| Subject: |
[novaroma] (unknown) |
| From: |
"Jerome S. Arkenberg" <varromurena@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:47:11 -0700 (PDT) |
|
All the Lives of the Caesars by Suetonius are now
online at the Internet History Sourcebooks Project,
including Suetonius' _De Viris Illustribus_ (lives of
the Grammarians, Rhetoricians, Orators, Historians,
etc.):
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suetonius-index.html
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972694033/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Change of Gentile Affiliation |
| From: |
"Comptess" <comptess@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 28 Oct 2000 16:22:18 +1300 |
|
Ok, my 2c worth ;-)
Bit tired, haven't poured over it with a magnifying glass but I find it generally acceptable to myself apart from one thing. If I have read it correctly...a 'bride' may transfer to the 'bridegrooms' gens upon permission of the head of the gens, etc. but not the other way around. I think it should work both ways, ie. a 'bridegroom' may transfer to the 'brides' gens. I can see no reason why this should not be so. And I don't even wanna begin discussing same-sex marriages...yet.
What do you think?
lol, please ignore or clarify if I have got the completely wrong end of the pinus radiata. ;-)
In reply to L. Cornelius Sulla, I can only say I share your concern with preserving the sincerity of the gens institution and I have little respect for a citizen who may flit from gens to gens with little concern for the integrity of gens, but I feel a blanket rule cannot reflect the reality of the unique community that is Nova Roma. Perhaps a case-by-case judgement based on some firm guidelines? I feel the gens is a very important institution but perhaps requires more definition for its role within Nova Roma, for it seems opinions may vary drastically.
I look forward to discussion on this.
Valete
Domna Claudia Auspicata
----- Original Message -----
From: Nick Ford
To: novaroma@--------
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 10:42 AM
Subject: [novaroma] Change of Gentile Affiliation
Quiritibus salutem
Bene'st - I am returned from soggy Bremetennacum, where wild geese outnumber
people, and internet-enabled computers are scarcer than wineshops selling a
decent Setinian that hasn't been cut with elderberries
(
Now I've read all my post, I'd like to reply to this question Censor C. Marius asked recently:
> Beyond this, I believe that we need some standards to follow in the matter
> of adoptions, that is, change of gens affiliation. Since Nova Roman
> citizenship is granted by voluntary association, not by birth, I believe
> that gentiles have the right to leave gentes and seek to join others. A
> procedure for this that protects the rights of gentiles, as well as of
> patres and matres, would be very beneficial.
>
> I wonder whether any other citizens agree that a law on this subject would
> be helpful. If you do think so,
> I would be interested in suggestions on the language of such a law.
I offer this draft for general comment:
DE GENTILICIUM MUTANDIS
1. Change of gentile affiliation (i.e., of the gens to which a citizen belongs) may occur for three reasons:
a) Expulsion by the head of the gens;
b) Voluntary resignation from the gens by the member;
c) Marriage of two members of different gentes.
2. a) In the case of 1 a) above, the individual expelled shall be free to join any other gens at the discretion of the head of that gens, or to found his/her own gens;
2. b) The right of the head of the gens to admit or to expel members of his/her gens shall in no way be interpreted as according the right to retain a member of the gens within the gens against that member's will, for any reason whatsoever;
2. c) In the caseof 1. b) above, any citizen wishing to change his/her gens shall be deemed to have the same legal rights and freedoms of affiliation as any citizen applying to join a gens for the first time;
2. d) In the case of 1 c) above, the citizen intending to marry who is presumed to be of female gender (hereafter known as 'the bride'), shal
l be deemed on ratification of the marriage by the Censors to have left her
original gens, and to have joined the gens of the citizen she intends to
marry and who is presumed to be of male gender (hereafter known as 'the
bridegroom'). The bride may, on the ratification of the marriage by the
Censors, apply (provided that the permission of the head of her former gens
has been sought and granted) to retain her old gentile name as part of her
new name, thus:
Quinta Manlia Lepida, formerly of gens Manlia, may, with the permission of
the head of gens Manlia, on marriage to Caius Didius Secundus of gens Didia,
be known thereafter as Quinta Manlia Didia Lepida.
