Forum Romanum


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] National Census - revised II
From:	"Marcos Boehme" <m_arminius@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Jun 2001 21:10:51 -0300

Salvete, Quirites

On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 08:48:53
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix wrote:
>Here is the revised Lex. I would appreciate any new comments.
>Resepectfully,
>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>Censor
[...]
>3. To help facilitate the Censors in this work, Censors would now be
>eligible to have 2 Quaestors. It will be the chief function of the
>Quaestors to facilitate and assist the Censors in this work. The Censors
>and Quaestors may work with the local provincial governors to facilitate
>this project. [The reason I feel the Censors need Quaestors are two
>fold.
>One they are elected by the People, Secondly, they would be magistrates
>who
>would be able to work in areas where there are no provincial governors.]

Does this mean that we could have 10 Quaestors positions in the next
election?
Perhaps an alternative is creating 26viri positions with the specific
task is help the Censores, and so they will work with the staff of
censorial scribes.

Vale
Marcus Arminius Maior

Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] National Census - revised II
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:48:09 -0700

Ave,

Some comments below:

Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:
>
> Salve, censor Sulla; et salvete omnes.
>
> I can see that you are trying to accept other points of view on this
> subject, and I thank you for that.

Thank you, I am more than willing to try to implement a comprehsive, yet
fair lex. The last thing I want to do is to alieante anyone. But, we do
need a system in place, IMHO, to get a proper presepective and an
accurate number of true citizens of Nova Roma.

> As it seems obvious by my previous posts, I agree with most of the
> points of this proposal. I would rephrase some of the sentences to
> make
> clear that citizens are NOT being thrown out because of their level of
> activity;

Can you point out an example and perhaps give a rewording. I would very
much appreciate that.

but I guess this is implicit by the fact that so many
> attempts to contact them are required.

Yes, at least 5 attempts using 3 different mediums will be attempted in
8 months.

If someone does not reply a
> single time after five different attempts through three different
> means, I guess they are proving not to be interested in keeping their
> citizenship.

That is my conclusion as well.

I would like, though, that they were not treated under
> the
> resignation law, just to keep coherence on our legal system.

Well, should I reword item 8 to state that those citizens are prevented
from reapplying for citizenship for 6 months, unless the Censors grant
an exemption instead?

> On the other hand, I see that identity verification is not handled on
> this proposal.

Nope it is not...its not something I thought of to be honest.

I think that a census would be a good opportunity to
> verify the information contained in the applications of our cives.

Well, that might be diffcult in a phone conversation. But you are
thinking along the lines of collecting data ie, along the United States
Census forms...correct?

> As a final word, I have to say that I agree with Drusus on the point
> of
> revoking paterfamilias' citizenship.

I think I responded to that already...and incorporated some of those
changes.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

> =====
> Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
> Gnaeus Salix Astur.
> Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
> a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> [www.debticated.com]
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] National Census - revised II
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:57:44 -0700

Marcos Boehme wrote:
>
> Salvete, Quirites
>
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 08:48:53
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix wrote:
> >Here is the revised Lex. I would appreciate any new comments.
> >Resepectfully,
> >Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> >Censor
> [...]
> >3. To help facilitate the Censors in this work, Censors would now be
> >eligible to have 2 Quaestors. It will be the chief function of the
> >Quaestors to facilitate and assist the Censors in this work. The
> Censors
> >and Quaestors may work with the local provincial governors to
> facilitate
> >this project. [The reason I feel the Censors need Quaestors are two
> >fold.
> >One they are elected by the People, Secondly, they would be
> magistrates
> >who
> >would be able to work in areas where there are no provincial
> governors.]

Ave,

> Does this mean that we could have 10 Quaestors positions in the next
> election?

If my proposal is adopted as a Lex, the answer would be YES. We would
have 10 Queaestors.

> Perhaps an alternative is creating 26viri positions with the specific
> task is help the Censores, and so they will work with the staff of
> censorial scribes.

That I think would be too much. See, here is how I think it will work.
We will have two Censors (doing their regualar tasks as well as
superivsing the Census). The role of the two quaestors will be to
coordinate the Census and give reports to the Censors, such as updates.
With that, the Censors or Quaestors can appoint scribes to assist in the
various provinces. This will be a very bureaucratic function, that will
probably be relying on the participation of local governments and in
particular will require alot of interaction in areas where we lack a
local government. This is why I still feel very convinced that we need
the additional quaestors, despite the criticisms pointed out by Senator
Labienus. We essentially will have three levels of administration:

Censors - Whose responsibilities are very vast therefor will not totally
be able to devote vast amounts of time and attention to this specific
project.

Quaestors - who will be the ones actually coordinating the Census, and
will give reports to the Censors and will be the communications officers
(for lack of a better term) between the Censors and the local provinca
government AND Scriba. The Quaestors will prepare the reports given to
them by local governors and scriba and then send them on to the Censors
in a refined statement.

Scriba - who will assist local governors in the conducting of the
Census. Will be the local onsight people who will actually conduct the
census in areas where there is no local government. The Scriba will
send reports to the Quaestors.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma

> Vale
> Marcus Arminius Maior
>
> Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
> http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> [Yahoo! Domains] [Yahoo! Domains]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] If it ain't broken......
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Jun 2001 20:59:47 -0400

Salve civis et amicus,

Lucius, you seem to be looking at the big picture though missing the fine
details. A census is a good idea, not only because of it being able to get
rid of inactive members. A census would let the nation poll its citizens. We
could find out important information. Just an example off the top of my head
is the t-shirt idea. Earlier people where wondering if the idea of t-shirts
would be popular. If we put that question on the census we could easily find
out! Even if we can find different ways to solve the inactive member
problem, a census would still be invaluable just because of the great
feedback we could receive. Now add the two together and are we not killing
two birds with one stone? Nos quae efficio amomum lex super nostras genticus
census!

Hinc est mei oratio!

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/

Lucius Mauricius Procopious wrote:

> Salvete Omnes,
>
> While I am glad that we are engaging in a constructive dialogue concerning a
> National Census, I question the necessity of addressing the issue of "missing"
> cives. We are in the process of setting up a system that will care for this
> problem on it's own.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] National Census - revised II
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sat, 9 Jun 2001 18:22:44 -0700 (PDT)

Gn. Salix Astur Censori Lucio Cornelio Sulla Felici S.P.D.:

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

<<snipped>>

> Thank you, I am more than willing to try to implement a comprehsive,
> yet
> fair lex. The last thing I want to do is to alieante anyone. But, we
> do
> need a system in place, IMHO, to get a proper presepective and an
> accurate number of true citizens of Nova Roma.

I agree with this statement.

<<snipped>>

> Can you point out an example and perhaps give a rewording. I would
> very
> much appreciate that.

All right. I will refer to specific sections:

> 5. The Census will consist of the following:
>
> A. Active citizens are those citizens that do not need to be
> contacted by the Censors to determine if they are apart of Nova Roma:
>
> 1. Those citizens who vote are considered ACTIVE.
> 2. Those citizens who pay taxes are considered ACTIVE.
>
> 6. Inactive citizens are those citizens who will need to be
contacted
> by the National Census. THe following will lay down some of the
> procedures to make certain we get the best response in any National
> Census:

I would refer to "censi" and "incensi" citizens instead of "active" and
"inactive" citizens. Once "incensi" citizens have replied to the
censores, they would become "censi".

This would be more specific, and would not refer to the level of
activity of those citizens.

<<snipped>>

> Well, should I reword item 8 to state that those citizens are
> prevented
> from reapplying for citizenship for 6 months, unless the Censors
> grant
> an exemption instead?

Yes, that would be more coherent. Besides, I think that the conditions
that would allow an immediate reinstallment should be broader. Perhaps
a reference to reasons of major force would be the best way to go.

<<snipped>>

> Well, that might be diffcult in a phone conversation. But you are
> thinking along the lines of collecting data ie, along the United
> States
> Census forms...correct?

Exactly, although I would not appear on that Census :-). I think that
on our first census we should try to verify the information presented
on the application form of each citizen. I know this would be a work of
gigantic proportions, but I firmly believe it is necessary to make sure
that that information is correct. Once done, this would be just
necessary for subsequent new citizens. Besides, some our newest leges
would be extremely difficult to enforce without this kind of
verification.

I guess that deep collaboration with provincial governments would be
the best way to do it. Besides the macronational census (should they be
unavailable), we would have other lists that could be checked on the
Internet, like municipal records and property records; not to mention
phone company indexes.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] New Citizen :)
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Jun 2001 21:24:29 -0400

Salve civis amicus et imprimis Tiberius et Marcus Tullius,

I know I have privately welcomed Tiberius to our nation and province though
I also wish to publicly welcome him. It is great to see youth take a first
step at becoming a Roman citizen. I wish him the best of luck and may he
fallow in his fathers foot steps. I also look forward to hearing Tiberius
opinions and ideas in the future.

Propraetrix Pompeia Cornelia Strabo I added Tiberius to the civis list of
the website a few days ago. Could you please send me the names of any other
citizens we may receive in the future to my email. If you could do this I
will make sure the list on the site is always up to date.

Excipio et gratulatios Tiberius.

Hinc est mei oratio!

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/

Pompeia Cornelia wrote:

> Salvete Omnes: It gives me great pleasure to announce a new citizen of our
> res publica, and a new citizen of Canada Orientalis Provincia.
>
> Tiberius Tullius Cato of the Gens Tullia, congratulations and welcome!
>
> Tiberi is the son of our Rogator Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato, and gentile
> of Senator Marcus Tullius Triumphus Cicero.
>
> Bene valete!
>
> Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
> Propraetrix pro temp Canada Orientalis
> NOVA ROMA

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Gens Reform
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 01:28:12 -0000

Salvete Quirites,

In Antiquita a Gens was a clan, a group of families. Some of the
families would be related, comming from a common ancester, but a Gens
was mor than just an extended family. If a Slave was freed, he recived
Roman Citizenship and Became the head of a new family within that
Gens, and had NO blood relationship to other families. If a freeman
aquired the citizenship then he became a member of the Gens of the
Patron who helped him become a citizen. So a Gens was a group of
families each of which had a Paterfamilis, and which may or may not
have some blood relationship.

This is one area that Nova Roma needs to improve. we have blurred the
lines between a Gens and the families that make of the Gens. This
problem is even reflected in our Constitution. Lets look at the
section that pertains to the Gens

Gentes. Families and clans being the backbone of Roman society, the
prerogatives and responsibilities of the family are of primary
importance to Nova Roma. Except where specifically dealt with in this
constitution and the law, each gens shall have the right to determine
its own course of action, and parents shall have the undisputed right
and responsibility to see to the education and raising of their children.

1. Each gens shall be registered with the censors, who will
maintain records of gens membership and other relevant information.
2. No two gentes may have the same nomen (surname) unless they are
differentiated by an agnomen. The censors shall be responsible for
ensuring this rule is observed.
3. Each gens shall, through whatever means it may determine
appropriate, have a paterfamilias (fem. materfamilias) who shall act
as the leader of the gens and speak for it when necessary. The holder
of this position must be registered as such with the censors. The
paterfamilias may, at his or her discretion, expel members of their
gens, or accept new members into it.

Section 1 poses no problems.

Section 2 in NO way follows the historic model, Cognomen and Agnomens
were associated with families within a Gens, NOT with the Gens itself.

Section 3 Requires a Gens to have a Paterfamilis, and there was such
thing as a Paterfamilis of a Gens, A Paterfamilis was the head of a
Family, NOT a Gens, and a Gens would have many Paters within it.

Another area that we are falling short of the historic model is the
way our Patrician Gens only have Patrician mambers. In Antiquita a
Patrician Gens would contain Patrician & Plebian families. Do not let
the accidents of history fool you either. We may know the names of
mostly Patrician families in a Gens, but that is due to Historians not
bothering to record the names of those who took no part in Roman
Politics. Given the Roman habits of freeing Slaves & aquiring Clients,
IMHO the Patrician Gens would have consisted mainly of Plebian
Families that we have never heard of, with a Few Patrician families
gaining most of the fame.

We need to start organizing Families within the Gens. In Antiquita a
Cognomen started out as a Nickname, but by the time of the Republic
Cognomen were usually inheirited, and had become the names of the
Families within the Gens. IMHO this is the model we should be
following. All members of a family having the same Cognomen, and a
Pater at the head of each of these families, and the censors tracking
the families rather than just the Gens.

This would allow us to have Gens with several families in them, rather
than just one. Each family would have it's own Pater/Mater. It would
also allow us to have Plebian families within the Patrician Gens. As
an example, in Antiquita A member of the Gens Cornelia with the
Cognomen of Scipio was a Patrician, while a Cornelian with the
Cognomen of Balbus was a Pleb. Patrician status was detremined by
Family not by Gens alone, and we should follow this model.

I do have some other ideas of how we can reform the Gens to have a
more accurate Gens structure, but before I state them I would like to
hear from more citizens. Should we attempt to restructure the Gens and
if so any ideas others may have on improving this area of Nova Roma.

Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Gens Reform
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Jun 2001 21:41:55 -0400

Interesting examination of the gens structure. Like you stated it does say
in our constitution that families and clans are backbone of Roman society.
If we can make our gen system more accurate then are we not making our new
Roman society more to the original? By making changes we may come a step
closer to our mission goal. Because of this I would love to hear your
proposed changes Lucius Sicinius.

Hinc est mei oratio!

