Selected messages in Nova-Roma group. Jul 11-15, 2013

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91007 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-07-11
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Centuriata - Text and discussion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91008 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-11
Subject: Re: Veneta uncovers Albata's Secret Weapon
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91009 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2013-07-11
Subject: Re: Veneta uncovers Albata's Secret Weapon
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91010 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-11
Subject: Re: Veneta uncovers Albata's Secret Weapon
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91011 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-11
Subject: CENSORIAL EDICT - REMOVAL OF NOTA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91012 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2013-07-12
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Centuriata - Text and discussion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91013 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2013-07-12
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Cursu Honorum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91014 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2013-07-12
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Cursu Honorum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91015 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2013-07-12
Subject: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HISTORICAL QUIZ - second set of answers
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91016 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2013-07-12
Subject: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HISTORICAL QUIZ - final set of questions
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91017 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-12
Subject: Appointment of Procurator
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91018 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-12
Subject: Call to all Factios - IMPORTANT INFO
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91019 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-12
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Cursu Honorum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91020 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-12
Subject: Re: [SenatusRomanus] CENSORIAL EDICT - REMOVAL OF NOTA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91021 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-12
Subject: Announcement
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91022 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Apparitoribus - Text and discussion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91023 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Apparitoribus - Text and discussion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91024 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Cursu Honorum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91025 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Centuriata - Text and discussion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91026 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91027 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSE RACE - PART 1
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91028 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSE RACE - PART 1
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91029 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Centuriata - Text and discussion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91030 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Cursu Honorum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91031 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91032 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Apparitoribus - Text and discussion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91033 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Apparitoribus - Text and discussion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91034 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSE RACE - PART 1
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91035 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSERACE - THE RACE
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91036 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSERACE - THE RACE
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91037 From: Aemilius Crassus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSERACE - THE RACE
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91038 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91039 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HISTORICAL QUIZ - final set of answers, and
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91040 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSERACE - THE RACE
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91041 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: LUDI APOLLINARES - CLOSING SACRIFICE
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91042 From: avbarbatus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES - CLOSING SACRIFICE
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91043 From: avbarbatus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSE RACE - PART 1
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91044 From: avbarbatus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HISTORICAL QUIZ - second set of answers
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91045 From: avbarbatus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: More improvements
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91046 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSERACE - THE RACE
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91047 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: More music for our Ludi!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91048 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Something more traditional ...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91049 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: and one more (for the time being)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91050 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91051 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91052 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91053 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91054 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: 22 hours left for Contio in Comitia Plebis Tributa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91055 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: 22 hours left for Contio in Comitia Plebis Tributa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91056 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Pontifices and the Plebeian elections
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91057 From: Aemilius Crassus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Ludi Apollinares 2766- Certamen Mythologicum "Mythology Quiz" (Dies
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91058 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Ludi Apollinares: final musical offering!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91059 From: Aemilius Crassus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Ludi Apollinares closing ceremony
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91060 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91061 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91062 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91063 From: avbarbatus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSE RACE - PART 1
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91064 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSE RACE - PART 1
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91065 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Pontifices and the Plebeian elections
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91066 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91067 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91068 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91069 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91070 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Pontifices and the Plebeian elections
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91071 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91072 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91073 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: To Dexter and Scholastica
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91074 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91075 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91076 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91077 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91078 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91079 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91080 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91081 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91082 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91083 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91084 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91085 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91086 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91087 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91088 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91089 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91090 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91091 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91092 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91093 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91094 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91095 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91096 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91097 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91098 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91099 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91100 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91101 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91102 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91103 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91104 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91105 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91106 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91107 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91108 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91109 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91110 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91111 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91112 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91113 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Tomorrrow
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91114 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: 22 hours left for Contio in Comitia Plebis Tributa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91115 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91116 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Contio closed for Comitia Plebis Tributa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91117 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91118 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91119 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91120 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima QFM
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91121 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91122 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91123 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima QFM
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91124 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91125 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima QFM
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91126 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91127 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91128 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91129 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima QFM
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91130 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91131 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91132 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91133 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91134 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima QFM
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91135 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91136 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91137 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91138 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91139 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91140 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91141 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91142 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91143 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91144 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91145 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91146 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91147 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91148 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91149 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91150 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91151 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91152 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91153 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91154 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91155 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Li...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91156 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91157 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91158 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Li...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91159 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91160 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91161 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Reply to point one
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91162 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Reply to point one
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91163 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Religious Revision???...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91164 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Pontiffs and the absurdity of the Camilla Program...IMO
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91165 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Pontiffs and the absurdity of the Camilla Program...IMO
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91166 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: Pontiffs and the absurdity of the Camilla Program...IMO
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91167 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: On Being Roman
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91168 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: On Being Roman
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91169 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: On Being Roman
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91170 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: On Being Roman
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91171 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: On Being Roman
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91172 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: Pontiffs and the absurdity of the Camilla Program...IMO
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91173 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: On Being Roman
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91174 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: Pontiffs and the absurdity of the Camilla Program...IMO
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91175 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: On Being Roman
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91176 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: Pontiffs and the absurdity of the Camilla Program...IMO
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91177 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: Pontiffs and the absurdity of the Camilla Program...IMO
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91178 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91179 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Report of Senate session closed on 9 July 2013
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91180 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: Religious Revision???...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91181 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91182 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91007 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-07-11
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Centuriata - Text and discussion
Salve amice!

I will go a step further. How about the state granting 5 or 10 Census
Points in each of the first three years of citizenship plus a one time
grant of either 10 for patricians or 5 for plebeians when they join.
Granting points during the first three years will provide time to meet
the requirements for office if they choose to pursue the cursus honorum.

Optime vale.

Marcus Pompeius Caninus
Tribunus Plebis
America Boreoccidentalis

Vivat Nova Roma!





-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Cornelia de Centuriata - Text and
discussion
From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@... Date: Thu, July 11, 2013 5:35 pm
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Salve amice

How about this as a compromise. We cut it off after one year after
joining. That way it is aimed at new citizens only. A jump start from
the "state" on CP and thereafter it is up to them.

Vale bene
Caesar

________________________________
From: M. Pompeius Caninus <caninus@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 6:12 PM
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Lex Cornelia de Centuriata - Text and
discussion



Caninus Fabio sal.

Based on what you, Caesar and Caeca have said, I can see there is some
value in granting Census Points for Patrician or Plebeian status as
well
as granting points for time as a citizen. These small awards of Census
Points allow for a bit of Century Class mobility for those citizens who
have no desire to pursue the Cursus Honorum. I would rather the Census
Points reflect a purer measure of activity and contribution of effort
but I can live with including points for these items in the final lex.

Fac valeas!

Marcus Pompeius Caninus
Tribunus Plebis
America Boreoccidentalis

Vivat Nova Roma!

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Cornelia de Centuriata - Text and
discussion
From: QFabiusMaxmi@...
Date: Thu, July 11, 2013 3:45 pm
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

In a message dated 7/11/2013 2:18:30 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
caninus@... writes:

Does
being a Patrician or a Plebeian really reflect any activity worthy of a
reward? Of course not. So drop the points for this social status and
make things a bit more simple and straightforward.

QFM: And what do we Patricians think of this?

You realize there would be no Nova Roma without the famous Patrician
Gentes
that ensured its survival.
So in answer to your question, YES IT DOES!

Q. Fabius Maximus

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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91008 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-11
Subject: Re: Veneta uncovers Albata's Secret Weapon
Salve Triari!



Oh! I didn't know you were a stringer for the Tiber Tattler! How .nice
.for you! Actually, we don't need secret weapons. One doesn't, when one
has the fastest horses and the best drivers!



Vale Bene!

C. Maria Caeca

Albata Victoria Semper Albata!



(advice to citizens: Place your wagers wisely! White is such a nice color,
don't you think?)



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91009 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2013-07-11
Subject: Re: Veneta uncovers Albata's Secret Weapon
GO BLUE!

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: c.mariacaeca@...
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:26:14 -0400
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Veneta uncovers Albata's Secret Weapon


























Salve Triari!



Oh! I didn't know you were a stringer for the Tiber Tattler! How .nice

.for you! Actually, we don't need secret weapons. One doesn't, when one

has the fastest horses and the best drivers!



Vale Bene!



C. Maria Caeca



Albata Victoria Semper Albata!



(advice to citizens: Place your wagers wisely! White is such a nice color,

don't you think?)



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



















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91010 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-11
Subject: Re: Veneta uncovers Albata's Secret Weapon
Salvete!

Yes, GO BLUE! I've heard that ... Parthia is lovely this time of year ;).
Just leave the race to Albata, we'll be just fine!

Albata Victoria! Semper Albata!
Valete bene!
C. Maria Caeca
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91011 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-11
Subject: CENSORIAL EDICT - REMOVAL OF NOTA
Ti. Galerius Paulinus censor Cn. Iulius Caesar censor sal.

CENSORIAL EDICT - REMOVAL OF NOTA

I. The censorial nota placed upon Quintus Fabius Maximus is cancelled due to his having satisfied the censors by way of a public apology to Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix.

II. Quintus Fabius Maximus's rights to vote within Nova Roma are fully restored and he is re-admitted to the Senate of Nova Roma under the provisions of section IV.A of the lex Popillia senatoria. 

Optime valete

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91012 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2013-07-12
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Centuriata - Text and discussion
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91013 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2013-07-12
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Cursu Honorum
on
were
aediles
were
wrote:
of the
citizens to
magistrates
it.
years.
Consul for
year.
twins
years.
Tribune of
Governor
many
we
Provincial
years.
positions
Latin:
years.
positions
substitute
The
may
years.
should
should
but
all.
met
Apparitore
puberty
immature
encourage
Roma and
the
praetor.).
approval of
from the
such
last
end of
minimum
office?
replacement
right
Full
d.
vote
in the
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91014 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2013-07-12
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Cursu Honorum
for
(going
be
maximum
than
at
the
studied
a
people
Nova
not
of
had
eligibility
V of the
citizens to
magistrates
for
on it.
howler
singular;
years.
Consul for
a year.
twins
years.
Tribune
Governor
How
do we
be
Provincial
years.
Latin:
years.
here. The
senate may
candidate
one
years.
Aedile,
you
the
days,
at
must met
year.
Apparitore
magistrate,
Constitution
are
olds
encourage
Roma and
scribe/accensus
to the
praetor.).
approval of
from
their
of
the
add
and end
minimum
office?
be
such
replacement
the right
Full
Roma d.
the
for a vote
not in
unless
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91015 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2013-07-12
Subject: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HISTORICAL QUIZ - second set of answers
Salvete omnes!

It is a cooler afternoon here in Rome, and the quiz competitors are enjoying a break from their research.

There were four questions to be answered, and the answers follow below. I must applaud all five competitors on the high quality of their research, and the way they have presented their answers. Here are the official answers:-

4. How many wars were there against this Roman enemy?

No one had any trouble with this one. There were three Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage.

5. Name the chief commander, on each side, at the end of the first of these wars?

This one saw a division between competitors.
The chief commander on the Roman side was clearly Gaius Lutatius Catulus, the Roman Consul and force commander. Everyone agreed on this part.

However, there was a different view on the second part. The majority named Hamilcar Barca, but one named Hanno the Great (the second of the three Hanno personalities). Hanno was indeed appointed to command the Carthaginian fleet, which was defeated at the final battle of the war, the Battle of the Aegates Islands. In the context of this decisive battle, Hanno was indeed a commander. But he was not the supreme overall Carthaginian commander. The Carthaginians, on hearing of the naval defeat, at once gave gave Hamilcar the authority to negotiate peace with the Romans.  So,Hamilcar Barca was the chief commander of all the Carthaginian forces at the end of the First Punic War.


6. Where were the instructions for setting up these games found?

All agreed on this one. The instructions for the Ludi Appolinares were found in the Carmina Marciana, the two books of the oracle Marcius. The Sibylline Books were also consulted to confirm that the prophecy was correct.

7. Where in Rome were these games first held?

And yes, indeed, the Ludi Apollinares were first held in the Circus Maximus. All five were again correct.

I shall post the remaining three questions very shortly. Please note that these next three will need to be answered by this time tomorrow (Saturday)

Valete omnes!

Crispus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91016 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2013-07-12
Subject: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HISTORICAL QUIZ - final set of questions
Salvete omnes!

Just as the contestants were enjoying their break, here come the final set of three questions.

And we're going for a sprint finish, because these three need to be answered by this time tomorrow.

8. Name two ancient sites, both beginning with the letter D, where Apollo was honoured.

9. What sea creature is particularly associated with the god?

10. In what year (written as a Roman year) were these Ludi first held in Nova Roma?


Please send your answers only to this address:-
****************************************************
jbshr1pwa@...
****************************************************

Please do NOT reply to this message.

Good luck to you all, and I hope to see you all here tomorrow.

Valete omnes!

Crispus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91017 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-12
Subject: Appointment of Procurator
Salvete omnes,
 
I, L. Vitellius Triarius, Dominus praefectus venetus, hereby appoint L. Ulpius Alletus as Procurator factionis for Factio Veneta to serve for both the Stables and the Ludus.  As Procurator factionis, he will be responsible for maintaining the historical records databases and assisting the Dominus factionis with any questions by Factio members concerning the operations of the Factio in the various Ludi games. 
 
This appointment falls within the private company sector.  Procuratores essentially are the private company equivalent of the Governmental Scribae, but do not earn CPs.
 
At this time, if anyone has questions about records updating/modifying/deleting on the various Factio Veneta pages, please contact Alletus or myself, and please DO NOT update the pages yourself.  This will prevent any mistakes or controversies in the historical record, and keep us from losing our minds amdst the confusion. 
 
If anyone would like to help with page coding, contact Alletus or myself.
 
Valete optime,
Triarius

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91018 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-12
Subject: Call to all Factios - IMPORTANT INFO
Salvete omnes,
 
We are beginning the updates of the Factio and Ludus pages on the wiki per the Curator. 
 
We are trying to update the historical records of each and bring everything up to date before the end of the year.
 
I need to know the following for the four Factiones:
 
1) Name of Dominus praefectus/a - The person in charge of the Stables (Circenses) and factio leader.
 
2) Name of Procurator (private company scriba) - who will be willing to assist with maintaining and updating the wiki pages for their Factio and Ludus.
 
3) Name of Lanista - The person who will be in charge of the Munera Gladiatoria (gladiators) and Venationes (animals).
 
4) Any historical records that Factio members may have on their Factio already.
 
5) Any content that you would like to have added to your Factio's page - We are going to standardize the pages, so Cives can navigate them better, however, there will be some parts that will customizable for the different companies, per the approval of the Factio Doms.
 
You may contact me on the Main List or email lvtriarius@...
 
Valete optime,
Triarius

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91019 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-12
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Cursu Honorum
Scholastica,

I stand by every single word I typed.

Let me repeat it again.

I think we need to keep in mind that this "instructor" is the same one that
I stand by every single word.

Have a good day.

Vale,

Sulla


On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:23 AM, A. Tullia Scholastica <
fororom@...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91020 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-12
Subject: Re: [SenatusRomanus] CENSORIAL EDICT - REMOVAL OF NOTA
Ave,

I am very pleased that this is removed and we can put this episode in the
past and move froward.

Respectfully,

Sulla


On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91021 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-12
Subject: Announcement
Avete Omnes,

It is my sincere pleasure to announce that one of our esteemed citizens has
had a wonderful and amazing achievement.

My friend, Senator Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus has published his first
book! It is currently available on Kindle and soon to be on paper.

Here is the link:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Emperors-American-ebook/dp/B00DSDPRMM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373116212&sr=8-1&keywords=Emperor%27s+American+Art+McGrath

I wish him the best success and I am looking forward to reading his books!

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91022 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Apparitoribus - Text and discussion
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91023 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Apparitoribus - Text and discussion
C. Petronius Dexter L. Cornelio Sullae consuli sine collega salutem,

Why the sudden need to limit the number of apparitors, when the number of magistrates is lower each year? The lack of citizens wanting to stand for magistracies makes you a consul without colleague, Crassus a praetor without colleague, many positions not fulfilled. 3 tribunes of the Plebs on 5 provided. 1 curul aedil, 1 edil plebeian instead of 2 for each magistracy, etc. I prefer to stop there than to develop all the disaster of this year about the number of magistrates.

You see and recognize that the magistrate positions are not yet, after 6 months, fulfilled but you propose a law for limiting the number of the apparitors? Where, in which sky are you living?

Reading the beginning of the proposal I see that you wrote: "creating bureaucratic nepotism is highly discouraged."
First that is absolutely contrary to the roman way of life, where a son was the mirror and the living continuation of his father. Young son and nephew of Cicero, for example, followed him in his province to learn their future job. A young legate generally followed his father or his patronus to learn how becoming a magistrate. It was the Roman custom.

Secondly this phrase seems only a wish, "highly discouraged" by which penalties?

Finally, your proposals of law, as usual, want to repeal the Roman virtues or customs by laying down your morals. And perhaps do you prefer the "gangism" or the mafia to the "nepotism"?

In this law, say you, you want to "prevent abuse of the century points" but in the lex Cornelia Centuriata you propose the top of this abuse in converting them into cash! How may we trust you?

A lictor curiatus is not an apparitor, you have to retire them from this law. Lictores curiati are the representents of the curiae, as the curiae were 30, they cannot exceed the number of 30. They are not apparitors.

Why do you persist in making infamous the gens Cornelia with those kinds of perverted laws?

The best we have to do, citizens, is to vote: "No".

And you, Consul without colleague, please, convene the Comitia to elect your colleague.

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. III Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91024 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Cursu Honorum
C. Petronius Dexter L. Cornelio Sullae consuli sine collega salutem,

This law improperly named "de cursu honorum" brings changes with at least an unfair requirement.

In ancient Rome you became senator after making the evidences of your skills during the holding of magistracies, in this perverted law, one may become censor, consul... after 1 year or 6 months as senator! This law is together unfair and perverted because it gives to an hubby of you, became senator by your wish, to apply and to be elected censor, consul with all the powers of these positions. It is a partisan law not a law proposed for the common good.

The Censor position indeed must be given after a long experience within the magistracies, after being passed and elected, after having official recognition by the votes of the people, and run the complete cursus of magistracies.

Idem with the consul position, a position which need candidates known and judged by the people in lower magistracies. A cursus needs a marked path, step by step.

By a law properly proposed on the Cursus Honorum, we all exspect the condition to candidate for each magistracy (age, time of citizenship...), each magistracy being an ordering step with the top of them in the censorship, we exspect a break more or less long between 2 magistracies' holding (in order to permit accusation by the dissastified and discontented citizens after an immunity year, by your law you give a sempiternal or forever immunity for the magistrates, we exspect too a time given (10 years for example) so that a magistrate may not run the same magistracy he yet hold, etc. Not those proposals are expected. Finally, as usual, your proposal of law repeals the current laws de cursu honorum not toward the best but toward the worst.

The best the citizens have to do is to vote: "NO".

I remind you that instead of proposing a pervert law, you have to convene the Comitia in order to make elected a colleague for you, consul without colleague.

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. III Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91025 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Centuriata - Text and discussion
C. Petronius Dexter L. Cornelio Sullae consuli sine collega salutem,

Lol.
This kind of law is absolutely a game rule. Sulla consul, do you want to join the famous name of the Cornelii to a such shame? More you pay more you are distinguished. Money is your obsession, may we accept this obsession as our Nova Roman identity?

You permitt by a such law all what the philosophers, the wises and the good standing examples of Roman virtues showed us throught its republican history are denied and scorned.

I knew that Cn. Caesar with his project of "Reborn" Nova Roma wanted to make Nova Roma a game, but now I see that it is also your pattern, Sulla.

Why do you dare to convene the Comitia for making Nova Roma a play game? Do not we need more virtues than more virtual playgame? Nova Roma is not a money pump. It is not Las Vegas. I know that less citizens taxpayers each year may you bring to this shameful law, but I beg you to keep control and honor. By your law you look like a merchant, or as could say proud Romans a Carthaginian. Certainly the Romans too had the sense of the business, but not put in their identity. The prefaces of Sallust claim all the falling of the Roman virtues because of the money and the cupidity. I do not want to defend the poor against the rich, but I think that Nova Roma must have the project to reenact the Roman virtues not the American vices.

Unic consul, by Jove, your task indeed is to convene the Comitia for the election of your colleague. I believe that 6 months without colleague for you and for the praetor have to be ended. It is even unconstitutional.

Why this desir to distract the people from its duty in order to make him voting a rule of a play game? Century points as they are provided by the lex Vedia Centuriata are good enough and that sort of things does not need a new law.

So, my fellow citizens, the best you have to do is to vote: NO.

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. III Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91026 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
C. Petronius Dexter L. Cornelio Sullae consuli sine collega salutem,

I recognize there your Carthaginian sense of business, but why do you look only on the Latinists and not also on the Virgin Vestals who are too exempt of the annual tax according to the lex Curiatia Iulia de tributo virginum Vestalium?

If as you say no one is exempt from the tax, why do you look only on the Latinists when they are not the only one to be exempted from tax? Because of Scholastica's Latinist status? You are perverted by your hate, the Comitia must not follow you in your hates.

As usual, your proposals of law discredit the fame of the gens Cornelia.

The best you have to do citizens, if you want to be fair about the Latinists and the virgins Vestal status, is to demonstrate that you are great and generous for scopes as the encouragement for the Latin or for some venerable religious positions as virgin Vestal, show your lack of cupidity and your intelligence in seeing behind the excuse of a virtuous "no one is exempt from tax" what Sulla really wants to do. This "no one is exempt from tax" seems virtuous because seeming equal for all, but is actually vicious because of the Sulla's cupidity, which brings him to exempt some individuals judged worthy of this exemption by the leges Arminia and Curiatia Julia, and if you want to be generous and comprehensive and make Nova Roma more attractive you have, my fellow citizens, to vote: NO.

In other hand, if no one may be exempt from tax, I remind you that a consul is not exempt from a colleague. Do not forget to convene the Comitia for the election of a colleague, o consul without colleague.

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. III Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91027 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSE RACE - PART 1
Salvete omnes!

Welcome to Rome!

You're tuned to Nova Roma Radio, and your reporters today are C. Marcius Crispus and Caeso Tarquinius Scipio, bringing you all the latest news and reports from the grand horse race that will be taking place here in the city, at the Circus Maximus.

Now, normally we are there to watch the chariot races, but today we have a horse race between seven riders, representing between them all four of the race factions.

I'm walking down through the streets leading to the circus, and the crowds are already beginning to gather, especially around the stalls that have been set up to sell a fantastic range of merchandise to the spectators as they make their way to the race. I think all the merchants of Rome are here – I've just seen old Vindex with one of his wine stalls, and I just caught sight of some of his dray wagons carrying their load of amphorae and serving girls. He will make another fortune today as he has all the best locations around the stands.

And here are the baker and his girls with the honey cakes. I must just stop here for a moment and get some of these. They really are the best honey cakes in Rome, and that surely means the best ones in the world. Yes, just some of those please, and, no, settle down, I'm on radio – I'll catch up with you later on. (A chorus of giggles follows Crispus down the street.)

Oh look! Here are the stalls of the four factiones, the reds, blues, greens and whites, all packed with pompoms, streamers, hats, scarves, bunting, complete outfits for the most, or least discerning fans.

And here we are at last, the crowds gathering at the main gates waiting to get in and find the best seats. Well, they don't need to panic, because there is more than enough room in there for the biggest crowds you can imagine. Oh yes, when Rome wants to put on a show, she knows how to do it better than anywhere else.

But I've slipped round to the track and field entrance, and here I am in the stables, and there's my friend Scipio who has been here since early on finding out about the runners here today. "Salve Scipio!".

"Yes, salve amice! We've got 7 runners for the race today, and we can take a good close look at them as they are being made ready. This one is the first of the Albata stable, owned by Caeca, our Vestal. He's called Niger, and is a powerful black stallion with a white blaze on his forehead that shines out from his coat like a shaft of lightning. And this is Owen, his jockey. He's Welsh, as you can probably tell from his small wiry build, just the right weight for a jockey. But he can have a fiery temper out on the track when he wants to carve a path through his rivals" Maria Caeca uses Arianrhod as her trainer, and she seems to have a magic touch with horses, knowing everything there is to know about their temperament and their management. Some say her skills are almost mystical, or perhaps magical, and perhaps she can bring some luck to Caeca today.

Okay, next in the line is Cn Iulius Caesar's horse Venetica Senex, running in Praesina colours. You can see this is an old horse now, long past her prime you might think, but Caesar thinks she might just surprise us today. Why? - well because of the combination of this horse and jockey. The jockey is Dumnorix, who is over there lounging against the wall. He is a surly individual, not very active, and irritable if you bother him. He gives the impression of being overconfident, but his experience is probably to blame. Some say he is only good for racing at beer festivals in the remoter parts of Gaul. But you were down at the gallops yesterday, weren't you, Scipio, so what did you think? "Well, this horse and rider really do seem to suit one another. Caesar has obviously got them well paired, because Dumnorix will be hanging back until he gets into a temper towards the end, and Senex will benefit from a slow race with just one push at the end. Most of the fans haven't seen the way this combination might just work today, so Caesar has got some very good odds from the bookies".

Next come Russata, the reds, and first its T Popillia Laenas's horse Salami, ridden by Farcas. This looks a very sleek and well turned out horse, beautifully decked out in red ribbons and strappings. This is another one that will find all its energy later on in the race, so there could be a fierce fight for the finish here today.

And right next in line is the other Russata entry, owned by Cn Cornelius Lentulus. This one is called Philologia, and is ridden by Dorca, a fit and strong young man who we have seen a few times before. If he keeps to his usual tactics he will hurry on the straights and try not to lose position on the bends. He could do well, but he hasn't excited the betting supporters.

And here is the first of the Blue Veneta entries, and its Maximus Oblivius owned by Ti Galerius Paulinus the Censor. We don't know very much about this horse, except that we expect to see a fast speed right from the start. That might not be the wisest tactic today, as the weather is hot and the going is certain to be hard and fast.

And another Veneta entry, this time its Neptune's Wrath, which sounds like a good name for a lively horse. This is ridden by Artorius Britannicus – its amazing what a lot of Brits are here today. The owner is Lucius Ulpius Atellus, who is quite a new citizen but with a military interest, so he will get a lot of support today. Artorius will keep him fairly well back until the last minute, and then summon up every ounce of his strength and speed for a sprint finish. We think he should do quite well.

And now another Albata mare, a beautiful white young horse called Snowflake. She is ridden by Maleos of Alexandria, and owned by C. Decius Laterensis. She does not look as strong as some of the others here today, so we think Maleos will try to keep her back with the pack for most of the race and try for a last minute quick spurt.

And now all the riders are checking that their coloured outfits are straight and tidy, the grooms are putting the final touches to the horses, and the factio supporters are giving a last pat and hug to their teams. We need to get out of the way and make our way up to the stands, with just time to stock up on some tasty snacks to keep us fortified during the afternoon's excitement.

And as we make our way through the crowds, we can see the whole of Nova Roma is here, all dressed in their best outfits, wearing their factio colours and waving flags and pompoms. Goodness, what a lively and colourful sight, and what a noise too as the team songs start to be sung. At the moment the singing is rather melodious, but just wait until the race begins – then it can get quite rowdy.

Just time to remind you that there is just the one grand race today, and it will be three laps. We'll be back to cover it, and the other events of the Ludi, later on. Come on, Scipio, lets get up to our commentary box. But first lets just grab some refreshing drinks from the Vindex girls. You like a sweet fizz, I'll have a sour, just the job for a hot afternoon . Stay tuned for more of the broadcast later.

Valete omnes!

