| Subject: |
[novaroma] Lists |
| From: |
"pjane@-------- " <pjane@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 30 Dec 2000 00:46:49 -0000 |
|
Others have said this, so I'll just summarize: The reason for the Main
List is to have a place where we ALL can share ideas. There are other
lists for people to discuss special interests (religion, culture,
laws).
Many people have from time to time found it beneficial to take a break
from the stresses of the Main List. Certainly there were times when
your Curatrix Sermonem wished she could do so without forsaking her
duty! As I prepare to leave this job to Priscilla Vedia, however, I
must assert one thing. It's very simple:
If you the conversations on the Main List do not interest you, start
one that does.
Ask a question about Roman history. Report to us something that you've
read or seen or learned about Roma Antiqua. The people here are a
fascinating group - all ages, many nationalities, and a wide variety of
expertise. Draw some of them out on their areas of interest, and you
can learn a great deal.
I am entirely in favor of creating separate lists for Sodalitates and
other official groups. But the Main List should remain our chief forum
for governmental announcements and general exchange, for the same
reason that I will not support a law establishing the Cursus Honorum:
Excluding people, or creating barriers between them, makes them feel
left out and encourages them to believe the organization does not want
their energy.
Nova Roma needs all the energy it can get, of course, and I do commend
the suggestion as a contribution in that sense. I encourage you to
stick around and welcome your ideas.
Patricia Cassia
lame-duck Curatrix Sermonem (list moderator)
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/978137217/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Muster on the Maumee |
| From: |
Piparskegg UllRsson <catamount_grange@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 30 Dec 2000 01:14:56 -0600 |
|
Salvete Omnes!
Here's a link to the webpage about "Muster on the Maumee."
Blurb from Fort Meigs calendar page: "Soldiers through the ages, from the French and Indian War
through the 20th century. Also featuring historic vendors, craftsmen, and performers. Extended
hours Saturday 9:30 AM to 7:00 PM, Sunday 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM."
http://www.fortmeigs.org/muster2000.htm
The event is during June, looks like the 3rd weekend, at Fort Meigs in Toledo, Ohio. If they've
contacted Nova Roma, must be looking to expand the scope of the historical eras represented.
--
===========================================
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
Sodalis pro Coqueror et Coquus
http://www.egroups.com/group/Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Big News - eGroups is becoming Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details:
http://click.egroups.com/1/10801/1/_/61050/_/978160531/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Copernic info |
| From: |
Piparskegg UllRsson <catamount_grange@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:58:09 -0600 |
|
Hej all,
Since it gets mentioned from time to time, here's a repost of the URL to download Copernic 2000.
I have found this to extremely useful to me. It's the program I use to do most of my searches now.
http://www.copernic.com/download?source=pf
Copernic's Rah Rah note:
>
> Copernic is a powerful search tool that:
> - Simultaneously searches the best search engines
> - Provides awesome results ranked by relevance
> - Avoids duplication and dead links
> - Reduces significantly your research time
> - Offers online translation of search results
> - Lets you save your search results in various file formats
> - And much, much more
>
Happy Hunting!
--
===========================================
In Frith under Troth, may the Gods see you!
- Pip
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/978191925/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: A Compulsory Cursus Honorum |
| From: |
"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 30 Dec 2000 17:37:18 +0100 |
|
M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.
I was earlier forced to comment on the plans for a senatusconsultum
to institute a compulsory cursus honorum without a text of the
details - which again reminds me that a more fully transparent senate
would be a very good thing indeed. I am now encouraged by hearing
from Senator Labienus that the thing would not be compulsory anyway.
However, there were so many inaccuracies in the following post in
response to my raising the issue that I think it is worth our while
to correct some of them in any case.
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:03:10 -0800
From: "C. Iulius" <ancientrome@-------->
Subject: Re: A Compulsory Cursus Honorum
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.
