| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] On the Resignation of My Son & Democracy |
| From: |
Lykaion1@-------- |
| Date: |
Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:27:18 EDT |
|
In a message dated 7/15/00 6:33:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gens_moravia@-------- writes:
<< Alias res, I take it you won't be running for any public office,
ever? >>
Why not? Nova Roma is, after all, a republic, and not a democracy, thank the
gods, er, I mean thank Germanicus. And yes, there is a difference between
the two.
Gaius Lupinius Festus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6809/8/_/61050/_/963710842/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] On the Resignation of My Son & Democracy |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 15 Jul 2000 18:29:28 -0700 |
|
----- Original Message -----
From: <Lykaion1@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2000 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] On the Resignation of My Son & Democracy
> In a message dated 7/15/00 6:33:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> gens_moravia@-------- writes:
>
> << Alias res, I take it you won't be running for any public office,
> ever? >>
>
> Why not? Nova Roma is, after all, a republic, and not a democracy, thank
the
> gods, er, I mean thank Germanicus. And yes, there is a difference between
> the two.
Thanks for the laugh! It is definately needed.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
http://click.egroups.com/1/6631/8/_/61050/_/963711023/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Dots & Circles (Was Re:Roman lamps) |
| From: |
"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 15 Jul 2000 23:21:50 +0100 |
|
Etiam salutem
I feel it necessary to add to my previous post on the subject:
> The ring-and-dot motif is, at least in my experience, by far the commonest
> decorative idiom one sees in Western European metal, wood, bone and
leather
> artefacts of all kinds, from the Roman period to the late Medieval.
Reason?
> The most common, because most useful and versatile die-punches are those
> producing dots and circles (big hole and little hole punches, to
> leather-workers).
I met a fellow today who makes reproduction Anglo-Saxon accessories out of
deer antler. We got talking about ring-and-dot decoration, and he told me
that for softer materials like bone and wood, a bow-drill is used rather
than a die punch. The centre point of the drill bit produces the dot, the
edges, the circle.
Valete
Vado.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
http://click.egroups.com/1/6631/8/_/61050/_/963717326/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: More ramblings on time... |
| From: |
"G. Bagne" <gkbagne@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 04:02:01 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, Andy Pearson <andy.pearson@n...> wrote:
> Salvete!
>
> >Does anyone know how variable the hora really was during
>Vegetius' time?
> I was
> >under the impression that Rome had access to water clocks >fairly
early.
>
> I second this question!
>
> How did these devices work? If a true cylinder is filled at a
constant rate
> from sunrise to sunset, it is easy to divide the resulting depth of
water
> into 12 equal portions (of 1 hora each). It would seem to be less
easy to
> calibrate a cylinder which emptied, as the flow rate would vary.
>
> But is there any point in standardising the length of the hora? You
can
> either:
>
> 1) Don't standardise the length of the Hora. Every locality
recalibrates its
> water clock when required (say once or twice a month?). Result:
horae
> varying in length with season and location, but does it matter?
>
> 2) Everyone recalibrates their water clocks on the equinoxes. It
wouldn't
> matter where you were, you would end up with a 60 minute hora. Of
course,
> the number of horae between sunrise and sunset would vary with
season and
> location, as they do at present. Is this an improvement on option 1?
>
> Whoops! seem to have left the army behind!
>
> Valete, omnes
>
>From Lapella, Greetings!
To set your waterclock for day hours, put a stick in the ground.
At sunrise mark where the shadow falls then do the same thing at
sunset. Devide the area between them into 12 equal areas. You
number the hours starting with the first hour after sunrise. So if
the sun rises at modern 6AM, 7AM would be the first hour- hora diei
prima. Noon would then be hora deie sexta.
Unless you're near the equater with equal days and nights, your
waterclock will need another setting for night, hora noctis. (Why
would you need a water clock except for setting night watches or
astrology anyway?) I find the relationship between the handle of the
big dipper and the north star the easiest to guage, rather like the
hour hand on a modern clock. If you are not out every night to get
the hang of eyeballing it, there are many starchart sites on the web
where you can set a starchart to your latitude, longitude, and the
date, then rotate the chart hour by hour. Do this before a camping
event and you can impress the heck out of your fellow reenactors.
While we're on the subject of time, what's the difference between
Rome's (and our) time zone and Universal Time (a.k.a. Greenwhich Mean
Time)? Be Well(imperative)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
http://click.egroups.com/1/6628/8/_/61050/_/963720360/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Senate news |
| From: |
LSergAust@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:01:13 EDT |
|
Salvete omnes
There had been no activity in your Senate for some time now, until the
past day or two. Now the Senate is all abuzz with complaints about the
former citizen formerly known as Lucius Marius Fimbria (or the feminine
gender if you prefer). There are complaints that this person (this
ambiguity of gender really does make conversation awkward at times - odd
that nobody brought _that_ up in the Gender Edict Wars) - I shall refer
to Fimbria as female for now, although without prejudice to her
preference to be considered male... AS I WAS SAYING, there are complaints
that this person is disrupting conversation in the Taverna with critical
or uncomplimentary remarks about some of our magistrates and about Nova
Roma herself. There have also been accusations that she has been a
troublemaker since even before the gender issues/edicts, and that she
discourages prospective members, demoralizes or confuses new members, and
apparently is liable, all by herself, to bring doom and ruination to Nova
Roma. The Senate has heard suggestions ranging from "menacing her"
(whatever the Hades that means) to ignoring her. The idea that seems to
be actively being pursued at present is to switch the Taverna to a
different "chat room" that will offer more control over who may enter.
The extent to which some magistrates are concerned with trying to control
the actions of someone who isn't even a member of Nova Roma is perhaps
puzzling. There is another matter more ominous in my opinion. The senior
Consul has posted to the Senate a statement of concern regarding my
remarks here about the concept of "leadership." In his post, he asserts
that when you join Nova Roma you must surrender not just some of your
rights but the very "pre-conceived notion" of rights. The idea of rights
is a "non-Roman" idea. The duty of a citizen of Nova Roma is asserted to
be to either obey or to leave. To speak of rights is to be non-Roman.
At this time, I am content to give the senior Consul the benefit of the
doubt and assume that in this matter his keyboard outpaced his judgement.
I will even assume some culpability in that I introduced here a very
radical idea that calls into question a notion that is drilled into us
practically from the moment of birth. To anyone here who was upset by my
posts on "leadership" I offer apologies and point out that it is your
choice whether to entertain these ideas, consider them, deride them, or
ignore them. If they upset you, go back to sleep - everything is fine -
all's right with the world - your leaders are still taking care of you.
Nasty old Australicus can't take them away from you.
I had thought to clarify some of my earlier remarks, but if I cause
senior magistrates to stumble and make Freudian slips, perhaps it were
better if I just remained silent on such subjects.
You know, if we made Nova Roma better, maybe it wouldn't matter if
Fimbria kept sniping at her.
Valete,
Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
[Egad, no wonder Socrates swallowed the hemlock! Scotty, I'm ready to
beam up now. Scotty?.... SCOTTY?]
certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
http://click.egroups.com/1/6631/8/_/61050/_/963723678/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Senate news |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:28:25 -0700 |
|
[SNIP above]
> The extent to which some magistrates are concerned with trying to control
> the actions of someone who isn't even a member of Nova Roma is perhaps
> puzzling. There is another matter more ominous in my opinion.
[SNIP Below]
Ave,
I have a question, do you believe the secondary issue you reported to the
People of Nova Roma is more ominous becuase it concerned you directly?
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
http://click.egroups.com/1/6628/8/_/61050/_/963725439/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Senate news |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:41:31 -0700 |
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2000 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Senate news
> [SNIP above]
>
>
> > The extent to which some magistrates are concerned with trying to
control
> > the actions of someone who isn't even a member of Nova Roma is perhaps
> > puzzling. There is another matter more ominous in my opinion.
