Forum Romanum


Subject:	RE: [novaroma]
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Fri, 8 Dec 2000 19:01:51 -0500

Salvete!

On Germanicus' further reply to Formosanus,

>So here we have again the party-which-is-not-really-a-party. < ,etc..>

This post is again dishonest. For most of the last year Sulla, with the
episodic support of QFM and Germanicus, has been pursuing a covert and at
times not-so-covert modern political agenda in Nova Roma - of which the
Gender Edictum is but one part. As soon as the "Dignitas" grouping (and I
am neither a signatory nor a subscriber to this list) attempts to offer an
alternative approach, Germanicus (and Sulla, and others) cry foul.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976320140/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma]
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Fri, 08 Dec 2000 15:31:47 -0800

Mike Macnair wrote:

> Salvete!
>
> On Germanicus' further reply to Formosanus,
>
> >So here we have again the party-which-is-not-really-a-party. < ,etc..>
>
> This post is again dishonest. For most of the last year Sulla, with the
> episodic support of QFM and Germanicus, has been pursuing a covert and at
> times not-so-covert modern political agenda in Nova Roma - of which the
> Gender Edictum is but one part. As soon as the "Dignitas" grouping (and I
> am neither a signatory nor a subscriber to this list) attempts to offer an
> alternative approach, Germanicus (and Sulla, and others) cry foul.

Actually, your incorrect, I perfectly admit I had a faction. It was to
protect me when there were rumors that I was going to be exiled during the
debate that ultimately resulted in my reprimand. As you can see by that
statement, this was very much prior to my Consulship, let alone the
Censorship. So again, I disagree, the Gender Edict was not a result of
faction politics it was a result of careful consideration when a petition was
presented to the Censors a SECOND Time. If you have any doubts PLEASE read
the article I wrote in the recent Eagle Newsletter. Its all there.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976320564/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Fri, 8 Dec 2000 19:19:33 -0500

Salvete!

Australicus wrote,

>I am puzzled about the concept of a law here.

>We propose a law, debate its merits, vote on it, pass it. Then a year or
>two later we discuss it further to decide whether we should follow it?

>As long as it remains law, we should follow it. If it were flawed (which,
>mea sententia, it is not) we should propose its repeal and vote on it.

>I think that in Roma Antiqua laws were not normally treated as optional
>according to the mood of the day.

Two issues here.
(a) It was unclear at the time of the law being proposed what the
age profile of NR citizens as a whole was and is still unclear what it is.
If we had/ have a high percentage of young citizens, the law risked being
impractical or politically oligarchic in its effect. A separate issue which
I raised in my post is that we have no practical means of checking
citizens' declarations of their age. Some citizens disagree more generally
with this law, as is their right, but which does not imply we should not
implement it.
(Incidentally, it was not unknown in Roma Antiqua and is not
unknown in modern democracies for laws to repealed within one or two years
of their passage - either because of change of government, or, perhaps more
commonly, because as soon as they are implemented they are found to raise
unforeseen problems).

(b) Perhaps mainly for reasons of practicality, the law contains
express provision for derogations by the Senate and Censors acting
together. Citizens have been debating how this provision should be
interpreted and approached. The better technical legal view IMO is Rex's,
i.e. that the candidate must obtain exemption before taking office, not
before standing for election. On the other hand, the moral case for
candidates to seek exemption before standing is a pretty strong one, as
otherwise they risk inviting citizens to waste their votes if the Senate
and Censors (as they are entitled to) take the view that exemptions should
only be granted in the absence of other candidates.
In practice, as far as I know all the under-age candidates HAVE
approached the Senate for exemptions. The Senate has just been rather
dilatory in dealing with this matter.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976321188/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[Fwd: [novaroma]]
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Fri, 08 Dec 2000 15:45:25 -0800

This message never appeared.

SF

Lucius Cornelius Sulla wrote:

> Mike Macnair wrote:
>
> > Salvete!
> >
> > On Germanicus' further reply to Formosanus,
> >
> > >So here we have again the party-which-is-not-really-a-party. < ,etc..>
> >
> > This post is again dishonest. For most of the last year Sulla, with the
> > episodic support of QFM and Germanicus, has been pursuing a covert and at
> > times not-so-covert modern political agenda in Nova Roma - of which the
> > Gender Edictum is but one part. As soon as the "Dignitas" grouping (and I
> > am neither a signatory nor a subscriber to this list) attempts to offer an
> > alternative approach, Germanicus (and Sulla, and others) cry foul.
>
> Actually, your incorrect, I perfectly admit I had a faction. It was to
> protect me when there were rumors that I was going to be exiled during the
> debate that ultimately resulted in my reprimand. As you can see by that
> statement, this was very much prior to my Consulship, let alone the
> Censorship. So again, I disagree, the Gender Edict was not a result of
> faction politics it was a result of careful consideration when a petition was
> presented to the Censors a SECOND Time. If you have any doubts PLEASE read
> the article I wrote in the recent Eagle Newsletter. Its all there.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Censor

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976321383/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Birthdays
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Fri, 8 Dec 2000 19:32:08 -0500

Salvete!

Patricia Cassia wrote,

>All this talk of age has me interested: Did the Romans celebrate
>birthdays? Just for kids, or for everyone? Does anyone have any
>information on birthday customs?

I'm not hot on the details, but the answer seems to be yes. In last week's
episode of the TV series "What the Did the Romans Do for Us" which has been
running recently here, the presenter showed us a card/ letter which was a
birthday party invite from one Roman army officer's wife to another found
at one of the Hadrain's Wall forts.

Valete,

MMSM

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976321949/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Gender and names
From:	JustiniaCassia@--------
Date:	Fri, 8 Dec 2000 19:34:12 EST

PA RUM PA PUM PUM!

I just wanted myself counted among the drum-beaters.

When the issue first came up, I posted a number of times. I also mentioned
that the reason I was posting was b/c one of my area statements for my
doctorate in cultural anthropology was on gender, and I wanted to contribute
what scholarly information I could to the debate. I stopped posting when I
realized there was no point. I had hoped my opinion as someone who studied
gender academically would carry weight, but I don't think it did. It was
simply relegated to "some people feel this way; other people feel that way."
I even remember someone claiming that everyone's personal feelings were
determining their political views, shortly after I had posted information on
gender complete with citations. There is a difference between an opinion and
an informed opinion.

I see the treatment of transgendered individuals in Nova Roma as a human
rights issue right up there with women's rights and slavery. I also think it
is inaccurate, as someone recently said, that there is no oppression if a
person can leave. If my rights as a woman in Nova Roma were voted away in
the interest of historical accuracy, I don't think I would feel unoppressed
because I could leave.

Your words didn't fall on deaf ears, Patricia. I was just away at school all
day.

Iustinia Cassia

In a message dated 12/8/0 1:48:35 PM, pjane@-------- writes:

<< My post was directed at the idea that only three people care about
the gender issue, and I was hoping to elicit civilized discussion
among people who can (as I hope you and I can) rationally disagree on
an important issue, while still working together toward the good of
Nova Roma. I apologize for not being clearer about my intent.

P. Cassia >>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976322295/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] RE: Birthdays
From:	Razenna <razenna@-------->
Date:	Fri, 08 Dec 2000 17:26:40 -0800

Here is the text of that letter, from Alan K. Bowman's book _ Life and Letters on
the Roman Frontier _

I have transcribed this from the book, there may be some typos in it, and the
notations in the book are more for th archeology crowd than NR. And then there is
the matter of my typing.

Valete.
C. Aelius Ericius.

Birthday invitation of Claudia Severa to Sulpicia Lepidina

i
Cl Severa Lepidinae suae salutem
iii Idus Septembres soror ad diem'
sollemnem natalem meum rogo
libenter facias ut venias
ad nos iucundiorem mihi

ii
diem interventu tuo factura si
[.].[...]s _vacat_
Cerialem tuum saluta Aelius meus
et filious salutant _vacat_
_vacat_ sperabo te soror
vale soror anuma
mea ita valeam
karissima et haue

[Back}
Sulpiciae Lepidinae
Cerialis
a S[e]vera

(trans)

Claudia Severa to her Lepidina greetings. On the third day before the Ides of
September, sister, for the day of celebration of my birthday, I give you a warm
invitation to make sure that you come to us, to make the day more enjoyable for me by
your arrival, if you are present (?). Give my greetings to your Cerialis. My Aelius
and my little son send him (?) their greeting. (2nd hand) I shall expect you,
sister. Farewell, sister, my dearest soul, as I hope to prosper, and hail.
(Back, in 1st hand)
To Sulpicia Lepidina, (wife) of Cerialis, from Severa.

MMSM wrote [and Cassia before him}:

Salvete!

Patricia Cassia wrote,

>All this talk of age has me interested: Did the Romans celebrate
>birthdays? Just for kids, or for everyone? Does anyone have any
>information on birthday customs?

>I'm not hot on the details, but the answer seems to be yes. In last
week's
>episode of the TV series "What the Did the Romans Do for Us" which
> has been running recently here, the presenter showed us a card/
letter
> which was a birthday party invite from one Roman army officer's wife

>to another found at one of the Hadrain's Wall forts.

>Valete,

>MMSM

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976325326/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Any other Cassii?
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Dec 2000 01:41:07 -0000

If there are any members of Gens Cassia who are subscribed to this
list, but who have not yet been invited to join the "family" e-group,
let me know and I'll see that you get an invitation.

Patricia Cassia, who has exceeded her posting limits for the day

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976326114/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	RE: [novaroma]
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Fri, 8 Dec 2000 22:50:09 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Macnair [mailto:MikeMacnair@--------]
> Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 6:56 PM

<snip>

> Germanicus' post pretends that none of this has happened.

Honestly, you're reading WAY more into that minor statement than it
warrants. I really had no particular event in mind when I asked Formasanus
if he wanted his proposed laws against libel and slander to apply to
everyone. But it's apparent what incident you, and all of his people, have
in mind: "Maria Fimbria must be avenged!"

My main interest in is seeing Nova Roma become a faithful reconstruction of
the ancient Roman Republic. That is why my interest in Nova Roma spans many
interests and many components; not just a single issue. If you wish to bring
in modern ideologies, fine. If you wish to accuse me of doing so, we
disagree, and I stand by my efforts heretofore on behalf of our fair
Republic.

I agreed with Sulla when the Gender Edictum was first made, but I never
discount out of hand an opposing point of view (still looking up that
reference, BTW, Vado; many thanks). It doesn't define my political life in
Nova Roma, as it seems to for several people here. My mind remains open on
the subject as it does on all issues; I doubt that the same can be said of
the Amici Dignitas signatores and their lackeys...

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Candidate for Consul

http://www.goldenfuture.net/germanicus

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976333975/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Age Declaration / Best Wishes
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Fri, 8 Dec 2000 23:00:16 -0500 (EST)

Salvete, Citizens of Nova Roma;

Actually my young friend Draco has done me better than my friend
Tiberious who has labeled me "a thousand years old." Grin!!!!!!!!!!

I wish to take a moment to interrupt your political debate to wish you
all a very happy and prosperous Holiday Season, whether you choose to
celebrate it in Roman, Jewish or Christian fashion or any other, My best
wishes go with you and yours.

Although this is a season of political discussion, debate and different
political views, I want to say to each of you that it is my intent to
spend a few moments in meditation and prayer thanking my god for his
gifts to me in the past year, and that will include my friends here in
Nova Roma.
Be kind to each other in this season of joy, and share with each other
not only your poltical views, but your happiness to be a part of such a
vital, growing and dynamic organization where the potential for
friendship and the gaining of knowledge in a venue that is exciting for
all of us, is so prevalent. Appreciate that which you have at hand in
the friends that surround you, regardlss of the political views that
abound in this place.

I then say to all Nova Romans, those with whom I have worked all this
past year, as well as those whom I have disagreed with, but whom I find
just as valuable to my needs as those with whom I share my views. To
all of you Citizens of Nova Roma, to it's Magistrates, and to my
Colleagues in the Senate, I wish all the Happines and Pleasure of this
Season, and my prayers will encompass you all, to hold you safe, and
bring you whole and hearty into the coming new year.

Valete, Respectfully and with Sincereity;

Marcus Audens

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/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976334422/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Pro Draco
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:06:28 -0800

Actually now to go back into the archieves again. This same article is the one that Vado
cited before that Festus brought the WHOLE article. Let me repost this from the NR
archieves so that the citizens can read the entire article and NOT the snippets.

Message 12940 of 16865 [ Reply ] [ Forward ] [ View Source ]

From: <Lykaion1@-------->
Date: Thu May 18, 2000 00:28am
Subject: Quotes Vado Does Not Want You To See!

Two days ago, on May 16, Maria Fimbria posted a letter from Vado, "who
intended to post it in the first place", which was a series of quotes from an
article by D. Monserrat entitled 'Reading Gender In The Roman World'.

I read through this post, which was supposed to serve as ammunition
against Sulla's edict, by showing that the Romans had "third gender" people,
and so therefore, so should Nova Roma.