MAF: Exactly my point! We had a choice of 2 censors (for one post)
because half of them were "unqualified" under the traditional C.H.
system, as was one 1 of the 3 consular candidates, as were 4 of the 5
(!) praetorian candidates, I believe. Tribunes do not traditionally
fit into the system.
Thus, without this influx of new blood (stimulated by the
civic-regeneration efforts of the Amici Dignitatis), there would have
been:
1. *no* choice for censor (i.e. the sole candidate would have
automatically won),
2. *no* choice for consul (the only 2 candidates would have
automatically won),
3. 1 choice for Praetor (leaving a seat vacant! - and that one was
coming *down* the C.H.!).
No, Observer Iulius, the one and only reason we had an abundance of
candidates in the election this year was because persons qualified in
terms of knowledge, life experience and commitment, but unqualified
according to the traditional C.H., cared enough to run to imporove
this place. Only because of that did the voters have a real choice.
And, I might note, a choce of new blood and new ideas - a choice of
real alternatives.
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.
MAF: Praetores Gryllus and Iunius and others are certainly
"available" in the sense that they would have the right to run.
However, the fact that they chose not to run shows that many of those
qualified under the C.H. principle simply do not wish to. People have
other important things in life to attend to, or they lose interest,
or they become burnt out for a while. We cannot count on the whole
body of past lower-office holders to be *effectively* available in
any given year. For that reason, we need a rather large number of
such to serve as a candidate pool before a compulsory Cursus Honorum
would do anything but strangle our candidate source and restrict most
of our higher magistracies to a small handful of veterans playing
musical chairs, very likely often without the opponents that would
give the voters a choice.
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.
MAF: This choice you refer to was precisely because there were so
many C.H.-unqualified candidates running.
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*
MAF: My Webster says that democracy is: "government in which the
people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected
representatives; rule by the ruled". In Nova Roma we the People
indeed hold the sovereign power and exercise it both directly in the
comitia, and through the election of magistrates.
In classical Latin this concept is expressed by the Ciceronian term
"Libera Respublica"; more modern Latin also says "democratia", a loan
word from Greek. Cicero was proud of Rome being a Libera Respublica
because he was proud of the freedoms and popular government that
implied. Yes, the senate was important to him too, but a senate that
ruled only with the freely-given and always to be renewed consent of
the people, resulting in "Concordia".
I would advise you to become better informed as to the meanings of
"democracy" and "republic" and cease trying to foist modern American
ultra-rightest word usages on something to which it is not
applicable. We are a Libera Respublica - in other words, an open and
free society with ultimate power in the hands of the whole People.
Long may we remain so!
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/_/978195178/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: A Compulsory Cursus Honorum - Contra M. Apollonius |
| From: |
"C. Iulius" <ancientrome@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 30 Dec 2000 10:18:23 -0800 |
|
Greetings Citizens of Nova Roma,
It seems that M. Apollonius has tried to do a rebuttal for my comments. I am pleased considering he made no rebuttal to my comments during the election. Below I will respond to his comments.
M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.
I was earlier forced to comment on the plans for a senatusconsultum
to institute a compulsory cursus honorum without a text of the
details - which again reminds me that a more fully transparent senate
would be a very good thing indeed. I am now encouraged by hearing
from Senator Labienus that the thing would not be compulsory anyway.
Response: If you read the Constitution of Nova Roma, M. Apollonius specifically section V. 1 it clearly states that a Senatus Consultum is the “advice of the Senate.” Therefore is not binding legally. This is something you really must work on M. Apollonius, if you ever want to become Praetor of Nova Roma.
<Snip>
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.
MAF: Exactly my point! We had a choice of 2 censors (for one post)
because half of them were "unqualified" under the traditional C.H.
system, as was one 1 of the 3 consular candidates, as were 4 of the 5
(!) praetorian candidates, I believe. Tribunes do not traditionally
fit into the system.