>
> [SNIP Below]
>
> Ave,
>
> I have a question, do you believe the secondary issue you reported to the
> People of Nova Roma is more ominous becuase it concerned you directly?
As my Gens member just pointed out, my wording might be a little confusing.
So in an effort to make sure my post is completely understood I am
rephrasing it. You, Lucius Sergius reported two incidents to the People.
1. The Taverna situation
2. Q. Fabius's concern about your post regarding leadership.
You stated the above, that the second one is more ominious, and my question
is why, do you feel it is more ominious? Is it because the second issue
directly affects you?
I hope that my post is completely understood. :)
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
http://click.egroups.com/1/6628/8/_/61050/_/963726231/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Senate news |
| From: |
LSergAust@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 02:14:21 EDT |
|
Salve Lucius Cornelius
That's a legitimate question. The answer is no. I see it as ominous
because if it were to be adopted as the official position of Nova Roma on
the issue of human rights, I think it would trigger the depopulation of
Nova Roma. To tell everybody who belongs to Nova Roma "Oh, by the way,
you forfeited the whole silly notion of 'rights' when you joined this
organization - obey me or else" would likely result in the departure of
many present citizens and a drop-off in new citizens. It would do far
more harm than does the sniping of one disgruntled ex-citizen in a chat
room.
But it is also so far out of line with reality (some might say, even more
out of line with reality than Australicus ;-) ) that I don't see it
happening. The concept of "rights of citizens" is specifically recognized
in our current Constitution. Doesn't that mean that to assert that the
concept of rights doesn't belong in Nova Roma is non-Nova Roman?
This is the last Summer of the 20th Century. Nova Roma is a nation of the
modern world. No-one is going to forfeit the "notion" of rights in order
to belong to Nova Roma. Why would anyone even want them to do so? Why
would anyone even suggest such an idea? Where did this come from?
I notice that so far no-one in the Senate has taken up this topic. I
think that speaks well of our Senators.
Vale,
L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
Tribunus Plebis
On 7/16/00 12:28 AM L. Cornelius Sulla (alexious@--------) wrote:
>[SNIP above]
>
>
>> The extent to which some magistrates are concerned with trying to control
>> the actions of someone who isn't even a member of Nova Roma is perhaps
>> puzzling. There is another matter more ominous in my opinion.
>
>[SNIP Below]
>
>Ave,
>
>I have a question, do you believe the secondary issue you reported to the
>People of Nova Roma is more ominous becuase it concerned you directly?
>
>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>Censor
sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.
(I think some people in togas are plotting against me.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
http://click.egroups.com/1/6628/8/_/61050/_/963728068/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Senate news |
| From: |
"Marius Aurelianus" <aurelianus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 07:00:08 -0000 |
|
The latest from the Senate of Nova Roma, courtesy of our worthy (I
mean that) Tribune of the Plebs, L Sergius Australicus:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: Salvete omnes
:
: There had been no activity in your Senate for some time now, until
: the past day or two. Now the Senate is all abuzz with complaints
: about the former citizen formerly known as Lucius Marius Fimbria
: [...]. There are complaints that this person...is disrupting
: conversation in the Taverna with critical or uncomplimentary
: remarks about some of our magistrates and about Nova Roma herself.
: There have also been accusations that she has been a troublemaker
: since even before the gender issues/edicts, and that she
: discourages prospective members, demoralizes or confuses new
: members, and apparently is liable, all by herself, to bring doom and
: ruination to Nova Roma. The Senate has heard suggestions ranging
: from "menacing her" (whatever the Hades that means) to ignoring her.
: The idea that seems to be actively being pursued at present is to
: switch the Taverna to a different "chat room" that will offer more
: control over who may enter.
:
: The extent to which some magistrates are concerned with trying to
: control the actions of someone who isn't even a member of Nova Roma
: is perhaps puzzling. ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sez Marius: No kidding.
For the record:
I am, without doubt, a former Citizen of Nova Roma--but I have not
ceased to be a Citizen of Rome in the larger sense. I am yet a
Roman; and I am yet Lucius Marius [Fimbria] Aurelianus (I'm still
deciding if I want to keep the new cognomen or resume my old one), as
I have been for (count 'em) nine years. I am a Citizen in excellent
standing of a Rome that was and is big enough to contain me. Nova
Roma has proven too small for that. Smallness in size and complexity
of social structure, I can live with; these can only improve with
time...but smallness of spirit, mere patience cannot cure.
For the record:
I deeply regret my outburst in the Taverna the other night...but no
one familiar with the situation can say I was not most sorely
provoked. The lapse of Roman Discipline and its consequences
I must live with...but no one can honestly claim that I am often, let
alone usually, like that.
For the record:
I do not believe I have ever maligned Nova Roma to any group of
Citizens or Citizen-prospects. I, as any active and vocal Citizen,
have frequently had something to say about particular issues, areas
in need of development or improvement, and--lately--my own peculiarly
prejudicial treatment at the hands of certain of Her Magistrates; but
these are the deeds of individual men, and I have never attributed
their failings of judgement to Nova Roma Herself. Indeed, in that
these officials feel the need to "menace" or otherwise discipline
anyone for what has been nothing more than an exercise in free
political speech, I would have to say that their faith in Nova Roma's
machinery and mission is weaker than mine--for is not such ingrained
insecurity, that cannot tolerate a single voice raised in thoughtful
dissent, a sign of weakness?
I pray that Nova Roma will survive the good intentions of Her
leadership. I'd like there to be something left of Her when Venator,
Nocturnia, a few others, and myself meet in Omaha, NE to mark Her
fifth anniversary a few years hence.
In fides,
-- L Marius [Fimbria] Aurelianus
...a lover of Rome and all things Roman,
who remembers when that was enough
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
http://click.egroups.com/1/6628/8/_/61050/_/963730813/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] From the Senior Consul |
| From: |
sfp55@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 03:21:18 EDT |
|
In a message dated 7/15/2000 11:14:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
LSergAust@-------- writes:
<< This is the last summer of the 20th Century. Nova Roma is a nation of the
modern world. No-one is going to forfeit the "notion" of rights in order
to belong to Nova Roma. Why would anyone even want them to do so? Why
would anyone even suggest such an idea? Where did this come from? >>
Actually it came about since everyone seems to have a personal agenda about
the micronation, except the Senators. Since we are in the process of setting
up a micronation, personal comfort zones have to take a back seat to the hard
facts that we are not an empowerment organization for the individual. And we
expect our gods to honored, and our Roman ideals to be kept. And no,
Sergius, when I said no rights I was talking about to the Romans "rights"
would be unknown. The citizens had no bill of rights. Citizenship allowed
you to vote. To serve in the levy. And to be protected under Roman Law. But
some people here are under the mistaken notion that we here at Nova Roma are
a democracy and what the people say, goes. I tried to explain that was not
the case, if we need the people's vote, then we call an election. The people
may complain all they want and we listen to the complaints. We may not take
action right away, since the government moves slowly especially via e-mail,
but we are grinding away in what we feel is the right direction.
As for my Freudian "slip" it was calculated. I really find that "feelings"
and "ego massage" and "I'm OK you are OK," sentiment has little place in the
reconstruction of a Roman nation. Concentrate on the work at hand. If
someone says something that you don't like instead of wasting energy on a
rebuke, put the energy elsewhere for the good of the Republic. You are not
my slaves as much as Sergius seems to hint at that is what I imply. No, I
want you to be slaves to the ideal of our republic, like I and Minucius, and
the other magistrates. You all know our goals. Has any organization ever
reached their goals, when they are in internal struggle? Not that I am aware
of. Well, maybe the Mongols but they were a special case. They succeeded
because Jingus figured out how to use that internecine strife to drive their
goals.
