| Subject: |
Re: Stoic School |
| From: |
Marcus Prometheus fresco@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 02:15:31 +0300 |
|
Valete omnes.
I'm interested in the stoic school of philosopy
Please add my e-mail address to the mail list which is forming.
Marcus Prometheus Decius Golia
<a hre--------post/novaroma?protectID=230212192112185190015225190036129" >--------co@--------</a>
|
| Subject: |
Re: Re:in the latest explorator |
| From: |
Diana/Orbianna proserpina@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 08:41:44 -0400 |
|
Salve et Gratias,
It still won't work for me :-( Thanks for your effort.
Vale and Bright Blessings,
Orbianna
At 19:16 21/07/99 -0400, you wrote:
>From: Dav--------eadows <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=114232192237248190028232203026129208071" >dmeadows@--------</a>
>
>At 10:51 PM 21/07/1999 -0000, Scripsisti:
>
>Salve & gratias for the post!
>
>I went to check out the sight but was informed i needed a user code in
>order to enter the site. Perhaps you could just copy and paste the article
>into an email and post it to us. That's what I had intended to do. I'd be
>greatly appreciative.
>
>Respondeo:
>
>With all due respect, I'd rather not ... As a listowner myself (several
>lists) and the editor of a major website with quite a bit of original
>content up (and more to come)I'm very sensitive to issues of copyright and
>I'm sure that one of these days one of the major news services is going to
>come down hard on listowners who post entire articles. That said, I should
>have explained something:
>
>Scripsi:
>
>On Monday, the Times of London had an interesting article on the cult of
>St. Alban's and its origins as a pagan cult, according to research at
>Verulamium (thanks to Sally Winchester for the heads up) (watch the wrap):
>
><a href="http://www.sunday-times.co.uk:80/news/pages/Monday-Times/timnwsnws03016.html" target="_top" >http://www.sunday-times.co.uk:80/news/pages/Monday-Times/timnwsnws03016.html</a>
>?2177977
><url:<a href="http://www.sunday-times.co.uk:80/news/pages/Monday-Times/timnwsnws03016" target="_top" >http://www.sunday-times.co.uk:80/news/pages/Monday-Times/timnwsnws03016</a>
>.html?2177977>
>
>Respondeo (sort of):
>
>The important thing is the 'watch the wrap'; what has happened in your case
>is that the url has spilled over onto the other line. Many browsers don't
>pick this up so you have to manually cut and paste that little bit (i.e.
>the ?217797) onto the end of the line in your browser window. That number
>happens to be my user number. [so what you do above is 1) highlight and
>copy the ?217797 2)click on the url to launch your browser 3)while it is
>looking for the Times site, paste the ?217797 on the end of the url in your
>broswer 4) press enter.
>
>Vale!
>
>MJP
>(still awaiting citizenship, alas)
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>ONElist announces "FRIENDS & FAMILY!"
><a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a>
>See homepage for details, including our weekly drawing!
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Iustina Luciania Orbianna
Gens Luciania
----------------------------
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=165212250009158116172098203108129208071" &--------rbianna@--------</a&--------
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=197212253112056209171056066140114002071048139" >proserpina@--------</a>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/soho/studios/7401" target="_top" >http://www.geocities.com/soho/studios/7401</a>
----------------------------
"Scientia est potentia." -Francis Bacon
"Pax Cererem nutrit, Pacis alumna Ceres" -Ovid "Fasti" 1.701-704
"I will teach you to know yourself" -Persephone, as Queen of the Underworld
|
| Subject: |
Re: De Iuliano Imperatore was In the latest Explorator |
| From: |
Diana/Orbianna proserpina@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 08:50:33 -0400 |
|
Salvete Merulle et omnes,
>Doesn't it steal some of Julian's thunder to refer to him as "one of"? I
>thought that he WAS THE LAST GREAT pagan emperor.
<laugh> Yes, yes. You are quite right.
>Can you, Orbianna, or others here with the interest and the info, name
>other, later emperors who were openly pagan, or even made any edicts/actions
>that helped practitioners of the old religions vs. the Christians?
Ironically, the Western half of the Roman Empire fell relatively shortly
after Christianity become the main religion. I'd love to check my books
right now, but they're all packed in boxes, which is causing me a great
deal of anxiety as I go through withdrawl. I think my library constitutes
a large portion of my items to be moved, outside of the large furniture.
Currently I am surrounded by small piles of modern first editions that I've
been posting online to get them off my hands. I may end up just dumping
them at the local used bookstore.
Argh, I have this reference I really want to check now, but I don't even
know what box it's in. It'll be all over on Saturday... Gods willing.
Valete and Bright Blessings,
Orbianna
Iustina Luciania Orbianna
Gens Luciania
----------------------------
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=165212250009158116172098203108129208071" &--------rbianna@--------</a&--------
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=197212253112056209171056066140114002071048139" >proserpina@--------</a>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/soho/studios/7401" target="_top" >http://www.geocities.com/soho/studios/7401</a>
----------------------------
"Scientia est potentia." -Francis Bacon
"Pax Cererem nutrit, Pacis alumna Ceres" -Ovid "Fasti" 1.701-704
"I will teach you to know yourself" -Persephone, as Queen of the Underworld
|
| Subject: |
Re: Re: Constitution and Help Wanted |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 08:45:16 -0400 |
|
Salve,
> From: "RMerullo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=194232192180194153138149203043129208071" >rmerullo@--------</a>
>
> I gather that the two election officers would be appointed by you now and
> serve for the duration of the crucial first votes of the various comitia,
to
> pass your laws and then to elect new magistrates?
More to the point; when I step down as dictator, there will be one or two
important magistracies vacant. According to the new Constitution, elections
would automatically be triggered within thirty days. We need officials to
handle those special elections. Plus, they'll also be handling the elections
at the end of this year.
> >* Lictores curiata (30): No skills required. A ceremonial (but vital)
> >function. Just act as witnesses to actions of the Pontifex Maximus.
>
> No disrespect meant, Flavi Vedi, but why are these lictores curiati
crucial
> right now?
Because in order to do their jobs, the high-level magistrates must have
Imperium. In order to have that Imperium, it must be granted by the comitia
curiata. Thus, we need the lictores curiata to bestow Imperium on the
magistrates.
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: Re: Constitution and Help Wanted |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 08:53:43 -0400 |
|
Salve,
> From: <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=100065242212067005015098190036129" >AC1917@--------</--------;
>
> OK, well, everyone's talkin' about the job . . . question is, how do you
> apply?
>
> Camillus Severus Antoninus
Either here or privately to me, just let me know what job you'd be
interested in and what (if any) qualifications you have for it.
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: Re: Cassius-Cincinnatus Debate 4 (shorter!) |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:05:36 -0400 |
|
Salve,
> From: <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=137166066112082162090021200165114253071048139" >C--------us622@--------</--------;
>
> > Cincinnatus: No, the last I heard I was offered citizenship on the
condition
> that I not run for office for a year and a half including Senator (sic)
> [Senator is not an elected office].
Actually, the phrase was "neither seek nor serve in political office,
including the Senate,
until 2,754 AUC (March of 2001), roughly a year and a half from now."
> Cassius:
> Germanicus removed
> you presumably because you were the "poster child" for the Committee...
and
> later offered to return your Citizenship. If the other things weren't
offered
> to you they should be. Hence my support.
>
> Cincinntus: If there is something changed I have not been notified. I
have
> no intention for running for any political office again in any case (I
had
> thought of Censor in the future but that is in three and a half years
from
> now and by then we may have much better qualified candidates than me I
> hope). I only wanted to see the Republic set up before I left office. I
was
> more than satified with a seat in the Senate and in the College
Pontificium.
Actually, Cincinnatus, I think you'd make a pretty good censor. It's what
you seemed to spend most of your time doing when you held the office of
consul...
> Cassius:
> I'll continue to look into this... hopefully my public support will be
heard.
It has been. If Cincinnatus is promising to keep his nose out of _elected_
office until at least the 2001 elections (and that's what it sounded like he
was saying), I would be more than willing to readmit him as a citizen and
re-appoint him to the Senate (and as Flamen Martiales, with your approval as
Pontifex Maximus, of course).
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Term for Censors |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:15:10 -0400 |
|
Salvete!
I was just wondering; is there a reason we need to have five-year terms for
the censors? I was thinking of changing it to a one-year term. The job is a
real killer anyway; one year seems more than enough. Any thoughts?
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: Term for Censors |
| From: |
jmath669642reng@--------) |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:43:14 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Salve Dictator Germanicus;
Sir; while I definately agree with your evaluation of the excessive five
year term for Censors from the reasons that have been discussed on this
net. I also recognize the necessity of a planned turnover of all
materials and records in an orderly way. I would venture to suggest
that the Censor's term would be reduced to two years (no more) and the
turnover to the incoming Censor be officially delayed by three months.
During that three months the outgoing Censor and the Incoming Censor
would work together, familiarizing the incoming Censor with the details
of his office and the current agenda as well as transferring documents
and records. The three month period would assure that work, family and
illness situations which always arise would allow sufficient time for
the transfer. At the end of the three month period after election, the
new Censor would take the Oath and the old Censor take his leave.
Due to the difficulty of the job, appointment to the Senate, would be
the reward for completing the task as the Consul's call, and the former
Censor would have a period of 9 months to relax before again entering
the lists as a candidate for public office..
Vale, Dictator Germanicus;
Very Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
|
| Subject: |
Re: Stoic School |
| From: |
Curtia Cornelius curtiacornelius@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:46:48 -0400 (EDT) |
|
If a non-citizen may be a part of your school, I would appreciate being
added to your list.
The watchful
Curtia Cornelius
--- Marcus Prometheus <a hre--------post/novaroma?protectID=230212192112185190015225190036129" >--------co@--------</a> wrote:
<-------- size=-1 color="#008000">> From: Marcus Prometheus <a hre--------post/novaroma?protectID=230212192112185190015225190036129" >--------co@--------</a>
>
> Valete omnes.
>
> I'm interested in the stoic school of philosopy
> Please add my e-mail address to the mail list which
> is forming.
>
> Marcus Prometheus Decius Golia
>
<-------- size=-1 color="#008000">> <a hre--------post/novaroma?protectID=230212192112185190015225190036129" >--------co@--------</a>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
> ----------------------------
>
> ONElist: your connection to online communities.
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
|
| Subject: |
Lictores curiati was Constitution and Help Wanted |
| From: |
"RMerullo" rmerullo@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:59:26 -0400 |
|
Salvete Caie Druse et alii
You wrote:
From: <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=114056113185089095081021203102129208071" >dean6886@--------</a> (Dean Troy)
The Lictores Curiata may not be crucial and may allow more people to
have titles but is that bad? I thought about something to that effect a
couple of days ago and came to the conclusion that it is getting average
citizens more involved in a positive way without really being expected
to do all that much. It is also of course a historical body, and will
serve its purpose in the proper time and place in Nova Roma as well.
To which I respond:
I may not have as much of an understanding of this as you, because I cannot
see the utility of this thing (the Comitia Curiata with its 30 lictores
curiati). Let me sum up what I think it is, and you, Dictator Germanicus
and others can correct me (or ignore me as you prefer :)):
i) The assembly reflects the classical comitia curiata, the first assembly
of the Roman people, the functions of which were mostly assumed by the
comitia centuriata to the point that, let's say by Cicero's time, it
(comitia curiata) was a purely ceremonial body.
ii) Incluson of it in the Germanican constitution has the functional effect
not of recreating the original comitia curiata that might have functioned,
let's say, in Lefty Scaevola's time, but rather of introducing a fourth
assembly to our full line of three assemblies, not one of which could be
formed throughout Nova Roma's pre-Dictatorial history (for various debatable
"historical" reasons); this fourth assembly will work, if at all, like the
one that was left over in Cicero's time -- only for ceremony.
iii) You say now that it's a good thing because it allows more people to
have titles. Well, those titles will be empty, because the functions that
they will denote will be empty. I don't think that it's healthy to assign
people meaningless titles. It makes them think that they are doing
something when they are not, belonging to something when they don't.
iv) Possible "side effects" of having an extraneous assembly formed of
"lictors" (partial list of course and maybe totally inaccurate):
--Lots of "new faces" on the political scene, doing nothing, but eager to
preserve the empty Comitia Curiata. It has a funny similarity to Stalin's
generation of copious low-level party and administrative jobs (also staffed
by people demonstrably lacking any skill or knowledge) to build up quickly a
critical mass of supporters to oust the problematic old Bolsheviks from
within the party and administration. By the way, I'm not trying to imply
that Germanicus has copied a page from Stalin's book or that he is driven by
similar motivations, I just see a certain parrallel in possible effect.
