Forum Romanum


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Value of Citizenship
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 21:19:26 EDT

Salve Mamma Brit

Perhaps my eyes were even more bleary than yours this morning, but I
don't recall having seen any mention of race here at any time, recent or
remote. That is, unless you are using "race" as the ancients did, to
refer any distinction between one group of people and another.

In early Rome, you were a Roman citizen if you were born in Rome or the
immediate environs. Otherwise, you weren't Roman, no matter what your
appearance, language, or affiliations. It took hundreds of years, several
wars, and the destruction of several legions of good young Roman men
before Roman citizenship was grudgingly extended to the inhabitants of
nearby regions in Italy. It was even later when it was extended more
freely to foreigners, and aside from a few special cases like Joseph ben
Mathias, alias Flavius Josephus, I don't think it was ever passed around
as freely as some have suggested here. Awarding citizenship to one
turncoat Jew who made himself useful to Vespasianus' legions is a far cry
from extending citizenship to all Jews. I doubt that Polybius was ever
made a citizen, since in his time citizenship was rarely granted to
non-Romans.

It escapes me how any of this could be relevant to Nova Roma or to the
edict in question.

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

On 8/28/00 8:24 AM wicachu@-------- (wicachu@--------) wrote:

> Again the cranky old Mamma Brit takes up a pen, and with a thoughtful
>look, apologies to the gods and fellow men alike, begins to write.
>
> This morning as I blearily perused my mail, I came across two things
>that made my eyes, even without the benefit of caffiene , open rather
>wide.
>The first was a discussion of race as it applied to Rome. My history is
>foggy at best, muddy at worst, but I seem to recall race being a non issue
>in
>Rome. Doesn't seem to fit the conciliatory methods the Romans were fond of
>using after a region had been subdued. Citizenship was what made one Roman,
>or not. Disregarding the ancient Rome and Mamma Brits iffy history and
>thinking of Nova Roma.... is race an issue now? If so, whatever for? <
>blinks in confusion> If not, then how could a discussion of this nature
>even
>get going?
> And then there is the second thing that rattled Mamma Brits sleepy
>morning.
>
> "The ex-citizen has despised his
>citizenship and shown contempt for the state."
>
>< scratches head and rubs eyes in weary bewilderment>
>Now how.... fellow citizens, is this true? Now , on a few occasions, I
>could
>see someone loathing us and all we stand for. But, as far as I have seen
>during my brief time here, resignation has been used as a means of protest
>against a wrong, imagined or real. If you disagree with something here, you
>have two options. Write emails or resign. And then there are the times in
>ones life where everything falls apart and nothing matters to you anymore
>for
>a while. You feel like cutting all ties and you do, even if you truly don't
>want to. Three months later when you have your head back on straight, you
>want to come back, feeling rather sheepish. Goddess knows I have done that
>at
>least once in my life.
> I can understand that no one wants a revoloving door on citzenship. I
>wouldnt know this myself, but is there a middle ground? Can a citizen
>suspend their rights while remaining as citizen? Rather like going " no
>mail"
>?
>
> Mamma Brit is just a bit concerned about this, as is evidenced by my
>actually writing to the list. But remember, I'm old and cranky. Take it
>with a grain or two or ten of salt please.
>
>Iona S. Britaega

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

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

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967511975/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: How do I remove myself from this list.
From:	"Gaius Metellus Valentinus" <websurfer07@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 01:31:45 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Steve Perpich" <steve@c...> wrote:
> I have attempted 3x now to unsubscribe from this list with no luck.
>
> 1) send message to "unsubscribe-novaroma@--------" with no
content
>
> 2) " " " "novaroma-unsubscribe@--------" " " "
>
> 3) send message to "unsubscribe-novaroma@--------" with a
subject and message saying "unsubscribe"
>
> Can anyone advise please.

Go to the e-Groups home page and click on "My Groups". There should
be a box next to each group you are subscribed to.
Select "Unsubscribe" for nova roma, then click on "Save Changes" at
the bottom. Done

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Get Your Free PC World Newsletter Today!
http://click.egroups.com/1/8237/8/_/61050/_/967512709/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 05:32:39 +0200

Salvete Quirites!

I would not venture to bore you by reiterating the same
arguments which you have already heard from me on the matter of the
edictum to punish returning citizens. Since I have new arguments,
however, I shall present them.

Resigning from Nova Roma is not a crime.

Returning to Nova Roma is not a crime.

Why then is there to be punishment in the form of temporary (and
eventually permanent) exile and losses of civic rights for performing
these acts?

Perhaps the censors will say that these are not "punishments". And
yet they look exactly like punishments, and would probably feel
exactly like punishments, and they were officially announced as being
deterents to resignation, and deterence is certainly an attribute
often associated with punishments. Punishments with no corresponding
crimes. We should think about that, should we not, Quirites?

I am also disturbed by the fact that some people seemed to
assume that anyone who resigned was no longer worth much as a Nova
Roman or even as a person. Is that true?

The only hurt that a private citizen is doing Nova Roma by
leaving is reducing its population by one. And if an ex-citizen comes
back, that return in and of itself strengthens Nova Roma by one
person. And if the departure caused a touch of dismay among the
remaining, the return should cause a good measure of joy. There is a
balance.

If a civis leaves, it may be out of indifference or just
discovering that in a morally neutral sense it was not the right
place for him or her. Such a civis is rather unlikely to come back,
and he may just as likely drift away as formally resign. The kind of
civis who is likely to come back after going to the trouble of
formally resigning is someone who *cares* about what kind of a place
Nova Roma is, cares so deeply that a perceived injustice or stupidity
hurts or infuriates more than he can bear.

If such a high-quality concerned citizen leaves, it is a
considerable loss for Nova Roma. Worth several completely passive
cives who sit back and just let the magistrates do what they want and
applaud it - if they bother to subscribe to the Main List at all.

We really ought to listen to that kind carefully and maybe
improve ourselves before they leave. But if they leave, and then -
what should be to us a great joy! - they want to come back, why then
we have someone of even greater value to the Respublica. Someone who
is utterly digusted because of how far Nova Roma is from the ideal,
but who, even after having given up all formal duty to Her, comes
back nonetheless, beyond all hope, to fight on to make Her better.

After the battle of Cannae, one of the most horrible defeats in
Roman history, whose name still rings horribly through the ages, the
responsible Consul Varro came back to Rome. But listen to Livy's
words:

"So great, in this grim time, was the nation's heart, that the
consul, fresh from a defeat of which he had himself been the
principal cause, was met on his return to Rome by men of all
conditionss, who came in crowds to participate in the thanks,
publicly bestowed upon him for not having `despaired of the
commonwealth'. A Carthaginian general in such circumstances would
have been punished with the utmost rigour of the law."

