project before to give my approval. The budget in fact is very high and it would be analyzed by a pool of experts.
CEC: Item I - VTI ROGAS
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
MAM: Item II. The IT-project Uti Rogas.

_____________________________________________

Item III. Dictatorship

The Senate of Nova Roma, having convened in an emergency session,
considers that:

Whereas the current situation in Nova Roma threatens the very
existence of Nova Roma both as a nation and as a membership
organization, and,

Whereas these crises in our organization and corporation, our
finances, and our technical problems result from many causes that must
be addressed so as to avoid Nova Roma from harm, as well as to ensure
the orderly and enjoyable continuation of Nova Roma, and,

Whereas any solutions to these present crises should and must be done
in accordance with the governing bodies of law,

Do we, the Senate of Nova Roma, by the vote of a majority, hereby
appoint Gnaeus Equitius Marinus to the office of Dictator, and invest
in him complete auctoritas and imperium for a period of no more than
six months, trusting in him to resolve the present crises and take
whatever steps he deems necessary to prevent future harm to the Res
Publica Populi Novae Romae.

The Senate conveys resolution of the following tasks, although not
limited to these alone, to Cn. Equitius Marinus:

To oversee the rewriting of corporate bylaws for Nova Roma, Inc

To have the Constitution and subordinate laws reviewed for the purpose
of amending or replacing them as are necessary to protect the
respublica from harm

To resolve the IT issues that threaten our website and on which the
functions of the respublica rely

To restructure voting procedures to make them robust against loss of
technical programs or equipment.

To simplify the magisterial structure to provide fewer magistrates
with better defined roles.


In the name of the Senate and the People of the Nova Roma, and in the
sight of the Gods and Goddesses of the People of Nova Roma, under the
provision of the Constitution IV.B.1, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus,
Censorius is hereby appointed Dictator and Magister Populi of Nova Roma.

Uti rogas: 15
Antiquo: 1
Abstineo: 4
The result of the voting is Item III PASSED


KFBM: Rather, on all three items I vote UTI ROGAS.
KFBQ: Item III. Dictatorship UTI ROGAS
MHM: Item Item III. Dictatorship UTI ROGAS
CnEM: III Uti Rogas, and may the Dii Immortales help me
MLA: Item III. Dictatorship UTI ROGAS. Senator and Censorius Marinus is one of the very few whom I could support in this position. In deciding my vote I also consider the manifest desire of the people to put ourselves back on the right track.
MMPH: Item III. ADSENTIOR UTI ROGAS
CPL: I Uti Rogas
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
TiGP: Now as to the proposed dictatorship. When the Roman appointed a dictator armies were at their gates.
When the Romans appointed their first dictator there was an effort under way to return the kings to power.
A week or so ago I stated on one of the lists that I would not support the appointment of a dictator even if I was proposed as the dictator. My opposition to a dictator has NOTHING to do with Senator Marinus or any other person who might have been nominated. It is based on my belief that while we have problems we do not have a crisis.
I do not see anything that has changed and I vote NO on the proposed
appointment of a dictator.
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
ATS: Item III. Ut pollicita sum, tertia discessio sequitur. Iterum
quidem sententi, interdum aliqua facienda, etsi injucunda. Malim Novam
Romam rixis omnino carere; malim omnia sine pervicaciis et obicibus esse si quid alicui displiceat. Infelicissim, haec ita non sunt, et mutanda.
Dictaturae mihi displicent, sed ut videtur, nunc un nobis opus est.
Dolendum sed quae cum ita sint, optio alia abest. Vir quem proposuisti
bonus est, et eum honestum arbitror. Assentior, etsi animo sollicito nec laetitiam capiens, ut rogas.
MIS: Item III. Dictatorship MIS: ADSENTIOR VTI ROGAS
CCS: Item III: Dictatorship Uti rogas. It is time to save the republic. It is time to put politics aside and do real things. If accomplishing it means to vote for dictatorship, I'll do it. As a Roman citizen, magistrate and senator, Marinus has my support.
TIS: Item III. Uti rogas.
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
ArnMA: Item III.Dictatorship. UTI ROGAS
MCC: Item III. Dictatorship. UTI ROGAS
QSP: > III Antiquo
MIP: Item III. Dictatorship VTI ROGAS
EmCF: Item III: Dictatorship Uti rogas.
FrAC: Item III. Dictatorship VTI ROGAS I don't like the dictatorship, my own personal political opinion would drive me to more democratical and popular kinds of governments. But the situation of NR is bad, I'm looking the organization from a more far point of view and I find again a disorganized group divided by superficial discussions and political games. I hope the good Marinus would concentrate his efforts to find a new identity to NR, a real mission in a real world for the members, concrete and "unvirtual" opportunities and projects. The
way taken by NR during the last year is the worst road, we need a change of direction. Marinus, please, do it!
CEC: ITEM III - Although I do not go to the extreme that Gn. Iulius Caesar does, I cannot help but agree that each "crisis" we are called upon to deal now with was brought up in one form or another and those who did so were mocked or ignored because of political convenience. I think this because I was, of course, one of them; exempli gratia, I have advocated for the by-laws change for *years* now,
offering my proposals repeatedly and simply being ignored. Our compliance with Maine law was brought up repeatedly (again, by myself among others) - only to be scoffed at and ignored because those in power disliked the messengers rather than paying attention to the message. So my personal feelings urge me to refuse to allow those in power to stand back and make someone else responsible for cleaning up the messes they have made.
Yet, the Romans themselves did not look with horror at the idea of a dictator, probably because they had no experience with our common modern understanding of dictatorial government, with Hitler, Stalin, Tito, Ceaucescu, Peron, Pol Pot, Castro, etc., standing in our collective modern consciousness as the epitome of governments marked by arbitrary cruelty and inhumanity. The Romans appointed
dictators not only to carry out wars but often to simply get a particular job done: to fill vacancies in the Senate, to preside over public games, to create holidays...even just to drive a nail into the door of the temple of Iuppiter O.M. in times of plague. They did their job, and unless they were a Sulla or a Marius or a Caesar, when it was finished they simply stepped back down into regular public life.
So while I do believe that this series of "crises" has been manufactured by willful ignorance or blatant disregard on the part of some of those who have held the reins of power over the past two years, I cannot justify standing in the way of what is apparently the only solution that will hopefully make - force - those who hold power to shut up and actually listen for a change. The end does *not* justify the means, but simple dislike for the means does not make
them evil, nor does it justify accepting a crippling status quo, either. VTI ROGAS
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
MAM: Item III. Dictatorship Uti Rogas.

_____________________________________________
The following senators announced their desire to withdraw their votes
after voting:

C. Equitius Cato
Ti. Galerius Paulinus
T. Iulius Sabinus
C. Popillius Laenas

Normal rules of Parliamentary Procedure do not allow for members of a
voting quorum to withdraw once the quorum has been made. The legality
of these withdrawls is in question.


Tribuni:

M. Octavius Corvus (reporting)
Maxima Valeria Messallina
C. Curius Saturnius
C. Aquilius Rota

I thank my colleague Maxima Valeria Messallina and Senator Marcus Lucretius
Agricola for advise and help while preparing this, such a difficult report.

Valete bene in pace Deorum,

M. Octavius Corvus
Tribunus Plebis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79255 From: mcorvvs Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Salutations from Municipium Poltava!!!!!!!!!!!
Salvete amici,

I am not so often visit this ML and I almost missed this topic... Thank you very much vor your warm words and congratulations (I thank even you, Dexter amice :) ). Sarmatian Days this year consumed so much of my energy that I still can't get my thoughts arranged to write a report. Yet this feast gave us so many pleasure in celebrating our weddings, meeting fellow citizens from different countries and enjoying the spirit of true Romanitas. Thanks to all of you and my special thank for those who helped Lentulus to make his heroic quest.
I am happy Agricola and Lentulus have succeded in coming to Sarmatia - without them it would have became absolutely different event.

Valete bene,

CORVVS

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcus.lucretius" <marcus.lucretius@...> wrote:
>
> M. Lucretius Agricola Omnibus SPD
>
>
> It comes to mind now that I should publicly congratulate the following couples because of their marriages, and also thank them for permitting me, in a small way, to participate in their ceremony.
>
> Thanks, congratulations and good fortune to
>
> T. Iunius Brutus et C. Lucilia Severa,
>
> Ap. Furius Lupus et L. Cassia Dives,
>
> M. Octavius Corvus et Ap. Flavia Gemella
>
>
>
> valete in cura deorum
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcus.lucretius" <marcus.lucretius@> wrote:
> >
> > M. Lucretius Agricola Omnibus SPD
> >
> > I have just returned from Sarmatia, and before I sleep I want to add my voice to that of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus. I specifically want to thank M. Octavius Corvus and his household for their wonderfully generous hospitality. It was a real pleasure to meet so many Sarmatians and Nova Roma citizens from other provinces as well.
> >
> > There is so much more to write, but that must wait. It must suffice now to say that my expectations were exceeded in every way. This was a week that will be hard to surpass.
> >
> > valete in cura deorum
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cn. Lentulus pontifex, M. Lucretius augur, M. Octavius sacerdos Iovis et omnes Sarmatici, Pannonii Poltava Q V I R I T I B V S s. d. p.
> > >
> > > A very quick but verz warm greetings from Poltava (Sarmatia), from our part! We are well and we are very, very, very glad here, all events went wonderfully, including the weddings, the investiture of augur M. Lucretius Agricola, a Sarmatian votum, and the foundation of a Nova Roma REAL temple. Corvus is a wonderful houselord, we enjoy his hospitatality beyond words.
> > > I tell you we experience the real one and truly existing side of Nova Roma, friends, Roman brothers and sisters together from Japan to Budapest, in Ukrain, to celebrate our Republic, which I tell you, is more living than anyone could imagine.
> > > We will leave Poltava soon within a few hours, Agricola remains some more days, though.
> > > Hail Nova Roma, long live the Republic, vivat Nova Roma!
> > > With hugs and gladdest emotion, Corvus and his family, Agricola, the Sarmatians (many), the Pannonians, Q. Arrius, and M. Antonius, and I Lentulus, we all salute you!!
> > > Ex Sarmatia, Poltava
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79256 From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Office of Dictator illegal under Maine law
Salvete Quirites,

I have been informed by the Maine lawyer, Mr. Harvey Mechanic, who I
retained at my own cost, that the office of Dictator as defined in
Nova Roma's constitution is illegal under Maine law.

Mr. Mechanic writes:

--- Begin Citation ---

The State law allows one person to hold all offices of a nonprofit corporation
http://law.justia.com/maine/codes/title13-bch0sec0/title13-bsec710.html
but not "full legislative powers" which are what the Board has and may
not delegate to a one man committee (Dictator). Therefore, the
Dictator position is illegal under Maine law.

--- End Citation ---

So, I will NOT assume the office of Dictator. Furthermore, I strongly
recommend the Senate take immediate steps in its capacity as Board of
Directors to review any laws enacted under the previous dictatorship
and to act as necessary to bring us into compliance with Maine law.

Valete,

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79257 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: FALSE Tribunician report for Illegal session of the Senate
Salvete Tribunes,

I informed the Senate, in the middle of the meeting, that I was withdrawing my votes, my proxy and my attendance.

If we had been at a face to face meeting then the Consuls Lictor�s MAY have prevented me from leaving the building. Since we were NOT face to face nothing could or did prevent me from withdrawing my participation to this illegal session.

I withdrew my participation period. Anything you write to the contrary is a lie.

Valete

Ti. Galerius Paulinus




To: ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com
From: corvvs@...
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 04:43:19 +0000
Subject: [CPT] Re: Tribunician report for July session of the Senate (Corrected)






Salvete omnes,

due to my mistake in calcullating the time the votes of Senator C. Popillius Laenas were counted vrongly. Below is July session report corrected. My apologies to Senator Laenas.

Tribunus Plebis Marcus Octavius Corvus Quiritibus S.P.D.

Citizens of Nova Roma,

Here is the Tribunician report of the Senate session of July 19 � July 25,
2763

The votes have been tallied and the results are as follows:

Formal debate ended at Friday 00.01 hrs CET Roma, 23 July 2010 2763.
Voting began at Friday 23 July 2010 at 00.02 hrs CET Roma 2763
and was concluded at Sunday 25 July 2010 at 00.02 CET Roma 2763.

The following XX Senators cast their votes on time. They are referred to by
their initials which are listed in alphabetical order (with the exception of the
presiding magistrate who will be listed first):

*KFBQ: K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus, Presiding Magistrate
C0-presiding magistrates:
Max. Valeria Messallina, Tribuna Plebis
C. Curius Saturninus, Tribunus Plebis
C. Aquillius Rota, Tribunus Plebis
M. Octavius Corvus, Tribunus Plebis

*ATS: A. Tullia Scholastica
*CCS: C. Curius Saturninus
*CEC: C. Equitius Cato
*CnEM: Cn. Equitius Marinus
*CPL: C. Popillius Laenas
*EmCF: Em. Curia Finnica
*FrAC: Fr. Apulus Caesar
*KFBM: K. Fabius Buteo Modianus
*MAM: M. Arminius Maior
*MCC: M. Curiatius Complutensis
*MHM: M. Hortensia Maior
*MIP: M. Iulius Perusianus
*MIS: M. Iulius Severus
*MLA: M. Lucretius Agricola
*MMPH: M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
*QSP: Q. Suetonius Paulinus
*TiGP.: Ti. Galerius Paulinus
*TIS: T. Iulius Sabinus

The following Senator (I) voted by proxy:
*ArnMA: Arn. Moravia Aurelia (Proxy vote delivered by K. Fabius Buteo
Quintilianus)

The following Senatores (X) did not vote:

*CFD: C. Flavius Diocletianus
*CMM: C. Marius Merullus
*CnIC: Cn. Iulius Caesar
*CVP: C. Vipsanius Agrippa
*DIPI: Dec. Iunius Palladius Invictus
*FlGA: Fl. Galerius Aurelianus
*LCSF: L. Cornelius Sulla Felix
*MMA M. Minucius Audens
*PMA: P. Memmius Albucius
*QFM: Q. Fabius Maximus

_________________________________________

"VTI ROGAS" indicates a vote in favor of an item,
"ANTIQVO" is a vote against,
"ABSTINEO" is an open abstention.
__________________________________________

All decisions were made with a majority of Uti Rogas votes.

Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.

Correction of the Constitution IV, a:
"Elections of the ordinarii shall take place no later than December
15th, and newly-elected officials shall assume their offices on
January 1st."

Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.

"Elections of the ordinarii shall take place no later than December
1st, and newly-elected officials shall assume their offices on January
1st, except Plebeian Aediles and Tribunes of the Plebs who shall assume
their offices on December 10th."

UTI ROGAS: 16
ANTIQUO: 0
ABSTINEO: 4

The result of the voting is Item I PASSED

KFBM: On both items I vote UTI ROGAS.
KFBQ: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. UTI ROGAS
MHM: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. UTI ROGAS
CnEM: I Uti Rogas
MLA: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. UTI ROGAS. Although I am a patrician myself I am happy to lend my vote to this fine lex which moves us closer to historical practice and I think may provide a help in smoothing our annual transition of magistrates.
MMPH: Item I. For the proposed Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. ADSENTIOR UTI ROGAS
CPL: I Uti Rogas
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
TiGP: Uti Rogas on all three agenda items.
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
ATS: Item I: Uti rogas. This is long overdue, and should bring us closer to ancient Roman practice.
MIS: Item I. For the proposed Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. ADSENTIOR VTI ROGAS
CCS: Item I: Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis Uti rogas.
TIS: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. Uti rogas.
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
ArnMA: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. UTI ROGAS
MCC: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. UTI ROGAS
QSP: > I Uti Rogas>
MIP: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. VTI ROGAS
EmCF: Item I: Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis Uti rogas.
FrAC: Item I1. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. VTI ROGAS
CEC: Item I - VTI ROGAS
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
MAM: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. Uti Rogas.

_________________________________________

Item II. The IT-project

The Senate appoints Kristoffer From (formerly known within Nova Roma
as Senator Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus) as the programmer who will
develop and set up a new IT-system, consisting of an automated
election-system and a new citizen database with tools for our
magistrates and citizens.

The Senate affirms that the cost for the IT-project executed by
KristofferFrom will be paid for with 10 000 USD.

The Senate requests the project to be completed in time for the fall
elections in November 2010, but understands that if the new system is
not ready in time, Kristoffer From will arrange the elections and run-
off elections in the current system. Kristoffer From will, in addition
to the fall elections and run-off elections, set up no more than one
session in each Comitia each month during his work on the project.

The Senate orders the CIO to choose the most advantageous pay model
for Nova Roma, either the mentioned Swedish NPO or another solution.
Guarantees by the CIO will be given to assure that any chosen solution
is irreproachable. A registered accountant who will check on the
correctness may need separate pay though.

Kristoffer From will leave reports on the progress of the project to
the CIO who will share these reports with the Senate. There will be
five such short reports, these reports will be sent to the CIO at the
following occasions and when the following milestones are completed
(but probably not working together yet):

1. Database (the backbone of the new site)
2. Access control (a basic website with an authentication method)
3. Server-side daemon (to enable automation of time-sensitive tasks)
4. Election system (automated running of elections)
5. Administrative tools (so magistrates can access the system)
6. Documentation (so Kristoffer is not the only one who knows how it
works)

These milestones may be reported in any order and they only have a
partial connection to the payment of Kristoffer From. The reports will
serve the purpose of keeping the Senate informed of progress of the
IT-project. Still, the work is too complicated to connect the
milestones too strictly to payments.

Kristoffer From may report on the milestones in any order, as they are
reached. The last payment will however not be made until the CIO has
stated that the work is finished.

The Senate orders the CFO or someone appointed/approved by the Senate
instead of a CFO to immediately set aside the full 10 000 USD and upon
the start of the project pay 2 500 USD for salary, social costs and
taxes for Kristoffer From. The next payment of 2500 will be paid as
soon as Kristoffer From reports on one milestone and a third payment
of 2 500 USD will be paid as soon as Kristoffer From reports on a
second milestone. When the project is completed to the satisfaction of
the CIO, the remaining 2 500 USD will be paid according to the chosen
pay-model.

Kristoffer From will do after-work checks and surveillance checks for
at least three months to see to it that the new IT-system really
works in actual use. Nova Roma may also be asked to assist in
performing tests of the system during this period.

Uti rogas: 15
Antiquo: 0
Abstineo: 5
The result of the voting is Item II PASSED

KFBM: On both items I vote UTI ROGAS.
KFBQ: Item II. The IT-project UTI ROGAS
MHM: Item II. The IT-project UTI ROGAS
CnEM: I Uti Rogas
MLA: Item II. The IT-project UTI ROGAS. I have had a closer view than most as this project has gone ahead. Saturninus has done a top-rate job and I am happy to lend my vote in support of this long-overdue measure.
MMPH: Item II. For the IT-project ADSENTIOR UTI ROGAS
CPL: I Uti Rogas
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
TiGP: Uti Rogas on all three agenda items.
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
ATS: Item II: Uti rogas. It seems that we have reached the point where it is better to start anew than attempt to repair the existing programs or whatever despite the expense. Appliances and automobiles have similar problems; we should not expect our IT infrastructure to last forever, no matter how well maintained.
MIS: Item II. For the IT-project ADSENTIOR VTI ROGAS
CCS: Item II: The IT-project Uti rogas. This is the most important improvement into our infrastructure ever since first Album Civium and Cista.
TIS: Item II. The IT-project TIS: Uti rogas.
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
ArnMA: Item II. The IT-project UTI ROGAS
MCC: Item II. IT-project UTI ROGAS
QSP: > I Uti Rogas>
MIP: Item Item II. The IT-project VTI ROGAS
EmCF: Item II: The IT-project Uti rogas. This is an very drastic improvement that can be no longer delayed. The existing system is completely out of date, poorly documented and there is only one individual who is actually able to use it somehow. Wihout a new IT-system there will be no further elections.
FrAC: Item Item II. The IT-project ABSTINEO As professionist of this commercial area, I would like to read the concrete project before to give my approval. The budget in fact is very high and it would be analyzed by a pool of experts.
CEC: Item I - VTI ROGAS
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
MAM: Item II. The IT-project Uti Rogas.

_____________________________________________

Item III. Dictatorship

The Senate of Nova Roma, having convened in an emergency session,
considers that:

Whereas the current situation in Nova Roma threatens the very
existence of Nova Roma both as a nation and as a membership
organization, and,

Whereas these crises in our organization and corporation, our
finances, and our technical problems result from many causes that must
be addressed so as to avoid Nova Roma from harm, as well as to ensure
the orderly and enjoyable continuation of Nova Roma, and,

Whereas any solutions to these present crises should and must be done
in accordance with the governing bodies of law,

Do we, the Senate of Nova Roma, by the vote of a majority, hereby
appoint Gnaeus Equitius Marinus to the office of Dictator, and invest
in him complete auctoritas and imperium for a period of no more than
six months, trusting in him to resolve the present crises and take
whatever steps he deems necessary to prevent future harm to the Res
Publica Populi Novae Romae.

The Senate conveys resolution of the following tasks, although not
limited to these alone, to Cn. Equitius Marinus:

To oversee the rewriting of corporate bylaws for Nova Roma, Inc

To have the Constitution and subordinate laws reviewed for the purpose
of amending or replacing them as are necessary to protect the
respublica from harm

To resolve the IT issues that threaten our website and on which the
functions of the respublica rely

To restructure voting procedures to make them robust against loss of
technical programs or equipment.

To simplify the magisterial structure to provide fewer magistrates
with better defined roles.

In the name of the Senate and the People of the Nova Roma, and in the
sight of the Gods and Goddesses of the People of Nova Roma, under the
provision of the Constitution IV.B.1, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus,
Censorius is hereby appointed Dictator and Magister Populi of Nova Roma.

Uti rogas: 15
Antiquo: 1
Abstineo: 4
The result of the voting is Item III PASSED

KFBM: Rather, on all three items I vote UTI ROGAS.
KFBQ: Item III. Dictatorship UTI ROGAS
MHM: Item Item III. Dictatorship UTI ROGAS
CnEM: III Uti Rogas, and may the Dii Immortales help me
MLA: Item III. Dictatorship UTI ROGAS. Senator and Censorius Marinus is one of the very few whom I could support in this position. In deciding my vote I also consider the manifest desire of the people to put ourselves back on the right track.
MMPH: Item III. ADSENTIOR UTI ROGAS
CPL: I Uti Rogas
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
TiGP: Now as to the proposed dictatorship. When the Roman appointed a dictator armies were at their gates.
When the Romans appointed their first dictator there was an effort under way to return the kings to power.
A week or so ago I stated on one of the lists that I would not support the appointment of a dictator even if I was proposed as the dictator. My opposition to a dictator has NOTHING to do with Senator Marinus or any other person who might have been nominated. It is based on my belief that while we have problems we do not have a crisis.
I do not see anything that has changed and I vote NO on the proposed
appointment of a dictator.
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
ATS: Item III. Ut pollicita sum, tertia discessio sequitur. Iterum
quidem sententi, interdum aliqua facienda, etsi injucunda. Malim Novam
Romam rixis omnino carere; malim omnia sine pervicaciis et obicibus esse si quid alicui displiceat. Infelicissim, haec ita non sunt, et mutanda.
Dictaturae mihi displicent, sed ut videtur, nunc un nobis opus est.
Dolendum sed quae cum ita sint, optio alia abest. Vir quem proposuisti
bonus est, et eum honestum arbitror. Assentior, etsi animo sollicito nec laetitiam capiens, ut rogas.
MIS: Item III. Dictatorship MIS: ADSENTIOR VTI ROGAS
CCS: Item III: Dictatorship Uti rogas. It is time to save the republic. It is time to put politics aside and do real things. If accomplishing it means to vote for dictatorship, I'll do it. As a Roman citizen, magistrate and senator, Marinus has my support.
TIS: Item III. Uti rogas.
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
ArnMA: Item III.Dictatorship. UTI ROGAS
MCC: Item III. Dictatorship. UTI ROGAS
QSP: > III Antiquo
MIP: Item III. Dictatorship VTI ROGAS
EmCF: Item III: Dictatorship Uti rogas.
FrAC: Item III. Dictatorship VTI ROGAS I don't like the dictatorship, my own personal political opinion would drive me to more democratical and popular kinds of governments. But the situation of NR is bad, I'm looking the organization from a more far point of view and I find again a disorganized group divided by superficial discussions and political games. I hope the good Marinus would concentrate his efforts to find a new identity to NR, a real mission in a real world for the members, concrete and "unvirtual" opportunities and projects. The
way taken by NR during the last year is the worst road, we need a change of direction. Marinus, please, do it!
CEC: ITEM III - Although I do not go to the extreme that Gn. Iulius Caesar does, I cannot help but agree that each "crisis" we are called upon to deal now with was brought up in one form or another and those who did so were mocked or ignored because of political convenience. I think this because I was, of course, one of them; exempli gratia, I have advocated for the by-laws change for *years* now,
offering my proposals repeatedly and simply being ignored. Our compliance with Maine law was brought up repeatedly (again, by myself among others) - only to be scoffed at and ignored because those in power disliked the messengers rather than paying attention to the message. So my personal feelings urge me to refuse to allow those in power to stand back and make someone else responsible for cleaning up the messes they have made.
Yet, the Romans themselves did not look with horror at the idea of a dictator, probably because they had no experience with our common modern understanding of dictatorial government, with Hitler, Stalin, Tito, Ceaucescu, Peron, Pol Pot, Castro, etc., standing in our collective modern consciousness as the epitome of governments marked by arbitrary cruelty and inhumanity. The Romans appointed
dictators not only to carry out wars but often to simply get a particular job done: to fill vacancies in the Senate, to preside over public games, to create holidays...even just to drive a nail into the door of the temple of Iuppiter O.M. in times of plague. They did their job, and unless they were a Sulla or a Marius or a Caesar, when it was finished they simply stepped back down into regular public life.
So while I do believe that this series of "crises" has been manufactured by willful ignorance or blatant disregard on the part of some of those who have held the reins of power over the past two years, I cannot justify standing in the way of what is apparently the only solution that will hopefully make - force - those who hold power to shut up and actually listen for a change. The end does *not* justify the means, but simple dislike for the means does not make
them evil, nor does it justify accepting a crippling status quo, either. VTI ROGAS
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
MAM: Item III. Dictatorship Uti Rogas.

_____________________________________________
The following senators announced their desire to withdraw their votes
after voting:

C. Equitius Cato
Ti. Galerius Paulinus
T. Iulius Sabinus
C. Popillius Laenas

Normal rules of Parliamentary Procedure do not allow for members of a
voting quorum to withdraw once the quorum has been made. The legality
of these withdrawls is in question.

Tribuni:

M. Octavius Corvus (reporting)
Maxima Valeria Messallina
C. Curius Saturnius
C. Aquilius Rota

I thank my colleague Maxima Valeria Messallina and Senator Marcus Lucretius
Agricola for advise and help while preparing this, such a difficult report.

Valete bene in pace Deorum,

M. Octavius Corvus
Tribunus Plebis





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79258 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Office of Dictator illegal under Maine law
Salve Marine,

I once again applaud your devotion to doing things correctly.

Furthermore, I strongly
> recommend the Senate take immediate steps in its capacity as Board of
> Directors to review any laws enacted under the previous dictatorship
> and to act as necessary to bring us into compliance with Maine law.
>
This should not be necessary.The dictatorship of MMDCCLII took place *before
*the incorporation in Maine in MMDCCLV. Therefore, the laws enacted under
that dictatorship were *part *of the incorporation under Maine law. Those
acts were part of what was incorporated in MMDCCLV, and therefore cannot be
challenged on the grounds of dictatorship being unacceptable under Maine
law. Not without a time machine, anyway.

Vale!
Gaius Tullius Valerianus_,_._,___


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79259 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: [CPT] FALSE Tribunician report for Illegal session of the Senate
>
>
>
>
> If we had been at a face to face meeting then the Consuls Lictor�s MAY have
> prevented me from leaving the building. Since we were NOT face to face
> nothing could or did prevent me from withdrawing my participation to this
> illegal session.
>

Hardly possible, since once the Consul vetoed the session and dismissed it,
he and his Lictors would not have been present. The session was vetoed. Any
"voting" effectively never happened, legally speaking.

~ Gaius Tullius Valerianus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79260 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Pridie Eidus Sextiliae: Hercules, Venus, Honos, Virtus, Felicitas
M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Tum nos faciat quod volt Hercules!

Hodie est die pristine Eidus Sextiliae; haec dies comitialis est: Herculi Invicto ad circum maximum Veneri Victrici Honori Virtuti Felicitati in theatro marmoreo

"Rabbia, they say, will thrive all the better, if it is sown together with some chaff. They will have it, too, that the sower ought to be stripped, and that he should offer up a prayer while sowing, and say: 'I sow this for myself and for my neighbors.' The proper time for sowing both kinds is the period that intervenes between the festivals of the two divinities, Neptune (23 July) and Vulcan (23 Aug.) . It is said, too--and it is the result of very careful observation--that these plants will thrive wonderfully well, if they are sown as many days after the festival of Neptune as the moon was old when the first snow fell the previous winter." ~ C. Plinius Secundus, Historia Naturalis 18.35


The day before the Ides of August sees several festivals. Celebrated are Hercules Magnus Custodus in the Circus Flaminius and Hercules Invictus in the Circus Maximus. Celebrated, too, is Venus Victrix. Honos and Virtus have a festival this day as well. And then there is Felictatis in the Theater Marmoreus.

AUC 537 / 221 BCE: Temple of Hercules Custos Magnus

A Temple of Hercules Custos was built on the advice of the Sibyl at some point in the third century. Livy mentions that in 218 BCE a supplicatio was decreed at the Temple, so it must have predated the Second Punic War. Likely this was in 221 BCE when the Circus Flaminius was dedicated as Hercules was regarded as the guardian of that place. Sulla restored it and rededicated it on 4 June, and then Augustus restored it again, removing Sulla's name as an omen of evil.

AUC 611 / 142 BCE: Dedication of a Temple of Hercules Victoris

L. Mummius vowed a temple for Hercules in 145 BCE, who dedicated it three years later on the Caelian while he was censor (CIL 6.331). A round Temple of Hercules Invictus was builtin the Forum Boarium. This was painted inside with frescoes by the poet Pacuvius (Pliny, NH 35.19). Different sources mention how neither dogs nor flies entered the temple (Pliny NH10.79; Plutarch QR 90; Solinus 1.10).

"Why is it that, when the sacrifice to Hercules takes place, they mention by name no other God, and why is a dog never seen within his enclosure, as Varro has recorded? Do they make mention of no other god because they regard Hercules as a demigod? But, as some relate, even while he was still on earth, Evander erected an altar to him and brought him sacrifice. And of all animals he contended most with a dog, for it is a fact that fthis beast always gave him much trouble, Cerberus, for instance. And, to crown all, when Oeonus, Licymnius's son, had been murdered by the sons of Hippocoön because of a dog, Hercules was compelled to engage in battle with them, and lost many of his friends and his brother Iphicles." ~ Plutarch, Roman Questions 90

Today's festival of Hercules Invictus, however, refers not to a temple but to a templum; that is, a sacred precinct near the Porta Trigemina with an altar of Hercules Invictus, or Hercules Victor (Fast. Allif; Fast. Ant.). It was possibly built by the merchant M. Octavius Hersennus (Macrob.3.6.11; Serv. Aen. 8.363). It is thought to have been near to the altar of Jupiter Inventor built by Hercules after He defeated Caecus (Dionys. 1.32).

"Why, when there are two altars of Hercules, do women receive no share nor taste of the sacrifices offered on the larger altar? Is it because the friends of Carmenta came late for the rites, as did also the clan of the Pinarii? Wherefore, as they were excluded from the banquet while the rest were feasting, they acquired the name Pinarii (Starvelings). Or is it because of the fable of Deianeira and the shirt?" ~ Plutarch, Roman Questions 60


"Why was it the custom for many of the wealthy to give a tithe of their property to Hercules? Is it because he also sacrificed a tithe of Geryon's cattle in Rome? Or because he freed the Romans from paying a tithe to the Etruscans? Or have these tales no historical foundation worthy of credence, but the Romans were wont to sacrifice lavishly and abundantly to Hercules as to an insatiable eater and a good trencher-man? Or was it rather in curtailing their excessive wealth, since it was odious to their fellow-citizens, and in doing away with some of it, as from a lusty bodily vigour that had reached its culmination, did they think that thus Hercules would be especially honoured and pleased by such a way of using up and reducing overabundance, since in his own life he was frugal, self-sufficient, and free from extravagance?" ~ Plutarch, Roman Questions 18


AUC 700 / 53 BCE: Temples of Felicitas

Felicitas, the Roman Goddess of Happiness and Good Fortune, is generally seen bearing a herald's staff and having a cornucopia cradled in Her left arm. A temple for Her was dedicated by L. Licinius Lucullus some time after 146 BCE, after he had built the temple with war booty from his campaigns in Hispania, 151-150 BCE. For the Temple of Felicitas L. Mummius gave Lucullus several examples of Greek artwork, including Praxiteles' statues from Thespiae of the Muses that Cicero said stood out in front of the Temple. A sacrifice for Felicitas was offered on 9 Oct. somewhere on the Capitoline Hill, along with Genius populi Romani and Venus Victrix (Fast. Amit. Arval, CIL 12.214, 331). Caesar had planned for another Temple of Felicitas in 44 BCE just before his assination, which Lepidus later completed while Magister Equitum. That temple was in the Forum, replacing the Curia Hostilia built by Faustus Sulla as a new Senate House. "But their real purpose was that the name of Sulla should not be preserved on it, and that another senate-house, newly constructed, might be named the Julian, even as they had called the month in which he was born July, and one of the tribes, selected by lot, the Julian (Dio Cassius 44.5.2)."

Today's festival, however, is for the Temple of Felicitas that was built in the Theatrum Pompei and dedicated on 12 August 53 BCE.


Temples of Honos and Virtus

A Temple of Honos was first built by Q. Fabius Verrucosus and dedicated on 17 July 234 BCE. After the Battle of Clastidium in 222 BCE, M. Claudius Marcellus vowed a temple for both Honos and Virtus. This vow he renewed after his capture of Syracusa. He tried to re-dedicate the existing Temple of Honos to both deities in 208 BCE, but was presented from doing so by the Pontifices. After then building a second Temple of Virtus across a streamlet that divided them, and restored the Temple of Honos, both were dedicated in 205 BCE by Marcellus' son while he was off confronting Hannibal in Campania at Nola. A second double dedication of Temples for Honos and Virtus was made by Gaius Marius from the spoils taken from the Cimbri and Teutones (CIL I2 p195, n. XVIII; Fest. 344).


"They shall worship as Gods . . . those qualities on whose account human beingsare allowed to ascend to Heaven – Mens, Virtus, Pietas, Fides. . ." ~ M. Tullius Cicero, De Legibus 2.19

"You see the Temple of Virtus, restored as the Temple of Honos by Marcus Marcellus, but founded many years before by Quintus Maximus in the time of the Ligurian War. Again, there are the Temples of Ops, Salus, Concordia, Libertas, and Victoria, all of which things, being so powerful as to necessarily imply a divine power to govern them, were themselves designated as Gods." ~ M. Tullius Cicero, De Natura Deorum 2.61

"It is right and proper that Mens, Pietas, Virtus and Fides should be deified; and in Rome temples have long been publicly dedicated to those qualities, so that those who possess them, and all good people do, should believe that actual Gods have been set up within their souls. . . . Names of desirable things like Salus, Honos, Ops, and Victoria, because the spirit is raised by the expectation of good things, Spes was rightly deified." ~ M. Tullius Cicero, De Legibus 2. 28


AUC 700 / 53 BCE: Temple of Venus Victrix

The Theatrum Pompei was the first permanent theater in Rome. Pompeius built it of stone in 55 BCE. To avoid bing censured for this innovation, he included a Temple of Venus Victrix, and dedicated the complex in 53 BCE as a temple rather than as a theater. Because it was covered in marble, it became known as the theatrum marmoreum (Cornelius Tacitus, Annales 24.20; Dio Cassius 39.38).


Lychnapsia

Today begins a three-day celebration of the Festival of Lights of Isis. It commemorates the time when Isis, while hiding in the rushes of the Nile delta, gave birth to Horus, and of His eventual victory over Seth. The Lights of Isis, Horus and Seth, represent the Sun and Moon, respectively. They are also both the eyes of Horus, as the one eye was taken from Him in His fight with Seth.

