Forum Romanum


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Sententiae Praetoris
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@texas.net>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 19:04:31 -0500

T Labienus Fortunatus Praetor Quiritibus SPD

I have just returned from an eleven-hour day to roughly three hundred
messages in my inbox, and am short-changing my daughter (the third
natural-born civis Novoromanus, BTW) on face-time in order to write
this, so I shall address a number of issues in this one message.

First, I offer my opinion of amending proposed laws during the contio.
Considering that the historical contio did not have to occur within
sight of the Gods in a templum or other sacred space, and considering
Gellius' words, "It is clear that to treat with the people is one thing
and to hold a contio is another. For to treat with the people is to ask
the people something which by its votes it is either to order or to
forbid; to hold a contio is to speak to the people without asking
anything," and considering that no lex, senatusconsultum, edictum, or
other Nova Roman legal document says otherwise, I find that it is legal
to alter the text of a proposal during the contio.

That said, I must say that care should be taken when doing so, in order
that the people might have ample time to consider any changes that are
made to a proposed law before they vote upon it. To do otherwise would,
I hope, attract a veto.

Second, this most recent discussion has seen from both sides a small
reprise of the sort of unhealthy intransigence that reared its ugly head
during the gender edictum debate (which many here are too new to
remember), and the propaganda that accompanies such intransigence. I
say propaganda because that is what the various diatribes about the
dissolution of the modern family and the wrecking of Nova Roma, the
allegations of improper personal agendas, and the bandying about of
terms that are known to be inflammatory and offensive are. They appeal
to emotion, fail to address the actual issue at hand, are often ad
hominem attacks, and serve Concordia not at all.

We Novoromani are a diverse lot. We are conservatives, liberals,
communists, fascists, and everything in between. It is natural that we
will not agree. Unfortunately, there is a human tendency to view our
own opinions as certainly correct, and therefore to grow self-righteous.
Once we do that, the opposition begins to seem, if not evil, then at
least needlessly mean, obstinate, and stupid. I think this is in part
due to the nature of Western politics, in which most of us only see the
attack ads and headline-grabbing antics of our politicians, as opposed
to the back-room dealing and compromise-reaching that is the productive
side of the political process.

In truth, we each arrive at our opinions through the same limited means,
but have different predilictions and experiences. Understanding that,
let us work very hard to understand the positions of those with which we
disagree and attempt to find some middle ground. Our other option is a
Nova Roma filled with old grudges, mistrust, and strife. Thank you, C
Cassius Nerva, Cn Salix Tribunus, and others for understanding this and
working toward a compromise.

Third, some have suggested that the larger question at hand is how
gentes are handled in Nova Roma. This doesn't go quite far enough.
I've contended for nearly four years now that the central tension in
Nova Roma is what to include of the new versus what to keep of the old.
Or, as a former civis I greatly admired once asked, "Why Nova Roma?"

Are we a reconstructionist organization, attempting to recreate the
ancient Res Publica of a given era as much as possible as some grand
experiment in living history? Are we instead a religious organization
which institutes the Roman political system because it is impossible to
properly honor the Gods without it? Are we a large group of people who
band together because of a mutual interest in and respect for the
ancient Romani? There are many, many other options, and I wouldn't be
surprised if most of them are covered at least in part by our cives'
expectations of Nova Roma. It is our collective answer to that central
question, "Why Nova Roma?" that will decide what She is like in twenty
years, assuming She survives us.

Valete
--
"Since death alone is certain and the time of death uncertain, what
should I do?"


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Regarding IUSTINA LUCIANIA ORBIANNA?!
From:	GAIVS IVLIANVS <ivlianvs309@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:31:29 -0700 (PDT)

SALVETE OMNES! Can anyone tell me how I can contact
Iustina Luciania Orbianna?! I have not seen any
mention of her on the Nova Roma site lately! Does
anyone know what happened to her? GRATIAS VOBIS AGO!
VALETE! FRATER GAIVS IVLIVS IVLIANVS

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: fees and judicial system
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:09:50 -0400

Salve,

> 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. :-)

Well, that is my being elastic, when comparing the desire

by some to implement this "right" and the contradictory desire to hold

to tradition.

>>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.

Perhaps if this issue was handled first the need for the currently
proposed law would be obviated. At the very least, it would change the
character of the proposed law. So, it might make more sense to handle
the issue of sufficient acclimatization of new citizens first. The
biggest difference I foresee if the acclimatization issue is handled
first is that a "first free hop" won't be needed because we won't need
to assume a civis was rushing and making uninformed and hasty decisions.
There won't be a need to change the "hopping" law after an
"acclimatization" law is passed to get rid of the unnecessary free hop.
The whole process would be less convoluted. Reasonable, no?

- M. Cornelius Gualterus

> 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
>
>
>
> 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] Wondering about the gens system
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:39:23 -0400

Salve M. Arminius,

You speak a noble sentiment, but you miss a major point behind the
opposition to this law: deviation from Roman tradition and so deviation
from a reconstructionist effort. We shouldn't be here to recreate a
society with Roman flavour and spirit, but to reconstruct the ancient
system as honestly as we practically can. If we're not strict about this
now, we won't be in the future... indeed, the fear is we'll simply float
away further and further from the original goal. In ancient Rome the mos
maiorum was above and beyond the law. Our compromise here is at best an
insult to that tradition. Do you honestly feel that once this law has
been implemented, it will not set a precendent to the future and
continued subversion of the ancient tradition? How much should be
compromised away before the cultural heart of ancient Rome is completely
traded away?

Respectfully,

M. Cornelius Gualterus

M Arminius Maior wrote:

> 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
>
>
> 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] Possible Misquote, Gen-hopping Fee
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:56:57 -0400

I did. :o)

- M. Cornelius Gualterus

Chantal G. Whittington wrote:

> 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
>
>
> 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] Sententiae Praetoris
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:00:03 -0400

Salve,

Well spoken, and I agree. My impressions of what this organization is for
and why it is here are being challenged (for the first time, being a
new-comer), and I think the question is something that must be
addressed, reaching a consensus... in the not-so-distant future.

- M. Cornelius Gualterus

Fortunatus wrote:

> T Labienus Fortunatus Praetor Quiritibus SPD
>
> I have just returned from an eleven-hour day to roughly three hundred
> messages in my inbox, and am short-changing my daughter (the third
> natural-born civis Novoromanus, BTW) on face-time in order to write
> this, so I shall address a number of issues in this one message.
>
> First, I offer my opinion of amending proposed laws during the contio.
> Considering that the historical contio did not have to occur within
> sight of the Gods in a templum or other sacred space, and considering
> Gellius' words, "It is clear that to treat with the people is one thing
> and to hold a contio is another. For to treat with the people is to ask
> the people something which by its votes it is either to order or to
> forbid; to hold a contio is to speak to the people without asking
> anything," and considering that no lex, senatusconsultum, edictum, or
> other Nova Roman legal document says otherwise, I find that it is legal
> to alter the text of a proposal during the contio.
>
> That said, I must say that care should be taken when doing so, in order
> that the people might have ample time to consider any changes that are
> made to a proposed law before they vote upon it. To do otherwise would,
> I hope, attract a veto.
>
> Second, this most recent discussion has seen from both sides a small
> reprise of the sort of unhealthy intransigence that reared its ugly head
> during the gender edictum debate (which many here are too new to
> remember), and the propaganda that accompanies such intransigence. I
> say propaganda because that is what the various diatribes about the
> dissolution of the modern family and the wrecking of Nova Roma, the
> allegations of improper personal agendas, and the bandying about of
> terms that are known to be inflammatory and offensive are. They appeal
> to emotion, fail to address the actual issue at hand, are often ad
> hominem attacks, and serve Concordia not at all.
>
> We Novoromani are a diverse lot. We are conservatives, liberals,
> communists, fascists, and everything in between. It is natural that we
> will not agree. Unfortunately, there is a human tendency to view our
> own opinions as certainly correct, and therefore to grow self-righteous.
> Once we do that, the opposition begins to seem, if not evil, then at
> least needlessly mean, obstinate, and stupid. I think this is in part
> due to the nature of Western politics, in which most of us only see the
> attack ads and headline-grabbing antics of our politicians, as opposed
> to the back-room dealing and compromise-reaching that is the productive
> side of the political process.
>
> In truth, we each arrive at our opinions through the same limited means,
> but have different predilictions and experiences. Understanding that,
> let us work very hard to understand the positions of those with which we
> disagree and attempt to find some middle ground. Our other option is a
> Nova Roma filled with old grudges, mistrust, and strife. Thank you, C
> Cassius Nerva, Cn Salix Tribunus, and others for understanding this and
> working toward a compromise.
>
> Third, some have suggested that the larger question at hand is how
> gentes are handled in Nova Roma. This doesn't go quite far enough.
> I've contended for nearly four years now that the central tension in
> Nova Roma is what to include of the new versus what to keep of the old.
> Or, as a former civis I greatly admired once asked, "Why Nova Roma?"
>
> Are we a reconstructionist organization, attempting to recreate the
> ancient Res Publica of a given era as much as possible as some grand
> experiment in living history? Are we instead a religious organization
> which institutes the Roman political system because it is impossible to
> properly honor the Gods without it? Are we a large group of people who
> band together because of a mutual interest in and respect for the
> ancient Romani? There are many, many other options, and I wouldn't be
> surprised if most of them are covered at least in part by our cives'
> expectations of Nova Roma. It is our collective answer to that central
> question, "Why Nova Roma?" that will decide what She is like in twenty
> years, assuming She survives us.
>
> Valete
>


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Labienus comments on Lex Octavia Salicia
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 02:05:29 -0000

Salve,

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

I do believe that is one thing we both agree about and I too fear
that that the next round is going to be unpleasant. Again I thank
you for keeping this discussion centered on legal theory and not
making it personal.

> This is only a problem if you assume macronational
jurisdiction should be
> used as a basis for our internal legal system.

Unfortunately at this time Nova Roma does not exist as a recognized
sovereign nation and we all remain subject to the laws of our
respective macronations and the Constitution of Nova Roma cedes this
as fact in II.B.2

>I find the legel status of impuberes unclear.

On that I will agree 100%! Nova Roma doesn't have a complete Civil
Code to clarify that status nor does the Constitution readily address
the issue except obliquely.

>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.
>

Now that is really murky waters into which we are treading.
Technically impuberes right to enter into a contractual relationship
is null and right of free association even less clear since legally
impuberes are subject to their parent(s)/guardian(s). I'm not sure
if any of the impuberes that are citizens have parent(s)/guardian(s)
that are not themselves Nova Romans. I'm sure if there is such a
case someone out there will tell us.

> 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.

> 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.

On that I think we can both agree that the wording is open to various
interpetations.

>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.

Maybe. However, how a tradition is honored can and does evolve over
time. Much of the "modern Western concept" of personal sovereignty
mirrors the rights and duties of the paterfamilias of the mos maiorum
having evolved through time and extended to others. Even the most
hard core traditionalist must grudgingly admit that even the old
Republic evolved over time. The question being did it fall because
it failed to evolve fast enough to keep up with society or did it
fall because it took a fatal "evolutionary path"?

Again I thank you for a stimulating exchange of views free of
personal attacks.

Pax,

Quintus Cassius Calvus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Sententiae Praetoris
From:	"Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:05:45 -0400

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus Civibus Novae Romae S.P.D.

Salve Cives,

As some of you know, I am not yet a citizen, although I will be soon. I have been watching the progress of Nova Roma for the past two years now, more closely in the more recent months. And although I am perhaps not rightfully involving myself in the affairs of the Republic, I have been doing so in the last few months, not without honor, hopefully, and I have also sat in silence on some issues, the one you have so vociferously spoken about as an example. I would like to point out the Praetor's final paragraph

"Are we a reconstructionist organization, attempting to recreate the ancient Res Publica of a given era as much as possible as some grand experiment in living history? Are we instead a religious organization which institutes the Roman political system because it is impossible to properly honor the Gods without it? Are we a large group of people who band together because of a mutual interest in and respect for the ancient Romani? There are many, many other options, and I wouldn't be surprised if most of them are covered at least in part by our cives' expectations of Nova Roma. It is our collective answer to that central question, "Why Nova Roma?" that will decide what She is like in twenty years, assuming She survives us."

