The collegium clique - perpetrators of prevarication

The collegium pontificum of Nova Roma is at a cross roads. One of its members, indeed though he is self-deprecating its most august member, Titus Iulius Sabinus, has appealed to the senate for assistance. The collegium is mired in the mud of inaction and obstructionism. About to possibly be entrusted by the senate with the role of acting pontifex maximus, Sabinus has told the senate that the collegium is non-functioning. It is broken. Indeed it will be broken beyond repair without the help of the senate.

So now the senate is poised to vote on whether to pass three Senatus consulta ultima, one removing a pontifex maximus who has abandoned his duties, one on an acting replacement for him and one to inject new pontifices into the collegium pontificum. The reaction by some of the obdurate opponents to these measures, mainly from within the existing collegium pontificum (or their fellow travelers outside) was predictable.

First they tried the tack that the senate didn't have the power to pass the SCUs. Absurd I know, but desperate people build boats from straw. The SCU as a legal instrument can be enacted by the senate to deal with any specific situation of its choosing. It, and the edicta of consuls acting under its authority, cannot be vetoed by the tribunes.

At the same time as these leaky and failing arguments about the validity of the SCU, as an instrument to effect changes to the collegium pontificum, were thrown into the whirlpool of debate, the same opponents tried the tack of how impious it was that the senate would dare to inject new pontifices.

Why would the senate do that some may ask? The answer is, to break the log jam of inactivity, inject fresh blood, and eliminate the tight grip a small clique in the CP exerts over the direction of the religio publica. Some maybe concerned that this is none of the business of the senate. The answer? Utterly incorrect. Why?

Firstly Sabinus, one of its number, asked the senate for help, it was not that the senate moved to interfere. Sabinus has been a staunch defender of the rights of the collegium pontificum to control its own internal affairs, but he also recognizes and is fully cognizant of the fact that the collegium cannot take those rights and  move one stage further and divorce itself from Nova Roma as a whole. It cannot become a state within a state. Sabinus did not do this lightly and without good cause. What ails the collegium infects Nova Roma.

Secondly he reported to the senate that the collegium is, in his estimation incapable of curing itself, and it certainly has demonstrated that inability fully. Why is that? Because there is a small number of pontifices that can, and do, block progress. They manipulate situations, they delay, they prevaricate, they obfuscate, they deny. Their favorite word is "no". Sabinus has reported he has little faith he can inject fresh blood into the collegium, partly because of the rules of the collegium regarding admission to the priestly ranks, and partly because he has no faith in those pontifices agreeing to this or keeping to their word if given. Votes promised apparently change or never materialize at all.

So, no one new can become a pontifex if left to the collegium and nothing can get done without the approval of a few. Now, this would be acceptable if in turn they were active, if their control within the collegium actually resulted in positive results for Nova Roma and if the religio had prospered under the care of this clique. It hasn't, hence Sabinus appealing to the senate for help. He asked it to pass an SCU directly injecting volunteers from the senate into the collegium, for which there is historical precedent, the lex Ognulia of 300 BCE:

-------------
The Ogulnii accordingly gave notice of a measure providing that as there were at that time four augurs and four pontiffs, and it had been decided that the number of [7??] priests should be augmented, the four additional pontiffs and five augurs should all be co-opted from the plebs How the college of augurs could have been reduced to four, except by the death of two of their number, I am unable to discover. [8] For it was a settled rule amongst the augurs that their number was bound to consist of threes, so that the three ancient tribes of the Ramnes, Titienses, and Luceres might each have their own augur, or if more were needed, the same number should be added for each. This was the principle on which they proceeded when by adding five to four the number was made up to nine, so that three were assigned to each tribe. [9] But the co-optation of the additional priests from the plebs created almost as much indignation amongst the patricians as when they saw the consulship made open. [10] They pretended that the matter concerned the gods more than it concerned them; as for their own sacred functions they would see for themselves that these were not polluted; they only hoped and prayed that no disaster might befall the republic. [11] Their opposition, however, was not so keen, because they had become habituated to defeat in these political contests, and they saw that their opponents in striving for the highest honours were not, as formerly, aiming at what they had little hopes of winning; everything for which they had striven, though with doubtful hopes of success, they had hitherto gained —numberless consulships, censorships, triumphs.

The Assembly was on the point of ordering the voting to proceed, and it was evident that the measure would be adopted, when, on the intervention of some of the tribunes, all further business was adjourned for the day. [2] On the morrow, the dissentient tribunes having given way, the law was passed amid great enthusiasm. The co-opted pontiffs were P. Decius Mus, the supporter of the measure, P. Sempronius Sophus, C. Marcius Rutilus, and M. Livius Denter. The five augurs who were also taken from the plebs were C. Genucius, P. Aelius Paetus, M. Minucius Faesus, C. Marcius, and T. Publilius. [3] So the number of the pontiffs was raised to eight and that of the augurs to nine.

 (Livy, History of Rome x, vi. 3-11, ix. 1-2)
-------------

So nothing impious at all. The Romans did it and so too we as Nova Romans can do this. So why would those opponents of this in the collegium reject something so beneficial to the religio - fresh blood, fresh ideas and progress?

"But the co-optation of the additional priests from the plebs created almost as much indignation amongst the patricians as when they saw the consulship made open. They pretended that the matter concerned the gods more than it concerned them; as for their own sacred functions they would see for themselves that these were not polluted; they only hoped and prayed that no disaster might befall the republic."

Is this not Nova Roma now? The pretense, pretending the opposition is based on the welfare of the religio and respect for the gods. Those that oppose the SCU on injecting new pontifices do so not because of the gods, but because they would lose their voting block and their future control over the direction of the religio. The new blood must become pontifices, and be made so by the senate. Why? Because otherwise the existing clique of pontifices will claim a moral majority as the only "real" pontifices and seek to sway and undermine the pax Nova Romana by advocating as "true priests". The proposed "training" will likely last years, and years, being deliberately drawn out by one of the clique.

