Forum Romanum


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Veto of a non-action
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:37:38 -0500

Sulla wrote,

>Sulla: Actually no, I do not think that the Praetor's edict would be
binding on the
>Censor. You forget a KEY point Tribune Piscinus. According to 4.A it
states, that
>the Ordinarii, in decreasing order of authority are as follows. Thus the
Censors
>are listed higher than the Praetors. This is how the Vedian Constitution
works.
>The Praetors are lower in the hierarchy than the Censors.

I think this is correct. The practice in Roma Antiqua appears to have
included the Tribunes arresting and prosecuting Censors (who, since they
did not have imperium, were not immune from arrest or legal proceedings)
but not intervention by the Praetors.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister


Subject:	[novaroma] Email working
From:	"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:06:57 -0000

10 Jan 2001

Salve All

My email appaers to be working but I have noticed I have not received
any any emails that have been sent to me for the last 24 hours. So if
anyone sent me a message in that time please send it again. Thank you.

Vale

Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Digest Number 1167 DTAssumption of Office
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:22:51 -0700

Salve, Cincinnatus:

A well-reasoned and fair rebuttal to my words. I completely accept your
corrections to my thoughts.

Livia

Lucius Equitius wrote:

> Salvete, Quirites
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> From: gmvick32@--------
> Subject: Re: Denuntio Tribunicia:
>
> Well, somebody, somewhere, ought to be keeping tabs on whether a candidate
> is a
> valid candidate or not before the polls are opened...
>
> Lucius Equitius: As I stated in an earlier post, to have run for office in
> Nova Roma's first election a prospective candidate had to petition the
> Censores their intention to run for office so that their status as citizen
> could be verified. (at that time there were no age requirements for any
> office)
>
> It's not DRACO's fault that the Senate et Censores chose not to ratify his
> election. It's not DRACO's fault that his name was allowed to be submitted
> to
> the people to be voted on. Draco attempted to get senatorial consent....in
> the
> face of no word from the Senate, he assumed he had the green light...
>
> Lucius Equitius: Well, not exactly :-) The law does state that an underaged
> prospective candidate must get an exemption. He didn't have an exemption.
>
> So partly the Senate is to blame, for not giving a response that Draco could
> use
> to guage.
>
> Lucius Equitius: True the law is not clear on the exact procedure. So let's
> not place blame, I'll explain soon.
>
> Who's suppossed to be monitoring such things as who ends up on the ballot?
> One
> suggestion that comes to mind is.....the Rogators...
>
> Lucius Equitius: I would not think so.
>
> So partly we Rogators are at fault,
>
> Lucius Equitius: Humm, well if you want to take the blame, have it.
> seriously though....
>
> Another option for monitoring who ends up on the ballot could be the
> Censors.
>
> Lucius Equitius: Since the Consules actually run the election, I see them as
> working with the Censores in this process.
>
> This actually makes more sense, inasmuch as the censors are the ones who
> have
> all the information needed to alert as to any red flags about a candidate...
> Only the Censors would know that.
>
> Lucius Equitius: Don't forget that the candidates themselves should have
> some responsibility in ensuring that they meet requirements.
>
> So partly the Censors (et Senators) are at fault, for allowing the name to
> be
> posted on the ballots despite information they had which they knew would
> lead to
> a weak shot at a favorable Senatus Consultum.
>
> Lucius Equitius: Right, but remember it is the Consules (along with
> Praetores), who convene the Senate. They never brought the issue on Sextus
> Appolonius forward for our consideration until the end of the year.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, Draco's name shouldn't have made it onto the
> ballot.
>
> Lucius Equitius: I completely agree, and if anyone had asked me I would have
> said not to place it on the ballot.
>
> But it did, and whoever is responsible for that, it's NOT Draco...
>
> Lucius Equitius: As I stated above, he is responsible for obtaining the
> exemption; however, and correct me if I'm wrong, he did want to force the
> issue. Sextus Appolonius dixit: "I approached the Senate, but got no further
> reply from the Curia, or any sort of advice. And as I was in a nick of time
> (voting started
> on December 15, I thought?), I advanced and announced my candidacy anyway.
> Trying wouldn't hurt."
>
> This is a good case to test the Lex and we have seen that it does need some
> more work. However, the
> Lex Iunia de MA still establishes the need for those who do not meet the
> required ages to obtain an exemption. It my opinion the office of the
> Censores should review applications for candidacy and exemptions. (Believe
> me I'm not looking for more work, but as has been pointed out Censores are
> the custodians of citizen's data.)
>
> Let's refrain from saying...."Sorry kid, you're not getting the office you
> were
> elected to.....and it's your own fault anyway."
>
> Ouch. That would sting ME and dissuade ME, a thirty-something corporate
> type.
>
> Livia Cornelia Aurelia
>
> Lucius Equitius: In this particular case there is blame enough to go around.
> I suppose ONE of the Senatores should have replied to S Appolonius, but who
> had the duty that day? or week? Qui culpare?
> To my mind since the Censores are in the Senate and they need to collegially
> approve an exemption one of them should have taken up the case. However,
> since no one gave an exemption the case should have reverted to the Lex and
> the prospective candidate should have not been posted on the ballot. (Why
> put the name on the ballot if he cannot assume the office?) Qui culpare? I
> believe that the Consules call the comita for the elections, don't they post
> they ballot? Last of all, Cives, should not each candidate be responsible
> for ensuring they meet requirements of the office for which they are
> applying? (Of course)
>
> Valete, Censor Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus


Subject:	[novaroma] CANADA OCCIDENTALIS EDICTA NUMBER EIGHT
From:	"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:33:42 -0000

CANADA OCCIDENTALIS EDICTA NUMBER EIGHT

ESTABLISHMENT OF EGROUP FOR CANADA OCCIDENATLIS ADMINISTRATION

10 Jan 2001

Salve

I Quintus Sertorius, Praetor Canada Occidentalis issue the following
Edicta to announce the establishment of an Egroup for Canada
Occidentalis Administration. This egroup has been set up for the
Propaetor and Legates of CO to meet in a private manner to discuss
issues particular to our Provincia, and issues dealing with Nova
Roma, and is only open to the staff of the Provincia.

Vale

Quintus Sertorius
Praetor
Canada Occidentalis


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] (Humor) Re: Pats/Plebs and Cassius' Vow
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:45:56 EST

Salve Marius

I'm truly gratified to hear that you're alive and well here. Somehow I
had been given the impression that you had been beaten, chained, and
thrown into a dungeon by the wickedly oppressive "Establishment" and were
languishing hopelessly somewhere waiting to be rescued by the Lovers of
Dignity or some such - a new Roman rock group, I suppose.

But then lately I hear I'm a part of the "Establishment"!!! and thick as
thieves with Flavius Vedius Germanicus as well! While I like Flavius
Vedius, I don't think he and I have been terribly chummy with on another
over the past couple of years. I think the vocal Citizens to whom you
refer have truly amazing imaginations or a shocking disregard for reality.

I only wish we could get your computer out of 1918, so I wouldn't tend to
overlook your messages at the bottom of my "incoming" window.

Is that the terrible wrong I kept hearing about last month? - someone
banished you to 1918?

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

On 6/20/18 12:00 AM Marius the Wanderer (peregrinus@--------) wrote:

>Salvete Quirites...
>
>Quoth Cassius Consul:
>: I, Marcus Cassius Julianus...will personally work with *anyone*,
>: including Marius and Draco, (the two most popular Martyrs to the
>: "Establishment")...
>
>LOL!!
>
>Check it out, NovaRomani...I'm *popular!!* >({|:-D
>
>[runs a couple of laps around the yard chanting "We're Number One!
>We're Number One!"]
>
>But seriously, folks...I'm doing fine, really I am. My duties as
>Legatus of the Lone Star Region are keeping me happy and busy. I
>moderate three Roman Lists (none 'official') and own a humble but neat
>little Web site; I'll also be contributing to the Nova Roma site, the
>Plebeian Page, and maybe even a little something about dogs in Roma
>Antiqua over the next several months. Lots of writing and hardly any
>politics--that's the way this just-plain-Citizen/Storyteller likes it!
>
>So while some vocal Citizens have been tugging on your heart-strings on
>my behalf, I didn't ask them to; I appreciate the thought; but I'm not
>sitting here feeling sorry for myself and I really don't need that kind
>of help.
>
>On the rebound is...
>***********************************************************
>Lucius Marius Peregrinus <peregrinus@-------->
>Storyteller, Roleplayer Emeritus, |>[SPQR]<|
> Historical Re-Creationist |\=/|
> and Citizen of Rome ( ~ 6 )~~~----...,,__
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - `\*/, `` }`^~`,,, \ \
>"...when are you going to realize ``=.\ (__==\_ /\ }
> that being normal is not a virtue; | | / )\ \| /
> rather it denotes a lack of courage." _|_| / _/_| /`(
> -- Frances Owens /./..=' /./..'
>

certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)


Subject:	[novaroma] information on NR citizens within a province
From:	"Lucius Pompeius Octavianus" <octavianuslucius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 04:14:32 -0000

Salvete omnes.
I wonder if a provincial propraetor should or could have information
(such as their email address or the city where he/she lives, for
instance) of every NR citizen living in his province. I think this
would be very helpful for his administration and communication
whithin the province.
Valete bene et habete fortunam bonam
Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
Propraetor provinciae Argentinae


Subject:	[novaroma] Lucilla Cornelia
From:	Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:52:00 -0800

Salvete omnes

With very great pleasure, I am especially pleased today to announce that
our dearest friend, Lucilla Cornelia Aurelia, has come home and is now
recovering after her accident this past summer. For the past few days
Lucilla has been chatting with her sisters and friends, visiting among
us.

On behalf of Lucilla, I wish to thank every one of you who sent such
kind messages. Knowing that so many cared for her has meant a great deal
to her, and has been very beneficial in her progress towards recovery.
Lucilla's one wish is to return to work. With your prayers and support,
may she do so very soon.

Omnibus magnas gratias ago. Di vos incolumes custodiant et semper ament.

Valete

Moravius Piscinus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] information on NR citizens within a province
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:53:22 -0800

Ave,

Every governor must request this information from the Censors, as per the
Lex Cornelia de Privatus Rebus. All you need to do is to make a request to
the Censors and we have the discretion to provide that information to you.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lucius Pompeius Octavianus" <octavianuslucius@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 8:14 PM
Subject: [novaroma] information on NR citizens within a province

> Salvete omnes.
> I wonder if a provincial propraetor should or could have information
> (such as their email address or the city where he/she lives, for
> instance) of every NR citizen living in his province. I think this
> would be very helpful for his administration and communication
> whithin the province.
> Valete bene et habete fortunam bonam
> Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> Propraetor provinciae Argentinae
>
>
>
>
>


Subject:	[novaroma] Big Provincia!
From:	"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:20:20 -0600

11 Jan 2001

Salve All

Has anyone look at the map on the wedsite for the Provincias in North America?... Have you noticed how Canada Occidentalis is almost as big as everyone else combined!!! heh heh..

Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
quintus-sertorius@--------

Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[novaroma] Big Provincia!
From:	"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:20:20 -0600


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Big Provincia!
From:	"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:11:52 -0800

Quick, someone sneak in and grab Quintus' white fawn!
and stop the madness! Sounds like he's getting broad
territorial ideas... :-)

-Oppius
-----Original Message-----
From: Quintus Sertorius [mailto:quintus-sertorius@--------]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 10:20 PM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] Big Provincia!

11 Jan 2001

Salve All

Has anyone look at the map on the wedsite for the Provincias in North
America?... Have you noticed how Canada Occidentalis is almost as big as
everyone else combined!!! heh heh..

Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
quintus-sertorius@--------

Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

eGroups Sponsor

Click here to Win a 2001 Acura MDX


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Big Provincia!
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia" <scriba_forum@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:23:36 -0000

Salve Oppius: Well, as his next-door-neighbour Propraetrix, I'm getting a
bit worried.........and my name is "Pompeia"......oh divine
ones...........help!!!!!!

Affectionately,:)
PO

>From: "Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: <novaroma@-------->
>Subject: RE: [novaroma] Big Provincia!
>Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:11:52 -0800
>
>Quick, someone sneak in and grab Quintus' white fawn!
>and stop the madness! Sounds like he's getting broad
>territorial ideas... :-)
>
>-Oppius
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Quintus Sertorius [mailto:quintus-sertorius@--------]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 10:20 PM
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: [novaroma] Big Provincia!
>
>
>11 Jan 2001
>
>Salve All
>
>Has anyone look at the map on the wedsite for the Provincias in North
>America?... Have you noticed how Canada Occidentalis is almost as big as
>everyone else combined!!! heh heh..
>
>Quintus Sertorius
>Propraetor
>Canada Occidentalis
>quintus-sertorius@--------
>
>Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
>http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>eGroups Sponsor
>
>Click here to Win a 2001 Acura MDX
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.


Subject:	[novaroma] Tied elections etc.
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 03:02:52 -0500

Salvete!

There is a very full and clear account of the electoral procedure of Roma
Antiqua in Claude Nicolet, The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome
(Berkeley: U. Cal. Press, 1980) 258-281. Particularly relevant to our own
concerns are the following:

1) Each tribe or century had as many votes as there were places to be
filled (p. 273)

2) Each individual citizen (probably) voted for one candidate. (pp. 274-5)

3) In the C. Centuriata the praerogativa century, chosen by lot, voted and
had its result announced first. This result was widely taken to be a
religious omen and in consequence often determined the overall result (pp
258-264)

4) Write-ins were possible; in 44 BCE Caesar's opponents wrote-in the names
of Tribunes he had previously removed, though they were not candidates (p.
276) and in 211 BCE T. Manlius Torquatus was elected by the praerogative
though he did not wish to serve, with the result that the century had to be
recalled to re-vote (261)

5) If a tribe or century was tied, the winner was chosen by lot (p. 274,
citing Cicero, pro Plancio 53; also the early imperial Lex Malacitana,
which provided a copy of Roman procedure for a Spanish municipality,
provided that married men took precedence over bachelors and patresfamilias
over childless men, etc, failing which a lot was to be cast, but I (MMSM)
guess that the married men & fathers preference is a result of Augustus'
marriage legislation rather than reflecting Republican practice).

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Tied elections etc.
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:16:53 -0700

Salve Magister:

This is EXACTLY the sort of information I'm needing. I greatly appreciate your
taking the time to provide both the summary and the reference.

Livia Cornelia Aurelia

Mike Macnair wrote:

> Salvete!
>
> There is a very full and clear account of the electoral procedure of Roma
> Antiqua in Claude Nicolet, The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome
> (Berkeley: U. Cal. Press, 1980) 258-281. Particularly relevant to our own
> concerns are the following:
>
> 1) Each tribe or century had as many votes as there were places to be
> filled (p. 273)
>
> 2) Each individual citizen (probably) voted for one candidate. (pp. 274-5)
>
> 3) In the C. Centuriata the praerogativa century, chosen by lot, voted and
> had its result announced first. This result was widely taken to be a
> religious omen and in consequence often determined the overall result (pp
> 258-264)
>
> 4) Write-ins were possible; in 44 BCE Caesar's opponents wrote-in the names
> of Tribunes he had previously removed, though they were not candidates (p.
> 276) and in 211 BCE T. Manlius Torquatus was elected by the praerogative
> though he did not wish to serve, with the result that the century had to be
> recalled to re-vote (261)
>
> 5) If a tribe or century was tied, the winner was chosen by lot (p. 274,
> citing Cicero, pro Plancio 53; also the early imperial Lex Malacitana,
> which provided a copy of Roman procedure for a Spanish municipality,
> provided that married men took precedence over bachelors and patresfamilias
> over childless men, etc, failing which a lot was to be cast, but I (MMSM)
> guess that the married men & fathers preference is a result of Augustus'
> marriage legislation rather than reflecting Republican practice).
>
> Valete,
>
> M. Mucius Scaevola Magister


Subject:	[novaroma] March meeting
From:	"D. Flamen Solus" <dennis@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:41:20 -0800

Salve,
As requested by Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, Proconsul:
To citizens of Nova Roma in Southern California and the surrounding
area, please note that there will be a meeting in Southern California
in the first weekend of March. Date, time and location to follow.
Please attend.
Tuus in Sodalicio Respublica Romanae
Yours in the Comradeship of the Roman Republic
D. Flamen Solus, Legatus


Subject:	[novaroma] Dinner meeting in Amer. Austroccidentalis Mons Petrosus (Denver)
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 04:56:07 -0700

Salvete, Omnes:

This is to announce that the Denver civies will be meeting
for dinner at a local greek restaurant Tues., Jan. 23rd, in
Denver, Colorado.

Anybody in the Denver area on that day is welcome to join
us. Please e-mail me if you'd like further details.

Vale,
Livia Cornelia Aurelia, Propraetrix


Subject:	[novaroma] ATTN [Religio Romana] ante diem V Idus Ianuarias (January 11th)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:49:07 -0000

Salvete omnes

Today is one a "dies nefastus publicus" (NP), a day of special religious
observance when legal business cannot take place.

Today is the first day of the Carmentalia, a two day festival in honour of
the Carmentes (Goddesses Porrima and Postverta) who preside the birth.
Porrima presides the birth when the baby's head comes first. Postversa
presides the birth when the feet of the baby come first (Aulus Gellus,
"Attic Nights", 16.16.4). Some interpret those Goddesses as presiding
destiny, one presiding over the past and the other over the future, being
thus associated with Ianus to whom the month of Ianuarius is sacred
(Ovidius, "Fasti", 1.65; Macrobius, Saturnalia, 1.7.20).


Subject:	[novaroma] Latin Program - Shareware
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:37:14 -0800

http://www.quicklatin.com/#functionality

This is the website. I just downloaded it to help me learn a bit more
of the language. I just wanted to pass this on to everyone. Its about
8 megs total size.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Local Groups and Provincial Administration
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 04:32:34 -0800 (PST)

--- Quintus Sertorius <quintus-sertorius@-------->
wrote:
> 10 Jan 2001
>
> Salve LTC
>
> I come from the ranks, and it is known impatient
> officers get men
> killed.

Salve Quintus Sertorius

If you have issues with my service as an officer in
the Army, please address them off line. I will be
glad to discuss it with you there. This is not the
place.

Lucius Aetius Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." --Jean Rostand

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/


Subject:	[novaroma] ATTN [Religio Romana] ante diem III Idus Ianuarias (January 11th)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:36:35 -0000

Salvete omnes

(Sorry, my last posting was sent incomplete by mistake)

Today is one a "dies nefastus publicus" (NP), a day of special religious
observance when legal business cannot take place.

Today is the first day of the Carmentalia, a two day festival in honour of
Carmentis, a Goddess of childbirth and Prophecy. Into her shrine, it is
unlawful to bear leather, for it reminds death and the slaughter of animals
(Ovidius, "Fasti", 1.628ss). The prayers offered to her invoke the
mysterious Carmentes (Goddesses Porrima and Postverta) who preside the
birth. Porrima presides the birth when the baby's head comes first.
Postversa presides the birth when the feet of the baby come first (Aulus
Gellus, "Attic Nights", 16.16.4). Some interpret those Goddesses as
presiding destiny, one presiding over the past and the other over the
future, being thus associated with Ianus to whom the month of Ianuarius is
sacred (Ovidius, "Fasti", 1.65; Macrobius, Saturnalia, 1.7.20).
Today, the Flamen Carmentalis, assisted by the Pontifices, offers sacrifice
at the shrine of Carmenta, which stays next to the Porta Carmentalis near
the Capitol.
The two days of the Carmentalia are separated by an impair number of days
(the second day is on January 15), which is specially pleasing to the Gods.

Today is also the festival of Iuturna, Goddess of fountains and prophetic
waters. Arnobius says that she is the spouse of Fontus (Arnobius, "Adversus
Nationes", 3.29). Today, those charged with the adduction of waters
celebrate the aniversary of her temple, at the place where the Aqua Virgo
(Virgin Water) aqueduct stands at the Campus Martius (the Aqua Virgo was
built by Agrippa in 19 BC).

The month of Ianuarius is sacred to Ianus.

Valete in pace deorum
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex


Subject:	[novaroma] Open CPT list
From:	Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:45:04 -0800

Salvete omnes Quirites

Last night beneath a luminous moon, the Tribuni Plebis met with citizens
of Nova Roma, Patricians and Plebeians alike, gathered in the Comitia
Plebis. The Tribuni Plebis shall continue to make themselves available
to all citizens. Every Wednesday, from 10:00 PM to Midnight Roma (4:00
PM-6:00 PM EDST) at least one of Tribuni Plebis shall be available at

http://mercury.beseen.com/chat/rooms/y/17189

First concern may be to appoint a new curator operum publicorum to
improve the lighting in the comitia's meeting chambers.

Mention was made of a concern voiced by some citizens to the main list
that held that the CPT list was closed to Patricians. There was really
very little discussion of this issue as both Tribuni Plebis agreed that
the list is open to all citizens and non-citizens. Currently the
Constitution provides that only Plebeian citizens may vote in the Comitia
Plebis Tributa. However discussion of legislation which shall be
proposed before the Comitia is welcomed by all. Because all Plebeian
citizens shall be asked to vote on plebiscita, and because both Tribuni
Plebis believe it is important for the citizenry to be knowledgeable of
the issues upon which they are asked to vote, all Plebeians are
encouraged to subscribe to the CPT list at

http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/ComitiaPlebisTributa

The Tribuni Plebis are very pleased to announce that a new Plebeian
website is currently be prepared by the Adiles Plebis M. Arminius Maior
and his scriba S. Apollonius Draco. Our special thanks to our new Aedile
Marcus Arminius, bravo! Others who have offered to contribute to the
site are the Tribuni Plebis T. Labienus Fortunatus and Cn Moravius
Piscinus, and Legatrix Maria Peregrina. As a work in progress, everyone
is invited to visit the new site at

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/nrbras/aventine/Avent.html

The Tribuni Plebis are at the service for ALL cives Novae Romae. All
citizens are welcomed to visit with the Tribuni Plebis in the Comitia
Plebis chat room, or to discuss issues of concern before the comitia on
the CPT list.

Nova Roma Libera semper vivat.

T. Labienus Fortunatus et Cn. Moravius Piscinus, Tribuni Plebis


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Tied elections etc.
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:26:24 -0000

Salve,

This is excellent. I was looking for this because the idea of one vote
per centuary made no sense. Livy 1.43 mentions that the lower classes
were seldom called on to vote in elections. If the Centuries only had
one vote each the senior 97 Centuries could have elected the Senior
Consul before the lower classes even voted, if they all agreed on the
same canidate. However this would have left them no voice in the
selection of the Junior Consul, and there is no way the First Class
would have left it up to the lower classes to select one of the
Consuls.

On the other hand if each Century had two votes, one per Consul, Then
the First 97 Centuries could elect BOTH Consuls if they happened to
agree on thier choices. Even if there was a very tight 3 way race each
canidate would have over 60 votes each before the second class even
voted. This would be rare, most of the time one of the canidates would
be popular enough to finish first or second in each of the Centuries
making him Senior Consul, while a second canidate would have a huge
lead when the second class begain to vote making it unlikely the third
class would be called on to vote.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- In novaroma@--------, Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@c...> wrote:
> Salvete!
>
> There is a very full and clear account of the electoral procedure of
Roma
> Antiqua in Claude Nicolet, The World of the Citizen in Republican
Rome
> (Berkeley: U. Cal. Press, 1980) 258-281. Particularly relevant to
our own
> concerns are the following:
>
> 1) Each tribe or century had as many votes as there were places to
be
> filled (p. 273)
>
> 2) Each individual citizen (probably) voted for one candidate. (pp.
274-5)
>
> 3) In the C. Centuriata the praerogativa century, chosen by lot,
voted and
> had its result announced first. This result was widely taken to be a
> religious omen and in consequence often determined the overall
result (pp
> 258-264)
>
> 4) Write-ins were possible; in 44 BCE Caesar's opponents wrote-in
the names
> of Tribunes he had previously removed, though they were not
candidates (p.
> 276) and in 211 BCE T. Manlius Torquatus was elected by the
praerogative
> though he did not wish to serve, with the result that the century
had to be
> recalled to re-vote (261)
>
> 5) If a tribe or century was tied, the winner was chosen by lot (p.
274,
> citing Cicero, pro Plancio 53; also the early imperial Lex
Malacitana,
> which provided a copy of Roman procedure for a Spanish municipality,
> provided that married men took precedence over bachelors and
patresfamilias
> over childless men, etc, failing which a lot was to be cast, but I
(MMSM)
> guess that the married men & fathers preference is a result of
Augustus'
> marriage legislation rather than reflecting Republican practice).
>
> Valete,
>
> M. Mucius Scaevola Magister


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Tied elections etc.
From:	sfp55@--------
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:17:59 EST

In a message dated 1/11/2001 12:56:45 AM Pacific Standard Time,
MikeMacnair@-------- writes:

<< also the early imperial Lex Malacitana,
which provided a copy of Roman procedure for a Spanish municipality,
provided that married men took precedence over bachelors and patresfamilias
over childless men, etc, failing which a lot was to be cast, but I (MMSM)
guess that the married men & fathers preference is a result of Augustus'
marriage legislation rather than reflecting Republican practice).
>>
Salve, Senator Mucius,

You are correct. Suetonious makes mention of this in his life of Augustus.
As I do not have my books with me, (I only have Appian with me to today), I
cannot give the exact reference.
Vale
Q. Fabius Maximus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Tied elections etc.
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:38:29 US/Central

Salvete M Muci Scaevola et alii

Multas gratias tibi ago. I do have a few questions, though.

> 1) Each tribe or century had as many votes as there were places to be
> filled (p. 273)
>
> 2) Each individual citizen (probably) voted for one candidate. (pp. 274-5)

So, let's say we're talking about a race for consul. Each citizen in each
century would cast one vote. Then what?