I'm being realistic. If you are here to have a good time all the time, you
picked a bad time to be here. Check back with us in ten years. I've been
Consul for 7 months now. I do not have a good time. Mostly I work. My
personal revenue is down, my time is not my own, I read up to 50 emails a
day. My Co Consul is as busy, and we oversee an organization of 400 or so
souls. The Gods help us when we grow to 1000. But I do this so I can be
part of something which I feel is unique and wonderful. If I didn't want
this, I wouldn't have stood for consul, and I would have resigned when the
going got hard. On the contrary the going is going get harder. It has to be
that way. Because we are nowhere close to our goals yet.
But we are trying. And that is the important thing.
Valete.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6809/8/_/61050/_/963732083/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Senate news |
| From: |
<gmvick32@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 03:44:36 -0600 |
|
Salvete omnes
Let me introduce myself as one of the new cives in question. I have been
present almost daily in the Forum during the most recent events in question
with M.Aurelianus. Let me first thank her for her kindnesses to me early
on, when I was in the process of selecting my Roman name. When M.Aurelianus
served as an official nomenclator for Nova Roma, she surely served her post
well and with good conscience.
I find myself now of having to make good to her a promise. You see, I
consider M.Aurelianus a friend, but I must also rebuke her claims. I have
been present on occasions where she has, indeed, railed against the state of
Nova Roma and its magistrates. It goes beyond the exercise of free
speech.....which is a sorely abused privilege in many situations.
Certainly, citizens of the United States and other countries which cives of
Nova Roma have dual citizenship with, have laws regarding the right to speak
freely (and which, I might add, are over-broadly interpreted by the general
citizen -- but more on that later). And within Nova Roma, I have
encountered thus far NOTHING that suggests to me that the right to voice
one's point of view is CURTAILED AS A POINT OF LAW without the measure of
due process. Interestingly, the same can be said for the country that
M.Aurelianus and I share dual citizenship, with -- the United States.
No cives.......what I witnessed, was a former cives who, on more than one
occasion, persisted in making known her feelings of persecution from the
magistry of Nova Roma. What I observed by reading through postings on the
issue, which I was made aware of by M. Aurelianus and no other, was that at
an earlier time, due process was indeed brought forth regarding
M.Aurelianus, and that she has been accorded subsequent opportunities for
further due process about her situation.
"Due process" is a modern concept, but it is relevant here to me. Because
it tells me, in modern terms that I am more familiar with, that M.Aurelianus
has been taken through the legal system established by the Constitution and
laws adopted by the senate and accepted by the cives of Nova Roma. When you
apply for citizenship, you agree to follow said corpus of law, inasmuch as
your actitives occur within the context of Nova Roma. So, M.Aurelianus has
had her day....several times....to plead her case according to that law.
BUT....where is it appropriate for her to do that??? I maintain, directly
with the magistrates in question and never with the general populace. I
have had occasion to speak with several of the magistrates in question, and
at no time have they represented themselves in any way that deserves
M.Aurelianus's claims of grievance. No, cives.....M.Aurelianus at this
point is simply speaking out against a system that is ultimately not making
the decisions that she wants made. This is NOT because the magistrates
think they are above the law....or are the law. It is because they have
considered the situation, considered precedent, considered her own
arguments. And ultimately, for the good of Nova Roma as a whole, they make
a decision which realizes that the needs of the many present and future Nova
Romans outweigh the needs of a single individual.
It is not appropriate for her postings in the Forum to take on the
increasingly fevered pitch they did recently. Most distressing to me was
that, as I tried to discuss the situation with her and find out how
legitimate her claims are against the magistrates, I found that she doesn't
believe in keeping evidence of conversations. Therefore, at the same time
that we cives are required by the magistry to bring evidence to the table if
we want to bring grievance against M.Aurelianus for what has become
disturbing the peace.......we cives cannot get satisfaction from HER that
her claims against the highhandedness of the magistry have any legitimacy.
In closing, let me bring to bear a passage from Epictetus that has relevancy
here:
"When you are faithfully occupied with performing the acts of a wise and
decent person, seeking to conform your intentions and acts to the divine
will, you do not feel victimized by the words or deeds of others. At worst,
those words and deeds will seem amusing or pitiable.
"Except for extreme physical abuse, other people cannot hurt you unless you
allow them to. And this holds true even if the person is your parent,
brother, sister, teacher, or employer. Don't consent to be hurt and you
won't be hurt -- this is a choice over which you have control.
"Most people tend to delude themselves into thinking that freedom comes from
doing what feels good or what fosters comfort and ease. The truth is that
people who subordinate reason to their feelings of the moment are actually
slaves of their desires and aversions. They are ill-prepared to act
effectively and nobly when unexpected challenges occur, as they inevitably
will.
"Authentic freedom places demands on us. In discovering and comprehending
our fundamental relations to one another and zestfully performing our
duties, true freedom, which all people long for, is indeed possible."
In fides,
Livia Cornelia Aurelia
Marius Aurelianus wrote:
> The latest from the Senate of Nova Roma, courtesy of our worthy (I
> mean that) Tribune of the Plebs, L Sergius Australicus:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : Salvete omnes
> :
> : There had been no activity in your Senate for some time now, until
> : the past day or two. Now the Senate is all abuzz with complaints
> : about the former citizen formerly known as Lucius Marius Fimbria
> : [...]. There are complaints that this person...is disrupting
> : conversation in the Taverna with critical or uncomplimentary
> : remarks about some of our magistrates and about Nova Roma herself.
> : There have also been accusations that she has been a troublemaker
> : since even before the gender issues/edicts, and that she
> : discourages prospective members, demoralizes or confuses new
> : members, and apparently is liable, all by herself, to bring doom and
> : ruination to Nova Roma. The Senate has heard suggestions ranging
> : from "menacing her" (whatever the Hades that means) to ignoring her.
> : The idea that seems to be actively being pursued at present is to
> : switch the Taverna to a different "chat room" that will offer more
> : control over who may enter.
> :
> : The extent to which some magistrates are concerned with trying to
> : control the actions of someone who isn't even a member of Nova Roma
> : is perhaps puzzling. ...
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Sez Marius: No kidding.
>
> For the record:
> I am, without doubt, a former Citizen of Nova Roma--but I have not
> ceased to be a Citizen of Rome in the larger sense. I am yet a
> Roman; and I am yet Lucius Marius [Fimbria] Aurelianus (I'm still
> deciding if I want to keep the new cognomen or resume my old one), as
> I have been for (count 'em) nine years. I am a Citizen in excellent
> standing of a Rome that was and is big enough to contain me. Nova
> Roma has proven too small for that. Smallness in size and complexity
> of social structure, I can live with; these can only improve with
> time...but smallness of spirit, mere patience cannot cure.
>
> For the record:
> I deeply regret my outburst in the Taverna the other night...but no
> one familiar with the situation can say I was not most sorely
> provoked. The lapse of Roman Discipline and its consequences
> I must live with...but no one can honestly claim that I am often, let
> alone usually, like that.
>
> For the record:
> I do not believe I have ever maligned Nova Roma to any group of
> Citizens or Citizen-prospects. I, as any active and vocal Citizen,
> have frequently had something to say about particular issues, areas
> in need of development or improvement, and--lately--my own peculiarly
> prejudicial treatment at the hands of certain of Her Magistrates; but
> these are the deeds of individual men, and I have never attributed
> their failings of judgement to Nova Roma Herself. Indeed, in that
> these officials feel the need to "menace" or otherwise discipline
> anyone for what has been nothing more than an exercise in free
> political speech, I would have to say that their faith in Nova Roma's
> machinery and mission is weaker than mine--for is not such ingrained
> insecurity, that cannot tolerate a single voice raised in thoughtful
> dissent, a sign of weakness?
