Forum Romanum


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Nova Roma and Modernity
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:06:14 -0500

Salvete!

I have some difficulties about this discussion.

On the one hand, QFM's "love it or leave it" line plainly won't wash. The
Constitution (and the old Founding Statement) leave no doubt that NR was
not intended to be a faithful reconstruction of all the social forms of
Roma Antiqua, not least in the sphere of gender. It is much too late now to
suggest that this is what was secretly intended all along and that people
who don't agree should get out.

On the other hand, I have grave problems with the "Bill of Rights"
approach.

"Bills of Rights" are intimately linked with the idea that at the end
professional judges are the ultimate guarantors of a constitution. You set
up a Bill of Rights to define those things the judges ought to protect on a
claim by an individual citizen. Calling them "rights" is to make them
"property-like", since what judges are good at is property disputes.

This approach is a very modern idea, which emerged in the C18. It is
currently the dominant political view in world politics because (a) the
USA, the first country to adopt this approach, is world top dog, and (b)
the Russian communists' legal draftsmen were heavily influenced by the
French Revolution and the French Declaration of Rights. The latter example,
however, indicates the problem. The most wonderful set of formal guarantees
of rights is quite worthless without a political culture of liberty, since
in the absence of such a culture the judges will not act to protect rights.

The constitution of Roma Antiqua did not use professional judges as
guarantors of the constitution (they didn't use professional judges,
period), and hence did not involve a "bill of rights". The liberty of the
Roman citizens was founded on the practice of self-defence and resistance,
with the Tribunes playing an essential role in making it possible for this
not to involve permanent civil war. Constitutionalism took the form of a
system of conventions (the mos maiorum) not of formal law. In this respect
(not in others!) it was more like the British than the American
constitution.

Nova Roma cannot have professional judges. Who would trust who to do the
job? In any case, as the Soviet example shows, the fundamental problem
remains that of a political culture of liberty and constitutionalism, not
of the legal forms. At this level, roman reconstructionism is perfectly
appropriate. It's not clear today that the Bill of Rights/ judicial review
model is the best way to foster constitutionalism and liberty where it does
not already exist, and experimenting with roman forms is worth while.

However, what I find problematic about Germanicus and QFM's defence of
"faithful reconstructionism" is that the Vedian Constitution of NR
deliberately restricts the effectiveness of the Tribunes, by requiring them
to act collegially. This is a clear departure from the Roman constitutional
model, and takes away a critical mechanism which "does the job of judicial
review" (to simplify) by forcing matters into the Comitia. If Germanicus
and QFM seriously want to argue for NR reconstructing roman political
institutions as an alternative to the "Bill of Rights" approach, they
should support constitutional amendments to restore the power of individual
Tribunes to veto the acts of magistrates and of the Senate.

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/_/976752404/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] The Candidate Chat
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:07:35 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: labienus@-------- [mailto:labienus@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 3:52 AM
>
> It is unsurprising that such an idea would occur in parallel to several
> different people at roughly the same time. Much the same thing has
occurred
> with the various candidates' platforms; many people saw a need and thought
to
> fill it. This is not a case of plagiarism, though I can understand that
it may
> appear so.
>
> Valete
> T Labienus Fortunatus

I quite agree; it was likely an idea whose time had come. I must say I never
thought such a gentle "tweak" would have turned into such a controversy,
given all the rancor that has erupted on _real_ issues thusfar!

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/_/976759814/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] The Candidate Chat
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:07:35 -0500


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Nova Roma and Modernity
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 13 Dec 2000 22:04:25 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Macnair [mailto:MikeMacnair@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 7:06 PM
>
> However, what I find problematic about Germanicus and QFM's defence of
> "faithful reconstructionism" is that the Vedian Constitution of NR
> deliberately restricts the effectiveness of the Tribunes, by requiring
them
> to act collegially. This is a clear departure from the Roman
constitutional
> model, and takes away a critical mechanism which "does the job of judicial
> review" (to simplify) by forcing matters into the Comitia. If Germanicus
> and QFM seriously want to argue for NR reconstructing roman political
> institutions as an alternative to the "Bill of Rights" approach, they
> should support constitutional amendments to restore the power of
individual
> Tribunes to veto the acts of magistrates and of the Senate.

I must say, Marcus Muscius Scaevola, I am disturbed that you would have
passed up my recent post where I addressed this very issue. But to recap...

Indeed, Nova Roma is not now, and likely never will be a perfect recreation
of the Roman Republic. (For one thing, to point to "The Roman Republic" and
say "it was like X" is a misnomer, because the institutions and culture of
Roma Antiqua were constantly changing.) However, it is possible to break
down those elements of Roman society, politics, religion, etc. into four
categories:

* Things we never want (such as involuntary slavery and oppression of women)
* Things we absolutely need right now to function (Assemblies, the Senate,
etc.)
* Things we don't need, but don't hurt right now (lictores, legions)
* Things we should put off for now (animal sacrifice, 10 Tribunis Plebis,
etc.)

Do you want to know why the Tribunis Plebis must act collegially, and why
their power of intercessio is limited to acts which contravene the
Constitution? It's certainly not part of the Republica Antiqua, I'll grant
you. It's because it simply wouldn't work in our present situation. 10
people able to veto the act of any magistrate they don't like, for any
reason? It might work in a situation where all business is done
face-to-face, but in our current situation it would be complete gridlock.
Nothing would ever get done.

However, that does not mean we are not always striving towards an
ever-more-correct approximation. As our means, our population, and our
situation changes, more things in category 3 will become instituted, and
more things in category 4 may move into category 3.

Someday, I honestly and earnestly hope that we will have ten Tribunis
Plebis, with the full powers and authorities of their office. But until that
time, we must make do with a compromise so that we can continue to function
in our current state.

Nova Roma is not a goal, I fear, but a process which will never be complete.
As we progress, so to does our approximation of the Roman Republic. Even I,
perhaps the leader of the hard-line "reconstructionist" point of view,
understands that compromise is necessary to be able to function day-to-day.
But to that I say, if change is to be made as we grow, make that change in
the direction of Roma Antiqua, not modern America.

Clientage? Bring it on! We discussed having such early on, but couldn't
figure out how to make it work. Maybe now that we have a larger population
and more established centers of political power, it could be more workable.
Such innovations bring us ever-closer to Roma Antiqua. But "social gender"?
Leave it in the 21st century where it belongs.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Candidate for Consul

http://www.goldenfuture.net/germanicus

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Big News - eGroups is becoming Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details:
http://click.egroups.com/1/10801/1/_/61050/_/976763227/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Nova Roma and Modernity
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 04:16:50 -0000

Germanicus scripsit:>
> Clientage? Bring it on! We discussed having such early on, but
couldn't figure out how to make it work. Maybe now that we have a
larger population and more established centers of political power, it
could be more workable.

LIVIA RESPONDEO:
I hope we never figure out how to make it work. I for one am
disinterested in participating in a system that encourages clientage.
Hopefully the day we allow clientage as an accepted practice is the
day those who are speaking for it here and now find themselves playing
alone in the forum. That seems to be ok with them anyway.

I am my own woman. A 21st c one, informed at a fundamental level by
Roman ideals. I second the opinion of others.....I came here for NOVA
Roma....a new Rome, a place to find a community of others in study and
discussion of Roman culture, archaeology, literature, history,
religion, etc.

I didn't come for blood sacrifices (even discussing it threatens to
kick me back into vegetarianism - it is anathema to me), or clientage,
or factionalism.

I hope in the time after the election we can regroup and get
perspective on exactly what we're trying to be, and how to be it. And
I hope the view encompasses the growth of the micronation with a
flexibility to accomodate all its cives.