Well, I am pleased to say I found the entire article tonight, and you may
see it for yourself by going to
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/Classics/sandgessay.html#Gender_Body

I have not read this whole article yet. It loos interesting, but the
first thing I noticed was how often the author speculates. Simone de
Beauvoir's famous dictum that 'one is not born a woman, but rather becomes
one' MIGHT have seemed much closer to their own notions about the formation
of gender as opposed to sex. Or '"...genetic hermaphrodites and eunuchs,
medically castrated men like the Galli... and celibates such as the Vestal
Virgins MIGHT all be seen as members of the Roman third gender".
{Or the Vestals may be seen as females who were merely celibate}

But this is a small matter. Historians do speculate a great deal. What
amuses me is Vado's very selective quoting. For instance, Vado quotes the
author thusly, "From a modern standpoint, Elegabalus gender position is
problematic. I am reminded of the two cases brought... in 1997 to the
European Court of Justice by male-to-female transexuals to have their
so-called gender reassignment recognised, so that they can legally 'become'
women in spite of being born men."

These two transexuals lost their case---a point Vado conveniently hides by
removing the word 'unsucessfully' which is between the words 'brought', and
'in 1997'.

And now, here is a juicy tidbit which Vado apparently did not wish to share
with you.

"This is not to suggest, however, that third gender individuals were
necessarily regarded positively by the Romans: QUITE THE OPPOSITE, IN FACT.
{emphaisis mine} This is particularly true of males who had, according to
Roman ideas, slipped several points down the gender barometer towards
femaleness while still inhabiting male bodies. Maleness is always the optimum
state. AND VIOLENCE AGAINST THIRD GENDER INDIVIDUALS COULD ALSO GO BEYOND THE
VERBAL. {empahsis mine} This is illustrated by a curious book compiled by an
obscure author, Julius Obsequens, in the fourth or early fifth centuries AD,
but utilising much earlier material. It is called 'the Book of Omens'
(Prodigium liber). Obsequens' work is a sort of anthology of inexplicable
events seen as having a predictive or otherwise portentous quality. The birth
or discovery of hermaphrodites is a recurrent theme of these portents:

In the consulship of Spurius Postumus Albinus and Quintus Marcius Philippus
(= 186 BC). In Umbria a hermaphrodite about twelve years old was discovered
and put to death on the advice of the seers. In the consulship of Lucius
Metellus and Quintus Fabius Maximus (= 142 BC). The plague was so severe at
Luna that corpses lay everywhere in the open for lack of people to bury them.
At Luna a hermaphrodite was born and on the instruction of the seers was
consigned to the sea.

In the consulship of Gnaeus Domitius and Gaius Fannius (= 122 BC). At Forum
Vessanum a hermaphrodite was born and thrown into the sea. Obsequens lists
many other examples from all periods of Republican history.THE HERMAPHRODITES
ARE CLEARLY SEEN AS DISASTEROUS INVERSIONS OF NATURE, manifestations of
divine displeasure only FIT TO BE DESTROYED BY FIRE OR WATER SO THAT THEY DO
CONTAMINATE THE EARTH {emphasis mine} They sometimes seem to be scapegoats
for other catastrophes in the community - it is surely no coincidence that
when the plague was raging at Luna, a hermaphrodite was found locally on
whose baleful influence it could be blamed. Other mentions of hermaphrodites
as bad omens interestingly link them with Greekness. Livy, in a discussion of
the portents that took place in 209 BC, says that most people called
individuals 'born of uncertain sex, between male and female' by the Greek
loan-word 'androgyne' or 'man-woman', because it is easier to coin these
double words in the Greek language (faciliore ad duplicanda verba Graeca
sermone: Livy, Histories 27.11.4). Once again, as with emperor Elegabalus,
gender difference can be equated with foreigness - Livy implies that only the
tricksy, slippery Greek language can coin a word for such a monstrous thing
as the hermaphrodite, unlike pure, dignified Latin."

Did Vado just happen to forget these paragraphs?

Gaius Lupinius Festus

_____

End of Article

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Nicolaus Moravius wrote:

> Omnibus salutem
>
> Germanicus asked Draco to substantiate his statement that gender definition
> was a matter of personal choice in ancient Rome. Draco might have replied by
> asking Germanicus to substantiate his assertion that it wasn't. But instead,
> Draco replied that his old classics teacher at school had said so, and that
> he assumed that such a man would not have made it up.
>
> I'd like to know, myself. Certainly it was true in the case of Elagabalus
> (Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, 80.16.2-6) (quoted in Monserrat, D.: "Reading
> Gender in the Roman World", Essay 6 of "Experiencing Rome: Culture, Identity
> and Power in the Roman Empire", Huskinson, J. (Ed.), Routledge, 2000).
> Elagabalus' is the first record of a person seeking clinical transgendering,
> by the way, though I must say I'm far from happy to have him on our side).
> Dio cites this, and Elagabalus' occasionally expressed preference to be
> known as a woman, as evidence of the emperor's general depravity, true -but
> we aren't (I hope) making moral judgements on gender preference, or on
> people who express such preference, but simply discussing ancient precedent
> and modern interpretation.
>
> In the above essay, Monserrat goes on to say (pp. 156-7) that gender in
> ancient Rome was NOT based on biological sex (this is the modern construct,
> as Scaevola Magister has already pointed out), but was generally a mutable
> social construct based far more on the individual's current position and
> role in Roman society, and on traditionally-assigned values of what
> constitutes social and behavioural 'manliness' (being able to give orders,
> make decisions, having the power to do unto others, etc.) or 'womanliness'
> (having to take orders, being subordinate, generally passive rather than
> active).
>
> I said all this months ago during the You Know What. I advanced sources
> ancient and modern to support my argument, as again I do now. At the time,
> no-one advanced any sources substantiating the opposite argument (i.e., that
> Romans regarded biological sex and social gender as one and the same thing,
> and as an inflexible, absolute state).
>
> Now I challenge those who think ancient Rome was an antecedent of modern
> 'conservative' thought in this respect. Can you offer some evidence?
>
> Valete
>
> Vado
> Liberal Intellectual.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________________________
> Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976340748/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Introduction: Oppius Flaccus Severus, new citizen.
From:	Oppius Flaccus <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Fri, 8 Dec 2000 22:43:29 -0800 (PST)

Salvete,

It occurs to me at this late hour that I've started
making posts to the list, without even properly
introducing myself! So, in the spirit of open
communication, here goes with a somewhat long-winded
declaration of introduction.

My Roman name is Oppius Flaccus Severus, of the newly
created gens Flacca. My province is America
Boreoccidentalis, Washington State in particular. I'm
a very new citizen (as of 11/28 officially,) though
had been following the Nova Roma mailing list for a
several weeks prior. Though I'm no where near running
for elections yet, for future reference I turned 35 in
September :-)

I was fortunate enough to make the election deadline
and salute the hard work of the censors in getting so
many new citizens approved during this busy election
season. I opted to request a new gens largely to
incorporate my other family members in the near
future. (My wife for certain, possibly others as
well.)

My areas of interest in Roman antiquities are fairly
broad, encompassing everything from military
composition and tactics, politics, coinage and
particularly the Religio Romana; it's worship,
practices and temples. Probably more than any other
singular aspect, I'm absolutely fascinated by Roman
temples, their construction and the practices
conducted inside. (But more on this some other time.)

Though I've been studying Roman history and culture
for some time now, it has largely been in English and
am only starting to become immersed more deeply into
the Latin language. My apologies in advance if any of
my 'suspect' Latin is advanced in the postings to this
list. It will get better in time the more I learn and
absorb from the many extremely learned citizens of
Nova Roma. Until then, the Latin in my communications
will remain minimal.

My immediate goals for involvement in Nova Roma
include:

1-Building the gens Flacca website and linking it back
to the main Nova Roma site.

2-Creating, reading and responding to posts on the
Nova Roma mailing list.

3-Studying the Religio Romana deeply, with the longer-
term goal of becoming a priest of Neptunus when
my Nova Roma residency requirements have been met.

4-Assist in the coordination of formal Nova Roma
events
as needed.

Other goals to follow once my tenure as citizen is a
bit more tempered, lengthy and learned.

So in advance of further future communications, I look
forward to serving the glory of Nova Roma and learning
from those more knowledgeable than myself. (Which
seems to be most of you judging by some of the
excellent postings I've read from the list.)

Best of wishes to you all in this festive Saturnalia
season! I look forward to communicating, learning,
working and serving with you to advance the nation of
Nova Roma into the future!

PS: Please note that my current contact information
is listed below. The 'sunskater@--------' addresses
linked to gens Flacca is in the process of being
changed to 'oppiusflaccus@--------' Direct e-mail
or the yahoo chat address are typically the best
places to reach me.

Valete,
Oppius Flaccus Severus
oppiusflaccus@--------

yahoo chat: oppius_flaccus
Nova Roma chat: oppius_flaccus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976348489/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Parties
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 10:13:25 +0100

Salvete omnes Quirites!

Are the Amici Dignitatis a "party"? That depends on one's definition
of "party". Webster says a party is: "a group of people working
together to establish or promote particular theories or principles of
government which they hold in common."

This seems to me to describe the Amici. On the other hand, I have
known churches to favour the sort of general love of justice, human
dignity and democracy that we support. So too with organisations such
as Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, Amnesty International
and the United Nations. And none of those are "parties".

We long ago debated in the proto-Amici about this, and we decided we
did not have the intention to be a party. Mainly because we are
rugged individualists with well-developed personal consciences, who
wished to run simply as co�perating independents.

Some of us also feared that the concept of a political party is
disliked in se by many people, as it is by my fellow Out-of-Touch,
Metropolitan Liberal Intellectual Vado ;-) . I understand this, as I
once rather disliked political parties too, many years ago, but I
have also observed that, in any ordinarily diverse society, parties
have proven as a matter of historical fact to be necessary to
effective democracy. Be an individual statesman ever so good, he does
not in a democractic context have the power all alone to carry out a
whole programme. He needs a place to seek and exchange support, share
ideas, and gather co�perators. That is a party.

I would rather say that in Nova Roma we have "Tendencies". There are
the Optimates, who psycho-sociologically are those who tend to feel
that they have a very decent status quo in which they are respected
and influential, and the Populares, who psycho-sociologically are
those who feel that they have significantly less individual and even
collective power and influence than the Optimates, and are
constrained to be followers even when they have the talent and
inclination to be leaders.

As wealth and bio-family connections are not so important among us, I
have simply divided us psycho-sociologically. The Optimates fear the
Populares when the latter are active, for the natural reason that if
the latter are successful in becoming more influential, the latter
relatively speaking will become less outstanding. This general
outlook, of course, naturally extends itself to a dislike of all
change that they do not initiate themselves. Typical concommitants
are an exaggerated feeling of self-importance and a desire to get
others to work hard for Nova Roma - but only in relatively
subordinate r�les which carry no real power, and of course to get
them to pay taxes the revenues from which would be controlled by the
elite.

Certainly Scaevola correctly identified Sulla, QFM, Octavius (and I
might add formerly Festus, the enthusiast for fascism, and perhaps
now Australicus) as an active group of Amici Potestatis (Friends of
Power), with their own relatively extreme version of social
stratification in terms of power and a generally rightest agenda
typified by restrictive and punitive legislation and their own 5-year
plan. Through a covert clientele system and a majority in the senate
they have for at least the past year been the dominant force in our
Respublica, and they engineered the rather extreme and unjust series
of events perpetrated against citizen Marius Peregrinus, which
perhaps only directly hurt one person, but alerted many of us to what
was happening and what could happen to anyone disliked by them,
perhaps by speaking out for change.

The Amici Dignitatis are a reaction to those Amici Potestatis and
their works. We are not extreme and not solely made up of the
powerless, as the fact that we have three members in the senate
already and another four or five senators very well disposed towards
our values shows. But we all share the simple idea that every civis
deserves to be shielded by legal rights, just courts, and an
empowered, vigilant and active People against those who do not put
dignitas humana - human dignity - very high on their personal agenda,
and yet may have acquired considerable power in our State.

Instead of vainly worrying about who is or is not a "party", I think
it would be more useful to ask yourself whether or not you think
civil and human rights are important, in Nova Roma as in the rest of
the world, and whether the Popular assemblies (comitia) conceived in
Roman Antiquity and provided for under our present Constitution, do
not require activation in a serious and consistent manner to ensure
that the Sovereign People as a whole be the masters in our Respublic,
not only a subset of them. This is not a matter of revolution, but of
a natural development of a still rather young micronation.

If you share our values and concerns, please vote for us.

"We" are M. Marcius Rex for Censor, N. Moravius Vado for Consul, C.
Flavius Diocletianus and Myself (!) for Praetor, Cn. Moravius
Piscinus and T. Labienus Fortunatus for Tribunus Plebis, S.
Apollonius Draco for Aedilis Plebis, T. Sertorius Albinus for Aedilis
Curulis, and M. Scribonius Curio Britannicus for Rogator.

I note further that A. Iulius Caesar Macedonius Probus for Tribunus
Plebis, M. Cassius Iulianus for Consul and M. Mucius Scaevola
Magister for Rogator are men of extraordinary honour and probity,
although not signatories to our Statement, as is M. Arminius Maior
for Aedilis Plebis. I would also personally feel very content with P.
Cassia, P. Ullerius Venator and M. Minucius Audens as Quaestores.
M. Octavius Germanicus, although a political opponent, has done an
excellent job with the server, programming and internet aspects of
our existence, and richly deserves to be Curator Aranae.

All the above opinions are solely my own.

My Candidate Webpage is at:

http://www.diocletian.de/elect/formosanus/

Valete, Quirites!

