Forum Romanum


Subject:	Re: Toga - on Campaign (mixed with humor)
From:	SFP55@--------
Date:	Sat, 2 Jan 1999 01:29:15 EST

In a message dated 1/1/99 5:32:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
raz--------@-------- writ--------br>
>>A last comment about togas on campagn; I do not see it as impossible that
the Legion Legate and his senior officers would be required to wear the
toga on state occasions receiving honored personages or participating in
religious rituals or festivals.<<

Ok, You know, I have studied the Roman Army for 22 years. Most of that has
been the Army of the Republic. And guess what? No reference to a Tribune
wearing Toga in the field. Not a one. I've translated the "Commentaries",
"World History", "History of Rome" I found one reference to Caesar wearing
his toga, when he received Vercingetorix' surrender, Nothing about his
tribunes. I found a reference for Scipio wearing his toga when the Spanish
Chieftains came to ask for their hostages at Nova Cathagio. Again no tribunes
were mentioned wearing a toga.
Is there more? You bet. When Popilius Laenas as forbid Antiochus IV to
invade Egypt he was wearing a Toga (and fancy boots, Diodorius really got off
on that fact!). His attendants were "in armor". When my namesake asked the
Carthaginians if they wanted peace or war he was wearing a Toga.

This is my point. Senators acting as envoys in the field would wear a Toga.
Tribunes did not.
Now maybe it is as Audens says, a Tribune posted to a fortress brought his
Toga along, fine, but that's empire and who knows what the rich boys brought
on trips. I'm sorry, but a fictitious 19th century character's quote from a
novel is not the proof I'm looking for. But you can be damn sure that that
Toga was hanging on the hook when he was on compaign. And again my post to
the Pro-Praetor had to do with the Republican Army on campaign and not the
Principate.
Vale
Q Fabius
(Peace or War)


Subject:	To all Citizens of Rome! Please Read!
From:	SFP55@--------
Date:	Sat, 2 Jan 1999 05:35:31 EST

SALVETE!!

No doubt you will have heard of Fannius' ridiculous fine and
punishment. What does this tell us, citizens of Rome?
It tells me that if you practice the Religio, you can threaten
Christian citizens with impunity as long as you apologize after
the fact. Let us face it. When Citizen Marconis attacked our
institution did some not strike back without violence? Several citizens
used well turned words, others mocked him, but did any save Fannius
threaten him? I read his post. He did with the prosecution of death.
"Just like the Christians of old" he threatened. And he made that
his main point of his proclamation!! He did break our Laws and
was "punished" for it.

Very Well. So now I hear he was just defending our nation. I
have had run ins with Chrismatics before. No good would come of
answering his rhetoric, and in fact would only do harm. We were
not going to change this man. No matter what we said.

So this shows perhaps immaturity on my part? Hardly! I knew our
Gods and Goddesses did not need defending. They were not
bothered by cheap attacks, they have been around longer then the
Christian God, and probably know of him well. Marconis did not
deface our temples. He did not break into our websites and erase
them. Our nation was under no physical threat as far as I could
see. He did break our Laws, and was PUNISHED for it.

So now we have set up a double standard here in our Rome. We
tolerate Christians and the beliefs because that is what Rome
does. It is one of our cornerstones of our structure.
But this ruling allows us to attack any of them as we see fit AS
LONG AS WE BELIEVE WE HAVE JUSTIFICATION AND WE APOLOGIZE
AFTERWARDS!! We are just defending our state. This means you Christian and
non believing members better be on your best behavior, least you run afoul of
us.

Citizens, we can't live this way. There is no tolerance here,
only patience, and how long before that patience runs out?
The Roman citizens deserve protection under Roman Law. All
Citizens. The Law must be the same for all, otherwise we should
just ban the Christians now.

There is nothing to be done now about Fannius, the moving hand
has written and we cannot undo it. But we CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN
AGAIN!! I call on the Magistrates to began drafting and
implementing a series of Lex Data to supplement the Mores
Maiorum, so citizens no longer need to suffer "in iure" with
uncertain penalties.

I also call on the Magistrates to condemn Fannius' action, to
proclaim that he was NOT acting in the best interests of the
state, no matter what he claims, instead he acted in his own
personal interest, and if his example of intolerence is committed
by another citizen, it will not again be accepted as "just one of
those things" in Roman Law.

Good Health to the Magistrates!!
Long live our Republic!!
May Fortuna preserve us all.

Q. Fabius Maximus.
Paterfamilias


Subject:	Re: Happy Birthday!
From:	Crystal Brewton aicrys@--------
Date:	Sat, 2 Jan 1999 08:33:05 -0600

Hi Pythia, you wrote on 1/3/99 3:30:01 AM:

>From: Pythia kingan@--------
>
>Happy Birthday to Minervina Iucundia Flavia!!
>
>Best, Pythia
>

Thank the gods we have Pythia!!!! I honestly forgot. I'm sorry hon. Same
from the 3 (2 and 3/4?) of us!!!!!!!!!!!