"Now the battle, as they relate, lasted many days and Horus prevailed. Isis, however, to whom Typhon was delivered in chains, did not cause him to be put to death, but released him and let him go. Horus could not endure this with equanimity, be laid hands upon his mother and wrested the royal diadem from her head; but Hermes put upon her a helmet like unto the head of a cow.

"Typhon formally accused Horus of being an illegitimate child, but with the help of Hermes to plead his cause it was decided by the Gods that He also was legitimate. Typhon was then overcome in two other battles. Osiris consorted with Isis after his death, and she became the mother of Harpocrates, untimely born and weak in his lower limbs." ~ Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride


Our thought for today comes from Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 8.33:

"Receive wealth or prosperity without arrogance; and be ready to let it go."



Visit Religio_Romana_Cultorum_Deorum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79261 From: Michael Kassus Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Caesary
Salvete citizens!

I'm also playing Caesary, I'm on server 3 and my username is "j0ofez_ice2". If any of you wish to get together, don't hesitate to contact me!!

Nova Roma forever!

Valete!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79262 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Office of Dictator illegal under Maine law
Salve Gn Equitius Marinus;

You have not disappointed me, thank you.

However, the one dictator we had was seated and left office prior to
the incorporation in Maine. The laws and other edicts promulgated
then were incorporated lawfully when we registered as a Main
nonprofit. Any review thereof would be ex post facto, and unneeded as
I understand things.

Vale - P Ullerius Stephanus Venator.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79263 From: Publius Memmius Albucius Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: On the renunciation of GEM to the illegal position of dictator
Senatores, Magistratus and Quirites s.d.



I take good notice of Gn. Equitius Marinus' decision not to assume the position of dictator, which he has been designed in by the meeting called illegally in last July by my colleague.



I pay homage to Marinus Censorius for his courageous decision to consult a local lawyer, to assume personally the fees of this consultation, and to draw the logical consequences of this consultation which concludes to the illegality, towards the Incorporation Law, of our dictatorship mechanism.



However, I cannot but underline 5 elements:



- such information would have been obtained normally through the consultation, that I had proposed last Spring and announced as the next logical step of the work on the By-Laws, after the necessary agreement of my colleague Fabiuis Buteo of the proposals sent to him on June 3. Using this normal way would have prevented us loosing time, a crisis, and involving personal funds ;



- such a reading of NR Inc. national incorporation law is duly conform to my constant pragmatic position since last January, which brought me to underline that all difficulties that NR Inc. might meet should be faced normally, and therefore to veto in last July the session of the Senate - who was supposed to appoint a dictator - illegally called by a joint convening of K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus and of four Tribunes of the Plebs, Hon. Petronius being excluded ;



- such a consultation would have been fully accurate if required at worst on mid-July, when the proposal was made to Equitius by K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus and his friends, and would have spared the Republic one month of crisis and prevented what were, before, honorable citizens and senators to become conspirators and to take, from the time on, illegal and dishonoring positions ;



- again, I am confirmed in my analysis and statements and, here, having kept firm, with the support of all Republican senators and members, to oppose the coup d'état and keep NR institutions working normally ;



- we must now draw the consequences of :

. the dichotomy that exists between our Roman Laws, which we just saw that some of us are eager to interpret them so that they serve they own private or party's interests, and the national incorporation Law, currently U.S. Maine State. This statement may have some influence in how we will review NR Inc. By-Laws, if we carry on on this way ;

. what happens in a Board whose several members, pushed and supported by private interests, refuse to hear and take in due consideration the positions and warnings of its (first) president on the way a Board legally works and how it is legally convened ;



- the people who opposed my proposals - specially on the By-Laws and whose the first ones were issued as soon as January - made our Republic and Corporation loose several months to have us back at the same initial point, or close to it, our fightings in addition.

 



I will come back to the Senate and the People in the following days to inform them on the way I intend managing the situation created by the recent failed coup and the renunciation, by Gn. Equitius Marinus, of the position proposed to him illegally.





Valete Senators, Magistrates and Quirites,







P. Memmius Albucius

consul





To: NRComitiaCuriata@yahoogroups.com; nova-roma@yahoogroups.com; novaroma-announce@yahoogroups.com
From: gawne@...
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 01:49:48 -0400
Subject: [NovaRoma-Announce] Office of Dictator illegal under Maine law






Salvete Quirites,

I have been informed by the Maine lawyer, Mr. Harvey Mechanic, who I
retained at my own cost, that the office of Dictator as defined in
Nova Roma's constitution is illegal under Maine law.

Mr. Mechanic writes:

--- Begin Citation ---

The State law allows one person to hold all offices of a nonprofit corporation
http://law.justia.com/maine/codes/title13-bch0sec0/title13-bsec710.html
but not "full legislative powers" which are what the Board has and may
not delegate to a one man committee (Dictator). Therefore, the
Dictator position is illegal under Maine law.

--- End Citation ---

So, I will NOT assume the office of Dictator. Furthermore, I strongly
recommend the Senate take immediate steps in its capacity as Board of
Directors to review any laws enacted under the previous dictatorship
and to act as necessary to bring us into compliance with Maine law.

Valete,

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79264 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Tribunician report for July session of the Senate (Corrected)
This report is still not correct.

Ti. Galerius Paulinus removed his participation - before Laenas.
Q. Suetonius Paulinus did as well - the very same day as Laenas.
So did Censor Sabinus. -

Vale,

Sulla


On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:42 PM, mcorvvs <mcorvvs@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> due to my mistake in calcullating the time the votes of Senator C.
> Popillius Laenas were counted vrongly. Below is July session report
> corrected. My apologies to Senator Laenas.
>
> Tribunus Plebis Marcus Octavius Corvus Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> Citizens of Nova Roma,
>
> Here is the Tribunician report of the Senate session of July 19 � July 25,
> 2763
>
> The votes have been tallied and the results are as follows:
>
> Formal debate ended at Friday 00.01 hrs CET Roma, 23 July 2010 2763.
> Voting began at Friday 23 July 2010 at 00.02 hrs CET Roma 2763
> and was concluded at Sunday 25 July 2010 at 00.02 CET Roma 2763.
>
> The following XX Senators cast their votes on time. They are referred to by
> their initials which are listed in alphabetical order (with the exception
> of the
> presiding magistrate who will be listed first):
>
> *KFBQ: K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus, Presiding Magistrate
> C0-presiding magistrates:
> Max. Valeria Messallina, Tribuna Plebis
> C. Curius Saturninus, Tribunus Plebis
> C. Aquillius Rota, Tribunus Plebis
> M. Octavius Corvus, Tribunus Plebis
>
> *ATS: A. Tullia Scholastica
> *CCS: C. Curius Saturninus
> *CEC: C. Equitius Cato
> *CnEM: Cn. Equitius Marinus
> *CPL: C. Popillius Laenas
> *EmCF: Em. Curia Finnica
> *FrAC: Fr. Apulus Caesar
> *KFBM: K. Fabius Buteo Modianus
> *MAM: M. Arminius Maior
> *MCC: M. Curiatius Complutensis
> *MHM: M. Hortensia Maior
> *MIP: M. Iulius Perusianus
> *MIS: M. Iulius Severus
> *MLA: M. Lucretius Agricola
> *MMPH: M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
> *QSP: Q. Suetonius Paulinus
> *TiGP.: Ti. Galerius Paulinus
> *TIS: T. Iulius Sabinus
>
> The following Senator (I) voted by proxy:
> *ArnMA: Arn. Moravia Aurelia (Proxy vote delivered by K. Fabius Buteo
> Quintilianus)
>
> The following Senatores (X) did not vote:
>
> *CFD: C. Flavius Diocletianus
> *CMM: C. Marius Merullus
> *CnIC: Cn. Iulius Caesar
> *CVP: C. Vipsanius Agrippa
> *DIPI: Dec. Iunius Palladius Invictus
> *FlGA: Fl. Galerius Aurelianus
> *LCSF: L. Cornelius Sulla Felix
> *MMA M. Minucius Audens
> *PMA: P. Memmius Albucius
> *QFM: Q. Fabius Maximus
>
> _________________________________________
>
> "VTI ROGAS" indicates a vote in favor of an item,
> "ANTIQVO" is a vote against,
> "ABSTINEO" is an open abstention.
> __________________________________________
>
> All decisions were made with a majority of Uti Rogas votes.
>
> Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
>
> Correction of the Constitution IV, a:
> "Elections of the ordinarii shall take place no later than December
> 15th, and newly-elected officials shall assume their offices on
> January 1st."
>
> Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
>
> "Elections of the ordinarii shall take place no later than December
> 1st, and newly-elected officials shall assume their offices on January
> 1st, except Plebeian Aediles and Tribunes of the Plebs who shall assume
> their offices on December 10th."
>
> UTI ROGAS: 16
> ANTIQUO: 0
> ABSTINEO: 4
>
> The result of the voting is Item I PASSED
>
> KFBM: On both items I vote UTI ROGAS.
> KFBQ: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
> UTI ROGAS
> MHM: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
> UTI ROGAS
> CnEM: I Uti Rogas
> MLA: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
> UTI ROGAS. Although I am a patrician myself I am happy to lend my vote to
> this fine lex which moves us closer to historical practice and I think may
> provide a help in smoothing our annual transition of magistrates.
> MMPH: Item I. For the proposed Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis
> ineundis. ADSENTIOR UTI ROGAS
> CPL: I Uti Rogas
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> TiGP: Uti Rogas on all three agenda items.
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> ATS: Item I: Uti rogas. This is long overdue, and should bring us closer to
> ancient Roman practice.
> MIS: Item I. For the proposed Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis
> ineundis. ADSENTIOR VTI ROGAS
> CCS: Item I: Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis
> Uti rogas.
> TIS: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
> Uti rogas.
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> ArnMA: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
> UTI ROGAS
> MCC: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
> UTI ROGAS
> QSP: > I Uti Rogas>
> MIP: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
> VTI ROGAS
> EmCF: Item I: Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis
> Uti rogas.
> FrAC: Item I1. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
> VTI ROGAS
> CEC: Item I - VTI ROGAS
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> MAM: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
> Uti Rogas.
>
> _________________________________________
>
> Item II. The IT-project
>
> The Senate appoints Kristoffer From (formerly known within Nova Roma
> as Senator Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus) as the programmer who will
> develop and set up a new IT-system, consisting of an automated
> election-system and a new citizen database with tools for our
> magistrates and citizens.
>
> The Senate affirms that the cost for the IT-project executed by
> KristofferFrom will be paid for with 10 000 USD.
>
> The Senate requests the project to be completed in time for the fall
> elections in November 2010, but understands that if the new system is
> not ready in time, Kristoffer From will arrange the elections and run-
> off elections in the current system. Kristoffer From will, in addition
> to the fall elections and run-off elections, set up no more than one
> session in each Comitia each month during his work on the project.
>
> The Senate orders the CIO to choose the most advantageous pay model
> for Nova Roma, either the mentioned Swedish NPO or another solution.
> Guarantees by the CIO will be given to assure that any chosen solution
> is irreproachable. A registered accountant who will check on the
> correctness may need separate pay though.
>
> Kristoffer From will leave reports on the progress of the project to
> the CIO who will share these reports with the Senate. There will be
> five such short reports, these reports will be sent to the CIO at the
> following occasions and when the following milestones are completed
> (but probably not working together yet):
>
> 1. Database (the backbone of the new site)
> 2. Access control (a basic website with an authentication method)
> 3. Server-side daemon (to enable automation of time-sensitive tasks)
> 4. Election system (automated running of elections)
> 5. Administrative tools (so magistrates can access the system)
> 6. Documentation (so Kristoffer is not the only one who knows how it
> works)
>
> These milestones may be reported in any order and they only have a
> partial connection to the payment of Kristoffer From. The reports will
> serve the purpose of keeping the Senate informed of progress of the
> IT-project. Still, the work is too complicated to connect the
> milestones too strictly to payments.
>
> Kristoffer From may report on the milestones in any order, as they are
> reached. The last payment will however not be made until the CIO has
> stated that the work is finished.
>
> The Senate orders the CFO or someone appointed/approved by the Senate
> instead of a CFO to immediately set aside the full 10 000 USD and upon
> the start of the project pay 2 500 USD for salary, social costs and
> taxes for Kristoffer From. The next payment of 2500 will be paid as
> soon as Kristoffer From reports on one milestone and a third payment
> of 2 500 USD will be paid as soon as Kristoffer From reports on a
> second milestone. When the project is completed to the satisfaction of
> the CIO, the remaining 2 500 USD will be paid according to the chosen
> pay-model.
>
> Kristoffer From will do after-work checks and surveillance checks for
> at least three months to see to it that the new IT-system really
> works in actual use. Nova Roma may also be asked to assist in
> performing tests of the system during this period.
>
> Uti rogas: 15
> Antiquo: 0
> Abstineo: 5
> The result of the voting is Item II PASSED
>
> KFBM: On both items I vote UTI ROGAS.
> KFBQ: Item II. The IT-project UTI ROGAS
> MHM: Item II. The IT-project UTI ROGAS
> CnEM: I Uti Rogas
> MLA: Item II. The IT-project UTI ROGAS. I have had a closer view than most
> as this project has gone ahead. Saturninus has done a top-rate job and I am
> happy to lend my vote in support of this long-overdue measure.
> MMPH: Item II. For the IT-project ADSENTIOR UTI ROGAS
> CPL: I Uti Rogas
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> TiGP: Uti Rogas on all three agenda items.
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> ATS: Item II: Uti rogas. It seems that we have reached the point where it
> is better to start anew than attempt to repair the existing programs or
> whatever despite the expense. Appliances and automobiles have similar
> problems; we should not expect our IT infrastructure to last forever, no
> matter how well maintained.
> MIS: Item II. For the IT-project ADSENTIOR VTI ROGAS
> CCS: Item II: The IT-project Uti rogas. This is the most important
> improvement into our infrastructure ever since first Album Civium and Cista.
> TIS: Item II. The IT-project TIS: Uti rogas.
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> ArnMA: Item II. The IT-project UTI ROGAS
> MCC: Item II. IT-project UTI ROGAS
> QSP: > I Uti Rogas>
> MIP: Item Item II. The IT-project VTI ROGAS
> EmCF: Item II: The IT-project Uti rogas. This is an very drastic
> improvement that can be no longer delayed. The existing system is completely
> out of date, poorly documented and there is only one individual who is
> actually able to use it somehow. Wihout a new IT-system there will be no
> further elections.
> FrAC: Item Item II. The IT-project ABSTINEO As professionist of this
> commercial area, I would like to read the concrete project before to give my
> approval. The budget in fact is very high and it would be analyzed by a pool
> of experts.
> CEC: Item I - VTI ROGAS
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> MAM: Item II. The IT-project Uti Rogas.
>
> _____________________________________________
>
> Item III. Dictatorship
>
> The Senate of Nova Roma, having convened in an emergency session,
> considers that:
>
> Whereas the current situation in Nova Roma threatens the very
> existence of Nova Roma both as a nation and as a membership
> organization, and,
>
> Whereas these crises in our organization and corporation, our
> finances, and our technical problems result from many causes that must
> be addressed so as to avoid Nova Roma from harm, as well as to ensure
> the orderly and enjoyable continuation of Nova Roma, and,
>
> Whereas any solutions to these present crises should and must be done
> in accordance with the governing bodies of law,
>
> Do we, the Senate of Nova Roma, by the vote of a majority, hereby
> appoint Gnaeus Equitius Marinus to the office of Dictator, and invest
> in him complete auctoritas and imperium for a period of no more than
> six months, trusting in him to resolve the present crises and take
> whatever steps he deems necessary to prevent future harm to the Res
> Publica Populi Novae Romae.
>
> The Senate conveys resolution of the following tasks, although not
> limited to these alone, to Cn. Equitius Marinus:
>
> To oversee the rewriting of corporate bylaws for Nova Roma, Inc
>
> To have the Constitution and subordinate laws reviewed for the purpose
> of amending or replacing them as are necessary to protect the
> respublica from harm
>
> To resolve the IT issues that threaten our website and on which the
> functions of the respublica rely
>
> To restructure voting procedures to make them robust against loss of
> technical programs or equipment.
>
> To simplify the magisterial structure to provide fewer magistrates
> with better defined roles.
>
> In the name of the Senate and the People of the Nova Roma, and in the
> sight of the Gods and Goddesses of the People of Nova Roma, under the
> provision of the Constitution IV.B.1, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus,
> Censorius is hereby appointed Dictator and Magister Populi of Nova Roma.
>
> Uti rogas: 15
> Antiquo: 1
> Abstineo: 4
> The result of the voting is Item III PASSED
>
> KFBM: Rather, on all three items I vote UTI ROGAS.
> KFBQ: Item III. Dictatorship UTI ROGAS
> MHM: Item Item III. Dictatorship UTI ROGAS
> CnEM: III Uti Rogas, and may the Dii Immortales help me
> MLA: Item III. Dictatorship UTI ROGAS. Senator and Censorius Marinus is one
> of the very few whom I could support in this position. In deciding my vote I
> also consider the manifest desire of the people to put ourselves back on the
> right track.
> MMPH: Item III. ADSENTIOR UTI ROGAS
> CPL: I Uti Rogas
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> TiGP: Now as to the proposed dictatorship. When the Roman appointed a
> dictator armies were at their gates.
> When the Romans appointed their first dictator there was an effort under
> way to return the kings to power.
> A week or so ago I stated on one of the lists that I would not support the
> appointment of a dictator even if I was proposed as the dictator. My
> opposition to a dictator has NOTHING to do with Senator Marinus or any other
> person who might have been nominated. It is based on my belief that while we
> have problems we do not have a crisis.
> I do not see anything that has changed and I vote NO on the proposed
> appointment of a dictator.
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> ATS: Item III. Ut pollicita sum, tertia discessio sequitur. Iterum
> quidem sententi, interdum aliqua facienda, etsi injucunda. Malim Novam
> Romam rixis omnino carere; malim omnia sine pervicaciis et obicibus esse si
> quid alicui displiceat. Infelicissim, haec ita non sunt, et mutanda.
> Dictaturae mihi displicent, sed ut videtur, nunc un nobis opus est.
> Dolendum sed quae cum ita sint, optio alia abest. Vir quem proposuisti
> bonus est, et eum honestum arbitror. Assentior, etsi animo sollicito nec
> laetitiam capiens, ut rogas.
> MIS: Item III. Dictatorship MIS: ADSENTIOR VTI ROGAS
> CCS: Item III: Dictatorship Uti rogas. It is time to save the republic. It
> is time to put politics aside and do real things. If accomplishing it means
> to vote for dictatorship, I'll do it. As a Roman citizen, magistrate and
> senator, Marinus has my support.
> TIS: Item III. Uti rogas.
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> ArnMA: Item III.Dictatorship. UTI ROGAS
> MCC: Item III. Dictatorship. UTI ROGAS
> QSP: > III Antiquo
> MIP: Item III. Dictatorship VTI ROGAS
> EmCF: Item III: Dictatorship Uti rogas.
> FrAC: Item III. Dictatorship VTI ROGAS I don't like the dictatorship, my
> own personal political opinion would drive me to more democratical and
> popular kinds of governments. But the situation of NR is bad, I'm looking
> the organization from a more far point of view and I find again a
> disorganized group divided by superficial discussions and political games. I
> hope the good Marinus would concentrate his efforts to find a new identity
> to NR, a real mission in a real world for the members, concrete and
> "unvirtual" opportunities and projects. The
> way taken by NR during the last year is the worst road, we need a change of
> direction. Marinus, please, do it!
> CEC: ITEM III - Although I do not go to the extreme that Gn. Iulius Caesar
> does, I cannot help but agree that each "crisis" we are called upon to deal
> now with was brought up in one form or another and those who did so were
> mocked or ignored because of political convenience. I think this because I
> was, of course, one of them; exempli gratia, I have advocated for the
> by-laws change for *years* now,
> offering my proposals repeatedly and simply being ignored. Our compliance
> with Maine law was brought up repeatedly (again, by myself among others) -
> only to be scoffed at and ignored because those in power disliked the
> messengers rather than paying attention to the message. So my personal
> feelings urge me to refuse to allow those in power to stand back and make
> someone else responsible for cleaning up the messes they have made.
> Yet, the Romans themselves did not look with horror at the idea of a
> dictator, probably because they had no experience with our common modern
> understanding of dictatorial government, with Hitler, Stalin, Tito,
> Ceaucescu, Peron, Pol Pot, Castro, etc., standing in our collective modern
> consciousness as the epitome of governments marked by arbitrary cruelty and
> inhumanity. The Romans appointed
> dictators not only to carry out wars but often to simply get a particular
> job done: to fill vacancies in the Senate, to preside over public games, to
> create holidays...even just to drive a nail into the door of the temple of
> Iuppiter O.M. in times of plague. They did their job, and unless they were a
> Sulla or a Marius or a Caesar, when it was finished they simply stepped back
> down into regular public life.
> So while I do believe that this series of "crises" has been manufactured by
> willful ignorance or blatant disregard on the part of some of those who have
> held the reins of power over the past two years, I cannot justify standing
> in the way of what is apparently the only solution that will hopefully make
> - force - those who hold power to shut up and actually listen for a change.
> The end does *not* justify the means, but simple dislike for the means does
> not make
> them evil, nor does it justify accepting a crippling status quo, either.
> VTI ROGAS
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> MAM: Item III. Dictatorship Uti Rogas.
>
> _____________________________________________
> The following senators announced their desire to withdraw their votes
> after voting:
>
> C. Equitius Cato
> Ti. Galerius Paulinus
> T. Iulius Sabinus
> C. Popillius Laenas
>
> Normal rules of Parliamentary Procedure do not allow for members of a
> voting quorum to withdraw once the quorum has been made. The legality
> of these withdrawls is in question.
>
> Tribuni:
>
> M. Octavius Corvus (reporting)
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
> C. Curius Saturnius
> C. Aquilius Rota
>
> I thank my colleague Maxima Valeria Messallina and Senator Marcus Lucretius
> Agricola for advise and help while preparing this, such a difficult report.
>
> Valete bene in pace Deorum,
>
> M. Octavius Corvus
> Tribunus Plebis
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79265 From: Cato Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Tribunician report for July session of the Senate (Corrected)
Cato omnibus in foro SPD

I withdrew as well.

It's a moot point, at any rate; the actions are meaningless under our law.

Valete,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> This report is still not correct.
>
> Ti. Galerius Paulinus removed his participation - before Laenas.
> Q. Suetonius Paulinus did as well - the very same day as Laenas.
> So did Censor Sabinus. -
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79266 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Office of Dictator illegal under Maine law
Yes at that time if my memory is correct we were incorporated in New
Hampshire at that time.

Besides we crossed the watershed of the corporation being essentially in the
background of Nova Roma the moment that Piscinus tried to have Cassius and
Cassia arrested. At that time the Senate should have immediately paused and
worked to evaluate possible liabilities to each board member in the event
such action would happen again. Because if it happened once - it could
happen again. And, like clockwork it did. When I was illegally removed
from the Senate. At that time when I was in personal negotiation with who
my attorney affectionately called Rock 1 and rock 2 (both Consuls) he stated
that the entire board would have born the burden of liability. This is why
I took it upon myself to resolve this particular episode in house, though I
did not hesitate in the event that it could not be resolved to protect my
rights outside of the corporation - and at that time and even now a vote of
thanks should be done to both Ti. Galerius Paulinus and Gaius Popilius
Laenas for resolving that crises.

Throughout this entire episode - we few individuals around Consul P. Memmius
kept telling him that from the get go this entire episode is one of
illegality. It is absolutely no surprise that an attorney would come back
and confirm what we knew all along. I am glad that Marinus has consulted
with an attorney. I am glad that he will not be held financially
responsible for violating Maine Law.

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Gaius Tullius Valerianus <
gaius.tullius.valerianus@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve Marine,
>
>
> I once again applaud your devotion to doing things correctly.
>
> Furthermore, I strongly
> > recommend the Senate take immediate steps in its capacity as Board of
> > Directors to review any laws enacted under the previous dictatorship
> > and to act as necessary to bring us into compliance with Maine law.
> >
> This should not be necessary.The dictatorship of MMDCCLII took place
> *before
> *the incorporation in Maine in MMDCCLV. Therefore, the laws enacted under
> that dictatorship were *part *of the incorporation under Maine law. Those
> acts were part of what was incorporated in MMDCCLV, and therefore cannot be
> challenged on the grounds of dictatorship being unacceptable under Maine
> law. Not without a time machine, anyway.
>
> Vale!
> Gaius Tullius Valerianus_,_._,___
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79267 From: M. Octavius Gracchus Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Office of Dictator illegal under Maine law
One of the consequences of the attempted coup is that it distracted everyone
from taking care of a real problem - that the web site has been without a
programmer since my departure.

Those who organized into opposing camps on the issue of a dictator also tended
to either support or oppose the plan of consul Caeso Fabius to have the site
rebuilt, in a modern language and framework, by T. Octavius Pius. Those who
rightly opposed the improper, illegal, and poorly thought out coup attempt, have
generally opposed the plan to hire T. Octavius.

And this is unfortunate.

He offered you an *excellent* deal - $10K to completely rebuild the site using
modern tools (the language I chose ten years ago was acceptable in its day, but
awful by modern standards). I have heard that several other estimates came in
at twice that.

You absolutely should hire T. Octavius Pius. He knows the system, and he is
giving you a price far below anything reasonable.

Moreover, you are rapidly running out of time. You have *two months* to build
and install a new voting system, or the election of November will not happen in
any "legal" way. If you were to go with a programmer not already familiar with
your requirements, he'd have to spend a week or two just wading through the
poorly thought-out mess that passes for "law" around here in order to come up
with a plan. Then he'd have less than two months to build it.

This assumes that he's able to drop all other projects and concentrate solely on
yours. But most programmers of any competence are in high demand, and have
commitments to multiple clients each and every week.

So, not only do you have to find someone who can do this, and who can learn the
complexities of your system - which has been deliberately overcomplicated by
consuls wanting to get their name all over the Tabularium (* bungee bosses - see
below) - you need to find someone who can put in at least half of his time,
perhaps all of his time, for the next few months.

Minus whatever time you spend searching for that person.

The consuls need to talk to one another and stop slinging vetoes about.

Consul Albucius has been abused and obstructed by malevolent persons
masquerading as augurs, who refused to perform auguries, and are trying to
remove him from his office. While his opinion on the subject of how to fix the
web site is unfortunate, his usage of the one tool remaining to him after all
else has been stripped away - the veto - is understandable.

Consul Fabius wrongfully ignored the grievous crimes perpetrated against his
colleague by the so-called augurs, and instead threw his weight and influence
behind an illegal attempt to seize absolute power. Now that this has failed, if
there is to be an election this year he must approach his colleague and humbly
beg forgiveness for his treason.

Beginning with the proposal to hire T. Octavius - which probably took a lot of
time and negotiation to put together - you had *three* *months* to implement
that plan in time for the election. The failed attempt to eliminate a consul,
because he wouldn't shut up and do what he was told, has cost you one of these
months. The clock is still ticking.

Consul Albucius, you should give your assent to the plan to hire T. Octavius.
As the original architect of the site, the person who knows more about it than
everyone else put together, I assure you that his offer to rebuilt it for $10K
is a bargain that you will *not* get from anyone else.

But you must insist, as a condition of this, that your colleague swear an oath
to restore you to your rightful place and punish those malevolent so-called
"augurs" who have tried to overturn the people's choice.

Valete,
M. Octavius Gracchus,
Consular, former citizen.

tick, tock...

* http://cagle.msnbc.com/hogan/interviews/adams/images/bungee.gif
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79268 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Ancient Studies
L. Iulia Aquila Quirites, Socii, Peregrinisque S.P.D.

Roman Burial Practices/Rites and the Religio

These links are to some very interesting work on Roman Burial Practices in various locations courtesy of Stanford University.
Some of you may be familiar with them, for those who aren't they contain some good information for further research or discussion.

Burial in Latin literature:
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/cbaresrep/pdf/022/02207001.pdf

Germanic burials in the Roman Iron Age:
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/cbaresrep/pdf/022/02206001.pdf

Pagan religions and burial practices in Roman Britain:
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/cbaresrep/pdf/022/02205001.pdf

Burial on Hadrian's Wall:
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=1J1-aHnX6vuNGNoUhN4DMm8gE_dLlzTFMU7h8lL_jB6lc\
YRF2jNjdOPYL_2bJ&hl=en

Valete bene in pacem deorum,

L. Iulia Aquila
Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79269 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Videos about Ancient Rome
Salvete omnes,

A couple of fun videos about Ancient Rome and a couple with real actors (pay attention might use some of the info in the next ludi;)):

Binchester Virtual Worlds Project:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10vik-PdNEc&feature=player_embedded#!

Baths of Caracalla:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMoB11gwEck&feature=related

Secret World of Wellness Ancient Rome (real actors)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgsz7Rom9Ak&feature=fvw

Surprise, Baths with real actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs2gQSn2Tho&feature=related

Cura ut valeas,

Julia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79270 From: Kirsteen Wright Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Ancient Studies
Thank you for these - they look really interesting but I can't get the
bottom one (Burial on Hadrian's Wall) to open. It says the document is not
available. Is there any other way of reaching it.

Thanks
Merula

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:22 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

> L. Iulia Aquila Quirites, Socii, Peregrinisque S.P.D.
>
> Roman Burial Practices/Rites and the Religio
>
> These links are to some very interesting work on Roman Burial Practices in
> various locations courtesy of Stanford University.
> Some of you may be familiar with them, for those who aren't they contain
> some good information for further research or discussion.
>
> Burial in Latin literature:
> http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/cbaresrep/pdf/022/02207001.pdf
>
> Germanic burials in the Roman Iron Age:
> http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/cbaresrep/pdf/022/02206001.pdf
>
> Pagan religions and burial practices in Roman Britain:
> http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/cbaresrep/pdf/022/02205001.pdf
>
> Burial on Hadrian's Wall:
>
> http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=1J1-aHnX6vuNGNoUhN4DMm8gE_dLlzTFMU7h8lL_jB6lc\
> YRF2jNjdOPYL_2bJ&hl=en<http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=1J1-aHnX6vuNGNoUhN4DMm8gE_dLlzTFMU7h8lL_jB6lc%5C%0AYRF2jNjdOPYL_2bJ&hl=en>
>
> Valete bene in pacem deorum,
>
> L. Iulia Aquila
> Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79271 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Ancient Studies
Salve Flavia,

You're so very welcome!

Try this:
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=1J1-aHnX6vuNGNoUhN4DMm8gE_dLlzTFMU7h8lL_jB6lc\YRF2jNjdOPYL_2bJ&hl=en

You may have to open it in goodle docs, so you'll have to sign in - you do not need a gmail account you can set up an account with any email account. If you any problems I can email it to you.
I am sure there is a way to get around it I am just not techy enough to figure it out:(

Let me know if this works for you!

Vale,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for these - they look really interesting but I can't get the
> bottom one (Burial on Hadrian's Wall) to open. It says the document is not
> available. Is there any other way of reaching it.
>
> Thanks
> Merula
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79272 From: Kirsteen Wright Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Ancient Studies
Arrrgh I keep getting

Sorry, the page (or document) you have requested is not available.

Please check the address and try again.

I've tried clicking it and copying and pasting and I get the same and it's
gmail i use all the time. Sorry to be a nuisance but being in Britain, this
is the one I'd really like to see.

cheers

Merula

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:12 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

> Salve Flavia,
>
> You're so very welcome!
>
> Try this:
>
> http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=1J1-aHnX6vuNGNoUhN4DMm8gE_dLlzTFMU7h8lL_jB6lc\YRF2jNjdOPYL_2bJ&hl=en<http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=1J1-aHnX6vuNGNoUhN4DMm8gE_dLlzTFMU7h8lL_jB6lc%5CYRF2jNjdOPYL_2bJ&hl=en>
>
> You may have to open it in goodle docs, so you'll have to sign in - you do
> not need a gmail account you can set up an account with any email account.
> If you any problems I can email it to you.
> I am sure there is a way to get around it I am just not techy enough to
> figure it out:(
>
> Let me know if this works for you!
>
> Vale,
>
> Julia
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for these - they look really interesting but I can't get the
> > bottom one (Burial on Hadrian's Wall) to open. It says the document is
> not
> > available. Is there any other way of reaching it.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Merula
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79273 From: Hermione Volino Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Ancient Studies
Yeah but you can guess that none of the Neo-pagans are going to be interested in this. Thanks for sharing and I'm looking forward to reading them.

--- On Thu, 8/12/10, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@...> wrote:

From: Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@...>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ancient Studies
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, August 12, 2010, 7:06 PM







 









Thank you for these - they look really interesting but I can't get the

bottom one (Burial on Hadrian's Wall) to open. It says the document is not

available. Is there any other way of reaching it.



Thanks

Merula



On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:22 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <

luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:



> L. Iulia Aquila Quirites, Socii, Peregrinisque S.P.D.

>

> Roman Burial Practices/Rites and the Religio

>

> These links are to some very interesting work on Roman Burial Practices in

> various locations courtesy of Stanford University.

> Some of you may be familiar with them, for those who aren't they contain

> some good information for further research or discussion.

>

> Burial in Latin literature:

> http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/cbaresrep/pdf/022/02207001.pdf

>

> Germanic burials in the Roman Iron Age:

> http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/cbaresrep/pdf/022/02206001.pdf

>

> Pagan religions and burial practices in Roman Britain:

> http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/cbaresrep/pdf/022/02205001.pdf

>

> Burial on Hadrian's Wall:

>

> http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=1J1-aHnX6vuNGNoUhN4DMm8gE_dLlzTFMU7h8lL_jB6lc\

> YRF2jNjdOPYL_2bJ&hl=en<http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=1J1-aHnX6vuNGNoUhN4DMm8gE_dLlzTFMU7h8lL_jB6lc%5C%0AYRF2jNjdOPYL_2bJ&hl=en>

>

> Valete bene in pacem deorum,

>

> L. Iulia Aquila

> Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis

>

>

>

>

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

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

>



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

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79274 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Ancient Studies
Ave Flavia,

*laughs*
No problem i will email you the link!

Vale

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@...> wrote:
>
> Arrrgh I keep getting
>
> Sorry, the page (or document) you have requested is not available.
>
> Please check the address and try again.
>
> I've tried clicking it and copying and pasting and I get the same and it's
> gmail i use all the time. Sorry to be a nuisance but being in Britain, this
> is the one I'd really like to see.
>
> cheers
>
> Merula
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:12 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
> > Salve Flavia,
> >
> > You're so very welcome!
> >
> > Try this:
> >
> > http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=1J1-aHnX6vuNGNoUhN4DMm8gE_dLlzTFMU7h8lL_jB6lc\YRF2jNjdOPYL_2bJ&hl=en<http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=1J1-aHnX6vuNGNoUhN4DMm8gE_dLlzTFMU7h8lL_jB6lc%5CYRF2jNjdOPYL_2bJ&hl=en>
> >
> > You may have to open it in goodle docs, so you'll have to sign in - you do
> > not need a gmail account you can set up an account with any email account.
> > If you any problems I can email it to you.
> > I am sure there is a way to get around it I am just not techy enough to
> > figure it out:(
> >
> > Let me know if this works for you!
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Julia
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you for these - they look really interesting but I can't get the
> > > bottom one (Burial on Hadrian's Wall) to open. It says the document is
> > not
> > > available. Is there any other way of reaching it.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Merula
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79275 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Ancient Studies
Ave Hermoine,

I should think any neo-pagani would be interested in these links as they are pre-Christian.
We learn first hand about ancient people according to the rites and methods they use for buying their dead.

Vale,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Hermione Volino <witchhex29@...> wrote:
>
> Yeah but you can guess that none of the Neo-pagans are going to be interested in this. Thanks for sharing and I'm looking forward to reading them.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79276 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Farewell, Nova Roma
Maxima Valeria Messallina omnibus S.P.D.
 
 
With great regret, I have to leave Nova Roma. My mother, who has Alzheimer's, suffered a very serious stroke two weeks ago. Her recovery will be lengthy and I must be there for her every step of the way.
In addition to this, the results of recent tests done on me have revealed something neither my doctor nor I expected and now I am facing my own health crisis, with its own lengthy recovery. Dealing with both of these two crisises will take all my time, energy and resourses and, thus, I will not be able to devote anymore time or energy to Nova Roma.
Therefore, I resign from all offices and positions, and also, my citizenship.
I thank all those Nova Romans who have been good friends to me throughout my six years in Nova Roma, in particular A. Tullia Scholastica, who was my first and best friend, and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, who joined just after I did on the same day and whose devotion to Nova Roma has always been an inspiration to me.
I wish everyone good luck and may Vesta help all Nova Romans. Please know it was truly an honor to serve you and I sincerely apologize to the women of NR who I have hurt. You deserved better.
 
