| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] reply re Cohors |
| From: |
Diana Moravia Aventina <diana_aventina@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Fri, 16 May 2003 18:00:18 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Salve C Minucius Scaevola, Sorry for the delayed
answer and sorry in advance for the qwerty
induced typing errors on this miniature keboard.
errrr
> Diana, from reading the rest of your post, I'm
> getting the sense that
> you're frustrated with the slow progress of
> this proposal; A little
bit, but it was more that I was frusrated to hear
it announced that the Senior Consul is discussing
something with the Tribunes when to my knowledge
he is not.
> However, I'll ask you not to take
> gratuitous potshots at
> the Cohors; You *can*
ask, but anytime anyone says anything to even
slightly criticise anyone in the Cohors someone
refers to it as an *attack* or this time, a
potshot. In any case I was not trying to take a
shot; pot, cheap, buck or big. I don' think so. I
merely stated out loud what a few people were
afraid to state: That we wonder what the cohors
is doing since such a large cohors led us to have
high expectations.
<it has done you no
harm that I know
> of, Of course
they have done me no harm. But does this mean
that I have to be afraid to ask a question ? Or
that I should be silenced? Or make beieve that I
think this large cohors is a good thing when from
day one I was publicly sceptical?
> Isn't this in direct opposition to what you say
> just below, with regard
> to announcing what other people are discussing?
Yes and you are right, I didn't express myself
clearly. What I was thinking (which was based on
nothing but me feeling bitchy was much more
rude): You can't give us a hint on what pressing
matters are holding up the proposal because I
doubt there are any.
> Do those titles take something away from you,
> then? Hmmm..Well, if
every Tom, Dick and Harry has a title then a
title dosen't really seem special anymore -- even
if you've been elected and not appointed.
< From my
perspective, the Cohors
> Consulis has done quite a
> lot of work - I find it ungracious of you to
> imply otherwise,
> particularly when you don't really know about
> it - but that work is
> advisory to the Consul, and he decides what of
> it will reach you or
> anyone else. Ok I stand
corrected. So the cohors is doing a lot of
advisory work for the Consul behind the scenes
but unfortunately the people are not seeing any
results. I look forward to seeing some results of
your hard work.
<Why not
broach your concerns to
> him, instead of attacking
> someone on whom that responsibility does not
> lie?
Ahh, I knew I would see the word "attack"
somewhere. It is the modus operandi of the Cohors
Consulis and cohors Aedilis along with the famous
"you should discuss this wtih him privately"
comment. Sorry dear, but I don't consider me
asking questions of
Apollonius as an attack. And I don't consider
your reply to me as an attack. Calling someone
fat or ugly or stupid is an attack. A discussion
remains a discussion.
Vale, Diana Moravia
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: new citizen |
| From: |
"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca> |
| Date: |
Sat, 17 May 2003 02:23:22 -0000 |
|
Salve Drusilla,
We are proud to have you as our new cousin in gens Lania. We'll
always be here for you and share your passion for Rome (especially
Pompeii). Drusilla is a very nice lady and I encourage all Nova
Romans to help her along this big learning curve which she'll love to
absorb!
Quintus Lanius Paulinus
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, lanius117@a... wrote:
> G. Lanius Falco Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> As paterfamilias of Gens Lania I have the pleasure of formally
introducing
> our newest cousin, Drusilla Lania Iris. She currently resides in
Hispania
> and is most eager to learn all about Nova Roma. I encourage all
cives to
> welcome her, as I have, into Nova Roma, and share with her your
passion for
> all things Roman.
>
> Valete,
>
> Gaius Lanius Falco
> *****************************
> Paterfamilias Gens Lania
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] reply re Cohors |
| From: |
Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org> |
| Date: |
Sat, 17 May 2003 01:01:08 -0400 |
|
Salve, Diana Moravia Aventina!
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 06:00:18PM -0700, Diana Moravia Aventina wrote:
> Salve C Minucius Scaevola, Sorry for the delayed
> answer and sorry in advance for the qwerty
> induced typing errors on this miniature keboard.
> errrr
No worries; I've read posts here where the approach to grammar,
spelling, and punctuation can only be described as "ballistic". :) A
little keyboard-induced noise won't do any harm.
