Actually none of that really matters right now.

I'm glad you all feel the need to correct Maior anytime she speaks about proper procedures and offices and who can do what blah blah blah, but it's all irrelevent. Why is it irrelevent? Cause we're still just talking about separation, you're not actually deciding anything, or putting anything up for a vote, or convening anyone to talk about voting, etc.


And perhaps you can correct maior some other time when things are going to be put in motion. Let's focus guys. You really don't need to correct every single thing Maior says. Seriously, you guys never believe what she says anyway; we get it.


-Anna Bucci

AKA Annia Minucia Marcella

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Maiori sal.
>
> Actually, the tribunes are *not* officers according to our by-laws.
>
> The officers of the corporation are the censors, the consuls, the praetors, and the quaestors.
>
> Your statement:
>
> "We can certainly have the tribunes call the Senate and have the Senate vote on a resolution..."
>
> is also incorrect. The tribunes' authority to call the Senate is quite clearly restricted under our by-laws.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Maior Quiritibus spd
> >
> > you can't stop an officer from calling a Board meeting to conduct the Non-profit's business. The tribunes are officers, so is the co-president Kaeso Fabius Buteo Quinitllianus. It's not an issue at all.
> >
> > vale
> > Maior
>

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

>
> Cato Maiori sal.
>
> You *could* be "done with you Cato and your friends forever" if *you* left,
> Maior. Then apparently we wouldn't need to even consider dissolving the
> corporation or ripping the Resublica apart.

Likewise, you and sulla could leave and I'm pretty sure Nova Roma would function a lot more smoothly.


-Anna Bucci

AKA Annia Minucia Marcella

Salvete Anna et omnes:

I posted Gracchus' partition plan on the Senate list 2 days ago, Aug 25th. So we need to give it a chance for the weekend and it's also holidays in Europe and the U.S.

Believe me I'll ask for a resolution by the Board to be put into the next Senate meeting's agenda.
vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
>
> Actually none of that really matters right now.
>
> I'm glad you all feel the need to correct Maior anytime she speaks about proper procedures and offices and who can do what blah blah blah, but it's all irrelevent. Why is it irrelevent? Cause we're still just talking about separation, you're not actually deciding anything, or putting anything up for a vote, or convening anyone to talk about voting, etc.
>
>
> And perhaps you can correct maior some other time when things are going to be put in motion. Let's focus guys. You really don't need to correct every single thing Maior says. Seriously, you guys never believe what she says anyway; we get it.
>
>
> -Anna Bucci
>
> AKA Annia Minucia Marcella
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Maiori sal.
> >
> > Actually, the tribunes are *not* officers according to our by-laws.
> >
> > The officers of the corporation are the censors, the consuls, the praetors, and the quaestors.
> >
> > Your statement:
> >
> > "We can certainly have the tribunes call the Senate and have the Senate vote on a resolution..."
> >
> > is also incorrect. The tribunes' authority to call the Senate is quite clearly restricted under our by-laws.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maior Quiritibus spd
> > >
> > > you can't stop an officer from calling a Board meeting to conduct the Non-profit's business. The tribunes are officers, so is the co-president Kaeso Fabius Buteo Quinitllianus. It's not an issue at all.
> > >
> > > vale
> > > Maior
> >
>

Cato Annae sal.

You don't seem to get it, Anna, and this is the only time I'm going to respond to you so you can make fun of me or try your attempts at witty, biting sarcasm as much as you like hereafter but I won't be replying.

The reason - the fundamental, elemental reason - that these discussions are even *happening* is because Maior and people like her either do not understand the law (the laws of our Respublica or the laws of incorporation) OR because they simply disregard it as inconvenient to their own personal goals and have violated it with such fierce and enthusiastic abandon that there might as well be no law.

Yes, I believe - and have actually proven on occasion - that basically every time she opens her mouth Maior purposefully distorts or simply contradicts the actual facts of basically any situation; the trouble is that she and her ... "faction" ... don't just talk - they *do* - and they do violence to our Respublica by abusing the authority with which they have been entrusted by the People.

So yes, every time Maior lies or distorts the truth, I will call her on it in public.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
>
> Actually none of that really matters right now.
>
> I'm glad you all feel the need to correct Maior anytime she speaks about proper procedures and offices and who can do what blah blah blah, but it's all irrelevent. Why is it irrelevent? Cause we're still just talking about separation, you're not actually deciding anything, or putting anything up for a vote, or convening anyone to talk about voting, etc.
>
>
> And perhaps you can correct maior some other time when things are going to be put in motion. Let's focus guys. You really don't need to correct every single thing Maior says. Seriously, you guys never believe what she says anyway; we get it.
>
>
> -Anna Bucci
>
> AKA Annia Minucia Marcella
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Maiori sal.
> >
> > Actually, the tribunes are *not* officers according to our by-laws.
> >
> > The officers of the corporation are the censors, the consuls, the praetors, and the quaestors.
> >
> > Your statement:
> >
> > "We can certainly have the tribunes call the Senate and have the Senate vote on a resolution..."
> >
> > is also incorrect. The tribunes' authority to call the Senate is quite clearly restricted under our by-laws.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maior Quiritibus spd
> > >
> > > you can't stop an officer from calling a Board meeting to conduct the Non-profit's business. The tribunes are officers, so is the co-president Kaeso Fabius Buteo Quinitllianus. It's not an issue at all.
> > >
> > > vale
> > > Maior
> >
>

You can ask. Does not mean you will get.

Anyone in the senate can start discussions on any matter. Does not mean a
guarantee it will be put on any agenda.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:47 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salvete Anna et omnes:
>
> I posted Gracchus' partition plan on the Senate list 2 days ago, Aug 25th.
> So we need to give it a chance for the weekend and it's also holidays in
> Europe and the U.S.
>
> Believe me I'll ask for a resolution by the Board to be put into the next
> Senate meeting's agenda.
> vale
> Maior
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
> >
> > Actually none of that really matters right now.
> >
> > I'm glad you all feel the need to correct Maior anytime she speaks about
> proper procedures and offices and who can do what blah blah blah, but it's
> all irrelevent. Why is it irrelevent? Cause we're still just talking about
> separation, you're not actually deciding anything, or putting anything up
> for a vote, or convening anyone to talk about voting, etc.
> >
> >
> > And perhaps you can correct maior some other time when things are going
> to be put in motion. Let's focus guys. You really don't need to correct
> every single thing Maior says. Seriously, you guys never believe what she
> says anyway; we get it.
> >
> >
> > -Anna Bucci
> >
> > AKA Annia Minucia Marcella
>
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Cato"
> <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cato Maiori sal.
> > >
> > > Actually, the tribunes are *not* officers according to our by-laws.
> > >
> > > The officers of the corporation are the censors, the consuls, the
> praetors, and the quaestors.
> > >
> > > Your statement:
> > >
> > > "We can certainly have the tribunes call the Senate and have the Senate
> vote on a resolution..."
> > >
> > > is also incorrect. The tribunes' authority to call the Senate is quite
> clearly restricted under our by-laws.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maior Quiritibus spd
> > > >
> > > > you can't stop an officer from calling a Board meeting to conduct the
> Non-profit's business. The tribunes are officers, so is the co-president
> Kaeso Fabius Buteo Quinitllianus. It's not an issue at all.
> > > >
> > > > vale
> > > > Maior
> > >
> >
>
>
>


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

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

>
> Cato Annae sal.
>
> You don't seem to get it, Anna,

Incorrect assumption.



-Anna bucci

AKA Annia Minucia Marcella

It's like talking to a wall. A fat ignorant wall.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> You can ask. Does not mean you will get.
>
> Anyone in the senate can start discussions on any matter. Does not mean a
> guarantee it will be put on any agenda.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:47 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Salvete Anna et omnes:
> >
> > I posted Gracchus' partition plan on the Senate list 2 days ago, Aug 25th.
> > So we need to give it a chance for the weekend and it's also holidays in
> > Europe and the U.S.
> >
> > Believe me I'll ask for a resolution by the Board to be put into the next
> > Senate meeting's agenda.
> > vale
> > Maior
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually none of that really matters right now.
> > >
> > > I'm glad you all feel the need to correct Maior anytime she speaks about
> > proper procedures and offices and who can do what blah blah blah, but it's
> > all irrelevent. Why is it irrelevent? Cause we're still just talking about
> > separation, you're not actually deciding anything, or putting anything up
> > for a vote, or convening anyone to talk about voting, etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > And perhaps you can correct maior some other time when things are going
> > to be put in motion. Let's focus guys. You really don't need to correct
> > every single thing Maior says. Seriously, you guys never believe what she
> > says anyway; we get it.
> > >
> > >
> > > -Anna Bucci
> > >
> > > AKA Annia Minucia Marcella
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Cato"
> > <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Cato Maiori sal.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, the tribunes are *not* officers according to our by-laws.
> > > >
> > > > The officers of the corporation are the censors, the consuls, the
> > praetors, and the quaestors.
> > > >
> > > > Your statement:
> > > >
> > > > "We can certainly have the tribunes call the Senate and have the Senate
> > vote on a resolution..."
> > > >
> > > > is also incorrect. The tribunes' authority to call the Senate is quite
> > clearly restricted under our by-laws.
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > Cato
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Maior Quiritibus spd
> > > > >
> > > > > you can't stop an officer from calling a Board meeting to conduct the
> > Non-profit's business. The tribunes are officers, so is the co-president
> > Kaeso Fabius Buteo Quinitllianus. It's not an issue at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > vale
> > > > > Maior
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Is there an answer to this? any ideas?

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
>
> Another question I have about a possible separation is how will this effect the provinces? Will each org appoint a governor to each province, so there are 2 governors? Can governors be in both orgs? Can Legates be in both orgs? How do governors collect taxes if some cives are in one org and the rest are in another?
>
>
> -Anna Bucci
>
> AKA Annia Minucia Marcella
>

Please remove me from Nova Roma,....thanks




________________________________
From: lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, August 27, 2010 5:04:33 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: de Res Publica

 

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Terry Wilson <twilson6356@...> wrote:
>
> Eureka!  We've stumbled upon yet one more irreparable fault line along which
> Nova Roma can divide -- one's definition of "childish behavior."  Ye gods!!
>

Except semantic arguuments are hardly new in this place. It is an old and weary
fault line.

-Anna Bucci

AKA Annia Minucia Marcella







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

Salve Anna;
I dont think its a big issue. Just have grass roots gatherings, if big enough then oppidia then provinces with governors..NR's problem is that it is insanely top heavy with magistrates.

Our province is pretty active, so lets form a Nashville oppidia or in my case a local one here in NC and build from the bottom up.

Social mingling between groups is fine...just spare me the dysfuction.
vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
>
> Is there an answer to this? any ideas?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@> wrote:
> >
> > Another question I have about a possible separation is how will this effect the provinces? Will each org appoint a governor to each province, so there are 2 governors? Can governors be in both orgs? Can Legates be in both orgs? How do governors collect taxes if some cives are in one org and the rest are in another?
> >
> >
> > -Anna Bucci
> >
> > AKA Annia Minucia Marcella
> >
>

Yea, I'll get right on that.



-Anna Bucci

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Eric Broadhead <eric.broadhead@...> wrote:
>
> Please remove me from Nova Roma,....thanks
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, August 27, 2010 5:04:33 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: de Res Publica
>
>  
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Terry Wilson <twilson6356@> wrote:
> >
> > Eureka!  We've stumbled upon yet one more irreparable fault line along which
> > Nova Roma can divide -- one's definition of "childish behavior."  Ye gods!!
> >
>
> Except semantic arguuments are hardly new in this place. It is an old and weary
> fault line.
>
> -Anna Bucci
>
> AKA Annia Minucia Marcella
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Caeca Seneca Sal,

Oh, my! I see I'm going to have to go to the A. C. and get my citizen ID number! You *could* have warned me, (laughs). But I'll do that, and register on your site.

BTW, thank you so very kindly for both noticing that I must use adaptive software, and for being concerned about my accessibility issues. However, so far, so good, and I am most hopeful.

Vale quam optime,

C. Maria Caeca, who loves it when new citizens try new things!

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

I only ask cause when I ran Nova Britannia, it was productive, it was active, it was organized. I gave it a shake and dusted it off. The page on the wiki was updated and full of content. The NB website was redesigned, updated, and added a message board. The mailing list was alive.

I'm not saying all provinces can do that, I'm just saying that 2 separate orgs might complicate things if it's not thought out. Perhaps if each province was autonomous, the people could vote for their own governor, and can vote on allegiance to eaither org might prove to be the best course.


I've always preferred Provincial autonomy.



-Anna Bucci

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Anna;
> I dont think its a big issue. Just have grass roots gatherings, if big enough then oppidia then provinces with governors..NR's problem is that it is insanely top heavy with magistrates.
>
> Our province is pretty active, so lets form a Nashville oppidia or in my case a local one here in NC and build from the bottom up.
>
> Social mingling between groups is fine...just spare me the dysfuction.
> vale
> Maior
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@> wrote:
> >
> > Is there an answer to this? any ideas?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Another question I have about a possible separation is how will this effect the provinces? Will each org appoint a governor to each province, so there are 2 governors? Can governors be in both orgs? Can Legates be in both orgs? How do governors collect taxes if some cives are in one org and the rest are in another?
> > >
> > >
> > > -Anna Bucci
> > >
> > > AKA Annia Minucia Marcella
> > >
> >
>

Salvete Omnes:

For those unfamiliar...

Nota Bene: I am personal friends with many of the folks on all sides
of the broader Asatru community, including Steve McNallen. I am also
a Folkbuilder, aka point of contact in Illinois and Wisconsin for the
current AFA.

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3:59 PM, lathyrus77 wrote:
>
> How do you account for the successful split of the Asatru Free Assembly into 3 very large and foundationally strong organizations?
>
> -Anna Bucci
>
> AKA Annia Minucia Marcella
>

The Asatru Free Assembly (1974 - 1986) was an organization, which
evolved out the original Viking brotherhood (1972 - 1974) funded by
Stephen A. McNallen and Robert Stine as a group for folks who are
Asatru. Mr McNallen was the president of the organizations
throughout. The Viking brotherhood was an informal group in his
college days starting about 1967, and was formalized in 1972.

Asatru (my own Religio Septentrionalis) is also called Odinism,
Heathenry, Irminism, Ur Glaawe, Anglo-Saxon Heathenry, Theodism,
amongst others...generally falling under the umbrella term of Germanic
- Scandinavian Paganism.

Asatru is a branch most specifically coming out of the Pre-Christian
Lore, History, Folk Ways and Culture preserved in Iceland. It is not
Reconstructionist for many, but more a Reawakening of the
Pre-Christian, Native Spiritualities of the Folk who we now call
Scandinavians and Germans, along with the influences of peoples who
could be considered Cousins Germane: Celts, Slavs, Balts and so forth.

The AFA was disbanded in 1986 for various reasons, some of them being
deeply rooted philosophical differences between the "Folkish"
Asatruars and the "Universalists," along with burnout on Mr Mcnallen's
part.

Simply put...volumes have been written, so anything I write here is
just a tiny precis.

Folkish Philosophy: Asatru is a set of beliefs and worldviews born of
specific Peoples and adherents are most likely to come from the
descendants of those Peoples. Some will take this to
"ultra-nationalistic" or even "racist" extremes. Most Folkish
Asatruars of my acquaintance and friendship see that pride in one's
heritage does not mean hatred of others. The encouragement is to help
people find their heritage and maintain the freedom of each culture to
survive and thrive. I am at the Folkish end of the community myself.

Universalist Philosophy: The Gods and Goddesses of the Northern
Peoples can "Call" to anyone regardless of heritage. Ancestry matters
not in practicing the Religion of Asatru. There are some at this end
of the spectrum who are fully syncretic, bringing in other Holy Powers
to their devotions. There are others who are "Dual Trad," "Triple
Trad" or even henotheistic.

One other point; many Folkish will look upon Asatru as a way of life,
not separable from day-to-day living. To us, Asatru is not a
religion, per se, but something, which is an aspect of one's
worldview.

The vast majority of Asafolk are along the great middle ground, with a
bit of Laissez-faire attitude so long as others show by Word and Deed
that they are honorable individuals. The folks at the extreme ends
are becoming more and more marginalized...

After the breakup...