Thus, without this influx of new blood (stimulated by the
civic-regeneration efforts of the Amici Dignitatis), there would have
been:
1. *no* choice for censor (i.e. the sole candidate would have
automatically won),
2. *no* choice for consul (the only 2 candidates would have
automatically won),
3. 1 choice for Praetor (leaving a seat vacant! - and that one was
coming *down* the C.H.!).
Response: Your Praetor statement is incorrect, There were 5 candidates 2 of them were affiliated with your political party. Therefore there still would have been a vote for that. Facts, M. Apollonius, get your facts straight.
No, Observer Iulius, the one and only reason we had an abundance of
candidates in the election this year was because persons qualified in
terms of knowledge, life experience and commitment, but unqualified
according to the traditional C.H., cared enough to run to imporove
this place. Only because of that did the voters have a real choice.
And, I might note, a choce of new blood and new ideas - a choice of
real alternatives.
Response: I disagree. M. Apollonius, anyone regardless of faction illustration, which you are quick to point out, can run for any office they want. There are only two people to date in Nova Roma who have completed the entire Cursus Honorum; they are Consul M. Municius Audens and Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix. This means that any of the 600+ citizens in Nova Roma could have conceivable ran for any office. Regardless if they chose to or not. Your basis in trying to claim that your political party stimulated the political process is just that a claim. As my observation during the political campaign many in your political party had to distance themselves from you. So, let me state again, that anyone regardless of political faction could have run for any office if they decided they want too. Regardless if they became a citizen 2 days before the voting began. Do you thing that is wise that someone who is entirely unknown in Nova Roma who has no knowledge of the inner worki!
ngs of the organization could potentially be elected Consul or Censor? Once again, I believe that the Senate should take the forefront in the promotion and establishment of guidelines when it comes to magistrates who will have a very important role in leading Nova Roma.
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.
MAF: Praetores Gryllus and Iunius and others are certainly
"available" in the sense that they would have the right to run.
However, the fact that they chose not to run shows that many of those
qualified under the C.H. principle simply do not wish to. People have
other important things in life to attend to, or they lose interest,
or they become burnt out for a while. We cannot count on the whole
body of past lower-office holders to be *effectively* available in
any given year. For that reason, we need a rather large number of
such to serve as a candidate pool before a compulsory Cursus Honorum
would do anything but strangle our candidate source and restrict most
of our higher magistracies to a small handful of veterans playing
musical chairs, very likely often without the opponents that would
give the voters a choice.
Response: Thank you for correcting yourself. However, you are assuming in your conclusion. Have you contacted Praetor Gryllus or Iunius?
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.
MAF: This choice you refer to was precisely because there were so
many C.H.-unqualified candidates running.
Response: But that doesn’t mean its totally correct and that the Senate should not take up the mantle in trying to formulate and give advice about tradition. Again, my comment about a new citizen coming into Nova Roma and running for Consul after being a citizen for 2 days stands. Would that be a good thing if that person got elected? I doubt it.
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*
MAF: My Webster says that democracy is: "government in which the
people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected
representatives; rule by the ruled". In Nova Roma we the People
indeed hold the sovereign power and exercise it both directly in the
comitia, and through the election of magistrates.
Response: But where is the Senate in there. It seems to me you are forgetting that very important body.
In classical Latin this concept is expressed by the Ciceronian term
"Libera Respublica"; more modern Latin also says "democratia", a loan
word from Greek. Cicero was proud of Rome being a Libera Respublica
because he was proud of the freedoms and popular government that
implied. Yes, the senate was important to him too, but a senate that
ruled only with the freely-given and always to be renewed consent of
the people, resulting in "Concordia".
Response: That sounds to be like a Liberal Republican. Therefore still Republican. Nowhere is democracy in there. You are assuming and drawing from conjecture. Besides I don’t think Cicero, a man who executed Roman citizens without trial is exactly the best person to use in your example. What kind of Concordia would someone call for when he silences free speech?
