Subject:	Re: Historical question for SPI
From:	JSA varromurena@--------
Date:	Thu, 16 Sep 1999 01:30:20 -0700 (PDT)

> Respondeo:
> Assuming we're talking prior to the Constitutio
> Antoniniana (when Caracalla
> gave universal citizenship) and we're not dealing
> with Egypt/Alexandria
> (which has citizenship rules of its own which I'm
> not quite confident in
> regurgitating) and we're speaking generally, the
> status of a child which
> was the product of a non-Roman marriage was
> non-Roman; when citizenship was
> granted on retirement, it usually included a
> recognition of whatever
> marriage (i.e. conubium) the soldier had contracted
> and the children were
> sort of retroactively created citizens as if they
> were originally borne of
> two Roman citizens.
>
> mpj
> ]|[ M. Papirius Justus ]|[

So, in other words, the child takes, normally, the
status of the mother--unless Papa is a cives and
acknowledges the little brat? I take it that if Papa
only has Latin rights, the child, if acknowledged,
then has only Latin citizenship too?

Did it matter which kind of Roman marriage was used
(was there a special kind of marriage for Legionaries,
or am I perhaps thinking of special rules for
testament and inheritance for the soldiers?)?

Finally, when a child and his mother, non-citizens
because Papa has not come to the end of his enlistment
and attained citizenship, dwell in a town, for
example, or even a provincia, that has been granted
citizenship, is this the one case where the kid gets
citizenship before the father, or is law wholly
personal and the kid has to wait for papa's enlistment
to run out?

L. Licinius Varro Murena


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at <a href="http://auctions.yahoo.com" target="_top" >http://auctions.yahoo.com</a>

Subject:	Re: Roman Values
From:	JSA varromurena@--------
Date:	Thu, 16 Sep 1999 01:56:19 -0700 (PDT)

-
> I disagree in part. Clearly, these instances and
> others were unusual, but Valerius points out that
> other Romans of the time, while they too thought it
> was unusual, did not think there was anything per se
> wrong with the behavior of these men.
>
> Respondeo:
>
> I think that's reading an awful lot into VM; I don't
> think he really was in
> a position to know what 'other Romans' thought about
> such things
> (especially in regards to things that happened
> centuries before he wrote).
> We have to be extremely wary of looking at the past
> the modern eyes and
> imposing modern values on a society which did not
> perceive the world in the
> same way we did, for various reasons.

Then, again, VM drew upon various sources, many of
which we do not have, and he clearly states, without
using any modern theory to understand him (other than
simple empiricism), that, in the case of Egnatius
Metellus "Everyone considered this an excellent
example of one who had justly paid the penalty for
violating the laws of sobriety..."

>
> Scr.
>
> No, nothing in history is ever so simple as made it
> to
> be--we simplify in order to make a valid point
> shortly
> (otherwise it might take a semester of lectures to
> get
> to the point), or for teaching purposes.
>
> Respondeo:
>
> At the same time, however, nothing is history is as
> necessarily complex as
> modern theoretical interpretations like to make it.
> We can read VM and
> respond to it from our point of view, we can try and
> fit it into some sort
> of ideological theory (while ignoring other things
> which might contradict
> that theory), but such approaches do not make it
> more valid by any means ...

No, but then I am not using any particular theory
here, nor do I in my own work on Medieval English
lawbooks, other than Maitlandian empiricism.

>
> Scr.
>
> My point was that classical Roman society, certainly
> in the Early and Middle Republic, the eras that NR
> draws upon for its Roman values, was highly sexist
> and
> misogynistic--
>
> Res.
>
> I think you have to provide some solid evidence that
> in Rome there was
> 'hatred' of women (which is what misogyny is); I
> think you also have to
> look at the big picture and put gender relations in
> a historical context
> and then decide whether it was, in fact, sexist ...

Well, let us see. Aulus Gellius reports various
speeches of Cato in which the husband is allowed to
kill the wife caught in adultery, but not vice-versa.
Women were never allowed to vote, nor to hold office.
The ideal Roman woman is the Matron (such as Cornelia,
Mother of the Gracchi), keeping the hearth-fire
burning, and running things while her man if off doing
Jupiter-knows-what (admittedly, the woman runs the
household, but until the late Republic, the ideal
Roman woman is not off doing Juno-knows-what while her
husband runs things at home). Power in the familias is
in the hands of a Paterfamilias, not a Materfamilias
(admittedly, in some families the real power may have
been wielded by the Mater, though legal power
continues to reside in the hands of the Pater), and he
has Patria potestas, there is no Matria potestas in
law with the same powers. Table V.1 of the 12 Tables
states females shall remain in guardianship even when
they have attained their majority. If I had more time
I could cite other examples, but if you need some I
suggest you look online, for example, at either the
Ancient History Sourcebook or Diotima, or consult the
works of Lefkowitz and Fant.



> one of the big problems
> I have had with numerous studies is that they look
> at Roman society almost
> as if it were a modern one ... the key to Roman
> society is the
> paterfamilias, of course, and while he has 'rights',
> he also had duties.

True, but as I pointed out above, there is in law no
Materfamilias, and while women have rights and duties
too, they only way they can truly exercise power is
behind the scenes. If you're a male, you may consider
this a non-sexist society, but if you're a female, the
view (except for those who have internalized the male
view) will be quite different.

> Much of what we perceive as 'sexist' is largely the
> response of an
> agricultural society to the necessities of gens
> preservation

No, most of what we perceive as sexist has its roots
in the changeover from a Forager to a wholly
agricultural society, as Margaret Ehrenberg
demonstrated in her ground-breaking study. Note, of
course, that gens preservation occurs only through
male succession. A non-sexist society would allow it
to continue through either male or female succession.

>
> Scr.
>
> perhaps not as much so as that of Hellas
> of the same periods, but far from the equality
> touted
> as a goal on the NR website. I cited two examples,
> perhaps extreme, to make a point, being which that
> though Classic Roman values have much to commend
> them
> to people nowadays, there are plenty of values which
> we, hopefully, would not wish to follow
> today--though
> the attitude of some citizens on this list
> occasionally make one wonder about this.
>
> Res.
> It is worth reiterating, of course, that your
> examples were, in fact
> singular ... if you could provide numerous examples
> of hubbies beating
> their wives to death for drinking wine, the point
> might be valid .. But
> that leads to my point ... your examples were
> extreme, just as examples in
> numerous courses at universities are based on
> extreme, devoid of context
> examples. I don't think it would be fair to judge
> all of U.S. society from
> the parade of folks on the Jerry Springer show; so
> too we should be rather
> more global when we talk about Roman society.

So, you're saying that the United States today is NOT
a sexist society?

L. Licinius Varro Murena

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at <a href="http://auctions.yahoo.com" target="_top" >http://auctions.yahoo.com</a>

Subject:	Re: Historical question for SPI
From:	"M. Papirius Justus" papirius@--------
Date:	Thu, 16 Sep 1999 05:24:39 -0400

At 01:30 AM 16/09/1999 -0700, you wrote:
From: JSA <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=081166091180193192130061163101147165026048139046" >varromurena@--------</a>
So, in other words, the child takes, normally, the
status of the mother--unless Papa is a cives and
acknowledges the little brat? I take it that if Papa
only has Latin rights, the child, if acknowledged,
then has only Latin citizenship too?

Res.

Yes

Qu.
Did it matter which kind of Roman marriage was used
(was there a special kind of marriage for Legionaries,
or am I perhaps thinking of special rules for
testament and inheritance for the soldiers?)?

Res.
No ... Roman marriage was a matter of consent between the two parties;
there didn't even have to be a ceremony (although there likely was one of
some sort; probably at least a deduction in domum or something) ...

Qu.
Finally, when a child and his mother, non-citizens
because Papa has not come to the end of his enlistment
and attained citizenship, dwell in a town, for
example, or even a provincia, that has been granted
citizenship, is this the one case where the kid gets
citizenship before the father, or is law wholly
personal and the kid has to wait for papa's enlistment
to run out?

Res.
No, if we're imagining a situation where a non citizen male marries a
citizen female, the children will be Roman citizens but technically they
will not be in the father's potestas ...

mpj
]|[ M. Papirius Justus ]|[ <a href="http://web.idirect.com/~atrium" target="_top" >http://web.idirect.com/~atrium</a> ]|[

Subject:	Re: Roman Values
From:	"M. Papirius Justus" papirius@--------
Date:	Thu, 16 Sep 1999 06:06:53 -0400

At 01:56 AM 16/09/1999 -0700, you wrote:
Then, again, VM drew upon various sources, many of
which we do not have, and he clearly states, without
using any modern theory to understand him (other than
simple empiricism), that, in the case of Egnatius
Metellus "Everyone considered this an excellent
example of one who had justly paid the penalty for
violating the laws of sobriety..."

Res.

And what, exactly, does 'everyone' mean in context (and what word is used
for it in the Latin ... sorry, VM is one of those texts which I do not have
handy)? Is 'everyone' the sum of his sources? Is everyone Roman society in
general? Is everyone the Roman equivalent of teenspeak (aw mom, everyone's
going to the mall) ...

<snip> Scr.
No, but then I am not using any particular theory
here, nor do I in my own work on Medieval English
lawbooks, other than Maitlandian empiricism.

Res.
But when you bring up the notion of misogyny, by that very fact you are
using feminist theory ...

Scr.
Well, let us see. Aulus Gellius reports various
speeches of Cato in which the husband is allowed to
kill the wife caught in adultery, but not vice-versa.

Res.
And in Roman law, as later modifed by Augustus, a paterfamilias could kill
his daughter *and* her paramour if caught in flagrante delicto (could a
hubby with manus do the same? I'm not sure). Is misogyny the only
explanation? (it is if you're approaching things through modern eyes). But
what if you're essentially an agricultural society which has as the central
focus of its existence the maintenance of property within a gens and
indeed, it is a societal goal to pass on the family property to one's
children in a better condition (financially) than one had received it? The
danger of adultery as regards females is, of course, the risk of pregnancy
and if a woman did become pregnant by a paramour (and the hubby didn't
know), one would be 'taking away' from the gens when it came to inheritance
-- it might be 'unknown', but the various divinities associated with the
gens would know and, I strongly believe, in the Roman scheme of things
would be considered a bad thing. I'm not trying to be an apologist, here,
but rather, am trying to demonstrate how thinking the 'romans were just
like us' can impose an interpretation which is not necessarily applicable
(especially with that buzz word misogyny). Even without that, however, and
without getting into the problem of whether Cato was 'typical', the mere
existence of the provision for killing does not mean it was used
frequently, if at all (I know of only one 2nd century A.D. example and a
governor actually had to write for advice on how to handle the case)

Scr.
Women were never allowed to vote, nor to hold office.

Res.
So? Neither were slaves, or peregrini, or various other folks. But this
'equal voting rights' thing is largely a modern phenomenon. I know of know
evidence which suggests that such groups (including women) ever desired the
vote. They had other ways of exercising their power ...

Scr.
The ideal Roman woman is the Matron (such as Cornelia,
Mother of the Gracchi), keeping the hearth-fire
burning, and running things while her man if off doing
Jupiter-knows-what (admittedly, the woman runs the
household, but until the late Republic, the ideal
Roman woman is not off doing Juno-knows-what while her
husband runs things at home).

Res.
And the ideal Roman man was the farmer-senator (such as Cincinnatus) who
lived in a small shack, worked alongside his slaves and left the plough to
defend the Republic. But ideals are just that *ideals* and, by definition,
exceptions. They are hardly indicative of the realities of Roman society as
a whole.

Scr.
Power in the familias is
in the hands of a Paterfamilias, not a Materfamilias
(admittedly, in some families the real power may have
been wielded by the Mater, though legal power
continues to reside in the hands of the Pater), and he
has Patria potestas, there is no Matria potestas in
law with the same powers.

Res.
So? Along with the power of the paterfamilias goes quite a bit of
responsibility was well (in terms of preserving the familia); you neglect
to mention, however, that a wife in that familia might very well be sui
iuris, own her own property, etc. etc.


Scr.
Table V.1 of the 12 Tables
states females shall remain in guardianship even when
they have attained their majority.

Res.
And what, exactly did 'guardianship' and the attendant auctoritas tutorum
entail? (cave: I am setting you up with this one)

Scr.
If I had more time
I could cite other examples, but if you need some I
suggest you look online, for example, at either the
Ancient History Sourcebook or Diotima, or consult the
works of Lefkowitz and Fant.

Res.
Thanks, but I've spent the last decade or more researching precisely this
thing and I suspect I'm one of the few folks in North America who has
intimate familiarity with such texts as Justinian's Digest *and* Codex,
without which doing Roman social history is impossible ... I encourage you
to look up the transactions which were regulated by 'guardianship' (tutela
mulierum) and how it differed from e.g. tutela minorum. You might also want
to look into the notion of curator minorum and everything assocated with
the lex Laetoria (not Plaetoria).

I'm sorry, but this whole notion of misogyny in ancient times is a modern
construct imposed on a society which is *not* just like ours ...

Scr.
True, but as I pointed out above, there is in law no
Materfamilias, and while women have rights and duties
too, they only way they can truly exercise power is
behind the scenes. If you're a male, you may consider
this a non-sexist society, but if you're a female, the
view (except for those who have internalized the male
view) will be quite different.

Res.
No, if you're a female in our society, where females can exercise power 'in
front of the scenes', it might seem sexist. If you're living in that sort
of society and know your role and how to get things done (i.e. exercise
power), it's just the way it is. A Roman female looking at our society
might very well consider the power relationships of our society primitive
and inefficient. Indeed, considering the Roman predeliction for laws
against secret meetings (i.e. the male method of behind the scenes power),
one could argue sexism the other way (but of course, I would not press that)

Scr.
No, most of what we perceive as sexist has its roots
in the changeover from a Forager to a wholly
agricultural society, as Margaret Ehrenberg
demonstrated in her ground-breaking study. Note, of
course, that gens preservation occurs only through
male succession. A non-sexist society would allow it
to continue through either male or female succession.

Res.
You misunderstood me. What I was trying to say was that Rome was an
agricultural society and its societal structures (even into the empire)
were largely those of an agricultural society... I don't care about
changeovers. Yes, gens preservation occurs only through the male line, but
that does not preclude a woman from leaving *her* property to whomever she
wants (indeed, a woman had rather more freedom to dispose of her property
... a paterfamilias would always be in danger of a 'undutiful will'
charge). It's rather more complex, in other words, than simply being able
to vaguely label something as 'sexist'.

Scr.
So, you're saying that the United States today is NOT
a sexist society?

Res.
No, what I'm saying is that just as I would not make any value judgement on
the totality of American society from the parade of painted and pierced
profligates on Springer, I would not judge the totality of Roman society
from a handful of anecdotes from VM.

mpj
]|[ M. Papirius Justus ]|[ <a href="http://web.idirect.com/~atrium" target="_top" >http://web.idirect.com/~atrium</a> ]|[

Subject:	Re: Digest Number 556 -- Gens
From:	"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@--------
Date:	Thu, 16 Sep 1999 07:54:51 -0500

On 16 Sep 99, at 7:15, <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> wrote:

>
> Guess you'll have to find something else to complain about. Or maybe
> you'll threaten to leave Nova Roma over this, too?
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus

Don't be silly. You'd like that entirely too much and we couldn't
have that now, could we?

Don and Crys Meaker (Historically part of NR -- like it or not)

Subject:	Re: Gentes
From:	"Nicolaus Moravius" n_moravius@--------
Date:	Thu, 16 Sep 1999 05:54:37 PDT

Salvete!

Sic ego:

> >a citizen's enforced resignation of his/her
> >citizenship, in order to leave a gens, and a subsequent obligation to
>apply
> >for re-admission to Nova Roma, amounts to the infliction of a penalty of
> >temporary exile (and possible disenfranchisement), and with which in some
> >future cases an innocent citizen may be punished.

Post haec respondit Merullus:

>A pater/materfamilias' expulsion of a citizen from a gens does not mean
>disenfranchisement as I see it. It means that the expelled citizen loses
>his/her Roman name and must apply to a different gens or apply directly to
>the censors as a new gens. The process of gens affiliation need have no
>impact on his/her voting rights (any voter code issued can still be valid,
>a
>new one can be created and sent to the nameless citizen, since the censors
>have the person's legal name and contact information).
>
>Of course it's not up to me to decide how this will be done in an
>institutional way, but, for the time being, in the absence of specific
>legal
>mandates, that is how I am proceeding.

- Nunc respondeo:

You musunderstood, Merulle: if citizens wish to LEAVE a gens AGAINST the
will of the paterfamilias, their only option at present is to leave NR
completely and re-apply for citizenship. As long as they are not citizens,
they cannot vote or hold office.

Leaving Nova Roma and reapplying for citizenship under a new name was
actually the only choice made available to two citizens recently, when this
situation first arose, and until one paterfamilias changed his mind. Surely
you will agree that this is not at all satisfactory?

Valete,

Vado.


Quod prudentis opus? Cum possis, nolle nocere.
Quid stulti propriam? Non posse et velle nocere.

(What is the work of the wise? Not to injure, though he can.
What is the property of a fool? To wish to injure, though he cannot).

- Ausonius.

Subject:	Thanks, requests and other ramblings
From:	"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@--------
Date:	Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:18:49 -0500

Salvete,

I would like to thank those who addressed my questions about
children for the SPI. As is my custom, I would like to ask those
who contributed if I may publish the information on the website. I'm
not *quite* as "barbarian" as some might have you think <G>.

As to sexism and gender rolls and the like: I was raised quite old
fashioned. My biological family is actually a Matriarchy (sp?), but
they taught me that the women raised the children for a reason. I
did not know there was any such thing as a responsible male until
around December of last year. While hiding out in the Mennonite
church I wore a head covering not unlike those worn by Jewish
women today. My veil covers my head and extends down my back
about to my waist (Fimbria has seen me in my veil <G>). My face
remains uncovered -- as does my mouth (much to the disdain of
some I dare say <G>). This is about as reconstructionist as it
gets around here, but I wear my veil whenever I leave the house, be
it to go shopping, or to the post office. I also wear skirts that
extend between my lower knee and my ankle. That comes from
years and years of my mother's complaints about women showing
their knees in public. If Mom had her way all women would be
back in hoop skirts <G>.

My husband doesn't give me orders because few people are stupid
enough to TELL me to do anything. You all know I am stubborn as
a mule. Tell me to do something and I am likely to dig in my
heels. I wear the veil because it is the only thing I think should be
carried over from the Ancients. Not all veil wearers are unhappy
nor do they all think themselves put upon or oppressed. Hades, in
the Jewish community a woman can divorce her husband if he
does not support her in the matter she is accustomed to and can
also divorce him if he is not good in bed. She is 100% in charge of
her household. She announces the need for a new couch the
husband can not NOT get it as long as he can afford it and if he
cannot afford it, he is running a risk. But Jewish women are also
abused by their men in the name of their religion/god. I do not
know about the other, but Black Muslims (sp?) also wear veils.
The girls are raised to cook and sew and marry and have babies.
This is not a bad thing, but it can be if the girl does not want to
grow up that way. Also, Black Muslim women are fiercely
protected by the men ... as well as sometimes fiercely beaten.
Every thing has it's up's and down's.

Should a matron in NR wear a veil? *I* think so, but that's just me.
It doesn't interfere with anything. I get nothing but compliments
about my "pretty veils" from the people around here (and *I* live in a
small Texas town. Gods love 'em, but their hicks <G>). I could
never wear the head to toe covering of some religions, I just
couldn't get anything done!!!!!!! Some branches cover the feet and
hands too. I saw a woman in the heat of July so dressed and
almost had heat stroke just looking at her!!!

Is NR sexist? *I* don't think so, actually. I think it ought to allow
the member of a gens to leave if they are not happy there, which is
not the case right now (if the paterfamilias says stay you either
pray to be thrown out or you leave NR or you die ... 3 choices).
Women in NR don't run for much, which is a pity. I don't like
politics and I don't have time to run for coffee, never mind office. I
would like to see more women run for more things. I suppose I live
vicariously through them and so become a modern woman and not
the old fashioned silly so many women criticize these days. My
job is my husband and my children. The pay sucks, but the
benefits are great.

Just my uneducated opinion.

Crys

Subject:	Re: Roman Values
From:	jmath669642reng@--------)
Date:	Thu, 16 Sep 1999 09:53:31 -0400 (EDT)

I too would be interested in studying the stoic and epecuric
philosophies. I suspect that I tend more toward stoic than the other ,
but I would like to look into a little deeper. I don't think I am ready
for discussions with an expert yet, but a couple of references would
indeed be welcome. Anyone have a book title or two handy???

Marcus Minucius Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

Subject:	Re: Roman Values
From:	"Antonio Grilo" amg@--------
Date:	Thu, 16 Sep 1999 15:24:02 +0100

Salve Marce Audens

I'm Epicurean. I think that a good starting point for this philosophy is to
read the poem of philosopher Lucretius, "De Rerum Natura" ("On the Nature of
Things"). You can find an English online version at
<a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Carus/nature_things.html" target="_top" >http://classics.mit.edu/Carus/nature_things.html</a> . Of course it is useful to
read Epicurus himself.

Just to give an hint... Epicurean philosophy is the most closer to atheism.
There are slightly different Epicureanisms though... The Epicurean believes
that Nature is physical, made of discrete units called athoms (in a modern
sense you can conceive these as the energy/matter 'quanta' of athomic
physics). The physical world has its own rules and events are given by
simple mechanical rule. There is no God's finger changing the physical
things. What's death? Death is simple the reposition of our constituting
athoms in Nature to serve as building blocks for other beings. It does not
exist, for life does not exist either. Both living and dead are simply made
of athoms. Athoms are immortal, and thus we are immortal too, Nature is
immortal.
With this philosophy man becomes free from prejudices and its aim in life is
to pursue happyness as he wants. There are better paths than others though.
Each philosopher (maybe each man) has a different opinion.
Where do Gods enter? Well, some Epicurean philosophers justify the belief in
the Gods as a means to achieve happyness, mainly to those indivuduals who
are not strong enough to simply face the athomist reality and eternal
mechanical fate.
Do Gods exist for an Epicurean? Well, they exist at least in his/her mind as
an aestetical dimension, an idea, an image, itself made of athoms. The thing
is... Gods do not alter the mechanic course of things in Nature, and so
become useless from a physical point of view.

Well, as for the stoics (although I'm not a stoic), there are many good
philosophers that deserve your reading. Marcus Aurelius
<a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.sum.html" target="_top" >http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.sum.html</a> ) is my favourite
for his humanity. Seneca, Epictetus are other good examples. You may find
their works (including english translation) online at
<a href="http://classics.mit.edu/" target="_top" >http://classics.mit.edu/</a> .

Vale
Antonius Gryllus Graecus



-----Original Message-----
From: James Mathe--------lt;a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a>
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 1999 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Roman Values


>From: <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a> (James Mathe--------/font>
>
>I too would be interested in studying the stoic and epecuric
>philosophies. I suspect that I tend more toward stoic than the other ,
>but I would like to look into a little deeper. I don't think I am ready
>for discussions with an expert yet, but a couple of references would
>indeed be welcome. Anyone have a book title or two handy???
>
>Marcus Minucius Audens
>
>Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
>
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> GRAB THE GATOR! FREE SOFTWARE DOES ALL THE TYPING FOR YOU!
>Tired of filling out forms and remembering passwords? Gator fills in
>forms and passwords with just one click! Comes with $50 in free coupons!
> <a href="http://www.onelist.com/ad/gator1" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com/ad/gator1</a>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Subject:	Barbarians
From:	jmath669642reng@--------)
Date:	Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:04:33 -0400 (EDT)

Salvete Citizens;

This is a request on behalf of another gentleman who is looking for a
group of barbarians to link up with. He appears to be very interested
in the subject (re-enactment) and I am wondering if the members could do
anything in particular fr him in the way of information.

So far I have given him the E-Mail address of the Barbarian Chieftain
Vic. (no response as yet) and have mentioned that he might get some help
from the XXth / XXIVth Legio Commanders, and he might check into the
local and National SCA communities for information. Lastly I have
encouraged him to establish his own Barbarian Unit, believing that the
above Legios would be glad to have someone with whom to practice and
perform. I did not yet give the Commander of the VIth Legio's name
preferring to let him contact this gentleman, as I am not sure to what
extent the VIth Legio can assist. in this effort.

My question of the NR Citizenery,is simply this. Have I forgotten any
avenue in which I may point this gentleman, and do any of you have any
contacts that may assist him in his search. I have had three E-Mails on
this subject from said gentleman and he seems quite genuinely
enthusiastic.

His name is -----John None

E-Mail address (<a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=194166018056078233050098186064114187071048139" >ravenstail@--------</a>)

Any responses or suggestions tat you may have for John None please
forward to him and to me as well for informtion purposes. The Commander
of Legio XXIV has asked me to maintain a listing of Barbarian
Information as a part of the Sodalitas Militum, and since he is a
co-commander of such, I have agreed to do so.

I thank you for your kind consideration of this message / inquiry.

Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens.

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

Subject:	Re: Roman Values
From:	jmath669642reng@--------)
Date:	Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:25:19 -0400 (EDT)

I thank you most kindly Antonius Gryillius Graecus for your review of
the Epicurean Philosophy and your references. They will be of great
help to me, and I thank you for the time and trouble.

My namesake was a smple legionary, probably from the XXth Legio, and was
a soldier, as well as a Gromaciti (military surveyor) and Gubernator
(pilot-river / coastal) I do not know his religious beliefs, but his
funery stone indicates some belief in the hereafter. Since I believe in
a hereafter as well, I will honor my adopted ancestor by an
investigation into the philosophies, which in all probabliliy due to hs
most humble station he did not have the leisure in which to consider. I
have managed to raise his familias to the Patrician Level and his life
work is honored and housed in the Sodalitas Militum of Nova Roma. I
think now it is time to honor his memory further with the study of a
philosophy with which he might have been in agreement. .

I thank you again for your most kind information.

Sincerely;
Marcus Minucius Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

Subject:	Eagle
From:	jmath669642reng@--------)
Date:	Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:45:29 -0400 (EDT)

Salvete Citizens;

I find that I must apologize for the lateness of the Eagle. The
arrangements made for the printing of the Eagle for this month were
intended to save the NR a few dollars, but unfortunately ran into a
significant set of unavoidable problems. I am told that the papers are
on their way to me as you read this, and as soon as they are receivd
they will be sent on their way.

I apologize for any inconvience that this entails, and hope that you
will see clear to excuse this disruption in service. Any and all
cmments, suggestions or complaints should be directed to me, as the
responsibility for this situation is solely mine.

While on the subject of the Eagle, I remind you that this is your
newsletter, and that I am just the editor, and not the writer of the
publication.. As such I will require inputs from all areas of NR.in
order to maintain an interest. Those o you maintaining subject pages on
the Internet are invited to place short advertisement of them in the
Eagle. Those of you who have businesses are encouraged to advertise in
the Eagle. Those of you haveing Sodalitas in NR are invited to place
articles in the Eagle. The College Of Pontiffs is strongly encouraged
to print articles relating to the College and to the Roman Religio as
you see fit, while the three Legios, represented in NR are cordially
invited to submit articles in relation to thier activities,
organization, and future anticipations. Individual NR Citizens are
encouraged to consider that some of your excellent debates on line may
be of interest to all members and send in copies of these debates /
discussions edited to fit into a newsletter format. I would ask that
you NOT consider the proposal of personality attacks for inclusion in
Eagle, as I do not believe they have any place in this newletter..

Marcus Minucius Audens
Editor--Eagle

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

Subject:	Re: Gentes
From:	"RMerullo" rmerullo@--------
Date:	Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:21:55 -0400

Salvete Nicolaue Moravi et alii



>From: "Nicolaus Moravius" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=091089014007127031215056228219114187071048139" >n_moravius@--------</a>
>
>
>Sic ego (Vado):
>
>> >a citizen's enforced resignation of his/her
>> >citizenship, in order to leave a gens, and a subsequent obligation to
>>apply
>> >for re-admission to Nova Roma, amounts to the infliction of a penalty of
>> >temporary exile (and possible disenfranchisement), and with which in
some
>> >future cases an innocent citizen may be punished.
>
>Post haec respondit Merullus:
>
>>A pater/materfamilias' expulsion of a citizen from a gens does not mean
>>disenfranchisement as I see it. It means that the expelled citizen loses
>>his/her Roman name and must apply to a different gens or apply directly to
>>the censors as a new gens. The process of gens affiliation need have no
>>impact on his/her voting rights (any voter code issued can still be valid,
>>a
>>new one can be created and sent to the nameless citizen, since the censors
>>have the person's legal name and contact information).
>>
>>Of course it's not up to me to decide how this will be done in an
>>institutional way, but, for the time being, in the absence of specific
>>legal
>>mandates, that is how I am proceeding.
>
>- Nunc respondeo (Vado):
>
>
>Leaving Nova Roma and reapplying for citizenship under a new name was
>actually the only choice made available to two citizens recently, when this
>situation first arose, and until one paterfamilias changed his mind. Surely
>you will agree that this is not at all satisfactory?

Again, it's not up to me to make policy, and I don't know the particulars of
the cases to which you refer. That having been said, I think that
citizenship, though closely related to gens membership, is not identical to
it. That is, one can leave or be expelled from a gens, yet remain a citizen
with full voting rights. Why do I think that? Because an application for
citizenship is ultimately approved by the censors; it may be sponsored by a
pater/materfamilias (must be so sponsored if the applicant wishes to join an
existing gens), but the sponsorship of the p/m does not constitute granting
citizenship. That which I do not give, I cannot take away. As
paterfamilias of gens Maria, I could decide that someone was not suitable to
remain a member of gens Maria, and expel that person. The expelled would
then lose his/her name, and be obliged either to seek out another gens or
petition the censores to establish a new one. In the latter case, the
matter is then directly between the expelled and the censors, who can decide
whichever way they choose based on the merits of each case. But while such
a gens-hunting case is pending, the expelled retains voting rights.

The notion that a p/m can hold the family members in the Gens against the
members' will does not sound plausible to me, without hearing some
as-yet-unheard rationale for it. If someone wishes/needs to leave a Gens,
how would a p/m hold him/her within the Gens, and what would it mean to do
so? The notion of holding someone in a Gens only perhaps make sense if the
member desiring to leave is a minor, or otherwise defined by
as-yet-non-existent leges Novae Romae, as someone unable to make his/her own
decisions. Why does the holding notion otherwise make no sense to me?
Because, at this stage, gentes grow by mutual consent between newcomers and
p/m's. Although some of us have had children, this is by no means the means
by which NR's population is growing (in fact, I don't believe that our
children have NR citizenship, though they can be listed among our gens
members - can anyone clarify that point? Germanicus, Palladius?). My point
here is that the growth of our gentes is by voluntary association, and that
means, in my view, that voluntary disassociation is valid. People can quit
gentes, as long as they understand that they lose their names and must seek
out other gentes or found new ones.

Now, the establishment of a new gens is a matter of censorial discretion.
And so, while I find it implausible that a NR p/m is able to hold someone in
his/her gens, I find it perfectly reasonable and plausible for the censores
to deny, or state their intent to deny, that someone's application to found
a new gens, for whatever reasons they see fit. And I see nothing wrong with
that, since they are censores.

Valete

Gaius Marius Merullus
rogator
>
>Valete,
>
>Vado.
>

Subject:	Re: Thanks, requests and other ramblings
From:	"RMerullo" rmerullo@--------
Date:	Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:40:36 -0400

Salvete Crystallina et alii



>From: "Don an--------ys Meaker" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=230166014180193192112218004036129208" >famromo@--------</a>
>
>I would like to thank those who addressed my questions about
>children for the SPI.

I would like to thank them too, and you for posing the questions. It has
given birth to a really informative thread.


>women today. My veil covers my head and extends down my back
>about to my waist (Fimbria has seen me in my veil <G>). My face
>remains uncovered -- as does my mouth (much to the disdain of
>some I dare say <G>). This is about as reconstructionist as it
>gets around here, but I wear my veil whenever I leave the house, be
>it to go shopping, or to the post office.

It sounds like it may be very attractive.


>Is NR sexist? *I* don't think so, actually.

I hate the word "sexist". The way it is used implies to me that we should
all become blind to differences between the genders. I cannot imagine a
better way to make life intolerably boring. That gender need not be an
issue in any legal rights seems to me to be unarguably true.

I think it ought to allow
>the member of a gens to leave if they are not happy there, which is
>not the case right now (if the paterfamilias says stay you either
>pray to be thrown out or you leave NR or you die ... 3 choices).

In my view, this cannot be our policy, for reasons stated in my reply to N
Moravius Vado. Since people join gentes by voluntary association, they are
free to quit them by voluntary disassociation (as long as those quitting
understand that they are giving up their names and taking on the obligation
to look for another gens, or petition the censors to found a new one). Now,
if/when childbirth ever outpaces voluntary association as the principal
vehicle of NR population growth, the gens relationship may change
significantly. That is a long way off and should have, in my view, little
to do with our current policy.

Valete

Gaius Marius Merullus

--------

Subject:	ramblings and Roman in Belgium
From:	"Joanne Agate" PAGANFEDBELGIUM@--------
Date:	Thu, 16 Sep 1999 21:11:33 +0200

Dear Crys,

>My veil covers my head and extends down my back
> about to my waist. My face > remains uncovered -- as does my mouth
> Should a matron in NR wear a veil

I am also one of those women who some people wish that I kept my
mouth covered too :-)
Anyway, just curious: Are you a Roman Pagan and does the veil have
something
to do with worshiping the Gods? And is there an historical reason for you
wearing your veil?

And 2 sentences about me: I am the Pagan Federation National Coordinator
for
Belgium, the editor of its
European newsletter, etc etc. I keep busy for the cause of Paganism to be
accepted as a valid spiritual path (which isn't easy in an extremely
Catholic country like Belgium).

I found your website because I am a Roman Pagan (the only one that I know)
and I was searching the internet because I wanted to see if there was
anyone else interested in Roman Paganism. I was extremely pleasantly
surprised to find Nova Roma. And what an excellent website! I had been
putting together a calendar of Roman festival days and Roman rituals and
well, now I don't have to--you've already done it for me!
I tried to apply for citizenship but got the automated message that you
were
not taking new members until after the elections. Until then, I will be
quite busy reading everything on your excellent website.

And are there Nova Romans in Belgium? If not there should be! There is a
great deal of interest in all things Roman in many areas in south Belgium
(proud of their Gallo-Roman roots). There are Roman festivals in different
towns from mid-august and ending the first week of October in the town of
Wervik. There are a lot of Roman legionnes giving demonstrations and
reenactments. Does anyone on this list know about any of these activities?
My better half Stefan and I went to the Gallo-Roman village of Aubechies a
few weeks ago , where they have built a Roman temple to Juno, Minerva,
Jupiter and Mercury. When the sun went down, they did a reenactment of a
ritual to Juno. I couldn't tell who was sincere and who was just acting,
but
it was quite nice. I think that they do this ritual every weekend because
every time that I go there, the offerings at the Temple are fresh.

bright blessings,
Joanne

Subject:	Re: Roman Values
From:	Steven Robinson amgunn@--------
Date:	Thu, 16 Sep 1999 19:51:40 -0700

Salvete Antonius Gryllus Graecus et alia,

Venator here.

For one looking to understand Roman philosophy in a general sense, would
Cicero's "The Nature of the Gods" be a good starting point? I have a copy,
it was in a small box of Penguin Classic editions I picked up at a rummage
sale. (Mostly Norse Sagas though!)

In Amicus - Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator