Subject:	Re: Demographics Correction Re: [novaroma] Languages
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sun, 2 Dec 2001 16:02:25 -0800 (PST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, censor Sulla.

--- Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> wrote:
> Ave,
>
> I have been informed that is probably the case... thanks. I was
> uncertain so I left it as it was.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla

You are welcome.


=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
Triumvir Academiae Novae Romae in Thule
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Novae Romae in Thule.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] I am back
From:	Maximina Octavia <myownq@-------->
Date:	Sun, 2 Dec 2001 17:22:07 -0800 (PST)

---Ave Marcus Sentius Claudius,
Welcome Back! I hope you catch up on the debates!
This is really an exciting time! Remember to vote.

Vale, Maximina Octavia


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.yahoo.com

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Against the Lex Vedia de Quaestors
From:	bcatfd@--------
Date:	Mon, 03 Dec 2001 04:11:22 -0000

Salvete Cives,

I must concur with our future consuls, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
and Marcus Octavius Germanicus. The bonding requirement for all
quaestores required by the Lex Vedia de Quaestores will put an
unbearable burden on our treasury. They have eloquently spoken
against it and I will not bore you at length by going on at length. I
simply ask you citizens, to vote down this law.

Even better, I ask Consul Flavius Vedius Germanicus to remove the law
from the ballot. I am certain that if he had known the costs Nova
Roma would incur from it he would not have presented it. It would
destroy all benefits from the taxation system he worked so hard to
put in place.

Valete,

Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus,
Senator Consularis, Paterfamilias Gens Iunia



--- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@e...>
wrote:
> Avete Omnes,
>
> I must voice my concern about this. According to recent discussion
with
> a magistrate who was looking into bonding our publicani, I was
informed
> that bonding would cost $750.00 for ONE individual. This means we
would
> have to spend at least $1,400 and potentially $3,500+ (if all the
> quaestors were devoted to the collection of taxes).
>
> If this lex passes we, in all likelyhood, still wont be able to
bond any
> Consular Quaestors (since they are most likely the ones to handle
the
> tax collection). Because we lack the financial resources to do so.
> Instead, it has been suggested that we bond the individual who
actually
> writes the checks. I personally think that would be a better route
at
> this time and as Nova Roma starts growing and collecting more money
then
> it would be financially feasible to bond everyone who has any
contact
> with tax collection.
>
> Let me assure the citizens of Nova Roma that I am not against this
> proposed lex out of principle, but due to our current financial
> constraints. When we are financially able to bond our publicani,
> quaestors and other individuals who collect money we should do so.
>
> According to the latest treasury report we only have $2076.85. With
> that information available, I respectfully recommend voting against
this
> proposal.
>
> Very Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Candidate for Consul
> I. Lex Vedia de Quaestores
>
> This Lex Vedia de Quaestores is hereby enacted in order to require
the
> bonding of those magistrates empowered to handle the funds of Nova
Roma.
>
> I. All quaestores must be legally bonded to handle funds. Should an
> elected
> quaestor be denied bonding for any reason, he or she shall be
considered
> to
> not hold the position, and an election for a suitable replacement
shall
> proceed according to those procedures established by law.
>
> II. The Senate shall authorize the reasonable expenditure of funds
from
> the
> central treasury to cover the administrative and other costs of
bonding
> elected Quaestores.
>
> III. The Consules or their legally delegated subordinates shall
handle
> the
> administrative and other details related to obtaining such bonding,
in
> conjunction with and with the cooperation of the various elected
> Quaestores.

Subject:	[novaroma] Endorsements of Decius Iunius Palladius
From:	bcatfd@--------
Date:	Mon, 03 Dec 2001 05:19:22 -0000

Salvete Cives,

After careful consideration I have chosen to endorse the following
candidates:

I. Censor:

I endorse
Caius Flavius Diocletianus

This was a difficult choice for me. Priscilla Vedia has been with
Nova Roma since the beginning and has served ably and loyally. I
believe she is fully capable of doing the job of censor, due to
available time, technical expertise and with good public relations
skills. Caius Flavius has also served the republic honorably and ably
and also has all the necessary skills to be an excellent censor. So
all things in that respect being equal, I had to look at other
things. It came down to 2 things: 1. most important to me, the cursus
honorum; 2. many of our Europeam citizens believe a European censor
would be desirable.

1. Caius Flavius is a senator and a curule magistrate , one who wears
the toga praetexta. While he has not been consul, the traditional
jumping off point for censor, he is only one rung below that.
Priscilla Vedia is a privatus and while she has served ably as list
moderator it is a huge leap for a privatus to jump to censor,
especially when another is available who has climbed higher up the
traditional cursus honorum.

2. Caius Flavius Diocletianus lives in Europe and many of our
European citizens would like to be served by a censor living there.
Ideally macronational differences should not matter in a global
organization such as Nova Roma but they do. We are all citizens of
our macronations first and foremost and it is the largest part of
each of our identities. Probably Caius Flavius can not technically
serve Europeans any better living in Europe but this is a matter of
morale and perception as much as fact. It will help to bring
Europeans and American citizens closer together as Nova Romans by
working together across the Atlantic.


II. Consul

I endorse
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

I have endorsed my friend and former consular colleague at length in
another message.



III. Praetor

This too was another tough decision with 3 excellent candidates. I
have chosen to endorse 2 candidates:

I endorse
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
and
Titus Labienus Fortunatus

Both of these are excellent candidates. Pompeia Cornelia has done an
excellent job as propraetor and the cives in her province speak very
highly of her. She works hard there and has a keen interest in the
law and in justice. I think she is ready for the next step of elected
praetor.
Titus Labienus Fortunatus needs no introduction. I worked with him
when he was rogator and sponsored his entry in to the senate 2 years
ago. He has served there ably and well, always a voice of reason and
moderation. He has a sharp legal sense, an eye for detail and
deication to Nova Roma.