Marcus Apollonius Formosanus << CANDIDATVS PRAETORIVS >>
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius � �
ICQ# 61698049 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 -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976353219/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Traditions or trappings? (was: What are we fighting for?)
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 04:14:13 -0500

-------------Forwarded Message-----------------

From: INTERNET:NovaRomaLaws@--------, INTERNET:NovaRomaLaws@--------
To: Nova Roma Laws, INTERNET:NovaRomaLaws@--------
"JusticeCMO", INTERNET:justicecmo@--------

Date: 12/8/00 11:49 PM

RE: [NovaRomaLaws] RE: [novaroma] Traditions or trappings? (was: What are we fighting for?)

Salvete!

Germanicus wrote,

>However, when you take purely modern causes (as expressed by code words
such
>as "social justice" and "social gender") and attempt to retro-fit them
into
>the Roman Republic by piling on Roman nomenclature and various other
>"trappings", then my problems with the agenda of the Amici Dignitas
>signatores grow.

Sorry Germanicus - It was you and Sulla who introduced modern political
concerns, i.e. the legal regulation of the gender of names, into Nova Roma.
It ill suits you to take a high tone about the inevitable disagreements
which have resulted.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
NovaRomaLaws-unsubscribe@--------

----------------------- Internet Header --------------------------------
Sender: sentto-2349555-89-976319352-MikeMacnair=compuserve.com@--------
Received: from fl.egroups.com (fl.egroups.com [64.211.240.233])
by spdmgaad.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.9) with SMTP id SAA19648
for <MikeMacnair@-------->; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 18:49:16 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-2349555-89-976319352-MikeMacnair=compuserve.com@--------
Received: from [10.1.4.54] by fl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 08 Dec 2000 23:49:15 -0000
X-Sender: MikeMacnair@--------
X-Apparently-To: NovaRomaLaws@--------
Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 8 Dec 2000 23:49:10 -0000
Received: (qmail 82539 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2000 23:49:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Dec 2000 23:49:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO spdmbaaa.compuserve.com) (149.174.206.153) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Dec 2000 23:49:09 -0000
Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by spdmbaaa.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.9) id SAA21456; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 18:49:05 -0500 (EST)
Sender: Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
To: "JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->,
Nova Roma Laws <NovaRomaLaws@-------->
Message-ID: <200012081848_MC2-BDF7-A74C@-------->
From: Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list NovaRomaLaws@--------; contact NovaRomaLaws-owner@--------
Delivered-To: mailing list NovaRomaLaws@--------
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:NovaRomaLaws-unsubscribe@-------->
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 18:48:40 -0500
Reply-To: NovaRomaLaws@--------
Subject: [NovaRomaLaws] RE: [novaroma] Traditions or trappings? (was: What are we fighting for?)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976353284/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] NOTIFICATION OF INVALID VOTES
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Dec 2000 03:19:09 -0700

Salvete Omnes,
>From the Office of the Rogatores:

The following tracking numbers have been associated with an
invalid voter code and have been thrown out. The tracking
numbers are being published here to allow the individuals in
question a chance to recast their vote, using a correct
voter code.

Your voter code should be three alpha characters followed by
three digits. Your voter code MUST match the database for
the vote to count.

When you cast your vote, you were asked to save a copy of
your vote record. Please check the tracking number against
the above list. If your number matches, revote now.

TRACKING INVALID
NUMBER VOTER CODE
1026 FG520
1054 EOC263
1064 1465
1076 VYE5669
1079 QLQ126

If you determine that your vote was in the above list and
you have questions about casting your vote, please e-mail
rogatores@-------- with your concern.

If you determine that your vote was in the above list AND
your voter code matches the invalid code list, please
contact the censors at censors@-------- immediately and
request a new voter code so that you may vote before the
polls close on Dec. 15.

For those of you who still have not voted, please enter your
voter code carefully.

Livia Cornelia Aurelia
Rogator

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976356764/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[Fwd: [NovaRomaLaws] RE: [novaroma] Traditions or trappings? (was: What are we fighting for?)]
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Dec 2000 01:56:30 -0800

M. Mucius Crossposted his post....from the NR laws list. Here is my response.

SF

Lucius Cornelius Sulla wrote:

> > Message: 1
> > Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 18:48:40 -0500
> > From: Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
> > Subject: RE: [novaroma] Traditions or trappings? (was: What are we fighting for?)
> >
> > Salvete!
> >
> > Germanicus wrote,
> >
> > >However, when you take purely modern causes (as expressed by code words
> > such
> > >as "social justice" and "social gender") and attempt to retro-fit them
> > into
> > >the Roman Republic by piling on Roman nomenclature and various other
> > >"trappings", then my problems with the agenda of the Amici Dignitas
> > >signatores grow.
> >
> > Sorry Germanicus - It was you and Sulla who introduced modern political
> > concerns, i.e. the legal regulation of the gender of names, into Nova Roma.
> > It ill suits you to take a high tone about the inevitable disagreements
> > which have resulted.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
> >
> >
>
> Wrong M. Mucius, it was Germanicus and Decius Iunius. They made the first decision.
> Read my article that I posted in the Eagle. :)
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976358409/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Oppius Flaccus Severus, new citizen.
From:	"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@-------->
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 10:12:42 -0500

Salvete et Ave,

> It occurs to me at this late hour that I've started
> making posts to the list, without even properly
> introducing myself!...

L Equitius: That's OK, at least you have had the courtesy of identifying
yourself while posting.

> My Roman name is Oppius Flaccus Severus, of the newly
> created gens Flacca. My province is America
> Boreoccidentalis, Washington State in particular...

Ave! Oppius Flaccus Severus civis Novae Romae!

> My areas of interest in Roman antiquities are fairly
> broad, encompassing everything from military
> composition and tactics, politics, coinage and
> particularly the Religio Romana; it's worship,
> practices and temples. Probably more than any other
> singular aspect, I'm absolutely fascinated by Roman
> temples, their construction and the practices
> conducted inside. (But more on this some other time.)

L Equitius: Perhaps you will join us on the ReligioRomana@--------
I too share you interest as well as others. As a matter fo fact one of my
Gens members took the cognomen Frontinus in respect to the engineer Sextus
Iulius Frontinus author of De Aquis urbis Romae.

> Though I've been studying Roman history and culture
> for some time now, it has largely been in English and
> am only starting to become immersed more deeply into
> the Latin language. Until then, the Latin in my communications
> will remain minimal.

L Equitius: There is another list Latinitas@-------- which is the list of
an 'official' Nova Roma "Sodaitas"
Check this out too, there have not been many posts lately but once the
political season is over I expect it to pick up again.

> My immediate goals for involvement in Nova Roma
> include:

> 3-Studying the Religio Romana deeply, with the longer-
> term goal of becoming a priest of Neptunus when
> my Nova Roma residency requirements have been met.

L Equitius: Excellent!! Please feel free to contact the College Pontificium
Pontifices@--------

> 4-Assist in the coordination of formal Nova Roma
> events as needed.

L Equitius: I have a Gens members Tiberius Equitius Caecus, who lives in
Washington, would you wish to provide him with your e-mail? I don't believe
he is a subscriber to this list.
(I do wish that the settings for this list would allow us to view the
"Members" section of the Nova Roma egroups, as is the default setting on all
lists. Something for the newly elected Curator Sermo to consider changing)

> Best of wishes to you all in this festive Saturnalia
> season! I look forward to communicating, learning,
> working and serving with you to advance the nation of
> Nova Roma into the future!

L Equitius: Thank you for bring such a positive attitude to Nova Roma!
Welcome Citizen!

> Valete,
> Oppius Flaccus Severus
> oppiusflaccus@--------
>
> yahoo chat: oppius_flaccus
> Nova Roma chat: oppius_flaccus

L Equitius: Welcome to Nova Roma! I hope to work with you in the future as
we continue to build the Pax Deorum.

Bene omnibus nobis
Valete, Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus -- Candidatus Censori
Senator, Pontifex, Augur

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976374541/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Pro Sextus on Gender Issue
From:	Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 10:32:34 -0800

Salve Sulla et omnes Quirites

With the reposting offered by Censor Sulla is revealed two things.
First the attitude of a certain individual on questions of gender and
sexual preferences, and must assume in his reposting that Sulla agrees
with the attitude of that former civis. Secondly, by addressing the
matter of individual attitudes, he has missed the point made in the
debate over the Gender Edict.

At issue is not what the attitude of ancient Romans on matters of
personal sexuality may have been. Nor at issue is what we individuals
who make up the Nova Roma community should adopt as our personal attitude
towards the issue. What is at issue is whether the magistrates of Nova
Roma, acting either individually or collectively, should identify a small
portion of Nova Roma and require additional requirements for such
individuals. Scaevola Magister has offered that contingent on any such
imposition of additional requirements, is a need to justify such
restrictions as may pose some inhibition on potential applicants for
citizenship.

I would agree that a necessary requirement for applicants under a given
age should include permission of their macronational parents. In doing
so, however, Nova Roma is also accepting a responsibility and obligation
to the parents of young applicants. We are accepting that we as a
community have become the wards of those younger members while they are
among us. We as a community should therefore be judged by the content
appearing on any sites connected to us.

If we as a community impose further restrictions or requirements on any
group of individuals as a single category of applicants, then what are we
as a community offering in exchange? Personal attitudes are a matter of
individual conscious. We as a community of individuals have an
obligation to each other to respect one another. We as a community of
individuals have an obligation to respect the privacy of one another. We
as a community of individuals have an obligation to respect each
individual's right to voice their personal opinion. The point of the
argument then is how does Nova Roma meet its obligations towards each
individual citizen, by singling out one small portion of its citizenry,
in establishing these additional requirements that impose upon their
privacy?
The wider question is much more abstract, and for some too difficult to
understand. If one individual citizen, or any single group of
individuals, can be singled out by additional requirements, then what
prevents Nova Roma in some future period imposing restrictions on some
other group. Ancient Rome did place restrictions on the externa
superstio that we call Judaism, Christianity and other Eastern mystery
cults, as well as some ecstatic cults like that of Bacchus. Does any
current member in Nova Roma advocate restrictions be placed on some
citizens based on their religious preferences? There probably are, and as
individuals they would have a right to voice their opinion. But does
Nova Roma as an organization have a right to impose additional
requirements for membership on individuals based solely on their
religious preferences? No. And neither should it assume such a thing in
questions of any other personal preferences.

Valete
Moravius Piscinus
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976379582/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Parties, issues, and choices
From:	Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 11:39:46 -0800

Salvete Quirites

In any election choices are to be made. In this election the choices to
be made are between candidates for office. Several issues have been
raised. How any particular candidate is being judged is by how they fall
on either side of the issues.

There is the issue of the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate. One faction
seeks to limit participation on the part of some citizens by retaining a
lex imposing age limitation. On the other side are a group of friends
who prefers to judge candidates for office based on their qualities
rather than on their quantity of years.

Members of one faction seek to establish a cursus honorum that would
limit or inhibit participation of some citizens, while favoring
participation by others. Opposed to them are those friends who would
allow offices to remain open to men and women of talent and ability,
regardless of their past membership.

On the issue of the Gender Edict, one faction prefers to place
additional requirements on some applicants for citizenship. A circle of
friends prefers to leave private matters to the privacy of individual
citizens.

One faction makes a distinction between patricians and plebeians,
justifying a limitation placed on patricians from holding some offices,
and also justifying a system that places artificial advantages for
patricians over plebeians. A circle of friends asks only whether making
such artificial distinctions serves the interests of Nova Roma community
as a whole.

At least one member of a faction has voiced opposition towards a
candidate based solely on the candidate's native language. That
individual seems to suggest that we should accept limiting ourselves to
only those magistrates whose native tongue is of one kind or another.
Opposed to that view is an attitude of a group of friends who have
publicly stated a desire to assist participation by all citizens of Nova
Roma irregardless of language differences.

In my opinion there is also a difference in the historical perspective
between both groups of individuals. The one faction seems to hold to a
rather narrow, and eschewed view, focusing on Rome in the Late Republic,
and attempting to emulate the views of only one portion of that ancient
society, in that one moment of history. While the other side sees
ancient Rome as an organic, evolving society, over a period of
millenniums, which reveled in the diversity of its gods, its arts, and
its peoples.

There are choices to be made. Choices between candidates. Choices on
issues. But underlying all of these other choices is the one choice
whereby we as a community shall select the direction Nova Roma shall set
upon. Are we to become a society of hierarchal groups, factions and
parties, distinguished by artificial differences, advantages and
limitations? Or are we to become a community that revels in it own
diversity, recognizing and respecting the individuality of each of its
members, and allowing each citizen to participate according to their
ability, without setting limitations or inhibitions on their
opportunities to participate?

Valete
Moravius Piscinus
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976379581/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] A Candidates Short Statement
From:	Caius Flavius Diocletianus <3s@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Dec 2000 18:20:50 +0100

Caius Flavius Diocletianus Quiritibus S.P.D.

Citizens, I don�t want to make you tired with a long candidate�s
statement. I posted my views about the office of the Praetor Urbanus
just before a few days and just want to invite you to my candidate�s
page www.diocletian.de/elect/diocletianus/, where you can read my
profile and my statement about the offce of the Praetor.

As professional, law-experienced official I offer the Senate and the
People of Nova Roma my experiences, knowledges and skills in law
administration. If I should be elected, I offer my future collega, the
future Consuls, Censors and all the other magistrates my cooperation and
my competence in judicial and administrative questions.

We have to work together for the benefit of our Res Publica. That should
be the main goal for all of us.

Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Candidate for Praetor Urbanus
www.diocletian.de/elect/diocletianus/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976382776/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] BICURRATUS Beseen handle
From:	BICURRATUS@--------
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 13:07:17 EST

EX DOMO PUBLII CLAUDII LUCENTII SEVERI BICURRATI

I have just tried to register the handle BICURRATUS to use in the Forum
Romanum (Taverna) of Nova Roma.

I received the message it has already been registered.

I wanted to inform the citizens of Nova Roma that if you should see this name
in the chatroom it is NOT ME!

If the person who has the handle BICURRATUS is a citizen of Nova Roma would
they please give it to me. I cannot imagine what anyone else would want with
it.

Publius Claudius Lucentius Severus Bicurratus

[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/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976385247/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Parties
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 13:08:28 EST

Salve Formosanus

I can't help responding to this. Loquacious people eventually trip
themselves up, and you have reached the point of doing so in your posts,
past and present.

On 12/9/00 3:13 AM M. Apollonius Formosanus (bvm3@--------) wrote:

>Salvete omnes Quirites!
>
>Are the Amici Dignitatis a "party"? That depends on one's definition
>of "party". Webster says a party is: "a group of people working
>together to establish or promote particular theories or principles of
>government which they hold in common."
>
[snipped]
>We long ago debated in the proto-Amici about this, and we decided we
>did not have the intention to be a party. Mainly because we are
>rugged individualists with well-developed personal consciences, who
>wished to run simply as cooperating independents.
>
>Some of us also feared that the concept of a political party is
>disliked in se by many people, as it is by my fellow Out-of-Touch,
>Metropolitan Liberal Intellectual Vado ;-) . I understand this, as I
>once rather disliked political parties too, many years ago, but I
>have also observed that, in any ordinarily diverse society, parties
>have proven as a matter of historical fact to be necessary to
>effective democracy. Be an individual statesman ever so good, he does
>not in a democractic context have the power all alone to carry out a
>whole programme. He needs a place to seek and exchange support, share
>ideas, and gather cooperators. That is a party.
>
>I would rather say that in Nova Roma we have "Tendencies". There are
>the Optimates, who psycho-sociologically are those who tend to feel
>that they have a very decent status quo in which they are respected
>and influential, and the Populares, who psycho-sociologically are
>those who feel that they have significantly less individual and even
>collective power and influence than the Optimates, and are
>constrained to be followers even when they have the talent and
>inclination to be leaders.
The Amici Dignitatis have served you well, Formosanus, in the role of a
shield. Many here, I among them, initially made the mistake of assuming
the Amici Dignitatis to be your "party" of dedicated revolutionaries. You
cleared that up for me when you said that the AD are politically neutral
and that it is the "Convocatores" who are your revolutionary political
party, though you do lament that even the Convocatores are not yet at the
stage of having sufficient "party discipline" (your words, Formosanus).

I notice that you NEVER refer on this list to your "Convocatores." Why is
that? Are you afraid that might reveal the truth about what you are
aiming for? Can't trust those mere citizens to know what's best for them,
can you? The eternal marching slogan of the "progressive liberal" - "We
must deceive you in order to control you, but it's all done with the
noblest of motives and all for your own good!"

>>Formosanus:
>>
>>Indeed, among us (the convocatores, not the Amici Dignitatis, who as
>>such are politically neutral) there is little party discipline, and
>>we are still at that stage at which we are really not interested in
>>personal power, but are idealistic in terms of our primary
>>motivation. And in fact those persons whom we perceive to be harming
>>Nova Roma through their secret plans and overt actions constitute a
>>fairly tight clique united by opportunism and a singularly illiberal
>>vision of what Nova Roma should be - in other words, a faction.
>>Even, therefore, coming out for simple Good Government is to make
>>ourselves a faction against a faction, a de facto party against a de
>>facto party.
>>
That meshes nicely with your current statement:
>
>As wealth and bio-family connections are not so important among us,
>I HAVE SIMPLY DIVIDED US PSYCHO-SOCIOLOGICALLY.
(Emphasis mine, Formosanus, but the confession - and that is certainly
what it is - is yours. Dividing us is what you have been working at
unceasingly.)

>The Optimates fear the
>Populares when the latter are active, for the natural reason that if
>the latter are successful in becoming more influential, the latter
>relatively speaking will become less outstanding. This general
>outlook, of course, naturally extends itself to a dislike of all
>change that they do not initiate themselves. Typical concommitants
>are an exaggerated feeling of self-importance and a desire to get
>others to work hard for Nova Roma - but only in relatively
>subordinate roles which carry no real power, and of course to get
>them to pay taxes the revenues from which would be controlled by the
>elite.
>
>Certainly Scaevola correctly identified Sulla, QFM, Octavius (and I
>might add formerly Festus, the enthusiast for fascism, and perhaps
>now Australicus) as an active group of Amici Potestatis (Friends of
>Power),
Only someone with a total disregard for reality could group those names
together as a party with a common agenda. And only newcomers, with no
firsthand knowledge of who those people are, could swallow this rubbish.
In that regard, perhaps Sulla's and Marius' hard work in accepting new
citizens before the election plays right into your hands. So if I look
at it from your viewpoint, I would accuse our Censores of being in
cahoots with you! Your disregard of reality and truth would be hilarious
if it weren't so dangerous, Formosanus.

>with their own relatively extreme version of social
>stratification in terms of power and a generally rightest agenda
>typified by restrictive and punitive legislation and their own 5-year
>plan. Through a covert clientele system and a majority in the senate
>they have for at least the past year been the dominant force in our
>Respublica, and they engineered the rather extreme and unjust series
>of events perpetrated against citizen Marius Peregrinus, which
>perhaps only directly hurt one person, but alerted many of us to what
>was happening and what could happen to anyone disliked by them,
>perhaps by speaking out for change.
>
>The Amici Dignitatis are a reaction to those Amici Potestatis and
>their works.
So the Amici Dignitatis are a reaction you created to oppose the "Amici
Potestatis", which latter group you freely admit you also created out of
thin air in order to serve your purpose of "dividing us," which you also
admit is what you yourself have done. All the while marshalling the
members of your true cadre, the "Convocatores" (which you don't mention
on *this* list) in private and grooming them to take over power in Nova
Roma.

>We are not extreme and not solely made up of the
>powerless, as the fact that we have three members in the senate
>already and another four or five senators very well disposed towards
>our values shows. But we all share the simple idea that every civis
>deserves to be shielded by legal rights, just courts, and an
>empowered, vigilant and active People against those who do not put
>dignitas humana - human dignity - very high on their personal agenda,
>and yet may have acquired considerable power in our State.
>
>Instead of vainly worrying about who is or is not a "party", I think
>it would be more useful to ask yourself whether or not you think
>civil and human rights are important, in Nova Roma as in the rest of
>the world, and whether the Popular assemblies (comitia) conceived in
>Roman Antiquity and provided for under our present Constitution, do
>not require activation in a serious and consistent manner to ensure
>that the Sovereign People as a whole be the masters in our Respublic,
>not only a subset of them. This is not a matter of revolution, but of
>a natural development of a still rather young micronation.
>
>If you share our values and concerns, please vote for us.
>
>"We" are M. Marcius Rex for Censor, N. Moravius Vado for Consul, C.
>Flavius Diocletianus and Myself (!) for Praetor, Cn. Moravius
>Piscinus and T. Labienus Fortunatus for Tribunus Plebis, S.
>Apollonius Draco for Aedilis Plebis, T. Sertorius Albinus for Aedilis
>Curulis, and M. Scribonius Curio Britannicus for Rogator.
>
>I note further that A. Iulius Caesar Macedonius Probus for Tribunus
>Plebis, M. Cassius Iulianus for Consul and M. Mucius Scaevola
>Magister for Rogator are men of extraordinary honour and probity,
>although not signatories to our Statement, as is M. Arminius Maior
>for Aedilis Plebis. I would also personally feel very content with P.
>Cassia, P. Ullerius Venator and M. Minucius Audens as Quaestores.
>M. Octavius Germanicus, although a political opponent, has done an
>excellent job with the server, programming and internet aspects of
>our existence, and richly deserves to be Curator Aranae.
>
>All the above opinions are solely my own.
Well, Formosanus, I was considering voting for some of those men
*because* they have had the decency to distance themselves from your
opinions. What are we to make of the fact that some of these men have
publically declared that they are not members of your "de facto party"
and yet here you still claim that they are?

Someone is obviously lying here. All of us who are loyal to Rome instead
of to a party, "de facto" or otherwise, must think carefully and act
cautiously.

L. Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
Tribunus Plebis
(Speaking here as a guardian of the interests of the People and of the
Republic, and not as a candidate for any office.)

>
>My Candidate Webpage is at:
>
>http://www.diocletian.de/elect/formosanus/
>
>Valete, Quirites!
>
>
>Marcus Apollonius Formosanus << CANDIDATVS PRAETORIVS >>
>Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
>Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius
>ICQ# 61698049 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)
>________________________________________

quemadnoum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.

(A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)
Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4bc - 65ad

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976385314/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Traditions or trappings? (was: What are we fighting for?)
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 13:08:30 EST

Salve,

This is quite dishonest of you, Vado. The correspondence of name with
gender is an ancient practice "built-in" to the structure of the language
of Roma Antiqua. This was possibly the one point of the opposition that
was most difficult to refute back during *that time* last year - that
correspondence of name with gender was a given throughout the history of
Rome, and an integral part of the Latin language. That was not
disputable. What was at issue then was whether we had a compelling need
to carry this ancient practice into the current practices of Nova Roma.

That decision didn't go the way some of us thought it should have. *Some*
of us, including the person most directly concerned, had the decency to
accept that and move on.

Or are you perhaps suggesting that it was Sulla and Germanicus who
invented Latin? I think you'll find that that was Al Gore. (LOL)

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

On 12/9/00 3:14 AM Mike Macnair (MikeMacnair@--------) wrote:
>
>Sorry Germanicus - It was you and Sulla who introduced modern political
>concerns, i.e. the legal regulation of the gender of names, into Nova Roma.
>It ill suits you to take a high tone about the inevitable disagreements
>which have resulted.
>
>Valete,
>
>M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
>

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

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

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976385314/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Parties
From:	Piparskegg UllRsson <catamount_grange@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Dec 2000 12:37:38 -0600

Salvete Omnes:

I am a traveler. I seek knowledge, in the example of the �sir
Chieftain, Odin.
Thus, I join many discussion groups as an observer and sometime
contributor: which should not be taken as support, unless I specifically
state that support.

I am a member of no party in Nova Roma, no matter what anyone may claim,
or appear to claim, on my behalf or theirs.

I support individual Cives, individual issues, individual ideas.

QS

--
===========================================
In Amicus sub Fidelis, Benedicte Omnes!
- Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator
Coves, Paterfamilias Gens Ulleria
Qu�stor, Dominus Sodalis
My homestead
http://www.geocities.com/piparskegg/index.html
Nova Roma website
http://www.novaroma.org/main.html
Sodalis pro Coqueror et Coquus
http://www.egroups.com/group/Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976387064/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Roman Taxes
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 19:57:34 +0100

Salvete Omnes!

I would like to clarify a few things about ancient Roman taxes, as
Vedius has brought up the matter again.

According to Jolowicz's "Historical Introduction to the Study of
Roman Law":

"To understand republican finance we must first rid ourselves of the
modern presumption that the greatest paet of a state's income mist
necessarily come from taxation. At Rome the principle was rather tgat
the state should have enough income to meet all ordinary charges
without taxation."

It goes on to say of the tributum mentioned by Vedius:

"Where the ordinary income was not sufficient for state expenses, as
generally happened during the wars of the later republic, it was
necessary to have recourse to taxation. The tax, known as tributum,
consisted of a proportion of the citizen's property as assessed for
the census list..." [I.E., total property, not income.]

"Strictly the tributum was not so much a tax as a forced loan exacted
to meet an emergency and repayable if circumstances permitted."

It continues, mentioning that in fact the tributum was sometimes
actually repaid by the state, although most often this was not
possible. However, the whole tributum was *abolished* in 168 B.C.E.,
and for the remainder of the republican period was never imposed
again.

Provincials (at that time not citizens) indeed were made to pay a tax
on their produce, the theory being that by conquering them the Roman
state owned the land in a sense, and deserved to be payed a
proportion of its produce.

So, as far as Roman citizens in the republican period are concerned,
in times of special crisis, mainly war, there was a special property
tax, but it was conceived as only a kind of loan. Normally there was
supposed to be none, and as soon as the state was financially able,
it abolished it permanently.

We might in passing note that the tributum was highly progressive,
i.e. it imposed itself much more heavily upon the richer classes of
society than upon the poor. We might in Nova Roma expect the members
of the smaller centuries to pay a much higher tax, if we want to
follow ancient precedent.

Vedius seems to be confusing rents paid on the ager publicus and
provincial non-citizen taxes (that decuma or tenth part of the
harvest) with real direct taxes on Roman citizens, which were only
the emergency tributum, itself theoretically a loan.

And in fact the tributum was in the end (when it could) rejected by
the Republic. If I believed it was a relevant question, I might ask
Vedius why he wanted to ressurrect something the ancient Republic in
the end abolished.

But of course, that is not the criterion we should use today, as we
live in a completely different socio-economic environment and should
adjust our policies to that as intelligent and realistic people.

So, I think that in the end the Apollonii are not so badly informed
vis-�-vis Vedius... At least with respect to taxation.