I think we all need to stop for a moment and consider his inquisition. We should consider what the goals of Nova Roma truly are, and how to accomplish them. We should allow ourselves to be open to opinion contrary to our own, so that we may be a community of friends, and not of enemies. We should start working together as a people, instead of as this group and that group.

I know it is not my place to say that which I have here, but there is much to be done from here yet, I just hope to at least be a small part of it.

Bene Vale,

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus,
Peregrinus Novae Romae

"Semper Sapiens et Cogitans, ut Cras Meliores Omnes Simus"

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Digest Number 83
From:	jmath669642reng@webtv.net
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:31:48 -0400 (EDT)

Master L. Scicinius Drusus;

You are completely mistaken in the meaning of my post. I regret that
you have made the effort to twist the meaning as you have. The clarity
of the meaning of my message has been commented upon and I have recieved
the Senior Consul's compliments for it's content. Since the Senior
Consul has never been a person to jump to wild conclusions, I feel
perfectly at ease and satisfied in standing by my statements. Those who
know me know exactly what I meant, and those who would defeat this
measure will apparently stoop to any effort to assure thier success.

Regretfully;

Marcus Minucius Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Fees on frivolous gens hopping
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:17:09 EDT

In a message dated 7/30/02 12:42:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mcserapio@yahoo.it writes:

> 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?
>

Salvete.
Because of the Sovereignty Clause, the citizen would have to voluntarily
submit to the fee.
But if that could be agreed on I think it's a good idea.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus.

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Wondering about the gens system
From:	"rexmarciusnr" <RexMarcius@aol.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 03:18:33 -0000

Salve Honored Marcus Cornelius!

The "Why Nova Roma?" Question can be answered in several ways as was
so eloquently pointed out by Titus Labienus before. Nova Roma is many
things to many people.

However, Nova Roma is certainly not ancient Rome itself. Everyone
joining it should know after reading its constitution that it is
a "modern" restoration not a simple reproduction of the (late)
Republican period and that its laws and customs must not only
be "practical" but also "acceptable" from the point of view of today
(hence the equal rights for women, the prohibition of slavery etc.).

If I distill the discussion down to the core elements it seems to me
that what is in question is not whether the mos maiorum did or did
not include wide paterfamilias powers (it certainly did).

What we discuss is much more the extent to which the mos maiorum is
acceptable in a modern world, in which Nova Roma finds itself a part
in. And that is a very necessary and (in my mind) fruitful discussion
enlightening us about the worth and meaning of the Roman virtues and
the mos maiorum. It cannot simply be shut off by pointing to the old
customs as they were and it should certainly go on in the future when
other problems (or perceived problems) surface.

Ave et Vale

Marcus Marcius Rex

Post scriptum: Let me join Cassius Calvus in expressing my esteem for
your qualifications as legal expert and that you did not let this
descend into ad hominem attacks (ahich have a colourful history on
this list :-) ).

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

>
> Salve M. Arminius,
>
> You speak a noble sentiment, but you miss a major point behind the
> opposition to this law: deviation from Roman tradition and so
deviation
> from a reconstructionist effort. We shouldn't be here to recreate a
> society with Roman flavour and spirit, but to reconstruct the
ancient
> system as honestly as we practically can. If we're not strict about
this
> now, we won't be in the future... indeed, the fear is we'll simply
float
> away further and further from the original goal. In ancient Rome
the mos
> maiorum was above and beyond the law. Our compromise here is at
best an
> insult to that tradition. Do you honestly feel that once this law
has
> been implemented, it will not set a precendent to the future and
> continued subversion of the ancient tradition? How much should be
> compromised away before the cultural heart of ancient Rome is
completely
> traded away?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> M. Cornelius Gualterus
>
> M Arminius Maior wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Provincial Edictum - VIII - Worship and feasts on Provincia Brasilia
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 00:20:49 -0300 (ART)

Salvete Quirites

As Propraetor of Provincia Brasilia, i declare that i
recognize this message as an Provincial edict..
---
Como Propraetor da Prov�ncia Brasilia, declaro que
reconhe�o esta mensagem como um edito provincial.

Valete
Marcus Arminius Maior
Propraetor Brasiliae

Lucius Arminius Faustus <lafaustus@yahoo.com.br>
escreveu: >
> 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
=== message truncated ===

_______________________________________________________________________
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] Provincial Edictum - VIII - Worship and feasts on Provincia Brasilia
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 00:20:49 -0300 (ART)


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: fees and judicial system
From:	"africa_septentrionalis" <africa_septentrionalis@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 02:13:57 -0000

AVE MARCE CORNELI GVALTERE GRAECE

> Well, that is my being elastic, when comparing the desire
>
> by some to implement this "right" and the contradictory desire to
hold
>
> to tradition.

We both know that Novaroman have different opinions. That's yours.

> Perhaps if this issue was handled first the need for the currently
> proposed law would be obviated. At the very least, it would change
the
> character of the proposed law. So, it might make more sense to
handle
> the issue of sufficient acclimatization of new citizens first. The
> biggest difference I foresee if the acclimatization issue is
handled
> first is that a "first free hop" won't be needed because we won't
need
> to assume a civis was rushing and making uninformed and hasty
decisions.
> There won't be a need to change the "hopping" law after an
> "acclimatization" law is passed to get rid of the unnecessary free
hop.
> The whole process would be less convoluted. Reasonable, no?

Consider that relationships between people can change. e.g. I
carefully choose my future Pater/Materfamilias: we discuss together
and get on each other. I join his/her gens. After a year, after two
years, even after ten years, we do not get on more (because of any
reason: they could be a lot). As you see, I didn't make an uninformed
and hasty decision when joining his gens, but now I need to change it
all the same.
I am not saying that the "acclimatization law" would be useless. I am
saying that it wouldn't be as resolving as you think (for the reason
I just explained), and I wouldn't consider it at a priority level
compared to the "hopping law".
You won't agree with me.

VALE BENE
MANIVS-CONSTANTINVS-SERAPIO


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] A Classical Reading Plan
From:	"gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@cs.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 02:55:31 -0000

Salvete,

If you are like me, then you wish {1} that you were better
educated, and {2} would like to read in the ancient classics, but have
no idea where to begin, or you need some structure. If you are like
this, then this reading list may be of help for you.
This is a reading plan covering the age of Homer to Late Antiquity.
I made this list by comparing the syllabuses of some liberal arts
"Great Books" programs offered at St. Johns College, St. Thomas
Aquinas College, the Great Books of the Western World Ten Year Reading
Plan, and one or two other lists.

These books can be read in any order you like! The authors are
listed in a rough chronological order most of the time, with some
exceptions. I grouped the mathematical selections together and most
of the philosophy together. There is also a section of Jewish and
Christian writings.

A trained classicist may wonder why some books are not here, and
why others ARE here. But all I can say is that this is my reading
project for the next ten years or so, and that it is offered as a help
to any who may wish to join me. If you are interested, just print the
list out and have fun for a few years or more.

Gaius Cassius Nerva

HOMER
The Iliad, The Odyssey

AESCHYLUS
Prometheus Bound, Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, The Eumenides

SOPHOCLES
Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Colonus, Antigone, Ajax, Electra, Philoctetes

EURIPIDES
The Medea, Hippolytus, The Trojan Women, Electra, The Bacchae

ARISTOPHANES
The Clouds, The Birds, The Frogs, Lysistrata, The Poet and the Women,
The Assemblywomen, Wealth

HERODOTUS
The Histories

THUCYDIDES
The Peloponnesian War

PLATO
The Seventh Letter, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Meno, Theatetus, Ion, The
Symposium, Phaedrus, Sophist, Statesman, Gorgias, Philebus, Timaeus,
The Laws

ARISTOTLE
Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics,
Physics, Metaphysics, On The Soul, Nicomachean Ethics, Politics,
Rhetoric, On Poetics

HIPPOCRATES
The Oath, On Ancient Medicine, On Airs, Waters, and Places, The
Book of Prognostics, Of the Epidemics, The Law, On the Sacred Disease

GALEN
On The Natural Faculties

NICHOMACHUS OF GERASA
Introduction To Arithmetic

EUCLID
Elements {book 1}

ARCHIMEDES
Measurement of a Circle, On the Equilibrium of Planes {book 1} The
Sand-Reckoner,
On Floating Bodies {book 1}

APOLLONIUS OF PERGA
On Conic Sections, Book One, propositions 1-15, Book 3, propositions
42-55

PTOLEMY
The Almagest {Book 1, chapters 1-8}

EPICURUS
Letter To Herodotus, Letter to Menoeceus

LUCRETIUS
On the Nature of Things

EPICTETUS
The Enchiridion, Discourses

MARCUS AURELIUS
Meditations

PLOTINUS
The Six Enneads

VIRGIL
The Ecologues, The Aeneid

CICERO
The Second Philippic, On Duties, The Republic, On the Nature of the
Gods, On Divination

LIVY
The Early History of Rome

POLYBIUS
The Histories

SUETONIUS
Lives of the Twelve Caesars

TACITUS
The Annals, The Histories

PLUTARCH
Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans {selections}
Theseus
Romulus
Theseus and Romulus Compared
Lycurgus
Numa Pompilius
Lycurgus and Numa Compared
Solon
Pericles
Fabius
Pericles and Fabius Compared
Alcibiades
Coriolanus
Alcibiades and Coriolanus Compared
Aristides
Marcus Cato
Aristides and Cato Compared
Caius Marius
Sulla
Crassus
Pompey
Alexander
Caesar
Cato the Younger
Tiberius Gracchus
Caius Gracchus
Cicero
Antony
Marcus Brutus

JEWISH and CHRISTIAN WRITINGS
Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Amos, Micah, Isaiah, Lamentations,
Ezekiel, Psalms
The Gospel of Luke, Acts, The Gospel of John, The Letters of Paul
{Galatians, 1st Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philemon} The Letter
to the Hebrews, The Didache

AUGUSTINE
The Confessions

BOETHIUS
The Consolation of Philosophy


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:05:54 -0400

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus Senatui Populoque Romano S.P.D.

Salvete,

I have for some time been reading the posts here about the piece of legislation herein concerned. I have sliced and diced the words of this legislation, to each and every letter, to do my best as a Roman to understand its provisions and usage. I have also compared that to my own knowledge of what was the greatness of Rome, and Her ways and conduct, and I can conclude in agreement with the consul of the Cornelian family, which happens to be one distinguished not only in Roman history, but also in Nova Roman history, that this legislation disrespects not only our Ancestors, but also what I have understood to be the very foundations of Nova Roma.

As I understand it, Nova Roma was founded to be a modern reconstruction of Republican Rome. Nova Roma was founded to be as close a replica to the Roman Republic in every respect as it possibly could be, with some minor concessions to modern society. It is shown in our allowance of women to take part in everything men can, with the exception of those physical inallowances, and our lack of slaves, among other things, that we have made our concessions. And it was said, as I did above, that we would make minor concessions. But in this legislation, we make more than minor concessions to the family life of Nova Roma. In this legislation, we as a citizenry do more than make those minor concessions, we move into what modern society allows, and that is the leaving of a family. But in Rome, that could be done, it is true, but only in fully leaving the area to somewhere no one knew anything about you other than the fact that you appeared one morning with a name of your own and your belongings, looking for work and a place to live, where you could start your own family. But that wasn't something done often, because even the most dishonorable of families had some honor left in them, such that no one would go so far as to do the above. And even with an abusive paterfamilias, something could be done about it, but nothing in the way of this. If there is an abusive pater/materfamilias, I'm sure you all have access to e-mail. I am certain in that you all can e-mail a censor, or other magistrate, and correct the problem. But apparently this is not what hasn't been done. Because if it were, the proposal for this law wouldn't be necessary. What is needed instead is perhaps a procedure for investigating abusive patres/matresfamilies and removing them from their position as such. But not this legislation that violates the Roman morals which we are here to upkeep. I'd like to point you all to the page on Roman Virtues at http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/virtues.html. I'd like you all to read it once or twice more, and then reconsider this violatory and unneeded piece of insultation to the Roman State.

Bene Vale,

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus,
Peregrinus Novae Romae

"Semper Sapiens et Cogitans, ut Cras Meliores Omnes Simus"

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Digest Number 83
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:27:03 -0700 (PDT)

Fine, as long as it is an approved style,

Quirites I would like to remind you that the regimes
that Senator Audens mentioned in his earlier post
passed laws regulating Personal and Family
relationships, much like this law does. Do you want to
live in a nation where the state has the power to
regulate your personal and family relationships?

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- jmath669642reng@webtv.net wrote:
> Master L. Scicinius Drusus;
>
> You are completely mistaken in the meaning of my
> post. I regret that
> you have made the effort to twist the meaning as you
> have. The clarity
> of the meaning of my message has been commented upon
> and I have recieved
> the Senior Consul's compliments for it's content.
> Since the Senior
> Consul has never been a person to jump to wild
> conclusions, I feel
> perfectly at ease and satisfied in standing by my
> statements. Those who
> know me know exactly what I meant, and those who
> would defeat this
> measure will apparently stoop to any effort to
> assure thier success.
>
> Regretfully;
>
> Marcus Minucius Audens
>
>
>
> Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
>
>
>
http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary
>
>

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Objections to the filiusfamilias emancipation law.
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:28:37 EDT

In a message dated 7/30/02 1:55:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
hendrik.meuleman@pi.be writes:
Salve Marce Octavi
> 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".
>

First I'm a historian. So that does make me professional. Next playing
Roman probably wouldn't get us very far here in NR.
I'm more concerned about equally protecting the citizen, Nova Roma, and the
Paterfamilias.

> 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?
Again the lex is weighted heavier on the side of the filiusfamilius. I'd
rather see a balance.
According to your logic, abstaining would be the conclusion >
> one would draw.

Why would I abstain? I want the lex rewritten. Not passed.

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.
>

I agree. But why should we give all the power to the filiusfamilias and none
to the paterfamilius? After all we expect great things from them. Shouldn't
we protect them from
frivilious Gen hopping as well?

Q. Fabius Maximus

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Gens Hopping
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:06:53 -0700 (PDT)

There is one thing that will cut down on movement from
Gens to Gens. The Paters

I for one would turn down someone who asked to join my
Gens after he had left Two or Three other Gens. Why
would I expect him to remain in my Gens for any length
of time before he moved on again?

That is assuming that someone's "Right" to join my
Gens dosen't take precedence over my right to
disaprove them.

L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] A Classical Reading Plan
From:	"Amanda Bowen" <reason_prevails@hotmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:10:10 -0500

Salvete, omnes.

> A trained classicist may wonder why some books are not here, and
>why others ARE here. But all I can say is that this is my reading
>project for the next ten years or so, and that it is offered as a help
>to any who may wish to join me. If you are interested, just print the
>list out and have fun for a few years or more.

I'm no trained classicist, but I will throw in my $.02 on some of the books.
For those who dont wish to read my comments I have thrown in a few
suggestions and a link to some of the texts in HTML format at the bottom, so
just scroll down.

>AESCHYLUS
>Prometheus Bound, Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, The Eumenides

Some will know the latter three as the Oresteia. There is a good theatre
translation out, published by the University of Chicago Press. Well worth
your time.

>ARISTOPHANES
>The Clouds, The Birds, The Frogs, Lysistrata, The Poet and the Women,
>The Assemblywomen, Wealth

I laugh whenever I think of these. Wonderful satire- the height of Greek
comedy. For those of you who hate the dry, boring works of history, go with
these plays. The Knights is a favorite of mine.

>THUCYDIDES
>The Peloponnesian War

A lucid account of one of the most interesting wars of the Classical era.
Lovely prose... It might suffer under a bad translator depending upon
edition, but also well worth the time.

>PLATO
>The Seventh Letter, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Meno, Theatetus, Ion, The
>Symposium, Phaedrus, Sophist, Statesman, Gorgias, Philebus, Timaeus,
>The Laws

Or you could read The Republic and do all of Plato in one bang :)

>ARISTOTLE
>Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics,
>Physics, Metaphysics, On The Soul, Nicomachean Ethics, Politics,
>Rhetoric, On Poetics

The rhetoric is wonderful. Want to decimate your opponents in debate? Read
this. The metaphysics is good as well.

>MARCUS AURELIUS
>Meditations

Some will be able to get through these in one night. He brings up some
wonderful things to think about. Book 2 is my personal favorite. "Every
moment think steadily as a Roman and a man and do what thou hast in hand
with perfect and simple dignity..."

>VIRGIL
>The Ecologues, The Aeneid

Poor Dido *sniffle*

>CICERO
>The Second Philippic, On Duties, The Republic, On the Nature of the
>Gods, On Divination

Cicero didnt write The Republic- that was his student Plato. You do hear
many echoes of Cicero, however. Anything by this most noble of Romans is a
good investment.

>SUETONIUS
>Lives of the Twelve Caesars

Not amazingly trustworthy (at least to my view) but worth the read anyhow.

>BOETHIUS
>The Consolation of Philosophy

Some will hate it, and some will love it. For my part, I enjoyed it.

For those who are interested in war (or political propaganda for that
matter) dont forget Caesar's 'Gallic War' and 'Spanish War'. Dont forget
Sophocles, either.

The following page has links to almost all of the recommended authors:

http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/index.html

Saves a bit on bookstore bills and library fines.

I hope I've been able to offer something useful, or at least have been able
to refrain from boring the living daylights out of 99% of the populace.

Valete,

Drusilla Cornelia Crispina Orbiana

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Labienus comments on Lex Octavia Salicia
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 00:42:49 -0400

Salve,

> Unfortunately at this time Nova Roma does not exist as a recognized
> sovereign nation and we all remain subject to the laws of our
> respective macronations and the Constitution of Nova Roma cedes this
> as fact in II.B.2

The wording of II.B.2. seems to indicate being subject to the macronational

laws in the context of the macronation, no matter what their status might be

in NR. So, a person's status in NR might be such that they are able to
engage in contractual relationships within the context of NR and NR
cives, but that this would not be binding in the macronation. So,
institutions strictly limited within NR, such as a pater/family/member
relationship, could be framed to allow persons who would otherwise been
"minors" to enter into a contractual relationship *in* NR and only
binding to the civis as a NR citizen.. in other words, they can always
leave NR and that would be the end of it. But, that's all hypothetical,
because, as you have said, we don't have a Civil Code, so who knows how
this will be handled. But i do think it would be an interesting and
fruitful brainstorming session to begin thinking about constructing
unique contractual relationships within NR that could be used mimick
"power" status of members reflecting their historical standing in
soceity, and so aiding us in reconstructing the various dynamics of
ancient Roman tradition/society.

>>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.
>>
>>
>
> Now that is really murky waters into which we are treading.
> Technically impuberes right to enter into a contractual relationship
> is null and right of free association even less clear since legally
> impuberes are subject to their parent(s)/guardian(s). I'm not sure
> if any of the impuberes that are citizens have parent(s)/guardian(s)
> that are not themselves Nova Romans. I'm sure if there is such a
> case someone out there will tell us.

I think I address some of this in the above paragraph, and as I said,
it's all hypothetical at this point, but may be worth exploring as a
mechanism for reconstructing traditional power relationships.

>>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.
>>
>
> Maybe. However, how a tradition is honored can and does evolve over
> time. Much of the "modern Western concept" of personal sovereignty
> mirrors the rights and duties of the paterfamilias of the mos maiorum
> having evolved through time and extended to others. Even the most
> hard core traditionalist must grudgingly admit that even the old
> Republic evolved over time. The question being did it fall because
> it failed to evolve fast enough to keep up with society or did it
> fall because it took a fatal "evolutionary path"?

Sure, as all societies change, but we're trying to finish reconstruction
first, and then once done, we can begin evolving if we *really* want to.
Another way of putting it might be: we're still dressing to get to the
starting line... once there, we can begin the race :)

> Again I thank you for a stimulating exchange of views free of
> personal attacks.

Personal attacks would be completely unproductive - they just make
people more obstinate. Plus, I've been here such a short time, I don't
feel I have a right to build up so much moral superioty that I can feel
justified in insulting other cives... maybe in a few years :oP

- M. Cornelius Gualterus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Wondering about the gens system
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 01:12:17 -0400

Salve,

I agree that certain concessions must ultimately be made as we can not
restore all of the circumstances that made Roman society what it was,
however, our *tendency* should not be to default to a modern position,
but a traditional one. If we don't *have* to make a certain adjustment -
if a particular right doesn't *have* to be granted to make us acceptable
in a world community - then it shouldn't be. I do not feel our modern
notions of "acceptable" should be the position we default to when an
ambiguity or question occurs. A continuous process of critical analysis
of the traditions through the lens of modern moral, ethic, and social
sensibilities will only bring us to another modern society, stripped of
everything Roman. We advertize, on the main page as engaging in the
"restoration of ancient Roman culture" and "promoting Roman culture." I
see the precedent that would be created by the passage of the law as
running directly contrary to "ancient Roman culture."

This is all, of course, distinct from the more mundane opposition to the
law - that it is superfluous - and which I also hold.

Be that as it may, coming to a consensus of why we are here is of utmost
importance and should be resolved... soon.

- M. Cornelius Gualterus

rexmarciusnr wrote:

> Salve Honored Marcus Cornelius!
>
> The "Why Nova Roma?" Question can be answered in several ways as was
> so eloquently pointed out by Titus Labienus before. Nova Roma is many
> things to many people.
>
> However, Nova Roma is certainly not ancient Rome itself. Everyone
> joining it should know after reading its constitution that it is
> a "modern" restoration not a simple reproduction of the (late)
> Republican period and that its laws and customs must not only
> be "practical" but also "acceptable" from the point of view of today
> (hence the equal rights for women, the prohibition of slavery etc.).
>
> If I distill the discussion down to the core elements it seems to me
> that what is in question is not whether the mos maiorum did or did
> not include wide paterfamilias powers (it certainly did).
>
> What we discuss is much more the extent to which the mos maiorum is
> acceptable in a modern world, in which Nova Roma finds itself a part
> in. And that is a very necessary and (in my mind) fruitful discussion
> enlightening us about the worth and meaning of the Roman virtues and
> the mos maiorum. It cannot simply be shut off by pointing to the old
> customs as they were and it should certainly go on in the future when
> other problems (or perceived problems) surface.
>
> Ave et Vale
>
> Marcus Marcius Rex
>
> Post scriptum: Let me join Cassius Calvus in expressing my esteem for
> your qualifications as legal expert and that you did not let this
> descend into ad hominem attacks (ahich have a colourful history on
> this list :-) ).
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@y..., Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus
> <gualterus@e...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Salve M. Arminius,
>>
>>You speak a noble sentiment, but you miss a major point behind the
>>opposition to this law: deviation from Roman tradition and so
>>
> deviation
>
>>from a reconstructionist effort. We shouldn't be here to recreate a
>>society with Roman flavour and spirit, but to reconstruct the
>>
> ancient
>
>>system as honestly as we practically can. If we're not strict about
>>
> this
>
>>now, we won't be in the future... indeed, the fear is we'll simply
>>
> float
>
>>away further and further from the original goal. In ancient Rome
>>
> the mos
>
>>maiorum was above and beyond the law. Our compromise here is at
>>
> best an
>
>>insult to that tradition. Do you honestly feel that once this law
>>
> has
>
>>been implemented, it will not set a precendent to the future and
>>continued subversion of the ancient tradition? How much should be
>>compromised away before the cultural heart of ancient Rome is
>>
> completely
>
>>traded away?
>>
>>Respectfully,
>>
>>M. Cornelius Gualterus
>>
>>M Arminius Maior wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>>Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@y...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>>>
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> 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: fees and judicial system
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 01:50:02 -0400

Salve,

The scenario you describe would definitely be an uncomfortable one to be
found in, but, just like most people don't divorce their natural
parents, you shouldn't be so easily inclined to "hop," even if it was
after years of association. I already hear the retort in my mind that
some will immediately focus on: "but these aren't *real* families!" I
would agree that not all gentes in NR exhibit the type of social
cohesion and bonding that would grant the emotional quality of being in
a "family," but as a restoration of Roman culture, we should grant this
institution the same *respect* it is traditionally due. In accordance
with this, short of the circumstance of tyranny, all hops should incur a
fee. This seems like a reasonable compromise between the traditional
importance of the institution and the desire to have an "escape value."
The escape will be there, but short of the hop being motivated by an
injustice, it's use will be "punished" with a prohibitive fee. I think
it flies even if you disagree that an "acclimatization" law will handle
most, if not all, issues that will result in hops.

hmmm...

Here's another twist - only have the hopper incur the fee if he/she hops
without consent of the pater? This would grant further respect to the
instution and position of the pater, while allowing fewer instances in
which fees are incurred, because if past history is a good indicator,
most if not all issues will be amicably resolved with the pater giving
consent to leave. How about this? This would fit your scenario well,
because if the relationship you built with your gens was as developed as
your hypothetical scenario implies, then the pater will probably be
understanding and let you go. The fee can increase with each succeeding
hop that you take without the pater's consent. I think I may prefer this
variation over the previous pay-in-all-circumstances as it (in my
opinion) more efficiently encourages traditional behaviour and power
relationships while being less brutish in its approach.

- M. Cornelius Gualterus

africa_septentrionalis wrote:

> AVE MARCE CORNELI GVALTERE GRAECE
>
>
>>Well, that is my being elastic, when comparing the desire
>>
>>by some to implement this "right" and the contradictory desire to
>>
> hold
>
>>to tradition.
>>
>
> We both know that Novaroman have different opinions. That's yours.
>
>
>>Perhaps if this issue was handled first the need for the currently
>>proposed law would be obviated. At the very least, it would change
>>
> the
>
>>character of the proposed law. So, it might make more sense to
>>
> handle
>
>>the issue of sufficient acclimatization of new citizens first. The
>>biggest difference I foresee if the acclimatization issue is
>>
> handled
>
>>first is that a "first free hop" won't be needed because we won't
>>
> need
>
>>to assume a civis was rushing and making uninformed and hasty
>>
> decisions.
>
>> There won't be a need to change the "hopping" law after an
>>"acclimatization" law is passed to get rid of the unnecessary free
>>
> hop.
>
>>The whole process would be less convoluted. Reasonable, no?
>>
>
> Consider that relationships between people can change. e.g. I
> carefully choose my future Pater/Materfamilias: we discuss together
> and get on each other. I join his/her gens. After a year, after two
> years, even after ten years, we do not get on more (because of any
> reason: they could be a lot). As you see, I didn't make an uninformed
> and hasty decision when joining his gens, but now I need to change it
> all the same.
> I am not saying that the "acclimatization law" would be useless. I am
> saying that it wouldn't be as resolving as you think (for the reason
> I just explained), and I wouldn't consider it at a priority level
> compared to the "hopping law".
> You won't agree with me.
>
> 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] Q about BC 155
From:	"tomaszjanpotocki" <tomaszjanpotocki@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:20:02 -0000

Noble Senators, Romans, Friends

In BC 155 Marcus Portius Cato led the Senate in a rightful expulsion of
some Cynic philosophers (supposedly Greek, but really Alexandrine)
because they preached nihilistic and socially relativitic theories of
value. I am trying to find out more about the case. Can you point me to
a good reference material on the case? Is there perhaps something
on the internet about it?

Most humbly yours
Tom Potocki (aka Gnaeus Geminius Fluvianus)
pls respond to: tomaszjanpotocki@yahoo.com


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Hopping
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 01:55:52 -0400

Salve,

Good point!

Also, II.D.3 gives the paterfamilias the power to reject and eject
applicants and members, respectively, so it would work.

- M. Cornelius Gualterus

L. Sicinius Drusus wrote:

> There is one thing that will cut down on movement from
> Gens to Gens. The Paters
>
> I for one would turn down someone who asked to join my
> Gens after he had left Two or Three other Gens. Why
> would I expect him to remain in my Gens for any length
> of time before he moved on again?
>
> That is assuming that someone's "Right" to join my
> Gens dosen't take precedence over my right to
> disaprove them.
>
> 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:	[Nova-Roma] Africa Septentrionalis = Manius Constantinus Serapio
From:	"mcserapio" <mcserapio@yahoo.it>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:55:17 -0000

AVETE OMNES

I am sorry, africa_septentrionalis is the account I am using for
another work. When I answered to Marcus Cornelius Gualterus' message
I forgot to sign out and sign in again as mcserapio.
I apologize!

VALETE BENE
MANIVS-CONSTANTINVS-SERAPIO


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Fees on frivolous gens hopping
From:	"mcserapio" <mcserapio@yahoo.it>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:59:46 -0000

AVE OPTIME SENATOR QVINTE FABI MAXIME

> Salvete.
> Because of the Sovereignty Clause, the citizen would have to
voluntarily
> submit to the fee.
> But if that could be agreed on I think it's a good idea.

I agree with you. Obviously we wouldn't impose a fee to anybody. We
say "you want to change your gens without a real need? Ok, you are
free to chose of doing it paying a fee" or, if it sound better,
a "tax".

VALE
MANIVS-CONSTANTINVS-SERAPIO


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: fees and judicial system
From:	"mcserapio" <mcserapio@yahoo.it>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 11:38:11 -0000

AVE MARCE CORNELI GVALTERE GRAECE

> The scenario you describe would definitely be an uncomfortable one
to be
> found in, but, just like most people don't divorce their natural
> parents, you shouldn't be so easily inclined to "hop," even if it
was
> after years of association. I already hear the retort in my mind
that
> some will immediately focus on: "but these aren't *real* families!"

Well, you said it yourself.

> Here's another twist - only have the hopper incur the fee if he/she
hops
> without consent of the pater?

Gualtere, I can see your point of view. You say "If a hopping is
frivolous, it is frivolous always, the first time as well as the
29th." Should the People of nova Roma chose this line, I wouldn't
march against this decision. It is formally correct.
I just think that our Res Publica is still growing; Nova Roma's
People is very young. I believe that under present conditions this
law should be a little bit more accomodating.
We can't create Patres' authority with a law: it would be merely
uncertain. It will be the time that will create the authority of a
person within a group of people. Only this one will be an
historically faithful authority, because it will be *real*.
When this feature will be better clarified by time's work, we will be
able to make it really count if violated.

VALE BENE
MANIVS-CONSTANTINVS-SERAPIO


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Hopping
From:	"mcserapio" <mcserapio@yahoo.it>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 11:45:12 -0000

AVE LVCI SICINI DRVSE

> The Paters
> I for one would turn down someone who asked to join my
> Gens after he had left Two or Three other Gens. Why
> would I expect him to remain in my Gens for any length
> of time before he moved on again?
>
> That is assuming that someone's "Right" to join my
> Gens dosen't take precedence over my right to
> disaprove them.

I agree with you. Well, that is another good reason for including a
clause stating that one need the "new" Pater/Materfamilias's approval
*before* leaving his actual gens. At present the proposed lex doesn't
provide it, but I think Tribunus Salix Astur is dealing with this
matter.

VALE BENE
MANIVS-CONSTANTINVS-SERAPIO


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Familae et Gentes
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	31 Jul 2002 09:15:25 -0300

Salve,

More I read about this and more is it obvious that our main problem is
not having families here in NR.

Since we use Roman Names we must have gentes. No way around this.
A prospective citizen has all time he wants to choose his gentilice
for whatever reasons. There should be no reason at all for changing
gentilice in the future.

The trouble comes because with the name, the new citizen also chooses a
"paterfamilias" he knows little or nothing about, and with whom he
possibly disagrees on about everything (philosophy,moral,politics, or
worse soccer team:) ). And this choice is hardly a reasonned choice, you
need a lot of time to get to really know a person, specially when your
only relations with him are via e-mail.

The figure of the "paterfamilias gentis" is not historical and one
cannot invoke the Mos Maiorum for defending its powers, the opponents to
the Lex Octavia Salicia are very aware of it, since in all of their
posts they try to assimilate Gens with Familia. This is not in our
constitution, it is an interpretation.
Some gentes work as familiae, most don't and since nothing forces a gens
to work like a family the "mos maiorum" should not apply here.

Wouldn't the following system be better for all?
1) Removal of the figure of "paterfamilas gentis", changed to a
"patergentis" with little power: acceptance of new citizens in his gens,
only.
2) Creation of families, inside the gentes, with a Paterfamilias with
extended powers.
3) No citizen is forced to belong to a familiae, joining can only be
voluntary, expressed through the mechanism of adrogatio/adoptio. A few
month period is necessary between the letter of intend adrressed to the
censors and the effective adoption. As a transitory measure, actual
citizens that are citizens for more then this period can immediately opt
to be a member of their former "paterfamilias gentis".
4) No citizen can change gens without this mechanism of adoption. If he
was not a member of a family he needs to be adopted by one from another
gens. If he was a member of a family an agreement must be found between
his current paterfamilias and his prospective one.

Unfortunately, this type of law can only be proposed by the consuls.

Vale,

Manius Villius Limitanus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Why Nova Roma?
From:	Patricia Cassia <pcassia@novaroma.org>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:22:43 -0400

An excellent question, Titus Labienus, expressed with your usual good
sense.

I believe that it should be possible for people of many different
interests and goals to be included in Nova Roma, to participate and
contribute and receive something in return. The proliferation of
Sodalitates (have I got the plural right?) is one example of this.
Another is the (healthy) tension between those who put land ownership
first as a goal for NR, and those (I am one) who would prefer to see NR
funding scholarships and contributing to the preservation of ancient
sites.

It is the job of our magistrates to balance these conflicts and, using
both knowledge of ancient practice and of modern practical
considerations. We do adapt the practices of the past so that our nation
may survive and thrive. This is ENTIRELY consistent with the Roman
spirit!

It is not an easy job, nor was it easy to be a magistrate in the ancient
world. May Minerva bless us all with the wisdom to vote wisely and
govern well.

-----
Patricia Cassia
Senatrix et Sacerdos Minervalis
Nova Roma . pcassia@novaroma.org


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Hopping
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:33:38 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Luci Sicini,

> I for one would turn down someone who asked to join my
> Gens after he had left Two or Three other Gens. Why
> would I expect him to remain in my Gens for any length
> of time before he moved on again?

Good point; this, in addition to the limitations
suggested by Nerva, will all but eliminate frivolous
changes.

> That is assuming that someone's "Right" to join my
> Gens dosen't take precedence over my right to
> disaprove them.

I'm not aware that anyone has suggested a right to join
a gens over the protestations of the paterfamilias. I would
certainly vote against such a thing, if it were proposed.

Vale, Octavius.

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Hopping
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 05:59:59 -0700 (PDT)

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
wrote:
> Salve Luci Sicini,
>
> > I for one would turn down someone who asked to
> join my
> > Gens after he had left Two or Three other Gens.
> Why
> > would I expect him to remain in my Gens for any
> length
> > of time before he moved on again?
>
> Good point; this, in addition to the limitations
> suggested by Nerva, will all but eliminate frivolous
> changes.
>
> > That is assuming that someone's "Right" to join my
> > Gens dosen't take precedence over my right to
> > disaprove them.
>
> I'm not aware that anyone has suggested a right to
> join
> a gens over the protestations of the paterfamilias.
> I would
> certainly vote against such a thing, if it were
> proposed.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>
>
No one has sugested it yet, but I can eaisly see a
future "Civil Rights" campaign to limit the Paters
ability to reject canidates to prevent discrimination
against some groups. Once that passed I'm in a quandry
if a Gens Hopper is a member of a minority that can
accuse me of discrimination. Depending on how the lex
is worded it may be less trouble to tolarate the Gens
Hopper for a time than it would be to fight a
discrimanation charge.

The introduction of modern concepts today creates a
precedent for more more modern concepts tomorrow.

L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Translation of Lex Vedia de Assidui et Capite Censi into Portuguese
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Lucius=20Arminius=20Faustus?= <lafaustus@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:00:14 -0300 (ART)

Salvete,

While the flames of Leges Salicias (I�ve written Salicas in my last post - Leges Salicas were in the Middle Ages! ) are going down, I present you the translation of the less popular lex of all times, Lex Vedia de Assidui et Capite Censi.

A html version is available at my office: http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/lafaustus/trad/lexvediaacc.html

But only some comments. Very funny the comparison. That struggle between our two consules Sulla and Octavius remember the struggle between Consules Octavius and Cinna on the real Rome. But now Sulla is Octavius and Octavius is Cinna.

And the partisants of Cinna have butchered Octavius on the Senate. We will not going to do that, but some attacks against Sulla make me fear for worse. Let�s be more fair-playing on the list!

(And if it was not Cinna, was Carbo - doesn�t matter at all)

But I have woll-gathering a lot... let�s going to the Lex...

LEX VEDIA DE ASSIDUI ET CAPITI CENSI

I. Esta Lex Vedia de assidui et capiti censi � agora is outorgada para definir a classifica��o dos pagantes de imposto e n�o-pagantes, e coloc�-los em condi��es especiais por estarem inaptos ou n�o-desejosos de contribuir para o bem financeiro da Rep�blica atrav�s do pagamento de impostos que podem ser promulgadas pelo Senado.
II. Cidad�os que pagam taxas no valor e da maneira definida pelo Senado ser�o considerados Assidui. Nenhuma condi��o especial ser� dada aos assidui apesar de sua coloca��o nas cent�rias ou tribos, ou bem como por sua habilidade em concorrer ou deter algum cargo.
III. Cidad�os que n�o pagam taxas no montante e na forma que o Senado determinar dever�o ser considerados capiti censi. As seguintes condi��es especiais ser�o aplicadas aos capite censi:

A. Os Censores colocar�o todos os capiti censi na �ltima cent�ria na Classe V como definida na Lex Vedia Centuriata (e pelas outras leis que a emendam) e nenhum outro cidad�o pode ser inscrito nesta cent�ria.
B. Os Censores colocar�o todos os capiti censi nas Tribos Urbanas como como definida na Lex Vedia Centuriata (e pelas outras leis que a emendam).
C. Nenhum membro dos capiti censi pode concorrer ou manter um cargo como um dos ordin�rios (includindo os apparitores), nem ser apontado ou manter um cargo como governador provincial. Membros dos capite censi podem deter cargos provinciais ou locais a discri��o do governador da prov�ncia em quest�o.

Aprovado pelo Com�cio das Tribos Populares, Sim-21; N�o-14

20 de Maio de MMDCCLIV

Salvete,

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] Questions on meanings and other things
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Craig=20Stevenson?= <gaiussentius@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 23:14:27 +1000 (EST)

Salve omnes,

I have been looking for a long time now for the
meaning of the name "Vandal". I have heard it said to
mean "the brave ones" and "the wanderers", but I don't
know. Is there anyone at all out there who can help me
with this?

Also, when were Rhodes and the Balaeric Islands
annexed into the Roman Empire?

Thanks in advance.

Vale bene,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

http://digital.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Digital How To
- Get the best out of your PC!


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Provincia Australia - Edictum Propraetoricum III - Appointment of Legatii and Scriba
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Craig=20Stevenson?= <gaiussentius@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 23:34:48 +1000 (EST)

Concerning the appointment of Legatii for certain
regios of Australia Provincia, as well as the
appointment of a scriba to serve the governor.

Ex Officio Propraetoris Australia

I) I hereby appoint Livilla Cassia as the Legatus of
the regio Australia Orientalis Superior.

II) I hereby re-appoint Marcus Sentius Claudius as the
Legatus of the regio Australia Austrorientalis.

III) I hereby appoint as my Scriba Marcus Flavius
Aurelius.

The aforementioned civies will have to swear the oath
of office before they can assume their roles in the
provincia. The template for the oath can be found at
(http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/lex99191002.html)

Other edicta shall be issued if other officers are to
be appointed in future.

This edicta is issued on the 1st of Sextilis.

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

Governor Propraetore Australia Provincia

http://digital.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Digital How To
- Get the best out of your PC!


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Classical Reading Plan
From:	"gaiuspopilliuslaenas" <ksterne@bellsouth.net>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:30:59 -0000

Salve Gai Cassi,

Greta list. Thank you for posting it.

Vale,
Gaiud Popillius Laenas


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Hopping
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Hirtius=20Helveticus?=" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 15:48:01 +0200 (CEST)

Salvete Quirites

--- mcserapio <mcserapio@yahoo.it> wrote:
<snip>
> I agree with you. Well, that is another good
> reason for including a
> clause stating that one need the "new"
> Pater/Materfamilias's approval
> *before* leaving his actual gens. At present the
> proposed lex doesn't
> provide it, but I think Tribunus Salix Astur is
> dealing with this
> matter.

I am pleased to note that I am obviously not the only
one pointing out this fact! But I am sure our tribunus
plebis Salx Astur will in fact consider this and
implement it in the revised version of the lex. If
this will be the case, I will drop my opposition and
support the lex - as I pointed out already.

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] Re: A Classical Reading Plan
From:	"tlfortunatus" <labienus@texas.net>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:09:24 -0000

Salvete Gai Cassi omnesque

> ARISTOPHANES
> The Clouds, The Birds, The Frogs, Lysistrata, The Poet and the
> Women, The Assemblywomen, Wealth

I'd also add The Wasps, which is an interesting look at Athenian
democracy as well as downright hilarious.

> ARISTOTLE
> Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics,
> Physics, Metaphysics, On The Soul, Nicomachean Ethics, Politics,
> Rhetoric, On Poetics

I also recommend On the Parts of Animals. It's not particularly
central to understanding Aristotle, but I found it to be a
fascinating insight into ancient notions of biology.

> LUCRETIUS
> On the Nature of Things

If you read no other works of Roman poetry, read this and the Aeneid.

> EPICTETUS
> The Enchiridion, Discourses
>
> MARCUS AURELIUS
> Meditations

Let us not forget Seneca's letters. They can usually be found
collected into volumes these days. If memory serves, the Penguin
Classics version is quite good and entitled something like, "Letters
of a Stoic".

> CICERO
> The Second Philippic, On Duties, The Republic, On the Nature of
> the Gods, On Divination

Do note that Cicero's Republic is not the same as Plato's!

> LIVY
> The Early History of Rome

Otherwise known as "Ab Urbe Condita". I'd also suggest reading
Appian, who wrote the only surviving continuous history of the period
from the Gracchi to the annexation of Egypt.

And, I'd also add Petronius' Satyricon and the works of Plautus,
Ovid, and Martial. The Romans weren't all philosophers, warriors, or
politicians.

And, if you've got the money, always go for the latest edition of the
Loeb Classical Library's translation of any work. They're excellent,
and they print the original text opposite its English translation.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Hopping
From:	"rexmarciusnr" <RexMarcius@aol.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:32:42 -0000

In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
>
> No one has sugested it yet, but I can eaisly see a
> future "Civil Rights" campaign to limit the Paters
> ability to reject canidates to prevent discrimination
> against some groups.

snip
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>

Gosh, Luci!

you might be right, such a danger does exist:

They would probably want something like this:

Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender,
religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.

And damned, those cursed framers even put it in the constitution!

;-)

Marcus Marcius Rex

P.S.: On a more serious note, one could see it as an abuse of
paterfamilias power if a rejection was solely based on the grounds
mentioned in the constitution (see above), but I guess no one, even
those fighting for the "freedom to leave", seriously doubts that a
pater/materfamilias has the power of rejection at his discretion and
the power to expel at his discretion because this is what the
Constitution says (with no ambiguity whatsoever at least as far as I
can see). No simple lex can change that.


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: A Classical Reading Plan
From:	"rexmarciusnr" <RexMarcius@aol.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:39:30 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "Amanda Bowen" <reason_prevails@h...> wrote:
> Salvete, omnes.
>
> The following page has links to almost all of the recommended
authors:
>
> http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/index.html
>
> Valete,
>
> Drusilla Cornelia Crispina Orbiana
>

It may also be worth noting that we have a Camenaeum at our own
website

http://www.novaroma.org/camenaeum/

which also has a few links

(which obviously need some updates and additions)

MMR


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Familae et Gentes
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:43:54 -0700 (PDT)

--- Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br> wrote:
> Salve,
>
> More I read about this and more is it obvious that
> our main problem is
> not having families here in NR.
>
> Since we use Roman Names we must have gentes. No way
> around this.
> A prospective citizen has all time he wants to
> choose his gentilice
> for whatever reasons. There should be no reason at
> all for changing
> gentilice in the future.

DRUSUS: I Would like to see a status created for these
prospective citizens. Let them become part of Nova
Roma as a Latinus, a holder of the Latin Rights. They
wouldn't belong to a Gens or a Family. They wouldn't
have a vote. They wouldn't be taxed. This would give a
Latinus a chance to become familiar with Nova Roma,
It's Gens, Families, and Paters before making a choice
of Gens membership, and give Paters a chance to see if
the Latinus is someone who would fit into their Gens.
I Would suggest a minium period of 3 months as a
Latinus brfore someone was eligible for citizenship.
There may even be people without political ambitions
who would prefer to retain this status.
>
> The trouble comes because with the name, the new
> citizen also chooses a
> "paterfamilias" he knows little or nothing about,
> and with whom he
> possibly disagrees on about everything
> (philosophy,moral,politics, or
> worse soccer team:) ). And this choice is hardly a
> reasonned choice, you
> need a lot of time to get to really know a person,
> specially when your
> only relations with him are via e-mail.
>
> The figure of the "paterfamilias gentis" is not
> historical and one
> cannot invoke the Mos Maiorum for defending its
> powers, the opponents to
> the Lex Octavia Salicia are very aware of it, since
> in all of their
> posts they try to assimilate Gens with Familia. This
> is not in our
> constitution, it is an interpretation.
> Some gentes work as familiae, most don't and since
> nothing forces a gens
> to work like a family the "mos maiorum" should not
> apply here.

DRUSUS: Vedius wrote the Constitution but did a poor
job of distingushing between Gens and Families. The
selection of the title "Paterfamilis" for the head of
a Gens, and the way he limited membership in his own
Gens to his immediate family shows there was an intent
to have a Gens and a Family mean the same thing, at
least in the case of a Gens that considered itself a
family. The failure to clearly distingush between Gens
and Families is the reason we have widely varrying
outlooks on this Lex. Both sides have reasons to back
thier view of what our poorly defined Gens are.

We need to set a clear legal definition of the Gens
and the Family before we start passing Leges that
regulate them. Passing a Lex now ammounts to trying to
paint a house before you finish building it.
>
> Wouldn't the following system be better for all?
> 1) Removal of the figure of "paterfamilas gentis",
> changed to a
> "patergentis" with little power: acceptance of new
> citizens in his gens,
> only.

DRUSUS:There is no reason for this postion. any of the
Paterfamilii within a Gens are capable of approving a
new Family (Which would be Plebian regardless of Order
of the Paterfamilis)

> 2) Creation of families, inside the gentes, with a
> Paterfamilias with
> extended powers.
> 3) No citizen is forced to belong to a familiae,

DRUSUS:That is a matter best left to the Pater(s) of a
Gens

> joining can only be
> voluntary, expressed through the mechanism of
> adrogatio/adoptio. A few
> month period is necessary between the letter of
> intend adrressed to the
> censors and the effective adoption. As a transitory
> measure, actual
> citizens that are citizens for more then this period
> can immediately opt
> to be a member of their former "paterfamilias
> gentis".
> 4) No citizen can change gens without this mechanism
> of adoption. If he
> was not a member of a family he needs to be adopted
> by one from another
> gens. If he was a member of a family an agreement
> must be found between
> his current paterfamilias and his prospective one.
>
> Unfortunately, this type of law can only be proposed
> by the consuls.
>
> Vale,
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus
>
>

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Hopping
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:59:44 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Luci Sicini,

> No one has sugested it yet, but I can eaisly see a
> future "Civil Rights" campaign to limit the Paters
> ability to reject canidates to prevent discrimination
> against some groups.

If it happens, I'll oppose it as fervently as you will - and I
think many of my allies with regard to the current issue would
as well.

We're doing this because we believe that a relationship that
was voluntarily entered into should be allowed to be terminated
at will by either party. That is the fundamental principle of
the Lex Octavia Salicia.

Limiting the rights of a paterfamilias to reject an applicant
would be completely in opposition to the spirit of the Lex Octavia
Salicia.

Vale, Octavius.

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Hopping
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:18:38 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: L. Sicinius Drusus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Hopping

--- rexmarciusnr <RexMarcius@aol.com> wrote:
> In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Sicinius Drusus"
> <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> >
> > No one has sugested it yet, but I can eaisly see a
> > future "Civil Rights" campaign to limit the Paters
> > ability to reject canidates to prevent
> discrimination
> > against some groups.
>
> snip
> >
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
> >
>
> Gosh, Luci!
>
> you might be right, such a danger does exist:
>
> They would probably want something like this:
>
> Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic
> heritage, gender,
> religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.
>
> And damned, those cursed framers even put it in the
> constitution!
>
> ;-)
>
> Marcus Marcius Rex
>
> P.S.: On a more serious note, one could see it as an
> abuse of
> paterfamilias power if a rejection was solely based
> on the grounds
> mentioned in the constitution (see above), but I
> guess no one, even
> those fighting for the "freedom to leave", seriously
> doubts that a
> pater/materfamilias has the power of rejection at
> his discretion and
> the power to expel at his discretion because this is
> what the
> Constitution says (with no ambiguity whatsoever at
> least as far as I
> can see). No simple lex can change that.
>
I Have seen Macronational laws that set a quotas, and
a legal system where an accusor can start a costly law
suit on no more grounds than stating "He Fired me
because I'm _______", and the accused has to spend
time and money defending himself against an accusation
that has no merit.

L. Sicinius Drusus

Avete Omnes,

I sued my former employer because they fired me because I am Jewish. I had it in writing, from the President of the College. And I sued under grounds of violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991. In other words, with the way our Constitution is written this is just a problem waiting to happen.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Hopping
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:10:52 -0700 (PDT)

--- rexmarciusnr <RexMarcius@aol.com> wrote:
> In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Sicinius Drusus"
> <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> >
> > No one has sugested it yet, but I can eaisly see a
> > future "Civil Rights" campaign to limit the Paters
> > ability to reject canidates to prevent
> discrimination
> > against some groups.
>
> snip
> >
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
> >
>
> Gosh, Luci!
>
> you might be right, such a danger does exist:
>
> They would probably want something like this:
>
> Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic
> heritage, gender,
> religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.
>
> And damned, those cursed framers even put it in the
> constitution!
>
> ;-)
>
> Marcus Marcius Rex
>
> P.S.: On a more serious note, one could see it as an
> abuse of
> paterfamilias power if a rejection was solely based
> on the grounds
> mentioned in the constitution (see above), but I
> guess no one, even
> those fighting for the "freedom to leave", seriously
> doubts that a
> pater/materfamilias has the power of rejection at
> his discretion and
> the power to expel at his discretion because this is
> what the
> Constitution says (with no ambiguity whatsoever at
> least as far as I
> can see). No simple lex can change that.
>
I Have seen Macronational laws that set a quotas, and
a legal system where an accusor can start a costly law
suit on no more grounds than stating "He Fired me
because I'm _______", and the accused has to spend
time and money defending himself against an accusation
that has no merit.

L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	RE: [Nova-Roma] A Classical Reading Plan
From:	Jenny Harris <J.Harris@awgais.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:44:44 -0600

Ave,

Nerva, I really like this. And if no one minds at all, I'd like to add the
suggestion. It's sketchy I will add, and please forgive me the lack of sleep
and caffeine have caught up with me. Is it possible to add this to the
Musarum? And I believe Drusilla Cornelia also added a few additions,
Perhaps with little intro's and what nots.. It was something that popped up
in my head and thought I'd share.

Vale Bene,
Aeternia

-----Original Message-----
From: gcassiusnerva [mailto:gcassiusnerva@cs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 8:56 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] A Classical Reading Plan

Salvete,

If you are like me, then you wish {1} that you were
better
educated, and {2} would like to read in the ancient
classics, but have
no idea where to begin, or you need some structure. If you
are like
this, then this reading list may be of help for you.
This is a reading plan covering the age of Homer to Late
Antiquity.
I made this list by comparing the syllabuses of some
liberal arts
"Great Books" programs offered at St. Johns College, St.
Thomas
Aquinas College, the Great Books of the Western World Ten
Year Reading
Plan, and one or two other lists.

These books can be read in any order you like! The
authors are
listed in a rough chronological order most of the time, with
some
exceptions. I grouped the mathematical selections together
and most
of the philosophy together. There is also a section of
Jewish and
Christian writings.

A trained classicist may wonder why some books are not
here, and
why others ARE here. But all I can say is that this is my
reading
project for the next ten years or so, and that it is offered
as a help
to any who may wish to join me. If you are interested, just
print the
list out and have fun for a few years or more.

Gaius Cassius Nerva

HOMER
The Iliad, The Odyssey

AESCHYLUS
Prometheus Bound, Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, The
Eumenides

SOPHOCLES
Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Colonus, Antigone, Ajax,
Electra, Philoctetes

EURIPIDES
The Medea, Hippolytus, The Trojan Women, Electra, The
Bacchae

ARISTOPHANES
The Clouds, The Birds, The Frogs, Lysistrata, The Poet and
the Women,
The Assemblywomen, Wealth

HERODOTUS
The Histories

THUCYDIDES
The Peloponnesian War

PLATO
The Seventh Letter, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Meno, Theatetus,
Ion, The
Symposium, Phaedrus, Sophist, Statesman, Gorgias, Philebus,
Timaeus,
The Laws

ARISTOTLE
Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, Posterior
Analytics,
Physics, Metaphysics, On The Soul, Nicomachean Ethics,
Politics,
Rhetoric, On Poetics

HIPPOCRATES
The Oath, On Ancient Medicine, On Airs, Waters, and
Places, The
Book of Prognostics, Of the Epidemics, The Law, On the
Sacred Disease

GALEN
On The Natural Faculties

NICHOMACHUS OF GERASA
Introduction To Arithmetic

EUCLID
Elements {book 1}

ARCHIMEDES
Measurement of a Circle, On the Equilibrium of Planes {book
1} The
Sand-Reckoner,
On Floating Bodies {book 1}

APOLLONIUS OF PERGA
On Conic Sections, Book One, propositions 1-15, Book 3,
propositions
42-55

PTOLEMY
The Almagest {Book 1, chapters 1-8}

EPICURUS
Letter To Herodotus, Letter to Menoeceus

LUCRETIUS
On the Nature of Things

EPICTETUS
The Enchiridion, Discourses

MARCUS AURELIUS
Meditations

PLOTINUS
The Six Enneads

VIRGIL
The Ecologues, The Aeneid

CICERO
The Second Philippic, On Duties, The Republic, On the
Nature of the
Gods, On Divination

LIVY
The Early History of Rome

POLYBIUS
The Histories

SUETONIUS
Lives of the Twelve Caesars

TACITUS
The Annals, The Histories

PLUTARCH
Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans {selections}
Theseus
Romulus
Theseus and Romulus Compared
Lycurgus
Numa Pompilius
Lycurgus and Numa Compared
Solon
Pericles
Fabius
Pericles and Fabius Compared
Alcibiades
Coriolanus
Alcibiades and Coriolanus Compared
Aristides
Marcus Cato
Aristides and Cato Compared
Caius Marius
Sulla
Crassus
Pompey
Alexander
Caesar
Cato the Younger
Tiberius Gracchus
Caius Gracchus
Cicero
Antony
Marcus Brutus

JEWISH and CHRISTIAN WRITINGS
Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Amos, Micah, Isaiah,
Lamentations,
Ezekiel, Psalms
The Gospel of Luke, Acts, The Gospel of John, The Letters of
Paul
{Galatians, 1st Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philemon}
The Letter
to the Hebrews, The Didache

AUGUSTINE
The Confessions

BOETHIUS
The Consolation of Philosophy


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Digest Number 83
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:46:53 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Luci Sicini,

> Quirites I would like to remind you that the regimes
> that Senator Audens mentioned in his earlier post
> passed laws regulating Personal and Family
> relationships, much like this law does. Do you want to
> live in a nation where the state has the power to
> regulate your personal and family relationships?

This lex does no such thing. You may have whatever family and
personal relationships you wish; you may not, however, force those
on another person.

I find it utterly disgusting that you would twist and distort
a law that grants freedom and removes inequality and try to cast it
as some sort of totalitarian interference.

We are not regulating relationships here. We are providing an
escape route for persons who want no part of your relationships.

Vale, Octavius.

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Hopping
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:52:42 -0700 (PDT)

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
wrote:
> Salve Luci Sicini,
>
> > No one has sugested it yet, but I can eaisly see a
> > future "Civil Rights" campaign to limit the Paters
> > ability to reject canidates to prevent
> discrimination
> > against some groups.
>
> If it happens, I'll oppose it as fervently as you
> will - and I
> think many of my allies with regard to the current
> issue would
> as well.
>
> We're doing this because we believe that a
> relationship that
> was voluntarily entered into should be allowed to be
> terminated
> at will by either party. That is the fundamental
> principle of
> the Lex Octavia Salicia.
>
> Limiting the rights of a paterfamilias to reject an
> applicant
> would be completely in opposition to the spirit of
> the Lex Octavia
> Salicia.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>
>
I have no problem with the concept of freedom of
association, which this lex covers. I do think people
should be able to end relationships they voluntarily
entered into. My problem is the idea that there should
be a law to cover situations like this. I Agree with
what you are trying to do, but disagree with how you
are doing it.

In Antiquita Public Opinion was a powerful check on
the powers of the Paterfamilis. Our Ancestors weren't
shy about shreading the Dignitas of a Pater who acted
in a manner that went against the norms of the
community. He would be jeered in public and scorned in
private until he ceased his offensive behaviour.

This is how we should handle a situation like
discrimination or refusing a reasonable request from a
filis.

L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Hopping
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:57:22 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Luci Sicini,

> In Antiquita Public Opinion was a powerful check on
> the powers of the Paterfamilis. Our Ancestors weren't
> shy about shreading the Dignitas of a Pater who acted
> in a manner that went against the norms of the
> community. He would be jeered in public and scorned in
> private until he ceased his offensive behaviour.

If, in the unfortunate event that our proposal does not succeed,
I will stand by, ready to commence jeering at a moment's notice!

Vale, Octavius.

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Hopping
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:12:34 -0700 (PDT)

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
wrote:
> Salve Luci Sicini,
>
> > In Antiquita Public Opinion was a powerful check
> on
> > the powers of the Paterfamilis. Our Ancestors
> weren't
> > shy about shreading the Dignitas of a Pater who
> acted
> > in a manner that went against the norms of the
> > community. He would be jeered in public and
> scorned in
> > private until he ceased his offensive behaviour.
>
> If, in the unfortunate event that our proposal does
> not succeed,
> I will stand by, ready to commence jeering at a
> moment's notice!
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>
>
And I shall join you in the jeering. Rumor has it that
I can get rather nasty in cases like this, ;o)

L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Nerva's Reading Plan and the NR Web site
From:	Patricia Cassia <pcassia@novaroma.org>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:29:11 -0400

I expect our Curator Araneum, Marcus Octavius Germanicus, would
appreciate it if someone were to volunteer to update the book links in
the Macellum/Camenaeum! It would take very moderate HTML skills, as the
page is quite simple.

Nerva's reading plan could have a page of its own. After this is done,
the volunteer might take suggestions for modern works which can help the
reader interpret the historical records.

-----
Patricia Cassia
Senatrix et Sacerdos Minervalis
Nova Roma . pcassia@novaroma.org


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Digest Number 83
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:32:38 -0700 (PDT)

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
wrote:
> Salve Luci Sicini,
>
> > Quirites I would like to remind you that the
> regimes
> > that Senator Audens mentioned in his earlier post
> > passed laws regulating Personal and Family
> > relationships, much like this law does. Do you
> want to
> > live in a nation where the state has the power to
> > regulate your personal and family relationships?
>
> This lex does no such thing. You may have whatever
> family and
> personal relationships you wish; you may not,
> however, force those
> on another person.
>
> I find it utterly disgusting that you would twist
> and distort
> a law that grants freedom and removes inequality and
> try to cast it
> as some sort of totalitarian interference.
>
> We are not regulating relationships here. We are
> providing an
> escape route for persons who want no part of your
> relationships.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>
>
Reducto Absurdum

It is no different than comparing the actions of a
private indiviual that caused inconvinence for one
person to the actions of tyrantical governments that
murdered and tortured millions

L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Why Nova Roma?
From:	"tlfortunatus" <labienus@texas.net>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 17:10:03 -0000

T Labienus Fortunatus Quiritibus salutem plurimam dicit

In order to continue the discussion of the larger issue, I thought
that I'd offer my own answer to the question, "Why Nova Roma?" As I
do so, please keep in mind that this is simply my opinion. I'm not
saying that this view is necessarily more correct than others' views
or that I can't understand where others are coming from. As I said
before, it is our collective actions and opinions that will shape
Nova Roma. I am but one person adding to the pool.

First, let me quote from the main page of the Web site. It's
essentially the same the statement I read when I first encountered
Nova Roma over four years ago. I'll then dissect the quoted passages
and illustrate why I think the way I do.

"NOVA ROMA is an organization dedicated to the study and restoration
of ancient Roman culture. From its legendary founding in 753 BCE to
330 CE, when it ceased to be the center of Imperial authority, Rome
set the standard and laid the foundation for our modern Western
civilization. Rome civilized the world, and we see the need for that
divine mission to begin again.

"Founded 2,750 years after the Eternal City itself, NOVA ROMA seeks
to bring back those golden years. But where our ancestors imposed
their will through the sword and the Legions, we intend the same
result through the spread of knowledge and through our own virtuous
example.

"The centerpiece of the activities of NOVA ROMA is the Religio
Romana; the ancient faith of the people of Rome. Both the household
religion and the so-called State religion are vital to the Religio
Romana, and both are represented in the practices of NOVA ROMA. Our
long-term goal is the restoration of the ancient priestly Collegia
and the honoring of the full cycle of Roman holidays throughout the
year. For now, we must make do with a schedule that is practical and
the training of individuals who wish to take up the sacred offices.

"Also important is the Via Romana; a general revival of Roman
culture, arts, and most especially what are known as the Roman
Virtues. These Virtues are what gave a small city on the banks of the
Tiber the moral and practical strength to govern much of the world,
and are most sorely lacking in our society today. By promoting Roman
culture, we are in effect promoting nothing less than the
revitalization of Western society. By practicing Roman crafts and
arts, we more fully understand our own Western roots.

"NOVA ROMA is more than a historical recreation society, although we
are that. We are more than a pagan religious organization, although
we are that, too. We are more than a classical studies group, but
that falls within our purview as well. We are nothing less than a
sovereign nation; an attempt to re-create the best of classical pagan
Rome (with a few compromises to modern times), and we invite you to
join us by applying for citizenship today."

So, we have "the study and restoration of ancient Roman culture"
through education and virtuous example, centered upon the Religio
Romana with an eye firmly upon Roman virtue, arts, and (somewhat
circularly) culture, leading to a sovereign nation that recreates the
best of classical pagan Rome.

Now, what is meant by culture? This, I think, is one of the primary
dividing lines among our cives' opinions. The word has a wide
variety of meanings, the majority of which are not of interest here.
Those that do seem to apply are, "The totality of socially
transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all
other products of human work and thought," "The predominating
attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group
or organization," and "Intellectual and artistic activity and the
works produced by it." Personally, I tend to associate the word with
a blending of the second and third definitions I've provided.
Therefore, for me, Roman culture means the combined artistic and
intellectual works of Romans, pointing to and illuminating a certain
attitude toward morality and personal responsibility that was
prevalent among those Greeks and Romans whose works have survived to
our time, as well as Roman practicality and attention to applied
ethics over metaphysics in philosophy. Note that this does not
necessitate involving myself in a replica of ancient Roman society.

Next, let us examine the word restoration. This means not only to
return something to its original state, but also to renew or recover
something. The difference in the two is subtle, but my preference
for the second, combined with my personal interpretation of culture,
means that I see our mission as an attempt to capture and revive the
spirit of Roma. Note that this is not the same as recreating Her
body.

Let us now look at where the emphasis lies in the quoted paragraphs:
the Religio Romana, both private and public. The Religio Romana
addresses the relationship between humans and the Gods. Unlike (some
branches of) Christianity and many other religions, it did not and
does not presume to dictate familial relations or social
constructions. Its officials were elected officials of the state,
but their duty as pontifices, flamines, augures, et cetera was not to
enforce certain societal assumptions like patria potestas, but rather
to reinforce the bond with the Gods. Yes, the bond can be seen in
the light of an extension of the patronus-cliens relationship, and
therefore acting as a recognition of divine patria potestas of a
sort, but the Roman duty did not and does not require any particular
societal norms beyond those of religious choice. Instead, it
requires a recognition of divinity accompanied by appropriate
reverence and right action in response to that recognition. So, to
me at least, the central reason for Nova Roma's existence--and the
central reason for recreating the ancient Roman magistracies--does
not require a faithful reconstruction of ancient Roman society.

Beyond the Religio Romana are the Roman Virtues, arts, and culture.
We've already touched on my take on culture, and Roman arts are
pretty self-explanatory. The list of Roman Virtues found on the Nova
Roma site is a useful tool for getting a handle on ancient Roman
virtue. Many here prefer to think of them in ancient terms, and view
them as implying a requirement for filii and filiae to display proper
pietas toward their Nova Roman pater or mater familias as well as
suggesting that we ought to institute things like the patronus-cliens
relationship. I disagree. To me, this reduces Roman virtue to
something that cannot exist ouside of the Roman mold. I would much
rather, e.g., practice proper pietas toward my biological father than
pretend that I hold some relative stranger (compared to my father,
everyone here is a stranger to me) in equal esteem. The virtues are
worthless if they are not applicable to the entirety of one's life,
and I do not live entirely--or even majorly--in a Roman society.

And now we come to the final paragraph, which contains the final two
points I want to address. First is the idea of nationhood. I take
that quite seriously. If the Romany can have a representative to the
United Nations, there is no reason that Nova Roma can't have one down
the line if we are truly successful at building a real community
based not only on friendship and mutual interests but also on real
families of blood relations that practice the private and public
Roman religion and are brought up learning Roman virtue. This and
only this will result in a true restoration of Romanitas.

That, however, brings me to the second point, which is probably the
most controversial statement in all of Nova Roma. We are here to
recreate the *best* of classical pagan Rome. I find the tyrannical
aspects of patria potestas, the practice of slavery, institutional
misogyny, the patronus-cliens relationship, the use of usury to
ensure that whole segments of the population remain "in their place",
and quite a few other ancient practices to be far from the *best*
that classical pagan Rome has to offer and I really would prefer not
to be part of a society that practices them. More to the point,
keeping in mind my hopes for Nova Roman nationhood and bearing in
mind my parental duties, I would prefer that my daughter and her
children (and their children...) not have to live in such a society.
(Indeed, I would expect that she would choose not to do so, thereby
destroying any hope I have of establishing a Nova Roman lineage.)
Nova Roma has already explicitly done away with much that was
unacceptable to me in ancient Rome. I would prefer not to include
the rest in what seems to me to be a misguided dedication to accurate
reconstruction.

Valete


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Edictum Praetorium
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 17:35:04 -0000

P. Cornelia Strabo Senatus Populesque Nova Roma S.P.D.

On behalf of myself and my colleague T. Labienus Fortunatus citizen
RENATA CORVA is hereby appointed as Scriba Praetoria. Her duties
shall entail assistance with list moderation duties under the
mandates of this office.

Dated vii/xxxi/mmdccliv in the consulship of Marcus Octavius
Germanicus et Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Casca Tiberius Rufio Longinus
From:	jmath669642reng@webtv.net
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:37:11 -0400 (EDT)

Citizens of Nova Roma;

I am most pleased to be able to bring to you word of my good friend
Casca----

He writes thusly:

"Let my friends in Nova Roma know that I am alive and well, doing what
the U.S. needs. Someday soon hopefully I will be home......and can take
my place in our nation, after my "vacation" here!!!"

He further announces that he has been made a "Major" ---the youngest one
in the history of the unit in which he serves.

Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Comments on Leges Salicias
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Lucius=20Arminius=20Faustus?= <lafaustus@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:44:33 -0300 (ART)

Salvete quirites,

Let�s those translations at side for just a few lines to comments and give some sugestions on that Leges. I and my penates have already decided our position, and it was a hard decision. Let go to the tribune to speech. So some sugestions:

1 - I loved the idea of right of `Latinos� as new citizens. Only a month, and after a latino choose a gens of citizenship. But we must count these month on the cooking time of 6 months for magistracies and 3 for priesthood.

2 - The paterfamilias must put limitations entering on the gens and conditions to enter the gens, as race, language, sex, country, religion, job, favorite rock band, etc, etc, etc, very free... I sound a little bit bad but we must know that everyone wants to join people similar to them. But someone would say � it is prejudice! '. Well, and what? If the paterfamilias show some VERY STRONG prejudice on that (the good sense of the paterfamilias shall be his judge) he will punish himself. (For an example, neither with a knife in the neck I will vote, support or EVEN TALK to someone of a gens 'non latin-americans only� ). But I think that is good have a gens, for example, declared specialist in one country or region, for example: the hipotectic gens Paulistana for �people of the city of S�o Paulo� to have more close contact. I chose gens Arminia because it is the brazilian biggest, I wanted to be closer the novoromans near of me and many novoromans choose as that.

This common denominator would transform the gens in something that look like a family. Abuses always will happen, but we have censores for what? And if the paterfamilias already has some prejudice, nowadays he can simply 'no accept' the application without much explanation. But putting the 'common thing' of the gens, would give to new citizens more opportunities of good choosing.

That are some ideas to the forum and legislators. May Iupiter Optimus Maximus be our judge.

Valete,

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:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Familae et Gentes
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:29:06 -0400

Salve,

The equation between gens and familia within NR is implied by the
structure and the function it attempts to play relative to history. That
said, revamping the entire system along the lines you suggest would be a
better long-term solution, but it's something we should do before we
pass additional laws further cementing the current system into place in
a form that becomes repugnant to everyone.

- M. Cornelius Gualterus

Michel Loos wrote:

> Salve,
>
> More I read about this and more is it obvious that our main problem is
> not having families here in NR.
>
> Since we use Roman Names we must have gentes. No way around this.
> A prospective citizen has all time he wants to choose his gentilice
> for whatever reasons. There should be no reason at all for changing
> gentilice in the future.
>
> The trouble comes because with the name, the new citizen also chooses a
> "paterfamilias" he knows little or nothing about, and with whom he
> possibly disagrees on about everything (philosophy,moral,politics, or
> worse soccer team:) ). And this choice is hardly a reasonned choice, you
> need a lot of time to get to really know a person, specially when your
> only relations with him are via e-mail.
>
> The figure of the "paterfamilias gentis" is not historical and one
> cannot invoke the Mos Maiorum for defending its powers, the opponents to
> the Lex Octavia Salicia are very aware of it, since in all of their
> posts they try to assimilate Gens with Familia. This is not in our
> constitution, it is an interpretation.
> Some gentes work as familiae, most don't and since nothing forces a gens
> to work like a family the "mos maiorum" should not apply here.
>
> Wouldn't the following system be better for all?
> 1) Removal of the figure of "paterfamilas gentis", changed to a
> "patergentis" with little power: acceptance of new citizens in his gens,
> only.
> 2) Creation of families, inside the gentes, with a Paterfamilias with
> extended powers.
> 3) No citizen is forced to belong to a familiae, joining can only be
> voluntary, expressed through the mechanism of adrogatio/adoptio. A few
> month period is necessary between the letter of intend adrressed to the
> censors and the effective adoption. As a transitory measure, actual
> citizens that are citizens for more then this period can immediately opt
> to be a member of their former "paterfamilias gentis".
> 4) No citizen can change gens without this mechanism of adoption. If he
> was not a member of a family he needs to be adopted by one from another
> gens. If he was a member of a family an agreement must be found between
> his current paterfamilias and his prospective one.
>
> Unfortunately, this type of law can only be proposed by the consuls.
>
> Vale,
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus
>
>
>
> 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] WANTING TO HEAR FROM ROMANI FROM ANYWHERE!
From:	GAIVS IVLIANVS <ivlianvs309@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 11:30:41 -0700 (PDT)

SALVETE OMNES! As a Julian of the Gens Iulia I would
love to hear from any Romani from any where who
worship and honor Venus, Mars, diana, Apollo etc...!
Religio Romana is my speciality and I welcome new
friends who love ROMA and the VIA ROMANA AD DEOS! (The
Roman Way To The Gods!) GRATIAS VOBIS AGO! VALETE!
FRATER GAIVS IVLIVS IVLIANVS

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: fees and judicial system
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:46:34 -0400

Salve,

>>Here's another twist - only have the hopper incur the fee if he/she
>>
> hops
>
>>without consent of the pater?
>>
>
> Gualtere, I can see your point of view. You say "If a hopping is
> frivolous, it is frivolous always, the first time as well as the
> 29th." Should the People of nova Roma chose this line, I wouldn't
> march against this decision. It is formally correct.

> I just think that our Res Publica is still growing; Nova Roma's
> People is very young. I believe that under present conditions this
> law should be a little bit more accomodating.

And you're confident that the laws will tighten up in the future? At
what point do we define it as not in its formative stages of growth?

> We can't create Patres' authority with a law: it would be merely
> uncertain. It will be the time that will create the authority of a
> person within a group of people. Only this one will be an
> historically faithful authority, because it will be *real*.
> When this feature will be better clarified by time's work, we will be
> able to make it really count if violated.

Technically, his rights are supposed to be above the law, but the trend
at the moment is against this, so I proposed a method of using the law
to enforce a semblance of traditional power relationships. There
wouldn't have to be anything ambiguous about it if the wording of the
leges was precise. In this case, it would be a straightforward affair:
if you don't have the pater's consent, you can still leave but you pay.
That being said, the right solution would be to completely revamp our
gens/familia system to align it along more historical lines and allowing
the mos maiorum to take effect without any ambiguities with regard to
what is a family, what is a gens, and so on. And, I guess, to eliminate
Constitutional ambiguities (and dare I say, wrong interpretations?
*smirk*), we should also remove the term "sovereign" in II.B.6., but
that's a separate discussion that we don't need to get into right now :)

- M. Cornelius Gualterus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Hopping
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:51:24 -0400

Salve,

> In Antiquita Public Opinion was a powerful check on
> the powers of the Paterfamilis. Our Ancestors weren't
> shy about shreading the Dignitas of a Pater who acted
> in a manner that went against the norms of the
> community. He would be jeered in public and scorned in
> private until he ceased his offensive behaviour.
>
> This is how we should handle a situation like
> discrimination or refusing a reasonable request from a
> filis.

Yes! This would not only compel the citizenry to take a more active
interest in others' conduct here, whether it is technically "legal" or
not, but, I suspect at least in this case, public shame and humiliation
would be a far more powerful deterrent and corrective force than cold
legal deliberation.

- M. Cornelius Gualterus


Subject:	RE: [Nova-Roma] WANTING TO HEAR FROM ROMANI FROM ANYWHERE!
From:	Jenny Harris <J.Harris@awgais.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:16:08 -0600

Salve,

Errrrrrr, I've sending e-mail to you amice. Only to get that infamous mailer
demon, am I sending it to the correct address?

Vale,
Aeternia

-----Original Message-----
From: GAIVS IVLIANVS [mailto:ivlianvs309@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 12:31 PM
To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] WANTING TO HEAR FROM ROMANI FROM
ANYWHERE!

SALVETE OMNES! As a Julian of the Gens Iulia I would
love to hear from any Romani from any where who
worship and honor Venus, Mars, diana, Apollo etc...!
Religio Romana is my speciality and I welcome new
friends who love ROMA and the VIA ROMANA AD DEOS! (The
Roman Way To The Gods!) GRATIAS VOBIS AGO! VALETE!
FRATER GAIVS IVLIVS IVLIANVS

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Objections to the filiusfamilias emancipation law.
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 17:45:13 +0200

Salve Quinte Fabi,

> First I'm a historian. So that does make me professional. Next playing
> Roman probably wouldn't get us very far here in NR.
> I'm more concerned about equally protecting the citizen, Nova Roma, and
the
> Paterfamilias.

I'm not doubting that, but that's beside the point. I still don't think one
should defend political viewpoints in NR one doesn't really believe in.
Secondly, even trying to be an accurate "reconstruction" carries the seeds
of totalitarianism or dictature. Why? Well, once the ideal state is
achieved, any one person who opposes it will be marked as a hostile element,
and thus healthy criticism which is inherent to any properly functioning
state will cease to be heard. All of us must realise that we *do* happen to
live in the 21st century, not outside of it. States evolve, and that's a
fact. The past is the past.

> Again the lex is weighted heavier on the side of the filiusfamilius. I'd
> rather see a balance.

(snipped)

> I agree. But why should we give all the power to the filiusfamilias and
none
> to the paterfamilius? After all we expect great things from them.
Shouldn't
> we protect them from
> frivilious Gen hopping as well?

I'm amazed at the frequent usage of this buzzword here on the list. Gens
hopping? Is this actually likely to happen? Seriously? No, and who makes
himself guilty of it it will earn a bad reputation for it. Besides, the
compromise proposed by Gaius Cassius and others excludes this unlikely
possibility more or less.

Vale bene,
Marcus Octavius Solaris


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Hopping
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 17:53:58 +0200

Salve Luci Sicini,

> No one has sugested it yet, but I can eaisly see a
> future "Civil Rights" campaign to limit the Paters
> ability to reject canidates to prevent discrimination
> against some groups. Once that passed I'm in a quandry
> if a Gens Hopper is a member of a minority that can
> accuse me of discrimination. Depending on how the lex
> is worded it may be less trouble to tolarate the Gens
> Hopper for a time than it would be to fight a
> discrimanation charge.

- "Gens hoppers" are very unlikely to exist in the future. And like I said,
if they do, they'll earn a bad reputation for it.
- Even if they will exist, they have to be part of a minority.
- You're describing a problem that appears to be typically an American
problem. I don't think we should extrapolate modern social American problems
on NR.

> The introduction of modern concepts today creates a
> precedent for more more modern concepts tomorrow.

What is wrong with that? Modern concepts are already an inherent part of
*NOVA* Roma: the internet, e-mail, modern currencies, the dominance of
English as lingua franca, emancipation of women, cars, abolishing slavery,
international agreements, etc etc. I dimly suspect that by "modern concepts"
you actually mean political ideas of the 21st century which you have a
problem with.

Vale bene,
Marcus Octavius Solaris


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Final words - Thank you all
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:39:10 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites.

As I said, I will not make any further comments on the Lex Octavia
Salicia until I present the revised version to you. So please accept my
apologies if I am not answering some of your posts. We will have time
to further discuss this issue when we have a new proposal to discuss
on.

I would also like to thank those who have lately had kind words of
encouragement for me. Thank you Hirti Helvetice, Aeternia, Tite Octavi
Pi, Constantine Serapio, and all others. I hope to work up to your high expectations.

=====
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] Attention Voters! Invalid voter codes
From:	"artoriusp" <rabotnik@wp.pl>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:31:24 -0000

Salvete!

votes noumber 6091, 6087, 6086, 6085, 4087, 6083, 4085 have invalid
voter codes

Valete!
Petrus Domitianus AL


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Hopping
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 15:04:32 -0700 (PDT)

--- "M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
wrote:
> Salve Luci Sicini,
>
>
> > No one has sugested it yet, but I can eaisly see a
> > future "Civil Rights" campaign to limit the Paters
> > ability to reject canidates to prevent
> discrimination
> > against some groups. Once that passed I'm in a
> quandry
> > if a Gens Hopper is a member of a minority that
> can
> > accuse me of discrimination. Depending on how the
> lex
> > is worded it may be less trouble to tolarate the
> Gens
> > Hopper for a time than it would be to fight a
> > discrimanation charge.
>
> - "Gens hoppers" are very unlikely to exist in the
> future. And like I said,
> if they do, they'll earn a bad reputation for it.
> - Even if they will exist, they have to be part of a
> minority.
> - You're describing a problem that appears to be
> typically an American
> problem. I don't think we should extrapolate modern
> social American problems
> on NR.

DRUSUS:Before you dismiss "American" problems remember
that Nova Roma is a nation of "immigrants" and we have
had misunderstandings based on differing culture. This
is something that the USA has far more experance with
than the steerotypes might lead you to think.

In the period 1990-2000, just 11 years 10.5 million
people legally immigrated to the USA. This figure is
300,000 higher than the population of your Macronation
in the year 2000.

Note that I said "legally" This does not include a
large nunber of illegal immigrants, who often
outnumber the legal immigrants.

We are far more diverse than you give us credit for,
and well aware of the tensions that can be created by
varrying cultures. I'll save you the effort of
bringing the differences between the Flemings and
Wallons. It's no greater than the diferences betweeen
Hispanics and Anglos, and far less than the
differences between either of these groups and the
large number of Asians who immigrate to the USA.

>
> > The introduction of modern concepts today creates
> a
> > precedent for more more modern concepts tomorrow.
>
> What is wrong with that? Modern concepts are already
> an inherent part of
> *NOVA* Roma: the internet, e-mail, modern
> currencies, the dominance of
> English as lingua franca, emancipation of women,
> cars, abolishing slavery,
> international agreements, etc etc. I dimly suspect
> that by "modern concepts"
> you actually mean political ideas of the 21st
> century which you have a
> problem with.
>
I'm allready a citizen of a modern 21st century nation
with a government loosely based on that of Ancient
Rome. (The USA). Citizenship in a second one would be
redundant.

L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	RE: [Nova-Roma] Edictum Praetorium
From:	Jenny Harris <J.Harris@awgais.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:06:20 -0600

Ave,

Congrats to Renata Corva , on her new position.

Vale,
Aeternia

-----Original Message-----
From: pompeia_cornelia [mailto:trog99@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 11:35 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Edictum Praetorium

P. Cornelia Strabo Senatus Populesque Nova Roma S.P.D.

On behalf of myself and my colleague T. Labienus Fortunatus
citizen
RENATA CORVA is hereby appointed as Scriba Praetoria. Her
duties
shall entail assistance with list moderation duties under
the
mandates of this office.

Dated vii/xxxi/mmdccliv in the consulship of Marcus Octavius

Germanicus et Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Hispania Provincial Meeting - Photos
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 23:18:07 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites.

I have the impression that some of you actually enjoy seeing
photographs of fellow Novoromans having fun :-).

If you are interested in viewing a few of the photos taken in the last
provincial meeting of Hispania (held in Augusta Emerita, 19-20-21 of
July), I invite you to visit this page:
http://www.geocities.com/aiaxes/merida2.htm

Some comments on the meeting by some citizens of Hispania are placed in
the same page. Unfortunately, they are written in Spanish; but perhaps
those of you who speak the language of Cervantes will find them
interesting.

In a few days, more photos should be placed on line, particularly a
collection of really stunning photos of Roman art taken by Minicius
Catullus. I will keep you informed.

=====
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