2. e) In the case of 1 c) above, the intending marriage partners must seek
the permission of the heads of both gentes concerned. If one or both
refuses, the intending bride and bridegroom may either:
i. In the case where only one head of gens has granted permission to marry,
the intending marriage partner whose head of gens has refused permission may
resign from that gens and join or form another gens, pending marriage into
his/her intended partner's gens;
ii. In the case where the heads of both gentes have refused permission to
marry, both intending marriage partners may resign from their respective
gentes and join other gentes of form their own, pending marriage. If each
joins a different gens pending marriage, the bride shall be deemed to have
entered the bridegroom's gens on marriage.
2. f) On the ratification of their marriage, the couple may elect to resign
from the bridegroom's gens at any time and form their own, new gens. In all
such cases, such applications shall be viewed by the Censors as legally
equivalent to an application by a new citizen to form a new gens.
3. a) Transfer of gens membership as stated above shall be unrestricted in
law, without regard to the rank of either gens involved. A plebeian shall
therefore be free to marry or adopt a patrician or equestrian, and vice
versa. The adopted individual shall be deemed thereafter to have the rank of
the gens into which s/he has been adopted.
3. b) Any bride from a gens joining a gens of different rank by marriage
shall thenceforth be deemed to be of the rank of the new gens. Thus, if a
plebeian bridegroom marries a patrician bride, the patrician bride joins the
gens of the bridegroom and becomes plebeian; but if a patrician bridegroom
marries a plebeian bride, the plebeian bride joins the gens of the
bridegroom and therefore becomes patrician.
Your comments on the above would be much appreciated. I would like to add
that gens Moravia has a custom of admitting (and, theoretically, by
extension, expelling) members by vote (so far, unanimously). Does any other
gens follow this custom?
Bene valete,
N. Moravius Vado
Accensus Consulis Minor.
eGroups Sponsor
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972703698/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Change of Gentile Affiliation |
| From: |
"Catja " <ponton.3@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:18:30 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@d...> wrote:
> 2. d) In the case of 1 c) above, the citizen intending to marry who
is presumed to be of female gender (hereafter known as 'the bride'),
shal
> l be deemed on ratification of the marriage by the Censors to have
left her
> original gens, and to have joined the gens of the citizen she
intends to
> marry and who is presumed to be of male gender (hereafter known
as 'the
> bridegroom'). The bride may, on the ratification of the marriage by
the
> Censors, apply (provided that the permission of the head of her
former gens
> has been sought and granted) to retain her old gentile name as part
of her
> new name, thus:
>
> Quinta Manlia Lepida, formerly of gens Manlia, may, with the
permission of
> the head of gens Manlia, on marriage to Caius Didius Secundus of
gens Didia,
> be known thereafter as Quinta Manlia Didia Lepida.
> 3. b) Any bride from a gens joining a gens of different rank by
marriage
> shall thenceforth be deemed to be of the rank of the new gens.
Thus, if apatrician bride joins the
> gens of the bridegroom and becomes plebeian; but if a patrician
bridegroom
> marries a plebeian bride, the plebeian bride joins the gens of the
> bridegroom and therefore becomes patrician.
>
Salve, N. Moravius Vado!
Overall, I believe your breakdown of the issue is an excellent one;
although I'm new here, from what I've read, the issue is contentious
enough that a specific procedure would be useful. I agree, too, with
Sulla that someone who bounces from gens to gens is silly and
irresponsible, but for specific cases, a set course of action would
be good to have on hand.
However, I disagree with the "marriage" clause. Someone else
questioned why only the bride can/should/will change gens, and
suggested making the option available to both bride and groom. I
agree, and would stress that changing gens should be an OPTION; the
current wording seems to imply that the bride would automatically be
transferred into her husband's gens, whether she wishes or no. I've
argued in other posts that simply because the Ancient Romans engaged
in certain practices doesn't mean that we, in the year 2000, are
obligated to carry them on, especially if they conflict with the
values of our contemporary society -- one of which is that women are
not the property of their husbands, or of their husband's families;
such a view is unjustifiable by today's standards (well, unless
you're a Southern Baptist):) By allowing women to head families and
serve in the government, NR has shown that it sees women as being
individuals in their own right, rather than merely extensions of
their husbands -- why change that now? Also, husbands taking their
wives' names are not without precedent, at least in the middle ages;
I'm not sure about ancient Rome though (but this is NEW Rome,
anyway) :)
Secondly, it begs the question of what to do with those female
citizens, like myself, who are married (or engaged, in my case) to
non-NR members. If a woman's membership in a family is determined by
her husband, then why not her citizenship itself? To insist that
married women belong to the gens of their husbands puts us in a
bind -- he doesn't have a gens, therefore do I have a gens? This is
patently unfair, both to my fiancee and myself.