When I reread that I cried a little because of the sheer beauty in
the magnanimity of the Roman spirit on this occasion. And I ask
myself: "If someone whose ideal of Romanitas is so high that he feels
he has to leave Nova Roma because we are so far below what we might
be and his heart is pained by that discrepency beyond enduring, and
yet he returns to us even after having broken all legal ties, purely
out of love and concern, knowing full well that he is letting himself
in for just more work and more battles to make us good and great -
why, oh why can we not take his hand and say to him: "Roman, we thank
you for not despairing of the commonwealth"?

But instead, if we adopt the new edictum, we will be acting with
the predictable, mean-spirited, bureaucratic vengefulness of
Carthaginians - as at least Livy thought was typical of them, not of
Romans.

Valete!

Marcus Apollonius Formosanus
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius
ICQ# 61698049 Firetalk: Apollonius 1588367
AIM: MAFormosanus MSN: Formosanus
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
(Se vi deziras subigi al vi chion, subigu vin al Racio)
________________________________________

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

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
PC World - Free, Easy Newsletters.
http://click.egroups.com/1/8236/8/_/61050/_/967519979/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	"Aurelius Tiberius" <kminer_rsg@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:24:54 EDT

salve all,

I have been away for few weeks serving the other country I am a citizen in.

I havent followed the string but after reading a few posts have a rough Idea
as to it's content.

For what it's worth, renounce your citizenship in any other "real" country
(that is one that holds real estate and belongs to the UN, etc... get my
meaning, I know we are real, but I needed a catchy word)

and that country will say thank you very much, pack your bags and dont let
the INS Gate hit you in the ass on the way out.

If someone is so angry that they feel the need to "leave" our nation, then
we are better off without them, If they are angry or frustrated they need
to find a means to right the issue, Not run away from it or in the fit of a
temper tantrum say "fine I'm taking my toga and I'm not going to play with
you anymore"

the fact that they are even allowed to un-resign or whatever is a tribute to
our good leaders and their good heartedness. everyone of us filled out that
application on our own, we were not coherced or born into NR, so we should
realize citizenship is a privlage not a right to be toyed with or taken
lightly.

so I will shut up now, I feel better...

Aurelius Tiberius Ronanus
Praefectus Legionis & Tribuni Militum,
Legio VI of the Northern Army
& Cornicularius,Sodalitas Militarium et Nova Roma

"Nos Sumus Romae milites, parati stamus ad potestatem et gloriam eius. Roma
est Lux."
"we are soldiers of Rome, for her might and glory we stand ready... She is
the Light"

www.geocities.com/legio_vi

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967522248/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation
From:	"Gaius Metellus Valentinus" <websurfer07@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 04:22:32 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@y...>
wrote:
> Salvete Quirites!
>
> I would not venture to bore you by reiterating the same
> arguments which you have already heard from me on the matter of the
> edictum to punish returning citizens. Since I have new arguments,
> however, I shall present them.
>
> Resigning from Nova Roma is not a crime.
>
> Returning to Nova Roma is not a crime.
>
> Why then is there to be punishment in the form of temporary (and
> eventually permanent) exile and losses of civic rights for
performing
> these acts?
>
> Perhaps the censors will say that these are not "punishments". And
> yet they look exactly like punishments, and would probably feel
> exactly like punishments, and they were officially announced as
being
> deterents to resignation, and deterence is certainly an attribute
> often associated with punishments. Punishments with no
corresponding
> crimes. We should think about that, should we not, Quirites?
>
> I am also disturbed by the fact that some people seemed to
> assume that anyone who resigned was no longer worth much as a Nova
> Roman or even as a person. Is that true?
>
> The only hurt that a private citizen is doing Nova Roma by
> leaving is reducing its population by one. And if an ex-citizen
comes
> back, that return in and of itself strengthens Nova Roma by one
> person. And if the departure caused a touch of dismay among the
> remaining, the return should cause a good measure of joy. There is
a
> balance.
>
> If a civis leaves, it may be out of indifference or just
> discovering that in a morally neutral sense it was not the right
> place for him or her. Such a civis is rather unlikely to come back,
> and he may just as likely drift away as formally resign. The kind
of
> civis who is likely to come back after going to the trouble of
> formally resigning is someone who *cares* about what kind of a
place
> Nova Roma is, cares so deeply that a perceived injustice or
stupidity
> hurts or infuriates more than he can bear.
>

Salvete omnes,

I have been following the discussions on the edictum and
reading as many of the arguments as I can.
I guess the underlying issue, and correct me if I am wrong,
that the edictum is attempting to address is that of the exodus of
citizens from Nova Roma (and the subsequent return of some of these
citizens).
The edictum aside for the moment, should we not address the
ways and means to maintain a cohesive citizenry. Perhaps we should
investigate the causes or reasons as to why citizens choose to
renounce their association with Nova Roma, in order to better deal
with this.
I've been thinking that maybe, as a suggestion, if a citizen
leaves (officially) and then later decides to return, they could
submit a written statement explaining why they wish to return (NOT
why they left). I know applicants aren't asked this, but asking this
of a returning citizen would not be unreasonable. Perhaps that would
give the consuls and senators a better grasp as to how to deal with
each particular case. Just a thought.
Well, it's definitely a sticky issue. I'm glad to see so many
varying opinions voiced. It encourages better understanding.

-G. Metellus Valentinus

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Get Your Computer Info Right From The Source - PC World!
http://click.egroups.com/1/8238/8/_/61050/_/967522955/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Yes, this is the Forum
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 06:31:34 +0200

Salvete Quirites!

I wanted to make a special post to second and praise the
following post of L. Cornelius Aurelia:
__________________________
..what a few people have recently called "petty bickering",
especially in regard to the Censorial Edicta, I see as a necessary
discussion of the continued evolution of this thing we call Nova
Roma.
It is these discussions that will form us into the micronation
we
say we are. If ALL we talk about here is Rome and Romans, we'll
never get there. For me, part of the attraction of Nova Roma is also
the chance to participate in the evolution of the political
structure. And, in ancient Rome, one of the primary facets of that
society was participation by its citizens (particularly the
patricians) in the political structure.

The magistrates are between a rock and a hard place on this one.
If they don't bring a pending Edicta up in this forum, people cry
FOUL!
You should consult us!! If they do bring it up here, people cry
FOUL! You are cluttering my inbox!!

I for one want the magistrates to post here.....and then would
hope each and every one of us regular civies would keep our comments
relevant and constructive about the topic at hand. One thing that
brings up the seemingly petty bickering, Dalmaticus, is that some
cives will use any post to lash out at the magistrates. Not you, and
not I, but some. Those individuals should learn constraint.

L. Cornelia Aurelia

Cornelia Aurelia speaks my mind exactly in the first part of
this post. This is our primary forum for political discussion.
Political discussion and legal argumentation are both things that
would fascinate an ancient Roman by the hour or by the day. And we do
have our own Respublica to build, and the more all citizens take
advantage of the medium of this List to participate and pressure,
initiate and shape, the better it is for Nova Roma.

