Cato Cornelio Lentulo sal.

Salve.

With respect, Cornelius Lentulus, you have simply said in different words what the edict already says. Governor Potitus believes that the effect of the edict itself is outside the realm of the consuls' authority.

I believe that the question is: under our law, where are the consuls given the authority to appoint people to positions like praefectus, when the lex oppidia's clause regarding areas sine provinciis together with the general authority over provincial affairs given to the Senate seem to indicate that they should not?

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
>
> Lentulus Potito sal.
>
> This edict is not creating a new province, and it is not appointing a governor.
>
> This edict is simply appointing a special member of the consular staff to organize the work in Bulgaria for the hope of a province in the future, and as such, he is under the consuls' authority. The praefectus is a prolonged hand of the consuls.
>
>
> --- Sab 26/9/09, Steve Moore <astrobear@...> ha scritto:
>
> Da: Steve Moore <astrobear@...>
> Oggetto: RE: [Nova-Roma] EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
> A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Data: Sabato 26 settembre 2009, 13:26
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> M. Valerius Potitus omnibus SPD.
>
>  
>
> I recently returned from an extended
> vacation, and I am now reviewing my emails.
>
>  
>
> I am pleased to see that there is more
> local activity going on in Bulgaria .
> I am a strong supporter of local activity, as evidenced by my work in the
> Oppidum Fluminis Gilae in Arizona (USA).
>
>  
>
> At the same time, I find the edict issued
> by the Consuls on Sept. 15 to fall outside the law and practice of Nova Roma.
>
>  
>
> The Constitution (Article V.C) says that
> provinces are set up by the Senate, and the governors of the provinces are
> appointed by the Senate. See also the provision in Lex Fabia de oppidis et municipiis,
> 3.1.7: “In countries sine provinciis, the Senate may appoint a
> representative to act in a governor’s stead.”
>
>  
>
> On the other hand, the Constitution
> (Article IV.A.2) does not mention any authority granted to the Consuls to
> appoint regional authorities.
>
>  
>
> It is true that Article IV.A.2.b says that
> the Consuls have the power, “To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to
> engage in those tasks which advance the mission and function of Nova Roma…”
> It is clear that establishing a regional authority in an area such as Bulgaria will
> advance the mission and function of Nova Roma. Also, it is is clear that the
> edict empowers A. Vitellius Celsus to organize a province in Bulgaria , which
> would (I assume) be presented to the Senate for their approval. From this
> perspective, I believe the Consuls have acted in good faith to advance Nova
> Roma.
>
>  
>
> However, the Constitution and laws of Nova
> Roma clearly place the responsibility for appointing regional authorities with
> the Senate. Those regional authorities are responsible for executing the
> instructions of the Senate, not the Consuls (as in the edict), and for
> reporting directly to the Senate, not the Consuls.
>
>  
>
> This edict, however well-intentioned it
> may be, is a violation of the Constitution and laws of Nova Roma. Since it is
> too late for me to call for intercessio by the Tribunes, I ask that the Senate appoint
> A. Vitellius Celsus as “a representative to act in a governor’s
> stead”, and I ask that the Consuls withdraw this edict.
>
>  
>
> Valete,
>
> M. Valerius Potitus
>
> Legatus pro Praetor , America
> Austroccidentalis
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:Nova- Roma@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of M.C.C.
>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009
> 12:20 AM
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com;
> NovaRoma-Announce@ yahoogroups. com
>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] EDICTUM
> CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
>
>
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE
> ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
>
>
>
> M. Curiatius Complutensis et M. Iulius Severus consules: patribus matribusque
> conscriptis, Senatui Populoque Novo Romano, Quiritibus, et
>
> Omnibus S.P.D.
>
>
>
> 1. We hereby appoint A. Vitellius Celsus as Praefectus Rei Publicae Novae
> Romanae in Bulgaria
> (Consular Prefect of the Nova Roman Republic
> in Bulgaria ) to officially
> represent the Nova Roman Republic
> and its Consuls in Bulgaria
> where there is no Nova Roman province currently.
>
>
>
> 2. The Praefectus' job includes
>
> a) representing Nova Roma under the authority and control of the Consuls until
> a province is created in that country;
>
> b) leading the job of organizing a Nova Roman province in Bulgaria ;
>
> c) representing and administering all Nova Roman citizens in Bulgaria ;
>
> d) executing all instructions given by the Consuls;
>
> e) reporting about and being responsible for all activities of Nova Roma in Bulgaria
> directly to the Consuls.
>
>
>
> 3. This edict takes effect immediately.
>
>
>
> Datum a. d. XVII Kal. Oct. M. Curiatio M. Iulio consulibus.
>

Maior Aureliano sal;
I remember your post about how you received very definite signs, Aureliane, but the whole story is very impressive and inspiring!

When I was flying to the Conventus, I looked out the window and saw two very distinct lightening strikes - real fulmen. Always a nervous flyer I almost had a heart attack.
Later when I spoke with Piscinus, he asked me what side they were on; left! So that was fabulous sign from Iuppiter Optimus Maximus, and I knew the Conventus would be great.

The weather for the day I was to fly home was predicted stormy, Two days before I asked Iuppiter OM to grant me clear skies for flying. The skies were crystal clear and I arrived early.

I rarely write about my personal experiences, but perhaps this is wrong as it gives people an idea that we don't have them.

I also had a dream where Bona Dea came to me. This was quite a surprise as I was closer to Fortuna and Venus. In fact, in the dream I at first thought the goddess was Fortuna herself. So now I am devoted to her.
optime vale
Maior

>
> Salve John,
>
>.
>
> Earlier this year, during the troubles over the censorial election, I took the auspices during a period before sunset. My question dealt with whether I should continue certain actions or stop. After the usual preparations, I took my seat & defined my celestial templum. I watched a powerful thunderstorm literally build up before my eyes, the wind moving hardly at all, and then (I kid you not) hundreds of lightning flashes and thunder strikes with hardly a drop of rain. So many I quickly lost count but learned the next day that there had been a couple of thousand lightning strikes in the north central Tennessee area. I have never, ever had Iuppiter or Summanus provide a clearer answer to a question. The odd thing was that during the experience, it never occurred to me that it was an incredibly stupid thing to be sitting outside during that kind of storm. I was just so caught up in the moment.
>
> I have taken the auspices no more than twenty or so times since 2006 and most of the time they have usually been neither strongly positive or negative. There were few that were especially memorable but the intensity of those two experiences are going to stay with me.
>
> Learning to perform the rituals of the sacra correctly and without effort allows the mind, the body, and the spirit to be able to open oneself to the experience. Whether it is the simple satisfaction of a ritus done correctly without incident so as to connect with our Roman forebears or the intense feelings generated by Dii Immortales when answering our offerings and prayers via the numen.
>
> Vale.
>
> Aureliane
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "John Citron" <johnnormancitron@> wrote:
> >
> > It's quite amazing to listen to everyone here talk about the various technical aspects of the Religio, how it should be administered, observed, and maintained.
> >
> > There's talk of orthopraxy, orthodoxy, reconstruction, law, theory, etc.. Fascinating!
> >
> > But it is quite sad that there is never any talk of the emotional context of the religious experience.
> >
> > I don't hear any comment on the joy and ecstasy of performing the rites. No talk about the desire to be connected to the divine. No discussion of the elevation of the consciousness as one tries to contemplate the gods.
> >
> > All that I hear being said is cold, clinical, and without spiritual depth. Religion, any religion, cannot exist in the absence of those aspects.
> >
>

Lentulus Catoni sal. It's a debate on words/titles? A consul (or even a simple citizen) can work towards the goal of creating a province -- just like this A. Vitellius did so far for months. The consuls certainly HAVE the power to do this. Now the questions is if they are allowed to delegate this job to others so that they help them. The answer is yes. A consul can delegate his work as any other magistrate can. All magistrates can delegate their work to appointed officials who help them. You are right that the control over provinces is given to the senate. But we aren't talking about provinces. We are talking about a group of Bulgarian people who contacted the consuls to ask them if they could work under consular authority for creating a Thracia province in the future. Yes, the consuls can appoint anybody to be under their authority, so they appointed Vitellius. The title has to be praefectus because of the nature of the job. It would be idiocy to call a leader of such a project "accensus" - but the status of the title bearer is the same as of an accensus. Consuls also appoint Wikimagistri since 2006 - an office nowhere described in the constitution, and they also appoint other offices, commissionaries,  and committee members. It is not a criterion for being legal "to be in the constitution". --- Sab 26/9/09, Cato <catoinnyc@...> ha scritto: Da: Cato <catoinnyc@...> Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Data: Sabato 26 settembre 2009, 22:37   Cato Cornelio Lentulo sal. Salve. With respect, Cornelius Lentulus, you have simply said in different words what the edict already says. Governor Potitus believes that the effect of the edict itself is outside the realm of the consuls' authority. I believe that the question is: under our law, where are the consuls given the authority to appoint people to positions like praefectus, when the lex oppidia's clause regarding areas sine provinciis together with the general authority over provincial affairs given to the Senate seem to indicate that they should not? Vale, Cato --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@ ...> wrote: > > > Lentulus Potito sal. > > This edict is not creating a new province, and it is not appointing a governor. > > This edict is simply appointing a special member of the consular staff to organize the work in Bulgaria for the hope of a province in the future, and as such, he is under the consuls' authority. The praefectus is a prolonged hand of the consuls. > > > --- Sab 26/9/09, Steve Moore <astrobear@. ..> ha scritto: > > Da: Steve Moore <astrobear@. ..> > Oggetto: RE: [Nova-Roma] EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com > Data: Sabato 26 settembre 2009, 13:26 > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M. Valerius Potitus omnibus SPD. > >   > > I recently returned from an extended > vacation, and I am now reviewing my emails. > >   > > I am pleased to see that there is more > local activity going on in Bulgaria . > I am a strong supporter of local activity, as evidenced by my work in the > Oppidum Fluminis Gilae in Arizona (USA). > >   > > At the same time, I find the edict issued > by the Consuls on Sept. 15 to fall outside the law and practice of Nova Roma. > >   > > The Constitution (Article V.C) says that > provinces are set up by the Senate, and the governors of the provinces are > appointed by the Senate. See also the provision in Lex Fabia de oppidis et municipiis, > 3.1.7: “In countries sine provinciis, the Senate may appoint a > representative to act in a governor’s stead.” > >   > > On the other hand, the Constitution > (Article IV.A.2) does not mention any authority granted to the Consuls to > appoint regional authorities. > >   > > It is true that Article IV.A.2.b says that > the Consuls have the power, “To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to > engage in those tasks which advance the mission and function of Nova Roma…” > It is clear that establishing a regional authority in an area such as Bulgaria will > advance the mission and function of Nova Roma. Also, it is is clear that the > edict empowers A. Vitellius Celsus to organize a province in Bulgaria , which > would (I assume) be presented to the Senate for their approval. From this > perspective, I believe the Consuls have acted in good faith to advance Nova > Roma. > >   > > However, the Constitution and laws of Nova > Roma clearly place the responsibility for appointing regional authorities with > the Senate. Those regional authorities are responsible for executing the > instructions of the Senate, not the Consuls (as in the edict), and for > reporting directly to the Senate, not the Consuls. > >   > > This edict, however well-intentioned it > may be, is a violation of the Constitution and laws of Nova Roma. Since it is > too late for me to call for intercessio by the Tribunes, I ask that the Senate appoint > A. Vitellius Celsus as “a representative to act in a governor’s > stead”, and I ask that the Consuls withdraw this edict. > >   > > Valete, > > M. Valerius Potitus > > Legatus pro Praetor , America > Austroccidentalis > >   > >   > > > > > > > > > > From: > Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:Nova- Roma@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of M.C.C. > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 > 12:20 AM > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com; > NovaRoma-Announce@ yahoogroups. com > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] EDICTUM > CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA > > > >   > >   > > > > > > > > > > EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE > ROMANAE IN BULGARIA > > > > M. Curiatius Complutensis et M. Iulius Severus consules: patribus matribusque > conscriptis, Senatui Populoque Novo Romano, Quiritibus, et > > Omnibus S.P.D. > > > > 1. We hereby appoint A. Vitellius Celsus as Praefectus Rei Publicae Novae > Romanae in Bulgaria > (Consular Prefect of the Nova Roman Republic > in Bulgaria ) to officially > represent the Nova Roman Republic > and its Consuls in Bulgaria > where there is no Nova Roman province currently. > > > > 2. The Praefectus' job includes > > a) representing Nova Roma under the authority and control of the Consuls until > a province is created in that country; > > b) leading the job of organizing a Nova Roman province in Bulgaria ; > > c) representing and administering all Nova Roman citizens in Bulgaria ; > > d) executing all instructions given by the Consuls; > > e) reporting about and being responsible for all activities of Nova Roma in Bulgaria > directly to the Consuls. > > > > 3. This edict takes effect immediately. > > > > Datum a. d. XVII Kal. Oct. M. Curiatio M. Iulio consulibus. >

