Subject:	Gens Numeria web page started
From:	Mia Soderquist tuozine@--------
Date:	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 03:50:34 -0400

<a href="http://home.mindspring.com/~tuozine/Untitled/Page_1x.html" target="_top" >http://home.mindspring.com/~tuozine/Untitled/Page_1x.html</a>
It is basically just taking up webspace right now, as I just threw
something together tonight. It is going to develop over the next few
weeks. The good news is that I now know how to get the pages from Web
Studio into my web space.

Fortunata
--
Mia Soderquist (<a href="/post/novaro--------rotectID=189075253209082116184218072036129208" >tuozine@--------</a>)
ICQ 19818811 or 5926593
Ari tefeli ceyijei eisu ceitisa yei ari sivai ceigaiyu.

Subject:	Re: law: Inner consistency
From:	Marcus Prometheus Decius Golia fresco@--------
Date:	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 13:47:16 +0300

Salve!

Subject:	C. Aelius Ericius - New Augur of Nova Roma
From:	Cassius622@--------
Date:	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:26:05 EDT

Salvete Omnes,

It is my great pleasure to announce that by unanimous vote, (with his own
being excluded for the sake of modesty of course!) that C. Aelius Ericius,
Pontiff, has been chosen by the Pontifical College to hold the position of
Augur for Nova Roma!

C. Aelius Ericius has so far distinguished himself as a Pontiff, and has not
chosen lightly to take on these additional duties. He has been researching
this aspect of the Religio Romana for some years now. His acceptance of this
post will be a great benefit to Nova Roma - we again have two skilled and
active Augurs to help guide the course of this Micronation!

I hope that all will join me in welcoming Ericius as a member of the College
of Augurs - I have all confidence that he will be a credit to the position as
Dexippus has continued to be.

Congratulations C. Aelius Ericius, Augur of Nova Roma!

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pontifex Maximus

Subject:	Stoicism and Taoism
From:	"Keith Seddon" K.H.S@--------
Date:	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 18:34:59 +0100

Marcus Prometheus Decius Golia wrote:

> Most respectfully, also the Vita Beata couldnt be somehow linked
> to Taoism and to symbolize more Epicureanism than Stoicism ?

I know much less about Epicureanism than I do about Stoicism and Taoism. As
far as I know, the Stoics used the term vita beata ('the life that is
blessed' ?) as a translation of the Greek term eudaimonia, which tends to
get translated as 'happiness' , tho a eudaimon life is really one that is
flourishing or prospering in significant senses.

I think the Epicurean writings are almost exclusively in Greek, so that
would not have used the term vita beata.

The keenest points of contact between Stoicism, Epicureanism and Taoism
revolve around the notions of tranquillity, materialism, the passions and
'the smooth flow of life' as the Stoics have called it. Stoicism and Taoism
(I'm not sure about Epicureanism) advocate the abandoning of many
(Stoicism) or all (Taoism) of the usual values, especially concerning
wealth and possessions and status. If we are to give up being troubled, we
must give up our interests in these things. It is these things that
actually bring us our troubles. Stoics believe that passions (or emotions)
are false beliefs, and that when you see that, you will all the more easily
just not have them. Taoists see the passions as just irrelevant for very
similar reasons. For the Stoics, we are in the hands of Fate, which directs
everything that happens, and we have no choice but to accept and deal with
whatever happens. Taoists say very similar things about the Tao.

Stoicism and Taoism part company (tho not wholly) with regard to political
and social involvement. The Stoics believed that they had a duty to serve
the wider community. Taoists believed that they should detach themselves
completely from the community (which is viewed pretty much as beyond hope)
even to the extent of living in isolation in the wilderness.

For now,

Live with honour,

L. Gellius Severus

Subject:	Re: C. Aelius Ericius - New Augur of Nova Roma
From:	Dexippus@--------
Date:	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 15:42:37 EDT

In --------ss--------d-------- 7/24/99 10:26:33 AM EST, <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=137166066112082162090021200165114253071048139" >C--------us622@--------</--------; writes:

<< I hope that all will join me in welcoming Ericius as a member of the
College
of Augurs - I have all confidence that he will be a credit to the position
as
Dexippus has continued to be. >>

Ave Ericius!

Welcome to the College of Augurs! I look forward to working with you.

Vale!

Damianus Lucianus Dexippus
Augur, Nova Roma

Subject:	In today's New York Times
From:	David Meadows dmeadows@--------
Date:	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 15:54:09 -0400

An article of interest:

July 24, 1999


Democracy of Romans, Corrupt but Arguably True

By PAUL LEWIS

To most historians of this century, the Roman republic was a corrupt
oligarchy ruled by a rich and decadent aristocracy despite its
democratic Constitution, popular assemblies and regularly elected
officials.

"The frozen waste theory" is how Richard Talbert, a history professor at
the University of North Carolina, describes what has become the
conventional view. The Roman republic was a private fief of "a narrow
aristocratic cabal," compared with Athens of the fifth and fourth centuries
B.C., which was revered as the birthplace of a purer show-of-hands
democracy.

Yet over the last decade or so, several scholars have been nibbling away
at republican Rome's undemocratic reputation, arguing that it was an
imperfect but still recognizable democracy. Political office was less
controlled by the aristocracy than was assumed. What's more, they say,
in some ways, Rome had even more in common with modern notions of
democracy than Athens did.

"We neglect the open aspects of the system which produced results the
ruling classes didn't like and couldn't predict," said Fergus Millar, an
Oxford historian and the author of the just-published "The Crowd in
Rome in the Late Republic," (University of Michigan Press). "My book is
a deliberate, one-sided attempt to shake up the conventional view of the
republic."

Republican Rome's democratic credentials weren't always in doubt. After
all, America's founding fathers took the Roman Constitution, with its
combination of Senate and Assembly, as their model, not the single
Athenian assembly. As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers:
"Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly
would still have been a mob . . . History informs of no long-lived republic
which had not a senate."

But in the 19th century, Greece began to replace Rome as the West's
political and cultural model. As the British pushed to expand democratic
reforms, liberals pointed to the Athenian experience as evidence that
democracy was achievable without a traumatic upheaval like the French
Revolution.

The German historian Matthias Gelzer set the tone for much subsequent
Roman scholarship in 1912 with his book "The Roman Nobility," which
stressed "the hereditary nature of political power in the great aristocratic
families" and concluded that even if occasionally "a new man was brought
to the fore, the overall picture did not change."

Rome left a much better record of its political life than did Athens, which
didn't help its image. Since historians knew more about Rome, they could
better trace the web of family connections, special interests and bribery
there.

There has been "general distaste for Roman politics in most modern
scholarship," Mary Beard, a British classicist at Cambridge University,
explained in a recent book review in The Times Literary Supplement,
published in Britain. That Rome was "a milestone of political freedom is
only rarely trumpeted."

Historians like Millar are trying to reverse this perception. After all, it
was
Rome, not Athens, that invented that cornerstone of modern democracy,
the secret ballot.

And even though some of Rome's popular assemblies may have had
weighted voting systems that favored the rich, they were still the only
political bodies that could pass laws and appoint governing officials. The
Senate, which was dominated by the aristocracy, had neither of those
powers.

Millar turns traditional interpretations on their heads, using the corruption
of democracy as evidence of its existence. That bribery was widespread
demonstrates how essential popular assent was deemed to be for the
exercise of political power. As for the reactionary, anti-democratic
measures introduced by Sulla around 80 B.C., Millar said they make
sense only if the supposedly all-powerful aristocracy felt it was not getting
its way. And indeed, it had to contend with an assembly that demanded
handouts of cheap corn and land and wanted a say in the administration
of the empire.

The Forum was the ultimate symbol of Rome's open, visible political
system. This is where leaders went to make their case and win the
support of the Roman population. Their power was so dependent on this
popular support that rival groups vied for physical control of the places
where citizens gathered, even turning to violence to maintain their
pre-eminence.

In "The Constitution of the Roman Republic" (Oxford University Press,
1999), Andrew Lintott, a historian at Oxford University, also stresses the
power of the Roman assembly, which he says "supports an interpretation
of Rome as some kind of democracy."

He cites the Greek historian Polybius, who around 150 B.C. attributed
Rome's military success to the stability imparted by a mixed Constitution
that incorporated monarchic and aristocratic elements as well as
democratic ones.

This Constitution was so hostile to tyranny, he adds, that even toward the
end of the republic, it was a constant restraint on ambitious leaders.
The very scope and size of ancient Rome also makes it more relevant to
many of today's democracies. At most, the Athenian city-state had an
electorate of about 40,000 men in the middle of the fifth century B.C.,
falling probably to about half that by the end of the Peloponnesian War in
404 B.C.

At the end of the Roman republic, however, there were more than 1
million Roman citizens, many of them freed slaves. Meanwhile, the
inhabitants of its quickly expanding empire were regularly granted
citizenship.

"The Romans had a more fluid democratic concept of citizenship, much
closer to our own," Victor Hanson, a classicist at California State
University at Fresno, said in a telephone interview.

Judy Hallett, a classics professor at the University of Maryland at College
Park, agreed: "Athens was an uninclusive, closed democracy that didn't
reach out."

Of course extending citizenship didn't always means extending power.
Rome became more authoritarian as popular leaders sought ever greater
powers to tackle the problems of an expanding empire. And to vote,
Romans still had to show up personally in Rome. Thus, anyone who lived
outside the city was effectively disenfranchised. Romans may have
invented the secret ballot, but the mail-in ballot remained something of the
future.




]|[ David Meadows ]|[ <a href="http://web.idirect.com/~atrium" target="_top" >http://web.idirect.com/~atrium</a> ]|[ Rogue Classicist ]|[

Subject:	Re: C. Aelius Ericius - New Augur of Nova Roma
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@--------
Date:	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 16:45:17 -0400

Salve,

> From: <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=137166066112082162090021200165114253071048139" >C--------us622@--------</--------;
>
> It is my great pleasure to announce that by unanimous vote, (with his own
> being excluded for the sake of modesty of course!) that C. Aelius Ericius,
> Pontiff, has been chosen by the Pontifical College to hold the position of
> Augur for Nova Roma!
>

Congratulations, Ericius! You'll make a terrific addition to the collegium
augurum!!

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus

Subject:	Re: law: Inner consistency
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@--------
Date:	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 17:00:40 -0400

Salve,

> From: Raz-------- <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=194166216056078116169218163036129208" >raz--------@--------</a>
>
> I believe Decius Golia has put very well some of the points that have been
bothering me
> about the proposed constitution. His words are more politic than mine
have been. I am
> particularly thinking of the parts of his post concerning the need for a
clear chain of
> command and and responsibility tree. Yes. I know the ancient Roman one
was not clear (it
> was only less complicated than Cleopatra's family tree ;-), and the idea
of experimenting
> with a Roman system of government is what we want to do on the political
side of Nova
> Roma. But we should have the lines of responsibility and prerogative drawn
out in
> writing. Including those parts where the over lapping IS not clean and
clear cut.

I might ask where your proposal for a solution is... I have proposed that
each of the comitia be equal to one another, with the same right to
contradict each other that co-equal magistrates have. That is, should the
comitia populi tributa pass a law mandating the wearing of yellow hats with
purple dots, the comitia centuriata could pass another law a month later
overturning it. After all, the same people are in the various comitia,
except on the razor-closest of issues, are we THAT likely to keep
flip-flopping on the content of laws?

I must confess that Decius Golia's original post left me a little baffled
(doubtless a combination of his non-fluency in English and my being at work
on a Friday afternoon!), but I think what he and Ericius are calling for is
a line of seniority amongst the comitia. If that is indeed the case, I would
propose the following order: comitia centuriata, comitia populi tributa,
comitia plebis tributa.

My rationale is that the comitia centuriata is slightly weighted in favor of
the most active participants in Nova Roma's public life. The comitia populi
tributa is a fairly straight grouping of the entire population, while the
comitia plebis tributa only represents a portion of the population. I think
that's a fair and healthy means of establishing seniority.

I am neither opposed to the notion of a chain of seniority among the
comitia, nor am I convinced of the need of it. I really need the input of
some other citizens on this issue.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator

Subject:	Re: law: Inner consistency
From:	Razenna razenna@--------
Date:	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 14:33:27 -0700

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:

> That is, should the
> comitia populi tributa pass a law mandating the wearing of yellow hats with
> purple dots,

I'm glad this is a serious matter.

Ericius.

Subject:	Re: In today's New York Times
From:	Steven Robinson amgunn@--------
Date:	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 20:08:08 -0700

Ave,

From: Dav--------eadows <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=114232192237248190028232203026129208071" >dmeadows@--------</a>
>
> An article of [very great] interest:
>

Thank you very much.

Vale - Venator

Subject:	Re: C. Aelius Ericius - New Augur of Nova Roma
From:	Steven Robinson amgunn@--------
Date:	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 20:10:06 -0700

Ave!

Congrats Ericii!!!

Vale - Venii