I almost suspect that Cornelia might be partly thinking of *me*
towards the end, because it is true that I often feel I should oppose
edicta that seem to me to disrespect, hurt and inconvenience human
beings rather considerably with no corresponding benefit to the
Respublica. I am told by older cives that this is a very quiet
legislative year. Perhaps if someday we have more legislation before
us for comment or voting, from more different magistrates, I might
find some of it to be admirable and show myself to be highly
supportive. I judge things on their merits.

But in general, well said, Cornelia!

Valete!

Marcus Apollonius Formosanus
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius
ICQ# 61698049 Firetalk: Apollonius 1588367
AIM: MAFormosanus MSN: Formosanus
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
(Se vi deziras subigi al vi chion, subigu vin al Racio)
________________________________________

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

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967523644/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict Resignation - The Debate
From:	sfp55@--------
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 01:28:29 EDT

>From Q. Fabius Maximus to the People of Rome.
Sit back and watch a debate in the forum that will be most entertaining!

Salvete Quirites!

>>I would not venture to bore you by reiterating the same
arguments which you have already heard from me on the matter of the
edictum to punish returning citizens. Since I have new arguments,
however, I shall present them.<<
Please, Marcus Apollonius Formosanus, I am all ears.

>>Resigning from Nova Roma is not a crime.
Returning to Nova Roma is not a crime.>>
And you base this on what? The fact that there is no Lex in
place to make it a crime? If we did pass such a Lex, would it then not be a
crime?
Perhaps you should say, at this current time there is no Lex that makes
resigning from Nova Roma a crime, would that be fair?

>>Why then is there to be punishment in the form of temporary (and
eventually permanent) exile and losses of civic rights for performing
these acts?<<
Why? We are taking precedent from our spiritual ancestors that valued
citizenship
in Rome above all. And since we have no Lex on the books, it is not a crime.

>> Perhaps the censors will say that these are not "punishments." And
yet they look exactly like punishments, and would probably feel
exactly like punishments, and they were officially announced as being
deterrents to resignation, and deterrence is certainly an attribute
often associated with punishments. Punishments with no corresponding
crimes. We should think about that, should we not, Quirites?<<

So if I understand you correctly, all the Senate needs to do is issue a
consult
asking the civilians to vote in a Lex that makes abandoning their citizenship
and Rome a crime, and all would be well?

>>I am also disturbed by the fact that some people seemed to
assume that anyone who resigned was no longer worth much as a Nova
Roman or even as a person. Is that true?<<

You are disturbed by many things, Marcus Apollonius, but I do not believe
this should be one of them. Every being makes his choice and the Gods
willing it is the right one. A citizen that resigns his citizenship, must be
making the right decision, otherwise he would not be resigning, true? Does
this mean he has lost his dignity as an individual person? I find that hard
to accept. People can leave here and go on to do better things. And as I
far can tell, we have never said that they cannot.
As far as being worth someone here in NR as a former citizen, once you are
gone, what exactly can you do for our fair Republic?

>>The only hurt that a private citizen is doing Nova Roma by
leaving is reducing its population by one. And if an ex-citizen comes
back, that return in and of itself strengthens Nova Roma by one
person. And if the departure caused a touch of dismay among the
remaining, the return should cause a good measure of joy. There is a
balance.<<
What if that private citizen is a Christian fanatic and launches anti Nova
Roma campaign via the media? I would say you are greatly mistaken when you
say
that the hurt can be limited. As for the prodigal son returning, that is the
Jewish parable not ours.
>>If a civis leaves, it may be out of indifference or just
discovering that in a morally neutral sense it was not the right
place for him or her. Such a civis is rather unlikely to come back,
and he may just as likely drift away as formally resign. The kind of
civis who is likely to come back after going to the trouble of
formally resigning is someone who *cares* about what kind of a place
Nova Roma is, cares so deeply that a perceived injustice or stupidity
hurts or infuriates more than he can bear.<<

And here we come to the crux of your speech. By your examples I should have
resigned from here at least three times. I thought I could do the Republic
more good by continuing on rather trying to rejoin it after I had a change of
heart again.
In fact I dare say that the reason for my Consulship today was because I
outlasted
my rivals who all resigned or left. That and I tend to get noticed.

>>If such a high-quality concerned citizen leaves, it is a
considerable loss for Nova Roma. Worth several completely passive
cives who sit back and just let the magistrates do what they want and
applaud it -- if they bother to subscribe to the Main List at all.<<

Which brings us to point two of your speech, we have lost several
"high-quality"
citizens, and now we don't want them back. Maybe we are scared that they will
jump ship again in protest or because they did not get their way. Why should
we go through that nonsense again?
As for the cives that sit back and "just let the magistrates do what they
want"
is it possible that they do not raise their voice because they agree with
what the
magistrates are doing? Why is that not possible? Why is the government so
wrong so often?

>> We really ought to listen to that kind carefully and maybe
improve ourselves before they leave. But if they leave, and then -
what should be to us a great joy! - they want to come back, why then
we have someone of even greater value to the Respublica. Someone who
is utterly disgusted because of how far Nova Roma is from the ideal,
but who, even after having given up all formal duty to Her, comes
back nonetheless, beyond all hope, to fight on to make Her better.<<

Well, if they didn't leave in the first place, we wouldn't have to disrupt
the
routine to let them back in. Don't you see a pattern forming here?

>>After the battle of Cannae, one of the most horrible defeats in
Roman history, whose name still rings horribly through the ages, the
responsible Consul Varro came back to Rome. But listen to Livy's
words:
"So great, in this grim time, was the nation's heart, that the
consul, fresh from a defeat of which he had himself been the
principal cause, was met on his return to Rome by men of all
conditions, who came in crowds to participate in the thanks,
publicly bestowed upon him for not having `despaired of the
commonwealth'. A Carthaginian general in such circumstances would
have been punished with the utmost rigor of the law."<<

