| Subject: |
Observations from the NRonelist |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Sun, 25 Jul 1999 04:58:28 EDT |
|
Salvete!
After returning to Rome after a productive week to the east, I find 250 NR
e-mails waiting to read.
Rather then reading and writing separate mails I thought I'd combine my
observations in one easy to read mail.
I. On Lictors.
As a Roman historian I see nothing wrong with lictors or the decurary being
included in the doc. First off we are trying to recreate the Republic. And
sure, we do not have these role players today. But consider, one day, Gods
be willing, we will have public displays. Rather then rewriting the
constitution to include them then, why not cover them now? Vadius has, and I
for one see nothing wrong with the effort. As for their relevance in modern
NR, they are wholly symbolic. They were derived from the Etruscans to show
that the ruling class had the power of life and death over their minions.
The duality was symbolic of lesser offensives and higher offensives. One was
punishable by beating, the other by decapitation. When the Etruscans were
ejected, the Romans kept the symbols as proof of the power of dully elected
magistrates over the people. Yes, they could be used as body guards, but
only in pinch. Personally, I'd rather take a gladius against an unwieldy
axe, any day of the week. The Bronze statue of a lictor in British museum
shows the axe was placed in the middle of cane rods. (See attached
illustration.) This would make it hard to be wielded as weapon unless the
rods were unbound. Certainly Galba's lictors made a poor showing against the
mob in 69 AD.
II. Investing Imperium.
In the republic, Imperium was invested by Comitia Curiata. Curiata comes
from the 30 wards (curiae) from the three original Roman tribes. This was
simple matter of paying lip service to the elected officials. None of any of
the extant Roman writers to which we have access today, speaks about the
Curiata with holding the confirmation of Imperium. It probably couldn't be
done.
III. The Debate between the ex Censor & the ex Consul.
While I found this enlightening from a historical POV, I think there is
enough blame to be shared.
Consider that we have a Consul who wants to pass measures for the good of NR
yet is hamstrung by the fact that the machinery to do so is not in place.
Then we have a pair of Censors who cannot set up this machinery because of
various reasons. Finally when push comes to shove the Consul decides to
force the issue, feeling he is in the right. The Censors respond by
suspending the government, then appointing a dictator, feeling they were in
the right. Was this necessary? I'd say yes, we couldn't go on the way we
were. Was Flavius Vadius the right choice? Again I'd say yes. He has
trimmed a lot of red tape. Could this have been avoided? Again yes, the
elections should have never been held until all the machinery was enacted.
Should Lucius Equitius be so punished? I'd say no. After all he was acting
in what he felt was the Republic's best interests, just that he ended up on
the losing side. I'd say that Lucius Equitius was acting out of misplaced
zeal.
IV. Auden's Request.
I have all the Ludi Apollo entries for Audens. Which ones would he like
first?
V. The Pontiff and the Applicant.
Any reasons for rejection between College of Pontiffs and an applicant should
not be aired on this list. We have the Trames list, if people wish to bad
mouth each other. If it goes on this list it becomes a political statement,
and people must add their two denarii worth of comments.
A lot of the problem as I see it, is that guidelines for the applicant are
lacking. If certain things and attitudes have to be manifested before a
acceptance or rejection is contemplated, that applicant should be privy to
those guidelines before the fact. Otherwise the process becomes almost like
an ambush, with the applicant being a victim. This is not a conducive way to
get members.
VI. Lucius Cornelius Sulla.
Since Lucius Equitius was acting out of misplaced zeal in his efforts for NR,
so was the newly elected Praetor Urbanus Lucius Cornelius. While he ignored
a warning sign to read the Senate board to find out what was going on in NR,
since Lucius Equitius did not wish the Praetors access to the Senate, even
though they should have been allowed, (common sense tells one that,)
he too was acting out of misplaced zeal. He never should have lied, but the
reprimand given him by the old Senate, was over the top. I call on the new
Senate to remove such a reprimand from the achieves and to give Lucius
Cornelius Sulla his good name back.
VII. Communication.
I have been fortunate in speaking with several Roman historians in both the
classics and the government who watch NR from afar. The one common thread?
They are NOT members of NR! The overwhelming problem they all saw last 6
months is the lack of communication between the Magistrates and the people.
Flavius Vadius has made an excellent start to remedy this lack. It is up to
the rest of us to maintain it.
Valete!
Q. Fabius
|
| Subject: |
Re: law: Inner consistency |
| From: |
SFP55@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 25 Jul 1999 05:09:48 EDT |
|
<< I am particularly thinking of the parts of his post concerning the need
for a
clear chain of command and responsibility tree. >>
Salvete!
I understand what Caius Aelius means.
He wants a clear chain of command. sort of like:
Senate->Consuls->Comitia->Trib of the Plebs->Praetors->
You know, Flavius Vedius. A flowchart showing responsibility of the
different
power structures and who they answer to.
Valete!
Q. Fabius
|
| Subject: |
Re: Observations from the NRonelist |
| From: |
Kyrene Ariadne kyreneariadne@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 25 Jul 1999 12:28:17 -0400 (EDT) |
|
--- <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=246157057089235135169082190036" >SFP55@--------</--------; wrote:
> Salvete!
> After returning to Rome after a productive week to the east, I find 250 NR
> e-mails waiting to read.
[sense...sensibility...common sense... I stand before this email, awestruck...
all snipped for the sake of brevity]
*applause*
Ye gods, it is so good and so refreshing to have this posted. Thank you!
Since my joining up here at Nova Roma, I've found many a good thing about this
place. Let's not destroy what was built so needlessly.
As for the exchange regarding my application, yes, I felt attacked. I still
feel attacked, actually. And I will state this outright for everyone, as I
feel it's due to the following reason:
** Very few of you actually know me! **
This is a problem. Yes, I'm relatively new here. Yes, that could be a
problem to put up a Virgo Maxima that is very new to Nova Roma. I can see
this. If I'm rejected for the application for any reason, at least let it be
for that reason, and not petty backstabbing and bickering over how I conduct
personal informal and formal relations with my gods. Please! If I ask the
Pontiffs only one thing, let it be that. And pray to Apollo for mental clarity
while we're at it!
My application is right now being held up because some people can't be
professional or mature enough to come right out and say, "No, I don't know her,
but maybe we should get to know her first?" It's also being held up because I
supposedly "kicked several people off of my religious lists for disagreeing
with me." I'd like those supposed people to come out, please. I've kicked all
of ONE person since I've started those lists a couple of years ago, and that
was recently when this whole mess started. If one Pontiff counts as "several
people," I will withdraw my application, get a new person to head the gens
Gladia, and leave peacefully, as I am obviously not welcome here.
Please tell me that I am wrong, and "several people" are not lying about me
behind my back. Please tell me that I am wrong, I beg of you of all. I got
sick of such games back in junior high. If "several people" have a personal
problem with me, let those "several people" please email me privately, let's
straighten the stupid mess out, and act like adults!! Please? Not just for
the sake of peace, but for the sake of Nova Roma and personal diginity. That
goes for the Pontiff whom I initially pissed off as well. He's more than
welcome to email me and straighten out this mess. I'm tired of fighting. I'm
tired of the games. I'm just plain tired.
Someone suggested the idea of my having an apprenticeship of sorts, and
frankly, I think it's good for a couple of reasons:
1) I will get to know Nova Roma.
2) I will get to know what's expected in the Religio
3) PEOPLE HERE WILL GET TO KNOW ME.
Right now, as it stands, my application is riding on a lot of personal strife,
heresay, and BS because very few of you actually know me. And none of you can
really vouch for me. Only the few old timers on the HellenicPagan list and
members of Hellenion can speak up for me on my behalf. Those that have had run
ins with me so far have only had them because of the recent events, and
frankly, I don't think seeing me in that kind of mood is the best way to get to
know me, how I conduct myself spirituality, or what I really know and believe!
I also apologize to those who were sick of the discussion before it began.
*I'M* sick of it, was long before it began, and just want it done, over, and
ended with.
