Subject:	[novaroma] Fwd: Need a Byzantine Source
From:	JSmithCSA@--------
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 05:35:23 -0000

You may wish to try the NR Vizantia list, where more help might be
available. http://www.egroups.com/group/NovaromaVizantia

L A Dalmaticus


--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus"
<germa--------s@--------> wrote:
Salvete Omnes;

I realize it is beyond the boundaries of our period, but I was hoping
one of
our Cives might have an interest in Byzantium. In particular, I am
looking
for an English translation of "De ceremoniis aulae Byzantinae" by
FLAVIVS
PORPHYROGENITUS (Constantine VII). I've found the partial
translations at
Fordham's web site, but I need a full translation. An on-line version
would
be ideal, but if someone has a hard copy, please let me know; I'm
looking
for a particular passage (the "Gothic Dance").

If a--------e ca--------sist with this, please email me at germa--------s@--------,
rather than on the main list. My thanks.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Senator, Augur, Proconsul




-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972797728/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Change of Gentile Affiliation
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Sat, 28 Oct 2000 23:10:20 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete,

Two general questions before I get into the details:

How much of a problem is this? Is gens-hopping
widespread, or do we expect it do become so in the
future?

Is there a problem categorizing (poor term, but all
that comes to mind) these unions?

--- Nick Ford
<gens_moravia@--------> wrote:

> DE GENTILICIUM MUTANDIS
>
> 1. Change of gentile affiliation (i.e., of the gens
> to which a citizen belongs) may occur for three
> reasons:
>
> a) Expulsion by the head of the gens;
> b) Voluntary resignation from the gens by the
> member;
> c) Marriage of two members of different gentes.

So far, so good.

> 2. a)
>
> 2. b)
>
> 2. c)

All OK.

> 2. d) In the case of 1 c) above, the citizen
> intending to marry who is presumed to be of female
> gender (hereafter known as 'the bride'), shal
> l be deemed on ratification of the marriage by the
> Censors to have left her
> original gens, and to have joined the gens of the
> citizen she intends to
> marry and who is presumed to be of male gender
> (hereafter known as 'the
> bridegroom'). The bride may, on the ratification of
> the marriage by the
> Censors, apply (provided that the permission of the
> head of her former gens
> has been sought and granted) to retain her old
> gentile name as part of her
> new name, thus:

Are these practices based on historic Roman naming
practices, or is this a NR thing?

> 2. e)
>
> i.
>
> ii.

All OK.

> 2. f)

OK

> 3. a) Transfer of gens membership as stated above
> shall be unrestricted in
> law, without regard to the rank of either gens
> involved. A plebeian shall
> therefore be free to marry or adopt a patrician or
> equestrian, and vice
> versa. The adopted individual shall be deemed
> thereafter to have the rank of
> the gens into which s/he has been adopted.

Cross-class marriages! As I read this I thought of
the line from GHOSTBUSTERS (OK, I like the intelligent
stuff): "Dogs and Cats living together in sin!"

While I have no problem with the intent here, I
suggest some wordsmithing to say something more like:

"Transfer of gens membership as stated above shall be
unrestricted in law, without regard to the rank of
either gens involved. A plebeian shall therefore be
free to marry or adopt a patrician or equestrian, and
vice versa." changes to "Transfer of gens membership
as stated above shall be unrestricted in law, without
regard to the rank of either gens involved. Persons of
any class can marry or adopt members of their own or
another class."

I suggest this since there is talk now of, and
historical precedence for, an equestrian class.
Should it be returned, this law would have to be
rewritten. Let's make it more flexible now and save
the time for comedy movies later.

> 3. b) Any bride from a gens joining a gens of
> different rank by marriage
> shall thenceforth be deemed to be of the rank of the
> new gens. Thus, if a
> plebeian bridegroom marries a patrician bride, the
> patrician bride joins the
> gens of the bridegroom and becomes plebeian; but if
> a patrician bridegroom
> marries a plebeian bride, the plebeian bride joins
> the gens of the
> bridegroom and therefore becomes patrician.

Ok.

One more question. Does such a marriage or adoption
also affect the members tribe and century? If so,
how?

Lucius Aetius Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"Half of the world's misery comes from ignorance. The other half comes from intelligence." - Bonar Thompson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972799822/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Change of Gentile Affiliation
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Sat, 28 Oct 2000 23:17:55 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete!

--- Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
wrote:

> As Paterfamilas of the Patrician Gens Cornelia, I
> too am open to allowing new members into my Gens.
> However, I subscribe to the traditional custom of
> the Gens in that it is a family. To me, the Gens is
> the most important body in ancinet
> Rome. And I compare it to a blood family. And to
> view that certain family members can divorce
> themselves from the family to me is almost
> perposterious. I do not subcribe to that view at
> all.
>
> As many of you know, I even resigned from NR briefly
> becuase some members of my Gens tried to do that
> very thing. I fought it tooth and nail and I would
> continue to do so. To me it would be tantamount to
> me divorcing my mother!

I concur with all of the above; however, I do not see
where it contradicts the proposed legislation. When
my wife and I married, she took my surname and joined
my family. Our son bears my surname. She is still
her mother's and father's daughter and loves them very
much, but she lives with me now on the other end of
the Eurasian land mass. This will allow the same
thing to happen in NR.

Lucius Aetius Dalmaticus
Paterfamilias Aetia

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"Half of the world's misery comes from ignorance. The other half comes from intelligence." - Bonar Thompson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972800276/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Change of Gentile Affiliation
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Sat, 28 Oct 2000 23:29:11 -0700 (PDT)

--- Catja <ponton.3@--------> wrote:

> such a view is unjustifiable by today's standards
> (well, unless
> you're a Southern Baptist):)

Or old, like me. My opinion remains unchanged. And
please, let's not insult each other's religions here.

> Secondly, it begs the question of what to do with
> those female
> citizens, like myself, who are married (or engaged,
> in my case) to
> non-NR members. If a woman's membership in a family
> is determined by
> her husband, then why not her citizenship itself?
> To insist that
> married women belong to the gens of their husbands
> puts us in a
> bind -- he doesn't have a gens, therefore do I have
> a gens? This is
> patently unfair, both to my fiancee and myself.

Ooooh! That's an excellent question! Question first,
then my answer to your question.

Is there a historic (Roman vs NR) precedent for
citizen-women marrying non-citizen men and retaining
their citizenship? (Mind you, I'm not advocating
removing anyone's citizenship if that's what was done,
but only for historical curiosity.)

Since your fiancee is not a Novaroman, his gens (or
lack thereof) is irrelevent for this discussion. You
can choose whichever gens you want, as far as I am
concerned. However, IMHO were he to later join, you
should be in the same gens.

Lucius Aetius Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"Half of the world's misery comes from ignorance. The other half comes from intelligence." - Bonar Thompson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972800952/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Change of Gentile Affiliation
From:	marcusaemiliusscaurus@--------
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 07:04:20 -0000

Salvete,

I've been watching the discussion on this since it started, but have
refrained from commenting because I did not have anything new to
bring, because what I had to say had already been said! I agree
especially with S. Apollonius Draco.

However, I disagree with Dalmaticus on one point. I do not think it
essential that married citizens retain the same gens.

I chose my gens, gens Scribonia, because of my admiration for the
ancient Scribonians. If I were to ever marry, sometime in the
distant future, and my wife was also a Roman history fanatic, and
decided to join NR, what if she was not a fan of the Scribonians?
What if she preferred the Marians, or the Aemilians? Why would she
have to join my gens simply because I got here first?

Valete,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972803061/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Reprimand to Nova Roma Citizen Lucia Maria Fimbria
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 04:53:18 -0500

Salvete Quirites!

This is a formal protest against the "Reprimand" to L. Marius Fimbria
issued by the Consuls on behalf of the Senate.

1. I consider the alleged actions of Fimbria as reported to the Senate
to have been unacceptable conduct. However, the decision of the Senate to
issue a reprimand without a hearing and giving an opportunity to Fimbria to
respond to the allegations is contrary to the principles of natural justice
accepted as foundational to law since the time of Roma Antiqua.

2. The "Reprimand" constitutes a usurpation by the Senate of a
judicial power not given to it by the Constitution of Nova Roma.

3. The Senate by Senatus Consultum instructed the Praetors to prepare
a reprimand on charges which were not fully specified at the time of the
Resolution and therefore could not be properly debated. Though drafts have
been returned to the Senate for consultation and discussed, no Senate vote
has been taken on the final version, the Consuls taking the view that the
general vote instructing the Praetors to prepare a draft amounted to
approval in advance of what was discussed. In any other matter these are
matters which should concern the Senate in the regulation of its procedure.
But a consultum which affects the fama of a citizen is a criminal matter
and charges should be properly specified before any vote is taken.

4. The first charge, of making propaganda against Nova Roma while in
self-imposed exile, amounts to a charge of the crime of perduellio in roman
law, treason in common law, which should be triable only by the Comitia
Centuriata. There is no difference in principle from the Senate of the USA
"resolving" (to take a remotely plausible example) that Gore Vidal is
guilty of treason against the USA.

5. The second charge, of conduct ridiculing L. Equitius Cincinnatus,
amounts to charging Fimbria with committing iniuria, (defamation, etc.) a
private delict against Cincinnatus, which should be in the jurisdiction of
the Praetors on a complaint by Cincinnatus. The added allegation that
Cincinnatus is defamed in his character as a priest and magistrate should
not alter the situation. It is inconsistent with the character of a free
society to make defamation of officials a crime because they are officials.
No such law operated in the Roman Republic, though the Empire did adopt
such laws; the law against scandalum magnatum, "slandering bigshots" of
medieval England, was abolished in modern times, and modern American (NY
Times v Sullivan) and English (Derbyshire CC v Times; Reynolds v Times) law
holds that officials have less rights to sue for defamation than private
individuals. It is not acceptable that such a rule should be introduced in
Nova Roma through the "precedent" of a Senatus Consultum against an
individual.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
jurisconsultus
Senator
former Praetor

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972813243/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Question for everyone
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 02:24:55 -0800 (PST)

Salvete!

Lucius Cornelius Sulla offered some interesting,
thought-provoking questions. I have my answers and
hope to hear from others as well.

Suggested goals I would like to see set.

Expansion. A growth goal should be set (e.g., add 100
members, establish two provincae, etc.; I don't know
what good numbers are, so I have just suggested some
numbers here as examples).

Leadership. Increase fill of officers, particularly
in the priesthood where the shortfall is the greatest,
to 100%.

Provincae. Increased local (provincial) level
meetings, leading to a continent-level or full-NR
meeting at some point in the future. (Part of a
larger, long-term goal to move us from a
internet-oriented to person-to-person group.)

I hope this furthers the thought-provoking process L
C Sulla began.

Lucius Aetius Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"Half of the world's misery comes from ignorance. The other half comes from intelligence." - Bonar Thompson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972815096/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Question for everyone
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 11:53:24 +0100

Salvete omnes,

> Lucius Cornelius Sulla offered some interesting,
> thought-provoking questions. I have my answers and
> hope to hear from others as well.
>
> Suggested goals I would like to see set.
>
> Expansion. A growth goal should be set (e.g., add 100
> members, establish two provincae, etc.; I don't know
> what good numbers are, so I have just suggested some
> numbers here as examples).
>
> Leadership. Increase fill of officers, particularly
> in the priesthood where the shortfall is the greatest,
> to 100%.
>
> Provincae. Increased local (provincial) level
> meetings, leading to a continent-level or full-NR
> meeting at some point in the future. (Part of a
> larger, long-term goal to move us from a
> internet-oriented to person-to-person group.)

Yes, spoken of Provinciae, I was told that the issue of Gallia would be
coming up on the Senate's agenda of October, but this month is nearing its
end and still nothing has happened. The Galli would like to see this process
advance quicker, if possible.

Valete!
Sextus Apollonius Draco


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972817019/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Question for everyone
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 03:54:49 -0800 (PST)

--- "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
wrote:

> Yes, spoken of Provinciae, I was told that the issue
> of Gallia would be
> coming up on the Senate's agenda of October, but
> this month is nearing its
> end and still nothing has happened. The Galli would
> like to see this process
> advance quicker, if possible.

Salvete!

I cannot speak for the Province of Germania, but as a
citizen there, I hope the Province of Gallia is
established...the sooner the better!

L A Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"Half of the world's misery comes from ignorance. The other half comes from intelligence." - Bonar Thompson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972820490/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Shame on the Senate, Shame on the Magistrates, Shame on Nova Roma
From:	Piscinus@--------
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 07:26:11 EST

Gn. Moravius Piscinus salutem Quiritibus:

A star chamber court, held in secret and against the provisions of the
Constitution. The identity of the judge held in secret. The prosecutor, the
judge, the witnesses for the prosecution, all seated on the jury. The
charges not specified. Ad hoc procedures for the trial. The defendant
ordered to keep the proceedings secret and prohibited from presenting all her
witnesses. The abuse of public office to wreck a vendetta on an individual
out of personal pettiness. Such conduct of justice is found only in a banana
republic.

Where is Veritas found hiding behind secret proceedings? Where in is
dignitas which will acquiesce in tyranny? Where in is auctoritas that
condones bigotry? Where is the honestas in participating in a lynch mob?
Where is the prudentia that did not foresee how these proceedings undermined
the Constitution by its many violations? Where is the pietas of those who
abused the authority of their positions, where is the pietas of those who did
not stand up to oppose such abuse? Shame on those magistrates who brought
this matter to prosecution. Shame on those magistrates who acquiesced in
these illegal and immoral proceedings. Shame on the Senate for having
participated in this. Shame on every one in the Senate who did not speak out
against it. By their actions, this Senate and these magistrates have only
brought shame on Nova Roma.

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972822378/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Change of Gentile Affiliation
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:33:56 -0000

> How much of a problem is this? Is gens-hopping
> widespread, or do we expect it do become so in the
> future?

Adoption, at least of sons, was very common in ancient Rome, and I do
not see any problem in allowing it here.

As I understand it (and please correct me if you have better
information!) an ancient Roman woman, upon her marriage, kept the
feminine form of her father's name and did not take her husband's name.
She might be known as "Patricia, wife of Cassius" to distinguish her
from the other daughters of the Patrician line, and her children would
of course bear her husband's name unless she were not his legal wife.

So the only critique I have of Vado's proposition is to suggest that
upon their marriage, a Novaromana *may* choose to add her husband's
name to her own (rather than being required to do so). Some of us will
no doubt choose to be part of our spouses' gentes, and others not.

It was also fairly common for women to marry cousins or more distant
relatives. I chose the name "Patricia Cassia" before learning what
Roman women's names actually represented, so now choose to believe that
our names represent the union of two branches of a family.

Patricia Cassia



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972826443/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Reprimand to Nova Roma Citizen Lucia Maria Fimbria
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 14:49:09 +0100

Salvete Quirites Novae Romae,

I echo the voices of protest that were raised by my own paterfamilias,
Formosanus; Vado, Scaevola Magister and Piscinus - this action from the
Magistrates and the Senate shows a lack of respect for the citizens they
govern, and is a disgrace for all of Nova Roma who approved with it. Perhaps
Festus was right after all a few months ago when he compared Rome to a
fascist empire. This is a very dangerous juridical evolution, and it needs
to be stopped immediatly.

Valete!
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
Wind Dragon, ICQ# 32924725
--**--
There are no bad guys. Just disturbed guys.
--**--
Novaromain? Parlez-vous français? Cliquez ici!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_GalliaBelgicaF
Nieuwromein? Spreekt u Nederlands? Klik hier!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_BelgicaBataviaD
Novaroman? Interested in philosophy? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_Philosophy
--**--



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972827559/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Change of Gentile Affiliation
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 06:23:18 -0800 (PST)

--- "pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
wrote:

> As I understand it (and please correct me if you
> have better
> information!) an ancient Roman woman, upon her
> marriage, kept the
> feminine form of her father's name and did not take
> her husband's name.
> She might be known as "Patricia, wife of Cassius" to
> distinguish her
> from the other daughters of the Patrician line, and
> her children would
> of course bear her husband's name unless she were
> not his legal wife.

Interesting, and reflective of modern-day Korean
practice (my wife is Korean but follows traditional US
practice).

Altho' a Roman wife would keep her father's name
(assuming your statement is correct--you seem to
express doubt), would she not be a member of her
husband's gens? Or would she be a member of her
father's gens, living in her husband's house? I guess
the former.

L A Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"Half of the world's misery comes from ignorance. The other half comes from intelligence." - Bonar Thompson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972829400/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Reprimand
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 08:29:47 -0600 (CST)

Salve Nicolaue Moravi,

> I note that no indication was given of what majority of the Senate voted on
> the issuance of the nota, or whether it was an overall majority: Well, O
> Conscript Fathers: was it? Did no-one dissasociate him- or herself from
> this?

>From September's Senate voting announcement:

# **Item the Fourth.**
# The Senate's rebuke to L. Marius Fimbria.**
# Part I.
# Should there be one?
# Uti Rogas (YES) 8 ; Antiquo (NO) 3 ; ABSTO (I abstain) 1
# Passed

Vale, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
Microsoft delenda est!
http://www.graveyards.com/


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972829604/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Change of Gentile Affiliation - Women's Rights
From:	"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 14:57:36 -0000

Salve, mea Camilla!

Scripsisti:

Overall, I believe your breakdown of the issue is an excellent one;

Thank you. I admire your perspicacity on this issue ;-)

Camilla:
although I'm new here, from what I've read, the issue is contentious
enough that a specific procedure would be useful. I agree, too, with
Sulla that someone who bounces from gens to gens is silly and
irresponsible, but for specific cases, a set course of action would
be good to have on hand.

Vado:
How likely is it, really, that someone will gens-hop in the way Sulla
suggests?

Camilla:
However, I disagree with the "marriage" clause. Someone else
questioned why only the bride can/should/will change gens, and
suggested making the option available to both bride and groom. I
agree, and would stress that changing gens should be an OPTION; the
current wording seems to imply that the bride would automatically be
transferred into her husband's gens, whether she wishes or no. I've
argued in other posts that simply because the Ancient Romans engaged
in certain practices doesn't mean that we, in the year 2000, are
obligated to carry them on, especially if they conflict with the
values of our contemporary society -- one of which is that women are
not the property of their husbands, or of their husband's families;
such a view is unjustifiable by today's standards (well, unless
you're a Southern Baptist):) By allowing women to head families and
serve in the government, NR has shown that it sees women as being
individuals in their own right, rather than merely extensions of
their husbands -- why change that now? Also, husbands taking their
wives' names are not without precedent, at least in the middle ages;
I'm not sure about ancient Rome though (but this is NEW Rome,
anyway) :)

Vado:
You have made a very good point here, I think. I was simply following modern
cultural precedent, as well as the ancient Roman. But why indeed should Nova
Roma not break new ground in recognising that men and women are equal? Why
indeed should the woman go to the man's gens, and not vice versa? No reason
at all, apart from cultural habit.

Camilla:
Secondly, it begs the question of what to do with those female
citizens, like myself, who are married (or engaged, in my case) to
non-NR members. If a woman's membership in a family is determined by
her husband, then why not her citizenship itself? To insist that
married women belong to the gens of their husbands puts us in a
bind -- he doesn't have a gens, therefore do I have a gens? This is
patently unfair, both to my fiancee and myself.

Vado:
I'm glad you mentioned this, since it points up the absudity of Sulla's
argument that a NovaRoman gens is exactly the same as one's biological and
marital family. Aletheia Moravia and I are married according to the laws of
Great Britain. If she chooses to leave gens Moravia, I guess that we would
implicitly be divorced in Nova Roma, but it would have absolutely no effect
on our marriage in the world outside, and which NR is struggling to come to
terms with.

I see no reason why a citizen of NR, who is married in the big world outside
but whose marriage partner has no interest in NR and who is therefore not a
citizen, should not be permitted to marry another citizen within NR. What is
valid in NR law need not be valid in the outside world, and vice versa.

After all, if NovaRoma gentes were to be really like blood kinship outside,
as Sulla seems to think they are, then newcomers to NR would have to be
allocated into gentes, by the Censors, acting as storks.

Camilla:
I don't mean to give offense in this critique; I'm simply raising an
issue that I find troubling. As I said earlier, I think that it's a
great procedure overall. Of course, if a woman wishes to change to
her husband's gens, she should be free to do so; but she shouldn't be
obligated, nor should he be denied the same option.

Vado:
No offence taken, mea Camilla, and I'm glad you raised the issue. I agree
fully with what you have to say. I was trying to moderate my suggestions so
as not to alienate the conservative element in NR, who so far have had just
about everything all their own way.
I confess that I am getting tired of one-way compromises.

Camilla:
I apologize if my first communication with you seems somewhat
critical;

Vado:
No need to apologise. The criticism was perfectly reasonable. You didn't
denounce me as a bigoted oaf, as someone else did recently (before retiring
hurt because they couldn't take back what they dispensed). I think the most
current motif in NR generally is that criticism is not wrong in itself, but
what can be terribly wrong is the way in which it is made).

Camilla:
I've enjoyed reading your posts in the archives, and your
arguments are always intelligent and scholarly.

Vado:
Then you must have read the archives rather selectively, is all I can say to
that ;-).

Bene vale,

Vado.

--- In novaroma@--------, "Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@d...> wrote:
> 2. d) In the case of 1 c) above, the citizen intending to marry who
is presumed to be of female gender (hereafter known as 'the bride'),
shal
> l be deemed on ratification of the marriage by the Censors to have
left her
> original gens, and to have joined the gens of the citizen she
intends to
> marry and who is presumed to be of male gender (hereafter known
as 'the
> bridegroom'). The bride may, on the ratification of the marriage by
the
> Censors, apply (provided that the permission of the head of her
former gens
> has been sought and granted) to retain her old gentile name as part
of her
> new name, thus:
>
> Quinta Manlia Lepida, formerly of gens Manlia, may, with the
permission of
> the head of gens Manlia, on marriage to Caius Didius Secundus of
gens Didia,
> be known thereafter as Quinta Manlia Didia Lepida.

> 3. b) Any bride from a gens joining a gens of different rank by
marriage
> shall thenceforth be deemed to be of the rank of the new gens.
Thus, if apatrician bride joins the
> gens of the bridegroom and becomes plebeian; but if a patrician
bridegroom
> marries a plebeian bride, the plebeian bride joins the gens of the
> bridegroom and therefore becomes patrician.
>






-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972835316/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Shame on the Senate, Shame on the Magistrates, Shame on Nova Roma
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 09:03:52 -0700

I have to say I agree with the nature of the protests to date on this issue.
While I have spoken against Mari's behavior in the past, I believe she paid in
full with her public apology. I am greatly concerned with the way this apparent
court was convened and conducted, as it was invisible to us all. So we have
instituted secret tribunals. Hmm.

Piscinus states my point of view best of all comments. I attach my protest to his
being unable to improve in it.

Livia Cornelia Aurelia
Rogator Suffecti



Piscinus@-------- wrote:

> Gn. Moravius Piscinus salutem Quiritibus:
>
> A star chamber court, held in secret and against the provisions of the
> Constitution. The identity of the judge held in secret. The prosecutor, the
> judge, the witnesses for the prosecution, all seated on the jury. The
> charges not specified. Ad hoc procedures for the trial. The defendant
> ordered to keep the proceedings secret and prohibited from presenting all her
> witnesses. The abuse of public office to wreck a vendetta on an individual
> out of personal pettiness. Such conduct of justice is found only in a banana
> republic.
>
> Where is Veritas found hiding behind secret proceedings? Where in is
> dignitas which will acquiesce in tyranny? Where in is auctoritas that
> condones bigotry? Where is the honestas in participating in a lynch mob?
> Where is the prudentia that did not foresee how these proceedings undermined
> the Constitution by its many violations? Where is the pietas of those who
> abused the authority of their positions, where is the pietas of those who did
> not stand up to oppose such abuse? Shame on those magistrates who brought
> this matter to prosecution. Shame on those magistrates who acquiesced in
> these illegal and immoral proceedings. Shame on the Senate for having
> participated in this. Shame on every one in the Senate who did not speak out
> against it. By their actions, this Senate and these magistrates have only
> brought shame on Nova Roma.
>


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972835497/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Shame on the Senate, Shame on the Magistrates, Shame on Nova Roma
From:	marcusaemiliusscaurus@--------
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:42:59 -0000

Salvete Quirites,

Now the number of protests is getting too big to count, I would like
to add mine to theirs. I knew nothing of the incident until Fimbria
made that apology, and I think that after that there was no need,
indeed it was almost like way of revenge as opposed to punishment,
that she was publicly reprimanded.

Right, now that I'm babbling what everyone else has said, I'll
quiesce now. (I do love that word! Thanks for introducing me to it!)

Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972837793/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Reprimand of Maria Fimbria
From:	RexMarcius@--------
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 12:16:54 EST

Salvete omnes!

I also have to voice my concerns as regards the official reprimand of Maria
Fimbria. The procedure chosen by the Senate seems to me, as to others before
me, extremely questionable and I wonder what the guardians of the
constitution, the Tribunes have to say about this. They might even have a
duty to intervene here.

In German we have a proverb depicting the situation with which we are
confronted here and which roughly translates into "to shoot with cannons at
sparrows". Unfortunately what happened in the Senate was not that
Cincinnatus's reputation was reestablished but that by the cannon of the
senate procedure (star court chamber, whatever that is) the reputation of
Nova Roma itself was hit. I hope it can still be remedied.

Ave et Vale
Marcus Marcius Rex
Propraetor Germaniae (in exilium)

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972839818/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] The Reprimand
From:	"C. Iulius" <ancientrome@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 09:35:47 -0800

I am fairly new to NovaRoma. I don't post at all to this list, I mainly observe this list as a means of learning about ancient Rome. However, some of the posts concerning this reprimand. Many people have complained about this reprimand. 2 reasons seem to stick out in my mind. First, that this was done quietly, without the knowledge of the People. I don't believe that is the case. Below I show a post in the achieves. (Message 15237).

(More comments below)


From: <benborgo@-------->
Date: Tue Sep 5, 2000 12:55pm
Subject: Senate Vote results




In --------ss--------d-------- 9/5/00 1:55:50 AM P--------ic D--------ght Time, sfp55@--------
writes:

Salvete, omnes.

In spite of my persisting absenteeism, to the probable dismay of some, I will
take this oppertunity to, at least this once within my term, announce the
results of Senate voting to you, the citizens of Nova Roma. Below I have
posted the results of the latest vote within the Senate.

<< We had the following Senators vote in the Sextilis call:
Gaius Aelius Ericius
Patricia Cassia
Marcus Cassius Julianus
Lucius Cornelius Sulla
Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus
Quintus Fabius Maximus
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Marcus Iunius Iulianus
T Labienus Fortunatus
Caius Marius Merullus
Marcus Minucius Audens
Flavius Vedius Germanicus

Regrets
Quintus Caecilius Metellus No reason
Minervina Iucundia Flavia In Europe
Decius Iunius Palladius Computer down
Marcus Mucius Scaevola Moving
Gaius Tullius Triumphius Leave of absence

**Item the First: Rogator.**
The first candidate is Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.
The second candidate is Lucia Cornelia Aurelia.
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus: 1
Lucia Cornelia Aurelia: 11
Appointed as Rogator:
Lucia Cornelia Aurelia

**Item the Second was withdrawn as it is not needed.**

**Item the Third.**
Request to the Censors to add the following individuals to rolls of the
Senate:
N. Moravia Vado---------Uti Rogas (YES) 7 ; Antiquo (NO) 3 ; ABSTO (I
abstain) 2
M. Marcius Rex--------------Uti Rogas (YES) 8 ; Antiquo (NO) 2 ; ABSTO (I
abstain) 2
M. Octavius Germanicus--Uti Rogas (YES) 10 ; Antiquo (NO) 0 ; ABSTO (I
abstain) 2

N. Moravia Vado Approved
M.. Marcius Rex Approved
M. Octavius Germanicus Approved

**Item the Fourth.**
The Senate's rebuke to L. Marius Fimbria.**
Part I.
Should there be one?
Uti Rogas (YES) 8 ; Antiquo (NO) 3 ; ABSTO (I abstain) 1
Passed
Part II.
To drafted by the Praetors Urbanii?
Uti Rogas (YES) 8 ; Antiquo (NO) 2 ; ABSTO (I abstain) 2
Passed
Part III
If L. Marius Fimbria does not rejoin Nova Roma, then this is not be
carried out, even if approved.
Uti Rogas-4 ; Antiquo-3
Approved

**Item the Fourth.**
Mandatory list subscription on citizens applications
Uti Rogas (YES) 1 ; Antiquo (NO) 9 ; ABSTO (I abstain) 2
Failed
Part II
Shall the senate instruct the Curule Aedile to find
a way to do mandatory subscription easily and efficiently?
Yes-1 No-4 (The rest claimed that failure of the first measure negeted this
vote. We retained the formality.)
Failed

**Item the Fifth.**
Shall the proposed Lex Fabia de Vexatione Verbis
be sent to the comita to be voted into Law
Uti Rogas (YES) 7 ; Antiquo (NO) 3 ; ABSTO (I abstain) 2
Passes
>>

I do humbly congratulate our new Rogator and those elected to join the ranks
of the Senate, and wish them all my best in their commitment Nova Roma.

I hope my colleagues will not think too harshly of me for stepping from the
shadows (indeed the utter darkness) with such brief words.

That is all,
Valete,

Gn. Tarquinius Caesar
Tribune of the People

_____

As I see it. This posting by the Tribune Caesar shows that this was public knowledge.

Second, people dispute that the reprimand in the sense that the Senate usurped power. Is that really the case?

If I may direct your attention to the Tabularium, specifically to this link: http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/sen99030301.html
It seems to me that the Senate of Nova Roma has exercised this right before. Now, for all of you individuals who have voiced displeasure at the recent reprimand, would you also stand fast against this individual against this reprimand as well?

A perspective citizen


------------------------------------------------------------
DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com
FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972840842/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Reprimand
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 19:41:39 +0100

Salve C. Iule,

The fact that this public reprimand against Marius Fimbria was approved by
the Senate does not justify it - imho it even makes it worse that our
Senatores approve of such a pompous act. And although it may not have been
done in total secrecy, the trial itself was secret, as were the judges, and
so on...

And yes, I visited the very interesting URL
(http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/sen99030301.html) you provided us with,
and although I find the nature of that message equally (and overly) severe,
this was not about a matter of a joke that went out of control, nor was it
about bad taste. This reprimand was much more justified, in my opinion.

Thank you for sharing that URL, by the way.

Vale!
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
Wind Dragon, ICQ# 32924725
--**--
There are no bad guys. Just disturbed guys.
--**--
Novaromain? Parlez-vous français? Cliquez ici!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_GalliaBelgicaF
Nieuwromein? Spreekt u Nederlands? Klik hier!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_BelgicaBataviaD
Novaroman? Interested in philosophy? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_Philosophy
--**--



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972845104/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Change of Gentile Affiliation
From:	Razenna <razenna@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 11:06:13 -0800

Salvete, quirites.

As I recall from my years of reading the Roman wife kept her father's
gens name. That is what we know some of the Roman women by in history
and the arts; Calpurnia, Livia, Verginia, Julia, Messalina. When a
woman married she passed from the potestas of her gens paterfamilias
to the potestas of her husband's paterfamilias. Remember that in each
case this might not have been the male immediately responsible for
her, i.e. her father or husband. It might have been her still living
grandfather in one case and her father-in-law in the other case. If
there was a divorce the woman passed back to potestas of her father's
gens. To be more Roman (I am not suggesting this) we should probably
not have people changing their names when they wed.

Adoptions were quite common. Some of them were nigh unto business
deals, which is not surprising for the Romans. There have been
infinitesimally few moves from one gens to another in Nova Roma. At
least so far as I know. Those few have been involving one gens and
were contested. I only know of them because of the fuss that was
created, it is possible there have been other instances of leaving one
gens for another that went unnoticed because everything was peaceful.

We have no desire to codify (i.e. promulgate guidelines, whatever you
want to call it) these matters. It is productive for us to share with
each other what the ancient Romans did. We are attempting to
reconstruct their society, as it fits into this world of the XXVIII
Century A.U.C., not simply making rules based on various perceptions
of what some folk have of the old forms. We have to keep these
discussions going. They are very constructive. Sharing ideas, our own
interpretations on what we have found, sharing what we have found in
our own research, is what has enabled us to develop as far as we have
in these few years since the founding of this cyber city. And it is a
large part of what will hopefully enable Nova Roma to become a face to
face community (planetary expanse notwithstanding).

I guess we must keep in mind that we are talking about "family" here.
There are all sorts of families. All sorts of parents. The Browns,
Smiths, Fabrini and Schwarzes are all families. They have similar
ways of doing things. They have different ways of doing things. Some
families will embrace their members no matter what they do. Other
families demand a strict code of behavior. Cross the line and it is
"never darken this doorway again". Romans were human beings, just
like we are. They were also of such a distant time and such a
different culture and milieu that they are more alien to we of the
XXVIII Century A.U.C. than aliens in science fiction shows. All that
said, I believe I am not incorrect in saying family is family.

Enough of this rambling, before I get mushy.

Valete.
C. Aelius Ericius.
-------------------------
Only two things are infinite. The universe and human stupidity.
And I'm beginning to have doubts about the universe.
Albert Einstein.


--- In novaroma@--------, Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@y...>
wrote:
> --- "p--------@-------- " <p--------@-------->
> wrote:
>
> > As I understand it (and please correct me if you
> > have better
> > information!) an ancient Roman woman, upon her
> > marriage, kept the
> > feminine form of her father's name and did not take
> > her husband's name.
> > She might be known as "Patricia, wife of Cassius" to
> > distinguish her
> > from the other daughters of the Patrician line, and
> > her children would
> > of course bear her husband's name unless she were
> > not his legal wife.
>
> Interesting, and reflective of modern-day Korean
> practice (my wife is Korean but follows traditional US
> practice).
>
> Altho' a Roman wife would keep her father's name
> (assuming your statement is correct--you seem to
> express doubt), would she not be a member of her
> husband's gens? Or would she be a member of her
> father's gens, living in her husband's house? I guess
> the former.
>
> L A Dalmaticus
>
> =====
> LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
> HQ USAREUR/7A
> CMR 420, BOX 2839
> APO AE 09063-2839
>
> "Half of the world's misery comes from ignorance. The other
half
comes from intelligence." - Bonar Thompson


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972846454/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] The Reprimand
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 14:26:36 -0500

Salvete!

C. Iulius wrote,

>Second, people dispute that the reprimand in the sense that the Senate
usurped power. Is that really the case?

>If I may direct your attention to the Tabularium, specifically to this
link: http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/sen99030301.html
>It seems to me that the Senate of Nova Roma has exercised this right
before. Now, for all of you individuals who have voiced >displeasure at
the recent reprimand, would you also stand fast against this individual
against this reprimand as well?

In relation to the reprimand of Sulla (under the old Constitution) the
answer in my case is YES. I consider that the old Senate conducted itself
improperly both in attempting to keep its proceedings secret from the
sitting magistrates (the "rule" against which Sulla "offended" in the first
place) and in proceeding to reprimand him in this connection.

This illustrates the correctness of the roman law maxim that "judicandum
est legibus, non exemplis" - judgment should be according to laws, not
according to precedents. A single bad decision should not be made the
foundation for further bad decisions, though a long consistent course of
decisions, by creating a legitimate expectation of consistency, may be a
good argument to decide the same way.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972847624/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] The Reprimand of L. Marius Fimbria.
From:	Razenna <razenna@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 12:09:25 -0800

When this reprimand was first promulgated I was worried by what seemed
to ba a lack of response to it. I still wonder at the thinness of the
negative reaction to this piece of legislative overkill. Some other
magistrates have voiced their criticism of this reprimand, as have
some of Fimbria's staunch friends. I have seen little reaction from
the general citizenry. One citizen has correctly presented the notice
posted of the vote results of the last session of the Senate. Many of
the points of legal criticism of the proceedings were brought up in
the Senate. The reprimand itself was discussed. The praetor reworded
it several times, then this final version was issued. And
promulgated. And I am wondering why I, a Senator and "Patrician" am
relating this rather than the two Tribunes.

It has been said that the proceedings were secret. Basically, all the
proceedings of the Senate of Nova Roma are secret. Some are more
secret than others. There was no judge or jury or witnesses. It was
all legislative (I guess that's what you'd call it). And the initial
vote directed the praetor to write the reprimand. It is not written
anywhere that I know of that Senators can not speak to the people
about the on-goings in the Senate. It is definitely what the climate
is. The Tribunes do not even give detailed accounts about what goes
on inside the Senate, which is something I thought they did in ancient
Roma. The two Tribunes might be able to give more detailed reports of
what goes on in the Senate. They are, technically only the
representatives of the "Plebeians", and Fimbria is a "Patrician" and
might technically not qualify for their protection. I believe the two
Tribunes should look on their office as being in service to all the
citizens. But that is my opinion. And, as I have been told on
several occasions, my opinion is Only my opinion. I think it was
either Will Rogers or Mark Twain who said that people get the
government they deserve. That is one nasty indictment.

Over the course of this go around in the Senate I've had the distinct
impression of ramming my head against a wall. Of being rubbed raw,
and rubbing my friends and other colleagues raw. I am tired. If The
People of Nova Roma do not like what has come down, then they must do
something about it. The three of us who voted No from the get-go did
what we could. You all see what good it has done. We will all see
what good it does.

C. Aelius Ericius.
Senator.
Augur. Pontifex.
Paterfamilias gens Aelia.


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972850252/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Reprimand of Maria Fimbria
From:	Caius Flavius Diocletianus <3s@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 22:34:11 +0100

Caius Flavius Diocletianus Quiritibus S.P.D.

With deep sorrow I saw the reprimand of our fellow citizen M. Fimbria.
Propraetor M. Marcius Rex used the german proverb "to shoot with cannons
on sparrows". This was the first thought I had. The Senate, as I
understood the constitution of our republic, is no trial court, as M.
Scaevola mentioned, correctly in my opinion.. But this is a point the
lawyers, or the new NovaRomaLaws list, should discuss.

If there are some hostilities between M. Fimbria and Cincinnatus, they
should be solved by the Praetors with a correct trial. This is the way
we should handle such things in our free and democratic republic, if
this should be necessary. Hostilities between individuals might occure
during debates or discussions, perhaps if someone leaves the path of
unemotional debate and uses satirical or malicious "arguments". But any
magistrate or official, and in my opinion each citizen, should have a
"thick skin" (another german proverb), if he/she is criticised in any
way. Take it easy.

And, corresponding with that, I exspect some kind of "citizens
discipline" for all of us. We are Romans, don´t forget this. We are all
citizens of this just small, but growing, micronation. We are a free,
democratic and open republic. We should be able to cope with our
disagreements in a honourable, roman way, without using offending words.

All of us should read the Roman Virtues every day.

Pax Deorum Vobiscum!

Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Citizen




-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
40% off fares on
the best airlines
at Hotwire.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9753/8/_/61050/_/972855458/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] D N 1057
From:	"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:34:06 -0500

Salvete, Quiritibus

M. Apollonius Formosanus Quiritibus S.P.D.

The consuls of this Respublica in the name of themselves and of= the
Senate have just issued an infamous document against one of= us
outstanding in Romanitas and already much wronged by our= public
institutions. I refer to the "Reprimand" of= Lucius Marius Fimbria.

Lucius Equitius: I suppose that this means you approve of her conduct? That
the Senate should do nothing.
You have decided that hers is the correct way to conduct oneself and that
I'm the villian. Impersonating another citizen is just the kind thing we
should do, is that your position? Impersonating Pontificies online and
having them behave irrationally is a good thing, is that what you want for
Nova Roma? Someone should take your name and have you killed or kill
yourself, is that how you want to be thought of?

Marius has been systematically harassed for some months by two=
individuals in the Senate of considerable influence: L.= Cornelius
Sulla Felix and L. Equitius Cincinnatus. The story of= this is long
and involved and I do not wish to rehash the= details here today, but
in summary:

Lucius Equitius: Actually, it was Lucia Maria who began a systematically
harassement of me that lasted OVER A YEAR, when the only thing I did was
ignore her. You need to get your facts straight.

1. Marius as Curator Sermonis was obliged to discipline= Cincinnatus
for his list conduct.

Lucius Equitius: Actually this is untrue, she took sides in a debate between
SENATORES and deleted my responses to inaccuracies made by other Senatores,
while allowing them to continue making statements. She could have just as
easily "obliged" herself to "discipline" each side in that discussion,
nonne?

3. Marius, realising that he had the moral and macrolegal high=
ground, temporarily resigned his citizenship in protest against= this
treatment. Because of our collective inability to overcome= the
obdurateness of Sulla and correct our treatment of sexual=

Lucius Equitius: Sulla actually worked with the Senate AND his colleague to
produce a workable solution to this problem. IF you disagree with the
result, that is your opinion.

4. When Marius so listed himself and made a perfectly valid=
citizenship application, supposedly satisfying Censor Sulla's=
bigoted notions of sexual propriety, the censor did not process= it
normally, but on his own initiative went to the Senate and= there
conspiring and conniving with Cincinnatus contrived to get= a
*special* Senate vote of doubtful legality and no propriety to=
subject Marius to "conditions" for becoming a citizen= again. These
humiliating and unjust provisions were passed in= the Senate due to
the tireless oratory of Cincinnatus, who= expressed bile, venom,
vindictiveness, vengefulness, and= downright nastiness at such
length that many senators were worn= down, having been well and truly
convinced that Cincinnatus was= never going to relent and show a
sense of moderation or= forgiveness.

Lucius Equitius: Very well, you have had your say and in the end the Senate
felt that her conduct was not to be condoned. As for 'moderation', what
makes you say that? How was I 'nasty', 'vindictive' or 'vengeful'? Where are
these things you say? It was her actions that were uncivil. BTW Did she ever
ask for "forgiveness"?

5. This reprimand was issued among other things, full of outright=
untruths and arrogant language ...

Lucius Equitius: You are fond of making outrageous assertions. Would you
please give AN example of "outright= untruths and arrogant language"?

in addition (never kill a fly= with
just one stick of dynamite!), there is the intention on the= part of
Sulla to pass a censorial nota against him.

Lucius Equitius: There was proof of her actions, there were witnesses too,
and there were additional 'things' that were left off the reprimand too. So
much for you argument of no moderation etc.

But I must say a few words about the Reprimand itself, which I do=
below as annotations:
_____________
Salvete, Senate Fathers, Magistrates, and Citizens of Nova= Roma;

The duly elected Consuls of Nova Roma, having agreed upon this=
action, now stand together in Forum to issue the following=
Reprimand.

This Reprimand was voted by the Senate of Nova Roma, to be= drafted
by the Praetors and was then presented to the Senate for a series= of
revisions.

This Reprimand is now issued jointly by the Consuls Q.= Fabius
Maximus, and Marcus Minucius Audens.

The Senate of Nova Roma firmly condemns the offensive public= actions
performed by Citizen Lucia Maria Fimbria. The Senate of= Nova Roma
understands that the actions perpetrated by Citizen Lucia Maria=
Fimbria could only have the objective of throwing the person and=
offices of Lucius Equitius Cinninatus to public ridicule and to=
affect, in a negative way, the Auctorius, Dignitas, Fides of all=
Nova Roma public institutions.

MAF: It is worth considering whether the person in question might=
have in someone's opinion merited such disrespect by the= character
and manner in which he carried out his duties?

Lucius Equitius: Impersonation, that's the crime. Not opinionating or you
would be in deep Kimchi my friend. We can disagree but do you need to resort
to personal attacks? That and Impersonation, hardly the tools of someone who
has reasonable arguments.

The actions perpetrated by Citizen Lucia Maria Fimbria were
testified by several Citizens of Nova Roma including members of= the
Nova Roma Senate, which consisted of the following:

--Impersonation of a Magistrate and Pontifex; usage of the= name
"Cincinnatus" without his consent to impersonate him in= a rite of
suicide.

MAF: Apparently true, although I seem also to have heard that it= was
murder.

Lucius Equitius: Yes, and there were multiple instances testified to in that
charge. So in the end it seems that there was a 'murder' and a 'suicide', at
least.

NOTE that Marius publically apologised to Cincinnatus right here= on
the main list. (To which Cincinnatus replied most= ungraciously that
he did not want one!)

Lucius Equitius: I stated before to Sulla, C Marius and the Senate that I
did not think an apology that was under conditions was meaningful, and I
still feel that way. She did make a public statement which was qualified.
How you choose to view my feelings in the matter is your business. As is my
opinion of you my business, only I'll keep mine private.

--Negative propaganda; using the Forum Romanum

"http://pluto.= beseen.com/chat/rooms/w/10275
and other independently established lists, chatrooms and message=
boards to create sentiments against the goals of Nova Roma and=
against her Magistrates among Citizens and Prospective= Citizens.

MAF: I have previously written here about how the charming and=
interesting letters of Marius on the main list (before he was= shoved
aside from normal participation by sexual bigotry and= Cincinnatan
vindictiveness),

Lucius Equitius: I'm so sorry to disappoint you, but I suppose you never
considered how her actions impacted me. You have decided that she is correct
and that I'm the villian without ever hearing from me. Now who is being
'unjust'?

This Reprimand is a new low for our Respublica. The majority of= the
Senate, both consuls and the senior censor have stood= together to
condemn a person for a prank already apologised for= and for
exercising freedom of speech to criticise injustices in= government.
While on this same day a censorial nota is being= planned for him.
(Consider too that Cincinnatus once actually= pulled off a coup
against the Respublica and was allowed back by= the Dictator with no
Reprimand or censorial nota. But he does= not want to pass on the
clemency that he received.)

Lucius Equitius: I would like for you to explain why a CONSUL would 'pull
off a Coup'? OR how? (BTW the Consules under the original constitution were
most senior magistrates so what would a 'coup' prove?) Also, where is your
proof that I "pulled off a coup against the Respublica"? Or is this just
another of your outrageous assertions? Wolf, cried Peter.
You obviously have not the facts. Maybe you've jumped to conclusions.
Perhaps, you ought to ask F Vedius Germanicus why he did as he did.

This is not justice, Quirites...

Valete Quirites!
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus

Lucius Equitius: The Senate considered the matter and voted during the time
that She was not a citizen. What this means is that she had no 'rights'
under Nova Roma. The Senate acted to make a statement that her actions were
not condoned and would not be tolorated in the future. For your information
there are other online 'communities' that do take action against members for
just this type of thing.

*********************************************
http://www.ancientsites.com/xi/justice/listCode.rage

Listed below are offenses and penalties in terms of days to be suspended
from AncientSites. People engaged in any combination of these activities
will be suspended from the community for the sum of the penalty days.

Impersonation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
15 using another member's account and-or password under any circumstances
15 letting another member use your account and-or password under any
circumstances
30 registering a name with the intent to impersonate another citizen
45 attempting to speak for someone else
90 claiming to be staff

****************************************************************************
******

Lucius Equitius: She was told of this reprimand in response to her
reapplication. Some 'citizens' don't like how things were done. She has not
spoken on the matter. Why not let her justify herself?

You have made statements of a personal nature concerning my thoughts and
feelings. Do I know you? You seem to think you know me, Marcus Apollonius, I
think not.

BTW For all who think this was personal, think again. I had asked that I not
be mentioned in the document so that this would be more clear.
The Reprimand was a statement from the Senate that IMPERSONATIONS of
CITIZENS will not be condoned in Nova Roma. Nor will the misuse of Nova Roma
Fora. RTFQ
Also, At the time of the vote she was not a citizen, therefore she was not
entitled to a hearing or 'trial'. So, that is not an issue given the
circumstances.

Valete, Lucius Equitius


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972858652/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Reprimand of Maria Fimbria
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 15:34:13 -0700

.

Caius Flavius Diocletianus wrote:

> All of us should read the Roman Virtues every day.

This is the wisest thing I've seen said on this list since I joined.

Livia Cornelia Aurelia


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972858683/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Gens Affiliation
From:	"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:54:36 -0500

Lucius Equitius Quiritibus SPD

I have often thought that in our haste to form Nova Roma we had put the cart before the horse so to speak.
This discussion of Gens Affiliation is something that should have been considered from the very re-founding.
I'm hopeful that we can reach a point of agreement and that these things will be left to the Gens concerned, with going to "governmental involvement" as a last resort.

Remember the Romans were serious about family and this along with the other Virtues made them the worlds greatest civilization. We should work to do likewise by building families first.

Di Deaeque te ament.

http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/virtues.html

> From: "Comptess" <comptess@-------->
>
> Ok, my 2c worth ;-)
>
> Bit tired, haven't poured over it with a magnifying glass but I find it generally acceptable to myself apart from one thing. If I have read it correctly...a 'bride' may transfer to the 'bridegrooms' gens upon permission of the head of the gens, etc. but not the other way around. I think it should work both ways, ie. a 'bridegroom' may transfer to the 'brides' gens. I can see no reason why this should not be so. And I don't even wanna begin discussing same-sex marriages...yet.
>
> What do you think?
>
> lol, please ignore or clarify if I have got the completely wrong end of the pinus radiata. ;-)
>
>
> In reply to L. Cornelius Sulla, I can only say I share your concern with preserving the sincerity of the gens institution and I have little respect for a citizen who may flit from gens to gens with little concern for the integrity of gens, but I feel a blanket rule cannot reflect the reality of the unique community that is Nova Roma. Perhaps a case-by-case judgement based on some firm guidelines? I feel the gens is a very important institution but perhaps requires more definition for its role within Nova Roma, for it seems opinions may vary drastically.
>
> I look forward to discussion on this.
>
> Valete
> Domna Claudia Auspicata



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972859881/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] The Reprimand
From:	"C. Iulius" <ancientrome@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 15:57:04 -0800

>Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 14:26:36 -0500
>From: Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
>Subject: [novaroma] The Reprimand
>
>Salvete!
>
>C. Iulius wrote,
>
>>Second, people dispute that the reprimand in the sense that the Senate
>usurped power. Is that really the case?
>
>>If I may direct your attention to the Tabularium, specifically to this
>link: http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/sen99030301.html
>>It seems to me that the Senate of Nova Roma has exercised this right
>before. Now, for all of you individuals who have voiced >displeasure at
>the recent reprimand, would you also stand fast against this individual
>against this reprimand as well?
>
>In relation to the reprimand of Sulla (under the old Constitution) the
>answer in my case is YES. I consider that the old Senate conducted itself
>improperly both in attempting to keep its proceedings secret from the
>sitting magistrates (the "rule" against which Sulla "offended" in the first
>place) and in proceeding to reprimand him in this connection.

Thank you for your assessment. But, this raises another question in my mind. At the time of this reprimand was there a backlash like we are experiencing now?

>This illustrates the correctness of the roman law maxim that "judicandum
>est legibus, non exemplis" - judgment should be according to laws, not
>according to precedents. A single bad decision should not be made the
>foundation for further bad decisions, though a long consistent course of
>decisions, by creating a legitimate expectation of consistency, may be a
>good argument to decide the same way.

Yes, I see your point on this. But, what other options, conceivably was there. Given the previous precedent? What "laws" are there governing this matter, according to my research in NR, albiet limited as it is, to govern in this case? And, what body would have been more apporpriate given the lack of guidance in the form of laws in this case?

An interested observer

------------------------------------------------------------
DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com
FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972863438/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->