Roman military historians (of which I am one) agree that Varro was probably
in command of the Roman Army that fateful day. But it was not his stupidly
that caused the defeat but Hannibal Barca's genius. Remember we have two
main sources for that battle that we can count. Polybios and Livy. If we
assume that Livy used as his main source Q. Fabius Pictor, historian of the
war and Polybios as a secondary source then the hostility towards G.
Terentius Varro, makes perfect sense.
Polybios was the Aemilian spokesperson, and the second Consul at the battle,
L. Aemilius Paullus was of that Gens. The slaughter at Cannae happened
because the Senate abandoned the policy of Q. Fabius Maximus Cunctator, which
was Pictor's uncle, so he was less then favorable to both Consuls.
The plain fact is this, once the Roman army left the protection of the hills,
and entered the plain at Cannae it was going to be defeated. It was newly
raised, so new that the individual lines could not carry out the line relief
which allowed Romans their victories, had little horse, were facing the
foremost Great Captain of the age and his veteran army of professional
killers with an overwhelming cavalry advantage.
They had little chance.
>> When I reread that I cried a little because of the sheer beauty in
the magnanimity of the Roman spirit on this occasion. And I ask
myself: "If someone whose ideal of Romanitas is so high that he feels
he has to leave Nova Roma because we are so far below what we might
be and his heart is pained by that discrepancy beyond enduring, and
yet he returns to us even after having broken all legal ties, purely
out of love and concern, knowing full well that he is letting himself
in for just more work and more battles to make us good and great -
why, oh why can we not take his hand and say to him: "Roman, we thank
you for not despairing of the commonwealth"?>>
This was beautiful, Marcus Apollonius, except it didn't happen.
Once the battle was over, G. Terentius Varro, returned to Rome because that
was his duty, he was Consul after all. If he had despaired the republic
where was he to go? Besides, the Senate never punished defeated generals
since they were drawn from the Senate's ranks.
But by your lights he should have resigned the citizenship "since things
weren't working out for him in Rome." After all he could always rejoin later.
And I wouldn't disparage the Carthaginians. They gave the Romans a lot
besides just crucifixion. As far as "the rigorous punishment" Carthaginian
generals used troops that were paid for by the state and by private
subscription. There were no citizen farmers that that could be used. To lose
a Carthaginian Army was to lose a major investment of the state's and leading
citizens' resources. I might be a mite ticked off at that as well.

>>But instead, if we adopt the new edictum, we will be acting with
the predictable, mean-spirited, bureaucratic vengefulness of
Carthaginians - as at least Livy thought was typical of them, not of
Romans.<<

If you were in the Roman army standing watch and you were found
asleep at your post, you were put to death. If you were in a legio that
broke
on the battlefield you could be one of the unlucky 500 put to death.
If your property qualification dropped below a certain level, you were
dropped to the next, with no appeal possible. If you blasphemed against the
Gods, you could be banished.
All this sounds predictable, mean spirited and vengeful to me Marcus
Apollonius,
and these are your beloved Romans!
I think the people see less wrong with the edictum than you think. Oh but I
forget. This are those several completely passive cives who sit back and just
let the magistrates do what they want and applaud it - if they bother to
subscribe to the Main List at all. We cannot have a Rome like that!
I take my leave citizens, and return to Senate floor where I continue to
debate and compromise with my august colleagues for a better Rome
But I'll return when Marcus Apollonius wishes to speak once more.
Salvete!

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
PC World - Free, Easy Newsletters.
http://click.egroups.com/1/8236/8/_/61050/_/967526918/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Fesco bath style
From:	"j.mason4" <j.mason4@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 18:34:58 +0100

Lupinii Wrote
>
> Maybe you can simulate the erotic art froom the Pompeii brothel on
the
> bedroom walls!
>
> The Lupinii

I would prefer to stimulate visiting guests, this is why we thought the
bathroom !
~~S~~
>
>
>
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967527860/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Yes, this is the Forum
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:31:25 -0600

Salvete Omnes et Formosanus:

"M. Apollonius Formosanus" wrote:

> I wanted to make a special post to second and praise the
> following post of L. Cornelius Aurelia:....
>
> Cornelia Aurelia speaks my mind exactly in the first part of
> this post.

Cornelia Aurelia is rendered speechless. Formosanus and I agree on
something.

> I almost suspect that Cornelia might be partly thinking of *me*
> towards the end, because it is true that I often feel I should oppose
> edicta that seem to me to disrespect, hurt and inconvenience human
> beings rather considerably with no corresponding benefit to the
> Respublica. ... I judge things on their merits.
>

Cornelia Aurelia confirms that suspicion, and otherwise practices
contstraint.

L. Cornelia Aurelia

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967529547/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 23:47:07 -0700 (PDT)

Salve L. Cornelia Aurelia!

--- gmvick32@-------- wrote:

> I, too, am here to discuss Rome and Romans, and have
> posted numerous times on such topic. It's up to all
> of us to keep those threads
> going, and constructively, as well as from an
> informed and moderately researched position. It's
> also within every person's power on this
> list to start a thread....if there's something you
> want to discuss re Roma....start a discussion!

I applaud you for your postings expanding knowledge of
Rome and Roman ways, and agree completely with the
contents of your paragraph. I have also started
discussions and participated in others (more active on
the NRV list), and will continue to do so.

> Otherwise, what a few people have recently called
> "petty bickering", especially in regard to the
> Censorial Edicta, I see as a necessary
> discussion of the continued evolution of this thing
> we call Nova Roma. It is these discussions that
> will form us into the micronation we
> say we are. If ALL we talk about here is Rome and
> Romans, we'll never get there. For me, part of the
> attraction of Nova Roma is also the
> chance to participate in the evolution of the
> political structure. And, in ancient Rome, one of
> the primary facets of that society was
> participation by its citizens (particularly the
> patricians) in the political structure.

<snipped>

> The magistrates are between a rock and a hard place
> on this one. If they don't bring a pending Edicta
> up in this forum, people cry FOUL!
> You should consult us!! If they do bring it up
> here, people cry FOUL! You are cluttering my inbox!!

For clarification: at no point did I use the words
"petty bickering" in relation to discussion of the
edict in question, or any other edict, or for that
matter, any magistrate's statements. I agree that
edicts being discussed on the list are critical and
should be discussed.

My point was intended to be that many of the posts on
our list are petty bickering, having nothing to do
with historical study or the organization of NR or
Rome.

> I for one want the magistrates to post here.....and
> then would hope each and every one of us regular
> civies would keep our comments
> relevant and constructive about the topic at hand.
> One thing that brings up the seemingly petty
> bickering, Dalmaticus, is that some cives
> will use any post to lash out at the magistrates.
> Not you, and not I, but some. Those individuals
> should learn constraint.

Hear! Hear!

L. A. Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"In a decent, God-fearing country, I'd be allowed to beat the two of you to death" -- Gen. Dick Panzer (Rip Torn), in "Canadian Bacon"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967531628/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 01:24:12 -0600

Salve, Dalmaticus!

Thank you for the affirmation and -- to one point -- clarification. I look forward to continued discussions with you.