If there is such a thing as a formal process for both training me and getting
to know me, I welcome it. I will not have my name continually rubbed in the
dirt, either publically, to my face, or behind my back because one person
doesn't like the way I practice based on a brief exchange of emails and very
little room for clarification.
Here's a few things that need straightening out, however:
1) I am NOT new to Paganism. I've been involved for nearly seven years.
2) I am NOT new to reconstructionism, research, and a strong basis in
academics. I have a double minor in Religious Studies and Art History, and
have been a member of ADF for nearly two years, unofficial member for three. I
research and read a ton of academic books for *fun*. Every time I met up with
a new god that wished to be a part of my life, the first thing I did was break
out the books, and read as much as I could about that god.
3) I am NOT new to Pagan group ritual--specifically reconstructionist ritual.
I have led rites for my grove back in Ithaca, and am familiar with ADF ritual
structure. How this differs with Nova Roma's structure, I would like to find
out. When I get the chance, I see it as an excellent question for the Religio
list.
4) My age has NOTHING to do with how I practice, how much I know and have
studied, and what I'm capable of. I kept hearing a lot about my youth through
the whole exchange. I bit my tongue then, but I feel the need to speak on it
now. My youth had nothing to do with this situation; leave my age *out* of
this. I can vote, legally purchase alcoholic beverages, hold a job within my
career, pay my bills, and start up an online organization devoted to ancient
Hellenic study.
Those are my words on the issue. People are welcome to comment on them to me
in private email, or discuss the issue of my training here or otherwise.
Whatever is deemed appropriate.
Valete et khairete,
-Andrea Gladia Kyrinia
===
-=* Kyrene Ariadne/Lolandrea Psikine'Aelanar/Andreia *=-
-=* O'mra AirgeadFaol/Andreia/Andrea Gladia Kyrinia *=-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-=* <a href="http://pagan.drak.net/lolandrea/" target="_top" >http://pagan.drak.net/lolandrea/</a> *=-
-=* ~Amber's Domain~ *=-
-=* ICQ:6663573 Yahoo:KyreneAriadne AIM:KyreneAria *=-
|
| Subject: |
Re: C. Aelius Ericius - New Augur of Nova Roma |
| From: |
Diana/Orbianna proserpina@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 25 Jul 1999 23:14:50 -0400 |
|
Congratulations, Ericius! I am sure you will do honor to your new position
as Augur. May the Gods continue to light your path.
Bright Blessings,
Orbianna
At 11:26 24/07/99 EDT, you wrote:
>From: <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=137166066112082162090021200165114253071048139" >C--------us622@--------</--------;
>
>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
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>Congratulations SAYNO2DRUGS. Our latest ONElist of the week.
><a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a>
>How is ONElist changing YOUR life? Visit our homepage and let us know!
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
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: In today's New York Times |
| From: |
Diana/Orbianna proserpina@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 25 Jul 1999 23:16:53 -0400 |
|
Thank you once again for sharing such an informative article.
At 15:54 24/07/99 -0400, you wrote:
>From: Dav--------eadows <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=114232192237248190028232203026129208071" >dmeadows@--------</a>
>
>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 ]|[
>
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>Enjoy 120+ unique music channels right from your desktop! Download
>Spinner Plus 2.0 <a href=" <a href="http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/spinner1" target="_top" >http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/spinner1</a> ">Click
Here</a>
>Spinner.com. Where music lives online.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
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: |
Just some questions |
| From: |
Razenna razenna@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 25 Jul 1999 20:14:37 -0700 |
|
Salve, Germanicus.
I've been wondering about a few things.
When did the Censors outrank the Consuls?
Why did you appoint yourself Censor? The Dictator does not need other offices to do his
job. The People could have elected a person to be the second Censor, which would probably
been you, even without the prodigious amount of work you've been doing since July 4.
I do not remember you having been an Augur of Nova Roma in the past. Dexippus and
Scaevola were the two Augurs appointed by the Collegium Pontificum. True, we do not have
hard copy archives which can be thumbed through to check on things.
May the Gods of Roma speed you in the conclusion of your labors.
Vale.
C. Aelius Ericius.
|