I don't mean to give offense in this critique; I'm simply raising an
issue that I find troubling. As I said earlier, I think that it's a
great procedure overall. Of course, if a woman wishes to change to
her husband's gens, she should be free to do so; but she shouldn't be
obligated, nor should he be denied the same option.
I apologize if my first communication with you seems somewhat
critical; I've enjoyed reading your posts in the archives, and your
arguments are always intelligent and scholarly. I look forward to
reading your further thoughts upon this topic.
Respectfully,
Camilla Iulia Circe
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972721119/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Question for everyone |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 28 Oct 2000 01:28:47 -0700 |
|
Ave Quirites!
Last year, when I was Consul I created a survey asking everyone about
their concerns about NR. I was/am very concerned about this. And now
that elections are rapidly approaching again, I thought it might be a
good time to really think about NR.
Anyway, here are some questions that I have:
What issues do you think perspective candidates need to focus on?
What issues do you think have been overlooked?
In what areas, specifically, do you think NR needs to improve?
I really wish I could have created a confidential survey like I did last
year. I got some really good results and some excellent ideas. Anyway,
I think this would be a good thread to begin a discussion, considering
that most, if not all future candidates are on this list! :)
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972729307/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] The Unjust Reprimand to Lucius Marius Fimbria |
| From: |
"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 28 Oct 2000 16:33:46 +0100 |
|
M. Apollonius Formosanus Quiritibus S.P.D.
The consuls of this Respublica in the name of themselves and of= the
Senate have just issued an infamous document against one of= us
outstanding in Romanitas and already much wronged by our= public
institutions. I refer to the "Reprimand" of= Lucius Marius Fimbria.
Marius has been systematically harassed for some months by two=
individuals in the Senate of considerable influence: L.= Cornelius
Sulla Felix and L. Equitius Cincinnatus. The story of= this is long
and involved and I do not wish to rehash the= details here today, but
in summary:
1. Marius as Curator Sermonis was obliged to discipline= Cincinnatus
for his list conduct. This and a generally opposite= set of
personalities (and a certainly very vindictive one on the= part of
Cincinnatus) may account for the deep personal antipathy= between
them, especialy the really rancorous sentiments felt by= Cincinnatus.
2. Some months ago Marius for personal reasons wished to correct= the
sex of his name. Sulla (despite previous promises of help to= a
previous supporter and friend) refused to allow this. He went= so far
as to enact two controversial edicta (the first when he= was without
a colleague) including provisions that would make it= difficult for a
person requiring gender correction in such= cases. He then sat back
smugly and claimed he was just enforcing= the law!
3. Marius, realising that he had the moral and macrolegal high=
ground, temporarily resigned his citizenship in protest against= this
treatment. Because of our collective inability to overcome= the
obdurateness of Sulla and correct our treatment of sexual=
minorities, he was eventually forced to return - purely out of= his
Romanitas and a perhaps perverse love of Nova Roma to a= degree that
drew him back to a place where he would mostly be= treated with
further personal disrespect and even forced again= to list himself
officially under the wrong sex as he perceives= it (and who has a
better right to perceive it?), the contrary= one to that which he
lives in his everyday life.
4. When Marius so listed himself and made a perfectly valid=
citizenship application, supposedly satisfying Censor Sulla's=
bigoted notions of sexual propriety, the censor did not process= it
normally, but on his own initiative went to the Senate and= there
conspiring and conniving with Cincinnatus contrived to get= a
*special* Senate vote of doubtful legality and no propriety to=
subject Marius to "conditions" for becoming a citizen= again. These
humiliating and unjust provisions were passed in= the Senate due to
the tireless oratory of Cincinnatus, who= expressed bile, venom,
vindictiveness, vengefulness, and= downright nastiness at such
length that many senators were worn= down, having been well and truly
convinced that Cincinnatus was= never going to relent and show a
sense of moderation or= forgiveness.