Maior Lentulo sal:
amice this is great news. How was Svishtov? It's wonderful to see the start of an entire new province. Please send my greetings to the Thracii.
optime vale
Maior

> Lentulus Catoni sal.
>
> It's a debate on words/titles? A consul (or even a simple citizen) can work towards the goal of creating a province -- just like this A. Vitellius did so far for months. The consuls certainly HAVE the power to do this.
>
> Now the questions is if they are allowed to delegate this job to others so that they help them.
>
> The answer is yes. A consul can delegate his work as any other magistrate can. All magistrates can delegate their work to appointed officials who help them.
>
> You are right that the control over provinces is given to the senate. But we aren't talking about provinces. We are talking about a group of Bulgarian people who contacted the consuls to ask them if they could work under consular authority for creating a Thracia province in the future.
>
> Yes, the consuls can appoint anybody to be under their authority, so they appointed Vitellius. The title has to be praefectus because of the nature of the job. It would be idiocy to call a leader of such a project "accensus" - but the status of the title bearer is the same as of an accensus. Consuls also appoint Wikimagistri since 2006 - an office nowhere described in the constitution, and they also appoint other offices, commissionaries,  and committee members. It is not a criterion for being legal "to be in the constitution".
>
>
>
> --- Sab 26/9/09, Cato <catoinnyc@...> ha scritto:
>
> Da: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
> A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Data: Sabato 26 settembre 2009, 22:37
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> Cato Cornelio Lentulo sal.
>
>
>
> Salve.
>
>
>
> With respect, Cornelius Lentulus, you have simply said in different words what the edict already says. Governor Potitus believes that the effect of the edict itself is outside the realm of the consuls' authority.
>
>
>
> I believe that the question is: under our law, where are the consuls given the authority to appoint people to positions like praefectus, when the lex oppidia's clause regarding areas sine provinciis together with the general authority over provincial affairs given to the Senate seem to indicate that they should not?
>
>
>
> Vale,
>
>
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@ ...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Lentulus Potito sal.
>
> >
>
> > This edict is not creating a new province, and it is not appointing a governor.
>
> >
>
> > This edict is simply appointing a special member of the consular staff to organize the work in Bulgaria for the hope of a province in the future, and as such, he is under the consuls' authority. The praefectus is a prolonged hand of the consuls.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- Sab 26/9/09, Steve Moore <astrobear@ ..> ha scritto:
>
> >
>
> > Da: Steve Moore <astrobear@ ..>
>
> > Oggetto: RE: [Nova-Roma] EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
>
> > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
>
> > Data: Sabato 26 settembre 2009, 13:26
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > M. Valerius Potitus omnibus SPD.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > I recently returned from an extended
>
> > vacation, and I am now reviewing my emails.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > I am pleased to see that there is more
>
> > local activity going on in Bulgaria .
>
> > I am a strong supporter of local activity, as evidenced by my work in the
>
> > Oppidum Fluminis Gilae in Arizona (USA).
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > At the same time, I find the edict issued
>
> > by the Consuls on Sept. 15 to fall outside the law and practice of Nova Roma.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > The Constitution (Article V.C) says that
>
> > provinces are set up by the Senate, and the governors of the provinces are
>
> > appointed by the Senate. See also the provision in Lex Fabia de oppidis et municipiis,
>
> > 3.1.7: “In countries sine provinciis, the Senate may appoint a
>
> > representative to act in a governor’s stead.”
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > On the other hand, the Constitution
>
> > (Article IV.A.2) does not mention any authority granted to the Consuls to
>
> > appoint regional authorities.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > It is true that Article IV.A.2.b says that
>
> > the Consuls have the power, “To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to
>
> > engage in those tasks which advance the mission and function of Nova Roma…”
>
> > It is clear that establishing a regional authority in an area such as Bulgaria will
>
> > advance the mission and function of Nova Roma. Also, it is is clear that the
>
> > edict empowers A. Vitellius Celsus to organize a province in Bulgaria , which
>
> > would (I assume) be presented to the Senate for their approval. From this
>
> > perspective, I believe the Consuls have acted in good faith to advance Nova
>
> > Roma.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > However, the Constitution and laws of Nova
>
> > Roma clearly place the responsibility for appointing regional authorities with
>
> > the Senate. Those regional authorities are responsible for executing the
>
> > instructions of the Senate, not the Consuls (as in the edict), and for
>
> > reporting directly to the Senate, not the Consuls.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > This edict, however well-intentioned it
>
> > may be, is a violation of the Constitution and laws of Nova Roma. Since it is
>
> > too late for me to call for intercessio by the Tribunes, I ask that the Senate appoint
>
> > A. Vitellius Celsus as “a representative to act in a governor’s
>
> > stead”, and I ask that the Consuls withdraw this edict.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > Valete,
>
> >
>
> > M. Valerius Potitus
>
> >
>
> > Legatus pro Praetor , America
>
> > Austroccidentalis
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > From:
>
> > Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:Nova- Roma@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of M.C.C.
>
> >
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009
>
> > 12:20 AM
>
> >
>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com;
>
> > NovaRoma-Announce@ yahoogroups. com
>
> >
>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] EDICTUM
>
> > CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE
>
> > ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > M. Curiatius Complutensis et M. Iulius Severus consules: patribus matribusque
>
> > conscriptis, Senatui Populoque Novo Romano, Quiritibus, et
>
> >
>
> > Omnibus S.P.D.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 1. We hereby appoint A. Vitellius Celsus as Praefectus Rei Publicae Novae
>
> > Romanae in Bulgaria
>
> > (Consular Prefect of the Nova Roman Republic
>
> > in Bulgaria ) to officially
>
> > represent the Nova Roman Republic
>
> > and its Consuls in Bulgaria
>
> > where there is no Nova Roman province currently.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 2. The Praefectus' job includes
>
> >
>
> > a) representing Nova Roma under the authority and control of the Consuls until
>
> > a province is created in that country;
>
> >
>
> > b) leading the job of organizing a Nova Roman province in Bulgaria ;
>
> >
>
> > c) representing and administering all Nova Roman citizens in Bulgaria ;
>
> >
>
> > d) executing all instructions given by the Consuls;
>
> >
>
> > e) reporting about and being responsible for all activities of Nova Roma in Bulgaria
>
> > directly to the Consuls.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 3. This edict takes effect immediately.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Datum a. d. XVII Kal. Oct. M. Curiatio M. Iulio consulibus.
>
> >
>

Cato Cornelio Lentulo sal.

Salve.

As Governor Potitus has written, this is not a matter for creating discord, it is simply a matter of correct process under the law. We are a Respublica bound by our own law.

Yes, "words/titles" do mean something, which is why we have them. If they meant nothing, I could start issuing edicta tomorrow. Just imagine your horror at that :)

Now I am interested in finding out where the consuls draw this power from *under our law*, not simply because they think it's a good thing to do. This is a repeated refrain, Lentulus: just because the end result of an action is a *good* one does not mean that any means of obtaining that action is correct or legal.

The lex oppidia specifically gives the Senate authority over areas without a province ("sine provinciis"). I would simply like to know where in our law the consuls are given that authority instead.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Lentulus Catoni sal.
>
> It's a debate on words/titles? A consul (or even a simple citizen) can work towards the goal of creating a province -- just like this A. Vitellius did so far for months. The consuls certainly HAVE the power to do this.
>
> Now the questions is if they are allowed to delegate this job to others so that they help them.
>
> The answer is yes. A consul can delegate his work as any other magistrate can. All magistrates can delegate their work to appointed officials who help them.
>
> You are right that the control over provinces is given to the senate. But we aren't talking about provinces. We are talking about a group of Bulgarian people who contacted the consuls to ask them if they could work under consular authority for creating a Thracia province in the future.
>
> Yes, the consuls can appoint anybody to be under their authority, so they appointed Vitellius. The title has to be praefectus because of the nature of the job. It would be idiocy to call a leader of such a project "accensus" - but the status of the title bearer is the same as of an accensus. Consuls also appoint Wikimagistri since 2006 - an office nowhere described in the constitution, and they also appoint other offices, commissionaries,  and committee members. It is not a criterion for being legal "to be in the constitution".
>
>
>
> --- Sab 26/9/09, Cato <catoinnyc@...> ha scritto:
>
> Da: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
> A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Data: Sabato 26 settembre 2009, 22:37
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> Cato Cornelio Lentulo sal.
>
>
>
> Salve.
>
>
>
> With respect, Cornelius Lentulus, you have simply said in different words what the edict already says. Governor Potitus believes that the effect of the edict itself is outside the realm of the consuls' authority.
>
>
>
> I believe that the question is: under our law, where are the consuls given the authority to appoint people to positions like praefectus, when the lex oppidia's clause regarding areas sine provinciis together with the general authority over provincial affairs given to the Senate seem to indicate that they should not?
>
>
>
> Vale,
>
>
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@ ...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Lentulus Potito sal.
>
> >
>
> > This edict is not creating a new province, and it is not appointing a governor.
>
> >
>
> > This edict is simply appointing a special member of the consular staff to organize the work in Bulgaria for the hope of a province in the future, and as such, he is under the consuls' authority. The praefectus is a prolonged hand of the consuls.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- Sab 26/9/09, Steve Moore <astrobear@ ..> ha scritto:
>
> >
>
> > Da: Steve Moore <astrobear@ ..>
>
> > Oggetto: RE: [Nova-Roma] EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
>
> > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
>
> > Data: Sabato 26 settembre 2009, 13:26
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > M. Valerius Potitus omnibus SPD.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > I recently returned from an extended
>
> > vacation, and I am now reviewing my emails.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > I am pleased to see that there is more
>
> > local activity going on in Bulgaria .
>
> > I am a strong supporter of local activity, as evidenced by my work in the
>
> > Oppidum Fluminis Gilae in Arizona (USA).
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > At the same time, I find the edict issued
>
> > by the Consuls on Sept. 15 to fall outside the law and practice of Nova Roma.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > The Constitution (Article V.C) says that
>
> > provinces are set up by the Senate, and the governors of the provinces are
>
> > appointed by the Senate. See also the provision in Lex Fabia de oppidis et municipiis,
>
> > 3.1.7: “In countries sine provinciis, the Senate may appoint a
>
> > representative to act in a governor’s stead.”
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > On the other hand, the Constitution
>
> > (Article IV.A.2) does not mention any authority granted to the Consuls to
>
> > appoint regional authorities.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > It is true that Article IV.A.2.b says that
>
> > the Consuls have the power, “To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to
>
> > engage in those tasks which advance the mission and function of Nova Roma…”
>
> > It is clear that establishing a regional authority in an area such as Bulgaria will
>
> > advance the mission and function of Nova Roma. Also, it is is clear that the
>
> > edict empowers A. Vitellius Celsus to organize a province in Bulgaria , which
>
> > would (I assume) be presented to the Senate for their approval. From this
>
> > perspective, I believe the Consuls have acted in good faith to advance Nova
>
> > Roma.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > However, the Constitution and laws of Nova
>
> > Roma clearly place the responsibility for appointing regional authorities with
>
> > the Senate. Those regional authorities are responsible for executing the
>
> > instructions of the Senate, not the Consuls (as in the edict), and for
>
> > reporting directly to the Senate, not the Consuls.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > This edict, however well-intentioned it
>
> > may be, is a violation of the Constitution and laws of Nova Roma. Since it is
>
> > too late for me to call for intercessio by the Tribunes, I ask that the Senate appoint
>
> > A. Vitellius Celsus as “a representative to act in a governor’s
>
> > stead”, and I ask that the Consuls withdraw this edict.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > Valete,
>
> >
>
> > M. Valerius Potitus
>
> >
>
> > Legatus pro Praetor , America
>
> > Austroccidentalis
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > From:
>
> > Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:Nova- Roma@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of M.C.C.
>
> >
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009
>
> > 12:20 AM
>
> >
>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com;
>
> > NovaRoma-Announce@ yahoogroups. com
>
> >
>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] EDICTUM
>
> > CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE
>
> > ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > M. Curiatius Complutensis et M. Iulius Severus consules: patribus matribusque
>
> > conscriptis, Senatui Populoque Novo Romano, Quiritibus, et
>
> >
>
> > Omnibus S.P.D.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 1. We hereby appoint A. Vitellius Celsus as Praefectus Rei Publicae Novae
>
> > Romanae in Bulgaria
>
> > (Consular Prefect of the Nova Roman Republic
>
> > in Bulgaria ) to officially
>
> > represent the Nova Roman Republic
>
> > and its Consuls in Bulgaria
>
> > where there is no Nova Roman province currently.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 2. The Praefectus' job includes
>
> >
>
> > a) representing Nova Roma under the authority and control of the Consuls until
>
> > a province is created in that country;
>
> >
>
> > b) leading the job of organizing a Nova Roman province in Bulgaria ;
>
> >
>
> > c) representing and administering all Nova Roman citizens in Bulgaria ;
>
> >
>
> > d) executing all instructions given by the Consuls;
>
> >
>
> > e) reporting about and being responsible for all activities of Nova Roma in Bulgaria
>
> > directly to the Consuls.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 3. This edict takes effect immediately.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Datum a. d. XVII Kal. Oct. M. Curiatio M. Iulio consulibus.
>
> >
>

Salve,
LOL true.
Di Vos Incolumes Custodiant.
Nero

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick O" <brotherpaganus@...> wrote:
>
> Just remember Nero that if you are drowning in the sea, please call upon Poseidon Soter for aid rather than Poseidon Hippias or He may drop a horse on you; which will not help you at all.
>
> Aureliane
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Nero" <rikudemyx@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve,
> > A few days ago I received a post that the Religio was supposed to be a client-patron relationship and nothing more.
> > I responded with that I care,feel,and love the Gods. Truly and honestly say that I care deeply about my religion and I'm sure many other citizens feel the same.
> > They are why we are great, why Rome was great and why life flourishes on this planet, from a bracing thunderstorm to a crimson sunset, from the whale song of the deep to a simple cloud floating across the sky they are there and they are awesome. When walking through a dark alley one need have any fear for they are there. When you feel lost in life drowning in a sea of woes call to them and they will pull you out, cloth you, and give you shelter.
> > Everything that is great in our lives we owe to them.
> > Passion? I have a deep fire that roars within my soul for them.
> > They are holy.
> > They are sacred.
> > They are great.
> > They are our Gods.
> > Di Vos Incolumes Custodiant.
> > Nero
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "John Citron" <johnnormancitron@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's quite amazing to listen to everyone here talk about the various technical aspects of the Religio, how it should be administered, observed, and maintained.
> > >
> > > There's talk of orthopraxy, orthodoxy, reconstruction, law, theory, etc.. Fascinating!
> > >
> > > But it is quite sad that there is never any talk of the emotional context of the religious experience.
> > >
> > > I don't hear any comment on the joy and ecstasy of performing the rites. No talk about the desire to be connected to the divine. No discussion of the elevation of the consciousness as one tries to contemplate the gods.
> > >
> > > All that I hear being said is cold, clinical, and without spiritual depth. Religion, any religion, cannot exist in the absence of those aspects.
> > >
> >
>

Salvete;
it's typical behavior. Instead of being glad for a new real world event there is this obsession with petty legal analysis.

Romans respected law, and they were amateur lawyers but this is an entirely modern unroman fanatical attitude about 'obeying the law'.

Remember 'complete compliance'? We had to hear that idiocy all spring. Along with wire fraud, reporting NR to the Attorney General of Maine and what else...

that accomplished 0 for Nova Roma as a real life organization.

Maior




-- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
> Cato Cornelio Lentulo sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> As Governor Potitus has written, this is not a matter for creating discord, it is simply a matter of correct process under the law. We are a Respublica bound by our own law.
>
> Yes, "words/titles" do mean something, which is why we have them. If they meant nothing, I could start issuing edicta tomorrow. Just imagine your horror at that :)
>
> Now I am interested in finding out where the consuls draw this power from *under our law*, not simply because they think it's a good thing to do. This is a repeated refrain, Lentulus: just because the end result of an action is a *good* one does not mean that any means of obtaining that action is correct or legal.
>
> The lex oppidia specifically gives the Senate authority over areas without a province ("sine provinciis"). I would simply like to know where in our law the consuls are given that authority instead.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@> wrote:
> >
> > Lentulus Catoni sal.
> >
> > It's a debate on words/titles? A consul (or even a simple citizen) can work towards the goal of creating a province -- just like this A. Vitellius did so far for months. The consuls certainly HAVE the power to do this.
> >
> > Now the questions is if they are allowed to delegate this job to others so that they help them.
> >
> > The answer is yes. A consul can delegate his work as any other magistrate can. All magistrates can delegate their work to appointed officials who help them.
> >
> > You are right that the control over provinces is given to the senate. But we aren't talking about provinces. We are talking about a group of Bulgarian people who contacted the consuls to ask them if they could work under consular authority for creating a Thracia province in the future.
> >
> > Yes, the consuls can appoint anybody to be under their authority, so they appointed Vitellius. The title has to be praefectus because of the nature of the job. It would be idiocy to call a leader of such a project "accensus" - but the status of the title bearer is the same as of an accensus. Consuls also appoint Wikimagistri since 2006 - an office nowhere described in the constitution, and they also appoint other offices, commissionaries,  and committee members. It is not a criterion for being legal "to be in the constitution".
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Sab 26/9/09, Cato <catoinnyc@> ha scritto:
> >
> > Da: Cato <catoinnyc@>
> > Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
> > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Data: Sabato 26 settembre 2009, 22:37
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cato Cornelio Lentulo sal.
> >
> >
> >
> > Salve.
> >
> >
> >
> > With respect, Cornelius Lentulus, you have simply said in different words what the edict already says. Governor Potitus believes that the effect of the edict itself is outside the realm of the consuls' authority.
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe that the question is: under our law, where are the consuls given the authority to appoint people to positions like praefectus, when the lex oppidia's clause regarding areas sine provinciis together with the general authority over provincial affairs given to the Senate seem to indicate that they should not?
> >
> >
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> >
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Lentulus Potito sal.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > This edict is not creating a new province, and it is not appointing a governor.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > This edict is simply appointing a special member of the consular staff to organize the work in Bulgaria for the hope of a province in the future, and as such, he is under the consuls' authority. The praefectus is a prolonged hand of the consuls.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > --- Sab 26/9/09, Steve Moore <astrobear@ ..> ha scritto:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Da: Steve Moore <astrobear@ ..>
> >
> > > Oggetto: RE: [Nova-Roma] EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
> >
> > > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> >
> > > Data: Sabato 26 settembre 2009, 13:26
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >  
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > M. Valerius Potitus omnibus SPD.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >  
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I recently returned from an extended
> >
> > > vacation, and I am now reviewing my emails.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >  
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I am pleased to see that there is more
> >
> > > local activity going on in Bulgaria .
> >
> > > I am a strong supporter of local activity, as evidenced by my work in the
> >
> > > Oppidum Fluminis Gilae in Arizona (USA).
> >
> > >
> >
> > >  
> >
> > >
> >
> > > At the same time, I find the edict issued
> >
> > > by the Consuls on Sept. 15 to fall outside the law and practice of Nova Roma.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >  
> >
> > >
> >
> > > The Constitution (Article V.C) says that
> >
> > > provinces are set up by the Senate, and the governors of the provinces are
> >
> > > appointed by the Senate. See also the provision in Lex Fabia de oppidis et municipiis,
> >
> > > 3.1.7: “In countries sine provinciis, the Senate may appoint a
> >
> > > representative to act in a governor’s stead.”
> >
> > >
> >
> > >  
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On the other hand, the Constitution
> >
> > > (Article IV.A.2) does not mention any authority granted to the Consuls to
> >
> > > appoint regional authorities.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >  
> >
> > >
> >
> > > It is true that Article IV.A.2.b says that
> >
> > > the Consuls have the power, “To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to
> >
> > > engage in those tasks which advance the mission and function of Nova Roma…”
> >
> > > It is clear that establishing a regional authority in an area such as Bulgaria will
> >
> > > advance the mission and function of Nova Roma. Also, it is is clear that the
> >
> > > edict empowers A. Vitellius Celsus to organize a province in Bulgaria , which
> >
> > > would (I assume) be presented to the Senate for their approval. From this
> >
> > > perspective, I believe the Consuls have acted in good faith to advance Nova
> >
> > > Roma.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >  
> >
> > >
> >
> > > However, the Constitution and laws of Nova
> >
> > > Roma clearly place the responsibility for appointing regional authorities with
> >
> > > the Senate. Those regional authorities are responsible for executing the
> >
> > > instructions of the Senate, not the Consuls (as in the edict), and for
> >
> > > reporting directly to the Senate, not the Consuls.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >  
> >
> > >
> >
> > > This edict, however well-intentioned it
> >
> > > may be, is a violation of the Constitution and laws of Nova Roma. Since it is
> >
> > > too late for me to call for intercessio by the Tribunes, I ask that the Senate appoint
> >
> > > A. Vitellius Celsus as “a representative to act in a governor’s
> >
> > > stead”, and I ask that the Consuls withdraw this edict.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >  
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Valete,
> >
> > >
> >
> > > M. Valerius Potitus
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Legatus pro Praetor , America
> >
> > > Austroccidentalis
> >
> > >
> >
> > >  
> >
> > >
> >
> > >  
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > From:
> >
> > > Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:Nova- Roma@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of M.C.C.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009
> >
> > > 12:20 AM
> >
> > >
> >
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com;
> >
> > > NovaRoma-Announce@ yahoogroups. com
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] EDICTUM
> >
> > > CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >  
> >
> > >
> >
> > >  
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE
> >
> > > ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > M. Curiatius Complutensis et M. Iulius Severus consules: patribus matribusque
> >
> > > conscriptis, Senatui Populoque Novo Romano, Quiritibus, et
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Omnibus S.P.D.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > 1. We hereby appoint A. Vitellius Celsus as Praefectus Rei Publicae Novae
> >
> > > Romanae in Bulgaria
> >
> > > (Consular Prefect of the Nova Roman Republic
> >
> > > in Bulgaria ) to officially
> >
> > > represent the Nova Roman Republic
> >
> > > and its Consuls in Bulgaria
> >
> > > where there is no Nova Roman province currently.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > 2. The Praefectus' job includes
> >
> > >
> >
> > > a) representing Nova Roma under the authority and control of the Consuls until
> >
> > > a province is created in that country;
> >
> > >
> >
> > > b) leading the job of organizing a Nova Roman province in Bulgaria ;
> >
> > >
> >
> > > c) representing and administering all Nova Roman citizens in Bulgaria ;
> >
> > >
> >
> > > d) executing all instructions given by the Consuls;
> >
> > >
> >
> > > e) reporting about and being responsible for all activities of Nova Roma in Bulgaria
> >
> > > directly to the Consuls.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > 3. This edict takes effect immediately.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Datum a. d. XVII Kal. Oct. M. Curiatio M. Iulio consulibus.
> >
> > >
> >
>

Salve;
Молодезц!
the photos are wonderful! I can read a bit the titles as I studied Russian. Congratulations for a wonderful event. Living Romanitas is what Nova Roma is all about.
bene vale in pacem deorum
M. Hortensia Maior

>
> Salve, dear amice, at the last antiquity festival we done this /roman wedding called confaerratio/:
> The participators;
> http://s46.radikal.ru/i111/0909/02/ee751aa3498b.jpg
> The ritual;
> http://www.visitsvishtov.com/2009/bg_gallery.html#den3
>

Cato Marcae Hortensiae sal.

Salve.

Typical behavior on your part: you cannot understand the idea that good things can happen AND the law can be obeyed. It's really not that hard. Just an ounce of familiarity with or comprehension of the law itself would work wonders.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete;
> it's typical behavior. Instead of being glad for a new real world event there is this obsession with petty legal analysis.
>
> Romans respected law, and they were amateur lawyers but this is an entirely modern unroman fanatical attitude about 'obeying the law'.
>
> Remember 'complete compliance'? We had to hear that idiocy all spring. Along with wire fraud, reporting NR to the Attorney General of Maine and what else...
>
> that accomplished 0 for Nova Roma as a real life organization.
>
> Maior
>
>
>
>
> -- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Cornelio Lentulo sal.
> >
> > Salve.
> >
> > As Governor Potitus has written, this is not a matter for creating discord, it is simply a matter of correct process under the law. We are a Respublica bound by our own law.
> >
> > Yes, "words/titles" do mean something, which is why we have them. If they meant nothing, I could start issuing edicta tomorrow. Just imagine your horror at that :)
> >
> > Now I am interested in finding out where the consuls draw this power from *under our law*, not simply because they think it's a good thing to do. This is a repeated refrain, Lentulus: just because the end result of an action is a *good* one does not mean that any means of obtaining that action is correct or legal.
> >
> > The lex oppidia specifically gives the Senate authority over areas without a province ("sine provinciis"). I would simply like to know where in our law the consuls are given that authority instead.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Lentulus Catoni sal.
> > >
> > > It's a debate on words/titles? A consul (or even a simple citizen) can work towards the goal of creating a province -- just like this A. Vitellius did so far for months. The consuls certainly HAVE the power to do this.
> > >
> > > Now the questions is if they are allowed to delegate this job to others so that they help them.
> > >
> > > The answer is yes. A consul can delegate his work as any other magistrate can. All magistrates can delegate their work to appointed officials who help them.
> > >
> > > You are right that the control over provinces is given to the senate. But we aren't talking about provinces. We are talking about a group of Bulgarian people who contacted the consuls to ask them if they could work under consular authority for creating a Thracia province in the future.
> > >
> > > Yes, the consuls can appoint anybody to be under their authority, so they appointed Vitellius. The title has to be praefectus because of the nature of the job. It would be idiocy to call a leader of such a project "accensus" - but the status of the title bearer is the same as of an accensus. Consuls also appoint Wikimagistri since 2006 - an office nowhere described in the constitution, and they also appoint other offices, commissionaries,  and committee members. It is not a criterion for being legal "to be in the constitution".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Sab 26/9/09, Cato <catoinnyc@> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > Da: Cato <catoinnyc@>
> > > Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
> > > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > Data: Sabato 26 settembre 2009, 22:37
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cato Cornelio Lentulo sal.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > With respect, Cornelius Lentulus, you have simply said in different words what the edict already says. Governor Potitus believes that the effect of the edict itself is outside the realm of the consuls' authority.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe that the question is: under our law, where are the consuls given the authority to appoint people to positions like praefectus, when the lex oppidia's clause regarding areas sine provinciis together with the general authority over provincial affairs given to the Senate seem to indicate that they should not?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@ ...> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Lentulus Potito sal.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > This edict is not creating a new province, and it is not appointing a governor.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > This edict is simply appointing a special member of the consular staff to organize the work in Bulgaria for the hope of a province in the future, and as such, he is under the consuls' authority. The praefectus is a prolonged hand of the consuls.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > --- Sab 26/9/09, Steve Moore <astrobear@ ..> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Da: Steve Moore <astrobear@ ..>
> > >
> > > > Oggetto: RE: [Nova-Roma] EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
> > >
> > > > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > >
> > > > Data: Sabato 26 settembre 2009, 13:26
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >  
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > M. Valerius Potitus omnibus SPD.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >  
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > I recently returned from an extended
> > >
> > > > vacation, and I am now reviewing my emails.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >  
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > I am pleased to see that there is more
> > >
> > > > local activity going on in Bulgaria .
> > >
> > > > I am a strong supporter of local activity, as evidenced by my work in the
> > >
> > > > Oppidum Fluminis Gilae in Arizona (USA).
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >  
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > At the same time, I find the edict issued
> > >
> > > > by the Consuls on Sept. 15 to fall outside the law and practice of Nova Roma.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >  
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > The Constitution (Article V.C) says that
> > >
> > > > provinces are set up by the Senate, and the governors of the provinces are
> > >
> > > > appointed by the Senate. See also the provision in Lex Fabia de oppidis et municipiis,
> > >
> > > > 3.1.7: “In countries sine provinciis, the Senate may appoint a
> > >
> > > > representative to act in a governor’s stead.”
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >  
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > On the other hand, the Constitution
> > >
> > > > (Article IV.A.2) does not mention any authority granted to the Consuls to
> > >
> > > > appoint regional authorities.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >  
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > It is true that Article IV.A.2.b says that
> > >
> > > > the Consuls have the power, “To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to
> > >
> > > > engage in those tasks which advance the mission and function of Nova Roma…”
> > >
> > > > It is clear that establishing a regional authority in an area such as Bulgaria will
> > >
> > > > advance the mission and function of Nova Roma. Also, it is is clear that the
> > >
> > > > edict empowers A. Vitellius Celsus to organize a province in Bulgaria , which
> > >
> > > > would (I assume) be presented to the Senate for their approval. From this
> > >
> > > > perspective, I believe the Consuls have acted in good faith to advance Nova
> > >
> > > > Roma.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >  
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > However, the Constitution and laws of Nova
> > >
> > > > Roma clearly place the responsibility for appointing regional authorities with
> > >
> > > > the Senate. Those regional authorities are responsible for executing the
> > >
> > > > instructions of the Senate, not the Consuls (as in the edict), and for
> > >
> > > > reporting directly to the Senate, not the Consuls.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >  
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > This edict, however well-intentioned it
> > >
> > > > may be, is a violation of the Constitution and laws of Nova Roma. Since it is
> > >
> > > > too late for me to call for intercessio by the Tribunes, I ask that the Senate appoint
> > >
> > > > A. Vitellius Celsus as “a representative to act in a governor’s
> > >
> > > > stead”, and I ask that the Consuls withdraw this edict.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >  
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Valete,
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > M. Valerius Potitus
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Legatus pro Praetor , America
> > >
> > > > Austroccidentalis
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >  
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >  
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > From:
> > >
> > > > Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:Nova- Roma@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of M.C.C.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009
> > >
> > > > 12:20 AM
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com;
> > >
> > > > NovaRoma-Announce@ yahoogroups. com
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] EDICTUM
> > >
> > > > CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >  
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >  
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE
> > >
> > > > ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > M. Curiatius Complutensis et M. Iulius Severus consules: patribus matribusque
> > >
> > > > conscriptis, Senatui Populoque Novo Romano, Quiritibus, et
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Omnibus S.P.D.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > 1. We hereby appoint A. Vitellius Celsus as Praefectus Rei Publicae Novae
> > >
> > > > Romanae in Bulgaria
> > >
> > > > (Consular Prefect of the Nova Roman Republic
> > >
> > > > in Bulgaria ) to officially
> > >
> > > > represent the Nova Roman Republic
> > >
> > > > and its Consuls in Bulgaria
> > >
> > > > where there is no Nova Roman province currently.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > 2. The Praefectus' job includes
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > a) representing Nova Roma under the authority and control of the Consuls until
> > >
> > > > a province is created in that country;
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > b) leading the job of organizing a Nova Roman province in Bulgaria ;
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > c) representing and administering all Nova Roman citizens in Bulgaria ;
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > d) executing all instructions given by the Consuls;
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > e) reporting about and being responsible for all activities of Nova Roma in Bulgaria
> > >
> > > > directly to the Consuls.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > 3. This edict takes effect immediately.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Datum a. d. XVII Kal. Oct. M. Curiatio M. Iulio consulibus.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

To the Consules;
just ignore them, I've learned not to waste my time with their nonsense. Let them get a tribune.
Maior

and yes Cato I'm really impressed with all you've achieved in NR with your understanding of the law.

>
> Typical behavior on your part: you cannot understand the idea that good things can happen AND the law can be obeyed. It's really not that hard. Just an ounce of familiarity with or comprehension of the law itself would work wonders.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete;
> > it's typical behavior. Instead of being glad for a new real world event there is this obsession with petty legal analysis.
> >
> > Romans respected law, and they were amateur lawyers but this is an entirely modern unroman fanatical attitude about 'obeying the law'.
> >
> > Remember 'complete compliance'? We had to hear that idiocy all spring. Along with wire fraud, reporting NR to the Attorney General of Maine and what else...
> >
> > that accomplished 0 for Nova Roma as a real life organization.
> >
> > Maior
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cato Cornelio Lentulo sal.
> > >
> > > Salve.
> > >
> > > As Governor Potitus has written, this is not a matter for creating discord, it is simply a matter of correct process under the law. We are a Respublica bound by our own law.
> > >
> > > Yes, "words/titles" do mean something, which is why we have them. If they meant nothing, I could start issuing edicta tomorrow. Just imagine your horror at that :)
> > >
> > > Now I am interested in finding out where the consuls draw this power from *under our law*, not simply because they think it's a good thing to do. This is a repeated refrain, Lentulus: just because the end result of an action is a *good* one does not mean that any means of obtaining that action is correct or legal.
> > >
> > > The lex oppidia specifically gives the Senate authority over areas without a province ("sine provinciis"). I would simply like to know where in our law the consuls are given that authority instead.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Lentulus Catoni sal.
> > > >
> > > > It's a debate on words/titles? A consul (or even a simple citizen) can work towards the goal of creating a province -- just like this A. Vitellius did so far for months. The consuls certainly HAVE the power to do this.
> > > >
> > > > Now the questions is if they are allowed to delegate this job to others so that they help them.
> > > >
> > > > The answer is yes. A consul can delegate his work as any other magistrate can. All magistrates can delegate their work to appointed officials who help them.
> > > >
> > > > You are right that the control over provinces is given to the senate. But we aren't talking about provinces. We are talking about a group of Bulgarian people who contacted the consuls to ask them if they could work under consular authority for creating a Thracia province in the future.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the consuls can appoint anybody to be under their authority, so they appointed Vitellius. The title has to be praefectus because of the nature of the job. It would be idiocy to call a leader of such a project "accensus" - but the status of the title bearer is the same as of an accensus. Consuls also appoint Wikimagistri since 2006 - an office nowhere described in the constitution, and they also appoint other offices, commissionaries,  and committee members. It is not a criterion for being legal "to be in the constitution".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- Sab 26/9/09, Cato <catoinnyc@> ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > Da: Cato <catoinnyc@>
> > > > Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
> > > > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Data: Sabato 26 settembre 2009, 22:37
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cato Cornelio Lentulo sal.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Salve.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > With respect, Cornelius Lentulus, you have simply said in different words what the edict already says. Governor Potitus believes that the effect of the edict itself is outside the realm of the consuls' authority.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I believe that the question is: under our law, where are the consuls given the authority to appoint people to positions like praefectus, when the lex oppidia's clause regarding areas sine provinciis together with the general authority over provincial affairs given to the Senate seem to indicate that they should not?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cato
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@ ...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Lentulus Potito sal.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > This edict is not creating a new province, and it is not appointing a governor.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > This edict is simply appointing a special member of the consular staff to organize the work in Bulgaria for the hope of a province in the future, and as such, he is under the consuls' authority. The praefectus is a prolonged hand of the consuls.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > --- Sab 26/9/09, Steve Moore <astrobear@ ..> ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Da: Steve Moore <astrobear@ ..>
> > > >
> > > > > Oggetto: RE: [Nova-Roma] EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
> > > >
> > > > > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > > >
> > > > > Data: Sabato 26 settembre 2009, 13:26
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > M. Valerius Potitus omnibus SPD.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I recently returned from an extended
> > > >
> > > > > vacation, and I am now reviewing my emails.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I am pleased to see that there is more
> > > >
> > > > > local activity going on in Bulgaria .
> > > >
> > > > > I am a strong supporter of local activity, as evidenced by my work in the
> > > >
> > > > > Oppidum Fluminis Gilae in Arizona (USA).
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > At the same time, I find the edict issued
> > > >
> > > > > by the Consuls on Sept. 15 to fall outside the law and practice of Nova Roma.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The Constitution (Article V.C) says that
> > > >
> > > > > provinces are set up by the Senate, and the governors of the provinces are
> > > >
> > > > > appointed by the Senate. See also the provision in Lex Fabia de oppidis et municipiis,
> > > >
> > > > > 3.1.7: “In countries sine provinciis, the Senate may appoint a
> > > >
> > > > > representative to act in a governor’s stead.”
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On the other hand, the Constitution
> > > >
> > > > > (Article IV.A.2) does not mention any authority granted to the Consuls to
> > > >
> > > > > appoint regional authorities.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > It is true that Article IV.A.2.b says that
> > > >
> > > > > the Consuls have the power, “To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to
> > > >
> > > > > engage in those tasks which advance the mission and function of Nova Roma…”
> > > >
> > > > > It is clear that establishing a regional authority in an area such as Bulgaria will
> > > >
> > > > > advance the mission and function of Nova Roma. Also, it is is clear that the
> > > >
> > > > > edict empowers A. Vitellius Celsus to organize a province in Bulgaria , which
> > > >
> > > > > would (I assume) be presented to the Senate for their approval. From this
> > > >
> > > > > perspective, I believe the Consuls have acted in good faith to advance Nova
> > > >
> > > > > Roma.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > However, the Constitution and laws of Nova
> > > >
> > > > > Roma clearly place the responsibility for appointing regional authorities with
> > > >
> > > > > the Senate. Those regional authorities are responsible for executing the
> > > >
> > > > > instructions of the Senate, not the Consuls (as in the edict), and for
> > > >
> > > > > reporting directly to the Senate, not the Consuls.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > This edict, however well-intentioned it
> > > >
> > > > > may be, is a violation of the Constitution and laws of Nova Roma. Since it is
> > > >
> > > > > too late for me to call for intercessio by the Tribunes, I ask that the Senate appoint
> > > >
> > > > > A. Vitellius Celsus as “a representative to act in a governor’s
> > > >
> > > > > stead”, and I ask that the Consuls withdraw this edict.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Valete,
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > M. Valerius Potitus
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Legatus pro Praetor , America
> > > >
> > > > > Austroccidentalis
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > From:
> > > >
> > > > > Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:Nova- Roma@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of M.C.C.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009
> > > >
> > > > > 12:20 AM
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com;
> > > >
> > > > > NovaRoma-Announce@ yahoogroups. com
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] EDICTUM
> > > >
> > > > > CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE
> > > >
> > > > > ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > M. Curiatius Complutensis et M. Iulius Severus consules: patribus matribusque
> > > >
> > > > > conscriptis, Senatui Populoque Novo Romano, Quiritibus, et
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Omnibus S.P.D.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 1. We hereby appoint A. Vitellius Celsus as Praefectus Rei Publicae Novae
> > > >
> > > > > Romanae in Bulgaria
> > > >
> > > > > (Consular Prefect of the Nova Roman Republic
> > > >
> > > > > in Bulgaria ) to officially
> > > >
> > > > > represent the Nova Roman Republic
> > > >
> > > > > and its Consuls in Bulgaria
> > > >
> > > > > where there is no Nova Roman province currently.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2. The Praefectus' job includes
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > a) representing Nova Roma under the authority and control of the Consuls until
> > > >
> > > > > a province is created in that country;
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > b) leading the job of organizing a Nova Roman province in Bulgaria ;
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > c) representing and administering all Nova Roman citizens in Bulgaria ;
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > d) executing all instructions given by the Consuls;
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > e) reporting about and being responsible for all activities of Nova Roma in Bulgaria
> > > >
> > > > > directly to the Consuls.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 3. This edict takes effect immediately.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Datum a. d. XVII Kal. Oct. M. Curiatio M. Iulio consulibus.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Cato Marcae Hortensiae sal.

Salve.

Please explain why every question is viewed as some sort of terrifying threat? The governor asked a question, completely reasonably, without rancor or insult. The consuls did something, he believes they ought not to have done under the law. What law supports their act? It's that simple.

Lentulus answered a tiny bit harshly, but at least tried to explain why he thinks it was lawful. I may still disagree, but there is no ill feeling between Lentulus and I regarding it, as far as I know.

Yet you take up a sword and start slashing away again, trying to force a brute and personal fight. Is this the kind of Roman virtue you regularly trumpet?

Vale,

Cato

Maior Lentulo spd;
Lentule amice, isn't Bulgaria in the ancient province of Moesia? I assume they want to call it Thrace for so many famous classical ties.

And here is a nice link to the Ancient World Mapping Center

http://www.unc.edu/awmc/index.html

they have free maps of the ancient world here:
http://www.unc.edu/awmc/mapsforstudents.html

which is why I know where things are;-)
optime vale
Maior

In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:

>
> Lentulus Catoni sal.
>
> It's a debate on words/titles? A consul (or even a simple citizen) can work towards the goal of creating a province -- just like this A. Vitellius did so far for months. The consuls certainly HAVE the power to do this.
>
> Now the questions is if they are allowed to delegate this job to others so that they help them.
>
> The answer is yes. A consul can delegate his work as any other magistrate can. All magistrates can delegate their work to appointed officials who help them.
>
> You are right that the control over provinces is given to the senate. But we aren't talking about provinces. We are talking about a group of Bulgarian people who contacted the consuls to ask them if they could work under consular authority for creating a Thracia province in the future.
>
> Yes, the consuls can appoint anybody to be under their authority, so they appointed Vitellius. The title has to be praefectus because of the nature of the job. It would be idiocy to call a leader of such a project "accensus" - but the status of the title bearer is the same as of an accensus. Consuls also appoint Wikimagistri since 2006 - an office nowhere described in the constitution, and they also appoint other offices, commissionaries,  and committee members. It is not a criterion for being legal "to be in the constitution".
>
>
>
> --- Sab 26/9/09, Cato <catoinnyc@...> ha scritto:
>
> Da: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
> A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Data: Sabato 26 settembre 2009, 22:37
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> Cato Cornelio Lentulo sal.
>
>
>
> Salve.
>
>
>
> With respect, Cornelius Lentulus, you have simply said in different words what the edict already says. Governor Potitus believes that the effect of the edict itself is outside the realm of the consuls' authority.
>
>
>
> I believe that the question is: under our law, where are the consuls given the authority to appoint people to positions like praefectus, when the lex oppidia's clause regarding areas sine provinciis together with the general authority over provincial affairs given to the Senate seem to indicate that they should not?
>
>
>
> Vale,
>
>
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@ ...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Lentulus Potito sal.
>
> >
>
> > This edict is not creating a new province, and it is not appointing a governor.
>
> >
>
> > This edict is simply appointing a special member of the consular staff to organize the work in Bulgaria for the hope of a province in the future, and as such, he is under the consuls' authority. The praefectus is a prolonged hand of the consuls.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- Sab 26/9/09, Steve Moore <astrobear@ ..> ha scritto:
>
> >
>
> > Da: Steve Moore <astrobear@ ..>
>
> > Oggetto: RE: [Nova-Roma] EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
>
> > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
>
> > Data: Sabato 26 settembre 2009, 13:26
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > M. Valerius Potitus omnibus SPD.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > I recently returned from an extended
>
> > vacation, and I am now reviewing my emails.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > I am pleased to see that there is more
>
> > local activity going on in Bulgaria .
>
> > I am a strong supporter of local activity, as evidenced by my work in the
>
> > Oppidum Fluminis Gilae in Arizona (USA).
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > At the same time, I find the edict issued
>
> > by the Consuls on Sept. 15 to fall outside the law and practice of Nova Roma.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > The Constitution (Article V.C) says that
>
> > provinces are set up by the Senate, and the governors of the provinces are
>
> > appointed by the Senate. See also the provision in Lex Fabia de oppidis et municipiis,
>
> > 3.1.7: “In countries sine provinciis, the Senate may appoint a
>
> > representative to act in a governor’s stead.”
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > On the other hand, the Constitution
>
> > (Article IV.A.2) does not mention any authority granted to the Consuls to
>
> > appoint regional authorities.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > It is true that Article IV.A.2.b says that
>
> > the Consuls have the power, “To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to
>
> > engage in those tasks which advance the mission and function of Nova Roma…”
>
> > It is clear that establishing a regional authority in an area such as Bulgaria will
>
> > advance the mission and function of Nova Roma. Also, it is is clear that the
>
> > edict empowers A. Vitellius Celsus to organize a province in Bulgaria , which
>
> > would (I assume) be presented to the Senate for their approval. From this
>
> > perspective, I believe the Consuls have acted in good faith to advance Nova
>
> > Roma.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > However, the Constitution and laws of Nova
>
> > Roma clearly place the responsibility for appointing regional authorities with
>
> > the Senate. Those regional authorities are responsible for executing the
>
> > instructions of the Senate, not the Consuls (as in the edict), and for
>
> > reporting directly to the Senate, not the Consuls.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > This edict, however well-intentioned it
>
> > may be, is a violation of the Constitution and laws of Nova Roma. Since it is
>
> > too late for me to call for intercessio by the Tribunes, I ask that the Senate appoint
>
> > A. Vitellius Celsus as “a representative to act in a governor’s
>
> > stead”, and I ask that the Consuls withdraw this edict.
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > Valete,
>
> >
>
> > M. Valerius Potitus
>
> >
>
> > Legatus pro Praetor , America
>
> > Austroccidentalis
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > From:
>
> > Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:Nova- Roma@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of M.C.C.
>
> >
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009
>
> > 12:20 AM
>
> >
>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com;
>
> > NovaRoma-Announce@ yahoogroups. com
>
> >
>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] EDICTUM
>
> > CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE
>
> > ROMANAE IN BULGARIA
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > M. Curiatius Complutensis et M. Iulius Severus consules: patribus matribusque
>
> > conscriptis, Senatui Populoque Novo Romano, Quiritibus, et
>
> >
>
> > Omnibus S.P.D.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 1. We hereby appoint A. Vitellius Celsus as Praefectus Rei Publicae Novae
>
> > Romanae in Bulgaria
>
> > (Consular Prefect of the Nova Roman Republic
>
> > in Bulgaria ) to officially
>
> > represent the Nova Roman Republic
>
> > and its Consuls in Bulgaria
>
> > where there is no Nova Roman province currently.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 2. The Praefectus' job includes
>
> >
>
> > a) representing Nova Roma under the authority and control of the Consuls until
>
> > a province is created in that country;
>
> >
>
> > b) leading the job of organizing a Nova Roman province in Bulgaria ;
>
> >
>
> > c) representing and administering all Nova Roman citizens in Bulgaria ;
>
> >
>
> > d) executing all instructions given by the Consuls;
>
> >
>
> > e) reporting about and being responsible for all activities of Nova Roma in Bulgaria
>
> > directly to the Consuls.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 3. This edict takes effect immediately.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Datum a. d. XVII Kal. Oct. M. Curiatio M. Iulio consulibus.
>
> >
>

Lentulus Catoi et Potito sal. My apologies, Potite and Cato, if I seemed a bit harsh - I write (and wrote yesterday) on another one's laptop, so I have to be quick and short, this is why my messages could look harsh. I try to be concise. The problem is that your reasoning is completely failed in my view because you base it on the lex de oppidis (The word "oppidia" does not exist. "Oppidum" in plural is "oppida", we can refer to the law as "lex oppidalis" or "lex de (about) oppidis (plural ablative)".) Where the law says that "In countries sine provinciis, the Senate may appoint a representative to act in a governor's stead. (Lex fabia de oppidis et municipiis 3.7)" it refers to the creation of an oppidum or municipium. It is under the paragraph that is about how to approve an oppidum. This passage of the law means only that if peope in a region without province want to create an oppidum, the senate is the authority to what they must direct their petition. This laws does not specifize if consuls can appoint project managers to act in a territory under their name. Nothing makes this clear in our entire legal corpus, except the nature of the office of the consulate. If one knows that consuls can appoint praefecti because it is an office that they historically always could appoint, the question is solved. There is tendence in Nova Roma to underestimate the power of the magistrates. It is not by chance that the consuls have to have a colleague who can veto them, and their total amount of time in office is just a short one year. This institution was founded so by our ancestors exactly because of the reason that the consuls are very powerful, the can do almost anything that is not explicitly forbidden to them, to realize something that they deem necessary to do for the interests of the state. Thy could appoint a praefectus or even in those provinces where already is there a governor, to check or control or help the work of a governor. The entire community with all its regional subdivisions is the consuls' "provincia" in the original meaning of this word. What they could not do is to appoint a GOVERNOR to a province, because it is explicitely invested in the senate's power. And what they also could not do is to accept a charter about creation of an oppidum, because that power is given to the senate if there is no province or no governor in an area. I acknowledge Potitus' and Cato's god intention to be adherent to the laws, this is my fundamental principle, too, and I'm very rigorous in that as well. But in this case I see this action in 100% legal, that is not against Nova Roman law, nor against ancient law. --- Dom 27/9/09, Cato <catoinnyc@...> ha scritto: Da: Cato <catoinnyc@...> Oggetto: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Data: Domenica 27 settembre 2009, 01:06   Cato Cornelio Lentulo sal. Salve. As Governor Potitus has written, this is not a matter for creating discord, it is simply a matter of correct process under the law. We are a Respublica bound by our own law. Yes, "words/titles" do mean something, which is why we have them. If they meant nothing, I could start issuing edicta tomorrow. Just imagine your horror at that :) Now I am interested in finding out where the consuls draw this power from *under our law*, not simply because they think it's a good thing to do. This is a repeated refrain, Lentulus: just because the end result of an action is a *good* one does not mean that any means of obtaining that action is correct or legal. The lex oppidia specifically gives the Senate authority over areas without a province ("sine provinciis") . I would simply like to know where in our law the consuls are given that authority instead. Vale, Cato --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@ ...> wrote: > > Lentulus Catoni sal. > > It's a debate on words/titles? A consul (or even a simple citizen) can work towards the goal of creating a province -- just like this A. Vitellius did so far for months. The consuls certainly HAVE the power to do this. > > Now the questions is if they are allowed to delegate this job to others so that they help them. > > The answer is yes. A consul can delegate his work as any other magistrate can. All magistrates can delegate their work to appointed officials who help them. > > You are right that the control over provinces is given to the senate. But we aren't talking about provinces. We are talking about a group of Bulgarian people who contacted the consuls to ask them if they could work under consular authority for creating a Thracia province in the future. > > Yes, the consuls can appoint anybody to be under their authority, so they appointed Vitellius. The title has to be praefectus because of the nature of the job. It would be idiocy to call a leader of such a project "accensus" - but the status of the title bearer is the same as of an accensus. Consuls also appoint Wikimagistri since 2006 - an office nowhere described in the constitution, and they also appoint other offices, commissionaries,  and committee members. It is not a criterion for being legal "to be in the constitution" . > > > > --- Sab 26/9/09, Cato <catoinnyc@. ..> ha scritto: > > Da: Cato <catoinnyc@. ..> > Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com > Data: Sabato 26 settembre 2009, 22:37 > > > > > > >   > > > > > > Cato Cornelio Lentulo sal. > > > > Salve. > > > > With respect, Cornelius Lentulus, you have simply said in different words what the edict already says. Governor Potitus believes that the effect of the edict itself is outside the realm of the consuls' authority. > > > > I believe that the question is: under our law, where are the consuls given the authority to appoint people to positions like praefectus, when the lex oppidia's clause regarding areas sine provinciis together with the general authority over provincial affairs given to the Senate seem to indicate that they should not? > > > > Vale, > > > > Cato > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Lentulus Potito sal. > > > > > > This edict is not creating a new province, and it is not appointing a governor. > > > > > > This edict is simply appointing a special member of the consular staff to organize the work in Bulgaria for the hope of a province in the future, and as such, he is under the consuls' authority. The praefectus is a prolonged hand of the consuls. > > > > > > > > > --- Sab 26/9/09, Steve Moore <astrobear@ ..> ha scritto: > > > > > > Da: Steve Moore <astrobear@ ..> > > > Oggetto: RE: [Nova-Roma] EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA > > > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com > > > Data: Sabato 26 settembre 2009, 13:26 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M. Valerius Potitus omnibus SPD. > > > > > >   > > > > > > I recently returned from an extended > > > vacation, and I am now reviewing my emails. > > > > > >   > > > > > > I am pleased to see that there is more > > > local activity going on in Bulgaria . > > > I am a strong supporter of local activity, as evidenced by my work in the > > > Oppidum Fluminis Gilae in Arizona (USA). > > > > > >   > > > > > > At the same time, I find the edict issued > > > by the Consuls on Sept. 15 to fall outside the law and practice of Nova Roma. > > > > > >   > > > > > > The Constitution (Article V.C) says that > > > provinces are set up by the Senate, and the governors of the provinces are > > > appointed by the Senate. See also the provision in Lex Fabia de oppidis et municipiis, > > > 3.1.7: “In countries sine provinciis, the Senate may appoint a > > > representative to act in a governor’s stead.” > > > > > >   > > > > > > On the other hand, the Constitution > > > (Article IV.A.2) does not mention any authority granted to the Consuls to > > > appoint regional authorities. > > > > > >   > > > > > > It is true that Article IV.A.2.b says that > > > the Consuls have the power, “To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to > > > engage in those tasks which advance the mission and function of Nova Roma…” > > > It is clear that establishing a regional authority in an area such as Bulgaria will > > > advance the mission and function of Nova Roma. Also, it is is clear that the > > > edict empowers A. Vitellius Celsus to organize a province in Bulgaria , which > > > would (I assume) be presented to the Senate for their approval. From this > > > perspective, I believe the Consuls have acted in good faith to advance Nova > > > Roma. > > > > > >   > > > > > > However, the Constitution and laws of Nova > > > Roma clearly place the responsibility for appointing regional authorities with > > > the Senate. Those regional authorities are responsible for executing the > > > instructions of the Senate, not the Consuls (as in the edict), and for > > > reporting directly to the Senate, not the Consuls. > > > > > >   > > > > > > This edict, however well-intentioned it > > > may be, is a violation of the Constitution and laws of Nova Roma. Since it is > > > too late for me to call for intercessio by the Tribunes, I ask that the Senate appoint > > > A. Vitellius Celsus as “a representative to act in a governor’s > > > stead”, and I ask that the Consuls withdraw this edict. > > > > > >   > > > > > > Valete, > > > > > > M. Valerius Potitus > > > > > > Legatus pro Praetor , America > > > Austroccidentalis > > > > > >   > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: > > > Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:Nova- Roma@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of M.C.C. > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 > > > 12:20 AM > > > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com; > > > NovaRoma-Announce@ yahoogroups. com > > > > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] EDICTUM > > > CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE ROMANAE IN BULGARIA > > > > > > > > > > > >   > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE NOVAE > > > ROMANAE IN BULGARIA > > > > > > > > > > > > M. Curiatius Complutensis et M. Iulius Severus consules: patribus matribusque > > > conscriptis, Senatui Populoque Novo Romano, Quiritibus, et > > > > > > Omnibus S.P.D. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. We hereby appoint A. Vitellius Celsus as Praefectus Rei Publicae Novae > > > Romanae in Bulgaria > > > (Consular Prefect of the Nova Roman Republic > > > in Bulgaria ) to officially > > > represent the Nova Roman Republic > > > and its Consuls in Bulgaria > > > where there is no Nova Roman province currently. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The Praefectus' job includes > > > > > > a) representing Nova Roma under the authority and control of the Consuls until > > > a province is created in that country; > > > > > > b) leading the job of organizing a Nova Roman province in Bulgaria ; > > > > > > c) representing and administering all Nova Roman citizens in Bulgaria ; > > > > > > d) executing all instructions given by the Consuls; > > > > > > e) reporting about and being responsible for all activities of Nova Roma in Bulgaria > > > directly to the Consuls. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. This edict takes effect immediately. > > > > > > > > > > > > Datum a. d. XVII Kal. Oct. M. Curiatio M. Iulio consulibus. > > > >

Vitellius Hortensio spd.
Salve amice, the teritory of modern Bulgaria includes parts of 3 roman provinces - Moesia inferior, Moesia superior and Thracia:
That's of course before the provincial reform of Aurelianus and Diocletianus.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XUubYukcVzY/Ru9ldaHbmQI/AAAAAAAAAC8/v2JMyoNUtdU/s1600-h/rim_1.jpg
Optime vale!

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Maior Lentulo spd;
> Lentule amice, isn't Bulgaria in the ancient province of Moesia? I assume they want to call it Thrace for so many famous classical ties.
>
> And here is a nice link to the Ancient World Mapping Center
>
> http://www.unc.edu/awmc/index.html
>
> they have free maps of the ancient world here:
> http://www.unc.edu/awmc/mapsforstudents.html
>
> which is why I know where things are;-)
> optime vale
> Maior

Cato Cornelio Lentulo sal.

Salve.

First, thank you for the Latin correction - you should continue your earlier exercises here :)

Next, what you are saying is that the lex Fabia de oppidis' language applies only in the case of an oppida being formed; it does not have broader application in meaning or intent (I dislike the idea of trying to base something on the "intent" of a lex in any case, as you know).

Your answer is reasonable, and I have one small caveat: the authority over provinces is given to the Senate; in areas sine provinciis the authority to act as if it were a province is given to the Senate; in ancient Rome praefecti were given the authority to act if the magistrate appointing them was not present, which makes sense with the vast territories involved under Rome's control; in ancient Rome the Senate could even nullify a formal treaty made by a consul or consuls with a foreign entity if they wished to do so.

It seems that the logic of the leges would indicate that the Senate oversee any affairs regarding areas sine provinciis; in the least instance, it would seem as if the consuls might have informed the Senate of their intentions regarding Moesia/Thrace before putting basically the equivalent of a governor there.

Again, this has nothing to do with the actual benefit of having someone like Vitellius Celsus on the ground there and preparing it for inclusion in the Respublica; that is undeniably an excellent thing. It is a matter of recognizing the Senate's authority as "the supreme policy-making body" of the Respublica.

Vale,

Cato

Praetor Memmius Coss., Potito Catoni Maiori Lentulo omn.que s.d.

The matter questioned by Potitus and Cato is not a minor one.

I will not remind that "praefecti" have been created in a second time in Rome history, not in the classic republican era where praetors, propraetors and proconsuls would represent the Republic in a territory, which could be "upgraded" afterwards to the level of province. In a few cases of exception, these mentioned magistrates were to be representated by a legatus, rather than a "praefectus".
If we adopt Cato's strict point of view, we could consider that the word "praefectus" is reserved just to 2nd rank local officers. If we adopt Lentulus' one, we could claim that an accensus might be called "accensus praefectus etc.".

But the major point is mainly about which body has the competency in creating - *or not* - provinces. With no doubt, the Senate. The consuls, as every magistrate being allowed to convene the Curia, has just been given the power to gather all required informations so that the Curia may debate and vote at best on an item of the creation of a province. Even when the consuls propose every year the prorogation (or not) of the mandate of the governors in charge, they act in what lawyers would call a "mandatory competency": whatever their proposal, the Senate is free not hearing the reporting consuls and to proroge or dismiss a governor contrary to the consuls' proposal.

As long as the senate has not decided to create a province, we could even, in addition, consider that it may have decided *not to*, and, therefore, *willingly not to ask* a determined governor to represent the republic in this territory. And as long as the senate has not, we might also consider that the senate has wished that *no magistrate be in charge* of this territory, nor a governor, either a consul.

We meet here the question that has arisen in imperial times, when the emperors, drawing the last extreme consequences of the once consular relation with the senate, imposed two kinds of authorities on the provinces : the senatorial one and the emperor one.

In this context and in view of his edictum Message #70252 published in our forum on "Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:19 am", as praetor in charge of the administration of our law and of telling Nova Roma law, my recommandation to our Consul Curiatius is to consider the appointment of Hon. A. Vitellius Celsus of an accensus' one, in charge of the *study* of the possible creation of a province in Bulgaria.

At this step, anyone cannot (yet) legally "represent the Nova Roman Republic" nor "lead(..) the job of organizing a Nova Roman province" - for "organizing" means that the province has been previously created - nor "represent(..) and administer(..) all Nova Roman citizens in Bulgaria" - or either at last "report(..) about and being responsible for all activities of Nova Roma".

Ideally the edictum might be re-written, at worst strictly interpretated if the Senate of Nova Roma is asked asap to debate on the possible creation of a province in Bulgaria.

Valete Consules omnes,


P. Memmius Albucius
praetor

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Moore" <astrobear@...> wrote:
>
> Potitus Lentulo sal.
>
>
>
> (I have trimmed the earlier posts from the thread.)
>
>
>
> In your response, you say that I base my "view" on the Lex Fabia de oppidis
> et municipiis ("Lex Fabia"). This is not correct. I base my interpretation
> on the Constitution, and I use the Lex Fabia as an illustration and aid to
> my interpretation. I find the Lex Fabia to be helpful in my interpretation
> because it specifically mentions countries "sine provinciis", and Bulgaria
> is such a country.
>
>
>
> My argument can be expressed in the following syllogism:
>
>
>
> A. The Constitution expressly gives the power of creating provinces and
> appointing governors to the Senate.
> B. The Lex Fabia expressly gives the power of forming local groups
> (oppida, etc.) to the Senate in countries that are not part of a province.
> C. Therefore, the intermediate state (a group of citizens who want to
> form a province) falls under the power of the Senate.
>
>
>
> In your response, you bring up the legal concept that the Consuls "can do
> almost anything that is not explicitly forbidden to them", with the
> understanding that the check on that power is a Consul's colleague. And, if
> you review my original post, you will see that I acknowledged this, because
> Article IV.A.22.b of the Constitution allows broad powers to the Consuls to
> issue edicts "which advance the mission and function of Nova Roma".
>
>
>
> In the case of Bulgaria, however, the Consuls do not need to resort to these
> powers, because the Constitution (as illustrated by the Lex Fabia) says that
> creating provinces falls under the authority of the Senate. And surely,
> receiving a petition from a group of citizens to begin the organization of a
> province is part of "creating provinces".
>
>
>
> I want Bulgaria to become a province, and I want Celsus to succeed in his
> organization of the province. But the Senate is the authority for creating
> provinces, not the Consuls.
>
>
>
> There is a simple solution: The Consuls should call the Senate, and the
> Senate should appoint Celsus as their representative.
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 1:10 AM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: EDICTUM CONSULARE DE PRAEFECTO REI PUBLICAE
> NOVAE ROMANAE IN
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lentulus Catoi et Potito sal.
>
>
> My apologies, Potite and Cato, if I seemed a bit harsh - I write (and wrote
> yesterday) on another one's laptop, so I have to be quick and short, this is
> why my messages could look harsh. I try to be concise.
>
> The problem is that your reasoning is completely failed in my view because
> you base it on the lex de oppidis (The word "oppidia" does not exist.
> "Oppidum" in plural is "oppida", we can refer to the law as "lex oppidalis"
> or "lex de (about) oppidis (plural ablative)".)
>
> Where the law says that "In countries sine provinciis, the Senate may
> appoint a representative to act in a governor's stead. (Lex fabia de oppidis
> et municipiis 3.7)" it refers to the creation of an oppidum or municipium.
> It is under the paragraph that is about how to approve an oppidum.
>
> This passage of the law means only that if peope in a region without
> province want to create an oppidum, the senate is the authority to what they
> must direct their petition.
>
> This laws does not specifize if consuls can appoint project managers to act
> in a territory under their name. Nothing makes this clear in our entire
> legal corpus, except the nature of the office of the consulate. If one knows
> that consuls can appoint praefecti because it is an office that they
> historically always could appoint, the question is solved.
>
> There is tendence in Nova Roma to underestimate the power of the
> magistrates. It is not by chance that the consuls have to have a colleague
> who can veto them, and their total amount of time in office is just a short
> one year. This institution was founded so by our ancestors exactly because
> of the reason that the consuls are very powerful, the can do almost anything
> that is not explicitly forbidden to them, to realize something that they
> deem necessary to do for the interests of the state.
>
> Thy could appoint a praefectus or even in those provinces where already is
> there a governor, to check or control or help the work of a governor. The
> entire community with all its regional subdivisions is the consuls'
> "provincia" in the original meaning of this word. What they could not do is
> to appoint a GOVERNOR to a province, because it is explicitely invested in
> the senate's power. And what they also could not do is to accept a charter
> about creation of an oppidum, because that power is given to the senate if
> there is no province or no governor in an area.
>
> I acknowledge Potitus' and Cato's god intention to be adherent to the laws,
> this is my fundamental principle, too, and I'm very rigorous in that as
> well. But in this case I see this action in 100% legal, that is not against
> Nova Roman law, nor against ancient law.
>

Salve, Yes, this thread started on the topic of the eucharist. But whatever communal practice some, not all Christians had, does not mean the later eucharist existed fully formed back then nor that they had the same meaning. For example, again, some Christians groups appear to have had not sacraments. Others, some gnostics, had a bread eucharist tied to the feeding of the 5000 with Pythagorean symbolism (that is not borrowing) as the multiplication of gnosis. Bread = gnosis. So, already, Christians are borrowing. We have bits of a platonic dialog as scripture. I gave references on this. So, it is anachronistic to speak about "the eucharist" being attested early to forestall questions of borrowing when the question of "what eucharist, whose eucharist" is not addressed, when the fact that one early eucharist is a gnostic one that borrows from Pythagorean number theory, that some early Christian writings bits from Platonic dialogs, plus the whole subdiscipline of the history of the liturgy really begins to track the creation of liturgy after Constantine legalizes Christianity and they start building basilicas to celebrate those liturgies in.   Vale, A. Sempronius Regulus   --- On Fri, 9/25/09, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@...> wrote: From: gualterus_graecus <waltms1@...> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: A pagan Christ before Christ To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 2:12 AM   Salve, Of course they are an inference, just like most of ancient history. The question is how compelling the inferences are. As it stands, there's quite a large amount of direct and indirect evidence for the text in the second century. Incidentally, the earliest papyrus is P52, normally dated to circa 125 CE, which is about 100 years after the purported events, not 180. There are a few other fragments that date to the second century as well, generally of significantly larger size, such as P66 and P67. This in itself is substantial given that few other classical texts have any fragments approaching that close to their supposed point of composition. But, that's only the beginning. Various apostolic texts and fathers quote from the NT during the second century. Clement of Alexandria alone makes precise quotations from the NT over 1,600 times; Irenaeus over 800 times (Cosaert, "The Text of the Gospels in Clement of Alexandria_ (Atlanta: 2008) 2-3, especially n. 2. A few hundred more can be found among the earlier, Apostolic fathers. The massive number of textual witnesses to the New Testament also allows another perspective from which to evaluate relative dating and authenticity, which is through the notion of Text-Types, that is families of texts that share distinctive readings genetically part of the manuscript tradition. As you no doubt know, the overwhelming critical appraisal of modern NT scholars is that the Alexandrian text-type has the greatest claim to authenticity. What is striking, then, is when Clement's citations of the Gospels are analyzed, Matthew and John have a mixed, but weakly Alexandrian flavor, while Mark and Luke are strongly part of the so-called "Western" text-type (see rest of Cosaert's study). The fact that Clement would be familiar with gospel texts already undergoing differentiation by type, and into different types at that, already suggests a significant prior manuscript history for the NT text. All of the above is just the external evidence. Internal evidence for the dating of the Gospels, of course, places them in their substantially canonical form several decades earlier and, as you know, the bib for this is ridiculously long. Now, compare the above to the case of the pseudo-Hadrian letter. It isn't just *any* fourth century text--it pitifully fails on both internal and external evidence. Medieval manuscript evidence of a seemingly fourth century text (Historia Augustana) that is notorious for inclusion of forged material, citing a letter that is nowhere else cited or referenced, whose internal evidence contradicts what is known about Hadrianic Alexandria. Now, if you want to make an argument for its authenticity, we can start a new thread on that, but I don't think it's worth it. Finally, about the significance of the NT, you speak in generalities, ones with which I agree, but I never was making an argument that the NT in general reflects an undistorted view of early Christianity- -what ancient text, let alone religious, can have a claim to being undistorted? This all originally began with a discussion of the eucharist, and my argument was, in part, that since the eucharist is attested very early on, copycat arguments don't fly (forgive my glib summary, but my argument can be found in the previous thread). Vale, Gualterus --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "A. Sempronius Regulus" <asempronius. regulus@. ..> wrote: > > Salve, >   > You write - >   > "Now, when it comes to the New Testament, of course the gospels, and most of the letters, are pseudepigraphical, but to compare those texts' utilities with the Hadrian letter is misleading since despite their pseudepigraphical nature, the gospels can be reasonably dated in their substantially canonical forms to the 2nd century." >   > I reply: unless you have relatively complete physical copies from the second century of NT texts, believing and saying they reached "their substantially canonical forms" by then is an inference. It is not a fact. It is a theory. Now we can talk about how theories might be better than others but an inference always remains such. Unless something new has come up, the oldest physical NT text is a creditcard-sized fragment of the 18th chapter of John dated to what, 180 years after the events it purports to be about? The complete manuscripts date later, in most cases, way later than that. So, lets see where we are at this point. On the one hand, you claim a fourth century forgery can't indicate what might be going on in the second century. On the other hand, you claim forgeries later than that can indicate what is going on in the second, and even, the first century. Hmmmm. >   > And besides, what makes these NT texts normative indicators for what Christians were doing in the first two centuries. Kind of since Bauer (not the early Pietist), New Testament studies have sort of woken gradually to the fact that one is not going to get an undistorted picture of early christianity by using NT documents as your exclusive window -- not after Nag Hammadi at any rate. >   > Vale, > A. Sempronius Regulus >

Salvete,
 
I happen to believe that this edit is legal and that it advances the cause of Nova Roma. I also believe that when I took similar action to appoint a "personal representative" for California and Ireland, I was within my legal rights as Consuls to do so.
 
The fact that the action  was vetoed not withstanding.
 
I was right then and the Consuls are right now.
 
Valete
 
Ti. Galerius Paulinus

Cato Galerio Paulino sal.

Salve!

I think that we all agree that the *purpose* of the edict is a good one; no-one has even suggested otherwise. The challenge is whether or not the purpose was implemented according to the law.

The Senate retains authority over the provinces and the creation of new ones, and that is clear according to the Constitution.

It would seem logical that the Senate should have been approached regarding the request before this kind of action was taken so that it (the Senate) could decide how best to proceed.

This question brings us back to Polybius' "On the Constitution":

"The Consuls, before leading out the legions, remain in Rome and are supreme masters of the administration...They introduce foreign ambassadors to the Senate; bring matters requiring deliberation before it; and see to the execution of its decrees....

Besides, if any individual or state among the Italian allies requires a controversy to be settled, a penalty to be assessed, help or protection to be afforded, - all this is the province of the Senate. Or again, outside Italy, if it is necessary to send an embassy to reconcile warring communities, or to remind them of their duty, or sometimes to impose requisitions upon them, - or to receive their submission, or finally to proclaim war against them, - this too is the business of the Senate. In like manner the reception to be given to foreign ambassadors in Rome, and the answers to be returned to them, are decided by the Senate."

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salvete,
>
>
>
> I happen to believe that this edit is legal and that it advances the cause of Nova Roma. I also believe that when I took similar action to appoint a "personal representative" for California and Ireland, I was within my legal rights as Consuls to do so.
>
>
>
> The fact that the action was vetoed not withstanding.
>
>
>
> I was right then and the Consuls are right now.
>
>
>
> Valete
>
>
>
> Ti. Galerius Paulinus
>

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Salvete!

Hodiernus dies est ante diem V Kalendas Octobris; haec dies comitialis est.

"Iniqua nunquam regna perpetuo manent." (Stern masters do not reign
long) - Seneca

"Before the new consuls entered upon their office Popilius celebrated
his triumph over the Gauls amidst the delighted applause of the plebs,
and people asked each other with bated breath whether there was any
one who regretted the election of a plebeian consul. At the same time
they were very bitter against the Dictator for having seized the
consulship as a bribe for his treating the Licinian Law with contempt.
They considered that he had degraded the consulship more by his greedy
ambition than by his acting against the public interest, since he had
actually procured his own election as consul whilst he was Dictator.
The year was marked by numerous disturbances. The Gauls came down from
the hills of Alba because they could not stand the severity of the
winter, and they spread themselves in plundering hordes over the
plains and the maritime districts. The sea was infested by fleets of
Greek pirates who made descents on the coast round Antium and
Laurentum and entered the mouth of the Tiber. On one occasion the
sea-robbers and the land-robbers encountered one another in a
hard-fought battle, and drew off, the Gauls to their camp, the Greeks
to their ships, neither side knowing whether they were to consider
themselves victors or vanquished.

These various alarms were followed by a much more serious one. The
Latins had received a demand from the Roman government to furnish
troops, and after discussing the matter in their national council
replied in these uncompromising terms: "Desist from making demands on
those whose help you need; we Latins prefer to bear arms in defence of
our own liberty rather than in support of an alien dominion." With two
foreign wars on their hands and this revolt of their allies, the
anxious senate saw that they would have to restrain by fear those who
were not restrained by any considerations of honour. They ordered the
consuls to exert their authority to the utmost in levying troops,
since, as the body of their allies were deserting them, they would
have to depend upon their fellow-citizens entirely. Men were enlisted
everywhere, not only from the City but also from the country
districts. It is stated that ten legions were enrolled, each
containing 4200 foot and 300 horse. In these days the strength of
Rome, for which the world hardly finds room, would even, if
concentrated, find it difficult on any sudden alarm to raise a fresh
army of that size; to such an extent have we progressed in those
things to which alone we devote our efforts - wealth and luxury.
Amongst the other mournful events of this year was the death of the
second consul, Ap. Claudius, which occurred while the preparations for
war were going on. The government passed into the hands of Camillus,
as sole consul, and the senate did not think it well for a Dictator to
be appointed, either because of the auspicious omen of his name in
view of trouble with the Gauls, or because they would not place a man
of his distinction under a Dictator. Leaving two legions to protect
the City, the consul divided the remaining eight between himself and
L. Pinarius, the praetor. He kept the conduct of the war against the
Gauls in his own hands instead of deciding upon the field of
operations by the usual drawing of lots, inspired as he was by the
memory of his father's brilliant successes. The praetor was to protect
the coast-line and prevent the Greeks from effecting a landing, whilst
he himself marched down into the Pomptine territory. His intention was
to avoid any engagement in the flat country unless he was forced to
fight, and to confine himself to checking their depredations; for as
it was only by pillaging that they were able to maintain themselves,
he thought that he could best crush them in this way. Accordingly he
selected suitable ground for a stationary camp." - Livy, History of
Rome 7.25


"From his own head he gave birth to owl-eyed Athena
The awesome, battle-rousing, army-leading, untiring
Lady, whose pleasure is fighting and the metallic din of war." -
Hesiod, Theogony

"Of Pallas Athena, luminous goddess I begin to sing:
owl-eyed, rich in wisdom, her heart unyielding;
a virgin she is, modest, the protectress of the city, mighty one;
Tritogenê, she was born by Zeus, the all-wise.
From his great head she emerged, bearing weapons,
gold were they, and shining; all the immortals appraised her with
respect.

The goddess stood before Zeus, holder of the aigis,
swiftly leaping from his enormous skull.
She brandished the pointy spear in her hand; Olympos shook greatly
as if fearful of the powerful owl-eyed one;
Gaia released a piercing cry; Pontos moved violently,
raising dark, ominous waves, releasing a burst of spray against the
land.

The bright son of Hyperion stood his stallions, waiting long for Her;
to undress of the divine armor from her immortal shoulders.
Pallas Athena! Zeus, the all-wise laughed.
So I hail you goddess, daughter of Zeus, the aigis-holder
With this my song ends, but I will always remember to sing to you." -
Hymn to Athena, Homer (28)

"Of Pallas Athena, protectress of the city I begin to sing;
the dreadful one, who with Ares looks after war-like affairs:
the sacking of cities, the cries of battle and the strife.
She protects the populace, wherever they might venture to or from.
Hail goddess, and may you give us good fortune and happiness." - Hymn
to Athena, Homer (11)

Today was celebrated in ancient Greece as the birthday of Athena.
Zeus came to lust after Metis, and chased her in his direct way. Metis
tried to escape, going so far as to change her form many times.
Turning into various creatures such as hawks, fish, and serpents.
However, Zeus was both determined and equally proficient at changing
form. He continued His pursuit until she relented. An Oracle of Gaea
then prophesied that Metis first child would be a girl but, her second
child would be a boy that would overthrow Zeus as had happened to his
father and grandfather. Zeus took this warning to heart. When He next
saw Metis He flattered her and put her at her ease. Then with Metis
off gaurd Zeus suddenly opened His mouth and swallowed her. This was
the end of Metis but, possibly the beginning of Zeus's wisdom.

When Zeus swallowed His wife Metis she had been about to give birth to
a child. Shortly afterwards Zeus was tortured by an intolerable
headache. To cure Him Hephaestus split open His skull with a bronze
axe and from the gaping wound, shouting a triumphant cry of victory,
sprang Athena - fully armed and brandishing a sharp javelin. At the
sight, all the Immortals were struck with astonishment and filled with
awe. Olympus was profoundly shaken by the dash and impetuosity
of the bright-eyed goddess. The earth echoed with a terrible sound,
the sea trembled and its dark waves rose.

It was generally agreed that Athena was the daughter of Zeus, engendered by the god Himself. This birth, in which She had played no part, infuriated Hera who, in reprisal, gave unassisted birth to the monster Typhon. Athena was Zeus' favorite child. His preference for her was marked and His indulgence towards Her so extreme that it aroused the jealousy of the other gods.

"You have fathered," says Ares to Zeus, "a rash and foolish daughter who delights only in guilty acts. All the other gods Who live on Olympus obey You and each of Us submits to your will. But
She, to You never curbs neither by word nor deed; She does as She
pleases."


Valete!

Cato