Crispus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91028 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSE RACE - PART 1
Caesar Crispo sal.

Just for the record, the name of my horse is VENEFICA SENEX. The English translation of that is "Old Witch". 

Optime vale

________________________________
From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS <jbshr1pwa@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 5:52 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSE RACE - PART 1


Salvete omnes!

<snipped
Okay, next in the line is Cn Iulius Caesar's horse Venetica Senex, running in Praesina colours. You can see this is an old horse now, long past her prime you might think, but Caesar thinks she might just surprise us today. Why? - well because of the combination of this horse and jockey. The jockey is Dumnorix, who is over there lounging against the wall. He is a surly individual, not very active, and irritable if you bother him. He gives the impression of being overconfident, but his experience is probably to blame. Some say he is only good for racing at beer festivals in the remoter parts of Gaul. But you were down at the gallops yesterday, weren't you, Scipio, so what did you think? "Well, this horse and rider really do seem to suit one another. Caesar has obviously got them well paired, because Dumnorix will be hanging back until he gets into a temper towards the end, and Senex will benefit from a slow race with just one push at the end. Most of the
fans haven't seen the way this combination might just work today, so Caesar has got some very good odds from the bookies".

<snipped
Valete omnes!

Crispus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91029 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Centuriata - Text and discussion
Ave Dexter,

I have read your post 3 times. Each time looking for an actual complaint
and I cannot find it.

I can understand that you are going to vote no on all of law proposals, as
you have done, when you actually turn out to vote. But, Dexter, I said
this on the "To Dexter and Scholastica" thread if you remember, I am
interested in actually hearing constructive criticism and ways to improve
the law - and my point is that - that is entirely lacking here. And, for
that I am disappointed.

As for the suffect elections - that was also asked and answered in the "To
Dexter and Scholastica" thread.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91030 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Cursu Honorum
Ave Dexter,

I used the same name as the previously promulgated lex in the Tabularium
for consistency.

In Nova Roma we have had privatii who have held the rank of senator.

In order of oldest: Agricola was one. Venii was one and Crispus is also
classified as a Pravti

http://novaroma.org/nr/Senate_(Nova_Roma)#The_current_album_senatorium

I do not even understand part of your post, "This law is together unfair
and perverted because it gives to an hubby of you, became senator by your
wish, to apply and to be elected censor, consul with all the powers of
these positions. It is a partisan law not a law proposed for the common
good" What does this mean? Are you saying Caesar is gay?

Anyway, as for the Suffect answer again, as I stated in my previous
response: That was asked and answered in the "To Dexter and Scholastica"
thread.

Dexter, I hate to say this, but I honestly think that Scholastica
contributed far more constructive criticism than you, and I am surprised by
that.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91031 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Ave Dexter,

It isn't a Carthaginian sense of business, but a Jewish sense of fair play,
Dexter. If you are going to use a stereotype to try to defame me, as you
are trying to do. Why don't you put up a picture of one of those posters
that show a Jew with a big hook nose while you are at it - and go for the
full effect.

I can answer your question about the Vestal. - Because I have talked to
the Virgo Maxima and she assured me through her words and actions that she
intends on paying the tax - and every future Vestal she trains she will do
her best to instruct them to pay the tax as well. I trust our Virgo
Maxima. And, then ultimately, we only have 1 Vestal in Nova Roma
Currently. Whereas just a few short years ago we had up to 4 individuals
who were qualified to be exempt from the taxes as Latinists (all of them
were in the 1st class too - means that NR treasury would be severely
impacted by the loss of revenue). I choose to put my priority on the one
law that had the bigger impact on the Treasury.

Respectfully,

Sulla




Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91032 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Apparitoribus - Text and discussion
Sulla: You know exactly what I mean. But, in case you do not know what I
am talking about let us pull up the dictionary and clear this issue up.

A *Bureaucracy* is "a body of nonelective government officials" and/or "an
administrative policy-making group.
*Nepotism* is favoritism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favoritism in politics or business to relatives
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinship of merit <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/merit
Let's combine them together and relate it back to Nova Roma shall we?

http://novaroma.org/nr/Officium_Consulare_MMDCCLXI
http://novaroma.org/nr/Officina_Praetrix_MMDCCLX
http://novaroma.org/nr/IT:Officina_Praetoris_MMDCCLXI


And, those were the first three links I actually clicked on.

No office is sufficiently busy that it requires a staff the size of a
football team. The point of the lex is that the person elected should be
the primary person doing the work! To paraphrase the words of Harry
Truman, the buck stops with the elected magistrate. Nova Roma did not
elect a staff of apparitores to do the work, but they elected the
magistrate!


Sulla: You know, I am glad you brought that up. I believe you have
forgotten this law:

http://novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Cornelia_de_linguis_publicis_(Nova_Roma)

I wrote it. As you can see that law covers the establishment of
interpreters appointed by the Senate of Nova Roma. Therefore no magistrate
would actually need to hire scribes to do the work for them. Nova Roma is
capable of appointing individuals to serve in that position and it would
not affect their Apparitore limit.


<SNIP
Sulla: Two words: The Ludi

Sulla: Again, see my response above. :)

Respectfully,

Sulla


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91033 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Apparitoribus - Text and discussion
Ave Dexter

<SNIP
The Constitution of Nova Roma disagrees with you, Dexter:

*9*. *Apparitores* (Attendants). Collectively, the *apparitores* shall not
be considered magistrates, but rather shall be appointed into various *
decuriae* (corporations) to fulfill those necessary functions as shall be
assigned to them by law enacted by one of the *comitia*. They shall include
the *lictores*, *lictores curiati*, *scribae*, and *accensi*.

http://novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_(Nova_Roma)

<SNIP [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91034 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSE RACE - PART 1
"Next come Russata, the reds, and first its T Popillia Laenas's horse Salami, ridden by Farcas."
 
(Climbing atop a newsreader's podium for a better view, Triarius chokes, blows Falernian everywhere and bursts into laughter, saying, "THAT IS HILARIOUS!!!!  SALAMI!  WOOHOO!  GO BLUES - GIVE 'EM SOME BLUE CHEESE FOR THAT RED SANDWICH! LOL!!!) 

 

________________________________
From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS <jbshr1pwa@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 7:52 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSE RACE - PART 1


 

Salvete omnes!

Welcome to Rome!

You're tuned to Nova Roma Radio, and your reporters today are C. Marcius Crispus and Caeso Tarquinius Scipio, bringing you all the latest news and reports from the grand horse race that will be taking place here in the city, at the Circus Maximus.

Now, normally we are there to watch the chariot races, but today we have a horse race between seven riders, representing between them all four of the race factions.

I'm walking down through the streets leading to the circus, and the crowds are already beginning to gather, especially around the stalls that have been set up to sell a fantastic range of merchandise to the spectators as they make their way to the race. I think all the merchants of Rome are here – I've just seen old Vindex with one of his wine stalls, and I just caught sight of some of his dray wagons carrying their load of amphorae and serving girls. He will make another fortune today as he has all the best locations around the stands.

And here are the baker and his girls with the honey cakes. I must just stop here for a moment and get some of these. They really are the best honey cakes in Rome, and that surely means the best ones in the world. Yes, just some of those please, and, no, settle down, I'm on radio – I'll catch up with you later on. (A chorus of giggles follows Crispus down the street.)

Oh look! Here are the stalls of the four factiones, the reds, blues, greens and whites, all packed with pompoms, streamers, hats, scarves, bunting, complete outfits for the most, or least discerning fans.

And here we are at last, the crowds gathering at the main gates waiting to get in and find the best seats. Well, they don't need to panic, because there is more than enough room in there for the biggest crowds you can imagine. Oh yes, when Rome wants to put on a show, she knows how to do it better than anywhere else.

But I've slipped round to the track and field entrance, and here I am in the stables, and there's my friend Scipio who has been here since early on finding out about the runners here today. "Salve Scipio!".

"Yes, salve amice! We've got 7 runners for the race today, and we can take a good close look at them as they are being made ready. This one is the first of the Albata stable, owned by Caeca, our Vestal. He's called Niger, and is a powerful black stallion with a white blaze on his forehead that shines out from his coat like a shaft of lightning. And this is Owen, his jockey. He's Welsh, as you can probably tell from his small wiry build, just the right weight for a jockey. But he can have a fiery temper out on the track when he wants to carve a path through his rivals" Maria Caeca uses Arianrhod as her trainer, and she seems to have a magic touch with horses, knowing everything there is to know about their temperament and their management. Some say her skills are almost mystical, or perhaps magical, and perhaps she can bring some luck to Caeca today.

Okay, next in the line is Cn Iulius Caesar's horse Venetica Senex, running in Praesina colours. You can see this is an old horse now, long past her prime you might think, but Caesar thinks she might just surprise us today. Why? - well because of the combination of this horse and jockey. The jockey is Dumnorix, who is over there lounging against the wall. He is a surly individual, not very active, and irritable if you bother him. He gives the impression of being overconfident, but his experience is probably to blame. Some say he is only good for racing at beer festivals in the remoter parts of Gaul. But you were down at the gallops yesterday, weren't you, Scipio, so what did you think? "Well, this horse and rider really do seem to suit one another. Caesar has obviously got them well paired, because Dumnorix will be hanging back until he gets into a temper towards the end, and Senex will benefit from a slow race with just one push at the end. Most of the
fans haven't seen the way this combination might just work today, so Caesar has got some very good odds from the bookies".

Next come Russata, the reds, and first its T Popillia Laenas's horse Salami, ridden by Farcas. This looks a very sleek and well turned out horse, beautifully decked out in red ribbons and strappings. This is another one that will find all its energy later on in the race, so there could be a fierce fight for the finish here today.

And right next in line is the other Russata entry, owned by Cn Cornelius Lentulus. This one is called Philologia, and is ridden by Dorca, a fit and strong young man who we have seen a few times before. If he keeps to his usual tactics he will hurry on the straights and try not to lose position on the bends. He could do well, but he hasn't excited the betting supporters.

And here is the first of the Blue Veneta entries, and its Maximus Oblivius owned by Ti Galerius Paulinus the Censor. We don't know very much about this horse, except that we expect to see a fast speed right from the start. That might not be the wisest tactic today, as the weather is hot and the going is certain to be hard and fast.

And another Veneta entry, this time its Neptune's Wrath, which sounds like a good name for a lively horse. This is ridden by Artorius Britannicus – its amazing what a lot of Brits are here today. The owner is Lucius Ulpius Atellus, who is quite a new citizen but with a military interest, so he will get a lot of support today. Artorius will keep him fairly well back until the last minute, and then summon up every ounce of his strength and speed for a sprint finish. We think he should do quite well.

And now another Albata mare, a beautiful white young horse called Snowflake. She is ridden by Maleos of Alexandria, and owned by C. Decius Laterensis. She does not look as strong as some of the others here today, so we think Maleos will try to keep her back with the pack for most of the race and try for a last minute quick spurt.

And now all the riders are checking that their coloured outfits are straight and tidy, the grooms are putting the final touches to the horses, and the factio supporters are giving a last pat and hug to their teams. We need to get out of the way and make our way up to the stands, with just time to stock up on some tasty snacks to keep us fortified during the afternoon's excitement.

And as we make our way through the crowds, we can see the whole of Nova Roma is here, all dressed in their best outfits, wearing their factio colours and waving flags and pompoms. Goodness, what a lively and colourful sight, and what a noise too as the team songs start to be sung. At the moment the singing is rather melodious, but just wait until the race begins – then it can get quite rowdy.

Just time to remind you that there is just the one grand race today, and it will be three laps. We'll be back to cover it, and the other events of the Ludi, later on. Come on, Scipio, lets get up to our commentary box. But first lets just grab some refreshing drinks from the Vindex girls. You like a sweet fizz, I'll have a sour, just the job for a hot afternoon . Stay tuned for more of the broadcast later.

Valete omnes!

Crispus




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91035 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSERACE - THE RACE
Salvete omnes!

Welcome back to our broadcast from the Circus Maximus, where I and my colleague Scipio are about to bring you coverage of the grand race held to mark the Ludi Apollinares.

Its an exciting afternoon here at the Circus, the sun is beating down from a cloudless blue sky, the stands are all packed with spectators, the factiones are out in force all wearing their colourful outfits and waving flags, ribbons and pompoms. And just listen to that singing! There's a huge wall of sound rolling down the stands, as one group after another take up their team song.

All the citizens of Nova Roma seem to have packed into the circus today, determined to cheer on their favourites as they battle it out in the dust of the track. Its hot and the race is going to be very fast today. The leaders of each faction are whipping up their groups, and there is some real rivalry breaking out now between the different teams.

And the horses and riders are just trotting round the track so that the crowds can see them and decide where to put their money. We have been following the betting, and it seems that Caesar's entry, Venefica Senex , has been getting a surprising amount of the backing. Caesar 's factio is really putting on a show down there – they've got posters showing an old woman in a witches' hat – ah, I see, that's Venefica Senex, or the old witch. And the next one is a fat old Gaul drowsing over a litre of beer, that's the rider Dumnorix. Certainly a mount that has seen far better days, but perhaps the lazy Gaul will summon up enough energy to achieve some action here today. He hasn't managed to do much more than sleep in the saddle in the past, but knowing Caesar and his domestic punishments, I'm sure this Gaul will get a good session with the riding crop if he doesn't improve.

And they're now coming back up to the start, and in his box below me in the stands I can see the Praetor, Caius Aemilius Crassus, surrounded by his cohors team, rising to start the race. He waits until the horses are all lined up ready, looks carefully around the track, raises the mappa, lets it fall, and they're off!

Maximus Oblivius, Paulinus's horse for Veneta, is off to a very fast start, and that's followed by Philologia owned by Lentulus for Russata. Then its Snowflake for Albata owned by Laterensis, with Venefica Senex ridden by Dumnorix for Praesina, and Salami owned by Laenas for Russata. Niger for Albata and Neptune's Wrath for Veneta bringing up the rear.

And as they go down the first straight its Maximus Oblivius going flat out, chased by Philologia, then Snowflake, then Venefica Senex, Niger, Salami and Neptune's Wrath. Now Philologia is being held back, falling alongside Snowflake and Venefica Senex, who are now joined by Salami, then a gap and at the rear its Niger and Neptune's Wrath.

And after Maximus Oblivius its Philologia, Snowflake and Venefica Senex, joined by Salami and Niger, Neptunes' Wrath still trailing as the leaders move towards the first bend.

And its Maximus Oblivius first into the bend, then a gap, Philologia coming through on the outside ahead of Venefica Senex, Snowflake and Salami. Then Niger and finally Neptune's Wrath.

And now Niger has put on a spurt, moving up to tackle Salami for firth place, Snowflake in third, Philologia in second and still Maximus Oblivius racing ahead in first place. Maximus must be going far too fast in this heat, this really is the wrong strategy.

And as they come out of the bend, its Maximus from Philologia, and Snowflake – yes Snowflake has overtaken Venefica Senex, then its Salami Fifth, then Niger sixth and Neptune's Wrath in the rear.

And now they come down the straight, and its going to be a fast run. The crowd begin to shout as they feel the race beginning to develop, here they all come now, Maximus Oblivius bathed in sweat, Philologia and Venefica Senex are neck and neck from Snowflake and Salami, Niger is challenging and Neptune's Wrath last out of the bend.

As they come through the stands its Maximus Oblivius still in the lead, but the pace seems too much for him, Venefica Senex has fallen back, - what's this? Dumnorix seems to be having trouble staying upright – yes he's clinging on but riding very unsteadily now, Philologia has put on speed and moved into second place. Then Snowflake and Salami, Niger moving up fast and Neptune's Wrath. And now Caesar is on his feet, yelling at Dumnorix to wake up and start racing, Dumnorix almost falls off but clings to Venefica's neck and pulls himself up, Venefica shakes him off her and tries to recover her poise, Dumnorix whips her on and they start to close up on Philologia.

In the main pack its Snowflake and Salami from Niger who is coming up very fast, then Neptune's Wrath struggling to keep up. And now Niger is coming through – yes the little Welshman, Owen, is pushing him onwards, and he's hurtling between Snowflake and Salami. Just listen to those crowds, they're shouting out for Caeca and the Whites. Niger is going flat out, Owen has his head hard down, he's got past Salami and is neck and neck with Snowflake for fourth place.

Down they go towards the second bend, and Maximus Oblivius is beginning to slow up, Philologia is starting to catch him, but Venefica Senex is hard on his tail, then Snowflake and Niger, the two for Albata are neck and neck, and Salami and Neptune's Wrath bringing up the rear.

At the bend, Maximus Oblivius is definitely slowing, with Philologia again running fast down this straight. Venefica Senex is holding on as they reach the bend, and there go Snowflake and Niger, the two Albata horses. Salami and Neptune's Wrath are both together now as they go into the bend.

And through the bend I can see that Owen on Niger is pushing into Snowflake, lashing out with the whip to unsettle her and she tries to make a tight turn. Niger is gaining as they come out into the third straight, and after them its Salami and Neptune's Wrath together as they open up into the straight.

And now Maximus Oblivius, Paulinus's horse, is beginning to lose pace, dropping back into second place behind Philologica. It looks as if the jockey is trying to pull him back, but Maximus is weakening fast. Philologia is now clear of Venefica Senex, but I think that Philologia is also suffering the strain of this race, yes- I would be expecting a spurt now from Philologia on this straight, but Lentulus's rider seems to be resting this horse now. So Venefica Senex now has a clear path through to the lead, and Dumnorix is giving his all as he hurtles up the straight.

Snowflake and Niger are out of the turn, and Salami is close on their tails, with Neptune's Wrath in final place.

And Maximus Oblivius is dropping out – yes, his rider is pulling him off the track and out of the race. That is a sad finish for Maximus and for Paulinus his owner, but the tactics chosen for today were not suited to the heat or the hard going.

And now there is a new move at the back, where Neptune's Wrath is making a fresh challenge. He's moved up close on Snowflake, and Salami, Snowflake and Neptune's Wrath are now speeding together up this straight. Niger has managed to stay just ahead of them, and the crowd bursts out into applause and wild chants and singing of team songs as they hurtle past the stands. For the first time the Blues are able to cheer their rider on Neptune's Wrath, and the old chant rolls across the stands. "Blue is the colour, racing is the game, we're here together, winning all the fame". Its the famous old song, and they are delighted to be able to sing it.

But at the front its Venefica Senex heading towards the turn, with Philologia continuing to slow, and now being challenged by the pack of Niger, Snowflake, Neptune's Wrath and Salami.

Round they go, and coming out in the lead is Venefica Senex still clear of the slowing Philologia, and Niger, Snowflake, Neptune's Wrath and Salami all ready for a real race now. And Salami is moving through – yes he's pushing ahead, but strongly challenged by Niger, with little Owen lashing out in all directions as he is determined to get past. And now they are passing Philologia, Niger and Salami still fighting it out, Snowflake coming through behind to overtake Philologia. So as they pass the stands its Venefica Senex going better than we have ever seen before, followed by Niger and Salami going neck and neck, with Snowflake and Neptune's Wrath together at the back.

As they tear past the stands its Venefica Senex from Salami and Niger, then Neptune's Wrath and Snowflake. Russata and Albata fans are going mad with delight, pompoms and streamers flying in all directions.

As they come up to the bend its Venefica Senex still in the lead, a very strange expression on Dumnorix's face as he realises that he is actually racing and leading for the first time in his life, Niger and Salami coming up close together to mount a fresh challenge, and Neptune's Wrath now moving ahead of Snowflake. Yes, Snowflake can't keep up this fierce pace in all this heat, she is beginning to tire and drop back to join Philologia at the rear.

So at the turn its now Venefica Senex keeping a clear lead from Niger and Salami, with Snowflake and Neptune's Wrath in fourth and fifth. But Now Neptune's Wrath is making his move, galloping fast on the straight, level with Niger and Salami, now moving to the outside to fight for second place. Yes, he's through, and Veneta are going wild again. "Blue is our colour" comes the old tune again. Niger and Salami wonder what's happened – they're fighting it out for third place all of a sudden. Up they go, and the speed is wild and amazing. Venefica Senex is flying like the wind – is that what witches are meant to do? The hooves of Neptune's Wrath are crashing out a fierce rhythm on the hard track as the dust and sand fly up to coat the entire scene. Snowflake is gamely trying to stay in the race, but that seems unlikely now that they are at the last bend.

Round they come, and Venefica Senex is well clear, just needing to keep up this pace for a comfortable win. Neptune's Wrath is in second place, then a gap, then Niger and Salami fighting it out for third place. And now the crowd on this side go wild as the hooves thunder down past the stands, pompoms and streamers going wild, songs and chants roaring out.

And at the line its Venefica Senex, well clear of Neptune's Wrath, and by a whisker its Salami in third place, from Niger in fourth, Snowflake limping in behind, and Philologia coming in sixth. Maximus Oblivius, Paulinus's horse, did not finish, but will live to race another day.

Well, Ladies and Gentlemen, the excitement for that race was amazing, but for now I will return you to the studio.

Valete omnes!

Crispus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91036 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSERACE - THE RACE
Congrats to the Greenie Weenies! WOOHOO!
 
Party at the Veneta Stables anyway!
 
Blue is the colour, racing is the game, we're here together, winning all the fame!
Blue is the colour, racing is the game, we're here together, winning all the fame!
Blue is the colour, racing is the game, we're here together... (fades into the distance)


________________________________
From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS <jbshr1pwa@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 12:01 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSERACE - THE RACE


 

Salvete omnes!

Welcome back to our broadcast from the Circus Maximus, where I and my colleague Scipio are about to bring you coverage of the grand race held to mark the Ludi Apollinares.

Its an exciting afternoon here at the Circus, the sun is beating down from a cloudless blue sky, the stands are all packed with spectators, the factiones are out in force all wearing their colourful outfits and waving flags, ribbons and pompoms. And just listen to that singing! There's a huge wall of sound rolling down the stands, as one group after another take up their team song.

All the citizens of Nova Roma seem to have packed into the circus today, determined to cheer on their favourites as they battle it out in the dust of the track. Its hot and the race is going to be very fast today. The leaders of each faction are whipping up their groups, and there is some real rivalry breaking out now between the different teams.

And the horses and riders are just trotting round the track so that the crowds can see them and decide where to put their money. We have been following the betting, and it seems that Caesar's entry, Venefica Senex , has been getting a surprising amount of the backing. Caesar 's factio is really putting on a show down there – they've got posters showing an old woman in a witches' hat – ah, I see, that's Venefica Senex, or the old witch. And the next one is a fat old Gaul drowsing over a litre of beer, that's the rider Dumnorix. Certainly a mount that has seen far better days, but perhaps the lazy Gaul will summon up enough energy to achieve some action here today. He hasn't managed to do much more than sleep in the saddle in the past, but knowing Caesar and his domestic punishments, I'm sure this Gaul will get a good session with the riding crop if he doesn't improve.

And they're now coming back up to the start, and in his box below me in the stands I can see the Praetor, Caius Aemilius Crassus, surrounded by his cohors team, rising to start the race. He waits until the horses are all lined up ready, looks carefully around the track, raises the mappa, lets it fall, and they're off!

Maximus Oblivius, Paulinus's horse for Veneta, is off to a very fast start, and that's followed by Philologia owned by Lentulus for Russata. Then its Snowflake for Albata owned by Laterensis, with Venefica Senex ridden by Dumnorix for Praesina, and Salami owned by Laenas for Russata. Niger for Albata and Neptune's Wrath for Veneta bringing up the rear.

And as they go down the first straight its Maximus Oblivius going flat out, chased by Philologia, then Snowflake, then Venefica Senex, Niger, Salami and Neptune's Wrath. Now Philologia is being held back, falling alongside Snowflake and Venefica Senex, who are now joined by Salami, then a gap and at the rear its Niger and Neptune's Wrath.

And after Maximus Oblivius its Philologia, Snowflake and Venefica Senex, joined by Salami and Niger, Neptunes' Wrath still trailing as the leaders move towards the first bend.

And its Maximus Oblivius first into the bend, then a gap, Philologia coming through on the outside ahead of Venefica Senex, Snowflake and Salami. Then Niger and finally Neptune's Wrath.

And now Niger has put on a spurt, moving up to tackle Salami for firth place, Snowflake in third, Philologia in second and still Maximus Oblivius racing ahead in first place. Maximus must be going far too fast in this heat, this really is the wrong strategy.

And as they come out of the bend, its Maximus from Philologia, and Snowflake – yes Snowflake has overtaken Venefica Senex, then its Salami Fifth, then Niger sixth and Neptune's Wrath in the rear.

And now they come down the straight, and its going to be a fast run. The crowd begin to shout as they feel the race beginning to develop, here they all come now, Maximus Oblivius bathed in sweat, Philologia and Venefica Senex are neck and neck from Snowflake and Salami, Niger is challenging and Neptune's Wrath last out of the bend.

As they come through the stands its Maximus Oblivius still in the lead, but the pace seems too much for him, Venefica Senex has fallen back, - what's this? Dumnorix seems to be having trouble staying upright – yes he's clinging on but riding very unsteadily now, Philologia has put on speed and moved into second place. Then Snowflake and Salami, Niger moving up fast and Neptune's Wrath. And now Caesar is on his feet, yelling at Dumnorix to wake up and start racing, Dumnorix almost falls off but clings to Venefica's neck and pulls himself up, Venefica shakes him off her and tries to recover her poise, Dumnorix whips her on and they start to close up on Philologia.

In the main pack its Snowflake and Salami from Niger who is coming up very fast, then Neptune's Wrath struggling to keep up. And now Niger is coming through – yes the little Welshman, Owen, is pushing him onwards, and he's hurtling between Snowflake and Salami. Just listen to those crowds, they're shouting out for Caeca and the Whites. Niger is going flat out, Owen has his head hard down, he's got past Salami and is neck and neck with Snowflake for fourth place.

Down they go towards the second bend, and Maximus Oblivius is beginning to slow up, Philologia is starting to catch him, but Venefica Senex is hard on his tail, then Snowflake and Niger, the two for Albata are neck and neck, and Salami and Neptune's Wrath bringing up the rear.

At the bend, Maximus Oblivius is definitely slowing, with Philologia again running fast down this straight. Venefica Senex is holding on as they reach the bend, and there go Snowflake and Niger, the two Albata horses. Salami and Neptune's Wrath are both together now as they go into the bend.

And through the bend I can see that Owen on Niger is pushing into Snowflake, lashing out with the whip to unsettle her and she tries to make a tight turn. Niger is gaining as they come out into the third straight, and after them its Salami and Neptune's Wrath together as they open up into the straight.

And now Maximus Oblivius, Paulinus's horse, is beginning to lose pace, dropping back into second place behind Philologica. It looks as if the jockey is trying to pull him back, but Maximus is weakening fast. Philologia is now clear of Venefica Senex, but I think that Philologia is also suffering the strain of this race, yes- I would be expecting a spurt now from Philologia on this straight, but Lentulus's rider seems to be resting this horse now. So Venefica Senex now has a clear path through to the lead, and Dumnorix is giving his all as he hurtles up the straight.

Snowflake and Niger are out of the turn, and Salami is close on their tails, with Neptune's Wrath in final place.

And Maximus Oblivius is dropping out – yes, his rider is pulling him off the track and out of the race. That is a sad finish for Maximus and for Paulinus his owner, but the tactics chosen for today were not suited to the heat or the hard going.

And now there is a new move at the back, where Neptune's Wrath is making a fresh challenge. He's moved up close on Snowflake, and Salami, Snowflake and Neptune's Wrath are now speeding together up this straight. Niger has managed to stay just ahead of them, and the crowd bursts out into applause and wild chants and singing of team songs as they hurtle past the stands. For the first time the Blues are able to cheer their rider on Neptune's Wrath, and the old chant rolls across the stands. "Blue is the colour, racing is the game, we're here together, winning all the fame". Its the famous old song, and they are delighted to be able to sing it.