L Cornelia Aurelia

Jeff Smith wrote:

> Salve L. Cornelia Aurelia!
>
> --- gmvick32@-------- wrote:
>
> > I, too, am here to discuss Rome and Romans, and have
> > posted numerous times on such topic. It's up to all
> > of us to keep those threads
> > going, and constructively, as well as from an
> > informed and moderately researched position. It's
> > also within every person's power on this
> > list to start a thread....if there's something you
> > want to discuss re Roma....start a discussion!
>
> I applaud you for your postings expanding knowledge of
> Rome and Roman ways, and agree completely with the
> contents of your paragraph. I have also started
> discussions and participated in others (more active on
> the NRV list), and will continue to do so.
>
> > Otherwise, what a few people have recently called
> > "petty bickering", especially in regard to the
> > Censorial Edicta, I see as a necessary
> > discussion of the continued evolution of this thing
> > we call Nova Roma. It is these discussions that
> > will form us into the micronation we
> > say we are. If ALL we talk about here is Rome and
> > Romans, we'll never get there. For me, part of the
> > attraction of Nova Roma is also the
> > chance to participate in the evolution of the
> > political structure. And, in ancient Rome, one of
> > the primary facets of that society was
> > participation by its citizens (particularly the
> > patricians) in the political structure.
>
> <snipped>
>
> > The magistrates are between a rock and a hard place
> > on this one. If they don't bring a pending Edicta
> > up in this forum, people cry FOUL!
> > You should consult us!! If they do bring it up
> > here, people cry FOUL! You are cluttering my inbox!!
>
> For clarification: at no point did I use the words
> "petty bickering" in relation to discussion of the
> edict in question, or any other edict, or for that
> matter, any magistrate's statements. I agree that
> edicts being discussed on the list are critical and
> should be discussed.
>
> My point was intended to be that many of the posts on
> our list are petty bickering, having nothing to do
> with historical study or the organization of NR or
> Rome.
>
> > I for one want the magistrates to post here.....and
> > then would hope each and every one of us regular
> > civies would keep our comments
> > relevant and constructive about the topic at hand.
> > One thing that brings up the seemingly petty
> > bickering, Dalmaticus, is that some cives
> > will use any post to lash out at the magistrates.
> > Not you, and not I, but some. Those individuals
> > should learn constraint.
>
> Hear! Hear!
>
> L. A. Dalmaticus
>
> =====
> LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
> HQ USAREUR/7A
> CMR 420, BOX 2839
> APO AE 09063-2839
>
> "In a decent, God-fearing country, I'd be allowed to beat the two of you to death" -- Gen. Dick Panzer (Rip Torn), in "Canadian Bacon"
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
> http://mail.yahoo.com/
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967532716/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] The Antonines
From:	"Gaius Metellus Valentinus" <websurfer07@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 08:16:38 -0000

Salvete omnes,

Forgive me, I don't mean to derail the current topic of
discussion. I just wanted to ask an opinion, and maybe some
suggestions from anyone willing. I'm very interested in the period
of the Antonines and I know the ubiquitous Michael Grant has a book
titled, "The Antonines". I just wanted to know if anyone has read
it, and if so, what was your opinion of it? Is it worth buying?
Also, if anyone has any suggestions for further reading on this
particular period, please feel free to write. Gratias.

- G. Metellus Valentinus

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Get Your Free PC World Newsletter Today!
http://click.egroups.com/1/8237/8/_/61050/_/967537004/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Antonines
From:	sfp55@--------
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 04:33:48 EDT

In a message dated 8/29/2000 1:18:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
websurfer07@-------- writes:

<< I know the ubiquitous Michael Grant has a book
titled, "The Antonines". I just wanted to know if anyone has read
it, and if so, what was your opinion of it? Is it worth buying? >>
Yes, it is a good consolidation of the period, but more important, contains
an excellent bibliography to aid researching further.
Vale
Q. Fabius

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967538032/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Dalmatia & Illyria
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 01:39:14 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete!

I have experienced some difficulty finding information
on Dalmatia and Illyria during the Roman era on line.
Does anyone have any websites on the Balkans during
the Roman era, or any knowledge they can share?

L. A. Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"In a decent, God-fearing country, I'd be allowed to beat the two of you to death" -- Gen. Dick Panzer (Rip Torn), in "Canadian Bacon"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967538355/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] vilified women
From:	Tom Nicolas <fixt@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 05:00:09 -0700

Ave Piscinus,

Unfortunately, I do not have a refrence book handy, but I believe
that there was a
street in Rome named for a crime comitted by a woman in ancient Rome.
I believe this woman was the daughter of the fifth king of Rome, the
King after the first Tarquin, did she not concieve of a plot to
overthrow her father, and to go so far as to run him down in her
chariot? Once again, without a refrence I am going by memory,
notwithstanding the fact that I do not cite her name here, I believe
that she is one of the most villified women of the ancient Romans.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Quirinus

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967550822/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Dalmatia & Illyria
From:	Megas-Robinson <amgunn@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 08:31:57 -0500

Ave Dalmaticus;

Venator scripsit:

Jeff Smith wrote:
>
> Salvete!
>
> I have experienced some difficulty finding information
> on Dalmatia and Illyria during the Roman era on line.
> Does anyone have any websites on the Balkans during
> the Roman era, or any knowledge they can share?
>
> L. A. Dalmaticus
>

A book you may want is from "The Peoples of Europe" series: "The Illyrians" by John Wilkes, Blackwell Publishers, 1995,
ISBN: 0-631-19807-5 for the paperback ($19.95 at Barnes & Noble, or try the Amazon link from the Nova Roma site and help
the national treasury). This book is a good overiew of the information extant at its time of original publicatio
(1992). Traing the history of the Illyrians from most ancient orgins to the final severl page about Medieval & Modern
Illyrians. It has a huge bibliography, which also aid your search.

In Officium - Venii

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967555905/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	"Gary McGrath" <gary65@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:19:18 -0000

EXCELLENT, WELL THOUGHT OUT EDICT. I fully and completely support
this edict and the efforts of our Censores!!
M. Iunius Iulianus
Praetor et Senator