My Candidate Webpage is at:

http://www.diocletian.de/elect/formosanus/

Valete, Quirites!

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 21:56:54 -0500
From: "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Subject: RE: Traditions or trappings? (was: What are we fighting
for?)

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: S. Apollonius Draco [mailto:hendrik.meuleman@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 2:43 PM
>
> Also, I do believe that taxes aren't very reconstructionist
> either, but a rather modern concept. As has been pointed out in
this
forum
> before, ancient Rome usually did not impose any taxes.

If it's been pointed out here before, it was done so incorrectly.
Indeed, was it not Cicero who said "taxes are the sinews of the
state"?

In the Republic, income was derived from two principal sources, the
vectigalia and tributum. The Vectigalia was essentially rents
collected from private cives using public land and/or facilities;
mines, commons, etc. In Nova Roma, we haven't yet officially enacted
this, but it does exist in the arrangements various members of the
Ordo Equester have made with the State for use of the Macellum. In
the future, as Nova Roma's resources grow, I hope such use-fees will
expand as we are able both to provide more services to our people and
derive more income from them.

The Tributum was much closer to what most modern-day people think
of as a "tax". It came in two forms. It came either in the form of a
stipendium (a head-tax, paid by each individual, similar to the
proposal that was recently defeated) or a decuma (tithe) of 1/10th of
the grain harvest or 1/5th of the fruit harvest.

So, my young Draco, there is indeed ancient precident for taxing
Cives to fill the State coffers. Don't always believe what your Pater
tells you...

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Candidate for Consul

http://www.goldenfuture.net/germanicus

Marcus Apollonius Formosanus << CANDIDATVS PRAETORIVS >>
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius � �
ICQ# 61698049 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 -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976388278/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Parties
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Dec 2000 13:13:24 -0600

T Labienus L Sergio Quiritibusque S P D

In your desire to attack Formosanus, L Sergi, you have managed to commit
the same errors of understaning of which you accuse M Apollonius.

> The Amici Dignitatis have served you well, Formosanus, in the role of
> a shield. Many here, I among them, initially made the mistake of
> assuming the Amici Dignitatis to be your "party" of dedicated
> revolutionaries. You cleared that up for me when you said that the
> AD are politically neutral and that it is the "Convocatores" who are
> your revolutionary political party, though you do lament that even
> the Convocatores are not yet at the stage of having sufficient
> "party discipline" (your words, Formosanus).

By failing to understand the Latin word used, you have failed to
understand that the "convocatores" are simply those people who decided
to "convoke" the Amici Dignitatis. As one of those people, I once again
assert that I am *not* a member of a revolutionary political party. I
also assert that the other members of that group are likewise *not*
members of a revolutionary political party, though Formosanus believes
us to be more like one than not. I admit that the only evidence I can
provide for these statements is my record of reasoned, ethical, and
truthful behavior. This is not because I am wrong, but rather due to
the twin difficulties of proving a negative and disproving innuendo
which is stated often and forcefully.

Likewise, I aver that Formosanus is not some evil genius, using groups
within groups to veil his true, dictatorial intent. You make the same
fallacy of judgment that he makes when he accuses you of colluding with
Sulla, Fabius, et al. Since you have acted intelligently in the past, I
must assume that you are allowing your desire to attack Formosanus to
lead you to these ridiculous claims, either because you have allowed
yourself to believe them or because you believe that the end of
discrediting Formosanus justifies the means of disingenuous argument.

> >As wealth and bio-family connections are not so important among us,
> >I HAVE SIMPLY DIVIDED US PSYCHO-SOCIOLOGICALLY.
> (Emphasis mine, Formosanus, but the confession - and that is certainly
> what it is - is yours. Dividing us is what you have been working at
> unceasingly.)

Of course, you have failed to grasp that he was simply making an
arbitrary division that he believes is valid for purposes of discussion,
and *not* that he had deliberately masterminded the creation of such
divisions. I am certain that, if I looked hard enough at the list
archives, I could find a sentence or two that you wrote which, if
removed from its context in the way in which you have distorted the
context of the one above, would likewise make you sound quite awful.

> So the Amici Dignitatis are a reaction you created to oppose the
> "Amici Potestatis", which latter group you freely admit you also
> created out of thin air in order to serve your purpose of "dividing
> us," which you also admit is what you yourself have done. All the
> while marshalling the members of your true cadre, the "Convocatores"
> (which you don't mention on *this* list) in private and grooming them
> to take over power in Nova Roma.

This, sir, is a load of horse apples, barely fit for fertilizing a
field. As one who helped to convoke the Amici Dignitatis--therefore,
one of the convocatores--I am not a member of some cadre that is being
groomed to take power here. I also, despite my attempts to retain a
proper Stoic indifference to your particular line of propaganda, take a
certain amount of umbrage at being labelled, however peripherally, as a
member of some shadowy revolutionary force that is just waiting for the
right moment to swoop in and eject the rightful leaders of Nova Roma.
Please cease slandering me in this way. I have done nothing to deserve
such treatment.

Valete

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976389110/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Parties
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 20:17:05 +0100

Salve Australice,

(Seems like we're heading for y.a.t.d. (yet another tedious debate))

<snip>

Formosanus dixit:
> >Salvete omnes Quirites!
> >
> >Are the Amici Dignitatis a "party"? That depends on one's definition
> >of "party". Webster says a party is: "a group of people working
> >together to establish or promote particular theories or principles of
> >government which they hold in common."
> >
> [snipped]
> >We long ago debated in the proto-Amici about this, and we decided we
> >did not have the intention to be a party. Mainly because we are
> >rugged individualists with well-developed personal consciences, who
> >wished to run simply as cooperating independents.
> >
> >Some of us also feared that the concept of a political party is
> >disliked in se by many people, as it is by my fellow Out-of-Touch,
> >Metropolitan Liberal Intellectual Vado ;-) . I understand this, as I
> >once rather disliked political parties too, many years ago, but I
> >have also observed that, in any ordinarily diverse society, parties
> >have proven as a matter of historical fact to be necessary to
> >effective democracy. Be an individual statesman ever so good, he does
> >not in a democractic context have the power all alone to carry out a
> >whole programme. He needs a place to seek and exchange support, share
> >ideas, and gather cooperators. That is a party.
> >
> >I would rather say that in Nova Roma we have "Tendencies". There are
> >the Optimates, who psycho-sociologically are those who tend to feel
> >that they have a very decent status quo in which they are respected
> >and influential, and the Populares, who psycho-sociologically are
> >those who feel that they have significantly less individual and even
> >collective power and influence than the Optimates, and are
> >constrained to be followers even when they have the talent and
> >inclination to be leaders.

Et Australicus respondit:
> The Amici Dignitatis have served you well, Formosanus, in the role of a
> shield. Many here, I among them, initially made the mistake of assuming
> the Amici Dignitatis to be your "party" of dedicated revolutionaries. You
> cleared that up for me when you said that the AD are politically neutral
> and that it is the "Convocatores" who are your revolutionary political
> party, though you do lament that even the Convocatores are not yet at the
> stage of having sufficient "party discipline" (your words, Formosanus).
>
> I notice that you NEVER refer on this list to your "Convocatores." Why is
> that? Are you afraid that might reveal the truth about what you are
> aiming for? Can't trust those mere citizens to know what's best for them,
> can you? The eternal marching slogan of the "progressive liberal" - "We
> must deceive you in order to control you, but it's all done with the
> noblest of motives and all for your own good!"

The "Convocatores" are in fact all Amici Dignitatis that signed the
statement before its release. That simple. There is no conspiracy, there is
no deception. If you think that Formosanus or anyone else of the AD has ever
told a blatant lie (one that was told willfully with the intent to deceive
and lie), then I invite you to give us proof, rather than an interpretation
of a statement. You don't like your own words to get ripped out of their
context, but you might be doing the very same thing. Regarding "party
discipline", that's addressed further below.

Formosanus iterum:
> >>Indeed, among us (the convocatores, not the Amici Dignitatis, who as
> >>such are politically neutral) there is little party discipline, and
> >>we are still at that stage at which we are really not interested in
> >>personal power, but are idealistic in terms of our primary
> >>motivation. And in fact those persons whom we perceive to be harming
> >>Nova Roma through their secret plans and overt actions constitute a
> >>fairly tight clique united by opportunism and a singularly illiberal
> >>vision of what Nova Roma should be - in other words, a faction.
> >>Even, therefore, coming out for simple Good Government is to make
> >>ourselves a faction against a faction, a de facto party against a de
> >>facto party.
> >>

Et Australicus iterum:
> That meshes nicely with your current statement:
> >
> >As wealth and bio-family connections are not so important among us,
> >I HAVE SIMPLY DIVIDED US PSYCHO-SOCIOLOGICALLY.
> (Emphasis mine, Formosanus, but the confession - and that is certainly
> what it is - is yours. Dividing us is what you have been working at
> unceasingly.)

The word "divide" has several meanings and interpretations. This division
here was "mental division", meaning that he divided the people in his own
mind. Not that he seeks to polarize and divide everyone here with some sort
of dark agenda and tactics that call upon the image you have of the AD or
the Convocatores (or at least Formosanus) as revolutionaries with a thirst
for power and an urge to destroy everything here. I would prefer that you
admit that you don't like our (or his) opinions rather than portraying us as
bandits, which you have no proof for. Also, you're still no member of the
DignitasForum eGroups (although not much is happening there). This Forum is
accessible for everyone and anyone, and if you subscribed, you may let your
fantasies about us go.

Formosanus scripsit:
> >The Optimates fear the
> >Populares when the latter are active, for the natural reason that if
> >the latter are successful in becoming more influential, the latter
> >relatively speaking will become less outstanding. This general
> >outlook, of course, naturally extends itself to a dislike of all
> >change that they do not initiate themselves. Typical concommitants
> >are an exaggerated feeling of self-importance and a desire to get
> >others to work hard for Nova Roma - but only in relatively
> >subordinate roles which carry no real power, and of course to get
> >them to pay taxes the revenues from which would be controlled by the
> >elite.
> >
> >Certainly Scaevola correctly identified Sulla, QFM, Octavius (and I
> >might add formerly Festus, the enthusiast for fascism, and perhaps
> >now Australicus) as an active group of Amici Potestatis (Friends of
> >Power),

Australicus scribit in responso:
> Only someone with a total disregard for reality could group those names
> together as a party with a common agenda. And only newcomers, with no
> firsthand knowledge of who those people are, could swallow this rubbish.
> In that regard, perhaps Sulla's and Marius' hard work in accepting new
> citizens before the election plays right into your hands. So if I look
> at it from your viewpoint, I would accuse our Censores of being in
> cahoots with you! Your disregard of reality and truth would be hilarious
> if it weren't so dangerous, Formosanus.

Sulla has admitted here himself that he had some sort or faction in the past
(not necessarily an evil one, but still one). But you must admit, some of us
here are more conservative (rightist), and others are progressive (leftist).
Without giving connotations to these terms, I think we can safely assert
that you, Sulla and some others belong to a group that is more
conservatively inclined, judging from past and present discussions here on
this list.

Formosanus iterum:
> >with their own relatively extreme version of social
> >stratification in terms of power and a generally rightest agenda
> >typified by restrictive and punitive legislation and their own 5-year
> >plan. Through a covert clientele system and a majority in the senate
> >they have for at least the past year been the dominant force in our
> >Respublica, and they engineered the rather extreme and unjust series
> >of events perpetrated against citizen Marius Peregrinus, which
> >perhaps only directly hurt one person, but alerted many of us to what
> >was happening and what could happen to anyone disliked by them,
> >perhaps by speaking out for change.
> >
> >The Amici Dignitatis are a reaction to those Amici Potestatis and
> >their works.

Australicus iterum:
> So the Amici Dignitatis are a reaction you created to oppose the "Amici
> Potestatis", which latter group you freely admit you also created out of
> thin air in order to serve your purpose of "dividing us," which you also
> admit is what you yourself have done. All the while marshalling the
> members of your true cadre, the "Convocatores" (which you don't mention
> on *this* list) in private and grooming them to take over power in Nova
> Roma.

I think you are sticking together quotes which suit you nicely, to attain a
conclusion which suits you as nicely. There is no such movement carrying the
name "Amici Potestatis", of course, but it's something we could identify the
more conservatively inclined people with here. And as said before, the word
"divided" was more than likely not meant in that way. Some of your
accusations, instead, were created out of thin air, like your last one, that
is utterly rediculous.

Formosanus dixit:
> >We are not extreme and not solely made up of the
> >powerless, as the fact that we have three members in the senate
> >already and another four or five senators very well disposed towards
> >our values shows. But we all share the simple idea that every civis
> >deserves to be shielded by legal rights, just courts, and an
> >empowered, vigilant and active People against those who do not put
> >dignitas humana - human dignity - very high on their personal agenda,
> >and yet may have acquired considerable power in our State.
> >
> >Instead of vainly worrying about who is or is not a "party", I think
> >it would be more useful to ask yourself whether or not you think
> >civil and human rights are important, in Nova Roma as in the rest of
> >the world, and whether the Popular assemblies (comitia) conceived in
> >Roman Antiquity and provided for under our present Constitution, do
> >not require activation in a serious and consistent manner to ensure
> >that the Sovereign People as a whole be the masters in our Respublic,
> >not only a subset of them. This is not a matter of revolution, but of
> >a natural development of a still rather young micronation.
> >
> >If you share our values and concerns, please vote for us.
> >
> >"We" are M. Marcius Rex for Censor, N. Moravius Vado for Consul, C.
> >Flavius Diocletianus and Myself (!) for Praetor, Cn. Moravius
> >Piscinus and T. Labienus Fortunatus for Tribunus Plebis, S.
> >Apollonius Draco for Aedilis Plebis, T. Sertorius Albinus for Aedilis
> >Curulis, and M. Scribonius Curio Britannicus for Rogator.
> >
> >I note further that A. Iulius Caesar Macedonius Probus for Tribunus
> >Plebis, M. Cassius Iulianus for Consul and M. Mucius Scaevola
> >Magister for Rogator are men of extraordinary honour and probity,
> >although not signatories to our Statement, as is M. Arminius Maior
> >for Aedilis Plebis. I would also personally feel very content with P.
> >Cassia, P. Ullerius Venator and M. Minucius Audens as Quaestores.
> >M. Octavius Germanicus, although a political opponent, has done an
> >excellent job with the server, programming and internet aspects of
> >our existence, and richly deserves to be Curator Aranae.
> >
> >All the above opinions are solely my own.

Australicus dicit:
> Well, Formosanus, I was considering voting for some of those men
> *because* they have had the decency to distance themselves from your
> opinions. What are we to make of the fact that some of these men have
> publically declared that they are not members of your "de facto party"
> and yet here you still claim that they are?

"We" are the Amici Dignitatis, with the same ethical platform. There is no
"party" mentioned. And as for that comment on "party discipline", what is
being said is that basically we differ too much in opinion to attain the
"discipline" a party would need. Simple as that. No vile conspiracies.

> Someone is obviously lying here. All of us who are loyal to Rome instead
> of to a party, "de facto" or otherwise, must think carefully and act
> cautiously.

Let me point out here that you are making an accusation again that is
totally unsubstantial, and just a term you use to label us as villains. Do
you know us? Are you a subscriber to the DignitasForum? Have we ever said
that we are *not* loyal to Rome? I know the answer.

> L. Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
> Tribunus Plebis
> (Speaking here as a guardian of the interests of the People and of the
> Republic, and not as a candidate for any office.)

I forgot who told Vado once that he was not speaking for the people, but
rather speaking for himself, and as one of that notorious 5%. You're making
the same mistake here, I believe. Who is "the People"? Did "the People" ask
you to attack us?

Vale,
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
<< PETITOR AEDILIS PLEBIS >>
Legatus Galliae Borealis,
Procurator Galliae,
Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
--**--
Novaromain? Parlez-vous fran�ais? 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
Novaroman? Interested in politics? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_DignitasForum

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976389568/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Parties
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Sat, 09 Dec 2000 19:26:09 -0000

> I would rather say that in Nova Roma we have "Tendencies". There are
> the Optimates, who psycho-sociologically are those who tend to feel
> that they have a very decent status quo in which they are respected
> and influential, and the Populares, who psycho-sociologically are
> those who feel that they have significantly less individual and even
> collective power and influence than the Optimates, and are
> constrained to be followers even when they have the talent and
> inclination to be leaders.
>
LIVIA SCRIPSIT:
I take objection to your definitions of Optimates and Populares right
here. Firstly for introducting the term "psycho-sociological" to the
list, which is undoubtedly a veering sharply into modern sociological
theory and which I distrust because it starts us down a path of
adopting modern modes of thought onto our Nova Roman experiment. I
have made arguments pro recognizing modern constraints on
administrative issues. I will not so support adopting modern
sociological theory as the defining parameters of our state.

Secondly, and more importantly, for your objectification of Optimates
as secure in their power and status, and Populares as not only not
secure in their power and influence but not even ambitious enough to
HAVE influence and power themselves. I think all the Amici Dignitatis
should be coming after you for that particular objectification,
Formosanus. This portrayal of several members of the Amici is
patently wrong and unfair. There are magistrates, senators, and
governors among the Amici.

> The Amici Dignitatis are a reaction to those Amici Potestatis and
> their works.

LIVIA SCRIPSIT:
Maybe so in the founding sessions which I was not a part of. As a
late signer of the Amici, I do not support this assertion.

> But we all share the simple idea that every civis
> deserves to be shielded by legal rights, just courts, and an
> empowered, vigilant and active People

LIVIA SCRIPSIT:
I'm OK so far....

>against those who do not put dignitas humana - human dignity - very
>high on their personal agenda, and yet may have acquired considerable
>power in our State.

LIVIA SCRIPSIT:
But you lose me here. My participation in the Amici has NOTHING to do
with being against one person in favor of another. I joined the Amici
because they seemed like they were wanting open, free, and CIVIL
(...........which to me means laying aside of personal agendas and
focusing on the issues, not the persons holding them...........)
exchange of ideas on the political issues of Nova Roma, NOT to join a
coalition against other members.

In my opinion, any cive, from any "party" or "faction", holding a
grudge against another person, from their own or the opposite "party"
or "faction" is being divisive to the state. It's detracting away
from working on the real, hard issues to foster an us-vs.-them
mentality. From either side. I am an Amici because I want to stand
for political cooperation!!! Are we large enough that we can stand as
a house divided and not have the foundations erode?? NO. We ALL need
each other here.

By default, in an election, it looks like I'm potentially incredibly
disgruntled with certain candidates. This is not so. Whether
Cincinnatus or Marcius wins the next election, Livia will find a way
to work with it. Whichever of Vado, Cassius, or Germanicus is Consul,
Livia will find a way to work with it. And etc., down the ballot. Do
I have preferences?? Sure I do, certain choices I think would make
for a better administrative mix for the next year. Do I have faith
that whoever wins will be responsible in their exercise of office?
Absolutely.

> Instead of vainly worrying about who is or is not a "party", I think
> it would be more useful to ask yourself whether or not you think
> civil and human rights are important, in Nova Roma as in the rest of
> the world,

LIVIA SCRIPSIT:
I agree with this, halfheartedly. I think it's appropriate to be
considering these issues but disagree with (mostly your) approach to
handling them.

> and whether the Popular assemblies (comitia) conceived in
> Roman Antiquity and provided for under our present Constitution, do
> not require activation in a serious and consistent manner to ensure
> that the Sovereign People as a whole be the masters in our
Respublic,

LIVIA SCRIPSIT:
I think this is the more important issue. I would like to see more
active calling of the various comitia in dealing with legal issues.
However, as it has been pointed out before, that there has been less
activity with the comitia is at LEAST half due to the fact that
through most of last year there were not enough Rogators to deal with
the summoning of any comitia. In fact, I became a Rogator myself
because I felt the vacancy to this office was an emergency of the
state that needed to be addressed and that I was adequate to the task.
Then my standing colleague resigned, and I had to wait for another
Rogator to be located. In fact, some of the magistrates you are
taking pains to criticize, were actively involved in filling the
Rogatorial vacancies without which the comitia can be called.

Before we can worry too much about calling the comitia, we need to
stabilize the office of the Rogator. There are those among both the
Amici and the non-Amici signors who would stand and attest to this
need and who have offered suggestions for how to do so.

LIVIA FINISHES, TONGUE-in-CHEEK: Perhaps we need to improve upon the
"Cursus Honorem" issue and mandate that if nothing else, from
henceforth every magistrate must stand as a Rogator for one year prior
to seeking other office. This would (a) introduce the hopeful
magistrate to some of our most important laws, and (b) confine them to
waiting a year, in which they would have time to study and their
wisdom would undoubtedly grow after serving as Rogator, before
attempting any further elected office.

In this post, my opinions are of a simple cive.

Livia Cornelia Aurelia

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976389972/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Parties, issues, and choices
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 13:29:59 -0600 (CST)

On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Gian G Reali wrote:

> There is the issue of the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate. One faction
> seeks to limit participation on the part of some citizens by retaining a
> lex imposing age limitation. On the other side are a group of friends
> who prefers to judge candidates for office based on their qualities
> rather than on their quantity of years.

A lie!

Do not try to claim this issue for your faction, Gnaeus Moravius. The
debate about that lex has nothing whatsoever to do with any "party"
or "faction" here. I have spoken out in support of Sextus Apollonius
Draco holding office, and it is well-known that he and I are associated
with different "factions".

I am not one of your "group of friend", and I support both of the
young candidates for office. I am outraged at your cheap and fraudulent
attempt to win public support by casting this as a partisan issue
when it is clearly not.

Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curule Aedile, Nova Roma

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976390203/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Parties
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Sat, 09 Dec 2000 19:39:42 -0000

I too try to refrain from "me too" posts, but in this case I have to
wholeheartedly back Fortunatus on this.

I have been taking Formosanus to task. I have to also take task with
Sergius and others for the nature of some of their counterarguments.

Livia Cornelia Aurelia

--- In novaroma@--------, Fortunatus <labienus@t...> wrote:
> T Labienus L Sergio Quiritibusque S P D
>
> In your desire to attack Formosanus, L Sergi, you have managed to
commit
> the same errors of understaning of which you accuse M Apollonius.
>
> > The Amici Dignitatis have served you well, Formosanus, in the role
of
> > a shield. Many here, I among them, initially made the mistake of
> > assuming the Amici Dignitatis to be your "party" of dedicated
> > revolutionaries. You cleared that up for me when you said that the
> > AD are politically neutral and that it is the "Convocatores" who
are
> > your revolutionary political party, though you do lament that even
> > the Convocatores are not yet at the stage of having sufficient
> > "party discipline" (your words, Formosanus).
>
> By failing to understand the Latin word used, you have failed to
> understand that the "convocatores" are simply those people who
decided
> to "convoke" the Amici Dignitatis. As one of those people, I once
again
> assert that I am *not* a member of a revolutionary political party.
I
> also assert that the other members of that group are likewise *not*
> members of a revolutionary political party, though Formosanus
believes
> us to be more like one than not. I admit that the only evidence I
can
> provide for these statements is my record of reasoned, ethical, and
> truthful behavior. This is not because I am wrong, but rather due
to
> the twin difficulties of proving a negative and disproving innuendo
> which is stated often and forcefully.
>
> Likewise, I aver that Formosanus is not some evil genius, using
groups
> within groups to veil his true, dictatorial intent. You make the
same
> fallacy of judgment that he makes when he accuses you of colluding
with
> Sulla, Fabius, et al. Since you have acted intelligently in the
past, I
> must assume that you are allowing your desire to attack Formosanus
to
> lead you to these ridiculous claims, either because you have allowed
> yourself to believe them or because you believe that the end of
> discrediting Formosanus justifies the means of disingenuous
argument.
>
> > >As wealth and bio-family connections are not so important among
us,
> > >I HAVE SIMPLY DIVIDED US PSYCHO-SOCIOLOGICALLY.
> > (Emphasis mine, Formosanus, but the confession - and that is
certainly
> > what it is - is yours. Dividing us is what you have been working
at
> > unceasingly.)
>
> Of course, you have failed to grasp that he was simply making an
> arbitrary division that he believes is valid for purposes of
discussion,
> and *not* that he had deliberately masterminded the creation of such
> divisions. I am certain that, if I looked hard enough at the list
> archives, I could find a sentence or two that you wrote which, if
> removed from its context in the way in which you have distorted the
> context of the one above, would likewise make you sound quite awful.
>
> > So the Amici Dignitatis are a reaction you created to oppose the
> > "Amici Potestatis", which latter group you freely admit you also
> > created out of thin air in order to serve your purpose of
"dividing
> > us," which you also admit is what you yourself have done. All the
> > while marshalling the members of your true cadre, the
"Convocatores"
> > (which you don't mention on *this* list) in private and grooming
them
> > to take over power in Nova Roma.
>
> This, sir, is a load of horse apples, barely fit for fertilizing a
> field. As one who helped to convoke the Amici
Dignitatis--therefore,
> one of the convocatores--I am not a member of some cadre that is
being
> groomed to take power here. I also, despite my attempts to retain a
> proper Stoic indifference to your particular line of propaganda,
take a
> certain amount of umbrage at being labelled, however peripherally,
as a
> member of some shadowy revolutionary force that is just waiting for
the
> right moment to swoop in and eject the rightful leaders of Nova
Roma.
> Please cease slandering me in this way. I have done nothing to
deserve
> such treatment.
>
> Valete

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976390784/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Pro Sextus on Gender Issue
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Dec 2000 11:50:05 -0800

Actually, what it means is once again, I had to go back to the NR archieves, which
I suggest every citizen to do, when there is ample time. To see the flip-flop of
some candidates and the selective "quoteing" of some other candidates! Let me ask,
does selective quoting equate with plagerism? I dont know...but its just something
I have been pondering with Vado's very loose quoting. Anyway, Gn. Moravius, going
back to the NR archieves didnt stop you when you reposted my resignation statement
so why are you so defensive now that I use against Formy and Vado? Turnabout isnt
fair play I see! Well it should be. Besides dont you think the People should read
the ENTIRE article? Not the selective partial quotes your Pater and Consular
candidate posted!

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

Gian G Reali wrote:

> Salve Sulla et omnes Quirites
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976394199/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Traditions or trappings? (was: What are we fighting for?)
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 16:23:56 -0500

Salvete,

L. Sergius Australicus Obstinatus wrote,

>This is quite dishonest of you, Vado.

Wasn't Vado, but me, M. Mucius Scaevola Magister, as can be seem from the
post reproduced at the end of yours.

