M. Moravius dicit

No Augur refused. How often do you need to be told? ALL of the Augures have stated this fact.

You are not an augur, and you do not know the procedures we follow. Auspices may not be taken on certain days, certain times of the year, or under certain weather conditions. Augurs may not take auspices if they have any open wounds, if the wind blows out their lamps, and they are never to take auspices before purification and preparation. It is not a perfunctory ritual and it not to be made in a perfunctory manner. A magistrate must wait for the auspices to be taken, and therefore he must await augures time to prepare for the auspices to be taken properly. Do you have a problem understanding that too?

"Done well, is done soon enough," as Cato said, and taking the time to perform the auspices properly is not a refusal to take them. You ought to be advising your younger countryman in patience rather than falsely accusing others of being liars.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,
>
> If the consul wanted to obtain from augures auspices and beg you to perform auspicia, you are not able to refuse his demand even if the Senate is yet in session.
>
> Gods are able to give their response any time.
>
> In refusing to take auspices, you made by yourself an obstruction, that is all.
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>

Cato Piscino sal.

Nope - I'm suggesting that you conform - again - to actual ancient practice rather than finding yet another way of enlarging your ego :)

Vale!

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Cato
>
> Are you offering to buy me a house in Rome?
>
> Vale
>
> M. Moravius Pontifex Maximus
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Piscino sal.
> >
> > Shouldn't this read "ex Domo Publicae", since the official residenceof the Pontifex Maximus was the Domus Publica?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ex Domo Pontifici Maximi:
> > >
> >
>

M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Ego vos iubeo bono animo esse.

Hodie est ante diem XI Kalendas Septembres; haec dies endotercisus est:

Today is one of the eight days in the year that is "cut into parts," intercisus or endotercisus. The morning hours before the day's sacrifice is regarded as dies nefastus. After the initial sacrifices the day is regarded as dies fastus until the evening, when the entrails of the sacrificial victims from that morning are stretched over the altars and the day reverts to dies nefastus as the sacrifices are finalized.


The Authority of a Pontifex Maximus Over Magistrates and Citizens

"The last branch of the ordinances of Numa related to the sacred offices allotted to those who held the higher priesthoods and the greatest power among the Romans. These . . . pontifices . . . have jurisdiction over the most weighty matters. For they are the judges in all religious matters concerning private citizens, magistrates or the ministers of the Gods; they make laws for the observance of any religious rites, not established by written law or custom, which may seem to them worthy of receiving the sanction of law and custom; they inquire into the conduct of all magistrates to whom the performance of any sacrifice or other religious duty is committed, and also into that of all the priests; they take care that their servants and ministers whom they employ in religious rites commit no error in the matter of the sacred laws; to the laymen who are unacquainted with such matters they are the expounders and interpreters of everything relating to the worship of the Gods and genii; and if they find that any disobey their orders, they inflict punishment upon them with due regard to every offence; moreover, they are not liable to any prosecution or punishment, nor are they accountable to the senate or to the people, at least concerning religious matters." ~ Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 2.73

"Pontifex maximus: The pontiff maximus is thus called because he is the supreme judge of all things which touch upon the sacrifices and the holy ceremonies, and becaue he punishes private individuals and the magistrates for the violations they made." ~ Festus s. v.

AUC 511/ 242 BCE: "Pontifex maximus Caecilius Metellus kept consul Aulus Postumius, who was priest of Mars too, in the city when he wanted to set out to wage war. He was not allowed to ignore his religious duties." ~ T. Livius, Perioche 19.11

"When the consul Postumius, who was also the flamen Martialis, proposed to go to Africa to wage war, the pontifex maximus Metellus named a fine and would not allow him to leave Rome, lest he depart from his religious duties. The highest state power yielded to religion; for it seemed Postumius would not safely commit himself to martial conflict after abandoning the rituals for Mars." ~ Valerius Maximus 1.1.2

AUC 544 / BCE 209: "P. Licinius, the Pontifex Maximus, compelled C. Valerius Flaccus to be consecrated, against his will, a Flamen of Jupiter. C. Laetorius was appointed one of the Keepers of the Sacred Books in place of Q. Mucius Scaevola, deceased. Had not the bad repute into which Valerius had fallen given place to a good and honourable character, I should have preferred to keep silence as to the cause of his forcible consecration. It was in consequence of his careless and dissolute life as a young man, which had estranged his own brother Lucius and his other relations, that the Pontifex Maximus made him a Flamen. When his thoughts became wholly occupied with the performance of his sacred duties he threw off his former character so completely that amongst all the young men in Rome, none held a higher place in the esteem and approbation of the leading patricians, whether personal friends or strangers to him. Encouraged by this general feeling he gained sufficient self-confidence to revive a custom which, owing to the low character of former Flamens, had long fallen into disuse; he took his seat in the senate. As soon as he appeared L. Licinius the praetor had him removed. He claimed it as the ancient privilege of the priesthood and pleaded that it was conferred together with the toga praetexta and curule chair as belonging to the Flamen's office. The praetor refused to rest the question upon obsolete precedents drawn from the annalists and appealed to recent usage. No Flamen of Jupiter, he argued, had exercised that right within the memory of their fathers or their grandfathers. The tribunes, when appealed to, gave it as their opinion that as it was through the supineness and negligence of individual Flamens that the practice had fallen into abeyance, the priesthood ought not to be deprived of its rights. They led the Flamen into the senate amid the warm approval of the House and without any opposition even from the praetor, though every one felt that Flaccus had gained his seat more through the purity and integrity of his life than through any right inherent in his office." ~ T. Livius 27. 8

AUC 547 / 206 BCE: "When M. Marcellus, who first conquered Clastidium and then Syracusa, desired in his fifth consulship to consecrate a temple to Honos and Virtus in due resolution of his previous vows, he was obstructed by the Collegium Pontificum on the ground that a single sanctuary could not properly be dedicated to two deities, arguing that if some prodigy were to occur therein, it would be impossible to determine to which of the two an expiatory ceremony should be performed and that it was not customary to sacrifice to two deities at once, with certain exceptions. The pontifical admonition resulted in Marcellus placing images of Honos and Virtus in two different shrines. Thus neither the authority of so great a man weighed with the Collegium Pontificum nor the additional expense with Marcellus so as to interfere with due course and due observance rendered in matters of religion." ~ Valerius Maximus 1.1.8

AUC 594/ 160 BCE : "Praetor Gnaeus Tremellius was fined, because he had illegally opposed Pontifex Maximus Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. The claims of the religious authorities were stronger than that of the magistrates." ~ T. Livius, Perioche 47.1


Aedesia

In various neopagan calendars you will find today's date indicated as a festival for Aedesia. There is some question as to whether she ever lived, and if she did, whether she was really a significant person in the circle of fifth century CE Neoplatonist philosophers. Then, of course, there is the whole question as to whether a festival was held in her honor. The festival seems to be a modern invention, and an often repeated error. None the less, Aedesia (Suda s. v. Aidesia) is mentioned in passing by Damascius in his biography of Isodorus, paragraphs 74 and 76. She was supposedly the granddaughter of Syrianus who led the Neoplatonist school of Alexandria. Syrianus had two prominent students, Proclus and Hermias. Aedesia was first engaged by Syrianus to his relative Proclus, who then declared that a God had ordered him to remain celibate. She instead married Hermias who became the head of Alexandrian School of Neoplatonism, while Proclus went on to head the Neoplatonist Academia in Athens. Aedesia was mother to Ammonius, who succeeded his father at Alexandria and who was renowned for his commentaries on Aristotle, and mother to Heliodorus who adopted an austere lifestyle as other Neoplatonists were to do. When Hermias died, Aedesia took her son Heliodorus to Athens to study under Proclus. Aedesia was considered a philosopher in her own right. She had certainly been surrounded by the greatest Neoplatonists of her age, and at Athens she came to study under Proclus as well. Known for her virtue, gained through the practice of philosophy, she lived a long life. Damascius delivered her eulogy in hexameter verse. Following the practice begun by the Epicurians, it would have been usual to celebrate a philosopher and teacher on the anniversary of his or her passage into the next life. Thus it is well within the realm of possibility that Aedesia was celebrated in the Neoplatonist circles of Late Antiquity. But there is no textual evidence to support a festival being held on this date in her honor.


Today's thought is from Valerius Maximus 2.9.1:

"What good is it to be energetic outside the house when your home-life within is bad."



Religio_Romana_Cultorum_Deorum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Cato Piscino sal.

And are these the *only* "determinations" that you made at this session?

You can play semantics for as long as you want, Piscinus. I'll just keep asking questions.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete Cato et Quirites
>
> The Collegium Pontificum discusses many topics throughout the year. Only its determinations are reported, as has always been the case.
>
> Valete
>
> M. Moravius Pontifex Maximus
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Piscino sal.
> >
> > Are these *all* the items voted on in the College of Pontiffs' meeting?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ex Domo Pontifici Maximi:
> > >
> > > M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Pontifex Maximus: P. Memmio Albucio, K. Fabio Buteone Quintiliano Consulibus, Tribunibus Plebis, Senatoribus Senatricibusque, Patribus Mátribusque Conscriptís, Civibus Novae Romae, Quiritibus: salutem plurimam dicit:
> > >
> > > The Collegium Pontificum having met Die pristini Eidus Sextiliae (Thurs. 12 July) and concluding its discussion on a. d. XIII Kalendas Septembres issues the following:
> > >
> > > Ego dico edico cum Divis volentibus ut Collegium Pontificum hoc decretum protulit:
> > >
> > > QUOD BONUM FAUSTVM FORTUNATUMQVE SIT POPULO NOVO ROMANO QUIRITIBUS:
> > >
> > > ITEM I: Decretum diebus fastis A. U. C. MMDCCLXIV
> > >
> > > "The Collegium Pontificum approves of the revised Calendar for AUC MMDCCLXIV as
> > > recommended by Pontifex maximus M. Moravius and Flamen C. Petronius."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > QUOD BONUM FAUSTVM FORTUNATUMQVE SIT POPULO NOVO ROMANO QUIRITIBUS:
> > >
> > > ITEM II: Decretum de Consule P. Memmio impietate prudente dolo malo.
> > >
> > > "The Collegium Pontificum, upon the request of the Collegium Augurum, has determined that Consul P. Memmius Albucius had violated previous instructions by the Augures Publicii, as laid out in the Decretum augurum de tripudio inrito, and thereby he has knowingly violated the Decretum collegii pontificum et augurum de iure auspicandi et tripudio in regard to the provisions of De Impietate et Auspicando.
> > >
> > > "Therefore, the Collegium Pontificum has determined that Consul P. Memmius Albucius, in ignoring the augures publici and their collegium, knowingly proceeded with the conduct of elections in the comitia centuriata without valid auspices, on a date not approved by the Gods, and without selection of a centuria praerogativa as required by law. It is therefore the determination of the Collegium Pontificum that, under the Decretum collegii pontificum et augurum de iure auspicandi et tripudio, Consul P. Memmius Albucius has indeed committed
> > > an offence of impietas prudens dolo malo in violation of the Constitution and Decreta Collegii Pontificum et Augurum by knowingly convening an assembly of the Comitia Centuriata and the Senate without performance of a valid auspication."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > QUOD BONUM FAUSTVM FORTUNATUMQVE SIT POPULO NOVO ROMANO QUIRITIBUS:
> > >
> > > ITEM III: Decretum Pontificum de M. Hortensia Flamenica Carmentis
> > >
> > > "Having completed her instruction as previously given by the Collegium Pontificum, the voting privileges of Flamenica M. Hortensia in the Collegium Pontificum are restored."
> > >
> > >
> > > Di immortales faciant, tam felix quam pia.
> > >
> > > Datum sub manu mea a. d. XII Kal. Sept. P. Memmio K. Fabio ccs in anno a. .u .c. MMDCCLXIII
> > >
> >
>

C. Petronius omnibus civibus s.p.d.,

I beg your attention on a subject. Our voting system.

Now the big problem seems the IT problem, but it is not a big problem to vote. We can vote in another ways.

But, reading some works about the Roman tribes voting system I discovered 2 Roman obligations very wise.

A vote is possible only if the voters number is odd.
With 4, 6, 8... voters you can have an ex aequo vote, so a vote without decision.
With 3,5,7,9 voters you cannot.

So the tribes created by Rome since the beginning of the comitia tributa were 21 to replace the earlier 4 tribes. Indeed, with 4 tribes, Comitia Tributa could have votes ex aequo, and 4 was a too little number to enroll all citizens...

Second things very wise.
Only 2 votes: or "yes" "Vti rogas" or "no" "Antiquo".
Abstain did not exist. Romans were frank, they only voted or "yes" or "no".