--- In novaroma@--------, "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...>
wrote:
>
>
> Edictum Censoriale de Civitate Eiuranda
>
> Resignation of citizenship from Nova Roma, as stated in the
constitution of Nova Roma (IIA4), is effected by notification to the
censores, or by declaration before three or more witnesses. Messages
posted on the main Nova Roman e-mail list, and on the Nova Roman
message board, meet the requirement for three witnesses to a
resignation; messages posted to minority lists, regional, belonging
to sodalitates or other such lists or boards, do not meet the
requirement for three witnesses to a resignation.
>
> When a citizen resigns citizenship in Nova Roma, the resignation
will not take effect for nine days from the date of submitting the
message, counting inclusively of the date of submitting the message.
If, during this nundina, the citizen desires to withdraw his or her
resignation and remain a citizen, that citizen may freely do so
without penalty, except as defined in the next paragraph. The
citizen can withdraw the resignation by notifying the censores of
his/her desire to withdraw the resignation, by at least the same
channel that he/she used to submit the resignation. For example, if
a citizen submits a message to the e-mail address of the censores,
curre-------- ce--------s@--------, stati--------hat he/she resig--------the--------e citize--------r> must e-mail the censores by the same address to withdraw the
resignation.
>
> If a currently serving magistrate submits and withdraws multiple
resignations of citizenship within the same calendar year, the
censores will have grounds, after a closed hearing at which the
magistrate will have opportunity to present reasoning for his/her
actions, to issue an edictum against the magistrate rendering him/her
ineligible to run for elected office for one year. Should the
magistrate believe that he/she has a case for appeal of such an
edictum, he/she can appeal to a Tribunus Plebis, Praetor or Consul
within 30 days of issuance of the edictum as follows-
>
> -- if plebeian, either to a Tribunus Plebis to bring the appeal to
the Comitia Plebis Tributa or to a Praetor or Consul to bring the
appeal to the Comitia Populi Tributa
>
> -- if patrician, to a Praetor or Consul to bring the appeal to the
Comitia Populi Tributa
>
> Note that the decision to convene these comitia, along with the
schedule for doing so, is the purview of the tribuni, consules and
praetores, and is therefore beyond the scope of this edict
>
> When a citizen resigns citizenship in Nova Roma, and the
resignation becomes official after nine days, the ex-citizen is
barred from reapplication and reinstatement for a period of six
months, effective from the date his or her resignation became
official.
> (For example, if a citizen resigned on May 1 2000, and his
resignation
> became official on May 9, 2000, he could not be reinstated until
November 9, 2000)
>
> The ex-citizen, in the event that he desires to reacquire
citizenship, must apply in the same fashion as any other person
desirous of citizenship would, with the exception that he/she is
directed to state in his/her application the reasons behind his/her
resignation and decision to reverse the resignation and come back.
His/her Roman name may be resumed if no other citizen of Nova Roma
has taken it up in his/her absence. No public offices, titles or
century points carry over to the returning citizen, with the
exception of any religious title and corresponding century points
that may be specified by the Collegium Pontificum. Senatorial status
may be resumed at the discretion of both the Senate and of the
censores collegially. Gens affiliation in all instances remains at
the discretion of the pater or materfamilias.
>
> If a citizen resigns, is subsequently reinstated, and resigns a
second time, that ex-citizen is barred for two years from
reinstatement. Such a citizen is furthermore barred from running for
any elected public office for two years following re-admission, with
no recourse.
>
> If a citizen resigns, is subsequently reinstated, and resigns a
second time, is subsequently reinstated, and resigns a third time,
that ex-citizen is barred forever from reinstatement. The ex-citizen
has despised his citizenship and shown contempt for the state: he may
never be reinstated thereafter.
>
> The Censors will note the dates of submitted and withdrawn
resignations in the censorial album civium.
>
> IN LATIN:
>
> Eiuratio novoromanae civitatis ut ius publicum dicit II A iv
denuntiatione censoribus fit aut declaratione coram tribus
pluribusve Epistulae in publica fora electronica satis postulationi
trium testarum faciunt at epistulae in alia fora quae ad provincias
vel sodalitates pertinent vel in alia talia illi postulationi non
satis faciunt
>
> Cum civis civitatem novoromanam eiuret eiuratio nundinam nec vim
nec effectum non habet Si hac nundina civis recipere eiurationem et
civis manere desideret hic ita facere potest innocenter nisi caput
secundum ad rem pertineat Civis recipere eiurationem scribens
censoribus de sua voluntate eam recipere attamen eodem medio quo
civis mittens eiurationem usus est Exempli gratia si civis epistulam
electronicae inscriptioni cursualis censorum quae hodie est
ce--------s@-------- dice-------- se civitatem eiurare miserit tum civis eadem
inscriptione censoribus mittere epistulam electronicam ad recipiendam
eiurationem debebit
>
> Si magistratus in officio uno anno eiurationes multas mittet et
recipiet censores causam habebunt post occlusam interrogationem qua
magistratus argumenta dare pro suis actis poterit edictum constituere
contra hunc magistratum facientem eum non eligendum unum annum Si
magistratus se habere causam ad provocationem credet hic provocare ad
Tribunum Plebis aut Praetorem Consulemve triginta diebus vel moxius
ab edicto facto potest ut secundum dicit
>
> Si plebeianus aut ad Tribunum Plebis ut ille magistratus pro plebe
ad suffragium rem imponat Comitiis Plebis Tributis aut ad Praetorem
Consulemve ut ille magistratus pro populo ad suffragium rem imponat
Comitiis Populis Tributis
>
> Si patricius ad Praetorem Consulemve ut ille magistratus pro populo
ad suffragium rem imponat Comitiis Populis Tributis
>
> Notandum est conficere Comitia quandoque ita facere proprium
tribunis et consulibus et praetoribus et ergo extra huius edicti
potestatem
>
> Cum civis civitatem novoromanam eiuret et eiruatio post nundinam
vim effectumque capiat civis prior accipere civitatem sex menses ab
eiuratione effecta non potest
>
> Exempli gratia si cvis civitatem kal mai MMDCCLIII auc eiuravisset
et eiuratio vim effectumque cepisset vii id mai MMDCCLIII is accipere
civitatem ante iv id nov MMDCCLIII non posset
>
> Civis prior volens de novo civitatem accipere petitionem dare ad
civitatem accipendam eodem modo ullius alii civitati volentis debet
cum exceptione ut illi dicere in illius petitione rationes ad illius
eiurationem et sententiam eiurationis invertendae et illius
recipiendi mandetur Civis nomen romanum recipere potest nisi alius
civis novoromanus in illius absentia eum ceperit Nulla officia
publica nec titula nec puncta centuriata revenienti civi non
recipientur praeter ea Collegio Pontificum designata Ordo senatorius
potest recipi Senatu et ambobus censoribus consensis De gentilitate
semper iudicant patres et matresfamiliae
>
> Si civis civitatem eiuraverit et postea acceperit et iterum
eiuraverit talis civis prior accipere civitatem duos annos non
poterit Talis civis et non erit eligendus in officium duos annos
post civitatem acceptam tertio sine provocatione
>
> Si civis post civitatem acceptam tertio civitatem eiuraverit is
civis prior numquam non poterit civitatem accipere Civis prior
civitatem suam despexerit et contemptum rei publicae monstraverit ac
revenire postea non poterit
>
> Censores dies missarum et receptarum eiurationes civitatis in
censoriali albo civium notabunt
>
> ________________
>
> This Edicta is up for discussion for 7 days, before it takes
effect. If there are any changes, it will be revised and put up for
another 7 days.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix et Gaius Marius Merullus
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967558771/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	"Razenna " <razenna@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:41:51 -0000

Perhaps it would be illustrative to list the people who have left
Nova
Roma and the reasons they gave for doing so, as well as the reasons
they gave for coming back--those who have come back.

By the by-- it gives me a bad feeling that an organization feels it
must [repeat: Must] pass laws, whether voted by the citizens or
issued by an officer, to keep people from leaving. Another gut
feeling there. For what little any of you might thinkit worth.

That said-- I have been going through, in my mind, who has left and
come back that was not welocmed and then showed their worth to Nova
Roma. Marconius, but he was readmitted by mistake. Fimbria is
contested, and is not back yet to show what her future worth might
be.
More have left and have never come back. I can recall no one who
made a practice of leaving and returning.

C. Aelius Ericius.
Augur. Pontifex. Senator.
Paterfamilias.

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Nothing makes you feel like a new car
So treat yourself the easy way
Click below
http://click.egroups.com/1/8419/8/_/61050/_/967560113/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	"C Marius Merullus" <c_marius_m@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:11:13 -0400

Salvete Senator Erici et alii

>Perhaps it would be illustrative to list the people who have left
>Nova
>Roma and the reasons they gave for doing so, as well as the reasons
>they gave for coming back--those who have come back.

It would no doubt be illustrative, by I for one am not going to delve into
the details of the personal circumstances of many different individuals on
the list. Noone has time for it as far as I know, and even if there were
time, it wouldn't be appropriate.
>
>By the by-- it gives me a bad feeling that an organization feels it
>must [repeat: Must] pass laws, whether voted by the citizens or
>issued by an officer, to keep people from leaving. Another gut
>feeling there. For what little any of you might thinkit worth.

Your gut feelings are worth at least as much as mine or someone else's. But
I think that you and some others of our esteemed citizens are mistaking the
intent here. This edict will not prevent the reoccurence of resignations of
citizenship in Nova Roma. As others have pointed out before, resignations
are bound to continue throughout the life of our Res Publica. In the
absence of formal policy on them, like anything else, we can expect to
receive irregular treatment and suffer great disruption.

This policy is designed to establish a uniformity and fairness about the
treatment of resignations that is appropriate to Nova Roma, a re-building of
Roma.

As far as deterring resignations, that is quite a difficult task to
approach. I would say that observation of the virtues in each of our lives,
patience and respect for our fellow citizens, and pursuit of our own and
common interests in Nova Roma will encourage greater participation and
commitment among a larger number of citizens. All of these things will
probably do much more to deter resignations than any edict or other form of
law to keep each other committed to Nova Roma.

But that doesn't remove the necessity of the edict at all. We must be
prepared for future resignations, we must have a common frame of reference
about it and its implications for the value of our citizenship.

Valete

C Marius Merullus
Censor Suffectus
Senator
Paterfamilias

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967567574/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 06:36:51 -0700

Razenna wrote:

> Perhaps it would be illustrative to list the people who have left
> Nova
> Roma and the reasons they gave for doing so, as well as the reasons
> they gave for coming back--those who have come back.
>
> By the by-- it gives me a bad feeling that an organization feels it
> must [repeat: Must] pass laws, whether voted by the citizens or
> issued by an officer, to keep people from leaving. Another gut
> feeling there. For what little any of you might thinkit worth.
>
> That said-- I have been going through, in my mind, who has left and
> come back that was not welocmed and then showed their worth to Nova
> Roma. Marconius, but he was readmitted by mistake. Fimbria is
> contested, and is not back yet to show what her future worth might
> be.
> More have left and have never come back. I can recall no one who
> made a practice of leaving and returning.

Ericius, I can think of one person....immediately who always said thats it!
I am leaving..and then she would come back. That was Crys! :)

Sulla Felix

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967568694/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Citizen images needed for Album Civium
From:	"yquere" <yquere@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:55:02 +0200

Salve

Here's my pic

Vale
I.Querius Armoricus

----- Original Message -----
From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 5:33 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Citizen images needed for Album Civium

>
> Salvete Cives,
>
> The new Album Civium inclues pages showing information on each individual
> citizen, which can include a small portrait.
>
> If you'd like to attach a portrait of yourself to your record, please mail
> it to me (not to the list!). It should be no more than 150 x 150 pixels.
> The filename should be based on your complete Roman name as shown
> in the Album Civium, separated with periods, such as:
>
> Marcus.Octavius.Germanicus.jpg
> Lucius.Cornelius.Sulla.Felix.gif
> Gaius.Marius.Merullus.jpg
> Quintus.Fabius.Maximus.gif
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
> Microsoft delenda est!
> http://www.graveyards.com/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
> Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
> Install today:
> http://click.egroups.com/1/6347/8/_/61050/_/963070494/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

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

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967574851/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Citizen images needed for Album Civium
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 08:24:56 -0700

You need to email him privately. There are no attachments on this list. :)

Sulla Felix
Censor

yquere wrote:

> Salve
>
> Here's my pic
>
> Vale
> I.Querius Armoricus
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
> To: <novaroma@-------->
> Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 5:33 PM
> Subject: [novaroma] Citizen images needed for Album Civium
>
> >
> > Salvete Cives,
> >
> > The new Album Civium inclues pages showing information on each individual
> > citizen, which can include a small portrait.
> >
> > If you'd like to attach a portrait of yourself to your record, please mail
> > it to me (not to the list!). It should be no more than 150 x 150 pixels.
> > The filename should be based on your complete Roman name as shown
> > in the Album Civium, separated with periods, such as:
> >
> > Marcus.Octavius.Germanicus.jpg
> > Lucius.Cornelius.Sulla.Felix.gif
> > Gaius.Marius.Merullus.jpg
> > Quintus.Fabius.Maximus.gif
> >
> > Vale, Octavius.
> >
> > --
> > M. Octavius Germanicus
> > Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
> > Microsoft delenda est!
> > http://www.graveyards.com/
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
> > Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
> > Install today:
> > http://click.egroups.com/1/6347/8/_/61050/_/963070494/
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967575384/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] The Greek Has Spoken
From:	"j.mason4" <j.mason4@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:21:02 +0100

This possibility was provided for you by the policy you have for the whole Empire: you classify no one as an alien, when you accept him for employment, where he can do well and is then needed...On the day they [the recruits] join the army, they lost their original city, but from the very same day become fellow-citizens of your city and its defenders."
( Aelius Aristades )

Ave
~~S~~

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

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967580793/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	"Razenna " <razenna@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:41:15 -0000


Subject:	[novaroma] Gentes Homepages
From:	"Razenna " <razenna@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:58:10 -0000


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	sfp55@--------
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:29:32 EDT


Subject:	[novaroma] e-groups E-mail post change please note.
From:	sfp55@--------
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:36:37 EDT


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] e-groups E-mail post change please note.
From:	Paul R Neacsu <pneacsu@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:46:39 -0700


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] e-groups E-mail post change please note.
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:54:27 -0500 (CDT)


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:06:56 -0700


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] e-groups E-mail post change please note.
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:10:55 -0500 (CDT)

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Get Your Free PC World Newsletter Today!
http://click.egroups.com/1/8237/8/_/61050/_/967587231/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

If your mail server is Unix and has procmail available, the following
lines in your .procmailrc will strip the ad:

:0:
* ^Reply-To: novaroma@--------
|perl -ne '$bad=1 if (m/~-~>$/); print if (!$bad); $bad=0 if (m/-_->$/);' >> $DEFAULT

(if you don't have perl use this line instead:
| awk '/-~-~>$/ {bad=1;} {if (!bad) print;} /-_->$/ {bad=0;}' >> $DEFAULT

If you prefer that mail to this list go to a separate folder, use its
filename in place of $DEFAULT.