I would advise you to become better informed as to the meanings of
"democracy" and "republic" and cease trying to foist modern American
ultra-rightest word usages on something to which it is not
applicable. We are a Libera Respublica - in other words, an open and
free society with ultimate power in the hands of the whole People.
Long may we remain so!
Response: Once again, Nova Roma is not a democracy. It is a Republic. I would like to have comments from the other scholars on this topic. According to my knowledge, and dictionary.com a Republic is:
A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
I am very much informed about the difference between Democracy and Republic. Whereas I do not think you are. And, you M. Apollonius are the one fostering modern American political usages. Let me ask you something, M. Apollonius, if we were in ancient Rome and you started proclaiming that the Roman Republic was Democracy in the Senate of Nova Roma what do you think would happen to you?
C. Iulius
------------------------------------------------------------
DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com
FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/978200306/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_=5Bnovaroma=5D_Re=3A_=A0A_Compulsory_Cursu?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?s_Honorum?= |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 30 Dec 2000 13:10:00 -0600 (CST) |
|
Salvete Quirites,
> 3. 1 choice for Praetor (leaving a seat vacant! - and that one was
> coming *down* the C.H.!).
Your analysis is wrong once again, because you are ignoring a candidate
not affiliated with your own party. Lucius Sergius also was
a candidate for Praetor.
Thus, we had one candidate moving up the Cursus Honorum (a former
Tribune); one going down (a former Consul); one seeking an office
in the central administration after having served ably in a province;
and two who hadn't done anything at all yet.
*Two* (not one) candidates, if there was a requirement that any
previous central position be held; and three if appointed provincial
positions would be accepted too. Not to mention all of those who
might have chosen to run, but didn't, after seeing that there were
already enough candidates for Praetor.
And, of course, since the Senatus Consultum would be advisory rather
than binding, any suitably determined candidate with sufficient
popular support could certainly run for that position anyway. His
enemies would accuse him of ignoring tradition, of course, but
this is a minor obstacle to overcome for a candidate who truly is
deserving of a senior position.
> For that reason, we need a rather large number of
> such to serve as a candidate pool before a compulsory Cursus Honorum
> would do anything but strangle our candidate source and restrict most
> of our higher magistracies to a small handful of veterans playing
> musical chairs, very likely often without the opponents that would
> give the voters a choice.
Wrong, the Cursus Honorum proposal before the Senate is much more
flexible than the imaginary one that you are attacking. Any junior
magistracy would qualify a candidate to run for any senior magistracy.
> MAF: This choice you refer to was precisely because there were so
> many C.H.-unqualified candidates running.
And then the voters chose those who actually had demonstrated
their competence, ability and integrity in other positions earlier.
Perhaps that is an indicator that the people *do* believe that some
sort of Cursus Honorum is a good idea; that someone can not just
expect to be elected Praetor and automatically made a Senator
without having a previous record of service and dedication.
> Producing new candidates for the higher ranks at this rate,
Of course, the "rate" you are attacking is incorrect, a fact that you
continue to ignore.
> I would advise you to become better informed as to the meanings of
> "democracy" and "republic" and cease trying to foist modern American
> ultra-rightest word usages
"ultra-rightist"? It is now "ultra-rightist" to say that there is
a difference between a democracy and a republic? I wonder if there
is any behaviour (other than swearing unquestioned allegiance to your
own principles) that would not be considered "ultra-rightist"
according to your ridiculously broad usage of the term.
I'm a member of the ACLU and the EFF, but am apparently an
"ultra-rightist" according to you!
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/_/978203401/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: A Compulsory Cursus Honorum - Contra M. Apollonius |
| From: |
marcusaemiliusscaurus@-------- |
| Date: |
Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:44:33 -0000 |
|
Salve C. Iulius, M. Apollonius et al,
You've made your points, both of you, but I think that nitpicking
over who is in what faction, if they are at all, or on how many
candidates for praetor were stimulated by the Amici Dignitatis, is
just getting boring, and useless. I don't know which of you is
right, nor do I care, but I think that there is little point in
continuing, since you have both made your stand.
