| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Magistrates site moved. |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:58:55 -0800 |
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Loos" <loos@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 1:16 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Magistrates site moved.
> Salvete,
Ave!
> The site has moved to:
> http://200.183.94.8:8080/magistrates2.php
This is a wonderful site. I bookmarked it.
> It includes now all magistrates of the first 2 centuries of the republic
> (non-US sense)
> That is:
> 493 individuals,
> 117 gentes (48 Patrician, 82 Plebeians) yes there are some which are
> both.
Interesting facts!
> Largest gens : Cornelia 31 individuals.
Aww this is just terrific!! Thank you!
> Any ideas on other queries are welcome.
Can we have all the Consuls listed in there? Even eventually including
religious officials of the Republic and Imperial Periods.
You are using SQL for this....correct? I ask because I am actively learning
SQL. How long did it take you to do this?
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Language |
| From: |
razenna@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 23:38:01 -0000 |
|
Salvete.
I understand what the goal of the suggested language requirement is,
but I do not think it constitutes a fix for the problem. I do not
think there are any languages that can be posted to the list that a
Nova Roman somewhere will not understand. And a lot of us will be
able to understand its gist. There have been few instances when a
message has been posted solely in a language other than English, and
those have been by citizens and would-be citizens who had no English
(to parapharse Gaius Marius the great Roman of old). Most significant
is the fact that a hostile infiltrator will not care for our rules.
They DO NOT care for our rules or any rules but what their own twisted
minds throuw up. The solution for this type of caca is to boot them.
Valete.
Caius Aelius Ericius.
Paterfamilias gens Aelia.
Augur. Pontifex.
Senator.
Propraetor ad Californiam Provinicam (ret.).
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Album Civium Issue |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:59:18 -0800 |
|
Ave Citizens of Nova Roma
I have just been informed that there was a slight issue with the Album Civium. With the result of some loss of data. Senator M. Octavius has restored the database from December 26, 2000. So, if you were granted citizenship after December 26, please contact me privately so I can hasten this correction process.
We do have all of the records from citizens who have applied, that information was not lost.
We will be working as quickly as possible to correct this issue. Your patience and assistance will be greatly appreciated.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Gold Hoard in Londinium |
| From: |
"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:29:50 -0000 |
|
Avete
Sorry if I missed someone else mentioning it before, but it seems that one of two "significant finds" discovered in Roman London several months ago and kept very quiet until recently, is a hoard of 43 aurei beneath the floor of a house, spanning the reigns of the emperors Nero to Marcus Aurelius (coins dating from 65 - 174 CE). You can see the better examples of each type, and read a little about the excavation, at
www.museum-london.org.uk/MOLsite/menu.htm
Bene valete
Vado.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Scuta & Thunderbolts |
| From: |
"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:29:33 -0000 |
|
Salvete
I have seen a double-ended, elongated spiral cone between four lighting
bolts (as per legionary scuta) on a Gallo-Roman bust of Iuppiter (can't give
you a source at the moment, but I strongly suspect the illustration is in my
copy of Goodman's "The Roman World", which is out on loan to someone at the
moment - I'll check tomorrow).
Such a context, not on a shield but as an emblem integral to an image of
Iuppiter, argues to me that the jagged, pointy things actually represent
lightning, and that the double-ended cone between them is the thunderbolt
itself, from which the lighting issues. But if this is so, we have another
problem: whyever did they think a thunderbolt looked like that? If it
weren't for the spirals, I'd be inclined to believe we were looking at a
kind of whetstone
(thus the lightning-sparks, you see); but why those spirals?
I can almost hear the exasperated shade of a Roman pictor saying: "Because
we've ALWAYS done it that way, that's why! How the Hades is anybody supposed
to know what thunder LOOKS like?!"
More later, when I find that reference, at least...
Valete,
Vado.
> Vindex Pompeiae Corneliae salutem plurinam dat.
>
> Interesting question. I bet nobody really knows - but (you can guess what
> comes next, can't you) I have thought up a theory.
>
> If I remember correctly (big 'if'), the early republican scutum had a
wooden
> spine attached vertically down the front. A hole was cut in the centre of
> the shield board, and the central portion of the spine then served as a
> handle. The hand, thus exposed, was protected by the metal 'umbo' which
was
> fastened to the front of the shield and covered the area over the hole and
> hand-grip.
>
> Later, the scutum was held using a horizontal handle attached to the rear
of
> the shield board. This still required a hole in the shield board (to
> accomodate the knuckles) and so still required a solid umbo attached on
the
> front of the shield.
>
> I suggest that the vertical decorations you mention are simply a
> manifestation of military conservatism - vestigial remnants of the old
> vertical spine, put in place to remind the legionary of his legion's
> glorious past and thus encourage him to live up to the heroic standards of
> the past.
>
> (the past was always a better place than the present - kids today don't
> respect their parents as we did in my youth :-))
>
> Vale
> Vindex
>
> >Message: 8
> > Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:53:35 -0000
> > From: "Pompeia Cornelia" <scriba_forum@-------->
> >Subject: Question about Roman Scutum
>
> >Salvete Novae Romae et Sodales Militarium:
>
> >I have a rather trivial question about the Roman shield which >I cannot
> seem
> >to locate an answer for. It's unfortunate that this >curiosity of mine
did
>
> >not surface when I was at Roman Days last year. I have >looked at some
> sites
> >and asked a couple of reenactors, and they cannot answer me.
>
> >Maybe you can.........
>
> >Imagine if you will......A Roman shield.....not the oval >Republican
style,
>
> >but the square shield. I understand shields varied from >cohort to
cohort
> >sometimes, but on many shields I you see arrows pointing up >at all four
> >corners, from the center of the shield. which a couple of >sources tell
me
>
> >represent the thunderbolts of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus.
>
> >Ok, pointing northwise and southwise, from the centre of the >shield are
> >often long, triangular projections, which look to me like >the horn of
an
>
> >animal......now I don't believe in Unicorns but that is what >it looks
> >like...........:)
>
> >What are these projections representative of?
>
> >I know this is a trivial question, but I am quite anxious to >know and
> can't
> >seem to find out.
>
> >Valete,
> >Pompeia Cornelia
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Gratulo sacerdotibus novissimis nostris |
| From: |
"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:29:10 -0000 |
|
Avete Quirites
I'll add my voice to those welcoming Sextus Apollonius Draco, Oppius Flaccus
Severus and Marcus Arcadius Pius, as our first Lupercus Fabianus, Sacerdos
Neptunalis and Flamen Portunalis, respectively.
Slowly, stone upon stone, we rebuild...
...just remember, mi Draco, while it is compulsory for a Lupercus to giggle,
it is frowned on if you enjoy your sacred office overmuch ;-).
Pace deorum,
N. Moravius Vado
Flamen Floralis.
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Gold Hoard in Londinium |
| From: |
sfp55@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:21:28 EST |
|
In a message dated 1/30/2001 6:01:11 PM Pacific Standard Time,
gens_moravia@-------- writes:
Salve Senator Vado
<< Sorry if I missed someone else mentioning it before, but it seems that one
of two "significant finds" discovered in Roman London several months ago and
kept very quiet until recently, is a hoard of 43 aurei beneath the floor of a
house, spanning the reigns of the emperors Nero to Marcus Aurelius (coins
dating from 65 - 174 CE). You can see the better examples of each type, and
read a little about the excavation, at
www.museum-london.org.uk/MOLsite/menu.htm>>
When can the Republic reclaim the money? After all we are the legitimate
Roman government, the money was coined by our forebearers. (I thought it was
worth a try
at least.)
Bene vale
Q. Fabius Maximus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Inappropriate Message |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:26:22 -0600 |
|
Salvete Priscilla Vedia et omnes
> What say you on the concept of new members being automatically
> moderated for a set period of time before being given freedom to
> post at will?
Are new members (as opposed to new citizens?) causing enough disruption
to warrant such a change of policy? The message that caused this
suggestion was certainly the exception rather than the rule. While
there is something to be said for solving a problem before it develops,
I would prefer not to take this particular step until it is more
warranted.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"People do not like to think. If one thinks, one must reach
conclusions. Conclusions are not always pleasant."
-Helen Keller
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Congratulations New Priests |
| From: |
LucillaCornelia@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 22:45:38 -0500 |
|
Salvete Omnes:
Congratulations to our three newest Flamines: Oppius Flaccus Severus, Marcus Arcadius Pius and Sextus Apollonius Draco. May our Religio continue to flourish and prosper. With the distinguished presence, knowledge and devotion of these three gentlemen, I don't see how our Religio could do otherwise.
Vale bene et bona fortuna,
Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata
ReligioRomana@-------- wrote:
>
> Salvete;
>
> My hearty congratulations to our three new members of the Priesthood; Sextus
> Apollonius Draco, Marcus Arcadius Pius, and Oppius Flaccus Severus. It is so
> good to see a solid foundation for the Religio being laid. I am sure all
> three of these gentlemen will do a terrific job in the roles to which they
> have been called.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> "For Gracchus, 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
>
>
--
Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] The Tribunate (very long) |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 22:45:57 -0600 |
|
Tribunus Plebis T Labienus Quiritibus SPD
I've been promising for some time now to post an opinion about the state
of the tribunate as I see it, in order to re-open the discussion about
what role the tribuni plebis should play in our government. My
turbulent life has settled enough to allow me to do that now.
It is reasonable to start such a discussion with the opinion of our
constitution's author. During this past month, Consul Vedius mentioned
more than once that the tribuni should, under ideal circumstances, be
mostly inactive during their year in office. He claims that the
tribunate exists "to defend all Nova Romans from magistrates or other
bodies violating the strictures of the Constitution," and has stated in
another forum that a careful reading of the constitution reveals this.
It is my opinion that the constitution is ambivalent on this point, that
it does not support Consul Vedius' version of things, and that the role
of the tribuni plebis deserves more thought. The tribuni were
exceptionally important in the ancient republic, and the position
deserves to be more than a sinecure included purely so that all of the
important ancient positions exist--in name at least--within Nova Roma.
If we're going to have a magistracy, let's allow it to serve a vital and
active role in the Respublica, rather than force it to languish as a
mere nod to ancient practice.
I believe that the consul's advice concerning a careful reading of the
constitution is the proper course of action. Therefore, I'll go over
the constitution's definition of the tribuni, so that we can all begin
this discussion more or less on the same footing.
The constitution never explicitly defines the role of the tribuni
plebis. Instead, it says, "Two tribunes of the plebs shall be elected
by the comitia plebis tributa to serve a term lasting one year. They
must both be of the plebeian order, and shall have the following honors,
powers, and obligations:
"a. To collegially pronounce intercessio against the actions of any
other magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the interrex),
Senatus consulta, and laws passed by the comitia when they feel that the
spirit and letter of this Constitution are being violated thereby;
"b. To be immune from intercessio pronounced by other magistrates;
"c. To be privy to the debates of the Senate, and keep the citizens
informed as to the content and progress thereof;
"d. To call the Senate and the comitia plebis tributa to order."
Lacking a definitive statement of a role in the constitution, let's look
at each of those sections individually. First, I contend that the
constitution implies that the tribuni do not serve the whole people.
The tribuni are elected by plebeians and must be plebeians. This
heavily implies that the tribuni plebis primarily serve the plebeians
who elected them. This is, after all, a republic, in which the people
elect representatives to run the day-to-day government in their
interests. The closest the constitution comes to refuting this
conclusion is in section II.C, which states, "Even though members of the
three orders are equal under the eyes of the law, the institution of the
orders is significant enough that it is perpetuated in Nova Roma," which
supplies ammunition to either side of the debate.
Second, the tribuni may pronounce intercessio. This is the part that
Consul Vedius bases his assertion on, but I believe that there is a
subtle distinction to be made between what the constitution says and
what he says it says. I also believe that the tribuni are inordinately
hamstrung in this role. The constitution gives the tribuni the leeway
to use this power only when they agree, and only when the spirit **and**
letter of the constitution are being violated. If the letter is being
violated, then the spirit is being violated. Therefore, they can only
use the power when the letter of the constitution is broken. I would go
further and argue that the tribuni do not protect citizens with their
veto, but the constitution itself. To adequately protect citizens, they
would need to be able to enforce the spirit as well as the letter of the
document.
Now, if I may be allowed to use an argument ad absurdum for a moment,
let us consider a consul who has recently lost her colleague. She must
replace that colleague by holding a new election within 30 days. She
therefore issues an edictum that states that she is calling for
candidates, but that only equestrians will be accepted. The only items
in the constitution that might prevent her from doing such a thing are
II.C (which I quoted above), and IV (which states of Nova Roma's
magistracies, "Qualifications necessary to hold these positions may be
enacted by law properly passed by one of the comitia."). These two
sections do not explicitly deny our exclusionary consul the ability to
exclude plebeians from the election (note the use of the word 'may' in
the quoted section), though a case could and should be made that they
imply that such an action shouldn't be taken (this is, essentially, the
same argument that L Cornelius put forth against an equally absurd
example of mine previously). And so, while the spirit of the
constitution would be violated by such an action, the letter would not.
The tribuni could not use their intercessio in this case, which is the
most absurd part of this argument.
Third, the tribuni plebis' immunity from intercessio is
self-explanatory, and its implications are fairly obvious. No
magistrate may stop the tribuni plebis from exercising their powers.
Fourth, the tribuni report upon the Senate's doings to the people. This
is a fairly innocuous and uncontroversial power.
Fifth, we come to the power granted to the tribuni that most digresses
from Consul Vedius' assessment. Despite the fact that the tribuni
plebis do not have imperium (defined by the constitution as the ability
"to employ coercitio [the power to compel obedience to his edicts],
interpret and execute law, and possess the honor of being preceeded
[sic] by lictors as a symbol of office."), they are granted the power to
call the Senate and Comitia Plebis Tributa to order. In short, while
they may not "interpret and execute" laws, they may present them for a
vote; thereby possibly enacting them.
Senatus Consultum de Ratione Senatus attempts to remove part of this
power from the tribuni by allowing them to *convene* the Senate without
*presiding* over it; the ability to preside over the Senate being a
power which is required to present items for consideration and which is
granted by the Senate only to those magistrates with imperium. This
effectively negates the tribuni plebis' power, and is therefore, IMO,
against the spirit of the constitution. This is another example, BTW,
of a bit of legal legerdemain that neatly sidesteps the letter of the
constitution and, subsequently, the tribunician intercessio. And, since
a senatusconsultum could overturn the questionable actions of the lone
consul mentioned earlier, there is a credible reason for the tribuni to
be able to present items to the Senate.
No such stricture applies to a tribunus' right to assemble the Comitia
Plebis Tributa and present laws to them for a vote. Why, if the tribuni
are supposed to merely protect the constitution, are they allowed to
convene one set of comitia in order to pass (or deny) laws? Is it so
that the tribuni may seek redress for constitutionally questionable acts
like those of our lone consul example? This is reasonable, though it
fails to satisfy me as a mandate to protect all Nova Romans against
unconstitutional acts, since patricians do not get to vote in the
plebeian comitia. It is also too slow a process to do any good in my
particular example. And, according to an argument recently presented by
Consul Vedius, it would also be an unconstitutional use of the comitia,
as it would involve using one set of comitia to define procedures for
another set of comitia.
Additionally, since the tribuni do not have imperium, why ever does the
constitution allow the Comitia Plebis Tributa to "try legal cases solely
involving members of the plebeian order that do not involve permanent
removal of citizenship"? In order to preside over such trials, the
tribuni must interpret and execute laws. Perhaps they are only meant to
convene the comitia, but allow some other magistrate who has imperium to
preside over them. As with the Senate's procedures, this seems to me to
be a rather questionable practice. At least the tribuni's powers would
not be entirely negated by such an interpretation in this case.
In any case, no language whatsoever in the constitution defines a
difference between a) the consules' power to call the Senate and
appropriate comitia to order and b) the tribuni's power to do the same.
It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that a tribunus may introduce
whatever legislation he or she sees fit. The argument that doing so is
not particularly democratic (in the broad sense of the word, please) is
fair, but not germane to this discussion.
And so, the constitution describes a magistracy which is
primarily--indeed, almost solely--answerable to the plebeians, which may
stop only unequivocal infractions against the letter of the
constitution, which reports on and sometimes directs the Senate's
activities, and which can promulgate laws on any subject that does not
require changes the constitution. This is hardly a mandate to purely
"defend all Nova Romans from magistrates or other bodies violating the
strictures of the Constitution." Instead, it boils down to an
ambivalent statement about the authority and role of the tribuni plebis,
primarily because they can't adequately protect the spirit of the
constitution and yet they are capable of promulgating laws. If Consul
Vedius' prescription is the preferred role for the tribuni, then the
former power is too weak, and the latter is far too strong. If his
prescription is not the direction we wish to take the tribunate, then we
need to determine both what we want the tribunate to do for us and
whether or not the tribunate described in the constitution will suffice
for our purposes.
Since this message has grown so long, I will post my own suggestions for
the tribunate separately--hopefully in a day or two. In the meantime,
please tear my reasoning apart and think about what you want the
tribunate to accomplish, considering that we have already admitted that
we do not want to recreate the Conflict of the Orders and have therefore
already abandoned the ancients' version of things.
Valete
--
"People do not like to think. If one thinks, one must reach
conclusions. Conclusions are not always pleasant."
-Helen Keller
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Yahoogroups Help |
| From: |
Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:49:13 -0800 (PST) |
|
Your advice worked and I'm in!
L Aetius Dalmaticus
--- Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
wrote:
> Ave, I posted some instructions yesterday. On the
> conversion process. If
> you can contact me privately, I would be pleased to
> offer any assistance
> that I possibly can.
>
> My email addy is: alexious@--------
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Censor of Nova Roma
>
> "C. Citius Cattus" wrote:
>
> > I looked over at the Yahoogroups site. I see that
> I can get my list
> > mailings to a Yahoo account, yet I would like to
> get my Nova Roma
> > mailings at a different, non-Yahoo e-mail account
> I have. Is it that
> > anyone has figured out how to do so?
> >
> > Cordially,
> > C. Citius Cattus
> >
>
>
=====
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
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Yahoogroups Help |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:09:11 -0800 |
|
Great, I am glad my instructions were of help to you! :)
If there is anything else that you need, please dont hesitate to contact me.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Smith" <JSmithCSA@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Yahoogroups Help
> Your advice worked and I'm in!
>
> L Aetius Dalmaticus
>
> --- Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
> wrote:
> > Ave, I posted some instructions yesterday. On the
> > conversion process. If
> > you can contact me privately, I would be pleased to
> > offer any assistance
> > that I possibly can.
> >
> > My email addy is: alexious@--------
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> > Censor of Nova Roma
> >
> > "C. Citius Cattus" wrote:
> >
> > > I looked over at the Yahoogroups site. I see that
> > I can get my list
> > > mailings to a Yahoo account, yet I would like to
> > get my Nova Roma
> > > mailings at a different, non-Yahoo e-mail account
> > I have. Is it that
> > > anyone has figured out how to do so?
> > >
> > > Cordially,
> > > C. Citius Cattus
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
> 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
>
> __________________________________________________
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
> a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
>
>
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Congratulations New Priests |
| From: |
"Daniel Place" <Danat2000@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:35:48 +1030 |
|
Salve,
May I thank everyone who has wished us well. Your kind words mean much to me
and hopefully the Religio can continue to grow unbounded.
vale
Marcus Arcadius Pius
Pontifex, Flamen Portunalis
----- Original Message -----
From: <LucillaCornelia@-------->
To: <ReligioRomana@-------->
Cc: <NovaRoma@-------->
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 2:15 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Congratulations New Priests
> Salvete Omnes:
>
> Congratulations to our three newest Flamines: Oppius Flaccus Severus,
Marcus Arcadius Pius and Sextus Apollonius Draco. May our Religio continue
to flourish and prosper. With the distinguished presence, knowledge and
devotion of these three gentlemen, I don't see how our Religio could do
otherwise.
>
> Vale bene et bona fortuna,
>
> Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata
>
>
> ReligioRomana@-------- wrote:
> >
> > Salvete;
> >
> > My hearty congratulations to our three new members of the Priesthood;
Sextus
> > Apollonius Draco, Marcus Arcadius Pius, and Oppius Flaccus Severus. It
is so
> > good to see a solid foundation for the Religio being laid. I am sure all
> > three of these gentlemen will do a terrific job in the roles to which
they
> > have been called.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> > Consul
> >
> > "For Gracchus, 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
> >
> >
> --
> Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata
> __________________________________________________________________
> Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/
>
>
>
>
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Absentia |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:03:17 +0100 |
|
Salvete Quirites,
Sorry, this post will appear on multiple lists, but I'm posting this for everyone. In the coming two weeks I will be scarcely available, because we had a death in the family yesterday, and on top of that I'm rather ill, so I hope no one will take offence if I'm very late with my replies and other things here in NR.
Valete bene,
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
Legatus Galliae Borealis,
Procurator Galliae,
Scriba Aedilis Plebis,
Lupercus Fabianus
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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Thought for the Day |
| From: |
Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:00:49 -0800 (PST) |
|
Salvete:
I got this from my boss as a "thought for the day" and
thought others might like it as much as I did.
L Aetius Dalmaticus
> > Marcus Aurelius
> > Roman Ruler, General, Conqueror of Germania
> >
> > "Do not feel ashamed at being helped. It is your
> purpose to perform the
> > task before you, as a soldier does in a siege.
> What if you, being lame,
> > cannot reach the battlements alone but can do so
> with another's
> > assistance?
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] The Tribunate (very long) |
| From: |
Michel Loos <loos@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:41:11 -0200 |
|
Fortunatus wrote:
>
> Tribunus Plebis T Labienus Quiritibus SPD
>
> I've been promising for some time now to post an opinion about the state
> of the tribunate as I see it, in order to re-open the discussion about
> what role the tribuni plebis should play in our government. My
> turbulent life has settled enough to allow me to do that now.
>
> It is reasonable to start such a discussion with the opinion of our
> constitution's author. During this past month, Consul Vedius mentioned
> more than once that the tribuni should, under ideal circumstances, be
> mostly inactive during their year in office. He claims that the
> tribunate exists "to defend all Nova Romans from magistrates or other
> bodies violating the strictures of the Constitution," and has stated in
> another forum that a careful reading of the constitution reveals this.
>
> It is my opinion that the constitution is ambivalent on this point, that
> it does not support Consul Vedius' version of things, and that the role
> of the tribuni plebis deserves more thought. The tribuni were
> exceptionally important in the ancient republic, and the position
> deserves to be more than a sinecure included purely so that all of the
> important ancient positions exist--in name at least--within Nova Roma.
> If we're going to have a magistracy, let's allow it to serve a vital and
> active role in the Respublica, rather than force it to languish as a
> mere nod to ancient practice.
>
> I believe that the consul's advice concerning a careful reading of the
> constitution is the proper course of action. Therefore, I'll go over
> the constitution's definition of the tribuni, so that we can all begin
> this discussion more or less on the same footing.
>
> The constitution never explicitly defines the role of the tribuni
> plebis. Instead, it says, "Two tribunes of the plebs shall be elected
> by the comitia plebis tributa to serve a term lasting one year. They
> must both be of the plebeian order, and shall have the following honors,
> powers, and obligations:
>
> "a. To collegially pronounce intercessio against the actions of any
> other magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the interrex),
> Senatus consulta, and laws passed by the comitia when they feel that the
> spirit and letter of this Constitution are being violated thereby;
>
> "b. To be immune from intercessio pronounced by other magistrates;
>
> "c. To be privy to the debates of the Senate, and keep the citizens
> informed as to the content and progress thereof;
>
> "d. To call the Senate and the comitia plebis tributa to order."
>
> Lacking a definitive statement of a role in the constitution, let's look
> at each of those sections individually. First, I contend that the
> constitution implies that the tribuni do not serve the whole people.
> The tribuni are elected by plebeians and must be plebeians. This
> heavily implies that the tribuni plebis primarily serve the plebeians
> who elected them.
I can t agree on this point, and history evidently does not agree. It is
not because they were elected by a fraction of our people that they
should
only serve that fraction. After being elected they serve the state.
There
are inumerous examples in history were the tribunes stand up against the
plebs
in order to defend the State (Res Publica).
> This is, after all, a republic, in which the people
> elect representatives to run the day-to-day government in their
> interests. The closest the constitution comes to refuting this
> conclusion is in section II.C, which states, "Even though members of the
> three orders are equal under the eyes of the law, the institution of the
> orders is significant enough that it is perpetuated in Nova Roma," which
> supplies ammunition to either side of the debate.
Yes this is ademocracy (non-US sense), but in a democracy (non-Us sense)
the representatives are elected to defend at their best the
Commonwealth, NOT the
interests of their electors, which often can be 2 different things.
>
> Second, the tribuni may pronounce intercessio. This is the part that
> Consul Vedius bases his assertion on, but I believe that there is a
> subtle distinction to be made between what the constitution says and
> what he says it says. I also believe that the tribuni are inordinately
> hamstrung in this role. The constitution gives the tribuni the leeway
> to use this power only when they agree, and only when the spirit **and**
> letter of the constitution are being violated. If the letter is being
> violated, then the spirit is being violated. Therefore, they can only
> use the power when the letter of the constitution is broken. I would go
> further and argue that the tribuni do not protect citizens with their
> veto, but the constitution itself. To adequately protect citizens, they
> would need to be able to enforce the spirit as well as the letter of the
> document.
>
There is an important word in this constitution : "feel" , they don t
need to prove
are even be convinced that the constitution was broken, only to "feel"
it.
It is that that allows them to actively protect the citizens (ALL
citizens, not just the Plebeians).
> Now, if I may be allowed to use an argument ad absurdum for a moment,
> let us consider a consul who has recently lost her colleague. She must
> replace that colleague by holding a new election within 30 days. She
> therefore issues an edictum that states that she is calling for
> candidates, but that only equestrians will be accepted. The only items
> in the constitution that might prevent her from doing such a thing are
> II.C (which I quoted above), and IV (which states of Nova Roma's
> magistracies, "Qualifications necessary to hold these positions may be
> enacted by law properly passed by one of the comitia."). These two
> sections do not explicitly deny our exclusionary consul the ability to
> exclude plebeians from the election (note the use of the word 'may' in
> the quoted section), though a case could and should be made that they
> imply that such an action shouldn't be taken (this is, essentially, the
> same argument that L Cornelius put forth against an equally absurd
> example of mine previously). And so, while the spirit of the
> constitution would be violated by such an action, the letter would not.
> The tribuni could not use their intercessio in this case, which is the
> most absurd part of this argument.
>
They could if they "feel" it was broken, which I am quite sure they will
"feel".
> Third, the tribuni plebis' immunity from intercessio is
> self-explanatory, and its implications are fairly obvious. No
> magistrate may stop the tribuni plebis from exercising their powers.
>
> Fourth, the tribuni report upon the Senate's doings to the people. This
> is a fairly innocuous and uncontroversial power.
>
> Fifth, we come to the power granted to the tribuni that most digresses
> from Consul Vedius' assessment. Despite the fact that the tribuni
> plebis do not have imperium (defined by the constitution as the ability
> "to employ coercitio [the power to compel obedience to his edicts],
> interpret and execute law, and possess the honor of being preceeded
> [sic] by lictors as a symbol of office."), they are granted the power to
> call the Senate and Comitia Plebis Tributa to order. In short, while
> they may not "interpret and execute" laws, they may present them for a
> vote; thereby possibly enacting them.
>
Yes they have the initative of laws.
> Senatus Consultum de Ratione Senatus attempts to remove part of this
> power from the tribuni by allowing them to *convene* the Senate without
> *presiding* over it; the ability to preside over the Senate being a
> power which is required to present items for consideration and which is
> granted by the Senate only to those magistrates with imperium. This
> effectively negates the tribuni plebis' power, and is therefore, IMO,
> against the spirit of the constitution.
If it was, the Tribuni should have used their veto, when this SC was
edicted.
I don t feel it is. A macronational comparison: in many countries there
are
different source of law initiatives, but it is usually the chief of
parliament
which decides the order of the day, which means that laws initiated by
the
opposition can stay for years in the commision and even never go to vote
in the assembly, and that are still very fine democracies (non-US
sense).
Here it is just the same, eventually the proposition of the tribune
should come
before the senate, but the magistrates with imperium will decide when.
> This is another example, BTW,
> of a bit of legal legerdemain that neatly sidesteps the letter of the
> constitution and, subsequently, the tribunician intercessio. And, since
> a senatusconsultum could overturn the questionable actions of the lone
> consul mentioned earlier, there is a credible reason for the tribuni to
> be able to present items to the Senate.
>
> No such stricture applies to a tribunus' right to assemble the Comitia
> Plebis Tributa and present laws to them for a vote. Why, if the tribuni
> are supposed to merely protect the constitution, are they allowed to
> convene one set of comitia in order to pass (or deny) laws? Is it so
> that the tribuni may seek redress for constitutionally questionable acts
> like those of our lone consul example? This is reasonable, though it
> fails to satisfy me as a mandate to protect all Nova Romans against
> unconstitutional acts, since patricians do not get to vote in the
> plebeian comitia. It is also too slow a process to do any good in my
> particular example. And, according to an argument recently presented by
> Consul Vedius, it would also be an unconstitutional use of the comitia,
> as it would involve using one set of comitia to define procedures for
> another set of comitia.
>
The Tribunes have the initiative of Laws and the power to make laws
through the
CTPl this is in our constitution and was the usual Roman Practice.
If the consuls/praetors feel the law is bad they can convoque the CTP to
amend/revoque etc. that law. And if the tribunes can again call the CTPl
etc.Since our constitutiuon doesn t say anything about that, we should
apply the 12 tables: Last thing voted has precedence over the former.
Even if it is not a Law, for ex. in 367 the Licinio-Sextian rogations
were voted and imposed that one of the consuls must be a Plebeian (yes
positive action is as old as that) in 355 BC were elected 2 Patrician
consuls, and after some debates, considering this was the latest public
vote the election was validated (without removing the law).
> Additionally, since the tribuni do not have imperium, why ever does the
> constitution allow the Comitia Plebis Tributa to "try legal cases solely
> involving members of the plebeian order that do not involve permanent
> removal of citizenship"? In order to preside over such trials, the
> tribuni must interpret and execute laws. Perhaps they are only meant to
> convene the comitia, but allow some other magistrate who has imperium to
> preside over them.
What for ? They have the Judicial power not the executive one. They can
judge,
but if the praetors refuse to execute the judgement it will stay so.
(And obviously they will trial the praetors, until there comes new
praetors/consuls ready to execute the judgement. The convicted stay
convicted only the execution is delayed (in ancient times giving time
for exile).
> As with the Senate's procedures, this seems to me to
> be a rather questionable practice. At least the tribuni's powers would
> not be entirely negated by such an interpretation in this case.
>
Just delayed.
> In any case, no language whatsoever in the constitution defines a
> difference between a) the consules' power to call the Senate and
> appropriate comitia to order and b) the tribuni's power to do the same.
> It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that a tribunus may introduce
> whatever legislation he or she sees fit. The argument that doing so is
> not particularly democratic (in the broad sense of the word, please) is
> fair, but not germane to this discussion.
>
That is the way it was in Ancient Rome. The solution to this problem was
the multiplication of the tribunes and the fact they could veto one's
others proposition
(traduced by unanimity in our constitution). When there are 10 tribunes,
you can always find one which will oppose the others if the Law is
unfair.
> And so, the constitution describes a magistracy which is
> primarily--indeed, almost solely--answerable to the plebeians,
Not really, after the Tribuni left office they are no more sacrosanct
and can be
put on trial/convicted for their passed faults.
> which may
> stop only unequivocal infractions against the letter of the
> constitution, which reports on and sometimes directs the Senate's
> activities, and which can promulgate laws on any subject that does not
> require changes the constitution. This is hardly a mandate to purely
> "defend all Nova Romans from magistrates or other bodies violating the
> strictures of the Constitution." Instead, it boils down to an
> ambivalent statement about the authority and role of the tribuni plebis,
> primarily because they can't adequately protect the spirit of the
> constitution and yet they are capable of promulgating laws. If Consul
> Vedius' prescription is the preferred role for the tribuni, then the
> former power is too weak, and the latter is far too strong. If his
> prescription is not the direction we wish to take the tribunate, then we
> need to determine both what we want the tribunate to do for us and
> whether or not the tribunate described in the constitution will suffice
> for our purposes.
>
> Since this message has grown so long, I will post my own suggestions for
> the tribunate separately--hopefully in a day or two. In the meantime,
> please tear my reasoning apart and think about what you want the
> tribunate to accomplish, considering that we have already admitted that
> we do not want to recreate the Conflict of the Orders and have therefore
> already abandoned the ancients' version of things.
>
The conflict of orders was over around 300BC, the conflict which
distroyed the
republic (non-US sense) was between poor and rich (a lot of plebeians
were rich,
some patricians (the Iulii for ex.) were poor) not between plebs and
patricians.
The tribunate was one weapon among others for the poors, but sometimes
it was the consulate, sometimes the dictatorship.
Valete,
Manius Villius Limitanus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Goings-on in New Jersey |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 08:28:27 -0500 |
|
Salvete!
As provincial governor of the Mediatlantica provincia, it gives me great
pleasure to announce that there will be an organizational meeting for the
"Civium Boreocaesarium" ("North Jersey Community") on Saturday February
17th, in Parsippany NJ. We will be discussing organization, potential
activities and events, and generally getting to know each other.
Details may be found on the official Provincial website at
http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org and the new Civium website at
http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica/northjersey.html
News and updates will be posted on the provincial email list
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mediatlantica); all interested cives are
encouraged to subscribe.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
"For Gracchus, 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] Magistrates site moved. |
| From: |
Michel Loos <loos@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:51:44 -0200 |
|
"L. Cornelius Sulla" wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michel Loos" <loos@-------->
> To: <novaroma@-------->
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 1:16 PM
> Subject: [novaroma] Magistrates site moved.
>
> > Salvete,
>
> Ave!
>
> > The site has moved to:
> > http://200.183.94.8:8080/magistrates2.php
>
> This is a wonderful site. I bookmarked it.
>
> > It includes now all magistrates of the first 2 centuries of the republic
> > (non-US sense)
> > That is:
> > 493 individuals,
> > 117 gentes (48 Patrician, 82 Plebeians) yes there are some which are
> > both.
>
> Interesting facts!
>
> > Largest gens : Cornelia 31 individuals.
>
> Aww this is just terrific!! Thank you!
>
> > Any ideas on other queries are welcome.
>
> Can we have all the Consuls listed in there? Even eventually including
> religious officials of the Republic and Imperial Periods.
>
> You are using SQL for this....correct? I ask because I am actively learning
> SQL. How long did it take you to do this?
Yes its mySQL based + PHP4. Took me 2 weeks after installing mySQL and
printing out parts of the manual.
Manius Villius Limitanus
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] The Tribunate (very long) |
| From: |
labienus@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:17:57 US/Central |
|
Salvete
> I can t agree on this point, and history evidently does not agree. It is
> not because they were elected by a fraction of our people that they
> should only serve that fraction. After being elected they serve the state.
> There are inumerous examples in history were the tribunes stand up against
> the plebs in order to defend the State (Res Publica).
This is a very good point. It highlights my own American bias, as the basis of
the American system is that the representatives one elects are supposed to
serve one's interests. The oath of office can also be seen to contradict my
conclusion, as it implicitly binds magistrates to the state, as opposed to a
subsection of the people.
> There is an important word in this constitution : "feel" , they don t
> need to prove are even be convinced that the constitution was broken, only
> to "feel" it. It is that that allows them to actively protect the citizens
> (ALL citizens, not just the Plebeians).
I don't agree with your assessment. The constitution only allows the tribuni
to act when they feel that both the spirit and letter of the document are
broken. While it's true that such a feeling does not necessarily require
proof, a tribunus must base his or her judgement upon the specific wording of
the constitution. My absurd argument doesn't violate a single sentence in the
constitution, giving the exclusionary consul plenty of ammunition to ignore the
intercessio (using L Sergius' argument that unconstitutional acts have no
weight). Doing so would lead to a protracted series of legal battles that
could easily be avoided by explicitly allowing the tribuni a little more leeway.
> They could if they "feel" it was broken, which I am quite sure they will
> "feel".
I would 'feel' that the spirit was broken, but not the letter. If the letter
of the law forbids eating green apples, it is not broken by eating a red apple.
> If it was, the Tribuni should have used their veto, when this SC was
> edicted. I don t feel it is. A macronational comparison: in many countries
> there are different source of law initiatives, but it is usually the chief
> of parliament which decides the order of the day, which means that laws
> initiated by the opposition can stay for years in the commision and even
> never go to vote in the assembly, and that are still very fine democracies
> (non-US sense). Here it is just the same, eventually the proposition of the
> tribune should come before the senate, but the magistrates with imperium will
> decide when.
I would agree with you here if it weren't for Consul Vedius' assertion of the
tribuni's role. If the tribuni are charged primarily with defending the people
against unconstitutional acts of magistrates, et cetera, then it makes no sense
to force them to wait for some of the most important of those magistrates to
allow them to ask the Senate to aid them in that task. If the letter of the
constitution is not violated, then the logical next step is to get the Senate
to determine whether or not the spirit is sufficiently violated to overturn a
given magistrate's actions.
> The Tribunes have the initiative of Laws and the power to make laws
> through the CTPl this is in our constitution and was the usual Roman
> Practice. If the consuls/praetors feel the law is bad they can convoque the
> CTP to amend/revoque etc. that law. And if the tribunes can again call the
> CTPl etc.Since our constitutiuon doesn t say anything about that, we
> should apply the 12 tables: Last thing voted has precedence over the
> former. Even if it is not a Law, for ex. in 367 the Licinio-Sextian
> rogations were voted and imposed that one of the consuls must be a Plebeian
> (yes positive action is as old as that) in 355 BC were elected 2 Patrician
> consuls, and after some debates, considering this was the latest public
> vote the election was validated (without removing the law).
I agree entirely here. My point was and is that such a power goes well beyond
the role suggested by Consul Vedius. If the tribuni ought to be silent 99% of
the time, speaking up only to report on the Senate's doings and stop
unequivocally unconstitutional acts, then they have no business promulgating
laws.
> What for ? They have the Judicial power not the executive one. They can
> judge, but if the praetors refuse to execute the judgement it will stay
> so. (And obviously they will trial the praetors, until there comes new
> praetors/consuls ready to execute the judgement. The convicted stay
> convicted only the execution is delayed (in ancient times giving time
> for exile).
This is an interesting point. I still think that one must "interpret and
execute" the law in order to decide that someone must be put on trial and
subsequently try that person. However, if one limits imperium to the actual
carrying out of punishment, then your point is quite valid. This does seem to
make trials conducted by the tribuni to be rather beside the point. Was this
the case in antiquity?
> That is the way it was in Ancient Rome. The solution to this problem was
> the multiplication of the tribunes and the fact they could veto one's
> others proposition (traduced by unanimity in our constitution). When there
> are 10 tribunes, you can always find one which will oppose the others if the
> Law is unfair.
Agreed. However, one of the points of this discussion is that we have decided
that the tribuni's ancient role is no longer valid in Nova Roma. There wasn't
even a constitution to defend in Roma Antiqua, after all.
> The conflict of orders was over around 300BC, the conflict which
> distroyed the republic (non-US sense) was between poor and rich (a lot of
> plebeians were rich, some patricians (the Iulii for ex.) were poor) not
> between plebs and patricians. The tribunate was one weapon among others for
> the poors, but sometimes it was the consulate, sometimes the dictatorship.
True enough. I should have elaborated on what I meant, but did not because I
had already been typing for quite a long time. What I should have said was
that we have generally agreed that the distinction between patricians and
plebeians should be kept to a bare minimum, and that we have likewise agreed
that we do not wish to re-establish the plutocracy that you allude to.
Instead, we have attempted to replace both with a meritocracy based upon
service to the state.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] The Tribunate (very long) |
| From: |
Michel Loos <loos@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:32:31 -0200 |
|
>
> > What for ? They have the Judicial power not the executive one. They can
> > judge, but if the praetors refuse to execute the judgement it will stay
> > so. (And obviously they will trial the praetors, until there comes new
> > praetors/consuls ready to execute the judgement. The convicted stay
> > convicted only the execution is delayed (in ancient times giving time
> > for exile).
>
> This is an interesting point. I still think that one must "interpret and
> execute" the law in order to decide that someone must be put on trial and
> subsequently try that person. However, if one limits imperium to the actual
> carrying out of punishment, then your point is quite valid. This does seem to
> make trials conducted by the tribuni to be rather beside the point. Was this
> the case in antiquity?
>
There were some delays in executing the punishment which were
opportunely used to go to exile, or to commit suicide.
This was quite common.
We have also some trials in subsquent years against magistrates that did
not abey laws voted by the CTPl. Again because neither the CTPl, neither
the tribuni had executive power.
Manius Villius Limitanus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Language |
| From: |
"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:56:48 +0200 |
|
M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.
I must say that I find the idea of banning languages other than
English from the Main List highly inappropriate and completely
unacceptable. Nova Roma spans the world, and a rule of this sort is
highly xenophobic in appearance and in essence. If anyone wishes to try
his chances at communicating here using his native or other preferred
language other than English (including Latin!), we should welcome his
interest and participation. English is not so universal as one might
sometimes be tempted to think, and even those who understand it might
not feel comfortable in using it actively.
Valete!
Message: 24
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 23:38:01 -0000
From: razenna@--------
Subject: Language
Salvete.
I understand what the goal of the suggested language requirement is,
but I do not think it constitutes a fix for the problem. I do not
think there are any languages that can be posted to the list that a
Nova Roman somewhere will not understand. And a lot of us will be
able to understand its gist. There have been few instances when a
message has been posted solely in a language other than English, and
those have been by citizens and would-be citizens who had no English
(to parapharse Gaius Marius the great Roman of old). Most significant
is the fact that a hostile infiltrator will not care for our rules.
They DO NOT care for our rules or any rules but what their own twisted
minds throuw up. The solution for this type of caca is to boot them.
Valete.
Caius Aelius Ericius.
Paterfamilias gens Aelia.
Augur. Pontifex.
Senator.
Propraetor ad Californiam Provinicam (ret.).
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Language - proposal |
| From: |
Domitius Constantinus Fuscus <flyke@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:42:24 +0100 |
|
Salve
have to say that, in a way, I'll speak pro domo mea here, since my native
language isn't English.
Some time ago.. I think around one year now,.. appeared on this list some
posts in Italian, even averagely complex in their contents. Well, I
remember there was almost a race by other Italian members of this list to
translate them and make then available to everyone 8that eventually led to
having 2 translations for some of those posts).
Now, rather than "banning" or in any case "disapprove" the use of other
language rather than English here, much more democratic and wiser (since it
would make our community more friendly and therefore more successful) would
be to appoint an half a dozen people to translate directly those few posts
that could be posted in another language.. I don't think it would be too
hard to find a bunch of people having as native language the principal
languages (Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian and so
on...) who would be glad to do the job on a.. I don't know.. 6 months
period basis, under the authority of the curator araneae.
I, here and now, volunteer for the first 6 months of the Italian posts,
should this body ever be created.
Valete
Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Language |
| From: |
"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:00:03 -0500 |
|
Salve,
I believe I need to clarify current list policy for you. Posts in languages
other than English are not *banned*. All that is asked is that posts
include an English translation. As stated, I contact individuals personally
and assist them in working with a translator so that their future posts will
appear in their native language AS WELL AS English.
To state that this list policy is xenophobic is inaccurate. All posters are
welcomed and encouraged to get involved and get to know us. However, as
every individual clearly sees as they sign up for this list, the language of
the list is English. As also stated, as long as translations into English
are included in the post, there is no problem.
Your comments imply that only English speakers are welcome here and that is
simply not true. In point of fact, I work very hard to assure that every
member who wishes to participate is given every opportunity to do so.
Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonem
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Language - proposal |
| From: |
"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:06:10 -0500 |
|
Salve,
As I have said, I already approach translators on a private basis as needed.
Anyone wishing to inform me *privately* of their desire to be of assistance
in this unofficial capacity would be more than welcome. While I know of
several members who have been of aid, I would more than welcome having a
larger pool of translators to help non-English speakers post to this list.
Considering that this has been an issue only twice so far to my knowledge
(once as a form of protest and once as an error on the part of the writer) I
do not anticipate an upswing in such incidents. Therefore, rather than
appointing anyone or signing on for specific periods of time, those wishing
to make themselves available on an *as-needed* basis should contact me
privately at justicecmo@-------- and indicate what language(s) they
can offer assistance with.
Thank you.
Priscilla Vedia Serena
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Re: Gold Hoard in Londinium |
| From: |
"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:53:49 -0000 |
|
Salve Praetor Q. Fabi
I had already considered asking Procurator Britanniae P. Cl. Lucentius
Severus Bicurratus to make an official claim and demand those aurei back
(or their current market value, no-one can say I'm an unreasonable man).
I don't fancy our chances, though: the parsimony of MOLAS (Museum of London
Archaeology Service) is like the camel's podex in a sandstorm. Tighter than
Vespasian's purse-strings. You know, they wouldn't even give me a
complimentary copy of their new publication "The Archaeology of London" last
year for review on the Britannia list. And I reviewed it anyway. The
ingrates!
Bene vale
Vado.
> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:21:28 EST
> From: sfp55@--------
> Subject: Re: Gold Hoard in Londinium
>
> In a message dated 1/30/2001 6:01:11 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> gens_moravia@-------- writes:
> Salve Senator Vado
> << Sorry if I missed someone else mentioning it before, but it seems that
one
> of two "significant finds" discovered in Roman London several months ago
and
> kept very quiet until recently, is a hoard of 43 aurei beneath the floor
of a
> house, spanning the reigns of the emperors Nero to Marcus Aurelius (coins
> dating from 65 - 174 CE). You can see the better examples of each type,
and
> read a little about the excavation, at
> www.museum-london.org.uk/MOLsite/menu.htm>>
> When can the Republic reclaim the money? After all we are the legitimate
> Roman government, the money was coined by our forebearers. (I thought it
was
> worth a try
> at least.)
> Bene vale
> Q. Fabius Maximus
|