--The title of "lictor" is one that I think that we should leave be for now.
I personally have nothing against lictors, which to me has always meant the
procession in front of imperium-wielding magistrates, ready to protect the
person of that magistrate and maybe behead the occasional uncooperative
non-citizen out in the magistrate's province. But at this delicate stage of
our development, we probably don't want to hold out the title of "lictor" to
newcomers anxious to put maybe a more colorful, maybe even violent, face on
Nova Roma. Again, nothing against lictors, they were most definitely Roman,
and that ain't bad. But so was blood sacrifice, and we have all agreed not
to promote blood sacrifice, or even discuss it as part of the Religio
Romana, within the formal framework of Nova Roma. For sensible reasons put
forth by the Pontifex Maximus. I say, let's hold off on having lictors for
now, for somewhat analogous reasons. When as a kid I participated in a mock
government exercise years and years ago at school, I noticed that by far the
most highly sought position was Seargent-at-arms, the deputy charged with
keeping order under the direction of the speaker -- or, the kid who had the
right to grab another kid and physically eject him from the room. This sort
of "You're outta here 'cause I have all the power!" game appeals to kids a
lot. To have the title (I realize that the lictores curiati aren't supposed
to be "that kind of lictor" -- shouldn't they be called "curiae" then?) is,
in my view, to invite hotheaded kids to sign up to be lictors.
-- M Papirius Iustus pointed out that the comitia curiata was used as a tool
in the late republic/principate to pass the "laws" that killed the republic
in everything but name. This makes perfect sense: let's write up a law
that says that noone can hold two or more magisterial offices at once,
except for Gaius Marius Merullus, who must always hold at least the
following two offices at all times: Consul and Tribune of the Patricians
and Plebs (no such office? No problem, we'll fix it later :)). OK, now
let's put it through an assembly. "But Merulle!" my fictitious right-hand
man Bobius cries "The people will never pass it! They love and cherish you,
but they still have some brain tissue!" "No problem, Bobi, go round up our
lictores curiati and have them meet me behind the Temple of Marius." We put
the Augustus-inspired law to this assembly composed largely of hotheaded
kids who like me and don't like anyone else, and Voila! You have a
remarkable transformation: Republic into Monarchy without any blood,
violence, et cetera because it has used the tools of the republic, one of
the assemblies, to change it. Of course, a week later, the citizenry at
large of Nova Roma would send me a few dozen computer viruses, and tell me
to go f_ myself, and my reign would come to an anticlimactic end (because I
have no armies, don't control your food supply et cetera). But still, Nova
Roma would be ruined.
Anyway, those are some of the products of my misconception of the Comitia
Curiata in the Germanican constitution. Now, please fill me in on what's so
good about it.
Valete
Gaius Marius Merullus
|
| Subject: |
Re: In re constitutionis: de comitiis I |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:07:31 -0400 |
|
Salve!
(Forgive my lag-time; I'm finally able to systematically go through all the
excellent suggestions on the Constitution.)
> From: Mike Ma--------r <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=174176211056207031025158175026172165098048139046" >MikeMa--------r@--------</a>
>
> This relates to another issue - "supremacy" of the Constitution and
> constitutional amendments. Who decides whether a lex or edict is
> inconsistent with the Constitution? What amending mechanism?
The job of deciding the constitutionality of a given act or law is given to
the Tribunes of the Plebs. In that regard, their overwhelming intercessio
power is somewhat truncated (because it's limited to issues of
constitutionality), but the role of constitutional watchdog is clearly
defined.
> Roma Antiqua, at least in the later Republic (which is what we know much
> about) passed constitutional measures through the Comitia Centuriata, and
> private law measures through the Concilium Plebis. The Comitia Tributa met
> only for elections. The Comitia Centuriata is set up so as to give more
> weight to experience and activity. Why not follow Roma Antiqua and
restrict
> constitutional amendments to C. Centuriata?
I agree. I've made the change; constitutional amendments are now done
through the comitia centuriata only (and then ratified by the Senate).
> The right of provocatio (or appeal to the people) was also to Comitia
> Centuriata. That makes C. Centuriata the final appeal court. So even if
> they can't amend the Constitution, they can decide what it means ...
My OCD says that provacatio was made to the comitia populi tributa (I
think-- I don't have it here handy). I think that works even better in our
new system, where the tribes are going to be fairly evenly distributed,
rather than weighted (as the centuries are).
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: In re constitutionis: responsum |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:19:37 -0400 |
|
Salve,
> better or worse. Before any written constitution is voted on, I think it
> would be wise to consider whether we want Nova Roma to be a democracy for
> all or whether we want it to be something more oligarchical. In our desire
You make a false dichotomy. The choice isn't between a democracy and an
oligarchy. The choice is between democracy and representative republic. And
we've chosen the latter. I stand firm on this; we are Nova Roma, not Neo
Athene.
> there is a desire for a comitia centuriata (one of the chief tools of
> domination of the upper classes in ancient times) we would be well advised
> to specify within the constitution how voting is to take place. It is best
Why burden the constitution with details that are equally well handled by
law? If we should want to make a change to the procedures, wouldn't it be
easier to do so by simply changing the law, rather than amending the
Constitution? The Constitution should be as general as possible, with the
procedural details spelled out in law, Senatus consultum, or decreta.
And, as the centuries are now composed, those who contribute more to the
State are rewarded with a little more influence in the voting. And I think
that's as it should be.
> to foresee implications of a constitution *before* it has been ratified
> than hope for favourable juristic interpretation afterwards ... the
> experience of my own country (Canada) and the US both suggest that
> foresight works better than afterthoughts.
That I completely agree with. Which is why I've solicited all the comments
from folks such as yourself!
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: CMM de LEGE VEDIA VIGINTISEXVIRORUM |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:22:07 -0400 |
|
Salve,
> From: "RMerullo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=194232192180194153138149203043129208071" >rmerullo@--------</a>
>
> All the functions listed in this law are useful. I think that they can be
> assigned by the consuls to praetors, aediles and quaestors who then will
> have multiple titles.
>
> Yes, I'm proposing that our magistrates continue to wear a lot of hats.
> Because there is nothing even close to a pool of active qualified people
to
> fill all the offices that the constitution and package of laws are
creating.
Nothing says that one couldn't be both a quaestor and curaetor araneum (for
example). But I didn't want to spell out any sort of connection; in the
long-term I think we will see the day when there are more than enough active
and qualified people, and I don't want to complicate things in the future.
Better to double-up now than to have to separate powers later on.
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: Lictores curiati was Constitution and Help Wanted |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:35:55 -0400 |
|
Salve,
> From: "RMerullo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=194232192180194153138149203043129208071" >rmerullo@--------</a>
>
> I may not have as much of an understanding of this as you, because I
cannot
> see the utility of this thing (the Comitia Curiata with its 30 lictores
> curiati). Let me sum up what I think it is, and you, Dictator Germanicus
> and others can correct me (or ignore me as you prefer :)):
>
> i) The assembly reflects the classical comitia curiata, the first
assembly
> of the Roman people, the functions of which were mostly assumed by the
> comitia centuriata to the point that, let's say by Cicero's time, it
> (comitia curiata) was a purely ceremonial body.
Correct.
> ii) Incluson of it in the Germanican constitution has the functional
effect
> not of recreating the original comitia curiata that might have functioned,
> let's say, in Lefty Scaevola's time, but rather of introducing a fourth
> assembly to our full line of three assemblies, not one of which could be
> formed throughout Nova Roma's pre-Dictatorial history (for various
debatable
> "historical" reasons); this fourth assembly will work, if at all, like
the
> one that was left over in Cicero's time -- only for ceremony.
Actually, the comitia curiata was in the original Constitution (albeit made
up of its own system of tribes). I have replaced a second, superfluous tribe
system with a simple body of 30 appointees. It's the comitia populi tributa
that's the new addition, and something that should have been in there from
the beginning.
> iii) You say now that it's a good thing because it allows more people to
> have titles. Well, those titles will be empty, because the functions that
> they will denote will be empty. I don't think that it's healthy to assign
> people meaningless titles. It makes them think that they are doing
> something when they are not, belonging to something when they don't.
I would disagree that something that's purely ceremonial is necessarily
"meaningless".
> iv) Possible "side effects" of having an extraneous assembly formed of
> "lictors" (partial list of course and maybe totally inaccurate):
>
> --The title of "lictor" is one that I think that we should leave be for
now.
> I personally have nothing against lictors, which to me has always meant
the
> procession in front of imperium-wielding magistrates, ready to protect the
> person of that magistrate and maybe behead the occasional uncooperative
> non-citizen out in the magistrate's province.
You are mistaking the lictores curiata for the lictores. They were different
offices. The lictores curiata did not bear the fasces, as far as I know.
They certainly formed a separate decury...
> -- M Papirius Iustus pointed out that the comitia curiata was used as a
tool
> in the late republic/principate to pass the "laws" that killed the
republic
> in everything but name. This makes perfect sense: let's write up a law
> that says that noone can hold two or more magisterial offices at once,
> except for Gaius Marius Merullus, who must always hold at least the
> following two offices at all times: Consul and Tribune of the Patricians
> and Plebs (no such office? No problem, we'll fix it later :)). OK, now
> let's put it through an assembly. "But Merulle!" my fictitious right-hand
> man Bobius cries "The people will never pass it! They love and cherish
you,
> but they still have some brain tissue!" "No problem, Bobi, go round up
our
> lictores curiati and have them meet me behind the Temple of Marius." We
put
> the Augustus-inspired law to this assembly composed largely of hotheaded
> kids who like me and don't like anyone else, and Voila! You have a
> remarkable transformation: Republic into Monarchy without any blood,
> violence, et cetera because it has used the tools of the republic, one of
> the assemblies, to change it. Of course, a week later, the citizenry at
> large of Nova Roma would send me a few dozen computer viruses, and tell me
> to go f_ myself, and my reign would come to an anticlimactic end (because
I
> have no armies, don't control your food supply et cetera). But still,
Nova
> Roma would be ruined.
Except for the fact that the comitia curiata can't pass laws. All it does is
invest magistrates with Imperium and witness the appointment of priests and
the recording of wills. Why do you have such a problem with having a body
with that function? Is it because it's called a comitia? Because its members
are called lictors? You shouldn't let semantics bother you so much. It's a
vital function-- Imperium is a necessary component of the higher
magistracies-- and someone has to do it. Those someones are called lictors
and collectively they're called the comitia curiata.
> Anyway, those are some of the products of my misconception of the Comitia
> Curiata in the Germanican constitution. Now, please fill me in on what's
so
> good about it.
Other than being absolutely necessary for magistrates to be able to do their
job? Nothing at all...
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: Re: CMM de novo publico iure |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:09:33 -0400 |
|
Salve,
> From: "RMerullo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=194232192180194153138149203043129208071" >rmerullo@--------</a>
>
> By either definition, does it make sense to have aediles without imperium
> able to impose a veto, or intercessio, against aediles who have imperium?
I
> say that it does not make sense.
>
> What are the choices? I identify two (there may of course be more):
>
> 1. Re-write the relevant paragraph doing away with the distinction
between
> curule and plebeian aediles. This is the easiest thing to do now, and
will
> allow election of four aediles by one assembly annually. Easy peasy. But
> not necessarily desirable, because it will be a less accurate, or less
Roman
Yes, I definitely don't like this option. The distinction between plebeian
and curule aediles was, and I believe should be, significant.
> 2. Re-write the relevant paragraph borrowing from the old constitution --
> give the curule aediles imperium, and, I recommend, intercessio. But
don't
> give the plebeian aediles either of those powers. I am not making an
attack
> on plebeians here; I am trying to propose constitutional language that
> makes sense and is conducive to compliance and equity.
This makes a lot of sense, and I've adopted it in the new Constitution.
Curule aediles now have imperium (but no lictors!), and can practice
intercessio on their plebeian colleagues, but not vice versa (the plebeian
aediles can still practice it on each other, though). The curule aediles are
thus something like a half-step above their plebeian counterparts. (Not that
it's a disadvantage to the plebs as a group; they can run for either curule
or plebeian aedile, while patricians are restricted to only the curule
position.)
> >Is this in accord with others' understanding? Is this how we are using
> >"curule" in Nova Roma?
>
> As it stands, the constitution uses curule, as far as I can tell, only to
> describe the curule aediles. And its application there makes no sense to
me
> (see above).
At the moment, it's used to distinguish them from the plebian aediles, and l
ittle else. :-) But your argument makes sense.
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: CMM de lege sub nomine LEX VEDIA RATIO COMITIA PLEBIS TRIBUTA |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:25:54 -0400 |
|
Salve,
> From: "RMerullo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=194232192180194153138149203043129208071" >rmerullo@--------</a>
>
> How about increasing the length of the trinundium called for in paragraph
B?
> I like three market days, or even just two market days, a lot more than
> three days period.
Well, the three days was only a minimum originally, but I can see your
point. I've changed it to "at least two market days have passed", giving us
a nice 8 day minimum. (I've done the same in the comitia populi tributa.)
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: CMM de lege sub nomine LEX VEDIA RATIO COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:27:30 -0400 |
|
Salve,
> From: "RMerullo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=194232192180194153138149203043129208071" >rmerullo@--------</a>
>
> It looks like there is a typo in paragraph II: "Leges satura, which are
> laws which deal with more than one topic, may not be enacted by the
comitia
> plebis tributa." Plebis should be replaced by populi.
Oops! So there is. Thanks for the heads-up.
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: CMM de lege sub nomine LEX VEDIA RATIO COMITIA CENTURIATA |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:43:28 -0400 |
|
Salve,
> From: "RMerullo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=194232192180194153138149203043129208071" >rmerullo@--------</a>
>
> - The specifics on the censors' work tabulating the centuries belong to
the
> other law on the centuriate assembly.
Hmmm... maybe I'm confused. Where is there anything about the censors
distribution of citizens into centuries here?
Also, on a side note, I've included a clause "Within the first twenty-four
hours after the convening of the comitia, the right of intercessio or
nuntiatio may be exercised by those Constitutionally empowered to do so."
for this and the other two voting comitia and the Senate, just to spell out
when those powers may be exercised (as in not three days after the fact, or
something).
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
New Proposed Law: Lex Vedia Tributorum |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:48:21 -0400 |
|
Salvete!
I just realized that, while the proposed law for the division of citizens
into centuries was done, there was no counterpart for the tribes! That gross
omission having been detected before it was too late (and why didn't anyone
else notice?), I hereby present the:
LEX VEDIA TRIBUTORUM
In accordance with paragraph II.E.1. of the Constitution of Nova Roma, the
Lex Vedia Tributorum is hereby enacted to instruct the censors in the matter
of the division of the voting citizenry of Nova Roma into their respective
tribes.
I. The censors shall apportion individuals among the rural tribes as evenly
as possible by the assigning of newly enrolled citizens into those tribes
that are numerically deficient.
II. The censors may, if possible, assign members to tribes based on
geography, but such considerations shall be secondary to the goal of
maintaining equal membership in the tribes.
III. No citizen shall be removed from one tribe to be included in another,
save those who are transferred to the urban tribes by their failure to vote
in the annual magisterial elections.
IV. Changes to the album civium reflecting transfers of citizens to the
urban tribes shall be made by the censors no later than the last day of
January.
V. Members of the urban tribes who subsequently vote in the annual
magisterial elections and therefore have the right to be returned to one of
the rural tribes, shall be assigned to such a tribe based on section I of
this law, and will not necessarily be returned to their original tribe.
VI. Membership in the tribes shall be a matter of public record, and shall
be published by the censors annually no later than the last day of November.
(I should add that I put something similar to section V. into the law
defining the centuries as well.)
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: In re constitutionis: de comitiis I |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:56:47 -0400 |
|
Salve,
> From: Dav--------eadows <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=114232192237248190028232203026129208071" >dmeadows@--------</a>
>
> There is a potential problem here: what precedence to each of these
comitia
> take? What will happen, e.g., when a law is passed by the comitia
> centuriata and a contrary (or 'troublesome') law is passed by one of the
> other comitia?
I think I mentioned this in one of my other emails today, but just to make
sure folks see it (since it was buried under another heading), here it is
again. I've added a line to the list of legal precidences that says "Should
a law passed by one comitia contradict one passed by another or the same
comitia without explicitly superceding that law, the most recent law shall
take precedence." Thus, there's something of an automatic intercessio
exercised by one comitia over the others.
Bear in mind, too, that the Tribunes have the power to invalidate any law
passed by a comitia they deem unconstitutional, and that the comitia
themselves are going to be made up of just about the same people (the
exception of course being the comitia plebis tributa).
It's not perfect, but I really wanted to avoid alienating all the plebs or
all the most active citizens (for instance) by putting the comitia that
favors them under the others.
> The two comitia tributa also both have jurisdiction to try lawcases not
> dealing with citizenship -- what happens if contrary decisions on the same
> matter are reached in both?
The case would only be tried in one; cases involving two plebs could
theoretically be heard in either comitia, but the decision as to which heard
the case would be made by the official handling the trial (and who _that_ is
comes from a whoooole body of law that we haven't even touched yet-- a civil
law system-- and I for one am content to leave the matter to future
attention. It wasn't one of our problems before the crisis, and I see no
reason to tackle it now.)
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: in re constitutionis: de intercessione |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:01:25 -0400 |
|
Salve,
> From: Dav--------eadows <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=114232192237248190028232203026129208071" >dmeadows@--------</a>
>
> In my humble opinion, the only magistrates who should have the right of
> intercessio are the consuls and the tribunes, as the reps of the senate
and
> people respectively. A consul's veto should only apply to a fellow consul
> and a tribune's to a fellow tribune. It should also be specified in the
> constitution whether this right of intercessio extends to legislation
> already passed -- e.g. suppose a tribune proposes a law and has it passed
> by the comitia tributa; can a tribune subsequently veto that law? When
must
> an intercessio be imposed in such situations (e.g. before a vote on a
> matter?)?
The only problem with that is, what happens if an aedile is running amok (to
take one example)? Surely the consul, as head of the chain of command should
have some authority to intervene. While we should try to discourage
micromanagement by higher-ups in the affairs of their subordinates, I think
that some ultimate process of enforcing authority is required without having
to recourse to the comitia or the Senate every time. (I do believe that
having more narrowly defined the spheres of influence of the various
magistrates will go towards combating micromanagers in high places, but
ultimately it will come down to personalities.)
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: Re: Cassius-Cincinnatus Debate 4 (shorter!) |
| From: |
"Lucius" vergil@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:05:57 -0400 |
|
Salvete,
>
>It looks like this debate is winding down somewhat. Has it achieved
anything?
>I honestly have no clue. At least there has been some open, fairly
civilized
>discussion. That in and of itself isn't a bad thing.
CIncinnatus: Well said.
>
>My reply here is going to be far shorter than Cincinnatus' last post. I am
>snipping most threads and replying only when there is new information to be
>given. Most of the issues are "talked out"... we simply don't agree on
some
>subjects and that's only to be expected.
Cincinnatus: And most of the disagreements I would attribute to this mode of
communticating.
Cassius: In any case, I applaud Cincinnatus for being civil and thoughtful
in his
>answers. Should he raise more issues I will be happy to reply to him.
Cincinnatus: I only hope that citizens will have listened with an open mind
as you have Cassius.
>
> Cincinnatus: Neither of us knew that citizens list was in such a state
and
> you were in the midst of moving your business and home, plus Patricia had
a
> hospital vist.
>
>Cassius:
>Hopefully the Tribes will indeed be posted to the web page. Germanicus has
>been swamped with Constitutional issues, but it shouldn't be too difficult
>for him to post the tribes so that everyone has access to the info.
>
Cincinnatus: I think this is one of the big catch points to most citizens.
They want everything out in the open and discussed/debated, Some things
should just be done and the judgement of the responsible magistrate(s) are
trusted. They do have collaegues that will need to agree after all.
> >Cassius:
> >What Flavia Claudia sent to you was a copy of the Citizen's list in late
> >January...
> Cincinnatus: No, I don't think she even had it then.
>Cassius:
>Flavia Claudia was the person officially keeping the Citizen's list, until
>she passed off the post to Flavia Iucunda in December.
Cincinnatus: I've looked for it and it just isn't here. I downloaded any
attachments to disc. and the citizens lists I've kept on my hard drive as
well.
>
> >Cassius: Your assisting with the Citizen's list during the months of May
> and June, was very helpful and much appreciated.
>
> Cincinnatus: And I would be glad to continue doing it.
>
>Cassius:
>Hopefully the new Censors will have a team of people to assist with jobs
such
>as that. It's amazing that there was a "web team" of six people, when many
of
>the updates to the site were only desirable rather than crucial... but the
>Censors had no such assistance even though their work IS crucial and must
be
>maintained on a daily basis.
Cincinnatus: Yes, ironic isn't it.
>
> >Cassius: No, I WAS Censor, but have quit that time destroying, difficult
> and totally thankless job.
> Cincinnatus: Well you are still listed on the website as such,
Cincinnatus: I just looked and today Germanicus is listed.
>
>Cassius:
>I just checked the website. If you go to the Collis Capitolanus section,
and
>click on the "current magistrates" I am NOT listed as Censor.
>
> >Cassius:
> >What about the Citizen's list Flavia Claudia sent to you in January?
> Cincinnatus: She didn't even have a list in January to send.
>
>Cassius:
(And, as a
>note, Flavia Iucunda was quite ill in January, and was away from her
computer
>for quite some time.)
>
Cincinnatus: Yes, She told me she had been sick and I told her I was sorry
to have been bothering her to send me the list. But I was not sending things
publically.
> >Cassius:
> >If the Senate quorum had been present, and Decius Iunius could have
> attended,
>
Cincinnatus: Yes if he would have shown up it would have been done.
>
>Cassius:
>Now, suddenly, the Censors were in a position where they *could* complete
the
>Tribes project! All the plans officially submitted had been gone over. It
>would have been nice to combine aspects from two or three of the plans, but
>there was at the very least something on the table that was workable and
>could fit the bill for at least a couple of years. It would have been
>preferable for a BUNCH of people to get together over the Tribes at Roman
>Days. Since this couldn't be done I figured we'd just do the thing now that
>it was possible to do so.
>
Cincinnatus: That was always the best option.
>
> >Cassius:
> >Therein lies the other "big lie" about the Committee's intent. Decius
Iunius
> >and myself were up for Impeachment on ALL aspects of our involvement with
> >Nova Roma. He was being impeached as Censor, Consul, Senator and Pontiff.
I was being Impeached as Censor, Senator, Praetor, and Pontifex Maximus.
> CIncinnatus: No, I would not have stood for that!
>
>Cassius:
>You know, I rather believe you're serious when you say you wouldn't have
>stood for that.
Cincinnatus: Count on it.
>
> Cincinnatus: Senator is not a magistrate and you most likely were informed
> of the whole thing by a Senator.
>
>Cassius:
>Yes, Flavia Claudia. She was the only Senator contacted by the Committee.
She
>saw this thing for what it was, exposed it into the open, and then promptly
>quit her Citizenship in disgust. She was gone even before the Interregnum.
>
Cincinnatus: Or very closely thereafter.
>Cassius:
> >Look at yourself, Cincinnatus. You have been offered the opportunity to
> >return as a Citizen, Patrician, Senator and Priest. Only the Consulship
is
> >being denied you...
>
>> Cincinnatus: No, the last I heard I was offered citizenship on the
condition
> that I not run for office for a year and a half including Senator
>
>Cassius:
>You've seen me advocate your return to these positions. I have NO clue what
>is officially on the table at this point. Far from being one of the "powers
>that be", I'm basically not involved in politics now and don't hear
>everything. I'm just too damned weary. Once the Dictatorship is over I'll
>participate in the Senate.
>
Cincinnatus: I know the feeling.
>Cincinnatus:
>As for Consul, I was elected in the same election as all the other
magistrates even on the same ballot. So why was I singled out?
>
>Cassius:
>Don't ask ME! I was personally hoping that the people who thought up the
>Impeachment and pressured for it to be started in the first place would be
>the ones taken to task for their actions. My personal impression is that
you
>were being used. Other people "in" the Committee, such as Audens and
>Scaevola, were simply lied to. Audens has stated that he would not support
>the Articles of Impeachment in ANY form, and that he pulled his support
from
>the Committee as soon as he saw them. I believe him - his honor has always
>been above reproach.
>
Cincinnatus: That is why I say there were only discussions there was no
impeachment only different options.
>Cincinnatus:
>I had to be removed so that that specious argument could be
> used that I didn't have a veto and Germanicus could be made Dictator.
>
>Cassius:
>Nope, still not right. You still had your Citizenship and the rest when
>Germanicus was made Consul. The Senate voted him as Dictator. You attempted
to impose a veto on a legally appointed dictator - that IS something the
>Constitution spoke about. Consuls can't veto Dictators. Germanicus removed
>you presumably because you were the "poster child" for the Committee... and
>later offered to return your Citizenship. If the other things weren't
offered
>to you they should be. Hence my support.
Cincinnatus: How do you all support the notion that the Senate should meet
and not even include the Senior Consul? Maybe because he would veto the
action of appointing a Dictator?
>
> Cincinntus: If there is something changed I have not been notified. I have
> no intention for running for any political office again in any case (I had
> thought of Censor in the future but that is in three and a half years from
> now and by then we may have much better qualified candidates than me I
> hope). I only wanted to see the Republic set up before I left office. I
was
> more than satified with a seat in the Senate and in the College
Pontificium.
>
>Cassius:
>I'll continue to look into this... hopefully my public support will be
heard.
>
> > Cincinnatus: I vetoed the action of convening the Senate for the purpose
of
> voting anyone Dictator, All subsequent actions are illegal.
>
>Cassius:
>Unfortunately, you did this AFTER the Dictator was already in place. You
did
>not convene the Senate, but only posted the Veto as a belated attempt to
stop
>the decison that had already been made.
Cincinnatus: This is the whole argument in a nutshell. Can the Senate hold a
meeting and not inform both Consules and take action that it knows or should
reasonably infer that one or both would reject? The Consitution says that
one or both Consules must convene the Senate. As Consul I vetoed the action
of my colleague in convening the Senate for the purpose of appointing a
Dictator. If a Consul is to have a veto over the actions of his collaegue
would not this be a time when it should be used? As I was not informed of
any meeting how could I veto it until it was announced?
>
>Cassius:
>LOL! Now you're perhaps saying you figured there was this "secret" board of
>Directors, and the Impeachment was just an attempt to draw them out? None
of
>this was secret, especially since reports had been made to the Senate.
Cincinnatus: We were getting treasury reports from Quaestrix Patricia Cassia
But of Nova Roma Inc. I was not informed. This should have been and should
be now posted plainly on the webpage. Members and Bylaws.
>
>And, that's enough for an evening!
Valete, Marcus Cassius Julianus
Cincinnatus: Thank you for your responses!
Vale et Valete Quirites
Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus
|
| Subject: |
Re: in re constitutionis: de intercessione |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:09:18 -0400 |
|
Salve!
> From: Mike Ma--------r <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=174176211056207031025158175026172165098048139046" >MikeMa--------r@--------</a>
>
> The interesting points are (1) the veto is to be used without a citizen's
> application only against one's colleague in office (Duumvir against
> duumvir, aedile against aedile, etc). Other vetos depend on application by
> a citizen. (2) the veto must be used within a fixed period of time. (3) It
> may only be used once in relation to any case (i.e. transaction).
Now HERE's something interesting! Could some of our other experts (or anyone
else) comment? It sounds like a perfect compromise to me; collegial
intercessio at will, but needing a citizens' application for use against
other "levels" of magistrates. I like it!
As far as (2) goes, I'd already started to do that in the various leges
defining the procedures for the comitia, etc.
Can anyone confirm that this was the way it was done in Rome, as well?
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: Term for Censors |
| From: |
"RMerullo" rmerullo@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:20:41 -0400 |
|
Salvete Flavi Vedi et alii
>From: "Flavius Vedius Germa--------s" <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a>
>
>I was just wondering; is there a reason we need to have five-year terms for
>the censors? I was thinking of changing it to a one-year term. The job is a
>real killer anyway; one year seems more than enough. Any thoughts?
I guess that for better or worse I almost always have some thoughts.
I think that, by specifying more of the particulars of some of the main
functions of the office, like how to assign citizens to tribes and
centuries, plus granting the authority to appoint clerks to assist them,
your constitution and accompanying laws will make the office of censor much
more feasible than it has been to date.
I think that the office should have a longer term than all the others to
keep it apart from some of the politics that will, for better and worse,
become admixed with the other offices, especially no doubt those of praetor
and consul.
Three years may be a good compromise? Long enough to help keep the two
censors out of political games ("I'll help you get such and such consultum
passed/endorse your protege for xyz office et cetera if you nominate and
vote for me blah blah") for a while, but also not keep them in so long that
they shrivel up from the workload.
>
>Valete,
>
>Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
>Dictator
Valete
Gaius Marius Merullus
|
| Subject: |
Re: Re: Cassius-Cincinnatus Debate 4 (shorter!) |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:34:58 -0400 |
|
Salve,
> From: "Lucius" <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=081056091108082153015038190036129" >v--------l@--------</a>
>
> >Cassius:
> >Unfortunately, you did this AFTER the Dictator was already in place. You
did
> >not convene the Senate, but only posted the Veto as a belated attempt to
stop
> >the decison that had already been made.
>
> Cincinnatus: This is the whole argument in a nutshell. Can the Senate hold
a
> meeting and not inform both Consules and take action that it knows or
should
> reasonably infer that one or both would reject? The Consitution says that
> one or both Consules must convene the Senate. As Consul I vetoed the
action
> of my colleague in convening the Senate for the purpose of appointing a
> Dictator. If a Consul is to have a veto over the actions of his collaegue
> would not this be a time when it should be used? As I was not informed of
> any meeting how could I veto it until it was announced?
If I may interject...
That is one of the fuzzy areas in the old system that we're even now trying
to correct (indeed, such corrections are the very reason I was made dictator
in the first place, because the old system literally could not function as
it was). Under the old system the process was completely ambiguous, but what
transpired was in fact within the bounds of the Constitution.
Under the new system, it could not be repeated because there are unambiguous
procedures in place to manage the functions of the Senate and the comitia.
Nor could the nonprofit corporation shut down the government, because now
the government and the corporation will be the same people.
Nor will the comitia be completely hamstrung and unable to operate, because
the tribes and centuries are finally getting done and unambiguous procedures
for voting in place.
Nor will magistrates be unable to function because they lack Imperium,
because now the comitia curiata will be in place to give it to them through
a clear procedure.
Nor could the webmaster debacle be repeated, nor the email list be shut down
preemptorially, nor the newsletter be held in limbo because someone
resigned, because all of those roles are now to be held by people elected by
the citizens, rather than arbitrarily appointed (with who appoints who never
clearly defined).
We're trying to fix the problems from the lessons we've learned over the
last two years, Mike. So far from you I've seen nothing but complaints and
grudges and obstruction and arguments. Nothing of a willingness to help fix
what was obviously wrong, using the only legal means left to us. Are you
here to help, or just to bicker? If the former, then get on board and
contribute something substantive-- your input is welcome! But if the latter,
stop wasting all our time.
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: What To Wear (was What To Do) |
| From: |
"Nicolaus Moravius" n_moravius@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:58:18 PDT |
|
Friends! Romans! Microcompatriots! (and Vercingetorix):
The time has come for firm and decisive action to resolve this micronational
crisis and restore our Mos Sartorum in the eyes of gods and of men...
>Am I the only one here naked? Except for the rather outlandishly-sized
>torque
>which I got while on vacation in the South of Gaul from some friendly
>tourists
>painted blue.
...to prevent naked Gauls from strutting their stuff in our virtual Fora,
scandalising our wives and daughters and frightening the horses, and no less
to obviate the wild accusations of alarmists such as Camillus Severus
Antoninus...
>A lavender toga? Hmmm . . . that's much too close to purple for this
>republican's taste, Cypria. LOL
... though doubtless well-intentioned (if over-zealous in the defence of our
Republic)(for whatever else L. Iunia Cypria may be guilty of, plotting a
coup can not yet justly be added to the list of her crimes)...
I propose, O Cives, an emergency dress-code law and hereby humbly petition
F. Vedius Germanicus Dictator to enact the following - let it be known as
the Lex Vedia Vestamentorum:
I. Until video-conferencing becomes standard practice in NR, and since
meanwhile nobody can actually SEE what anyone else is wearing (if anything),
let all cives and peregrini preface their posts to the Main List with a
description of their present attire. All other list readers will then be
enabled to make an informed decision as to whether or not they should apply
the 'delete' key;
II. Let all present and aspiring future citizens submit to the Censores a
.jpg or .gif file showing themselves wearing, serially, the contents of
their wardrobes (from sublicia up), their citizen status to be confirmed,
revoked or refused on the basis of the evidence thus presented;
III. To aid the already-overworked Censores in the task of this enforcement
of public mores, let two citizens be appointed specifically to administer
and enforce this lex, the same to be known as the Duoviri Vestimenti
Arbitri. (I propose that these two officers be the noble Dexippus and
myself).
IV. Let the Duoviri Vestimenti Arbitri be empowered at public NR events with
imperium summarily to remove from any person, without right of provocatio,
any article of clothing which they shall deem offensive, and similarly to
cover with gummed acanthus leaves any impudentia as they shall see fit; and
that each Duovir be appointed XXIV. lictores to support him in the
furtherance of his duties in the event of any ensuing public disorder.
Now, Quirites, only two more things remain to be done (no, Sulla, I had NOT
forgotten!):
1) To find Novum Carthago on the Web, and DELETE it;
2) To reinstate fully Cincinnatus (so long as he is properly dressed) (will
somebody PLEASE tell him where his T-shirts are?).
Vestite bene in honore res publici Novae Romae Anitiquaeque,
Vado Arbiter.
(Presently wearing a seersucker toga praetexta in the privacy of his own
sacrarium)
|
| Subject: |
Statement on the Debate |
| From: |
Decius Iunius Palladius amcgrath@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:11:53 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Salvete Cives! Marcus Cassius Iulianus has described the events leading
up to the recent crisis quite admirably and more than acquitted himself
against some of the attacks on his honor.
I will just add a few points for clarification:
It is true that Cassius and I, as censors, delegated authority to
Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus to set up the tribes (over the protests of
quite a few citizens I might add) since L. Equitius said he had the time
and ideas as to how they should be set up. The tribes were not set up,
however, mostly because of problems with the citizens list. I thought
that Lucius Equitius could have set up the tribes from the gentes page
or with the old list he was given and then add people as he was received
them. He did not. I do not blame Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus for this. I
(we) delegated authority to him to do the task but ultimately the
responsibility was ours, the censors. One can delegate authority but not
responsibility to another. I accept responsibility for delegating
authority to another magistrate who was unable due to time or other
hindrances to perform the task assigned. I would have hoped for
understanding from that same individual when we were not able to do the
task immediately when we took the task back onto ourselves directly.
What made us take the task back was inspiration received from a
discussion (in April I believe) on this list by L. Cornelius Sulla and
A. Gryllus Graecus. They had a simple solution as to how to set up the
tribes, dividing them between patricians and plebeians, weighted
slightly in favor of the patricians so that there would be a
justification for having a tribune of the plebs (some citizens on
occasion have complained why the plebs get a tribune but not the
patricians). At the same time as this discussion, Gaius Marius Merullus
proposed a workable plan for the mechanics of voting and choosing
spokesmen. I wrote Sulla and Graecus asking for more details.
They gave them to me while informing me that the Tribune of the Plebs,
Tullius Callidus was strongly opposed to the idea and would veto it.
So, the idea was shelved until the resignation of Callidus not long
before Roman Days. Since the Tribes still had not been set up at that
point--even though the individual delegated the task, Lucius Equitius,
had a complete citizens list since he was maintaining the list for us--I
proposed to Cassius that we go with the plan of Sulla and Graecus and do
the job ourselves. Cassius informed those attending Roman Days that the
Tribes would soon be set up according to this plan. It was a few days
from completion when the impeachment/coup crisis broke out. (the tribes
as we had set them up were presented to Flavius Vedius when he
took office. While some of our information was used he pretty much went
with a plan of his own. While I was initially disappointed, upon
reflection I see his plan is more equitable all around and more useful
since it can be used with the comitia populi as well as plebis)
In regards to the attempted coup/impeachment, some have said that it was
completely legal. However, Lucius Equitius, then consul and
conspirator, knew that it would have been a dead issue in the senate
(where some have claimed--and I do not believe for a minute this is
true--the articles would have been presented) so if he was serious about
the issue, another means would have to be used. These were the thoughts
of the Senate when the plot was revealed. If the senate was not to be
the vehicle for the articles then a more circumspect and illegal means
was to be used. In other words, a coup. In an online society, the list
and the website are our only infrastructure and means of communication.
It was natural to suspect that an attempt to seize both would be
attempted. Action was taken to prevent that. The rest of the details,
including why I believed a dictator was needed, you have already heard
ad nauseum, including in my statement explaining the vote to appoint
Flavius Vedius Germanicus dictator.
One issue I have not spoken on: the situation regarding Lucius Equitius
Cincinnatus. Frankly that is an issue that is too personal for me to
speak objectively and I will not try. I will simply state that I believe
he used poor judgement in contemplating an illegal act that
would have torn Nova Roma into pieces. That contemplated action
initiated a chain of events during which Nova Roma *was* nearly torn to
pieces. However, Nova Roma survives. For his actions he was
expelled from Nova Roma. Since then, Flavius Vedius Germanicus has
graciously restored him to citizenship, his priesthood and today
announced that he will be once again elevated to the rank of Senator if
he is willing to accept the position. I think that is fair. His supporters
have been steadfast in his defense, if not always eloquent or reasoned,
and their cries have been heard. Lucius Equitius himself unfortunately
seems unwilling to accept *any* responsibility for any of the events of
the past month, only lay blame at the feet of others.
This has been a perilous and exciting time for Nova Roma. In some ways
this last month has almost been *too* Roman. As one new citizen said to
me recently, "I feel like I'm watching something about Rome on the
History Channel play out right in front of me!" The dictatorship has
brought a measure of much needed calm and stability to Nova Roma.
Flavius Vedius Germanicus (with the input of many magistrates and
citizens) has done a stunning job on the new Constitution and laws as
well as reassuring old and new citizens that their liberties are not
threatened. Nova Roma will continue stronger than ever. His task is
almost complete. Soon, we will all have to carry on the task of building
Nova Roma *together* on this strengthened foundation Germanicus has
repaired. I hope that the acrimony will fade and that we will be able
to work together. The difficult part is yet to come....
In Service to Rome,
Decius Iunius Palladius,
Consul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He was born with a gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad.
And that was all his patrimony."
The opening line of Scaramouche, by Rafael Sabatini
|
| Subject: |
Re: Term for Censors |
| From: |
Decius Iunius Palladius amcgrath@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:21:58 -0400 (EDT) |
|
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
> From: "Flavius Vedius Germa--------s" <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a>
>
> Salvete!
>
> I was just wondering; is there a reason we need to have five-year terms for
> the censors? I was thinking of changing it to a one-year term. The job is a
> real killer anyway; one year seems more than enough. Any thoughts?
I agree that five years is a *long* time and that it should be shortened.
However, one year is too short. Having a longer term, as G. Marius
Merullus pointed out, hopefully somewhat insulates the position from
everyday politics (ha!), even more so under the new system. Also, because
of the work involved, it takes a longer time to learn. This position needs
some long term stability but not the seemingly endless 5 years. I am
agreeable to the two years suggested by M. Minucius Audens or the 3 year
term suggested by Merullus. I am leaning towards the two year term. I
would suggest that for this position, that they not be elected in the same
year, so that there is an experienced censor already in office to help the
new censor. (Audens' suggestion of having a 3 month overlap is also a good
workable idea).
Valete,
Decius Iunius Palladius,
Censor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non scholae sed vitae discimus.
Seneca
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Such things have often happened and still happen,
and how can these be signs of the end of the world?"
Julian, Emperor of Rome 361-363 A.D.
Extant 331-363 A.D.
|
| Subject: |
The Times: Britain:Skull throws doubt on St Alban's martyrdom |
| From: |
David Meadows dmeadows@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:19:56 -0400 |
|
<excerpt>
</excerpt><<<<<<<<
[Ecce! By the way, registration with any newspaper I ever cite is free
and they don't sell your name to advertisers]
>>>>
<excerpt><a href="http://www.sunday-times.co.uk:80/news/pages/Monday-Times/timnwsnws03016.html?2177977" target="_top" >http://www.sunday-times.co.uk:80/news/pages/Monday-Times/timnwsnws03016.html?2177977</a>
<center>The place where St Alban is said to have died in AD 305 matches a
site of pagan sacrifice Sceptical: Martin Henig and Rosalind Niblett MARY
EVANS
Skull throws doubt on St Alban's martyrdom
</center>BY RUTH GLEDHILL RELIGION CORRESPONDENT
<center>
</center>
THE legend of St Alban, the first Christian martyr of Britain after which
the Hertfordshire cathedral city of St Albans is named, could be a myth
based on a barbaric pagan cult, new research has shown.
Excavations at Verulamium, the Roman town of St Albans, have uncovered
"dramatic evidence" - the skull of a young man killed by a blow to the
head, decapitated, scalped and defleshed. Historians believe this relic
of a "cult of the head", a feature of Iron Age religion in which a local
hero or ancestor was venerated, could have been appropriated by the early
Church and turned into the saint's cult.
As the Church made inroads into Britain in the early centuries of the
first millennium, it was common for pagan festivals to be appropriated as
Christian ones. Churches and cathedrals were often built on sites of
pagan worship.
The new findings will nevertheless startle the Christian community of St
Albans. The saint after which their city is named is generally believed
to have been a genuine Christian martyr. His shrine at the Norman
cathedral remains a site of national pilgrimage to this day, having been
restored in 1993 and rededicated by Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
According to the 8th century historian, the Venerable Bede, St Alban, a
Roman citizen, was beheaded in AD 305 for sheltering a Christian priest.
Other historians put his martyrdom as early as AD 209. But excavations in
and around Verulamium, now a park just off the city centre, have
uncovered virtually no evidence that Christianity was practised at
Verulamium at the time Alban was meant to have lived there.
Meanwhile, new evidence of a pagan head cult, with remarkably similar
features to the story of St Alban, has been discovered by archaeologists.
Excavations led by Rosalind Niblett of St Albans City Council between
1991 and 1994 and financed by the developers of the Oysterfields estate,
social housing which stands on the site of the ancient head cult, have
uncovered strong evidence which suggests that the cult of St Alban could
have been grafted on to the earlier pagan head cult.
Mrs Niblett's findings, about to be published by the Society for Roman
Studies, were disclosed for the first time at the weekend during the
annual conference of the British Archaeological Association at
Hertfordshire University, Hatfield. Her excavations proved that, until
the late 3rd century, Verulamium was dominated by a vast religious
complex.
At the end of the 3rd century a large Celtic temple stood there, with
baths and at least 50 deep pits and wells. One pit contained the
decapitated skull, with the cuts made by scalping clearly visible. Mrs
Niblett argued that the temple commemorated the burial of a local chief
or hero, and the site fits the descriptions of the site of St Alban's
martyrdom.
Her findings were supported by Martin Henig, lecturer in Roman art at
Oxford University. He said that when Christianity arrived at Verulamium
in the 4th century, the Church might have felt the need for a martyr and
invented the story of St Alban around the cult of a decapitated hero.
But the case for St Alban remains strong. Eileen Roberts, in a new book,
<italic>Images of Alban,</italic> published this month by the Friends of
St Albans Abbey (£12.95), argues that he was a Roman-British citizen of
Celtic origin, and probably spoke Old Welsh and Latin.
<bold><<<a href="http://www.stalbansdioc.org.uk/cathedral/"TARGE>www.stalbansdioc.org.uk/cathedral/</bold" target="_top" >http://www.stalbansdioc.org.uk/cathedral/"TARGE>www.stalbansdioc.org.uk/cathedral/</bold</a>>
St Albans Abbey information
<bold><<<a href="http://www.britarch.ac.uk/baa/"TARGE>www.britarch.ac.uk/baa/</bold" target="_top" >http://www.britarch.ac.uk/baa/"TARGE>www.britarch.ac.uk/baa/</bold</a>> British Archaeological Association
<bold><<<a href="http://www.sas.ac.uk/icls/Roman/Default.htm"TARGE>www.sas.ac.uk/icls/Roman/Default.htm</bold" target="_top" >http://www.sas.ac.uk/icls/Roman/Default.htm"TARGE>www.sas.ac.uk/icls/Roman/Default.htm</bold</a>> Society for Promotion of Roman Studies
</excerpt>Copyright 1999 Times Newspapers Ltd.
]|[ David Meadows ]|[ <a href="http://web.idirect.com/~atrium" target="_top" >http://web.idirect.com/~atrium</a> ]|[ Rogue Classicist ]|[
|
| Subject: |
Re: Term for Censors |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:38:37 -0400 |
|
Salve!
> From: Decius Iunius Palladius <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=243232219108127031050199203252129208071" >amcgrath@--------</a>
>
> I am leaning towards the two year term. I
> would suggest that for this position, that they not be elected in the same
> year, so that there is an experienced censor already in office to help the
> new censor. (Audens' suggestion of having a 3 month overlap is also a good
> workable idea).
Ooooh I like the idea of two-year overlapping terms! That way, there's a
whole year for the new censor to learn under the old censor's wing. This
looks like the way to go... What say ye all?
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: Lictores curiati was Constitution and Help Wanted |
| From: |
David Meadows dmeadows@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:46:10 -0400 |
|
Salvete,
Dictator noster scripsit ad Merullem in rebus lictorum curiati:
Except for the fact that the comitia curiata can't pass laws. All it does is
invest magistrates with Imperium and witness the appointment of priests and
the recording of wills.
Respondeo (with all due respect):
While this is true, as written, the real danger comes from a situation
somewhat different than that which is being responded to. The situation can
(and to judge from what I've read of recent activities amongst citizens of
Nova Roma, probably will) easily be foreseen where the comitia curiata
doesn't pass a law, per se, but withholds the grant of Imperium. Imagine a
situation where the comitia curiata simply doesn't like the candidate for
consul or priest or whatever; what happens when they decide they won't
invest the consul with imperium? According to the constitution, the consul
(or whatever magistrate) will, ipso facto, be unable to carry out his or
her duties. This is why the simple act of electing a magistrate should be
synonymous with investing with imperium and why such lictores curiati are
unnecessary and a potential threat.