If they were "true priests" they would never have allowed the collegium to slip into this mud pool in the first place. They too have abandoned their duty and promoted their own grip on the keys to the doors of the collegium and the rudder that steers it above that of the religio and the gods. The only course they are comfortable with is a circular one, steadily going nowhere. That assures them that nothing will pry power from their fingers that way. The collegium cannot be trusted to make the proposed new blood pontifices. The word of those that prevaricate and deny progress means nothing. This is why the SCU gives them full pontifical rights.

There is also, as an example of historical precedent for an outside body affecting the collegium, the  Lex Domitia de sacerdotis of 104 BCE, that gave the people the right to elect the pontifex maximus from within the existing members of the collegium.

So one lex directly injects persons into the collegium from outside of its existing ranks, while the other changes the collegium's own process of electing the pontifex maximus. This clearly indicates that collegium of antiquity was not shielded from outside pressure and alteration. There was a clique in 300 BCE and there is a clique now in the collegium. The same reasons in 300 BCE are as now - maintain the grip on power at all costs, reject all new pontifices unless they, the collegium clique, control the admission process. Why do they want that control? To ensure those that might be admitted are supportive of the existing clique. It is about power, it is not about the religio and the gods. It is pretense now as it was in 300 BCE, the self-interest of a few.

So what the senate has to decide now, very shortly, is whether to allow the existing collegium, comprised of an elitist, obdurate clique that blocks progress and growth, should be allowed to retain its grip on "power" (such as it is in Nova Roma), or whether to inject fresh blood from among its ranks to help Sabinus complete his duties and advance the mission of Nova Roma.

Will the collegium continue to be allowed to be a state within a state, or will it be brought back into the fold of Nova Roma? Will the senate continue to have to goad and prod the collegium to action? Will the collegium be allowed to continue its course of conflict with the senate?

All the few proposed alternatives, cobbled together at the last moment by some of the opponents of progress, the agents for Piscinian rule, the perpetrators of prevarication, all of these proposals are blinds, smoke and mirrors, all designed to allow the self same clique to continue to maintain its grip on power in the collegium. They come far too late. The collegium clique cannot be trusted to see them through. Their word means nothing. It is time to finally break the log jam in the collegium and move the religio forward. Those elements in the collegium that have blocked progress cannot be trusted to behave responsibly.

I for one shall be voting uti rogas on all three items, and I urge all my senatorial colleagues to do the same.

Pax in our time

Having devoted a considerable amount of effort here to the pursuit and verbal crucifixion of my old arch foe Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus, I think it both noteworthy and fair to record the fact that we both have decided to declare a state of pax. There are bigger issues at stake in Nova Roma than those which divided us in 2004.

Currently Modianus has joined the merry band of "outcasts" in the Back Alley, something which required a fair degree of spine and fortitude given the vitriol that was catapulted from that locale onto his head. He has survived unscathed, despite the occasional ball of flame.

Modianus has also held his own in quite a few tense debates, underscoring the point that he obviously didn't join that "nest of vipers" in a moment of self-flagellation in order to silently endure the pain of thirty or so "snakes" crawling up his pant leg and stinging him with the "venom" of recriminations or triumphal crowing.

It's good to see him there, for it underlines the closing of one era in Nova Roma and, hopefully, the commencement of a better future.

Nova Roma Reborn

As we approach a new year it is clear, sadly as much as it was in past years, that there is no firm plan that has been, is, or is currently likely to be pursued, to put Nova Roma on a path to success.

Maybe now is the time to consider implementing a plan, and dealing with some of the issues that seem complex but in reality can be easily solved.

For those that haven't read the document below, it outlines a plan for rebuilding Nova Roma, and addresses a wide range of issues.

Nova Roma Reborn - A discussion paper

In the forum, on which laws raise concerns

My real concern lies with actually creating a list and proceeding to eliminate the legislation without first checking how the disappearance of a particular law can affect other legislation. It is, sadly, not as easy as checking to see whether the law you want to eradicate is cross referenced by name in another lex. Oh that it were that simple.

The problems really start when a set of circumstances conspire to create an unforeseen situation, which wouldn't have occurred had you not eliminated the targeted lex in the first place. So how do we prevent that? By carefully examining the legislation, line by line, section by section, looking to other leges to determine if the removal of that content would affect them, by consultation, by trying to predict crisis points, and generally proceeding with caution.

As I said before the praetors are unlikely to be the driving force for the elimination of say the legal code in Nova Roma. Practically the consuls drive that particular bus, determining their legislative agenda and priorities.

You can rest assured though that if elected I will expect the consuls to fully involve myself and my colleague in a through consultation process, not to be swayed by demands and expectations to eliminate this or that lex immediately, to procure the advice of the senate so as to allow for the experience of former consuls, praetors and all our senatorial colleagues to be utilized.

On those items that require constitutional changes it will be necessary and prudent to ensure that the proposed change can command the requisite support in the senate BEFORE the matter is taken to comitia. That will ensure precious legislative time is not wasted on bringing such items without warning to the comitia, passing them, only to find they fail inside the senate. On such significant constitutional items the consuls might do well to commit to the senate to seek a senatus consultum prior to seeking a comitia vote.

Additionally promoting this approach to the senate will mark a change in the way in which it has been used, and promote and develop, hopefully, not only a degree of independence of thought but also an expectation that such a practice would become common place in future years.

Negotiation to ensure passage of significant items has been sadly lacking in the last few years, for it wasn't seen as necessary when one faction or another commanded sufficient voting muscle to push items through. Times have changed, and should change and I would hope our colleagues would place any proposals for legislative amendments, especially the wholesale eradication of legislation, under intense scrutiny, and that the consuls afford them the chance to do so. If they don't, then nothing will have been learnt from the crises of recent years and they, and future consuls, may find their legislative proposals die a painful death on the floor of the house.

Anyone in management, be it in government or business, will tell you that simply tearing up policies, or in our cases leges, without doing the due diligence necessary to ensure that the situation doesn't become far worse, as well as ensuring that replacement legislation is ready and has been equally scrutinized, is a recipe for disaster. I am not advocating no change or prevarication, but measured caution, and not charging in like a bull at a gate, repealing this or that lex, only to find we need it later, especially if we could have predicted such a need by taking a measure of time more.

I also hope that if there is actually merit in legislative change that its timetable is not dictated by the desire to "achieve" something in one's consular year at the expense of it running over into the next year and thereby ensuring full due diligence is done. If the senate so wishes it can pass a senatus consultum to require the next year's consuls to continue the work, so change need not be mandatory within a twelve month period and must not be driven around consular ambition. This is a general comment, and not directed at the current candidates for consul.

Change for change sake, or just because it is popular, or change without due diligence is a very bad thing. We should proceed in a measured and cautious way.

In the forum, asked on laws to repeal or change

Whoever is successful in the election for praetor will have to, to a large extent, follow the lead and legislative program of the consuls for next year. Praetors do not have a free hand amice, as you know, at implementing a legislative program of their own.
 
That said, what laws do I want to repeal you ask. Any law that is so badly written that it cannot be salvaged without  a total rewrite, any law that is irrelevant to the current and foreseeable circumstances of the res publica, and any law that conflicts with the constitution to a degree that it could not be salvaged without a total rewrite.
 
As to changing laws, the same criteria as above, especially in respect of laws where only a small percentage of the overall law is contradictory.
 
A reasonable time frame is a subjective judgment, which is going to be affected by numerous factors, but if the work is started immediately in January there is no reason that I can see that would prevent the process being completed by December 31st.
 
Now, I am sure for some the burning issue is the fate of the Lex Salicia poenalis and Lex Salicia iudiciaria. Put simply the system they outline has not worked, does not work and will not work, with the degree of universal support necessary for a legal code. The reason being, that on all sides of the spectrum there is recognition that the practical application of trials do not match the expectations of justice and the goals of the drafters.
 
However, having reviewed some suggestions for replacing them, I note that some suggest total abolishment and for others the solution is a simplified trial process. The issue goes deeper than that. I believe it is completely impossible to find citizens that will be widely accepted as neutral in their assessment of the evidence. It doesn't matter if they can be neutral; it is the perception that counts, which influences the level of support for the system.
 
Additionally there are sections of the current leges which it would be absolutely vital to retain if a simplified trail process was adopted, namely temporal limits of Nova Roman authority. That is just one example. Simple and short when constructing a legal code is not necessarily best. leaving the process to be decided by the sitting praetor will without question be a source of dispute, as it was before. The real question is do we need an internal justice system? Add to that, should we even attempt to construct one with such a small population base, where charges of bias will run rampant against those comprising the court?
 
The easy thing to do in response to your question is to produce a shopping list of laws to replace, repeal, but the issues run far deeper than knocking a few unpopular ones off the books, only to discover that the price of popularity is an even bigger mess. Any changes to our legal code have to command near universal support, they need to be well mooted and discussed at all levels, ideally they should be modeled "in action" to see how they perform. It maybe the popular thing to do to stake the legal code, but I as praetor would be obligated to ensure that I didn't promote a popular cause and create a legacy of a huge mess for someone else to have to deal with next year, or in the years to come.
 
So amice, I won't give you your shopping list of laws for the axe, but I will state that if I am elected I will assist immediately in any law reform they undertake, and to give politically neutral and constructive critical comments, and generally assist the process - which must be community based as it is the people's legal system - of review.
 

In the forum, on cake and the Hospitality list

I often heard the complaint that the ML is a terrible place, some find it intimidating, there are reports of citizens and prospective citizens throwing in the towel after one heated debate or the other.

Various attempts have been made to rectify this, from overbearing moderation masquerading as a public order technique, but to some having more to do with the suppression of free speech and silencing opponents, to periods when the more frequent posters from all "sides" swore off discussion of politics to put to the test the claim that a surge of creative posting was being prevented by the political atmosphere.

These attempts at political non-discussion produced only silence, maybe because people were only too aware that any post they made might end up being judged on its content as to whether creativity and genteel valuable discussion had flourished.

The obvious fact is that this list and its struggles and strife is a reflection of part of our societal issues and this fact seems to have raised the question as to whether a prospective citizen should be shielded from this discord. Well, this list is the equivalent of a virtual arena at times, where virtual body parts are scattered around in one argument or another. It always seems to have been so reading previous years' posts. Now many say that this list is not all that Nova Roma is. That is true, in theory, but since political issues dominate, this list is actually about the key issues of the day. Returning to the frequent claims of how ghastly this list can be, and how many citizens it has cost us, if that is so and given the failure to alter that my one means or another, over the course of years and years, then logic dictates that the prospective citizens should not be exposed to this "vileness". After all, you can't have your cake and eat it.

The new list will give prospective citizens a chance to be exposed to the other side of Nova Roma, that many have complained never gets to truly flourish on this list. Why would we, if those claims are true, not want to present the best side of Nova Roma to prospective citizens? There will be time enough if they join us for them to be corrupted by all the terrible horrors that occur on this list, and take their place in the stands, popcorn in hand gawping at all the verbal duels to the death and egos and arguments hitting the sand here.

Come now, all of you who have made almost careers out of denouncing what goes on here, why would we not want to protect those valuable and vulnerable assets, prospective citizens, from all this wickedness here?

Of course I don't believe that this place is terrible, and I do think that some people among us have used these scare tactics to "political" ends, to steer new citizens to the purity and light of one faction or another.

Well now we have an opportunity to remove from this list non-citizens bent on participating in political debates that only concern the citizens of Nova Roma (would the ancient Romans have tolerated a Greek for example standing on a soap box yelling about how rotten Rome or some of its politicians were, or would he have been manhandled about and tossed out the gates?)and at the same time answer once and for all all these endless complaints about what a detrimental effect the atmosphere on this list has on prospective citizens.

Since we have proven we don't seem to be able to change the nature of this list, then let us remove the non-citizens and the vulnerable prospective citizens, so that all of us seasoned veterans can either return to arena watching, or be down on the sand clubbing each other over the head.

Cake anyone?

In the forum, on candidature for praetor

I announce my intention to stand for Praetor.

There are potentially three main challenges facing any praetor. Firstly the somewhat confused nature of the wording of some of our laws and the constitution. Secondly, dealing with potential trials under the current legal system. Thirdly, moderating this forum.

The first, wording of laws and constitution, requires a collaborative effort on the part of consuls, praetors and other magistrates and senate. I am currently appointed to the senatorial committee on reviewing the bylaws of Nova Roma. I have macronational experience through my job in preparing and reviewing provincial legislation.

The second, sadly, is somewhat of a feature of Nova Roman life. Until such time as the process for trials and prosecutions is changed, the system has to be administered in a fair and efficient manner. That means conducting any trial according to the law of Nova Roma as it is written. I have assisted the advocatus in one trial and have first hand experience of the pitfalls and risks of deviating from following the written law. However potential litigants should be aware that if elected I will make the responsibility of the person commencing the prosecution to work hard to just get his or her case accepted, and I will encourage alternative remedies and offer to mediate or arbitrate a dispute outside of a formal trial process, if all parties agree to it.

Lastly, the moderation of this forum. This has proved, to say the least, an explosive issue at times. My stand is simple. The constitution and laws of Nova Roma limit a praetor to only moderate or remove posting rights when a clear and imminent danger exists. Most times posts that are explosive don't risk destroying Nova Roma. I think we need far less restriction, more trust, and we also need to stop taking a rather patronizing attitude that some people inherently can't be trusted and have to be moderated for eternity. That is a sentiment I have heard over the years, and I simply don't accept it. If someone crosses the line by swearing, making threats or other wording which either breaches Yahoo TOS, Nova Roman law, or since Yahoo operates in the US, federal US law, then I will deal with it. Posting objections to my actions, other magistrates, the senate, does not constitute a threat to Nova Roma. Being held to be annoying and irritating isn't an offense, fortunately since many of the regular posters (myself included) would be on moderation.

Good fortune to all candidates and success in office to those that win.

Structure, incentive and purpose

In the intervening time since my last post, Nova Roma has had its usual fair share of issues. It would be redundant to recount these for while the specifics might differ slightly from earlier ones recorded here, they are essentially still the same as always.

The issues of corporate compliance, maintenance of public order in the forum, elections and their validity or otherwise, our legal system and trials, and the host of other contentious matters are important but they are only symptoms of a deeper failure. This failure is not that of individuals, but rather a failure of structure, incentive and purpose.

The structure of Nova Roma needs attention, to solve once and for all the divisive and relatively curable problem of the needs of the non-profit corporation, and its attendant US state regulations that govern it, consistently clashing with the needs of a Roman republic. This can be done.

We need to provide an incentive to become fully engaged in value driven projects generated continually and across the whole spectrum of the community, that are linked to achieving long-term goals. This can be done.

Lastly, we need to redefine our ultimate purpose to take account of changed factors since Nova Roma was founded, for we need a clear sense of direction in pursuit of clearly formulated goals, along with target dates for achieving them. This can be done.

Of course issues will arise, they always will do, but it is time for a change of focus on all sides. That has been said many times in Nova Roma, but these three matters must become the sole and detailed focus of analysis and problem solving. In order to do that all divisions have to be put aside for this greater purpose.

It would be the height of idealistic folly to think that Nova Roma could suddenly coalesce smoothly around a process of problem solving for the benefit of us all, for those divisions run deep. What should be possible is to file those divisions and grievances away in the pending drawer and turn instead to deal with these three areas.

If that can be achieved and we deal with these three problems in a non-judgmental and productive manner I believe that over time we will discover that we can make progress and resolve them, and that the long-term effect of that maybe to ensure that we are far too busy to remove that folder from the drawer. Eventually those grievances will fade into irrelevance compared to what we have managed to create.

The current situation can no longer be considered tenable by anyone in Nova Roma, regardless of what their ‘political” stance is. If we do not focus our united efforts on these three areas Nova Roma will decline into complete irrelevance.

That is not acceptable.

The Asinutaur Alliance - ass of Nova Roma

It has become apparent that this year in Nova Roma will be significantly different. In some of the previous years consuls and praetors just stumbled into one “crisis” after another. Sometimes they could have done nothing to avoid it, though it has to be said the number of these occasions were few and far between. Mostly they ended up in a bog of their own making due to a singular inability to plan and follow a strategy.

Knowing how many times the Constitution had proved to be the undoing of many a magistrate, it is still a source of amazement that a few of them still blundered wildly on, seemingly with not a care in the world in defiance of all warnings, only to appear utterly stupefied, aghast, hurt and offended when the deluge of criticism rained upon their heads. Such was the way of Nova Roman in the past, our very own mos maiorum of incompetence.

Now however we see something different, in the form of deliberate and ignorant abandonment of any pretense at acting in the interests of Nova Roma, which as a community necessarily encompasses those whose views magistrates are in conflict with.

Our senior magistrates have embarked on a course of legalized persecution and proscription that is rash, ill considered, unconstitutional, illegal, unnecessary, vindictive and partisan. It is also asinine.

This time they have actually planned the route they have taken. They cannot even claim to have wandered off the path into the deep dark forest of unconstitutionality. They mapped the route and set off, with all the arrogance of a Quinctilius Varus.

Knowing that the political trials of Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur would be unpopular and disregarding the likely opposition as the irrelevant dying gasps of their old opponents, this gaggle of political geniuses pressed on. The “trials” resembled a farce, not much above the level of a Punch and Judy show.

The blatant bias and outrageous conduct of the Praetor, who deserves so little mention that I shall simply refer to him as Praetor Nemo, was unrestrained and unashamedly arrogant. Nemo though, much like his cinema namesake, is a little fish in a small tank. His relevance is transitory and this political non-entity whose only crowning glory was the secession of his own province right under his nose, will fade away to become probably Consul and Censor in due course, for every good dog that has performed well deserves a bone.

The level of judgment exercised in these series of shabby events is no greater than in the past. The difference lies in the level of arrogance, law breaking, political incompetence, and the mens rea of this latest political faction to break upon the Nova Roman stage of politics, the Asinutaur Alliance.

The Asinutaur has the temperament of a donkey and the frailness and arrogance of a human, and has survived only this long by wildly kicking its political hind legs out at any target. It doggedly has deliberately trotted along this path of political trials, trampling all before it. It may think it is a stallion, but it is seen for what it is. Doggedly stupid, mulish and short sighted to boot.

The Asinutaur cannot walk politically with a natural flowing motion. It lurches, gets its legs crossed, stumbles and falls. It is just a raddled pantomime donkey suit containing the same old collection of malcontents, failures and vindictive characters, with a few new recruits for company, who have been seduced to climb inside.

It was bad enough when Nova Roman magistrates did not think and blundered into the quicksand. It is far worse now when this latest gaggle does think, for they not only see the quicksand and know that it is quicksand, but they still forge on regardless. They seem gripped by some messianic conviction that they won’t be sucked in, no doubt because they intend to kick a number of people into the pit and step over their bodies to safety.

The Asinutaur Alliance may feel that it has achieved its objective, but the swathe of damage that it has caused in pursuit of vindictive revenge has not been lost on many who were no friend to Cincinnatus and that number is growing.

Nova Farm and the tale of three little pigs

The debacle of the trial of Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur has ended. George Orwell could not have penned a more riveting example of despotic power wielded by small-minded creatures. Nova Roma appears to have bred quite a few of the overlords of Animal Farm, with our very own Napoleon, Squealer and Pinkeye.

Napoleon is well on his way to usurping full power in the barn. Oh how a few months can change one. Before his election Napoleon was preaching an era of prosperity and forward thinking. He seemed the very model of a pig for the people. The animals were all going to join hands and step forward into the sunlight, or so they were essentially told. This was to be a new age and the dawn of the rebirth of Nova Farm.

Very quickly though it became clear that the promised land wasn’t full of sunlight and blessed with an abundance of intellectual and moral riches. No instead it started to resemble a slagheap, and the dark clouds gathered. First went Snowball. For years his eventual assassins had shamelessly used him to their own ends. He was good enough at one point to be touted as the symbol of unity.

Then his own acolytes turned on him and initiated a plan to depose him and drive him from the gates of Nova Farm. As he departed Snowball burned down his own sty rather than allow its infestation by this sad little gang of ingrates.

Pinkeye had his own agenda and it quickly manifested itself as revenge. You see Pinkeye as a little pig had a huge inferiority complex and Benjamin the donkey had once kicked him out of his stable. Enraged at this insult to his massive ego, Pinkeye swore to have his revenge, and before long the hapless Benjamin was arraigned for trial.

Squealer was placed in charge of this legalized lynching. Benjamin ignored the summons and was convicted in his absence, in a clear breach of the Commandments. However Squealer managed to confuse the animals so much when justifying his actions, that most of them eventually just assumed that the Commandments actually did say what Squealer said. Few bothered to go out of the barn and read them.

Benjamin was ordered to hand over his stable and fined a large bag of carrots, for having the temerity to own private property. Not satisfied with this though Napoleon had filed his own charges against him. Napoleon and Pinkeye both coveted the stable and if they couldn’t have it they were going to make Benjamin hand over even more carrots.

Once again Napoleon's mouth piece Squealer trotted in. The piglets, most of whom were rumoured to be the children of Napoleon, were stacked into the jury benches. They sat obediently on the side lines, asking few questions. One at the start of the trial wasn’t even sure why he was there. Squealer decided to give the animals the appearance of a fair trial and even though Benjamin wasn’t there a second time, commenced what rapidly turned into a farce.

Squealer tried to be ominous and threatening, but actually only managed to portray himself as narrow minded and bigoted against Benjamin and any animal that spoke for him. He proceeded to suppress evidence, spoke for Napoleon, consistently rewrote the rules of the trial, twisted the Commandments, used the threat of the dogs to keep the animals in line and generally acted as a supreme example of unchecked power wielded by a very little and unimposing pig.

Napoleon spoke briefly, happy to leave it mostly to Squealer to speak for him. He sallied in and out of the barn, in an atmosphere of complacent self-adoration, now calling himself the Father of all Animals. The piglets eyeing their daddy were dazzled by his oratory. He had you see studied very long and hard how to say an awful lot that meant very little.

At one point Pinkeye had a momentary meltdown and fell into a raging snit, complaining he had been robbed of the chance to confront Benjamin with his heinous crimes. Few of the animals paid any attention as Pinkeye was one of those pigs who huffed and puffed a lot.

Squealer called for the verdict and led all the piglets into a private sty in the barn, so they could discuss the case and proceeded to stay there. Many of the animals wondered if this was to ensure that the piglets, who really had seemed very disinterested in the trial, remembered what was expected of them. Despite this two of the piglets never even bothered to vote. It was thus hardly surprising that all but one of them voted to condemn Benjamin.

This goes to prove that the Commandments simply didn’t matter to Napoleon and Squealer and that:

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Once more into the breach.

After avoiding posting in 2007 as I was Accensus to the then Consul Tiberius Galerius Paulinus, I anticipated doing the same in 2008 since I had accepted the offer of Consul Titus Iulius Sabinus to serve as his Accensus. Upon reflection it had seemed better to maintain as much a degree of public neutrality as I could on issues while occupying this position.

Well, no more. On Saturday 23rd February I requested Sabinus relieve me of my position, in order that I could with all honour concentrate of opposing such policies as his consular colleague may put forth that strike at the heart of good order, law, equity and the Constitution of Nova Roma.

So once again the elephant of illegality clomps around Nova Roma, trampling all before it with sadly both Consuls, the Praetors and the Tribunes perched on top of it. Bringing up the rear is of course Maior, clutching at its tail. The long awaited purge has begun and we know of course that there are so many names on the blacklist it probably requires not a black book but a scroll to record them all.

More on this debacle later. For now it suffices to say that it is exceedingly refreshing to once again be offering a commentary and insight into the madcap world of Nova Roma. All is well in the republic for the Constitution is being broken, people are resigning or being exiled, laws are being ignored and a general tension pervades the air in the forum. Life as we know it continues unabated.

Sooty faces

The New Year has struck in Rome already. Our Consuls have changed. Looking back on the last twelve months, Nova Roma has hosted a re-run of the film "The Great Race". Professor Fate (Jack Lemmon) and his sidekick Maximillian (Peter Falk) bumbled and stumbled their way from one failure to another. Wheels fell off their car, plots were laid and went awry, unlikely alliances were forged and forgotten, and of course a huge pie fight ensued. Sound familiar?

Nova Roma's consular versions of Professor Fate and Maximillian managed to accidentally pour sugar in their own gas tank and attempted running repairs to breakdowns of their own making, managing to short circuit their electric system in the process.

If that wasn't enough they stuffed their vehicle full of multiple navigators all of whom seem to have either had no map to read, fought over the same map and tore it in the process or if they had their own map read it upside down and back to front. If they had all pulled together then the result might have been different.

Instead the result, not surprisingly, was that the consular version of the Hannibal Twin-8 bucked and swayed all over what should have been a fairly straight forward course, managed to "go agricultural" by veering off into fields, lost a few of the occupants along the way, caused a fair swathe of damage and saw many onlookers shaking their heads in amazement at this carnival of disaster and mayhem.

Now of course, weighed against the realities of the world outside our virtual gates, none of these events of the last twelve months could be described as a "crisis" or a "disaster". They were however a series of botched ignominious failures, brought about by a total lack of leadership and vision.

The consular engine was fuelled by partisan politics and personal grudges, and therefore it is hardly surprising that the year reverberated to a series of backfires and coughing and spluttering as they ground to a halt. This fuel was simply too explosive. On more than one occasion our own Fate and Maximillian emerged from the driver's seat with soot on their faces, the result of this combustible mixture exploding.

They not only lost the race through navigational errors, coarse steering, hasty gear changing, poor vehicle maintenance, and generally inept driving skills, but they also failed to finish the race. What makes this level of bumbling and stumbling even more staggering is that this was a one car race.

This wasn't meant to be a Great Race, instead it should have been a comfortable little jaunt into the countryside and back, along well maintained roads. They decided however to head off into the great unknown, chart a dangerous and divisive course, stop frequently for extended rest breaks and then drive with reckless abandon in order to make up for lost time.

They didn't even cross the finish line and are still out there in the wilderness of Nova Roman politics. Tonight as the sands of time ran out and as the last grain dropped, Fate and Maximillian were nowhere to be seen. It cannot even be said with any honesty that they passed the first checkpoint.

Instead we have watched them drive around in circles for a year, achieving nothing and wasting their entry form into this exclusive race. Simply staying in the race is not a success or anything to be proud of, rather it is the baseline expectation for elected officials.

So their race has ended without any explosion of champagne corks, no streamers, no honking horns, no adoring looks, in fact nothing has marked its end, other than Professor Fate rushing to enter another race in the censorial Hannibal Twin-9, and it should serve as an object lesson to all current and future consuls, a veritable model of poor planning, incompetence, irritability and impatience.

We can only hope that the year ahead sees our new Consuls embarking on less dangerous and more considerate driving and definitely paying more attention to the road ahead; less haste more speed.

A good day to be Roman

The election of Tiberius Galerius Paulinus as Consul is excellent news. He brings a good combination of practicality, traditionalism and energy to the office. He can be doggedly determined, yet he is also able to negotiate alternative routes to the same goal.

Gaius Equitius Cato was elected as Praetor, an equally excellent result. Anyone who frequents the Nova Roman forum on a regular basis will know this man. Dedicated, witty, charming, relentless in debate and analytical in reflection, this man is the quintessential Roman patrician. He can be a true friend and doughty foe. Justice is safe in this man’s hands.

Titus Iulius Sabinus was not so fortunate in his attempt at the Praetor’s tribunal, which is a great pity for he and Cato were a good team this year as Curule Aediles. Sabinus is organized, methodical, inspiring and a really good man. Nova Roma benefited immensely from all his hard work organizing the various games and festivals his year. He will make an excellent Praetor, and I hope that day will be soon.

Hopefully better days lie ahead for Nova Roma.

Ungodly, unspeakable, and unattainable

The proposed elimination of the Collegium Pontificum’s right to issue constitutionally protected decreta signals the most foolhardy risk that could be taken in order to solve an internal issue of voting gridlock. For some, winning is obviously more important than the long-term security of the Religio Romana.

Not content with exposing the Collegium to the possibility of hostile interference, the author has included a raft of duties and functions that are largely impossible to fulfill. This legalistic role-play is exactly the sort of example that the opponents of Nova Roma’s legal system have seized on in the past.

Normally one would have expected these well known Luddites to heap derision on this long-winded shopping list of theoretical priestly duties, but so far they are silent. Since the aim of this “reform” is to allow one faction in the Collegium total victory over its opponents, the normal objections have of course been shelved.

What a classic example of Nova Roman power politics at its best, and better still this long and dreary suicide note is to be tacked onto the already discredited Constitution.

The ungodly married to the unspeakable in pursuit of the unattainable.

Trick and no treat

Its that time of year when juveniles dress up as monsters and the cries of "trick or treat" ring out. Sadly here in Nova Roma the cry is "trick and no treat". Yes, its election time!

Recall those parties as a child when the fat little monster turned up and when offered one cookie grabbed the whole plate and ran off into the corner? You know, the sort of child that could have ended up under a mountain in the dark, whispering about his "precious"? Here in Nova Roma of course we have no rings of power, just another pointy hat to add to a burgeoning collection.

Hickory, dickory, dot!,
The consuls promised a lot.
Hickory, dickory, dot!,
The votes they got,
Then they ditched the lot.
Hickory, dickory, dot!

