Forum Romanum


Subject:	Re: Pythiagram
From:
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 1998 05:08:15 EDT

In a message dated 8/24/98 4:49:54 PM, you wrote:

<<Everyone was dabbing their eyes, and it struck me that no one who wasn't
there will
know about this part of the Irish experience...because the cameras don't
roll at this sort of thing.>>

Sticking my neck out on this - but my paper did have an AP story about both
days of burials and the memorial service. It may not have been as far forward
as the original explosion, but at least the print media was there.

T.L. Regina


Subject:	Discussion: Comitia Populi
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@--------
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 1998 13:29:18 -0400

Salvete!

The recent talk about the Comitia Populi has gotten me thinking about
things. I believe that we should remove the line in the Constitution
allowing the Comitia Populi to pass laws. Historically, even though they had
the power, technically, it was never exercised in reality. (It was
originally included only for the sake of completeness, and was never
intended to be used.) Historically, the Comitia was a ceremonial body,
primarily, and I think the Constitution (as a practical document) should
reflect that.

We would, of course, keep the Comitia Populi to elect the Curule Aediles and
Quaestors.

Anyone have any thoughts? I'd like to bring this to a vote before we vote on
the Speakers for the tribes of the Comitia Populi (wouldn't really be fair
to pull the rug out from under them right after they were put into office).

Valete,

Germanicus


Subject:	Discussion: Comitiae Plebis and Centuriata
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@--------
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 1998 13:32:37 -0400

Salvete!

On a similar topic, I think it'd be a good idea to clarify the language in
the Constitution as to how the other two Comitiae vote. Right now it states
that each tribe and century elects a speaker, who then votes on behalf of
the whole unit. While this was fine and necessary at a time when everyone
was gathered together in a field to vote, I think it's an unnecessary
complication that's actually frought with the possibility for abuse
(nowhere, for example, is that person compelled to vote the way the majority
within the tribe or century votes).

I would suggest that the wording be changed to eliminate the references to
speakers for the Comitia Plebis and Comitia Centuriata, and that voting be
done on a direct-majority basis within each tribe or century. It's simpler
and fairer that way.

Any thoughts?

Valete,

Germanicus


Subject:	Discussion: Rex/Regina Sacrorum
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@--------
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 1998 13:37:46 -0400

Salvete Omnes!

(Last one for now, I promise!)

Now that the Pontifices are up and running and gearing up for making other
priestly appointments, it has been pointed out that the Rex and Regina
Sacrorum, who should be included within the Collegium Pontificum (college of
Pontiffs), were omitted by accident. Would anyone object to including them
in the formal definition of the Collegium Pontificum in the Constitution?
Even though he's not a Pontiff himself, the Rex Sacrorum (and his wife the
Regina Sacrorum), was historically considered to be a member of the College
of Pontiffs.

Any thoughts?

Valete,

Germanicus


Subject:	Re: McCullough
From:	Dexippus@--------
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 1998 17:11:55 EDT

In a message dated 98-08-24 20:18:27 EDT, you write:

<< I've been insanely, stupid-headed, in love [ain't it
wunnerful Dex?], >>

Ah...that it is. Almost caused me to give up US citizenship and move to
Toronto. Wouldn't have been so bad...but he talked me out of it!

--Dexippus


Subject:	Re: Discussion: Comitiae and Rex/Regina Sacrorum
From:	Dexippus@--------
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 1998 17:22:58 EDT

In a message dated 98-08-25 13:50:55 EDT, you write:

<< I agree with all three propositions. >>

I too agree with all three of Germanicus' proposals.

--Dexippus


Subject:	RE The assemblies
From:	Masterofhistory masterofhistory@--------
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 1998 14:47:32 -0700 (PDT)

Salve Nova Romans,

As many of you may know, Consul F. Vedius Germanicus wants a vote on
the elimination of the legal functions of the Comitia Plebis. There
is also the assignment of centuries to be dealt with. I think many
are confused by such measures because the Roman style of voting and
assembling is different from modern voting procedures. In addition the
constitution of Nova Roma differs from that of Roma Antiqua. I have
dug up my notes from my Early Republican Rome course and have decided
to mail the basics of the Roman assemblies to all citizens. I hope
you will find it as informative as I did (I tend to forget the finer
points myself).