Vale,
MPJ
]|[ David Meadows ]|[ <a href="http://web.idirect.com/~atrium" target="_top" >http://web.idirect.com/~atrium</a> ]|[ Rogue Classicist ]|[
|
| Subject: |
Re: in re constitutionis: de intercessione |
| From: |
David Meadows dmeadows@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:39:07 -0400 |
|
Salvete omnes
Dictator noster Flavius Vedius Germanicus scripsit in rebus intercessionis:
The only problem with that is, what happens if an aedile is running amok (to
take one example)? Surely the consul, as head of the chain of command should
have some authority to intervene. et cetera
Respondeo (with all due respect, of course):
What could an aedile actually do to 'run amok'? The constitution states
that their job is essentially overseeing public games and festivals ... I
can't really foresee a situation in which an aedile would require to be
vetoed or would require one themself (for use against a colleague). If
public games are to be funded publically (I have no idea whether they are
or not), the senate has a de facto veto in its control of finances on folks
like aediles (and quaestors, for that matter). If public games are funded
privately, I fail to see how anyone could exercise a veto over such.
M. Papirius Justus
Candidatus civitatis
|
| Subject: |
Re: The Times: Britain:Skull throws doubt on St Alban's martyrdom |
| From: |
Diana/Orbianna proserpina@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:01:35 -0400 |
|
At 14:19 22/07/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
Salve et gratias iterum,
This is a great post. Thanks for your efforts once more. As for
copyright, particularly via Internet, the rules are still somewhat shaky.
As a budding librarian I would not wish to infringe upon anyone's
intellectual property. We do, however, have something known as "Fair Use."
I like Fair Use. As long as you do not intend to forward the article as a
means of making money, you should be ok. I plan to use the article for
educational reasons (which also falls under Fair Use), and there is credit
to the newspaper and the author on message.
Anyone who has any questions about copyright laws can look at the ALA
(American Library Association) website (<a href="http://www.ala.org" target="_top" >http://www.ala.org</a>) for more info.
There is also a history of copyright in the U.S. at
<a href="http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html" target="_top" >http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html</a>.
Valete and Bright Blessings,
Orbianna
>>
><<<<
>[Ecce! By the way, registration with any newspaper I ever cite
is free and they don't solicit your email address to advertisers]
>>>>>>
>><a href="http://www.sunday-times.co.uk:80/news/pages/Monday-Times/timnwsnws03016.ht" target="_top" >http://www.sunday-times.co.uk:80/news/pages/Monday-Times/timnwsnws03016.ht</a>
ml?2177977
>>The place where St Alban is said to have died in AD 305 matches a site of
>>pagan sacrifice Sceptical: Martin Henig and Rosalind Niblett MARY EVANS
>>Skull throws doubt on St Alban's martyrdom
>>
>>BY RUTH GLEDHILL RELIGION CORRESPONDENT
>>
>>
>>THE legend of St Alban, the first Christian martyr of Britain after which
>>the Hertfordshire cathedral city of St Albans is named, could be a myth
>>based on a barbaric pagan cult, new research has shown.
>>
>>Excavations at Verulamium, the Roman town of St Albans, have uncovered
>>"dramatic evidence" - the skull of a young man killed by a blow to the
>>head, decapitated, scalped and defleshed. Historians believe this relic
>>of a "cult of the head", a feature of Iron Age religion in which a local
>>hero or ancestor was venerated, could have been appropriated by the early
>>Church and turned into the saint's cult.
>>
>>As the Church made inroads into Britain in the early centuries of the
>>first millennium, it was common for pagan festivals to be appropriated as
>>Christian ones. Churches and cathedrals were often built on sites of
>>pagan worship.
>>
>>The new findings will nevertheless startle the Christian community of St
>>Albans. The saint after which their city is named is generally believed
>>to have been a genuine Christian martyr. His shrine at the Norman
>>cathedral remains a site of national pilgrimage to this day, having been
>>restored in 1993 and rededicated by Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
>>
>>According to the 8th century historian, the Venerable Bede, St Alban, a
>>Roman citizen, was beheaded in AD 305 for sheltering a Christian priest.
>>Other historians put his martyrdom as early as AD 209. But excavations in
>>and around Verulamium, now a park just off the city centre, have
>>uncovered virtually no evidence that Christianity was practised at
>>Verulamium at the time Alban was meant to have lived there.
>>
>>Meanwhile, new evidence of a pagan head cult, with remarkably similar
>>features to the story of St Alban, has been discovered by archaeologists.
>>Excavations led by Rosalind Niblett of St Albans City Council between
>>1991 and 1994 and financed by the developers of the Oysterfields estate,
>>social housing which stands on the site of the ancient head cult, have
>>uncovered strong evidence which suggests that the cult of St Alban could
>>have been grafted on to the earlier pagan head cult.
>>
>> Mrs Niblett's findings, about to be published by the Society for Roman
>>Studies, were disclosed for the first time at the weekend during the
>>annual conference of the British Archaeological Association at
>>Hertfordshire University, Hatfield. Her excavations proved that, until
>>the late 3rd century, Verulamium was dominated by a vast religious complex.
>>
>>At the end of the 3rd century a large Celtic temple stood there, with
>>baths and at least 50 deep pits and wells. One pit contained the
>>decapitated skull, with the cuts made by scalping clearly visible. Mrs
>>Niblett argued that the temple commemorated the burial of a local chief
>>or hero, and the site fits the descriptions of the site of St Alban's
>>martyrdom.
>>
>>Her findings were supported by Martin Henig, lecturer in Roman art at
>>Oxford University. He said that when Christianity arrived at Verulamium
>>in the 4th century, the Church might have felt the need for a martyr and
>>invented the story of St Alban around the cult of a decapitated hero.
>>
>>But the case for St Alban remains strong. Eileen Roberts, in a new book,
>>Images of Alban, published this month by the Friends of St Albans Abbey
>>(£12.95), argues that he was a Roman-British citizen of Celtic origin,
>>dral/"TARGE>www.stalbansdioc.org.uk/cathedral/ St Albans Abbey information
>>
>><<a href="http://www.sas.ac.uk/icls/Roman/Default.htm" target="_top" >http://www.sas.ac.uk/icls/Roman/Default.htm</a> Society for Promotion of
Roman Studies
>>
>>
>Copyright 1999 Times Newspapers Ltd.
>
>
>
>]|[ David Meadows ]|[ <a href="http://web.idirect.com/~atrium" target="_top" >http://web.idirect.com/~atrium</a> ]|[ Rogue Classicist ]|[
>
>
Iustina Luciania Orbianna
Gens Luciania
----------------------------
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=197212253112056209171056066140114002071048139" >proserpina@--------</a>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/soho/studios/7401" target="_top" >http://www.geocities.com/soho/studios/7401</a>
----------------------------
"Scientia est potentia." -Francis Bacon
"Pax Cererem nutrit, Pacis alumna Ceres" -Ovid "Fasti" 1.701-704
"I will teach you to know yourself" -Persephone, as Queen of the Underworld
|
| Subject: |
Re: Re: Lictores curiati was Constitution and Help Wanted |
| From: |
Daniel Dreesbach dreesbach@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:52:33 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Or maybe they see something that the comitia curiata doesnt
G. Iunius Germanus
--- Dav--------eadows <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=114232192237248190028232203026129208071" >dmeadows@--------</a> wrote:
> From: Dav--------eadows <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=114232192237248190028232203026129208071" >dmeadows@--------</a>
>
> Salvete,
>
> Dictator noster scripsit ad Merullem in rebus
> lictorum curiati:
>
> Except for the fact that the comitia curiata can't
> pass laws. All it does is
> invest magistrates with Imperium and witness the
> appointment of priests and
> the recording of wills.
>
> Respondeo (with all due respect):
>
> While this is true, as written, the real danger
> comes from a situation
> somewhat different than that which is being
> responded to. The situation can
> (and to judge from what I've read of recent
> activities amongst citizens of
> Nova Roma, probably will) easily be foreseen where
> the comitia curiata
> doesn't pass a law, per se, but withholds the grant
> of Imperium. Imagine a
> situation where the comitia curiata simply doesn't
> like the candidate for
> consul or priest or whatever; what happens when they
> decide they won't
> invest the consul with imperium? According to the
> constitution, the consul
> (or whatever magistrate) will, ipso facto, be unable
> to carry out his or
> her duties. This is why the simple act of electing a
> magistrate should be
> synonymous with investing with imperium and why such
> lictores curiati are
> unnecessary and a potential threat.
>
> Vale,
>
> MPJ
>
>
> ]|[ David Meadows ]|[ <a href="http://web.idirect.com/~atrium" target="_top" >http://web.idirect.com/~atrium</a>
> ]|[ Rogue Classicist ]|[
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
> ----------------------------
>
> Congratulations to RON MARTINO
> This week's FRIENDS & FAMILY WINNER!
> To join ONElist's Friends & Family program, go to
> <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
|
| Subject: |
de onera constitutionis |
| From: |
David Meadows dmeadows@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:59:46 -0400 |
|
Salvete,
Dictator noster scripsit in response to my desire for voting procedures to
be put in the constitution:
Why burden the constitution with details that are equally well handled by
law? If we should want to make a change to the procedures, wouldn't it be
easier to do so by simply changing the law, rather than amending the
Constitution? The Constitution should be as general as possible, with the
procedural details spelled out in law, Senatus consultum, or decreta.
And, as the centuries are now composed, those who contribute more to the
State are rewarded with a little more influence in the voting. And I think
that's as it should be.
Respondeo:
I agree that those who participate more should have more influence in
voting, but the reason we should be 'burdening the constitution' with such
details is to prevent us from repeating the mistakes of Roma Antiqua. If
the comitia centuriata is set up to vote by century (as it seems to be) it
makes sense, I believe, to balance that with one man/woman one vote in the
other comitia and to have voting take place in secret (to prevent a small
handful of folks from 'taking over'). There also has to be some sort of
safeguard for the integrity of the non-centuriate assemblies (e.g. can the
comitia centuriata pass legislation which affects how voting is done in the
other comitia? what about vice versa?). Having more than one legislative
body with ill defined methods of voting and general definitions of what
their sphere of influence is, legislatively speaking, a recipe for
revolution. Indeed, had these comitia -- as defined in the constituion --
been in existence prior to the recent troubles, it seems to me a likely
situation that a revolution of sorts might have legally taken place via one
or more of the comitia.
respecte,
M. Papirius Justus
|
| Subject: |
lex |
| From: |
william wheeler wuffa@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:16:18 -0700 |
|
salve
essage: 22
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:09:18 -0400
From: "Flavius Vedius Germa--------s" <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a>
Subject: Re: in re constitutionis: de intercessione
Salve!
> From: Mike Ma--------r <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=174176211056207031025158175026172165098048139046" >MikeMa--------r@--------</a>
>
> The interesting points are (1) the veto is to be used without a
citizen's
> application only against one's colleague in office (Duumvir against
> duumvir, aedile against aedile, etc). Other vetos depend on
application by
> a citizen. (2) the veto must be used within a fixed period of time.
(3) It
> may only be used once in relation to any case (i.e. transaction).
Now HERE's something interesting! Could some of our other experts (or
anyone
else) comment? It sounds like a perfect compromise to me; collegial
intercessio at will, but needing a citizens' application for use against
other "levels" of magistrates. I like it!
As far as (2) goes, I'd already started to do that in the various leges
defining the procedures for the comitia, etc.
Can anyone confirm that this was the way it was done in Rome, as well?
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
>>>>>>>> Yes that was one of the ways they did it.
|
| Subject: |
Re: Term for Censors |
| From: |
Mike Macnair MikeMacnair@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:23:21 -0400 |
|
Salvete!
In Roma Antiqua Censors were elected every 5 years for a term of 18 months.
