Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lone Tribune on the "Gender Edict"
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sat, 03 Jun 2000 17:37:40 -0700

Salvete

As the author of the Gender Edictum, I hereby rise to the podium to speak my
thoughts on it. As many of you know I support the Edictum I authored because I
weighed the needs of the community MORE than the needs of the individual. I
make no excuse otherwise. Now, that the voting is done and the revised Edictum
barely lost, mainly out of confusion, I am here witnessing calls for votes.
That I knew was going to happen. But, here we have a problem. Our Rogator
Helena Cornelia Ovidia Equitia, resigned her office. This prevents a vote from
occuring. Becuase we cannot summon ANY Comitia without having 2 Rogators to
count the votes. Now, my colleague and I are currently revising the Edictum
and once we are completed with that task, I will remove the one that is
currently law, and TOGETHER my colleague and I will replace it. This will be
done faster than the Senate can be summoned, and appoint a Suffect Rogator.
Let the Censors fix this issue, it is being done.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

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.)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/960079186/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lone Tribune on the "Gender Edict"
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sat, 03 Jun 2000 17:41:46 -0700

Salvete

In response to Ericius's call for me to withdraw my Gender Edictum. I state
I shall not. It is law, and it shall remain so til it is replaced by one
that is created by my colleague and myself. Once that is complete and
published. I hereby promise the Senate and People of Nova Roma that then I
shall remove the original Edictum. As I stated in the previous e-mail the
only reason that it lost was because of confusion, between both revised
drafts and my colleagues confusion over which one was being voted on.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

Razenna wrote:

> 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/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/960079417/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lone Tribune on the "Gender Edict"
From:	Razenna <razenna@-------->
Date:	Sat, 03 Jun 2000 18:17:10 -0700

Salvete.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla wrote:
[snip]

> Now, that the voting is done and the revised Edictum
> barely lost, mainly out of confusion,

Wrong. The vote was not on the revised edit. It was not a vote on
the revised edict. It was, sort of, a vote on the original edict. I
say "sort of" because the wording of the item on the ballot was a bit
confusing in itself. Here it is,"IX. On Lucius Cornelius Sulla's
Edict. Call for a Vote of confidence."
So it was a "vote of confidence" in an edict, not even in Lucius
Cornelius Sulla. But that version of that edict has already been
admitted to be flawed by the person who made the mistake of issuing
it. L. cornelius Sulla says it barely lost. The above wording won.
It got about 53% of the vote.

> I am here witnessing calls for votes.
> That I knew was going to happen. But, here we have a problem. Our
> Rogator
> Helena Cornelia Ovidia Equitia, resigned her office. This prevents
> a vote from
> occuring. Becuase we cannot summon ANY Comitia without having 2
> Rogators to
> count the votes.

We were able to work with one Censor. With one Tribune. We've worked
with one Consul (who is traditionally the highest post in Roma). If
we are indeed required to have two rogators, we can get another one.
Nova Roma is being contiually hurt by Sulla's edict and its attendant
troubles.

> Now, my colleague and I are currently revising the Edictum
> and once we are completed with that task, I will remove the one that
> is
> currently law, and TOGETHER my colleague and I will replace it.

Do not replace it. Get rid of it and its ilk and you will be doing
Nova Roma a favor. A great favor.

> This will be
> done faster than the Senate can be summoned, and appoint a Suffect
> Rogator.

I endorse Lucius cornelius Sulla's call for the appointment of a
suffect Rogator. I'm not all that sure that he can call the Senate
together. I'm sure he can not, but I join with him in the hope that
those who can will do so.

> Let the Censors fix this issue, it is being done.

That edict can not be fixed. Get rid of it.

C. Aelius Ericius.
Senator of Nova Roma.
Augur. Pontifex.

> 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.)


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


------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/960081429/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lone Tribune on the "Gender Edict"
From:	Razenna <razenna@-------->
Date:	Sat, 03 Jun 2000 18:32:08 -0700

see below

Lucius Cornelius Sulla wrote:

> Salvete
>
> In response to Ericius's call for me to withdraw my Gender Edictum.
> I state
> I shall not. It is law, and it shall remain so til it is replaced
> by one
> that is created by my colleague and myself. Once that is complete
> and
> published. I hereby promise the Senate and People of Nova Roma that
> then I
> shall remove the original Edictum. As I stated in the previous
> e-mail the
> only reason that it lost was because of confusion, between both
> revised
> drafts and my colleagues confusion over which one was being voted
> on.

I have said in my previous post what the vote was on. Sulla will see
as he wishes. He will stand by this harmful edict. He might well
win. It will not make him right. He is quite mistaken in his view
and his stand. Others are more articulate than I in going over the
points of this issue. I will refer to the one that this stand that
Sulla's edict forces upon Nova Roma is against the laws of many
nations of the world. Go on as you are going Sulla. But forgive me
if I do not wish you good luck. I could keep quite about this. So
could others who have been speaking so articulately. The trouble it
raises will not go away. If nothing else there will be the
prospective citizens who come in and see That "Law" (Sulla used that
technical word) and they will speak out about it. Whether they speak
out for or against it, such speaking will raise the specter again.
...

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

> Razenna wrote:
>
> > 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]


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups members: $60 in FREE calls! Join beMANY!
And pay less each month for long distance.
http://click.egroups.com/1/4122/6/_/61050/_/960082329/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Lone Tribune on the "Gender Edict"
From:	"Lucius" <vergil@-------->
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 22:00:06 -0400

Salvete, Quirites et alii

I'm 'rising' in support of Lucius Cornelius Sulla. He upheld a previous decision and has 'taken the heat' without much 'public' support.

Sulla
> Now, that the voting is done and the revised Edictum
> barely lost, mainly out of confusion,

C. Aelius Ericius.
Wrong. The vote was not on the revised edit. It was not a vote on
the revised edict. It was, sort of, a vote on the original edict. I
say "sort of" because the wording of the item on the ballot was a bit
confusing in itself. Here it is,"IX. On Lucius Cornelius Sulla's
Edict. Call for a Vote of confidence."
So it was a "vote of confidence" in an edict, not even in Lucius
Cornelius Sulla. But that version of that edict has already been
admitted to be flawed by the person who made the mistake of issuing
it. L. cornelius Sulla says it barely lost. The above wording won.
It got about 53% of the vote.

Lucius Equitius: Ericius, I beg to differ but there was more than one item on the voting agenda that was "confusing" and this one was one of them. Do you want me to quote some of the statements that were being made on THIS issue WHILE the vote was being held? I was surprised at some of the votes until I realized that they voted as they did BECAUSE of the confusion on just what was being vote ON!And 53% is hardly a landslide.

<SNIP>
Sulla:
> Let the Censors fix this issue, it is being done.

C. Aelius Ericius.
That edict can not be fixed. Get rid of it.

C. Aelius Ericius.

Lucius Equitius: I disagree and believe that Sullae proposed revision gives the necessary provisions for those applicants to provide information in support of their position.

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.

Lucius Equitius: Umm, Most of those who left recently, left because they felt the Religio Romana was being ignored.

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

Lucius Equitius: Yep, just like a ID, drivers license, passport, etc.

Lucius Sergius Australicus:
> 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,...

Lucius Equitius: Yours is not an accurate accounting of Caesar's position on this matter.

Lucius Sergius Australicus:
> 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.

Lucius Equitius: What? I have a Passport, international drivers license, military ID, and Maryland drivers license and they all require me to be truthful under penalty of law and there are entries for name and gender, as well as other IDENTIFYING information. Should Nova Roma's citizens be any less truthful?

Lucius Sergius Australicus:
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.

Lucius Equitius: Since there is no 'discrimination' based on gender, what difference should it make being honest about what gender one is?

Lucius Sergius Australicus:
> This edict and those supporting it are not only contrary to the laws of the civilized world,...

Lucius Equitius: PuLeeze..

Lucius Sergius Australicus:
> 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?

Lucius Equitius: ONCE AGAIN, Damianus Lucianus Dexippus left because of the lack of respect for the Relgio as did others of his former Gens, as well as the Meakers.

Lucius Sergius Australicus:
>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?

Lucius Equitius: So what you are saying is that I must call a woman a man because she wants it? I have no say in how I view the world. I must abide, not the laws of nature but the law of political correctness. I have rights TOO.