5. This reprimand was issued among other things, full of outright=
untruths and arrogant language; in addition (never kill a fly= with
just one stick of dynamite!), there is the intention on the= part of
Sulla to pass a censorial nota against him.
It has obviously become dangerous to have enemies with the power= and
influence of Sulla and Cincinnatus. And if for reasons of= personal
right and need or of honest political= disagreement an ordinary
citizen crosses them, h is in danger of= having all the institutions
of the State turned against him and= to be left essentially powerless
and without defence. The Senate= will turn itself into a Court of
Star Chamber and vote against= one not on the basis of law, but on
the basis of the opinion of= the moment.
Quirites, I do not think that this is the kind of administration= or
judicial system that we want. Is it?
But I must say a few words about the Reprimand itself, which I do=
below as annotations:
_____________
Salvete, Senate Fathers, Magistrates, and Citizens of Nova= Roma;
The duly elected Consuls of Nova Roma, having agreed upon this=
action, now stand together in Forum to issue the following=
Reprimand.
This Reprimand was voted by the Senate of Nova Roma, to be= drafted
by
the Praetors and was then presented to the Senate for a series= of
revisions.
This Reprimand is now issued jointly by the Consuls Q.= Fabius
Maximus, and Marcus Minucius Audens.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
The Senate of Nova Roma firmly condemns the offensive public= actions
performed by Citizen Lucia Maria Fimbria. The Senate of= Nova Roma
understands that the actions perpetrated by Citizen Lucia Maria=
Fimbria could only have the objective of throwing the person and=
offices of Lucius Equitius Cinninatus to public ridicule and to=
affect, in a negative way, the Auctorius, Dignitas, Fides of all=
Nova Roma public institutions.
MAF: It is worth considering whether the person in question might=
have in someone's opinion merited such disrespect by the= character
and manner in which he carried out his duties?
The actions perpetrated by Citizen Lucia Maria Fimbria were=
testified by several Citizens of Nova Roma including members of= the
Nova Roma
Senate, which consisted of the following:
MAF: So, we see that members of the effective panal of judges= (the
Senate) served as witnesses at the same time as they were= voting.
Could it be that the plaintiff (Cincinnatus) voted too= as a judge in
his own case? While Marius got no vote? What kind= of
(quasi-)judicial procedure is this?
--Impersonation of a Magistrate and Pontifex; usage of the= name
"Cincinnatus" without his consent to impersonate him in= a rite of
suicide.
MAF: Apparently true, although I seem also to have heard that it= was
murder. The "rite of suicide" may sound awful, but= in fact it was
interpreted by the participants as some private= high-spirited fun at
the expensive of a person they found= frustrating and nasty. I
concede that it was in bad taste and= that the act of taking his name
was not proper, but the whole= thing was not something abominable, as
suggested by the wording.= And were the other participants punished
in any way? Or even= investigated with a view to punishment?
NOTE that Marius publically apologised to Cincinnatus right here= on
the main list. (To which Cincinnatus replied most= ungraciously that
he did not want one!) And Marius agreed not to= use his name again
and has not done so. What more should be= required after a little bit
of (slightly misguided) fun? Isn't= it a bit excessive to impose 1)
Conditions for regaining= citizenship, 2) a Reprimand, 3) a censorial
Nota? Just a= bit???
--Negative propaganda; using the Forum Romanum
"http://pluto.= beseen.com/chat/rooms/w/10275
and other independently established lists, chatrooms and message=
boards to create sentiments against the goals of Nova Roma and=
against her Magistrates among Citizens and Prospective= Citizens.
MAF: I have previously written here about how the charming and=
interesting letters of Marius on the main list (before he was= shoved
aside from normal participation by sexual bigotry and= Cincinnatan
vindictiveness), were a contributory factor to my= own joining of
Nova Roma. And insofar as comments were made in= the public places of
Nova Roma, I have personally experienced= them to be normal and
constructive.
But if negative comments were expressed, that is a human being's=
natural right. No right to complain in a public place? What=
dangerous, silly foolishness! Marius was treated unjustly by=
magistrates and system. In such a situation I certainly should= have
complained far more loudly, since that is the only possible= way to
eventually obtain justice. If it is possible at all with= the way
things are going.
I am also worried by an undue and repeated sense of fear that new=
members may hear criticism. Let me here openly state that if I= am
approached by persons planning to join Nova Roma or new= citizens, I
often warn them of the roughness of the politics,= the injustice of
the administration in many significant cases,= and the names of the
men most responsible for this state of= affairs. Common kindness
requires that one warn the uninitiated= of rattlesnakes under the
rocks.
If the authorities of Nova Roma wish to mute criticism there is= one
and only one proper way: deal justly and kindly with the= citizens,
each and every one of them. Do not let censors cause= trouble for
citizens wishing to assert their personal sexual= identities, do not
punish them for returning after an absence,= do not even think of
stiffling criticism by punishment, and= refrain from trying them in
irregular ways to satisfy their= personal enemies in the Senate.
This Reprimand is a new low for our Respublica. The majority of= the
Senate, both consuls and the senior censor have stood= together to
condemn a person for a prank already apologised for= and for
exercising freedom of speech to criticise injustices in= government.
While on this same day a censorial nota is being= planned for him.
(Consider too that Cincinnatus once actually= pulled off a coup
against the Respublica and was allowed back by= the Dictator with no
Reprimand or censorial nota. But he does= not want to pass on the
clemency that he received.)
This is not justice, Quirites. If we wish to have a Nova Roma= that
we can feel secure in and be proud of, we must make better= laws and
establish serious and just procedures for the trial of= citizens. The
present ad hoc means of treating citizens= according to procedures
invented on the spur of the moment by= those among the influential
and powerful who have the biggest= axe to grind with some simple
civis have got to go - and with= them the whole excessive emphasis on
punishment. The conduct of= the consuls and Senate in this matter
have indeed affected= "in a negative way, the Auctoritas, Dignitas,
Fides of all= Nova Roma public institutions" far more than the
actions of= a simple civis could possibly do. And that hurts all of
us= common citizens and the project of Nova Roma itself.
Valete Quirites!
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.ne= t/~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)
________________________________________
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
40% off fares on
the best airlines
at Hotwire.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9753/8/_/61050/_/972743695/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Bouncing gentiles? |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:15:54 +0200 |
|
Salvete Novaromani,
Some people here have voiced their concern about people bouncing all over the gentes when an edictum/lex such as Vado's model would come into effect. Although this concern seems perfectly reasonable at first, I do have two strong objections:
1. Censor Sulla views the gens as the most important unit in Nova Roma, which I agree on, but as a discussion on this list a while ago made clear, people often simply don't know what some gentes stand for, and what they do in Nova Roma, so, if such a badly informed, 'innocent' new comer would choose a gens, and it would appear that he or she doesn't fit into it and has obviously made the wrong choice, then why would you refuse that gentilis to leave? To refuse this would result in this civis becoming even more 'rebellious', passive or even resigning, while admitting that civis to leave the gens to another gens that seems more suitable to him or her, would keep everyone more satisfied.
2. I do not feel that there would be a lot of people 'bouncing around' the gentes, as it would be very bad for their reputation, and, after a while, patres- or matresfamilias would refuse that citizen to enter their gens because of that very reputation. I trust that most cives here in Nova Roma are not irresponsible people.
Valete!
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
Wind Dragon, ICQ# 32924725
--**--
There are no bad guys. Just disturbed guys.
--**--
Novaromain? Parlez-vous français? Cliquez ici!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_GalliaBelgicaF
Nieuwromein? Spreekt u Nederlands? Klik hier!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_BelgicaBataviaD
Novaroman? Interested in philosophy? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_Philosophy
--**--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972750649/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Reprimand |
| From: |
"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 28 Oct 2000 23:57:04 +0100 |
|
Quiritibus Salutem
I for one am extremely saddened and disgusted to see this worrying example
of a citizen being punished twice for the same offence, and in such a
dubious way.
I note that no indication was given of what majority of the Senate voted on
the issuance of the nota, or whether it was an overall majority: Well, O
Conscript Fathers: was it? Did no-one dissasociate him- or herself from
this?
If this is the final agreed draft, I would hate to think what the others
looked like.
Senators, Magistrates, Consuls: do you think this action does anything to
increase your auctoritas, your dignitas, or fides? You have plastered this
shameful thing all over the Forum and thereby publicised a thoughtless but
jocular act of Fimbria's, of which I would wager the majority of Nova Roma's
citizens were previously unaware until you proclaimed it. I am amazed that
you appear seriously to believe that this public reprimand improves the
public image of Nova Roma. Personally, I find your solution worse than the
problem.
And the real problem, in my opinion, is one of personal enmity.
There are several citizens of rank in Nova Roma whose behaviour on this list
has been derogatory to Nova Roma in the past. I myself am one. But all
apologised, and each unpleasantness was passed over. Yet Fimbria apologised,
and it has not been passed over.
Why is Fimbria being singled out for such cruel and unusual punishment? Why
was the trial hidden from the eyes of the citizens? Why are her accusers
and the informers not named?
Why were the people not asked if they felt the state was imperilled by a
lampoon?
Lucia Maria Fimbria is my friend. She was once the friend of those who have
devised this juridical smear - with one notable exception. I had also
considered that person my friend, and - had I known in time - would have
begged that person not to cheapen his honour by pushing this through. And
right now I feel more honoured to call Fimbria my friend, than I am to be
associated with this business, as a magistrate, a senator-elect and a
consular adviser. No one in the government of Nova Roma thought fit to ask
my opinion while this act of official revenge was being contemplated. Even
so, I hereby publicly dissasociate myself from this reprimand.
I for one look forward to the day when Nova Roma's citizens will feel free
to expose to satire or any other kind of criticism, any other citizen they
think deserves it, without fear of official retribution - as is the right
of any citizen in a free republic.
The best way to avoid ridicule is not through employing the means a police
state would use, but to avoid being ridiculous.
Verum agite!
Nicolaus Moravius Vado.
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:34:38 -0400 (EDT)
> From: jmath669642reng@--------
> Subject: ATTENTION: Reprimand to Nova Roma Citizen Lucia Maria Fimbria
>
> Salvete, Senate Fathers, Magistrates, and Citizens of Nova Roma;
>
> The duly elected Consuls of Nova Roma, having agreed upon this action,
> now stand together in Forum to issue the following Reprimand.
>
> This Reprimand was voted by the Senate of Nova Roma, to be drafted by
> the Praetors and was then presented to the Senate for a series of
> revisions.
>
> This Reprimand is now issued jointly by the Consuls Q. Fabius Maximus,
> and Marcus Minucius Audens.
>
> ======================================
>
> The Senate of Nova Roma firmly condemns the offensive public actions
> performed by Citizen Lucia Maria Fimbria. The Senate of Nova Roma
> understands that the actions perpetrated by Citizen Lucia Maria Fimbria
> could only have the objective of throwing the person and offices of
> Lucius Equitius Cinninatus to public ridicule and to affect, in a
> negative way, the Auctorius, Dignitas, Fides of all Nova Roma public
> institutions.
>
> The actions perpetrated by Citizen Lucia Maria Fimbria were testified by
> several Citizens of Nova Roma including members of the Nova Roma Senate,
> which consisted of the following:
>
> --Impersonation of a Magistrate and Pontifex; usage of the name
> "Cincinnatus" without his consent to impersonate him in a rite of
> suicide.
>
> --Negative propaganda; using the Forum Romanum
>
> "http://pluto.beseen.com/chat/rooms/w/10275"
>
> and other independently established lists, chatrooms and message boards
> to create sentiments against the goals of Nova Roma and against her
> Magistrates among Citizens and Prospective Citizens.
>
> ======================================
> Both Consuls wish to thank Praetor Graecus for his efforts in drawing up
> and completing the many revisions to this Reprimand.
>
> Valete, Respectfully;
> Q. Fabius Maximus and Marcus Minucius Audens--Consuls
>
> Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
>
>
> http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary
>
>
>
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972773652/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Return |
| From: |
<gmvick32@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:00:45 -0600 |
|
With trepidation, I actively return to the list.
Livia Cornelia Aurelia
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972776209/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Return |
| From: |
SyanneRose@-------- |
| Date: |
Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:49:11 EDT |
|
Welcome back, Livia.
Vale
Aeternia
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972776958/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