>
> I pray that Nova Roma will survive the good intentions of Her
> leadership. I'd like there to be something left of Her when Venator,
> Nocturnia, a few others, and myself meet in Omaha, NE to mark Her
> fifth anniversary a few years hence.
>
> In fides,
>
> -- L Marius [Fimbria] Aurelianus
> ...a lover of Rome and all things Roman,
> who remembers when that was enough
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
> 1. Fill in the brief application
> 2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
> 3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
> http://click.egroups.com/1/6628/8/_/61050/_/963730813/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW: Did you buy that new car yet?
If not, check this site out.
They're called CarsDirect.com and it's a pretty sweet way to buy a car.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6847/8/_/61050/_/963739734/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Welcome back! |
| From: |
"Jeroen Meuleman" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 13:04:48 +0200 |
|
Salve Quinte,
I just wanted to welcome you back *officially* :-) within the walls of Nova
Roma. I hope things will go more peacefully for you now.
Vale bene,
S.A. Draco
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email plain text is conventional, to add graphics is divine.
We'll show you how at www.supersig.com.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6811/8/_/61050/_/963746316/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] history |
| From: |
marcusaemiliusscaurus@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 12:21:37 -0000 |
|
Salve civis romae
Can anyone help me here? I've found conflicting sources of info on
the death of Marcus Scribonius Curio. One says he died fighting
Caesar's enemies in Africa and the other says he died fighting Caesar
himself in Africa.
Does anyone know which is right?
Thanks,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wish you had something rad to add to your email?
We do at www.supersig.com.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6810/8/_/61050/_/963750100/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Senate news |
| From: |
Megas-Robinson <amgunn@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 07:59:13 -0500 |
|
Ave Marius Aurelianus,
Venii here:
Marius Aurelianus wrote:
>
> (Snip quote from Senate report)
>
> Sez Marius: No kidding.
>
> For the record:
> I am, without doubt, a former Citizen of Nova Roma--but I have not
> ceased to be a Citizen of Rome in the larger sense. (snip)
>
Ven: Marius and I have e-discussed this several times. I believe when he self identifies as a
Roman, not just as a label, but as something internal to one's character. Even during some of
Marius's darkest moments in regards to Nova Roma, he has remained dignified, yet passionate, weary,
yet hopeful - ready to help the recognition which Rome, as an ideal, deserves. At the least, in our
correspondence.
>
> For the record:
> I deeply regret my outburst in the Taverna the other night... (snip)
>
Ven: Amicus mea, I don't know what the brouhaha entailed, keep in mind one thing for the sake of
our friendship - our online personas are many times less restrained and more ham handed at the
keyboard than in actual voice to voice or face to face contact. I try and guard against that
myself, and have had to apologize for mine own errors at times. Perhaps we need a mediators'
Sodalis...
>
> For the record:
> I do not believe I have ever maligned Nova Roma to any group of
> Citizens or Citizen-prospects. (snip)
>
Ven: See above. I should like to mention that I did see a post from Marius elsewhere in which Nova
Roma was suggested as a place to look for information and possible fellowship for those interested
in Rome and Romanitas. (And no, I don't have a copy, much of that was lost in January when redoing
my old computer.)
>
> I pray that Nova Roma will survive the good intentions of Her
> leadership. I'd like there to be something left of Her when Venator,
> Nocturnia, a few others, and myself meet in Omaha, NE to mark Her
> fifth anniversary a few years hence.
>
> In fides,
>
> -- L Marius [Fimbria] Aurelianus
> ...a lover of Rome and all things Roman,
> who remembers when that was enough
>
Good news on the above. My employer is building stores in Nebraska next year and I am going to
apply for transfer. So, I will be living in or near Omaha in time to host the Nova Roma Fifth
Anniversary - Symposia, Feast and Zoo Visit. Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo is a world class operation,
plus they now have an outdoor "safari" park at the other side of the county. Omaha's a great little
city.
Quant. Suff. - In Amicus et Fidelis - Venator, who may be naive, but he has a wide variety of
friends
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email plain text is conventional, to add graphics is divine.
We'll show you how at www.supersig.com.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6808/8/_/61050/_/963752323/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: More ramblings on time... |
| From: |
Matt Haase <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 10:21:21 -0500 (CDT) |
|
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, G. Bagne wrote:
> While we're on the subject of time, what's the difference between
> Rome's (and our) time zone and Universal Time (a.k.a. Greenwhich Mean
> Time)?
azathoth:~$ date
Sun Jul 16 10:19:17 CST 2000 # (my local time US/Central (CDT=GMT-5))
azathoth:~$ TZ=GMT date
Sun Jul 16 15:19:32 GMT 2000
azathoth:~$ TZ=Europe/London date
Sun Jul 16 16:19:40 BST 2000 # (GMT+1 because of DST, ordinarily GMT+0)
azathoth:~$ TZ=Europe/Rome date
Sun Jul 16 17:19:55 CEST 2000 # (GMT+2 because of DST, ordinarily GMT+1)
Thus, Roman time is currently GMT+2, it will be GMT+1 when local
Daylight Saving Time ends.
Vale, Octavius
--
Matt Haase (haase@--------) |
konoko Network Consulting | Microsoft delenda est.
Graveyards of Chicago: |
http://www.graveyards.com |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wish you had something rad to add to your email?
We do at www.supersig.com.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6810/8/_/61050/_/963760988/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: From the Senior Consul |
| From: |
Piscinus@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:45:54 -0000 |
|
G. Moravius Piscinus Consuli Q. Fabio Maximo C.V. S.P.D.
--- In novaroma@--------, sfp55@a... wrote:
>
> Since we are in the process of setting up a micronation, personal
comfort zones have to take a back seat to the hard facts that we are
not an empowerment organization for the individual. And we expect
our gods to honored, and our Roman ideals to be kept. And no,
Sergius, when I said no rights I was talking about to the
Romans "rights" would be unknown. The citizens had no bill of
rights. Citizenship allowed you to vote. To serve in the levy. And
to be protected under Roman Law. But some people here are under the
mistaken notion that we here at Nova Roma are a democracy and what
the people say, goes. I tried to explain that was not the case,
Quaestio:
As you are an individual who has some historical knowledge of the
Roman Republic, I would just like to ask few couple questions.
If being a Roman citizen did not impart any kind of rights, as
opposed to being a non-citizen, then why did the Italic tribes fight
so desparately in the Social War to become citizens?
And if those citizens who were plebes thought that they were not
entitled to any rights, why did they insist that Roman law be written
down in the Twelve Tablet? Why did they "feel" they had a right to
protest the proscription against intermarriages? Why did they seceed
from Rome on two occasions when they "felt" their rights were
threathened? Why did they insist on the tribune system to protect
their rights, and why did they later insist that the number of
tribunes be expanded?
Then, too, as you were an elected magistrate, I should like to ask if
the people who form Nova Roma's citizery, elect all the magistrates
and pass all laws do not have entitlement to say what goes, then who
does? You say things like "we expect," "our gods," and "our Roman
ideals" and that when an individual becomes a citizen they are
acceeding to serving such. Well then, just who is this "we" that I
agreed to serve by becoming a citizen?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6137/8/_/61050/_/963765970/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] To the Senior Consul |
| From: |
Ira Adams <iadams@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 12:02:17 -0500 |
|
L. Sergius Australicus Obstinatus Quinti Fabi Maximi Consuli S.P.D.
(I hope I got all that right.)
I, for one, greatly appreciate this post, am greatly relieved by your
explanation of your concern and intent, and agree with almost everything
you say here.
The one area that stands out where your thinking differs from mine is
with regard to internal struggles. From my viewpoint, the whole universe
arises from the balance between opposing forces: patrician/plebian, the
"Boni"/the people, yin/yang, light/dark, strong/weak, predator/prey,
selfish interests/interests of the group, etc. ad nauseam. I might add
here: tribune/consul - there is a reason Roma had tribuni plebi.
Organizations without internal struggle are doomed to stagnation and
death. Conflict is a good thing, because it gives rise to movement which
is, hopefully, progress. When all the particles cease to hurl themselves
against one another, the whole universe succumbs to the Second Law of
Thermodynamics and it's "Time, gentlemen."
When I say that conflict is good, I *do not* mean that viciousness,
cruelty, uncivil email, vendettas, etc., are good. I mean that the active
debating of one idea against another is good. Else why have elections,
referenda, a Senate, etc.? Why even have two Consules? Without debate or
conflict, only a Dictator is needed.
I begin to see now why you and I seem to be at loggerheads so much. Pity,
that - I actually have great respect for your knowledge of history and I
enjoy your wit and your skill with language, even when you call me a
"jerk" (since I long ago learned not to be affected by name-calling - one
cannot survive in the field of mental health with a thin skin).
I sympathize with the time and effort you and Audens put into your work
in Nova Roma. I hope that when we grow to 1000 or more cives our Consules
will see themselves as responsible for the oversight of the government
and not for the oversight of 1000 or more cives. The latter would be, in
my opinion, impossible. I can understand that some of your duties are not
enjoyable. I do not (contrary to the opinions of some) enjoy the kinds of
conflicts my duties have taken me into. If I see it as my tribunicial
duty to challenge a Censor or a Consul or a Senator, I do so not out of
enjoyment but out of duty. The fact that under the Vedian constitution
the Tribuni not only have even less power than ever previously and are
not even members of the Senate, makes them easy to ignore/disdain ("a
mere Tribune") and thus requires us to rely entirely upon the power of
argument to move people. If one of the Tribuni is inactive except when
called upon to block the other, one wonders why we even have them at all.
It is a thankless position in which to find oneself: "Go, stranger, tell
the Romans I remain here obedient to their orders." ;-) Australicus the
Martyr!!!
Enough. Thank you for your post, Fabius. And I'm still looking for the
rest of the story of Athenian democracy, really.
Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
Tribunus Plebis
On 7/16/00 2:21 AM Quintus Fabius Maximus (sfp55@--------) wrote:
>In a message dated 7/15/2000 11:14:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>LSergAust@-------- writes:
>
><< This is the last summer of the 20th Century. Nova Roma is a nation of the
> modern world. No-one is going to forfeit the "notion" of rights in order
> to belong to Nova Roma. Why would anyone even want them to do so? Why
> would anyone even suggest such an idea? Where did this come from? >>
>
>Actually it came about since everyone seems to have a personal agenda about
>the micronation, except the Senators. Since we are in the process of
>setting
>up a micronation, personal comfort zones have to take a back seat to the
>hard
>facts that we are not an empowerment organization for the individual. And
>we
>expect our gods to honored, and our Roman ideals to be kept. And no,
>Sergius, when I said no rights I was talking about to the Romans "rights"
>would be unknown. The citizens had no bill of rights. Citizenship allowed
>you to vote. To serve in the levy. And to be protected under Roman Law.
>But
>some people here are under the mistaken notion that we here at Nova Roma are
>a democracy and what the people say, goes. I tried to explain that was not
>the case, if we need the people's vote, then we call an election. The
>people
>may complain all they want and we listen to the complaints. We may not take
>action right away, since the government moves slowly especially via e-mail,
>but we are grinding away in what we feel is the right direction.
>As for my Freudian "slip" it was calculated. I really find that "feelings"
>and "ego massage" and "I'm OK you are OK," sentiment has little place in the
>reconstruction of a Roman nation. Concentrate on the work at hand. If
>someone says something that you don't like instead of wasting energy on a
>rebuke, put the energy elsewhere for the good of the Republic. You are not
>my slaves as much as Sergius seems to hint at that is what I imply. No, I
>want you to be slaves to the ideal of our republic, like I and Minucius, and
>the other magistrates. You all know our goals. Has any organization ever
>reached their goals, when they are in internal struggle? Not that I am
>aware
>of. Well, maybe the Mongols but they were a special case. They succeeded
>because Jingus figured out how to use that internecine strife to drive their
>goals.
>I'm being realistic. If you are here to have a good time all the time, you
>picked a bad time to be here. Check back with us in ten years. I've been
>Consul for 7 months now. I do not have a good time. Mostly I work. My
>personal revenue is down, my time is not my own, I read up to 50 emails a
>day. My Co Consul is as busy, and we oversee an organization of 400 or so
>souls. The Gods help us when we grow to 1000. But I do this so I can be
>part of something which I feel is unique and wonderful. If I didn't want
>this, I wouldn't have stood for consul, and I would have resigned when the
>going got hard. On the contrary the going is going get harder. It has to
>be
>that way. Because we are nowhere close to our goals yet.
>But we are trying. And that is the important thing.
>Valete.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wish you had something rad to add to your email?
We do at www.supersig.com.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6810/8/_/61050/_/963767121/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Senate news |
| From: |
Piscinus@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:54:50 -0000 |
|
G. Moravius Piscinus Quiritibus S.P.D.
--- In novaroma@--------, <gmvick32@u...> wrote:
> Let me introduce myself as one of the new cives in question. I
have been present almost daily in the Forum during the most recent
events in question with M.Aurelianus. Let me first thank her for
her kindnesses to me early on, when I was in the process of selecting
my Roman name. When M.Aurelianus served as an official nomenclator
for Nova Roma, she surely served her post well and with good
conscience.
> In fides,
> Livia Cornelia Aurelia
Respondo:
When I first began to visit the Nova Roma website less than two
months ago it was Marius Aurelianus who personified Nova Roma to me.
When I withdrew my application for citizenship because of all the
controversy raging around the gender issue and what it implied about
Nova Roma, it was Marius Aurelianus who convinced me that I should
take a second look and reapply for citizenship.
Meanwhile there has arrived in the Forum two other visitors from Nova
Roma's past: Cacens and Tullius Callidus. Since we are quoting
Epictetus I will offer this:
"The anger of an ape -- the threat of a flatterer:
these deserve equal regard."
Why is it then, I wonder, that the presence of the HERO who once
saved Nova Roma from the assault of the barbarian Cacens, and whose
reputation was assaulted by such as the traitor Tullius, should be of
greater concern than the return of these two dark characters?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free yourself!
Get 1 month of FREE* Internet access from MSN!
http://click.egroups.com/1/6322/8/_/61050/_/963770095/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] history |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 13:05:13 -0500 |
|
16 july 2000
Salve
It was Caesar's enemies in Africa killed this promising young Roman , he was
tricked into believing he was doing better than he actually was, than he was
ambushed where he and many of his troops were killed.
Vale
Qunitus Sertorius
----- Original Message -----
From: <marcusaemiliusscaurus@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2000 7:21 AM
Subject: [novaroma] history
> Salve civis romae
>
> Can anyone help me here? I've found conflicting sources of info on
> the death of Marcus Scribonius Curio. One says he died fighting
> Caesar's enemies in Africa and the other says he died fighting Caesar
> himself in Africa.
> Does anyone know which is right?
>
> Thanks,
> Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Wish you had something rad to add to your email?
> We do at www.supersig.com.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/6810/8/_/61050/_/963750100/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email plain text is conventional, to add graphics is divine.
We'll show you how at www.supersig.com.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6811/8/_/61050/_/963770892/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: From the Senior Consul |
| From: |
<gmvick32@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 13:34:25 -0600 |
|
Salve, Piscinus:
I cannot immediately address your questions regarding the ancient Romans and
rights, but they are extremely poignant, well asked, and relevant. They
should serve to take this discussion down an important path and I personally
look forward to researching them more.
>>Then, too, as you were an elected magistrate, I should like to ask if
>>the people who form Nova Roma's citizery, elect all the magistrates
>>and pass all laws do not have entitlement to say what goes, then who
>>does? You say things like "we expect," "our gods," and "our Roman
>>ideals" and that when an individual becomes a citizen they are
>>acceeding to serving such. Well then, just who is this "we" that I
>>agreed to serve by becoming a citizen?
My take on this would be that as citizens of a micronation, when we apply
for citizenship we are agreeing to uphold the written "laws" of the nation.
For Nova Roma this would include Constitution as well and the laws and
edicts as published in the Tabularum. All of these documents are viewable
to non-citizens from the Nova Roman website, as well as the list of Roman
ideals that are central to the state of Nova Roma and (presumeably) embedded
in its governance.
At no time would the "we" be directly the people that comprise the Cursus
Honorarum - which is the group of elected officials. The way I see it, is
that the cives as a whole ARE the state of Nova Roma, the Cursus Honorarum
SERVE the state of Nova Roma, inasmuch as they are voted in by popular
vote. This is THE point where "democracy" applies to our Republic and the
system of centuries actually appears to be a much purer form of democratic
principle than, say, the United States and its electoral college. The cives
vote on magistrates and laws; they have the right to appeal to the Cursus
Honorarum for action against grievances or may start a grassroots movement
which to institutionalize they will need the support of the Cursus Honorarum
and the Senate. And, as always, it comes down to -- if you don't like the
way the magistrates are behaving, you can always garner popular support to
remove a magistrate from office as specified in the Constitution of Nova
Roma.
I have been greatly amused by discussion over democracy vs. republicanism,
and you can expect further posts from me on that. However, one central
thesis I will state on this is that, in modern democracy at least, we hear
more and more about "citizens rights". We hear virtually nothing about
"citizens responsibilities". However, to have an effective state, there
must be a balance between what cives can expect to get from the state, and
what cives must return to the state.
This is NOT to say that Nova Roma is a democracy. It is established as a
Republic, in form of law it IS a Republic, in that there is a body of
government which the cives vests with its vote of confidence to be the
centralized source of management and application of law for the state. As I
read through the Nova Roman constitution, I see a depth of relationship
between the people of Nova Roma and the state of Nova Roma that is quite
complex and it is dangerous to try to say.....the government of this country
is a Republic, or a democracy, and so that is what Nova Roma is also. So I
would say a primary responsibility of the cives to to come prepared to study
and understand what the Nova Roman Consitituion signifies.
We, the civies, have a responsibility to the state to be knowledgeable
enough about the affairs of our government to be able to make wise and
relevant contributions to the civic matters. In other words, just as the
Cursus Honorarum should never be a place where personal ego overrules
service to the State, neither should one's public voice as a cives be guided
out of ignorance or a desire to manipulate the course of affairs to one's
own exclusive benefit. We are also responsible to know and understand our
governing laws and the principles behind them. As with any nation, we agree
to this when we sign on board as part of the "social contract", to borrow
from a more modern turn of phrase. With Nova Roma, we uniquely choose to
participate in the social contract, since we are all here out of choice; no
citizens are born to the Nova Roman state, we should all be able to say that
YES, I do find the Contitution of Nova Roma to be an acceptable mantle of
governance that I willingly assume and to which I agree to be subject.
In Nova Roma we do have a third group -- the Senate, which is comprised of
leading Nova Romans, primarily that have distinguished themselve in the
Cursus Honorarum -- i.e., in service to the State, and -- as far as I can
tell -- are appointed from within their own ranks. The persons raised to
Senator status will over the course of their tenure in Nova Roma exert a
great deal of influence over the evolution of the micronation. To me, this
means that within Nova Roma, as the ultimate policy makers, as the "federal"
arm of the state, and especially as the fiscal office of the state, the
Senators do, indeed, become more personally identifiable with the state as
an institution than the Cursus Honorarum. This is a relationship to
governance which is not kingship, but is perhaps more influential of the
state than we moderns are familiar with or find comfortable.
So, the "we" of Nova Roma is the Cives plus the Senate.
L. Cornelia Aurelia
Piscinus@-------- wrote:
> G. Moravius Piscinus Consuli Q. Fabio Maximo C.V. S.P.D.
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, sfp55@a... wrote:
> >
> > Since we are in the process of setting up a micronation, personal
> comfort zones have to take a back seat to the hard facts that we are
> not an empowerment organization for the individual. And we expect
> our gods to honored, and our Roman ideals to be kept. And no,
> Sergius, when I said no rights I was talking about to the
> Romans "rights" would be unknown. The citizens had no bill of
> rights. Citizenship allowed you to vote. To serve in the levy. And
> to be protected under Roman Law. But some people here are under the
> mistaken notion that we here at Nova Roma are a democracy and what
> the people say, goes. I tried to explain that was not the case,
>
> Quaestio:
>
> As you are an individual who has some historical knowledge of the
> Roman Republic, I would just like to ask few couple questions.
>
> If being a Roman citizen did not impart any kind of rights, as
> opposed to being a non-citizen, then why did the Italic tribes fight
> so desparately in the Social War to become citizens?
>
> And if those citizens who were plebes thought that they were not
> entitled to any rights, why did they insist that Roman law be written
> down in the Twelve Tablet? Why did they "feel" they had a right to
> protest the proscription against intermarriages? Why did they seceed
> from Rome on two occasions when they "felt" their rights were
> threathened? Why did they insist on the tribune system to protect
> their rights, and why did they later insist that the number of
> tribunes be expanded?
>
> Then, too, as you were an elected magistrate, I should like to ask if
> the people who form Nova Roma's citizery, elect all the magistrates
> and pass all laws do not have entitlement to say what goes, then who
> does? You say things like "we expect," "our gods," and "our Roman
> ideals" and that when an individual becomes a citizen they are
> acceeding to serving such. Well then, just who is this "we" that I
> agreed to serve by becoming a citizen?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/6137/8/_/61050/_/963765970/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free yourself!
Get 1 month of FREE* Internet access from MSN!
http://click.egroups.com/1/6322/8/_/61050/_/963775124/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] history |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:35:06 -0500 |
|
16 July 2000
Salve
Some more info on Curio:
Before Curio died he distinguished himself as Tribune, serving Caesar before
Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Infact he did so with such efficiently that
Caesar, upon taking power in Rome, gave to Curio the very important
assignment of taking Africa and it's grain away from Pompey and the Senate.
Curio was to prove a much better politician than soldier. At first he was
doing well against the forces left in Africa, but this was only due to his
being lead to believe that he had the situation under control. This was not
the case, and lead to his being caught in a fight that he was sure to lose.
His death was a great blow to Caesarian forces, almost as much as losing the
grain of Africa was. Had he lived and done well in Africa, his position in
history would have been greatly different. If you would like to know more
about this talented individual please feel free to ask.
Vale
Quintus Sertorius
----- Original Message -----
From: "Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2000 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] history
>
> 16 july 2000
>
> Salve
>
> It was Caesar's enemies in Africa killed this promising young Roman , he
was
> tricked into believing he was doing better than he actually was, than he
was
> ambushed where he and many of his troops were killed.
>
> Vale
>
> Qunitus Sertorius
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <marcusaemiliusscaurus@-------->
> To: <novaroma@-------->
> Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2000 7:21 AM
> Subject: [novaroma] history
>
>
> > Salve civis romae
> >
> > Can anyone help me here? I've found conflicting sources of info on
> > the death of Marcus Scribonius Curio. One says he died fighting
> > Caesar's enemies in Africa and the other says he died fighting Caesar
> > himself in Africa.
> > Does anyone know which is right?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Wish you had something rad to add to your email?
> > We do at www.supersig.com.
> > http://click.egroups.com/1/6810/8/_/61050/_/963750100/
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To email plain text is conventional, to add graphics is divine.
> We'll show you how at www.supersig.com.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/6811/8/_/61050/_/963770892/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get great brand name shoes with just the click of a mouse. Check out
the huge selection at Zappos.com, the Web's Most Popular Store!
http://click.egroups.com/1/6994/8/_/61050/_/963779881/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Cognomen |
| From: |
"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:30:51 +0200 |
|
M. Apollonius Formosanus M. Scribonio Curioni S.P.D.
Curio wrote:
Got a question for all latin-speakers here. I'm a citizen
called
Marcus Scribonius Curio. I only took this name because it
was the
name of an eminent late Republican Roman politician.
However, I
don't know what Curio actually means. Can anyone help me
out here? What have I called myself?
RESPONDEO: Although "curio" can mean "full of cares", no
doubt it here means the priest of a curia. As you probably
know, Curiae ("wards") were geographical divisions of Rome.
Our "Comitia Centuriata" is named after them and to this day
is the only body theoretically qualified to confer imperium
(although it became a pro forma matter already long ago).
For most purposes they became increasingly unimportant as
time went on, but they were not just electoral or
geographical units; they also had a cult structure
associated with them. The priest of each curial cult was
called a curio. The head of the collegium of the thirty
curiones was the Curio Maximus. By an extension of meaning,
the word also came to mean a herald or crier.
The Vocative of your cognomen is "Curio" and the Dative is
"Curioni".
Vale!
--
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae
Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis
Scriba Censorius
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
ICQ# 61698049 Gens Apollonia:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/
The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
AVE RESPVBLICA LIBERA NOSTRA - NOVA ROMA!
________________________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6137/8/_/61050/_/963786671/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Chapter 4 update |
| From: |
Lykaion1@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 18:49:13 EDT |
|
I have been asked by some readers of this list when chapter 4 will be
posted. I want to apologose for the delay. This last week has been busy!
If things go well, then I should have it done either late tonight or by
Monday evening. Again, sorry for the delay.
GL Festus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember all those 80's songs about changing the world? Well, we're
finally old enough to make those changes. Click to prove you meant it.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6704/8/_/61050/_/963787758/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Cognomen |
| From: |
"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:23:16 +0100 |
|
Salve M. Scribone (what's the vocative for 'Curio'?)
> > However, I don't know what Curio actually means. Can anyone help me
> > out here?
> > What have I called myself?
>
> I believe it means 'emaciated' or 'wasted by sorrow' as an adjective. I
> also seem to recall that, as a noun, a curio is a kind of priest.
Ita. Fortunatus rectus't. You have called yourself, amice, the priest of a
curia (one of the 30 divisions of the patrician class made by Romulus
(Varro); or the head of the college formed by the thirty curiones (Livy); or
a herald or crier (Martial). But it's also a family name within gens
Scribonia. And a good Republican name, too. I hope you decide to keep it.
Bene vale,
Vado.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email plain text is conventional, to add graphics is divine.
We'll show you how at www.supersig.com.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6820/8/_/61050/_/963787906/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] On the Resignation of My Son & Democracy |
| From: |
"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:37:03 +0100 |
|
Feste:
If the Res Publica were not a democracy, it would be a Res Privata. Do
please try to perceive the difference between representative democracies
(like Britain, Roma Veta, the USA), and participative democracies (e.g.,
Athens, Switzerland).
Otherwise I, a 'democrat', must regard you, a 'republican', as some kind of
fascist. ;-)
Vado.
> << Alias res, I take it you won't be running for any public office,
> ever? >>
>
> Why not? Nova Roma is, after all, a republic, and not a democracy, thank
the
> gods, er, I mean thank Germanicus. And yes, there is a difference between
> the two.
>
> Gaius Lupinius Festus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
http://click.egroups.com/1/6631/8/_/61050/_/963787911/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] On the Resignation of My Son & Democracy |
| From: |
"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:40:08 +0100 |
|
Et iterum...
> > Nova Roma is, after all, a republic, and not a democracy, thank
> the
> > gods, er, I mean thank Germanicus. And yes, there is a difference
between
> > the two.
Between the gods and Germanicus, I assume you mean?
Vado.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
http://click.egroups.com/1/6630/8/_/61050/_/963787913/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: From the Senior Consul |
| From: |
"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 22:37:51 +0100 |
|
Salve Aurelia
Scripsisti:
> My take on this would be that as citizens of a micronation, when we apply
> for citizenship we are agreeing to uphold the written "laws" of the
nation.
> For Nova Roma this would include Constitution as well and the laws and
> edicts as published in the Tabularum. All of these documents are
viewable
> to non-citizens from the Nova Roman website, as well as the list of Roman
> ideals that are central to the state of Nova Roma and (presumeably)
embedded
> in its governance.
This is all very well as far as it goes, but you omit to mention that if we
are to take seriously this idea of an implicit 'social contract', the
citizen also agrees in advance to be subject to any edictum
that a magistrate feels like issuing - until, at least, it is modified or
nullified by a senatus consultum or tributa plebis. There were plenty of
people who did not agree to be bound by the last Praetorian edict, for
example, and to infer that one agrees in advance to uphold a law with which
one disagrees strongly (and, even, might in iteslf be illegal because
unconstitutional), seems a bit daft to me.
I think you need to look at the difference between ideals and virtues, too:
virtues can be defined as consensual ethical standards, whereas ideals come
closer to what Q. Fabius Maximus referred to as personal agendae. It is very
dangerous to confuse the two. Munificentia is a Roman virtue: being rich is
a Roman ideal.
> I have been greatly amused by discussion over democracy vs. republicanism,
> and you can expect further posts from me on that.
This is a false dichotomy, like saying: 'the issue of apples versus fruit'.
Apples are a form of fruit,
as republicanism is a form of democracy. However, all fruits are not apples,
and neither are all democracies republican. I wonder where this
word-blindness is coming from? Perhaps some of our US cives labour under
the delusion that because the USA is a democracy, no other nation with a
different degree of political representation of its citizens can also be a
democracy.
> However, one central
> thesis I will state on this is that, in modern democracy at least, we hear
> more and more about "citizens rights". We hear virtually nothing about
> "citizens responsibilities". However, to have an effective state, there
> must be a balance between what cives can expect to get from the state, and
> what cives must return to the state.
I have to agree with this: however, in my experience of organisations, more
members make more contribution when they are frequently consulted in a
meaningful way, and listened to, and thus feel they have a stake in the
business.
> This is NOT to say that Nova Roma is a democracy. It is established as a
> Republic, in form of law it IS a Republic, in that there is a body of
> government which the cives vests with its vote of confidence to be the
> centralized source of management and application of law for the state.
Ergo, a democracy, as well as a republic. Britain is a democracy. It is not
a republic. Surely you perceive the difference?
>we should all be able to say that
> YES, I do find the Contitution of Nova Roma to be an acceptable mantle of
> governance that I willingly assume and to which I agree to be subject.
Fine. But acceptability admits of plenty of room for improvement, no?
> In Nova Roma we do have a third group -- the Senate, which is comprised of
> leading Nova Romans, <AMPUTATIO> This is a relationship to
> governance which is not kingship, but is perhaps more influential of the
> state than we moderns are familiar with or find comfortable.
I am a citizen of a nation with one of the oldest traditions of continuing,
representative democracy, which has no written constitution, and an upper
chamber/assembly of government which has always been non-elective by the
people. I, as every other Brit, am familiar with this, and like most of my
fellow-citizens, am not uncomfortable with the idea. What you have to say
does reinforce my impression that you need to widen your experience of
representative democracy beyond your experience of the Constitution of the
USA, in order to make useful comparisons and contrasts with that of Nova
Roma.
> So, the "we" of Nova Roma is the Cives plus the Senate.
Aargh! This is like saying: 'the fruit bowl has apples in it, and fruit'.
The Senate is comprised of cives. Everyone in the political structure of
Nova Roma is a civis. This is what makes it truly a res publica: a 'common
thing', and a democracy, a 'rulership by the people'. Don't confuse
rulership with the delegated executive power to make laws.
Vale bene,
Vado.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free yourself!
Get 1 month of FREE* Internet access from MSN!
http://click.egroups.com/1/6322/8/_/61050/_/963787922/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Senate news |
| From: |
"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 23:40:59 +0100 |
|
Legi:
> I find myself now of having to make good to her a promise. You see, I
> consider M.Aurelianus a friend, but I must also rebuke her claims.
I sincerely hope 'refute' is what is meant here?
> I have
> been present on occasions where she has, indeed, railed against the state
of
> Nova Roma and its magistrates. It goes beyond the exercise of free
> speech.....which is a sorely abused privilege in many situations.
Dear Gods! If someone can't blow off steam in the taverna, where the Hades
can they? There are means of both ignoring and ousting people from the
chatroom if a sufficient number finds one other obnoxious. I take it such a
sufficiency did not arise.
How can free speech be abused by the expression of personal opinion in
relative privacy? Would you have secret police lurking in the taverna,
recording people's words with a view to future proscription?
Certainly, citizens of the United States and other countries which cives of
> Nova Roma have dual citizenship with, have laws regarding the right to
speak
> freely (and which, I might add, are over-broadly interpreted by the
general
> citizen -- but more on that later). And within Nova Roma, I have
> encountered thus far NOTHING that suggests to me that the right to voice
> one's point of view is CURTAILED AS A POINT OF LAW without the measure of
> due process. Interestingly, the same can be said for the country that
> M.Aurelianus and I share dual citizenship, with -- the United States.
Oh - evidently not.
> No cives.......what I witnessed, was a former cives who, on more than one
> occasion, persisted in making known her feelings of persecution from the
> magistry of Nova Roma. What I observed by reading through postings on
the
> issue, which I was made aware of by M. Aurelianus and no other, was that
at
> an earlier time, due process was indeed brought forth regarding
> M.Aurelianus, and that she has been accorded subsequent opportunities for
> further due process about her situation.
Some of us were, and are, less than satisfied by what that 'due process'
actually consisted of. It's a prissy little bitch of an euphemism, to my
mind. Like unethical acts which are defended against accusations of
unethicality by the smug assertion that they are legal.
> "Due process" is a modern concept, but it is relevant here to me. Because
> it tells me, in modern terms that I am more familiar with, that
M.Aurelianus
> has been taken through the legal system established by the Constitution
and
> laws adopted by the senate and accepted by the cives of Nova Roma.
This not entirely true. There was no plebiscite.
> When you
> apply for citizenship, you agree to follow said corpus of law, inasmuch as
> your actitives occur within the context of Nova Roma. So, M.Aurelianus
has
> had her day....several times....to plead her case according to that law.
The law effectively victimised M. Aurelianus who, up till that time, had
offended against no law. A law was introduced which, ipso facto, forced upon
Aurelianus the highly painful and distasteful necessity of choosing between
personal honesty with loss of citizenship, or personal dishonesty and
continued citizenship. While the issue was under 'due process', id est,
debate by the Senate, the law was redrafted several times, so that to this
day we don't know whether the Senate could all have agreed exactly what they
were voting and debating on.
> BUT....where is it appropriate for her to do that??? I maintain, directly
> with the magistrates in question and never with the general populace.
A wrong, a moral iniuria suffered by a fellow-citizen, concerns me as a
fellow-ctizen as well as as a magistrate. I do not delegate my humanitas to
a civil servant. Nor should anyone.
> I have had occasion to speak with several of the magistrates in question,
and
> at no time have they represented themselves in any way that deserves
> M.Aurelianus's claims of grievance.
That is your personal opinion, and you are of course free to believe and
express publicly whatever you like. For myself, while I believe the great
majority of our magistrates to be basically conscientious and honourable
people as far as they define their roles and duties, I find myself
agreeing with Fimbria's publicly expressed opinions on this list (since I
have little time to use the chatroom), that the address of some to the issue
had less sensitivity and compassion than one would like to have expected. If
people can't understand 'what all the fuss is about' over a given issue,
the appellant seeking relief is bound to go away disappointed and
embittered.
> No, cives.....M.Aurelianus at this
> point is simply speaking out against a system that is ultimately not
making
> the decisions that she wants made.
Aurelianus is not alone in this respect, by a very long way. Many of us wish
for the same outcome wished for by Aurelianus. It is a poor tactic, in my
opinion, to try to isolate an individual by pretending that their grievance
is purely specific to their personal desires, and to ignore the fact that
wider issues of rights and responsibilities are raised concurrently -
something Aurelianus has always very forcefully stated. As have many others
on this topic, myself included. And is it the system being criticised, or
the way the system is being operated?
>This is NOT because the magistrates
> think they are above the law....or are the law. It is because they have
> considered the situation, considered precedent, considered her own
> arguments. And ultimately, for the good of Nova Roma as a whole, they
make
> a decision which realizes that the needs of the many present and future
Nova
> Romans outweigh the needs of a single individual.
There is no precedent. Some magistrates have been very, um, creative in
their interpretation of law. Consideration of opposing argument per se is
worth nothing. And what good has Aurelianus' effective exile done anyone in
Nova Roma? I for one am diminished by Aurelianus' absence. The 'good' of
which you speak is a law the citizens did not ask for, and which was
prompted by no pragmatic necessity. Nobody 'needs' laws like that.The cases
for its necessity, as already argued, have been entirely hypothetical. This
means, in effect, the actual, real, present needs of one citizen
(Aurelianus) have been sacrificed in the interests of meeting a
hypothetical, imaginary, possible, future requirement. If you think that
makes sense, then I'm done talking to you on the subject.
> It is not appropriate for her postings in the Forum to take on the
> increasingly fevered pitch they did recently. Most distressing to me was
> that, as I tried to discuss the situation with her and find out how
> legitimate her claims are against the magistrates, I found that she
doesn't
> believe in keeping evidence of conversations.
What kind person does? Do you? Why?
> Therefore, at the same time
> that we cives are required by the magistry to bring evidence to the table
if
> we want to bring grievance against M.Aurelianus for what has become
> disturbing the peace.......we cives cannot get satisfaction from HER that
> her claims against the highhandedness of the magistry have any legitimacy.
You are bringing a case against Aurelianus. The burden of proof is therefore
on you. Must everyone in the chatroom record their conversations in future
fear of prosecution? What kind of social climate do you think that would
generate?
> In closing, let me bring to bear a passage from Epictetus that has
relevancy
> here:
>
> "When you are faithfully occupied with performing the acts of a wise and
> decent person, seeking to conform your intentions and acts to the divine
> will, you do not feel victimized by the words or deeds of others. At
worst,
> those words and deeds will seem amusing or pitiable.
If you believe Epictetus, why are you trying to prosecute Aurelianus for his
words?
Just follow the divine will, why don't you?
Vado.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6809/8/_/61050/_/963787926/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] history |
| From: |
"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Jul 2000 21:02:51 +0100 |
|
Salve iterum mi Curio
> Can anyone help me here? I've found conflicting sources of info on
> the death of Marcus Scribonius Curio. One says he died fighting
> Caesar's enemies in Africa and the other says he died fighting Caesar
> himself in Africa.
> Does anyone know which is right?
There are two Marci Scribonii Curiones: the first was an enemy of C. Iulius
Caesar,
the second (son of the first) was won over by Caesar, and sent first to
Sicily and then Africa by Caesar as Propraetor, where he was killed fighting
Juba and P. Attilius Varrus.
Bene vale,
Vado.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email plain text is conventional, to add graphics is divine.
We'll show you how at www.supersig.com.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6811/8/_/61050/_/963787918/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