 
Valete bene in pace Deorum,
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina
Sacerdos Vestalis




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79277 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Statia Cornelia Maximae Valeriae Messalinae S.P.D.

sigh Tigress is backing down a bit..

M.... Despite our issues that we seem to be having, I am very sorry to see
this... Despite everything, you did your best to serve Vesta and the people
of NR, for that a big thank you...

I wish your mother better health and you better happiness in future
endeavors..

Vale bene in Pace Deorum,
Statia Cornelia Aeternia

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Maxima Valeria Messallina <
maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Maxima Valeria Messallina omnibus S.P.D.
>
>
> With great regret, I have to leave Nova Roma. My mother, who has
> Alzheimer's, suffered a very serious stroke two weeks ago. Her recovery will
> be lengthy and I must be there for her every step of the way.
> In addition to this, the results of recent tests done on me have revealed
> something neither my doctor nor I expected and now I am facing my own health
> crisis, with its own lengthy recovery. Dealing with both of these two
> crisises will take all my time, energy and resourses and, thus, I will not
> be able to devote anymore time or energy to Nova Roma.
> Therefore, I resign from all offices and positions, and also, my
> citizenship.
> I thank all those Nova Romans who have been good friends to me throughout
> my six years in Nova Roma, in particular A. Tullia Scholastica, who was my
> first and best friend, and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, who joined just after I
> did on the same day and whose devotion to Nova Roma has always been an
> inspiration to me.
> I wish everyone good luck and may Vesta help all Nova Romans. Please know
> it was truly an honor to serve you and I sincerely apologize to the women of
> NR who I have hurt. You deserved better.
>
>
> Valete bene in pace Deorum,
>
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
> Sacerdos Vestalis
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79278 From: Christer Edling Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: [CollPontificumNR] Farewell, Nova Roma
Salve Amica!

I am really really and sorry! You and your mother will be in my
prayers and I hope that we will be able to work togeher for Romanitas
in the future.

********

13 aug 2010 kl. 02.13 skrev Maxima Valeria Messallina:



Maxima Valeria Messallina omnibus S.P.D.


With great regret, I have to leave Nova Roma. My mother, who has
Alzheimer's, suffered a very serious stroke two weeks ago. Her
recovery will be lengthy and I must be there for her every step of the
way.
In addition to this, the results of recent tests done on me have
revealed something neither my doctor nor I expected and now I am
facing my own health crisis, with its own lengthy recovery. Dealing
with both of these two crisises will take all my time, energy and
resourses and, thus, I will not be able to devote anymore time or
energy to Nova Roma.
Therefore, I resign from all offices and positions, and also, my
citizenship.
I thank all those Nova Romans who have been good friends to me
throughout my six years in Nova Roma, in particular A. Tullia
Scholastica, who was my first and best friend, and Cn. Cornelius
Lentulus, who joined just after I did on the same day and whose
devotion to Nova Roma has always been an inspiration to me.
I wish everyone good luck and may Vesta help all Nova Romans. Please
know it was truly an honor to serve you and I sincerely apologize to
the women of NR who I have hurt. You deserved better.


Valete bene in pace Deorum,

Maxima Valeria Messallina
Sacerdos Vestalis







*****************
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]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79279 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
C. Maria Caeca Maximae Valeriae Messallinae Virgo Maximae S. P. D.

I am deeply distressed to see this, although, of course, I do understand.
If ever I can be of any help to you, you know how to find me ...and I will
always be here for you, Amica.

Vale,
C. Maria Caeca
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79280 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Salve Messallina,

I am so sorry to hear this. Earlier I wrote you an email in privatum, please know I will always be there for you.

Vale,

Julia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79281 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-12
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
M. Hortensia Max. Valeriae spd;
Messallina knows I support her, past, present and future and she and her mother have my continued prayers to Apollo Medicus.

As I've written previously Nova Roma can be a very misogynist place for assertive women. They are bullied, castigated, insulted until they finally leave.

to have the Virgo Maxima leave says everything about the culture of this place. Cloaca Nova Rome est.
vale
M. Hortensia Maior
Flaminica Carmentalis

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Messallina,
>
> I am so sorry to hear this. Earlier I wrote you an email in privatum, please know I will always be there for you.
>
> Vale,
>
> Julia
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79282 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Gaius Tullius Valerianus Germanicus Maximae Valeriae Messallinae S.P.D.

Salve! I am very sorry indeed to hear both of your and your mother's
illnesses. I am also very sorry to learn that we are losing you both as a
Vestal and as a citizen. I always appreciated your devotion to Vesta and
your sincere efforts at being a good Roman, including your efforts in
studying Latin.
We had our political differences - especially as I did not believe
that a Vestal should hold the tribunate or any other political office - but
I am truly, deeply sorry to see you go.
May the gods, and especially Mother Vesta, watch over you and your
family. I hope that you may return to Rome one day.

Vale.


>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79283 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: IDUS SEXTILIAE Vertumnus Pomona Diana Castor Pollux Hercules Flora
M. Moravius Piscinus cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Hercules consilia communicet nobiscum.

Hodie est Eidus Quinctiliae; haec dies nefastus piaculum est: feriae Iovi Dianae Vortumno in Aventino Castori Polluci in circo Flaminio

As with yesterday, today saw several festivals. They include thecelebration of Castor and Pollux for a shrine dedicated in the third century in the Circus Flaminius. Flora is celebrated in the Circus maximus. Hercules Victor has a festival at the Porta Trigemina. And inside the Porta Carpena, in the sacred grove of Carmentus a sacrifice was also performed for the Carmenae. The main festivals of the day, however, are the plebeian festival for Vertumnus and Pomona and the patrician festival for Fortuna Equestris held in conjunction with the games for Castor in Pollux in the Circus Flaminius.


AUC 224 / 509 Dedication of the Temple of Diana on the Aventine Hill.

The Temple of Diana on the Aventine was traditionally attributed to Servius Tullius. It was an extramural temple, meaning that it stood outside the pomerium that defined Rome's holy precinct. Thus it served a political purpose. Extramural sanctuaries had been used in the Bronze Age for foreign merchants. Temples in the Forum Boarium had once served a similar purpose of providing for foreigners so as to receive the benefit of international trade. The Temple of Diana was something new at Rome in that, like the Latin League sanctuary at Lavinium, or the sanctuary of Ceres Ferentina at Aricia that also served the Latin League, according to Livy Servius had built Her temple to serve as the center of political alliance to secure Rome's hegemony in Latium.

After the State was augmented by the expansion of the City and all domestic arrangements adapted to the requirements of both peace and war, Servius endeavoured to extend his dominion by state-craft, instead of aggrandising it by arms, and at the same time made an addition to the adornment of the City. The temple of the Ephesian Diana was famous at that time, and it was reported to have been built by the co-operation of the states of Asia. Servius had been careful to form ties of hospitality and friendship with the chiefs of the Latin nation, and he used to speak in the highest praise of that co-operation and the common recognition of the same deity. By constantly dwelling on this theme he at length induced the Latin tribes to join with the people of Rome in building a temple to Diana in Rome. Their doing so was an admission of the predominance of Rome; a question which had so often been disputed by arms. Though the Latins, after their many unfortunate experiences in war, had as a nation laid aside all thoughts of success, there was amongst the Sabines one man who believed that an opportunity presented itself of recovering the supremacy through his own individual cunning. The story runs that a man of substance belonging to that nation had a heifer of marvellous size and beauty. The marvel was attested in after ages by the horns which were fastened up in the vestibule of the temple of Diana. The creature was looked upon as-what it really was-a prodigy, and the soothsayers predicted that, whoever sacrificed it to Diana, the state of which he was a citizen should be the seat of empire. This prophecy had reached the ears of the official in charge of the temple of Diana. When the first day on which the sacrifice could properly be offered arrived, the Sabine drove the heifer to Rome, took it to the temple, and placed it in front of the altar. The official in charge was a Roman, and, struck by the size of the victim, which was well known by report, he recalled the prophecy and addressing the Sabine, said, "Why, pray, are you, stranger, preparing to offer a polluted sacrifice to Diana? Go and bathe yourself first in running water. The Tiber is flowing down there at the bottom of the valley." Filled with misgivings, and anxious for everything to be done properly that the prediction might be fulfilled, the stranger promptly went down to the Tiber. Meanwhile the Roman sacrificed the heifer to Diana. This was a cause of intense gratification to the king and to his people. ~ T. Livius 1.45

The Aventine Hill became a plebeian neighborhood, and thus in later periods Diana of the Aventine had a close connection to the plebeians. The cultus of Diana Nemorensis at Aricia also made a connection to slaves. Many of the plebeians who lived on the Aventine were in fact freedmen or the children of freedmen. The Temple of Diana of the Aventine was one temple, like that of Feronia, that offered sanctuary to runaway slaves, or where slaves would be emmancipated.

Why is it that on the Ides of August, formerly called Sextilis, all the slaves, female and male, keep holiday, and the Roman women make a particular practice of washing and cleansing their heads? Do the servants have release from work because on this day Rex Servius was born from a captive maidservant? And did the washing of their heads begin with the slave-women, because of their holiday, and extend itself to free-born women?~ Plutarch, Roman Questions 100

A most important aspect of the Temple of Diana on the Aventine was that its lex templi became the standard for how Roman sacrifices were to be made. Dionysius of Halicarnassus mentions how ancient the bronze inscription of this lex templi appeared to him.

with the money contributed by all the cities, he built the temple of Diana, which stands upon the Aventine, the largest of all the hills in Rome; and he drew up laws relating to the mutual rights of the cities and prescribed the manner in which everything else that concerned the festival and the general assembly should be performed. And to the end that no lapse of time should obliterate these laws, he erected a bronze pillar upon which he engraved both the decrees of the council and the names of the cities which had taken part in it. This pillar still existed down to my time in the temple of Diana, with the inscription in the characters that were anciently used in Greece. ~ Dionysius of Halicarnassus 4.24.4-5

In other temples of the later empire, lex templi refer back to that of Diana and how anything not mentioned in their own was to follow the Aventine lex templi. This would seem to reflect the influence of antiquarians of theAugustan Restoration of the religio Romana.


AUC 489 / 264 BCE: Dedication of a shrine of Vertumnus and Pomona on the Aventine Hill by Consul M. Fulvius Flaccus.

"When the earthly god Vertumnus, disguised in the shape of the old woman, had spoken, but to no effect, he went back to being a youth, and threw off the dress of an old woman, and appeared to Pomona, in the glowing likeness of the sun, when it overcomes contending clouds, and shines out, unopposed. He was ready to force her: but no force was needed, and the nymph captivated by the form of the god, felt a mutual passion." ~ Ovidius Naso, Metamorphoses 765-771

Vertumnus, or Vortumnus, is "the changer." He represents internal heat as incubates seeds in soil or that ripens fruit on trees. Thus was a connection made between Vertumnus and Pomona, the Goddess of fruit. He is also "the changer" of the season, as at this time of year fruit ripens. A bronze statue of Vertumnus once stood in the Vicus Tuscus (Varro, L. L. 5.46).

Thus, on the Ides of August, "when the first grapes turn blue on the bunch and ear of corn swells with milky juice" (Propertius 4.2.13) these first fruits of the harvest were offered to Vertumnus. Possibly Pomona was included in this festival, which may mean, too, that the flamen Pomonalis conducted the sacrifices.


Also on this date dedications were made of a Temple of Hercules Victor at Porta Trigemina; a Temple of Castor and Pollux in the Circus Maximus during the 3rd century; a Temple of Flora, also in the Circus Maximus; of the Temple of Felicitas on the Velia (AUC 580 /173 BCE); the Temple of Fortuna Equestris (AUC 580 / 173 BCE) and also a festival for Carmentis in Her sacred grove at the Porta Capena.


Today's thought is from Epicurus, The Sovran Maxims 16.

"Chance seldom interferes with the wise man; his greatest and highest interests have been, are, and will be, directed by reason throughout his whole life."



Visit Religio_Romana_Cultorum_Deorum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79284 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: May Maxima visit us from time to time... get well soon positively.
Salve all,

It is always a loss to see people leave, especially with the Hawaiian Aloha
spirit "the more the merrier" that I bring everywhere I go including cyberspace
here in Nova Roma.

On Maxima's behalf considering her current challenges, does a Nova Roman have
the ability to arbitrarily resign one's NR citizenship?


I would think that a person's citizenship isn't for he or she to give up, but
rather become excommunicated for treason and the like. I say this because it is
too easy for someone to say they're leaving NR during a crises, when in fact
they are virtually forever here, as long as Nova Roma is here as well.
Tiberius Marcius Quadra


________________________________
From: Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com; ReligioRomana@yahoogroups.com;
ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com; CollPontificumNR
<CollPontificumNR@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 10:13:04 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Farewell, Nova Roma




Maxima Valeria Messallina omnibus S.P.D.


With great regret, I have to leave Nova Roma. My mother, who has Alzheimer's,
suffered a very serious stroke two weeks ago. Her recovery will be lengthy and I
must be there for her every step of the way.

In addition to this, the results of recent tests done on me have revealed
something neither my doctor nor I expected and now I am facing my own health
crisis, with its own lengthy recovery. Dealing with both of these two crisises
will take all my time, energy and resourses and, thus, I will not be able to
devote anymore time or energy to Nova Roma.
Therefore, I resign from all offices and positions, and also, my citizenship.
I thank all those Nova Romans who have been good friends to me throughout my six
years in Nova Roma, in particular A. Tullia Scholastica, who was my first and
best friend, and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, who joined just after I did on the same
day and whose devotion to Nova Roma has always been an inspiration to me.

I wish everyone good luck and may Vesta help all Nova Romans. Please know it was
truly an honor to serve you and I sincerely apologize to the women of NR who I
have hurt. You deserved better.


Valete bene in pace Deorum,

Maxima Valeria Messallina
Sacerdos Vestalis

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







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79285 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: May Maxima visit us from time to time... get well soon positivel
Yes, Nova Roma is a voluntary based organization. Anyone can resign
citizenship at their whim.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Robin Marquardt <remarq777@...>wrote:

>
>
> Salve all,
>
> It is always a loss to see people leave, especially with the Hawaiian Aloha
>
> spirit "the more the merrier" that I bring everywhere I go including
> cyberspace
> here in Nova Roma.
>
> On Maxima's behalf considering her current challenges, does a Nova Roman
> have
> the ability to arbitrarily resign one's NR citizenship?
>
> I would think that a person's citizenship isn't for he or she to give up,
> but
> rather become excommunicated for treason and the like. I say this because
> it is
> too easy for someone to say they're leaving NR during a crises, when in
> fact
> they are virtually forever here, as long as Nova Roma is here as well.
> Tiberius Marcius Quadra
>
> ________________________________
> From: Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...<maximavaleriamessallina%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>;
> ReligioRomana@yahoogroups.com <ReligioRomana%40yahoogroups.com>;
> ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com<ComitiaPlebisTributa%40yahoogroups.com>;
> CollPontificumNR
> <CollPontificumNR@yahoogroups.com <CollPontificumNR%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 10:13:04 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Farewell, Nova Roma
>
> Maxima Valeria Messallina omnibus S.P.D.
>
>
> With great regret, I have to leave Nova Roma. My mother, who has
> Alzheimer's,
> suffered a very serious stroke two weeks ago. Her recovery will be lengthy
> and I
> must be there for her every step of the way.
>
> In addition to this, the results of recent tests done on me have revealed
> something neither my doctor nor I expected and now I am facing my own
> health
> crisis, with its own lengthy recovery. Dealing with both of these two
> crisises
> will take all my time, energy and resourses and, thus, I will not be able
> to
> devote anymore time or energy to Nova Roma.
> Therefore, I resign from all offices and positions, and also, my
> citizenship.
> I thank all those Nova Romans who have been good friends to me throughout
> my six
> years in Nova Roma, in particular A. Tullia Scholastica, who was my first
> and
> best friend, and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, who joined just after I did on the
> same
> day and whose devotion to Nova Roma has always been an inspiration to me.
>
> I wish everyone good luck and may Vesta help all Nova Romans. Please know
> it was
> truly an honor to serve you and I sincerely apologize to the women of NR
> who I
> have hurt. You deserved better.
>
>
> Valete bene in pace Deorum,
>
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
> Sacerdos Vestalis
>
> [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]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79286 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: May Maxima visit us from time to time... get well soon positivel
Gratia for the info Lucius. To my credit, I could never resign from Rome, for I
am Rome, and grateful to a part of Nova Roma.
Ti. Marci Quadra


________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 12:57:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] May Maxima visit us from time to time... get well soon
positively.

Yes, Nova Roma is a voluntary based organization. Anyone can resign
citizenship at their whim.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Robin Marquardt <remarq777@...>wrote:

>
>
> Salve all,
>
> It is always a loss to see people leave, especially with the Hawaiian Aloha
>
> spirit "the more the merrier" that I bring everywhere I go including
> cyberspace
> here in Nova Roma.
>
> On Maxima's behalf considering her current challenges, does a Nova Roman
> have
> the ability to arbitrarily resign one's NR citizenship?
>
> I would think that a person's citizenship isn't for he or she to give up,
> but
> rather become excommunicated for treason and the like. I say this because
> it is
> too easy for someone to say they're leaving NR during a crises, when in
> fact
> they are virtually forever here, as long as Nova Roma is here as well.
> Tiberius Marcius Quadra
>
> ________________________________
> From: Maxima Valeria Messallina
><maximavaleriamessallina@...<maximavaleriamessallina%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>;
> ReligioRomana@yahoogroups.com <ReligioRomana%40yahoogroups.com>;
> ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com<ComitiaPlebisTributa%40yahoogroups.com>;
> CollPontificumNR
> <CollPontificumNR@yahoogroups.com <CollPontificumNR%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 10:13:04 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Farewell, Nova Roma
>
> Maxima Valeria Messallina omnibus S.P.D.
>
>
> With great regret, I have to leave Nova Roma. My mother, who has
> Alzheimer's,
> suffered a very serious stroke two weeks ago. Her recovery will be lengthy
> and I
> must be there for her every step of the way.
>
> In addition to this, the results of recent tests done on me have revealed
> something neither my doctor nor I expected and now I am facing my own
> health
> crisis, with its own lengthy recovery. Dealing with both of these two
> crisises
> will take all my time, energy and resourses and, thus, I will not be able
> to
> devote anymore time or energy to Nova Roma.
> Therefore, I resign from all offices and positions, and also, my
> citizenship.
> I thank all those Nova Romans who have been good friends to me throughout
> my six
> years in Nova Roma, in particular A. Tullia Scholastica, who was my first
> and
> best friend, and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, who joined just after I did on the
> same
> day and whose devotion to Nova Roma has always been an inspiration to me.
>
> I wish everyone good luck and may Vesta help all Nova Romans. Please know
> it was
> truly an honor to serve you and I sincerely apologize to the women of NR
> who I
> have hurt. You deserved better.
>
>
> Valete bene in pace Deorum,
>
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
> Sacerdos Vestalis
>
> [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]



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

Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79287 From: Kirsteen Wright Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: May Maxima visit us from time to time... get well soon positivel
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Robin Marquardt <remarq777@...>wrote:

> Salve all,
>
> On Maxima's behalf considering her current challenges, does a Nova Roman
> have
> the ability to arbitrarily resign one's NR citizenship?
>
>
> Yes you can give up your citizenship wheneve you want. but nothing stops
you coming back again later. Several people have resigned their citizenship
and then re-applied when their circumstances chnged.

Cheers
Merula


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79288 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: May Maxima visit us from time to time... get well soon positivel
Gratia Merula.
Ti. Marci Quadra


________________________________
From: Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 1:20:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] May Maxima visit us from time to time... get well soon
positively.


On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Robin Marquardt <remarq777@...>wrote:

> Salve all,
>
> On Maxima's behalf considering her current challenges, does a Nova Roman
> have
> the ability to arbitrarily resign one's NR citizenship?
>
>
> Yes you can give up your citizenship wheneve you want. but nothing stops
you coming back again later. Several people have resigned their citizenship
and then re-applied when their circumstances chnged.

Cheers
Merula

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







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79289 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Farewell, Nova Roma
Cn. Lentulus Maximae Valeriae Messallinae virgini Vestali maximae s. p. d.

I was going to write about our glad experience in NR Sarmatia, but I was shocked to see this among my received letters.

This is one of the saddest day of Nova Roma.

I find no words.

We have just lost one of our best, and the only Vestal Virgin we had.

I have lost my dear friend and fellow citizen Messallina, one of the most dedicated citizens we ever had. I do not know if you read it, Amica, but please reconsider staying! You don't have to resign in order to take a break, however long break! If a citizen of any nation wishes to retire resignation is not the solution: resignation is the extreme form of leaving, indicating a wish of full oblivion and the desire of never returning.

I hope you'll want to return in the future, so no need to resign!

And, until you return, I wish good health and recovery to you and to your mother. May Vesta watch over you and her, may all the gods and goddesses bless you.

Cura ut valeas in valetudine et in pace deorum!

Cn. Lentulus, pontifex

--- Ven 13/8/10, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> ha scritto:

Da: Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...>
Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Farewell, Nova Roma
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, ReligioRomana@yahoogroups.com, ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com, "CollPontificumNR" <CollPontificumNR@yahoogroups.com>
Data: Venerdì 13 agosto 2010, 02:13







 













Maxima Valeria Messallina omnibus S.P.D.

 

 

With great regret, I have to leave Nova Roma. My mother, who has Alzheimer's, suffered a very serious stroke two weeks ago. Her recovery will be lengthy and I must be there for her every step of the way.

In addition to this, the results of recent tests done on me have revealed something neither my doctor nor I expected and now I am facing my own health crisis, with its own lengthy recovery. Dealing with both of these two crisises will take all my time, energy and resourses and, thus, I will not be able to devote anymore time or energy to Nova Roma.

Therefore, I resign from all offices and positions, and also, my citizenship.

I thank all those Nova Romans who have been good friends to me throughout my six years in Nova Roma, in particular A. Tullia Scholastica, who was my first and best friend, and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, who joined just after I did on the same day and whose devotion to Nova Roma has always been an inspiration to me.

I wish everyone good luck and may Vesta help all Nova Romans. Please know it was truly an honor to serve you and I sincerely apologize to the women of NR who I have hurt. You deserved better.

 

 

Valete bene in pace Deorum,

 

Maxima Valeria Messallina

Sacerdos Vestalis



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

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79290 From: M•IVL•SEVERVS Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Salvete Quirites,

Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our Virgo Maxima is a terrible sign
among everything that has been happening here.
Maybe I will follow her, since I don't believe that I have much more to do in
this frustrated Res publica.
The worst among us seem to win.
To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I will be with you whenever you
need me. I hope that your mother's health, as well as yours, can an will
improve.

Valete,
 
M•IVL•SEVERVS

SENATOR
PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79291 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
We have just lost one of our best, and the only Vestal Virgin we had.

Now Lentulus you know that is not true, you have been making edits on the
Wikipedia and KNOW its not true. NR has had what 5 Vestals since NR began?

http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Virgo_Vestalis_Maxima

*Past Vestals*: (honoured for their former vows and duties)

- Vespasia Pollia
- Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata
- Gaia Iulia Caesaria Victorina
- L. Modia Lupa<http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lucia_Modia_Lupa_%28Nova_Roma%29>

It does not even list Flavia Claudia who was the first and ARGUABLY the
best., IMHO.

Add Messalina and we have had 6!

Just please - lets not revise history.

Vale,

Sulla


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79292 From: Lyn Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Salvete omnes,



I agree with Lentulus and the previous posters. This is a great loss to us
all and I urge our fellow cives to join Lentulus in asking this devoted
Vestal to reconsider.



Messallina, those of us who so looked forward to the wisdom of your posts
and comprehended your devotion to gods and country will miss you terribly.



Valete,

L. Aemilia Mamerca





_____

From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 11:45 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com; ReligioRomana@yahoogroups.com;
ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com; CollPontificumNR
Cc: maximavaleriamessallina@...
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Farewell, Nova Roma






Cn. Lentulus Maximae Valeriae Messallinae virgini Vestali maximae s. p. d.

I was going to write about our glad experience in NR Sarmatia, but I was
shocked to see this among my received letters.

This is one of the saddest day of Nova Roma.

I find no words.

We have just lost one of our best, and the only Vestal Virgin we had.

I have lost my dear friend and fellow citizen Messallina, one of the most
dedicated citizens we ever had. I do not know if you read it, Amica, but
please reconsider staying! You don't have to resign in order to take a
break, however long break! If a citizen of any nation wishes to retire
resignation is not the solution: resignation is the extreme form of leaving,
indicating a wish of full oblivion and the desire of never returning.

I hope you'll want to return in the future, so no need to resign!

And, until you return, I wish good health and recovery to you and to your
mother. May Vesta watch over you and her, may all the gods and goddesses
bless you.

Cura ut valeas in valetudine et in pace deorum!

Cn. Lentulus, pontifex

--- Ven 13/8/10, Maxima Valeria Messallina
<maximavaleriamessallina@...
<mailto:maximavaleriamessallina%40yahoo.com> > ha scritto:

Da: Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...
<mailto:maximavaleriamessallina%40yahoo.com> >
Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Farewell, Nova Roma
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
ReligioRomana@yahoogroups.com <mailto:ReligioRomana%40yahoogroups.com> ,
ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:ComitiaPlebisTributa%40yahoogroups.com> , "CollPontificumNR"
<CollPontificumNR@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:CollPontificumNR%40yahoogroups.com> >
Data: Venerdì 13 agosto 2010, 02:13



Maxima Valeria Messallina omnibus S.P.D.





With great regret, I have to leave Nova Roma. My mother, who has
Alzheimer's, suffered a very serious stroke two weeks ago. Her recovery will
be lengthy and I must be there for her every step of the way.

In addition to this, the results of recent tests done on me have revealed
something neither my doctor nor I expected and now I am facing my own health
crisis, with its own lengthy recovery. Dealing with both of these two
crisises will take all my time, energy and resourses and, thus, I will not
be able to devote anymore time or energy to Nova Roma.

Therefore, I resign from all offices and positions, and also, my
citizenship.

I thank all those Nova Romans who have been good friends to me throughout my
six years in Nova Roma, in particular A. Tullia Scholastica, who was my
first and best friend, and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, who joined just after I
did on the same day and whose devotion to Nova Roma has always been an
inspiration to me.

I wish everyone good luck and may Vesta help all Nova Romans. Please know it
was truly an honor to serve you and I sincerely apologize to the women of NR
who I have hurt. You deserved better.





Valete bene in pace Deorum,



Maxima Valeria Messallina

Sacerdos Vestalis

[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]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79293 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Lentulus Sullae sal.

Sulla, I was talking about the current Vestals, Messallina was the only one Vestal Virgin we had. The other Vestals you list are past Vestals. I did not talk about the past, but about the present,


Vale optimé!



--- Ven 13/8/10, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> ha scritto:

Da: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
Oggetto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Farewell, Nova Roma
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Data: Venerdì 13 agosto 2010, 18:52







 









We have just lost one of our best, and the only Vestal Virgin we had.



Now Lentulus you know that is not true, you have been making edits on the

Wikipedia and KNOW its not true. NR has had what 5 Vestals since NR began?



http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Virgo_Vestalis_Maxima



*Past Vestals*: (honoured for their former vows and duties)



- Vespasia Pollia

- Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata

- Gaia Iulia Caesaria Victorina

- L. Modia Lupa<http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lucia_Modia_Lupa_%28Nova_Roma%29>



It does not even list Flavia Claudia who was the first and ARGUABLY the

best., IMHO.



Add Messalina and we have had 6!



Just please - lets not revise history.



Vale,



Sulla



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

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79294 From: James Hooper Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Salve Messalina,
May whatever Gods protect you, look after your mother and you.
Sorry to lose such a good public servant.
Vale,
Gaius Pompeius Marcellus


On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:13:04 -0700 (PDT)
Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Maxima Valeria Messallina omnibus S.P.D.
>  
>  
> With great regret, I have to leave Nova Roma. My mother, who has
>Alzheimer's, suffered a very serious stroke two weeks ago. Her recovery will
>be lengthy and I must be there for her every step of the way.
> In addition to this, the results of recent tests done on me have revealed
>something neither my doctor nor I expected and now I am facing my own health
>crisis, with its own lengthy recovery. Dealing with both of these two
>crisises will take all my time, energy and resourses and, thus, I will not be
>able to devote anymore time or energy to Nova Roma.
> Therefore, I resign from all offices and positions, and also, my
>citizenship.
> I thank all those Nova Romans who have been good friends to me throughout my
>six years in Nova Roma, in particular A. Tullia Scholastica, who was my first
>and best friend, and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, who joined just after I did on
>the same day and whose devotion to Nova Roma has always been an inspiration
>to me.
> I wish everyone good luck and may Vesta help all Nova Romans. Please know it
>was truly an honor to serve you and I sincerely apologize to the women of NR
>who I have hurt. You deserved better.
>  
>  
> Valete bene in pace Deorum,
>  
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
> Sacerdos Vestalis
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79295 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus has a constant campaign to replace the PM who actually does something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima, Sulla and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion occupy the religio list so it's almost dead.

I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the wedding in Sarmatia(not happy thoughts either) who needs this constant stream of garbage that accomplishes nothing?

As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players, individuals who essentially have no lives and live online and the rest of us; real life recons who are happy.

I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write privately to my friends and get on with projects.
vale
M. Hortensia Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, M•IVL•SEVERVS <marcusiuliusseverus@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete Quirites,
>
> Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our Virgo Maxima is a terrible sign
> among everything that has been happening here.
> Maybe I will follow her, since I don't believe that I have much more to do in
> this frustrated Res publica.
> The worst among us seem to win.
> To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I will be with you whenever you
> need me. I hope that your mother's health, as well as yours, can an will
> improve.
>
> Valete,
>  
> M•IVL•SEVERVS
>
> SENATOR
> PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79296 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Maior,

I thought you apologized? I guess this is just proof that you did not mean
a single word that you uttered in your apology?

Maybe you just sort of reap what you sow? Nah that could not possible be
it.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:19 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus has a constant campaign to
> replace the PM who actually does something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the
> Virgo Maxima, Sulla and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion
> occupy the religio list so it's almost dead.
>
> I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the wedding in Sarmatia(not
> happy thoughts either) who needs this constant stream of garbage that
> accomplishes nothing?
>
> As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players, individuals who
> essentially have no lives and live online and the rest of us; real life
> recons who are happy.
>
> I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write privately to my friends
> and get on with projects.
> vale
> M. Hortensia Maior
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> M•IVL•SEVERVS <marcusiuliusseverus@...> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete Quirites,
> >
> > Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our Virgo Maxima is a terrible
> sign
> > among everything that has been happening here.
> > Maybe I will follow her, since I don't believe that I have much more to
> do in
> > this frustrated Res publica.
>
> > The worst among us seem to win.
> > To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I will be with you
> whenever you
> > need me. IÂ hope that your mother's health, as well as yours, can an will
>
> > improve.
> >
> > Valete,
> > Â
> > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> >
> > SENATOR
> > PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79297 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Cn Iulius Caesar sal.

"Bad" is a subjective judgement made dependent on which viewpoint you see issues from.

I could say that Maior's continuing attempts to bamboozle people into accepting her opinion on macronational legal issues, or internal Nova Roman legal matters is a "bad" thing, given her appalling lack of logic, over emotive posting, and eroneous grasp of the issues at hand. No doubt she would disagree, though I live in hope that one day she might not.

As for the issue she has with Dexter, I note that barely a few days since making her apology as directed by vote of the CP, Maior once more forgets the directives of the Pontifex Maximus not to bring internal CP matters into the full glare of public debate. She has taken a private exchange and splattered it around the Main List. Dexter by contrast had not done that.

Let us examine another current set of descriptors for citizens, other than "bad" or "good". Certain stratas of Nova Roma are currently divided into those who attempted to stage a coup and those who resisted, between those that wanted a dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior Consul, and those that rallied around him. It is divided between those in the senate that wanted to impose their factional viewpoints through a dictatorship, and those that resisted that attempt. It is divided between legality and illegality.

It is for individuals to judge in their own minds if terms such as "good" and "bad" are applicable, and to whom they should be applied, but Maior was one of those fully supporting a move into the illegal dictatorship, illegal both under state law and I say (as do others) under Nova Roman law.

As for idiots, well given her past behavior on various lists, her performance as praetor and her current "thoughtful" assessment of the issues, I am sure that no one could ever conclude that the idiot's dunce hat has had Maior's name stitiched inside as a proud owner and wearer for many a year.

Never. How could one ever conclude that I wonder?

Optime valete


--- On Fri, 8/13/10, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

> From: rory12001 <rory12001@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus has a
> constant campaign to replace the PM who actually does
> something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima, Sulla
> and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion occupy
> the religio list so it's almost dead.
>
> I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the wedding
> in Sarmatia(not happy thoughts either) who needs this
> constant stream of garbage that accomplishes nothing?
>
> As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> individuals who essentially have no lives and live online
> and the rest of us; real life recons who are happy.
>
> I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write privately
> to my friends and get on with projects.
>                
>              vale
>                
>            M. Hortensia
> Maior
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com,
> M•IVL•SEVERVS <marcusiuliusseverus@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete Quirites,
> >
> > Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our Virgo
> Maxima is a terrible sign
> > among everything that has been happening here.
> > Maybe I will follow her, since I don't believe
> that I have much more to do in
> > this frustrated Res publica.
> > The worst among us seem to win.
> > To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I will
> be with you whenever you
> > need me. I hope that your mother's health, as well
> as yours, can an will
> > improve.
> >
> > Valete,
> >  
> > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> >
> > SENATOR
> > PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI
> >
> >
> >       
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79298 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Well given the VAST *cough* experience Maior supposedly has with her law
degree....one would think she would have advised caution regarding the
course of the dictatorship. Did she?

NOPE.

Instead she wanted to spend NR's coffers on the possible legal fees.

Not on JSTOR
Not on the IT

But on lawyers!

Now, is that a good investment of Nova Roma's money?

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
>
> "Bad" is a subjective judgement made dependent on which viewpoint you see
> issues from.
>
> I could say that Maior's continuing attempts to bamboozle people into
> accepting her opinion on macronational legal issues, or internal Nova Roman
> legal matters is a "bad" thing, given her appalling lack of logic, over
> emotive posting, and eroneous grasp of the issues at hand. No doubt she
> would disagree, though I live in hope that one day she might not.
>
> As for the issue she has with Dexter, I note that barely a few days since
> making her apology as directed by vote of the CP, Maior once more forgets
> the directives of the Pontifex Maximus not to bring internal CP matters into
> the full glare of public debate. She has taken a private exchange and
> splattered it around the Main List. Dexter by contrast had not done that.
>
> Let us examine another current set of descriptors for citizens, other than
> "bad" or "good". Certain stratas of Nova Roma are currently divided into
> those who attempted to stage a coup and those who resisted, between those
> that wanted a dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior Consul, and those
> that rallied around him. It is divided between those in the senate that
> wanted to impose their factional viewpoints through a dictatorship, and
> those that resisted that attempt. It is divided between legality and
> illegality.
>
> It is for individuals to judge in their own minds if terms such as "good"
> and "bad" are applicable, and to whom they should be applied, but Maior was
> one of those fully supporting a move into the illegal dictatorship, illegal
> both under state law and I say (as do others) under Nova Roman law.
>
> As for idiots, well given her past behavior on various lists, her
> performance as praetor and her current "thoughtful" assessment of the
> issues, I am sure that no one could ever conclude that the idiot's dunce hat
> has had Maior's name stitiched inside as a proud owner and wearer for many a
> year.
>
> Never. How could one ever conclude that I wonder?
>
> Optime valete
>
> --- On Fri, 8/13/10, rory12001 <rory12001@...<rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > From: rory12001 <rory12001@... <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
>
> > M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> > of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus has a
> > constant campaign to replace the PM who actually does
> > something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima, Sulla
> > and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion occupy
> > the religio list so it's almost dead.
> >
> > I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the wedding
> > in Sarmatia(not happy thoughts either) who needs this
> > constant stream of garbage that accomplishes nothing?
> >
> > As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> > individuals who essentially have no lives and live online
> > and the rest of us; real life recons who are happy.
> >
> > I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write privately
> > to my friends and get on with projects.
> >
> > vale
> >
> > M. Hortensia
> > Maior
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > M•IVL•SEVERVS <marcusiuliusseverus@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Salvete Quirites,
> > >
> > > Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our Virgo
> > Maxima is a terrible sign
> > > among everything that has been happening here.
> > > Maybe I will follow her, since I don't believe
> > that I have much more to do in
> > > this frustrated Res publica.
> > > The worst among us seem to win.
> > > To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I will
> > be with you whenever you
> > > need me. IÂ hope that your mother's health, as well
> > as yours, can an will
> > > improve.
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > > Â
> > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> > >
> > > SENATOR
> > > PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> >
> >
> > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> >
> >
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79299 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Angels and Demons and exhibition in Bible Lands Museum
Ave!

I was watching IBA (Israel Broadcast Authority) news program as I do every
day. And they have this very interesting exhibit going on at the Museum in
Jerusalem.

http://www.blmj.org/new/files/Vtour/index.html

It has to do with mysticism and charms and amulets in the history of
Judaism.

I hope you will enjoy it.

Respectfully,

Sulla


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79300 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Salve Caesar,
hello there? Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was not private at
all: it was here, on the main list, for everybody to get bored by. So you
can't accuse her to take a private exchange to the Main List.

Vale,
Livia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma


Cn Iulius Caesar sal.

"Bad" is a subjective judgement made dependent on which viewpoint you see
issues from.

I could say that Maior's continuing attempts to bamboozle people into
accepting her opinion on macronational legal issues, or internal Nova Roman
legal matters is a "bad" thing, given her appalling lack of logic, over
emotive posting, and eroneous grasp of the issues at hand. No doubt she
would disagree, though I live in hope that one day she might not.

As for the issue she has with Dexter, I note that barely a few days since
making her apology as directed by vote of the CP, Maior once more forgets
the directives of the Pontifex Maximus not to bring internal CP matters into
the full glare of public debate. She has taken a private exchange and
splattered it around the Main List. Dexter by contrast had not done that.

Let us examine another current set of descriptors for citizens, other than
"bad" or "good". Certain stratas of Nova Roma are currently divided into
those who attempted to stage a coup and those who resisted, between those
that wanted a dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior Consul, and those
that rallied around him. It is divided between those in the senate that
wanted to impose their factional viewpoints through a dictatorship, and
those that resisted that attempt. It is divided between legality and
illegality.

It is for individuals to judge in their own minds if terms such as "good"
and "bad" are applicable, and to whom they should be applied, but Maior was
one of those fully supporting a move into the illegal dictatorship, illegal
both under state law and I say (as do others) under Nova Roman law.

As for idiots, well given her past behavior on various lists, her
performance as praetor and her current "thoughtful" assessment of the
issues, I am sure that no one could ever conclude that the idiot's dunce hat
has had Maior's name stitiched inside as a proud owner and wearer for many a
year.

Never. How could one ever conclude that I wonder?

Optime valete


--- On Fri, 8/13/10, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

> From: rory12001 <rory12001@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus has a
> constant campaign to replace the PM who actually does
> something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima, Sulla
> and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion occupy
> the religio list so it's almost dead.
>
> I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the wedding
> in Sarmatia(not happy thoughts either) who needs this
> constant stream of garbage that accomplishes nothing?
>
> As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> individuals who essentially have no lives and live online
> and the rest of us; real life recons who are happy.
>
> I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write privately
> to my friends and get on with projects.
>
> vale
>
> M. Hortensia
> Maior
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com,
> M•IVL•SEVERVS <marcusiuliusseverus@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete Quirites,
> >
> > Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our Virgo
> Maxima is a terrible sign
> > among everything that has been happening here.
> > Maybe I will follow her, since I don't believe
> that I have much more to do in
> > this frustrated Res publica.
> > The worst among us seem to win.
> > To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I will
> be with you whenever you
> > need me. IÂ hope that your mother's health, as well
> as yours, can an will
> > improve.
> >
> > Valete,
> > Â
> > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> >
> > SENATOR
> > PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79301 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Salve Livia.

I think it started off as a private exchange - that is how she reported it to the CP. From there to here.

Vale
Caesar

--- On Fri, 8/13/10, L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...> wrote:

> From: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 4:27 PM
> Salve Caesar,
> hello there? Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was
> not private at
> all: it was here, on the main list, for everybody to get
> bored by. So you
> can't accuse her to take a private exchange to the Main
> List.
>
> Vale,
> Livia
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
>
>
> Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
>
> "Bad" is a subjective judgement made dependent on which
> viewpoint you see
> issues from.
>
> I could say that Maior's continuing attempts to bamboozle
> people into
> accepting her opinion on macronational legal issues, or
> internal Nova Roman
> legal matters is a "bad" thing, given her appalling lack of
> logic, over
> emotive posting, and eroneous grasp of the issues at hand.
> No doubt she
> would disagree, though I live in hope that one day she
> might not.
>
> As for the issue she has with Dexter, I note that barely a
> few days since
> making her apology as directed by vote of the CP, Maior
> once more forgets
> the directives of the Pontifex Maximus not to bring
> internal CP matters into
> the full glare of public debate. She has taken a private
> exchange and
> splattered it around the Main List. Dexter by contrast had
> not done that.
>
> Let us examine another current set of descriptors for
> citizens, other than
> "bad" or "good". Certain stratas of Nova Roma are currently
> divided into
> those who attempted to stage a coup and those who resisted,
> between those
> that wanted a dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior
> Consul, and those
> that rallied around him. It is divided between those in the
> senate that
> wanted to impose their factional viewpoints through a
> dictatorship, and
> those that resisted that attempt. It is divided between
> legality and
> illegality.
>
> It is for individuals to judge in their own minds if terms
> such as "good"
> and "bad" are applicable, and to whom they should be
> applied, but Maior was
> one of those fully supporting a move into the illegal
> dictatorship, illegal
> both under state law and I say (as do others) under Nova
> Roman law.
>
> As for idiots, well given her past behavior on various
> lists, her
> performance as praetor and her current "thoughtful"
> assessment of the
> issues, I am sure that no one could ever conclude that the
> idiot's dunce hat
> has had Maior's name stitiched inside as a proud owner and
> wearer for many a
> year.
>
> Never. How could one ever conclude that I wonder?
>
> Optime valete
>
>
> --- On Fri, 8/13/10, rory12001 <rory12001@...>
> wrote:
>
> > From: rory12001 <rory12001@...>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> > M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> >  of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus
> has a
> > constant campaign to replace the PM who actually does
> > something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima,
> Sulla
> > and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion
> occupy
> > the religio list so it's almost dead.
> >
> > I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the
> wedding
> > in Sarmatia(not happy thoughts either) who needs this
> > constant stream of garbage that accomplishes nothing?
> >
> > As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> > individuals who essentially have no lives and live
> online
> > and the rest of us; real life recons who are happy.
> >
> > I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write
> privately
> > to my friends and get on with projects.
> >
> > vale
> >
> > M. Hortensia
> > Maior
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com,
> > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> <marcusiuliusseverus@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Salvete Quirites,
> > >
> > > Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our
> Virgo
> > Maxima is a terrible sign
> > > among everything that has been happening here.
> > > Maybe I will follow her, since I don't believe
> > that I have much more to do in
> > > this frustrated Res publica.
> > > The worst among us seem to win.
> > > To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I
> will
> > be with you whenever you
> > > need me. IÂ hope that your mother's health, as
> well
> > as yours, can an will
> > > improve.
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > > Â
> > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> > >
> > > SENATOR
> > >
> PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79302 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Yeah what started here on the ML was Maior's failure in doing her lictor
statement correctly. Dexter pointing out her Latin was not correct. From
there it snowballed.

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve Livia.
>
> I think it started off as a private exchange - that is how she reported it
> to the CP. From there to here.
>
> Vale
> Caesar
>
> --- On Fri, 8/13/10, L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...<livia.plauta%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > From: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@... <livia.plauta%40gmail.com>
> >
>
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 4:27 PM
>
> > Salve Caesar,
> > hello there? Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was
> > not private at
> > all: it was here, on the main list, for everybody to get
> > bored by. So you
> > can't accuse her to take a private exchange to the Main
> > List.
> >
> > Vale,
> > Livia
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> >
> >
> > Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
> >
> > "Bad" is a subjective judgement made dependent on which
> > viewpoint you see
> > issues from.
> >
> > I could say that Maior's continuing attempts to bamboozle
> > people into
> > accepting her opinion on macronational legal issues, or
> > internal Nova Roman
> > legal matters is a "bad" thing, given her appalling lack of
> > logic, over
> > emotive posting, and eroneous grasp of the issues at hand.
> > No doubt she
> > would disagree, though I live in hope that one day she
> > might not.
> >
> > As for the issue she has with Dexter, I note that barely a
> > few days since
> > making her apology as directed by vote of the CP, Maior
> > once more forgets
> > the directives of the Pontifex Maximus not to bring
> > internal CP matters into
> > the full glare of public debate. She has taken a private
> > exchange and
> > splattered it around the Main List. Dexter by contrast had
> > not done that.
> >
> > Let us examine another current set of descriptors for
> > citizens, other than
> > "bad" or "good". Certain stratas of Nova Roma are currently
> > divided into
> > those who attempted to stage a coup and those who resisted,
> > between those
> > that wanted a dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior
> > Consul, and those
> > that rallied around him. It is divided between those in the
> > senate that
> > wanted to impose their factional viewpoints through a
> > dictatorship, and
> > those that resisted that attempt. It is divided between
> > legality and
> > illegality.
> >
> > It is for individuals to judge in their own minds if terms
> > such as "good"
> > and "bad" are applicable, and to whom they should be
> > applied, but Maior was
> > one of those fully supporting a move into the illegal
> > dictatorship, illegal
> > both under state law and I say (as do others) under Nova
> > Roman law.
> >
> > As for idiots, well given her past behavior on various
> > lists, her
> > performance as praetor and her current "thoughtful"
> > assessment of the
> > issues, I am sure that no one could ever conclude that the
> > idiot's dunce hat
> > has had Maior's name stitiched inside as a proud owner and
> > wearer for many a
> > year.
> >
> > Never. How could one ever conclude that I wonder?
> >
> > Optime valete
> >
> >
> > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, rory12001 <rory12001@...<rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From: rory12001 <rory12001@... <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> > > M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> > > of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus
> > has a
> > > constant campaign to replace the PM who actually does
> > > something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima,
> > Sulla
> > > and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion
> > occupy
> > > the religio list so it's almost dead.
> > >
> > > I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the
> > wedding
> > > in Sarmatia(not happy thoughts either) who needs this
> > > constant stream of garbage that accomplishes nothing?
> > >
> > > As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> > > individuals who essentially have no lives and live
> > online
> > > and the rest of us; real life recons who are happy.
> > >
> > > I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write
> > privately
> > > to my friends and get on with projects.
> > >
> > > vale
> > >
> > > M. Hortensia
> > > Maior
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> > <marcusiuliusseverus@...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salvete Quirites,
> > > >
> > > > Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our
> > Virgo
> > > Maxima is a terrible sign
> > > > among everything that has been happening here.
> > > > Maybe I will follow her, since I don't believe
> > > that I have much more to do in
> > > > this frustrated Res publica.
> > > > The worst among us seem to win.
> > > > To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I
> > will
> > > be with you whenever you
> > > > need me. IÂ hope that your mother's health, as
> > well
> > > as yours, can an will
> > > > improve.
> > > >
> > > > Valete,
> > > > Â
> > > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> > > >
> > > > SENATOR
> > > >
> > PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> >
> >
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79303 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Salve Livia;
how true it was dull here on the ML & even more tiresome when Dexter nattered on about it in a private email, so I told him to knock it off on the CP list.

We actually have wonderful events in Sarmatia to hear about. I for one cannot wait.
vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Caesar,
> hello there? Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was not private at
> all: it was here, on the main list, for everybody to get bored by. So you
> can't accuse her to take a private exchange to the Main List.
>
> Vale,
> Livia
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
>
>
> Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
>
> "Bad" is a subjective judgement made dependent on which viewpoint you see
> issues from.
>
> I could say that Maior's continuing attempts to bamboozle people into
> accepting her opinion on macronational legal issues, or internal Nova Roman
> legal matters is a "bad" thing, given her appalling lack of logic, over
> emotive posting, and eroneous grasp of the issues at hand. No doubt she
> would disagree, though I live in hope that one day she might not.
>
> As for the issue she has with Dexter, I note that barely a few days since
> making her apology as directed by vote of the CP, Maior once more forgets
> the directives of the Pontifex Maximus not to bring internal CP matters into
> the full glare of public debate. She has taken a private exchange and
> splattered it around the Main List. Dexter by contrast had not done that.
>
> Let us examine another current set of descriptors for citizens, other than
> "bad" or "good". Certain stratas of Nova Roma are currently divided into
> those who attempted to stage a coup and those who resisted, between those
> that wanted a dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior Consul, and those
> that rallied around him. It is divided between those in the senate that
> wanted to impose their factional viewpoints through a dictatorship, and
> those that resisted that attempt. It is divided between legality and
> illegality.
>
> It is for individuals to judge in their own minds if terms such as "good"
> and "bad" are applicable, and to whom they should be applied, but Maior was
> one of those fully supporting a move into the illegal dictatorship, illegal
> both under state law and I say (as do others) under Nova Roman law.
>
> As for idiots, well given her past behavior on various lists, her
> performance as praetor and her current "thoughtful" assessment of the
> issues, I am sure that no one could ever conclude that the idiot's dunce hat
> has had Maior's name stitiched inside as a proud owner and wearer for many a
> year.
>
> Never. How could one ever conclude that I wonder?
>
> Optime valete
>
>
> --- On Fri, 8/13/10, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> > From: rory12001 <rory12001@...>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> > M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> > of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus has a
> > constant campaign to replace the PM who actually does
> > something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima, Sulla
> > and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion occupy
> > the religio list so it's almost dead.
> >
> > I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the wedding
> > in Sarmatia(not happy thoughts either) who needs this
> > constant stream of garbage that accomplishes nothing?
> >
> > As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> > individuals who essentially have no lives and live online
> > and the rest of us; real life recons who are happy.
> >
> > I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write privately
> > to my friends and get on with projects.
> >
> > vale
> >
> > M. Hortensia
> > Maior
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com,
> > M•IVL•SEVERVS <marcusiuliusseverus@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Salvete Quirites,
> > >
> > > Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our Virgo
> > Maxima is a terrible sign
> > > among everything that has been happening here.
> > > Maybe I will follow her, since I don't believe
> > that I have much more to do in
> > > this frustrated Res publica.
> > > The worst among us seem to win.
> > > To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I will
> > be with you whenever you
> > > need me. IÂ hope that your mother's health, as well
> > as yours, can an will
> > > improve.
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > > Â
> > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> > >
> > > SENATOR
> > > PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79304 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Exactly, and it was public, form beginning to end.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Woolwine" <robert.woolwine@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma


Yeah what started here on the ML was Maior's failure in doing her lictor
statement correctly. Dexter pointing out her Latin was not correct. From
there it snowballed.

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve Livia.
>
> I think it started off as a private exchange - that is how she reported it
> to the CP. From there to here.
>
> Vale
> Caesar
>
> --- On Fri, 8/13/10, L. Livia Plauta
> <livia.plauta@...<livia.plauta%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > From: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@... <livia.plauta%40gmail.com>
> >
>
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 4:27 PM
>
> > Salve Caesar,
> > hello there? Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was
> > not private at
> > all: it was here, on the main list, for everybody to get
> > bored by. So you
> > can't accuse her to take a private exchange to the Main
> > List.
> >
> > Vale,
> > Livia
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> >
> >
> > Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
> >
> > "Bad" is a subjective judgement made dependent on which
> > viewpoint you see
> > issues from.
> >
> > I could say that Maior's continuing attempts to bamboozle
> > people into
> > accepting her opinion on macronational legal issues, or
> > internal Nova Roman
> > legal matters is a "bad" thing, given her appalling lack of
> > logic, over
> > emotive posting, and eroneous grasp of the issues at hand.
> > No doubt she
> > would disagree, though I live in hope that one day she
> > might not.
> >
> > As for the issue she has with Dexter, I note that barely a
> > few days since
> > making her apology as directed by vote of the CP, Maior
> > once more forgets
> > the directives of the Pontifex Maximus not to bring
> > internal CP matters into
> > the full glare of public debate. She has taken a private
> > exchange and
> > splattered it around the Main List. Dexter by contrast had
> > not done that.
> >
> > Let us examine another current set of descriptors for
> > citizens, other than
> > "bad" or "good". Certain stratas of Nova Roma are currently
> > divided into
> > those who attempted to stage a coup and those who resisted,
> > between those
> > that wanted a dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior
> > Consul, and those
> > that rallied around him. It is divided between those in the
> > senate that
> > wanted to impose their factional viewpoints through a
> > dictatorship, and
> > those that resisted that attempt. It is divided between
> > legality and
> > illegality.
> >
> > It is for individuals to judge in their own minds if terms
> > such as "good"
> > and "bad" are applicable, and to whom they should be
> > applied, but Maior was
> > one of those fully supporting a move into the illegal
> > dictatorship, illegal
> > both under state law and I say (as do others) under Nova
> > Roman law.
> >
> > As for idiots, well given her past behavior on various
> > lists, her
> > performance as praetor and her current "thoughtful"
> > assessment of the
> > issues, I am sure that no one could ever conclude that the
> > idiot's dunce hat
> > has had Maior's name stitiched inside as a proud owner and
> > wearer for many a
> > year.
> >
> > Never. How could one ever conclude that I wonder?
> >
> > Optime valete
> >
> >
> > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, rory12001
> > <rory12001@...<rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From: rory12001 <rory12001@... <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> > > M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> > > of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus
> > has a
> > > constant campaign to replace the PM who actually does
> > > something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima,
> > Sulla
> > > and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion
> > occupy
> > > the religio list so it's almost dead.
> > >
> > > I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the
> > wedding
> > > in Sarmatia(not happy thoughts either) who needs this
> > > constant stream of garbage that accomplishes nothing?
> > >
> > > As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> > > individuals who essentially have no lives and live
> > online
> > > and the rest of us; real life recons who are happy.
> > >
> > > I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write
> > privately
> > > to my friends and get on with projects.
> > >
> > > vale
> > >
> > > M. Hortensia
> > > Maior
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> > <marcusiuliusseverus@...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salvete Quirites,
> > > >
> > > > Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our
> > Virgo
> > > Maxima is a terrible sign
> > > > among everything that has been happening here.
> > > > Maybe I will follow her, since I don't believe
> > > that I have much more to do in
> > > > this frustrated Res publica.
> > > > The worst among us seem to win.
> > > > To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I
> > will
> > > be with you whenever you
> > > > need me. IÂ hope that your mother's health, as
> > well
> > > as yours, can an will
> > > > improve.
> > > >
> > > > Valete,
> > > > Â
> > > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> > > >
> > > > SENATOR
> > > >
> > PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> >
> >
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79305 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Caesar sal.

Yes, but the email(s) Maior was complaing about were sent privately on the subject of comments she made in public. She specifically stated privately.

Optime valete


--- On Fri, 8/13/10, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:

> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 4:40 PM
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79306 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Maior,

You have the freedom to do things that are interested to you. Just as
everyone else has the same level of freedom.

Freedom such a wonderful thing.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:45 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve Livia;
> how true it was dull here on the ML & even more tiresome when Dexter
> nattered on about it in a private email, so I told him to knock it off on
> the CP list.
>
> We actually have wonderful events in Sarmatia to hear about. I for one
> cannot wait.
> vale
> Maior
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "L. Livia
> Plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Caesar,
> > hello there? Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was not private
> at
> > all: it was here, on the main list, for everybody to get bored by. So you
>
> > can't accuse her to take a private exchange to the Main List.
> >
> > Vale,
> > Livia
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@>
> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> >
> >
> > Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
> >
> > "Bad" is a subjective judgement made dependent on which viewpoint you see
>
> > issues from.
> >
> > I could say that Maior's continuing attempts to bamboozle people into
> > accepting her opinion on macronational legal issues, or internal Nova
> Roman
> > legal matters is a "bad" thing, given her appalling lack of logic, over
> > emotive posting, and eroneous grasp of the issues at hand. No doubt she
> > would disagree, though I live in hope that one day she might not.
> >
> > As for the issue she has with Dexter, I note that barely a few days since
>
> > making her apology as directed by vote of the CP, Maior once more forgets
>
> > the directives of the Pontifex Maximus not to bring internal CP matters
> into
> > the full glare of public debate. She has taken a private exchange and
> > splattered it around the Main List. Dexter by contrast had not done that.
> >
> > Let us examine another current set of descriptors for citizens, other
> than
> > "bad" or "good". Certain stratas of Nova Roma are currently divided into
> > those who attempted to stage a coup and those who resisted, between those
>
> > that wanted a dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior Consul, and
> those
> > that rallied around him. It is divided between those in the senate that
> > wanted to impose their factional viewpoints through a dictatorship, and
> > those that resisted that attempt. It is divided between legality and
> > illegality.
> >
> > It is for individuals to judge in their own minds if terms such as "good"
>
> > and "bad" are applicable, and to whom they should be applied, but Maior
> was
> > one of those fully supporting a move into the illegal dictatorship,
> illegal
> > both under state law and I say (as do others) under Nova Roman law.
> >
> > As for idiots, well given her past behavior on various lists, her
> > performance as praetor and her current "thoughtful" assessment of the
> > issues, I am sure that no one could ever conclude that the idiot's dunce
> hat
> > has had Maior's name stitiched inside as a proud owner and wearer for
> many a
> > year.
> >
> > Never. How could one ever conclude that I wonder?
> >
> > Optime valete
> >
> >
> > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
> >
> > > From: rory12001 <rory12001@...>
>
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> > > M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> > > of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus has a
> > > constant campaign to replace the PM who actually does
> > > something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima, Sulla
> > > and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion occupy
> > > the religio list so it's almost dead.
> > >
> > > I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the wedding
> > > in Sarmatia(not happy thoughts either) who needs this
> > > constant stream of garbage that accomplishes nothing?
> > >
> > > As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> > > individuals who essentially have no lives and live online
> > > and the rest of us; real life recons who are happy.
> > >
> > > I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write privately
> > > to my friends and get on with projects.
> > >
> > > vale
> > >
> > > M. Hortensia
> > > Maior
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > M•IVL•SEVERVS <marcusiuliusseverus@>
>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salvete Quirites,
> > > >
> > > > Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our Virgo
> > > Maxima is a terrible sign
> > > > among everything that has been happening here.
> > > > Maybe I will follow her, since I don't believe
> > > that I have much more to do in
> > > > this frustrated Res publica.
>
> > > > The worst among us seem to win.
> > > > To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I will
> > > be with you whenever you
> > > > need me. IÂ hope that your mother's health, as well
>
> > > as yours, can an will
> > > > improve.
> > > >
> > > > Valete,
> > > > Â
> > > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> > > >
> > > > SENATOR
> > > > PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79307 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Only if this is the same matter that was being discussed on the CP list. We
only know a small part of what was going on. The part that Maior has
commented on.

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:45 PM, L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...>wrote:

>
>
> Exactly, and it was public, form beginning to end.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Woolwine" <robert.woolwine@...>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 12:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
>
> Yeah what started here on the ML was Maior's failure in doing her lictor
> statement correctly. Dexter pointing out her Latin was not correct. From
> there it snowballed.
>
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> gn_iulius_caesar@... <gn_iulius_caesar%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Salve Livia.
> >
> > I think it started off as a private exchange - that is how she reported
> it
> > to the CP. From there to here.
> >
> > Vale
> > Caesar
> >
> > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, L. Livia Plauta
> > <livia.plauta@... <livia.plauta%40gmail.com><livia.plauta%
> 40gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...<livia.plauta%40gmail.com><livia.plauta%
> 40gmail.com>
>
> > >
> >
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 4:27 PM
> >
> > > Salve Caesar,
> > > hello there? Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was
> > > not private at
> > > all: it was here, on the main list, for everybody to get
> > > bored by. So you
> > > can't accuse her to take a private exchange to the Main
> > > List.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > > Livia
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:56 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > >
> > >
> > > Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
> > >
> > > "Bad" is a subjective judgement made dependent on which
> > > viewpoint you see
> > > issues from.
> > >
> > > I could say that Maior's continuing attempts to bamboozle
> > > people into
> > > accepting her opinion on macronational legal issues, or
> > > internal Nova Roman
> > > legal matters is a "bad" thing, given her appalling lack of
> > > logic, over
> > > emotive posting, and eroneous grasp of the issues at hand.
> > > No doubt she
> > > would disagree, though I live in hope that one day she
> > > might not.
> > >
> > > As for the issue she has with Dexter, I note that barely a
> > > few days since
> > > making her apology as directed by vote of the CP, Maior
> > > once more forgets
> > > the directives of the Pontifex Maximus not to bring
> > > internal CP matters into
> > > the full glare of public debate. She has taken a private
> > > exchange and
> > > splattered it around the Main List. Dexter by contrast had
> > > not done that.
> > >
> > > Let us examine another current set of descriptors for
> > > citizens, other than
> > > "bad" or "good". Certain stratas of Nova Roma are currently
> > > divided into
> > > those who attempted to stage a coup and those who resisted,
> > > between those
> > > that wanted a dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior
> > > Consul, and those
> > > that rallied around him. It is divided between those in the
> > > senate that
> > > wanted to impose their factional viewpoints through a
> > > dictatorship, and
> > > those that resisted that attempt. It is divided between
> > > legality and
> > > illegality.
> > >
> > > It is for individuals to judge in their own minds if terms
> > > such as "good"
> > > and "bad" are applicable, and to whom they should be
> > > applied, but Maior was
> > > one of those fully supporting a move into the illegal
> > > dictatorship, illegal
> > > both under state law and I say (as do others) under Nova
> > > Roman law.
> > >
> > > As for idiots, well given her past behavior on various
> > > lists, her
> > > performance as praetor and her current "thoughtful"
> > > assessment of the
> > > issues, I am sure that no one could ever conclude that the
> > > idiot's dunce hat
> > > has had Maior's name stitiched inside as a proud owner and
> > > wearer for many a
> > > year.
> > >
> > > Never. How could one ever conclude that I wonder?
> > >
> > > Optime valete
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, rory12001
> > > <rory12001@... <rory12001%40yahoo.com><rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: rory12001 <rory12001@... <rory12001%40yahoo.com><rory12001%
> 40yahoo.com>>
>
> > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> > > > M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> > > > of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus
> > > has a
> > > > constant campaign to replace the PM who actually does
> > > > something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima,
> > > Sulla
> > > > and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion
> > > occupy
> > > > the religio list so it's almost dead.
> > > >
> > > > I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the
> > > wedding
> > > > in Sarmatia(not happy thoughts either) who needs this
> > > > constant stream of garbage that accomplishes nothing?
> > > >
> > > > As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> > > > individuals who essentially have no lives and live
> > > online
> > > > and the rest of us; real life recons who are happy.
> > > >
> > > > I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write
> > > privately
> > > > to my friends and get on with projects.
> > > >
> > > > vale
> > > >
> > > > M. Hortensia
> > > > Maior
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>,
>
> > > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> > > <marcusiuliusseverus@...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Salvete Quirites,
> > > > >
> > > > > Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our
> > > Virgo
> > > > Maxima is a terrible sign
> > > > > among everything that has been happening here.
> > > > > Maybe I will follow her, since I don't believe
> > > > that I have much more to do in
> > > > > this frustrated Res publica.
> > > > > The worst among us seem to win.
> > > > > To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I
> > > will
> > > > be with you whenever you
> > > > > need me. IÂ hope that your mother's health, as
> > > well
> > > > as yours, can an will
> > > > > improve.
> > > > >
> > > > > Valete,
> > > > > Â
> > > > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> > > > >
> > > > > SENATOR
> > > > >
> > > PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79308 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Ah see...now so it wasn't about Maior's poor Latin skillz then....LOL
Umm..the plot thickens...

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

>
>
> Caesar sal.
>
> Yes, but the email(s) Maior was complaing about were sent privately on the
> subject of comments she made in public. She specifically stated privately.
>
> Optime valete
>
> --- On Fri, 8/13/10, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> >
>
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 4:40 PM
> >
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79309 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Salve Livia;
actually I've had my share of obscene private email from Sulla. The sad BA crowd do this to intimidate; Rofl... So if some idiot tries to do this; here's a nice public warning:

You don't want your rude emails published and held up up to public ridicule; don't send 'em to me;-)
vale
M. Hortensia Maior

>
> Exactly, and it was public, form beginning to end.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Woolwine" <robert.woolwine@>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 12:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
>
>
> Yeah what started here on the ML was Maior's failure in doing her lictor
> statement correctly. Dexter pointing out her Latin was not correct. From
> there it snowballed.
>
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Salve Livia.
> >
> > I think it started off as a private exchange - that is how she reported it
> > to the CP. From there to here.
> >
> > Vale
> > Caesar
> >
> > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, L. Livia Plauta
> > <livia.plauta@...<livia.plauta%40gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@... <livia.plauta%40gmail.com>
> > >
> >
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 4:27 PM
> >
> > > Salve Caesar,
> > > hello there? Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was
> > > not private at
> > > all: it was here, on the main list, for everybody to get
> > > bored by. So you
> > > can't accuse her to take a private exchange to the Main
> > > List.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > > Livia
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@>
> > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:56 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > >
> > >
> > > Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
> > >
> > > "Bad" is a subjective judgement made dependent on which
> > > viewpoint you see
> > > issues from.
> > >
> > > I could say that Maior's continuing attempts to bamboozle
> > > people into
> > > accepting her opinion on macronational legal issues, or
> > > internal Nova Roman
> > > legal matters is a "bad" thing, given her appalling lack of
> > > logic, over
> > > emotive posting, and eroneous grasp of the issues at hand.
> > > No doubt she
> > > would disagree, though I live in hope that one day she
> > > might not.
> > >
> > > As for the issue she has with Dexter, I note that barely a
> > > few days since
> > > making her apology as directed by vote of the CP, Maior
> > > once more forgets
> > > the directives of the Pontifex Maximus not to bring
> > > internal CP matters into
> > > the full glare of public debate. She has taken a private
> > > exchange and
> > > splattered it around the Main List. Dexter by contrast had
> > > not done that.
> > >
> > > Let us examine another current set of descriptors for
> > > citizens, other than
> > > "bad" or "good". Certain stratas of Nova Roma are currently
> > > divided into
> > > those who attempted to stage a coup and those who resisted,
> > > between those
> > > that wanted a dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior
> > > Consul, and those
> > > that rallied around him. It is divided between those in the
> > > senate that
> > > wanted to impose their factional viewpoints through a
> > > dictatorship, and
> > > those that resisted that attempt. It is divided between
> > > legality and
> > > illegality.
> > >
> > > It is for individuals to judge in their own minds if terms
> > > such as "good"
> > > and "bad" are applicable, and to whom they should be
> > > applied, but Maior was
> > > one of those fully supporting a move into the illegal
> > > dictatorship, illegal
> > > both under state law and I say (as do others) under Nova
> > > Roman law.
> > >
> > > As for idiots, well given her past behavior on various
> > > lists, her
> > > performance as praetor and her current "thoughtful"
> > > assessment of the
> > > issues, I am sure that no one could ever conclude that the
> > > idiot's dunce hat
> > > has had Maior's name stitiched inside as a proud owner and
> > > wearer for many a
> > > year.
> > >
> > > Never. How could one ever conclude that I wonder?
> > >
> > > Optime valete
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, rory12001
> > > <rory12001@...<rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: rory12001 <rory12001@... <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> > > > M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> > > > of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus
> > > has a
> > > > constant campaign to replace the PM who actually does
> > > > something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima,
> > > Sulla
> > > > and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion
> > > occupy
> > > > the religio list so it's almost dead.
> > > >
> > > > I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the
> > > wedding
> > > > in Sarmatia(not happy thoughts either) who needs this
> > > > constant stream of garbage that accomplishes nothing?
> > > >
> > > > As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> > > > individuals who essentially have no lives and live
> > > online
> > > > and the rest of us; real life recons who are happy.
> > > >
> > > > I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write
> > > privately
> > > > to my friends and get on with projects.
> > > >
> > > > vale
> > > >
> > > > M. Hortensia
> > > > Maior
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> > > <marcusiuliusseverus@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Salvete Quirites,
> > > > >
> > > > > Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our
> > > Virgo
> > > > Maxima is a terrible sign
> > > > > among everything that has been happening here.
> > > > > Maybe I will follow her, since I don't believe
> > > > that I have much more to do in
> > > > > this frustrated Res publica.
> > > > > The worst among us seem to win.
> > > > > To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I
> > > will
> > > > be with you whenever you
> > > > > need me. IÂ hope that your mother's health, as
> > > well
> > > > as yours, can an will
> > > > > improve.
> > > > >
> > > > > Valete,
> > > > > Â
> > > > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> > > > >
> > > > > SENATOR
> > > > >
> > > PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79310 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
LOL!!!!!

Anything I sent to you private I would have NO Problem saying to you in
public...or to your face, Maior.

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:32 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve Livia;
> actually I've had my share of obscene private email from Sulla. The sad BA
> crowd do this to intimidate; Rofl... So if some idiot tries to do this;
> here's a nice public warning:
>
> You don't want your rude emails published and held up up to public
> ridicule; don't send 'em to me;-)
> vale
> M. Hortensia Maior
>
> >
> > Exactly, and it was public, form beginning to end.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert Woolwine" <robert.woolwine@>
> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 12:40 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> >
> >
> > Yeah what started here on the ML was Maior's failure in doing her lictor
> > statement correctly. Dexter pointing out her Latin was not correct. From
> > there it snowballed.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> > gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve Livia.
> > >
> > > I think it started off as a private exchange - that is how she reported
> it
> > > to the CP. From there to here.
> > >
> > > Vale
> > > Caesar
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, L. Livia Plauta
> > > <livia.plauta@...<livia.plauta%40gmail.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@... <livia.plauta%40gmail.com>
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 4:27 PM
> > >
> > > > Salve Caesar,
> > > > hello there? Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was
> > > > not private at
> > > > all: it was here, on the main list, for everybody to get
> > > > bored by. So you
> > > > can't accuse her to take a private exchange to the Main
> > > > List.
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > > Livia
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@>
> > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:56 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
> > > >
> > > > "Bad" is a subjective judgement made dependent on which
> > > > viewpoint you see
> > > > issues from.
> > > >
> > > > I could say that Maior's continuing attempts to bamboozle
> > > > people into
> > > > accepting her opinion on macronational legal issues, or
> > > > internal Nova Roman
> > > > legal matters is a "bad" thing, given her appalling lack of
> > > > logic, over
> > > > emotive posting, and eroneous grasp of the issues at hand.
> > > > No doubt she
> > > > would disagree, though I live in hope that one day she
> > > > might not.
> > > >
> > > > As for the issue she has with Dexter, I note that barely a
> > > > few days since
> > > > making her apology as directed by vote of the CP, Maior
> > > > once more forgets
> > > > the directives of the Pontifex Maximus not to bring
> > > > internal CP matters into
> > > > the full glare of public debate. She has taken a private
> > > > exchange and
> > > > splattered it around the Main List. Dexter by contrast had
> > > > not done that.
> > > >
> > > > Let us examine another current set of descriptors for
> > > > citizens, other than
> > > > "bad" or "good". Certain stratas of Nova Roma are currently
> > > > divided into
> > > > those who attempted to stage a coup and those who resisted,
> > > > between those
> > > > that wanted a dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior
> > > > Consul, and those
> > > > that rallied around him. It is divided between those in the
> > > > senate that
> > > > wanted to impose their factional viewpoints through a
> > > > dictatorship, and
> > > > those that resisted that attempt. It is divided between
> > > > legality and
> > > > illegality.
> > > >
> > > > It is for individuals to judge in their own minds if terms
> > > > such as "good"
> > > > and "bad" are applicable, and to whom they should be
> > > > applied, but Maior was
> > > > one of those fully supporting a move into the illegal
> > > > dictatorship, illegal
> > > > both under state law and I say (as do others) under Nova
> > > > Roman law.
> > > >
> > > > As for idiots, well given her past behavior on various
> > > > lists, her
> > > > performance as praetor and her current "thoughtful"
> > > > assessment of the
> > > > issues, I am sure that no one could ever conclude that the
> > > > idiot's dunce hat
> > > > has had Maior's name stitiched inside as a proud owner and
> > > > wearer for many a
> > > > year.
> > > >
> > > > Never. How could one ever conclude that I wonder?
> > > >
> > > > Optime valete
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, rory12001
> > > > <rory12001@...<rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: rory12001 <rory12001@... <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> > > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> > > > > M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> > > > > of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus
> > > > has a
> > > > > constant campaign to replace the PM who actually does
> > > > > something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima,
> > > > Sulla
> > > > > and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion
> > > > occupy
> > > > > the religio list so it's almost dead.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the
> > > > wedding
> > > > > in Sarmatia(not happy thoughts either) who needs this
> > > > > constant stream of garbage that accomplishes nothing?
> > > > >
> > > > > As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> > > > > individuals who essentially have no lives and live
> > > > online
> > > > > and the rest of us; real life recons who are happy.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write
> > > > privately
> > > > > to my friends and get on with projects.
> > > > >
> > > > > vale
> > > > >
> > > > > M. Hortensia
> > > > > Maior
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> > > > <marcusiuliusseverus@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Salvete Quirites,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our
> > > > Virgo
> > > > > Maxima is a terrible sign
> > > > > > among everything that has been happening here.
> > > > > > Maybe I will follow her, since I don't believe
> > > > > that I have much more to do in
> > > > > > this frustrated Res publica.
> > > > > > The worst among us seem to win.
> > > > > > To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I
> > > > will
> > > > > be with you whenever you
> > > > > > need me. IÂ hope that your mother's health, as
> > > > well
> > > > > as yours, can an will
> > > > > > improve.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Valete,
> > > > > > Â
> > > > > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SENATOR
> > > > > >
> > > > PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > > removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79311 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Yo Maior,

The way you you talk about the BA makes it sound its as if you miss being on
the Back alley. I can totally understand that, since it is THE BEST list
affiliated with Nova Roma.
We talk about movies..TV shows, serious topics and politics (like free
speech), we even get connections so we can play games over the Internet
(like Civ 4).