> > Diana, from reading the rest of your post, I'm
> > getting the sense that
> > you're frustrated with the slow progress of
> > this proposal; A little
> bit, but it was more that I was frusrated to hear
> it announced that the Senior Consul is discussing
> something with the Tribunes when to my knowledge
> he is not.
I think that Cordus established that incident as a miscommunication, and
(if I recall correctly) apologized for it as such; what he meant by the
term was not how it came across.
> > However, I'll ask you not to take
> > gratuitous potshots at
> > the Cohors; You *can*
> ask, but anytime anyone says anything to even
> slightly criticise anyone in the Cohors someone
> refers to it as an *attack* or this time, a
> potshot.
Can you name one single person here who is familiar with the work of the
Cohors _and_ has criticized it? I don't know about anyone else, but I
call such "criticism" (a misnomer, since the critical faculty cannot be
applied without data) an attack.
> In any case I was not trying to take a
> shot; pot, cheap, buck or big. I don' think so. I
> merely stated out loud what a few people were
> afraid to state: That we wonder what the cohors
> is doing since such a large cohors led us to have
> high expectations.
What expectations did you have, if I may ask? I'm really interested. I,
myself, had none with regard to "performance", if such a term can be
applied to what a Consul does; my perception was that the Consul felt he
would be more comfortable and effective with a larger staff, where
someone else would be better suited by a smaller one. Someone else here
- I believe it was G. Iulius Scaurus - stated the opinion that size
alone is not a key factor and much depends on the specifics of the
organization and the workload, and I find that I'm in fairly close
agreement with that opinion. If you have information to the contrary
on which you've based your expectations, I'd appreciate knowing it.
> <it has done you no
> harm that I know
> > of, Of course
> they have done me no harm. But does this mean
> that I have to be afraid to ask a question ? Or
> that I should be silenced? Or make beieve that I
> think this large cohors is a good thing when from
> day one I was publicly sceptical?
Not at all. You have a complete right to your scepticism, and whatever
expression of it you choose to make; what you do not have is immunity
from contrary opinions. I have not tried to silence you; I would not do
it for the world even if I had the power. What I would prefer is that
you not denigrate the work of the Cohors based on unsupported guesses.
If you wish to criticize the Consul himself for his decision to have a
large staff - particularly when he is available to answer that criticism
- I would have no say in the matter; it would be up to the Consul to
answer. On the other hand, if you wish to cast aspersions at the Cohors,
I can't imagine why you would think that these would simply pass in
silence.
> > Isn't this in direct opposition to what you say
> > just below, with regard
> > to announcing what other people are discussing?
> Yes and you are right, I didn't express myself
> clearly. What I was thinking (which was based on
> nothing but me feeling bitchy was much more
> rude): You can't give us a hint on what pressing
> matters are holding up the proposal because I
> doubt there are any.
I'm willing to entertain that (potential) rudeness for the purpose of a
thought experiment. Consider, for a moment, what result you would have
liked to see. Is it, say, one of the Cohors reciting a list of the work
we've been doing? Because if it is, then what you're asking for is
disloyalty, a violation of the oath that all of us have taken, and a
betrayal of the trust that the Consul has placed in us as his staff.
I do not believe that this is truly something that you would wish for.
However, what even the implication of it does is place whoever is on the
sharp end in an untenable position: damned if you do (violation of oath)
and damned if you don't ("so you can't prove that you've done _any_
work, eh?") The choice is an obvious one, but you can't expect a
pleasant response in return when you corner someone that way.
...but this is all a thought experiment, anyway. You *weren't* rude, and
it didn't happen. :)
> > Do those titles take something away from you,
> > then? Hmmm..Well, if
> every Tom, Dick and Harry has a title then a
> title dosen't really seem special anymore -- even
> if you've been elected and not appointed.
Mmmm... how do I put this without too sharp of a point on it... ten
thousand Accensi would not make you any less of a Tribune. I could
probably even make the case that a greater number of involved citizens
make for a greater NovaRoma, and by extension make her Tribunes _more_
"special", to use your term. I believe this viewpoint is in close
accordance with the /Mos Maiorum/, and it happens to be one that I
think valid.
> < From my
> perspective, the Cohors
> > Consulis has done quite a
> > lot of work - I find it ungracious of you to
> > imply otherwise,
> > particularly when you don't really know about
> > it - but that work is
> > advisory to the Consul, and he decides what of
> > it will reach you or
> > anyone else. Ok I stand
> corrected. So the cohors is doing a lot of
> advisory work for the Consul behind the scenes
> but unfortunately the people are not seeing any
> results. I look forward to seeing some results of
> your hard work.