Citizens, you can not go wrong voting for either of these candidates.


IV. Curator ARANEUM

I endorse Marcus Octavius Germanicus

Marcus Octavius is one of the rising bright lights of Nova Roma. He
has served ably as webmaster and will continue to do so even while
holding the consulship. He has already proven himself as webmaster
and the site has only improved under his care. I believe it will
continue to do so.

V. Curator Sermonis

I heartily endorse
Priscilla Vedia Serena

I have spoken her praise above even while endorsing another candidate
for censor. That praise makes her the only choice for list moderator.
She has excellent public relations skills, computer skills and
available time. While I have not agreed with all her decisions, I
have respected them all. She is fair and level headed and does her
job as it is laid out by law. Her opponent for list moderator has
shown contempt for those legal duties and has made it clear that the
only moderating he will do is to allow anything to be said, no matter
how harmful or offensive. Citizens, vote for Priscilla Vedia Serena
for Curator Sermonis.

Valete,

Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus,
Senator Consularis, Paterfamilas Gens Iunia





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: Demographics Correction Re: [novaroma] Languages
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:19:10 +0100

Salve Luci Corneli,


Ego scripseram:
> > (3) About half of NR's citizens are not anglophonic by nature. So,
> > roughly,
> > the same composition will be found among the main list members.
>

Censor Sulla scripsit:
> This is incorrect Sextus Apollonius. Earlier in the year I published a
> demographic study. It is in the archives of the main list, if you would
> like to see it. However, earlier today, I requested a demographic study
> again to see just how much our demographics have changed. Well, here is
> the result:
>

(snipped)


Hmm, let's see what results I get, based on language, instead of
nationality...

English: 748 °
Italian: 65
Spanish: 63
Portuguese: 53
German: 40 °°
French: 23
Dutch: 17 °°°
Polish: 13
Servo-Croatian: 9
Norwegian: 8
Slovak: 7
Swedish: 7
Turkish: 6
Czech: 5
Afrikaans: 4
Danish: 4
Russian: 4
Suomi: 3
Hebrew: 2
Hungarian: 2
Rumanian: 2
Arabic: 1
Bulgarian: 1
Icelandic: 1
Japanese: 1
Korean: 1
Malaysian: 1 *
Signaporese: 1 *

(Hypothetical) total of people speaking a mother language other than
English: 344. This indeed proves that my thought on the composition of NR's
population was incorrect. However, it does not invalidate my arguments in my
earlier posting on languages. 344 is still a respectable number.

Vale bene,
S. Apollonius Draco

<< PETITOR AEDILIS PLEBIS >>

° I ommitted 17 Canadian citizens on the list of English speakers, since it
is a bilingual country, with French as a minority language. I don't exactly
know how many Canadian francophones are citizens in NR, so this is only a
hypothetical number.
°° For Switzerland, I made the following hypothesis, roughly based on actual
numbers (but probably inexact), by dividing it into 7 germanophones, 3
francophones and 2 italophones.
°°° In Belgium, few francophones are a citizen of NR. So I counted only 3
hypothetical francophones among the Belgian citizens.
* I'm not sure if this is a language

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Candidates for the office of Censor
From:	"Diana Meridia Aurelia" <diana_h@-------->
Date:	Mon, 03 Dec 2001 10:01:15 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@g...> wrote:
> Salve,



Salve, Priscilla Vedia Serena,

I apologize for the delay in responding. Much as I would like to
leave the subject be - I think we both made our point sufficiently -
I feel I still owe you an answer to your reply.
However, I think Caius Flavius made a valid and wise point in
reminding us of the virtues that even exist in the middle of an
election campaign; lest either of us makes the step beyond of what is
acceptable I will be brief and let the subject rest after this. I
hope this is agreeable to you.

> With respect, I merely addressed the issue you brought forth.
> No more, no less.

And also with respect, I thank you for it. Your comments so far have
been most instructive.

> I understand that you wished to bring out the issue that
> my opponent resides in Europe and I reside in America.
> You went on to state that we are both excellent candidates
> and yet the *reason* you implored Europeans to vote for
> him over me is his location of residence. *That* is what
> I object to.

I understand and accept your objections. You have every right to
them, although, to me, they remain unfounded.

> When you stated that my opponent would best serve "(us) Europeans"
>that seemed pretty straightforward in putting out the notion that
> he would better serve the needs of European citizens than I, an
> American, would.

No. As Lucilla Cornelia Cinna pointed out to you, having a censor in
Europe would simply be a matter of global thinking - no more/no less.

> I trust you see how I saw an attempt at a Europe vs. America slant
> there. I am, however, heartened to hear that you share my view
> that we are all one people.......Nova Romans........regardless of
> where we happen to reside in the macronational world.

I am glad we got that out of the way; thank you.

> I do not accept that we are doomed to perpetual differences.

This has got nothing to do with 'doom' - quite on the contrary.
Our differences (although I will admit this is perhaps not the most
apt term) are what makes us strong.
Just look, if I may use that example, at an international community
of states like the European Union; its members are joined in a common
cause, working towards the same goals and pursuing the same
objectives - yet nobody in their right mind would say that the
French, British, Italian or German peoples were alike. That does not
hinder them, however, to perceive themselves as Europeans (I use this
term to illustrate an example, not to further my 'factionalist
agenda') - despite the differences in national identity/mentality.

> I am sincerely curious as to why you feel that a physical location
> is of any greater importance than gender.

