| Subject: |
[novaroma] Clans & things |
| From: |
Razenna <razenna@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:35:36 -0800 |
|
The term for matrilineal clan is "matrilineal clan". Clan is, dictionary wise, as
Cincinatus stated. That ancestral founder can be doubtful or just plain fictitious,
though it is usually not a good idea to say so to a member of that clan if they are
into their clanness. "Gens" has been translated as "clan" at times, which is not
really incorrect, but it does raise the question at hand. It is most likely correct
that the gens started as blood clans. In a way they might be said to have remained
that for the duration. The paterfamilias is as head of the family. A large, very
extended family in the larger and older gens of Roma. A clan structure would also
encompass dependents in some cultures. In other cultures the dependents that were
not full and true blood kin would count along with the slaves and other livestock.
Roma was not the latter.
I did not follow all of this thread -- where does this "matrilineal clan" thing come
in anyway? And what is the "default gens" thing? What "default gens"?
SACROSANCT from SACRO SANCTUS = "hallowed by sacred rite". That is to say, "Made
Holy by Sacred Rite". This has nothing to do with declaration of "Sacer". To
quote more from Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary:
Most sacred or holy; also (on the less than glowing side) having an imputed rather
than a genuine sacred character.
On my own I will point out that the word "sacred" also is Not
synonymous with "sacer".
C. Aelius Ericius.
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: The Disputed Islands |
| From: |
"Razenna " <razenna@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 01:03:48 -0000 |
|
Do I get you right here? Are you actually saying United Statesians
speak English?
Caius Aelius Ericius.
--- In novaroma@--------, "Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@d...> wrote:
> For the record, it is my considered opinion that the Insulae
Malvinae et
> Georgiae should, for complex and rather sensitive cultural and
political
> reasons, be ceded neither to Argentinia or Britannia, but should
enjoy an
> independent provincial status, unless the citizens vote otherwise.
They are
> not what you would call "near" anywhere else, and the mere fact that
the
> majority of (human) inhabitants speak English, or the fact that they
have
> been under the British Crown for centuries, is hardly a persuasive
case for
> them to be regarded as part of Britannia (since the argument would
apply
> almost equally well to the U.S.A.).
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Who is to decide? |
| From: |
Michel Loos <loos@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:01:52 -0200 |
|
Gian G Reali wrote:
>
> Salvete Quirites
>
> In all that has been said about the plebiscita and the misunderstanding
> of their intent, I want to point out this one paragraph by our former
> Tribunus Plebis because I believe this is the crux of the present
> situation.
>
> Australicus respondet:
> "Who is to decide what behavior is "appropriate" in a Tribune? Whoever
> it
> would be, they would be given power over the behavior of the Tribune,
> which would detract from the essential power of the Tribuni. We must rely
>
> on electing good people to serve in the office of Tribune. There is no
> way to put a guard over the conduct of tribunes without taking away from
> the essential power of the office. If a Tribune goes too far, the Consuls
>
> and Senate can use the "Ultimate Decree" to correct things, but beyond
> that I am opposed to giving anyone, including another Tribune, power to
> interfere with the Tribuni"
>
> Thr Plebiscitum de Tribunicia Potestates did not increase the powers of
> the Tribunes as some have suggested. It placed guidelines on the use of
> tribunician powers which in many ways limited their exercise. Whose
> power would have been increased by the entire set of plebiscita is the
> Comitia Plebis Tributa itself.
>
> "Who is to decide what behavior is "appropriate" in a Tribune?" The
> CPT, under the Constitution, Section III.C, elects the Tribunes, may "try
> legal cases solely involving members of the plebeian order," and "enact
> plebiscita with the force of law, binding upon the entire citizenry,"
> which of course would include the Tribunes. What this plebiscitum does
> is place the Tribunes under the authority of the CPT entirely. Who is to
> judge whether the behavior of a Tribune is appropriate? The CPT by
> III.C.3. Who is to set the standards and guidelines by which a Tribune's
> appropriate behavior is to be judged? The CPT by III.C.1. To whom are
> the Tribuni Plebis ultimately responsible? to the CPT by III.C.2.
>
> "Whoever it would be, they would be given power over the behavior of the
> Tribune, which would detract from the essential power of the Tribuni."
>
> Yes, Sergius, you are exactly right, and you are the only one commenting
> on the plebiscita that has managed to see this. The plebiscitum on the
> Tribuncia Potestates gives power to the CPT over the Tribunes.
>
> "If a Tribune goes too far, the Consuls and Senate can use the "Ultimate
> Decree" to correct things..."
>
> And herein lies the real problem of what has been going on in Nova Roma
> since its inception. The combination of the plebiscita on the procedures
> set for the CPT, the establishment of the authority of the CPT over its
> Tribunes, the reaffirmations of the Leges Publilia and Icilia to
> establish the autonomy of the CPT as a legislative body within Nova Roma,
> all had a singular purpose. Granted it would have been composed of only
> a portion of the citizens, but that was a first step of turning authority
> in Nova Roma over to all the citizens who compose it. And what is the
> alternative to the citizens having the leading role in the organization
> they collectively form? A minority within the Senate threatens to issue
> a Senatus consultum ultimatum.
>
> For the benefit of the newer citizens who have not perused our
> Constitution, let me explain. A Senatus consultum ultimatum gives
> authority to one individual to act as a Dictator. Nova Roma is not even
> three years old yet and every time some disagreement arises, the solution
> offered is to call for a dictator to save the privileges of a select at
> the expense of others. For you newer citizens, welcome to Nova Roma
> politics, because this is becoming an annual event.
Just as it was in Ancient Rome after the power of the Tribunes was
discovered
by the Gracchi and before a Patrician took the Power of the Tribunes
repeteadly every year. Our Nova Roma is treu reenaction of the troubled
1st century ancient Rome.
At least we don t have any murders and riots !
>
> There are better ways of resolving conflict. Discussing differences to
> resolve conflicts is preferable to clashes that only lead to rifts. But
> that assumes both sides equally respect one another. It assumes both
> sides do hold a balance. The old Republic first developed when the
> Plebeians asserted that they too had a voice in the affairs of Rome. The
> Plebeian movement sought to create balance between different sources of
> power.
In a time when all the power was Patrician. The tribunes were instituted
in 493BC,
the first plebeian Consul (well Military tribune with consular powers)
is from
400BC : it took near to 1 century for the plebs to reach a near equality
with the
Patricians, it does n t seem to be so in Nova Roma, we started with only
a little advantage for the Patricians, something much more like end of
2nd century.
> When the Comitia Plebis and its Tribunes did eventually gain an
> upper hand in the old Republic, the result was a reactionary overthrow of
> the legitimate government, the slaughter of the Senate, the elimination
> of the censors, the diminishing of the tribunes, and the rule of Sulla
> the Dictator. In short, the end of the old Republic. Now Nova Roma is
> trying to restore the old Republic. One very small group here wants to
> have the form without any content. They want to hold to one very narrow
> vision of what Roma Antiqua was like. On the other side is another small
> group, one which wants to breath life into our res publica by developing
> the institutions that once formed the old Republic. They are of the
> opinion that the citizens should be given an opportunity to develop Nova
> Roma collectively and freely, allowing our community to evolve however it
> so shall choose.
>
If this is what you want, you should have run for the curule positions
Praetor/Consul and conviqued all citizens, not just us plebeians.
I find everything is fine, constitutionnaly, I find the propositions are
good,
but the fact we will vote them alone will divide and not join the
citizens.
M' Villius Limitanus
> The Tribunes place their trust in the citizens of Nova Roma. We have
> faith that reasoned discussion in an open forum can resolve differences.
> That is why we seek to build and develop forums and committees in Nova
> Roma. That is why we are willing to place ourselves under the authority
> of the particular assembly of the Plebeians known as the CPT. The
> Tribunes promote an ongoing process of an evolving, living community.
> Our continued efforts shall be to bring an increasingly broader segment
> of our community into participation.
>
> Valete
>
> Cn. Moravius Piscinus
> Tribunus Plebis
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Who is to decide? |
| From: |
Michel Loos <loos@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:14:11 -0200 |
|
gmvick32@-------- wrote:
>
> To the tribunes and people of Nova Roma, from Livia Cornelia Aurelia:
>
> Gian G Reali wrote:
>
> > Salvete Quirites
> >
> > In all that has been said about the plebiscita and the misunderstanding
> > of their intent, I want to point out this one paragraph by our former
> > Tribunus Plebis because I believe this is the crux of the present
> > situation.
> >
> > Thr Plebiscitum de Tribunicia Potestates did not increase the powers of
> > the Tribunes as some have suggested. It placed guidelines on the use of
> > tribunician powers which in many ways limited their exercise. Whose
> > power would have been increased by the entire set of plebiscita is the
> > Comitia Plebis Tributa itself.
> >
> > "Who is to decide what behavior is "appropriate" in a Tribune?" The
> > CPT, under the Constitution, Section III.C, elects the Tribunes, may "try
> > legal cases solely involving members of the plebeian order," and "enact
> > plebiscita with the force of law, binding upon the entire citizenry,"
> > which of course would include the Tribunes. What this plebiscitum does
> > is place the Tribunes under the authority of the CPT entirely. Who is to
> > judge whether the behavior of a Tribune is appropriate? The CPT by
> > III.C.3. Who is to set the standards and guidelines by which a Tribune's
> > appropriate behavior is to be judged? The CPT by III.C.1. To whom are
> > the Tribuni Plebis ultimately responsible? to the CPT by III.C.2.
>
> The problem which I believe the tribunes were trying to correct, is that the Comitia
> Plebius Tributa -- as evidenced by earlier arguments -- is intended by the
> Constitution to only be assembled to vote or judge laws, and therefore isn't always
> a standing assembly. The tribunes saw a problem with that, in that it doesn't allow
> for a formal mechanism by which they could know the will of the plebians they
> serve. And the same statements can be made about the censors and praetors, and
> their relationship to the Comitia Centuriata and Comitia Populus Tributa.
>
> The assumption in Nova Roma to date has been that contacting a
> Tribune/Consul/Praetor with an issue is sufficient recourse for any member of the
> given assembly to bring an issue in front of them. This works contingent on two
> things (1) the individual's understanding that they have such a right, and 2) the
> magistrate's willingness to consider the issue and give it full treatment. Item 2)
> is subject to abuse depending on the magistrate......but of course that's true of
> many political systems.
>
> The problem as I see it is that all the magistrates involved with drafting
> leges.....Tribunes, Consuls, and Praetors......have no good measure by which to
> gauge the temperature of the people. That means we are at their discretion (unless
> we speak up and get their attention) about what leges are needed. It means we are
> still at their mercy in whether they are a proactive magistrate and solicit opinion,
> or whether they get their own idea and draft legislation without a full slate of
> input.
That s because the Roman constitution is a mixed one: Regalian when it
comes to the executive , aristocratic when we talk about the senate and
democratic for the actual vote of the laws. We, ordinary citizens, can
NOT propose laws, that would be a direct=greek democracy.
>
> I have a few pieces of criticism for Piscinus and Fortunatus, whom I otherwise hold
> in high esteem:
>
> 1. While I support the idea of having a separate CPT chat room to build community,
> I think in retrospect that the public discussions of the proposed leges needed to be
> in this forum -- for practicality.
>
> 2. While you were correct in the letter of the law about the time period to
> comment, I think in retrospect that the need to build consensus for your proposals
> wasn't served by that approach. Since we don't have a formal mechanism for guaging
> the will of the people, I think the leges needed to be exposed to a greater group
> earlier. I support your right to conduct affairs the way you did vis-a-vis the
> CPT. You followed the letter of the law. However, your own interests were
> disserved that way, and so I urge a new method.
>
> NOTE: Since the letter of the law was followed procedurally, the question
> becomes.....have the tribunes performed a service to us in showing us how we DON'T
> want things to work in the future? Is this an area where we need to consider a
> change to the law.
>
I don t see why to cahnge the law, I did not understand why to stop this
votation,
all was just a direct application of the letter and the spirit of our
constitution:
not a direct democracy, the magistrates in charge act like collegial
kings.
> 3. I have reviewed your leges as requested and forwarded comments to you
> privately. Publicly I state that some of what you were doing was fine with me, and
> some of it really does affect a change to the Constitution. Rather than have you
> pursue those changes (specifically around the role of the Tribune to the CPT) via
> the CPT, I think you need to lobby for a change to the Constitution.
>
> NOTE: This criticism has to be levelled two ways. I believe the tribunes were
> going for a change to the powers of the tribune via the CPT for the practical
> consideration that the notable trend is when someone points to something in the
> Constitituion that they think needs clarification or revision, there IS indeed a
> contingent that cries foul and wants to hear nothing about changing the
> Constitution. So they were trying to seek a path where they might actually affect
> the change they feel is needed, rather than a seemingly hopeless option. My
> recommendation is that those two sides need to be in direct communiciation with each
> other, and I urge those who feel most protective of the current Constitution to at
> least consider whether there is merit to the suggestions before immediately
> defending the letter of that document.
>
> I am sworn to uphold the Constitution, and I will. To me, that means I am sworn not
> to suffer any misapplication of the current Constitution, or any illegal attempt to
> modify or place impositions on the Constitution. I try my best to do that. I do
> not think that means I resist, unthinkingly, a reasonable change to the
> constitution, adopted by legal means through the Comitia Centuriata plus 2/3rds
> approval of the Senate. I also submit that like any nation's Constitution, ours is
> not immune from being improved through the process of identifying, debating, and
> properly approvings reasonable changes.
>
> My CALL is for the Tribunes to separate out all measures of the leges which needed
> to be considered as a change to the Constitutuion, sort through them for what is
> important, and present them to the consuls et praetors to be opened to the Comitia
> Centuriata for debate. This course of action locks the Tribunes out from being able
> to present them directly to the Comitia Centuriata, and they must get support of the
> consuls et praetors first, so I also call on that body of gentlemen to be open to
> the proposals of the tribunes and make sure they are well and fairly discussed by
> the people comprising the Comitia.
>
This line of action from tribunes is as old as 492BC (the year after the
instauration of the tribunes).
M' Villius Limitanus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Augurs - (Re: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Publilia) |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 01:40:45 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, cassius622@a... wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> The Collegium Pontificum is reviewing this aspect of this Lex
Publilia, and
> will be issuing an official statement on the subject this week.
>
> In the meantime, I reply on a personal and unofficial level:
>
>
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus writes:
> I don't think our Tribunes meant any disrespect for our current
Augers
> when they selected the Lex Publilia as one of the Ancient Leges that
> they wished to have the Plebes reaffirm.
>
> Cassius respondit:
> I also do not believe that the Tribunes intended disrespect for the
Augurs by
> proposing this lex. My personal concern is whether they intended to
> "disregard" the Augurs with this lex... by declaring legal
indifference to
> any and all auguries concerning the Comitia Plebis Tributa. If such
a
> precedent is set, might the door not be opened for other possible
secular
> decisions concerning aspects of the Religio Romana?
>
>
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus:
> The Lex Publilia was a
> milestone in setting up the powers of the Comitia Plebis Tributa of
> Roma Antiquita, and I think that the intent was to gaurd against the
> possibility that in the future Nova Roma's Augers may lack the
> intregity the the present Augers have.
>
> Cassius:
> The position of Augur was much more social and political in Roma
Antiqua than
> it is in Nova Roma. Cicero, for example, was an Augur even though he
did not
> believe in the auspices whatever! In Nova Roma the Collegium
Pontificum does
> everything possible to ensure that those chosen as Augurs have real
religious
> interest and feeling - and are committed to the integrity of the
office.
> While nothing can be a complete guarantee, it's certainly better
than
> rubber-stamping approval for the position on terms of social status,
making
> it a part of the Cursus Honorum.
>
>
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus:
> Personally I think it's
> premature to propose that the CPT be removed from the taking of the
> Auspicia. For now I prefer that we protect the Plebes AND the
> Patricians by insuring that we don't fall into the habit of the
> Ancients, of apointing Augers who only want the postion for personal
> glory, rather than seeking out people of the highest intregity who
> feel a geuinine calling from the gods to perform these essential
> rites.
>
> Cassius:
> This is exactly what is being done. And, because it IS being done, I
am as
> concerned that the proposed lex would be as (or more) likely to
mandate the
> deliberate disregard of genuine signs from the Gods as it might be
to protect
> against the possibility of false signs. I'm not sure of the point
of having
> a Religio if we're going to start setting up legal precedents for
ignoring
> various aspects of it.
>
> Valete,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
Thank you for your reply, Pontifex Maximus,
I share your concern that reaffirming this law could cause Nova Roma
to fall into the habit of ignoring signs from the Gods.
If a nuntiatio is called it does no more than delay the meeting of a
Comitia, and I fail to see the harm in waiting a day if the Gods are
displeased about holding a meeting. In Antiquita the abuse took the
form of calling a nuntiatio EVERY time a Comitia attempted to meet. In
effect the Augur was turning the nuntiatio into an intercessio.
If a nuntiatio is called I think we should respect the Augur, and take
him at his word. However repeated nuntiatios are another matter. It
can only mean one of two things, Either the Augur is misusing his
power, or the displeasure of the Gods extends beyond the choice of the
day the meeting is to occur, that the Gods are displeased with some
matter that the Comitia is considering. Either of these extraordinary
events bears looking into, and I trust the College would do so.
As for myself, Until someone can show clear proof that the Augurs have
misused thier authority on a regular basis, and that the problem
exists in the entire college, rather than the actions of one person, I
can NOT support any lex or plebisicta that would allow us to ignore
the omens that the Gods may choose to send us. I will vote against
this plebisicta as it is written, and urge others to do the same.
I will close with this quote,
"It will be seen from what has been said that the Roman state was a
species of theocracy, that the gods were its rulers, and that it was
by means of the auspices that they intimated their will to the
representatives of the people, that is, the magistrates. It follows
from this, as has already been remarked, that no public act could be
performed without consulting the auspices, no election could be held,
no law passed, no war waged; for a neglect of the auspices would have
been equivalent to a declaration that the gods had ceased to rule the
Roman state."
The entire article may be read at
http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/s
econdary/SMIGRA*/Augurium.html
It is from a book published in 1875 CE, so it's in the public domain
if anyone wishes to make use of it.
Lucius Sicinius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Upcoming Comitia Populi Vote |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:21:21 -0500 |
|
Salvete;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmvick32@-------- [mailto:gmvick32@--------]
> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 12:44 PM
>
> Please repost the proposals.
Ask and ye shall receive...
(As before, the commentatio is simply my own inclusion for explanation; it
will not be included in the actual leges to be voted on.)
-----
Lex Minucia de Rogatoribus
Paragraph IV. of the Lex Vedia Vigintisexviri is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Rogatores. Four rogatores (voting officials) shall be responsible for the
administration of elections and the recording of votes among the curia. Each
rogatorus shall have the authority to appoint his own scribae, should he
deem it necessary. Should one or more positions be vacant, and suitable and
willing candidates are available, an election shall be held within thirty
days in the comitia populi tributa; otherwise the Senate shall have the
authority to appoint rogatores pro tem until such an election can be held.
The lack of a full compliment of, or the active participation of, four
rogatores shall not in and of itself be sufficient to invalidate or postpone
a particular election, and the rogatores may divide their duties amongst
themselves as they see fit and is practical. Inasmuch as they, by
definition, are privy to the details of the election process, the rogatores
may not run for any office while they serve in office (including running for
rogatorus again).
(COMMENTATIO: The number of rogatores is increased from two to four, not all
need to be present to conduct an election, and a minor grammatical error is
corrected. It is named in honor of Marcus Municius Audens, who had intended
to introduce a similar bill during his Consulship.)
-----
Lex Vedia de Magistratum Aetate
Paragraph VI. of the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate is hereby amended to
read as follows:
An exemption to this law may be granted to a person by the approval of both
censors and a senatus consultum approved by a two thirds majority vote. Such
an exemption must be sought prior to the official start of the election in
question, and must be granted in order to participate as a formal candidate
in the election process. A failure to act on the question of an exemption
shall not constitute a tacit approval of the exemption.
(COMMENTATIO: Last two sentences are new, and specify that the exemption
must be granted before voting starts, and must be obtained in order to stand
as a candidate.)
-----
Lex Vedia de Ratione Automata
Paragraph III.C. of the Lex Vedia de Ratione Eligium is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Within 48 hours of the deadline for voting, the rogatores shall tally the
votes and shall deliver the results to the magistrate who called the comitia
to order and his collegial magistrate. Votes may be tallied by automated
means should the rogatores determine such is preferable to, and at least as
accurate as, a manual count. Only the aggregate votes of the tribes and/or
centuries (as appropriate) shall be delivered; the votes of individual
citizens shall be secret. The magistrates shall announce the results of the
vote within 24 hours of receipt, in at least the same fora as the initial
announcement was made.
(COMMENTATIO: Second sentence is new, allows for computerized counting of
votes at the rogatores' discretion.)
-----
Lex Vedia de Civitatis Petitionibus inter Suffragia
I. No applications for Citizenship are to be processed or approved while one
or more of the Comitiae is in the process of undertaking a vote and/or
election. Such applications may be accepted and held until the end of the
election and/or vote in question, whereupon they are to be processed with
all due dilligence and speed, subject to all other laws which may otherwise
apply to the process.
II. During the time when applications for Citizenship are not processed as
described under this law, the Curator Araneum shall post an announcement
where individuals completing the application for Citizenship may reasonably
be expected to see it, explaining the situation and giving a reasonable
estimate of when the prospective Citizens may expect to have his or her
application processed.
(COMMENTATIO: All new. Basically, new applications during elections are on
hold, and people applying during such times are told so, and given an idea
when their application will be processed.)
-----
Lex Vedia de Ratione Edictium
The last sentence of paragraph I. of the Lex Vedia de Ratione Edictium is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Such edicta shall be posted in the Tabularium by the Curator Araneum as soon
as practical.
(COMMENTATIO: The original law still refers to the Aerarium Saturni, the
name of which was changed to the Tabularium. This just catches this law up
with the name change. And better get those business cards redone, Marcus
Octavius; I double-checked the Lex Vedia Vigintisexviri and it is
"Araneum"!)
-----
Comments, questions, suggestions, etc. are welcome (but remember; time is
short, as the official call to vote will be issued tomorrow).
In addition, I have the following people standing for the office of
Quaestor, with two open slots (if I have accidentally omitted anyone, PLEASE
let me know immediately; Pompeia Cornelia Strabo has withdrawn from the
race):
Servius Cornelius Cato
Quintus Sertorius
Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato
Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator
And the following for the office of Curator Differum:
Helena Galeria
If anyone else wants to run for either of these offices, now is the time to
let us know!
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Legal death? (Re: The six laws, opinion of Aedilis Plebis) |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 20:47:44 -0600 |
|
Salvete
> For that matter, is it not wise to consider a period of time after
> which if a person is not responding to contacts, etc., that they be
> removed from the citizenship rolls altogether?
The constitution states that, "Citizenship may be involuntarily revoked
by those means that shall be established by law, or may be voluntarily
relinquished by notification of the censors or by public statement
before three or more witnesses." Currently, we don't have any laws
regarding this. Considering that the Comitia Centuriata are the only
authority empowered to try cases that could end in exile, it would
probably be best that such a policy be established by a lex enacted
there. However, a case could be made that a censorial edictum could
qualify as such an establishment of law. This strikes me as a dangerous
precedent, though.
It would be quite reasonable, though, for an edictum to be issued by the
Collegium Pontificum that revoked a person's religious status (augur,
pontifex, etc.) in the case of a disappearance for more than, say, a
year. As an aside, does anyone know whether or not an augur who had his
citizenship revoked in ancient times would still be considered an
augur? Considering the nature of the post in antiquity, I would expect
not, but I can't claim any real knowledge on the point.
BTW, both of our missing augures were patrician when they assumed the
post, assuming my memory isn't playing tricks on me.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Museum trip Sunday, Jan. 28 |
| From: |
"pjane@-------- " <pjane@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 02:58:51 -0000 |
|
Cassius and I are planning to go to Worcester, Mass., on Sunday, Jan.
28, to view the exhibit on Antioch which leaves the Worcester Museum of
Art on Feb. 4.
If any Novaromani would like to meet us there, we would be delighted to
tour the musem with you and perhaps have lunch together. We'll plan to
be there at 11 a.m. and will meet you in the lobby. (Want to know what
we look like? See the Senate page of novaroma.org, or our wedding page,
http://www.janeraeburn.com/wedding/ - we promise we won't wear Roman
garb out in public!)
Patricia Cassia
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Germania Provincia |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:58:15 -0500 |
|
Salvete Omnes;
The current governor of our Germania Provincia, Marcus Marcius Rex, has
stated his intention to the Senate to step down as propraetor. The Senate
will soon be considering the question of appointing a replacement. Any Cive
residing in Germania interested in and qualified for the position is hereby
requested to inform the Senate of his or her interest, qualifications, etc.
by sending an email to senate@-------- .
I realize that the excellent work of Marcus Marcius as governor will be a
difficult act to follow, but I urge all interested Cives in the province to
consider doing so.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Museum trip Sunday, Jan. 28 |
| From: |
"pjane@-------- " <pjane@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 03:00:43 -0000 |
|
Cassius and I are planning to go to Worcester, Mass., on Sunday, Jan.
28, to view the exhibit on Antioch which leaves the Worcester Museum of
Art on Feb. 4.
If any Novaromani would like to meet us there, we would be delighted to
tour the musem with you and perhaps have lunch together. We'll plan to
be there at 11 a.m.; if you let us know ahead of time, we'll meet you
out front.
Patricia Cassia
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Augurs - (Re: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Publilia) |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:05:02 -0600 |
|
Salvete
The way I read this conversation, it seems that there is a subtle
misunderstanding of what the plebiscitum actually says.
> Cassius respondit:
> I also do not believe that the Tribunes intended disrespect for the
> Augurs by
> proposing this lex. My personal concern is whether they intended to
> "disregard" the Augurs with this lex... by declaring legal
> indifference to
> any and all auguries concerning the Comitia Plebis Tributa. If such a
> precedent is set, might the door not be opened for other possible
> secular
> decisions concerning aspects of the Religio Romana?
The plebiscitum simply says that it is not legally required for the
tribuni to contact the Collegium Augurum prior to holding a vote, and
that any plebiscitum passed by the CPT can't be nullified after the fact
because such contact wasn't made. It does not state that the augures
can't delay the proceedings with a nuntiatio, or that the tribuni may
(or even should) disregard the augures.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Icilia |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:12:04 -0600 |
|
Salvete
> Are most of those DOS illegal in our macronations? If so....then it
> is not necessary...all one needs to do is to contact that particular
> macronation. Plus if anything happens to Egroups-Yahoo (since they
> have merged). That person responsible is going to get sued and
> probably jailed. Therefore your attempt to validate this law still
> isn't sufficient. :)
Internet stalking is illegal in most developed macronations, yet we have
the Lex Fabia regarding stalking. This is another example of a tension
between out current status and our stated goal of sovreignty. The
plebiscitum is far too vague, yes, but it does have as much right to
exist as Praetor Fabius' lex.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Legal death? (Re: The six laws, opinion of Aedilis Plebis) |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 03:12:37 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, Fortunatus <labienus@t...> wrote:
> Salvete
>
> > For that matter, is it not wise to consider a period of time after
> > which if a person is not responding to contacts, etc., that they
be
> > removed from the citizenship rolls altogether?
>
> The constitution states that, "Citizenship may be involuntarily
revoked
> by those means that shall be established by law, or may be
voluntarily
> relinquished by notification of the censors or by public statement
> before three or more witnesses." Currently, we don't have any laws
> regarding this. Considering that the Comitia Centuriata are the
only
> authority empowered to try cases that could end in exile, it would
> probably be best that such a policy be established by a lex enacted
> there. However, a case could be made that a censorial edictum could
> qualify as such an establishment of law. This strikes me as a
dangerous
> precedent, though.