Thank you, Diana! I appreciate that comment, and I also look forward to
that day; a sense of completion of good work is no mean reward.
> <Why not
> broach your concerns to
> > him, instead of attacking
> > someone on whom that responsibility does not
> > lie?
> Ahh, I knew I would see the word "attack"
> somewhere. It is the modus operandi of the Cohors
> Consulis and cohors Aedilis along with the famous
> "you should discuss this wtih him privately"
> comment.
Whoops - please note that *I* did not say "privately"; in fact, if you
note my last comment to Sulla, you'll see that I prefer these
discussions to be public. Also, I have my own mode and /modus/; I don't
know that I'd be able to stick to anyone else's. Not without revamping
it to my tastes, anyway. :)
> Sorry dear, but I don't consider me
> asking questions of
> Apollonius as an attack.
I'll concede the point; it was miscommunication aggravated by the
situation, and despite the peremptory tone was not intended as an
attack. I withdraw the word where I used it in regard to you.
> And I don't consider
> your reply to me as an attack. Calling someone
> fat or ugly or stupid is an attack. A discussion
> remains a discussion.
<smile> That was my intention, and the very reason that I disagreed with
your claim of having started a controversy. In fact, my attitude in this
regard parallels that of William Lloyd Garrison:
With reasonable men, I will reason; with humane men, I will plead;
But to tyrants, I will give no quarter.
Optime vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Otium sine litteris mors est et hominis vivi sepultura.
Rest without reading is like dying and being buried alive.
-- Seneca Philosophus, "Epistulae"
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Roman Republican Coinage Index - by Gens |
| From: |
"Gregory Rose" <gfr@intcon.net> |
| Date: |
Sat, 17 May 2003 07:23:01 -0000 |
|
G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.
Avete, Quirites.
Here's a link to the "Roman Republican Coinage Index - by Gens":
http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/rsc/i.html
I would normally not provide a link to a site which promotes so many
antiquities dealers. I do not support private collection of
antiquities because it can result in the permanent loss of those
antiquities to scholarship; I recognise that many coin collectors
disagree. I do not mean to criticise the person who buys the
occasional Roman coin, particularly when there are large numbers of
samples of the same issue already in museum collections for study, and
I applaud collectors who offer scholars the opportunity to study rare
coins in their collections. What moves me to relax on this principle
is the fact that a great deal of the better numismatic information on
the internet is to be found only on sites maintained by coin and other
antiquities dealers and much of that information is otherwise only
obtainable in the research libraries of universities with strong
Classics programmes (something to which, unfortunately, most people do
not have access). This particular index of Republican coin issues,
organized by the Gens of the issuer or consular eponym, is something
which is likely to be of considerable interest to the gentes of NR.
This index was created by "Wildwinds.com, online reference,
attribution, and valuation site for ancient Greek, Roman, and
Byzantine Coins." I have never dealt with the company nor can I
provide any bona fides for the way in which it does business. I can
confirm that the descriptions of the coins indexed at the above URL
are accurate, but the index is not exhaustive.
Valete, Quirites.
G. Iulius Scaurus
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] new citizen |
| From: |
lanius117@aol.com |
| Date: |
Fri, 16 May 2003 21:13:07 EDT |
|
G. Lanius Falco Quiritibus S.P.D.
As paterfamilias of Gens Lania I have the pleasure of formally introducing
our newest cousin, Drusilla Lania Iris. She currently resides in Hispania
and is most eager to learn all about Nova Roma. I encourage all cives to
welcome her, as I have, into Nova Roma, and share with her your passion for
all things Roman.
Valete,
Gaius Lanius Falco
*****************************
Paterfamilias Gens Lania
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Archaeological remains (was Roman Republican Coinage Index - by Gens) |
| From: |
"Gnaeus Salix Astur" <salixastur@yahoo.es> |
| Date: |
Sat, 17 May 2003 09:29:43 -0000 |
|
Salvete Quirites; et salve, Gai Iuli.
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gregory Rose" <gfr@i...> wrote:
> G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.
>
> Avete, Quirites.
>
> Here's a link to the "Roman Republican Coinage Index - by Gens":
>
> http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/rsc/i.html
>
> I would normally not provide a link to a site which promotes so many
> antiquities dealers. I do not support private collection of
> antiquities because it can result in the permanent loss of those
> antiquities to scholarship; I recognise that many coin collectors
> disagree. I do not mean to criticise the person who buys the
> occasional Roman coin, particularly when there are large numbers of
> samples of the same issue already in museum collections for study,
> and I applaud collectors who offer scholars the opportunity to
> study rare coins in their collections.
This is something I would like to make a few comments on.
I entirely agree with Gaius Iulius here. Nova Roma strives to bring
back the culture of Ancient Rome, and that means that many of us are
eager to live like the ancients lived, and to own what the ancients
owned. But I think that a modern reconstruction of a Roman lamp, for
example, is much better than a *real* Roman lamp.
This might come like a surprise to those of you who have heard me
saying that we should "go for the real thing". But think twice. An
archaeological object is something you should *not* use for real
activities: it could be damaged by them, and it is a too valuable
thing to be used in such a fashion. Besides, I have always thought
that a real Roman object could not possibly belong to me: it did
belong to someone (a Roman) a long time ago, but now it is part of
the heritage of all mankind.
So reject real antiquities, citizens. They should all be in a museum
for *all* us to enjoy. Support modern reconstructionist craftsmen
instead. What happened in Iraq with the looting of the National Musea
would not have happened if *noone* was willing to buy those pieces.
> What moves me to relax on this principle is the fact that a great
> deal of the better numismatic information on the internet is to be
> found only on sites maintained by coin and other antiquities
> dealers and much of that information is otherwise only obtainable
> in the research libraries of universities with strong Classics
> programmes (something to which, unfortunately, most people do
> not have access). This particular index of Republican coin issues,
> organized by the Gens of the issuer or consular eponym, is something
> which is likely to be of considerable interest to the gentes of NR.
>
> This index was created by "Wildwinds.com, online reference,
> attribution, and valuation site for ancient Greek, Roman, and
> Byzantine Coins." I have never dealt with the company nor can I
> provide any bona fides for the way in which it does business. I can
> confirm that the descriptions of the coins indexed at the above URL
> are accurate, but the index is not exhaustive.
>
> Valete, Quirites.
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus
Thank you for the link, Gai Iuli; and thank you for this little
debate on Roman antiquities (I am talking about the discussion that
will follow this message ;-) ).
CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: reply re Cohors |
| From: |
"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com> |
| Date: |
Sat, 17 May 2003 17:16:24 -0000 |
|
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@c...>
wrote:
> Can you name one single person here who is familiar with the work
of the
> Cohors _and_ has criticized it? I don't know about anyone else, but
I
> call such "criticism" (a misnomer, since the critical faculty
cannot be
> applied without data) an attack.
I see, criticism that there is lack of evidence of work in progress
is now an attack. What is next> Is dissent is to be called
treason? Is this Nova Roma or some Orwellian state? Being in public
office does not make one immune from criticism. In fact it does the
exact opposite. Being in public office is to criticism is akin to
swinging a 5 Iron in a thunderstorm. If one does not wish to be
stuck by lightning then one ought to stay off the golf course during
thunderstorms.
Let's put it this way. With 25 people working a minimum average of 1
hour a week for 20 weeks that is 500 man hours. Is it really all
that unreasonable for the people to have some expectation of some
visible and tangible result? I'm all for getting it right the first
time and going the extra mile to make sure it happens, but we're not
building a nuclear submarine here.
> I'm willing to entertain that (potential) rudeness for the purpose
of a
> thought experiment. Consider, for a moment, what result you would
have
> liked to see. Is it, say, one of the Cohors reciting a list of the
work
> we've been doing? Because if it is, then what you're asking for is
> disloyalty, a violation of the oath that all of us have taken, and a
> betrayal of the trust that the Consul has placed in us as his
staff.
Yes, taking an oath to a person rather than the people collectively.
If I remember correctly, the edict regarding the oath states "I,
__enter Roman name here____________do hereby solemnly swear to uphold
the honor of Nova Roma, and to act always in the best interests of
__enter name of appointing magistrate here____ while I hold this
office, except when such action would be illegal or
unconstitutional......."
In fact that is what it does state as I look it up at
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/edicts/consul-2003-01-01-iii.html
Hmmm, no where in it is a oath to act in the best interests of Nova
Roma, but only in the best interests of the appointing magistrate.
An act may neither be illegal nor be unconstitutional, but it may not
be in Nova Roma's best interests. Who should decide what is in Nova
Roma's best interest? A little group of 25 or the people
collectively in their respective Comitia? I vote for the people in
their Comitia.
What was it that Romans called those people who took oaths to act in
the best interests of another way back then? It's on the tip of my
tongue. Oh yes, CLIENTS! Despite the use of client as an invective
here in the past, I must commend you for your loyalty to your patron,
a very noble and Roman attribute.
Q. Cassius Calvus
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] This is a little disturbing |
| From: |
"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com> |
| Date: |
Sat, 17 May 2003 17:52:18 -0000 |
|
Salvete Omnes,
Does no one other than myself find it a little disturbing that the
Aerarium Saturni has not been updated since the third quarter of 2001?
While I'm sure that Nova Roma is in decent financial shape and
nothing unseemly has happened to the funds, asking for a little
accountability to the tax payers is not out of order.
Valete,
Q. Cassius Calvus
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: familyname |
| From: |
Kristoffer From <from@darkeye.net> |
| Date: |
Sat, 17 May 2003 19:56:58 +0200 |
|
P. Nipius (pnip @ kabelfoon.nl) wrote:
> Good morning,I found your site and have a
> question.We are a dutch family and with
> the familyname: Nipius.
> Question: Is this a Roman-name or not, and
> how it comes in the Netherlands?
> greetings Piet Nipius.
Salvete, omnes.
Another question on names arrived to the webmaster alias today. Got any
thoughts on the name "Nipius"? Feel free to speculate here, or send
Nipius himself your thoughts.
Valete, Titus Octavius Pius.
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: familyname |
| From: |
"M. Octavius Solaris" <scorpioinvictus@hotmail.com> |
| Date: |
Sat, 17 May 2003 20:56:02 +0200 |
|
Salvete!
"Nipius" is highly unlikely to be originally Roman since it was only in the beginning of the 19th century that the government of the Netherlands (under the rule of Napoleonic France) forced their citizens to officially register family names. The Romans had already left the area a good 15 centuries before. It may well be a latinisation of something else, but I don't think it means anything in Latin itself.
Valete!
M. Octavius Solaris
----- Original Message -----
From: Kristoffer From
To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 7:56 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: familyname
P. Nipius (pnip @ kabelfoon.nl) wrote:
> Good morning,I found your site and have a
> question.We are a dutch family and with
> the familyname: Nipius.
> Question: Is this a Roman-name or not, and
> how it comes in the Netherlands?
> greetings Piet Nipius.
Salvete, omnes.
Another question on names arrived to the webmaster alias today. Got any
thoughts on the name "Nipius"? Feel free to speculate here, or send
Nipius himself your thoughts.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: reply re Cohors |
| From: |
"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Apollonius=20Cordus?=" <cordus@strategikon.org> |
| Date: |
Sat, 17 May 2003 23:39:38 +0100 (BST) |
|
A. Apollonius Cordus to Rogator Q. Cassius Calvus and
all citizens and peregrines, greetings.
You wrote:
> Yes, taking an oath to a person rather than the
> people collectively.
> If I remember correctly, the edict regarding the
> oath states "I,
> __enter Roman name here____________do hereby
> solemnly swear to uphold
> the honor of Nova Roma, and to act always in the
> best interests of
> __enter name of appointing magistrate here____ while
> I hold this
> office, except when such action would be illegal or
> unconstitutional......."
...
> Hmmm, no where in it is a oath to act in the best
> interests of Nova
> Roma, but only in the best interests of the
> appointing magistrate.
> An act may neither be illegal nor be
> unconstitutional, but it may not
> be in Nova Roma's best interests. Who should decide
> what is in Nova
> Roma's best interest?
...
> Despite the use of client
> as an invective
> here in the past, I must commend you for your
> loyalty to your patron,
> a very noble and Roman attribute.
This is a point worth discussing. I support the
exclusion from the assistants' oath of any clause
requiring the swearer to act in the best interests of
the state. If a magistrate swears to act in the best
interests of the state and appoints a number of
assistants who swear to do the same, then a great deal
of the purpose of having assistants is negated. As you
say, the magistrate has been elected by the people
because they think he or she is a good person to judge
their interests, so he or she is the person to make
this decision, and not his or her assistants.
Assistants are employees, and their job is to carry
out tasks for their magistrate without taking it upon
themselves, without a mandate from the electorate, to
decide whether it is or is not necessary or desirable.
Naturally assistants may also act as advisers and in
this capacity advise their magistrate on the course of
action must beneficial to the nation. Also, it is to
be assumed that if a magistrate instructed an
assistant to perform an action which was patently
detrimental to the public good then that assistant
would resign - this being required by their oath,
since it is in the best interests of a magistrate for
his or her assistant to refuse to take any action
which would assist him or her in breaking his or her
own oath not to harm the state. But short of this
eventuality, the assistant's oath enables the swearer
to to his or her job without necessarily agreeing
fully with the magistrate's idea of the state's
interests.
If assistants were oath-bound to act in the interests
both or their magistrate and of the state, then the
slightest disagreement between assistant and
magistrate over the best course of action would make
it necessary for the assistant to resign - and since
no two people are likely to agree about everything,
the magistrate would soon be left without employees!
I do not think that an employee is the same as a
client. Ties of clientship, as I understand, involve
both continuity and reciprocity. The assistant's
requirement to act in his or her magistrate's interest
does not continue beyond the end of his or her term of
office, and so lacks continuity; nor does is the
magistrate required to do anything for the assistant
(not even pay them - they are paid by the state in
century points and a title), so there is no
reciprocity. From my own experience, being an
assistant is much like being an employee, and not a
lot like how I imagine it would be to be a client - I
certainly don't greet the Consul or the Praetor in his
front hall every morning asking for favours, nor do I
necessarily vote in favour of anything he proposes.
I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting - whether
it's that the assistants' oath should include the
requirement to act in the best interests of Nova Roma,
or that it should not and therefore everything is
grand, or that assistants are clients and therefore
not to be trusted, or that assistants are clients and
therefore to be praised. My own feeling is that the
oath is fine, that assistants need not be clients, and
that that's okay.
Cordus
=====
www.strategikon.org
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: reply re Cohors |
| From: |
"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com> |
| Date: |
Sat, 17 May 2003 23:00:16 -0000 |
|
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<cordus@s...> wrote:
> A. Apollonius Cordus to Rogator Q. Cassius Calvus and
> all citizens and peregrines, greetings.
>
> You wrote:
> > Yes, taking an oath to a person rather than the
> > people collectively.
> > If I remember correctly, the edict regarding the
> > oath states "I,
> > __enter Roman name here____________do hereby
> > solemnly swear to uphold
> > the honor of Nova Roma, and to act always in the
> > best interests of
> > __enter name of appointing magistrate here____ while
> > I hold this
> > office, except when such action would be illegal or
> > unconstitutional......."
> ...
> > Hmmm, no where in it is a oath to act in the best
> > interests of Nova
> > Roma, but only in the best interests of the
> > appointing magistrate.
> > An act may neither be illegal nor be
> > unconstitutional, but it may not
> > be in Nova Roma's best interests. Who should decide
> > what is in Nova
> > Roma's best interest?
> ...
> > Despite the use of client
> > as an invective
> > here in the past, I must commend you for your
> > loyalty to your patron,
> > a very noble and Roman attribute.
>
> This is a point worth discussing. I support the
> exclusion from the assistants' oath of any clause
> requiring the swearer to act in the best interests of
> the state.
I don't support either an oath to the Office or to the Office Holder
to be sworn by Scribes and Accensi or for that matter needing to
swear to the best interests of the State. The reason is simple, it
creates the appearance that the person swearing the oath is bound in
clientship to the other. In the case where you have elected
magistrates serving one office and bound by oath Accensi for another
elected magistrate it gives not only the appearance of clientship but
conflict of interest as well.
As Rogator I can ask someone (or a dozen someones) to be a scribe and
appoint that person as a scribe. Either the person does well or the
person gets canned. If the person does something illegal or
unconstitutional, he/she would not only be canned but I would bring
him/her up on charges before the Praetor. No need for an oath,
their "Yes, I will act as your scribe." would be good enough for me.
Not to mention that I would make double darn sure the person I
appointed I could trust and was more than capable of the tasks.
If you really wish to extend the concept of clientship out, I could
consider myself a client of the candidates and the voters as I serve
them to ensure fair and impartial elections.
Vale,
Q. Cassius Calvus
|