Incidentally, M. OCtavius Germanicus, I like that subject heading! ;-)
Valete,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/978205478/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] A Preciptious Time |
| From: |
"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:12:25 -0000 |
|
Quiritibus salutem
Aletheia and I are back, and catching upon our reading.
Dixit Consul Q. Fabius:
>Salvete, citizens of Rome.
>I was my intention to summon the Comitia Tributa, this day, but being the
>omens were not correct, the summons is postponed until a more precipitous
>time.
Respondeo:
I had thought that summoning the Comitia Tributa on the Vigil of the Feast
of the Birth of the Unconquered Sun was about as precipitous (to say nothing
of precipitate) as one can get. However, propitious it certainly wasn't.
I seem to remember that, certainly by the early Empire, there was a
pronounced tendency among those who could afford it to prolong the 7-day
Saturnalia by extending the holiday to take in 7 days' worth of the Feast of
the Rebirth of the Unconquered Sun, and that this nicely took things up to
Ianualia, which was also honoured by a further 7 days' festivities, ending
on 06 January (which the Nazarenes call Epiphania). I think it was Aulus
Gellius, in his 'Noctes Atticae', had something to say about it.
This strikes me as a good and pious custom, notwithstanding the ancient
practice of working on New Year's Day to ensure an auspicious start to the
year (you don't want to be spending the rest of the year idle, now, do
you?). I believe a reference to this latter can be found in Ovid's 'Fasti'.
I will back any proposal to emulate this in our New Rome.
Now, back to my incredibly large wine-cup and the libel writ for defamation
I am drafting against Appia Claudia Labiena. I never called Cunsur Misellus
a plornadrathuh
(at least, not publicly, and certainly not in the Senate). Even if that is
what he is.
Bene valete, and may those of you as pious as I, enjoy the rest of the
holiday. For the rest, may the gods forgive your unseemly attention to
munbdane work at this thrice-sacred season. Good Yule, Eid al-barakh, et
cetera...
Vado Carnifex.
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/978206486/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Contra Obstinatum |
| From: |
"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:07:56 -0000 |
|
Salutem iterum
Thus spake our charming Tribune:
>What a lot of rubbish is being passed around here! This is the Internet
>- unless you're going to the bottom of the Phillipine Trench, or the tip
>of Everest, or someplace similar,
- or Bremetennacum Veteranorum, in my case.
>the Internet can be accessed from
>anywhere you might be going. <AMPUTATIO>
The Tribune has evidently never been to Bremetennacum.
>Tomorrow I'm traveling to two different parts of Mississippi, one of the
>most backward regions in this country, and I can access the cista from
>either of them by just borrowing the use of my hosts' computers. Or I can
>just pop into the local internet cafe and go online there.
Wonderful news. However, since my stepson (Aletheia's son) burnt out his
motherboard and Bremetannacum has no local internet cafe, Aletheia and I
would have been sunk. We would not even have known about the summoning of
the comitia had we been away 'til the 30th, and by then it would have been
too late. If some citizen had telephoned me (they still think the
WAP-enabled mobile 'phone is one long enough to hit someone with), I would
have had to drive 30 miles through weather the police were advising everyone
to avoid unless absolutely necessary, to Mamucunium (Manchester) to re-enter
our virtual respublica.
>Anyway, as it stands, the absence of propitious omens has put off the
>voting for several days, (try *reading* the current news before you post)
>so all of the little whining phoneys here will have to find some other
>pseudo-injustice to pontificate about.
Delightful though it may be to know that nowhere on Insula Testudinea does
not afford
us the plenitude of the Tribune's frequent, kindly admonitions, I would
sometimes wish our Tribune in Bremetennacum. The peace and quiet of its
surroundings, to say nothing of the untroubled insularity of its (few)
inhabitants, and the cosiness of its cauponae vici , are balm to the
stressed-out soul, and its phlegmatic climate a soothing corrective to those
of choleric humour.
