| Subject: |
[novaroma] A Compulsory Cursus Honorum |
| From: |
"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 05:01:26 +0100 |
|
M. Apollonius Formosanus Quiritibus et Senatoribus omnes S.P.D.
I have observed that on the senate agenda is the notion of making
the cursus honorum obligatory and fixed. I submit that this is an
exceedingly bad idea.
In the past elections we had a very rich variety of candidates for
most posts compared with the past, but that was so because we had
more candidates at all levels (except quaestor, obviously) who would
not have qualified under a compulsory cursus honorum. For example,
only Praetor Diocletianus would be a possible new candidate for
consul next year, and everybody else running for that post would have
to be "recycled". Similarly, no new person is a consul next year, as
both were consuls before. Thus we are creating no new possibilities
for election to the censorate next time.
While keeping an open mind about the desirability of an obligatory
cursus in the future, I submit to the senators and the People that we
are still in a situation in which we need some flexibility to get new
blood in and build up a solid body of potential candidates for the
highest magistracies (consuls and censors). The electors should have
a diverse choice, and we should be able to enforce the rules about
not repeating an office without granting dispensations for that. Nor
should we have a tiny fragment of the population playing musical
chairs with these posts. That is placing heavy demands upon them and
denying opportunities to others equally interested.
Patres conscripti et Quirites, out of the six senior magistrates for
the coming year, only one has not been a senior magistrate before.
Producing new candidates for the higher ranks at this rate, we simply
cannot provide the three or four candidates for the highest three
positions (one cenorship not needing filled in any given year, of
course) that would give voters a real choice of new candidates. That
being the case, I submit that plans to make the cursus honorum
mandatory be shelved for at least two more years. It would be a great
bottleneck on the free development of our democracy at this point in
time.
Valete!
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius
ICQ# 61698049 AIM: MAFormosanus MSN: Formosanus
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
(Se vi deziras subigi al vi chion, subigu vin al Racio)
________________________________________
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Big News - eGroups is becoming Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details:
http://click.egroups.com/1/10801/1/_/61050/_/978062498/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] A Compulsory Cursus Honorum |
| From: |
gmvick32@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 28 Dec 2000 21:49:05 -0700 |
|
As much fun as it can be to disagree with Formosanus, in this post I have to
agree with him 100%. For what it's worth, I simply don't think we are ready for
codifying the cursus honorum.
Livia Cornelia Aurelia
Propraetrix, America Austroccidentalis
"M. Apollonius Formosanus" wrote:
> M. Apollonius Formosanus Quiritibus et Senatoribus omnes S.P.D.
>
> I have observed that on the senate agenda is the notion of making
> the cursus honorum obligatory and fixed. I submit that this is an
> exceedingly bad idea.
>
> In the past elections we had a very rich variety of candidates for
> most posts compared with the past, but that was so because we had
> more candidates at all levels (except quaestor, obviously) who would
> not have qualified under a compulsory cursus honorum. For example,
> only Praetor Diocletianus would be a possible new candidate for
> consul next year, and everybody else running for that post would have
> to be "recycled". Similarly, no new person is a consul next year, as
> both were consuls before. Thus we are creating no new possibilities
> for election to the censorate next time.
>
> While keeping an open mind about the desirability of an obligatory
> cursus in the future, I submit to the senators and the People that we
> are still in a situation in which we need some flexibility to get new
> blood in and build up a solid body of potential candidates for the
> highest magistracies (consuls and censors). The electors should have
> a diverse choice, and we should be able to enforce the rules about
> not repeating an office without granting dispensations for that. Nor
> should we have a tiny fragment of the population playing musical
> chairs with these posts. That is placing heavy demands upon them and
> denying opportunities to others equally interested.
>
> Patres conscripti et Quirites, out of the six senior magistrates for
> the coming year, only one has not been a senior magistrate before.
> Producing new candidates for the higher ranks at this rate, we simply
> cannot provide the three or four candidates for the highest three
> positions (one cenorship not needing filled in any given year, of
> course) that would give voters a real choice of new candidates. That
> being the case, I submit that plans to make the cursus honorum
> mandatory be shelved for at least two more years. It would be a great
> bottleneck on the free development of our democracy at this point in
> time.
>
> Valete!
>
> Marcus Apollonius Formosanus
> Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
> Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius
> ICQ# 61698049 AIM: MAFormosanus MSN: Formosanus
> Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
> The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
> Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
> ________________________________________
> Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
> (Se vi deziras subigi al vi chion, subigu vin al Racio)
> ________________________________________
>
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Download Net2Phone's free software to make FREE calls anywhere within
the US from your PC now! Get great low rates on international calls!
http://click.egroups.com/1/10923/1/_/61050/_/978064852/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: A Compulsory Cursus Honorum |
| From: |
"C. Iulius" <ancientrome@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:03:10 -0800 |
|
Greetings Citizens of Nova Roma,
Once more I have been forced to comment on a post by M. Apollonius Formosanus, below will be my responses to his post. I feel compelled to post this because of various inaccuracies in his post.
I have observed that on the senate agenda is the notion of making
the cursus honorum obligatory and fixed. I submit that this is an
exceedingly bad idea.
Response: I disagree; the Senate should be in the forefront of promoting various traditions within Nova Roma. Once of those traditions worth reimplmenting would be the Cursus Honorum. This “Path of Honor,” should be the tradition within Nova Roma. Are you personally upset about this because you attempted to bypass the Cursus Honorum M. Apollonius?
In the past elections we had a very rich variety of candidates for
most posts compared with the past, but that was so because we had
more candidates at all levels (except quaestor, obviously) who would
not have qualified under a compulsory cursus honorum. For example,
only Praetor Diocletianus would be a possible new candidate for
consul next year, and everybody else running for that post would have
to be "recycled". Similarly, no new person is a consul next year, as
both were consuls before. Thus we are creating no new possibilities
for election to the censorate next time.
Response: However, Nova Roma had ample choice. If I recall Nova Romans had the choice of: 3 Consuls, at least 5 Praetors, 5 Tribunes of the Plebs. I think the choice available to Citizens of Nova Roma were ample. And, your assessment is not correct for Consuls for next year. The Current Praetors (Antonio Gryllus and M. Iunius) are available and all previous office holders are available too. Your facts, M. Apollonius are wrong.
Patres conscripti et Quirites, out of the six senior magistrates for
the coming year, only one has not been a senior magistrate before.
Response: Again that is not because of a lack of choice.
Producing new candidates for the higher ranks at this rate, we simply
cannot provide the three or four candidates for the highest three
positions (one cenorship not needing filled in any given year, of
course) that would give voters a real choice of new candidates. That
being the case, I submit that plans to make the cursus honorum
mandatory be shelved for at least two more years. It would be a great
bottleneck on the free development of our democracy at this point in
time.
Response: Marcus Apollonius, you are again wrong. Nova Roma is not a democracy. Nova Roma is a Republic fashioned on the Roman Republic. Please do further research before you commit more blunders and mislead the citizens of Nova Roma.
C. Iulius
*An interested observer*
------------------------------------------------------------
DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com
FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Big News - eGroups is becoming Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details:
http://click.egroups.com/1/10801/1/_/61050/_/978084192/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: A Compulsory Cursus Honorum |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 07:07:23 -0600 (CST) |
|
Salve Cai Iuli,
> And, your assessment is not correct for Consuls for next year. The
> Current Praetors (Antonio Gryllus and M. Iunius) are available and all
> previous office holders are available too. Your facts, M. Apollonius
> are wrong.
That's because he's speaking out against a proposal he hasn't even seen.
The proposal currently being considered by the Senate also would consider
a provincial propraetor with two years of experience to be qualified
for the Senate. We're debating whether to expand that to include
first-year propraetors and Tribunes of the Plebs.
> Response: Marcus Apollonius, you are again wrong. Nova Roma is not a
> democracy. Nova Roma is a Republic fashioned on the Roman Republic.
Well said.
Vale, Octavius.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Big News - eGroups is becoming Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details:
http://click.egroups.com/1/10801/1/_/61050/_/978095246/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: A Compulsory Cursus Honorum |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 08:57:58 -0500 |
|
Salvete;
I would also like to point out that, despite Marcus Apollianus "Pullus
Aliquantulus" Formosanus', fears, all the Senate can do on the subject of
the Cursus Honorum is to make recommendations. Paragraph IV. of our
Constitution clearly states that "Qualifications necessary to hold these
positions (magistracies) may be enacted by law properly passed by one of the
comitia." That's why the age limits on magistrates (for example) were
enacted by law, and not Senatus Consultum.
Anything passed by the Senate in this regard would not be binding, and would
only represent what the Senate would hope to see done. In that respect, I
see nothing wrong with the Senate endorsing the full-blown Cursus Honorum,
setting it up as the ideal for political careers to follow.
Personally, I think that it would be premature to enforce the full Cursus
Honorum by law. However, it may be appropriate to put into place a small
piece of it, or a modified form of it, with an eye to expanding it as the
years go on and our base of politically active and experienced Citizens
grows.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus [mailto:haase@--------]
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 08:07
> To: Nova Roma
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: A Compulsory Cursus Honorum
>
>
> Salve Cai Iuli,
>
> > And, your assessment is not correct for Consuls for next year. The
> > Current Praetors (Antonio Gryllus and M. Iunius) are available and all
> > previous office holders are available too. Your facts, M. Apollonius
> > are wrong.
>
> That's because he's speaking out against a proposal he hasn't even seen.
>
> The proposal currently being considered by the Senate also would consider
> a provincial propraetor with two years of experience to be qualified
> for the Senate. We're debating whether to expand that to include
> first-year propraetors and Tribunes of the Plebs.
>
> > Response: Marcus Apollonius, you are again wrong. Nova Roma is not a
> > democracy. Nova Roma is a Republic fashioned on the Roman Republic.
>
> Well said.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
>
>
>
>
>
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/978098577/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: A Compulsory Cursus Honorum |
| From: |
gmvick32@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 08:48:27 -0700 |
|
Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:
> Salve Cai Iuli,
>
> > And, your assessment is not correct for Consuls for next year. The
> > Current Praetors (Antonio Gryllus and M. Iunius) are available and all
> > previous office holders are available too. Your facts, M. Apollonius
> > are wrong.
>
> That's because he's speaking out against a proposal he hasn't even seen.
>
> The proposal currently being considered by the Senate also would consider
> a provincial propraetor with two years of experience to be qualified
> for the Senate. We're debating whether to expand that to include
> first-year propraetors and Tribunes of the Plebs.
HMMM......something seems a bit out of synch to me here.
According to the Lex Vedia Senatoria, "enacted by dictatorial edictum 7/30/99
with the force and authority of law", the following provision holds true for
provincial propraetors:
"II. Any individual elected to the office of curule aedile or appointed to
the office of provincial governor may, at the discretion of the censors, be
included in the album
Senatorum six months after assuming office (assuming that the individual was
not already a member of the Senate)."
So there's a way for provincial propraetors to be added to the Senate after
six months, but now you're considering a proposal that would only make them
eligible after two years (and maybe one year if revised)?? I don't
understand, and grant you, I don't have access to the full text being
discussed. But I do believe we have a few Senators sitting now because they
were propraetors for six months, not two years. If I'm misunderstanding,
then please correct me (in a civil manner).
But then, that's the problem, eh?? There are people outside the Senate like
myself and Formosanus, with no way to know exactly what's being discussed,
but holding valuable opinions on a subject. Now, I am NOT saying that we
need to see the Senatorial text...NO NO.....but I am saying, what should it
matter what the exact text being discussed in the Senate is? Formosanus has
a reasoned opinion on the Cursus Honorum, and he stated it. The fact that it
doesn't accord exactly with the particulars being addressed in the Senate is
irrelevant. It WOULD be nice to know, however, that the Senate recognized
that citizens outside themselves have knowledgeable points of view which
might bring a new consideration onto the subject at hand, and would consider
those points of view in good faith, without rushing to criticise the citizen
merely for the act of posting "out of turn", as it were.
> > Response: Marcus Apollonius, you are again wrong. Nova Roma is not a
> > democracy. Nova Roma is a Republic fashioned on the Roman Republic.
>
> Well said.
Not well said. An unfair criticism levelled at a man many Senators don't
like, just because it's him talking. YES Nova Roma is a Republic fashioned
on the Roman Republic, but that's becoming a convenient whipping post every
time somebody says something somebody else doesn't like. "You narrow
Republican!" "You dirty Greek, you're tearing down the State!".......gods,
when will we get past this?
THE REAL ISSUE:
Don't we have certain organizational contingencies to get through first, like
getting enough people consistently qualified and standing for office before
we start limiting the pool of potentials??? As far as I'm concerned, the
basic point being made by Formosanus still stands, and it is NOT an issue of
"FORMOSANUS PRO DEMOCRACY, OCTAVIUS PRO REPUBLIC". I think we need to get
through a few more elections first where we DO have several candidates per
office before we limit. After all.....what have we had....THREE proper goes
at an election leading to a term??? What's the rush to codify?? And are we
codifying correctly? What makes me nervous, is that the concept of what
would constitute the Cursus Honorum isn't even visible to anybody outside the
Senate right now. Since I didn't elect any of you or even have a voice in
choosing you, and the Senate appoints new members to itself, well....the rest
of us are pretty much at your mercy and subject to what YOU particularly
interpret the Roman Republic to be. But I guess that's the good Roman
Republican way. Or is it? It might be, with a larger pool of Senators
holding more diversity of opinion, AND a properly functioning tribunate.
Right now, I'd say the Senate itself isn't a completely functioning body
comparable to the old Republican Senate. At the least, a little adversity
sends you all scrambling for the ad hominems.
That's not to say you all don't do an admirable job, work hard for the
Republic, etc etc.
Oop. Quick, somebody get me the "Democratic-static repellent". Don't take
me for a dirty Greek...oh nono.
Livia Cornelia Aurelia, a proud Roman Republican at the Rostra
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/978104416/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: A Compulsory Cursus Honorum |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 09:58:25 -0600 (CST) |
|
Salve Livia Cornelia,
> > The proposal currently being considered by the Senate also would consider
> > a provincial propraetor with two years of experience to be qualified
> > for the Senate. We're debating whether to expand that to include
> > first-year propraetors and Tribunes of the Plebs.
>
> HMMM......something seems a bit out of synch to me here.
>
> So there's a way for provincial propraetors to be added to the Senate after
> six months, but now you're considering a proposal that would only make them
> eligible after two years (and maybe one year if revised)??
Sorry, that was my error. I typed "the senate" where I meant to type
"consul".
I've really got to stop posting so early in the morning, I make these
kind of mistakes too often!
Vale, O.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/978105511/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: A Compulsory Cursus Honorum |
| From: |
gmvick32@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 09:33:09 -0700 |
|
Salve, Germanicus....
But my confusion still isn't cleared up. Are we saying a consul in addition to a
censor can nominate a propraetor for the Senate?? And is the time frame being
moved from the legally established six months to two years, and then back down to
one year?
OR....light bulb for Livia....are you saying that a 2-year....or MAYBE
1-year....propraetor is considered a qualified candidate for CONSUL? (In which
case I think I might have to hide in another 9 months.)
Livia Cornelia Aurelia
Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:
> Salve Livia Cornelia,
>
> > > The proposal currently being considered by the Senate also would consider
> > > a provincial propraetor with two years of experience to be qualified
> > > for the Senate. We're debating whether to expand that to include
> > > first-year propraetors and Tribunes of the Plebs.
> >
> > HMMM......something seems a bit out of synch to me here.
> >
> > So there's a way for provincial propraetors to be added to the Senate after
> > six months, but now you're considering a proposal that would only make them
> > eligible after two years (and maybe one year if revised)??
>
> Sorry, that was my error. I typed "the senate" where I meant to type
> "consul".
>
> I've really got to stop posting so early in the morning, I make these
> kind of mistakes too often!
>
> Vale, O.
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
>
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Download Net2Phone's free software to make FREE calls anywhere within
the US from your PC now! Get great low rates on international calls!
http://click.egroups.com/1/10923/1/_/61050/_/978107096/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: A Compulsory Cursus Honorum |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:42:05 -0600 (CST) |
|
Salve Livia Cornelia,
> Salve, Germanicus....
>
> But my confusion still isn't cleared up. Are we saying a consul in
> addition to a censor can nominate a propraetor for the Senate?? And is
> the time frame being moved from the legally established six months to
> two years, and then back down to one year?
No, the requirements for a propraetor to become a senator haven't changed,
and are not being discussed as part of the current proposal. I apologize
for the error that caused you to think this was changing.
> OR....light bulb for Livia....are you saying that a 2-year....or MAYBE
> 1-year....propraetor is considered a qualified candidate for CONSUL?
> (In which case I think I might have to hide in another 9 months.)
Yes -- that is exactly what is being discussed.
Vale, O.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Big News - eGroups is becoming Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details:
http://click.egroups.com/1/10801/1/_/61050/_/978108127/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: A Compulsory Cursus Honorum |
| From: |
labienus@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 11:00:42 US/Central |
|
T Labienus Liviae Corneliae Omnibusque S P D
> But my confusion still isn't cleared up.
Allow me to try to dispel some of the confusion. Currently, the Senate is
discussing a number of ideas about how to implement a cursus honorum, and
whether such an implementation is desirable in the first place.
> OR....light bulb for Livia....are you saying that a 2-year....or MAYBE<BR>
> 1-year....propraetor is considered a qualified candidate for CONSUL? (In
> which case I think I might have to hide in another 9 months.)
This is, indeed, the upshot of the proposal M Octavius mentioned.
And now, on to the other piece of confusion. The Senate is not a legislative
body. It cannot enact anything binding in this case, and therefore cannot stop
a civis from standing for office regardless of any decision it might make about
the cursus honorum. Instead, the Senate sets *policy* through the issuance of
*advice* (senatus consulta). In effect, it sets the mood of the res publica.
So, even if we do come out with a senatus consultum that says that everyone
must follow the ancient cursus absolutely, any civis is still free to run for
whatever office he or she desires.
Valete
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/978109243/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: A Compulsory Cursus Honorum |
| From: |
gmvick32@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:17:43 -0700 |
|
Thank you Fortunatus:
I'm well aware (maybe despite evidence to the contrary), that the Senate is setting
policy as oppossed to passing law.
My concern is that, on "paper" that's established to be advisory only. In working
practice, "policy" tends to soon be forgotten as "advice" and becomes synonymous
(tweezers, anyone) with "the way we do things here" and it's quickly forgotten it
was never made law but taken to be as if it had the force of law. This isn't
unique to Nova Roma, it's common human nature.
So, issue policy all you want. Make it a wise, elastic policy, and not overly
burdensome.
Livia
labienus@-------- wrote:
> T Labienus Liviae Corneliae Omnibusque S P D
>
> > But my confusion still isn't cleared up.
>
> Allow me to try to dispel some of the confusion. Currently, the Senate is
> discussing a number of ideas about how to implement a cursus honorum, and
> whether such an implementation is desirable in the first place.
>
> > OR....light bulb for Livia....are you saying that a 2-year....or MAYBE<BR>
> > 1-year....propraetor is considered a qualified candidate for CONSUL? (In
> > which case I think I might have to hide in another 9 months.)
>
> This is, indeed, the upshot of the proposal M Octavius mentioned.
>
> And now, on to the other piece of confusion. The Senate is not a legislative
> body. It cannot enact anything binding in this case, and therefore cannot stop
> a civis from standing for office regardless of any decision it might make about
> the cursus honorum. Instead, the Senate sets *policy* through the issuance of
> *advice* (senatus consulta). In effect, it sets the mood of the res publica.
> So, even if we do come out with a senatus consultum that says that everyone
> must follow the ancient cursus absolutely, any civis is still free to run for
> whatever office he or she desires.
>
> Valete
>
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/978109770/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: A Compulsory Cursus Honorum |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:15:58 -0500 |
|
Salve;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmvick32@-------- [mailto:gmvick32@--------]
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 12:18
>
> My concern is that, on "paper" that's established to be advisory only. In
working
> practice, "policy" tends to soon be forgotten as "advice" and becomes
synonymous
> (tweezers, anyone) with "the way we do things here" and it's quickly
forgotten it
> was never made law but taken to be as if it had the force of law.
Sort of like... tradition?
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/978110152/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: A Compulsory Cursus Honorum |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 11:34:49 -0600 (CST) |
|
Salve Livia Cornelia,
> My concern is that, on "paper" that's established to be advisory only.
> In working practice, "policy" tends to soon be forgotten as "advice"
> and becomes synonymous (tweezers, anyone) with "the way we do things here"
> and it's quickly forgotten it was never made law but taken to be as
> if it had the force of law.