Awfully nice of them to put in that delimiter around the ad...

Vale, Octavius.

---
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
Microsoft delenda est!
http://www.graveyards.com/


Subject:	[novaroma] Response to M Octavius' Question--[Fwd: Important eGroups notification]
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:19:05 -0500


Subject:	[novaroma] Digest Number 991
From:	"Lucius" <vergil@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:35:56 -0400

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967588386/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Salvete, Quirites

I feel I must address a few points below.

Message: 11
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 05:32:39 +0200
From: "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Subject: Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation

>>Salvete Quirites!

>> I would not venture to bore you by reiterating the same
>>arguments which you have already heard from me on the matter of the
>>edictum to punish returning citizens. Since I have new arguments,
>>however, I shall present them.

Lucius Equitius: I would say that this is not to punish, but to give the
Censores guidlines for the fair and equal treatment of of all who might find
themselves in such a situation. Brought on by their own decision I maight
add.

>>Resigning from Nova Roma is not a crime.

Lucius Equitius: This depends on the defintion used. I maintain it *is* a
crime.
"an unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or contition." Which is what I
would call resigning citizenship, a "senseless, or disgraceful act". So we
disagree on a "fact".

>>Returning to Nova Roma is not a crime.

Lucius Equitius: Once again depends of the definion and the circumstances.
Remember we already do have a grace period for people to reconsider a rash
action, which is what they may call it if they do in fact reconsider
resigning.

>>Why then is there to be punishment in the form of temporary (and
eventually permanent) exile and losses of civic rights for performing
these acts?

Lucius Equitius: You say 'punishment', I say 'conditions for reapplying'.
Remember who has taken the pirmary action of resigning. Now they will have
to consider consequences for their actions, if they didn't take the nine
days grace period to reconsider.

>> Perhaps the censors will say that these are not "punishments". And
>>yet they look exactly like punishments, and would probably feel
>>exactly like punishments, and they were officially announced as being
>>deterents to resignation, and deterence is certainly an attribute
>>often associated with punishments. Punishments with no corresponding
>>crimes. We should think about that, should we not, Quirites?

Lucius Equitius: You are assuming that WE call the edict a punishment and
that throwing away citizenship is not a crime. I would disagree on both
counts. Yet you would call this a punishment. Also,I must have missed
something in the announcement of the edict in question. I so not see any
reference to it being a 'deterence to resignation', official or otherwise.

>> I am also disturbed by the fact that some people seemed to
>>assume that anyone who resigned was no longer worth much as a Nova
>>Roman or even as a person. Is that true?

Lucius Equitius: Who are you asking?? BTW do you still beat your wife? :-)
exasperating isn't it?

>> The only hurt that a private citizen is doing Nova Roma by
>>leaving is reducing its population by one. And if an ex-citizen comes
>>back, that return in and of itself strengthens Nova Roma by one
>>person. And if the departure caused a touch of dismay among the
>>remaining, the return should cause a good measure of joy. There is a
>>balance.

Lucius Equitius: This would all depend on specific circumstances. Also,
since the Censores do these things as a MAJOR part of their duties, I would
suspect that they have a intimate knowledge of the impact that these
'revolving -door' "citizens" have. Remenber too that both Censores agree on
this and both Censores are long time citizens who have seen examples of the
'revolving door' citizen. This is NOT the first time this subject has been
considered.

>> After the battle of Cannae, one of the most horrible defeats in
>>Roman history, whose name still rings horribly through the ages, the
>>responsible Consul Varro came back to Rome. But listen to Livy's
>>words:

"So great, in this grim time, was the nation's heart, that the
consul, fresh from a defeat of which he had himself been the
principal cause, was met on his return to Rome by men of all
conditionss, who came in crowds to participate in the thanks,
publicly bestowed upon him for not having `despaired of the
commonwealth'. A Carthaginian general in such circumstances would
have been punished with the utmost rigour of the law."

Lucius Equitius: Which proves the point that, to a Roman, the thought of
quitting was rarely considered.
In this case I believe that they rejoiced that Varro hadn't commited
suicide, but then this is Livy's account and most know that he is considered
biasd by many historians.
On a side note, after that same battle young Publius Cornelius Scipio (later
to become Africanus) rallied hundreds of his fellows and was reputed to have
threated at sword point would be deserters!!!

>>When I reread that I cried a little because of the sheer beauty in
>>the magnanimity of the Roman spirit on this occasion. And I ask
>>myself: "If someone whose ideal of Romanitas is so high that he feels
>>he has to leave Nova Roma because we are so far below what we might
>>be and his heart is pained by that discrepency beyond enduring, and
>>yet he returns to us even after having broken all legal ties, purely
>>out of love and concern, knowing full well that he is letting himself
>>in for just more work and more battles to make us good and great -
>>why, oh why can we not take his hand and say to him: "Roman, we thank
>>you for not despairing of the commonwealth"?

Lucius Equitius: Yes, but how can we say that to someone who *has* quit?

>> But instead, if we adopt the new edictum, we will be acting with
>>the predictable, mean-spirited, bureaucratic vengefulness of
>>Carthaginians - as at least Livy thought was typical of them, not of
>>Romans.
>>Valete!
>>Marcus Apollonius Formosanus
>>Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)

Lucius Equitius: Marcus Apollonius, you speak as if yours is the only way
to view a situation. You say such and such is "unjust", or "not a crime",
when plainly others feel differently. How bold you are to speak thus. Also,
give us facts to consider when you make a statement such as, "I am also
disturbed by the fact that some people seemed to assume that anyone who
resigned was no longer worth much as a Nova Roman or even as a person." What
fact are you referring to here? Who are these "some people" you refer to
here?
Certainly you are within your rights to present your opinions; however, to
assume that your position on any given topic is a fact is hardly 'just' or
'fair'.

Valete, Lucius Equitius


Subject:	[novaroma] Various list-related matters
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2000 23:28:29 -0000

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Get Your Free PC World Newsletter Today!
http://click.egroups.com/1/8237/8/_/61050/_/967591712/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Salvete!

I. Yes, we can remove the ads for $54.90/year. I'll bring it up to
the Senate and, unless someone objects, arrange to have this taken
care of.

II. Volume on this list is indeed getting too heavy. Please, if your
message is a "me too" or is intended chiefly for one individual, send
it privately.

III. To facilitate this, I have changed the list settings so that
replies go automatically to the sender. To send an e-mail to the
whole list, you have to change the "To:" address to
novaroma@-------- This takes a few seconds, during which it is
hoped that you will reflect carefully on the question, "Does the
whole list need to hear this?"

IV. Snide personal comments on the list are not edifying to anyone,
nor do they enhance the sender's dignitas or public standing. Enough
said (I hope).

Patricia Cassia