C. Petronius Dexter Pontifex Maximus omnibus Quiritibus salutem dicit plurimam,


Today morning, capite velato, I invoked Iuno Covella by saying the traditional formula:

Die te quinti kalo, Iuno Covella"
"Die te quinti kalo, Iuno Covella"
"Die te quinti kalo, Iuno Covella"
"Die te quinti kalo, Iuno Covella"
"Die te quinti kalo, Iuno Covella"

I offered incense and saying prayers I asked the Goddess to be favorable toward us, the Quirites of Nova Roma.

This month the nundinal letter is "C".

The festivals to be celebrated in the month of Aprilis shall be:

-------------------------------------
APRILIS

1
Dim
C
Kal
Apr.
F
Venus Veneralia, Nundina

2
Lun
D
IV
a.d.Non.Apr.
F
Ater

3
Mar
E
III
a.d.Non.Apr.
C


4
Mer
F
Pr
Non.Apr.
C
Megalesia, L. Megalenses

5
Jeu
G
Non
Apr.
N
L. Megalenses

6
Ven
H
VIII
a.d.Id. Apr.
N
L. Megalenses, Ater

7
Sam
A
VII
a.d.Id. Apr.
N
L. Megalenses

8
Dim
B
VI
a.d.Id. Apr.
N
L. Megalenses

9
Lun
C
V
a.d.Id. Apr.
N
L. Megalenses, Nundina

10
Mar
D
IV
a.d.Id. Apr.
N
L. Megalenses

11
Mer
E
III
a.d.Id. Apr.
N


12
Jeu
F
Pr
Id. Apr.
N
Ceres, L. Cereales

13
Ven
G
Id
Apr.
NP
Feriae Iovi, L. Cereales

14
Sam
H
XVIII
a.d.Kal.Mai.
N
Ater, L. Cereales

15
Dim
A
XVII
a.d.Kal.Mai.
NP
L. Cereales

16
Lun
B
XVI
a.d.Kal.Mai.
N
L. Cereales

17
Mar
C
XV
a.d.Kal.Mai.
N
L. Cereales, Nundina

18
Mer
D
XIV
a.d.Kal.Mai.
N
L. Cereales

19
Jeu
E
XIII
a.d.Kal.Mai.
NP
Cerealia, L. Cereales

20
Ven
F
XII
a.d.Kal.Mai.
N


21
Sam
G
XI
a.d.Kal.Mai.
NP


22
Dim
H
X
a.d.Kal.Mai.
N


23
Lun
A
IX
a.d.Kal.Mai.
F
Vinalia Priora

24
Mar
B
VIII
a.d.Kal.Mai.
C


25
Mer
C
VII
a.d.Kal.Mai.
NP
Robigalia, Nundina

26
Jeu
D
VI
a.d.Kal.Mai.
F


27
Ven
E
V
a.d.Kal.Mai.
C


28
Sam
F
IV
a.d.Kal.Mai.
C
Flora, L. Florales

29
Dim
G
III
a.d.Kal.Mai.
C


30
Lun
H
Pr
Kal.Mai.
C




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

At the end I poured a libation of milk thanking to the Goddess for Her benevolence.

This month is the month of the Games Megalenses organized by the aedilis curulis and the Games Ceriales organized by the aedilis Plebis.
Have good fun!

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Pontifex Maximus Arcoiali scribebat
Kalendis Aprilibus MMDCCLXV aVc.





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

C. Petronius L. Sullae salutem,
 
The thread is a false excuse.
First I sent my thanks to the Censor Paulinus. So, because this post of thanks was an answer to a previous post in the same thread, you just had to follow the chronology of this exchange between Paulinus and I. But it is difficult at the same time to make a research and fastly answer...
 
To your students, you may say "do not answer without knowing the subject."

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat Kal. Apr. MMDCCLXV

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

Ave,

There was a message on the CP list and it should be noted that

The Senate does have a right to request a piaculum, we are the supreme
policy making body per the constitution and thusly did not overstep.

Secondly, the original draft of the MMP did not include the piaculum. It
was insisted by the Pontifex Maximus/Praetor Dexter and seconded by Pontiff
Q. Fabius Maximus.

If you have an issue about the piaculum, please take it up with those
individuals who insisted it being included on the Senatus Consulta.

Vale,

Sulla


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

Ave,

Yet still the thread name still has not changed.

See I just changed the thread so now everyone who might be confused, as I
was, wont be anymore.

Maybe you can clarify to your fellow pontiffs why the piaculum was insisted
by you to be included in the Senatus Consulta on the MMP, since at least
one Pontiff is complaining about it, in Latin.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Jean-Fran�ois Arnoud
<jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> C. Petronius L. Sullae salutem,
>
> The thread is a false excuse.
> First I sent my thanks to the Censor Paulinus. So, because this post of
> thanks was an answer to a previous post in the same thread, you just had to
> follow the chronology of this exchange between Paulinus and I. But it is
> difficult at the same time to make a research and fastly answer...
>
> To your students, you may say "do not answer without knowing the subject."
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat Kal. Apr. MMDCCLXV
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

Regilla Dextro sal.

Die te quinti kalo, Iuno Covella = I call you on fifth day, Juno Covella (?)

Bene vale!
 
--
V.A. Regilla

Tribuna Plebis
Legata Pro Praetore Provinciae Argentinae
Legata Pro Praetore Provinciae Brasiliae


________________________________
De: Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
Para: Nova Roma <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Enviadas: Domingo, 1 de Abril de 2012 2:06
Assunto: [Nova-Roma] KALENDIS APRILIBVS - VENERI VERTICORDIAE - FORTVNAE VIRILI


 
C. Petronius Dexter Pontifex Maximus omnibus Quiritibus salutem dicit plurimam,

Today morning, capite velato, I invoked Iuno Covella by saying the traditional formula:

Die te quinti kalo, Iuno Covella"
"Die te quinti kalo, Iuno Covella"
"Die te quinti kalo, Iuno Covella"
"Die te quinti kalo, Iuno Covella"
"Die te quinti kalo, Iuno Covella"

I offered incense and saying prayers I asked the Goddess to be favorable toward us, the Quirites of Nova Roma.

This month the nundinal letter is "C".

The festivals to be celebrated in the month of Aprilis shall be:

-------------------------------------
APRILIS

1
Dim
C
Kal
Apr.
F
Venus Veneralia, Nundina

2
Lun
D
IV
a.d.Non.Apr.
F
Ater

3
Mar
E
III
a.d.Non.Apr.
C


4
Mer
F
Pr
Non.Apr.
C
Megalesia, L. Megalenses

5
Jeu
G
Non
Apr.
N
L. Megalenses

6
Ven
H
VIII
a.d.Id. Apr.
N
L. Megalenses, Ater

7
Sam
A
VII
a.d.Id. Apr.
N
L. Megalenses

8
Dim
B
VI
a.d.Id. Apr.
N
L. Megalenses

9
Lun
C
V
a.d.Id. Apr.
N
L. Megalenses, Nundina

10
Mar
D
IV
a.d.Id. Apr.
N
L. Megalenses

11
Mer
E
III
a.d.Id. Apr.
N


12
Jeu
F
Pr
Id. Apr.
N
Ceres, L. Cereales

13
Ven
G
Id
Apr.
NP
Feriae Iovi, L. Cereales

14
Sam
H
XVIII
a.d.Kal.Mai.
N
Ater, L. Cereales

15
Dim
A
XVII
a.d.Kal.Mai.
NP
L. Cereales

16
Lun
B
XVI
a.d.Kal.Mai.
N
L. Cereales

17
Mar
C
XV
a.d.Kal.Mai.
N
L. Cereales, Nundina

18
Mer
D
XIV
a.d.Kal.Mai.
N
L. Cereales

19
Jeu
E
XIII
a.d.Kal.Mai.
NP
Cerealia, L. Cereales

20
Ven
F
XII
a.d.Kal.Mai.
N


21
Sam
G
XI
a.d.Kal.Mai.
NP


22
Dim
H
X
a.d.Kal.Mai.
N


23
Lun
A
IX
a.d.Kal.Mai.
F
Vinalia Priora

24
Mar
B
VIII
a.d.Kal.Mai.
C


25
Mer
C
VII
a.d.Kal.Mai.
NP
Robigalia, Nundina

26
Jeu
D
VI
a.d.Kal.Mai.
F


27
Ven
E
V
a.d.Kal.Mai.
C


28
Sam
F
IV
a.d.Kal.Mai.
C
Flora, L. Florales

29
Dim
G
III
a.d.Kal.Mai.
C


30
Lun
H
Pr
Kal.Mai.
C



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

At the end I poured a libation of milk thanking to the Goddess for Her benevolence.

This month is the month of the Games Megalenses organized by the aedilis curulis and the Games Ceriales organized by the aedilis Plebis.
Have good fun!

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Pontifex Maximus Arcoiali scribebat
Kalendis Aprilibus MMDCCLXV aVc.

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




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

C. Petronius L. Sullae salutem,
 
Yes it seems obvious that a piaculum publicum must be made on a such subject. The Magna Mater was deceived by a previous decree of the Senate. I recall you that this decree created the MMP (Magna Mater Project) and its collect funds to the restoration of her Temple at Rome, in the Palatine Hill. This project was not possible. To lie towards Gods is not allowed. So a piaculum publicum is the least that we may perform to regain her graces.
 
You and Caesar by another decree you wanted to transfer the funds collected by the MMP into the treasury of Nova Roma. For that too, it seems obvious that we need the peace of the goddess.
 
The CP in asking the organization of a piaculum is considerate towards to the peace with the goddess. The Senate gave this possibility to the CP. I beg the advices of the CP those days.
 
Where is your problem on that?
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat Kal. Apr. MMDCCLXV

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

Ave!

Dexter, I did not have a problem, but it seems Pontiff Metellus did, since
he posted about it in Latin on the CP list.

The MMP project was doomed before it was even presented to the Senate for
its original sanction, the piaculum, IMHO was needed more for the attempt
to solicit funds under false pretenses - not so much for transfering the
funds back to the general funds.

So, to clarify, it was not I that had the problem, just reference the last
message on the CP list, Dexter.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Jean-Fran�ois Arnoud
<jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> C. Petronius L. Sullae salutem,
>
> Yes it seems obvious that a piaculum publicum must be made on a such
> subject. The Magna Mater was deceived by a previous decree of the Senate. I
> recall you that this decree created the MMP (Magna Mater Project) and its
> collect funds to the restoration of her Temple at Rome, in the Palatine
> Hill. This project was not possible. To lie towards Gods is not allowed. So
> a piaculum publicum is the least that we may perform to regain her graces.
>
> You and Caesar by another decree you wanted to transfer the funds
> collected by the MMP into the treasury of Nova Roma. For that too, it seems
> obvious that we need the peace of the goddess.
>
> The CP in asking the organization of a piaculum is considerate towards to
> the peace with the goddess. The Senate gave this possibility to the CP. I
> beg the advices of the CP those days.
>
> Where is your problem on that?
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat Kal. Apr. MMDCCLXV
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

C. Petronius L. Sullae salutem,
 

> Dexter, I did not have a problem, but it seems Pontiff Metellus did, since
> he posted about it in Latin on the CP list.

 
Yes, I answered him in Latin too, but with an English translation for be understood by each member of the CP. His problem may be answered by our Constitution.
 

>>> The MMP project was doomed before it was even presented to the Senate for

its original sanction, the piaculum, IMHO was needed more for the attempt
to solicit funds under false pretenses - not so much for transfering the
funds back to the general funds. <<<
 
All that affair MMP, Funds collected, Funds transferred, money back to the donors... need a piaculum publicum by which Nova Roma asks the peace with the goddess. It is not a shame to be honest with the gods.
 

> So, to clarify, it was not I that had the problem, just reference the last
> message on the CP list, Dexter.

 
And now you read the Latin?
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Kalendis Aprilibus MMDCCLXV aVc.

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

Ave,

No I dont read Latin, but translations are possible to at least get the
meaning of what he was saying - Though I am even faster when it comes to
translating Hebrew vs Latin. To be honest your colleague nailed the jist
of it far quicker than I did. But, I am online and she is watching
Spartacus so I got to address it first on the ML.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Jean-Fran�ois Arnoud
<jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> C. Petronius L. Sullae salutem,
>
> > Dexter, I did not have a problem, but it seems Pontiff Metellus did,
> since
> > he posted about it in Latin on the CP list.
>
> Yes, I answered him in Latin too, but with an English translation for be
> understood by each member of the CP. His problem may be answered by our
> Constitution.
>
>
> >>> The MMP project was doomed before it was even presented to the Senate
> for
> its original sanction, the piaculum, IMHO was needed more for the attempt
> to solicit funds under false pretenses - not so much for transfering the
> funds back to the general funds. <<<
>
> All that affair MMP, Funds collected, Funds transferred, money back to the
> donors... need a piaculum publicum by which Nova Roma asks the peace with
> the goddess. It is not a shame to be honest with the gods.
>
> > So, to clarify, it was not I that had the problem, just reference the
> last
> > message on the CP list, Dexter.
>
> And now you read the Latin?
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> Kalendis Aprilibus MMDCCLXV aVc.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

C. Petronius  M. Canino salutem,

> Praetor, I am the creator and author of a few of the Nova Roma wiki pages. I must disagree with you on this point. Wiki > pages do not provide a satisfactory experience for prospective citizens. Allowing discussion of the ludi on the FH
> provides interaction between citizens and prospective citizens during our festivals.

 
The promotion and the management of the Games is among the duties of the aediles. The praetores have only the Games of Apollo to promote and manage. In other hand, praetors have in their functions to manage and moderate the fora publica. The FH, even if it is a Forum for guests, was put under the authority of the praetors. Mostly to prevent any discuss on the internal affairs of Nova Roma.
 
Now, Ludi are they internal affairs? Of course yes, in those Games we honor our gods and our citizens that may play and participate in being unscribed as owner of chariots in the chariots teams or gladiators in the gladiators teams. Of course all that may be changed because of the fact that now we created the Forum of the Guests.
 
But instead of making clear what the guests may make in Nova Roma and her internal affairs, instead of giving the lines between the citizens and the guests duties and rights, the focus was made first on the management of the forum hospitum. Perhaps because I was elected as praetor and not in the little papers of the party in power. The former praetor permitted, against the SC, the aediles to publish the Ludi reports on the FH. And as now, I read the SC in its meaning, the former praetor current consul wants to change the SC. As you know, he is never in fault. If he did not respect the SC, it is not a problem for him, he changes the SC. It is more easy, even if the proposal SC is a gross maneuver.  
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Kalendis Aprilibus MMDCCLXV aVc.


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

C. Aemilius Crassus Dextri omnibusque SPD,



I totally agree with Caninus in saying the Ludi arenÂ’t on the material in
the wiki, on the races reports or even in the literary output and religious
ceremonies.



I totally disagree with Dexter in claiming the Ludi to be an internal affair
of Nova Roma. They arenÂ’t and never were. Internal affairs of Nova Roma are
the ones direct to Nova Roma way to organize herself (elections, political
debates, judicial matters, discussion of laws etc).



Since I have joined Nova Roma I always saw non-citizens cheering and
participating in the Ludi as active spectators. The Ludi are festivals
organized by Nova Roma not to our Gods but to the Roman Gods and always have
been tradition in Nova Roma to welcome non-citizens to the Ludi.



Valete optime.



From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Jean-François Arnoud
Sent: domingo, 1 de Abril de 2012 09:41
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Ludi and FH





C. Petronius M. Canino salutem,

> Praetor, I am the creator and author of a few of the Nova Roma wiki pages.

I must disagree with you on this point. Wiki > pages do not provide a
satisfactory experience for prospective citizens. Allowing discussion of the
ludi on the FH

> provides interaction between citizens and prospective citizens during our

festivals.

The promotion and the management of the Games is among the duties of the
aediles. The praetores have only the Games of Apollo to promote and manage.
In other hand, praetors have in their functions to manage and moderate the
fora publica. The FH, even if it is a Forum for guests, was put under the
authority of the praetors. Mostly to prevent any discuss on the internal
affairs of Nova Roma.

Now, Ludi are they internal affairs? Of course yes, in those Games we honor
our gods and our citizens that may play and participate in being unscribed
as owner of chariots in the chariots teams or gladiators in the gladiators
teams. Of course all that may be changed because of the fact that now we
created the Forum of the Guests.

But instead of making clear what the guests may make in Nova Roma and her
internal affairs, instead of giving the lines between the citizens and the
guests duties and rights, the focus was made first on the management of the
forum hospitum. Perhaps because I was elected as praetor and not in the
little papers of the party in power. The former praetor permitted, against
the SC, the aediles to publish the Ludi reports on the FH. And as now, I
read the SC in its meaning, the former praetor current consul wants to
change the SC. As you know, he is never in fault. If he did not respect the
SC, it is not a problem for him, he changes the SC. It is more easy, even if
the proposal SC is a gross maneuver.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Kalendis Aprilibus MMDCCLXV aVc.

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





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

C. Petronius C. Aemilio Crasso salutem,
 

> C. Aemilius Crassus Dextri omnibusque SPD,

Do you think that  everyone (omnibus) are mine (Dextri?)

> I totally agree with Caninus in saying the Ludi aren’t on the material in
> the wiki, on the races reports or even in the literary output and religious
> ceremonies.

 
The wiki has yet all that. It is not because you do not read the wiki and you do not understand a wider use of it that you must disagree with a good use of it. We have to promote it, to make it our "vitrine".
 

> I totally disagree with Dexter in claiming the Ludi to be an internal affair
> of Nova Roma.

 
They are.
 

> They aren’t and never were.

 
They are.
 

> Internal affairs of Nova Roma are the ones direct to Nova Roma way to organize herself (elections, political
> debates, judicial matters, discussion of laws etc).

 
Internal affairs are internal affairs.

> Since I have joined Nova Roma I always saw non-citizens cheering and
> participating in the Ludi as active spectators.

 
Show me, please, a such non-citizens participation on the FH for the last Games.
 
Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Kalendis Aprilibus MMDCCLXV aVc.

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

C. Aemilius Crassus C. Petronio Dextero omnibus SPD,

> C. Aemilius Crassus Dextri omnibusque SPD,

Do you think that everyone (omnibus) are mine (Dextri?)



Somehow I have put Dexter in the third declination, my apologies and thanks for the correction. What would be the form you prefer for Dexter in dative, Dextro or Dextero? I have found both so can’t tell.

> I totally agree with Caninus in saying the Ludi aren’t on the material in
> the wiki, on the races reports or even in the literary output and religious
> ceremonies.

The wiki has yet all that. It is not because you do not read the wiki and you do not understand a wider use of it that you must disagree with a good use of it. We have to promote it, to make it our "vitrine".



The wiki doesn’t have and never could have the true essence of the Ludi. It is the difference between have been in the festival and read the reports of the same.

> I totally disagree with Dexter in claiming the Ludi to be an internal affair
> of Nova Roma.

They are.

> They aren’t and never were.

They are.

> Internal affairs of Nova Roma are the ones direct to Nova Roma way to organize herself (elections, political
> debates, judicial matters, discussion of laws etc).

Internal affairs are internal affairs.



I don’t think we are going to change the other opinion but obviously internal affairs are internal affairs. What we both don’t agree is what you put on internal affairs. By that logic we shouldn’t be able to talk nothing concerning Nova Roma pass that it does exist.

I was against the creation of FH from the start but now I’m convinced it is doing the propose for which it was created a place where no citizens were not expose to the internal fights that Nova Roma times to times puts on stage.

I’m sure that in no one’s mind the Ludi were included in the forbidden subjects on the FH. Because no one consider it internal affairs of Nova Roma.

> Since I have joined Nova Roma I always saw non-citizens cheering and
> participating in the Ludi as active spectators.

Show me, please, a such non-citizens participation on the FH for the last Games.



You are probably right in that there weren’t much participation in the Ludi last year in the FH. To tell the true there wasn’t much participation in any fora, since we all were still somehow recovering from recent events at that time. But before we have lost citizens and peregrines in the last internal war the situation I was talking was common and it would be in the best interest to Nova Roma to see it again.

For whatever is worthy my position is:

Matters concerning the away Nova Roma works, strategies and debates concerning those matters they are internal affairs. Only citizens have the duty and the right to decided.

Matters that aren’t the above, even if organized by Nova Roma, aren’t internal matters. For example I don’t see any problem to talk about and announce a meeting organized by Nova Roma (conventus) much on the contrary I will strongly support something that informs the non-citizens of such activities.



Vale optime.





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

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Hodiernus dies est Kalendis Aprilibus; hic dies fastus est.

"Perform the rites of the goddess, Roman brides and mothers,
And you who must not wear the headbands and long robes.
Remove the golden necklaces from her marble neck,
Remove her riches: the goddess must be cleansed, complete.
Return the gold necklaces to her neck, once it's dry:
Now she's given fresh flowers, and new-sprung roses.
She commands you too to bathe, under the green myrtle,
And there's a particular reason for her command (learn, now!).
Naked, on the shore, she was drying her dripping hair:
The Satyrs, that wanton crowd, spied the goddess.
She sensed it, and hid her body with a screen of myrtle:
Doing so, she was safe: she commands that you do so too.
Learn now why you offer incense to Fortuna Virilis,
In that place that steams with heated water.
All women remove their clothes on entering,
And every blemish on their bodies is seen:
Virile Fortune undertakes to hide those from the men,
And she does this at the behest of a little incense.
Don't begrudge her poppies, crushed in creamy milk
And in flowing honey, squeezed from the comb:
When Venus was first led to her eager spouse,
She drank so: and from that moment was a bride.
Please her with words of supplication: beauty,
Virtue, and good repute are in her keeping.
In our forefather's time Rome lapsed from chastity:
And the ancients consulted the old woman of Cumae.
She ordered a temple built to Venus: when it was done
Venus took the name of Heart-Changer (Verticordia).
Loveliest One, always look with a benign gaze
On the sons of Aeneas, and guard their many wives.
As I speak, Scorpio, the tip of whose raised tail
Strikes fear, plunges down into the green waves." - Ovid, Fasti IV


"...in the Beginning of [April] there is read upon the Calends,
Veneralia ludi, Senatus legitimus. Now, it is possible these
Veneralia, were feasts in honour of Venus, which they celebrated with
publick Sports; which perfectly agrees...with the Words of Ausonius.
Before Venus there stands a Candlestick, with a Wax-taper lighted, in
the Flame of which they burnt Grains of Incense. The lines of Ausonius
are to this purpose: 'April does Honour to Venus cover'd with Myrtle.
With this Month is seen the Light of Incense, with which the
beneficent Ceres shines. Nor are those Perfumes wanting which are
always issue from the Paphian Goddess'." -Montfaucon, Antiq. Suppl.,
on the Calendar of Philocalus (p. 19)


"Hail, Lady of the Morning Star!
You who rose form the sea foam,
Born of the impersonal severed phallus of the sky
Immersed in the impersonal womb of the sea,
You who rode to shore on a shell of pearl
And whose powers no one can resist
Save the virgin goddesses,
You who bring the glow of gold
Into the lives of all whom you touch,
Lady, we revere you as the avatar
Of the love between equals
Who look each other in the eye,
The attraction and pursuit
Between every particle in the universe.
Hail, Lady of the Evening Star!
You who rule the night
With its darker passions,
You who tempt the wistful heart,
You whose hands reach out
To all the world and more,
Lady, we revere you as a force of nature
Far greater than merely the human heart,
For you are the force that binds together
All that dances with another of its kind
In the endless dance of creation." - Pagan Book of Hours, Hymn to
Venus


"Come to us Venus, O Queen of Cnidos and Paphos, leave Cyprus, though
the isle is dear to you, come instead to where the incense is thick
and Glycera sings to you, that you may transfer your home to your new
shrine among us. Bring along for your company desirous Cupid, with
loose-girdled Graces and laughing Nymphs, youthful Juventus and
Mercury, who without you are graceless." - Horace, Carminum Liber I.
XXX.1-8


"Why on the festival of the Veneralia do they pour out a great
quantity of wine from the temple of Venus?

Is it true, as most authorities affirm, that Mezentius, general of the
Etruscans, sent to Aeneas and offered peace on condition of his
receiving the year's vintage? But when Aeneas refused, Mezentius
promised his Etruscans that when he had prevailed in battle, he would
give them the wine. Aeneas learned of his promise and consecrated the
wine to the gods, and after his victory he collected all the vintage
and poured it out in front of the temple of Venus. Or is this also
symbolic, indicating that men should be sober and not drunken on
festival days, since the gods take more pleasure in those who spill
much strong drink than in those who imbibe it?" - Plutarch, Moralia,
"Roman Questions" 45


Today is the Veneralia, the Roman festival of Venus Verticordia
("Changer of hearts"), the goddess of love and beauty. The worship of
the goddess Fortuna Virilis ("Bold fortune") was also part of this
festival. In Rome, women removed jewelry from the statue of the
goddess, washed her, and adorned her with flowers, and similarly
bathed themselves in the public baths wearing wreaths of myrtle on
their heads. It was generally a day for women to seek divine help in
their relations with men. Venus is also the mother of Aeneas, the
Trojan hero of the Aeneid who left the fallen city of Troy with his
father Anchises on his back. Eventually, after a dalliance in Carthage
with Queen Dido, he arrived in Italy.

Venus is the Roman goddess of love and beauty, but originally a
vegetation goddess and patroness of gardens and vineyards. Later,
under Greek influence, she was equated with Aphrodite and assumed many
of her aspects. Her cult originated from Ardea and Lavinium in Latium.
The oldest temple known of Venus dates back to 293 B.C. and was
inaugurated on August 18. Later, on this date the Vinalia Rustica was
observed. A second festival, that of the Veneralia, is celebrated on
April 1 in honor of Venus Verticordia, who later became the protector
against vice. Her temple was built in 114 B.C. After the Roman defeat
near Lake Trasum in 215 B.C., a temple was built on the Capitol for
Venus Erycina.

Venus is the daughter of Iuppiter, and some of her lovers include Mars
and Vulcan, modeled on the affairs of Aphrodite. Venus' importance
rose, and that of her cult, through the influence of several Roman
political leaders. The dictator Sulla made her his patroness, and both
Julius Caesar and the emperor Augustus named her the ancestor of their
(Julian) family: the 'gens Julia' was Aeneas, son of Venus and the
mortal Anchises. Ceasar introduced the cult of Venus Genetrix, the
goddess of motherhood and marriage, and built a temple for her in 46
B.C. She was also honored in the temple of Mars Ultor. The last great
temple of Venus was built by the emperor Hadrianus near the Colusseum
in A.D. 135.

Valete bene!

Cato

C. Petronius Aemiliae Regillae salutem,
 
This is a sentence in old Latin. In classical Latin "on the fifth day" is "quinto die". This "quinti" form is odd, some scholars think that it is an old fashion to say "quinquies". Quinti kalo = could may means "I call you five times" (because this month the Nones will fall on the fifth day.) It is an hypothesis. Other scholars think that "on the fifth day" "quinto die" the pontiff will call Juno Covella... the sentence is saved as a sentence in old Latin by Varro without more explanation, he gave the other sentence used on the month in which the Nones fall on the seventh day of the month (March, May, July and October) "Die septimi te Kalo Iuno Covella". Some scholars say too that this verb kalo (calare) given Kalendae but it is not possible to turn something like "*Kalandae" into "Kalendae". So to explain the word Kalendae some imagine a verb unknown *kalere with the same meaning. It is possible that the "Kalo" in the old sentence was from a verb
*Kalere. In another hand a verb "calere" (caleo) exists, but it means "be hot"... and calendae does not come from a such verb.
 
As we do not know the deep meaning of this odd and old sentence, I took the choice to repeat the formula five times for the month in which the nones fall on the fifth day of the month and seven times for the 4 others. Then, I create a ritual for Nova Roma.
 
Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat kal. Apr. MMDCCLXVL.

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

L. Livia omnibus sal.

C. Petronius wrote:

"You and Caesar by another decree you wanted to transfer the funds collected
by the MMP into the treasury of Nova Roma. For that too, it seems obvious
that we need the peace of the goddess."

I'm afraid the goddess is not the only entity that might be offended. When I
was consular quaestrix I was made to understand that transferring money that
was donated to a fund for a specific purpose to the general fund is illegal.
At least, I seem to remember that that was Cn. Julius Caesar's position on
the matter at the time.

If NR just transfers the money to the general fund without permission from
the donors it might make itself liable to be sued. And I suspect that some
of the donors are now in a competing organization and might have an interest
in doing so.

When I was quaestrix I managed to track down at least 95% of the donors by
cross-referencing the sources available. My findings were then included in
the report I sent to the consuls.

Then nothing was done about it for ages. I suppose the safest way to deal
with the matter would be to write to each donor and give the option of
asking for a refund or giving permission to move the money to the general NR
fund.

Optime valete,
Livia

Ave,

Not illegal at all. It is a matter for the board of directors who
authorized the donation to request it to be transferred back.

Just like I Have been contacting the individual donors to the MMP asking
them if they want a refund of funds or to allow NR to keep them in either
one of the other funds (land fund) or the general fund.

Eventually, any monies donated to the fraudulent MMP fund will either all
go back to the individuals who donated it or it will remain separate, like
it has the plague, from any other funds Nova Roma has collected.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 12:02 PM, L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> L. Livia omnibus sal.
>
>
> C. Petronius wrote:
>
> "You and Caesar by another decree you wanted to transfer the funds
> collected
> by the MMP into the treasury of Nova Roma. For that too, it seems obvious
> that we need the peace of the goddess."
>
> I'm afraid the goddess is not the only entity that might be offended. When
> I
> was consular quaestrix I was made to understand that transferring money
> that
> was donated to a fund for a specific purpose to the general fund is
> illegal.
> At least, I seem to remember that that was Cn. Julius Caesar's position on
> the matter at the time.
>
> If NR just transfers the money to the general fund without permission from
> the donors it might make itself liable to be sued. And I suspect that some
> of the donors are now in a competing organization and might have an
> interest
> in doing so.
>
> When I was quaestrix I managed to track down at least 95% of the donors by
> cross-referencing the sources available. My findings were then included in
> the report I sent to the consuls.
>
> Then nothing was done about it for ages. I suppose the safest way to deal
> with the matter would be to write to each donor and give the option of
> asking for a refund or giving permission to move the money to the general
> NR
> fund.
>
> Optime valete,
> Livia
>
>
>


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

C. Petronius Dexter C Aemilio Crasso omnibusque Quiritibus salutem,
 

> Somehow I have put Dexter in the third declination, my apologies and thanks for the correction. What would be the form > you prefer for Dexter in dative, Dextro or Dextero? I have found both so can’t tell.

 
Both are correct. The second "e" is short and be omitted. But you must keep it in dexteritas and dexterior.
 

> The wiki doesn’t have and never could have the true essence of the Ludi. It is the difference between have been in the
> festival and read the reports of the same.

 
As in the wiki, in the forum we have to wait for the reports. We do not participate more.
 

> I don’t think we are going to change the other opinion but obviously internal affairs are internal affairs. What we both
> don’t agree is what you put on internal affairs. By that logic we shouldn’t be able to talk nothing concerning Nova Roma > pass that it does exist. I was against the creation of FH from the start but now I’m convinced it is doing the propose for > which it was created a place where no citizens were not expose to the internal fights that Nova Roma times to times puts > on stage.

 
Why this sudden attention towards the guests? Wanted Aeternia to be the praetrix of the guests? By her obsession with the games, she is just going to weaken the constitutional imperium of the praetors. Was she elected by the people of Nova Roma, by the Quirites, in order to weaken the praetorian imperium? I knew that she was not very politic, I find out that she was elected to weaken the imperium that the people offered to her. But if it was only her imperium, in fact, she is weakening the power of the praetors. Caesar and Sulla may be satisfied. 
 

> I’m sure that in no one’s mind the Ludi were included in the forbidden subjects on the FH. Because no one consider it
> internal affairs of Nova Roma.

That is not the problem. The problem is: Are the moderation and the management of the Fora publica a function of the praetors? The Constitution of Nova Roma must be followed or not? Nova Roma is it the Republic of one side? 

>>>>You are probably right in that there weren’t much participation in the Ludi last year in the FH. To tell the true there wasn’t much participation in any fora, since we all were still somehow recovering from recent events at that time. But before we have lost citizens and peregrines in the last internal war the situation I was talking was common and it would be in the best interest to Nova Roma to see it again.<<<

 
Before the last internal war, as you say, the problem did not exist. There were one Forum Romanum. One ML.
 

>>> For whatever is worthy my position is:

Matters concerning the away Nova Roma works, strategies and debates concerning those matters they are internal affairs. Only citizens have the duty and the right to decided.
Matters that aren’t the above, even if organized by Nova Roma, aren’t internal matters. For example I don’t see any problem to talk about and announce a meeting organized by Nova Roma (conventus) much on the contrary I will strongly support something that informs the non-citizens of such activities. <<<
 
Of course. But once more again, that is not the problem. Now, the Senate is voting an order to the praetors. This SC is weakening their imperium. The Senate is changing with a parody of choice the imperium of the praetors. She has voted the diminishing of her imperium. But not only of her, but also of all the future praetors. All that based on a "Dexter is able to use his imperium of moderation". A praetor able to manage and moderate a forum, is a problem for some and for the praetrix who prefers to be the praetrix of the guests than the praetrix of the Nova Romans.
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Kalendis Aprilibus MMDCCLXV aVc.

Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C.Petronio Dextro C.Aemilio Crasso Omnibusque S.P.D.


Dexter has it ever came across your mind, Crassus may just disagree with
you? Is there a problem with that? I'm sure there are those who do you
agree with you, as they have the right to do so. Crassus has the right to
speak on this issue just like everyone else does. How about you take him
out of your crossfire, for Crassus has done nothing wrong. He gave his
opinion as he has the right to do so just like everyone does. How about
you focus on who you are really upset at.

And that would be me...

Vale Optime,
Aeternia


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

Salve,
good, so if you got the donors' authorization everything is OK. That wasn't
clear from the Senatus Consultum.
Vale,
Livia

> Ave,
>
> Not illegal at all. It is a matter for the board of directors who
> authorized the donation to request it to be transferred back.
>
> Just like I Have been contacting the individual donors to the MMP asking
> them if they want a refund of funds or to allow NR to keep them in either
> one of the other funds (land fund) or the general fund.
>
> Eventually, any monies donated to the fraudulent MMP fund will either all
> go back to the individuals who donated it or it will remain separate, like
> it has the plague, from any other funds Nova Roma has collected.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 12:02 PM, L. Livia Plauta
> <livia.plauta@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> L. Livia omnibus sal.
>>
>>
>> C. Petronius wrote:
>>
>> "You and Caesar by another decree you wanted to transfer the funds
>> collected
>> by the MMP into the treasury of Nova Roma. For that too, it seems obvious
>> that we need the peace of the goddess."
>>
>> I'm afraid the goddess is not the only entity that might be offended.
>> When
>> I
>> was consular quaestrix I was made to understand that transferring money
>> that
>> was donated to a fund for a specific purpose to the general fund is
>> illegal.
>> At least, I seem to remember that that was Cn. Julius Caesar's position
>> on
>> the matter at the time.
>>
>> If NR just transfers the money to the general fund without permission
>> from
>> the donors it might make itself liable to be sued. And I suspect that
>> some
>> of the donors are now in a competing organization and might have an
>> interest
>> in doing so.
>>
>> When I was quaestrix I managed to track down at least 95% of the donors
>> by
>> cross-referencing the sources available. My findings were then included
>> in
>> the report I sent to the consuls.
>>
>> Then nothing was done about it for ages. I suppose the safest way to deal
>> with the matter would be to write to each donor and give the option of
>> asking for a refund or giving permission to move the money to the general
>> NR
>> fund.
>>
>> Optime valete,
>> Livia
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Ave

The Senatus consulta ONLY referred to the money donated by the
Corporation. NR Inc donated money, NR inc is transferring it back to the
general fund.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 1:15 PM, L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...>wrote:

>
> Salve,
> good, so if you got the donors' authorization everything is OK. That wasn't
> clear from the Senatus Consultum.
> Vale,
> Livia
>
> > Ave,
> >
> > Not illegal at all. It is a matter for the board of directors who
> > authorized the donation to request it to be transferred back.
> >
> > Just like I Have been contacting the individual donors to the MMP asking
> > them if they want a refund of funds or to allow NR to keep them in either
> > one of the other funds (land fund) or the general fund.
> >
> > Eventually, any monies donated to the fraudulent MMP fund will either all
> > go back to the individuals who donated it or it will remain separate,
> like
> > it has the plague, from any other funds Nova Roma has collected.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 12:02 PM, L. Livia Plauta
> > <livia.plauta@...>wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >> L. Livia omnibus sal.
> >>
> >>
> >> C. Petronius wrote:
> >>
> >> "You and Caesar by another decree you wanted to transfer the funds
> >> collected
> >> by the MMP into the treasury of Nova Roma. For that too, it seems
> obvious
> >> that we need the peace of the goddess."
> >>
> >> I'm afraid the goddess is not the only entity that might be offended.
> >> When
> >> I
> >> was consular quaestrix I was made to understand that transferring money
> >> that
> >> was donated to a fund for a specific purpose to the general fund is
> >> illegal.
> >> At least, I seem to remember that that was Cn. Julius Caesar's position
> >> on
> >> the matter at the time.
> >>
> >> If NR just transfers the money to the general fund without permission
> >> from
> >> the donors it might make itself liable to be sued. And I suspect that
> >> some
> >> of the donors are now in a competing organization and might have an
> >> interest
> >> in doing so.
> >>
> >> When I was quaestrix I managed to track down at least 95% of the donors
> >> by
> >> cross-referencing the sources available. My findings were then included
> >> in
> >> the report I sent to the consuls.
> >>
> >> Then nothing was done about it for ages. I suppose the safest way to
> deal
> >> with the matter would be to write to each donor and give the option of
> >> asking for a refund or giving permission to move the money to the
> general
> >> NR
> >> fund.
> >>
> >> Optime valete,
> >> Livia
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


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

Ave,

Dexter has made it clear to disagree with him is tantamount to treason,
since to do otherwise makes an individual a slave to someone else.
(himself exempted of course).

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Belle Morte Statia
<syrenslullaby@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C.Petronio Dextro C.Aemilio Crasso Omnibusque S.P.D.
>
> Dexter has it ever came across your mind, Crassus may just disagree with
> you? Is there a problem with that? I'm sure there are those who do you
> agree with you, as they have the right to do so. Crassus has the right to
> speak on this issue just like everyone else does. How about you take him
> out of your crossfire, for Crassus has done nothing wrong. He gave his
> opinion as he has the right to do so just like everyone does. How about
> you focus on who you are really upset at.
>
> And that would be me...
>
> Vale Optime,
> Aeternia
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

Caesar Liviae sal

The Senate already passed an SC requiring permission from donors to be
sought prior to transfer. If they can't be traced or don't give it, etc.
then that money will just have to sit frozen while we research if there are
any other legal options.

The reason for this SC, the one that contains the request for the piaculum,
was that the SC on private donors could have been interpreted as including
NR Inc's money, but to ensure all "i's" were dotted I though I may as well
ask the Senate for specific permission to transfer it back.

Optime vale



-----Original Message-----
From: L. Livia Plauta
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 2:15 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Message on the CP list


Salve,
good, so if you got the donors' authorization everything is OK. That wasn't
clear from the Senatus Consultum.
Vale,
Livia

Reminder from:		Nova-Roma Yahoo! Group
Title:		After every Kalends, Nones, Ides, the next day is "Ater"
Date:		Monday April 2, 2012
Time:		All Day
Repeats:		This event repeats every month.
Notes:		Ater (unlucky) *Gods or Goddesses should not be invoked by name while indoors, and no celestial God or Goddess should be invoked by name while outdoors. *Sacrifices should not be made, even at the lararium. *These days are ill-omened to begin any new project since any new project would necessarily begin by performing a rite calling for the assistance of the gods. Such religious rites, beginning something new, are not to be performed. *Avoid making journeys, or doing anything risky.
Get reminders on your mobile, Yahoo! Messenger, and email. Edit reminder options

Copyright © 2012  Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

Livia Caesari sal.
Great! It's good to see that my research didn't go to waste. I'm sorry but
the latest SC were so long and complicated that I apparently missed some
info.

Vale,
Livia

> Caesar Liviae sal
>
> The Senate already passed an SC requiring permission from donors to be
> sought prior to transfer. If they can't be traced or don't give it, etc.
> then that money will just have to sit frozen while we research if there
> are
> any other legal options.
>
> The reason for this SC, the one that contains the request for the
> piaculum,
> was that the SC on private donors could have been interpreted as including
> NR Inc's money, but to ensure all "i's" were dotted I though I may as well
> ask the Senate for specific permission to transfer it back.
>
> Optime vale
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: L. Livia Plauta
> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 2:15 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Message on the CP list
>
>
> Salve,
> good, so if you got the donors' authorization everything is OK. That
> wasn't
> clear from the Senatus Consultum.
> Vale,
> Livia
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Caesar Liviae sal.

Understandable as yes, some of them were long, and a tad complex ;) Some
were surprisingly short <lol>.

Optime vale

-----Original Message-----
From: L. Livia Plauta
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 3:57 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Message on the CP list

Livia Caesari sal.
Great! It's good to see that my research didn't go to waste. I'm sorry but
the latest SC were so long and complicated that I apparently missed some
info.

Vale,
Livia

C. Maria Caeca C. Petronio Dextero Praetori, C. Aemilio Crasso omnibusque in foro S. P. D.



I have snipped some, for brevity. If things suddenly get ...confusing, I apologize, but interleaving comments is technically ...interesting ...for me, and I have messed it up on more than one occasion.





C. Petronius Dexter C Aemilio Crasso omnibusque Quiritibus salutem,

> The wiki doesn’t have and never could have the true essence of the Ludi. It is the difference between have been in the

> festival and read the reports of the same.

As in the wiki, in the forum we have to wait for the reports. We do not participate more.



CMC: no. The WIKI entries are like watching CNN headline news. Reading the Ludi on the Fora is more like watching CNN. But as Crassus points out, correctly, in addition to the many official posts the WIKI does not cover, such as the devotionals and other material that, while (at least hopefully) creative, well written and interesting, it is on the Fora where people cheer on their factions, among other things. True, no one commented on the FH about this year’s Ludi Novi Romani, but that well could have been because we were restricted in what we could post. Yes, Lentulus posted his Certamen Latinum, but I wouldn’t *expect* new people to participate in that, at least, not yet. We do get some new people who are already proficient in Latin, but not many.



I might also point out that, when I observed my very first Ludi, I neither participated nor commented …I was too busy figuring out what was going on. By the next one, I was ready, and participated gleefully.

> I don’t think we are going to change the other opinion but obviously internal affairs are internal affairs. What we both

> don’t agree is what you put on internal affairs. By that logic we shouldn’t be able to talk nothing concerning Nova Roma > pass that it does exist. I was against the creation of FH from the start but now I’m convinced it is doing the propose for > which it was created a place where no citizens were not expose to the internal fights that Nova Roma times to times puts > on stage.

Why this sudden attention towards the guests? Wanted Aeternia to be the praetrix of the guests? By her obsession with the games, she is just going to weaken the constitutional imperium of the praetors. Was she elected by the people of Nova Roma, by the Quirites, in order to weaken the praetorian imperium? I knew that she was not very politic, I find out that she was elected to weaken the imperium that the people offered to her.



CMC: If I understand what you are saying Praetor, this is an extremely serious accusation. Are you saying that Aeternia was supported and proposed for this office specifically to diminish the Praetura? Since the people themselves elected her, the only way her election could have been "stage-crafted" would have been by electoral fraud. Surely that is not what you are implying? Has this discussion become a political turf war?



I do not see Aeternia as being obsessed by anything. She enjoys working on the Ludi, yes, and she does excellent work. But her efforts are positive, not negative in nature, and in no way detract from her performance of her Praetorian duties, unless you object to her being of some assistance to me.



The FH was created by a Senatus consultum proposed by the Consul and passed by the Senate. Moderating the Forum Hospitum was given to the Praetors. Because an issue concerning interpretation of that founding document has arisen, the creators of that founding document must be the ones to either accept it, as it stands, or amend it to clarify the matter. I don’t see this as diminishing the imperium of the Praetors, because even Praetors are subject to not only our constitution, but to all our laws, and to Yahoo terms of use.



But if it was only her imperium, in fact, she is weakening the power of the praetors. Caesar and Sulla may be satisfied.

> I’m sure that in no one’s mind the Ludi were included in the forbidden subjects on the FH. Because no one consider it

> internal affairs of Nova Roma.

That is not the problem. The problem is: Are the moderation and the management of the Fora publica a function of the praetors? The Constitution of Nova Roma must be followed or not? Nova Roma is it the Republic of one side?



Of course the moderation of the lists is the mandate of the Praetors, but that mandate must be executed within the limits set by our laws, and not *just* by the definition of the Imperium granted to the Praetors under the Constitution.

>>> For whatever is worthy my position is:

Matters concerning the away Nova Roma works, strategies and debates concerning those matters they are internal affairs. Only citizens have the duty and the right to decided.

Matters that aren’t the above, even if organized by Nova Roma, aren’t internal matters. For example I don’t see any problem to talk about and announce a meeting organized by Nova Roma (conventus) much on the contrary I will strongly support something that informs the non-citizens of such activities. <<<



Of course.



This is inconsistent. If you disapprove of posting the Ludi to the FH, then it follows that you must also disapprove any announcements of gatherings, NR merchandise for sale, or even the formation of a discussion of Roman books on the NR book club. In fact, your interpretation is so narrow that one of the things we cannot do is help to prepare those who wish to become citizens by explaining, in general terms, how our form of Government works (which guests may also find interesting), or even discuss special interest groups, or even, not to put too fine a point on it, problems specific people are having with their applications for citizenship. Are these matters not internal to Nova Roma ...and if so, why do they not fall under your interpretation of the current SC?



But once more again, that is not the problem. Now, the Senate is voting an order to the praetors. This SC is weakening their imperium. The Senate is changing with a parody of choice the imperium of the praetors. She has voted the diminishing of her imperium. But not only of her, but also of all the future praetors. All that based on a "Dexter is able to use his imperium of moderation". A praetor able to manage and moderate a forum, is a problem for some and for the praetrix who prefers to be the praetrix of the guests than the praetrix of the Nova Romans.



I was under the impression that the Praetors are accountable to the Consuls and the Senate. I didn’t think Imperium equated to absolute autonomy …perhaps I have been misinformed.





Optime vale.



C. Petronius Dexter

Arcoiali scribebat

Kalendis Aprilibus MMDCCLXV aVc.



Valete!



C. Maria Caeca


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

Cn. Caesar C. Mariae Caecae sal.

“I didn’t think Imperium equated to absolute autonomy”. Absolutely correct Caeca. It doesn’t for anyone who holds it. In our past, well sometimes that seemed to be the impressions some holders of it had, but legally this is the situation as I see it. Dexter does not.

The FH was created by an SC. FH is an official list by that SC. It is not a public forum as it wasn’t declared that in the SC. The lex Octavia sermone, which is where the praetors derive their powers over this list, requires that the Senate declare a list a public forum. What is the difference? Well the Senate list is an official list, but it isn’t a public forum. So – Dexter is just as praetor overseeing an official list created and owned by the Senate. To me, the Senate is therefore entitled to amend the rules of its creation. It doesn’t get set in concrete and can never be addressed again.

When you asked me to post an opening address on the ludi I avoided posting to FH because of this uncertainty that exists as to what will end up being moderated by Dexter. I didn’t think that precipitating a crisis in the middle of the ludi served much point, but it was clear to me that this situation was not tenable. We have other ludi coming up and this deserved to be resolved, one way or the other.

I have heard, elsewhere, the argument about collegiate magistracies, and how we should just let these situations drag on until the following year when hopefully things may change. About how the Senate shouldn’t step in. To me that isn’t credible solution. That is just an excuse for sitting on your hands, or washing your hands of the issue. Allowing a forum created for guests and meant to be a window on the positive aspects of Nova Roma, and then seeing the ludi prevented from being posted or participated in seemed counter-intuitive. Yes, that is my understanding of the purpose of FH, and we will see if the Senate agrees. In any case I decided to ask the Senate to resolve it. I am not bound to put up with the status-quo just because Dexter is praetor and he objects. I am entitled to ask the Senate to determine this and that is what I have done. The Senate will decide.

Optime vale

From: C. Maria Caeca
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 4:17 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Ludi and FH


C. Maria Caeca C. Petronio Dextero Praetori, C. Aemilio Crasso omnibusque in foro S. P. D.

I have snipped some, for brevity. If things suddenly get ...confusing, I apologize, but interleaving comments is technically ...interesting ...for me, and I have messed it up on more than one occasion.

C. Petronius Dexter C Aemilio Crasso omnibusque Quiritibus salutem,

> The wiki doesn’t have and never could have the true essence of the Ludi. It is the difference between have been in the

> festival and read the reports of the same.

As in the wiki, in the forum we have to wait for the reports. We do not participate more.

CMC: no. The WIKI entries are like watching CNN headline news. Reading the Ludi on the Fora is more like watching CNN. But as Crassus points out, correctly, in addition to the many official posts the WIKI does not cover, such as the devotionals and other material that, while (at least hopefully) creative, well written and interesting, it is on the Fora where people cheer on their factions, among other things. True, no one commented on the FH about this


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

Marcus Prometheus SPD

I kindly INVITE people having other files of *music inspired by ancient
Rome*
*to exchange* them with me and with everybody else,
sending them on this list (if they are transferred by it),
or if this list does not support attachments, also writing directly to my
e-mail:

marcusprometheus@...

Best friendly regards and thanks in advance to everybody.


BENE VALETE OMNES.

Marcus Prometheus.


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

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

I'm going to jump in here and say that I disagree quite strongly with our consul. We have collegial magistracies, and if they disagree that's just too bad. That's how it goes; collegiality has its challenges as well as its much-vaunted "checks-and-balances" appeal. The Romans had them and they worked for almost a thousand years before the empire.

I know I'm going to get hit with a lot of stuff about how we should be pragnmatic etc. just as the Romans were; and in the past I have always held up high the standard of pragmatism as well and I still do - but only to a point.

When we begin to override the very basic, most fundamental things that *make us Roman*, like collegial magistracies, in order to "get things done" on someone's desired timetable, then we are failing. Yes, sometimes things may drag on. That's the nature of the type of government the Romans had, even if it is irritating to our consul, and it is fallacious (as well as offensive) to dismiss a desire to stay true to the Roman ideal as simple laziness.

What the consul means is that he finds it aggravating to have to see things come to a stop in a stalemate between two equal colleagues, and wants the Senate to step in and make the decisions instead of the elected magistrates. I say that should not happen, even if we have to wait for one of them to either give up or give in.

Valete bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Caesar C. Mariae Caecae sal.
>
> “I didn’t think Imperium equated to absolute autonomy”. Absolutely correct Caeca. It doesn’t for anyone who holds it. In our past, well sometimes that seemed to be the impressions some holders of it had, but legally this is the situation as I see it. Dexter does not.
>
> The FH was created by an SC. FH is an official list by that SC. It is not a public forum as it wasn’t declared that in the SC. The lex Octavia sermone, which is where the praetors derive their powers over this list, requires that the Senate declare a list a public forum. What is the difference? Well the Senate list is an official list, but it isn’t a public forum. So â€" Dexter is just as praetor overseeing an official list created and owned by the Senate. To me, the Senate is therefore entitled to amend the rules of its creation. It doesn’t get set in concrete and can never be addressed again.
>
> When you asked me to post an opening address on the ludi I avoided posting to FH because of this uncertainty that exists as to what will end up being moderated by Dexter. I didn’t think that precipitating a crisis in the middle of the ludi served much point, but it was clear to me that this situation was not tenable. We have other ludi coming up and this deserved to be resolved, one way or the other.
>
> I have heard, elsewhere, the argument about collegiate magistracies, and how we should just let these situations drag on until the following year when hopefully things may change. About how the Senate shouldn’t step in. To me that isn’t credible solution. That is just an excuse for sitting on your hands, or washing your hands of the issue. Allowing a forum created for guests and meant to be a window on the positive aspects of Nova Roma, and then seeing the ludi prevented from being posted or participated in seemed counter-intuitive. Yes, that is my understanding of the purpose of FH, and we will see if the Senate agrees. In any case I decided to ask the Senate to resolve it. I am not bound to put up with the status-quo just because Dexter is praetor and he objects. I am entitled to ask the Senate to determine this and that is what I have done. The Senate will decide.
>
> Optime vale
>
> From: C. Maria Caeca
> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 4:17 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Ludi and FH
>
>
> C. Maria Caeca C. Petronio Dextero Praetori, C. Aemilio Crasso omnibusque in foro S. P. D.
>
> I have snipped some, for brevity. If things suddenly get ...confusing, I apologize, but interleaving comments is technically ...interesting ...for me, and I have messed it up on more than one occasion.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter C Aemilio Crasso omnibusque Quiritibus salutem,
>
> > The wiki doesn’t have and never could have the true essence of the Ludi. It is the difference between have been in the
>
> > festival and read the reports of the same.
>
> As in the wiki, in the forum we have to wait for the reports. We do not participate more.
>
> CMC: no. The WIKI entries are like watching CNN headline news. Reading the Ludi on the Fora is more like watching CNN. But as Crassus points out, correctly, in addition to the many official posts the WIKI does not cover, such as the devotionals and other material that, while (at least hopefully) creative, well written and interesting, it is on the Fora where people cheer on their factions, among other things. True, no one commented on the FH about this
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Caesar Catoni sal.

No, you aren’t going to get hit by me with anything. I respect that view, I don’t agree with it. I strongly disagree with it in fact :)

From my perspective holding fast to a belief that just because two magistrates have been assigned a function and there is gridlock means that no other magistrate higher in the chain can ever refer it to the Senate to decide, is not something I agree with. As you know, having been consul, sometimes you get faced with a choice between doing something or not doing something. I referred it to the Senate. I would point out it is also not irritating to me. It is concerning to me, but not irritating. I think others maybe irritated but I am not. I just have asked the Senate to exercise its constitutional right and make a policy decision on something it created.

Now of course I can’t prove this, but I strongly suspect had you had a colleague that you had a fundamental disagreement with as consul you might have gone to the Senate Cato to break an impasse. A more concrete example was that last year and the year before when we had to resort to Senatus consultum ultima to keep the place functioning, you didn’t protest that we were trying to get things done on a timetable, which we were. Also more recently we appointed a Curule Aedile rather than hold a vote because partly due to the timetable of the ludi coming up. Why is a Senatus consultum ultimum more Roman than a Senatus consultum? Why is getting a curule aedile appointed by the Senate more Roman than asking the Senate to vote on amending its own SC?

So it is all a matter of perspective, as I see it. I am not prepared to sit here and see the impasse continue and people be uncertain if they post X, Y or Z content in a post re the ludi if they are going to get moderated. I could simply have resolved it by deriving the meaning of “internal affairs”, and that would have been that, however I sent it to the Senate where both praetors can argue their case if they wish.

You have been concerned in the past with consular dignity. I am concerned with consular responsibility. I saw this as the responsible thing for a consul to do, to avoid a situation where in the middle of a ludi people get moderated and a ‘crisis” breaks out. That diminishes the ludi. After all, that goes with my job description, as does it Dexter’s, namely to “engage in those tasks which advance the mission and function of Nova Roma”. he and I disagree on this and I avoided issuing an edict after deriving its meaning and instead sent it to the Senate (as this wasn’t time sensitive yet requiring an edict), so everyone who had an axe to grind on this could have their say. You may disagree, Dexter may, others may, others will agree with me, but this was to me the responsible thing to do to avoid a very real likelihood that a ludi would be overshadowed by a huge squabble over moderation.

Making a decision like that goes with the pointy hat of consul, to me at least.

Optime vale

From: Cato
Date: April-01-12 6:48 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ludi and FH


Cato omnibus in foro SPD

I'm going to jump in here and say that I disagree quite strongly with our consul. We have collegial magistracies, and if they disagree that's just too bad. That's how it goes; collegiality has its challenges as well as its much-vaunted "checks-and-balances" appeal. The Romans had them and they worked for almost a thousand years before the empire.

I


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

Cato Caesari sal.

I certainly respect - and understand - the logic of the position you take. It is, in fact, quite reasonable under normal governmental or corporate circumstances.

My only difficulty with it is that we do not operate under "normal" circumstances. We are a peculiar institution, with peculiar governmental strictures, some of which are absolutely fundamental to the working of a Roman - not American or French or Canadian - government.

Collegiality does require a certain give-and-take, obviously, but if two equal magistrates cannot agree, then they cannot agree. I would even prefer that the matter be solved by the People voting in comitia than the Senate once more step in and declare by fiat how the government will run.

I agree that last year was an extraordinary time, in which the normal (for us) functions of the government were difficult to observe; so we had to use the authority given us under extraordinary circumstances. You remember as well that I repeatedly stated publicly that I was uncomfortable ruling as consul by SCU - even given the extraordinary circumstances.

Last year's very extraordinariness (is that a word?) underscores the necessity of letting the now-fully-functioning government ... function - even if that means, in some cases, a stalemate. You are possessed of a clarity of purpose and vision which is truly admirable, and yet I think (in the best way possible) that seeing the clumsiness that is inherent in our government by its very nature makes you grind your teeth - and you just want to get things moving.

Personally, I think that the ludi *should* be broadcast in the FH (although my feelings about the whole FH thing itself are quite well-known); but I also believe that the praetors should be left to exercise their authority unmolested by higher magistrates or the Senate. That is why they were elected. If they disagree, well, that's part and parcel of collegial government. And collegial government is an essential element of Roman government.

So getting things done is important; it is simply, in my opinion, not *as* important as allowing our government function as it was intended - even if that means hearing your teeth grinding :)

Vale bene,

Cato

 C. Petronius Sta. Corneliae Aeterniae C.Aemilio Crasso Omnibusque Quiritibus salutem,

> Dexter has it ever came across your mind, Crassus may just disagree with
> you? 

No problem with that, I just gave him my opinion in return. That is the way for debatting. I do not need a Senatus Consultum to impose an opinion.

> Is there a problem with that?

Where did you see a problem?

> I'm sure there are those who do you agree with you, as they have the right to do so.  Crassus  has the right to
> speak on this issue just like everyone else does. 

Of course. As I have the right to say how the issue is becoming.

> How about you take him out of your crossfire, for Crassus has done nothing wrong. 

What I did against Crassus?

> He gave his opinion as he has the right to do so just like everyone does.  How about
> you focus on who you are really upset at.

And I give mine.

> And that would be me...

Who need a Senatus Consultum? You were not able to follow a SC, you change it.
It is more easy that is sure.

Vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. IV Nonas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

C. Petronius Liviae salutem,
 

> Great! It's good to see that my research didn't go to waste. I'm sorry but
> the latest SC were so long and complicated that I apparently missed some
> info.

That is just the style of Caesar.
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. IV Nonas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

Ave

Here is how I see this playing out...

Dexter moderates Caeca or Crispus or anyone else who posts the Ludi...on
the FH list...regardless of a Senatus Consulta.
Aeternia Vetos any move by Dexter to moderate anyone from being moderated
on the FH list...in regards to the Ludi.

Aeternia wins.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Jean-Fran�ois Arnoud <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> C. Petronius Sta. Corneliae Aeterniae C.Aemilio Crasso Omnibusque
> Quiritibus salutem,
>
>
> > Dexter has it ever came across your mind, Crassus may just disagree with
> > you?
>
> No problem with that, I just gave him my opinion in return. That is the
> way for debatting. I do not need a Senatus Consultum to impose an opinion.
>
>
> > Is there a problem with that?
>
> Where did you see a problem?
>
>
> > I'm sure there are those who do you agree with you, as they have the
> right to do so. Crassus has the right to
> > speak on this issue just like everyone else does.
>
> Of course. As I have the right to say how the issue is becoming.
>
>
> > How about you take him out of your crossfire, for Crassus has done
> nothing wrong.
>
> What I did against Crassus?
>
>
> > He gave his opinion as he has the right to do so just like everyone
> does. How about
> > you focus on who you are really upset at.
>
> And I give mine.
>
>
> > And that would be me...
>
> Who need a Senatus Consultum? You were not able to follow a SC, you change
> it.
> It is more easy that is sure.
>
>
> Vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. IV Nonas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.
>
>
>


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

Caesar Catoni sal.

Well there you and I are going to have to part company again. As uncomfortable as you were you did it, because you saw the necessity. The necessity now this year is to re-build. FH is meant to be where prospective citizens can ask questions and interact with the moderation team to that end. Now, just because Dexter says “no” to the ludi on FH does not mean that it might not come to a head. I am not prepared, when the evidence is clearly there to suggest it will come to head and end in a huge row, to expose prospective citizens – ones we certainly need to take citizenship now more than ever – to that spectacle.

I don’t subscribe to the view that it isn’t Roman to send it to the Senate. Are you seriously suggesting that in Rome of antiquity that if the praetors were gridlocked and a riot might break out, that the consuls wouldn’t step in? Well if you can, all I can say is that is one part of Romanitas we don’t need to emulate, sheer stupidity. All these calls to “be Roman” are dubious in that I see no basis for thinking that the consuls of antiquity would have been complacently disinterested and allow the place to be torn apart while they fed their goldfish ho-humming that its a real shame but maybe next year things will be better. That, with respect, is ludicrous to me.

Also you forget one thing, I was elected as well as one of the consuls. I have a responsibility inn my role and my part to play in preventing issues that potentially could disrupt the ludi. You may not accept that but that is my view. If the praetors can’t achieve a compromise, I am NOT going to see our guest forum, and thence this forum descend in chaos and bickering over “internal affairs”. I am NOT going to abandon what I see as a duty to act. Of course I could wait for chaos to descend, and then what? Watch? Do nothing? Start counter vetoing, and see the attention shift from the ludi to the latest crisis? No, unacceptable. Caeca and others put a lot of time into preparing the ludi and I will NOT see it ruined when I can at least try to resolve it before such an event. That is prudent and sensible and I honestly believe an expectation on any consul with a sense of responsibility.

A couple of points, we don’t have collegial government, because we don’t have a government per se. I also possess a bigger imperium stick than Dexter. I elected not to wait for chaos, not to have to resort to the stick, and simply try to head the issue off by asking the Senate to decide on the matter. Prevention rather than cure.

You may consider this a fundamental or important issue. I see as a fundamental issue preventing hours of work by the curule aedile and her team being ruined by a ridiculous spat over “internal affairs” and people considering taking citizenship becoming convinced we are dysfunctional imbeciles. For those new citizens on this list watching it spill over into here would cause many to question what on earth they are doing here. Some celebration that would be. Someone is bound to try to force this issue and post on the ludi and then as usual the “crisis” will erupt.

So people can grizzle and carp as much as they like and tell me its un-Roman and the roof will collapse, its horrendous etc. and Dexter can feel his nose has been put out to the back of his head. To me, avoiding another farce and keeping the ludi on track is more important, and to that end I sent it to the Senate.

When some people start drinking water from lead pipes and cleaning their bottoms with a sponge, and giving up electricity for oil lamps, then I might heed these strictures on Romanitas a little more seriously than now. As I see it, Nova Roma has challenges over its citizen numbers and idly standing by watching this issue explode and people silently slip away shaking their heads isn’t prudent, practical or Roman. After all Cato, the Romans purloined the Sabine women to boost numbers, whereas we have to promote Nova Roma the best we can, and this isn’t the way to do it by standing by deploring the situation but doing nothing, however Roman you say that is, which I say it isn’t.

So to put it in a nutshell, regardless of the vote – whichever way, we will resolve this matter and those that don’t like it, well I understand but ultimately it is done. So they can continue to grizzle and play chicken little or..they can move on. Up to them.

Optime vale.

From: Cato
Date: April-01-12 10:00 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ludi and FH


Cato Caesari sal.

I certainly respect - and understand - the logic of the position you take. It is, in fact, quite reasonable under normal governmental or corporate circumstances.

My only difficulty with it is that we do not operate under "normal" circumstances. We are a peculiar institution, with peculiar governmental strictures, some of which are absolutely fundamental to the working of a Roman - not American or French or Canadian - government.

Collegiality does require a certain give-and-take, obviously, but if two equal magistrates cannot agree, then they cannot agree. I would even prefer that the matter be solved by the People voting in comitia than the Senate once more step in and declare by fiat how the government will run.

I agree that last year was an extraordinary time, in which the normal (for us) functions of the government were difficult to observe; so we had to use the authority given us under extraordinary circumstances. You remember as well that I repeatedly stated publicly that I was uncomfortable ruling as consul by SCU - even given the extraordinary circumstances.

Last year's very extraordinariness (is that a word?) underscores the necessity of letting the now-fully-functioning government ... function - even if that means, in some cases, a stalemate. You are possessed of a clarity of purpose and vision which is truly admirable, and yet I think (in the best way possible) that seeing the clumsiness that is inherent in our government by its very nature makes you grind your teeth - and you just want to get things moving.

Personally, I think that the ludi *should* be broadcast in the FH (although my feelings about the whole FH thing itself are quite well-known); but I also believe that the praetors should be left to exercise their authority unmolested by higher magistrates or the Senate. That is why they were elected. If they disagree, well, that's part and parcel of collegial government. And collegial government is an essential element of Roman government.

So getting things done is important; it is simply, in my opinion, not *as* important as allowing our government function as it was intended - even if that means hearing your teeth grinding :)

Vale bene,

Cato





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

C. Petronius Catoni omnibusque Quiritibus salutem,
 

>>> I'm going to jump in here and say that I disagree quite strongly with our consul.  We have collegial magistracies, and if they disagree that's just too bad.  That's how it goes; collegiality has its challenges as well as its much-vaunted "checks-and-balances" appeal.  The Romans had them and they worked for almost a thousand years before the empire. <<<

 
You perfectly know the need of a collegial magistracies. On the FH moderation nothing was decided. No compromise because no discussion finished, but nothing is decided. My colleague preferred to weaken the imperium of the praetors and the balance of the powers between magistrates on collegial magistracies with the help of a Senatus Consultum. And you know the content of it. That is a shame. People will see.
 

>>>What the consul means is that he finds it aggravating to have to see things come to a stop in a stalemate between two equal colleagues, and wants the Senate to step in and make the decisions instead of the elected magistrates.  I say that should not happen, even if we have to wait for one of them to either give up or give in.<<<

 
She made a precedent because she is not politics, she does not act with her mind nor with experience. She thought that "I could". Nothing real, just a feeling. She acts with feelings and she leads the Senate to her fantasies. She wants to be the praetor of the guests, I guess.
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. IV Nonas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

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

Salve amice

Caeca and her team lose though, and NR loses though, because the attention
gets switched to the latest "crisis".

Vale bene
Caesar

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Woolwine
Date: April-01-12 10:16 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Ludi and FH

Ave

Here is how I see this playing out...

Dexter moderates Caeca or Crispus or anyone else who posts the Ludi...on
the FH list...regardless of a Senatus Consulta.
Aeternia Vetos any move by Dexter to moderate anyone from being moderated
on the FH list...in regards to the Ludi.

Aeternia wins.

Vale,

Sulla

Ave Amice,

Agreed and this is not even worth of being labelled a crises but a tempest
in a teaspoon, since it does not even manage to be worthy of a teacup.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Salve amice
>
> Caeca and her team lose though, and NR loses though, because the attention
> gets switched to the latest "crisis".
>
> Vale bene
> Caesar
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Woolwine
> Date: April-01-12 10:16 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Ludi and FH
>
> Ave
>
> Here is how I see this playing out...
>
> Dexter moderates Caeca or Crispus or anyone else who posts the Ludi...on
> the FH list...regardless of a Senatus Consulta.
> Aeternia Vetos any move by Dexter to moderate anyone from being moderated
> on the FH list...in regards to the Ludi.
>
> Aeternia wins.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
>
>

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

Salve Sulla et Salvete Omnes,
.
I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but I highly doubt Dexter would
not respect the decision of the Senate no matter what the outcome.

He is many things, onry, difficult, dramatic, passionate, he is definitely
passionate about what he believes in...

But he is not a fool either, and to disregard the decision of the Senate
would be extremely foolish.

That goes for me as well, if the table is to be reversed, I will respect
the decision of the Senate.

In that regard neither of us are feeble minded..

Valete bene,
Aeternia


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

Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C. Petronio Dextro Omnibusque S.P.D.

please see my commentary below.

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Jean-François Arnoud <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> C. Petronius Sta. Corneliae Aeterniae C.Aemilio Crasso Omnibusque
> Quiritibus salutem,
>
>
> > Dexter has it ever came across your mind, Crassus may just disagree with
> > you?
>
> No problem with that, I just gave him my opinion in return. That is the
> way for debatting. I do not need a Senatus Consultum to impose an opinion.
>

SCVIA- It doesn't look to appear to be debating, but then it's also my
perception of your tone...

>
>
> > Is there a problem with that?
>
> Where did you see a problem?
>
> SCVIA- Your tone comes across as a bit 'defensive'....

>
> > I'm sure there are those who do you agree with you, as they have the
> right to do so. Crassus has the right to
> > speak on this issue just like everyone else does.
>
> Of course. As I have the right to say how the issue is becoming.
>

SCVIA- Yes we know your feelings on the issue, even through the Senate
halls... It's safe to say we have heard you..

>
>
> > How about you take him out of your crossfire, for Crassus has done
> nothing wrong.
>
> What I did against Crassus?
>

SCVIA- Again your tone.....

>
>
> > He gave his opinion as he has the right to do so just like everyone
> does. How about
> > you focus on who you are really upset at.
>
> And I give mine.
>

SCVIA-- Yes we know, we have all heard you. You have stated your point and
every insult with it, again we have heard you...

>
>
> > And that would be me...
>
> Who need a Senatus Consultum? You were not able to follow a SC, you change
> it.
> It is more easy that is sure.
>

SCVIA-- I happen to have a different viewpoint on the word "internal",
doesn't mean I'm not following an SC...



>
> Valete Optime,
>
Aeternia


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

Dexter Caesari Catonique sal,

>>> Well there you and I are going to have to part company again. As uncomfortable as you were you did it, because you saw the necessity. The necessity now this year is to re-build. FH is meant to be where prospective citizens can ask questions and interact with the moderation team to that end.


>>> Now, just because Dexter says “no” to the ludi on FH does not mean that it might not come to a head.

I said nothing officially, I issue no decretum on that. We were on a discussion in the praetores list. You mixe the intention or the opinion with the facts. In other hand, in issuing a Senatus Consultum, and what Senatus Consultum! you act. That is the difference between opinion, intention and act. Now, while the praetores did not decide yet the way to follow, with this SC you impose them the position of your friend Aeternia.

>>> I don’t subscribe to the view that it isn’t Roman to send it to the Senate.

Yes, I think that the Senate in Ancient Rome can but before it heard the two sides. The Senate herad nothing and is forced to vote in two conflicting stupid versions of a SC. I think that the Roman Senate was more political.

>>> If the praetors can’t achieve a compromise,

Achieve? It was the beginning of the discussion.

>>> Of course I could wait for chaos to descend, and then what?<<<

The chaos? You exaggerate.

 >>> That is prudent and sensible and I honestly believe an expectation on any consul with a sense of responsibility.<<<

Lol.

>>> Prevention rather than cure. <<<

Yes it is all the concern. You explain your stupid SC as a prevention. So, you confess that you act with a SC before that a compromise arises, before the end of the discussion. You have no sense of responsibility.

>>> You may consider this a fundamental or important issue. I see as a fundamental issue preventing hours of work by the curule aedile and her team being ruined by a ridiculous spat over “internal affairs” and people considering taking citizenship becoming convinced we are dysfunctional imbeciles. <<<

Lol. You might have been a movie director. 

>>>  For those new citizens on this list watching it spill over into here would cause many to question what on earth they are doing here. Some celebration that would be. Someone is bound to try to force this issue and post on the ludi and then as usual the “crisis” will erupt.<<<

New citizens are in the ML and may know your attitudes or, as you funnily say it, your "sense of the responsibility". 

>>> So people can grizzle and carp as much as they like and tell me its un-Roman and the roof will collapse, its horrendous etc. and Dexter can feel his nose has been put out to the back of his head. To me, avoiding another farce and keeping the ludi on track is more important, and to that end I sent it to the Senate. <<<

You did the farce in the Senate with 2 SC very ridiculous.

>>> So to put it in a nutshell, regardless of the vote – whichever way, we will resolve this matter and those that don’t like it, well I understand but ultimately it is done.<<<

Bad done. 

>>> So they can continue to grizzle and play chicken little or..they can move on. Up to them.<<<

Your famous "sense of the responsibility", I presume.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. IV Nonas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

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

Caesar Dexter sal.

Why don’t you just have a little honesty yourself and just admit that your reaction is driven by pique that your view might not prevail? That you got side-stepped as you see it. Stop making a principle out of your ego. As for discussions, how does “no” advance a compromise? Anyway Dexter, one way or another it will be resolved. You can then spend the rest of eternity if you wish, or until whenever you like, spinning your version of events. You are by your own admission rigidly interpreting the law, and consequently it is ludicrous to suppose that you will stop doing that. Maybe you need to re-read your posts. You haven’t budged an inch on this and to suggest you were at the start of a compromise is rather like negotiations with North Korea, long promised, a few words and no action, followed by a complete reversal.

Optime vale


From: Jean-François Arnoud
Date: April-01-12 11:14 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Ludi and FH


Dexter Caesari Catonique sal,

>>> Well there you and I are going to have to part company again. As uncomfortable as you were you did it, because you saw the necessity. The necessity now this year is to re-build. FH is meant to be where prospective citizens can ask questions and interact with the moderation team to that end.

>>> Now, just because Dexter says “no” to the ludi on FH does not mean that it might not come to a head.

I said nothing officially, I issue no decretum on that. We were on a discussion in the praetores list. You mixe the intention or the opinion with the facts. In other hand, in issuing a Senatus Consultum, and what Senatus Consultum! you act. That is the difference between opinion, intention and act. Now, while the praetores did not decide yet the way to follow, with this SC you impose them the position of your friend Aeternia.

>>> I don’t subscribe to the view that it isn’t Roman to send it to the Senate.

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

Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C. Petronio Dextro C. Equitio Catoni Omnibusque
S.P.D.

Please see my commentary below <<<snippage for brevity sake>>>>>>>

First welcome back Cato =o)

Secondly, prey-tell what Fantasies I be leading the Senate to? Did you not
say repeatedly I have what was it "No position" and also "No voice". This
is again wishy-washy or how you would put it the word inconsistent. How can
I lead the Senate if I have no voice, I'm just a mindless zombie remember?
Please explain this to me, I'm truly curious. So either I'm now a complete
simpleton or some mad genius. Dexter please make up your mind..

> She made a precedent because she is not politics, she does not act with
> her mind nor with experience. She thought that "I could". Nothing real,
> just a feeling. She acts with feelings and she leads the Senate to her
> fantasies. She wants to be the praetor of the guests, I guess.
>
> Vale Optime,
>

Aeternia

>
>
>
>
>
>

--
"De mortuis nil nisi bonum"


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

Caesari Dexter salutem,
 

>>> Why don’t you just have a little honesty yourself and just admit that your reaction is driven by pique that your view might not prevail?<<<

 
I did not react as you say, and I shall not do like you said. 
 
I have more things to do, on the Tabularium and I soon shall submitt to the Senate a list of the current laws ordered by topics and more easy so that every magistrate may read and know them more easily. I have the sense of the job.
 
I just regret that instead of taking the time to discuss and to put arguments "pro" and "contra" you preferred to act a farce. But you have the advisers that you chose. And the majority of the Senate lead you to act in a way that I disagree with, and I cannot see any good for the rest. 
 

>>> That you got side-stepped as you see it. Stop making a principle out of your ego.

 
Why do you make an obsession about my ego?  I did not chose as Roman name "Julius Caesar". Who has an ego's problem?
 

>>> As for discussions, how does “no” advance a compromise? Anyway Dexter, one way or another it will be resolved.

 
That is better to resolve anything between equal magistrates, but you have no sense of psychology.
 

>>> You can then spend the rest of eternity if you wish, or until whenever you like, spinning your version of events. You are by your own admission rigidly interpreting the law, and consequently it is ludicrous to suppose that you will stop doing that.<<<

 
You may suppose what you want, but now you did more than suppose.
You acted in a silly fashion.
 
 >>> Maybe you need to re-read your posts. You haven’t budged an inch on this and to suggest you were at the start of a compromise is rather like negotiations with North Korea, long promised, a few words and no action, followed by a complete reversal. <<<
 
North Korea. You choose your comparisons...
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. IV Nonas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

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

Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C. Dextro Cn. Caesari Consuli sal.

<<<<<<<<snippage>>>>>>>>>>>

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Jean-Fran�ois Arnoud
<jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Caesari Dexter salutem,
>
>
> >>> Why don�t you just have a little honesty yourself and just admit that
> your reaction is driven by pique that your view might not prevail?<<<
>
> I did not react as you say, and I shall not do like you said.
>
> I have more things to do, on the Tabularium and I soon shall submitt to
> the Senate a list of the current laws ordered by topics and more easy so
> that every magistrate may read and know them more easily. I have the sense
> of the job.
>

SCVIA- Stepping on your toga for a moment colleague.... From the last the
time you mentioned this on the Praetores list, you were compiling a list
together and would be discussing it within the Praetura. Now you are
submitting this to the Senate? Do I have this correct, you are taking
something to the Senate to be voted upon? If so that would be rather odd,
you would approach the Senate regarding something that is within your
jurisdiction, is that not what you've been raving about during this issue?

That seems almost ironic...

Vale Optime,
Aeternia

>

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

Caesar Dextro sal.

As well as being the arbiter on Aternia’s character, you now set yourself up as judge on choices of names? You have an a huge ego problem. That’s what this entire farce from you has been about. Pique, ego and getting offended personally. I thought during the election you tried to portray your colleague as emotional? All that you haven’t done so far on this issue is sit in the corner kicking your heels up in the air having a tantrum. I suppose we might have time to witness that yet.

Maybe if you hadn’t engaged in your usual impersonation of Cato Uticensis on a bad hair day, you might have actually resolved this by now. It is also a little late in the day to suddenly start to try to pass yourself off as willing to negotiate with your colleague. Your idea of negotiating is to dig yourself, metaphorically, into a hole in the ground, gather the barb wire. load the machine gun and sit there motionless, throwing out the odd “no” into the darkness like a grenade. You were going to resolve absolutely nothing Dexter, because you would have indicated that willingness in your posts on these threads, if that had been genuine desire. If you were truly interested in negotiating you would have used the last few days to thrash something out with your colleague. Instead you parade around in the forum bemoaning the fact that it is a silly SC, a plot, etc. etc. and making absurd comments about your colleague, none of which advances negotiation, does it?

When you start to be honest about your motivation here, which is not a disinterested analytical, or a logical one, but an emotional “pants on head” reaction, then some of us might take you seriously when you talk about negotiating. I’m glad you are going to do something productive in the Tabularium, it will be a pleasant change.

Optime vale

From: Jean-François Arnoud
Date: April-01-12 11:52 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Ludi and FH


Caesari Dexter salutem,

>>> Why don’t you just have a little honesty yourself and just admit that your reaction is driven by pique that your view might not prevail?<<<

I did not react as you say, and I shall not do like you said.

I have more things to do, on the Tabularium and I soon shall submitt to the Senate a list of the current laws ordered by topics and more easy so that every magistrate may read and know them more easily. I have the sense of the job.

I just regret that instead of taking the time to discuss and to put arguments "pro" and "contra" you preferred to act a farce. But you have the advisers that you chose. And the majority of the Senate lead you to act in a way that I disagree with, and I cannot see any good for the rest.




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

Cato Caesari sal.

It is unfortunate to equate the very fundamental elements of Roman government with ancient practices that existed because nothing better had yet been invented. The two are apples and oranges, and the argument is fallacious. The idea that posts on the FH will lead to "rioting" is absurd and equally fallacious.

The issue is not exploding. You simply have two colleagues who disagree; as Cornelius Sulla stated, Petronius Dexter moderates and Aeternia Cornelia vetoes. The status quo remains. Aeternia is frustrated and Dexter is grumpy. So be it.

Your argument simply boils down to you wanting things to move faster than our functioning governmental structures permit, and that is not a good enough reason to interfere; it is certainly understandable, but unnecessary.

Once again, if the Senate starts making these decisions, where does it stop? Posting or not posting the ludi on the FH is not vital to the interests of the government of the Respublica, it poses no threat to the government or the Republica, and it does not warrant interference by the Senate or higher magistrates.

Vale bene,

Cato

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Hodiernus dies est ante diem IV Nones Aprilis; hic dies fastus aterque est.

"When the night is past, and the sky is just beginning
To redden, and the birds, wet with dew, are singing,
And the traveller who's been awake all night, puts down
His half-burnt torch, and the farmer's off to his usual labours,
The Pleiades will start to lighten their father's shoulders,
They who are said to be seven, but usually are six:
Because it's true that six lay in the loving clasp of gods
(Since they say that Asterope slept with Mars:
Alcyone, and you, lovely Celaeno, with Neptune:
Maia, Electra, and Taygete with Jupiter),
While the seventh, Merope, married you, Sisyphus, a mortal,
And repents of it, and, alone of the sisters, hides from shame:
Or because Electra couldn't bear to watch Troy's destruction,
And so her face now is covered by her hands." - Ovid, Fasti IV

"And so soon as he had cut off the members with flint and cast them
from the land into the surging sea, they were swept away over the main
a long time: and a white foam spread around them from the immortal
flesh, and in it there grew a maiden...and came forth an awful and
lovely goddess, and grass grew up about her beneath her shapely feet.
Her gods and men call Aphrodite...because she grew amid the foam." -
Hesiod, Theogony, 185 -200

"At the wedding, Eris (Strife) threw a golden apple into the midst of
the guests. The apple bore the inscription 'for the fairest' a quarrel
arose among Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite, with each goddess claiming
the apple for herself. Eventually, they agreed to make Paris, a Trojan
prince, arbiter of their dispute. All three goddesses offered Paris
bribes; Aphrodite promised the most beautiful woman on Earth as his
wife--this was Helen, wife of Menelaus, ruler of Sparta. Paris awarded
the apple to Aphrodite and proceeded to abduct Helen." - Fritz Graf,
"Greek Mythology: An Introduction" pp.59-60

The derivation of the name of the month of Aprilis is uncertain. The
traditional etymology from the Latin aperire, "to open," in allusion
to its being the season when trees and flowers begin to "open." Since
all the Roman months were named in honour of divinities, and as April
was sacred to Venus, the Festum Veneris et Fortunae Virilis being held
on the first day, it has been suggested that Aprilis was originally
her month Aphrilis, from her Greek name Aphrodite, or from the
Etruscan name Apru.

The poet Hesiod said that Aphrodite was born from sea-foam. Homer, on
the other hand, said that she was the daughter of Zeus and Dione.

When the Trojan prince Paris was asked to judge which of three
Olympian goddesses was the most beautiful, he chose Aphrodite over
Hera and Athena. The latter two had hoped to bribe him with power and
victory in battle, but Aphrodite offered the love of the most
beautiful woman in the world --- Helen of Sparta, who became infamous
as Helen of Troy when Paris subsequently eloped with her. In the
ensuing Trojan War, Hera and Athena were implacable enemies of Troy
while Aphrodite was loyal to Paris and the Trojans.

Aphrodite was very generous in using her powers to help her followers.
She helped Meilanion gain Atalanta for his wife by giving him the
golden apples that enabled him to distract and overtake Atalanta in a
foot race. She had her son Eros strike Medea with one of his arrows so
that she would fall in love with Jason of the Argonauts, which
resulted in his overcoming her father Aeetes and gaining the Golden
Fleece. She also cared for the orphaned daughters of Panderos and
arranged for their marriages.

In other instances, Aphrodite avenged other slights by causing the
perpetrator to experience misfortune in the areas of love or beauty.
After being insulted by six of Poseidon's sons, she struck them mad so
that they gang-raped their mother. She caused Aegus to be childless
until he introduced her worship in Athens. When the women of
Astypalaea angered her by claiming to be more beautiful than she, she
made them grow cow horns. Moo.

Perhaps the most celebrated of Aphrodite's affairs was her
relationship with Ares, the god of war. Although such a union may at
first seem incongruous, it is actually a match of two divinities of
the same nature. Aphrodite, the beautiful maiden who attracts the
attention of the most powerful of the gods only to decline him,
refuses to be controlled by her marriage to Hephaestus--she will not
be denied freedom in the area of her dominion. Likewise Ares, an
alternately rageful and cowardly god, can never be predicted in his
actions.

Aphrodite's rebellious nature is reinforced by the creation of many
children by her liason with Ares. In addition, Phobos and Deimos,
Anteros, and Harmonia were even passed off as the offspring of
Hephaestus.

The ancient travel writer Pausanias describes a number of statues of
Aphrodite dressed for battle, many of them in Sparta. Given the manner
in which the militaristic Spartans raised their girls, it is not
surprising that they conceived of a female goddess in military attire.
She also would have donned armaments to defend cities, such as
Corinth, who adopted her as their patroness. This is not to say that
she was a war goddess, although some have seen her as such and find
significance in her pairing with the war god Ares in mythology and
worship.

Valete bene!

Cato

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

I would like to wish all those Western Christian citizens who observe Holy Week this week the sincerest best wishes as they commemorate the solemnities; equally I anticipate the observance of this most holy time of year for Eastern Christians beginning next Sunday.

Christus factus est pro nobis obediens usque ad mortem mortem autem crucis.

Valete bene,

Cato

Grati Cato,

I gave up beef, pork, and chicken for lent.

Ti. Marci Quadra


________________________________
From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 8:31 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] In re: Holy Week (OT)


 
Cato omnibus in foro SPD

I would like to wish all those Western Christian citizens who observe Holy Week this week the sincerest best wishes as they commemorate the solemnities; equally I anticipate the observance of this most holy time of year for Eastern Christians beginning next Sunday.

Christus factus est pro nobis obediens usque ad mortem mortem autem crucis.

Valete bene,

Cato




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

Caesar Catoni sal.

You talk of what is Roman. I give you an example from ancient Rome. We here can’t equate in any way obviously to the circumstances that prevailed there in exact similarity, but what is the same thread in both cases? Disruption. You haven’t addressed what happens to the ludi if someone throws a challenge to Dexter deliberately, decides to test his resolve, or, accidentally raises his ire. He is grumpy as you say. Moderation follows in all likelihood. Then a row. Then a defocusing off the ludi. I believe it is unacceptable to see the hard work preparing the ludi tossed away.

It is not as simple as you think to my mind. As to where it stops, well Cato if collegiate government as you call it at one level fails through gridlock, the next level up takes over, naturally. Where it stops is not the question, but what stops? The answer, standing around watching things fall apart, things grind to a halt. What stops is claiming it is Roman to watch the place mire in controversy and the bigger picture be lost. This isn’t an exercise in playing at Roman government, it is meant to be an organization that functions.

Anyway, as I said before – we see things differently, so there isn’t any point beating this one to death.

Optime vale

From: Cato
Date: April-02-12 4:16 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ludi and FH


Cato Caesari sal.

It is unfortunate to equate the very fundamental elements of Roman government with ancient practices that existed because nothing better had yet been invented. The two are apples and oranges, and the argument is fallacious. The idea that posts on the FH will lead to "rioting" is absurd and equally fallacious.




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

Dexter Catoni salutem,

>>> The issue is not exploding. You simply have two colleagues who disagree; as Cornelius Sulla stated, Petronius Dexter moderates and Aeternia Cornelia vetoes. The status quo remains. Aeternia is frustrated and Dexter is grumpy. So be it. <<<

That is one possibility. Another was nearest the real, because I did not make an edict against the posts sent on the FH during the Ludi Novi Romani. Then, perhaps was I on the point to agree that I had been too strict in my first opinion.

And the facts may show it.
I did not decree against the posts concerning the Ludi sent on the FH. Nothing was in preparation. I was occupied by the ordering of the laws by topics and I had summitted to the both consuls a project of Latin version of the oath of office, in which it was not necessary to know the gender neither the Latin declension. I wanted to know if this Latin version may be official and officially used by the future magistrates.

Even, for a Latin version I do not act alone or on my only own impulse. They know that, such Caesar as Aeternia, before I make any official act I beg a lot of advices. I never act in a rush neither without asking conflicting advices to make my own opinion.

And suddenly, I see in the agenda of the Senate meeting at the end of the month an item on this past, after the Ludi Novi Romani. "There has been a division of opinion between the praetors"... And of course a division of opinion needs a Senatus Consultum. And what Senatus consultum!

Is it a problem of ego to think that that Senatus Consultum is an insult? People will see.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. IV Nonas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

Ave!

Show us these facts. I know I am interested in seeing how you felt your
first opinion was too strong. I am sure your colleague would too..and Caeca
and the Consul and the rest of the People.

Please show us these hereto unforseen facts.

Vale,

Sulla

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:00 AM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Dexter Catoni salutem,
>
>
> >>> The issue is not exploding. You simply have two colleagues who
> disagree; as Cornelius Sulla stated, Petronius Dexter moderates and
> Aeternia Cornelia vetoes. The status quo remains. Aeternia is frustrated
> and Dexter is grumpy. So be it. <<<
>
> That is one possibility. Another was nearest the real, because I did not
> make an edict against the posts sent on the FH during the Ludi Novi Romani.
> Then, perhaps was I on the point to agree that I had been too strict in my
> first opinion.
>
> And the facts may show it.
> I did not decree against the posts concerning the Ludi sent on the FH.
> Nothing was in preparation. I was occupied by the ordering of the laws by
> topics and I had summitted to the both consuls a project of Latin version
> of the oath of office, in which it was not necessary to know the gender
> neither the Latin declension. I wanted to know if this Latin version may be
> official and officially used by the future magistrates.
>
> Even, for a Latin version I do not act alone or on my only own impulse.
> They know that, such Caesar as Aeternia, before I make any official act I
> beg a lot of advices. I never act in a rush neither without asking
> conflicting advices to make my own opinion.
>
> And suddenly, I see in the agenda of the Senate meeting at the end of the
> month an item on this past, after the Ludi Novi Romani. "There has been a
> division of opinion between the praetors"... And of course a division of
> opinion needs a Senatus Consultum. And what Senatus consultum!
>
> Is it a problem of ego to think that that Senatus Consultum is an insult?
> People will see.
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. IV Nonas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.
>
>
>


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

Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C. Catoni Cn, Caesari Consuli sal.

Even if the hypothetical theorem would've been, Dexter moderates and I
intercessio, it would not have been left at just that. You and I both know
that one Cato...

My colleague would still run through the virtual fora, saying how it was
silly, a shame, blindsided , and still hurling insults towards me and
anyone else who happened to disagree with the fact Dexter may have been
vetoed on just cause.

Yes the circumstance may have been different, but we'd end up on the same
road we are now on.

This Dragedy. (the word drama and tragedy put together). Most
unfortunately...

Valete Optime,
Aeternia


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

Dexter Caesari sal.,

> As well as being the arbiter on Aternia's character, you now set yourself up as judge on choices of names?

Of course. And I am polite.

> You have an a huge ego problem.

Of course. And you are doctor.

> That's what this entire farce from you has been about.

Not at all, the farce is your silly decree.

> Pique, ego and getting offended personally. I thought during the election you tried to portray your colleague as emotional?

She is. As you may see it through this ridiculous action.

> All that you haven't done so far on this issue is sit in the corner kicking your heels up in the air having a tantrum. I suppose we might have time to witness that yet.

You have imagination.

> Maybe if you hadn't engaged in your usual impersonation of Cato Uticensis on a bad hair day,

I quote Cato Uticensis one time about the laws. It is not an impersonation. But you may have this problem of impersonation with Julius Caesar. How do you wear your laurel crown? :o)

>>> you might have actually resolved this by now. It is also a little late in the day to suddenly start to try to pass yourself off as willing to negotiate with your colleague. <<<

You give me a wish I never had.

>>> Your idea of negotiating is to dig yourself, metaphorically, into a hole in the ground, gather the barb wire. load the machine gun and sit there motionless, throwing out the odd “no” into the darkness like a grenade.<<<

Blah blah blah...

>>> You were going to resolve absolutely nothing Dexter, because you would have indicated that willingness in your posts on these threads, if that had been genuine desire. If you were truly interested in negotiating you would have used the last few days to thrash something out with your colleague.<<<

I never was in the mind to negotiate. But I was not in the mind to decree against the Ludi posts sent on the FH.

>>> Instead you parade around in the forum bemoaning the fact that it is a silly SC, a plot, etc. etc. and making absurd comments about your colleague, none of which advances negotiation, does it? <<<

Here I desagree. The SC is silly. As regards my colleague, I prefer to keep silent.

>>> When you start to be honest about your motivation here, which is not a disinterested analytical, or a logical one, but an emotional “pants on head” reaction, then some of us might take you seriously when you talk about negotiating. <<<

If you think that I wanted to negotiate, so I wrote something wrong. Perhaps I wrote in the indicative something I thought to write in the conditional.

>>> I'm glad you are going to do something productive in the Tabularium, it will be a pleasant change. <<<

I think that you are wrong on my behaviour. Perhaps the barrier of the languages or/and of the habits?

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. IV Nonas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

C. Aemilius Crassus C. Petronio Dextrero omnibusque SPD,




“> The wiki doesn’t have and never could have the true essence of the Ludi. It is the difference between have been in the

> festival and read the reports of the same.

As in the wiki, in the forum we have to wait for the reports. We do not participate more.”

I disagree with you, we do indeed participate more in the fora as active spectators and by just being with everyone else.

“> I don’t think we are going to change the other opinion but obviously internal affairs are internal affairs. What we both

> don’t agree is what you put on internal affairs. By that logic we shouldn’t be able to talk nothing concerning Nova Roma > pass that it does exist. I was against the creation of FH from the start but now I’m convinced it is doing the propose for > which it was created a place where no citizens were not expose to the internal fights that Nova Roma times to times puts > on stage.

Why this sudden attention towards the guests? Wanted Aeternia to be the praetrix of the guests? By her obsession with the games, she is just going to weaken the constitutional imperium of the praetors. Was she elected by the people of Nova Roma, by the Quirites, in order to weaken the praetorian imperium? I knew that she was not very politic, I find out that she was elected to weaken the imperium that the people offered to her. But if it was only her imperium, in fact, she is weakening the power of the praetors. Caesar and Sulla may be satisfied.”

I would call the attention, and it is not sudden, towards the guests a very rational action since most citizens of Nova Roma are first guests some, like me, are indeed guests for a while before even applying to citizenship.

I can’t see how Aeternia appeared in this conversation since we were talking about the Ludi to be or not internal affairs of Nova Roma.

Anyway since you bring this I would like to state that in my personal opinion these kind of attacks are inappropriate and, for whatever maybe worth, that:

- Aeternia is not obsessed with the games. It was her duty last year and she did it extremely well and in most of the year without a colleague. If anything she deserves to be congratulated and not attacked.

- Aeternia has shown to be a hard working person and dedicated to Nova Roma fulfilling her duties from start to end.

- Her actions have only the best interests of Nova Roma in mind. You may disagree that those actions are the best for Nova Roma and debate them but that doesn’t mean to lower to personal attacks.

“> I’m sure that in no one’s mind the Ludi were included in the forbidden subjects on the FH. Because no one consider it

> internal affairs of Nova Roma.

That is not the problem. The problem is: Are the moderation and the management of the Fora publica a function of the praetors? The Constitution of Nova Roma must be followed or not? Nova Roma is it the Republic of one side? “

I disagree, that is the problem and it was what has made this storm. To the best of my knowledge:

- You sent a warning to the Aedilis Curulis threating with moderation if Ludi posts were sent to FH. Deciding by yourself the Ludi to be internal matters of Nova Roma. I contest they are internal matters of Nova Roma as I believe most citizens and most Senators who did vote the creation of FH.

- Consul Caesar deiced to bring the matter to the Senate to resolve the matter after you and Aeternia have informed the Consules and Censores of the differences in the matter. For what I have seen I presume the initiative of that contact was made by you and not by Praetrix Aeternia. So I can’t see how you are attacking her.

- FH isn’t a public forum where the free of speech of citizens is guarantee by the constitution. That forum is the so called ML and there the Praetores rule, subject nevertheless by constitution, leges, superior edicta and so on. In the FH anyone, any citizen can be moderate or removed if infringe the rules set by the Senate. That moderation and actions are taken under the authority of the Praetores but the goals in which the FH works are set in the SC of his creation. By everything I have read so far it was you who have decided unilaterally that Ludi were internal matters so I can’t see better way that the same body that have gave you the mission to moderate FH to clarify if your interpretation of the SC is abusive or not.

“>>>>You are probably right in that there weren’t much participation in the Ludi last year in the FH. To tell the true there wasn’t much participation in any fora, since we all were still somehow recovering from recent events at that time. But before we have lost citizens and peregrines in the last internal war the situation I was talking was common and it would be in the best interest to Nova Roma to see it again.<<<

Before the last internal war, as you say, the problem did not exist. There were one Forum Romanum. One ML.”

Yes, I am aware of that fact. Nevertheless it was in the one ML the guests did participated as active spectators in the Ludi. If now they are only on the FH and if we wish them to participate of the Ludi, since in my opinion they aren’t internal, than we have to bring the Ludi to FH.

“>>> For whatever is worthy my position is:
Matters concerning the away Nova Roma works, strategies and debates concerning those matters they are internal affairs. Only citizens have the duty and the right to decided.
Matters that aren’t the above, even if organized by Nova Roma, aren’t internal matters. For example I don’t see any problem to talk about and announce a meeting organized by Nova Roma (conventus) much on the contrary I will strongly support something that informs the non-citizens of such activities. <<<

Of course. But once more again, that is not the problem. Now, the Senate is voting an order to the praetors. This SC is weakening their imperium. The Senate is changing with a parody of choice the imperium of the praetors. She has voted the diminishing of her imperium. But not only of her, but also of all the future praetors. All that based on a "Dexter is able to use his imperium of moderation". A praetor able to manage and moderate a forum, is a problem for some and for the praetrix who prefers to be the praetrix of the guests than the praetrix of the Nova Romans.”

Once more I can’t see how the discussion of the Ludi being or not internal matters changed to an attack on Praetrix Aeternia. I do not know the SC under vote but I’m sure both you and Aeternia, and every other Senator, voted with the best interests of Nova Roma in mind even disagreeing on what they are. That is why we have the Senate.

Well these are my 2 cents on this matter. I too need a lot of time to write in English and while writing this reply I saw several others on the matter being posted. I don’t want to contribute for another forum hot debate but I think there were some matters I really had to reply.



Vale optime.







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

Caesar Dextro sal.
 
Dexter, I am going to just say that your posts don't indicate any hint of a negotiating stance, a willingness to seek a compromise, an understanding that the ludi come before your concern for your share of imperium. You consistently insult your colleague, you claim late in the day that just because your never issued an edict that indicates you haven't moved to an official position, yet everything else you write indicates that you won't move your views. Ok, that's fine. That is your right. Equally it is my right to decide I am not going to risk the ludi being sacrificed on the alter of your pride and ego. If you started moderating people, the focus would shift from the ludi to your statements and the drama unfolding. That was not something I was going to stand by and risk when you showed no willingness to compromise. There was also no misunderstanding on my part over your posts, or your choice of words, and the fact that English is not your first
language did not affect the clarity of that understanding. Your posts were continually riddled with absurd claims and verged on histrionic in tone. There was absolutely nothing in them to indicate negotiation. Just bruised ego.
 
No, I don't think I am wrong about your behaviour. If you don't have enough emotional detachment to step back from your posts and ask if you are over exaggerating and making negotiation less likely then I hope you never have to deal with a real issue in this forum, as I suspect your responses will be punitive and based on emotive response. We have seen that before here. .
 
All you had to do if you really wanted to retain control of this issue, was sort it out before the Senate vote. This isn't rocket science. Had you written to your colleague off-list, minus the usual dose of insults and offered to negotiate, well you might have been able to tell the Senate that it was all resolved by the praetors. Instead you wasted time thinking up new ways to make negotiation less likely. You were disingenuous in your legal arguments, claiming the Constitution was being violated, when what you meant was your imperium was being violated in your mind. It was all just on your part, as you would say, just a a lot of "blah blah blah" from you wasn't it?
 
I can't help if you and your precious imperium feel you have been violated Dexter. Go get counseling for you both if it bothers you that much. I am afraid my imperium is bigger than yours in this case, so I guess you will just have to suck it up, or continue bleating.
 
Optime vale.   

From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Ludi and FH


 
Dexter Caesari sal.,

> As well as being the arbiter on Aternia's character, you now set yourself up as judge on choices of names?

Of course. And I am polite.

> You have an a huge ego problem.

Of course. And you are doctor.

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

Cato Caesari sal.

I agree that *we* disagree, but the point is not that this is just a discussion between us; we operate in a court of public opinion as well, and it affects the whole Respublica, and the future of the Respublica and how it will be governed. I would point out two sentences from your reply which, I think, express the very core of this disconnect we are having:

CAESAR: "I believe it is unacceptable to see the hard work preparing the ludi tossed away...."

I agree that it would be a shame to see the hard work of the ludi "tossed away", but in fact it is not. This is sheer hyperbole. The ludi *are* being celebrated publicly; they are simply not being played out in a specific, non-citizen-based arena. The Forum still enjoys it, and our citizens are in the Forum. Broadcasting them in the FH is absolutely unessential. Non-interference in the work of magistrates *is* essential.

CAESAR: "This isn't an exercise in playing at Roman government, it is meant to be an organization that functions."

I agree. This is an exercise in *practicing* Roman government. This is a *Roman* government, a *Roman* organization, not just a regular, run-of-the-mill, could-be-anyone-anywhere internet group. When you start deciding that being purely functional is more important than keeping the essential character of who we are, you lose sight of the whole purpose for our existence. Think of the tripartite of body, mind & soul: the body of the Respublica is its functioning, the mind of the Respublica is its romanitas, and the soul of the Respublica is the religiones Romanae. None of them is more important than the other, yet diminishing any one of them diminishes the whole.

Collegiality exists for a very specific reason; undermining that reason diminishes us, diminishes our Respublica, and slowly we will simply become just another internet group, with Roman names. The end does not justify the means, even if that end must be attained more slowly than some might desire.

Vale bene,

Cato

Cato Cornelio Sullae Petronio Dextero praetore SPD

So what Petronius Dexter is saying is that he did not actually moderate anyone for posting the ludi in the FH? If this is true, why on earth are we even debating this senatus consultum in the Senate? I too would like to know.

Petronius Dexter, Cornelia Aeternia, I ask you both directly: where posts in the FH moderated because they referred to the ludi?

Valete bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave!
>
> Show us these facts. I know I am interested in seeing how you felt your
> first opinion was too strong. I am sure your colleague would too..and Caeca
> and the Consul and the rest of the People.
>
> Please show us these hereto unforseen facts.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:00 AM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Dexter Catoni salutem,
> >
> >
> > >>> The issue is not exploding. You simply have two colleagues who
> > disagree; as Cornelius Sulla stated, Petronius Dexter moderates and
> > Aeternia Cornelia vetoes. The status quo remains. Aeternia is frustrated
> > and Dexter is grumpy. So be it. <<<
> >
> > That is one possibility. Another was nearest the real, because I did not
> > make an edict against the posts sent on the FH during the Ludi Novi Romani.
> > Then, perhaps was I on the point to agree that I had been too strict in my
> > first opinion.
> >
> > And the facts may show it.
> > I did not decree against the posts concerning the Ludi sent on the FH.
> > Nothing was in preparation. I was occupied by the ordering of the laws by
> > topics and I had summitted to the both consuls a project of Latin version
> > of the oath of office, in which it was not necessary to know the gender
> > neither the Latin declension. I wanted to know if this Latin version may be
> > official and officially used by the future magistrates.
> >
> > Even, for a Latin version I do not act alone or on my only own impulse.
> > They know that, such Caesar as Aeternia, before I make any official act I
> > beg a lot of advices. I never act in a rush neither without asking
> > conflicting advices to make my own opinion.
> >
> > And suddenly, I see in the agenda of the Senate meeting at the end of the
> > month an item on this past, after the Ludi Novi Romani. "There has been a
> > division of opinion between the praetors"... And of course a division of
> > opinion needs a Senatus Consultum. And what Senatus consultum!
> >
> > Is it a problem of ego to think that that Senatus Consultum is an insult?
> > People will see.
> >
> > Optime vale.
> >
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> > Arcoiali scribebat
> > a. d. IV Nonas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Cato Corneliae Aeterniae praetore sal.

Yes, but "dragedy" (I like it!) does not justify interference in the working of collegial magistracies, no matter how distasteful you might find it.

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>
> Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C. Catoni Cn, Caesari Consuli sal.
>
> Even if the hypothetical theorem would've been, Dexter moderates and I
> intercessio, it would not have been left at just that. You and I both know
> that one Cato...
>
> My colleague would still run through the virtual fora, saying how it was
> silly, a shame, blindsided , and still hurling insults towards me and
> anyone else who happened to disagree with the fact Dexter may have been
> vetoed on just cause.
>
> Yes the circumstance may have been different, but we'd end up on the same
> road we are now on.
>
> This Dragedy. (the word drama and tragedy put together). Most
> unfortunately...
>
> Valete Optime,
> Aeternia
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Ave,

OH simple, because as Curule Aedile Caeca pointed out he has threatened to
moderate.

Think of it this way, Cato - this is reminiscent of you being devils
advocate over calling provacatio over the edict that was promulgated over
the requirement of Translations.

Considering the imminent threat of moderation that Preator Dexter issued -
this was something I asked earlier in the week to all magistrates
involved. Could they reasonably foresee Dexter issuing moderation. All of
them said yes.

Vale,

Sulla

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Cato Cornelio Sullae Petronio Dextero praetore SPD
>
> So what Petronius Dexter is saying is that he did not actually moderate
> anyone for posting the ludi in the FH? If this is true, why on earth are we
> even debating this senatus consultum in the Senate? I too would like to
> know.
>
> Petronius Dexter, Cornelia Aeternia, I ask you both directly: where posts
> in the FH moderated because they referred to the ludi?
>
> Valete bene,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > Show us these facts. I know I am interested in seeing how you felt your
> > first opinion was too strong. I am sure your colleague would too..and
> Caeca
> > and the Consul and the rest of the People.
> >
> > Please show us these hereto unforseen facts.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:00 AM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Dexter Catoni salutem,
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> The issue is not exploding. You simply have two colleagues who
> > > disagree; as Cornelius Sulla stated, Petronius Dexter moderates and
> > > Aeternia Cornelia vetoes. The status quo remains. Aeternia is
> frustrated
> > > and Dexter is grumpy. So be it. <<<
> > >
> > > That is one possibility. Another was nearest the real, because I did
> not
> > > make an edict against the posts sent on the FH during the Ludi Novi
> Romani.
> > > Then, perhaps was I on the point to agree that I had been too strict
> in my
> > > first opinion.
> > >
> > > And the facts may show it.
> > > I did not decree against the posts concerning the Ludi sent on the FH.
> > > Nothing was in preparation. I was occupied by the ordering of the laws
> by
> > > topics and I had summitted to the both consuls a project of Latin
> version
> > > of the oath of office, in which it was not necessary to know the gender
> > > neither the Latin declension. I wanted to know if this Latin version
> may be
> > > official and officially used by the future magistrates.
> > >
> > > Even, for a Latin version I do not act alone or on my only own impulse.
> > > They know that, such Caesar as Aeternia, before I make any official
> act I
> > > beg a lot of advices. I never act in a rush neither without asking
> > > conflicting advices to make my own opinion.
> > >
> > > And suddenly, I see in the agenda of the Senate meeting at the end of
> the
> > > month an item on this past, after the Ludi Novi Romani. "There has
> been a
> > > division of opinion between the praetors"... And of course a division
> of
> > > opinion needs a Senatus Consultum. And what Senatus consultum!
> > >
> > > Is it a problem of ego to think that that Senatus Consultum is an
> insult?
> > > People will see.
> > >
> > > Optime vale.
> > >
> > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > a. d. IV Nonas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


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

Dexter Catoni sal.,

>>>  Petronius Dexter, Cornelia Aeternia, I ask you both directly: where posts in the FH moderated because they referred to the ludi? <<<

 
None post was moderated because it referred to the ludi.
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. IV Nonas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

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

Salve Cato,

No they were not at this time, but there was a subtle threat threat to two
of my scribes one being the Curule Aedile, that if posts to the FH
regarding the Ludi, they would be removed as moderators/list managers.
You'll find the post mishappenedly posted to the FH nonetheless...

If my colleague was willing to do that, I feel very strongly he would have
moderated people in the end..

Vale bene,
Aeternia


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

Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C. Equitio Catoni sal.

You know I always hold you in the highest regard (even when we disagree)
=o). Btw, I like "dragedy" too!

I understand what you are saying, you would have rather have seen an
intercessio issued, and the normal process go through than having the
Senate resolve it correct?

There's a lot more I'd like to cover however I am at work so responses must
be kept brief..

Vale bene,
Aeternia

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Cato Corneliae Aeterniae praetore sal.
>
> Yes, but "dragedy" (I like it!) does not justify interference in the
> working of collegial magistracies, no matter how distasteful you might find
> it.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C. Catoni Cn, Caesari Consuli sal.
> >
> > Even if the hypothetical theorem would've been, Dexter moderates and I
> > intercessio, it would not have been left at just that. You and I both
> know
> > that one Cato...
> >
> > My colleague would still run through the virtual fora, saying how it was
> > silly, a shame, blindsided , and still hurling insults towards me and
> > anyone else who happened to disagree with the fact Dexter may have been
> > vetoed on just cause.
> >
> > Yes the circumstance may have been different, but we'd end up on the same
> > road we are now on.
> >
> > This Dragedy. (the word drama and tragedy put together). Most
> > unfortunately...
> >
> > Valete Optime,
> > Aeternia
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>



--
"De mortuis nil nisi bonum"


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

Dexter Catoni salutem,
 

>>> So what Petronius Dexter is saying is that he did not actually moderate anyone for posting the ludi in the FH?  If this is true, why on earth are we even debating this senatus consultum in the Senate?  I too would like to know. <<<

 
It is true. I never moderated any post. And as I say since the call to convene the Senate, the day I read that the point IV was on a division of opinions between my colleague and me, I claim to the farce and the silliness of this SC. Caesar and Aeternia are making fun of the Senate. I wanted to know if the Senate was free and noble, I have my answer.
 
I just developped my opinion without making any decision. To develop and defend his opinion, is usual when there is division of opinion, and as long as it is an opinion, it is not an act.
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. IV Nonas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

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

Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C. Petronio Dextro C. Equitio Catoni Omnibusque
S.P.D.

I apologize for intruding, but I would disagree.

We could not come to a conclusion Dexter, it was left hanging, and no one
felt comfortable posting to the FH in fear of you moderating them.

You knew my stance, I stated it here, I stated it on the FH, I stated it in
the Praetura, I stated it in the private thread that all the Curule
Magistrates, as did you, and both of our answers were "No."

We were at an impasse..

During that thread with the Curule Magistrates, the Consul did happen the
disagreement betwixt the Praetors. When Caesar usually says that something
needs defining, usually there is a SC that goes with it, or am I only
individual in all of Nova Roma to have noticed that?

People have the free will to disagree or agree Dexter, or do you want that
taken away from them?

See we're at it again...

Valete bene,
Aeternia

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Jean-Fran�ois Arnoud
<jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Dexter Catoni salutem,
>
>
> >>> So what Petronius Dexter is saying is that he did not actually
> moderate anyone for posting the ludi in the FH? If this is true, why on
> earth are we even debating this senatus consultum in the Senate? I too
> would like to know. <<<
>
> It is true. I never moderated any post. And as I say since the call to
> convene the Senate, the day I read that the point IV was on a division of
> opinions between my colleague and me, I claim to the farce and the
> silliness of this SC. Caesar and Aeternia are making fun of the Senate. I
> wanted to know if the Senate was free and noble, I have my answer.
>
> I just developped my opinion without making any decision. To develop and
> defend his opinion, is usual when there is division of opinion, and as long
> as it is an opinion, it is not an act.
>
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. IV Nonas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

--
"De mortuis nil nisi bonum"


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

Caesar Catoni sal.
 
Exactly how motivated do you think people will be to participate in the middle of a flame war over a posting, either here or on FH? How motivated do you think the team that puts the ludi will be? As I said we disagree.
 
Optime vale 
 

From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 11:17 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ludi and FH


 
Cato Caesari sal.

I agree that *we* disagree, but the point is not that this is just a discussion between us; we operate in a court of public opinion as well, and it affects the whole Respublica, and the future of the Respublica and how it will be governed. I would point out two sentences from your reply which, I think, express the very core of this disconnect we are having:

CAESAR: "I believe it is unacceptable to see the hard work preparing the ludi tossed away...."

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

Caesar Catoni sal.
 
Who said he did moderate anyone? No one. If you read the posts here and the Senate, it is clear I am asking the Senate to prevent that unnecessary diversion from any ludi. However, from statements made here it seems that Dexter may have written to the FH moderators, and there maybe have been some mention of removing them if they accepted posts? If true then he was contemplating punitive action, which doesn't really fit with being ready to negotiate, or preparing to be ready, or thinking about being ready, or defining the word "ready" for himself. Whatever. On the one hand he says one thing and on the other does nothing or the opposite. You wonder why I took it to the Senate for a decision? Because nothing he says adds up. 
 
I keep telling you, the ludi are more important than Dexter, his ego, or his co-dependency with his imperium. Maybe he should just get it over and marry his imperium stick and do the decent thing by it and make it legal, instead of fondling it surreptitiously all the time.
 
Optime vale

From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 11:20 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ludi and FH


 
Cato Cornelio Sullae Petronio Dextero praetore SPD

So what Petronius Dexter is saying is that he did not actually moderate anyone for posting the ludi in the FH? If this is true, why on earth are we even debating this senatus consultum in the Senate? I too would like to know.

Petronius Dexter, Cornelia Aeternia, I ask you both directly: where posts in the FH moderated because they referred to the ludi?

Valete bene,

Cato


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

Savete Romans! Come everybody join the discussion. Valete Ti. Galerius Paulinus
To: NovaRomaBookClub@yahoogroups.com
From: yehya_61@...
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 12:38:01 +0000
Subject: [NovaRomaBookClub] Re: Classical Reading Group - De Natura Deorum




























Salvete Omnes!



THE NATURE OF THE GODS.



BOOK I.



VII. Indeed, says I, I think I am come very seasonably, as you say; for

here are three chiefs of three principal sects met together. If M.

Piso was present, no sect of philosophy that is in any esteem would

want an advocate. If Antiochus's book, replies Cotta, which he lately

sent to Balbus, says true, you have no occasion to wish for your friend

Piso; for Antiochus is of the opinion that the Stoics do not differ

from the Peripatetics in fact, though they do in words; and I should be

glad to know what you think of that book, Balbus. I? says he. I wonder

that Antiochus, a man of the clearest apprehension, should not see what

a vast difference there is between the Stoics, who distinguish the

honest and the profitable, not only in name, but absolutely in kind,

and the Peripatetics, who blend the honest with the profitable in such

a manner that they differ only in degrees and proportion, and not in

kind. This is not a little difference in words, but a great one in

things; but of this hereafter. Now, if you think fit, let us return to

what we began with.



With all my heart, says Cotta. But that this visitor (looking at me),

who is just come in, may not be ignorant of what we are upon, I will

inform him that we were discoursing on the nature of the Gods;

concerning which, as it is a subject that always appeared very obscure

to me, I prevailed on Velleius to give us the sentiments of Epicurus.

Therefore, continues he, if it is not troublesome, Velleius, repeat

what you have already stated to us. I will, says he, though this

new-comer will be no advocate for me, but for you; for you have both,

adds he, with a smile, learned from the same Philo to be certain of

nothing. What we have learned from him, replied I, Cotta will

discover; but I would not have you think I am come as an assistant to

him, but as an auditor, with an impartial and unbiassed mind, and not

bound by any obligation to defend any particular principle, whether I

like or dislike it.



VIII. After this, Velleius, with the confidence peculiar to his sect,

dreading nothing so much as to seem to doubt of anything, began as if

he had just then descended from the council of the Gods, and Epicurus's

intervals of worlds. Do not attend, says he, to these idle and

imaginary tales; nor to the operator and builder of the World, the God

of Plato's Tim�us; nor to the old prophetic dame, the [Greek: Pronoia]

of the Stoics, which the Latins call Providence; nor to that round,

that burning, revolving deity, the World, endowed with sense and

understanding; the prodigies and wonders, not of inquisitive

philosophers, but of dreamers!



For with what eyes of the mind was your Plato able to see that

workhouse of such stupendous toil, in which he makes the world to be

modelled and built by God? What materials, what tools, what bars, what

machines, what servants, were employed in so vast a work? How could the

air, fire, water, and earth pay obedience and submit to the will of the

architect? From whence arose those five forms, of which the rest

were composed, so aptly contributing to frame the mind and produce the

senses? It is tedious to go through all, as they are of such a sort

that they look more like things to be desired than to be discovered.



But, what is more remarkable, he gives us a world which has been not

only created, but, if I may so say, in a manner formed with hands, and

yet he says it is eternal. Do you conceive him to have the least skill

in natural philosophy who is capable of thinking anything to be

everlasting that had a beginning? For what can possibly ever have been

put together which cannot be dissolved again? Or what is there that had

a beginning which will not have an end? If your Providence, Lucilius,

is the same as Plato's God, I ask you, as before, who were the

assistants, what were the engines, what was the plan and preparation of

the whole work? If it is not the same, then why did she make the world

mortal, and not everlasting, like Plato's God?



IX. But I would demand of you both, why these world-builders started up

so suddenly, and lay dormant for so many ages? For we are not to

conclude that, if there was no world, there were therefore no ages. I

do not now speak of such ages as are finished by a certain number of

days and nights in annual courses; for I acknowledge that those could

not be without the revolution of the world; but there was a certain

eternity from infinite time, not measured by any circumscription of

seasons; but how that was in space we cannot understand, because we

cannot possibly have even the slightest idea of time before time was. I

desire, therefore, to know, Balbus, why this Providence of yours was

idle for such an immense space of time? Did she avoid labor? But that

could have no effect on the Deity; nor could there be any labor, since

all nature, air, fire, earth, and water would obey the divine essence.

What was it that incited the Deity to act the part of an �dile, to

illuminate and decorate the world? If it was in order that God might be

the better accommodated in his habitation, then he must have been

dwelling an infinite length of time before in darkness as in a dungeon.

But do we imagine that he was afterward delighted with that variety

with which we see the heaven and earth adorned? What entertainment

could that be to the Deity? If it was any, he would not have been

without it so long.



Or were these things made, as you almost assert, by God for the sake of

men? Was it for the wise? If so, then this great design was adopted for

the sake of a very small number. Or for the sake of fools? First of

all, there was no reason why God should consult the advantage of the

wicked; and, further, what could be his object in doing so, since all

fools are, without doubt, the most miserable of men, chiefly because

they are fools? For what can we pronounce more deplorable than folly?

Besides, there are many inconveniences in life which the wise can learn

to think lightly of by dwelling rather on the advantages which they

receive; but which fools are unable to avoid when they are coming, or

to bear when they are come.



X. They who affirm the world to be an animated and intelligent being

have by no means discovered the nature of the mind, nor are able to

conceive in what form that essence can exist; but of that I shall speak

more hereafter. At present I must express my surprise at the weakness

of those who endeavor to make it out to be not only animated and

immortal, but likewise happy, and round, because Plato says that is the

most beautiful form; whereas I think a cylinder, a square, a cone, or a

pyramid more beautiful. But what life do they attribute to that round

Deity? Truly it is a being whirled about with a celerity to which

nothing can be even conceived by the imagination as equal; nor can I

imagine how a settled mind and happy life can consist in such motion,

the least degree of which would be troublesome to us. Why, therefore,

should it not be considered troublesome also to the Deity? For the

earth itself, as it is part of the world, is part also of the Deity. We

see vast tracts of land barren and uninhabitable; some, because they

are scorched by the too near approach of the sun; others, because they

are bound up with frost and snow, through the great distance which the

sun is from them. Therefore, if the world is a Deity, as these are

parts of the world, some of the Deity's limbs must be said to be

scorched, and some frozen.



These are your doctrines, Lucilius; but what those of others are I will

endeavor to ascertain by tracing them back from the earliest of ancient

philosophers. Thales the Milesian, who first inquired after such

subjects, asserted water to be the origin of things, and that God was

that mind which formed all things from water. If the Gods can exist

without corporeal sense, and if there can be a mind without a body, why

did he annex a mind to water?



It was Anaximander's opinion that the Gods were born; that after a

great length of time they died; and that they are innumerable worlds.

But what conception can we possibly have of a Deity who is not eternal?



Anaximenes, after him, taught that the air is God, and that he was

generated, and that he is immense, infinite, and always in motion; as

if air, which has no form, could possibly be God; for the Deity must

necessarily be not only of some form or other, but of the most

beautiful form. Besides, is not everything that had a beginning subject

to mortality?



Valete



C. Claudius Axenrothus


















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