I see that as a good thing. The Cursus Honorum was an ancient tradition,
not enforced by law, but persons were strongly encouraged to adhere
to it, risking the wrath of the public when they went against it.
(Tiberius Gracchus being a good example of this).
Yet a sufficiently motivated candidate can bypass it -- if he or she is
educated enough in the law to know that the policy could not absolutely
forbid running for office, and has sufficient popular support to be
able to defy tradition. This is a good thing; the lukewarm candidates
for the higher offices, who have no popular support and don't know the
law would be presuaded by the policy to give up; but a truly worthy
candidate could overcome this minor obstacle.
> So, issue policy all you want. Make it a wise, elastic policy, and not
> overly burdensome.
That's what we're trying to do. This proposal has received more debate
on the senate list than all the others before us now, with almost
everyone having a different opinion of what form it should take. Whatever
is the eventual consensus, it will be a compromise between the
extreme positions (those extremes being either a precise duplicate of
the ancient Cursus Honorum, or no Cursus Honorum at all).
The post that Caius Iulius and I objected to earlier this morning urged
rejecting the proposal based upon an incorrect assumption that there
would be a strict requirement for consuls to have served as urban
praetor. That was *never* the proposal we were considering.
Vale, Octavius.
---
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/978111290/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Compulsory Cursus Honorum |
| From: |
"Pompeia Cornelia" <scriba_forum@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:20:15 -0000 |
|
Salvete Omnes:
Is it possible that the proposal in question could be posted in its
entirety? I am assuming that some sort of consultum has been drafted for
Senatorial consideration.
I find it difficult to comment on the content of a document I have not seen,
relying only on fragments of information from various list contributors.
Bene valete,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
Propraetrix 2754 AUC Canada Orientalis
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
With US & International rates as low as 3.9c a minute from Net2Phone
Direct Plus Up to 1500 FREE minutes; you can call everyone on your list!
http://click.egroups.com/1/10924/1/_/61050/_/978114027/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Lists |
| From: |
"c.p." <c_pontius@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:48:34 -0800 |
|
i had an Idea which i think might be nice to impliment. If this already
exists, simply let me know.
I think we ought to split up our nova roma list into seperate topics and
then regulate the types of messages that go out. For example.. we could
have a governmental anoucement list where the goverment of nova roma makes
declarations and representitives of the government make official
anouncements. Next, we could have the roman type news list where people
send out news on tv shows movies books which talk about rome or the roman
culture, govmnt, etc. then we could have the real forum list where citizens
debate political anoucements or upcomming decisions or laws or taxes or
things such as that..
I find that sometimes i really dont want, or have time, to wade through
those things which i dont wanna hear about. I am willing to assit in making
up such a list of topic mailing-lists.
C. Pontius
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/978115718/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] A Compulsory Cursus Honorum |
| From: |
Michel Loos <loos@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:05:50 -0200 |
|
At least one thing should be codified:
Cursus Honorum is a one way trip, a former consul should only be
available for consul and censor not lesser charges, etc.
This was always in effect in Romes history
(at least up to 100BC, and after Augusts reforms, I can t find the
Broughton v.2).
This simple codification would give the opportunity for new blood
to come in at lower levels.
M' Villius Limitanus
gmvick32@-------- wrote:
>
> As much fun as it can be to disagree with Formosanus, in this post I have to
> agree with him 100%. For what it's worth, I simply don't think we are ready for
> codifying the cursus honorum.
>
> Livia Cornelia Aurelia
> Propraetrix, America Austroccidentalis
>
> "M. Apollonius Formosanus" wrote:
>
> > M. Apollonius Formosanus Quiritibus et Senatoribus omnes S.P.D.
> >
> > I have observed that on the senate agenda is the notion of making
> > the cursus honorum obligatory and fixed. I submit that this is an
> > exceedingly bad idea.
> >
> > In the past elections we had a very rich variety of candidates for
> > most posts compared with the past, but that was so because we had
> > more candidates at all levels (except quaestor, obviously) who would
> > not have qualified under a compulsory cursus honorum. For example,
> > only Praetor Diocletianus would be a possible new candidate for
> > consul next year, and everybody else running for that post would have
> > to be "recycled". Similarly, no new person is a consul next year, as
> > both were consuls before. Thus we are creating no new possibilities
> > for election to the censorate next time.
> >
> > While keeping an open mind about the desirability of an obligatory
> > cursus in the future, I submit to the senators and the People that we
> > are still in a situation in which we need some flexibility to get new
> > blood in and build up a solid body of potential candidates for the
> > highest magistracies (consuls and censors). The electors should have
> > a diverse choice, and we should be able to enforce the rules about
> > not repeating an office without granting dispensations for that. Nor
> > should we have a tiny fragment of the population playing musical
> > chairs with these posts. That is placing heavy demands upon them and
> > denying opportunities to others equally interested.
> >
> > Patres conscripti et Quirites, out of the six senior magistrates for
> > the coming year, only one has not been a senior magistrate before.
> > Producing new candidates for the higher ranks at this rate, we simply
> > cannot provide the three or four candidates for the highest three
> > positions (one cenorship not needing filled in any given year, of
> > course) that would give voters a real choice of new candidates. That
> > being the case, I submit that plans to make the cursus honorum
> > mandatory be shelved for at least two more years. It would be a great
> > bottleneck on the free development of our democracy at this point in
> > time.
> >
> > Valete!
> >
> > Marcus Apollonius Formosanus
> > Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
> > Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius
> > ICQ# 61698049 AIM: MAFormosanus MSN: Formosanus
> > Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
> > The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
> > Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
> > ________________________________________
> > Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
> > (Se vi deziras subigi al vi chion, subigu vin al Racio)
> > ________________________________________
> >
>
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/978117392/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] A Compulsory Cursus Honorum |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:23:58 -0500 |
|
Salvete;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: loos [mailto:loos]On Behalf Of Michel Loos
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 14:06
>
> At least one thing should be codified:
> Cursus Honorum is a one way trip, a former consul should only be
> available for consul and censor not lesser charges, etc.
> This was always in effect in Romes history
> (at least up to 100BC, and after Augusts reforms, I can t find the
> Broughton v.2).
> This simple codification would give the opportunity for new blood
> to come in at lower levels.
Definitely something to be included when the full Cursus Honorum is
eventually implemented as law. However, I think that, for the same reasons
we shouldn't limit ourselves at this early stage to the full requirements
for Consul, Censor, etc., we shouldn't include this aspect yet. We simply
don't have the pool of willing and experienced politicians to make this
practical right now. But it's definitely something to keep in mind as we
progress. Well done!
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/978117832/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: A Compulsory Cursus Honorum Status |
| From: |
Christer Edling <tjalens.h@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:25:04 +0100 |
|
Salvete;
As most You are aware of I am for a regulated Cursus Honorum. So I am
positive to a discussion about C.H. in the Senate.
But I would like to see some bakground facts as I am new to Nova Roma.
1. How many candidates would be available for Consul, Praetor and Aedil
next year accorording to a couple of alternatives?
2. How are we to handle the rights of C.H. of propraetores?
3. How are we to get more candidates for questorship, the most
"unattractive" post?
I suggest that the Consuls and Senate make all the background facts (how
many candidates will be availiable and so on) and propsals official.
I think that the confused and (unintentionally) "uninformed" discussion on
the list makes no one happy. But if we can base our discussion on facts we
will get a more qualified discussion and that will just deepen the quality
of the knowledge of the populus, which seems to be a good thing. A debate
based on guessing on the other hand seems only to produce a low quality
debate.
I'm not sure my language "made it" this time and ask to be excused, as
English isn't my native tougue!
I'll be back and be more specific about a couple of problems that I see
about getting candidates for questorship.
Ave et salve
Christer Edling
alias
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
SHAMALI SALUKIS
************************************************
CAMELOT ROLEPLAYING WORKSHOP
Robert Andersson & Christer Edling
************************************************
IF GAMES - If reality was different!
Markus Sundbom & Christer Edling
************************************************
MAIN E-MAIL ADDRESS: tjalens.h@--------
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10
DOG BOARDING HOUSE PHONE: +90 - 503 56
MOBILE: +70 - 643 88 80
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Download Net2Phone's free software to make FREE calls anywhere within
the US from your PC now! Get great low rates on international calls!
http://click.egroups.com/1/10923/1/_/61050/_/978117934/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Lists |
| From: |
Piparskegg UllRsson <catamount_grange@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 13:34:46 -0600 |
|
Ave C. Pontius,
I moderate two Nova Roma related lists.