The Asatru Alliance of Independent Kindreds was founded by Michael
"Valgard" Murray in 1987. It is as it says; one can only be a member
of the Alliance if one is a member of a Kindred, which has affiliated.
The Alliance is firmly in the Folkish camp. Valgard has long sought
to marginalize extremists, as I have personally witnessed. The
Alliance hold an annual Althing, where Kindreds gather to meet, have
social gatherings, religious observances, games, and a the Althing
itself. The Althing is where the representatives of each Kindred
meet. The Laws of the Alliance are read, discussed, changes are made
by vote, violations by member Kindreds, or individuals within Kindreds
are reviewed, penalties exacted, new Kindreds are interviewed and
accepted or rejected...Althing 30 was held this year (a continuation
of the original AFA Althing). The structure is styled after the
ancient Icelandic Gothic republic. Gothic in this case referring to
the Gothis, Chieftain-Priests, who ruled the districts into which
Iceland was divided.

The Ring of troth (now known as the Troth), was founded in 1987 by
Stephen "Edred Thorsson" Flowers and James Chisholm, neither of whom
are still involved. Their annual gathering is called Trothmoot, a
moot being a gathering of members for purposes similar to the above
mentioned Althing. However, the Troth has a structure much more
formally styled after a modern, religious corporation, but using
antique titles for the offices. The Troth is predominantly
Universalist in outlook. Many fine folks therein who are friends and
acquaintances of mine.

The third organization to which Anna's post alluded is the current
Asatru Folk Assembly, of which I am a longtime member.

The AFA was restarted in 1994 by Steve McNallen and has gone through
some changes. It is most closely allied with the Asatru Alliance, but
is an organization of individual members.

As with any walk of life, there is some cross membership between the
three, but not a lot. There have been tensions, sometimes filled with
a lot of vitriol, but things are settled to more an atmosphere of
amiable jabs, rather than mean spirited attacks at each other.

All told, I estimate that there are at least a few thousand Asafolk of
all stripes affiliated with these three organizations. They succeed,
because each serves a different aspect of the broader Asatru "nation."

And if one chooses to do a Google for Asatru, you'll find several
other organizations across the globe.

I will be glad to answer questions, from my understanding of Asatru
and its history. Off list or on, as the Praetorians and Nova Roman
interest deems.

Farrheill - Stefn Ullarsson Piparskeggr, alias P Ullerius Stephanus Venator

Salve Anna;
yes I remember your province was very active. I'm all for individuals exercising free choice. Let the cives on the ground vote & make their decisions locally.
vale
Maior
-
-- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...> wrote:

>
> I only ask cause when I ran Nova Britannia, it was productive, it was active, it was organized. I gave it a shake and dusted it off. The page on the wiki was updated and full of content. The NB website was redesigned, updated, and added a message board. The mailing list was alive.
>
> I'm not saying all provinces can do that, I'm just saying that 2 separate orgs might complicate things if it's not thought out. Perhaps if each province was autonomous, the people could vote for their own governor, and can vote on allegiance to eaither org might prove to be the best course.
>
>
> I've always preferred Provincial autonomy.
>
>
>
> -Anna Bucci
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Anna;
> > I dont think its a big issue. Just have grass roots gatherings, if big enough then oppidia then provinces with governors..NR's problem is that it is insanely top heavy with magistrates.
> >
> > Our province is pretty active, so lets form a Nashville oppidia or in my case a local one here in NC and build from the bottom up.
> >
> > Social mingling between groups is fine...just spare me the dysfuction.
> > vale
> > Maior
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there an answer to this? any ideas?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Another question I have about a possible separation is how will this effect the provinces? Will each org appoint a governor to each province, so there are 2 governors? Can governors be in both orgs? Can Legates be in both orgs? How do governors collect taxes if some cives are in one org and the rest are in another?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Anna Bucci
> > > >
> > > > AKA Annia Minucia Marcella
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

since when does Asatru refer to ASH, Pip?



-Anna

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete Omnes:
>
> For those unfamiliar...
>
> Nota Bene: I am personal friends with many of the folks on all sides
> of the broader Asatru community, including Steve McNallen. I am also
> a Folkbuilder, aka point of contact in Illinois and Wisconsin for the
> current AFA.
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3:59 PM, lathyrus77 wrote:
> >
> > How do you account for the successful split of the Asatru Free Assembly into 3 very large and foundationally strong organizations?
> >
> > -Anna Bucci
> >
> > AKA Annia Minucia Marcella
> >
>
> The Asatru Free Assembly (1974 - 1986) was an organization, which
> evolved out the original Viking brotherhood (1972 - 1974) funded by
> Stephen A. McNallen and Robert Stine as a group for folks who are
> Asatru. Mr McNallen was the president of the organizations
> throughout. The Viking brotherhood was an informal group in his
> college days starting about 1967, and was formalized in 1972.
>
> Asatru (my own Religio Septentrionalis) is also called Odinism,
> Heathenry, Irminism, Ur Glaawe, Anglo-Saxon Heathenry, Theodism,
> amongst others...generally falling under the umbrella term of Germanic
> - Scandinavian Paganism.
>
> Asatru is a branch most specifically coming out of the Pre-Christian
> Lore, History, Folk Ways and Culture preserved in Iceland. It is not
> Reconstructionist for many, but more a Reawakening of the
> Pre-Christian, Native Spiritualities of the Folk who we now call
> Scandinavians and Germans, along with the influences of peoples who
> could be considered Cousins Germane: Celts, Slavs, Balts and so forth.
>
> The AFA was disbanded in 1986 for various reasons, some of them being
> deeply rooted philosophical differences between the "Folkish"
> Asatruars and the "Universalists," along with burnout on Mr Mcnallen's
> part.
>
> Simply put...volumes have been written, so anything I write here is
> just a tiny precis.
>
> Folkish Philosophy: Asatru is a set of beliefs and worldviews born of
> specific Peoples and adherents are most likely to come from the
> descendants of those Peoples. Some will take this to
> "ultra-nationalistic" or even "racist" extremes. Most Folkish
> Asatruars of my acquaintance and friendship see that pride in one's
> heritage does not mean hatred of others. The encouragement is to help
> people find their heritage and maintain the freedom of each culture to
> survive and thrive. I am at the Folkish end of the community myself.
>
> Universalist Philosophy: The Gods and Goddesses of the Northern
> Peoples can "Call" to anyone regardless of heritage. Ancestry matters
> not in practicing the Religion of Asatru. There are some at this end
> of the spectrum who are fully syncretic, bringing in other Holy Powers
> to their devotions. There are others who are "Dual Trad," "Triple
> Trad" or even henotheistic.
>
> One other point; many Folkish will look upon Asatru as a way of life,
> not separable from day-to-day living. To us, Asatru is not a
> religion, per se, but something, which is an aspect of one's
> worldview.
>
> The vast majority of Asafolk are along the great middle ground, with a
> bit of Laissez-faire attitude so long as others show by Word and Deed
> that they are honorable individuals. The folks at the extreme ends
> are becoming more and more marginalized...
>
> After the breakup...
>
> The Asatru Alliance of Independent Kindreds was founded by Michael
> "Valgard" Murray in 1987. It is as it says; one can only be a member
> of the Alliance if one is a member of a Kindred, which has affiliated.
> The Alliance is firmly in the Folkish camp. Valgard has long sought
> to marginalize extremists, as I have personally witnessed. The
> Alliance hold an annual Althing, where Kindreds gather to meet, have
> social gatherings, religious observances, games, and a the Althing
> itself. The Althing is where the representatives of each Kindred
> meet. The Laws of the Alliance are read, discussed, changes are made
> by vote, violations by member Kindreds, or individuals within Kindreds
> are reviewed, penalties exacted, new Kindreds are interviewed and
> accepted or rejected...Althing 30 was held this year (a continuation
> of the original AFA Althing). The structure is styled after the
> ancient Icelandic Gothic republic. Gothic in this case referring to
> the Gothis, Chieftain-Priests, who ruled the districts into which
> Iceland was divided.
>
> The Ring of troth (now known as the Troth), was founded in 1987 by
> Stephen "Edred Thorsson" Flowers and James Chisholm, neither of whom
> are still involved. Their annual gathering is called Trothmoot, a
> moot being a gathering of members for purposes similar to the above
> mentioned Althing. However, the Troth has a structure much more
> formally styled after a modern, religious corporation, but using
> antique titles for the offices. The Troth is predominantly
> Universalist in outlook. Many fine folks therein who are friends and
> acquaintances of mine.
>
> The third organization to which Anna's post alluded is the current
> Asatru Folk Assembly, of which I am a longtime member.
>
> The AFA was restarted in 1994 by Steve McNallen and has gone through
> some changes. It is most closely allied with the Asatru Alliance, but
> is an organization of individual members.
>
> As with any walk of life, there is some cross membership between the
> three, but not a lot. There have been tensions, sometimes filled with
> a lot of vitriol, but things are settled to more an atmosphere of
> amiable jabs, rather than mean spirited attacks at each other.
>
> All told, I estimate that there are at least a few thousand Asafolk of
> all stripes affiliated with these three organizations. They succeed,
> because each serves a different aspect of the broader Asatru "nation."
>
> And if one chooses to do a Google for Asatru, you'll find several
> other organizations across the globe.
>
> I will be glad to answer questions, from my understanding of Asatru
> and its history. Off list or on, as the Praetorians and Nova Roman
> interest deems.
>
> Farrheill - Stefn Ullarsson Piparskeggr, alias P Ullerius Stephanus Venator
>

I can't believe I actually like one of Anna's ideas...

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
>
> I only ask cause when I ran Nova Britannia, it was productive, it was active, it was organized. I gave it a shake and dusted it off. The page on the wiki was updated and full of content. The NB website was redesigned, updated, and added a message board. The mailing list was alive.
>
> I'm not saying all provinces can do that, I'm just saying that 2 separate orgs might complicate things if it's not thought out. Perhaps if each province was autonomous, the people could vote for their own governor, and can vote on allegiance to eaither org might prove to be the best course.
>
>
> I've always preferred Provincial autonomy.
>
>
>
> -Anna Bucci
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Anna;
> > I dont think its a big issue. Just have grass roots gatherings, if big enough then oppidia then provinces with governors..NR's problem is that it is insanely top heavy with magistrates.
> >
> > Our province is pretty active, so lets form a Nashville oppidia or in my case a local one here in NC and build from the bottom up.
> >
> > Social mingling between groups is fine...just spare me the dysfuction.
> > vale
> > Maior
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there an answer to this? any ideas?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Another question I have about a possible separation is how will this effect the provinces? Will each org appoint a governor to each province, so there are 2 governors? Can governors be in both orgs? Can Legates be in both orgs? How do governors collect taxes if some cives are in one org and the rest are in another?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Anna Bucci
> > > >
> > > > AKA Annia Minucia Marcella
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Ave Sulla,

> Again, the tribunes cannot summon the senate for matters outside of the Tribunes constitutionally specified realm. Try again.

The tribunes can propose a division of Nova Roma, as they did for ancient Rome, but to create a plebeian Nova Roma. :o)

No need to convene the Senate for that, only the comitia tributa. If the tribes vote the division of two Nova Roma, one patrician and one plebeian, so Nova Roma could be divided.

Obviously, Maior will be in the patrician Nova Roma with you...

Optima vale.

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

Hey Anna;

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:04 PM, lathyrus77 wrote:
>
> since when does Asatru refer to ASH, Pip?
>
> -Anna
>

I suppose it stems from 1st Contact experience. For me, Asatru came
first and my encounters and observations thereafter have been a result
of that "filter."

Anna raises a good point here about the broader "Germanic Pagan and
Neo-Pagan community.

Different, distinct groups have arisen from different historical roots.

Asatru is, as I explained, more based upon an Icelandic base, with
sources from continental Norse and Germanic sources.

Anglo-Saxon Heathenry is framed from the historical beliefs and
practices of the folk who came to inhabit what is now know as England.

Perhaps Heathenry is a more accurate term for the broad "movement,"
with Asatru, AnSax, Irminism, Theodism and so forth falling under that
umbrella.

Tchuss - Pip aka Venii

well, I had thought Theodism came from wicca. I believe Garman Lord was a wiccan that went towards Anglo-Saxon tribalism and founded the first Theod in New york, in the 1970's. From Theodism came the ASH side of heathenry.


-Anna

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Anna;
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:04 PM, lathyrus77 wrote:
> >
> > since when does Asatru refer to ASH, Pip?
> >
> > -Anna
> >
>
> I suppose it stems from 1st Contact experience. For me, Asatru came
> first and my encounters and observations thereafter have been a result
> of that "filter."
>
> Anna raises a good point here about the broader "Germanic Pagan and
> Neo-Pagan community.
>
> Different, distinct groups have arisen from different historical roots.
>
> Asatru is, as I explained, more based upon an Icelandic base, with
> sources from continental Norse and Germanic sources.
>
> Anglo-Saxon Heathenry is framed from the historical beliefs and
> practices of the folk who came to inhabit what is now know as England.
>
> Perhaps Heathenry is a more accurate term for the broad "movement,"
> with Asatru, AnSax, Irminism, Theodism and so forth falling under that
> umbrella.
>
> Tchuss - Pip aka Venii
>

This just goes on memory from what I've heard from Theodish folk.


I agree the broader term "heathenry" would cover Asatru and the rest like you said.


-Anna

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
>
> well, I had thought Theodism came from wicca. I believe Garman Lord was a wiccan that went towards Anglo-Saxon tribalism and founded the first Theod in New york, in the 1970's. From Theodism came the ASH side of heathenry.
>
>
> -Anna
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Anna;
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:04 PM, lathyrus77 wrote:
> > >
> > > since when does Asatru refer to ASH, Pip?
> > >
> > > -Anna
> > >
> >
> > I suppose it stems from 1st Contact experience. For me, Asatru came
> > first and my encounters and observations thereafter have been a result
> > of that "filter."
> >
> > Anna raises a good point here about the broader "Germanic Pagan and
> > Neo-Pagan community.
> >
> > Different, distinct groups have arisen from different historical roots.
> >
> > Asatru is, as I explained, more based upon an Icelandic base, with
> > sources from continental Norse and Germanic sources.
> >
> > Anglo-Saxon Heathenry is framed from the historical beliefs and
> > practices of the folk who came to inhabit what is now know as England.
> >
> > Perhaps Heathenry is a more accurate term for the broad "movement,"
> > with Asatru, AnSax, Irminism, Theodism and so forth falling under that
> > umbrella.
> >
> > Tchuss - Pip aka Venii
> >
>

Hey Anna;

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:19 PM, lathyrus77 wrote:
>
> well, I had thought Theodism came from wicca. I believe Garman Lord was a wiccan that went towards Anglo-Saxon tribalism and founded the first Theod in New york, in the 1970's. From Theodism came the ASH side of heathenry.
>
> -Anna
>

I think to be more accurate, going on my conversations with Garman, he
and some of the members of the original Witan Theod came from a Wiccan
background. He liked to call Theodism an "apostate child of Wicca."

The progression, in my understanding was: Gardnerian Wicca to Raymond
Buckland's Saex Wicca to Theodism (with a much more historical AnSax
base).

Garman had reached a point in his life where he just sat in the middle
of his living room floor and (basically) called out, "Who's there?"
Hlafdige Freo "tapped" him on the shoulder and said, "It's about
time."

Bill Bainbridge ( a delightful fellow) was the original Wordsmith of
the Witan Theod, as well as one of the early Steersmen of the Ring of
Troth.

Garman was also fond of the term Retro-Heathenry.

take care - Pip

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

You know that I am French, and many words between our different languages have same apparence but opposite meanings, in French we call these words "faux amis" (Literally: "false friends".)

Please a native English speaker can he say to me what means in English:
Public offices?

The word of "office" is it only said for a magistracy?

Here the question:
The Collegium Pontificum and the Collegium Augurum, as the Constitution statues it, are *public* religious institutions.

So, am I wrong if I understand that the offices told in these public institutions, even if the names of the positions is not *magistracy* but *priesthood*, are public offices?

Can you explain me where I could be wrong in thinking public priesthoods being public offices.

Thank you, my fellow citizens, for your explanations.

Optime valete.

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

Caesar Dextro sal.

First, look to the constitution. VI.B.2, concerning augurs. Here you see the use of the word office. So clearly at least for augurs they hold an office according to highest legal authority.

As you say, section VI.B makes references to the public institutions of the religio, namely the CP and CA.

Additionally the Priesthood assidui status requirement decretum states
"As a part of the formal infrastructure of Nova Roma, the Priesthood is a public position".

and...

"Priesthood who do not pay their Citizen taxes for a full year may be removed from office by vote of the Collegium Pontificum"

http://novaroma.org/nr/Priesthood_assidui_status_requirement_%28Nova_Roma%29

Also the Decretum pro qui in collegium pontificum et collegium augurum, which states:

"In accordance with section VI. of the Constitution of Nova Roma, the Decretum Pro Qui In Collegium Pontificum et Collegium Augurum is hereby enacted to set forth the rules and procedures for what positions exist within the collegium pontificum and collegium augurum, who may present candidates for consideration for those offices, and other relevant information regarding them."

http://novaroma.org/nr/Decretum_Pro_Qui_in_Collegium_Pontificum_et_Collegium_Augurum_%28Nova_Roma%29


Even without going into any dictionary definition I think it is clear the priesthood is a public position and considered an office, under legal authorities of the constitution and decreta of the CP itself.

Optime vale

--- On Sat, 8/28/10, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:

> From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] On the words.
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, August 28, 2010, 12:38 AM
> C. Petronius omnibus civibus s.p.d.,
>
> You know that I am French, and many words between our
> different languages have same apparence but opposite
> meanings, in French we call these words "faux amis"
> (Literally: "false friends".)
>
> Please a native English speaker can he say to me what means
> in English:
> Public offices?
>
> The word of "office" is it only said for a magistracy?
>
> Here the question:
> The Collegium Pontificum and the Collegium Augurum, as the
> Constitution statues it, are *public* religious
> institutions.
>
> So, am I wrong if I understand that the offices told in
> these public institutions, even if the names of the
> positions is not *magistracy* but *priesthood*, are public
> offices?
>
> Can you explain me where I could be wrong in thinking
> public priesthoods being public offices.
>
> Thank you, my fellow citizens, for your explanations.
>
> Optime valete.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. V Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus Quiritibus cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Deus Deaque vos ament.

Hodie est ante diem V Kalendas Septembres; haec dies comitialis est: Soli in Circo Maximo

"O Sol, whose light embraces the world, You orbit inexhaustible, forever returning, Your face glowing on each day, Your horses harnessed as a team to drive Your chariot, with manes braided pleasantly they rise on high, passing over rose-red clouds as You rein their frothing fires." ~ Claudius Claudianus In Olybii et Probini fratres Consules Panegyricus 1-7

The Temple of Sol in the Circus Maximus was dedicated on 28 August, in an unknown year in the third century before the Common Era. In the same era another Temple of Sol Indiges had been dedicated on the other side of the City, on the Quirinal Hill, on 9 August. At that time in Rome, Sol was distinct from Greek Apollo where only Apollo Medicus was known and the Vestals cast healing spells by invoking "Apollo Medice, Apollo Paean" (Livius 40.51; Macrobius). The ancient providence of Sol, in addition to the many benefits he offers life on earth, was to bear witness to our deeds. And thus Sol appears in oaths. A remembrance of this is found in the Aeneid:

"May the Sun now bear witness, and so too the Earth, I pray, for whom I have been able to endure these many labors, and you, Almighty Father, and you his consort, (Juno), daughter of Saturnus, at one time more beneficial, at another kinder, be so now as I pray to you, O Goddess, and to you, too, Father Mars, who wields all warfare under your powers, and on all the springs and rivers of this land I invoke as witnesses, and all the powers of the high heavens and those of the deep blue seas on whom it is proper to call." ~ P. Vergilius Maro, Aeneid 12.176-182


Prognostics of the weather which are derived from the sun

"If the sun is bright at its rising, and not burning hot, it is indicative of fine weather, but if pale, it announces wintry weather accompanied with hail. If the sun is bright and clear when it sets, and it' it rises with a similar appearance, the more assured of fine weather may we feel ourselves. If it is hidden in clouds at its rising, it is indicative of rain, and of wind, when the clouds are of a reddish color just before sunrise; if black clouds are intermingled with the red ones, they betoken rain as well. When the sun's rays at its rising or setting appear to unite, rainy weather may be looked for. When the clouds are red at sunset, they give promise of a fine day on the morrow; but if, at the sun's rising, the clouds are dispersed in various quarters, some to the south, and some to the north-east, even though the heavens in the vicinity of the sun may be bright, they are significant of rain and wind. If at the sun's rising or setting, its rays appear contracted, they announce the approach of a shower. If it rains at sunset, or if the sun's rays attract the clouds towards them, it is portentous of stormy weather on the following day. When the sun, at its rising, does not emit vivid rays, although there are no clouds surrounding it, rain may be expected. If before sunrise the clouds collect into dense masses, they are portentous of a violent storm; but if they are repelled from the east and travel westward, they indicate fine weather. When clouds are seen surrounding the face of the sun, the less the light they leave, the more violent the tempest will be: but if they form a double circle round the sun, the storm will be a dreadful one. If this takes place at sunrise or sunset, and the clouds assume a red hue, the approach of a most violent storm is announced: and if the clouds hang over the face of the sun without surrounding it, they presage wind from the quarter from which they are drifting, and rain as well, if they come from the south.

"If, at its rising, the sun is surrounded with a circle, wind may be looked for in the quarter in which the circle breaks; but if it disappears equally throughout, it is indicative of fine weather. If the sun at its rising throws out its rays afar through the clouds, and the middle of its disk is clear, there will be rain; and if its rays are seen before it rises, both rain and wind as well. If a white circle is seen round the sun at its setting, there will be a slight storm in the night; but if there is a mist around it, the storm will be more violent. If the sun is pale at sunset, there will be wind, and if there is a dark circle round it, high winds will arise in the quarter in which the circle breaks." ~ G. Plinius Secundus, Historia Naturalis 18.78


Advice of Quintus Metellus Numidicus

"A passage from a speech of Quintus Metellus Numidicus, which it was my pleasure to recall, since it draws attention to the obligation of self-respect and dignity in the conduct of life: One should not vie in abusive language with the basest of men or wrangle with foul words with the shameless and the wicked, since you become like them and their exact mate so long as you say things which match and are exactly like what you hear. This truth may be learned no less from an address of Quintus Metellus Numidicus, a man of wisdom, than from the books and the teachings of the philosophers. These are the words of Metellus from his speech Against Gaius Manlius, Tribune of the Commons, by whom he had been assailed and taunted in spiteful terms in a speech delivered before the people: "Now, fellow citizens, so far as Manlius is concerned, since he thinks that he will appear a greater man if he keeps calling me his enemy, who neither counts him as my friend nor take account of him as an enemy, I do not propose to say another word. For I consider him not only wholly unworthy to be spoken of by good men, but unfit even to be reproached by the upright. For if you name an insignificant fellow of his kind at a time when you cannot punish him, you confer honor upon him rather than ignominy." ~ Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae 7.11


Today's thought is from Epicurus, Vatican Sayings 22:

"Unlimited time and limited time afford an equal amount of pleasure, if we measure the limits of that pleasure by reason."



Religio_Romana_Cultorum_Deorum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

_____________________

Hello,


Never heard of those organizations. I just observe what happens more often than not to organizations that split apart.

QSP

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
>
> How do you account for the successful split of the Asatru Free Assembly into 3 very large and foundationally strong organizations?
>
>
> -Anna Bucci
>
> AKA Annia Minucia Marcella
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Michael K" <mjk@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Marcia,
> >
> > Sure! I have seen numerous cases but I'll use our Mexican Cultural Society of Edmonton as an example. We have been building it for 13 years and many people come and go. Nevertheless there is a small core number of 1/2 a dozen of us who keep it going come thick or thin all these years Sometimes other people come and have all sorts of great ideas and criticisms. If their new ideas are questioned or not understanding what a non profit organization is (they can't make money for their own pockets), they split amd leave on the lamest of excuses. Some of these people who have gone and formed their own societies and trumpet out how good the new society will be, grab our lists and contact all the community. Sadly the initially get a lot of promises about help and support but alas when its time to get volunteers for their major events like fiestas and cultural events their friends and members disappear coming up with a litany of excuses for not following through. Much of the work is left in just a few hands and this is overwhelming. This of course creates pressure and discontent among the group, a few in turn think they can do better, split apart and form a new club who finds out that things are not as easy and rosy to get going as usual and they split again... much like cell division in Biology 101.
> >
> > I might add that there are always many members but they do not like volunteering time; just going to the parties and events. Anway in time you get several different societies in the same city competing with one another in different fund raising events so we all end up suffering with smaller turn outs and hence income.
> >
> > That said, Old Quintus here has become impervious to divisions of societies and is never shocked, shaken or surprised!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > QSP
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Marcia Regina <marcia_alves2004@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Em sex, 27/8/10, Michael K <mjk@> escreveu:
> > >
> > > De: Michael K <mjk@>
> > > Assunto: [Nova-Roma] Re: the partitioning of Nova Roma.
> > > Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > Data: Sexta-feira, 27 de Agosto de 2010, 14:01
> > >
> > > Please explain me more about this part.
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In cases unhappy members just resign and leave full of pee and vinegar thinking they can get something better going, More often than not you get a situation like the Reformation go where the new club fighta among its self and splits again then again until you have several clubs all competing with one another then shutting down or going out of business due to stiff competition by doing events at the same time etc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyway this is Alberta. I assume things work similarly in the US as well.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Valete bene,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > QSP
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Welcome back, Ann(i)a,
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > I agree partition is the only way to solve 99% of the problems. I have some logistics questions:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Well, everyone has different thoughts on this.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > How would we legally divide the treasury?
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > I would want NO ONE to get it. I would only agree if the money went to charity, which IIRC, is one of the requirements in the articles of incorporation anyway. As I recall it was Roman themed educational organizations but I doubt we could agree on one, so it would have to be something like the Red Cross.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > Who holds the trademarks and copyrights? Do we share copyright?
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > The name Nova Roma and all associated copyrights would be returned to William Bradford and Joeseph Bloch--also a requirement in the articles of incorporation in the case of dissolution. Perhaps there could be a requirement that the name not be use for a certain number of years.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > Would we have liasons between the to sides?
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Sure. Most people on both sides would likely still talk to each other.
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > Is there a possibility for the litigious among us to wage legal battle between the two groups?
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Naturally, but if the money and copyrights are out of reach, esp. the money, then what would there be to fight about.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > I'm assuming each side will have a PM, and preist groups. Will they >confer so as keep the religio whole?
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Good question. They should. Would they? <shrug? Who knows?
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Vale,
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Palladius
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>

Salvete omnes

Although there is a lot of discussion and debate going on, some of which is on the point but much of which is peripheral, the most important point is that Consul Albucius has actually asked for the Senate to meet.

But once again we are waiting for the Augurs to take the auspices.

How many more times do we have to wait for the Augurs to do what they have been asked to do, so that the Senate can meet in a properly constituted manner?

Augurs - where are you? What are you doing? Why do you not do your job? Why do we, the people, have to put up with your inactivity?

Consul minor, where are you, why do you not support your colleague? Why do the people have to put up with your lack of involvement?

Please, everyone, do your jobs and get the senate session on the road.

Valete optime
Crispus
"Then none was for a party; then all were for the state".

Cato Iulio Caesari Petronio Dextero SPD

I believe that members of the Senate are holders of public office as well, since senators are described as "officers of the State".

Valete,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
>
> Caesar Dextro sal.
>
> First, look to the constitution. VI.B.2, concerning augurs. Here you see the use of the word office. So clearly at least for augurs they hold an office according to highest legal authority.
>
> As you say, section VI.B makes references to the public institutions of the religio, namely the CP and CA.
>
> Additionally the Priesthood assidui status requirement decretum states
> "As a part of the formal infrastructure of Nova Roma, the Priesthood is a public position".
>
> and...
>
> "Priesthood who do not pay their Citizen taxes for a full year may be removed from office by vote of the Collegium Pontificum"
>
> http://novaroma.org/nr/Priesthood_assidui_status_requirement_%28Nova_Roma%29
>
> Also the Decretum pro qui in collegium pontificum et collegium augurum, which states:
>
> "In accordance with section VI. of the Constitution of Nova Roma, the Decretum Pro Qui In Collegium Pontificum et Collegium Augurum is hereby enacted to set forth the rules and procedures for what positions exist within the collegium pontificum and collegium augurum, who may present candidates for consideration for those offices, and other relevant information regarding them."
>
> http://novaroma.org/nr/Decretum_Pro_Qui_in_Collegium_Pontificum_et_Collegium_Augurum_%28Nova_Roma%29
>
>
> Even without going into any dictionary definition I think it is clear the priesthood is a public position and considered an office, under legal authorities of the constitution and decreta of the CP itself.
>
> Optime vale
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Sat, 8/28/10, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> > From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] On the words.
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Saturday, August 28, 2010, 12:38 AM
> > C. Petronius omnibus civibus s.p.d.,
> >
> > You know that I am French, and many words between our
> > different languages have same apparence but opposite
> > meanings, in French we call these words "faux amis"
> > (Literally: "false friends".)
> >
> > Please a native English speaker can he say to me what means
> > in English:
> > Public offices?
> >
> > The word of "office" is it only said for a magistracy?
> >
> > Here the question:
> > The Collegium Pontificum and the Collegium Augurum, as the
> > Constitution statues it, are *public* religious
> > institutions.
> >
> > So, am I wrong if I understand that the offices told in
> > these public institutions, even if the names of the
> > positions is not *magistracy* but *priesthood*, are public
> > offices?
> >
> > Can you explain me where I could be wrong in thinking
> > public priesthoods being public offices.
> >
> > Thank you, my fellow citizens, for your explanations.
> >
> > Optime valete.
> >
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> > Arcoiali scribebat
> > a. d. V Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >     Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
>

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Hodiernus dies est ante diem V Kalendas Septembris; haec dies
comitialis est.

"I reached Britain with the leading vessels at about 9 a.m., and saw
the enemy forces standing under arms all along the heights. At this
point of the coast precipitous cliffs tower over the water, making it
possible to fire from above directly on to the beaches. It was clearly
no place to attempt a landing, so we rode at anchor until about 3.30
p.m., awaiting the rest of the fleet. During this interval I summoned
my staff and company commanders, passed on to them the information
obtained by Volusenus, and explained my plans." - Gaius Iulius Caesar,
whose invasionary force landed on the coast of Britain on August 27, 55 BC

In 55 BC, Gaius Iulius Caesar led a Roman campaign against the Celtic
tribes of Gaul (modern France). Using the superior discipline of the
standard Roman Legionary, he was often able to overcome much larger
Celtic (Gallic) armies. After several years of mostly successful
campaigns, Caesar turned his attention to the island of Britain.
Although the Romans knew very little of Britain, they were aware that
it was populated by tribes that were connected to the Gallic Celts by
a similar culture and often by family ties. Julius Caesar was
convinced that the British Celts were supporting the uprisings he was
facing in Gaul.

To open his campaign, he sent a single warship under the command of
Volusenus to scout the British coast. Volusenus spent four days
sailing up and down the coast gathering information before he
returned. Meanwhile, Caesar had been busy assembling his fleet. He
gathered together eighty transports, enough to carry two legions
(approx. 10,000 men) across the channel, supported by a small escort
of warships. Another 18 transport assembled 8 miles away in order to
carry the auxiliary cavalry force.

Caesar launched his fleet at midnight and by nine in the morning on
the next day his flag ship had reached the coast of Britain. From his
ship, Caesar could see the Celtic sentries posted on the hilltops.
Knowing that he faced an opposed landing, Caesar waited until all of
the fleet could be brought together. At 3pm he launched his assault.

The Roman legionaries faced a very difficult fight. The transports
they rode were too deep in the water to run up to the beach. The
soldiers were forced to jump from the ships and wade ashore carrying
all of their fighting equipment. Meanwhile the Celts rained missiles
down upon them, and the Celtic cavalry raced down the beach to attack
isolated groups.

Caesar, seeing his forces in trouble, ordered his warships to move
around to the right flank of the invasion and provide cover fire with
artillery and missile weapons. He also ordered the warships smaller
launches to be loaded with soldiers and rowed ashore. Eventually,
enough legionaries made it ashore that they were able to form together
for defense. The Celts had no answer to the tight, well armored, Roman
formations and were eventually forced to retreat.

The Romans took possession of the beach and spent the rest of the day
consolidating their position. That night, a vicious storm tore through
the channel, destroying many of Caesar's transports. Also, bad weather
had prevented the auxiliary cavalry from making the crossing. The
storms continued for days, stopping the Romans from making any kind of
offensive moves. Meanwhile, the foraging parties that went out to
gather food for the army were under constant threat from Celtic ambushes.

Without his cavalry, and with his ships badly damaged, Caesar made the
decision to abandon the campaign. After only a couple of weeks, he
brought his army back to the continent. Although the campaign had
proved a military failure, Iulius Caesar had not abandoned hope of
conquering Britain.

Valete bene!

Cato

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

> I believe that members of the Senate are holders of public office as well, since senators are described as "officers of the State".

All that is very important.
Thank you both for your clear explanations.

May I understand that an individual under a condemnation to leave all her public offices untill January 1st 2764 must leave her public priesthood into the CP and her seat among the Senators?

Optime valete.

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

Cato Petronio Dextero sal.

You would be correct. Any individual condemned to not hold any public office cannot be a senator or member of a public priesthood.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius C. Catoni Cn. Caesari s.p.d.,
>
> > I believe that members of the Senate are holders of public office as well, since senators are described as "officers of the State".
>
> All that is very important.
> Thank you both for your clear explanations.
>
> May I understand that an individual under a condemnation to leave all her public offices untill January 1st 2764 must leave her public priesthood into the CP and her seat among the Senators?
>
> Optime valete.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. V Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>

Avete!

"Every failure is a step closer to success."

In the first report I made an error in the comments. I marked comments of Q. Fabius Maximus as Cn. Iulius Caesar's.
In the second report I did not mention that the senator M. Minucius Audens was excused.

I was waiting for knowing if the intercessio of my colleague M. Octavius Corvus failed by my own counter intercessio before posting a new time this report. I did not want to seem as an agitator in sending this report during the veto of my colleague.
Now that the Corvus's veto was not supported by the tribune C. Aquillius Rota and then failed, I post a third time this report that I hope correct for this time.

I thank the senator M. Audens for his patience.

This third version is the correct report.

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

Here the tribunician report of the Senate session (July 26 - August 1st).
C. Petronius Dexter tribune of the Plebs reporting.

------------------------------------------
- Session begun at 14:00 hour, a.d. VII Kal. Sextiles 2763 auc (July 26, 2010 c.c.) ; closed at 18:00 hour Kal. Sextiles (August 1st)
- Contio begun at 15:00 hour, a.d. VII Kal. Sextiles (July 26) ; closed at 15:00 hour a.d. III Kal. Sextiles (July 30)
- Vote begun: 16:30 hour, a.d. III Kal. Sextiles (July 30); closed at 16:30 hour, Kal. Sextiles (August 1st)
-------------------------------------------

The following XI (11) members, included Censorius Laenas, cast a vote:

Consul:
*PMA* P. Memmius Albucius

Censorii.
*DIPI* D. Iunius Palladius Invictus
*LCSF* L. Cornelius Sulla Felix
*TiGP* Ti. Galerius Paulinus
*CPL* C. Popillius Laenas

Consulares.
*QFM* Q. Fabius Maximus
*TIS* T. Iulius Sabinus

Praetorii.
*CEC* C. Equitius Cato
*ATS* A. Tullia Scholastica

Aedilicii.
*CnIC* Cn. Iulius Caesar

Tribunicii.
*QSP* Q. Suetonius Paulinus

The following senators XIX (19) did not vote:
*AMA* Arn. Moravia Aurelia
*CCS* C. Curius Saturninus
*CFD* C. Flavius Diocletianus
*CMM* C. Marius Merullus
*CNEM* Cn. Equitius Marinus
*CVA* C. Vipsanius Agrippa
*EmCF* Em. Curia Finnica
*FlGA* Fl. Galerius Aurelianus
*FrAC* Fr. Apulus Caesar
*KFBM* K. Fabius Buteo Modianus
*KFBQ* K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
*MAM* M. Arminius Maior
*MCC* M. Curatius Complutensis
*MHM* M. Hortensia Maior
*MIP* M. Iulius Perusianus
*MIS* M. Iulius Severus
*MLA* M. Lucretius Agricola
*MMPH* M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
*MMA* M. Minucius Audens (Excused)

On the 30 members allowed to cast a vote, 10 members expressed a vote on each of the items.

No absence of quorum having been stated according the Senate internal regulations, the quorum was reached.

A majority of six (6) votes was required in order an item be declared as adopted.

----------------------------------------------
"UTI ROGAS" means a vote in favor of an item.
"ANTIQVO" is a vote against.
"ABSTINEO" is an open abstention.

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

RELATIO


Item I - Praetores - appointment - senatus consultum ultimum
(discussion + vote)

The last comitia centuriata, which intended replacing our both praetors, has been declared void because of the absence of centuria praerogativa. We thus have no praetors since mid-June and, even if the consul maior, by interim, is currently acting pro praetoribus, such situation must reasonably cease as soon as possible. Considering the difficulties of last comitia and the fact that elections, besides the preparation time required for them, may not be conducted via our current IT system, the most efficient way to fill our praetura is the senatus consultum ultimum.
In view of the Constitution in its articles IV.A.5 and V.E, respectively relative to the election of praetors and of the issue of senatus consulta ;
Considering the importance filling the position of praetors and the context and grounds reminded above;

the Senate of Rome decides:
Article 1 : The consul maior is invested of the absolute power to fill himself, by derogation of the article IV.A.5 of the Constitution, the currently vacant magistracies of praetors. This power is submitted to the veto of the consul minor.

Article 2 - This appointment shall respect the order stated by Diribitor Arminius on pr. Nonas Quint. 2763 (July 6, 2010) acting in the frame of the last Comitia centuriata finally declared void for absence of previous selection of a centuria praerogativa, which is :
1. A. Tullia Scholastica or P. Ullerius Venator
2. A. Tullia Scholastica or P. Ullerius Venator
3. Ti. Galerius Paulinus
4. Q. Fabius Maximus

being reminded that former candidate M. Hortensia Maior cannot, by judicial sentence, hold any office and magistracy until next Kal. Ian. 2764 auc.

Article 3 - The consuls are charged of the good execution of the present senatus consultum, which shall be applicable from its publication on, and be included in the Tabularium Nova Romae (Senate section).
--------------------------------------

ITEM I : PASSED, by
VTI ROGAS: 10
ABSTINEO: 1.

Detail and comments:

*PMA*: VTI ROGAS.
*DIPI*: VTI ROGAS. The top two names mentioned were the top vote getters and are both excellent choices. It's a shame an SCU is necessary but it is the best method available to us.
*LCSF*: VTI ROGAS.
*TGP*: I do not like voting for an SCU any more than I would voting to appoint a dictator. In the firm believe that our senior Consul has the best interest of the republic at heart I vote as follows. UR.
*CPL*: VTI ROGAS.
*QFM*: VTI ROGAS. Oh I really dislike doing this. I hate the other side for forcing us to take this extraordinary step.
*TIS*: VTI ROGAS. Approving a SCU to appoint by edictum consularis, under your control, our 2 praetors suffecti, on the base of the elements stated by the diribitors.
*CEC*: VTI ROGAS.
*ATS*: ABSTINEO. Apart from the fact that I dislike the overuse of the SCU, I must abstain on this for reasons which should be evident.
*CnIC*:VTI ROGAS.
*QSP*: VTI ROGAS.

------------------------------
Item II - Electoral legal system - senatus consultum ultimum
(discussion + vote)

In view of the Constitution in its article V.E, relative to the issue of senatus consulta ;

Considering the difficulties currently met in the working of the electoral IT tools, and the fact that Nova Roma institutions must not depend on any external system which would prevent them working normally ;
Considering that it is necessary to set a temporary system, as simple as possible, that would not depend on any external or technical assistance, but will work in the normal frame of Nova Roma daily channels of communication ;
Considering that the setting of this temporary system and its working, in the coming months, will allow the necessary steps to be made in the IT matter so that appropriate measures be presented, with both consuls' previous approbation, to the Senate, and that the choice of the most appropriate electoral tool (electronic, IT one, others) be made by the Curia ;
Considering it is necessary, for this, to adapt our existing laws to set this simple and efficient system ;

the Senate of Rome decides:

Article 1 : The consul maior is invested of the absolute power to modify, by edictum, the current legislation relative to the electoral system of Nova Roma (tools, proceedings, etc.) in order to adapt it to the creation of an electoral system which, as simple and efficient as possible, will allow Nova Roma institutions, and specially its comitia, to go on working normally without the assistance of the current IT system.

Article 2 : This investment is limited in time and will last no more than thirty (30) days from the publication of the current senatus consultum ultimum by the presiding magistrate. The application of the electoral system set by the consular edictum is temporary and shall not last later than the date set in the consular edictum and, at worst, than pridie Kal. Ianuarias 2764 auc.
At the end of this temporary period, the legislation shall come back to its current state or in the state that new legally adopted provisions would
have defined.

Article 3 - The power given in the article 1 is submitted to the veto of the
consul minor.

Article 4 - The consuls are charged of the good execution of the present senatus
consultum, which shall be applicable from its publication on, and be included in the Tabularium Nova Romae (Senate section).

--------------------------------------------------------
ITEM II : PASSED.
VTI ROGAS: 10.
ANTIQVO: 1.

Detail and comments:

*PMA*: VTI ROGAS.
*DIP*I: VTI ROGAS. Again, the SCU is the best method available to us to fix this problem until the Senate can fix the IT situation.
*LCSF*: VTI ROGAS.
*TGP*: VTI ROGAS.
*CPL*: UR. I regret the need to resort to the SCU. It sometimes seems that Nova Roma is recreating the last days of the ancient Roman
Republic.
*QFM*: VTI ROGAS.
*TIS*: VTI ROGAS. Approving a SCU on the adaptation of our laws so that we may organize elections normally and not being dependent of the IT tool, and during the time needed to fix our IT system and decide which functions it will answer to.
*CEC*:VTI ROGAS.
*ATS*: ANTIQVO. It is my understanding that Consul Albucius wishes to use e-mail to register our votes. Yahoo has just shown us how dreadfully unreliable this method is. Even now, five days later, messages are coming in out of order, and some appear to be missing altogether. Moreover, this violates the expectation of privacy we in the modern world have with regard to our votes in other than legislative assemblies. If Pius is willing to create a proper cista for the elections, I see no reason for this change. Let us hold a proper, unvetoed, Senate session with correct auspices, and vote on the IT issue as well as the other matters, and let us resolve this as well as the other issues once and for all.
*CnIC*: VTI ROGAS.
*QSP*: VTI ROGAS.
----------------------------------------------------------

Optime valete,

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



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

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

> You would be correct. Any individual condemned to not hold any public office cannot be a senator or member of a public priesthood.

Is it possible that as a Frenchman (nobody's perfect) I could be correct against native English speakers on their own language? May I understand a trial sentence in a better way that some members of the Collegium Pontificum? Very amazing! Though these 3 native English speakers members of the CP say me as an ignorant of the English language because "public offices" should only mean magistracies.

Optime valete.

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

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

> Without his cavalry, and with his ships badly damaged, Caesar made the
> decision to abandon the campaign. After only a couple of weeks, he
> brought his army back to the continent. Although the campaign had
> proved a military failure, Iulius Caesar had not abandoned hope of
> conquering Britain.

The conquest of Britain was made by the emperor Claudius when Romans thought that they can obtain enough ressources from those islands...

Caesar was more interested by the Gaul, a country richer than both Britain and Germany. He pretended Gauls less warriors than Brittons and Germans, and described the Belgians as the most strong of the Gauls because the less civilized or the less corrupted by the Roman civilization. For Caesar his own civilization was corruption. It is the same approach in the book of Tacitus about the Germans. But of course, it was a common topic.

If the Gauls was corrupted by civilization how they could be conquested by more civilized than them? Civilization was not corruption, but in fact, Gauls were divided in many tribes and did not yet have the notion of nation or Res Publica. And they had as opponent C. Julius Caesar who was a great general and clever politician. He was not only leant on legionaries, because he will win also against Pompeius the Great and his Roman legions too.

After reading your post, I just have a thought towards many Gauls killed in mass by Caesar's legions and rent as slaves by Roman traders, but finally became more Romans than Romans themselves. Actually, the last Latin poem about the living great Rome is written by the Gaul Rutilius Namatianus who was prefect of Rome on 414.

Optime vale.

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

Cato Petronio Dextero sal.

Anyone who says that "public offices" refers only to magistracies is incorrect. This can be proven - as has been shown - by simply referring to our Constitution and laws.

The upshot, of course, is that Marca Hortensia Maior may not sit or vote in the Senate, nor may she sit or vote in the College of Pontiffs until the Kalends of Ianuarius 2764.

Whether or not the mandate of her sentence will be carried out is in the hands of those who have the authority to ensure that it is.

Since those happen to be Piscinus (the College of Pontiffs) and Modianus (the Senate), I am - unfortunately - highly doubtful that it will actually be obeyed.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius C. Catoni s.p.d.,
>
> > You would be correct. Any individual condemned to not hold any public office cannot be a senator or member of a public priesthood.
>
> Is it possible that as a Frenchman (nobody's perfect) I could be correct against native English speakers on their own language? May I understand a trial sentence in a better way that some members of the Collegium Pontificum? Very amazing! Though these 3 native English speakers members of the CP say me as an ignorant of the English language because "public offices" should only mean magistracies.
>
> Optime valete.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. V Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>

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

> Whether or not the mandate of her sentence will be carried out is in the hands of those who have the authority to ensure that it is.

But, the pontifex maximus must be virtuous, fair and correct. And if I noticed during the vote of the Item III of our last session but one, whose the PM made a report, that the CP was illegal in wanting to give again her right of vote to M. Hortensia because she was under a condemnation and had to leave her flaminica position untill the Kalends of Januarius, the pontifex maximus should have been saying: "You are right flamen of Portune, Maior be out of the Collegium Pontificum until the Kalends of January. We must respect a trial sentence."

But instead of this wise and fair words why did he say that I do not understand English language? You and Caesar made the brilliant demonstration that I was right and, finally, the words had the same meanings in our both languages.

So, what kind of credit may I put on our pontifex maximus now?

> Since those happen to be Piscinus (the College of Pontiffs) and Modianus (the Senate), I am - unfortunately - highly doubtful that it will actually be obeyed.

You are right, Cato, instead of doing an act of fair authority in making the sentence of the trial obeyed, Piscinus said within the Collegium Pontificum that I did not understand English language and M. Hortensia Maior was perfectly in her right in sitting in the CP and in regaining her right of vote...

I am very disgusted by all these dishonest maneuvers and as we say in French: Je tombe de Charybde en Scylla.

My English dictionary translates that in : I jump out of the frying pan into the fire. ;o)

Optime valete.

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

Caeca Seneca sal,

OK, I'm registered successfully, and my software is playing very nicely with you software. Now ...I'm having fun sending bunches of friend requests!

I think this is a great idea, and it will be fun watching it grow!

Vale quam optime,
CMC

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

Cato Petronio Dextero sal.

Actually, with respect, tribune, the more accurate English equivalent would be "between a rock and a hard place." :)

Perhaps the man in the chair of the pontifex maximus simply did not earlier realize the full implications of the sentence passed upon Maior, and now perhaps he *does* and will act accordingly and in observance of the law. Hope springs eternal.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius C. Catoni s.p.d.,
>
> > Whether or not the mandate of her sentence will be carried out is in the hands of those who have the authority to ensure that it is.
>
> But, the pontifex maximus must be virtuous, fair and correct. And if I noticed during the vote of the Item III of our last session but one, whose the PM made a report, that the CP was illegal in wanting to give again her right of vote to M. Hortensia because she was under a condemnation and had to leave her flaminica position untill the Kalends of Januarius, the pontifex maximus should have been saying: "You are right flamen of Portune, Maior be out of the Collegium Pontificum until the Kalends of January. We must respect a trial sentence."
>
> But instead of this wise and fair words why did he say that I do not understand English language? You and Caesar made the brilliant demonstration that I was right and, finally, the words had the same meanings in our both languages.
>
> So, what kind of credit may I put on our pontifex maximus now?
>
> > Since those happen to be Piscinus (the College of Pontiffs) and Modianus (the Senate), I am - unfortunately - highly doubtful that it will actually be obeyed.
>
> You are right, Cato, instead of doing an act of fair authority in making the sentence of the trial obeyed, Piscinus said within the Collegium Pontificum that I did not understand English language and M. Hortensia Maior was perfectly in her right in sitting in the CP and in regaining her right of vote...
>
> I am very disgusted by all these dishonest maneuvers and as we say in French: Je tombe de Charybde en Scylla.
>
> My English dictionary translates that in : I jump out of the frying pan into the fire. ;o)
>
> Optime valete.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. V Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>

As a commentary to the below--Forgive me for being too excessively modern in my outlook, but...Why do we require the services of augurs before we can do the corporation's business?

Paulla Corva Gaudialis
A big fan of Mastersmith Fandarel

* * *

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS" <jbshr1pwa@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes
>
> Although there is a lot of discussion and debate going on, some of which is on the point but much of which is peripheral, the most important point is that Consul Albucius has actually asked for the Senate to meet.
>
> But once again we are waiting for the Augurs to take the auspices.
>
> How many more times do we have to wait for the Augurs to do what they have been asked to do, so that the Senate can meet in a properly constituted manner?
>
> Augurs - where are you? What are you doing? Why do you not do your job? Why do we, the people, have to put up with your inactivity?
>
> Consul minor, where are you, why do you not support your colleague? Why do the people have to put up with your lack of involvement?
>
> Please, everyone, do your jobs and get the senate session on the road.
>
> Valete optime
> Crispus

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

>Why do we require the services of augurs before we can do the corporation's business?

Salve, et salvete omnes

Good question. As the augurs do not do their job, why do we need them.

Unfortunately their inactivity, refusal to work, and treachery has stalled the senate's work this year, which is why we have made no progress on the problems that need to be sorted out.

Will any of the Augurs please reply to this list to tell the people what they are playing about at?

Augurs - where are you; why have you not taken the auspices as requested by the Consul.

What pathetic excuse are you going to roll out this time?

Why should the people put up with you and your failings any longer?

You are a disgrace to our Republic. And it is our Republic, not your plaything.

Vale, et valete optime

Crispus.
"Then none was for a party; then all were for the state".

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 8:22 PM, GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS <
jbshr1pwa@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> Unfortunately their inactivity, refusal to work, and treachery has stalled
> the senate's work this year, which is why we have made no progress on the
> problems that need to be sorted out.
>
> Ah we have to be careful here - according to Piscinus "The Augures Publici

have never refused to take the auspices for Consul Albucius". However he had
already stated that they didn't take the auspices when requested by the
Consul.

So I guess he thinks that if he just totally ignores a request and doesn't
actually respond at all then he can't be accused of refusing. Now I'm not
sure my boss would ever have understood the difference, if I said I wasn't
refusing his orders, I just wasn't carrying them out. But, hey, this is Nova
Roma where Piscinus seems to feel he can control everything.

Flavia Lucilla Merula


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

Salve Corva;
let me explain Rome was founded by augury, it is the most venerated aspect of the religio romana. NR always has had augurs to take the auspices.
Until Albucius the augurs never had a problem with officials, the officials wrote to the augurs (they do have lives) requesting them to take auspices & gave them a series of dates..

No problem. I know our augurs; the PM Piscinus, the censor K.Fabius Modianus, and M. Lucretius Agricola who journeyed from Japan to Sarmatia to take the auspices for the weddings. They are devoted and take it seriously.

The insults here are flung around by people, hoping it will stick. Judge for yourself: look at those who just talk: and those who do positive real life things for the res publica.
vale
M. Hortensia Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS" <jbshr1pwa@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "aerdensrw" <aerdensrw@> wrote:
> >Why do we require the services of augurs before we can do the corporation's business?
>
>
> Salve, et salvete omnes
>
> Good question. As the augurs do not do their job, why do we need them.
>
> Unfortunately their inactivity, refusal to work, and treachery has stalled the senate's work this year, which is why we have made no progress on the problems that need to be sorted out.
>
> Will any of the Augurs please reply to this list to tell the people what they are playing about at?
>
> Augurs - where are you; why have you not taken the auspices as requested by the Consul.
>
> What pathetic excuse are you going to roll out this time?
>
> Why should the people put up with you and your failings any longer?
>
> You are a disgrace to our Republic. And it is our Republic, not your plaything.
>
> Vale, et valete optime
>
> Crispus.
> "Then none was for a party; then all were for the state".
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:

>....augury is the most venerated aspect of the religio romana. NR always has had augurs to take the auspices.

>>> Then why don't they do it when repeatedly asked?


> Until Albucius the augurs never had a problem with officials, the officials wrote to the augurs (they do have lives) requesting them to take auspices & gave them a series of dates..


>>> Then why don't they get on and do it, they have repeatedly been asked, and repeatedly failed.

> No problem. I know our augurs; the PM Piscinus, the censor K.Fabius Modianus, and M. Lucretius Agricola who journeyed from Japan to Sarmatia to take the auspices for the weddings.

>>> If you know them, why don't you put it to them face to face that their inactivity and consistent failure have directly led to the inability to hold a properly constituted meeting of the Senate? If they can manage long-distance travel, why can't they stagger as far as their back garden and take auspices?


>They are devoted and take it seriously.

>>> Entirely the opposite. They are not devoted, they show absolutely no respect for the Gods who the Republic was founded to respect, they do not take their work seriously because they don't do it. They apparently do nothing. They are a waste of space. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Will not a single Augur bother to respond, or have they all curled up and died?

> The insults here are flung around by people, hoping it will stick. Judge for yourself: look at those who just talk: and those who do positive real life things for the res publica.

I am looking, and I see nothing but inactivity and obstruction from the Augurs. They are doing absolutely nothing. Their lack of action is causing untold harm. I have not seen them do one good thing for the Republic this year. Of course they could just manage to take the auspices as requested, now that would be a first.

Vale, et valete
Crispus
"Then none was for a party; then all were for the state"

Salve Anna,

Welcome back.

I do not at present favor the proposal to partition NR. This may or may not change over time. I do, however find the discussion of the question to be important and needed and will support that discussion.

I am as some my know a very active genealogist. In the US there are two groups that one may join if you had an ancestor who supported the American side in the revolutionary war.

One is called The Son's of the Revolution and the other is called The Son's of the American Revolution. Both groups have similar goals and names but for some reason they have not seen fit to merge even thought attempts have been made to do so. Some people have chosen to join one or the other group and some have chosen to join both.

Dues are paid to the one that you join or to both if you join both. Both groups have state or local chapters. If Nova Roma were to split I would see that it would most likely follow this pattern. I do not see this as a major obstacle to a mutually agreed separation.

The one major problem I do see with a partition of Nova Roma is the MM project.
What exactly do we do about it ?

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus




To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: lathyrus77@...
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 01:42:38 +0000
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Partition Discussion - Pronvinces






Another question I have about a possible separation is how will this effect the provinces? Will each org appoint a governor to each province, so there are 2 governors? Can governors be in both orgs? Can Legates be in both orgs? How do governors collect taxes if some cives are in one org and the rest are in another?

-Anna Bucci

AKA Annia Minucia Marcella





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

I didn't realize you guys still had the MM project. Wasn't there a big fight to get rid of it and give everyone's money back? I sure could use that money right about now.


-Anna

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Salve Anna,
>
> Welcome back.
>
> I do not at present favor the proposal to partition NR. This may or may not change over time. I do, however find the discussion of the question to be important and needed and will support that discussion.
>
> I am as some my know a very active genealogist. In the US there are two groups that one may join if you had an ancestor who supported the American side in the revolutionary war.
>
> One is called The Son's of the Revolution and the other is called The Son's of the American Revolution. Both groups have similar goals and names but for some reason they have not seen fit to merge even thought attempts have been made to do so. Some people have chosen to join one or the other group and some have chosen to join both.
>
> Dues are paid to the one that you join or to both if you join both. Both groups have state or local chapters. If Nova Roma were to split I would see that it would most likely follow this pattern. I do not see this as a major obstacle to a mutually agreed separation.
>
> The one major problem I do see with a partition of Nova Roma is the MM project.
> What exactly do we do about it ?
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> From: lathyrus77@...
> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 01:42:38 +0000
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Partition Discussion - Pronvinces
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Another question I have about a possible separation is how will this effect the provinces? Will each org appoint a governor to each province, so there are 2 governors? Can governors be in both orgs? Can Legates be in both orgs? How do governors collect taxes if some cives are in one org and the rest are in another?
>
> -Anna Bucci
>
> AKA Annia Minucia Marcella
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

M. Hortensia quiritibus spd;

Have the nonprofit lawyer advise us, so it's legal and ethical.
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
>
> I didn't realize you guys still had the MM project. Wasn't there a big fight to get rid of it and give everyone's money back? I sure could use that money right about now.
>
>
> -Anna
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Salve Anna,
> >
> > Welcome back.
> >
> > I do not at present favor the proposal to partition NR. This may or may not change over time. I do, however find the discussion of the question to be important and needed and will support that discussion.
> >
> > I am as some my know a very active genealogist. In the US there are two groups that one may join if you had an ancestor who supported the American side in the revolutionary war.
> >
> > One is called The Son's of the Revolution and the other is called The Son's of the American Revolution. Both groups have similar goals and names but for some reason they have not seen fit to merge even thought attempts have been made to do so. Some people have chosen to join one or the other group and some have chosen to join both.
> >
> > Dues are paid to the one that you join or to both if you join both. Both groups have state or local chapters. If Nova Roma were to split I would see that it would most likely follow this pattern. I do not see this as a major obstacle to a mutually agreed separation.
> >
> > The one major problem I do see with a partition of Nova Roma is the MM project.
> > What exactly do we do about it ?
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > From: lathyrus77@
> > Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 01:42:38 +0000
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Partition Discussion - Pronvinces
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Another question I have about a possible separation is how will this effect the provinces? Will each org appoint a governor to each province, so there are 2 governors? Can governors be in both orgs? Can Legates be in both orgs? How do governors collect taxes if some cives are in one org and the rest are in another?
> >
> > -Anna Bucci
> >
> > AKA Annia Minucia Marcella
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Salve Crispe;
are you a cultor? are you subscribed to the College of Augurs list? Because I am both. I've read and followed the discussions between the augurs and consul Albucius since February.

The consul wanted to take his own auspices. Great, but when the college tried to instruct him how to do this correctly, he wasn't interested.

Months went by over this issue. Piscinus and Modianus have taken auspices for years with no problem. I read a letter from Agricola to Albucius telling him to listen, otherwise problems would arise from taking incorrect auspices.

And the problems have arrived. Now there is a campaign by the Back Alley and their friends to villify the augurs: Modianus, Piscinus, Agricola.


Do you understand the complexity involved in taking auspices? I don't think so. And to insult others who've given so much to Nova Roma, instead of understanding the problem, says volumes about where you are coming from.

And what have I done this year? I've scanned the leading scholarly mongraph on augury for the College, I know that Agricola has had the latest scholarly works on augury shipped to Japan. That Piscinus gets them via library loan, while Modianus is a grad student in Divinity School.

And yes, Agricola moved himself, paid thousands of dollars/Euros/Yen to take proper auspices for the 3 weddings in Sarmatia.
Maior

>
> >>> Then why don't they do it when repeatedly asked?
>
>
> >>> Then why don't they get on and do it, they have repeatedly been asked, and repeatedly failed.
>
>
>
> >>> If you know them, why don't you put it to them face to face that their inactivity and consistent failure have directly led to the inability to hold a properly constituted meeting of the Senate? If they can manage long-distance travel, why can't they stagger as far as their back garden and take auspices?
>
>
> >
>
> >>> Entirely the opposite. They are not devoted, they show absolutely no respect for the Gods who the Republic was founded to respect, they do not take their work seriously because they don't do it. They apparently do nothing. They are a waste of space. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Will not a single Augur bother to respond, or have they all curled up and died?
>
>
>
> I am looking, and I see nothing but inactivity and obstruction from the Augurs. They are doing absolutely nothing. Their lack of action is causing untold harm. I have not seen them do one good thing for the Republic this year. Of course they could just manage to take the auspices as requested, now that would be a first.
>
> Vale, et valete
> Crispus
> "Then none was for a party; then all were for the state"
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
> Salve Crispe;
> are you a cultor? are you subscribed to the College of Augurs list? Because I am both. I've read and followed the discussions between the augurs and consul Albucius since February......

Salve Maior, and thank you for your reply.

I am merely an ordinary citizen, and take pride in being a citizen of our Republic. I respect the Gods and Goddesses of Rome, and have done so for many years. 53 years in fact, since my earliest exposure to Rome at my late father's knee. I am not an expert, purely an interested student, but I acknowledge and respect the roman deities in many places to which I travel.

And I also held respect for those who honoured the Gods by their work, and I believe that we need to hold dear to that because the Republic and the Gods cannot be separated. I was pleased to help on the MM project, and have contributed to that fund. I would have continued to do so if the fund was still open for donations.

No, I am not subscribed to the College of Augurs list - I have no reason to suppose that I am entitled to be, but I have no problem at all in doing so if I am invited. I am always willing to observe and learn.

As I understand it, Albucius would have had no more wish than I would to suddenly try to take auspices. I do not suppose there is a "Teach Yourself" book on the subject. My own belief is that he was forced to do so because no one would agree to do it for him. All of his recent postings have been his requests for help, so clearly he realises that he needs the augurs to act, and is desperate for their help.

I have no problems with your statement that auspices must be taken correctly, otherwise problems would arise from taking incorrect auspices. Clearly it is right and proper to consult the Gods and act in accordance with the signs they show us.

The problem as I and other ordinary citizens see it is that when there are a whole range of problems to deal with, we cannot get a regularly constituted meeting of the Senate because we do not have auguries taken. What is so hard, this year, all of a sudden, about doing that? Even if there was some sort of falling out between the college of Augurs and the PM, and Albucius, clearly he is now asking for their help, and I and other citizens cannot understand why no response is forthcoming to his request.

Yes, I am sure that you and others have done all sorts of worthy things for the Republic. I do not detract from that which has been done. In my own small way as a scribe I also try to help. But the most important thing is surely to get moving on solving the problems, and without a properly appointed meeting of the Senate there seems no hope of starting on that. Hence my belief that there is a co-ordinated campaign to obstruct the workings of the state, and that must surely be damaging to both the state and to the relationship with the Gods. Both need to be healed.

All it needs, surely, is for one Augur to spend some time doing the necessary work. Is that really too much to ask, so that the Senate can come together in good will and agree how to manage the work that everyone knows needs to be done.

I would be more than grateful, and would offer thanks to Dea Roma and all the Gods, if auspices can be taken. While no action takes place I, and many other citizens, are becoming more and more frustrated.

Thank you again for your response. If you would like me to subscribe to the list, please let me know.

Vale, et valete optime
Crispus
"Then none was for a party; then all were for the state".

The insults here are flung around by people, hoping it will stick. Judge for yourself: look at those who just talk: and those who do positive real life things for the res publica.






HA HA! Oh People of Rome consider this: Those people that toss around the insults are the people that started this republic. Remember, Maior showed up years after this Republic started. What does that tell you?
I'm at an opera, but I couldn't like this one slide by without comment.

Q. Fabius Maximus

Sent from my BlackBerry



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

Perhaps the man in the chair of the pontifex maximus simply did not earlier realize the full implications of the sentence passed upon Maior, and now perhaps he *does* and will act accordingly and in observance of the law. Hope springs eternal.




Ah Cato. I would not hold my breath.

Rejoice
Q. Fabius Maximus



Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use



.








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

C. Petronius C. Crispo s.p.d.,

> The problem as I and other ordinary citizens see it is that when there are a whole range of problems to deal with, we cannot get a regularly constituted meeting of the Senate because we do not have auguries taken.

That is all the problem. Only the augurs can resolve that and they do not want to do that. We have 3 augures, none took the auspices for Albucius but took them for the coup.

> Thank you again for your response. If you would like me to subscribe to the list, please let me know.

She knows that you are not authorised to suscribe to the list. Only augures, some selected senators and perhaps private guests can.

I am member of the Collegium Pontificum and even if this Collegium according to the Constitution is the highest priestly collegium I have no access to the list of the Collegium Augurum. It is not a problem for me, I am favorable to the independance between the collegia. But...

... in our last session but one, it was an item about the impietas of the consul based on this question of the consul Albucius auguries, and we were asked to vote without knowledge of the facts, without evidences and nothing but the story told by the pontifex maximus alias the magister augurum... in this case why us, all members of the CP, were we not guests to read the messages on this list? Perhaps do they have something to hide...

Optime vale.

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

Ave Dexter,

Do you think the Consul even had knowledge that he was accused and did the
Consul have a chance to defend himself? Did the CP give any due process to
the Consul?

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 6:15 PM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

>
>
> C. Petronius C. Crispo s.p.d.,
>
>
> > The problem as I and other ordinary citizens see it is that when there
> are a whole range of problems to deal with, we cannot get a regularly
> constituted meeting of the Senate because we do not have auguries taken.
>
> That is all the problem. Only the augurs can resolve that and they do not
> want to do that. We have 3 augures, none took the auspices for Albucius but
> took them for the coup.
>
>
> > Thank you again for your response. If you would like me to subscribe to
> the list, please let me know.
>
> She knows that you are not authorised to suscribe to the list. Only
> augures, some selected senators and perhaps private guests can.
>
> I am member of the Collegium Pontificum and even if this Collegium
> according to the Constitution is the highest priestly collegium I have no
> access to the list of the Collegium Augurum. It is not a problem for me, I
> am favorable to the independance between the collegia. But...
>
> ... in our last session but one, it was an item about the impietas of the
> consul based on this question of the consul Albucius auguries, and we were
> asked to vote without knowledge of the facts, without evidences and nothing
> but the story told by the pontifex maximus alias the magister augurum... in
> this case why us, all members of the CP, were we not guests to read the
> messages on this list? Perhaps do they have something to hide...
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. IV Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>
>
>


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

Cato Marcio Crispo omnibusque in foro SPD

One more thing, Marcius Crispus, that you might take note of: in ancient Rome, the augurs could *not* take auspices for the State because they did not have the authority to do so; only the magistrates with imperium could. The augurs were merely advisers to the magistrates and Senate, if a question arose regarding the validity of the auspices taken:

"But although the augurs could declare that there was some fault in the auspices, yet, on the other hand, they could not, in favour of their office, declare that any unfavourable sign had appeared to them, since it was not to them that the auspices were sent. Thus we are told that the augurs did not possess the spectio, that is, the right of taking the state-auspices. This spectio, of which we have already briefly spoken, was of two kinds, one more extensive and the other more limited. In the one case the person, who exercised it, could put a stop to the proceedings of any other magistrate by his obnuntiatio: this was called spectio et nuntiatio (perhaps also spectio cum nuntiatione), and belonged only to the highest magistrates, the consuls, dictators, interreges, and, with some modifications, to the praetors."

So it is even more curious to see some of those - and Maior in particular - who scream constantly about others' lack of "Romanitas" and the need to follow the ancients to turn around and simply ignore this most basic fact about augury itself.

So here we are with the highest magistrate in the Respublica having to *beg* the augurs to do that single duty for which they actually even exist, their fundamental purpose - and the augurs refuse.

I am reminded of something Someone else once said:

"You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men." - Matt. 5:13

Vale,

Cato

P.S. - to the censors I ask, officially, if the sentence under which Maior stands condemned has been carried out and if her presence in the Senate has been suspended accordingly until the Kalends of Ianuarius; to the College of Pontiffs I pose the exact same question. If the answer to either is "no", I formally request an explanation and/or their announcement that it shall be done, according to our law, with all conceivable haste. GEC

Ave Sulla,

> Do you think the Consul even had knowledge that he was accused and did the Consul have a chance to defend himself?

I am not able to say what the consul himself knew about the item of this session. I did not know if he read the text of the accusation. He did not and cannot defend himself, he was judged without defence, in his absence.

In fact, we had to judge his attitude not the man.

That said, I do not know the real power of such judgement. The CP is not a tribunal.

When I now notice how a true sentence given by a correct tribunal is not followed nor by the Senate neither by the Collegium Pontificum, I speak about the lawsuit against M. Hortensia Maior, then I wonder how this CP judgement could be in force.

> Did the CP give any due process to the Consul?

The attitude of the consul was judged an impietas, by a very short number of "yes", and now I heard himself being "impious"? It was not the subject of this process. You can do an impietas being very pious, it is not the same thing.

Optime vale.

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

Salve,
I am a Cultor. I am pious. I pray every night and every morning. If I pass an
image of a God or Goddess while I am I perform adoratio. Truly what the Gods
have to say is important to me and should be important to us. But if the Augurs
refuse to do their duties then we should either A:Vote for new ones or B: Simply
call Senate without them. I know we try to stick to the traditions of the past
but that means all of us as a group how far would Rome have gotten if the Augurs
of the day said, "Oh no we are much too tired to watch the skies today come back
later."? Partitioning will not help, if you cut a bad egg in half is it not
still a bad egg? What needs to happen is, the Senate needs to meet, have a
former Augur or even a magistrate do the Auguries technically it's not breaking
the rules. Senate needs to sit down and say look this is what needs to be talked
about, this is what needs to be done, and this is how were going to do it. I
laugh when I read the messages that one or two people can cause such strife in
our community. If they have such power then would they not be tyrants? What did
our forefathers do with tyrants? What happened to one of my namesakes Caesar? If
it is a group effort that is sinking NR then Gods, help us but if we complain
about one or two people and the cause of the problem is one to two people then
deal with it and let us be a republic again.
I am reminded of a quote from Agora: "There will be no one left, in this city
(organization)... No people left, for this government to govern!" If we do
nothing then we will fall like the Rome of old and we will disappear and become
nothing more the an IP echo in the servers of time.
Di Vos Incolumes Custodiant,
Nero.





________________________________
From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, August 28, 2010 7:45:22 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: De Res Publica


Cato Marcio Crispo omnibusque in foro SPD

One more thing, Marcius Crispus, that you might take note of: in ancient Rome,
the augurs could *not* take auspices for the State because they did not have the
authority to do so; only the magistrates with imperium could. The augurs were
merely advisers to the magistrates and Senate, if a question arose regarding the
validity of the auspices taken:

"But although the augurs could declare that there was some fault in the
auspices, yet, on the other hand, they could not, in favour of their office,
declare that any unfavourable sign had appeared to them, since it was not to
them that the auspices were sent. Thus we are told that the augurs did not
possess the spectio, that is, the right of taking the state-auspices. This
spectio, of which we have already briefly spoken, was of two kinds, one more
extensive and the other more limited. In the one case the person, who exercised
it, could put a stop to the proceedings of any other magistrate by his
obnuntiatio: this was called spectio et nuntiatio (perhaps also spectio cum
nuntiatione), and belonged only to the highest magistrates, the consuls,
dictators, interreges, and, with some modifications, to the praetors."

So it is even more curious to see some of those - and Maior in particular - who
scream constantly about others' lack of "Romanitas" and the need to follow the
ancients to turn around and simply ignore this most basic fact about augury
itself.

So here we are with the highest magistrate in the Respublica having to *beg* the
augurs to do that single duty for which they actually even exist, their
fundamental purpose - and the augurs refuse.


I am reminded of something Someone else once said:

"You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it
be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out
and trampled under foot by men." - Matt. 5:13

Vale,

Cato

P.S. - to the censors I ask, officially, if the sentence under which Maior
stands condemned has been carried out and if her presence in the Senate has been
suspended accordingly until the Kalends of Ianuarius; to the College of Pontiffs
I pose the exact same question. If the answer to either is "no", I formally
request an explanation and/or their announcement that it shall be done,
according to our law, with all conceivable haste. GEC







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

C. Maria Caeca Omnibus in foro S. P. D.

I am posting this, at the rather strong suggestion of a friend with whom I
shared it, and I had intended to share it only with a few, very trusted
friends, certainly not here. Some will find this amusing. Some will find
it overly emotional, and overly dramatic, and I expect ridicule, here and
elsewhere. But ...if I touch one heart, and if one of those hearts belongs
to someone with the power and authority to do what I cannot, I will gladly
bear, in absolute silence, whatever vile slurs will be hurled at me ...and
they will be.

So, I offer this to you, not without trepidation, but in the hopes that,
perhaps, just perhaps, it may do a modicum of good.

NOVA ROMA



Oh, my Nova roma! Home of my heart

Republic of my mind, dream in the making!

You lie, gravely wounded, in the street,

And none will stop to help you! Why?



Will no one kneel beside you in the dirt?

Will no one tend your hurts? Salve your wounds?

Will no one even offer you the solace of cool water?

They pass you, some look down, curse you, wish you dead

Yet you struggle for each painful breath.

Some pour salt into your wounds, and call it

Purification, and some sweep aside their

Pristine togas .not wishing to be sullied.



I can give so little, but what I have is yours:

I lift you in my arms, trembling with weakness,

Accepting your blood on hands and garment,

As honorable: as trust: as cause for savage grief.

Warm you against me, like a child:

Cradle you, singing softly, my Mother, my babe

Whisper words of reassurance to you,

Which we both know are of little meaning:



But I will go and find those things that may heal you

So, I cover you, beloved mother, with my stola,

And walk with uncovered head into the city,

To seek that which I need, content to address

My own dignitas when you have received what little

I can bring. From behind me, flung filth clings to my

Tunica. Taunts and jeers follow me, from both sides

Of the street: I continue, looking straight ahead,

With unbent back, head erect, hiding my tears.



Most respectfully,

C. Maria Caeca

SALVE ET SALVETE!

--- On Sun, 8/29/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

P.S. - to the censors I ask, officially, if the sentence under which Maior stands condemned has been carried out and if her presence in the Senate has been suspended accordingly until the Kalends of Ianuarius; to the College of Pontiffs I pose the exact same question. If the answer to either is "no", I formally request an explanation and/or their announcement that it shall be done, according to our law, with all conceivable haste. GEC>>>
 
As censor I recorded the sentence in the database. Under the laex Salicia Iudiciaria, pars quinta de sententia, XVI:
"Once all the iudices have issued their sententiae, the praetor shall immediately inform the parties of the sententia, and shall enforce any penalties through his imperium", you can see that to enforce is under the praetors. In our case, consul P. Memmius acted legally based of his edict, in the praetors place. Therefore the sentence enforce is under his imperium and not of censors who have not imperium.
Now, where is the problem? The problem is around the word 'offices' used in sentence. A debate about the meaning of this word started. Without restarting another debate about that, I want to say that is only under consul P. Memmius imperium to interpret the sentence and to instruct the others. There was a discussion about the subject among consul, censors and Pontifex Maximus. The discussion among those mentioned was not concluded but consul P. Memmius can conclude it because he has two elements in his hand: lex Salicia Iudiciaria and his imperium.
When the consul will be sure and announce the totally result of his interpretation, nobody can avoid it.

 
VALE ET VALETE,
T. Iulius Sabinus










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

On 8/27/2010 9:40 PM, C.Maria Caeca wrote:

>
> Caeca Seneca Sal,
>
> Oh, my! I see I'm going to have to go to the A. C. and get my citizen
> ID number! You *could* have warned me, (laughs). But I'll do that, and
> register on your site.
>

I forgot to mention that, oops! So yeah, for people signing up, you'll
need your ID number from the Album Civium :) I decided to use that here
to make any future integration between the sites much easier.

I've been working on the site today, several bug fixes and a new feature
- you can now filter by posts or notices, so messages don't get lost in
the flood of new friend notifications. It's also noticeably faster now.

The URL, for anyone who missed my initial announcement, is
http://nrfb.korsoft.com/

Vale et valete!
Seneca



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

Salve Maior,
yes, the current praetorial cohors' only criterium seems to be that anyone
is allowed to insult you at will: only you are moderated at their whim.

Optime vale,
Livia

----- Original Message -----
From: "rory12001" <rory12001@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 9:57 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: de Res Publica


Salve Gualtere;
I thought he was already moderated. So how doe these malicious remarks get
posted?

Or is this list a free-for-all where I get insulted by anyone and everyone?
vale
M.Hortensia Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> I think it would be best if the whole issue of Maior's status as a lawyer
> were left aside. It has already been extensively explored in previous
> debates and since then she has not made any reference to herself as a
> lawyer; therefore, raising that old bogeyman serves nothing except to
> potentially derail a more serious conversation.
>
> Vale,
>
> Gualterus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah being free of Piscinus's wall of text that either gets alot of
> > information INCORRECT (like Tish B'Av) for one example. Would be an
> > advantage!
> >
> > Yet always like the Suspended attorney, striving for the easy way
> > out..first
> > the unsuccessful coup...and now this. How dedicated you are. Such
> > Romanitas. ROFL!!!
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:22 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve Anna;
> > >
> > > I didn't even read it; but I'm going to write to Piscinus; just think
> > > being
> > > free of all that.....verbiage;-)
> > > vale
> > > Maior
> > >
> > > >
> > > > what a load of crap cato.
> > > >
> > > > What are you gonna do if NR is split? Gonna whine about it?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Anna Bucci
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > AKA Annia Minucia Marcella
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > "Cato"
> > > <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > C. Equitius Cato senatore quaestore aedilis praetoris omnibus in
> > > > > Foro
> > > SPD
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Salvete omnes,
I was hoping the augurs would intervene to set this straight, but it seems
they are busy.
Again, Albucius succeeded in making people believe that the augurs refused
to take auspices for him.

But people who have actually been reading the post exchanges between consul
and augurs will remember that Piscinus asked Albucius to change the date for
his Senate session, because the day he chose was unappropriate, and
suggested some appropriate dates that he could take auspices for.

Albucius refused to change the date, in one of his usual power games, and
now pretends that Piscinus didn't answer his call for auspices.
I presume Piscinus is waiting for Albucius to set a proper date for the
senate call, then he will take the auspices.

Until a few months ago I really believed Albucius when he said that the
augurs refused to take auspices for him. Now I see he is creating these
cases artificially as a part of his struggle to establish his own power in
the religious field.

Albucius' main goal at the moment seems to be the assertion of his own
power, at the cost of paralyzing everything in Nova Roma.

Optime valete,
L. Livia Plauta

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:

>
> C. Maria Caeca Omnibus in foro S. P. D.
>
> I am posting this, at the rather strong suggestion of a friend......

Salve Caeca, et salvete omnes

Thank you.

That was beautiful.

Vale, et valete optime
Crispus
"Then none was for a party; then all were for the state".

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

>
> Salvete omnes,
> I was hoping the augurs would intervene to set this straight, but it seems
> they are busy......

>>> Salve Plauta, et salvete omnes

I too have been hoping that the Augurs, or their chief officer, would answer my question, and it concerns me that they do not speak.

The people cry out for action, but consistently no action can take place.

I don't know the truth of it. I can only ask the question "Why will not the Augurs take the auspices when they have been (recently) asked to do so?"

Whatever may or may not have happened in the past, now is the time for honest and open debate, leading to an agreed plan of action. Not this infernal secrecy and sinister silence.

Please, in the name of the people,and for the future of our Republic, may we have some action?

Vale, et valete optime
Crispus
"Then none was for a party; then all were for the state".

Cato Liviae Plautae sal.

Unfortunately for your argument, the augurs have openly stated that now they will not take auspices for consul Albucius because the Colleges declared him "impious" - long after these requests took place.

There is nothing in our law which gives them the authority to refuse the request/order of a curule magistrate. There is nothing in the pontifical decreta which gives them the authority to refuse the request/order of a curule magistrate - not even for the imaginary "crime" of "imprudens dolo malo". In fact, there is no such "crime" under our law.

A citizen can *only* be found guilty of impiety (contumelia pietate) by a duly-convened court of Nova Roman law, under the lex Salicia poenalis. The Colleges may make whatever *internal* rules they see fit, but they cannot illegally obstruct the external, public civil life of the Respublica. We are *not* the Papal States.

So: no such "crime" exists under our law as "imprudens dolo malo"; no augur has the right to cast a "guilty" sentence upon a citizen of the Respublica; no augur has the right to refuse to obey the request/order of a curule magistrate.

The augurs may be very busy - but it's certainly not in doing their *historic* job of advising the magistrates and Senate.

vale,

Cato

C. Petronius Quiritibus s.p.d.,

> Albucius' main goal at the moment seems to be the assertion of his own power, at the cost of paralyzing everything in Nova Roma.

Albucius openly called the Senate, and he asked the augurs to take auspices on Thursday August 19th.

See:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/79452;

As, I wrote people will see and judge.

Now auspices are not yet taken.

Perhaps, there are good reasons, but why senators are not informed if a problem araised and what problem can prevent any augur to take auspices? Did they forget their art? That is a nonsense.

Optime valete.

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

Salvete omnes

My thanks to all who have added to my knowledge of the facts, or have added their own views.

So, as I understand it, we have some sort of "Star Chamber" who have, without clear legal authority, assumed the power to prevent any action by the state, to being down the republic because of that power, and to condemn in absentia in secret courts anyone who they have fallen out with. The shadowy people.

This is better than Franz Kafka. (The Trial).

The citizens cry out.

Valete optime
Crispus
"Then none was for a party; then all were for the state".

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 7:56 AM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

> C. Maria Caeca Omnibus in foro S. P. D.
>
> I am posting this, at the rather strong suggestion of a friend
>

I'm glad you're friend persuaded you to share it. It is truly beautiful and
has helped remind me that Nova Roma itself is so much more than our
squabbles. Your imagery is very powerful.

Thank you

Flavia Lucilla Merula


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

M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus Quiritibus cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Bonam habete Fortunam.

Hodie est ante diem IV Kalendas Septembres; haec dies comitialis est:

AUC 865 / 112 CE: Hadrian gives the title Augusta to his mother-in-law Salonina Matidia.

Salonina Matidia was the niece of Emperor Trajan, being the daughter of his sister Ulpia Marciana. When her husband, Praetor G. Saloninus Matidius Patruinus, died Ulpia went to live with her brother. Matidia was only ten years old at the time. With no children of his own Trajan treated his niece Matidia as his daughter. The Emperor brought her on his travels and came to value her as one of his counselors. Matidia first married L. Vibius Sabinus, by which she had two daughters. Her younger daughter, Vibia Sabina, married Hadrian. When Vibius Sabinus died sometime after 86 CE Matidia next married L. Scribonius Libo Rupilio Frugi who became consul in 88 CE. She had two more daughters from her second marriage. Rupilia Faustina married Consul M. Annius Verus and Rupilia Annia married Consul L. Fundanius Lamia Aelianus. On 29 August 112 CE the title of Augusta was bestowed on Matidia. When her uncle Trajan died without an apparent heir in 117 CE, Matidia was instrumental in having Trajan adopt Hadrian post mortem and thus secured the throne for Hadrian. She died two years later, in 119 CE. Her son-in-law and second cousin, Hadrian, gave her funeral oration and had the Senate deify Matidia. Soon afterward he built the Temple of Matidia just north-east of the Pantheon that he had built for Trajan. Matidia's temple is commemorated on one of Hadrian's coins.


FLAMENICAE AND THE WIVES OF OTHER SACERDOTES

"And because some rites were to be performed by women, others by children whose fathers and mothers were living, to the end that these also might be administered in the best manner, he ordered that the wives of the priests should be associated with their husbands in the priesthood; and that in the case of any rites which men were forbidden by the law of the country to celebrate, their wives should perform them and their children should assist as their duties required; and that the priests who had no children should choose out of the other families of each curia the most beautiful boy and girl, the boy to assist in the rites till the age of manhood, and the girl so long as she remained unmarried." ~ Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 2.22


ROMAN ATTITUDES TOWARDS OATHS

"On the strict observance by the Romans of the sanctity of an oath; and also the story of the ten prisoners whom Hannibal sent to Rome under oath: An oath was regarded and kept by the Romans as something inviolable and sacred. This is evident from many of their customs and laws, and this tale which I shall tell may be regarded as no slight support of the truth of the statement. After the battle of Cannae Hannibal, commander of the Carthaginians, selected ten Roman prisoners and sent them to the city, instructing them and agreeing that, if it seemed good to the Roman people, there should be an exchange of prisoners, and that for each captive that one side should receive in excess of the other side, there should be paid a pound and a half of silver. Before they left, he compelled them to take oath that they would return to the Punic camp, if the Romans would not agree to an exchange. The ten captives come to Rome. They deliver the message of the Punic commander in the senate. The senate refused an exchange. The parents, kinsfolk and connexions of the prisoners amid embraces declared that they had returned to their native land in accordance with the law of postliminium, and that their condition of independence was complete and inviolate; they therefore besought them not to think of returning to the enemy. Then eight of their number rejoined that they had no just right of postliminium, since they were bound by an oath, and they at once went back to Hannibal, as they had sworn to do. The other two remained in Rome, declaring that they had been released and freed from their obligation because, after leaving the enemy's camp, they had returned to it as if for some chance reason, but really with intent to deceive, and having thus kept the letter of the oath, they had come away again unsworn. This dishonourable cleverness of theirs was considered so shameful, that they were generally despised and reprobated; and later the censors punished them with all possible fines and marks of disgrace, on the ground that they had not done what they had sworn to do. Furthermore Cornelius Nepos, in the fifth book of his Examples, has recorded also that many of the senators recommended that those who refused to return should be sent to Hannibal under guard, but that the motion was defeated by a majority of dissentients. He adds that, in spite of this, those who had not returned to Hannibal were so infamous and hated that they became tired of life and committed suicide." ~ A. Gellius, Noctes Atticae 6. 18


LESSER ROMAN GODS

"Dividing man's entire existence amongst separate powers even from his conception in the womb: so that there is a god Consevius, to preside over concubital generation; and Fluviona, to preserve the (growth of the) infant in the womb; after these come Vitumnus and Sentinus, through whom the babe begins to have life and its earliest sensation; then Diespiter, by whose office the child accomplishes its birth. But when women begin their parturition, Candelifera also comes in aid, since childbearing requires the light of the candle; and other goddesses there are who get their names from the parts they bear in the stages of travail. There were two Carmentas likewise, according to the general view: to one of them, called Postverta, belonged the function of assisting the birth of the introverted child; while the other, Prosa, executed the like office for the rightly born. The god Farinus was so called from (his inspiring) the first utterance; while others believed in Locutius from his gift of speech. Cunina is present as the protector of the child's deep slumber, and supplies to it refreshing rest. To lift them (when fallen) there is Levana, and along with her Rumina. It is a wonderful oversight that no gods were appointed for cleaning up the filth of children. Then, to preside over their first pap and earliest drink you have Potina and Edula; to teach the child to stand erect is the work of Statina, whilst Adeona helps him to come to dear Mamma, and Abeona to toddle off again; then there is Domiduca, (to bring home the bride; ) and the goddess Mens, to influence the mind to either good or evil. They have likewise Volumnus and Voleta, to control the will; Paventina, (the goddess) of fear; Venilia, of hope; Volupia, of pleasure; Praestitia, of beauty. Then, again, they give his name to Peragenor, from his teaching men to go through their work; to Consus, from his suggesting to them counsel. Juventa is their guide on assuming the manly gown, and "bearded Fortune" when they come to full manhood. If I must touch on their nuptial duties, there is Afferenda whose appointed function is to see to the offering of the dowery; but fie on you! you have your Mutunus and Tutunus and Pertunda and Subigus and the goddess Prema and likewise Perfica." ~ Tertullianus, Adv. Nat. 2.11; GRF Varro 156

Christian authors ridiculed the variety of deities that Romans worshipped. At times they referred to a book called De Re divinorum by M. Terrentius Varro, a book that is now lost to us. As they are the only sources to mention some of the lesser deities it is difficult to know whether Romans actually ever did worship them as deities. In most cases these are functional deities, such that they were more likely the names of numina of other deities rather than deities in their own right. While the names of some are repeated, suggesting a common source, others seem to have been the invention of the Christian authors. In some cases the Christians explicitly and sarcasticly obviously did invent names of deities that were never part of the Roman pantheon. How the Christians described some of these lesser deities is obviously slanted by ridicule, and thus we cannot be certain of their actual function. In some cases it is as though they were described as having the very opposite function to one indicated. But then there are a few which we do know from other sources that gives credence to the idea that Varro had mentioned many of these in his books on the religio Romana. The sources we have are just not reliable.


And for today's thought we shall turn to another letter by Seneca, Epistle 95:

"Peace of mind is enjoyed only by those who have attained a fixed and unchanging standard of judgment; the rest of mankind continually ebb and flow in their decisions, floating in a condition where they alternately reject things and seek them. And what is the reason for this tossing to and fro? It is because nothing is clear to them, because they make use of a most unsure criterion – rumor."



Religio_Romana_Cultorum_Deorum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

_____________________

Salve Crispe

The truth of the matter is what Livia Plauta stated, and it began last January. There is an old decretum pontificum et augurum from 2003 that allows magistrates to take their own auspices under certain conditions. Albucius wished to use it for his own purposes. The Augures Publici agreed that he could. In fact Modianus and I Agricola was not yet an Augur) have been encouraging this to begin.

One provision of that decretum is that the magistrate send a report of his auspicium to the Augures for review to ensure there was no vitium. Albucius delayed the report, proceding with his Senate session before an augural determination could be made. As soon as I received his report, I posted it to the Augurs list for discussion. We discussed it via private emails. Later when Albucius again took auspices he again did not send a report, and when pressed, he said to refer to the earlier report on his previous tripudium. So did he take auspices or not? We didn't know and he was not coouperating. Eventually he did send a second report. The first report raised questions, the second confirmed that he had erred in his method, and therefore that his auspices were vitiate.

A good part of the problem has been communication. At times he has requested auspices in advance. At other times he puts a request into his call for the Senate or other assembly, thinking we shall see it. This produced problems so I discussed with him, briefly, a procedure we might follow to allow sufficient time for the Augures to respond to a request. The auspices cannot always be taken according to Albucius schedule. Weather conditions here in Ohio, where both Modianus and I live, can intrude, especially in the first half of the year. Then we have our own schedules to keep. And there is the matter that auspices cannot be taken at the drop of a hat, as Albucius seems to think, but the augures must make special preparations that takes time.

It is an absolute falsehood that any of the Augures Publici have refused to take auspices for Consul Albucius.

It is an absolute falsehood that the Augures filled all of the requests of Consul Fabius Buteo but not those of Consul Albucius. Rather, the contrast shows that Quintilianus has followed the same procedure as all consuls have previously, but that Albucius has pushed ahead, impatiently, without conforming or complying with instruction from the Augures, and in violation of Nova Roma law.

Other magistrates have had no problem with maintaining their oaths or the Constitution that requires them to uphold the religio Romana as our State's religion. In June, the Custodes and Diribitores could not proceed further when the election process held under Albucius' erroneous auspices were determined vitiated. No magistrate, let alone any consul before Albucius, has acted in the manner he has towards the religio Romana and its prescriptions.

The Augures Publici have consistently sought to resolve problems with Albucius. We have the emails from January through May trying to resolve procedural problems with Albucius so that he could take proper auspices, but he would not cooperate with any of the Augures. Well, matters progressed further from there.

So now, what began with Albucius falling to follow a simple procedure last January, by which he violated a minor provision of the Decretum collegii pontificum et augurum de iure auspicandi et tripudio has now become a matter of impietas prudens dolo malo.

That decretum states: "A curule magistrate who is a practitioner of the Religio Romana, but not an augur, pontifex, flamen, sacerdos, or pullarius, shall submit a written report of any auspication he has taken and his interpretation thereof to the Collegium Augurum for verification that vitium has not occurred in the auspication."

No report sent, thus no verification by Augures.

But then he ignored the instructions of the Augures and the Decretum augurum de tripudio inrito of early July that determined his auspices had been vitiated. He proceeded with assemblies using his vitiated method of auspicia or took no auspices at all (we don't really know) when he held a tribunal, when he called comitia, and assembled the Senate. And he did this in defiance of the previous decretum, therefore he knowingly and willingly assembled the Senate and a tribunal without valid auspices first being taken. Albucius would not allow Augures to validate his auspices; he refused to send us reports until after an assembly would end.

In such a case, the Decretum collegii pontificum et augurum de iure auspicandi et tripudio states: "It shall constitute an offence of impietas prudens dolo malo for a curule magistrate to knowingly convene a meeting of the Comitia Centuriata, Comitia Populi Tributa, or the Senate without performance of a valid auspication."

So it was his own actions that led to a request by Augur Agricola to submit the question to the Collegium Augurum and it determined that Albucius had in fact committed a crime of impietas prudens dolo malo.

Now the question has been raised as to the effect this will have. Can the Augures Publici take auspices for a Consul who has been declared impie? No, not until his impietas has been resolved. Impietas prudens dolo malo indicates that he acted knowingly and with malice - which is not true. Knowingly, yes, but none of us think he acted with malice towards the collegia or the religio. Can his fault be excused? Under certain circumstance violations of religious law can be excused, as set by an ancient ruling by Pontifex Maximus Scaevola. Albucius' actions do not meet the requirements to be excused. So can it be expiated? I hold that his fault can be expiated; it has to be expiated by himself to his own Lares, and because this involves the State as well, piacula must also be undertaken on its behalf to restore the Pax Deorum, which is a responsibility of the Pontifices. But this still will require that the Collegium Pontificum reconsider its determination in the matter.

I have therefore asked the Collegium Pontificum to reconsider. However, the Collegium is already in session, under Metellus, and it is now his decision whether to allow the Collegium to vote on this matter or require me to call a third session this month.

If the determination of impietas prudens dolo malo is lifted, and as the Consul has agreed to perform piacula for his fault, under the guidence of Pontifex Lentulus, then the Augures can perform auspicia for Consul Albucius. Otherwise, Consul Fabius Buteo would still be able to call comitia and the Senate under valid auspices, but Albucius could not rightly do so. Further, someone declared impie would not properly be allowed to enter a templum as his presence would pollute it. Thus he could not enter the Senate and participate in a session, as the Senate is to meet in a templum under auspices. He could not enter a templum in which a comitia was to be held, thus he could neither run for office or vote in any election. He could not participate in any event where caeremonia were held for the celestial Gods, which again rules out his attending the Senate or comitia, but other things as well. Obviously it would pose a major problem to have a consul impius. In ancient times he would either resign or the Senate would compel him to resign.

So, where we stand right now is that we are in the process of resolving these difficulties as soon as possible. But even that will take a little time. Within nine days, if all goes well, we should be able to begin a Senate session as Consul Albucius requested.

As to your other query, we are busy trying to resolve matters among ourselves, so we don't always have time to read the lists, and we do not have time to answer all the emails on the lists in addition to all of the private emails we receive. We are neither silent nor secretive, just busy fulfilling our many duties as Augures Publici.

Valete optime

M. Moravius Piscinus
Pontifex Maximus
Magister Collegii Augurum

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS" <jbshr1pwa@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete omnes,
> > I was hoping the augurs would intervene to set this straight, but it seems
> > they are busy......
>
> >>> Salve Plauta, et salvete omnes
>
> I too have been hoping that the Augurs, or their chief officer, would answer my question, and it concerns me that they do not speak.
>
> The people cry out for action, but consistently no action can take place.
>
> I don't know the truth of it. I can only ask the question "Why will not the Augurs take the auspices when they have been (recently) asked to do so?"
>
> Whatever may or may not have happened in the past, now is the time for honest and open debate, leading to an agreed plan of action. Not this infernal secrecy and sinister silence.
>
> Please, in the name of the people,and for the future of our Republic, may we have some action?
>
> Vale, et valete optime
> Crispus
> "Then none was for a party; then all were for the state".
>

M. Moravius Catone dicit:

Decreta pontifica et augura is law in Nova Roma. Read the Constitution I.B.

Impietas prudens dolo malo has been a crime in our laws since 2003. Why don't you ask Cincinnatus about it, or Scaurus, or Fabius Maximus, or Cassius, as they were the pontifices who instituted this decretum to begin with.

The problem here is that some people think our laws don't apply to themselves. And so you get upset when they are applied, feigning ignorance of them. You better take a front row seat in that class on Nova Roma law you proposed because you need it more than anyone else.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Liviae Plautae sal.
>
> Unfortunately for your argument, the augurs have openly stated that now they will not take auspices for consul Albucius because the Colleges declared him "impious" - long after these requests took place.
>
> There is nothing in our law which gives them the authority to refuse the request/order of a curule magistrate. There is nothing in the pontifical decreta which gives them the authority to refuse the request/order of a curule magistrate - not even for the imaginary "crime" of "imprudens dolo malo". In fact, there is no such "crime" under our law.
>
> A citizen can *only* be found guilty of impiety (contumelia pietate) by a duly-convened court of Nova Roman law, under the lex Salicia poenalis. The Colleges may make whatever *internal* rules they see fit, but they cannot illegally obstruct the external, public civil life of the Respublica. We are *not* the Papal States.
>
> So: no such "crime" exists under our law as "imprudens dolo malo"; no augur has the right to cast a "guilty" sentence upon a citizen of the Respublica; no augur has the right to refuse to obey the request/order of a curule magistrate.
>
> The augurs may be very busy - but it's certainly not in doing their *historic* job of advising the magistrates and Senate.
>
> vale,
>
> Cato
>

M. Moravius C. Petronio s. p. d.

The augures did reply to Albucius. He didn't wait as we suggested he ought to do as the Augures were already engaged at the time in another Sente session. What, you think that taking auspices is like flipping a coin at a moment's notice?

It takes a minimum of three days to take auspices. It involves performing certain rites of purification, and of preparing a templum, of performing sacrifices to Manes at night and to the celestial Gods at dawn, before auspices may be properly taken. And that assumes that conditions are proper throughout the ceremonies. With enough advanced notice I or one of the other augures may be able to schedule the time needed.

But here you provide an example of the problem we have had with Albucius all year. He posted an general announcement. Did he contact the augures directly? And the schedule he set, posting it on the 19th July at 19:37 hrs, so that we *might* see it on 20th July.

DROP EVERYTHING BECAUSE WE HAVE TO TAKE AUSPICES FOR ALBUCIUS

Maybe, and only maybe, then we might have been able to take the auspices by 22 July and be able to report them to the consules so that he could assemble the Senate on the following day. Albucius did not wait for any reply, he just proceeded without any valid auspices, let alone favorable auspices as required by Senate rules.

And the biggest part of the problem: NO CONSUL BEFORE ALBUCIUS HAS EVER DISREGARDED THE AUSPICES OR THE AUGURES IN THE MANNER HE HAS THIS YEAR.

The problem is ALBUCIUS. The problem will end when he ends it or when his term of office ends.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius Quiritibus s.p.d.,
>
> > Albucius' main goal at the moment seems to be the assertion of his own power, at the cost of paralyzing everything in Nova Roma.
>
> Albucius openly called the Senate, and he asked the augurs to take auspices on Thursday August 19th.
>
> See:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/79452;
>
> As, I wrote people will see and judge.
>
> Now auspices are not yet taken.
>
> Perhaps, there are good reasons, but why senators are not informed if a problem araised and what problem can prevent any augur to take auspices? Did they forget their art? That is a nonsense.
>
> Optime valete.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. IV Kalendas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>

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

>
> Salve Crispe
>
> The truth of the matter is ........

Salve Pontifex Maximus, et salvete omnes

I am very grateful to you for taking the time to answer my call, and to explain carefully and in detail the events of past months.

As an ordinary citizen, concerned for the well-being of our Republic, the Republic established to honour the Gods of Rome, I had become extremely concerned at what appeared to be happening.

You will appreciate that ordinary citizens can only gain an idea of events from what they read on the ML, and what I was reading concerned me. Clearly there was more than one problem, and clearly it was difficult to identify the simple truth. Given the months that have passed, months when good progress should have been made, the constant delay was becoming unsupportable, particularly when there seemed to be no attempt for the parties to come and work together to iron out the problems. Hence I felt it necessary to call out in an attempt to find out what was going on, and to clarify what might happen next. I am grateful to you for addressing those points.

As I understand your response, yes, there were problems in the past, but those problems can and will be at last overcome so that auspices will be able to be taken, and a meeting of the properly constituted Senate held in the not too distant future. That is what I and many other concerned citizens wish to hear. We are eager for action to be taken by the Senate, in goodwill, to work quickly on the problems facing the state.

Clearly something needs to be done for the future, to clarify the procedures and ensure that auspices are taken correctly by the appropriate magistrate, or taken by one of the augurs as allowed under our laws, so that the situation is made clear, and so that this problem should not occur again, and so that the business of the administration of the state can move forward without delay.I hope that the lawmakers will ensure that the law is clear, not open to doubt, is based on traditional Roman practice, and is agreed by all interested parties.

I will now offer my thanks personally to Dea Roma for this first step towards normalisation of the present situation, and, when the Senate is properly called in full accordance with the law, I shall offer them publicly to all the Gods and Goddesses of Rome.

I wish you a speedy resolution of the present stalemate, and an active and productive part in what follows. I shall watch this space.

My thanks to you again for taking the time to answer my concerns.
Vale, et valete optime
Crispus
"Then none was for a party; then all were for the state".

Salve Crispe

What we have are people who are not informed about the religio Romana and who find it an inconvience to have to comply with its strictures even though they hold offices under the auspices and took an oath to uphold the religio Romana and comply with the provisions of the Constitution, leges, decreta, and edicta that form our body of laws. You see people like Cato try to deny that decreta are part of our body of laws, even though the Constitution specifically states they are. You have someone like Dexter try to claim that edicta from a magistrate has more authority than decreta of a collegium, even though the Constitution clearly states that decreta have higher legal authority over edicta and that not even leges may conflict with decreta. You have non-practitioners of the religio Romana like Cato and Sulla trying to tell the Sacerdotes what the religio Romana is and try to dismiss what the Constitution says about the Religio Romana as the State religion, because it is not their Christian religion. And there is a consul who thinks civil authority supercedes the Gods and that the proscriptions of the State religion should not have to apply to him, even though his position conflicts with the Constitution and our other laws.

Nova Roma is a Civitas, our Res Publica is founded upon a Pax Deorum. Do you know what that means? Do you know how Cicero and our other ancient ancestors defined those terms? A Civitas is not composed of men and women alone. The term implies a community in which the Gods are members as well, hold certain rights Themselves, and must be regularly consulted as is the Senate and the people assembled in comitia. Res Publica likewise refers to an interraltionship between mortals and immortals, founded upon the auspices of Romulus and the religious ceremonies of Numa, which is also the basis of our Pax Deorum. Neglecting Gods, vitiating, profaning, or neglecting Their rites, breaks the Pax Deorum, unfounds the Res Publica, and shunders the Civitas we hold in common with Them.

Have you bothered to consider why other magistrates don't have a problem with the Collegia? Why did the Custodes and Diribitors not continue with a vitiated election last June? Why did our Praetrices and Consul Quintilianus not have a problem with the Collegia? Why does the majority of the Senate not have a problem? Why did a majority of the Senate vote for a dictator? Why did the Curiata bear witness to that appointment?

Non-practitioners like Cato and Sulla have a problem with the Collegia and their members. Non-citizens like Octavius and Poplicola have a problem. And a minority faction in the Senate has rallied behind a consul who has moved towards obstruction of his colleague and the majority of the Senate, to the point where those in the Back Alley who in July were discussing a civil war and attempting a coup now speak in August of partitioning Nova Roma.

Have you bothered to ask yourself why?

How large is Nova Roma? How many assidui are here? How many actually vote in elections? And then you have at most ten individuals screaming on the ML who don't like what occurs in Nova Roma, some of who are not even citizens.

'Star chambers'? Like the Senate, senaculum, Collegium Pontificum, Collegium Augurum, the lists for governors, for magistrates, for sacerdotes, the comitia lists, the lists of the senate committees, the sodalitates lists . . . There are 173 public lists of Nova Roma, and no one knows how many other Nova Roma lists that are not publicly listed. If all you read is the main list here, then you know nothing about Nova Roma. And you think any of us magistrates and sacerdotes have time for all these lists, and time to answer all the emails here too? And don't forget all the private emails received by magistrates and sacerdotes too, some days in the hundreds. Oh, yes, and the phone calls. Some days I spend more time on the phone talking with magistrates, sacerdotes, and senators than I do online. I was just on the phone last night with a Sacerdos from another organization, which is also one of my many duties as Pontifex Maximus. Assuming you had the time and ability to read everything, and answer phone calls, you still need time to perfom your other duties, like take auspices or perform rituals, as magistrates and sacerdotes are both suppose to do. Or you could just complain in the Back Alley instead, like some who never do anything for Nova Roma but instead try to slander and defame those of us who do work for the Res Publica.

Some people have the impression that Nova Roma is only an internet community. That could be true if it were only the many lists used by its Citizens. But the facts are quite different. That has been shown recently by events in Sarmatia and elsewhere, at the conventi, at provincial meetings, as well as at private ceremonies. There is a provincial meeting scheduled in October in South Carolina that I and other sacerdotes, magistrates, and senators from outside the provincia shall attend, making it a Nova Roma conventus in the process. Why aren't we here all the time actively texting from our cell phones? Well, I don't have a cell phone for one thing, but also I am busy with the planning of other things or actively doing other things for Nova Roma. The few individuals from the Back Alley don't realize what the real Nova Roma is or where the majority party is moving us towards. They speak of the "Nova Roma Classic" as an internet based 'micronation'. They have that already in their Back Alley. They should go back to it if that is all they want. Or be left behind as the rest of our Res Publica moves ahead into the future. Each Citizen has a part to play in making Nova Roma. Complaining and bickering with other Citizens when you do nothing for the Res Publica yourself, is hardly considered by the rest of us as worth our time or effort to respond to. Some people just have too much time on their hands, and it shows every time they text in some little nonsense to the ML.

Valete optime

M. Moravius Piscinus

Also known as TGO, Fishhead, and by many other colorful names on the Back Alley, but who is respected by most, both inside Nova Roma and elsewhere, as Pontifex Maximus.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS" <jbshr1pwa@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes
>
> My thanks to all who have added to my knowledge of the facts, or have added their own views.
>
> So, as I understand it, we have some sort of "Star Chamber" who have, without clear legal authority, assumed the power to prevent any action by the state, to being down the republic because of that power, and to condemn in absentia in secret courts anyone who they have fallen out with. The shadowy people.
>
> This is better than Franz Kafka. (The Trial).
>
> The citizens cry out.
>
> Valete optime
> Crispus
> "Then none was for a party; then all were for the state".
>

Cato Piscino sal.

Please cite the relevant law in which "imprudens dolo malo" is defined, and in which punishments for it are set out, as well as who make make those determinations.

Just because *you* have done something does *not* make it legal - see your very recent attempts to install a dictator illegally.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> M. Moravius Catone dicit:
>
> Decreta pontifica et augura is law in Nova Roma. Read the Constitution I.B.
>
> Impietas prudens dolo malo has been a crime in our laws since 2003. Why don't you ask Cincinnatus about it, or Scaurus, or Fabius Maximus, or Cassius, as they were the pontifices who instituted this decretum to begin with.
>
> The problem here is that some people think our laws don't apply to themselves. And so you get upset when they are applied, feigning ignorance of them. You better take a front row seat in that class on Nova Roma law you proposed because you need it more than anyone else.
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Liviae Plautae sal.
> >
> > Unfortunately for your argument, the augurs have openly stated that now they will not take auspices for consul Albucius because the Colleges declared him "impious" - long after these requests took place.
> >
> > There is nothing in our law which gives them the authority to refuse the request/order of a curule magistrate. There is nothing in the pontifical decreta which gives them the authority to refuse the request/order of a curule magistrate - not even for the imaginary "crime" of "imprudens dolo malo". In fact, there is no such "crime" under our law.
> >
> > A citizen can *only* be found guilty of impiety (contumelia pietate) by a duly-convened court of Nova Roman law, under the lex Salicia poenalis. The Colleges may make whatever *internal* rules they see fit, but they cannot illegally obstruct the external, public civil life of the Respublica. We are *not* the Papal States.
> >
> > So: no such "crime" exists under our law as "imprudens dolo malo"; no augur has the right to cast a "guilty" sentence upon a citizen of the Respublica; no augur has the right to refuse to obey the request/order of a curule magistrate.
> >
> > The augurs may be very busy - but it's certainly not in doing their *historic* job of advising the magistrates and Senate.
> >
> > vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>

Aeternia C. Mariae Caecae s.p.d.


Caeca you rocked it as usual, an incredible piece of prose.


*two snap kudos*


vale,
Aeternia

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 11:56 PM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

>
>
> C. Maria Caeca Omnibus in foro S. P. D.
>
> I am posting this, at the rather strong suggestion of a friend with whom I
> shared it, and I had intended to share it only with a few, very trusted
> friends, certainly not here. Some will find this amusing. Some will find
> it overly emotional, and overly dramatic, and I expect ridicule, here and
> elsewhere. But ...if I touch one heart, and if one of those hearts belongs
> to someone with the power and authority to do what I cannot, I will gladly
> bear, in absolute silence, whatever vile slurs will be hurled at me ...and
> they will be.
>
> So, I offer this to you, not without trepidation, but in the hopes that,
> perhaps, just perhaps, it may do a modicum of good.
>
> NOVA ROMA
>
> Oh, my Nova roma! Home of my heart
>
> Republic of my mind, dream in the making!
>
> You lie, gravely wounded, in the street,
>
> And none will stop to help you! Why?
>
> Will no one kneel beside you in the dirt?
>
> Will no one tend your hurts? Salve your wounds?
>
> Will no one even offer you the solace of cool water?
>
> They pass you, some look down, curse you, wish you dead
>
> Yet you struggle for each painful breath.
>
> Some pour salt into your wounds, and call it
>
> Purification, and some sweep aside their
>
> Pristine togas .not wishing to be sullied.
>
> I can give so little, but what I have is yours:
>
> I lift you in my arms, trembling with weakness,
>
> Accepting your blood on hands and garment,
>
> As honorable: as trust: as cause for savage grief.
>
> Warm you against me, like a child:
>
> Cradle you, singing softly, my Mother, my babe
>
> Whisper words of reassurance to you,
>
> Which we both know are of little meaning:
>
> But I will go and find those things that may heal you
>
> So, I cover you, beloved mother, with my stola,
>
> And walk with uncovered head into the city,
>
> To seek that which I need, content to address
>
> My own dignitas when you have received what little
>
> I can bring. From behind me, flung filth clings to my
>
> Tunica. Taunts and jeers follow me, from both sides
>
> Of the street: I continue, looking straight ahead,
>
> With unbent back, head erect, hiding my tears.
>
> Most respectfully,
>
> C. Maria Caeca
>
>
>


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

Caeca Aeterniae omnibusque sal,

thank you, Amici et Amicae, for the kind words.

C. Maria Caeca

C. Maria Caeca Omnibus in foro S. P. D.

I always find it a real pleasure to comment on what I consider positive things, such as the work Seneca has done, with this site. It's wee, but growing, and what it does, it does very well, indeed, and I trust, will do more and more.

It is one of those methods we, who are scattered all over the world, have of being able to connect and form bonds of friendship with people we may never meet, and those bonds are dear to me, at least.

Compared to the crucial issues that besiege us, this may seem a small thing ...but it feels, to me, like the one candle in the darkness of which the Christophers were so fond, as I remember, from years ago. Therefore, I encourage all who have not to consider taking the very few minutes to register on his site, and to become part of what is a very quickly growing aspect of our community, whether it ever becomes an official part of it or not.

Respectfully,
Valete Bene,
C. Maria Caeca

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

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

I think taking auspices is not the true problem.

Frankly, you are 3 augures. You can take it at any moment. Moreover, the Collegium has a greater capacity of seats. The Constitution allows for the college 9 augures.

Some citizens, if I remember, asked to become augures on our January session. So Nova Roma has a reserve among her citizens.

You wrote:

> And the biggest part of the problem: NO CONSUL BEFORE ALBUCIUS HAS EVER DISREGARDED THE AUSPICES OR THE AUGURES IN THE MANNER HE HAS THIS YEAR.

What this means? In what manner the consul has disregarded the auspices? If he followed the Constitution and, he did, he did not disregard the auspices.

But, about the scenario of this story, I just notice that all this affair was put before the Collegium Pontificum in which you put as item a vote of the CP for an "impietas", when it is not an impietas to not follow the auspices. And more the vote passed on an so-called impietas you treat Albucius as "impious". The CP, unless 4 members of the CP voted an impietas! And now according to you the consul is impious... this is a gross maneuver.

It is a Torquemada vision of the Religio Romana.

One other side of this problem is you are both the pontifex maximus and the magister augurum. You used your both authority not to make the religio Romana in progress but to struggle against the consul with an invention of an impietas imprudens dolo malo, in a thing who was perfectly used by the ancient consuls or other magistrates. Valerius Maximus gives many examples of consuls disregarding the auspices and, to defend his thesis, he only noticed the disregarding of the auspices which led to a disaster.

> The problem is ALBUCIUS. The problem will end when he ends it or when his term of office ends.

Your behavior is also a reason of the problem.

Optime vale.

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

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

>
> Salve Crispe
>
> What we have are people who are not informed about the religio Romana........

Salve Pontifex Maximus

Thank you for your additional information.

I am, as I said, most grateful to you for explaining that you are working on the solution to the problem that the Senate has not been able to be convened. That was my immediate concern, and a great concern of many other ordinary citizens.

I am indeed aware of the meaning of the words "Pax Deorum" - in fact my concern was very much centred around how that concept was endangered by the threats to the future survival or our Republic. As I see it, the peace of the Gods is an essential part of a united Republic, which is what I hope we will all work to preserve.

Now that we can move forward, I shall continue the studies I have made, on and off for over 50 years, into Roman matters, including the importance of the Deities. If, at a later date, and when you may be able to find time, you can help my learning, that would be welcome.

There appear to be various problems still to look at, but there are others who are better placed than I to look at them. My main concern has now been addressed by your kind and informative post, so thank you again for that.

Vale optime
Crispus
"Then none was for a party; then all were for the state".

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:

>
> C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,
>
> I think taking auspices is not the true problem.
>
> Frankly, you are 3 augures. You can take it at any moment.

I thought it takes 3 days with te correct conditions. How is that "any moment"?

> What this means? In what manner the consul has disregarded the auspices? If he followed the Constitution and, he did, he did not disregard the auspices.
>

How did he follow the constitution when he failed to report his auspices and he failed to wait for the Augures before starting a senate session?



The more dexter posts the less I think he understands what's going on.



-Anna Bucci

AKA Annia Minucia Marcella

C. Petronius A. Minuciae Marcellae sal.,

> I thought it takes 3 days with te correct conditions. How is that "any moment"?

You thought... you repeat. This 3 days correct conditions is an invention. Show me a Roman text in which you find that mention.

If you want to read a taking of auspices, you can read the 1rst book of Titus Livius, chapter 18. And in many other examples, the auspices are always taken on the moment.

> How did he follow the constitution when he failed to report his auspices and he failed to wait for the Augures before starting a senate session?

You can ask to him.

> The more dexter posts the less I think he understands what's going on.

Who are you? I do not know you.

Nor the Album civium, it answers when I write your name:
"No matching name found, sorry."

Optime vale "no matching name"...

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