It isn't. I didn't compare the two.

> Is it true you could lobby for my opponent on the simple
> basis of "well, he is a European and it would be nice to
> have a European Censor"? Of course. It would be just as
> easy, and just as irrelevant, to lobby for me because it
> would be "nice" to have a female Censor. Neither factor
> has the slightest impact on our ability to do our job.

You are right - it hasn't.
I might again refer here to Lucilla Cornelia Cinna's recent post and
her comments in this respect. I agree with her.

> As for me, I consider myself a Nova Roman. Period. The work
> I do, I do for *all* Nova Romans, with no regard for what
> corner of the globe the citizen on the other end of my e-mail
> may happen to reside.

And I am sure you receive due recognition for this worthy sentiment.

> No, I do not think the term "agenda" is misplaced here.
> You state that my opponent and I are both excellent candidates,
> and then you proceed to lobby for him based on nothing more than
> the area he happens to live. That seems like an agenda to me.

Well, I can not very well lobby for both of you, can I ? - despite my
conviction that you both, due to your past work and accomplishments,
are 'up to the job'.

> As far as the office of Censor goes, actually no, I do not agree.
> I think it is vastly more important to have a person in office who
> will do an outstanding job than to have one in office who happens
> to reside in your province.

I agree with you 100% that this is of course the main factor of
consideration - though not the only one.

> Once again, let us put the *job* above the location.

Absolutely.

> Yes, I do get "piqued" when *I* am singled out as being "unfair"
> when numerous persons are running for multiple positions this
> year.

That is true. But none for such demanding (time-wise) positions as
Censor and Curator/trix Sermonis; this is where my objection lay.

> As for the time available, let me assure you I have more than
> adequate resources to the tasks at hand.

This is certainly a relief to hear. In the end - I am sure you agree
with me - you'd be the one who must cope with the workload. I accept
your judgement.

Let me just add, and for the record, that all I have said I did not
say out of spite or any such sentiment.
I harbour no ill will towards you, Priscilla, and you have my respect.
If I have offended you in any way, I did not intend to. I was
expressing my opinion as a mere citizen and explaining it.

Bene vale,
Diana Meridia Aurelia








Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Endorsements
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Tiberius=20Apollonius=20Cicatrix?= <consulromanus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:02:34 +0000 (GMT)

Salvete!

As a candidate for the position of aedilis plebis, I
would also like to endorse some candidates for the
other positions:

Censor: Caius Flavius Diocletianus

Praetor: Titus Labienus Fortunatus

Tribunus Plebis: Gnaeus Salix Astur and Marcus
Arminius Maior

Quaestor: Marcus Minucius Audens

Curator Sermonis: Manius Villius Limitanus

I know all of these people a little from different
mailing lists and I am convinced they will work hard
for Nova Roma in the next year, each in their own
office. All of them have already shown their devotion
towards the Res Publica and their determination to
fulfill their duties as good as they can. Elect these
people to further the missionof Nova Roma!

Valete bene!

Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix

CANDIDATE FOR AEDILIS PLEBIS

________________________________________________________________
Nokia 5510 looks weird sounds great.
Go to http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/nokia/ discover and win it!
The competition ends 16 th of December 2001.

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Yet more questions and thoughts on Religio, classes and legislation
From:	amg@--------
Date:	Mon, 03 Dec 2001 13:37:57 -0000

Salve M. Salix Saveri


> But if what you say about the cult of Isis also applied to the cult
> of Bacchus, then their gatherings could have indeed harbored
> political conclaves, and by prosecuting it, Postumius could not
only
> include his enemies in their number but also rest assured that most
> of the followers of Bacchus were indeed supporting his opponents!
> What do you think of it? Were political conspiracies forged when
> *drunk*? Was Postumius only an amoral machiavellian or also a
> religious fanatical bigot?
Well, I'm not completely informed about the events of 186BCE, and so
I leave this question for others.

> The second question is even easier :-)). There were many liberti
> that joined the ranks of the plebeians and thus of the Religio.
Many
> of them were foreigners. And in the provinces, many foreigners
were
> also introduced to the Religio. How was this achieved? It seems
to
> have been quite successful, as you can find larariums and altars
all
> over the place in archaeological sites throughout the empire. Yet
> the Religio did not have "missionaries", or outright proselitism.
> And the following of the Religio seems to me to have been more than
> just complying with the official duties (or else people wouldn't
have
> worshipped the manes and lares, as it wasn't officially required).
Well, what you say is more true in the west. In the East the Religio
Romana had alsmost no impact in the home and it was just a question
of law regarding the state cult. In the west, yes, the Religio Romana
was very spread. This expansion without missionaries can be explained
by a set of factors, of which I shall enumerate those I can grasp:
- Liberti were former slaves and surely the ones whose relationship
with their masters was as good as to prompt the latter to free them.
When becoming a citizen, the Libertus would become a member of the
family of the master, adopting the 'nomen', etc. And he would surely
be grateful and proud and we can understand that we would be willing
to preserve the rites of his beloved master's household. It was also
a symbol of freedom the fact that he could now participate actively -
i.e. as a roman citizen - in the rites of the traditional religion.
- Also don't forget that slaves could be grandsons of slaves, of even
more, and so they would be quite romanized. Many would know more
about the traditional roman cult (which they could see everyday) than
the cult of the country of origin of their families. Once these
people became citizens, they would pray to the gods in the ways they
knew.
- During the imperial times, the imperial worship penetrated the
household. When receiving guests, it would be a sign of loyalty to
display the Genius of the Emperor, the Lares Augusti and some Divi
among the Penates of the home, and also to offer to the latter as
part of the household rites. So, this may have been another important
reason - if not the most important one - for the Lararia we find in
archaeological excavations out of Italy.
- Also note that as native and italian families mixed, the native
elements would probably be proud of becoming romans and adopting the
roman household habits.


Vale bene
Graecus

Subject:	[novaroma] Bona Dea
From:	antoniuscorvusseptimius@--------
Date:	Mon, 03 Dec 2001 09:40:21 -0000

The Roman earth and fertility goddess who was worshipped exclusevly by
women. Do we have anyone who has offered rites to her?

Dii te ament, A. Corvus Septimius

Subject:	[novaroma] Ceres
From:	antoniuscorvusseptimius@--------
Date:	Mon, 03 Dec 2001 09:45:23 -0000

Salvete Publicus Popoli Romani,

Today is another festival for the goddess Ceres. May our
pontifetis be honored by the offerings they make to her.As will I.

Dii te ament, A. Corvus Septimius

Subject:	=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re=3A=20=5Bnovaroma=5D=20re=3A=20Curator=20Sermonem=20=3A=20a=20political=20choic?=
From:	tiberius.ann@--------
Date:	Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:43:28 +0100

Salvete omnes,

Please excuse me for barging in on your discussion. However, I feel, that
my words are not going to be in vain.

For the last year, I have done exactly the job you people say nobody wants.
I have had the honor to be appointed (personally and not officially) the
translator for the people of the provincia Germaniae Superioris. It was
my job to translate the sometimes very long legal texts and official documents
into well understandable German and sometimes into English. Now, if something
crops up that keeps me from translating (a language I don't understand,
etc.) that is not a cause to give up. The people saw me doing my work and
because I did it well, they came to my help when I needed it. At one time
we had many Spanish mails on our German list and I don't speak spanish.
However, one of us did and he naturally translated them for me.

So, to sum up. All it needs is one person who takes the time and pain for
most of the time and then there will allways be someone to help him out
if he needs it.

Curate ut valeatis, Tiberius Annaeus Otho




________________________________________
E-Mail for everyone! http://www.bluemail.ch/ powered by Bluewin!

Subject:	=?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A=20=5Bnovaroma=5D=20Latin=20terms=20questions?=
From:	tiberius.ann@--------
Date:	Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:45:51 +0100

Easy: Omnes = All the people
Quirites = Only the people who have all the rights of cives of Rome.

-- Original-Nachricht --

>
>Ave all!
>I have seen the terms Omnes and Quirites used a lot
>within Nova Roma, but I don't know what they mean
>though I have an idea. My Latin is very minimal so
>could anyone fill me in please?
>
>Valete!
>
>_______________________________________________________
>Build your own website in minutes and for free at http://ca.geocities.com
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>



________________________________________
E-Mail for everyone! http://www.bluemail.ch/ powered by Bluewin!






Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: Demographics Correction Re: [novaroma] Languages
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Mon, 03 Dec 2001 06:56:56 -0800

Ave

And you have forgotten to note that most of the individuals in the
countries that are not "English Speaking" have many citizens that have
at least a working understand English. It is convenient how
you have failed to note that. All of our citizens are fluent enough to
understand the Citizenship Application and all of the text/essay that is
included within it.

And, let me say Thank you for admitting your original claim was false.
I highly suggest before you try to prove your point in the future you
use correct data and do further research.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Candidate for Consul

"S. Apollonius Draco" wrote:
>
> Salve Luci Corneli,
>
> Ego scripseram:
> > > (3) About half of NR's citizens are not anglophonic by nature. So,
> > > roughly,
> > > the same composition will be found among the main list members.
> >
>
> Censor Sulla scripsit:
> > This is incorrect Sextus Apollonius. Earlier in the year I
> published a
> > demographic study. It is in the archives of the main list, if you
> would
> > like to see it. However, earlier today, I requested a demographic
> study
> > again to see just how much our demographics have changed. Well,
> here is
> > the result:
> >
>
> (snipped)
>
> Hmm, let's see what results I get, based on language, instead of
> nationality...
>
> English: 748 °
> Italian: 65
> Spanish: 63
> Portuguese: 53
> German: 40 °°
> French: 23
> Dutch: 17 °°°
> Polish: 13
> Servo-Croatian: 9
> Norwegian: 8
> Slovak: 7
> Swedish: 7
> Turkish: 6
> Czech: 5
> Afrikaans: 4
> Danish: 4
> Russian: 4
> Suomi: 3
> Hebrew: 2
> Hungarian: 2
> Rumanian: 2
> Arabic: 1
> Bulgarian: 1
> Icelandic: 1
> Japanese: 1
> Korean: 1
> Malaysian: 1 *
> Signaporese: 1 *
>
> (Hypothetical) total of people speaking a mother language other than
> English: 344. This indeed proves that my thought on the composition of
> NR's
> population was incorrect. However, it does not invalidate my arguments
> in my
> earlier posting on languages. 344 is still a respectable number.
>
> Vale bene,
> S. Apollonius Draco
>
> << PETITOR AEDILIS PLEBIS >>
>
> ° I ommitted 17 Canadian citizens on the list of English speakers,
> since it
> is a bilingual country, with French as a minority language. I don't
> exactly
> know how many Canadian francophones are citizens in NR, so this is
> only a
> hypothetical number.
> °° For Switzerland, I made the following hypothesis, roughly based on
> actual
> numbers (but probably inexact), by dividing it into 7 germanophones, 3
> francophones and 2 italophones.
> °°° In Belgium, few francophones are a citizen of NR. So I counted
> only 3
> hypothetical francophones among the Belgian citizens.
> * I'm not sure if this is a language
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Subject:	[novaroma] Contra Leges Vediarum
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:20:53 US/Central

Salvete Quirites

This is, essentially, a "me too" post, as others have said what needs to be
said on the issues.