Each one is targeted to a narrow band audience: Sodalis pro Coqueror et Coquus and Provincia Magna
Lacus.
I subscribe to 3 other narrow audience Nova Rome related lists.
There are many other lists related to small interest groups: sodalities, provincia, gens, etceteras.
Else, I look to the main list as Forum Primus, where all other discussion takes place. A city's
main marketplace of ideas is, by nature, a noisy crowded place. I find the liberal use of my delete
key the solution to threads of little personal interest.
I already subscribe to and/or moderate 35 lists.
I should not welcome having to subscribe to more lists to get news which belongs in wide broadcast.
--
===========================================
In Amicus sub Fidelis, Benedicte Omnes!
- Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator
Cives, Paterfamilias Gens Ulleria
Quæstor, Dominus Sodalis
My homestead
http://www.geocities.com/piparskegg/index.html
Nova Roma website
http://www.novaroma.org/main.html
Provincia Magna Laci
http://www.egroups.com/group/GreatLakesNovaRoma
Sodalis pro Coqueror et Coquus
http://www.egroups.com/group/Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/978118526/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Lists |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 21:08:24 +0100 |
|
Salve,
In addition to Venator's posting, I'd also like to point out the multitude
of lists here already. It's true that the main list is dull, from time to
time, but after all, it's a very broad list, too. For more narrow interests,
there are other lists, of which I moderate five - two provincial lists (both
Gallia), a youths list, a philosophy list and a political list. Feel free to
join!
Vale,
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
Legatus Galliae Borealis,
Procurator Galliae,
Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
--**--
Novaromain? Parlez-vous français? Cliquez ici!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_GalliaBelgicaF
Nieuwromein? Spreekt u Nederlands? Klik hier!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_BelgicaBataviaD
Novaroman? Interested in philosophy? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_Philosophy
Novaroman? Interested in politics? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_DignitasForum
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/978120725/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Lists |
| From: |
"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:53:10 -0800 |
|
Salve,
As a portion of this posting will come under the header of a 'me too,' will
try keep it brief.
As a newer cive myself, I understand your frustration with some
of the content on the NR main list. Prior to filing a citizenship
application, I subscribed to the list for a few days and found it
initially to be quite overwhelming. In time however, it also became apparent
that
there were a good many benefits to this format including the fact
that one of the biggest perceived 'weaknesses' of such a broad
list is also its main strength: there is a central 'catch all'
forum for ideas and discussion. If one absolutely does not know
where a question, suggestion, information posting should be sent,
NR is always a good bet. There's a lesser chance of missing something
that way. In the glory days of Roma Mater, if one wanted to really
keep track of what was going on, one had to frequent the Forum and
marketplaces.
Additionally, there are always questions and tidbits of discussion that
cannot be neatly categorized into compartmentalized lists; no matter how
granularly the lists are divided. Also C. Pontius, as you subscribe
to increasing numbers of specialized lists, you'll find that few if *any* of
them are %100 "on topic," %100 of the time. Venator's suggestion
regarding the usage of 'delete key list management' is eloquently stated
and I would say that this technique must be applied from time to time
to most any list that I can think of; even some of the supposedly
ultra-granular technical lists. Beyond that, I don't have anything to add to
the
eloquent postings of Venator and Draco.
Vale bene,
-Oppius Flaccus Severus
-----Original Message-----
From: c.p. [mailto:c_pontius@--------]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 10:49 AM
To: NovaRoma
Subject: [novaroma] Lists
i had an Idea which i think might be nice to impliment. If this already
exists, simply let me know.
I think we ought to split up our nova roma list into seperate topics and
then regulate the types of messages that go out. For example.. we could
have a governmental anoucement list where the goverment of nova roma makes
declarations and representitives of the government make official
anouncements. Next, we could have the roman type news list where people
send out news on tv shows movies books which talk about rome or the roman
culture, govmnt, etc. then we could have the real forum list where citizens
debate political anoucements or upcomming decisions or laws or taxes or
things such as that..
I find that sometimes i really dont want, or have time, to wade through
those things which i dont wanna hear about. I am willing to assit in making
up such a list of topic mailing-lists.
C. Pontius
eGroups Sponsor
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/978123474/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
