| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92696 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-12 |
| Subject: Re: The Senate of Nova Roma Has Been Convened (Update) |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92697 |
From: M. Pompeius Caninus |
Date: 2014-01-12 |
| Subject: Re: The Senate of Nova Roma Has Been Convened (Update) |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92698 |
From: Q Caecilius Metellus |
Date: 2014-01-12 |
| Subject: Re: The Senate of Nova Roma Has Been Convened (Update) |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92699 |
From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher |
Date: 2014-01-13 |
| Subject: Happy Birthday Marcus Agrippa |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92700 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-13 |
| Subject: Senate Agenda |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92701 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2014-01-13 |
| Subject: Re: Senate Agenda |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92702 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-13 |
| Subject: Re: Senate Agenda |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92703 |
From: Rev. John W. Snow III, CS3, USN |
Date: 2014-01-13 |
| Subject: Re: Senate Agenda |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92704 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-13 |
| Subject: Re: Senate Agenda |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92705 |
From: Rev. John W. Snow III, CS3, USN |
Date: 2014-01-13 |
| Subject: Re: Senate Agenda |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92706 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-13 |
| Subject: Re: Senate Agenda |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92707 |
From: Rev. John W. Snow III, CS3, USN |
Date: 2014-01-13 |
| Subject: Re: Senate Agenda |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92708 |
From: iulius_sabinus |
Date: 2014-01-13 |
| Subject: Re: Senate Agenda |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92709 |
From: Rev. John W. Snow III, CS3, USN |
Date: 2014-01-13 |
| Subject: Re: Senate Agenda |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92710 |
From: iulius sabinus |
Date: 2014-01-13 |
| Subject: Re: Senate Agenda |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92711 |
From: Rev. John W. Snow III, CS3, USN |
Date: 2014-01-13 |
| Subject: Re: Senate Agenda |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92712 |
From: Tiberius Cassius Atellus |
Date: 2014-01-14 |
| Subject: Awesome A Capella Song in Latin |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92713 |
From: Belle Morte Statia |
Date: 2014-01-14 |
| Subject: Re: Awesome A Capella Song in Latin |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92714 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2014-01-14 |
| Subject: Re: Senate Agenda |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92715 |
From: robert.woolwine@gmail.com |
Date: 2014-01-14 |
| Subject: Re: Senate Agenda |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92716 |
From: Lucius Vitellius |
Date: 2014-01-14 |
| Subject: The Trouble with the Atellii |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92717 |
From: qfabiusmaximus |
Date: 2014-01-14 |
| Subject: Re: The Trouble with the Atellii |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92718 |
From: cmc |
Date: 2014-01-14 |
| Subject: Re: The Trouble with the Atellii |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92719 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-14 |
| Subject: Re: The Trouble with the Atellii |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92720 |
From: Lucius Vitellius |
Date: 2014-01-14 |
| Subject: Re: The Trouble with the Atellii |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92721 |
From: Richard Dix |
Date: 2014-01-14 |
| Subject: Re: The Trouble with the Atellii |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92722 |
From: Lucius Vitellius |
Date: 2014-01-14 |
| Subject: Re: The Trouble with the Atellii |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92723 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2014-01-14 |
| Subject: Re: The Trouble with the Atellii |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92724 |
From: cmc |
Date: 2014-01-14 |
| Subject: Re: Awesome A Capella Song in Latin |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92725 |
From: ti_cassius_atellus |
Date: 2014-01-14 |
| Subject: Re: The Trouble with the Atellii |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92726 |
From: Belle Morte Statia |
Date: 2014-01-14 |
| Subject: Re: The Trouble with the Atellii |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92727 |
From: M. Pompeius Caninus |
Date: 2014-01-14 |
| Subject: Re: The Trouble with the Atellii |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92728 |
From: A. Tullia Scholastica |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Re: Awesome A Capella Song in Latin |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92729 |
From: cmc |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Re: Awesome A Capella Song in Latin |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92730 |
From: Regilla |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Carmentalia |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92731 |
From: Aemilius Crassus |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Re: Carmentalia |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92732 |
From: Belle Morte |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Re: Carmentalia |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92733 |
From: Lucius Vitellius |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Re: Carmentalia |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92734 |
From: cmc |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Re: Carmentalia |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92735 |
From: Lucius Vitellius |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Religio Romana Handbook issue |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92736 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Re: Religio Romana Handbook issue |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92737 |
From: Lucius Vitellius |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Re: Religio Romana Handbook issue |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92738 |
From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Catching up |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92739 |
From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Re: Issuance of Intercessio |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92740 |
From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Re: Album Civium |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92741 |
From: robert.woolwine@gmail.com |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Re: Album Civium |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92742 |
From: Belle Morte Statia |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Re: Album Civium |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92743 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Re: Issuance of Intercessio |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92744 |
From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Re: Issuance of Intercessio |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92745 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Re: Issuance of Intercessio |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92746 |
From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Re: Issuance of Intercessio |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92747 |
From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Re: Issuance of Intercessio |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92748 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2014-01-15 |
| Subject: Re: Issuance of Intercessio |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92749 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2014-01-16 |
| Subject: Re: Issuance of Intercessio |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92750 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-16 |
| Subject: Re: Issuance of Intercessio |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92751 |
From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus |
Date: 2014-01-16 |
| Subject: Re: Issuance of Intercessio |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92752 |
From: iulius sabinus |
Date: 2014-01-16 |
| Subject: Re: Issuance of Intercessio |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92753 |
From: Lucius Vitellius |
Date: 2014-01-16 |
| Subject: Test |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92754 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-16 |
| Subject: Re: Test |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92755 |
From: iulius sabinus |
Date: 2014-01-16 |
| Subject: Re: Test |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92756 |
From: M. Pompeius Caninus |
Date: 2014-01-16 |
| Subject: Re: Test |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92757 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-16 |
| Subject: Re: Test |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92758 |
From: cmc |
Date: 2014-01-16 |
| Subject: Re: Test |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92759 |
From: cmc |
Date: 2014-01-16 |
| Subject: Re: Test |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92760 |
From: Lucius Vitellius |
Date: 2014-01-16 |
| Subject: Re: Test |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92761 |
From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar |
Date: 2014-01-16 |
| Subject: Re: Issuance of Intercessio |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92762 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2014-01-16 |
| Subject: Re: Issuance of Intercessio |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92763 |
From: James V Hooper |
Date: 2014-01-16 |
| Subject: Re: Catching up |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92764 |
From: M. Pompeius Caninus |
Date: 2014-01-16 |
| Subject: Chariot races for Ludi Compitalicii 2767 auc - Saturday 18 Jan 2014 |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92765 |
From: A. Tullia Scholastica |
Date: 2014-01-16 |
| Subject: Re: Awesome A Capella Song in Latin |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92766 |
From: cmc |
Date: 2014-01-16 |
| Subject: Re: Awesome A Capella Song in Latin |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92767 |
From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar |
Date: 2014-01-17 |
| Subject: Re: Issuance of Intercessio |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92768 |
From: ti_cassius_atellus |
Date: 2014-01-17 |
| Subject: Re: Awesome A Capella Song in Latin |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92769 |
From: Lucius Vitellius |
Date: 2014-01-17 |
| Subject: Re: Awesome A Capella Song in Latin |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92770 |
From: A. Tullia Scholastica |
Date: 2014-01-17 |
| Subject: Re: Awesome A Capella Song in Latin |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92771 |
From: ti_cassius_atellus |
Date: 2014-01-17 |
| Subject: Re: Awesome A Capella Song in Latin |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92772 |
From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS |
Date: 2014-01-17 |
| Subject: Interactive map of the Roman Empire |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92773 |
From: M. Pompeius Caninus |
Date: 2014-01-17 |
| Subject: Chariot races for Ludi Compitalicii 2767 auc - Saturday 18 Jan 2014 |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92774 |
From: Lucius Vitellius |
Date: 2014-01-17 |
| Subject: Re: [Nova_roma_] Interactive map of the Roman Empire |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92775 |
From: M. Pompeius Caninus |
Date: 2014-01-18 |
| Subject: Compitalia |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92776 |
From: M. Pompeius Caninus |
Date: 2014-01-18 |
| Subject: Compitalia |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92777 |
From: Robin Marquardt |
Date: 2014-01-18 |
| Subject: Re: Catching up |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92778 |
From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher |
Date: 2014-01-18 |
| Subject: Re: Roman Architecture | Introducing Signature Track |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92779 |
From: Chad Axe |
Date: 2014-01-18 |
| Subject: Latin instruction |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92780 |
From: |
Date: 2014-01-18 |
| Subject: Latin instruction |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92781 |
From: Chad Axe |
Date: 2014-01-18 |
| Subject: Re: Latin instruction |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92782 |
From: A. Tullia Scholastica |
Date: 2014-01-18 |
| Subject: Re: Latin instruction |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92783 |
From: M. Pompeius Caninus |
Date: 2014-01-18 |
| Subject: Compitalia |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92784 |
From: Robin Marquardt |
Date: 2014-01-19 |
| Subject: Re: Latin instruction |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92785 |
From: Robin Marquardt |
Date: 2014-01-19 |
| Subject: Re: Compitalia |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92786 |
From: A. Tullia Scholastica |
Date: 2014-01-19 |
| Subject: insipientia |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92787 |
From: M. Pompeius Caninus |
Date: 2014-01-19 |
| Subject: Re: insipientia |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92788 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2014-01-19 |
| Subject: Re: insipientia |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92789 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2014-01-19 |
| Subject: Distancing myself from the decision of the senate |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92790 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-19 |
| Subject: Re: insipientia |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92791 |
From: robert.woolwine@gmail.com |
Date: 2014-01-19 |
| Subject: Re: Distancing myself from the decision of the senate |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92792 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2014-01-19 |
| Subject: Re: Distancing myself from the decision of the senate |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92793 |
From: cmc |
Date: 2014-01-19 |
| Subject: my comments on the actions of C. Petronius Dexter |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92794 |
From: scipiosecond |
Date: 2014-01-19 |
| Subject: Re: insipientia |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92795 |
From: A. Tullia Scholastica |
Date: 2014-01-19 |
| Subject: Re: insipientia |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92796 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-19 |
| Subject: Re: my comments on the actions of C. Petronius Dexter |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92797 |
From: dhcocoa3 |
Date: 2014-01-19 |
| Subject: response to welcome back to board |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92798 |
From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher |
Date: 2014-01-19 |
| Subject: FW: [Explorator] explorator 16.40 |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92799 |
From: SP Robinson |
Date: 2014-01-19 |
| Subject: Reprise of return |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92800 |
From: cmc |
Date: 2014-01-19 |
| Subject: Re: Reprise of return |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92801 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-19 |
| Subject: Re: Reprise of return |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92802 |
From: petronius_dexter |
Date: 2014-01-19 |
| Subject: Re: my comments on the actions of C. Petronius Dexter |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92803 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: my comments on the actions of C. Petronius Dexter |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92804 |
From: SP Robinson |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Reprise of return |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92805 |
From: M. Pompeius Caninus |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: my comments on the actions of C. Petronius Dexter |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92806 |
From: M. Pompeius Caninus |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92807 |
From: M. Pompeius Caninus |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Foolishness - NOT! [Typos corrected] |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92808 |
From: Belle Morte Statia |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Reminder: Call for Governors |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92809 |
From: Belle Morte Statia |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Media Services Page |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92810 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92811 |
From: M. Pompeius Caninus |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92812 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92813 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92814 |
From: Bruno Zani |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92815 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92816 |
From: Bruno Zani |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92817 |
From: M. Pompeius Caninus |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92818 |
From: Bruno Zani |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92819 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92821 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Reminder: Call for Governors |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92822 |
From: Belle Morte Statia |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Reminder: Call for Governors |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92823 |
From: M. Pompeius Caninus |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Reminder: Call for Governors |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92824 |
From: Belle Morte Statia |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Reminder: Call for Governors |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92825 |
From: Bruno Zani |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92826 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Reminder: Call for Governors |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92827 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92828 |
From: cmc |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Reminder: Call for Governors |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92829 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92830 |
From: M. Pompeius Caninus |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92831 |
From: Belle Morte Statia |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92832 |
From: Bruno Zani |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92833 |
From: cn_corn_lent |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Yahoo Glitch |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92834 |
From: qfabiusmaximus |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Yahoo Glitch |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92835 |
From: cmc |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92836 |
From: Rev. John W. Snow III, CS3, USN |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92837 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92838 |
From: cmc |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Yahoo Glitch |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92839 |
From: Belle Morte Statia |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92840 |
From: A. Tullia Scholastica |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Insipientia redux et verissima Re: [Nova-Roma] Foolishness - NOT! [T |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92841 |
From: A. Tullia Scholastica |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Insipientia redux et verissima: Re: [Nova-Roma] Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92842 |
From: M. Pompeius Caninus |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Insipientia redux et verissima Re: [Nova-Roma] Foolishness - NOT |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92843 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Insipientia redux et verissima Re: [Nova-Roma] Foolishness - NOT |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92844 |
From: cn_corn_lent |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92845 |
From: Rev. John W. Snow III, CS3, USN |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92846 |
From: jfhatcher3 |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92847 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92848 |
From: cmc |
Date: 2014-01-20 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92849 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92850 |
From: Rev. John W. Snow III, CS3, USN |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92851 |
From: jfhatcher3 |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92852 |
From: jfhatcher3 |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92853 |
From: jfhatcher3 |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Triarius' email |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92854 |
From: A. Tullia Scholastica |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92855 |
From: jfhatcher3 |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92856 |
From: cn_corn_lent |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92857 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92858 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92859 |
From: g_a_vindex@yahoo.it |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Rif: Re: [Nova-Roma] Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92860 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92861 |
From: Rev. John W. Snow III, CS3, USN |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: Triarius' email |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92862 |
From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: 12 years and counting |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92863 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92864 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: 12 years and counting |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92865 |
From: Rev. John W. Snow III, CS3, USN |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92866 |
From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: 12 years and counting |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92867 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92868 |
From: Rev. John W. Snow III, CS3, USN |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92869 |
From: Robert Woolwine |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92870 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: Foolishness - NOT! |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92871 |
From: Robin Marquardt |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: 12 years and counting |
|
| Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 92872 |
From: Denise |
Date: 2014-01-21 |
| Subject: Re: Media Services Page |
|
Salvete omnes,
As most of you may know, I recently published a book on
Amazon for those interested in the religio, called the Religio Romana
Handbook. The book was composed of
highlights from the religio taken from the NR wiki. There had been a discussion on the lack of
anyone publishing such a guidebook or handbook on the religio for the past 15
years, so I took the initiative to publish one for NR, as a fundraiser for NR,
which I stated in my announcement to the Respublica about the book, as well as in the book.
After the book was published, one person, a former citizen
for a year or so, who had "written" some of the household rituals on the wiki, filed a
complaint against me with NR for copyright infringement. This person, to my knowledge,
has no legal copyright on the contribution and never before claimed any, which he freely posted in a public forum
as a contribution to NR. This person also states on the wiki that he directly
copied these rites from antiquity. This being said, I immediately pulled the
book from publication upon notification by the Consul that there had been a complaint.
This was done so by my decision, not as an order of the Consul’s Office. The matter
was put before the Senate for review. The determination was made that the book
should be reedited, submitted to the Senate for review, and then authorized to be
republished. So, here we are.
As I begin the reediting, I request the following from you,
the cultors:
1.
If you
have contributed anything to the wiki concerning the religio, and you DO NOT
wish it to be published in this book, please let me know as soon as possible.
2.
If you have contributed anything to the wiki
concerning the religio, and you DO wish it to be included in the book, please
let me know as soon as possible.
3.
If there is something about the religio that you
would like to include in the book, that is not on the wiki, you may forward
that as well.
4.
Concerning the household rites and any other
ritual work or information, T. Iulius Nero will NOT be included in the book for legal reasons. If anyone has
personal rites that they would like to share with the world that you have
written, and the more the merrier, and would like included in this book, you
forward them to me so I may enter them.
5.
I am adding a Contributor section to the book. If
you are a contributor, and would like to be added to this section, please
forward a picture of yourself, a short biography of you and any comments about
the religio you wish to make, and the specific contributions that you have in
the book. You will be also listed as a Co-Author of the book.
Once the Senate approves the final draft for the resubmit, I
will be posting a copy of the handbook on the NR wiki in PDF format for free
download. The book will still be republished on Amazon for sale in the global
market. This book will be included in the global sales channels for Amazon and
its affiliates, online and offline book retailers, academic institutions,
libraries and museums.
I want everyone to understand this. You CANNOT publish a
book for free. There are physical costs involved with publishing a printed book
and taxes to pay. I will be keeping 20% of the royalties to cover taxes and
coordination costs with the printing company, which at least average a minimum
of 15%. The Senate of Nova Roma voted to
allow me 50%, which I am rejecting on this book. As I stated before, this is
and has always been intended as a fundraiser for NR. There will be many people
who will download the PDF version, as it is all they need. Some people, like
myself, prefer to have a physical book in hand. Others prefer a Kindle version,
which, unfortunately will never happen. Amazon Kindle reserves the right to
publish, and control publishing of, all public domain or primarily public
domain content, which they have already determined that this book is, and will
not publish this book on Kindle. I was
allowed to copyright the book as there was no other book, to their knowledge, like
it in or out of print. I was permitted the copyright, based on the fact that I
stated and referenced several times in the book, that it was published as a
physical copy of the religio section NR website. Nova Roma was filed as the owner of the
information with Amazon, not myself. The Amazon staff reviewed the NR wiki and compared it
to the book, and they agreed to accept the project. The Consul’s Office was
advised of everything in the process. There was nothing hidden by me, no
information, no secret agendas, no attempt to “steal†someone else’s work. It was, and still is, my opinion that NR
should be the global leader in the Religio Roman reconstruction movement. With
a professionally printed and published book, we gain some credibility. Anyone
can make a PDF and post it online. Not everyone can or will professionally
offer a nice publication. We will. There is another unscrupulous religio
organization, which I will not name, but which has recently failed in its
attempt to steal our efforts in reconstruction, which has left many cultores
out there to fend for themselves. They were fed incorrect information about our
organization and the religio, and many unknowingly left us during and after what is called the NR
Civil War. Some may return, but there
are many cultors that have never been members of either and/or any organization
involved with the religio romana. It is my hope, and should be yours, that this book will allow them
to come be a part of us, or at least give them personal guidance on their
religious journey, if they so choose to go it alone.
There have been several slurs and comments over the past
couple of months personally toward me in regards to alleged copyright violation.
I hope that this post clears up that issue, as this is not, nor has ever been,
the case. When someone willfully acts to violate someone else’s copyrighted
material, OR uncopyrighted material, the last thing they would do is walk up to
them and tell them, “Hey, I stole your stuff for my book…too bad for you.†It
is beyond me that rational and accountable human beings believe such garbage.
If I had planned to do that, no one would have ever known about the book in
this forum. It would have quietly lain in the stacks of Amazon amongst the
200,000+ books for sale THIS YEAR alone. I could have marketed the book outside
of NR on my own and you would have had limited chance of knowing about it.
Firstly, I would have never mentioned NR in the book, much less stated that the
book was not my own work but the contributions of NR citizens, and that done multiple
times in the book. Additionally, there seems to be this idea that this book is
going to be a big seller? Really? No one with common sense, IMO, could justify
this statement. This is not, nor will it ever be in our lifetime, a “Hot Topicâ€
for more than a very small fractional percentage of the population. I do not
see where any would suggest that I would be doing this for any type of financial
gain whatsoever. It is mind-boggling to me. It is important also to note that I DID NOT use any information from the wiki that posted a copyright. I could have by asking permission, but many of those people are now gone, so I just avoided those pages.
So, if you want to participate in this work, or DO NOT want
to participate in this work, that is your decision, but please, do not continue
to insult my integrity by alleging that I am a copyright infringer. If you post
your work in a public venue (especially one like a wiki, where your work can be
legally edited WITHOUT your permission all day long each and every day by anyone), and do not make any claims that
it is personal work not to be copied, copyrighted or not, and then scream
copyright violation, do not expect sympathy from most people, especially when
your work is used to benefit the venue where you posted it, AND ESPECIALLY if
you contribute to the wiki and post on the page: “You will find above, in
parenthetical notations, the primary sources of directly quoted or otherwise
inspired prayers,â€
and then threaten someone with copyright infringement of “your own work.â€
If you do, IMO, you are a COMPLETE IDIOT. Your opinion on
the matter is your opinion, mine is mine, and the law and common sense is
something else.
Again, I apologize to anyone whose work was included, but
which they felt they were violated in some strange way.
I am also interested in talking with anyone who would be
interested in forming a sodalitas for the purpose of creating a new, modern
collection of books on the via Romana in any area of study as part of a
published collection by Nova Roma to share with the world. We have a lot of knowledge and talent here,
and it should be brought to the attention of the world in a special collection
of printed books.
Optime valete, L VITELLIVS TRIARIVS |
|
Cn. Lentulus L. Vitellio s. p. d.
I offer my help to proof read your book, and I also create the daily rituals and the Kalends, Nones, Ides rituals (which were, by the way, mostly unauthentic). If the deadline is not coming too soon, I will be able to add some more essential rites.
Vale!
Da: Lucius Vitellius <
List <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Salvete omnes,
As most of you may know, I recently published a book on
Amazon for those interested in the religio, called the Religio Romana
Handbook. The book was composed of
highlights from the religio taken from the NR wiki. There had been a discussion on the lack of
anyone publishing such a guidebook or handbook on the religio for the past 15
years, so I took the initiative to publish one for NR, as a fundraiser for NR,
which I stated in my announcement to the Respublica about the book, as well as in the book.
After the book was published, one person, a former citizen
for a year or so, who had "written" some of the household rituals on the wiki, filed a
complaint against me with NR for copyright infringement. This person, to my knowledge,
has no legal copyright on the contribution and never before claimed any, which he freely posted in a public forum
as a contribution to NR. This person also states on the wiki that he directly
copied these rites from antiquity. This being said, I immediately pulled the
book from publication upon notification by the Consul that there had been a complaint.
This was done so by my decision, not as an order of the Consul’s Office. The matter
was put before the Senate for review. The determination was made that the book
should be reedited, submitted to the Senate for review, and then authorized to be
republished. So, here we are.
As I begin the reediting, I request the following from you,
the cultors:
1.
If you
have contributed anything to the wiki concerning the religio, and you DO NOT
wish it to be published in this book, please let me know as soon as possible.
2.
If you have contributed anything to the wiki
concerning the religio, and you DO wish it to be included in the book, please
let me know as soon as possible.
3.
If there is something about the religio that you
would like to include in the book, that is not on the wiki, you may forward
that as well.
4.
Concerning the household rites and any other
ritual work or information, T. Iulius Nero will NOT be included in the book for legal reasons. If anyone has
personal rites that they would like to share with the world that you have
written, and the more the merrier, and would like included in this book, you
forward them to me so I may enter them.
5.
I am adding a Contributor section to the book. If
you are a contributor, and would like to be added to this section, please
forward a picture of yourself, a short biography of you and any comments about
the religio you wish to make, and the specific contributions that you have in
the book. You will be also listed as a Co-Author of the book.
Once the Senate approves the final draft for the resubmit, I
will be posting a copy of the handbook on the NR wiki in PDF format for free
download. The book will still be republished on Amazon for sale in the global
market. This book will be included in the global sales channels for Amazon and
its affiliates, online and offline book retailers, academic institutions,
libraries and museums.
I want everyone to understand this. You CANNOT publish a
book for free. There are physical costs involved with publishing a printed book
and taxes to pay. I will be keeping 20% of the royalties to cover taxes and
coordination costs with the printing company, which at least average a minimum
of 15%. The Senate of Nova Roma voted to
allow me 50%, which I am rejecting on this book. As I stated before, this is
and has always been intended as a fundraiser for NR. There will be many people
who will download the PDF version, as it is all they need. Some people, like
myself, prefer to have a physical book in hand. Others prefer a Kindle version,
which, unfortunately will never happen. Amazon Kindle reserves the right to
publish, and control publishing of, all public domain or primarily public
domain content, which they have already determined that this book is, and will
not publish this book on Kindle. I was
allowed to copyright the book as there was no other book, to their knowledge, like
it in or out of print. I was permitted the copyright, based on the fact that I
stated and referenced several times in the book, that it was published as a
physical copy of the religio section NR website. Nova Roma was filed as the owner of the
information with Amazon, not myself. The Amazon staff reviewed the NR wiki and compared it
to the book, and they agreed to accept the project. The Consul’s Office was
advised of everything in the process. There was nothing hidden by me, no
information, no secret agendas, no attempt to “steal†someone else’s work. It was, and still is, my opinion that NR
should be the global leader in the Religio Roman reconstruction movement. With
a professionally printed and published book, we gain some credibility. Anyone
can make a PDF and post it online. Not everyone can or will professionally
offer a nice publication. We will. There is another unscrupulous religio
organization, which I will not name, but which has recently failed in its
attempt to steal our efforts in reconstruction, which has left many cultores
out there to fend for themselves. They were fed incorrect information about our
organization and the religio, and many unknowingly left us during and after what is called the NR
Civil War. Some may return, but there
are many cultors that have never been members of either and/or any organization
involved with the religio romana. It is my hope, and should be yours, that this book will allow them
to come be a part of us, or at least give them personal guidance on their
religious journey, if they so choose to go it alone.
There have been several slurs and comments over the past
couple of months personally toward me in regards to alleged copyright violation.
I hope that this post clears up that issue, as this is not, nor has ever been,
the case. When someone willfully acts to violate someone else’s copyrighted
material, OR uncopyrighted material, the last thing they would do is walk up to
them and tell them, “Hey, I stole your stuff for my book…too bad for you.†It
is beyond me that rational and accountable human beings believe such garbage.
If I had planned to do that, no one would have ever known about the book in
this forum. It would have quietly lain in the stacks of Amazon amongst the
200,000+ books for sale THIS YEAR alone. I could have marketed the book outside
of NR on my own and you would have had limited chance of knowing about it.
Firstly, I would have never mentioned NR in the book, much less stated that the
book was not my own work but the contributions of NR citizens, and that done multiple
times in the book. Additionally, there seems to be this idea that this book is
going to be a big seller? Really? No one with common sense, IMO, could justify
this statement. This is not, nor will it ever be in our lifetime, a “Hot Topicâ€
for more than a very small fractional percentage of the population. I do not
see where any would suggest that I would be doing this for any type of financial
gain whatsoever. It is mind-boggling to me. It is important also to note that I DID NOT use any information from the wiki that posted a copyright. I could have by asking permission, but many of those people are now gone, so I just avoided those pages.
So, if you want to participate in this work, or DO NOT want
to participate in this work, that is your decision, but please, do not continue
to insult my integrity by alleging that I am a copyright infringer. If you post
your work in a public venue (especially one like a wiki, where your work can be
legally edited WITHOUT your permission all day long each and every day by anyone), and do not make any claims that
it is personal work not to be copied, copyrighted or not, and then scream
copyright violation, do not expect sympathy from most people, especially when
your work is used to benefit the venue where you posted it, AND ESPECIALLY if
you contribute to the wiki and post on the page: “You will find above, in
parenthetical notations, the primary sources of directly quoted or otherwise
inspired prayers,â€
and then threaten someone with copyright infringement of “your own work.â€
If you do, IMO, you are a COMPLETE IDIOT. Your opinion on
the matter is your opinion, mine is mine, and the law and common sense is
something else.
Again, I apologize to anyone whose work was included, but
which they felt they were violated in some strange way.
I am also interested in talking with anyone who would be
interested in forming a sodalitas for the purpose of creating a new, modern
collection of books on the via Romana in any area of study as part of a
published collection by Nova Roma to share with the world. We have a lot of knowledge and talent here,
and it should be brought to the attention of the world in a special collection
of printed books.
Optime valete, L VITELLIVS TRIARIVS
|
|
Salve mi amice, Thank you very much. There is no deadline. It's when we ever have it ready to republish. I also will send it to the CP for final review before the Senate submission. Once it passes the CP's approval, then I'll resubmit it to the Senate. Again, thanks, and I hope others will contribute as well.
Vale, L VITELLIVS TRIARIVS On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 1:39 PM, Cn. Cornelius Lentulus <cn_corn_lent@...
List <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Salvete omnes,
As most of you may know, I recently published a book on
Amazon for those interested in the religio, called the Religio Romana
Handbook. The book was composed of
highlights from the religio taken from the NR wiki. There had been a discussion on the lack of
anyone publishing such a guidebook or handbook on the religio for the past 15
years, so I took the initiative to publish one for NR, as a fundraiser for NR,
which I stated in my announcement to the Respublica about the book, as well as in the book.
After the book was published, one person, a former citizen
for a year or so, who had "written" some of the household rituals on the wiki, filed a
complaint against me with NR for copyright infringement. This person, to my knowledge,
has no legal copyright on the contribution and never before claimed any, which he freely posted in a public forum
as a contribution to NR. This person also states on the wiki that he directly
copied these rites from antiquity. This being said, I immediately pulled the
book from publication upon notification by the Consul that there had been a complaint.
This was done so by my decision, not as an order of the Consul’s Office. The matter
was put before the Senate for review. The determination was made that the book
should be reedited, submitted to the Senate for review, and then authorized to be
republished. So, here we are.
As I begin the reediting, I request the following from you,
the cultors:
1.
If you
have contributed anything to the wiki concerning the religio, and you DO NOT
wish it to be published in this book, please let me know as soon as possible.
2.
If you have contributed anything to the wiki
concerning the religio, and you DO wish it to be included in the book, please
let me know as soon as possible.
3.
If there is something about the religio that you
would like to include in the book, that is not on the wiki, you may forward
that as well.
4.
Concerning the household rites and any other
ritual work or information, T. Iulius Nero will NOT be included in the book for legal reasons. If anyone has
personal rites that they would like to share with the world that you have
written, and the more the merrier, and would like included in this book, you
forward them to me so I may enter them.
5.
I am adding a Contributor section to the book. If
you are a contributor, and would like to be added to this section, please
forward a picture of yourself, a short biography of you and any comments about
the religio you wish to make, and the specific contributions that you have in
the book. You will be also listed as a Co-Author of the book.
Once the Senate approves the final draft for the resubmit, I
will be posting a copy of the handbook on the NR wiki in PDF format for free
download. The book will still be republished on Amazon for sale in the global
market. This book will be included in the global sales channels for Amazon and
its affiliates, online and offline book retailers, academic institutions,
libraries and museums.
I want everyone to understand this. You CANNOT publish a
book for free. There are physical costs involved with publishing a printed book
and taxes to pay. I will be keeping 20% of the royalties to cover taxes and
coordination costs with the printing company, which at least average a minimum
of 15%. The Senate of Nova Roma voted to
allow me 50%, which I am rejecting on this book. As I stated before, this is
and has always been intended as a fundraiser for NR. There will be many people
who will download the PDF version, as it is all they need. Some people, like
myself, prefer to have a physical book in hand. Others prefer a Kindle version,
which, unfortunately will never happen. Amazon Kindle reserves the right to
publish, and control publishing of, all public domain or primarily public
domain content, which they have already determined that this book is, and will
not publish this book on Kindle. I was
allowed to copyright the book as there was no other book, to their knowledge, like
it in or out of print. I was permitted the copyright, based on the fact that I
stated and referenced several times in the book, that it was published as a
physical copy of the religio section NR website. Nova Roma was filed as the owner of the
information with Amazon, not myself. The Amazon staff reviewed the NR wiki and compared it
to the book, and they agreed to accept the project. The Consul’s Office was
advised of everything in the process. There was nothing hidden by me, no
information, no secret agendas, no attempt to “steal†someone else’s work. It was, and still is, my opinion that NR
should be the global leader in the Religio Roman reconstruction movement. With
a professionally printed and published book, we gain some credibility. Anyone
can make a PDF and post it online. Not everyone can or will professionally
offer a nice publication. We will. There is another unscrupulous religio
organization, which I will not name, but which has recently failed in its
attempt to steal our efforts in reconstruction, which has left many cultores
out there to fend for themselves. They were fed incorrect information about our
organization and the religio, and many unknowingly left us during and after what is called the NR
Civil War. Some may return, but there
are many cultors that have never been members of either and/or any organization
involved with the religio romana. It is my hope, and should be yours, that this book will allow them
to come be a part of us, or at least give them personal guidance on their
religious journey, if they so choose to go it alone.
There have been several slurs and comments over the past
couple of months personally toward me in regards to alleged copyright violation.
I hope that this post clears up that issue, as this is not, nor has ever been,
the case. When someone willfully acts to violate someone else’s copyrighted
material, OR uncopyrighted material, the last thing they would do is walk up to
them and tell them, “Hey, I stole your stuff for my book…too bad for you.†It
is beyond me that rational and accountable human beings believe such garbage.
If I had planned to do that, no one would have ever known about the book in
this forum. It would have quietly lain in the stacks of Amazon amongst the
200,000+ books for sale THIS YEAR alone. I could have marketed the book outside
of NR on my own and you would have had limited chance of knowing about it.
Firstly, I would have never mentioned NR in the book, much less stated that the
book was not my own work but the contributions of NR citizens, and that done multiple
times in the book. Additionally, there seems to be this idea that this book is
going to be a big seller? Really? No one with common sense, IMO, could justify
this statement. This is not, nor will it ever be in our lifetime, a “Hot Topicâ€
for more than a very small fractional percentage of the population. I do not
see where any would suggest that I would be doing this for any type of financial
gain whatsoever. It is mind-boggling to me. It is important also to note that I DID NOT use any information from the wiki that posted a copyright. I could have by asking permission, but many of those people are now gone, so I just avoided those pages.
So, if you want to participate in this work, or DO NOT want
to participate in this work, that is your decision, but please, do not continue
to insult my integrity by alleging that I am a copyright infringer. If you post
your work in a public venue (especially one like a wiki, where your work can be
legally edited WITHOUT your permission all day long each and every day by anyone), and do not make any claims that
it is personal work not to be copied, copyrighted or not, and then scream
copyright violation, do not expect sympathy from most people, especially when
your work is used to benefit the venue where you posted it, AND ESPECIALLY if
you contribute to the wiki and post on the page: “You will find above, in
parenthetical notations, the primary sources of directly quoted or otherwise
inspired prayers,â€
and then threaten someone with copyright infringement of “your own work.â€
If you do, IMO, you are a COMPLETE IDIOT. Your opinion on
the matter is your opinion, mine is mine, and the law and common sense is
something else.
Again, I apologize to anyone whose work was included, but
which they felt they were violated in some strange way.
I am also interested in talking with anyone who would be
interested in forming a sodalitas for the purpose of creating a new, modern
collection of books on the via Romana in any area of study as part of a
published collection by Nova Roma to share with the world. We have a lot of knowledge and talent here,
and it should be brought to the attention of the world in a special collection
of printed books.
Optime valete, L VITELLIVS TRIARIVS
|
|
Caesar Lentulo sal.
To answer your position that the SCU is simply a trigger that allows the substantive edicta of the consuls acting under its authority to provide as it were the "meat and potatoes" of the ultimate decree, I disagree totally with your interpretation for the following reasons.
(1) The Constitution defines what the tribunes can veto. Section IV.A.7.a states that the tribunes have the power:
"To pronounce intercessio
(intercession; a veto) against the actions of any other magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the interrex), Senatus consulta, magisterial edicta, religious decreta, and leges passed by the comitia when the spirit and / or letter of this Constitution or legally-enacted edicta or decreta, Senatus Consulta or leges are being violated thereby; once a pronouncement of intercessio has been made, the other Tribunes may, at their discretion, state either their support for or their disagreement with that intercessio."
There is NO mention of the Senatus consultum ultimum. The tribunes are only allowed to veto Senatus consulta - the ordinary decrees of the Senate. Senatus consulta as a description is used tin the Constitution exactly in this manner, to mean ordinary senatorial decrees. In case anyone is fooled into thinking this is some sort of catch all phrase for all senatorial decrees, including the SCU, look to the text above. The plural is used in all the various legal instruments - as one would in English by saying (for example) "all laws can be vetoed", as opposed to "all individual laws can be vetoed". The use of the plural simply is a descriptor for the body of Senatus consulta in the plural (the whole body of ordinary senatorial decrees). It does NOT mean "anything the Senate produces". If it meant that then you would expect the reference to decrees of the Senate to be in the plural, BUT the legislative output of comitia to be lex (since that is the
only output in a legislative sense from a comitia). Instead leges is used, the plural of lex. So therefore it is safe to conclude that the Constitution used the term Senatus consulta to refer ONLY to the ordinary decrees of the Senate as opposed to the Senatus consulta and Senatus consulta ultimum combined. Therefore the use of the specific term to describe ordinary senatorial decrees precludes the SCU from the list of those items that a tribune can veto.
That should be the end of the matter, in itself. It isn't in the
shopping list of acts a tribune can veto. It is immune. Let us look further to see if there are other sections of the Constitution that support this and to ensure there is no contradiction present in other sections.
(2) Section V.E of the Constitution states:
" The Senate shall have the power to issue the Senatus consultum ultimum (the ultimate decree of the Senate). When in effect, this decree will supersede all other governmental bodies and authorities (with the exception of the dictator) and allow the Senate to invest the consuls with absolute powers to deal with a specific situation, subject only to their collegial veto and review by the Senate. Even under the authority of the Senatus consultum ultimum, the consuls may only temporarily suspend this Constitution; they may not enact any permanent changes hereto."
What we can glean from this is that when the SCU is enacted by the Senate, it "supersedes all other governmental bodies and authorities (with the exception of the dictator) ". Note the inclusion of the dictator after the word "authorities". Therefore the dictator, a magistrate, is classed as an authority. So it makes sense that as a result tribunes, also magistrates, are authorities, as are praetors for example. The SCU therefore logically by this sextion is higher in authority than the tribunes. Even if you class the college of tribunes collectively as a government body, the SCU still outranks them in authority.
This further supports the absence of the SCU in the shopping list at (1) above as indicating the SCU is immune to action in the form of a tribunician veto.
(3) Your contention is, if I
understand correctly, as I said above that the SCU is simply a statement of fact that the SCU is permitted but not yet in effect, and that what really constitutes the SCU are the edicta of the consuls acting under its authority. If this is your contention you have failed to read the Constitution correctly. In your screed below you make reference to the Lex Labiena de intercessione. You quote the 72 hour stipulation from there, but what you failed to quote was the exact wording of section II of that lex that states:
"A
tribunus plebis may use intercessio by making an official announcement to at least one of Nova Roma’s main communications fora (as defined by the Constitution) within 72 hours of the announcement of the item or action to be vetoed. The items and actions which tribuni plebis may use intercessio against are defined in paragraph IV.A.7.a.1 of the Constitution."
There is an obvious error in the lex Labiena's section numbering, since IV.A.7.a.1 states:
" Each Tribune may issue only one such declaration of support or disagreement, but may change their declaration from one to the other, should they wish to do so."
As the lex Labiena in section II points towards the section of the Constitution that contains the "items and actions which tribuni plebis may use intercessio against" that clearly should be the sub section above, namely IV.A.7.a. This is a simple drafting error which wasn't caught. Of course this doesn't invalidate the Constitutional section (because of section I.B Constitution - order of legal precedence). Moving on from noting that error it is clear the intent of the lex Labiena was only to apply intercessio to those items in the Constitution at IV.A.7.a. No other explanation makes sense, hence
drafting error. So the 72 hours ONLY refers to the "shopping list" as described in that section of the Constitution and examined above in (1) above. Since both the Senatus consultum ultimum AND the edicta of the consuls acting under its authority do not appear in that list then the 72 hour theory of yours as applying to the SCU fails under this test too.
(4) Moving next to your statement:
"So, while the senate can issue a valid SCU as a legal text, as a basis for further magisterial action, the senate itself *cannot* put in force, implement, effectuate, or put it in human words, "make it happen", validly, but it can only *empower* the consuls to act or issue edicts."
This is a false assumption.
Section V.E of the Constitution states:
" When in effect, this decree will supersede all other governmental bodies and authorities (with the exception of the dictator) and allow the Senate to invest the consuls with absolute powers to deal with a specific situation, subject only to their collegial veto and review by the Senate."
Examine the language. "When in effect, this decree will supersede all other governmental bodies and authorities (with the exception of the dictator)" . Therefore the SCU is not the combination of decree and consular edicta under the SCU, or even just the consular edicta alone as you seem to think. The Constitution points instead to two states. The first state is the putting into effect of the decree. Then it states "and allow the Senate to invest the consuls with absolute powers to deal with a specific situation, subject only to their collegial veto and review by the Senate." So when the decree passes it supersedes all authorities (discussed above) which includes tribunes, and then invests the consuls the power through edicta under its authority the ability to deal with the situation. the second state is the
issuance of consular edicta under the authority of the SCU.
What is the Constitution doing here? Well the SCU is the ultimate decree of the Senate that temporarily suspends the Constitution and overrides all authorities, except the dictator. All magistrates (except the dictator) and all other authorities (including leges, decreta, senatus consulta, edicta) are superceded. I am sur ewe don't need to debate the meaning of superseded (but indicate if you wish to). it
seeks to deal with a specific situation. How can the Senate indicate the specific situation? Within the SCU itself. Hence in previous SCUs we described the situation. In essence the Senate limits the consuls to a specific situation, thus preventing them from using the SCU for general application. Naturally since the Constitution doesn't limit the SCU in thsi way, it can not only set limits, it can also state generally what will occur, for example:
"In order to
deal with a gross misreading of the Constitution. all citizens whose cognomen is Lentulus are ordered to stand on their heads and read the Constitution 1000 times and after 1000 repetitions the consuls shall decide if their understanding has improved. Should the consuls judge it not to have so improved then the consuls shall, by means of consular edicta under the authority of this Senatus consultum ultimum, determine any further action to achieve greater understanding, excluding spanking or banishment. This Senatus consultum ultimum shall expire of 31st December 2019".
So in our imaginary (but maybe necessary? ;) ) SCU, the Senate describes the specific situation, establishes a primary remedy (1000 repetitions) and then empowers the consuls to issue edicta to continue to seek improvement of understanding of the Constitution if the initial Senate imposed remedy fails. It also sets the limits to the authority of the consuls (no spanking or banishment) and sets a termination date. In all specific emergency situations the Senate cannot obviously prescribe all the necessary (and maybe sometimes none) action necessary to control the situation. It can, as in our example above, determine basic initial rememdies, and then empower the consuls to deal with emergent issues or the more complex and nuanced aspects of the situation.
So the SCU itself, in its text, can deal with the easier/simpler/strategic issues, or it can deal with it all. Nothing prevents that in our legal code. The consuls' powers of edicta under it are there for detailed and specific problem solving, as well as to deal with emergent situations that flow from the original situation and are directly connected to it and generally within the scope of the SCU. As w know from Nova Roma our various "crisises" morphed, evolved and became more complex. The SCU itself cannot hope to capture all solutions,
hence the Constitution empowers the consuls to do so under the SCU.
(5) You also state:
"The phrase "subject only to their collegial -- i.e. consular -- veto" does not refer
to the senate's enacting the SCU, but to the consul's "absolute powers", i.e. their actions or edicts implementing or effectuating the SCU, which clearly is the grammatical reading if one observes the sequence of words about the consuls, namely: THEY are invested with "absolute powers", which are "subject only to THEIR collegial veto"."
Yes Lentule, they are indeed invested with absolute powers, but obviously as they act under the authority of the SCU the degree of that absolute power cannot exceed
the nature of the specific situation, it cannot stray from the text of the SCU, and limits it imposes, because if they could do that they would be collegiate dictators. Obviously your interpretation is logically flawed, because if their power were absolute it could override the SCU, yet as we see from the Constitution their edicta are "issued by consuls acting under the Senatus consulta ultima". So their absolute nature is constrained and they draw their authority from the SCU. If your argument that the SCU were somehow just a trigger event, then the Constitution would have to read to the effect of "once the Senate has indicated that an SCU is enacted, and after 72 hours have elapsed from that enactment without tribuncian veto, then the consuls shall have absolute powers", but it doesn't say anuthing of the sort. Instead we have the absolute nature of the SCU established, superseding all authorities (including tribunes), and THEN the absolute nature of
the consular edicta that flow from that SCU, but do not exceed its limits, is established. So the tribunes do not have the authority under the Constitution or (as well as thus) under any lex, including the lex Labiena which you aprtially quoted (and out of context), to interfee by intercessio with the passage of the SCU itself OR with any consular edicta issued under the authority of the SCU.
(6) You asked me:
" Why isn't possible, besides the structure of the sentence, to interpret it as though the phrase "subject only to their collegial veto" referred to the enactment of the SCU by the senate?" the answer? You provided it yourself, "the structure of the sentence". The collegial veto refers to the
absolute powers. As the edicta of the dictator are subject to review by the senate so too are the edicta issued by the consuls under the SCU. So this says one of the consuls can veto the other. The edicata of one consul cannot trump another consul, simply because one consul got in first and issued an edict under the SCU. In other words one consul cannot say "too late chum, I issued my edict under the SCU and it supersedes even you". It allows one consul to veto another, NOT to veto the SCU subsequently. All one consul can veto is the exercise of those absolute powers (as expressed in a consular edictum issued under the SCU) by his/her colleague. The Senate can then review those edicta. Why is it necessary to include the reference to the Senate? To ensure that the edictum issued were within the bounds of the SCU AND to allow the Senate to mitigate, amend, cancel or approve the edictum of the consuls.
So Lentule, nice try, but your reasoning is flawed and fails. in fact it falls flat on its face for all the above reasons. The SCU cannot be vetoed - period - by the tribunes. The edicta of the consuls acting under the authority of the SCU cannot be vetoed - period - by the tribunes.
Optime vale.
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus <cn_corn_lent@...
Lentulus Caesari et omnibus disputantibus s. d.
[L. to C. and to all participants of the debate sends greetings]
In
the light of your explanations, I see that we agree on most points. The
formal vitiation of the intercessio stands on valid grounds in my
opinion, as well.
I have only found one thing surprising and it is this claim of yours:
1. For the senate called to order by the princeps senatus the tribunes
have to wait for the product of that session - a senatus consultum (but
NOT a senatus consultum ulitimum).<<<
A
more scrupulous reading of the Constitution will point to the fact that
the tribunes can veto an SCU, and, by the way, the Constitution also
contains specific instructions as to what formal rules the SCU has to
satisfy to make up a valid SCU.The constitution says (section V.E.):
"The
Senate shall have the power to issue the Senatus consultum ultimum
[...] and [...] invest the consuls with absolute powers to deal with a
specific situation..."
So,
while the senate can issue a valid SCU as a legal text, as a basis for
further magisterial action, the senate itself *cannot* put in force,
implement, effectuate, or put it in human words, "make it happen",
validly, but it can only *empower* the consuls to act or issue edicts.
And here we arrive to the issue in question, regarding tribunes vetoing an SCU. The Constitution also says:
"When
in effect, this decree will [...] allow the Senate to invest the
consuls with absolute powers to deal with a specific situation, subject
only to their collegial veto"
The
phrase "subject only to their collegial -- i.e. consular -- veto" does
not refer to the senate's enacting the SCU, but to the consul's
"absolute powers", i.e. their actions or edicts implementing or
effectuating the SCU, which clearly is the grammatical reading if one
observes the sequence of words about the consuls, namely: THEY are
invested with "absolute powers", which are "subject only to THEIR
collegial veto".
Why isn't possible, besides the structure of the sentence,
to interpret it as though the phrase "subject only to their collegial
veto" referred to the enactment of the SCU by the senate?
Because
the Constitution puts a prerequisite: "when in effect". So the
Constitution explicitly links the SCU to a precondition (its having
taken effect), thus the validity of an SCU is conditional, just as all
leges, decrees or SCs, through which statement the Constitution admits
there is a scenario under which the SCU has not yet taken, or will not
take effect. There can be more than one scenarios for this, including
the tribunes' veto, which is not prohibited by any indication from the
simple wording of this syntagma. Consequently, just as every legal
document, the SCU,
before it would take effect, does not enjoy any special "un-veto-able"
status. And how, when and what kind of law or legal text can be safely
assumed to have taken full effect in NR, and be in complete effect? Only
a law, decree etc. which hasn't been vetoed "within 72 hours of the
announcement of the item" (lex Labiena, section II).
We
can therefore conclude that the only really meaningful reading of the
Constitution is that under an SCU which has already taken effect, the
ACTIONS of the consul (their "dealing with a specific situation" by orders or edicts) can
*not* be vetoed by the tribunes, only by the other consul, but the text
of the SCU itself, upon enactment, *can* be vetoed by the tribunes as
well.
Cura, ut valeas!
|
|
Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Quiritibus s. p. d.
Citizens of Nova Roma; Cultores or Practitioners of the Roman religion;
As your pontifex, it is my duty to make it publicly clear with this announcement that I distance myself from the decision of the senate with which the senate would sacrilegiously and impiously, violating the Roman religion, appoint pontifices, when the senate does not have the sacred religious source or ability to do so, and it is such a crucial matter that even omnipotent rules of Rome, like Julius Caesar or Augustus, would have not committed such a violation.
I remind you of the story with Augustus, who wanted to be pontifex maximus, but when he came to power, the previous pontifex maximus, Lepidus, was still alive, although
in exile as an enemy of the state. The Romans could call the exiled PM a criminal or a traitor, yet he was the pontifex maximus, even if not a full citizen, even if in exile far from Rome, even if enemy of the state, Augustus did not want and/or did not dare (although he had absolute power) to remove the current pontifex maximus, and to have himself elected. Unluckily for Augustus, the pontifex maximus lived another 20 years, but never did Augustus try to remove him or to question his sacred status. He waited with patience till the other died, and then, only then, became Augustus the pontifex maximus, through the regular lawful procedure. And he wasn't just a Julius Caesar with limited possibilities: when this happened Augustus was the unquestionable monarch and lord of the full empire. He could have done anything he wanted, yet he would have never tampered with the sacred priesthoods, risking sacrilege and causing nefarious break in the line of
"numinous continuity".
If the regular conferral of pontifical sacredness is such an important thing to absolute rulers with unlimited power, that they rather wait decades than to commit a violation, if it is such a sacred and untouchable quality even for the fearless and audacious Julius Caesar, if even in the chaotic and corrupt era of the dying republic in the 1st century BC, there was no man who dared to question who, when, how, why and through what procedure a pontifex or a flamen could be created as a valid priest, then who are we to dismiss these sacred rules and to disregard all what is taught to us by the basic principles of Roman religion? How long could we call ourselves Roman or our religion Roman if we break up with the sacred rules and fundamental elements of the same?
Do you need more evidence that it is not only a sacrilege and a
nefarious action to deviate from the only possible way of priesthood conferral, but it is also a very serious one, a so horrendous sacrilege which not even the most reckless tyrants or dictators of Roman history would commit? I, for one, would need no more evidence, and would under no circumstance profane and desecrate the numinosity of the priesthoods.
As I wrote elsewhere: Priesthoods aren't "jobs", neither in most of our contemporary religions, especially not in the very traditionalistic ones, nor in the Roman religion, which is more traditionalistic, and much more bound with various religious scruples than any of the most traditionalistic religions today. Of course, in a very large sense, the Roman priesthood can be, improperly in a relaxed speech, referred to as a "job", because the priest has various duties to attend. But it is not the duties that make the priesthood special and different from other positions, it's not the duties that give the essence of the priesthood, but it is its sacredness and the sacred LINK which the priesthood establishes as a bridge between the res publica and the realm of the gods.
This sacredness the senate CAN NOT GIVE, only the existing priests can from the collegium pontificum. The senate is bound to care about the religious scruples and sacred rules, and the senate should understand that even if on paper it can do anything, even consecrate new priests, or even remove Jupiter from the throne, or Roman religion as our state cult, *IN* the Roman religion, it will not be valid. Simply because in Roman religion the senate does not possess the
religious quality or "force" that can confer sacredness on persons and can make a person become flamen, pontifex or augur.
The priesthood is a duty, yes, but not simply a job. Dereliction of duty must have consequences, yes, therefore I am not protesting against the removal of Petronius pontifex maximus. As to what kind of consequences, and how, and when, these questions I leave unanswered now. But the punishment of Petronius and the solution of the comitia curiata crisis is an entirely different question from whether the senate can create NEW PONTIFICES, or not, in a valid way in the eyes of the gods, to which the answer is no.
Because priesthood is not only a duty but a sacred entity conferred upon a person, a priest can be best compared to a "living templum" or a templum that is created on or within a person. The templum is a sacred area or object created and approved by the Roman priestly authorities and inaugurated by the augures. The priesthood, likewise, is a sacred quality created and approved by the Roman priestly authorities and inaugurated by the augures. And the senate is not a source of this sacred quality that can create a templum or a priesthood. The senate can not create what the Religious Nature did not give it. Like a child can only be born from and out of a mother, and a father or a doctor can not order that a child be born from himself, even if he is a king or dictator, likewise a flamen or pontifex can not be "born" from or out of the senate, only from a priestly source and authority. On paper, of course, using the
SCU, the senate may SEEMINGLY create those priests.
But they will be not priests for the gods, or in the Roman religion.
You can understand from the
comparison of a priest to a templum, what is the deeper essence of the priesthoods in the Roman religion, besides the obvious expectation of their attending the connected duties. The deeper essence is that the priesthoods carry with themselves this sacred quality and as they use it and live it within Nova Roma, they bring sacred status to the state and institutions of Nova Roma as well, and, more importantly, as the templa (templums) give validity and divine presence to the physical space and material objects of the Nova Roman People, the priests (the human "living templa") give the same divine presence and validity acknowledged by the gods to the human beings, the People of Nova Roma. This is the most important element of what a priesthood is, the "spiritual" or religious meaning of a priesthood, and therefore, like the templa can not be consecrated and desecrated back and force, left and right, without due preparations etc., without provoking the ire
and punishment of the gods, similarly the priesthoods can only be appointed, changed or removed VERY carefully, and seldom, and this is why the reasons for we fire a secretary, are NOT valid reasons to fire a priest, because by firing a priest we always commit a kind of violence on the divine-human relationship of the state. (And here I don't refer to Petronius pontifex maximus, and, as I said at the beginning, I don't debate about Petronius' removal now).
And in order that I may not only say what can not be done, but also what would be the viable way for a Nova Roman senate to do in the case when it wants his priest candidates at any cost to be appointed, I shall also speak about how the senate should have its candidates enforced on the CP via SCU if this is what the senate really
wants:
The senate does not possess the sacred quality to appoint priests but it possesses the power of law enforcement and punishment to strike on those who don't follow its orders. The senate (at the same time with the removal of Petronius and appointing Sabinus to convene the comitia curiata, thus solving the instant crisis) could mandate by SCU the collegium pontificum to appoint the people the senate wants, and could prescribe that any member of the CP who votes "no" on the senate's candidates loses his NR citizenship instantly and automatically. THIS would be a valid procedure in Roman religion, and although it sounds equally undemocratic and unrepublican like the current senate proposal, it is always better to commit violence only on constitutionality than BOTH on
constitutionality AND on sacred religion.
Apart from this solution, there are other solutions, as well, a bit more modern or creative from legal point of view, but not violating sacredness and most important religious rules. Such alternative solutions include e.g.:
(1) a senate appointed "extraordinary senate commission with voting rights in the CP" for a couple of months until the senate gets what it wants from the CP, or
(2) empowering the current camilli and
non-CP-member priests with voting rights in the CP, or
(3) appointing the senatores the senate wants as priests camilli with voting rights in the CP, just to name a few of the equally effective but not sacrilegious solutions.
Any of the above listed solutions are WAY MUCH better, because, though they too are extraordinary, none of them would be nefas or sacrilege.
There are so many alternatives that only a person who deliberately wants to hurt would not consider one of them instead of the vitiated proposal.
You can also see that my concerns are indeed not about politics. If I had a political agenda with opposing this, I would oppose the
voting right assignments as well, since it is only the voting aspect in this business which can give political benefits or can achieve political results. So my opposition is not political. It is about religion. I don't like but accept that the senate intervenes and changes the voting composition of the CP. Which I will never accept and recognize it's the artificially created senate-made pontifices or flamines, which is an invalid, impossible action and a nefarious sacrilege.
I would like also to emphasize that I am not against the individuals
themselves who are about to be criminally appointed. I would vote for anybody to become a pontifex who has undergone camillus training, (or even without it if he already knows at least a pre-intermediate level of Latin, has already performed a couple of rituals publicly, with prayer texts written by himself without serious mistakes, and, in general, has proven to be a dedicated to NR who usually gets his work done and takes our mission seriously). However, if there is a situation like the current one, I'd rather grant extraordinary CP voting rights to anybody than to immediately confer pontifex status on him, making NR commit sacrilege, and I'd rather give voting right to camilli or simple senators, than to see the sacred quality (the pontificatus itself) is conferred to people who did not go through a longer preparational phase, did not live long enough in a period of thinking, pondering, praying
and meditating about their future life as pontifex. I myself was doing the public rituals and preparing to become a camillus for 3 years, and after that, a simple basic sacerdos, and then, almost for a year from sacerdos to pontifex. And I am so glad, so content, feel so lucky that I could do it this way, and not from one day to the other. I want that the individual who gets there may find as much significance as I do in being a pontifex, feel as much reverence to the priesthood, to the sacra publica, to the collegium, and to the tradition as I do. If the person in question goes through this path slowly, living it deeply, then I think he will become a happy man, a very dedicated pontiff, and he will find a new meaning to his life, and will truly understand why the Roman religion is said to be so rich, deep and beautiful.
Citizens and Cultores of the Roman religion!
Knowing that the senate is now committing a serious dishonor and profanation of the Roman religion, I call you to protest against this.
Also, I offer this prayer and sacrifice to the gods so that they separate me and my family from those who commit the religious violation, so that I can know they will be secure from their ire:
Iuppiter Optime Maxime, Omnes Di Immortales; vos precor, veneror, uti nomen meum separatum ab iis, qui impetatem et nefas faciant, numeretis, teneatis, habeatis, utique me, domum, familiam ab ira vestra arceatis, parcatis!
Cuius rei ergo macte hoc thure, hoc ture dato estote fitote volentes propitii mihi domo familiae!
Besides the regular formulas, the translation of this prayer is that I beseech the gods that they consider me and my name not having anything to do with the religious violations, and that they keep me and my family safe.
I suggest to any religious or pious citizen to recite this prayer to the same end: the offering in the ritual is wine (hoc vino) and incense (hoc thure), you can leave out either the wine or incense, but then leave out the respective word, too.
At the end of my message I can only do nothing but encourage all senatores not to vote in favor of the nefarious sacrilege, and with this, try to
preserve the validity of the Roma religion for Nova Roma.
Valete!
Cn. Cornelius Lentulus pontifex
|
|
Ave,
You do realize that by making your post that you have declared that you are distancing yourself from the gods? You do realize that every session of the Senate, including this very session the gods gave their approval through the auspices?
Do you seriously think you are more important than the Gods? Just who do you think you are? I know who you are...and I believe it is actions like this that the gods see and laugh back at you for not once does your speech have any truth.
Your opinion is just that....an opinion. Nothing more. Whereas the senate has the sanction of the gods! If the God's had concerns they would have turned back negative auspices. So sit down and shut up you man who helped the plastic dice scenario happen....or better yet leave and join your buddy piscinus who's manipulations of the gods you support.
Vale,
Sulla
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" Date:01/19/2014 4:41 AM (GMT-07:00) To: Nova Roma ML ,Religio Romana List Subject: [Nova-Roma] Distancing myself from the decision of the senate
Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Quiritibus s. p. d.
Citizens of Nova Roma; Cultores or Practitioners of the Roman religion;
As your pontifex, it is my duty to make it publicly clear with this announcement that I distance myself from the decision of the senate with which the senate would sacrilegiously and impiously, violating the Roman religion, appoint pontifices, when the senate does not have the sacred religious source or ability to do so, and it is such a crucial matter that even omnipotent rules of Rome, like Julius Caesar or Augustus, would have not committed such a violation.
I remind you of the story with Augustus, who wanted to be pontifex maximus, but when he came to power, the previous pontifex maximus, Lepidus, was still alive, although
in exile as an enemy of the state. The Romans could call the exiled PM a criminal or a traitor, yet he was the pontifex maximus, even if not a full citizen, even if in exile far from Rome, even if enemy of the state, Augustus did not want and/or did not dare (although he had absolute power) to remove the current pontifex maximus, and to have himself elected. Unluckily for Augustus, the pontifex maximus lived another 20 years, but never did Augustus try to remove him or to question his sacred status. He waited with patience till the other died, and then, only then, became Augustus the pontifex maximus, through the regular lawful procedure. And he wasn't just a Julius Caesar with limited possibilities: when this happened Augustus was the unquestionable monarch and lord of the full empire. He could have done anything he wanted, yet he would have never tampered with the sacred priesthoods, risking sacrilege and causing nefarious break in the line of
"numinous continuity".
If the regular conferral of pontifical sacredness is such an important thing to absolute rulers with unlimited power, that they rather wait decades than to commit a violation, if it is such a sacred and untouchable quality even for the fearless and audacious Julius Caesar, if even in the chaotic and corrupt era of the dying republic in the 1st century BC, there was no man who dared to question who, when, how, why and through what procedure a pontifex or a flamen could be created as a valid priest, then who are we to dismiss these sacred rules and to disregard all what is taught to us by the basic principles of Roman religion? How long could we call ourselves Roman or our religion Roman if we break up with the sacred rules and fundamental elements of the same?
Do you need more evidence that it is not only a sacrilege and a
nefarious action to deviate from the only possible way of priesthood conferral, but it is also a very serious one, a so horrendous sacrilege which not even the most reckless tyrants or dictators of Roman history would commit? I, for one, would need no more evidence, and would under no circumstance profane and desecrate the numinosity of the priesthoods.
As I wrote elsewhere: Priesthoods aren't "jobs", neither in most of our contemporary religions, especially not in the very traditionalistic ones, nor in the Roman religion, which is more traditionalistic, and much more bound with various religious scruples than any of the most traditionalistic religions today. Of course, in a very large sense, the Roman priesthood can be, improperly in a relaxed speech, referred to as a "job", because the priest has various duties to attend. But it is not the duties that make the priesthood special and different from other positions, it's not the duties that give the essence of the priesthood, but it is its sacredness and the sacred LINK which the priesthood establishes as a bridge between the res publica and the realm of the gods.
This sacredness the senate CAN NOT GIVE, only the existing priests can from the collegium pontificum. The senate is bound to care about the religious scruples and sacred rules, and the senate should understand that even if on paper it can do anything, even consecrate new priests, or even remove Jupiter from the throne, or Roman religion as our state cult, *IN* the Roman religion, it will not be valid. Simply because in Roman religion the senate does not possess the
religious quality or "force" that can confer sacredness on persons and can make a person become flamen, pontifex or augur.
The priesthood is a duty, yes, but not simply a job. Dereliction of duty must have consequences, yes, therefore I am not protesting against the removal of Petronius pontifex maximus. As to what kind of consequences, and how, and when, these questions I leave unanswered now. But the punishment of Petronius and the solution of the comitia curiata crisis is an entirely different question from whether the senate can create NEW PONTIFICES, or not, in a valid way in the eyes of the gods, to which the answer is no.
Because priesthood is not only a duty but a sacred entity conferred upon a person, a priest can be best compared to a "living templum" or a templum that is created on or within a person. The templum is a sacred area or object created and approved by the Roman priestly authorities and inaugurated by the augures. The priesthood, likewise, is a sacred quality created and approved by the Roman priestly authorities and inaugurated by the augures. And the senate is not a source of this sacred quality that can create a templum or a priesthood. The senate can not create what the Religious Nature did not give it. Like a child can only be born from and out of a mother, and a father or a doctor can not order that a child be born from himself, even if he is a king or dictator, likewise a flamen or pontifex can not be "born" from or out of the senate, only from a priestly source and authority. On paper, of course, using the
SCU, the senate may SEEMINGLY create those priests.
But they will be not priests for the gods, or in the Roman religion.
You can understand from the
comparison of a priest to a templum, what is the deeper essence of the priesthoods in the Roman religion, besides the obvious expectation of their attending the connected duties. The deeper essence is that the priesthoods carry with themselves this sacred quality and as they use it and live it within Nova Roma, they bring sacred status to the state and institutions of Nova Roma as well, and, more importantly, as the templa (templums) give validity and divine presence to the physical space and material objects of the Nova Roman People, the priests (the human "living templa") give the same divine presence and validity acknowledged by the gods to the human beings, the People of Nova Roma. This is the most important element of what a priesthood is, the "spiritual" or religious meaning of a priesthood, and therefore, like the templa can not be consecrated and desecrated back and force, left and right, without due preparations etc., without provoking the ire
and punishment of the gods, similarly the priesthoods can only be appointed, changed or removed VERY carefully, and seldom, and this is why the reasons for we fire a secretary, are NOT valid reasons to fire a priest, because by firing a priest we always commit a kind of violence on the divine-human relationship of the state. (And here I don't refer to Petronius pontifex maximus, and, as I said at the beginning, I don't debate about Petronius' removal now).
And in order that I may not only say what can not be done, but also what would be the viable way for a Nova Roman senate to do in the case when it wants his priest candidates at any cost to be appointed, I shall also speak about how the senate should have its candidates enforced on the CP via SCU if this is what the senate really
wants:
The senate does not possess the sacred quality to appoint priests but it possesses the power of law enforcement and punishment to strike on those who don't follow its orders. The senate (at the same time with the removal of Petronius and appointing Sabinus to convene the comitia curiata, thus solving the instant crisis) could mandate by SCU the collegium pontificum to appoint the people the senate wants, and could prescribe that any member of the CP who votes "no" on the senate's candidates loses his NR citizenship instantly and automatically. THIS would be a valid procedure in Roman religion, and although it sounds equally undemocratic and unrepublican like the current senate proposal, it is always better to commit violence only on constitutionality than BOTH on
constitutionality AND on sacred religion.
Apart from this solution, there are other solutions, as well, a bit more modern or creative from legal point of view, but not violating sacredness and most important religious rules. Such alternative solutions include e.g.:
(1) a senate appointed "extraordinary senate commission with voting rights in the CP" for a couple of months until the senate gets what it wants from the CP, or
(2) empowering the current camilli and
non-CP-member priests with voting rights in the CP, or
(3) appointing the senatores the senate wants as priests camilli with voting rights in the CP, just to name a few of the equally effective but not sacrilegious solutions.
Any of the above listed solutions are WAY MUCH better, because, though they too are extraordinary, none of them would be nefas or sacrilege.
There are so many alternatives that only a person who deliberately wants to hurt would not consider one of them instead of the vitiated proposal.
You can also see that my concerns are indeed not about politics. If I had a political agenda with opposing this, I would oppose the
voting right assignments as well, since it is only the voting aspect in this business which can give political benefits or can achieve political results. So my opposition is not political. It is about religion. I don't like but accept that the senate intervenes and changes the voting composition of the CP. Which I will never accept and recognize it's the artificially created senate-made pontifices or flamines, which is an invalid, impossible action and a nefarious sacrilege.
I would like also to emphasize that I am not against the individuals
themselves who are about to be criminally appointed. I would vote for anybody to become a pontifex who has undergone camillus training, (or even without it if he already knows at least a pre-intermediate level of Latin, has already performed a couple of rituals publicly, with prayer texts written by himself without serious mistakes, and, in general, has proven to be a dedicated to NR who usually gets his work done and takes our mission seriously). However, if there is a situation like the current one, I'd rather grant extraordinary CP voting rights to anybody than to immediately confer pontifex status on him, making NR commit sacrilege, and I'd rather give voting right to camilli or simple senators, than to see the sacred quality (the pontificatus itself) is conferred to people who did not go through a longer preparational phase, did not live long enough in a period of thinking, pondering, praying
and meditating about their future life as pontifex. I myself was doing the public rituals and preparing to become a camillus for 3 years, and after that, a simple basic sacerdos, and then, almost for a year from sacerdos to pontifex. And I am so glad, so content, feel so lucky that I could do it this way, and not from one day to the other. I want that the individual who gets there may find as much significance as I do in being a pontifex, feel as much reverence to the priesthood, to the sacra publica, to the collegium, and to the tradition as I do. If the person in question goes through this path slowly, living it deeply, then I think he will become a happy man, a very dedicated pontiff, and he will find a new meaning to his life, and will truly understand why the Roman religion is said to be so rich, deep and beautiful.
Citizens and Cultores of the Roman religion!
Knowing that the senate is now committing a serious dishonor and profanation of the Roman religion, I call you to protest against this.
Also, I offer this prayer and sacrifice to the gods so that they separate me and my family from those who commit the religious violation, so that I can know they will be secure from their ire:
Iuppiter Optime Maxime, Omnes Di Immortales; vos precor, veneror, uti nomen meum separatum ab iis, qui impetatem et nefas faciant, numeretis, teneatis, habeatis, utique me, domum, familiam ab ira vestra arceatis, parcatis!
Cuius rei ergo macte hoc thure, hoc ture dato estote fitote volentes propitii mihi domo familiae!
Besides the regular formulas, the translation of this prayer is that I beseech the gods that they consider me and my name not having anything to do with the religious violations, and that they keep me and my family safe.
I suggest to any religious or pious citizen to recite this prayer to the same end: the offering in the ritual is wine (hoc vino) and incense (hoc thure), you can leave out either the wine or incense, but then leave out the respective word, too.
At the end of my message I can only do nothing but encourage all senatores not to vote in favor of the nefarious sacrilege, and with this, try to
preserve the validity of the Roma religion for Nova Roma.
Valete!
Cn. Cornelius Lentulus pontifex
|
|
Lentulus Canino sal.
pontifices. If they did then there would not have been any of that
bouncing back and forth between elections by the comitia and the
Collegium Pontificum. <<<
They did. They followed very specific rules on how to appoint
pontifices. It was always the CP that appointed them, even under the short break of 20-30 years caused by the lex Domitia, when, though they were elected in the religious comitia (created by a sortition ceremony, and consisting of only 17 tribes, so it was a very religious thing!), the Collegium always had to formally co-opt them. There was never a doubt in Rome that a pontifex can only be pontifex if the CP said yes.
of the past few days show in very clear terms that the Romans were able to make changes and adapt. <<<
Well, those discussions proved exactly the contrary. They showed that the Romans even amidst political changes tried to follow the sacred rules. And don't forget: the People HAS the religious quality/power what the senate doesn't. But it is not properly in the possession of the People since it is delegated to the CP. It means that the People can elect a pontiff but which needs the approval of the CP. All these facts -- and these are hard facts -- demonstrate and prove that a pontifex could have never been created but from a numinous religious source, properly by the CP, or incompletely by the Comitia, approved and thus "completed" by the CP. So the Romans were shrewd and flexible, yes, but their shrewdness and flexibility was exactly about that they ALWAYS kept the formal ways properly working, even if the power
center changed. The senate's current actions ignoring these things are a very serious offense of the Roman religion, and of Romanness, as a whole. No, it isn't. The extraordinary thing was that the PM Petronius did not convene the Comitia Curiata, which has been dealt with by the senate. Nothing else was extraordinary, urgent, or anything. seen no product, no progress, no significant contribution to the
relationship between the gods and the res publica come out of the
Collegium Pontificum in the past three years. <<< The Collegium Pontificum exists to give advice and guidance, and also, to perform some sacrifices, not all, because the most important state sacrifices are the duty of magistrates. Also, the amount of sacrifices performed are not equal to the amount of ritual texts publicly posted. Yet statistically the number of rituals posted was increasing if we consider a larger time span. Basically, if you would ask an average citizen what activity NR does at all, I would bet in a high amount of money that most of such citizens would answer "All what NR does it's basically priests offering some rituals from time to time, usually that guy Lentulus. Nothing else happens, except a few imaginary chariot races or Latin contests, done by the same. Wait they even had a website, who was the guy maintaining it alone for a couple of years...?" Nova Roma is in utter stagnation since many
years. The problems are not with the CP, but with every institution, with NR as a whole. If you worry
about the CP's activity level, just take a look at Nova Roma as a whole. Actually the CP is still one of the
most active parts of NR. Especially if we consider the action/person
ratio. The CP, in comparison to the senate, at least produced rituals and gave advice to many people, not only to citizens: thus making some recruitment work, too. It
is very ironic to see how the senate is now worrying for the CP, when NR
as a whole, and its magistrates, has done almost absolutely nothing
substantial in the last 4-5 years. The website migration and the IRS
audit, or some new laws are all vital, essential things to
be done, and who did them, they are worth the highest praises. But none of the IRS
audit, or the website migration, or the new laws are an ACTIVITY of NR.
The magistrates are supposed to give a MEANING to NR. And the election
of laws is not a meaning for NR's existence.
Nova Roma does nothing. It is harder and harder to explain to a new citizen what NR is. Because it's evident it is not about recreating ancient atmosphere, we are actually folding it up. It is also clear that there are no projects, events, programs, except in 2-3 provinces out of the 50. Religion must, too, concede to ad hoc practical questions, in general, so a serious practitioner will not likely feel home here either. Only the rituals remain that some of the CP don't cease to continue. Because nothing tangible happens, except in the 2 reenactor legions and in the 2-3 more active provinces. But there, too, the merit is of the group leaders, not of the NR center.
The
magistrates and the senate are supposed to sponsor projects, create
events, foster activities, they are supposed to organize major and minor
conventuses, or at least something; they are supposed to negotiate with other organizations to
create
cooperations, to go out and find out how NR could cooperate with
Roman festivals, or with Roman themed museums, real world programs, or any
kind of events. There is supposed to be at least one benefit of being NR citizen other than the right to read this mailing list. Of course, we have some laws that allow for the possibility to create activity. But it's not enough if we have a law that NR sponsors
legions. The magistrates or commissioners of the senate have the duty to
implement it, to make it a reality instead of being simply a paper, to reach
out to the hundreds of reenactor groups in the world and to DO, at least
SOMETHING. It's the magistrates' duty to make NR a tangible thing, to
ensure that citizens may get something for their money. At the moment, one
can get nothing from NR, except some boring mailing lists.
The pontifices are there to give advice to the busy magistrates and to the senate as to what is the proper, correct, prosperous and pious action to do. This is, for example, what I'm doing right now, but this advice is ignored.
It's true there were holes in the CP's activity. Not in mine, though, but yes, the collegium was slowed down last year, partly because other pontifices (again, not me), quarreled with Sulla and with the senate. Priest appointments were halted because we wanted to create the camillus program first, but nobody was willing to undertake this task alone, where to start, how to start, what to include, what not to, etc. I stepped forward and I undertook this duty. The camillus program is about to start now. It was worth waiting, because the appointment of one unprepared priest is worse than having priests who don't have any idea where to go, what to do, and how to
do. Why? Because, as I've said, the Roman religion is an utterly procedural, ritualistic and rigid religion, where the smallest mistake in ceremony strikes back as a punishment on the community. An imperfect ritual is a call for the gods to punish Nova Roma. The only thing a dutiful pontifex can do is to not appoint priests until the concepts and outline of the training has been worked out. Unprepared priests had been appointed by the CP previously in the past, for years, to be
honest, 90% of them were such. And where are they now? All of them are gone or
just stepped down after a while, most of them have never done anything
in their priesthood. So this way has been tried. Failed miserably, and
the CP has grown to the notion to reject it.
But it was in itself a time until we reached this consensus (which now the senate seems to ruin and revert the practice back to the old dysfunctional one). It was not a quick thing to switch systems and reboot the basic ideas. You can see, the NR website problem solving has been on going for more than 3 years now, and it is just a website, not religion. You can know how many people can put obstacles into the way of progress and how many problems arise during such a process. The building up of the religious culture and community of NR is not easier either, and it's not just that I shout "Guys, camillus program, come in everyone!, and everything is done. Time is needed not only for preparation and putting together the material, but also to realize who is to do it, to make the concept accepted, and to find out how certain problems of implementation can be solved. Meanwhile, being a voluntary organization,
one can not be everywhere all the time. There are periods when the whole of NR is so quiet, nothing happens, nobody speaks for so long time, that one could thing nobody wants that things like a camillus program exist at all. Then of course the speed of implementation slows down too, because the creation of large projects based on much work like the camillus program presupposes an encouraging environment.
So, in one word, the pontifical activity was on the same level as the general governmental activity in NR, despite the annoying quarrels outside (not inside!) the Collegium between certain senators and pontiffs.
Efforts are to be done, more efforts, to provide the magistrates and the people with more tools and sources about the Roman religion. The first steps have been made.
comitia. <<<
It is not "luxury", it is the law. Both written and unwritten, constitutional and religious. It's about breaking or not breaking the law, about committing or not committing sacrilege. And we have the time to make it properly but certain people don't want to make it properly. The time issue concerns only the pontifex maximus and comitia curiata convening, which is a separate decree of the senate, and nobody disputes it. The appointment of 5 pontifices by the senate is a sudden idea, suddenly attached to the senate agenda, and has no urgency absolutely it all. Even if you could argue it is urgent, it is not urgent in measure of days, or hours, which would only justify an emergency Senatus Consultum Ultimum.
of procedures within the cultus deorum Romanorum <<<This is exactly the definition of the primary job of a pontifex, per definitionem.
'junior' pontifex you are unwilling to summon the Collegium Pontificum
yourself when there are serious issues that require attention. <<<This is not true in this form, Canine. As I have said elsewhere, I am absolutely willing to convene, and would have convened, the Collegium Pontificum, if there hadn't been a senior member available who would. Anytime I wanted to put up an issue, there was someone who added my items as requested. Should they have tried not to add my requested item, I would have convened a new session. As a Roman pontifex must, I have deep reverence for elders and seniority, but in need, I'd also do what must be done. Vale! |
|
Salvete omnes, As my late granny Vitellia would have said, "It's time for a come to Jesus meeting!" I became a citizen of Nova Roma in 2005. SInce that time, I have seen time after time after time people come and go from NR. Why they leave is generally the same reasons. Peoples mouths, and the uncontrollable banter and discord that these long drawn out discussions turn into. Lentulus, please shut up. You have pounded your argument to hell and back. You want a formalized new version of the Religio Romana/Christian Church. The Anti-Piscinus crew says it and Piscinus, himself, told me that yesterday. What you want is a large plate of pontential candidates that have qualifications that would put anyone to shame. What you got is nothing. You have no applicants, you have no applicant base, and you have a CP that has done absolutely nothing but sit and wonder where everyone went for several years. You DO have a Senate that is willing, by overwhelming majority, willing to force you to take some help to get you restarted that is composed of citizens that are not wishy-washy and might be gone next week. What you need to do is perform a piaculum for Sabinus because he did not think of this before now. No, we are not the most qualified, but when you are starting from ground and building up, and you got no money, and you got no professional talent, you build the foundation with what you have. I told you privately last night, that if a more qualified applicant applied to the CP and there was no open position, the CP could vote to expand the total number of positions or I would gladly step down and return to a sacerdos position until I was ready to be a pontifex, and if and when that time came and if and when a position might be available and if and when the CP might choose to elect me to that position. We can all 5 step down and I can guarandamntee you that in 5 years, the CP situation will still be the same. You're overworked, your tired, your beat down, and you could not all agree on what brand of coffee or toilet paper to buy at this point. You really think that this was an easy decision for any of us. Say NO and let the religious establish continue to spiral to the ground, or say YES and be the abominable "TPTB." (Scholasticas crude anagram for The Pontiffs To Be) Maybe, the Senate will have a change of heart and not give you any assistance. When that happens not one word, mi amice, not one word about it. I dare you ever mention when it comes to help. I told you last night, we 5 were there to help you up not break your arm. And what do you do, you pull a pugio. If you really thing that the CP anytime in the next decade can help itself to the point that we are attracting the best of the best Latinists, the best of the best Roman theologians, and the best of the best cultor teachers, then you'd better think again. The one thing that Piscinus said yesterday that was glaringly true is that we have problems only we can solve and the rest of the world is really not interested in participating at this time. And as far as NR Work Projects, I've already ask you as the Curule Aedile (to be, maybe) what we could do with the Roman museum near your home, and asked you to contact them to see about a joint project. Did you respond back, NO. I initiated that idea, and you have refused to even comment about it to me. Scholastica, please shut up with the insults. You're a crab, you've always been a crab, and you will always be a crab. You think that NR should only be composed of Latinists and elitists. That is what the sodalitas for Latinists is for. Also, most of us will never have a PhD in anything. Most of us work, grow with our families and believe in something called Roman Reconstruction. That is a world where we live in the modern age in accordance with the basic beliefs and ideas of the ancient Roman Republic, not actually live in 426 BCE. I'm tired of your slurs and insults for years, especially toward me. I'm tired of your consistently trying to shut down different aspects of the Respublica. You have seized control of the sodalitates Musarum and Graecia and will not let anyone do anything. I have already proposed last year to Sulla to enter the item to the Senate to unsponsor the Musarum and sponsor a new one that can work, When did you last call for an election of the Boule in Graecia? Its Ianuarius...again! Oh, I forgot, it's you, me and 2 others. I can expect that since the rest of us don't speak Greek, then we are not qualified to serve as "club officers?" Your petty actions disgust me, but hey, I'm one of the possibly new appointed bullies to the CP, right? Do not respond. Actually, do. I dare you to. I actually love to hear you make a fool out of yourself. Sulla: Yep, I'm blasting you, too. It does not help when you sling hash. The Lentulus vs. Caesar show has been cancelled. Control your damned temper and lay down the gavel, you're not consul anymore, ya boni-head! (inside joke) Your year is done. You may be acting PS, but the fight is no longer yours. You have other duties now, like getting that cursed list of provincialites to Atellus that he has been asking for since the Samnite War. Have some Falernian and throw Aeternia and Crassus to the wolves; they are looking forward to it! Caesar: I know you promised the Senate you would work with Lentulus, and you expressed a sincere sentiment to us that you did not want discord in the CP, as that was not our mission there and it was not a political arena. I hope that is true. You, too, need to remember your temper. And, yes, that is the pot calling the kettle black. You need to learn to pick your fights. You can't fight all of them, because you win them all. It's boring when you never lose and it leads to complacency. Why does Caesar get so angry? Read his "Nova Roma Reborn" book and you will understand. He's over the BS. There are some here who just want to make NR the Flavian Amphitheatre. Well, as I have stated before, I've spent my life as a soldier, "It ain't gonna happen on my watch." or on his either. Either you are going to be part of the solution or part of the problem. Things ARE going to get fixed and corrected in the state. If you don't think so, ask the Senate. If you don't agree, leave. Aeternia, the vision that you expressed this evening is the most correct and concise definition of the goal of Nova Roma that I have ever heard. Just understand, there are some here, who don't hold that opinion and many others that left us. You and Crassus must understand that you are now consules. Listen to Fabius. You are now the targets. It's unfortunate that human beings are as crude, rude and socially unacceptable as they are, but it is what it is. As Fabius told me this week, humans have not changed in 2000 years. Electric lights have. There is wisdom I his words. Caeca: You don't have to be rude and snotty toward me. And, you have on several occasions, mildly, but you have. You don't know me that well. If you're going off of Scholastica's advice, that is your problem. I have no quarrel with you. More so, since you are our VVM, that respect is even more important to me. Sabinus, I support you in any effort and direction that you choose to go, politically correct or not. Religiously by ancient precedent or not. Piscinus and his crew were applauded for doing the correct thing. That was the "separation of church and state." It wasn't in anyway accurate by any Roman means, but it was a lot more cleaner and more in line with recruiting Americans to his cause as a neo-Roman church. If this discussion has determined and reinforced anything it is that to the ancients, religion was part of the state, and the state was part of the religion. Procedures be damned. We haven't had 1200 years to work out the religio, the state, and the macronational requirements that they did not have to deal with. WHEN you are voted Pontifex Maximus, then lead how you see fit, as anything before is past history and seen as a failure. Yes, we have a set a precedent for 15 years for pissing of the gods. You are at square one. If one is a cultor, then one understands that there is a general Roman belief that the gods are benevolent and favorable to us in most cases. Superstitio is not Romanly acceptable. If this is true, and the gods are angered that we screwed up the first few dozen times, but have come to realize we now "get it" and see the error of our ways, and are making an attempt to correct thus issues as to bring about harmony and accord with the pax Deorum--AND THEY ARE NOT HAPPY ABOUT THAT--then whoever follows this philosophy needs to go back to their church, get down on their knees, repent, and get saved again, brother! You have a superstitio-based belief of the religio and you need to be outta here! ME: I have a tendency to have a temper. I am not a bully. I beat up bullies. I am like Caesar, who YES is my friend. I tend to spout off on occasion and be a big windbag like Sulla, YES he is my friend as well. We all three, like many others here, do not tolerate BS. We are just more vocal about it. You treat me like a rational, accountable human being, and I will do the same. You don't, and you get steam-rollered, not once, but until you are as flat as paper. We have no agenda other than providing a Nova Roma reconstructed to benefit all. But I will tell all 636 of you, if you smack the dog, expect to get the hades bitten out of you. What I wish is that all 636 people would post a simple post to this list and say either YES or NO about the appointed pontifex issue. It is really simple to do what the prior regime did and separate the religio from the politics, unfortunately the Roman system of belief did not work that way, so it is sometimes a little messy. If it is too messy, and you feel the gods don't agree with the political procedure, got to the RPR, SVR or CDR and you can have the religio politically-free. I guess the gods would prefer that, right, rather than us trying to correct a problem WE didn't create, but are willing to help others correct. There are no "experts" waiting to jump on the CP bandwagon. I remember a time when there were scholars and scholarly scholars and scholarly, scholarly scholars and notable authors and renowned historians who were part of the 9000+ people who called themselves Nova Romans. What percentage of those types make up the 636 people on the main list today? Hmmm? When our venues open back up to being receptive to our citizens and not to enure to the benefit of a few, then maybe, just maybe, we will have begun to be what was always planned to be. Right now, we ain't! Rome was, except for the first years, not ever only Romans. It was composed of many different beliefs and peoples. This is where the damned plebeian class came from; people who were outsiders and not the original founding families of Rome, the patricians. But, the Romans ran the religio and the state in the Roman way as best they could, as we, your Senate, are trying to do. Lentulus and other critics, I suggest you look at the position of those proposed to be appointed as pontifices. As Sabinus has said, go read the story of the Caudine Forks, for truly were are in that position. As Nietzsche said, I believe (I am no scholar-I just have a B.A cum Laude in Classical Political Systems, no M.A. or PhD. I got married and am rearing 3 kids-yes, Scholastica, I know it is "rearing" and nor "raising"): "Do or do not, but don't 'try'" Oh, Valerianus: Keep up the excellent good works with the Virtues Project. It is the most important project that we have ever had, IMO, though I don't currently expect much success for a while with it. But, who knows, right? Oh, and by the way, Lentulus, this evening I performed a piaculum in your benefit for your piaculum, you hard-headed stubborn tree stump! (YES, I can say that as he is my good friend and I CAN smack him around a little. He needs it, even though he doesn't know or accept it. Yes, I WOULD smack the pugio out of his hand and give him a kiss on both cheeks. Cause I'm bigger than he is...I think...unless he has been working out...) Optime valete, L. Vitellius Triarius Senator and potential "bully" appointment to the CP |
|
A. Tullia Scholastica Vitellio Triario S.D.
Salvete omnes, As my late granny Vitellia would have said, "It's time for a come to Jesus meeting!" I became a citizen of Nova Roma in 2005. SInce that time, I have seen time after time after time people come and go from NR. Why they leave is generally the same reasons. Peoples mouths, and the uncontrollable banter and discord that these long drawn out discussions turn into. Lentulus, please shut up. You have pounded your argument to hell and back. You want a formalized new version of the Religio Romana/Christian Church. The Anti-Piscinus crew says it and Piscinus, himself, told me that yesterday. What you want is a large plate of pontential candidates that have qualifications that would put anyone to shame. What you got is nothing. You have no applicants, you have no applicant base, and you have a CP that has done absolutely nothing but sit and wonder where everyone went for several years. You DO have a Senate that is willing, by overwhelming majority, willing to force you to take some help to get you restarted that is composed of citizens that are not wishy-washy and might be gone next week. What you need to do is perform a piaculum for Sabinus because he did not think of this before now. No, we are not the most qualified, but when you are starting from ground and building up, and you got no money, and you got no professional talent, you build the foundation with what you have. I told you privately last night, that if a more qualified applicant applied to the CP and there was no open position, the CP could vote to expand the total number of positions or I would gladly step down and return to a sacerdos position until I was ready to be a pontifex, and if and when that time came and if and when a position might be available and if and when the CP might choose to elect me to that position. We can all 5 step down and I can guarandamntee you that in 5 years, the CP situation will still be the same. You're overworked, your tired, your beat down, and you could not all agree on what brand of coffee or toilet paper to buy at this point. You really think that this was an easy decision for any of us. Say NO and let the religious establish continue to spiral to the ground, or say YES and be the abominable "TPTB." (Scholasticas crude anagram for The Pontiffs To Be) Maybe, the Senate will have a change of heart and not give you any assistance. When that happens not one word, mi amice, not one word about it. I dare you ever mention when it comes to help. I told you last night, we 5 were there to help you up not break your arm. And what do you do, you pull a pugio. If you really thing that the CP anytime in the next decade can help itself to the point that we are attracting the best of the best Latinists, the best of the best Roman theologians, and the best of the best cultor teachers, then you'd better think again. The one thing that Piscinus said yesterday that was glaringly true is that we have problems only we can solve and the rest of the world is really not interested in participating at this time. And as far as NR Work Projects, I've already ask you as the Curule Aedile (to be, maybe) what we could do with the Roman museum near your home, and asked you to contact them to see about a joint project. Did you respond back, NO. I initiated that idea, and you have refused to even comment about it to me. Scholastica, please shut up with the insults. You're a crab, you've always been a crab, and you will always be a crab. You think that NR should only be composed of Latinists and elitists. That is what the sodalitas for Latinists is for. Also, most of us will never have a PhD in anything. Most of us work, grow with our families and believe in something called Roman Reconstruction. That is a world where we live in the modern age in accordance with the basic beliefs and ideas of the ancient Roman Republic, not actually live in 426 BCE. I'm tired of your slurs and insults for years, especially toward me. I'm tired of your consistently trying to shut down different aspects of the Respublica. You have seized control of the sodalitates Musarum and Graecia and will not let anyone do anything. I have already proposed last year to Sulla to enter the item to the Senate to unsponsor the Musarum and sponsor a new one that can work, When did you last call for an election of the Boule in Graecia? Its Ianuarius...again! Oh, I forgot, it's you, me and 2 others. I can expect that since the rest of us don't speak Greek, then we are not qualified to serve as "club officers?" Your petty actions disgust me, but hey, I'm one of the possibly new appointed bullies to the CP, right? Do not respond. Actually, do. I dare you to. I actually love to hear you make a fool out of yourself.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not a crab. Perhaps that is how you interpret the nature of someone who is a good teacher, and can perform the duties of a teacher quite well from long practice; someone whom you have never met, and probably will never meet. You are, however, quite wrong in your assessment of me. I also don't think that NR should be composed solely of Latinists, and / or what you term elitists (would that be people who didn't drop out of the tenth grade)? I might add that many in the Sodalitas Latinitatis cannot read even basic Latin, so can hardly be called Latinists. Now quite possibly such members excel in other fields, and are simply interested in Latin. That is fine; it is part of the mission of the Sodalitas.
I don't live in 426 BC, or any other time BC. I live in the present. I don't know where you get this notion that I have insulted you, or have 'seized control' of Graeciae or Musarum. The last time we tried to get candidates for election in Musarum, we failed. The regula is outdated, but cannot be changed except by a huge majority of the sodales, many of whom are East Indians, inactive NR citizens, ex NR citizens, etc. For the numbers (especially of citizens) in Musarum, 15 officers is ridiculous. We tried to amend the charter (using a separate list for that purpose) but that, too, failed. The list members disappeared before we could present a new regula. When we did that in Latinitas, we did obtain a fine new regula. As for Graeciae, it is small, attracting only a minute portion of the citizenry--and as is the case just about everywhere, no one wants to do any work, no matter how limited. Oh, BTW, I don't speak Greek, either, and very, very few do. There are far, far more Latin speakers than classical Greek speakers anywhere in the world; the ratio may be hundreds or thousands, even tens of thousands, to one. Do you think we haven't tried to get some activity, or some candidates, privately or publicly? I am not trying to shut down parts of the RP. Among other things, I am too busy for such machinations! Where do you come up with these strange notions? Why do so many in the rock rib faction see everything in the blackest possible terms? Stop looking at the world 'through a glass darkly.' Get a grip.
Stating facts is 'making a fool of myself?' Don't be ridiculous.
Musarum might come to life if it DID lose its 'official' status; having NR seize control of copyrights on poetry and other artistic materials does not appeal to some of the contributors of such works. Maybe if we were independent, we could once again see some lovely examples thereof, free from such inappropriate behavior.
Oh, BTW, on the subject of sodalities: Munerum was decertified some years ago, and word had it that the site was crammed with spam. Lots of unmonitored lists suffered similar problems.
Sulla: Yep, I'm blasting you, too. It does not help when you sling hash. The Lentulus vs. Caesar show has been cancelled. Control your damned temper and lay down the gavel, you're not consul anymore, ya boni-head! (inside joke) Your year is done. You may be acting PS, but the fight is no longer yours. You have other duties now, like getting that cursed list of provincialites to Atellus that he has been asking for since the Samnite War. Have some Falernian and throw Aeternia and Crassus to the wolves; they are looking forward to it! Caesar: I know you promised the Senate you would work with Lentulus, and you expressed a sincere sentiment to us that you did not want discord in the CP, as that was not our mission there and it was not a political arena. I hope that is true. You, too, need to remember your temper. And, yes, that is the pot calling the kettle black. You need to learn to pick your fights. You can't fight all of them, because you win them all. It's boring when you never lose and it leads to complacency. Why does Caesar get so angry? Read his "Nova Roma Reborn" book and you will understand. He's over the BS. There are some here who just want to make NR the Flavian Amphitheatre. Well, as I have stated before, I've spent my life as a soldier, "It ain't gonna happen on my watch." or on his either. Either you are going to be part of the solution or part of the problem. Things ARE going to get fixed and corrected in the state. If you don't think so, ask the Senate. If you don't agree, leave. Aeternia, the vision that you expressed this evening is the most correct and concise definition of the goal of Nova Roma that I have ever heard. Just understand, there are some here, who don't hold that opinion and many others that left us. You and Crassus must understand that you are now consules. Listen to Fabius. You are now the targets. It's unfortunate that human beings are as crude, rude and socially unacceptable as they are, but it is what it is. As Fabius told me this week, humans have not changed in 2000 years. Electric lights have. There is wisdom I his words. Caeca: You don't have to be rude and snotty toward me. And, you have on several occasions, mildly, but you have. You don't know me that well. If you're going off of Scholastica's advice, that is your problem. I have no quarrel with you. More so, since you are our VVM, that respect is even more important to me. Sabinus, I support you in any effort and direction that you choose to go, politically correct or not. Religiously by ancient precedent or not. Piscinus and his crew were applauded for doing the correct thing. That was the "separation of church and state." It wasn't in anyway accurate by any Roman means, but it was a lot more cleaner and more in line with recruiting Americans to his cause as a neo-Roman church. If this discussion has determined and reinforced anything it is that to the ancients, religion was part of the state, and the state was part of the religion. Procedures be damned. We haven't had 1200 years to work out the religio, the state, and the macronational requirements that they did not have to deal with. WHEN you are voted Pontifex Maximus, then lead how you see fit, as anything before is past history and seen as a failure. Yes, we have a set a precedent for 15 years for pissing of the gods. You are at square one. If one is a cultor, then one understands that there is a general Roman belief that the gods are benevolent and favorable to us in most cases. Superstitio is not Romanly acceptable. If this is true, and the gods are angered that we screwed up the first few dozen times, but have come to realize we now "get it" and see the error of our ways, and are making an attempt to correct thus issues as to bring about harmony and accord with the pax Deorum--AND THEY ARE NOT HAPPY ABOUT THAT--then whoever follows this philosophy needs to go back to their church, get down on their knees, repent, and get saved again, brother! You have a superstitio-based belief of the religio and you need to be outta here! ME: I have a tendency to have a temper. I am not a bully. I beat up bullies. I am like Caesar, who YES is my friend. I tend to spout off on occasion and be a big windbag like Sulla, YES he is my friend as well. We all three, like many others here, do not tolerate BS. We are just more vocal about it. You treat me like a rational, accountable human being, and I will do the same. You don't, and you get steam-rollered, not once, but until you are as flat as paper. We have no agenda other than providing a Nova Roma reconstructed to benefit all. But I will tell all 636 of you, if you smack the dog, expect to get the hades bitten out of you. What I wish is that all 636 people would post a simple post to this list and say either YES or NO about the appointed pontifex issue. It is really simple to do what the prior regime did and separate the religio from the politics, unfortunately the Roman system of belief did not work that way, so it is sometimes a little messy. If it is too messy, and you feel the gods don't agree with the political procedure, got to the RPR, SVR or CDR and you can have the religio politically-free. I guess the gods would prefer that, right, rather than us trying to correct a problem WE didn't create, but are willing to help others correct. There are no "experts" waiting to jump on the CP bandwagon. I remember a time when there were scholars and scholarly scholars and scholarly, scholarly scholars and notable authors and renowned historians who were part of the 9000+ people who called themselves Nova Romans. What percentage of those types make up the 636 people on the main list today? Hmmm? When our venues open back up to being receptive to our citizens and not to enure to the benefit of a few, then maybe, just maybe, we will have begun to be what was always planned to be. Right now, we ain't! Rome was, except for the first years, not ever only Romans. It was composed of many different beliefs and peoples. This is where the damned plebeian class came from; people who were outsiders and not the original founding families of Rome, the patricians. But, the Romans ran the religio and the state in the Roman way as best they could, as we, your Senate, are trying to do. Lentulus and other critics, I suggest you look at the position of those proposed to be appointed as pontifices. As Sabinus has said, go read the story of the Caudine Forks, for truly were are in that position. As Nietzsche said, I believe (I am no scholar-I just have a B.A cum Laude in Classical Political Systems, no M.A. or PhD. I got married and am rearing 3 kids-yes, Scholastica, I know it is "rearing" and nor "raising"): "Do or do not, but don't 'try'" Oh, Valerianus: Keep up the excellent good works with the Virtues Project. It is the most important project that we have ever had, IMO, though I don't currently expect much success for a while with it. But, who knows, right? Oh, and by the way, Lentulus, this evening I performed a piaculum in your benefit for your piaculum, you hard-headed stubborn tree stump! (YES, I can say that as he is my good friend and I CAN smack him around a little. He needs it, even though he doesn't know or accept it. Yes, I WOULD smack the pugio out of his hand and give him a kiss on both cheeks. Cause I'm bigger than he is...I think...unless he has been working out...) Optime valete, L. Vitellius Triarius Senator and potential "bully" appointment to the CP
Vale. |
|