Lucius Sergius Australicus:
> 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.

Lucius Equitius: I only saw one version, and a WHOLE lot of opinions that muddled the vote, thus leaving the issue where we started.

Lucius Sergius Australicus:
> 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.

Lucius Equitius: AND as far as I"M concerned the citizens voted for Sulla as Censor and he has done his duty.

Lucius Sergius Australicus:
> 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.

Lucius Equitius: You are obviously not understanding what this means. I would ask you what rights under the constitution are being denied by requiring applicants to be truthful in identifying themselves??? HUMMM. The right to vote? Hold office? anything? Oh, they can't call themselves something they are not. "I'm a Eagle, and I'll sue you for species discrimination unless you say so too." What a load of BS

Lucius Sergius Australicus:
> 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.

Lucius Equitius: Ha ha, you want to veto a proposal? Who is being unreasonable, Not Sulla.

Lucius Sergius Australicus:
> It is rumored that my former colleague, Gnaeus Tarquinius Caesar, has rescinded his resignation from the Tribunate...

Lucius Equitius: Caesar wrote the Senate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <benborgo@-------->
Date: Sat May 27, 2000 10:45pm
Subject: Re: Gn. Tarquinius Caesar


In a message dated 5/26/00 7:17:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
al--------us@-------- writ--------br>
Salvete, omnes.

<< I just got off the phone with our Tribune of the Plebs. He stated to me
and will confirm it tomorrow in e-mail. But, he stated he will remain
Tribune of the Plebs but will relinquish the webmaster position. I hope
this helps the Senate. He did state he will e-mail the Seante verifing
our conversation. >>

I did indeed speak with the Censor yesterday evening. He was able to explain
the stance which has been taken on my resignation, and I have asked and
agreed to remain in my position as Tribunus Plebis. I assure all that I will
be present as frequently as possible, and that I will continue to strive to
do the job which I accepted at the start of the year. I do thank you all for
undertanding the position which I am in.

Vale,
Caesar


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

Lucius Equitius: This is slanderous! Sulla has gone out of his way to be fair to the former citizen (Märia Villarroel). He has worked very hard to consider all sides of the issue and it seems that those who disagree with his decision are the ones who are unwilling to compromise. Sulla has offered compromises, but nothing short of a complete reversal would satisfy his detractors.

> Valete, Lucius Sergius Australicus
> Tribunus Plebis

Valete, Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus
Concerned citizen and other titles too numerous to bother with


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


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click here for savings: beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4115/6/_/61050/_/960083895/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: looking for sewing information
From:	"Jane or Patricia " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Sun, 04 Jun 2000 02:05:12 -0000

> However I cannot tell you a darn thing about how Roman seams
were
> approached.

Olivia, I haven't a clue either, but I did want you to know that
someone had seen your message! From the scraps of Roman-era cloth
I've
seen in museums, the stitching seems fairly simple and basic, and the
cloth loose-woven and rougher than we're used to, usually wool or
linen. (They did also have cotton, from Egypt, and silk.)

OK, you've finally sent me to my books. This is from "The World of
Roman Costume," from a chapter by Larissa Bonfante on reconstructing
Roman costume:

"There was a minimum of cutting and sewing. Tools were not so precise
as they are today. Even needles, some of which have been preserved,
are
not so fine as the modern 'sharps,' and thread was probably the same
thread that was used on the loom for the fabric itself. On the
Arringatore in the Archaeological Museum in Florence [statue of a
togate man], it is possible to see under the orator's raised arm the
stitching holding the two selvages (self-edges) together.

"Since the garments were often woven so that the selvages could be
connected, there would have been no need for seam allowances. The
selvages could be attached by overcasting the abutting edges."

Bonfante also cites two other works by Lillian Wilson, "The Roman
Toga"
and "The Clothing of the Ancient Romans," as being valuable.

Doesn't really answer your question, dos it? Still, "The World of
Roman
Costume" is expensive - try getting it from your local college
library
- but definitely worth consulting for costume purposes.

Patricia Cassia









------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/6/_/61050/_/960084322/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] New Website
From:	StarWreck@--------
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 22:08:37 EDT

Salvete,

Good news! I now officially own www.starwreck.org
but I have no clue what to really do with it... for now I have just set it up
to display my old, un-used, un-attended website about Roman History that I've
had up on Tripod for a while. Well I'm open to suggestions!

Vale

Iulius Titinius

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/6/_/61050/_/960084542/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] New Curator Sermo
From:	"Jane or Patricia " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Sun, 04 Jun 2000 02:28:40 -0000

Salvete, Citizens of Nova Roma!

I stand before you to take up the duty of Curator Sermo, as approved
by
the Senate to fill out the remainder of Lucius Marius' term.

This duty is a heavy one, for nothing less than the peace of the city
is maintained here. Our senior Consul has asked the Urban Praetors,
Antonius Gryllus Graecus and Marcus Iunius Iulianus, to assist me in
this effort, and I look forward to working with them. I believe I
have
the power to appoint scribae to assist me as well.

Some of you "old" Citizens will recall that I have held this position
before (it was just called "listmom" then, I think). I am an
experienced moderator of lists and online forums (occasionally even
getting paid for it), but I am also aware that Nova Roma is different
from many groups.

My goal is to keep this a list for the discussion of topics related
to
ancient Rome and to building community among Nova Romans through
exchange of information, event planning, civilized debate and even a
little bit of light-heartedness. This list is often a potential
Citizen's first encounter with other Roman enthusiasts, and I want
that
encounter to be a positive one.

My methods for achieving this goal will evolve with time. To start
with, I'm looking for feedback on how you would like to see this list
run. What measures could I take to make this a welcoming and pleasant

community? E-mail me privately at pjane@-------- with your
ideas.

If you have any concerns about my administration of the list, or wish
to call my attention to someone's behavior, I would very much prefer
that you take the matter up with me privately before going on-list
with
it. Often, concerns involving one or two people can be resolved
without
cluttering up the in-boxes of 200 more.

Patricia Cassia



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/6/_/61050/_/960085724/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] New Website
From:	cassius622@--------
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 22:51:04 EDT

In a message dated 6/3/00 7:09:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time, StarWreck@--------
writes:

<< Good news! I now officially own www.starwreck.org
but I have no clue what to really do with it... for now I have just set it
up
to display my old, un-used, un-attended website about Roman History that
I've
had up on Tripod for a while. Well I'm open to suggestions!
>>

Congratulations! It's always wonderful to see a new Roman site, and it looks
like you already have some good work going. Obviously you'll want to keep
expanding with things that interest you. (And as you find the time. I know
how tough that can be!)

I imagine you'll be plugging the new site into the various search engines,
and perhaps joining some of the webrings out there. Thanks for including a
link to Nova Roma as well!

Vale,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/960087078/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Testing
From:	"Michael" <maf@-------->
Date:	Sun, 4 Jun 2000 13:27:35 +1000

Salve,

Just testing to see if my email is working - I suspect some messages I sent yesterday did not get through.

Vale

Marcus Afranius Regulus


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


------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/_/960088060/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] On the Edict"
From:	sfp55@--------
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 23:31:30 EDT

In a message dated 6/3/2000 6:17:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
razenna@-------- writes:

<< We were able to work with one Censor. With one Tribune. We've worked
with one Consul (who is traditionally the highest post in Roma). If
we are indeed required to have two rogators, we can get another one.
Nova Roma is being contiually hurt by Sulla's edict and its attendant
troubles. >>
Salvete!
I'm doing Greek translations which are hard enough without this distraction.

First off I'm answering because this whole event happened on my watch.
Realize first Caius Aelius Ericus does not speak for the whole Senate, even
though
he is a Senator.
Second I voted the revised edictum down myself. Not because I didn't want it
as a law, but because I couldn't understand it as written. So did three
other Senators I know of.
Third, I want to tell you a story. As many of you know I work in the
entertainment industry, (which work seems getting less and less since I
became Consul :)) and I know a crossdresser who is a brilliant female
impersonator. You should see her do Judy Garland. We all call her because
that is the way she likes it.
However, her driver's license says she's "Jules" as well as her SAG card.
Can we do no different?
Valete!
Q. Fabius Maximus

------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/960089493/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Gender scholar (reluctantly) speaks
From:	JustiniaCassia@--------
Date:	Sun, 4 Jun 2000 00:09:02 EDT

Salve, Citizens,

I wasn't going to post again on gender, truly I wasn't. I loathe the topic,
totally burnt out on it after writing one of my area statements in
anthropology on gender (the annotated bibliography alone was 19 pages, single
spaced, 10 pt. Times New Roman type). But the recent postings have driven me
to root through my old files again. One thing that has come across in my
brief time at Nova Roma is the respect shown to academic endeavor, and I hope
my posting is perceived in this light.