>
> It would be quite reasonable, though, for an edictum to be issued by
the
> Collegium Pontificum that revoked a person's religious status
(augur,
> pontifex, etc.) in the case of a disappearance for more than, say, a
> year. As an aside, does anyone know whether or not an augur who had
his
> citizenship revoked in ancient times would still be considered an
> augur? Considering the nature of the post in antiquity, I would
expect
> not, but I can't claim any real knowledge on the point.
>
> BTW, both of our missing augures were patrician when they assumed
the
> post, assuming my memory isn't playing tricks on me.
>
> Valete
> T Labienus Fortunatus
"The augurs were elected for life, and even if capitally convicted,
never lost their sacred character (Plin. Ep. iv.8)."
From
http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/s
econdary/SMIGRA*/Augurium.html
Nothing short of death could remove an Augur from his office.
Lucius Sicinius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Who is to decide? |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:23:12 -0600 |
|
Salvete L Corneli et Quirites
> With all this criticism of Tribune Pisicnus I think we all would like
> to know the opinion of our other Tribune T. Labienus. Tribune T.
> Labienus....would you please comment on this speech made by your
> colleague?
I will not, primarily because my private life does not currently afford
me the time and energy right now to keep up with everything that's
flying around on this list, and I have done nothing more than skim
through my colleague's post. I do intend to write a fairly
comprehensive message concerning my views on the tribunate as it stands
in Nova Roma, the Comitia Plebis Tributa, and some of the constitutional
issues Consul Vedius brought up during the recent brouhaha. It is quite
likely that this will answer most of your questions. If the Gods are
willing, I will be able to do so in the next day or two.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Legal death? (Re: The six laws, opinion of Aedilis Plebis) |
| From: |
tekwkp@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 22:32:08 EST |
|
Unfortunately, from my work experience, some either die [yes, that] or do not
have the common courtesy to post a notice of intent, to resign, or just
lacking in manners. Nova Roma seemingly tries its' best, but ... There is a
message out there. Work-wise, I spent some years in a peripheral part of the
Social Security Administration. When people's benefits were cut off, due to
lack of response, they screamed like banchees [sp?], NR does not have that
access. So, some E-Mail subscribers either fell on hard times,
personal/family, became bored, that too, or changed their E-Mail addresses. A
difficult piece for Nova Roma to deal with.
Respectfully submitted,
Lentulus Cornelius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] opinion of Aedilis Plebis |
| From: |
"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 23:37:57 -0500 |
|
Salvete Quirites
Salvete, Quirites
- Lex Publilia
This lex clashes with the Constitution, when put the CPT beyond the reach of the nuntiatio, this is, a possibility of a Augur declare that an unsolicited omen was observed, to justify a delay of a meeting of the Comitias or the Senate. This is, a Augur can block the three comitiae and the Senate, if he wants so, without being blocked by another Augur. The active Augures are Fl Vedius Germanicus, L Equitius Cincinnatus and C Aelius Ericius, all patricians.
Lucius Equitius: I will say this right now, no one wanted the Comitia formed more than me. Ask anyone who has been in Nova Roma what happened when I was Consul. Never mind that, Flavius Vedius formed the Tribes and Centuries, so now we have them *to* summon! As for Augur Ericius, if not for the Religio I believe he would not be a Novi Romani. We were citizens before there were Comitia in other then name, we joined to build the New Rome and the Pax Deorum! I am sorry, but you have offended me personally by this insinuation. I will tell you something else though, when I got up yesterday morning I read the list digest and saw that the Tribunes had delayed the voting of their proposals, then I went out on my balcony and I saw a propitious sign from the birds. Ask Consul Germanicus, as I reported this to him.
-----------------------
After reading again my posting, i realized that it can be offensive to the augures. So, i want apologize not only augur Cincinnatus, but augures Ericius and Germanicus too. I firmly believe that they doesnt want to use their augurial powers to political purposes, but only to religious ones, to the better of Nova Roma and Religio Romana.
Lucius Equitius: Marcus Arminius, I happily accept your gracious apology!
And two positions are occupied by ex-citizens (M Gladius Saevus and Dm Lucianus Dexippus), since the position of Augur is for life, there arent renounce. By the way, the Collegium Augurum have 9 places, 5 to plebeians and 4 to patricians. From what order are the ex-citizens?
Lucius Equitius: Ex cives.
---------------------------
Well, lets to explain better. If the Collegium Augurum have 9 seats; 5 for plebeian, 4 for patricians; and 3 are occupied by patricians; and 2 "occupied" by ex cives; if both ex cives were plebeian, are there room only for 3 more plebeian augures and one patrician augur? Please, help me to understand, the situation of a ex cive confuses me.
Lucius Equitius: As it confuses me. This is another problem that we will need to solve, but this did, I believe, happen in ancient Rome where an Augur was exiled yet kept his office! How do we verify that an Ex citizen is deceased? I would be glad to see a lex proposed in dealing with this issue. Perhaps, since we are, as citizens, still subject to our 'macro national' laws a simple search of the laws of the last known address of the ex-citizen we can determine what the
I feel that the regulation of the nuntiatio is necessary, or an ammendment to the Constitution
Lucius Equitius: No, it needs to be thrown out! Are we in such a hurry that a delay cannot be tolerated.!? A 'nuntiatio' is not a veto, it is only a delay. Also, it can be ignored, but then when things blowup in your face, you just might hear whispered, "I (we) told you so."
-----------------------
Can the nuntiatio be pronouced more than one time to the same Comitia?
Lucius Euqitius: This would depend on the "omen(s)" reported. If this were to happen, I think that the "SPQR" (the Senate and People of Rome) might become suspicious, don't you? I have made a suggestion that IF an action is posponed/delayed on account of a "nuntiatio" then such action *should* not proceed until an Augury has been conducted and 'nefas' indications were *not* seen.
How the nuntiatio is pronounced?
Lucius Equitius: This is not stipulated, but I would make a report to the Senate as I believe was done in ancient time. We are to do those things that were done by Romans with a little concession to modern sensibility as needed.
I believed that the nuntiatio cannot be ignored by the Comitiae and Senate.
Lucius Equitius: Under our constitution you would be correct. I'm not sure it would have been ignored in ancient times either; however, I do suppose it would have depended on the situation. I do recall Cicero explaining, or perhaps it was Livy, how very seriously these things were taken.
Im really and sincerely interested in learn more, since never a nuntiatio have been pronounced before in Nova Roma, and their effects can be different from Roma Antiqua.
Thank you.
Marcus Arminius Maior Aedilis Plebis
Lucius Equitius: Thank you for your interest, bene omnibus nobis.
Bonam Noctem et Valete, Lucius Equitius
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Icilia |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 23:49:05 -0500 |
|
Salvete;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: L. Sicinius Drusus [mailto:drusus@--------]
> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 12:33 PM
>
> 4)"Troll Posts" who's only intent is to goad as many people as
> possible into making angry replies can be made, shifting the debate
> away from the proposal.
<snip>
> That someone who attempted example 4 has violated the last sentance of
> II.B.4 and should be punished.
While I agree with the first three examples that Lucius Sicinius presented
(which I have clipped and which deal with someone attempting to disrupt the
_mechanics_ of the voting process), I take strong issue with his fourth
example.
What someone presenting a particular bill for vote might consider a "troll
post", the person making the post might consider a legitimate expression of
their point of view. We are all, I am sure, aware that some posts made here
and on other officially-maintained fora elicit many "angry replies". Who is
to make the fine distinction between a "troll post" and someone expressing
an unpopular opinion? That is the sort of value judgement that cannot be
written into legislation, and is in any case arguably a violation of the
free speech clause of our Constitution. Unfortunately, the way the
plebiscitum is currently written, the decision to prosecute lies with the
person who originally promulgated the plebiscitum in the first place.
For example, if Tribune Graccus proposes a plebiscitum, and Consul Crassus
posts a scathing rebuke thereof, it would be up to Graccus to decide whether
or not Crassus' actions constituted "interference" under the proposed
plebiscitum, and thus subject to prosecution. To me that smacks of conflict
of interest. The way the proposed plebiscitum is currently worded is far too
broad, covering actions which are in fact legitimate expressions of
political disagreement.
But I do agree that if someone is judged guilty of actually preventing a
vote or election from being taken in the cista or processed by the
rogatores, they should be punished, and punished harshly; banishment seems
not too harsh a penalty for such duplicity. Indeed, such standards should be
set for interference with the mechanics of the calling for a vote in any of
the Comitiae, not merely the Comitia Plebis. Let us come up with some new
language, and I shall put up a lex in the Comitia Populi that the entire
population can vote upon.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
"For Graccus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession, and not such a
bad one." (Crassus, in the film "Sparticus")
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Candidacy for Eagle editorship |
| From: |
"Vespasia Pollia" <cherils@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:55:11 -0000 |
|
Ave, cives.
Once again, I'm announcing my candidacy for editor of the Eagle.
I know there's a post somewhere here that lists my qualifications, so
I won't bore you yet again, but I do want to re-state that the last
time I held this job, I was honored to do it. I think we can make the
Eagle even better in the coming year, especially when we can draw
from such a pool of dedicated Roman scholars.
Thank you.
Vespasia Pollia Juliana
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Augurs - (Re: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Publilia) |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:08:18 -0500 |
|
Salvete;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fortunatus [mailto:labienus@--------]
> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 10:05 PM
>
> The way I read this conversation, it seems that there is a subtle
> misunderstanding of what the plebiscitum actually says.
Perhaps it was the vagueness of the wording of the plebiscitum to begin
with. If I may make so bold as to suggest, a defintion of the terms "patrum
auctoritas" and "auspicia" would have been appropriate. Hmmm... come to
think of it, I _did_ suggest that the Augurial prerogative of nuntatio be
specifically exempted. I guess that suggestion just didn't taken.
According to the OCD, p. 223, "auspicium" includes auguria impetrativa;
unasked-for omens. Such is also the Constitutional definition of nuntatio. I
don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that Piscinus' plebiscitum
intended to (or could be read to) include that as well.
In any event, I happen to think that augury before the calling of the Senate
or Comitiae is a Good Thing. If it starts being abused, then let us consider
rendering the Comitia Plebis immune to its restrictions. But until and
unless that happens, let us seek and heed the Will of the Gods in our public
affairs.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
"For Graccus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession, and not such a
bad one." (Crassus, in the film "Spartacus")
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
> > Cassius respondit:
> > I also do not believe that the Tribunes intended disrespect for the
> > Augurs by
> > proposing this lex. My personal concern is whether they intended to
> > "disregard" the Augurs with this lex... by declaring legal
> > indifference to
> > any and all auguries concerning the Comitia Plebis Tributa. If such a
> > precedent is set, might the door not be opened for other possible
> > secular
> > decisions concerning aspects of the Religio Romana?
>
> The plebiscitum simply says that it is not legally required for the
> tribuni to contact the Collegium Augurum prior to holding a vote, and
> that any plebiscitum passed by the CPT can't be nullified after the fact
> because such contact wasn't made. It does not state that the augures
> can't delay the proceedings with a nuntiatio, or that the tribuni may
> (or even should) disregard the augures.
>
> Valete
> T Labienus Fortunatus
>
>
>
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Who is to decide? |
| From: |
"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 06:02:48 +0100 |
|
M. Apollonius Formosanus, Candidatus Aediclicius omnibus Quiritibus,
S.P.D.
It is distressing to think that anyone might have even *thought*
about a senatus consultum ultimum or dictator to stop the
duely-elected Tribuni Plebis from conducting a perfectly legal vote
in the Comitia Plebis Tributa. If they did so, it would be an obvious
case of factional or class interest (Ordo Senatorius against Ordo
Popularis) and not a legitimate move to protect the Respublica - and
I do not think the citizenry would rally to support the Senate if it
were it to do such a thing, and the action intending the
establishment of a one-sided "order" would have the contrary effect
entirely.
Fortunately the Senate has not done such a thing. And Australicus
has assured us that the whole thing was simply due to a purely
theoretical comment on his part. Good enough! And presumably the
same legislative programme the Tribuni has proposed, after better
discussion and minor legislative polishing, will be voted (or not
voted) into law in February. And once people have become used to the
Tribuni and the CPT functioning normally, hopefully they will calm
down. The right of tribunician legislative initiative and legislation
in a body that the Tribunes can call and work in with the Common
People is historical, constitutional, and necessary.
I would like to address two specific points:
1) Making provision against some future case involving some future
augurs is not an insult against the present augurs (vivant augures
nostri!). The historical precedent and the purely theoretical present
possibility of problems no doubt led the Tribuni to seize upon this
as a slightly - but not mainly - practical, but far more
*traditional* way to assert the autonomy, freedom and inviolability
of the honourable assembly of the Plebes in its functioning. If the
ancient CPT could have this protection, why not the modern, and why
not forsee problems before they arrive and patch up loopholes?
Nobody has any reason to doubt the probity of the present augures, I
am sure.
2) I am still not persuaded that there is anything unconstitutional
about the provisions of the First Tribunal Legislative Package.
Clearly anything not clearly unconstitutional *can* be legislated.
And if a proposed law contains something that *could* be interpreted
in a way either constitutional or unconstitutional, surely it is
reasonable to suppose that the draughters of the bill intended the
meaning in accordance with the constitution.
I myself am pleased that the Tribuni have draughted such far-ranging
bills that seem to me quite in accord with the constitution as they
stand. However, I stand willing to be corrected in this, and I would
especially appreciate it if Livia Cornelia Aurelia would be so kind
as to send me privately her list of possibly unconstitutional points,
as I am sure she worked it out most carefully. Certainly if there
were any need to change the constitution implied, either the
plebiscita would have to be modified or constitutional amendment
pursued through constitutional methods.