But at the front its Venefica Senex heading towards the turn, with Philologia continuing to slow, and now being challenged by the pack of Niger, Snowflake, Neptune's Wrath and Salami.

Round they go, and coming out in the lead is Venefica Senex still clear of the slowing Philologia, and Niger, Snowflake, Neptune's Wrath and Salami all ready for a real race now. And Salami is moving through – yes he's pushing ahead, but strongly challenged by Niger, with little Owen lashing out in all directions as he is determined to get past. And now they are passing Philologia, Niger and Salami still fighting it out, Snowflake coming through behind to overtake Philologia. So as they pass the stands its Venefica Senex going better than we have ever seen before, followed by Niger and Salami going neck and neck, with Snowflake and Neptune's Wrath together at the back.

As they tear past the stands its Venefica Senex from Salami and Niger, then Neptune's Wrath and Snowflake. Russata and Albata fans are going mad with delight, pompoms and streamers flying in all directions.

As they come up to the bend its Venefica Senex still in the lead, a very strange expression on Dumnorix's face as he realises that he is actually racing and leading for the first time in his life, Niger and Salami coming up close together to mount a fresh challenge, and Neptune's Wrath now moving ahead of Snowflake. Yes, Snowflake can't keep up this fierce pace in all this heat, she is beginning to tire and drop back to join Philologia at the rear.

So at the turn its now Venefica Senex keeping a clear lead from Niger and Salami, with Snowflake and Neptune's Wrath in fourth and fifth. But Now Neptune's Wrath is making his move, galloping fast on the straight, level with Niger and Salami, now moving to the outside to fight for second place. Yes, he's through, and Veneta are going wild again. "Blue is our colour" comes the old tune again. Niger and Salami wonder what's happened – they're fighting it out for third place all of a sudden. Up they go, and the speed is wild and amazing. Venefica Senex is flying like the wind – is that what witches are meant to do? The hooves of Neptune's Wrath are crashing out a fierce rhythm on the hard track as the dust and sand fly up to coat the entire scene. Snowflake is gamely trying to stay in the race, but that seems unlikely now that they are at the last bend.

Round they come, and Venefica Senex is well clear, just needing to keep up this pace for a comfortable win. Neptune's Wrath is in second place, then a gap, then Niger and Salami fighting it out for third place. And now the crowd on this side go wild as the hooves thunder down past the stands, pompoms and streamers going wild, songs and chants roaring out.

And at the line its Venefica Senex, well clear of Neptune's Wrath, and by a whisker its Salami in third place, from Niger in fourth, Snowflake limping in behind, and Philologia coming in sixth. Maximus Oblivius, Paulinus's horse, did not finish, but will live to race another day.

Well, Ladies and Gentlemen, the excitement for that race was amazing, but for now I will return you to the studio.

Valete omnes!

Crispus




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91037 From: Aemilius Crassus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSERACE - THE RACE
Salvete omnes,

And my congratulations to Caesar and to Praesina, it was a good race.

The Russata will have to wait for other races to show its valor.

Go RUSSATA!!!!
Crassus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91038 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
C. Maria Caeca Vestalis L. Cornelio Sullae COS. S. P. D.

The Collegium Pontificum has granted me the title of Virgo Vestalis, but not
Virgo Maxima. While it is true that, at present, I am our only Vestal, I
am, officially, a Virgo Vestalis. I'm not complaining about this; but
neither do I wish to be credited with something I don't possess. BTW, I
have always paid, and will always pay, the yearly tax, especially while we
in our current financial situation. Until we see a major increase in
citizens with Assidui status, I do not think it appropriate to be granting
tax dispensations. This isn't greed, it's simply sound resource management
practice.

Vale bene!
C. Maria Caeca
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91039 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HISTORICAL QUIZ - final set of answers, and
Salvete omnes!

Here are the final set of answers to the historical quiz questions:

8. Name two ancient sites, both beginning with the letter D, where Apollo was honoured.

All agreed on Delos and Delphi, which were the ones I had in mind. Marcus Prometheus also found Didyma, in Ionia.

9. What sea creature is particularly associated with the god?

All agreed on dolphin, which is correct.

10. In what year (written as a Roman year) were these Ludi first held in Nova Roma?

This question tested the ability of contestants to research the Nova Roma wiki and mailing lists, and also to write the year correctly in Roman numerals. The answers ranged from 2758 AUC (MMDCCLV111) to 2755 AUC (MMDCCLV). I give the winning point to Publius Porcius Licinus here, based on the quality and resourcefulness of his research.

Final scores.

The final scores are:-

P Porcius Licinus 11 points
Marcus Prometheus 10 points
Appia Gratia Avita 9 points
M Pompeius Caninus 9 points
M Martianius Lupus 7 points

My thanks to all the players for their efforts in completing the contest, and my congratulations to them all for the quality of their answers.

Valete omnes!

Crispus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91040 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSERACE - THE RACE
Salvete Omnes!



Albata extends its congratulations to Praescena on their victory. As a side
note, a certain Welshman is going to have a .difficult ..year.



Party in the Albata enclosure .we've got the food and drink, which, when it
comes down to it, is all the excuse we need!



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91041 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: LUDI APOLLINARES - CLOSING SACRIFICE
Cn. Cornelius Lentulus pontifex Quiritibus s. p. d.


This is the Happy End of the ludi Apollinares of the 15th Anniversary Year of the founding of Nova Roma.

Apollo, the God of Healing, God of the Sun, God of Culture and Erudition was celebrated during the ludi Apollonares.

Apolllo! We need You in our Nova Roman life! Heal our wounds, as a community, heal our diseases, heal our illness! We love your Nova Roma, oh God of Culture, Arts, Academy and Education, our Apollo, because your Nova Roma lives in our hearts, and there is no other name, no other Roman republic to which we want to belong. Take care of Nova Roma, Citizens, because everyone has a mission in Nova Roma. Find yours, and do your best in your place. That's how we can honor Apollo the best way.

In the name of Nova Roma and its praetor, I have performed the following closing ceremony and I sacrificed incense and wine to Apollo for healing the sick cives, and healing the wounds of Nova Roma.

Please do a similar ceremony in your homes, Quirites, and pray for the sick citizens, and for Nova Roma!


This is the text of the closing ritual that I have offered to Apollo:




PRAEFATIO - PREFACE TO THE PRAYER


"Iane, Iuppiter, Iuno, Minerva, Aesculapi,
hisce ludis Apollinaribus,
hoc anno anniversarii XV Novae Romae,
vos hoc ture commovendo
bonas preces precor,
uti sitis volentes propitii
Populo Novo Romano Quiritibus,
Reique Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
collegio pontificum et augurum,
mihi, domo, familiae!"

Ianus, Iuppiter, Iuno, Minerva, Aesculapius,
at the time of these Apollonian Games,
in the year of the 15th Anniversary of Nova Roma,
by offering you this incense
I pray good prayers so
that you be benevolent and propitious
to the Quiritian People of Nova Roma,
to the Republic of the Nova Roman People of Quirites,
to the college of the pontiffs and the augurs,
to me, to my household and to my family.


(Incense is placed in the focus of the altar.)


"Apollo,
hisce ludis Apollinaribus,
hoc anno anniversarii XV Novae Romae,te hoc ture commovendo
bonas preces precor,
uti sis volens propitius
Populo Novo Romano Quiritibus,
Reique Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
collegio pontificum et augurum,
mihi, domo, familiae!"

Apollo,
at the time of these Apollonian Games,
in the year of the 15th Anniversary of Nova Roma,
by offering you this incense
I pray good prayers so
that you be benevolent and propitious
to the Quiritian People of Nova Roma,
to the Republic of the Nova Roman People of Quirites,
to the college of the pontiffs and the augurs,
to me, to my household and to my family.


(Incense is placed in the focus of the altar.)


"Iane, Iuppiter, Iuno, Minerva, Aesculapi,
uti vos ture commovendo
bonas preces precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo
macte vino inferio estote!"

Ianus, Iuppiter, Iuno, Minerva, Aesculapius,
as by offering incense
I have prayed good prayers,
for the very same reason
be thou blessed by this wine.


(Libation of wine is made.)


"Apollo,
uti te ture commovendo
bonas preces precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo
macte vino inferio esto!"

Apollo,
as by offering incense
I have prayed good prayers,
for the very same reason
be thou blessed by this wine.

(Libation of milk is made.)


PRECATIO - THE PRAYER


"Apollo,
hisce ludis Apollinaribus,
hoc anno anniversarii XV Novae Romae,te precor, quaeso, veneror, obtestor:
uti salutem Rei Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium
confirmes, augeas, adiuves,
utique Rem Publicam Populi Novi Romani Quiritium
omnibus morbis et malis liberes;
utique morbos visos invisosque averrunces,
omnes aegros Novos Romanos
sanes, cures, medearis
ex omni aegritudene!”

Apollo,
at the time of these Apollonian Games,
in the year of the 15th Anniversary of Nova Roma,
we ask and beseech you, we beg and pray you so
that you may confirm, strengthen and increase
the well being of the Republic of the Nova Roman People of Quirites,
so that you heal the Republic of the Nova Roman People of Quirites
from all illness and wrongdoing;
so that you may keep away all illnesses visible and invisible;
so that you may heal, cure and recuperate
all sick Nova Romans
from all kinds of diseases.


SACRIFICIUM - THE SACRIFICE


"Harum rerum ergo macte
hoc vino libando,
hoc ture ommovendo
esto fito volens propitius
Populo Novo Romano Quiritibus,
Reique Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
praetori et collegio pontificum et augurum,
mihi, domo, familiae!"

For these reasons, thou blessed
by offering this wine,
by offering this incense,
be benevolent and propitious
to the Quiritian People of Nova Roma,
to the Republic of the Nova Roman People of the Quirites,
to the praetor, the college of the pontiffs and the augurs,
to me, to my household and to my family.


(Libation of wine is made, and incense is sacrificed.)


PIACULUM - THE EXPIATION OF MISTAKES DURING THE RITUAL

"Iane, Iuppiter, Iuno, Minerva, Aesculapi,
Apollo,
Lares, Manes, Penates,
Omnes Di Immortales quocumque nomine:
si quidquam vobis in hac caerimonia displicuit,
hoc vino libando
veniam peto
et vitium meum expio."

Ianus, Iuppiter, Iuno, Minerva, Aesculapius,
Apollo,
Lares, Manes, Penates,
All Gods Immortal, by whichever name:
if something in this ceremony was unpleasant to you,
by this wine
I do apologize
and expiate my mistake.

(Wine is sacrificed.)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91042 From: avbarbatus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES - CLOSING SACRIFICE
Thank you for the information.

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91043 From: avbarbatus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSE RACE - PART 1
Thanks

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91044 From: avbarbatus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HISTORICAL QUIZ - second set of answers
Thanks that was informational.

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91045 From: avbarbatus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: More improvements
Thanks for the update. That is better.

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91046 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSERACE - THE RACE
Caesar Crispo sal.

Excellent race Crispe. My thanks to you. My thanks to all the other owners for participating. 

Letting the Gaul mount and ride the Old Witch was entertaining. I just hope the excitement of the race doesn't mean he will sleep through the rest of the events to come. 

He isn't used to all this .... activity.

Optime vale


________________________________
From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS <jbshr1pwa@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 10:01 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSERACE - THE RACE



 
Salvete omnes!

Welcome back to our broadcast from the Circus Maximus, where I and my colleague Scipio are about to bring you coverage of the grand race held to mark the Ludi Apollinares.

Its an exciting afternoon here at the Circus, the sun is beating down from a cloudless blue sky, the stands are all packed with spectators, the factiones are out in force all wearing their colourful outfits and waving flags, ribbons and pompoms. And just listen to that singing! There's a huge wall of sound rolling down the stands, as one group after another take up their team song.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91047 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: More music for our Ludi!
Salvete Omnes!

This isn't traditional ancient music, but it is sung in Latin, the video is
very nice (from what I can tell), and the music satisfies something in our
modern expectations of what Roman music might have become, based, I admit on
a fairly long and extensive history of Roman themed movies. Listening to
it, I was reminded of every "sand and sandals" movie I've ever seen (and
loved, despite the obvious, um, artistic license). So ...hope you enjoy
this as I did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oA4PnGGLkfU

Valete bene!
C. Maria Caeca

Please check out my new blog at jottingsofanomnivorousreader.blogspot.com!

This list is for everyone who loves to read, but especially those who use
special formats, such as Braille or audio. We enjoy books, talking about
them, and one another. Come join us!
ReadingOurWay-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91048 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Something more traditional ...
Salvete omnes!

And, for the purists among us, here is something far more traditional, and
absolutely lovely!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrwkPY3IMkQ

Valete bene!
C. Maria Caeca
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91049 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: and one more (for the time being)
Salvete!

A modern, but a reconstruction of ancient Roman music ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBHr6_Z6sTU

Valete bene!
C. Maria Caeca
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91050 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Ave Caeca,

Thank you for the correction but one could reasonably state that as the
SOLE Vestal that would by default make you the Virgo Maxima? Just as if
there was one Pontiff it would by default make that individual the Pontifex
Maximus?

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91051 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Ave Sulla Cos.

One could, I suppose, but I do not.

Vale bene!
CMC
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91052 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Caesar Dextro sal

Just a small correction, Scholastica isn't a Latinist as defined by the Lex Arminia de fovenda lingua latina, which says "The title of Latinist must be reviewed annually by the Senate, and will be valid from the time of approval until the end of the year." That formal title ran out years ago as therefore did her tax exemption. In fact if she hasn't paid tax (I don't know if she has without trawling back through the records) based on that premise she actually would owe a number of years of back tax.

Optime vale




________________________________
From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 4:01 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina



 
C. Petronius Dexter L. Cornelio Sullae consuli sine collega salutem,

I recognize there your Carthaginian sense of business, but why do you look only on the Latinists and not also on the Virgin Vestals who are too exempt of the annual tax according to the lex Curiatia Iulia de tributo virginum Vestalium?

If as you say no one is exempt from the tax, why do you look only on the Latinists when they are not the only one to be exempted from tax? Because of Scholastica's Latinist status? You are perverted by your hate, the Comitia must not follow you in your hates.

As usual, your proposals of law discredit the fame of the gens Cornelia.

The best you have to do citizens, if you want to be fair about the Latinists and the virgins Vestal status, is to demonstrate that you are great and generous for scopes as the encouragement for the Latin or for some venerable religious positions as virgin Vestal, show your lack of cupidity and your intelligence in seeing behind the excuse of a virtuous "no one is exempt from tax" what Sulla really wants to do. This "no one is exempt from tax" seems virtuous because seeming equal for all, but is actually vicious because of the Sulla's cupidity, which brings him to exempt some individuals judged worthy of this exemption by the leges Arminia and Curiatia Julia, and if you want to be generous and comprehensive and make Nova Roma more attractive you have, my fellow citizens, to vote: NO.

In other hand, if no one may be exempt from tax, I remind you that a consul is not exempt from a colleague. Do not forget to convene the Comitia for the election of a colleague, o consul without colleague.

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. III Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91053 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Ave,

For the record, I would very much enjoy bringing this item to the Senate.
But, I cannot even consider bringing this item to the Senate as long as
Item III an active part of this law. There are a few individuals who
deserve this title. But, CFO of Nova Roma, I cannot in good conscious
recommend it given the impact on the central treasury of Nova Roma.

Respectfully,

Sulla


On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91054 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: 22 hours left for Contio in Comitia Plebis Tributa
M. Pompeius Caninus civibus plebeianis salutem plurimam dicit:


The contio (discussion period) for the
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Pompeia_de_ratione_comitiorum_plebis_tributorum_(Nova_Roma)
is nearing the end of its appointed time. There are about 22 hours left
for discussion and debate. Voting will begin on July 17th. As a
reminder, here is the schedule for current session of the Comitia Plebis
Tributa:


11:00 AM ROME TIME 10-July-2013 : Call to order. Contio (debate period)
begins.

11:00 PM ROME TIME 14-July-2013 : Contio (debate period) ends.

09:01 AM ROME TIME 17-July-2013 : Call to vote. Voting period begins.

The Cista will be closed on July 19th and July 21st - no citizen shall
vote on those two days.

09:01 AM ROME TIME 22-July-2013 : Voting period ends.

11:59 PM ROME TIME 23-July-2013 : Call to close issued before this time.




Optime valete!


Marcus Pompeius Caninus
Tribunus Plebis
America Boreoccidentalis

Vivat Nova Roma!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91055 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: 22 hours left for Contio in Comitia Plebis Tributa
Salvete omnes!



I encourage citizens to support this Lex, because it regularizes the
procedures of all Comitia, and helps the machinery of our Government to run
more smoothly.



Valete bene!

C. Maria Caeca



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91056 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Pontifices and the Plebeian elections
Salvete omnes!

I was wonder what the Plebeian pontifices thought about the provision in
paragraph VI of the proposed lex that requires a Pontifex or Priest to
conduct a ceremonia:

VI. Breaking of Ties
...
B. The presiding magistrate has the duty and responsibility to request a
member of the Collegium Pontificum or an appropriate Priest to conduct a
ceremonia, at the start of a vote, to express the State’s need for a
method of tie resolution that does not utilize chance and request a more
direct form of divine intervention due to the corruption and tampering
of men.

Is a ceremonia necessary? Is it desirable? Is it appropriate? If so,
should the presiding magistrate conduct the ceremonia or should a
Pontifex or other public priest conduct the ceremonia?

Bene valete!


Marcus Pompeius Caninus
Tribunus Plebis
America Boreoccidentalis

Vivat Nova Roma!




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] 22 hours left for Contio in Comitia Plebis
Tributa
From: "cmc" <c.mariacaeca@... Date: Sat, July 13, 2013 3:12 pm
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Salvete omnes!

I encourage citizens to support this Lex, because it regularizes the
procedures of all Comitia, and helps the machinery of our Government to
run
more smoothly.

Valete bene!

C. Maria Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91057 From: Aemilius Crassus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Ludi Apollinares 2766- Certamen Mythologicum "Mythology Quiz" (Dies
C. Aemilius Crassus omnibus SPD,

Today I'm sending the questions of the great Mythological Quiz prepared by
Aeternia.

Here are the questions to the last day's Mythology Quiz. Answers for this
and previous sets of questions will be accept till 24 hours after the Ludi
have ended.

Submit all answers to the following e-mail address:
Syrenslullaby@... Subject
Header: Mythology Quiz

DO NOT post answers to the list but private only.

Bona Fortuna (Good luck ) to all the participants. Please see the
questions below.

Valete bene,

*Mythology Quiz (Dies/Day3)*
7.Who in Roman Mythology was Apollo's Mother?
8. True or False? Mercury did not create the Lyre for Apollo?
9. Apollo is associated to what serpent?
10. True or False? Apollo Phoebus is another name


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91058 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Ludi Apollinares: final musical offering!
Salvete Omnes!

I offer this special music to Apollo as a token of our devotion and to honor
him, with music from Greece, and played upon his own instrument. I hope
that the great god Apollo will find this offering of music favorable, and
look with kindness and care on Nova roma and her citizens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elERNFoEf3Y

Valete bene!
C. Maria Caeca
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91059 From: Aemilius Crassus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Ludi Apollinares closing ceremony
C. Aemilius Crassus Praetor Novae Romae Quiritibus SPD,

I hope you all have enjoyed the Ludi Apollinares and would like to thank
all citizens that have participated in these Ludi. I also would like to
express my gratitude to Statia Cornelia Valeriana Iuliana Aeternia, C.
Maria Caeca and C. Marcius Crispus for their tireless efforts in staging
these Ludi and also to Pontifex Lentulus for performing the Ludi rituals.

The Ludi Apollinares were first held only 2 years after the disaster of
Cannae and were instituted to expel the Carthaginians from Italy and to
defend the Res Publica from all dangers. Today more than 2000 years we are
celebrating and honoring this contract with Pater Apollo and although not
in such dire dangers we hope also to defend the Res Publica of Nova Roma
from all dangers.

Pater Apollo as Praetor Novae Romae and in name of the Senate and People of
Nova Roma I hope these Ludi have been pleasant to you and ask you to shine
your light and protection on our Res Publica and over all its citizens and
their families.

I declare the Ludi Apollinares of 2766 AVC closed.

Valete optime.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91060 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia
Salvvete



I am sure that the Nova Roman treasury can absorb the non payment of taxes from 2 or 5 Latineist IF they actual do something for Nova Roma.



Valete



Ti. Galerius Paulinus









Sent from Windows Mail


From: Robert Woolwine
Sent: ‎July‎ ‎13‎, ‎2013 ‎2‎:‎49‎ ‎PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina



Ave,

For the record, I would very much enjoy bringing this item to the Senate.
But, I cannot even consider bringing this item to the Senate as long as
Item III an active part of this law. There are a few individuals who
deserve this title. But, CFO of Nova Roma, I cannot in good conscious
recommend it given the impact on the central treasury of Nova Roma.

Respectfully,

Sulla


On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91061 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Ave,

Not at present no. As you saw in the Senate Finance Committee, which is in
session our expenditures still exceed our income. While we are decreasing
the pulling of income from the reserve we are not yet at that point.

So, no, we cannot. Espeically when those 5 members are all in the 1st
class that is $44.00 x 5= $220.00 and to put this in specific terms that is
nearly 25% of NR's current year revenue for this year!

Respectfully,

Sulla


On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <
spqr753@...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91062 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Caesar sal.

Further, they did not get to the First Class as a result of holding the position of Latinist alone. Other offices I think have been held no? 

Given our current financial situation and given they are some of the "leading citizens" of Nova Roma (by general consent in some cases, and in their own minds in other cases), they should pay. Even if they disagree they should consider it a donation to help get us solvent again.

Optime valete


________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina


Ave,

Not at present no.  As you saw in the Senate Finance Committee, which is in
session our expenditures still exceed our income.  While we are decreasing
the pulling of income from the reserve we are not yet at that point.

So, no, we cannot.  Espeically when those 5 members are all in the 1st
class that is $44.00 x 5= $220.00 and to put this in specific terms that is
nearly 25% of NR's current year revenue for this year!

Respectfully,

Sulla


On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <
spqr753@...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91063 From: avbarbatus Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSE RACE - PART 1
When's the next race?

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91064 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-13
Subject: Re: LUDI APOLLINARES 2766 - HORSE RACE - PART 1
Ave,

I think this Ludi has ended. There is an upcoming Ludi, I believe in
September, under the jurisdiction of the Curule Aedile. They will likely
have other events and happenings going on during that Ludi.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91065 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Pontifices and the Plebeian elections
C. Petronius M. Pompeio Canino salutem,

I am astonished about a such point of law. Why is the agreement of the gods needed about breaking ties in which the presiding magistrate denies their intervention.

The 3 ways you chose to make a breaking tie brings to a result without intervention of the gods. Period.

I think that in proposing those ways of tie breaking, you may think to offend the gods who in the previous laws broke tie with the dice threw by the innocent hand of the presiding magistrate. But if you believe that the gods are jealous, vengeful or cruel and for that belief you ask their agreement so that they do not care the elections with a ceremony is odd and useless.

If I understand a ceremony for asking the gods agreement on a process, in other hand asking a ceremony to make the gods out is not necessary.

A ceremony is to make them peaceful and if you need their help, not if you want that they do not intercede.

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI




Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91066 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
C. Petronius L. Cornelio Sullae consuli sine collega salutem,

Lol.
You show to everybody that you have the Carthaginian sense of the business. You are not a Roman. I like this reason: if the Latinists are in the first class Nova Roma cannot be great neither generous as it were last years when the previous laws were in force.
Nova Roma was it in deficit those last years? No.
Your cupidity is your problem.

Citizens vote: NO.

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91067 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
C. Petronius Dexter L. Cornelio Sullae consuli sine collega salutem,

Effectively, if a vestal is sole vestal she is by default the virgo maxima. That is patently obvious.

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91068 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
C. Petronius Dexter Cn. Iulio Caesari salutem,

Just a small correction, do you say?
The law Arminia de fovenda lingua latina speak about a Senate "yearly review". Why this review was not did the last year neither this year?
Had you repealed this law before the Comitia when you were consul and this year when Cornelius is?

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91069 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
C. Petronius Dexter C. Mariae Caecae virgini Vestali salutem,

If you are the one virgo Vestalis, you obviously are the virgo maxima. Virgo maxima is not a title, is the rank of priority given by the seniority between all the vestals. As you are the one vestal you are obviously the virgo maxima. Who else may be?

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91070 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Pontifices and the Plebeian elections
M. Pompeius Caninus C. Petronio SPD


That is what I thought when I re-read that paragraph today. I do not
believe the gods need to be placated and a ceremony should not be needed
for tie breakers based on citizenship record data. That paragraph will
be removed from the lex. Gratias tibi ago.


Fac valeas!

Marcus Pompeius Caninus
Tribunus Plebis
America Boreoccidentalis

Vivat Nova Roma!





-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Pontifices and the Plebeian elections
From: "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@... Date: Sat, July 13, 2013 9:57 pm
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

C. Petronius M. Pompeio Canino salutem,

I am astonished about a such point of law. Why is the agreement of the
gods needed about breaking ties in which the presiding magistrate denies
their intervention.

The 3 ways you chose to make a breaking tie brings to a result without
intervention of the gods. Period.

I think that in proposing those ways of tie breaking, you may think to
offend the gods who in the previous laws broke tie with the dice threw
by the innocent hand of the presiding magistrate. But if you believe
that the gods are jealous, vengeful or cruel and for that belief you ask
their agreement so that they do not care the elections with a ceremony
is odd and useless.

If I understand a ceremony for asking the gods agreement on a process,
in other hand asking a ceremony to make the gods out is not necessary.

A ceremony is to make them peaceful and if you need their help, not if
you want that they do not intercede.

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. Pompeius Caninus" <caninus@... wrote:
in
to
request a
conduct a
for a
more
tampering
to
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91071 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Cn. Iulius Caesar censor sal.

Citizens, Nova Roma has gone through a lot of turmoil in the last few years. Much of the turmoil has its roots in imprecise laws, constitutional uncertainties, and more recently in 2010 the attempted coup which had as its stated reason spending $10,000 USD on a new censorial database system, electoral tools etc. Money has and always will be an issue, clearly since a serious effort was made to loot the treasury so that $10,000 USD could be handed over to a close associate/friend of the then consul leading the coup. 

Nova Roma has a budget, like any non-profit, like any association, like any nation, like any household. Nova Roma has expenses, like any non-profit, like any association, like any nation, like any household. Nova Roma has only ONE source of income, the tax. Associations would call it membership dues. Even that isn't mandatory, unlike many associations and non-profits, our citizens/members can still participate albeit they cannot stand for office without paying the tax. There is a choice citizens can all make - pay or not pay, but they can still participate. That is a pretty flexible and reasonable deal. 

Nova Roma has no line of credit available to it. It cannot borrow money because it has no tangible assets that a lender could secure against and seize were Nova Roma to default. The money it has saved is ALL it has.

Currently our expenses exceed our income, so our savings deplete yearly. Unless this is corrected ultimately Nova Roma would go bankrupt and be unable to pay for its web hosting, legal fees, accounting software etc. That is just the yearly expenses of existing. We need to do more than exist. We should be investing in real projects (not harebrained schemes built on sand), advertising and much more. To do that we need to save. to save we need to balance the budget.