The question is who got egged in the face? Us or them?

Sawing into freedom

I recently read on one particular Yahoo list the varied views of a small selection of new citizens. The old saw about the rough and tumble nature of the Main List surfaced. The Main List is our forum, and as such it is open to all. Since Nova Roma is a community many issues will be debated there and yes, frequently they involve politics and law, which can certainly evoke heated debates.

An experiment was once tried, where no one posted on any topic concerning those two categories. This was meant to encourage the free flow of debate and discussion on higher and nobler subjects, such as art, literature, poetry, history etc. The result? Very few people posted and there was certainly no renaissance that flowered in place of all these apparently ghastly and verbally bloody debates.

The day that we stop debating politics and law on the Main List is the day we hand over control of Nova Roma to the intellectual elite, or at least to those that consider themselves such.

An intellectual oligarchy would be as much as an anathema to the concept of a res publica as rule by one man.

Reform and the Religio

The proposed legislation to reform the activities of the priestly colleges of Nova Roma has, as I predicted, seen the light of day on the Main List and the key theme is accountability. The Pontifex Maximus is accountable for individual members of the religious colleges, while the latter will be accountable as well, for actions and research. Much of this proposal appears to be grounded in tradition and for that alone we should be grateful.

Practicality however has to run parallel with tradition. If it is not practical to introduce “X”, then enshrining it in a law that can lay such a proposal open to the allegations that it is another example of role-playing, regardless of how traditional or accurate it is. That can be true, but equally it can be a precipitate charge and in this case clearly the intention is to provide a framework for further debate and subsequent decisions over the exact meaning of sections and terminology. For example referring to temples would appear to be precipitate, but as was pointed out to me, the relevant religious colleges could decide the exact definition of a temple later. Can a temple be a virtual one? Do we define a temple as including the activities associated with a physical structure? Good questions that would hopefully be sensibly answered after serious debate.

A potential problem arises in that this proposal must be rendered into a lex and a constitutional amendment. As most of us in Nova Roma know, at least those of us who care to honestly admit it, the constitution is a deeply flawed document that cannot be lawfully interpreted, though many will simply ignore that fact and attempt to drive their own interpretations into practical effect.

Therefore imprecision in language or conceptual vagueness, not to mention an absence of definitions can unwittingly create a legal void. A interpretational void in a lex, where the meaning is unclear can sometimes be legitimately filled by edicts, although in the long term it would of course be better to reduce the number of these voids by crafting the lex in a precise manner to begin with. Edicts have a finite lifespan and unless they are renewed by successive magistrates they die, and so too will the interpretations they contain. Edicts are an excellent instrument by which to resolve emergent unforeseen problems. In this case the intention I assume is that the religious colleges will issue decreta to “flesh out” the skeletal structure before us. Then again perhaps this duty will not fall to either of the Colleges and the reason for that supposition lies in the nature of the proposal and comments made on the Main List.

The Nova Roman constitution, as it stands, protects any decreta issued by either of the two religious colleges from being overruled by “any laws passed in the comitia or a Senatus consultum”. However that is a reactive clause that first requires a decretum be issued and then an attempt be made to negate it before this protective clause comes into play. If this law is to be effective a constitutional change will be necessary, a fact already acknowledged on the Main List by Gnaeus Salvius Astur. Additionally Astur writes, in respect of one section of the proposal, that “it reestablishes the role of the Senate as the highest responsible body for the Sacra Publica”. From this one has to deduce that at the very least Section 1.B. of the constitution, that notorious section on legal precedence, together with sections VI.B.1 and VI.B.2.a will have to be overturned.

Having removed the protection currently afforded to the religious colleges and placed the ultimate control of Sacra Publica in the hands of the Senate, that body through a Senatus consultum can be the ones to put flesh onto the bones of this skeletal proposal, one assumes in consultation with the one or both of the colleges, but there will be no evident mandated requirement to do so. In other words the balance of power in respect of the Sacra publica will be stripped from the colleges and placed into the hands of the Senate. So to me it appears that one possible scenario, should this proposal pass into law and the constitution be changed, is that the Senate will define those elements of the Sacra publica, relegating the colleges to issuing decreta on purely internal matters pertaining only to the mechanics of college affairs. While this may be said to be historically accurate, it is also extremely fraught practically speaking, and we should all consider the consequences quite carefully.

The Senate is not just comprised of practitioners of the Religio privata. It contains, as does Nova Roma, people of many different religious faiths and possibly those who have no faith at all. It is by nature a secular body and a political one too. Nova Roman politics can be quite “intense”, to say the least and while that, to me, is a healthy state of affairs it also inevitably results in quite polarized differences of opinion, compounded by personal likes and dislikes.

The Senate therefore can be said to be quite an accurate reconstruction of its late republican ancestor. The fundamental difference lies in the fact that it contains many people who are not practitioners of the Religio privata and have no intention of ever becoming one. Moreover those people have not grown up in a society utterly drenched in the traditions and ceremonies of the Religio publica. Few practitioners of the Religio privata have either, being “converts” later in life, but they do have their beliefs as a yardstick against which to judge proposals.

By contrast non-practitioners will have to approach such a judgement from a logical analysis, rather than an emotive one. Some may say that that is a better approach, but the Religio publica means, obviously, far more to a practitioner than a non-practitioner. The latter can genuinely afford it respect but the emotive “fall-out” of a proposed Senatus consultum, or in a wider sense a lex, can utterly escape them. This is not a deficiency on their part, but a simple result of a lack of emotional investment in the Religio, be it privata or publica.

Religious belief of all sorts involves an emotional investment to fully appreciate, for example, the deep significance of rituals. One can appreciate their historical importance and even take a reasonable stab at grasping the current importance attached to them, but I would suggest that the full religious importance of a Hindu ritual will not be experienced by an atheist, any more than a Christian can fully appreciate the Religio publica and privata. Respect and emotional intuitive understanding are two different concepts.

Therefore if the true significance of proposals that affect the Religio publica are to be grasped by non-practitioners, regardless of what positions they hold in Nova Roma, it is absolutely essential that the views of the religious colleges are invited and respected. The moment that the view of the majority of the Senate is in conflict with the view of the majority of one or both of the colleges constitutes a very dangerous flashpoint. Legally the Senate will be able to impose its view, but it would do so at grave risk at exacerbating the evident dislocation that a number of practitioners evidently feel, given the views expressed on the Main List and elsewhere.

There is a feeling abroad that Nova Roma currently has very little to do with the strengthening of the Religio publica, and there is the continuing risk that the majority of practitioners that remain will end up being polarized in the view that they are an isolated and endangered group within Nova Roma whose voice is paid little heed. That could all too easily develop into an open, continuing and very fractious conflict.

So we will be dependant on the good sense of the Senate to fully involve the colleges and defer to their views if, as a secular body, it wishes to preserve the religious peace in Nova Roma. As it will be legally the supreme decision maker there can be no checks or balances that prevent it from deviating from the views of the colleges, for obviously that would result in it no longer being supreme.

Indeed the Senate could elect to dismiss the views of the colleges as unrepresentative of the views of practitioners based on its “analysis” of the situation. The members of the Senate are fallible and prone to the same human failings we all are, and those personal and ideological divides that clearly place individual Senators at odds with each other, so much so that they could reasonably be described as personal enemies, could influence the “analysis” of a proposal that affects the Religio publica, compounded by the fact that a number of the protagonists are not practitioners of the Religio privata.

Therefore this legislative proposal with voids of this sort, combined with relegating the religious colleges to what is inevitably a legally subordinate role, and the existence of personal animosities, makes for a volatile mix. It maybe alleged to be historically accurate but practically it is exceptionally risky. Since the Senate is not a static body, changes in its membership may further increase the risk of a breakdown of what can only be a “gentleman’s agreement” to rely on the advice of the religious colleges to guide the decision making process of the Senate.

Further, what happens if the Senate elects to support a minority, rather than majority, view of the colleges? Legally, nothing but again practically the consequences could be disastrous. At a time of its nascent development, is it appropriate to place the final authority for the Religio publica in the hands of a secular body, not all of whose members are practitioners of the Religio privata?

This proposal could under ideal circumstances work, and work reasonably well, but the provision relating to electing the Pontifex Maximus is in my opinion utterly unwise and should be struck. I equally believe that the risks to religious peace in Nova Roma are too great to place the Senate in a dominant role over the Religio publica. The remainder of the proposals have merit, although again there are elements that are currently impractical at face value and would require more detailed definition. Should that definition be left solely to the religious colleges I would rest more easily, as I suspect would many others of all shades of “political” opinion.

After carefully considering its provisions I respect its attempt at historical accuracy, I hope that the motivation for this proposal was to enhance the Religio publica and not emasculate a faction within the Collegium Pontificum, and I am concerned that the fundamental shift in responsibility will make the Religio publica and the Religio in general even more of a battleground than it has been in the past.

For this proposal to work, it will require, in my estimation, an immense amount of good faith, trust, respect and adherence to an unwritten rule that the views of the colleges will be heeded and not contradicted. I am far from hopeful that all these conditions will come into alignment and remain so.

And yet another theory on Jesus

Jesus, son of Roman soldier?

After The Da Vinci Code, which upset many Christians with its premise that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and fathered a child, would anyone dare make even more shocking claims? This author does and he’s no fiction writer but a respected historian

THE JESUS DYNASTY
The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity
By James D. Tabor
Publisher: Simon & Schuster, 384 pages
(ISBN: 0-743-28723-1)

Review by Dr NG KAM WENG
AT first glance, The Jesus Dynasty seems like another dubious book cashing in on the notoriety of Dan Brown’s best-seller The Da Vinci Code. However, a quick perusal of the book will dispel this notion, given the academic credentials of the author, James Tabor. Tabor comes across as an archaeologist who has patiently collected and coordinated solid evidence to support his bold thesis. The Jesus Dynasty bears the marks of a well-researched academic book.

At the outset, the book argues for an alternative history of the origins of the Christian faith in Jesus the Messiah. Some of its provocative theses include the following:

1) There was no Virgin Birth. Mary, the mother of Jesus was either seduced or raped by a Roman soldier named Pantera (whose grave Tabor allegedly found in Germany). This claim, if true, would shatter Christian faith considerably.

2) Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist, from whom he got his understanding of the Messianic vocation. John and Jesus took on the role of Jewish Messiahs and preached the coming of the Kingdom of God amidst political turmoil. Jesus included his four blood brothers in the Council of the Twelve, which he formed in anticipation of his success in establishing the Kingdom of God on earth.

3) Christianity traditionally identifies the “beloved” disciple as John. Not so, says Tabor. It was actually James, Jesus’ brother. After Jesus was crucified by the Romans, his brother James – the “Beloved Disciple” – took over the leadership of the Jesus Dynasty and ruled for 30 years, although to say “ruled” might be an exaggeration since he had no more than a motley band of impoverished, persecuted Christians in his charge.

In short, Tabor claims that, “Jesus by age thirty functions as head of the household and forges a vital role for his brothers, who succeed him in establishing a Messianic Dynasty destined to change the world” (page 81). In this regard, both Tabor and Brown promote the conspiracy theory that the Church continues to suppress the truth of history out of vested interests.

more...

Link

Roman treasure to stay in Bristol

Thousands of Roman coins will go on permanent display in Bristol after the city's museum was awarded £22,500 of lottery money. The hoard of 11,460 coins - the third largest found in the UK - was unearthed in 2004 by a gardener in Thornbury.

Since the discovery, Bristol Museum has been seeking cash to put the copper and silver alloy coins on display.

Grants totalling more than £40,000 have now been raised to keep the coins, which date back to AD 270, in Bristol.

"We are delighted that the coin hoard is able to remain in Bristol and are able to give the public access to one of the most exciting finds in this area," said Kate Brindley, director of Bristol's museums, galleries and archives.