>The correspondence of name with gender is an ancient practice "built-in"
to
>the structure of the language of Roma Antiqua. This was possibly the one
point of
>the opposition that was most difficult to refute back during *that time*
last year - that
>correspondence of name with gender was a given throughout the history of
>Rome, and an integral part of the Latin language.

I respond:

There is a big difference between

(1) A social practice reflected in language
and
(2) a formal legal regulation.

Thus, for example, in early modern England it was legally compulsory to go
to Anglican church on a Sunday, and you got fined if you didn't. More
recently it ceased to be legally compulsory, but until quite recently (my
parents' generation) it remained socially compulsory. There's a big
practical difference between not going to church incurring social
disapproval or satire, and incurring a legal penalty.

As to how this relates to the gender issue. We have excellent evidence from
the early modern period of women living under male names and in male dress
in order, e.g., to be soldiers or sailors, and a few well-attested
instances of men living as women. The evidence is thinner but still present
for the middle ages. (I cited some of the authorities some way back in the
debate on the Gender names Edict). The evidence for almost anything about
social practices outside the elite in classical antiquity is very thin and
a good deal of what literary evidence we do have is filtered through
Christian monastic hands, but there is no reason to suppose that ancient
Rome was more efficient than medieval or early modern society in detecting
or preventing such practices. There is no evidence that I know of for
criminal penalties before the later middle ages.

The LEGAL regulation of names was invented in modern France, I assume at or
shortly after the Revolution. It is an aspect of the modern bureaucratic
state.

So I stand by my original post (below).

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister

>
>Sorry Germanicus - It was you and Sulla who introduced modern political
>concerns, i.e. the legal regulation of the gender of names, into Nova
Roma.
>It ill suits you to take a high tone about the inevitable disagreements
>which have resulted.
>
>Valete,
>
>M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976397089/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Away from the computer
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Dec 2000 12:54:41 -0800

Ave,

Just a brief announcement that I will not be on the computer tonite. I
am attending EarthLink's Christmas Party with Prima Cornelia (Greta).
If you need to get in touch with the Censors please contact C. Marius
Merullus or M. Octavius Germanicus. Thank you for your time.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976398122/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Roman Taxes
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Dec 2000 19:42:36 -0200

"M. Apollonius Formosanus" wrote:
>
> Salvete Omnes!
>
> I would like to clarify a few things about ancient Roman taxes, as
> Vedius has brought up the matter again.
>
> According to Jolowicz's "Historical Introduction to the Study of
> Roman Law":
>
> "To understand republican finance we must first rid ourselves of the
> modern presumption that the greatest paet of a state's income mist
> necessarily come from taxation. At Rome the principle was rather tgat
> the state should have enough income to meet all ordinary charges
> without taxation."
>
> It goes on to say of the tributum mentioned by Vedius:
>
> "Where the ordinary income was not sufficient for state expenses, as
> generally happened during the wars of the later republic, it was
> necessary to have recourse to taxation. The tax, known as tributum,
> consisted of a proportion of the citizen's property as assessed for
> the census list..." [I.E., total property, not income.]
>
> "Strictly the tributum was not so much a tax as a forced loan exacted
> to meet an emergency and repayable if circumstances permitted."
>
> It continues, mentioning that in fact the tributum was sometimes
> actually repaid by the state, although most often this was not
> possible. However, the whole tributum was *abolished* in 168 B.C.E.,
> and for the remainder of the republican period was never imposed
> again.
>
> Provincials (at that time not citizens) indeed were made to pay a tax
> on their produce, the theory being that by conquering them the Roman
> state owned the land in a sense, and deserved to be payed a
> proportion of its produce.
>
> So, as far as Roman citizens in the republican period are concerned,
> in times of special crisis, mainly war, there was a special property
> tax, but it was conceived as only a kind of loan. Normally there was
> supposed to be none, and as soon as the state was financially able,
> it abolished it permanently.
>
> We might in passing note that the tributum was highly progressive,
> i.e. it imposed itself much more heavily upon the richer classes of
> society than upon the poor. We might in Nova Roma expect the members
> of the smaller centuries to pay a much higher tax, if we want to
> follow ancient precedent.
>
> Vedius seems to be confusing rents paid on the ager publicus and
> provincial non-citizen taxes (that decuma or tenth part of the
> harvest) with real direct taxes on Roman citizens, which were only
> the emergency tributum, itself theoretically a loan.
>
> And in fact the tributum was in the end (when it could) rejected by
> the Republic. If I believed it was a relevant question, I might ask
> Vedius why he wanted to ressurrect something the ancient Republic in
> the end abolished.

Perhaps because if we decide to tax the non-citizens ,
they will surelly refuse to pay :) (that was the state s main revenue)
and it seems that sending out our legions in order to gain some
"allies" is unconstitutional.

M'Villius Limitanus

>
> But of course, that is not the criterion we should use today, as we
> live in a completely different socio-economic environment and should
> adjust our policies to that as intelligent and realistic people.
>
> So, I think that in the end the Apollonii are not so badly informed
> vis-�-vis Vedius... At least with respect to taxation.
>
> My Candidate Webpage is at:
>
> http://www.diocletian.de/elect/formosanus/
>
> Valete, Quirites!
>
> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 21:56:54 -0500
> From: "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
> Subject: RE: Traditions or trappings? (was: What are we fighting
> for?)
>
> Salvete;
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: S. Apollonius Draco [mailto:hendrik.meuleman@--------]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 2:43 PM
> >
> > Also, I do believe that taxes aren't very reconstructionist
> > either, but a rather modern concept. As has been pointed out in
> this
> forum
> > before, ancient Rome usually did not impose any taxes.
>
> If it's been pointed out here before, it was done so incorrectly.
> Indeed, was it not Cicero who said "taxes are the sinews of the
> state"?
>
> In the Republic, income was derived from two principal sources, the
> vectigalia and tributum. The Vectigalia was essentially rents
> collected from private cives using public land and/or facilities;
> mines, commons, etc. In Nova Roma, we haven't yet officially enacted
> this, but it does exist in the arrangements various members of the
> Ordo Equester have made with the State for use of the Macellum. In
> the future, as Nova Roma's resources grow, I hope such use-fees will
> expand as we are able both to provide more services to our people and
> derive more income from them.
>
> The Tributum was much closer to what most modern-day people think
> of as a "tax". It came in two forms. It came either in the form of a
> stipendium (a head-tax, paid by each individual, similar to the
> proposal that was recently defeated) or a decuma (tithe) of 1/10th of
> the grain harvest or 1/5th of the fruit harvest.
>
> So, my young Draco, there is indeed ancient precident for taxing
> Cives to fill the State coffers. Don't always believe what your Pater
> tells you...
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Candidate for Consul
>
> http://www.goldenfuture.net/germanicus
>
>
>
>
> Marcus Apollonius Formosanus << CANDIDATVS PRAETORIVS >>
> Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
> Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius
> ICQ# 61698049 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 -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976398185/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Parties, the other kind
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Dec 2000 21:50:32 -0000

Tomorrow night (Sunday, the 10th), Cassius and I will entertain a few
friends in a brief ritual and social gathering in preparation for
Saturnalia. Our ritual honors Epona, the Celtic horse-goddess, who was
adopted into the Roman pantheon and whose feast day was Dec. 18.

If you are so inclined, take a moment that night and join us in prayer
for good humor and positive action for Nova Roma, in thanks for all the
blessings of friendship, freedom and prosperity, and for the protection
of all our households in the winter ahead.

(Cives in Nova Britannia are welcome to attend! E-mail us if interested
and we'll send times and directions.)

Patricia Cassia

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976398637/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Parties
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 17:31:13 EST

Salve Labienus,

In other words, I may have sunk to Formosanus' own level? Indeed that is
a danger in conversing with such an individual. I admit with chagrin that
this may be true.

I have NOT, however, attacked you or confused you with anything he has
said. I don't think my post reads that way, but if you read it that way
then I apologize for having given you that impression. I think Formosanus
is actively seeking to alter the basic nature of the republic to suit his
own wishes, and is using a lot of high-sounding phoney rhetoric to do so.
I do not think the same of you.

I am sorry for your sake that he chooses to keep claiming that you are
with him. I suspect that his approval is political poison for all he
endorses.

I do not endorse anyone for office here. For one thing, I think that my
duties this past year have involved me in sufficient controversy that
there may be some cives who disapprove of my actions who would hold that
against people I might endorse. For another, I think most of us can make
our own judgements without needing anyone to tell us who is a good
candidate and who is not.

Salve,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

On 12/9/00 1:13 PM Fortunatus (labienus@--------) wrote:

>T Labienus L Sergio Quiritibusque S P D
>
>In your desire to attack Formosanus, L Sergi, you have managed to commit
>the same errors of understaning of which you accuse M Apollonius.
>
etc.

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

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

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976401088/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Parties
From:	Ira Adams <iadams@-------->
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 16:31:21 -0600

On 12/9/00 1:17 PM S. Apollonius Draco (hendrik.meuleman@--------) wrote:

>Salve Australice,
>
>(Seems like we're heading for y.a.t.d. (yet another tedious debate))
>
Not with me, I have no time for such.
>
>The "Convocatores" are in fact all Amici Dignitatis that signed the
>statement before its release. That simple. There is no conspiracy, there is
>no deception. If you think that Formosanus or anyone else of the AD has ever
>told a blatant lie (one that was told willfully with the intent to deceive
>and lie), then I invite you to give us proof, rather than an interpretation
>of a statement. You don't like your own words to get ripped out of their
>context, but you might be doing the very same thing. Regarding "party
>discipline", that's addressed further below.
>
>Formosanus iterum:
>> >>Indeed, among us (the convocatores, not the Amici Dignitatis, who as
>> >>such are politically neutral) there is little party discipline, and
>> >>we are still at that stage at which we are really not interested in
>> >>personal power, but are idealistic in terms of our primary
>> >>motivation. And in fact those persons whom we perceive to be harming
>> >>Nova Roma through their secret plans and overt actions constitute a
>> >>fairly tight clique united by opportunism and a singularly illiberal
>> >>vision of what Nova Roma should be - in other words, a faction.
>> >>Even, therefore, coming out for simple Good Government is to make
>> >>ourselves a faction against a faction, a de facto party against a de
>> >>facto party.
>> >>
Nope! To me, the statement above distinguishes one group as different
from the other. They may overlap, but one is seen as clearly a political
party, with definite political aims. That this second group is a subset
of the first doesn't change the fact that he identifies it as the actual
party. Yet he never mentions it in his public statements. Why?

>Et Australicus iterum:
>> That meshes nicely with your current statement:
>> >
>> >As wealth and bio-family connections are not so important among us,
>> >I HAVE SIMPLY DIVIDED US PSYCHO-SOCIOLOGICALLY.
>> (Emphasis mine, Formosanus, but the confession - and that is certainly
>> what it is - is yours. Dividing us is what you have been working at
>> unceasingly.)
>
>The word "divide" has several meanings and interpretations. This division
>here was "mental division", meaning that he divided the people in his own
>mind.
Thank you for supporting my point. He has divided us in his mind and is
trying to impose the idea of that imaginary division as a "fact" here -
the "Amici Dignitatis" vs. the "Amici Potestas," the evil degenerate
fascist oppressors against his enlightened little band of "friends," -
whatever. Divisiveness is what he stands for and what forms the basic
tactic of his campaign - to imagine divisions in his mind and then to
convince others that they are real and a cause for drastic change.

>Not that he seeks to polarize and divide everyone here with some sort
>of dark agenda and tactics that call upon the image you have of the AD or
>the Convocatores (or at least Formosanus) as revolutionaries with a thirst
>for power and an urge to destroy everything here. I would prefer that you
>admit that you don't like our (or his) opinions rather than portraying us as
>bandits, which you have no proof for. Also, you're still no member of the
>DignitasForum eGroups (although not much is happening there). This Forum is
>accessible for everyone and anyone, and if you subscribed, you may let your
>fantasies about us go.
>
>Formosanus scripsit:
>> >The Optimates fear the
>> >Populares when the latter are active, for the natural reason that if
>> >the latter are successful in becoming more influential, the latter
>> >relatively speaking will become less outstanding. This general
>> >outlook, of course, naturally extends itself to a dislike of all
>> >change that they do not initiate themselves. Typical concommitants
>> >are an exaggerated feeling of self-importance and a desire to get
>> >others to work hard for Nova Roma - but only in relatively
>> >subordinate roles which carry no real power, and of course to get
>> >them to pay taxes the revenues from which would be controlled by the
>> >elite.
>> >
>> >Certainly Scaevola correctly identified Sulla, QFM, Octavius (and I
>> >might add formerly Festus, the enthusiast for fascism, and perhaps
>> >now Australicus) as an active group of Amici Potestatis (Friends of
>> >Power),
>
>Australicus scribit in responso:
>> Only someone with a total disregard for reality could group those names
>> together as a party with a common agenda. And only newcomers, with no
>> firsthand knowledge of who those people are, could swallow this rubbish.
>> In that regard, perhaps Sulla's and Marius' hard work in accepting new
>> citizens before the election plays right into your hands. So if I look
>> at it from your viewpoint, I would accuse our Censores of being in
>> cahoots with you! Your disregard of reality and truth would be hilarious
>> if it weren't so dangerous, Formosanus.
>
>Sulla has admitted here himself that he had some sort or faction in the past
>(not necessarily an evil one, but still one). But you must admit, some of us
>here are more conservative (rightist), and others are progressive (leftist).
>Without giving connotations to these terms, I think we can safely assert
>that you, Sulla and some others belong to a group that is more
>conservatively inclined, judging from past and present discussions here on
>this list.
Conservative, liberal, rightest, leftist - those are all totally phoney
terms whose meanings were diffused and lost long ago. I want to
"conserve" Nova Roma as what it was established to be, so I guess that
makes me a "conservative?" You and your paterfamilias are reacting
against that, so I guess that makes you "reactionaries." But then in the
language of politics, "reactionary" is just another term for
"conservative" or "rightest," so we can call you conservative, too. Do
you really enjoy all that semantic nonsense?
>
>Formosanus iterum:
>> >with their own relatively extreme version of social
>> >stratification in terms of power and a generally rightest agenda
>> >typified by restrictive and punitive legislation and their own 5-year
>> >plan. Through a covert clientele system and a majority in the senate
>> >they have for at least the past year been the dominant force in our
>> >Respublica, and they engineered the rather extreme and unjust series
>> >of events perpetrated against citizen Marius Peregrinus, which
>> >perhaps only directly hurt one person, but alerted many of us to what
>> >was happening and what could happen to anyone disliked by them,
>> >perhaps by speaking out for change.
>> >
>> >The Amici Dignitatis are a reaction to those Amici Potestatis and
>> >their works.
>
>Australicus iterum:
>> So the Amici Dignitatis are a reaction you created to oppose the "Amici
>> Potestatis", which latter group you freely admit you also created out of
>> thin air in order to serve your purpose of "dividing us," which you also
>> admit is what you yourself have done. All the while marshalling the
>> members of your true cadre, the "Convocatores" (which you don't mention
>> on *this* list) in private and grooming them to take over power in Nova
>> Roma.
>
>I think you are sticking together quotes which suit you nicely, to attain a
>conclusion which suits you as nicely. There is no such movement carrying the
>name "Amici Potestatis", of course, but it's something we could identify the
>more conservatively inclined people with here. And as said before, the word
>"divided" was more than likely not meant in that way. Some of your
>accusations, instead, were created out of thin air, like your last one, that
>is utterly rediculous.
Actually, it seems a rather apt description of what your paterfamilias
fantasizes he is doing. I don't think all of the men and women he assumes
are with him really are. But it only takes a very few "disturbed guys" in
office to make a lot of trouble for the rest of the Republic.

>Formosanus dixit:
>> >We are not extreme and not solely made up of the
>> >powerless, as the fact that we have three members in the senate
>> >already and another four or five senators very well disposed towards
>> >our values shows. But we all share the simple idea that every civis
>> >deserves to be shielded by legal rights, just courts, and an
>> >empowered, vigilant and active People against those who do not put
>> >dignitas humana - human dignity - very high on their personal agenda,
>> >and yet may have acquired considerable power in our State.
>> >
>> >Instead of vainly worrying about who is or is not a "party", I think
>> >it would be more useful to ask yourself whether or not you think
>> >civil and human rights are important, in Nova Roma as in the rest of
>> >the world, and whether the Popular assemblies (comitia) conceived in
>> >Roman Antiquity and provided for under our present Constitution, do
>> >not require activation in a serious and consistent manner to ensure
>> >that the Sovereign People as a whole be the masters in our Respublic,
>> >not only a subset of them. This is not a matter of revolution, but of
>> >a natural development of a still rather young micronation.
>> >
>> >If you share our values and concerns, please vote for us.
>> >
>> >"We" are M. Marcius Rex for Censor, N. Moravius Vado for Consul, C.
>> >Flavius Diocletianus and Myself (!) for Praetor, Cn. Moravius
>> >Piscinus and T. Labienus Fortunatus for Tribunus Plebis, S.
>> >Apollonius Draco for Aedilis Plebis, T. Sertorius Albinus for Aedilis
>> >Curulis, and M. Scribonius Curio Britannicus for Rogator.
>> >
>> >I note further that A. Iulius Caesar Macedonius Probus for Tribunus
>> >Plebis, M. Cassius Iulianus for Consul and M. Mucius Scaevola
>> >Magister for Rogator are men of extraordinary honour and probity,
>> >although not signatories to our Statement, as is M. Arminius Maior
>> >for Aedilis Plebis. I would also personally feel very content with P.
>> >Cassia, P. Ullerius Venator and M. Minucius Audens as Quaestores.
>> >M. Octavius Germanicus, although a political opponent, has done an
>> >excellent job with the server, programming and internet aspects of
>> >our existence, and richly deserves to be Curator Aranae.
>> >
>> >All the above opinions are solely my own.
>
>Australicus dicit:
>> Well, Formosanus, I was considering voting for some of those men
>> *because* they have had the decency to distance themselves from your
>> opinions. What are we to make of the fact that some of these men have
>> publically declared that they are not members of your "de facto party"
>> and yet here you still claim that they are?
>
>"We" are the Amici Dignitatis, with the same ethical platform. There is no
>"party" mentioned. And as for that comment on "party discipline", what is
>being said is that basically we differ too much in opinion to attain the
>"discipline" a party would need. Simple as that. No vile conspiracies.
>
>> Someone is obviously lying here. All of us who are loyal to Rome instead
>> of to a party, "de facto" or otherwise, must think carefully and act
>> cautiously.
>
>Let me point out here that you are making an accusation again that is
>totally unsubstantial, and just a term you use to label us as villains. Do
>you know us? Are you a subscriber to the DignitasForum? Have we ever said
>that we are *not* loyal to Rome? I know the answer.
"Vile?" "Villains?" Those are your terms, not mine. You may answer for
them.
An accusation that is "unsubstantial?" If Citizen X states that he does
not stand with Formosanus nor subscribe to much of Formosanus' stated
goals, BUT Formosanus lists Citizen X as one of those who stands with him
in what he himself has identified as a "de facto party" (regardless of
how one might name it), then I think it's pretty clear that one claim or
the other is untrue. Apparently that's not clear to you. So be it.
>
>> L. Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
>> Tribunus Plebis
>> (Speaking here as a guardian of the interests of the People and of the
>> Republic, and not as a candidate for any office.)
>
>I forgot who told Vado once that he was not speaking for the people, but
>rather speaking for himself, and as one of that notorious 5%. You're making
>the same mistake here, I believe. Who is "the People"? Did "the People" ask
>you to attack us?
I have made no claim to be "speaking for" anyone: that's a claim *your*
party/faction/group-of-people-about-whom-your-pater-keeps-talking about
makes. It is not in the interests of the people and the Constitution of
our Republic to allow your Pater's outrageous claims and posturing to go
unchallenged as he tries to put himself and his friends into positions
from which he openly states he will attempt to remake Nova Roma into what
he thinks it should be - a modern "democratic" state. If *you* think
doing so is "attacking *you* then, well, you know better than I where you
stand.
>
>Vale,
>Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
><< PETITOR AEDILIS PLEBIS >>
>Legatus Galliae Borealis,
>Procurator Galliae,
>Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976401089/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Offensive Divisions!
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 18:15:51 -0500

Salve,

I normally find the reading of my Nova Roma e-mail to be an enjoyable, often
enlightening, activity. Most especially in this season of elections, I have
come to enjoy the (mostly) intellectual and political exchanges, seeing each
as an opportunity to learn more about the candidates and issues facing us.

Today, however, I find myself offended..indeed angered..... to the point
where I must speak out against the malicious lies and deliberate attempts at
division that I had the displeasure to read from both Formosanus and
Piscinius. I have chosen "not" to quote their posts because, quite frankly,
my anger is not related to one phrase or turn of words, so much as it is
towards their blatant attempt to casually toss the cives of this nation into
what they see as opposing groups.

I find myself offended by the very notion of there being a specific set of
groups within Nova Roma into which we must all be pigeon-holed. Given that
neither Piscinius nor Formosanus saw fit to name specific individuals who
inhabit the "Amici Potestatas" or the "faction" (as opposed to the "circle
of friends" of Piscinius), one must assume they have both taken the "you are
either with us or against us" dogma to the extreme.

How dare they?

How dare ANY citizen so callously categorize their fellow cives, simply to
facilitate their own attempt at being elected? Are there people with whom
they disagree? Of course. Does this grant them the right to insinuate that
ONLY the Amici Dignitatis are concerned with human rights and dignity? To
insinuate that some form of conspiracy must exist among non Amici Dignitatis
members to somehow walk all over other citizens? I think not.

It is one thing to disagree with someone on political or ideological
grounds. I applaud such differences, as they often lead to stimulating
debate and occasionally to some great new ideas. I, however, detest the use
of political rhetoric when used as a tool to defame an entire sector of the
populace, a sector that has...by and large.......said and done nothing to
warrant such treatment. Nothing, unless one were to count NOT signing the
statement of Amici Dignitatis as having "chosen sides".

I, for one, value our nation far too much to allow such divisions to go
unchallenged. For those who have been citizens for a while, you can surely
attest that I am not one to raise my voice in anger. I assure you that I do
so today simply because I refuse to allow the community and good fellowship
which IS alive and well in Nova Roma to be tarnished by the ignorant and
malicious statements of two men looking to be elected by any means
necessary.

Vale,

Priscilla Vedia Serena

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976403905/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Traditions or trappings? (was: What are we fighting for?)
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 18:24:48 EST

Salvete,

Obviously I have committed a major blunder of attribution for which I
apologize to both N. Moravius Vado and M. Mucius Scaevola Magister -
without meaning to imply that the confusion of identity is insulting to
either party. I was in too much of a hurry, as I often am here.

My point remains unchallenged - the statements of the first Censor
involved in the matter, and the edict of the second Censor involved in
the matter, did not represent any attempt to introduce "modern political
concerns" or vicious personal prejudices (not your claim, but another's)
into Nova Roma. They represented a desire to maintain an ancient
correspondence of Latin name with physical gender. That is not to deny
the *possibility* that some people on the other side of that battle were
motivated by modern prejudices or modern political attitudes. But to deny
that there was an arguably valid ancient practice citable as a basis for
the other side's position strikes me as untruthful.

I was raised to think that honorable men may disagree. Here it seems
lately that to disagree is to be classified as a dishonorable man (a
Nazi, a moral degenerate, an oppressor of the righteous, a conservative,
a rightest, etc., etc., ad nauseam). A rabid hatefulness has been
introduced into our political life and I think we are all liable to
succumb to it (except, of course for certain people like Audens who are
too dignified to allow themselves to be drawn into it).

For instance, I should not have said "That is quite dishonest of you." I
should rather have said "That is not true." It is the statement I really
meant to bring into question, and not the honesty of the person making
the statement. So I also apologize for that.

I am going to endeavor to excise from my posts any more traces of the
nastiness that seems to be becoming the norm here.

I am not running for office (Praetor, BTW) on the basis of hate or
distrust of anybody, but on the basis of wanting to see Nova Roma
continue to develop as what it was founded to be - a recreation of the
best of the ancient Roman republic. I do not wish it to become a
recreation of any modern "democratic" state. I am already a citizen of
two modern "democratic" states, and neither of those is doing very well.
One of them is currently grappling with the argument that it should be
against the law to count all of the citizens' votes!

Valete,

L. Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
Candidate for Praetor

On 12/9/00 3:23 PM Mike Macnair (MikeMacnair@--------) wrote:

>Salvete,
>
>L. Sergius Australicus Obstinatus wrote,
>
>>This is quite dishonest of you, Vado.
>
>Wasn't Vado, but me, M. Mucius Scaevola Magister, as can be seem from the
>post reproduced at the end of yours.
>
>>The correspondence of name with gender is an ancient practice "built-in"
>to
>>the structure of the language of Roma Antiqua. This was possibly the one
>point of
>>the opposition that was most difficult to refute back during *that time*
>last year - that
>>correspondence of name with gender was a given throughout the history of
>>Rome, and an integral part of the Latin language.
>
>I respond:
>
>There is a big difference between
>
> (1) A social practice reflected in language
>and
> (2) a formal legal regulation.
>
>Thus, for example, in early modern England it was legally compulsory to go
>to Anglican church on a Sunday, and you got fined if you didn't. More
>recently it ceased to be legally compulsory, but until quite recently (my
>parents' generation) it remained socially compulsory. There's a big
>practical difference between not going to church incurring social
>disapproval or satire, and incurring a legal penalty.
>
>As to how this relates to the gender issue. We have excellent evidence from
>the early modern period of women living under male names and in male dress
>in order, e.g., to be soldiers or sailors, and a few well-attested
>instances of men living as women. The evidence is thinner but still present
>for the middle ages. (I cited some of the authorities some way back in the
>debate on the Gender names Edict). The evidence for almost anything about
>social practices outside the elite in classical antiquity is very thin and
>a good deal of what literary evidence we do have is filtered through
>Christian monastic hands, but there is no reason to suppose that ancient
>Rome was more efficient than medieval or early modern society in detecting
>or preventing such practices. There is no evidence that I know of for
>criminal penalties before the later middle ages.
>
>The LEGAL regulation of names was invented in modern France, I assume at or
>shortly after the Revolution. It is an aspect of the modern bureaucratic
>state.
>
>So I stand by my original post (below).
>
>Valete,
>
>M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
>
>>
>>Sorry Germanicus - It was you and Sulla who introduced modern political
>>concerns, i.e. the legal regulation of the gender of names, into Nova
>Roma.
>>It ill suits you to take a high tone about the inevitable disagreements
>>which have resulted.
>>
>>Valete,
>>
>>M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
>>

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

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

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976404300/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->