Therefore at a time when the budget is not balanced we need to trim our expenses as much as possible. Sulla, who is also the Chief Financial Officer of Nova Roma, is constantly looking for ways to cut those costs. There is simply no way to justify giving tax exemptions for a service that should be voluntary. It is one thing to refund taxes legitimately or redress issues, but giving tax break for being a Latinist is not one of those justified reasons.

Let us face it, the (unofficial) Latinists aren't tied to a desk for 8 hours a day, in some Nova Roman sweat shop, translating feverishly. We currently have no official latinists. Now if the price they want for translating officially is a tax exemption that is a pretty high price when you look at our income and how much difference their taxes could make. 

So Dexter tries to insult the consul by saying he has a Carthaginian sense of business? Well I am glad we have someone at the helm of our business that does have that sense of finances. I also hope that reference to Carthaginians, a Semitic people, isn't a reference to Sulla's ethnic roots as a Jew, because that would be pretty despicable were it the case. We certainly do NOT need antisemitism here. I hope that reference to Sulla is therefore meant as a "classical insult". Assuming the best (who knows) that it is, then I say it is a good thing that he has this sense. Many Roman plutocrats had it. So what? 

Is it better to have Sulla with his "Carthaginian sense of business" guiding us to a balanced budget, or someone that doesn't see the value of preserving our Treasury, and instead lets costs rise and ultimately would see us ruined by this idiotic approach to finances. You try to balance your household budget, so must Nova Roma. It is very very simple, and very sad Dexter plays politics over such a serious issue as a balanced budget. Dexter's problem is he would argue it was night if I or Sulla said it was day, and even if we opened the blinds and showed him the bright sun, he would put his head in a bag and claim he couldn't see the sun so it must be night. Dexter is the one driven by negative motivations, not Sulla. 

Please support the consul and the ongoing efforts to correct the mistakes of the past and secure our future. Please vote yes to all the items the consul has put to the vote.

Optime valete


________________________________
From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 12:09 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina



 
C. Petronius L. Cornelio Sullae consuli sine collega salutem,

Lol.
You show to everybody that you have the Carthaginian sense of the business. You are not a Roman. I like this reason: if the Latinists are in the first class Nova Roma cannot be great neither generous as it were last years when the previous laws were in force.
Nova Roma was it in deficit those last years? No.
Your cupidity is your problem.

Citizens vote: NO.

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91072 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Caesar Dexter sal.

Because no one applied to have their status reviewed. It in fact had lapsed years before, so there was no incumbent to review. 

Pretty simple really.

Optime vale


________________________________
From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 12:37 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina



 
C. Petronius Dexter Cn. Iulio Caesari salutem,

Just a small correction, do you say?
The law Arminia de fovenda lingua latina speak about a Senate "yearly review". Why this review was not did the last year neither this year?
Had you repealed this law before the Comitia when you were consul and this year when Cornelius is?

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91073 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: To Dexter and Scholastica
C. Petronius Dexter L. Cornelio Sullae consuli sine collega salutem,

I re-read the lex Cornelia de quaestoribus, but the word "consul" is already not replaced by "consuls" or "one of the consuls"...

This correcting is apparently so minor than you forgot to make it.:o)

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91074 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Caesar Dextro sal.

Apparently Virgo Vestalis Maxima was an office, by virtue of a decretum issued by your own Collegium Pontificum.

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


This shows as passed. "Item passed with four Pontifices in favor of amended Decretum."

"3 Those member of the whole Collegium who hold any one or more of the offices of the Rex Sacrorum, Regina Sacrorum, the Flamines Maiores, Pontifex Maximus, Virgo Vestalis Maxima, Pontifices, and Flamines Minores may vote on a decretum (pl. decreta)."

If this decretum is still in force (it appears so) then the Virgo Vestalis Maxima is an office to which one assumes like the others someone has to be appointed to. I think Caeca's point was that the Collegium has not officially appointed her as such to that office. Therefore if the decretum is valid and in force, then she is correct, she isn't the Virgo Vestalis Maxima and you I suppose would be incorrect that it isn't a title, since it appears to be the title of an office.

Maybe not so obvious? Who knows? Apparently not you.... Who are you again? Ah yes pontifex maximus, in which case why am I doing your job for you and looking this up? Just curious..... This is basic stuff (isn't it?).

Maybe if you spent less time engaged in silly negative critical comments about finances and other leges and kept track of what your own Collegium has passed something might actually get done in there. You know Dexter when you are so critical of others, you really need to make sure your own house is in order. People in glass houses should not throw stones - know that English saying? Shouldn't you know this stuff inside and out? 

This is indicative of why things slip through the cracks in the CP, such as citizens wanting to apply for priesthoods and waiting and waiting, and you not fixing it with a simple suggestion and forcing the Senate to step in. Yes I know you will likely overturn that Senatus consultum - just to prove how independent you are, that would be independently ineffective. I suppose if you don't know your own decreta inside and out, and who should and should not be in the Collegium pontificum and what roles they hold, then it is no wonder the CP presents itself as disordered. 

Maybe you need to take a holiday from investigating Sulla's Carthaginian heritage, from your explosively funny (sarcasm alert) Gallic wit and other diversions you wander into, and instead do some research into your own primary role in Nova Roma, or is that too novel a concept - too much like a game where you need to learn rules - your own Collegium's rules?

Time to wake up and give your head a shake Dexter.

Optime vale



________________________________
From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 12:51 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina



 
C. Petronius Dexter C. Mariae Caecae virgini Vestali salutem,

If you are the one virgo Vestalis, you obviously are the virgo maxima. Virgo maxima is not a title, is the rank of priority given by the seniority between all the vestals. As you are the one vestal you are obviously the virgo maxima. Who else may be?

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91075 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Ave

Thanks for agreeing with me!

Vale

Sulla

Sent from my Kindle Fire



_____________________________________________
From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@... Sent: Sat Jul 13 23:30:15 MST 2013
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina




C. Petronius Dexter L. Cornelio Sullae consuli sine collega salutem,

Effectively, if a vestal is sole vestal she is by default the virgo maxima. That is patently obvious.

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91076 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
C. Maria Caeca C. Petronio Dextro Pontifici Maximo L. Cornelio Sullae
Consuli, GN. Iulio Caesari Censori, Omnibusque in foro Salutem Plurimam
dicit:



At the time of my appointment by the Collegium Pontificum as Virgo Vestalis,
there was a discussion as to whether I should also be appointed as Virgo
Maxima. The decision was that I should not be so appointed. Since I serve
at the pleasure of the Collegium Pontificum, and since the Collegium
prescribes the manner of my service, to use a title which they have not
given me, or to assume that I fill a position to which they have not
appointed me, would, whatever the practical parameters of my service may be,
be an act of defiance against those at whose pleasure I serve. I would
consider such an action dishonorable.



Valete!

C. Maria Caeca



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91077 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Ave

Then maybe the cp should actually publish a decree to settle this issue? Oh but that would require some activity and heaven forbid Dexter do something akin to real work!

Vale

Sulla

Sent from my Kindle Fire



_____________________________________________
From: cmc <c.mariacaeca@... Sent: Sun Jul 14 07:49:18 MST 2013
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina




C. Maria Caeca C. Petronio Dextro Pontifici Maximo L. Cornelio Sullae
Consuli, GN. Iulio Caesari Censori, Omnibusque in foro Salutem Plurimam
dicit:

At the time of my appointment by the Collegium Pontificum as Virgo Vestalis,
there was a discussion as to whether I should also be appointed as Virgo
Maxima. The decision was that I should not be so appointed. Since I serve
at the pleasure of the Collegium Pontificum, and since the Collegium
prescribes the manner of my service, to use a title which they have not
given me, or to assume that I fill a position to which they have not
appointed me, would, whatever the practical parameters of my service may be,
be an act of defiance against those at whose pleasure I serve. I would
consider such an action dishonorable.

Valete!

C. Maria Caeca

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





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91078 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Caeca Sullae Cos Sal!



At this point, I don't see that a change of title is particularly
beneficial. Should other Vestals apply and be accepted, the situation would
change, because I would be responsible for training and supervising them.
At that point, no doubt, the Collegium will re-evaluate my official status.




Vale!

C. Maria Caeca



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91079 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,

I recognize there that you understand what you want to understand, as usual.
This decretum is about who may vote and Maria Caeca votes in the CP on a decretum. She is the virgo maxima. Nobody else may be virgo maxima.

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91080 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Cn. Iulius Caesar C. Mariae Caecae sal

Thank you for the clarification. I am still hazy as to whether this was a discussion, or a discussion with a vote. Either way however it is clear you were not appointed as Virgo Vestalis Maxima. So, from the decretum I posted  ( http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Collegium_pontificum_decreta_Februariae_MMDCCLXI%c2%a0) we know that the Virgo Vestalis Maxima is an office, that Virgo Vestalis Maxima is the title of the office, and that only she out of all the Vestals can participate in a vote on a decretum. 

So as an extra caution Caeca, until the Collegium Pontificum gets its act in order and sorts this out (adding it to the existing long list of things internally it needs to sort out) and holds an actual vote on the position, then you appear not to have the right to vote in the Collegium Pontificum under the terms of the decretum quoted. This needs to be sorted out if there was no other decretum passed that specifically gave you the vote. 

Even though not in the Collegium Pontificum, of course I would be delighted to see you Caeca put your name forward for the office and to be elected as Virgo Vestalis Maxima, but first someone needs to call the Collegium to vote on the matter. There is an urgency to this though since there is a significant (if not huge) question mark over your right to participate in a vote on a decretum. If for instance a decretum passed in the future by one vote and you had voted in favour of it, then in reality it would have failed since it seems you don't have the right to vote.

Why I think it needs to be fixed ASAP is we don't need decreta passed which can later be challenged as to their legal validity. Years later maybe. 

Optime vale


________________________________
From: cmc <c.mariacaeca@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina



 
C. Maria Caeca C. Petronio Dextro Pontifici Maximo L. Cornelio Sullae
Consuli, GN. Iulio Caesari Censori, Omnibusque in foro Salutem Plurimam
dicit:

At the time of my appointment by the Collegium Pontificum as Virgo Vestalis,
there was a discussion as to whether I should also be appointed as Virgo
Maxima. The decision was that I should not be so appointed. Since I serve
at the pleasure of the Collegium Pontificum, and since the Collegium
prescribes the manner of my service, to use a title which they have not
given me, or to assume that I fill a position to which they have not
appointed me, would, whatever the practical parameters of my service may be,
be an act of defiance against those at whose pleasure I serve. I would
consider such an action dishonorable.

Valete!

C. Maria Caeca

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91081 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Ave,

What about the votes in the past in the CP that Caeca participated in? Are
they valid?

Tribunes? Can you offer your opinions?

Respectfully,

Sulla


On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91082 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,

As usual you read the law as you want.

No one applied to have their status reviewed... the law does not says that the latinists have to apply their status being reviewed. It is the duty of the senate. The latinists apply once through the consuls and the senate reviews the title annually...

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91083 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Cn. Caesar C. Petronio sal.

Ah, you have adopted your standard response when wrong, namely you have found a bag and stuck your head in it and are pretending not to see the decretum. Typical response.

It won't work Dexter, the decretum ( http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Collegium_pontificum_decreta_Februariae_MMDCCLXI%c2%a0) specifically creates the office. All the other positions are voted on. In fact the CP actually declined, according to Caeca, to appoint her as Virgo Maxima.

So to be clear you are going to allow her to vote in the Collegium pontificum despite the decretum, which sets out who can vote on decreta, and despite the fact that she was specifically not appointed after a discussion on whether she should be Virgo Maxima? You are going to keep insisting she despite no vote, despite a discussion where it was decided not to appoint her? In other words you are breaking the CP's own rules?

I hope you feel happy inside that bag. You will keep bumping into things wearing it.

Optime vale


________________________________
From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 10:38 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima



 
C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,

I recognize there that you understand what you want to understand, as usual.
This decretum is about who may vote and Maria Caeca votes in the CP on a decretum. She is the virgo maxima. Nobody else may be virgo maxima.

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91084 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Ave Dexter,

Did you even READ the law?

2. The application of the citizen shall be sent to the Senate through the
consules. The Senate will vote on the proposal and a simple majority shall
be sufficient to approve the title.

http://novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Arminia_de_fovenda_lingua_latina_(Nova_Roma)

Please read the law before you answer.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91085 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Cn Caesar C. Petonio sal.

As usual you have a bag on your head and are pretending not to see reality.

The lex states that the position is only good for a year. After that if no review takes place they are NOT latinists. It does not place an obligation on the Senate to fill it. If persons want the job they apply, get voted on and then if successful become a Latinist. At the end of their first year they should be reviewed. That did not happen, years ago. The office therefore fell vacant. You can't review an empty spot Dexter. 

The Senate is not required to spoon feed people. If no one bothers to apply then the office is vacant. There is a responsibility on those that aspire to be a Latinist to apply to the Senate for the position. 

Optime vale


________________________________
From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 10:54 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina



 
C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,

As usual you read the law as you want.

No one applied to have their status reviewed... the law does not says that the latinists have to apply their status being reviewed. It is the duty of the senate. The latinists apply once through the consuls and the senate reviews the title annually...

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91086 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
C. Petronius L. Cornelio Sullae consuli sine collega salutem,

I read it, English is not my language, nevertheless apparently I understand it better than you.

If you read more than the first line you read:
4. The title of Latinist must be reviewed annually by the Senate, and will be valid from the time of approval until the end of the year. The tax release, however, will be valid only for the following year, even though it is renewed.

You want to repeal a law that you never read but only moved by your cupidity...

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91087 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Ave,

Logic, Dexter Logic.....How can you have #4 before #2?

Vale,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91088 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,

Only good for a year and annually reviewed by the senate.

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91089 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Ave

If there is no application, per section 2, there is NOTHING to review, as
Caesar pointed out.

Vale,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91090 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Caesar Dextro sal.

You can't read very well with a bag on your head, I appreciate that, so let me quote your own quote:

"and will be valid from the time of approval until the end of the year."

At the end of a year the Senate shoudl review. Even if the Senate the first year after appointment should have reviewed it, it didn't. Therefore the title falls vacant. It lasts only for one year. Period.

Optime vale


________________________________
From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 11:03 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina



 
C. Petronius L. Cornelio Sullae consuli sine collega salutem,

I read it, English is not my language, nevertheless apparently I understand it better than you.

If you read more than the first line you read:
4. The title of Latinist must be reviewed annually by the Senate, and will be valid from the time of approval until the end of the year. The tax release, however, will be valid only for the following year, even though it is renewed.

You want to repeal a law that you never read but only moved by your cupidity...

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91091 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Caesar Dextro sal.

Yes and after a year the Latinist would have to apply for a review, you know Dexter indicating they want to continue... When they do that the Senate reviews it. That didn't happen years ago - in fact it happened under the faction you used to support before you quit their camp. 

When the office fell vacant, there is no one in it to review. By the time I became consul it was long empty and no one applied. Therefore there was no one for me to review.

Take the bag off and read and think, and stop defending your own ego. Think logically (for a change).

Optime vale 


________________________________
From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 11:06 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina



 
C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,

Only good for a year and annually reviewed by the senate.

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91092 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
M. Pompeius Caninus Tribunus Plebis L. Cornelio Sullae Felici Consuli
sal.


Since there is, at this point, no instrument we are aware of that
decrees either that C. Maria Caeca is the Virgo Vestalis Maxima or that
she is otherwise entitled to vote on matters before the Collegium
Pontificum, any previous votes she has cast are in doubt and may be
successfully challenged. A decretum is required from the Collegium
Pontificum stating C. Maria Caeca is entitled to vote - or that she is,
indeed, Virgo Vestalis Maxima - and that all previous votes cast by her
in previous sessions of the Collegium Pontificum are considered valid,
including any votes cast on decreta, as she was fully entitled to vote
at the time those previous votes were cast. Without this action, Caeca's
votes are almost certainly invalid.


On a separate note, based on previous discussions about applications for
, I found these items very interesting:


DECRETUM II: QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO
QUIRITIBVS.


The Collegium Pontificum having met in order to consider his
application, hereby appoints Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus a sacerdos
Concordiae
Item passed with four Pontifices in favor




DECRETUM III: QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO
QUIRITIBVS.


The Collegium Pontificum having met in order to consider his
application, hereby appoints Marcus Moravius Piscinus an Augur.
Item passed with three Pontifices in favor




DECRETUM IV: QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO
QUIRITIBVS.


The Collegium Pontificum having met in order to consider his
application, hereby appoints of Titus Iulius Sabinus a sacerdos
Mercurialis
Item passed with four Pontifices in favor.




Fac valeas!


Marcus Pompeius Caninus
Tribunus Plebis
America Boreoccidentalis

Vivat Nova Roma!





-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex
Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Date: Sun, July 14, 2013 8:52 am
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Ave,

What about the votes in the past in the CP that Caeca participated in?
Are
they valid?

Tribunes? Can you offer your opinions?

Respectfully,

Sulla


On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...
was a
clear you
posted
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Collegium_pontificum_decreta_Februariae_MMDCCLXI
) we
Vestals
act
things
position,
Pontificum
if
vote.
to be
since
passed in
reality
Plurimam
Virgo
serve
not
may
would
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

Yahoo! Groups Links
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91093 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Salvete omnes!



I would need to search the archives of the CP list to trace the results of
the discussion concerning me, (difficult for me, at best). However, I
*think* that the CP voted to appoint me as Virgo Vestalis. I am trying to
remember the conditions under which I was informed that I could vote in the
CP, and, to be honest, I can't. It is possible that the then CP (Sabinus)
informed me, and I simply accepted this as an administrative decision based
on the fact that I was the only Vestal in NR, and the CP wanted the
Collegium Vestalis to be represented in voting. In addition, and while this
may sound irrelevant, it isn't to me, the P.M. is and has, since ancient
Rome, been considered to be the Pater Familias of the Vestals. I am,
therefore under the manus of the Pontifex Maximus, and I am bound both by
the fact that I serve at the pleasure of the CP *and*, if only morally, by
my relationship to my Pater Familias. I will, of course, abide by any
decision the CP makes, and I will serve in whatever capacity they deem best,
to the best of my ability.



Valete!

CMC



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91094 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,

As the vestals normally are a college of 6, the first by seniority is called Maxima. When the college is reduced to 1, the vestal is automatically the Maxima Virgo, nobody else may be.
Is is difficult to understand that?

As our consul without colleague... is he less consul because he is sole consul? His votes are they not valid?

In the CP, on all the 6 vestals only the Virgo Maxima votes according to the decretum. But as the college is reduced to 1, not only the sole vestal is the Maxima Virgo but also she can vote.

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91095 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Salve Dexter,

I think what they are asking or trying to find out was there ever a
Official Decretum issued proclaiming this?

Or was this just simple assumption so therefore?

Vale bene,
Aeternia



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91096 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Cn. Caesar censor M. Pompeio Canino tribuno plebis sal.

Thank you Tribune. We need to be clear though.

The pontifex maximus asserts Caeca is Virgo Maxima Vestalis. She says she isn't. He thinks she is by virtue of being the only vestal. If she is a vestal only she may have a vote. I just discovered a decretum which says it is active and which was passed after the earlier one I found.

Please review this: http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Decretum_pontificum_de_membris_collegiorum_(Nova_Roma)

So which ever hat Caeca actually wears, and I agree with her it isn't the Virgo Vestalis Maxima, the votes maybe safe. I say maybe because the CP's records are such a mess. However she still needs to be voted in as Virgo Vestalis Maxima it seems. If the pontifex maximus treats her as such, for the purposes of seeking advice, input etc. then this is unwise, and certainly against the spirit of both decreta. 

My question to you Tribune after reviewing both decreta, is it your considered opinion that the title of Virgo Maxima Vestalis is one that someone has to be appointed to, by vote or by assignement, through a specific process for such? Further do you consider that being the only vestal equates to being the Virgo Vestalis Maxima by default?

We wouldn't have to be going through this if Dexter would concentrate on his own job and sort out the mess that the CP is in, but it is clear he won't. 

Optime vale


________________________________
From: M. Pompeius Caninus <caninus@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 11:12 AM
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina



 
M. Pompeius Caninus Tribunus Plebis L. Cornelio Sullae Felici Consuli
sal.

Since there is, at this point, no instrument we are aware of that
decrees either that C. Maria Caeca is the Virgo Vestalis Maxima or that
she is otherwise entitled to vote on matters before the Collegium
Pontificum, any previous votes she has cast are in doubt and may be
successfully challenged. A decretum is required from the Collegium
Pontificum stating C. Maria Caeca is entitled to vote - or that she is,
indeed, Virgo Vestalis Maxima - and that all previous votes cast by her
in previous sessions of the Collegium Pontificum are considered valid,
including any votes cast on decreta, as she was fully entitled to vote
at the time those previous votes were cast. Without this action, Caeca's
votes are almost certainly invalid.

On a separate note, based on previous discussions about applications for
, I found these items very interesting:

DECRETUM II: QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO
QUIRITIBVS.

The Collegium Pontificum having met in order to consider his
application, hereby appoints Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus a sacerdos
Concordiae
Item passed with four Pontifices in favor

DECRETUM III: QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO
QUIRITIBVS.

The Collegium Pontificum having met in order to consider his
application, hereby appoints Marcus Moravius Piscinus an Augur.
Item passed with three Pontifices in favor

DECRETUM IV: QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO
QUIRITIBVS.

The Collegium Pontificum having met in order to consider his
application, hereby appoints of Titus Iulius Sabinus a sacerdos
Mercurialis
Item passed with four Pontifices in favor.

Fac valeas!

Marcus Pompeius Caninus
Tribunus Plebis
America Boreoccidentalis

Vivat Nova Roma!

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex
Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Date: Sun, July 14, 2013 8:52 am
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Ave,

What about the votes in the past in the CP that Caeca participated in?
Are
they valid?

Tribunes? Can you offer your opinions?

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...
was a
clear you
posted
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Collegium_pontificum_decreta_Februariae_MMDCCLXI
) we
Vestals
act
things
position,
Pontificum
if
vote.
to be
since
passed in
reality
Plurimam
Virgo
serve
not
may
would
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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

Yahoo! Groups Links




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91097 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
C. Petronius L. Cornelio Sullae consuli sine collega salutem

But there were applications. I remember a decretum giving the title of latinist to Scholastica. I was too. She was not the one concerned by this decree. But I presume, because at this time I was not senator, that this decree was voted by the senate.
The senate did not review her title nor the others the year after, neither the years following...
Apparently the consuls of 2764 and 2765 did not care the Latin language, at least did not search to favorise it, but worst the sole consul of 2766 thought about this law completely neglected and by cupidity wants to strike out the section III of the law...

People vote: NO.

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91098 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Caesar Dextro sal.

Stop playing politics for a moment and leave Sulla and the consulship out of this, just a moment, and think this through logically and review the latest decretum I found.

http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Decretum_pontificum_de_membris_collegiorum_(Nova_Roma)


This delineates the Collegium pontificum. The office of Virgo Vestalis Maxima is spearate from the 5 other vestals. I don't see any provision that says that if there is only one vestal she must be the Virgo Vestalis Maxima.

The CP debated whether to appoint Caeca it seems, before you were pontifex maximus I think, and declined to do so. So she votes as a vestal, not as VVM. Since the whole issue of her APPOINTMENT to the role of VVM was debated, and it was decided not to, then she cannot, logically, be the VVM as a result of of your own collegium's discussion/debate.

The position of vestal and of VVM are two separate ones. You have to appoint her to VVM formally, not assume or state she is by default. The CP decided against appointment. 

Optime vale. 


________________________________
From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 11:19 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima



 
C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,

As the vestals normally are a college of 6, the first by seniority is called Maxima. When the college is reduced to 1, the vestal is automatically the Maxima Virgo, nobody else may be.
Is is difficult to understand that?

As our consul without colleague... is he less consul because he is sole consul? His votes are they not valid?

In the CP, on all the 6 vestals only the Virgo Maxima votes according to the decretum. But as the college is reduced to 1, not only the sole vestal is the Maxima Virgo but also she can vote.

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91099 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Ave,

There applications? Really where?

I have not seen any applications for all of this year.

Caesar, when you and Val were consuls last year - did you receive any
applications?

Vale,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91100 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
C. Maria Caeca C. Petronio Dextro Pontifici Maximo S. P. D.



What you say makes perfect sense, Pater, except that the CP *specifically*,
at the time of my appointment discussed and decided *not* to give me the
appointment of the office of Virgo Maxima. I was, however, by virtue of
being the only Vestal, allowed to vote in the CP, despite the terms of my
appointment.



Vale et valete!

C. Maria Caeca



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91101 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Salve amice

Zero

Vale bene
Caesar


________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina


Ave,

There applications?  Really where?

I have not seen any applications for all of this year.

Caesar, when you and Val were consuls last year - did you receive any
applications?

Vale,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91102 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Ave amice,

Thanks,

Venii when you and Cato were consuls - did you get any applications?

Respectfully,

Sulla


On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91103 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Caesar Sullae sal

Amice, I checked. The last time a Latinist was appointed I think was 2005-05-28. That was Scholastica. The term of her office is recorded as expiring on 2008-01-31. If that was by Senatus consultum then it is dubious whether it was legal since the lex (higher than a senatus consultum) specifically states the appointment can only be for a year.

At best therefore the last time there was a Latinist was 31st January 2008. At worst either 27th May 2006, or 31st December 2005 (depending on whether it a calendar year or actual year).

The office was vacant for years, and years, and years.....

Optime vale


________________________________
From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@... To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina



 
Salve amice

Zero

Vale bene
Caesar

________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina


Ave,

There applications?  Really where?

I have not seen any applications for all of this year.

Caesar, when you and Val were consuls last year - did you receive any
applications?

Vale,

Sulla

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91104 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Salve Caesar,


When you click on the link you have provided nothing is there...

........

Or is that the whole point intended?

Vale bene,
Aeternia



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91105 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Salve amica

It is the feature of Yahoo that it always cuts off the bracketed (Nova Roma) from the hyperlink. Highlight and copy the whole link into your the address bar of your browser.

Vale bene
Caesar 


________________________________
From: Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@... To: nova-roma <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima


Salve Caesar,


When you click on the link you have provided nothing is there...

........

Or is that the whole point intended?

Vale bene,
Aeternia



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91106 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Will ANY CP member
Take the necessary steps to fix the CP? Since, it is damn clear that the
Pontifex Maximus thinks everything is peachy. And, it is proven again,
clearly that it is not.

So, will ANY Pontiff now step up to the plate and accept responsibility to
fix the CP?

Respectfully,

Sulla


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91107 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
C. Petronius L. Cornelio Sullae consuli sine collega salutem,

What is your problem?

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Quintiles MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91108 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Ave,

Your ineffectual leadership in the CP, that is my problem. Dexter.

Vale,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91109 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Caesar Caecae sal

I think this was the vote where it was decided not to appoint you as Virgo Vestalis Maxima? 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligioRomana/message/13824


Initially item II:
2. The CP will analyze and if concluded, appoint C. Maria Caeca as Virgo
Vestalis Maxima.

Modified item II (announced with 24 hrs in advance of the vote session):
2. The CP will analyze and if concluded, appoint C. Maria Caeca as Vestal
Virgin.

This item modification follows the Collegium Pontificum members' advice as C.
Maria Caeca to take first the Vestal Virgin job steps.

TIS: Uti rogas. Based of the common sense she shows until now, she will be a
fine Vestal Virgin and an important candidate for the position of Virgo Vestalis
Maxima.

QFM: Uti rogas. I believe she will be a fine Vestal however; until we have more
then one, there should be no candidates for the position of Virgo Vestalis
Maxima.

