| Subject: |
[novaroma] conflict of interests |
| From: |
octavianuslucius@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 06 Apr 2001 00:03:43 -0000 |
|
Salvete omnes quirites.
I am overwhelmed by so many posts regarding the supposedly conflict
of interests that have been posted all day long.
I regret that this issue was brought after the election begun. I am
afraid that it should have been brought earlier. I am convinced that
now it is too late.
I would like to express my disagreement with our esteemed consul
Germanicus about resigning the propraetorship in case of winning the
election. Since I consider it is already too late to search for a
solution to the supposedly question of conflict of interests (because
the election already begun), in my humble opinion, the only way is to
go ahead, and during the year to call the comitia plebis tributa for
voting on this issue, in order to avoid this problem in the future.
Besides resigning the propraetorship maybe could solve a hypothetical
conflict of interests, but on the other way it could create some
problems for the province left without propraetor. Consequently, I do
not find the idea of resigning the propraetorship a good solution.
I realize the problem of lack of candidates. If my esteemed opponent
and me wouldn´t have requested our candidacies, then the candidacy
for tribunus plebis would still be vacant. NR doesn´t have yet enough
candidates.
Also,I wish to state that I welcome any comments, opinions, critics,
objections,etc. from anyone, no matter if he/she is patrician or
plebeian. I do not pay any attention to those argues on "plebeians
versus patricians", since I consider them a loss of time and energy.
At this point I must disagree with one of my best friends here at
Nova Roma (excuse-moi mon ami!, excuse me, my friend!).
Pax, Concordia vobiscum
Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
Candidate for tribunus plebis
Propraetor provinciae Argentinae
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Latin Translation |
| From: |
Mark A Bird <mark_a_bird@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:14:06 +1000 |
|
Can anyone help me with a Latin translation - I cannot find a word for Urine
- which I need for a play I am writing - a comedy in fact - greatly
appreciated...
Marcus Sentius Claudius
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the Network Administrator on +61 3 9667 6699.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned
for the presence of computer viruses and inappropriate content.
**********************************************************************
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] The Praetorship of Livia Marcia (was Making SPQR Grow) |
| From: |
cassius622@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:35:56 EDT |
|
Salvete Omnes,
I will be away for the weekend attending Mithracon at Yale University in CT.
Before leaving however, I must make a reply to a "comment" from Clodia
Cinnabari, Materfamilias of Gens Clodia, regarding the former Governor of the
America Austroccidentalis Provincia, Livia Marcia Aurelia.
Clodia Cinnabari writes:
"One wonders why a good governor was removed, too. One suspects politics.
One*even* suspects the same sort of politics that prompt a consul to take
shots at a departed ex-citizen."
Cassius respondit:
The above passage is a fairly direct reference to (and complaint about) the
Praetorship of Livia Marcia Aurelia, who was not prorogued in the Senate vote
concerning ALL Praetorships which was held in March.
In that vote, Livia Marcia Aurelia failed to carry the necessary votes for an
automatic prorogue of her position. A Praetor may be prorogued automatically
*only* if they receive a majority vote, the vote on Livia Marcia was tied.
Upon Livia Marcia not being prorogued, Gens Clodia sent a group letter of
complaint to the Senate. As one of this years consuls I sent them a reply to
this effect:
Livia Marcia was not *removed* as Praetor, she simply failed to carry a
majority vote in the Senate at this time. She therefore could not be
*automatically* prorogued as Praetor of America Austroccidentalis. The vote
on her was tied, 5 to 5, with four Senators unable to vote on time due to
various circumstances, and three others abstaining.
The fact that this vote was tied was more an unfortunate accident than
anything else. Senator Vado, her most vocal supporter in the Senate, failed
to vote on time, and her own Paterfamilias neither voted nor commented on the
situation at all. The other two Senators absent were almost assured to have
voted for her as well.
The good news was that a tied vote, while not being an automatic continuance,
was also most definitely *not* a refusal to have her as Praetor. It simply
meant that by law the Senate would have to vote on the Praetorship of
America Austroccidentalis again. In another vote her supporters would no
doubt make greater pains to attend the vote, and she would be assured of the
position.
I therefore asked Gens Claudia specifically to encourage Livia Marcia to
continue her application for the Praetorship. I even went so far as to tell
them that I would be voting for her. I also asked them (as I had asked Livia
Marcia directly) to stay in touch with the Senate on a couple of issues.
There had been questions on a couple of matters which Livia had not responded
to, and it was that lack of response that had caused the three "abstentions"
on her vote.
I believe it was Clodia Cinnabari herself who responded to my letter,
thanking me for my detailed personal response. She seemed pleased with the
information and advice I had given, and mentioned that she would take it to
Livia Marcia Aurelia.
Rather than continuing her application for Praetorship, Livia Marcia Aurelia
decided to resign her Citizenship on March 15th. While I find this very
unfortunate, I cannot see her action as anything but a decision not to accept
a position that was still very open to her.
It is my personal hope that the facts above will help put this issue behind
us. To recap: the vote on Livia Aurelia was tied, she was not "removed". She
chose to leave Nova Roma rather than participate in the second vote on the
matter required by law.
Valete,
Marcus Cassius Julianus
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] The Praetorship of Livia Marcia (was Making SPQR Grow) |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 5 Apr 2001 22:31:32 -0500 |
|
Just to humbly clarify one point Consul, it is not the Gens Claudia but he
Gens Clodia that you refer to. The Materfamilias of the Gens Claudia is one
of my Provincial Legates, and did not comment of this debate. I just want
those in NR that may have been confused to understand this innocent
oversight. Once again thank you Consul for your comments.
MCJ;
"I therefore asked Gens Claudia specifically to encourage Livia Marcia to
continue her application for the Praetorship."
QS
----- Original Message -----
From: <cassius622@-------->
To: <NovaRoma@-------->
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 10:35 PM
Subject: [novaroma] The Praetorship of Livia Marcia (was Making SPQR Grow)
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> I will be away for the weekend attending Mithracon at Yale University in
CT.
> Before leaving however, I must make a reply to a "comment" from Clodia
> Cinnabari, Materfamilias of Gens Clodia, regarding the former Governor of
the
> America Austroccidentalis Provincia, Livia Marcia Aurelia.
>
> Clodia Cinnabari writes:
> "One wonders why a good governor was removed, too. One suspects politics.
> One*even* suspects the same sort of politics that prompt a consul to take
> shots at a departed ex-citizen."
>
> Cassius respondit:
>
> The above passage is a fairly direct reference to (and complaint about)
the
> Praetorship of Livia Marcia Aurelia, who was not prorogued in the Senate
vote
> concerning ALL Praetorships which was held in March.