In our NR democracy, I noticed votes "abstain" and votes with results ex aequo.

I think that ancient Romans as Asterix would say: "These New Romans are crazy!" or better "Sono Pazzi Questi novi Romani!"

But we can change that, if we want it and become more Romans.

Optime valete.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,

> You persist in your falsehoods. Augur Modianus told you inside the Collegium Pontificum, as I have told you as well, and as Augur Agricola shall confirm, Consul Albucius has not cooperated at all with the Collegium Augurum and the Augures have never refused to take auspices for him.

You play with words... you say "he has not cooperated". I said he beg you to take auspices by mails.

Now, he posted publicly, as I begged to him, his demand. Did you take, you or another augure, the auspicia?

People will see and judge.

Lying is not a good thing, mostly for an augur.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Tribunus Plebis Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

C. Maria Caeca Gn. Equitio Catoni omnibusque in foro S. P. D.

If that law passes, (it hasn't yet, correct?), and if that course is taught, I will be first in line to take it. I may never run for high office, but I am a cives of the Res Publica, and I would very much prefer to be a well informed, knowledgeable cives. There, I hope that this suggestion gets very serious consideration, and hope to see in soon on a ballot, so I can vote for it.

Valete Bene,
Respectfully,
C. Maria Caeca

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

C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,

> No Augur refused. How often do you need to be told? ALL of the Augures have stated this fact.

Where? In the CP we had nothing to judge that, no files, no e-mails copy, nothing only your version.

> You are not an augur, and you do not know the procedures we follow.

Yes, I only am a flamen. And I am proud to only be a flamen. But, you Moravi, you cumulate magister augurum and pontifex maximus positions. K. Modianus makes better, he is flamine, pontifex and augur!

All that is not good for the religio Romana as you demonstrate it by your messages, in which you confuse all.

Even to push the CP to vote an "impietas prudens dolo malo" about things concerning the augurs in which we had nothing as files, e-mails, nothing but only your point of view.

You have tyrannic maneers... but, one day you will have the backlash of your tyranny.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,

> Hodie est ante diem XI Kalendas Septembres;

Correct.

> haec dies endotercisus est:

No correct. "hic dies endotercisus est"

But as I say: Every failure is a step closer to succes.

> Today's thought is from Valerius Maximus 2.9.1:
> "What good is it to be energetic outside the house when your home-life within is bad."

I noticed that you like to end your messages with deep thoughts, if it is good to write them, it is better to follow them.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Cato Piscino sal.

Spoken by the man who has single-handedly done more grievous harm to our Respublica than any human, alive or dead; and who knows so little about our law that he has attempted - several times - not only to break it, but to force others to break it as well.

You are as great a dissembler as Maior, Piscinus - and equally as truthful.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Cato
>
> And when will you be enrolling in this class?
>
> I still recall how you tried to argue that Scaevola had to be compelled to testify against himself, even though Nova Roma law strictly forbids it. Try reading the Leges Saliciae that you tried to prosecute Scaevola under.
>
> Then there was the time you tried to argue that an aedilis holds tha same imperium as a consul and that as an aedilis you could assemble the Senate. That got you thrown out of the Senate.
>
> As for your notorious argument on the use of "shall" in the Constitution, and your interpretations about many other aspects of Roman law and Nova Roma law, I am surprised that you have not included a requirement that Senators first take a class on our laws. But then if you had, you would have to be expelled as a very poor student on Nova Roma law.
>
> So who do you suppose will teach this course? Perhaps our former consuls should as they know the law better than any since they wrote most of our laws or collaborated on them. So, Marinus, Modianus, Complutensis, Severus, Quintilianus, Apulus, oh, me, Piscinus, too, Sabinus, Popillius Laenas and six other consularii. So who do you think the Senate might appoint to teach such a course?
>
> Vale
>
> M. Moravius Piscinus
>
> Senator Consularius
> Pontifex Maximus
> Magister Collegii Augurum
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato omnibus in foro SPD
> >
> > I'd like to present here a suggestion I made quite a while ago; it may act as a useful tool not only for those who wish to become magistrates in the future but also current magistrates and, in fact, any Nova Roman who has read some of the speeches here and scratched their heads and said, "what?"
> >
> > As we have seen in the recent past, many of our magistrates have had little or no understanding of our law. This might help:
> >
> > "lex ________________ de Legibus Discendis
> >
> > I. Any citizen seeking the office of tribune, praetor, or consul will be required to first complete successfully an 'Introduction to Nova Roman Law' class.
> >
> > II. This class will be administered three times a year, beginning the Kalends of Februarius, Kalends of Iunius, and Kalends of Octobris, under the authority of one citizen appointed annually by the Senate and one citizen appointed annually by the tribunes of the plebs.
> >
> > III. This course may also be taken at any time it is offered by any
> > citizen who is interested as often as they would like without restriction; once a citizen has successfully completed the course he or she does not need to take it again to run for any office in the future.
> >
> > IV. The course may include quizzes and essay requirements, and will
> > culminate in a final exam that will be submitted to a blind panel of five chosen from among the senators and tribunes by lot. The results of the final exam will be posted in the forum within one week of the final exam being given.
> >
> > V. This law shall take effect on the Kalends of Ianuarius ____."
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>

Ave,

> But as I say: Every failure is a step closer to succes.

Oups, troubled by my French... obviously read "success"

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Cato Piscino sal.

It just occurred to me that, unlike you, I did not presume to make myself a teacher of this class. I offer it only to aid the Respublica and her citizens, not to heap praises or authority on myself.

You seem to suspect all those around you with motives that are clearly your own.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Cato
>
> And when will you be enrolling in this class?
>
> I still recall how you tried to argue that Scaevola had to be compelled to testify against himself, even though Nova Roma law strictly forbids it. Try reading the Leges Saliciae that you tried to prosecute Scaevola under.
>
> Then there was the time you tried to argue that an aedilis holds tha same imperium as a consul and that as an aedilis you could assemble the Senate. That got you thrown out of the Senate.
>
> As for your notorious argument on the use of "shall" in the Constitution, and your interpretations about many other aspects of Roman law and Nova Roma law, I am surprised that you have not included a requirement that Senators first take a class on our laws. But then if you had, you would have to be expelled as a very poor student on Nova Roma law.
>
> So who do you suppose will teach this course? Perhaps our former consuls should as they know the law better than any since they wrote most of our laws or collaborated on them. So, Marinus, Modianus, Complutensis, Severus, Quintilianus, Apulus, oh, me, Piscinus, too, Sabinus, Popillius Laenas and six other consularii. So who do you think the Senate might appoint to teach such a course?
>
> Vale
>
> M. Moravius Piscinus
>
> Senator Consularius
> Pontifex Maximus
> Magister Collegii Augurum
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato omnibus in foro SPD
> >
> > I'd like to present here a suggestion I made quite a while ago; it may act as a useful tool not only for those who wish to become magistrates in the future but also current magistrates and, in fact, any Nova Roman who has read some of the speeches here and scratched their heads and said, "what?"
> >
> > As we have seen in the recent past, many of our magistrates have had little or no understanding of our law. This might help:
> >
> > "lex ________________ de Legibus Discendis
> >
> > I. Any citizen seeking the office of tribune, praetor, or consul will be required to first complete successfully an 'Introduction to Nova Roman Law' class.
> >
> > II. This class will be administered three times a year, beginning the Kalends of Februarius, Kalends of Iunius, and Kalends of Octobris, under the authority of one citizen appointed annually by the Senate and one citizen appointed annually by the tribunes of the plebs.
> >
> > III. This course may also be taken at any time it is offered by any
> > citizen who is interested as often as they would like without restriction; once a citizen has successfully completed the course he or she does not need to take it again to run for any office in the future.
> >
> > IV. The course may include quizzes and essay requirements, and will
> > culminate in a final exam that will be submitted to a blind panel of five chosen from among the senators and tribunes by lot. The results of the final exam will be posted in the forum within one week of the final exam being given.
> >
> > V. This law shall take effect on the Kalends of Ianuarius ____."
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>

C. Petronius M. Moravius s.p.d.,

> So, Marinus, Modianus, Complutensis, Severus, Quintilianus, Apulus, oh, me, Piscinus, too, Sabinus, Popillius Laenas and six other consularii.

The funniest is you forgot the best of the NR consul about the application of the laws: P. Memmius Albucius.

It is the same on you? You forgot the best if he is not your friend and prefer listed only those you like?

I am sure that it was the same fashion about the auspicia, you tell the story according to your interest.

Lying is not a good thing, mostly for an augur.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Salve Cato...

The Cultus Privatus and social background from which I spring suits me
to better love Justice more than Law. I believe that custom,
tradition and community bonds (these are known as Thews by many within
the Religio Septentrionalis) are more in keeping with the policies and
polities of human behavior within a society.

We can see remnants of this structure in the Roman tradition of
dividing the Cives into Tribes and Centuries, in the Mos Maiorum and
in the respect paid for the strictures of the Religio upon the
calendar.

However, as a Cives Nova Roma under a Res Publica, I accept that we
actually operate within a system, which is a hybrid of Thew and Law,
neither horse, nor donkey.

I would take such a course, as I am interested in completing the Mos
Maiorum someday...

Vale - Venator

C. Petronius C. Catonis s.p.d.,

> You seem to suspect all those around you with motives that are clearly your own.

Yes, I think you pointed out the problem of this man.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

C. Maria Caeca C. Petronio Dextero omnibusque in foro S. P. D.

Thank you, Tribune, for your kind words. However, since what I have presented are only the thoughts and writings of a private citizen, have no official status, and since I do not speak, in any way, shape or form for all of NR, I think that having my work published on the NR web site would probably be inappropriate. However, I very much appreciate, on a purely personal level, your wish to do so, and I thank you for that, as well.

Respectfully,
Vale et valete bene,

C. Maria Caeca

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

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

And here, in their full glory, we have the pride and fantasies of Moravius Piscinus exposed.

Thank the gods that our law does *not* allow the kind meddling in the civil government that these quotes - some taken quite out of context by Piscinus, although that is a well-established habit of his.

Valete,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:

>
> The Authority of a Pontifex Maximus Over Magistrates and Citizens

C. Petronius Dexter C. Mariae Caecae omnibusque s.p.d.,

> Thank you, Tribune, for your kind words. However, since what I have presented are only the thoughts and writings of a private citizen,

I think that the thoughts of Marcus Aurelius was private too, but as they were philosophical and of an emperor they were published.

I do not want that you believe I am kidding or I am malicious in making a comparison between your thoughts and Marcus Aurelius'. I just want to say that, in my opinion, your poems to Vesta can be published on the NR web site on a page dedicated to Vesta even if they are thoughts or prayers of a private citizen.

Why not? Prayers can be published, I think.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Cato Mariae Caecae Petronio Dextero omnibusque in foro SPD

And they *should* be encouraged; any and all private devotions are worthy of being seen and heard by our citizens.

This is the kind of thing that makes the religiones Romanae come alive - not the obnoxious, self-aggrandizing rantings we've been seeing coming from the man currently in the chair of the pontifex maximus.

Valete,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius Dexter C. Mariae Caecae omnibusque s.p.d.,
>
> > Thank you, Tribune, for your kind words. However, since what I have presented are only the thoughts and writings of a private citizen,
>
> I think that the thoughts of Marcus Aurelius was private too, but as they were philosophical and of an emperor they were published.
>
> I do not want that you believe I am kidding or I am malicious in making a comparison between your thoughts and Marcus Aurelius'. I just want to say that, in my opinion, your poems to Vesta can be published on the NR web site on a page dedicated to Vesta even if they are thoughts or prayers of a private citizen.
>
> Why not? Prayers can be published, I think.
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>

Moravio auguri s.d.

Independantly of the official messages that I will send to you, as PM, in the next days, both on the declaration of impetas issued by the "CP" and the application of the judicial sentence condemning Hortensia, I feel necessary to bring a few informations after your message below.

>False: The responsibility lies with the Consul to attain favorable auspices BEFORE calling the Senate to assemble. He did not.

This is a wrong lecture of our/the Roman Law. The responsibility of a presiding curule magistrate is *to hold a session under favorable auspices.* That's all.
Naturally, saying this simply like that just underlines the fact that a curule magistrate has all the rights to take her/his auspices, either alone or assited by augur(s), reality that you oppose strongly.

This is just what I did : after having asked every time for the auspicia and inside a *reasonable schedule*, I took, either because the augur committed a mistake in his taking, or because I received no answer in the requested time, myself my auspices.

And please do not argue on the *reasonable schedule*, for you know as I do that I respected the lenght of the time period that you have yourself given be as being reasonable.

>Further, the Augures informed him that the Senate was already in session at the time and that he would have to wait. He did not.