First of all, the three main assemblies of Rome were the Comitia
Curiata (which I assume in Nova Roma is called the Comitia Populi),
the Comitia Centuriata and the Comitia Plebis Tributa (which is the NR
Comitia Plebis). These three assemblies underwent certain changes
through the years but essentially remained the same in structure. The
first two, Comitia Curiata and Comitia Centuriata were assemblies of
the entire citizen body and were divided into artificial social units
curia and century respectively. The Comitia Plebis Tributa was an
assembly of the Plebeian tribes of the Roman populous and was a very
active element in Roman politics.

The Constitution of Nova Roma remains a bit nebulous on the exact
nature of the assemblies with regard to their constituents and
authority when compared with what we know about the three ancient
assemblies. This again may be due to a modern adaptation by the
framers of our constitution. Consider that the ancient Comitia
Curiata was the earliest and likely a hold-over advisory assembly to
the kings of Rome. I think Livy mentions that this assembly was a
group of thirty men originally from the three clans of most ancient
Rome; the Ramnes, Luceres and the Tities. In the Republic they appear
to have been a sort of verification committee. It was this committee,
not the Plebeian assembly that verified the appointments of the
magistrates. It also served as a religious and legal verification
service. This comitia witnessed the appointment of the priests and
pontiffs, appearantly it was summoned by the Pontifex Maximus and told
the dates of importance for the month in question. The Curiata also
observed the creation of wills, adoptions and the transfer of res
mancipi (basically valuable property). Whether this comitia had the
power to strike down something it didn't like was questionable but an
objection likely demanded action of some sort by the magistrates. It
is this comitia, and not the Comitia Plebis Tributa that the Consul
should dub as the rump assembly.

The Comitia Centuriata was perhaps the largest of the comitia in Rome.
It consisted of all citizens but was weighted to give the wealthiest
members the majority in any vote. Nova Roma has ensured that all
members have the same weight to their vote. This assembly voted to
declare war and agree to peace. It was this assembly that elected the
high magistrates; the Consuls, Praetors and the Censors. It was this
assembly, the Comitia Centuriata which had the ability to enact laws
(presumably under the guidance of the Senate) and judge capital
offense cases. It is this assembly which, if I understand the Consul
correctly, will be the main voting assembly in Nova Roma.

The third and final major assembly of Rome was the Comitia Plebis
Tributa and the one which the proposed constitutional reform will
affect the most. This Comitia Plebis Tributa was made up only of
Plebeian citizens and originally carried little weight in the Roman
government of the Republic. Matters were given to it to vote on but
not to amend. Like the Nova Roman constitution states this assembly
elected the Tribunes of the People and the Plebeian Aediles. The
Comitia Plebis Tributa also heard and judged some non-capital offense
cases. Matters before the government or Rome were often sent to this
assembly due to its quicker, less ceremonial protocol and it was still
in the Early Republic when this assembly's measures carried the force
of law for the whole community (ensured by Lex Hortensia ca. 287BC).

There was a spinoff assembly created by the Patricians called the
Comitia Populi Tributa which met to elect Curule Aediles and some
Quaestors, as I understand the situation, the Comitia Populi had no
authority to pass binding measures.

The above is a basic outline of the assemblies in ancient Rome. The
constitution of our Republic differs on the authority each assembly
had. I am unable to determine if this is the result of intent or a
mistake. One reason for this letter is to get the Consul to better
explain the situation as he understands it. I for one do not like the
idea of weak Comitia Plebis Tributa and the, shall we say,
emasculation of the Tribunate. This was the most important body in
Rome and by the late Republic, I believe the only legislative one
perhaps incorporating the Comitia Populi Tributa into its structure.
It was in this assembly that the check upon the Senate's whim and
while could be met with the full force of the people of Rome. Despite
the violent confrontation that emerged in the last century of the
Republic, this system worked in a rather civil and beneficial way for
the Republic before that era. I am wary of the Consul's wish to
dismantle it as this was and still should be one of the checks and
balances of the Nova Roman government.

I sincerely hope this helps the citizens of Nova Roma in understanding
some of their governmental processes and civic duties. I also hope
the Consul sees fit to address this matter and explain his thoughts to
the population.

