| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: A Question for the Tribuican Canidates |
| From: |
"rexmarciusnr" <RexMarcius@aol.com> |
| Date: |
Sat, 30 Nov 2002 03:57:38 -0000 |
|
--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> Since one of the canidates for Tribune resigned his
> citizenship and left Nova Roma for a time in part
> because of his oppistion to the Gender Name Edict/Lex
> I would like to submit a question to all the remaining
> canidates.
Salve Druse!
You are mistaken, Marcus Apollonius Formosanus is NOT standing for
Tribune! He was the focus of attention surrounding the Gender
edictum/lex debate. He has left Nova Roma some time ago, has not
returned and I spare you my comments on him and his actions (de
absentiis nil nisi bene).
If you really were referring to me I can only say that I myself left
for different reasons. The gender edictum was never on my mind when I
went into exile. The lex was not even passed at that time.
> If you are elected will you promulgate a repeal of the
> Gender name Lex or support a repeal if promulgated by
> another Tribune?
>
I best answer with a posting that I wrote a long time ago, when the
then Tribune and now Senator Australicus had issued a veto against
the famous Gender Name Edict and was criticised for it by the then
Praetor Gryllus who had forecast civil wars flowing from the veto.
MMR scripsit 5th Jun 2753:
"I certainly have to disagree with you on your last post. The
Tribunician Veto has certainly not been used "easily" by Australicus
and he did call for a popular vote NOT in the comitia plebis tributa
but in the Comitia Centuriata which shows his honest intentions. And
Civil Wars are started because people derelict their duties and not
because they exercise their constitutional rights (note by MMR: This
is a reference to Nova Roma's civil war the year before).
I believe it is necessary to publicly support the institution of
Tribune against an unnecessary attack by another magistrate (you
signed your post as praetor), when BOTH Tribunes try to act within
their constitutional limits and NOT outside of it (and they may veto
not only issued edicta but ANY action of other magistrates). To
define what a pseudo-case is, is not the praetor's sole prerogative.
On the other hand I have to agree with what you say regarding the
necessity for compromise in any community. Especially if it concerns
such a minor matter as the use of names.
Marcus Marcius Rex
Plebeian Civis"
So in short: I do love my own name, of course, but I simply cannot
recall ever giving the gender/name edict/lex a really important place
in my agenda (please, I beg you, to send me any quotes where I said
otherwise). The matter certainly does not concern me now and if it
were not for you I would never have thought of the issue at all.
I made it part of my election platform to use the Tribunician
legislative prerogatives only in the utmost political urgencies. I do
not consider the Gender Name Lex as such an urgency. As regards other
Tribunes: I would remain neutral, neither supportive nor obstructive.
So I am curious now, Druse, what makes you bring this non issue
forward at this time? Are you supporting a change yourself?
Ave et Vale
Marcus Marcius Rex
Candidate for Tribune
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: A Question for the Tribuican Canidates |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Fri, 29 Nov 2002 20:44:16 -0800 (PST) |
|
--- rexmarciusnr <RexMarcius@aol.com> wrote:
SNIP
>
> So I am curious now, Druse, what makes you bring
> this non issue
> forward at this time? Are you supporting a change
> yourself?
>
Actually I'm hoping to avoid a repeat of a devisive
time in Nova Roma's history. Any cahnges to that lex
can wait until after old wounds have healed.
=====
L. Sicinius Drusus
"Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
(A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.)
Seneca, Letters to Lucilius
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] SEEKING CANDIDATES FOR THE POSITIONS OF DOMINI FACTIONUM FOR 2756 A.U.C. |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Tiberius=20Apollonius=20Cicatrix?= <consulromanus@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Sat, 30 Nov 2002 09:02:20 +0000 (GMT) |
|
Salvete!
I would like to declare my candidacy for the position
of Dominus Factionum of the Factio Russata. I have
already served in this position for the last year, and
I would gladly serve the Russata again for the next
year.
> --- In Nova-Roma@y..., Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> <christer.edling@t...> wrote:
> > Ex Officio Curile Aedile Caeso Fabius Q.
> >
> > Hereby I ask FOR candidates for the leadership of
> the four
> Factiones
> > in the Ludi Circenses, these leaders, each called
> Dominus
> Factionis,
> > will have the following tasks:
--snipped--
Valete bene!
=====
Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix
----------
Aedilis Plebis
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae
Scriba Propraetoris Galliae
Coryphaeus Sodalitatis Musarum
**HORVM OMNIVM FORTISSIME SVNT BELGAE**
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: SEEKING CANDIDATES FOR THE POSITIONS OF DOMINI FACTIONUM FOR 2756 A.U.C. |
| From: |
"M. Octavius Solaris" <scorpioinvictus@hotmail.com> |
| Date: |
Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:36:34 +0100 |
|
Salvete omnes,
Salvete omnes.
Even though I´m among the 8 candidates stated by the Edictum
Aedilicium XVII , I do hereby state my candidature for Dominus
Factionis Veneta.
*****
In a similar fashion, I'd like to state my candidacy for Dominus Factionis Albatae.
Valete!
Solaris
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] semi-absentia |
| From: |
"Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@pandora.be> |
| Date: |
Sat, 30 Nov 2002 12:16:32 +0100 |
|
Salvete all,
Sorry for the silence at my end, but I have a miserable case of the flu. I
promise to catch up on all of my off list and on-list emails just as soon as
I can sit at the computer without shivering from the fever or sneezing and
coughing on the monitor :-(
Valete!
Diana Moravia Aventina
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Question for the Tribunician Candidates |
| From: |
"L. Didius Geminus Sceptius \(E-mail\)" <sceptia@yahoo.es> |
| Date: |
Sat, 30 Nov 2002 15:25:37 +0100 |
|
Salvete quirites.
Honorable Drusus, I see you are quite worried about Gens and Family. Sure
your explanations have been very clear to those who follow your ideas. So as
far as I am concerned, I just can say that I would do anything to defend and
uphold the law. Never against our Res Publicae, but for it. But I don't
understand this, if I might say, incredible worry about the issue.
My whole program, If I could use that word, is to improve our Res Publicae.
That means to hear all the citizens, and of course to hear my own reason. As
another clever quirite said, we if elected must work together, not
individually, because a team is that of being united. And as another quirite
has said, the law is indeed approved and it means that the repeal of it
would mean that we are against the will of those who passed it, the people
who casted their votes.
So, Honorable Drusus... Sure you are so worried about History on that issue?
Shall you avoid too a change in the clientelar system created backwards? Or
am I being too wrong? I always want the citizens the best for our Res
Publicae. :-)
Maybe is time now to be worried about more important things. For example,
the improvement of the meetings, the creation of activities for those who
want to know their roman heritage... you know, being romans. ,-D
Vale bene,
L. Didius Geminus Sceptius
****************************************
- Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae -
- Praeceptor Academiae Thules -
- Decurio Hispano -
_______________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger
Nueva versión: Webcam, voz, y mucho más ¡Gratis!
Descárgalo ya desde http://messenger.yahoo.es
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] WL: query |
| From: |
<3s@hsk-net.de> |
| Date: |
Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:08:17 -0600 (CST) |
|
Salvete Quirites.
Forwarded for your interest. Perhaps there´s somebody who could help this gentleman.
Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Censor
-- Original Nachricht--
Von: Dale <biscayne@snappydsl.net>
An: censors@novaroma.org
Senden: 03:56
Betreff: query
perhaps i have misdirected this question, but
the date of the sack of rome is known to have been in August
23, 410CE, however that date is from the roman calendar of the time
does anyone know the equivalent date in our moderrn
calendar?
this would amount to a projection backward in time from the
adoption of the gregorian calendar (1461?) using the rules then
adopted
from what i have been able to gather so far, it is possible
that such a converted date could be on or close to "September 11", but i can
find nothing definitive
any help greatly appreciated
dale botwin
miami fl usa
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: WL: query |
| From: |
"Quintus Lanius Paulinus" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca> |
| Date: |
Sat, 30 Nov 2002 17:49:04 -0000 |
|
--- In Nova-Roma@y..., <3s@h...> wrote:
Salvete,
>From what I can see in the history books, all these dates such as the
sack of Rome, August 24, 410 AD have already been adjusted from the
Julian calender to the Gregorian calender. The modern Gregorian
calender is essentially the same as the Julian calender. The only
substantial changes took place under Pope Gregory XIII, who in 1582
omitted 10 days from that year alone to adjust the discepancy between
the Julian Calander and the solar year, and ordered that 3 days be
omitted in leao years ever 400 years.
Regards - Quintus Lanius Paulinus
> Salvete Quirites.
>
> Forwarded for your interest. Perhaps there´s somebody who could
help this gentleman.
>
> Valete
> Caius Flavius Diocletianus
> Censor
>
>
> -- Original Nachricht--
> Von: Dale <biscayne@s...>
> An: censors@n...
> Senden: 03:56
> Betreff: query
>
>
>
>
> perhaps i have misdirected this question, but
> the date of the sack of rome is known to have been in August
> 23, 410CE, however that date is from the roman calendar of the time
>
> does anyone know the equivalent date in our moderrn
> calendar?
> this would amount to a projection backward in time from the
> adoption of the gregorian calendar (1461?) using the rules then
> adopted
>
> from what i have been able to gather so far, it is possible
> that such a converted date could be on or close to "September 11",
but i can
> find nothing definitive
>
> any help greatly appreciated
> dale botwin
> miami fl usa
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] WL: query |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Sat, 30 Nov 2002 10:47:34 -0800 (PST) |
|
The 1461 adjustment did not apply to earlier dates.
The Julian calendar is stilled used for dates prior to
1461.
If you want to apply a correction backwards in time
you have to account for the differences in determining
a leap year. The Gregorian reform was concerned with
insuring that the first day of Spring occured on March
21st, the date determined in 325 CE, so that Easter
would be celebrated on the correct day. The difference
between the Gregorian and Julian Calendars concerns
leap years in years ending in 00. There was one of
these between 325 CE and the sack in 410CE. This would
be 400 CE wich would have been a leap year by
Gregorian Caculations as well as by Julian
Caculations. The Dates in 410 CE would be the same
under either calendar. 500 CE would have been the
first year that the Gregorian and Julian Calendars
diverged.
--- 3s@hsk-net.de wrote:
>
> Salvete Quirites.
>
> Forwarded for your interest. Perhaps there´s
> somebody who could help this gentleman.
>
> Valete
> Caius Flavius Diocletianus
> Censor
>
>
> -- Original Nachricht--
> Von: Dale <biscayne@snappydsl.net>
> An: censors@novaroma.org
> Senden: 03:56
> Betreff: query
>
>
>
>
> perhaps i have misdirected this question, but
> the date of the sack of rome is known to have been
> in August
> 23, 410CE, however that date is from the roman
> calendar of the time
>
> does anyone know the equivalent date in our moderrn
> calendar?
> this would amount to a projection backward in time
> from the
> adoption of the gregorian calendar (1461?) using the
> rules then
> adopted
>
> from what i have been able to gather so far, it is
> possible
> that such a converted date could be on or close to
> "September 11", but i can
> find nothing definitive
>
> any help greatly appreciated
> dale botwin
> miami fl usa
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
=====
L. Sicinius Drusus
"Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
(A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.)
Seneca, Letters to Lucilius
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] semi-absentia |
| From: |
aneaapollonia@aol.com |
| Date: |
Sat, 30 Nov 2002 14:23:24 EST |
|
Salve Diana,
I hope you recover soon, I've been a bit inactive also. (Preparing for more
traveling) Blessings of health be yours.
Vale bene,
I.A.A.Musa
|
