Subject:	[novaroma] Magnus Ludi XXXVI
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 Feb 2002 00:56:44 -0000

Victrix Patriotates Nova Britannia!!!

Po (who is a rootin' for ya)

Bene vale!

Subject:	[novaroma] Victory for Nova Britannia!!!!
From:	"C. Minucius Hadrianus" <shinjikun@shinjikun.com>
Date:	Sun, 3 Feb 2002 22:02:18 -0500

Avete!

Victory for Nova Britannia!!!!

The Patriots triumph in Superbowl XXXVI !!!!

Valete,

C. Minucius Hadrianus
Quaestor
Lictor Curiatus
Legate of Massachusetts
Scriba Propraetoris, Nova Britannia


ICQ# 28924742

"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." - Vegetius



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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Captured Dissidents
From:	"teleriferchnyfain" <rckovak@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 04 Feb 2002 03:40:34 -0000

I am hoping that what I hear from my fellow military reservists
stationed at these prisoner of war camps is true: that the pictures
vaunted by the media are simply how these prisoners have to be
transported to avoid compromising state security (making sure they
can't see classified equipment, base layout, etc).

We cannot ignore the Geneva Convention just because we don't like the
Taliban. Goddess knows I'd love to castrate the lot of them, but I
am an individual. Our government needs to remain above that sort of
behavior, to set an example. So what that these characters didn't
behave well? Does that justify us? I believe we all learned that
answer in kindergarten, or from our mothers.

Terrible as the terrorist bombings of Sept. 11 were, they pale in
comparison to the death camps of WWII Nazis, yet we did indeed follow
the Geneva convention rules for humane treatment of prisoners there.

As for these guys not being prisoners of war, really! Bush keeps
spouting off about this war on terrorism. That's the whole point.

Human rights do not depend on whether or not the person in question
is a "good guy". They simply exist, that civilized people treat
human beings with a minimum of respect, no matter what type of
monsters they are. We don't let them run rampant killing people,
etc. We restrain such psychopaths, whether individuals or
governments. But we don't use torture, kill before finding out
whether the person is guilty, we don't lower ourselves to the level
of the criminals.

Because if we do, we are no better than they are, and we deserve the
same treatment.

Helena Galeria
USN, Retired

Subject:	[novaroma] Agenda Item - Lex Cornelia de Temporum Defintone Magistratum
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sun, 03 Feb 2002 19:51:54 -0800

Avete Omnes,

Earlier this week I addressed you, citizens of Nova Roma with some of my
agenda for the coming month. In that address I told you I would begin
posting some of the texts for the laws I hope to promulgate in this
month. Without further delay I will begin this task tonight.

Below you will see the proposed text which would become a revision of an
excellent law, the lex Iunia de Temporum Defintione Consulatuum. This
revision would expand the Lex Iunia by including more than just the
Consuls. It would now include Censors. Praetors and Aediles under its
scope.

I will propose this law to the Comita Populi Tributa for approval later
this month.

Without further comments, here is the exact lex that I hope would meet
with the satisfaction of the People of Nova Roma.

___

LEX CORNELIA DE TEMPORUM DEFINTIONE MAGISTRATUM

This law shall regulate the amount of times a person may hold certain
elected magistracies during a specified time period.

1. No person shall hold the office of censor consecutively or more than
twice in a five year period. This exception to this provision shall be
any censor suffectus who has served 6 months or less of his
predecessor's term of office.

2. No person shall hold the office of praetor or aedile consecutively,
or in any five year period, hold any of the aforementioned offices more
than twice. The exception to this shall be any praetor suffectus or
aedile suffectus who has served 3 months or less of his predecessor's
term of office.

3. The Vigintisexviri and Quaestores shall be exempt from the provisions

of this law.
___

Respectfully submitted,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul of Nova Roma

Subject:	[novaroma] Agenda item - Title needed - Macellum law
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sun, 03 Feb 2002 19:51:59 -0800

Avete Omnes,

My second item that I would bring to a vote to both the Senate and
People of Nova Roma would be a constitutional change. This means that
it will need to get 2/3 approval from the Senate of Nova Roma as well
pass the Comitia Centuriata. I hope that this endeavor will be
successful as it his both historical and gives our Curule Aediles
something productive to do within Nova Roma.

The purpose of this law is to change the day to day operations of the
Macellum (marketplace) from the jurisdiction of the Censors to the
jurisdiction of the Curule Aediles. To make it perfectly clear, the
Censors will retain the authority to appoint and remove members of the
Macellum (and Ordo Equaestor) however, the day to day issues such as
dealing with customer complaints, fielding questions from members of the
Macellum, promotion of the Macellum and other duties would fall squarely
to the Curule Aediles.

Below will be the text of the proposed law:

_____

Currently the Constitution reads:

II. C. 2 - Ordo equester (equestrian order). The equestrian order shall
consist of citizens who are engaged in the conduct of commerce
(preferably with a Roman theme) who request and are granted entry into
the equestrian order by the Censors. Such individuals are expected to
contribute a portion of the revenue derived from Nova Roma back to the
State, and receive reasonable encouragement in their enterprises in
return. For purposes of participating in the comitia, holding office,
etc. members of the equestrian order shall be considered to be of the
patrician or plebeian order, depending on their status prior to
inclusion in the equestrian order.

This would be rewritten to state the following:

II. C. 2 – Ordo Equester (equestrian order). The equestrian order shall
consist of citizens who are engaged in the conduct of commerce
(preferable with a Roman theme) who request and are granted entry into
the equestrian order by the Censors. Such individuals are expected to
contribute a portion of the revenue derived from Nova Roma back to the
State, and receive reasonable encouragement in their enterprises in
return. For purposes of participating in the Comitia, holding office,
etc. members of the Equestrian order shall be considered to be of the
Patrician or Plebian Order, depending on their status prior to inclusion
in the equestrian order.

This section would be changed:

IV.A.1.e - To maintain the album equestris (lists of members of the
equestrian order), including the power to add and remove names on that
list;

This section would now read:

IV. A. 1. e – To maintain the Album Equestris (list of members of the
equestrian order), including the power to add and remove names on that
list;

A new section will be added under the job description of the Curule
Aediles:

1. To hold Imperium;
2. To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to see to the conduct of
public games and other festivals and gatherings and in regards to the
Macellum and the Ordo Equaestor, to ensure order at public religious
events, to see to the maintenance of any real public facilities that the
State should acquire, and to administer the law (such edicts being
binding upon themselves as well as others);
3. To pronounce intercessio against another aedile (curule or plebeian)
or magistrate of lesser authority;
4. To appoint scribae (clerks) to assist with administrative and other
tasks, as he shall see fit.
5. To maintain the Macellum and the Ordo Equaestor. This will include
supervising all aspects of the Macellum. In addition to this, it is the
responsibility of the Curule Aediles to report any changes of the Ordo
Equaestor to the Censors.
____

Respectfully submitted,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul of Nova Roma

Subject:	[novaroma] Agenda Item - Title Needed - Gens Registration Lex
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sun, 03 Feb 2002 19:52:02 -0800

Avete Omnes,

The final law I will post this evening is the Gens Registration Lex. I
hope this law will meet with the full approval of the People of Nova
Roma, given the recent discussion of Census's and such. I think this is
an appropriate first step in that process, by focusing on Paterfamiliae
and Materfamiliae. This law will be promulgated via the Comitia Populi
Tributa, hopefully later in the month.

____

Pursuant to the Constitution of Nova Roma (II.D.3) The Censors of Nova
Roma hereby enact an edict in regards to the registration of Gentes with
the Office of Censors.

(The use of the word paterfamilias is, for the purpose of this edict,
will include both Paterfamilias and materfamilias.)

I. Each Gens shall be registered with the office of the Censors every
year.

II. Registration of Gentes must be completed by the last day of
Martius.

III. The censors must announce the opening of the registration period
at least 8 weeks before the deadline on the official Nova Roma email
list.

IV. Patresfamilias are responsible for contacting the Censores using
any of these methods:

A. Send an email to the Censors via the censors@novaroma.org email
address.
B. Mail a written statement to the Nova Roma post office box.
C. Complete a form on the Nova Roma web site, the address of which
shall be specified by the Censores at the beginning of the registration
period.

IV. A. The official address of all Nova Roma Mail Correspondence is:

Nova Roma
P.O. Box 1897,
Wells, ME 04090

V. When the deadline is reached, the Censors must publish a list of
Gentes that have failed to register with the Office of Censors. This
list must be published on the official Nova Roma email lists located at
novaroma@yahoogroups.com and novaromaannounce@yahoogroups.com.

VI. A Gens that has failed to register with the office of Censors is
considered to have NO Paterfamilias. If there are other members of that
gens the Censors must work with the Gens to select a new Paterfamilias.

VII. A Gens that has failed to register with the office of the Censors,
and have no other members of the gentes to take over the position of
Censors is to be removed from the Album Gentium, with its members
considered outside of any gens and given a nomen of "nemo". The nomen
formerly used by that gens should be considered unused and available for
future applicants.

VIII. Patresfamilias who are unable to communicate with the office of
Censors may appoint a designate within the Gens to act as
Paterfamilias. However, notification must be on file in the office of
the Censor(es).