My paper sought to answer the question why, with much cultural data showing
gender to be a varied and complex phenomenon, do many people still prefer a
black-and-white understanding of gender based on biological sex? My
conclusion was that concepts of male and female tend to be a basic principle
of organization which we use to understand the world, and that most people
tend to prefer their foundations of understanding to be solid ones.

Wherever we look, we see "female" and "male." Boats, tropical storms and
nations all have symbolic gender. Although the attributes of "femaleness"
and "maleness" vary from one society to another, the "gendering" of the
universe appears to be universal. (Womack and Marti 1993:6)

It has been posted before that sex refers to biology, while gender actually
refers to cultural and societal roles.

Biological aspects of femaleness and maleness are sex differences; the social
and cultural ordering of the categories is gender (Womack & Marti 1993:10).

Thus the original Gender Edictum is improperly worded, as there is no such
thing as "physical gender." What the Edictum really means to promote is the
correlation of one's name to one's sex. Yet a name is an important part of a
person's identity, and identity surely falls in the realm of culture and
society, how people perceive and relate to one another, rather than biology.

Gender Identity concerns an individual's own feeling of whether he or she is
a woman or man (or other) regardless of genetic makeup … far from being an
expression of natural differences, exclusive gender identity is the
suppression of natural similarities. It requires repression: in men, of
whatever is the local version of "feminine" traits; in women, of the local
definition of "masculine" traits (Spector and Whelan In Morgan 1989:69-70,72)

But even biology is more complex than simple external genitalia -- biology
includes chromosomes, secondary sexual characteristics, and hormone levels as
well. Transgendered individuals, even those who have not had surgery, often
take hormones to shift their hormonal balance towards that of the other sex.
This in turn results in the development of secondary sexual characteristics
(breasts, facial hair, etc.). So even biologically, they may not be said to
be entirely of one sex, throwing into question the issue of truthfulness that
has been raised (i.e., transgendered folk are "untruthful" when they list a
gender at odds with their birth sex). I find this argument particularly
ironic due to the fact that transgendered folk see their process as one of
coming to terms with the truth of their gender identity. To live as a gender
one does not feel one to be is to live in denial.

Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus raises the idea of someone asserting that he is
an eagle and insisting on being treated as one. I must point out that while
a person is able to undergo a sex change, and become the other gender in
almost every aspect except chromosomes and fertility, a person is unable to
undergo a species change to become an eagle. Also, the psychiatric
profession views and responds to people who believe they are eagles in a very
different manner than they view and respond to people whose gender is at odds
with their sex, helping transgendered individuals sort out to what extent
these feelings are a permanent condition, and helping them to live life as
the other gender, possibly undergoing a sex change operation at some point.
Surely we must honor the knowledge of the psychiatric profession in this
regard as well.

As my final note, I would like to point out that I do not believe Sulla acted
with malice towards Fimbria. But I cannot support his Gender Edictum due to
my academic understanding of the subject.

Iustinia Cassia (female sex and gender, although she hates shopping, owns
only 3 pairs of shoes, and thinks the Stooges are funny as hell)

Womack, Mari and Judit Marti, eds.
1993 The Other Fifty Percent: Multicultural Perspectives on Gender
Relations. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press.

Spector, Janet D. and Mary K. Whelan
1989 Incorporating Gender into Archaeology Courses. In Sandra Morgen, ed.,
Gender and Anthropology: Critical Reviews for Research and Teaching.
Washington, D.C.: American Anthropology Association.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/6/_/61050/_/960091747/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Call for Plebiscitum
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Sun, 04 Jun 2000 06:52:21 +0200

Salvete Quirites!

Our Tribunus Plebis has pronounced an intercessio
against the Gender Edictum and has called for a plebiscitum
so that the matter may be settled in the most democratic
manner at our disposal (which as a direct vote of all of us
is very democratic indeed).

I am rather surprised that he did this at a moment in
which the Senatus has clearly been unwilling to back the
proponant of the Edictum, even on a revised state thereof,
and when the two Censors are working on a better revision
that might, for all we know, be perfectly acceptable.
However, if the People do not back their Tribuni, the
Tribuni cannot perform their duty to protect the People and
the Constitution. Therefore, I join with Senator Ericius in
supporting the intercessio and the call for a popular vote.

Although I am surprised at the timing, it is indeed
understandable that Australicus should feel exasperated by
now. Our Constitution contains a membership clause that
explicitly intends to rule out discrimination by gender or
sexual orientation. It may not specifically speak of
transsexuals, but since it signifies that we are a normal,
civilised organisation and Republic conforming to the laws
of the State of New Hampshire and the United States of
America with respect to sexual discrimination, everyone
either a citizen or potential citizen has a right to expect
fair treatment in this regard. To try to hide a
discriminatory attitude behind the rules of Latin
grammatical gender is absurd and ludicrous. And to make a
rule about a situation where there is no particular problem,
but where the rule itself becomes a problem, a problem
denying the normal freedom and dignity of two very witty,
decent and competent Nova Romans is MEAN SPIRITED. And how
un-Roman meanspiritedness is! I did not join Nova Roma
supposing that anyone was likely to use our laws to
perpetuate petty nastinesses against inoffensive people.
Enough is enough!

Perhaps the Censors will be able to agree on a revision
before that second rogator is chosen. If that is a truly
satisfactory version, that would be perhaps the best
solution. I would consider it a satisfactory version if it
could not be used in any way to discriminate against persons
applying for citizenship on the basis on gender or sexual
orientation, and if the two individuals who have been
hounded out of Nova Roma by the attitudes and policies
expressed by the Edictum Famosum feel themselves truly
welcome and able to return.

I have myself come to feel the deepest doubt about the
existence of any objective problem of any significant
magnitude with respect to applicants mis-choosing their
gender. If there are dozens of misguided rôle players among
us who are doing this on a whim, I think we might be given a
figure by Sulla on how many there are. He has given us no
concrete reason to suppose that they exist at all. I think
Nova Roma would be better off returning to the status ante
quem and just nullifying any special legislation on sex and
gender (except those which prohibit discrimination on those
bases). Any legislation in this sphere could be misused.
Indeed we have already seen what mischief it has caused both
to individual citizens and to the body politic. Let's simply
kill it dead, once and for all. Nova Roma would be much the
better for it.

Valete!


--
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
ICQ# 61698049
________________________________________________________

Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
________________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/6/_/61050/_/960094355/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lone Tribune on the "Gender Edict"
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:17:26 -0400

I must confess, I am curious. If I were to pass Lucius Maria Fimbria on the
streets of New Jersey in this, the year 2000, how does h/she comport
herself? Does h/she live as an outward male or female? This makes a
difference for the following reason......if h/she lives as a male..I am 100%
for s/he being treated as male within Nova Roma. However, if s/he lives
his/her life as a female in the *real* world...then a female persona is
appropriate in Nova Roma. All *I* ask is some semblance of *normalcy* for
this person between NR and life.

:) Priscilla Vedia Serena


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.
>



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups members: $60 in FREE calls! Join beMANY!
And pay less each month for long distance.
http://click.egroups.com/1/4122/6/_/61050/_/960096078/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] The Gender Edictum
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Sun, 04 Jun 2000 07:58:23 +0200

Salvete Omnes!

It has been called (very quickly!) to my attention by
our esteemed Censor L. Cornelius Sulla that in fact the
original Edictum de Genere was not vetoed by the Tribunus
Plebis, as it had already passed the 72-hour limit. What its
status really is is everyone's (different!) guess. Only the
latest three Senate-considered versions have been vetoed.

The Censor discussed with me (at last) what he is doing
with his colleague. Although it would not be proper to
comment on the exact content here while it is still under
collegial discussion, as it was presented to me it is
similar in concept to some suggestions I myself put forward
much earlier. A lot might depend on the details and the tone
of the final version, but IF it turns out to be acceptable
to the persons most affected, I might find it acceptable as
well and to redeem Nova Roma from the status of an
uncivilised nation. Although I still am inclined to believe
at present that it would be better to have no such
legislation.

I am therefore now inclined to say, give the Censors a
chance. These things take time. Sulla says about ten days.
We can afford that - and then we can judge the result. If
the Tribunus Plebis and Fimbria are satisfied, I am ready to
be satisfied too. The Vote of the People will still be
available later, if it is still needed. Lucius Cornelius has
been through a lot lately, and his colleague is a person
beyond reproach. Can we all agree not to actually call the
comitia before their new version of the Edictum is
presented?

Valete!


Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
ICQ# 61698049
________________________________________________________

Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
________________________________________________________



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/960098325/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lone Tribune on the "Gender Edict"
From:	Silvanus727@--------
Date:	Sun, 4 Jun 2000 03:46:54 EDT

In a message dated 06/03/2000 8:40:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
alexious@-------- writes:

<< As the author of the Gender Edictum, I hereby rise to the podium to speak
my
thoughts on it. As many of you know I support the Edictum I authored
because I
weighed the needs of the community MORE than the needs of the individual. I
make no excuse otherwise. Now, that the voting is done and the revised
Edictum
barely lost, mainly out of confusion, I am here witnessing calls for votes.
That I knew was going to happen. But, here we have a problem. Our Rogator
Helena Cornelia Ovidia Equitia, resigned her office. This prevents a vote
from
occuring. Becuase we cannot summon ANY Comitia without having 2 Rogators to
count the votes. Now, my colleague and I are currently revising the Edictum
and once we are completed with that task, I will remove the one that is
currently law, and TOGETHER my colleague and I will replace it. This will be
done faster than the Senate can be summoned, and appoint a Suffect Rogator.
Let the Censors fix this issue, it is being done.

>>
Salve Sulla,

I'm happy to hear that you are revising the Gender Edict, but I must
stress that you cannot require a citizen to choose a Roman name to match
his/her gender. That is wrong and unfair to people who feel unsure about
their sexuality. I am a gay man who is acquainted with many drag queens and
transgendered persons and I say "if "she" looks like a woman, acts like a
woman, talks like a woman then "she" is a woman no matter what sex he/she was
born as. The same principle applies to those individuals who were women but
are now men. Don't make a person choose a name they wouldn't be happy with
and comfortable with.

Let us hope that the new Edict reflects your wisdom Good Censor! Furthermore
I agree that since you were the person who drafted the original Edict, then
you should also be the one to "fix" it.

Silvanus

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/960104828/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Gladiator (quid - etiam iterum?)
From:	"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@-------->
Date:	Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:46:27 +0100

Salutem!

Dixit M. Octavius Gemanicus Aedilis:

> > I confess I was disappointed at first - we had to pay! Imagine! When I
> > demanded my Propraetor's double seat, in the middle of the row reserved
> > for the Decemviri and the Augustales, and two more double seats for my
> >wife Aletheia Moravia and our good friend Caecilia Leporaria, they
laughed!
>
> That's strange... I assume, of course, that your toga and tunica had a
> quantity of purple dye sufficient to indicate your rank. And the ushers
> didn't recognize this? What *do* they teach them in schools these days?

Respondeo: My toga has as broad a clavus as I'm allowed. But all they seem
to teach them in the rude provinces is that backsides keep seats; however,
I've found a solution to the problem. Here's a handy tip for
fellow-magistrates who don't get the 'rispetto' to which their auctoritas is
due. What are lictores for? I am entitled to six, within my provincia.
Simply send them to the theatrum an hour before the show, with instructions
to occupy the sedilia you wish to reserve; then when you arrive, send 'em
off for a cerevisia 'til the show's over.

Ecce! Three bisedilia, all nicely warmed! And you can then have the added
pleasure of watching the Augustales queueing for a seats at the rear.

Bene valete,

Vado Prop. Brit.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/960116091/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Imperial cult: How can you find it impure?
From:	"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@-------->
Date:	Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:47:41 +0100

Salutem!

Scripsit Graecus:

> >>>In the western provinces almost every home had a
> >>> shrine or statues devoted to Roma and the Genius.

Post haec ego:

> >>What are your sources for this remarkable assertion, please?

Etiam respondit Graecus:

> You may be right. This type of artifact found on almost every city could
> well belong to the public rather than the private cult. Many busts of
> Imperial family members were found in villa, what could lead to the
> conclusion that it was mainly the upper class that was more devoted to the
> Emperors.

Ego: I would add to this that, if it is villae urbanis we are talking about,
we are looking at the homes of the wealthy who were usually prominent in
public life, who held official posts, transacted official public business in
their homes, and therefore can be considered likely to have had imagines of
the emperors in much the same way that public buildings in Britain used
until quite recently todisplay a portrait of the Queen. This should not be
taken, IMO, necessarily to signify anything more than a public
demonstration of official pietas as distinct from a deeply held religious
conviction.

>Nevertheless, John Scheid says that recent studies on Roman
> society agree that the support of the Imperial cult came from below rather
> than from above, i.e. it was the people that in fact supported the cult of
> the leader.

Valerie Hope ('Status and Identity in the Roman World', pp. 138, 145) (from
a collection of essays edited by Janet Huskinson 'Experiencing Rome: Power,
Culture and Identity in the Roman Empire', Routledge, 2000) attributes this
to some extent to the fact that one of the quickest routes to social
respectability and upward mobility, even for a freed slave, was to become a
priest of the official cult (Augustalis).

> He also provides as an hipothesis that the association of Godess
> Roma to the Genius of the Emperor was a means introduced by Augustus to
> divert the people from worshiping the Emperor while alive.

Or, conversely, to become a god in his own lifetime as far as he dared.

> As to the private Imperial cult, it surely existed. Libations of are made
in
> homage to the Genius Augusti ("Long life to the Emperor, father of our
> homeland!" - Petronius, Satiricon, 60, 7. ). A part of the meals was also
> offered to the Genius Augusti.

Now you almost had me there, mi Graece, as on reading this I remembered
something similar from Ovid: (Fasti 2.631-4): 'And when the dewy night
invites you to a dream-free sleep, por out plenty of wine as you pray in
these words: "Good luck to you, Lares, and good luck to you, Caesar, best of
men." These are good words to go with good wine.'

However, we must remember that Ovid was a client-friend of Augustus, and
Petronius enjoyed a similar relationship with Nero. One has to know which
side of one's panem the butyrum is on :-).

A dutiful client will sacrifice to the genius of his patronus, and a friend
will do the same for the genius of his friend. In the two contexts above,
what are we seeing? Private cult, or official?

Bene vale,

Vado.




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/960116093/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Gender Edictum
From:	Marcus Papirius Justus <papirius@-------->
Date:	Sun, 04 Jun 2000 04:49:51 -0600

Salvete,

Since the gender issue is once again on everyone's minds, allow me to point
something out precedent-wise which might help this issue become rather more
clear. Our forbears (i.e. the Romans) made a big deal out of gender
primarily because each gender in Roma Antiqua had gender-specific rights
and responsibilities. That's the primary reason why Roman jurists exercised
their noggins over the issue of what category a hermaphrodite would fit
into. Nova Roma purports to be a society based on gender equality and as
such, any edict pertaining to gender per se is at most, redundant and at
minimum, discriminatory. I personally think that our Nova Roma politicians
should do what I believe all politicians should do ... before finalizing
any political act, they should ask themselves "Is this edictum really
necessary? Does it advance our society in any appreciative way or can it be
turned into a stepping stone for something else (positive or negative)?"

My own humble opinion is that the vast majority of new laws are not
necessary and that those that do come up almost without exception tend to
turn into stepping stones towards something negative and/or totally
unforeseen by the drafter(s) of the original edict (I can see, e.g., that
the present edict under question and the climate it has created is going to
lead to a debate over what comprises a legal marriage in Nova Roma and
could very well lead to a situation where the paterfamiliases of two gentes
get married ... then you will have to deal with the situation of trying to
figure out who is the paterfamilias of the merged gens ... another e.g.:
I'm not sure what the current requirements are to be a flamen (the ancient
requirements included being married), but what is going to happen if the
gender issue (along with the marriage issue mentioned) raises its head
during the selection of a priest or priestess?

In other words, if you think the current edictum has been divisive, y'all
ain't seen nothing yet ...

mpj


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/960117129/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Lone Tribune on the "Gender Edict"
From:	Piscinus@--------
Date:	Sun, 04 Jun 2000 12:01:03 -0000

Silvanus writes:
>
> I say "if "she" looks like a woman, acts like a
> woman, talks like a woman then "she" is a woman no matter what sex
he/she was born as. The same principle applies to those individuals
who were women but are now men. Don't make a person choose a name
they wouldn't be happy with and comfortable with.

Salvete Quirites
Salve Silvanus

And I say you should take this one step further. In what you say,
you are still judging a person by their outward "appearance" in a
forum where all you may really see are their words. Truely what
really matters is not an individual's outward appearance. What is
truly worthy of consideration in any individual, whether it be with
regard of them as a friend, as a colleague, as a fellow traveler
through life, is who that person is within theirself.

No individual is singularily a specific gender. Anyone who thinks of
himself or herself in that manner is deceiving their own self. As a
former soldier I tend to think in military terms, and judge men based
on whether I would have them as a comrade beside me. I would never
want a machismo fool beside me, an individual so uncertain of his
own "manliness" that he must put on a false bravado, never knowing
how he will react in a moment of decision. I have seen the hardest
of men, honed by horrors, become compassionate for their suffering
enemies, weep for the loss of friends, and sacrifice themselves for
others. How could they, in the barbarity of war, have suddenly
become human if not by drawing upon their femine side. What I find
most attractive in women is when they rise above the constrictions
placed upon them by society and, drawing upon their masculine-defined
aspect, exhibit the strength necessary to face any adversity. I find
more comfort in a homosexual friend who has explored both sides of
their being and become comfortable with who they are, than with
anyone who has so deceived theirself, who has remained so shallow and
immature as to think that everyone must be as one dimensional as they
have remained theirself.

If, as Cassia Juliana has said, we all define the world around us in
terms of gender, then we should recognize our inner being in such
terms as well. We must recognize as individuals and as a society
that each of our innerselves, whether we refer to it as self, or soul
or spirit, what the Romans referred to as gens and iuno, is more
complex than to simply say it is either female or male alone. And
since the character of an individual comes from within, and the
character of any society comes from within the individuals who
compose it, it behooves Nova Roma, and every society, to nurture
every aspect of its citizens' inner being.

I am not a citizen. I have withdrawn my application for citizenship
for various reasons. I have been curious to see how Nova Roma
functions as a society before I should decide to reapply for
citizenship. The character of Nova Roma is on display in this
matter, the very soul of your society has come into question here.
I, as well as other non-citizens, are anxiously waiting to see what
you do. I urge each of you to examine yourself within, to arise and
emulate the very character you admire most, and build a society that
you may be proud of.

Valete
Gn. Hernicius Piscinus


------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/960120072/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Digest Number 886
From:	Heather Moore <misenla@-------->
Date:	Sun, 4 Jun 2000 09:40:52 -0400

>Lucius Sergius Australicus:
>> You ask why it is such an awful thing that we require that a citizen's
>>Roman name must accurately reflect their physical genitalia?
>
>Lucius Equitius: Yep, just like a ID, drivers license, passport, etc.
>
<snip>
>
>Lucius Sergius Australicus:
>> 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.
>
>Lucius Equitius: What? I have a Passport, international drivers license,
>military ID, and Maryland drivers license and they all require me to be
>truthful under penalty of law and there are entries for name and gender,
>as well as other IDENTIFYING information. Should Nova Roma's citizens be
>any less truthful?
>



This is hardly a legitimate analogy. The objection is to a specific type of
restriction of what citizens of Nova Roma may *name* themselves. There is
no corresponding law addressing passport, international driver's license,
military ID, or state drivers licensed which restrict the *content* of the
name entry.

Please quote in specific detail an analogous law which puts limitations on
the "name" entry of legal identification *subject to what is attested to in
the "sex" entry.*



<snip>

>Lucius Sergius Australicus:
>>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?
>
>Lucius Equitius: So what you are saying is that I must call a woman a man
>because she wants it? I have no say in how I view the world. I must abide,
>not the laws of nature but the law of political correctness. I have
>rights TOO.
>


How is this relevant? You are certainly entitled to *call* anyone anything
you like. How fascinating that you interpret objections to an edict
addressing what a people is entitled to call *themselves* to be an attack
on your own private thoughts and opinions. Please quote in specific terms
where anyone has demanded a mandate on your actions. I have only seen
expressed a desire to remove a specific "you *must*" statement, *and no
substitution of another.* Nobody is suggesting that you (meaning you
specifically, Hoss) *must* do anything. All I have noticed is a large
contingent demanding that *everyone* be allowed to some freedom in how they
officially identify *themselves* to others.

It's about self-determination here, geddit? And nobody's arguing to limit
YOURS.

Calm down.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/960126166/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Books on Classical Period Judaism
From:	Piscinus@--------
Date:	Sun, 4 Jun 2000 10:43:35 EDT

Salvete Quirites

As a followup on an earlier posting I made, I spoke to my brother, who
has a greater interest in the subject, and these are some of the books he
recommended for those who want to look at the development of Judaism in the
Classical period, especially with regard to questions involving the diverse
forms of Judaism that existed during this period:

Who Wrote the Bible
Richard Elliot Friedman, 1987
This book explores the scriptures, especially the Torah, from the point
of view that different versions of the texts existed between the two
kingdoms, and that Ezra, as the redactor, composed new versions. This opens
the question of the diversity that existed within Judaism.

The Myth Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity
Hyam Maccoby, 1986
A leading Talmudic scholar in London, the author makes several
controversial assertions about the origin of Christianity, and in the process
offers insight into Judaism in the first century of the common era.

Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition
Erich S. Gruen, 1998
This book examines the influence of Hellenism on different Judaic sects,
and how each struggled to define Judaism. There is also an interest
perspective of the views that Greeks and Romans had of Judaism in the
Classical period.

Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Search for the Secret of Qumran
Norman Golb, 1995
Publications on the Dead Sea Scrolls have been predominantly made by
Christians seeking a source for their own beliefs. Golb effectively argued
that the texts represented diverse Judaic sects, written over a hundred year
period, and destroyed the notion that they had been written or collected by
the Essenes or any other ascetic sect.

The First Messiah
Michael O. Wise, 1999
This is a must read. Within several of the texts found at Qumran there
are references to a Teacher of Righteousness. The standard model considers
him to have lived around 176 bce. This most book on the subject examines who
he was and what role he played in relationship to various forms of Judaism.
The book also gives some insight on a Jewish perspective of Christianity in
that Paul is identified as having been the leader of the Sons of Darkness who
came after the Teacher of Righteousness. It also raises questions of who
would and who would not have been regarded as Jews by the Jews of Judea.
Gallileans were not considered Jews and more than Samaritans. By the same
author is:

The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered
For years the study of the scrolls were dominated by Christians who were
using them for their own purposes and delaying the publication of their
translations. This is one of the books responsible for changing that.

Josephus, the Bible, and History
Ed: L.H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, 1989
This is not a book for a novice. This is a collection of essays by
specialists in their field, with detailed investigations in a variety of
areas. One needs to be familiar with the writings of Josephus, and must be
able to read Hebrew to follow the arguments made here.

Philo of Alexandria: The works of this Midplatonist not only influenced
the development of Judaism, but also had a profound impact on the
intellectual life in the Roman Empire. His books and books about him should
interest those who are interested on the impact that Judaism had on
Hellenistic and Roman thought.

Valete
Gn. Hernicius Piscinus

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/960129823/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] thank you ! was sewing questions
From:	asseri@--------
Date:	Sun, 4 Jun 2000 10:45:12 EDT

Doesn't really answer your question, dos it? Still, "The World of
Roman
Costume" is expensive -- try getting it from your local college
library
- but definitely worth consulting for costume purposes.

Patricia Cassia

Salve!
Oh thank you kind and gracious lady. Truly you have the heart of a Roman!
I am a lucky owner of said book and I know my library here has the other
books. ironically I do a bit of spinning and weaving. I had forgotten the
double looms were used. I will have to pour my self into my books once
again. What a wondrous journey it has always been.
Vale

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/_/960129919/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] European Lions
From:	SerPhoenicius@--------
Date:	Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:40:52 EDT

Ave Marcus Prometheus,

<< Do you know if Herodotus and Aristotle spoke positively of a lion presence
in their time ? >>

Off hand I do not know. I seem to rememeber, however, that Herodotus reported
that some of Xerxes' troops were killed by a lion during his war with Greece.
That's about it I'm afraid.

Vale,

CVLTELLVS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/6/_/61050/_/960133264/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Gender Edictum
From:	Ira Adams <iadams@-------->
Date:	Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:31:57 -0500

Salve Marcus Apollonius

My veto specifies "... 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."

Hence NO such action may legally be taken, regardless of the status of
the original edict.

Vale,

Lucius Sergius Australicus


On 6/4/00 12:58 AM M. Apollonius Formosanus (bvm3@--------) wrote:

>Salvete Omnes!
>
> It has been called (very quickly!) to my attention by
>our esteemed Censor L. Cornelius Sulla that in fact the
>original Edictum de Genere was not vetoed by the Tribunus
>Plebis, as it had already passed the 72-hour limit. What its
>status really is is everyone's (different!) guess. Only the
>latest three Senate-considered versions have been vetoed.
>
> The Censor discussed with me (at last) what he is doing
>with his colleague. Although it would not be proper to
>comment on the exact content here while it is still under
>collegial discussion, as it was presented to me it is
>similar in concept to some suggestions I myself put forward
>much earlier. A lot might depend on the details and the tone
>of the final version, but IF it turns out to be acceptable
>to the persons most affected, I might find it acceptable as
>well and to redeem Nova Roma from the status of an
>uncivilised nation. Although I still am inclined to believe
>at present that it would be better to have no such
>legislation.
>
> I am therefore now inclined to say, give the Censors a
>chance. These things take time. Sulla says about ten days.
>We can afford that - and then we can judge the result. If
>the Tribunus Plebis and Fimbria are satisfied, I am ready to
>be satisfied too. The Vote of the People will still be
>available later, if it is still needed. Lucius Cornelius has
>been through a lot lately, and his colleague is a person
>beyond reproach. Can we all agree not to actually call the
>comitia before their new version of the Edictum is
>presented?
>
>Valete!
>
>
>Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old school buds here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4057/6/_/61050/_/960136326/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] an Attempt at a Reply
From:	Razenna <razenna@-------->
Date:	Sun, 04 Jun 2000 10:43:43 -0700

Salvete, Vedia Serena and other Romans.

With apologies to L. Marius Fimbria, I will attempt a short answer to
Serena's question. Vedia Serena's post it attached below.

"If I were to pass Lucius Maria Fimbria on the streets of New Jersey
in this, the year 2000, how does h/she comport herself?"

I met Fimbria last July. [aside: Fimbria is now using the name
Aurelianus, in a gesture towards a new start. I prefer "Fimbria".] I
am going to use slang and street talk here, because I believe that
will more plainly convey what my answer is, and what one might
perceive. She is very butch. Fimbria is portly, not fat, short (5
foot something). Aggressive. Friendly. Fimbria was dressed in
jeans, Roman motif tee-shirt, and a USAF unit ball-cap. In San
Francisco this type of garb is neutral at best, though females seldom
wear military ballcaps or nasty oppressive, evil-Roman-fascist-soldier
tee-shirts. [now read that again with the Humor circuits activated
Quirites! ;-) ] The prime secondary sexual trait that would make one
think twice if Fimbria was introduced as a male is the lack of facial
hair (even for one of Latin blood ;-). Breasts are not prominent. As
a woman Maria Villarroel is probably small breasted, and the
portliness would also contribute to this element on first sight.
Fimbria's voice is a bit on the deep side. ... And I think this wraps
up most of the "first off impression" descriptions.

I have lived in San Francisco since 1965 c.e. [with a little time
absent on haze gray ships], and all that that entails and implies
socially and culturally. This was through the sexual Seventies and
the AIDS Eighties, as well as the decades on each end of that. I have
had friends (FRIENDS, not mere acquaintences) who were gay, lesbian,
transgender, trans sexual, cross dressers, macho-males,
macho-female-straights and not. I've also had the assortment as
acquaintances. It HAS been Confusing at times. If Fimbria had been
introduced as a male, I would have wondered. I have met butch veteran
women before who were actively female yet so G.I. that it was
overwhelming. Fimbria is not quite like that. ... Basically, folks,
I'm saying that if you met Fimbria on the street you would either take
the person as he/she/it was introduced, or you would wonder. And that
could be a description of this whole situation we are in. I have
learned that it is best to take things as they are presented until
something shows otherwise. I will venture to say that if/when Fimbria
decides to go entirely one direction, those who meet him will not have
more than 5% doubts. In San Francisco and all the large urban, and
urbane, areas I've been in, that is better than average for the person
on the street.

figuring this doesn't help resolve things at all...
Valete.
C. Aelius Ericius.



-------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:17:26 -0400
From: "JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Subject: Re: Lone Tribune on the "Gender Edict"

I must confess, I am curious. If I were to pass Lucius Maria Fimbria
on the
streets of New Jersey in this, the year 2000, how does h/she comport
herself? Does h/she live as an outward male or female? This makes a
difference for the following reason......if h/she lives as a male..I
am 100%
for s/he being treated as male within Nova Roma. However, if s/he
lives
his/her life as a female in the *real* world...then a female persona
is
appropriate in Nova Roma. All *I* ask is some semblance of *normalcy*
for
this person between NR and life.

:) Priscilla Vedia Serena


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.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/6/_/61050/_/960140621/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Remarks of Lucius on Australicus
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Sun, 04 Jun 2000 20:27:15 +0200

M. Apollonius Formosanus Lucio Equitio et Omnibus S.P.D.

I just wished to comment on some of your comments on the
oration of our Tribunus Plebis.

Lucius Equitius: What? I have a Passport, international
drivers license,
military ID, and Maryland drivers license and they all
require me to be
truthful under penalty of law and there are entries for name
and gender,
as well as other IDENTIFYING information. Should Nova Roma's

citizens be any less truthful?

APOLLONIUS: A lot of the rhetoric and maybe much of the real
belief in the Sullan camp seems to be connected with the
idea of *honesty*. I am sure that most of us think that that
citizenship applicants should be honest in the information
they provide the Censors. The problem is the supposition
that the Censors know better than the applicant what his/her
real functional gender identity is. I believe that if an
applicant puts down the gender that he/she actually feels
himself/herself to be and according to which he/she lives
his/her life, that is being honest.

Lucius Sergius Australicus:
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.

Lucius Equitius: Since there is no 'discrimination' based on
gender, what
difference should it make being honest about what gender one
is?

APOLLONIUS: Again, this mistaken view about honesty. If a
person lives as a woman, uses a feminine name in everyday
life, and quite possibly is quite sexually attractive as a
women, but has male genitalia, where is the comparative
honesty in saying that she is a man because of that little
bit of unwanted tissue? Men who think themselves men may
sometimes (against their will) grow breasts: should this
extra tissue force them to call themselves women? Tissue is
just tissue. Human beings are something more.

Why this obsession with trying to *force* people to register
a gender which they do not feel themselves to be?

Lucius Sergius Australicus:
> This edict and those supporting it are not only contrary
to the laws of the civilized world,...

Lucius Equitius: PuLeeze..

APOLLONIUS: I would use the same language as Australicus.
Civilised nations do not discriminate against persons on
account of their not being clearly identifiable as
classically male or classically female. Civil society exists
to protect people as human persons, not as carriers of a
particular sex.

Lucius Sergius Australicus:
> 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?

Lucius Equitius: ONCE AGAIN, Damianus Lucianus Dexippus left

because of the lack of respect for the Relgio as did others
of his former
Gens, as well as the Meakers.

