Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"pro_postumius_nero" <socraticquestion@netscape.net>
Date:	Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:51:13 -0000

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus Consuli Germanico et Tribuno
Plebis Asturi S.P.D.

Salvete,

With regard to Paragraph II, it is my understanding that a minor
citizen must have the permission of said citizen's parent to leave a
gens, which leaves the assumption that said minor citizen's parent is
a citizen. Therefore, I ask, first, if my assumption is correct, and
second, be my assumption correct, how might a minor citizen who does
not have a citizen who is a parent then change a gens, should one
choose to, and also, be my assumption incorrect, how might such
permission then get to the censors in the allotted period?

With Utmost Respect,

Pro. Postumius Nero

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sat, 27 Jul 2002 17:01:09 -0700

Avete Citizens of Nova Roma,

I must proclaim that I am opposed to this law. I believe it runs directly counter to the very reason Nova Roma was founded.

4 years ago, Nova Roma was created to, "[Be]... the spiritual heir to the ancient Roman Republic and Empire, Nova Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all manners practical and acceptable, as the modern restoration of the ancient Roman Republic. The culture, religion, and society of Nova Roma shall be patterned upon those of ancient Rome." In this vein, the Nova Roma website continues to state: "Virtues are what gave a small city on the banks of the Tiber the moral and practical strength to govern much of the world, and are most sorely lacking in our society today. By promoting Roman culture, we are in effect promoting nothing less than the revitalization of Western society." Yet, what does this law do? It actually brings in those principles from our modern society into Nova Roma!

Beyond what the Nova Roma website states, the Constitution states, "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." So what does this mean? To me, it means that we have taken the mission of restoring the society of ancient Rome. Modelled on the society of ancient Rome and when we have a proposed law that runs directly counter to this principle we should vote it down. Because it takes us away from the very mission Nova Roma was founded.

Citizens, this law flies in the face of Roman Tradition. Roman Tradition was that the power of the Paterfamilias was paramount. Just as the very nature of family was of paramount importance in Roman Society. But we have a conflict, and once again its a conflict between the rights of the individual (a modern legal theory) vs. the Roman Concept of Family. You, as citizens must decide in what direction Nova Roma will follow. Will it be a quasi modern society with trappings of Rome? or will it be a representation in the true spirit of Rome?

Citizens, this law allows anyone to leave any gens at a whim, with no proper checks and balances. I am not opposed to setting up adoption procedures, as a matter of fact adoption procedures have been followed by the Censors office since NR began and those adoption procedures are available to be viewed from the Censor handbook. There is simply no reason for this law, we have two laws that deal with inactive paters, which supposedly was the reason for my colleague's writing of this law, but the pater registration law and the census law combined with the adoption procedures are more than adequate to handle most, if not all, family issues and still maintain the traditional and important Roman foundation of the family.

I respectfully urge all citizens to vote against this law.

Very Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul of Nova Roma
----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Salix Astur
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Cc: NovaRoma-Announce@yahoogroups.com ; ReligioRomana@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 4:07 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium


Gnaeus Salix Astur Quiritibus S.P.D.

Ex Officio Tribunorum Plebis

LEX OCTAVIA SALICIA DE LIBERTATE GENTILIUM

I. The right of adult citizens to freely choose to terminate
their membership in a gens is hereby affirmed, and may not be
interfered with by any magistrate or citizen.

II. An adult citizen wishing to leave his or her gens for any
reason may do so by contacting the Censores. A minor
citizen may do so with consent of his or her parent.

III. Within seven days of receiving this request, the Censores are
required to inform the citizen's current paterfamilias of the
citizen's intent to leave. The paterfamilias or materfamilias
(hereafter, simply "paterfamilias") shall then have fourteen days
to respond to this notification, during which he can choose to
impose a waiting period.

A. Email to the address of the paterfamilias registered in
the Censores' database is considered sufficient notification.
If that address is no longer valid, then the notification
period is waived, and the citizen may immediately depart the gens.

B. If the paterfamilias fails to respond in the time alotted,
or if he consents to the departure, then the Censores shall
immediately remove the citizen from that gens; no further
delay is necessary or allowable.

C. If the paterfamilias chooses to impose a waiting period,
and notifies the Censores of such within the fourteen days
after the initial notification of departure, then there
shall be a single thirty day period during which the
departing citizen will remain a member of that gens.

D. At the end of the thirty day waiting period, if the citizen
notifies the Censores that he still intends to leave the gens,
then that citizen shall no longer be considered a member of that
gens. This decision by the departing citizen is final and
may not be contested.


=====
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: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"Tib. Equitius Germanicus" <tyrael_equitius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 27 Jul 2002 19:05:39 -0500

Agreed.
Tib. Equitius Germanicus
----- Original Message -----
From: L. Cornelius Sulla
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium


Avete Citizens of Nova Roma,

I must proclaim that I am opposed to this law. I believe it runs directly counter to the very reason Nova Roma was founded.

4 years ago, Nova Roma was created to, "[Be]... the spiritual heir to the ancient Roman Republic and Empire, Nova Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all manners practical and acceptable, as the modern restoration of the ancient Roman Republic. The culture, religion, and society of Nova Roma shall be patterned upon those of ancient Rome." In this vein, the Nova Roma website continues to state: "Virtues are what gave a small city on the banks of the Tiber the moral and practical strength to govern much of the world, and are most sorely lacking in our society today. By promoting Roman culture, we are in effect promoting nothing less than the revitalization of Western society." Yet, what does this law do? It actually brings in those principles from our modern society into Nova Roma!

Beyond what the Nova Roma website states, the Constitution states, "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." So what does this mean? To me, it means that we have taken the mission of restoring the society of ancient Rome. Modelled on the society of ancient Rome and when we have a proposed law that runs directly counter to this principle we should vote it down. Because it takes us away from the very mission Nova Roma was founded.

Citizens, this law flies in the face of Roman Tradition. Roman Tradition was that the power of the Paterfamilias was paramount. Just as the very nature of family was of paramount importance in Roman Society. But we have a conflict, and once again its a conflict between the rights of the individual (a modern legal theory) vs. the Roman Concept of Family. You, as citizens must decide in what direction Nova Roma will follow. Will it be a quasi modern society with trappings of Rome? or will it be a representation in the true spirit of Rome?

Citizens, this law allows anyone to leave any gens at a whim, with no proper checks and balances. I am not opposed to setting up adoption procedures, as a matter of fact adoption procedures have been followed by the Censors office since NR began and those adoption procedures are available to be viewed from the Censor handbook. There is simply no reason for this law, we have two laws that deal with inactive paters, which supposedly was the reason for my colleague's writing of this law, but the pater registration law and the census law combined with the adoption procedures are more than adequate to handle most, if not all, family issues and still maintain the traditional and important Roman foundation of the family.

I respectfully urge all citizens to vote against this law.

Very Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul of Nova Roma
----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Salix Astur
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Cc: NovaRoma-Announce@yahoogroups.com ; ReligioRomana@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 4:07 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium


Gnaeus Salix Astur Quiritibus S.P.D.

Ex Officio Tribunorum Plebis

LEX OCTAVIA SALICIA DE LIBERTATE GENTILIUM

I. The right of adult citizens to freely choose to terminate
their membership in a gens is hereby affirmed, and may not be
interfered with by any magistrate or citizen.

II. An adult citizen wishing to leave his or her gens for any
reason may do so by contacting the Censores. A minor
citizen may do so with consent of his or her parent.

III. Within seven days of receiving this request, the Censores are
required to inform the citizen's current paterfamilias of the
citizen's intent to leave. The paterfamilias or materfamilias
(hereafter, simply "paterfamilias") shall then have fourteen days
to respond to this notification, during which he can choose to
impose a waiting period.

A. Email to the address of the paterfamilias registered in
the Censores' database is considered sufficient notification.
If that address is no longer valid, then the notification
period is waived, and the citizen may immediately depart the gens.

B. If the paterfamilias fails to respond in the time alotted,
or if he consents to the departure, then the Censores shall
immediately remove the citizen from that gens; no further
delay is necessary or allowable.

C. If the paterfamilias chooses to impose a waiting period,
and notifies the Censores of such within the fourteen days
after the initial notification of departure, then there
shall be a single thirty day period during which the
departing citizen will remain a member of that gens.

D. At the end of the thirty day waiting period, if the citizen
notifies the Censores that he still intends to leave the gens,
then that citizen shall no longer be considered a member of that
gens. This decision by the departing citizen is final and
may not be contested.


=====
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:	[Nova-Roma] Nova Roma / Roma Nova
From:	"Claudius Salix Davianus" <salixdavianus@terra.es>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 02:21:11 -0500

Salvete cives interested in Latin,

I think there is something incorrect in the appelative "Nova Roma". For English native speakers "Nova Roma" sounds pretty well and beautiful, but I think it would be strange for Latin native speakers. I will explain this idea:

<Adjective + Noun> is used in Latin for explicative funciton as in <Nova Roma Augusti> 'the new Rome of August', but we are referring here to the same Rome but renewed!

<Noun + Adjective> is specificicative as in Latin attested names: <Africa Nova>, <Carthago Nova> or <Caere Vetere>. Following this specificative use and taking into account that our Republic is not the same Rome but another Rome (a new Rome in fact) the correct Latin name would be <Roma Nova> not <Nova Roma>!

What do you think about this latinists?

Cl. Salix Davianus
======================
Tribunus Plebis Romae Novae ;-)


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 27 Jul 2002 17:33:41 -0700 (PDT)

Quirites,
Did I miss something?
Praetors, Is there a problem with the lists?
Unless some posts are missing from citizens who are
complaining about being chained to a Gens they wish to
leave What is the point of this law?

Why are we being presented with a law that spits on
the mos maiorum? Where are the "abuses" of the powers
of the Paterfamilis that make it nessacary that we
ignore the traditions of Roma? Who are the citizens
who are being held against their will by a Pater?

Now if this lex was limited to the problem of inactive
Paters, I'd have no problem with it, but it goes
beyond dealing with problems a citizen may be having
because a Pater has failed to live up to his
resposibilities. It attacks the traditions of Roma to
prevent an "abuse" that isn't occuring.

Do we need our Tabilarium clogged up with pointless
leges? Do we need to create a legal maze that replaces
the Mos Maiorum? If we don't have Civies trapped in
Gens by Paters, then who is going to benifit from this
law?

Is it for Forum lawyers who want to offer advice? Is
it part of somebody's political ploy, an attempt to
weaken the Paters for some hidden agenda?

Quirites,
Unless the suporters of this insult to the Paters of
Nova Roma and to the Mos Maiorum can come up with some
examples of active Paters chaining unwilling children
into their Gens I urge you to defeat this Lex.

L. Sicinius Drusus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"Claudius Salix Davianus" <salixdavianus@terra.es>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 02:33:24 -0500

Auete citizens, ac aue tu Consul Sulla,
[Consul Sulla stated] Modelled on the society of ancient Rome and when we have a proposed law that runs directly counter to this principle we should vote it down. Because it takes us away from the very mission Nova Roma was founded.

Some comments to this:

(1) The actual system of <gentes> is inaccurate, in fact it is completely unhistorical for this reason I don't think the actual system is modelled in the ancient Rome system.
(2) The very mission of Nova Roma [or Roma Nova, according to others :-)] is to reconstruct some of the institutions and moral values of ancient Rome, as historically exact as possible. And the actual system, aside from the lack of democratic value seems to me an historical aberration.

>>Citizens, this law flies in the face of Roman Tradition. Roman Tradition was that the power of the Paterfamilias was paramount.<<

This affirmation must be corrected in some aspects, honored Sulla :-) I think the new law correct some defiencies of the previous system and is a reasonably good law that try to correct some errors in the previous organization. Of course, this is a personal opinion I confide in the wisdom of the people of Nova Roma to decide what is better for Nova Roma.

Cl. Salix Davianus
======================
Tribunus Plebis Novae Romae


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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Nova Roma / Roma Nova
From:	"pro_postumius_nero" <socraticquestion@netscape.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 00:32:39 -0000

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus Tribuno Plebis Claudio Salici
Daviano S.P.D.

Salve,

Although I agree with your contention as to how our ancestors would
have named this, I would have to say that I do prefer it the way it
is, perhaps because I have gotten used to what it currently is. That
said, I only ask that you not ask to change the way of our great
society in the future, other than perhaps making the official name,
should our sovereignity ever be a territorial entity recognized by a
macronation, something like the "Republic of New Rome," or something
to that effect, however remaining "Nova Roma" to Her citizens. I hope
that makes some sense.

Semper Sapiens et Cogitans, ut Cras Meliores Omnes Simus

Pro. Postumius Nero

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 27 Jul 2002 17:44:58 -0700 (PDT)

--- Claudius Salix Davianus <salixdavianus@terra.es>
wrote:
> Auete citizens, ac aue tu Consul Sulla,
> [Consul Sulla stated] Modelled on the society of
> ancient Rome and when we have a proposed law that
> runs directly counter to this principle we should
> vote it down. Because it takes us away from the
> very mission Nova Roma was founded.
>
> Some comments to this:
>
> (1) The actual system of <gentes> is inaccurate, in
> fact it is completely unhistorical for this reason I
> don't think the actual system is modelled in the
> ancient Rome system.

Correct there are flaws. Rather than correcting the
flaw caused by using confusing Gens and Families this
lex makes the system even more inaccurate by usurping
the powers of the Paters

> (2) The very mission of Nova Roma [or Roma Nova,
> according to others :-)] is to reconstruct some of
> the institutions and moral values of ancient Rome,
> as historically exact as possible. And the actual
> system, aside from the lack of democratic value
> seems to me an historical aberration.

The problem isn't the Paters power to control his
family. The problem is we are calling Families Gens.
It could be solved by a simple change in terms. We
really have NO legal structure like the Roman Gens, we
have families that follow the Roman model execpt in
size.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sat, 27 Jul 2002 18:51:19 -0700

Avete Tribune Salix et Omnes,

My comments are listed below:
----- Original Message -----
From: Claudius Salix Davianus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium


Auete citizens, ac aue tu Consul Sulla,
[Consul Sulla stated] Modelled on the society of ancient Rome and when we have a proposed law that runs directly counter to this principle we should vote it down. Because it takes us away from the very mission Nova Roma was founded.

Some comments to this:

(1) The actual system of <gentes> is inaccurate, in fact it is completely unhistorical for this reason I don't think the actual system is modelled in the ancient Rome system.

Sulla: I believe Propraetor Lucius Sicinius's comments were absolutely correct and I have nothing further to add.


(2) The very mission of Nova Roma [or Roma Nova, according to others :-)] is to reconstruct some of the institutions and moral values of ancient Rome, as historically exact as possible. And the actual system, aside from the lack of democratic value seems to me an historical aberration.

Sulla: But I do have a problem here. The evidence I have posted from the Nova Roma website and Constitution clearly state the importance of the Gens and the mission of Nova Roma. In addition to that you have not stated why you are promulgating this law in direction conflict with the Mos Maiorum.

Sulla: Citizens this type of careless interpretation is precisely why Nova Roma is experiencing so many conflicts. Some of our citizens do not understand that Nova Roma is supposed to serve a higher purpose. This mission is to give a shining example to our modern societies, to show our societies what is wrong and how to fix it. Yet, instead our Tribunes are polluting that lofty mission. Have you not wondered why Nova Roma was created and what purpose it serves? We are here to educate and to serve as an example to Modern Society but that will be impossible to accomplish if we BECOME a modern society. Whenever we enter Nova Roma we should leave our polluted modern society at the door and become Roman. Or even better, we should be Roman at all times and show society the value of the Virtues and Mos Maiorum.


>>Citizens, this law flies in the face of Roman Tradition. Roman Tradition was that the power of the Paterfamilias was paramount.<<

This affirmation must be corrected in some aspects, honored Sulla :-)

Sulla: So you are opposed to the Mos Maiourm of our ancestors? You, and I assume your colleagues since none of them have vetoed this law, want to make Nova Roma into a modern society instead of following the vision of our founders and the wisdom of the ancients?

I think the new law correct some defiencies of the previous system and is a reasonably good law that try to correct some errors in the previous organization. Of course, this is a personal opinion I confide in the wisdom of the people of Nova Roma to decide what is better for Nova Roma.

Sulla: Once again I think Propraetor Lucius Sicinius Drusus's response were absolutely correct and I have nothing further to add.
Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul of Nova Roma


Cl. Salix Davianus
======================
Tribunus Plebis Novae Romae


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




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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 01:54:39 -0000

> LEX OCTAVIA SALICIA DE LIBERTATE GENTILIUM
>
> I. The right of adult citizens to freely choose to terminate
> their membership in a gens is hereby affirmed, and may not be
> interfered with by any magistrate or citizen.


<Snipped for brevity>

Salve,

"The basis of the Roman constitution was the family, and the
constitution of the state was but an expansion of that of the
family. The head of the household was of necessity a man, and his
authority alike as father or husband was supreme, and in the eye of
the law was absolute over wife and child as over slave." -- The
History of the Roman Republic, Dr. Theodor Mommsen, translated by
W.P. Dickson, D.D., LL.D.

While Nova Roma has made provisions for the rights of women in light
of modern day reality and slavery is abolished, never the less, the
core of Nova Roma's consitution remains the constitution of the Old
Republic. Logic dicates that if a=b and b=c then a = c. This
proposed lex, no matter how well intended, strikes at the very heart
of Roman government and Roman Religion.

I may not have a "resume" and an illustrious name, but I can not vote
in favor of this lex and urge my fellow citizens to vote against this
very anti-Roman piece of legislation.

Pax,

Quintus Cassius Calvus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	Kristoffer From <from@darkeye.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 04:11:16 +0200

"L. Sicinius Drusus" wrote:
> Where are the "abuses" of the powers of the
> Paterfamilis that make it nessacary that we ignore the
> traditions of Roma? Who are the citizens who are being
> held against their will by a Pater?

Salve, Luci Sicini Druse.

There are none who vocally state this, not currently. Those who did, and
there have been such, eventually left Nova Roma altogether, frustrated
by their situation. This precedent may deter others from following in
their footsteps, unless they know that such a struggle would not be in
vain.

Now, on to a brief soujourn into history.

The families of Rome were just that, families. The paterfamilias was the
oldest male of the family, those under his power were all members of his
household, any direct descendants or their spouses living in his house.

How many of us are today living in the household of our paterfamilias?

I am not. I don't even live on the same continent as mine. Nevertheless,
I admire him as an upstanding citizen, and hope I will not prove too
much of a disappointment as part of his "family". However, I do not
recognise him as my provider, caretaker and direct ancestor.

Our system correctly labels what we have today "gentes", as they are,
indeed, a common name under which various families are bound together
under a common heritage. This heritage is to us spiritual, where it to
our ancestors in Rome was a physical reality, but it nonetheless gives
us a "common ground".

Yes, the familiae were, and still are, integral to roman society. But
our gentes are not familiae. Do not confuse the terms. Gentes are
integral, but the head of a gens does not possess the "power over life
and death" of the members of that gens.


Nor did they in Rome.

Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 27 Jul 2002 19:42:07 -0700 (PDT)

--- Kristoffer From <from@darkeye.net> wrote:
> "L. Sicinius Drusus" wrote:
> > Where are the "abuses" of the powers of the
> > Paterfamilis that make it nessacary that we ignore
> the
> > traditions of Roma? Who are the citizens who are
> being
> > held against their will by a Pater?
>
> Salve, Luci Sicini Druse.
>
> There are none who vocally state this, not
> currently. Those who did, and
> there have been such, eventually left Nova Roma
> altogether, frustrated
> by their situation. This precedent may deter others
> from following in
> their footsteps, unless they know that such a
> struggle would not be in
> vain.

There have been cases of someone who couldn't contact
a Paterfamilis who was no longer active. That needs to
be addressed. This goes way beyond that. How many
cases were there? one? dozens? How many cases were
there where an active Pater refused to allow a member
of his Gens to be adopted?

>
> Now, on to a brief soujourn into history.
>
> The families of Rome were just that, families. The
> paterfamilias was the
> oldest male of the family, those under his power
> were all members of his
> household, any direct descendants or their spouses
> living in his house.

You are leaving out Adoption, which played a far
larger role in Roma than in modern macronational
families.

>
> How many of us are today living in the household of
> our paterfamilias?

How often was the Paterfamilis of Antiquita off with a
legion or as part of a provincial adminstration?

>
> I am not. I don't even live on the same continent as
> mine.

Placing you in the same postion as an adopted son
living In Italia while his Pater was in Africa with
the legions.

>Nevertheless,
> I admire him as an upstanding citizen, and hope I
> will not prove too
> much of a disappointment as part of his "family".
> However, I do not
> recognise him as my provider, caretaker and direct
> ancestor.

Romans had a different concept of ancestor, one that
accpted an adopted son as the equal of a natural son.
Blood ties were only part of a Roman family, and an
adopted son considered the ancestors of his adoptive
father to be his ancestors. To a Roman ancestor didn't
mean a person that you were geneticly decended from,
it ment an elder of the family, one that may no longer
be alive.

>
> Our system correctly labels what we have today
> "gentes", as they are,
> indeed, a common name under which various families
> are bound together
> under a common heritage. This heritage is to us
> spiritual, where it to
> our ancestors in Rome was a physical reality, but it
> nonetheless gives
> us a "common ground".

I Have spoken out about the need to reform our
structure in the past. Basically we have a set of
families that we have mislabeled Gens. In all other
respects our "Gens" are Roman families. We don't have
any structures resembling a Roman Gens. I have no
problem with addressing this problem, but stripping
the Paters of power over families (which IS what our
mislabeled Gens are) will only make the situation more
inaccurate.

>
> Yes, the familiae were, and still are, integral to
> roman society. But
> our gentes are not familiae. Do not confuse the
> terms. Gentes are
> integral, but the head of a gens does not possess
> the "power over life
> and death" of the members of that gens.
>
>
> Nor did they in Rome.
>
> Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Gentes Law (Re: Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium)
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:29:08 EDT

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...> wrote:
> Avete Citizens of Nova Roma,
>
> I must proclaim that I am opposed to this law. I believe it runs directly
counter to the very reason Nova Roma was founded.

Cassius:
As one of the two Founders of Nova Roma, I must respectfully disagree. At the
founding of Nova Roma no one *ever* expected that Citizens would not be free
to leave a Gens should there be a need. Unfortunately, there have been a few
instances of a Pater/Materfamilias forbidding someone to leave a Gens, even
to escape an unpleasant situation or problem. Flavius Vedius Germanicus
intended to craft a law to make sure that Citizens could not be permanently
held against their will. Unfortunate events made that impossible. I, as
cofounder (and Germanicus' co-consul last year) would have supported such a
law. I very much support the "Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium"
now! :)

> Sulla:
> 4 years ago, Nova Roma was created to, "[Be]... the spiritual heir to the
ancient Roman Republic and Empire, (snip for brevity)"

Yet, what does this law do? It actually brings in those principles from our
modern society into Nova Roma!

Cassius:
Again, I respectfully disagree. Our Gentes, as they stand, are not historical
in any case. Our circumstances are vastly different from those in Roma
antiqua. Our modern Pater/Materfamiliae are *not* parents who have spent
years and money raising a child to maturity. To pretend they are, and to
demand that they have the power of a parent over unrelated adults, often half
a world away, devalues the 'auctoritas' of true parenthood.

And, frankly, in ancient Rome a person could always run away from home. ;)
Not possible if a spiteful Pater or Mater decides not to let someone leave a
Gens!

> Sulla:
> Beyond what the Nova Roma website states, the Constitution states, "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." So what does
this mean? To me, it means that we have taken the mission of restoring the
society of ancient Rome. Modelled on the society of ancient Rome and when we
have a proposed law that runs directly counter to this principle we should
vote it down. Because it takes us away from the very mission Nova Roma was
founded.

Cassius:
Again, as one of the founders, I disagree. That Constitutional passage was
not put in place to knowingly suppress the rights of individual Citizens.
Certainly allowing Citizens to leave a Gens if they are having problems does
not undermine the mission Nova Roma was founded on. As far as I can recall
neither Germanicus or myself envisioned anyone being kept prisoner against
their will.

> Sulla:
> Citizens, this law flies in the face of Roman Tradition. Roman Tradition
was that the power of the Paterfamilias was paramount. Just as the very
nature of family was of paramount importance in Roman Society. But we have a
conflict, and once again its a conflict between the rights of the individual
(a modern legal theory) vs. the Roman Concept of Family. You, as citizens
must decide in what direction Nova Roma will follow. Will it be a quasi
modern society with trappings of Rome? or will it be a representation in the
true spirit of Rome?

Cassius:
It seems to me that the issue isn't quite so emotional. Our
Pater/Materfamilia are not true parents with years of love and toil invested
in their families. Instead they're adults who merely let other grown adults
to share a name, and join a mailing list. Suggesting that allowing one adult
to hold another unrelated adult a virtual prisoner is the only way to
'represent the true spirit of Rome' seems a little absurd.

> Sulla:
> Citizens, this law allows anyone to leave any gens at a whim, with no
proper checks and balances.