I would like to conclude with the very pointed and inspiring words
of Piscinus:
"Now Nova Roma is trying to restore the old Republic. One very small
group here wants to have the form without any content.They want to
hold to one very narrow vision of what Roma Antiqua was like. On the
other side is another small group, one which wants to breathe life
into our res publica by developing the institutions that once formed
the old Republic. They are of the opinion that the citizens should be
given an opportunity to develop Nova Roma collectively and freely,
allowing our community to evolve however it so shall choose."
For the honourable Tribune to have noted that we do have a range of
opinion in our state is not "polarisation", but a simple recognition
of a fact which is more or less true in all political communities,
i.e., people disagree and this disagreement can often be laid out on
a line - which necessarily has two end or "poles". There exists a
segment of the population between the two leadership
groups at those poles, and it is they who will finally decide. And I
hope they choose the breath of life. Our Tribuni have shown us how to
open up our political life through plebeian initiative and how to
utilise creative imagination to merge the historical and present in a
mutually fructifying way. Let us support them for that, whatever our
cavils about the details.
Valete!
Candidate for Plebeian Aedile!
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus, CANDIDATUS AEDILICIUS
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
Minervium Virtuale: http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/Minervium.htm
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)
________________________________________
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Who is to decide? |
| From: |
sfp55@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 01:17:35 EST |
|
Salvete Cn. Moravius Piscinus, and any Quirites who will be listening.
I accost you the Forum today, not in the Senate as is my wont, because what
you have
said is so disturbing that I really think we should have it out in public.
Since you are my avowed enemy, of course you have never said that to my face,
just to any other citizen who will listen to your tripe, I have come to
dislike you mildly,
even though when I spoke to you eight months ago you struck me as an
intelligent and mild
spoken man. So much for first impressions.
Every person has a chosen mission. Yours seems to be making the Senate less
and the people more powerful. Why? Well to protect the citizens from abuse
I would think. After all by your reasoning if the people are the more
powerful, then they don't need protection from the autocratic Senate.
To do this you are going to:
A.. Restore the complete power of the Tribunes.
B. Make the Assembly of the Plebes rather powerful,
C. Make sure that the Patricians and non-favorable magistrates cannot
interfere.
Now all this is very admirable. You are taken it upon yourself as protector
of the Vedian Constitution, to rewrite portions of it to protect it even
better. You are fulfilling your oath.
And I agree with you. The powers of the Tribunate are ill-defined in the
Vedian Constitution.
In fact, all the Tribunes really do is act as watchers to make sure that no
one abuses their power
and over steps their bounds as magistrates, bound by the constitution, and to
advise the people on the Senate's deliberations.
This is just not enough for you, an ambitious man, is it?.
It would appear after reading Crawford's "The Roman Republic" (so much of
your statements are lifted from there) you found the Tribunes could be so
much more. And with these various measures you have set forth before the
people, you will attempt make them that much more.
The problem as I see it is you forgot you cannot reword, rewrite or change
our constitution without the participation of ALL interested Nova Romans, to
wit the Centuries. It is in our supreme law, the constitution Of course
you could set aside the constitution, but that would be highly stupid since
then you would be committing treason and be expelled. You are not going to do
that now are you, Cn. Moravius Piscinus?
"The Plebiscitum de Tribunicia Potestates did not increase the powers of
the Tribunes as some have suggested. It placed guidelines on the use of
tribunician powers which in many ways limited their exercise. Whose
power would have been increased by the entire set of plebiscita is the
Comitia Plebis Tributa itself."
The problem is you do not have the authority by the constitution to do this
unilaterally. You did in old Rome. This is not old Rome. Old Rome did not
have a true constitution. We do.
"Who is to decide what behavior is "appropriate" in a Tribune?" The Comitia
Plebis Tributa (CPT), under the Constitution, Section III.C, says the
Tribunes, may "try
> legal cases solely involving members of the plebeian order," and "enact
plebiscita with the force of law, binding upon the entire citizenry,"
which of course would include the Tribunes."
Except when it rewrites or redefines the constitution. Then it can't. And
that is spelled
out pretty clearly.
"What this plebiscitum does is place the Tribunes under the authority of the
CPT entirely. Who is to judge whether the behavior of a Tribune is
appropriate? The CPT by
III.C.3. Who is to set the standards and guidelines by which a Tribune's
appropriate behavior is to be judged? The CPT by III.C.1. To whom are
the Tribuni Plebis ultimately responsible? to the CPT by III.C.2."
So, let look at the sections:
III C. 1. "To enact plebiscites with the force of law, binding upon the entire
citizenry." Nothing in here that overturns Article 1. Section D. It says
"citizenry" Not "the Constitution"
III C. 2. "To elect the plebeian aediles and tribunes of the plebs."
If you infer that the assembly has a choice of what kind of Tribune they
pick, you are correct.
However they usually have had a choice of only one or two. The first
election here only one stood.
I do not see how this makes you responsible to them, because...
III C.3 "To try legal cases solely involving members of the plebeian order
that
do not involve permanent removal of citizenship."
Presumably you believe this says that if the Assembly is not happy with the
Tribunes they can remove them. This will keep you in line.
Opps, they the people can't call the assembly. Just the Tribunes. So they
can't vote to remove them. How this will keep you in line is beyond me.
"And herein lies the real problem of what has been going on in Nova Roma
since its inception. The combination of the plebiscita on the procedures
set for the CPT, the establishment of the authority of the CPT over its
Tribunes, the reaffirmations of the Leges Publilia and Icilia to
establish the autonomy of the CPT as a legislative body within Nova Roma,
all had a singular purpose. Granted it would have been composed of only
a portion of the citizens, but that was a first step of turning authority
in Nova Roma over to all the citizens who compose it. And what is the
alternative to the citizens having the leading role in the organization
they collectively form? A minority within the Senate threatens to issue
a Senatus consultum ultimatum."
But it takes a Senate majority to order the SCU, so a minority would be
inconsequential.
"For the benefit of the newer citizens who have not perused our Constitution,
let me explain. A Senatus consultum ultimatum gives authority to one
individual to act as a Dictator. Nova Roma is not even three years old yet
and every time some disagreement arises, the solution
offered is to call for a dictator to save the privileges of a select at the
expense of others. For you newer citizens, welcome to Nova Roma politics,
because this is becoming an annual event."
And you as a 9 month citizen really also does not understand our constitution
as well as you claim, since it empowers the Consuls to do whatever it takes
to preserve the State. It does remove your Tribunical protection so I can
see why you are concerned if it was applied to your office. However it does
not set a dictatorship, that is a separate Senate vote, entirely.
As for your statement "an annual event" it amazes me how you use your
rhetoric as embellishment to make a point. As a Consul last year, I don't
remember a dictatorship that replaced me, or I it. (Calling across the
square...) Do you Marcus Minucius?
As the historian who chronicled the events of two Quinctili ago I have to say
this. We were a year old organization of people with no voice in our
government. The assemblies were still under construction, the Senate was
totally insular, and consisted of 5 members all dwelling on the east coast.
When the Senior Consul decided that he had met an impasse in carrying the
agenda that he had promised the people, he with several other key magistrates
attempted to impeach the persons they felt were responsible for the failure
of Nova Roma to progress. While this was admirable in spirit, it was illegal
by the constitution and it split Nova Roma into three. The ironic thing
about this whole brouhaha was that the assemblies were almost complete, just
no one saw fit to inform the people that this was the case. It seemed to the
people that the Senate was stalling giving them their voice and the ultimatum
went forth. It appeared Nova Roma would be snuffed out like a candle.
In the emergency, before they dissolved, the old Senate did the logical
thing, appointed as dictator, Flavius Vedius Germanicus, one of the original
authors of the old Cassian/Vedian constitution and a founder of Nova Roma, to
redo the constitution, finish the work on the assemblies and save the
republic. Which he did. And in record time, three weeks. He stepped down,
the work complete, and Praetor Urbanus L. Cornelius Sulla was elected to
replace the deposed Senior Consul. Nova Roma continued on.
It was a splendid example of how the Roman government worked. And worked it
did. We are still here.
If we followed your example Cn. Moravius Piscinus, I doubt there would be a
single Nova Roma.
Likely there would be two or even three. Sometimes talking is not enough.
"One very small group here wants to have the form without any content. They
want to hold to one very narrow vision of what Roma Antiqua was like. On the
other side is another small
group, one which wants to breath life into our res publica by developing the
institutions that once formed the old Republic. They are of the opinion that
the citizens should be given an opportunity to develop Nova Roma collectively
and freely, allowing our community to evolve however it
so shall choose."
And here lies the basic differences between you and I, sir. I see us as the
very early republic, we are learning to crawl. We depend on the learned men
in the Senate, (Indeed most are highly versed in Roman history, politics and
art), to advise the people who do not know everything they should about the
republic. You want mob rule here in Rome. (When I say mob rule, I don't
degrade the plebeians here at all. All I have found to involved in Rome, but
most are not to the extent that they would like, or can be. So there will
always a small minority of Plebs that are vocal, and demand the leadership.)
"The Tribunes place their trust in the citizens of Nova Roma. We have faith
that reasoned discussion in an open forum can resolve differences. That is
why we seek to build and develop forums and committees in Nova Roma. That is
why we are willing to place ourselves under the authority of the particular
assembly of the Plebeians known as the CPT."
Which is fine with me. Except you will have to go through the Centuries to
allow you to do this. All Nova Romans. Not just your mob.
Q. Fabius Maximus
Proconsul
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Candidate for Quaestor |
| From: |
"Marcus Darius Ursus" <marcus_darius@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:18:21 -0700 |
|
Salve,
I do believe Quintus has already promised me the moon! :)
Marcus Darius Ursus
Paterfamilias Daria
Legatus for the Regio of Athabasca
Provincia of Canada Occidentalis
--------------------------
marcus_darius@--------
Bellerophon@--------
ICQ: 83821138
>From: gmvick32@--------
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: Re: [novaroma] Candidate for Quaestor
>Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:09:57 -0700
>
>Good grief!!!!! Being Propraetor of roughly 1/4 of the North American
>continent, preparing to affect the annexation of Alaska and gain a foothold
>to leap across the Bering Straight, and slavering with glee at the apparent
>leaderlessness to his immediate south isn't enough........now the man wants
>to stake out the Treasury!!!!
>
>All this is in good humor, quirities! May Fortuna be with you in your bid
>for the Quaestorship, Quintus Sertorius!
>
>Vale,
>Livia Cornelia Aurelia
>
>P.S. - Quintus, I think the moon is still looking for a Praetor.....
>
>
>
>Quintus Sertorius wrote:
>
> > 19 Jan 2001
> >
> > Salve All
> >
> > I, Quintus Sertorius, now announce my intentions to run for the office
>of Quaestor for Nova Roma. I feel my time has come to start my climb
>through the offices of Nova Roma, and give back to my Republic some of what
>it has given me! My desire to serve is beyond explanation, as I feel my
>life's duty is with our Micro-nation. My family has agreed that this is the
>best thing for me to do, as so much of my life is now with our Republic. I
>ask that all citizens to exercise their rights, and vote for Quintus
>Sertorius for Quaestor!!
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > 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]
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Legal death? (Re: The six laws, opinion of Aedilis Plebis) |
| From: |
"Caius Flavius Diocletianus" <3s@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:42:35 +0100 |
|
Salvete,
the intention is of course right. But how long should this period be? And
who are the magistrates who decides how long a citizen is inactive, the
Censors or perhaps the Curator Sermonem?
Perhaps it might be better to contact the provincial governor first. He has
the closer contact to the citizens in his provincia. If a citizen seems
inactive, he can try to recontact the citizen. If this fails, he can report
to the central government. Then we can set up a fixed period of time,
perhaps 1/2 year, before the inactive citizen is removed from the rolls.
Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Praetor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lucius Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Legal death? (Re: The six laws, opinion of Aedilis
Plebis)
> Ave,
>
> That is an excellent suggestion.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Censor
>
> gmvick32@-------- wrote:
>
> > For that matter, is it not wise to consider a period of time after which
> > if a person is not responding to contacts, etc., that they be removed
> > from the citizenship rolls altogether?
> >
> > Livia
> >
> > cassius622@-------- wrote:
> >
> > > Salvete,
> > >
> > > Bicurratus, I do believe you've hit on something here! We have a few
> > > positions in Nova Roma that are "for life", but if someone leaves NR
> > > and never contacts us again, we might keep them on the books far
> > > longer than they might actually live physically.
> > >
> > > We might well want to consider a period after which a person would be
> > > considered "legally dead" if they stay completely out of contact.
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > >
> > > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> > > Consul
> > >
> > > --- In novaroma@--------, BICURRATUS@a... wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So what is being said here is that 2 of the positions will never be
> > > changed again? If NR exists in 50 years Saevus and Dex will still be
> > > in post even though they may be dead in real life.
> > > >
> > > > Is there no time limit on when an ex-citizen can be pronounced
> > > dead? In most macronational socities there is a provision for the
> > > courts to declare someone legally dead in order to settle their
> > > affairs.
> > > >
> > > > Bicurratus
>
>
>
>
>
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Canuleia de Conuptia |
| From: |
Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 01:06:07 -0800 (PST) |
|
--- Gian G Reali <piscinus@--------> wrote:
> EX DOMO TRIBUNI PLEBIS
> Plebiscitum de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Canuleia de
> Conuptia
>
> In accordance with Section II, Parts A.3, B, C and
> D of the Constitution
> of Nova Roma, under the authority of Sections I.B
> and III.C.1, the
> following plebiscitum is made as a reaffirmation of
> the Lex Canuleia, 308
> AUC.
>
> 1) No provisions shall be included in any leges,
> plebiscita, edicta,
> decreta, rescripta, or responsa to be issued by any
> magistrate or
> official of Nova Roma, or put before a comitia for a
> vote, which shall be
> held to prohibit conuptia among Plebeians, among
> Patricians, or between
> Patricians and Plebeians; nor shall provisions
> likewise prohibit,
> nullify, or disallow a confarreatio between a
> patrician and a plebeian.
Why is the same right not extended to marry into the
Equites (sp?) class?
