Forum Romanum


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] About Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"Claudius Salix Davianus" <salixdavianus@terra.es>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:15:27 -0500

Salvete,

Personally after reading the numerous postings about "Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium" I wish express my support by this law, and consequently I have voted in favour of this Law.

Vivat democratiam apud novarromanos!

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

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octava Salacia...
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:23:48 +0100 (BST)

Salve, Helvetice.

--- "A. Hirtius Helveticus" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de> wrote: > Honoured
Tribunus, salvete quirites
>
> > I would like to address the issue of adoption once
> > and for all.
> >
> > Adoption is, from my point of view, already
> > contemplated in our
> > legislation. Our laws state that a citizen can be
> > incorporated into a
> > gens if (and only if) that gens's leader sends a
> > statement to the
> > censores declaring that he or she is accepted (that
> > is adoption to me).
> > So if a citizen wants to enter a different gens, he
> > or she certainly
> > needs the permission of the new gens pater or mater.
>
> I am aware of this.
>
> But once again: I am not happy with the fact, that a
> citizen who wants to leave his gens can do so simply
> by sending a request to the censores (*so long, and
> thanks for all the fish*). I think that a citizen
> should at least present the censors a new gens that is
> willing to *adopt* him/her or name good reasons for
> founding a new gens _togehther_ with his/her written
> will of leaving his/her gens AND actions should only
> be taken by the censors AFTER they made their decision
> on that.
> Why, you may ask. Well, if the lex passes as it is,
> the following is possible: M. Bombasticus wants to
> leave his gens because a) he dislikes now his chosen
> name and b) the paterfamilias is a complete jerk. So
> he writes a mail to the censors: "Censors, I want to
> leave my gens Bombastica, valete, M. Bombasticus". The
> censors then contact the paterfamilias etc. pp. as
> described in the proposed lex. AND? Well, our M.
> Bombasticus is no longer a member of the gens
> Bombastica, but he hasn't really cared about a new
> name or gens so far, so...
> Maybe you understand my point now: I want to prevent
> exactly this from happening! How? By assuring that all
> these pending questions get solved BEFORE a citizen
> can leave his/her gens. Simple but evident, no?
>
> > But a civis could also want to found his or her own
> > gens. So requiring
> > a petition from another pater or mater would do no
> > good in this kind of
> > situation.
>
> Where did I suggest that a citizen willing to found a
> new gens would also need a petition from another
> paterfamilias? Please re-read my posting: A petition
> should be necessary, if that citizen wants to join a
> existing gens. If he wants to found a new one, the
> censores should first decide on that _before_ that
> citizen is allowed to leave his/her gens.

Those last two points seem reasonable to me. If I finally propose a
different lex, I will take them into account.

Thank you for explaining your point of view.

=====
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] Objections to the filiusfamilias emancipation law. (long)
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:55:24 EDT

Salvete.

Most of you that know me know that when it comes to our beloved Nova Roma, or
(Roma Nova which was what the Byzantines called their empire) I'm
conservative. In the US I'm liberal American. So why the difference?
I believe that when you reconstruct anything, you have to reconstruct it
accurately. Or why do it at all? To use an absurd comparison: Let us say
you are a late 21st century person in a reconstruction of the 1930s USSR.
Yet one of the things that our reconstruction of this USSR contains is total
individual freedom. Do we have a reconstruction of the USSR?
How do we understand anything about being in the USSR if this is one of the
basis of the reconstruction?

To continue.
Cassius Nerva, Marcus Cassius Iullianus are two of finest people I ever met.
I have broken bread with them, and discussed things with them face to face.
Marcus Cassius helped start the Iulian Society which was Nova Roma's true
beginning, the politics came much later. Without Marcus Cassius diligence,
NR would not exist. However as Marcus Iulius himself admits, he is far from
being a politician, and an advocate. His interest lies in the spiritual
path. So I think he overlooks the danger here.
This law really is not needed. But if the people decide the law is needed,
we need a better written one. This one does not agree to protect both
citizens' rights.
Why is this important? Because Paterfamilias enjoy the same rights as that
oppressed filiusfamilias.
This whole issue really turns on the Cornelii. Because when the law's
proponents speak they point out what happened in the past. And a lot of that
was a misunderstanding between two parties.
The constitution in a badly garbled passage, assures that NR citizens have
rights, and that they voluntarily give up those rights to magisterial
authority. But they may recover those rights at anytime. So no
Paterfamilias can hold any Filiusfamilias against their will even if they
wanted to.
As a prospective member of NR you people should carefully research the gens.
If you like what it represents and like its leadership, then join. If not,
don't. Because if you do and then want to leave, you can, but you put the
leadership under stress. No one likes to be rejected.
We expect these people to organize gens, put work into forming websites, give
up time to set up gatherings, yet we refuse to protect these same people from
wholesale defections of that organized membership. I'm saying that
Paterfamilias have rights also, and those rights should be considered when
voting for this lex.

Finally, this lex is against the spirit of this Roman reconstruction. And
before any of you so called historical "experts" quote me slavery and women's
rights issues again as proof that we aren't 100 percent a reconstruction
therefore nothing we do could have merits, I say shut up and listen.

Hatred of slavery is simply our reaction as 20th century people, seeing the
reaction of the 19th century. Slavery is still thriving in Africa, and the
Middle east. Oh there is the prostitute slavery rings in Balkans as well.
And your moral arguments on the slave's behalf would fall on deaf ears.
The Roman economy was based on warfare and conquest. Slaves were a by
product,
but a very important one.
We can't have it our reconstruction because of the moral standpoint. We are
20th century people with that moral compass. We believe ourselves to be
enlightened. Yet as I write this, I watch gardeners from Latin American
states, work on my lawn. They get USD 20.00 for six hours of work. In fact
we have Latinos all over LA doing jobs for slave wages.
How enlightened does that make us?
Plain fact is that a slave's life in Rome could be happy, sad or even
indifferent. They could be freed, they could save money from "tips" to buy
their freedom, they could even vote at certain times of the year. In fact
slavery was so important to the Empire that when someone designed a steam
engine in the third century CE the plans were not backed since to most people
that meant an end to the need for slave labor. Upon analysis, the fair
seeing Romans saw this efficient steam engine would spell the end to the
Roman economy. The industrial capitalists of the late 18th century did not.
In fact they only saw that efficent machines gave reasons to increase the
number of slaves to push the profit margin up.
How does this fit here in NR? First, we are a volunteer organization. We
practice no military conquests, so we can have no prisoners. No prisoners
means no slaves.
Next, I promise to feed, clothe and house you for in return keeping my house
in order and my garden pretty. Any volunteers? I thought not. OK guess we
can't have slaves in a voluntary organization.
Finally we needed government recognition to set up our coexistence with the
US government. If we had slaves, would this happen?
So much for the no slave argument.
Now we come to women in NR. I honestly believe that old Rome would accept
our women in roles of power after this explanation. Our women are educated,
and they can be land owners.
Roman males in power believed that Roman women could not be clever enough to
be educated. Nor would they want to. A woman was expected to know the
womanly arts and produce children for the Republic/Empire.
I believe it was Cato who said "Women have not the brains to lead."
Well, if only Cato could see our women now. Not only do they have their
kids, know the womanly arts, but have money and land as well. Yep they have
brains. Yep they can lead.
Besides women in old Rome did have power of sorts. Certainly there was
sexual power over the men, and many Patrician women had their own wealth and
often their own lovers as well.
And again we have to coexist with the US government.

People of Rome. I encourage you to vote "NO" (Antiquo) on the Lex Octavia
Salicia Libertis Gentilium
It does not balance all the needs of both parties involved, it is not really
needed since the filiusfamilias' right to emancipation already is protected
by the constitution, and I believe allowing this ratified and published cuts
into the heart of our reconstruction attempt since it opens the door to
additional legislation.

Thank you for listening.
Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] How about a Compromise?
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:19:50 EDT

In a message dated 7/29/02 7:53:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, haase@konoko.net
writes:

> It does not address a common problem; it addresses an uncommon
> problem. As our society grows, it is inevitable that this will
> occur. It may be years before this lex is applied; but it is
> needed.
>
> If this lex allows even *one* citizen to escape from a situation
> intolerable to them, all of this effort will have been worthwhile.
>
>

Salvete.

How interesting. You mirrored my comments at the JRS conference this
weekend.
However since the constitution's "Sovereignty clause" already assures this,
the lex is not needed.
As an efficient Systems-OP you would dislike having such a large voting bloc
of people responding to someone else rather then you. So you would try to
break it up into smaller controllable blocs. To do this you'd have to
convince the bloc it was there against their will. You could only do this by
convincing the bloc members that they could not leave at anytime.
Hence the publicity, and the redundant law. We are all interested to see how
the Cornelii responds if this lex passes.

People vote no against the Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium. It is
not needed. Protection is covered in the constitution.

Valete
Q Fabius Maximus

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Labienus comments on Lex Octavia Salicia
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:20:39 -0000

Salve Marcus Cornelius!

>
> --- In Nova-Roma@y..., "M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus"
> <gualterus@e...> wrote:
> It was I that first responded to the claim that section
> II.B.6. applied
> to rights of association on a mailing list.
>
> II.B.6. reads: "The right to remain sovereign and secure
> within one's own home, person, and property."

The Nova Roman Constitution, like any constitution is a legal
document, and the language needs to be interpeted inside a legal
context.

Sovereignty as a legal concept according to the 4th edition of
Black's Legal Dictionary means: (I'm going to "cheat" here and cut
and paste) "The power to do everything in a state without
accountability,--to make laws, to execute and to apply them, to
impose and collect taxes and levy contributions, to make war or
peace, to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign
nations, and the like. Story, Const. Sec 207"

The legal definition of a person has nothing to do with biology or
physicality. A corporation, for example, under U.S. law is
considered a "person." Legally (again I quote the 4th Edition of
Black's Legal Dictionary) "A person is such, not because he is human,
but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the
legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are
attributes. An individual human being considered as having such
attributes is what lawyers call a "natural person." Pollock, First
Book of Jurispr. 110. Gray, Nature and Sources of Law, ch. II.
Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, p 1300"

Because the Nova Roman Constitution grants rights and duties to all
citizens each and every citizen is a "natural person". As one of the
rights granted under the Nova Roman Constitution is the right to
sovereignty in specific sovereignty over ones own home, person, and
property the Nova Roman Constitution grants each citzen the right to
make the rules of his/her own home, make his/her own decisions
regarding ones physical being, and make his/her own decisions
regarding personal property (though I consider my physical body my
personal property any....)

Thusly one could rightly conclude that II.B.6. is refering not to
state sovereignty but the sovereignty of a natural person. One of
the attributes of state sovereignty being the ability to form
alliances and conduct commerce with foreign nations. This attribute
as applied to the sovereignty of a person would be to be able to form
free associations with other Nova Roman citizens WITHOUT interference
of any elected or appointed magistrate. As the Nova Roman
Constitution requires each gens to have a pater/materfamilias in
order to receive recognition as a gens, every pater/materfamilias is
thusly a defacto magistrate of the state.

I have moved from outrage against tradition, to grudging acceptance
that those in support of this lex may have valid points, to belief
that the proposed Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium (while
still against my personal interpetation of Roman tradition and
custom) is a correct and accurate interpetation of II.B.6 As the
Constitution of Nova Roma is the Supreme Law of Nova Roma not my
personal interpetations of Roman tradition and custom, I find that my
initial opinion was in error and will vote in favor of this lex,
though I personally have no reason to exercise my rights under it.

Pax,

Quintus Cassius Calvus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Labienus comments on Lex Octavia Salicia
From:	"rexmarciusnr" <RexMarcius@aol.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:21:00 -0000

Salve Marce Corneli!

> Furthermore, I would suggest that the grammatical
construction of
> "person" being something possessed by the human (in this case
referred
> to by the pronoun) only fits usage 4. in the dictionary *and* is
the
> common legal way in which to refer to a human's body in legal
jargon in
> English.
>

Well

I agree that because of II.B.6. a "person" cannot be "possessed" by a
human in the sense that property can. If otherwise we would be
treading on the paths of slavery, which is a definite No No in Nova
Roma. A person is, as your own dictionary says, a human with his
rights and duties. And there are some inalienable rights so attached
to the person that they cannot be disowned (such is now the worldwide
agreement that no nation - including the aspiring Nova Roma - can
escape). Is the right to part with your gens and decide your own path
in Nova Roma without having to leave the community first inalienable
or not? That is the question discussed here on the list along the
lines of historical correctness versus necessary modern adaptations
(like no slavery).

.....Personal liberty stands first in order of all rights. Without
the control of one's own person, liberty of conscience is impossible.
Without the control of one's own person, education is impossible;
mental growth is impossible; without the control of one's own person,
the opportunities of the world, which are only means of development,
cannot be used. The value and right of personal freedom were
recognized when our government was framed.

But the laws of every State in the Union, in defiance of
the writ of habeas corpus - that constitutional guarantee of personal
freedom - place the personal liberty of the wife entirely in the
control and power of her husband, who can imprison her, and this
without requiring any legal process whatsoever. The uncontrolled will
of the husband is permitted to overpower the wife's constitutional
right to freedom and the protection of the law.

.....By now you probably guessed that I am only quoting. And I am
quoting not from a text of this century but from something about 140
years past. The problem however is very much related to what we
discuss today.

So in this context, as we are almost entirely existing as an Internet
community today, what guidance can our Constitution give us, which
uses an almost ceremonial, old fashioned language as employed in the
US constituion (see Amendment IV)? Please do not come and tell me
that all US Supreme Court judges were at all times following your
extremely strict litteral and grammatical interpretation style or do
you think the framers of the US Constitution thought of electronic
eavesdropping when they wrote their search and seizure amendment?

"Habeas corpus" for us as a mainly Internet community must mean
something completely different than the ceremonial language in the
Constitution (strictly interpreted as you do) would imply at first
glance. There IS room for interpretation here as I pointed out to you
but the limits (your fear of "wild rights") of course have to be set.

And that is exactly what the Tribunes by putting forward this
legislation do. The right to leave your gens as an expression of the
principle of personal freedom enshrined in the Nova Roma constitution
is formulated.