First, the Lex Vedia de Quaestores would cost far more than it would be worth.
While bonding some of the officials who handle Nova Roma's treasury may be
wothwhile in the future, it can only hurt the Res Publica at this time. As
Decius Iunius (IIRC) has done, I suggest that Consul Vedius remove this item
from the ballot for the upcoming vote. If he does not, then I urge you, O
Quirites, to vote against the measure.

Second, the Lex Vedia de Oratio is an unnecessary measure that removes the
flexibility allowed by having a curator sermonis--a flexibility recognized and
approved by the Senate. Additionally, neither of the policies being advocated
by our two candidates represents any clear danger to the Res Publica. Any
clearly unfortunate policy will only persist for a year at worst, and will
likely be changed long before that. There is, therefore, no compelling reason
to remove the curator sermonis' flexibility in the matter. Please vote against
this lex.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus

Subject:	[novaroma] ATTN [Religio Romana]: ante diem III Nonas Decembres (December 3rd)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:43:19 -0000

ANTONIVS GRYLLVS PONTIFEX GRAECVS OMNIBVS QVIRITIBVS

This is one of the dies nefasti (N), a day on which no legal action or
public voting can take place.

Today is the festival of Bona Dea. Bona Dea can be identified with Tellus,
Maia, Fauna, Fatua or Ops [Macrobius, Saturnalia, 1, 12, 21], being thus a
fertility Goddess. This woman's festival to Bona Dea is not included in the
calendars, since it falls into a category between private and public
ceremonies and applies to only half the population, the women. It is private
in that it is not held in the temple of the Goddess, it is not attended by
the pontiffs or paid for by the State ('publico sumptu'). However, it is
attended by the Vestal Virgins, is held 'pro populo Romano' (i.e. for the
Roman people), and met in the house of a Consul or Praetor Urbanus. Further
its precise date is not fixed. In 63 BC it was held on the night of 3 in the
house of the consul Cicero, and 62 sometime in December (probably the 3rd)
in the house of the praetor Julius Caesar; due to the compulsory absence of
the men their wives preside.
Little is known about the nature of the rites. Plutarch [Parallel Lives,
Caesar, 9, 6] compares some of the nocturnal rites of Bona Dea to those of
the Orphics (Cicero even refers to the rites as 'mysteria'). We only know
that a sacred serpent appeared aside Bona Dea [Parallel Lives, Caesar, 5],
that vine-leaves covered the tabernacles, that representations of male
animals were veiled [Seneca, Letters to Lucilius, 97, 2] and that the image
of the male genital was forbidden (again, remember that this is a
celebration for females only). If we relate all these aspects, we find many
similarities to the Greek Bacchanalia in honour of Dionysus-Bacchus (alusion
to the Orphics, vine, the male organ, etc.), which were also women
celebrations. Nevertheless, it seems that the character of the celebration
was not orgiastic as described by the satirist Juvenal. During the
celebration of Bona Dea (called 'incredibilis cerimonia' by Cicero), a pig
was sacrificed (note that a sow is the usual sacrifice for chtonic deities
such as Ceres and Tellus) 'pro populo Romano', wine under the name 'milk'
was offered to the Goddess (and drunk by the worshippers?), the women danced
to the sound of harps and flutes. It is uncertain whether myrtle played any
part in the ritual: according to Plutarch in was excluded from the private
use in the cult 'at home' (oikoi), because it was sacred to Venus and might
suggest sexual impurity, and Macrobius said that it was banned from use in
the temple of Bona Dea.
The aniversary of the temple of Bona Dea was celebrated on May 1st and was a
public ceremony.

The month of December is sacred to Vesta.

Di vos bene ament

Subject:	[novaroma] Language, Demography and Oratory
From:	"J. Meuleman" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sat, 1 Dec 2001 18:39:31 +0100

Salve Luci Corneli,

Scripsisti:
> And you have forgotten to note that most of the individuals in the
> countries that are not "English Speaking" have many citizens that have
> at least a working understand English. It is convenient how
> you have failed to note that. All of our citizens are fluent enough to
> understand the Citizenship Application and all of the text/essay that is
> included within it.
>

Respondeo:

I quote:

<< (1) We will all have to agree that on the internet, and within the
largest
part of newsgroups, English is the de facto standard language. Even in order
to become a citizen of Nova Roma, a basic amount of knowledge of English is
necessary. For that reason alone, to equal its status to all other languages
on this forum would be absurd - even if such other language would be Latin.
>>

Not only have I noted this point (which you seem to have failed to read
instead :)), we also agree on this point.

Scripsisti:
> And, let me say Thank you for admitting your original claim was false.
> I highly suggest before you try to prove your point in the future you
> use correct data and do further research.
>

Respondeo:

As far as the data goes, you're correct, I should have looked a couple of
things up. But, as I have said, it does not invalidate my arguments; it only
nuances them better.

Vale bene!
S. Apollonius Draco

<< PETITOR AEDILIS PLEBIS >>

Subject:	[novaroma] A Canidate Against the Lex Vedia de Quaestors
From:	"C. Minucius Hadrianus" <shinjikun@-------->
Date:	Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:18:47 -0500

Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Omnibus Civibus Salutem Plurimam Dictit,

As a candidate for the office of Quaestor, I would like to urge my
fellow citizens to vote against the Lex Vedia de Quaestores. While I
certainly applaud the intent behind the law, it appears to be
financially unworkable at this moment. I envision our new system of
taxation as a vital element in ensuring Nova Roma's continued growth,
and the Lex Vedia De Quaestors would stand a very real chance of
derailing that by consuming all the funds it was intended to protect. In
the future, if it can be shown that that the cost of bonding our
Quaestors would not be prohibitive based on the size of our treasury at
the time, I would heartily support such an act. Today, however, I
cannot. Please vote no on the Lex Vedia de Quaestores.