We have a wonderful time talking about Roman topics in an uncensored and
open environment.

We laugh with and at each other, we criticize each other and we learn from
each other. And our diversity is our strength in that we all manage to get
along and we all enjoy each other!

Yes, I can totally see why you miss being on the BA.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:32 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve Livia;
> actually I've had my share of obscene private email from Sulla. The sad BA
> crowd do this to intimidate; Rofl... So if some idiot tries to do this;
> here's a nice public warning:
>
> You don't want your rude emails published and held up up to public
> ridicule; don't send 'em to me;-)
> vale
> M. Hortensia Maior
>
> >
> > Exactly, and it was public, form beginning to end.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert Woolwine" <robert.woolwine@>
> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 12:40 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> >
> >
> > Yeah what started here on the ML was Maior's failure in doing her lictor
> > statement correctly. Dexter pointing out her Latin was not correct. From
> > there it snowballed.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> > gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve Livia.
> > >
> > > I think it started off as a private exchange - that is how she reported
> it
> > > to the CP. From there to here.
> > >
> > > Vale
> > > Caesar
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, L. Livia Plauta
> > > <livia.plauta@...<livia.plauta%40gmail.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@... <livia.plauta%40gmail.com>
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 4:27 PM
> > >
> > > > Salve Caesar,
> > > > hello there? Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was
> > > > not private at
> > > > all: it was here, on the main list, for everybody to get
> > > > bored by. So you
> > > > can't accuse her to take a private exchange to the Main
> > > > List.
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > > Livia
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@>
> > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:56 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
> > > >
> > > > "Bad" is a subjective judgement made dependent on which
> > > > viewpoint you see
> > > > issues from.
> > > >
> > > > I could say that Maior's continuing attempts to bamboozle
> > > > people into
> > > > accepting her opinion on macronational legal issues, or
> > > > internal Nova Roman
> > > > legal matters is a "bad" thing, given her appalling lack of
> > > > logic, over
> > > > emotive posting, and eroneous grasp of the issues at hand.
> > > > No doubt she
> > > > would disagree, though I live in hope that one day she
> > > > might not.
> > > >
> > > > As for the issue she has with Dexter, I note that barely a
> > > > few days since
> > > > making her apology as directed by vote of the CP, Maior
> > > > once more forgets
> > > > the directives of the Pontifex Maximus not to bring
> > > > internal CP matters into
> > > > the full glare of public debate. She has taken a private
> > > > exchange and
> > > > splattered it around the Main List. Dexter by contrast had
> > > > not done that.
> > > >
> > > > Let us examine another current set of descriptors for
> > > > citizens, other than
> > > > "bad" or "good". Certain stratas of Nova Roma are currently
> > > > divided into
> > > > those who attempted to stage a coup and those who resisted,
> > > > between those
> > > > that wanted a dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior
> > > > Consul, and those
> > > > that rallied around him. It is divided between those in the
> > > > senate that
> > > > wanted to impose their factional viewpoints through a
> > > > dictatorship, and
> > > > those that resisted that attempt. It is divided between
> > > > legality and
> > > > illegality.
> > > >
> > > > It is for individuals to judge in their own minds if terms
> > > > such as "good"
> > > > and "bad" are applicable, and to whom they should be
> > > > applied, but Maior was
> > > > one of those fully supporting a move into the illegal
> > > > dictatorship, illegal
> > > > both under state law and I say (as do others) under Nova
> > > > Roman law.
> > > >
> > > > As for idiots, well given her past behavior on various
> > > > lists, her
> > > > performance as praetor and her current "thoughtful"
> > > > assessment of the
> > > > issues, I am sure that no one could ever conclude that the
> > > > idiot's dunce hat
> > > > has had Maior's name stitiched inside as a proud owner and
> > > > wearer for many a
> > > > year.
> > > >
> > > > Never. How could one ever conclude that I wonder?
> > > >
> > > > Optime valete
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, rory12001
> > > > <rory12001@...<rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: rory12001 <rory12001@... <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> > > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> > > > > M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> > > > > of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus
> > > > has a
> > > > > constant campaign to replace the PM who actually does
> > > > > something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima,
> > > > Sulla
> > > > > and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion
> > > > occupy
> > > > > the religio list so it's almost dead.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the
> > > > wedding
> > > > > in Sarmatia(not happy thoughts either) who needs this
> > > > > constant stream of garbage that accomplishes nothing?
> > > > >
> > > > > As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> > > > > individuals who essentially have no lives and live
> > > > online
> > > > > and the rest of us; real life recons who are happy.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write
> > > > privately
> > > > > to my friends and get on with projects.
> > > > >
> > > > > vale
> > > > >
> > > > > M. Hortensia
> > > > > Maior
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> > > > <marcusiuliusseverus@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Salvete Quirites,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our
> > > > Virgo
> > > > > Maxima is a terrible sign
> > > > > > among everything that has been happening here.
> > > > > > Maybe I will follow her, since I don't believe
> > > > > that I have much more to do in
> > > > > > this frustrated Res publica.
> > > > > > The worst among us seem to win.
> > > > > > To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I
> > > > will
> > > > > be with you whenever you
> > > > > > need me. IÂ hope that your mother's health, as
> > > > well
> > > > > as yours, can an will
> > > > > > improve.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Valete,
> > > > > > Â
> > > > > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SENATOR
> > > > > >
> > > > PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > > removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79312 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Oh and I forgot to mention one little thing. When Lentulus ran into
financial issues so he could get to Sarmatia - he mentioned it on the Back
Alley and guess what we did? We raised about $500 dollars US so he could
get a rental car and be there for the weddings.

Yes, that was the BACK ALLEY that did it.

Next time you criticize the Back Alley, you are criticizing those of us who
helped Lentulus to get to Sarmatia.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...>wrote:

> Yo Maior,
>
> The way you you talk about the BA makes it sound its as if you miss being
> on the Back alley. I can totally understand that, since it is THE BEST list
> affiliated with Nova Roma.
> We talk about movies..TV shows, serious topics and politics (like free
> speech), we even get connections so we can play games over the Internet
> (like Civ 4).
>
> We have a wonderful time talking about Roman topics in an uncensored and
> open environment.
>
> We laugh with and at each other, we criticize each other and we learn from
> each other. And our diversity is our strength in that we all manage to get
> along and we all enjoy each other!
>
> Yes, I can totally see why you miss being on the BA.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:32 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Salve Livia;
>> actually I've had my share of obscene private email from Sulla. The sad BA
>> crowd do this to intimidate; Rofl... So if some idiot tries to do this;
>> here's a nice public warning:
>>
>> You don't want your rude emails published and held up up to public
>> ridicule; don't send 'em to me;-)
>> vale
>> M. Hortensia Maior
>>
>> >
>> > Exactly, and it was public, form beginning to end.
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Robert Woolwine" <robert.woolwine@>
>> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>>
>> > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 12:40 AM
>> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
>> >
>> >
>> > Yeah what started here on the ML was Maior's failure in doing her lictor
>> > statement correctly. Dexter pointing out her Latin was not correct. From
>> > there it snowballed.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
>> > gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Salve Livia.
>> > >
>> > > I think it started off as a private exchange - that is how she
>> reported it
>> > > to the CP. From there to here.
>> > >
>> > > Vale
>> > > Caesar
>> > >
>> > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, L. Livia Plauta
>> > > <livia.plauta@...<livia.plauta%40gmail.com>>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > From: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@... <livia.plauta%40gmail.com>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
>> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
>> 40yahoogroups.com>
>> > > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 4:27 PM
>> > >
>> > > > Salve Caesar,
>> > > > hello there? Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was
>> > > > not private at
>> > > > all: it was here, on the main list, for everybody to get
>> > > > bored by. So you
>> > > > can't accuse her to take a private exchange to the Main
>> > > > List.
>> > > >
>> > > > Vale,
>> > > > Livia
>> > > >
>> > > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@>
>> > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
>> 40yahoogroups.com>>
>> > > > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:56 PM
>> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
>> > > >
>> > > > "Bad" is a subjective judgement made dependent on which
>> > > > viewpoint you see
>> > > > issues from.
>> > > >
>> > > > I could say that Maior's continuing attempts to bamboozle
>> > > > people into
>> > > > accepting her opinion on macronational legal issues, or
>> > > > internal Nova Roman
>> > > > legal matters is a "bad" thing, given her appalling lack of
>> > > > logic, over
>> > > > emotive posting, and eroneous grasp of the issues at hand.
>> > > > No doubt she
>> > > > would disagree, though I live in hope that one day she
>> > > > might not.
>> > > >
>> > > > As for the issue she has with Dexter, I note that barely a
>> > > > few days since
>> > > > making her apology as directed by vote of the CP, Maior
>> > > > once more forgets
>> > > > the directives of the Pontifex Maximus not to bring
>> > > > internal CP matters into
>> > > > the full glare of public debate. She has taken a private
>> > > > exchange and
>> > > > splattered it around the Main List. Dexter by contrast had
>> > > > not done that.
>> > > >
>> > > > Let us examine another current set of descriptors for
>> > > > citizens, other than
>> > > > "bad" or "good". Certain stratas of Nova Roma are currently
>> > > > divided into
>> > > > those who attempted to stage a coup and those who resisted,
>> > > > between those
>> > > > that wanted a dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior
>> > > > Consul, and those
>> > > > that rallied around him. It is divided between those in the
>> > > > senate that
>> > > > wanted to impose their factional viewpoints through a
>> > > > dictatorship, and
>> > > > those that resisted that attempt. It is divided between
>> > > > legality and
>> > > > illegality.
>> > > >
>> > > > It is for individuals to judge in their own minds if terms
>> > > > such as "good"
>> > > > and "bad" are applicable, and to whom they should be
>> > > > applied, but Maior was
>> > > > one of those fully supporting a move into the illegal
>> > > > dictatorship, illegal
>> > > > both under state law and I say (as do others) under Nova
>> > > > Roman law.
>> > > >
>> > > > As for idiots, well given her past behavior on various
>> > > > lists, her
>> > > > performance as praetor and her current "thoughtful"
>> > > > assessment of the
>> > > > issues, I am sure that no one could ever conclude that the
>> > > > idiot's dunce hat
>> > > > has had Maior's name stitiched inside as a proud owner and
>> > > > wearer for many a
>> > > > year.
>> > > >
>> > > > Never. How could one ever conclude that I wonder?
>> > > >
>> > > > Optime valete
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, rory12001
>> > > > <rory12001@...<rory12001%40yahoo.com>
>> > > >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > From: rory12001 <rory12001@... <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
>> > > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
>> > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
>> 40yahoogroups.com>
>> > > > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
>> > > > > M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
>> > > > > of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus
>> > > > has a
>> > > > > constant campaign to replace the PM who actually does
>> > > > > something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima,
>> > > > Sulla
>> > > > > and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion
>> > > > occupy
>> > > > > the religio list so it's almost dead.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the
>> > > > wedding
>> > > > > in Sarmatia(not happy thoughts either) who needs this
>> > > > > constant stream of garbage that accomplishes nothing?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
>> > > > > individuals who essentially have no lives and live
>> > > > online
>> > > > > and the rest of us; real life recons who are happy.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write
>> > > > privately
>> > > > > to my friends and get on with projects.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > vale
>> > > > >
>> > > > > M. Hortensia
>> > > > > Maior
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
>> 40yahoogroups.com>,
>> > > > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
>> > > > <marcusiuliusseverus@>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Salvete Quirites,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our
>> > > > Virgo
>> > > > > Maxima is a terrible sign
>> > > > > > among everything that has been happening here.
>> > > > > > Maybe I will follow her, since I don't believe
>> > > > > that I have much more to do in
>> > > > > > this frustrated Res publica.
>> > > > > > The worst among us seem to win.
>> > > > > > To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I
>> > > > will
>> > > > > be with you whenever you
>> > > > > > need me. IÂ hope that your mother's health, as
>> > > > well
>> > > > > as yours, can an will
>> > > > > > improve.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Valete,
>> > > > > > Â
>> > > > > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > SENATOR
>> > > > > >
>> > > > PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
>> > > > removed]
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ------------------------------------
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
>> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ------------------------------------
>> > > >
>> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
>> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79313 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
C. Petronius L. Plautae s.p.d.,

> hello there? Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was not private at all: it was here, on the main list, for everybody to get bored by. So you can't accuse her to take a private exchange to the Main List.

You are wrong, the messages that Maior called "obnoxious notes" are private messages that I sent her, unless were private... now they are published by Maior on the CP list.

I do not care, because I have the same thoughts privately than publicly about those Sarmatians weddings parodies.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XIX Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79314 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Livia you owe Dexter an apology. Because you were wrong.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 6:50 PM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

>
>
> C. Petronius L. Plautae s.p.d.,
>
>
> > hello there? Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was not private
> at all: it was here, on the main list, for everybody to get bored by. So you
> can't accuse her to take a private exchange to the Main List.
>
> You are wrong, the messages that Maior called "obnoxious notes" are private
> messages that I sent her, unless were private... now they are published by
> Maior on the CP list.
>
> I do not care, because I have the same thoughts privately than publicly
> about those Sarmatians weddings parodies.
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. XIX Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79315 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Salve,

My apologies for jumping on this thread, but that would be technically false
Maior... You publish and cherry pick e-mails that weren't even sent to you
hoping for public ridicule..

That's a false public disclaimer you're advertising over there...

Vale,
Aeternia

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:32 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve Livia;
> actually I've had my share of obscene private email from Sulla. The sad BA
> crowd do this to intimidate; Rofl... So if some idiot tries to do this;
> here's a nice public warning:
>
> You don't want your rude emails published and held up up to public
> ridicule; don't send 'em to me;-)
> vale
> M. Hortensia Maior
>
>
> >
> > Exactly, and it was public, form beginning to end.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert Woolwine" <robert.woolwine@>
> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 12:40 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> >
> >
> > Yeah what started here on the ML was Maior's failure in doing her lictor
> > statement correctly. Dexter pointing out her Latin was not correct. From
> > there it snowballed.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> > gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve Livia.
> > >
> > > I think it started off as a private exchange - that is how she reported
> it
> > > to the CP. From there to here.
> > >
> > > Vale
> > > Caesar
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, L. Livia Plauta
> > > <livia.plauta@...<livia.plauta%40gmail.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@... <livia.plauta%40gmail.com>
>
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 4:27 PM
> > >
> > > > Salve Caesar,
> > > > hello there? Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was
> > > > not private at
> > > > all: it was here, on the main list, for everybody to get
> > > > bored by. So you
> > > > can't accuse her to take a private exchange to the Main
> > > > List.
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > > Livia
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@>
> > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:56 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
> > > >
> > > > "Bad" is a subjective judgement made dependent on which
> > > > viewpoint you see
> > > > issues from.
> > > >
> > > > I could say that Maior's continuing attempts to bamboozle
> > > > people into
> > > > accepting her opinion on macronational legal issues, or
> > > > internal Nova Roman
> > > > legal matters is a "bad" thing, given her appalling lack of
> > > > logic, over
> > > > emotive posting, and eroneous grasp of the issues at hand.
> > > > No doubt she
> > > > would disagree, though I live in hope that one day she
> > > > might not.
> > > >
> > > > As for the issue she has with Dexter, I note that barely a
> > > > few days since
> > > > making her apology as directed by vote of the CP, Maior
> > > > once more forgets
> > > > the directives of the Pontifex Maximus not to bring
> > > > internal CP matters into
> > > > the full glare of public debate. She has taken a private
> > > > exchange and
> > > > splattered it around the Main List. Dexter by contrast had
> > > > not done that.
> > > >
> > > > Let us examine another current set of descriptors for
> > > > citizens, other than
> > > > "bad" or "good". Certain stratas of Nova Roma are currently
> > > > divided into
> > > > those who attempted to stage a coup and those who resisted,
> > > > between those
> > > > that wanted a dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior
> > > > Consul, and those
> > > > that rallied around him. It is divided between those in the
> > > > senate that
> > > > wanted to impose their factional viewpoints through a
> > > > dictatorship, and
> > > > those that resisted that attempt. It is divided between
> > > > legality and
> > > > illegality.
> > > >
> > > > It is for individuals to judge in their own minds if terms
> > > > such as "good"
> > > > and "bad" are applicable, and to whom they should be
> > > > applied, but Maior was
> > > > one of those fully supporting a move into the illegal
> > > > dictatorship, illegal
> > > > both under state law and I say (as do others) under Nova
> > > > Roman law.
> > > >
> > > > As for idiots, well given her past behavior on various
> > > > lists, her
> > > > performance as praetor and her current "thoughtful"
> > > > assessment of the
> > > > issues, I am sure that no one could ever conclude that the
> > > > idiot's dunce hat
> > > > has had Maior's name stitiched inside as a proud owner and
> > > > wearer for many a
> > > > year.
> > > >
> > > > Never. How could one ever conclude that I wonder?
> > > >
> > > > Optime valete
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, rory12001
> > > > <rory12001@...<rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: rory12001 <rory12001@... <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
>
> > > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> > > > > M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> > > > > of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus
> > > > has a
> > > > > constant campaign to replace the PM who actually does
> > > > > something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima,
> > > > Sulla
> > > > > and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion
> > > > occupy
> > > > > the religio list so it's almost dead.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the
> > > > wedding
> > > > > in Sarmatia(not happy thoughts either) who needs this
> > > > > constant stream of garbage that accomplishes nothing?
> > > > >
> > > > > As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> > > > > individuals who essentially have no lives and live
> > > > online
> > > > > and the rest of us; real life recons who are happy.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write
> > > > privately
> > > > > to my friends and get on with projects.
> > > > >
> > > > > vale
> > > > >
> > > > > M. Hortensia
> > > > > Maior
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
>
> > > > <marcusiuliusseverus@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Salvete Quirites,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our
> > > > Virgo
> > > > > Maxima is a terrible sign
> > > > > > among everything that has been happening here.
> > > > > > Maybe I will follow her, since I don't believe
> > > > > that I have much more to do in
> > > > > > this frustrated Res publica.
>
> > > > > > The worst among us seem to win.
> > > > > > To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I
> > > > will
> > > > > be with you whenever you
> > > > > > need me. IÂ hope that your mother's health, as
>
> > > > well
> > > > > as yours, can an will
> > > > > > improve.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Valete,
> > > > > > Â
> > > > > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SENATOR
> > > > > >
> > > > PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > > removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79316 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Salve Aeternia;

You didn't support Messallina and it upset her greatly; I want nothing more to do with the lot of you.

Maior



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> My apologies for jumping on this thread, but that would be technically false
> Maior... You publish and cherry pick e-mails that weren't even sent to you
> hoping for public ridicule..
>
> That's a false public disclaimer you're advertising over there...
>
> Vale,
> Aeternia
>
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:32 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Salve Livia;
> > actually I've had my share of obscene private email from Sulla. The sad BA
> > crowd do this to intimidate; Rofl... So if some idiot tries to do this;
> > here's a nice public warning:
> >
> > You don't want your rude emails published and held up up to public
> > ridicule; don't send 'em to me;-)
> > vale
> > M. Hortensia Maior
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Exactly, and it was public, form beginning to end.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Robert Woolwine" <robert.woolwine@>
> > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 12:40 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah what started here on the ML was Maior's failure in doing her lictor
> > > statement correctly. Dexter pointing out her Latin was not correct. From
> > > there it snowballed.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> > > gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Salve Livia.
> > > >
> > > > I think it started off as a private exchange - that is how she reported
> > it
> > > > to the CP. From there to here.
> > > >
> > > > Vale
> > > > Caesar
> > > >
> > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, L. Livia Plauta
> > > > <livia.plauta@<livia.plauta%40gmail.com>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@ <livia.plauta%40gmail.com>
> >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 4:27 PM
> > > >
> > > > > Salve Caesar,
> > > > > hello there? Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was
> > > > > not private at
> > > > > all: it was here, on the main list, for everybody to get
> > > > > bored by. So you
> > > > > can't accuse her to take a private exchange to the Main
> > > > > List.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale,
> > > > > Livia
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@>
> > > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:56 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bad" is a subjective judgement made dependent on which
> > > > > viewpoint you see
> > > > > issues from.
> > > > >
> > > > > I could say that Maior's continuing attempts to bamboozle
> > > > > people into
> > > > > accepting her opinion on macronational legal issues, or
> > > > > internal Nova Roman
> > > > > legal matters is a "bad" thing, given her appalling lack of
> > > > > logic, over
> > > > > emotive posting, and eroneous grasp of the issues at hand.
> > > > > No doubt she
> > > > > would disagree, though I live in hope that one day she
> > > > > might not.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for the issue she has with Dexter, I note that barely a
> > > > > few days since
> > > > > making her apology as directed by vote of the CP, Maior
> > > > > once more forgets
> > > > > the directives of the Pontifex Maximus not to bring
> > > > > internal CP matters into
> > > > > the full glare of public debate. She has taken a private
> > > > > exchange and
> > > > > splattered it around the Main List. Dexter by contrast had
> > > > > not done that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let us examine another current set of descriptors for
> > > > > citizens, other than
> > > > > "bad" or "good". Certain stratas of Nova Roma are currently
> > > > > divided into
> > > > > those who attempted to stage a coup and those who resisted,
> > > > > between those
> > > > > that wanted a dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior
> > > > > Consul, and those
> > > > > that rallied around him. It is divided between those in the
> > > > > senate that
> > > > > wanted to impose their factional viewpoints through a
> > > > > dictatorship, and
> > > > > those that resisted that attempt. It is divided between
> > > > > legality and
> > > > > illegality.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is for individuals to judge in their own minds if terms
> > > > > such as "good"
> > > > > and "bad" are applicable, and to whom they should be
> > > > > applied, but Maior was
> > > > > one of those fully supporting a move into the illegal
> > > > > dictatorship, illegal
> > > > > both under state law and I say (as do others) under Nova
> > > > > Roman law.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for idiots, well given her past behavior on various
> > > > > lists, her
> > > > > performance as praetor and her current "thoughtful"
> > > > > assessment of the
> > > > > issues, I am sure that no one could ever conclude that the
> > > > > idiot's dunce hat
> > > > > has had Maior's name stitiched inside as a proud owner and
> > > > > wearer for many a
> > > > > year.
> > > > >
> > > > > Never. How could one ever conclude that I wonder?
> > > > >
> > > > > Optime valete
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, rory12001
> > > > > <rory12001@<rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: rory12001 <rory12001@ <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> >
> > > > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> > > > > > M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> > > > > > of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus
> > > > > has a
> > > > > > constant campaign to replace the PM who actually does
> > > > > > something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima,
> > > > > Sulla
> > > > > > and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion
> > > > > occupy
> > > > > > the religio list so it's almost dead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the
> > > > > wedding
> > > > > > in Sarmatia(not happy thoughts either) who needs this
> > > > > > constant stream of garbage that accomplishes nothing?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> > > > > > individuals who essentially have no lives and live
> > > > > online
> > > > > > and the rest of us; real life recons who are happy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write
> > > > > privately
> > > > > > to my friends and get on with projects.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > vale
> > > > > >
> > > > > > M. Hortensia
> > > > > > Maior
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> >
> > > > > <marcusiuliusseverus@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Salvete Quirites,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our
> > > > > Virgo
> > > > > > Maxima is a terrible sign
> > > > > > > among everything that has been happening here.
> > > > > > > Maybe I will follow her, since I don't believe
> > > > > > that I have much more to do in
> > > > > > > this frustrated Res publica.
> >
> > > > > > > The worst among us seem to win.
> > > > > > > To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I
> > > > > will
> > > > > > be with you whenever you
> > > > > > > need me. IÂ hope that your mother's health, as
> >
> > > > > well
> > > > > > as yours, can an will
> > > > > > > improve.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Valete,
> > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > SENATOR
> > > > > > >
> > > > > PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÃÆ'†•MEXICI
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > > > removed]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79317 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Maior, you have no idea what you are talking about. Sisters sometimes have issues: they work them out, whether you see it, or are privy to it, or not.

C. Maria Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79318 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2010-08-13
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Salve Maior,


I supported Messalina in doing the right thing always, that also includes
when her decorum gets out of hand, I could never allow the now former Chief
Vestal to act like you, that would indeed make me a bad friend..


Vale,
Aeternia



On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:36 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve Aeternia;
>
> You didn't support Messallina and it upset her greatly; I want nothing more
> to do with the lot of you.
>
> Maior
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > My apologies for jumping on this thread, but that would be technically
> false
> > Maior... You publish and cherry pick e-mails that weren't even sent to
> you
> > hoping for public ridicule..
> >
> > That's a false public disclaimer you're advertising over there...
> >
> > Vale,
> > Aeternia
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:32 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve Livia;
> > > actually I've had my share of obscene private email from Sulla. The sad
> BA
> > > crowd do this to intimidate; Rofl... So if some idiot tries to do this;
> > > here's a nice public warning:
> > >
> > > You don't want your rude emails published and held up up to public
> > > ridicule; don't send 'em to me;-)
> > > vale
> > > M. Hortensia Maior
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Exactly, and it was public, form beginning to end.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Robert Woolwine" <robert.woolwine@>
> > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 12:40 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah what started here on the ML was Maior's failure in doing her
> lictor
> > > > statement correctly. Dexter pointing out her Latin was not correct.
> From
> > > > there it snowballed.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> > > > gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Salve Livia.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it started off as a private exchange - that is how she
> reported
> > > it
> > > > > to the CP. From there to here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale
> > > > > Caesar
> > > > >
> > > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, L. Livia Plauta
> > > > > <livia.plauta@<livia.plauta%40gmail.com>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@ <livia.plauta%40gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
>
> > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 4:27 PM
> > > > >
> > > > > > Salve Caesar,
> > > > > > hello there? Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was
> > > > > > not private at
> > > > > > all: it was here, on the main list, for everybody to get
> > > > > > bored by. So you
> > > > > > can't accuse her to take a private exchange to the Main
> > > > > > List.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > Livia
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@>
> > > > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:56 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Bad" is a subjective judgement made dependent on which
> > > > > > viewpoint you see
> > > > > > issues from.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I could say that Maior's continuing attempts to bamboozle
> > > > > > people into
> > > > > > accepting her opinion on macronational legal issues, or
> > > > > > internal Nova Roman
> > > > > > legal matters is a "bad" thing, given her appalling lack of
> > > > > > logic, over
> > > > > > emotive posting, and eroneous grasp of the issues at hand.
> > > > > > No doubt she
> > > > > > would disagree, though I live in hope that one day she
> > > > > > might not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As for the issue she has with Dexter, I note that barely a
> > > > > > few days since
> > > > > > making her apology as directed by vote of the CP, Maior
> > > > > > once more forgets
> > > > > > the directives of the Pontifex Maximus not to bring
> > > > > > internal CP matters into
> > > > > > the full glare of public debate. She has taken a private
> > > > > > exchange and
> > > > > > splattered it around the Main List. Dexter by contrast had
> > > > > > not done that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let us examine another current set of descriptors for
> > > > > > citizens, other than
> > > > > > "bad" or "good". Certain stratas of Nova Roma are currently
> > > > > > divided into
> > > > > > those who attempted to stage a coup and those who resisted,
> > > > > > between those
> > > > > > that wanted a dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior
> > > > > > Consul, and those
> > > > > > that rallied around him. It is divided between those in the
> > > > > > senate that
> > > > > > wanted to impose their factional viewpoints through a
> > > > > > dictatorship, and
> > > > > > those that resisted that attempt. It is divided between
> > > > > > legality and
> > > > > > illegality.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is for individuals to judge in their own minds if terms
> > > > > > such as "good"
> > > > > > and "bad" are applicable, and to whom they should be
> > > > > > applied, but Maior was
> > > > > > one of those fully supporting a move into the illegal
> > > > > > dictatorship, illegal
> > > > > > both under state law and I say (as do others) under Nova
> > > > > > Roman law.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As for idiots, well given her past behavior on various
> > > > > > lists, her
> > > > > > performance as praetor and her current "thoughtful"
> > > > > > assessment of the
> > > > > > issues, I am sure that no one could ever conclude that the
> > > > > > idiot's dunce hat
> > > > > > has had Maior's name stitiched inside as a proud owner and
> > > > > > wearer for many a
> > > > > > year.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Never. How could one ever conclude that I wonder?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Optime valete
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, rory12001
> > > > > > <rory12001@<rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: rory12001 <rory12001@ <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> > >
> > > > > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
>
> > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> > > > > > > M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> > > > > > > of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus
> > > > > > has a
> > > > > > > constant campaign to replace the PM who actually does
> > > > > > > something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima,
> > > > > > Sulla
> > > > > > > and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion
> > > > > > occupy
> > > > > > > the religio list so it's almost dead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the
> > > > > > wedding
> > > > > > > in Sarmatia(not happy thoughts either) who needs this
> > > > > > > constant stream of garbage that accomplishes nothing?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> > > > > > > individuals who essentially have no lives and live
> > > > > > online
> > > > > > > and the rest of us; real life recons who are happy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write
> > > > > > privately
> > > > > > > to my friends and get on with projects.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > vale
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > M. Hortensia
> > > > > > > Maior
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
>
> > >
> > > > > > <marcusiuliusseverus@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Salvete Quirites,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our
> > > > > > Virgo
> > > > > > > Maxima is a terrible sign
> > > > > > > > among everything that has been happening here.
> > > > > > > > Maybe I will follow her, since I don't believe
> > > > > > > that I have much more to do in
> > > > > > > > this frustrated Res publica.
>
> > >
> > > > > > > > The worst among us seem to win.
> > > > > > > > To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > be with you whenever you
> > > > > > > > need me. IÂ hope that your mother's health, as
>
> > >
> > > > > > well
> > > > > > > as yours, can an will
> > > > > > > > improve.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Valete,
> > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > SENATOR
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÃÆ'â€
> •MEXICI
>
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > > > > removed]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [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]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79319 From: enodia2002 Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Maior,

Your attempt at spinning Messalina's leaving NR is not working, and isn't going to work. Her mother is gravely ill, as is Messalina herself. Even without the undue stress which Messalina herself puts not on the BA, or the Matronae, but on those who attempted to use her position for their own purposes she could not continue to do all that she had been. Her filial responsibilities require her presence with her mother, and being ill herself she could not continue to act as Chief Vestal until she is well. She cannot recover under the present circumstances and was wise enough to retire from them. I hope and pray that she returns to Nova Roma, but for right now she made the right decision.

You've taken the opportunity to create your own list, the Bitch Alley, and are free to say whatever you like there. Do not expect to go unchallenged here when you make such preposterous claims as that it was because of Aeternia that Messalina left. Messalina wrote to me herself that this was not the case.

Go back to the Bitch Alley, Maior, and rot there with the rest of your garbage.

Optime vale,

Enodia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Maior,
>
>
> I supported Messalina in doing the right thing always, that also includes
> when her decorum gets out of hand, I could never allow the now former Chief
> Vestal to act like you, that would indeed make me a bad friend..
>
>
> Vale,
> Aeternia
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:36 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Salve Aeternia;
> >
> > You didn't support Messallina and it upset her greatly; I want nothing more
> > to do with the lot of you.
> >
> > Maior
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> > Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve,
> > >
> > > My apologies for jumping on this thread, but that would be technically
> > false
> > > Maior... You publish and cherry pick e-mails that weren't even sent to
> > you
> > > hoping for public ridicule..
> > >
> > > That's a false public disclaimer you're advertising over there...
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > > Aeternia
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:32 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Salve Livia;
> > > > actually I've had my share of obscene private email from Sulla. The sad
> > BA
> > > > crowd do this to intimidate; Rofl... So if some idiot tries to do this;
> > > > here's a nice public warning:
> > > >
> > > > You don't want your rude emails published and held up up to public
> > > > ridicule; don't send 'em to me;-)
> > > > vale
> > > > M. Hortensia Maior
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly, and it was public, form beginning to end.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Robert Woolwine" <robert.woolwine@>
> > > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 12:40 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah what started here on the ML was Maior's failure in doing her
> > lictor
> > > > > statement correctly. Dexter pointing out her Latin was not correct.
> > From
> > > > > there it snowballed.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> > > > > gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Salve Livia.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think it started off as a private exchange - that is how she
> > reported
> > > > it
> > > > > > to the CP. From there to here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vale
> > > > > > Caesar
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, L. Livia Plauta
> > > > > > <livia.plauta@<livia.plauta%40gmail.com>>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@ <livia.plauta%40gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> >
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 4:27 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Salve Caesar,
> > > > > > > hello there? Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was
> > > > > > > not private at
> > > > > > > all: it was here, on the main list, for everybody to get
> > > > > > > bored by. So you
> > > > > > > can't accuse her to take a private exchange to the Main
> > > > > > > List.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > > Livia
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@>
> > > > > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:56 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Bad" is a subjective judgement made dependent on which
> > > > > > > viewpoint you see
> > > > > > > issues from.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I could say that Maior's continuing attempts to bamboozle
> > > > > > > people into
> > > > > > > accepting her opinion on macronational legal issues, or
> > > > > > > internal Nova Roman
> > > > > > > legal matters is a "bad" thing, given her appalling lack of
> > > > > > > logic, over
> > > > > > > emotive posting, and eroneous grasp of the issues at hand.
> > > > > > > No doubt she
> > > > > > > would disagree, though I live in hope that one day she
> > > > > > > might not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As for the issue she has with Dexter, I note that barely a
> > > > > > > few days since
> > > > > > > making her apology as directed by vote of the CP, Maior
> > > > > > > once more forgets
> > > > > > > the directives of the Pontifex Maximus not to bring
> > > > > > > internal CP matters into
> > > > > > > the full glare of public debate. She has taken a private
> > > > > > > exchange and
> > > > > > > splattered it around the Main List. Dexter by contrast had
> > > > > > > not done that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let us examine another current set of descriptors for
> > > > > > > citizens, other than
> > > > > > > "bad" or "good". Certain stratas of Nova Roma are currently
> > > > > > > divided into
> > > > > > > those who attempted to stage a coup and those who resisted,
> > > > > > > between those
> > > > > > > that wanted a dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior
> > > > > > > Consul, and those
> > > > > > > that rallied around him. It is divided between those in the
> > > > > > > senate that
> > > > > > > wanted to impose their factional viewpoints through a
> > > > > > > dictatorship, and
> > > > > > > those that resisted that attempt. It is divided between
> > > > > > > legality and
> > > > > > > illegality.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is for individuals to judge in their own minds if terms
> > > > > > > such as "good"
> > > > > > > and "bad" are applicable, and to whom they should be
> > > > > > > applied, but Maior was
> > > > > > > one of those fully supporting a move into the illegal
> > > > > > > dictatorship, illegal
> > > > > > > both under state law and I say (as do others) under Nova
> > > > > > > Roman law.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As for idiots, well given her past behavior on various
> > > > > > > lists, her
> > > > > > > performance as praetor and her current "thoughtful"
> > > > > > > assessment of the
> > > > > > > issues, I am sure that no one could ever conclude that the
> > > > > > > idiot's dunce hat
> > > > > > > has had Maior's name stitiched inside as a proud owner and
> > > > > > > wearer for many a
> > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Never. How could one ever conclude that I wonder?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Optime valete
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, rory12001
> > > > > > > <rory12001@<rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: rory12001 <rory12001@ <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> >
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> > > > > > > > M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> > > > > > > > of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus
> > > > > > > has a
> > > > > > > > constant campaign to replace the PM who actually does
> > > > > > > > something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima,
> > > > > > > Sulla
> > > > > > > > and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion
> > > > > > > occupy
> > > > > > > > the religio list so it's almost dead.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the
> > > > > > > wedding
> > > > > > > > in Sarmatia(not happy thoughts either) who needs this
> > > > > > > > constant stream of garbage that accomplishes nothing?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> > > > > > > > individuals who essentially have no lives and live
> > > > > > > online
> > > > > > > > and the rest of us; real life recons who are happy.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write
> > > > > > > privately
> > > > > > > > to my friends and get on with projects.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > vale
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > M. Hortensia
> > > > > > > > Maior
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > MÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢IVLÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢SEVERVS
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > > <marcusiuliusseverus@>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Salvete Quirites,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our
> > > > > > > Virgo
> > > > > > > > Maxima is a terrible sign
> > > > > > > > > among everything that has been happening here.
> > > > > > > > > MaybeÃÆ'‚ I will follow her, since I don't believe
> > > > > > > > thatÃÆ'‚ I have much more to do in
> > > > > > > > > this frustratedÃÆ'‚ Res publica.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > The worst among us seem to win.
> > > > > > > > > To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > be with you whenever you
> > > > > > > > > need me. IÃÆ'‚ hope that your mother's health, as
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > as yours, can an will
> > > > > > > > > improve.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Valete,
> > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > > > > MÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢IVLÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢SEVERVS
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > SENATOR
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PROÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢CONSVLÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢PROVINCIÃÆ'Æ'â€
> > ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢MEXICI
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > > > > > removed]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [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]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79320 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
But V, when has Maior ever let the truth interfere with what she believed?