L 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! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Saying goodbye |
| From: |
"Michael S. Bobroff" <airwisp@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 06:05:44 -0500 |
|
Although I hoped I would not be doing this, I have
to. I am bowing out for the time being.
There are far too many things going on at the
moment.
In the meantime, eat, drink, and be merry, for
tomorrow we shall die,
-Caius Tiberius Scipio
Michael S. Bobroff
Co-Founder
www.THREEH.COM
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Candidate for Quaestor |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 07:49:50 -0600 |
|
22 Jan 2001
Salve Marcus
>From Marcus Darius Ursus
"I do believe Quintus has already promised me the moon! :)"
QS:
The moon! Indeed.....Everyone who reads Nova Roma Science Fiction knows my
eyes are to Mars!!!... Where, apparently, I am to do a job I am well use to
doing, training young men to be infantrymen. (Thanks S. Apollonius Draco for
the part in your story, it brought back memories ;-) And Marcus, we will
talk of the moon and things soon in our CO office!
Vale
Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
quintus-sertorius@--------
Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc
PLEASE NOTE NOTHING BELOW THIS BUT COPIES OF OLD MESSAGES.(helps answer any
questions this weird email may bring up)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Darius Ursus" <marcus_darius@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Candidate for Quaestor
> Salve,
>
> I do believe Quintus has already promised me the moon! :)
>
> Marcus Darius Ursus
> Paterfamilias Daria
> Legatus for the Regio of Athabasca
> Provincia of Canada Occidentalis
> --------------------------
> marcus_darius@--------
> Bellerophon@--------
> ICQ: 83821138
>
>
> >From: gmvick32@--------
> >Reply-To: novaroma@--------
> >To: novaroma@--------
> >Subject: Re: [novaroma] Candidate for Quaestor
> >Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:09:57 -0700
> >
> >Good grief!!!!! Being Propraetor of roughly 1/4 of the North American
> >continent, preparing to affect the annexation of Alaska and gain a
foothold
> >to leap across the Bering Straight, and slavering with glee at the
apparent
> >leaderlessness to his immediate south isn't enough........now the man
wants
> >to stake out the Treasury!!!!
> >
> >All this is in good humor, quirities! May Fortuna be with you in your
bid
> >for the Quaestorship, Quintus Sertorius!
> >
> >Vale,
> >Livia Cornelia Aurelia
> >
> >P.S. - Quintus, I think the moon is still looking for a Praetor.....
> >
> >
> >
> >Quintus Sertorius wrote:
> >
> > > 19 Jan 2001
> > >
> > > Salve All
> > >
> > > I, Quintus Sertorius, now announce my intentions to run for the office
> >of Quaestor for Nova Roma. I feel my time has come to start my climb
> >through the offices of Nova Roma, and give back to my Republic some of
what
> >it has given me! My desire to serve is beyond explanation, as I feel my
> >life's duty is with our Micro-nation. My family has agreed that this is
the
> >best thing for me to do, as so much of my life is now with our Republic.
I
> >ask that all citizens to exercise their rights, and vote for Quintus
> >Sertorius for Quaestor!!
> > >
> > > Vale
> > >
> > > 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]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>
>
>
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Who is to decide? |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:17:34 -0600 (CST) |
|
> It is distressing to think that anyone might have even *thought*
> about a senatus consultum ultimum or dictator to stop the
> duely-elected Tribuni Plebis from conducting a perfectly legal vote
> in the Comitia Plebis Tributa.
No one proposed either of those things. All that's happened is that
someone mentioned the existance of a power of the Senate that
is both Constitutional and historical. If it did not exist, this
would not be Rome. While I'm sure that would make you happy, the
rest of us are here to recreate a ROMAN system.
> If they did so, it would be an obvious
> case of factional or class interest (Ordo Senatorius against Ordo
> Popularis)
Against Ordo Amicorum Dignitatis. You may like to think of yourselves
as Popluares, but you're not, as the recent election clearly demonstrated,
the Amici Dignitas lack popular support.
> Fortunately the Senate has not done such a thing. And Australicus
> has assured us that the whole thing was simply due to a purely
> theoretical comment on his part. Good enough!
So you're *aware* that the SCU was not suggested, yet you still try
to use the nonexistant threat to pursue your vendetta against the
Senate.
> And presumably the
> same legislative programme the Tribuni has proposed, after better
> discussion and minor legislative polishing, will be voted (or not
> voted) into law in February.
Most likely. By far the most serious problem with the recent
proposals was simply that there was no public discussion beforehand.
There were some good ideas in there, but nobody likes surprise
legislation.
> And once people have become used to the
> Tribuni and the CPT functioning normally, hopefully they will calm
> down.
I find it ludicrous that you are advising others to "calm down",
you who cry about oppression and right-wing conspiracies at the
drop of a hat.
> The right of tribunician legislative initiative and legislation
> in a body that the Tribunes can call and work in with the Common
> People is historical, constitutional, and necessary.
As is the Senatus Consultum Ultimum - but, because that's a part
of the Constitution that you don't like, we shouldn't even discuss it.
> 1) Making provision against some future case involving some future
> augurs is not an insult against the present augurs (vivant augures
> nostri!).
Substitute the word "tribune" for "augur" in the above sentence
and you'll see why we are concerned.
> There exists a segment of the population between the two leadership
> groups at those poles, and it is they who will finally decide.
That segment of the population has already rejected your extreme
radicalism in the December election. But of course you'll never
admit that, because you depend on the pretense of popular support.
Octavius.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Latin Translation |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:28:08 -0600 |
|
22 Jan 2001
salve All
I would like to ask for some help with a translation of the below item. If anyone can help me I will be greatful.
Vale
Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
quintus-sertorius@--------
Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc
Quintus Sertorius.
Quintus Sertorius
ignobili loco natus,
prima stipendia bello Cimbrico fecit,
in quo
honos ei virtutis causa habitus est.
In prima adversus Cimbros pugna
licet vulneratus,
et equo amisso,
Rhodanum flumen rapidissisimum
nando trajecit,
lorica et scuto retentis.
Egregia etiam fuit
ejus opera bello sociali:
dum enim nullum periculum refugit,
alter ei oculus effossus est;
idque ille non dehonestamentum ori,
sed ornamentum merito arbitrabatur:
dicebat enim
caetera bellicae fortitudinis insignia,
ut armillas, coronasve,
nec semper nec ubique gestari,
se vero,
quotiescumque in publicum prodiret,
suae virtutis pignus,
vulnus scilicet
ob rempublicam acceptum
in ipsa fronte ostentare,
nec quemquam sibi occurrere
qui non esset
laudum suarum admirator.
Postquam Sylla
ex bello Mithridatico in Italiam reversus,
coepit dominari,
Sertorius
qui partium Marianarum fuerat,
in Hispaniam se contulit.
Ibi virtutis admiratione et imperandi moderatione,
Hispanorum simul ac Romanorum,
qui in iis locis consederant
animos sibi conciliavit,
magnoque exercitu collecto,
quos adversus eum
Sylla miserat duces
profligavit.
Missus deinde a Sylla
Metellus a Sertorio
fusus quoque ac fugatus est.
Pompeium etiam,
qui in Hispaniam venerat
ut Metello opem ferret,
levibus proeliis lacessivit Sertorius.
Is enim
non minus cautus quam acer
imperator universae dimicationis discrimen vitabat,
quod imparem se
universo Romanorum exercitui
sentiret;
interim vero hostem
crebris damnis fatigabat.
Cum aliquando Sertorii milites
pugnam inconsulte flagitarent,
nec jam eorum impetus posset cohiberi,
Sertorius duos in eorum conspectu equos constituit,
praevalidum alterum,
alterum vero admodum exilem, et imbecillum:
deinde equi infirmi caudam
a robusto juvene
totam simul abrumpi jussit;
validi autem equi singulos pilos
ab imbecillo sene
paulatim velli.
Irritus adolescentis labor
risum omnibus movit;
senex autem,
quamvis tremula manu,
id perfecit
quod imperatum sibi fuerat.
Cumque milites
non satis intelligerent
quorsum ea res spectaret,
Sertorius ad eos conversus:
Equi caudae, inquit,
similis est hostium exercitus:
qui series aggreditur
facile potest opprimere;
contra nihil proficiet
qui universum conabitur prosternere.
Erat Sertorio
cerva candida eximiae pulchritudinis,
quae ipsi magno usui fuit,
ut obsequentiores haberet milites.
Hanc Sertorius assuefecerat
se vocantem audire et euntem sequi.
Dianae donum esse omnibus persuasit,
seque ab ea moneri
quae facto opus essent.
Si quid durius vellet imperare,
se a cerva monitum praedicabat,
statimque libentes parebant.
Cerva in quadam hostium incursione
amissa est,
ac periisse credita;
quod aegerrime tulit Sertorius.
Multis post diebus
a quodam homine
inventa est.
Sertorius eum,
qui id sibi nunciabat,
tacere jussit,
cervamque repente in locum,
ubi jus reddere solebat, immitti.
Ipse vultu hilari in publicum progressus,
dixit
sibi in quiete visam esse cervam,
quae perierat
ad se reverti.
Tunc emissa ex composito cerva,
ubi Sertorium conspexit,
laeto saltu ad tribunal fertur,
ac dexteram sedentis ore lambit;
unde clamor factus,
ortaque admiratio est.
Victus postea a Pompeio
Sertorius pristinos mores mutavit,
et ad iracundiam deflexit.
Multos ob suspicionem proditionis
crudeliter interfecit;
unde odio esse coepit exercitui.
Romani molesto ferebant
quod Hispanis magis quam sibi confideret,
hosque haberet corporis custodes.
In hac animorum aegritudine
non deserebant Sertorium,
quem necessarium sibi ducem judicabant,
sed eum amare desierant.
Deinde in Hispanos quoque saeviit Sertorius,
quod ii tributa non tolerarent;
ipse etiam Sertorius
curis jam et laboribus fessus,
ad obeunda ducis munia segnior,
ad luxum et libidinis declinavit.
Quare,
alienatis omnium animis,
jussa imperatoris contemnebantur;
tandem facta adversus eum conjuratione,
Sertorius in convivio a suis est interfectus.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] SERTORIUS FOR QUAESTOR THREE |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:21:45 -0600 |
|
SERTORIUS FOR QUAESTOR THREE
23 Jan 2001
Salve All
Today is the start of elections, so please exercise your right to vote! When doing this, please vote for me Quintus Sertorius for the position of Quaestor. I pledge to perform my duties to the best of my abilities, and will be honored to receive your support through your vote. Pass this information along to as many citizens as you can think of as this is your chance to have direct representation in our Government! If you do not have your codes please contact the Censors at censors@-------- . Thank you for your time.
Vale
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] New Egroup |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:39:20 -0600 |
|
23 Jan 2001
Salve All
I would like to ask all Nova Romans that are interested in the life of the Quintus Sertorius of Old Roma to please feel free to join the egroup I have set up to honor this great Roman! Here is the link
http://www.egroups.com/group/Sertorii Join and read the occasional article, view related websites, or debate the past.
Vale
Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
quintus-sertorius@--------
Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc
Join the Sertorii egroup.
http://www.egroups.com/group/Sertorii
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] The Role of the Tribunes (was RE: Who is to decide?) |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:57:25 -0500 |
|
Salvete omnes;
I wanted to comment and expand on this part of Quintus Fabius' excellent
post:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sfp55@-------- [mailto:sfp55@--------]
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 01:18
>
> In fact, all the Tribunes really do is
> act as watchers to make sure that no one abuses their power and over
> steps their bounds as magistrates, bound by the constitution, and to
> advise the people on the Senate's deliberations.
For the sake of Gnaius Moravius Piscinus, who wasn't a Citizen at the time
the current Constitution was being re-written, I would like to point out
that this is intentional. Just as many elements of ancient Rome have been
adapted to our current needs (many of them altered significantly), so too
has the role of the Tribuni Plebis. This decision was part of the larger
debate concerning the nature of the Constitution and the magistracies.
It occurred to us at the time that the original role of the Tribuni Plebis--
to defend the Plebeians from the abuses of the Patricians-- was no longer
relevant in Nova Roma, for the simple reason that no such abuses were (or
were capable of) occurring! Yet the office itself was so significant in
ancient Rome, and included sacral duties that we wished to provide for, that
to simply do away with it was unthinkable. So we did what we have done with
many ancient institutions; adapted it to our current needs.
Thus the new role of the Tribuni Plebis-- to defend all Nova Romans from
magistrates or other bodies violating the strictures of the Constitution--
was born. It should be remembered that, given the nature of the times (the
near civil-war, the Interregnum, the Dictatorship) having some sort of
Constitutional watchdog in place was foremost in many peoples' minds. To
broaden the range of the Tribuni Plebis' charges to cover all the people,
and to limit their scope of action to solely Constitutional concerns, was a
conscious decision. Nova Roma's Tribuni Plebis are not the same as the
Tribuni Plebis of ancient Rome, nor are they meant to be.
Now, if the Tribunes (or anyone else) wish to re-open the conversation and
have us reconsider the role of the Tribuni Plebis in Nova Roma, that is all
well and good (although personally, I see no more reason for it now than I
did two years ago). But to simply redefine it on their own, without regard
for the previous conversations and decisions that have gone before them
(currently enshrined in our Constitution) is wrong.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
"For Graccus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession, and not such a
bad one." (Crassus in the film "Spartacus")
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Statement re Amici Dignitatis |
| From: |
gmvick32@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:41:16 -0700 |
|
Salvete, Quirities:
This is to advise the people of Nova Roma that I have today
asked to be removed from the signatories to the Amici
Dignitatis statement. I herewith renounce affiliation with
the group, but not to dissolve relationships with
individuals remaining affiliated with that group.
Livia ----- Aurelia (formerly of gens Cornelia)
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: The Disputed Islands |
| From: |
"Lucius Pompeius Octavianus" <octavianuslucius@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:36:00 -0000 |
|
Salve Propraetor Britannae N. Moravi Vado
It was not my intention to argue about this off-topic in the main
list.