APOLLONIUS: I do not think that is the whole story. Now, is
it? How about some honesty here too, hm? Religion was part
of it and a feeling of being harassed (and here I speak of
his feeling only, not being in a position to confirm
details) for his expression of his sexual identity by our
Censor.

Lucius Sergius Australicus:
>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?

Lucius Equitius: So what you are saying is that I must call
a woman a
man because she wants it? I have no say in how I view the
world. I must
abide, not the laws of nature but the law of political
correctness. I have
rights TOO.

APOLLONIUS: I am very much opposed to political correctness.
It is evil and repressive. However, I wonder why you want to
call a human being a woman or a man based on one criterion
only: in-pants inspection!? And what about cases of surgery?
Of accident? Of hermaphroditism? *Oversimplification* of
these things leads to disrespect for individual human beings
- and they are what matter. Gene inspection might give an
objective biological criterion, but I believe there are many
people who find it natural to live a sexual life contrary to
their genes and perhaps are even surprised when they learn
of their genetic sex (if they ever do; have you had a
test?).

If you do not desire offspring with these people, or even
anything a bit less extreme :-) - indeed may never even
meet them in person, what do you need except a social gender
to make everyone comfortable and give a grammatical gender
for their names? If they tell us their preference about
that, they are being honest, and they are telling what we
legitimately need to know.

Lucius Equitius: AND as far as I"M concerned the citizens
voted for
Sulla as Censor and he has done his duty.

APOLLONIUS: I would have voted for him too (had I then been
a citizen), and would like to call myself a Sulla supporter
in everything except this Edictum and those things
associated with it. Voting for someone, however, does not
mean to give that person a blank cheque. He has a right to
lead, but he has to look back to see if people are following
him. In this case he looked back rather late, and only after
severe pressure was put on him.

Lucius Sergius Australicus:
> 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.

Lucius Equitius: You are obviously not understanding what
this means. I
would ask you what rights under the constitution are being
denied by
requiring applicants to be truthful in identifying
themselves???
HUMMM. The right to vote? Hold office? anything? Oh, they
can't call
themselves something they are not. "I'm a Eagle, and I'll
sue you for
species discrimination unless you say so too." What a load
of BS

APOLLONIUS: The writing here is a bit obscure to me, but as
to eagles, what if it looks like an eagle and flies like an
eagle? How about a transgendered ex-male who has had hormone
treatments and surgery, is in appearance an extraordinarily
beautiful and sexy woman (female impersonators abundantly
demonstrate the possibility of this), and is capable of
sexual intercourse in the female rôle? Incapable of having
children, but then many women can be infertile. Why would
you insist on calling her "him"? We cannot give someone
wings and feathers, but sex changes we *can* do, albeit
imperfectly.

Why this compulsiveness about sex and gender and truth? The
whole affair is not black and white, yes and no, male and
female. In most cases we can simplify it to that, yes, and
it works. Sometimes it cannot be so simplified without
leaving out important parts of the truth and doing a
disrespect to a human soul who has to live life as part of a
statistically-small group of people who cannot be treated so
simply.

Lucius Sergius Australicus:
> 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.

Lucius Equitius: Ha ha, you want to veto a proposal? Who is
being
unreasonable, Not Sulla.

APOLLONIUS: I think we all understand that the Tribunus
meant that in the event that a Censor tried to promulgate
one of those texts as an Edictum, the veto would go into
effect. This comment comes close to showing personal
ridicule for the Tribunus, let's try to keep our comitas.

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

Lucius Equitius: This is slanderous! Sulla has gone out of
his way to be
fair to the former citizen (Märia Villarroel). He has worked
very hard to
consider all sides of the issue and it seems that those who
disagree with
his decision are the ones who are unwilling to compromise.
Sulla has
offered compromises, but nothing short of a complete
reversal would
satisfy his detractors.

APOLLONIUS: I cannot speak of my own certain knowledge about
the existence of any vendetta. That may be unfair to Sulla.
However, before the Gender Edictum was issued there was no
evident problem in Nova Roman society related to gender. The
completely unnecessary Edictum was an act of aggression
against the normal freedom and personal identity of the
person in question and (at least potentially) others. I do
not see why it is so natural to compromise, when the whole
problem was created by one side. Sometimes just letting well
enough alone is the best possible action. I wish that Sulla
had done so. When something isn't broken, don't fix it.

Valete!
--------------------------------------------------
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
ICQ# 61698049
________________________________________________________

Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
________________________________________________________



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/960143245/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Digest Number 886
From:	"Lucius" <vergil@-------->
Date:	Sun, 4 Jun 2000 14:36:45 -0400

Salvete, Quirites et peregrini
>Lucius Sergius Australicus:
>> You ask why it is such an awful thing that we require that a citizen's
>>Roman name must accurately reflect their physical genitalia?
>
>Lucius Equitius: Yep, just like a ID, drivers license, passport, etc.

<snip>
>Lucius Sergius Australicus:
>> The Censor, although indisputably a noble Roman and an honorable man,
>>They are contrary to the application of law in most civilzed countries.

>Lucius Equitius: What? I have a Passport, international drivers license,
>military ID, and Maryland drivers license and they all require me to be
>truthful under penalty of law and there are entries for name and gender,
>as well as other IDENTIFYING information. Should Nova Roma's citizens be
>any less truthful?
>
Heather Moore:
This is hardly a legitimate analogy. The objection is to a specific type of
restriction of what citizens of Nova Roma may *name* themselves. There is
no corresponding law addressing passport, international driver's license,
military ID, or state drivers licensed which restrict the *content* of the
name entry.
Lucius Equitius: Read the Edict, (Excuse me for asking people to look to something that if they have read it they may realize that it doesn't actually say what they assume) we are referring to Roman names on the application. Often girls were given names after their father but they were declined in the first declension. Thus, Lucius becomes Lucia, "geddit"? I don't know what others are doing here but Nova ROMA is about the culture, Religion and society of Rome.
Heather Moore:Please quote in specific detail an analogous law which puts limitations on
the "name" entry of legal identification *subject to what is attested to in
the "sex" entry.*
Lucius Equitius: Good point, now lets see what we can do. Subject want to be called 'Marcus Iulius Germanicus', but is a female (there have been various definitions on what gender means depending on which side of the issue one stands) they can; however, the edict says that for the their application their name will reflect their actual gender (sex) [Sulla, make sure you note this distinction], thus we would have Marca Iulia Germanica, "geddit"?
This is what the whole thing stands on, not what people call themselves. You can call yourself what ever you like, but if you not that thing, whatever it is, don't expect to be recognized as such.

<snip>

>Lucius Sergius Australicus:
>>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?
>
>Lucius Equitius: So what you are saying is that I must call a woman a man
>because she wants it? I have no say in how I view the world. I must abide,
>not the laws of nature but the law of political correctness. I have
>rights TOO.
>

Heather Moore:
How is this relevant? You are certainly entitled to *call* anyone anything
you like.

Lucius Equitius: I don't know where you live, but use the 'N' word around here, and you're history. However, if I refer to, or identify someone as a Negro, they may not like it but I'm being truthful of they are indeed Negroid. Would you have us delete all descriptions? Everyone is the same, there is no difference... baloney. My wife is african-american, mulatto, female, not tall, green eyes, soft and pleasant; I'm white, american, male, not short, hazel eyes, rough and rude.

Heather Moore:
How fascinating that you interpret objections to an edict
addressing what a people is entitled to call *themselves* to be an attack
on your own private thoughts and opinions.

Lucius Equitius: Gee, to hear some of the arguments one would think this is what the whole issue
revolves around 'personal rights'. Excuse me for having an opinion and expressing it. 'How fascinating that you' should focus on this small part of my post. People can call themselves what they want, we just don't have to go along with their charade.

Heather Moore:
Please quote in specific terms
where anyone has demanded a mandate on your actions. I have only seen
expressed a desire to remove a specific "you *must*" statement, *and no
substitution of another.* Nobody is suggesting that you (meaning you
specifically, Hoss) *must* do anything. All I have noticed is a large
contingent demanding that *everyone* be allowed to some freedom in how they
officially identify *themselves* to others.

It's about self-determination here, geddit? And nobody's arguing to limit
YOURS.

Calm down.