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

So it was changed from appointing you as VVM to vestal, but here it gets more hazy. What does "The CP will analyze and if concluded" mean? It also says "s C. Maria Caeca to take first the Vestal Virgin job steps". So forget about whether you are VVM by default, now the question is what does this decretum say? It says you were taking first steps of the job of vestal. Does that mean you were in training? Does it even mean you were appointed a vestal? First steps seems to indicate that in combination with the analysis and conclusion part of the decretum, they seem to have voted to let you train to be a vestal and review your performance, your probationary period, and at the conclusion appoint you, or vote to appoint you? When and what was the analysis? When was the analysis to be concluded? Is that the vote or a training period? Who knows?

I have no idea what was intended, and all that matters is what was actually voted on. This could be interpreted a number of ways. At this stage it seems unclear, from this vote, if you are even a Vestal, let alone VVM. 

Was there a training program envisaged? In the same session the CP (Friday 24 December 2010 to Wednesday 29 December 2010) discussed a training plan for new candidates for the priesthoods. That went nowhere, they are still discussing how to create one. If they did vote to put you into some sort of training position (who on earth knows) I assume the vestal training plan will be designed after the one for pontifex candidates? If so I'd settle in for a long wait if that is the case.  

Caeca, I think you really need to ask for:

A) A clarification vote on whether you are a Vestal and then
B) A clarification vote on whether you are Virgo Vestalis Maxima

Optime vale

   


________________________________
From: cmc <c.mariacaeca@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 11:42 AM
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima



 
C. Maria Caeca C. Petronio Dextro Pontifici Maximo S. P. D.

What you say makes perfect sense, Pater, except that the CP *specifically*,
at the time of my appointment discussed and decided *not* to give me the
appointment of the office of Virgo Maxima. I was, however, by virtue of
being the only Vestal, allowed to vote in the CP, despite the terms of my
appointment.

Vale et valete!

C. Maria Caeca

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91110 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Salve Sulla,

Surely you remember the heated discussion in the latest Senate session regarding the "Leadership" of Dexter.

Remember as he pointed out he is the first among equals.


Vale bene,
Aeternia

Sent from my iPhone

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91111 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
SALVETE!

The vestals have the right to vote during the CP sessions. That is what the CP decided:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/335%c2%a0


C. Maria Caeca was not appointed as Virgo Vestalis Maxima by the CP but indeed I asked her about that and then came the Messallina's short return and then Maria's unfortunate accident and she was not official appointed.

VALETE,
Sabinus
 
"Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius


________________________________
From: M. Pompeius Caninus <caninus@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 8:12 PM
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina



 
M. Pompeius Caninus Tribunus Plebis L. Cornelio Sullae Felici Consuli
sal.

Since there is, at this point, no instrument we are aware of that
decrees either that C. Maria Caeca is the Virgo Vestalis Maxima or that
she is otherwise entitled to vote on matters before the Collegium
Pontificum, any previous votes she has cast are in doubt and may be
successfully challenged. A decretum is required from the Collegium
Pontificum stating C. Maria Caeca is entitled to vote - or that she is,
indeed, Virgo Vestalis Maxima - and that all previous votes cast by her
in previous sessions of the Collegium Pontificum are considered valid,
including any votes cast on decreta, as she was fully entitled to vote
at the time those previous votes were cast. Without this action, Caeca's
votes are almost certainly invalid.

On a separate note, based on previous discussions about applications for
, I found these items very interesting:

DECRETUM II: QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO
QUIRITIBVS.

The Collegium Pontificum having met in order to consider his
application, hereby appoints Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus a sacerdos
Concordiae
Item passed with four Pontifices in favor

DECRETUM III: QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO
QUIRITIBVS.

The Collegium Pontificum having met in order to consider his
application, hereby appoints Marcus Moravius Piscinus an Augur.
Item passed with three Pontifices in favor

DECRETUM IV: QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO
QUIRITIBVS.

The Collegium Pontificum having met in order to consider his
application, hereby appoints of Titus Iulius Sabinus a sacerdos
Mercurialis
Item passed with four Pontifices in favor.

Fac valeas!

Marcus Pompeius Caninus
Tribunus Plebis
America Boreoccidentalis

Vivat Nova Roma!

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex
Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Date: Sun, July 14, 2013 8:52 am
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Ave,

What about the votes in the past in the CP that Caeca participated in?
Are
they valid?

Tribunes? Can you offer your opinions?

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...
was a
clear you
posted
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Collegium_pontificum_decreta_Februariae_MMDCCLXI
) we
Vestals
act
things
position,
Pontificum
if
vote.
to be
since
passed in
reality
Plurimam
Virgo
serve
not
may
would
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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

Yahoo! Groups Links




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91112 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
SALVE!

Read the CP messages from January 2011 and will understand.

VALE,
Sabinus
 
"Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius


________________________________
From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@... To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima



 
Caesar Caecae sal

I think this was the vote where it was decided not to appoint you as Virgo Vestalis Maxima? 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligioRomana/message/13824

Initially item II:
2. The CP will analyze and if concluded, appoint C. Maria Caeca as Virgo
Vestalis Maxima.

Modified item II (announced with 24 hrs in advance of the vote session):
2. The CP will analyze and if concluded, appoint C. Maria Caeca as Vestal
Virgin.

This item modification follows the Collegium Pontificum members' advice as C.
Maria Caeca to take first the Vestal Virgin job steps.

TIS: Uti rogas. Based of the common sense she shows until now, she will be a
fine Vestal Virgin and an important candidate for the position of Virgo Vestalis
Maxima.

QFM: Uti rogas. I believe she will be a fine Vestal however; until we have more
then one, there should be no candidates for the position of Virgo Vestalis
Maxima.

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

So it was changed from appointing you as VVM to vestal, but here it gets more hazy. What does "The CP will analyze and if concluded" mean? It also says "s C. Maria Caeca to take first the Vestal Virgin job steps". So forget about whether you are VVM by default, now the question is what does this decretum say? It says you were taking first steps of the job of vestal. Does that mean you were in training? Does it even mean you were appointed a vestal? First steps seems to indicate that in combination with the analysis and conclusion part of the decretum, they seem to have voted to let you train to be a vestal and review your performance, your probationary period, and at the conclusion appoint you, or vote to appoint you? When and what was the analysis? When was the analysis to be concluded? Is that the vote or a training period? Who knows?

I have no idea what was intended, and all that matters is what was actually voted on. This could be interpreted a number of ways. At this stage it seems unclear, from this vote, if you are even a Vestal, let alone VVM. 

Was there a training program envisaged? In the same session the CP (Friday 24 December 2010 to Wednesday 29 December 2010) discussed a training plan for new candidates for the priesthoods. That went nowhere, they are still discussing how to create one. If they did vote to put you into some sort of training position (who on earth knows) I assume the vestal training plan will be designed after the one for pontifex candidates? If so I'd settle in for a long wait if that is the case.  

Caeca, I think you really need to ask for:

A) A clarification vote on whether you are a Vestal and then
B) A clarification vote on whether you are Virgo Vestalis Maxima

Optime vale

   

________________________________
From: cmc <c.mariacaeca@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 11:42 AM
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima


 
C. Maria Caeca C. Petronio Dextro Pontifici Maximo S. P. D.

What you say makes perfect sense, Pater, except that the CP *specifically*,
at the time of my appointment discussed and decided *not* to give me the
appointment of the office of Virgo Maxima. I was, however, by virtue of
being the only Vestal, allowed to vote in the CP, despite the terms of my
appointment.

Vale et valete!

C. Maria Caeca

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

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91113 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Tomorrrow
Ave,

Tomorrow I will be posting updated drafts of the proposed laws for
consideration for the Conto. Those laws that have draft revisions will be
its own new discussion thread. The one for the Census/Century point
revisions will be listed under BOTH names to ensure the continuity of
discussion.

The old threads, once the new threads are created, should cease and all
discussion carried over to the new thread. This is to ensure two things:

1. Conversation stays on topic
2. The Ease of my staff and I to follow the conversations to ensure that
any constructive recommendation gets an opportunity to be aired out and
discussed for possible adoption.

Thank you for your participation.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91114 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: 22 hours left for Contio in Comitia Plebis Tributa
M. Pompeius Caninus civibus plebeianis salutem plurimam dicit:


The contio (discussion period) for the
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Pompeia_de_ratione_comitiorum_plebis_tributorum_(Nova_Roma)
is closed. As a reminder, here is the remaining schedule for the current
session of the Comitia Plebis Tributa:
.

09:01 AM ROME TIME 17-July-2013 : Call to vote. Voting period begins.

The Cista will be closed on July 19th and July 21st - no citizen shall
vote on those two days.

09:01 AM ROME TIME 22-July-2013 : Voting period ends.

11:59 PM ROME TIME 23-July-2013 : Call to close issued before this time.




Optime valete!


Marcus Pompeius Caninus
Tribunus Plebis
America Boreoccidentalis

Vivat Nova Roma!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91115 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
In a message dated 7/14/2013 12:19:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
syrenslullaby@... writes:

So, will ANY Pontiff now step up to the plate and accept responsibility
to fix the CP?

Sigh, what's wrong with the CP now?

Q. Fabius Maximus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91116 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Contio closed for Comitia Plebis Tributa
M. Pompeius Caninus civibus plebeianis salutem plurimam dicit:


The contio (discussion period) for the
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Pompeia_de_ratione_comitiorum_plebis_tributorum_(Nova_Roma)
is closed. As a reminder, here is the remaining schedule for the current
session of the Comitia Plebis Tributa:
.

09:01 AM ROME TIME 17-July-2013 : Call to vote. Voting period begins.

The Cista will be closed on July 19th and July 21st - no citizen shall
vote on those two days.

09:01 AM ROME TIME 22-July-2013 : Voting period ends.

11:59 PM ROME TIME 23-July-2013 : Call to close issued before this time.




Optime valete!


Marcus Pompeius Caninus
Tribunus Plebis
America Boreoccidentalis

Vivat Nova Roma!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91117 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
In a message dated 7/14/2013 1:33:54 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
c.mariacaeca@... writes:

What you say makes perfect sense, Pater, except that the CP *specifically*,
at the time of my appointment discussed and decided *not* to give me the
appointment of the office of Virgo Maxima. I was, however, by virtue of
being the only Vestal, allowed to vote in the CP, despite the terms of my
appointment.

Madam.

When we made that vote, we assumed that there would be more Vestals.
Especial after your dreadful accident. When there were none, you became the VM
by default. You couldn't vote in our Sacred College without the title.
Once you cast your first vote you became the VM.

Q. Fabius Maximus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91118 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Ave,

Fabius, that does not add up, she was appointed Vestal before the accident.
The Chronology just does not fit.

The CP Decree was promulgated well before the accident. This is why she
offered to resign the position while in the hospital.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91119 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Ave,

Do you want the ENTIRE list? Or just two two questions that must be
answered in regards to the situation with Caeca?

Not to mention beginning to implement the recent Senatus Consulta that
passed that directly affects the CP!

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91120 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima QFM
In a message dated 7/14/2013 11:50:39 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
gn_iulius_caesar@... writes:

QFM: Uti rogas. I believe she will be a fine Vestal however; until we have
more
then one, there should be no candidates for the position of Virgo Vestalis
Maxima.

Censor,

When that vote was executed I assumed based on discussions that there
would be more Vestals in Nova Roma. Do not forget we had seen the fiasco of
Valeria Messalina who under our pervious PM's benevolence allowed her to be
the Virgo Maxima and dabble in politics as well and I believe we were
reluctant to commit ourself.

For my own POM I started calling Maria Caeca the Virgo Maxima as "The Only
Vestal in Rome" since she started voting in council. Since only a VM can
vote, she became the VM of Nova Roma by default when no other candidate was
forthcoming. As far as I'm concerned she has more then proved herself as
the "first Vestal in Rome" and her recovery from a near death experience
proves she holds the Gods' favor. NR is lucky to have such a person here.

Q. Fabius Maximus




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91121 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
In a message dated 7/14/2013 3:38:54 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
robert.woolwine@... writes:

Fabius, that does not add up, she was appointed Vestal before the
accident.

Excuse me Consul. You are saying that we made her Virgo Maxima before her
accident? No, we just appointed her vestal, and held off on the other
until we had more vestals to choose. We never appointed her Virgo Maxima except
by default. However, to me she has earned the VM. If I remember
correctly she apprenticed under Valeria, so she did undergo training.

You are correct. She wanted to resign her Vestalship after the accident.
But I don't see where my timeline is wrong.

Q. Fabius Maximus




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91122 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
In a message dated 7/14/2013 3:40:59 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
robert.woolwine@... writes:

Do you want the ENTIRE list?

Yes, please the entire list.

Q. Fabius Maximus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91123 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima QFM
Caesar Fabio sal.

That is inconsistent, illogical and illegal. When Modianus expressed an interest in being Rex Sacoroum and he was the only one that did, you didn't in the CP go "oh fine you are the only one - have it and call yourself Rex by default". No, you voted on it - specifically. There was a motion, a vote, a result. So too with the Virgo Vestalis Maxima position. It needs to be voted to Caeca. Period. 

Plus, the Vestals can vote. It isn't just the VVM apparently. Read the second decretum I found for goodness sake. You have rules, they must be followed.

Optime vale


________________________________
From: "QFabiusMaxmi@..." <QFabiusMaxmi@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 5:04 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima QFM



 


In a message dated 7/14/2013 11:50:39 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
gn_iulius_caesar@... writes:

QFM: Uti rogas. I believe she will be a fine Vestal however; until we have
more
then one, there should be no candidates for the position of Virgo Vestalis
Maxima.

Censor,

When that vote was executed I assumed based on discussions that there
would be more Vestals in Nova Roma. Do not forget we had seen the fiasco of
Valeria Messalina who under our pervious PM's benevolence allowed her to be
the Virgo Maxima and dabble in politics as well and I believe we were
reluctant to commit ourself.

For my own POM I started calling Maria Caeca the Virgo Maxima as "The Only
Vestal in Rome" since she started voting in council. Since only a VM can
vote, she became the VM of Nova Roma by default when no other candidate was
forthcoming. As far as I'm concerned she has more then proved herself as
the "first Vestal in Rome" and her recovery from a near death experience
proves she holds the Gods' favor. NR is lucky to have such a person here.

Q. Fabius Maximus

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91124 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Caesar Fabio sal.

Wrong, entirely wrong. Vestals can vote in the Collegium apparently, the Collegium passed a decretum to that effect. Please read threads Fabius. I posted the link to the decretum. Just making it up as you go along and stringing wild theories together and referring to signs is no substitute for reading your own Collegium's decreta. 

Optime vale


________________________________
From: "QFabiusMaxmi@..." <QFabiusMaxmi@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima



 


In a message dated 7/14/2013 1:33:54 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
c.mariacaeca@... writes:

What you say makes perfect sense, Pater, except that the CP *specifically*,
at the time of my appointment discussed and decided *not* to give me the
appointment of the office of Virgo Maxima. I was, however, by virtue of
being the only Vestal, allowed to vote in the CP, despite the terms of my
appointment.

Madam.

When we made that vote, we assumed that there would be more Vestals.
Especial after your dreadful accident. When there were none, you became the VM
by default. You couldn't vote in our Sacred College without the title.
Once you cast your first vote you became the VM.

Q. Fabius Maximus

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91125 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima QFM
In a message dated 7/14/2013 4:20:32 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
gn_iulius_caesar@... writes:

Plus, the Vestals can vote. It isn't just the VVM apparently. Read the
second decretum I found for goodness sake. You have rules, they must be
followed.

This is the problem when you have so many rules. Sabinus just pointed out
to me that we allow all Vestals to vote now and not just the VM. So,
obviously I was wrong. Too many damned rules to keep track of.

Q. Fabius Maximus




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91126 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
C. Petronius L. Cornelio Sullae consuli sine collega salutem,

lol!
My leadership as you say certainly may be a problem for you, because a body of Nova Roma, as the CP is, may be free of your tyranny. The CP escapes to your hand and it is a place in which we are far from you and your Back Alley rudeness.

Every pontiff recognizes that Maria Caeca is the VM, you and Caesar failed.

Nova Roma needs more peace, but it is not easy with individuals as you and Caesar who conceive a "leadership" as a tyranny.

The Bastille Day in France, actually is against every tyranny and I was happy yesterday to celebrate it.

Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité!

English translation:
Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood!

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Idibus Quintilibus MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91127 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Caesar Fabio sal.

Let's start with the fact that you have NO training plans at all. You have been discussing having one for pontifex positions since 2010, at least, if not before! It is absurd, embarrassing and indefensible that you all could not have bolted somethign together in nearly three years. Don't also try to tell me it is being worked on, because it isn't. There is no training plan is there for vestals? None.

Nothing has happened. Zero. Zip. Nada. 

The Collegium is not functioning. It has become a retirement home for those suffering from perpetual sleep syndrome.

Optime vale



________________________________
From: "QFabiusMaxmi@..." <QFabiusMaxmi@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Will ANY CP member



 


In a message dated 7/14/2013 12:19:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
syrenslullaby@... writes:

So, will ANY Pontiff now step up to the plate and accept responsibility
to fix the CP?

Sigh, what's wrong with the CP now?

Q. Fabius Maximus

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91128 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Salve amice

As I think you know, we cannot look to discussion that precede a motion. All that we can rely on is the text of the motion, for otherwise we could constantly turn motions upside down and ascribe meanings other than the actual words of the motion convey. 

The motion is confusing.

Vale bene
Caesar


________________________________
From: iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@... To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima



 
SALVE!

Read the CP messages from January 2011 and will understand.

VALE,
Sabinus
 
"Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius

________________________________
From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@... To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima


 
Caesar Caecae sal

I think this was the vote where it was decided not to appoint you as Virgo Vestalis Maxima? 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligioRomana/message/13824

Initially item II:
2. The CP will analyze and if concluded, appoint C. Maria Caeca as Virgo
Vestalis Maxima.

Modified item II (announced with 24 hrs in advance of the vote session):
2. The CP will analyze and if concluded, appoint C. Maria Caeca as Vestal
Virgin.

This item modification follows the Collegium Pontificum members' advice as C.
Maria Caeca to take first the Vestal Virgin job steps.

TIS: Uti rogas. Based of the common sense she shows until now, she will be a
fine Vestal Virgin and an important candidate for the position of Virgo Vestalis
Maxima.

QFM: Uti rogas. I believe she will be a fine Vestal however; until we have more
then one, there should be no candidates for the position of Virgo Vestalis
Maxima.

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

So it was changed from appointing you as VVM to vestal, but here it gets more hazy. What does "The CP will analyze and if concluded" mean? It also says "s C. Maria Caeca to take first the Vestal Virgin job steps". So forget about whether you are VVM by default, now the question is what does this decretum say? It says you were taking first steps of the job of vestal. Does that mean you were in training? Does it even mean you were appointed a vestal? First steps seems to indicate that in combination with the analysis and conclusion part of the decretum, they seem to have voted to let you train to be a vestal and review your performance, your probationary period, and at the conclusion appoint you, or vote to appoint you? When and what was the analysis? When was the analysis to be concluded? Is that the vote or a training period? Who knows?

I have no idea what was intended, and all that matters is what was actually voted on. This could be interpreted a number of ways. At this stage it seems unclear, from this vote, if you are even a Vestal, let alone VVM. 

Was there a training program envisaged? In the same session the CP (Friday 24 December 2010 to Wednesday 29 December 2010) discussed a training plan for new candidates for the priesthoods. That went nowhere, they are still discussing how to create one. If they did vote to put you into some sort of training position (who on earth knows) I assume the vestal training plan will be designed after the one for pontifex candidates? If so I'd settle in for a long wait if that is the case.  

Caeca, I think you really need to ask for:

A) A clarification vote on whether you are a Vestal and then
B) A clarification vote on whether you are Virgo Vestalis Maxima

Optime vale

   

________________________________
From: cmc <c.mariacaeca@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 11:42 AM
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima

 
C. Maria Caeca C. Petronio Dextro Pontifici Maximo S. P. D.

What you say makes perfect sense, Pater, except that the CP *specifically*,
at the time of my appointment discussed and decided *not* to give me the
appointment of the office of Virgo Maxima. I was, however, by virtue of
being the only Vestal, allowed to vote in the CP, despite the terms of my
appointment.

Vale et valete!

C. Maria Caeca

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

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

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91129 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima QFM
Caesar Fabio sal.

With all due respect Fabi, the Collegium has far less rules than the Senate, or far less rules than there are leges. For goodness sake man this is no defense. Yes it is poorly organized, but I found the two decreta with some simple searching. 

It isn't as though you chaps in the Collegium are over burned with work is it, so yes you should all know these things - back to front and inside out.

Optime vale.


________________________________
From: "QFabiusMaxmi@..." <QFabiusMaxmi@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima QFM



 


In a message dated 7/14/2013 4:20:32 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
gn_iulius_caesar@... writes:

Plus, the Vestals can vote. It isn't just the VVM apparently. Read the
second decretum I found for goodness sake. You have rules, they must be
followed.

This is the problem when you have so many rules. Sabinus just pointed out
to me that we allow all Vestals to vote now and not just the VM. So,
obviously I was wrong. Too many damned rules to keep track of.

Q. Fabius Maximus

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91130 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Ave,

Ensuring that every Pontiff in the CP has been inaugurated properly as this
has been mentioned repeatedly by Metellus and virtually ignored.
Job Descriptions of the Pontffs and really EVERY religious position that
falls under the jurisdiction of the CP - this has been lacking for 15
years. There has to be a way to spell out the duties of what is required
to be a Pontiff and held accountable should someone fall below those
minimum standards.

Follow through on the Decrees that have been passed. You are or were a
politican Fabius, you realize as well as anyone that once a decision is
reached that is JUST the beginning it then must be implemented and then
maintained to ensure compliance.

Then Lustrums, Nova Roma should be holding them regularly.

Also to address the two questions specifically regarding our Vestal.
Sabinus consistently helpful as he has always been, answered the 3rd
question. But, is Caeca an actual Vestal? Or VMM? Or still in training?
Why has the CP not followed through and assessing her performance as the
CP decree stated?

Implement the Senatus Consulta that was just passed by the Senate!

What else? I know I am forgetting something, but at least that would be a
damn good start.

Fabius, how many times have you summoned the CP? Would you actually
summon the CP to resolve all of these issues?

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91131 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Ave Dexter,

If I was a tyrant you would already have been removed as Pontifex Maximus.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91132 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Ave,

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. You guys made her a Vestal BEFORE
her accident. She told me repeatedly. If you check with her she will
confirm that she offered to resign her position while in the hospital.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91133 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Caesar Dextro sal

Head in a bag again Dexter? You are being totally absurd now and it is clear Nova Roma is ill served by having you in the position of PM by such silly remarks. She is not VVM (or VM as you refer to her). No one voted on it, the motion on VVM was withdrawn and an equally confusing one relating to being a vestal ONLY was substituted. Can't you even admit the plain and simple truth of your own Collegium's records?

Optime vale


________________________________
From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 5:27 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Will ANY CP member



 
C. Petronius L. Cornelio Sullae consuli sine collega salutem,

lol!
My leadership as you say certainly may be a problem for you, because a body of Nova Roma, as the CP is, may be free of your tyranny. The CP escapes to your hand and it is a place in which we are far from you and your Back Alley rudeness.

Every pontiff recognizes that Maria Caeca is the VM, you and Caesar failed.

Nova Roma needs more peace, but it is not easy with individuals as you and Caesar who conceive a "leadership" as a tyranny.

The Bastille Day in France, actually is against every tyranny and I was happy yesterday to celebrate it.

Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité!

English translation:
Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood!

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Idibus Quintilibus MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91134 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima QFM
Too many rules? No, the problem is no one ensures compliance to the rules
already in place!

Vale,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91135 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
C. Petronius L. Cornelio Sullae consuli sine collega salutem,

Maria Caeca as sole vestal is the VM. Period.

Do you understand English or I have to translate it into Latin?

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Idibus Quintilibus MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91136 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Caesar Sabino sal.

Amice, maybe you need to explain that simple fact, as the former pontifex maximus and the one who conducted the session, to Dexter and Fabius. They insist on saying she became Virgo Vestalis Maxima by default, despite the decision NOT to appoint her! 

It is embarrassing to watch them dig deeper holes in public.

Optime vale


________________________________
From: iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@... To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina



 
SALVETE!

The vestals have the right to vote during the CP sessions. That is what the CP decided:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/335%c2%a0

C. Maria Caeca was not appointed as Virgo Vestalis Maxima by the CP but indeed I asked her about that and then came the Messallina's short return and then Maria's unfortunate accident and she was not official appointed.

VALETE,
Sabinus
 
"Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius

________________________________
From: M. Pompeius Caninus <caninus@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 8:12 PM
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina


 
M. Pompeius Caninus Tribunus Plebis L. Cornelio Sullae Felici Consuli
sal.

Since there is, at this point, no instrument we are aware of that
decrees either that C. Maria Caeca is the Virgo Vestalis Maxima or that
she is otherwise entitled to vote on matters before the Collegium
Pontificum, any previous votes she has cast are in doubt and may be
successfully challenged. A decretum is required from the Collegium
Pontificum stating C. Maria Caeca is entitled to vote - or that she is,
indeed, Virgo Vestalis Maxima - and that all previous votes cast by her
in previous sessions of the Collegium Pontificum are considered valid,
including any votes cast on decreta, as she was fully entitled to vote
at the time those previous votes were cast. Without this action, Caeca's
votes are almost certainly invalid.

On a separate note, based on previous discussions about applications for
, I found these items very interesting:

DECRETUM II: QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO
QUIRITIBVS.

The Collegium Pontificum having met in order to consider his
application, hereby appoints Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus a sacerdos
Concordiae
Item passed with four Pontifices in favor

DECRETUM III: QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO
QUIRITIBVS.

The Collegium Pontificum having met in order to consider his
application, hereby appoints Marcus Moravius Piscinus an Augur.
Item passed with three Pontifices in favor

DECRETUM IV: QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO
QUIRITIBVS.

The Collegium Pontificum having met in order to consider his
application, hereby appoints of Titus Iulius Sabinus a sacerdos
Mercurialis
Item passed with four Pontifices in favor.

Fac valeas!

Marcus Pompeius Caninus
Tribunus Plebis
America Boreoccidentalis

Vivat Nova Roma!

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex
Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Date: Sun, July 14, 2013 8:52 am
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Ave,

What about the votes in the past in the CP that Caeca participated in?
Are
they valid?

Tribunes? Can you offer your opinions?

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...
was a
clear you
posted
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Collegium_pontificum_decreta_Februariae_MMDCCLXI
) we
Vestals
act
things
position,
Pontificum
if
vote.
to be
since
passed in
reality
Plurimam
Virgo
serve
not
may
would
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91137 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
C. Tullius Valerianus Germanicus omnibus in foro S.P.D.

Wow, I feel like I'm coming late to this party. Anyway, I thought I
would offer a few thoughts:

* I am a Latinist in the sense that I speak and use Latin every day of my
life, and am a professional Latinist, but I have never sought appointment
as an "official" NR Latinist. I pay my taxes. When I am asked my opinion on
Latin, I give it, for love of Nova Roma and Latin. I do not think
Latinists, or anyone else really, should have a tax exemption in NR, with
the possible exception of any vestals (of which we currently have only
one), and that is simply for religious reasons. Common sense tells me that
our treasury cannot bear many exemptions. If common sense was not enough,
our CFO also tells us this. Sulla and I have had our differences, but I
would never think to question his competence as CFO. The exemption for
Latinists should go away.

* Not that we *have* an official Latinist at present, as I understand the
law. The annual reviews have not taken place. And to answer a question I
saw in this thread, no, last year as consul I received no applications for
the position of Latinist.

* As to the matter of whether the sole Vestal is automatically the Virgo
Maxima - it seems clear that this is not automatic. She could be appointed
the Virgo Maxima by the Pontifex Maximus, I suppose, and if she accepted
such appointment (which it is not clear that Caeca would do), she would be
Virgo Maxima. But until this happens, the position of Virgo Maxima is
vacant. My memory must be playing tricks on me, because I could swear that
the issue of whether Caeca has a vote in the CP was already debated at
length and settled some time ago.

* I can see that our Pontifex Maximus Petronius Dexter sees himself as a
modern Cato the Elder, ending every public statement with "There must not
be a consul without a colleague!" rather than "Carthage must be destroyed!"
Very Roman. And I agree, in fact, that a colleague should have been elected
or appointed for our consul by now. But now the comments about the
"Carthaginian" mindset of our consul are somewhat unsettling. It could be a
simple charge of lack of *Romanitas - *"Roman-ness" - to say that he thinks
like a Carthaginian, i.e. a barbarian and an enemy of Rome. It could be
seen as anti-Semitism, since our consul is Jewish, and the Carthaginians
were a Semitic people . . . I would like to think that our Pontifex Maximus
would not engage in something as abhorrent as racism. It might simply be a
good Roman insult - call someone a Punic! - an especially clever pun, I
suppose, since our consul lives in Phoenix, and is therefore a Phoenician -
a Punic! (the Latin word "Punicus" is also rendered "Phoenicus" - they are
in fact the same word, etymologically). Anyway, my point is that whatever
was intended, the possible interpretation as a racial slur rather ruins the
rhetoric. Can we tone it down and be more civil, citizens?

* I am slowly wading through the mountains of messages I missed while away.
Please forgive me, citizens, if you contacted me and have not received a
response. I'm getting through it all . . . slowly . . .


Gaius Tullius Valerianus

Augur of Nova Roma
Lictor Curiatus of Nova Roma
Tribunus Plebis of Nova Roma
Proconsul of America Austroccidentalis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91138 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Ave,

I say there is enough doubt in that very poorly worded Decree that you guys
in the CP should actually revisit it.

Vale,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91139 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Salve amice

They withdrew the motion on the VVM position and substituted one on her and the Vestal position. It is clear in their own minutes. What is not clear from the motion is whether they were actually appointing her a vestal or permitting her to train as one.

Vale bene
Caesar 


________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima


Ave,

I say there is enough doubt in that very poorly worded Decree that you guys
in the CP should actually revisit it.

Vale,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91140 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
C. Petronius Q. Fabio salutem,

I like the sudden interest of the consul for the CP.
Perhaps wants he to become Maxima Virgo?

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Idibus Quintilibus MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91141 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
if
their
Arminia
had
"yearly
and
defined by
out
Lex
salutem,
do
are
only on
hate,
the
is
that a
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91142 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Ave,

Well Dexter, if I was tyrant, as you claim I am. I would want you to be as
far away from the CP so that it would actually be summoned regularly to
ensure the decrees are passed an properly implemented.

Since my cat would be an improvement as PM over you - as he is actually
active!

Vale,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91143 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Ave Valericanus,

I wanted to respond to this part, if you do not mind:


* As to the matter of whether the sole Vestal is automatically the Virgo
Maxima - it seems clear that this is not automatic. She could be appointed
the Virgo Maxima by the Pontifex Maximus, I suppose, and if she accepted
such appointment (which it is not clear that Caeca would do), she would be
Virgo Maxima. But until this happens, the position of Virgo Maxima is
vacant. My memory must be playing tricks on me, because I could swear that
the issue of whether Caeca has a vote in the CP was already debated at
length and settled some time ago.

Sulla: I do not think the PM can do this. He is only first among equals.
Would that not mean that any Pontiff could make the same appointment? Or
would this need to be something that the CP would actually need to agree
upon in session?

Respectfully,

Sulla


On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Gaius Tullius Valerianus <
gaius.tullius.valerianus@...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91144 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Caesar Scholasticae sal.

You too are being illogical. In one breath you say you are still involved in teaching Latin and then in the next you say removing the exemption will hurt learning. Well it hasn't in your case. You have had no official position for years and the tax benefit was a personal one and the lack of one clearly did not motivate you to stop teaching. 

Apples and oranges Scholastica - you are really arguing for a tax break for yourself personally and that has ZERO to do with learning.

Optime vale


________________________________
From: A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina



 
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91145 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Ave consul,

Normally I would agree that the Pontifex Maximus is simply first among
equals, however with regards to the vestals, only the Pontifex Maximus
stands as if a paterfamilias - father of the household - to the vestals.
The PM has a special relationship with the vestals (and hopefully no one is
going to turn that into a dirty joke, as a certain former citizen did about
a certain former PM and his vestals). I admit here, I am speaking simply as
a Roman, not having consulted our laws and decrees, but is it not so in
Nova Roma as it was in Roma Antiqua?

Vale!

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...
--
Gaius Tullius Valerianus

Augur of Nova Roma
Lictor Curiatus of Nova Roma
Tribunus Plebis of Nova Roma
Proconsul of America Austroccidentalis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91146 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Ave,

I understand what you said. It is my understanding as well.

I guess what my question is, is this: Does the PM have the jurisdictional
authority to make that blanket appointment without the consent of the other
Pontiffs?

Respectfully,

Sulla


On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Gaius Tullius Valerianus <
gaius.tullius.valerianus@...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91147 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
In a message dated 7/14/2013 4:27:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
gn_iulius_caesar@... writes:

Let's start with the fact that you have NO training plans at all.
--
Censor,
With what? A bicycle with wheels? Sacerdotus had assistants. It was
more like a guild. No PM here ever had a training program, 1998-2013.

The Roman College of Pontiffs consisted of Senators, both Patricians and
Plebeians, and Flamines. You do understand the Latin term has nothing to do
with the English term which refers to an institution of higher learning.
They were not trained, unless you consider all the observed rituals, and
private observed rituals, training. What we ask from our candidates is
knowledge of the religion. If they are all self starters, like us, they'll
know. If they don't and they want to be instructed well we are not a
seminary, and if you ask our founders they will tell you that such was never
complemented nor intended. Even the so-called Pope of Rome 2006-2010, never had
a training program, he surrounded himself with his own self starters that
agreed with him.

Q. Fabius Maximus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91148 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Ave,

No, that is not true. Piscinus, as though I loathe to give him any credit.
Actually had a training - the Camila program. Though the wheels feel off
and was never properly managed to ensure that it functioned as it was
planned. Again, Fabius, with your experience in management it should have
been a quick remedy to ensure that decrees that are passed are properly
oversighted to ensure that they function and do not lead to further
disorganization.

Caeca told me that she was under the Camila program under the care of
Messalina - which of course was never followed through on Messalina's part.
- Again Organizational failing.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91149 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Ave Sulla Cos.

Well, Messalina did train me, until she left (the first time). Then Julia
Aquila was my mentor for a while, until she decided she was too busy to
continue. I was also a member of the Camilla list that Piscinus had, and he
and Julia taught me some very practical things, like appropriate gestures
when performing rites or prayers, and I've done as much reading as I can get
access to.

Vale!
CMC
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91150 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
SALVE!

As time I was the PM at that time, I know very well how the things were going on. If someone wants details need to read the CP list messages from January 2011. In short:
1. First, C. Maria Caeca was proposed for the position of VVM. With 24 hrs before the CP session to start item II was modified and she was proposed for vestal position (no connection with training or else; analyze + concluded = think + vote). The CP voted, so she was appointed Vestal.
2. At that time the CP observed (exactly how you Caesar observe now) that is something unclear about the vestals vote in the CP (in one decree is said the vestals are CP members and the CP members have the right to vote; in another decree is said only VVM has the right to vote. Because that contradiction a poll was created and the CP members voted in favor as all vestals to have the right to vote. (that is the CP right to administer its own internal affairs under Decretum pontificum de decretis).

Therefore:
- C. Maria caeca is Vestal (official appointed).
- C. Maria Caeca is not VVM even if she is the only one vestal (under the pontifical decrees she need the CP official appointment - vote based of the PM recommendation for that position and until now such appointment - vote was not)
C. Maria Caeca has the right to vote in the CP sessions (based of Decretum pontificum de membris collegiorum which allow a total of five vestals + VVM to vote).

Conclusion: there is not any VVM by default as time the pontifical decrees ask for appointment in a session (see Decretum pro qui in collegium pontificum et collegium augurum ,point VI where is stated that only the PM may present a candidate for VVM position - attention: may present a candidate - therefore the vote of the CP is necessary and until now there was not such vote).

VALE,
Sabinus
 
"Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius


________________________________
From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@... To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima



 
Salve amice

As I think you know, we cannot look to discussion that precede a motion. All that we can rely on is the text of the motion, for otherwise we could constantly turn motions upside down and ascribe meanings other than the actual words of the motion convey. 

The motion is confusing.

Vale bene
Caesar

________________________________
From: iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@... To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima


 
SALVE!

Read the CP messages from January 2011 and will understand.

VALE,
Sabinus
 
"Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius

________________________________
From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@... To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima

 
Caesar Caecae sal

I think this was the vote where it was decided not to appoint you as Virgo Vestalis Maxima? 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligioRomana/message/13824

Initially item II:
2. The CP will analyze and if concluded, appoint C. Maria Caeca as Virgo
Vestalis Maxima.

Modified item II (announced with 24 hrs in advance of the vote session):
2. The CP will analyze and if concluded, appoint C. Maria Caeca as Vestal
Virgin.

This item modification follows the Collegium Pontificum members' advice as C.
Maria Caeca to take first the Vestal Virgin job steps.

TIS: Uti rogas. Based of the common sense she shows until now, she will be a
fine Vestal Virgin and an important candidate for the position of Virgo Vestalis
Maxima.

QFM: Uti rogas. I believe she will be a fine Vestal however; until we have more
then one, there should be no candidates for the position of Virgo Vestalis
Maxima.

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

So it was changed from appointing you as VVM to vestal, but here it gets more hazy. What does "The CP will analyze and if concluded" mean? It also says "s C. Maria Caeca to take first the Vestal Virgin job steps". So forget about whether you are VVM by default, now the question is what does this decretum say? It says you were taking first steps of the job of vestal. Does that mean you were in training? Does it even mean you were appointed a vestal? First steps seems to indicate that in combination with the analysis and conclusion part of the decretum, they seem to have voted to let you train to be a vestal and review your performance, your probationary period, and at the conclusion appoint you, or vote to appoint you? When and what was the analysis? When was the analysis to be concluded? Is that the vote or a training period? Who knows?

I have no idea what was intended, and all that matters is what was actually voted on. This could be interpreted a number of ways. At this stage it seems unclear, from this vote, if you are even a Vestal, let alone VVM. 

Was there a training program envisaged? In the same session the CP (Friday 24 December 2010 to Wednesday 29 December 2010) discussed a training plan for new candidates for the priesthoods. That went nowhere, they are still discussing how to create one. If they did vote to put you into some sort of training position (who on earth knows) I assume the vestal training plan will be designed after the one for pontifex candidates? If so I'd settle in for a long wait if that is the case.  

Caeca, I think you really need to ask for:

A) A clarification vote on whether you are a Vestal and then
B) A clarification vote on whether you are Virgo Vestalis Maxima

Optime vale

   

________________________________
From: cmc <c.mariacaeca@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 11:42 AM
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima

 
C. Maria Caeca C. Petronio Dextro Pontifici Maximo S. P. D.

What you say makes perfect sense, Pater, except that the CP *specifically*,
at the time of my appointment discussed and decided *not* to give me the
appointment of the office of Virgo Maxima. I was, however, by virtue of
being the only Vestal, allowed to vote in the CP, despite the terms of my
appointment.

Vale et valete!

C. Maria Caeca

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

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

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

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91151 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
Salve amice

Thank you. 

Vale bene
Caesar


________________________________
From: iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@... To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima



 
SALVE!

As time I was the PM at that time, I know very well how the things were going on. If someone wants details need to read the CP list messages from January 2011. In short:
1. First, C. Maria Caeca was proposed for the position of VVM. With 24 hrs before the CP session to start item II was modified and she was proposed for vestal position (no connection with training or else; analyze + concluded = think + vote). The CP voted, so she was appointed Vestal.
2. At that time the CP observed (exactly how you Caesar observe now) that is something unclear about the vestals vote in the CP (in one decree is said the vestals are CP members and the CP members have the right to vote; in another decree is said only VVM has the right to vote. Because that contradiction a poll was created and the CP members voted in favor as all vestals to have the right to vote. (that is the CP right to administer its own internal affairs under Decretum pontificum de decretis).

Therefore:
- C. Maria caeca is Vestal (official appointed).
- C. Maria Caeca is not VVM even if she is the only one vestal (under the pontifical decrees she need the CP official appointment - vote based of the PM recommendation for that position and until now such appointment - vote was not)
C. Maria Caeca has the right to vote in the CP sessions (based of Decretum pontificum de membris collegiorum which allow a total of five vestals + VVM to vote).

Conclusion: there is not any VVM by default as time the pontifical decrees ask for appointment in a session (see Decretum pro qui in collegium pontificum et collegium augurum ,point VI where is stated that only the PM may present a candidate for VVM position - attention: may present a candidate - therefore the vote of the CP is necessary and until now there was not such vote).

VALE,
Sabinus
 
"Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius

________________________________
From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@... To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima


 
Salve amice

As I think you know, we cannot look to discussion that precede a motion. All that we can rely on is the text of the motion, for otherwise we could constantly turn motions upside down and ascribe meanings other than the actual words of the motion convey. 

The motion is confusing.

Vale bene
Caesar

________________________________
From: iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@... To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima

 
SALVE!

Read the CP messages from January 2011 and will understand.

VALE,
Sabinus
 
"Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius

________________________________
From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@... To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima

 
Caesar Caecae sal

I think this was the vote where it was decided not to appoint you as Virgo Vestalis Maxima? 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligioRomana/message/13824

Initially item II:
2. The CP will analyze and if concluded, appoint C. Maria Caeca as Virgo
Vestalis Maxima.

Modified item II (announced with 24 hrs in advance of the vote session):
2. The CP will analyze and if concluded, appoint C. Maria Caeca as Vestal
Virgin.

This item modification follows the Collegium Pontificum members' advice as C.
Maria Caeca to take first the Vestal Virgin job steps.

TIS: Uti rogas. Based of the common sense she shows until now, she will be a
fine Vestal Virgin and an important candidate for the position of Virgo Vestalis
Maxima.

QFM: Uti rogas. I believe she will be a fine Vestal however; until we have more
then one, there should be no candidates for the position of Virgo Vestalis
Maxima.

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

So it was changed from appointing you as VVM to vestal, but here it gets more hazy. What does "The CP will analyze and if concluded" mean? It also says "s C. Maria Caeca to take first the Vestal Virgin job steps". So forget about whether you are VVM by default, now the question is what does this decretum say? It says you were taking first steps of the job of vestal. Does that mean you were in training? Does it even mean you were appointed a vestal? First steps seems to indicate that in combination with the analysis and conclusion part of the decretum, they seem to have voted to let you train to be a vestal and review your performance, your probationary period, and at the conclusion appoint you, or vote to appoint you? When and what was the analysis? When was the analysis to be concluded? Is that the vote or a training period? Who knows?

I have no idea what was intended, and all that matters is what was actually voted on. This could be interpreted a number of ways. At this stage it seems unclear, from this vote, if you are even a Vestal, let alone VVM. 

Was there a training program envisaged? In the same session the CP (Friday 24 December 2010 to Wednesday 29 December 2010) discussed a training plan for new candidates for the priesthoods. That went nowhere, they are still discussing how to create one. If they did vote to put you into some sort of training position (who on earth knows) I assume the vestal training plan will be designed after the one for pontifex candidates? If so I'd settle in for a long wait if that is the case.  

Caeca, I think you really need to ask for:

A) A clarification vote on whether you are a Vestal and then
B) A clarification vote on whether you are Virgo Vestalis Maxima

Optime vale

   

________________________________
From: cmc <c.mariacaeca@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 11:42 AM
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima

 
C. Maria Caeca C. Petronio Dextro Pontifici Maximo S. P. D.

What you say makes perfect sense, Pater, except that the CP *specifically*,
at the time of my appointment discussed and decided *not* to give me the
appointment of the office of Virgo Maxima. I was, however, by virtue of
being the only Vestal, allowed to vote in the CP, despite the terms of my
appointment.

Vale et valete!

C. Maria Caeca

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

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

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

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

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91152 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
In a message dated 7/14/2013 4:33:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
robert.woolwine@... writes:

Ave,

Ensuring that every Pontiff in the CP has been inaugurated properly as this
has been mentioned repeatedly by Metellus and virtually ignored.
1. If the Pontifice would show me where in Livy or Pliny or wherever this
is mentioned then I'd be willing to discuss it.


Job Descriptions of the Pontffs and really EVERY religious position that
falls under the jurisdiction of the CP - this has been lacking for 15
years. There has to be a way to spell out the duties of what is required
to be a Pontiff and held accountable should someone fall below those
minimum standards.
2. There were no job descriptions per se'. Cassius never formalized
anything other then saying we figure it out as we go...One reason why Moravius
had him removed. But Moravius never formalized anything either, unless it
was during a famous "midnight" session with just him, Modianus, and Hortense.
I can tell you what the College duties where during the Republic. And we
are carrying those out by Dexter, Lentulus, actions.




Follow through on the Decrees that have been passed. You are or were a
politican Fabius, you realize as well as anyone that once a decision is
reached that is JUST the beginning it then must be implemented and then
maintained to ensure compliance.
3. Oh I'm still a politician first and foremost. I think we have too
many Decrees right now some working at cross purpose. But the PM "first among
equals" wishes to discuss it I'll certainly give imput.



Then Lustrums, Nova Roma should be holding them regularly.

4. Yes we are due for a Purification. We should do it after the Census
is complete.

Also to address the two questions specifically regarding our Vestal.
Sabinus consistently helpful as he has always been, answered the 3rd
question. But, is Caeca an actual Vestal? Or VMM? Or still in training?
Why has the CP not followed through and assessing her performance as the
CP decree stated?


5. My view of Maria Caeca's status has been publicly expressed.

Implement the Senatus Consulta that was just passed by the Senate!


6. Because I was removed from the Senate I never saw this.

What else? I know I am forgetting something, but at least that would be a
damn good start.

Fabius, how many times have you summoned the CP? Would you actually
summon the CP to resolve all of these issues?


7. I was heavily involved in the College 2001-2006. The Pontifices
Iulius, and Gryllus and I worked hard only to see it all stripped away by
Moravius and his minions. My research is still on-going but my original research
is long gone.

Illustrious Dexter since he French does not understand Americans nor
Canadians humor, is perplexed honored Consul. I'm answering this out of respect
to you and your office so you can better understand.


Respectfully,
Q. Fabius Maximus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91153 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: The position of Virgo Vestalis Maxima
In a message dated 7/14/2013 4:44:22 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jfarnoud94@... writes:

Q. Fabius C. Petronio salutem,

No. Read my posting in the College. And don't call the Consul a Punic.
He is not, and that statement even though expressed with Gallic humor,
could be miss understood.


I like the sudden interest of the consul for the CP.
Perhaps wants he to become Maxima Virgo?

Optime vale.
No,





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91154 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Caesar Fabio sal.

You continue to embarrass yourself, I think, by contradicting what was put to the vote. Look through the minutes of the vote on the vestal issue of Caeca. It mentions the need to develop training plans. That is the goal of the Collegium, clearly stated, repeated recently by Dexter in commentary on your own list. You chaps are meant to be designing a training plan.

So I guess Fabi, 

1) You don't read your own minutes and discussions (shocker).
2) Maybe you and Dexter need training wheels to stop you both falling over into the pit you dig each time you post.
3) Unlike the "so-called Pope of Rome" the Collegium has seen the wisdom of developing a training plan. However it is clear you need a training plan to develop the training plan, as nothing has happened for 3 years - or more!

Yeh so I guess it is time for you and Dexter to climb onto the two little cute fairy cycles with those equally cute training wheels and pedal around the Collegium pontificum for a bit, before you come out in to play with the big boys and girls.

Optime vale  


________________________________
From: "QFabiusMaxmi@..." <QFabiusMaxmi@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Will ANY CP member



 


In a message dated 7/14/2013 4:27:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
gn_iulius_caesar@... writes:

Let's start with the fact that you have NO training plans at all.
--
Censor,
With what? A bicycle with wheels? Sacerdotus had assistants. It was
more like a guild. No PM here ever had a training program, 1998-2013.

The Roman College of Pontiffs consisted of Senators, both Patricians and
Plebeians, and Flamines. You do understand the Latin term has nothing to do
with the English term which refers to an institution of higher learning.
They were not trained, unless you consider all the observed rituals, and
private observed rituals, training. What we ask from our candidates is
knowledge of the religion. If they are all self starters, like us, they'll
know. If they don't and they want to be instructed well we are not a
seminary, and if you ask our founders they will tell you that such was never
complemented nor intended. Even the so-called Pope of Rome 2006-2010, never had
a training program, he surrounded himself with his own self starters that
agreed with him.

Q. Fabius Maximus

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91155 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Li...
In a message dated 7/14/2013 4:51:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
robert.woolwine@... writes:

Sulla: I do not think the PM can do this. He is only first among equals.
Would that not mean that any Pontiff could make the same appointment? Or
would this need to be something that the CP would actually need to agree
upon in session?

Why not Honored Consul? After all Maria is under his manus, and he is
free as her "Paterfamilias" to do the appointment. Since the rest of the
Pontifices are not her Pater, they could not.
If the College did not agree to such they would object and be within their
rights to do so.

Q. Fabius Maximus




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91156 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Ave,

My answers below:

In a message dated 7/14/2013 4:33:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
robert.woolwine@... writes:

Ave,

Ensuring that every Pontiff in the CP has been inaugurated properly as this
has been mentioned repeatedly by Metellus and virtually ignored.
1. If the Pontifice would show me where in Livy or Pliny or wherever this
is mentioned then I'd be willing to discuss it.

Sulla: Metellus has mentioned it numerous times. I would like to refer you
to Pontiff Metellus and Augur Valerianus - with whom I have had numerous
conversations about this very topic. But, just to start your research:

It appears that after their institution by Numa, the college had the right
of co-optation, that is, if a member of the college died (for all the
pontiffs held their office for life), the members met and elected a
successor, who after his election was inaugurated by the augurs (Dionys. II.
22<http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dionysius_of_Halicarnassus/2A*.html#22.3 , 73<http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dionysius_of_Halicarnassus/2C*.html#73.3 This election was sometimes called captio (Gellius, I.12). In the year 212
B.C. Livy (XXV.5) <http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/livy/liv.25.shtml#5 of the election of a pontifex maximus in the comitia (probably the comitia
tributa) as the ordinary mode of appointing this high-priest.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Pontifex.html

Or here is another source:
The Roman Assemblies from Their Origin to the End of the Republic By George
Willis Botsford

Start on page 156. :)

Job Descriptions of the Pontffs and really EVERY religious position that
falls under the jurisdiction of the CP - this has been lacking for 15
years. There has to be a way to spell out the duties of what is required
to be a Pontiff and held accountable should someone fall below those
minimum standards.
2. There were no job descriptions per se'. Cassius never formalized
anything other then saying we figure it out as we go...One reason why
Moravius
had him removed. But Moravius never formalized anything either, unless it
was during a famous "midnight" session with just him, Modianus, and
Hortense.
I can tell you what the College duties where during the Republic. And we
are carrying those out by Dexter, Lentulus, actions.


Sulla: There absolutely needs to be. This is a HUGE problem that would
solve just about every problem that keeps coming up! When you put up a job
ad in a lcoal paper Fabius, trying to find an employee you know what you
are looking for and the applicant KNOWS what he or she is going to be held
accountable for. People need to know if they are not fulfilling their
tasks they can be FIRED for incompetence. Nothing substantive is getting
done. Just look at that last CP call dexter did - one vote - HIS OWN.
That is it. Compare that to the Senate of Nova Roma? Or hell compare it
to the Contios we have held this year after not being able to have the
People summoned for almost 4 years! Fabius, if I was a tyrant as Dex likes
to call me..or Dictator as you just called me, just about all of you in the
CP would be summarily dismissed with prejudice. Be lucky that I am not.


Follow through on the Decrees that have been passed. You are or were a
politican Fabius, you realize as well as anyone that once a decision is
reached that is JUST the beginning it then must be implemented and then
maintained to ensure compliance.
3. Oh I'm still a politician first and foremost. I think we have too
many Decrees right now some working at cross purpose. But the PM "first
among
equals" wishes to discuss it I'll certainly give imput.

Sulla: According to the Senate he is not a leader. So, get it done Fabius.
You have as much authority as he does. You share equal blame with him too.

Then Lustrums, Nova Roma should be holding them regularly.

4. Yes we are due for a Purification. We should do it after the Census
is complete.

Sulla: Really? Is there a decree?

Also to address the two questions specifically regarding our Vestal.
Sabinus consistently helpful as he has always been, answered the 3rd
question. But, is Caeca an actual Vestal? Or VMM? Or still in training?
Why has the CP not followed through and assessing her performance as the
CP decree stated?

5. My view of Maria Caeca's status has been publicly expressed.


Implement the Senatus Consulta that was just passed by the Senate!

6. Because I was removed from the Senate I never saw this.

Sulla: Well it has legal standing now. It will need to be implmeneted
immediately. And it passed like 12-3. So, it has the overwhelming
majority of the Senate. So, it must be implemented.


What else? I know I am forgetting something, but at least that would be a
damn good start.

Fabius, how many times have you summoned the CP? Would you actually
summon the CP to resolve all of these issues?

7. I was heavily involved in the College 2001-2006. The Pontifices
Iulius, and Gryllus and I worked hard only to see it all stripped away by
Moravius and his minions. My research is still on-going but my original
research
is long gone.

Sulla: That does not answer my question, Fabius. :)

Vale,

Sulla

Illustrious Dexter since he French does not understand Americans nor
Canadians humor, is perplexed honored Consul. I'm answering this out of
respect
to you and your office so you can better understand.

Respectfully,

Q. Fabius Maximus

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


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91157 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
In a message dated 7/14/2013 5:16:03 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
robert.woolwine@... writes:

Piscinus, as though I loathe to give him any credit.
Actually had a training - the Camila program

That? There was no training. Just appointments after claiming there was
training. Honored Consul surely you don't want us to return to THAT!

respectively,
Q. Fabius Maximus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91158 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Li...
Caesar Fabio sal.

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish.

There is no such provision in Nova Roman law. You have no decretum to that effect. Dexter does NOT have the authority to do this, because the collegium would have to grant it to him. He can't just take powers to himself with no motion and no vote. You forget Fabi, decreta form part of the by-laws under the corporation as well, like SC's and leges. It is not only illegal under Nova Roman law, it is illegal under the law of our incorporation state. You have to do such things by due process.

You consistently mix ancient Roman law and Nova Roman law. You are starting to sound like Hortensia Maior. You just make this stuff up as you go along, taking a vague stab at what you think it should be, with no heed to what OUR laws actually say and don't say.

If this were even remotely true, why did Sabinus hold a vote on the issue? Did you not read what Sabinus just wrote? 

Optime vale


________________________________
From: "QFabiusMaxmi@..." <QFabiusMaxmi@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Li...



 


In a message dated 7/14/2013 4:51:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
robert.woolwine@... writes:

Sulla: I do not think the PM can do this. He is only first among equals.
Would that not mean that any Pontiff could make the same appointment? Or
would this need to be something that the CP would actually need to agree
upon in session?

Why not Honored Consul? After all Maria is under his manus, and he is
free as her "Paterfamilias" to do the appointment. Since the rest of the
Pontifices are not her Pater, they could not.
If the College did not agree to such they would object and be within their
rights to do so.

Q. Fabius Maximus

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91159 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Ave,

You said, "Even the so-called Pope of Rome 2006-2010, never had
a training program, he surrounded himself with his own self starters that
agreed with him."

The truth is we did have one. Even Caeca confirmed it.

Regardless of the effectiveness of the program or whether it was being
hijacked by political interests was not the discussion. Just the existence
of said program was.

Vale,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91160 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Will ANY CP member
Caesar Fabio sal.

Read the CP list Fabius. That is exactly where the Collegium is heading, e revised Camilla plan. Do you never pay any attention to ANY posts, anywhere??

Optime vale


________________________________
From: "QFabiusMaxmi@..." <QFabiusMaxmi@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Will ANY CP member



 


In a message dated 7/14/2013 5:16:03 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
robert.woolwine@... writes:

Piscinus, as though I loathe to give him any credit.
Actually had a training - the Camila program

That? There was no training. Just appointments after claiming there was
training. Honored Consul surely you don't want us to return to THAT!

respectively,
Q. Fabius Maximus

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91161 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Reply to point one
In a message dated 7/14/2013 6:01:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
robert.woolwine@... writes:

It appears that after their institution by Numa, the college had the right
of co-optation, that is, if a member of the college died (for all the
pontiffs held their office for life), the members met and elected a
successor, who after his election was inaugurated by the augurs (Dionys.
II.
22<http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dionysius_of_Halicarnas
sus/2A*.html#22.3 ,
73<http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dionysius_of_Halicarnassus/2C*.html#73.3 This election was sometimes called captio (Gellius, I.12). In the year 212
B.C. Livy (XXV.5)
<http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/livy/liv.25.shtml#5 of the election of a pontifex maximus in the comitia (probably the comitia
tributa) as the ordinary mode of appointing this high-priest.
Salvete
Yes. I remember this. I have the Loab of Dionysios. And If one of us
died, died that dropped our number below minimum, sure. But our PM never
deemed this necessary, and I have no idea of Cassius' thoughts, so perhaps
because we never had a full college, there was no reason. Remember, all the
College members are original.
Valete

Q Fabius Maximus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91162 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Reply to point one
Ave,

Here is more. You asked for Livy:

[41.28]Towards the close of the year there were thanksgivings for one day
for the successes gained in Spain under the auspices and generalship of
Appius Claudius, and twenty of the larger victims were offered in
sacrifice. The next day special intercessions were offered up at the
temples of Ceres, Liber and Libera, owing to a report which had come in of
a violent earthquake in the Sabine country which had laid many buildings in
ruins. On Appius Claudius' return from Spain the senate decreed that he
should enter the City in ovation. The consular elections were now
approaching and there was keen competition owing to the large number of
candidates. L. Postumius Albinus and M. Popilius Laenas were elected. The
new praetors were N. Fabius Buteo, M. Matienus, C. Cicereius, M. Furius
Crassipes for the second time, A. Atilius Serranus for the second time, and
C. Cluvius Saxula also for the second time. When the elections were over,
Ap. Claudius celebrated his triumph over the Celtiberi by entering the City
in ovation, and he brought into the treasury 10,000 pounds of silver and
5000 pounds of gold. Cnaeus Cornelius was inaugurated as Flamen Dialis.

More Livy:

Amongst the many who were carried off by the epidemic this year were some
of the priests. The pontiff L. Valerius Flaccus died, and Q. Fabius Labeo
was appointed in his place; P. Manlius, who had lately returned from
Further Spain, one of the three superintendents of the sacrificial
banquets, fell a victim, and Quinctus the son of M. Fulvius was appointed
in his place, quite a young man at the time. The filling of the vacancy
caused by the death of Cneius Cornelius Dolabella, the rex sacrificulus,
led to a dispute between the Pontifex Maximus C. Servilius and L. Cornelius
Dolabella, one of the two directors of naval affairs. The pontiff required
him to resign his post in order that he might inaugurate him. On his
refusing to do so, the pontiff imposed a fine upon him, and on his appeal
the question of the fine was argued before the Assembly. When several of
the tribes had declared by their votes that the naval director should
comply with the pontiff's requirement, and that if he resigned his post the
fine should be remitted, a thunderstorm interrupted the proceedings. The
pontiffs were thus prevented on religious grounds from appointing
Dolabella, and they inaugurated P. Claelius Siculus, who had the next
largest number of votes. At the close of the year the Pontifex Maximus
died. C. Servilius Geminus was not only Pontifex Maximus, but also one of
the Keepers of the Sacred Books. Q. Fulvius Flaccus was co-opted by the
college as one of the pontiffs, and M. Aemilius Lepidus was made Pontifex
Maximus in place of Geminus from among many distinguished competitors. In
his place Q. Marcius Philippus was chosen as a Keeper of the Sacred Books.
The augur Sp. Postumius also died and the other augurs co-opted P. Scipio
the son of Africanus to fill the vacancy.

Vale,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91163 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Religious Revision???...
In a message dated 7/14/2013 6:05:39 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
gn_iulius_caesar@... writes:

You just make this stuff up as you go along, taking a vague stab at what
you think it should be, with no heed to what OUR laws actually say and don't
sa

Censor.

I'm done talking with you. ROMAN TRADITION IS WHAT WE ARE ALL ABOUT. If
we are not, we have no reason to stay.
And I don't make anything up. We just have had so much crap occur over
our XV years that it is all blurred.
But I know the Roman Religion based on Roman writings. And the PM holding
Manus over Vestals is an important part of that Religion.

QFM





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91164 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Pontiffs and the absurdity of the Camilla Program...IMO
Avete!
Several years ago, I applied to the CP to be accepted as a Camillus in the program. I was accepted. I was placed in training under the Flame Cerialis, Flavius Galerius Aurelianus. We started with me reading books on the Religio. I quote from a couple of these books:
"Originally, members of only a few families, the patricians, were eligible for a priesthood and entitled to take the auspices. After plebians were addmited to priesthoods in 300BCE, the only official requirements for priesthood were Roman citizenship, free birth, and the absence of physical defects. Generally priests were not assigned to a diety or temple, but rather were assigned particular duties..."
Chapter 4, pp. 42-43
Roman Religion, by Valerie M. Warrior
"It was a region that involved no initiation and no teaching. Religious duties were imposed on individuals by their birth, adoption, affranchisement or grant of Roman citizenship."
Chapter 2, pp.18-19
An Introduction to Roman Religion, by John Scheid
"None of these religious agents had been consecrated or "called." They were simply invested with these priestly functions by virtue of their social role or because they had been elected...A sacrifice was a sacrifice whether it was offered by a pontiff or by the president of a town district...As a general rule, priest was a citizen like any other. He was elected by his peers (cooptatio) or by the people, and never received any prior training. His duties were limited to specific actions and did not extend to general religious competence. No priest, not even the Pontifex Maximus, was responsible in all areas."
Chapter 8, pp. 129-131
An Introduction to Roman Religion, by John Scheid
With these same questions, I asked the Flamen Ceriales why the reason for the Camilla Program? He advised he would ask...
It is 2766 a.u.c. and guess what? Yep, I've never heard another word about it from anyone in the CP.
 
All I can say is, they missed a good potential Flamen on that one, but hey, that's just my opinion.
Valete optime,
Triarius

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91165 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2013-07-14
Subject: Re: Pontiffs and the absurdity of the Camilla Program...IMO
Salve Vitelli,

I'm not sure, but it seems like you are saying that you don't
understand why there would be a need for a training program for priests in
NR, when it is clear that priests in ancient Rome did not have a training
program. If that is your question, here is the answer:

In ancient Rome, people did not need to be trained in most religious
matters because it was part of daily life from birth. To be a Roman meant
to make sacrifices and participate in rituals on what amounts to a daily
basis. When someone was chosen as a priest, they already had a lifetime of
familiarity with religious ritual and practice. They didn't need additional
training in those matters. In later times, I think, such programs did
exist, as more and more people from further-flung places became Romans who
were *not *raised as Romans.

In Nova Roma, we are in that sort of situation. Few of us are born and
raised Romans, raised from birth with the rituals and practices as part of
our daily life. So we have would-be priests who need training. So we need a
training program. Because we don't get it with our mothers' milk anymore.

Vale!

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91166 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: Pontiffs and the absurdity of the Camilla Program...IMO
Salve Valerianus,
 
So after 8 years, I ask again, "What are the requirements for the priesthood?"  There must be some somewhere, because I see priests/priestesses come and go over the years...and we still have no camilla program?
 
I do not understand how there can remain so many vacancies in the priesthood for so long and no answer from anyone on how to proceed to fill them, other than an apparent dead link on the Religio page that states if you are interested, click here.  My fingers get enough exercise typing and clicking on real links.
 
Not to be sacastic, but we didn't grow up with Ludi circenses, Aediles, Senate Consuta, Latin classes, etc., as a whole, but we manage our way through it, and learn as we go. It is part of the whole NR process.  I'm not seeing that training is a beneficial issue lately. Sorry.  It has always appeared to me that NR adopted a pre-plebian, exclusive class for the priesthood. And that is okay, I guess, you all just need to decide that and not portray it as you are willing to accept newcomers, if you are not.  It's really that simple.  Continual promises of a "training plan" for seemingly pysops operations are mute, silly, and unneeded in my opinion. If it is just going to be on a selective appointment basis, it's just going to be on a selective appointment basis. It is what it is. Declare it and be done with it.
 
It is almost like the underlying NR Pontificate Official Unofficial Statement is, and always has been, "If you were not raised from birth in the Religio Romana, then don't bother to apply-we are a select and pure group."  My question is how many members of the priesthood meet and have met that qualification over the last 15 years? If it is more than TWO, then I'll probably laugh and call you "misinformed."
 
If the Religio is such a critical element, then why all this continual confusion?
 
One thing I have learned over the years about the Religio Romana is that in antiquity, the rules were pretty loose, both internally and externally concerning the Religio. Now whether that was for the From Mother's Milk reasons you stated or not, I cannot yet reconcile in my mind. I do know that we know very little about the Religio in the colonies and municipalities. But, one thing we do have historical records on was that the way it worked in Rome had absolutely nothing to do with the way it worked outside of the Pomerium. The Paterfamilias could set his own calendar each year, perform his own private and public rituals, hold his own festivals for the various Gods, etc.  Provincial and municipal magistrates could conduct religious matters as they chose.
 
We can't even get a Vestal promoted. From what I know about the cult of Vesta, the VVM could be elected or appointed, depending on the day, week, month, year and PM it occured in and under.  Since the common practice was to kidnap 10 yr old girls from their home, train them for 10 years, work them for 10 years, then make them train others for 10 years, then retire them, plus, let's not let them leave the building for 30 years, I don't see that they actually had a voice in anything, really.  Their whole life was ordered. It appears to me that they served at the will of the PM. It's no wonder thay had a high suicide rate Hell, they even had special suicide decreta JUST FOR VESTALS! I'm really surprised they didn't just burn them on the hearth, but then that would fall under the jurisdiction of the Flamen Volcanis...
 
It just wasn't that complicated as everyone wants to make it.  Maybe you all over at the CP need to hold your own "Vatican II" Council and basically start from scratch and do some Spring Cleaning. It's not Lex, so throw it all out and start anew with everything.  I DO NOT say that in jest.  It is healthy to review and purge, other wise we would all have our mothers shoving ALL of our toys from childhood in our car everytime we went home to visit.  That's also the reason we have Rummage Sales and Flea Markets. 
 
I wish you all well on your training plan idea and concept. I'm gonna go now and listen to Elvis Presslius sing "Promised Land," one the greatest songs ever written.
 
(Puts on sunglases and cranks up the Rockabilly...music for the soul...)
 
Vale,
Triarius


________________________________
From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus <gaius.tullius.valerianus@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Pontiffs and the absurdity of the Camilla Program...IMO


Salve Vitelli,

    I'm not sure, but it seems like you are saying that you don't
understand why there would be a need for a training program for priests in
NR, when it is clear that priests in ancient Rome did not have a training
program. If that is your question, here is the answer:

In ancient Rome, people did not need to be trained in most religious
matters because it was part of daily life from birth. To be a Roman meant
to make sacrifices and participate in rituals on what amounts to a daily
basis. When someone was chosen as a priest, they already had a lifetime of
familiarity with religious ritual and practice. They didn't need additional
training in those matters. In later times, I think, such programs did
exist, as more and more people from further-flung places became Romans who
were *not *raised as Romans.

In Nova Roma, we are in that sort of situation. Few of us are born and
raised Romans, raised from birth with the rituals and practices as part of
our daily life. So we have would-be priests who need training. So we need a
training program. Because we don't get it with our mothers' milk anymore.

Vale!

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91167 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: On Being Roman
Salvete omnes,
 
Buried in the files on the NR wiki in the Via Romana section on a lonely, little viewed page is a copy of the Roman Virtues.  If you have not read them in a while, or never read them, they are here:
 
Personal virtues
 
These are the qualities of life to which every citizen (and, ideally, everyone else) should aspire. They are the heart of the Via Romana — the Roman Way — and are thought to be those qualities which gave the Roman Republic the moral strength to conquer and civilize the world. Today, they are the rods against which we can measure our own behavior and character, and we can strive to better understand and practice them in our everyday lives.
 
* Auctoritas - "Spiritual Authority" The sense of one's social standing, built up through experience, Pietas, and Industria.
* Comitas - "Humour" Ease of manner, courtesy, openness, and friendliness.
* Clementia - "Mercy" Mildness and gentleness.
* Dignitas - "Dignity" A sense of self-worth, personal pride.
* Firmitas - "Tenacity" Strength of mind, the ability to stick to one's purpose.
* Frugalitas - "Frugalness" Economy and simplicity of style, without being miserly.
* Gravitas - "Gravity" A sense of the importance of the matter at hand, responsibility and earnestness.
* Honestas - "Respectibility" The image that one presents as a respectable member of society.
* Humanitas - "Humanity" Refinement, civilization, learning, and being cultured.
* Industria - "Industriousness" Hard work.
* Pietas - "Dutifulness" More than religious piety; a respect for the natural order socially, politically, and religiously. Includes the ideas of patriotism and devotion to others.
* Prudentia - "Prudence" Foresight, wisdom, and personal discretion.
* Salubritas - "Wholesomeness" Health and cleanliness.
* Severitas - "Sternness" Gravity, self-control.
* Veritas - "Truthfulness" Honesty in dealing with others.
Public virtues
 
In addition to the private virtues which were aspired to by individuals, Roman culture also strove to uphold virtues which were shared by all of society in common. Note that some of the virtues to which individuals were expected to aspire are also public virtues to be sought by society as a whole. These virtues were often expressed by minting them on coinage; in this way, their message would be shared by all the classical world. In many cases, these virtues were personified as deities.

* Abundantia - "Abundance, Plenty" The ideal of there being enough food and prosperity for all segments of society.
* Aequitas - "Equity" Fair dealing both within government and among the people.
* Bonus Eventus  - "Good fortune" Rememberance of important positive events.
* Clementia - "Clemency" Mercy, shown to other nations.
* Concordia - "Concord" Harmony among the Roman people, and also between Rome and other nations.
* Felicitas - "Happiness, prosperity" A celebration of the best aspects of Roman society.
* Fides - "Confidence" Good faith in all commercial and governmental dealings.
* Fortuna - "Fortune" An acknowledgement of positive events.
* Genius - "Spirit of Rome" Acknowledgement of the combined spirit of Rome, and its people. \
* Hilaritas - "Mirth, rejoicing" An expression of happy times. \
* Iustitia - "Justice" As expressed by sensible laws and governance.
* Laetitia - "Joy, Gladness" The celebration of thanksgiving, often of the resolution of crisis.
* Liberalitas - "Liberality" Generous giving.
* Libertas - "Freedom" A virtue which has been subsequently aspired to by all cultures.
* Nobilitas - "Noblility" Noble action within the public sphere.
* Ops - "Wealth" Acknowledgement of the prosperity of the Roman world.
* Patientia - "Endurance, Patience" The ability to weather storms and crisis.
* Pax - "Peace" A celebration of peace among society and between nations.
* Pietas - "Piety, Dutifulness" People paying honor to the gods.
* Providentia - "Providence, Fortethought" The ability of Roman society to survive trials and manifest a greater destiny.
* Pudicita - "Modesty, Chastity." A public expression which belies the accusation of "moral corruptness" in ancient Rome.
* Salus - "Safety" Concern for public health and welfare.
* Securitas - "Confidence, Security" Brought by peace and efficient governance.
* Spes - "Hope" Especially during times of difficulty.
* Uberitas - "Fertility" Particularly concerning agriculture.
* Virtus - "Courage" Especially of leaders within society and government.

The Question is: Which ones did you uphold and which ones did you violate today, yesterday, last week and over the course of the last year?
 
If you are not sure, go here and think about it:
http://tinyurl.com/psp9y3l
 
CIVES, REMEMBER YOURSELVES!
 
In private and in public.
 
Valete optime,
Triarius

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91168 From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: On Being Roman
Salvete!

Sigh. I have GOT to get back to the Roman Virtues Project I had started,
one of these days. I had stopped posting because I got busy at work, and
never got back to it.

Valete,
Valerianus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91169 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: On Being Roman
That would be wonderful...and much needed!
 
LVT


________________________________
From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus <gaius.tullius.valerianus@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] On Being Roman


Salvete!

Sigh. I have GOT to get back to the Roman Virtues Project I had started,
one of these days. I had stopped posting because I got busy at work, and
never got back to it.

Valete,
Valerianus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91170 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: On Being Roman
Caninus Triario omnibusque sal.

The virtues can be seen in Wiki at http://novaroma.org/nr/Roman_Virtues
as well.

Bene valete!

Marcus Pompeius Caninus
Tribunus Plebis
America Boreoccidentalis

Vivat Nova Roma!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91171 From: cmc Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: On Being Roman
Salve valeriane et omnes!

You know, it's been a while since we had that discussion, and I wonder if it
might be productive to begin again, from the beginning instead of continuing
where we left off. We have gained some new citizens since we stopped, and,
while they could find the original thread in the archives and add to it, we
might get more discussion with a fresh start.

Vale et valete bene!
C. Maria Caeca
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91172 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: Pontiffs and the absurdity of the Camilla Program...IMO
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91173 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: On Being Roman
Caninus Triario omnibusque spd:

As can be seen on my bio page in the Nova Roma Wiki, I am focusing my
personal development around comitas, humanitas and pietas this year. Is
anyone else focusing on one or more specific virtues in their personal
life? I have been considering promoting a couple of public virtues as a
Tribune as well.

Optime valete!

Marcus Pompeius Caninus
Tribunus Plebis
America Boreoccidentalis

Vivat Nova Roma!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91174 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: Pontiffs and the absurdity of the Camilla Program...IMO
Ave,
 
I wasn't "shooting for flamen," just trying to proceed on as a camillus. But, I might have ended up one one day.  Everybody's got to have a goal..LOL!
 
LVT


________________________________
From: A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 2:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Pontiffs and the absurdity of the Camilla Program...IMO


 

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91175 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: On Being Roman
Triarius Canino spd:
 
Yes, privately: Comitas, Salubritas, Pietas
 
Publicly, I would suggest: Providentia and Patientia
 
Valete,
Triarius
 

________________________________
From: M. Pompeius Caninus <caninus@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 2:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] On Being Roman


 

Caninus Triario omnibusque spd:

As can be seen on my bio page in the Nova Roma Wiki, I am focusing my
personal development around comitas, humanitas and pietas this year. Is
anyone else focusing on one or more specific virtues in their personal
life? I have been considering promoting a couple of public virtues as a
Tribune as well.

Optime valete!

Marcus Pompeius Caninus
Tribunus Plebis
America Boreoccidentalis

Vivat Nova Roma!




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91176 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: Pontiffs and the absurdity of the Camilla Program...IMO
Salvete omnes,
 
Before everyone wakes up, reads this and looses their minds.  I'm not Vestal Bashing.  Lay your pugiones and gladii down. I'm just stating historical fact.  Everything in ancient Rome was not all "warm and fuzzy" like history and NR often tries to make things appear.  The Vestals were held in high regard, but they were treated like crap...IMO.  It is what it is.
 
LVT


________________________________
From: Lucius Vitellius <lvtriarius@... To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Pontiffs and the absurdity of the Camilla Program...IMO


 

Salve Valerianus,
 
So after 8 years, I ask again, "What are the requirements for the priesthood?"  There must be some somewhere, because I see priests/priestesses come and go over the years...and we still have no camilla program?
 
I do not understand how there can remain so many vacancies in the priesthood for so long and no answer from anyone on how to proceed to fill them, other than an apparent dead link on the Religio page that states if you are interested, click here.  My fingers get enough exercise typing and clicking on real links.
 
Not to be sacastic, but we didn't grow up with Ludi circenses, Aediles, Senate Consuta, Latin classes, etc., as a whole, but we manage our way through it, and learn as we go. It is part of the whole NR process.  I'm not seeing that training is a beneficial issue lately. Sorry.  It has always appeared to me that NR adopted a pre-plebian, exclusive class for the priesthood. And that is okay, I guess, you all just need to decide that and not portray it as you are willing to accept newcomers, if you are not.  It's really that simple.  Continual promises of a "training plan" for seemingly pysops operations are mute, silly, and unneeded in my opinion. If it is just going to be on a selective appointment basis, it's just going to be on a selective appointment basis. It is what it is. Declare it and be done with it.
 
It is almost like the underlying NR Pontificate Official Unofficial Statement is, and always has been, "If you were not raised from birth in the Religio Romana, then don't bother to apply-we are a select and pure group."  My question is how many members of the priesthood meet and have met that qualification over the last 15 years? If it is more than TWO, then I'll probably laugh and call you "misinformed."
 
If the Religio is such a critical element, then why all this continual confusion?
 
One thing I have learned over the years about the Religio Romana is that in antiquity, the rules were pretty loose, both internally and externally concerning the Religio. Now whether that was for the From Mother's Milk reasons you stated or not, I cannot yet reconcile in my mind. I do know that we know very little about the Religio in the colonies and municipalities. But, one thing we do have historical records on was that the way it worked in Rome had absolutely nothing to do with the way it worked outside of the Pomerium. The Paterfamilias could set his own calendar each year, perform his own private and public rituals, hold his own festivals for the various Gods, etc.  Provincial and municipal magistrates could conduct religious matters as they chose.
 
We can't even get a Vestal promoted. From what I know about the cult of Vesta, the VVM could be elected or appointed, depending on the day, week, month, year and PM it occured in and under.  Since the common practice was to kidnap 10 yr old girls from their home, train them for 10 years, work them for 10 years, then make them train others for 10 years, then retire them, plus, let's not let them leave the building for 30 years, I don't see that they actually had a voice in anything, really.  Their whole life was ordered. It appears to me that they served at the will of the PM. It's no wonder thay had a high suicide rate Hell, they even had special suicide decreta JUST FOR VESTALS! I'm really surprised they didn't just burn them on the hearth, but then that would fall under the jurisdiction of the Flamen Volcanis...
 
It just wasn't that complicated as everyone wants to make it.  Maybe you all over at the CP need to hold your own "Vatican II" Council and basically start from scratch and do some Spring Cleaning. It's not Lex, so throw it all out and start anew with everything.  I DO NOT say that in jest.  It is healthy to review and purge, other wise we would all have our mothers shoving ALL of our toys from childhood in our car everytime we went home to visit.  That's also the reason we have Rummage Sales and Flea Markets. 
 
I wish you all well on your training plan idea and concept. I'm gonna go now and listen to Elvis Presslius sing "Promised Land," one the greatest songs ever written.
 
(Puts on sunglases and cranks up the Rockabilly...music for the soul...)
 
Vale,
Triarius


________________________________
From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus <mailto:gaius.tullius.valerianus%40gmail.com To: mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Pontiffs and the absurdity of the Camilla Program...IMO


Salve Vitelli,

    I'm not sure, but it seems like you are saying that you don't
understand why there would be a need for a training program for priests in
NR, when it is clear that priests in ancient Rome did not have a training
program. If that is your question, here is the answer:

In ancient Rome, people did not need to be trained in most religious
matters because it was part of daily life from birth. To be a Roman meant
to make sacrifices and participate in rituals on what amounts to a daily
basis. When someone was chosen as a priest, they already had a lifetime of
familiarity with religious ritual and practice. They didn't need additional
training in those matters. In later times, I think, such programs did
exist, as more and more people from further-flung places became Romans who
were *not *raised as Romans.

In Nova Roma, we are in that sort of situation. Few of us are born and
raised Romans, raised from birth with the rituals and practices as part of
our daily life. So we have would-be priests who need training. So we need a
training program. Because we don't get it with our mothers' milk anymore.

Vale!

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91177 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: Pontiffs and the absurdity of the Camilla Program...IMO
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91178 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
its
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91179 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Report of Senate session closed on 9 July 2013
Marcus Pompeius Caninus Tribunus Plebis Quiritibus SPD


Senate Voting Results published on 11 July 2013 - a.d. V Id. Quin.
MMDCCLXVI A.U.C.






PRESIDING MAGISTRATE:
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, Consul




SCHEDULE:
09:00 PM MOUNTAIN STANDARD TIME 17th- June-2013 : Call to order. Debate
period commences.
09:00 PM MOUNTAIN STANDARD TIME 2nd-July-2013 : Debate period ends.
09:01 PM MOUNTAIN STANDARD TIME 3rd-July-2013 : Call to vote. Voting
period commences.
09:01 PM MOUNTAIN STANDARD TIME 8th-July-2013 : Voting period ends.
11:59 PM MOUNTAIN STANDARD TIME 9th-July-2013 : Call to close issued
before this time.






AGENDA FOR VOTING:
I. Legion Sponsorship - carry over from last month (Debate + Vote)
II. Sponsorship of Legion in Texas (Debate & Vote)
III. Senatus Consulta on Leave of Absence (Debate & vote)
IV. Senatus Consulta on Corporate Compliance (Discussion & Vote)
V. Senatus Consulta on the Collegium Pontificum - Carry over from last
month (Discussion & Vote)
VI. Senatus Consulta on Century Points for Princeps Senatus (Discussion
& Vote)
VII. Senatus Consulta on the Leges Salicia (Discussion & Vote)




Quorum was achieved.




The Senate has finished its latest session and the votes have been
tallied as shown below.




The following 15 senators or voting members of the Senate cast votes in
time. They are referred to below by their initials and are listed in
alphabetical order by nomen:


CAC C. Aemilius Crassus
LCSF L. Cornelius Sulla Felix
MCGG M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus
SCVJA Sta. Cornelia Valeriana Iuliana Aeternia
TiGP Ti. Galerius Paulinus
CnIC Cn. Iulius Caesar
DeIPI De. Iunius Palladius Invictus
TIS T. Iulius Sabinus
MMA M. Minucius Audens
CMC C. Marcius Crispus
CPD C. Petronius Dexter
QSP Q. Suetonius Paulinus
CTVG C. Tullius Valerianus Germanicus
PUSV P. Ullerius Stephanus Venator
CVA C. Vipsanius Agrippa




The following 2 senators or voting members of the Senate did not cast a
vote or did not cast a vote on time:


MCJ M. Cassius Julianus
LECA L. Equitius Cincinnatus Augur




In the voting results shown below "UTI ROGAS" indicates a vote in favor
of an item, "ANTIQUO" is a vote against, and "ABSTINEO" is an open
abstention.




_______


Item 1: Legion Sponsorship:


Yes: 14
No: 1
Abstain: 0
PASSED


*CAC : UTI ROGAS - "A important measure for Nova Roma and hopefully will
lead to a return of good relationships with the reenactment community."


*LCSF: UTI ROGAS - "I believe this is the first of a few steps that will
address an important link within the Nova Roman community to strengthen
the ties between Nova Roma and the Reenactment community. This proposal
was endorsed unanimously by the Sodalitas Militarum and I believe will
serve as an important link in the ties that bind the Reenactment Legions
and Nova Roma."


*MCGG: UTI ROGAS


*SCVJA: UTI ROGAS - "As someone who has been involved in the
Re-Enactment community all of my childhood and a great deal of my adult
life. I believe this to be a step in the right direction. My thanks to
all parties involved."


*TiGP: UTI ROGAS


*CnIC: UTI ROGAS - "I am very pleased to see this item and the one that
follows on the agenda. Nova Roma has over the years lost touch with an
exceptionally important part of its community, which in turn finding
little official support of a meaningful manner, drifted away. I hope
that this is the start of rebuilding the relationship between Nova Roma
and the legions."


*DeIPI: UTI ROGAS


*TIS: UTI ROGAS


*MMA: UTI ROGAS


*CMC: UTI ROGAS


*CPD: ANTIQUO - "As this sponsoring is free and does not request this
legion to make its the colour of NR, a Senatus Consultum is not
necessary. Just the agreement of the Sodalitas seems enough."


*QSP: UTI ROGAS


*CTVG: UTI ROGAS - "I have said many times allowing the ties between
Nova Roma and the Roman reenactment community to wither was a terrible
mistake, and I believe this is a vital step in restoring and growing
Nova Roma. This has my wholehearted support."


*PUSV: UTI ROGAS - "Having a connection between Nova Roma and those who
perform this important educational outreach is a long time goal, which
was in existence at the start and should be again."


*CVA: UTI ROGAS






_______






Item II - Sponsorship of Legion in Texas:


Yes: 14
No: 1
Abstain: 0
PASSED


*CAC: UTI ROGAS - "Given the recommendation from Sodalitas Militarium I
have no doubt in voting in favor. My best wishes for great success to
the new Legion."


*LCSF: UTI ROGAS - "I would like to thank the Sodalitas Militarum again,
in their involvement and approval of the application for this legion and
I wish everyone in the Legion the best of luck in their endeavors and
hope that over time more of the membership of the Legion will see value
in becoming members of our community."


*MCGG: UTI ROGAS


*SCVJA: UTI ROGAS - "Best of the luck to this new Legion and their
endeavors to come."


*TiGP: UTI ROGAS


*CnIC: UTI ROGAS


*DeIPI: UTI ROGAS


*TIS: UTI ROGAS


*MMA: UTI ROGAS


*CMC: UTI ROGAS


*CPD: ANTIQUO - "For the same reasons than above."


*QSP: UTI ROGAS


*CTVG: UTI ROGAS - "I have been in contact with the head of this legion
(it is in my province), and I look forward to making our mutual support
official. I absolutely support this item."


*PUSV: UTI ROGAS - "The Sodalitas Militarum is in favor of this
sponsorship, that is the positive news I need to likewise support the
idea."


*CVA: UTI ROGAS






_______






Item III - Senatus Consulta on Leave of Absence:


Yes: 14
No: 1
Abstain: 0
PASSED


*CAC: ANTIQUO - "I vote against this propose not because itself in
general but because its article VII that demands a super majority of 2/3
to change or revoke. I don't have nothing against the need to have
special parts of the legislation that are more protected to change, like
the constitution, but I do believe the same level of demand should be
made to approve those legislations. This is to ask for the same level of
majority to enact as it asked to change in the future seems to be the
most elementary principle and one when not respected will lead us to
have an almost unchangeable legislation."


*LCSF: UTI ROGAS - "This is a necessary Senatus Consulta that allows
those members of this house, some of whom, have served for years to be
able to take a break due to life and extreme events that may affect us
all and to protect their Seat in this Body. It is a common sense,
reasonable and flexible senatus consulta that is capable of addressing
every contingency."


*MCGG: UTI ROGAS


*SCVJA: UTI ROGAS


*TiGP: UTI ROGAS


*CnIC: UTI ROGAS - "This will benefit the entire Senate, now and in
years to come."


*DeIPI: UTI ROGAS - "We have lost too many good senators over the years
because something else happened in their life and they had had to put
Nova Roma aside. Hopefully this will prevent this."


*TIS: UTI ROGAS


*MMA: UTI ROGAS


*CMC: UTI ROGAS


*CPD: UTI ROGAS


*QSP: UTI ROGAS


*CTVG: UTI ROGAS - "This probably should have been addressed long ago.
This has my wholehearted support."


*PUSV: UTI ROGAS - "Having needed to be on sabbatical, I support a
formal mechanism."


*CVA: UTI ROGAS






_______


Item IV - Senatus Consulta on Corporate Compliance:


Yes: 13
No: 2
Abstain: 0
PASSED


*CAC: ANTIQUO - "I would like to thank Consul Sulla and Censor Caesar
for their alterations of the initial propose and I believe the final
version and being voted to be necessary to Nova Roma. The CFO of the
corporation needs to be able to refuse actions that would impair or
create liability
issues for Nova Roma with the Nova Roma Senate having the ultimate
decision if those conflict situations do appear. Sadly I have to vote
against since as I have informed the Senate and already told in my vote
for item III I can only vote in favor legislation which needs a super
majority to be changed if the same level of majority is asked for
approval and that is not the case."


*LCSF: UTI ROGAS - "This is hopefully the last tool that the Senate
needs in its arsenal to deal decisively with any rogue future magistrate
who might choose to sabotage the organization by preventing Corporate
officers (CFO) from fulfilling their corporate responsibilities. With
this tool, the Corporation will be preserved even in the event of
possible civil discord as the Corporation will take the steps it needs
to be in compliance with Macronational law (Maine and Federal US law).
It is vital that the protections we receive from being a 501c3 not for
profit are protected. I would like to thank Caesar for his diligence in
drafting this SC and working to revise it to met the constructive
concerns voiced by the members of this House."


*MCGG: UTI ROGAS


*SCVJA: UTI ROGAS


*TiGP: UTI ROGAS


*CnIC: UTI ROGAS - "A preventive measure that hopefully will not have to
be employed. The days of consuls, indeed all magistrates, leading us
down the path of ruin by ignoring the dictates of macronational laws and
regulations has to end. This process, combined with the Senate rules,
will strengthen the ability of the Senate to counter such dangerous
adventurism."


*DeIPI: UTI ROGAS - "For too many times Nova Roma has thought itself
above macronational law, endangering the entire organization. No
longer."


*TIS: UTI ROGAS


*MMA: UTI ROGAS


*CMC: UTI ROGAS


*CPD: ANTIQUO - "All that SC is too much vague and does not grant any
control."


*QSP: UTI ROGAS


*CTVG: UTI ROGAS - "Many of Nova Roma's problems in recent memory could
have been avoided with something like this in place. I believe this is
vital for the future of Nova Roma."


*PUSV: UTI ROGAS - "Most every company in which I own stock has a
compliance committee of the BoD, seems like a normal business practice."


*CVA: UTI ROGAS






_______


Item V - Senatus Consulta on the Collegium Pontificum:


Yes: 12
No: 3
Abstain: 0
PASSED


*CAC: UTI ROGAS - "It is with great sadness I see this item returning to
the Senate and since I don't believe any action will be taken I have to
vote in favor if this proposal."


*LCSF: UTI ROGAS - "While every SC is important - I believe this one, is
probably one of the most important SC's promulgated in this agenda. All
of Nova Roma is starting to grow again and become more involved with the
noted exception of the CP and this is a true shame. The CP should, even
slowly reflect on its lack of activity and progress compared to the rest
of the organization and take constructive steps to address that, but
instead many (not all) members have addressed side issues (important as
they might be) but failed to address the direct concerns of the Senatus
Consulta. After pulling this agenda item last month with the assistance
of Pontiff/Senator Sabinus there has been no constructive effort to
address and resolve the aforementioned issues that were discussed on the
ML/Senate. Now, it is brought back for consideration and I urge every
senator to vote for this Senatus Consulta. It is time the CP join the
rest of Nova Roma in becoming a more responsive body that serves the
Community as much as it serves the Gods. Let me repeat, I do not want a
Catholic Church version of Roman Paganism (I didn't even think that was
possible), but I do want a CP that actually recognizes it has a place in
the the Nova Roman Community!"


*MCGG: UTI ROGAS


*SCVJA: UTI ROGAS - "This item should have NEVER came up on the Senate
Agenda let alone a second time. My first instinct was to vote no on
this agenda and let the CP sort itself out. But after monitoring the
behaviors of the Pontiff's on their own list, its for very hard for them
to come up with decisions based upon group solidarity. Within the
Senate Chambers the Pontifex Maximus failed to sway me in keeping my
vote a "No". If anything he has demonstrated as to why there is a dire
need of Senatorial action regarding this matter. The CP needs help with
the administrative streamline process of applications. The Senate is
here to help with that process, not propose the CP to become the Vatican
Church. That is simply a misconception."


*TiGP: UTI ROGAS


*CnIC: UTI ROGAS - "A reasonable person would have thought it wasn't too
much to ask of the Collegium Pontificum to introduce a process that is
administrative in nature. Apparently however it was beyond their
abilities. Therefore it falls to the Senate to introduce this, rather
than risk the continued drift away from Nova Roma by practitioners of
the religio due to such failure on the part of the CP."


*DeIPI: UTI ROGAS


*TIS: ANTIQUO - "The reasons are:
-This proposed SC will recreate the five years ago story (when two CP
members were considered inactive and were expelled from CP). Now the
entire CP is considered inactive from a point of view which have not any
connection with the traditional Roman duties of the CP.
-The NR Senate is composed of various religions members. They don't have
the moral right to enter in another religion business setting rules for
something they don't have any connection. "


*MMA: UTI ROGAS


*CMC: UTI ROGAS


*CPD: ANTIQUO - "The CP is not a church neither an enterprise, it must
stay the place of the wises in the Roman Religion. The reasons advanced
for this SC are a gross manoeuver for Sulla to put his nose in the CP
affairs, but as the Constitution grants it the CP follows and redacts
its own rules and processes."


*QSP: UTI ROGAS


*CTVG: UTI ROGAS - "This one was very difficult for me. I have mixed
feelings on the matter to say the least - I strongly feel that the
religious colleges should get their own houses in order without outside
interference. However, that has not been happening to any visible
extent. Worse, having negotiated a chance to take this off the table
last session so that such progress could be undertaken, that chance
seems to have been squandered. Despite my wish that I could vote against
this, or even abstain, I feel obliged to vote "uti rogas" on this one. I
wish that were not necessary."


*PUSV: UTI ROGAS - "I support this as it was worded more as a suggested
method, rather than as a fiat."


*CVA: ANTIQUO








_______


Item VI - Senatus Consulta on Century Points for Princeps Senatus:


Yes: 12
No: 2
Abstain: 1
PASSED


*CAC: UTI ROGAS - "I don't have any doubt that with the actual
responsibilities the Princeps Senatus should be reward with CP. I'm not
sure if the proposed values are the more balanced for the respective
work and responsibilities of the office but it will be possible to
adjust the values if they prove to be unbalanced."


*LCSF: UTI ROGAS - "Every position in Nova Roma gets at least some
Century Points. The PS position is one that was overlooked and
corrected. This, also, is not about the individual holding the office,
but about the office itself, which is clearly a very important position
in both Roman Antiqua and important PLUS very powerful within Nova
Roma."


*MCGG: UTI ROGAS


*SCVJA: ANTIQUO - "I understand that I am most likely the only Senator
who will vote Nay to this item. I also understand that it will still
most likely pass. I want it known for record of two things. 1. I did
offer a compromise of 5 century points to those of past service and 10
century points for the current Princeps Senatus. I found that to be
fair and balanced. 2. This has nothing to do with who is currently
Princeps Senatus. I would still vote no regardless who was in this
position even if were by some strange cause and effect myself. My
issue is not with the individual but the position itself. I cannot
reward 15 century points to someone who as has been describe to me as a
"failsafe". I would like to remind the Senate that as someone who has
served as Scribe on many Cohors, it takes some time for a civis to
acquire 15 century points without wearing all the "pointy hats" mind
you. In the likelihood that this item will pass. I hope to stress to
the Senate that with the awarding of such points so should some
expectations be set forth."


*TiGP: UTI ROGAS


*CnIC: UTI ROGAS - "Considering the plethora of responsibilities the
princeps senatus now has, this is a small token of recognition for the
role. Let us not cheapen ourselves by being stingy over this."


*DeIPI: ABSTINEO


*TIS: UTI ROGAS


*MMA: UTI ROGAS


*CMC: UTI ROGAS


*CPD: ANTIQUO - "If necessary the laws Vedia, Junia, Cornelia Centuriata
must be changed by the Comitia."


*QSP: UTI ROGAS


*CTVG: UTI ROGAS - "A very good idea, in my opinion. This has my full
support."


*PUSV: UTI ROGAS - "Addresses an oversight."


*CVA: UTI ROGAS






_______


Item VII - Senatus Consulta on the Leges Salicia:


Yes: 12
No: 3
Abstain: 0
PASSED


*CAC: ANTIQUO - "The function of the Senate is to define overall policy
within Nova Roma but it is not to review every individual actions of the
Magistrates within their duties and that is exactly what this SC
creates. More the SC is presented to ensure the fact a Praetor accepts a
case against a citizen doesn't create liability issues for Nova Roma in
general and in particularly for its Senate members. But what could
create such liability situations are never the acceptance of a case
against a citizens except for the few reasons a Praetor can refuse the
case that are listed in Lex Salica but if the Praetor doesn't follow the
Leges Salicae and other legislation, including Constitution, to the
letter while conducting the trial but that is after the approval of the
Senate to the trial if this propose is approved. So this proposed SC
will prevent no liability problems and does indeed create new ones since
a citizen can obviously present a complain that is right to action other
citizen, right given by our internal rules, is being arbitrarily denied
by the Board of Directors. Not solving the hypothetical danger, even
increasing it in my opinion, and at the same time creating a situation
of Senate reviewing individual actions from the Magistrates I have no
other option to vote against it."


*LCSF: UTI ROGAS - "Nova Roma cannot go back to the days before the
Leges Salicia, that bridge has been crossed. With that fact plainly
clear, it is important that Nova Roma take constructive steps to prevent
the abuses of the Leges Salicia that have happened in the past to ensure
that those abuses do not happen again. This Senatus Consulta does
precisely that. It gives us, the Senate of Nova Roma the oversight
authority to determine if there is just cause for a case to proceed and
that there is a sustainable cause of action. If there is, then the
petition moves forward. But, if not - if we the Senate of Nova Roma can
stop this petition from proceeding. The ramifications of future trials
and its affect on the organization and corporation are clear - Nova Roma
has dodged too many bullets to assume that the next time the
organization plays Russian Roulette it will not be another empty
chamber. As, I told Senator Crassus, this is not a fool proof, but it
clearly gives the Senate the knife to either sever the petition in half
or to cut its own wrists. It rests with the Senate because we in the
Senate would eventually bear the burden macronationally - and this is
something that should be on all of our minds."


*MCGG: UTI ROGAS


*SCVJA: UTI ROGAS


*TiGP: UTI ROGAS


*CnIC: UTI ROGAS - "Again this measure strengthens the ability of the
Senate to have oversight over a process that has been abused in the past
and could again. It will provide a counterpoint to praetors determined
to pursue "political" vendettas, and halt the slide into providing fresh
meat for factional warfare. Only those trials that are in the public
interest should be approved. I hope that before year end we can revamp
the current system of legal redress and prosecution with a fairer one,
one that does not rely on uncollectible fines, and one that seeks to
pursue a model of restorative justice, reconciliation and summary
resolution without resort to the theater of the absurd that the current
trial process has resulted in."


*DeIPI: UTI ROGAS


*TIS: ANTQUO - "Instead of replacing the bad laws, which was the normal
course of action, this proposed SC come with a solution which is in
contradiction with the very essence of Roman legacy. Magistrates need to
have their own decision independence (whatever it is, good or bad) and
need to be accountable if wrong. Now, not only the praetores are
affected but the tribuni plebis, too, because their right of
intercessio, in case of wrong decision of praetores, can not be used."


*MMA: UTI ROGAS


*CMC: UTI ROGAS


*CPD: ANTIQUO - "If necessary those laws must be changed by the
Comitia."


*QSP: UTI ROGAS


*CTVG: UTI ROGAS - "While I dislike certain aspects of this - I feel
that the praetors should be able to conduct trials without the Senate
stepping on their toes - we really are dealing with an issue here in
which Senate oversight - BoD oversight - may prevent potential
disasters. Despite my misgivings about the possibilities for abuse of
this proposal, I feel we must be more concerned with the radically more
pronounced threat of abuse of the system without this check in place, so
I give this measure my support."


*PUSV: UTI ROGAS - "As a member of both the Senate and Board of
Directors, I see a need for our oversight of internal affairs."


*CVA: UTI ROGAS


===== END OF REPORT =====






Facite valeatis!





Marcus Pompeius Caninus
Tribunus Plebis
America Boreoccidentalis

Vivat Nova Roma!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91180 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: Religious Revision???...
Caesar Fabio sal.

Fabi I am going to repeat what numerous people over the years, including our mutual time in the Boni, have tried to impress on you.

1. This is NOT ancient Rome. we cannot simply peer in a book and declaim "This was so then, so shall it be now", not without the work necessary to make it legal, legal within the collegium and Nova Roma as a whole. There was a time when the CP was divided internally on one point or another. Interpretations and adaptations from the past had proponents on one side or the other of an interpretation. There was no consensus, because different people had different views on how to implement ancient facets of the religio publica. You need to vote on things Fabi. Make them legal within Nova Roma.

2. We are meant to be engaged in a reconstruction project, which inevitably means tweaking some things from Ancient Rome, replacing others entirely because social and macro legal mores do not allow for the original to be implemented or the simple practical problem of not being centered physically in a city, or in some cases transplanting the original entirely with no revision necessary.

3. By general consensus we have no "mother's milk" indoctrination of the mos maiorum. 

4. Whenever the mos has been raised, on one matter or another, in Nova Roma there have been often been multiple views as to what it was, and how to translate it into Nova Roman life.

5. We have a Constitution. We have a legal order of precedence for lower legal instruments such as leges, decreta, senatus consulta and edicta. These govern such things as appointments. You need to fit everything you do in the CP into a decretum if you wish to rely on it and not have it questioned legally all the time.

6. We saw the results of oral tradition many times over the years, a few persons views of the mos - what it was and said on topics, in the days of Piscinus. He warped things to his own ends. You know that, yet his view was equal to anyone else's. Can you not see the danger of this practice in the future in the CP? 

7. If you want to implement the view that the pontifex maximus has the right to appoint the VVM on his own without recourse to the collegium, then you absolutely have to, as a collegium, delegate him those powers in a decretum. 

8. The way to avoid controversy is to debate a proposed policy, formulate a motion in crisp, clear and unambiguous English, put it to the vote, and if it passes it will be a decretum with the force of law.


9. We cannot simply extrapolate a version or interpretation of past ancient practice, or even take them wholesale and say "well they did it 2000 years ago". Yes, they may and it may be right for us now, so therefore translate it into the form needed NOW in Nova Roma, which in the case of the CP is a decretum.

10. Stop repeating the excuse that it sometimes better to do nothing. While that maybe true in certain cases, sometimes, you cannot make it a shield to explain near total inactivity both in setting up basic administrative processes in the CP and in religious matters. Inactivity has become the norm. 

I agree with you 100% - ROMAN TRADITION IS WHAT WE ARE ALL ABOUT - so in the collegium debate what a practice was in antiquity, how it can be translated into Nova Roma and enshrine it in a decretum. That requires you all start doing something though. You cannot simply give personal interpretations when under the gun. Make it official policy of the CP. Pass decreta. Make Roman tradition become Nova Roman tradition, legally and beyond a shadow of a doubt. In other words start reconstructing - LEGALLY. 

Optime vale


________________________________
From: "QFabiusMaxmi@..." <QFabiusMaxmi@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Religious Revision???...



 


In a message dated 7/14/2013 6:05:39 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
gn_iulius_caesar@... writes:

You just make this stuff up as you go along, taking a vague stab at what
you think it should be, with no heed to what OUR laws actually say and don't
sa

Censor.

I'm done talking with you. ROMAN TRADITION IS WHAT WE ARE ALL ABOUT. If
we are not, we have no reason to stay.
And I don't make anything up. We just have had so much crap occur over
our XV years that it is all blurred.
But I know the Roman Religion based on Roman writings. And the PM holding
Manus over Vestals is an important part of that Religion.

QFM

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91181 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
C. Petronius L. Cornelio Sullae consuli sine collega salutem,

We have a Forum very busy and noisy... so unfortunately this escaped to me:

As I said since 2 years in the senate we have to lower the tax amounts! Do think that I paid $44,00 to be insulted or attacked everywhere I meet you and Cn. Caesar. This certainly makes your insults above prey and precious. Even the praetor does not put you under moderation, perhaps he does not understand the idiomatic speech to understand them, me too I did not understand them but a native American speaker is seeking them and will translate them to me. I will see. Finally the idiomatic speech must be too translated in English, if only the BA gang may understand your humour it is a pity, is'n it?

But to come back to the subject, we have to reduce the amount of the taxes. In despite of your cupidity, Sulla. We need less money than more assidui. Do not forget that an assiduus is not only a taxpayer but rather and above all a possible active citizen. We need more active citizens as magistrates. But the tax's amounts are too expansive to grow the number of assidui and may prevent volunteers and good will.

But I guess that the lack of volunteers is not only a question of money, I wonder who wants to work in a such hateful organization? Nova Roma must not become the Back Alley's copy. Even above prey and precious insults remain insults. And we learned the bad news that the ornament of the Senate, a pilar of it I must say, the honorable senator Marcus Audens has preferred to leave the Senate!

BTW: Do you think to convene the Comitia to elect your missing colleague? We get you as sole consul since more than 6 months... do not you feel alone?

BTW2: On the revision and strike out section III of the Lex Armenia de fovenda lingua Latina, People of Nova Roma, please, vote: NO.

Optime vale et valete.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Idibus Quintilibus MMDCCLXVI

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91182 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-07-15
Subject: Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingu
Caesar Dextro sal.

"Do think that I paid $44,00 to be insulted or attacked everywhere I meet you and Cn. Caesar. This certainly makes your insults above prey and precious. Even the praetor does not put you under moderation, perhaps he does not understand the idiomatic speech to understand them, me too I did not understand them but a native American speaker is seeking them and will translate them to me. I will see. "

Is this the same Dexter who in the elections of 2011 vilified Aeternia horrendously, constantly, insulted her, attacked her character without provocation, and then proceeded to explain it all away as the norm in Roman politics? 

Is this the same Dexter who was exceptionally critical of my paper Nova Roma Reborn, but I highly suspect has never read it cover to cover - or maybe any of it (after all he won't read and digest a pontifical decretum - so why expect anything else), and who proceeded to insinuate all sorts of drivel and half-baked interpretations during that election about that paper and myself? 

Is this the same Dexter who spent all of last year in the Senate engaged in the same sort of attacks, not just on myself but on anyone who voted for any Senatus consultum I put before the senate he didn't like and who has continued this behavior this year with Sulla?

Is this the same Dexter who continued to insult Aeternia, his praetorial colleague, for her whole year, at every opportunity, in the Senate, in their joint cohors - which I hear from others was a dismal joyless place to toil away in, all the while his staff waiting for him to have his next melt-down?

No it cannot be the same Dexter! You sir, whoever you are, are obviously a feeble clone of the real Dexter. The original Dexter must have been abducted by aliens and instead this weak facsimile who complains about being "attacked" has now replaced him.

Attacked with what? Facts? Decreta? The inactivity of the Collegium under your care and ministration? Oh my.... shocking... Yes, actually it is shocking that you have the utter gall to accumulate century points and you can't even be bothered to read your own decreta. In fact you WON'T read them. You insisted on avoiding reading it until Sabinus explained it here in this forum, then you had no choice but to accept it for you dare not attack him, and now on your CP list you are admitting that you may need a vote and decretum to appoint Caeca as VVM after all, but you just don't have the stones do you to say "Ok, I was wrong, you were right". Nope. You keep that comment tucked away on the CP list out of public sight. You admit there that you need a decretum to appoint her, but not here. How gutless. 

Now instead of Dexter the attack poodle, we have Dexter the "victim". Victim?? Bah! Oh come now, you clone of the real and lovable little chappy we all know, you moan about spending $44,00? You haven't even been fed a spoonful of your own medicine. Yours is elitist sneering, peering down your nose at Americans, bringing national prejudices into a Roman forum. Insulting Sulla's heritage. Victim?? Bah!   

Should I too complain about having to put up with you consistently pontificating, ascribing false motives to me last year, this year and no doubt for all eternity, all the time perched on top of your wobbly Catonian soapbox, rending your toga and pulling your hair out bemoaning all the un-Roman Senatus consulta? Well Dexter, no danger you will ever do anything un-Roman, for to risk that you actually would have to do something in the first place, and we have clearly established you don't have the ability for that, any more than you have the guts to admit your were utterly wrong about not having to appoint Caeca as VVM.

If you truly don't like the attention you are getting, step down as pontifex maximus and let someone like Metellus have a crack at the role. I have no doubt he would have you all organized in a jiffy. If you truly haven't found the experience of being held to account pleasurable, do something to avoid it. W O R K. That too is obviously alien. Start processing citizen applications on time, and giving feedback on those applications in equally a timely fashion. Start reconstructing in a serious and earnest manner.  

Oh, by the way - you can take your translations when they arrive of what Sulla and I have said to you, and run off to the praetor clutching them - you insufferable boring hypocrite. They are far less, far more moderate than anything you dish out to others.

Optime vale




________________________________
From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:30 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revision - Strike out Section III - Lex Arminia de Fovenda Lingua Latina



 
C. Petronius L. Cornelio Sullae consuli sine collega salutem,

We have a Forum very busy and noisy... so unfortunately this escaped to me:

As I said since 2 years in the senate we have to lower the tax amounts! Do think that I paid $44,00 to be insulted or attacked everywhere I meet you and Cn. Caesar. This certainly makes your insults above prey and precious. Even the praetor does not put you under moderation, perhaps he does not understand the idiomatic speech to understand them, me too I did not understand them but a native American speaker is seeking them and will translate them to me. I will see. Finally the idiomatic speech must be too translated in English, if only the BA gang may understand your humour it is a pity, is'n it?

But to come back to the subject, we have to reduce the amount of the taxes. In despite of your cupidity, Sulla. We need less money than more assidui. Do not forget that an assiduus is not only a taxpayer but rather and above all a possible active citizen. We need more active citizens as magistrates. But the tax's amounts are too expansive to grow the number of assidui and may prevent volunteers and good will.

But I guess that the lack of volunteers is not only a question of money, I wonder who wants to work in a such hateful organization? Nova Roma must not become the Back Alley's copy. Even above prey and precious insults remain insults. And we learned the bad news that the ornament of the Senate, a pilar of it I must say, the honorable senator Marcus Audens has preferred to leave the Senate!

BTW: Do you think to convene the Comitia to elect your missing colleague? We get you as sole consul since more than 6 months... do not you feel alone?

BTW2: On the revision and strike out section III of the Lex Armenia de fovenda lingua Latina, People of Nova Roma, please, vote: NO.

Optime vale et valete.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Idibus Quintilibus MMDCCLXVI

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