Respectfully,
Avidius Tullius Qf Callidus, Praedans
Paterfamilias, gens Tullia


Subject:	The Rex/Regina Sacrorum
From:	Masterofhistory masterofhistory@--------
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 1998 15:21:18 -0700 (PDT)

Salve again Nova Romans,

On the subject of the Rex and Regina Sacrorum and their position in
the Roman religious hierarchy, I advise you to consult the Oxford
Classical Dictionary. Nothing suggests the Rex Sacrorum was a member
of the collegium of pontiffs. He stood as the second highest
religious authority in Rome next to the Pontifex Maximus, however he
had no political authority and only performed sacral duties and
advised the pontiffs on the calander. While closely involved with the
pontiffs, he was at best an adjunct member to the collegium.

His removal from the organizations of Republican power was due to the
fact that he carried on the traditional roles of the kings of Rome
with respect to the religion of the city. At least that is how
traditional sources regard the office.

Respectfully,
Avidius Tullius Qf Callidus, Praedans
Paterfamilias, gens Tullia


Subject:	Re: The Rex/Regina Sacrorum
From:	"Lucius" vergil@--------
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 1998 18:50:59 -0400

>From: Masterofhistor--------sterofhistor--------..
>
>Salve again Nova Romans,
>
>On the subject of the Rex and Regina Sacrorum and their position in
>the Roman religious hierarchy, I advise you to consult the Oxford
>Classical Dictionary. Nothing suggests the Rex Sacrorum was a member
>of the collegium of pontiffs.

Salve Tullius et Avete omnes
On page 1219 of the Oxford Classical Dictionary it says "The college
of pontifices was a more complicated structure than the other three,
containing as full members the rex sacrorum (the rebublican priest who took
over the king's religious functions) and the three major flamines as well as
the pontifices proper; the Vestals (see VESTA) and the minor flamines
together with the pontifical scribe were also part of and under the
authority of the college."
This is from the Third edition 1996.
It does not address the position of the regina sacroum, who I doubt was a
member of this college.
Vale Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus, Praetor Urbanus

>His removal from the organizations of Republican power was due to the
>fact that he carried on the traditional roles of the kings of Rome
>with respect to the religion of the city. At least that is how
>traditional sources regard the office.
>
>Respectfully,
>Avidius Tullius Qf Callidus, Praedans
>Paterfamilias, gens Tullia
>


Subject:	Re: RE The assemblies
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@--------
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 1998 20:07:29 -0400

Salve!

>From: Masterofhistor--------sterofhistor--------..
>
>Salve Nova Romans,
>
>As many of you may know, Consul F. Vedius Germanicus wants a vote on
>the elimination of the legal functions of the Comitia Plebis. There

I think herein lies the crux of the problem. If you re-read my email on the
subject, you'll find it was the lawmaking powers of the Comitia Populi, NOT
the lawmaking powers of the Comitia Plebis, that I was advocating removing.
That would be in keeping with the outline of the powers of the Roman
assemblies you give in your email.

The only thing I wanted to change in the Comitia Plebis was to make the
majority vote of the tribes binding, and eliminate the need for "speakers"
for the tribes for each vote. When we're not voting face-to-face, that's a
needless complication.

>The Constitution of Nova Roma remains a bit nebulous on the exact
>nature of the assemblies with regard to their constituents and
>authority when compared with what we know about the three ancient
>assemblies. This again may be due to a modern adaptation by the
>framers of our constitution. Consider that the ancient Comitia
>Curiata was the earliest and likely a hold-over advisory assembly to
>the kings of Rome. I think Livy mentions that this assembly was a
>group of thirty men originally from the three clans of most ancient
>Rome; the Ramnes, Luceres and the Tities. In the Republic they appear
>to have been a sort of verification committee. It was this committee,
>not the Plebeian assembly that verified the appointments of the
>magistrates. It also served as a religious and legal verification

Once again, I think you're confusing the Nova Roman Comitia Populi with the
Comitia Plebis. It's the Comitia Populi that verifies magistrates and
invests them with imperium, etc.

I won't go through the rest of your email, as I think most of your points
stem from your confusion regarding the two assemblies. While I won't pretend
that our Constitution as it currently stands is an exact replica of that
practiced during the Republic, we are ever striving to make it more
accurate. At the same time, we have to bear in mind the practicalities of
the modern era; minor adjustments such as the direct-majority-voting within
Centuries and Tribes that I proposed fall into that category.