Cassius:
Much in the same way that our laws allow Citizens to ENTER a Gens at a whim,
with no proper checks and balances? Are our Gentes to be equated to a "Roach
Motel" where Citizens can check in, but can never, ever check out?


>Sulla:
I am not opposed to setting up adoption procedures, as a matter of fact
adoption procedures have been followed by the Censors office since NR began
and those adoption procedures are available to be viewed from the Censor
handbook. There is simply no reason for this law, we have two laws that deal
with inactive paters, which supposedly was the reason for my colleague's
writing of this law, but the pater registration law and the census law
combined with the adoption procedures are more than adequate to handle most,
if not all, family issues and still maintain the traditional and important
Roman foundation of the family.

Cassius:
This law is very much needed, and is not duplicated anywhere else. This law
allows a Citizen to leave a Gens, even if a spiteful Pater or Materfamilias
decides to try and hold them against their will. We have had real problems
with this. For some, the only way out was to *quit Citizenship* and leave
Nova Roma entirely! That is not what we're about. We are not a cult that
holds people hostage. We cannot allow sub-sections of our fair Republic to
become cults that can hold people hostage.

Citizens, this law is necessary, rational and fair. It does not allow
Citizens to hop from Gens to Gens at a 'whim', it merely allows Citizens to
leave a Gens if there is a bad situation.

This law does not allow anyone to leave a Gens immediately and without
notice. It gives the Pater or Materfamilias a chance to respond, and even
gives them the right to block the transfer for 30 days, should they wish to
attempt to mediate some existing problem and preserve the gens relationship.

I humbly ask the Citizens of Nova Roma to vote FOR this law. We have lost a
few valuable and dedicated Citizens who wished to leave a Gens, but were
forced to stay by an angry Pater or Mater. Rather than to live miserably,
those citizens chose to live freely - by leaving us forever. We have a chance
now to allow our people to be free... AND to stay among us. Let us not refuse
that chance.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gnaeus Salix Astur
> To: Nova-Roma@y...
> Cc: NovaRoma-Announce@y... ; ReligioRomana@y...
> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 4:07 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
>
>
> Gnaeus Salix Astur Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> Ex Officio Tribunorum Plebis
>
> LEX OCTAVIA SALICIA DE LIBERTATE GENTILIUM
>
> I. The right of adult citizens to freely choose to terminate
> their membership in a gens is hereby affirmed, and may not be
> interfered with by any magistrate or citizen.
>
> II. An adult citizen wishing to leave his or her gens for any
> reason may do so by contacting the Censores. A minor
> citizen may do so with consent of his or her parent.
>
> III. Within seven days of receiving this request, the Censores are
> required to inform the citizen's current paterfamilias of the
> citizen's intent to leave. The paterfamilias or materfamilias
> (hereafter, simply "paterfamilias") shall then have fourteen days
> to respond to this notification, during which he can choose to
> impose a waiting period.
>
> A. Email to the address of the paterfamilias registered in
> the Censores' database is considered sufficient notification.
> If that address is no longer valid, then the notification
> period is waived, and the citizen may immediately depart the gens.
>
> B. If the paterfamilias fails to respond in the time alotted,
> or if he consents to the departure, then the Censores shall
> immediately remove the citizen from that gens; no further
> delay is necessary or allowable.
>
> C. If the paterfamilias chooses to impose a waiting period,
> and notifies the Censores of such within the fourteen days
> after the initial notification of departure, then there
> shall be a single thirty day period during which the
> departing citizen will remain a member of that gens.
>
> D. At the end of the thirty day waiting period, if the citizen
> notifies the Censores that he still intends to leave the gens,
> then that citizen shall no longer be considered a member of that
> gens. This decision by the departing citizen is final and
> may not be contested.
>
>
> =====
> 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.


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:20:15 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Colleague,

> I must proclaim that I am opposed to this law. I believe it
> runs directly counter to the very reason Nova Roma was founded.

You know that that is not correct; our Pater Patriae fully supports
this proposal. He is better qualified than anyone to judge whether
this is compatible with the reasons Nova Roma was founded - and it is.

> Yet, what does this law do? It actually brings in those
> principles from our modern society into Nova Roma!

We are modern people. We abhor slavery, racism, sexism, and serfdom.

> To me, it means that we have taken the mission of restoring the society
> of ancient Rome. Modelled on the society of ancient Rome and when we
> have a proposed law that runs directly counter to this principle we
> should vote it down.

Our gens system is not modeled after that of the ancients; it is not
even a close approximation. A gens was a collection of families;
a family was composed of people who were true relations (by birth
or adoption).

Currently, we have a system where new citizens pick a name off a form,
and are (if accepted by the innacurately-named "paterfamilias") afterwards
a member of that gens. This is NOTHING like what the ancients had.

The ancients had true families, with ties of blood and financial
support. We have groups of people who have chosen to take similar
names and, for a time, associate with one another. Unfortunately,
one person in this relationship is given far too much power over
the other - merely because he was there first.

> Because it takes us away from the very mission Nova Roma was founded.

Not according to the Founder. Please, we've heard enough of that fiction.

> Citizens, this law flies in the face of Roman Tradition. Roman Tradition
> was that the power of the Paterfamilias was paramount.

A Real paterfamilias had power over his children and members of his
household. He did not have power over strangers who chose his name
from a list!

> Just as the very nature of family was of paramount importance in
> Roman Society. But we have a conflict, and once again its a
> conflict between the rights of the individual (a modern legal theory)
> vs. the Roman Concept of Family.

Not in the least. Nothing is being done to break up families. You
are trying to equate true families - where persons lived together,
had common blood, had financial ties, owed their very lives to their
parents - with a group of virtual strangers, who have never lived
together, who know each other only from mailing lists.

That's bizarre.

That's role-playing. Fantasy role-playing has no place here.

> Citizens, this law allows anyone to leave any gens at a whim,
> with no proper checks and balances.

Wrong. It allows the "paterfamilias" to impose a thirty-day waiting
period. An intention to leave that can last for thirty days is certainly
no "whim".

> I am not opposed to setting up adoption procedures, as a matter of fact
> adoption procedures have been followed by the Censors office since
> NR began and those adoption procedures are available to be viewed
> from the Censor handbook.

That handbook has no legal authority. I doubt the current Censores
have done more than glance at it.

> There is simply no reason for this law, we have two laws that deal with
> inactive paters, which supposedly was the reason for my colleague's
> writing of this law,

As you well know, there was and is more than one reason for this law.
An inactive paterfamilias was the stimulus that caused it to be presented
to the Senate earlier this month; but it also addresses the problem
of malevolent patresfamilias who refuse to allow an unhappy citizen
to move to a gens of their own choosing.

> but the pater registration law and the census law combined with the
> adoption procedures are more than adequate to handle most, if not all,

Not all, certainly; it does nothing to address the problem of some
so-called "pater" claiming to have power over another adult that he's
not even related to, and has probably never met.

> I respectfully urge all citizens to vote against this law.

I respectfully urge all citizens to vote for this law. It protects
the rights of all, and does so with a relatively simple and
straightforward procedure, a procedure designed to affirm the
rights of all citizens to make their own decisions.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:29:41 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Luci Sicini,

> Unless some posts are missing from citizens who are
> complaining about being chained to a Gens they wish to
> leave What is the point of this law?

It has happened in the past; citizens were prevented from leaving
a gens (and some of them ultimately resigned citizenship).

> Why are we being presented with a law that spits on
> the mos maiorum?

Absurd! Does an attempt to guarantee that a relationship freely
entered into may be freely left do any harm to our mos maiorum?
Certainly not.

> Where are the "abuses" of the powers
> of the Paterfamilis that make it nessacary that we
> ignore the traditions of Roma? Who are the citizens
> who are being held against their will by a Pater?

Right now, I don't know of any. Most patresfamilias are mature
enough to not seek to hold people against their will. But
it could happen, unless we ensure now that it does not.

Our entire gens system "ignores the traditions" of Roma. A
"paterfamilias" was not in charge of a gens; nor did he have
authority over strangers he has never met, who did no more than
choose his name from a list. Some people here seek to equate
this sort of fantasy role-playing with true familial relationships;
I call that nonsense.

> Do we need our Tabilarium clogged up with pointless
> leges? Do we need to create a legal maze that replaces
> the Mos Maiorum?

Legal maze? The law is very simple: a citizen may leave,
but if the paterfamilias objects, a waiting period is
imposed. There is nothing complicated about this.

> If we don't have Civies trapped in Gens by Paters,

Perhaps we do. Perhaps we don't. We have, in the past.
We might, in the future.

> Is it for Forum lawyers who want to offer advice? Is
> it part of somebody's political ploy, an attempt to
> weaken the Paters for some hidden agenda?

It is an attempt to fight against the contemptuous idea that
one adult may have power over another who is not a relative
nor a subordinate; nothing more. It is an attempt to ensure
that abuses of power that have happened in the past will
not happen again.

> Unless the suporters of this insult to the Paters of
> Nova Roma and to the Mos Maiorum can come up with some
> examples of active Paters chaining unwilling children
> into their Gens I urge you to defeat this Lex.

I see no need to air dirty laundry in public and cause
embarrasment to persons who are still present - but if
you insist, I can point you to the evidence of this in the
archives.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:41:21 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Luci Sicini,

> Correct there are flaws. Rather than correcting the
> flaw caused by using confusing Gens and Families this
> lex makes the system even more inaccurate by usurping
> the powers of the Paters

It usurps only a power that our ancestors never had; a fictional
construction that does nothing to build our society and has
potential only to drive citizens away.

A Roman "paterfamilias" was a true father. He raised his
children from birth (or adoption); he took responsibility
for the well-being of his wife, mother, and sisters.

A Nova Roma "paterfamilias" does not do these things. Why,
then, should he have the power to keep another adult from
making his own decisions? Why should he have the power to
force himself on someone who wants no further contact with
him?

You devalue true families by seeking to equate these.

> The problem isn't the Paters power to control his
> family. The problem is we are calling Families Gens.

That doesn't solve the problem of a personality conflict
arising between members of a gens/family, who realize that
they are fundamentally incompatible, and must part company.

Our current proposal was designed for exactly this situation.
The choice of gens is usually made fairly quickly, before
a citizen has detailed knowledge of what a gens and the
people in it are like. How many days do most new citizens
spend reading the archives before making this choice? Not
many, I suspect.

If someone chooses poorly, and finds themselves placed under
the "pater potestas" of someone they find morally abhorrent,
you would seek to have them remain forever affiliated with
this person - all because they made one mistake when choosing
names from a list.

The opponents of this lex prefer a system where all decision-making
is in the hands of one person; where one person has all the power,
with the other unable to make his own choices, to choose who he
will affiliate with, to end a relationship that has become
unbearable. They try to justify this by speaking of the mos maiorum,
by referring to the practices of the ancients as if the situations
were parallel - but the situations are not parallel. The
patresfamilias who exercised Pater Potestas in Roma Antiqua were
true fathers, who raised their children, who supported the rest
of their family and were responsible for their welfare. That
is not true of the heads of Nova Roma Gentes; pater potestas
is not applicable.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:55:09 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Colleague,

> Sulla: But I do have a problem here. The evidence I have posted from the
> Nova Roma website and Constitution clearly state the importance of the
> Gens and the mission of Nova Roma. In addition to that you have not
> stated why you are promulgating this law in direction conflict with
> the Mos Maiorum.

Indeed, Gentes are important; but nothing in that Constitution implies
that citizens should not be free to make their own decision about
leaving a gens. Gentes are the "backbone" of Nova Roma; but a "backbone"
that is sustained through a power imbalance that keeps people where they
do not wish to be is rotten, and will break.

> Sulla: Citizens this type of careless interpretation is precisely
> why Nova Roma is experiencing so many conflicts. Some of our citizens
> do not understand that Nova Roma is supposed to serve a higher purpose.

Rubbish. We would not be working so hard to save Nova Roma from those
who wish to use it only for personal power, if it were not for recognition
of the higher purpose.

> This mission is to give a shining example to our modern societies, to
> show our societies what is wrong and how to fix it.

Freedom to choose one's own affiliations is not something that is wrong
with modern society, and I will fight to my last breath any attempts
to "fix" this.

What are you fighting for? You are fighting for your "right" to
tell someone that, because they chose to join a group that you are
the head of, they cannot leave without your permission.

This is contemptible. It has no place in modern society, and it has
no place in Nova Roma.

> Yet, instead our Tribunes are polluting that lofty mission.

Our Tribunes (and I) are working to address an imbalance of power
that has no purpose, no historical basis, and has done nothing to
better our society.

> Have you not wondered why Nova Roma was created and what purpose it
> serves?

One of our goals is to become a true Nation, recognized by others. That
will never happen when basic freedoms are held in contempt by leaders
of our society.

> Whenever we enter Nova Roma we should leave our polluted modern
> society at the door and become Roman.

The notion that a person can choose who he will and will not associate
with is certainly not pollution. However, the idea that one person
can force himself on another certainly is. It is an abomination, and
it must be purged if we are ever to be a respectable nation.

The Lex Octavia Sicinia must pass for us to have any credibility.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 00:00:00 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Quinte Cassi,

> "The basis of the Roman constitution was the family, and the
> constitution of the state was but an expansion of that of the
> family...

> While Nova Roma has made provisions for the rights of women in light
> of modern day reality and slavery is abolished, never the less, the
> core of Nova Roma's consitution remains the constitution of the Old
> Republic. Logic dicates that if a=b and b=c then a = c. This
> proposed lex, no matter how well intended, strikes at the very heart
> of Roman government and Roman Religion.

This proposed Lex is not against families; it is not concerned with
families at all. Rather, it is about our Gentes, which (with a
few exceptions) are associations of people who chose to use the
same Nomen, who perhaps are on a shared Internet mailing list.

The opponents of this lex seek to equate true families with our
gentes; I call that nonsense. They seek to exert power over other
adults who are no relation to them; they seek to prevent someone
from rectifying a choice that may have been made in haste when
that citizen first applied.

Let Nova Roma gentes be composed of willing people! A Gens of
people who actually *want* to be together is stronger than one
that has people who prefer to be elsewhere, but cannot leave because
some petty tyrant won't let them.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 00:26:01 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Luci Sicini,

> There have been cases of someone who couldn't contact
> a Paterfamilis who was no longer active. That needs to
> be addressed. This goes way beyond that. How many
> cases were there? one? dozens?

Dozens, I suspect; I hear of these fairly often. The Censores would
be able to say with greater accuracy.

> How many cases were there where an active Pater refused to
> allow a member of his Gens to be adopted?

I can think of three; I'll send you the details privately if you
like. Fortunately, most patresfamilias are mature enough not
to do this.

> You are leaving out Adoption, which played a far
> larger role in Roma than in modern macronational
> families.

In this adoption, a person would be transferred from one household
to another. The new paterfamilias would be responsible for his
welfare.

That's not what we have here.

> > How many of us are today living in the household of
> > our paterfamilias?
>
> How often was the Paterfamilis of Antiquita off with a
> legion or as part of a provincial adminstration?

At some point in the past, the persons in the family of a
true paterfamilias usually did live in their father's household
and eat the food he provided.

> Placing you in the same postion as an adopted son
> living In Italia while his Pater was in Africa with
> the legions.

He's not in the same position, not at all. I have no right
to dictate to Titus Octavius Pius what he may or may not do,
who he may associate with, or that he must continue to
associate with me. I am not his father, nor would I devalue
true fatherhood by pretending to be.

> Romans had a different concept of ancestor, one that
> accpted an adopted son as the equal of a natural son.
> Blood ties were only part of a Roman family, and an
> adopted son considered the ancestors of his adoptive
> father to be his ancestors.

Titus Octavius is not my son. He has not been adopted by me.
He chose my name from a list, we mailed each other, saw no major
incompatibilities, and mutually agreed he could join Gens
Octavia. That's it. Equating that with true adoption
(in which I would have assumed financial responsibility)
is ludicrous.

> In all other respects our "Gens" are Roman families.

Except for the fact that most people are of no actual
relation to anyone else in their gens, except where a
husband and wife join together. Roman families did
not consist of a large number of strangers choosing
a name off a list and then becoming subordinate to
someone hundreds of miles away.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sat, 27 Jul 2002 22:36:06 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium


Salve Colleague,

Ave, Colleague,

> I must proclaim that I am opposed to this law. I believe it
> runs directly counter to the very reason Nova Roma was founded.

You know that that is not correct; our Pater Patriae fully supports
this proposal. He is better qualified than anyone to judge whether
this is compatible with the reasons Nova Roma was founded - and it is.


Sulla: It is correct, as I have quoted directly from the Nova Roma website and the Constitution of Nova Roma. Our Pater Patriae, while a good man, is a man who does not know the names of all of his gens members. This law only serves to reinforce the fact that there are many gentes (families) that do not operate in the same way of others and as a result might not take their function as seriously?

> Yet, what does this law do? It actually brings in those
> principles from our modern society into Nova Roma!

We are modern people. We abhor slavery, racism, sexism, and serfdom.

Sulla: My response to this is taken directly from the Nova Roma website, "These Virtues are what gave a small city on the banks of the Tiber the moral and practical strength to govern much of the world, and are most sorely lacking in our society today. By promoting Roman culture, we are in effect promoting nothing less than the revitalization of Western society. By practicing Roman crafts and arts, we more fully understand our own Western roots." As I have stated in the Senate, I totally support the banning of slavery, discrimination on any grounds. But those issues are not this issue. Every person who joins Nova Roma may create a gens, and are sui iures (if they are not impubes) and according to Adkins (Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome, page 341) it states, " A person who was sui iuris could also place himself under the power of another of his own accord." All of our potential members and new citizens have from the moment they apply to the point they are accepted the ability to create their own Family (gens). They may choose to create their own family or they may choose to join an existing one.
> To me, it means that we have taken the mission of restoring the society
> of ancient Rome. Modelled on the society of ancient Rome and when we
> have a proposed law that runs directly counter to this principle we
> should vote it down.

Our gens system is not modeled after that of the ancients; it is not
even a close approximation. A gens was a collection of families;
a family was composed of people who were true relations (by birth
or adoption).

Sulla: I disagree, we have a wrong title, GENS. Change it to family and its more accurate. And, as I have stated above, according to Adkins definition of Adrogatio (Adoption), we are families. Not just that, but if you go to dictionary.com the dictionary definition for family state:

fam·i·ly Pronunciation Key (fm-l, fml)
n. pl. fam·i·lies
1..
1.. A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.
2.. Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.
2.. All the members of a household under one roof.
3.. A group of persons sharing common ancestry. See Usage Note at collective noun.
4.. Lineage, especially distinguished lineage.
5.. A locally independent organized crime unit, as of the Cosa Nostra.
6..
1.. A group of like things; a class.
2.. A group of individuals derived from a common stock: the family of human beings

Sulla: So I disagree with your narrow view of a family and state that at least some gentes in Nova Roma are families. I will go even further and state that the Gens Cornelia is a family.

<SNIP>

> Because it takes us away from the very mission Nova Roma was founded.

Not according to the Founder. Please, we've heard enough of that fiction.

Sulla: Its a shame that the website and the Constitution run counter to the opinions of our only remaining founder, considering he does not know all the names of his own gens members.

> Citizens, this law flies in the face of Roman Tradition. Roman Tradition
> was that the power of the Paterfamilias was paramount.

A Real paterfamilias had power over his children and members of his
household. He did not have power over strangers who chose his name
from a list!

Sulla: According to Adkins (Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome, page 341) it states, " A person who was sui iuris could also place himself under the power of another of his own accord." All of our potential members and new citizens have from the moment they apply to the point they are accepted the ability to create their own Family (gens). They may choose to create their own family or they may choose to join an existing one. And, it is up to the new member to decide he wants to join that family and it is up to the paterfamilias to accept that individual into his family.

> Just as the very nature of family was of paramount importance in
> Roman Society. But we have a conflict, and once again its a
> conflict between the rights of the individual (a modern legal theory)
> vs. the Roman Concept of Family.

Not in the least. Nothing is being done to break up families. You
are trying to equate true families - where persons lived together,
had common blood, had financial ties, owed their very lives to their
parents - with a group of virtual strangers, who have never lived
together, who know each other only from mailing lists.
Sulla: I do not consider adoption bizarre, such ad hominem attack is beneath you colleague. I view each adoption with utmost importance as I hope all Paters do. I go out of my way to assist my fellow Cornelians in adapting themselves into the Nova Roma way of life and am there to help educate them as to what it means to be a Roman.

That's bizarre.

That's role-playing. Fantasy role-playing has no place here.

> Citizens, this law allows anyone to leave any gens at a whim,
> with no proper checks and balances.

Wrong. It allows the "paterfamilias" to impose a thirty-day waiting
period. An intention to leave that can last for thirty days is certainly
no "whim".

Sulla: According to item I. it states, "I. The right of adult citizens to freely choose to terminate
their membership in a gens is hereby affirmed, and may not be
interfered with by any magistrate or citizen." I dont know how your interpreting it, but it makes it clear to me that anyone can terminate their membership at any time with no way of prevention. Again, this runs counter to the Mos Maiorum as there was no such way anyone in ancient Rome could leave their gens (family) unless they were given their independence by the paterfamilias or became paterfamilias at the death of the previous one. It simply did not matter if the individual was an adult or not.

> I am not opposed to setting up adoption procedures, as a matter of fact
> adoption procedures have been followed by the Censors office since
> NR began and those adoption procedures are available to be viewed
> from the Censor handbook.

That handbook has no legal authority. I doubt the current Censores
have done more than glance at it.

Sulla: While it may not have legal authority adoptions have taken place using the procedures spelled out in that book. Even this year there have been adoptions into the Gens Cornelia utilizing those very procedures so I disagree with your statement that our Cenors have done more than glance at it, because it has been utilized. Also, let us not forget the fact that Censor Lucius Equitius did give his approval to the Censor procedures as the handbook was created and compilied during the Lustrum of Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix and Lucius Equitius Cincinatus.

> There is simply no reason for this law, we have two laws that deal with
> inactive paters, which supposedly was the reason for my colleague's
> writing of this law,

As you well know, there was and is more than one reason for this law.

Sulla: You stated there was one reason, that an individual could not leave a gens because her Mater was inactive. I would like to hear these other reasons.
An inactive paterfamilias was the stimulus that caused it to be presented
to the Senate earlier this month; but it also addresses the problem
of malevolent patresfamilias who refuse to allow an unhappy citizen
to move to a gens of their own choosing.

Sulla: What malevolent Paterfamilias could this be?

> but the pater registration law and the census law combined with the
> adoption procedures are more than adequate to handle most, if not all,

Not all, certainly; it does nothing to address the problem of some
so-called "pater" claiming to have power over another adult that he's
not even related to, and has probably never met.

Sulla: According to Adkins, the power of the Paterfamilias is absolute. (Page 339) "The Paterfamilias was the legal head of the family and had absolute control over all his children, whether or not they were married." So, with all due respect you are directly challenging the power of the paterfamilias. When you presented you proposed law to me I stated I would veto it on grounds that it deviates from the mission of Nova Roma. You then presented it to the Senate I stated I would veto it there too. So, you have taken the last resort by having the Tribunes do your own work for you. Thats fine, but I told you I would oppose it because of that deviation.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul of Nova Roma


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:00:48 -0700

Ave, Colleague
----- Original Message -----
From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium


Salve Colleague,

> Sulla: But I do have a problem here. The evidence I have posted from the
> Nova Roma website and Constitution clearly state the importance of the
> Gens and the mission of Nova Roma. In addition to that you have not
> stated why you are promulgating this law in direction conflict with
> the Mos Maiorum.

Indeed, Gentes are important; but nothing in that Constitution implies
that citizens should not be free to make their own decision about
leaving a gens. Gentes are the "backbone" of Nova Roma; but a "backbone"
that is sustained through a power imbalance that keeps people where they
do not wish to be is rotten, and will break.

Sulla: I am glad you agree that Gentes are important. You believe there is nothing that implies citizens should not be free to make their own decisions? Well I must disagree. I have quoted numerous sections where the website and constitution state that it is the purpose of Nova Roma to resurrect ancient Rome. It does not state to resurrect SOME (my apologizes Tribune) or THE BEST OF (as some other citizens may state), but it states to Resurrect in all manners practical and acceptable. This is taken from the Constitution of Nova Roma. While our Gens system is not entirely accurate (and this is being worked on by my staff to get it more correct) you and your Tribunes have written a law that completely deviates 180 degrees from the Mos Maiorum. And, I have a problem with that.

> Sulla: Citizens this type of careless interpretation is precisely
> why Nova Roma is experiencing so many conflicts. Some of our citizens
> do not understand that Nova Roma is supposed to serve a higher purpose.

Rubbish. We would not be working so hard to save Nova Roma from those
who wish to use it only for personal power, if it were not for recognition
of the higher purpose.

Sulla: And just who is interested in personal power? What kind of power do we have in Nova Roma? The answer is not much considering that if we do anything that really upset our citizens Nova Roma is a voluntary organization and they would just leave. We do not have the same powers of the ancients (ie actual life and death) or for that matter the ability to truly punish our citizens unless if we count moderating citizens ability to post a punishment.

> This mission is to give a shining example to our modern societies, to
> show our societies what is wrong and how to fix it.

Freedom to choose one's own affiliations is not something that is wrong
with modern society, and I will fight to my last breath any attempts
to "fix" this.

Sulla: Individual Rights usurping the foundation of our Roman Community is wrong. The Family is the foundation of our Roman Community and it is something that needs to be protected and defended. As it states in the Nova Roma website, (paraphrased) our modern society is lacking, and as a result of that we are searching for something. I believe part of that is a search for community. That community is built on the pillar of the family. To errode that is to errode the very community we are trying to build in Nova Roma.

What are you fighting for? You are fighting for your "right" to
tell someone that, because they chose to join a group that you are
the head of, they cannot leave without your permission.

Sulla: Colleague, this is where you are mistaken, you and others believe I am fighting for my right. I am not. I am fighting for Rome. I am fighting for the family. If you want to go further I am fighting for Family Values and the Community. I am fighting because I took the Oath of Office to serve Nova Roma and to act always in the best interests of the people and the Senate of Nova Roma.

This is contemptible. It has no place in modern society, and it has
no place in Nova Roma.

Sulla: Colleague, according to Adkins your wrong. I have posted it in previous messages, the power of the paterfamilias was absolute. Now I am not trying to resurrect ALL of that, but I will fight against the complete 180 degrees that you want Nova Roma to go into. We had this conflict years ago and I fought it then, and I will fight it now. I have always been for Roman Tradition and the Mos Maiorum as opposed to modern society and that will not change.

> Yet, instead our Tribunes are polluting that lofty mission.

Our Tribunes (and I) are working to address an imbalance of power
that has no purpose, no historical basis, and has done nothing to
better our society.

Sulla: You and Your Tribunes are working to bring modern society concepts into Nova Roma in direct contravention with the reasons Nova Roma was founded, despite what Proconsul M. Cassius states.
> Have you not wondered why Nova Roma was created and what purpose it
> serves?

One of our goals is to become a true Nation, recognized by others. That
will never happen when basic freedoms are held in contempt by leaders
of our society.

Sulla: I disagree. We wont be recongizend if we dilute the very foundation of Nova Roma and when that happens we wont be taken seriously. The more corruption and blending between modern society and Nova Roma the less likely we will get any funds from organizations like the Getty, Annenberg CPB or any other major funding bodies.

Valete,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul of Nova Roma


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 01:12:22 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Colleague,

> Sulla: It is correct, as I have quoted directly from the Nova Roma
> website and the Constitution of Nova Roma.

NOTHING in your quotes from the Constitution or the web site support
the idea that you have a right to keep people in a gens who don't
want to be there.

> Our Pater Patriae, while a good man, is a man who does not know the
> names of all of his gens members.

A cheap shot. Knowing the names has nothing to do with his statement
as to why Nova Roma was founded.

> Sulla: My response to this is taken directly from the Nova Roma website,
> "These Virtues are what gave a small city on the banks of the Tiber the
> moral and practical strength to govern much of the world, and are most
> sorely lacking in our society today. By promoting Roman culture, we are
> in effect promoting nothing less than the revitalization of Western
> society. By practicing Roman crafts and arts, we more fully understand our
> own Western roots."

There is nothing virtuous about wanting to exercise power over another
individual; it's the very opposite of virtue.

The author of that paragraph seems to agree with me.

> But those issues are not this issue.

There is similarity. You seek to interfere with another citizen's
ability to decide for himself who he wishes to affiliate with. Slavery,
sexism, etc., are all abhorred because they limit an individual's rights;
so does the application of a bizarre and unhistorical interpretation of
pater potestas, albeit to a much lesser extent.

> They may choose to create their own family or they may choose to
> join an existing one.

But they may not choose to leave, by your interpretation. "Gentiles
check in, but they don't check out."

> Sulla: I disagree, we have a wrong title, GENS. Change it to family
> and its more accurate. And, as I have stated above, according to Adkins
> definition of Adrogatio (Adoption), we are families.

Except that in a true adoption the people involved would actually meet
each other, and the paterfamilias would assume responsibility (financial
and legal) for his adopted child. We have nothing like that, and thus your
invocation of Adkins is spurious.

> fam·i·ly Pronunciation Key (fm-l, fml)
> n. pl. fam·i·lies

I see nothing relevant here. This definition speaks of actual families,
except for the Mafia definition and this one:

> 2.. A group of individuals derived from a common stock: the
> family of human beings

I suppose, then, that I am a member of the "family of Unix Programmers".
I could leave that group at any time.

> Sulla: So I disagree with your narrow view of a family and state that
> at least some gentes in Nova Roma are families. I will go even
> further and state that the Gens Cornelia is a family.

Not in the historical sense of the word, which is where pater potestas
applies. You have no more right to prevent one of them from leaving
than you do over another member of the "family of ISP employees".

> Sulla: Its a shame that the website and the Constitution run counter
> to the opinions of our only remaining founder,

Considering that he wrote much of that text, I think it's safe to say
that it is only your own extremist interpretation of it that runs
counter to the Pater Patriae's opinions.

Do you regularly tell other authors that you know more about the
true meaning of their work than they do?

> considering he does not know all the names of his own gens members.

Again with the cheap shot! WHAT does this have to do with the validity
of his statement on what he and his colleague intended, four years ago?

> Sulla: According to Adkins (Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome, page 341)
> it states, " A person who was sui iuris could also place himself
> under the power of another of his own accord."

Adkins was writing about actual adoptions -- not picking some
stranger's name from a web form.

> And, it is up to the new member to decide he wants to join that family
> and it is up to the paterfamilias to accept that individual into his family.

And if a mistake is made, if that person finds the "paterfamilias" morally
abhorrent, he's sentenced to remain there for as long has he remains
a citizen... how revolting.

> Sulla: According to item I. it states, "I. The right of adult citizens
> to freely choose to terminate their membership in a gens is hereby
> affirmed, and may not be interfered with by any magistrate or citizen."
> I dont know how your interpreting it, but it makes it clear to me that
> anyone can terminate their membership at any time with no way of
> prevention.

If you'd read past the first paragraph, you'll see that this process of
leaving can take up to 37 days.

> Again, this runs counter to the Mos Maiorum as there was no such way

Our entire gens system, in which new citizens choose a stranger's name
off a list, runs counter to the Mos Maiorum. It also runs counter to
basic human rights to force someone to remain where they do not wish
to be.

> Also, let us not forget the fact that Censor Lucius Equitius did give
> his approval to the Censor procedures as the handbook was created and
> compilied during the Lustrum of Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix and
> Lucius Equitius Cincinatus.

I doubt he approved the blatantly unconstitutional bit about a
paterfamilias being able to terminate the citizenship of a
departing citizen.

> Sulla: You stated there was one reason, that an individual could not
> leave a gens because her Mater was inactive.

No, I said that that was the incident that prompted me to write it,
about three weeks ago. I was already aware of other problems that
people had had leaving a gens in the past.

> I would like to hear these other reasons.

Look in the archives of the now-defunct "Vedian Baths" mailing list,
in which an incident was related where a citizen attempted to leave
a gens but was denied. The paterfamilias also happened to be a
Censor at the time, and rather than properly recusing himself from
the case and appointing someone unbiased to handle it, he simply
denied the request.

I can send you a copy if you don't have it.

> Sulla: What malevolent Paterfamilias could this be?

Any, past, present, or future, who tries to keep someone where they
do not wish to be.

> Sulla: According to Adkins, the power of the Paterfamilias is absolute.

He's talking about real paters, heads of a household. Quote all you want,
the comparision is invalid. You are not the father - natural or adopted -
of the persons in your gens.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 01:17:40 -0500 (CDT)

> It does not state to resurrect SOME (my apologizes Tribune) or THE BEST
> OF (as some other citizens may state), but it states to Resurrect in all
> manners practical and acceptable. This is taken from the Constitution
> of Nova Roma.

"Practical and acceptable".

Keeping someone in a gens against their will is not acceptable.

The Constitution also states that citizens have:
"The right to remain sovereign and secure within one's own home,
person, and property;"

Preventing someone from choosing to leave a gens denies their sovereign
rights concerning their own person.

> While our Gens system is not entirely accurate (and this is being
> worked on by my staff to get it more correct) you and your Tribunes
> have written a law that completely deviates 180 degrees from the
> Mos Maiorum. And, I have a problem with that.

Your interpretation deviates from what our Founders intended; it deviates
from the practices of all civilized nations; and it deviates from the
dictates of conscience. And I have a problem with that.

Vale, Octavius.


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 01:46:33 -0700 (PDT)

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
wrote:
> Salve Luci Sicini,
>
> > Correct there are flaws. Rather than correcting
> the
> > flaw caused by using confusing Gens and Families
> this
> > lex makes the system even more inaccurate by
> usurping
> > the powers of the Paters
>
> It usurps only a power that our ancestors never had;
> a fictional
> construction that does nothing to build our society
> and has
> potential only to drive citizens away.
>
> A Roman "paterfamilias" was a true father. He
> raised his
> children from birth (or adoption); he took
> responsibility
> for the well-being of his wife, mother, and sisters.
>
> A Nova Roma "paterfamilias" does not do these
> things. Why,
> then, should he have the power to keep another adult
> from
> making his own decisions? Why should he have the
> power to
> force himself on someone who wants no further
> contact with
> him?
>
> You devalue true families by seeking to equate
> these.
>

Family ment far more to the Romans than the narrow
meaning that moderns attach to it. The Moderns have
chopped a family down to a Mother, Sometimes a Father
and one or two kids. To The Romans a Family was what
we now call the extended family, It included your
Grandparents, Your Uncles, Your Cousins some of whom
would be living in seperate houses but ALL considered
to be part of the family.

Oh how we have advanced! Modern Fathers who sire
Children and abbandon any pretense of caring for them,
leaving that task up to the state via Wellfare
payments. Casting our Parents into "Retirement Homes"
which are constant sources of scandals involving
physical and mental abuse. Mothers who breed with NO
intention of having a Father around to care for the
children. Two income famalies who are so damn
concerned with filling a house up with modern junk
that was considered luxary items a generation ago that
the kids are dumped into day care so Mom can return to
work to help pay for junk instead of nurturing her
children. Self Centered Parents who are so Carrer
oriented that the Children's needs are ignored. Single
Parent Children who turn to gangs for the extended
relationships that their modern family couldn't give
them.

The Modern Family is a sick institution, one that
could be improved by returning to the Roman concept of
a family consisting of more than just a household with
one or two adults and some minors.

We need to clear up the confussion between a Gens and
a Family, but blindly accepting a narrow definition of
family that is trendy in 21st Century Western nations
is not a worthwhile goal for Nova Roma. A Roman Family
was more than just a household, and this is what a
Nova Roman family should be.

We need reform to bring our Gens in line with the
Roman model. That means having Gens that have more
than one Paterfamalis, Gens that consist of extended
families, not just households. It means narrowing the
definition of Patrician from belonging to a Patrician
Gens to belonging to a Patrician Family. It means
there are only two ways to become a Patrician, being
born into a Patrician Family or being adopted into a
Patrician Family. It means Plebian Families in
"Patrician" Gens.

We need to move towards a more historic Gens model,
but that is NOT what this lex does, it moves to a LESS
historic model by stripping a Paterfamilis of power,
and will be a impedament to any effort to create a
legal framework for Historic Roman Families.

Quirites,
This Lex is unneeded and unhistoric. We need to defeat
this lex as the first step towards recreating the
Roman family. You can't fix an ahistoric Gens
structure by destroying a historic but misapplied
power of a Paterfamilis.

L. Sicinius Drusus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Yes, yes, yes!
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 11:40:05 +0200

Salvete Quirites Novae Romae,

Finally, a set of bold Tribuni who present their legislation! I recall times in which the Tribuni were scorned for doing so. Best of all, the laws presented are decent, democratic and some are downright necessary. I urge the plebeian citizens (to which I don't belong anymore :() to vote in favour of these laws!

Valete bene,
M. Octavius Solaris


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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Modern families (was Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium)
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 11:50:42 +0200

Salve Luci Sicini,

> Family ment far more to the Romans than the narrow
> meaning that moderns attach to it. The Moderns have
> chopped a family down to a Mother, Sometimes a Father
> and one or two kids. To The Romans a Family was what
> we now call the extended family, It included your
> Grandparents, Your Uncles, Your Cousins some of whom
> would be living in seperate houses but ALL considered
> to be part of the family.
>
> Oh how we have advanced! Modern Fathers who sire
> Children and abbandon any pretense of caring for them,
> leaving that task up to the state via Wellfare
> payments. Casting our Parents into "Retirement Homes"
> which are constant sources of scandals involving
> physical and mental abuse. Mothers who breed with NO
> intention of having a Father around to care for the
> children. Two income famalies who are so damn
> concerned with filling a house up with modern junk
> that was considered luxary items a generation ago that
> the kids are dumped into day care so Mom can return to
> work to help pay for junk instead of nurturing her
> children. Self Centered Parents who are so Carrer
> oriented that the Children's needs are ignored. Single
> Parent Children who turn to gangs for the extended
> relationships that their modern family couldn't give
> them.

MOS: Not every modern family conforms this cynical description.

> The Modern Family is a sick institution, one that
> could be improved by returning to the Roman concept of
> a family consisting of more than just a household with
> one or two adults and some minors.

MOS: "Gentes" here are not housholds. As "the other Marcus Octavius" (smirk)
has pointed out, people here bearing the same nomen are simply strangers on
a list.

Besides, do you honestly think that Roman families were any better? My fair
guess is that there were hundreds of patresfamilias who beat their children
or wife, or raped their slaves. What a healthy institution!

> We need to clear up the confussion between a Gens and
> a Family, but blindly accepting a narrow definition of
> family that is trendy in 21st Century Western nations
> is not a worthwhile goal for Nova Roma. A Roman Family
> was more than just a household, and this is what a
> Nova Roman family should be.
>
> We need reform to bring our Gens in line with the
> Roman model. That means having Gens that have more
> than one Paterfamalis, Gens that consist of extended
> families, not just households. It means narrowing the
> definition of Patrician from belonging to a Patrician
> Gens to belonging to a Patrician Family. It means
> there are only two ways to become a Patrician, being
> born into a Patrician Family or being adopted into a
> Patrician Family. It means Plebian Families in
> "Patrician" Gens.

MOS: I absolutely agree on this.

> We need to move towards a more historic Gens model,
> but that is NOT what this lex does, it moves to a LESS
> historic model by stripping a Paterfamilis of power,
> and will be a impedament to any effort to create a
> legal framework for Historic Roman Families.
>
> Quirites,
> This Lex is unneeded and unhistoric. We need to defeat
> this lex as the first step towards recreating the
> Roman family. You can't fix an ahistoric Gens
> structure by destroying a historic but misapplied
> power of a Paterfamilis.

MOS: I don't believe in power that limits sane adults from making a choice.
And I certainly don't believe in power excersised by one individual over
another with no reason other than an unhistorical form of roleplay.

Vale bene,
M. Octavius Solaris

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Yes, yes, yes!
From:	Kristoffer From <from@darkeye.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:51:02 +0200

"M. Octavius Solaris" wrote:
> I urge the plebeian citizens (to which I don't
> belong anymore :() to vote in favour of these laws!

Salve, Marce Octavi Solaris.

As our tribunes currently promulgate their legislation through the
comitia populi, not the comitia plebis, you're as eligible to vote as
the plebeians. So, I would further extend your urging to the patricians;
vote in favour of the proposed lex!

Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:19:18 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Postumi.

--- pro_postumius_nero <socraticquestion@netscape.net> wrote:
> Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus Consuli Germanico et Tribuno
> Plebis Asturi S.P.D.
>
> Salvete,
>
> With regard to Paragraph II, it is my understanding that a minor
> citizen must have the permission of said citizen's parent to leave a
> gens, which leaves the assumption that said minor citizen's parent is
> a citizen. Therefore, I ask, first, if my assumption is correct, and
> second, be my assumption correct, how might a minor citizen who does
> not have a citizen who is a parent then change a gens, should one
> choose to, and also, be my assumption incorrect, how might such
> permission then get to the censors in the allotted period?
>
> With Utmost Respect,
>
> Pro. Postumius Nero

Under our current legislation, a minor must present a parental
permission to join Nova Roma, either if said parent is a citizen of
Nova Roma or not.

Knowing this, you will agree that a similar parental permission could
be provided in the cases under the scrutiny of this proposal.

=====
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: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus" <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 04:34:33 -0400

Salve Consul,

I'm compelled to jump in here because your interpretation of "person"
in, "The right to remain sovereign and secure within one's own home,
person, and property;" is mistaken. "person" in this type of idiomatic
usage usually refers to the physical body and not one's right [or lack
thereof] to break association with a group (or any other abstract
right). The power to prevent a civis from leaving a gens will not in any
way impact the civis physically; sovereignty over one's person is
maintained. The above statement in the Constitution is not infringed on
by any means.

Respectfully,

M. Cornelius Gualterus




Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:

>
>>It does not state to resurrect SOME (my apologizes Tribune) or THE BEST
>>OF (as some other citizens may state), but it states to Resurrect in all
>>manners practical and acceptable. This is taken from the Constitution
>>of Nova Roma.
>>
>
> "Practical and acceptable".
>
> Keeping someone in a gens against their will is not acceptable.
>
> The Constitution also states that citizens have:
> "The right to remain sovereign and secure within one's own home,
> person, and property;"
>
> Preventing someone from choosing to leave a gens denies their sovereign
> rights concerning their own person.
>
>
>>While our Gens system is not entirely accurate (and this is being
>>worked on by my staff to get it more correct) you and your Tribunes
>>have written a law that completely deviates 180 degrees from the
>>Mos Maiorum. And, I have a problem with that.
>>
>
> Your interpretation deviates from what our Founders intended; it deviates
> from the practices of all civilized nations; and it deviates from the
> dictates of conscience. And I have a problem with that.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
>
>

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Oath of Office
From:	"mcserapio" <mcserapio@yahoo.it>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:27:51 -0000

I, Manius Constantinus Serapio (Simone Lattes) do hereby solemnly
swear to uphold the honor of Nova Roma, and to act always in the best
interests of the people and the Senate of Nova Roma.

As a magistrate of Nova Roma, I, Manius Constantinus Serapio (Simone
Lattes)swear to honor the Gods and Goddesses of Rome in my public
dealings, and to pursue the Roman Virtues in my public and private
life.

I, Manius Constantinus Serapio (Simone Lattes) swear to uphold and
defend the Religio Romana as the State Religion of Nova Roma and
swear never to act in a way that would threaten its status as the
State Religion.

I, Manius Constantinus Serapio (Simone Lattes) swear to protect and
defend the Constitution of Nova Roma.

I, Manius Constantinus Serapio (Simone Lattes) further swear to
fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of the office of Scriba
of Aedilis Plebis Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix to the best of my
abilities.

On my honor as a Citizen of Nova Roma, and in the presence of the
Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people and by their will and favor,
do I accept the position of Scriba of Aedilis Plebis Tiberius
Apollonius Cicatrix and all the rights, privileges, obligations, and
responsibilities attendant thereto.

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:51:06 -0000

P. Cornelia Strabo Praetor Senatus Populesque Novae Romae:

Further to our proposed lex on the perceived necessity of 'freeing'
gens members, I cite as alternatives to the arbitrary removal of
one's self from his gens:

I. Cases of abuse or neglect can be reported to the Censors and
dealt with by the Praetor's. This will result in one's ability to
change *Gens*

II. More trivial cases, like a citizen not feeling very compatible
with the group in question for religious reasons, political reasons,
age, and the like (it's none of anyone's business, it is just not
rote abuse or neglect) has the option of starting a familia within
that gens, which was something discussed last year. A good idea, but
last year, the necessity of it was in question. The
word 'incompatibility" would only have to be reported to the
Censors, who would notify the Pater, and the option to start a
familia (example: Fabius Fabricius, Cornelia Cinna, Cornelia
Secunda) could be invoked after a waiting period. They are still
part of the *Gens* but a familia, upon which the head of this familia
would be the spokesperson for this group.

Rationale: In the case of I. misbehaviour, as it should, maybe
civilly dealt with, as it should be. Nobody has a right to defy
other's rights as listed in the constitution, basic human rights and
the like (see, I am not that much of a tyrant, after all :))

Rationale: In the case of II, our differences are resolved, without
harming the basic familial structure of Nova Roma, and will at the
same time bring it in closer alignment with the historical model we
seek.

As for Patriapotestas, it was a factor in the early republic.
However, most Paters would not kill their children, or make any kind
of major familial decisions without consulting with advisors about
such weighted matters (Introduction to Roman Law, Nicholas Barry,
Oxford University, 1975, ISBN 0-19-876063-9. But such authority did
exist.

Should we bring this to extremes? Of course not. But the authority
of the Pater to that extent did exist.

However, I do believe in a modified Patriapotestas, protecting the
rights of both citizens and Paters within Nova Roma. For example, I
do not believe you should have the right to demand monies, web
materials, etc. which you have donated to the Gens upon your
departure...unless there was a written agreement beforehand. Such
factors are within the gens and remain under the authority and
ownership of the Paterfamilias for his gens. Things along these lines.

We can work this out a bit more historically, if we give it some
thought...unless the Censors can furnish an impending imminent need
for this timeliness, I think we can slow down, take our time, and
work out something to the benefit of both the republic and her
citizens' rights.

Bene valete,
Pompeia

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia Libertate Gentilium
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:55:16 -0000

Salvete Omnes:

Just posting as a citizen here.

I find it interesting that we are being presented with potential
reasons why we need this lex, and 'hearsay' stuff about people
leaving due to gens disputes other than pater/mater inactivity.

I would like to see 'the facts'.

Did you know, that in my gens, Cornelia, there are people who are
still part of our gens, but who have left Nova Roma?

Where does the fault lie in cases such as these? They appear to
enjoy the gens, but no longer wish to be citizens......

Bene valete,
Pompeia

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 08:15:57 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Senatrix Pompeia Cornelia,

> II. More trivial cases, like a citizen not feeling very compatible
> with the group ...The
> word 'incompatibility" would only have to be reported to the
> Censors, who would notify the Pater, and the option to start a
> familia (example: Fabius Fabricius, Cornelia Cinna, Cornelia
> Secunda) could be invoked after a waiting period. They are still
> part of the *Gens* but a familia, upon which the head of this familia
> would be the spokesperson for this group.

Why the insistence on keeping people where they do not wish to be?

What if someone wants to join an existing gens, where they would
be welcomed by compatible people, the poeple they choose to
be with?

What if the policies and actions of the former paterfamilias are
so repugnant to a citizen that they want nothing more to do with
that person, ever? Why force them to keep a name that is
abhorrent to them?

In your proposed alternative, would the former paterfamilias
still have any amount of control over the new family within the
gens? Would it be truly independent, with all the same rights that
the other family within the gens has?

Our current proposal restores the element of choice. It restores
freedom. Your alternative forces a single solution on everyone.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Hirtius=20Helveticus?=" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 15:20:31 +0200 (CEST)

Salvete Quirites

First, I have to admit, that I haven't read all
postings concerning this subject completely.
Nevertheless, I'd like to comment on it - even though
I am a *new* citizen:

First of all, I do agree with honoured consul Sulla.
This law is not necessary at all. It would imho be
much better to work on a law concerning adoption. If
some cives wants to leave his/her gens, it should be
via adoption.

In ancient times, a person got into the patria
potestas either through being born in wedlock, through
marriage or a person sui iuris could be adopted by
another person sui iuris (the legal term is
"adrogatio", since it had to happen in front of the
comitia curiata as a rogatio!). Only a "persona aliena
iuris" (e.g. a non-citizen) could be adopted through a
mancipatio (the term "adoptio" only applied in this
case).
Of course, NR doesnt't want to simply copy the
republic, and frankly, it can't - otherwise it would
just be a RPG of some sort. We have to find a
compromise between the constitution of the ancients
and our modern concept of a civil society. But surely
not in this matter!

OK, the NR concept of gentes is not historically
accurate, nor does it *copy* the classical republic.
The gentes during that time already lost their
significance and got replaced by the smaller unit of
the "households".

There may be some good causes, why a cives wants to
leave his/her gens, I am sure. But what would happen
if this law passes? People will leave their gens just
because they are unhappy with their name or what ever!
Is that really what we want? I am aware of the fact,
that in almost all modern democratic societies, people
may (almost) freely change their name, if they want
to. But imho NR should estimate _certain_ virtutes and
values higher than individual rights (not in every
case, of course!!!). And the concept of the gentes is
one of these.

Valete bene,

=====
A. Hirtius Helveticus
------------------------------
paterfamilias gentis Hirtiarum
http://www.hirtius.ch.tt/
------------------------------
Yahoo!/AIM/MSN: hirtius75ch
icq: 155762490

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"mcserapio" <mcserapio@yahoo.it>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 13:25:10 -0000

AVETE OMNES

I must tell that I agree with Consul Sulla Felix. We already have
laws dealing with Patres/Matresfamilias, so if the problem is the
dereliction of their duty, it is already solved.
In addition this lex would make changing Gens too easy: a citizen
could even change Gens once a month...
This lex even doesn't state what a citizen can do after he leaves his
Gens: does he becomes a "NEMO"? Or does he can immediately apply for
another Gens?
I don't think that a person should not be allowed to change his Gens.
Adoption allows us to reach two targets in the mean time: history and
modern democracy/freedom. I think that a citizen should have the
opportunity of being "adopted", but the two Patresfamilias (the
former one and the new one) must agree before make it official.

Why should a citizen decide to change his Gens? Because he thinks
that his Paterfamilias doesn't do a good job? Well, perhaps in this
case he could do a lot before deciding to change! He could directly
turn to his Paterfamilias; if he doesn't answer he could wait for his
lawfully settled registration (that he will probably fail to do). He
could even turn to the Senate or e.g. to a lawfully authorized
Magistrate (a Praetor?) that would judge the case and allow this
citizen to change his Gens, if necessary.

If a citizen changes his Gens, it should happen because it is nearly
*necessary*, not because he changes his mind every ten days!

OPTIME VALETE
MANIVS-CONSTANTINVS-SERAPIO
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Italiae
Scriba Aedilis Plebis Tiberi Apolloni Cicatricis
Dominus Praefectus Sodalitatis Egressus
Peritus Linguae Latinae Societatis Iuventutis Romanae
Scriba Arenae et Sermonis Societatis Iuventutis Romanae
--------------------
PROVINCIA ITALIA
http://italia.novaroma.org
--------------------
ADMINISTRATIO AEDILIS PLEBIS CICATRICIS
http://www.geocities.com/mcserapio/aedilisciatrix.html
--------------------
GENS CONSTANTINIA
http://www.geocities.com/mcserapio/constantinia-en.html

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Hirtius=20Helveticus?=" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 15:29:24 +0200 (CEST)

Honoured consul Octavius

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
wrote:
<snip>
> What if someone wants to join an existing gens,
> where they would
> be welcomed by compatible people, the poeple they
> choose to
> be with?

No problem with that. This could happen by
adrogatio/adoptio. Simple as that.

> What if the policies and actions of the former
> paterfamilias are
> so repugnant to a citizen that they want nothing
> more to do with
> that person, ever? Why force them to keep a name
> that is
> abhorrent to them?

If there is the possibility of adrogatio/adoptio, this
would be solved also. But imho in a proper way.

> Our current proposal restores the element of choice.
> It restores
> freedom. Your alternative forces a single solution
> on everyone.

Which are, to be honest, modern concepts. Of course I
do do also support them (in my macronational life I am
an active member of a liberal-democratic party!), but
as I posted earlier, we have to find the best possible
compromise between the ancient republic and our modern
ideas. And this proposed law is one-sided modern and
does not in any way respect the ancient constitution
at all.

Vale bene,

=====
A. Hirtius Helveticus
------------------------------
paterfamilias gentis Hirtiarum
http://www.hirtius.ch.tt/
------------------------------
Yahoo!/AIM/MSN: hirtius75ch
icq: 155762490

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Hirtius=20Helveticus?=" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 15:31:23 +0200 (CEST)

Salvete Quirites

--- mcserapio <mcserapio@yahoo.it> wrote:
<snip>
> If a citizen changes his Gens, it should happen
> because it is nearly
> *necessary*, not because he changes his mind every
> ten days!

My words exactly!

Valete bene,

=====
A. Hirtius Helveticus
------------------------------
paterfamilias gentis Hirtiarum
http://www.hirtius.ch.tt/
------------------------------
Yahoo!/AIM/MSN: hirtius75ch
icq: 155762490

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 08:33:04 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Aule Hirti,

> Of course, NR doesnt't want to simply copy the
> republic, and frankly, it can't - otherwise it would
> just be a RPG of some sort.

That's what I'm trying to prevent here. We have people who are
calling themselves a "Pater" with regard to persons they did not
raise, do not finanancially support, and in most cases have never
even met in person. To equate this with true fatherhood is
nothing more than role-playing.

> But what would happen
> if this law passes? People will leave their gens just
> because they are unhappy with their name or what ever!

Not likely.

Only people who are very unhappy in their gens are likely
to take this step. The mandatory notification and 30-day
waiting period are designed to discourage frivolous departures.

In many gentes now, people are free to leave any time they
want. There are dozens of Octavii and Cassii who are free to
make their own decisions, to join any other gens they choose
or to start their own. That they have not done so is proof
that a completely open and unrestrictive gens is not likely
to lead to frivolous resignations.

> But imho NR should estimate _certain_ virtutes and
> values higher than individual rights (not in every
> case, of course!!!). And the concept of the gentes is
> one of these.

There is absolutely nothing virtuous about forcing someone
to remain when they have expressed a desire to leave. A person
who would do such a thing is not fit to be a paterfamilias,
magistrate, or citizen of Nova Roma.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 13:38:22 -0000

---Salve Honoured Consul:

I believe you should *reread* my post; in it I say that the famila in
question would have it's own spokesperson.

My solution is not an imposition on anyone. I am not the one
promulgating laws to this effect. But I think it allows people an
out without disrupting our current family structure, which, as you
have said many times, is not really an important thing, but
historically, it is, and as it stands, our republic is made up of
gens.

Your attempts to cite me as one who wishes to trap people against
their will are feeble.

I want people to be happy, but I would like to see some commitment on
the part of citizens too.

This is what made Rome great, and any other successful nation for
that matter...commitment on the part of her citizens.

With respect Honoured Consul, why are you so passionate about your
position? And if so, why is it that you did not promulgate this
legislation yourself. You are the one who seems to be rather
passionate and emotional about this, judging by the innumerable
number of posts on this issue from your send path.

And where is the documentation that this is necessary in the first
place. I have sworn an oath, I am Praetor...send me the stuff
privately...demonstrate to me that there is a real problem here...one
that needs to be dealt with 'soonly' by the passage of this law. And
atleast I might feel comfortable that there is an imminent need for
this legislation, as opposed to working on other, more historically
intuned options.

Bene vale,
Pompeia



In Nova-Roma@y..., Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...> wrote:
> Salve Senatrix Pompeia Cornelia,
>
> > II. More trivial cases, like a citizen not feeling very
compatible
> > with the group ...The
> > word 'incompatibility" would only have to be reported to the
> > Censors, who would notify the Pater, and the option to start a
> > familia (example: Fabius Fabricius, Cornelia Cinna, Cornelia
> > Secunda) could be invoked after a waiting period. They are still
> > part of the *Gens* but a familia, upon which the head of this
familia
> > would be the spokesperson for this group.
>
> Why the insistence on keeping people where they do not wish to be?
>
> What if someone wants to join an existing gens, where they would
> be welcomed by compatible people, the poeple they choose to
> be with?
>
> What if the policies and actions of the former paterfamilias are
> so repugnant to a citizen that they want nothing more to do with
> that person, ever? Why force them to keep a name that is
> abhorrent to them?
>
> In your proposed alternative, would the former paterfamilias
> still have any amount of control over the new family within the
> gens? Would it be truly independent, with all the same rights that
> the other family within the gens has?
>
> Our current proposal restores the element of choice. It restores
> freedom. Your alternative forces a single solution on everyone.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 08:40:42 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Aule Hirti,

> > What if someone wants to join an existing gens,
> > where they would be welcomed by compatible people,
> > the poeple they choose to be with?
>
> No problem with that. This could happen by
> adrogatio/adoptio. Simple as that.

I was addressing a proposed alternative written by Pompeia Cornelia,
in which the citizen who tried to depart a gens would be instead
required to start up a different familias within that gens.

Adoption out of the gens would then be an option only if the
citizen's former paterfamilias had no power to stop the citizen
(who is now a paterfamilias of a one-person family) from leaving
the gens.

That is what I am trying to accomplish with the Lex Octavia Salicia.

> And this proposed law is one-sided modern and
> does not in any way respect the ancient constitution
> at all.

The only thing it disrespects is the fiction that "family" is
something that results from picking someone's name from a
web form.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Hirtius=20Helveticus?=" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 15:41:51 +0200 (CEST)

Honoured consul

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
wrote:
<snip>
> That's what I'm trying to prevent here. We have
> people who are
> calling themselves a "Pater" with regard to persons
> they did not
> raise, do not finanancially support, and in most
> cases have never
> even met in person. To equate this with true
> fatherhood is
> nothing more than role-playing.
<snip>
> Only people who are very unhappy in their gens are
> likely
> to take this step. The mandatory notification and
> 30-day
> waiting period are designed to discourage frivolous
> departures.
<snip>
> There is absolutely nothing virtuous about forcing
> someone
> to remain when they have expressed a desire to
> leave. A person
> who would do such a thing is not fit to be a
> paterfamilias,
> magistrate, or citizen of Nova Roma.

Agreed. Maybe I haven't made my point clear. I don't
want to prevent people from changing a gens if they
wish to. If someone wants to do that, he/she should be
free to do so. BUT: By adlocutio it would be much
simpler! If someone wants to leave his/her gens _and_
join a new one, then the paterfamilias of the new gens
could simply adress the comitia curiata (or the
censores) that he/she wants to adopt that certain
cives and that's it. In the end, it's the same - only
done the *proper* way paying respect to the ancients
and their legal system.

Vale bene,

=====
A. Hirtius Helveticus
------------------------------
paterfamilias gentis Hirtiarum
http://www.hirtius.ch.tt/
------------------------------
Yahoo!/AIM/MSN: hirtius75ch
icq: 155762490

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 13:45:10 -0000

---

Salve A. Hirtuis:

Precisely my point, Sir. This legislation boasts the 'rights' of
everyone without requiring any kind of commitment from the citizens
of Nova Roma.....if my ideas are grossly uncompromising, so are
these...they are too modern, without any attempt to compromising
between our 'rights' and the 'right' of the republic to exist with a
solid foundation, and for four years, this foundation as been the
gens. How it is split, crumbled, disassembled and discombibulated :)
is a concern to me, given the role the gens has played to date.

Nobody should be subject to abuse and neglect...I have said that many
times, and this is a reason for action or migration from gens...I do
not think people should leave gens for flippent reasons...if so, they
can start a familia.

And, I am still waiting for a list of persons who have resigned due
to conflicts with Mater/Paterfamilias, other than for reasons of
inactivity.

Bene vale,
Pompeia

In Nova-Roma@y..., "A. Hirtius Helveticus" <hirtius75ch@y...> wrote:
> Honoured consul Octavius
>
> --- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> > What if someone wants to join an existing gens,
> > where they would
> > be welcomed by compatible people, the poeple they
> > choose to
> > be with?
>
> No problem with that. This could happen by
> adrogatio/adoptio. Simple as that.
>
> > What if the policies and actions of the former
> > paterfamilias are
> > so repugnant to a citizen that they want nothing
> > more to do with
> > that person, ever? Why force them to keep a name
> > that is
> > abhorrent to them?
>
> If there is the possibility of adrogatio/adoptio, this
> would be solved also. But imho in a proper way.
>
> > Our current proposal restores the element of choice.
> > It restores
> > freedom. Your alternative forces a single solution
> > on everyone.
>
> Which are, to be honest, modern concepts. Of course I
> do do also support them (in my macronational life I am
> an active member of a liberal-democratic party!), but
> as I posted earlier, we have to find the best possible
> compromise between the ancient republic and our modern
> ideas. And this proposed law is one-sided modern and
> does not in any way respect the ancient constitution
> at all.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> =====
> A. Hirtius Helveticus
> ------------------------------
> paterfamilias gentis Hirtiarum
> http://www.hirtius.ch.tt/
> ------------------------------
> Yahoo!/AIM/MSN: hirtius75ch
> icq: 155762490
>
> __________________________________________________________________
>
> Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
> Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 08:57:28 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Praetrix,

> I believe you should *reread* my post; in it I say that the famila in
> question would have it's own spokesperson.

I have reread it.

Would this spokesperson be subordinate to the former paterfamilias
in any way?

Our Constitution currently uses the word "paterfamilias" to describe
the head of a gens - something that never existed in antiquity. We
would need to make changes there to permit multiple, independent
familiae within a gens.

> Your attempts to cite me as one who wishes to trap people against
> their will are feeble.

I never expected that the notion that people should be free to
leave of their own volition would be resisted by you. I was truly
surprised, and saddened, when you first spoke in opposition to
this reform.

> With respect Honoured Consul, why are you so passionate about your
> position?

Because I believe in the rights of people to make their own decisions,
to choose for themselves who they will associate with. I have read
of incidents where someone was prevented from leaving a gens, and
eventually resigned citizenship instead; such incidents diminish all
of us. I have read of an incident where a gens member trying to leave
was blocked by a Censor who happened to be her own paterfamilias
(a situation as ludicrous as a Judge presiding over a trial where
he himself is the defendant).

It sickens me to see such contemptible actions supported by some
warped notion of "virtue".

> And if so, why is it that you did not promulgate this
> legislation yourself.

Senator, you know exactly why. You saw what happened. You were on
the private mailing list where I first put it forth, and it was
vetoed by my colleague. You were on the Senate list where we
debated it, and you saw the Tribunes then take up the cause.

> You are the one who seems to be rather
> passionate and emotional about this, judging by the innumerable
> number of posts on this issue from your send path.

There have been as many posts from the opposing camp - just as
passionate and emotional.

> And where is the documentation that this is necessary in the first
> place. I have sworn an oath, I am Praetor...send me the stuff
> privately...

You saw several of these incidents described on the Senate list
three weeks ago. I'll send you what I have.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 14:01:55 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...> wrote:
> Salve Aule Hirti,
>
> > Of course, NR doesnt't want to simply copy the
> > republic, and frankly, it can't - otherwise it would
> > just be a RPG of some sort.
>
> That's what I'm trying to prevent here. We have people who are
> calling themselves a "Pater" with regard to persons they did not
> raise, do not finanancially support, and in most cases have never
> even met in person. To equate this with true fatherhood is
> nothing more than role-playing.

Pompeia: Alas, I have heard this time and time again....we are 'not'
a real family...we do not 'measure up' to true families.....right, we
aren't 'exactly' the same as macronational families. But gens 'are'
the building blocks or 'glue' or our structure....it has been that
way or not....whether we are or aren't like Roman families, we should
not entertain a nonrestrictive migration of gens.

We are trying to reconstruct the Roman family structure, 'not' the
modern day family as has been pointed out by a couple of people,
Drusus for one.

I take Nova Roma rather seriously, and my gens
affiliations/relationships... and you, as Consul, together with the
Tribunes are telling me that I take it too seriously, with the
vehment argument in favour of this legislation....are you telling me
that I have been roleplaying for three years?

I do not see this as sound rationale for this legislation....unless
you can furnish some reasonable examples of Paters threatening
gentiles to the point of their resignations. In this case, the
matter should have been brought before the Praetors or the Consuls,
and the Pater should not be a Pater. Perhaps he should not be a
citizen.

This legislation invites a disregard for gens, commitment, etc. as it
reads...I do not wish to see people made to stay in a gens they
receive neglect and abuse from, and I do not want people to be
psychologically uncomfortable. I think the solutions I propose are
fair compromises for committed Romans, who are as interested in the
republic's wellbeing as well as their own.

Nobody ties a noose around people to make them join Nova Roma; I
don't think it *hurts* to ask *some degree* of commitment from her
citizens, in keeping with the Roman virtue and character we are
committed to emulate.

Bene vale,
Pompeia

>
> > But what would happen
> > if this law passes? People will leave their gens just
> > because they are unhappy with their name or what ever!
>
> Not likely.
>
> Only people who are very unhappy in their gens are likely
> to take this step. The mandatory notification and 30-day
> waiting period are designed to discourage frivolous departures.
>
> In many gentes now, people are free to leave any time they
> want. There are dozens of Octavii and Cassii who are free to
> make their own decisions, to join any other gens they choose
> or to start their own. That they have not done so is proof
> that a completely open and unrestrictive gens is not likely
> to lead to frivolous resignations.
>
> > But imho NR should estimate _certain_ virtutes and
> > values higher than individual rights (not in every
> > case, of course!!!). And the concept of the gentes is
> > one of these.
>
> There is absolutely nothing virtuous about forcing someone
> to remain when they have expressed a desire to leave. A person
> who would do such a thing is not fit to be a paterfamilias,
> magistrate, or citizen of Nova Roma.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 09:03:27 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Aule Hirti,

> Agreed. Maybe I haven't made my point clear. I don't
> want to prevent people from changing a gens if they
> wish to. If someone wants to do that, he/she should be
> free to do so.

Absolutely. That's the reason I believe this law to be
necessary.

> BUT: By adlocutio it would be much
> simpler! If someone wants to leave his/her gens _and_
> join a new one, then the paterfamilias of the new gens
> could simply adress the comitia curiata (or the
> censores) that he/she wants to adopt that certain
> cives and that's it.

Currently, there is nothing to stop the old paterfamilias from
interfering, from trying to tighten his grasp on the departing
citizen.

What you describe above is possible only if the citizen's right
to leave is affirmed. If he has no right to leave, if he must
remain under the control of a paterfamilias who refuses to
release him, then the simple process would fail.

By ensuring that the citizen *can* leave, the adoption (or
starting of a new gens) becomes possible in every case - even
if the former paterfamilias is absent or uncooperative.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	28 Jul 2002 11:10:23 -0300

Salve,

I fully support this law which is in no way hurting the ancient
tradition and our constitution. Our Gens model is not historical and
therefore modifications of it are not hurting the tradition.

> Our gens system is not modeled after that of the ancients; it is not
> even a close approximation. A gens was a collection of families;
> a family was composed of people who were true relations (by birth
> or adoption).
>
> Sulla: I disagree, we have a wrong title, GENS. Change it to family and its more accurate. And, as I have stated above, according to Adkins definition of Adrogatio (Adoption), we are families. Not just that, but if you go to dictionary.com the dictionary definition for family state:
>

We can't change it to family, since the gens you pertain to defines your
gentilice (second name).
New citizens choose their name by joining a gens and this is their
primary concern when joining a gens. They have no intention at all to
join a family at that point.

> fam·i·ly Pronunciation Key (fm-l, fml)
> n. pl. fam·i·lies
> 1..
> 1.. A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.
> 2.. Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.
> 2.. All the members of a household under one roof.
> 3.. A group of persons sharing common ancestry. See Usage Note at collective noun.
> 4.. Lineage, especially distinguished lineage.
> 5.. A locally independent organized crime unit, as of the Cosa Nostra.
> 6..
> 1.. A group of like things; a class.
> 2.. A group of individuals derived from a common stock: the family of human beings
>
> Sulla: So I disagree with your narrow view of a family and state that at least some gentes in Nova Roma are families.
> I will go even further and state that the Gens Cornelia is a family.

Or better that you would like it to be one.
A new citizen admiring Scipio and Scipio Aemilianus and not to much
disgusted by Sulla (the historical one) will join gens Cornelia in order
to gain the noble gentilice of Cornelius. I doubt he does this in order
to join a family (surely not in sense 1.,2.,3., perhaps sense 5. :) )

>
> <SNIP>
>
>
> Sulla: You stated there was one reason, that an individual could not leave a gens because her Mater was inactive. I would like to hear these other reasons.
> An inactive paterfamilias was the stimulus that caused it to be presented
> to the Senate earlier this month; but it also addresses the problem
> of malevolent patresfamilias who refuse to allow an unhappy citizen
> to move to a gens of their own choosing.
>
> Sulla: What malevolent Paterfamilias could this be?
>

Our current systems creates tyrants in each gens. A tyrant is a non
elected person with extensive, up to absolute power inside his group.
A tyrant can be enlightened or not, governing in the best interest of
his group (here gens) or for its own best interest (malevolent
paterfamilias) there is just no check. Clearly a paterfamilias of one of
our gens which refuse that one of his gens member leaves is malevolent
and not enlightened. Removing this power, we will remove the tyrannic
nature of the charge and the suspections that can rise on
Patresfamilias.

We will all be better of.


> > but the pater registration law and the census law combined with the
> > adoption procedures are more than adequate to handle most, if not all,
>
> Not all, certainly; it does nothing to address the problem of some
> so-called "pater" claiming to have power over another adult that he's
> not even related to, and has probably never met.
>
> Sulla: According to Adkins, the power of the Paterfamilias is absolute. (Page 339) "The Paterfamilias was the legal head of the family and had absolute control over all his children, whether or not they were married." So, with all due respect you are directly challenging the power of the paterfamilias. When you presented you proposed law to me I stated I would veto it on grounds that it deviates from the mission of Nova Roma. You then presented it to the Senate I stated I would veto it there too. So, you have taken the last resort by having the Tribunes do your own work for you. Thats fine, but I told you I would oppose it because of that deviation.
>

The power of a real paterfamilias of a blood linked family was nearly
absolute.
But for example divorce existed, there was at least an inquiry in case
of murder of member of the family by the paterfamilias, etc.
The figure of head of a gens did not even exist. Extending the powers of
a paterfamilias over a gens is just non-sense.

Consul, if you want to create a family system, which by essence is
private and not public, create one inside the various gens, with no
compulsory entrance for any citizen (excepting perhaps the real childs
of citizens), but don't link the choice of a gentilice to the entrance
under the power of a tyrant (benevolent or malevolent)

Vale,

Manius Villius Limitanus
Tribunus Plebis

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 14:22:03 -0000

---
Salve Honoured Consul:

I have not seen 'several' examples of incidents of resignations due
to familial or Pater conflicts....all I say was third party 'hear so,
say so' with facts that were subsequently challenged as being
erroneous....is it too much to ask to see examples of those who have
resigned due to this.

You will send me 'what you have'...yes, I would like to see the
magnitude of the problem before I can go near supporting this stuff.

I don't think 'facts' as opposed to 'hear say' or 'way, back when I
recall, but I won't say from whom' is too much to ask.

Privately, one magistrate to another...under oath.....

Bene vale,
Pompeia

In Nova-Roma@y..., Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...> wrote:
> Salve Praetrix,
>
> > I believe you should *reread* my post; in it I say that the
famila in
> > question would have it's own spokesperson.
>
> I have reread it.
>
> Would this spokesperson be subordinate to the former paterfamilias
> in any way?
>
> Our Constitution currently uses the word "paterfamilias" to describe
> the head of a gens - something that never existed in antiquity. We
> would need to make changes there to permit multiple, independent
> familiae within a gens.
>
> > Your attempts to cite me as one who wishes to trap people against
> > their will are feeble.
>
> I never expected that the notion that people should be free to
> leave of their own volition would be resisted by you. I was truly
> surprised, and saddened, when you first spoke in opposition to
> this reform.
>
> > With respect Honoured Consul, why are you so passionate about your
> > position?
>
> Because I believe in the rights of people to make their own
decisions,
> to choose for themselves who they will associate with. I have read
> of incidents where someone was prevented from leaving a gens, and
> eventually resigned citizenship instead; such incidents diminish all
> of us. I have read of an incident where a gens member trying to
leave
> was blocked by a Censor who happened to be her own paterfamilias
> (a situation as ludicrous as a Judge presiding over a trial where
> he himself is the defendant).
>
> It sickens me to see such contemptible actions supported by some
> warped notion of "virtue".
>
> > And if so, why is it that you did not promulgate this
> > legislation yourself.
>
> Senator, you know exactly why. You saw what happened. You were on
> the private mailing list where I first put it forth, and it was
> vetoed by my colleague. You were on the Senate list where we
> debated it, and you saw the Tribunes then take up the cause.
>
> > You are the one who seems to be rather
> > passionate and emotional about this, judging by the innumerable
> > number of posts on this issue from your send path.
>
> There have been as many posts from the opposing camp - just as
> passionate and emotional.
>
> > And where is the documentation that this is necessary in the first
> > place. I have sworn an oath, I am Praetor...send me the stuff
> > privately...
>
> You saw several of these incidents described on the Senate list
> three weeks ago. I'll send you what I have.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Hirtius=20Helveticus?=" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 16:32:27 +0200 (CEST)

Honoured consul

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
wrote:
> Currently, there is nothing to stop the old
> paterfamilias from
> interfering, from trying to tighten his grasp on the
> departing
> citizen.
>
> What you describe above is possible only if the
> citizen's right
> to leave is affirmed. If he has no right to leave,
> if he must
> remain under the control of a paterfamilias who
> refuses to
> release him, then the simple process would fail.
>
> By ensuring that the citizen *can* leave, the
> adoption (or
> starting of a new gens) becomes possible in every
> case - even
> if the former paterfamilias is absent or
> uncooperative.

I am aware of that problem. The legal situation and
the current form of the gentes do not make it possible
at the moment. I am in favor of the idea, but imho the
proposed lex doesn't achieve it properly. I still
believe, that when this lex passes, we will have lots
of cives who will take advantage of the new
possibility, simply because they are fed up with their
name etc. pp. and NOT because they have personal
differencies with the paterfamilias. On the other
hand, if the paterfamilias is inactive, or, as in one
recent case, has left NR, why does anyone have to
change the gens? See to it, that there will be a new
paterfamilias. Action should first be taken against
patres familiae who do not qualify anymore as such.
Just leaving the gens because of that is the wrong
way, imho!

Also, I am not a citizen for long now, but I am aware,
that my application was delayed because I wanted to
form my own gens. I finally got accepted after certain
well-known citizens wrote to the censors on my behalf.
After that, I got informed by honoured censor and
propraetor of my provincia C. Flavius Diocletianus,
that my application had been delayed because NR had
some problems with *immature* patres familiae in the
past and I am not 30 yrs. old (only 27). And now, when
cives should have an easy way of leaving their gens
and form their own, this should not be the case
anymore?!?

Vale bene,

=====
A. Hirtius Helveticus
------------------------------
paterfamilias gentis Hirtiarum
http://www.hirtius.ch.tt/
------------------------------
Yahoo!/AIM/MSN: hirtius75ch
icq: 155762490

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 07:44:55 -0700

Avete Omnes,

There are no issues. If there is my colleague is keeping the information for himself and not informing his colleague.

I would like an answer to this in public.

Valete Omnes,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul
----- Original Message -----
From: pompeia_cornelia
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 7:22 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)


---
Salve Honoured Consul:

I have not seen 'several' examples of incidents of resignations due
to familial or Pater conflicts....all I say was third party 'hear so,
say so' with facts that were subsequently challenged as being
erroneous....is it too much to ask to see examples of those who have
resigned due to this.

You will send me 'what you have'...yes, I would like to see the
magnitude of the problem before I can go near supporting this stuff.

I don't think 'facts' as opposed to 'hear say' or 'way, back when I
recall, but I won't say from whom' is too much to ask.

Privately, one magistrate to another...under oath.....

Bene vale,
Pompeia

In Nova-Roma@y..., Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...> wrote:
> Salve Praetrix,
>
> > I believe you should *reread* my post; in it I say that the
famila in
> > question would have it's own spokesperson.
>
> I have reread it.
>
> Would this spokesperson be subordinate to the former paterfamilias
> in any way?
>
> Our Constitution currently uses the word "paterfamilias" to describe
> the head of a gens - something that never existed in antiquity. We
> would need to make changes there to permit multiple, independent
> familiae within a gens.
>
> > Your attempts to cite me as one who wishes to trap people against
> > their will are feeble.
>
> I never expected that the notion that people should be free to
> leave of their own volition would be resisted by you. I was truly
> surprised, and saddened, when you first spoke in opposition to
> this reform.
>
> > With respect Honoured Consul, why are you so passionate about your
> > position?
>
> Because I believe in the rights of people to make their own
decisions,
> to choose for themselves who they will associate with. I have read
> of incidents where someone was prevented from leaving a gens, and
> eventually resigned citizenship instead; such incidents diminish all
> of us. I have read of an incident where a gens member trying to
leave
> was blocked by a Censor who happened to be her own paterfamilias
> (a situation as ludicrous as a Judge presiding over a trial where
> he himself is the defendant).
>
> It sickens me to see such contemptible actions supported by some
> warped notion of "virtue".
>
> > And if so, why is it that you did not promulgate this
> > legislation yourself.
>
> Senator, you know exactly why. You saw what happened. You were on
> the private mailing list where I first put it forth, and it was
> vetoed by my colleague. You were on the Senate list where we
> debated it, and you saw the Tribunes then take up the cause.
>
> > You are the one who seems to be rather
> > passionate and emotional about this, judging by the innumerable
> > number of posts on this issue from your send path.
>
> There have been as many posts from the opposing camp - just as
> passionate and emotional.
>
> > And where is the documentation that this is necessary in the first
> > place. I have sworn an oath, I am Praetor...send me the stuff
> > privately...
>
> You saw several of these incidents described on the Senate list
> three weeks ago. I'll send you what I have.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 14:47:25 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...> wrote:
> Salve Senatrix Pompeia Cornelia,
>
> > II. More trivial cases, like a citizen not feeling very
compatible
> > with the group ...The
> > word 'incompatibility" would only have to be reported to the
> > Censors, who would notify the Pater, and the option to start a
> > familia (example: Fabius Fabricius, Cornelia Cinna, Cornelia
> > Secunda) could be invoked after a waiting period. They are still
> > part of the *Gens* but a familia, upon which the head of this
familia
> > would be the spokesperson for this group.
>
> Why the insistence on keeping people where they do not wish to be?

Pompeia: I don't believe I am, in suggesting that a familia be
formed.
>
> What if someone wants to join an existing gens, where they would
> be welcomed by compatible people, the poeple they choose to
> be with?

Pompeia: I don't know. I deal with alot of compatible people quite
nicely, outside my gens, or familia, without feeling a need to leave
my current gens and joing another.
>
> What if the policies and actions of the former paterfamilias are
> so repugnant to a citizen that they want nothing more to do with
> that person, ever? Why force them to keep a name that is
> abhorrent to them?

Pompeia: If a Pater's character is so repugnant that a person wants
nothing to do with him, that is very bad. This is usually due to
abusive or negligent conduct, which I've already addressed. Or, it
could be that they are likely breaking legal and moral codes in Nova
Roma and shouldn't be a Paterfamilias to begin with. This behaviour
needs to be addressed from a legal standpoint...amending the gens
structure is likely not going to fix the behaviours in question.

Abusive or negligent conduct? Switch gens....switch away! If it is
just a matter of wanting to strike out on ones own, for varying, less-
weighted reasons, let this citizen form a familia, in which he is
head, but maintains the gens name, and is structurally under that
same gens.

Bene vale,
Pompeia


>
> In your proposed alternative, would the former paterfamilias
> still have any amount of control over the new family within the
> gens? Would it be truly independent, with all the same rights that
> the other family within the gens has?
>
> Our current proposal restores the element of choice. It restores
> freedom. Your alternative forces a single solution on everyone.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 07:49:22 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium


Salve Colleague,

> Sulla: It is correct, as I have quoted directly from the Nova Roma
> website and the Constitution of Nova Roma.

NOTHING in your quotes from the Constitution or the web site support
the idea that you have a right to keep people in a gens who don't
want to be there.

Sulla: I respectfully disagree.


> Our Pater Patriae, while a good man, is a man who does not know the
> names of all of his gens members.

A cheap shot. Knowing the names has nothing to do with his statement
as to why Nova Roma was founded.

Sulla: Not cheap, but accurate. Ask him. I take the time to be involved with my gens members, to answer their questions, to give them financial assistance if I can, to be there if they need to vent or mediate disputes. I take my responsibilty with utmost seriousness and it is for this reason that I am in total disagreement with this proposed lex.
> Sulla: My response to this is taken directly from the Nova Roma website,
> "These Virtues are what gave a small city on the banks of the Tiber the
> moral and practical strength to govern much of the world, and are most
> sorely lacking in our society today. By promoting Roman culture, we are
> in effect promoting nothing less than the revitalization of Western
> society. By practicing Roman crafts and arts, we more fully understand our
> own Western roots."

There is nothing virtuous about wanting to exercise power over another
individual; it's the very opposite of virtue.

Sulla: When you start blending modern societial norms in Nova Roma, IMHO, you are violating the virtues as they are stated in Nova Roma's virtues. Nor have I stated that I want to exercise power over another individual, what I wanted, and I have explained this to you, to the Senate and now on the ML is a law that balances both the individual and the very concept of family and community that is the foundation of ancient Rome and Nova Roma. Your law creates no such balance instead it favors the individual totally and that is wrong and deviates from the mission of Nova Roma.
The author of that paragraph seems to agree with me.

Sulla: If my memory serves me correctly, Flavius Vedius did the website and M. Cassius fronted the cash for Nova Roma. So, M. Cassius was not the author.

> But those issues are not this issue.

There is similarity. You seek to interfere with another citizen's
ability to decide for himself who he wishes to affiliate with. Slavery,
sexism, etc., are all abhorred because they limit an individual's rights;
so does the application of a bizarre and unhistorical interpretation of
pater potestas, albeit to a much lesser extent.

Sulla: I am surprised to see the tactics of M. Apollonius come out from you. What is next colleagee? are you going to call me a Nazi next?

> They may choose to create their own family or they may choose to
> join an existing one.

But they may not choose to leave, by your interpretation. "Gentiles
check in, but they don't check out."

Sulla: Did I say that? Nope, I want a workable law that clearly defines the powers of the paterfamilias. I know that Praetor Pomepia Cornelia was working on it as apart of the Civil Code. I know that her law will be reasonable and balanced unlike the proposed law that your Tribunes are promulgating.

> Sulla: I disagree, we have a wrong title, GENS. Change it to family
> and its more accurate. And, as I have stated above, according to Adkins
> definition of Adrogatio (Adoption), we are families.

Except that in a true adoption the people involved would actually meet
each other, and the paterfamilias would assume responsibility (financial
and legal) for his adopted child. We have nothing like that, and thus your
invocation of Adkins is spurious.

Sulla: I have met some of my gens members. I have had phone conversations with many more of them. I have email exchanges with just about all of them.

> fam·i·ly Pronunciation Key (fm-l, fml)
> n. pl. fam·i·lies

I see nothing relevant here. This definition speaks of actual families,
except for the Mafia definition and this one:

Sulla: I see this defiantion: Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place. This is what we are in Nova Roma. Groups of people who share goals and values (ie. the Virtues) and have a long term commitment to one another. Unfortuantely we do not reside in the same place but as the defination states, it is not mandatory.

> 2.. A group of individuals derived from a common stock: the
> family of human beings

I suppose, then, that I am a member of the "family of Unix Programmers".
I could leave that group at any time.

Sulla: That one is a bit loser in defination...But look at the above one.

> Sulla: So I disagree with your narrow view of a family and state that
> at least some gentes in Nova Roma are families. I will go even
> further and state that the Gens Cornelia is a family.

Not in the historical sense of the word, which is where pater potestas
applies. You have no more right to prevent one of them from leaving
than you do over another member of the "family of ISP employees".

Sulla: Nova Roma is the Spiritual heir of the ancients, as such we are resurrecting the Mos Maiorum of the ancients. And, the Nova Roma website and the Constitution continually state that our mission is to reconstruct. This law runs counter to it and unfortuantely our Constitutional interpreters are working on your behalf and as a result the mission of Nova Roma will suffer for it in the long run.

> Sulla: Its a shame that the website and the Constitution run counter
> to the opinions of our only remaining founder,

Considering that he wrote much of that text, I think it's safe to say
that it is only your own extremist interpretation of it that runs
counter to the Pater Patriae's opinions.

Sulla: Please see above, I believe the website was written by Flavius Vedius as he has the web skills, M. Cassius did not.

Do you regularly tell other authors that you know more about the
true meaning of their work than they do?

Sulla: Considering that M. Cassius is most likely not the author this question is not valid....But, let me state that this has been a tradition in Nova Roma since day one. When Flavius Vedius drafted this constitution we constantly questioned it. Even most recently the Lex Vedia Senatoria, Flavius Vedius, who authored that law had a complete different interpretation and you know what happened. The Senate disagreed with him. He lost. So yes, if what the author states on paper is different from what he is saying now, absolutely I will question it. Its amazing how people can change their opinions over time.

> considering he does not know all the names of his own gens members.

Again with the cheap shot! WHAT does this have to do with the validity
of his statement on what he and his colleague intended, four years ago?

Sulla: Its not a cheap shot, its an accurate statement. What does this have to do with the validity of his statement? It shows the committment individuals who are paters show to their gens members.

> Sulla: According to Adkins (Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome, page 341)
> it states, " A person who was sui iuris could also place himself
> under the power of another of his own accord."

Adkins was writing about actual adoptions -- not picking some
stranger's name from a web form.

Sulla: Adkins was talking about adoptions. Thats it. And this is what we do when we accept new members into our families (Gentes) we adopt! Those individuals have given up their sui iures states and have chosen to belong to their paterfamilias. I do not demean the process, I would appreciate it if you would not demean the process either.

> And, it is up to the new member to decide he wants to join that family
> and it is up to the paterfamilias to accept that individual into his family.

And if a mistake is made, if that person finds the "paterfamilias" morally
abhorrent, he's sentenced to remain there for as long has he remains
a citizen... how revolting.

Sulla: If we were able to compromise on a workable law that reached a balance between modern society and the family I am certain this issue could be addressed. However you have been completely unwilling and while I expect this law to pass, Nova Roma will suffer for it.

> Sulla: According to item I. it states, "I. The right of adult citizens
> to freely choose to terminate their membership in a gens is hereby
> affirmed, and may not be interfered with by any magistrate or citizen."
> I dont know how your interpreting it, but it makes it clear to me that
> anyone can terminate their membership at any time with no way of
> prevention.

If you'd read past the first paragraph, you'll see that this process of
leaving can take up to 37 days.

Sulla: Not sufficent. Item 1 states that no magistrate or citizen can interfere in the process. Item 1 clearly allows the citizen to leave a their whim.

> Again, this runs counter to the Mos Maiorum as there was no such way

Our entire gens system, in which new citizens choose a stranger's name
off a list, runs counter to the Mos Maiorum. It also runs counter to
basic human rights to force someone to remain where they do not wish
to be.

Sulla: I disagree adoption does not run counter to the Mos Maiorum.

> Also, let us not forget the fact that Censor Lucius Equitius did give
> his approval to the Censor procedures as the handbook was created and
> compilied during the Lustrum of Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix and
> Lucius Equitius Cincinatus.

I doubt he approved the blatantly unconstitutional bit about a
paterfamilias being able to terminate the citizenship of a
departing citizen.

Sulla: If a pater expels a citizen that person from that point on is sui iures their citizenship is not and cannot be terminated by a Paterfamilias.

> Sulla: You stated there was one reason, that an individual could not
> leave a gens because her Mater was inactive.

No, I said that that was the incident that prompted me to write it,
about three weeks ago. I was already aware of other problems that
people had had leaving a gens in the past.

Sulla: I am not aware of any current issues of individuals have problems leaving gentes of active paters.

> I would like to hear these other reasons.

Look in the archives of the now-defunct "Vedian Baths" mailing list,
in which an incident was related where a citizen attempted to leave
a gens but was denied. The paterfamilias also happened to be a
Censor at the time, and rather than properly recusing himself from
the case and appointing someone unbiased to handle it, he simply
denied the request.

Sulla: I know this case well. That person was allowed to leave after efforts of reconciliation were attempted and failed, and joined that other gens and after joining that other gens resigned Nova Roma.

I can send you a copy if you don't have it.

Sulla: I dont have the copies anymore, nor do I need them. I remember the circumstances. But please feel free to forward them to the list. Let the Citizens see who this law is specifically targeted at.

> Sulla: What malevolent Paterfamilias could this be?

Any, past, present, or future, who tries to keep someone where they
do not wish to be.

Sulla: Any Paterfamilias from now to the future would wantonly prevent a member of his family from finding happyness should suffer the loss of dignitas at such an action...but to allow citizens to leave Gentes at a whim is just as bad. You are erroding the foundation of Nova Roma over something that the virtues themselves are an adequate check. Those of us who respect the virtues and learn from mistakes wont compel obedience and keep individuals where they dont want to be.

> Sulla: According to Adkins, the power of the Paterfamilias is absolute.

He's talking about real paters, heads of a household. Quote all you want,
the comparision is invalid. You are not the father - natural or adopted -
of the persons in your gens.

Sulla: I guess I hold a more tangible view of what it means to be a Pater. It is unfortuate that I have taken this seriously and according to your position everyone else is just role playing.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul of Nova Roma

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia....How To Decide?
From:	"gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@cs.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 14:29:27 -0000

Salvete,

I read through all the posts {so far} on this subject. Quite
frankly, I am kind of at a loss to know how to vote. I see some valid
points made by both sides, and this will make for some deep thinking
before casting my own vote.

Our Pater Patriae Cassius and Consul M. Octavius both stress in Nova
Roma, none of us are in families in any real sense of the word, and
they are right. How many of us are bound to othjer Nova Romans by
blood or marriage ties? Yet I would really hope that our "gens" would
have some kind of "family spirit" between members. Cassius has no
power over the Cassia us as an ancient Roman dad would have over his
house. But nonetheless, I still have a special relationship with
other Cassia just because they are "my gang" so to speak.

If such a "special relationship" does not develop between a member and
his gens, or if they are in opposition much of the time, then yes, it
would be beneficial for all parties if the member departs to another
gens or start a new one of his own.

At the same time however, I have some misgivings. How many cases of
"tyranical Paters" have we? Why the almost militant rhetoric? I am
sorry Consul, but you are beginning to remind me of Jesse Jackson,
making a case against "oppression" where no oppression exists. {But
you don't use Jesse's stupid rhymes for which I am grateful! :}} Why
is it so important to "democratize" a gens? The Constitution says
that the Pater or Mater is head of the that gens and speaks for it.
Surely applicants would spend a little time associating with that gens
before joining? And to be blunt, I believe that the founder of a gens
should set the policiy for that gens. Cassius has a very open gens
policy---come and go as you please. Why does this mean everyone else
has to do the same? While we are at it, why continue to allow a Pater
to declare his gens open or closed? If Democracy is the name of the
game, why not demand all gens be open and subject to democratic proceses?

Like I said, I have not yet decided how to vote. The proposed Lex has
some good intentions behind it, but I am not convinced it is needed.
Right now I am leaning towards Pompeia's position as a sound middle
ground, as it tries to accomodate both historical precedent and the
needs and realities of us moderns.

Gaius Cassius Nerva

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 09:59:43 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Colleague,

> There are no issues. If there is my colleague is keeping the
> information for himself and not informing his colleague.
>
> I would like an answer to this in public.

I did not want to dredge up personal matters and reveal such
shameful behaviour in front of all citizens; but, as you have
asked for this in public, I will oblige.

On 27 October 2001 you posted to the "paterfamilias" mailing
list:

] To be specific, some of the problems that Cornelia has faced:

] 3. Then the issues brought about while I was medically not
] available...and some of the gens members wanted to break away. I
] declined that from happening, as paterfamilias, and over the course
] of 2 weeks spoke with each of them individually and we were able
] to resolve the problems we were facing. Since that time 3 out of
] the 4 people who wanted to leave have left NR. They have founded
] their own "other" micronation. The problems that stemmed, and I
] tried to resolve was that the 3 individuals were communists and
] their political philosophy was just not compatable with NR.

You "declined" to allow someone to leave; these three people eventually
left Nova Roma entirely.

On the "Vedian Baths" list you wrote:

] Well, Don and Crys didnt leave til I gave them consent. And the
] other attempt failed because I did not give my consent..and with
] that time I gained I resolved the issue.

I don't know if this latter incident is a reference to the same one
described above - where three people resigned their citizenship - but
if it is, then this should serve as a classic example of how not
to "resolve the issue".

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 07:59:55 -0700

Ave,
----- Original Message -----
From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium


Salve Aule Hirti,

> Of course, NR doesnt't want to simply copy the
> republic, and frankly, it can't - otherwise it would
> just be a RPG of some sort.

That's what I'm trying to prevent here. We have people who are
calling themselves a "Pater" with regard to persons they did not
raise, do not finanancially support, and in most cases have never
even met in person. To equate this with true fatherhood is
nothing more than role-playing.

Sulla: No you are preventing those Paters who take their role seriously from their duties as head of the Family. You are minimizing the role of the family in Nova Roma. And most importantly you are erroding the Mos Maiorum of the ancients and thus grafting modern society theories into Nova Roma. The one thing I have never been accused of in Nova Roma is role playing, yet this is exactly what you are accusing me of, since I am the one paterfamilias who tries to act like one. Well if that is your opinion I am Honored with the title.

> But what would happen
> if this law passes? People will leave their gens just
> because they are unhappy with their name or what ever!

Not likely.

Sulla: But it is possible. Article 1 prevents any check by any citizen or magistrate in the right for any individiual to leave any gens at any time. The law is flawed because of this section.

Only people who are very unhappy in their gens are likely
to take this step. The mandatory notification and 30-day
waiting period are designed to discourage frivolous departures.

Sulla: Can you guarantee that? I
In many gentes now, people are free to leave any time they
want. There are dozens of Octavii and Cassii who are free to
make their own decisions, to join any other gens they choose
or to start their own. That they have not done so is proof
that a completely open and unrestrictive gens is not likely
to lead to frivolous resignations.

Sulla: Thats great, that is an internal policy for your family, there was no reason for the State to interfere. In the Gens Cornelia I take a more proactive stance and I try to find the source of the problem and try to remedy it. If there is not a successful conclusion anyone can leave the Gens Cornelia with my consent as well. If that takes a bit more time, I feel it is worth it because it strenghtens the relationship between Pater and Family member.

> But imho NR should estimate _certain_ virtutes and
> values higher than individual rights (not in every
> case, of course!!!). And the concept of the gentes is
> one of these.

There is absolutely nothing virtuous about forcing someone
to remain when they have expressed a desire to leave. A person
who would do such a thing is not fit to be a paterfamilias,
magistrate, or citizen of Nova Roma.

Sulla: And there is nothing virtuous about democraticzing the family and throwing the Mos Maiorum away either.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 15:19:23 -0000

---Salve:

I suppose I should let Sulla handle this, but I can't resist....

Is this "all"???...this was well over two-three years ago! And, my
understanding was that one of the communists switched gens after
gaining a formal fairwell from Sulla, and then quit due to
incompatibility. The other two who resigned cited the gender
edictum, a political issue, not a familial one.

I remember Sulla penning me about what he should do about this one
who wanted to switch gens, and I advised him to just let him go, and
he did.

Can someone not make a mistake (Crys and Don) and subsequently learn
a lesson from it? Apparently not......you tuck this stuff away, and
bring it up now, as a current problem?

The incident of Crys and Don was when, in 1999....and the departure
of the communists was in 2000. A discussion on the Paterfamilias was
in the past tense, made in 2001 over stuff which happened prior to
that.

Then the incident of Sulla's ability to be a good pater should have
been addressed back then, not dredged up in an attempt to paint to
the populace that Sulla has learned nothing by his mistakes or that
we have many Pater abuses that need legislation to counter such
activities.

Any more incidents......anything? Something from this year, perhaps?

Bene vale,
Pompeia


In Nova-Roma@y..., Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...> wrote:
>
> Salve Colleague,
>
> > There are no issues. If there is my colleague is keeping the
> > information for himself and not informing his colleague.
> >
> > I would like an answer to this in public.
>
> I did not want to dredge up personal matters and reveal such
> shameful behaviour in front of all citizens; but, as you have
> asked for this in public, I will oblige.
>
> On 27 October 2001 you posted to the "paterfamilias" mailing
> list:
>
> ] To be specific, some of the problems that Cornelia has
faced:
>
> ] 3. Then the issues brought about while I was medically not
> ] available...and some of the gens members wanted to break
away. I
> ] declined that from happening, as paterfamilias, and over the
course
> ] of 2 weeks spoke with each of them individually and we were
able
> ] to resolve the problems we were facing. Since that time 3 out
of
> ] the 4 people who wanted to leave have left NR. They have
founded
> ] their own "other" micronation. The problems that stemmed, and
I
> ] tried to resolve was that the 3 individuals were communists
and
> ] their political philosophy was just not compatable with NR.


>
> You "declined" to allow someone to leave; these three people
eventually
> left Nova Roma entirely.
>
> On the "Vedian Baths" list you wrote:
>
> ] Well, Don and Crys didnt leave til I gave them consent.
And the
> ] other attempt failed because I did not give my consent..and
with
> ] that time I gained I resolved the issue.
>
> I don't know if this latter incident is a reference to the same one
> described above - where three people resigned their citizenship -
but
> if it is, then this should serve as a classic example of how not
> to "resolve the issue".
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium (2nd response)
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 11:22:23 EDT

Sulla: It is correct, as I have quoted directly from the Nova Roma website
and the Constitution of Nova Roma.

Cassius:
When the Constitution was written, neither Germanicus or myself ever dreamed
that there would be the occasional Pater or Materfamilias that would seek to
'punish' dissenting Gens members by not allowing them to leave a Gens. Once
the problem had come up a few times, Germanicus did indeed intend to solve
this problem by law. His personal circumstances prevented that from
happening. As his co-founder I still support the ideal of guaranteed freedom
for our Citizens should the need arise.

Sulla:
Our Pater Patriae, while a good man, is a
man who does not know the names of all of his gens members.

Cassius:
Lol! Sulla, I said that once to you in passing during an IM conversation. I
was *joking*!! (If I remember rightly, you were upset about something and I
was trying to cheer you up.)

Sulla:
This law only
serves to reinforce the fact that there are many gentes (families) that do
not
operate in the same way of others and as a result might not take their
function
as seriously?

Cassius:
This law only serves to reinforce the fact that Citizens should not be held
against their will by a spiteful Pater or Mater. A Pater or Mater who would
decide to do that is not functioning more 'seriously' than other Gens...
they're merely being more petty.


Sulla: My response to this is taken directly from the Nova Roma website,
"These Virtues are what gave a small city on the banks of the Tiber the moral
and practical strength to govern much of the world, and are most sorely
lacking
in our society today.

Cassius:
Your above quote is taken out of context from information about the Roman
Virtues. (http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/virtues.html) The text you
present was not intended to have anything whatever to do with the Gentes.

Sulla:
By promoting Roman culture, we are in effect promoting
nothing less than the revitalization of Western society. By practicing Roman
crafts and arts, we more fully understand our own Western roots."

Cassius:
These are also out of context quotes pulled from other parts of the NR
website, and thrown together in a jumble. The texts above speak of Roman arts
and culture, NOT about the Gens system in Nova Roma.

Sulla:
As I have
stated in the Senate, I totally support the banning of slavery,
discrimination
on any grounds. But those issues are not this issue. Every person who joins
Nova Roma may create a gens, and are sui iures (if they are not impubes) and
according to Adkins (Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome, page 341) it states, "
A
person who was sui iuris could also place himself under the power of another
of
his own accord." All of our potential members and new citizens have from the
moment they apply to the point they are accepted the ability to create their
own Family (gens). They may choose to create their own family or they may
choose to join an existing one.

Cassius:
The "Handbook to life in Ancient Rome" speaks about *ancient* familiae, not
the Gentes in Nova Roma. And, I find it interesting you're all for touting
our Citizens freedom to *join* a Gens... why not also support the idea that
they can leave a gens as well?


Octavius wrote:
Our gens system is not modeled after that of the ancients; it is not
even a close approximation. A gens was a collection of families;
a family was composed of people who were true relations (by birth
or adoption).

Sulla: I disagree, we have a wrong title, GENS. Change it to family and its
more accurate. And, as I have stated above, according to Adkins definition of
Adrogatio (Adoption), we are families.

Cassius:
No "Adkins definition of families" has any legal basis in Nova Roma. You are
merely taking the words of an author speaking about Roma antiqua, and
declaring that those words also speak for an unrelated situation in Nova
Roma. They do not.

Sulla:
Not just that, but if you go to
dictionary.com the dictionary definition for family state:

fam·i·ly Pronunciation Key (fm-l, fml)
n. pl. fam·i·lies
1..
1.. A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or
two parents and their children.
2.. Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term
commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.
2.. All the members of a household under one roof.
3.. A group of persons sharing common ancestry. See Usage Note at
collective noun.
4.. Lineage, especially distinguished lineage.
5.. A locally independent organized crime unit, as of the Cosa Nostra.
6..
1.. A group of like things; a class.
2.. A group of individuals derived from a common stock: the family of
human beings

Sulla: So I disagree with your narrow view of a family and state that at
least some gentes in Nova Roma are families. I will go even further and state
that the Gens Cornelia is a family.

Cassius:
Hmm! Lucius Cornelius, you seen to have accidentally deleted the part of the
dictionary definition of "family" where, apparently, it must state that the
head of a family can hold an adult hostage against their will, forever. Don't
tell me the 'dictionary.com' people forgot to add something as important as
that! ;)


Sulla wrote:
> Because it takes us away from the very mission Nova Roma was founded.

Octavius replied:
Not according to the Founder. Please, we've heard enough of that fiction.

Sulla: Its a shame that the website and the Constitution run counter to the
opinions of our only remaining founder, considering he does not know all the
names of his own gens members.

Cassius:
Sulla, obviously I shouldn't joke with you about anything, ever again. You
just can't take it! :P

Also, the information given on the website does not in any way conflict with
the ideal that freeborn adults of legal age should be able to leave a Gens
should the need arise. Especially when much of the material you seem to be
quoting from was written about other aspects of the Roman world (arts,
literature, virtues) rather than about the Gentes.

Sulla wrote:
> Citizens, this law flies in the face of Roman Tradition. Roman Tradition
> was that the power of the Paterfamilias was paramount.

Octavius replied:
A Real paterfamilias had power over his children and members of his
household. He did not have power over strangers who chose his name
from a list!

Sulla: According to Adkins (Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome, page 341) it
states, " A person who was sui iuris could also place himself under the power
of another of his own accord." All of our potential members and new citizens
have from the moment they apply to the point they are accepted the ability to
create their own Family (gens). They may choose to create their own family or
they may choose to join an existing one. And, it is up to the new member to
decide he wants to join that family and it is up to the paterfamilias to
accept
that individual into his family.

Cassius:
Again, the Adkins' writing about *ancient* familiae has no legal basis as a
description of Nova Roman gentes. And, again, you seem perfectly happy to
assent the right of a Citizen to make a choice to ENTER a Gens. Why demand
that they not have the same choice to leave a Gens?


Sulla: According to item I. it states, "I. The right of adult citizens to
freely choose to terminate
their membership in a gens is hereby affirmed, and may not be
interfered with by any magistrate or citizen." I dont know how your
interpreting it, but it makes it clear to me that anyone can terminate their
membership at any time with no way of prevention. Again, this runs counter to
the Mos Maiorum as there was no such way anyone in ancient Rome could leave
their gens (family) unless they were given their independence by the
paterfamilias or became paterfamilias at the death of the previous one. It
simply did not matter if the individual was an adult or not.

Cassius:
You are correct, the new law makes it impossible for a Pater/Materfamilias to
completely block a Citizens decision to leave a gens, thereby holding them
prisoner against their will. The law *does* allow a Pater or Mater to put a
30 day hold on such a transfer, so that problems may be worked out. That 30
days is a reasonable buffer that insures that gens changes will not happen at
whim, even as it protects the rights of the Citizen.

Sulla: While it may not have legal authority adoptions have taken place
using the procedures spelled out in that book. Even this year there have been
adoptions into the Gens Cornelia utilizing those very procedures so I
disagree
with your statement that our Cenors have done more than glance at it, because
it has been utilized. Also, let us not forget the fact that Censor Lucius
Equitius did give his approval to the Censor procedures as the handbook was
created and compilied during the Lustrum of Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix and
Lucius Equitius Cincinatus.

Cassius:
This much touted "Censors Handbook" is nothing but some electronic notes on
how to do the Censor's job, passed on to new Censors as a reference. It is
not a legal document. It is not law. A new Censor may take advice from it or
not as they choose. No matter what kind of august lineage you try to give
this 'handbook' - it is still just a collection of informal notes on 'how to
process citizen applications'.

(Octavius comments on the reasons for this new law snipped for brevity)

Sulla: You stated there was one reason, that an individual could not leave a
gens because her Mater was inactive. I would like to hear these other
reasons.
An inactive paterfamilias was the stimulus that caused it to be presented
to the Senate earlier this month; but it also addresses the problem
of malevolent patresfamilias who refuse to allow an unhappy citizen
to move to a gens of their own choosing.

Cassius:
We have nothing to gain from airing dirty laundry on the list. This new law
is in no way a persecution of anyone... it simply guarantees that our
Citizens have the right to leave a Gens if they need to. Specifics about
prior problems, when folks were not allowed to do this, isn't going to help
the basic issue.

Sulla: What malevolent Paterfamilias could this be?

Cassius:
This could be ANY Pater or Materfamilias. As things stand, if a Citizen runs
afoul of their Pater or Mater, their lives can be made miserable until they
quit NR entirely. Currently there is NO escape for a Citizen should their
Gens situation turn bad. That does not reflect real life in any culture,
ancient or modern.

Sulla: According to Adkins, the power of the Paterfamilias is absolute.
(Page 339) "The Paterfamilias was the legal head of the family and had abso
lute
control over all his children, whether or not they were married." So, with
all
due respect you are directly challenging the power of the paterfamilias.

Cassius:
This response still seems completely bizarre. Our Gentes are NOT ancient
Gentes. They do not involve blood or financial ties, and are between
unrelated adults of legal age. Such legal adults have rights in their
macronational countries - rights that you feel can be taken away under their
'dual citizenship' in Nova Roma. This should not be allowed to happen.

Sulla:
When
you presented you proposed law to me I stated I would veto it on grounds that
it deviates from the mission of Nova Roma. You then presented it to the
Senate
I stated I would veto it there too. So, you have taken the last resort by
having the Tribunes do your own work for you. Thats fine, but I told you I
would oppose it because of that deviation.

Cassius:
Here I quite agree with you. You have stated you would oppose any such law to
the fullest, and you are. WHY you are remains a mystery. I myself maintained,
and still do, that allowing people to change gens is *good* for the Gentes,
Gens Cornelia included. I even went so far as to list out several ways by
which Gens Cornelia would benefit from the passage of this law. You never
responded.

NO Pater or Materfamilias can possibly gain anything but squalid revenge from
holding a Citizen in a Gens against their will. It does not enhance the
position and reputation of the Gens head, it puts the Gens itself in an ill
light, poisons our community overall, and finally, if allowed to continue,
merely results in Citizen resignations.

Voting YES to the "Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium" removes all
these problems, and guarantees the freedom of our Citizens. What's not to
like?

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator, Pontifex Maximus


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 10:36:05 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Praetrix,

> Is this "all"???...this was well over two-three years ago!

One case of someone attempting to leave a gens and being denied
is sufficient. Just because the misplaced application of
"pater potestast" doesn't happen *often* doesn not mean it
should be condoned.

And if the Lex Octavia Salicia passes, and is invoked only once,
and enables one person to leave a gens and join one more to
their liking... it will have been worth the effort.

> Can someone not make a mistake (Crys and Don) and subsequently learn
> a lesson from it?

I'm trying to allow people to rectify their mistakes. If someone
joins the wrong gens, they should be allowed to leave freely.

> Then the incident of Sulla's ability to be a good pater should have
> been addressed back then, not dredged up in an attempt to paint to
> the populace that Sulla has learned nothing by his mistakes or that
> we have many Pater abuses that need legislation to counter such
> activities.

You and he dredged it up. I was content to let it remain private
until you asked for examples, and he asked for the examples to be
posted pubically.

I am appalled that you accuse me of "dredging up" something when
YOU had asked for it!

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Yes, yes, yes!
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 17:36:29 +0200

Salve Tite Octavi,


> "M. Octavius Solaris" wrote:
> > I urge the plebeian citizens (to which I don't
> > belong anymore :() to vote in favour of these laws!
>
> Salve, Marce Octavi Solaris.
>
> As our tribunes currently promulgate their legislation through the
> comitia populi, not the comitia plebis, you're as eligible to vote as
> the plebeians. So, I would further extend your urging to the patricians;
> vote in favour of the proposed lex!

Oh, even better then :o).

Solaris

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 08:40:23 -0700

Avete Omnes,

Now we see the true motiviation behind this law. It is a retaliatory stand against myself and the Gens Cornelia. There is no altrustic motive on behalf of my colleague and His Tribunes, they are motiviated by politics pure and simple.

While it has never been my motive to discuss internal gens politics in the ML I will do so, because I stand by my decision as Paterfamilias.

------ Original Message -----
From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)



Salve Colleague,

> There are no issues. If there is my colleague is keeping the
> information for himself and not informing his colleague.
>
> I would like an answer to this in public.

I did not want to dredge up personal matters and reveal such
shameful behaviour in front of all citizens; but, as you have
asked for this in public, I will oblige.


Sulla: Sure, you have been hinting about it in the last few responses and I was waiting for you to bring it up. I knew you would. It shows the true motive of your law.

On 27 October 2001 you posted to the "paterfamilias" mailing
list:

] To be specific, some of the problems that Cornelia has faced:

] 3. Then the issues brought about while I was medically not
] available...and some of the gens members wanted to break away. I
] declined that from happening, as paterfamilias, and over the course
] of 2 weeks spoke with each of them individually and we were able
] to resolve the problems we were facing. Since that time 3 out of
] the 4 people who wanted to leave have left NR. They have founded
] their own "other" micronation. The problems that stemmed, and I
] tried to resolve was that the 3 individuals were communists and
] their political philosophy was just not compatable with NR.

You "declined" to allow someone to leave; these three people eventually
left Nova Roma entirely.


Sulla: Your facts are wrong. There were 4 indiividuals invovled in this, and Senatrix Pompeia Cornelia Strabo even responded to this in the Senate. But to make a long story short, all 4 individuals decided upon compromise to remain in the Gens Cornelia. Two of those inidividuals left a few months later citiing political differences between Nova Roma (as a whole) and themselves. See, they were Communists (yes registered with the American Communist Party) and they could not reconcile their views with the mission and goal of Nova Roma. Drusus Cornelius Claudius, petitioned and received my consent to leave the Gens Cornelia about 6 months after this situation (he left because he felt the gens was getting to large). He joined the Gens Vipsiana and stayed there for a month or two....and ended up leaving Nova Roma to found his own Roman Micronation (the first of 3). The fourth individual was Senatrix Pomepia Cornelia, and after a discussion her and I worked out all of the issues that was troubling her. As a matter of fact she made a long post in the Senate explaining the circumstances regarding this entire issue. If she wants to, she can forward that post to the ML. Most recently I should add that the citizen known as Drusus Cornelius Claudius has tried to reenter Nova Roma under another name during the last days of my Censorship, I do not know the status of his reapplication, but one thing is for certain, he is not totally gone from Nova Roma.

On the "Vedian Baths" list you wrote:

] Well, Don and Crys didnt leave til I gave them consent. And the
] other attempt failed because I did not give my consent..and with
] that time I gained I resolved the issue.

I don't know if this latter incident is a reference to the same one
described above - where three people resigned their citizenship - but
if it is, then this should serve as a classic example of how not
to "resolve the issue".


Sulla: This is an issue that affected both Senator Decius Iunius Palladius and myself. This issue happened about 4 years ago (do you not have anything more recent colleague?) Basically the facts are, Don who was a Cornelian and he married Crys who was an Iunian. Both paters were very proud of this and after the troubles of the Civil War and our impending Consulship together we thought that it would go a long way to show that two consuls can work well together (those were the days). So, Palladius and I made an announcment that there was amicita between our gentes. This carried over to our consulship. Don and Crys did not like it..and they felt we were using their marriage as a politcal tool. We told them that we were not, we were genuinely happy that they had such a wonderful relationship. And, at the time emotions got heated on both of our sides. Eventually Don and Crys did leave the Gens Cornelia when I gave my consent. Today Don and Crys are in the Gens Equitia and just recently we meet for lunch at Bella Italia sharing a laugh over the old days gone by. How interesting that we were talking and laughing at this very situation and now after 4 years it is brought up as political fodder.

Sulla: Have I been the perfect Paterfamilias? No. But I do learn from my mistakes and I have suffered the loss of dignitas from those mistakes, just as every paterfamilias will who takes such a hardline stance. That is the way it should be, a loss of dignitas that affects the paters relationship with all of the members of his/her family. My only motiviation in my actions as paterfamilias was the protection of the family. I make certain, along with fellow Cornelians that every time someone comes with a problem that there is an opportunity to resolve that problem. If that problem cannot be resolved that person is free to go, as it has been illustrated above.

Sulla: In addition to the above, I am going to forward this post to the Gens Cornelia list. I am making a request for them to state if they feel compelled by any way shape or form to be apart of the Gens Cornelia. Let all the Cornelians who want their voices to be heard. So, with this I will apologize in advance to all members of the NR Main list.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 15:43:27 -0000

---
Salve Honoured Consul: I believe I asked for this 'in private', but
that's ok. Why I am saying you are dredging it up. It was the
Consul I believe, who asked for it in public.

Vale,
Pompeia

In Nova-Roma@y..., Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...> wrote:
> Salve Praetrix,
>
> > Is this "all"???...this was well over two-three years ago!
>
> One case of someone attempting to leave a gens and being denied
> is sufficient. Just because the misplaced application of
> "pater potestast" doesn't happen *often* doesn not mean it
> should be condoned.
>
> And if the Lex Octavia Salicia passes, and is invoked only once,
> and enables one person to leave a gens and join one more to
> their liking... it will have been worth the effort.
>
> > Can someone not make a mistake (Crys and Don) and subsequently
learn
> > a lesson from it?
>
> I'm trying to allow people to rectify their mistakes. If someone
> joins the wrong gens, they should be allowed to leave freely.
>
> > Then the incident of Sulla's ability to be a good pater should
have
> > been addressed back then, not dredged up in an attempt to paint to
> > the populace that Sulla has learned nothing by his mistakes or
that
> > we have many Pater abuses that need legislation to counter such
> > activities.
>
> You and he dredged it up. I was content to let it remain private
> until you asked for examples, and he asked for the examples to be
> posted pubically.
>
> I am appalled that you accuse me of "dredging up" something when
> YOU had asked for it!
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Necessity of some laws (was Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium)
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 17:47:09 +0200

Salve A. Hirti,

(snipped)

> First of all, I do agree with honoured consul Sulla.
> This law is not necessary at all.

There have been leges here in the past which were all but necessary
(examples freely available in the tabularium); this has not prevented them
from being ratified.

I do think however that the current proposal is a step forward in the
process of decreasing the roleplay-esque "patria potestas" and moving
towards a saner system. I don't think that Lucius Sicinius' feelings
regarding actual familiae within gentes are mutually exclusive with this
law, for example.

Vale bene!
M. Octavius Solaris

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Necessity of some laws (was Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium)
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 09:01:02 -0700

Avete Omnes,
----- Original Message -----
From: M. Octavius Solaris
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 8:47 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Necessity of some laws (was Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium)


Salve A. Hirti,

(snipped)

> First of all, I do agree with honoured consul Sulla.
> This law is not necessary at all.

There have been leges here in the past which were all but necessary
(examples freely available in the tabularium); this has not prevented them
from being ratified.
Sulla: I disagree.


I do think however that the current proposal is a step forward in the
process of decreasing the roleplay-esque "patria potestas" and moving
towards a saner system. I don't think that Lucius Sicinius' feelings
regarding actual familiae within gentes are mutually exclusive with this
law, for example.

Sulla: The current law takes us away from the Mos Maiorum. And, my view is exactly the opposite for role playing, I do not role play. I take my responsibilities and dutes as paterfamilias absolutely seriously.

Sulla: Citizens you are going to need to decide who is role playing. Is it me? or is it my opponents? If Nova Roma is to surpass the status of Romulus's Villiage, in the coming years, we will need a solid foundation from which to build from. Will that happen if this law is succesfully promulgated? It is up to you to decide.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul of Nova Roma

Vale bene!
M. Octavius Solaris

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 11:03:55 -0500 (CDT)

Salve,

> Now we see the true motiviation behind this law. It is a retaliatory
> stand against myself and the Gens Cornelia.

The world does not revolve around you, Colleague.

This is a just and necessary law. The abuses that you have been
responsible for are merely the best known demonstration of why this
is necessary. I'm sure there will be other patresfamilias in
the future who might think they have the right to tell other
adults that they are not free to depart; hopefully, they'll
never be able to.

As for the other members of Gens Cornelia... they have the most to
gain from the passage of this lex, for it gives them an option that
you would deny to them. This law does not benefit the Octavii or
the Cassii at all; they are already treated with respect as free
adults who can choose which gens they wish to belong to.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Necessity of some laws (was Lex Octavia Salicia de
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 11:09:45 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Quirites,

> Sulla: The current law takes us away from the Mos Maiorum. And, my
> view is exactly the opposite for role playing, I do not role play.

You call yourself a "pater" of people that you have never met and do
not financially support; and you seek the same powers over them that
a real father would have. That is role playing.

> If Nova Roma is to surpass the status of Romulus's Villiage, in the
> coming years, we will need a solid foundation from which to build from.

Neglect of individual rights is not a solid foundation. Compulsory
affiliation is not a solid foundation.

> Will that happen if this law is succesfully promulgated?
> It is up to you to decide.

This law is necessary for Nova Roma to ever be taken seriously as
a nation, recognized by others. A nation which compels citizens to
remain under a stranger's dominion is not fit to join the
civilized world.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Hirtius=20Helveticus?=" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 18:15:19 +0200 (CEST)

Salvete Quirites

--- "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
wrote: > Avete Omnes,
>
> Now we see the true motiviation behind this law. It
> is a retaliatory stand against myself and the Gens
> Cornelia.
<snip>

May I point out my discomfort about the turn this
discussion is currently taking?

Imho, everyone here basically agrees on the goal of
the proposed lex. But some (including me) are not
happy with the way that goal should be achieved.

If one wants to get straight the "roleplay-esque*
character of the current gens-system and its pater
potestas, then there should be a revision of it and
not just some lex.
As I already pointed out, what good does it, if some
cives just changes the gens instead of action being
taken against the paterfamilias who causes the
problem? The paterfamilias stays installed as such and
nothing is set straight.

Voting yes on that lex will set a status quo that will
imho make any (major) changes to the system of the
gentes almost impossible and therefore it will stay
*roleplay-esque". That's why I - with my little
experience but big concern about NR - recommend every
cives to vote NO on this lex!

Valete bene,

=====
A. Hirtius Helveticus
------------------------------
paterfamilias gentis Hirtiarum
http://www.hirtius.ch.tt/
------------------------------
Yahoo!/AIM/MSN: hirtius75ch
icq: 155762490

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Comments on the Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentium
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 17:15:59 +0100 (BST)

Avete Quirites.

Since I am the one who is proposing this seemingly controversial law to
the Comitia, I guess it is my duty to explain why I have proposed it,
especially in the light of the criticism raised by some citizens.

With your permission, I will comment on a few of the concepts that have
been handled by the opposition. I will not reply to each and every
single message on this issue; with this, I only wish to save everyone
the effort to read my opinions over and over again.

1st concept: "This proposal attacks Roman tradition/the Mos Maiorum/the
way of the ancients/etcetera"

Some have already tried to explain that our current gens system is
*not* historically correct. I guess that that has been made clear, and
that no serious disputes about this point can be raised.

Given that, why don't I change our gens system to be closer to the
historical model? The answer is simple: I can't. I can't propose
legislation to the Comitia Centuriata, and that is necessary to change
our Constitution. If you (like me) would like to see in Nova Roma a
familiar system that is closer to the historical model, please address
your petition to the consules.

2nd concept: "This proposal erodes patria potestas"

I wouldn't say that patria potestas consists in the power to bind other
adults to do you will, especially adults whose only tie with you is to
belong to a *voluntary* organization.

Having said this, have you considered that this proposal is, in fact,
doing the opposite? Let me explain.

Currently, our legislation is not very clear about what happens if one
wants to leave a certain gens. Some of our past censores have enforced
the idea that one should have the permission of that gens's leader to
leave a gens. But what happens if that permission is denied? Then,
according to the opposition, that citizen should be kept in that gens.

As you can guess, a citizens that does not want to be kept inside that
gens will probably consider *other* ways of leaving. Certainly, the
prohibition of the gens leader will not have done much to convince the
leaving citizen to stay in the gens. So what is, currently, his only
way out? He can resign his citizenship. *Immediately*, if that is his
wish.

If he resigns his citizenship, all the restrictive laws to protect
patria potestas vanish in the air. This, to the best of my knowledge,
has happened in the past. And unless we fix it, it will happen again.

So I would say that this proposal is *saving* patria potestas by
granting *thirty days* for discussion and compromise before allowing
the citizen to depart the gens. This proposal gives an alternate
*solution* to resignment. An alternative way out.

3rd concept: "This will allow naive citizens to leave a gens without
thinking"

It wouldn't. Thirty days is a looong time for things to cool off.
And most gens leaders would allow one of their gens members to leave
immediately. This has not created a great number of gens changes.

Besides, there is a thing that I do not understand. Why would a gens
leader actually *want* to keep someone in their gens against their
will?

Let me put an example: I could certainly invite you to my house. I
would like you to join my other friends there, to share the
conversation and the experience, to establish a good relationship, even
something close to a familiar relationship, if that is your will.

But what if you were unhappy and wanted to leave? Would I try to keep
you inside? What for? To make all the others unhappy? To make *me* feel
badly? What is the interest in keeping someone in a place he doesn't
want to belong to?

I would certainly let you go, with sorrow in my heart, perhaps, but
understanding that that is the best thing for everyone. And I would let
you leave with my best wishes and blessings.

=====
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:	[Nova-Roma] Observation
From:	"Tib. Equitius Germanicus" <tyrael_equitius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 11:18:13 -0500

Omnibus salutem multam dicit Tib. Equitius Germanicus
After reading the 50+ messages on this topic, the answer has become clear to me. We, as a growing government, have grown to a size large enough to have large groups of views. Just like the United States with Democrats and Republicans, we oursleves have developed undefined groups of Conservatives and Liberals. While it is obvious from the US's 200 years of experience, we will never beable to convince another party of their views. The only way this can be resolved is either by voting or compromise. Unless a compromise can be resulted from these arguments, a vote must be held. That is what our government is based on, what the majority believes. While my views our for the conservative stand point, I must conceed to allow the majority to decide. In the end it is the people that must decide, or else our fragile country may rip itself appart.
DI VOS INCOLVMES CVSTODIANT



SODALES PALATINI SALII

PRAEFECTVS ADQVISITIONIS ARGENTI ET TERRARVM PRO TEMPORE

SODALIS SODALITATIS EGRESSI

GENTILIS PATRICIAE GENTIS EQVITIAE

CIVIS NOVAE ROMAE

--------------------------------------------------------------

Salus populi suprema est lex.

The welfare of the people is the supreme law.