Remember that British usurpated the islands in January 1833 throwing
out the argentine governor of the islands. So islanders are a
consequence of that usurpation. And my macronation never resigned its
sovereignty and kept re-claiming since then. And here we refer to
those islands heartily as "the lost little sisters". Unfortunately
this dispute led to a bloody war, which we all regret, mostly because
of all the lives lost on both sides.
By the way, the welsh-speaking people living in Patagonia (province
of Chubut) are really argentinians whose ancestors were welsh people.
And they do speak both welsh and spanish.
Since we belong to this beloved independent micronation of NR (and
obviously absolutely independent from the sovereignties of the
macronations),I suggest that it would be fair that the Senate of NR
would discuss someday whether to include the islands or not within
any of the NR provinces, or create a separate NR province, or not. I
do not know if there are any novaroman form the islands.
If you would like further discussion of this topic, I would kindly
ask you to email me after Feb 12th, since I have little time now.
Vale bene et habe fortunam bonam
Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
Propraetor Provinciae Argentinae
--- In novaroma@--------, "Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@d...> wrote:
> EX DOMO PROPRAETORIS BRITANNIAE
>
> Quiritibus salutem
>
> Sic scripsit L. Pompeius Octavianus:
>
> >From Jan. 28th to Feb 12th I will be absent because I will be
> >travelling by sea to the southern tip of the continent and the
> >disputed Malvinas/Falklands Islands .
> >So I won´t find any Internet connection at sea. LOL
>
> Post haec inquit Q. Fabius Maximus:
>
> >Fortuna attend your journey! Oh Moravius. Does Britannia now
recognize
> the
> >Province of Argentinae's claim on those islands? Or do you still
have the
> >Quintqureme base there?
> >(We have to have a little levity on this list otherwise we will
all go
> >bonkers!)
>
> Respondeo:
>
> I sometimes think that some of us have already gone barking mad.
However...
>
> The accepted territorial delimitation by Nova Roma of Provincia
Insulae
> Britanniae does not include, among its offshore islands, the Insulae
> Malvinae (or Insulae Georgiae). Nor, as far as I am aware, are they
included
> within the limes of Provincia Argentiniae.
>
> For the record, it is my considered opinion that the Insulae
Malvinae et
> Georgiae should, for complex and rather sensitive cultural and
political
> reasons, be ceded neither to Argentinia or Britannia, but should
enjoy an
> independent provincial status, unless the citizens vote otherwise.
They are
> not what you would call "near" anywhere else, and the mere fact
that the
> majority of (human) inhabitants speak English, or the fact that
they have
> been under the British Crown for centuries, is hardly a persuasive
case for
> them to be regarded as part of Britannia (since the argument would
apply
> almost equally well to the U.S.A.). My illustrious precursor Q.
Claudia
> Lucentia Aprica decided, with similar logic, that Northern Ireland
should be
> regarded as part of a future provincia of Hibernia, a decision with
which I
> agree completely.
>
> If the propraetor of Argentinia wishes to argue the case of the
Insulae
> Malvinae however, I shall respond by championing the rights of
> self-determination of the Welsh-speaking population of the de
facto regio
> of Patagonia as well. That, I'm afraid, is the best I can do for
levity on
> this particular subject. I think you can all guess why. If you
can't, feel
> free to e-mail me privately.
>
> But seriously: one of the nice things about Nova Roma, to my mind,
is that
> with our republican empire of which every land is a province
sharing equal
> status with all the others, is that we cut through the Gordian knot
of
> provincial macronational affiliation, which would otherwise be the
cause of
> much unpleasantness. We've already got plenty for a very turbulent
> political year ahead, as things stand.
>
> Bene valete
>
> N. Moravius Vado
> Propraetor Britanniae.
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Legal death? (Re: The six laws, opinion of Aedilis Plebis) |
| From: |
Ira Adams <iadams@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:04:58 -0600 |
|
Salvete omnes
I agree that in this as in other matters involving individual cives it
would be good to go through the provincial governors. This will take some
of the load off national officials, strengthen the roles of local and
regional officials, and perhaps take some of the wind out of notions that
the nation is being ruled with a iron fist by its national magistrates.
Valete,
L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
On 1/22/01 1:42 AM Caius Flavius Diocletianus (3s@--------) wrote:
>Salvete,
>
>the intention is of course right. But how long should this period be? And
>who are the magistrates who decides how long a citizen is inactive, the
>Censors or perhaps the Curator Sermonem?
>
>Perhaps it might be better to contact the provincial governor first. He has
>the closer contact to the citizens in his provincia. If a citizen seems
>inactive, he can try to recontact the citizen. If this fails, he can report
>to the central government. Then we can set up a fixed period of time,
>perhaps 1/2 year, before the inactive citizen is removed from the rolls.
>
>Valete
>Caius Flavius Diocletianus
>Praetor
>
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Who is to decide? |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:58:53 +0100 |
|
Salve Marce Octavi,
Just thought I'd respond to this point:
> > If they did so, it would be an obvious
> > case of factional or class interest (Ordo Senatorius against Ordo
> > Popularis)
>
> Against Ordo Amicorum Dignitatis. You may like to think of yourselves
> as Popluares, but you're not, as the recent election clearly demonstrated,
> the Amici Dignitas lack popular support.
I disagree here. Of all AD that ran for office (Vado, Rex, Piscinus,
Formosanus, Diocletianus, Fortunatus, Britannicus and I), five out of eight
got elected. Later I was turned down by the Senate, but the facts still
stand - if the People would not trust us, we wouldn't have gotten any
support. Also, even though Vado, Rex and Formosanus lost their race, the
latter came in third out of five candidates, whilst the former two faced
presumabely the most popular men in New Rome. Another point I'd like to add
is that out of the five candidates for Tribunus Plebis, two AD were elected.
I see that as a sign of trust and support from the people.
Vale bene!
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
Legatus Galliae Borealis,
Procurator Galliae,
Scriba Aedilis Plebis,
Coryphaeus Sodalitatis Musarum,
Musaeus Collegii Eratus,
Musaeus Collegii Uraniae
Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
--**--
Novaromain? Parlez-vous français? Cliquez ici!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_GalliaBelgicaF
Nieuwromein? Spreekt u Nederlands? Klik hier!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_BelgicaBataviaD
Novaroman? Interested in philosophy? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_Philosophy
Novaroman? Interested in politics? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_DignitasForum
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Article on Sertorius |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:54:36 -0600 |
|
22 Jan 2001
Salve All
Here is a link to an article about QS. Also I will put the link if images do not show up. http://www.ancientcoinmarket.com/mt/mtarticle1/1.html .
Vale
Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
quintus-sertorius@--------
Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc
Join the Sertorii egroup.
http://www.egroups.com/group/Sertorii
Quintus Sertorius, 80 - 72 B.C.,
Roman Renegade or Iberian Hero
Some of the secondary characters in Roman history were often monumental figures who towered over their more famous and better known contemporaries. The lives and accomplishments of these subordinate actors on the stage of ancient history are worthy of some attention especially because they often struck their own distinctive coinage. Quintus Sertorius, who died in 72 B.C., was one of these extraordinary personalities. An accomplished Roman general and politician, Sertorius became the leader of a revolt of the Iberian tribes against the rapacious Roman occupation of their land. His actual motives for taking on this task may be open to question but most ancient historians remark on his determination, his great military and administrative skills, and his loyalty to his adopted people. The Roman historian Plutarch, A.D. 50-125, said that Sertorius was, "born to command, for warfare, and for stratagem". He then compares Sertorius favorably to Eumenes of Cardia, 362-316 B.C., a successful Greek general, serving under Alexander the Great, who became satrap (governor) of the vast provinces of Cappadocia and Armenia (1). The Spanish followers of Sertorius called him the "New Hannibal" and indeed his military prowess and daring seemed to be derived more from Punic than Roman genius (2).
Sertorius had a remarkable political/military career even for his own times when shifting alliances and murderous politics created unstable conditions and civil strife in Italy. Born to an aristocratic family in the country of the Sabines he naturally became a military officer. His first significant appointment was serving under Quintus Servilius Caepio, and Gaius Marius in the war against the Cimbri and Teutones, in103 B.C. The Cimbri were a large German, barbarian tribe that the Romans first encountered when these nomads invaded northern Italy. Marius was the famous Roman consul who reorganized the Roman Republican army providing it with better tactics and armament and making it a more flexible fighting force. Sertorius probably gained much of his military capability from Marius's new concepts.
Sertorius then served as a military officer in Spain in the 90's as a quaestor (financial administrator) and was known for his attempts to ameliorate the hardships imposed on the Iberian tribes. He then served as a legate (assistant to a general) in Italy during the Bellum Sociale (Social War) of 89-88 B.C., a war in which the Italian allies of Rome rebelled. In the Roman Civil War of 87 B.C., Sertorius joined with Lucius Cornelius Cinna, one of his fellow legates who became a consul of Rome and opposed the other consul, Octavius, a follower of Lucius Cornelius Sulla, the enemy of Marius. Sertorius was a commander in the army of Cinna, which, supported by Marius, captured Rome. Cinna then became a tyrant ruling over Rome in 86-84 B.C. but was murdered by his own troops at Ancona as he prepared for war against Sulla. In all these wars, Sertorius was wounded many times and in one battle he lost an eye. He proudly carried this disfigurement as if it was a medal of honor equivalent to the gold shields, spears and crowns given to Roman soldiers for bravery in battle.
In 83 B.C., Sulla took control over Rome and outlawed Sertorius as an enemy of the state and a supporter of Marius. Sertorius then fled to Spain with the intention of setting up a haven for the Romans proscribed by the Sullan party. Pursued by a Sullan army under Caius Annius, Sertorius set sail for Mauretania in North Africa with three thousand soldiers. Here, in the outer limits of the Roman world, he sustained his army by becoming a brigand and alternately attacking and supporting the native tribes and the Cilician pirates who controlled the coastline. In 80 B.C., the Lusitanians, remembering his military skill and the fair policies he applied to the Iberian native tribes, invited Sertorius back to Spain to govern the province and to lead them in a rebellion against the Romans.
Sertorius was not only an astute politician and skillful general but he was also a master of psychological manipulation. He had a white fawn that accompanied him everywhere and in audiences with the Iberian tribes he claimed that the animal gave him divine guidance directly from the goddess Diana. By his political skill and the use of prophecies that pandered to the superstitions of the tribesmen, he won a widespread following. Despite his blatant showmanship, the Spanish tribes loved and trusted their new leader. This is indicated in the story told by Plutarch about the bodyguard of Sertorius (3). It was customary that the guardians of a general be formed from his most dedicated friends and admirers. The Spanish tradition was that when a commander was slain, his bodyguards fought on, protecting the body, and died fighting to the last man. Because of this most generals could only attract about a dozen of these brave men. But thousands of Iberian soldiers volunteered as the life guards for Sertorius and he selected 1,000 stalwarts from this multitude. Plutarch mentions that during one battle, Sertorius was encircled by attacking troops and his bodyguards lifted him up above their heads and passed him along, from hand to hand, until they placed him safely in a nearby fortress. This is probably the first recorded example in history of the group action called 'body surfing' performed at rock concerts today.
When Sulla became the dictator of the Roman state he began a general massacre of the Romans that opposed him. The threatened families flocked to Sertorius in Spain for safety and they helped him to establish a society there based on the Roman model which even included a senate of 300 Roman and Iberian nobles. Sertorius then began a process of Romanizing the Iberian peoples, not by conquest, decimation, confiscation and enslavement but by fair treatment, respect for native customs, education and acclimatization. He treated the Spanish tribal leaders as Roman patricians and set up schools in Osca, his base city, to educated their children in the Roman way. When in full control of the east, south and interior parts of Iberia, Sertorius had coins struck to facilitate the commerce that was necessary for the economy and to pay his army.
The story of coinage in Iberia is a complicated tale because the country actually consisted of many different, regional areas ruled over by various tribes. However, a good, brief explanation of the monetary history in Iberia is given in the best reference book on this coinage, the Corpus Nummum Hispaniae Ante Augusti Aetatem by L. Villaronga (cited as Villaronga), 1994. The earliest coins used in Spain were issued in the 4th to 3rd centuries B.C. by the colonial trade cities of Imporiae (Emporiae) founded by the Phokians, Rhoda settled by Rhodians, and Gades established by the Phoenicians. These first coins were mostly imitations of the coins struck by the colonies' mother cities and were based on a silver drachm weighing 4.8 grams. This was actually an unrecognized weight standard peculiar to Spain. Iberian mercenaries were paid with these colonial coins and took them back to their villages in the interior where sometimes crude imitations were produced from the abundance of metals available. The next general Iberian coinage was issued by the Carthaginian who expanded their holdings in Spain after 241 B.C. These coins were based on the Punic types of shekels weighing 7.2 grams and bronze units weighing 8-10 grams. At the same time, the Romans who controlled the south-eastern part of Spain permitted the Greek cities located there, such as Imporiae and Rhoda, to continue to issue their own types of drachms. After the Second Punic War in 218-201, the Romans expanded their influence and began to import their own quadrigati, victoriati, denarii and bronze asses, struck in Rome, into Spain to pay their armies. It has been suggested that in 200-180 B.C., the Roman administration encouraged the Iberians to produce their own coins. These so-called Celtiberian coins consisted of a denarius, imitating the Roman Republican coin, weighing 4 grams, and a bronze unit perhaps equal to Roman as. These imitations were based on the styles used on the drachms of Imporiae but with some Punic and Roman details in the designs. The Celtiberian denarius always featured a bearded male head obverse, perhaps a Punic Hercules or some local god, and a Roman style, horseman reverse inspired by the Dioscurii image on Roman Republican denarii.
Michael H. Crawford leads a group of scholars who claim that many coins were struck by Sertorius during his rule in 80-72 B.C. for the Spanish cities he controlled (4). Crawford also believes that the first Iberian, Roman style denarii were fabricated as late as 155 B.C. and not in 200-180 B.C. even though six proconsuls who had the power to strike coins were appointed for the six provinces of Spain in 197 B.C. However, by 81 B.C., L. Fabius Hispaniensis and C. Tarquitius, quaestors of the proconsul C. Annius found it necessary to manufactured a substantial issue of Roma Republican denarii (Sydenham, 748, 749) in Spanish mints for the use of the army. This issue was authorized by the Roman senate as indicated by the letters EX SC, meaning with the consent of the Senate, in the obverse legend.
A Roman Republican denarius struck for the proconsul C. Annius Luscus in Spain by the quaestor L. Fabius L. f. Hispaniensis in 81-80 B.C. It shows a bust of Anna Perenna on the obverse with a caduceus, the universal Punic symbol, behind. The reverse shows Victory in a quadriga. The Coinage of the Roman Republic by E. A. Sydenham (cited as Syd)748.
It appears that when Sertorius took control over a large part of Spain after 78 B.C., he encouraged the Iberians to again strike their own coins patterned after the traditional Celtiberian types. These coins were struck at the mints in Turiasu (Turiaso), Belikiom, Bolskan (Osca) Urso, Iltirta (Ilerda), Saguntum, Valentia and many other cities. Some of these Sertorian coins display strong Roman, Punic and Iberian influences in their designs (5). Up to recent times, these coins were identified as being a part of the early Iberian coins struck in 200-130 B.C. but new scholarship, especially by Michael H. Crawford, indicated that they were probably struck during the Sertorian period of 80-72 B.C.
A Map of Spain in 72 B.C.
An Iberian denarius, 80-72 B.C., struck at Bolscan (Oska) for Sertorius. Villaronga, pg. 212, no. 12.
An Iberian denarius, 80-72 B.C., struck at Baskunes, probably near Osca, for Sertorius. Villaronga, pg. 250, no. 10.
An Iberian bronze, AE 24, struck in 80-72 B.C. at Iltirta (Ilerda) showing a male head on the obverse and a horse on the reverse. Villaronga, pg. 178, no. 18.
Iberian bronze, AE 32, struck at Iltirta (Ilerda) for Sertorius in 80-72 B.C. The obverse shows a male head surrounded by dolphins. The reverse depicts a horseman holding a victory palm frond. Villaronga, pg. 179, no. 29.
An Iberian bronze, AE 30 (an as?), 80-72 B.C., struck at Saguntum showing the helmeted head of Roma. The reverse depicts a warship with victory flying above and a Punic caduceus in front. Villaronga, pg. 317, no. 4.
An Iberian bronze, AE 30 (an as?), 80-72 B.C., struck at Velentia, showing the helmeted head of Roma. The reverse illustrates a cornucopia and a thunderbolt. Villaronga, pg. 310, no. 43- 45.
In 79 B.C., Sulla sent the famous Roman general Quintus CaeciliusMetellus Pius to destroy Sertorius but Iberian guerilla warfare reinforced by Roman leadership, weapons and tactics defeated Metellus in every encounter. The strategy used by Sertorius and his lieutenants was to avoid pitched battles with the superior Roman forces and to draw them out from their base city of Corduba into the wild interior. He then cut off the supply and communication lines and ambushed the fragmented legions in the hostile valleys and forests of the Spanish countryside. This was the same strategy used by Spanish guerilla armies to defeat Napoleon's forces in 1810. Towards the end of the revolt, Sertorius's army consisted of only a legion of about 5,000 men but it took 120,000 Roman infantry, 6,000 horsemen and 2000 archers to conquer him (6). In these protracted campaigns, the Roman treasury became depleted by the loss of taxes from Spain and also by the costs of the army fighting against the rebels. Finally in 77 B.C., Sulla sent the great general Gnaius Pompeius (Pompey) with an army to help Metellus. To pay the armies and other war costs, Pompey and Metellus had to requisition a special, large issue of denarii manufactured in Gaul and authorized by the senate (EX SC in the reverse legend). These coins were struck by the quaestor Cn Lentullus in 76-74 B.C.
A Roman Republican denarius struck for Pompey and Metellus by the quaestor Cn. Lentulus in Gaul, 76-74 B.C. The obverse shows the head of the Genius of the Roman people with a scepter behind. The reverse depicts a globe between a rudder and scepter. Syd 752
The Iberian wars lasted for another 5 years and each minor defeat lost Sertorius some of his popularity among the Spaniards. He tried to get help through alliances with the Cilician pirates and even with Mithradates VI, the enemy of Rome at that time, but to no avail. In 72 B.C., Sertorius was treacherously murderd at a banquet by his lieutenants led by Perperna ( Perpenna in Plutarch). After the death of Sertorius, Perperna assumed command of the rebel army and attempted to carry on but the Romans were too strong and the revolt failed. All of Spain was now laid open to the vengeance and rapaciousness of Roman administrators. Eventually, Iberia became a gateway to fame and fortune for the young Julius Caesar, who would replace Pompey and put Rome on the road to empire.
Notes and Bibliography.
1. Plutarch's Lives, Vol. III, Sertorius and Eumenes, translated by A. H. Clough, Little Brown and Co., Boston, 1888, page 382-443.
2. History of Rome by Theodor Mommsen, abridged version, Wisdom Library, New York, 1959, page 331.
3. Plutarch's Lives, as above, Sertorius, page 399.
4. Coinage and Money Under the Roman Republic by Michael H. Crawford, in the Library of Numismatics, Methuen and Co. Ltd., London, 1985, pages 84 - 102.
5. Coinage and Money Under the Roman Republic as above, pages 209 - 213.
6. War in the Shadows, The Guerilla in History, Vol I, by R.B. Asprey, Doubleday and Co., New York, 1975, page 27.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Sertorius for Quaestor |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 13:16:06 -0600 |
|
VOTE SERTORIUS FOR QUAESTOR
Vale
Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
quintus-sertorius@--------
Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc
Join the Sertorii egroup.
http://www.egroups.com/group/Sertorii
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Who is to decide? |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 13:35:55 -0600 (CST) |
|
Salve Sexte Apolloni,
> I disagree here. Of all AD that ran for office (Vado, Rex, Piscinus,
> Formosanus, Diocletianus, Fortunatus, Britannicus and I), five out of eight
> got elected.
You ran unopposed (two candidates for two positions). M. Scribonius,
who ran for an administrative position without political
power, made no inflammatory statements similar to "The Movement".
(I didn't even know you counted him as one of yours).
Of the five top positions (censor, consul, praetor), only one was
won by an AD candidate.
> Later I was turned down by the Senate, but the facts still
> stand - if the People would not trust us, we wouldn't have gotten any
> support.
*Some* of the people trust you. *More* of the people trust F. Vedius,
L. Equitius, and Q. Fabius. M. Apollonius has been trying to place
a wedge between the Senate and the "Ordo Popularis", but he has
failed to prove that such a division exists; the majority of the
people stand with Vedius, Equitius and Fabius.
> Also, even though Vado, Rex and Formosanus lost their race, the
> latter came in third out of five candidates,
Beaten by the only A.D. candidate to win one of the top five offices,
Caius Flavius, who was considerably more moderate and diplomatic
during the campaign than M. Apollonius... thus showing that even those
who are inclined to favor your "circle of friends" tend to vote
for the more reasonable and moderate members of it.
> presumabely the most popular men in New Rome. Another point I'd like to add
> is that out of the five candidates for Tribunus Plebis, two AD were elected.
True; the strongest Plebeian leader affiliated with "our" side is L. Sergius,
and by tradition he could not run a second time for Tribune.
> I see that as a sign of trust and support from the people.
>From a limited subset of the people. In those races where all of the
people were eligible to vote, your party fared poorly.
Vale, Octavius.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Question for the cartographers... |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:39:30 -0500 |
|
Salvete;
I was wondering if some good cive with an interest in ancient Roman maps and
geography might be able to answer a question for me. Did the Romans have a
name for the Isle of Jersey, and if so do we know what it was?
Thanks in advance.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
"For Graccus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession, and not such a
bad one." (Crassus in the film "Spartacus")
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] New Egroup |
| From: |
tekwkp@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:41:21 EST |
|
Thank you and I will!
Vale,
Lentulus Cornelius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Poem to the Old City |
| From: |
Piparskegg UllRsson <catamount_grange@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:24:14 -0600 |
|
Avete,
Here's a short ode to my impression of the "legendary" beginnings of Rome.
To a New Rome
The Hand Of Mars Reached Down One Day
To Choose A Tribe To Call His Own
By Seven Hills In Rustic Huts
Amidst Their Herds They Made Their Lives
A Latin Folk Both Proud And Strong
Quirinius Inspired Them
To Scale The Mounts And Build Thereon
This Small, Rude Start Grew Into More
A Foreign Folk Became Their Kings
All Things Went Well For Long And Long
More Gods Were Met Rites Learned, Shrines Built
More Ways Came In A Dark Seed Fell
And Bitter Grew Their Hearts To Them
Farmers, Herdsmen, Craftsmen Took Sword
This People Fought Threw Off The Yoke
Of Foreign King Took Future's Reins
This Hardy Folk In Forum Spoke
They Made Their Law The Orders Set
By Gens And Tribe By Deed And Word
Set Hand To Fate Created Rome
--
===========================================
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
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Statement re Amici Dignitatis |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:28:18 +0100 |
|
Salve Livia,
> This is to advise the people of Nova Roma that I have today
> asked to be removed from the signatories to the Amici
> Dignitatis statement. I herewith renounce affiliation with
> the group, but not to dissolve relationships with
> individuals remaining affiliated with that group.
I have removed you from the list of signatories on the eGroups website. I'm
sorry to see you go, but I respect your decision.
> Livia ----- Aurelia (formerly of gens Cornelia)
>
>
>
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
Legatus Galliae Borealis,
Procurator Galliae,
Scriba Aedilis Plebis,
Coryphaeus Sodalitatis Musarum,
Musaeus Collegii Eratus,
Musaeus Collegii Uraniae
Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
--**--
Novaromain? Parlez-vous français? Cliquez ici!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_GalliaBelgicaF
Nieuwromein? Spreekt u Nederlands? Klik hier!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_BelgicaBataviaD
Novaroman? Interested in philosophy? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_Philosophy
Novaroman? Interested in politics? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_DignitasForum
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Question for the cartographers... |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:22:02 -0600 |
|
23 Jan 2001
Salve Consul
Guernsay was called Sarnia, and Jersey was called (I am not sure of the
spelling) Cinearea? Here is the link I found it in, I hope this helps.
http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Gazetteer/Maps/Peri
ods/Roman/Places/Europe/Gallia/1.html
Vale
Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
quintus-sertorius@--------
Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc
Join the Sertorii egroup.
http://www.egroups.com/group/Sertorii
----- Original Message -----
From: "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 1:39 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Question for the cartographers...
> Salvete;
>
> I was wondering if some good cive with an interest in ancient Roman maps
and
> geography might be able to answer a question for me. Did the Romans have a
> name for the Isle of Jersey, and if so do we know what it was?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> "For Graccus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession, and not such
a
> bad one." (Crassus in the film "Spartacus")
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
>
>
>
>
>
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Who is to decide? |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:44:53 +0100 |
|
Salve Marce Octavi,
As I'm not planning on getting into useless debates over the elections,
which are more than a month ago now, I just wanted to add a small comment
here and there to things I found relevant to respond to.
> > I disagree here. Of all AD that ran for office (Vado, Rex, Piscinus,
> > Formosanus, Diocletianus, Fortunatus, Britannicus and I), five out of
eight
> > got elected.
>
> You ran unopposed (two candidates for two positions). M. Scribonius,
> who ran for an administrative position without political
> power, made no inflammatory statements similar to "The Movement".
> (I didn't even know you counted him as one of yours).
Which is true. But not all AD made, as you say, "inflammatory" postings, and
non-AD made "inflammatory" postings just as well. Even though it was true
that I ran unopposed, I could have ended up with say 2 tribes, which wasn't
the case. Without wanting to wallow in egomania, I didn't get those 22
tribes for nothing.
> Of the five top positions (censor, consul, praetor), only one was
> won by an AD candidate.
True.
> > Later I was turned down by the Senate, but the facts still
> > stand - if the People would not trust us, we wouldn't have gotten any
> > support.
>
> *Some* of the people trust you. *More* of the people trust F. Vedius,
> L. Equitius, and Q. Fabius. M. Apollonius has been trying to place
> a wedge between the Senate and the "Ordo Popularis", but he has
> failed to prove that such a division exists; the majority of the
> people stand with Vedius, Equitius and Fabius.
>
> > Also, even though Vado, Rex and Formosanus lost their race, the
> > latter came in third out of five candidates,
>
> Beaten by the only A.D. candidate to win one of the top five offices,
> Caius Flavius, who was considerably more moderate and diplomatic
> during the campaign than M. Apollonius... thus showing that even those
> who are inclined to favor your "circle of friends" tend to vote
> for the more reasonable and moderate members of it.
>
> > presumabely the most popular men in New Rome. Another point I'd like to
add
> > is that out of the five candidates for Tribunus Plebis, two AD were
elected.
>
> True; the strongest Plebeian leader affiliated with "our" side is L.
Sergius,
> and by tradition he could not run a second time for Tribune.
He did run for Praetor, but was not elected.
> > I see that as a sign of trust and support from the people.
>
> >From a limited subset of the people. In those races where all of the
> people were eligible to vote, your party fared poorly.
Ok, let me rephrase: not all people, then, but at least a significant part
of it. We didn't fare poorly. Not excellent, either. However, these things
are the past now. Sometimes I just wonder how many people actually read the
Statement of the AD instead of many pointless accusations that followed.
Mind you, this is no personal insult, because I know you've read it, but
it's just a general remark. These misperceptions sadden me to an extent, but
then again I can't force anyone to think what I think (what a world would
that be!), can I? :)
Vale,
Draco
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Who is to decide? |
| From: |
djester6@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:53:00 EST |
|
In a message dated 1/22/01 2:04:54 PM Central Standard Time, sfp55@--------
writes:
<< And here lies the basic differences between you and I, sir. I see us as
the
very early republic, we are learning to crawl. We depend on the learned men
in the Senate, (Indeed most are highly versed in Roman history, politics and
art), to advise the people who do not know everything they should about the
republic. You want mob rule here in Rome. (When I say mob rule, I don't
degrade the plebeians here at all. All I have found to involved in Rome,
but
most are not to the extent that they would like, or can be. So there will
always a small minority of Plebs that are vocal, and demand the leadership >>
Indeed. The entire idea of a Republic is that the citizens elect officials to
represent them because they are more capable of representing the people,
their interests, and most importantly, their freedom. That freedom becomes
threatened when the interests of the group become greater than the rights of
the individual. This is the essence of mob rule. The Constitution is intended
to protect the minority and their voice, however it opposed it may be. Now
this does not mean we pander to the minority because of their small numbers,
nor do we give in to the cries of masses when they violate the rights of
others; regardless of their number. The only moral government is one that is
ruled by Laws and not by men. This is done so that officials cannot overstep
their authority or power. Remember the story of Cincinatus. When Roma was in
danger and truly in need, he put down his plow and picked up his sword. When
order was restored and Laws were back in place, he laid down his sword and
with it his title of Dictator and returned to the country and became a farmer
once again. This is what all political officers should aspire to. If one
chooses to attain power, do it moral way and become a businessman. He only
gains power through others voluntary cooperation with him. But if you should
aspire to serve NR, do not expect to find or gain power. Politicians are
servants to NR and her people via the rule of Law; not force or coercion.
They serve out of respect and conviction towards the principals that the
Republic was founded upon.
Valete
Lugus Brigantius
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] The Disputed Islands - political posting, etc - correction |
| From: |
BICURRATUS@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:00:44 EST |
|
EX DOMO PUBLII CLAUDII LUCENTII SEVERI BICURRATI
<<Publius Claudius Lucentius Severus Bicurratus
Procurator Britanniae >>
I inadvertantly signed the email titled 'The Disputed Islands - political
posting not relevant to NR' as Procurator Britanniae. I was not acting in
this capacity. It was a personal posting.
Signatures may be a pedantic point, but I feel an important one.
P C L Severus Bicurratus
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Question for the cartographers... |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:03:44 -0000 |
|
> Salvete;
>
> I was wondering if some good cive with an interest in ancient Roman
maps and
> geography might be able to answer a question for me. Did the Romans
have a
> name for the Isle of Jersey, and if so do we know what it was?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
Caesarea in Imperial times, I'm not sure about the name during the
Republic.
For a map of Northern gaul that shows it see
http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Gazetteer/Map
s/Periods/Roman/Places/Europe/Gallia/1.html
L. Sicinius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] The Disputed Islands - political posting not relevant to NR |
| From: |
BICURRATUS@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:54:13 EST |
|
EX DOMO PUBLII CLAUDII LUCENTII SEVERI BICURRATI
> Remember that British usurpated the islands in January 1833 throwing
> out the argentine governor of the islands. So islanders are a
> consequence of that usurpation. And my macronation never resigned its
>
I promised myself not to get involved in this but Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
went too far. Thought the Americans would like to know how they got tangled
up in this too. Source: Foreign and Commonwealth Office (whole section on
Falkland Islands at www.fco.gov.uk)
The Spanish settlement on East Falkland was withdrawn in 1811, leaving the
Islands without inhabitants or any form of government. In November 1820,
Colonel Daniel Jewett, an American national, claimed formal possession of the
Islands in the name of the Government of Buenos Aires, but only stayed on the
Islands for a few days. At the time, the Government of Buenos Aires, which
had declared independence from Spain in 1816, was not recognised by Britain
or any other foreign power. No act of occupation followed Jewett’s visit and
the Islands remained without effective government.
On 10 June 1829, the Buenos Aires Government issued a decree setting forth
its rights, purportedly derived from the Spanish Viceroyalty of La Plata, and
purported to place the Islands under the control of a political and military
governor, Louis Vernet. Britain protested that the terms of the decree
infringed British sovereignty over the Islands, which she had never
relinquished.
In 1831, a United States warship, the Lexington, destroyed the fort at Puerto
de la Soledad as a reprisal for the arrest of three American vessels by
Vernet, who was attempting to establish control over sealing in the Islands.
The captain of the Lexington declared the Falklands free from all government
and they remained once again without visible authority until September 1832,
when the Government of Buenos Aires appointed Juan Mestivier as Civil and
Political Governor on an interim basis. The British Government once again
protested to the Buenos Aires Government that this appointment infringed
British sovereignty over the Islands. Mestivier sailed to the Falklands at
the end of 1832 and was murdered shortly after his arrival by his own
soldiers.
In January 1833, after receiving instructions to visit the Islands to
exercise British rights of sovereignty, the British warship HMS Clio arrived
at Puerto de la Soledad and requested that the Argentines leave. British
occupation was therefore resumed and the Islands were administered by a naval
officer.
In 1841, a civil Lieutenant Governor was appointed and, in 1843, the civil
administration was put on a permanent footing by an Act of the British
Parliament.
Publius Claudius Lucentius Severus Bicurratus
Procurator Britanniae
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] ADMIN NOTE (re: Disputed islands) |
| From: |
"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:33:08 -0500 |
|
Salve,
It is clear that this thread is no longer relevant to Nova Roma and should therefore be taken *private* by those citizens wishing to continue the discussion. No further posts on this thread are appropriate here.
As always, concerns, questions and quibbles can be taken up with me directly at justicecmo@-------- Please do not reply to this notice on the list.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonem
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Who is to decide? |
| From: |
"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:44:14 -0500 |
|
Salve,
>>Sometimes I just wonder how many people actually read the Statement of the
AD instead of many pointless accusations that followed.>>
With all due respect, it is your very own posting of such things as *we* got
such and such a vote and *they* did not which promulgates the very notion of
the AD being nothing more than a political faction seeking power.
The statement of principals has little to do with the political animal which
has come to be the AD. I agree that much of what has followed the statement
has been pointless posturing. What I am curious about is how you can in one
post *enhance* the ridiculous "us versus them" mentality and then follow it
so quickly with the comment above.
You cannot have it both ways. If you truly see the AD as simply a
philosophical group that should not be brought into political parties and
factions (as the Statement itself implies), perhaps you should refrain from
classifying votes based on whether the elected are AD or not. Unless you do
so, you will remain part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Who is to decide? |
| From: |
"kitpar@--------" <plunder@dashlink.com> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:46:37 -0600 |
|
> That freedom becomes
> threatened when the interests of the group become greater than the rights of
> the individual. This is the essence of mob rule.
And which is called a democracy...
We must protect our constitution, as it serves as the basis of our
republic.
Cordially,
C. Citius Cattus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Endorsement: P. Ullerius Venator for Quaestor. |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:54:24 -0600 (CST) |
|
Omnibus Civibus M. Octavius Germanicus salutem dicit,
I endorse the candidacy of Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator for Quaestor.
P. Ullerius has been an active citizen of Nova Roma almost from the
beginning. He has served as Quaestor in the past. In addition,
he founded and runs the mailing list for the Sodalis pro Coqueror
et Coquus, the Society for Cooks and Brewers, and continues to be
the most prominent poster on that list.
(http://www.egroups.com/group/Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq)
As a Nordic pagan in a Roman organization, he serves as a bridge
between Nova Roma and those whose affiliation lies to our North.
At the time of the abrupt departure of the previous propraetor
of Lacus Magni, P. Ullerius Venator stepped in to organize the
citizens of the province, publicizing the mailing list and
organizing provincial records. For this show of dedication,
I appointed him Legate for Lacus Magni Occidentalis. There is
no one in our province that I trust more.
Please give your vote for Quaestor to P. Ullerius Venator.
Valete,
M. Octavius Germanicus
---
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list |
| From: |
Domitius Constantinus Fuscus <flyke@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:57:39 +0100 |
|
Valete omnes
IMHO, we would need a newsgroup rather than a mailing list... in fact, the
number of mails is so high that is hard to follow a discussion.. when two
or three threads are going on togheter, the mails just mix and one risks to
loose one or two getting along.
A newsgroup (which could easily be done with a java applet on Nova Roma
site) would instead make things much more easy and allow people to follow
only the "threads" they are interested in.
To avoid anyone to post, the posting right could be granted using the
voting code as a kind of password.
imagine how nicer it would have to have
article about lex 1
article about lex 2
article about lex 3
article about lex4
article about elections 1
article about elections 2
article about sodalitas 1
instead that, like now,
article about lex 1
article about elections 1
article about sodalitas 1
article about lex 2
article about lex 3
article about elections 2
article about lex4
just my 2 cents or rather, nummus unum
Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] The Comitia Populi Tributa is convened |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:15:27 -0500 |
|
Salvete;
By the authority vested in me by the Constitution of Nova Roma, and
according to the procedures enacted by the Lex Vedia de Ratione Comitiorum
Populi Tributorum, the Auguries having been taken and shown to be favorable,
I, Flavius Vedius Germanicus, Consul of Nova Roma, to hereby convene the
Comitia Populi Tributa to assemble and vote on these matters which I place
before it.
-----
Lex Minucia de Rogatoribus
In accordance with paragraph III.D. of the Constitution of Nova Roma, the
Lex Minucia de Rogatoribus is hereby enacted to modify the Lex Vedia
Vigintisexviri.
Paragraph IV. of the Lex Vedia Vigintisexviri is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Rogatores. Four rogatores (voting officials) shall be responsible for the
administration of elections and the recording of votes among the curia. Each
rogatorus shall have the authority to appoint his own scribae, should he
deem it necessary. Should one or more positions be vacant, and suitable and
willing candidates are available, an election shall be held within thirty
days in the comitia populi tributa; otherwise the Senate shall have the
authority to appoint rogatores pro tem until such an election can be held.
The lack of a full compliment of, or the active participation of, four
rogatores shall not in and of itself be sufficient to invalidate or postpone
a particular election, and the rogatores may divide their duties amongst
themselves as they see fit and is practical. Inasmuch as they, by
definition, are privy to the details of the election process, the rogatores
may not run for any office while they serve in office (including running for
rogatorus again).
-----
Lex Vedia de Magistratum Aetate
In accordance with paragraph III.D. of the Constitution of Nova Roma, the
Lex Vedia de Magistratum Aetate is hereby enacted to modify the Lex Iunia de
Magistratum Aetate.
Paragraph VI. of the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate is hereby amended to
read as follows:
An exemption to this law may be granted to a person by the approval of both
censors and a senatus consultum approved by a two thirds majority vote. Such
an exemption must be sought prior to the official start of the election in
question, and must be granted in order to participate as a formal candidate
in the election process. A failure to act on the question of an exemption
shall not constitute a tacit approval of the exemption.
-----
Lex Vedia de Ratione Automata
In accordance with paragraph III.D. of the Constitution of Nova Roma, the
Lex Vedia de Ratione Automata is hereby enacted to modify the Lex Vedia de
Ratione Eligium.
Paragraph III.C. of the Lex Vedia de Ratione Eligium is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Within 48 hours of the deadline for voting, the rogatores shall tally the
votes and shall deliver the results to the magistrate who called the comitia
to order and his collegial magistrate. Votes may be tallied by automated
means should the rogatores determine such is preferable to, and at least as
accurate as, a manual count. Only the aggregate votes of the tribes and/or
centuries (as appropriate) shall be delivered; the votes of individual
citizens shall be secret. The magistrates shall announce the results of the
vote within 24 hours of receipt, in at least the same fora as the initial
announcement was made.
-----
Lex Vedia de Civitatis Petitionibus inter Suffragia
In accordance with paragraph III.D. of the Constitution of Nova Roma, the
Lex Vedia de Civitatis Petitionibus inter Suffragia is hereby enacted to
give more instruction to the Censores regarding the processing of
Citizenship applications while the Comitiae are in session.
I. No applications for Citizenship are to be processed or approved while one
or more of the Comitiae is in the process of undertaking a vote and/or
election. Such applications may be accepted and held until the end of the
election and/or vote in question, whereupon they are to be processed with
all due dilligence and speed, subject to all other laws which may otherwise
apply to the process.
II. During the time when applications for Citizenship are not processed as
described under this law, the Curator Araneum shall post an announcement
where individuals completing the application for Citizenship may reasonably
be expected to see it, explaining the situation and giving a reasonable
estimate of when the prospective Citizens may expect to have his or her
application processed.
-----
Lex Vedia de Ratione Edictium
In accordance with paragraph III.D. of the Constitution of Nova Roma, the
Lex Vedia de Ratione Edictium is hereby enacted to Lex Vedia de Ratione
Edictium originally passed in 1999 CE.
The last sentence of paragraph I. of the Lex Vedia de Ratione Edictium is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Such edicta shall be posted in the Tabularium by the Curator Araneum as soon
as practical.
-----
The following individuals stand before you to serve in the office of
Quaestor, for which two vacancies must be filled:
- Servius Cornelius Cato
- Quintus Sertorius
- Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato
- Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator
-----
The following individuals stand before you to serve in the office of Curator
Differum, for which one vacancy must be filled:
- Helena Galeria
- Vespasia Pollia
-----
The voting on these matters will commence at 12:01 AM Tuesday Roma time
(11:01 PM Monday GMT, 7:01 PM Monday EDST, 4:01 PM Monday PDST), and shall
continue until 12:01 AM Wednesday January 31st Roma time (11:01 PM Monday
GMT, 7:01 PM Monday EDST, 4:01 PM Monday PDST).
I hereby request that my Consular colleague and our Pontifex Maximus favor
us with an invocation to the Gods and Goddesses of Rome to commence this
vote on a proper footing.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Legal advice requested for copyrighted content |
| From: |
"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:23:30 -0800 |
|
Salvete Quirites!
As many of you may know, I'm in the process of building a site
for the Sodalitas Musarum. This will ultimately be a publicly
available site, which will contain some copyrighted content.
If there are any legal experts out there, I need some suggestions
as to what disclaimers and warnings I can reasonably place
on the Musarum site regarding the illegal copying of copyrighted
content.
Bene valete,
-Oppius
|