The options that spring to mind are:
I. The candidate with the most votes would be the winner of the century, and
would receive two votes.
II. The top two candidates would each receive one vote.
III. Something truly arcane.

I suspect that option I. was the case. This brings up a very interesting
wrinkle in the process, and more questions.

If I. was the case, then how many votes (centurial, not popular) were
considered enough for election? With 193 centuries and two candidates, that
gives 386 possible votes. Does a candidate still need only 97 votes (and
therefore 49 centuries--well shy of a true majority) to ensure victory?

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Tied elections etc.
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:52:28 -0500

Salve!

Excellent!!! Thanks very much for digging this wonderful material out. One
question, though; if each tribe/century had as many votes as there were
places to be filled, could those votes be split? If not, what would be the
point of having multiple votes? I don't see the difference between each
tribe having 2 votes and each tribe having one vote. You'd still need a
majority, and the proportions would be the same.

Still, wonderful stuff; now we need to see how to incorporate it into our
current system. I'll try to track down a copy of this book at once; M.
Mucius, since you apparently have a copy, do you have any suggestions for
changes to our current system, to make it more in line with Roma Antiqua?
(And anyone else, of course...)

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Macnair [mailto:MikeMacnair@--------]
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 03:03
> To: Nova Roma
> Subject: [novaroma] Tied elections etc.
>
>
> Salvete!
>
> There is a very full and clear account of the electoral procedure of Roma
> Antiqua in Claude Nicolet, The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome
> (Berkeley: U. Cal. Press, 1980) 258-281. Particularly relevant to our own
> concerns are the following:
>
> 1) Each tribe or century had as many votes as there were places to be
> filled (p. 273)
>
> 2) Each individual citizen (probably) voted for one candidate. (pp. 274-5)
>
> 3) In the C. Centuriata the praerogativa century, chosen by lot, voted and
> had its result announced first. This result was widely taken to be a
> religious omen and in consequence often determined the overall result (pp
> 258-264)
>
> 4) Write-ins were possible; in 44 BCE Caesar's opponents wrote-in
> the names
> of Tribunes he had previously removed, though they were not candidates (p.
> 276) and in 211 BCE T. Manlius Torquatus was elected by the praerogative
> though he did not wish to serve, with the result that the century
> had to be
> recalled to re-vote (261)
>
> 5) If a tribe or century was tied, the winner was chosen by lot (p. 274,
> citing Cicero, pro Plancio 53; also the early imperial Lex Malacitana,
> which provided a copy of Roman procedure for a Spanish municipality,
> provided that married men took precedence over bachelors and
> patresfamilias
> over childless men, etc, failing which a lot was to be cast, but I (MMSM)
> guess that the married men & fathers preference is a result of Augustus'
> marriage legislation rather than reflecting Republican practice).
>
> Valete,
>
> M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
>
>
>


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Tied elections etc.
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:53:29 -0600 (CST)

Salve Tite Labiene,

> If I. was the case, then how many votes (centurial, not popular) were
> considered enough for election? With 193 centuries and two candidates, that
> gives 386 possible votes. Does a candidate still need only 97 votes (and
> therefore 49 centuries--well shy of a true majority) to ensure victory?

No - the same candidate could not get *both* of a century's votes,
thus the 97 votes would each have to come from a different century.

I don't have time right now, but I'd like to try a few thought-experiments
in vote counting before commenting on this further, to attempt to
determine whether a candidate with 97 votes could lose.

Vale, O.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Big Provincia!
From:	=?iso-8859-1?B?WWFubiBRdely6Q==?= <yquere@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:02:09 +0100

Remember David and Goliath, size doesn't make everything !!!! ;-)

Ianus Querius Armoricus Lutecio
Propraetor Galliae

----- Original Message -----
From: Quintus Sertorius <quintus-sertorius@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 7:20 AM
Subject: [novaroma] Big Provincia!

> 11 Jan 2001
>
> Salve All
>
> Has anyone look at the map on the wedsite for the Provincias in North
America?... Have you noticed how Canada Occidentalis is almost as big as
everyone else combined!!! heh heh..
>
> Quintus Sertorius
> Propraetor
> Canada Occidentalis
> quintus-sertorius@--------
>
> Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
> http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Tied elections etc.
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 19:05:13 -0000

Salve,
The only way having two votes would make sense is if the votes HAD to
be split. If spliting the votes was manditory then you would still
need 97 Centuries to be elected, But the First Class and the 18 (total
98 centuries) would be able to elect BOTH Consuls without the Second
Class even voting. This squares with Livy's account in 1.43.

There are two ways this could be done. Either the Century voted twice
naming a second canidate on the second vote, or the Century voted
once, with the leading canidate reciving 1 vote and the second
canidate reciving one vote.

Vale
L. Sicinius Drusus

--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus"
<germa--------s@--------> wrote:
> Salve!
>
> Excellent!!! Thanks very much for digging this wonderful material
out. One
> question, though; if each tribe/century had as many votes as there
were
> places to be filled, could those votes be split? If not, what would
be the
> point of having multiple votes? I don't see the difference between
each
> tribe having 2 votes and each tribe having one vote. You'd still
need a
> majority, and the proportions would be the same.
>
> Still, wonderful stuff; now we need to see how to incorporate it
into our
> current system. I'll try to track down a copy of this book at once;
M.
> Mucius, since you apparently have a copy, do you have any
suggestions for
> changes to our current system, to make it more in line with Roma
Antiqua?
> (And anyone else, of course...)
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>

> email: germa--------s@-------- > AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Ma--------r [mailto:MikeMa--------r@--------]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 03:03
> > To: Nova Roma
> > Subject: [novaroma] Tied elections etc.
> >
> >
> > Salvete!
> >
> > There is a very full and clear account of the electoral procedure
of Roma
> > Antiqua in Claude Nicolet, The World of the Citizen in Republican
Rome
> > (Berkeley: U. Cal. Press, 1980) 258-281. Particularly relevant to
our own
> > concerns are the following:
> >
> > 1) Each tribe or century had as many votes as there were places to
be
> > filled (p. 273)
> >
> > 2) Each individual citizen (probably) voted for one candidate.
(pp. 274-5)
> >
> > 3) In the C. Centuriata the praerogativa century, chosen by lot,
voted and
> > had its result announced first. This result was widely taken to be
a
> > religious omen and in consequence often determined the overall
result (pp
> > 258-264)
> >
> > 4) Write-ins were possible; in 44 BCE Caesar's opponents wrote-in
> > the names
> > of Tribunes he had previously removed, though they were not
candidates (p.
> > 276) and in 211 BCE T. Manlius Torquatus was elected by the
praerogative
> > though he did not wish to serve, with the result that the century
> > had to be
> > recalled to re-vote (261)
> >
> > 5) If a tribe or century was tied, the winner was chosen by lot
(p. 274,
> > citing Cicero, pro Plancio 53; also the early imperial Lex
Malacitana,
> > which provided a copy of Roman procedure for a Spanish
municipality,
> > provided that married men took precedence over bachelors and
> > patresfamilias
> > over childless men, etc, failing which a lot was to be cast, but I
(MMSM)
> > guess that the married men & fathers preference is a result of
Augustus'
> > marriage legislation rather than reflecting Republican practice).
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
> >
> >
> >