Lucius Equitius: What makes you think I'm not 'calm'? You're the one who resorted to epitaphs. (who is 'Hoss'?)
The issue still is relevant on a larger scale than just me. Why should the Republic be force to call something that which it is not? BTW There is nothing in the edict that prohibits anyone from using any name they want, It's about the official records. "Geddit?" So you can call whoever it is by whatever they want to be called if you like. "Geddit?"

Valete, Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus


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


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/960143693/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] an Attempt at a Reply
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Sun, 4 Jun 2000 14:41:10 -0400

Salve,

> figuring this doesn't help resolve things at all...
> Valete.
> C. Aelius Ericius.

You have provided a very helpful answer. It may not do either of us any
good as far as the final resolution of the edict, but I appreciate your
taking the time to answer nonetheless.

Vale

:) Priscilla Vedia Serena


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/960144369/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] European Lions
From:	Marcus Papirius Justus <papirius@-------->
Date:	Sun, 04 Jun 2000 14:43:44 -0600

Salvete,

For what it's worth, while doing research for a paper on centaurs in Greek
art (years ago) I read that there were lions in Greeks/the Balkans up to
just before WWI ...

mpj


------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/_/960144572/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] New Citizen
From:	"StormWolf" <blakmice@-------->
Date:	Sun, 4 Jun 2000 14:51:15 -0000

*dances about happily till he notices his tunic is flapping a little high*

My application was approved! I'm a Nova Roma citizen!

Vale
Lucius Vatinius Lupus


------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/960148680/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Historical argument, logic, and a lesson in Latin
From:	Piscinus@--------
Date:	Sun, 4 Jun 2000 16:06:12 EDT

Valete Quirites

This past week I have been reading through your archives, viewing
websites suggested to me, locating books that members of Nova Roma have
recommended, and all the while monitoring the discussions and arguments
presented in the lists. I have on more than one occasion been reminded of my
days at college in all this, and before I enter into the fray that I had
promised to commence, I thought I might offer some little bit of knowledge
that I picked up in that period in my life.

All history is fiction. There are no absolute truths; there are no whole
truths; there is no way that any one person can possibly attain all truths in
any matter. Thus, at best, history is merely an argument on only a minor
part of the truth. To be an historian is to make an argument for a position
in interpreting past events. Knowing that we can not know every little
detail to occur with every event, historians must look for what we refer to
as "historically significant" and dismiss all else as superfluous.

History is an art. It is an art in presentation, whether made orally or
in writing, that consists of an argument based upon the principles of logic.
The ever constant danger for every historian is that he or she will make a
fallacious argument. History majors, away at college, are taught about
fallacious arguments, sometimes in the books they have to read, sometimes in
the lectures they have to attend, and most often they have to face fallacious
arguments when their own arguments are held up to scrutiny.

There are different kinds of fallacious arguments. An argument must
attempt to answer a question, and so there are many ways to form a fallacy in
the very beginning of an argument, while framing the very question you pose
to answer. There is always the fallacies made by failing to verify your
facts, or by presenting too many facts and neglecting to focus only on the
significance of the most pertinent facts. One might err in a generalization
or in an analogy.

Then there are always the favorite errors made with causation:
The POST HOC PROPTER HOC fallacy; after this must follow by that.
The CUM HOC PROPTER HOC fallacy; with this comes that.
The PRO HOC PROPTER HOC; before this there must have happened this.

Ever popular in some circles of intellectual snobbery are those
fallacious arguments made through the use of semantical distortions. Here
one attacks the argument of another not by weighing the argument itself, the
facts it contains and the logic of its presentation, but instead distorts the
argument by playing on the semantics of his opponents words.

With any argument, too, one must be conscious of the opponent whom they
argue against. There are several distractions one might throw at an
opponent, rhetorical methods really, that anyone who has read Cicero or
bother to listen to a politician speak for more than 30 seconds can
recognize. And in each of these methods there lies the danger of producing a
fallacy by substantive distractions.

The ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM is an appeal to authority. The argument
forms into an appeal to modesty or shame, whereby an opponent is accused of
committing the sin of pride should he continue his opposition to a position
held by some authority. An ever popular method among the Scholastics of the
Medieval Period and most modern college professors, it is an argument based
solely on professional status. "I am the professor and you are only a lowly
student, how dare you question my authority." This type of argument can also
be made among peers by using pedantic words and phrases, never making a
simple point when a long word can be inserted. Or it can be made by making
an overabundance of references, quotations, details, and specifities,
throwing in a few mathematical symbols to distract the eye, and generally by
increasing the length of the presentation to disguise the very fact that
there is nothing to be said.

The ARGUMENTEM AD HOMINEM shifts the attention of the argument onto the
opposing arguer; a typical tactic among politicians. One might denounce
their opponent. One might suggest that an opponent's argument is based
solely on self interests, or insinuate as much by associating him with the
company he keeps, as Joseph McCarthy and Millmouse Nixon did in the '50's,
and Raygun did in the '80's. "The Devil has a son, and his name is
Palmerston." And too, there is TU QUOQUE or the "you too" denunciation,
pointing out how an opponent has flip-flopped on any issue, as though
politicians were the only fish out of water when they land on the shores of
civility. One time Dr. Johnson overheard a lady complain how she so disliked
London, because while there her fingernails always became dirty, to which he
replied, "Perhaps, Madam, you scratch yourself."

And then there are the other forms of argument:

AD CRUMENAM "If yer so smart, why ain't ya rich."
AD BACULUM which is an appeal to actual or implied use of physical force.
AD TEMPERANTIAM that is an appeal to moderation whether in style or
substance.
AD ANTIQUITAM is an illegitimate appeal to ages past in order to justify
actions in the present or future, what Bentham called the "Chinese argument."
Men so love old truths, and they love old errors as well.
AD NOVITAM appeals to novelty or modernity where everything is "new and
improved."
AD NAUSEAM simply makes the same stupid argument repeatedly until your
opponent gets tired of hearing it and gives in.
AD MISERICORDIAM is an appeal to pity; AD ODIAM, to hatred; AD
SUPERSTITIONEM to credulity; AD MODUM to gradualism; AD METUM, to fear; AD
INVIDIAM, to envy; AD SUPERBIAM is simple snobbery.

And if one should ever become so prideful as to think that by knowing
every type of fallacy one might commit, there are then the Fallacist's
Fallacies:
1. An argument which is structurally fallacious in some respect is
therefor structurally false in all respects.
2. An argument which is structurally false in some aspect, or even in
every respect, is therefor substantively false in its conclusion.
3. The appearance of a fallacy in an argument is an external sign of its
author's depravity.
4. Sound thinking is merely thinking that is not fallacious.
5. Fallacies exist independent of particular purposes and assumptions.
Each of these propositions are profoundly false.

There is nothing so hurtful as an unconsidered word spoken. There is
nothing so wrongful in weighing another's words as to disregard the sincerity
of their argument, and to overlook the truth each opinion may possess.

"I pray to all the gods and goddesses to guide my mind in the study that
I have undertaken; to kindle in me the shining light of Truth and enlarge my
understanding for the genuine science of Being; to open the gates to my soul
that I may receive inspired guidance; and in anchoring my thought in the full
splendor of reality; to hold me back from too much conceit of wisdom and from
the paths of error by keeping me in intellectual converse with those
realities from which alone the eye of the soul is refreshed and nourished....
- Proclus (410-485 ce).

Valete
Gn. Hernicius Piscinus

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/960149178/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: New Citizen
From:	"Jane or Patricia " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Sun, 04 Jun 2000 21:10:02 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "StormWolf" <blakmice@t...> wrote:
> *dances about happily till he notices his tunic is flapping a
little high*
>
> My application was approved! I'm a Nova Roma citizen!

Welcome among us, Lucius Vatinius! May Nova Roma be a place of
learning
and community for you, and may you grace our nation for many years.

Patricia Cassia



------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/960153007/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Of signets and things most vain.
From:	"Decius Aucelius Sebastianus" <Decius@-------->
Date:	Sun, 4 Jun 2000 18:56:02 -0500

Salvete Omnes

Can anyone give me any examples of a good Roman Paterfamilias' signet,
dimensions/etc. or know of a place/person I may purchase/commision one from?

Ave
DASebastianus


------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/960162541/
------------------------------------------------------------------------