This brings up an important point. What is more important is it more
important to actually have critical thinking skills and the ability to
think? Or is it enough to just believe? Like 2+2=5 - one could desperately
believe that the answer is correct - but it does not make it right!

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 9:26 PM, enodia2002 <walkyr@...> wrote:

>
>
> Maior,
>
> Your attempt at spinning Messalina's leaving NR is not working, and isn't
> going to work. Her mother is gravely ill, as is Messalina herself. Even
> without the undue stress which Messalina herself puts not on the BA, or the
> Matronae, but on those who attempted to use her position for their own
> purposes she could not continue to do all that she had been. Her filial
> responsibilities require her presence with her mother, and being ill herself
> she could not continue to act as Chief Vestal until she is well. She cannot
> recover under the present circumstances and was wise enough to retire from
> them. I hope and pray that she returns to Nova Roma, but for right now she
> made the right decision.
>
> You've taken the opportunity to create your own list, the Bitch Alley, and
> are free to say whatever you like there. Do not expect to go unchallenged
> here when you make such preposterous claims as that it was because of
> Aeternia that Messalina left. Messalina wrote to me herself that this was
> not the case.
>
> Go back to the Bitch Alley, Maior, and rot there with the rest of your
> garbage.
>
> Optime vale,
>
> Enodia
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Maior,
> >
> >
> > I supported Messalina in doing the right thing always, that also includes
> > when her decorum gets out of hand, I could never allow the now former
> Chief
> > Vestal to act like you, that would indeed make me a bad friend..
> >
> >
> > Vale,
> > Aeternia
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:36 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve Aeternia;
> > >
> > > You didn't support Messallina and it upset her greatly; I want nothing
> more
> > > to do with the lot of you.
> > >
> > > Maior
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> > > Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salve,
> > > >
> > > > My apologies for jumping on this thread, but that would be
> technically
> > > false
> > > > Maior... You publish and cherry pick e-mails that weren't even sent
> to
> > > you
> > > > hoping for public ridicule..
> > > >
> > > > That's a false public disclaimer you're advertising over there...
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > > Aeternia
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:32 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Salve Livia;
> > > > > actually I've had my share of obscene private email from Sulla. The
> sad
> > > BA
> > > > > crowd do this to intimidate; Rofl... So if some idiot tries to do
> this;
> > > > > here's a nice public warning:
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't want your rude emails published and held up up to public
> > > > > ridicule; don't send 'em to me;-)
> > > > > vale
> > > > > M. Hortensia Maior
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exactly, and it was public, form beginning to end.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Robert Woolwine" <robert.woolwine@>
> > > > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 12:40 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah what started here on the ML was Maior's failure in doing her
> > > lictor
> > > > > > statement correctly. Dexter pointing out her Latin was not
> correct.
> > > From
> > > > > > there it snowballed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> > > > > > gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Salve Livia.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think it started off as a private exchange - that is how she
> > > reported
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > to the CP. From there to here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vale
> > > > > > > Caesar
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, L. Livia Plauta
> > > > > > > <livia.plauta@<livia.plauta%40gmail.com>>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@ <livia.plauta%
> 40gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > >
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 4:27 PM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Salve Caesar,
> > > > > > > > hello there? Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was
> > > > > > > > not private at
> > > > > > > > all: it was here, on the main list, for everybody to get
> > > > > > > > bored by. So you
> > > > > > > > can't accuse her to take a private exchange to the Main
> > > > > > > > List.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > > > Livia
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@>
> > > > > > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:56 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Bad" is a subjective judgement made dependent on which
> > > > > > > > viewpoint you see
> > > > > > > > issues from.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I could say that Maior's continuing attempts to bamboozle
> > > > > > > > people into
> > > > > > > > accepting her opinion on macronational legal issues, or
> > > > > > > > internal Nova Roman
> > > > > > > > legal matters is a "bad" thing, given her appalling lack of
> > > > > > > > logic, over
> > > > > > > > emotive posting, and eroneous grasp of the issues at hand.
> > > > > > > > No doubt she
> > > > > > > > would disagree, though I live in hope that one day she
> > > > > > > > might not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As for the issue she has with Dexter, I note that barely a
> > > > > > > > few days since
> > > > > > > > making her apology as directed by vote of the CP, Maior
> > > > > > > > once more forgets
> > > > > > > > the directives of the Pontifex Maximus not to bring
> > > > > > > > internal CP matters into
> > > > > > > > the full glare of public debate. She has taken a private
> > > > > > > > exchange and
> > > > > > > > splattered it around the Main List. Dexter by contrast had
> > > > > > > > not done that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let us examine another current set of descriptors for
> > > > > > > > citizens, other than
> > > > > > > > "bad" or "good". Certain stratas of Nova Roma are currently
> > > > > > > > divided into
> > > > > > > > those who attempted to stage a coup and those who resisted,
> > > > > > > > between those
> > > > > > > > that wanted a dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior
> > > > > > > > Consul, and those
> > > > > > > > that rallied around him. It is divided between those in the
> > > > > > > > senate that
> > > > > > > > wanted to impose their factional viewpoints through a
> > > > > > > > dictatorship, and
> > > > > > > > those that resisted that attempt. It is divided between
> > > > > > > > legality and
> > > > > > > > illegality.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is for individuals to judge in their own minds if terms
> > > > > > > > such as "good"
> > > > > > > > and "bad" are applicable, and to whom they should be
> > > > > > > > applied, but Maior was
> > > > > > > > one of those fully supporting a move into the illegal
> > > > > > > > dictatorship, illegal
> > > > > > > > both under state law and I say (as do others) under Nova
> > > > > > > > Roman law.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As for idiots, well given her past behavior on various
> > > > > > > > lists, her
> > > > > > > > performance as praetor and her current "thoughtful"
> > > > > > > > assessment of the
> > > > > > > > issues, I am sure that no one could ever conclude that the
> > > > > > > > idiot's dunce hat
> > > > > > > > has had Maior's name stitiched inside as a proud owner and
> > > > > > > > wearer for many a
> > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Never. How could one ever conclude that I wonder?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Optime valete
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, rory12001
> > > > > > > > <rory12001@<rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From: rory12001 <rory12001@ <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > >
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> > > > > > > > > M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> > > > > > > > > of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus
> > > > > > > > has a
> > > > > > > > > constant campaign to replace the PM who actually does
> > > > > > > > > something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima,
> > > > > > > > Sulla
> > > > > > > > > and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion
> > > > > > > > occupy
> > > > > > > > > the religio list so it's almost dead.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the
> > > > > > > > wedding
> > > > > > > > > in Sarmatia(not happy thoughts either) who needs this
> > > > > > > > > constant stream of garbage that accomplishes nothing?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> > > > > > > > > individuals who essentially have no lives and live
> > > > > > > > online
> > > > > > > > > and the rest of us; real life recons who are happy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write
> > > > > > > > privately
> > > > > > > > > to my friends and get on with projects.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > vale
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > M. Hortensia
> > > > > > > > > Maior
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > >
> MÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢IVLÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢SEVERVS
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > <marcusiuliusseverus@>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Salvete Quirites,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our
> > > > > > > > Virgo
> > > > > > > > > Maxima is a terrible sign
> > > > > > > > > > among everything that has been happening here.
> > > > > > > > > > MaybeÃÆ'‚ I will follow her, since I don't believe
> > > > > > > > > thatÃÆ'‚ I have much more to do in
> > > > > > > > > > this frustratedÃÆ'‚ Res publica.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The worst among us seem to win.
> > > > > > > > > > To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > be with you whenever you
> > > > > > > > > > need me. IÃÆ'‚ hope that your mother's health, as
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > as yours, can an will
> > > > > > > > > > improve.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Valete,
> > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > > > > >
> MÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢IVLÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢SEVERVS
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > SENATOR
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> PROÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢CONSVLÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢PROVINCIÃÆ'Æ'â€
> > > ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢MEXICI
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > > > > > > removed]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [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]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79321 From: mcorvvs Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Tribunician report for July session of the Senate (Corrected + S
Salvete omnes,

due to my mistake in calcullating the time the votes of Senator C. Popillius
Laenas were counted vrongly. Below is July session report corrected. My
apologies to Senator Laenas.

Tribunus Plebis Marcus Octavius Corvus Quiritibus S.P.D.

Citizens of Nova Roma,

Here is the Tribunician report of the Senate session of July 19 – July 25,
2763

The votes have been tallied and the results are as follows:

Formal debate ended at Friday 00.01 hrs CET Roma, 23 July 2010 2763.
Voting began at Friday 23 July 2010 at 00.02 hrs CET Roma 2763
and was concluded at Sunday 25 July 2010 at 00.02 CET Roma 2763.

The following XX Senators cast their votes on time. They are referred to by
their initials which are listed in alphabetical order (with the exception of the
presiding magistrate who will be listed first):

*KFBQ: K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus, Presiding Magistrate
C0-presiding magistrates:
Max. Valeria Messallina, Tribuna Plebis
C. Curius Saturninus, Tribunus Plebis
C. Aquillius Rota, Tribunus Plebis
M. Octavius Corvus, Tribunus Plebis


*ATS: A. Tullia Scholastica
*CCS: C. Curius Saturninus
*CEC: C. Equitius Cato
*CnEM: Cn. Equitius Marinus
*CPL: C. Popillius Laenas
*EmCF: Em. Curia Finnica
*FrAC: Fr. Apulus Caesar
*KFBM: K. Fabius Buteo Modianus
*MAM: M. Arminius Maior
*MCC: M. Curiatius Complutensis
*MHM: M. Hortensia Maior
*MIP: M. Iulius Perusianus
*MIS: M. Iulius Severus
*MLA: M. Lucretius Agricola
*MMPH: M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
*QSP: Q. Suetonius Paulinus
*TiGP.: Ti. Galerius Paulinus
*TIS: T. Iulius Sabinus

The following Senator (I) voted by proxy:
*ArnMA: Arn. Moravia Aurelia (Proxy vote delivered by K. Fabius Buteo
Quintilianus)


The following Senatores (X) did not vote:

*CFD: C. Flavius Diocletianus
*CMM: C. Marius Merullus
*CnIC: Cn. Iulius Caesar
*CVP: C. Vipsanius Agrippa
*DIPI: Dec. Iunius Palladius Invictus
*FlGA: Fl. Galerius Aurelianus
*LCSF: L. Cornelius Sulla Felix
*MMA M. Minucius Audens (excused)
*PMA: P. Memmius Albucius
*QFM: Q. Fabius Maximus


_________________________________________

"VTI ROGAS" indicates a vote in favor of an item,
"ANTIQVO" is a vote against,
"ABSTINEO" is an open abstention.
__________________________________________

All decisions were made with a majority of Uti Rogas votes.

Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.

Correction of the Constitution IV, a:
"Elections of the ordinarii shall take place no later than December
15th, and newly-elected officials shall assume their offices on
January 1st."

Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.

"Elections of the ordinarii shall take place no later than December
1st, and newly-elected officials shall assume their offices on January
1st, except Plebeian Aediles and Tribunes of the Plebs who shall assume
their offices on December 10th."

UTI ROGAS: 16
ANTIQUO: 0
ABSTINEO: 4

The result of the voting is Item I PASSED

KFBM: On both items I vote UTI ROGAS.
KFBQ: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. UTI
ROGAS
MHM: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. UTI
ROGAS
CnEM: I Uti Rogas
MLA: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. UTI
ROGAS. Although I am a patrician myself I am happy to lend my vote to this fine
lex which moves us closer to historical practice and I think may provide a help
in smoothing our annual transition of magistrates.
MMPH: Item I. For the proposed Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
ADSENTIOR UTI ROGAS
CPL: I Uti Rogas
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
TiGP: Uti Rogas on all three agenda items.
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
ATS: Item I: Uti rogas. This is long overdue, and should bring us closer to
ancient Roman practice.
MIS: Item I. For the proposed Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
ADSENTIOR VTI ROGAS
CCS: Item I: Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis Uti
rogas.
TIS: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. Uti
rogas.
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
ArnMA: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. UTI
ROGAS
MCC: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. UTI
ROGAS
QSP: > I Uti Rogas>
MIP: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. VTI
ROGAS
EmCF: Item I: Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis Uti
rogas.
FrAC: Item I1. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. VTI
ROGAS
CEC: Item I - VTI ROGAS
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
MAM: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis. Uti
Rogas.

_________________________________________


Item II. The IT-project

The Senate appoints Kristoffer From (formerly known within Nova Roma
as Senator Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus) as the programmer who will
develop and set up a new IT-system, consisting of an automated
election-system and a new citizen database with tools for our
magistrates and citizens.

The Senate affirms that the cost for the IT-project executed by
KristofferFrom will be paid for with 10 000 USD.

The Senate requests the project to be completed in time for the fall
elections in November 2010, but understands that if the new system is
not ready in time, Kristoffer From will arrange the elections and run-
off elections in the current system. Kristoffer From will, in addition
to the fall elections and run-off elections, set up no more than one
session in each Comitia each month during his work on the project.

The Senate orders the CIO to choose the most advantageous pay model
for Nova Roma, either the mentioned Swedish NPO or another solution.
Guarantees by the CIO will be given to assure that any chosen solution
is irreproachable. A registered accountant who will check on the
correctness may need separate pay though.

Kristoffer From will leave reports on the progress of the project to
the CIO who will share these reports with the Senate. There will be
five such short reports, these reports will be sent to the CIO at the
following occasions and when the following milestones are completed
(but probably not working together yet):

1. Database (the backbone of the new site)
2. Access control (a basic website with an authentication method)
3. Server-side daemon (to enable automation of time-sensitive tasks)
4. Election system (automated running of elections)
5. Administrative tools (so magistrates can access the system)
6. Documentation (so Kristoffer is not the only one who knows how it
works)

These milestones may be reported in any order and they only have a
partial connection to the payment of Kristoffer From. The reports will
serve the purpose of keeping the Senate informed of progress of the
IT-project. Still, the work is too complicated to connect the
milestones too strictly to payments.

Kristoffer From may report on the milestones in any order, as they are
reached. The last payment will however not be made until the CIO has
stated that the work is finished.

The Senate orders the CFO or someone appointed/approved by the Senate
instead of a CFO to immediately set aside the full 10 000 USD and upon
the start of the project pay 2 500 USD for salary, social costs and
taxes for Kristoffer From. The next payment of 2500 will be paid as
soon as Kristoffer From reports on one milestone and a third payment
of 2 500 USD will be paid as soon as Kristoffer From reports on a
second milestone. When the project is completed to the satisfaction of
the CIO, the remaining 2 500 USD will be paid according to the chosen
pay-model.

Kristoffer From will do after-work checks and surveillance checks for
at least three months to see to it that the new IT-system really
works in actual use. Nova Roma may also be asked to assist in
performing tests of the system during this period.


Uti rogas: 15
Antiquo: 0
Abstineo: 5
The result of the voting is Item II PASSED


KFBM: On both items I vote UTI ROGAS.
KFBQ: Item II. The IT-project UTI ROGAS
MHM: Item II. The IT-project UTI ROGAS
CnEM: I Uti Rogas
MLA: Item II. The IT-project UTI ROGAS. I have had a closer view than most as
this project has gone ahead. Saturninus has done a top-rate job and I am happy
to lend my vote in support of this long-overdue measure.
MMPH: Item II. For the IT-project ADSENTIOR UTI ROGAS
CPL: I Uti Rogas
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
TiGP: Uti Rogas on all three agenda items.
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
ATS: Item II: Uti rogas. It seems that we have reached the point where it is
better to start anew than attempt to repair the existing programs or whatever
despite the expense. Appliances and automobiles have similar problems; we should
not expect our IT infrastructure to last forever, no matter how well maintained.
MIS: Item II. For the IT-project ADSENTIOR VTI ROGAS
CCS: Item II: The IT-project Uti rogas. This is the most important improvement
into our infrastructure ever since first Album Civium and Cista.
TIS: Item II. The IT-project TIS: Uti rogas.
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
ArnMA: Item II. The IT-project UTI ROGAS
MCC: Item II. IT-project UTI ROGAS
QSP: > I Uti Rogas>
MIP: Item Item II. The IT-project VTI ROGAS
EmCF: Item II: The IT-project Uti rogas. This is an very drastic improvement
that can be no longer delayed. The existing system is completely out of date,
poorly documented and there is only one individual who is actually able to use
it somehow. Wihout a new IT-system there will be no further elections.
FrAC: Item Item II. The IT-project ABSTINEO As professionist of this commercial
area, I would like to read the concrete project before to give my approval. The
budget in fact is very high and it would be analyzed by a pool of experts.
CEC: Item I - VTI ROGAS
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
MAM: Item II. The IT-project Uti Rogas.

_____________________________________________

Item III. Dictatorship

The Senate of Nova Roma, having convened in an emergency session,
considers that:

Whereas the current situation in Nova Roma threatens the very
existence of Nova Roma both as a nation and as a membership
organization, and,

Whereas these crises in our organization and corporation, our
finances, and our technical problems result from many causes that must
be addressed so as to avoid Nova Roma from harm, as well as to ensure
the orderly and enjoyable continuation of Nova Roma, and,

Whereas any solutions to these present crises should and must be done
in accordance with the governing bodies of law,

Do we, the Senate of Nova Roma, by the vote of a majority, hereby
appoint Gnaeus Equitius Marinus to the office of Dictator, and invest
in him complete auctoritas and imperium for a period of no more than
six months, trusting in him to resolve the present crises and take
whatever steps he deems necessary to prevent future harm to the Res
Publica Populi Novae Romae.

The Senate conveys resolution of the following tasks, although not
limited to these alone, to Cn. Equitius Marinus:

To oversee the rewriting of corporate bylaws for Nova Roma, Inc

To have the Constitution and subordinate laws reviewed for the purpose
of amending or replacing them as are necessary to protect the
respublica from harm

To resolve the IT issues that threaten our website and on which the
functions of the respublica rely

To restructure voting procedures to make them robust against loss of
technical programs or equipment.

To simplify the magisterial structure to provide fewer magistrates
with better defined roles.


In the name of the Senate and the People of the Nova Roma, and in the
sight of the Gods and Goddesses of the People of Nova Roma, under the
provision of the Constitution IV.B.1, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus,
Censorius is hereby appointed Dictator and Magister Populi of Nova Roma.

Uti rogas: 15
Antiquo: 1
Abstineo: 4
The result of the voting is Item III PASSED


KFBM: Rather, on all three items I vote UTI ROGAS.
KFBQ: Item III. Dictatorship UTI ROGAS
MHM: Item Item III. Dictatorship UTI ROGAS
CnEM: III Uti Rogas, and may the Dii Immortales help me
MLA: Item III. Dictatorship UTI ROGAS. Senator and Censorius Marinus is one of
the very few whom I could support in this position. In deciding my vote I also
consider the manifest desire of the people to put ourselves back on the right
track.
MMPH: Item III. ADSENTIOR UTI ROGAS
CPL: I Uti Rogas
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
TiGP: Now as to the proposed dictatorship. When the Roman appointed a dictator
armies were at their gates.
When the Romans appointed their first dictator there was an effort under way to
return the kings to power.
A week or so ago I stated on one of the lists that I would not support the
appointment of a dictator even if I was proposed as the dictator. My opposition
to a dictator has NOTHING to do with Senator Marinus or any other person who
might have been nominated. It is based on my belief that while we have problems
we do not have a crisis.
I do not see anything that has changed and I vote NO on the proposed
appointment of a dictator.
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
ATS: Item III. Ut pollicita sum, tertia discessio sequitur. Iterum
quidem sententi, interdum aliqua facienda, etsi injucunda. Malim Novam
Romam rixis omnino carere; malim omnia sine pervicaciis et obicibus esse si quid
alicui displiceat. Infelicissim, haec ita non sunt, et mutanda.
Dictaturae mihi displicent, sed ut videtur, nunc un nobis opus est.
Dolendum sed quae cum ita sint, optio alia abest. Vir quem proposuisti
bonus est, et eum honestum arbitror. Assentior, etsi animo sollicito nec
laetitiam capiens, ut rogas.
MIS: Item III. Dictatorship MIS: ADSENTIOR VTI ROGAS
CCS: Item III: Dictatorship Uti rogas. It is time to save the republic. It is
time to put politics aside and do real things. If accomplishing it means to vote
for dictatorship, I'll do it. As a Roman citizen, magistrate and senator,
Marinus has my support.
TIS: Item III. Uti rogas.
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
ArnMA: Item III.Dictatorship. UTI ROGAS
MCC: Item III. Dictatorship. UTI ROGAS
QSP: > III Antiquo
MIP: Item III. Dictatorship VTI ROGAS
EmCF: Item III: Dictatorship Uti rogas.
FrAC: Item III. Dictatorship VTI ROGAS I don't like the dictatorship, my own
personal political opinion would drive me to more democratical and popular kinds
of governments. But the situation of NR is bad, I'm looking the organization
from a more far point of view and I find again a disorganized group divided by
superficial discussions and political games. I hope the good Marinus would
concentrate his efforts to find a new identity to NR, a real mission in a real
world for the members, concrete and "unvirtual" opportunities and projects. The
way taken by NR during the last year is the worst road, we need a change of
direction. Marinus, please, do it!
CEC: ITEM III - Although I do not go to the extreme that Gn. Iulius Caesar does,
I cannot help but agree that each "crisis" we are called upon to deal now with
was brought up in one form or another and those who did so were mocked or
ignored because of political convenience. I think this because I was, of course,
one of them; exempli gratia, I have advocated for the by-laws change for *years*
now,
offering my proposals repeatedly and simply being ignored. Our compliance with
Maine law was brought up repeatedly (again, by myself among others) - only to be
scoffed at and ignored because those in power disliked the messengers rather
than paying attention to the message. So my personal feelings urge me to refuse
to allow those in power to stand back and make someone else responsible for
cleaning up the messes they have made.
Yet, the Romans themselves did not look with horror at the idea of a dictator,
probably because they had no experience with our common modern understanding of
dictatorial government, with Hitler, Stalin, Tito, Ceaucescu, Peron, Pol Pot,
Castro, etc., standing in our collective modern consciousness as the epitome of
governments marked by arbitrary cruelty and inhumanity. The Romans appointed
dictators not only to carry out wars but often to simply get a particular job
done: to fill vacancies in the Senate, to preside over public games, to create
holidays...even just to drive a nail into the door of the temple of Iuppiter
O.M. in times of plague. They did their job, and unless they were a Sulla or a
Marius or a Caesar, when it was finished they simply stepped back down into
regular public life.
So while I do believe that this series of "crises" has been manufactured by
willful ignorance or blatant disregard on the part of some of those who have
held the reins of power over the past two years, I cannot justify standing in
the way of what is apparently the only solution that will hopefully make - force
- those who hold power to shut up and actually listen for a change. The end does
*not* justify the means, but simple dislike for the means does not make
them evil, nor does it justify accepting a crippling status quo, either. VTI
ROGAS
*Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
MAM: Item III. Dictatorship Uti Rogas.

_____________________________________________
The following senators announced their desire to withdraw their votes
after voting:

C. Equitius Cato
Ti. Galerius Paulinus
T. Iulius Sabinus
C. Popillius Laenas

Normal rules of Parliamentary Procedure do not allow for members of a
voting quorum to withdraw once the quorum has been made. The legality
of these withdrawls is in question.


Tribuni:

M. Octavius Corvus (reporting)
Maxima Valeria Messallina
C. Curius Saturnius
C. Aquilius Rota

I thank my colleague Maxima Valeria Messallina and Senator Marcus Lucretius
Agricola for advise and help while preparing this, such a difficult report.

Valete bene in pace Deorum,

M. Octavius Corvus
Tribunus Plebis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79322 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Caesar sal.

Maior does his all the time. She can't really help it. It is an autonomous reaction, much like severed frogs legs twitching when electrical current is passed through them. It has the appearance of life, but it is divorced from a brain. She has made a splendid career in Nova Roma out of absurd claims and dramatic postings, and will continue to spasm mentally at regular intervals.

I mainly dismiss most of her posts with a wry smile at the thought that in front of my eyes is evidence of the start of life on this planet, with a single celled life form twitching in a pool of primordial slime. It is mildly entertaining for the first few spasms, but then it becomes rather repetitive.

Optime valete.

--- On Fri, 8/13/10, enodia2002 <walkyr@...> wrote:

> From: enodia2002 <walkyr@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 10:26 PM
> Maior,
>
> Your attempt at spinning Messalina's leaving NR is not
> working, and isn't going to work.  Her mother is
> gravely ill, as is Messalina herself.  Even without the
> undue stress which Messalina herself puts not on the BA, or
> the Matronae, but on those who attempted to use her position
> for their own purposes she could not continue to do all that
> she had been.  Her filial responsibilities require her
> presence with her mother, and being ill herself she could
> not continue to act as Chief Vestal until she is well. 
> She cannot recover under the present circumstances and was
> wise enough to retire from them.  I hope and pray that
> she returns to Nova Roma, but for right now she made the
> right decision.
>
> You've taken the opportunity to create your own list, the
> Bitch Alley, and are free to say whatever you like
> there.  Do not expect to go unchallenged here when you
> make such preposterous claims as that it was because of
> Aeternia that Messalina left.  Messalina wrote to me
> herself that this was not the case. 
>
> Go back to the Bitch Alley, Maior, and rot there with the
> rest of your garbage.
>
> Optime vale,
>
> Enodia
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com,
> Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Maior,
> >
> >
> > I supported Messalina in doing the right thing always,
> that also includes
> > when her decorum gets out of hand, I could never allow
> the now former Chief
> > Vestal to act like you, that would indeed make me a
> bad friend..
> >
> >
> > Vale,
> > Aeternia
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:36 PM, rory12001
> <rory12001@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve Aeternia;
> > >
> > > You didn't support Messallina and it upset her
> greatly; I want nothing more
> > > to do with the lot of you.
> > >
> > > Maior
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> > > Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salve,
> > > >
> > > > My apologies for jumping on this thread, but
> that would be technically
> > > false
> > > > Maior... You publish and cherry pick e-mails
> that weren't even sent to
> > > you
> > > > hoping for public ridicule..
> > > >
> > > > That's a false public disclaimer you're
> advertising over there...
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > > Aeternia
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:32 PM, rory12001
> <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Salve Livia;
> > > > > actually I've had my share of obscene
> private email from Sulla. The sad
> > > BA
> > > > > crowd do this to intimidate; Rofl... So
> if some idiot tries to do this;
> > > > > here's a nice public warning:
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't want your rude emails
> published and held up up to public
> > > > > ridicule; don't send 'em to me;-)
> > > > > vale
> > > > > M. Hortensia Maior
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exactly, and it was public, form
> beginning to end.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Robert Woolwine"
> <robert.woolwine@>
> > > > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010
> 12:40 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re:
> Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah what started here on the ML
> was Maior's failure in doing her
> > > lictor
> > > > > > statement correctly. Dexter
> pointing out her Latin was not correct.
> > > From
> > > > > > there it snowballed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM,
> Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> > > > > > gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Salve Livia.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think it started off as a
> private exchange - that is how she
> > > reported
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > to the CP. From there to
> here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vale
> > > > > > > Caesar
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, L. Livia
> Plauta
> > > > > > >
> <livia.plauta@<livia.plauta%40gmail.com>>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: L. Livia Plauta
> <livia.plauta@ <livia.plauta%40gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma]
> Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > >
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Date: Friday, August 13,
> 2010, 4:27 PM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Salve Caesar,
> > > > > > > > hello there?
> Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was
> > > > > > > > not private at
> > > > > > > > all: it was here, on the
> main list, for everybody to get
> > > > > > > > bored by. So you
> > > > > > > > can't accuse her to take
> a private exchange to the Main
> > > > > > > > List.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > > > Livia
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message
> -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Gnaeus Iulius
> Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@>
> > > > > > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, August 13,
> 2010 8:56 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma]
> Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Bad" is a subjective
> judgement made dependent on which
> > > > > > > > viewpoint you see
> > > > > > > > issues from.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I could say that Maior's
> continuing attempts to bamboozle
> > > > > > > > people into
> > > > > > > > accepting her opinion on
> macronational legal issues, or
> > > > > > > > internal Nova Roman
> > > > > > > > legal matters is a "bad"
> thing, given her appalling lack of
> > > > > > > > logic, over
> > > > > > > > emotive posting, and
> eroneous grasp of the issues at hand.
> > > > > > > > No doubt she
> > > > > > > > would disagree, though I
> live in hope that one day she
> > > > > > > > might not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As for the issue she has
> with Dexter, I note that barely a
> > > > > > > > few days since
> > > > > > > > making her apology as
> directed by vote of the CP, Maior
> > > > > > > > once more forgets
> > > > > > > > the directives of the
> Pontifex Maximus not to bring
> > > > > > > > internal CP matters
> into
> > > > > > > > the full glare of public
> debate. She has taken a private
> > > > > > > > exchange and
> > > > > > > > splattered it around the
> Main List. Dexter by contrast had
> > > > > > > > not done that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let us examine another
> current set of descriptors for
> > > > > > > > citizens, other than
> > > > > > > > "bad" or "good". Certain
> stratas of Nova Roma are currently
> > > > > > > > divided into
> > > > > > > > those who attempted to
> stage a coup and those who resisted,
> > > > > > > > between those
> > > > > > > > that wanted a
> dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior
> > > > > > > > Consul, and those
> > > > > > > > that rallied around him.
> It is divided between those in the
> > > > > > > > senate that
> > > > > > > > wanted to impose their
> factional viewpoints through a
> > > > > > > > dictatorship, and
> > > > > > > > those that resisted that
> attempt. It is divided between
> > > > > > > > legality and
> > > > > > > > illegality.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is for individuals to
> judge in their own minds if terms
> > > > > > > > such as "good"
> > > > > > > > and "bad" are
> applicable, and to whom they should be
> > > > > > > > applied, but Maior was
> > > > > > > > one of those fully
> supporting a move into the illegal
> > > > > > > > dictatorship, illegal
> > > > > > > > both under state law and
> I say (as do others) under Nova
> > > > > > > > Roman law.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As for idiots, well
> given her past behavior on various
> > > > > > > > lists, her
> > > > > > > > performance as praetor
> and her current "thoughtful"
> > > > > > > > assessment of the
> > > > > > > > issues, I am sure that
> no one could ever conclude that the
> > > > > > > > idiot's dunce hat
> > > > > > > > has had Maior's name
> stitiched inside as a proud owner and
> > > > > > > > wearer for many a
> > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Never. How could one
> ever conclude that I wonder?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Optime valete
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10,
> rory12001
> > > > > > > >
> <rory12001@<rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From: rory12001
> <rory12001@ <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Subject:
> [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > >
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > Date: Friday,
> August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> > > > > > > > > M. Hortensia
> Quiritibus spd;
> > > > > > > > > of course the bad
> drive out the good. Metellus
> > > > > > > > has a
> > > > > > > > > constant campaign
> to replace the PM who actually does
> > > > > > > > > something.Q.Fabius
> Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima,
> > > > > > > > Sulla
> > > > > > > > > and Cato - those 2
> scholars of ancient Roman religion
> > > > > > > > occupy
> > > > > > > > > the religio list so
> it's almost dead.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have Dexter
> writing me obnoxious notes about the
> > > > > > > > wedding
> > > > > > > > > in Sarmatia(not
> happy thoughts either) who needs this
> > > > > > > > > constant stream of
> garbage that accomplishes nothing?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As I said there are
> 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> > > > > > > > > individuals who
> essentially have no lives and live
> > > > > > > > online
> > > > > > > > > and the rest of us;
> real life recons who are happy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't spend
> anymore time on the idiots, I write
> > > > > > > > privately
> > > > > > > > > to my friends and
> get on with projects.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > vale
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > M. Hortensia
> > > > > > > > > Maior
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > >
> MÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢IVLÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢SEVERVS
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> <marcusiuliusseverus@>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Salvete
> Quirites,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nova Roma is
> falling apart. The loss of our
> > > > > > > > Virgo
> > > > > > > > > Maxima is a
> terrible sign
> > > > > > > > > > among
> everything that has been happening here.
> > > > > > > > > >
> MaybeÃÆ'‚ I will follow her, since I don't
> believe
> > > > > > > > >
> thatÃÆ'‚ I have much more to do in
> > > > > > > > > > this
> frustratedÃÆ'‚ Res publica.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The worst
> among us seem to win.
> > > > > > > > > > To M. Valeria
> messallina: I am your friend, and I
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > be with you
> whenever you
> > > > > > > > > > need me.
> IÃÆ'‚ hope that your mother's health, as
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > as yours, can an
> will
> > > > > > > > > > improve.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Valete,
> > > > > > > > > >
> ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > > > > >
> MÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢IVLÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢SEVERVS
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > SENATOR
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> PROÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢CONSVLÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢PROVINCIÃÆ'Æ'â€
> > >
> ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢MEXICI
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text
> portions of this message have been
> > > > > > > > removed]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> Links
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [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]
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79323 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Tribunician report for July session of the Senate (Corrected + S
This report is STILL not correct!

You need to review the previous comments in regards to this.

Cato withdrew
Sabinus withdrew
Both Paulinus's withdrew
Laenas withdrew

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 9:38 PM, mcorvvs <mcorvvs@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> due to my mistake in calcullating the time the votes of Senator C.
> Popillius
> Laenas were counted vrongly. Below is July session report corrected. My
> apologies to Senator Laenas.
>
> Tribunus Plebis Marcus Octavius Corvus Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> Citizens of Nova Roma,
>
> Here is the Tribunician report of the Senate session of July 19 � July 25,
> 2763
>
> The votes have been tallied and the results are as follows:
>
> Formal debate ended at Friday 00.01 hrs CET Roma, 23 July 2010 2763.
> Voting began at Friday 23 July 2010 at 00.02 hrs CET Roma 2763
> and was concluded at Sunday 25 July 2010 at 00.02 CET Roma 2763.
>
> The following XX Senators cast their votes on time. They are referred to by
> their initials which are listed in alphabetical order (with the exception
> of the
> presiding magistrate who will be listed first):
>
> *KFBQ: K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus, Presiding Magistrate
> C0-presiding magistrates:
> Max. Valeria Messallina, Tribuna Plebis
> C. Curius Saturninus, Tribunus Plebis
> C. Aquillius Rota, Tribunus Plebis
> M. Octavius Corvus, Tribunus Plebis
>
> *ATS: A. Tullia Scholastica
> *CCS: C. Curius Saturninus
> *CEC: C. Equitius Cato
> *CnEM: Cn. Equitius Marinus
> *CPL: C. Popillius Laenas
> *EmCF: Em. Curia Finnica
> *FrAC: Fr. Apulus Caesar
> *KFBM: K. Fabius Buteo Modianus
> *MAM: M. Arminius Maior
> *MCC: M. Curiatius Complutensis
> *MHM: M. Hortensia Maior
> *MIP: M. Iulius Perusianus
> *MIS: M. Iulius Severus
> *MLA: M. Lucretius Agricola
> *MMPH: M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
> *QSP: Q. Suetonius Paulinus
> *TiGP.: Ti. Galerius Paulinus
> *TIS: T. Iulius Sabinus
>
> The following Senator (I) voted by proxy:
> *ArnMA: Arn. Moravia Aurelia (Proxy vote delivered by K. Fabius Buteo
> Quintilianus)
>
> The following Senatores (X) did not vote:
>
> *CFD: C. Flavius Diocletianus
> *CMM: C. Marius Merullus
> *CnIC: Cn. Iulius Caesar
> *CVP: C. Vipsanius Agrippa
> *DIPI: Dec. Iunius Palladius Invictus
> *FlGA: Fl. Galerius Aurelianus
> *LCSF: L. Cornelius Sulla Felix
> *MMA M. Minucius Audens (excused)
> *PMA: P. Memmius Albucius
> *QFM: Q. Fabius Maximus
>
> _________________________________________
>
> "VTI ROGAS" indicates a vote in favor of an item,
> "ANTIQVO" is a vote against,
> "ABSTINEO" is an open abstention.
> __________________________________________
>
> All decisions were made with a majority of Uti Rogas votes.
>
> Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
>
> Correction of the Constitution IV, a:
> "Elections of the ordinarii shall take place no later than December
> 15th, and newly-elected officials shall assume their offices on
> January 1st."
>
> Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
>
> "Elections of the ordinarii shall take place no later than December
> 1st, and newly-elected officials shall assume their offices on January
> 1st, except Plebeian Aediles and Tribunes of the Plebs who shall assume
> their offices on December 10th."
>
> UTI ROGAS: 16
> ANTIQUO: 0
> ABSTINEO: 4
>
> The result of the voting is Item I PASSED
>
> KFBM: On both items I vote UTI ROGAS.
> KFBQ: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
> UTI
> ROGAS
> MHM: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
> UTI
> ROGAS
> CnEM: I Uti Rogas
> MLA: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
> UTI
> ROGAS. Although I am a patrician myself I am happy to lend my vote to this
> fine
> lex which moves us closer to historical practice and I think may provide a
> help
> in smoothing our annual transition of magistrates.
> MMPH: Item I. For the proposed Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis
> ineundis.
> ADSENTIOR UTI ROGAS
> CPL: I Uti Rogas
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> TiGP: Uti Rogas on all three agenda items.
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> ATS: Item I: Uti rogas. This is long overdue, and should bring us closer to
> ancient Roman practice.
> MIS: Item I. For the proposed Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis
> ineundis.
> ADSENTIOR VTI ROGAS
> CCS: Item I: Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis
> Uti
> rogas.
> TIS: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
> Uti
> rogas.
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> ArnMA: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
> UTI
> ROGAS
> MCC: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
> UTI
> ROGAS
> QSP: > I Uti Rogas>
> MIP: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
> VTI
> ROGAS
> EmCF: Item I: Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis
> Uti
> rogas.
> FrAC: Item I1. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
> VTI
> ROGAS
> CEC: Item I - VTI ROGAS
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> MAM: Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
> Uti
> Rogas.
>
> _________________________________________
>
> Item II. The IT-project
>
> The Senate appoints Kristoffer From (formerly known within Nova Roma
> as Senator Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus) as the programmer who will
> develop and set up a new IT-system, consisting of an automated
> election-system and a new citizen database with tools for our
> magistrates and citizens.
>
> The Senate affirms that the cost for the IT-project executed by
> KristofferFrom will be paid for with 10 000 USD.
>
> The Senate requests the project to be completed in time for the fall
> elections in November 2010, but understands that if the new system is
> not ready in time, Kristoffer From will arrange the elections and run-
> off elections in the current system. Kristoffer From will, in addition
> to the fall elections and run-off elections, set up no more than one
> session in each Comitia each month during his work on the project.
>
> The Senate orders the CIO to choose the most advantageous pay model
> for Nova Roma, either the mentioned Swedish NPO or another solution.
> Guarantees by the CIO will be given to assure that any chosen solution
> is irreproachable. A registered accountant who will check on the
> correctness may need separate pay though.
>
> Kristoffer From will leave reports on the progress of the project to
> the CIO who will share these reports with the Senate. There will be
> five such short reports, these reports will be sent to the CIO at the
> following occasions and when the following milestones are completed
> (but probably not working together yet):
>
> 1. Database (the backbone of the new site)
> 2. Access control (a basic website with an authentication method)
> 3. Server-side daemon (to enable automation of time-sensitive tasks)
> 4. Election system (automated running of elections)
> 5. Administrative tools (so magistrates can access the system)
> 6. Documentation (so Kristoffer is not the only one who knows how it
> works)
>
> These milestones may be reported in any order and they only have a
> partial connection to the payment of Kristoffer From. The reports will
> serve the purpose of keeping the Senate informed of progress of the
> IT-project. Still, the work is too complicated to connect the
> milestones too strictly to payments.
>
> Kristoffer From may report on the milestones in any order, as they are
> reached. The last payment will however not be made until the CIO has
> stated that the work is finished.
>
> The Senate orders the CFO or someone appointed/approved by the Senate
> instead of a CFO to immediately set aside the full 10 000 USD and upon
> the start of the project pay 2 500 USD for salary, social costs and
> taxes for Kristoffer From. The next payment of 2500 will be paid as
> soon as Kristoffer From reports on one milestone and a third payment
> of 2 500 USD will be paid as soon as Kristoffer From reports on a
> second milestone. When the project is completed to the satisfaction of
> the CIO, the remaining 2 500 USD will be paid according to the chosen
> pay-model.
>
> Kristoffer From will do after-work checks and surveillance checks for
> at least three months to see to it that the new IT-system really
> works in actual use. Nova Roma may also be asked to assist in
> performing tests of the system during this period.
>
> Uti rogas: 15
> Antiquo: 0
> Abstineo: 5
> The result of the voting is Item II PASSED
>
> KFBM: On both items I vote UTI ROGAS.
> KFBQ: Item II. The IT-project UTI ROGAS
> MHM: Item II. The IT-project UTI ROGAS
> CnEM: I Uti Rogas
> MLA: Item II. The IT-project UTI ROGAS. I have had a closer view than most
> as
> this project has gone ahead. Saturninus has done a top-rate job and I am
> happy
> to lend my vote in support of this long-overdue measure.
> MMPH: Item II. For the IT-project ADSENTIOR UTI ROGAS
> CPL: I Uti Rogas
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> TiGP: Uti Rogas on all three agenda items.
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> ATS: Item II: Uti rogas. It seems that we have reached the point where it
> is
> better to start anew than attempt to repair the existing programs or
> whatever
> despite the expense. Appliances and automobiles have similar problems; we
> should
> not expect our IT infrastructure to last forever, no matter how well
> maintained.
> MIS: Item II. For the IT-project ADSENTIOR VTI ROGAS
> CCS: Item II: The IT-project Uti rogas. This is the most important
> improvement
> into our infrastructure ever since first Album Civium and Cista.
> TIS: Item II. The IT-project TIS: Uti rogas.
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> ArnMA: Item II. The IT-project UTI ROGAS
> MCC: Item II. IT-project UTI ROGAS
> QSP: > I Uti Rogas>
> MIP: Item Item II. The IT-project VTI ROGAS
> EmCF: Item II: The IT-project Uti rogas. This is an very drastic
> improvement
> that can be no longer delayed. The existing system is completely out of
> date,
> poorly documented and there is only one individual who is actually able to
> use
> it somehow. Wihout a new IT-system there will be no further elections.
> FrAC: Item Item II. The IT-project ABSTINEO As professionist of this
> commercial
> area, I would like to read the concrete project before to give my approval.
> The
> budget in fact is very high and it would be analyzed by a pool of experts.
> CEC: Item I - VTI ROGAS
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> MAM: Item II. The IT-project Uti Rogas.
>
> _____________________________________________
>
> Item III. Dictatorship
>
> The Senate of Nova Roma, having convened in an emergency session,
> considers that:
>
> Whereas the current situation in Nova Roma threatens the very
> existence of Nova Roma both as a nation and as a membership
> organization, and,
>
> Whereas these crises in our organization and corporation, our
> finances, and our technical problems result from many causes that must
> be addressed so as to avoid Nova Roma from harm, as well as to ensure
> the orderly and enjoyable continuation of Nova Roma, and,
>
> Whereas any solutions to these present crises should and must be done
> in accordance with the governing bodies of law,
>
> Do we, the Senate of Nova Roma, by the vote of a majority, hereby
> appoint Gnaeus Equitius Marinus to the office of Dictator, and invest
> in him complete auctoritas and imperium for a period of no more than
> six months, trusting in him to resolve the present crises and take
> whatever steps he deems necessary to prevent future harm to the Res
> Publica Populi Novae Romae.
>
> The Senate conveys resolution of the following tasks, although not
> limited to these alone, to Cn. Equitius Marinus:
>
> To oversee the rewriting of corporate bylaws for Nova Roma, Inc
>
> To have the Constitution and subordinate laws reviewed for the purpose
> of amending or replacing them as are necessary to protect the
> respublica from harm
>
> To resolve the IT issues that threaten our website and on which the
> functions of the respublica rely
>
> To restructure voting procedures to make them robust against loss of
> technical programs or equipment.
>
> To simplify the magisterial structure to provide fewer magistrates
> with better defined roles.
>
> In the name of the Senate and the People of the Nova Roma, and in the
> sight of the Gods and Goddesses of the People of Nova Roma, under the
> provision of the Constitution IV.B.1, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus,
> Censorius is hereby appointed Dictator and Magister Populi of Nova Roma.
>
> Uti rogas: 15
> Antiquo: 1
> Abstineo: 4
> The result of the voting is Item III PASSED
>
> KFBM: Rather, on all three items I vote UTI ROGAS.
> KFBQ: Item III. Dictatorship UTI ROGAS
> MHM: Item Item III. Dictatorship UTI ROGAS
> CnEM: III Uti Rogas, and may the Dii Immortales help me
> MLA: Item III. Dictatorship UTI ROGAS. Senator and Censorius Marinus is one
> of
> the very few whom I could support in this position. In deciding my vote I
> also
> consider the manifest desire of the people to put ourselves back on the
> right
> track.
> MMPH: Item III. ADSENTIOR UTI ROGAS
> CPL: I Uti Rogas
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> TiGP: Now as to the proposed dictatorship. When the Roman appointed a
> dictator
> armies were at their gates.
> When the Romans appointed their first dictator there was an effort under
> way to
> return the kings to power.
> A week or so ago I stated on one of the lists that I would not support the
> appointment of a dictator even if I was proposed as the dictator. My
> opposition
> to a dictator has NOTHING to do with Senator Marinus or any other person
> who
> might have been nominated. It is based on my belief that while we have
> problems
> we do not have a crisis.
> I do not see anything that has changed and I vote NO on the proposed
> appointment of a dictator.
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> ATS: Item III. Ut pollicita sum, tertia discessio sequitur. Iterum
> quidem sententi, interdum aliqua facienda, etsi injucunda. Malim Novam
> Romam rixis omnino carere; malim omnia sine pervicaciis et obicibus esse si
> quid
> alicui displiceat. Infelicissim, haec ita non sunt, et mutanda.
> Dictaturae mihi displicent, sed ut videtur, nunc un nobis opus est.
> Dolendum sed quae cum ita sint, optio alia abest. Vir quem proposuisti
> bonus est, et eum honestum arbitror. Assentior, etsi animo sollicito nec
> laetitiam capiens, ut rogas.
> MIS: Item III. Dictatorship MIS: ADSENTIOR VTI ROGAS
> CCS: Item III: Dictatorship Uti rogas. It is time to save the republic. It
> is
> time to put politics aside and do real things. If accomplishing it means to
> vote
> for dictatorship, I'll do it. As a Roman citizen, magistrate and senator,
> Marinus has my support.
> TIS: Item III. Uti rogas.
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> ArnMA: Item III.Dictatorship. UTI ROGAS
> MCC: Item III. Dictatorship. UTI ROGAS
> QSP: > III Antiquo
> MIP: Item III. Dictatorship VTI ROGAS
> EmCF: Item III: Dictatorship Uti rogas.
> FrAC: Item III. Dictatorship VTI ROGAS I don't like the dictatorship, my
> own
> personal political opinion would drive me to more democratical and popular
> kinds
> of governments. But the situation of NR is bad, I'm looking the
> organization
> from a more far point of view and I find again a disorganized group divided
> by
> superficial discussions and political games. I hope the good Marinus would
> concentrate his efforts to find a new identity to NR, a real mission in a
> real
> world for the members, concrete and "unvirtual" opportunities and projects.
> The
> way taken by NR during the last year is the worst road, we need a change of
> direction. Marinus, please, do it!
> CEC: ITEM III - Although I do not go to the extreme that Gn. Iulius Caesar
> does,
> I cannot help but agree that each "crisis" we are called upon to deal now
> with
> was brought up in one form or another and those who did so were mocked or
> ignored because of political convenience. I think this because I was, of
> course,
> one of them; exempli gratia, I have advocated for the by-laws change for
> *years*
> now,
> offering my proposals repeatedly and simply being ignored. Our compliance
> with
> Maine law was brought up repeatedly (again, by myself among others) - only
> to be
> scoffed at and ignored because those in power disliked the messengers
> rather
> than paying attention to the message. So my personal feelings urge me to
> refuse
> to allow those in power to stand back and make someone else responsible for
> cleaning up the messes they have made.
> Yet, the Romans themselves did not look with horror at the idea of a
> dictator,
> probably because they had no experience with our common modern
> understanding of
> dictatorial government, with Hitler, Stalin, Tito, Ceaucescu, Peron, Pol
> Pot,
> Castro, etc., standing in our collective modern consciousness as the
> epitome of
> governments marked by arbitrary cruelty and inhumanity. The Romans
> appointed
> dictators not only to carry out wars but often to simply get a particular
> job
> done: to fill vacancies in the Senate, to preside over public games, to
> create
> holidays...even just to drive a nail into the door of the temple of
> Iuppiter
> O.M. in times of plague. They did their job, and unless they were a Sulla
> or a
> Marius or a Caesar, when it was finished they simply stepped back down into
> regular public life.
> So while I do believe that this series of "crises" has been manufactured by
> willful ignorance or blatant disregard on the part of some of those who
> have
> held the reins of power over the past two years, I cannot justify standing
> in
> the way of what is apparently the only solution that will hopefully make -
> force
> - those who hold power to shut up and actually listen for a change. The end
> does
> *not* justify the means, but simple dislike for the means does not make
> them evil, nor does it justify accepting a crippling status quo, either.
> VTI
> ROGAS
> *Later withdrew his votes: ABSTINEO
> MAM: Item III. Dictatorship Uti Rogas.
>
> _____________________________________________
> The following senators announced their desire to withdraw their votes
> after voting:
>
> C. Equitius Cato
> Ti. Galerius Paulinus
> T. Iulius Sabinus
> C. Popillius Laenas
>
> Normal rules of Parliamentary Procedure do not allow for members of a
> voting quorum to withdraw once the quorum has been made. The legality
> of these withdrawls is in question.
>
> Tribuni:
>
> M. Octavius Corvus (reporting)
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
> C. Curius Saturnius
> C. Aquilius Rota
>
> I thank my colleague Maxima Valeria Messallina and Senator Marcus Lucretius
> Agricola for advise and help while preparing this, such a difficult report.
>
> Valete bene in pace Deorum,
>
> M. Octavius Corvus
> Tribunus Plebis
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79324 From: enodia2002 Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Enodia sal.

There is nothing more Roman than filial piety, which is what Messalina is demonstrating by her actions. That anyone would try to spin that into something else is monstrous.

Enodia
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
>
> Caesar sal.
>
> Maior does his all the time. She can't really help it. It is an autonomous reaction, much like severed frogs legs twitching when electrical current is passed through them. It has the appearance of life, but it is divorced from a brain. She has made a splendid career in Nova Roma out of absurd claims and dramatic postings, and will continue to spasm mentally at regular intervals.
>
> I mainly dismiss most of her posts with a wry smile at the thought that in front of my eyes is evidence of the start of life on this planet, with a single celled life form twitching in a pool of primordial slime. It is mildly entertaining for the first few spasms, but then it becomes rather repetitive.
>
> Optime valete.
>
> --- On Fri, 8/13/10, enodia2002 <walkyr@...> wrote:
>
> > From: enodia2002 <walkyr@...>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 10:26 PM
> > Maior,
> >
> > Your attempt at spinning Messalina's leaving NR is not
> > working, and isn't going to work.  Her mother is
> > gravely ill, as is Messalina herself.  Even without the
> > undue stress which Messalina herself puts not on the BA, or
> > the Matronae, but on those who attempted to use her position
> > for their own purposes she could not continue to do all that
> > she had been.  Her filial responsibilities require her
> > presence with her mother, and being ill herself she could
> > not continue to act as Chief Vestal until she is well. 
> > She cannot recover under the present circumstances and was
> > wise enough to retire from them.  I hope and pray that
> > she returns to Nova Roma, but for right now she made the
> > right decision.
> >
> > You've taken the opportunity to create your own list, the
> > Bitch Alley, and are free to say whatever you like
> > there.  Do not expect to go unchallenged here when you
> > make such preposterous claims as that it was because of
> > Aeternia that Messalina left.  Messalina wrote to me
> > herself that this was not the case. 
> >
> > Go back to the Bitch Alley, Maior, and rot there with the
> > rest of your garbage.
> >
> > Optime vale,
> >
> > Enodia
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com,
> > Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve Maior,
> > >
> > >
> > > I supported Messalina in doing the right thing always,
> > that also includes
> > > when her decorum gets out of hand, I could never allow
> > the now former Chief
> > > Vestal to act like you, that would indeed make me a
> > bad friend..
> > >
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > > Aeternia
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:36 PM, rory12001
> > <rory12001@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Salve Aeternia;
> > > >
> > > > You didn't support Messallina and it upset her
> > greatly; I want nothing more
> > > > to do with the lot of you.
> > > >
> > > > Maior
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> > > > Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Salve,
> > > > >
> > > > > My apologies for jumping on this thread, but
> > that would be technically
> > > > false
> > > > > Maior... You publish and cherry pick e-mails
> > that weren't even sent to
> > > > you
> > > > > hoping for public ridicule..
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a false public disclaimer you're
> > advertising over there...
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale,
> > > > > Aeternia
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:32 PM, rory12001
> > <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Salve Livia;
> > > > > > actually I've had my share of obscene
> > private email from Sulla. The sad
> > > > BA
> > > > > > crowd do this to intimidate; Rofl... So
> > if some idiot tries to do this;
> > > > > > here's a nice public warning:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You don't want your rude emails
> > published and held up up to public
> > > > > > ridicule; don't send 'em to me;-)
> > > > > > vale
> > > > > > M. Hortensia Maior
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Exactly, and it was public, form
> > beginning to end.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Robert Woolwine"
> > <robert.woolwine@>
> > > > > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010
> > 12:40 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re:
> > Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah what started here on the ML
> > was Maior's failure in doing her
> > > > lictor
> > > > > > > statement correctly. Dexter
> > pointing out her Latin was not correct.
> > > > From
> > > > > > > there it snowballed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM,
> > Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> > > > > > > gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Salve Livia.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think it started off as a
> > private exchange - that is how she
> > > > reported
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > to the CP. From there to
> > here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vale
> > > > > > > > Caesar
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, L. Livia
> > Plauta
> > > > > > > >
> > <livia.plauta@<livia.plauta%40gmail.com>>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From: L. Livia Plauta
> > <livia.plauta@ <livia.plauta%40gmail.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma]
> > Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > >
> > > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > Date: Friday, August 13,
> > 2010, 4:27 PM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Salve Caesar,
> > > > > > > > > hello there?
> > Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was
> > > > > > > > > not private at
> > > > > > > > > all: it was here, on the
> > main list, for everybody to get
> > > > > > > > > bored by. So you
> > > > > > > > > can't accuse her to take
> > a private exchange to the Main
> > > > > > > > > List.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > > > > Livia
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message
> > -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Gnaeus Iulius
> > Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@>
> > > > > > > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, August 13,
> > 2010 8:56 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma]
> > Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Bad" is a subjective
> > judgement made dependent on which
> > > > > > > > > viewpoint you see
> > > > > > > > > issues from.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I could say that Maior's
> > continuing attempts to bamboozle
> > > > > > > > > people into
> > > > > > > > > accepting her opinion on
> > macronational legal issues, or
> > > > > > > > > internal Nova Roman
> > > > > > > > > legal matters is a "bad"
> > thing, given her appalling lack of
> > > > > > > > > logic, over
> > > > > > > > > emotive posting, and
> > eroneous grasp of the issues at hand.
> > > > > > > > > No doubt she
> > > > > > > > > would disagree, though I
> > live in hope that one day she
> > > > > > > > > might not.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As for the issue she has
> > with Dexter, I note that barely a
> > > > > > > > > few days since
> > > > > > > > > making her apology as
> > directed by vote of the CP, Maior
> > > > > > > > > once more forgets
> > > > > > > > > the directives of the
> > Pontifex Maximus not to bring
> > > > > > > > > internal CP matters
> > into
> > > > > > > > > the full glare of public
> > debate. She has taken a private
> > > > > > > > > exchange and
> > > > > > > > > splattered it around the
> > Main List. Dexter by contrast had
> > > > > > > > > not done that.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Let us examine another
> > current set of descriptors for
> > > > > > > > > citizens, other than
> > > > > > > > > "bad" or "good". Certain
> > stratas of Nova Roma are currently
> > > > > > > > > divided into
> > > > > > > > > those who attempted to
> > stage a coup and those who resisted,
> > > > > > > > > between those
> > > > > > > > > that wanted a
> > dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior
> > > > > > > > > Consul, and those
> > > > > > > > > that rallied around him.
> > It is divided between those in the
> > > > > > > > > senate that
> > > > > > > > > wanted to impose their
> > factional viewpoints through a
> > > > > > > > > dictatorship, and
> > > > > > > > > those that resisted that
> > attempt. It is divided between
> > > > > > > > > legality and
> > > > > > > > > illegality.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It is for individuals to
> > judge in their own minds if terms
> > > > > > > > > such as "good"
> > > > > > > > > and "bad" are
> > applicable, and to whom they should be
> > > > > > > > > applied, but Maior was
> > > > > > > > > one of those fully
> > supporting a move into the illegal
> > > > > > > > > dictatorship, illegal
> > > > > > > > > both under state law and
> > I say (as do others) under Nova
> > > > > > > > > Roman law.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As for idiots, well
> > given her past behavior on various
> > > > > > > > > lists, her
> > > > > > > > > performance as praetor
> > and her current "thoughtful"
> > > > > > > > > assessment of the
> > > > > > > > > issues, I am sure that
> > no one could ever conclude that the
> > > > > > > > > idiot's dunce hat
> > > > > > > > > has had Maior's name
> > stitiched inside as a proud owner and
> > > > > > > > > wearer for many a
> > > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Never. How could one
> > ever conclude that I wonder?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Optime valete
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10,
> > rory12001
> > > > > > > > >
> > <rory12001@<rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > From: rory12001
> > <rory12001@ <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Subject:
> > [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > >
> > > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Date: Friday,
> > August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> > > > > > > > > > M. Hortensia
> > Quiritibus spd;
> > > > > > > > > > of course the bad
> > drive out the good. Metellus
> > > > > > > > > has a
> > > > > > > > > > constant campaign
> > to replace the PM who actually does
> > > > > > > > > > something.Q.Fabius
> > Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima,
> > > > > > > > > Sulla
> > > > > > > > > > and Cato - those 2
> > scholars of ancient Roman religion
> > > > > > > > > occupy
> > > > > > > > > > the religio list so
> > it's almost dead.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have Dexter
> > writing me obnoxious notes about the
> > > > > > > > > wedding
> > > > > > > > > > in Sarmatia(not
> > happy thoughts either) who needs this
> > > > > > > > > > constant stream of
> > garbage that accomplishes nothing?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As I said there are
> > 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> > > > > > > > > > individuals who
> > essentially have no lives and live
> > > > > > > > > online
> > > > > > > > > > and the rest of us;
> > real life recons who are happy.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't spend
> > anymore time on the idiots, I write
> > > > > > > > > privately
> > > > > > > > > > to my friends and
> > get on with projects.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > vale
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > M. Hortensia
> > > > > > > > > > Maior
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > MÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'‚¢IVLÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'‚¢SEVERVS
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > <marcusiuliusseverus@>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Salvete
> > Quirites,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Nova Roma is
> > falling apart. The loss of our
> > > > > > > > > Virgo
> > > > > > > > > > Maxima is a
> > terrible sign
> > > > > > > > > > > among
> > everything that has been happening here.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > MaybeÃÆ'Æ'‚ I will follow her, since I don't
> > believe
> > > > > > > > > >
> > thatÃÆ'Æ'‚ I have much more to do in
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > frustratedÃÆ'Æ'‚ Res publica.
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The worst
> > among us seem to win.
> > > > > > > > > > > To M. Valeria
> > messallina: I am your friend, and I
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > be with you
> > whenever you
> > > > > > > > > > > need me.
> > IÃÆ'Æ'‚ hope that your mother's health, as
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > as yours, can an
> > will
> > > > > > > > > > > improve.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Valete,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > ÃÆ'Æ'‚
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > MÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'‚¢IVLÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'‚¢SEVERVS
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > SENATOR
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > PROÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'‚¢CONSVLÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'‚¢PROVINCIÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬
> > > >
> > ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'‚¢MEXICI
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text
> > portions of this message have been
> > > > > > > > > removed]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > Links
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > >
> > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > >
> > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [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]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >     Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79325 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Maria Caeca Sullae sal,

um ...that ...is a non-question, containing as id does, your own opinion. However ...since you asked ...either in and of itself, or alone, is unbalanced. I have never thought that intellect and emotion are mutually exclusive, or should act in absolute opposition, creating an either/or situation. My view is that one needs both ...and one also needs to know when which is appropriate. Intellect without emotion can produce a brilliant psychopath: emotion without intellect can produce something equally dangerous ...a charismatic single minded fanatic. both are equally lethal, for different reasons.

Well, you *did* ask, yes?

Respectfully,
Maria Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79326 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Ave V,

I absolutely agree. I have been there myself. And, health and filial piety
comes absolutely first! Messalina is doing the absolute right thing by
taking care of herself and her mother!

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 9:41 PM, enodia2002 <walkyr@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> Enodia sal.
>
> There is nothing more Roman than filial piety, which is what Messalina is
> demonstrating by her actions. That anyone would try to spin that into
> something else is monstrous.
>
> Enodia
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Gnaeus
> Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Caesar sal.
> >
> > Maior does his all the time. She can't really help it. It is an
> autonomous reaction, much like severed frogs legs twitching when electrical
> current is passed through them. It has the appearance of life, but it is
> divorced from a brain. She has made a splendid career in Nova Roma out of
> absurd claims and dramatic postings, and will continue to spasm mentally at
> regular intervals.
> >
> > I mainly dismiss most of her posts with a wry smile at the thought that
> in front of my eyes is evidence of the start of life on this planet, with a
> single celled life form twitching in a pool of primordial slime. It is
> mildly entertaining for the first few spasms, but then it becomes rather
> repetitive.
> >
> > Optime valete.
> >
> > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, enodia2002 <walkyr@...> wrote:
> >
> > > From: enodia2002 <walkyr@...>
>
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 10:26 PM
> > > Maior,
> > >
> > > Your attempt at spinning Messalina's leaving NR is not
> > > working, and isn't going to work. Her mother is
> > > gravely ill, as is Messalina herself. Even without the
>
> > > undue stress which Messalina herself puts not on the BA, or
> > > the Matronae, but on those who attempted to use her position
> > > for their own purposes she could not continue to do all that
> > > she had been. Her filial responsibilities require her
>
> > > presence with her mother, and being ill herself she could
> > > not continue to act as Chief Vestal until she is well.Â
>
> > > She cannot recover under the present circumstances and was
> > > wise enough to retire from them. I hope and pray that
>
> > > she returns to Nova Roma, but for right now she made the
> > > right decision.
> > >
> > > You've taken the opportunity to create your own list, the
> > > Bitch Alley, and are free to say whatever you like
> > > there. Do not expect to go unchallenged here when you
>
> > > make such preposterous claims as that it was because of
> > > Aeternia that Messalina left. Messalina wrote to me
> > > herself that this was not the case.Â
> > >
> > > Go back to the Bitch Alley, Maior, and rot there with the
> > > rest of your garbage.
> > >
> > > Optime vale,
> > >
> > > Enodia
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salve Maior,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I supported Messalina in doing the right thing always,
> > > that also includes
> > > > when her decorum gets out of hand, I could never allow
> > > the now former Chief
> > > > Vestal to act like you, that would indeed make me a
> > > bad friend..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > > Aeternia
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:36 PM, rory12001
> > > <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Salve Aeternia;
> > > > >
> > > > > You didn't support Messallina and it upset her
> > > greatly; I want nothing more
> > > > > to do with the lot of you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maior
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> > > > > Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Salve,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My apologies for jumping on this thread, but
> > > that would be technically
> > > > > false
> > > > > > Maior... You publish and cherry pick e-mails
> > > that weren't even sent to
> > > > > you
> > > > > > hoping for public ridicule..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's a false public disclaimer you're
> > > advertising over there...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > Aeternia
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:32 PM, rory12001
> > > <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Salve Livia;
> > > > > > > actually I've had my share of obscene
> > > private email from Sulla. The sad
> > > > > BA
> > > > > > > crowd do this to intimidate; Rofl... So
> > > if some idiot tries to do this;
> > > > > > > here's a nice public warning:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You don't want your rude emails
> > > published and held up up to public
> > > > > > > ridicule; don't send 'em to me;-)
> > > > > > > vale
> > > > > > > M. Hortensia Maior
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Exactly, and it was public, form
> > > beginning to end.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Robert Woolwine"
> > > <robert.woolwine@>
> > > > > > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010
> > > 12:40 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re:
> > > Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yeah what started here on the ML
> > > was Maior's failure in doing her
> > > > > lictor
> > > > > > > > statement correctly. Dexter
> > > pointing out her Latin was not correct.
> > > > > From
> > > > > > > > there it snowballed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM,
> > > Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> > > > > > > > gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Salve Livia.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think it started off as a
> > > private exchange - that is how she
> > > > > reported
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > to the CP. From there to
> > > here.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vale
> > > > > > > > > Caesar
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, L. Livia
> > > Plauta
> > > > > > > > >
> > > <livia.plauta@<livia.plauta%40gmail.com>>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > From: L. Livia Plauta
> > > <livia.plauta@ <livia.plauta%40gmail.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma]
> > > Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > >
> > > > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Date: Friday, August 13,
> > > 2010, 4:27 PM
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Salve Caesar,
> > > > > > > > > > hello there?
> > > Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was
> > > > > > > > > > not private at
> > > > > > > > > > all: it was here, on the
> > > main list, for everybody to get
> > > > > > > > > > bored by. So you
> > > > > > > > > > can't accuse her to take
> > > a private exchange to the Main
> > > > > > > > > > List.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > > > > > Livia
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message
> > > -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: "Gnaeus Iulius
> > > Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@>
> > > > > > > > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, August 13,
> > > 2010 8:56 PM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma]
> > > Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Bad" is a subjective
> > > judgement made dependent on which
> > > > > > > > > > viewpoint you see
> > > > > > > > > > issues from.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I could say that Maior's
> > > continuing attempts to bamboozle
> > > > > > > > > > people into
> > > > > > > > > > accepting her opinion on
> > > macronational legal issues, or
> > > > > > > > > > internal Nova Roman
> > > > > > > > > > legal matters is a "bad"
> > > thing, given her appalling lack of
> > > > > > > > > > logic, over
> > > > > > > > > > emotive posting, and
> > > eroneous grasp of the issues at hand.
> > > > > > > > > > No doubt she
> > > > > > > > > > would disagree, though I
> > > live in hope that one day she
> > > > > > > > > > might not.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As for the issue she has
> > > with Dexter, I note that barely a
> > > > > > > > > > few days since
> > > > > > > > > > making her apology as
> > > directed by vote of the CP, Maior
> > > > > > > > > > once more forgets
> > > > > > > > > > the directives of the
> > > Pontifex Maximus not to bring
> > > > > > > > > > internal CP matters
> > > into
> > > > > > > > > > the full glare of public
> > > debate. She has taken a private
> > > > > > > > > > exchange and
> > > > > > > > > > splattered it around the
> > > Main List. Dexter by contrast had
> > > > > > > > > > not done that.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Let us examine another
> > > current set of descriptors for
> > > > > > > > > > citizens, other than
> > > > > > > > > > "bad" or "good". Certain
> > > stratas of Nova Roma are currently
> > > > > > > > > > divided into
> > > > > > > > > > those who attempted to
> > > stage a coup and those who resisted,
> > > > > > > > > > between those
> > > > > > > > > > that wanted a
> > > dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior
> > > > > > > > > > Consul, and those
> > > > > > > > > > that rallied around him.
> > > It is divided between those in the
> > > > > > > > > > senate that
> > > > > > > > > > wanted to impose their
> > > factional viewpoints through a
> > > > > > > > > > dictatorship, and
> > > > > > > > > > those that resisted that
> > > attempt. It is divided between
> > > > > > > > > > legality and
> > > > > > > > > > illegality.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It is for individuals to
> > > judge in their own minds if terms
> > > > > > > > > > such as "good"
> > > > > > > > > > and "bad" are
> > > applicable, and to whom they should be
> > > > > > > > > > applied, but Maior was
> > > > > > > > > > one of those fully
> > > supporting a move into the illegal
> > > > > > > > > > dictatorship, illegal
> > > > > > > > > > both under state law and
> > > I say (as do others) under Nova
> > > > > > > > > > Roman law.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As for idiots, well
> > > given her past behavior on various
> > > > > > > > > > lists, her
> > > > > > > > > > performance as praetor
> > > and her current "thoughtful"
> > > > > > > > > > assessment of the
> > > > > > > > > > issues, I am sure that
> > > no one could ever conclude that the
> > > > > > > > > > idiot's dunce hat
> > > > > > > > > > has had Maior's name
> > > stitiched inside as a proud owner and
> > > > > > > > > > wearer for many a
> > > > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Never. How could one
> > > ever conclude that I wonder?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Optime valete
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10,
> > > rory12001
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > <rory12001@<rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > From: rory12001
> > > <rory12001@ <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject:
> > > [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > >
> > > > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Date: Friday,
> > > August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > M. Hortensia
> > > Quiritibus spd;
> > > > > > > > > > > of course the bad
> > > drive out the good. Metellus
> > > > > > > > > > has a
> > > > > > > > > > > constant campaign
> > > to replace the PM who actually does
> > > > > > > > > > > something.Q.Fabius
> > > Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima,
> > > > > > > > > > Sulla
> > > > > > > > > > > and Cato - those 2
> > > scholars of ancient Roman religion
> > > > > > > > > > occupy
> > > > > > > > > > > the religio list so
> > > it's almost dead.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I have Dexter
> > > writing me obnoxious notes about the
> > > > > > > > > > wedding
> > > > > > > > > > > in Sarmatia(not
> > > happy thoughts either) who needs this
> > > > > > > > > > > constant stream of
> > > garbage that accomplishes nothing?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As I said there are
> > > 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> > > > > > > > > > > individuals who
> > > essentially have no lives and live
> > > > > > > > > > online
> > > > > > > > > > > and the rest of us;
> > > real life recons who are happy.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't spend
> > > anymore time on the idiots, I write
> > > > > > > > > > privately
> > > > > > > > > > > to my friends and
> > > get on with projects.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > vale
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > M. Hortensia
> > > > > > > > > > > Maior
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >
> MÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'‚¢IVLÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'‚¢SEVERVS
>
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > <marcusiuliusseverus@>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Salvete
> > > Quirites,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Nova Roma is
> > > falling apart. The loss of our
> > > > > > > > > > Virgo
> > > > > > > > > > > Maxima is a
> > > terrible sign
> > > > > > > > > > > > among
> > > everything that has been happening here.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > MaybeÃÆ'Æ'‚ I will follow her, since I don't
> > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > thatÃÆ'Æ'‚ I have much more to do in
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > frustratedÃÆ'Æ'‚ Res publica.
>
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The worst
> > > among us seem to win.
> > > > > > > > > > > > To M. Valeria
> > > messallina: I am your friend, and I
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > be with you
> > > whenever you
> > > > > > > > > > > > need me.
> > > IÃÆ'Æ'‚ hope that your mother's health, as
>
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > as yours, can an
> > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > improve.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Valete,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >
> MÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'‚¢IVLÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'‚¢SEVERVS
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > SENATOR
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > >
> PROÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'‚¢CONSVLÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'‚¢PROVINCIÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬
> > > > >
> > >
> ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'‚¢MEXICI
>
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text
> > > portions of this message have been
> > > > > > > > > > removed]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > Links
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message
> > > have been removed]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Â
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > > Â Â Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79327 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Ave Caeca,

Oh yes, I absolutely did ask. Thank you for your response. :)

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 9:43 PM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

>
>
> Maria Caeca Sullae sal,
>
> um ...that ...is a non-question, containing as id does, your own opinion.
> However ...since you asked ...either in and of itself, or alone, is
> unbalanced. I have never thought that intellect and emotion are mutually
> exclusive, or should act in absolute opposition, creating an either/or
> situation. My view is that one needs both ...and one also needs to know when
> which is appropriate. Intellect without emotion can produce a brilliant
> psychopath: emotion without intellect can produce something equally
> dangerous ...a charismatic single minded fanatic. both are equally lethal,
> for different reasons.
>
> Well, you *did* ask, yes?
>
> Respectfully,
> Maria Caeca
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79328 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Ave,

I understand what you are saying, but to relate it to the situation along
this thread, when Maior posts, for some reason I am reminded of the movie
Dogma. A very good Kevin Smith movie where they are constantly saying how
blind belief in Dogma is what is allowing the two Angels (Ben Affleck and
Matt Damon) for the end of the Earth. If you haven't seen this movie
Affleck and Damon are two angels and they are trying to get back to Heaven
and they found a loophole in Catholic Dogma (hence the name of the movie)
and it follows their attempt to get back to Heaven regardless of the
consequences and the other characters of the movie (Selma Hayeck, Chris
Rock, Fiorentino, and Alan Rickman play the other side who are trying to
prevent Affleck and Damon from finding a loophole in Catholic Dogma and thus
bring about the end of the world. And the Linda Fieorintino (sp), along with
Chris Rock keep trying to find a way for Linda to find her faith back in the
Catholic Church and he keeps asking her if she believes and ultimately she
comes to the realization that she does not believe but has a good idea.
Maior BELIEVES. nothing more and nothing less. Facts, even one's in the
very text - do not alter her belief. Yes, taken to extreme you can either
have a psycopath and on the other spectrum, one I believe Maior tends to
fall into a single minded fanatic (but not charismatic).

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 9:43 PM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

>
>
> Maria Caeca Sullae sal,
>
> um ...that ...is a non-question, containing as id does, your own opinion.
> However ...since you asked ...either in and of itself, or alone, is
> unbalanced. I have never thought that intellect and emotion are mutually
> exclusive, or should act in absolute opposition, creating an either/or
> situation. My view is that one needs both ...and one also needs to know when
> which is appropriate. Intellect without emotion can produce a brilliant
> psychopath: emotion without intellect can produce something equally
> dangerous ...a charismatic single minded fanatic. both are equally lethal,
> for different reasons.
>
> Well, you *did* ask, yes?
>
> Respectfully,
> Maria Caeca
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79329 From: gualterus_graecus Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Salvete,

Given that already three times inflammatory language has been used on this thread (79295, 79309, 79319... did I miss one?), I think it's time that everyone is reminded that we must remain civil. The topic is very sensitive and sad, so hopefully the aforementioned outbursts have been sufficient to let off steam. However, the matter will stay under discussion in the Praetura.

Valete,

Gualterus Graecus
Praetorian Quaestor

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "enodia2002" <walkyr@...> wrote:
>
> Maior,
>
> Your attempt at spinning Messalina's leaving NR is not working, and isn't going to work. Her mother is gravely ill, as is Messalina herself. Even without the undue stress which Messalina herself puts not on the BA, or the Matronae, but on those who attempted to use her position for their own purposes she could not continue to do all that she had been. Her filial responsibilities require her presence with her mother, and being ill herself she could not continue to act as Chief Vestal until she is well. She cannot recover under the present circumstances and was wise enough to retire from them. I hope and pray that she returns to Nova Roma, but for right now she made the right decision.
>
> You've taken the opportunity to create your own list, the Bitch Alley, and are free to say whatever you like there. Do not expect to go unchallenged here when you make such preposterous claims as that it was because of Aeternia that Messalina left. Messalina wrote to me herself that this was not the case.
>
> Go back to the Bitch Alley, Maior, and rot there with the rest of your garbage.
>
> Optime vale,
>
> Enodia
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Maior,
> >
> >
> > I supported Messalina in doing the right thing always, that also includes
> > when her decorum gets out of hand, I could never allow the now former Chief
> > Vestal to act like you, that would indeed make me a bad friend..
> >
> >
> > Vale,
> > Aeternia
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:36 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve Aeternia;
> > >
> > > You didn't support Messallina and it upset her greatly; I want nothing more
> > > to do with the lot of you.
> > >
> > > Maior
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> > > Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salve,
> > > >
> > > > My apologies for jumping on this thread, but that would be technically
> > > false
> > > > Maior... You publish and cherry pick e-mails that weren't even sent to
> > > you
> > > > hoping for public ridicule..
> > > >
> > > > That's a false public disclaimer you're advertising over there...
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > > Aeternia
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:32 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Salve Livia;
> > > > > actually I've had my share of obscene private email from Sulla. The sad
> > > BA
> > > > > crowd do this to intimidate; Rofl... So if some idiot tries to do this;
> > > > > here's a nice public warning:
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't want your rude emails published and held up up to public
> > > > > ridicule; don't send 'em to me;-)
> > > > > vale
> > > > > M. Hortensia Maior
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exactly, and it was public, form beginning to end.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Robert Woolwine" <robert.woolwine@>
> > > > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 12:40 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah what started here on the ML was Maior's failure in doing her
> > > lictor
> > > > > > statement correctly. Dexter pointing out her Latin was not correct.
> > > From
> > > > > > there it snowballed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> > > > > > gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Salve Livia.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think it started off as a private exchange - that is how she
> > > reported
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > to the CP. From there to here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vale
> > > > > > > Caesar
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, L. Livia Plauta
> > > > > > > <livia.plauta@<livia.plauta%40gmail.com>>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@ <livia.plauta%40gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > >
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 4:27 PM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Salve Caesar,
> > > > > > > > hello there? Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was
> > > > > > > > not private at
> > > > > > > > all: it was here, on the main list, for everybody to get
> > > > > > > > bored by. So you
> > > > > > > > can't accuse her to take a private exchange to the Main
> > > > > > > > List.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > > > Livia
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@>
> > > > > > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:56 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Bad" is a subjective judgement made dependent on which
> > > > > > > > viewpoint you see
> > > > > > > > issues from.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I could say that Maior's continuing attempts to bamboozle
> > > > > > > > people into
> > > > > > > > accepting her opinion on macronational legal issues, or
> > > > > > > > internal Nova Roman
> > > > > > > > legal matters is a "bad" thing, given her appalling lack of
> > > > > > > > logic, over
> > > > > > > > emotive posting, and eroneous grasp of the issues at hand.
> > > > > > > > No doubt she
> > > > > > > > would disagree, though I live in hope that one day she
> > > > > > > > might not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As for the issue she has with Dexter, I note that barely a
> > > > > > > > few days since
> > > > > > > > making her apology as directed by vote of the CP, Maior
> > > > > > > > once more forgets
> > > > > > > > the directives of the Pontifex Maximus not to bring
> > > > > > > > internal CP matters into
> > > > > > > > the full glare of public debate. She has taken a private
> > > > > > > > exchange and
> > > > > > > > splattered it around the Main List. Dexter by contrast had
> > > > > > > > not done that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let us examine another current set of descriptors for
> > > > > > > > citizens, other than
> > > > > > > > "bad" or "good". Certain stratas of Nova Roma are currently
> > > > > > > > divided into
> > > > > > > > those who attempted to stage a coup and those who resisted,
> > > > > > > > between those
> > > > > > > > that wanted a dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior
> > > > > > > > Consul, and those
> > > > > > > > that rallied around him. It is divided between those in the
> > > > > > > > senate that
> > > > > > > > wanted to impose their factional viewpoints through a
> > > > > > > > dictatorship, and
> > > > > > > > those that resisted that attempt. It is divided between
> > > > > > > > legality and
> > > > > > > > illegality.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is for individuals to judge in their own minds if terms
> > > > > > > > such as "good"
> > > > > > > > and "bad" are applicable, and to whom they should be
> > > > > > > > applied, but Maior was
> > > > > > > > one of those fully supporting a move into the illegal
> > > > > > > > dictatorship, illegal
> > > > > > > > both under state law and I say (as do others) under Nova
> > > > > > > > Roman law.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As for idiots, well given her past behavior on various
> > > > > > > > lists, her
> > > > > > > > performance as praetor and her current "thoughtful"
> > > > > > > > assessment of the
> > > > > > > > issues, I am sure that no one could ever conclude that the
> > > > > > > > idiot's dunce hat
> > > > > > > > has had Maior's name stitiched inside as a proud owner and
> > > > > > > > wearer for many a
> > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Never. How could one ever conclude that I wonder?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Optime valete
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, rory12001
> > > > > > > > <rory12001@<rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From: rory12001 <rory12001@ <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > >
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> > > > > > > > > M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> > > > > > > > > of course the bad drive out the good. Metellus
> > > > > > > > has a
> > > > > > > > > constant campaign to replace the PM who actually does
> > > > > > > > > something.Q.Fabius Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima,
> > > > > > > > Sulla
> > > > > > > > > and Cato - those 2 scholars of ancient Roman religion
> > > > > > > > occupy
> > > > > > > > > the religio list so it's almost dead.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have Dexter writing me obnoxious notes about the
> > > > > > > > wedding
> > > > > > > > > in Sarmatia(not happy thoughts either) who needs this
> > > > > > > > > constant stream of garbage that accomplishes nothing?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As I said there are 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> > > > > > > > > individuals who essentially have no lives and live
> > > > > > > > online
> > > > > > > > > and the rest of us; real life recons who are happy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't spend anymore time on the idiots, I write
> > > > > > > > privately
> > > > > > > > > to my friends and get on with projects.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > vale
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > M. Hortensia
> > > > > > > > > Maior
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > > MÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢IVLÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢SEVERVS
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > <marcusiuliusseverus@>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Salvete Quirites,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nova Roma is falling apart. The loss of our
> > > > > > > > Virgo
> > > > > > > > > Maxima is a terrible sign
> > > > > > > > > > among everything that has been happening here.
> > > > > > > > > > MaybeÃÆ'‚ I will follow her, since I don't believe
> > > > > > > > > thatÃÆ'‚ I have much more to do in
> > > > > > > > > > this frustratedÃÆ'‚ Res publica.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The worst among us seem to win.
> > > > > > > > > > To M. Valeria messallina: I am your friend, and I
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > be with you whenever you
> > > > > > > > > > need me. IÃÆ'‚ hope that your mother's health, as
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > as yours, can an will
> > > > > > > > > > improve.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Valete,
> > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > > > > > MÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢IVLÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢SEVERVS
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > SENATOR
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > PROÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢CONSVLÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢PROVINCIÃÆ'Æ'â€
> > > ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢MEXICI
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > > > > > > removed]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [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]
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79330 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
OK, guys, while I agree that Maior is *WAY *out of line trying to make
personal gain out of Messallina's misfortunes, the bashing is getting to be
a bit much. While there are currently no praetors, I have little doubt that
the praetorian staff will probably shut down this thread as not very cool.
Instead of arguing with Maior, let's talk about what to do about our lack of
Vestals. I know she was training other Vestals, are any of them ready to
take over? It may seem like a minor thing to non-cultores, but to we who are
cultores, Nova Roma being without a Vestal is a very bad omen!

~ Valerianus

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> Caesar sal.
>
> Maior does his all the time. She can't really help it. It is an autonomous
> reaction, much like severed frogs legs twitching when electrical current is
> passed through them. It has the appearance of life, but it is divorced from
> a brain. She has made a splendid career in Nova Roma out of absurd claims
> and dramatic postings, and will continue to spasm mentally at regular
> intervals.
>
> I mainly dismiss most of her posts with a wry smile at the thought that in
> front of my eyes is evidence of the start of life on this planet, with a
> single celled life form twitching in a pool of primordial slime. It is
> mildly entertaining for the first few spasms, but then it becomes rather
> repetitive.
>
> Optime valete.
>
> --- On Fri, 8/13/10, enodia2002 <walkyr@... <walkyr%40aol.com>> wrote:
>
> > From: enodia2002 <walkyr@... <walkyr%40aol.com>>
>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 10:26 PM
>
> > Maior,
> >
> > Your attempt at spinning Messalina's leaving NR is not
> > working, and isn't going to work. Her mother is
> > gravely ill, as is Messalina herself. Even without the
> > undue stress which Messalina herself puts not on the BA, or
> > the Matronae, but on those who attempted to use her position
> > for their own purposes she could not continue to do all that
> > she had been. Her filial responsibilities require her
> > presence with her mother, and being ill herself she could
> > not continue to act as Chief Vestal until she is well.
> > She cannot recover under the present circumstances and was
> > wise enough to retire from them. I hope and pray that
> > she returns to Nova Roma, but for right now she made the
> > right decision.
> >
> > You've taken the opportunity to create your own list, the
> > Bitch Alley, and are free to say whatever you like
> > there. Do not expect to go unchallenged here when you
> > make such preposterous claims as that it was because of
> > Aeternia that Messalina left. Messalina wrote to me
> > herself that this was not the case.
> >
> > Go back to the Bitch Alley, Maior, and rot there with the
> > rest of your garbage.
> >
> > Optime vale,
> >
> > Enodia
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve Maior,
> > >
> > >
> > > I supported Messalina in doing the right thing always,
> > that also includes
> > > when her decorum gets out of hand, I could never allow
> > the now former Chief
> > > Vestal to act like you, that would indeed make me a
> > bad friend..
> > >
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > > Aeternia
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:36 PM, rory12001
> > <rory12001@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Salve Aeternia;
> > > >
> > > > You didn't support Messallina and it upset her
> > greatly; I want nothing more
> > > > to do with the lot of you.
> > > >
> > > > Maior
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> > > > Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Salve,
> > > > >
> > > > > My apologies for jumping on this thread, but
> > that would be technically
> > > > false
> > > > > Maior... You publish and cherry pick e-mails
> > that weren't even sent to
> > > > you
> > > > > hoping for public ridicule..
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a false public disclaimer you're
> > advertising over there...
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale,
> > > > > Aeternia
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:32 PM, rory12001
> > <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Salve Livia;
> > > > > > actually I've had my share of obscene
> > private email from Sulla. The sad
> > > > BA
> > > > > > crowd do this to intimidate; Rofl... So
> > if some idiot tries to do this;
> > > > > > here's a nice public warning:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You don't want your rude emails
> > published and held up up to public
> > > > > > ridicule; don't send 'em to me;-)
> > > > > > vale
> > > > > > M. Hortensia Maior
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Exactly, and it was public, form
> > beginning to end.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Robert Woolwine"
> > <robert.woolwine@>
> > > > > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010
> > 12:40 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re:
> > Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah what started here on the ML
> > was Maior's failure in doing her
> > > > lictor
> > > > > > > statement correctly. Dexter
> > pointing out her Latin was not correct.
> > > > From
> > > > > > > there it snowballed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM,
> > Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> > > > > > > gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Salve Livia.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think it started off as a
> > private exchange - that is how she
> > > > reported
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > to the CP. From there to
> > here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vale
> > > > > > > > Caesar
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10, L. Livia
> > Plauta
> > > > > > > >
> > <livia.plauta@<livia.plauta%40gmail.com>>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From: L. Livia Plauta
> > <livia.plauta@ <livia.plauta%40gmail.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma]
> > Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > >
> > > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > Date: Friday, August 13,
> > 2010, 4:27 PM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Salve Caesar,
> > > > > > > > > hello there?
> > Unfortunately Dexter's exchange with Maior was
> > > > > > > > > not private at
> > > > > > > > > all: it was here, on the
> > main list, for everybody to get
> > > > > > > > > bored by. So you
> > > > > > > > > can't accuse her to take
> > a private exchange to the Main
> > > > > > > > > List.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > > > > Livia
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message
> > -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Gnaeus Iulius
> > Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@>
> > > > > > > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, August 13,
> > 2010 8:56 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma]
> > Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cn Iulius Caesar sal.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Bad" is a subjective
> > judgement made dependent on which
> > > > > > > > > viewpoint you see
> > > > > > > > > issues from.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I could say that Maior's
> > continuing attempts to bamboozle
> > > > > > > > > people into
> > > > > > > > > accepting her opinion on
> > macronational legal issues, or
> > > > > > > > > internal Nova Roman
> > > > > > > > > legal matters is a "bad"
> > thing, given her appalling lack of
> > > > > > > > > logic, over
> > > > > > > > > emotive posting, and
> > eroneous grasp of the issues at hand.
> > > > > > > > > No doubt she
> > > > > > > > > would disagree, though I
> > live in hope that one day she
> > > > > > > > > might not.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As for the issue she has
> > with Dexter, I note that barely a
> > > > > > > > > few days since
> > > > > > > > > making her apology as
> > directed by vote of the CP, Maior
> > > > > > > > > once more forgets
> > > > > > > > > the directives of the
> > Pontifex Maximus not to bring
> > > > > > > > > internal CP matters
> > into
> > > > > > > > > the full glare of public
> > debate. She has taken a private
> > > > > > > > > exchange and
> > > > > > > > > splattered it around the
> > Main List. Dexter by contrast had
> > > > > > > > > not done that.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Let us examine another
> > current set of descriptors for
> > > > > > > > > citizens, other than
> > > > > > > > > "bad" or "good". Certain
> > stratas of Nova Roma are currently
> > > > > > > > > divided into
> > > > > > > > > those who attempted to
> > stage a coup and those who resisted,
> > > > > > > > > between those
> > > > > > > > > that wanted a
> > dictatorship and the overthrow of the Senior
> > > > > > > > > Consul, and those
> > > > > > > > > that rallied around him.
> > It is divided between those in the
> > > > > > > > > senate that
> > > > > > > > > wanted to impose their
> > factional viewpoints through a
> > > > > > > > > dictatorship, and
> > > > > > > > > those that resisted that
> > attempt. It is divided between
> > > > > > > > > legality and
> > > > > > > > > illegality.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It is for individuals to
> > judge in their own minds if terms
> > > > > > > > > such as "good"
> > > > > > > > > and "bad" are
> > applicable, and to whom they should be
> > > > > > > > > applied, but Maior was
> > > > > > > > > one of those fully
> > supporting a move into the illegal
> > > > > > > > > dictatorship, illegal
> > > > > > > > > both under state law and
> > I say (as do others) under Nova
> > > > > > > > > Roman law.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As for idiots, well
> > given her past behavior on various
> > > > > > > > > lists, her
> > > > > > > > > performance as praetor
> > and her current "thoughtful"
> > > > > > > > > assessment of the
> > > > > > > > > issues, I am sure that
> > no one could ever conclude that the
> > > > > > > > > idiot's dunce hat
> > > > > > > > > has had Maior's name
> > stitiched inside as a proud owner and
> > > > > > > > > wearer for many a
> > > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Never. How could one
> > ever conclude that I wonder?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Optime valete
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 8/13/10,
> > rory12001
> > > > > > > > >
> > <rory12001@<rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > From: rory12001
> > <rory12001@ <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Subject:
> > [Nova-Roma] Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
> > > > > > > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > >
> > > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Date: Friday,
> > August 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
> > > > > > > > > > M. Hortensia
> > Quiritibus spd;
> > > > > > > > > > of course the bad
> > drive out the good. Metellus
> > > > > > > > > has a
> > > > > > > > > > constant campaign
> > to replace the PM who actually does
> > > > > > > > > > something.Q.Fabius
> > Maximus insults the Virgo Maxima,
> > > > > > > > > Sulla
> > > > > > > > > > and Cato - those 2
> > scholars of ancient Roman religion
> > > > > > > > > occupy
> > > > > > > > > > the religio list so
> > it's almost dead.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have Dexter
> > writing me obnoxious notes about the
> > > > > > > > > wedding
> > > > > > > > > > in Sarmatia(not
> > happy thoughts either) who needs this
> > > > > > > > > > constant stream of
> > garbage that accomplishes nothing?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As I said there are
> > 2 Nova Romas: the RPG players,
> > > > > > > > > > individuals who
> > essentially have no lives and live
> > > > > > > > > online
> > > > > > > > > > and the rest of us;
> > real life recons who are happy.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't spend
> > anymore time on the idiots, I write
> > > > > > > > > privately
> > > > > > > > > > to my friends and
> > get on with projects.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > vale
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > M. Hortensia
> > > > > > > > > > Maior
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > > >
> >
> MÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢IVLÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢SEVERVS
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > <marcusiuliusseverus@>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Salvete
> > Quirites,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Nova Roma is
> > falling apart. The loss of our
> > > > > > > > > Virgo
> > > > > > > > > > Maxima is a
> > terrible sign
> > > > > > > > > > > among
> > everything that has been happening here.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > MaybeÃÆ'‚ I will follow her, since I don't
> > believe
> > > > > > > > > >
> > thatÃÆ'‚ I have much more to do in
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > frustratedÃÆ'‚ Res publica.
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The worst
> > among us seem to win.
> > > > > > > > > > > To M. Valeria
> > messallina: I am your friend, and I
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > be with you
> > whenever you
> > > > > > > > > > > need me.
> > IÃÆ'‚ hope that your mother's health, as
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > as yours, can an
> > will
> > > > > > > > > > > improve.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Valete,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> MÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢IVLÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢SEVERVS
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > SENATOR
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> >
> PROÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢CONSVLÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢PROVINCIÃÆ'Æ'â€
> > > >
> > ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Â¢MEXICI
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text
> > portions of this message have been
> > > > > > > > > removed]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > Links
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > >
> > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > >
> > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [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]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79331 From: Kirsteen Wright Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 4:36 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

> Salve Aeternia;
>
> You didn't support Messallina and it upset her greatly; I want nothing
> more to do with the lot of you.
>


Well this whole thread was about supporting Messalina until you, as usual,
hijacked it for your own purposes, to start complaining about your 'enemies'
and getting a dig at the people you don't like. You couldn't actually just
show support for someone else. Oh no! It has to be all about you.

Merula


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79332 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
C. Petronius Dexter Max. Valeriae Messallinae omnibusque s.p.d.,

I hope that you can review your advice.

Leaving Nova Roma, is not the better solution to struggle against the crisises you talk about. Here you have friends who certainly can give their support to you, you are not alone for facing to your problems.

But leaving Nova Roma is the better solution to keep the worship of Vesta missed and, in my opinion as member of the Collegium Pontificum, I cannot accept Vesta not worshipped. You are our Maxima Vestalis Virgo and I cannot agree with your departure.

You say: "I wish everyone good luck and may Vesta help all Nova Romans."

Vesta will not help all Nova Romans without you.

You say: "Therefore, I resign from all offices and positions, and also, my citizenship."

I beg you, Messallina, to review that so sad advice. It is certainly written in a moment of depression, you are Nova Roman for life and I wish you as sacred fire keeper.

All citizens, please, privately write to Messallina and beg her to be our sacred fire keeper, our Maxima Vestalis Virgo. Vesta needs her as priestess, we need her as Maxima Vestalis Virgo.

A such resignation will be an evil omen...
and the Sibylla said:
Oi me gar eisasin te emon naiontes edethlon,
(Those who are leaving in my sanctuary know me)

So, Messallina, may I hope that you will stay in Nova Roma to worship the goddess Vesta, you know Her.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Flamen Portunalis Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XIX Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79333 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: To all Culters
C. Maria Caeca omnibus in foro S. P. D.

With great humility, and not a little dread, lest I have been presumptuous,
I tell you that Vesta's flame burns here, tended by barely trained, inexpert
hands, yes, by a mere Camilla ... but tended with all the love and reverence
in her ...and will be so until the CP determines what must be done. I am
neither ready nor worthy, nor am I a Vestal ...but I am a Camilla, and have
dedicated myself to her, and been accepted by the CP in her name as being
worthy to eventually give service here ..and it seemed tome that this is a
time when stop gap measures would be accepted by the our gods.

If I am wrong, and if what I do is unacceptable, either to them or to you, I
alone accept all culpability, and all consequences.

Most respectfully,
C. Maria Caeca
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79334 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Salve Sulla,
Maior's posts don't remind me of it, but here you mention one my favourite
films. It's certainly one of the most hilarious films in the history of
cinema. I specially like the end, when it turns our God is a woman.

Vale,
Livia

> Ave,
>
> I understand what you are saying, but to relate it to the situation along
> this thread, when Maior posts, for some reason I am reminded of the movie
> Dogma. A very good Kevin Smith movie where they are constantly saying how
> blind belief in Dogma is what is allowing the two Angels (Ben Affleck and
> Matt Damon) for the end of the Earth. If you haven't seen this movie
> Affleck and Damon are two angels and they are trying to get back to Heaven
> and they found a loophole in Catholic Dogma (hence the name of the movie)
> and it follows their attempt to get back to Heaven regardless of the
> consequences and the other characters of the movie (Selma Hayeck, Chris
> Rock, Fiorentino, and Alan Rickman play the other side who are trying to
> prevent Affleck and Damon from finding a loophole in Catholic Dogma and
> thus
> bring about the end of the world. And the Linda Fieorintino (sp), along
> with
> Chris Rock keep trying to find a way for Linda to find her faith back in
> the
> Catholic Church and he keeps asking her if she believes and ultimately she
> comes to the realization that she does not believe but has a good idea.
> Maior BELIEVES. nothing more and nothing less. Facts, even one's in the
> very text - do not alter her belief. Yes, taken to extreme you can either
> have a psycopath and on the other spectrum, one I believe Maior tends to
> fall into a single minded fanatic (but not charismatic).
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 9:43 PM, C.Maria Caeca
> <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Maria Caeca Sullae sal,
>>
>> um ...that ...is a non-question, containing as id does, your own opinion.
>> However ...since you asked ...either in and of itself, or alone, is
>> unbalanced. I have never thought that intellect and emotion are mutually
>> exclusive, or should act in absolute opposition, creating an either/or
>> situation. My view is that one needs both ...and one also needs to know
>> when
>> which is appropriate. Intellect without emotion can produce a brilliant
>> psychopath: emotion without intellect can produce something equally
>> dangerous ...a charismatic single minded fanatic. both are equally
>> lethal,
>> for different reasons.
>>
>> Well, you *did* ask, yes?
>>
>> Respectfully,
>> Maria Caeca
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79335 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Culters
L. Livia Plauta C. Mariae Cecae sal.

It's a huge relief to know that we won't be left without vestals. Thanks!

Optime vale,
Livia


> C. Maria Caeca omnibus in foro S. P. D.
>
> With great humility, and not a little dread, lest I have been
> presumptuous,
> I tell you that Vesta's flame burns here, tended by barely trained,
> inexpert
> hands, yes, by a mere Camilla ... but tended with all the love and
> reverence
> in her ...and will be so until the CP determines what must be done. I am
> neither ready nor worthy, nor am I a Vestal ...but I am a Camilla, and
> have
> dedicated myself to her, and been accepted by the CP in her name as being
> worthy to eventually give service here ..and it seemed tome that this is a
> time when stop gap measures would be accepted by the our gods.
>
> If I am wrong, and if what I do is unacceptable, either to them or to you,
> I
> alone accept all culpability, and all consequences.
>
> Most respectfully,
> C. Maria Caeca
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79336 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Culters
Salve C Maria;

May She whom you serve, with thoughts towards the wholeness of our Res
Publica, smile on you and your efforts.

Bene Vale - Venator
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79337 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Culters
C. Maria Caeca L. Liviae Plautae S. P. D.

As I have been summarily reminded, I am not a Vestal, at least not yet, and will not be until I complete my training. I am the least of the trainees, the least of the daughters of Nova Roma ...and I am only doing what I have been doing for a long time ...I just ...felt it appropriate to mention it, so that people know that, feeble as it may be, there is light, here.

Respectfully,
C. Maria Caeca, Camilla

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79338 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Offering to Vesta
Offering to Vesta



Your eternal fire

Shields against oblivion

Holds chaos at bay,

Guards against danger,

Answers fear with steady brilliance.



With open heart, I extend my hands

Laying the fruits of my sorrow before you,

Pouring out the wine of my tears,

A storm wrenched leaf trembling on the brink.



Your gentle presence surrounds me,

Reaches into my center, holding me fast,

A cloak enfolding me, warm and safe

Against the splintering cold.



You accept my meager gifts, and to my wonder

Transform them into radiance

That guides my steps through uncertainty

That illuminates and orders confusion,

That, by its presence, brings chaos into order.



With inexpressible gratitude

I take what you have bestowed

And carry it, quietly, into duty.



C. Maria Caeca, 8/14/2010
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79339 From: Kirsteen Wright Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Culters
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 4:13 PM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

> C. Maria Caeca L. Liviae Plautae S. P. D.
>
> .....I just ...felt it appropriate to mention it, so that people know that,
> feeble as it may be, there is light, here.
>
> and I for one am very grateful there is. You may still be in training bit I
feel Vesta's flame is safe in your hands. May Vesta bless you and keep you.
I know the Goddess will be happy to be served by you.

Flavia Lucilla Merula


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79340 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Culters
Maria Caeca Venii sal,

Thank you, and I pray she does, for it she who gives me the courage and the temerity to do what I do.

Vale bene,
C. Maria Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79341 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Culters
Thank you for that reassurance, Merula, frankly, I need it (smile).

Maria Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79342 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Cultores Deorum and to the Forum
L. Iulia Aquila Amicae et Amici, Quirites, Socii, Peregrinisque S.P.D.

I will not address right now the issue of Nova Roma without Vestals or the certain perils of allowing an untrained Camilla to assume such sacred duties of the sacra publica, because it is not a simple action to simply "replace" a Vestal much less our Chief Vestal.
We all, collectively, are responsible if the the Gods of Rome desert Nova Roma.
All of us find it easy to lay blame but few are strong enough to truly shoulder it themselves. This does not come from our words solely but from the actions that support and give credence to our words.

Maxima Valeria Messallina shall always be a Vestal held warmly in the heart of Vesta. She will continue to maintain the Flame of Vesta in her domus. This has not changed.

What is now available are magnificent photos of the expression of love and the commitments of six cultores from "FERIAE PROV. SARMATIAE II":
http://picasaweb.google.com/m.octavius.corvus/FERIAEPROVSARMATIAEII?feat=content_notification#5504776046459740530

If you cannot access this link input "FERIAE PROV. SARMATIAE II" in your search engine.

Again I congratulate all the couples and may Mater Venus guide you, protect you and bless you with strong healthy offspring. May Venus bless your homes so that they are filled with love and strength to endure and enjoy all that life lays at your feet.

To all Novi Romani, without exceptions, May the Mother of ALL Romans, Mater Venus, protect, guide and bless us ALL and intercede with the Gods of Rome on our behalf.

Valete optime in pacem deorum et in pace Veneris!

Julia
Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus


Everywhere man blames nature and fate, yet his fate is mostly but the echo of his character and passions, his mistakes and weaknesses (Democritus)
Remember how often you have postponed minding your interest, and let slip those opportunities the gods have given you. It is now high time to consider what sort of world you are part of, and from what kind of governor of it you are descended; that you have a set period assigned you to act in, and unless you improve it to brighten and compose your thoughts, it will quickly run off with you, and be lost beyond recovery.(Marcus Aurelius)
First take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.(Luke)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79343 From: Lyn Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Culters
L. Aemilia Mamerca C. Mariae Caecae sal.



The vestals are Rome's luck and hopefully, you will add to Nova Roma's. May
all go well for you and thank you for your devotion.



Optime vale,

L. Aemilia



_____

From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of L. Livia Plauta
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 10:51 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] To all Culters





It's a huge relief to know that we won't be left without vestals. Thanks!

Optime vale,
Livia

> C. Maria Caeca omnibus in foro S. P. D.
>
> With great humility, and not a little dread, lest I have been
> presumptuous,
> I tell you that Vesta's flame burns here, tended by barely trained,
> inexpert
> hands, yes, by a mere Camilla ... but tended with all the love and
> reverence
> in her ...and will be so until the CP determines what must be done. I am
> neither ready nor worthy, nor am I a Vestal ...but I am a Camilla, and
> have
> dedicated myself to her, and been accepted by the CP in her name as being
> worthy to eventually give service here ..and it seemed tome that this is a
> time when stop gap measures would be accepted by the our gods.
>
> If I am wrong, and if what I do is unacceptable, either to them or to you,

> I
> alone accept all culpability, and all consequences.
>
> Most respectfully,
> C. Maria Caeca
>
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79344 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Cultores Deorum and to the Forum
What I do is unofficial, and without sanction. I claim no mantle of authority, as you imply, and my greatest joy would be to have our Virgo Maxima back with us.

C.. Maria Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79345 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Culters
Aeternia C. Mariae Caecae s.p.d.


Alas I may not be a Cultor, but again thank you Caeca for steadfastness to
serve NR, may Vesta reward your devotion to her, and provide you guidance in
this most troubled time.

You display the valor of a Valkyrie, in other words you rock..


Vale Optime,
Aeternia


On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 7:21 AM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

>
>
> C. Maria Caeca omnibus in foro S. P. D.
>
> With great humility, and not a little dread, lest I have been presumptuous,
>
> I tell you that Vesta's flame burns here, tended by barely trained,
> inexpert
> hands, yes, by a mere Camilla ... but tended with all the love and
> reverence
> in her ...and will be so until the CP determines what must be done. I am
> neither ready nor worthy, nor am I a Vestal ...but I am a Camilla, and have
>
> dedicated myself to her, and been accepted by the CP in her name as being
> worthy to eventually give service here ..and it seemed tome that this is a
> time when stop gap measures would be accepted by the our gods.
>
> If I am wrong, and if what I do is unacceptable, either to them or to you,
> I
> alone accept all culpability, and all consequences.
>
> Most respectfully,
> C. Maria Caeca
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79346 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: To all Cultores Deorum and to the Forum
Aeternia L.Iuliae Aquilae s.p.d.


Thank you for the links Julia! The pics were amazing, Lentulus looked like
he was having a blast! Congrats again to the newlywedded couples!


Vale Optime,
Aeternia



>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 79347 From: Cato Date: 2010-08-14
Subject: Re: Farewell, Nova Roma
Cato Liviae sal.

Alanis Morissette, I think it was! It was pretty awesome :)

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Sulla,
> Maior's posts don't remind me of it, but here you mention one my favourite
> films. It's certainly one of the most hilarious films in the history of
> cinema. I specially like the end, when it turns our God is a woman.
>
> Vale,
> Livia
>
> > Ave,
> >
> > I understand what you are saying, but to relate it to the situation along
> > this thread, when Maior posts, for some reason I am reminded of the movie
> > Dogma. A very good Kevin Smith movie where they are constantly saying how
> > blind belief in Dogma is what is allowing the two Angels (Ben Affleck and
> > Matt Damon) for the end of the Earth. If you haven't seen this movie
> > Affleck and Damon are two angels and they are trying to get back to Heaven
> > and they found a loophole in Catholic Dogma (hence the name of the movie)
> > and it follows their attempt to get back to Heaven regardless of the
> > consequences and the other characters of the movie (Selma Hayeck, Chris
> > Rock, Fiorentino, and Alan Rickman play the other side who are trying to
> > prevent Affleck and Damon from finding a loophole in Catholic Dogma and
> > thus
> > bring about the end of the world. And the Linda Fieorintino (sp), along
> > with
> > Chris Rock keep trying to find a way for Linda to find her faith back in
> > the
> > Catholic Church and he keeps asking her if she believes and ultimately she
> > comes to the realization that she does not believe but has a good idea.
> > Maior BELIEVES. nothing more and nothing less. Facts, even one's in the
> > very text - do not alter her belief. Yes, taken to extreme you can either
> > have a psycopath and on the other spectrum, one I believe Maior tends to
> > fall into a single minded fanatic (but not charismatic).
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 9:43 PM, C.Maria Caeca
> > <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Maria Caeca Sullae sal,
> >>
> >> um ...that ...is a non-question, containing as id does, your own opinion.
> >> However ...since you asked ...either in and of itself, or alone, is
> >> unbalanced. I have never thought that intellect and emotion are mutually
> >> exclusive, or should act in absolute opposition, creating an either/or
> >> situation. My view is that one needs both ...and one also needs to know
> >> when
> >> which is appropriate. Intellect without emotion can produce a brilliant
> >> psychopath: emotion without intellect can produce something equally
> >> dangerous ...a charismatic single minded fanatic. both are equally
> >> lethal,
> >> for different reasons.
> >>
> >> Well, you *did* ask, yes?
> >>
> >> Respectfully,
> >> Maria Caeca
> >>
> >>
> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>