IX. During the period of time when there is no paterfamilias in the
Gens, the Gens will remain static. No new admissions may take place.
Nor can there be any individual leave the Gens until a new paterfamilias
is selected. Nor can any sub-gentes be established during this period.

X. While a Gens is still trying to pick a new paterfamilias, that gens
will be listed as closed for new citizens recruitment. The new
paterfamilias must notify the Censors, upon receipt of the position of
Paterfamilias if he/she wants to reopen the gens for new members.

Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul of Nova Roma

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Captured Dissidents
From:	"C. Minucius Hadrianus" <shinjikun@shinjikun.com>
Date:	Sun, 3 Feb 2002 23:15:32 -0500

Salve,

To the best of my knowledge, the more extreme security measures shown in
the media are only taken when the circumstances require it. The
detainees in question are extremely dangerous individuals, are must be
treated as such. If you have ever seen how the most dangerous and
violent criminals are (justifiably) handled in our prison system, the
parallels would be obvious. I can not imagine, given the professionalism
of our military, that the detainees would be subject to any unnecessary
cruelty. As far as their legal status, under the Laws of Land Warfare,
codified in Geneva and Hague conventions (among others), they are
clearly illegal combatants, and therefore cannot not legally be
considered prisoners-of-war in the traditional sense. They are criminals
pure and simple, and are subject to military tribunal, whereas a
bona-fide prisoner-or-war is not, unless he has violated the Laws of
Land warfare himself. This certainly does not mean they should be
treated in an inhumane fashion or abused in anyway (which I am certain
they are not), but it does mean they lack certain rights guaranteed to
POW's by international law. As a retired sailor, I am a bit surprised
that you could even consider the possibility that your fellow servicemen
and women would treat these individuals in anything other than a
professional manner, and I hope I merely misunderstood your post. Please
forgive me if I seem a bit touchy on this subject, but I tend to get a
bit defensive when the honor of our servicemen and women gets called
into question.. I've had to put up with it a lot of it these days.

Vale Respectfully,

C. Minucius Hadrianus

Former U.S. Army & Army National Guard
Current U.S. Air National Guard



-----Original Message-----
From: teleriferchnyfain [mailto:rckovak@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 10:41 PM
To: novaroma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Captured Dissidents

I am hoping that what I hear from my fellow military reservists
stationed at these prisoner of war camps is true: that the pictures
vaunted by the media are simply how these prisoners have to be
transported to avoid compromising state security (making sure they
can't see classified equipment, base layout, etc).

We cannot ignore the Geneva Convention just because we don't like the
Taliban. Goddess knows I'd love to castrate the lot of them, but I
am an individual. Our government needs to remain above that sort of
behavior, to set an example. So what that these characters didn't
behave well? Does that justify us? I believe we all learned that
answer in kindergarten, or from our mothers.

Terrible as the terrorist bombings of Sept. 11 were, they pale in
comparison to the death camps of WWII Nazis, yet we did indeed follow
the Geneva convention rules for humane treatment of prisoners there.

As for these guys not being prisoners of war, really! Bush keeps
spouting off about this war on terrorism. That's the whole point.

Human rights do not depend on whether or not the person in question
is a "good guy". They simply exist, that civilized people treat
human beings with a minimum of respect, no matter what type of
monsters they are. We don't let them run rampant killing people,
etc. We restrain such psychopaths, whether individuals or
governments. But we don't use torture, kill before finding out
whether the person is guilty, we don't lower ourselves to the level
of the criminals.

Because if we do, we are no better than they are, and we deserve the
same treatment.

Helena Galeria
USN, Retired

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: the Romans and Groundhog day.
From:	"teleriferchnyfain" <rckovak@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 04 Feb 2002 05:22:37 -0000

Did the Romans have a comparable holiday to Imbolc (that would be the
non-Christian precursor to Candlemas)?
The Celts celebrated this day as Brigdnasa (Brigid's day - the
Goddess Brigit). The hearth and fire was sacred to Her. When the
Christians turned the Goddess into a saint, that aspect remained -
therefore candles were blessed on that day.
Helena Galeria




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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Etruscan Women
From:	"teleriferchnyfain" <rckovak@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 04 Feb 2002 05:28:28 -0000

Salvete,
Sounds like Etruscan women had it a LOT better than Roman women. Its
very easy to trace family lines through the women, by the way.
Doesn't matter at all who the father is if the line is matrilinial.
The Celts did it that way.
Vale bene,
Helena Galeria

Subject:	AW: [novaroma] Victory for Nova Britannia!!!!
From:	<3s@hsk-net.de>
Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2002 01:56:07 -0600 (CST)

Congrats!!!

I heared this on radio, even here in Germania.

Caius Flavius Diocletianus

-- Original Nachricht--
Von: "C. Minucius Hadrianus" <shinjikun@shinjikun.com>
An: NovaBritannia <NovaBritannia@yahoogroups.com>,Novaroma <novaroma@yahoogroups.com>
Senden: 04:02
Betreff: [novaroma] Victory for Nova Britannia!!!!

Avete!

Victory for Nova Britannia!!!!

The Patriots triumph in Superbowl XXXVI !!!!

Valete,

C. Minucius Hadrianus
Quaestor
Lictor Curiatus
Legate of Massachusetts
Scriba Propraetoris, Nova Britannia


ICQ# 28924742

"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." - Vegetius



[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: Captured Dissidents
From:	"rexmarciusnr" <Tal123berg@aol.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 Feb 2002 03:54:08 -0000

Salve Helena!

Well spoken indeed!

Marcus Marcius Rex

--- In novaroma@y..., "teleriferchnyfain" <rckovak@e...> wrote:
>
> Because if we do, we are no better than they are, and we deserve
the
> same treatment.
>
> Helena Galeria
> USN, Retired

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Call for photos...
From:	"Valerie Hartzer" <valsylph@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2002 00:35:27 -0500

Salvete Omnes,
Several weeks ago there was a call for photos for the Album Civium/ Gentium and I emailed a photo to the address given. My photo still has not been added to the appropriate web pages. Was the photo lost or did it not open correctly? Do you need another photo in a differest format? Please let me know ASAP if the photo was received and if there was any problem with the photo.

Thank you,
Bene vale,
Lucia Valeria Secunda Ianuaria
Materfamilias Gens Valeria Secunda
"Try to enjoy the great festival of life with other men"
Epictetus



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





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

Subject:	=?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A=20=5Bnovaroma=5D=20Victory=20for=20Nova=20Britannia=21=21=21=21?=
From:	tiberius.ann@bluemail.ch
Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:41:39 +0100

Salvete

I didn't hear it!!! I even stayed up all night to watch it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess that is still my time in an american school in the persian Gulf
from 1989 to 1992, which keeps me up during times like that. For all who
want to know, I played wide receiver.

By the way, I live in Switzerland and am Swiss, and the time for the live
coverage of SB XXXVI was from midnight to 4:30 in the morning Swiss time.

Even though I thought the Rams would win, the Patriots deffinitely played
better last night and deserved the win.

Curate ut valeatis and don't party too long, Tiberius Annaeus Otho

-- Original-Nachricht --

>Avete!
>
>Victory for Nova Britannia!!!!
>
>The Patriots triumph in Superbowl XXXVI !!!!
>
>Valete,
>
>C. Minucius Hadrianus
>Quaestor
>Lictor Curiatus
>Legate of Massachusetts
>Scriba Propraetoris, Nova Britannia
>
>
>ICQ# 28924742
>
>"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." - Vegetius
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>



________________________________________
E-Mail for everyone! http://www.bluemail.ch/ powered by Bluewin!

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Provincial Census
From:	"tlfortunatus" <labienus@texas.net>
Date:	Mon, 04 Feb 2002 16:47:08 -0000

Salvete Lucia Valieria aliique

> Firstly, I appologize for losing my temper so greatly...

It's not a problem. The frustration caused by inactive magistrates
and patres matresque familias often leads to exactly the kind of
statements that bother you, and I agree entirely with your concerns.
I think that when it comes to actually establishing a census saner
heads will prevail. The paterfamilias registration lex that L
Cornelius has recently posted seems to be a step in the right
direction, for example. Hopefully, the focus will continue to be on
allowing Nova Roma to function, rather than on punishing those who
chose to be less apparently active than others.

> The tour goes to Rome, Pompei is usually optional but for us it is
> an absolute must, Pisa, Florence, Venice, Ferrara, Assisi, Ancona
> to Patras Greece, Olympia, Marathon, Delphi and Athens. We are also
> arriving a day early in Rome to visit Ostia Antica on our own,
> which is supposed to be fabulous.

It sounds like you'll have a great time. I've heard great things
about Ostia.

> Meeting other Nova Romans from European Provincia would be great,
> but as I said I'm not entirely sure just how much time we will
> have.

Yes, those guided tours do tend to be a bit hectic.

> As to philosphical school I am a Stoic, through and through. I am
> reading through the Golden sayings of Epictetus and Marcus
> Aurelius' Meditations at the present.

I, too, am a Stoic. I started with M Aurelius, but tend to prefer
Seneca and Epictetus.

> I'm also reading up on social history and the Religio Romana. I
> also hold an MA in Anthropology with a specialty in Archaeology
> hence my interest in ancient ruins.

While I have no formal training, I find ruins fascinating. I'm more
interested in architecture and the design of houses and insulae than
in the kind of minutiae (item 75, piece of fibula found in rear of
house...) that usually come to mind when I think of archaeology.

> I also am beginning to dabble in mosaic making and am planning
> several projects with Roman themes.

I'm making extremely slow progress on a first mosaic myself, and hope
eventually to decorate my back yard with a collection of patterned
stepping stones. Currently, I'm working on a black-and-white marble
image of Fortuna, which will someday be part of a trio dedicated to
the patron deities of the Labieni. At the rate I'm going, though,
I'll be much older and grayer by the they're I'm done.

> Unfortunately, as a scholar I spend a huge ammount of my time
> reading, usually digging into 3-5 heavy books at a time which means
> it takes a while to get through them and be able to use the
> knowledge as fully as I would like to. It also means that I am not
> online as much.

That sounds more like a reward than an unfortunate circumstance to
me. The advent of my daughter marked an extended hiatus in my
ability to happily lose myself in dense books.

> As to posting a poem I have a few that need dusting off and re-
> visiting anyway so I may post one if it is close enough to topic.
> The last batch I wrote were written in the woods and featured Pan
> who is Greek, not Roman, so I don't know if that is close enough to
> post on For the Muses.

I wouldn't worry about that. The folks at the Musarum are quite easy
going. They've had plenty of modern poetry, a science fiction
novella, a discussion of rock music, and have even had a thread about
the Teletubbies. An homage to Pan won't raise any eyebrows.

> I also directed plays in college including Antigone, and would LOVE
> the opportunity to direct Roman theater IRL.

If you do, I'll gladly buy a ticket to the show.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus

Subject:	Re: R: [novaroma] national anthem
From:	"otto_von_sitter" <otto_von_sitter@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 Feb 2002 17:43:01 -0000

I can't say I've ever heard that. Do you know someplace online
that I could find that?

Marcus Cornelius Tiberius

--- In novaroma@y..., "Prometheus" <marcusprometheus@y...>
wrote:
> Marcus Prometheus SPD.
>
> In my opinion the
> Carmen Saeculare
> of Horatius
> was somehow a national anthem for ROMA
> and could very well be the national anthem of NR.
>
> Bene valete.

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: ANOTHER Roman Movie
From:	"otto_von_sitter" <otto_von_sitter@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 Feb 2002 17:48:56 -0000

Why does it seem so hard for Hollywood to portray something
accurately, with little or no twisting of the truth or outright lying?
Take, for example, the movie Memphis Belle. In the movie, that
plane is torn to peices and a crew member seriously injured on
its final mission. In reality, the plane came back with a few bullet
holes and no injuries among the crew. True, occasionally there
is that good movie that doesn't do that, but they are far and few
between.

Now, if only someone would pick up on a movie portraying one of
Rome's greatest enemies.

Marcus Cornelius Tiberius

--- In novaroma@y..., qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 2/3/02 12:08:44 PM Pacific Standard
Time,
> otto_von_sitter@y... writes:
>
>
> > BTW, another cool movie idea would be about Hannibal and
the
> > end of Carthage. :-)
> >
> > Marcus Cornelius Tiberius
> >
>
> Marcus Cornelius.
> Actually Spike Lee at one point had this idea, with Denzel
Washington as
> Hannibal.
> However he saw it as a power struggle between White
Supremacists (Romans) and
> freedom loving blacks (Libyans and Numidians) and did not
even include the
> Semantic Phoenicians.
> He may have not even known about them. Or if he did, he
disregarded them.
> At anyrate the Society of Military Historians, and the Journal of
Roman
> Studies joined forces to block him while in development.
Since his company
> did not have enough money to complete production he would
have to get a bank
> loan, and no bank would deal with him due to the inflammatory
and revisionist
> subject he planned to cover. He dropped it and went on to "X"
>
> Q Fabius Maximus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: ANOTHER Roman Movie
From:	"otto_von_sitter" <otto_von_sitter@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 Feb 2002 17:56:07 -0000

It's too bad your Exec. Producer wouldn't agree or maybe
compromise in some way. True, $10,000 for accuracy may be a
bit too much when (most) people won't notice. Hmmm.... I
wonder how shaped and painted cardboard or tagboard would
have done?

As for the trucks, well, that's an acception. There truely was no
way to come up with what you needed, so you made good with
what you had. That gives me another idea, if there are any of
these old rectangular shields around, would you be able to cut
them to the oval shapes? Maybe there are surplus props
someplace from Gladiator or The Viking Queen :-) ?

Marcus Cornelius Tiberius

--- In novaroma@y..., qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 2/3/02 12:08:44 PM Pacific Standard
Time,
> otto_von_sitter@y... writes:
>
>
> > I'm pretty sure Hollywood doesn't give a rat's rump about
> > accuracy and just wants to put out something that will make
> > people amazed at its effects or at it being a "cool" movie
>
> When we were having the meeting about the battle scene at
Pharsallus, for my
> Caesar script, I wanted $10,000 for faberglass oval scutums
since most of our
> reenactors would carry the post 1st century tile shaped one. I
was shot down
> by the Executive Producer, saying that it may be accurate but
the people
> won't know the difference. And he was right. But I wanted the
people who
> did know the difference to take heed that we got it right. That to
me is the
> rewarding part of a job.
> My current project has a scene where in 1954, Cal. State trucks
(This is
> before CAL TRANS) are dumping toxins into a stream. My
research indicates
> that the State used Studebaker 4 x 4 and sixes at that time. Of
course the
> problem is there are no 50s Studis available, and to build one
would cost
> 200,000. We are going to take White and Dodge 40s military
vehicles and
> paint them canary yellow with the CAL State logo on the door.
Still I wish I
> could have
> 50s Studis. That would be soo cool.
>
> Q. Fabius Maximus
>
>
> [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] Agenda Item - Title Needed - Gens Registration Lex
From:	labienus@texas.net
Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:57:27 US/Central

Salvete Consul Corneli aliique

> The final law I will post this evening is the Gens Registration Lex.

This proposal is an excellent step in the right direction. I do have a couple
of comments, the first of which is pure nitpickery. The grammar of many
sections is fairly poor. In section VII, it is bad enough to interfere with
the meaning of the first sentence.

> Pursuant to the Constitution of Nova Roma (II.D.3) The Censors of Nova
> Roma hereby enact an edict in regards to the registration of Gentes with
> the Office of Censors.

Is the effect of the lex, if passed by the tribus, to force the censores to
issue such an edictum? It seems to me that this paragraph should be rewritten
to reflect the fact that it's the people, not the censores, who are mandating
these rules. Also, section II.D.3 refers to the registration of
patresfamilias, not gentes. I suggest that you use section II.D.1 which
requires gentes to be registered.

> I. Each Gens shall be registered with the office of the Censors every
> year.
>
> II. Registration of Gentes must be completed by the last day of
> Martius.
>
> IV. Patresfamilias are responsible for contacting the Censores using
> any of these methods:

Note that the lex doesn't explicitly put the responsibility for registering a
gens in the hands of the patresfamilias. By this lex' rules, it would be
possible for any gentilis to register his or her gens (though doing so might
result in controversy). Perhaps a section between II and III should be
inserted to read, "Each Gens must be registered by its paterfamilias, or by a
representative appointed by him according to section VIII of this lex."

> A. Send an email to the Censors via the censors@novaroma.org email
> address.

Perhaps it would be better to say something like, "...via the official email
address of the Office of the Censors, which is censors@novaroma.org at the time
of the passage of this lex." Otherwise, patresfamilias won't be able to
legally register by e-mail if the address changes. Yes, it's a nitpicky
technicality, but it's best to avoid such problems where possible. It's also
in keeping with the flexible language of the other two methods.

> IV. A. The official address of all Nova Roma Mail Correspondence is:

Again, I'd insert "...at the time of the passage of this lex..." into that
sentence, since things might change in future.

> V. When the deadline is reached, the Censors must publish a list of
> Gentes that have failed to register with the Office of Censors. This
> list must be published on the official Nova Roma email lists located at
> novaroma@yahoogroups.com and novaromaannounce@yahoogroups.com.

Again, I'd avoid explicitly stating the addresses of the lists without some
qualifying statement to allow for future changes.

> VI. A Gens that has failed to register with the office of Censors is
> considered to have NO Paterfamilias. If there are other members of that
> gens the Censors must work with the Gens to select a new Paterfamilias.
>
> VII. A Gens that has failed to register with the office of the Censors,
> and have no other members of the gentes to take over the position of
> Censors is to be removed from the Album Gentium, with its members
> considered outside of any gens and given a nomen of "nemo". The nomen
> formerly used by that gens should be considered unused and available for
> future applicants.
>
> VIII. Patresfamilias who are unable to communicate with the office of
> Censors may appoint a designate within the Gens to act as
> Paterfamilias. However, notification must be on file in the office of
> the Censor(es).
>
> IX. During the period of time when there is no paterfamilias in the
> Gens, the Gens will remain static. No new admissions may take place.
> Nor can there be any individual leave the Gens until a new paterfamilias
> is selected. Nor can any sub-gentes be established during this period.

