Subject:	Re: Re: Probus' post
From:	hadji <a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=180166080058082135090082190036" >hadji@--------</a>
Date:	Wed, 02 Feb 2000 10:54:51 +0100

Salve Marco Minucio Audens,

I thank you very much for your kind and careful words. I fully agree
with you.
There will always exist some communicating problems when different
peoples from different countries with different cultural background talk
about so different matters as we on Nova Roma forums. But as you
mentioned where is a tolerance, good will and respectful treatment of
ones opinion, there can not be a thread the problems to remaind
unresolved. I am sure all of us have the good will and want Nova Roma to
prospere. As for Sarmaticus (and for other including me), I hope this
would be a beneficial experience.

As for NovaromaVizantia list, I understand it as a regional
east-european regional list.
You are always welcome there and all we will appreciate highly your
participation. Any of Nova Roman citizens, who are interested by the
history, believs and so one are welcome there too.

Bene vale

Alexander Probus

Subject:	Re:Re: A non orthodox eastern Pagan stuff
From:	hadji <a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=180166080058082135090082190036" >hadji@--------</a>
Date:	Wed, 02 Feb 2000 11:12:54 +0100

Salve honorata Pompeia Cornelia Strabo,

Thank you. It seems that what is "insulting" is a very relative term.
What is "insulting" for one is not insulting for another one and again,
what is "witty" for one is not witty for another.
But it is significat that there are persons on the list whom I have
never heard the humble simple words as "sorry", "excuse me", "appology"
etc. I know that someone may consider as under ones dignitas to say such
a things to the stuff out there, but... I can never agree with such a
treatment.
All of us have grown up in some stereotypes - family, surroundings,
national, religious etc, and it is unimpossible to say which stereotype
of behavior is the only right one, but the only key to keep off from
such a mud as happend on the list is to stay within the borders of
simple human politness. If ones cross these borders, it is difficult
then not to receive an adeqvate similar answer.
Take it as all of what I have said now is addressed to my own person
only.

Bene vale

Alexander I.C. Probus

>REPLY FROM POMPEIA CORNELIA STRABO: Well, it came across to me as "very insulting". How could it come across as anything else? I am glad that you
>rendered Dexippus an apology.
Valete et Pax
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo

Subject:	Re: Senate Item #5
From:
Date:	Wed, 2 Feb 2000 09:14:18 EST

In a message dated 2/1/00 3:00:44 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=174176211056207031025158175026172165098048139046" >MikeMa--------r@--------</a> writes:

Scaevola:
> Owing to work commitments I have been de facto lurking on the list for a
while now but the tax issue leads me to raise my head above the parapet. I
feel OK about doing so in spite of recent silence because for some months I
have been donating L10 stg ($15) per month to the Britannia "Eagle" account
on the supposition that when funds are periodically sent to the US these
will get transferred.

Cassius:
This has in fact never been done, or even discussed as far as I am aware. It
rather highlights the issue that we have yet to work out or even attempt
banking among several countries, transferring funds internationally, and
coordinating the efforts of several people responsible for money.

Scaevola:
I think,
> 1) The principle of taxation of some form is a good one.

Cassius:
As a basic idea I believe that taxation would provide Nova Roma a lasting
foundation. Right now we have no stable source of income! However, I'm very
much against the idea of removing people from Citizenship if they are unable
to pay. Such a thing could cause us the loss of a few entire Provincia
worldwide, and a good number of Citizens here in the US. We'll never become
THE "center" of ancient Roman interest for the world if we become exclusive
in that way.

Scaevola:
2) Implementing compulsory taxation will quite clearly require amendment to
the draft incorporation papers. But as we are nowhere near having a
practicable proposal and in any case could not constitutionally tax by
senatus consulta but only by lex there's no urgent conflict.

Cassius:
This would only become mandatory if we were to declare that "Citizenship is
not free" by removing people from the rolls if the are unable to pay. There
IS some urgency in answering this question... I'm not thrilled about being
the one to file the official papers, (and probably pay for the filing out of
pocket) if we're only going to have to rewrite them next month, and pay
another $50.00 filing fee.

Scaevola:
3) The poll tax concept is attractive in its administrative simplicity but
lousy in its practical and historical politics.

Cassius:
I am *extremely* saddened to see the best proposal we've yet seen dismissed
so easily. A poll tax would allow our Citizens a choice as to whether or not
they wish to pay taxes. Those paying taxes would indeed receive a measurable
benefit. A person could bow out of voting in times of financial distress
without fearing loss of Citizenship or status, and easily regain the right to
vote simply by paying the poll tax next election.

Again I'm stuck at work without references to hand, but I believe that a poll
tax is in fact something that was done for a good period of Roman history,
and therefore perhaps not entirely "lousy".

To supplement a poll tax, I've also brought up the subject of non-monetary
ways that Citizens could gain voting rights in an election if they choose.
Basically this would involve a trade for service. For instance, if a person
wrote five good articles for "The Eagle" (or an equivalent in website content
for the NR site) , they could be excused from the poll tax. If they put up a
Nova Roma auxiliary website, during the year, (with at least five pages of
good content, and properly linked with the Internet search engines), they
could be excused from the tax. Such things as donating a number of copyright
free Roman photos or other images might also work. There are in fact some
things that would be just as useful to Nova Roma than money, if not moreso.

Scaevola:
a) A flat rate per-head dollar tax imposes a substantial bank funds
transfer charge on non-US citizens (in most cases equal to or greater than
the amount of the tax). In addition while $15 is trivial money in the US
and W. Europe it is, while not impossible, non-trivial money in many other
countries. It can thus be an up-front obstacle to the growth of NR.

Cassius:
Indeed. We need to look into the subject of handling money internationally.
Even now we're not sure of all the problems we might be facing.

Scaevola:
b) No-one should imagine (Dexippus & others) that we will ever have
consensus on the idea that you should "pay for what you get" in taxation.
Attempts to implement this view led in Britain to the fall of Maggie
Thatcher (quite recent...). Historically poll taxes are associated with,
working backwards, (i) the resistance of the former Confederate states to
blacks voting in the "Jim Crow" period, (ii) the English Peasants' Revolt
(1381) and (iii) the rise of proto-serfdom, the 'colonate' after Diocletian
(c.300) imposed a poll tax, the "caput", leading to peasants being
subordinated to the landlords who actually had the cash to pay the taxes.
This last is an oversimplication but ... not wonderful historical
precedents.

Cassius:
Again, I believe this was done in Rome as well. Also, the examples you've
given were situations which encompassed a great deal of OTHER political
problems, most of which we just don't have. We wouldn't be imposing a poll
tax to keep people away from voting... in fact we'd be working as hard as
possible to make it an attractive prospect. When you also consider that the
alternative may well be "Pay up or lose your Citizenship entirely", it's not
such a bad deal.

Scaevola:
If (as Dexippus suggested in one post) NR would be happy to
attract only people who agreed with flat rate taxation, then in Britain I
guess we'd be talking about roughly 1/3 of Tory voters (themselves about
30% of voters) most of whom are committed Christians who identify paganism
with human sacrifice and child abuse. The politics of taxation are no doubt
different in the US, but ...

Cassius:
But the other British voters who do not support a flat tax are in fact in
favor of Paganism? I had no idea the issues were connected! ;)

Scaevola:
4) Vado suggested at quite an early stage of the current exchange that NR
should tax the provinces, which in turn could arrange an equitable
distribution of the burden. This suggestion has the incidental merit of
being historically Roman, i.e. it was how taxation was managed in the early
Empire!

Cassius:
The Romans had a poll tax as well. Why ignore that historical precedent and
embrace this one? Historical this provincial tax might be, but it would be a
*nightmare* for us to administer in this stage. Not only would we have to
have the system of international banking mastered, with non-profit bank
accounts in each Provincia around the world, (including say, Russia!) we'd
also have to have Praetors in each Provincia willing and able to handle money
responsibly. Not to mention that our communication *within* each Provincia
would have to be 100% more advanced than it is now.

As a Praetor, I shudder at the thought of having to go to the Citizens in my
provincia and try to dun them for taxes. After all, Citizen participation is
now exactly the REVERSE of what it was in the ancient world. Computers allow
us to participate right at the center of community and politics. The
Provinces are now the area where it's hard for folks to get together and
participate meaningfully! There are several people in this Provincia that
I've never met, and have yet to receive a single measurable benefit on the
local level. If we're going to ask people to contribute we should at least do
it from the level we all truly share and have a stake in.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator

Subject:	Pax vobiscum!;-)
From:	"A. Artorius Arius Sarmaticus" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=061166091213158134036102228219114187071048139" >sarmaticus@--------</a>
Date:	Wed, 02 Feb 2000 19:17:00 YEKT

Salvete quirites,

I am glad to write to Nova Roma again. Hope there will never be any squbbles
more. At least, with this I solemnly swear not to participate more in any
personal-insultings threads here in the list (and not to initiate them
myself;-)).

I want also to apologize to all who was interrupted, bothered or insulted by
my numerous recent posts to the list. I did not to mean any insults and did
not want to be bothering at all.

Thanks to all who supported me in NR list and off-list, and also to those
who were disagree!

Still I also want to say that in my opinion the decision the Senate made
yesterday was wise and right.

Hope to see you again in virtual reality soon,

AVLVS ARTORIVS ARIVS SARMATICVS
CIVIS ET BARBARVS NOVAE ROMAE
PROPRAETOR SARMATIAE PROVINCIAE

PAX INAESTIMABILIS RES EST;-)))

VALETE IN PACE
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com" target="_top" >http://www.hotmail.com</a>

Subject:	Re: Re: Senate Item #5
From:
Date:	Wed, 2 Feb 2000 10:13:25 EST

In a message dated 2/1/00 6:01:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=174176211056207031025158175026172165098048139046" >MikeMa--------r@--------</a> writes:

<< If (as Dexippus suggested in one post) NR would be happy to
attract only people who agreed with flat rate taxation >>

Did I suggest that? Hmmm...don't recall.

My only statement was that it is unfair for some to pay more based upon their
annual income, geographic location, or NR "class status".

No more..no less.

--Dex

Subject:	Re: Pax vobiscum!;-)
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a> (James Mathe--------/td>
Date:	Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:27:04 -0500 (EST)

Salve, Praetor;

I welcome you back to the list, and hope that you never find yourslf
again in the position where you must leave it.

I agree that the Senate has made it's will known, and that vote whatever
the outcome represents the will of NR just as the vote of the people
does.

I would ask you if you can and would be willng to supply to me some
addresses of museums and / or Roman historical sites with whom we could
correspond as a part of the approved NR Outreach Program. Further,
would you be willing to translate a contact letter into Russian for use
in your provincia, as well as any replies that are received as a result
of the contact letter.

Vale, Respectfully;
Marcus Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

Subject:	Re: Senate Item #5
From:	"RMerullo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=194232192180194153138149203043129208071" >rmerullo@--------</a>
Date:	Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:55:01 -0500

Salvete M Cassi et M Muci et alii


>
>Scaevola:
> I think,
> > 1) The principle of taxation of some form is a good one.
>
>Cassius:
>As a basic idea I believe that taxation would provide Nova Roma a lasting
>foundation.

CMM
If we need more funds then we are receiving, taxes may be a good idea.
Taxation for its own sake, or to demonstrate loyalty, isn't much of a
foundation, though.
>
> Scaevola:
> 2) Implementing compulsory taxation will quite clearly require amendment
to
> the draft incorporation papers.

CMM
Probably but not necessarily. Any amendments to those papers are quite
murky at this point, since we have no idea how we would go about taxing the
citizens, even if we knew that we needed to -- and we certainly don't know
that.

MMSM
But as we are nowhere near having a
> practicable proposal and in any case could not constitutionally tax by
> senatus consulta but only by lex there's no urgent conflict.

CMM
How do you figure that to be the case? The Senate is the sole body
responsible for raising taxes in Nova Roma. Take a look at provision V B 2.
No tribal or centuriate assembly can vote to tax itself or other segments of
the population -- the most that any assembly could do was pass lex or
plebiscitum recommending that the Senate impose taxes.
>
>Cassius:
>This would only become mandatory if we were to declare that "Citizenship is
>not free" by removing people from the rolls if the are unable to pay. There
>IS some urgency in answering this question... I'm not thrilled about being
>the one to file the official papers, (and probably pay for the filing out
of
>pocket) if we're only going to have to rewrite them next month, and pay
>another $50.00 filing fee.

CMM
Well, I'll be damned if you're going to get stuck with that fee, Marce
Cassi. If by some quirk you can't get consular or senatorial approval to be
reimbursed for that $50, I'll split it with you. A fee like that is an
obvious necessity.
>
>Scaevola:
> 3) The poll tax concept is attractive in its administrative simplicity but
> lousy in its practical and historical politics.

CMM
To which practical and historical considerations do you refer when you say
"lousy"?
>
>Cassius:
>I am *extremely* saddened to see the best proposal we've yet seen dismissed
>so easily. A poll tax would allow our Citizens a choice as to whether or
not
>they wish to pay taxes. Those paying taxes would indeed receive a
measurable
>benefit. A person could bow out of voting in times of financial distress
>without fearing loss of Citizenship or status, and easily regain the right
to
>vote simply by paying the poll tax next election.

CMM
This is the beauty of the poll tax. The disadvantages that I see now:

i If it is uniform throughout all provinciae, it is open to the argument
that it is a trifling sum for many citizens, but quite unnafordable for some
others
ii It puts a price tag on voting, which would necessitate changing the
constitution, and also, tastes a little foul. I for one could live with
this foul taste if someone were to demonstrate that we need to impose the
tax, but noone so far has been very interested in doing that.
>
MCI
>Again I'm stuck at work without references to hand, but I believe that a
poll
>tax is in fact something that was done for a good period of Roman history,
>and therefore perhaps not entirely "lousy".

CMM
I would like to see those references, when you get a chance. It would take
away some of the foul taste that I mentioned, especially if we get to the
point of needing to amend the constitution.
>
MCI
>To supplement a poll tax, I've also brought up the subject of non-monetary
>ways that Citizens could gain voting rights in an election if they choose.
>Basically this would involve a trade for service. For instance, if a person
>wrote five good articles for "The Eagle" (or an equivalent in website
content
>for the NR site) , they could be excused from the poll tax. If they put up
a
>Nova Roma auxiliary website, during the year, (with at least five pages of
>good content, and properly linked with the Internet search engines), they
>could be excused from the tax. Such things as donating a number of
copyright
>free Roman photos or other images might also work. There are in fact some
>things that would be just as useful to Nova Roma than money, if not moreso.

CMM
These are all laudable activities that M Cassius suggests. I am engaged, at
perhaps a record-breaking slow rate, in one of them (you'll all find out
which one within the next 5 years if I live that long :)). None of them
provides money, though. If we get to a point where we definitely need
taxes, i.e. we shall have had less revenue than needed to support the modest
investments called for by the budget for a couple of months, then we shall
need to raise money somehow, probably including some kind of taxation. If
half our active citizens decide to write articles for the Eagle instead of
paying taxes, we could fail to make the budget. Marce Cassi, will my
eat-it-with-a-fork black bean soup recipe buy me a year of NR civitas :)?
>
>
>Scaevola:
> b) No-one should imagine (Dexippus & others) that we will ever have
> consensus on the idea that you should "pay for what you get" in taxation.
> Attempts to implement this view led in Britain to the fall of Maggie
> Thatcher (quite recent...). Historically poll taxes are associated with,
> working backwards,

CMM
OK, you answer my earlier question about political/historical problems.

MMSM
(i) the resistance of the former Confederate states to
> blacks voting in the "Jim Crow" period, (ii) the English Peasants' Revolt
> (1381) and (iii) the rise of proto-serfdom, the 'colonate' after
Diocletian
> (c.300) imposed a poll tax, the "caput", leading to peasants being
> subordinated to the landlords who actually had the cash to pay the taxes.
> This last is an oversimplication but ... not wonderful historical
> precedents.

CMM
Was the poll tax introduced for the first time after Diocletian?

>
>Cassius:
>Again, I believe this was done in Rome as well.

CMM
Do you mean that a poll tax was instituted during the republic?

MCI
Also, the examples you've
>given were situations which encompassed a great deal of OTHER political
>problems, most of which we just don't have. We wouldn't be imposing a poll
>tax to keep people away from voting... in fact we'd be working as hard as
>possible to make it an attractive prospect. When you also consider that the
>alternative may well be "Pay up or lose your Citizenship entirely", it's
not
>such a bad deal.

CMM
Yup, certainly the lesser of two evils.
>
>Scaevola:
> If (as Dexippus suggested in one post) NR would be happy to
> attract only people who agreed with flat rate taxation, then in Britain I
> guess we'd be talking about roughly 1/3 of Tory voters (themselves about
> 30% of voters)

CMM
Well, Steve Forbes, a flat tax proponent in this year's US presidential
campaign, got less than 15% of the Republican vote in my state of New
Hampshire, so NR would have even less appeal here than in Britannia! This
instant extrapolation device of yours really feels empowering :).

MMSM
most of whom are committed Christians who identify paganism
> with human sacrifice and child abuse. The politics of taxation are no
doubt
> different in the US, but ...

CMM
My sense is that most NH flat-tax favoring Republicans would just as soon
deport anyone calling himself a "pagan" to Vermont or some other leftist
hive (no offense to Palladius or anyone else over in Vermont -- it's a joke
:)).

>
>Cassius:
>But the other British voters who do not support a flat tax are in fact in
>favor of Paganism? I had no idea the issues were connected! ;)

CMM
Rideo magna voce (LOL)
>
>Scaevola:
> 4) Vado suggested at quite an early stage of the current exchange that NR
> should tax the provinces, which in turn could arrange an equitable
> distribution of the burden. This suggestion has the incidental merit of
> being historically Roman, i.e. it was how taxation was managed in the
early
> Empire!

CMM
Yes, if taxes are to be instituted, it seems that there are some positive
aspects to devolving the administration of the tax system out away from the
center -- both keeping part -- maybe most -- of the revenue local, and
placing the line between payer and collector on a more personal level.
Also, the rate of tax could vary by provincia so as to be more fair. This
has another incidental benefit of protecting the Senate from the perception
of becoming a tax-and-spend, liberal, central body (yuck! I can't believe
that I just said that -- I've been living in NH too long, I guess -- in my
own defense, M Cassius used to live here, and he only became pro-tax after
he moved away :)).
>
>Cassius:
>The Romans had a poll tax as well. Why ignore that historical precedent and
>embrace this one? Historical this provincial tax might be, but it would be
a
>*nightmare* for us to administer in this stage. Not only would we have to
>have the system of international banking mastered, with non-profit bank
>accounts in each Provincia around the world, (including say, Russia!) we'd
>also have to have Praetors in each Provincia willing and able to handle
money
>responsibly. Not to mention that our communication *within* each Provincia
>would have to be 100% more advanced than it is now.

CMM
Uh-oh, there's truth in what you say. Some thoughts on mitigating those:

i - international banking - you're right, we need our propraetores to do a
whole lot of fact-finding on this, but, at first, there would be less
international banking than you might think. Remember, taxes collected in
provinciae Americae septentrionalis would be pretty simply deposited in NR
bank accounts here. Let's face it, that's where the largest part of the tax
base is anyway. As far as other provinciae are concerned, the praetores
could enlist the patres matresque within the framework of a family tax kind
of like what L Sergius Australicus has outlined. Small provinciae in
proximity could perhaps (based on their own fact-finding) share bank
accounts to reduce hassle and expense. International transfers to Nova
Roma's central account should be limited to minimize wire transfer fee
losses - in the case of Sarmatia, for example, the propraetor could perhaps
transfer money only once a year to NR in Maine.
ii - trusting the propraetores - well, this is certainly true. But,
remember that the imposition of a tax is a demand to the people to trust the
Senate. If the people can trust us, surely we shall be able to trust
provincial officials that we ourselves, or our predecessors, have installed.
iii - I really don't know what you mean about the communication having to be
100% more advanced.
>
MCI
a Praetor, I shudder at the thought of having to go to the Citizens in my
>provincia and try to dun them for taxes. After all, Citizen participation
is
>now exactly the REVERSE of what it was in the ancient world. Computers
allow
>us to participate right at the center of community and politics. The
>Provinces are now the area where it's hard for folks to get together and
>participate meaningfully!

CMM
But, if Nova Roma is to grow, getting together and participating
meaningfully is absolutely required, is it not? What was it that our Consul
Fabius said once, how can we expect this thing to last as a sandbox in which
we play? I believe that a locally collected, locally set tax will be easier
to collect in that more people will be willing to pay it, perhaps even more
than would pay a poll tax, especially if it is systematically built into the
tax that part of it stays local. And, barring that, remember that you have
Marian legatus here in NH. There are ways to make them pay :)! (that was
another attempt at humor)

MCI
There are several people in this Provincia that
>I've never met, and have yet to receive a single measurable benefit on the
>local level.

CMM
What NR benefits can you measure?

MCI
If we're going to ask people to contribute we should at least do
>it from the level we all truly share and have a stake in.

CMM
I value belonging to the community of NR, and believe that those who voted
in the elections last year all value that belonging, some perhaps more than
I, others probably less. I would never attempt to measure that value. I
believe that I have a stake not only in this online experience, but in more
local get-togethers and events as well. By the way, are we going to have
that provincial meeting around Mithracon? When is that?
>
> Valete,
>
>Marcus Cassius Julianus
>Senator

Valete

C Marius Merullus
Senator

Subject:	Edictum consulare
From:
Date:	Wed, 2 Feb 2000 16:50:26 EST

Salvete, Conscript Fathers and the Citizens of Nova Roma;

I, Quintus Fabius Maximus, Consul, 2753 AUC appoint the following magistrate
and citizen as apparitores.

Piperbarus Ullerius Venator as my Quaestor


Drusus Cornelius Claudius as my Assensus
Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus

Subject:	Oath of office - Marcus Marcius Rex
From:
Date:	Wed, 2 Feb 2000 18:01:07 EST

As required by the lex Iunia de Iusiuriando I herby swear an oth of office as
propraetor of province Germania (Austria and Germany)

"I, Marcus Heinz alias Marcus Marcius Rex do hereby solemnly swear to uphold
the honour of Nova Roma, and to act always in the best interests of the
people and the Senate of Nova Roma.

As a magistrate of Nova Roma, I, Marcus Heinz alias Marcus Marcius Rex, swear
to honor the Gods and Goddesses of Rome in my public dealings, and to pursue
the Roman Virtues in my public and private life.

I, Marcus Heinz alias Marcus Marcius Rex, swear to uphold and defend the
Religio Romana as the State Religion of Nova Roma and swear never to act in a
way that would threaten its status as State Religion.

I, Marcus Heinz alias Marcus Marcius Rex swear to protect and defend the
Constitution of Nova Roma.

I, Marcus Heinz alias Marcus Marcius Rex further swear to fulfill the
obligations and responsibilities of the office of Propraetor Germaniae to the
best of my abilities.

On my honor as a Citizen of Nova Roma, and in the presence of the Gods and
Goddesses of the Roman people and by their will and favor, do I accept the
position of Propraetor Germaniae and all the rights, privileges, obligations,
and responsibilities attendant thereto"

So happened on the third day of February 2753 ab urbe condita, 00.00 NR-time

Subject:	Religious Calendar / Services
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a> (James Mathe--------/td>
Date:	Wed, 2 Feb 2000 21:47:24 -0500 (EST)

Salve, Pontifex Maximus;

I most respectfully request the following consideration of your Eminance
in regard to the duties of the Consul. I would like to have a list of
the religious observances that I need to be aware of in the month of
February, and some support from the College of Pontiffs in carrying out
that listing as the College sees fit.

I would also like to have assigned to me a Pontff or Priest as a staff
"chaplain" to make the necessary prayers for me at these special
observances which I cannot do for myself, such as the opening of the
Senate and the prayers prior to my voting and the religious observances
mentioned above.

I thought perhaps something similar to this had been done prior, and the
purpose of my earlier messages was to let you know of my willingness to
continue such, for the benefit of the people. Since you have approved
similar requests, I thought perhaps we could continue as we have begun.

Vale, Your Eminance;
Very Respectfully;
Marcus Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

Subject:	Re: Edictum consulare
From:	Megas-Rob--------n <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=243232178182078116015056190036129" >amgunn@--------</a>
Date:	Wed, 02 Feb 2000 18:42:34 -0600

Avete Omnes,

>
> Salvete, Conscript Fathers and the Citizens of Nova Roma;
>
> I, Quintus Fabius Maximus, Consul, 2753 AUC appoint the following
> magistrate
> and citizen as apparitores.
>
> Piperbarus Ullerius Venator as my Quaestor
>
>
> Drusus Cornelius Claudius as my Assensus
> Valete
> Q. Fabius Maximus
>

Quoth Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator: "Ita."

Semper Utilis - Venator