>
> In that vote, Livia Marcia Aurelia failed to carry the necessary votes for
an
> automatic prorogue of her position. A Praetor may be prorogued
automatically
> *only* if they receive a majority vote, the vote on Livia Marcia was tied.
>
> Upon Livia Marcia not being prorogued, Gens Clodia sent a group letter of
> complaint to the Senate. As one of this years consuls I sent them a reply
to
> this effect:
>
> Livia Marcia was not *removed* as Praetor, she simply failed to carry a
> majority vote in the Senate at this time. She therefore could not be
> *automatically* prorogued as Praetor of America Austroccidentalis. The
vote
> on her was tied, 5 to 5, with four Senators unable to vote on time due to
> various circumstances, and three others abstaining.
>
> The fact that this vote was tied was more an unfortunate accident than
> anything else. Senator Vado, her most vocal supporter in the Senate,
failed
> to vote on time, and her own Paterfamilias neither voted nor commented on
the
> situation at all. The other two Senators absent were almost assured to
have
> voted for her as well.
>
> The good news was that a tied vote, while not being an automatic
continuance,
> was also most definitely *not* a refusal to have her as Praetor. It simply
> meant that by law the Senate would have to vote on the Praetorship of
> America Austroccidentalis again. In another vote her supporters would no
> doubt make greater pains to attend the vote, and she would be assured of
the
> position.
>
> I therefore asked Gens Claudia specifically to encourage Livia Marcia to
> continue her application for the Praetorship. I even went so far as to
tell
> them that I would be voting for her. I also asked them (as I had asked
Livia
> Marcia directly) to stay in touch with the Senate on a couple of issues.
> There had been questions on a couple of matters which Livia had not
responded
> to, and it was that lack of response that had caused the three
"abstentions"
> on her vote.
>
> I believe it was Clodia Cinnabari herself who responded to my letter,
> thanking me for my detailed personal response. She seemed pleased with the
> information and advice I had given, and mentioned that she would take it
to
> Livia Marcia Aurelia.
>
> Rather than continuing her application for Praetorship, Livia Marcia
Aurelia
> decided to resign her Citizenship on March 15th. While I find this very
> unfortunate, I cannot see her action as anything but a decision not to
accept
> a position that was still very open to her.
>
> It is my personal hope that the facts above will help put this issue
behind
> us. To recap: the vote on Livia Aurelia was tied, she was not "removed".
She
> chose to leave Nova Roma rather than participate in the second vote on the
> matter required by law.
>
> Valete,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Votes are needing! |
| From: |
gaiuscoriolanus@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 06 Apr 2001 06:21:35 -0000 |
|
Salvete omnes.
The things I want to say have been already said. But it is necessary
to say it again. CITIZENS, PLEASE VOTE!
I am very well aware that a lot of you are Romans because you love
roman history, culture, or legions and you don't care politic games,
but think, that the way like Nova Roma will be is in your hands.
Some of very active citizens love to say big words that to vote is
duty and each one has duty to vote, and I have even seen some
suggestions to punish no voting citizens. This is unacceptable for
all who have only small piece of democracy in his heart. No, that
will never become a law. You have the right to choose how your
citizenship will be, but think that there are some other things that
excersise an influence on it. So try to make it like you want to have
it.
Next think is, that it is not perfectly clear what candidates wants
achieve when they reach their magistratures. I deeply respect Q.
Sertorius but I don't know about his plans. What you want to achieve
and realize as tribune Quintus? Why should I have vote you? Maybe I
missed your program in mail list, but I'm sure not the only one. It
could increase number of voting citizens if candidates will advertise
his programs and plans.
Valete
Gaius Marcius Coriolanus
Paterfamilias Gens Marcia
Legatus Pannoniae Inferioris
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Govenors Removed? |
| From: |
jmath669642reng@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 02:23:31 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Salvete, Citizens;
Not that it matters a great deal at this point, but it would seem from
information that I have recieved that the Govenor to which Mistress
Cinnibari refers was not really removed. Later information indicates
that Mistess Livia Marcias never intended to return to her
Propraetorship and even went so far as to persuade her own Paterfamilius
to not vote in the Senate Vote.
In fact there is a very good possibiity that the Senate Vote was
"rigged" by some of those who have now left Nova Roma to insure the
"failure" of a governor who did not intend to take up her
responsibility, and thereby set the stage for a mass exodus on the "ides
Of March". The rigged vote came very near failing when three Senators
voted in a unexpected way and at least two others innocently missed the
vote for good reason. Somethig no-one planned on.
There is, of course, no hard-proof that this is
what occurred, except for the information that I have which was given to
me by an unimpeachable source, a large number of coincedences, and a few
careless comments in various chatrooms. Now I am sure that those who
know me well will give cresedence to what I have said, and those who do
not will reject my comments. Such is only to be expected by those who
have been fooled by thier "friends." However, I do not lie and those
who are reasonable people will understand that, and those who are not,
will not.
In regard to the past Praetor of Britannia, I can say this from his own
words, that he felt that he could no longer strive against those things
that he disagreed with seeing so little result, I certainly understand
his feelings as things in any government grind exceedingly slow but
exceedingly fine. Vado is and was a fine man and a good govenor, he
worked very hard and was brought into the Senate for that reason. His
efforts as a Governor were exemplary. He has left for his own reasons
and I for one honor him for them. I am sure they are just a honorable
now as they were when we worked together. He was his own man, and was a
skillful manager. He was not a yes man. I did not always agree with
him, but then I have not "always" agreed with ANYONE.
As long as we have in our midst those who will not stoop to "till the
fields, that they would have others plow" things will always be very
slow. We currently have almost half a hundred citizens discussing,
sometimes in heated terms, whether or not Nova Roma should buy an island
or a place on the Mainland for it's first physical home. Meanwhile there
has been before the Citizens for several months a proposal for a very
moderate tax which has been ignored. The tax (or dues, or registration
fee or whatever) is for the purpose of beginning to establish a building
fund for just the purpose of purchasing such a physical home, but it
seems that few in Nova Roma are able to tie the two elements together.
I do not speak often here on the Main List anymore, but I have promised
myself not to stop all together. That would in all liklihood make too
many people happy (Grin!!!!!!!). Yet, I am always surprised anew that
so many people believe that so few people will create for them a place
like the Nova Roma that they envision, all the while criticizing the few
for the doing of it.
I have called for those to come forth to put together a Newsletter and
from the hundreds of Citizens and Skills we have garnered four who are
willing. I and others have called for assistance to fill Province
Staffs and to Staff a Sodalitas for Nova Roma Outreach and the mailboxes
are empty.
The old answer "I am too busy" seems to be the panacea for all such
questions, but ask for some ideas, for "others" to carry out and these
ideas come in by the bagful. Not that Nova Roma does not need new
ideas, but in addition to ideas we need a five to one ratio of workers
to ideas. With that kind of ratio Nova Roma could easiy gain 5 years in
one 12 month calendar period, but such will not happen until the ratio
of workers to ideas reverses. Instead of five ideas to one worker it
must be the other way around.
In regard to the question "Patrician or Plebian" I am Patrician, raised
to that position for the honor of my industry in Nova Roma. My
anchestor was a Plebian. I honor my anchestor and I believe that the
honor given me derives also upon him and his memory. However, I am sure
that my ancestor Marcus Minucius Audens, Legionary of the XXth Legio,
Miles Immunes Gromaciti and a long=term soldier of the Empire, would not
approve of me should I not be interested in the problems of the Plebians
in Nova Roma. No, I can no longer vote, but I would ask those who say
that Patricians have no place in Plebian affairs if they think that the
honor of an award for industry takes away the interest of he who is so
honored??
Be gentle for it is not the harsh edge of your tonhgue that your friends
and others seek. Be aware that perhaps your "clever saying" to your own
ears may well be an insult to another's. Be generous in your praise and
stingy in your criticism and give to all that which they have earned.
If in doubt look to the Virtues for your guide, and if you are wrong
apologize. If you are wronged accept the apology, and see that person
as though it were yourself who made the mistake. Do not always assume
it is the other person's stupidity which makes it so difficult to get
ahead.
I always like to look carefully at a good man's argument, put myself in
his place and seek what is right about his views. I always learn
something from that exercise, not the least of which on occasion that I
am nort correct in my views. I always try to remember as my Public
Honors were given to me so can they be removed. However, my personal
honor is my own, and it cannot be satisfied except through myself. An
Oath is a sacred trust, anchored securely in your personal honor. Read
the Oath carefully those of you who would be Magistates and match you
actions to that Oath. The Oath trancends friendship in fairess to ALL.
To me a word given is binding upon me. If the person to whom the word
was given is no longer available is that word now freed from it's
execution. In my view it is not. It would indeed on occasions be nice
to be freed of a hasty promise but without an overwhelming reason the
"easy way out" is exactly that.
Vale, Respectfully;
Marcus Audens
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Is there anyone in Tulsa, Okalahoma USA? |
| From: |
"Devry, Mark (Packaging House Auckland)" <mark.devry@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:23:22 +1200 |
|
Salve,
I have a friend who is moving back to the USA next week for a while and he
would like to know if there are any groups in or near Tulsa, Okalahoma.
(Sorry about the spelling).
If so, can you please reply to me off list with contact details and I will
pass these on. He is a keen re-enactor and it is a shame to see him go, but
he will be an asset to any group he joins.
Cheers,
Marcus Sentius Accipiter.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: The Praetorship of Livia Marcia (was Making SPQR Grow) |
| From: |
marciusrufus@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 06 Apr 2001 08:36:55 -0000 |
|
Salvete
I dont understanding what are you talking about. I'm citizen just a
few months, and I don't know situation about Livia Marcia. If she
was "removed" ilegitimately it is a big mistake and it is necessary
to find solution of this situation.
Julianus gived a clarifying information about this situation.
Livia is already not a citizen, and discussions about her praetorship
is little bit useless.
Valete
M.Marcius Rufus
--- In novaroma@--------, "Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@h...>
wrote:
> Just to humbly clarify one point Consul, it is not the Gens Claudia
but he
> Gens Clodia that you refer to. The Materfamilias of the Gens
Claudia is one
> of my Provincial Legates, and did not comment of this debate. I
just want
> those in NR that may have been confused to understand this innocent
> oversight. Once again thank you Consul for your comments.
>
> MCJ;
> "I therefore asked Gens Claudia specifically to encourage Livia
Marcia to
> continue her application for the Praetorship."
>
> QS
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <c--------us622@-------->
> To: <NovaRoma@-------->
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 10:35 PM
> Subject: [novaroma] The Praetorship of Livia Marcia (was Making
SPQR Grow)
>
>
> > Salvete Omnes,
> >
> > I will be away for the weekend attending Mithracon at Yale
University in
> CT.
> > Before leaving however, I must make a reply to a "comment" from
Clodia
> > Cinnabari, Materfamilias of Gens Clodia, regarding the former
Governor of
> the
> > America Austroccidentalis Provincia, Livia Marcia Aurelia.
> >
> > Clodia Cinnabari writes:
> > "One wonders why a good governor was removed, too. One suspects
politics.
> > One*even* suspects the same sort of politics that prompt a consul
to take
> > shots at a departed ex-citizen."
> >
> > Cassius respondit:
> >
> > The above passage is a fairly direct reference to (and complaint
about)
> the
> > Praetorship of Livia Marcia Aurelia, who was not prorogued in the
Senate
> vote
> > concerning ALL Praetorships which was held in March.
> >
> > In that vote, Livia Marcia Aurelia failed to carry the necessary
votes for
> an
> > automatic prorogue of her position. A Praetor may be prorogued
> automatically
> > *only* if they receive a majority vote, the vote on Livia Marcia
was tied.
> >
> > Upon Livia Marcia not being prorogued, Gens Clodia sent a group
letter of
> > complaint to the Senate. As one of this years consuls I sent them
a reply
> to
> > this effect:
> >
> > Livia Marcia was not *removed* as Praetor, she simply failed to
carry a
> > majority vote in the Senate at this time. She therefore could not
be
> > *automatically* prorogued as Praetor of America
Austroccidentalis. The
> vote
> > on her was tied, 5 to 5, with four Senators unable to vote on
time due to
> > various circumstances, and three others abstaining.
> >
> > The fact that this vote was tied was more an unfortunate accident
than
> > anything else. Senator Vado, her most vocal supporter in the
Senate,
> failed
> > to vote on time, and her own Paterfamilias neither voted nor
commented on
> the
> > situation at all. The other two Senators absent were almost
assured to
> have
> > voted for her as well.
> >
> > The good news was that a tied vote, while not being an automatic
> continuance,
> > was also most definitely *not* a refusal to have her as Praetor.
It simply
> > meant that by law the Senate would have to vote on the
Praetorship of
> > America Austroccidentalis again. In another vote her supporters
would no
> > doubt make greater pains to attend the vote, and she would be
assured of
> the
> > position.
> >
> > I therefore asked Gens Claudia specifically to encourage Livia
Marcia to
> > continue her application for the Praetorship. I even went so far
as to
> tell
> > them that I would be voting for her. I also asked them (as I had
asked
> Livia
> > Marcia directly) to stay in touch with the Senate on a couple of
issues.
> > There had been questions on a couple of matters which Livia had
not
> responded
> > to, and it was that lack of response that had caused the three
> "abstentions"
> > on her vote.
> >
> > I believe it was Clodia Cinnabari herself who responded to my
letter,
> > thanking me for my detailed personal response. She seemed pleased
with the
> > information and advice I had given, and mentioned that she would
take it
> to
> > Livia Marcia Aurelia.
> >
> > Rather than continuing her application for Praetorship, Livia
Marcia
> Aurelia
> > decided to resign her Citizenship on March 15th. While I find
this very
> > unfortunate, I cannot see her action as anything but a decision
not to
> accept
> > a position that was still very open to her.
> >
> > It is my personal hope that the facts above will help put this
issue
> behind
> > us. To recap: the vote on Livia Aurelia was tied, she was
not "removed".
> She
> > chose to leave Nova Roma rather than participate in the second
vote on the
> > matter required by law.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Patroni et clientes (was Re: Re:[novaroma] Keeping citizens interested) |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:42:08 +0200 |
|
Salve Luci Corneli,
(snipped)
> Well, all I can state is my opinion. Part of it is stated above. Some
> citizens are just not interested in politics and that is fine. But for
> those that are interested I think a few things might hold them back.
> First is a lack of knowledge. I cant stress to you how much I have
> learned being a magistrate in NR. Even now I still make mistakes, but
> I
> try to rectify them as quickly as they are presented to me. But, I
> think a way to overcome part of this is through the establishment of a
> time honored Roman tradition of patron/client relationship. I am not
> saying that we should follow every aspect of what it was like in
> ancient
> rome..but more like a tutelage. Where a newer member of Nova Roma is
> taken under the wing of an "old-timer" and is taught what being in NR
> is
> about, how the political system works, and why it works that
> way....etc. Because, I am of the opinion that once us old-timers are
> no
> longer in office it will be held by a newer generation, and I think it
> would be better to give them training on how NR works, and why NR works
> the way it does, than to leave our newer citizens on their own to drift
> and not have the guidance of our learned citizens.
While I think this is a good idea on its face, and would work just fine in
an ideal world (as communism would work in an ideal world), I'm afraid this
will inevitably result in mass corruption. Imagine a new citizen coming
under the tutelage of an influential person in NR, and being told lies, and
promised easy promotions if he supports his patron in this and that - or
else, expulsion, because that patron is so influential he could kill that
new citizen's public life. A patron-client-relationship should be based on
trust, and true trust is a very rare thing in this world, and it is even
more rare on the internet.
Mind you, I'm not accusing anyone here, but as I said before in the debate
over the possible conflict of intrests: where there's a good °opportunity°
for corruption, someone will eventually °use° that opportunity.
Vale bene!
Draco
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Old Business I: Name Change Edict |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:46:01 +0200 |
|
Salvete Consul Vedi et Quirites Novae Romae,
I've carefully read through the infamous Gender Edictum once again, and
again I see that it is well-constructed, and overall clearly stated.
However, I think given the difficulty to actually do apply for a name change
(regarding change of gender in a name), with all the bureaucracy involved,
it would be easier for said citizens to resign their citizenship and then
come back under a different name - it's less difficult and it's not illegal.
So while this Edictum is certainly thorough, it's on some points just not
very "user friendly", shall we say.
Valete bene!
Draco
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: Activity (was Re: [novaroma] Re: Conflict of Interest) |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:48:51 +0200 |
|
Salve Luci Maurici,
> S. Appolonius wrote: I don't believe in that beautiful oath of office -
> good people
> > don't need it, bad people will break it. So what's the use, except for
the
> > fact that it's a nice formality?
>
> I would like to take a moment to explain the use of this oath of office.
> Iuppiter, (the God of oaths, among other things, right?) sees us when we
> make our oaths. If we break them we will pay in some fashion. It doesn't
> matter if you believe or not. He is real. My faith may be un-Roman but I
> don't feel it is un-warranted. And while being fervently devoted to the
> Religio may not be historically correct, it is the kind of sentiment
needed
> by us all if we are to build a real Nova Roma.
>
But if people will break their oath of office, shall Iuppiter strike them
down with lightning? I think my argument is still standing: a pious and
righteous person doesn't need an oath to prove his trustworthiness and piety
regarding Roma and the Pantheon, while an impious villain doesn't need it
either - he's going to break that oath anyway.
Vale bene,
Draco
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Old Business I: Name Change Edict |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 08:13:31 -0400 |
|
Salve;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: S. Apollonius Draco [mailto:hendrik.meuleman@--------]
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 04:46
>
> So while this Edictum is certainly thorough, it's on some points just not
> very "user friendly", shall we say.
So what specific changes would you recommend? That's the whole point of
posting these sorts of things far before the actual vote; to be able to
adjust them based on input from the people. I had hoped to get a few more
practical comments than "I don't like it"... :-)
Next year in the Forum!
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: The Praetorship of Livia Marcia (was Making SPQR Grow) |
| From: |
"Marcus Cassius Julianus" <cassius622@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:20:14 -0000 |
|
Salvete,
My most humble apologies for the typographical error. I did indeed
mean Gens Clodia rather than Gens Claudia! Unfortunately I had no
choice but to type that letter very late at night if it was going to
go out at all... if that is the only error I made it will be a
surprise.
Valete,
Marcus Cassius Julianus
--- In novaroma@--------, "Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@h...>
wrote:
> Just to humbly clarify one point Consul, it is not the Gens Claudia
but he
> Gens Clodia that you refer to. The Materfamilias of the Gens
Claudia is one
> of my Provincial Legates, and did not comment of this debate. I
just want
> those in NR that may have been confused to understand this innocent
> oversight. Once again thank you Consul for your comments.
>
> MCJ;
> "I therefore asked Gens Claudia specifically to encourage Livia
Marcia to
> continue her application for the Praetorship."
>
> QS
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <c--------us622@-------->
> To: <NovaRoma@-------->
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 10:35 PM
> Subject: [novaroma] The Praetorship of Livia Marcia (was Making
SPQR Grow)
>
>
> > Salvete Omnes,
> >
> > I will be away for the weekend attending Mithracon at Yale
University in
> CT.
> > Before leaving however, I must make a reply to a "comment" from
Clodia
> > Cinnabari, Materfamilias of Gens Clodia, regarding the former
Governor of
> the
> > America Austroccidentalis Provincia, Livia Marcia Aurelia.
> >
> > Clodia Cinnabari writes:
> > "One wonders why a good governor was removed, too. One suspects
politics.
> > One*even* suspects the same sort of politics that prompt a consul
to take
> > shots at a departed ex-citizen."
> >
> > Cassius respondit:
> >
> > The above passage is a fairly direct reference to (and complaint
about)
> the
> > Praetorship of Livia Marcia Aurelia, who was not prorogued in the
Senate
> vote
> > concerning ALL Praetorships which was held in March.
> >
> > In that vote, Livia Marcia Aurelia failed to carry the necessary
votes for
> an
> > automatic prorogue of her position. A Praetor may be prorogued
> automatically
> > *only* if they receive a majority vote, the vote on Livia Marcia
was tied.
> >
> > Upon Livia Marcia not being prorogued, Gens Clodia sent a group
letter of
> > complaint to the Senate. As one of this years consuls I sent them
a reply
> to
> > this effect:
> >
> > Livia Marcia was not *removed* as Praetor, she simply failed to
carry a
> > majority vote in the Senate at this time. She therefore could not
be
> > *automatically* prorogued as Praetor of America
Austroccidentalis. The
> vote
> > on her was tied, 5 to 5, with four Senators unable to vote on
time due to
> > various circumstances, and three others abstaining.
> >
> > The fact that this vote was tied was more an unfortunate accident
than
> > anything else. Senator Vado, her most vocal supporter in the
Senate,
> failed
> > to vote on time, and her own Paterfamilias neither voted nor
commented on
> the
> > situation at all. The other two Senators absent were almost
assured to
> have
> > voted for her as well.
> >
> > The good news was that a tied vote, while not being an automatic
> continuance,
> > was also most definitely *not* a refusal to have her as Praetor.
It simply
> > meant that by law the Senate would have to vote on the
Praetorship of
> > America Austroccidentalis again. In another vote her supporters
would no
> > doubt make greater pains to attend the vote, and she would be
assured of
> the
> > position.
> >
> > I therefore asked Gens Claudia specifically to encourage Livia
Marcia to
> > continue her application for the Praetorship. I even went so far
as to
> tell
> > them that I would be voting for her. I also asked them (as I had
asked
> Livia
> > Marcia directly) to stay in touch with the Senate on a couple of
issues.
> > There had been questions on a couple of matters which Livia had
not
> responded
> > to, and it was that lack of response that had caused the three
> "abstentions"
> > on her vote.
> >
> > I believe it was Clodia Cinnabari herself who responded to my
letter,
> > thanking me for my detailed personal response. She seemed pleased
with the
> > information and advice I had given, and mentioned that she would
take it
> to
> > Livia Marcia Aurelia.
> >
> > Rather than continuing her application for Praetorship, Livia
Marcia
> Aurelia
> > decided to resign her Citizenship on March 15th. While I find
this very
> > unfortunate, I cannot see her action as anything but a decision
not to
> accept
> > a position that was still very open to her.
> >
> > It is my personal hope that the facts above will help put this
issue
> behind
> > us. To recap: the vote on Livia Aurelia was tied, she was
not "removed".
> She
> > chose to leave Nova Roma rather than participate in the second
vote on the
> > matter required by law.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Codex (was RE: Keeping citizens interested) |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 08:39:25 -0400 |
|
Salvete
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gnaeus Salix Astur [mailto:salixastur@--------]
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 16:35
>
> I have also thought about this issue. As a new (and
> not even official yet) citizen, I am very interested
> in the laws of Nova Roma. I have read most of the
> entries in the Tabularium, and I have sometimes found
> that cross-references make that read harder than it
> should be. I think it would be a good idea to recreate
> just another Roman tradition: the Codex.
>
> A Codex could be written and placed in the Tabularium
> as to show what are the laws of Nova Roma up to today,
> without including old laws that have been admended by
> more recent laws.
I think this is an absolutely splendid idea! In addition, I am particularly
excited because it does seem to mesh well with the development of our civil
law code and procedure by the Civil Law Committee (slow going, but progress
is definitely being made). I think that the institution of such a Codex as
you describe, once the work of the Committee is complete and voted on by the
people, would be a vital step in making the law more accessible.
Given that the civil law, once promulgated and enacted into law, will likely
be both large and comprehensive, I would think that it would be best to hold
off actually compiling such a Codex for a few months, so that the civil
system could form its backbone.
One question; who would be in charge of maintaining and updating such a
Codex? The praetores, aediles, their scribes, or a new magistracy under the
vigintisexviri? Where did such codici come from in Roma Antiqua?
Next year in the Forum!
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: The Praetorship of Livia Marcia (was Making SPQR Grow) |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 07:29:58 -0500 |
|
Thank you Consul for your post, it cleared up some questions I had. Do not
worry about that small mistake, we who are not in any of the higher offices
can only imagine at your work loads!
QS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Cassius Julianus" <cassius622@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 7:20 AM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: The Praetorship of Livia Marcia (was Making SPQR
Grow)
> Salvete,
>
> My most humble apologies for the typographical error. I did indeed
> mean Gens Clodia rather than Gens Claudia! Unfortunately I had no
> choice but to type that letter very late at night if it was going to
> go out at all... if that is the only error I made it will be a
> surprise.
>
> Valete,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
>
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, "Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@h...>
> wrote:
> > Just to humbly clarify one point Consul, it is not the Gens Claudia
> but he
> > Gens Clodia that you refer to. The Materfamilias of the Gens
> Claudia is one
> > of my Provincial Legates, and did not comment of this debate. I
> just want
> > those in NR that may have been confused to understand this innocent
> > oversight. Once again thank you Consul for your comments.
> >
> > MCJ;
> > "I therefore asked Gens Claudia specifically to encourage Livia
> Marcia to
> > continue her application for the Praetorship."
> >
> > QS
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <c--------us622@-------->
> > To: <NovaRoma@-------->
> > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 10:35 PM
> > Subject: [novaroma] The Praetorship of Livia Marcia (was Making
> SPQR Grow)
> >
> >
> > > Salvete Omnes,
> > >
> > > I will be away for the weekend attending Mithracon at Yale
> University in
> > CT.
> > > Before leaving however, I must make a reply to a "comment" from
> Clodia
> > > Cinnabari, Materfamilias of Gens Clodia, regarding the former
> Governor of
> > the
> > > America Austroccidentalis Provincia, Livia Marcia Aurelia.
> > >
> > > Clodia Cinnabari writes:
> > > "One wonders why a good governor was removed, too. One suspects
> politics.
> > > One*even* suspects the same sort of politics that prompt a consul
> to take
> > > shots at a departed ex-citizen."
> > >
> > > Cassius respondit:
> > >
> > > The above passage is a fairly direct reference to (and complaint
> about)
> > the
> > > Praetorship of Livia Marcia Aurelia, who was not prorogued in the
> Senate
> > vote
> > > concerning ALL Praetorships which was held in March.
> > >
> > > In that vote, Livia Marcia Aurelia failed to carry the necessary
> votes for
> > an
> > > automatic prorogue of her position. A Praetor may be prorogued
> > automatically
> > > *only* if they receive a majority vote, the vote on Livia Marcia
> was tied.
> > >
> > > Upon Livia Marcia not being prorogued, Gens Clodia sent a group
> letter of
> > > complaint to the Senate. As one of this years consuls I sent them
> a reply
> > to
> > > this effect:
> > >
> > > Livia Marcia was not *removed* as Praetor, she simply failed to
> carry a
> > > majority vote in the Senate at this time. She therefore could not
> be
> > > *automatically* prorogued as Praetor of America
> Austroccidentalis. The
> > vote
> > > on her was tied, 5 to 5, with four Senators unable to vote on
> time due to
> > > various circumstances, and three others abstaining.
> > >
> > > The fact that this vote was tied was more an unfortunate accident
> than
> > > anything else. Senator Vado, her most vocal supporter in the
> Senate,
> > failed
> > > to vote on time, and her own Paterfamilias neither voted nor
> commented on
> > the
> > > situation at all. The other two Senators absent were almost
> assured to
> > have
> > > voted for her as well.
> > >
> > > The good news was that a tied vote, while not being an automatic
> > continuance,
> > > was also most definitely *not* a refusal to have her as Praetor.
> It simply
> > > meant that by law the Senate would have to vote on the
> Praetorship of
> > > America Austroccidentalis again. In another vote her supporters
> would no
> > > doubt make greater pains to attend the vote, and she would be
> assured of
> > the
> > > position.
> > >
> > > I therefore asked Gens Claudia specifically to encourage Livia
> Marcia to
> > > continue her application for the Praetorship. I even went so far
> as to
> > tell
> > > them that I would be voting for her. I also asked them (as I had
> asked
> > Livia
> > > Marcia directly) to stay in touch with the Senate on a couple of
> issues.
> > > There had been questions on a couple of matters which Livia had
> not
> > responded
> > > to, and it was that lack of response that had caused the three
> > "abstentions"
> > > on her vote.
> > >
> > > I believe it was Clodia Cinnabari herself who responded to my
> letter,
> > > thanking me for my detailed personal response. She seemed pleased
> with the
> > > information and advice I had given, and mentioned that she would
> take it
> > to
> > > Livia Marcia Aurelia.
> > >
> > > Rather than continuing her application for Praetorship, Livia
> Marcia
> > Aurelia
> > > decided to resign her Citizenship on March 15th. While I find
> this very
> > > unfortunate, I cannot see her action as anything but a decision
> not to
> > accept
> > > a position that was still very open to her.
> > >
> > > It is my personal hope that the facts above will help put this
> issue
> > behind
> > > us. To recap: the vote on Livia Aurelia was tied, she was
> not "removed".
> > She
> > > chose to leave Nova Roma rather than participate in the second
> vote on the
> > > matter required by law.
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > >
> > > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: The Praetorship of Livia Marcia |
| From: |
"Marcus Cassius Julianus" <cassius622@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:08:14 -0000 |
|
Salvete,
I quite agree that since Livia Marcia Aurelia quit her Citizenship as
part of the pre-agreed "exodus" on the Ides of March, that there is
little to be gained by further discussions of her Praetorship.
However, since some Citizens still have seemed to have questions
about the issue, it made sense to answer them directly rather than to
leave the situation hanging. My hope is that we can move on to other
issues here in the public forum.
If anyone should still have questions about Livia Marcia and her
Praetorship, I invite them to contact me personally at:
cassius@-------- Again, I will be away at Mithracon for the
weekend and will be returning on Sunday evening, 4/8.
Valete,
Marcus Cassius Julianus
Consul
--- In novaroma@--------, marciusrufus@-------- wrote:
>
> Salvete
>
> I dont understanding what are you talking about. I'm citizen just a
> few months, and I don't know situation about Livia Marcia. If she
> was "removed" ilegitimately it is a big mistake and it is necessary
> to find solution of this situation.
>
> Julianus gived a clarifying information about this situation.
> Livia is already not a citizen, and discussions about her
praetorship
> is little bit useless.
>
> Valete
>
> M.Marcius Rufus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, "Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@h...>
> wrote:
> > Just to humbly clarify one point Consul, it is not the Gens
Claudia
> but he
> > Gens Clodia that you refer to. The Materfamilias of the Gens
> Claudia is one
> > of my Provincial Legates, and did not comment of this debate. I
> just want
> > those in NR that may have been confused to understand this
innocent
> > oversight. Once again thank you Consul for your comments.
> >
> > MCJ;
> > "I therefore asked Gens Claudia specifically to encourage Livia
> Marcia to
> > continue her application for the Praetorship."
> >
> > QS
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <c--------us622@-------->
> > To: <NovaRoma@-------->
> > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 10:35 PM
> > Subject: [novaroma] The Praetorship of Livia Marcia (was Making
> SPQR Grow)
> >
> >
> > > Salvete Omnes,
> > >
> > > I will be away for the weekend attending Mithracon at Yale
> University in
> > CT.
> > > Before leaving however, I must make a reply to a "comment" from
> Clodia
> > > Cinnabari, Materfamilias of Gens Clodia, regarding the former
> Governor of
> > the
> > > America Austroccidentalis Provincia, Livia Marcia Aurelia.
> > >
> > > Clodia Cinnabari writes:
> > > "One wonders why a good governor was removed, too. One suspects
> politics.
> > > One*even* suspects the same sort of politics that prompt a
consul
> to take
> > > shots at a departed ex-citizen."
> > >
> > > Cassius respondit:
> > >
> > > The above passage is a fairly direct reference to (and
complaint
> about)
> > the
> > > Praetorship of Livia Marcia Aurelia, who was not prorogued in
the
> Senate
> > vote
> > > concerning ALL Praetorships which was held in March.
> > >
> > > In that vote, Livia Marcia Aurelia failed to carry the
necessary
> votes for
> > an
> > > automatic prorogue of her position. A Praetor may be prorogued
> > automatically
> > > *only* if they receive a majority vote, the vote on Livia
Marcia
> was tied.
> > >
> > > Upon Livia Marcia not being prorogued, Gens Clodia sent a group
> letter of
> > > complaint to the Senate. As one of this years consuls I sent
them
> a reply
> > to
> > > this effect:
> > >
> > > Livia Marcia was not *removed* as Praetor, she simply failed to
> carry a
> > > majority vote in the Senate at this time. She therefore could
not
> be
> > > *automatically* prorogued as Praetor of America
> Austroccidentalis. The
> > vote
> > > on her was tied, 5 to 5, with four Senators unable to vote on
> time due to
> > > various circumstances, and three others abstaining.
> > >
> > > The fact that this vote was tied was more an unfortunate
accident
> than
> > > anything else. Senator Vado, her most vocal supporter in the
> Senate,
> > failed
> > > to vote on time, and her own Paterfamilias neither voted nor
> commented on
> > the
> > > situation at all. The other two Senators absent were almost
> assured to
> > have
> > > voted for her as well.
> > >
> > > The good news was that a tied vote, while not being an automatic
> > continuance,
> > > was also most definitely *not* a refusal to have her as
Praetor.
> It simply
> > > meant that by law the Senate would have to vote on the
> Praetorship of
> > > America Austroccidentalis again. In another vote her supporters
> would no
> > > doubt make greater pains to attend the vote, and she would be
> assured of
> > the
> > > position.
> > >
> > > I therefore asked Gens Claudia specifically to encourage Livia
> Marcia to
> > > continue her application for the Praetorship. I even went so
far
> as to
> > tell
> > > them that I would be voting for her. I also asked them (as I
had
> asked
> > Livia
> > > Marcia directly) to stay in touch with the Senate on a couple
of
> issues.
> > > There had been questions on a couple of matters which Livia had
> not
> > responded
> > > to, and it was that lack of response that had caused the three
> > "abstentions"
> > > on her vote.
> > >
> > > I believe it was Clodia Cinnabari herself who responded to my
> letter,
> > > thanking me for my detailed personal response. She seemed
pleased
> with the
> > > information and advice I had given, and mentioned that she
would
> take it
> > to
> > > Livia Marcia Aurelia.
> > >
> > > Rather than continuing her application for Praetorship, Livia
> Marcia
> > Aurelia
> > > decided to resign her Citizenship on March 15th. While I find
> this very
> > > unfortunate, I cannot see her action as anything but a decision
> not to
> > accept
> > > a position that was still very open to her.
> > >
> > > It is my personal hope that the facts above will help put this
> issue
> > behind
> > > us. To recap: the vote on Livia Aurelia was tied, she was
> not "removed".
> > She
> > > chose to leave Nova Roma rather than participate in the second
> vote on the
> > > matter required by law.
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > >
> > > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Codex (was RE: Keeping citizens interested) |
| From: |
Craig Stevenson <dougies@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 06 Apr 2001 22:38:28 +0930 |
|
Ave all,
That's a great idea, about the codex. I think perhaps the duty should go to
either the Aedilies or praetores. Given the ideas that are floating around that
there is not much to do or the aediles, perhaps they should be given the job?
Valete bene,
Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura
Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
> Salvete
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gnaeus Salix Astur [mailto:salixastur@--------]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 16:35
> >
> > I have also thought about this issue. As a new (and
> > not even official yet) citizen, I am very interested
> > in the laws of Nova Roma. I have read most of the
> > entries in the Tabularium, and I have sometimes found
> > that cross-references make that read harder than it
> > should be. I think it would be a good idea to recreate
> > just another Roman tradition: the Codex.
> >
> > A Codex could be written and placed in the Tabularium
> > as to show what are the laws of Nova Roma up to today,
> > without including old laws that have been admended by
> > more recent laws.
>
> I think this is an absolutely splendid idea! In addition, I am particularly
> excited because it does seem to mesh well with the development of our civil
> law code and procedure by the Civil Law Committee (slow going, but progress
> is definitely being made). I think that the institution of such a Codex as
> you describe, once the work of the Committee is complete and voted on by the
> people, would be a vital step in making the law more accessible.
>
> Given that the civil law, once promulgated and enacted into law, will likely
> be both large and comprehensive, I would think that it would be best to hold
> off actually compiling such a Codex for a few months, so that the civil
> system could form its backbone.
>
> One question; who would be in charge of maintaining and updating such a
> Codex? The praetores, aediles, their scribes, or a new magistracy under the
> vigintisexviri? Where did such codici come from in Roma Antiqua?
>
> Next year in the Forum!
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Elucidation is needed here, I think! |
| From: |
Craig Stevenson <dougies@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 06 Apr 2001 23:01:51 +0930 |
|
Ave all,
I find myself quite disturbed tonight, upon reading the aforementioned post.
How do you claim to know all the reasons behind the refusal of Livia Marcia?
I happen to know quite a lot, and I can just say that with all of the
accusations flying at her, at one point she was near having neck pains and
nervous twitches from the stress of opening her inbox and facing another
round of attacks at her. At the point where the said event happened, she was
very stressed already, with enormous workloads, and doing courses at the same
time.
One of the other things you failed to mention was the fact that some of the
senators cited as their reasons for not proroging her governorship down to
the controversy surrounding her and another unnamed citizen. And suddenly,
out of nowhere you bring out this 'conspiracy theory' that it was all a mass,
pre-arranged exodus. Where is your evidence for this? Surely the person who
was your informant can be named, for there is no fear of backlash at this
point? And surely it must be said that Livia Marcia had a perfect right to
keep silent on a topic that she was an innocent victim of. After all, are we
to have no personal secrets? I'm sure there are many of you out there who,
after reading this missive, aren't going to go straight out and blurt out
their deepest, drakest secrets, are they?:-)
I also note that few of you know that Piscinus indeed was a very ill person,
who at times could rarely hold a conversation for more than a few minutes
before having to log off. Yet often he was told that he was a coward, or, in
the words of Quintus Fabius, "a rat", when he did not show up to defend
himself. He was often incapacitated by his illnesses, and yet none inquired
about this. Are we that lacking in honor and dignity?
I am surprised that someone who knows the least of an event such as youself
would suddenly proclaim himself such an expert on this subject, when none of
the particulars were aired. I myself did not know until after her
resignation, when she felt she had to clear her name to someone who could be
impartial enough to listen.
I leave this message off now, but I must say that I am less than pleased at
this, especially from a man of whom Livia Marcia once held such high opinions
and esteemed his opinions greatly.
Valete bene,
Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura
Marcus Cassius Julianus wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> I quite agree that since Livia Marcia Aurelia quit her Citizenship as
> part of the pre-agreed "exodus" on the Ides of March, that there is
> little to be gained by further discussions of her Praetorship.
>
> However, since some Citizens still have seemed to have questions
> about the issue, it made sense to answer them directly rather than to
> leave the situation hanging. My hope is that we can move on to other
> issues here in the public forum.
>
> If anyone should still have questions about Livia Marcia and her
> Praetorship, I invite them to contact me personally at:
> cassius@-------- Again, I will be away at Mithracon for the
> weekend and will be returning on Sunday evening, 4/8.
>
> Valete,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
> Consul
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, marciusrufus@-------- wrote:
> >
> > Salvete
> >
> > I dont understanding what are you talking about. I'm citizen just a
> > few months, and I don't know situation about Livia Marcia. If she
> > was "removed" ilegitimately it is a big mistake and it is necessary
> > to find solution of this situation.
> >
> > Julianus gived a clarifying information about this situation.
> > Livia is already not a citizen, and discussions about her
> praetorship
> > is little bit useless.
> >
> > Valete
> >
> > M.Marcius Rufus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In novaroma@--------, "Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@h...>
> > wrote:
> > > Just to humbly clarify one point Consul, it is not the Gens
> Claudia
> > but he
> > > Gens Clodia that you refer to. The Materfamilias of the Gens
> > Claudia is one
> > > of my Provincial Legates, and did not comment of this debate. I
> > just want
> > > those in NR that may have been confused to understand this
> innocent
> > > oversight. Once again thank you Consul for your comments.
> > >
> > > MCJ;
> > > "I therefore asked Gens Claudia specifically to encourage Livia
> > Marcia to
> > > continue her application for the Praetorship."
> > >
> > > QS
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <c--------us622@-------->
> > > To: <NovaRoma@-------->
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 10:35 PM
> > > Subject: [novaroma] The Praetorship of Livia Marcia (was Making
> > SPQR Grow)
> > >
> > >
> > > > Salvete Omnes,
> > > >
> > > > I will be away for the weekend attending Mithracon at Yale
> > University in
> > > CT.
> > > > Before leaving however, I must make a reply to a "comment" from
> > Clodia
> > > > Cinnabari, Materfamilias of Gens Clodia, regarding the former
> > Governor of
> > > the
> > > > America Austroccidentalis Provincia, Livia Marcia Aurelia.
> > > >
> > > > Clodia Cinnabari writes:
> > > > "One wonders why a good governor was removed, too. One suspects
> > politics.
> > > > One*even* suspects the same sort of politics that prompt a
> consul
> > to take
> > > > shots at a departed ex-citizen."
> > > >
> > > > Cassius respondit:
> > > >
> > > > The above passage is a fairly direct reference to (and
> complaint
> > about)
> > > the
> > > > Praetorship of Livia Marcia Aurelia, who was not prorogued in
> the
> > Senate
> > > vote
> > > > concerning ALL Praetorships which was held in March.
> > > >
> > > > In that vote, Livia Marcia Aurelia failed to carry the
> necessary
> > votes for
> > > an
> > > > automatic prorogue of her position. A Praetor may be prorogued
> > > automatically
> > > > *only* if they receive a majority vote, the vote on Livia
> Marcia
> > was tied.
> > > >
> > > > Upon Livia Marcia not being prorogued, Gens Clodia sent a group
> > letter of
> > > > complaint to the Senate. As one of this years consuls I sent
> them
> > a reply
> > > to
> > > > this effect:
> > > >
> > > > Livia Marcia was not *removed* as Praetor, she simply failed to
> > carry a
> > > > majority vote in the Senate at this time. She therefore could
> not
> > be
> > > > *automatically* prorogued as Praetor of America
> > Austroccidentalis. The
> > > vote
> > > > on her was tied, 5 to 5, with four Senators unable to vote on
> > time due to
> > > > various circumstances, and three others abstaining.
> > > >
> > > > The fact that this vote was tied was more an unfortunate
> accident
> > than
> > > > anything else. Senator Vado, her most vocal supporter in the
> > Senate,
> > > failed
> > > > to vote on time, and her own Paterfamilias neither voted nor
> > commented on
> > > the
> > > > situation at all. The other two Senators absent were almost
> > assured to
> > > have
> > > > voted for her as well.
> > > >
> > > > The good news was that a tied vote, while not being an automatic
> > > continuance,
> > > > was also most definitely *not* a refusal to have her as
> Praetor.
> > It simply
> > > > meant that by law the Senate would have to vote on the
> > Praetorship of
> > > > America Austroccidentalis again. In another vote her supporters
> > would no
> > > > doubt make greater pains to attend the vote, and she would be
> > assured of
> > > the
> > > > position.
> > > >
> > > > I therefore asked Gens Claudia specifically to encourage Livia
> > Marcia to
> > > > continue her application for the Praetorship. I even went so
> far
> > as to
> > > tell
> > > > them that I would be voting for her. I also asked them (as I
> had
> > asked
> > > Livia
> > > > Marcia directly) to stay in touch with the Senate on a couple
> of
> > issues.
> > > > There had been questions on a couple of matters which Livia had
> > not
> > > responded
> > > > to, and it was that lack of response that had caused the three
> > > "abstentions"
> > > > on her vote.
> > > >
> > > > I believe it was Clodia Cinnabari herself who responded to my
> > letter,
> > > > thanking me for my detailed personal response. She seemed
> pleased
> > with the
> > > > information and advice I had given, and mentioned that she
> would
> > take it
> > > to
> > > > Livia Marcia Aurelia.
> > > >
> > > > Rather than continuing her application for Praetorship, Livia
> > Marcia
> > > Aurelia
> > > > decided to resign her Citizenship on March 15th. While I find
> > this very
> > > > unfortunate, I cannot see her action as anything but a decision
> > not to
> > > accept
> > > > a position that was still very open to her.
> > > >
> > > > It is my personal hope that the facts above will help put this
> > issue
> > > behind
> > > > us. To recap: the vote on Livia Aurelia was tied, she was
> > not "removed".
> > > She
> > > > chose to leave Nova Roma rather than participate in the second
> > vote on the
> > > > matter required by law.
> > > >
> > > > Valete,
> > > >
> > > > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Codex (was RE: Keeping citizens interested) |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:44:21 -0400 |
|
Salvete;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Stevenson [mailto:dougies@--------]
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 09:08
>
> That's a great idea, about the codex. I think perhaps the duty should go
to
> either the Aedilies or praetores. Given the ideas that are floating around
that
> there is not much to do or the aediles, perhaps they should be given the
job?
Indeed, the Aediles were the first thing that popped into my head, as well.
But I hesitated to suggest them definitively as the compilers, if only
because their role in the legal system as a whole is still being defined
(and thus they could end up too busy for such things!), and pending doing
some research about how the codici were compiled in ancient times.
It's great when we can work on such positive and useful things, dontcha
think?
Next year in the Forum!
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: Activity (was Re: [novaroma] Re: Conflict of Interest) |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:23:33 -0500 (CDT) |
|
Salve Sexte Apolloni,
> But if people will break their oath of office, shall Iuppiter strike them
> down with lightning? I think my argument is still standing: a pious and
> righteous person doesn't need an oath to prove his trustworthiness and piety
> regarding Roma and the Pantheon, while an impious villain doesn't need it
> either - he's going to break that oath anyway.
Many people tend to be pious and righteous most of the time, but due to
occasional failings of willpower might succumb to the temptation to
do evil. An Oath, whether to a god or to oneself, can serve as a
reminder in such times that a person has previously chosen the path
of honor and right action, and its recollection can be an aid in
resisting the urge to do wrong.
None of us here are perfect, and we need such aids as the magistrate's
oath and the Roman Virtues to help us choose right action.
Vale, Octavius.
--
M. Octavius German |