And guess what, the Tribunes are the guardians of the Constitution
and the right persons to address your question to! I think they are
doing a great job!

Vote YES

Marcus Marcius Rex


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Role Playing/ Yeshua a mythical?
From:	Bruce Porter <celtic4usa@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 19:07:35 -0700 (PDT)

OK I've been quit for to long,I'm a man whom has always said live and let live.You have to choose the path you should believe in,and not run others lives.But when you say one persons believes are MYTHS THEN YOUR A FOOL!Why complain about others taking your gods serious if you bash others.Yes I'm offended the proof of Yeshua haven lived, is out there.I will not bash you gods or believes,thats not why we join Nova Roma.If you haven't seen people that wish to be in the senate or a magistrate has to pay honor to your gods,now how do you think I feel."I'm a Jew".I try do this in privity but you made me so mad.Try to rember your on a group page.Like I've said we are taught that every person has a road to chose in life.I want bash you and others so be careful what you say please.
G.Porticus Brutis

PS..I was in to the Norse believes.

---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Labienus comments on Lex Octavia Salicia
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:54:02 -0400

Salve Marcus Marcius,

> Well
>
> I agree that because of II.B.6. a "person" cannot be "possessed" by a
> human in the sense that property can. If otherwise we would be
> treading on the paths of slavery, which is a definite No No in Nova
> Roma. A person is, as your own dictionary says, a human with his
> rights and duties. And there are some inalienable rights so attached
> to the person that they cannot be disowned (such is now the worldwide
> agreement that no nation - including the aspiring Nova Roma - can
> escape). Is the right to part with your gens and decide your own path
> in Nova Roma without having to leave the community first inalienable
> or not? That is the question discussed here on the list along the
> lines of historical correctness versus necessary modern adaptations
> (like no slavery).

I believe the discussion of such a "right" is merely academic when in
practice the issues between paters and members have been resolved
without someone being forced to leave the community because they were
being held against their will in a gens. If in practice the dilemma does
not arise, I do not believe the "right" has to be make official.

> So in this context, as we are almost entirely existing as an Internet
> community today, what guidance can our Constitution give us, which
> uses an almost ceremonial, old fashioned language as employed in the
> US constituion (see Amendment IV)? Please do not come and tell me
> that all US Supreme Court judges were at all times following your
> extremely strict litteral and grammatical interpretation style or do
> you think the framers of the US Constitution thought of electronic
> eavesdropping when they wrote their search and seizure amendment?

I believe this constitution was framed with the foresight of having NR be
an physical entity, in which context my interpretation would come into
force. Until such time, I feel it unjustified to twist the meaning of
the words to what seems to me to be alien from their initial intent. How
and to what degree US Supreme Court Judges played loose with the US
Constitution doesn't create a precedent for interpretation in NR.

> "Habeas corpus" for us as a mainly Internet community must mean
> something completely different than the ceremonial language in the
> Constitution (strictly interpreted as you do) would imply at first
> glance. There IS room for interpretation here as I pointed out to you
> but the limits (your fear of "wild rights") of course have to be set.

I am completely opposed to arbitrarily redefining and having it mean
something completely different first and foremost because I do not feel,
in all honesty, that it was written with the intent to be redefined in
the manner you recommend, and secondly, because I do not believe that it
*should* be redefined to cater to an online community. If this is to
become something greater than an online community, that vision should be
strictly adhered to.

> And that is exactly what the Tribunes by putting forward this
> legislation do. The right to leave your gens as an expression of the
> principle of personal freedom enshrined in the Nova Roma constitution
> is formulated.

I do not believe this particular "personal freedom," according to my
"strict" interpretation, is enshrined in the NR Constitution.

Vale,

- M. Cornelius Gualterus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] How about a Compromise?
From:	Bruce Porter <celtic4usa@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:05:27 -0700 (PDT)

I think this is the right way to go.There's to much strife over this one issue.I'm new to NOVA ROMA,and I don't know my butt from a hole in the ground and this is not helping the new Romans to join ,or feel good about there joining.I'm Pater-member of Gen. Portica,I would not want anybody to join if the didn't take there name serious and where they belong.If they want out let them go there's something said about one bad apple"not trying to be mean".Sometimes keeping people there can make others feel the same way,then you have an exodus .Let us think on other things inst of 200 e-mail of the same thing getting nowhere.If you haven't made a point in the first 100 then drop it or talk to them in other ways.THE REAL PROBLEM IS new people getting to know how to fit in.LIKE disciplining the new ones.This is the way we spead christianity ,and sometimes we should look to the past for are future.Like I said I'm new and the Pater of my gen.but how can I raise my family in the Nova Roma way if I don't have someone to mentor me.

I do hope that the compromise proposed by G.Cassius Nerva and 2nd by T.cornelius Cripus and M.Octavius Germanicus well be taken in to consideration.

---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Fw: [Roman_History_Books] Colleen McCullough
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:09:32 -0700

Here is the news...it is confirmed!

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: IrenesBooks@aol.com
To: Roman_History_Books@yahoogroups.com ; LiteratureReadingCircle@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 9:06 PM
Subject: [Roman_History_Books] Colleen McCullough

She's finally done it:

Her new book will be out both here and in the UK later in the year:

<A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684853310/ref=ase_stamfordhistoric/102-9479628-8563363">October Horse: A Novel About Caesar, Cleopatra and the Fall of the Roman
Republic</A>

Irene
http://romanhistorybooksandmore.freeservers.com/
Co-host, Ancient/Classical History Forum
http://forums.about.com/ab-ancienthist/start
Forum Book Discussions
http://forums.about.com/ab-ancienthist2/start
This group is a member of The Literature Reading Circle at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LiteratureReadingCircle

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Think we need a humor break
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 04:18:32 -0000

Salve,

For those Romans that just can't get enough of the Osbournes along
comes a group that has translated and performs Black Sabbath music in
Latin. As Ripley says, "Believe it or not!"

http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/news/weird_news/3748295.htm

Pax,

Quintus Cassius Calvus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Gens Lex
From:	"Theresa Irwin" <tirwin56@vol.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:31:17 -0400

Salve fellow Romans.
In reading the very interesting debates about the proposed gens lex(disclosure I voted yes), I have come to my own conclusion. My take on this law is it codifies the ability to change one's name and family which is assumed and implied in the constitution of Nova Roma. It basically spells out what is implied and thus gives a precedent and something to point at for justification. Which is a good thing, for it does clarify the spirit of the law by making it letter of the law.
Alexandria Iulia Agrippa

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] More on Gentes
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:45:41 -0700 (PDT)

--- "Chantal G. Whittington" <aerdensrw@yahoo.com>
wrote:
SNIP
>
> Since I joined NR, I have thought that the most
> close-knit NR gentes were analogous to 'households'
> in
> the Society for Creative Anachronism. These are
> groups of people who freely choose to be together
> for
> the purposes of friendship, skills training, or
> common
> interest. Members of an SCA household are usually
> invited in, though they may request to join, and
> they
> are free to leave at any time, with no need to ask
> permission of anyone. An SCA-er may also be a
> member
> of more than one household at a time. Nor does an
> SCA-er consider the head of his household to be his
> 'father' or the other household members to be his
> 'family'--unless they actually are.
>
I was under the impression that we were trying to
avoid Role playing, Not select the ultimate RPG as a
model for organizing Nova Roma.

L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Labienus comments on Lex Octavia Salicia
From:	"rexmarciusnr" <RexMarcius@aol.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 05:46:55 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus
<gualterus@e...> wrote:

Salve Marce Corneli

>
>
> I do not believe this particular "personal freedom,"
according to my
> "strict" interpretation, is enshrined in the NR Constitution.
>
> Vale,
>
> - M. Cornelius Gualterus

So I guess we should agree to disagree ;-) or continue this in
private communications, so as not to bore people with less legalistic
interests to certain online death

Ave et Vale

Marcus Marcius Rex


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Fees on frivolous gens hopping
From:	"mcserapio" <mcserapio@yahoo.it>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 07:41:13 -0000

AVETE OMNES OPTIMEQVE GNAEE SALIX ASTVR

> Perhaps the judicial system should decide if a citizen's second (or
> third) petition is frivolous or simply necessary. Perhaps fines
could
> be imposed to frivolous gens changers.

I agree with you. Perhaps something like: "Do you want to change
your gens for the second/third time? Ok, you shall 'pay' X century
points to change".
On the contrary, if a judge (Censor?Praetor?) thinks that this change
is absolutely necessary there will be no fee (but maybe an action
against the Pater/Mater Familias, if his/her bad conduct is the
reason of this absolute necessity)

Any comments?

VALETE
MANIVS-CONSTANTINVS-SERAPIO
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Italiae
Dominus Praefectus Sodalitatis Egressus
Scriba Aedilis Plebis Cicatricis
-----------
PROVINCIA ITALIA
http://italia.novaroma.org


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] scriba propraetoris wanted
From:	"artoriusp" <rabotnik@wp.pl>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:29:37 -0000

Salvete!
im looking for person who would like be my scribe
this person should have good english and latin
i can offer confortable cooperation an 5 points;)
rabotnik@wp.pl

Valete!
Petrus Domitianus AL
Propraetor Venediae
Nr Rogator


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Objections to the filiusfamilias emancipation law. (long)
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:43:06 +0200

Salve Quinte Fabi,

On earlier occasions, I've seen you defend the view of a conservative Nova
Roma, while you say that in the US you are a liberal. You take former
viewpoint, because you say you want to have an accurate reconstruction. If
you were a scientist, I would believe you. Nova Roma however is not a
scientific experiment, but a living community, and most active members and
citizens take it seriously, so why would you defend a viewpoint you don't
believe in? I think that's absurd, and amounts to "playing Roman" more than
"being Roman".

Your position on the law that's coming up for a vote is that since it is
superfluous, and - according to you - implicitly covered by the
Constitution. I find that a relatively weak argument to say the law deserves
a no. If it's harmless and just reenforces the Constitution, why would you
still vote no? According to your logic, abstaining would be the conclusion
one would draw. Another argument you bring up are the feelings of the pater-
or materfamilias in such questions. You say: "no one likes to be rejected".
Well, most rejections do have a reason. If a citizen changing gens has no
clear reason, he will be scorned more than his pater or mater.

Vale bene,
Marcus Octavius Solaris


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] How about a Compromise?
From:	Bruce Porter <celtic4usa@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:19:49 -0700 (PDT)

HAIL Gaius Cassius Nerva

Hreo of the day!!Gen Portica thanks you,and House Cussius.Let it be know to Nova Roma Gen Portica gives there hands in friendship to Gaius Cassius Nerva and Gen Cussius.......

G.Porticus Brutis

Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@yahoo.es> wrote: Salvete Quirites; et salve, Cassi Nerva.

--- gcassiusnerva <gcassiusnerva@cs.com> wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> The main concern of the proponents of this lex is to prevent
> someone from being "punished" by a hypothetical abusive Pater or
> Mater and forced to stay in a gens which is no longer a healthy place
> to be.
>
> The main concern of the opposition seems to be the law will foster
> an attitude of "shopping around" various gens, making NR look more
> and more like a role-playing game in which loyalty and dedication
> mean little.
>
> Please consider this suggestion for a compromise Lex: ADD a
> provision to this lex to *restrict* the number of times a person may
> switch gens.
> The first time there will be the mandatory cooling off period to
> allow for a possible solution.
>
> A SECOND SWITCH will be permitted only in the most serious of cases.
> {Example---threats of violence, discovery that a psychotic ex-spouse
> is in the gens, pater attempts to sodomize gentile in the shower,
> discovery that Mater is a member of Al Quaeda....you get the idea}
> Such cases must be documented.
>
> A third attempt can be treated as a second resignation of
> citizenship.
> The gentile is "shown the door" and may reapply to NR after two
> years.
>
> These restrictions would also apply to the open gens, such as Cassia.
>
>
> Lastly, the restriction would NOT apply in cases of marriage. So,
> for example, if Stupidicus marries Bimbonia, and Bimbonia wishes to
> follow her husband into his Gens, she may do so, with no penalty or
> justification required.
>
> Naturally, I do not expect that this specific compromise is the only
> form a compromise can take. But I do believe that this, or something
> similar, will be sufficient to discourage and prevent any
> "gens-hoppers" from playing musical-gens.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Gaius Cassius Nerva

First of all, I would like to thank you, Nerva, for taking the mental
effort to present this reasonable solution of compromise. It was much
needed.

Secondly, I will comment your proposal later on, after we have
dilucidated if the law's text can actually be changed during the
contio. Let's say for now that I am willing to reach a compromise that
limits the possibility of frivolous "gens hopping".

=====
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] Re: Labienus comments on Lex Octavia Salicia
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:05:43 -0400

Salve Quintus Cassius,

> Sovereignty as a legal concept according to the 4th edition of
> Black's Legal Dictionary means: (I'm going to "cheat" here and cut
> and paste) "The power to do everything in a state without
> accountability,--to make laws, to execute and to apply them, to
> impose and collect taxes and levy contributions, to make war or
> peace, to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign
> nations, and the like. Story, Const. Sec 207"

>
> The legal definition of a person has nothing to do with biology or
> physicality. A corporation, for example, under U.S. law is
> considered a "person." Legally (again I quote the 4th Edition of
> Black's Legal Dictionary) "A person is such, not because he is human,
> but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the
> legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are
> attributes. An individual human being considered as having such
> attributes is what lawyers call a "natural person." Pollock, First
> Book of Jurispr. 110. Gray, Nature and Sources of Law, ch. II.
> Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, p 1300"

Indeed, but I do not believe it is that legal usage that is being
employed in II.B.6. Please find me an example in a legal document where
the term "person," used as an object of possession, is a reference to an
entity to whom "rights and duties are attributes." In II.B.6. it is
clear to me that the pronoun "one" is playing the function of "person"
as you define above. It is the object of the pronoun "one" whose rights
are being delineated. Usage such as "the item was found on his person"
is rather antiquated grammar, but clearly denotes the physical body, and
does not refer to a legal "person." Given this, I see where I have
erred. I stated that this antiquated usage was legal jargon - OOPS.
Please forgive me in misleading you and forcing you to dig up the legal
definition of Person. In other grammatical constructions where "person"
is the object of the rights being discussed you are absolutely correct,
but here we have a case of an antiquated construction which tends to be
used in legal documents as a formality, but is not legal per se; it is
not a reference to a "legal" person, but a convoluted way in referring
to the physical body.

This type of clause *had* to be a part of the NR Constitution if we were
ever to be more than an online community. Sovereign rights over the
physical body had to be ensured by the drafters, and they chose grammar
that is not common or "normal," but does constitute a distinct usage
recognized in English dictionaries where it is unqeuivocably defined as
a reference to the physical body.

>
> Because the Nova Roman Constitution grants rights and duties to all
> citizens each and every citizen is a "natural person". As one of the
> rights granted under the Nova Roman Constitution is the right to
> sovereignty in specific sovereignty over ones own home, person, and
> property the Nova Roman Constitution grants each citzen the right to
> make the rules of his/her own home, make his/her own decisions
> regarding ones physical being, and make his/her own decisions
> regarding personal property (though I consider my physical body my
> personal property any....)

I completely agree.

> Thusly one could rightly conclude that II.B.6. is refering not to
> state sovereignty but the sovereignty of a natural person. One of
> the attributes of state sovereignty being the ability to form
> alliances and conduct commerce with foreign nations. This attribute
> as applied to the sovereignty of a person would be to be able to form
> free associations with other Nova Roman citizens WITHOUT interference
> of any elected or appointed magistrate.

Interesting angle of attack. But the definition of sovereignty you
supplied above is one for States and not Persons, as readily you
acknowledge. How the rights implied by the term "sovereignty" transfer
over to a Person I find unclear and debatable. If sovereignty over one's
body includes the right to "form alliances" and "enter treaties,"
perhaps a better way to look at this would be whether upon entering a
gens a civis is entering a contract? Is use of the gens name a gift from
the pater or a service rendered through a contractual understanding?
Also, your definition of sovereignty states that one is free to enter
into "alliances" and "treaties" but does not give a blanket right to
leave those "alliances" and "treaties." It seems that "sovereignty" in
this case would defer to the conditions of the "treaties" or "alliances"
when it comes to determining whether one has a right to leave. It seems
to me that the NR Constitution is at best ambiguous on this issue. Given
historical rights of a paterfamilias, I would be inclined to view
entering a "gens" (which is essentially a familias in NR) as a
contractual event where right to use the name is exchanged for the right
of the pater to control the status of one's membership. The NR
Constitution already explicitly gives the right of the pater to eject a
member in II.D.3. but is silent on the right to keep a member in. Should
the legal condition then default to the member's right to leave because
of modern "human rights" sensibilities or default to the pater's
traditional control for the sake of moving closer to a historical
reconstruction? I say the latter. We should try to keep modern political
and social notions in NR to a bare minimum. But because this is,
admittedly, ambiguous in the NR Constitution, a better solution would
seem to be to draft a law that explicitly PROHIBITS the right of a gens
member to leave without explicit consent of the pater. In either case,
based on historical precedent in NR, neither the law I suggest nor the
one currently on the table would have a practical effect on the conduct
of NR. The problem is imaginary, so I will state again: superfluous laws
tht address unlikely situations that have not and probably will not
occur insult people whom we should trust to behave with virtue and
Reason, and as such, are bad law.

> I have moved from outrage against tradition, to grudging acceptance
> that those in support of this lex may have valid points, to belief
> that the proposed Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium (while
> still against my personal interpetation of Roman tradition and
> custom) is a correct and accurate interpetation of II.B.6 As the
> Constitution of Nova Roma is the Supreme Law of Nova Roma not my
> personal interpetations of Roman tradition and custom, I find that my
> initial opinion was in error and will vote in favor of this lex,
> though I personally have no reason to exercise my rights under it.

I can not say that I have undergone such a transition in mood, nor do I
feel that the sovereignty granted us is nearly as wide ranging as you
do. After sufficiently taking everything into consideration, I am
beginning to wonder whether the term "sovereignty" even belongs in
II.B.6. Be that as it may, taking tradition into consideration, the
ambiguity of the phrasing, and my desire not to polute NR with modern
notions of "human rights," I can only vote NO.

Respectfully,

M. Cornelius Gualterus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Labienus comments on Lex Octavia Salicia
From:	Bruce Porter <celtic4usa@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:56:03 -0700 (PDT)

Bless you for your wisdom,and grace.Not that we couldn't talk about it but the strife was unbearable.No newbie should here some if that,it's fitting for the senate floor"when we get our state house/we will too,the oracle for sees it" but to much does no one good.Let the Peace of our GREAT NATION RING OUT,AND EVERY PERSON CRY OUT "WE ARE ROMANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"Rise a glass be of good cheer for we are brothers/sister.The day of fighting is over,pray eat be Marry,let your name swell you up with pride.We are the generation that will make our ancstor grown, for they're not here to see the wonders we will do. So My your God or Gods bless you. For we are Blood and Might that nobody can wipe away......
G.Porticus Brutis Servent of NOVA ROMA

---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] How about a Compromise?
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:18:59 -0400

Bruce Porter wrote:

>THE REAL PROBLEM IS new people getting to know how to fit in.

>LIKE disciplining the new ones.This is the way we spead christianity ,

>and sometimes we should look to the past for are future.

>Like I said I'm new and the Pater of my gen.

>but how can I raise my family in the Nova Roma way if I don't have someone to mentor me.
>

I completely agree. The real problem is people carefully choosing a gens
when they enter Nova Roma and spending the time to get to know the other
members to decide whether they want to be a part of it. The application
process needs to be looked at to mandate a longer acclimatization period
for potential cives.

- M. Cornelius Gualterus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Labienus comments on Lex Octavia Salicia
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:04:31 -0400

Salve,

Yes, I was trying to find a way to transition out of it myself, but I
have such a bad habit about not giving up a good fight. Plus, I always
find the issue of "human rights" and "personal freedom" tempting to jump
into.

- M. Cornelius Gualterus

rexmarciusnr wrote:

> --- In Nova-Roma@y..., Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus
> <gualterus@e...> wrote:
>
> Salve Marce Corneli
>
>
>>
>> I do not believe this particular "personal freedom,"
>>
> according to my
>
>>"strict" interpretation, is enshrined in the NR Constitution.
>>
>> Vale,
>>
>> - M. Cornelius Gualterus
>>
>
> So I guess we should agree to disagree ;-) or continue this in
> private communications, so as not to bore people with less legalistic
> interests to certain online death
>
> Ave et Vale
>
> Marcus Marcius Rex
>
>
>
>
>
> 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:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Cornelia
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 05:11:32 -0700 (PDT)

--- Kristoffer From <from@darkeye.net> wrote:
> "M. Octavius Solaris" wrote:
> > Ok, I'm going off topic here, but...
> > What's so bad about being a communist? I can't
> help thinking this must be a
> > North American thing :o).
>
> Salve, Marce Octavi Solaris.
>
> Indeed. In Sweden, the socialist party and the
> communist party (These
> days known as the "left party".) make up the ruling
> coalition in our
> government. Here, they are one of the most respected
> political parties,
> while in the US all communists are considered under
> the light of
> stalinist Sovjet.
>
I would just like to point out that when I was young
The State Democratic Partys in the Southeastern USA
were overtly Racist political organizations which also
were supported by a majority of the population. In
Germany before the destruction of the post World War I
Government the National Socalist party was the largest
party, though it never recived a majority of the votes
in a free election.

Political sucess does not automatically equal
political morality. Most Americans consider the right
to retain ownership and control of your properity to
be a basic human right so they view Socalist and
Communist parties as groups that threaten a basic
human right, even if they are using democratic means
to achieve their aims.

L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Whoopsie
From:	"Theresa Irwin" <tirwin56@vol.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:37:17 -0400

I apologize for any confusion. I had voted yes on something that looked familiar and thought that was what y'all was talking about.
Alexandria Iulia Agrippa(who was up late last night)

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Provincial Edictum - VIII - Worship and feasts on Provincia Brasilia
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Lucius=20Arminius=20Faustus?= <lafaustus@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:03:55 -0300 (ART)

Salvete, quirites

I know that the Republic is immersed on the discussion of the Leges Salicas, but the Gods cannot wait more calm time. This edictum is provided in portuguese and english.

Edito Provincial - VIII
30 de julho de 2002 - a.d. II Kal Sex MMDCCLV

Culto e festividades da Provincia Brasilia

Pelo Imperium a mim delegado pelo propraetor M. Arminius Maior para efeitos da outorga��o deste �dito fica estabelecido:

I - Dedica��o de um Templo a Conc�rdia, Paz e Salva��o P�blica

a. O primeiro culto provincial da provincia Brasilia de Nova Roma est� estabelecido em honra das deusas romanas Concordia, Pax et Salus Publica.

b. A priori, seu culto ter� a forma de um templo virtual sito a

http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/lafaustus/aedes/aedes.html

c. Nas pr�ximas semanas ser� encaminhado ao Col�gio Pontif�cal o pedido de um cidad�o provinciano para ser sacerdote de uma das deusas e ser respons�vel por este culto.

d. O regulamento �civil� dos auxiliares (apparitores) deste culto segue o estatuto do templo sito ao website do mesmo.

e. Ate a nomeacao de um sacerdote, o apparitor conhecido como scriba templi Concordiae providenciara todas as informacoes necessarias ao culto.

f. Pedimos ao Curator Araneum que coloque o hyperlink nas p�ginas procedentes de mais este templo virtual, como por exemplo na sec��o de links em http://www.novaroma.org/religio_romana/

g. 30 de julho, II Kal Sex, ser� considerado para efeitos lit�rgicos a data da dedica��o do Templo e estabelecimento do culto.

h. Pedimos oficialmente ao Pont�fice M�ximo e aos membros do Colegio Pontifical que aprovem e estimulem este culto provincial.

i. O Templo � patrimonio para o culto de todos novoromanos.

II - Festa provincial

a. O dia 24 de julho (VIII a.d. Kal Sex) ser� considerado dia de celebra��o provincial em mem�ria da tradu��o do website de Nova Roma para a l�ngua portuguesa.

b. Cabe aos sacerdotes e edis da provincia deliberarem as formas de celebra��o deste aniversario todos anos.

Dado em s�o Paulo por Lucius Arminius Faustus, scriba propraetoris.

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

Provincial Edictum - VIII

30 de julho de 2002 - a.d. II Kal Sex MMDCCLV

Worship and feasts on Provincia Brasilia

By the Imperium delegated to me by propraetor brasiliae M. Arminius Maior for the efects of this edictum, hereby these are entablished:

I - Dedication of a Temple to Concordia, Pax et Salus Publica

a. The first worship of Brasilia provinice of Nova Roma is entablished in honor of the roman goddesses Concordia, Pax et Salus Publica.

b. A priori, their worship will be in a virtual temple sito at

http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/lafaustus/aedes/aedes.html

c. In the next weeks, an applying for priesthood for one of that goddesses by one of our citizens will be sent to the Pontifical College to be responsible by this worship.

d. The �civil� rules of the auxiliars (apparitores) of this workship are following the temple�s statute sito in its website.

e. Until the nomeation of a sacerdos, the apparitor known by scriba templi Concordiae shall provide all informations needed to the worship.

f. We ask to the Curator Araneum that put its hyperlink in the proper pages of this virtual temple, as for example in the link section of http://www.novaroma.org/religio_romana/

g. july 30, II Kal Sex, will be considered for liturgical effects the Temple�s dedication birthday and entablishment of the worship.

h. We officially ask to the Pontifex Maximus and members of the Pontifical College the aproval and encouraggement of this provincial worship.

i. This Temple is an property to worship of all citizens of Nova Roma.

II - Provincial Feast

a. The day july 24 (VIII a.d. Kal Sex) will be considered provincial celebration in memory of the translation of the website of Nova Roma into Portuguese language.

b. The ways of celebration of this feast is duty of the provincial sacerdos and aedilis all years ahead.

Given in S�o Paulo by Lucius Arminius Faustus, scriba propraetoris.

Vale bene in pacem deorum,

L. Arminius Faustus

Scriba propraetoris Brasiliae

Member of Decuriae Interpretes - (portuguese chair)

Visit my office at http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/lafaustus/index.html

Se de �cio estou, divirto-me escrevendo,

Entre os defeitos meus, este enumero...

Satira Quarta, Hor�cio

---------------------------------
Yahoo! PageBuilder - O super editor para cria��o de sites: � gr�tis, f�cil e r�pido.

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] my second return
From:	"Theresa Irwin" <tirwin56@vol.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:08:17 -0400

I have returned yet again. I had some computer issues and had to go off-line for a while from march till early July. I am now back and ready to participate. I apologize to all if it seemed like I backed out of my obligations, but I had to do a reformat and restore all my stuff and I am still picking up the pieces.
Alexandria Iulia Agrippa

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Gentes
From:	"Chantal G. Whittington" <aerdensrw@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 07:34:01 -0700 (PDT)

L. Sicinius Drusus--I am not discussing role-playing.
I am trying--and failing--to get a clear explanation
of what a gens is supposed to be in Nova Roma. I used
SCA households as an example of what I had thought
gentes were, but I believe I am mistaken. Therefore,
I would like to understand what they really are
supposed to be and why the prospect of people leaving
them (even frivolously) is upsetting to many, to the
point that members must ask permission to leave one.

If I have to ask permission to leave a gens, as if
pretending that the pater or mater of it really is my
parent or the head of my family, does that not
constitute role-playing?

I could understand people being upset at gens hopping
if what NR calls gentes really were families. To me,
gentes are not families; they are groups of friends,
in their best form. But if I am wrong in that belief,
then I would like to know, so that I can think of them
in the correct way.

---
Renata Corva

I was under the impression that we were trying to
avoid Role playing, Not select the ultimate RPG as a
model for organizing Nova Roma.

L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Labienus comments on Lex Octavia Salicia
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:38:58 -0000

Salve Gualterus Graecus,

I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree. I do appreciate
your phrasing your dissent professionally and respectfully.

>Given
> historical rights of a paterfamilias, I would be inclined to view
> entering a "gens" (which is essentially a familias in NR) as a
> contractual event where right to use the name is exchanged for the
right
> of the pater to control the status of one's membership. The NR
> Constitution already explicitly gives the right of the pater to
eject a
> member in II.D.3. but is silent on the right to keep a member in.
Should
> the legal condition then default to the member's right to leave
because
> of modern "human rights" sensibilities or default to the pater's
> traditional control for the sake of moving closer to a historical
> reconstruction? I say the latter.

Interesting concept that membership in a gens forms an implied
contract. One small problem with that concept, currently a gens can
and gens do contain members that are under the legal age to enter a
contract (written, oral, or implied) in their macronational
jurisdictions. If membership in a gens does indeed imply a
contractual relationship than noone under legal age may be a
citizen. Since the fact that there are those under age individuals
who possess citizenship and membership in a gens, thus gens
membership can not be construed as a contractual relationship but
must be construed as a free association.

> The problem is imaginary, so I will state again: superfluous laws
> tht address unlikely situations that have not and probably will
not
> occur insult people whom we should trust to behave with virtue and
> Reason, and as such, are bad law.

Actually such cases have happened, and have been subject to
discussion.

> I can not say that I have undergone such a transition in mood, nor
do I
> feel that the sovereignty granted us is nearly as wide ranging as
you

Sovereignty by definition is wide ranging.

> do. After sufficiently taking everything into consideration, I am
> beginning to wonder whether the term "sovereignty" even belongs in
> II.B.6. Be that as it may, taking tradition into consideration, the
> ambiguity of the phrasing, and my desire not to polute NR with
modern
> notions of "human rights," I can only vote NO.

No doubt you are sincere in your desire to not polute Nova Roma with
modern notions of human rights. Nova Roma exists in the MODERN
world. Should Nova Roma ever succeed in gaining recognition as a
sovereign nation, it will exist amongst the family of nations. You
desire to have Nova Roma unpolluted by modern notions of human rights
would place Nova Roma in the international family tree on the same
branch as Iraq, People's Republic of China, North Korea, Sudan,
Rwanda, Serbia, Iran, Libya......

Pax,

Quintus Cassius Calvus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gentes
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	30 Jul 2002 12:11:18 -0300

Salve,

Gens in AR were a group of people sharing the same name as you
thought it was in NR. AR gentes had no Paterfamilias.

In AR families the Paterfamilias had near to absolute power over the
family members (which included the family slaves), but the non-slave
members of the families had the possibility to leave if adopted by
another Paterfamilias. Their ancient PF could kill them before that,
without being punished by the law, but at least in the last 2 centuries
of the republic with the reprobation of the public.

In Sulla's mind our gens are families and the absolute power of the
paterfamilias should prevail in the gentes. This is based on the model
that AR gentes were in proto-historical times true families which
splitted with population increase.

In archaic AR the families (mostly related by blood) were extremely
important and the grounstone of the republic at least if we accept that
Cato the Elder is correct in his interpretation of the archaic Rome.

In NR this importance of the family (mixed up to now with the gentes) si
reproduced by the extended power of the patresfamilias "of the gentes".

The present law tries to reduce this power on the gens, because the
tribunes cannot create the notion of families were this power would be
a correct recreation. The opposition of the head of the largest gens in
NR to the immediate creation of families is major impeachment to the
historical correct way: separate gens (and gentilice) and paterfamilias
of a family. This can only be done by a consular law.

Vale

Manius Villius Limitanus

Em Ter, 2002-07-30 �s 11:34, Chantal G. Whittington escreveu:
> L. Sicinius Drusus--I am not discussing role-playing.
> I am trying--and failing--to get a clear explanation
> of what a gens is supposed to be in Nova Roma. I used
> SCA households as an example of what I had thought
> gentes were, but I believe I am mistaken. Therefore,
> I would like to understand what they really are
> supposed to be and why the prospect of people leaving
> them (even frivolously) is upsetting to many, to the
> point that members must ask permission to leave one.
>
> If I have to ask permission to leave a gens, as if
> pretending that the pater or mater of it really is my
> parent or the head of my family, does that not
> constitute role-playing?
>
> I could understand people being upset at gens hopping
> if what NR calls gentes really were families. To me,
> gentes are not families; they are groups of friends,
> in their best form. But if I am wrong in that belief,
> then I would like to know, so that I can think of them
> in the correct way.
>
> ---
> Renata Corva
>
> I was under the impression that we were trying to
> avoid Role playing, Not select the ultimate RPG as a
> model for organizing Nova Roma.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> http://health.yahoo.com
>
>
> 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:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gentes
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	30 Jul 2002 12:11:18 -0300


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gentes
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:18:51 -0700 (PDT)

The Whole problem that is causing this mess is that
Nova Roman Gens are poorly defined. To some they are
just a list of people with the same name, to others
they are the core that Roma's new families will
emerge from.

This debate is no more than one of the groups trying
to impose it's view of what a Gens is on the other
group through a Lex dealing with "rights" instead of a
Lex dealing with the structure of Gens and Families in
Nova Roma.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- "Chantal G. Whittington" <aerdensrw@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> L. Sicinius Drusus--I am not discussing
> role-playing.
> I am trying--and failing--to get a clear explanation
> of what a gens is supposed to be in Nova Roma. I
> used
> SCA households as an example of what I had thought
> gentes were, but I believe I am mistaken.
> Therefore,
> I would like to understand what they really are
> supposed to be and why the prospect of people
> leaving
> them (even frivolously) is upsetting to many, to the
> point that members must ask permission to leave one.
>
> If I have to ask permission to leave a gens, as if
> pretending that the pater or mater of it really is
> my
> parent or the head of my family, does that not
> constitute role-playing?
>
> I could understand people being upset at gens
> hopping
> if what NR calls gentes really were families. To
> me,
> gentes are not families; they are groups of friends,
> in their best form. But if I am wrong in that
> belief,
> then I would like to know, so that I can think of
> them
> in the correct way.
>
> ---
> Renata Corva
>
> I was under the impression that we were trying to
> avoid Role playing, Not select the ultimate RPG as a
> model for organizing Nova Roma.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> http://health.yahoo.com
>

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gentes
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:45:45 -0700 (PDT)

--- Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br> wrote:
SNIP
>
> The present law tries to reduce this power on the
> gens, because the
> tribunes cannot create the notion of families were
> this power would be
> a correct recreation. The opposition of the head of
> the largest gens in
> NR to the immediate creation of families is major
> impeachment to the
> historical correct way: separate gens (and
> gentilice) and paterfamilias
> of a family. This can only be done by a consular
> law.
>
> Vale
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus

Since I'm the Junior Consul's Accensus I have a far
better idea of his plans regarding Families and Gens
than the speculations of the Tribune.

The Consul requested that I look into what changes
would have to be made to the Constitution and the
present laws in order to create Gens with multiple
Families, and this request preceded the introduction
of the Lex under discussion.

L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gentes
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:02:10 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Luci Sicini,

> This debate is no more than one of the groups trying
> to impose it's view of what a Gens is on the other
> group...

Not at all.

You may continue to view a gens as anything you like; but you
may not impose that opinion on other persons who might not share it,
who have joined a gens by mistake and want out.

That's all that this lex does. It prevents persons with the more
restrictive theory of gentes from keeping other persons, who might
not share that opinion, bound to them forever.

Vale, Octavius.

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Praetor's Comment; Amendments During the Contio
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:03:14 -0000

Salvete Omnes:

There have been a few suggestions as to compromise of the proposed
Lex OctaviaSalicia brought into the forum as of late.

The Tribunes are at liberty to change what they will during this
contio.

With all objectivity, the purpose of a contio is to invite, opinion,
discussion, solutions to a proposal, to make it a workable document,
for which we can ultimately vote yeah, or nay.

I am hearing from one or more in this forum that since the Contio is
in session, no compromise is possible.

>From Nova Roma political history, I can site instances were the
proposals were changed at the request of the populace:

2753 AUC: Flavius Vedius Germanicus admended a proposal of minimum
standards for Magistrates' qualifications by allowing governors who
served atleast six months to run for a major magistracy, ie Praetor,
Censor, etc.

2752 AUC: Going backwards in time here.......In the Consulship of
Marcus Minucius Audens et Q. Fabius Maximus the notion of stripping a
person of their right to vote if they didn't pay taxes was in the
initial proposal. At the bidding of the populace, this proposed lex
was amended to allow said persons to vote, but that their century
standing would be altered.

So the purpose of the Contio, is, or atleast has been in the past, a
brainstorming session.

So far, the compromises proposed, one by myself (not a formal one,
just in principle), one more detailed by G. Cassius Nerva, and one in
principle by citizen Helvitius. The common denominator is to check a
potential for gens hopping. Largely, this lex is being promulgated
on potentials, and those proposing a compromise are also worried
about potentials.

So, if the Tribunes feel that Nerva et als ideas have merit, there
are free to change the language of this proposal. It has nothing to
do with the Consuls, the Praetors or the Senate. They are not
subject to veto in this regard.

I invite comment from my Praetoral colleague.

Bene vale,
Pompeia Cornelia
Praetor


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Moderator/Praetor: Let's be Romans About this Discussion
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:13:08 -0000

Salvete Omnes:

This discussion, has gotten heated, but just a caution, please read
people's posts before you formulate conclusions on what they are
saying.

For example, because someone who identifies with citizens from
totalitarium regimes who have lost their freedoms and might find
legislation remotely aligning to that situation uncomfortable,
doesn't make the poster a person who is calling others Fascists and
communists, nor does it make them prejudiced against same.

Further, look at the person posting. If he has worked hard for Nova
Roma, is a former magistrate and Senator many times over, it is
inlikely that his political views would entail the illbeing of the
Senate and populace of Nova Roma.

Again, the discussion at hand, and even I am guilty of having my own
convictions enveloped with subjectives, is a sensitive one, but let
us all try to put ourselves in the other person's shoes...if you do
not like your words misrepresented in this forum, please don't do it
to other people.

Bene valete,
Pompeia Cornelia


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Comments on the Proposed Lex
From:	Jenny Harris <J.Harris@awgais.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:26:16 -0600

Avete Omnes,

Just my views on the newest proposal. As a member of the Gens Cornelia, I am
sure some think I oppose this law with utter dismay.
Not necessarily! I'm more confused than anything, and hopefully someone out
there will clarify my concerns since I am slightly politically
Unaware especially with the politics in our res republica.

The Proposed Gens Lex, from what I have gathered from these massive
postings. Allows a civis to switch Gens freely without the
Consent of the Pater/Mater familias. Correct? And if I'm not mistaken
earlier this year, the Comitia was convened to vote on leges
Regarding the issue of an Inactive Pater/Mater familias and also how many
times a civis could resign from Nova Roma? Correct?
Wouldn't these two laws already solve this issue? What this law is truly
doing is relieving the Pater/Mater of one less duty? Will
It give to the Pater/Mater time to encourage activity within their own
Gentes, Nova Roma? What is truly letting the Pater/Mater
Do? Will this precedented law set a precedent example of what the
definition of Gens/Gentes truly are and is?

Valid points have been made I'll admit. I've also seen this become a
campaign for yes' and no's to this and that all in the name of individual
rights. Who were the individuals being spoken for? No patrician or plebian
spoke up for this Cornelian. And I truly mean no malice to anyone,
sometimes I can miff others without intention. Honored Consuls, Tribunes,
what are you trying to do to our Republic? Is this demolishing or
recreating? Create laws, for future purposes and ignore the current
going-ons of Nova Roma? Pigeonholeing the Gens Cornelia because of it sheer
numbers? As I stated before no malice to anyone, I can see the frowns
developing. So maybe someone out there can clarify this chaotic travesty for
one bewildered citizen. Thank you omnes for lending an ear.

Vale Bene,
Raina Cornelia Aeternia


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gentes
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:36:59 -0700 (PDT)

Salve Consul,

I Made this proposal yesterday,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/1113

And it was ignored.
There are TWO views on what a Gens is or should be,
and this Lex treats one of the two views as
unimportant without even The pretense of a debate over
the nature of a Gens and a Family within Nova Roma, or
the posibility that more than one model can exist.

This is nothing but the impostion of one view over the
other, not by a lex defining the nature and role of
the Gens and the Family within Nova Roma, but by
assuming that has already been decided and enacting
leges that harden that assupmtion into law.

Watching a single incedent being blown up into a
crusade for Civil rights, and the hardening of
postions because it's about "rights" makes me feel I'm
watching a repeat performance of the Name change
Edict/Lex despite all the bad consequances that debate
had on Nova Roma.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
wrote:
> Salve Luci Sicini,
>
> > This debate is no more than one of the groups
> trying
> > to impose it's view of what a Gens is on the other
> > group...
>
> Not at all.
>
> You may continue to view a gens as anything you
> like; but you
> may not impose that opinion on other persons who
> might not share it,
> who have joined a gens by mistake and want out.
>
> That's all that this lex does. It prevents persons
> with the more
> restrictive theory of gentes from keeping other
> persons, who might
> not share that opinion, bound to them forever.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>
>

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Fees on frivolous gens hopping
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:43:52 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Constantine.

--- mcserapio <mcserapio@yahoo.it> wrote:
> AVETE OMNES OPTIMEQVE GNAEE SALIX ASTVR
>
> > Perhaps the judicial system should decide if a citizen's second (or
> > third) petition is frivolous or simply necessary. Perhaps fines
> could
> > be imposed to frivolous gens changers.
>
> I agree with you. Perhaps something like: "Do you want to change
> your gens for the second/third time? Ok, you shall 'pay' X century
> points to change".

I was thinking about *real* money (dollars and/or euros, you know),
payable to the Aerarium Publicum :-). An amount similar to our current
taxes. I think that this should limit frivolous changes to a minimum.

> On the contrary, if a judge (Censor?Praetor?) thinks that this change
> is absolutely necessary there will be no fee (but maybe an action
> against the Pater/Mater Familias, if his/her bad conduct is the
> reason of this absolute necessity)

Excellent suggestion, Constantine. The problem is that our judicial
system is not well defined yet, but it certainly is worth a try.

=====
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] Fees on frivolous gens hopping
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:44:18 +0100 (BST)


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gentes
From:	Daniel Dreesbach <stakor2000@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:03:28 -0700 (PDT)

Then those people should have to buy their way out.
Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:Salve Luci Sicini,

> This debate is no more than one of the groups trying
> to impose it's view of what a Gens is on the other
> group...

Not at all.

You may continue to view a gens as anything you like; but you
may not impose that opinion on other persons who might not share it,
who have joined a gens by mistake and want out.

That's all that this lex does. It prevents persons with the more
restrictive theory of gentes from keeping other persons, who might
not share that opinion, bound to them forever.

Vale, Octavius.

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Fees on frivolous gens hopping
From:	Daniel Dreesbach <stakor2000@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:05:48 -0700 (PDT)

I also believe that the person changing gens should also pay that gens
Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:Salvete Quirites; et salve, Constantine.

--- mcserapio <mcserapio@yahoo.it> wrote:
> AVETE OMNES OPTIMEQVE GNAEE SALIX ASTVR
>
> > Perhaps the judicial system should decide if a citizen's second (or
> > third) petition is frivolous or simply necessary. Perhaps fines
> could
> > be imposed to frivolous gens changers.
>
> I agree with you. Perhaps something like: "Do you want to change
> your gens for the second/third time? Ok, you shall 'pay' X century
> points to change".

I was thinking about *real* money (dollars and/or euros, you know),
payable to the Aerarium Publicum :-). An amount similar to our current
taxes. I think that this should limit frivolous changes to a minimum.

> On the contrary, if a judge (Censor?Praetor?) thinks that this change
> is absolutely necessary there will be no fee (but maybe an action
> against the Pater/Mater Familias, if his/her bad conduct is the
> reason of this absolute necessity)

Excellent suggestion, Constantine. The problem is that our judicial
system is not well defined yet, but it certainly is worth a try.

=====
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] fees and judicial system
From:	"mcserapio" <mcserapio@yahoo.it>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:31:36 -0000

AVE SALIX ASTVR TRIBVNE

> I was thinking about *real* money (dollars and/or euros, you know),
> payable to the Aerarium Publicum :-). An amount similar to our
current
> taxes. I think that this should limit frivolous changes to a
minimum.

It surely would limit them: they would be about 0...
There are citizens who didn't pay taxes because they were not
interested in the cursus honorum or in their "century weight". Do you
think they would even pay money to change their gens?
I am not opposing this proposal: just consider it very, very
carefully... It probably would be good for the 3rd, 4th time, and
only if there is really no need to change the gens.

What about this?

-1st gens change: free (as established by the proposed lex)
-2nd gens change: free if there is a real need (a judge shall analyze
this circumstance, also in case the Pater/Materfamilias deserv
a "punishment"). Otherwise, if it is just a "whim", there is a
century points fee.
-all other gens changes: free if there is a real need (a judge shall
analyze this circumstance, also in case the Pater/Materfamilias
deserve a "punishment"). Otherwise, if it is just a "whim", ther is a
money fee.

> > On the contrary, if a judge (Censor?Praetor?) thinks that this
change
> > is absolutely necessary there will be no fee (but maybe an action
> > against the Pater/Mater Familias, if his/her bad conduct is the
> > reason of this absolute necessity)
>
> Excellent suggestion, Constantine. The problem is that our judicial
> system is not well defined yet, but it certainly is worth a try.

Of course it is a problem, and we need to face it! We can't think
that Nova Roma will never need a judicial system. Our Res Publica is
obviously growing, and laws can't cover every particular
circumstance. We need people that will use general laws to give us
particular sentences.
I think this case (frivolous hopping, malevolent
Patres/Matresfamilias, real need to change the gens) could be a good
starting point. Our first judicial system could be actually
restricted to this area.
It will not be easy, since we are not clowning. It will
probably/surely take us rather time, but we need to start.

VALE BENE
MANIVS-CONSTANTINVS-SERAPIO


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Praetor's Comment; Amendments During the Contio
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:34:18 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Pompeia.

--- pompeia_cornelia <trog99@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Salvete Omnes:
>
> There have been a few suggestions as to compromise of the proposed
> Lex OctaviaSalicia brought into the forum as of late.
>
> The Tribunes are at liberty to change what they will during this
> contio.
>
> With all objectivity, the purpose of a contio is to invite, opinion,
> discussion, solutions to a proposal, to make it a workable document,
> for which we can ultimately vote yeah, or nay.
>
> I am hearing from one or more in this forum that since the Contio is
> in session, no compromise is possible.
>
> From Nova Roma political history, I can site instances were the
> proposals were changed at the request of the populace:
>
> 2753 AUC: Flavius Vedius Germanicus admended a proposal of minimum
> standards for Magistrates' qualifications by allowing governors who
> served atleast six months to run for a major magistracy, ie Praetor,
> Censor, etc.
>
> 2752 AUC: Going backwards in time here.......In the Consulship of
> Marcus Minucius Audens et Q. Fabius Maximus the notion of stripping a
>
> person of their right to vote if they didn't pay taxes was in the
> initial proposal. At the bidding of the populace, this proposed lex
> was amended to allow said persons to vote, but that their century
> standing would be altered.
>
> So the purpose of the Contio, is, or atleast has been in the past, a
> brainstorming session.

Thank you very much, Pompeia.

This is the concept of contio that I support.

> So far, the compromises proposed, one by myself (not a formal one,
> just in principle), one more detailed by G. Cassius Nerva, and one in
> principle by citizen Helvitius. The common denominator is to check a
> potential for gens hopping. Largely, this lex is being promulgated
> on potentials, and those proposing a compromise are also worried
> about potentials.
>
> So, if the Tribunes feel that Nerva et als ideas have merit, there
> are free to change the language of this proposal. It has nothing to
> do with the Consuls, the Praetors or the Senate. They are not
> subject to veto in this regard.
>
> I invite comment from my Praetoral colleague.

I have discussed this with my colleagues, and I think that I will in
fact re-write this proposal to include the suggestions you are talking
about. I will post a message on how I intend to do this later on.

=====
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] fees and judicial system
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:59:45 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Constantine.

--- mcserapio <mcserapio@yahoo.it> wrote:
> AVE SALIX ASTVR TRIBVNE
>
> > I was thinking about *real* money (dollars and/or euros, you know),
> > payable to the Aerarium Publicum :-). An amount similar to our
> current
> > taxes. I think that this should limit frivolous changes to a
> minimum.
>
> It surely would limit them: they would be about 0...

Well, that's what you wanted, didn't you? :-).

> There are citizens who didn't pay taxes because they were not
> interested in the cursus honorum or in their "century weight". Do you
> think they would even pay money to change their gens?
> I am not opposing this proposal: just consider it very, very
> carefully... It probably would be good for the 3rd, 4th time, and
> only if there is really no need to change the gens.
>
> What about this?
>
> -1st gens change: free (as established by the proposed lex)
> -2nd gens change: free if there is a real need (a judge shall analyze
> this circumstance, also in case the Pater/Materfamilias deserv
> a "punishment"). Otherwise, if it is just a "whim", there is a
> century points fee.
> -all other gens changes: free if there is a real need (a judge shall
> analyze this circumstance, also in case the Pater/Materfamilias
> deserve a "punishment"). Otherwise, if it is just a "whim", ther is a
> money fee.

What about this?:

-1st gens change: for free
-2nd and subsequent gens changes in the same year: 12 US$, payable to
the Aerarium Publicum. This payment can be declined by the censores if
they think that there is a good reason for the change.

> > > On the contrary, if a judge (Censor?Praetor?) thinks that this
> > > change is absolutely necessary there will be no fee (but maybe an
> > > action against the Pater/Mater Familias, if his/her bad conduct
> > > is the reason of this absolute necessity)
> >
> > Excellent suggestion, Constantine. The problem is that our judicial
> > system is not well defined yet, but it certainly is worth a try.
>
> Of course it is a problem, and we need to face it! We can't think
> that Nova Roma will never need a judicial system. Our Res Publica is
> obviously growing, and laws can't cover every particular
> circumstance. We need people that will use general laws to give us
> particular sentences.
> I think this case (frivolous hopping, malevolent
> Patres/Matresfamilias, real need to change the gens) could be a good
> starting point. Our first judicial system could be actually
> restricted to this area.
> It will not be easy, since we are not clowning. It will
> probably/surely take us rather time, but we need to start.

I agree with you.

As far as I know, our praetores are currently studying the creation of
a civil law code. I would like to know how far they are in their study.

As for this issue, I will tell you what I will do. I will propose a new
lex that handles payments for further gens changes *and* adoption. I
will also start preparing a set of laws to establish a judicial system
within Nova Roma, so that specific cases can be judged.

This second project will take a little longer, because I would like to
bring this judicial system as close as possible to its Roman historical
counterpart. So you will have to give me some more time to study it.

However, you have my word that I will present a proposal for a
legislative judicial system before the end of my term of office.

=====
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] fees and judicial system
From:	Jenny Harris <J.Harris@awgais.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:12:17 -0600

Ave,

I've been reading this particular thread with great intrest. And I am
hoping to make a comment/suggestion.
There has been a mentioning of a 'judicial system', could it be possible for
the Censors to stand as that
Medium. ( I really don't think I phrased that correctly)? Since the Censors
are mediators in the situations of joining
A Gens and Resigning Citizenship, Changing of Gens, etc??? Tribunis Gnaeus
salix Astur, I'm looking forward
To your opinion.

Vale Bene,
Aeternia

-----Original Message-----
From: Gnaeus Salix Astur [mailto:salixastur@yahoo.es]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:00 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] fees and judicial system

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Constantine.

--- mcserapio <mcserapio@yahoo.it> wrote:
> AVE SALIX ASTVR TRIBVNE
>
> > I was thinking about *real* money (dollars and/or euros,
you know),
> > payable to the Aerarium Publicum :-). An amount similar
to our
> current
> > taxes. I think that this should limit frivolous changes
to a
> minimum.
>
> It surely would limit them: they would be about 0...

Well, that's what you wanted, didn't you? :-).

> There are citizens who didn't pay taxes because they were
not
> interested in the cursus honorum or in their "century
weight". Do you
> think they would even pay money to change their gens?
> I am not opposing this proposal: just consider it very,
very
> carefully... It probably would be good for the 3rd, 4th
time, and
> only if there is really no need to change the gens.
>
> What about this?
>
> -1st gens change: free (as established by the proposed
lex)
> -2nd gens change: free if there is a real need (a judge
shall analyze
> this circumstance, also in case the Pater/Materfamilias
deserv
> a "punishment"). Otherwise, if it is just a "whim", there
is a
> century points fee.
> -all other gens changes: free if there is a real need (a
judge shall
> analyze this circumstance, also in case the
Pater/Materfamilias
> deserve a "punishment"). Otherwise, if it is just a
"whim", ther is a
> money fee.

What about this?:

-1st gens change: for free
-2nd and subsequent gens changes in the same year: 12 US$,
payable to
the Aerarium Publicum. This payment can be declined by the
censores if
they think that there is a good reason for the change.

> > > On the contrary, if a judge (Censor?Praetor?) thinks
that this
> > > change is absolutely necessary there will be no fee
(but maybe an
> > > action against the Pater/Mater Familias, if his/her
bad conduct
> > > is the reason of this absolute necessity)
> >
> > Excellent suggestion, Constantine. The problem is that
our judicial
> > system is not well defined yet, but it certainly is
worth a try.
>
> Of course it is a problem, and we need to face it! We
can't think
> that Nova Roma will never need a judicial system. Our Res
Publica is
> obviously growing, and laws can't cover every particular
> circumstance. We need people that will use general laws to
give us
> particular sentences.
> I think this case (frivolous hopping, malevolent
> Patres/Matresfamilias, real need to change the gens) could
be a good
> starting point. Our first judicial system could be
actually
> restricted to this area.
> It will not be easy, since we are not clowning. It will
> probably/surely take us rather time, but we need to start.

I agree with you.

As far as I know, our praetores are currently studying the
creation of
a civil law code. I would like to know how far they are in
their study.

As for this issue, I will tell you what I will do. I will
propose a new
lex that handles payments for further gens changes *and*
adoption. I
will also start preparing a set of laws to establish a
judicial system
within Nova Roma, so that specific cases can be judged.

This second project will take a little longer, because I
would like to
bring this judicial system as close as possible to its Roman
historical
counterpart. So you will have to give me some more time to
study it.

However, you have my word that I will present a proposal for
a
legislative judicial system before the end of my term of
office.

=====
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] Proposal of Civil Law
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:22:21 -0000

Salvete:

I was discussing alot of this social stuff, gens, gens relations,
Pater/Mater's and migration of gentiles via adoption or civil
proceedings in a civil law code, blending Roman Republican values
with modern day sensibilities.

However, I was told by the Senior Consul that he felt this sort of
thing was best handled in a lex, and not within the parameters of a
civil law code.

So, what I have been told, is that I shall be vetoed.

So, being that my ideas have been presented, in a skeletal form, to
the Senate, Tribunes and Consuls within our own chambers, and I have
been essentially told by the Senior Consul that I am barking up the
wrong tree, I am confused with respect to the format I have drawn up.

As far as court proceedings, juries etc. that is easy....I wanted to
produce a code, which would be sliced and diced, commented upon,
suggestions made about practical problems within Nova Roma and how to
deal with them.

If you are interested in looking at my stuff, I will send it to you
next week, as you are the only person who has voiced interest, beyond
Marcus Minucius Audens and T. Labienus Fortunatus in looking at it.

Sulla has offered to give an objective opinion on it, but I think he
wants me to learn to fly on my own a bit.

Bene vale,
Pompeia


Subject:	RE: [Nova-Roma] fees and judicial system
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 19:25:34 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Aeternia.

--- Jenny Harris <J.Harris@awgais.com> wrote:
> Ave,
>
> I've been reading this particular thread with great intrest. And I
> am hoping to make a comment/suggestion.
> There has been a mentioning of a 'judicial system', could it be
> possible for the Censors to stand as that Medium. ( I really don't
> think I phrased that correctly)? Since the Censors are mediators in
> the situations of joining A Gens and Resigning Citizenship, Changing
> of Gens, etc??? Tribunis Gnaeus salix Astur, I'm looking forward
> To your opinion.

As I think I have already said, I agree with your opinion.
Censores should have the ability to decline the payment of fees in the
case of additional gens changes if they think that the situation
actually makes that change necessary.

=====
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] fees and judicial system
From:	Jenny Harris <J.Harris@awgais.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:29:03 -0600

Ave Tribune Astur,

So therefore in this possible Lex, this will based on a case by case
situation involving the Censors? But one more question why the payments?

Vale,
Aeternia

-----Original Message-----
From: Gnaeus Salix Astur [mailto:salixastur@yahoo.es]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:26 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] fees and judicial system

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Aeternia.

--- Jenny Harris <J.Harris@awgais.com> wrote:
> Ave,
>
> I've been reading this particular thread with great
intrest. And I
> am hoping to make a comment/suggestion.
> There has been a mentioning of a 'judicial system', could
it be
> possible for the Censors to stand as that Medium. ( I
really don't
> think I phrased that correctly)? Since the Censors are
mediators in
> the situations of joining A Gens and Resigning
Citizenship, Changing
> of Gens, etc??? Tribunis Gnaeus salix Astur, I'm looking
forward
> To your opinion.

As I think I have already said, I agree with your opinion.
Censores should have the ability to decline the payment of
fees in the
case of additional gens changes if they think that the
situation
actually makes that change necessary.

=====
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] Proposal of Civil Law
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 19:37:57 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Cornelia.

--- pompeia_cornelia <trog99@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Salvete:
>
> I was discussing alot of this social stuff, gens, gens relations,
> Pater/Mater's and migration of gentiles via adoption or civil
> proceedings in a civil law code, blending Roman Republican values
> with modern day sensibilities.
>
> However, I was told by the Senior Consul that he felt this sort of
> thing was best handled in a lex, and not within the parameters of a
> civil law code.
>
> So, what I have been told, is that I shall be vetoed.
>
> So, being that my ideas have been presented, in a skeletal form, to
> the Senate, Tribunes and Consuls within our own chambers, and I have
> been essentially told by the Senior Consul that I am barking up the
> wrong tree, I am confused with respect to the format I have drawn up.
>
> As far as court proceedings, juries etc. that is easy....I wanted to
> produce a code, which would be sliced and diced, commented upon,
> suggestions made about practical problems within Nova Roma and how to
> deal with them.
>
> If you are interested in looking at my stuff, I will send it to you
> next week, as you are the only person who has voiced interest, beyond
> Marcus Minucius Audens and T. Labienus Fortunatus in looking at it.
>
> Sulla has offered to give an objective opinion on it, but I think he
> wants me to learn to fly on my own a bit.
>
> Bene vale,
> Pompeia

Please do send this to me. I am sure it will be worth the effort :-).

=====
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] fees and judicial system
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 19:41:45 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Aeternia.

--- Jenny Harris <J.Harris@awgais.com> wrote:
> Ave Tribune Astur,
>
> So therefore in this possible Lex, this will based on a case by case
> situation involving the Censors?

Exactly.

> But one more question why the payments?

Because several citizens have expressed their concern that someone
could use the right to leave a gens to frivolously hop from gens to
gens just for the "fun" of it.

Since it is not the intent of this proposal to allow this, I have
thought that introducing a payment for further changes after the first
one in a year's time would disencourage frivolous gens hopping.

=====
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] Proposal of Civil Law
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 13:49:15 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Praetrix,

> However, I was told by the Senior Consul that he felt this sort of
> thing was best handled in a lex, and not within the parameters of a
> civil law code.
>
> So, what I have been told, is that I shall be vetoed.

I have never threatened to veto anything of yours.

Please provide evidence for your allegation, or retract it.

Vale, Octavius.

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] (unknown)
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:05:55 +0100 (BST)

=====
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] fees and judicial system
From:	Jenny Harris <J.Harris@awgais.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 13:17:39 -0600

-----Original Message-----
From: Gnaeus Salix Astur [mailto:salixastur@yahoo.es]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:42 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] fees and judicial system

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Aeternia.

--- Jenny Harris <J.Harris@awgais.com> wrote:
> Ave Tribune Astur,
>
> So therefore in this possible Lex, this will based on a
case by case
> situation involving the Censors?

Exactly.

> But one more question why the payments?

Because several citizens have expressed their concern that
someone
could use the right to leave a gens to frivolously hop from
gens to
gens just for the "fun" of it.

Aeternia: I can understand the concern of 'gens hopping'
among other things.
Also the proposal which was brought up Gaius Cassius Nerva,
about the restricted
Number one can switch a Gens. I wasn't sure if Nerva's
proposal would be added
To the Lex you and Consul Octavius, came up with. Or will it
be implemented with
This one? It was a good idea it seems, and a shame to let it
slip away. Implementing
Nerva's idea would eliminate having to make payments to
switch a Gens don't you
Think Tribune? Now no one think I'm trying not to fill the
genreal public coffers,
But to pay extra to switch a gens for numerous reasons when
you've already paid
A membership fee. Sounds a bit miffy to me, and no offense
to anyone. Your comments
Tribune, are always appreciated.

Vale Bene,
Aeternia

Since it is not the intent of this proposal to allow this, I
have
thought that introducing a payment for further changes after
the first
one in a year's time would disencourage frivolous gens
hopping.

=====
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] Reviewed Tribunician Legislative Agenda
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:22:01 +0100 (BST)

Gnaeus Salix Astur Quiritibus S.P.D.

Ex Officio Tribunorum Plebis

After much consideration, I have decided to delay the summoning of the
Comitia for some time.

I have reached this decision because of two reasons:

1.- Several citizens have proposed some ammendments to the Lex Octavia
Salicia de Libertate Gentium that seem pretty reasonable to me. I would
like some time to re-write this proposal, and to present it to the
People for further discussion.

2.- I have been informed by my colleague Marcus Arminius Maior that one
of my proposals is, in fact, already a law. I am talking about the Lex
Labiena de Intercessione, that was approved by the Comitia a few months
ago. I made the mistake of re-introducing it in front of the Comitia
because it does not appear in the Tabularium, and I mistakenly believed
that it had not been presented to the People yet.

So, because of these reasons, I rescind the convocation to the Comitia
that was due in a few days's time. No votation shall take place in
those days, and all other activities shall go on normally.

I will not forget about these proposals. My intention is to present
them again as soon as possible. I am talking about weeks here.

As a final word, I would like to thank all those who have expressed
their support to these proposals in their current form. I hope that the
minor changes that will be introduced in the Lex Octavia Salicia will
not make them change their mind.

I would also like to thank those cives that have provided a
constructive criticism. Your voice has been heard, and I will try to
incorporate your opinions and sensibilities in the next draft. Please
bear in mind, however, that it is extremely difficult to make a law
that pleases *everyone* in *every* aspect. I am sure that my effort to
reach a compromise will be followed by yours.

And finally, I would like to thank those who have simply opposed this
lex. Our Res Publica, like the Rome of our spiritual ancestors, has
chosen to accept differences of opinion in its inner workings. It
wouldn't be truly Roman if it didn't. It wouldn't be so close to my
heat if it weren't.

So please accept my apologies for anything I have said that might have
hurt you. It was not my intention to harm anyone; but in the heat of
political debate, sometimes we all say things that we regret later.
I, for my part, will not take into account anything that might have
been said about myself.

Let's start again. Let's take a few days's rest from this heated
debate. We will have the opportunity to discuss further about this
issue very soon.

=====
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] fees and judicial system
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:28:26 +0100 (BST)

Salve, Aeternia.

--- Jenny Harris <J.Harris@awgais.com> wrote:
> Aeternia: I can understand the concern of 'gens hopping'
> among other things.
> Also the proposal which was brought up Gaius Cassius Nerva,
> about the restricted Number one can switch a Gens.

They are the same thing, in my opinion.

> I wasn't sure if Nerva's proposal would be added To the Lex you and
> Consul Octavius, came up with. Or will it be implemented with
> This one? It was a good idea it seems, and a shame to let it
> slip away. Implementing Nerva's idea would eliminate having to make
> payments to switch a Gens don't you Think Tribune?

Yes. But perhaps there *is* a need to change gens a second or a third
time. By introducing payment, we make this less attractive but still
possible if necessary.

> Now no one think I'm trying not to fill the genreal public coffers,
> But to pay extra to switch a gens for numerous reasons when
> you've already paid A membership fee. Sounds a bit miffy to me, and
> no offense to anyone.

I do not expect that the Treasury will gain too much money with this
:-). In fact, I will be more than happy if no one *ever* pays this
"legal fee". I have suggested payment only as a means to make gens
hopping less attractive.

> Your comments Tribune, are always appreciated.

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] Reviewed Tribunician Legislative Agenda
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Hirtius=20Helveticus?=" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:30:17 +0200 (CEST)

Honoured Tribunus,
salvete Quirites

--- Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@yahoo.es> wrote:
> I will not forget about these proposals. My
> intention is to present
> them again as soon as possible. I am talking about
> weeks here.
<snip>
> I would also like to thank those cives that have
> provided a
> constructive criticism. Your voice has been heard,
> and I will try to
> incorporate your opinions and sensibilities in the
> next draft. Please
> bear in mind, however, that it is extremely
> difficult to make a law
> that pleases *everyone* in *every* aspect. I am sure
> that my effort to
> reach a compromise will be followed by yours.

I am sure that you will do your best in implementing
those proposals. Therefore I am willing to support the
revised version, since I never opposed citizen's right
to freely change gens.

> Let's start again. Let's take a few days's rest from
> this heated
> debate. We will have the opportunity to discuss
> further about this
> issue very soon.

We sure will ;o)

Thank you for your excellent work!

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
M�chten Sie mit einem Gru� antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de


Subject:	RE: [Nova-Roma] fees and judicial system
From:	Jenny Harris <J.Harris@awgais.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 13:42:57 -0600

-----Original Message-----
From: Gnaeus Salix Astur [mailto:salixastur@yahoo.es]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 1:28 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] fees and judicial system

Salve, Aeternia.

--- Jenny Harris <J.Harris@awgais.com> wrote:
> Aeternia: I can understand the concern of 'gens hopping'
> among other things.
> Also the proposal which was brought up Gaius Cassius
Nerva,
> about the restricted Number one can switch a Gens.

They are the same thing, in my opinion.

> I wasn't sure if Nerva's proposal would be added To the
Lex you and
> Consul Octavius, came up with. Or will it be implemented
with
> This one? It was a good idea it seems, and a shame to let
it
> slip away. Implementing Nerva's idea would eliminate
having to make
> payments to switch a Gens don't you Think Tribune?

Yes. But perhaps there *is* a need to change gens a second
or a third
time. By introducing payment, we make this less attractive
but still
possible if necessary.

Aeternia: You do make a point here. Although I feel this is
Something precedent and not happening now. I'm not familiar
With anyone changing a Gens more than once, as in the
situation
Of one changing their Roman name to fit them. But I cannot
say it
Won't happen. As a poet I understand metaphors and I can
agree
With you now that you've defined it more clearly.

> Now no one think I'm trying not to fill the genreal public
coffers,
> But to pay extra to switch a gens for numerous reasons
when
> you've already paid A membership fee. Sounds a bit miffy
to me, and
> no offense to anyone.

I do not expect that the Treasury will gain too much money
with this
:-). In fact, I will be more than happy if no one *ever*
pays this
"legal fee". I have suggested payment only as a means to
make gens
hopping less attractive.

Aeternia: See noted statement above.

> Your comments Tribune, are always appreciated.

Thank you.

Aeternia: You are very welcome!

Vale Bene,
Aeternia

=====
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] Reviewed Tribunician Legislative Agenda
From:	Kristoffer From <from@darkeye.net>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:52:16 +0200

Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:
> I would like some time to re-write this proposal, and
> to present it to the People for further discussion.

Salve, Gnaeus Salix Astur.

Well...one more thing, if you're modifying. Several citizens have spoken
about what happens to the one leaving the gens. How about the law
stating that he either gets the approval of the paterfamilias of another
gens, if he wants to join that one, or the approval of his current
paterfamilias, if he's planning on starting a gens of his own? Before
he's allowed to apply for leaving his current gens...to avoid all those
"Nemo"'s that could POSSIBLY start popping up.

Also, the old usages of "-ianus" could be legislated. If I "switched" to
the Fabii, I would be "Titus Fabius Pius Octavianus". Of course, should
I "hop" again, only one of these should remain, so my next hop, to the
Cassii, would make me "Titus Cassius Pius Fabianus". At least, I think
that's how it worked in old Rome.

How's that sound? :)

Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Reviewed Tribunician Legislative Agenda
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Hirtius=20Helveticus?=" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:01:46 +0200 (CEST)

Salve Octavie, salvete Quirites

--- Kristoffer From <from@darkeye.net> wrote: >
> Well...one more thing, if you're modifying. Several
> citizens have spoken
> about what happens to the one leaving the gens. How
> about the law
> stating that he either gets the approval of the
> paterfamilias of another
> gens, if he wants to join that one, or the approval
> of his current
> paterfamilias, if he's planning on starting a gens
> of his own? Before
> he's allowed to apply for leaving his current
> gens...to avoid all those
> "Nemo"'s that could POSSIBLY start popping up.

Almost exactly what I proposed - ONLY: I think it
makes more sense, if a citizen planing to leave
his/her gens and forming a new one would need the
approval of the censores first. I don't see, why the
old paterfamilias should meddle in this (ok, maybe the
censores will ask him/her about his/her opinion, but
the decision should be made by the censores. Do you
agree?

> Also, the old usages of "-ianus" could be
> legislated. If I "switched" to
> the Fabii, I would be "Titus Fabius Pius
> Octavianus". Of course, should
> I "hop" again, only one of these should remain, so
> my next hop, to the
> Cassii, would make me "Titus Cassius Pius Fabianus".
> At least, I think
> that's how it worked in old Rome.
>
> How's that sound? :)

Fine. You are right, btw. Once someone got adopted,
they usually chose the name that way.
But I think this would be too much at the moment and
should be considered in a complete revision of the
gens 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
M�chten Sie mit einem Gru� antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] ACADEMIA: Basic Latin Course
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:05:50 +0100 (BST)

Gnaeus Salix Astur Quiritibus S.P.D.

It is for me a great pleasure to announce that the Academia Thules has
organized a Basic Latin Course.

A Latin course was one of the main objectives of the Academia, because
a language is a fundamental part of a culture. No one can even try to
fully and properly understand the ancient Roman culture, religion and
way of life without at least a slant knowledge of Latin. Besides, Latin
has always been considered *the* language of culture, and its inherent
beauty, flexibility and coherence has made it a first choice for
language students throughout thousands of years.

The course's praeceptor will be Claudius Salix Davianus. Besides being
a tribunus plebis here in Nova Roma, he is also a university professor
in Barcelona, Spain. He is a member of the Sodalitas Latinitatis of
Nova Roma, and his frequent posts on Latin and linguistics in general
are close to legendary.

He will receive the valuable help of pontifex Fabius Salix Lucentinus.
This gentleman is about to become a Latin teacher in the Spanish public
educational system, which means that he knows a great deal of Latin
:-).
He has studied Latin and Classical studies in several of the most
prestigious universities of Spain, so he is what you could call a real
Latin expert.

The course will begin on August the 26th, and it will last for ten
weeks. Student applications will be accepted until the 24th.

So if you want to learn some Latin and finally understand all those
obscure idioms like "quid pro quo", "in vino veritas" and "Bene Valete
in Pace Deorum!", subscribe today to this course at:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/academiathules/

=====
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] Re: Labienus comments on Lex Octavia Salicia
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:09:31 -0400

Salve,

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree for now, but I'm afraid this issue
is going to come up again, and under decreasingly favourable circumstances.

> Interesting concept that membership in a gens forms an implied
> contract. One small problem with that concept, currently a gens can
> and gens do contain members that are under the legal age to enter a
> contract (written, oral, or implied) in their macronational
> jurisdictions. If membership in a gens does indeed imply a
> contractual relationship than noone under legal age may be a
> citizen. Since the fact that there are those under age individuals
> who possess citizenship and membership in a gens, thus gens
> membership can not be construed as a contractual relationship but
> must be construed as a free association.

This is only a problem if you assume macronational jurisdiction should be
used as a basis for our internal legal system. I find the legel status
of impuberes unclear. If we view the relationship as contractual, then
it can be observed as a contract between the guardian of the impubes on
behalf of the impubes. At worst, the relationship of impuberes and their
gens can be viewed as a free association while that of cives aged 18+
can be viewed as contractual.

> Actually such cases have happened, and have been subject to
> discussion.

No, the cases which were cited were not examples of the dilemma being
defined. All of those cases were resolved amicably. The current law
would have had no effect on their outcome. The dilemma that is being
raised as a spectre is the tyrannic rule of a pater which results in
cives being held in a gens against their will and perhaps their leaving
NR because of such tyranny. This has not happened.

>
>>I can not say that I have undergone such a transition in mood, nor
>>
> do I
>
>>feel that the sovereignty granted us is nearly as wide ranging as
>>
> you
>
> Sovereignty by definition is wide ranging.

The extent of the "wide ranging" is unclear and undefined. At worst, the
wording in the Constitution should be changed to make our rights less
ambiguously in accordance with tradition.

> No doubt you are sincere in your desire to not polute Nova Roma with
> modern notions of human rights. Nova Roma exists in the MODERN
> world. Should Nova Roma ever succeed in gaining recognition as a
> sovereign nation, it will exist amongst the family of nations. You
> desire to have Nova Roma unpolluted by modern notions of human rights
> would place Nova Roma in the international family tree on the same
> branch as Iraq, People's Republic of China, North Korea, Sudan,
> Rwanda, Serbia, Iran, Libya......

As I have stated in a previous email (I don't recall if it was in our
exchanges or others) inclusion of modern notions of "human rights"
should be as limited as possible. I allow for certain changes whose
exclusion would make it exceedingly difficult to enter a community of
nations (such as the issue of slavery), but granting the power of a
pater over a NR family as is tradition in the mos maiorum is not one of
these. Each potential inclusion of modern social and political notions
into NR has to be evaluated on its own grounds, and I think it a
deviation from our reconstructionist goal to *default* to modern notions
simply because they're what we've been indoctrinated into in the
macronational culture. Every slide away from tradition adds up, and this
can begin a bad precedent.

- M. Cornelius Gualterus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] fees and judicial system
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:25:55 -0400

Salve,

This sounds almost reasonable if *all* changes, whether first or not, are
overseen by a judge who determines just cause for leaving. If it is a
whim, then the payment should be prohibitive (2x-3x annual tax, or
more?) But, what would constitute just cause? Would there be a good
reason beyond an abusive pater? I would consider gens changing simply
because one didn't think through thoroughly enough their initial choice
a whim. But, this touches on a more seriously problem - having potential
citizens evaluate their future gens over a longer time.

- M. Cornelius Gualterus

mcserapio wrote:

> AVE SALIX ASTVR TRIBVNE
>
>
>>I was thinking about *real* money (dollars and/or euros, you know),
>>payable to the Aerarium Publicum :-). An amount similar to our
>>
> current
>
>>taxes. I think that this should limit frivolous changes to a
>>
> minimum.
>
> It surely would limit them: they would be about 0...
> There are citizens who didn't pay taxes because they were not
> interested in the cursus honorum or in their "century weight". Do you
> think they would even pay money to change their gens?
> I am not opposing this proposal: just consider it very, very
> carefully... It probably would be good for the 3rd, 4th time, and
> only if there is really no need to change the gens.
>
> What about this?
>
> -1st gens change: free (as established by the proposed lex)
> -2nd gens change: free if there is a real need (a judge shall analyze
> this circumstance, also in case the Pater/Materfamilias deserv
> a "punishment"). Otherwise, if it is just a "whim", there is a
> century points fee.
> -all other gens changes: free if there is a real need (a judge shall
> analyze this circumstance, also in case the Pater/Materfamilias
> deserve a "punishment"). Otherwise, if it is just a "whim", ther is a
> money fee.
>
>
>>>On the contrary, if a judge (Censor?Praetor?) thinks that this
>>>
> change
>
>>>is absolutely necessary there will be no fee (but maybe an action
>>>against the Pater/Mater Familias, if his/her bad conduct is the
>>>reason of this absolute necessity)
>>>
>>Excellent suggestion, Constantine. The problem is that our judicial
>>system is not well defined yet, but it certainly is worth a try.
>>
>
> Of course it is a problem, and we need to face it! We can't think
> that Nova Roma will never need a judicial system. Our Res Publica is
> obviously growing, and laws can't cover every particular
> circumstance. We need people that will use general laws to give us
> particular sentences.
> I think this case (frivolous hopping, malevolent
> Patres/Matresfamilias, real need to change the gens) could be a good
> starting point. Our first judicial system could be actually
> restricted to this area.
> It will not be easy, since we are not clowning. It will
> probably/surely take us rather time, but we need to start.
>
> VALE BENE
> MANIVS-CONSTANTINVS-SERAPIO
>
>
>
> 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] Re: Proposal of Civil Law
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:31:15 -0000

---Salve Honoured Senior Consul:

Please check the archives of the Senate....anything I proposed with
respect to being in the realm of the Civil law, with respect to these
current discussions, you cited objection to, and that you felt it was
best handled in the form of a lex.

Seeing is that you didn't think it fell within the parameters of any
civil laws, you in principle vetoed the notion. Atleast enough that
I didn't care to pursue it any further.

Telling me that you will not have such matters handled in the way I
proposed is 'vetoing'...or telling me not to bother.

Just because you didn't formally type up a 'letter of vetoe' doesn't
mean that you didn't voice objections to it being handled this way.

The notion of civil law handling of these matters has been discussed
here in this forum, and you have voiced objection to same.

I am sorry that you are offended by this, but if you check the Senate
Archives, you did say you wanted it handled as a lex. So that,
essentially is blocking the movement of any efforts on my part in
another direction.

If I led the populace to believe that you issued a formal declaration
of veto, no you did not. And I don't recall saying that. But you
voiced sound objection to the principle of the idea, just as you
continue to do so. So you vetoed the spirit of any efforts to proceed
further.

Bene vale,
Pompeia

In Nova-Roma@y..., Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...> wrote:
> Salve Praetrix,
>
> > However, I was told by the Senior Consul that he felt this sort of
> > thing was best handled in a lex, and not within the parameters of
a
> > civil law code.
> >
> > So, what I have been told, is that I shall be vetoed.
>
> I have never threatened to veto anything of yours.
>
> Please provide evidence for your allegation, or retract it.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Proposal of Civil Law
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 15:51:30 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Praetrix,

> Please check the archives of the Senate....anything I proposed with
> respect to being in the realm of the Civil law, with respect to these
> current discussions, you cited objection to, and that you felt it was
> best handled in the form of a lex.

Leges, Senatus Consulta, priests' Decreta, and Edicts are the
only forms of law that I am aware of. I have stated that I prefer
that this issue be handled with a Lex.

I am not opposed to your idea of a civil code in general; if you will
consult the archives of the "Consular Staff" list, you will see that
I replied "Certainly!" when you asked if you could present it
this month.

I have not yet seen this Civil Law that you refer to. When I see
it, I'll give my opinion on it.

> Seeing is that you didn't think it fell within the parameters of any
> civil laws, you in principle vetoed the notion. Atleast enough that
> I didn't care to pursue it any further.

You wished to supercede my proposal with one of your own that was
inimical in spirit to the original. If you had attempted to put
it to a vote, it probably would have been vetoed, but that never
happened.

> Telling me that you will not have such matters handled in the way I
> proposed is 'vetoing'...or telling me not to bother.
> Just because you didn't formally type up a 'letter of vetoe' doesn't
> mean that you didn't voice objections to it being handled this way.

I have simply declined to replace my proposed solution with yours.

Vale, Octavius.

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: fees and judicial system
From:	"mcserapio" <mcserapio@yahoo.it>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:56:15 -0000

AVE GNAEE SALIX

> > It surely would limit them: they would be about 0...
>
> Well, that's what you wanted, didn't you? :-).

No. I am not against gens changes, but rather against whims.
In particular I am not in favour of mere gens *changes*, but rather
in favour af adoptions, something that really existed in Rome.

> > What about this?
> >
> > -1st gens change: free (as established by the proposed lex)
> > -2nd gens change: free if there is a real need (a judge shall
analyze
> > this circumstance, also in case the Pater/Materfamilias deserv
> > a "punishment"). Otherwise, if it is just a "whim", there is a
> > century points fee.
> > -all other gens changes: free if there is a real need (a judge
shall
> > analyze this circumstance, also in case the Pater/Materfamilias
> > deserve a "punishment"). Otherwise, if it is just a "whim", ther
is a
> > money fee.
>
> What about this?:
>
> -1st gens change: for free
> -2nd and subsequent gens changes in the same year: 12 US$, payable
to
> the Aerarium Publicum. This payment can be declined by the censores
if
> they think that there is a good reason for the change.

Well. Here there are two options: I obviously would prefere the one
I proposed, but it is not something I will get crazy for.
I would like to know other citizens' opinions about it.
Immediately money, or century points and then money?

> However, you have my word that I will present a proposal for a
> legislative judicial system before the end of my term of office.

I am sure you will do an excellent work!!! Please, consider my
absolute willingness to collaborate on this subject (if I can be of
any help).

VALE BENE
MANIVS-CONSTANTINVS-SERAPIO


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Proposal of Civil Law
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:05:08 -0000

---

Salve Senior Consul:

This will be my last post to you on the matter. I am not trying to
justify my actions to you in anyway. I was addressing the question
of Tribune G. Salix Astur as to the progress of the civil law code,
with respect to this discussion.

Seeing as that the people elected me to give them the very best I
have in terms of representation, I thought I would answer him, seeing
as the discussion has a bearing on their needs and concerns.

P. Cornelia

In Nova-Roma@y..., Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...> wrote:
> Salve Praetrix,
>
> > Please check the archives of the Senate....anything I proposed
with
> > respect to being in the realm of the Civil law, with respect to
these
> > current discussions, you cited objection to, and that you felt it
was
> > best handled in the form of a lex.
>
> Leges, Senatus Consulta, priests' Decreta, and Edicts are the
> only forms of law that I am aware of. I have stated that I prefer
> that this issue be handled with a Lex.
>
> I am not opposed to your idea of a civil code in general; if you
will
> consult the archives of the "Consular Staff" list, you will see that
> I replied "Certainly!" when you asked if you could present it
> this month.
>
> I have not yet seen this Civil Law that you refer to. When I see
> it, I'll give my opinion on it.
>
> > Seeing is that you didn't think it fell within the parameters of
any
> > civil laws, you in principle vetoed the notion. Atleast enough
that
> > I didn't care to pursue it any further.
>
> You wished to supercede my proposal with one of your own that was
> inimical in spirit to the original. If you had attempted to put
> it to a vote, it probably would have been vetoed, but that never
> happened.
>
> > Telling me that you will not have such matters handled in the way
I
> > proposed is 'vetoing'...or telling me not to bother.
> > Just because you didn't formally type up a 'letter of vetoe'
doesn't
> > mean that you didn't voice objections to it being handled this
way.
>
> I have simply declined to replace my proposed solution with yours.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Proposal of Civil Law
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:11:16 -0700

Ave Praetrix,

Pompeia, you have Imperium, if you want to fashion your law code as a lex do so and summon the Comitia Centuriata, it is your right in the Constitution to do so. Just make it as complete as possible and make sure your colleague approves it.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul
----- Original Message -----
From: pompeia_cornelia
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:05 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Proposal of Civil Law

---

Salve Senior Consul:

This will be my last post to you on the matter. I am not trying to
justify my actions to you in anyway. I was addressing the question
of Tribune G. Salix Astur as to the progress of the civil law code,
with respect to this discussion.

Seeing as that the people elected me to give them the very best I
have in terms of representation, I thought I would answer him, seeing
as the discussion has a bearing on their needs and concerns.

P. Cornelia

In Nova-Roma@y..., Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...> wrote:
> Salve Praetrix,
>
> > Please check the archives of the Senate....anything I proposed
with
> > respect to being in the realm of the Civil law, with respect to
these
> > current discussions, you cited objection to, and that you felt it
was
> > best handled in the form of a lex.
>
> Leges, Senatus Consulta, priests' Decreta, and Edicts are the
> only forms of law that I am aware of. I have stated that I prefer
> that this issue be handled with a Lex.
>
> I am not opposed to your idea of a civil code in general; if you
will
> consult the archives of the "Consular Staff" list, you will see that
> I replied "Certainly!" when you asked if you could present it
> this month.
>
> I have not yet seen this Civil Law that you refer to. When I see
> it, I'll give my opinion on it.
>
> > Seeing is that you didn't think it fell within the parameters of
any
> > civil laws, you in principle vetoed the notion. Atleast enough
that
> > I didn't care to pursue it any further.
>
> You wished to supercede my proposal with one of your own that was
> inimical in spirit to the original. If you had attempted to put
> it to a vote, it probably would have been vetoed, but that never
> happened.
>
> > Telling me that you will not have such matters handled in the way
I
> > proposed is 'vetoing'...or telling me not to bother.
> > Just because you didn't formally type up a 'letter of vetoe'
doesn't
> > mean that you didn't voice objections to it being handled this
way.
>
> I have simply declined to replace my proposed solution with yours.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Marcus Octavius Germanicus
From:	"Greg Guy" <warhammerpriest@hotmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:01:47 -0400

Thank you for that information.

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Role Playing
From:	"sceptia" <sceptia@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:27:17 -0000

Salve amice, et salve, Drusus.

As my name indicates, I�m skeptical, I mean, I don�t believe in any
god or *divine power* above us. I guess your complaint, (Because it
sounds to me as a complaint) is that you feel that Nova Roma is a RPG
with a website. Well, is a perception of it, but the problem is not
that. Worshipping the gods, to me, can be two very different things:

- An act of reconstruction of the ancient cults. Then it is an
historical act that deserves the most respect. If you want to
understand the "why, what, how" of many things, Philosophy, Politics,
et cetera, you need to know about this side. And playing this is not
a RPG, is an act of reconstruction. Then, I ask respect for it as far
as I am a atheistic citizen but worried about HISTORIC.

- An act of foolish, childish vanity. Then it sounds to me empty and
useless. If your critic goes this way, O.K., but be careful. You can
understand as childish acts of real reconstruction. Always know a
little what you critizise.

Decide which one of the two above fits on your point of view about
Nova Roma. Even you can have a third idea. And remember, respect is
the first path to wisdom. And I repeat, I�m skeptical, atheist, but
not feel Nova Roma as a RPG.

I hope not to be a "pain in the neck" for you. :-)

Vale,

L. Didius Geminus Sceptius
��
Scriba Propraetoris Arenae Hispania
Decurio Provincialis
Praeceptor Academiae Thules

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "lsicinius" <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> 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] Re: fees and judicial system
From:	"mcserapio" <mcserapio@yahoo.it>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:35:31 -0000

AVE MARCE CORNELI GVALTERE GRAECE

> This sounds almost reasonable if *all* changes, whether first
or not, are
> overseen by a judge who determines just cause for leaving. If it is
a
> whim, then the payment should be prohibitive (2x-3x annual tax, or
> more?)

Yourreasoning isn't wrong, but perhaps we should be a little more
elastic. Allowing a citizen to change once his gens without any
consequence is not a tragedy, IMHO.
As to the prohibitive "payment", I can assure you that a $2 fee would
discourage a frivolous hopping as well as a $24/$36 one. :-)

> But, what would constitute just cause? Would there be a good
> reason beyond an abusive pater?

Perhaps nothing else, yes. For any other possible reason, a judge
would deal with it.

> But, this touches on a more seriously problem - having potential
> citizens evaluate their future gens over a longer time.

Yes, an important issue (perhaps not more serious), but I think
that it would be the matter of a separate law, wouldn't it? To be
discussed.

VALE BENE
MANIVS-CONSTANTINVS-SERAPIO
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Italiae
Dominus Praefectus Sodalitatis Egressus
Scriba Aedilis Plebis Cicatricis
-----------------------
PROVINCIA ITALIA
http://italia.novaroma.org
-----------------------
ADMINISTRATIO AEDILIS PLEBIS CICATRICIS
http://www.geocities.com/mcserapio/aediliscicatrix.html


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Wondering about the gens system
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:46:44 -0300 (ART)

Salvete Quirites

This letter is to explain as i perceive the
gens-families system of Nova Roma.

We, in Nova Roma, are in the very beginning of our
history. Being founded only in less than four and half
years ago, all our institutions and systems are in
their infancy.

Please, Quirites, reflict on our system of Gens. Nova
Roma is still in a phase of immigration; people join
Nova Roma and are trying to organize yourselves in
groups.

Do somebody still born inside Nova Roma? Nobody, or
perhaps one or other. Do we have (real) families here?
Very few, i bet. Two brothers in one gens, a wife with
husband in another gens. An a lot of "solitary" gens,
with no more than the paterfamilias.

The majority of the people of the largest gens know
themselves thanks to Nova Roma, and not to previous
relationships. We need time to help the cives to
organize naturally. I believe that we need a
generation (25 years, or more) to see the thing
starting to organize in true gens and true families.
By now, we still have "groups", even from different
continents.

By now, we are still in the first phase of our Res
Publica, with entire gens forming in a short time.
Hundred per cent of the demographic growt of Nova Roma
is due to immigration, and zero per cent to natality.

Last week, i completed two years as a citizen of Nova
Roma. Two years ago, the gens Cornelia was the
largest, as it is now, with 25 citizens; and now has
85, more or less. Or growing rate are enormous, and is
difficult to imagine what will happen in 5 or 10 years
more. Will our gens divide naturally in families? Or
did our system bend due to their own weight, needing
various adaptations?

Because of all this, we need flexibility, a very roman
caracteristic. We need to let the cives to arrange
themselves, without overwhelming intrusion from the
State (except when the system deviates from what is
practical, feasible and traditional), and this process
will take a lot of time. We need flexibility, we need
time, we need to see to the future, we need to be
aware that we will have a lot of problems in the years
to come. And we still doesnt know what will be these
problems, even less how to solve them.

Quirites, because of all this, i believe that i see
that a enhanced Lex Octavia Salicia is necessary. Lets
to elaborate a bit more, hear what our cives had to
say, and propose to the Comitiae. A system with
tradition alone cannot be, we need to find a middle
term that involves tradition, and works for Nova Roma.

Vale
Marcus Arminius Maior
Tribunus Plebis

_______________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! PageBuilder
O super editor para cria��o de sites: � gr�tis, f�cil e r�pido.
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/v/pb.html


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Role Playing
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:56:03 -0700 (PDT)

Actually I don't consider Nova Roma to be a Role
playing Game. A Point was being made that if we have
Paters people will think we are a Role playing Game.
My counter point was those People will think we are a
Role playing game anyway.

It's simple there are RPGs that do that have assumed
names, that pose as nations and that pretend to have
exotic religions. It's understandable that many
people's first impression of Nova Roma wil be that we
are just another RPG.

It isn't the minor points that will cause some people
not to take us serious. It's Nova Roma's fundemental
structure. The question is do we drop some parts of
Nova Roma to gain acceptance from others?

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- sceptia <sceptia@yahoo.es> wrote:
> Salve amice, et salve, Drusus.
>
> As my name indicates, I�m skeptical, I mean, I don�t
> believe in any
> god or *divine power* above us. I guess your
> complaint, (Because it
> sounds to me as a complaint) is that you feel that
> Nova Roma is a RPG
> with a website. Well, is a perception of it, but the
> problem is not
> that. Worshipping the gods, to me, can be two very
> different things:
>
> - An act of reconstruction of the ancient cults.
> Then it is an
> historical act that deserves the most respect. If
> you want to
> understand the "why, what, how" of many things,
> Philosophy, Politics,
> et cetera, you need to know about this side. And
> playing this is not
> a RPG, is an act of reconstruction. Then, I ask
> respect for it as far
> as I am a atheistic citizen but worried about
> HISTORIC.
>
> - An act of foolish, childish vanity. Then it sounds
> to me empty and
> useless. If your critic goes this way, O.K., but be
> careful. You can
> understand as childish acts of real reconstruction.
> Always know a
> little what you critizise.
>
> Decide which one of the two above fits on your point
> of view about
> Nova Roma. Even you can have a third idea. And
> remember, respect is
> the first path to wisdom. And I repeat, I�m
> skeptical, atheist, but
> not feel Nova Roma as a RPG.
>
> I hope not to be a "pain in the neck" for you. :-)
>
> Vale,
>
> L. Didius Geminus Sceptius
> ��
> Scriba Propraetoris Arenae Hispania
> Decurio Provincialis
> Praeceptor Academiae Thules
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@y..., "lsicinius" <lsicinius@y...>
> wrote:
> > 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
>
>

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Wondering about the gens system
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:59:42 -0700

Where is the tradition in this law? I have been told that my quoting from scholars is to be utterly disregarded because it does not fit into some individual's view of family. I have been told "I" role play because I take my duties too seriously. I have been told that the Gens Cornelia is not a family, when the Cornelians who have posted on this list affirm that we are a family.

The Lex Octavia Salicia throws Roman Tradition out the window and establishes a new hybrid that cannot be justified historically, in any stage of Rome's development. I am sorry Tribune, while you and I are friends and I enjoy chatting with you, I think your interpretation is flawed in this instance. I do not see tradition anywhere in this Lex Octavia Salicia.

In no post dealing with any compromise has anyone even mentioned the Mos Maiorum. In no post dealing with any compromise has no one focused on the ancients. It seems to me that Nova Roma has decided to strike out on its own in complete disregard for the ancients. This depresses me more than I can put into words.

I will not support this lex. Nor will I support any modification and revision.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

----- Original Message -----
From: M Arminius Maior
To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:46 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Wondering about the gens system

Salvete Quirites

This letter is to explain as i perceive the
gens-families system of Nova Roma.

We, in Nova Roma, are in the very beginning of our
history. Being founded only in less than four and half
years ago, all our institutions and systems are in
their infancy.

Please, Quirites, reflict on our system of Gens. Nova
Roma is still in a phase of immigration; people join
Nova Roma and are trying to organize yourselves in
groups.

Do somebody still born inside Nova Roma? Nobody, or
perhaps one or other. Do we have (real) families here?
Very few, i bet. Two brothers in one gens, a wife with
husband in another gens. An a lot of "solitary" gens,
with no more than the paterfamilias.

The majority of the people of the largest gens know
themselves thanks to Nova Roma, and not to previous
relationships. We need time to help the cives to
organize naturally. I believe that we need a
generation (25 years, or more) to see the thing
starting to organize in true gens and true families.
By now, we still have "groups", even from different
continents.

By now, we are still in the first phase of our Res
Publica, with entire gens forming in a short time.
Hundred per cent of the demographic growt of Nova Roma
is due to immigration, and zero per cent to natality.

Last week, i completed two years as a citizen of Nova
Roma. Two years ago, the gens Cornelia was the
largest, as it is now, with 25 citizens; and now has
85, more or less. Or growing rate are enormous, and is
difficult to imagine what will happen in 5 or 10 years
more. Will our gens divide naturally in families? Or
did our system bend due to their own weight, needing
various adaptations?

Because of all this, we need flexibility, a very roman
caracteristic. We need to let the cives to arrange
themselves, without overwhelming intrusion from the
State (except when the system deviates from what is
practical, feasible and traditional), and this process
will take a lot of time. We need flexibility, we need
time, we need to see to the future, we need to be
aware that we will have a lot of problems in the years
to come. And we still doesnt know what will be these
problems, even less how to solve them.

Quirites, because of all this, i believe that i see
that a enhanced Lex Octavia Salicia is necessary. Lets
to elaborate a bit more, hear what our cives had to
say, and propose to the Comitiae. A system with
tradition alone cannot be, we need to find a middle
term that involves tradition, and works for Nova Roma.

Vale
Marcus Arminius Maior
Tribunus Plebis

_______________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! PageBuilder
O super editor para cria��o de sites: � gr�tis, f�cil e r�pido.
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/v/pb.html


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Gentes, Explained :)
From:	"Chantal G. Whittington" <aerdensrw@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 15:20:53 -0700 (PDT)

Titus Labienus--Ah! Thank you very much for your
simple, clear explanation! You've explained what a
gens is in terms that enable me to both understand the
concept and to accept the reasons why one must seek
permission to leave a gens and why gens hopping is
frowned upon.

I appreciate this so much. :)

---
Renata Corva

---T. Labienus wrote---

"Given historical rights of a paterfamilias, I would
be inclined to view entering a "gens" (which is
essentially a familia in NR) as a contractual event
where right to use the name is exchanged for the
right of the pater to control the status of one's
membership. "

=====
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:	[Nova-Roma] Possible Misquote, Gen-hopping Fee
From:	"Chantal G. Whittington" <aerdensrw@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 15:53:07 -0700 (PDT)

Omnes--It appears I may have misquoted the explanation
I found of what a gens is. I attributed it to T.
Labienus, but I notice someone later referred to it in
a reply to someone else. I confess that I don't know
who originally said it; I simply found it in the
thread, "Labienus Comments on..."

Anyway, to whomever said it--Thanks! And thank-you to
Limitanus, Drusus, and Octavius for their replies.

Re fee on gens hopping--LOL!!! I love this. What a
great way to earn money for the Land Fund. (snicker)

I think I'll just stick with Nerva's proposal, though,
now that I see the reasons for it. :)

---
Renata Corva

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