Subject:	[novaroma] Symmachus Isn't Dead
From:	"Nicolaus Moravius" <n_moravius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 19:06:30

Decio Iunio et alibus Quritibus salutem

My thanks to you, mi Palladi, for your dignified and moderate reply to my
previous post:

>You are right, I rose to the bait--or perceived bait--when I should not
>have. These arguments can spin out of control. You post a message
>with an unpleasant spin to it, I reply and put another nasty twist to >it,
>you do the same, etc. This can go on and on with little purpose >served.
>For my part I stop here.

And therefore so must I.

>You said "I confess I'm surprised that they found Draco's spirited
>defence of his pater something akin to maiestas." I took that "they" to
>include me since you had been referring to my vote along with others. A
>natural mistake, don't you think?

Indeed it was.

>>the gap between the minimum age for independent citizenship (civis sui
>>iuris) and the minimum age for holding >>office as Aedilis, is three
>>years. Three years is not a long time.

>Generally speaking, it is not. However 3 years between certain ages is a
>long time. The 3 years between a 27 year old and a 30 year old or between a
>50 year old and a 53 year old is not significant at >all. However, the 3
>years between a 17 year old and a twenty year >old, or even between a 20
>year old and a 23 year old person is a >long time *generally* speaking. It
>is a long time in terms of >physical development and mental maturity.

If we measure time as relative to change, I did not age much between 18 and
21, myself. I enjoyed myself as a student, but didn't learn a lot (didn't
graduate, either - just ran up a lot of debts). On the other hand, in the
years between being 42 and 45, I learned a great deal and matured
considerably - I lost my job with no evident prospect of ever being
employable at a similar level again, lost two of my best friends, one member
of the family, dam' nearly lost my marriage with Aletheia and the house we
live in, as well. I spent those three years climbing the employment ladder
again from the bottom, in a culture where the older you are, the more it
counts against you. I managed to do it. I managed to continue with my
part-time BA degree. We kept our mortgage and we kept our marriage. You
can't bring back the dead. I learned a lot about life and a lot about
people, and organisations, and the way they work, in that period. Learning
and maturing do rather depend on what happens to you, and how you respond,
over a period of time. What I'm saying is, I wouldn't, in retrospect, have
considered myself fully qualified to have been a magistrate of Nova Roma
until I was more than twice 21. I do not think one can really legislate for
these things.

>When I voted I was under the impression that I was voting right at the
>deadline or even beyond it. I was pretty sure no one else would >be voting
>after me--no one did.

I accept that.

>>Palladius will perhaps recall that some senatores on the list received my
>>vote last. Evidently the order in which votes are >>received by different
>>e-mail accounts varies.

>Granted. When I voted I noticed that your vote had been done much earlier
>that day. However, you are right, delivery times vary.

See? Time and its passing, as we perceive it, is often subjectively
different.

>>If all who had been entitled to vote had voted,
>>their votes could arguably have been influenced by Palladius' unfounded
>>allegation against Draco. I still maintain that a >>mistaken allegation
>>made
>>in public against someone requires an apology.

>*Could* have influenced but did not. Anyone who voted after me would have
>been voting after voting was completed. It is difficult to apologize for an
>act which damaged no one and which I do not believe could have. That is not
>the point though, is it? Right is right, honor is honor.

Absolutely.

>Draco, I was operating under a false assumption that you had not applied
>for a senatorial exemption in advance. Apparently I was wrong and I am
>sorry. I was not trying to intentionally damage you >and glad that my
>mistake, in the end, did not affect the outcome.

So am I.

>Unfortunately I got the impression that you were not referring to the law
>but to the author of the law. I got this impression because >you said "Now
>in my view, anyone responsible for designing such an unworkably-worded lex
>as that, is hardly the most credible authority about what it ought, in
>retrospect, to mean." By your reaction I take it you did not mean it in a
>personal vein but I took it >otherwise. I probably am a bit touchy but in
>retrospect a second >glance at what you wrote might lead you to also
>believe that the >author of the law was your inadvertent target and not the
>law itself.

I can see how you were offended. Thinking about it, I would have been rather
touchy about it, too. I was indignant when I wrote that, but that's no
excuse for being careless with my words.

>>I quote (or paraphrase) Germanicus: "Why is it that we never have time to
>>craft a law properly in the first place, but always seem to >>have time to
>>tinker with it afterwards?"

>Because we are all still novices at this and sometimes do not see the
>problems with a law until its provisions are enforced. If we waited until
>we came up with a perfect body of law we would never get anything done and
>have no laws. I think this learning experience is useful. Laws are changed
>all the time in macronations as well.

True enough. A "learning experience" is useful because necessary. As someone
who has always learned the hard way in his personal life, I really don't
have room to criticise anyone who learns the hard way in public life. The
one who deserves the criticism is the one who NEVER learns under any
circumstances. You're right, again.

>>I accept that Palladius has every right to see himself as a paradigm of
>>injured innocence.
>>People can believe whatever they like (and they often do). But if
>>Palladius had alledged about Symmachus what he alledged about >>Draco, our
>>correspondence on that subject would not have been >>cordial.

>As I recall, you said something about Symmachus that I corrected you on,
>but I do not recall the exact details (I believe you called him elderly
>when he was much younger during the period in question or something minor
>like that) Anyway, I am hoping you are kidding about a potential less than
>cordial discussion over a man 1500 years dead, no matter what was said
>about him.

You are right, Palladius, in that I had assumed Symmachus was old when he
protested against the removal of the Ara Victoriae from the Senate House,
and you did indeed correct me, in stating that he was a relatively young man
at the time. His words and actions had led me to believe that he was old. An
embarrasing mistake for me to have made, given the subject under discussion,
nonne?

>>I feel it is disingenuous both to pretend to a moral high ground >>by
>>criticising another's post, and then to descend to the level of >>the
>>lowest possible interpretation of that post, to indulge one's >>spleen by
>>retaliating with interest. Palladius was under no >>obligation to react to
>>my post in this way. He chose his >>interpretation, and his reaction. He
>>must accept the
>>responsibility for any result.

>You are right, one should always reflect and reflect again before sending
>such a message. I was hotheaded as I am on occasion. Who benefits by such a
>conversation? Certainly not you and certainly not me. Perhaps we provide
>entertainment for a few but that is not our task here.

No indeed, mi Palladi, I don't think many citizens will be reading this, and
those that have read this far won't be doing so for entertainment.

>I am going to try and take the advice I gave a fine young Nova Roman
>recently to not take things here so personally and to try and keep things
>in perspective. Nova Roma is not so important as to want to inflict damage
>on others, even if only through email.

A good resolution, and one which I will try and emulate, myself. We might
perhaps also say that Nova Roma is rather more important than our personal
feelings, and Nova Roma is other people, and their feelings, too. It is,
however, very difficult for some of us to dissociate criticism of something
we have done, from criticism of ourselves personally. This means we can be
more easily manipulated, and - well, who likes the idea of having a long
tail which others can twist?

>I have no interest in pursuing what he [Draco] might have said. It >would
>have been said in understandable haste and anger over what he >thought was
>an intentional slur by me. If he did say it, I am sure he regrets it as he
>knows I did not intentionally try to misrepresent >his case. However, I
>would advise him not repeat the act in the future >despite the provocation.
>A hotheaded response can spin things out of >control quickly, as I can
>testify having been the author of a few >myself. :)

Me, too.

>Then we are in agreement. As for a further discussion of Symmachus, that
>may come soon.

How about now? When you say that Symmachus is

>a man 1500 years dead,

what exactly do you mean by that?

Valete

Vado.

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Tied elections etc.
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:14:31 -0500

Salvete!

Fortunatus wrote,

>So, let's say we're talking about a race for consul. Each citizen in each

>century would cast one vote. Then what?

>The options that spring to mind are:
>I. The candidate with the most votes would be the winner of the century,
and
>would receive two votes.
>II. The top two candidates would each receive one vote.
>III. Something truly arcane.

>I suspect that option I. was the case. This brings up a very interesting
>wrinkle in the process, and more questions.

The answer I think is pretty clearly that option II was the case, i.e. the
top two candidates each receive one vote. The evidence for tribes and
centuries having more than one vote cited by Nicolet is (a) evidence that
the praerogative century voted for A and B (which is inconsistent with
option II), and (b) evidence of alleged attempts to fiddle the elections,
allegedly proved by A and B getting identical votes (earlier in the Cicero
cite referred to in my previous message) which again strongly suggests that
each tribe or century got to vote for two candidates, not to vote twice for
one candidate.

Hence the issues raised in the following part of Fortunatus' message did
not arise.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Big Provincia!
From:	"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:12:51 -0600

11 Jna 2001

Salve Propraetor

Yes my wife offten tells me,"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's
the size of the fight in the dog that counts!!"

Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
quintus-sertorius@--------

Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc

> Remember David and Goliath, size doesn't make everything !!!! ;-)
>
> Ianus Querius Armoricus Lutecio
> Propraetor Galliae
>


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Tied elections etc.
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:44:36 -0500

Salvete!

Germanicus wrote,

>if each tribe/century had as many votes as there were
>places to be filled, could those votes be split? If not, what would be the
>point of having multiple votes? I don't see the difference between each
>tribe having 2 votes and each tribe having one vote. You'd still need a
>majority, and the proportions would be the same.

Respondeo:
I THINK this is the same point raised by Fortunatus, to which I just
replied separately - i.e. the 2 votes of a century for Consul not only can
be but must be split, unless the century elects to cast only one vote
because there is only one candidate or all the citizens vote for one
candidate. To add to that message, at p. 277 Nicolet cites Lex Malacitana
for the following procedure:
"The person holding the said comitia shall return that candidate
who has more votes than the rest as elected and
created by that curia, and then the next in order, until the number
of people to be elected is made up"
The curia is the municipal equivalent of a tribe or century in the City.

>Still, wonderful stuff; now we need to see how to incorporate it into our
>current system. I'll try to track down a copy of this book at once; M.
>Mucius, since you apparently have a copy, do you have any suggestions for
>changes to our current system, to make it more in line with Roma Antiqua?
>(And anyone else, of course...)<

I picked the book up the other day second hand, but I have not checked to
see if it's in print. I assume that any US academic library would hold it.

I guess I would only add two points to what I have already posted. The
first is that in relation to voting and announcing results by tribe or
century in order, on Nicolet's account this was the practice before the
introduction of the secret ballot in the late second century BCE, but that
after the ballot was introduced in the Comitia Tributa and Concilium Plebis
voting was simultaneous. The first vote of the Praerogativa and successive
voting by classes may have continued in the Comitia Centuriata.

The second is that the assemblies had a religious status, and the lots cast
for the praerogativa and hence the votes of this century were regarded as
"the omen of a proper election" (Nicolet 264, citing Cicero On Divination
1.103).

I rather regret that this system appears much too cumbersome for
implementation in NR. The use of lots both in determining the praerogativa,
and in dealing with tied tribes or centuries, seems to me to be a good way
of putting the outcome of the election to some extent in the hands of the
gods! We could, perhaps, design a mechanism to use lots in the case of
ties.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Tied elections etc.
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:20:20 -0500

Salvete;

Just to see if I've got the jist of this...

Essentially, the system is pretty much as we have it now, except each
tribe/century votes for two candidates (if there are two openings), with the
candidates getting the most and second-most getting the votes, respectively.
Ties within the tribes/centuries (and presumably ties between magistrates
with the same number of tribes/centuries) are resolved by lot.

Doesn't sound like too overwhelming a change.

I agree with you; I would like to see a way to incorporate the praerogativa,
but it might be too cumbersome at this time. (Although maybe the
praerogativa could be announced ahead of time and would have to vote on the
first day, the results of which would be announced before the rest of the
centuries voted. Just a thought.) Anyone have any ideas?