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	28 Jul 2002 13:18:46 -0300

Em Dom, 2002-07-28 às 12:40, L. Cornelius Sulla escreveu:
> Avete Omnes,
>
> Now we see the true motiviation behind this law.
>It is a retaliatory stand against myself and the Gens Cornelia.
>There is no altrustic motive on behalf of my colleague and His Tribunes,

The senior consul has no tribunes. The people has tribunes.


>they are motiviated by politics pure and simple.
>

Voting a new law is a political act. This specific law is in the
interrest of democratization and therefore is supported by tribunes
which work for the people.
When a magistrate porposes a law contrary to the interest of the demos,
the tribunes oppose it. The personaluty of the magistrate is of no
interest.

Manius Villius Limitanus
Tribunus Plebis


> While it has never been my motive to discuss internal gens politics in the ML I will do so, because I stand by my decision as Paterfamilias.
>
> -

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia....How To Decide?
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 16:25:55 -0000

Salve,

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@c...> wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> I read through all the posts {so far} on this subject. Quite
> frankly, I am kind of at a loss to know how to vote. I see some
valid
> points made by both sides, and this will make for some deep thinking
> before casting my own vote.

I have to agree with you, Cassia Nerva. Initially I was opposed to
this lex as it is against Roman Tradition. If I may be permitted to
quote a non-Roman philosopher: "Tradition means giving votes to the
most obscure of classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the
dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant
oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All
democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth;
tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of
death." -- G.K. Chesterton

Nova Roma being the heirs in spirit to Roman Tradition, I feel the
ancients are, regardless of where we live by accident of birth, our
ancestors in spirit, even if not by genetics. This lex does not
honor that tradition. This lex contains no "checks and balances" to
prevent someone from "gens jumping" because this week they want to be
a "Cornelian," six weeks later, a "Cassian," then a few months down
the road an "Octavian," Or perhaps in order to "tweek the nose" of
someone, jumps from Patrician to Plebian in order to run for
Tribune.

However, my opinions are never set in concrete and I reserve the
right to change that opinion if I am presented with enough valid
evidence that runs contrary to that opinion. I do believe in
Tradition, and some would probably label me a conservative
traditionalist, I also believe that Tradition is a road map to a
destination, not the destination itself. A very valid point that
those in favor of this lex have made is that we do not live in
ancient Rome, we live in the modern world. A second point that I
wish to bring up is that the constitution of the Old Republic was not
hide bound and written in stone (in reality it was never written).
Even the most cursory historical study of the Old Republic will
quickly reveal that the consitution evolved over time. While they
honored the "democracy of the dead" they were not slaves to
the "oligarchy of the 'existentially challenged'."

They were realists and would, if grudgingly, change to meet the
reality of the situation. Unfortunatly, historical study would bear
out, the fall of the Old Republic is rooted in holding so close to
tradition that the Old Republic did not evolve fast enough to meet
the challenges of societal evolution. Even a conservative
traditionalist such as myself has to admit that times have changed
and the world is different today.

The challenge is not a war of tradition vs. modern life. The real
challenge is how to have tradition address modern life in a way that
is relevant to reality. The reality being there are those in Nova
Roma who may have legitimate gripes against their Pater/Materfamilias
and those citizens have no legal recourse (other than resignation of
citizenship) and can be held in a gens against their will. I agree
with those that support this lex that this is an issue that must be
adressed, but I do harbor serious reservations that this lex is the
best way to address those issues.

Thankfully this is not a situation I find myself in. Though my
Paterfamilias and I are currently on opposite sides on this issue, I
have not received a scathing email from him. A slur against him,
that he admits he doesn't know all the names of the members of his
gens, I must address:

I come from a large family, my mother being one of 11 children and my
father one of five. I couldn't tell you all the names of my cousins
and I even have a niece that at the age of 12 I still have never seen
in other than photographs. Despite this, I do consider them family
even if we've never met and I don't know all their names.

This does not make me a horrible "anti-family" person. Nor does my
Paterfamilias not knowing every single member of Gens Cassii by name
make him a bad Paterfamilias. I find that bringing this admission by
Marcus Cassius Julianus into the debate to be a crude and bordering
on slanderous attack on his dignitas and auctoritas. Even though I
have severe reservations about this lex this may yet cause me to
change my opinion to support this lex if for no other reason than I
do not wish to be part of a faction who's most prominent
spokesperson, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, resorts to this level of
rhetoric. I'm sorry, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, no matter how
much I may agree in principle with your points of debate, ad hominin
attacks is just plain poor rhetoric.

Pax,

Quintus Cassius Calvus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Observation
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Hirtius=20Helveticus?=" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 18:27:36 +0200 (CEST)

Salve Tib. Equiti

--- "Tib. Equitius Germanicus"
<tyrael_equitius@hotmail.com> wrote:

> beable to convince another party of their views. The
> only way this can be resolved is either by voting or
> compromise. Unless a compromise can be resulted from
> these arguments, a vote must be held. That is what
> our government is based on, what the majority
> believes. While my views our for the conservative
> stand point, I must conceed to allow the majority to
> decide. In the end it is the people that must
> decide, or else our fragile country may rip itself
> appart.

Wisely spoken! And the 50+ postings are part of the
decision making process - as it is in our
macronations.

> Salus populi suprema est lex.

Indeed, it is.

Vale bene,

=====
A. Hirtius Helveticus
------------------------------
paterfamilias gentis Hirtiarum
http://www.hirtius.ch.tt/
------------------------------
Yahoo!/AIM/MSN: hirtius75ch
icq: 155762490

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	28 Jul 2002 13:27:23 -0300

Em Dom, 2002-07-28 às 13:15, A. Hirtius Helveticus escreveu:
> Salvete Quirites
>
> --- "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
> wrote: > Avete Omnes,
> >
> > Now we see the true motiviation behind this law. It
> > is a retaliatory stand against myself and the Gens
> > Cornelia.
> <snip>
>
> May I point out my discomfort about the turn this
> discussion is currently taking?
>
> Imho, everyone here basically agrees on the goal of
> the proposed lex. But some (including me) are not
> happy with the way that goal should be achieved.
>
> If one wants to get straight the "roleplay-esque*
> character of the current gens-system and its pater
> potestas, then there should be a revision of it and
> not just some lex.
> As I already pointed out, what good does it, if some
> cives just changes the gens instead of action being
> taken against the paterfamilias who causes the
> problem? The paterfamilias stays installed as such and
> nothing is set straight.
>
> Voting yes on that lex will set a status quo that will
> imho make any (major) changes to the system of the
> gentes almost impossible and therefore it will stay
> *roleplay-esque". That's why I - with my little
> experience but big concern about NR - recommend every
> cives to vote NO on this lex!

I perfectly understand your concern.
I don't think this law
will make further changes to the unhistorical gens system of NR
impossible. I perfectly understand it will make it less needed.

Sometimes you have to make a choice between the immediate lessening of
the pain of most, leaving a problem in place and not doing it in order
to get more impetum for a revolutionnary change that will remove the
problem. The usual democratic choice is the first one but I understand
perfectly the second one.

Please vote YES, and we will work on a proposition for changing the Gens
system, splitting the notions of Gens and Familias as they should be.

Vale,

Manius Villius Limitanus
Tribunus Plebis

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Role Playing
From:	"lsicinius" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 16:32:03 -0000

Role Playing seems to be a favorite theme of the proponants of the Lex
stripping Paters of Authority.

Let's see I'm Playing D&D, and grow tired of playing a Paladin, so I
roll some dice, and now I have a Mage or a Fighter.

Let's see I'm Playing Nova Roma, and grow tired of Playing a Sicinian,
so I email the censors and I'm a Cornelian or an Octavian. Maybe next
week I'll Play a Julian.

There is NOTHING realistic about changing your name or your family at
the drop of a hat.

If there is all this "danger" that we won't be taken serious if we
retain the ancient model of a Pater's powers, then we have worse
problems. The First is the very use of Roman names. That more than
anything else is going to make some people dismiss us as Role players.
The second biggest thing that will cause people to dismiss us a RPG is
the whole concept of being a micronation. Look at most of the other
micronations. They look like some kind of D&D game with a website.
Next is Paganism. A lot of people aren't going to beleave we are
serious about worshiping the Gods. If anyone is going to dismiss Nova
Roma as a RPG they'll find ample reasons to do so long before they
discover the powers of a Pater.

L. Sicinius Drusus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] CORRECTION: Lex Salicia de Tribunicia Comitiorum Convocatio
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 17:34:26 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites.

I have been informed that I have made a mistake in the Latin title of
the Lex Salicia de Tribunicia Comitiorum Convocatio.

The correct title shall be: LEX SALICIA DE COMITIORUM CONVOCATIONE.

Rogatores and Curator Aranae; please take note.

Thank you.

=====
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: [Nova-Roma] Necessity of some laws (was Lex Octavia Salicia de
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	28 Jul 2002 13:37:02 -0300

Em Dom, 2002-07-28 às 13:01, L. Cornelius Sulla escreveu:
> Avete Omnes,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: M. Octavius Solaris
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 8:47 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Necessity of some laws (was Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium)
>
>
> Salve A. Hirti,
>
> (snipped)
>
> > First of all, I do agree with honoured consul Sulla.
> > This law is not necessary at all.
>
> There have been leges here in the past which were all but necessary
> (examples freely available in the tabularium); this has not prevented them
> from being ratified.
> Sulla: I disagree.
>
>
> I do think however that the current proposal is a step forward in the
> process of decreasing the roleplay-esque "patria potestas" and moving
> towards a saner system. I don't think that Lucius Sicinius' feelings
> regarding actual familiae within gentes are mutually exclusive with this
> law, for example.
>
> Sulla: The current law takes us away from the Mos Maiorum. And, my view is exactly the opposite for role playing, I do not role play. I take my responsibilities and dutes as paterfamilias absolutely seriously.
>

The Mos Maiorum you speak of is ONE interpretation of the Mos Maiorum
for families, the law is about Gentes.
The Mos Maiorum accepted the adoption of an adult by another family
(leaving his former family), it seems you don't, even speaking of
gentes.
The Mos Maiorum would condemn a Pater that does not allow a child from
becoming Sui Juris for no other reason than selfishness. It seems you
don't agree, preferring to rely on the Law that gave absolute power to
the Pater.

Please, citizens vote with common sense: we are (well most) grown up
adults and should be free to choose our Gens/Name. Vote Yes.

Manius Villius Limitanus.
Tribunus Plebis.

> Sulla: Citizens you are going to need to decide who is role playing. Is it me? or is it my opponents? If Nova Roma is to surpass the status of Romulus's Villiage, in the coming years, we will need a solid foundation from which to build from. Will that happen if this law is succesfully promulgated? It is up to you to decide.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Consul of Nova Roma
>
> Vale bene!
> M. Octavius Solaris
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Why Gentes?
From:	"Chantal G. Whittington" <aerdensrw@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 09:40:39 -0700 (PDT)

::Poking head in after about a month-long absence from
the list::

Having been in NR for the terribly extended period of
six months (g), here is my view of the gens issue.

I think there are two varieties of gentes in Nova
Roma:

1. Gentes comprised of people who know each other.
2. Gentes comprised of people who surfed the Internet

and happened across NR, thought it was
fascinating, and liked the same Roman surname.

Gentes in Group #1 are or become groups of friends who

converse regularly with each other inside and outside
of Nova Roma activities (as witness gens Cornelia).

Gentes in Group #2 are people who joined Nova Roma and
had to choose a name from the Album Gentium, having no
prior acquaintance with anyone in that gens and most
likely, little communication from the pater or mater
after the acceptance letter. This situation of canty
communication might even be desired by the civis.

For people in Group #1, the gens experience is
meaningful and perhaps merits formalities like
adrogation, adlocution, or adoption for changing gens.


For members of Group #2, such formalities seem absurd
and like needless paperwork. There is no question of
cives hopping from one gens to another, because, to
this group, one gens seems very like another, from the
outside. The importance of having gentes at all is
unclear, and there is utterly no perception of the
gens as being 'the cement that holds Nova Roma
together.' For Group #2, this list serves that
function. There is no reason for people in Group #2
to feel committed to their gens, unless the pater and
other gens members make the effort to become
acquainted with them.

Why does NR need gentes, and how can they be made
meaningful for Group #2? I think those should be the
real issues, not any question of frivolous
gens-hopping.

As for over-controlling paters/maters, I think people
should be allowed to leave a gens by giving notice of
their intent to both the pater and the Censores,
period, no permission-granting needed. Creation of an
independent familia within the gens should be an
option, as should adoption by another gens.

Just my two sesterces' worth. :)

Renata Corva

=====
Chantal
http://www.4dw.net/aerden/theran/theranweyr.html

"Yesterday, it worked.
Today, it is not working.
Windows is like that."



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Hirtius=20Helveticus?=" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 18:59:24 +0200 (CEST)

Salve honoured tribunus plebis,
salvete quirites

--- Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br> wrote:
>
> I perfectly understand your concern.

Thank you!

> Sometimes you have to make a choice between the
> immediate lessening of
> the pain of most, leaving a problem in place and not
> doing it in order
> to get more impetum for a revolutionnary change that
> will remove the
> problem. The usual democratic choice is the first
> one but I understand
> perfectly the second one.
>
> Please vote YES, and we will work on a proposition
> for changing the Gens
> system, splitting the notions of Gens and Familias
> as they should be.

Well, in my micronation (Switzerland), every citizen
is not only able to elect his MPs every 4 years, but
can also vote on new laws, budgets etc. on a regular
basis (4 times a year). Citizens may also bring in new
subjects or bring laws already passed by parliament to
a vote by collecting a certain number of other
citizen's signatures. And everything on all levels
(commune, state and confederation).
What do I want to say by this? Certainly not, that I'd
like this to happen in NR! But I am fully aware of the
political decison making process (I am a MP in my
hometown's parliament) and I can fully agree with you.
I certainly don't want any *revolutionary change* at
all. But by expressing my view I try to take an active
part here and - maybe - even convince some others of
my point of view.

I will vote NO, because I have a different view on the
subject - but not the intended goal. And also because
of your statement, that you will work on a
proposition, because: The status quo now makes it more
likely that it will actually happen ;o)
The "immediate lessening of the pain" often just ends
there, because everyone is happy with the new status
quo and doesn't want to take further action.

It's up to the people to decide on that subject - as
it has already been pointed out by others. And people
only know what's best for them!

But now I will stop *nagging*, bacause I don't want to
give the impression of a *newbie who only wants to
cause trouble* :-)

Valete bene,

=====
A. Hirtius Helveticus
------------------------------
paterfamilias gentis Hirtiarum
http://www.hirtius.ch.tt/
------------------------------
Yahoo!/AIM/MSN: hirtius75ch
icq: 155762490

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@texas.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:07:48 -0500

Salvete Quirites

You've seen a lot of rather emotionally charged political speech about
the proposed law. It's been likened to the disintegration of the modern
family and the destruction of Nova Roma. It's been claimed to be
targeted at an individual pater and his gens. It's been decried as
unconstitutional and contrary to the wishes of the Res Publica's
founders. And, inevitably, such tactics have led to ad hominem attacks
and mostly unfounded accusations.

While certainly in the tradition of ancient Rome, and definitely in the
mode of political speech since time immemorial, such antics are
completely beside the point.

Leges exist to protect cives from the excesses of both their government
and other people. This proposed law will do this. It is up to you to
determine whether it does so in an effective and desirable manner that
balances both Nova Roma's attempt to capture the best of ancient Rome
and the undeniable acknowledgement of basic modern rights that runs
through Nova Roma's central legal document.

I believe this proposed lex does so.

It reaffirms that every civis has the right to remain sovereign and
secure in his or her own person. This is not just a protection against
physical harm, but also against slavery, institutionalized sexism, and
other practices that interfere with the right of an individual to
determine the course of his or her own life. This idea is reinforced by
the fact that the constitution explicitly gives patres et matres
familias the power to deny people the ability to be in their respective
gentes, but does not in any way give them the power to keep people in
those gentes.

In the end, though, it is nobody's opinion that matters but your own
when you vote. For me, Nova Roma stands as a monument to the ancients'
sense of personal responsibility and duty--all those things touched upon
by the Roman Virtues. For others, She harkens back to a time when
paternalistic patriotism was seen as the highest good. For yet others,
She is a way to feel less lonely in one's religious practice. And She
is many other things to Her cives besides. It is up to you to determine
what you want Her to be and to vote accordingly.

In any case, whatever you do decide, please reach that decision through
reason and conviction. Ignore the over-wrought appeals to your emotions.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"Since death alone is certain and the time of death uncertain, what
should I do?"

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 18:36:59 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Helvetice.

A small intromision, if I may.

--- "A. Hirtius Helveticus" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> I will vote NO, because I have a different view on the
> subject - but not the intended goal. And also because
> of your statement, that you will work on a
> proposition, because: The status quo now makes it more
> likely that it will actually happen ;o)
> The "immediate lessening of the pain" often just ends
> there, because everyone is happy with the new status
> quo and doesn't want to take further action.

I have *always* (for over a year and a half now) advocated for a change
in our gens system that brings it closer to the historical model.
Surely you do not think that you have been the first one to spot this
and other mistakes in the Novoroman socio-political system, do you?

Have you ever wondered why we are still keeping our flawed gens system?
Someone must have stopped me (and others, like Titus Labienus
Fortunatus) from implementing that change, don't you think?.

This proposal, and this discussion, is about *power*. It is an
unecessary, unreasonable power. It is the power to keep people in a
place they do not want to be in. I can not understand *why* would
someone want that kind of power, but it seems that there is people who
support the existence of such a power.

To protect that power, they keep saying that that power was held by
patres of antiquity; this simply is not true.

They keep saying that there is a danger of hundreds of citizens jumping
from one gens to another, because of the "fun" of it; this has *never
happened*, even though there has always been the possibility to do it;
and even if it happened, it would not be a reason good enough to hold
*one* single person in a place they do not want to be in.

And finally, in a display of awful rethoric, they keep insulting those
who support this lex: they are communists (please pronounce this like
an insult), tribunes who have sold their souls to a consul (where's my
money, Octavi?), or gens leaders who do not know the names of the
people in their gens :-).

The decision is yours, Helvetice. Please vote *yes* on this proposal. I
assure you that it will *not* stop me from trying to create a
historically appropriate gens system.

=====
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:	[Nova-Roma] Some remarks (was Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium)
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 18:13:25 +0200

Salve mi Sulla,

(snipped)

>> Sulla: When you start blending modern societial norms in Nova Roma,
IMHO, you are violating the virtues as they are stated in Nova Roma's
virtues. Nor have I stated that I want to exercise power over another
individual, what I wanted, and I have explained this to you, to the Senate
and now on the ML is a law that balances both the individual and the very
concept of family and community that is the foundation of ancient Rome and
Nova Roma. Your law creates no such balance instead it favors the
individual totally and that is wrong and deviates from the mission of Nova
Roma.
The author of that paragraph seems to agree with me.

>> Sulla: If my memory serves me correctly, Flavius Vedius did the
website and M. Cassius fronted the cash for Nova Roma. So, M. Cassius was
not the author.

MOS: Flavius Vedius left for a reason. He felt that some elements in NR had
destroyed his dream. And besides, he's not here to reply, so you can never
prove what he meant.

>> Sulla: I am surprised to see the tactics of M. Apollonius come out from
you. What is next colleagee? are you going to call me a Nazi next?

MOS: Oh, and there you go about another person who left Nova Roma. Sorry,
that's ad hominem and dangerous for any rational discussion.

>> Sulla: Nova Roma is the Spiritual heir of the ancients, as such we are
resurrecting the Mos Maiorum of the ancients. And, the Nova Roma website
and the Constitution continually state that our mission is to reconstruct.
This law runs counter to it and unfortuantely our Constitutional
interpreters are working on your behalf and as a result the mission of Nova
Roma will suffer for it in the long run.

MOS: You can't prove that last statement. Secondly, I do think NR's goal
originally was to reconstruct the culture and religion, not its social life
as well.

>> Sulla: If we were able to compromise on a workable law that reached a
balance between modern society and the family I am certain this issue could
be addressed. However you have been completely unwilling and while I expect
this law to pass, Nova Roma will suffer for it.

MOS: How?

>> Sulla: Not sufficent. Item 1 states that no magistrate or citizen can
interfere in the process. Item 1 clearly allows the citizen to leave a
their whim.

MOS: How many people you believe will really do this?

>> Sulla: Any Paterfamilias from now to the future would wantonly
prevent a member of his family from finding happyness should suffer the loss
of dignitas at such an action...but to allow citizens to leave Gentes at a
whim is just as bad. You are erroding the foundation of Nova Roma over
something that the virtues themselves are an adequate check. Those of us
who respect the virtues and learn from mistakes wont compel obedience and
keep individuals where they dont want to be.

MOS: What the hell have virtues to do with this? Virtue is a matter of
philosophy, not law, and everyone has a different perception of it. There
are NO such things as "Roman virtues". That's a construct of your mind.

Vale bene,
M. Octavius Solaris

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Incidents past and present (was Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium)
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 19:54:41 +0200

Salve Pompeia Cornelia,

> I suppose I should let Sulla handle this, but I can't resist....
>
> Is this "all"???...this was well over two-three years ago! And, my
> understanding was that one of the communists switched gens after
> gaining a formal fairwell from Sulla, and then quit due to
> incompatibility. The other two who resigned cited the gender
> edictum, a political issue, not a familial one.
>
> I remember Sulla penning me about what he should do about this one
> who wanted to switch gens, and I advised him to just let him go, and
> he did.
>
> Can someone not make a mistake (Crys and Don) and subsequently learn
> a lesson from it? Apparently not......you tuck this stuff away, and
> bring it up now, as a current problem?
>
> The incident of Crys and Don was when, in 1999....and the departure
> of the communists was in 2000. A discussion on the Paterfamilias was
> in the past tense, made in 2001 over stuff which happened prior to
> that.
>
> Then the incident of Sulla's ability to be a good pater should have
> been addressed back then, not dredged up in an attempt to paint to
> the populace that Sulla has learned nothing by his mistakes or that
> we have many Pater abuses that need legislation to counter such
> activities.
>
> Any more incidents......anything? Something from this year, perhaps?

MOS: I personally don't see the logic of this statement. "It happened some
time ago" is no justification to be against a solution (or in this case,
prevention for what may happen again) for this potential problem.

Vale bene,
M. Octavius Solaris

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Family (was Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium)
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 19:55:28 +0200

Salve Luci Corneli,

(snipped)

> Sulla: No you are preventing those Paters who take their role seriously
from their duties as head of the Family. You are minimizing the role of the
family in Nova Roma.

(snipped)

MOS: What family?! You may feel close to these people, but they are not your
relatives, and there's no reason why they should obey you, or why you should
have power over them, unless they are really your children.

> There is absolutely nothing virtuous about forcing someone
> to remain when they have expressed a desire to leave. A person
> who would do such a thing is not fit to be a paterfamilias,
> magistrate, or citizen of Nova Roma.
>
>> Sulla: And there is nothing virtuous about democraticzing the family
and throwing the Mos Maiorum away either.

MOS: Your definition of the Mos Maiorum, that is.

Vale bene,
Solaris

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Role Playing
From:	AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 14:05:50 EDT

In a message dated 7/28/2002 12:33:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
lsicinius@yahoo.com writes:


> Next is Paganism. A lot of people aren't going to beleave we are
> serious about worshiping the Gods.

I do not need validation from others to feel justified in the belief in my
Gods.

I am involved in Nova Roma because of the Religio Romana, not in spite of it,
I would imagine I am not alone.

Gaius Cassius Athanasius


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Some remarks (was Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium)
From:	"Tib. Equitius Germanicus" <tyrael_equitius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 13:22:52 -0500

M. Octavio Solari salutem Tib. Equitius Germanicus
I disagree a lot with what you say, but most of all this:

>MOS: What the hell have virtues to do with this? Virtue is a matter of
>philosophy, not law, and everyone has a different perception of it. There
>are NO such things as "Roman virtues". That's a construct of your mind.
>
>Vale bene,
>M. Octavius Solaris

The Roman virtues are those outlined my the great emperor Marcus Aurelius. They are not a "constuct of" Sulla's mind but those taken directly from the words of a great Roman emperor who knew exactly what the "ideal" Roman citizen was supposed to be. Even then, the "ideal" Roman was not created my Marcus Aurelius but yet written about BY him. Virtues, on the other hand have EVERYTHING to do with this. As when properly used, is used in every situation in life. Keeping a good mind set of virtues will allow a person to make the best choice, be that in life OR MAKING A LAW. So before you go criticizing one of our great citizens, do your homework.
Good day.

SODALES PALATINI SALII

PRAEFECTVS ADQVISITIONIS ARGENTI ET TERRARVM PRO TEMPORE

SODALIS SODALITATIS EGRESSI

GENTILIS PATRICIAE GENTIS EQVITIAE

CIVIS NOVAE ROMAE

--------------------------------------------------------------

Salus populi suprema est lex.

The welfare of the people is the supreme law.





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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Role Playing
From:	"Tib. Equitius Germanicus" <tyrael_equitius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 13:27:50 -0500

Omnibus salutem Tib. Equitius Germanicus



Gaius Cassius Athanasius wrote:
>I do not need validation from others to feel justified in the belief in my Gods.


Very well said, I agree completely!



DI VOS INCOLVMES CVSTODIANT



SODALES PALATINI SALII

PRAEFECTVS ADQVISITIONIS ARGENTI ET TERRARVM PRO TEMPORE

SODALIS SODALITATIS EGRESSI

GENTILIS PATRICIAE GENTIS EQVITIAE

CIVIS NOVAE ROMAE

--------------------------------------------------------------

Salus populi suprema est lex.

The welfare of the people is the supreme law.



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Some remarks
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 20:36:28 +0200

Salve Tiberi Equiti,

TEG>> I disagree a lot with what you say, but most of all this:
>
> >MOS: What the hell have virtues to do with this? Virtue is a matter of
> >philosophy, not law, and everyone has a different perception of it. There
> >are NO such things as "Roman virtues". That's a construct of your mind.
>

TEG>> The Roman virtues are those outlined my the great emperor Marcus
Aurelius. They are not a "constuct of" Sulla's mind but those taken directly
from the words of a great Roman emperor who knew exactly what the "ideal"
Roman citizen was supposed to be. Even then, the "ideal" Roman was not
created my Marcus Aurelius but yet written about BY him.

MOS: What if I preferred Lucretius as my source of wisdom? Or the poet
Horatius? By the way, since when does an emperor have to say something about
the virtues of a republic? You may consider the stoic virtues of Marcus
Aurelius to be very useful - and I trust that for many they are - but don't
generalise this interpretation. There are as many virtues as
interpretations.

TEG>> Virtues, on the other hand have EVERYTHING to do with this. As when
properly used, is used in every situation in life. Keeping a good mind set
of virtues will allow a person to make the best choice, be that in life OR
MAKING A LAW. So before you go criticizing one of our great citizens, do
your homework.

MOS: That's simply absurd. I can rationally criticise anyone's ideas
whenever it pleases me. I'll ignore your insult and just say that I've been
here for more than two years, so I do happen to know what I'm talking about.
As an afterthought: yes, morality plays a role when making a law, but one
vision of virtue can not be held as compelling to be against a proposed law
if it's not backed up by rational evidence. In this case, it's not.

Optime vale,
M. Octavius Solaris

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Hirtius=20Helveticus?=" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 20:52:41 +0200 (CEST)

Honoured tribunus, salvete quirites

Well, I said that I stop nagging, but...

--- Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@yahoo.es> wrote: >

> A small intromision, if I may.

It is of course welcomed - I always try to learn here,
since I am a *newbie* as mentioned before.

<snip>
> I have *always* (for over a year and a half now)
> advocated for a change
> in our gens system that brings it closer to the
> historical model.

I wasn't aware of that, but I am pleased to hear it.

> Surely you do not think that you have been the first
> one to spot this
> and other mistakes in the Novoroman socio-political
> system, do you?

No, definitely not!

> Have you ever wondered why we are still keeping our
> flawed gens system?

In fact I did. That was/is mainly why I did engage
myself in this discussion.

> Someone must have stopped me (and others, like Titus
> Labienus
> Fortunatus) from implementing that change, don't you
> think?.

Obviously.

Well, I have to admit, that my posting wasn't
completely free of sarcasm. I hope you didn't get
hurt. If so, please accept my apology.
Also I want to point out, that my opposition to this
particular proposed law is in _no way_ influenced by
any other people involved in this discussion and that
I always tried not to get personal at all.

> This proposal, and this discussion, is about
> *power*. It is an
> unecessary, unreasonable power. It is the power to
> keep people in a
> place they do not want to be in. I can not
> understand *why* would
> someone want that kind of power, but it seems that
> there is people who
> support the existence of such a power.

I myself am _not_ against the possibility for cives to
leave a gens at all! Once again, I do agree on the
lex' goal, but I can't support the way it wants to
achieve it. That's why I will vote NO.
In fact, I think it's unfair of all the supporters to
allege that everyone who is against it does so,
because he/she wants to prevent cives from switching
gens. At least in my case this is completely wrong!

> They keep saying that there is a danger of hundreds
> of citizens jumping
> from one gens to another, because of the "fun" of
> it; this has *never
> happened*, even though there has always been the
> possibility to do it;
> and even if it happened, it would not be a reason
> good enough to hold
> *one* single person in a place they do not want to
> be in.

Once again: I _do not_ want to hold a single cives in
any gens he/she doesn't want to be part of!
But I still think, that once this lex has passed,
there will be some cases of citizens just doing that.
Maybe I am wrong - we will see.

> And finally, in a display of awful rethoric, they
> keep insulting those
> who support this lex: they are communists (please
> pronounce this like
> an insult), tribunes who have sold their souls to a
> consul (where's my
> money, Octavi?), or gens leaders who do not know the
> names of the
> people in their gens :-).

I never used any of this rhetoric, at all! And, as I
pointed out, some supporters alleged, that the
opposition is just a bunch of tyrants... Well, I don't
care, because I know I am not.

> The decision is yours, Helvetice. Please vote *yes*
> on this proposal. I
> assure you that it will *not* stop me from trying to
> create a
> historically appropriate gens system.

Who said that I'd like to stop you doing this?!? Quite
on the contrary! I will be pleased to hear any of your
proposals and I will be more as happy to support a
new, more accurate system!

Valete bene,

=====
A. Hirtius Helveticus
------------------------------
paterfamilias gentis Hirtiarum
http://www.hirtius.ch.tt/
------------------------------
Yahoo!/AIM/MSN: hirtius75ch
icq: 155762490

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Some remarks
From:	"Tib. Equitius Germanicus" <tyrael_equitius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 13:55:54 -0500

M. Octavio salutem Tib. Equitius Germanicus

>MOS: What if I preferred Lucretius as my source of wisdom? Or the poet
>Horatius? By the way, since when does an emperor have to say something about
>the virtues of a republic? You may consider the stoic virtues of Marcus
>Aurelius to be very useful - and I trust that for many they are - but don't
>generalise this interpretation. There are as many virtues as
>interpretations.

The point is not who said it, but what he says. As I stated before, it was not Aurelius who created these virtues from scratch, but virtues that were instilled on the Roman civilization since its begining. Because a nation is an empire does not remove the presence of virtue. Marcus Aurelius is just as qualified to speak of virtue as anyone, even more so, he is in fact considered one of the five great emperors. Basic ideals of society (respectability, dutifulness, tenacity, et cetera) do not change with who speaks them. Most views of what is good in society are the same in many respects.

MOS: That's simply absurd. I can rationally criticize anyone's ideas
whenever it pleases me.

Yes you can, I never sated that you could not. In fact, to not rationally criticize someone's ideas would be absurd in itself.

MOS:As an afterthought: yes, morality plays a role when making a law, but one
vision of virtue can not be held as compelling to be against a proposed law
if it's not backed up by rational evidence.

I maintain that all virtue is inherently the same. In fact, rational thinking and virtuous thinking go hand in hand. To ignore one would be a flaw in making any decision.

SODALES PALATINI SALII

PRAEFECTVS ADQVISITIONIS ARGENTI ET TERRARVM PRO TEMPORE

SODALIS SODALITATIS EGRESSI

GENTILIS PATRICIAE GENTIS EQVITIAE

CIVIS NOVAE ROMAE

--------------------------------------------------------------

Salus populi suprema est lex.

The welfare of the people is the supreme law.


----- Original Message -----
From: M. Octavius Solaris
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Some remarks


Salve Tiberi Equiti,

TEG>> I disagree a lot with what you say, but most of all this:
>
> >MOS: What the hell have virtues to do with this? Virtue is a matter of
> >philosophy, not law, and everyone has a different perception of it. There
> >are NO such things as "Roman virtues". That's a construct of your mind.
>

TEG>> The Roman virtues are those outlined my the great emperor Marcus
Aurelius. They are not a "constuct of" Sulla's mind but those taken directly
from the words of a great Roman emperor who knew exactly what the "ideal"
Roman citizen was supposed to be. Even then, the "ideal" Roman was not
created my Marcus Aurelius but yet written about BY him.

MOS: What if I preferred Lucretius as my source of wisdom? Or the poet
Horatius? By the way, since when does an emperor have to say something about
the virtues of a republic? You may consider the stoic virtues of Marcus
Aurelius to be very useful - and I trust that for many they are - but don't
generalise this interpretation. There are as many virtues as
interpretations.

TEG>> Virtues, on the other hand have EVERYTHING to do with this. As when
properly used, is used in every situation in life. Keeping a good mind set
of virtues will allow a person to make the best choice, be that in life OR
MAKING A LAW. So before you go criticizing one of our great citizens, do
your homework.

MOS: That's simply absurd. I can rationally criticise anyone's ideas
whenever it pleases me. I'll ignore your insult and just say that I've been
here for more than two years, so I do happen to know what I'm talking about.
As an afterthought: yes, morality plays a role when making a law, but one
vision of virtue can not be held as compelling to be against a proposed law
if it's not backed up by rational evidence. In this case, it's not.

Optime vale,
M. Octavius Solaris

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)
From:	"M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus" <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 14:52:45 -0400

Salvete,

Having read all of posts hitherto made on this topic, I must say that the
central gripe concerning gentes/role-playing points to a completely
different path for a solution: compelling new citizens to take the gens
they choose more seriously by enforcing a much longer and thorough
acclimatization period before formally being accepted into NR society.
This, it would seem, often doesn't take place, and so it results in many
people considering the gens they associate with merely a NR formality
facilitated through a mailing list. I think the distinction that Renata
Corva has drawn in classifying gentes into two groups is accurate. Does
the proposed law attempt to address this issue? NO. Will this issue
exist if the law is passed? YES. Therefore, "Lex Octavia Salicia de
Libertate Gentilium" should NOT be toted as a solution and should NOT be
voted in favour of. I would even go so far as to suggest that the
currently lax culture concerning gens association would be further
facilitated by this law, but whether that is an accurate prediction is
not relevant to the above consideration.

A related issue that has reared its head concurrently is that of
"despotic" power that a paterfamilias might wield over his members. The
latest examples cited were from 2000, and in all of the cited cases, the
situation was resolved amicably. Because of this, the law seems
superfluous. The proponents first should cite cases where a dispute over
association with a gens was NOT resolved amicably, and then indicate how
this is a RAMPANT problem that can not simply be addressed on a case by
case basis by appeal to Praetors/Consuls. Rare exceptions do not make
good law. This is bad law, and those proponents who fancy raising the
spectre of violation of individual rights are merely engaging in
groundless political rhetoric, as there is no basis on which to presume
that affirming such an individual "right" would address a real problem.
It might seem pleasant from a philosophical perspective to codify the
"enlightened" precepts of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" in
our legal system, but it would not actually address a REAL problem. Law
for the sake of law is bad law.

We should address the problem I first outlined, but this law will not put
us on that path. It is, at best, merely a bandaid for an imaginary
predicament. Vote NO for this poorly framed legislation.

- M. Cornelius Gualterus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Some remarks
From:	jo mama <minervalis02@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:13:08 -0700 (PDT)

--- "Tib. Equitius Germanicus"
<tyrael_equitius@hotmail.com> wrote:
> M. Octavio salutem Tib. Equitius Germanicus
>
> >MOS: What if I preferred Lucretius as my source of
> wisdom? Or the poet
> >Horatius? By the way, since when does an emperor
> have to say something about
> >the virtues of a republic? You may consider the
> stoic virtues of Marcus
> >Aurelius to be very useful - and I trust that for
> many they are - but don't
> >generalise this interpretation. There are as many
> virtues as
> >interpretations.

It is an interesting point to consider this sort of
'Moral relativism' really is a trait of modern times.
There are four cardinal virtues, and lesser more
specific ones. The four lead into the one, called
"Virtue" itself.
Roman stoicism, which here in the vestige of Marcus
aurelius...was a "social" ideology. The
lucretian/epicurean ideology did not maintain 'civic'
virtues, and hence, has very little to with classical
"Romanitas".

Minervalis



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Incidents past and present (was Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium)
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 19:21:10 -0000

---Salve M. Octavi et alii:

In Nova-Roma@y..., "M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@p...>
wrote:
> Salve Pompeia Cornelia,
>
> > I suppose I should let Sulla handle this, but I can't resist....
> >
> > Is this "all"???...this was well over two-three years ago! And,
my
> > understanding was that one of the communists switched gens after
> > gaining a formal fairwell from Sulla, and then quit due to
> > incompatibility. The other two who resigned cited the gender
> > edictum, a political issue, not a familial one.
> >
> > I remember Sulla penning me about what he should do about this one
> > who wanted to switch gens, and I advised him to just let him go,
and
> > he did.
> >
> > Can someone not make a mistake (Crys and Don) and subsequently
learn
> > a lesson from it? Apparently not......you tuck this stuff away,
and
> > bring it up now, as a current problem?
> >
> > The incident of Crys and Don was when, in 1999....and the
departure
> > of the communists was in 2000. A discussion on the Paterfamilias
was
> > in the past tense, made in 2001 over stuff which happened prior to
> > that.
> >
> > Then the incident of Sulla's ability to be a good pater should
have
> > been addressed back then, not dredged up in an attempt to paint to
> > the populace that Sulla has learned nothing by his mistakes or
that
> > we have many Pater abuses that need legislation to counter such
> > activities.
> >
> > Any more incidents......anything? Something from this year,
perhaps?
>
> MOS: I personally don't see the logic of this statement. "It
happened some
> time ago" is no justification to be against a solution (or in this
case,
> prevention for what may happen again) for this potential problem.

POMPEIA II: Yes, how silly of me to remotely imagine that the
mistake in question was learned from and that subsequent problems
were resolved amicably. The illogic, amice, is not mine. What I find
questionably logical is the introduction of legislation over one
incident, which has not since been repeated. Disputes? yes.
Disallowing someone's leave no. The only difference between some
Paters and others is that they would like the opportunity to resolve
problems rather that just see an ad hoc split.

The only difference between me and the next person is that I don't
see where this legislation is going to produce desired outcomes.

Bene valete,
Pompeia
>
> Vale bene,
> M. Octavius Solaris

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Some remarks
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 21:25:00 +0200

M. Octavius Solaris Ti. Equitio Germanico SPD,

TEG>> The point is not who said it, but what he says. As I stated
before, it was not Aurelius who created these virtues from scratch, but
virtues that were instilled on the Roman civilization since its begining.
Because a nation is an empire does not remove the presence of virtue. Marcus
Aurelius is just as qualified to speak of virtue as anyone, even more so, he
is in fact considered one of the five great emperors. Basic ideals of
society (respectability, dutifulness, tenacity, et cetera) do not change
with who speaks them. Most views of what is good in society are the same in
many respects.

MOS: On some points, I agree. But I don't think that views of a good society
are the same in many respects. Otherwise we wouldn't be having politics this
polemic and complicated! :o).

TEG>> I maintain that all virtue is inherently the same. In fact,
rational thinking and virtuous thinking go hand in hand. To ignore one would
be a flaw in making any decision.

MOS: I agree. Yet, we seem not to have the same opinion. Odd. :o)

Vale bene,
Solaris

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Some remarks
From:	"Tib. Equitius Germanicus" <tyrael_equitius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 14:38:16 -0500

M. Octavio Solari salutem dicit Tib. Equitius Germanicus
Unfortunately, I am once again (but this time respectfully) inclined to disagree:

MOS: On some points, I agree. But I don't think that views of a good society
are the same in many respects. Otherwise we wouldn't be having politics this
polemic and complicated! :o).

Views on what makes a good society are usually agreed upon in most areas (however differing in many ways). On how one achieves this goal of the "good" society, is determined by (1) how one interprets one's virtues in a given situation and (2) how one's personal views of matters which are ingrained into a persons personality.

>MOS: I agree. Yet, we seem not to have the same opinion. Odd. :o)

Again, the same as above, but I would like to add that differing opinion in good. It is the infinite combinations of opinions that can arrive at the best decision and make a nation great. The fact that we disagree on these matters in not bad, but good, as a way to understand each other and to allow one's self to think more deeply about one's own views. Sometimes resulting in a change in mind.
DI TE INCOLVMEM CVSTODIANT



SODALES PALATINI SALII

PRAEFECTVS ADQVISITIONIS ARGENTI ET TERRARVM PRO TEMPORE

SODALIS SODALITATIS EGRESSI

GENTILIS PATRICIAE GENTIS EQVITIAE

CIVIS NOVAE ROMAE

--------------------------------------------------------------

Salus populi suprema est lex.

The welfare of the people is the supreme law.





----- Original Message -----
From: M. Octavius Solaris
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Some remarks


M. Octavius Solaris Ti. Equitio Germanico SPD,

TEG>> The point is not who said it, but what he says. As I stated
before, it was not Aurelius who created these virtues from scratch, but
virtues that were instilled on the Roman civilization since its begining.
Because a nation is an empire does not remove the presence of virtue. Marcus
Aurelius is just as qualified to speak of virtue as anyone, even more so, he
is in fact considered one of the five great emperors. Basic ideals of
society (respectability, dutifulness, tenacity, et cetera) do not change
with who speaks them. Most views of what is good in society are the same in
many respects.

MOS: On some points, I agree. But I don't think that views of a good society
are the same in many respects. Otherwise we wouldn't be having politics this
polemic and complicated! :o).

TEG>> I maintain that all virtue is inherently the same. In fact,
rational thinking and virtuous thinking go hand in hand. To ignore one would
be a flaw in making any decision.

MOS: I agree. Yet, we seem not to have the same opinion. Odd. :o)

Vale bene,
Solaris

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Role Playing
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:40:44 -0700 (PDT)

I'm here for the same reason, but that dosen't mean
that some people don't think it's part of some game
when they see our site.

Frankly I quit caring what others think long ago. I
was just pointing out the absuridity of the argument
that people won't take us serious if we don't castrate
the Paters.

Drusus

--- AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 7/28/2002 12:33:07 PM Eastern
> Daylight Time,
> lsicinius@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
> > Next is Paganism. A lot of people aren't going to
> beleave we are
> > serious about worshiping the Gods.
>
> I do not need validation from others to feel
> justified in the belief in my
> Gods.
>
> I am involved in Nova Roma because of the Religio
> Romana, not in spite of it,
> I would imagine I am not alone.
>
> Gaius Cassius Athanasius
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 21:13:06 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Helvetice.

--- "A. Hirtius Helveticus" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Honoured tribunus, salvete quirites
>
> Well, I said that I stop nagging, but...
>
> --- Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@yahoo.es> wrote: >
>
> > A small intromision, if I may.
>
> It is of course welcomed - I always try to learn here,
> since I am a *newbie* as mentioned before.

We all have been newbies here at one point or the other - except
Cassius Iulianus, that is :-) - .

> <snip>
> > I have *always* (for over a year and a half now)
> > advocated for a change in our gens system that brings it closer to
> > the historical model.
>
> I wasn't aware of that, but I am pleased to hear it.
>
> > Surely you do not think that you have been the first
> > one to spot this and other mistakes in the Novoroman socio-
> > political system, do you?
>
> No, definitely not!
>
> > Have you ever wondered why we are still keeping our flawed gens
> > system?
>
> In fact I did. That was/is mainly why I did engage
> myself in this discussion.
>
> > Someone must have stopped me (and others, like Titus
> > Labienus Fortunatus) from implementing that change, don't you
> > think?.
>
> Obviously.
>
> Well, I have to admit, that my posting wasn't
> completely free of sarcasm. I hope you didn't get
> hurt. If so, please accept my apology.

Apology accepted.

> Also I want to point out, that my opposition to this
> particular proposed law is in _no way_ influenced by
> any other people involved in this discussion and that
> I always tried not to get personal at all.

Neither do I.

> > This proposal, and this discussion, is about
> > *power*. It is an unecessary, unreasonable power. It is the power
> > to keep people in a place they do not want to be in. I can not
> > understand *why* would someone want that kind of power, but it
> > seems that there is people who support the existence of such a
> > power.
>
> I myself am _not_ against the possibility for cives to
> leave a gens at all! Once again, I do agree on the
> lex' goal, but I can't support the way it wants to
> achieve it. That's why I will vote NO.
> In fact, I think it's unfair of all the supporters to
> allege that everyone who is against it does so,
> because he/she wants to prevent cives from switching
> gens. At least in my case this is completely wrong!

Fine. You are supporting the lex's objective, but you do not like the
way in which it is implemented. So you will vote NO. But rest assured
that most of those who oppose this proposal do *not* agree with the
objective of this law. A NO means NO, not "yes, if worded
differently...". By voting NO, you are supporting those who want to
eliminate the possibility of a civis leaving his or her gens.

> > They keep saying that there is a danger of hundreds
> > of citizens jumping from one gens to another, because of the "fun"
> > of it; this has *never happened*, even though there has always been
> > the possibility to do it; and even if it happened, it would not be
> > a reason good enough to hold *one* single person in a place they do
> > not want to be in.
>
> Once again: I _do not_ want to hold a single cives in
> any gens he/she doesn't want to be part of!
> But I still think, that once this lex has passed,
> there will be some cases of citizens just doing that.
> Maybe I am wrong - we will see.

Then why aren't there cases right now? As I said, most (hardly all)
gens leaders do allow a citizen to change gentes *right now*.

> > And finally, in a display of awful rethoric, they keep insulting
> > those who support this lex: they are communists (please pronounce
> > this like an insult), tribunes who have sold their souls to a
> > consul (where's my money, Octavi?), or gens leaders who do not know
> > the names of the people in their gens :-).
>
> I never used any of this rhetoric, at all!

I never said *you* did. Please read more carefully.

> And, as I pointed out, some supporters alleged, that the opposition
> is just a bunch of tyrants... Well, I don't care, because I know I am
> not.

Fine.

> > The decision is yours, Helvetice. Please vote *yes* on this
> > proposal. I assure you that it will *not* stop me from trying to
> > create a historically appropriate gens system.
>
> Who said that I'd like to stop you doing this?!? Quite on the
> contrary! I will be pleased to hear any of your proposals and I will
> be more as happy to support a new, more accurate system!

I did *not* say that *you* were going to stop me. I said that, if this
lex passes, I will not stop trying to reform our gens system. I said
this because you seemed to think that, if this law passed, there would
be no further gens reforms.

As for my proposals, I presented them about a year ago. They
encountered a *huge* opposition, mostly from the same citizens that are
opposing this new proposal. I will present them when the time comes;
i.e., when they can be presented to the Comitia Centuriata. If you
would like to see them implemented, I would suggest you to try to
convince *both* consules (since one can veto the other's actions) to
consider presenting them or others with a similar intent to the Comitia Centuriata.

=====
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: [Nova-Roma] Role Playing
From:	Marcus Vitellius Ligus <mvitelliusligus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 14:49:06 -0700 (PDT)

lsicinius <lsicinius@yahoo.com> wrote:
Next is Paganism. A lot of people aren't going to beleave we are
serious about worshiping the Gods.

My friend, I would advise that you use caution before attacking beliefs of anyone. I for one worship the Goddess and the God in my own home and it is as real as following Jesus Christ in the Catholic Religion, and I personally take great offense at your implication that the use of "Paganism" is not real and is "Role Playing"

Vale,





M. Vitellius Ligus
Optio, Legio III Avgvsta
Paterfamilias, Gens Vitellia, Nova Roma




---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Role Playing
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 15:08:25 -0700 (PDT)

I Sugest you reread my statement instead of looking
for reasons to feel offended. I too Worship the Gods.
I Also have noticed that sometimes when I tell people
this they look at me like I've just announced that I'm
the King Of England, a look that says "you can't be
serious"

Drusus

--- Marcus Vitellius Ligus <mvitelliusligus@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>
> lsicinius <lsicinius@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Next is Paganism. A lot of people aren't going to
> beleave we are
> serious about worshiping the Gods.
>
> My friend, I would advise that you use caution
> before attacking beliefs of anyone. I for one
> worship the Goddess and the God in my own home and
> it is as real as following Jesus Christ in the
> Catholic Religion, and I personally take great
> offense at your implication that the use of
> "Paganism" is not real and is "Role Playing"
>
> Vale,
>
>
>
>
>
> M. Vitellius Ligus
> Optio, Legio III Avgvsta
> Paterfamilias, Gens Vitellia, Nova Roma
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Gens-Cornelia
From:	tekwkp@attbi.com
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 22:37:21 +0000

Salve,

I for one do not feel I'm being forced to remain in the
Gens_Cornelia. It is a cohesive group, some are very
quiet, others keep in touch. A caring Familia.

Vale,

L. Cornelius Drusus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens-Cornelia
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 17:42:06 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Luci Corneli Druse,

> I for one do not feel I'm being forced to remain in the
> Gens_Cornelia. It is a cohesive group, some are very
> quiet, others keep in touch. A caring Familia.

That's good; you enjoy it there, you should stay a part of that gens.

What we're trying to do is to extend the right of self-determination
to persons who might be unhappy in their gens.

By voting for this lex, you won't be diminishing your own rights at
all, but you'll be helping out those who currently are powerless.

Vale, Octavius.

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