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Amethystia Iunia Crystallina - a.k.a. Crys (10/13/68)
Prima Iunia Terrelina - a.k.a. Terry (3/31/97)
Lapis Stone (due in February)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Personal Page -- <a href="http://members.trpod.com/~acl_pit/amethyst.htm" target="_top" >http://members.trpod.com/~acl_pit/amethyst.htm</a>
Sodalis Pro Infantia (the Society for Childhood) --
<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~acl_pit/roma/sodwel.htm" target="_top" >http://members.tripod.com/~acl_pit/roma/sodwel.htm</a>


Subject:	Re: To all Citizens of Rome! Please Read! (LONG response)
From:	NovaRomaNH@--------
Date:	Sat, 2 Jan 1999 10:17:38 EST

Salvete omnes,

I feel I must make a reply to this, as a Senator and Censor who has talked
with Fannius and who has assisted our new Consuls in making the decision on
this situation.

Although I disagree with Q. Fabius Maximus' views on what's happened with
Fannius, it should be said that his concern is both genuine and well
motivated. It's better to have people care too much than not enough...

In --------ss--------d-------- 1/2/99 5:35:55 AM E--------rn St--------rd Time, SFP55@--------
writes:

> No doubt you will have heard of Fannius' ridiculous fine and
punishment.

My personal belief is that Fannius' fine and punishment were in fact the
rational way to deal with this particular situation, for several reasons:

1. Fannius had not been involved with Nova Roma for more than two or three
days when he made his errant post attacking Marconius. At such an early point
he had not year had full opportunity to read everything on the website, and
was as yet not fully versed in our laws. Marconius, on the other hand had been
involved with Nova Roma for months, and understood fully well what the
consequences of his actions would be.

2. While Fannius' action in threatening physical violence to a Citizen of
Nova Roma was reprehensible, there is one *major* difference between his
situation and that of Marconius. Marconius' faith demanded such action, and by
adhering to that system he would be called to act in that way again and again
and again, until either all of Nova Roma was converted to his own view of what
Christianity is, or until his opportunity to evangelize was completely
removed. His faith allowed NO sincere apology, nor would it allow him to cease
trying to "convert" others against his will.

3. Fannius, on the other hand, brand new to Nova Roma, and not even sure
whether we were serious or a "role playing game", posted a threat in anger
that he immediately thought better of and has not ceased to regret. He's
apologized more than once at this point, both publicly and privately. Several
Magistrates have talked with him personally about the situation. He's been
willing to make amends in any way possible. I personally believe that Fannius
will never act in this way again and that this was an isolated incident.

4. If it WERE in fact to happen that Fannius were to act in such a way at any
time in the future, there has been agreement that his Citizenship would
immediately be revoked without debate. The decision has been made to give him
that chance, especially since he's willing to accept punishment for his crime
to make amends. At least he doesn't have his god and his holy book telling him
that he MUST threaten other Citizens with physical violence at every
opportunity, or be damned to everlasting hell.

> What does this tell us, citizens of Rome?
It tells me that if you practice the Religio, you can threaten
Christian citizens with impunity as long as you apologize after
the fact.

Fannius has had to face serious and in-depth inquiry by all Senators of Nova
Roma, has had to publicly abase himself before the list, AND he has been both
fined and given other punishments. I would hardly consider this being allowed
to act with "impunity." Marconius got off a heck of a lot more lightly than
Fannius has. All Marconius had to do was go away... Fannius gets to stay and
suffer.

The very fact that Fannius has remained willing to BE a part of Nova Roma
through all of this controversy and unpleasantness shows an impressive loyalty
and devotion to Rome. We've had Citizens leave Nova Roma because they couldn't
handle any sort of argument or unpleasantness whatsoever. Fannius has instead
been willing to serve Rome even though he's become *the* central object of
public anger within our Micronation.

> Let us face it. When Citizen Marconius attacked our
institution did some not strike back without violence? Several citizens
used well turned words, others mocked him, but did any save Fannius
threaten him? I read his post. He did with the prosecution of death.
"Just like the Christians of old" he threatened. And he made that
his main point of his proclamation! He did break our Laws and
was "punished" for it.

This is not the first time anyone has made wild threats over the Internet.
Anyone out there ever been subscribed to the alt.pagan or alt.wiccan
newsgroups? In comparison to what I've seen in other forums, Fannius' post was
both tasteful and mild.

Seriously... we can't have banishment as the ONLY way to enforce law in Nova
Roma. Marconius was banished because it was obvious that his personal take on
religion would never allow him to change his actions. I hope such a thing will
never happen again, and that the State will be allowed to evolve a fair system
of dealing with problems over time.

>Very Well. So now I hear he was just defending our nation. I
have had run ins with Chrismatics before. No good would come of
answering his rhetoric, and in fact would only do harm. We were
not going to change this man. No matter what we said.

This is quite correct... it wasn't possible to change Marconius' point of
view. That's only one of a few reasons why Fannius' response was a poor choice
of action. However, there were several Citizens who also DID respond to
Marconius in anger, if not with threats.

Fannius was NOT defending Nova Roma. He acted out of anger, and made a
complete fool of himself. Nobody is trying to set him up as a hero.

>So this shows perhaps immaturity on my part? Hardly! I knew our
Gods and Goddesses did not need defending. They were not
bothered by cheap attacks, they have been around longer then the
Christian God, and probably know of him well. Marconius did not
deface our temples. He did not break into our websites and erase
them. Our nation was under no physical threat as far as I could
see. He did break our Laws, and was PUNISHED for it.