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Macnair [mailto:MikeMacnair@--------]
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 14:45
> To: INTERNET:novaroma@--------
> Subject: RE: [novaroma] Tied elections etc.
>
>
> Salvete!
>
> Germanicus wrote,
>
> >if each tribe/century had as many votes as there were
> >places to be filled, could those votes be split? If not, what
> would be the
> >point of having multiple votes? I don't see the difference between each
> >tribe having 2 votes and each tribe having one vote. You'd still need a
> >majority, and the proportions would be the same.
>
> Respondeo:
> I THINK this is the same point raised by Fortunatus, to which I just
> replied separately - i.e. the 2 votes of a century for Consul not only can
> be but must be split, unless the century elects to cast only one vote
> because there is only one candidate or all the citizens vote for one
> candidate. To add to that message, at p. 277 Nicolet cites Lex Malacitana
> for the following procedure:
> "The person holding the said comitia shall return that candidate
> who has more votes than the rest as elected and
> created by that curia, and then the next in order, until
> the number
> of people to be elected is made up"
> The curia is the municipal equivalent of a tribe or century in the City.
>
> >Still, wonderful stuff; now we need to see how to incorporate it into our
> >current system. I'll try to track down a copy of this book at once; M.
> >Mucius, since you apparently have a copy, do you have any suggestions for
> >changes to our current system, to make it more in line with Roma Antiqua?
> >(And anyone else, of course...)<
>
> I picked the book up the other day second hand, but I have not checked to
> see if it's in print. I assume that any US academic library
> would hold it.
>
> I guess I would only add two points to what I have already posted. The
> first is that in relation to voting and announcing results by tribe or
> century in order, on Nicolet's account this was the practice before the
> introduction of the secret ballot in the late second century BCE, but that
> after the ballot was introduced in the Comitia Tributa and
> Concilium Plebis
> voting was simultaneous. The first vote of the Praerogativa and successive
> voting by classes may have continued in the Comitia Centuriata.
>
> The second is that the assemblies had a religious status, and the
> lots cast
> for the praerogativa and hence the votes of this century were regarded as
> "the omen of a proper election" (Nicolet 264, citing Cicero On Divination
> 1.103).
>
> I rather regret that this system appears much too cumbersome for
> implementation in NR. The use of lots both in determining the
> praerogativa,
> and in dealing with tied tribes or centuries, seems to me to be a good way
> of putting the outcome of the election to some extent in the hands of the
> gods! We could, perhaps, design a mechanism to use lots in the case of
> ties.
>
> Valete,
>
> M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
>
>
>


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Tied elections etc.
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:56:19 -0700

This is the way I understood it (re voting for the number within the century)
and actually I think would result in a more fair election.

Livia

Mike Macnair wrote:

> Salvete!
>
> Germanicus wrote,
>
> >if each tribe/century had as many votes as there were
> >places to be filled, could those votes be split? If not, what would be the
> >point of having multiple votes? I don't see the difference between each
> >tribe having 2 votes and each tribe having one vote. You'd still need a
> >majority, and the proportions would be the same.
>
> Respondeo:
> I THINK this is the same point raised by Fortunatus, to which I just
> replied separately - i.e. the 2 votes of a century for Consul not only can
> be but must be split, unless the century elects to cast only one vote
> because there is only one candidate or all the citizens vote for one
> candidate. To add to that message, at p. 277 Nicolet cites Lex Malacitana
> for the following procedure:
> "The person holding the said comitia shall return that candidate
> who has more votes than the rest as elected and
> created by that curia, and then the next in order, until the number
> of people to be elected is made up"
> The curia is the municipal equivalent of a tribe or century in the City.
>
> >Still, wonderful stuff; now we need to see how to incorporate it into our
> >current system. I'll try to track down a copy of this book at once; M.
> >Mucius, since you apparently have a copy, do you have any suggestions for
> >changes to our current system, to make it more in line with Roma Antiqua?
> >(And anyone else, of course...)<
>
> I picked the book up the other day second hand, but I have not checked to
> see if it's in print. I assume that any US academic library would hold it.
>
> I guess I would only add two points to what I have already posted. The
> first is that in relation to voting and announcing results by tribe or
> century in order, on Nicolet's account this was the practice before the
> introduction of the secret ballot in the late second century BCE, but that
> after the ballot was introduced in the Comitia Tributa and Concilium Plebis
> voting was simultaneous. The first vote of the Praerogativa and successive
> voting by classes may have continued in the Comitia Centuriata.
>
> The second is that the assemblies had a religious status, and the lots cast
> for the praerogativa and hence the votes of this century were regarded as
> "the omen of a proper election" (Nicolet 264, citing Cicero On Divination
> 1.103).
>
> I rather regret that this system appears much too cumbersome for
> implementation in NR. The use of lots both in determining the praerogativa,
> and in dealing with tied tribes or centuries, seems to me to be a good way
> of putting the outcome of the election to some extent in the hands of the
> gods! We could, perhaps, design a mechanism to use lots in the case of
> ties.
>
> Valete,
>
> M. Mucius Scaevola Magister


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Lucilla Cornelia
From:	"Lucius Pompeius Octavianus" <octavianuslucius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:22:00 -0000

Salve Piscine.

I am very glad for her recovery. I do not have the best words in
english, but let her know my joy for this excellent news. Please give
my regards to her

Lucius Pompeius Octavianus

--- In novaroma@--------, Gian G Reali <piscinus@j...> wrote:
> Salvete omnes
>
> With very great pleasure, I am especially pleased today to
announce that
> our dearest friend, Lucilla Cornelia Aurelia, has come home and is
now
> recovering after her accident this past summer. For the past few
days
> Lucilla has been chatting with her sisters and friends, visiting
among
> us.
>
> On behalf of Lucilla, I wish to thank every one of you who
sent such
> kind messages. Knowing that so many cared for her has meant a
great deal
> to her, and has been very beneficial in her progress towards
recovery.
> Lucilla's one wish is to return to work. With your prayers and
support,
> may she do so very soon.
>
> Omnibus magnas gratias ago. Di vos incolumes custodiant et semper
ament.
>
> Valete
>
> Moravius Piscinus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lucilla Cornelia
From:	"Leo Okwese" <o_leonado@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:30:42 -0000

my regards to lucilla and may God see her through this period

GOD BLESS
>From: Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: [novaroma] Lucilla Cornelia
>Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:52:00 -0800
>
>Salvete omnes
>
> With very great pleasure, I am especially pleased today to announce that
>our dearest friend, Lucilla Cornelia Aurelia, has come home and is now
>recovering after her accident this past summer. For the past few days
>Lucilla has been chatting with her sisters and friends, visiting among
>us.
>
> On behalf of Lucilla, I wish to thank every one of you who sent such
>kind messages. Knowing that so many cared for her has meant a great deal
>to her, and has been very beneficial in her progress towards recovery.
>Lucilla's one wish is to return to work. With your prayers and support,
>may she do so very soon.
>
>Omnibus magnas gratias ago. Di vos incolumes custodiant et semper ament.
>
>Valete
>
>Moravius Piscinus

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.


Subject:	[novaroma] Expenses
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:49:10 -0000

If any magistrate or other individual wishes to submit expenses from
2000 to be reimbursed by the Treasury, I need to hear from you (by e-
mail at least) by Monday, when I will close the books on the year.

Patricia Cassia