Subject:	[novaroma] NR Practical Latin 2: Traditional Salutations
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2000 04:06:14 +0200

M. Apollonius Formosanus Civibus Omnibus Novae Romae S.P.D.

In the first lesson we learned how to make an informal
greeting in Latin: just say "Salve" (singular or "Salvete"
(plural) and add the names and titles of the person(s)
addressed in the Vocative Case. We also learned that the
Vocative is the same as the Nominative (the basic form of
our names, etc.) except when a name ends in -US. And we
learned how to make the right Vocative form then.

Those forms are good not only for letters here, but in
the Forum, on the telephone, and in any face-to-face
situation. However, the ancient Romans preferred another
form for letters, the form which I used at the top of this
lesson.

The basic form of this is to state who is writing and to
whom the letter is going all in one sentence at the
beginning, which also serves as the salutation. A most
practical, compact and elegant affair. The form is this:

SENDER (Nominative) TO RECIPIENT (Dative) SAYS GREETINGS.

For example, "Apollonius Cornelio Sullae S.P.D."

Let us analyse this. "Apollonius" is Nominative, the
form we always start with in thinking of cases. No problem
if you know your name! The next idea is "TO". We do not say
"to", which in Latin would be "ad". Rather, we use the
Dative Case (Casus Dativus).
_______________________

Now, English grammar is not taught very well these days
in many schools of Britain and America, so if your education
has luckily made the following ridiculously obvious, please
forgive me for boring you, but I am afraid that some of you
out there may need this little discussion of what cases
really are. Others please bear with me.

English has three cases: Subjective ( = Nominative in
Latin), Possessive ( = Genitive in Latin), and Objective ( =
Accusative and Dative in Latin) We can see this very easily
in the case of the pronoun "he". "He" is used for the
subject of a sentence. ("He is intelligent.") It is
therefore Subjective/Nominative Case. "His" is
Possessive/Genitive Case. ("His book"). "Him" is
Objective/Accusative or Dative. ("I see him." "I gave him
the book.")

But what is the real difference between Accusative and
Dative case? It is the difference in English between a
Direct Object and an Indirect Object. In "I see him" the
word "him" is the Direct Object of "see". In the sentence "I
gave him the book" the word "him" is the Indirect Object and
the words "the book" are the Direct Object.

We can also say, "I gave the book *to* him." Usually the
Dative Case expresses the same idea as "to" or "for". ("I
bought YOU a gift." = "I bought a gift *for* you.) In
English there is only one form for both kinds of objects. In
Latin there are two different forms.

Also, in English all nouns have the same form in the
Subjective and Objective Cases. ("Mark is intelligent." "I
see Mark." "I gave Mark the book.") Only the Possessive has
a special ending: "This is *Mark'S* book." In Latin there
are four endings for these: Nominative ("MarcUS est
intelligens."). Accusative ("Video MarcUM."), Dative ("Dedi
MarcO librum."), and Genitive ("Hic est liber MarcI").

You don't have to memorise these endings; the above
discussion is just to make clear the general concept of
"case" in English and Latin.
________________________

Now that we have hopefully clarified what the Dative
Case is, let us go back to its use in the Traditional
Salutation. There we use the Dative Case to show the person
TO whom the letter is going or FOR whom it is written.

So, how can we form the Dative when we need it? Most
people's names end in one of two ways.

If it ends in -US, the Dative ending is -O.
If it ends in -A, the Dative ending is -AE. (Pronounced like
"eye")

So: Marcus Apollonius Cornelio Sullae S.P.D.

CorneliUS has become CorneliO.
SullA has become SullAE.
("Sulla" is masculine, but the ending would in the same way
be IuliAE if the name were a feminine Iulia.)

Titles are just a tad trickier, so here is a little list of
Dative titles:

Censor > Censori (to the Censor)
Consul > Consuli (to the Consul)
Praetor > Praetori (to the Praetor)
Aedilis > Aedili (to the Aedile)
Senator > Senatori (to the Senator)
Pontifex > Pontifici (to the Pontifex) [And "Pontifici
Maximo"]
Flamen > Flamini ( to the Flamen)
Sacerdos > Sacerdoti (to the Sacerdos)

As you see, although there are some internal changes, they
all end in -I.

("Tribunus", however, is "Tribuno" in the Dative.)

But sometimes we want to write to people in the plural, and
then we need the Dative *Plural* endings. These are even
easier; normally there are only two:

Both -US and -A change to -IS in the Dative Plural.
And all the others you will normally need change to (or add)
-IBUS.

So:
Novoromanus > Novoramanis (to the Nova Romans)
Tribunus > Tribunis (to the Tribunes)

Quiritis > Quiritibus (to the Quirites)
civis > civibus (to the Citizens)
Censor > Censoribus (to the Censors)
Consul > Consulibus (to the Consuls)
Praetor > Praetoribus (to the Praetors)
Senator > Senatoribus (to the Senators) [To the Senate:
"Senatui"]
Pontifex > Pontificibus (to the Pontifices)

Only one more element is necessary, the salutation
proper at the end. "S.P.D." is an abbreviation for "Salutem
Plurimam Dicit." That is, "Salutation Much Says." So,
"Marcus Apollonius Formosanus Censori Lucio Cornelio Sullae
Felici Salutem Plurimam Dicit" means "Marcus Apollonius
Formosanus to Censor Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix says many
salutations." (In English the plural sounds more natural,
but in Latin "Salutem Plurimam" is singular and sounds quite
normal.)

On Nova Roma lists I am often impressed by the
difficulty of remembering whose name or e-mail address goes
with which Nova Roman name. It is sometimes necessary to
scroll to the bottom of the letter first to be sure where
someone is coming from. If more of us used the traditional
Roman salutation, one would know immediately at the
beginning of a message who the writer was with no trials of
memory. Thus, this form is eminently practical.

Naturally we do not always have to use the impressive
full-length affairs like the one above, full of gravitas. In
many cases, as among the ancient Romans, a simple
"Apollonius Sullae suo S.P.D." would suffice. [The "suo" -
masculine - or "suae" - feminine - meaning "his" or "her"
(i.e. of the writer) can be used to show close friendship
and affectionate feeling.]

If anyone has questions, of course you will write me:

"<YOUR NAME> M. Apollonio Formosano S.P.D."

(Thanks to our eminent Censor for the use of his highly
suitable name as an example.)

Valete!

------------------------------------------------
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
ICQ# 61698049
________________________________________________________

Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
________________________________________________________



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want insight into hot IPOs, investing strategies and stocks to watch?
Red Herring FREE newsletters provide strategic analysis for investors.
http://click.egroups.com/1/5176/8/_/61050/_/962244393/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Citizen Participation
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2000 04:08:55 +0200

M. Apollonius Formosanus Piscino et Civibus Novoromanis
S.P.D.

I am gratified by the many posts that my original
message on citizen participation provoked. Obviously it
touched a nerve, and many people felt a need to express
themselves on it. And the posts have been very constructive
in tone. Of them all, I think the contribution of Piscinus
below is the most perceptive, creative and thought
provoking.

I am perhaps a bit disappointed that not very much
attention (albeit some) was payed to my concern that more
things be done by senatus consulta than by edicta and more
things by popular vote than by senatus consulta. And that
the principle of consultation should be extended and
strengthened. My idea was not only to discuss how citizens
might do *something* in Nova Roma, but how they night retain
and control their decisive decision making powers, which
should never be permitted to fall too exclusively or too
absolutely into the hands of any smaller group than the
whole citizenry.

Now, Piscinus proposes that we define by our own
judgement and actions what it means to be a Respublica in
the Roman tradition at the beginning of the 21st century
C.E. A Roman-style Respublica in the age of the Internet. He
considers it a chance for a new beginning in seeking a way
of working out political problems, achieving consensus and
providing good administration in a new age with Roman
inspiration.

I can see several possibilities here. For example, will
our gens system produce a new kind of family life more
viable and more real in the end than the present imperiled
nuclear family? Will our Senate prove itself a uniquely
committed and coherent group leadership in which experience
and precedent will be conserved better than in the
directorates of other states and organisations? (It could
just as easily end up oppressing us and being inert if we do
not do things right!) Will our tradition of direct public
vote to make laws prove especially appropriate to the
Internet age and the direct democracy it makes possible?
Will our world-wide citizenship serve as a new definition of
nationhood based on real spiritual congruity rather than
accident of spatial propinquity? Will giving people a chance
to be citizens in a real second nation with its own culture
and traditions weaken excessive macronationalism in our
hearts and make us more Citizens of the World in the Stoic
sense? Will our tradition of collegiality in office, but
with an ability of magistrates to speedily issue edicts in
an emergency, enable us both to be protected against
individual caprice and enjoy the benefits of decisive
administration cutting through red tape? Will our tradition
of one-year terms of office produce a bigger pool of
politically-experienced citizens and reduce possibilities
for either tyranny or corruption? Will our admirable
institution of the Tribune of the People prove even more
effective than the Swedish Ombudsman?

All of these questions are real. We really have a chance
to build something unique here, something of value to
ourselves and to the world. But if we muff it, we could
easily fall into ego trips, mere rôle-playing, chaotic
argumentation, stiffling authoritarianism, or some repulsive
combination of the above. It just depends on how we play our
cards. And we have got a lot of good cards here.

I think that one thing that must be strenthened in our
political culture is *consultation*. For some decades the
most dynamic economic organisms on the face of the earth
were the giant companies of Japan. And although they are
presented most of the time more in terms of worker loyalty
to the company, one of the reasons why they worked so well
(and still work quite well, in fact, despite Japan's
economic problems as a country) is that there is
consultation from the shop floor all the way up to the CEO.
Management informs lower management and workers when it is
thinking of something. And it *listens* to the feedback from
below, some of which contains extremely valuable ideas. This
process is slow as messages filter up and down the
hierarchy. But when it is done, the company feels that it
can call on everyone involved to rally behind the decision
with some enthusiasm. And it can do this in what at that
moment looks to outsiders like a very authoritarian way
precisely because everyone was in fact involved in that
decision-making process.

Since our Senate is a life-time occupation, we will not
have much influence over it if some such tradition is not
established. The old Romans did not get this right most of
the time. The Senate was a precious repository of knowledge,
expertise and sometimes sense of honour and service, but it
often did not reflect the needs or reasonable wishes of the
People, and even stood contrary to them. (Remember the
Gracchi and their fate at a time when land reform was
urgently needed in the interests of social justice.)
However, if there is a tradition built up *now* of popular
consultation before Senatorial consideration of issues, as
indeed the U.S. Congress and state legislatures do with
their routine public hearings, then the Senators will have a
better idea of what concerned people want and need, and even
if they feel obliged to go against the results of the
consultation, they will only do so carefully and
consciously, not because a complete rift of viewpoints has
opened between Senate and People. And if the People is thus
consulted and respected, it is much more likely to hold the
Senate in esteem and to trust it and back it. But if waiting
for Senatorial decisions is like waiting for a puff of smoke
from a sealed conclave, people will tend to feel alienated
and resentful. With modern communications there is no need
for that. All secrecy rightly inspires suspicion. Many
parliaments now broadcast their proceedings on television.
Why does the Nova Roman People have to rely on limited
reports from the Tribunes? There may be a few issues rightly
kept confidential or even downright secret, but these should
be rare exceptions. If Nova Roma ever starts collecting
anything like taxes from its citizens, I do not think that
such unopenness will long be tolerated, as citizens will be
very concerned with how their money is used. Why not open up
more now and consult more now and set a good precedent? Not
as a matter of constitutional change, but as a change of
practice and political culture.

I quite agree with Piscinus that it is useless to talk
of whether Nova Roma is a democracy or a republic. We are (I
say, somewhat disagreeing with Piscinus) a democratic
republic, just as is the United States or France or Costa
Rica or Israel. "Republic" in modern usage simply means we
are not a monarchy. "Democratic" means that the final say in
every public matter rests with the total populace, and that
the popular will has institutions to make it effective and
sovereign without the necessity of revolution to enforce
that natural right.

Of course we are a different kind of republic from the
above mentioned examples. We are neither a parliamentary
democracy nor an American-style Presidential democracy. We
are a Roman-style democracy. Our structures and institutions
are different. But hopefully our values are democratic in
the normal sense mentioned above. (At least I hope that no
one would maintain that in the long term any individual or
minority of the population should have the right to thwart
the will of the majority in Nova Roma or impose policies on
an unwilling populace.)

Piscinus' analysis of voluntary organisations is very
accurate, as I well know from experience with environmental,
consumer protection, and Esperanto organisations. Although I
am not sure if the principal activists among us feel the
*desperate* need for more help that sometimes drives the
activists in other organisations to resign, feeling that no
one appreciates their efforts. At least I certainly hope
not.

Maybe Piscinus' idea of asking citizens individually to
do a little bit of assisting labour for the administration
is a good one to get them involved, but I myself think that
it would be even more to the point to have more comitia
meetings and popular votes so that citizens might feel NOT
ONLY INVOLVED BUT EMPOWERED.

I conclude by noting that I *violently* disagree with
one thing in Piscinus' generally admirable contribution: I
do not think that a Cuban defintion of Democracy is "equally
valid" with the concept in any truly Democratic country.
When dictatorship hides behind the word "democracy" because
everyone likes Democracy and the said dictatorship wants to
claim a virtue and nature that it does not have, it does not
become responsible people to play along with that kind of
propagandistic word game. Excuse me, mi Piscine! I know that
you, being intellectually acute, could give some
interpretation to your words according to which they are
true and even I would have to agree, but the general
impression they give is dangerous to the libertas that I
hold dear for all mankind, including the misused Cubans.

Valete!

_________________________________-
Piscinus wrote:
Subject: Re: Citizen Participation

Salvete Quirites

It is somewhat disconcerting, but understandable from
experience,
that thus far this entire string has been between mostly
magistrates. The
whole reason I am writing at all is to present a perspective
from a new citizen.
The discussion over whether NR is a republic or a
democracy is really
meaningless. First, because those terms are so loaded with
conflicting
connotations that they have little meaning today. We must
recognize that NR is composed of many individuals from
different countries, cultures and experiences and that such
political words simply lose their meaning in such contexts.
What democracy means in the United States is quite different
from what it means in Cuba, and yet both are just as valid.
Our concern in NR should not be with titles for our system
but rather with building a functioning system.

In the Sixties we use to talk about participatory
democracy; that
someday we would have the technology by which each member of
the society would have the means to directly participate in
the decision-makng process of their government. We could do
away with the senate and the congress and just have the
people vote on everything. Well, there are major flaws in
that idea. The discussion that has been going on between the
magistrates in this string has concerned itself with one of
those flaws. In practice participatory democracy means that
those interested enough to become involved run things, and
most people just aren't interested.
Where I have had most of my experience with
participatory democracy
was not with those student organizations of the sixties and
seventies that I participated in (SDS, SWC), nor with any of
the advocacy organizations to which I still belong or
support (ACLU, NOW, AFS, VITW), and certainly not with all
the various government agencies I have worked for, at every
level of government. Rather it has been within a few labor
unions.
How a union actually functions is that there is a very
small core of
dedicated people who do all the work. Once a month they hold
a meeting
where any member can come and complain, and maybe even vote,
but the actual operation and direction of the local on a day
to day basis is performed by those few who have the interest
to do so. They also get the most complaints about how
things are being handled. NR seems to me to be most like a
labor union in the way it is organized and functions.
To make it more of a participatory local, first it
becomes a necessary
matter for this dedicated group to educate its membership.
Second, they
have to find ways for other members to participate and then
ask individuals to take certain positions of
responsibility. You can not wait for individuals to
volunteer their services. Left to themselves most members
will only sit back and allow others to work for them. The
dedicated group must go out and recruit from among the
membership to become dedicated members to the organization.
Weird scenario isn't it? But that is the case. In
every organization I
have ever been in, it has become necessary for the
leadership to
practically beg the members to participate. (Right now there
is a certain president of my local chapter of NOW hunting me
down, but I am not about to stand out in the July heat
handing out coffee at a highway rest stop.)
To make NR have a citizenship that does participate, and
wants to
participate, the magistrates can not sit back and wait for
volunteers. They need to go and ask citizens to do things.
Just little things. They don't
have to get citizens to commit themselves to a year's
service or even a
month, not in a committee or hosting a panel. "Hey, why not
start your
own soldatis?" No, it should not be that way; just little
things. Have them go look up this or that, and then report
back in a day or two. You need to seed the citizens and
nurture their participation in the administration. It's not
like a draft or serving jury duty, but every citizen should
be made aware that they have civic responsibilities and must
be brought into the process of making their government
function.

The main point to be made is that we have the
opportunity here to
build something unique, to define something new. A society
that transcends political boundaries and geography, one
based on friendship and common interests rather than
ethnicity. Rather than looking for older definitions we
should be considering forming our own. Everything we do or
do not do, whether a magistrate or a citizen, from now on
should be considered with the gravity of setting precedents
for the future. We are not the democratic republic of a new
Rome. We are the Res Publica of Nova Roma, and it is up to
all citizens to define exactly what that means.

Valete
Gn. Moravius Piscinus

--
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
ICQ# 61698049
________________________________________________________

Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
________________________________________________________



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need a credit card?
Instant Approval and 0% intro APR with Aria!
http://click.egroups.com/1/6034/8/_/61050/_/962244551/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Edictum Censoriale de Mutandis Nominibus
From:	"Gaius Marius Merullus" <c_marius_m@-------->
Date:	Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:09:43 -0400

Censorial Edict on Changing Names

Statement of Purpose
I. This edict is set forth to define the procedures by which a citizen may
apply to add, alter, or substitute any portion of his or her Roman name, and
to state the guidelines by which such an application may be judged. This is
done in order to attain a measure of conformity with ancient Roman naming
conventions and tradition. Note that this edictum, and its procedures and
guidelines, apply to changes sought by citizens after the publication of
this edictum, and do not apply to citizens’ existing names.


II. This edict has no impact on chatroom handles, signatures to private or
casual e-mail messages, or any other alias that any citizen may choose to
use. Rather, “Roman name” for the purposes of this edict refers to the name
used by the citizen in public oaths, applications to sodalitates and in
other official contexts; this Roman name is the one recorded in the
censorial album civium.


III. Note that the use of the male gender throughout this document is done
solely for clarity, and is not meant to imply any disparity between the
sexes before the law.


IV. Also note that this document uses the word sex to describe the physical
sex of a person and the word gender to refer to linguistic gender only.


V. It is not the intent of this edictum to discriminate against or to make
any judgment about homosexuality, transgenderedness, or any other sexual
identity. No such discrimination should be inferred from any part of this
document. Nor should it be used as a precedent for any law, magisterial
act, edictum, or other action that interferes with the rights of any citizen
on the basis of that citizen’s sexual identity.


Reiteration of the Definition of a Roman Name

VI. As has been stated elsewhere, a Roman name consists of a praenomen,
nomen, cognomen, and possibly an agnomen, and, in rare cases, several
agnomina.


VII. The praenomen is a citizen’s given name, and is used to distinguish
between members of a particular gens. Since there are very few historical
praenomina, and since the praenomen’s role is almost entirely secondary, a
citizen is almost never referred to by praenomen alone.


VIII. The nomen identifies a citizen’s gens. Since a change in the stem of
a citizen’s nomen would necessitate a change in gens—a case of either
adoptio or the founding of a new gens—it is beyond the scope of this
edictum.


IX. The cognomen was originally a nickname. It is used to further identify
members within a gens, who could easily be identically named due to the
paucity of praenomina. Over time, the cognomen became inherited, and was
used to identify specific family lines within a single gens. Changes to
adopt certain names as cognomina are restricted, as set forth in paragraphs
X and XI below. Note that these restrictions do not apply whatsoever to
cognomina under which citizens have already received citizenship.


X. An agnomen is an additional form of nickname that is commonly bestowed
upon a citizen by others, often to commemorate significant accomplishments
or important events in the citizen’s life. While it is possible for a
citizen to add a new agnomen or change an existing one by request, agnomina
of distinction must be awarded by a senator, curule magistrate, or pontifex
in recognition of service to Nova Roma. Official recognition of such
awarded agnomina of distinction is completed by the censors’ entering the
agnomina in the album civium. Following each such entry by the censores,
the latter will provide the curator araneae with the full Roman name of the
distinguished citizen and an explanation of the circumstances and reasons
surrounding the award of the agnomen, that the curator araneae may publish
this information to the Nova Roma website as he sees fit.


XI. Agnomina of distinction include, but are not limited to, the following:
Augur, Augustus, Felix, Invictus, Magnus, Maximus, Optimus, Pius, Superbus,
Victor. Note that these restrictions do not apply whatsoever to agnomina
under which citizens have already received citizenship.


XII. As an example, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Nepos would be Quintus of the
Metellus branch of gens Caecilia. His family would be referred to as the
Caecilii Metelli, in order to distinguish them from the other families
within gens Caecilia. His agnomen, Nepos, distinguishes him from any other
Quintus of the Caecilii Metelli. As nepos means grandson, it also most
likely distinguishes him as the third in a line of like-named people.


Procedures

XIII. A citizen wishing to change his name shall first contact his
paterfamilias and present his reasons for desiring a name change, as well as
the desired name. The paterfamilias will in turn contact the censores
should he approve of the name change, or should he find that he requires
help in determining whether or not to approve the change.



XIV. Patresfamiliae are instructed to work cooperatively with members of
their gens who desire to change their names in order to help them conform to
the letter and spirit of this document.



XV. Should a paterfamilias disapprove of a citizen’s desired name change,
refusing to present it to the censores, said citizen may appeal to the
censores within ninety (90) days of the refusal.



XVI. A paterfamilias who wishes to change his name shall apply to the
censores directly.



XVII. Should an applicant fail to obtain a name change from the censores, he
may, within ninety (90) days of the refusal, appeal to a consul or praetor
to bring the matter before the people through a vote in the Comitia Populi
Tributa.
i) Note that such an action requires the citizen who desires the change to
temporarily waive his rights of confidentiality as defined in Lex Cornelia
de Privatis Rebus, in order that evidence for and against the application
may be presented to the populace.
ii) Also note that the decision to convene the Comitia Populi Tributa, along
with the schedule for doing so, is the purview of the consules and
praetores, and is therefore beyond the scope of this edict.



Guidelines

XVIII. An application for a name change is confidential. The requested
name, along with any and all evidence presented with it, is considered
confidential information as covered by the Lex Cornelia de Privatis Rebus.
Censores, patresfamiliae, and anyone called to provide testimony by any
party in the procedure are not to divulge any information applicable to the
name change to anyone without the applicant’s written permission, except as
directed by this edict. Such exceptions include the following:
i) A paterfamilias providing relevant information upon referring a request
for a new name to the censores.
ii) A paterfamilias or other citizen providing relevant information upon a
censor, consul, or praetor’s request, as in the case of an appeal of a
denied application.
iii) A citizen presenting evidence before the Comitia Populi Tributa in the
case of an appeal to those comitia.



XIX. The guiding principle in considering name changes is to be conformity
with ancient Roman tradition.
i) New praenomina should be historically attested ones.
ii) As previously stated, agnomina of distinction (Maximus, Felix, et
cetera) are not to be granted to citizens on request, but can be awarded to
any citizen by any senator, curule magistrate, or pontifex in recognition of
any special service to the Republic. It is up to the patresfamiliae and
censores to determine what is and is not an agnomen of distinction on a
case-by-case basis.
iii) Cognomina and agnomina can be new coinages, but must be conducive to
Latin declension, and must have a clear meaning—both semantically and in
specific relation to the citizen requesting the added or changed name.
iv) The gender of the name is to be consistent. Each part is to agree with
all others in gender, and with the sex of the citizen requesting the name
change.



XX. A citizen who wishes to change the gender of his name counter to that
dictated by his sex must present, in support of his application, proof of
acceptance of the contrary sex by an authority of a macronation, state, or
municipality. In other words, if the applicant is physically a man and has
a form of macronational or municipal identification listing his sex as
female, or is officially recognized as a woman in his country of
macronational citizenship, then he may use a feminine name in Nova Roma.
i) An exception to this rule is allowed in the case of transsexual citizens
who are discussing surgical sex alteration with a health care provider or
undergoing other medical and psychological treatment in preparation for such
an operation. In these instances, documentation pertaining to health care
provider(s) may be required of the applicant.
ii) Post-operative transsexual citizens shall be named according to their
current sex.
iii) Hermaphrodites shall be named according to the sex in which they are
recognized by their country of macronational citizenship.

Edictum Censoriale de Mutandis Nominibus

Praedicatio Causae

I. Hoc edictum statuendarum causa rationum decernitur quibus civis de
mutanda ulla parte nominis petat et regularum quibus petitio talis iudicetur
Hoc factum est ut obsequium cum antiquis romanis regulis et moribus de
formandis nominibus attineamus Notandum est hoc edictum cum suis rationibus
regulisque ad mutationes a civibus desideratas post hoc factum pertinere at
non ad exstantes nomina

II. Hoc edictum ad apellationes pro fabulatoriis nec subscriptiones in
privatis vel fortuitis epistulis nec ad alia nomina aliena quibus civis
utiatur Nomen romanum in hoc edicto est id nomen quo iuraiuranda et
petitiones inter alia in sodalitates civis dat Hoc enim nomen romanum in
censoriali albo civium scribitur

III. Notandum est usum masculini generis per has tabellas sole claritatis
causa factum esse at non in se habere inaequalitatem ullam inter sexos ad
ius

IV. Notandum quoque est has tabellas verbo sexus uti pro corporali sexu
cuiusdam hominis et verbo genus pro grammatico sole genere

V. Causa huius edicti non est discrimen contra homines nec qui eos sui
generis ament nec qui se similes altero generi sentiant facere nec contra
alios Nullum discrimen tale intellegi in ulla parte harum tabellarum debet
Neque hoc edicto utietur praecedente casu pro ulla lege actioneve ullove
edicto obstanti cuidam civi sexuali notione

Repetitio Romani Nominis Definitionis

VI. Vt alibi scriptum est nomen romanum praenomen et nomen et cognomen et
aliquando agnomen et in raris casibus pluria agnomina continet

VII. Praenomen nomen civis datum est et utitur inter membres cuiusdam gentis
distinguendi causa Quod paucissima sunt nota praenomina et usus praenominis
paene in toto est secondarius civis solo praenomine paene numquam non
vocatur


VIII. Nomen gentem monstrat Quod mutatio in civis nominis radice roget
mutationem gentis quae est aut adoptio aut formatio novae gentis talis
mutatio est praeter potestatem huius edicti

IX. Cognomina imprimis in ludibrium dabantur vel ad apellendos homines
aliquo in eis viso notove Cognomine discernuntur membres in una gente qui
facile similiter apellari possint ob pauca praenomina Per saecula cognomen
hereditate stabat consequi Mutationes ad accipenda quaedam verba ut
cognomina reguntur capitibus X et XI subter Notandum est has regulas nihilo
ad cognomina exstantes civium non pertinere

X. Agnomen est forma alia quae imprimis in ludibrium dabatur vel ad
apellendos homines aliquo in eis viso notove saepeque memoriae causa
magnarum rerum gestarum vel eventuum vel ex aliqua ratione vel virtute
quaesitum Quamvis civis obtinere novum vel mutare exstantem agnomen possit
agnomina e virtute quesita quae apellare possumus agnomina honoris civibus a
senatore curuleo magistratu pontificeve dantur ad beneficium Novae Romae
signandum Agnitio officialis talium agnominum honoris a censoribus in
civium album his inscriptis completur Post quamquam inscriptionem a
censoribus hi curatori araneae completum nomen romanum honorati civis et
descriptionem necessitudinis causarumque circum agnomen datum ut curator
haec in interretiali situ secundum suam opinionem divulget

XI. Inter alia secunda sunt agnomina honoris Augur Augustus Felix Invictus
Magnus Maximus Optimus Pius Superbus Victor Notandum est has regulas nihilo
ad agnomina exstantes civium non pertinere

XII. Exempli gratia Quintus Caecilius Metellus Nepos sit Quintus Metelli
rami Caeciliae gentis Eius familia vocetur Caecilii Metelli distinguendorum
horum ab aliis infra Caeciliam gentem familiis causa Agnomen Nepos eum ab
ullo alio Quinto Caeciliorum Metellorum distinguit Quia nepos nepotem
significat probabiliter quoque eum indicat tertium lineae similiter
apellatorum

Rationes

XIII. Civis mutare nomen suum volens patremfamiliae primum adiet et huic
causam et nomen volutum praebebit Paterfamilias ipse censores adiet cum
approbatione nominis aut petitione adiumenti mutationis iudicandae

XIV. Patresfamiliae concorde laborare debent cum suis gentilibus mutare
nomen volentibus ut illi his obsequi huic edicto adiuvent

XV. Cum paterfamilias mutationem volutam improbet censoribus eam non
praebens civis ad censores mutationem provocare nonaginta diebus vel moxius
ab improbatione potest

XVI. Paterfamilias mutare nomen suum volens directo censores adiet

XVII. Cum civis mutationem nominis petens a censoribus mutationem non
accipiat civis ad consulem praetoremve nonaginta diebus vel moxius a
censoriali improbatione potest provocare mutationem ut ille magistratus pro
populo ad suffragium rem imponat Comitiis Populi Tributis
i. Notandum est hanc actionem civem petentem quaerere relinquere iura Lege
Cornelia de Privatis Rebus data ut argumenta pro et contra praeberi populo
possint
ii. Notandum quoque est conficere Comitia Populi Tributa quandoque ita
facere proprium consulibus praetoribusque et ergo extra huius edicti
potestatem

Regulae

XVIII. Petitio ad mutandum nomen est privata Nomen volutum cum ullis
omnibusque argumentis pro ea aestimantur res privatae designatae Lege
Cornelia de Privatis Rebus Censores et patresfamiliae et aliqui testator
divulgare ullam partem argumentorum sine scripta concessione petentis civis
praeter hos casus secundos prohibentur
i. Patremfamiliae censoribus praebere indicia ad mutationem pertinentes
ii. Patremfamiliae aut alium civem respondentem praetoriae censoriali
consularive postulationi exempli gratia in casu provocationis improbatae
petitionis
iii. In casu provocationis ad Comitia Populi Tributa civem praebere
argumenta coram his comitiis

XIX. Pronunciatum quod est in rebus ad mutationem nominis pertinentes
ducendum est obsequium cum antiquis moribus romanis
i. Praenomina nova e historia legenda sunt
ii. Agnomina honoris quae inter alia sunt Maximus et Felix civibus
petitionibus non danda sunt at dari ullo civi ab ullo senatore curuleo
magistratu pontificeve ad beneficium Novae Romae signandum possunt
Patribusfamiliae et censoribus opus est in variis casibus quid sit agnomen
honoris arbitrandi
iii. Cognomina et agnomina licet creare at solum ea quae facile declinentur
et claram interpretationem et litteratorie et pertinenter ad civem
mutationem petentem habeant
iv. Cenus nominis debet esse congruens in quaque parte cum omnibus aliis et
cum sexu civis mutationem nominis petentis

XX. Civis mutare genus grammaticum sui nominis contra suum sexum volens
debet sustendae petitionis causa praebere testimonium comprobationis
contrarii sexus potestate macronationis aut extrariae rei publicae aut
civitatis Aliter cum civis petens fuisset vir corporaeus at formam
documenti macronationalis vel municipalis quae eius sexum esse muliebrem
diceret tenuisset vel in sua terra macronationalis civitatis agnotus esset
ut femina ita posset femineo nomine uti in Nova Roma
i. Exceptio e hac regula in casibus transsexualium civium detur qui medicum
consulant de chirurgo mutandi sexus causa vel alia preparatione medica
perfungiantur ad talem chirurgum In his casibus patresfamiliae vel censores
quaerere documentum de medico possint
ii. Post chirurgum cives transsexuales secundum novum sexum appellabuntur
iii. Androgyni secundum sexum quo suis terris macronationalis civitatis
agnoscuntur appellabuntur







------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Worldwide Calling with Firetalk!
Click Here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/5481/8/_/61050/_/962245561/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] On Citizen Participation. The Consul speaks.
From:	sfp55@--------
Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2000 02:52:26 EDT

In a message dated 6/28/2000 7:10:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bvm3@--------
writes:

<< Since our Senate is a life-time occupation, we will not
have much influence over it if some such tradition is not
established. The old Romans did not get this right most of
the time. The Senate was a precious repository of knowledge,
expertise and sometimes sense of honour and service, but it
often did not reflect the needs or reasonable wishes of the
People, and even stood contrary to them. (Remember the
Gracchi and their fate at a time when land reform was
urgently needed in the interests of social justice.)<<

Q. Fabio Maximo M. Apollonio Formosano S.P.D!
You oversimplify greatly the Gracchian question here. I dislike you using
that as an example of the Senate being out of touch with its people. There
were many levels of intrigue going on with the brothers during that period.
Some of it was their own doing.
As for the Senate serving the people, it was much like today, some people
prospered from senate rulings, others were hurt. I don't believe our Senate
has hurt anyone. And I don't believe it will.
However it would appear that you (in all your wisdom) wish to scare our
populace into a reaction about our "secret" Senate. Somehow, you have come
up with the idea, since we are closed in our deliberations, that we are
closed off from the people. Nothing could be further from the truth. This
is the era of instant communication. I received 80 e-mails today dealing
with Nova Roma. Most are from citizens. Everybody has ideas. Some are
impractical true, but others are very sensible. In fact two of them that are
on the Senate's current agenda, started as private e-mails to myself and my
colleague. So your fears that we not listening to populace are groundless.
Today I had the equivalent of 40 personal audiences with the people. How
many Consuls in old Rome have done that? Could have done that?

>>...then the Senators will have a better idea of what concerned people want
and need, and even if they feel obliged to go against the results of the
consultation, they will only do so carefully and consciously, not because a
complete rift of viewpoints has opened between Senate and People.<<
At what point did you get an idea that Nova Roma is a representative
government?
It's not. We are a republic, based on old Rome. The only difference between
us and old Roman republic is the centuries do not need to elect speakers to
cast votes for them like in the old days. Anybody can vote if they are on
line. However the votes are counted only to determine how the century as a
whole wishes to vote. Each century still casts one vote. Of course we have
eliminated the usual bribery, and murder that goes along with voting.
>>And if the People is thus consulted and respected, it is much more likely
to hold the Senate in esteem and to trust it and back it. But if waiting for
Senatorial decisions is like waiting for a puff of smoke from a sealed
conclave, people will tend to feel alienated and resentful. All secrecy
rightly inspires suspicion. Many
parliaments now broadcast their proceedings on television.<<
You must be from Europe. Otherwise I don't think you'd make that statement.
As for televised hearings that's for esteem and reelections. Do you really
believe that the average politician cares about his or her constituents?
Most of them have discovered that if they caper on TV that they get
reelected. If they don't, they won't, they'll lose to the guy who did. When
I was at CNN and I was segment producing overseas political events, you never
saw a larger bunch of ego maniacs! I think it is because TV coverage is
fairly new, to Europe and Asia. The USA has been doing it from the 50s so it
rather old hat for us. C-SPAN in fact had to fight hard to retain their
funding. Few people other then government students, lobbyists, and
historians watch, so Congress wanted to give the money elsewhere.
>>Why does the Nova Roman People have to rely on limited reports from the
Tribunes? There may be a few issues rightly kept confidential or even
downright secret, but these should be rare exceptions. If Nova Roma ever
starts collecting
anything like taxes from its citizens, I do not think that such unopenness
will long be tolerated, as citizens will be very concerned with how their
money is used. Why not open up more now and consult more now and set a good
precedent? Not
as a matter of constitutional change, but as a change of practice and
political culture.<<
Why? Because we are following the unwritten constitution of the Roman
Republic.
That's why. And when we start collecting taxes, the people will only be
interested in one thing: "Is my money going to help Nova Roma?" And it will.
The Senate will make sure of that.
Finally, since the senate appointment is a lifetime one, we don't have to
campaign to be re elected. We don't have to caper in front of audience.
It seems to me M. Apollonius that you want a Nova Roma that is an improvement
on the old one. What would be the point of that? If you want to see a newer
improved Rome then we have the United States of America. The Framers mixed
the Roman concept of the Senate, with men that were appointed for 6 years to
give stability, with a house of representatives from a popular assembly, men
who have only two years to serve. The framers balked at giving senators
lifetime positions, since they felt this would only corrupt the Senate. They
never foresaw the problems of the senate backbenchers. This was solved later
with term limits.
No, we are Rome recreated in the image and likeness of the original. And
that means that your new and improved Rome is not to be. Unless of course
you take over the government and change it.
And I'm sorry I had to bore other citizens in the forum today, but I felt
such public statements had to answered in a public rebuttal.
I say to you again citizens. If you don't like this government then become
involved.
You cannot be consul right away, but you can make a start towards that goal
if you work hard and learn.
Fortuna preserve our fledging Republic!
Valete


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Conference Calling with Firetalk!
Click Here!
http://click.egroups.com/1/5480/8/_/61050/_/962261553/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] ATTN (Religio Romana): ante diem IV Kalendas Quinctilis (June 29th)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:02:02 +0100

Salvete omnes

This is one of the dies comitiales (C), when committees of citizens can vote
on political or criminal matters.

This is the Dies Natalis of the temple of Hercules Musarum (Hercules of the
Muses). The temple was dedicated by M. Fulvius Nobilitor, victor over the
Aetolians and friend of poet Ennius, in 187 BCE.
Men of letters offer their respects to the more peaceful aspects of
Hercules, as well as the nine Muses who govern the arts.

I also remind that Iunius is the month of Iuno, month of the young
(iuuenes).

Pax Deorum vobiscum

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers.
http://click.egroups.com/1/4633/8/_/61050/_/962276643/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] SPD!
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:20:13 -0000

Patricia Cassia Apollonio Formosano S.P.D.

I think many Nova Romans will join me in thanking you for that
excellent lesson!

Vale,
P. Cassia



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6081/8/_/61050/_/962277620/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] On Citizen Participation. The Consul speaks.
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:36:51 EDT

Salve Consul

On 6/29/00 1:52 AM Quintus Fabius Maximus (sfp55@--------) wrote:

>No, we are Rome recreated in the image and likeness of the original.
EXCEPT that in the original, for most of it's history, Tribunes of the
Plebs were automatically members of the Senate. You might want to fix
that omission (after my term of office expires, of course -- gadflys not
being appreciated there :-) ).

>And that means that your new and improved Rome is not to be. Unless of
course
>you take over the government and change it.
I am surprised that you, as a professional historian, would say this.
Roma changed/evolved almost constantly throughout her history. Are you
predicting that Nova Roma will not do the same? Change is an inevitable
concommittant of life, and no man can predict the direction change will
ultimately take.

>And I'm sorry I had to bore other citizens in the forum today, but I felt
>such public statements had to answered in a public rebuttal.
On the contrary, I think such public debate of significant concerns is
just what we need, and I appreciate your contribution to the process. A
lot of our problems are lessened if eminent officials step down more
often from the pedestal and the curule chair, and discuss issues in the
Forum with the rest of the citizenry.

And I, for one, am still eagerly awaiting the second half of your lecture
on Athenian democracy.

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.


quemadnoum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.

(A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)
Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4bc - 65ad


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
http://click.egroups.com/1/5197/8/_/61050/_/962282218/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] SPD!
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:36:48 EDT

I certainly do. A few more such lessons and my Latin may actually rise to
the level of functional illiteracy (as opposed to its current
unfunctioning illiteracy).

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

On 6/29/00 6:20 AM pjane@-------- (pjane@--------) wrote:

>Patricia Cassia Apollonio Formosano S.P.D.
>
>I think many Nova Romans will join me in thanking you for that
>excellent lesson!
>
>Vale,
>P. Cassia


certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
0% Introductory APR!
Instant Approval!
Aria Visa - get yours today.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6035/8/_/61050/_/962282216/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] End of Senate voting approaches
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:36:50 EDT

Salvete

Voting ends in the Senate today at 4:30 p.m. Eastern time.

I could probably predict what the final decisions would be, based on the
votes I've seen posted, but it would be embarassing to get them wrong.
Controversial items have proven to be the proposal of a Web application
for sites to be linked to, a special vote of thanks to the Propraetor of
Britannia, sponsorship of Legio VI, and posting of a new statement of
nonalliance with any micronations not serious about real-world goals.
That is NOT a list of items predicted to fail, but only a list of items I
have noted to have received _some_ "no" votes.

End of Senate report

Tribunicial comment

I thank all of those who have responded to my remarks about citizen
participation. I think many new ideas and viewpoints have been expressed,
and I (for one) have learned a lot from it. One thing I would hope that
we could all (including our magistrates) learn from it is that there can
be differing -- even opposing -- viewpoints discussed and debated among
reasonable people without acrimony and ad hominem assaults. We need no
stones and daggers to conduct politics in Nova Roma -- a major
improvement over Roma Antiqua.

And I give thanks to the gods that a little 6 year-old boy has been
restored to his own country, friends, and family.

Valete,

Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
Tribunus Plebis

cum ballistae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti ballistas habebunt.

(When ballistas are outlawed, only outlaws will have ballistas.)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
http://click.egroups.com/1/5197/8/_/61050/_/962282216/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Edictum de Nominibus Mutandis
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:45:45 +0200

Salvete Quirites!

I suppose that we now owe it to Censores L. Cornelius
Sulla Felix and C. Marius Merullus to thank them publicly
for putting an end to the controversies and traumas that
plagued our Respublica as a result of the Edictum de Genere
by means of the joint issuance of the new Edictum de
Nominibus Mutandis. It must be said to be in the end
something of a triumph for justice, for the power and
interest of ordinary citizens to protest effectively, for
the reviewing function of the senate, for the normal good
judgement of Censor Sulla, and for the system of collegial
magistracy.

It contains various protections of citizens' rights and
it regulates honorific agnomina, which is probably
desirable. That said, it does still put a special burden on
transgendering name changers to provide "documentation", as
though they were as a class especially dishonest persons -
after all, we are willing to believe *anything* about a
person's name, sex, age, macronationality, non-Roman name,
etc. with no documentation at all at the time of anyone's
joining - thank goodness! This newly-required documentation
might be something as simple as photocopying a driver's
license and sending off the paper, if further guidelines or
requirements in practice do not insist on a notary public,
etc., but it is still hassle to the citizen involved, extra
work for hard-working Censors, and in general a bureaucratic
burden to everybody, which will result in little if any
advantage for Nova Roma. After all, if someone asks to
change the gender of a name he/she already has in NR, it is
not likely that this will be for a frivolous reason. Nova
Roma would be a better place if everyone simply respected
that.

This having been said, it is a true improvement on the
original. IF it meets the needs of the civis sometime known
as Fimbria, the person most obviously hurt and discouraged
by the original edictum (about whose satisfaction I would
like to see public confirmation), perhaps we can all live
with it, for now, despite its imperfections. I say this as
one leading voice of the opposition to the original Edictum
- I think most of us are very fatigued by this issue, and
would now like to see public peace and concord. I do regret
that it does not look like it will be brought to a popular
vote, however, which is the only really satisfactory
legislative procedure for an issue that is so fundamental to
our senses of personal identity and simple fairness.

As a Latin enthusiast I would like to praise and thank
Censor Merullus for his Latin version, which I consider to
be an *excellent* precedent and not doubt cost him quite a
lot of extra work.

Pacem omnibus exopto. (I wish Peace to all.)
Valete!

Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
ICQ# 61698049
________________________________________________________

Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
________________________________________________________



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free, Unlimited Calls Anywhere!
Visit Firetalk.com - click below.
http://click.egroups.com/1/5479/8/_/61050/_/962293584/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Citizen Empowerment
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:46:44 +0200

M. Apollonius Formosanus Q. Fabio Maximo Cos. S.P.D.

I thank the Consul for being so kind as to respond to my
post on citizen empowerment.

He wrote:

You oversimplify greatly the Gracchian question here. I
dislike you
using that as an example of the Senate being out of touch
with its people. There were many levels of intrigue going on
with the brothers during that period. Some of it was their
own doing.


Of course I simplified. But sometimes simplification
represents getting at the essence of the matter.
Senators hold "public" land and don't want to give it
up to the landless who are becoming destitue. Reformers
arrive and are suppressed through murder. "Public" land
mostly goes on enriching a powerful minority. The
general line, which is what matters here for my
example, seems very clear doesn't it?

As for the Senate serving the people, it was much like
today, some people prospered from senate rulings, others
were hurt.

True, and yet it tended to be the senatorial class that
prospered from senate rulings and ordinary citizens who
tended to be hurt. Not at all something random,
accidental or unintentional.

I don't believe our Senate has hurt anyone. And I don't
believe it will.

I don't believe I suggested that OUR NOVA Roman senate
had hurt anyone.

However it would appear that you (in all your wisdom) wish
to scare our populace into a reaction about our "secret"
Senate. Somehow, you have
come up with the idea, since we are closed in our
deliberations, that we are closed off from the people.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
This is the era of instant communication. I received 80
e-mails today dealing with Nova Roma. Most are from
citizens. Everybody has ideas. Some are impractical true,
but others are very sensible. In fact two of them that are
on the Senate's current agenda, started as private e-mails
to myself and my colleague. So your fears that we not
listening to populace are groundless.

I am glad, and these statistics are reassuring.
However, there might be other cives out there who might
have excellent ideas, information or opinions who have
never been *asked*, and just do not have the initiative
to express themselves possessed by noisy and
obstreperous upstarts like me. :-)

Today I had the equivalent of 40 personal audiences with the
people. How many Consuls in old Rome have done that? Could
have done that?

Not to quibble, but I suppose that someone as important
as a Consul might have had that many or more clients
standing in his atrium early in the morning. (Poor
fellow!)

>>...then the Senators will have a better idea of what
concerned people want and need, and even if they feel
obliged to go against the results of the consultation, they
will only do so carefully and consciously, not because a
complete rift of viewpoints has opened between Senate and
People.<<

At what point did you get an idea that Nova Roma is a
representative
government? It's not. We are a republic, based on old
Rome. The only difference between us and old Roman republic
is the centuries do not need to elect speakers to cast votes
for them like in the old days. Anybody can vote if they are
on line. However the votes are counted only to determine
how the century as a whole wishes to vote. Each century
still casts one vote. Of course we have eliminated the
usual bribery, and murder that goes along with voting.


Well "Res Publica" was used even in the time of the
Kings, and simply implies the State - the thing that is
public. The meaning we normally attach to it today, the
Respublica that we emulate here in constitutional form,
would be to Cicero a "respublica libera" or "respublica
popularis". And of course it *was* partly
representative democracy (the popular election of
magistrates), and partly *direct* democracy in the
various comitia. Since I know you know this, I wonder
why you think we are absolutely not representative.
Rome's parliament has always been the popular
assemblies, not the Senate, which has been (at least in
theory) essentially an advisory body, first to the
Kings and then to the Magistates and People, and
laterly to the Emperors. Which is why it produces
"Opinions" (consulta) and not "Laws" (leges). As
Polybius notes and praises, the Roman Respublica was a
happy mixture of varied constitutional elements.

>>And if the People is thus consulted and respected, it is
much more likely to hold the Senate in esteem and to trust
it and back it. But if waiting for Senatorial decisions is
like waiting for a puff of smoke from a sealed conclave,
people will tend to feel alienated and resentful. All
secrecy rightly inspires suspicion. Many parliaments now
broadcast their proceedings on television.<<

You must be from Europe. Otherwise I don't think you'd make
that
statement.

I do not quite follow your reasoning or know which of
the abaove statements you mean, and as a native
Pennsylvanian resident in Poland I am not sure if that
qualifies as being exactly "from" Europe or not. But I
think everyone knows Americans to hate secrecy, I among
them.

As for televised hearings that's for esteem and
reelections. Do you really
believe that the average politician cares about his or her
constituents?

Yes, I do. I am not so cynical that I believe that
*all* politicians are self-seeking and corrupt. A very
large number in many countries, for example the U.S.
and Britain, are basically idealists who want to make a
realistic difference in the world. Although the
requirements for acquiring and keeping a little power
to do good have great danger for corrupting
politicians, many remain basically decent human beings
who do their best in a difficult world and profession.
As a politician yourself who might one day wish to run
for office again in Nova Roma, I might imagine that
your feelings about the political class would be a
little less negative!

Most of them have discovered that if they caper on TV that
they get
reelected. If they don't, they won't, they'll lose to the
guy who did. When I was at CNN and I was segment producing
overseas political events, you never saw a larger bunch of
ego maniacs! I think it is because TV coverage is fairly
new, to Europe and Asia. The USA has been doing it from the
50s so it rather old hat for us. C-SPAN in fact had to
fight hard to retain their funding. Few people other then
government students, lobbyists, and historians watch, so
Congress wanted to give the money elsewhere.

>>Why does the Nova Roman People have to rely on limited
reports from the Tribunes? There may be a few issues rightly
kept confidential or even downright secret, but these should
be rare exceptions. If Nova Roma ever starts collecting
anything like taxes from its citizens, I do not think that
such unopenness will long be tolerated, as citizens will be
very concerned with how their money is used. Why not open up
more now and consult more now and set a good precedent? Not
as a matter of constitutional change, but as a change of
practice and political culture.<<

Why? Because we are following the unwritten constitution
of the
Roman Republic. That's why.

An interesting point. Wasn't the crowd outside, if
there was one, allowed to listen at the doors of the
Curia or other temple and pass on what was being said?
Does anybody know? And in the Internet age is this
detail really to the point?

And when we start collecting taxes, the people will only be
interested in one thing: "Is my money going to help Nova
Roma?" And it will. The Senate will make sure of that.

I predict that people will want to *make sure* of the
Senate's making sure of that. They have done so in
every other modern state unless the government there
simply suppresses them.

Finally, since the senate appointment is a lifetime one, we
don't have to
campaign to be re elected. We don't have to caper in front
of audience.
It seems to me M. Apollonius that you want a Nova Roma that
is an
improvement on the old one.

In a way yes and in a way no. I have not suggested any
constitutional changes, merely suggested *systematic
consultations*, more *transparency* and more reliance
on *Popular votes* in major matters. I do not want to
change our basically Roman constitution, since I think
that is something valuable as a piece of heritage, and
one that deserves another try.

What would be the point of that? If you want to see a
newer improved Rome then we have the United States of
America. The
Framers mixed the Roman concept of the Senate, with men that
were appointed for 6 years to give stability, with a house
of representatives from a popular assembly, men who have
only two years to serve. The framers balked at giving
senators lifetime positions, since they felt this would only
corrupt the Senate. They never foresaw the problems of the
senate backbenchers. This was solved later with term
limits.

No, we are Rome recreated in the image and likeness of the
original.
And that means that your new and improved Rome is not to be.

It might be said that the change of the Roman
constitution to only two Tribuni Plebis, whereas in the
heyday of the Republic there were ten, has already
occurred in our Constitution, and that does deprive the
non-senatorial classes of additional potential leaders.
Obviously people do not think the form of the
Respublica is absolutely unchangeable. So, I think that
some of the changes should also be in favour of the
things that are growingly important to everybody in the
world today: popular empowerment, democracy, and
transparency and openness in decision-making
procedures.


Unless of course you take over the government and change it.

I do hope that "take over" does not mean I have to
become a revolutionary! :-) I intend to pursue the
cursus honorum in a regular and traditional way, more
or less, and work within the system. In the course of
so doing I hope that I am perceived as one who would
move the Respublica in the directions mentioned above -
while always respecting the old forms like a good
Roman.

And I'm sorry I had to bore other citizens in the forum
today, but I felt
such public statements had to answered in a public rebuttal.

You do not bore, Consul, and it behooves the citizenty
of any state to constantly take thought for its
libertas and its wholesome adaptation to the
always-oncoming future.

I say to you again citizens. If you don't like this
government then become involved.

I am, I am! :-)

You cannot be consul right away, but you can make a start
towards that
goal if you work hard and learn.

I'm trying!

Fortuna preserve our fledgling Republic!


Sic et ego dico! (So do I also say!)

Valete

And Valete to you, Consul and all the Gentle Readers of our
dialogue.

---------------------------------------------
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
ICQ# 61698049
________________________________________________________

Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
________________________________________________________



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click here for savings: beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4115/8/_/61050/_/962293643/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] On Citizen Participation. The Consul speaks.
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:59:23 US/Central

T Labienus Fortunatus Consuli Q Fabio Maximo et Novoromanis S P D
(Gratia Tibi Ago, M Apolloni.)

> As for the Senate serving the people, it was much like today, some people
> prospered from senate rulings, others were hurt.  I don't believe our Senate
> has hurt anyone.  And I don't believe it will.

I would say that it has already hurt some people, but neither intentionally nor
arbitrarily.

> However it would appear that you (in all your wisdom) wish to scare our
> populace into a reaction about our "secret" Senate.

Come now, Quinte Fabi. Nothing in M Apollonius' missive smacks of such
demagoguery. He simply stated that the Senate's seclusion is the sort of
governmental action that sparks suspicion on the part of citizens, and that he
would prefer to see the Senatorial debates opened to direct public scrutiny.
Personally, I think that the periodic announcements of the Tribunes of the
Plebs suffice, but I do see merit in his position.

Actually, my main objection to allowing cives to directly observe Senatorial
communications is due to the fact that it is problematic to simulate the
ancient practice with e-mail. It is my understanding that the doors of the
Senate building were left open for anyone who wanted to listen at. It is easy
to simulate this with e-mail, as this list demonstrates. However, it is not so
easy to stop those who receive an e-mail from responding to it, which should be
a right restricted to Senatores in this case. Also, from time to time and with
good reason, the Senate's doors were closed for private debates. Temporarily
turning off e-mail privileges for non-Senatores on a given list is likewise
problematic.

> Somehow, you have come up with the idea, since we are closed in our
> deliberations, that we are closed off from the people.  Nothing could be
> further from the truth.

And yet the perception of an ivory tower seems to remain. M Apollonius' main
objection seems to be that the magisterial power of issuing edicta amounts to
rule by fiat, bypassing the citizens' right to vote upon laws and allowing
magistrates to pursue agendas that are counter to the public will. He's not
accusing anyone of anything, but rather pointing out a problem and suggesting a
solution from within the system.

> >>...then the Senators will have a better idea of what concerned people want
> and need, and even if they feel obliged to go against the results of the
> consultation, they will only do so carefully and consciously, not because a
> complete rift of viewpoints has opened between Senate and People.<<

It's my belief that the Senate has been reasonably aware of the people's
opinions on hot issues, for all of the reasons Q Fabius mentioned. Anyone, at
any time, may send an opinion to senate@--------, and every Senator will
receive it. Hopefully, in future, more use of Egroups' polling feature will be
made by all officials.

> At what point did you get an idea that Nova Roma is a representative
> government? It's not.  We are a republic, based on old Rome.

One of the things that distinguished Roma Antiqua from most of its neighbors
was that it did have a representative government. That was the point of all
those elections. Groups of people elected smaller individuals to represent
them in the government. True, the Senate acted more like an oligarchy, and the
tribes were divided to give the patricians more clout, but every magistrate was
elected by and for the people.

> The only difference between us and old Roman republic is the centuries do not
> need to elect speakers to cast votes for them like in the old days.  Anybody
> can vote if they are on line.  However the votes are counted only to
> determine how the century as a whole wishes to vote.

Is this so terribly different from the way things are done in the US, Britain,
or any other democratic country? In every system I've studied, it's still
possible for someone to be elected contrary to the popular vote due to the
complexities of said system.

> Each century still casts one vote.  Of course we have eliminated the usual
> bribery, and murder that goes along with voting.

We also have a much more educated and informed voter base, which is less likely
to vote for a demagogue in return for some free grain.

> It seems to me M. Apollonius that you want a Nova Roma that is an improvement
> on the old one.  What would be the point of that?

To fail to repeat the mistakes of the past, of course. Besides, we fobid
slavery, allow women all sorts of rights, and make plenty of other improvements
on the old model all the time. We are not entirely "Rome recreated in the
image and likeness of the original." We are more correctly Rome modeled
modeled as closely as our modern sensibilities will allow on the original. The
dialogue over just what that means is still ongoing, as this thread proves.

> And I'm sorry I had to bore other citizens in the forum today, but I felt <BR>
> such public statements had to answered in a public rebuttal. <BR>

This isn't boring to me, at least. In fact, this is one of many things that
needs a serious ongoing dialogue for Nova Roma to remain healthy.

> I say to you again citizens.  If you don't like this government then become
> involved.

Hear, hear!

Valete.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
http://click.egroups.com/1/5197/8/_/61050/_/962294364/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] SPD!
From:	Gaius Pontius <c_pontius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:03:05 -0700

Salvete,

I want to quickly apologize for my duplicate sends to the mailing list. I
kept getting errors saying that HTML formatting is not accepted and I
couldn't find any HTML formatting.

Next, I want to thank Marcus Apollonius Formosanus for his wonderful
lessons. I have yet to read it thoroughly, but from the glance I had of
the most recent email it looks extremely interesting. At this rate he may
well begin receiving anonymous checks in the mail!

Additionally I would like to suggest that one of your emails, Marcus, be on
the subject of common Latin/Roman Colloquialisms and commonly used phrases.

Does anyone have suggestions for books one should pick-up to help them
learn Latin? I am in the need for a book and I was thinking of picking up
Wheelock's Latin, but the reviews on Amazon.com for the book are not so
hot. Also, I need tapes for pronunciation. I am a perfectionist to the
point that I will not even try to pronounce words if I think I might be
wrong. You may notice, however, that my English grammar is not so
hot. What can I say except I am lazy.

Vale!
C. Pontius


At 08:36 AM 6/29/00 -0400, you wrote:
>I certainly do. A few more such lessons and my Latin may actually rise to
>the level of functional illiteracy (as opposed to its current
>unfunctioning illiteracy).
>
>L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
>
>On 6/29/00 6:20 AM pjane@-------- (pjane@--------) wrote:
>
> >Patricia Cassia Apollonio Formosano S.P.D.
> >
> >I think many Nova Romans will join me in thanking you for that
> >excellent lesson!
> >
> >Vale,
> >P. Cassia
>
>
>certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
>
>(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
>
>
>----------
>
>----------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Conference Calling with Firetalk!
Host your next egroup meeting live on Firetalk.
Click here!
http://click.egroups.com/1/5478/8/_/61050/_/962294605/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] New day, same old edict
From:	"C Marius Merullus" <c_marius_m@-------->
Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:25:08 -0400

Salvete

Sorry to clog everyone's inbox, but I neglected to put the signatures of the
censores to my post last night. So, here it is again.

Censorial Edict on Changing Names

Statement of Purpose
I. This edict is set forth to define the procedures by which a citizen may
apply to add, alter, or substitute any portion of his or her Roman name, and
to state the guidelines by which such an application may be judged. This is
done in order to attain a measure of conformity with ancient Roman naming
conventions and tradition. Note that this edictum, and its procedures and
guidelines, apply to changes sought by citizens after the publication of
this edictum, and do not apply to citizens’ existing names.


II. This edict has no impact on chatroom handles, signatures to private or
casual e-mail messages, or any other alias that any citizen may choose to
use. Rather, “Roman name” for the purposes of this edict refers to the name
used by the citizen in public oaths, applications to sodalitates and in
other official contexts; this Roman name is the one recorded in the
censorial album civium.


III. Note that the use of the male gender throughout this document is done
solely for clarity, and is not meant to imply any disparity between the
sexes before the law.


IV. Also note that this document uses the word sex to describe the physical
sex of a person and the word gender to refer to linguistic gender only.


V. It is not the intent of this edictum to discriminate against or to make
any judgment about homosexuality, transgenderedness, or any other sexual
identity. No such discrimination should be inferred from any part of this
document. Nor should it be used as a precedent for any law, magisterial
act, edictum, or other action that interferes with the rights of any citizen
on the basis of that citizen’s sexual identity.


Reiteration of the Definition of a Roman Name

VI. As has been stated elsewhere, a Roman name consists of a praenomen,
nomen, cognomen, and possibly an agnomen, and, in rare cases, several
agnomina.


VII. The praenomen is a citizen’s given name, and is used to distinguish
between members of a particular gens. Since there are very few historical
praenomina, and since the praenomen’s role is almost entirely secondary, a
citizen is almost never referred to by praenomen alone.


VIII. The nomen identifies a citizen’s gens. Since a change in the stem of
a citizen’s nomen would necessitate a change in gens—a case of either
adoptio or the founding of a new gens—it is beyond the scope of this
edictum.


IX. The cognomen was originally a nickname. It is used to further identify
members within a gens, who could easily be identically named due to the
paucity of praenomina. Over time, the cognomen became inherited, and was
used to identify specific family lines within a single gens. Changes to
adopt certain names as cognomina are restricted, as set forth in paragraphs
X and XI below. Note that these restrictions do not apply whatsoever to
cognomina under which citizens have already received citizenship.


X. An agnomen is an additional form of nickname that is commonly bestowed
upon a citizen by others, often to commemorate significant accomplishments
or important events in the citizen’s life. While it is possible for a
citizen to add a new agnomen or change an existing one by request, agnomina
of distinction must be awarded by a senator, curule magistrate, or pontifex
in recognition of service to Nova Roma. Official recognition of such
awarded agnomina of distinction is completed by the censors’ entering the
agnomina in the album civium. Following each such entry by the censores,
the latter will provide the curator araneae with the full Roman name of the
distinguished citizen and an explanation of the circumstances and reasons
surrounding the award of the agnomen, that the curator araneae may publish
this information to the Nova Roma website as he sees fit.


XI. Agnomina of distinction include, but are not limited to, the following:
Augur, Augustus, Felix, Invictus, Magnus, Maximus, Optimus, Pius, Superbus,
Victor. Note that these restrictions do not apply whatsoever to agnomina
under which citizens have already received citizenship.


XII. As an example, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Nepos would be Quintus of the
Metellus branch of gens Caecilia. His family would be referred to as the
Caecilii Metelli, in order to distinguish them from the other families
within gens Caecilia. His agnomen, Nepos, distinguishes him from any other
Quintus of the Caecilii Metelli. As nepos means grandson, it also most
likely distinguishes him as the third in a line of like-named people.


Procedures

XIII. A citizen wishing to change his name shall first contact his
paterfamilias and present his reasons for desiring a name change, as well as
the desired name. The paterfamilias will in turn contact the censores
should he approve of the name change, or should he find that he requires
help in determining whether or not to approve the change.



XIV. Patresfamiliae are instructed to work cooperatively with members of
their gens who desire to change their names in order to help them conform to
the letter and spirit of this document.



XV. Should a paterfamilias disapprove of a citizen’s desired name change,
refusing to present it to the censores, said citizen may appeal to the
censores within ninety (90) days of the refusal.



XVI. A paterfamilias who wishes to change his name shall apply to the
censores directly.



XVII. Should an applicant fail to obtain a name change from the censores, he
may, within ninety (90) days of the refusal, appeal to a consul or praetor
to bring the matter before the people through a vote in the Comitia Populi
Tributa.
i) Note that such an action requires the citizen who desires the change to
temporarily waive his rights of confidentiality as defined in Lex Cornelia
de Privatis Rebus, in order that evidence for and against the application
may be presented to the populace.
ii) Also note that the decision to convene the Comitia Populi Tributa, along
with the schedule for doing so, is the purview of the consules and
praetores, and is therefore beyond the scope of this edict.



Guidelines

XVIII. An application for a name change is confidential. The requested
name, along with any and all evidence presented with it, is considered
confidential information as covered by the Lex Cornelia de Privatis Rebus.
Censores, patresfamiliae, and anyone called to provide testimony by any
party in the procedure are not to divulge any information applicable to the
name change to anyone without the applicant’s written permission, except as
directed by this edict. Such exceptions include the following:
i) A paterfamilias providing relevant information upon referring a request
for a new name to the censores.
ii) A paterfamilias or other citizen providing relevant information upon a
censor, consul, or praetor’s request, as in the case of an appeal of a
denied application.
iii) A citizen presenting evidence before the Comitia Populi Tributa in the
case of an appeal to those comitia.



XIX. The guiding principle in considering name changes is to be conformity
with ancient Roman tradition.
i) New praenomina should be historically attested ones.
ii) As previously stated, agnomina of distinction (Maximus, Felix, et
cetera) are not to be granted to citizens on request, but can be awarded to
any citizen by any senator, curule magistrate, or pontifex in recognition of
any special service to the Republic. It is up to the patresfamiliae and
censores to determine what is and is not an agnomen of distinction on a
case-by-case basis.
iii) Cognomina and agnomina can be new coinages, but must be conducive to
Latin declension, and must have a clear meaning—both semantically and in
specific relation to the citizen requesting the added or changed name.
iv) The gender of the name is to be consistent. Each part is to agree with
all others in gender, and with the sex of the citizen requesting the name
change.



XX. A citizen who wishes to change the gender of his name counter to that
dictated by his sex must present, in support of his application, proof of
acceptance of the contrary sex by an authority of a macronation, state, or
municipality. In other words, if the applicant is physically a man and has
a form of macronational or municipal identification listing his sex as
female, or is officially recognized as a woman in his country of
macronational citizenship, then he may use a feminine name in Nova Roma.
i) An exception to this rule is allowed in the case of transsexual citizens
who are discussing surgical sex alteration with a health care provider or
undergoing other medical and psychological treatment in preparation for such
an operation. In these instances, documentation pertaining to health care
provider(s) may be required of the applicant.
ii) Post-operative transsexual citizens shall be named according to their
current sex.
iii) Hermaphrodites shall be named according to the sex in which they are
recognized by their country of macronational citizenship.

Edictum Censoriale de Mutandis Nominibus

Praedicatio Causae

I. Hoc edictum statuendarum causa rationum decernitur quibus civis de
mutanda ulla parte nominis petat et regularum quibus petitio talis iudicetur
Hoc factum est ut obsequium cum antiquis romanis regulis et moribus de
formandis nominibus attineamus Notandum est hoc edictum cum suis rationibus
regulisque ad mutationes a civibus desideratas post hoc factum pertinere at
non ad exstantes nomina

II. Hoc edictum ad apellationes pro fabulatoriis nec subscriptiones in
privatis vel fortuitis epistulis nec ad alia nomina aliena quibus civis
utiatur Nomen romanum in hoc edicto est id nomen quo iuraiuranda et
petitiones inter alia in sodalitates civis dat Hoc enim nomen romanum in
censoriali albo civium scribitur

III. Notandum est usum masculini generis per has tabellas sole claritatis
causa factum esse at non in se habere inaequalitatem ullam inter sexos ad
ius

IV. Notandum quoque est has tabellas verbo sexus uti pro corporali sexu
cuiusdam hominis et verbo genus pro grammatico sole genere

V. Causa huius edicti non est discrimen contra homines nec qui eos sui
generis ament nec qui se similes altero generi sentiant facere nec contra
alios Nullum discrimen tale intellegi in ulla parte harum tabellarum debet
Neque hoc edicto utietur praecedente casu pro ulla lege actioneve ullove
edicto obstanti cuidam civi sexuali notione

Repetitio Romani Nominis Definitionis

VI. Vt alibi scriptum est nomen romanum praenomen et nomen et cognomen et
aliquando agnomen et in raris casibus pluria agnomina continet

VII. Praenomen nomen civis datum est et utitur inter membres cuiusdam gentis
distinguendi causa Quod paucissima sunt nota praenomina et usus praenominis
paene in toto est secondarius civis solo praenomine paene numquam non
vocatur


VIII. Nomen gentem monstrat Quod mutatio in civis nominis radice roget
mutationem gentis quae est aut adoptio aut formatio novae gentis talis
mutatio est praeter potestatem huius edicti

IX. Cognomina imprimis in ludibrium dabantur vel ad apellendos homines
aliquo in eis viso notove Cognomine discernuntur membres in una gente qui
facile similiter apellari possint ob pauca praenomina Per saecula cognomen
hereditate stabat consequi Mutationes ad accipenda quaedam verba ut
cognomina reguntur capitibus X et XI subter Notandum est has regulas nihilo
ad cognomina exstantes civium non pertinere

X. Agnomen est forma alia quae imprimis in ludibrium dabatur vel ad
apellendos homines aliquo in eis viso notove saepeque memoriae causa
magnarum rerum gestarum vel eventuum vel ex aliqua ratione vel virtute
quaesitum Quamvis civis obtinere novum vel mutare exstantem agnomen possit
agnomina e virtute quesita quae apellare possumus agnomina honoris civibus a
senatore curuleo magistratu pontificeve dantur ad beneficium Novae Romae
signandum Agnitio officialis talium agnominum honoris a censoribus in
civium album his inscriptis completur Post quamquam inscriptionem a
censoribus hi curatori araneae completum nomen romanum honorati civis et
descriptionem necessitudinis causarumque circum agnomen datum ut curator
haec in interretiali situ secundum suam opinionem divulget

XI. Inter alia secunda sunt agnomina honoris Augur Augustus Felix Invictus
Magnus Maximus Optimus Pius Superbus Victor Notandum est has regulas nihilo
ad agnomina exstantes civium non pertinere

XII. Exempli gratia Quintus Caecilius Metellus Nepos sit Quintus Metelli
rami Caeciliae gentis Eius familia vocetur Caecilii Metelli distinguendorum
horum ab aliis infra Caeciliam gentem familiis causa Agnomen Nepos eum ab
ullo alio Quinto Caeciliorum Metellorum distinguit Quia nepos nepotem
significat probabiliter quoque eum indicat tertium lineae similiter
apellatorum

Rationes

XIII. Civis mutare nomen suum volens patremfamiliae primum adiet et huic
causam et nomen volutum praebebit Paterfamilias ipse censores adiet cum
approbatione nominis aut petitione adiumenti mutationis iudicandae

XIV. Patresfamiliae concorde laborare debent cum suis gentilibus mutare
nomen volentibus ut illi his obsequi huic edicto adiuvent

XV. Cum paterfamilias mutationem volutam improbet censoribus eam non
praebens civis ad censores mutationem provocare nonaginta diebus vel moxius
ab improbatione potest

XVI. Paterfamilias mutare nomen suum volens directo censores adiet

XVII. Cum civis mutationem nominis petens a censoribus mutationem non
accipiat civis ad consulem praetoremve nonaginta diebus vel moxius a
censoriali improbatione potest provocare mutationem ut ille magistratus pro
populo ad suffragium rem imponat Comitiis Populi Tributis
i. Notandum est hanc actionem civem petentem quaerere relinquere iura Lege
Cornelia de Privatis Rebus data ut argumenta pro et contra praeberi populo
possint
ii. Notandum quoque est conficere Comitia Populi Tributa quandoque ita
facere proprium consulibus praetoribusque et ergo extra huius edicti
potestatem

Regulae

XVIII. Petitio ad mutandum nomen est privata Nomen volutum cum ullis
omnibusque argumentis pro ea aestimantur res privatae designatae Lege
Cornelia de Privatis Rebus Censores et patresfamiliae et aliqui testator
divulgare ullam partem argumentorum sine scripta concessione petentis civis
praeter hos casus secundos prohibentur
i. Patremfamiliae censoribus praebere indicia ad mutationem pertinentes
ii. Patremfamiliae aut alium civem respondentem praetoriae censoriali
consularive postulationi exempli gratia in casu provocationis improbatae
petitionis
iii. In casu provocationis ad Comitia Populi Tributa civem praebere
argumenta coram his comitiis

XIX. Pronunciatum quod est in rebus ad mutationem nominis pertinentes
ducendum est obsequium cum antiquis moribus romanis
i. Praenomina nova e historia legenda sunt
ii. Agnomina honoris quae inter alia sunt Maximus et Felix civibus
petitionibus non danda sunt at dari ullo civi ab ullo senatore curuleo
magistratu pontificeve ad beneficium Novae Romae signandum possunt
Patribusfamiliae et censoribus opus est in variis casibus quid sit agnomen
honoris arbitrandi
iii. Cognomina et agnomina licet creare at solum ea quae facile declinentur
et claram interpretationem et litteratorie et pertinenter ad civem
mutationem petentem habeant
iv. Cenus nominis debet esse congruens in quaque parte cum omnibus aliis et
cum sexu civis mutationem nominis petentis

XX. Civis mutare genus grammaticum sui nominis contra suum sexum volens
debet sustendae petitionis causa praebere testimonium comprobationis
contrarii sexus potestate macronationis aut extrariae rei publicae aut
civitatis Aliter cum civis petens fuisset vir corporaeus at formam
documenti macronationalis vel municipalis quae eius sexum esse muliebrem
diceret tenuisset vel in sua terra macronationalis civitatis agnotus esset
ut femina ita posset femineo nomine uti in Nova Roma
i. Exceptio e hac regula in casibus transsexualium civium detur qui medicum
consulant de chirurgo mutandi sexus causa vel alia preparatione medica
perfungiantur ad talem chirurgum In his casibus patresfamiliae vel censores
quaerere documentum de medico possint
ii. Post chirurgum cives transsexuales secundum novum sexum appellabuntur
iii. Androgyni secundum sexum quo suis terris macronationalis civitatis
agnoscuntur appellabuntur


Censores Novae Romae
C Marius Merullus
L Cornelius Sulla Felix


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lonely? Get Firetalk!
Free, unlimited calls anywhere in the world.
Free voice chat on hundreds of topics.
http://click.egroups.com/1/5477/8/_/61050/_/962296000/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Edictum Censoriale de Mutandis Nominibus
From:	"Lingo Man" <dbarr@-------->
Date:	Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:43:00 -0700

Ave Censor Merulle -

This seems well thought out and humane, and I thank you for it.

C. Albius Gadelicus



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need a credit card?
Instant Approval and 0% intro APR with Aria!
http://click.egroups.com/1/6034/8/_/61050/_/962299006/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] The (Nova-)Roman Republic
From:	"Jeroen Meuleman" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:18:03 +0200

S. Apollonius Draco Q. Fabio Maximo M. Apollonio Formosano S.P.D.

(I'm planning to make this a rather short message despite the "heavy"
topic) Although I see no real harm in the so-called secrecy of the debates
of the Senate, and I also believe that it works much more efficient than it
could have ever worked in the ancient Rome (and without the bribery and the
murdering :-)); I think a few important issues were skipped in the reply,
or there were partly answered in a short manner, namely that since is NR is
based on ancient Rome, those traditions must be kept. Of course every
connection to the old Roman Republic would be lost if it was to be turned
into the United States of Nova Roma rather than a re-enactment of the
republican politics of Rome, this still leaves room for progress in my
opinion. After all, there *is* quite a difference between making the
politics of the Senate more "accessible" to the common Nova Roman and
making it a total democracy where politicians are stuntmen rather than
people with some ideologies. I agree with much that was said in *both*
postings, but I do raise an eyebrow at the fact that Senate membership is
for a lifetime. It may be adequate in a way that they don't have to waste
their energy on elections and things like that, but there are other options
of (re-)elections, such as being (re-)elected on basis of the Quirites'
opinions on the capacities and things done for the NR community of the
candidate for the Senate. Because no matter how clear-minded a lot of
people here are, within a few decades, the Senate could become a bulwark of
conservatism and even dogmaticism, and if the Nova Romans can't have
something to say about that, this is what eventually, someday, can and will
happen. This is not a reproach to the current Senators of course, but I am
just talking about human nature in general. If I well remember, among the
(artistic) ancient Roman virtues was imitatio, (namely to take over another
artist's style or theme to honor him or her), but also aemulatio (to
improve it)! Nova Roma is indeed a more modern community than Antiqua Roma,
but that doesn't mean there can be always room for more improvement.

Vale omnes;
S.A. Draco

------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLICK HERE AND START SAVING ON LONG DISTANCE BILLS TODAY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4125/8/_/61050/_/962306996/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Eastern Canada Message Board
From:	"J.D. Porter" <poeticfiend@-------->
Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:01:51 EDT

Salvete,

There is now a message board for the citizens of Eastern Canada
in Nova Roma. Located at
"http://www.egroups.com/group/Canada_Orientalis_NR". This site will contain
topics about all things Roman and Nova Roman as well as about the citizens
and province of Eastern Canada. The website for Eastern Canada is at
"http://homepages.together.net/~bcatfd/page6.html".

Gratias,

Gaius Tullius Triumphius Cicero
Propraetor, Senator
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers.
http://click.egroups.com/1/4633/8/_/61050/_/962308912/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The (Nova-)Roman Republic
From:	Caius Flavius Diocletianus <3s@-------->
Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2000 22:28:56 +0200

Caius Flavius Diocletianus S. Apollonio Draco et Novoromanibus S.P.D.
(M. Apollonius Formosanus lections has a large influence, as I see)

I want to make some short remarks regarding your interesting essay.

Our republic is not a reenactment of the old political system. It is
based on
that system, and the roman traditions oblige us to do so. This means
also,
that membership in the Senate is for lifetime.

We are all influenced by the idea of democracy as it was developed in
the
Untied States and later in France. There are the roots of modern
democracies.
The democracy in roman sense has nothing to do with that roots. The
Senate is
no parliament in the modern sense. It was, originally, the consilium of
the
Consuls and Praetors. The Senate had to advice, not to make laws. Laws
were
made by the people.

Today the parliaments are elected for a couple of years, normally 4 or
5. This is called the principle of discontinuity. What means this, at
last? The modern politicians are quite unable to think forward over the
limit of their period of election. They want to be reelected. Strategic,
long lasting developements were often ignored by the parliaments, and
also by the members of the executive, which are commonly also elected
for some years. In Germany, where I live in, the government and
parliament was, for example, up to today unable to cope with the problem
of the coal miners. They are a strong minority, they are electors, they
have a lobby, and unemployment is high. So this branch is kept
artificially living. Branches, which have a future, such as biological
technologies or telecommunications are hampered.

With an institution as our Senate, with lifetime membership, such
developments are more difficult. Without the fear of being not
reelected, the Senators can advise the Consuls the right way to cope
with long-lasting, strategic developements, which, of course, can cause
some difficulties for all people.

This is not an undemocratic aspect. The executive officers are elected.
The Tribunes are elected. This give us the tool to prevent dogmaticism.
So, some elements of direct and representative democracy are there in
our political system. I think that´s enough.

Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Legatus Germaniae

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
Install today:
http://click.egroups.com/1/5667/8/_/61050/_/962310994/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Roman Lamps
From:	"Aeternia Draconia" <fionaerin@-------->
Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2000 22:36:57 -0000

Salvete Omnes!

I was wondering if anyone could tell where would be the best place to
look for purchasing a Roman Lamp? I've been meaning to get one and
hadn't had a clue to look for one. Thanks.


Valete Aeternia Draconia


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never lose a file again. Protect yourself from accidental deletes,
overwrites, and viruses with @Backup.
Try @Backup it's easy, it's safe, and it's FREE!
Click here to receive 300 MyPoints just for trying @Backup.
http://click.egroups.com/1/5669/8/_/61050/_/962318596/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Edictum de Nominibus Mutandis
From:	"C Marius Merullus" <c_marius_m@-------->
Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:01:39 -0400

Salvete M Apolloni et alii

>
That said, it does still put a special burden on
>transgendering name changers to provide "documentation", as
>though they were as a class especially dishonest persons -

It is not the intent of the censores to imply dishonesty in anyone. Let us
suppose, however, that I became a different person tomorrow, not a
transsexual but someone who wished to make light of Nova Roma by playing
games with her magistrates. I could submit a request to change my name to
Caia Maria Merulla, claiming that I considered myself a woman. Should my
request be rubber-stamped with approval, without even so much as posing the
question "Have you pursued changing recognition of your sex with other
authorities, such as a state department of safety/motor vehicles"? Noone
would know whether I were being honest or dishonest, would they? To look at
it another way, should one have supposed some years ago that the Soviet
Union believed everyone outside its borders to be HIV-positive just because
the Soviet authorities required documented HIV test results of applicants
for certain classes of visas? What would have been the advantage of such a
supposition? Aside perhaps from some propaganda value...ok, a flawed
example. But, authorities of some macronations require copies of airline
tickets departing from their territory for issuance of temporary or transit
visas. One could infer from this, perhaps, that the governments of these
macronations were xenophobic and presumed everyone from certain other
macronations to be dishonest, but that's a useless inference in my view,
especially if you want to go there and interact with the people.

>after all, we are willing to believe *anything* about a
>person's name, sex, age, macronationality, non-Roman name,
>etc. with no documentation at all at the time of anyone's
>joining - thank goodness!

Unless, as you know, an applicant is younger than the age of independence in
his/her country of macronational citizenship, in which case we have for some
time required documentation of parental/guardian consent. Furthermore, the
explicit consent of matres et patresfamiliae is required for applicants to
join gentes -- we do not take the applicant's word on this. It's not a
matter of suspecting dishonesty, but by requiring the explicit one nearly
wholly removes the possibility of it. And requiring documention isn't
absent from Old Rome either -- take the documents signed by witnesses to
sacrifice under Diocletianus (and introduced by his predecessor, I think,
whose name escapes me) to prove that citizens had sacrificed. Not the
happiest example but quite Roman. I don't think that requiring
documentation is an unreasonable, or un-Roman, thing.

This newly-required documentation
>might be something as simple as photocopying a driver's
>license and sending off the paper

Sounds right to me.

but it is still hassle to the citizen involved, extra
>work for hard-working Censors, and in general a bureaucratic
>burden to everybody, which will result in little if any
>advantage for Nova Roma.

What you're saying makes sense to me, but I have a couple of things to point
out here:

i It will be patres et matres, not censores, who apply most of the
provisions of this edictum (except recording agnomina of distinction -- we
presume that patres et matres will not object to their gentiles receiving
distinction -- and appeals). A senator pointed out recently that Nova Roma
was heavily centralized, and there has been much criticism of Nova Roma in
this forum for lack of citizen involvement and empowerment. This edictum,
however, empowers patres et matres and does not add a new burden to the
office of censor -- unlike seemingly almost every other lex and edictum that
we have.
ii I think that there is an advantage to Nova Roma in this edictum --
uniform, explicit rights and procedures. These are good defense against
uncertainty, conflict and injury.

After all, if someone asks to
>change the gender of a name he/she already has in NR, it is
>not likely that this will be for a frivolous reason.

I suspect that you may be right, but surely you agree that this statement is
pretty open and of limited, if any, utility in considering future name
changes. How will you know?

Nova
>Roma would be a better place if everyone simply respected
>that.

It is a nice sentiment, but I honestly feel that I owe Nova Roma more than
mere concurrence with this sentiment. I don't know whether name changes
will be for good reasons, bad reasons, frivolous reasons or other reasons.
I am not omniscient but know enough not to accept any human being's claim to
omniscience. I also know that, while NR has some citizens well-read in
Roman history, who know their subjects much better than I do, many do not
fit that profile and do not understand Roman names much at all; some like
their chosen names less as they learn more. Part of my job is to help
people with their names, whether as applicants or as existing citizens.
These guidelines are the best solution that I could see to help those
citizens who don't understand names all that well help themselves, and do so
in a fair way that doesn't add to the censorial burden or add to the notion
of an all-powerful central state that doesn't care about the people.
>
> This having been said, it is a true improvement on the
>original. IF it meets the needs of the civis sometime known
>as Fimbria, the person most obviously hurt and discouraged


I shall not discuss Fimbria in relation to this edictum until/unless my
gensmate chooses to do so. I can only say that I do not aim to make law
(edicta being the smallest form of law) for or against individuals. The
experiences of individuals show the necessity for law, but the resultant law
should in my view govern the treatment of future cases in general, not
achieve a desired result for (that would be corrupt) or against (intolerably
corrupt) a certain individual.

I do regret
>that it does not look like it will be brought to a popular
>vote, however, which is the only really satisfactory
>legislative procedure for an issue that is so fundamental to
>our senses of personal identity and simple fairness.

It is too early to come to that conclusion. I intend to bring several
edicta to the magistrates who convene the assemblies in December, so that
they can be voted on and made into leges. This one may be one of them,
depending on the priorities agreed by my colleague and me in concert, and
the number of other proposed laws -- I have no intention of monopolizing the
voting agenda with the censorial program. The edictum, barring intercessio,
is in force now as an edictum and may become a lex later, or until it is
stricken down by a Senatus consultum or lex. I shall be surprised, to say
the least, if the Senate or an assembly strikes it down, since the text was
available to all senators for over a week and drew little comment at all,
and public opinion on the controversial gender aspect, as expressed in this
forum, the poll and other statements that I have read, is mixed.
>
> As a Latin enthusiast I would like to praise and thank
>Censor Merullus for his Latin version, which I consider to
>be an *excellent* precedent and not doubt cost him quite a
>lot of extra work.

Thank you, that's quite gratifying coming from an expert of your stature.
It was a lot of work but secondary to framing the content. I thank Titus
Labienus Fortunatus for putting much of the text together, allowing my
colleague and me to focus on the ideas and negotiate to the point that we
could publish the complete edictum.
>
>Pacem omnibus exopto. (I wish Peace to all.)


Idem omnibus volo

C Marius Merullus
Censor Suffectus


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
Install today:
http://click.egroups.com/1/5667/8/_/61050/_/962320737/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Roman Lamps
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:11:08 -0700

Salve Tink!

Check out Ebay.....they have some I dont know just how historically
accurate. Or you might want to contact Cassius, he deals with
antiquities....he might be able to give you some ideas.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aeternia Draconia" <fionaerin@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 3:36 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Roman Lamps


> Salvete Omnes!
>
> I was wondering if anyone could tell where would be the best place to
> look for purchasing a Roman Lamp? I've been meaning to get one and
> hadn't had a clue to look for one. Thanks.
>
>
> Valete Aeternia Draconia
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Never lose a file again. Protect yourself from accidental deletes,
> overwrites, and viruses with @Backup.
> Try @Backup it's easy, it's safe, and it's FREE!
> Click here to receive 300 MyPoints just for trying @Backup.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/5669/8/_/61050/_/962318596/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Backup- Protect and Access your data any time, any where on the net.
Try @Backup FREE and receive 300 points from mypoints.com Install now:
http://click.egroups.com/1/5666/8/_/61050/_/962322000/
------------------------------------------------------------------------