Your restraint showed good sense. I wish that others had followed your
example, most especially Fannius.

>So now we have set up a double standard here in our Rome.

No, we have not set up a double standard. People who break the laws have to
deal with the consequences of their actions. However, we cannot have one
blanket punishment to deal with ALL situations... each case must be evaluated
on its own merit. That's what justice is all about.

> We
tolerate Christians and the beliefs because that is what Rome
does. It is one of our cornerstones of our structure.
But this ruling allows us to attack any of them as we see fit AS
LONG AS WE BELIEVE WE HAVE JUSTIFICATION AND WE APOLOGIZE
AFTERWARDS! We are just defending our state. This means you Christian and
non believing members better be on your best behavior, least you run afoul of
us.

Fannius' apology was sincere, he made an isolated mistake and is working to
make things right. Marconius' apology was not sincere... his belief was that
his religious view was right and that all of Rome must change in accord with
his will.

>Citizens, we can't live this way. There is no tolerance here,
only patience, and how long before that patience runs out?
The Roman citizens deserve protection under Roman Law. All
Citizens. The Law must be the same for all, otherwise we should
just ban the Christians now.

We also can't live under a system where the only punishment for all
infractions is banishment from Nova Roma.

> There is nothing to be done now about Fannius, the moving hand
has written and we cannot undo it. But we CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN
AGAIN!! I call on the Magistrates to began drafting and
implementing a series of Lex Data to supplement the Mores
Maiorum, so citizens no longer need to suffer "in iure" with
uncertain penalties.

I hope we will run into very few situations like those of Marconius and
Fannius. The Nova Roma web site does go to great lengths to explain what we're
about, and what will and will not be tolerated. However, if and when such
situations do arise in the future, each case must be evaluated carefully, with
reference both to the law and to the situation in question. If we're rational
people, not all punishments will be exactly the same.

> I also call on the Magistrates to condemn Fannius' action, to
proclaim that he was NOT acting in the best interests of the
state, no matter what he claims, instead he acted in his own
personal interest, and if his example of intolerence is committed
by another citizen, it will not again be accepted as "just one of
those things" in Roman Law.

I, as Senator and Censor, of course DO condemn Fannius' action, and state that
he was NOT acting in the best interests of the State. However, I also believe
that this was an isolated incident, and that from this time on Fannius will
prove to be an asset rather than a detriment to Nova Roma. He will pay a fine
and undergo other penalties, and his debt to us will be satisfied.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator and Censor of Nova Roma


Subject:	Re: Happy Birthday!
From:	"Lucius" vergil@--------
Date:	Sat, 2 Jan 1999 12:47:17 -0500


Subject:	Re: To all Citizens of Rome! Please Read!
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Sat, 2 Jan 1999 13:08:09 EST

Salve Quintus Fabius,

My reply to your posting was delayed because of the intercession of a
long thunderstorm, and I see that Marcus Cassius Julianus has replied
authoritatively in the interim.

I read your posting and I can't agree with you. You make the point, which
I also made at one stage, that Marconius' attack was just offensive words
and not an imminent real danger to anyone, and then you go on to imply
that Fannius' attack, which was also just offensive words, was a more
urgent matter. Both men were seriously out of line, but Marconius'
behavior was of a wholly different nature and far more serious. Fannius
violated decorum and the civil rights of a single citizen. Marconius
threatened the very survival and prosperity of the nation, if you look at
his behavior from the point of view of a Roman.

The view of relations between men and gods for a Roman of old was not at
all like the Christian concept of love and "grace." The gods and
goddesses of Rome were representations of the natural forces that
governed events in the everyday world, and their relationship to men was
a very contractual one. We contract to recognize and honor the forces of
our own household and gens (the Lares, Penates, etc.) in return for their
favoring us. As a nation, we are contracted to recognize and honor the
forces that govern affairs at the "macro" level, represented by Iupiter,
Iuno, Saturn, Ianus, etc.. From that point of view, any Roman who
deliberately insults and dishonors these dieties with whom we contract
for the well-being of the state, is inviting disaster upon the whole
nation. He breaches the national contract with the dieties that protect
us and make us a great nation (well, someday, we hope). That's a far cry
from threatening to harm an individual, distasteful though the latter act
is. A far more serious penalty is appropriate for threatening the
existence of the nation than for threatening the safety of an individual.

You are correct in stating, as did others, that our gods and goddesses
themselves don't need us to defend them. It was our contract with them
that was threatened and needed defending.

This is not an issue of Christians vs. "pagans." Framing it that way can
only lend support to those who would like to splinter the nation that
way. The Web site makes it clear that anyone is welcomed in Nova Roma
_except_ those will not recognize and honor the centrality of the gods
and goddesses of Nova Roma to the nation as a whole.

I would like to see a "Lex" making it a violation to attack or insult
anyone's religion. Although it is sad that we cannot just rely on good
taste and decorum to prevent that from happening, it seems that we can't.

The matters of Marconius and Fannius are settled. Let's just move on. I
think we should ALL be on our "best behavior" here -- this is a public
place and we are Romans.

Vale!

L. Sergius Aust.

>From: SFP55@--------
>
>SALVETE!!
>
>No doubt you will have heard of Fannius' ridiculous fine and
>punishment. What does this tell us, citizens of Rome?
>It tells me that if you practice the Religio, you can threaten
>Christian citizens with impunity as long as you apologize after
>the fact. Let us face it. When Citizen Marconis attacked our
>institution did some not strike back without violence? Several citizens
>used well turned words, others mocked him, but did any save Fannius
>threaten him? I read his post. He did with the prosecution of death.
>"Just like the Christians of old" he threatened. And he made that
>his main point of his proclamation!! He did break our Laws and
>was "punished" for it.
>
>Very Well. So now I hear he was just defending our nation. I
>have had run ins with Chrismatics before. No good would come of
>answering his rhetoric, and in fact would only do harm. We were
>not going to change this man. No matter what we said.
>
>So this shows perhaps immaturity on my part? Hardly! I knew our
>Gods and Goddesses did not need defending. They were not
>bothered by cheap attacks, they have been around longer then the
>Christian God, and probably know of him well. Marconis did not
>deface our temples. He did not break into our websites and erase
>them. Our nation was under no physical threat as far as I could
>see. He did break our Laws, and was PUNISHED for it.
>
>So now we have set up a double standard here in our Rome. We
>tolerate Christians and the beliefs because that is what Rome
>does. It is one of our cornerstones of our structure.
>But this ruling allows us to attack any of them as we see fit AS
>LONG AS WE BELIEVE WE HAVE JUSTIFICATION AND WE APOLOGIZE
>AFTERWARDS!! We are just defending our state. This means you Christian and
>non believing members better be on your best behavior, least you run afoul of
>us.
>
>Citizens, we can't live this way. There is no tolerance here,
>only patience, and how long before that patience runs out?
>The Roman citizens deserve protection under Roman Law. All
>Citizens. The Law must be the same for all, otherwise we should
>just ban the Christians now.
>
>There is nothing to be done now about Fannius, the moving hand
>has written and we cannot undo it. But we CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN
>AGAIN!! I call on the Magistrates to began drafting and
>implementing a series of Lex Data to supplement the Mores
>Maiorum, so citizens no longer need to suffer "in iure" with
>uncertain penalties.
>
>I also call on the Magistrates to condemn Fannius' action, to
>proclaim that he was NOT acting in the best interests of the
>state, no matter what he claims, instead he acted in his own
>personal interest, and if his example of intolerence is committed
>by another citizen, it will not again be accepted as "just one of
>those things" in Roman Law.
>
>Good Health to the Magistrates!!
>Long live our Republic!!
>May Fortuna preserve us all.
>
>Q. Fabius Maximus.
>Paterfamilias


Subject:	Re: To all Citizens of Rome! Please Read! (LONG response)
From:	Mia Soderquist tuozine@--------
Date:	Sat, 2 Jan 1999 10:27:07 -0800 (PST)

---Nov------------------------ wrote:
>
> From: Nov------------------------
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> I feel I must make a reply to this, as a Senator and Censor who has
talked
> with Fannius and who has assisted our new Consuls in making the
decision on
> this situation.

Thank you for that reply. I have been standing far, far away from this
controversy, since I'm new around here and hadn't even applied for
citizenship at the point that all this was going on [and on and on
:)]. Your post helped clear up for me exactly what went into the
decision.

Under the circumstances, I think I agree with the actions taken.

My only regret is that all the discussion was in e-mail. I suspect we
have a few good orators in our midst. :)

Mia


Subject:	Re: Happy Birthday!
From:	SFP55@--------
Date:	Sat, 2 Jan 1999 13:24:30 EST

Salve Minervina Iucundia Flavia!

Blessings and best wishes to you, Pro-Praetor on your special day!!

Q Fabius.


Subject:	YOO HOO!!!! Still a question!!!!!!!
From:	Crystal Brewton aicrys@--------
Date:	Sat, 2 Jan 1999 10:41:36 -0600

Salvete --

I asked, I think Dex asked. Maybe I just missed the post or something.
Maybe I am just paranoid. Maybe I am simply being ignored.

The question? Again? Sure, why not. I am getting good at talking to
myself.

Fimbria (I think that's who it was) gave her 2 cents. I have gotten
private emails from people telling me their opinion. I just want some
"official" clarification.

What the hell is Nova Roma?? I asked once politely, then again with a
slight edge. Now, I am resorting to a bit of impoliteness. Seems no one
official is willing to answer this question and is really starting to get
annoying.

Is it Pagan? Was it simply begun that way and now it's not Pagan
anymore? Is it now a non-religious organization that happens to be 80%
or better Pagan? What?

I don't have a problem with my Christian friends and civies. Welcome and
enjoy. But in light of the latest rigamorale I'm left a little confused.
Much as I like the history and the reconstruction stuf, that's not
initially why I joined. I thought I was damn near the only "Roman Pagan"
out there for a long time and when I found what I THOUGHT was a Pagan
group, I was elated. Now? I'm not so happy anymore, mostly because no
one official seems to want to answer the flippin question.

I suppose the "official" answer would come from our founders. So......
Cassius? Germanicus? What's the deal? And please just answer the
question. I'm not interested in the Nova Roma,
keep-everybody-happy-and-quiet, "politically correct", BS answer. I am a
bit more interested in the truth. Not so I can bash Christian co-citizens,
but so *I* can feel ..... at home? I feel like a visitor now and it
really sucks!

I welcome more opinions from everyone else, but frankly I feel like I need
to hear it from our Founders. The horses mouth, so to speak.

My citizenship may depend on it.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Amethystia Iunia Crystallina - a.k.a. Crys (10/13/68)
Prima Iunia Terrelina - a.k.a. Terry (3/31/97)
Lapis Stone (due in February)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Personal Page -- <a href="http://members.trpod.com/~acl_pit/amethyst.htm" target="_top" >http://members.trpod.com/~acl_pit/amethyst.htm</a>
Sodalis Pro Infantia (the Society for Childhood) --
<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~acl_pit/roma/sodwel.htm" target="_top" >http://members.tripod.com/~acl_pit/roma/sodwel.htm</a>


Subject:	Re: YOO HOO!!!! Still a question!!!!!!!
From:	missmoon missmoon@--------
Date:	Sat, 02 Jan 1999 15:21:08 -0500

Crystal Brewton wrote:
>>
>
>
> What the hell is Nova Roma??

I keep saying this, but... READ THE WEBSITE AND especially THE
DECLARATIO!!
Is there some strange, occult reason that people can't access the site
or something?

I am NOT going to type the entire Declaratio and the statement of Roman
Paganism here on the list for people who are entirely capable of looking
it up.

Fed up,
Flavia Claudia


Subject:	Fannius' punishment
From:	missmoon missmoon@--------
Date:	Sat, 02 Jan 1999 15:38:07 -0500

Fannius was fined $5, which goes into the Treasury as a contribution to
buy an Eagle subscription for anyone who can't afford one. I have the
feeling this is going to be a frequent penalty, but until we get our
civic laws set up, I can't say for sure.

He is further required to do community service for an indefinite period,
in this case as assistant to Quaestor Marcus Minucius Audens, who sends
regular reports of his progress to me to present to the Senate. Audens
is, in effect, his "parole officer" and is charged with giving Fannius
whatever tasks he sees fit. And for those of you who think this is
light, you've obviously never been under the supervision of a strict
"by-the-book" military man like Audens. Fannius is also under constant
scrutiny of all Nova Roma. Every post he makes is examined throughly by
citizens searching for anything they could deem as incriminating.

Now, if any of you think you could live like that in this community for
an indefinite period, we'll put you in touch with Audens. Most of you
would have simply resigned in an indignant huff by now. Especially over
a first offense.

I keep hearing rumors of Fannius' alleged "bragging" about his sentence
on various lists, but they seem to be rumors because nobody's put forth
any proof. I was forwarded one message, which you'd have to stretch
pretty far to consider "bragging."

It seems that many of you were hoping for a show trial and a chance for
some pyrotechnical legal grandstanding in the great tradition of Cicero,
and to do it you were relying heavily on rumors. Sorry, this isn't the
former Soviet Union and we don't do that. There are so many hidden
agendas in this case that to satisfy all of them would be impossible in
the first place. It might be best advised to furthur your climb up the
Cursus Honorum with hard work rather than rhetoric.

He's been fined, punishment is ongoing. Live with it.

-- Flavia Claudia


Subject:	Pretty fed up my DAMN self! was YOO HOO!!!! Still a question!!!!!!!
From:	Crystal Brewton aicrys@--------
Date:	Sat, 2 Jan 1999 15:16:19 -0600

Thanks. I seem to remember reading the website once or twice, as it is (or
was) my start page. Funny how those silly little reading classes in
kinne-garden come in handy.

Thanks anyway. I'm outta here. I need a breather.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Amethystia Iunia Crystallina - a.k.a. Crys (10/13/68)
Prima Iunia Terrelina - a.k.a. Terry (3/31/97)
Lapis Stone (due in February)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Personal Page -- <a href="http://members.trpod.com/~acl_pit/amethyst.htm" target="_top" >http://members.trpod.com/~acl_pit/amethyst.htm</a>
Sodalis Pro Infantia (the Society for Childhood) --
<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~acl_pit/roma/sodwel.htm" target="_top" >http://members.tripod.com/~acl_pit/roma/sodwel.htm</a>


Subject:	Re: Happy Birthday!
From:	"Valerie Hannon" v_hannon@--------
Date:	Sat, 02 Jan 1999 14:12:41 PST

>From bounce-novaroma--3998-v_hannon Sat Jan 02 10:26:08 1999
>Received: from [209.207.164.205] by hotmail.com (1.0) with SMTP id
MHotMail30927543673405535065325003520046285167250; Sat Jan 02 10:26:08
1999
>Received: (qmail 19864 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 1999 18:22:48 -0000
>Received: (qmail 19827 invoked from network); 2 Jan 1999 18:22:47 -0000
>Received: from unknown (HELO imo25.mx.aol.com) (198.81.17.69) by
pop.onelist.com with SMTP; 2 Jan 1999 18:22:47 -0000
>Received: from <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=246157057089235135169082190036" >SFP55@--------</--------; by imo25.mx.--------com (IMOv18.1) id
QJLLa15302 for <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 13:24:30 -0500
(EST)
>From: <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=246157057089235135169082190036" >SFP55@--------</--------;
>Mess--------ID: <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=204112080022093005074082139028020239247168173189013079152150172" >68d4b70.368e645e@--------</--------;
>Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 13:24:30 EST
>To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 230
>Mailing-List: list <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>; contact
<a href="mailto:novaroma-owner@--------" >novaroma-owner@--------</a>
>Delivered-To: mailing list <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=091233018237127190072098060119006088152208031218251099120143116071142076083" >novaroma-unsubscribe@--------</a>
>Reply-to: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>Subject: [novaroma] Re: Happy Birthday!
>
>From: <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=246157057089235135169082190036" >SFP55@--------</--------;
>
>
>Salve Minervina Iucundia Flavia!
>
>Blessings and best wishes to you, Pro-Praetor on your special day!!
>
>Q Fabius.
>

Ave Minervina Iucundia Flavia!

Diem natalem felicem tibi
(Happy Birthday to you)

Vale,
Valeria Octavia
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a> and
>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.


Subject:	Roman History Day?
From:	"Juan Correa" gehn@--------
Date:	Sat, 2 Jan 1999 14:50:25 -0800

It appears that the History Channel is having a Roman History marathon of
sorts. In the morning there was something about Hadrian's Wall, now there is
something about the roads of Rome. Maybe they do Roman history every
Saturday?

Lucius Fannius


Subject:	Re: Roman History Day?
From:	legion6@--------
Date:	Sat, 2 Jan 1999 17:06:29 -0600 (CST)

Salve, Fannius, et salvete omnes!

>It appears that the History Channel is having a Roman History marathon
>of sorts.

I couldn't say about last year, but in Jan '96 and '97 I remember HC
having a 'Roman Week'...with bios of Caesar, Constantine and a couple
of famous ones in-between; programs about Ancient Rome in general (a
two-parter), Spartacus, Boudicca's rebellion, and the Colosseum; and
Roman movies every night (it was the first time I got to see 'Anno
Domini').

I don't know what the connection would be in the producers' minds
between Romans and January (the only Roman 'holiday' most Americans are
at all aware of is the Ides of March), but...Okay! I take it when I
can get it!

Yours under the Eagles...
---
__________ _<~) __________
<-\\\\@@@@@) /##\ (@@@@@////-> M�ria Villarroel <a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=034056178009193116148218000036129208" >legion6@--------</a>
<-\\\@@@@(#####@@@@///-> Historical Re-Creationist
<-\\\*##*///-> and Citizen of Rome
o---<<<<||SPQR||>>>>---o Latin lessons, History lectures
///\\\ Role-playing Games, too!

aka Lucius Marius Fimbria on the weekends


Subject:	Re: To all citizens of Nova Roma
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla alexious@--------
Date:	Sat, 02 Jan 1999 17:11:50 -0800

Ave Cives,

Yes, I agree with Q.Fabius, but because I have such strong feelings for
this affair, it has taken me a while to respond to this My concern is
not a comparison between Marconius and Fannius. We all agree ousting
Marconius was necessary and correct. But, the handling of the Fannius
was incorrect from the start. Considering that our current, Consul,
Lucius, in e-mail, asked not to be involved as shown on:

Wed, 30 Dec 1998 when he stated the following:
[In this particular case I would recuse myself (from a trial) because
I, as Flamen Martialis, declared "the outcast" Sacer.
Valete, L Equitius Cincinnatus, Praetor Urbanus 'til Friday :-)]

Yet...a day later he decided to handle this case, after I offered my
services. After a discussion in the Taverna, I was assured that Justice
would be done from Equitius, thus I posted that I felt Justice would be
done. And, well when Fannius disclosed his fine..and the vague mention
of "Community Service." I was very much concerned. Again, I feel
Marconius got what he deserved. But, the idea of threatening a citizen,
our Senators seem to have taken this lightly cause it was a Net Threat.
According to Callidius our Tribune, someone in MN was arrested
for issuing a Net Threat. The gravity of this situation concerned me
for another reason, yes, we have no civil or criminal laws in place.
But, this set a dangerous precedent that all future cases must look to,
under the legal
theory of Stare Decsis. Again, my concern has been and always will be
the application of Justice here at Nova Roma. I cannot in good faith be
apart of an organization that has one system of justice for Pagans and
another for Non Pagans. However I feel it would be a bigger mistake
resigning. But, I am putting everyone on notice. That during my my
term as Praetor Urbanis Justice in NR will be blind and so will the
application of such Justice. In my opinion, it is essential that
Justice be blind for the equal distribution of justice on all diverse
citizens in any organization. That is what I believe, and that is the
way I'll carry out my office.

Valete Omnes,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla,
Praetor Urbanis


Subject:	Re: YOO HOO!!!! Still a question!!!!!!!
From:	Razenna razenna@--------
Date:	Sat, 02 Jan 1999 17:29:22 -0800

I didn't type it, I used the Copy&Paste function. Consider this
part One. [but I bet 1 as that this doesn't settle it] Ericius.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DECLARATIO NOVA ROMA

Declaration of the New Rome

We, the Senate and People of New Rome, in order to restore the
foundations of Western Civilization, declare the founding of
Nova Roma as a soverign Nation. We manifest Nova Roma as an
independant world nation and republic, with it's own legal
constitution and lawful government, with all international rites
and responsibilities that such status carries.

As a soverign nation Nova Roma makes the following claim to
various international territories and rights:

We acknowledge ancient Roman territory to be our cultural and
religious homeland, and claim historical rights to all sites and
territories which were under the direct control or administration
of the ancient Roman Republic and Empire between 756 BCE
and 359 CE.

We recognize the modern political realities which make the
restoration of such ancient lands to us impossible. Therefore we
limit our active territorial claim to an amount of land at least
equal to that held by the sovereign state of Vatican City; 108
contiguous acres. On this land a world capital for the
admistration of our culture will be founded in the form of a
Forum
Romanum. The exact site for this New Roman governmental and
spiritual capital is to be determined.

Further, in order that our world presence may be established,
Nova Roma claims our physical territory to be extant and
manifest through those places that our State, Citizens, and
religious organizations may physically own, occupy, and maintain
throughout the world. These territories shall exist in a status
of Dual Sovereignity, being under the cultural and spiritual
administration of Nova Roma, even as they remain under the civil
dominion and laws of other hosting nations. Our pledge is to
embody a benign and beneficial cultural and spiritual influence
throughout all societies, while remaining politically neutral and

lawful in action.

Nova Roma also claims temporary Dual Sovereignity over all other
sites where the Gods and Goddesses of ancient Rome shall
be worshipped by our Citizens, to preserve our cultural and
spiritual unity. This dual sovereignity shall be administered by
the
People directly and shall last only for the duration of religious
ceremonies and rites. In this way we shall remain one culture and

nation, even as we exist throughout other world countries.

Citizenship in Nova Roma is open to people of all nationalities
and races. The express purpose of our nation is to promote
international understanding and cooperation through the
preservation of our common Classical foundation, and to breathe
new
life and honor in to all Western Civilization through the
restoration of ancient Piety, Virtue, and Civilitas.

We, the Citizens and Senate of New Rome hereby formally renounce,
eternally and without exception, the use of force,
rebellion, coercion, or intimidation in the pursuit of our
international status and claims. We strive to exist as a lawful,
peaceful
and benign nation, in accord with the principles acknowledged and
shared by the world community.

Signed this day on behalf of the Senate and People of the New
Rome

II Kal. Mar., MMDCCLI ab urbe condita (February 28th 1998)

Flavius Vedius Germanicus, Consul

Cassius Iulianus, Consul

Cursus Honorum Page / Master
Index


Subject:	Re YOO HOO!!!! Still a question!!!!!!!
From:	Razenna razenna@--------
Date:	Sat, 02 Jan 1999 17:33:25 -0800

Here is Part Two, or whatever you want to call it, other than:

DECLARATIO RELIGIONIS ROMANAE

THE DECLARATION OF ROMAN RELIGION

Within in the course of spiritual practice, it is necessary for
persons aspiring to common ideals to form a clear foundation for
their religion. It is also proper that they should declare their
religious tenets to the world for consideration and remembrance.

We hold the ideals expressed herein to be basic and integral to
our faith, that Roman Pagans may be united both in act and
spirit. Pagan religion provides a spiritual heritage which
embodies the basic nature of Western Civilization. It is both a
historical
faith and a living faith, which preserves the spiritual past even
as it progresses into the future. Here we establish the structure

and basic nature of Roman Pagan Religion so that it may be
preserved, while allowing for future growth and freedom of
individual expression.

We hold that a Roman Pagan may be defined as a person who
actively performs rites, rituals, and/or prayers to any or all of
the
gods and goddesses of ancient Pagan Rome as the majority of their
spiritual involvement. We acknowledge also that individuals
may at times work with Roman deities without considering
themselves as Roman Pagans.

We affirm that the Roman Pagan Religion embodies the spiritual
beliefs, practices, virtues and philosophies of ancient Pagan
Rome. These constitute and expresses a clear and separate form of
religion and spirituality that is unique and different from all
other spiritual paths. We hold that our practices today are the
spiritual successor of the ancient ways, reborn anew.

We affirm that the historical basis of our spirituality comes
from the Pagan religions of the ancient Roman Republic and
Empire.
The core of this history proceeds from the founding of Rome in
753 BC, to the removal of the Altar of Victory from the Roman
Senate in 394 AD. Our historical basis also includes pre-Roman
Latin and Etruscan roots, and Pagan survivals into later
periods of history.

We hold that the Roman Pagan Religion is open to all people,
regardless of nationality, race, gender, sexuality, spiritual
affiliation or other individual circumstance.

We affirm that the Roman Pagan Religion belongs to no one race or
nationality, but is instead a common founding heritage of all
Western civilization. It is further a universal spiritual current
which throughout the centuries has influenced all peoples and
nations of the world, either directly or by the legacy of its
history, philosophies and practices.

We also affirm that the Roman Pagan Religion is compatible with,
and may be practiced alongside all other forms of religion
and spiritual expression, without diluting or diminishing its
basic ideals and spiritual identity. In the ancient world Roman
religion
was practiced alongside Celtic, German, Greek, Egyptian, Persian,
and Oriental faiths, to the enhancement of all. This
syncretistic approach to other religions remains basic to the
Roman Pagan spiritual world view.

We affirm that the Roman Pagan Religion itself embodies many
forms of rite and worship. These include the ancient Roman
festivals, the rites of both Roman state and private religion,
cults of the various deities, divination, the ancient Mystery
religions,
and Roman Pagan philosophy as well as other forms of ancient
religious expression.

We further affirm that rites and worship within the Roman Pagan
may be approached in many ways. In this manner the spiritual
needs of all practicing individuals may be fulfilled. These
various approaches may include group or individual worship,
philosophical practice focusing on prayer and contemplation,
purely historical reconstruction of ancient ritual form, as well
as
forms of modern rites and worship that adapt ancient practices
and ideals.

We affirm that the Roman Pagan Religion shall be an organized and
structured faith. In addition to purely individual involvement
and the organization of autonomous groups, its form may contain
the reestablishment of historical religious institutions. These
may include established physical temples, mystery schools,
priesthoods and religious colleges, and coordinating bodies such
as
a Senate formed among practitioners of Roman Pagan Religion.

We affirm that the Roman Pagan Religion was and is a civilized
faith, empowering family, community and state to positive virtue
and beneficial effect. The rites, virtues and philosophies of
Roman Pagan Religion are by nature benign and lawful, serving to
facilitate piety toward the gods, and understanding and
cooperation among all people.

We affirm that the spiritual duty of the Roman Pagan Religion is
to restore, maintain and promote the worship of the ancient
Roman Goddesses and Gods. We seek to rebuild their influence in
the world, and through piety and action preserve the sacred
link between the ancient deities and humanity.

We affirm that the earthly responsibility of the Roman Pagan
Religion is to preserve the basic ideals of Classical
spirituality and
civilization, that they may continue to be a positive force in
society. We seek to renew the principles, philosophies, history
and
culture of the ancient Roman Pagan world, and make them available
to all persons wishing to incorporate them as a modern
spiritual path.

These religious ideals and tenets are set forth and adopted under
the approval of the gods and goddesses of ancient Rome, and
in remembrance of our ancient Roman Pagan spiritual forebears.
Through them we are focused and united. Let them stand as
an affirmation of our intent, faith and practice.

Religio Romana Page / Master
Index


Subject:	Self defense (sort of) was Fannius' punishment
From:	"Gaius Marius Merullus" rmerullo@--------
Date:	Sat, 2 Jan 1999 20:37:20 -0500

Salvete Claudia et alii

:From: m--------oon <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=029176066112038190112158203026129208071" >m--------oon@--------</a>
:

Although you do not name me, Claudia, I was one of the people who expressed
the opinion that Fannius should have been tried. I therefore wish to
clarify my position, hopefully for the last time.
:
:It seems that many of you were hoping for a show trial and a chance for
:some pyrotechnical legal grandstanding in the great tradition of Cicero,
:and to do it you were relying heavily on rumors.

Whoever these 'many' are, I cannot be included there. I wanted a trial, not
a show trial, to establish a precedent of giving an accused civis due
process. And because it would have been appropriate, Roman treatment of the
matter. Everything that I thought about this matter, I put forth in this
public forum, and never heard any rumors.

:
:He's been fined, punishment is ongoing. Live with it.

I'm living with it. I just dont want anyone to think that I have engaged in
any activity of which you accuse someone of doing in your post. I have not.
:
:-- Flavia Claudia
:
Valete

Gaius Marius Merullus


Subject:	Off-topic & just for fun
From:	missmoon missmoon@--------
Date:	Sat, 02 Jan 1999 20:58:54 -0500

I found the most interesting movie star info this morning.

In 1942, a prominent movie star and composer George Antheil invented and
patented a communications system called Spread Spectrum that became the
basis for cellular phone, fax and wireless technology. Who was it?

1) Peter Lorre
2) Hedy Lamarr
3) Leslie Howard
4) Eva Marie Saint

Any guesses? I realize you oldies will probably recognize these more
quickly!

-- Flavia Claudia


Subject:	Re: Off-topic & just for fun
From:	Razenna razenna@--------
Date:	Sat, 02 Jan 1999 18:09:06 -0800

Not Leslie Howard!

Ericius


Subject:	Re: the Declarations
From:	Oplontian@--------
Date:	Sat, 2 Jan 1999 23:55:27 EST

Salvete,
Thank you, Ericius, for bringing the Declarations to the list. I hope that
those citizens who have not visited the web site recently are reassured about
the purposes and intentions of Nova Roma.
The Declaration states that Nova Roma claims historical rights to territories
controlled by Rome during the period 756 bce to 359 ce. Those dates look
goofy. Shouldn't the beginning of the period be 753 bce, the most commonly
accepted date for the legendary founding of the City ? And what is 359 ce
supposed to be ? Or should that be 395 ce, the year that the Empire split
into East and West ? Which reminds me - there are a number of little errors
in grammar and spelling scattered through the Constitution and other Nova Roma
documents. Will these be corrected someday ?
Nova Roma claims an area of land equal in size to Vatican City. Why limit our
claim to the size of the Vatican ? Why even mention the Vatican at all ? I
think it would have been better to have claimed an area equal in size to the
walled city of Rome, or an area equal to the territory subject to the urban
prefecture - about 100 square miles in extent at the height of the Empire.
Valete,
Quintus Poppaeus Sabinus