Livia Cornelia Aurelia

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976767421/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Nova Roma and Modernity (an additional)
From:	Craig Stevenson <dougies@-------->
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 16:41:10 +1030

Ave all,

> I agree with this on all levels. There are many evils inherent in Roman
> society that we should not recreate, and the client-patron system is one
> of those. It prevents the development of mutual respect between people
> that should be able to exist. It creates greater social divisions than
> already exist. It creates an inferiority factor, and requires a compromise
> that is self-degredating to the client, while the patron reaps the
> benefits. This system could only benefit those who already wield great
> influence at the cost of the few who have none. I too share Livia's view
> that I hope this system is never worked out.

Sacrifice of blood is also an evil we can do without.

These are just some opinions, I'm not nessecarily saying that people should
agree with me, but I hope they consider my arguement.

Valete bene all,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

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

> Germanicus scripsit:>
> > Clientage? Bring it on! We discussed having such early on, but
> couldn't figure out how to make it work. Maybe now that we have a
> larger population and more established centers of political power, it
> could be more workable.
>
> LIVIA RESPONDEO:
> I hope we never figure out how to make it work. I for one am
> disinterested in participating in a system that encourages clientage.
> Hopefully the day we allow clientage as an accepted practice is the
> day those who are speaking for it here and now find themselves playing
> alone in the forum. That seems to be ok with them anyway.
>
> I am my own woman. A 21st c one, informed at a fundamental level by
> Roman ideals. I second the opinion of others.....I came here for NOVA
> Roma....a new Rome, a place to find a community of others in study and
> discussion of Roman culture, archaeology, literature, history,
> religion, etc.
>
> I didn't come for blood sacrifices (even discussing it threatens to
> kick me back into vegetarianism - it is anathema to me), or clientage,
> or factionalism.
>
> I hope in the time after the election we can regroup and get
> perspective on exactly what we're trying to be, and how to be it. And
> I hope the view encompasses the growth of the micronation with a
> flexibility to accomodate all its cives.
>
> Livia Cornelia Aurelia
>
> I agree with this on all levels. There are many evils inherent in Roman
> society that we should not recreate, and the client-patron system is one
> of those. It prevents the development of mutual respect between people
> that should be able to exist. It creates greater social divisions than
> already exist. It creates an inferiority factor, and requires a compromise
> that is self-degredating to the client, while the patron reaps the
> benefits. This system could only benefit those who already wield great
> influence at the cost of the few who have none. I too share Livia's view
> that I hope this system is never worked out.

Sacrifice of blood is also an evil we can do without.

These are just some opinions, I'm not nessecarily saying that people should
agree with me, but I hope they consider my arguement.

Valete bene all,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Big News - eGroups is becoming Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details:
http://click.egroups.com/1/10801/1/_/61050/_/976774729/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Nova Roma and Modernity
From:	Lucilla Cornelia Cinna <CorneliaLucilla@-------->
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:04:07 +0100

Liviae Corneliae Aureliae sorori Lucilla Cornelia Cinna sdp

Livia Aurelia scripsit

> I am my own woman. A 21st c one, informed at a fundamental level by
> Roman ideals. I second the opinion of others.....I came here for NOVA
> Roma....a new Rome, a place to find a community of others in study and
> discussion of Roman culture, archaeology, literature, history,
> religion, etc.

I perfectly agree.
We will have to improvise and compromise while reconciling ancient and
modern ideas about humanity, culture, civilisation and politics, and we
must not urge people willing to partake this project, into schemes and
roles they will not accept, just because those schemes and roles are
part of a reconstruction.

> I didn't come for blood sacrifices (even discussing it threatens to
> kick me back into vegetarianism - it is anathema to me),

This is something ... I have a quite different opinion about. I
definitely feel disgusted and appalled at our food industry. I can't
imagine that there can be anything more disrespectful for the universe
we are part of, than the way we "produce" meat.

No sermon following, just this: Imvho, to kill animals that has been
honoured and adorned with garlands, in honour of a god, to celebrate a
feast as a community of human beings feeling sheltered and supported by
this god, prepare their meat for a common banquet to share and burn
their fat and bones for that particular god - oi you really think this
is less civilized than the industrialized massacre we are allowing to
happen everyday - just to have our usual burgers and steaks?

Sorry, can't resist asking mean questions sometimes ... ;o)

> I hope in the time after the election we can regroup and get
> perspective on exactly what we're trying to be, and how to be it. And
> I hope the view encompasses the growth of the micronation with a
> flexibility to accomodate all its cives.

Another point we share ...
I don't participate much in these discussions. In fact, I try to avoid
it and stay away as far as I can.

Imho the arguments are but astounding sometimes. Is there any reason - I
mean ... a real reason for all that animosity?
We're trying to build up something great! So why acting small by tearing
down everything someone else said or did?

Di vos bene protegant.

Lucilla Cornelia Cinna

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.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/_/976777333/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Nova Roma and Modernity
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 03:26:34 -0700

Lucilla Cornelia Cinna wrote:

> No sermon following, just this: Imvho, to kill animals that has been
> honoured and adorned with garlands, in honour of a god, to celebrate a
> feast as a community of human beings feeling sheltered and supported by
> this god, prepare their meat for a common banquet to share and burn
> their fat and bones for that particular god - oi you really think this
> is less civilized than the industrialized massacre we are allowing to
> happen everyday - just to have our usual burgers and steaks?
>

LIVIA RESPONDEO: You're right. The sacrificial act could be seen as a
noble and honoring thing -- I would hope -- depending on the intention of
the rite. Whereas modern food industry practices are just horrid. Which is
why I pay premium for free-range meats whenever possible.....but that's
another discussion.

For any purpose, butchering and blood just makes me queasy. More than the
list needs to know. ;)

Livia

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Get info by phone: it's fast & easy. Call 800-555-TELL.
Sports, stocks, driving directions...& much more!
http://click.egroups.com/1/10793/1/_/61050/_/976789175/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] NOTIFICATION OF INVALID VOTES
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 03:41:26 -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
1113 YW0325
1115 2154
1158 EXM833
1161 GS252
1169 YW1163

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
co--------t the ce--------s at ce--------s@-------- immediately a--------equest
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.

PLEASE NOTE: VOTING POLLS WILL BE CLOSING FRIDAY, DEC. 15
at 5 p.m. US Eastern time zone.

Livia Cornelia Aurelia
Rogator

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Get fast, easy info by phone: Call 800-555-TELL.
News, weather, restaurants... & much more!
http://click.egroups.com/1/10792/1/_/61050/_/976790067/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Blood Sacrifice + Nova Roma and Modernity, etc.
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:48:48 -0800

Salvete omnes

We must understand what animal sacrifice meant in ancient times. It is
hipocrisy (though probably unconscious) to speak against blood sacrifice and
still eat meat. Yes, in ancient times there was no special place to kill the
cattle and then send the meat to the butcher. In ancient times, animals were
publicly sacrificed and the meat was then distributed by the audience or
sold at low prices.
If one day Nova Roma starts that practice, it is because we have a
population that needs to be FED WITH MEAT!!!

I am a Pontifex. I would be unable to kill an animal with my own hands and
have my personal reserves towards blood sacrifice. Fortunately ancient Rome
has also the precedent of allowing "victimarii" (i.e. butchers) to kill the
animal instead of the "sacrificator" (priest presiding the sacrifice)
himself. The "victimarii" would kill the animal when ordered by the
"sacrificator". After that, the "sacrificator" would offer some selecred
parts of the animal at the altar.
So, as I see it, the "victimarii" is a good evidence for the urban role of
the sacrifice (i.e. to feed the urban population with meat) which concured
with the religious role. In fact, the word "sacrificium" was used for all
types of offering, namely vegetables, and referred more to the offering at
the altar than to the actual killing of the animal.

But, maybe you don't know, Rome has also the precedent for the NOT HAVING
BLOOD SACRIFICES! It was still during Monarchy, during the reign of Numa
Pompilius. That sage king and priest of the Romans, who is the legendary
founder of many traditional institutions such as the Vestals, stopped blood
sacrifice and allowed the sacrifice of vegetables and fake figures (!!!)
only. Nevertheless, after his death, the practice of blood sacrifice
returned as few were willing to be strict vegetarians.
This is only to say that the Collegium Pontificum has a precedent to allow
sacrifice of vegetables and fake figures only if that is the norm of future
societies.

Another thing. Though I'm seen by many as a member of the "optimates" or
"conservative faction" in Nova Roma, I must say that I value humanity. Maybe
I'm somewhat in disagreement with my esteemed friend and Consul Q. F.
Maximus. The values of humanity were as Roman as any other values. One must
only read ancient authors like Cicero, Lucretius, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius in
order to learn that humanity and the generosity towards the fellow human
were very Roman. And if someone argues that this humanity was only the
characteristic of the philosophers, my answer will be that I prefer to be
with the philosophers than with the ignorant crowd if the crown is in fact
ignorant.
In other words, I'm not with the soldier who stabbed Archimedes in Syracuse
for stupidity and excess of zeal when the city was taken. I'm rather with
Consul Metellus who mourned the death of Archimedes, recognising his
greatness, even though Archimedes helped to fight the Roman fleet.

Valete in pace deorum

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex, Senator, Magistratus, Civis

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976790967/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Nova Roma and Modernity
From:	"Marc " <RexMarcius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:49:26 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Les Peterson" <procopious@h...> wrote:
> Lucius Mauricius Procopious Omnibus SPD
>
> As an interested voter I would like to know from the candidates what
> concessions they think we should make for the era we live in?

Salve Luci Maurici Procopi!

Let me give you a brief answer as one of the Candidates for the high
office of Censor.

Nova Roma yearns to be a state. It is thought to be Roma
antiqua "reborn", but we must accept that times have changed since
Roma antiqua "died". Human rights are the one basic concept that each
and every state will have to accept today in order to be recognized
as a legitimate entity in the international order. We are far, very
far indeed from this goal, but even at the stage we are in now, we
cannot quite close our eyes to it:

Human rights are not a concession but a precondition for our very
existence.

Apart from this, we should, in my view, try to have as many parallels
to our ancestral forefathers (and -mothers I might add) as possible
and workable (hence the very reasonable approach towards the
Tribunician veto powers) to deepen our understanding of how the Roman
system of government, religion etc. functioned under (almost) real
life conditions.

And to all those who say, if you do not like it the way it is, leave.
Well I guess a different answer is more appropriate. If you do not
like it, VOTE. Everyone who has been granted citizenship has this
right. Unfortunately those who would not now want to have some
citizens exercise that right under the Constitution, forgot to
implement a clause saying: "This Constitution can never be changed
and only be interpreted by the following persons: X,Y,Z...". In Roma
antiqua the system was changed all the time under the familiar cries
of "Conservatives" that this should not be done (and e.g. in the case
of the Gracchis with more than just loudly voiced opposition).

Formosanus, therefore, represents - in my eyes - a very old Roman
tradition of people aspiring to have reforms implemented for the
better of all citizens (or did anyone think, all he wanted was to
place a digital bomb under the Curia Hostilia once admitted to the
Senate?: a note to Censor Sulla, who so easily misunderstands: No,
according to my knowledge, he does NOT want to place a digital bomb
there)).

As a Censor, I would support a position where ALL people with an
interest in Roma antiqua, regardless whether they would support
Germanicus or Formosanus and their respective visions in the
election, could become citizens.

A permanent dictatorship by people who will only accept ONE way of
accomplishing a common goal ("and if you don't like it, leave!")
would certainly not suit me. If this ever is established as the Nova
Roma way of doing things, I will leave immediately.

I hope this clarifies my position

Marcus Marcius Rex
Candidate for Censor
Amicus Dignitatis

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976790974/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Nova Roma and Modernity
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:57:07 -0800

Marc wrote:

> --- In novaroma@--------, "Les Peterson" <procopious@h...> wrote:
> > Lucius Mauricius Procopious Omnibus SPD
> >
> > As an interested voter I would like to know from the candidates what
> > concessions they think we should make for the era we live in?
>
> Salve Luci Maurici Procopi!
>
> Let me give you a brief answer as one of the Candidates for the high
> office of Censor.
>
> Nova Roma yearns to be a state. It is thought to be Roma
> antiqua "reborn", but we must accept that times have changed since
> Roma antiqua "died". Human rights are the one basic concept that each
> and every state will have to accept today in order to be recognized
> as a legitimate entity in the international order. We are far, very
> far indeed from this goal, but even at the stage we are in now, we
> cannot quite close our eyes to it:
>

We have rights. For those who convienently read part of posts. Please,
PLEASE refer to the Constitution of Nova Roma Section II,P. In there it
enumerates the rights of all Nova Romans. How convinent these amici
dignitas folks keep on harping about rights yet they never seem to read the
Constitution?

Espically M. Marcius Rex, who is hoping that the People of Nova Roma will
appoint him to the very important position of Censor, yet has only held the
Governorship of one provinca for less than a year, if I recall correctly.

I would think it would be more honorable to complete the Cursus Honorum than
to take pot shots (inaccurate pot shots at that) at someone who might be
one's colleague. But in the case of M. Marcius Rex, I guess it doesn't.

Oh, and i didnt make any comment about a bomb, at least not that I recall.
That was from M. Apollonius's own mouth (post) regarding his "Manifesto."
(Posted on the main list by Graecus.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

>
> Human rights are not a concession but a precondition for our very
> existence.
>
> Apart from this, we should, in my view, try to have as many parallels
> to our ancestral forefathers (and -mothers I might add) as possible
> and workable (hence the very reasonable approach towards the
> Tribunician veto powers) to deepen our understanding of how the Roman
> system of government, religion etc. functioned under (almost) real
> life conditions.
>
> And to all those who say, if you do not like it the way it is, leave.
> Well I guess a different answer is more appropriate. If you do not
> like it, VOTE. Everyone who has been granted citizenship has this
> right. Unfortunately those who would not now want to have some
> citizens exercise that right under the Constitution, forgot to
> implement a clause saying: "This Constitution can never be changed
> and only be interpreted by the following persons: X,Y,Z...". In Roma
> antiqua the system was changed all the time under the familiar cries
> of "Conservatives" that this should not be done (and e.g. in the case
> of the Gracchis with more than just loudly voiced opposition).
>
> Formosanus, therefore, represents - in my eyes - a very old Roman
> tradition of people aspiring to have reforms implemented for the
> better of all citizens (or did anyone think, all he wanted was to
> place a digital bomb under the Curia Hostilia once admitted to the
> Senate?: a note to Censor Sulla, who so easily misunderstands: No,
> according to my knowledge, he does NOT want to place a digital bomb
> there)).
>
> As a Censor, I would support a position where ALL people with an
> interest in Roma antiqua, regardless whether they would support
> Germanicus or Formosanus and their respective visions in the
> election, could become citizens.
>
> A permanent dictatorship by people who will only accept ONE way of
> accomplishing a common goal ("and if you don't like it, leave!")
> would certainly not suit me. If this ever is established as the Nova
> Roma way of doing things, I will leave immediately.
>
> I hope this clarifies my position
>
> Marcus Marcius Rex
> Candidate for Censor
> Amicus Dignitatis
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976791533/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: WDE (and so forth)
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:02:51 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Emj Emj" <emj@t...> wrote:
> Become a Diplomat of WDE - WORLDWIDE UNION FOR DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGE
> ( Agent - Consul - Ambassador )

I suppose as Curatrix Sermonem I should simply quash this obvious
spammer, but honestly, it sounds like some of the people of Nova Roma
could use a course of diplomatic training...

I realize this topic has been hashed and rehashed, but I did think it
was funny that Cassius went around the house this morning introducing
himself to me as "Hi, I'm the inventor of the debate!"

It is true that we have no mobs, no violence and really very
civilized arguments, most of the time. However, we also have no
scholarship fund, no land fund, no public events of our own. We are
not developing new historical information for our Web site; the Eagle
has all but fallen dormant for lack of participation. These seem to
me to be sufficient challenges for anyone who aspires to leadership
in Nova Roma.

Patricia Cassia

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Make FREE long-distance calls with Tellme!
Just dial 1-800-555-TELL.
http://click.egroups.com/1/10794/1/_/61050/_/976798979/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Nova Roma and Modernity
From:	"Marc " <RexMarcius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:52:04 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@e...>
wrote:

Salvete omnes!

I cannot help it, but Sulla's post has put a broad, almost painful
grin on my face. Sorry, Luci, but I find myself quite amused by your
comments.

>
> We have rights. For those who convienently read part of posts.
Please,
> PLEASE refer to the Constitution of Nova Roma Section II,P. In
there it
> enumerates the rights of all Nova Romans. How convinent these amici
> dignitas folks keep on harping about rights yet they never seem to
read the
> Constitution?
>

What, we have a constitution? Where? I have NEVER heard of it? Why
has no one EVER mentioned it to me? Is this one of your tricks,
Sulla? I am absolutely certain, that there is NO constitution in Nova
Roma etc., etc., etc.......Oh, now I found it, sorry, Luci, and thank
you for telling me about it. I am deeply grateful to you for it.

But seriously......

Of COURSE there are rights in the Nova Roma constitution. One of them
is free speech (and you exercise THAT right quite sqanderingly). lol

The thing is....."We do not have rights in Nova Roma" was in no way
the point I was making. You obviously have no idea what a human right
is. It is a right you have not because you are American, Austrian or
Nova Roman...it is a right you have because you are a human being and
it can not be denied ANYWHERE by ANY state. And by that I was
responding to the question a citizen has posed (publicly I might add
and also mentioned at the beginning of my statement).

> Espically

Hmmm, my English is not as good as yours, what does it mean? Please
explain (note to a certain Censor: No, I know what ti porbbaly maens,
it ened not eb epxlaiend!)

> M. Marcius Rex, who is hoping that the People of Nova Roma will
> appoint him to the very important position of Censor, yet has only
held the
> Governorship of one provinca for less than a year, if I recall
correctly.

Hmmmmmm, is that meant to be an insult? I do not regard it as one. Oh
and you forgot to mention that you made me a senator a short while
ago!

>
> I would think it would be more honorable to complete the Cursus
Honorum than
> to take pot shots (inaccurate pot shots at that) at someone who
might be
> one's colleague. But in the case of M. Marcius Rex, I guess it
doesn't.

Oh, Luci, Luci...come on, I was once critizised in the Senate for
having no humour....And it must be true because I find your posts so
extremely funny I almost roar with laughter now...Are you so
dependent in your self esteem on your Nova Roma titles? Get a
life!!!!!! lol I have done more in MY life than govern a Nova Roma
province.

>
> Oh, and i didnt make any comment about a bomb, at least not that I
recall.
> That was from M. Apollonius's own mouth (post) regarding
his "Manifesto."
> (Posted on the main list by Graecus.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Of course you did not say anything like that, my
dear Censor Sulla. It was just to reassure you personally that
nothing like that is planned!!! I thought you might take Formosanus
to the Praetor's court because you might misunderstand the sarcasm in
the post. It was just to make ABSOLUTELY clear that I was not
offering evidence against a Formosanus plot to annihilate the Senate.
Well at least you proved me right in how easily you misunderstand
things and how necessary it is to explain VERY carefully the meaning
of a post to you. Maybe I should have put a :) in somewhere, as
this seems to be the language you understand. :)

It would be quite a delightful and funny time (for me at least) if we
could serve together as Censor.

Your very humble

Marcus Marcius Rex
Candidate for Censor
Titles too numerous to be posted lololol

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976805534/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] New Comitia Curiata eGroups List
From:	cassius622@--------
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:10:57 EST

Salvete,

This message is for the Lictors of Nova Roma, the Comitia Curiata.

A new Egroups list for the Lictors has been set up at:
<A HREF="http://www.egroups.com/group/ComitiaCuriata">http://www.egroups.com/group/ComitiaCuriata</A>

This list will be the main means of communication for the Lictors of Nova
Roma. (My apologies for those already subscribed to too many lists... please
don't forget the "daily digest" or even the "read on web only" options which
will reduce your email traffic.)

This list is open only to the Lictors of Nova Roma, and also to the Pontiffs
as the Comitia Curiata is under their juristiction.

To subscribe to the Comitia Curiata list, send a blank email to:

ComitiaCuriata-subscribe@--------

The intention of this list is to not only provide a means for calling the
Comitia Curia together, but hopefully also as a place to more fully develop
the Lictoral position within Nova Roma.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pontifex Maximus

[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/_/976810263/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Attention Lictors! (Roll call)
From:	cassius622@--------
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:16:48 EST

Salvete, Omnes,

At the end of the elections, the Comitia Curiata will be needed to witness
the passing of Imperium to the new magistrates. Before that time I would like
to "call the roll" as it were, and see who is still active, and still wishes
to hold the position of Lictor.

The following Citizens were appointed as Lictors during the dictatorship of
Flavius Vedius Germanicus:

************************
Gaius Iunius Germanus, T Labienus Fortunatus, Gaius Drusus Domitianus,
Camillus Severus Antoninus, Flavius Vedius Germanicus, Decius Iunius
Palladius, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Quinta Claudia Lucentia Aprica, Lucius
Fabius Metellus, Augustina Iulia Caesaria Nocturnia, Lucinia Iunia Cypria,
Marcus Martianus Gangalius, Marcus Minucius Audens, Junius Niger Montis,
Gaius Olivarius Mezentius, Paulus Olympius Gallus, Lucius Petronius Gallus,
Gaius Severus Marius Germanicus, Ambrosius Silvanus Virbius, Gnaeus
Tarquinius Caesar, Titia Irisia, Gaius Triumphius Cicero, Piperbaru Ullerius
Venator, Gaius Antonius Scaenicus, Gaius Augustus, Tiberius Caselius
Sidonius, Publius Claudius Lucentius Severus, Marcus Equitius Lentulus, and
Marcus Cornelius Felix.
************************************

If your name is on this list, please send me an Email at: Cassius622@--------,
or to subscribe to the new ComitiaCuriata eGroups list by sending a blank
email to:

ComitiaCuriata-subscribe@--------

If you still wish to hold the position of Lictor please inform me and/or
subscribe to the new Comitia Curiata list by Monday, December 18th. After
that time the Collegium Pontificum will review the Comitia Curiata list, to
see how many of the 30 Lictor positions are still active. Inactive names will
be dropped, and other Citizens will be invited to apply for the vacant
positions. (Note, there is no age limit on being a Lictor, so the position is
open to all Citizens of Nova Roma.)

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pontifex Maximus

[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/_/976810618/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Deliberate Verbal Conflict
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:49:45 -0500 (EST)

Salvete, Friends, Nova Romans and Countrymen;

I too am somewhat confused by the continuous outcry regarding Civil
Rights. In my view I see no violation of Civil Rights here in NR, but I
do hear a continuous diatribe about such. The constant hammering on one
idea which was not granted to an individual(s) which now continues to
disrupt everything that is being done, gets very tiringand frustrating
for all of Nova Roma, not just for the interested few. As has been said
here many times before, each of us has our view of NR, and each of us
has our major and minor interests, and each of us has a certain amount
of time to devote to NR away from the other aspects of our lives. How
much longer are we to be sentenced to this continual wrangling with
words already many times said???

This incessant harping on a single aspect gets on everyone's nerves.
The Senate has made a decision, because the Comitia was not available.
If that was erroneus or wrong in your view, then do something about it,
besides hammer at it with words, which simply makes everyone more
uncomfortable and takes away the enjoyment of why we are here. My
Consular Colleague has indicated (no doubt out of extreme frustration)
that perhaps those who do not agree should go somewhere else. I am not
sure that I would go that far, but on the other hand I did not join NR
to listen to constant complaints from those who did not get thier way.

There have been several items brought before the Senate in which I did
not get my way as well, but I seriously doubt that any Civ, (not
reviewing past voting records) can determine which items these are. In
short, I believe that when the Senate makes a decision, then that ends
that particular activity, and if I disagree, then it is time to work on
a solution to put before the August Fathers to change the situation or
accept the decision and move on. My continual harping and crying about
the past activities will not help me at all in this venue, and it
definately takes away the enjoyment of the sharing of information that I
came here to enjoy.

By continuing this constant complaint, you disrupt the enjoyment of
others, you decend into insults and derrogatory statements, and you set
up the future activities of the next group of Magistrates, to be
accomplished in an arena of anger, frustration and hurt feelings. Do
you really suppose that the lie you throw into another's teeth today,
can be recinded by a written apology, no matter how sincere tomorrow?
Do you really suppose that a sarcastic dig referring to parentage,
intelligence level, or commion sense ability delivered on the Main List
in the early days of an election can be rectified by a "coming together"
after the election. If you do think those above highly unlikely
attributes to be possible, then I wish you the best of your visions for
in my forty-five years of dealing with people on an every day basis. I
have definately found such NOT to be the case!!!!!! No, my friends, it
doesn't work that way!!!!

I ask you all, to consider your speech and actions. Consider those
whose enjoyment you disrupt. Consider those whose feelings you hurt,
and consider those whose characters you damage, with your incessant
words, words and more words hammering on the same topic with little hope
of success. If your interest is Civil Rights, form a Sodalitas to that
subject, recruit your followers, consider proposals to place before the
Senate, support Candidates for that August Body, make your ideas felt
through work and not words. Since there are no Impeachment Activities
announced on the List at this time I must assume that you do not feel
yourselves bound by such outrage as to pursue that effort. Just enough
to destroy the enjoyment of the Majority. Please, leave us, who are not
infatuated with your needs, to enjoy NR in other areas, without your
continued interruption, interrpretations, and lengthy pontification on a
subject already beaten to death.

Valete, Respectfully;
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/_/976812587/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Nova Roma and Modernity
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:21:41 US/Central

T Labienus L Mauricio Quiritibusque S P D

Before I start, I must warn everyone that this is a very long post. Also, I
touch upon some issues that many consider dead, the meat having been whipped
off their bones months ago. I've tried to keep my comments confined to a
simple statement of my beliefs, and nothing more.

> As an interested voter I would like to know from the candidates what
> concessions they think we should make for the era we live in? For example, we
> let women vote now. That was not the practice in ancient times. Why make that
> adjustment to fit in with current practice yet argue against certain civil
> rights as unauthentic? Why does either party drawn the line of inclusion
> where you do? Could you please tell us your own views, I think we all get the
> idea that you don't like each others ideas?

I rather suspect that the outcome of this election is a fait accompli by now,
but the answers to L Mauricius� questions are more important than this one
election. They�re also not very easy questions to answer quickly or
conclusively.

First, though, I�d like to once again point out that I don�t consider myself a
member of a political party, and that I don�t believe that Nova Roma currently
has any political parties. Instead, we have what M Apollonius has
called �tendencies;� loose collections of people who tend to agree with each
other in principle. I point this out because of L Mauricius� use of the word
in his questions.

To begin, I think that we must admit a certain fact. No Nova Roman citizen has
grown up in the society of ancient Roma. Each of us is a modern person, with
modern ideas of the way that the world works. M Mucius is absolutely right
when he says that the �gender edictum� and its fallout are the results of
modern thinking.

And so, anything we do will, to some degree, be unauthentic. Even an attempt
to legislate social behavior in order to force us into the ancient mold is
unauthentic. I also feel that such an attempt is sorely misguided, and a
terrible mistake. It is one thing to ask that us to name ourselves using
correct Latin. It is quite another to attempt to force us to accept ancient
gender norms.

On the other hand, we must also make the attempt to adopt ancient practices.
Otherwise, we really will wind up losing that which makes Nova Roma unique.
Therefore, we must carefully consider which elements we want to keep, and which
will not serve us well. It is for this reason that I believe that the ongoing
dialogue here is vital to the res publica�s health, even if it does become ugly
from time to time.

Several issues have already been raised in response to L Mauricius� questions.
In an effort to show where I stand in respect to where to place the �line of
inclusion,� I�ll state my opinion on some of these issues.

First, I�ll tackle the �gender edictum� and its related issues. It is a given
that ancient Romans discriminated heavily on the basis of sex. Nova Roma, on
the other hand, states in its constitution and other official documents that we
do not accept such discrimination. It is my opinion that no law, edictum, etc.
should be made which includes such discrimination, except where such
discrimination is absolutely necessary.

By discrimination, I mean exactly what the word connotes; establishing
different practices for different sexes. Only in the case of such things as
pregnancy and diseases of the genitalia is such discrimination actually
necessary. It is not necessary in the case of one�s name, despite a desire to
conform with ancient practices, dislike for homosexuals, or any other reason I
can come up with. As M Mucius has so rightly pointed out, it is fruitless to
attempt to legislate social norms.

Second, I�ll talk about implementing a bill of rights. One may take my
argument against the �gender edictum� to mean that I am opposed to a bill of
rights. One would be wrong. A bill of rights, as I see it, should not be an
attempt to legislate social matters. Instead, it should contain guarantees
that define the tone of the government�s interaction with any individual
citizen. It should be a protection against arbitrary and incorrect actions of
government, such as trying an individual several times for the same crime.

M Mucius has argued against bills of rights because they are sometimes
ineffective, and because it is the judicial and legislative climate that
determines whether or not they are useful. However, they do provide a
benchmark against which governmental actions can be measured. At the very
least, they can lend credence to a citizen�s complaints.

It has also been stated that Nova Roma already has a bill of rights in its
constitution. For those who don�t know, these rights include a) complete
authority over one�s private religious practice, b) the �right and obligation�
to be subject to the laws of one�s macronation, c) the right to vote, d) the
right to participate in state-sponsored media of communication, e) the right to
sue magistrates whose decisions negatively impact oneself, f) the right to
remain secure in one�s home and property, g) the right to �seek and receive
assistance from the state in matters of religious and social dispute�--within
and without Nova Roma, and h) the right to join the Ordo Equester.

These rights are incomplete, and have been taken by some to mean that cives
have no other inherent rights. (Some of them, like c) for instance, are also
terribly problematic, but that�s a matter for another very long discussion.) I
disagree with this stance wholeheartedly. Our founding statement claims
that, �We strive to exist as a lawful, peaceful and benign nation, in accord
with the principles acknowledged and shared by the world community.� As M
Marcius has pointed out, that world community, despite notable exceptions
(almost all of which are not generally included when one speaks of Western
civilization), generally accepts certain standards of human rights.

While it is possible to quibble about the details, these rights generally
include the right to remain secure in one�s person; the right to free speech;
the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of religion, race, or
sexual preference; and the right to be treated fairly by one�s government.
Nova Roma�s current bill of rights includes the first two, but it only
partially addresses the third and fourth. Most likely in parallel with M
Cassius, I have been working on a draft of a law that would more firmly
establish such rights in our government, and, whether I am elected or not, I
will share it with the consules in order that it might be improved, finished,
and presented to the people.

Finally, clientage is easy to address; it is institutionalized corruption, and
it has no place in any government. It may be useful to us as some form of
apprenticeship, but we have many better ways to implement such a thing through
the gentes, various scribal offices, and sodalitates.

Valete

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976814503/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Deliberate Verbal Conflict
From:	Oppius Flaccus <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:49:32 -0800 (PST)

Salvete Quirites,

Though I realize that "me too" posts are not
encouraged on this list, as one of Nova Roma's newest
members and someone that has watched the list in much
frustration I must second (or third, fourth or fifth)
the motion that Enough is Enough!

It might be useful for those concerned to see a
response from a new member, as the list seems to be
dominated by the same handful of people, espousing the
same tired and non-productive issues and fostering the
same interpersonal rivalries. The positive messages
and newer ideas on this list are continually lost in
the din and clatter and endless repetitive discussion
on genital configurations, disruptive special interest
groups and interpersonal bickering.

Speaking as a new citizen of Nova Roma, if the NR
mailing list had been my only guide, I never would
have joined! I looked way beyond the list itself to
see all the great things that Nova Roma stood for and
the quality of many of its members, along with the
enormous potential for advancement and previous
achievements. I wonder though, if other guests to this
list will choose to give NR the benefit of the doubt
when they consider applying for citizenship.

If citizens are unable or unwilling to help advance
Nova Roma forward in a positive manner (as you say
Consul Audens, none of us will ever get all that we
want in this or any society,) then either take it off
line in a SIG or custom newsgroup or go away! I've
looked at the credentials of some of the most vocal
citizens in these postings and must say that they are
quite impressive. Now, if only these skills and
knowledge sets could be used for the growth instead of
the erosion of our great nation! Think of the time
that could have been saved and redirected toward more
positive endeavors!

One additional point before signing off. (Not
necessarily a new one, but perhaps phrased
differently.) Ancient Romans were extremely tough,
thick-skinned people. (Emphasis on 'thick skinned.')
This is a factor that we should all consider when we
decide to 'what degree' we choose to emulate our pater
nation. The Romans built a nation out of nothing and
managed to grow and maintain it for hundreds of years.
We should ALL look inside ourselves and consider what
this really means. Do we have what it takes to be
worthy of the forefathers we seek to emulate? Can we
really deal with the extreme difficulties of building
a great nation? Are we strong enough to deal
productively with those that have views that differ
from ours? Maybe another reading trip through the
ancient sources will help individuals answer this for
themselves. For me, it has already been answered in
the affirmative.

In closing, if you've taken the time to read my entire
post then please accept my sincere thanks. If you
disagree, then I respect your right to do so. Note
that having said my peace, I for one don't intend to
debate it ad naseaum as there are too many other
growth-oriented NR projects that demand attention!

Valete,
-Oppius Flaccus Severus

--- jmath669642reng@-------- wrote:
> Salvete, Friends, Nova Romans and Countrymen;
>
> I too am somewhat confused by the continuous outcry
> regarding Civil
> Rights. In my view I see no violation of Civil
> Rights here in NR, but I
> do hear a continuous diatribe about such. The
> constant hammering on one
> idea which was not granted to an individual(s) which
> now continues to
> disrupt everything that is being done, gets very
> tiringand frustrating
> for all of Nova Roma, not just for the interested
> few. As has been said
> here many times before, each of us has our view of
> NR, and each of us
> has our major and minor interests, and each of us
> has a certain amount
> of time to devote to NR away from the other aspects
> of our lives. How
> much longer are we to be sentenced to this continual
> wrangling with
> words already many times said???
>
> This incessant harping on a single aspect gets on
> everyone's nerves.
> The Senate has made a decision, because the Comitia
> was not available.
> If that was erroneus or wrong in your view, then do
> something about it,
> besides hammer at it with words, which simply makes
> everyone more
> uncomfortable and takes away the enjoyment of why we
> are here. My
> Consular Colleague has indicated (no doubt out of
> extreme frustration)
> that perhaps those who do not agree should go
> somewhere else. I am not
> sure that I would go that far, but on the other hand
> I did not join NR
> to listen to constant complaints from those who did
> not get thier way.
>
> There have been several items brought before the
> Senate in which I did
> not get my way as well, but I seriously doubt that
> any Civ, (not
> reviewing past voting records) can determine which
> items these are. In
> short, I believe that when the Senate makes a
> decision, then that ends
> that particular activity, and if I disagree, then it
> is time to work on
> a solution to put before the August Fathers to
> change the situation or
> accept the decision and move on. My continual
> harping and crying about
> the past activities will not help me at all in this
> venue, and it
> definately takes away the enjoyment of the sharing
> of information that I
> came here to enjoy.
>
> By continuing this constant complaint, you disrupt
> the enjoyment of
> others, you decend into insults and derrogatory
> statements, and you set
> up the future activities of the next group of
> Magistrates, to be
> accomplished in an arena of anger, frustration and
> hurt feelings. Do
> you really suppose that the lie you throw into
> another's teeth today,
> can be recinded by a written apology, no matter how
> sincere tomorrow?
> Do you really suppose that a sarcastic dig referring
> to parentage,
> intelligence level, or commion sense ability
> delivered on the Main List
> in the early days of an election can be rectified by
> a "coming together"
> after the election. If you do think those above
> highly unlikely
> attributes to be possible, then I wish you the best
> of your visions for
> in my forty-five years of dealing with people on an
> every day basis. I
> have definately found such NOT to be the case!!!!!!
> No, my friends, it
> doesn't work that way!!!!
>
> I ask you all, to consider your speech and actions.
> Consider those
> whose enjoyment you disrupt. Consider those whose
> feelings you hurt,
> and consider those whose characters you damage, with
> your incessant
> words, words and more words hammering on the same
> topic with little hope
> of success. If your interest is Civil Rights, form
> a Sodalitas to that
> subject, recruit your followers, consider proposals
> to place before the
> Senate, support Candidates for that August Body,
> make your ideas felt
> through work and not words. Since there are no
> Impeachment Activities
> announced on the List at this time I must assume
> that you do not feel
> yourselves bound by such outrage as to pursue that
> effort. Just enough
> to destroy the enjoyment of the Majority. Please,
> leave us, who are not
> infatuated with your needs, to enjoy NR in other
> areas, without your
> continued interruption, interrpretations, and
> lengthy pontification on a
> subject already beaten to death.
>
> Valete, Respectfully;
> Marcus Audens
>
>
>
> Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
>
>
>
http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary
>
>

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

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976819774/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Romanitas Old and New
From:	"Nicolaus Moravius" <n_moravius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:50:56

Quiritibus salutem

As a Consular Candidate I would like to state briefly my position on certain
elements of the "Nova Roma and Modernity" debate. No - what the Hades, I'd
want to state them anyway...

1. CIVIL RIGHTS

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister put it very well, I thought: a Bill of Rights
may look like a wonderful idea, but simply having one doesn't guarantee
anything. Thus far, Britain has managed without a Bill of Rights yet is,
IMO, one of the world's comparatively "free" countries. There is no legal or
constitutional instrument that is proof against being twisted and abused by
anyone who would disrespect the spirit of the law as embodying good moral
conduct, but instead see only the letter of the law as game rules to win by.

Having said that, I feel that some sort of declaration of civil rights is
better than none - but I personally would like to see accompanying a Bill of
Rights, a Bill of Responsibilities. My view is that many social problems in
the modern western world are due to too many people insisting on having
rights, whilst regarding responsibility as anybody else's rather than theirs
(often, the nebulous "state"). So if we're to have a Bill of Rights, I want
a Bill of Responsibilities, too.

2. WOMEN IN SOCIETY

I believe men and women are basically the same from the neck up, even if
culturally differentiated. Much of recorded history relating to the position
of women in society is down to two basic factors (from the neck downwards):

a) Men generally have superior physical strength, which is of decreasing
importance in the modern world;
b) Reliable contraception has not been generally available until
comparatively recently.

There are, of course, certain cultural factors which might account for the
relative absence of women from Nova Roma's political life, and perhaps that
of NR as a whole. I wonder what the male/female citizen ratio is?

I generally prefer women to men - I won't go into all the reasons (!) but I
find them generally more co-operative, for instance. I would certainly like
to see more participation of women in NR's political life. We could do with
a lot less testosterone-fuelled rage here, for example.

How men can encourage women to participate more is an open question, and
perhaps better answered by them than by men.

3. BLOOD SACRIFICE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

I think Lucilla Cornelia Cinna put it beautifully. Tha ancient sacrificial
practice of slaughtering was far more humane, pious and dignified than the
industrial death-factory methods too often used in the modern world.

Note, however, that in Roman blood sacrifice only food animals are offered.
In my view, if you're not going to eat it, you have no other right to kill
it (except in self-defence). I am absolutely against the killing of animals
(including humans) for what is mis-named "sport" or "entertainment". I have
yet to see any religious sanction for this perverted practice, which
degrades humans below the spiritual level of their victims.

4. ON CLIENTELA

The Roman system of clientela is impossible to reconstruct without the
reinstitution of slavery. To equate a new, freeborn citizen of Nova Roma
with a libertus or liberta (freed slave with client obligations to former
owner) is insulting and degrading. What we would be left with in NR if we
had a patronage system without a class of ex-slaves, is nepotism,
favouritism, and corruption, falsely dignified as something allegedly Roman.
I am for the advancement of citizens on merit alone. My influence or support
is not negotiable through secret deals. I would hope no other magistrate
sells his favours in that way.

5. ON THE FITTING OUT OF TRIREMES

I am in favour of our future naval vessels being fitted out with gyroscopic
compass, radio transceivers, fire-extinguishers, life-belts, life-rafts,
distress flares, rocket lines etc. In a reconstructed historical vessel, let
them be stowed below, out of sight. You don't have to use them, but to
refuse to do so at need and at the risk of life would, IMO, be utterly
stupid - and disrespectful to the gods who gave you that life and the
ingenuity to invent such blessings.

6. NOVA ROMA - LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT - A THIRD OPTION

Nobody has to go away, but sometimes we do need to stay out of each other's
way. We are more than a city. We are an empire, already big enough to
encompass within our limes cultural beliefs and practices in the provinces
which Romans wouldn't have in Rome. If you don't like the way things are
done at the centre, and cannot either change them or work with them, you
only have to find some other part of our respublica where things are done
more to your liking. The respublica is broad, wide and culturally diverse -
and that should, in many ways, be a source of strength, not a threat to some
notion of purity. There were many degrees and varieties of Romanitas, and
different ways of showing it, just as today.

Avete

N. Moravius Vado

_____________________________________________________________________________________
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/_/976819857/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] NR & Modernity: Germanicus on "Social Gender"
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:49:26 -0500

Salvete!

I have to apologise to Germanicus for having omitted to cross-reference his
earlier post on things to be reconstructed, things not, things to be
reconstructed in future. However, I am not sure that the choices expressed
can claim any stronger status than personal preferences.

In particular, at the end of his message Germanicus wrote:

>But "social gender"? Leave it in the 21st century where it belongs.<

Actually, I've spent a little time just recently looking at some recent
literature on this issue and associated matters. There are a variety of
sources for women cross-dressing and cross-gender identifying in order to
participate in "male" activities from late antiquity, through the middle
ages, into the early modern period; I supplied some cites to Germanicus
off-list and can copy them to anyone interested. Cited somewhere whose
reference I have now lost is an instance from classical Athens of a woman
cross-dressing in order to study philosophy; the reference said the story
was possibly apocryphal, but it is classical, so we are not talking about
unthinkables here.

There is also some relevant discussion in
Craig A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality (OUP, 1999)
and
Hallett & Skinner ed., Roman Sexualities (Princeton, 1997)
>From these discussions it seems that the Romans identified both the
cinaedus (ex Greek) or mollis, or effeminate man, and the tribadis or
masculine lesbian, as types of hermaphrodite, thus using the concept in a
much wider sense than we do in modernity. There are a few recorded
instances of same-sex marriage, and one story retailed by the elder Pliny
of a woman who married, divorced, "changed sex" and married again as the
husband.
Again the implication is that we are not talking about
unthinkables. No doubt Cato would have disapproved, and certainly Juvenal
did; but that's different from cross-gender identification being a modern
invention.

So I respond to this point of Germanicus':

"But legal gender name regulation? Leave it in the 19th and 20th centuries
where it belongs."

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/_/976822120/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Deliberate Verbal Conflict
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:34:24 -0500

Salve Audens,

I don't think your post under this title is justified.

1. A magistrate issued a controversial Edict. There was extensive
controversy both in the Senate and on the Main List, but the matter was not
- and still has not been - put to the Comitia. The nearest approach was an
opinion poll; but if democracy = opinion polls, Al Gore would be President
of the USA.

2. Several magistrates responded to critics that (to paraphrase): "if you
don't like the way the magistrates / Senate are running things, you should
run for office". I don't recollect whether you were one of them or know
whether you would have agreed. At one level this response was fair enough
(though at another level it wasn't an answer: the Gender Names legislation
should have gone to the Comitia, rather than being left as a running sore
to infect the elections).

3. Now several of the critics of the magistrates' and Senate's actions are
running for office, as it was suggested critics should. Inevitably, their
criticisms of the way the magistrates/ Senate have run things are reflected
in their platforms.

4. Some of their opponents now say (to paraphrase): "Our views on these
matters are essential to the Romanitas of Nova Roma. If you don't like it,
you should leave."

5. In this situation verbal conflict is, frankly, inevitable!

Vale,

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/_/976822519/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Germanicus on the Tribunes
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:37:10 -0500

Salvete!

Germanicus wrote,

>Do you want to know why the Tribunis Plebis must act collegially, and why
>their power of intercessio is limited to acts which contravene the
>Constitution? It's certainly not part of the Republica Antiqua, I'll grant
>you. It's because it simply wouldn't work in our present situation. 10
>people able to veto the act of any magistrate they don't like, for any
>reason? It might work in a situation where all business is done
>face-to-face, but in our current situation it would be complete gridlock.
>Nothing would ever get done.

Respondeo:

The problem is real: we did have some abuse of Tribunician power before the
Dictatorship (at least in the form of threats to veto), and it did help to
produce deadlock.

The current solution, however, is overkill. It reduces the Tribunes - so
long as they are not unanimous, which is frankly unlikely - to mere
reporters of the proceedings of the Senate.

QFM has suggested as an alternative that the Tribunes should be capable of
being overridden by the Senate by 2/3 vote. This suggestion would meet the
problem and be closer to the practice of Roma Antiqua.

At the same time, it would equally meet the problem if Tribunes could be
overridden by majority vote in one of the Comitia. To quote Lintott, The
Constitution of the Roman Republic 128:

"The one guiding principle would have been that it was legitimate to oppose
the will of the Senate or individual magistrates, but not to oppose the
will of the Roman people as a whole. On this account Polybius' comment
after his reference to the veto (6.16. 4-5), that the tribune must set his
sight on the will of the people, is particularly well judged."

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/_/976822677/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Blood Sacrifices
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:59:51 -0200 (BRST)

Ave,

It seems that all people opposed to blood sacrifice are those
that don t have a good knowledge of what a blood sacrifice means.

Do you refuse to participate at Thanksgiving ?
Thanksgiving is a blood sacrifice made in order to join
the family, the fact that today most turkeys are bought
on a market instead of being freshly sacrificed in the backyard
by the pater familias while all childrens are looking
before the cooking takes place does not change the
meaning of it.

What I would feel evil is sacrifying without eating, that is not the case
in the ancient blood sacrifices.

M' Villius Limitanus

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976824568/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] From the Consules: Election Announcement
From:	sfp55@--------
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:39:10 EST

Salvete citizens of Rome!
The Cista will be closed on the Ides of December (FRIDAY, DEC. 15)
at 2 p.m. PST. No votes will be accepted after this time.

Fortuna perserve our Republic!
Valete!
The Consules

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976826356/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Blood Sacrifices
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 20:58:08 -0800

Salve M' Villi Limitane

>It seems that all people opposed to blood sacrifice are those
>that don t have a good knowledge of what a blood sacrifice means.
>Do you refuse to participate at Thanksgiving ?
>Thanksgiving is a blood sacrifice made in order to join
>the family, the fact that today most turkeys are bought
>on a market instead of being freshly sacrificed in the backyard
>by the pater familias while all childrens are looking
>before the cooking takes place does not change the
>meaning of it.
>What I would feel evil is sacrifying without eating, that is not the case
>in the ancient blood sacrifices.
Well, in fact that is not COMPLETELY right. There were some exceptions to
that. The sacrifice of the Robigalia (on April 25) is one of the exceptions.
The Flamen Quirinalis sacrificed an ewe and a dog to Robigo. While the ewe
was surely eaten, I'm not so sure that the dog was. In this case, the
religious symbol of the sacrifice was surely stronger than the feeding
purpose.

Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976827520/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Correction of Re: Nova Roma and Modernity
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 16:00:02 US/Central

Salvete

Yet more proof that I'm fallible.

> ...b) the �right and obligation� to be subject to the laws of one�s
> macronation, c) the right to vote,...
>
> (Some of them, like c) for instance, are also terribly problematic, but
> that�s a matter for another very long discussion.)

Of course, I meant to say, "Some of them, like b) for instance..."

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Big News - eGroups is becoming Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details:
http://click.egroups.com/1/10801/1/_/61050/_/976831205/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: [ostvik] food course at the smithsonian
From:	"J. T. Sibley" <jrsibley@-------->
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:42:26 -0500

Hi, all...FYI, a forward from a friend. This might be of interest to some
of you!
jane
(S. Ambrosia Fulvia in Nova Roma)

> The Resident Associate program
> of the Smithsonian is having a 6 session course on food history:
>
> http://ResidentAssociates.org/com/cornucopia.htm
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976832781/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Book, Birthdays & Blood Sacrifice
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:34:54 -0500

Salvete!

Robert Turcan, The Gods of Ancient Rome is now available in English
translated by Antonia Nevill (Edinburgh UP, 2000). It's on Amazon UK, so
presumably also on Amazon.com & could be added to the Macellum bookstore.

It's packed with information, including at pp 29-30 domestic rites for
birthdays (a thread a little while ago). Incense, wine and wheat cakes were
offered to the Genius of the birthday male, the natalis Juno of the
birtday female.

A small quote which adds slightly to the "blood sacrifice" thread:

"Varro (Cens. 2, 2) justified the consecration of wine by recalling that
the ancestors, to fulfil their annual duty to their Genius, avoided soiling
their hands by a bloody killing, 'for on the day when they had received
life, they did not want to deprive another of it'."

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/_/976833357/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] On Blood Sacrifices
From:	nramos@--------
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:57:56 -0000

Salve Quirites!
I know this is going to shock some folks, but the practice of blood
sacrifices is alive and well in the modern world. In my life outside
Nova Roma, I grew up within the tradition of "Santeria", also known
as
the Yoruba religion of Olokumi (of the Orishas). I am an initiate of
that religion, and I have been a "Babalawo" or "Father of Secrets"
since age 11. One of my roles within the practice of my religion is
carrying out sacrifices.

Ever since I first took a knife in hand to sacrifice and offering to
the Orishas, I was always taught to treat the animal with respect and
compassion - to kill it as painlessly and swiftly as possible. After
the sacrifice, the meat was either consumed by us or given to those
who could use it. In some cases this meant giving it to poor
neighbors
who would condemn us in their christian churches for our "idolatry"
but were secretly grateful for our help.

I have heard some decry it, some actually come close to describing
it,
and I wanted to give you the perspective of someone who has actually
done it and believes in it. If you don't like it - I respect your
opinion and think you have every right to think that way. Please do
the same for me.

BTW, December has several days sacred to the Orishas - most notably
Chango, the Orisha of war and thunder.

Vale!

Marius Cornelius Scipio

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976834684/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] On Blood Sacrifices
From:	SyanneRose@--------
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:04:43 EST

Salve,

If, I, recall correctly, Santeria was a form of voodoo orginating from Mexico
long ago? I didn't know about all the rituals and such, thank you for sharing
this, will look for more information on it.

Vale
Aeternia

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976835091/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Germanicus on the Tribunes
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:22:30 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Macnair [mailto:MikeMacnair@--------]
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 2:37 PM
>
> At the same time, it would equally meet the problem if Tribunes could be
> overridden by majority vote in one of the Comitia. To quote Lintott, The
> Constitution of the Roman Republic 128:
>
> "The one guiding principle would have been that it was legitimate to
oppose
> the will of the Senate or individual magistrates, but not to oppose the
> will of the Roman people as a whole. On this account Polybius' comment
> after his reference to the veto (6.16. 4-5), that the tribune must set his
> sight on the will of the people, is particularly well judged."

That actually sounds like a good idea, provided that there was a provision
that the Tribunes couldn't veto the initial call of the magistrates to bring
the Assembly to order. Sounds like something I could support. Care to draft
up some formal legislation so we can all discuss the specific provisions?

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Candidate for Consul

http://www.novaroma.org/germanicus

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976836309/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Book, Birthdays & Blood Sacrifice
From:	"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:49:37 -0800

Salvete,

It looks like Amazon US is still showing it on a pre-order status
but also show it listed to arrive this month. Sounds like an
interesting work!

Valete,
-Oppius Flaccus Severus
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Macnair [mailto:MikeMacnair@--------]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 2:35 PM
To: Nova Roma; Religio Romana
Subject: [novaroma] Book, Birthdays & Blood Sacrifice

Salvete!

Robert Turcan, The Gods of Ancient Rome is now available in English
translated by Antonia Nevill (Edinburgh UP, 2000). It's on Amazon UK, so
presumably also on Amazon.com & could be added to the Macellum bookstore.

It's packed with information, including at pp 29-30 domestic rites for
birthdays (a thread a little while ago). Incense, wine and wheat cakes were
offered to the Genius of the birthday male, the natalis Juno of the
birtday female.

A small quote which adds slightly to the "blood sacrifice" thread:

"Varro (Cens. 2, 2) justified the consecration of wine by recalling that
the ancestors, to fulfil their annual duty to their Genius, avoided soiling
their hands by a bloody killing, 'for on the day when they had received
life, they did not want to deprive another of it'."

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister

eGroups Sponsor

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976838048/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->