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/

Lucius Sicinius Drusus wrote:

> Salvete Quirites,
>
> In Antiquita a Gens was a clan, a group of families. Some of the
> families would be related, comming from a common ancester, but a Gens
> was mor than just an extended family. If a Slave was freed, he recived
> Roman Citizenship and Became the head of a new family within that
> Gens, and had NO blood relationship to other families. If a freeman
> aquired the citizenship then he became a member of the Gens of the
> Patron who helped him become a citizen. So a Gens was a group of
> families each of which had a Paterfamilis, and which may or may not
> have some blood relationship.
>
> This is one area that Nova Roma needs to improve. we have blurred the
> lines between a Gens and the families that make of the Gens. This
> problem is even reflected in our Constitution. Lets look at the
> section that pertains to the Gens
>
> Gentes. Families and clans being the backbone of Roman society, the
> prerogatives and responsibilities of the family are of primary
> importance to Nova Roma. Except where specifically dealt with in this
> constitution and the law, each gens shall have the right to determine
> its own course of action, and parents shall have the undisputed right
> and responsibility to see to the education and raising of their children.
>
> 1. Each gens shall be registered with the censors, who will
> maintain records of gens membership and other relevant information.
> 2. No two gentes may have the same nomen (surname) unless they are
> differentiated by an agnomen. The censors shall be responsible for
> ensuring this rule is observed.
> 3. Each gens shall, through whatever means it may determine
> appropriate, have a paterfamilias (fem. materfamilias) who shall act
> as the leader of the gens and speak for it when necessary. The holder
> of this position must be registered as such with the censors. The
> paterfamilias may, at his or her discretion, expel members of their
> gens, or accept new members into it.
>
> Section 1 poses no problems.
>
> Section 2 in NO way follows the historic model, Cognomen and Agnomens
> were associated with families within a Gens, NOT with the Gens itself.
>
> Section 3 Requires a Gens to have a Paterfamilis, and there was such
> thing as a Paterfamilis of a Gens, A Paterfamilis was the head of a
> Family, NOT a Gens, and a Gens would have many Paters within it.
>
> Another area that we are falling short of the historic model is the
> way our Patrician Gens only have Patrician mambers. In Antiquita a
> Patrician Gens would contain Patrician & Plebian families. Do not let
> the accidents of history fool you either. We may know the names of
> mostly Patrician families in a Gens, but that is due to Historians not
> bothering to record the names of those who took no part in Roman
> Politics. Given the Roman habits of freeing Slaves & aquiring Clients,
> IMHO the Patrician Gens would have consisted mainly of Plebian
> Families that we have never heard of, with a Few Patrician families
> gaining most of the fame.
>
> We need to start organizing Families within the Gens. In Antiquita a
> Cognomen started out as a Nickname, but by the time of the Republic
> Cognomen were usually inheirited, and had become the names of the
> Families within the Gens. IMHO this is the model we should be
> following. All members of a family having the same Cognomen, and a
> Pater at the head of each of these families, and the censors tracking
> the families rather than just the Gens.
>
> This would allow us to have Gens with several families in them, rather
> than just one. Each family would have it's own Pater/Mater. It would
> also allow us to have Plebian families within the Patrician Gens. As
> an example, in Antiquita A member of the Gens Cornelia with the
> Cognomen of Scipio was a Patrician, while a Cornelian with the
> Cognomen of Balbus was a Pleb. Patrician status was detremined by
> Family not by Gens alone, and we should follow this model.
>
> I do have some other ideas of how we can reform the Gens to have a
> more accurate Gens structure, but before I state them I would like to
> hear from more citizens. Should we attempt to restructure the Gens and
> if so any ideas others may have on improving this area of Nova Roma.
>
> Valete,
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Gens Reform
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sat, 9 Jun 2001 18:50:52 -0700 (PDT)

Salve, L. Sicini Druse.

--- Lucius Sicinius Drusus <lsicinius@--------> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites,
>
> In Antiquita a Gens was a clan, a group of families. Some of the
> families would be related, comming from a common ancester, but a Gens
> was mor than just an extended family.

I have in the past posted a few times about this very same problem.
Something seems to have been confounded at the time of the foundation
of Nova Roma, and we have a completely historically incorrect familiar
system.

<<snipped>>

As a resume, I have to say that you have explained the differences
between the Roman concepts of gens and family in a deep and
historically correct manner.

> This would allow us to have Gens with several families in them,
> rather
> than just one. Each family would have it's own Pater/Mater. It would
> also allow us to have Plebian families within the Patrician Gens. As
> an example, in Antiquita A member of the Gens Cornelia with the
> Cognomen of Scipio was a Patrician, while a Cornelian with the
> Cognomen of Balbus was a Pleb. Patrician status was detremined by
> Family not by Gens alone, and we should follow this model.

I agree completely.

> I do have some other ideas of how we can reform the Gens to have a
> more accurate Gens structure, but before I state them I would like to
> hear from more citizens. Should we attempt to restructure the Gens
> and
> if so any ideas others may have on improving this area of Nova Roma.

I think the idea of reforming our gentes system to accurately reflect
the Roman system is an enormous task, but one worth the effort. I can
see many problems on this issue, but if we can come to a reasonable
compromise, we might have proper gentes and familiae.

Here are a few suggestions:

1.- We should differenciate between gentes and familiae. Maybe we could
have a limited number of gentes (corresponding to the historical
gentes) and an unlimited number of familiae belonging to each gens.

2.- All new citizens should be allowed to found their own familia, but
choosing their nomen between the historical gentes. Their familiae
would be addressed by their nomen+cognomen. Different citizens inside a
familia would be differentiated by their praenomina and/or cognomina.
The founders of a new familia would be the patres/matres of that
familia. These new familiae would necessarily belong to the Plebian
order.

3.- To those citizens who already belong to a certain gens, a choice
should be allowed: either to form a new familia with their
nomen+cognomen and serve as pater/mater of that familia, or to acquire
the nomen+cognomen of the pater/mater of the familia they want to
belong to (with the approval of that familia's pater/mater). Their
actual cognomen (should it be different) could be adopted as an
agnomen.

4.- Only the familiae of the 30 initial gentes founders should be
included in the patrician order; that is, only the actual paterfamilias
of a patrician gens can be the paterfamilias of a patrician familia.
All other familiae, regardless of their nomina, should be included in
the plebian order.

5.- This change should not affect previously obtained century points or
previously held elections, although it may prove necessary to ammend
some laws (as well as the Constitutio) to keep coherence.

I hope you all will have some comments on this.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Dates
From:	Marcus Papirius Justus <papirius@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Jun 2001 22:07:28 -0400

At 01:28 AM 10/06/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>-The Macedonian Wars

214-205 B.C.
206-196 B.C
172-167 B.C.

>-The reign of Domitian

Sept 14, 81 - Sept. 18, 96

>-The reign of Marcus Aurelius and Antoninus Pius

Pius - July 10, 138 - Mar. 7, 161
MA - Mar. 7, 161 - Mar. 17 180

>-The reign of Septimus Severus

April 9, 193 - Feb 4, 211

>-The Germanic Wars

which ones?

>-The Hunnic Invasions

... out of my era ...

MPJ

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] National Census - revised II
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Jun 2001 19:10:05 -0700

Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:
>
> Gn. Salix Astur Censori Lucio Cornelio Sulla Felici S.P.D.:
>
> --- Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> wrote:
>
> <<snipped>>
>
> > Thank you, I am more than willing to try to implement a comprehsive,
> > yet
> > fair lex. The last thing I want to do is to alieante anyone. But,
> we
> > do
> > need a system in place, IMHO, to get a proper presepective and an
> > accurate number of true citizens of Nova Roma.
>
> I agree with this statement.

Sulla: Great!

> <<snipped>>
>
> > Can you point out an example and perhaps give a rewording. I would
> > very
> > much appreciate that.
>
> All right. I will refer to specific sections:

Thank you for the examples.

> > 5. The Census will consist of the following:
> >
> > A. Active citizens are those citizens that do not need to be
> > contacted by the Censors to determine if they are apart of Nova
> Roma:
> >
> > 1. Those citizens who vote are considered ACTIVE.
> > 2. Those citizens who pay taxes are considered ACTIVE.
> >
> > 6. Inactive citizens are those citizens who will need to be
> contacted
> > by the National Census. THe following will lay down some of the
> > procedures to make certain we get the best response in any National
> > Census:
>
> I would refer to "censi" and "incensi" citizens instead of "active"
> and
> "inactive" citizens. Once "incensi" citizens have replied to the
> censores, they would become "censi".
>
> This would be more specific, and would not refer to the level of
> activity of those citizens.

Sounds good to me. I was just trying to make a differntiation between
those citizens who do not have to go through the procedure of responding
to the National Census. My Latin is not that good...can you tell me
what censi or incensi mean though?

> <<snipped>>
>
> > Well, should I reword item 8 to state that those citizens are
> > prevented
> > from reapplying for citizenship for 6 months, unless the Censors
> > grant
> > an exemption instead?
>
> Yes, that would be more coherent. Besides, I think that the conditions
> that would allow an immediate reinstallment should be broader. Perhaps
> a reference to reasons of major force would be the best way to go.

I can make a slight change. The statement regading the discretion for
the Censors to bypass the 6month waiting period is already stated in the
second revision.

> <<snipped>>
>
> > Well, that might be diffcult in a phone conversation. But you are
> > thinking along the lines of collecting data ie, along the United
> > States
> > Census forms...correct?
>
> Exactly, although I would not appear on that Census :-). I think that
> on our first census we should try to verify the information presented
> on the application form of each citizen. I know this would be a work
> of
> gigantic proportions, but I firmly believe it is necessary to make
> sure
> that that information is correct. Once done, this would be just
> necessary for subsequent new citizens. Besides, some our newest leges
> would be extremely difficult to enforce without this kind of
> verification.

Well I am sure this can be worked out OUTSIDE of this legislation. I
think it does have potential though.

> I guess that deep collaboration with provincial governments would be
> the best way to do it. Besides the macronational census (should they
> be
> unavailable), we would have other lists that could be checked on the
> Internet, like municipal records and property records; not to mention
> phone company indexes.

Well this is something that can be worked out between the Censors,
Quaestors, Scriba and local governments.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

>
> =====
> Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
> Gnaeus Salix Astur.
> Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
> a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> [www.debticated.com]
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Gens Reform
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 02:31:29 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@--------> wrote:
> Salve, L. Sicini Druse.
>
SNIP
>
> > I do have some other ideas of how we can reform the Gens to have a
> > more accurate Gens structure, but before I state them I would like to
> > hear from more citizens. Should we attempt to restructure the Gens
> > and
> > if so any ideas others may have on improving this area of Nova Roma.
>
> I think the idea of reforming our gentes system to accurately reflect
> the Roman system is an enormous task, but one worth the effort. I can
> see many problems on this issue, but if we can come to a reasonable
> compromise, we might have proper gentes and familiae.
>
> Here are a few suggestions:
>
> 1.- We should differenciate between gentes and familiae. Maybe we could
> have a limited number of gentes (corresponding to the historical
> gentes) and an unlimited number of familiae belonging to each gens.
>
I like this idea.

> 2.- All new citizens should be allowed to found their own familia, but
> choosing their nomen between the historical gentes. Their familiae
> would be addressed by their nomen+cognomen. Different citizens inside a
> familia would be differentiated by their praenomina and/or cognomina.
> The founders of a new familia would be the patres/matres of that
> familia. These new familiae would necessarily belong to the Plebian
> order.

Yes any new citizen who wished to found a family would be a Pleb, even
if that family was within a Patrician Gens.
>
> 3.- To those citizens who already belong to a certain gens, a choice
> should be allowed: either to form a new familia with their
> nomen+cognomen and serve as pater/mater of that familia, or to acquire
> the nomen+cognomen of the pater/mater of the familia they want to
> belong to (with the approval of that familia's pater/mater). Their
> actual cognomen (should it be different) could be adopted as an
> agnomen.

This is the Historically accurate way to do this. As an example when
G. Octavius was adopted by G. Iullius Caesar he became G. Iullius
Caesar Octavinus, the Agnomen reflecting his former name.

I will also state that I would hope that most citizens would opt to
remain a family within the Gens.
>
> 4.- Only the familiae of the 30 initial gentes founders should be
> included in the patrician order; that is, only the actual paterfamilias
> of a patrician gens can be the paterfamilias of a patrician familia.
> All other familiae, regardless of their nomina, should be included in
> the plebian order.

I would allow a citizen who is a Patrician to split off and found a
new Patrician family. For example a Patrician family may decide it has
grown too large and wish to split into two families, each with it's
own Pater/Mater. In cases like this I think we should allow the new
family to retain it's Patrician status. I would leave it up to the
Patrician Pater to decide if the new family founded from his would
recive Patrician status.
>
> 5.- This change should not affect previously obtained century points or
> previously held elections, although it may prove necessary to ammend
> some laws (as well as the Constitutio) to keep coherence.
>
> I hope you all will have some comments on this.
>
>
> =====
> Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
> Gnaeus Salix Astur.
> Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.
>

I will also add that as a Pater I have decided that my Gens will be
organized as a single family within the Gens Sicinia. Until we get the
leges in place for multiple families, I won't approve any additions to
Sicinia unless they are willing to use the Cognomen Drusus. I have
recently got someone to apply for citizenship and he will be Marcus
Sicinius Drusus when his application is approved. My Gens/Family will
be using accurate names, and will pose no problems in setting up a
more accurate Gens/Family structure.

To my fellow Paters/Maters.
If you are the only member of your Gens, I suggest that you also adopt
this historic model for any future members that may join you.

If your Gens has multiple members, then talk to them about the
possibility of changing thier names to reflect a family structure.

To Citizens who aren't Paters/Maters. At least think about changing
your name.

Those who desire a more accurate Gens/Family structure don't have to
wait for any leges to be passed. You can change your name to a more
historically accurate one now.

Vale
L. Sicinius Drusus
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
> a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Gens Reform
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Jun 2001 20:06:39 -0700

Ave,

I respect this proposal that Lucius Sicinus has brought to us. However,
I think we are not ready and Nova Roma will actually suffer if we
implement tihs proposal. This reform will break up large Gentes into
small ones. But, Nova Roma already has a plethora of smaller gentes.
Just how active are those? Well, since the Censors had to promulgate
legislation closing Gentes that failed to respond to Censor requests
over 80 Gentes have such been closed. I have gotten many requests from
citizens asking for a moratorium on the creation of new Gentes. I have
tried to stave off those request.