When I first read this, it seemed that it would doom members of a gens that
found itself without a paterfamilias to being stuck in said gens for nearly a
full year. However, since it is gentes that are being registered each year,
rather than patresfamilias, this is reasonable. Still, should some gentilis
wish to leave such a frozen gens, but lack the ability to become its
paterfamilias (e.g. constantly being outvoted by the other remaining gentiles),
he or she is stuck in an unenviable situation. I realize that Consul Cornelius
wishes to preserve patria potestas, but this is a situation in which patria
potestas in question doesn't even exist.

Also, note that this creates a slight constitutional problem. Earlier, the
censores are required to "work with the Gens"(*) in order to help appoint a new
paterfamilias. However, nothing compels the remaining gentiles to actually
comply. Sure, they can't leave the gens and nobody can join it, but this could
easily be quite acceptible to them. And yet, the constitution states
unequivocally, "Each gens shall, through whatever means it may determine
appropriate, have a paterfamilias... The holder of this position must be
registered as such with the censors."

So, in order for a gens to remain a gens, it must be registered with the
censores AND--not OR--have a paterfamilias which is also registered with the
censores. This lex allows gentes that have no patresfamilias to exist
indefinitely, and is therefore possibly unconstitutional. Would it not be
better to explicitly define a deadline by which remaining gentiles *must*
appoint a new paterfamilias or face the extinction of the gens?

> X. While a Gens is still trying to pick a new paterfamilias, that gens
> will be listed as closed for new citizens recruitment. The new
> paterfamilias must notify the Censors, upon receipt of the position of
> Paterfamilias if he/she wants to reopen the gens for new members.

Isn't this covered by section IX above?

(*)Throughout this lex, the gens is referred to as a corporate entity. The
censores are directed to "work with the Gens", not its members. Do we really
want to start down the road of allowing corporate entities to be treated as
individuals? Shall gentes have rights, or shall their members acquire rights
by being part of a gens? It's a subtle point, but it's something to keep in
mind as we progress.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Agenda Item - Title Needed - Gens Registration Lex
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:24:35 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: labienus@texas.net
To: novaroma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 3:57 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Agenda Item - Title Needed - Gens Registration Lex


Salvete Consul Corneli aliique

> The final law I will post this evening is the Gens Registration Lex.

This proposal is an excellent step in the right direction. I do have a couple
of comments, the first of which is pure nitpickery. The grammar of many
sections is fairly poor. In section VII, it is bad enough to interfere with
the meaning of the first sentence.

Sulla: I have gone through 2 grammar checkers before I submitted this to the ML. On top of that my staff has had this since my staff list has been created. :) In the revision of this lex I have incorporated the comments and reservations of my respected Censorial Colleage Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus due to the fact that the original drafting of this proposed legislation was when I was Censor.

> Pursuant to the Constitution of Nova Roma (II.D.3) The Censors of Nova
> Roma hereby enact an edict in regards to the registration of Gentes with
> the Office of Censors.

Is the effect of the lex, if passed by the tribus, to force the censores to
issue such an edictum? It seems to me that this paragraph should be rewritten
to reflect the fact that it's the people, not the censores, who are mandating
these rules. Also, section II.D.3 refers to the registration of
patresfamilias, not gentes. I suggest that you use section II.D.1 which
requires gentes to be registered.

Sulla: Thank you for that correction it is noted. As I stated above, this was drafted when I was Censor. I will make the appropriate change this evening. I have made changes since October to this proposed law, but the header has remained unchanged since I first originally drafted the law back in October.

> I. Each Gens shall be registered with the office of the Censors every
> year.
>
> II. Registration of Gentes must be completed by the last day of
> Martius.
>
> IV. Patresfamilias are responsible for contacting the Censores using
> any of these methods:

Note that the lex doesn't explicitly put the responsibility for registering a
gens in the hands of the patresfamilias. By this lex' rules, it would be
possible for any gentilis to register his or her gens (though doing so might
result in controversy). Perhaps a section between II and III should be
inserted to read, "Each Gens must be registered by its paterfamilias, or by a
representative appointed by him according to section VIII of this lex."

Sulla: I have no problem adding that part. Its a good idea if Paters/Maters are unavailable to appoint representatives. This has been done in the past.

> A. Send an email to the Censors via the censors@novaroma.org email
> address.

Perhaps it would be better to say something like, "...via the official email
address of the Office of the Censors, which is censors@novaroma.org at the time
of the passage of this lex." Otherwise, patresfamilias won't be able to
legally register by e-mail if the address changes. Yes, it's a nitpicky
technicality, but it's best to avoid such problems where possible. It's also
in keeping with the flexible language of the other two methods.

Sulla: Yes, we can make that addition as well.

> IV. A. The official address of all Nova Roma Mail Correspondence is:

Again, I'd insert "...at the time of the passage of this lex..." into that
sentence, since things might change in future.

Sulla: Yes two other citizens have brought this to my attention, I will be making this revision this evening.

> V. When the deadline is reached, the Censors must publish a list of
> Gentes that have failed to register with the Office of Censors. This
> list must be published on the official Nova Roma email lists located at
> novaroma@yahoogroups.com and novaromaannounce@yahoogroups.com.

Again, I'd avoid explicitly stating the addresses of the lists without some
qualifying statement to allow for future changes.

Sulla: I concur.

> VI. A Gens that has failed to register with the office of Censors is
> considered to have NO Paterfamilias. If there are other members of that
> gens the Censors must work with the Gens to select a new Paterfamilias.
>
> VII. A Gens that has failed to register with the office of the Censors,
> and have no other members of the gentes to take over the position of
> Censors is to be removed from the Album Gentium, with its members
> considered outside of any gens and given a nomen of "nemo". The nomen
> formerly used by that gens should be considered unused and available for
> future applicants.
>
> VIII. Patresfamilias who are unable to communicate with the office of
> Censors may appoint a designate within the Gens to act as
> Paterfamilias. However, notification must be on file in the office of
> the Censor(es).
>
> IX. During the period of time when there is no paterfamilias in the
> Gens, the Gens will remain static. No new admissions may take place.
> Nor can there be any individual leave the Gens until a new paterfamilias
> is selected. Nor can any sub-gentes be established during this period.

When I first read this, it seemed that it would doom members of a gens that
found itself without a paterfamilias to being stuck in said gens for nearly a
full year. However, since it is gentes that are being registered each year,
rather than patresfamilias, this is reasonable. Still, should some gentilis
wish to leave such a frozen gens, but lack the ability to become its
paterfamilias (e.g. constantly being outvoted by the other remaining gentiles),
he or she is stuck in an unenviable situation. I realize that Consul Cornelius
wishes to preserve patria potestas, but this is a situation in which patria
potestas in question doesn't even exist.

Sulla: I think we need to be very careful about the possible dissolution of gentes. I would prefer to have a new Pater/Mater appointed before individuals to leave a gens. I am thinking of the worst case scenario, a pater is unavailable...and the Censors are trying to work with the Gens to appoint a new replacement....and all of a sudden the members of the gens decide they all want to up and split and join other gentes, thus making the original gens disappear..that is not right.

Also, note that this creates a slight constitutional problem. Earlier, the
censores are required to "work with the Gens"(*) in order to help appoint a new
paterfamilias. However, nothing compels the remaining gentiles to actually
comply. Sure, they can't leave the gens and nobody can join it, but this could
easily be quite acceptible to them. And yet, the constitution states
unequivocally, "Each gens shall, through whatever means it may determine
appropriate, have a paterfamilias... The holder of this position must be
registered as such with the censors."

Sulla: Yes, this can be an issue...and it is one that I have thought about. I agree the Constitution is quite clear about each gens shall have a Paterfamilias. Therefore one is needed even if it is just to dismantle the gens and allow its members to be adopted elsewhere then he/she would then allow the gens to merge into another. This has been done in the past.

So, in order for a gens to remain a gens, it must be registered with the
censores AND--not OR--have a paterfamilias which is also registered with the
censores. This lex allows gentes that have no patresfamilias to exist
indefinitely, and is therefore possibly unconstitutional. Would it not be
better to explicitly define a deadline by which remaining gentiles *must*
appoint a new paterfamilias or face the extinction of the gens?

Sulla: I have no problem in putting in a deadline for gentes that fail to have a paterfamilias selected, or we can do what I originally wanted, but was recommended in not putting in, and that would be if after a prolonged timeframe where a pater is not selected within the gens the Censors could appoint one based on factors such as: Service to NR, longevity or any other factor. I am open for suggestions.

> X. While a Gens is still trying to pick a new paterfamilias, that gens
> will be listed as closed for new citizens recruitment. The new
> paterfamilias must notify the Censors, upon receipt of the position of
> Paterfamilias if he/she wants to reopen the gens for new members.

Isn't this covered by section IX above?

Sulla: No, this is stating that no NEW prospective citizens can be brought into the gens. In addition to that, the gens that is Pater-less would be removed from the citizenship application til the new pater informes the Censors that the gens is open to new members.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Agenda Item - Title Needed - Gens Registration Lex
From:	labienus@texas.net
Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:12:55 US/Central

Salve Consul Corneli omnesque

First, let me apologize for my choice of words when I referred to the
proposal's grammar. I appear to have overstated my case, when all I really
meant to suggest was that the document needed a little proofing before being
put before the comitia.

> might result in controversy). Perhaps a section between II and III should
> be inserted to read, "Each Gens must be registered by its paterfamilias, or
> by a representative appointed by him according to section VIII of this lex."
>
> Sulla: I have no problem adding that part. Its a good idea if
> Paters/Maters are unavailable to appoint representatives. This has been done
> in the past.

Well, if the paterfamilias is unavailable to appoint representatives, then the
ability to appoint them doesn't really do any good. Or, did you mean, "It's a
good idea for Paters/Maters to appoint representatives if they are going to be
unavailable"?

> Sulla: I think we need to be very careful about the possible dissolution
> of gentes. I would prefer to have a new Pater/Mater appointed before
> individuals to leave a gens. I am thinking of the worst case scenario, a
> pater is unavailable...and the Censors are trying to work with the Gens to
> appoint a new replacement....and all of a sudden the members of the gens
> decide they all want to up and split and join other gentes, thus making the
> original gens disappear..that is not right.

It's also not preventable in the scenario you presented. If the members of the
gens choose to split up, they will. You'd just force them to appoint a
paterfamilias first, but the result would be exactly the same. The only case
in which your change would have an affect is if one dissatisfied member (or a
few in a large gens) wanted out, but the others wanted to keep him or her in.

> Sulla: Yes, this can be an issue...and it is one that I have thought
> about. I agree the Constitution is quite clear about each gens shall have a
> Paterfamilias. Therefore one is needed even if it is just to dismantle the
> gens and allow its members to be adopted elsewhere then he/she would then
> allow the gens to merge into another.

No. The constitution does not require a paterfamilias in order to dismantle a
gens. The constitution requires a gens to have a paterfamilias, period. No
paterfamilias = no gens. If the members of a gens will not or can not appoint
a paterfamilias, then they are actually not members of a gens.

> Sulla: I have no problem in putting in a deadline for gentes that fail to
> have a paterfamilias selected, or we can do what I originally wanted, but was
> recommended in not putting in, and that would be if after a prolonged
> timeframe where a pater is not selected within the gens the Censors could
> appoint one based on factors such as: Service to NR, longevity or any other
> factor. I am open for suggestions.

The constitution explicitly says that the members of a gens have the sole
authority to determine which of them is paterfamilias. The censores therefore
cannot legally appoint a paterfamilias for a gens without the approval of the
members of that gens.

The deadline idea at least limits the longevity of paterfamilias-less (and
therefore technically unconstitutional) gentes.

> Isn't this covered by section IX above?
>
> Sulla: No, this is stating that no NEW prospective citizens can be brought
> into the gens. In addition to that, the gens that is Pater-less would be
> removed from the citizenship application til the new pater informes the
> Censors that the gens is open to new members.

Ah. You were thinking of gentes in one section, and the censorial database in
the other. Section IX states, "During the period of time when there is not
paterfamilias in the Gens, the Gens will remain static. No new admissions may
take place." Perhaps this could simply be expanded to explain that the gens
will be considered closed, and will not be offered to applicants for
citizenship until a new paterfamilias informs the censores of his willingness
to accept new cives.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Agenda Item - Title Needed - Gens Registration Lex
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:24:44 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: labienus@texas.net
To: novaroma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 5:12 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Agenda Item - Title Needed - Gens Registration Lex


Salve Consul Corneli omnesque

First, let me apologize for my choice of words when I referred to the
proposal's grammar. I appear to have overstated my case, when all I really
meant to suggest was that the document needed a little proofing before being
put before the comitia.

> might result in controversy). Perhaps a section between II and III should
> be inserted to read, "Each Gens must be registered by its paterfamilias, or
> by a representative appointed by him according to section VIII of this lex."
>
> Sulla: I have no problem adding that part. Its a good idea if
> Paters/Maters are unavailable to appoint representatives. This has been done
> in the past.

Well, if the paterfamilias is unavailable to appoint representatives, then the
ability to appoint them doesn't really do any good. Or, did you mean, "It's a
good idea for Paters/Maters to appoint representatives if they are going to be
unavailable"?

Sulla: It is a good idea for Paters/Maters to appoint represenatatives if they are going to be unavailable. This has been done in the past and I think this precedence should be allowed to continue.

> Sulla: I think we need to be very careful about the possible dissolution
> of gentes. I would prefer to have a new Pater/Mater appointed before
> individuals to leave a gens. I am thinking of the worst case scenario, a
> pater is unavailable...and the Censors are trying to work with the Gens to
> appoint a new replacement....and all of a sudden the members of the gens
> decide they all want to up and split and join other gentes, thus making the
> original gens disappear..that is not right.

It's also not preventable in the scenario you presented. If the members of the
gens choose to split up, they will. You'd just force them to appoint a
paterfamilias first, but the result would be exactly the same. The only case
in which your change would have an affect is if one dissatisfied member (or a
few in a large gens) wanted out, but the others wanted to keep him or her in.

Sulla: I understand that. However, I would prefer to wait til a Pater is appointed and give him/her a chance to put the gens on a proper footing. If he is unable too, then the gens can chose to dissolve.

> Sulla: Yes, this can be an issue...and it is one that I have thought
> about. I agree the Constitution is quite clear about each gens shall have a
> Paterfamilias. Therefore one is needed even if it is just to dismantle the
> gens and allow its members to be adopted elsewhere then he/she would then
> allow the gens to merge into another.

No. The constitution does not require a paterfamilias in order to dismantle a
gens. The constitution requires a gens to have a paterfamilias, period. No
paterfamilias = no gens. If the members of a gens will not or can not appoint
a paterfamilias, then they are actually not members of a gens.

Sulla: I understand that but for a gens to be created it must have a pater.

> Sulla: I have no problem in putting in a deadline for gentes that fail to
> have a paterfamilias selected, or we can do what I originally wanted, but was
> recommended in not putting in, and that would be if after a prolonged
> timeframe where a pater is not selected within the gens the Censors could
> appoint one based on factors such as: Service to NR, longevity or any other
> factor. I am open for suggestions.

The constitution explicitly says that the members of a gens have the sole
authority to determine which of them is paterfamilias. The censores therefore
cannot legally appoint a paterfamilias for a gens without the approval of the
members of that gens.

The deadline idea at least limits the longevity of paterfamilias-less (and
therefore technically unconstitutional) gentes.

Sulla: I understand this as well which is why after careful analysis and feedback I did not include it. However this does leave us in a quandry about what to do with gentes that might not be able to decide a suitable successor. I was just throwing out ideas to help mediate such a quandry. Or we could simply rewrite (with the private email i sent you) item 7 which would force all members of paterless gentes into the Nomen "Nemo" and then allow the original nomen to be available to anyone who wants it. However, this will raise interesting circumstances as well.


> Isn't this covered by section IX above?
>
> Sulla: No, this is stating that no NEW prospective citizens can be brought
> into the gens. In addition to that, the gens that is Pater-less would be
> removed from the citizenship application til the new pater informes the
> Censors that the gens is open to new members.

Ah. You were thinking of gentes in one section, and the censorial database in
the other. Section IX states, "During the period of time when there is not
paterfamilias in the Gens, the Gens will remain static. No new admissions may
take place." Perhaps this could simply be expanded to explain that the gens
will be considered closed, and will not be offered to applicants for
citizenship until a new paterfamilias informs the censores of his willingness
to accept new cives.

Sulla: Exactly. I wrote the majority of this law when I was Censor so it was with that aspect in mind. I agree with you we could expand IX and just include it there as well.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Agenda Item - Title Needed - Gens Registration Lex
From:	labienus@texas.net
Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:13:22 US/Central

Salvete Consul Corneli omnesque

> Sulla: It is a good idea for Paters/Maters to appoint represenatatives if
> they are going to be unavailable. This has been done in the past and I think
> this precedence should be allowed to continue.

Thank you for the clarification. Since this is e-mail, with all its attendant
problems, I just wanted to make sure I understood what you were getting at. I
agree with you entirely on this point.

> Sulla: I understand that. However, I would prefer to wait til a Pater is
> appointed and give him/her a chance to put the gens on a proper footing. If
> he is unable too, then the gens can chose to dissolve.

As I've thought about this point, at least as far as this lex is concerned,
I've generally come 'round to your way of thinking. I do think that a
reasonable time limit for the appointment of a new paterfamilias is necessary
to make this workable, though. Otherwise, a gens with no communicative members
will still sit around on the rolls, sans paterfamilias.

(This doesn't mean that I've come to agree with you about whether or not adults
who voluntarily join a gens should be allowed to voluntarily leave them over
the objections of their paterfamilias, mind you.)

>> No. The constitution does not require a paterfamilias in order to
>> dismantle a gens. The constitution requires a gens to have a paterfamilias,
>> period. No paterfamilias = no gens. If the members of a gens will not or
>> can not appoint a paterfamilias, then they are actually not members of a
>> gens.
>
> Sulla: I understand that but for a gens to be created it must have a
> pater.

Yes, but we're not talking about the creation of gentes. We're talking about
what to do with existing gentes that haven't been registered with the
censores. And, the more I think about this, the more I become convinced that
this lex is somewhat confused on whether or not it covers the registration of
gentes or the registration of patresfamilias.

I. It asks patresfamilias to register their *gentes*.
II. The penalty for failing to do so is loss of *paterfamilias status*.
III. It deals with the fallout by either dissolving the gens or working to
create a new, presumably more responsible, paterfamilias.

Should it not be:

I. It asks patresfamilias to register *as patresfamilias*, which also counts
as registering the gens.
II. The penalty for failing to do so is the loss of paterfamilias status.
III. It deals with the fallout by dissolving the gens if no other member of the
gens registers as (not "is appointed") paterfamilias.

The first is a gens registration lex that interferes with paterfamilias
status. The second is a paterfamilias and gens registration lex that provides
a safety net to gentes with irresponsible patresfamilias.

> Sulla: I understand this as well which is why after careful analysis and
> feedback I did not include it. However this does leave us in a quandry about
> what to do with gentes that might not be able to decide a suitable
> successor.

Well, the lex as written essentially leaves those gentes in limbo. I suggest
that, since they haven't been registered, they be dissolved after a deadline.

> Or we could simply rewrite (with the private email i sent you) item 7

I do hope my response to that message is helpful to you.

> ...which would force all members of paterless gentes into the Nomen "Nemo"
> and then allow the original nomen to be available to anyone who wants it.

This is reasonable, though I much prefer the idea of a grace period to protect
members of gentes from irresponsible patresfamilias. I was quite happy to see
a similar safety net written into the proposal you put forward.

> However, this will raise interesting circumstances as well.

What problems do you foresee, assuming that "remaining" (the paterfamilias
isn't necessarily gone, after all) gentiles are given a chance to rectify the
situation before their gens disappears from under them?

> Sulla: Exactly. I wrote the majority of this law when I was Censor so it
> was with that aspect in mind. I agree with you we could expand IX and just
> include it there as well.

Either way works. I assumed that section IX's statement that no new members
would be allowed in the gens would apply to citizenship applicants as well, and
therefore didn't think that it needed to be explicitly stated. There's nothing
wrong with such clarification, though. In fact, it's a good thing. It's just
important to make sure that each section provides clear instructions to the
magistrates involved.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus

Subject:	[novaroma] Grand Provincial Gathering-Lacus Magni on June 29th
From:	Shane Evans <marcusafricanus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:58:02 -0800 (PST)

Fellow citizens of Rome. I wish to announce that the
Provincia Lacus Magni will be hosting it's second
annual Grand Provincial Gathering for all who wish to
attend. It will be held in Columbus, Ohio on
Saturday, June 29th. There will be an informal dinner
Friday evening for those who arive at the city's gates
that evening. (probably a nice Romanesque Italian
restaurante) The event will go from 10:00 am Saturday
morning until 10:00 pm Saturday night. Below is a
rough outline of the planned events.

Opening Ceremony/Offering to Minerva
Military Parade
Military Maneuvers
Political Debate (topic to be announced)
Arts & Crafts Show
Lunch (provided by the Propraetor)
Military Maneuvers/Battle
Roman Athletic Competition
Roman Arts/Sciences Competition
Competition Awards Ceremony
Roman Costume Contest
Roman Theater/Play
Grand Feast (Roman Style)

The Grand Feast will be held at a separate location
with an indoor facility/kitchen. We will have Roman
style quisine (from all over the Republic), music,
wine (non-alchoholic), and some great fellowship.
There will be a RSVP and fee for the dinner, but I am
told it will be reasonably priced, and you will not
leave hungry. Consul Germanicas was at the last
gathering where we had food, and can vouge for the
meal. The one for June will be twice as big (and
twice as filling!)

Look at your callendars now and make plans to attend.
This is open to citizens from within and without the
Provincia Lacus Magni, and I will soon begin
contacting all the local Legio (contact me if you are
on this list in case I dont have your contact
information), and also contact me if you are
interested in a part in the Roman style play we will
be putting on.

Also, everyone who attends the event will be given a
special commemorative token to take home with you as a
special treat.

M. Scipio Africanus
Propraetor of Lacus Magni

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Agenda Item - Title Needed - Gens Registration Lex
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:00:31 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: labienus@texas.net
To: novaroma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Agenda Item - Title Needed - Gens Registration Lex


Salvete Consul Corneli omnesque

> Sulla: It is a good idea for Paters/Maters to appoint represenatatives if
> they are going to be unavailable. This has been done in the past and I think
> this precedence should be allowed to continue.

Thank you for the clarification. Since this is e-mail, with all its attendant
problems, I just wanted to make sure I understood what you were getting at. I
agree with you entirely on this point.

Sulla (new): Great. I am glad we agree on this.

> Sulla: I understand that. However, I would prefer to wait til a Pater is
> appointed and give him/her a chance to put the gens on a proper footing. If
> he is unable too, then the gens can chose to dissolve.

As I've thought about this point, at least as far as this lex is concerned,
I've generally come 'round to your way of thinking. I do think that a
reasonable time limit for the appointment of a new paterfamilias is necessary
to make this workable, though. Otherwise, a gens with no communicative members
will still sit around on the rolls, sans paterfamilias.

(This doesn't mean that I've come to agree with you about whether or not adults
who voluntarily join a gens should be allowed to voluntarily leave them over
the objections of their paterfamilias, mind you.)

Sulla (new): Thank you for this compromise. I understand your reservations. I hope that later on in the year we can all sit down and formulate some adoption and other family law type issues. However, that will be for another day.

>> No. The constitution does not require a paterfamilias in order to
>> dismantle a gens. The constitution requires a gens to have a paterfamilias,
>> period. No paterfamilias = no gens. If the members of a gens will not or
>> can not appoint a paterfamilias, then they are actually not members of a
>> gens.
>
> Sulla: I understand that but for a gens to be created it must have a
> pater.

Yes, but we're not talking about the creation of gentes. We're talking about
what to do with existing gentes that haven't been registered with the
censores. And, the more I think about this, the more I become convinced that
this lex is somewhat confused on whether or not it covers the registration of
gentes or the registration of patresfamilias.

I. It asks patresfamilias to register their *gentes*.
II. The penalty for failing to do so is loss of *paterfamilias status*.
III. It deals with the fallout by either dissolving the gens or working to
create a new, presumably more responsible, paterfamilias.

Should it not be:

I. It asks patresfamilias to register *as patresfamilias*, which also counts
as registering the gens.
II. The penalty for failing to do so is the loss of paterfamilias status.
III. It deals with the fallout by dissolving the gens if no other member of the
gens registers as (not "is appointed") paterfamilias.

The first is a gens registration lex that interferes with paterfamilias
status. The second is a paterfamilias and gens registration lex that provides
a safety net to gentes with irresponsible patresfamilias.

Sulla(new): I understand completely. When I sat down to initally write this proposed law I was trying to keep that very much in mind. However, what kept striking out in the Constitution was section II.D.3, where it states, "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." So in a round about sense we are essentally killing two birds with one stone. Instead of having two registrations we are having one registration that deals with both the Gentes (with the paterfamilias speaking as leader of the gens [unless he/she has appointed a representative] and a Pater registration as well. This is why I initially cited II.D.3 in the introductory paragraph. I think this would be better if I utilized both II.D.1 and II.D.3.

> Sulla: I understand this as well which is why after careful analysis and
> feedback I did not include it. However this does leave us in a quandry about
> what to do with gentes that might not be able to decide a suitable
> successor.

Well, the lex as written essentially leaves those gentes in limbo. I suggest
that, since they haven't been registered, they be dissolved after a deadline.

Sulla (new): I would appreciate some feedback from the Censors in regards to appropriate deadline period. Based on my opinion I think 2 weeks should be sufficent enough of a deadline.

> Or we could simply rewrite (with the private email i sent you) item 7

I do hope my response to that message is helpful to you.

Sulla(new): It was very helpful, I have responded to you already.

> ...which would force all members of paterless gentes into the Nomen "Nemo"
> and then allow the original nomen to be available to anyone who wants it.

This is reasonable, though I much prefer the idea of a grace period to protect
members of gentes from irresponsible patresfamilias. I was quite happy to see
a similar safety net written into the proposal you put forward.

Sulla (new): I am glad we agree. What kind of grace period do you prefer? If its reasonable I have no problem including it, though I do think that if there are other members of the gens that want to still be in their gens they would hopefully step up and take the responsibility of being the head of a family.

> However, this will raise interesting circumstances as well.

What problems do you foresee, assuming that "remaining" (the paterfamilias
isn't necessarily gone, after all) gentiles are given a chance to rectify the
situation before their gens disappears from under them?

Sulla (new): Off hand...would be minors who got in an inactive gens and due to the registration process no long has a pater..and if they are the only member of the gens remaining or the only one who wants to be pater..if they should be allowed too or not? There is the Lex Iunia Cornelia de Patrumfamiliae Matrumfamilaeque Aetate but does that apply in this situation.

> Sulla: Exactly. I wrote the majority of this law when I was Censor so it
> was with that aspect in mind. I agree with you we could expand IX and just
> include it there as well.

Either way works. I assumed that section IX's statement that no new members
would be allowed in the gens would apply to citizenship applicants as well, and
therefore didn't think that it needed to be explicitly stated. There's nothing
wrong with such clarification, though. In fact, it's a good thing. It's just
important to make sure that each section provides clear instructions to the
magistrates involved.

Sulla(new): Excellent then. I will see if it can be more clearly spelled out to prevent any potential misunderstanding baring that I think we resolved most of your concerns, I hope.

Very Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix



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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Magnus Ludi XXXVI
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:33:30 EST

Salvete!
I have returned from the Palace at "Capua" (Las Vegas). (Capua and Naples
were considered Sin City in Roman Italia.)

I always enjoy going to Caesar Palace, for me it is the closest thing to how
modern Rome might have evolved. Except for the costumes of the serving
wenches which are so abbreviated Syrian Greek, that they are laughable.
They have just unveiled a new statue of Ceres in the main atrium, so of
course I had sacrifice, even though the spot was not a temple nor were there
consecrated altars. Still
I believe the gods will take what they can get in these turbulent times.


Of course Nova Britannia took the laurel wreath at the Great Game, which made
me extremely happy, as it made me much Denarii. Alas too much went to bills
and creditors, still it was a fine trip, and I enjoyed myself.

The Curule Aedelii must now get their games underway, in which of course I
stand ready to assist.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus


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

Subject:	[novaroma] Computer Virus
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:46:25 -0800

Avete Omnes,

Over the past couple of days a number of us have been exposed to emails that have virus's or worm's. We all need to be on the alert to prevent any spread of virus's via private correspondence. If you receive any email attachment that asks you to open it....even if the sender is someone you know be cautious. A good rule of thumb is if you are expecting the file from the person who is sending it to you..you should be OK. If you are not expecting the file please dont open it. If you do not know the person sending the email to you....just delete it. Even if it claims to be a harmless sound, image or game file.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul


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

Subject:	[novaroma] about my propraetorship
From:	"luciuspompeius" <danielovi@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 Feb 2002 22:04:46 -0000

Salvete omnes.
I wish to announce that as propraetor provincialis of Argentina I
changed my mind and do not wish that my propraetorship be prorrogued.
The reason is that currently I do not have any desire to continue for
a next period.
Valete bene
Lucius Pompeius Octavianus





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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] about my propraetorship
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:07:21 -0600 (CST)

Salve Luci Pompei,

I am somewhat distressed to hear this; from all reports that I have seen,
you were among the best and most active of propraetores.

Is there any reason why you do not wish to continue? Will you be less
active in Nova Roma activities this year?

Vale, Octavius.

> Salvete omnes.
> I wish to announce that as propraetor provincialis of Argentina I
> changed my mind and do not wish that my propraetorship be prorrogued.
> The reason is that currently I do not have any desire to continue for
> a next period.
> Valete bene
> Lucius Pompeius Octavianus

Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Agenda Item - Lex Cornelia de Temporum Defintone Magistratum
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:28:51 +0000 (GMT)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, consul Sulla.

What can I say? Bravo!

Laws like this one are much needed. They bring us one step closer to
Roma Antiqua, by recreating (albeit partially) the prohibition of
prorogatio. You have my full support.

--- Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Avete Omnes,
>
> Earlier this week I addressed you, citizens of Nova Roma with some of
> my
> agenda for the coming month. In that address I told you I would
> begin
> posting some of the texts for the laws I hope to promulgate in this
> month. Without further delay I will begin this task tonight.
>
> Below you will see the proposed text which would become a revision of
> an
> excellent law, the lex Iunia de Temporum Defintione Consulatuum.
> This
> revision would expand the Lex Iunia by including more than just the
> Consuls. It would now include Censors. Praetors and Aediles under
> its
> scope.
>
> I will propose this law to the Comita Populi Tributa for approval
> later
> this month.
>
> Without further comments, here is the exact lex that I hope would
> meet
> with the satisfaction of the People of Nova Roma.
>
> ___
>
> LEX CORNELIA DE TEMPORUM DEFINTIONE MAGISTRATUM
>
> This law shall regulate the amount of times a person may hold certain
> elected magistracies during a specified time period.
>
> 1. No person shall hold the office of censor consecutively or more
> than
> twice in a five year period. This exception to this provision shall
> be
> any censor suffectus who has served 6 months or less of his
> predecessor's term of office.
>
> 2. No person shall hold the office of praetor or aedile
> consecutively,
> or in any five year period, hold any of the aforementioned offices
> more
> than twice. The exception to this shall be any praetor suffectus or
> aedile suffectus who has served 3 months or less of his predecessor's
> term of office.
>
> 3. The Vigintisexviri and Quaestores shall be exempt from the
> provisions
>
> of this law.
> ___
>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Consul of Nova Roma


=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Tribunus Plebis
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
Triumvir Academiae Thules
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules
Lictor Curiatus.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Agenda item - Title needed - Macellum law
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:33:40 +0000 (GMT)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, censor Sulla.

Another wise proposal that has my full support. A few comments below.

--- Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Avete Omnes,
>
> My second item that I would bring to a vote to both the Senate and
> People of Nova Roma would be a constitutional change. This means
> that
> it will need to get 2/3 approval from the Senate of Nova Roma as well
> pass the Comitia Centuriata. I hope that this endeavor will be
> successful as it his both historical and gives our Curule Aediles
> something productive to do within Nova Roma.
>
> The purpose of this law is to change the day to day operations of the
> Macellum (marketplace) from the jurisdiction of the Censors to the
> jurisdiction of the Curule Aediles. To make it perfectly clear, the
> Censors will retain the authority to appoint and remove members of
> the
> Macellum (and Ordo Equaestor) however, the day to day issues such as
> dealing with customer complaints, fielding questions from members of
> the
> Macellum, promotion of the Macellum and other duties would fall
> squarely
> to the Curule Aediles.
>
> Below will be the text of the proposed law:
>
> _____
>
> Currently the Constitution reads:
>
> II. C. 2 - Ordo equester (equestrian order). The equestrian order
> shall
> consist of citizens who are engaged in the conduct of commerce
> (preferably with a Roman theme) who request and are granted entry
> into
> the equestrian order by the Censors. Such individuals are expected to
> contribute a portion of the revenue derived from Nova Roma back to
> the
> State, and receive reasonable encouragement in their enterprises in
> return. For purposes of participating in the comitia, holding office,
> etc. members of the equestrian order shall be considered to be of the
> patrician or plebeian order, depending on their status prior to
> inclusion in the equestrian order.
>
> This would be rewritten to state the following:
>
> II. C. 2 – Ordo Equester (equestrian order). The equestrian order
> shall
> consist of citizens who are engaged in the conduct of commerce
> (preferable with a Roman theme) who request and are granted entry
> into
> the equestrian order by the Censors. Such individuals are expected
> to
> contribute a portion of the revenue derived from Nova Roma back to
> the
> State, and receive reasonable encouragement in their enterprises in
> return. For purposes of participating in the Comitia, holding
> office,
> etc. members of the Equestrian order shall be considered to be of the
> Patrician or Plebian Order, depending on their status prior to
> inclusion
> in the equestrian order.

Am I wrong or there is no change at all? Perhaps there's a typo here.

> This section would be changed:
>
> IV.A.1.e - To maintain the album equestris (lists of members of the
> equestrian order), including the power to add and remove names on
> that
> list;
>
> This section would now read:
>
> IV. A. 1. e – To maintain the Album Equestris (list of members of the
> equestrian order), including the power to add and remove names on
> that
> list;

Same as above, I guess.

> A new section will be added under the job description of the Curule
> Aediles:
>
> 1. To hold Imperium;
> 2. To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to see to the conduct of
> public games and other festivals and gatherings and in regards to the
> Macellum and the Ordo Equaestor, to ensure order at public religious
> events, to see to the maintenance of any real public facilities that
> the
> State should acquire, and to administer the law (such edicts being
> binding upon themselves as well as others);
> 3. To pronounce intercessio against another aedile (curule or
> plebeian)
> or magistrate of lesser authority;
> 4. To appoint scribae (clerks) to assist with administrative and
> other
> tasks, as he shall see fit.
> 5. To maintain the Macellum and the Ordo Equaestor. This will
> include
> supervising all aspects of the Macellum. In addition to this, it is
> the
> responsibility of the Curule Aediles to report any changes of the
> Ordo
> Equaestor to the Censors.

Nothing else to add. Certainly, a step in the right direction.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Tribunus Plebis
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
Triumvir Academiae Thules
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules
Lictor Curiatus.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com



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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Agenda Item - Title Needed - Gens Registration Lex
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:39:53 +0000 (GMT)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, consul Sulla.

I am not against this proposal in principle (patres registration seems
a reasonable affair), but I do have an important thing to point out, if
you don't mind:

--- Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Avete Omnes,
>
> The final law I will post this evening is the Gens Registration Lex.
> I
> hope this law will meet with the full approval of the People of Nova
> Roma, given the recent discussion of Census's and such. I think this
> is
> an appropriate first step in that process, by focusing on
> Paterfamiliae
> and Materfamiliae. This law will be promulgated via the Comitia
> Populi
> Tributa, hopefully later in the month.
>
> ____
>
> Pursuant to the Constitution of Nova Roma (II.D.3) The Censors of
> Nova
> Roma hereby enact an edict in regards to the registration of Gentes
> with
> the Office of Censors.
>
> (The use of the word paterfamilias is, for the purpose of this edict,
> will include both Paterfamilias and materfamilias.)
>
> I. Each Gens shall be registered with the office of the Censors
> every
> year.
>
> II. Registration of Gentes must be completed by the last day of
> Martius.
>
> III. The censors must announce the opening of the registration
> period
> at least 8 weeks before the deadline on the official Nova Roma email
> list.
>
> IV. Patresfamilias are responsible for contacting the Censores using
> any of these methods:
>
> A. Send an email to the Censors via the censors@novaroma.org email
> address.
> B. Mail a written statement to the Nova Roma post office box.
> C. Complete a form on the Nova Roma web site, the address of which
> shall be specified by the Censores at the beginning of the
> registration
> period.
>
> IV. A. The official address of all Nova Roma Mail Correspondence is:
>
> Nova Roma
> P.O. Box 1897,
> Wells, ME 04090
>
> V. When the deadline is reached, the Censors must publish a list of
> Gentes that have failed to register with the Office of Censors. This
> list must be published on the official Nova Roma email lists located
> at
> novaroma@yahoogroups.com and novaromaannounce@yahoogroups.com.
>
> VI. A Gens that has failed to register with the office of Censors is
> considered to have NO Paterfamilias. If there are other members of
> that
> gens the Censors must work with the Gens to select a new
> Paterfamilias.
>
> VII. A Gens that has failed to register with the office of the
> Censors,
> and have no other members of the gentes to take over the position of
> Censors is to be removed from the Album Gentium, with its members
> considered outside of any gens and given a nomen of "nemo". The
> nomen
> formerly used by that gens should be considered unused and available
> for
> future applicants.
>
> VIII. Patresfamilias who are unable to communicate with the office
> of
> Censors may appoint a designate within the Gens to act as
> Paterfamilias. However, notification must be on file in the office
> of
> the Censor(es).
>
> IX. During the period of time when there is no paterfamilias in the
> Gens, the Gens will remain static. No new admissions may take place.
> Nor can there be any individual leave the Gens until a new
> paterfamilias
> is selected. Nor can any sub-gentes be established during this
> period.

It is not clearly stated in any law of Nova Roma that a gentilis needs
the permission of his paterfamilias to leave a certain gens. I know
that you would like that permission to be compulsory, but it currently
isn't.

I think that a gentilis of a "static" gens should be allowed to change
gens according to our current legislation.

One more thing; what are "sub-gentes" supposed to be? Such a thing is
not defined anywhere else.

> X. While a Gens is still trying to pick a new paterfamilias, that
> gens
> will be listed as closed for new citizens recruitment. The new
> paterfamilias must notify the Censors, upon receipt of the position
> of
> Paterfamilias if he/she wants to reopen the gens for new members.

I have nothing against the rest of this proposal (something that does
speak in its favour :-) ).

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Tribunus Plebis
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
Triumvir Academiae Thules
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules
Lictor Curiatus.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: about my propraetorship
From:	"luciuspompeius" <danielovi@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 Feb 2002 23:02:15 -0000

Salve Marce Octavi Germanice

The reason is that I am not feeling well. I have some worries in my
real life, particularly about my future since chances are that I'll
be jobless during this year. This will be a very bad year. So
probably I'll be less active, but anyway I shall not disappear.

Also I am worried about the tax issue, because I do not know (and
maybe nobody does) what is going to happen here in Argentina where
the currency is going upwards (at the beginning of December 1 dollar
= 1 peso, today 1 dollar = about 2 pesos), and the economic measures
changing so often, and some limitations to use our own money.

Thank you for answering my message.
Vale bene
Lucius Pompeius Octavianus



--- In novaroma@y..., Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...> wrote:
> Salve Luci Pompei,
>
> I am somewhat distressed to hear this; from all reports that I have
seen,
> you were among the best and most active of propraetores.
>
> Is there any reason why you do not wish to continue? Will you be
less
> active in Nova Roma activities this year?
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> > Salvete omnes.
> > I wish to announce that as propraetor provincialis of Argentina I
> > changed my mind and do not wish that my propraetorship be
prorrogued.
> > The reason is that currently I do not have any desire to continue
for
> > a next period.
> > Valete bene
> > Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
>
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Agenda Item - Title Needed - Gens Registration Lex
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2002 15:08:34 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Salix Astur
To: novaroma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Agenda Item - Title Needed - Gens Registration Lex


Salvete Quirites; et salve, consul Sulla.

I am not against this proposal in principle (patres registration seems
a reasonable affair), but I do have an important thing to point out, if
you don't mind:

<SNIP>

>
> IX. During the period of time when there is no paterfamilias in the
> Gens, the Gens will remain static. No new admissions may take place.
> Nor can there be any individual leave the Gens until a new
> paterfamilias
> is selected. Nor can any sub-gentes be established during this
> period.

It is not clearly stated in any law of Nova Roma that a gentilis needs
the permission of his paterfamilias to leave a certain gens. I know
that you would like that permission to be compulsory, but it currently
isn't.

Sulla: We have no law stating they can leave without pater consent either. Therefore, as I do believe in the power of the Pater I am just spelling out that while this period is ongoing they cannot use this period of flux as a means. Prior precedent and practice of the Office of the Censorship reinforces my interpretation as well, Tribune Salix.
I think that a gentilis of a "static" gens should be allowed to change
gens according to our current legislation.

Sulla: I disagree, I believe that we should promote gens stability and gens growth not gens distruction. The whole purpose of this lex is to promote stability within the gens. By allowing citizens and family members the ability to jump ship during this transition period would not be productive. As a matter of fact, the precedent that has been adopted in the Censorship requires pater approval as leader and spokesperson of the gens before an individual is able to leave a gens and join a new one.

One more thing; what are "sub-gentes" supposed to be? Such a thing is
not defined anywhere else.

Sulla: This is another piece of legislation i am working on. Where individuals can create gentes that are related to the parent Gentes. (for simplisity I called it sub gentes but I am open for other suggestions). Such as if Pompeia Cornelia Strabo wants to create the gens Cornelia Straba.... She would be unable to do so til a Pater is decided on...

> X. While a Gens is still trying to pick a new paterfamilias, that
> gens
> will be listed as closed for new citizens recruitment. The new
> paterfamilias must notify the Censors, upon receipt of the position
> of
> Paterfamilias if he/she wants to reopen the gens for new members.

I have nothing against the rest of this proposal (something that does
speak in its favour :-) ).

Sulla: There will be some changes given the very productive discussion with Senator T. Labienus. This is precisely why I have posted these laws 2 weeks early so we can have this discussion period.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix



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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Magnus Ludi XXXVI
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <tjalens.h@telia.com>
Date:	Tue, 5 Feb 2002 00:30:19 +0100

Salve Pater!

Never fear, the Aediles have planned the Ludi as shown in the
"DECLARATIO AEDILIS 2755".

I have prepared a Ludi Megalesia together with my fantastic Cohors
Aedilis that will remembered for some time! ;-) We just have one
problem or rather two, the Junior Curule Aedile has disappeared (I
hope nothing bad has happened) and the Junior Plebeian Aedile isn't
elected yet. But I as Senior Curule Aedile and the Senior Plebeian
Aedile will take care of our games as planned, rest calm about that!

There will also be a big meeting in Europe to be declared soon and
some Edicta to be published as the "DECLARATIO AEDILIS 2755" also
have said!

>The Curule Aedelii must now get their games underway, in which of course I
>stand ready to assist.
>
>Valete
>Q. Fabius Maximus

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Curule Aedile
Propraetor of Thule
AUCTOR LEGIONIS, Legio VII "Res Publica"

The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an official opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
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.
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Computer Virus
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Marcus=20Minicius=20Rufus?= <xperiko@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 5 Feb 2002 00:13:06 +0100 (CET)

Salve!!!

The virus some of us have received is calle W32****
(different endings). It is a worm which takes
advantage of a Windows/outlook bug, so my advice is to
read your mail via web at http://www.yahoo.com

Right now I looking for a solution, as soon as I find
it I'll let all of you jnow....

Bene Valete!

Marcus Minicius Rufus

--- "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
escribió:
<HR>
<html><body>


<tt>
Avete Omnes,<BR>
<BR>
Over the past couple of days a number of us have been
exposed to emails that have virus's or worm's. 
We all need to be on the alert to prevent any spread
of virus's via private correspondence.  If you
receive any email attachment that asks you to open
it....even if the sender is someone you know be
cautious.  A good rule of thumb is if you are
expecting the file from the person who is sending it
to you..you should be OK.  If you are not
expecting the file please dont open it.   If
you do not know the person sending the email to
you....just delete it.  Even if it claims to be a
harmless sound, image or game file.  <BR>
<BR>
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
me.<BR>
<BR>
Respectfully,<BR>
<BR>
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix<BR>
Consul<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]<BR>
<BR>
</tt>

<br>

<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

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