In fact, that's why I wanted to bring up these ideas for adjustments to the
Constitution; to make it closer to the original model we propose to follow
(in the change to the Comitia Populi) and to make it more workable (in the
changes to the Comitiae Plebis and Centuriata).

Believe me, the last thing I was trying to do was "emasculate the
Tribunate"!

I will say that the functions of the ancient Comitia Populi and Comitia
Curiata are somewhat blended together in our Comitia Populi. I put this down
to pure hurried research on my part way back in the ancient days
(January/February 1998). I wouldn't mind establishing the Comitia Curiata as
a separate entity; any thoughts on this? Think it's too much? I know some
people fear we're making too many changes too quickly to the Constitution;
while I'm all in favor of making minor "tweaks" now, early on, before things
get too entrenched, would such a major change be good to undertake now?

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus, Consul

"The Roman Republic is Reborn!"
Nova Roma
Post Office Box 1688
Morristown, NJ 07962
www.novaroma.org


Subject:	Re: RE The assemblies
From:	Masterofhistory masterofhistory@--------
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 1998 17:30:59 -0700 (PDT)

Yes Consul, I was a bit confused. I distinctly remember reading one
post with the assembly of Comitia Plebis referred to as the rump
assembly. Whether it was yours or not, I know what I read. With so
many assemblies it is not always easy to keep them in order. This
being Nova Roma and not Antiqua Roma I certainly do not object to and
adjustments to the constitution. My confusion stemmed for the most
part from the lack of any indicating remarks that the assemblies had
been modified. This never was mentioned in any discussions I was a
part of so that is why I demanded a specific explaination of you.

Sincerely,
Avidius Tullius Qf Callidus, Praedans
yadda, yadda, yadda


Subject:	Three proposals
From:	Ullrsson amgunn@--------
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 1998 20:14:41 -0700

Salvete Omnes!

Primus : I too am interested in aligning our Constitution with the way
things worked "in period." I agree with adjusting the Comitia Populi's
"powers."

Secondus: I think having a spokesman for each tribe can be useful. But
I am for modifying the voting procedure so that the majority decision of
the tribe being mandated as being the vote that the spokesman presents.
The spokesmen would be a less cumbersome device for discussion of the
issues in the Comitiae, when Nove Roma population DOES grow to an
unwieldy size.

Tertius : I am in favor of modifying the Constitution to include the
Rex and Regina (we are more egalitarian than our cultural ancestors) in
the Collegium Pontificum.

Otherwise: I have been delighted at the level of informed discussion I
see here in the Nova Roma List. Thank you all.

Valete,

Fare Well with the Holy Ones!

S. Ullerius Venator


Subject:	The Rex Sacrorum
From:	Masterofhistory masterofhistory@--------
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 1998 15:15:52 -0700 (PDT)


Subject:	Re: Three proposals
From:	"michael cessna" clinkerbuilt@--------
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 1998 23:26:27 PDT

>Subject: [novaroma] Three proposals
>
>From: Ullr-------- amgunn@--------
>
>Salvete Omnes!
>
>Primus : I too am interested in aligning our Constitution with the
>way things worked "in period." I agree with adjusting the Comitia
>Populi's "powers."
>
>Secondus: I think having a spokesman for each tribe can be useful.
>But I am for modifying the voting procedure so that the majority
>decision of the tribe being mandated as being the vote that the
>spokesman presents. The spokesmen would be a less cumbersome device
>for discussion of the issues in the Comitiae, when Nove Roma
>population DOES grow to an unwieldy size.
>
>Tertius : I am in favor of modifying the Constitution to include the
>Rex and Regina (we are more egalitarian than our cultural ancestors)
>in the Collegium Pontificum.
>
>Otherwise: I have been delighted at the level of informed discussion
>I see here in the Nova Roma List. Thank you all.
>
>Valete,
>
>Fare Well with the Holy Ones!
>
>S. Ullerius Venator
>
>
>>
Salve, Omnes!

In the good name of brevity, I will simply say that I agree with all
three of the above points, especially Secundus.....

Vale,

Gnaeus Marius Asiaticus
>>
>