Valete,

C. Minucius Hadrianus
Legate of Massachusetts
Scriba Propraetoris, Nova Britannia
Canidate for Quaestor

ICQ# 28924742

"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." - Vegetius



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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Against the Lex Vedia de Oratio
From:	Lucilla Cornelia Cinna <CorneliaLucilla@-------->
Date:	Mon, 03 Dec 2001 18:52:38 +0100

Salvete omnes!

I, too, have come to speak out against the Lex Vedia de Oratione.

First, the Lex is illegal because it conflicts a recent senatus
consultum, and so it opposes the will of the senate.

Second, the Lex is unasked for ans unneccessary. While our Civitas is
growing, it will impede and compound changes necessary due to changes in
the multinational and global composition of the Civitas. And delivers a
deathblow to the revival of Latin as our native language - which
conflicts with our reconstructivistic attempts and thrive for historic
accuracy.

Third, it is useless in international affairs, and if it would be made
effective, NR runs the risk of losing arguments for fundraising, because
She turns out as a service-oriented business instead of a cutural
organisation. And as you know there are differences.

This is why I ask you, Quirites, to vote against the Lex Vedia de Oratione.

Bene valete!

Lucilla Cornelia Cinna _
====================== \\
Quaestrix C. Flavio Diocletiano Praetori /\~/\ / )
Propraetori Provinciae Germaniae ( )~~~----...,, __/ /
Procuratrix Provinciae Germaniae \` ´/ /
Retaria Sodalitatis Egressus \v/ _____( |
Musaea collegiorum Calliopes Cliusque / \| |~~~~´ \ \ \
Sodalitatis Musarum ( ( | | ) /\ )
Civis NovaRomana \_\| | _/ / _| |
Auctrix Bibliotheca Germaniae /__/ /__/ /__/
http://www.BibliothecaGermanica.de/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Against the Lex Vedia de Oratio
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:05:34 -0600 (CST)

Salve Lucilla Cornelia,

> First, the Lex is illegal because it conflicts a recent senatus
> consultum, and so it opposes the will of the senate.

Actually, laws take precedence over Senatus Consulta - so if it passes
it would render the S.C. obsolete and ineffective.

> Second, the Lex is unasked for ans unneccessary.

I agree. There are two candidates for Curator Sermonis, with opposite
views on language policy. Citizens should vote for the one whose
opinion on the subject coincides with their own, and that will settle
the issue.

I support candidate Priscilla Vedia for Curatrix Sermonis, and intend to
vote for her. I agree with the policy she has set. However, I see no
reason to strip away our Curatrix's powers by passing this law.

Vale, O.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curator Araneum et Senator
Candidate for Consul MMDCCLV
http://www.konoko.net/~haase/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Against the Lex Vedia de Quaestors
From:	Lucilla Cornelia Cinna <CorneliaLucilla@-------->
Date:	Mon, 03 Dec 2001 19:12:18 +0100

Salvete onmes!

I am standing here to join many others in rejecting the Lex Vedia de
Quaestoribus.

As others have pointed out befor, the expenses for bonding will surpass
the current treasury, and added to the expenses for international
monetary transfers, these expenses also will surpass the revenues from
the taxation itself.

And apart of that, particularly this Lex will turn NovaRoma into a
service-oriented business instead of a cultural organisation. It will
impede the chances of fundraising which is assumed as another important
way to imcrease the treasury.

Bene valete!

Lucilla Cornelia Cinna _
====================== \\
Quaestrix C. Flavio Diocletiano Praetori /\~/\ / )
Propraetori Provinciae Germaniae ( )~~~----...,, __/ /
Procuratrix Provinciae Germaniae \` ´/ /
Retaria Sodalitatis Egressus \v/ _____( |
Musaea collegiorum Calliopes Cliusque / \| |~~~~´ \ \ \
Sodalitatis Musarum ( ( | | ) /\ )
Civis NovaRomana \_\| | _/ / _| |
Auctrix Bibliotheca Germaniae /__/ /__/ /__/
http://www.BibliothecaGermanica.de/




bcatfd@-------- wrote:

>Salvete Cives,
>
>I must concur with our future consuls, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>and Marcus Octavius Germanicus. The bonding requirement for all
>quaestores required by the Lex Vedia de Quaestores will put an
>unbearable burden on our treasury. They have eloquently spoken
>against it and I will not bore you at length by going on at length. I
>simply ask you citizens, to vote down this law.
>
>Even better, I ask Consul Flavius Vedius Germanicus to remove the law
>from the ballot. I am certain that if he had known the costs Nova
>Roma would incur from it he would not have presented it. It would
>destroy all benefits from the taxation system he worked so hard to
>put in place.
>
>Valete,
>
>Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus,
>Senator Consularis, Paterfamilias Gens Iunia
>
>
>
>--- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@e...>
>wrote:
>
>>Avete Omnes,
>>
>>I must voice my concern about this. According to recent discussion
>>
>with
>
>>a magistrate who was looking into bonding our publicani, I was
>>
>informed
>
>>that bonding would cost $750.00 for ONE individual. This means we
>>
>would
>
>>have to spend at least $1,400 and potentially $3,500+ (if all the
>>quaestors were devoted to the collection of taxes).
>>
>>If this lex passes we, in all likelyhood, still wont be able to
>>
>bond any
>
>>Consular Quaestors (since they are most likely the ones to handle
>>
>the
>
>>tax collection). Because we lack the financial resources to do so.
>>Instead, it has been suggested that we bond the individual who
>>
>actually
>
>>writes the checks. I personally think that would be a better route
>>
>at
>
>>this time and as Nova Roma starts growing and collecting more money
>>
>then
>
>>it would be financially feasible to bond everyone who has any
>>
>contact
>
>>with tax collection.
>>
>>Let me assure the citizens of Nova Roma that I am not against this
>>proposed lex out of principle, but due to our current financial
>>constraints. When we are financially able to bond our publicani,
>>quaestors and other individuals who collect money we should do so.
>>
>>According to the latest treasury report we only have $2076.85. With
>>that information available, I respectfully recommend voting against
>>
>this
>
>>proposal.
>>
>>Very Respectfully,
>>
>>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>>Candidate for Consul
>>I. Lex Vedia de Quaestores
>>
>
>
>

Subject:	[novaroma] Nova Roma Nationalism...choices
From:	QFabiusMaxmi@--------
Date:	Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:53:42 EST

Salvete citizens of New Rome...

Recently a spate of "nationalism" posts have raised their ugly head here in
Rome.
"Vote for this candidate because he is German," or "vote for this candidate
because he is
not American" etc. etc.
I must inform you if you are thinking like that citizens, you have missed our
point entirely.
New Rome is a virtual city state, a state you enter when you engage in Nova
Roma business on your computer, whether that business is chatting in the
tavern, discussing politics in the forum, haranguing the crowds from the
Rosta, bartering for a better deal in the maketplace.
When you are debating the nature of the Gods in person at a private
gathering, you are no longer in Nova Roma but have returned to the provinces.
The only nationalism we should be concerned with is Nova Roman nationalism.
I understand that macronationality concerns are there, example, how to get
tax monies from Pannonia to the Roman treasury can be important in the scheme
of things, I don't deny that. But citizens what brought us together in the
first place? Our love for things Roman. And we should put that first.
And we express that love by what way? We join together on the internet to
discuss things Roman. I don't say, "Salve Gn. Fabi, Italiano," no I say
"Salve Gn. Fabi." because we are Roman.
This is why I am endorsing Priscilla Vedia, for Censor. She gets what we are
about. I have clashed with her several times about policy, and I have found
her to resolute in what she believes in, as well as dedicated to her task, no
matter how small that task may be. She is also a Vedi which I believe one
day the word will enter our Latin slang as a word that means "service &
dedication" "Oh he is an absolute vedian about that office." Vedia will do
the job, she will be a big help to our current censor Lucius Equitius, and
most important of all, she understands what we are all about.
In regards to her running for a second term of curator of the list, her
illustrious opponent has no conception of what the word "censorship" means,
otherwise he would have never used it in this context. The Senate gave the
curator, total imperium over the list, this occurred in my and Marcus
Minucius' consulship, after we allowed complete freedom for several months in
our forum.
Alas, we discovered that Romans were not ready for such freedom, and our
forum spun quickly out of control. Only after the Senate appointed Patricia
Cassia as the new curator, and gave her the backing to do the job correctly,
did disruptions decrease, information flow increased, and our forum
functioned again. Vedia followed her predecessors example, and I dare say we
had very little disruption on our little forum. If she wants to retain the
job I say let her. Why change horses in the middle of a stream?
Finally I'd by admiss if I did not endorse my kinsman, Caeso Fabius
Quintilianus as Quaestor.
Fabius has continued to make great strides as the second political Fabi and
he continues to do a competent and complete job as Provincial Praetor. Such a
man is an asset we ignore at our peril.
Thank you for listening...
Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus
Praetor/Proconsul
Nova Roma


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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Against the Lex Vedia de Oratio
From:	amg@--------
Date:	Mon, 03 Dec 2001 19:36:44 -0000

Salvete omnes

I also come here to manifest my repulse for the current form of the
Lex Vedia de Oratio. Unless Latin postings are considered an
exception to the mandatory English translation, I will be suspicious
about the intentions of the Vedii concerning the future language of
Nova Roma. Latin must be immediately declared as the official
language of Nova Roma, even if the majority is still not able to
understand it completely.
Again, I can accept that postings in languages other than English or
Latin should be followed by a Latin or English translation. I only
disagree with the English-only policy.
If this Lex passes, I can only think that Rome is again being sacked
by the barbarians, and stripped from one of her most precious
treasures: the Latin language.
Please vote NO to the Lex Vedia de Oratio.

Latina lingua est Romana lingua!

Valete bene
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Senator et Pontifex

Subject:	[novaroma] Lex Vedia de Oratio: Nonne
From:	trog99@--------
Date:	Mon, 03 Dec 2001 20:47:43 -0000

Salvete Populace Nova Roma:

As I have mentioned to others privately, I shall say publicly, and for
basically the same reasons already stated, I am weightedly encouraging
a vote of no for this lex.

When we vote in a curatrix sermonis, we invest in her/him our trust as
an elected magistrate. The candidates policies are stated, and we as
the populace decide if their respective approaches to list moderation
are appropriate. Hopefully, experience is taken into account too.

There is no point in the populace voting in a magistrate who is going
to be directed by law to such an extent that if a more attractive idea
to language issues materialize, they cannot be implemented. This
individual may as well be as scribe, appointed and working under the
Senate.

The policies of Priscilla Vedia have made for a smooth running
(fairly) this year, and her ability to keep the list secure of trolls
and other trouble-causing persons has been commendable, which to a
small extent, has clashed with the language issue.

HOWEVER (not yelling).........

This does not mean that they should be legislated in stone so another
idea couldn't be tried sometime down the road.