However, one unfortunate side affect of this legislation would be the
diffusal of paterfamilias roles. This will definately hurt Nova Roma,
IMHO. We are (if one compared us to ancient Rome) the version of
Romulus's villiage. A villiage of less than 1000 souls. And, that will
very much likely drop 40% if we complete a full blown National Census.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Lucius Sicinius Drusus wrote:
>
> Salvete Quirites,
>
> In Antiquita a Gens was a clan, a group of families. Some of the
> families would be related, comming from a common ancester, but a Gens
> was mor than just an extended family. If a Slave was freed, he recived
> Roman Citizenship and Became the head of a new family within that
> Gens, and had NO blood relationship to other families. If a freeman
> aquired the citizenship then he became a member of the Gens of the
> Patron who helped him become a citizen. So a Gens was a group of
> families each of which had a Paterfamilis, and which may or may not
> have some blood relationship.
>
> This is one area that Nova Roma needs to improve. we have blurred the
> lines between a Gens and the families that make of the Gens. This
> problem is even reflected in our Constitution. Lets look at the
> section that pertains to the Gens
>
> Gentes. Families and clans being the backbone of Roman society, the
> prerogatives and responsibilities of the family are of primary
> importance to Nova Roma. Except where specifically dealt with in this
> constitution and the law, each gens shall have the right to determine
> its own course of action, and parents shall have the undisputed right
> and responsibility to see to the education and raising of their
> children.
>
> 1. Each gens shall be registered with the censors, who will
> maintain records of gens membership and other relevant information.
> 2. No two gentes may have the same nomen (surname) unless they are
> differentiated by an agnomen. The censors shall be responsible for
> ensuring this rule is observed.
> 3. Each gens shall, through whatever means it may determine
> appropriate, have a paterfamilias (fem. materfamilias) who shall act
> as the leader of the gens and speak for it when necessary. The holder
> of this position must be registered as such with the censors. The
> paterfamilias may, at his or her discretion, expel members of their
> gens, or accept new members into it.
>
> Section 1 poses no problems.
>
> Section 2 in NO way follows the historic model, Cognomen and Agnomens
> were associated with families within a Gens, NOT with the Gens itself.
>
> Section 3 Requires a Gens to have a Paterfamilis, and there was such
> thing as a Paterfamilis of a Gens, A Paterfamilis was the head of a
> Family, NOT a Gens, and a Gens would have many Paters within it.
>
> Another area that we are falling short of the historic model is the
> way our Patrician Gens only have Patrician mambers. In Antiquita a
> Patrician Gens would contain Patrician & Plebian families. Do not let
> the accidents of history fool you either. We may know the names of
> mostly Patrician families in a Gens, but that is due to Historians not
> bothering to record the names of those who took no part in Roman
> Politics. Given the Roman habits of freeing Slaves & aquiring Clients,
> IMHO the Patrician Gens would have consisted mainly of Plebian
> Families that we have never heard of, with a Few Patrician families
> gaining most of the fame.
>
> We need to start organizing Families within the Gens. In Antiquita a
> Cognomen started out as a Nickname, but by the time of the Republic
> Cognomen were usually inheirited, and had become the names of the
> Families within the Gens. IMHO this is the model we should be
> following. All members of a family having the same Cognomen, and a
> Pater at the head of each of these families, and the censors tracking
> the families rather than just the Gens.
>
> This would allow us to have Gens with several families in them, rather
> than just one. Each family would have it's own Pater/Mater. It would
> also allow us to have Plebian families within the Patrician Gens. As
> an example, in Antiquita A member of the Gens Cornelia with the
> Cognomen of Scipio was a Patrician, while a Cornelian with the
> Cognomen of Balbus was a Pleb. Patrician status was detremined by
> Family not by Gens alone, and we should follow this model.
>
> I do have some other ideas of how we can reform the Gens to have a
> more accurate Gens structure, but before I state them I would like to
> hear from more citizens. Should we attempt to restructure the Gens and
> if so any ideas others may have on improving this area of Nova Roma.
>
> Valete,
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> [www.debticated.com]
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Gens Reform
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:37:02 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@e...> wrote:
> Ave,
>
> I respect this proposal that Lucius Sicinus has brought to us. However,
> I think we are not ready and Nova Roma will actually suffer if we
> implement tihs proposal. This reform will break up large Gentes into
> small ones. But, Nova Roma already has a plethora of smaller gentes.
> Just how active are those? Well, since the Censors had to promulgate
> legislation closing Gentes that failed to respond to Censor requests
> over 80 Gentes have such been closed. I have gotten many requests from
> citizens asking for a moratorium on the creation of new Gentes. I have
> tried to stave off those request.
>
> However, one unfortunate side affect of this legislation would be the
> diffusal of paterfamilias roles. This will definately hurt Nova Roma,
> IMHO. We are (if one compared us to ancient Rome) the version of
> Romulus's villiage. A villiage of less than 1000 souls. And, that will
> very much likely drop 40% if we complete a full blown National Census.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Salve Luci Corneli,

First the Census will have the effect of reducing the number of Gens.
I think that many of the Gens that you have closed will wind up with
zero members, as thier Paters will fail to respond to the Census just
as they did to the applications. You can add a provision for striking
Zero member Gens from the Album Gentium to the Census Lex.

There is no reason we can't freeze the Number of Gens when we reform
the Gens. We have enough, though perhaps an exception could be granted
if a Gens was to be striken that had a very famous nomen that we would
hate to lose. Marcus Porcius Cato of my Provincia seems to have become
inactive as well as his fillis, and I think Nova Roma would be a
poorer place without a Gens Porcia.

Nor is there any reason for this to weaken the roles of the Paters. We
could give the Pater(s) of a Gens a voice in deciding if a family was
to be added to thier Gens. This combined with a freeze on the number
of Gens would make the Paters role in Nova Roma larger.

I Would not be adverse to requiring that new citizens join an existing
family, so they will be under a Pater for a time, and only allow new
families to be formed by someone who has been a citizen for at least a
year.

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Gens Reform
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Jun 2001 20:49:31 -0700

<SNIP>

Ave

Some comments below:

> Salve Luci Corneli,
>
> First the Census will have the effect of reducing the number of Gens.

Yes, my estimate would be about 30-40% drop in population.

> I think that many of the Gens that you have closed will wind up with
> zero members, as thier Paters will fail to respond to the Census just
> as they did to the applications. You can add a provision for striking
> Zero member Gens from the Album Gentium to the Census Lex.

We can add that to the Lex, but we already do that, I believe it is done
automatically with the set up by Senator M. Octavius, but I am not
positive.

> There is no reason we can't freeze the Number of Gens when we reform
> the Gens.

Well I have staved off attempts to do this. I try to give our
prospective citizens the freedom of choice to decide whatever gens they
want to join. However, informally I do recommend them to join an
existing gentes, if I am asked an opinion.

We have enough, though perhaps an exception could be granted
> if a Gens was to be striken that had a very famous nomen that we would
> hate to lose. Marcus Porcius Cato of my Provincia seems to have become
> inactive as well as his fillis, and I think Nova Roma would be a
> poorer place without a Gens Porcia.

Well, the problem with that is it would be selective. I understand your
reasoning..and am not against it....

> Nor is there any reason for this to weaken the roles of the Paters.

But that would be the effect, for example, the Gens Cornelia, the Gens
Iulia, the Gens Fabia and all other decently large Gens would be broken
up to smaller groups..which would adversly affect those new citizens
from the education and resources we Paterfamilias can provide to newer
members.

We
> could give the Pater(s) of a Gens a voice in deciding if a family was
> to be added to thier Gens. This combined with a freeze on the number
> of Gens would make the Paters role in Nova Roma larger.

How? By breaking up gentes I do not see how this can be achieved. I,
am Paterfamilas of a large gens (about 45 members). I have a gens email
list that I require all members of the Gens to be apart of. In there we
all shoot the breeze and use it as a venue to answer questions....try to
formulate a comprehensive gens Cornelia website....and try to foster
participation within the Gens Cornelia and in Nova Roma in general. I
believe that this has been very successful. The Gens Cornelia is
extremely active in Nova Roma, by breaking up the Gens (any decently
large gens) will prevent an important source of interaction between
citizens.

> I Would not be adverse to requiring that new citizens join an existing
> family, so they will be under a Pater for a time, and only allow new
> families to be formed by someone who has been a citizen for at least a
> year.

At this juncture I disagree with this. It will harm Nova Roma and will
further isolate many citizens in Nova Roma, unnecessarily. The problem
Nova Roma currently faces is a lack of involvment of Paters/Maters. We
need to fix that first. We need to better educate our citizens, not
drive them into further isolation.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

> Vale,
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> [Yahoo! Domains] [Yahoo! Domains]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Gens Reform
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 04:18:13 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@e...> wrote:
SNIP
>
> > Nor is there any reason for this to weaken the roles of the Paters.
>
> But that would be the effect, for example, the Gens Cornelia, the Gens
> Iulia, the Gens Fabia and all other decently large Gens would be broken
> up to smaller groups..which would adversly affect those new citizens
> from the education and resources we Paterfamilias can provide to newer
> members.
>
> We
> > could give the Pater(s) of a Gens a voice in deciding if a family was
> > to be added to thier Gens. This combined with a freeze on the number
> > of Gens would make the Paters role in Nova Roma larger.
>
> How? By breaking up gentes I do not see how this can be achieved. I,
> am Paterfamilas of a large gens (about 45 members). I have a gens email
> list that I require all members of the Gens to be apart of. In there we
> all shoot the breeze and use it as a venue to answer questions....try to
> formulate a comprehensive gens Cornelia website....and try to foster
> participation within the Gens Cornelia and in Nova Roma in general. I
> believe that this has been very successful. The Gens Cornelia is
> extremely active in Nova Roma, by breaking up the Gens (any decently
> large gens) will prevent an important source of interaction between
> citizens.
>

Salve,

Why do you assume that it will force your Gens to be broken into many
families. There is nothing that I've said that would force members of
your Gens to form new Families. You would still be a Paterfamilis. You
would be the Pater of the Family Sulla rather than the entire Gens,
but there is no reason the Sulla family couldn't have 45 members in
it, and be the only family in Cornelia.

I have said that I think that it should be up to the Patrician Paters
to decide if a new family would have Patrician status, so this would
give you a veto over any members of your family that wanted to start a
new Patrician family in Cornelia against your wishes. You as the Pater
would gain a new power, that of recognizing a new family founded by a
member of your current family as a Patrician family decended from your
current family.

As the Pater of the only family in Cornelia, it would be up to you to
decide if any new families were going to be allowed in Cornelia,
though once you did allow a new family it's Pater would be your peer
and have an equal voice to yours in allowing another new family to
join the Gens, and if it were a Patrician Family that you recognized
then it's Pater would also have a voice in recognizing any future
families in Cornelia as Patrician.

Gens Reform will do no more than give Nova Roma room for future
growth, and ensure that the growth follows a historic model.

Vale
L. Sicinius Drusus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Gens Reform
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sat, 09 Jun 2001 21:38:43 -0700

Lucius Sicinius Drusus wrote:
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@e...>
> wrote:
> SNIP
> >
> > > Nor is there any reason for this to weaken the roles of the
> Paters.
> >
> > But that would be the effect, for example, the Gens Cornelia, the
> Gens
> > Iulia, the Gens Fabia and all other decently large Gens would be
> broken
> > up to smaller groups..which would adversly affect those new citizens
> > from the education and resources we Paterfamilias can provide to
> newer
> > members.
> >
> > We
> > > could give the Pater(s) of a Gens a voice in deciding if a family
> was
> > > to be added to thier Gens. This combined with a freeze on the
> number
> > > of Gens would make the Paters role in Nova Roma larger.
> >
> > How? By breaking up gentes I do not see how this can be achieved.
> I,
> > am Paterfamilas of a large gens (about 45 members). I have a gens
> email
> > list that I require all members of the Gens to be apart of. In
> there we
> > all shoot the breeze and use it as a venue to answer
> questions....try to
> > formulate a comprehensive gens Cornelia website....and try to foster
> > participation within the Gens Cornelia and in Nova Roma in general.
> I
> > believe that this has been very successful. The Gens Cornelia is
> > extremely active in Nova Roma, by breaking up the Gens (any decently
> > large gens) will prevent an important source of interaction between
> > citizens.
> >
>
> Salve,
>
> Why do you assume that it will force your Gens to be broken into many
> families. There is nothing that I've said that would force members of
> your Gens to form new Families. You would still be a Paterfamilis. You
> would be the Pater of the Family Sulla rather than the entire Gens,
> but there is no reason the Sulla family couldn't have 45 members in
> it, and be the only family in Cornelia.

I understand that alot better. As I read your proposal, it looked to me
that there would be a number of sub-Gentes, for example:

Gens Cornelia Scipio
Gens Cornelia Sullae
Gens Cornelia Cinna
Etc...

> I have said that I think that it should be up to the Patrician Paters
> to decide if a new family would have Patrician status, so this would
> give you a veto over any members of your family that wanted to start a
> new Patrician family in Cornelia against your wishes. You as the Pater
> would gain a new power, that of recognizing a new family founded by a
> member of your current family as a Patrician family decended from your
> current family.

Ok I can see that....and then when I die, hopefully MANY MANY years from
now..each gens branch would become independent from each
other.....Correct?

> As the Pater of the only family in Cornelia, it would be up to you to
> decide if any new families were going to be allowed in Cornelia,
> though once you did allow a new family it's Pater would be your peer
> and have an equal voice to yours in allowing another new family to
> join the Gens, and if it were a Patrician Family that you recognized
> then it's Pater would also have a voice in recognizing any future
> families in Cornelia as Patrician.

So what you are saying here is if there is an applicant for the name
Publius Cornelius Scipio Magister (a brand new applicant.) He would
need my consent as well as the Consent of Marius Cornelius Scipio (the
first individual to have the Name Scipio). And, if one of us does not
give consent he will be unable to join the family Cornelius Scipio.
Now, another question, what if the person who has taken the name
Cornelius Scipio is a minor?

> Gens Reform will do no more than give Nova Roma room for future
> growth, and ensure that the growth follows a historic model.

Yes I do see this has some potential especially for the future of Nova
Roma. I am just trying to iron this all out in my mind.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Gens Reform
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 04:53:49 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@e...> wrote:
>
>
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus wrote:
> >
> > --- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@e...>
> > wrote:
> > SNIP
> > >
> > > > Nor is there any reason for this to weaken the roles of the
> > Paters.
> > >
> > > But that would be the effect, for example, the Gens Cornelia, the
> > Gens
> > > Iulia, the Gens Fabia and all other decently large Gens would be
> > broken
> > > up to smaller groups..which would adversly affect those new citizens
> > > from the education and resources we Paterfamilias can provide to
> > newer
> > > members.
> > >
> > > We
> > > > could give the Pater(s) of a Gens a voice in deciding if a family
> > was
> > > > to be added to thier Gens. This combined with a freeze on the
> > number
> > > > of Gens would make the Paters role in Nova Roma larger.
> > >
> > > How? By breaking up gentes I do not see how this can be achieved.
> > I,
> > > am Paterfamilas of a large gens (about 45 members). I have a gens
> > email
> > > list that I require all members of the Gens to be apart of. In
> > there we
> > > all shoot the breeze and use it as a venue to answer
> > questions....try to
> > > formulate a comprehensive gens Cornelia website....and try to foster
> > > participation within the Gens Cornelia and in Nova Roma in general.
> > I
> > > believe that this has been very successful. The Gens Cornelia is
> > > extremely active in Nova Roma, by breaking up the Gens (any decently
> > > large gens) will prevent an important source of interaction between
> > > citizens.
> > >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > Why do you assume that it will force your Gens to be broken into many
> > families. There is nothing that I've said that would force members of
> > your Gens to form new Families. You would still be a Paterfamilis. You
> > would be the Pater of the Family Sulla rather than the entire Gens,
> > but there is no reason the Sulla family couldn't have 45 members in
> > it, and be the only family in Cornelia.
>
> I understand that alot better. As I read your proposal, it looked to me
> that there would be a number of sub-Gentes, for example:
>
> Gens Cornelia Scipio
> Gens Cornelia Sullae
> Gens Cornelia Cinna
> Etc...

No there would only be one Gens Cornelia. The others would be families
in Cornelia IF your present family decided to split into branches.
That decession would rest with you as the Pater, and any law that took
that right away from the Pater would violate Roman traditions.
>
> > I have said that I think that it should be up to the Patrician Paters
> > to decide if a new family would have Patrician status, so this would
> > give you a veto over any members of your family that wanted to start a
> > new Patrician family in Cornelia against your wishes. You as the Pater
> > would gain a new power, that of recognizing a new family founded by a
> > member of your current family as a Patrician family decended from your
> > current family.
>
> Ok I can see that....and then when I die, hopefully MANY MANY years from
> now..each gens branch would become independent from each
> other.....Correct?

That depends on your will. YOU as Pater have the option of naming an
heir to your present family, or of recognizing branches of your
current family as independant Patrician families, each with it's own
Pater.
>
> > As the Pater of the only family in Cornelia, it would be up to you to
> > decide if any new families were going to be allowed in Cornelia,
> > though once you did allow a new family it's Pater would be your peer
> > and have an equal voice to yours in allowing another new family to
> > join the Gens, and if it were a Patrician Family that you recognized
> > then it's Pater would also have a voice in recognizing any future
> > families in Cornelia as Patrician.
>
> So what you are saying here is if there is an applicant for the name
> Publius Cornelius Scipio Magister (a brand new applicant.) He would
> need my consent as well as the Consent of Marius Cornelius Scipio (the
> first individual to have the Name Scipio). And, if one of us does not
> give consent he will be unable to join the family Cornelius Scipio.
> Now, another question, what if the person who has taken the name
> Cornelius Scipio is a minor?

No. IF you allowed Marius Cornelius Scipio to form a new family within
Cornelia, then he would be the Pater of that new family and would have
the sole right to decide on new members to his family. If you don't
allow him to form a new family, then the decession remains yours as
the head of the family. Minor's can't be Paters so there won't be any
problems there.
>
> > Gens Reform will do no more than give Nova Roma room for future
> > growth, and ensure that the growth follows a historic model.
>
> Yes I do see this has some potential especially for the future of Nova
> Roma. I am just trying to iron this all out in my mind.

Don't worry about taking it all in at once, I've been thinking about
this for several months, so I didn't get it all at once.

Drusus
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Census
From:	"Lucius Mauricius Procopious" <lespeterson@-------->
Date:	Sat, 9 Jun 2001 23:06:07 -0700

Salvete Omnes,

It's not the idea of a Census I think we should reconsider. I really support that idea and have conducted one in my Province through my highly valued legates. If one of the functions of a Census is to classify inactive cives as such I for one would like to see those individuals assigned to the Capite Censi rather than have their citizenship removed.

We've made a statement about how we feel our citizenship is valuable by restricting resignations. Let's not strip away this privilege we hold so dear without a better reason than an inability to reach a cive. Placing inactive cives in the Capite Censi should be our course of action IMHO. Does anyone have any options short of exile for the inactive?

Lucius Mauricius Procopious
Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
(This is an unofficial post for which I assume full responsibility)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
procopious@--------
ICQ# 83516618
*America Boreoccidentalis Mail List
http://www.egroups.com/group/AmBor_Waves
* The Gens Mauricia
http://www.geocities.com/procopious

"Indeed, it is not by the plans of men, but by the hand of God that the affairs of men are directed; and this men call Fate, not knowing the reason for what things they see occur; and what seems to be without cause is easy to call the accident of chance. Still, this is a matter every mortal will decide for himself according to his taste."
-Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died c.560s]

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Gens Reform
From:	bcatfd@--------
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:11:21 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites,

Salve,

> In Antiquita a Gens was a clan, a group of families. Some of the
> families would be related, comming from a common ancester, but a
>Gens was mor than just an extended family. If a Slave was freed, he
>recived Roman Citizenship and Became the head of a new family within
>that Gens, and had NO blood relationship to other families. If a
>freeman aquired the citizenship then he became a member of the Gens
>of the Patron who helped him become a citizen. So a Gens was a group
>of families each of which had a Paterfamilis, and which may or may
>not have some blood relationship.
>
> This is one area that Nova Roma needs to improve. we have blurred
>the lines between a Gens and the families that make of the Gens.

I don't think we have frankly. The distinction that you refer to
already exists--in my gens certainly and in yours too if you wish to
set it up that way. A gens is a clan, a loose knit collection of
families under the head of one person, the paterfamilias, or as I
unofficially call the head of a gens, a seniorpaterfamilias (you will
see this reference on the gens Iunia website and it has been so for
over 3 years now). The way I view our current system is that the
senior paterfamilias controls the gens and who may enter or join it.
Under that senior paterfamilias there are the paterfamiliae of the
various families in a gens, who in conjunction with the senior
paterfamilias decides who may join an individual family. The only
real difference I see between what exists and what you want to make
into law is the loosening of the role of the senior paterfamilias. If
a gens wants to set things up as you have described they are free to
do so but I think there should be no state interference with the
internal workings of a gens. There is no need for it. You are trying
to fix an non-existent problem. Perhaps many decades in the future
when the clans are huge something such as what you have described
*may* be necessary but right now it would only loosen the bonds
between people. We are a small nation and the bonds of the gentes as
they stand strengthen us.

Vale,

Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus,
(Senior)Paterfamilias Gens Iunia

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Gens Reform
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:36:11 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, bcatfd@t... wrote:
> --- In novaroma@--------, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> wrote:
> > Salvete Quirites,
>
> Salve,
>
> > In Antiquita a Gens was a clan, a group of families. Some of the
> > families would be related, comming from a common ancester, but a
> >Gens was mor than just an extended family. If a Slave was freed, he
> >recived Roman Citizenship and Became the head of a new family within
> >that Gens, and had NO blood relationship to other families. If a
> >freeman aquired the citizenship then he became a member of the Gens
> >of the Patron who helped him become a citizen. So a Gens was a group
> >of families each of which had a Paterfamilis, and which may or may
> >not have some blood relationship.
> >
> > This is one area that Nova Roma needs to improve. we have blurred
> >the lines between a Gens and the families that make of the Gens.
>
> I don't think we have frankly. The distinction that you refer to
> already exists--in my gens certainly and in yours too if you wish to
> set it up that way. A gens is a clan, a loose knit collection of
> families under the head of one person, the paterfamilias, or as I
> unofficially call the head of a gens, a seniorpaterfamilias (you will
> see this reference on the gens Iunia website and it has been so for
> over 3 years now). The way I view our current system is that the
> senior paterfamilias controls the gens and who may enter or join it.
> Under that senior paterfamilias there are the paterfamiliae of the
> various families in a gens, who in conjunction with the senior
> paterfamilias decides who may join an individual family. The only
> real difference I see between what exists and what you want to make
> into law is the loosening of the role of the senior paterfamilias. If
> a gens wants to set things up as you have described they are free to
> do so but I think there should be no state interference with the
> internal workings of a gens. There is no need for it. You are trying
> to fix an non-existent problem. Perhaps many decades in the future
> when the clans are huge something such as what you have described
> *may* be necessary but right now it would only loosen the bonds
> between people. We are a small nation and the bonds of the gentes as
> they stand strengthen us.
>
> Vale,
>
> Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus,
> (Senior)Paterfamilias Gens Iunia

Salve,

I care little for the idea of the state interfering in the internal
affairs of the Gens, but in a manner of speaking, it allready has. The
postion that you refer to as Senior Paterfamilias, is recognized by
the state as the Paterfamilis of the Gens, a postion that didn't
exist. In effect we have created a new postion of Patergentilis and
misnamed it Paterfamilis.

You may wish to recognize members of your Gens as Paters, but the does
not recognize them as such. The Constitution limits Gens to having a
single Pater/Mater and the state recognizes no others.

You may wish to follow the Historic model of having Plebian families
within your Gens, but the state will not recognize them as such,
because the Constitution defines a Patrician as a member of one of the
30 eldest Gentes, and everyone in the Gens is a Patrician regardlees
of the desire of the "Patergentelis" to set up his Gens on a historic
basis.

What I seek is to end the "single family" in a Gens that is all that
the state now recognizes. As my Gens grows I want to see it's families
recognized by the state, and the Paters of these families recorded as
Paterfamilae by the Censors, not just by me.

Respectfully
L. Sicinius Drusus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Dates
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Jerry=20Anguston?= <gaiussentius@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:42:45 +1000 (EST)

Salve Marcus Papirius,

Thanks very much for the dates, but I was refering
dates within those periods for such things as battles,
architecture, literature, religion, etc.

If you or anyone else could help me out in these areas
with the aforementioned timeframes, it would be much
appreciated.

Vale bene,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

Legatus Australia Medius
Sacerdos Mars Invictus

--- Marcus Papirius Justus <papirius@-------->
wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
At 01:28 AM 10/06/2001 +0000, you wrote: 
>-The Macedonian Wars 
 
214-205 B.C. 
206-196 B.C 
172-167 B.C. 
 
>-The reign of Domitian 
 
Sept 14, 81 - Sept. 18, 96 
 
>-The reign of Marcus Aurelius and Antoninus
Pius 
 
Pius - July 10, 138 - Mar. 7, 161 
MA - Mar. 7, 161 - Mar. 17 180 
 
>-The reign of Septimus Severus 
 
April 9, 193 - Feb 4, 211 
 
>-The Germanic Wars 
 
which ones? 
 
>-The Hunnic Invasions 
 
... out of my era ... 
 
MPJ 
 
</tt>

 



<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1"


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] In the Spirit of the Days
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 11:31:42 +0200

Salvete Quirites,

A little late with my reaction, I know. Nevertheless, an interesting thread.

Why Sextus Apollonius Draco? It's not a historical character, of course. It
gives me a lot of space, and I'm not tied to anything or anyone that
previously existed. I chose my praenomen Sextus, because my old friend
Quintus joined the gens Apollonia before me, and so I was kind of following
his row (quintus means 5th, and sextus means 6th). Quite obviously the
wordplay is also visible, but that's something from my private life ;). The
nomen Apollonius wasn't really a deliberate choice, but rather a logical
consequence of joing the gens where I knew some nice people. Draco, my
cognomen, on the other hand, was a choice I had thought of long and hard. As
I have said on the NR Europe list, I admire both archetypes of dragons.
There's the western type of dragon, which stands for greed, evil, chaos and
all that burns, while the eastern type of dragon stands for prosperity,
happiness, good counsel and all that's good in the world. I believe that
every man or woman carries both the seeds of good and evil in oneself, but
it depends on a lot of loose variables which characteristics you develop.

Genealogy: Somewhere during the Dark Ages, the family tree disappears into
void, but as far as I can tell my roots are Ingweonic (North Sea German),
and most of my family has always lived in the western European plains
bordering the North Sea. There have been some French and Spanish in my
family tree, but they form a considerable minority compared to the rest. My
family has probably always been a family of farmers and millers (hence the
name Meuleman), and only rose to some political and economical importance in
the 19th century.

Education: Still going on :). I'm in the middle of my exams in my 6th year
(senior high for Americani), where I study ancient Greek and Latin. I hope
I'll succeed. Next year I intend to study Germanic languages (English and
German).

Philosophy: Despite my respect for many schools and traditions, four of them
would stand out in the crowd; Buddha, Lao Tse, Herakleitos and Nietzsche. In
a way they are opposities, but opposites attract :). Anyway, looking at
problems or conflicts from all points of view offers at times many good
solutions. Trying to fit them all into my lifestyle is somewhat difficult,
but I'm trying every day. I think what I lack the most of all is discipline.

Why Nova Roma? I think the concept of a micronation is something that's
worth trying. And if it's the concept of a Roman micronation, with virtues
and literature so dear to my heart, it's even worth fighting for.

Valete bene,
S. Apollonius Draco

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Census
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 11:44:11 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Lucius Mauricius Procopious" <lespeterson@-------->
wrote:
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> It's not the idea of a Census I think we should reconsider. I really
support that idea and have conducted one in my Province through my
highly valued legates. If one of the functions of a Census is to
classify inactive cives as such I for one would like to see those
individuals assigned to the Capite Censi rather than have their
citizenship removed.
>
> We've made a statement about how we feel our citizenship is valuable
by restricting resignations. Let's not strip away this privilege we
hold so dear without a better reason than an inability to reach a
cive. Placing inactive cives in the Capite Censi should be our course
of action IMHO. Does anyone have any options short of exile for the
inactive?
>
> Lucius Mauricius Procopious
> Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis

Salve,

Exile?
Perhaps, but I consider it more along the lines of facing reality. I
someone ignores five attempts to confirm that they desire to remain a
citizen, Then I have to assume that they do not desire to remain a
citizen of Nova Roma.

IMHO most of these people left us without bothering to send in a
resignation. Perhaps it was because they became bored with Nova Roma,
Perhaps it was because they were angry at some past event, or maybe
they had a change in thier personal life that didn't leave them the
time or the desire to remain a part of our nation. They may have even
passed away.

Whatever the reason, they are gone, and carrying thier names on our
Albae is only fooling ourselves about how many real citizens we have.
If we want to play a wishing game that inflates the number of citizens
we may as well go all the way and make up a bunch of names and insert
them into the Album Civium, and announce that Nova Roma now has 10,000
citizens. One way we are claiming citizens who left, the other we are
just making them up, and both are attempts at decieving ourselves as
to the true number of Nova Romans.

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Questores and Censores
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <tjalens.h@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:13:28 +0200

Salve Omnes!

I think that the proposed legislation put forward by Illustrus Senator and
Censor Lucius Cornerlius Sulla Felix is a good legislation. We need to know
who really are citizens and who should be "cut off".

But as a quaestor I have given the question of the office of Quaestor some
thought. This office is, as have been said before to be a Finacial office,
but as I have stated before: there were in history, five kinds of
quaestores:

1. Quaestores Urbi; to handle the central treasury
2. Quaestores Consulis, to assist the Consuls
3. Quaestores Classici to administrate four ports in Italia (Ostia,
Gallica, Cales ?)
4. Quaestores Proconsularis/Quaestori Propraetoris to administer the
provincial treasury and to assist the Governors
5. Quaestores Parricidi to act as prosecutors in trials (this could be the
orginal position, Livius ) This position disappeared about 440 B.C.

But there were NEVER any quaestores connected with the Censors.

If we study the office of the Censors it becomes even clearer that the
Censors were different than all other official in that they:
1. Could never be subordinate to any other magistrate, not even the Tribunes.
2. Could NEVER be superior to any other magistrate.

According to "Sund�n", my favourite source these were the main differences
between the Censors and other magistrates, if we don't count the length of
term and other smaller differences. If we subordinate other magistrates to
the Quaestores, we would break the Mos Majorum, the unwritten law of that
time.

Because of this I oppose any subordination of any Quaestores to the
Censors, it would be a break with tradition. In this issue I side with
Illustrus Senator and Tribunus Plebis Titus Labienus Fortunatus.

I propose that the Censors will operate through Censorial Scribae and the
right to get needed help from the Governors.

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Quaestor of Nova Roma
Propraetor of Thule
Accensus to Consul Marcus Cassius Julianus

The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an offical opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
Join the Main List for Nova Roma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma
Join the List for the Thule Provincia in Nova Roma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ThuleNovaRoma/join
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://www.acc.umu.se/~kerish/novaroma/main.html
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
Caeso, he who also is known as Christer Edling.
************************************************
Using a keyboard that don't want to make L! :-(
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10
DOG BOARDING HOUSE PHONE: +90 - 503 56
MOBILE: +70 - 643 88 80

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Coins for sale
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Jerry=20Anguston?= <gaiussentius@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:58:25 +1000 (EST)

Salve all,

I have been searching the Internet, and am at my wits
end. I am appealing to anyone in NR who has a good
quality Trajan denarius, with the image on the head
side of the coin in good condition (the condition of
the other side of the coin does not matter), and would
be willing to part with it for money.

Please contact me if you can help.

Vale bene,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

Legatus Australia Medius
Sacerdos Mars Invictus

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Our Crippled Gens System
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 09:38:16 -0400

Salve civis et amicus,

Our current gens system is obviously flawed. It is inefficient, slow, and
unhistorical. Before any nation wide census takes place or any serious
revamping of the gens we must address the current issue of lack of
involvement from Paters/Maters.

Both the census and gens reform are great ideas that do deserve serious
consideration, though how can we do this with the very back bone of our
community crippled and lame as it currently is? I propose that we organise a
system where a whole gens is not dependent on one leader. To do this we
should look at the fallowing plan I have devised.

1) Joining a gens
The current system of having only one person the Paters/Maters admitting a
citizens into gens is the first and main problem. When a new member joins
there is no reason not to let him/her in unless you do not wish your gens to
grow. If the gens is no longer in need of any more citizens then it can be
closed to new applicants completely. All new citizens should be added
automatically to gens just like citizenship to Nova Roma is granted. If the
Paters/Maters wishes to get rid of a citizen at a later time then so be it.
This will help our nation to grow and vastly increase speed and efficacy.
The other big bonus of this proposed change is still letting Gens grow even
when your Pater/Mater is not responding to new citizen application requests.

Please note that this only applies to new citizens. If one wishes to just
switch gens then I can see the need of approval by the gens Pater/Mater.

2) Opening Gens
Opening a gens is a commitment. A citizen wishing to create a new gens
should prove his worth. We could do this by insisting a citizen has been
active for 6 months. Yes this will limit possible names though is it not
pathetic to be closing families that consist of only one person on a regular
bases?! A new gen should be earned and being a Pater/Mater must be a
position that is not so easy to receive. This will also greatly reduce the
chances of having "dead" Paters/Maters who never respond.

3)Two Paters/Maters
This would also reduce chances of inactive leaders. The really nice point of
this is that one Pater/Mater could easily identify if the other was "dead".
Once identified as "dead" for 6 months he/she can choose a replacement
easily. Note that the old Pater/Mater would not be kicked out he/she just
loses the leadership of the gens. If we do this then and gone are the days
of gens no longer growing because of dead Paters/Maters. This last change
would top off a new efficient and prosperous era for our nations growth and
layout.

All in all this proposal will cure our sick gens system without any huge
massive overhauls consisting of deleting or freezing gens. I ask you all to
please seriously consider this plan I have devised. Once it is implemented
we can go on to arrange a historical format much more easily and with out a
serious upset.

Hinc est mei oratio!

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] National Census - revised II
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 07:51:59 -0700 (PDT)

Salve, Censor Sulla; et salvete omnes.

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

<<snipped>>

> Sounds good to me. I was just trying to make a differntiation
> between
> those citizens who do not have to go through the procedure of
> responding
> to the National Census. My Latin is not that good...can you tell me
> what censi or incensi mean though?

"Census" (plural "censi"; femenine "censa" and "censae") simply means
"censed, accounted". Obviousli, "incensus" means "uncensed,
unaccounted". These terms were the ones used in Antiqua Roma regarding
the census.

<<snipped>>

> I can make a slight change. The statement regading the discretion
> for
> the Censors to bypass the 6month waiting period is already stated in
> the
> second revision.

We have reached an agreement, then.

<<snipped>>

[Citizenship Verification]
> Well I am sure this can be worked out OUTSIDE of this legislation. I
> think it does have potential though.

I am happy to see that you agree on the importance of this issue.
Maybe, once this census has been properly issued, you will be willing
to undertake a legislation regarding this issue.

> Well this is something that can be worked out between the Censors,
> Quaestors, Scriba and local governments.

Obviously, I agree in that this is the best possible way.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Gens Reform
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 08:00:08 -0700 (PDT)

Salve, L. Sicini Druse; et salvete omnes.

I am happy to see that you agree with hardly all of my previous points.
I will just make a few comments:

--- Lucius Sicinius Drusus <lsicinius@--------> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> > 4.- Only the familiae of the 30 initial gentes founders should be
> > included in the patrician order; that is, only the actual
> paterfamilias
> > of a patrician gens can be the paterfamilias of a patrician
> familia.
> > All other familiae, regardless of their nomina, should be included
> in
> > the plebian order.
>
> I would allow a citizen who is a Patrician to split off and found a
> new Patrician family. For example a Patrician family may decide it
> has
> grown too large and wish to split into two families, each with it's
> own Pater/Mater. In cases like this I think we should allow the new
> family to retain it's Patrician status. I would leave it up to the
> Patrician Pater to decide if the new family founded from his would
> recive Patrician status.

I guess this item would need a deeper discussion. I would like to see
some input from other citizens before making my final statement.

> I will also add that as a Pater I have decided that my Gens will be
> organized as a single family within the Gens Sicinia. Until we get
> the
> leges in place for multiple families, I won't approve any additions
> to
> Sicinia unless they are willing to use the Cognomen Drusus. I have
> recently got someone to apply for citizenship and he will be Marcus
> Sicinius Drusus when his application is approved. My Gens/Family will
> be using accurate names, and will pose no problems in setting up a
> more accurate Gens/Family structure.

I applaud your initiative. Bear in mind, though, that if my proposal
did become the base for a new gentile and familiar system, other
citizens would be allowed to found their own familiae inside the gens
Sicinia, albeit with a different cognomen, of course.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Gentes et Familiae (was Gens Reform)
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 08:54:36 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes.

I have been reading your comments on the reform of gentes issue, and I
would like a few clarifications on my own. I know some of this comments
have already been made by others, but I think that having all of them
in a single post might prove helpful for a proper addressment of this
issue.

1.- Our current situation is, simply put, historically incorrect. I am
not making a point of the efficiency of our current system of gentes
(yet), I am just saying that it is not historically correct. If we
really want to rebuild Roman culture, we can not leave such an
important issue as the Roman familiar system out of scope.

2.- The best moment to implement a change in our familiar system is
right now. The more citizens we have, the more thraumatic and complex
this needed change will become.

3.- I am not talking about breaking gentes into several smaller new
gentes. Gentes and familiae were mutually inclusive in Roma Antiqua.
Gens Cornelia, gens Iulia, etc... will continue to exist; the citizens
that belong to them will continue to belong to them (if that is their
wish); they can be just of different familiae (and have different
cognomina), but they can still share a common nomen, as well as the
Gods of the Gens (common to all familiae inside a single gens), any
special relations they could have, mailing lists, etc...

4.- To further explain what I mean, let me place two examples: example
A will deal with an already accounted citizen, and example B will deal
with a hypothetical citizen.

A.- I, Gnaeus Salix Astur, currently belong to the Gens Salicia. The
paterfamilias of gens Salicia is my good friend and pater Marcus Salix
Viglilius. If this proposal was implemented, I would have two options:

A.1.- I could "stay" with Marcus Salix Vigilius and accept him as my
pater. As I would now belong to the familia Salicia Vigilia, I would
have to change my cognomen accordingly, and I would adopt my current
cognomen as an agnomen. I would be named Gnaeus Salix Vigilius Astur,
and would be legally an adopted son of Marcus Salix Vigilius (of
course, if I preferred it, I could also be known as Gnaeus Salix
Vigilius, or perhaps Gnaeus Salix Vigilius Asturianus, which would be
the most historically correct form).

A.2.- I could create a new familia inside the gens Salicia (with the
permission of an already existing paterfamilias of that gens). As such,
I would become the pater of the familia Salicia Astur, and I would
still
be known as Gnaeus Salix Astur.

B.- Now, let's face the situation of a new citizen. According to
ancient Roman law, he would be a peregrinus (a foreigner). He could
acquire Novoroman citizenship through two means:

B.1.- He could be "adopted" by an existing paterfamilias. For
example, I, Gnaeus Salix Astur, paterfamilias of the familia Salicia
Astur, could adopt my good friend Chema into my familia with the name
Caius Salix Astur Scevola.

B.2.- He could ask for the permission of an existing paterfamilias to
create a new familia within the same gens. My friend Chema could ask
for my permission to create a new gens. I would consult it with Marcus
Salix Vigilius (as "caput gentis", or head of the gens), and, if there
is no opposition, he would become the paterfamilias of a new familia
inside gens Salicia, let's say familia Salicia Chemiana, with the name
Caius Salix Chemianus.

I know there are some aspects I have not touched, but I think this is
good enough to begin a proper discussion.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Refutation of my death
From:	"Sebastyen Storm" <sstorm1@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 02:44:29 -0500

Greetings to all of the citizens of Nova Roma,

Over the course of a couple of days, one of our number, my roommate, David Graves, whose NR name is Publius Cornelius Scipio Magister, has succeeded in using my vital information, including my name, date of birth, and address as a tool to apply to Nova Roma for citizenship. After all of this, as if this weren't enough, he has slandered me in this forum by stating that I have died. I have set in motion matters to correct this heinous crime, and I ask the Censors to please come to my aid in any way that they see fit to give me succor.

Again, I'm not dead, not now, and not before.

Thank you.

Decius Aucelius Sebastianus

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Census
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 09:09:40 -0700 (PDT)

Salve, L. Maurici Procopi; et salvete omnes.

--- Lucius Mauricius Procopious <lespeterson@--------> wrote:
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> It's not the idea of a Census I think we should reconsider. I really
> support that idea and have conducted one in my Province through my
> highly valued legates. If one of the functions of a Census is to
> classify inactive cives as such I for one would like to see those
> individuals assigned to the Capite Censi rather than have their
> citizenship removed.
>
> We've made a statement about how we feel our citizenship is valuable
> by restricting resignations. Let's not strip away this privilege we
> hold so dear without a better reason than an inability to reach a
> cive. Placing inactive cives in the Capite Censi should be our course
> of action IMHO. Does anyone have any options short of exile for the
> inactive?

I understand your concern. Normally, I would agree with you. However, I
have to say that, if these people are not responding to five different
attempts to contact them through three different means (e-mail, phone
and snail mail), there is something serious happening there. They are
not simply unactive citizens; they are citizens who do not want to hear
again from Nova Roma for whatever reason, or that are not able to
contact us for some serious reason.

In the second case, the latest provision will allow for the censores to
reinstall them as full right citizens immediately after they have
solved their problems and contacted us again.

You can say "but they are not supposing an extra charge to us"; to
this, I would like you to consider the extra unneeded bureaucratic work
that an inflated citizenship number entails, as well as the waste of
resources this means.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Our Crippled Gens System
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 09:17:13 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve, A. Claudi Petre.

--- Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@--------> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> 1) Joining a gens
> The current system of having only one person the Paters/Maters
> admitting a
> citizens into gens is the first and main problem. When a new member
> joins
> there is no reason not to let him/her in unless you do not wish your
> gens to
> grow. If the gens is no longer in need of any more citizens then it
> can be
> closed to new applicants completely. All new citizens should be added
> automatically to gens just like citizenship to Nova Roma is granted.
> If the
> Paters/Maters wishes to get rid of a citizen at a later time then so
> be it.
> This will help our nation to grow and vastly increase speed and
> efficacy.
> The other big bonus of this proposed change is still letting Gens
> grow even
> when your Pater/Mater is not responding to new citizen application
> requests.
>
> Please note that this only applies to new citizens. If one wishes to
> just
> switch gens then I can see the need of approval by the gens
> Pater/Mater.

I see your point; however, I have to say that I do not agree with you
in this one. I dearly want our system more historically accurate, and
your proposal goes in the opposite direction.

> 2) Opening Gens
> Opening a gens is a commitment. A citizen wishing to create a new
> gens
> should prove his worth. We could do this by insisting a citizen has
> been
> active for 6 months. Yes this will limit possible names though is it
> not
> pathetic to be closing families that consist of only one person on a
> regular
> bases?! A new gen should be earned and being a Pater/Mater must be a
> position that is not so easy to receive. This will also greatly
> reduce the
> chances of having "dead" Paters/Maters who never respond.

I would agree on this, although adapting it to a more historically
pertinent environment.

> 3)Two Paters/Maters
> This would also reduce chances of inactive leaders. The really nice
> point of
> this is that one Pater/Mater could easily identify if the other was
> "dead".
> Once identified as "dead" for 6 months he/she can choose a
> replacement
> easily. Note that the old Pater/Mater would not be kicked out he/she
> just
> loses the leadership of the gens. If we do this then and gone are the
> days
> of gens no longer growing because of dead Paters/Maters. This last
> change
> would top off a new efficient and prosperous era for our nations
> growth and
> layout.

Once again, I have to disagree, for the same reasons as in number one;
however, if we had several familiae in each gens, we would be able to
have more than one paterfamilias in each gens.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] National Census - revised II
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 11:49:20 -0500

Salvete L Corneli et alii

> 3. To help facilitate the Censors in this work, Censors would now be
> eligible to have 2 Quaestors.

I still disagree with this unnecessary departure from historical
practice. The censores can organize their scribae as they see fit,
appointing a few of them to oversee others in order to perform a
census. They can also, by edicta, have existing provincial authorities
assist with the census.

> 9. If an person who was once a citizen but was removed due to a
> National Census, he will have to comply with the stipulations of
> the Resignation Lex.

A clause like "...must comply with the stipulations of any existing
leges and edicta applying to citizenship resignations," would be much
better. We cannot foresee what these leges and edicta might be, and
tying a law to another existing law in this way is inadvisable.

> However, the Censors have the discretion to waive this clause if
> both Censors feel there are legitimate reasons for the citizen to
> remain inncommunicado (homelessness, war, national disaster, etc).

This is quite reasonable.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"Ipsa scientia potestas est."
-Francis Bacon

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Gens Reform
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 12:01:47 -0500

Salvete

> To my fellow Paters/Maters.
> If you are the only member of your Gens, I suggest that you also adopt
> this historic model for any future members that may join you.

Gens Labiena is already set up along these lines, though there is no
Familia Fortunata. As the (re-)founder of the gens, I'm the
paterfamilias of Familia Labiena in Gens Labiena. I agree that it would
be nice if the state recognized the historical model as well, and would
have no problem with being paterfamilias rather than patergentilis.

> If your Gens has multiple members, then talk to them about the
> possibility of changing thier names to reflect a family structure.

We go one step further and encourage new members (we'll have some
someday) to organize according to actual blood relations.

> Those who desire a more accurate Gens/Family structure don't have to
> wait for any leges to be passed. You can change your name to a more
> historically accurate one now.

L Sicinius is absolutely correct, and I join him in inviting cives to do
this.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"Ipsa scientia potestas est."
-Francis Bacon

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Inactive citizens.
From:	"Sophia Eva Kharis " <gallae@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:56:33 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Sokarus Apollonius Callias"
<--------scallias@--------> wrote:

> ......encourage other inactive members to speak out, to tell
> why you're quiet

As for me, egu�l. Isn't a quiet citizenry preferable to a troublesome
one? Or would we be looking to creat a diversion? No disrespect
intended ;) however speaking up does seem appropriate at this time.

This is a *very* active group. If everyone posted as much as the
regulars, it would be virtually impossible for *anyone* to keep up,
wouldn't it?

As it is, I have a more than full time job, household and family
responsibilities, and an interest or two in addition to this one. I
changed my delivery option to "web only" so I could just check in
when I had a few free moments. Perhaps the daily digest would be
better? Or, might it be better to identify the subjects of posts by
certain categories in [brackets] so members could "search archive"
for certain topics something like [ATTN: ALL CITIZENS], [WEEKLY
NEWS], [RELIGIO], [RELIGIO PAGANO], und so on.

Another thing I noticed, I inadvertently messed up my mail deliveries
before when changing my options or preferences, I do not remember
what did which where, but I managed to clear it up after double
checking my forwarding options in yahoo mail. Maybe there are others
with this problem as well.

I am not sure what is the impetus to purge the citizenry. Perhaps a
[second?] brainstorm on the core issue might be a good idea? By the
way, what is the core idea of such impetus?

Perhaps Categoria might be a solution?

Please do not revoke my citizenship. I jave never seen the Colloseum,
I do not wish to view it from the arena my first visit : )

-Sophia

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Our Crippled Gens System
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:03:54 -0400

If you want to have a historical system we must go back and make it possible
to do so. For a historical gens format to be developed the gens need to be
much more active or at least more efficient.

How can families be organised realistically with the current number of gens
with 1 or 2 members? Having two Paters or automatic approval of new citizens
into gens would make the possibility of a nation wide system far more
feasible.

Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:

> I see your point; however, I have to say that I do not agree with you
> in this one. I dearly want our system more historically accurate, and
> your proposal goes in the opposite direction.

Amulius Claudius Petrus wrote:

>> 2) Opening Gens
>> Opening a gens is a commitment. A citizen wishing to create a new
>> gens
>> should prove his worth. We could do this by insisting a citizen has
>> been
>> active for 6 months. Yes this will limit possible names though is it
>> not
>> pathetic to be closing families that consist of only one person on a
>> regular
>> bases?! A new gen should be earned and being a Pater/Mater must be a
>> position that is not so easy to receive. This will also greatly
>> reduce the
>> chances of having "dead" Paters/Maters who never respond.

Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:

> I would agree on this, although adapting it to a more historically
> pertinent environment.

I am glad you agree on the strongest point of my solution. If I have no
support on any of the other changes I proposed then we should at least push
this. The opening of gens is a "free for all". This is very unhistorical in
it's self. I would love to see this idea tweaked to perfection by citizen
feedback.

Hinc est mei oratio!

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Oppius' departing thoughts...
From:	"Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 11:44:12 -0700

Salvete Quiritibus;

Well, today I prepare for my vacation and thus this
will be my last post to this list until around mid-
August or so. The previous message I sent regarding
this upcoming event should (hopefully) cover any
eventualities that may arise during my absence.
Apologies for not posting much to the list in the
past couple of weeks. Have been quite literally
been buried in work and in last-minute preparations
in tying up my loose ends with various NR-related
projects.

Just a few miscellaneous thoughts before slipping away
for a couple of months:

1-Am heartened to see the healthy and vigorous debates
recurring on the Census, Gens reform and related topics.
These are extremely important to our future (as many of
you know my feelings on some of these issues,) and devising
some solid and well-supported solutions will benefit
us all. I look forward to seeing how these discussions
develop in the future and hope to contribute toward
these topics and ultimate resolutions on my return.

2-The increased activity in the various Sodalitas (especially
in the Sodalitas Musarum) has been most welcome and also
extremely encouraging. Amices; the various Sodalitas, provincial
local and informal gatherings and discussions are really the
heart of Nova Roma. Though things can get frustrating for
us *all* here in NR -especially on the main list, I ask others
to keep in mind (as I have struggled to do at times,) that there
is much more to NR than what happens on this list.

My special thanks to Gaius Sentius, Tarquinia, Gnaeus Salix
and many others that have made solid efforts to introduce
some non-political topics to the main list. I've enjoyed
these discussions thoroughly and hope everyone can keep it
up.

3-I wish all those that are involved in both the organization and
attendance of Roman Days, I hope it is and has been a rousing
success and know that I was there in spirit if not in person.
Please post pictures of the event somewhere either on the
main NR site or in the files section so that we may all share
in this experience.

4-In communications; don't be afraid to speak plainly to one
another. We're all adults here, we should be able to take it.
Plain and clear speaking and full communication is the key
to our longevity. Get out and meet one another. Pick up the
phone. Send a snail mail. Organize an event in your province.

5-Lastly; a brief word on the Religio. It seems that there has
been a strong resurgence in interest here; or at the very least
more and more people talking about it and sharing their ideas.
Though I fully realize that we don't all follow this particular
religious path in our own personal lives, it is nevertheless a
vital and critical part of our efforts at reconstruction. My
thanks to all those that have constructively discussed it and
give of their time, talents and energies in building and promoting
it.

With that being said, I bid you all a hearty 'valete' and will
look forward to chatting with you when I return in August.

Bene valete in Pace Deorum,
Oppius

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Questores and Censores
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Marcos=20Boehme?= <marminius@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:18:05 -0300 (ART)

Salvete, Quirites

--- Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <tjalens.h@-------->
escreveu: > Salve Omnes!
>
> I think that the proposed legislation put forward by
> Illustrus Senator and
> Censor Lucius Cornerlius Sulla Felix is a good
> legislation. We need to know
> who really are citizens and who should be "cut off".

MAIOR: I agree.

[...]
> If we subordinate other magistrates to
> the Quaestores, we would break the Mos Majorum, the
> unwritten law of that time.
> Because of this I oppose any subordination of any
> Quaestores to the
> Censors, it would be a break with tradition.
[...]
> I propose that the Censors will operate through
> Censorial Scribae and the
> right to get needed help from the Governors.

MAIOR: If the Censores think that is necessary a
elected magistrate to assist them, there are a
possibility of create two positions of Vigintisexviri,
directly subordinated to the Censores, with a term who
matches those of their Censor (two years,
intercalated). However, i believe that a scribe,
personally selected by the Censor, can work better...

> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> Quaestor of Nova Roma
> Propraetor of Thule
> Accensus to Consul Marcus Cassius Julianus

Vale
Marcus Arminius Maior
Aedilis Plebis

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! GeoCities
Tenha seu lugar na Web. Construa hoje mesmo sua home page no Yahoo! GeoCites. � f�cil e gr�tis!
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Vestalia! (shameless plug, kind of a religio thing)
From:	"Sophia Iulia Eucharis" <gallae@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:34:55 -0000

Salve!

I wish I had checked in here earlier. I *did* spend most of yesterday
barefoot, and I *did* offer some rose petals, and....

I love your page to Vesta: http://members.aol.com/MffnQueen

If it is shameless, so be it. Vesta did have a temple in the Forum in
Rome. She certainly deserve's one here. Granted, the virtual version
will not match the 84 room temple of olde. But, I would think it
certainly belongs!

Also, thank you for the index and link to the Nova Roma page there. I
am new here and (apparently) already on shakey ground as a citizen.
Do you know how or where others interested in Vesta, or Stregeria for
that matter, could converse freely as cives of Nova Roma?

Pax,

Sophia

--- In novaroma@--------, "Raina Faolan" <GuruPoet@h...> wrote:
> HAPPY VESTALIA AMICA!!! And a happy Vestalia to all our fellow
> Religio following Pagans.
>
> Pax Vobiscum,
> Aeternia
>
>
> >From: MffnQueen@--------
> >Repl--------: novaroma@--------
> >To: novaroma@--------
> >Subject: [novaroma] Vestalia! (shameless plug, kind of a religio
thing)
> >Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 09:04:05 EDT
> >
> >I'd like to wish everyone a Happy Vestalia, even though several of
the
> >religio practicers are away at Roman Days. On this day, as copied
from the
> >Nova Roma calender:
> >
> >"The Vestal Virgins employ the mola salsa, the holy cake, in the
> >celebrations
> >of the day. First, water is drawn by the Virgins from a sacred
spring; the
> >water may not be set down on the ground (contact with the earth
would
> >destroy
> >its sacred nature), and is carried in narrow-bottomed vessels to
prevent
> >this. The salt used in the cakes is specially made from brine
brought in a
> >salt pan and then ground in a mortar and baked in a jar. The salt
thus
> >produced was cut with an iron saw. This salt was used on the grain
or
> >flour,
> >using the ears of grain gathered on the 7th, 9th, and 11th days of
Maivs,
> >and
> >then turned into flour.
> >
> >Women who wish to make offerings to Vesta in her temple during the
Vestalia
> >usually offer sacrifices of simple food, borne on a platter. When
doing so,
> >women go barefoot. Only women (and the Pontifex Maximus) were
allowed in
> >the
> >temple of Vesta.
> >
> >Bakers and millers also honor this day, and the various tools of
their
> >trade
> >(millstones and the beasts of burden used to turn them) are
garlanded with
> >violets and small loaves."
> >
> >In honor of this day celebrating my patron deity, I have opened a
virtual
> >temple for both prayer and information. Anyone who practices the
religio,
> >especially followers of Vesta, and even those not too familiar
with it are
> >welcome to come! So.. drumroll please... The address is:
> >http://members.aol.com/MffnQueen
> >
> >Kinda anti-climactic, huh?
> >
> >Now I know NR's Chief Vestal was working on her own virtual
temple, but
> >sadly, she's recovering from what I understand to be painful
surgery, so
> >she
> >can't be with us today. I'd like to send my warmest condolences
and get
> >well
> >wishes to her and her family. May Vesta's sacred fire protect her
in this
> >painful time.
> >
> >So why am I posting something about the religio on the main list?
Well,
> >many
> >of the activities performed by the Vestals, including Vestalia,
were
> >largely
> >state activities. Any crime committed against the Vestals were
considered
> >crimes against the state and thus gravely punished. In fact, the
eternal
> >flame that was tended by the Vestals in the temple was considered
to be
> >symbolic of Rome herself. If it went out, it was considered to be
a
> >terrible
> >omen, foreshadowing ill luck for the future. Higher magistrates
were often
> >required to give offerings to Vesta at the temple before taking an
oath of
> >office. I've even heard that the big kahunas in the legions often
carried
> >sparks of the sacred fire with them to consult before battles.
Practically
> >every home in Rome honored her daily. Thus, I think that it's
important
> >that
> >Nova Roma honor Vesta for watching over both the ancient city as
well as
> >our
> >new one.
> >
> >*mumble* Actually I think we should do more to honor ALL the
gods.. but
> >since
> >not everyone practices the religio, I'll keep my rants to the
ReligioRomana
> >list. ;)
> >
> >Anyhoo, go visit the page.. Leave a prayer and/or a note in the
forum if
> >you
> >like. I'm off to wash my car (which could be religious experience
in
> >itself.. it hasn't been washed since I got it a year ago! *g*).
Happy
> >Vestalia, and have a great day!
> >
> >Pax Vobiscum,
> > Julia Cassia Aurora
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Vestalia! (shameless plug, kind of a religio thing)
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:13:59 -0400

Great online temple Julia Cassia Aurora. I just visited it and it is by far
one of the best or maybe even the best online temple site I have seen yet.
Its great to see others making our presence stronger online by making
websites like Julia's. Duro bene labor ab delubrum Julia.

Hinc est mei oratio!

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Vestalia! (shameless plug, kind of a religio thing)
From:	"Raina Faolan" <GuruPoet@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:37:30 -0400

Salve,

Did someone mention the Strega/Stregheri? Me,Me,Me!!!! Please contact me
off-list if you can.

Vale,
Aeternia

>From: "Sophia Iulia Eucharis" <gallae@-------->
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: [novaroma] Re: Vestalia! (shameless plug, kind of a religio thing)
>Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:34:55 -0000
>
>Salve!
>
>I wish I had checked in here earlier. I *did* spend most of yesterday
>barefoot, and I *did* offer some rose petals, and....
>
>I love your page to Vesta: http://members.aol.com/MffnQueen
>
>If it is shameless, so be it. Vesta did have a temple in the Forum in
>Rome. She certainly deserve's one here. Granted, the virtual version
>will not match the 84 room temple of olde. But, I would think it
>certainly belongs!
>
>Also, thank you for the index and link to the Nova Roma page there. I
>am new here and (apparently) already on shakey ground as a citizen.
>Do you know how or where others interested in Vesta, or Stregeria for
>that matter, could converse freely as cives of Nova Roma?
>
>Pax,
>
>Sophia
>
>--- In novaroma@--------, "Raina Faolan" <GuruPoet@h...> wrote:
> > HAPPY VESTALIA AMICA!!! And a happy Vestalia to all our fellow
> > Religio following Pagans.
> >
> > Pax Vobiscum,
> > Aeternia
> >
> >
> > >From: MffnQueen@--------
> > >Repl--------: novaroma@--------
> > >To: novaroma@--------
> > >Subject: [novaroma] Vestalia! (shameless plug, kind of a religio
>thing)
> > >Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 09:04:05 EDT
> > >
> > >I'd like to wish everyone a Happy Vestalia, even though several of
>the
> > >religio practicers are away at Roman Days. On this day, as copied
>from the
> > >Nova Roma calender:
> > >
> > >"The Vestal Virgins employ the mola salsa, the holy cake, in the
> > >celebrations
> > >of the day. First, water is drawn by the Virgins from a sacred
>spring; the
> > >water may not be set down on the ground (contact with the earth
>would
> > >destroy
> > >its sacred nature), and is carried in narrow-bottomed vessels to
>prevent
> > >this. The salt used in the cakes is specially made from brine
>brought in a
> > >salt pan and then ground in a mortar and baked in a jar. The salt
>thus
> > >produced was cut with an iron saw. This salt was used on the grain
>or
> > >flour,
> > >using the ears of grain gathered on the 7th, 9th, and 11th days of
>Maivs,
> > >and
> > >then turned into flour.
> > >
> > >Women who wish to make offerings to Vesta in her temple during the
>Vestalia
> > >usually offer sacrifices of simple food, borne on a platter. When
>doing so,
> > >women go barefoot. Only women (and the Pontifex Maximus) were
>allowed in
> > >the
> > >temple of Vesta.
> > >
> > >Bakers and millers also honor this day, and the various tools of
>their
> > >trade
> > >(millstones and the beasts of burden used to turn them) are
>garlanded with
> > >violets and small loaves."
> > >
> > >In honor of this day celebrating my patron deity, I have opened a
>virtual
> > >temple for both prayer and information. Anyone who practices the
>religio,
> > >especially followers of Vesta, and even those not too familiar
>with it are
> > >welcome to come! So.. drumroll please... The address is:
> > >http://members.aol.com/MffnQueen
> > >
> > >Kinda anti-climactic, huh?
> > >
> > >Now I know NR's Chief Vestal was working on her own virtual
>temple, but
> > >sadly, she's recovering from what I understand to be painful
>surgery, so
> > >she
> > >can't be with us today. I'd like to send my warmest condolences
>and get
> > >well
> > >wishes to her and her family. May Vesta's sacred fire protect her
>in this
> > >painful time.
> > >
> > >So why am I posting something about the religio on the main list?
>Well,
> > >many
> > >of the activities performed by the Vestals, including Vestalia,
>were
> > >largely
> > >state activities. Any crime committed against the Vestals were
>considered
> > >crimes against the state and thus gravely punished. In fact, the
>eternal
> > >flame that was tended by the Vestals in the temple was considered
>to be
> > >symbolic of Rome herself. If it went out, it was considered to be
>a
> > >terrible
> > >omen, foreshadowing ill luck for the future. Higher magistrates
>were often
> > >required to give offerings to Vesta at the temple before taking an
>oath of
> > >office. I've even heard that the big kahunas in the legions often
>carried
> > >sparks of the sacred fire with them to consult before battles.
>Practically
> > >every home in Rome honored her daily. Thus, I think that it's
>important
> > >that
> > >Nova Roma honor Vesta for watching over both the ancient city as
>well as
> > >our
> > >new one.
> > >
> > >*mumble* Actually I think we should do more to honor ALL the
>gods.. but
> > >since
> > >not everyone practices the religio, I'll keep my rants to the
>ReligioRomana
> > >list. ;)
> > >
> > >Anyhoo, go visit the page.. Leave a prayer and/or a note in the
>forum if
> > >you
> > >like. I'm off to wash my car (which could be religious experience
>in
> > >itself.. it hasn't been washed since I got it a year ago! *g*).
>Happy
> > >Vestalia, and have a great day!
> > >
> > >Pax Vobiscum,
> > > Julia Cassia Aurora
> > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] (unknown)
From:	"Sebastyen Storm" <Hellaeon@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:23:30 -0500

To all concerned,

I Publius Cornelius Scipio Magister, do hereby, retract my application for
citizenship in Novaroma and in the Gente Cornelia. My reasons for this are
clear. I apologize for all that has transpired within the last four days,
but there is nothing that I can do to ease or refute it. I wish nothing but
prosperity for you, and I shall not call again.

I also validate all claims made by Sebastyen Storm nee Randall Drennan.

David R. Graves

P.S. Please do not write me directly anymore, I will not check this email
adress again.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Questores and Censores
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:14:08 -0700

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus wrote:
>
> Salve Omnes!
>
> I think that the proposed legislation put forward by Illustrus Senator
> and
> Censor Lucius Cornerlius Sulla Felix is a good legislation. We need to
> know
> who really are citizens and who should be "cut off".

Great I am glad you agree.

> But as a quaestor I have given the question of the office of Quaestor
> some
> thought. This office is, as have been said before to be a Finacial
> office,
> but as I have stated before: there were in history, five kinds of
> quaestores:
>
> 1. Quaestores Urbi; to handle the central treasury
> 2. Quaestores Consulis, to assist the Consuls
> 3. Quaestores Classici to administrate four ports in Italia (Ostia,
> Gallica, Cales ?)
> 4. Quaestores Proconsularis/Quaestori Propraetoris to administer the
> provincial treasury and to assist the Governors
> 5. Quaestores Parricidi to act as prosecutors in trials (this could be
> the
> orginal position, Livius ) This position disappeared about 440 B.C.
>
> But there were NEVER any quaestores connected with the Censors.

Are you sure that is all the different variety of Quaestors there were?

> If we study the office of the Censors it becomes even clearer that the
> Censors were different than all other official in that they:
> 1. Could never be subordinate to any other magistrate, not even the
> Tribunes.
> 2. Could NEVER be superior to any other magistrate.

True.

> According to "Sund�n", my favourite source these were the main
> differences
> between the Censors and other magistrates, if we don't count the
> length of
> term and other smaller differences. If we subordinate other
> magistrates to
> the Quaestores, we would break the Mos Majorum, the unwritten law of
> that
> time.
>
> Because of this I oppose any subordination of any Quaestores to the
> Censors, it would be a break with tradition. In this issue I side with
> Illustrus Senator and Tribunus Plebis Titus Labienus Fortunatus.
>
> I propose that the Censors will operate through Censorial Scribae and
> the
> right to get needed help from the Governors.

Ok here we have some issues. In this aspect we are very different from
ancient Rome. Our provinces are no where near developed to the degree
they were in ancient Rome. Our Censors also do not work just 18 months
and then essentially disappear from the scene. This is going to be a
near every year event. Our Censors do so much more now then what the
ancients did. We have deviated from the ancients in the job limits of
the Censors. I think maybe given our deviation from the ancients we
should create Quaestorial Censori. I think it would be a minor
modification given the examples you have sited above about various
Quaestorial positions. I think with our already accepted deviations
from ancient Rome. This one should be granted as well. Let me stress
this. Quaestorship is a position that should give our lower level
magistrates experience so that they can seek higher office. I do not
see this currently happening in Nova Roma (execpt maybe the Consular
Quaestors). To date, what actually has our Quaestors DONE? What
financial duties do our Curule Aedlie Quaestors do? or for that matter
our Plebian Aedile Quaestors? I think that the Censorial Quaestors will
definately achieve the objective of giving our lower level magistrates
much needed experience in the workings of Nova Roma.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] (unknown)
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:34:15 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes.

A strange case, isn't it?

I guess this just strengthens my personal opinion that we really need
some kind of citizenship verification.

--- Sebastyen Storm <Hellaeon@--------> wrote:
> To all concerned,
>
>
> I Publius Cornelius Scipio Magister, do hereby, retract my
> application for
> citizenship in Novaroma and in the Gente Cornelia. My reasons for
> this are
> clear. I apologize for all that has transpired within the last four
> days,
> but there is nothing that I can do to ease or refute it. I wish
> nothing but
> prosperity for you, and I shall not call again.
>
>
> I also validate all claims made by Sebastyen Storm nee Randall
> Drennan.
>
>
>
> David R. Graves
>
> P.S. Please do not write me directly anymore, I will not check this
> email
> adress again.
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] National Census - revised II
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:39:54 -0700

Fortunatus wrote:
>
> Salvete L Corneli et alii
>
> > 3. To help facilitate the Censors in this work, Censors would now
> be
> > eligible to have 2 Quaestors.
>
> I still disagree with this unnecessary departure from historical
> practice. The censores can organize their scribae as they see fit,
> appointing a few of them to oversee others in order to perform a
> census. They can also, by edicta, have existing provincial
> authorities
> assist with the census.

I understand you still disagree with it but the office of Censor has
already been departed from the way it was done in Antiqua.

> > 9. If an person who was once a citizen but was removed due to a
> > National Census, he will have to comply with the stipulations of
> > the Resignation Lex.
>
> A clause like "...must comply with the stipulations of any existing
> leges and edicta applying to citizenship resignations," would be much
> better. We cannot foresee what these leges and edicta might be, and
> tying a law to another existing law in this way is inadvisable.

I can do that. Thanks for the recommendation, it is appreciated.

> > However, the Censors have the discretion to waive this clause if
> > both Censors feel there are legitimate reasons for the citizen to
> > remain inncommunicado (homelessness, war, national disaster, etc).
>
> This is quite reasonable.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

> Valete
> T Labienus Fortunatus
> --
> "Ipsa scientia potestas est."
> -Francis Bacon
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> Don't let someone get your domain name!
>
> www. .com [YAHOO! DOMAINS]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Questores and Censores
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:42:22 -0700

Marcos Boehme wrote:
>
> Salvete, Quirites
>
> --- Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <tjalens.h@-------->
> escreveu: > Salve Omnes!
> >
> > I think that the proposed legislation put forward by
> > Illustrus Senator and
> > Censor Lucius Cornerlius Sulla Felix is a good
> > legislation. We need to know
> > who really are citizens and who should be "cut off".
>
> MAIOR: I agree.
>
> [...]
> > If we subordinate other magistrates to
> > the Quaestores, we would break the Mos Majorum, the
> > unwritten law of that time.
> > Because of this I oppose any subordination of any
> > Quaestores to the
> > Censors, it would be a break with tradition.
> [...]
> > I propose that the Censors will operate through
> > Censorial Scribae and the
> > right to get needed help from the Governors.
>
> MAIOR: If the Censores think that is necessary a
> elected magistrate to assist them, there are a
> possibility of create two positions of Vigintisexviri,
> directly subordinated to the Censores, with a term who
> matches those of their Censor (two years,
> intercalated). However, i believe that a scribe,
> personally selected by the Censor, can work better...

That idea has potential. What could we call it?

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] (unknown)
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:43:29 -0700

Yes, and this will be something that need serious discussion. As it is
right now I cannot comment on this issue til my colleague and I have
touched base...but I agree something must be done!

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes.
>
> A strange case, isn't it?
>
> I guess this just strengthens my personal opinion that we really need
> some kind of citizenship verification.
>
> --- Sebastyen Storm <Hellaeon@--------> wrote:
> > To all concerned,
> >
> >
> > I Publius Cornelius Scipio Magister, do hereby, retract my
> > application for
> > citizenship in Novaroma and in the Gente Cornelia. My reasons for
> > this are
> > clear. I apologize for all that has transpired within the last four
> > days,
> > but there is nothing that I can do to ease or refute it. I wish
> > nothing but
> > prosperity for you, and I shall not call again.
> >
> >
> > I also validate all claims made by Sebastyen Storm nee Randall
> > Drennan.
> >
> >
> >
> > David R. Graves
> >
> > P.S. Please do not write me directly anymore, I will not check this
> > email
> > adress again.
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
> =====
> Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
> Gnaeus Salix Astur.
> Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
> a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> [Yahoo! Website Services- Click Here!]
> Yahoo! Website Services- Click Here!
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Our Crippled Gens System
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:47:34 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve, A. Claudi Petre.

--- Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@--------> wrote:
> If you want to have a historical system we must go back and make it
> possible
> to do so. For a historical gens format to be developed the gens need
> to be
> much more active or at least more efficient.
>
> How can families be organised realistically with the current number
> of gens
> with 1 or 2 members? Having two Paters or automatic approval of new
> citizens
> into gens would make the possibility of a nation wide system far more
> feasible.

Maybe I didn't make myself fully understood. I am not against having
several patres in a gens; on the contrary, I am constantly advocating
for this. Have you read the "Gentes and Familiae" thread?

I can not be in favour of automatic approval because that would be even
more historically incorrect than what we have now.

> Amulius Claudius Petrus wrote:
>
> >> 2) Opening Gens
> >> Opening a gens is a commitment. A citizen wishing to create a new
> >> gens
> >> should prove his worth. We could do this by insisting a citizen
> has
> >> been
> >> active for 6 months. Yes this will limit possible names though is
> it
> >> not
> >> pathetic to be closing families that consist of only one person on
> a
> >> regular
> >> bases?! A new gen should be earned and being a Pater/Mater must be
> a
> >> position that is not so easy to receive. This will also greatly
> >> reduce the
> >> chances of having "dead" Paters/Maters who never respond.
>
> Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:
>
> > I would agree on this, although adapting it to a more historically
> > pertinent environment.
>
> I am glad you agree on the strongest point of my solution. If I have
> no
> support on any of the other changes I proposed then we should at
> least push
> this. The opening of gens is a "free for all". This is very
> unhistorical in
> it's self. I would love to see this idea tweaked to perfection by
> citizen
> feedback.

Yes, I would agree that, to found a new gens (not a familia, bear in
mind), a citizen should be fairly determined to do so. I guess that, if
after having had a certain name after six months a citizen is still
determined to create a new gens, he should be allowed to do so.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Our Crippled Gens System
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:21:21 -0400

> Salvete omnes; et salve, A. Claudi Petre.
>
> --- Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@--------> wrote:
>> If you want to have a historical system we must go back and make it
>> possible
>> to do so. For a historical gens format to be developed the gens need
>> to be
>> much more active or at least more efficient.
>>
>> How can families be organised realistically with the current number
>> of gens
>> with 1 or 2 members? Having two Paters or automatic approval of new
>> citizens
>> into gens would make the possibility of a nation wide system far more
>> feasible.
>
Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:
> Maybe I didn't make myself fully understood. I am not against having
> several patres in a gens; on the contrary, I am constantly advocating
> for this. Have you read the "Gentes and Familiae" thread?
>
> I can not be in favour of automatic approval because that would be even
> more historically incorrect than what we have now.

I see. I am glad we have a meeting of minds on the extra Paters issue.

>
>> Amulius Claudius Petrus wrote:
>>
>>>> 2) Opening Gens
>>>> Opening a gens is a commitment. A citizen wishing to create a new
>>>> gens
>>>> should prove his worth. We could do this by insisting a citizen
>> has
>>>> been
>>>> active for 6 months. Yes this will limit possible names though is
>> it
>>>> not
>>>> pathetic to be closing families that consist of only one person on
>> a
>>>> regular
>>>> bases?! A new gen should be earned and being a Pater/Mater must be
>> a
>>>> position that is not so easy to receive. This will also greatly
>>>> reduce the
>>>> chances of having "dead" Paters/Maters who never respond.
>>
>> Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:
>>
>>> I would agree on this, although adapting it to a more historically
>>> pertinent environment.
>>
>> I am glad you agree on the strongest point of my solution. If I have
>> no
>> support on any of the other changes I proposed then we should at
>> least push
>> this. The opening of gens is a "free for all". This is very
>> unhistorical in
>> it's self. I would love to see this idea tweaked to perfection by
>> citizen
>> feedback.
>
Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:
> Yes, I would agree that, to found a new gens (not a familia, bear in
> mind), a citizen should be fairly determined to do so. I guess that, if
> after having had a certain name after six months a citizen is still
> determined to create a new gens, he should be allowed to do so.

Exactly! The number of "dead" gens is quite astounding. It is hard to
believe citizens have let this go as long as it has. Something must be done
to correct this flaw.

Hinc est mei oratio!

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] (unknown)
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:35:16 -0400

Inusitatus... Futtilis avius quamquam.

Hinc est mei oratio!

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/

> To all concerned,
>
>
> I Publius Cornelius Scipio Magister, do hereby, retract my application for
> citizenship in Novaroma and in the Gente Cornelia. My reasons for this are
> clear. I apologize for all that has transpired within the last four days,
> but there is nothing that I can do to ease or refute it. I wish nothing but
> prosperity for you, and I shall not call again.
>
>
> I also validate all claims made by Sebastyen Storm nee Randall Drennan.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Our Crippled Gens System
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:38:38 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve, A. Claudi Petre.

--- Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@--------> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> I see. I am glad we have a meeting of minds on the extra Paters
> issue.

So I am. What is your opinion on the whole gentes+familiae issue?

<<snipped>>

> Exactly! The number of "dead" gens is quite astounding. It is hard to
> believe citizens have let this go as long as it has. Something must
> be done
> to correct this flaw.

I am happy to see that we also agree on this one.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Questores and Censores
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <tjalens.h@-------->
Date:	Mon, 11 Jun 2001 00:48:26 +0200

Salve Illustrus Senator and Censor Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix et Salvete
Omnes!

> [...]
> > If we subordinate other magistrates to
> > the Quaestores, we would break the Mos Majorum, the
> > unwritten law of that time.
> > Because of this I oppose any subordination of any
> > Quaestores to the
> > Censors, it would be a break with tradition.
> [...]
> > I propose that the Censors will operate through
> > Censorial Scribae and the
> > right to get needed help from the Governors.
>
>Ok here we have some issues. In this aspect we are very different from
>ancient Rome. Our provinces are no where near developed to the degree
>they were in ancient Rome. Our Censors also do not work just 18 months
>and then essentially disappear from the scene. This is going to be a
>near every year event. Our Censors do so much more now then what the
>ancients did. We have deviated from the ancients in the job limits of
>the Censors. I think maybe given our deviation from the ancients we
>should create Quaestorial Censori. I think it would be a minor
>modification given the examples you have sited above about various
>Quaestorial positions. I think with our already accepted deviations
>from ancient Rome. This one should be granted as well. Let me stress
>this. Quaestorship is a position that should give our lower level
>magistrates experience so that they can seek higher office. I do not
>see this currently happening in Nova Roma (execpt maybe the Consular
>Quaestors). To date, what actually has our Quaestors DONE? What
>financial duties do our Curule Aedlie Quaestors do? or for that matter
>our Plebian Aedile Quaestors? I think that the Censorial Quaestors will
>definately achieve the objective of giving our lower level magistrates
>much needed experience in the workings of Nova Roma.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

There are two aspects of this question:

1. The work of the Quaestores. I freely admit that we, the Quaestores,
don't have much to do. We agree there. Though if You remember I have
already proposed changes to that. I am prepared to work together with
others to change the office of Quaestores to make the office more useable.

2. The other is to break with tradition. Two wrongs don't don't make one
right. To subordinate Quaestores is not the way to go. This would continue
to change the office of Censores too much and break with Mos Maiorum too
much. This shouldn't be done! But there seem to be another way, a
compromise, I will come back to that.

>

>> MAIOR: If the Censores think that is necessary a
>> elected magistrate to assist them, there are a
>> possibility of create two positions of Vigintisexviri,
>> directly subordinated to the Censores, with a term who
>> matches those of their Censor (two years,
>> intercalated). However, i believe that a scribe,
>> personally selected by the Censor, can work better...
>
>That idea has potential. What could we call it?
>
>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

I agree that below the Quaestores there was a lower level of magistrates
which didn't lead to a place in the Senate, as the position of Quaestores
and other magistrates did, the Vigintisexviri. This is the "place to draw
the line for changes.

We have already created seven non-historiacl positions within the
Vigintisexviri due to our modern needs. I side with Illustrus Aedilis
Plebis and Propraetor Marcus Arminius Maior and propose that we "create two
positions of Vigintisexviri directly subordinated to the Censores, with a
term who matches those of their Censor (two years intercalated)". I also
propose that they should be called "Duumviri census populi". This is in
line with the naming tradition of other magistrates within the
Vigintisexviri.

They will be in good company with the Rogatores, Curator Araneum, Curator
Sermo and Curator Differum, offices that are important but not historically
accurate. This way we do change one category of magistrates where we
already have made great changes and keep other categories out of
non-historical changes.

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Quaestor of Nova Roma
Propraetor of Thule
Accensus to Consul Marcus Cassius Julianus

The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an offical opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
Join the Main List for Nova Roma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma
Join the List for the Thule Provincia in Nova Roma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ThuleNovaRoma/join
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://www.acc.umu.se/~kerish/novaroma/main.html
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
Caeso, he who also is known as Christer Edling.
************************************************
Using a keyboard that don't want to make L! :-(
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10
DOG BOARDING HOUSE PHONE: +90 - 503 56
MOBILE: +70 - 643 88 80

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Questores and Censores
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:51:04 -0700

>
> >> MAIOR: If the Censores think that is necessary a
> >> elected magistrate to assist them, there are a
> >> possibility of create two positions of Vigintisexviri,
> >> directly subordinated to the Censores, with a term who
> >> matches those of their Censor (two years,
> >> intercalated). However, i believe that a scribe,
> >> personally selected by the Censor, can work better...
> >
> >That idea has potential. What could we call it?
> >
> >Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> I agree that below the Quaestores there was a lower level of
> magistrates
> which didn't lead to a place in the Senate, as the position of
> Quaestores
> and other magistrates did, the Vigintisexviri. This is the "place to
> draw
> the line for changes.
>
> We have already created seven non-historiacl positions within the
> Vigintisexviri due to our modern needs. I side with Illustrus Aedilis
> Plebis and Propraetor Marcus Arminius Maior and propose that we
> "create two
> positions of Vigintisexviri directly subordinated to the Censores,
> with a
> term who matches those of their Censor (two years intercalated)". I
> also
> propose that they should be called "Duumviri census populi". This is
> in
> line with the naming tradition of other magistrates within the
> Vigintisexviri.
>
> They will be in good company with the Rogatores, Curator Araneum,
> Curator
> Sermo and Curator Differum, offices that are important but not
> historically
> accurate. This way we do change one category of magistrates where we
> already have made great changes and keep other categories out of
> non-historical changes.

Ave,

I like "Duumviri census populi." But, I think they should be elected
yearly. Not with the same term as the Censors. If there are no
objections I will make that change.

Should they get more century points than regular Vigintisexiri
positions? This will be a huge job and bound to get worse ever census
NR has?

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Our Crippled Gens System
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 19:06:15 -0400

> Salvete omnes; et salve, A. Claudi Petre.
>
> --- Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@--------> wrote:
>
> <<snipped>>
>
>> I see. I am glad we have a meeting of minds on the extra Paters
>> issue.

Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:
> So I am. What is your opinion on the whole gentes+familiae issue?
>

I think in the long term it is a great idea. As it says in our constitution
the gens is the back bone in Roman society. I see no harm in making the
system more to our ancestors ways. Though like I stated before in our
current position it would only do harm to start making changes. Should we
not fix current, and serious flaws already detected with the way we manage
gens? We must solve the "dead" pater issue and the way we open gens first
before starting up familiae. If we where to implement familiae at this time
it would only feather complicate the problems still at hand.

Hinc est mei oratio!

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re:(unknown)
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 19:09:08 -0400

Inusitatus... Futtilis avius quamquam.
Strange... Nothing lost though.

Hinc est mei oratio!

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/

>> To all concerned,
>>
>>
>> I Publius Cornelius Scipio Magister, do hereby, retract my application for
>> citizenship in Novaroma and in the Gente Cornelia. My reasons for this are
>> clear. I apologize for all that has transpired within the last four days,
>> but there is nothing that I can do to ease or refute it. I wish nothing but
>> prosperity for you, and I shall not call again.
>>
>>
>> I also validate all claims made by Sebastyen Storm nee Randall Drennan.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Ancient Census (long)
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:31:37 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@e...> wrote:
SNIP
> >
> > MAIOR: If the Censores think that is necessary a
> > elected magistrate to assist them, there are a
> > possibility of create two positions of Vigintisexviri,
> > directly subordinated to the Censores, with a term who
> > matches those of their Censor (two years,
> > intercalated). However, i believe that a scribe,
> > personally selected by the Censor, can work better...
>SULLA:
> That idea has potential. What could we call it?
>
DRUSUS:
In Antiquita "the citizens were summoned by a public cryer (praeco) to
appear before the censors" so I would sugest we use that term.

The quoted part is from this article on the census

I. THE CENSUS, the first and principal duty of the censors, for which
the proper expression is censum agere (Liv. iii. 3, 22, iv.8), was
always held in the Campus Martius, and from the year B.C. 435 in a
special building called Villa Publica, which was erected for that
purpose by the second pair of censors, C. Furius Pacilus and M.
Geganius Macerinus (Liv. iv.22; Varr. R.R. iii.2). An account of the
formalities with which the census was opened is given in a fragment of
the Tabulae Censoriae, preserved by Varro (L.L. vi.86, 87, ed.
M�ller). After the auspicia had been taken, the citizens were summoned
by a public cryer (praeco ) to appear before the censors. Each tribe
was called up separately (Dionys. v.75); and the names in each tribe
were probably taken according to the lists previously made out by the
tribunes of the tribes. Every paterfamilias had to appear in person
before the censors, who were seated in their curule chairs; and those
names were taken first which were considered to be of good omen, such
as Valerius, Salvius, Statorius, &c. (Festus, s.v. Lacus Lucrinus;
Schol. Bob. ad Cic. pro Scaur. p374, ed. Orelli). The census was
conducted ad arbitrium censoris; but the censors laid down certain
rules (Liv. iv.8, xxix.15), sometimes called leges censui censendo
(Liv. xliii.14), in which mention was made of the different kinds of
property subject to the census, and in what way their value was to be
estimated. According to these laws each citizen had to give an account
of himself, of his family, and of his property upon oath, ex animi
sententia (Dionys. iv.15; Liv. xliii.14). First he had to give his
full name (praenomen, nomen, and cognomen ) and that of his father, or
if he were a freedman that of his patron, and he was likewise obliged
to state his age. He was then asked, Tu, ex animi tui sententia,
uxorem habes? and if married he had to give the name of his wife, and
likewise the number, names, and ages of his children, if any (Gell.
iv.20; Cic. de Orat. ii.64; Tab. Heracl. 142 (68); Dig. 50 tit.15 s3).
Single women (viduae) and orphans (orbi orbaeque), were represented by
their tutores; their names were entered in separate lists, and they
were not included in the sum total of capita (cf. Liv. iii.3, Epit.
59). After a citizen had stated his name, age, family, &c., he then
had to give an account of all his property, so far as it was subject
to the census. In making this statement he was said censere or censeri
, as a deponent, "to value or estimate himself," or as a passive "to
be valued or estimated:" the censor, who received the statement, was
also said censere, as well as accipere censum (cf. Cic. pro Flacc. 32;
Liv. xxxix.15). Only such things were liable to the census (censui
censendo) as were property ex jure Quiritium . At first each citizen
appears to have merely given the value of his whole property in
general without entering into details (Dionys. iv.15; Cic. de Leg.
iii.3; Festus, s.v. Censores ); but it soon became the practice to
give a minute specification of each article, as well as the general
value of the whole (cf. Cic. pro Flacc. 32; Gell. vii.11; Plut. Cat.
Maj. 18). Land formed the most important article in the census; but
public land, the possessio of which only belonged to a citizen, was
excluded as not being Quiritarian property. If we may judge from the
practice of the imperial period, it was the custom to give a most
minute specification of all such land as a citizen held ex jure
Quiritium. He had to state the name and situation of the land, and to
specify what portion of it was arable, what meadow, what vineyard, and
what olive-ground: and to the land thus minutely described he had to
affix his own valuation (Dig. 50 tit.15 s4). Slaves and cattle formed
the next most important item. The censors also possessed the right of
calling for a return of such objects as had not usually been given in,
such as clothing, jewels, and carriages (Liv. xxxix.44; Plut. Cat.
Maj. 18). It has been doubted by some modern writers whether the
censors possessed the power of setting a higher valuation on the
property than the citizens themselves had put; but when we recollect
the discretionary nature of the censors' powers, and the necessity
almost that existed, in order to prevent fraud, that the right of
making a surcharge should be vested in somebody's hands, we can hardly
doubt that the censors had this power. It is moreover expressly stated
that on one occasion they made an extravagant surcharge on articles of
luxury (Liv. xxxix.44; Plut. Cat. Maj. 18); and even if they did not
enter in their books the property of a person at a higher value than
he returned it, they accomplished the same end by compelling him to
pay down the tax upon the property at a higher rate than others. The
tax (tributum) was usually one per thousand upon the property entered
in the books of the censors; but on one occasion the censors, as a
punishment, compelled a person to pay eight per thousand (octuplicato
censu, Liv. iv.24).

A person, who voluntarily absented himself from the census, and thus
became incensus, was subject to the severest punishment. Servius
Tullius is said to have threatened the incensus with imprisonment and
death (Liv. i.44); and in the republican period he might be sold by
the state as a slave (Cic. pro Caecin. 34). In the later times of the
republic a person who was absent from the census, might be represented
by another, and thus be registered by the censors (Varr. L.L. vi.86).
Whether the soldiers who were absent on service had to appoint a
representative, may be questioned. In ancient times the sudden
breaking out of a war prevented the census from being taken (Liv.
vi.31), because a large number of the citizens would necessarily be
absent. It is supposed from a passage in Livy (xxix.37), that in later
times the censors sent commissioners into the provinces with full
powers to take the census of the Roman soldiers there; but this seems
to have been only a special case. It is, on the contrary, probable
from the way in which Cicero pleads the absence of Archias from Rome
with the army under Lucullus, as a sufficient reason for his not
having been enrolled in the census (pro Arch. 5), that service in the
army was a valid excuse for absence.

After the censors had received the names of all the citizens with the
amount of their property, they then had to make out the lists of the
tribes, and also of the classes and centuries; for by the legislation
of Servius Tullius the position of each citizen in the state was
determined by the amount of his property [COMITIA CENTURIATA.] These
lists formed a most important part of the Tabulae Censoriae, under
which name were included all the documents connected in any way with
the discharge of the censors' duties (Cic. de Leg. iii.3; Liv.
xxiv.18; Plut. Cat. Maj. 16; Cic. de Leg. Agr. i.2). These lists, as
far at least as they were connected with the finances of the state,
were deposited in the aerarium, which was the temple of Saturn (Liv.
xxix.37); but the regular depositary for all the archives of the
censors was in earlier times the Atrium Libertatis, near the Villa
publica (Liv. xliii.16, xlv.15), and in later times the temple of the
Nymphs (Cic. pro Mil. 27).

Besides the arrangement of the citizens into tribes, centuries, and
classes, the censors had also to make out the lists of the senators
for the ensuing lustrum, or till new censors were appointed; stsriking
out the names of such as they considered unworthy, and making
additions to the body from those who were qualified. This important
part of their duties is explained under SENATUS. In the same manner
they held a review of the equites equo publico, and added and removed
names as they judged proper. [EQUITES.]

After the lists had been completed, the number of citizens was counted
up, and the sum total announced; and accordingly we find that, in the
account of a census, the number of citizens is likewise usually given.
They are in such cases spoken of as capita, sometimes with the
addition of the word civium, and sometimes not; and hence to be
registered in the census was the same thing as caput habere. [CAPUT.]

(Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities)

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Our Crippled Gens System
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:35:03 -0700 (PDT)

Salve, A. Claudi Petre.

--- Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@--------> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> I think in the long term it is a great idea. As it says in our
> constitution
> the gens is the back bone in Roman society. I see no harm in making
> the
> system more to our ancestors ways. Though like I stated before in our
> current position it would only do harm to start making changes.
> Should we
> not fix current, and serious flaws already detected with the way we
> manage
> gens? We must solve the "dead" pater issue and the way we open gens
> first
> before starting up familiae. If we where to implement familiae at
> this time
> it would only feather complicate the problems still at hand.

And I guess your solutions would be the three points you proposed
earlier. However, I think that, at least in the subject of automatic
acceptance, this would be so historically incorrect as to be
unacceptable.

Besides, I think that, after our census, and with a much reduced number
of gentes, these problems will sort themselves out, as the
paterfamiliae of the remaining gentes will surely be more active. And
if we implement the familiae system, the approval of a single
paterfamilias inside a gens will allow a citizen to create a new
familia inside that gens.

To resume, I do not understand the problems you see in implementing the
traditional system, as it would directly imply one (and probably two)
of your proposed solutions.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/