Yes, just for a simple (again) reason: the evoked session was called in violation of our Constitution, as I set it clearly at this time.
You as augur, and your colleagues should have been cautious to take this position in due consideration and to tell yourselves that you could not oppose a legally session because an illegal one was pending. You should have realized at this time that your interpretation would be seen as it probably was: a political support brought to this illegal session.
You had the good opportunity to show that, as augures, you were honest and independant. You did not take it.

>Issuing an announcement of calling the Senate on a sepcific date, and including in that announcement a
>request for auspices is not the same as awaiting the result of an auspicium. (..)
>The Augures Publici have never refused to take the auspices for Consul Albucius or for any magistrate, but
>Albucius seems to be the first magistrate who is so impatient, so full of himself, to follow procedures and await results that he finds inconvenient for
>his schedule. Well, the augures have their own procedures to follow in such matters.

Here is an additional objective point, even not said clearly, which completes your ideology : you just consider that the augurs have (as probably the religious institutions) have a own agenda, as such, which is not submitted or is just not required entering the general agenda impulsed by the consuls.

This is the whole gap existing between our positions: the augurs are public officers, as other ones. As public officers, they cannot have their own agenda, except when the conditions of their work, as such, limit by force their good will serving the Republic. Similarly, the augurs cannot seriously pretend needing more than a nundinum, at worst 2 weeks in special circumstances. We saw in addition, this year, that an augur like Modianus, despite his fresh experience, could be much reactive on the requests issued by his adoptive father.

There cannot be a Religious State inside the State, a Religious State which would impose its agenda to the Republic, refuse to apply, as you do, the judicial sentences of the Republic, and in addition might sanction the civil Powers being itself immune of sanction.

Your motivation, as you expressed it to me, seems apparently a honorable one : to avoid that the Religio romana be handled by people who would not be worthy of it, or lower it, or fight for its destruction. This position brings you to think that you must oppose by any means to the fact that a non-cultor of the Religio Romana, like Senator praetorius Cato, for example, be brought to take his auspices as future consul (if elected).

Independantly of the fact that, if you were to keep in Nova Roma just the true, or even, regular cultors, you would exclude out of our community probably 90 % of its members, you underestimate the fact that the Religio Romana did and does not require citizens to be believers, but just to respect and implement rites and processes. And I think that our RR-non cultors, like our Christian cives, are fully able to conduct those rites and processes much correctly.

Vale,


P. Memmius Albucius cos.




_____________________________________________________________________


Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:14 pm
Message #79514 of 79536




Re: And the farce continues...

M. Moravius Piscinus Quiritibus s. p. d.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@...>
wrote:

>
> It is too late. The session ended on August 1st.
> The no-taking of the auspicia is the fault of the augurs, who did not did

their job, it is not the fault of the consul.

>

False: The responsibility lies with the Consul to attain favorable auspices
BEFORE calling the Senate to assemble. He did not. Issuing an announcement of
calling the Senate on a sepcific date, and including in that announcement a
request for auspices is not the same as awaiting the result of an auspicium.
Further, the Augures informed him that the Senate was already in session at the
time and that he would have to wait. He did not. The Augures Publici have never
refused to take the auspices for Consul Albucius or for any magistrate, but
Albucius seems to be the first magistrate who is so impatient, so full of
himself, to follow procedures and await results that he finds inconvenient for
his schedule. Well, the augures have their own procedures to follow in such
matters.


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

Why am I reminded at this point of M. Octavius's post about Piscinus typing
oh vestal my vestal on the BA. LOL

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato omnibus in foro SPD
>
> And here, in their full glory, we have the pride and fantasies of Moravius
> Piscinus exposed.
>
> Thank the gods that our law does *not* allow the kind meddling in the civil
> government that these quotes - some taken quite out of context by Piscinus,
> although that is a well-established habit of his.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > The Authority of a Pontifex Maximus Over Magistrates and Citizens
>
>
>


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

C. Maria Caeca Cn. Equitio Catoni S. P. D.

*laughs* But Senator, what I do is so ...so ...unorthopractic! I would have thought that you would consider me lacking in decorum, at the very least, and what I do mildly distasteful!

That you seem not to, surprises me, but, I will admit, pleases me as well, coming as it does from one for I have always held a high measure of respect.

Vale bene,
C. Maria Caeca

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

Also the blackmail attempt by the antipope Piscinus against Cato and myself
seemed to put the breaks on any movement on the law committee.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato Marco Crispo Petronio Dextero omnibusque in for SPD
>
> The consularis Complutensis set up a committee to examine our laws last
> year; unfortunately, although several citizens were actively involved in it
> without further support from the government - and my being accused of
> treason(!) - it sort of just stalled.
>
> It would be ideal to have it start up again under more favorable
> circumstances, with the specific goal of taking a close look at the
> tabularium and even a simple glossary of terms wherein we create the precise
> legal definitions of any terms that might be seen as unclear.
>
> One thing to bear in mind is that as long as we do not contradict the basic
> laws under which we are incorporated, we can decide exactly what we want our
> law to mean, independent of any outside influence.
>
> I know that the idea of working with our law is seen as useless to some and
> totally uninteresting to others, but perhaps interested citizens could
> simply gather together and work on it independently. With interested
> citizens it could very well serve as a learning experience for all of us.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
> >
> > C. Petronius C. Catoni s.p.d.,
> >
> > I agree with this effort to make citizens more familiar with the laws.
> >
> > But, I also suggest to have the "handbook of the perfect laws writer".
> The NR laws all are bad written with words ambiguous which permitt all the
> interpretations you want and that shows us that before to learn laws we must
> learn to write them.
> >
> > If laws are contradictory and some are like that, we must to modify that,
> etc.
> >
> > Optime vale.
> >
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> > Arcoiali scribebat
> > a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> >
>
>
>


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

Actually SHALL is an imperative and our own constitution givens a perfect
example.


*2*. *Consul*. Two consuls shall be elected annually by the *comitia
centuriata* to serve a term lasting one year. They shall have the following
honors, powers, and obligations:

Then you have the 10 commandments:

Thou Shall not kill
Thou Shall not bear false witness
Thou Shall not steal

But I guess those are just ambiguous statements for you?

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 5:39 AM, marcushoratius <MHoratius@...>wrote:

>
>
> Salve Cato
>
> And when will you be enrolling in this class?
>
> I still recall how you tried to argue that Scaevola had to be compelled to
> testify against himself, even though Nova Roma law strictly forbids it. Try
> reading the Leges Saliciae that you tried to prosecute Scaevola under.
>
> Then there was the time you tried to argue that an aedilis holds tha same
> imperium as a consul and that as an aedilis you could assemble the Senate.
> That got you thrown out of the Senate.
>
> As for your notorious argument on the use of "shall" in the Constitution,
> and your interpretations about many other aspects of Roman law and Nova Roma
> law, I am surprised that you have not included a requirement that Senators
> first take a class on our laws. But then if you had, you would have to be
> expelled as a very poor student on Nova Roma law.
>
> So who do you suppose will teach this course? Perhaps our former consuls
> should as they know the law better than any since they wrote most of our
> laws or collaborated on them. So, Marinus, Modianus, Complutensis, Severus,
> Quintilianus, Apulus, oh, me, Piscinus, too, Sabinus, Popillius Laenas and
> six other consularii. So who do you think the Senate might appoint to teach
> such a course?
>
> Vale
>
> M. Moravius Piscinus
>
> Senator Consularius
> Pontifex Maximus
> Magister Collegii Augurum
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Cato"
> <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
> >
> > Cato omnibus in foro SPD
> >
> > I'd like to present here a suggestion I made quite a while ago; it may
> act as a useful tool not only for those who wish to become magistrates in
> the future but also current magistrates and, in fact, any Nova Roman who has
> read some of the speeches here and scratched their heads and said, "what?"
> >
> > As we have seen in the recent past, many of our magistrates have had
> little or no understanding of our law. This might help:
> >
> > "lex ________________ de Legibus Discendis
> >
> > I. Any citizen seeking the office of tribune, praetor, or consul will be
> required to first complete successfully an 'Introduction to Nova Roman Law'
> class.
> >
> > II. This class will be administered three times a year, beginning the
> Kalends of Februarius, Kalends of Iunius, and Kalends of Octobris, under the
> authority of one citizen appointed annually by the Senate and one citizen
> appointed annually by the tribunes of the plebs.
> >
> > III. This course may also be taken at any time it is offered by any
> > citizen who is interested as often as they would like without
> restriction; once a citizen has successfully completed the course he or she
> does not need to take it again to run for any office in the future.
> >
> > IV. The course may include quizzes and essay requirements, and will
> > culminate in a final exam that will be submitted to a blind panel of five
> chosen from among the senators and tribunes by lot. The results of the final
> exam will be posted in the forum within one week of the final exam being
> given.
> >
> > V. This law shall take effect on the Kalends of Ianuarius ____."
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>
>
>


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

That is SO true. No wonder NR is as messed up as it is.

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 5:54 AM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

>
>
> C. Petronius omnibus civibus s.p.d.,
>
> > M. Moravius Piscinus
>
> > Pontifex Maximus
> > Magister Collegii Augurum
>
> This cumulation on the same head is the crux of all the NR problems. The
> Ancients wiser never did that.
>
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>
>
>


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

But then if Piscinus could not lie - then he could not open his mouth EVER!
And he would have no fun wreaking havoc in NR. And plotting another coup
attempt!

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:34 AM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

>
>
> C. Petronius M. Moravius s.p.d.,
>
>
> > So, Marinus, Modianus, Complutensis, Severus, Quintilianus, Apulus, oh,
> me, Piscinus, too, Sabinus, Popillius Laenas and six other consularii.
>
> The funniest is you forgot the best of the NR consul about the application
> of the laws: P. Memmius Albucius.
>
> It is the same on you? You forgot the best if he is not your friend and
> prefer listed only those you like?
>
> I am sure that it was the same fashion about the auspicia, you tell the
> story according to your interest.
>
> Lying is not a good thing, mostly for an augur.
>
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>
>
>


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

Nope they are not.

On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato Piscino sal.
>
> Are these *all* the items voted on in the College of Pontiffs' meeting?
>
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
> >
> > Ex Domo Pontifici Maximi:
> >
> > M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Pontifex Maximus: P. Memmio Albucio, K.
> Fabio Buteone Quintiliano Consulibus, Tribunibus Plebis, Senatoribus
> Senatricibusque, Patribus M�tribusque Conscript�s, Civibus Novae Romae,
> Quiritibus: salutem plurimam dicit:
> >
> > The Collegium Pontificum having met Die pristini Eidus Sextiliae (Thurs.
> 12 July) and concluding its discussion on a. d. XIII Kalendas Septembres
> issues the following:
> >
> > Ego dico edico cum Divis volentibus ut Collegium Pontificum hoc decretum
> protulit:
> >
> > QUOD BONUM FAUSTVM FORTUNATUMQVE SIT POPULO NOVO ROMANO QUIRITIBUS:
> >
> > ITEM I: Decretum diebus fastis A. U. C. MMDCCLXIV
> >
> > "The Collegium Pontificum approves of the revised Calendar for AUC
> MMDCCLXIV as
> > recommended by Pontifex maximus M. Moravius and Flamen C. Petronius."
> >
> >
> >
> > QUOD BONUM FAUSTVM FORTUNATUMQVE SIT POPULO NOVO ROMANO QUIRITIBUS:
> >
> > ITEM II: Decretum de Consule P. Memmio impietate prudente dolo malo.
> >
> > "The Collegium Pontificum, upon the request of the Collegium Augurum, has
> determined that Consul P. Memmius Albucius had violated previous
> instructions by the Augures Publicii, as laid out in the Decretum augurum de
> tripudio inrito, and thereby he has knowingly violated the Decretum collegii
> pontificum et augurum de iure auspicandi et tripudio in regard to the
> provisions of De Impietate et Auspicando.
> >
> > "Therefore, the Collegium Pontificum has determined that Consul P.
> Memmius Albucius, in ignoring the augures publici and their collegium,
> knowingly proceeded with the conduct of elections in the comitia centuriata
> without valid auspices, on a date not approved by the Gods, and without
> selection of a centuria praerogativa as required by law. It is therefore the
> determination of the Collegium Pontificum that, under the Decretum collegii
> pontificum et augurum de iure auspicandi et tripudio, Consul P. Memmius
> Albucius has indeed committed
> > an offence of impietas prudens dolo malo in violation of the Constitution
> and Decreta Collegii Pontificum et Augurum by knowingly convening an
> assembly of the Comitia Centuriata and the Senate without performance of a
> valid auspication."
> >
> >
> >
> > QUOD BONUM FAUSTVM FORTUNATUMQVE SIT POPULO NOVO ROMANO QUIRITIBUS:
> >
> > ITEM III: Decretum Pontificum de M. Hortensia Flamenica Carmentis
> >
> > "Having completed her instruction as previously given by the Collegium
> Pontificum, the voting privileges of Flamenica M. Hortensia in the Collegium
> Pontificum are restored."
> >
> >
> > Di immortales faciant, tam felix quam pia.
> >
> > Datum sub manu mea a. d. XII Kal. Sept. P. Memmio K. Fabio ccs in anno a.
> .u .c. MMDCCLXIII
> >
>
>
>


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

Is that a threat or a promise?

On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:59 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> Don't waste your time, the tribunes will veto any action in this matter;-)
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Cato"
> <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Memmio Albucio consule sal.
> >
> > All of which reminds me, have you had a chance to decide on the petitio
> actionis I have submitted to you regarding charges of laesa patriae and the
> one on charges of falsum, both against Piscinus?
> >
> > Since your colleague vetoed the appointments of praetors, we have only
> the consulate to whom to address our grievances.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>
>
>


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

So, who do we believe the one that actually met the man or the one that just
knows his online persona? Umm......What do you think people of Nova Roma?

On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 7:40 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> M. Hortensia D. Octaviae peregrinae sd;
> I've been friends with C. Curius Saturninus since I became a civis in 2003;
> I took a course "Intro to Nova Roma" that he taught with Gn. Salvius Astur;
> and my classmate was Cordus, another good friend. Sadly neither Astur or
> Cordus can stand NR anymore.
>
> no one could ask for a better friend nor a more devoted Nova Roman than
> Saturninus.
>
> Saturninus ran Academia Thules for many years giving free courses to all NR
> cives, he produced the Vox Romana podcast along with me and has been the
> webmaster & in charge of IT for years; donating his precious time and
> expertise. He produces a terrific Roman calender too.
>
> He's a wonderful Roman and his deeds speak volumes about the kind of person
> he is.
> M.Hortensia Maior
>
> ---
>
> >
> > That creep Saturninus who was friendly to my face in Belgium and who
> dumped
> > *all* of the organization of the first European NR meeting in Belgium,
> also
> > jumped in and knifed me in the back for no reason at all. Luckily many
> stood
> > up for me who were present at Roman Days or the NR meeting in Belgium.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>


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

Dexter, this is what happens when you rely on knowing just the online
persona of an individual. Maior is really good at speaking for people like
Cordus so much that we in the Back Alley have made an online joke about
it...where I thought of the film Misery...with James Caan and Kathy
Bates....and how Kathy Bates has James Caan locked in her basement chained
to the bed....and Kathy (Maior) smacking Poor James Caan's legs unless he
does what she commands. It's funny, its sad and it seems very appropriate.
Misery, if you have not seen the movie go and rent it. It will give an
entire new illumination for Maior speaking for other individuals like
Cordus.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 2:27 AM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

>
>
> C. Petronius mulieribus Novis Romanis s.p.d.,
>
> One of the problems with M. Hortensia Maior is that her friends are always
> very devoted to NR, but never here in NR, they are always terrific in what
> they do, but they resign their citizenship, now Saturninus left NR with his
> "terrific" calendar under the arm...
>
> I think that Maior is living in a world apart, I do not know exactly where,
> in which she completely deluded herself.
>
> Optime valete.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>
>
>


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

C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,

> The Authority of a Pontifex Maximus Over Magistrates and Citizens

The priest with the greatest authority in Rome was the Rex Sacrorum, the Pontifex Maximus was the fifth in the rank of importance.

1- the Rex Sacrorum.
2 - the 3 Flamines Maiores. In this order:
- Flamen Dialis.
- Flamen Martialis.
- Flamen Quirinalis.
5 - The Pontifex Maximus.

So, being the fifth in the Album sacerdotum the Pontifex Maximus did not have an authority over all magistrates and citizens... but because of the lack of Rex Sacrorum, and 3 Flamines Maiores in NR, the PM is now the highest religious position in NR.

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Flamen Portunalis Arcoiali scribebat
a.d. XI Kal. Sept. P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Cato Mariae Caecae sal.

It's true :)

But I'll take pains to clarify that the point I have always made regarding the importance of orthopraxy is *not* that it somehow cancels out or ignores personal belief in the religiones Romanae; it is only that personal belief, or "faith" as we understand it today, had no practical or *necessary* part of the sacra publica and was not a consideration for the Romans.

That you have "faith" is an extraordinary and wonderful thing, and I've always encouraged practitioners to share it with our citizens.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> C. Maria Caeca Cn. Equitio Catoni S. P. D.
>
> *laughs* But Senator, what I do is so ...so ...unorthopractic! I would have thought that you would consider me lacking in decorum, at the very least, and what I do mildly distasteful!
>
> That you seem not to, surprises me, but, I will admit, pleases me as well, coming as it does from one for I have always held a high measure of respect.
>
> Vale bene,
> C. Maria Caeca
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Do we have any idea what other votes were taken, what other "determinations" were made?

Valete,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Nope they are not.
>
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Cato Piscino sal.
> >
> > Are these *all* the items voted on in the College of Pontiffs' meeting?
> >
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ex Domo Pontifici Maximi:
> > >
> > > M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Pontifex Maximus: P. Memmio Albucio, K.
> > Fabio Buteone Quintiliano Consulibus, Tribunibus Plebis, Senatoribus
> > Senatricibusque, Patribus Mátribusque Conscriptís, Civibus Novae Romae,
> > Quiritibus: salutem plurimam dicit:
> > >
> > > The Collegium Pontificum having met Die pristini Eidus Sextiliae (Thurs.
> > 12 July) and concluding its discussion on a. d. XIII Kalendas Septembres
> > issues the following:
> > >
> > > Ego dico edico cum Divis volentibus ut Collegium Pontificum hoc decretum
> > protulit:
> > >
> > > QUOD BONUM FAUSTVM FORTUNATUMQVE SIT POPULO NOVO ROMANO QUIRITIBUS:
> > >
> > > ITEM I: Decretum diebus fastis A. U. C. MMDCCLXIV
> > >
> > > "The Collegium Pontificum approves of the revised Calendar for AUC
> > MMDCCLXIV as
> > > recommended by Pontifex maximus M. Moravius and Flamen C. Petronius."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > QUOD BONUM FAUSTVM FORTUNATUMQVE SIT POPULO NOVO ROMANO QUIRITIBUS:
> > >
> > > ITEM II: Decretum de Consule P. Memmio impietate prudente dolo malo.
> > >
> > > "The Collegium Pontificum, upon the request of the Collegium Augurum, has
> > determined that Consul P. Memmius Albucius had violated previous
> > instructions by the Augures Publicii, as laid out in the Decretum augurum de
> > tripudio inrito, and thereby he has knowingly violated the Decretum collegii
> > pontificum et augurum de iure auspicandi et tripudio in regard to the
> > provisions of De Impietate et Auspicando.
> > >
> > > "Therefore, the Collegium Pontificum has determined that Consul P.
> > Memmius Albucius, in ignoring the augures publici and their collegium,
> > knowingly proceeded with the conduct of elections in the comitia centuriata
> > without valid auspices, on a date not approved by the Gods, and without
> > selection of a centuria praerogativa as required by law. It is therefore the
> > determination of the Collegium Pontificum that, under the Decretum collegii
> > pontificum et augurum de iure auspicandi et tripudio, Consul P. Memmius
> > Albucius has indeed committed
> > > an offence of impietas prudens dolo malo in violation of the Constitution
> > and Decreta Collegii Pontificum et Augurum by knowingly convening an
> > assembly of the Comitia Centuriata and the Senate without performance of a
> > valid auspication."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > QUOD BONUM FAUSTVM FORTUNATUMQVE SIT POPULO NOVO ROMANO QUIRITIBUS:
> > >
> > > ITEM III: Decretum Pontificum de M. Hortensia Flamenica Carmentis
> > >
> > > "Having completed her instruction as previously given by the Collegium
> > Pontificum, the voting privileges of Flamenica M. Hortensia in the Collegium
> > Pontificum are restored."
> > >
> > >
> > > Di immortales faciant, tam felix quam pia.
> > >
> > > Datum sub manu mea a. d. XII Kal. Sept. P. Memmio K. Fabio ccs in anno a.
> > .u .c. MMDCCLXIII
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

M. Hortensia C. Petronio quiritibusque spd;
I don't know about you but as a senator I am subscribed to the College of Augurs list and have been following it since January. So I knew about this situation for months and spoke with the augurs about their problems and frustrations with Albucius.

M. Moravius Piscinus is popular for all his hard work in spreading the religio; prayers, ceremonies, films and his desire to help all cultores.

there is a saying: when people have no reasonable argument they resort to the 'ad hominem' : name-calling.
it's tiresome and doesn't help
M. Hortensia Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,
>
> > No Augur refused. How often do you need to be told? ALL of the Augures have stated this fact.
>
> Where? In the CP we had nothing to judge that, no files, no e-mails copy, nothing only your version.
>
> > You are not an augur, and you do not know the procedures we follow.
>
> Yes, I only am a flamen. And I am proud to only be a flamen. But, you Moravi, you cumulate magister augurum and pontifex maximus positions. K. Modianus makes better, he is flamine, pontifex and augur!
>
> All that is not good for the religio Romana as you demonstrate it by your messages, in which you confuse all.
>
> Even to push the CP to vote an "impietas prudens dolo malo" about things concerning the augurs in which we had nothing as files, e-mails, nothing but only your point of view.
>
> You have tyrannic maneers... but, one day you will have the backlash of your tyranny.
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>

Valerianus Catoni S.P.D.

Are you saying that you think somebody is deliberately covering up the
results of some discussions within the Collegium Pontificum? That seems to
me a terrible accusation, more so if it happens to be true! The Collegium
Pontificum would not hide things from the citizens, would they? The Pontifex
Maximus is usually scrupulous in reporing all deliberations and
determinations to the people, is he not?

Vale!


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

OH really as a senator you are subscribed? Then why do not all senators
have that right?

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:09 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> M. Hortensia C. Petronio quiritibusque spd;
> I don't know about you but as a senator I am subscribed to the College of
> Augurs list and have been following it since January. So I knew about this
> situation for months and spoke with the augurs about their problems and
> frustrations with Albucius.
>
> M. Moravius Piscinus is popular for all his hard work in spreading the
> religio; prayers, ceremonies, films and his desire to help all cultores.
>
> there is a saying: when people have no reasonable argument they resort to
> the 'ad hominem' : name-calling.
> it's tiresome and doesn't help
> M. Hortensia Maior
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
> >
> > C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,
> >
> > > No Augur refused. How often do you need to be told? ALL of the Augures
> have stated this fact.
> >
> > Where? In the CP we had nothing to judge that, no files, no e-mails copy,
> nothing only your version.
> >
> > > You are not an augur, and you do not know the procedures we follow.
> >
> > Yes, I only am a flamen. And I am proud to only be a flamen. But, you
> Moravi, you cumulate magister augurum and pontifex maximus positions. K.
> Modianus makes better, he is flamine, pontifex and augur!
> >
> > All that is not good for the religio Romana as you demonstrate it by your
> messages, in which you confuse all.
> >
> > Even to push the CP to vote an "impietas prudens dolo malo" about things
> concerning the augurs in which we had nothing as files, e-mails, nothing but
> only your point of view.
> >
> > You have tyrannic maneers... but, one day you will have the backlash of
> your tyranny.
> >
> > Optime vale.
> >
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> > Arcoiali scribebat
> > a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> >
>
>
>


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

Salvete;
I am asking that Sulla be moderated for the post below. He has a very unpleasant campaign of attacking/insulting me; and I want it stopped.
NOW

That he'd post this nastiness under Women in Nova Roma; is disgusting as the thread is about how women are routinely insulted and chased away from Nova Roma
Q.E.D
M. Hortensia Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Dexter, this is what happens when you rely on knowing just the online
> persona of an individual. Maior is really good at speaking for people like
> Cordus so much that we in the Back Alley have made an online joke about
> it...where I thought of the film Misery...with James Caan and Kathy
> Bates....and how Kathy Bates has James Caan locked in her basement chained
> to the bed....and Kathy (Maior) smacking Poor James Caan's legs unless he
> does what she commands. It's funny, its sad and it seems very appropriate.
> Misery, if you have not seen the movie go and rent it. It will give an
> entire new illumination for Maior speaking for other individuals like
> Cordus.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 2:27 AM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > C. Petronius mulieribus Novis Romanis s.p.d.,
> >
> > One of the problems with M. Hortensia Maior is that her friends are always
> > very devoted to NR, but never here in NR, they are always terrific in what
> > they do, but they resign their citizenship, now Saturninus left NR with his
> > "terrific" calendar under the arm...
> >
> > I think that Maior is living in a world apart, I do not know exactly where,
> > in which she completely deluded herself.
> >
> > Optime valete.
> >
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> > Arcoiali scribebat
> > a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

On 08/22/2010 01:11 PM, Cato wrote:

> Cato omnibus in foro SPD
>
> Do we have any idea what other votes were taken, what other "determinations" were made?
>

Apparently these other items must be something that embarrasses the one who
calls himself pontifex maximus, so that part of the report was snipped and
tossed down the Memory Hole.

Could it be that the votes did not go the way he'd carefully planned, because
his grasp on the collegia is slipping?

How that must frustrate the squatter on the throne! The dictatorship fails, two
Tribunes who tried to bring it about have resigned, the people no longer respect
him, the lictors no longer respect him, and now the priests no longer respect him.

Wail, rend your garments, and gnash your teeth, Despoiler. Your reign is
drawing to an inglorious end.

Octavius.

As senators Sulla and Cato cross-posted the College of Augurs and College of Pontiffs posts over at the Back Alley.

So you both were banished from the lists. Very ironic; which is why I had no problem cross-posting from the BA to the ML.
vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> OH really as a senator you are subscribed? Then why do not all senators
> have that right?
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:09 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > M. Hortensia C. Petronio quiritibusque spd;
> > I don't know about you but as a senator I am subscribed to the College of
> > Augurs list and have been following it since January. So I knew about this
> > situation for months and spoke with the augurs about their problems and
> > frustrations with Albucius.
> >
> > M. Moravius Piscinus is popular for all his hard work in spreading the
> > religio; prayers, ceremonies, films and his desire to help all cultores.
> >
> > there is a saying: when people have no reasonable argument they resort to
> > the 'ad hominem' : name-calling.
> > it's tiresome and doesn't help
> > M. Hortensia Maior
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> > >
> > > C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,
> > >
> > > > No Augur refused. How often do you need to be told? ALL of the Augures
> > have stated this fact.
> > >
> > > Where? In the CP we had nothing to judge that, no files, no e-mails copy,
> > nothing only your version.
> > >
> > > > You are not an augur, and you do not know the procedures we follow.
> > >
> > > Yes, I only am a flamen. And I am proud to only be a flamen. But, you
> > Moravi, you cumulate magister augurum and pontifex maximus positions. K.
> > Modianus makes better, he is flamine, pontifex and augur!
> > >
> > > All that is not good for the religio Romana as you demonstrate it by your
> > messages, in which you confuse all.
> > >
> > > Even to push the CP to vote an "impietas prudens dolo malo" about things
> > concerning the augurs in which we had nothing as files, e-mails, nothing but
> > only your point of view.
> > >
> > > You have tyrannic maneers... but, one day you will have the backlash of
> > your tyranny.
> > >
> > > Optime vale.
> > >
> > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I have never been on the CA list EVER.

So that is a complete fabrication. Typical coming from Maior.

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:49 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> As senators Sulla and Cato cross-posted the College of Augurs and College
> of Pontiffs posts over at the Back Alley.
>
> So you both were banished from the lists. Very ironic; which is why I had
> no problem cross-posting from the BA to the ML.
> vale
> Maior
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Robert
> Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> >
> > OH really as a senator you are subscribed? Then why do not all senators
> > have that right?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:09 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > M. Hortensia C. Petronio quiritibusque spd;
> > > I don't know about you but as a senator I am subscribed to the College
> of
> > > Augurs list and have been following it since January. So I knew about
> this
> > > situation for months and spoke with the augurs about their problems and
> > > frustrations with Albucius.
> > >
> > > M. Moravius Piscinus is popular for all his hard work in spreading the
> > > religio; prayers, ceremonies, films and his desire to help all
> cultores.
> > >
> > > there is a saying: when people have no reasonable argument they resort
> to
> > > the 'ad hominem' : name-calling.
> > > it's tiresome and doesn't help
> > > M. Hortensia Maior
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>,
>
> > > "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,
> > > >
> > > > > No Augur refused. How often do you need to be told? ALL of the
> Augures
> > > have stated this fact.
> > > >
> > > > Where? In the CP we had nothing to judge that, no files, no e-mails
> copy,
> > > nothing only your version.
> > > >
> > > > > You are not an augur, and you do not know the procedures we follow.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I only am a flamen. And I am proud to only be a flamen. But, you
> > > Moravi, you cumulate magister augurum and pontifex maximus positions.
> K.
> > > Modianus makes better, he is flamine, pontifex and augur!
> > > >
> > > > All that is not good for the religio Romana as you demonstrate it by
> your
> > > messages, in which you confuse all.
> > > >
> > > > Even to push the CP to vote an "impietas prudens dolo malo" about
> things
> > > concerning the augurs in which we had nothing as files, e-mails,
> nothing but
> > > only your point of view.
> > > >
> > > > You have tyrannic maneers... but, one day you will have the backlash
> of
> > > your tyranny.
> > > >
> > > > Optime vale.
> > > >
> > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > > a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


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

Maior where you not the senator to speak about the fiduciary obligations of
the members of the Board of Directors of Nova Roma?

Are you saying that the members of the Board of Directors of Nova Roma had
no reason to be aware that One board member, Piscinus was going to go to
Maine to arrest another Board member Marcus Cassius and his wife (another
Board member) for supposedly embezzling funds of Nova Roma? Do you not
think that the involvement of Macronational authorities in an effort to
arrest Cassius and Cassia was a matter that the Board of Directors should
have and been required to act on their own if there was any wrong doing?
The fact that he posted his plan on the CP list and not the Senate list
raises questions of his judgment at the very least and let alone any legal
action that might have resulted from any legal issues would have caught the
Board of Directors completely out of the loop.

What kind of fiduciary obligation does this show in regards to Piscinus?
The fact that he exercised none.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:49 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> As senators Sulla and Cato cross-posted the College of Augurs and College
> of Pontiffs posts over at the Back Alley.
>
> So you both were banished from the lists. Very ironic; which is why I had
> no problem cross-posting from the BA to the ML.
> vale
> Maior
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Robert
> Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> >
> > OH really as a senator you are subscribed? Then why do not all senators
> > have that right?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:09 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > M. Hortensia C. Petronio quiritibusque spd;
> > > I don't know about you but as a senator I am subscribed to the College
> of
> > > Augurs list and have been following it since January. So I knew about
> this
> > > situation for months and spoke with the augurs about their problems and
> > > frustrations with Albucius.
> > >
> > > M. Moravius Piscinus is popular for all his hard work in spreading the
> > > religio; prayers, ceremonies, films and his desire to help all
> cultores.
> > >
> > > there is a saying: when people have no reasonable argument they resort
> to
> > > the 'ad hominem' : name-calling.
> > > it's tiresome and doesn't help
> > > M. Hortensia Maior
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>,
>
> > > "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,
> > > >
> > > > > No Augur refused. How often do you need to be told? ALL of the
> Augures
> > > have stated this fact.
> > > >
> > > > Where? In the CP we had nothing to judge that, no files, no e-mails
> copy,
> > > nothing only your version.
> > > >
> > > > > You are not an augur, and you do not know the procedures we follow.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I only am a flamen. And I am proud to only be a flamen. But, you
> > > Moravi, you cumulate magister augurum and pontifex maximus positions.
> K.
> > > Modianus makes better, he is flamine, pontifex and augur!
> > > >
> > > > All that is not good for the religio Romana as you demonstrate it by
> your
> > > messages, in which you confuse all.
> > > >
> > > > Even to push the CP to vote an "impietas prudens dolo malo" about
> things
> > > concerning the augurs in which we had nothing as files, e-mails,
> nothing but
> > > only your point of view.
> > > >
> > > > You have tyrannic maneers... but, one day you will have the backlash
> of
> > > your tyranny.
> > > >
> > > > Optime vale.
> > > >
> > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > > a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


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

Q Caecilius Metellus apud populum in foro dicit:

M Hortensia, have you any possible comprehension of how many
individuals, women and men, you have yourself driven away? You have a
campaign of attacking those very new citizens who have spoken against
your agemda, which, indeed, does not remain to be seen, since the
proof is very well evident on this list and others. And it is worth
pointing out, that in the last case of your attempting to drive
someone away (this was against a certain Flavia Merula (whose nomen
gentilicum I do not remember)) was against a woman.

M Hortensia, has it ever occurred to you that the hatred you inspire
could be one of the factors that causes, as you say, women to be so
badly treated in Nova Roma? It stands to be said that, if you are
anything of the calibre of women in Nova Roma, while they must then
all be intelligent, they are ignorant, hateful, disrespective and
contemptable beings. Fortunately, you are not the calibre of women in
Nova Roma.

It is a very great thing that you are not the only woman in Nova Roma,
and that there is a long list of women in Nova Roma who are smart,
intelligent, sensible individuals.

On 22 August 2010 11:17, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
> Salvete;
>  I am asking that Sulla be moderated for the post below. He has a very unpleasant campaign of attacking/insulting me; and I want it stopped.
>              NOW
>
> That he'd post this nastiness under Women in Nova Roma; is disgusting as the thread is about how women are routinely insulted and chased away from Nova Roma
>                  Q.E.D
>                M. Hortensia Maior

Heck just off the top of my head we have:

Pompeia Municia Tiberia - CONSUL of Nova Roma
Diana Octavia - Tribune of the Plebs and candidate for Consul
Caeca
Merula
Enodia
Tink - Founder of of the Musarum and the Matrona list.
Cornelia Merula

And there are plenty that I am missing. But that would be just a start and
some names that popped immediately in my head.

Vale,

Sulla


On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <
q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:

>
>
> Q Caecilius Metellus apud populum in foro dicit:
>
> M Hortensia, have you any possible comprehension of how many
> individuals, women and men, you have yourself driven away? You have a
> campaign of attacking those very new citizens who have spoken against
> your agemda, which, indeed, does not remain to be seen, since the
> proof is very well evident on this list and others. And it is worth
> pointing out, that in the last case of your attempting to drive
> someone away (this was against a certain Flavia Merula (whose nomen
> gentilicum I do not remember)) was against a woman.
>
> M Hortensia, has it ever occurred to you that the hatred you inspire
> could be one of the factors that causes, as you say, women to be so
> badly treated in Nova Roma? It stands to be said that, if you are
> anything of the calibre of women in Nova Roma, while they must then
> all be intelligent, they are ignorant, hateful, disrespective and
> contemptable beings. Fortunately, you are not the calibre of women in
> Nova Roma.
>
> It is a very great thing that you are not the only woman in Nova Roma,
> and that there is a long list of women in Nova Roma who are smart,
> intelligent, sensible individuals.
>
> On 22 August 2010 11:17, rory12001 <rory12001@...<rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
> > Salvete;
> > I am asking that Sulla be moderated for the post below. He has a very
> unpleasant campaign of attacking/insulting me; and I want it stopped.
> > NOW
> >
> > That he'd post this nastiness under Women in Nova Roma; is disgusting as
> the thread is about how women are routinely insulted and chased away from
> Nova Roma
> > Q.E.D
> > M. Hortensia Maior
>
>

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

Valerianus, compare the initial CP agenda summons with the results of what
was reported. And then ask if ONLY those three items were voted or if there
were additional items that were voted on.

I would bet solid currency that the answer you get would show that Piscinus
only reported the items that passed - not the items that failed.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Gaius Tullius Valerianus <
gaius.tullius.valerianus@...> wrote:

>
>
> Valerianus Catoni S.P.D.
>
> Are you saying that you think somebody is deliberately covering up the
> results of some discussions within the Collegium Pontificum? That seems to
> me a terrible accusation, more so if it happens to be true! The Collegium
> Pontificum would not hide things from the citizens, would they? The
> Pontifex
> Maximus is usually scrupulous in reporing all deliberations and
> determinations to the people, is he not?
>
> Vale!
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

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

> I don't know about you but as a senator I am subscribed to the College of Augurs list and have been following it since January.

Since January? And you left the augurs do not take the auspices and you tell nothing to the people?

> So I knew about this situation for months and spoke with the augurs about their problems and frustrations with Albucius.

And you think I have only to believe in your words? Problems and frustations? Taking auspices is easy.

> M. Moravius Piscinus is popular for all his hard work in spreading the religio; prayers, ceremonies, films and his desire to help all cultores.

Like no taking auspices for a consul who asked him to do it or to delegate it to an another augur?

> there is a saying: when people have no reasonable argument they resort to the 'ad hominem' : name-calling.
> it's tiresome and doesn't help

Yes, you are right no taking auspices does not help.

But people will see and judge.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Avete;

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Robert Woolwine wrote:
> Heck just off the top of my head we have:
>
> Pompeia Municia Tiberia - CONSUL of Nova Roma
> Diana Octavia - Tribune of the Plebs and candidate for Consul
> Caeca
> Merula
> Enodia
> Tink - Founder of of the Musarum and the Matrona list.
> Cornelia Merula
>
> And there are plenty that I am missing.  But that would be just a start and
> some names that popped immediately in my head.
>
> Vale,
> Sulla
>

I miss Amethystia (sic),Pythia and Nocturnia...from way back.

Valete - Venii

Awww I remember them! How could I not!

I was just focusing on current Nova Roman women :)

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <
famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:

>
>
> Avete;
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Robert Woolwine wrote:
> > Heck just off the top of my head we have:
> >
> > Pompeia Municia Tiberia - CONSUL of Nova Roma
> > Diana Octavia - Tribune of the Plebs and candidate for Consul
> > Caeca
> > Merula
> > Enodia
> > Tink - Founder of of the Musarum and the Matrona list.
> > Cornelia Merula
> >
> > And there are plenty that I am missing. But that would be just a start
> and
> > some names that popped immediately in my head.
> >
> > Vale,
> > Sulla
> >
>
> I miss Amethystia (sic),Pythia and Nocturnia...from way back.
>
> Valete - Venii
>
>

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

Salvete,

This last week some challenging issues were raised about what may or may not constitute an insult on the ML. Time was given in the Praetura for everyone to voice an opinion who wished to do so and two guidelines were hashed out to help clarify poster responsibility. Both guidelines are interrelated but distinct; the former useful as a general rule, the latter ad hoc and therefore temporary.

The basic question at hand was whether a person can plainly speak what he/she believes is the truth if it otherwise could be construed as an insult.

The first guideline addresses this matter very broadly: if a poster wishes to plainly state a truth that would otherwise be nothing more than an insult or personal attack (e.g. X is a liar; X is a hypocrite) then the poster is at the same time responsible for citing the evidence that establishes the factual basis of the claim. How easy or difficult it may be to establish this will depend on context and timing. For example, if someone today says that X was a coup plotter then it would be trivial to establish this claim since so many facts are still common knowledge about recent events. If, however, the same claim is made in 2 years then it would require citation of previous posts and more detailed reviewing of history since the events would no longer be commonly remembered or known with much clarity.

The second guideline address a very specific matter: the infamous attack post by Q. Caecilius Metellus reasserted by him this year. Because it was such a memorable statement of his personal opinions about another civis, one cannot help but think of it when references to Metellus' opinions about that civis are made. The issue is all the more thorny because the post mixed defensible claims with outrageous insults which has encouraged selective memory on the part of those who recall it. Statements of "Metellus was right" all too easily can refer to either aspects of the post. Therefore, the second guideline is this: references to Metellus' opinions about the civis in question must either 1) disavow the outrageous elements (e.g. "... and Metellus was right, except for the nasty stuff") or 2) state the specific points of agreement "Metellus was right in saying X, Y, Z". This is a rather ad hoc guideline and will remain in force only so long as circumstances find it necessary.

Valete,

M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus
Praetorian Quaestor

Let me add one, perhaps unexpected, name to that list: Aula Tullia
Scholastica, with whose views I frequently disagree, but that
certainly doesn't make her any less smart, intelligent, sensible...
the list goes on, but it'd take me all day to finish.

- Q Caecilius Metellus

On 22 August 2010 13:29, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> Heck just off the top of my head we have:
>
> Pompeia Municia Tiberia - CONSUL of Nova Roma
> Diana Octavia - Tribune of the Plebs and candidate for Consul
> Caeca
> Merula
> Enodia
> Tink - Founder of of the Musarum and the Matrona list.
> Cornelia Merula
>
> And there are plenty that I am missing.  But that would be just a start and
> some names that popped immediately in my head.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla

Cato Valeriano sal.

That's exactly what I'm asking, in fact.

I know that Piscinus announced his intention - after attempting to illegally unilaterally "dismiss" you from the Comitia Curiata - to have your situation discussed at the "next meeting", which would be the one just finished, so I'm curious to see how that turned out officially.

Was the situation of the lictors who refused to be coerced - by the threats Piscinus made - into violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution discussed? If so, what was the official result?

And what about the pontiff Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus Pius? Was his case discussed as was announced it would be? If so, what was the official result?

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gaius Tullius Valerianus <gaius.tullius.valerianus@...> wrote:
>
> Valerianus Catoni S.P.D.
>
> Are you saying that you think somebody is deliberately covering up the
> results of some discussions within the Collegium Pontificum? That seems to
> me a terrible accusation, more so if it happens to be true! The Collegium
> Pontificum would not hide things from the citizens, would they? The Pontifex
> Maximus is usually scrupulous in reporing all deliberations and
> determinations to the people, is he not?
>
> Vale!
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

C. Petronius fl. Portunalis C. Catoni senatori,

I thought that as senator you have the right to read what happens on the collegium pontificum list.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
flamen Portunalis Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Ave!

Like Animal Farm all animals are equal - it just seems some are more equal
than others.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 1:49 PM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

>
>
> C. Petronius fl. Portunalis C. Catoni senatori,
>
> I thought that as senator you have the right to read what happens on the
> collegium pontificum list.
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> flamen Portunalis Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>
>
>


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

Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.

I know that I, in direct violation of the senatus consultum, have been barred from the College of Pontiffs' List. I have been given no explanation as to what authority gives the owner of that List to violate a direct order from the Senate.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> OH really as a senator you are subscribed? Then why do not all senators
> have that right?
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:09 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > M. Hortensia C. Petronio quiritibusque spd;
> > I don't know about you but as a senator I am subscribed to the College of
> > Augurs list and have been following it since January. So I knew about this
> > situation for months and spoke with the augurs about their problems and
> > frustrations with Albucius.
> >
> > M. Moravius Piscinus is popular for all his hard work in spreading the
> > religio; prayers, ceremonies, films and his desire to help all cultores.
> >
> > there is a saying: when people have no reasonable argument they resort to
> > the 'ad hominem' : name-calling.
> > it's tiresome and doesn't help
> > M. Hortensia Maior
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> > >
> > > C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,
> > >
> > > > No Augur refused. How often do you need to be told? ALL of the Augures
> > have stated this fact.
> > >
> > > Where? In the CP we had nothing to judge that, no files, no e-mails copy,
> > nothing only your version.
> > >
> > > > You are not an augur, and you do not know the procedures we follow.
> > >
> > > Yes, I only am a flamen. And I am proud to only be a flamen. But, you
> > Moravi, you cumulate magister augurum and pontifex maximus positions. K.
> > Modianus makes better, he is flamine, pontifex and augur!
> > >
> > > All that is not good for the religio Romana as you demonstrate it by your
> > messages, in which you confuse all.
> > >
> > > Even to push the CP to vote an "impietas prudens dolo malo" about things
> > concerning the augurs in which we had nothing as files, e-mails, nothing but
> > only your point of view.
> > >
> > > You have tyrannic maneers... but, one day you will have the backlash of
> > your tyranny.
> > >
> > > Optime vale.
> > >
> > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Cato Maiori sal.

Yet again you lie. I have never been subscribed to the College of Pontiffs' List *or* the College of Augurs' List.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> As senators Sulla and Cato cross-posted the College of Augurs and College of Pontiffs posts over at the Back Alley.
>
> So you both were banished from the lists. Very ironic; which is why I had no problem cross-posting from the BA to the ML.
> vale
> Maior
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@> wrote:
> >
> > OH really as a senator you are subscribed? Then why do not all senators
> > have that right?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:09 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > M. Hortensia C. Petronio quiritibusque spd;
> > > I don't know about you but as a senator I am subscribed to the College of
> > > Augurs list and have been following it since January. So I knew about this
> > > situation for months and spoke with the augurs about their problems and
> > > frustrations with Albucius.
> > >
> > > M. Moravius Piscinus is popular for all his hard work in spreading the
> > > religio; prayers, ceremonies, films and his desire to help all cultores.
> > >
> > > there is a saying: when people have no reasonable argument they resort to
> > > the 'ad hominem' : name-calling.
> > > it's tiresome and doesn't help
> > > M. Hortensia Maior
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,
> > > >
> > > > > No Augur refused. How often do you need to be told? ALL of the Augures
> > > have stated this fact.
> > > >
> > > > Where? In the CP we had nothing to judge that, no files, no e-mails copy,
> > > nothing only your version.
> > > >
> > > > > You are not an augur, and you do not know the procedures we follow.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I only am a flamen. And I am proud to only be a flamen. But, you
> > > Moravi, you cumulate magister augurum and pontifex maximus positions. K.
> > > Modianus makes better, he is flamine, pontifex and augur!
> > > >
> > > > All that is not good for the religio Romana as you demonstrate it by your
> > > messages, in which you confuse all.
> > > >
> > > > Even to push the CP to vote an "impietas prudens dolo malo" about things
> > > concerning the augurs in which we had nothing as files, e-mails, nothing but
> > > only your point of view.
> > > >
> > > > You have tyrannic maneers... but, one day you will have the backlash of
> > > your tyranny.
> > > >
> > > > Optime vale.
> > > >
> > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > > a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

C. Maria Caeca M. Hortensiae Maori omnibusque in foro Salutam Plurimam Dicit:

OK. Maior, I am going to point out 2 things to you:

1. It was *you* who, by not bothering to change the subject line, and simply using the subject line of the thread entitled "Women in Nova Roma" to post your comments on the former tribune's resignation, that caused that thread to morph into something entirely different, with the result of the post to which you take such objection.

2. The subject of the original thread was a question: and that questing had *nothing* to do with women being driven out of Nova Roma. Rather, it asked for an analysis of the ways in which women were treated, both fairly and unfairly, in Nova Roma. I'll grant you that the question was carefully phrased to illicit specific responses, but it can, and has been, answered objectively and in good faith by many women, here and elsewhere ...not, I might add, including *you*.

C. Maria Caeca

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

M. Hortensia Quiritibus

And Metellus is the one who grossly insulted me in public with crude sexual references. Swell.

I also have the privilege of receiving an obscene sexual letter from Sulla. Plus a fresco with my name attached, being gang-banged & called every foul sexual name in the book by Gn. Julius Caesar, Sulla, and his buddies over in the fun place the Back Alley.

M. Valeria Maxima received similar nasty sexual treatment from Q. Fabius Maximus & Sulla. Of course if you are friends with the men of the Back Alley, you are spared these kinds of bullying treatment. Wonderful.

And the misogyny rolls on.....
I can't recommend this place to any woman it's that bad.
vale
M.Hortensia Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
>
> Let me add one, perhaps unexpected, name to that list: Aula Tullia
> Scholastica, with whose views I frequently disagree, but that
> certainly doesn't make her any less smart, intelligent, sensible...
> the list goes on, but it'd take me all day to finish.
>
> - Q Caecilius Metellus
>
> On 22 August 2010 13:29, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> > Heck just off the top of my head we have:
> >
> > Pompeia Municia Tiberia - CONSUL of Nova Roma
> > Diana Octavia - Tribune of the Plebs and candidate for Consul
> > Caeca
> > Merula
> > Enodia
> > Tink - Founder of of the Musarum and the Matrona list.
> > Cornelia Merula
> >
> > And there are plenty that I am missing.  But that would be just a start and
> > some names that popped immediately in my head.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
>

And I'll add Gaia Valeria Pulchra and the new probationary citizen Aula
Aemilia Paulla to the list of intelligent, sensible women here . . .

~ Valerianus

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <
q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:

>
>
> Let me add one, perhaps unexpected, name to that list: Aula Tullia
> Scholastica, with whose views I frequently disagree, but that
> certainly doesn't make her any less smart, intelligent, sensible...
> the list goes on, but it'd take me all day to finish.
>
> - Q Caecilius Metellus
>
>
> On 22 August 2010 13:29, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> > Heck just off the top of my head we have:
> >
> > Pompeia Municia Tiberia - CONSUL of Nova Roma
> > Diana Octavia - Tribune of the Plebs and candidate for Consul
> > Caeca
> > Merula
> > Enodia
> > Tink - Founder of of the Musarum and the Matrona list.
> > Cornelia Merula
> >
> > And there are plenty that I am missing. But that would be just a start
> and
> > some names that popped immediately in my head.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
>
>
>

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

Valerianus Catoni S.P.D.

Oh, I see! Very interesting! I'm sure if my status as a Lictor were
discussed and voted upon, I would have received a notification myself, in
addition to the public announcement, right? And surely, a congratulations
from the Pontifex Maximus for my continued good service to Rome? (Well,
maybe not that last, as Piscinus and I disagreed on the matter in question
and it was he who called my status as Lictor into question, but should we
not credit him with having enough decency to announce the results?).

I mean, if the results were deliberately being kept from the people, I'm
sure the people would want to know why.

Vale!

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato Valeriano sal.
>
> That's exactly what I'm asking, in fact.
>
> I know that Piscinus announced his intention - after attempting to
> illegally unilaterally "dismiss" you from the Comitia Curiata - to have your
> situation discussed at the "next meeting", which would be the one just
> finished, so I'm curious to see how that turned out officially.
>
> Was the situation of the lictors who refused to be coerced - by the threats
> Piscinus made - into violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution
> discussed? If so, what was the official result?
>
> And what about the pontiff Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus Pius? Was
> his case discussed as was announced it would be? If so, what was the
> official result?
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Gaius
> Tullius Valerianus <gaius.tullius.valerianus@...> wrote:
> >
> > Valerianus Catoni S.P.D.
> >
> > Are you saying that you think somebody is deliberately covering up the
> > results of some discussions within the Collegium Pontificum? That seems
> to
> > me a terrible accusation, more so if it happens to be true! The Collegium
> > Pontificum would not hide things from the citizens, would they? The
> Pontifex
> > Maximus is usually scrupulous in reporing all deliberations and
> > determinations to the people, is he not?
> >
> > Vale!
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


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

Your request has been acknowledged and will be discussed in the Praetura.

-GG

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete;
> I am asking that Sulla be moderated for the post below. He has a very unpleasant campaign of attacking/insulting me; and I want it stopped.
> NOW
>
> That he'd post this nastiness under Women in Nova Roma; is disgusting as the thread is about how women are routinely insulted and chased away from Nova Roma
> Q.E.D
> M. Hortensia Maior
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@> wrote:
> >
> > Dexter, this is what happens when you rely on knowing just the online
> > persona of an individual. Maior is really good at speaking for people like
> > Cordus so much that we in the Back Alley have made an online joke about
> > it...where I thought of the film Misery...with James Caan and Kathy
> > Bates....and how Kathy Bates has James Caan locked in her basement chained
> > to the bed....and Kathy (Maior) smacking Poor James Caan's legs unless he
> > does what she commands. It's funny, its sad and it seems very appropriate.
> > Misery, if you have not seen the movie go and rent it. It will give an
> > entire new illumination for Maior speaking for other individuals like
> > Cordus.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 2:27 AM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > C. Petronius mulieribus Novis Romanis s.p.d.,
> > >
> > > One of the problems with M. Hortensia Maior is that her friends are always
> > > very devoted to NR, but never here in NR, they are always terrific in what
> > > they do, but they resign their citizenship, now Saturninus left NR with his
> > > "terrific" calendar under the arm...
> > >
> > > I think that Maior is living in a world apart, I do not know exactly where,
> > > in which she completely deluded herself.
> > >
> > > Optime valete.
> > >
> > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

And Cassia! And Vedia Serna from way back in the day!! ANd Flavia
Claudia....and... We can just have this be a running list! :) This is
great!

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Gaius Tullius Valerianus <
gaius.tullius.valerianus@...> wrote:

>
>
> And I'll add Gaia Valeria Pulchra and the new probationary citizen Aula
> Aemilia Paulla to the list of intelligent, sensible women here . . .
>
> ~ Valerianus
>
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <
>
> q.caecilius.metellus@... <q.caecilius.metellus%40gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Let me add one, perhaps unexpected, name to that list: Aula Tullia
> > Scholastica, with whose views I frequently disagree, but that
> > certainly doesn't make her any less smart, intelligent, sensible...
> > the list goes on, but it'd take me all day to finish.
> >
> > - Q Caecilius Metellus
> >
> >
> > On 22 August 2010 13:29, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>
>
> > wrote:
> > > Heck just off the top of my head we have:
> > >
> > > Pompeia Municia Tiberia - CONSUL of Nova Roma
> > > Diana Octavia - Tribune of the Plebs and candidate for Consul
> > > Caeca
> > > Merula
> > > Enodia
> > > Tink - Founder of of the Musarum and the Matrona list.
> > > Cornelia Merula
> > >
> > > And there are plenty that I am missing. But that would be just a start
> > and
> > > some names that popped immediately in my head.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Sulla
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

Cato Maiori sal.

It's not misogynism, Maior. It's *you*.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> M. Hortensia Quiritibus
>
> And Metellus is the one who grossly insulted me in public with crude sexual references. Swell.
>
> I also have the privilege of receiving an obscene sexual letter from Sulla. Plus a fresco with my name attached, being gang-banged & called every foul sexual name in the book by Gn. Julius Caesar, Sulla, and his buddies over in the fun place the Back Alley.
>
> M. Valeria Maxima received similar nasty sexual treatment from Q. Fabius Maximus & Sulla. Of course if you are friends with the men of the Back Alley, you are spared these kinds of bullying treatment. Wonderful.
>
> And the misogyny rolls on.....
> I can't recommend this place to any woman it's that bad.
> vale
> M.Hortensia Maior
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
> >
> > Let me add one, perhaps unexpected, name to that list: Aula Tullia
> > Scholastica, with whose views I frequently disagree, but that
> > certainly doesn't make her any less smart, intelligent, sensible...
> > the list goes on, but it'd take me all day to finish.
> >
> > - Q Caecilius Metellus
> >
> > On 22 August 2010 13:29, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@> wrote:
> > > Heck just off the top of my head we have:
> > >
> > > Pompeia Municia Tiberia - CONSUL of Nova Roma
> > > Diana Octavia - Tribune of the Plebs and candidate for Consul
> > > Caeca
> > > Merula
> > > Enodia
> > > Tink - Founder of of the Musarum and the Matrona list.
> > > Cornelia Merula
> > >
> > > And there are plenty that I am missing.  But that would be just a start and
> > > some names that popped immediately in my head.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Sulla
> >
>

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Piscinus' last rant about imperium made me check something.

I did, in fact, attempt to convene the Senate as praetor - at the request of one of the consuls. The Senate decided that it was not properly executed, and it was not allowed. The end.

And as curule aedile, I argued that I did, in fact, have the authority to convene the Senate. Why? Because of the lex Arminia Equitia de imperio. The Constitution itself gives the curule aediles the power to hold imperium:

"Two curule aediles shall be elected by the comitia populi tributa to serve a term lasting one year. They shall have the following honors, powers, and obligations: a. To hold Imperium;" (Constitution N.R. VI.A.4.a).


The lex Arminia Equitia de imperio says that among the rights conferred by holding imperium is the

"Ius agendi cum senatu, calling to Senate to vote or placing a proposed senatus consultum on the Senate agenda." (lex Arminia Equitia de imperio 2.C)


So if a a curule aedile is an imperium-holding magistrate, and imperium confers the right to call the Senate, then according to the Constitution and the lex Arminia Equitia de imperio...

This is an obvious example of the law of unintended consequences, and a very good reason to look carefully at what our law says and doesn't say despite what the authors may have *intended* it to mean or say.

Valete,

Cato

She cant get that distinction around her brain. I wish she would! It would
make life so much easier that she is not the sum of all women in NR.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato Maiori sal.
>
> It's not misogynism, Maior. It's *you*.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
> >
> > M. Hortensia Quiritibus
> >
> > And Metellus is the one who grossly insulted me in public with crude
> sexual references. Swell.
> >
> > I also have the privilege of receiving an obscene sexual letter from
> Sulla. Plus a fresco with my name attached, being gang-banged & called every
> foul sexual name in the book by Gn. Julius Caesar, Sulla, and his buddies
> over in the fun place the Back Alley.
> >
> > M. Valeria Maxima received similar nasty sexual treatment from Q. Fabius
> Maximus & Sulla. Of course if you are friends with the men of the Back
> Alley, you are spared these kinds of bullying treatment. Wonderful.
> >
> > And the misogyny rolls on.....
> > I can't recommend this place to any woman it's that bad.
> > vale
> > M.Hortensia Maior
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Quintus
> Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Let me add one, perhaps unexpected, name to that list: Aula Tullia
> > > Scholastica, with whose views I frequently disagree, but that
> > > certainly doesn't make her any less smart, intelligent, sensible...
> > > the list goes on, but it'd take me all day to finish.
> > >
> > > - Q Caecilius Metellus
> > >
> > > On 22 August 2010 13:29, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@> wrote:
> > > > Heck just off the top of my head we have:
> > > >
> > > > Pompeia Municia Tiberia - CONSUL of Nova Roma
> > > > Diana Octavia - Tribune of the Plebs and candidate for Consul
> > > > Caeca
> > > > Merula
> > > > Enodia
> > > > Tink - Founder of of the Musarum and the Matrona list.
> > > > Cornelia Merula
> > > >
> > > > And there are plenty that I am missing. But that would be just a
> start and
> > > > some names that popped immediately in my head.
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > Sulla
> > >
> >
>
>
>


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

Also C Fabia Livia (later C Livia), Agrippina Modia Aurelia,
Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia, Lucia Modia Lupa, Violentilla Galeria
Saltatrix, Mania Galeria Coruina... this list just keeps on going.

- Q Caecilius Metellus

On 22 August 2010 14:02, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> And Cassia!  And Vedia Serna from way back in the day!!  ANd Flavia
> Claudia....and...  We can just have this be a running list! :)  This is
> great!
>
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Gaius Tullius Valerianus <
> gaius.tullius.valerianus@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> And I'll add Gaia Valeria Pulchra and the new probationary citizen Aula
>> Aemilia Paulla to the list of intelligent, sensible women here . . .
>>
>> ~ Valerianus
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <
>>
>> q.caecilius.metellus@... <q.caecilius.metellus%40gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Let me add one, perhaps unexpected, name to that list: Aula Tullia
>> > Scholastica, with whose views I frequently disagree, but that
>> > certainly doesn't make her any less smart, intelligent, sensible...
>> > the list goes on, but it'd take me all day to finish.
>> >
>> > - Q Caecilius Metellus
>> >
>> >
>> > On 22 August 2010 13:29, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
>> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> > > Heck just off the top of my head we have:
>> > >
>> > > Pompeia Municia Tiberia - CONSUL of Nova Roma
>> > > Diana Octavia - Tribune of the Plebs and candidate for Consul
>> > > Caeca
>> > > Merula
>> > > Enodia
>> > > Tink - Founder of of the Musarum and the Matrona list.
>> > > Cornelia Merula
>> > >
>> > > And there are plenty that I am missing. But that would be just a start
>> > and
>> > > some names that popped immediately in my head.
>> > >
>> > > Vale,
>> > >
>> > > Sulla
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

It is not easy to believe that.

You are senator and you cannot read our sessions? "As senator" said Maior, so if you are senator I do not understand why you cannot read the CP and CA sessions. That is not possible.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
flamen Portunalis Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

It's been a long time but there was Valeria Cornelia Secunda. She was
Propraetor of AMS Province when I joined NR. I replaced her as Propraetor
later.

Priscus

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <
q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:

> Also C Fabia Livia (later C Livia), Agrippina Modia Aurelia,
> Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia, Lucia Modia Lupa, Violentilla Galeria
> Saltatrix, Mania Galeria Coruina... this list just keeps on going.
>
> - Q Caecilius Metellus
>
> On 22 August 2010 14:02, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> wrote:
> > And Cassia! And Vedia Serna from way back in the day!! ANd Flavia
> > Claudia....and... We can just have this be a running list! :) This is
> > great!
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Gaius Tullius Valerianus <
> > gaius.tullius.valerianus@...> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> And I'll add Gaia Valeria Pulchra and the new probationary citizen Aula
> >> Aemilia Paulla to the list of intelligent, sensible women here . . .
> >>
> >> ~ Valerianus
> >>
> >> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <
> >>
> >> q.caecilius.metellus@... <q.caecilius.metellus%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Let me add one, perhaps unexpected, name to that list: Aula Tullia
> >> > Scholastica, with whose views I frequently disagree, but that
> >> > certainly doesn't make her any less smart, intelligent, sensible...
> >> > the list goes on, but it'd take me all day to finish.
> >> >
> >> > - Q Caecilius Metellus
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 22 August 2010 13:29, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> >> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>
> >>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > Heck just off the top of my head we have:
> >> > >
> >> > > Pompeia Municia Tiberia - CONSUL of Nova Roma
> >> > > Diana Octavia - Tribune of the Plebs and candidate for Consul
> >> > > Caeca
> >> > > Merula
> >> > > Enodia
> >> > > Tink - Founder of of the Musarum and the Matrona list.
> >> > > Cornelia Merula
> >> > >
> >> > > And there are plenty that I am missing. But that would be just a
> start
> >> > and
> >> > > some names that popped immediately in my head.
> >> > >
> >> > > Vale,
> >> > >
> >> > > Sulla
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

I have been banned from both lists - in direct opposition to the laws of
Nova Roma.

Maior even admitted it earlier in this very thread.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 2:14 PM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

>
>
> C. Petronius L. Sullae s.p.d.,
>
> It is not easy to believe that.
>
> You are senator and you cannot read our sessions? "As senator" said Maior,
> so if you are senator I do not understand why you cannot read the CP and CA
> sessions. That is not possible.
>
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> flamen Portunalis Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>
>
>


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

Wow, this list is really going to just keep going:

Lucia Cornelia Cinna
Secunda Cornelia Valeria
Helena Galeria Aureliana
Lucia Galeria Mira Pictrix
Aula Galeria Renata

(of which, I've met the last three; of my immediately preceding list,
I have met three, and from Sulla's original list, I've met three)

- Metellus

On 22 August 2010 14:14, Quintus Caecilius Metellus
<q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:

> Also C Fabia Livia (later C Livia), Agrippina Modia Aurelia,
> Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia, Lucia Modia Lupa, Violentilla Galeria
> Saltatrix, Mania Galeria Coruina... this list just keeps on going.
>
> - Q Caecilius Metellus
>
> On 22 August 2010 14:02, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>> And Cassia!  And Vedia Serna from way back in the day!!  ANd Flavia
>> Claudia....and...  We can just have this be a running list! :)  This is
>> great!
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Gaius Tullius Valerianus <
>> gaius.tullius.valerianus@...> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And I'll add Gaia Valeria Pulchra and the new probationary citizen Aula
>>> Aemilia Paulla to the list of intelligent, sensible women here . . .
>>>
>>> ~ Valerianus
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <
>>>
>>> q.caecilius.metellus@... <q.caecilius.metellus%40gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Let me add one, perhaps unexpected, name to that list: Aula Tullia
>>> > Scholastica, with whose views I frequently disagree, but that
>>> > certainly doesn't make her any less smart, intelligent, sensible...
>>> > the list goes on, but it'd take me all day to finish.
>>> >
>>> > - Q Caecilius Metellus
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 22 August 2010 13:29, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
>>> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>
>>>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > Heck just off the top of my head we have:
>>> > >
>>> > > Pompeia Municia Tiberia - CONSUL of Nova Roma
>>> > > Diana Octavia - Tribune of the Plebs and candidate for Consul
>>> > > Caeca
>>> > > Merula
>>> > > Enodia
>>> > > Tink - Founder of of the Musarum and the Matrona list.
>>> > > Cornelia Merula
>>> > >
>>> > > And there are plenty that I am missing. But that would be just a start
>>> > and
>>> > > some names that popped immediately in my head.
>>> > >
>>> > > Vale,
>>> > >
>>> > > Sulla
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Q Caecilius Metellus C Petronio Dextro salutem.

In the archives of the Collegium, on 24 December 2009, you will find
your explanation, and I assure you, it will not be difficult to
believe.

Cura, ut ualeas optime.

On 22 August 2010 14:14, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
> C. Petronius L. Sullae s.p.d.,
>
> It is not easy to believe that.
>
> You are senator and you cannot read our sessions? "As senator" said Maior, so if you are senator I do not understand why you cannot read the CP and CA sessions. That is not possible.
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> flamen Portunalis Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

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

I did not remember the bannishment of Sulla and Cato from the CP list. Yes, as you say, it is not difficult to believe.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Q Caecilius Metellus Postumianus pontifex apud populo in foro salutem.

Saluete,

It seems the people are wondering about the veracity of the claim that
Senators L Cornelius Sulla Felix and C Equitius Cato have been barred
from observing the deliberations of the Collegium Pontificum and the
Collegium Augurum. Having been myself removed as a moderator of the
Collegium Pontificum list, I cannot check the archives to see if any
attempt has been made to subscribe these individuals to this list (I am
neither augur nor senator, and so cannot say anything about the
Collegium Augurum list), though I can and will definitively confirm
that, on 24 December 2009, M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus, as pontifex
maximus pro tempore, specifically announced that these two individuals
would be banned from observing these two lists. Any senatorial observer
of the Collegium Pontificum list should be able to verify that this
appears in post 1017 of that list, as well as any pontifex or flamen.

Curate, ut res ualeat publica.

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

> It's not misogynism, Maior. It's *you*.

So, is it misomaiorism?

Vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XI Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Q Caecilius C Petronio salutem.

>> It's not misogynism, Maior. It's *you*.
>
> So, is it misomaiorism?

That, my friend, would something of which I actually am guilty.

LOL that is something WE ALL would be guilty of.

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Q Caecilius Metellus <
q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:

>
>
> Q Caecilius C Petronio salutem.
>
>
> >> It's not misogynism, Maior. It's *you*.
> >
> > So, is it misomaiorism?
>
> That, my friend, would something of which I actually am guilty.
>
>

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

Caeca omnibus in foro S. P. D.

As fascinating as it is, I note that 7/8 of the women on your celebratory
list are no longer here. I will make no other comment, since it would
require speculation on my part, uninformed by certain knowledge, and that
would be unfair. I also note, however, that you have neglected to mention a
Curule magistrate, who is currently serving, and that would be L. Julia
Aquila.

Respectfully,
Valete bene,
C. Maria Caeca

I was just checking if anything in NR has changed since last I was here.


It caetainly hasn't. No big surprise though; haters gotta hate.





- Anna Bucci


AKA Annia Minucia Marcella

ps. when I was a participant here, I never thought this place was sexist or misogynistic.

Salve Anna;
you're so right...

But there is going to be a real life meeting for our provincia Austroorientalis in South Carolina and that should be great.

And there was the incredible triple marriages of the Sarmatii and votum, consecration of a temple to Iuppiter Perunus in Sarmatia. Lentulus from Pannonia and Agricola from Japan attended and Corvus stood in as the Flamen Dialis. Now that is incredible and something to be proud of!
optime vale
M. Hortensia Maior

:

>
> I was just checking if anything in NR has changed since last I was here.
>
>
> It caetainly hasn't. No big surprise though; haters gotta hate.
>
>
>
>
>
> - Anna Bucci
>
>
> AKA Annia Minucia Marcella
>
> ps. when I was a participant here, I never thought this place was sexist or misogynistic.
>

Q Caecilius Metellus apud populum in foro salutem.

The statement of M Hortensia really begs the question, and I shall be
glad to put it to the People:

Is it more valuable to have a few "meetings" with other Romans, or to
live in the company of Romans?

Salve;

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Quintus Caecilius Metellus wrote:
>
> Let me add one, perhaps unexpected, name to that list: Aula Tullia
> Scholastica, with whose views I frequently disagree, but that
> certainly doesn't make her any less smart, intelligent, sensible...
> the list goes on, but it'd take me all day to finish.
>
> - Q Caecilius Metellus
>

I'll second that.

Venii

> Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
>
> I know that I, in direct violation of the senatus consultum,
> have been barred from the College of Pontiffs' List.
> I have been given no explanation as to what authority gives
> the owner of that List to violate a direct order from the Senate.

Wow - I hadn't known this. It is not only appalling - yet characteristic of Piscinus's complete lack of ethics - but also highly ironic.

For was this Senatus Consultum not the very means by which Piscinus himself seized power?

As consul, in his first month he put forth a resolution that *all* Senators must have access to all "official" Nova Roma lists.

Then, when Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus AUGUR did not comply, he used this to launch a trial for "treason" against Cincinnatus, specifically for the crime of not allowing Senators (Modianus in particular) access to the Augurs list. As a result, Cincinnatus departed from this community, and has not been seen on any of these lists since.

Now we find that the arch-traitor Piscinus is in fact doing exactly the thing he banished Cincinnatus for!

CONSULS, WHY ARE YOU ALLOWING HIM TO RULE AS AN UNELECTED TYRANT?

Piscinus does what he pleases, in defiance of the laws that he himself used against his enemies, that he used to seize power.

WHY IS THE SO-CALLED PONTIFEX MAXIMUS OPENLY DEFYING THE SENATE?

Consul Fabius, WAKE UP! He is using you, and everything he has touched has been a disaster. Nova Roma is on the brink of destruction - you have an unsupported web site, no CIO, and very little likelihood of putting on a legal election this year. You have no praetores, only three of five tribunes, and a consul held hostage and immobilized by false augurs. Your college of pontifices has been
turned into a political tool, as Piscinus tries to purge it of a pontifex who has had the courage to stand up to him.

Purge this schemer, this manipulator, this fiend from your midst! Consuls, senators, pontifices, you must *unite* and *banish* the traitor, while you still can.

DAMNATIO MEMORIAE IN PISCINUM!

Valete,
M. Octavius Gracchus.
ex-citizen since Day 1 of the Piscinine era.

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

> Corvus stood in as the Flamen Dialis.

Why cannot you once say the truth?

Corvus did not stand in as Flamen Dialis but as sacerdos confarreationum and sacerdos Iovis.

Unfortunately, Nova Roma does not yet have her Flamen Dialis. You are member of the CP and you do not know that... but, Maior, please, in what world are you living?

Why do you like to delude yourself?

Vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. X Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Salve Annia Minucia Marcella!

It has been a while! If you're thinking of sticking around, there is a
thriving recent list for NR women at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Matronae_Novae_Romae/ (which my wife tells me
is very good) . . .

Glad to see you around!

Vale!

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 6:45 PM, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:

>
>
> I was just checking if anything in NR has changed since last I was here.
>
> It caetainly hasn't. No big surprise though; haters gotta hate.
>
> - Anna Bucci
>
> AKA Annia Minucia Marcella
>
> ps. when I was a participant here, I never thought this place was sexist or
> misogynistic.
>
>
>


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

In a message dated 8/22/2010 1:53:04 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
rory12001@... writes:

M. Valeria Maxima received similar nasty sexual treatment from Q. Fabius
Maximus & Sulla. Of course if you are friends with the men of the Back
Alley, you are spared these kinds of bullying treatment. Wonderful.


Maior, you are so far off base. I have never given nasty sexual treatment
to Valeria. Ever.

I am so tired of defending myself in public, so I remind people in NR,
assume whatever comes out of maior's keyboard is incorrect... Save us all
some time...

Q. Fabius Maximus

Sent from my BlackBerry




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

>
> A. Tullia Scholastica Q. Caecilio Metello quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque
> bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
>
> Let me add one, perhaps unexpected, name to that list: Aula Tullia
> Scholastica, with whose views I frequently disagree, but that
> certainly doesn't make her any less smart, intelligent, sensible...
> the list goes on, but it'd take me all day to finish.
>
> ATS: Thank you very much for your kind words. Metelle, you are a very
> intelligent young man, and one who usually writes very well. Indeed, we do
> disagree on some points, notably the propriety of some remarks you made, but
> that should not eliminate a measure of respect for one another. Miss Manners
> may have to lend me her smelling salts...I feel faint...
>
> Note, too, that we have many intelligent people here, both men and women.
> Among the women we have a comparatively new citizen, Cn. Livia Ocella, who is
> even younger than you, and seems quite bright; L. Livia Plauta, L. Julia
> Aquila, and several others, some of whom have sadly left our ranks. The
> former C. Fabia Livia, a pair of curule aediles, and Serena come to mind; the
> first and last of these were with me in our first living-Latin course under
> the direction of Avitus. I wonder about Julilla, too...
>
> Iterum gratias tibi.
>
>
> Q Caecilius Metellus
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>


>
> On 22 August 2010 13:29, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...
> <mailto:robert.woolwine%40gmail.com> > wrote:
>> > Heck just off the top of my head we have:
>> >
>> > Pompeia Municia Tiberia - CONSUL of Nova Roma
>> > Diana Octavia - Tribune of the Plebs and candidate for Consul
>> > Caeca
>> > Merula
>> > Enodia
>> > Tink - Founder of of the Musarum and the Matrona list.
>> > Cornelia Merula
>> >
>> > And there are plenty that I am missing.  But that would be just a start and
>> > some names that popped immediately in my head.
>> >
>> > Vale,
>> >
>> > Sulla
>
>
>
>

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

>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica P. Ullerio Venatori quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque
> bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> Salve;
>
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Quintus Caecilius Metellus wrote:
>> >
>> > Let me add one, perhaps unexpected, name to that list: Aula Tullia
>> > Scholastica, with whose views I frequently disagree, but that
>> > certainly doesn't make her any less smart, intelligent, sensible...
>> > the list goes on, but it'd take me all day to finish.
>> >
>> > - Q Caecilius Metellus
>> >
>
> I'll second that.
>
> ATS: And thank you for your kind sentiments as well. Hope you are
> enjoying Caeca¹s contributions to Musarum; she¹s been hiding her talents far
> too long.
>
> Venii
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>

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