Avete,
Vado Carnifex.
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Big News - eGroups is becoming Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details:
http://click.egroups.com/1/10801/1/_/61050/_/978206487/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: A Compulsory Cursus Honorum |
| From: |
"Pompeia Cornelia" <scriba_forum@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 30 Dec 2000 22:00:03 -0000 |
|
Salvete Omnibus Nova Roma:
At the risk of sounding redundant I would like to post a few snippets in
response to this post.
Why? Because I believe it is important, and I believe some valid issues
have been raised about a mandatory Cursus Honorum.
>From: "C. Iulius" <ancientrome@-------->
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: [novaroma] Re: A Compulsory Cursus Honorum
>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.
Pompeia*******Well, lets have a look, here***********
>
> 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.
Pompeia****** I am all for the Senate promoting Roman Republican political
tradition, but not at the expense of fairness and practicality...IMHO, a
compulsory Cursus is currently politically unworkable in Nova Roma by virtue
of its small citizen number.
Please keep in mind,C. Iulius, that when Roma Antiquita started off, it
was a kingship; by the time the Republic was established, and the cursus,
she had a very large population, providing a diverse choice of electoral
candidates ......such is not the case with Nova Roma and its population of
600, keeping in mind that not all of this 600 are active citizens.
As it stands,those who are well up the curve of honour are well weighted in
Century points; their votes are already a big election factor; that is not a
dig at the senior magistrates, but a statement of fact...we have a small,
but topheavy group of powerful voters. If we make a climb up the Cursus
mandatory, this situation could potentiate. Not only does a new candidate
have to be concerned with the distribution of Century Points, he has also to
be concerned with having served prerequisite positions of office before
progressing "up the curve".
The distribution of Century points would not be a factor in the above
situation if we had a larger populace; although each average citizen has
much smaller century point counts than senior magistrates, their collective
votes/points would be more numerically powerful, better allowing new
candidates to be voted in. And again, it goes without saying that the larger
the populace, the more candidates willing to climb the cursus.
A mandatory cursus would work if we had a larger populus...as it stands now
it would be a detriment to the fairness of our political system, as
traditional as it is.
I do not believe that a person with niggardly experience in Nova Roma
politics or a shortlived citizenship should run for say Praetor, Censor or
Consul. There are already some criteria of eligibility for these positions.
I would be in favour of a review of these in lieu of imposing a mandatory
cursus, atleast right now.***********
Are you personally upset about this because you attempted to bypass the
Cursus Honorum M. Apollonius?
Pompeia*********Where did you come up with this notion, with due respect? I
don't think it is very relevant to this discussion, other than Formosanus
ran for office*******
>
> 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.
Pompeia***********"Ample choice at present, yes, but we are discussing a
Mandatory Cursus Honorum, which would, at present, severely limit the choice
of candidates, no?*************
>
> 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.
Pompeia*********Allow me to express things another way, to reflect my
thoughts, and to maintain Pax: Let us 'shelve' this very traditional Roman
Republican idea for about two years until Nova Roma grows enough in
population so that it will work effectively to provide a fair electoral
system, which is what it was designed to do. It simply would not work, in
my view, with our small population.*********
Pompeia*******C. Iulius, I have observed that you enjoy posting on our
political forums; your knowlege of the Nova Roma Constitution and Republican
traditions is quite indepth.....indeed your are a keenly "interested
observer". I am not sure that I would be able to maintain such a vested
interest in the politics of a micronation I did not belong to, but each to
his own. Could you post a brief introduction to the list and tell us about
yourself?*********
Reverentia,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
Propraetrix 2754 AUC, Canada Orientalis
Nova Roma
>C. Iulius
>*An interested observer*
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com
>FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
-------------------------- 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/_/978213605/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