As much as Pricilla's policies have tried to serve the majority in
keeping with what I believe is a sense of fairness on her part, there
are many nonspeaking English citizens who long for another policy
where they would safely be able to use their native tongues. We should
allow ourselves flexibility for new ideas.

And it should be kept in mind that in the event a Curator/rix is
defying the laws or constitution in his dealings with list moderation,
said magistrate is subject to veto by the Tribunes, Praetors, etc.,
further negating the need for the proposed legislation.

And another thought: two pieces of legislation have been recently
promulgated which defy the Senate's counsel in the form of consulta.
What is the point of our conscript maters/paters debating these issues
in Senate Session, when their august advice is arbitrarily ignored?
This language policy of the Senate, delegating to the curatrix rather
than dictating, passed uncontested by all Senators. Why is it so
necessary to put teeth on it now? And if it is a matter of imminence,
why wasn't it addressed earlier in the year?

Ahh, wouldn't it be nice if we all knew the Latin with
proficiency?........one day :)

Bene valete,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
Propraetrix Canada Orientalis
Candidate Praetor Urbanus
NOVA ROMA

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Nova Roma Nationalism...choices
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Mon, 03 Dec 2001 15:44:13 -0500

Salvete Praetor et Proconsul Q. Fabius Maximus et cives,

You state a very good point. I too would like to see more concentration on
Nova Roma, and less squabbling over macronational differences. We should
work as a team, a nation. Our elections should reflect this. The moment we
brake up this nation into groups with macronational ties we stray away from
our goal. This is definitely not taking a step forward.

Vote for a citizen because of what he/she will do for our nation. Not how
they will benefit your own personal macronational presence in this res
publica. By doing this you will not only make us stronger as a nation, you
will open yourself up to new perspectives on Nova Roma issues.

Valete,

"Quamquam cupido sit delictum ab suis crebro est mater virtutum"
"Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of virtues"

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Candidate for Aediles Curules
Provincia Legatus Canada Orientalis
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Retarius Officium Gens Claudia
Canada Orientalis Provincia

Please visit my campaign website at:
http://www.virtue.nu/amclaudius/index.htm

Canada Orientalis Website:
www25.brinkster.com/canorien/

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/
--

>QFabiusMaxmi@-------- at QFabiusMaxmi@-------- wrote:
>
> Recently a spate of "nationalism" posts have raised their ugly head here in
> Rome.
> "Vote for this candidate because he is German," or "vote for this candidate
> because he is
> not American" etc. etc.
> I must inform you if you are thinking like that citizens, you have missed our
> point entirely.
> New Rome is a virtual city state, a state you enter when you engage in Nova
> Roma business on your computer, whether that business is chatting in the
> tavern, discussing politics in the forum, haranguing the crowds from the
> Rosta, bartering for a better deal in the maketplace.
> When you are debating the nature of the Gods in person at a private
> gathering, you are no longer in Nova Roma but have returned to the provinces.
> The only nationalism we should be concerned with is Nova Roman nationalism.
> I understand that macronationality concerns are there, example, how to get
> tax monies from Pannonia to the Roman treasury can be important in the scheme
> of things, I don't deny that. But citizens what brought us together in the
> first place? Our love for things Roman. And we should put that first.
> And we express that love by what way? We join together on the internet to
> discuss things Roman. I don't say, "Salve Gn. Fabi, Italiano," no I say
> "Salve Gn. Fabi." because we are Roman.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Nova Roma Nationalism...choices
From:	radams36@--------
Date:	Mon, 03 Dec 2001 22:09:59 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, QFabiusMaxmi@a... wrote:
> Salvete citizens of New Rome...
>
> Recently a spate of "nationalism" posts have raised their ugly head
here in
> Rome.
> "Vote for this candidate because he is German," or "vote for this
candidate
> because he is
> not American" etc. etc.
> I must inform you if you are thinking like that citizens, you have
missed our
> point entirely.
> New Rome is a virtual city state, a state you enter when you engage
in Nova
> Roma business on your computer, whether that business is chatting
in the
> tavern, discussing politics in the forum, haranguing the crowds
from the
> Rosta, bartering for a better deal in the maketplace.
> When you are debating the nature of the Gods in person at a private
> gathering, you are no longer in Nova Roma but have returned to the
provinces.
> The only nationalism we should be concerned with is Nova Roman
nationalism.
> I understand that macronationality concerns are there, example, how
to get
> tax monies from Pannonia to the Roman treasury can be important in
the scheme
> of things, I don't deny that. But citizens what brought us
together in the
> first place? Our love for things Roman. And we should put that
first.
> And we express that love by what way? We join together on the
internet to
> discuss things Roman. I don't say, "Salve Gn. Fabi, Italiano," no
I say
> "Salve Gn. Fabi." because we are Roman.
SNIP!
> Thank you for listening...
> Valete
> Q. Fabius Maximus
> Praetor/Proconsul
> Nova Roma

I heartily concur, good Proconsul, and cannot add anything of
substance - you've said it all, with eloquence. Well said, indeed!

Vale!

Rufus Iulius Palaeologus

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Against the Lex Vedia de Oratio
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:32:05 -0500

Salvete;

I will not comment on most of Sulla's email, but do need to say one thing:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix [mailto:alexious@--------]
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 3:29 PM
>
> In addition to this, I must add that this law runs counter to the will
> of the Senate.

That, to coin a phrase, is just too damn bad. According to our Constitution,
the Senate is subordinate to the Comitiae. A lex legally passed by one of
the Comitiae takes precidence over any Senatus Consultum. That, I believe,
is how it should be; the Senate does not rule over the People, but rather it
is the People whose will is supreme.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul