Subject:	Re: [novaroma] War elephants(was Theological Correctness)
From:	"M G" <fresco@-------->
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 02:39:33 +0300

----- Original Message -----
From: <SerPhoenicius@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Friday, 02 June, 2000 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] War elephants(was Theological Correctness)


> Avete,
>
> I find it exciting, yet sad, to think that there were also lions found in
> Europe until 80-100 C.E.
CVLTELLUS


WOW !

I knew of lions in Greece, but not in roman time Greece .
Are you speaking of Greece or of any other place ?
And really 80 C.E. ? So, during the empire !

Could you please give some more details ?

Thank you in advance and VALE

Marcus Prometheus


------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/959990687/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Silphium, Pass the silphium, please
From:	"M G" <fresco@-------->
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 02:23:22 +0300

----- Original Message -----
From: <Piscinus@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Friday, 02 June, 2000 11:39 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Silphium, Pass the silphium, please


> Salvete Quirites
>
> SILPHIUM, from its Greek name, or more properly LASER to the Latins,
> and generally identified with *ferula tingitana*, HAS returned to
> North Africa. It also never went extinct outside of the imperial
> boundaries. LASER remains the main ingredient in Indian sauces
> called *heeng*.
> Valete
> Piscine
>

VERY INTERESTING !

Do you also know if it is again appreciated and exported outside north
Africa ?
and if it is currently used in some recipe in North Africa or in Europe or
USA?

And perhaps the Arab name ?

And anybody has some ancient recipe where Silphium was used ?

Gratias tibi ago

Valete

Marcus Prometheus




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/959990686/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Witch Hunt
From:	"M G" <fresco@-------->
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 02:48:43 +0300

forward here an interesting article about:

Recent Developments in the Study of
The Great European Witch Hunt

It is long post equivalent of 13 "A4" (= normal) pages.

The conclusion for those not interested enough to read all
is that the most accurately esteemed figure of witches
burnt (all times) is *only* about 60.000.
Other somehow less accurate counts gave
Min. 40.000 and Max. 100.000.
(To speak of millions doesn't look to be realistic at all)
Still 60,000 human beings burned is not a small number.
Requiescat in pace.

Marcus Prometheus.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Developments in the Study of
The Great European Witch Hunt
by Jenny Gibbons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Since the late 1970's, a quiet revolution has taken place in the study of
historical witchcraft and the Great European Witch Hunt. The revolution
wasn't
quite as dramatic as the development of radio-carbon dating, but many
theories
which reigned supreme thirty years ago have vanished, swept away by a flood
of
new data. Unfortunately, little of the new information has made it into
popular
history. Many articles in Pagan magazines contain almost no accurate
information
about the "Burning Times", primarily because we rely so heavily on out-dated
research.
Beyond the National Enquirer
What was this revolution? Starting in the mid-1970's, historians stopped
relying
on witch-hunting propaganda and began to base their theories on thorough,
systematic studies of all the witch trials in a particular area.
Ever since the Great Hunt itself, we've relied on witch hunters' propaganda:
witch hunting manuals, sermons against witchcraft, and lurid pamphlets on
the
more sensational trials. Everyone knew that this evidence was lousy. It's
sort
of like trying to study Satanism in America using only the Moral Majority
Newsletter and the National Enquirer. The few trials cited were the larger,
more
infamous ones. And historians frequently used literary accounts of those
cases,
not the trials themselves. That's comparable to citing a television
docu-drama
("Based on a true story!") instead of actual court proceedings.
Better evidence did exist. Courts that tried witches kept records -- trial
verdicts, lists of confiscated goods, questions asked during interrogations,
and
the answers witches gave. This evidence was written by people who knew what
actually happened. Witch hunters often based their books on rumor and
hearsay;
few had access to reliable information. Courts had less reason to lie since,
for
the most part, they were trying to keep track of what was going on: how many
witches they killed, how much money they gained or lost, etc. Witch hunters
wrote to convince people that witchcraft was a grievous threat to the world.
The
more witches there were, the bigger the "threat" was. So they often
exaggerated
the number of deaths and spread wild estimates about how many witches
existed.
Also, trial records addressed the full range of trials, not just the most
lurid
and sensational ones.
But trial data had one daunting draw-back: there was too much of it. Witch
trials were scattered amongst literally millions of other trials from this
period. For most historians, it was too much work to wade through this mass
of
data. The one exception was C. L'Estrange Ewen. In 1929 he published the
first
systematic study of a country's trial records: Witch Hunting and Witch
Trials.
Focused on England, his work offered vivid evidence of how much data
literature
missed. In Essex County, for instance, Ewen found thirty times as many
trials as
any previous researcher. Scholars were basing their theories on only 3% of
the
available evidence. And that 3% was vastly different from the other 97%.
In the 1970's other researchers followed in Ewen's footsteps, so in the last
twenty-five years, the quantity and quality of available evidence has
dramatically improved. Now we can look at all the trials from an area and
see
what the "normal" trial was really like. Court documents frequently contain
detailed information on the gender, social status, and occupation of the
accused. Today, for the first time, we have a good idea of the dimensions of
the
Great Hunt: where the trials occurred, who was tried in them, who did the
killing, and how many people lost their lives.
400 In One Day: An Influential Forgery
Another, smaller breakthrough also profoundly altered our view of the early
history of the Great Hunt. In 1972, two scholars independently discovered
that a
famous series of medieval witch trials never happened.
The forgery was Etienne Leon de Lamothe-Langon's Histoire de l'Inquisition
en
France, written in 1829. Lamothe-Langon described enormous witch trials
which
supposedly took place in southern France in the early 14th century. Run by
the
Inquisition of Toulouse and Carcasonne, these trials killed hundreds upon
hundreds of people. The most famous was a craze where 400 women died in one
day.
No other French historian had noticed these trials.
In the early 20th century, the prominent historian Jacob Hansen included
large
sections of Lamothe-Langon's work in his compendium on medieval witchcraft.
Later historians cited Hansen's cites, apparently without closely examining
Lamothe-Langon's credentials. Non-academic writers cited the writers who
cited
Hansen, and thus Lamothe-Langon's dramatic French trials became a standard
part
of the popular view of the Great Hunt.
However, as more research was done, Lamothe-Langon's trials began to look
odd to
historians. No sources mentioned them, and they were completely different
from
all other 14th century trials. There were no other mass trials of this
nature
until 1428, no panics like this until the 16th century. Furthermore, the
demonology in the trials was quite elaborate, with sabbats and pacts and
enormous black masses. It was far more complex than the demonology of the
Malleus Maleficarum (1486). Why would the Inquisition think up this
elaborate
demonology, and then apparently forget it for two hundred years?
Questions like these led Norman Cohn (Europe's Inner Demons and "Three
Forgeries: Myths and Hoaxes of European Demonology II" in Encounter 44
(1975))
and Richard Kieckhefer (European Witch Trials) to investigate
Lamothe-Langon's
background. What they found was reasonably conclusive evidence that the
great
trials of the Histoire had never occurred.
First, Lamothe-Langon was a hack writer and known forger, not a historian.
Early
in his career he specialized in historical fiction, but he soon turned to
more
profitable horror novels, like The Head of Death, The Monastery of the Black
Friars, and The Vampire (or, The Virgin of Hungary). Then, in 1829, he
published
the Histoire, supposedly a work of non-fiction. After its success
Lamothe-Langon
went on to write a series of "autobiographies" of various French notables,
such
as Cardinal Richeleau, Louis XVIII, and the Comtesse du Barry.
Second, none of Lamothe-Langon's sources could be found, and there was
strong
reason to suspect they never existed. Lamothe-Langon claimed he was using
unpublished Inquisitorial records given to him by Bishop Hyacinthe Sermet --
Cohn found a letter from Sermet stating that there were no unpublished
records.
Lamothe-Langon had no training in paleography, the skill needed to translate
the
script and copious abbreviations used in medieval documents, and he was not
posted in Toulouse long enough to do any serious research in its archives.
Third, under close examination a number of flaws appeared in his stories. He
cited records written by seneschal Pierre de Voisins in 1275, but Voisins
ceased
being seneschal in 1254 and died not long after. The inquisitor who ran many
of
these trials was Pierre Guidonis (nephew of Bernard Gui from The Name of the
Rose). But Guidonis wasn't an inquisitor at the time when the trials were
held.
Cohn and Kieckhefer published their findings in 1972. Since, then academics
have
avoided this forged material. Unfortunately by this point, Lamothe-Langon's
lurid trials had entered into the mythology of witchcraft. While nobody
cites
Lamothe-Langon directly anymore, his fictions show up everywhere, including
both
Z Budapest's The Holy Book of Women's Mysteries and Raven Grimassi's The
Wiccan
Mysteries.
There's no simple way to weed out all of Lamothe-Langon's disinformation,
but a few guidelines will help:
a) Use scholarly texts written after 1975. b) Beware of any trial set in
Toulouse or Carcasonne. While these cities did have real cases, only the
forged
ones get cited regularly. c) Ignore any trial involving Anne-Marie de
Georgel or
Catherine Delort; they're forgeries. d) Ignore any trial that killed "400
women
in one day." This never happened. e) Avoid Jules Michelet's Satanism and
Witchcraft. Although he wrote a poetic and dramatic book, Michelet never
found
much historical evidence to support his theory that witchcraft was an
anti-Catholic protest religion. What little bit there was came from the
Lamothe-Langon forgeries. So when they were debunked, the last props for his
book collapsed. f) The appendix of Richard Kieckhefer's European Witch
Trials
contains a list of all known trials that occurred between 1300 and 1500.
The New Geography of Witch Hunting
The pattern revealed by trial records bears little resemblence to the
picture
literature painted. Every aspect of the Great Hunt, from chronology to death
toll, has changed. And if your knowledge of the "Burning Times" is based on
popular or Pagan literature, nearly everything you know may be wrong.

a) Chronology. Popular history places the witchcraft persecutions in the
Middle
Ages (5th-14th centuries). 19th century historians considered the Great Hunt
an
outburst of superstitious hysteria, fostered and spread by the Catholic
Church.
"Naturally", therefore, the persecution would be worst when the Church's
power
was the greatest: in the Middle Ages, before the Reformation split "the"
Church
into warring Catholic and Protestant sects. Certainly there were trials in
the
early modern period (15th-18th centuries), but they must have been a pale
shadow
of the horrors that came before.
Modern research has debunked this theory quite conclusively. Although many
stereotypes about witches pre-date Christianity, the lethal crazes of the
Great
Hunt were actually the child of the "Age of Reason." Lamothe-Langon's forged
trials were one of the last stumbling blocks that kept the theory of
medieval
witch hunting alive, and once these trials are removed, the development of
witchcraft stereotypes becomes much clearer. All pre-modern European
societies
believed in magick. As far as we can tell, all passed laws prohibiting
magickal
crimes. Pagan Roman law and the earliest Germanic and Celtic law codes all
contain edicts that punish people who cast baneful spells. This is only
common
sense: a society that believes in the power of magick will punish people who
abuse that power.
Many of the stereotypes about witches have been with us from pre-Christian
times. From the Mediterranean to Ireland, witches were said to fly about at
night, drinking blood, killing babies, and devouring human corpses. We know
this
because many early Christian missionaries encouraged newly converted
kingdoms to
pass laws protecting men and women from charges of witchcraft -- charges,
they
said, that were impossible and un-Christian. For example, the 5th century
Synod
of St. Patrick ruled that "A Christian who believes that there is a vampire
in
the world, that is to say, a witch, is to be anathematized; whoever lays
that
reputation upon a living being shall not be received into the Church until
he
revokes with his own voice the crime that he has committed." A capitulary
from
Saxony (775-790 CE) blamed these stereotypes on pagan belief systems:
"If anyone, deceived by the Devil, believes after the manner of the Pagans
that any
man or woman is a witch and eats men, and if on this account he burns [the
alleged witch]... he shall be punished by capital sentence."
In the Middle Ages, the laws on magick remained virtually unchanged. Harmful
magick was punished, and the lethal trials we know of tended to occur when a
noble felt that he or she had been bewitched. The Church also forbade magick
and
assigned relatively mild penalties to convicted witches. For instance, the
Confessional of Egbert (England, 950-1000 CE) said that "If a woman works
witchcraft and enchantment and [uses] magical philters, she shall fast [on
bread
and water] for twelve months.... If she kills anyone by her philters, she
shall
fast for seven years."
Traditional attitudes towards witchcraft began to change in the 14th
century, at
the very end of the Middle Ages. As Carlo Ginzburg noted (Ecstasies:
Deciphering
the Witches' Sabbat), early 14th century central Europe was seized by a
series
of rumor-panics. Some malign conspiracy (Jews and lepers, Moslems, or Jews
and
witches) was attempting to destroy the Christian kingdoms through magick and
poison. After the terrible devastation caused by the Black Death (1347-1349)
these rumors increased in intensity and focused primarily on witches and
"plague-spreaders".
Witchcraft cases increased slowly but steadily from the 14th-15th century.
The first mass trials appeared in the 15th century. At the beginning of the
16th
century, as the first shock-waves from the Reformation hit, the number of
witch
trials actually dropped. Then, around 1550, the persecution skyrocketed.
What we
think of as "the Burning Times" -- the crazes, panics, and mass hysteria --
largely occurred in one century, from 1550-1650. In the 17th century, the
Great
Hunt passed nearly as suddenly as it had arisen. Trials dropped sharply
after
1650 and disappeared completely by the end of the 18th century.

b) Geography Before Lamothe-Langon's forgeries were discovered, the
earliest
great hunts appeared to come from southern France. in an area once the home
of
the Cathar heresy. This led some historians to suggest a link between
Catharism
and witchcraft, that witches were the remnants of an old dualist faith.
After
you delete the forged trials, the center of the early cases shifts to
"Switzerland" and northern Italy, away from Cathar lands.
When all trials are plotted on a map, other surprising patterns emerge.
First,
the trials were intensely sporadic. The rate of witch hunting varied
dramatically throughout Europe, ranging from a high of 26,000 deaths in
Germany
to a low of 4 in Ireland. Robin Briggs' Witches and Neighbors can give you a
good feel for how erratic the trials were. It contains three maps showing
the
distribution of trials throughout Europe, throughout Germany, and throughout
the
French province of Lorraine, which Briggs studied in depth. They reveal that
some of the most enormous persecutions (like the panics of Wurzburg,
Germany)
occurred next to areas that had virtually no trials whatsoever.
Second, the trials were concentrated in central Europe, in Germany,
Switzerland,
and eastern France. The further you got away from that area, the lower the
persecution generally got.
Third, the height of the persecution occurred during the Reformation, when
the
formerly unified Christian Church shattered into Catholic and Protestant
sects.
In countries like Italy and Spain, where the Catholic Church and its
Inquisition
reigned virtually unquestioned, witch hunting was uncommon. The worst panics
took place in areas like Switzerland and Germany, where rival Christians
sects
fought to impose their religious views on each other.
Fourth, panics clustered around borders. France's major crazes occurred on
its
Spanish and eastern fronts. Italy's worst persecution was in the northern
regions. Spain's one craze centered on the Basque lands straddling the
French/Spanish border.
Fifth, although it has become commonplace to think of the outbreaks of witch
hunting as malevolent pogroms imposed by evil elites, in reality the worst
horrors occurred where central authority had broken down.
Germany and Switzerland were patchwork quilts, loose confederacies stitched
together from dozens of independent political units. England, which had a
strong government, had little witch hunting. The country's one and only
craze took place during the English
Civil War, when the government's power collapsed. A strong, unified national
church (as in Spain and Italy) also tended to keep deaths to a minimum.
Strong
governments didn't always slow witch hunting, as King James of Scotland
proved.
But the worst panics definitely hit where both Church and State were weak.
c) Christianity's Role in the Persecution For years, the responsibility for
the
Great Hunt has been dumped on the Catholic Church's door-step. 19th century
historians ascribed the persecution to religious hysteria. And when Margaret
Murray proposed that witches were members of a Pagan sect, popular writers
trumpeted that the Great Hunt was not a mere panic, but rather a deliberate
attempt to exterminate Christianity's rival religion.
Today, we know that there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory.
When
the Church was at the height of its power (11th-14th centuries) very few
witches
died. Persecutions did not reach epidemic levels until after the
Reformation,
when the Catholic Church had lost its position as Europe's indisputable
moral
authority. Moreover most of the killing was done by secular courts. Church
courts tried many witches but they usually imposed non-lethal penalties. A
witch
might be excommunicated, given penance, or imprisoned, but she was rarely
killed. The Inquisition almost invariably pardoned any witch who confessed
and
repented.
Consider the case in York, England, as described by Keith Thomas (Religion
and
the Decline of Magic). At the height of the Great Hunt (1567-1640) one half
of
all witchcraft cases brought before church courts were dismissed for lack of
evidence. No torture was used, and the accused could clear himself by
providing
four to eight "compurgators", people who were willing to swear that he
wasn't a
witch. Only 21% of the cases ended with convictions, and the Church did not
impose any kind of corporal or capital punishment.
The vast majority of witches were condemned by secular courts. Ironically,
the
worst courts were local courts. Some authors, like Anne Llewellyn Barstow
(Witchcraze), blame the death toll on the decline of the "community-based"
medieval court, and the rise of the centralized "national" court. Nothing
could
be further from the truth. "Community-based" courts were often virtual
slaughterhouses, killing 90% of all accused witches. National courts
condemned
only about 30% of the accused.
Why were the execution rates so vastly different? Civil courts tended to
handle
"black" witchcraft cases, trials involving charges of magickal murder,
arson,
and other violent crimes. Church courts tried more "white" witchcraft: cases
of
magickal healing, divination, and protective magick. Trial evidence shows
that
courts always treated healing more leniently than cursing. Additionally,
secular
and religious courts served two different purposes. Civil courts "protected"
society by punishing and killing convicted criminals. In theory, the
Church's
court system was designed to "save" the criminal -- to make him or her a
good
Christian once more. Only unrepentant sinners were to be executed. The
differences between local and national courts are also easy to explain.
Witchcraft cases were usually surrounded by general fear and public
protests.
"Community-based" courts drew their officials from the community, the group
of
people affected by this panic. National courts had more distance from the
hysteria. Moreover national courts tended to have professional, trained
staff --
men who were less likely to discard important legal safeguards in their
haste to
see "justice" done.
d) The Inquisition But what of the Inquisition? For many, the "Inquisition"
and
the "Burning Times" are virtually synonymous. The myth of the witch-hunting
inquisition was built on several assumptions and mistakes, all of which have
been overturned in the last twenty-five years. First, the myth was the
logical
extension of 19th century history, which blamed the persecutions on the
Catholic
Church. If the Church attacked witches, surely the Inquisition would be the
hammer She wielded.
Second, a common translation error muddied the waters. Many records simply
said
that a witch was tried "by inquisition". Some writers assumed that this
meant
"the" Inquisition. And in some cases it did. But an "inquisition" was also
the
name of a type of trial used by almost all courts in Europe at the time.
Later,
when historians examined the records in greater detail, they found that the
majority did not involve the Inquisition, merely an inquisition. Today most
historians are careful about this, but older and more popular texts (such as
Rossell Hope Robbins' Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology) still have
the
Inquisition killing witches in times and places where it did not even exist.
Third, the only witch-hunting manual most people have seen was written by an
inquisitor. In the 1970's, when feminist and Neo-Pagan authors turned their
attention to the witch trials, the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches)
was
the only manual readily available in translation. Authors naively assumed
that
the book painted an accurate picture of how the Inquisition tried witches.
Heinrich Kramer, the text's demented author, was held up as a typical
inquisitor. His rather stunning sexual preoccupations were presented as the
Church's "official" position on witchcraft. Actually the Inquisition
immediately
rejected the legal procedures Kramer recommended and censured the inquisitor
himself just a few years after the Malleus was published. Secular courts,
not
inquisitorial ones, resorted to the Malleus.
As more research was done and historians became more sensitive to the "an
inquisition/the Inquisition" error, the inquisitorial witch-hunter began to
look
like a rare bird. Lamothe-Langon's trials were the last great piece of
"evidence", and when they fell, scholars re-examined the Inquisition's role
in
the Burning Times. What they found was quite startling. In 1258 Pope
Alexander
IV explicitly refused to allow the Inquisition from investigating charges of
witchcraft: "The Inquisitors, deputed to investigate heresy, must not
intrude
into investigations of divination or sorcery without knowledge of manifest
heresy involved." The gloss on this passage explained what "manifest heresy"
meant: "praying at the altars of idols, to offer sacrifices, to consult
demons,
to elicit responses from them... or if [the witches] associate themselves
publicly with heretics." In other words, in the 13th century the Church did
not
consider witches heretics or members of a rival religion.
It wasn't until 1326, almost 100 years later, that the Church reversed its
position and allowed the Inquisition to investigate witchcraft. But the only
significant contribution that was made was in the development of
"demonology",
the theory of the diabolic origin of witchcraft. As John Tedeschi
demonstrates
in his essay "Inquisitorial Law and the Witch" (in Bengt Ankarloo and Gustav
Henningsen's Early Modern European Witchcraft) the Inquisition still played
a
very small role in the persecution. From 1326-1500, few deaths occurred.
Richard
Kieckhefer (European Witch Trials) found 702 definite executions in all of
Europe from 1300-1500; of these, only 137 came from inquisitorial or church
courts. By the time that trials were common (early 16th century) the
Inquisition
focused on the proto-Protestants. When the trials peaked in the 16th and
17th
century, the Inquisition was only operating in two countries: Spain and
Italy,
and both had extremely low death tolls.
In fact, in Spain the Inquisition worked diligently to keep witch trials to
a
minimum. Around 1609, a French witch-craze triggered a panic in the Basque
regions of Spain. Gustav Henningsen (The Witches' Advocate) documented the
Inquisition's work in brilliant detail. Although several inquisitors
believed
the charges, one skeptic convinced La Suprema (the ruling body of the
Spanish
Inquisition) that this was groundless hysteria. La Suprema responded by
issuing
an "Edict of Silence" forbidding all discussion of witchcraft. For, as the
skeptical inquisitor noted, "There were neither witches nor bewitched until
they
were talked and written about."
The Edict worked, quickly dissipating the panic and accusations. And until
the
end of the Great Hunt, the Spanish Inquisition insisted that it alone had
the
right to condemn witches -- which it refused to do. Another craze broke out
in
Vizcaya, in 1616. When the Inquisition re-issued the Edict of Silence, the
secular authorities went over their head and petitioned the king for the
right
to try witches themselves. The king granted the request, and 289 people were
quickly sentenced. Fortunately the Inquisition managed to re-assert its
monopoly
on trials and dismissed all the charges. The "witches" of Cataluna were not
so
lucky. Secular authorities managed to execute 300 people before the
Inquisition
could stop the trials.
e) The Witches Court records showed that there was no such thing as an
"average" witch: there was no characteristic that the majority of witches
shared, in all times and plac es. Not gender. Not wealth. Not religion.
Nothing.
The only thing that united them was the fact that they were accused of
witchcraft. The diversity of witches is one of the strongest arguments
against
the theory that the Great Hunt was a deliberate pogrom aimed at a specific
group
of people. If that was true, then most witches would have something in
common.
We can isolate certain factors that increased a person's odds of being
accused.
Most witches were women. Many were poor or elderly; many seem to be
unmarried.
Most were alienated from their neighbors, or seen as "different" and
disliked.
But there is no evidence that one group was targeted. Traditional magick
users
might have a slightly higher chance of being accused of witchcraft, but the
vast
majority of known "white" witches were never charged.
Before trial evidence was available, there were two major theories on who
the
witches were. Margaret Murray (The Witch Cult in Western Europe and The God
of
the Witches) proposed that witches were members of a Pagan sect that
worshipped
the Horned God. Murray's research was exceptionally poor, and occasionally
skated into out-right textual manipulation. She restricted her studies to
our
worst evidence: witch hunting propaganda and trials that involved copious
amounts of torture. She then assumed that such evidence was basically
accurate,
and that the Devil was "really" a Pagan god. None of these assumptions have
held
up under scrutiny.
In 1973, Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English suggested that most witches
were
mid-wives and female healers. Their book Witches, Midwives, and Nurses
convinced
many feminists and Pagans that the Great Hunt was a pogrom aimed at
traditional
women healers. The Church and State sought to break the power of these women
by
accusing them of witchcraft, driving a wedge of fear between the wise-woman
and
her clients.
The evidence for this theory was -- and is -- completely anecdotal. Authors
cited a number of cases involving healers, then simply assumed that this was
what the "average" trial was like. However a mere decade after Witches,
Midwives, and Nurses was published, we knew that this was not true. Healers
made
up a small percentage of the accused, usually between 2% and 20%, depending
on
the country. There was never a time or a place where the majority of accused
witches were healers. In 1990, D. Harley's article, "Historians as
demonologists: the myth of the midwife-witch" (in Social History of Medicine
3
(1990), pp. 1-26.) demonstrated that being a licensed midwife actually
decreased
a woman's changes of being charged.
And there was worse to come. Feminist and Pagan writers presented the
healer-witch as the innocent, enlightened victim of the evil male witch
hunters.
Trials showed that as often as not, the "white" witch was an avid supporter
of
the "Burning Times." Diane Purkiss (The Witch in History) pointed out that
"midwives were more likely to be found helping witch-hunters" than as
victims of
their inquiries. How did witches become witch-hunters? By blaming illnesses
on
their rivals. Feminist authors rightly lambasted male doctors who blamed
unexplained illnesses on witches. Trial records suggest that this did
happen,
though not terribly often. If you look at doctors' case books you find that
in
most cases doctors found natural causes when people thought they were
bewitched.
When they did diagnose witchcraft, doctors almost never blamed a particular
healer or witch. They were trying to explain their failure, not to destroy
some
individual.
Traditional healers and "white" witches routinely blamed diseases on
witchcraft.
For a doctor, diagnosing "witchcraft" was admitting failure. Medicine could
do
nothing against magick, and doctors were loathe to admit that they were
powerless against a disease. However baneful magick was the forte of the
helpful
(or "white" witch). Folk healers regularly blamed illnesses on magick and
offered counter-spells to cure their patients. Many were even willing to
divine
the name of the cursing witch, for a fee.
f) Gender Issues One basic fact about the Great Witch Hunt stands out: most
of
the people accused were women. Even during the Hunt itself, commentators
noticed
this. Some speculated that there were 10,000 female witches for every male
witch, and a host of misogynist explanations were trotted out to account for
this fact. Later, the predominance of women led some feminists to theorize
that
"witch" and "woman" were virtually synonymous, that the persecution was
caused
by Europe's misogyny.
Overall, approximately 75% -80% of the accused were women. However this
percentage varied dramatically. In several of the Scandinavian countries,
equal
numbers of men and women were accused. In Iceland over 90% of the accused
were men. Central Europe killed the most witches, and it killed many more
women than men -- this is why the overall percentages are so badly skewed.
Proponents of the misogyny theory generally ignore these variations. Many
simply
do not discuss male witches. One of the most egregious examples comes from
Anne
Llewellyn Barstow's Witchcraze. Barstow says that Iceland did not have a
"real"
witch hunt. Now, Iceland killed more witches than Ireland, Russia, and
Portugal
combined. Barstow claims that all these countries had "real" hunts, and
offers
no explanation of what made Iceland's deaths "unreal." The only thing I can
see
is that almost all Icelandic witches were men, and Barstow's theory cannot
handle that.
Given the sexism of the times, it's not difficult to find shockingly
misogynist
witch trials. But misogyny does not explain the trial patterns we see. The
beginning and end of the persecution don't correlate to any notable shifts
in
women's rights. Trials clustered around borders -- are borders more
misogynist
than interior regions? Ireland killed four witches, Scotland a couple
thousand
-- are the Scots that much more sexist? Barstow admits that Russia was every
bit
as misogynist as Germany, yet it killed only ten witches. Her theory can't
explain why, and so she simply insists that there were probably lots of
other
Russian witches killed and they were probably mostly women. We've just lost
all
the evidence that would support her theory.
>From Nine Million to Forty Thousand
The most dramatic changes in our vision of the Great Hunt centered on the
death
toll. Back before trial surveys were available, estimates of the death toll
were
almost 100% pure speculation. The only thing our literary evidence told us
was
that a lot of witches died. Witch hunting propaganda talked about thousands
and
thousands of executions. Literature focused on crazes, the largest and most
sensational trials around. But we had no idea how accurate the literary
evidence
was, or how common trials actually were. So early death toll estimates,
which
ranged from several hundred thousand up to a high of nine million, were
simply
people trying to guess how much "a lot" of witches was.
Today, the process is completely different. Historians begin by counting all
the
executions/trials listed in an area's court records. Next they estimate how
much
evidence we've lost: what years and courts we're missing data for. Finally
they
survey the literary evidence, to see if any large witch trials occurred
during
the gaps in the evidence. There's still guess-work involved in today's
estimates
and many areas have not yet been systematically studied. But we now have a
solid
data-base to build our estimates from, and our figures are getting more
specific
as further areas are studied.
When the first trial record studies were completed, it was obvious that
early
estimates were fantastically high. Trial evidence showed that witch crazes
were
not everyday occurrences, as literature suggested. In fact most countries
only
had one or two in all of the Great Hunt.
To date, less than 15,000 definite executions have been discovered in all of
Europe and America combined. (If you would like a table of the recorded and
estimated death tolls throughout Europe, and a full list of the sources for
these figures, send me a note at jennyg@--------) Even though many
records are missing, it is now clear that death tolls higher than 100,000
are
not believable.
Three scholars have attempted to calculate the total death toll for the
Great
Hunt using the new evidence. Brian Levack (The Witch Hunt in Early Modern
Europe) surveyed regional studies and found that there were approximately
110,000 witch trials. Levack focused on recorded trials, not executions,
because
in many cases we have evidence that a trial occurred but no indication of
its
outcome. On average, 48% of trials ended in an execution, therefore he
estimated
that 60,000 witches died. This is slightly higher than 48% to reflect the
fact
that Germany, the center of the persecution, killed more than 48% of its
witches.
Ronald Hutton (The Pagan Religions of the British Isles and "Counting the
Witch
Hunt", an unpublished essay) used a different methodology. First he surveyed
the
regional studies and counted up the number of estimated deaths they
contained.
When he ran into an uncounted area, he looked for a counted area which
matched
it as closely as possible, in terms of population, culture, and the
intensity of
witch hunting mentioned in literary evidence. He then assumed that the
uncounted
area would kill roughly as many witches as the counted area. Using this
technique, he estimated that 40,000 witches died in the Great Hunt.
Anne Llewellyn Barstow (Witchcraze) estimated that 100,000 witches died, but
her
reasoning was flawed. Barstow began with Levack's 60,000 deaths. Then she
increased it to 100,000 for two reasons: 1) To compensate for lost records;
and
2) Because new trials are still being found.
This may sound reasonable, but it's not. The 110,000 estimated witch trials
that
Levack based his calculations on already did contain a large allowance for
lost
records. Barstow was apparently unaware of this, and added more deaths for
no
good reason. Her point about new trials is true, but irrelevant. Yes, more
deaths are being discovered each year. But the more we find, the lower the
death
toll goes. This makes sense once you understand how historians make their
estimates. "New" trials aren't trials we never dreamed existed. They appear
when
we count areas and courts that haven't been counted before. Historians have
always known that our data was imperfect, and they always included estimates
for
lost trials. So when you find "new" executions, you can't simply add them to
the
total death toll: you also have to subtract the old estimate they're
replacing.
And since old estimates were generally far too high, newly "found" trials
usually end up lowering the death toll.
Why It Matters
These changes make it critically important to use up-to-date research if
you're
investigating historical witchcraft. We have perhaps 20 times as much
information as we had two decades ago. Witchcraft studies has also become an
inter-disciplinary field. Once the domain of historians alone, it now
attracts
anthropologists and sociologists who offer radically new interpretations of
the
Great Hunt. Anthropologists point out the ubiquity of witchcraft beliefs,
demonstrating that the Great Hunt was not an exclusively European
phenomenon.
Sociologists draw chilling parallels between the Great Hunt and recent
panics
over Satanic cults, evidence which hints that we're still not out of the
shadow
of the Burning Times.
We Neopagans now face a crisis. As new data appeared, historians altered
their
theories to account for it. We have not. Therefore an enormous gap has
opened
between the academic and the "average" Pagan view of witchcraft. We continue
to
use of out-dated and poor writers, like Margaret Murray, Montague Summers,
Gerald Gardner, and Jules Michelet. We avoid the somewhat dull academic
texts
that present solid research, preferring sensational writers who play to our
emotions. For example, I have never seen a copy of Brian Levack's The Witch
Hunt
in Early Modern Europe in a Pagan bookstore. Yet half the stores I visit
carry
Anne Llewellyn Barstow's Witchcraze, a deeply flawed book which has been
ignored
or reviled by most scholarly historians.
We owe it to ourselves to study the Great Hunt more honestly, in more
detail,
and using the best data available. Dualistic fairy tales of noble witches
and
evil witch hunters have great emotional appeal, but they blind us to what
happened. And what could happen, today. Few Pagans commented on the haunting
similarities between the Great Hunt and America's panic over Satanic cults.
Scholars noticed it; we didn't. We say "Never again the Burning!" But if we
don't know what happened the first time, how are we ever going to prevent it
from happening again?

Jenny Gibbons has an M.A. in medieval history and minored in the history of
the
Great Hunt.
You can contact her at jennyg@-------- This article originally
appeared
in issue #5 of the Pomegranate (Lammas, 1998). Reprinted with permission.




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you like to save big on your phone bill -- and keep on saving
more each month? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you Long Distance
rates which fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!
http://click.egroups.com/1/2567/6/_/61050/_/959990698/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] European Lions
From:	SerPhoenicius@--------
Date:	Fri, 2 Jun 2000 21:16:37 EDT

Ave Marcus Prometheus,

Most sources--including Herodotus and Aristotle--limit the European lion to
the Balkans, but some authorities indicate that they were also found on the
Iberian peninsula. The more recent ones all seem to agree that they survived
until the 1st or 2nd century C.E. No remains of these animals have been
found, however, so it is impossible to know where to place them within the
already taxonomically complex leonine species. I'm afraid that this exhausts
the little knowledge I have on this subject. I too would wecome additional
information on this matter.

Vale,

CVLTELLVS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/959995010/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] War elephants(was Theological Correctness)
From:	SerPhoenicius@--------
Date:	Fri, 2 Jun 2000 21:29:22 EDT

Avete,

<< The only important big animal species which comes to my mind and which
disappared about 300 years ago from Europe is BOS PRIMIGENIUS (lat.) or
BOUR (romanian) or URO (italian), it lived in Eastern Europe, DACIA, Poland
etc. >>

This animal, better known to English-speakers as the auroch, has been the
goal of more than one selective breeding attempt using domestic cattle
breeds. While the results look a bit like the original animal--save in their
relatively deficient stature--they are decidedly not aurochs.

Valete,

CVLTELLVS



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/6/_/61050/_/959995770/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] ATTN (Religio Romana): ante diem III Nonas Iunii (June 3rd)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:34:55 +0100

Salvete omnes

This is a dies comitiales (C), when committees of citizens can vote on
political or criminal matters.

Today is the aniversary of the 'dedicatio' of the temple of Bellona on the
Campus Martius. Bellona is a Goddess of war. It is in front her temple that
a column is placed from which the war is declared.

Pax Deorum vobiscum

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you like to save big on your phone bill -- and keep on saving
more each month? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you Long Distance
rates which fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!
http://click.egroups.com/1/2567/6/_/61050/_/960032142/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] ATTN (Religio Romana): Pridie Nonas Iunii (June 4th)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:46:03 +0100

Salvete omnes

As I will not be here tomorrow, here is the religious note:

****************************************************************************
*************
This is a dies comitiales (C), when committees of citizens can vote on
political or criminal matters.

Today is the aniversary of the temple of Hercules Magnus Custos, Hercules
the Great Guardian.

Pax Deorum vobiscum

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find long lost high school friends:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4056/6/_/61050/_/960032814/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Silphium, Pass the silphium, please
From:	Piscinus@--------
Date:	Sat, 03 Jun 2000 12:11:50 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "M G" <fresco@f...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Piscinus@-------->
> To: <novaroma@-------->
> Sent: Friday, 02 June, 2000 11:39 PM
> Subject: [novaroma] Re: Silphium, Pass the silphium, please
>
>
> > Salvete Quirites
> >
> > Re: SILPHIUM: M. Prometheus interrogat:
>
> Do you also know if it is again appreciated and exported outside
north Africa? and if it is currently used in some recipe in North
Africa,in Europe or USA?

References to silphium depends upon which plant is identified with
it. The problem arises from ancient texts to begin with. Soranus
refers to a "Cyrenaic juice" that Columella identified as a "laser
Cyrenaicum" and that Pliny considered a "ferula". Translators of
Pliny have varied between identifying silphium with a modern ferula,
a kind of saffron, as well as other plants, or have simply taken
silphium to be extinct. Pliny wrote, "laserpicium quod Graeco
silphion vocant, in Cyrenaica provincia repertum, cuius sucum laser
vocatur (Nat. Hist:19.15.38 to which there is the gloss "sucus herbae
ferula)." Isadore wrote, " laser herba... cuius sucus dictus primum
lacsir quoniam...hoc et a quibusdam opium Cyrenaicum appellatur
(Origines: 17.9.27)." Pliny mentions that silphium or laser in
Cyrene had not been found "for many years" (NH 19.15.35), leading to
the idea in later years that it had become extinct. However in the
4th cent. ce Synesius of Cyrene, a christist bishop befriended by
Hypatia, mentions that silphium was still to be found growing on his
brother's farm.

One north African plant identified with silphium is "thaspia
garganica", also called laserpicium, panacea d' Esculapio, tapsia,
gargan death carrot or faux turbith. Most authorities spend their
time denying that this particular plant was the silphium of the
Ancients. But if you travel to Libya today it is the plant most
likely to be identified as silphium by the locals. This plant has a
resin extracted from the bark of its root by alcohol, which is
exported primarily as an additive to plaster.

The same resinous product is produced from "ferula tingitana", which
I identified with Pliny's laser in my previous post. This herb grows
from Portuagal and Spain, along the coasts of Africa from Moracco to
Libya, then in Israel, Lebanon, Syria and into western Turkey. Other
names for this silphium/laser are ammoniak, ferula hispanica, or rouy.

Another herb sometimes identified with silphium is asafoetida, which
Pliny referred to as an "inferior Syrian siphium." This herb grows
from eastern Syria and Turkey to Afganistan and India. Asafoetida is
primarily used in herbal medicinal extracts for the European market.
It is used in heeng, or hing, sauces of India, in which "ferula
tingitana" is also sometimes used. Heeng may be found in Indian
specialty stores in parts of Africa, Europe and US. Asafoetida is a
main ingredient in Worchester sauce, which is often used as a
substitute for silphium by those using Apicius' recipes.

> And perhaps the Arab name ?

I have been cruising through a number of websites that I usually
employ to help identify herbs when foraging, and I am surprised to
find that I can not find an Arabic name for any of these herbs.

> And anybody has some ancient recipe where Silphium was used ?

There are different translations of Apicius' recipes available. I
use "The Roman Cookery of Apicius" by John Edwards, which is not
satisfactory. Also Jeff Smith has coverted some ancient recipes for
modern tastes in his "Frugal Gourmet cooks three ancient cuisines:
China, Greece, Rome". Other sources have previously been posted of
which I am unfamiliar.
I would like to know if anyone has any source for Roman cuisine other
than Apicius?
My understanding of the ancient use of laser was that it was grated
onto dishes as a garnish. Other than growing your own I don't see
how someone in the states would find any of the above mentioned herbs
other than in a prepared sauce. But as a dedicated frumentator I
might suggest angelica as a fresh herb substitute.

Speculation as to why silphium might have become extinct, accepting
the idea that silphium refers to an herb unknown to us today, is that
it is most often refered to as an abortificient. A very good source
on this topic of herbal abortificients and emmegogues mentioned in
ancient texts is John M. Riddle's "Contraception and Abortion from
the Ancient World to the Renaissance."

Valete
Piscine


------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLICK HERE AND START SAVING ON LONG DISTANCE BILLS TODAY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4125/6/_/61050/_/960034315/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Silphium, Pass the silphium, please
From:	"Jane or Patricia " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Sat, 03 Jun 2000 13:12:43 -0000

> SILPHIUM, from its Greek name, or more properly LASER to the
Latins,
> and generally identified with *ferula tingitana*, HAS returned to
> North Africa. It also never went extinct outside of the imperial
> boundaries. LASER remains the main ingredient in Indian sauces
> called *heeng*.

I remember reading somewhere of an herb that was used as a
contraceptive or abortifacient and was so popular that it died out.
Was
this it? Was any of that true?

Patricia Cassia



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free @Backup service! Click here for your free trial of @Backup.
@Backup is the most convenient way to securely protect and access
your files online. Try it now and receive 300 MyPoints.
http://click.egroups.com/1/4935/6/_/61050/_/960037977/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Silphium, Pass the silphium, please
From:	"Jane or Patricia " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Sat, 03 Jun 2000 13:23:23 -0000

Ooops! Never mind, Piscinus answered my question in a later post.
Thank
you for all the wonderful information!

Patricia Cassia



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/6/_/61050/_/960038612/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Silphium, Pass me the silphium please
From:	"Cornelius Scriptor" <cornelius_scriptor@-------->
Date:	Sat, 03 Jun 2000 14:04:28 -0000

>SILPHIUM, from its Greek name, or more properly LASER to the
>Latins,
>and generally identified with *ferula tingitana*, HAS returned to
>North Africa. It also never went extinct outside of the imperial
>boundaries. LASER remains the main ingredient in Indian sauces
>called *heeng*.

Really? I really tought it was extinct, since we do have some
representations of silphium plants on coins (they kinda look-like
prehistoric plants) and no one identified them with actual plants
(well, for what I was told). Do you know where I can find any
information on that? I have a friend doing a research on silphium,
and since some of my friends are in North Africa right now, I can as
well ask them for pictures. If the research is interesting enough,
maybe I can ask her to translate it and put it on the web.

Scriptor


------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/960041072/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: looking for sewng information
From:	asseri@--------
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 10:41:34 EDT

Hello all,
I sent this once but it got caught up in the middle to the
misunderstanding. Since I didn't see it in my digest I thought I would try
again with some results
P.A. Oliviva

Salve one and all!
Ahh spring has come and I am again sewing my summer array of proper Roman
garb. I am also very active in the local branch of the SCA. I have an Islamic
persona of the 9th century. I can tell you all about Islamic seam structure
and many of the embroidery stitches.
However I cannot tell you a darn thing about how Roman seams were
approached. Did they use a combination of stitches? In early Islam like today
they used a running stitch and then a French seam with a whip stitch on the
inside then chain stitch to decorate the seam on the outside of the garment.
Does anyone know? Does anyone have a clue where I might find out?
I have sewn garment by hand in the past and it can go quite quickly. It can
be fun too!
So any help will be appreciated

Vale
P. Anncinna Olivia
Shieka Aminah of the Middle Kingdom >>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/6/_/61050/_/960043310/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Silphium, Pass me the silphium please
From:	Piscinus@--------
Date:	Sat, 03 Jun 2000 14:42:03 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Cornelius Scriptor"
<cornelius_scriptor@--------> wrote:
>
>
> Really? I really tought it was extinct, since we do have some
> representations of silphium plants on coins (they kinda look-like
> prehistoric plants) and no one identified them with actual plants
> (well, for what I was told). Do you know where I can find any
> information on that? I have a friend doing a research on silphium,
> and since some of my friends are in North Africa right now, I can
as
> well ask them for pictures. If the research is interesting enough,
> maybe I can ask her to translate it and put it on the web.
>
> Scriptor

Salve Cornelius Scriptor

I think most of your questions may have been answered by my second
posting on this subject. In there I did mention that I have been
unable to locate any information about the Arabic names for the
plants I indicated. My understanding is that both "ferula tingitana"
and "thapsia garganica" or "thapsia silphion" currently can be found
in North Africa. Unfortunately, too, my sources do not seem to have
any photos to help identify these plants; something they are usually
good for, but mostly for North American plants. I would be most
curious about the Arabic names myself. It is possible that a
Latinized form of an Arabic name for silphium would turn up in a
Medieval text, and I am currently looking into that possibility.

Best wishes to you and your friend
Di vobis semper conservent
Piscine


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/6/_/61050/_/960043337/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Senate results
From:	Ira Adams <iadams@-------->
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:01:02 -0500

Salvete Quirites!

These are the announced results of the voting in the Senate:

1. Patricia Cassia is confirmed as List Moderator.
2. The third Senate mailing list is to be removed.
3. A set of standards for provincial Praetores was approved. Presumeably
they will be published on the Website soon.
4. Guidelines for formation of new provinciae failed to pass for need of
further refinement.
5. Policy on relations with other nations failed to pass more work needed.
6. The Outreach Sodalitas was approved.
7. A "Nova Roma Expense Procedure and Expense Form" was approved. [Now we
can be certain we have a real government -- we have policies and
procedures and now forms!!!]
8. Provincial budgetary procedures were approved.
9. The vote of confidence on the Censorial "gender edict" failed.
Apparently the edict itself was revised several times during the debate,
and the two Censores are not in agreement about it, so they are to work
it out.
If anyone wonders why I'm using Arabian numerals instead of Roman, it's
partly because I think they are more functional in a list of sentences,
and partly because the Roman numerals are still so confusing that even
our esteemed Consules misnumbered their list. ;-)

Item #9 seems to introduce some ambiguity about the legal status of this
edict. A Senatus Consultus refuting the edict would kill it, but it is
less clear that a failed "vote of confidence" has that effect.
Disagreement between the two Censores might be construed as killing it
(one Censor can veto the act of another), but no formal intercessio has
been pronounced. So it is unclear now (at least to me) whether this edict
is currently enforceable or not. For that matter, the edict itself no
longer is in its original form but no new version has been published, so
it appears that in its present form it is not legally in effect. Perhaps
some of our legal experts can clarify (or further muddle) this for us.

Valete,

Lucius Sergius Australicus
Tribunus Plebis

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/960048074/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Senate results
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 17:11:36 +0100

Salvete

Just a small legal note.


>Disagreement between the two Censores might be construed as killing it
>(one Censor can veto the act of another), but no formal intercessio has
>been pronounced.
The Constitution (see Constitution IV.A.1) does not give the Censores the
power of intercessio. Even if we interpret that the two Censores must agree
on enacted edicts, Sulla was sole Censor at the time his edict was enacted
and as such, the Edict STANDS.

>So it is unclear now (at least to me) whether this edict
>is currently enforceable or not.
The original Edict was not removed and so it is enforceable.

Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/960048664/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Senate results - Legalese
From:	RexMarcius@--------
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 13:03:49 EDT

Salvete!

This is another "small" legal note regarding Senate Item #9:

1. Vote of no-confidence

The Constitution states in I.B. that "Should a lower authority conflict with
a higher authority, the higher authority shall take precedence." A vote of
no confidence in a senatus consultum (higher authority) against a Censorial
edictum (lower authority) could certainly be and obviously is also conceived
as some form of "conflict".

But the matter seems more clear taking into account the essence of the next
sentence of I.B. of the Constitution :"Should a law passed by one comitia cont
radict one passed by another or the same comitia without explicitly
superceding that law, the most recent law shall take precedence." Therefore,
in order to create a "conflict" between different legal texts (the rule is
not necessarily restricted to laws!) in the sense meant by the Constitution,
a clear contradiction is necessary. A vote of no confidence is IMHO a policy
statement and not a contradiction. If it were otherwise, the Senate in its
wisdom would certainly have used a different and absolutely clear wording,
would it not?

The senatus consultum in my view does therefore not affect the legal validity
of the edictum.

2. Old and new Form

The law governing the issuance of magisterial edicta is the LEX VEDIA DE
RATIONE EDICTUM. Usually issuance and publication of an edictum go hand in
hand, but here in the case for the "new" edictum, no such publication has
taken place (it seems).

The most important sentence of the law in this respect is: "While edicta may
be issused (sic!) and acted upon under the authority of the issuing
magistrate, edicta shall be published in at least one of the following public
forums within 72 hours of their issuance: the officially sponsored email list
or the officially sponsored Internet message board. Such edicta shall be
posted in the aerarium Saturni by the curator araneum as soon as practical."

Publication is NOT a condition of validity, it only marks the beginning of
the time limit for intercessio, which, in the case of a censorial edictum can
only be in the form of a (collegial) Tribunician Veto, as the Censores are
the most senior magistrates (therefore Consuls can not veto) and they do not
themselve have the power of intercessio (therefore the other Censor can not
veto).

So if the new version of the edictum has indeed already been issued and it
explicitly revokes the old one (our praetor seems to prefer the term
"removal"), it has precedence over the old one. If it does not explicitly
supercede the old one, the same rule as for laws in the constitution applies
(I.B.) and the more recent edictum has precedence, but only as far as it
contradicts the old one.

Just a few thoughts and I know I am no Ulpian.....

Marcus Marcius Rex
Propraetor Germaniae

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missing old school friends? Find them here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4055/6/_/61050/_/960051837/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Senate results - Legalese
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 18:25:46 +0100

Salvete iterum

Thank you Marcus Marcius Rex.

Nevertheless, there was not even a "vote of no confidence". What happenned
was that there was NO "vote of confidence", which serves as a mere
abstension.

Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Praetor


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/6/_/61050/_/960053114/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Senate results - Legalese
From:	RexMarcius@--------
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 13:31:59 EDT

Salve Praetor!

Thank you for clarifying the point about the vote on Item #9...I thought from
the description given by the Tribune, that a vote of confidence had taken
place but had failed (which would technically have made it a vote of
no-confidence, I guess).

Marcus Marcius Rex
Propraetor Germaniae

P.S.: How is life in Lusitania!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/960053529/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Re:Witch Hunt
From:	"Happy Bunny" <fionaerin@-------->
Date:	Sat, 03 Jun 2000 10:38:14 PDT

Salve Marcus Prometheus,

Thank you for sharing this is on the list, I will enjoy reading it.



Vale
Aeternia Draconia
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buy and sell used, rare and vintage gear at the Web's best
music gear auction. Register to enter the weekly gear giveaway!
http://click.egroups.com/1/3735/6/_/61050/_/960053895/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Senate results - Legalese
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 13:47:47 -0400

Salvete!

I think that a legalistic approach to this issue is premature. Sulla
produced a revise of his Edict, which was submitted to the Senate for
endorsement. In the course of the discussion it appeared that the Censors
had not actually reached agreement on the draft submitted to the vote.
Several Senators commented when voting to the effect that a negative vote
would as it were put the ball back in the Censors' court. It appeared from
the discussion that the Censors were going to continue to discuss the
issue, so I guess it will come back to the Senate pretty soon. So we only
need to worry about what's in force if it doesn't....

Incidentally, there is a passage of Cicero, In Verrem (I don't have the
reference here) which seems to suggest that Praetors could issue edicts
which were contradictory of one another. If no-one vetoed either, the
litigants would then get different decisions depending on the Praetor they
chose to go to. Have we managed to exclude this possibility?

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/960054525/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Senate results
From:	sfp55@--------
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 14:05:02 EDT

In a message dated 6/3/2000 9:01:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
iadams@-------- writes:

<< it's
partly because I think they are more functional in a list of sentences,
and partly because the Roman numerals are still so confusing that even
our esteemed Consules misnumbered their list. ;-) >>
If you are talking about XI for IX, guilty. I was very tired and wanted to
get the info out.
QFM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/960055505/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Senate results The edict.
From:	sfp55@--------
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 14:22:37 EDT

In a message dated 6/3/2000 9:01:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
iadams@-------- writes:

<< A Senatus Consultus refuting the edict would kill it, but it is
less clear that a failed "vote of confidence" has that effect.
Disagreement between the two Censores might be construed as killing it
(one Censor can veto the act of another), but no formal intercessio has
been pronounced. So it is unclear now (at least to me) whether this edict
is currently enforceable or not. For that matter, the edict itself no
longer is in its original form but no new version has been published, so
it appears that in its present form it is not legally in effect. Perhaps
some of our legal experts can clarify (or further muddle) this for us. >>
Salvete!
It can can be summed up as this:
I. The Censor's original edict is still in effect.
II. The edict will be withdrawn when the Censors issue a new edict to replace
it.
They are working on it now. (Censors never sleep!)
III. The Senate voted to support the Censors second edict which was issued
two days before the Senate was summoned.
IV. This had broad support, but was rewritten by two Senators, during the
debate because they thought the Censors original writing could be polished
better.
V. This revised edict confused many of the members of the Senate, including
the Consuls.
VI. The consensus of most Senators after this was "Let the Censors take care
of it. We don't want to waste on time on this anymore."
VII. Which brings me back to point II.
Before there is a huge uproar about this fact, Romans, I say let the Censors
do their work and wait to see the result.
Thank you to the Tribune for bring this to my attention.
Valete!
Q. Fabius Maximus


------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/960056564/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Lone Tribune on the "Gender Edict"
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 15:01:36 EDT

Salvete Quirites

I rise in the Forum as Tribune of the Plebs, charged by the Constitution
with the duty of defending the spirit and letter of that Constitution.
The "Gender Edict" of Lucius Cornelius Sulla, a fine and honorable Roman
and magistrate, seriously violates the spirit and letter of the
Constitution and the future of the Republic. It has already cost us good
citizens and prospective citizens, and it puts us at odds with the laws
of the civilized world.

You ask why it is such an awful thing that we require that a citizen's
Roman name must accurately reflect their physical genitalia?

I originally thought it was a little thing. Petitioned for assistance by
the single citizen against whom this "little thing" was aimed (for
although the Censor is an honorable man, the edict was indisputably aimed
at Lucius Marius Fimbria and no other, no other being affected by it then
or now), I undertook to argue the case as a matter of duty and not as a
matter of conviction. I soon became angered by the evident contempt some
of our magistrates and senators displayed for the interests and feelings
of this "mere citizen". When my former colleague, Gn. Tarquinius Caesar,
also expressed the opinion that the matter of Fimbria's treatment was
beneath his consideration, the only remaining option was for Fimbria to
take the matter before the Comitia Plebis Tributa, which has the power to
issue a plebiscite overriding the Censor's edict. Fimbria elected instead
to trust to the goodwill of the Censor, an honorable man who offered a
compromise but subsequently delayed the implementation of it, provoking
Fimbria to resign from citizenship in frustration and hurt.

The Censor, although indisputably a noble Roman and an honorable man,
then issued additional edicts, some of which were clearly aimed at
preventing Fimbria from reapplying for citizenship except on his terms.
Honorable men clearly sometimes become caught up in doing dishonorable
things. This edict and the others buttressing it are clearly dishonorable
things. They bring dishonor upon the whole of our Republic. They shame us
before the other nations of the world. They are contrary to the
application of law in most civilzed countries. They are contrary to the
spirit and the letter of our own Constitution, which states "Citizenship
is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious
affiliation, or sexual orientation." ANY EDICT THAT PROPOSES TO DENY OR
LIMIT THE RIGHTS OF A PERSON FOR DECLINING TO SHOW OR TELL THE CENSOR
WHAT THEY HAVE IN THEIR PANTS IS CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF THE INTENT OF
THAT CLAUSE.

This edict and those supporting it are not only contrary to the laws of
the civilized world, thereby not only placing us in disgrace but also
making us potentially liable to legal action in some of the jurisdictions
in which we dwell. This edict and those supporting it also are
gratuitously unkind and hurtful, and divisive of our citizenry. They must
be offensive to our Gods and Goddesses, many of whom have changed gender
during their histories. They represent the unwarranted and unwarrantable
intrusion of governmental power into the private concerns of ONE CITIZEN.

What comes next? An edict that I may not call myself Australicus because
I don't currently dwell in Australia? An edict that Damianus Lucianus
Dexippus may not rejoin us unless he never again refers to himself as a
female? What kind of intrusions into citizen's lives will be allowable if
this mean and petty and disgraceful edict, however honorably intended, is
allowed to stand?

The Senate, the authority of which outranks any magistrate's edict, has
voted "no confidence" in this edict in ANY of the three versions
presented to the Senate. As far as I am concerned, that overrides the
edict in any of its forms and it IS NOT ENFORCEABLE. However, it is
obvious to me that this matter will never be fully settled until there is
a law made OTHER THAN BY SINGLE MAGISTRATES PUSHING THEIR OWN AGENDAE,
however honorably intended. This thing needs to be settled and it needs
to be settled by a vote of the citizens of Nova Roma.

Therefore, I CALL UPON THE CONSULES to convene the Comitia Centuriata and
hold a contio, to be followed by a vote to decide once and for all if
Nova Roma is going to use issues relating to gender to restrict
citizenship or the personal choices of citizens.

In the meantime, as Tribunus Plebis I pronounce intercessio against the
currently unpublished version of this edict and against any action by the
Censors that would limit admission to citizenship of any person on
account of any gender-related issues, including the grammatical gender of
the prospective citizen's chosen name.

It is rumored that my former colleague, Gnaeus Tarquinius Caesar, has
rescinded his resignation from the Tribunate. He still has not been heard
from, but if this is legitimate then he may publish his support of, or
may block, this intercessio. If he has not done one or the other within a
reasonable time, then as the pronouncement of the only active Tribunus
Plebis, it will stand.

Quirites, let us remove this dishonor from the Republic and get our
government out of our underwear! Or if not, then let it be a decision of
the people of Nova Roma, and not one of our honorable Censor simply
pursuing a vendetta against his friend.

Valete,

Lucius Sergius Australicus
Tribunus Plebis


sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

(I think some people in togas are plotting against me.)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you like to save big on your phone bill -- and keep on saving
more each month? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you Long Distance
rates which fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!
http://click.egroups.com/1/2567/6/_/61050/_/960058903/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Senate results
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 15:16:31 EDT

Salve Consul,

Merely my attempt at gentle humor. I know you know your numerals.

On 6/3/00 1:05 PM Quintus Fabius Maximus (sfp55@--------) wrote:

>In a message dated 6/3/2000 9:01:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>iadams@-------- writes:
>
><< it's
> partly because I think they are more functional in a list of sentences,
> and partly because the Roman numerals are still so confusing that even
> our esteemed Consules misnumbered their list. ;-) >>
>If you are talking about XI for IX, guilty. I was very tired and wanted to
>get the info out.
>QFM

With regard to the other matter, I have re-read all three of your posts
on the results of the voting, and it is still unclear to me what the
Senate actually voted on with respect to Sulla's edict...

>IX. On Lucius Cornelius Sulla's Edict. Call for a Vote of confidence.
>7 Yes 9 No 1 Abstention Item fails.
>
>" This Item went through three rewrites while being debated on the Senate
>floor. The votes
>were orginally there to pass the item, but because of this confusion, and
>the fact that the Censors disagreed, the Senate decided to not to support
>this,
>and let the Censors work it out."

Looking at how each Senator voted, I wonder if the senators themselves
were clear on what the vote was about. Was it a vote to support Sulla's
edict, or was it a vote on whether to hold a vote on Sulla's edict? And
how many of the senators understood just what it was? Am I really the
only one who's confused on this?

Vale,

L. Sergius Australicus


certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never lose a file again. Protect yourself from accidental deletes,
overwrites, and viruses with @Backup.
Try @Backup it's easy, it's safe, and it's FREE!
Click here to receive 300 MyPoints just for trying @Backup.
http://click.egroups.com/1/4936/6/_/61050/_/960059799/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lone Tribune on the "Gender Edict"
From:	RexMarcius@--------
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:53:54 EDT

Salve Tribune!

As a Plebeian, I fully support your motion. As a lawyer, I have my doubts
about some parts of your reasoning....but the Constitution gives the Tribunes
the task of Guardians of the Constitution (almost like the Supreme Court).
Therefore your interpretation carries more weight than anyone else's and I
will follow you here also.

Marcus Marcius Rex
Plebeian Civis

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free @Backup service! Click here for your free trial of @Backup.
@Backup is the most convenient way to securely protect and access
your files online. Try it now and receive 300 MyPoints.
http://click.egroups.com/1/4935/6/_/61050/_/960065648/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lone Tribune on the "Gender Edict"
From:	Razenna <razenna@-------->
Date:	Sat, 03 Jun 2000 14:49:49 -0700

Salvete Quirites!

I rise to stand beside Lucius Sergius Australicus in this matter. The
horrid edict in question is a mar on the history of Nova Roma and it
will blight our Respublica's future until it is removed in its
entirety, in all its aspects and forms. Quirites, we must remove this
dishonor from our Respublica. Let there be a vote on it. If it is
endorsed, then we shall know that the majority of Nova Roma's voters
embrace the thing and the rest of the world will not have any
illusions about Nova Roma's openness. But first, I ask Lucius
Cornelius Sulla to withdraw the gender edict and the other edicts
connected with it. The good of Nova Roma did not require them. Their
existence has caused Nova Roma nothing but trouble. If you care for
the well being of Nova Roma, Sulla, withdraw them and let us get on to
other things. This one is not going away. Sulla, please?

Valete, Quirites.

C. Aelius Ericius.
Senator of Nova Roma. Augur. Pontifex.
Paterfamilias of gens Aelia.
Retired Propraetor of California and Nevada.

LSergAust@-------- wrote:

> Salvete Quirites
>
> I rise in the Forum as Tribune of the Plebs, charged by the
> Constitution
> with the duty of defending the spirit and letter of that
> Constitution.
> The "Gender Edict" of Lucius Cornelius Sulla, a fine and honorable
> Roman
> and magistrate, seriously violates the spirit and letter of the
> Constitution and the future of the Republic. It has already cost us
> good
> citizens and prospective citizens, and it puts us at odds with the
> laws
> of the civilized world.
>
> You ask why it is such an awful thing that we require that a
> citizen's
> Roman name must accurately reflect their physical genitalia?
>
> I originally thought it was a little thing. Petitioned for
> assistance by
> the single citizen against whom this "little thing" was aimed (for
> although the Censor is an honorable man, the edict was indisputably
> aimed
> at Lucius Marius Fimbria and no other, no other being affected by it
> then
> or now), I undertook to argue the case as a matter of duty and not
> as a
> matter of conviction. I soon became angered by the evident contempt
> some
> of our magistrates and senators displayed for the interests and
> feelings
> of this "mere citizen". When my former colleague, Gn. Tarquinius
> Caesar,
> also expressed the opinion that the matter of Fimbria's treatment
> was
> beneath his consideration, the only remaining option was for Fimbria
> to
> take the matter before the Comitia Plebis Tributa, which has the
> power to
> issue a plebiscite overriding the Censor's edict. Fimbria elected
> instead
> to trust to the goodwill of the Censor, an honorable man who offered
> a
> compromise but subsequently delayed the implementation of it,
> provoking
> Fimbria to resign from citizenship in frustration and hurt.
>
> The Censor, although indisputably a noble Roman and an honorable
> man,
> then issued additional edicts, some of which were clearly aimed at
> preventing Fimbria from reapplying for citizenship except on his
> terms.
> Honorable men clearly sometimes become caught up in doing
> dishonorable
> things. This edict and the others buttressing it are clearly
> dishonorable
> things. They bring dishonor upon the whole of our Republic. They
> shame us
> before the other nations of the world. They are contrary to the
> application of law in most civilzed countries. They are contrary to
> the
> spirit and the letter of our own Constitution, which states
> "Citizenship
> is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious
> affiliation, or sexual orientation." ANY EDICT THAT PROPOSES TO DENY
> OR
> LIMIT THE RIGHTS OF A PERSON FOR DECLINING TO SHOW OR TELL THE
> CENSOR
> WHAT THEY HAVE IN THEIR PANTS IS CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF THE INTENT
> OF
> THAT CLAUSE.
>
> This edict and those supporting it are not only contrary to the laws
> of
> the civilized world, thereby not only placing us in disgrace but
> also
> making us potentially liable to legal action in some of the
> jurisdictions
> in which we dwell. This edict and those supporting it also are
> gratuitously unkind and hurtful, and divisive of our citizenry. They
> must
> be offensive to our Gods and Goddesses, many of whom have changed
> gender
> during their histories. They represent the unwarranted and
> unwarrantable
> intrusion of governmental power into the private concerns of ONE
> CITIZEN.
>
> What comes next? An edict that I may not call myself Australicus
> because
> I don't currently dwell in Australia? An edict that Damianus
> Lucianus
> Dexippus may not rejoin us unless he never again refers to himself
> as a
> female? What kind of intrusions into citizen's lives will be
> allowable if
> this mean and petty and disgraceful edict, however honorably
> intended, is
> allowed to stand?
>
> The Senate, the authority of which outranks any magistrate's edict,
> has
> voted "no confidence" in this edict in ANY of the three versions
> presented to the Senate. As far as I am concerned, that overrides
> the
> edict in any of its forms and it IS NOT ENFORCEABLE. However, it is
> obvious to me that this matter will never be fully settled until
> there is
> a law made OTHER THAN BY SINGLE MAGISTRATES PUSHING THEIR OWN
> AGENDAE,
> however honorably intended. This thing needs to be settled and it
> needs
> to be settled by a vote of the citizens of Nova Roma.
>
> Therefore, I CALL UPON THE CONSULES to convene the Comitia
> Centuriata and
> hold a contio, to be followed by a vote to decide once and for all
> if
> Nova Roma is going to use issues relating to gender to restrict
> citizenship or the personal choices of citizens.
>
> In the meantime, as Tribunus Plebis I pronounce intercessio against
> the
> currently unpublished version of this edict and against any action
> by the
> Censors that would limit admission to citizenship of any person on
> account of any gender-related issues, including the grammatical
> gender of
> the prospective citizen's chosen name.
>
> It is rumored that my former colleague, Gnaeus Tarquinius Caesar,
> has
> rescinded his resignation from the Tribunate. He still has not been
> heard
> from, but if this is legitimate then he may publish his support of,
> or
> may block, this intercessio. If he has not done one or the other
> within a
> reasonable time, then as the pronouncement of the only active
> Tribunus
> Plebis, it will stand.
>
> Quirites, let us remove this dishonor from the Republic and get our
> government out of our underwear! Or if not, then let it be a
> decision of
> the people of Nova Roma, and not one of our honorable Censor simply
> pursuing a vendetta against his friend.
>
> Valete,
>
> Lucius Sergius Australicus
> Tribunus Plebis
>
>
> sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.
>
> (I think some people in togas are plotting against me.)

Beware the Jackboot under the Toga.


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


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missing old school friends? Find them here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4055/6/_/61050/_/960068990/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] on the "Gender Edict"
From:	"StormWolf" <blakmice@-------->
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 18:09:46 -0000

Salve,
First off let me say that, no I'm not yet a citizen... I'm awaiting
approval and would hope stating my opinion on the issue will not affect the
approval or lack there of of my citizenship. That being said, I would say
that I feel that people should be able to choose the sex they feel they are
and they should be able to reflect that in their name. HOWEVER... I will not
pretend that it's an easy and simple issue. I have met several transgendered
people and it is not easy for them or people they know, or ME sometimes for
that matter. I would have to say that pretending that it's a simple issue of
right and wrong in EITHER direction is wrong. It misrepresents the situation
in extremes that do not exist in the real world, outside of verbal arguments
and discussions. I will also say I missed the full discussion on the matter
and have been unable to dig up the origional post(s) in the archives for a
lack of time, but I would say that as a matter of precident, it should be
looked into on a case to case basis rather than broad sweeping
proclamations. The Roman name is meant to reflect partly who we are. They
are not meant to be play names. That being said, I would think that allowing
a transgendered person the choice of a name of the sex they feel they truly
ARE is more appropriate than making them name themselves as they feel they
are not. I do see how this could make things confusing at times, but I feel
it's the right thing to do. Again, I'll say that this is not an easy issue
for many, though for some it is. I hope it is dealt with in an honorable and
appropraite manner.

Vale,
L Vatinius Maximus


------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/960074193/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Staying at Roman Days
From:	merlinia@--------
Date:	Sat, 03 Jun 2000 23:17:53 -0000

Salve, Omes! Merlinia Ambrosia sends Greetings!
I am terribly sorry to have been so caught up with everything that
I
haven't been keeping up with my N.R.Digests; Mea Culpa!
Anyway, I have II items to mention-

I. this will be my third Roman Days. We stay at the Red Roof Inn
in Latham.Not the greatest place by a long shot, but cheap&
we don't spend any time there anyway.
II.There are 'Cooking& Eating Demos'- I am the one responsible for
that. We(my friend,Fiona,and I),cook samples for the public
plus V meals for the Legionares who wish to chip in $20.
There is a Dinner on Saturday night.A $5 donation,or sutable
dinner addition,is appreciated.

If anyone is planning on trying the "Food Plan"-Please let me
know ASAP. I need to know by Wednesday.

Lets see some of you there! Vale!
Merlinia A.A.,Materfamillis,Gens Ambrosia











------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/960074282/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] European Lions
From:	"M G" <fresco@-------->
Date:	Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:11:54 +0300

----- Original Message -----
From: <SerPhoenicius@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Saturday, 03 June, 2000 4:16 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] European Lions


> Ave Marcus Prometheus,
>
> Most sources--including Herodotus and Aristotle--limit the European lion
to
> the Balkans, but some authorities indicate that they were also found on
the
> Iberian peninsula. The more recent ones all seem to agree that they
survived
> until the 1st or 2nd century C.E. No remains of these animals have been
> found, however, so it is impossible to know where to place them within the
> already taxonomically complex leonine species. I'm afraid that this
exhausts
> the little knowledge I have on this subject. I too would wecome additional
> information on this matter.
>
> Vale,
>
> CVLTELLVS

Thanks very much, just a last question if you can help:
Do you know if Herodotus and Aristotle spoke positively of a lion presence
in their time ?
Vale
Marcus Prometheus


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never lose a file again. Protect yourself from accidental deletes,
overwrites, and viruses with @Backup.
Try @Backup it's easy, it's safe, and it's FREE!
Click here to receive 300 MyPoints just for trying @Backup.
http://click.egroups.com/1/4936/6/_/61050/_/960075466/
------------------------------------------------------------------------