Eh? The reason was, they only had to take the census every 5 years. In
between people were just citizens, or senators, de facto but not de jure.
This won't wash for NR (or any modern organisation ...) and it is a bastard
of a job. I served 2 years as membership secretary of a local Labour Party
branch and had definitely had enough at the end of 2 years. (Indeed, at the
end of one, but I couldn't find a sucker to pass it off onto at first.)
Like Germanicus, I like Palladius' suggestion of two year overlapping
terms.
Can I add that I can find no evidence that Censors had either imperium or
the right of intercessio against anyone except their own colleagues (the
other Censor).
Valete,
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
|
| Subject: |
Re: de onera constitutionis |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:29:19 -0400 |
|
Salve,
> From: Dav--------eadows <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=114232192237248190028232203026129208071" >dmeadows@--------</a>
>
> I agree that those who participate more should have more influence in
> voting, but the reason we should be 'burdening the constitution' with such
> details is to prevent us from repeating the mistakes of Roma Antiqua. If
I think you're maybe mistaking my meaning. I was saying that the details
should be handled through laws, rather than being in the Constitution
itself. I wasn't talking about the details themselves, just where they
should be ennumerated.
> the comitia centuriata is set up to vote by century (as it seems to be) it
> makes sense, I believe, to balance that with one man/woman one vote in the
> other comitia and to have voting take place in secret (to prevent a small
> handful of folks from 'taking over'). There also has to be some sort of
Voting will be in secret, but the Roman system was predicated on voting by
groups. I'm not prepared to overturn that just to satisfy some modern
democratic sensibility.
> safeguard for the integrity of the non-centuriate assemblies (e.g. can the
> comitia centuriata pass legislation which affects how voting is done in
the
> other comitia? what about vice versa?). Having more than one legislative
No; that's clearly spelled out in the Constitution in the relevant section
for each comitia. Each is the only body that can pass laws relevant to its
own internal functioning. The same goes for the Senate, the Collegium
Pontificum, and the Collegium Augurum.
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: Term for Censors |
| From: |
Daniel Dreesbach dreesbach@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:27:52 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Maybe have all the offices held by mutiple people overlap in their
terms
G. Iunius Germanus
--- Flavius Vedius Germa--------s <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a> wrote:
> From: "Flavius Vedius Germanicus"
> <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a>
>
> Salve!
>
> > From: Decius Iunius Palladius
> <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=243232219108127031050199203252129208071" >amcgrath@--------</a>
> >
> > I am leaning towards the two year term. I
> > would suggest that for this position, that they
> not be elected in the same
> > year, so that there is an experienced censor
> already in office to help the
> > new censor. (Audens' suggestion of having a 3
> month overlap is also a good
> > workable idea).
>
> Ooooh I like the idea of two-year overlapping terms!
> That way, there's a
> whole year for the new censor to learn under the old
> censor's wing. This
> looks like the way to go... What say ye all?
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Dictator
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
> ----------------------------
>
> ONElist announces "FRIENDS & FAMILY!"
> <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a>
> See homepage for details, including our weekly
> drawing!
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
|
| Subject: |
Re: Lictores curiati was Constitution and Help Wanted |
| From: |
Mike Macnair MikeMacnair@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:29:48 -0400 |
|
Salvete,
What's the source for lictores curiati as a separate body? My roman law
textbooks tells me that no-one could remember who was in which curia or get
them together to hold elections, with the result that they just collected
the normal lictors and called the representatives of the curia.
I think as long as it's clear that the functions of the C.Curiata are
religious ceremonies, it's fine. And in response to MPJ's suggested problem
of refusing to confer imperium, perhaps reword to:
"The C. Curiata shall by a single and indivisible act confer imperium on
all the magistrates elected for the coming year..."
The C. Curiata could then only abuse its power by shutting down the whole
set-up, which would justify the Senate appointing an interrex to scrag
them.
Valete,
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
|
| Subject: |
Re: Not checking mail |
| From: |
Dexippus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:37:43 EDT |
|
To all...
I will be unavailable from Wed. July 28 through Sunday August 1 and will have
very little (if any) access to e-mail. So needless to say when I do get home
I will be deleting messages left and right since I'm sure 500+ e-mails will
find their way to me via all these onelists!
Just an FYI so that if anyone sends me personal mail, please put something
like "Hey Dex! Don't Delete This!" in the subject line.
Thanks,
--Dexippus
|
| Subject: |
Re: Term for Censors |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla alexious@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:44:32 -0700 |
|
Staggering terms....I like it.... :)
L. Cornelius Sulla
Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
> From: "Flavius Vedius Germa--------s" <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a>
>
> Salve!
>
> > From: Decius Iunius Palladius <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=243232219108127031050199203252129208071" >amcgrath@--------</a>
> >
> > I am leaning towards the two year term. I
> > would suggest that for this position, that they not be elected in the same
> > year, so that there is an experienced censor already in office to help the
> > new censor. (Audens' suggestion of having a 3 month overlap is also a good
> > workable idea).
>
> Ooooh I like the idea of two-year overlapping terms! That way, there's a
> whole year for the new censor to learn under the old censor's wing. This
> looks like the way to go... What say ye all?
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Dictator
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> ONElist announces "FRIENDS & FAMILY!"
> <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a>
> See homepage for details, including our weekly drawing!
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: Term for Censors |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:50:17 -0400 |
|
Salve,
> From: Mike Ma--------r <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=174176211056207031025158175026172165098048139046" >MikeMa--------r@--------</a>
>
> Can I add that I can find no evidence that Censors had either imperium or
> the right of intercessio against anyone except their own colleagues (the
> other Censor).
Agreed. The new constitution now reflects that. (I'm going to be reposting
the whole thing this afternoon, for one final go-through.)
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: Re: Lictores curiati was Constitution and Help Wanted |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:54:55 -0400 |
|
Salve,
> From: Mike Ma--------r <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=174176211056207031025158175026172165098048139046" >MikeMa--------r@--------</a>
>
> What's the source for lictores curiati as a separate body? My roman law
> textbooks tells me that no-one could remember who was in which curia or
get
> them together to hold elections, with the result that they just collected
> the normal lictors and called the representatives of the curia.
OCD p. 860: "Lictors drawn from a separate decury of lictores curiati
attended certain religious officials and were responsible for the summoning
of the comitia curiata..."
> I think as long as it's clear that the functions of the C.Curiata are
> religious ceremonies, it's fine. And in response to MPJ's suggested
problem
> of refusing to confer imperium, perhaps reword to:
>
> "The C. Curiata shall by a single and indivisible act confer imperium on
> all the magistrates elected for the coming year..."
>
> The C. Curiata could then only abuse its power by shutting down the whole
> set-up, which would justify the Senate appointing an interrex to scrag
> them.
Much as I would love to use the word "scrag" in the new constitution, here's
what I've come up with for the wording (it also should clear up the
confusion about the definition of imperium being contained in this
paragraph):
"To invest elected and appointed magistrates with Imperium (which is
necessary to employ coercitio (the power to compel obedience to his edicts),
interpret and execute law, and possess the honor of being preceeded by
lictors as a symbol of office), without right of refusal individually or as
a body; "
Thoughts?
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: Term for Censors |
| From: |
Steven Robinson amgunn@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:03:01 -0700 |
|
Avete Omnes,
2 years, staggered election, 3 month overlap, 9 month rest - looks good to
me. As the Censors have a unique position in the government, howzabout
Censorial elections in June, exclusive of the other magistracies?
Valete - Venator
|
| Subject: |
Aerarium Saturni et cetera |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:08:36 -0400 |
|
Salvete, omnes!
I am pleased to announce the creation of a new section of the web site, to
be called the Aerarium Saturni. Like its namesake, it is designed to be a
repository of all the official documents (laws, Senatus consulta, decreta,
edicta, etc.)
I've put my proposed new constitution and laws up there for ease of perusal.
I would ask everyone who is interested in the debate (and it _is_ winding
down, believe me!) to go to the site and check out the changes. Some of them
are somewhat subtle, some aren't. The new page isn't yet linked from the
main page (coming soon!), but you can reach it at:
<a href="http://www.novaroma.org/aerarium_saturni/index.html" target="_top" >http://www.novaroma.org/aerarium_saturni/index.html</a> (if anyone knows of any
pictures of the temple of Saturn, that would be a neat addition).
There are also some new proposals to be found there, including material
related to the collegium pontificum and collegium augurum. Comments, as
always, are welcome.
One thing still very much up in the air: the length of time used for debate
and voting in the Senate. I'd like to nail it down to a set time period, but
then again there should be provision for emergency situations when haste is
required.
ALSO: Our new internet provider allows us the use of _unlimited_ email
mailboxes and forwarding. I would like to offer novaroma email addresses to
all citizens who occupy public office (just like my address is
<a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a>, there could be <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=243075080056078233015158190036129" >aude--------...</a>,
<a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=219166192112158209015158190036129" >caesar@--------</a>, <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=114056219009194233036168066026243088136026139046209" >deciusiu--------@--------</a> (or <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=197166235078158154036168000248006208071048" >palladius@--------</a>),
etc.) It might be a neat perk for taking a position of authority, as well as
letting folks easily identify who is and isn't a part of the government.
What do you think?
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: Term for Censors |
| From: |
"RCW" alexious@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:26:01 -0700 |
|
I agree with that.....especially if we want to try to keep it as far away
from politics as possible.....(As if we could do that....LOL) But seriously,
it would be separating the Position of Censor from the remaining political
offices.
L. Cornelius Sulla
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Rob--------n <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=243232178182078116015056190036129" >amgunn@--------</a>
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 1999 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Term for Censors
> From: Steven Rob--------n <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=243232178182078116015056190036129" >amgunn@--------</a>
>
> Avete Omnes,
>
> 2 years, staggered election, 3 month overlap, 9 month rest - looks good to
> me. As the Censors have a unique position in the government, howzabout
> Censorial elections in June, exclusive of the other magistracies?
>
> Valete - Venator
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> You can WIN $100 to Amazon.com by starting a new list at ONElist.
> <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a>
> Weekly drawing is held each Friday. See homepage for details!
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
|
| Subject: |
Re: Aerarium Saturni et cetera |
| From: |
"RCW" alexious@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:34:05 -0700 |
|
COOL.....thats great Germanicus.... :) What will my e-mail be...and how will
it be forwarded? Do we need to know their mail server information?
L. Cornelius Sulla
*Tech Support experience shining through ;)*
----- Original Message -----
From: Flavius Vedius Germa--------s <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a>
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 1999 4:08 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Aerarium Saturni et cetera
> From: "Flavius Vedius Germa--------s" <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a>
>
> Salvete, omnes!
>
> I am pleased to announce the creation of a new section of the web site, to
> be called the Aerarium Saturni. Like its namesake, it is designed to be a
> repository of all the official documents (laws, Senatus consulta, decreta,
> edicta, etc.)
>
> I've put my proposed new constitution and laws up there for ease of
perusal.
> I would ask everyone who is interested in the debate (and it _is_ winding
> down, believe me!) to go to the site and check out the changes. Some of
them
> are somewhat subtle, some aren't. The new page isn't yet linked from the
> main page (coming soon!), but you can reach it at:
> <a href="http://www.novaroma.org/aerarium_saturni/index.html" target="_top" >http://www.novaroma.org/aerarium_saturni/index.html</a> (if anyone knows of
any
> pictures of the temple of Saturn, that would be a neat addition).
>
> There are also some new proposals to be found there, including material
> related to the collegium pontificum and collegium augurum. Comments, as
> always, are welcome.
>
> One thing still very much up in the air: the length of time used for
debate
> and voting in the Senate. I'd like to nail it down to a set time period,
but
> then again there should be provision for emergency situations when haste
is
> required.
>
> ALSO: Our new internet provider allows us the use of _unlimited_ email
> mailboxes and forwarding. I would like to offer novaroma email addresses
to
> all citizens who occupy public office (just like my address is
> <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a>, there could be <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=243075080056078233015158190036129" >aude--------...</a>,
> <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=219166192112158209015158190036129" >caesar@--------</a>, <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=114056219009194233036168066026243088136026139046209" >deciusiu--------@--------</a> (or
<a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=197166235078158154036168000248006208071048" >palladius@--------</a>),
> etc.) It might be a neat perk for taking a position of authority, as well
as
> letting folks easily identify who is and isn't a part of the government.
> What do you think?
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Dictator
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> ONElist now has T-SHIRTS!
> <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a>
> Check out homepage for details.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
|
| Subject: |
Re: Help wanted |
| From: |
AC1917@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:46:04 EDT |
|
Just for clarity and organization's sake: 1) What are the new or
open positions; 2) How many vacancies are there: and, 3) What are the desired
qualifications?
Camillus Severus Antoninus
|
| Subject: |
Re: Term for Censors |
| From: |
Razenna razenna@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:57:23 -0700 |
|
I endorse Audens proposal. Beside the fine tuning points he makes (serving together during
the change over time, etc.) the two year term would be close to the time that the ancient
Censores usually held office IIRC. That being that while their terms were for 5 years
they usually completed their business and laid down their offices in about 18 months. 18
months would be murder on NR, an odd term election and all. Two years is a good rounding
off and it does give the Censores a bit of distance from the annual madness of the
campaign. Might it be reasonable to allow a censor to run for reelection for a
consecutive term once? (Assuming anyone is that much of a glutton for punishment. LOL)
Ericius.
|
| Subject: |
Public edicta and intercessio |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:40:42 -0400 |
|
Salvete omnes!
I've been toying with ideas regarding the functioning of the magistrates'
powers (specifically the edictum and the intercessio). I do rather like the
idea of a set time limit within which a magistrate can use his power of
intercessio, but what happens if a magistrate performs some action, then
waits four days, and then lets people know about it? Has he just trumped the
other magistrates' intercessio?
How about this, though. All edicta (the means by which most magistrates
exercise their powers) must be made in public (on the list, the web site,
etc.). The new Aerarium Saturni could be used for this purpose. Intercessio
could then be pronounced within 72 hours of the publication of the edicta.
What do you think?
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Re: Public edicta and intercessio |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 20:14:49 EDT |
|
Salvete,
> How about this, though. All edicta (the means by which most magistrates
> exercise their powers) must be made in public (on the list, the web site,
>
> What do you think?
If a magistrate proclaims in the woods, and nobody's around to hear
it, has he made an edict? My opinion is that he has not. Forcing edicta to
be public is both reasonable and necessary. In fact, such a rule probably
should apply to any official act that affects the citizens of the republic.
Valete,
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
de comitiis sortibusque |
| From: |
David Meadows dmeadows@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 20:44:37 -0400 |
|
Salvete,
Dictator noster Flavius Vedius Germanicus scripsit:
I think you're maybe mistaking my meaning. I was saying that the details
should be handled through laws, rather than being in the Constitution
itself. I wasn't talking about the details themselves, just where they
should be ennumerated.
Respondeo:
Actually, I think it is I who is not being clear enough; my concerns about
the comitia and voting are connected; this will hopefully be rather more
clearly stated below:
Scripsi
> safeguard for the integrity of the non-centuriate assemblies (e.g. can the
> comitia centuriata pass legislation which affects how voting is done in
the
> other comitia? what about vice versa?). Having more than one legislative
Responsit:
No; that's clearly spelled out in the Constitution in the relevant section
for each comitia. Each is the only body that can pass laws relevant to its
own internal functioning. The same goes for the Senate, the Collegium
Pontificum, and the Collegium Augurum.
Respondeo:
Maybe I'm reading something wrongly, but article IIIB states:
... the comitia centuriata shall pass laws governing the rules by which it
shall operate internally. It shall have the following powers:
1. To enact laws binding upon the entire citizenry
etc.
There are analogous statements in IIIC for the comita plebis tributa and
IIID for the comitia populi tributa.
What concerns me is that if the method of voting of each of these comitia
is not enshrined in the constitution, as you say, it is an easier matter to
change the method 'by a law'. But the way the constitution is worded -- 'to
enact laws binding on the entire citizenry' -- a small group which
dominated the comitia centuriata by virtue of the group voting principle
could conceivably (and in light of recent activities in Nova Roma, would
probably) be able to pass a law which changed the method of voting in all
the other comitia (e.g. "No citizen of Nova Roma shall be allowed to vote
in private"). Heck, an eloquent tribune might use the comitia plebis to
accomplish the same thing in regards to the comitia centuriata (e.g. "No
citizen of Nova Roma shall be allowed to participate in 'group voting'.").
To prevent this -- i.e., to protect the integrity of the comitia themselves
-- the voting method must be enshrined in the constitution. If *everyone*
perceives that a certain method of voting is not working out, the
constitutional amendment required would surely be easy to achieve.
We're not (may the gods forfend!) talking about something that will make
Nova Roma more 'democratic' than its ancient counterpart (analogous to that
den of philosophers, Athens), but rather we're trying to put some
safeguards into the constitution to prevent it from being hijacked by folks
with rather different agendas.
respecte,
M. Papirius Justus
]|[ David Meadows ]|[ <a href="http://web.idirect.com/~atrium" target="_top" >http://web.idirect.com/~atrium</a> ]|[ Rogue Classicist ]|[
|
| Subject: |
Copyright |
| From: |
David Meadows dmeadows@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 20:54:22 -0400 |
|
Scripsistis:
We do, however, have something known as "Fair Use."
I like Fair Use. As long as you do not intend to forward the article as a
means of making money, you should be ok. I plan to use the article for
educational reasons (which also falls under Fair Use), and there is credit
to the newspaper and the author on message.
Respondeo:
Be very careful with relying on this one; in Canada, educational use under
Fair Use is carefully defined as copying an article and making a class set
... posting to an electronic bulletin board is definitely not considered
'fair use'.
That said, I refer everyone to the Copyright Website, which has a good faq
page on 'retransmission' of news articles in the context of Clarinet News:
<a href="http://www.benedict.com/digital/enewsfax.htm#Top" target="_top" >http://www.benedict.com/digital/enewsfax.htm#Top</a>
The same prohibitions on 'retransmission' would obviously attain in regards
to something taken from a news source website (i.e. you can send someone
the url, but not the article itself).
Vale!
MPJ
]|[ David Meadows ]|[ <a href="http://web.idirect.com/~atrium" target="_top" >http://web.idirect.com/~atrium</a> ]|[ Rogue Classicist ]|[
|
| Subject: |
Re: Aerarium Saturni et cetera |
| From: |
dean6886@--------) |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 20:43:45 -0500 (CDT) |
|
When I looked over the Senatus Consultum De Ratione Senatus and
more specifically the Decretum De Ratione Collegium Pontificum, I have a
question as to our definition of seniority and ask that we have a
clarification.
In the latter document 2 (b) it states " Ties in seniority shall be
decided in favor of those who have served the longest in their position"
Ok, so what is seniority then if it's not necessarily from the
time served in the particular position??? Starting from citizenship? I
would hope that seniority is from the time served in that position
(starting date) and that if 2 people were brought into the Collegium
Pontificum, the Senate or the College of Augurs, etc. on the same day
then the age of the individuals in question would take precedence.
Gaius Drusus Domitianus
|
| Subject: |
new name |
| From: |
jmath669642reng@--------) |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:07:15 -0400 (EDT) |
|
I agree. I have been trying to do that at my end, and when we get a
Webmaster in place I will send the request again. What will I have to
do?
Marcus Minucius Audens
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
|
| Subject: |
Re: Public edicta and intercessio |
| From: |
jmath669642reng@--------) |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:20:41 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Salve, Dictator Germanicus;
This sounds like a way to go as long as the website and net circuit are
secure from being tampered with. I am not talking in this case about an
interruption by Nova Roma people but rather from an outside
interruption. Early on in the first part of the year there was a young
man who seemed to be quite a "hacker" who indicated that the net could
be invaded. My son who is also an accomplished "hacker" confirms that
possibility. Since I simply use the Internet as a fast mail system and
library, I am not party to the more technical facets of this medium.
However, I do not believe that I have to be to bring this to your
attention. I think your idea eminantly workable but have some concerns
about unauthoried access to the Main List. Do I hear anyone out there
echoing agreement or rejection of these concerns??
Vale; Dictator Germanicus;
Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
|
| Subject: |
Re: Copyright |
| From: |
Diana/Orbianna proserpina@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 23:37:15 -0400 |
|
It amazes me how different things can be from country to country and yet we
all use the Internet as a whole. In America we have what is known as the
Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which is supposed to encompass the needs
of a new digital age. It has not yet been passed as legislation, however.
Generally regarded in copyright law in the U.S. is intent of use, which is
why we have Fair Use. Using the article with the intent to educate is
acceptable. For the true nuances of Copyright Law, we'd need to go to a
Copyright Lawyer, unfortunately, because it's so excessively complex. I
suggest for further reading on the topic of American copyright material
refer to, Bruwelheide, J.H. "Copyright Primer." 2nd edition. It was
required reading for my Professional and Social Aspects of Information
Services class this term. I understand your hesitancy still, but fear not,
I won't incriminate you for sharing knowledge with me et ali. It is
greatly appreciated. I've already gotten feedback from the local group to
which I sent the article. They were very grateful for having be informed
of the discovery.
Vale et Gratias,
Orbianna
>Respondeo:
>
>Be very careful with relying on this one; in Canada, educational use under
>Fair Use is carefully defined as copying an article and making a class set
>... posting to an electronic bulletin board is definitely not considered
>'fair use'.
>
>That said, I refer everyone to the Copyright Website, which has a good faq
>page on 'retransmission' of news articles in the context of Clarinet News:
>
><a href="http://www.benedict.com/digital/enewsfax.htm#Top" target="_top" >http://www.benedict.com/digital/enewsfax.htm#Top</a>
>
>The same prohibitions on 'retransmission' would obviously attain in regards
>to something taken from a news source website (i.e. you can send someone
>the url, but not the article itself).
>
>Vale!
>
>MPJ
>
>]|[ David Meadows ]|[ <a href="http://web.idirect.com/~atrium" target="_top" >http://web.idirect.com/~atrium</a> ]|[ Rogue Classicist ]|[
>
>
Iustina Luciania Orbianna
Gens Luciania
----------------------------
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=197212253112056209171056066140114002071048139" >proserpina@--------</a>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/soho/studios/7401" target="_top" >http://www.geocities.com/soho/studios/7401</a>
----------------------------
"Scientia est potentia." -Francis Bacon
"Pax Cererem nutrit, Pacis alumna Ceres" -Ovid "Fasti" 1.701-704
"I will teach you to know yourself" -Persephone, as Queen of the Underworld
|
| Subject: |
Re: Aerarium Saturni et cetera |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:00:41 -0400 |
|
Salve,
> From: <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=114056113185089095081021203102129208071" >dean6886@--------</a> (Dean Troy)
>
> When I looked over the Senatus Consultum De Ratione Senatus and
> more specifically the Decretum De Ratione Collegium Pontificum, I have a
> question as to our definition of seniority and ask that we have a
> clarification.
>
> In the latter document 2 (b) it states " Ties in seniority shall be
> decided in favor of those who have served the longest in their position"
>
> Ok, so what is seniority then if it's not necessarily from the
> time served in the particular position??? Starting from citizenship? I
> would hope that seniority is from the time served in that position
> (starting date) and that if 2 people were brought into the Collegium
> Pontificum, the Senate or the College of Augurs, etc. on the same day
> then the age of the individuals in question would take precedence.
It's talking about seniority within the entire collegium pontificum, not
just within a particular position. If you read the entire passage, it states
that seniority is based first on the position held, then on the time in that
position, and then by age. Thus, the rex and regina sacrorum will _always_
be senior to, say, a flamen, no matter how long that flamen has held the
position. Where did you get the impression that seniority of priests had
anything to do with the initial date of citizenship?
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
