Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Bipartisanship, ca. 410 A.D.
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <pectus_roboreus1@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:59:08 -0400

Salvete, omnes:

It is with tongue firmly planted in cheek that I come before you... :) I
was just looking through some of my old e-mail, and found this; it had
been sent to me by a humor list that I'm on, shortly after the last
election. At that time, I was not a part of NR (was, in fact, unaware
that it existed), and so don't know whether this had been posted
previously; if so, /mea culpa/. I hope you all get a chuckle out of it,
as I do.


Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Caelum, non animum mutant, qui trans mare currunt.
The sky, and not his soul, changes the one who runs across the sea.
-- Horace, "Epistulae"


----- Forwarded message from Gene Spafford <spaf@cerias.purdue.edu> -----

BIPARTISANSHIP, CIRCA 410 A.D.

Finally, the divisive battle that has gripped our nation for months has
come to an end. There can no longer be any doubt of the ultimate
result: Alaric and his Visigoth horde have won, and the emperor, Flavius
Honorius, has lost.

Whether or not we supported Alaric in his campaign to sack Rome, it is
now our patriotic duty to rally behind him. Alaric is now the ruler of
all Romans, not just those who smear their faces with blood and smell
strongly of dung. We must all show the graciousness, good humor, and
dignity that Honorius demonstrated as he fled on horseback with his
servants in the dark of night.

If one thing has been proved by this long battle, it is that our system
works. The Visigoths worked hard for this outcome: They pillaged our
temples, burned our crops, and carried off our women. As a result, they
now deserve our support, as well as our respect. Yes, some may continue
to question aspects of Alaric's campaign. We have previously noted our
concern about the Visigoth's strategy of stripping naked and running
into battle making high-pitched screaming sounds, as well as their
controversial decision to slay our elders and eat their entrails in the
Forum. The Visigoths' scorched-earth strategy--and, again, we would
have preferred for them to have scorched only some of our earth--struck
many of us as overly aggressive. But, in the end, Alaric and his
barbarian horde were simply using every method available to them in a
flawed and confusing process. No battle is perfect, and inevitably some
children are going to be impaled on stakes and their lifeless bodies
paraded through the streets. Those tactics don't make the result of this
contest any less legitimate.

Now that Honorius has conceded, it is time for Rome to look to the
future, not to the past. We should no longer define ourselves as either
Romans or barbarians. Now we are all barbarians.

For his part, Alaric must be prepared to govern from the vital center.
To begin, he needs to introduce himself more fully to the public, to
allow us to see how he will lead when he is no longer wearing animal
skins, shouting gibberish, and swinging a flaming club full of metal
spikes. Though the battle was a close one, we must now be prepared to
give Alaric our trust and our prayers as he begins to implement his
stated platform: the complete destruction of our way of life and the
violent transformation of our society into a primitive tribe of nomadic
hunter-gatherers.

Let the healing begin.

--Stephen Sherrill and Paul Tough, "The New Republic", Jan. 22, 2001
----- End forwarded message -----



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] More about Gentes (was: The REAL problem with our Gentes...)
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 22:27:16 EDT

Salvete,

>From what I have seen of the replies to my Gens post, I get the feeling that
I should clarify what I was trying to say about unhistorical elements in our
current system.

Basically, I believe it is our system of *adoption* which is fatally flawed.
As our system currently stands there are only two ways 'in' to Nova Roma. The
first is to start a Gens with a new name. The second is to take an existing
name by being "adopted" into an existing Gens, thereby coming under the
influence or "patria potestas" of an unrelated new acquaintance. Our system
induces new Citizens to trade their freedom to a stranger for a name.

This concept of 'adoption' is the flaw in our system. It has created the
system in NR which is unhistorical - the "Paterfamilias" who leads an entire
Gens (or, if you prefer, a huge international 'familia') because he has
'adopted' every Citizen with that name. This system has lead to our Paters
and Maters in essence holding a position that did not exist in ancient Rome,
"clan leader".

In essence, ALL Citizens should be able to join Nova Roma holding equal
rights and independence, or "sui iuris" status, not merely the 40% or so that
choose a 'new' nomen. When the Censors approve a new Citizen they are
declaring them a Nova Roman. It is the CENSORS which make a Roman Citizen,
not an adopting Gens or Family. Therefore there is no reason for new Citizens
to be put under the yoke of Patria Potestas as if they were a foreigner being
adopted into Citizenship.

In ancient Rome the Gentes were all made up of different family branches, and
not everyone in the Gens owed allegiance to one ultimate leader. That is
exactly what we are creating now when a new Citizen enters our nation. Our
new Citizens that join us are neither children or foreigners... they join us
as adult Romans who are already the heads of independent familiae - *no
matter what nomen they take when entering the Citizen rolls.*

Therefore, the act of taking Citizenship should not require adoption under
any circumstance. Just as a person choosing a new nomen founds a new
independent Gens, a person choosing an existing nomen founds a new and
independent branch of a Gens. Every person that joins us as head of a
household in the 'real world' should join us as a Pater/Materfamilias of 'sui
iuris' status no matter what nomen they choose.

This would end the power of the Pater and Materfamiliae as we know it. Each
separate household enter Citizenship with "sui iuris" independent status. The
Patria Potestas of a Mater or Pater would not be manifested through a
worldwide network of adoption, but instead confined to blood relationship or
specially arranged interfamilial circumstances as in history.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator




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


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: legal question
From:	"James LaSalle, Esq." <jlasalle@kc.rr.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 20:17:51 -0500

Salveto:

There is only power. Power is of the individual mind, but the mind's power is not enough. Power of the body decides everything in the end, and only Might makes Right. Ultimately, if you do not want to go to jury duty, etc, the State has powers over your physical being to compel you to do your duty. Law is nothing without raw power behind it. If everybody lived a "good" life, I guess, then there is no need for laws. Seems pretty academic to me.







The Law Office of James L. LaSalle
417 East 13th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
(816).471.2111
(816).510.0072(cell)
(816).471.8412(Fax)
The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by using the contact information in the "reply to" field above and return the original message to the sender. Thank you.
----- Original Message -----
From: MVariusPM@aol.com
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 1:19 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: legal question


In a message dated 8/1/02 7:32:15 PM Central Daylight Time,
jlasalle@kc.rr.com writes:


> America truly has the rule of law.

Salveto,

In my humble opinion, America has the rule of force. Law has very little to
do with it. We can argue ad infinitum about the judicial system in the
macronation of the United States and probably find some ground on which to
agree to disagree. However, the judicial system of the US is fast losing
ground in the larger world context. A nation that staunchly refuses to
examine itself closely is a nation doomed to fail. It was so in the time of
Rome it is true in the time of now. It is not so much what a nation professes
to be. It is more what a nation shows itself to be.

Valete,
M. Varius (P.S. Britian and the EU have adopted the "innocent until proven
guilty" process and they also require better anti-discrimitation laws than
the United States - which the US objects to)


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: legal question
From:	"James LaSalle, Esq." <jlasalle@kc.rr.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 20:35:51 -0500

I beg to differ. The Late Empire laws you talk about were simply a codification of common law accumulated over the centuries, i.e. The Justinian Code







The Law Office of James L. LaSalle
417 East 13th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
(816).471.2111
(816).510.0072(cell)
(816).471.8412(Fax)
The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by using the contact information in the "reply to" field above and return the original message to the sender. Thank you.
----- Original Message -----
From: L. Sicinius Drusus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 3:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: legal question



--- "James LaSalle, Esq." <jlasalle@kc.rr.com> wrote:
SNIP
>
> There can never be enough laws. Laws in any growing
> society will be as numerous and complicated as the
> humans that reside in it and reflect the
> incalculable circumstances of the human condition.
>
This is an idea that would have seemed alien to the
Romans. They managed an area about as large as the
Continental US with a far smaller law code than many
modern nations. Part of the reason was they didn't
have to deal with modern inventions, but a larger part
was they were content to leave many aspects of life in
private hands. The Roman state didn't become intrusive
until the late Empire and as it became more intrusive
into private life it enjoyed less support from it's
citizens, reaching the point where it had to employ
mrecenary armies because it's citizens were no longer
willing to defend it.

L. Sicinius Drusus

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] More about Gentes (was: The REAL problem with our Gentes...)
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 23:47:10 -0700 (PDT)

Senator,
I have made many posts regarding the Need for Reform
of our Gens/Family structure. Rather than go over them
I'd like to discuss the political side of this
problem.

We have many Citizens who are comfortable with the
present concept of a Gens and a Family being one and
the same thing. All the Roman Gens were started by a
single Family, and some hold that since we are
starting Roma anew we would be following a historic
role by allowing a Gens that consists of a single
family to develop over time into multi family Gens.
Others look at the Republican Gens and want to base
our Gens on this model with indiviual families.

BOTH of these models are correct depending on which
time frame you referance, the start of a Gens or the
way they were hundreds of years later. If this was the
first day of Nova Roma we might be able to agree on a
common model. However we don't have a DeLoren with a
Flux Capacitor to use as a time machine. We don't have
the option of going back and asking you and Germanicus
to set up a different arrangement.

The Political reality is we have a large number of
citizens who prefer the current arrangement. ANY
attempt to force them to change is going to have very
unplesant results. The Gender Lex kept Nova Romans at
each other's throats for over a year, and this has the
potential to be far worse.

I have been looking over the changes that will be
needed to have a Gens/Family structure that is closer
to the model used during the Republic, that is it will
legalize families much like you mention. I will be
sending the Junior Consul some recomendations on
changes that will have to be made to the Constitution
this weekend. I will include a reccomendation that
these be presented to the Senate before they are
presented to the People, but what he does with them is
his choice not mine.

You will have the chance to suggest any changes you
wish in the Senate.

I Fell it is my duty to make this warning before we
start on this road. This isn't based on any secrect
information, just my reading of public opion based on
the reactions to the Lex under present discussion, and
on past discussions of Gens Reform. This can turn into
the most devissive issue Nova Roma has ever seen.
Worse than the Gender Edict or the Civil war that led
to the dictatorship. Any attempt to force Gens to
change their status will tear us apart. This needs to
be limited to making multi family Gens possible, NOT
manditory. IF you attempt to make changes in the
current Gens manditory it will create a hate filled
enviroment that will make the Gender Lex fight look
like a love in. If manditory changes are forced on the
Citizens who don't want them, you will likely see a
repaet of the Ides of March of 2754, but on a larger
scale, perhaps as large as 25% of the active citizens
resigning.

If we are going to have Gens reform without spending a
year tearing Nova Roma apart we are going to have to
let Gens that do not wish to modify their current
structure remain as they are.

For any claims that this isn't accurate, having to go
to the Censor for approval of citizenship isn't
accurate. In Antiquita a forigner who wanted to become
a Roman citizen went to the Proconsul or Propraetor of
the Province, not to Roma to see the Censors, so to be
fully accurate we would have to transfer approval of
citizenship to the Governors, who would be able to
retain a bribe or if you prefer the term "membership
fee" for approving an application.

Senator, your name and your order are inaccurate.
Cassius is a Plebian Nomen. Should we force all
Patricians with a Plebian Nomen to drop Patrician
Status or change their name?

I'm not going that far, I want to leave Force out of
this. I want to move towards accuracy, but not at the
expense of attempting to force people to be accurate.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- cassius622@aol.com wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> From what I have seen of the replies to my Gens
> post, I get the feeling that
> I should clarify what I was trying to say about
> unhistorical elements in our
> current system.
>
> Basically, I believe it is our system of *adoption*
> which is fatally flawed.
> As our system currently stands there are only two
> ways 'in' to Nova Roma. The
> first is to start a Gens with a new name. The second
> is to take an existing
> name by being "adopted" into an existing Gens,
> thereby coming under the
> influence or "patria potestas" of an unrelated new
> acquaintance. Our system
> induces new Citizens to trade their freedom to a
> stranger for a name.
>
> This concept of 'adoption' is the flaw in our
> system. It has created the
> system in NR which is unhistorical - the
> "Paterfamilias" who leads an entire
> Gens (or, if you prefer, a huge international
> 'familia') because he has
> 'adopted' every Citizen with that name. This system
> has lead to our Paters
> and Maters in essence holding a position that did
> not exist in ancient Rome,
> "clan leader".
>
> In essence, ALL Citizens should be able to join Nova
> Roma holding equal
> rights and independence, or "sui iuris" status, not
> merely the 40% or so that
> choose a 'new' nomen. When the Censors approve a new
> Citizen they are
> declaring them a Nova Roman. It is the CENSORS which
> make a Roman Citizen,
> not an adopting Gens or Family. Therefore there is
> no reason for new Citizens
> to be put under the yoke of Patria Potestas as if
> they were a foreigner being
> adopted into Citizenship.
>
> In ancient Rome the Gentes were all made up of
> different family branches, and
> not everyone in the Gens owed allegiance to one
> ultimate leader. That is
> exactly what we are creating now when a new Citizen
> enters our nation. Our
> new Citizens that join us are neither children or
> foreigners... they join us
> as adult Romans who are already the heads of
> independent familiae - *no
> matter what nomen they take when entering the
> Citizen rolls.*
>
> Therefore, the act of taking Citizenship should not
> require adoption under
> any circumstance. Just as a person choosing a new
> nomen founds a new
> independent Gens, a person choosing an existing
> nomen founds a new and
> independent branch of a Gens. Every person that
> joins us as head of a
> household in the 'real world' should join us as a
> Pater/Materfamilias of 'sui
> iuris' status no matter what nomen they choose.
>
> This would end the power of the Pater and
> Materfamiliae as we know it. Each
> separate household enter Citizenship with "sui
> iuris" independent status. The
> Patria Potestas of a Mater or Pater would not be
> manifested through a
> worldwide network of adoption, but instead confined
> to blood relationship or
> specially arranged interfamilial circumstances as in
> history.
>
> Valete,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
> Senator
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________________________
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] More about Gentes (was: The REAL problem with our Gentes...)
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 12:08:50 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Druse.

I would like to make a few commensts on the ideas of reforming our
currently antihistorical gens system to bring it closer to the
historical system.

--- "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Senator,
> I have made many posts regarding the Need for Reform
> of our Gens/Family structure. Rather than go over them
> I'd like to discuss the political side of this
> problem.
>
> We have many Citizens who are comfortable with the
> present concept of a Gens and a Family being one and
> the same thing. All the Roman Gens were started by a
> single Family, and some hold that since we are
> starting Roma anew we would be following a historic
> role by allowing a Gens that consists of a single
> family to develop over time into multi family Gens.
> Others look at the Republican Gens and want to base
> our Gens on this model with indiviual families.
>
> BOTH of these models are correct depending on which
> time frame you referance, the start of a Gens or the
> way they were hundreds of years later. If this was the
> first day of Nova Roma we might be able to agree on a
> common model. However we don't have a DeLoren with a
> Flux Capacitor to use as a time machine. We don't have
> the option of going back and asking you and Germanicus
> to set up a different arrangement.

That is quite speculative, propraetor. The truth is that we can not be
sure of how gentes and familiae were at the time of the Founding of
Rome. That falls directly into Roman prehistory.

We can be sure of how gentes and familiae were during the Middle and
Late Republic. We have historical data about that.

Besides, although Nova Roma is pretty young, we have chosen the model
of the Middle to Late Republic as our base to build it. If we wanted to
base Nova Roma on the state of affairs at the time of the Foundation,
we would have to have a rex instead of two consules.

> The Political reality is we have a large number of citizens who
> prefer the current arrangement. ANY attempt to force them to change
> is going to have very unplesant results. The Gender Lex kept Nova
> Romans at each other's throats for over a year, and this has the
> potential to be far worse.

That is why we shall *vote* on any proposal: we will know the *real*
will of the People of Nova Roma when we present these items to vote.

> I have been looking over the changes that will be needed to have a
> Gens/Family structure that is closer to the model used during the
> Republic, that is it will legalize families much like you mention. I
> will be sending the Junior Consul some recomendations on changes that
> will have to be made to the Constitution this weekend. I will include
> a reccomendation that these be presented to the Senate before they
are
> presented to the People, but what he does with them is his choice not
> mine.

Any constitutional ammendment will have to be retified by the Senate.

> You will have the chance to suggest any changes you wish in the
> Senate.
>
> I Fell it is my duty to make this warning before we start on this
> road. This isn't based on any secrect information, just my reading of
> public opion based on the reactions to the Lex under present
> discussion, and on past discussions of Gens Reform. This can turn
into
> the most devissive issue Nova Roma has ever seen.
> Worse than the Gender Edict or the Civil war that led
> to the dictatorship. Any attempt to force Gens to change their status
> will tear us apart. This needs to be limited to making multi family
> Gens possible, NOT manditory. IF you attempt to make changes in the
> current Gens manditory it will create a hate filled enviroment that
> will make the Gender Lex fight look like a love in. If manditory
> changes are forced on the Citizens who don't want them, you will
> likely see a repaet of the Ides of March of 2754, but on a larger
> scale, perhaps as large as 25% of the active citizens resigning.

We have heard the opinions of about twenty citizens. Countless others
have chosen not to express their opinion in public. Of those twenty
citizens, a huge majority has expressed their support for a gens system
that follows the Roman Republican historical model.

So I would say that your fears are unfounded.

> If we are going to have Gens reform without spending a year tearing
> Nova Roma apart we are going to have to let Gens that do not wish to
> modify their current structure remain as they are.

Who should decide inside each gens which model to follow?

> For any claims that this isn't accurate, having to go to the Censor
> for approval of citizenship isn't accurate. In Antiquita a forigner
> who wanted to become a Roman citizen went to the Proconsul or
> Propraetor of the Province, not to Roma to see the Censors, so to be
> fully accurate we would have to transfer approval of citizenship to
> the Governors, who would be able to retain a bribe or if you prefer
> the term "membership fee" for approving an application.
>
> Senator, your name and your order are inaccurate.
> Cassius is a Plebian Nomen. Should we force all Patricians with a
> Plebian Nomen to drop Patrician Status or change their name?

Our laws explicitly state that the original order to which a certain
familia belonged in Antiquity has no relation with the order to which
that familia can belong in Nova Roma.

> I'm not going that far, I want to leave Force out of this. I want to
> move towards accuracy, but not at the expense of attempting to force
> people to be accurate.

As a final word, it has never been my intention to force others to
follow the model that I prefer. I just think that a historical model
should:

- be allowed
- be set as a "default" option.

=====
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

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] The REAL problem with our Gentes...
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 12:23:11 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, pontifex maxime.

--- cassius622@aol.com wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> Even though the "Lex Octavia Salacia" Gens law has been withdrawn so
> that it may be amended, discussion seems to continue. Citizens such
> as Lucius Cornelius Sulla continue to declare that the proposed law
> is against the 'mos maiorum' - a departure from Roman tradition.
>
> I hate to say this folks, but the REAL departure from tradition is
> our Gens system as it stands. It was a good first effort, but the
> *entire system* would need to be broken down and rebuilt before it
> could be considered anything like 'tradition'.
>
> However, I must say that if our Gentes were broken down and totally
> restructured, there would be no need for the "Lex Octavia Salacia"
> gens law.
> Why? Because the positions of Pater and Materfamilae as they now
> stand in NR would be eliminated *completely*.
>
> What would need to happen to make the Gentes in Nova Roma truly
> traditional and historical?
>
> 1. The Pater and Materfamiliae positions as we know them would have
> to abandoned entirely. A Paterfamilias does not preside over an
entire
> Gens... merely one Familiae within a Gens. The power and influence of
> our current Paters and maters would cease to exist - they would have
> no influence except over their own household.
>
> 2. Our Adoption system would need to cease to exist. New Citizens
> would not require approval from a "pater" or "mater" to enter a
> Gens... they would be able to choose a Gens name and start their OWN
> FAMILIA within that Gens.
> Frankly, this would simplify the NR system a lot... we wouldn't have
> prospective Citizens sitting around for a month or two waiting for
> inactive Paters or Maters to get back to the Censors.
>
> 3. The basic unit of organization within NR would cease to be the
> Gens, but instead become the Familia. Each household would be it's
> own Familia, be it a household of one, or a dozen members. Each pater
> or mater of each household would be responsible for their own
> Familiae rites, should they be practitioners of the Religio. No Pater
> or Mater of any familia would owe allegiance to any other pater or
> mater - the Romans had no traditional concept of a "clan leader".
>
> 4. The power of a Pater or Materfamilias would no longer stretch
> around the world, but would in fact end at their own front door. No
> longer would they have any claim over any Citizen who happened to
> share the same Nomen.
> This would mean in essence total disempowerment of our current "Gens
> leaders" and "Gens system", and a total *empowerment* of Citizenship
> at the household level.
>
> So folks, what's it to be. Do we want to make our current system less
> oppressive, or do we want to champion "tradition"? If it's the
> latter, our Gentes system must be destroyed and rebuilt.
>
> I don't know what else to say. Our Gens system is the way it is not
> because it's "right". It's the way it is because it was the best
> Germanicus, myself and the other early folks could come up with given
> the information and experience we had. \

Thank you very much, Cassi, for this excellent resume of our current
situation. I agree entirely with your point of view, although I could
be willing to reach a reasonable compromise.

Just one addition: the concept of patrician or plebeian gentes is
incorrect as well. Just a familia can be patrician or plebeian; and
patrician and plebeian familiae could share a common gens. In my
opinion, new familiae should not be made patrician; to follow the
historical model more closely, only those familiae that have a
paterfamilias who is currently the gens leader of a patrician gens
should belong to the Ordo Patricius.

In some cases, some plebeian familiae should be allowed to rise to the
patrician order, just like it happened in Roma Antiqua. I view this
like some kind of honorary title, that could be granted by the Senate
(for example) with the permission of a revised Comitia Curiata.

This is just a vague suggestion; the details need to be spelt out.

=====
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

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: The REAL problem with our Gentes...
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 12:31:39 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Tite Labiene.

--- tlfortunatus <labienus@texas.net> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> When Cn Salix, myself, and some others proposed almost exactly the
> same revisions to our gens system on the Vedian_Baths and
> NovaRomaLaws lists, you were the among their loudest and staunchest
> opponents, O consul. In an attempt at compromise, I suggested the
> very simple and mild semi-solution of changing the wording of the
> constitution to read "familia" where it now says "gens". And yet,
> you fought against even this. What is so different about this
> proposal that you now embrace the idea of gens reform?

I would also like to know what has changed since then :-).

Anyway, I am extremely happy to see that our consul has changed his
opinion. I offer my help in the redaction of the leges necessary to
bring this revision into effect.

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

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] More about Gentes (was: The REAL problem with our
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	03 Aug 2002 08:59:27 -0300

Saleve,

<Snip>

> I Fell it is my duty to make this warning before we
> start on this road. This isn't based on any secrect
> information, just my reading of public opion based on
> the reactions to the Lex under present discussion, and
> on past discussions of Gens Reform. This can turn into
> the most devissive issue Nova Roma has ever seen.
> Worse than the Gender Edict or the Civil war that led
> to the dictatorship. Any attempt to force Gens to
> change their status will tear us apart. This needs to
> be limited to making multi family Gens possible, NOT
> manditory. IF you attempt to make changes in the
> current Gens manditory it will create a hate filled
> enviroment that will make the Gender Lex fight look
> like a love in. If manditory changes are forced on the
> Citizens who don't want them, you will likely see a
> repaet of the Ides of March of 2754, but on a larger
> scale, perhaps as large as 25% of the active citizens
> resigning.
>

I can't see how this could happen.
Let's say gens A with 80 members is by this law inicially transformed in
80 one member families. Adoption can start immediately by common consent
(son/father), if they are all happy with their father, they will
immediately be adopted by him and end up as one 80 members family, the
only one of the gens.
Why should the necessity of sending an e-mail to the censors be a reason
for resigning from NR?


> If we are going to have Gens reform without spending a
> year tearing Nova Roma apart we are going to have to
> let Gens that do not wish to modify their current
> structure remain as they are.
>

They could return immediately to their actual structure through
adoption.

Vale,

Manius Villius Limitanus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] More about Gentes (was: The REAL problem with our Gentes...)
From:	"Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 23:12:57 -0400

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus Pontifici Maximo M. Cassio Iuliano et Civibus Novae Romae S.P.D.

Salve,

With this suggestion of Cassius I can easily agree, in that each bloodline family would then have it's own 'head of household', that one being the head of the household by origin, and subsequently, this being my own suggestion, having it's own cognomen to distinguish itself from the other members of a gens. For example:

I am not by birth a blood relative of my paterfamilias, Q. Postumius Albinus Maius. However, I did choose to be a Postumian, and as such I did so. I could choose, if I wanted, to also be Q. Postumius, but being that I do not have a blood relation to Albinus Maius, I would choose a different cognomen than his, hence Nero or Drusus or Sepulchratus, then showing that though we are both of the same gens, we are not of a blood relation. Similarly, I am of my own pater potestas, as is he of his own, because I am the head of my own household insofar as NR is concerned, and he is his own head of household insofar as NR is concerned also. And that would be the same over the scope of the entire gentes system.

However, this poses a problem. It is stated in the Constitution that the patrician gentes shall be the first thirty to have joined NR. As it was stated earlier about this in Antique times, I could be a freed slave, and move to some place away from where I was freed, take on the name of, for the purpose of example, the Claudii, but still be considered a plebeian, even though my nomen is of a patrician gens. The problem I'm getting to is this: How will we, if this reform is instituted, determine which familiae are of patrician status, and which ones aren't? My suggestion would be to take the thirty citizens with the longest term of citizenship, and they then become the patrician 'leaders' (this term used only to explain my next point, and not to mean that they have any pater-/materfamilial authority). Those blood relatives of the thirty patrician 'leaders' then become patricians also, and through blood relations following therein we determine patrician and plebeian status.

This reform then would bring up another problem, and that is persons having to amend their names by either adding or removing cognomina to distinguish blood relations. So for this, I would recommend that the Senate, though this I probably justly could not say, but I shall anyway, by Senatus Consultum Ultimum, temporarily expand the censors' office to hold enough censors to handle this overload which would occur, so that cognomina could be added, removed, or amended to fit the reform, as well as settling disputes between two different families wanting the same cognomen.

Though I speak of many complications with this reform, given recent events and discussions, I think it to be a necessary one to solve the disagreement of both factions here, and I think it to be one acceptable by all parties. And although I am not a magistrate, nor a senator, nor anything else but a citizen, I ask all of you to at least consider what I have said, which is not more than a repetition of others' comments and suggestions, tied in with some of my own thoughts and considerances, and give your comments back to the rest of the citizenry so that we may come to a peaceful and civil solution to this unfortunate incivility.

Bene Valete,

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus,
Civis Novae Romae

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


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Predestined Changes/could NR fall?
From:	"G.Porticus Brutis" <celtic4usa@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 00:25:11 -0700 (PDT)

Sorry my having problems with computer next time I'll
check to make sure theres no mistakes!Thank for
G.Porticus Brutis
<celtic4usa@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> MVariusPM@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 8/2/02
> 7:05:55 AM Central
> I agree with you, and this is why we must be very
> careful and take thing slow.To many times we can get
> in to fast and the world falls apart.I've been in to
> many fallen world to be blind when signs start
> popping up.This will not how ever happen here.When
> the people start losing faith then we'll see the
> cookie crumbly."Sorry I'm pretty hunger"We must push
> newbie's but slowly,always looking out for those who
have just joined teaching them our ides and helping
them
> to be better Romans.If we do this then NR will not
> fall.Now "mark my words" until ever person whom
> reads this letter, writes to one new Roman or
> thinking of joining Roman.Writes to them and try to
help
> push them along"with love"to better them self s.If
> we don't then yes NOVA ROMA WILL FALL!!!!!!and no
> one will be left standing to build it back up.LOOK
> to history!
> WE MUST HELP OUR NEW PERSONS they are our life's
> blood and so are our older Romans who we haven't
> heard from.Just please take my words to task don't
> let another person blow by....
> G.Porticus Brutis
> Daylight Time,
> lsicinius@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
> > Growth is good?
> > Tell that to a cancer patent who has been told his
> > tumor is growing.
> >
> > The exchange of ideas between two cultures is not
> > always good.
>
> Salveto,
>
> To view the purposeful introduction of alcohol
> into the Native American
> population by disreputable fur traders does not
> encompass "the exchange of
> ideas" to me. And, Native Americans did not "lack
> the cultural constraints"
> to deal with alcohol. They lacked a specific enzyme
> to break it down and
> digest it (same problem shared by Asiatic
> populations), so it had a higher
> effectivity and addiction rate.
>
> The other point "tell that to a cancer patient,"
> has some very interesting
> potential. Since my wife is a hospice nurse (and I
> volunteer with the
> organization), I have had a great deal of
> opportunity to view the dying
> process first hand. It is a process that contains
> "growth." (absolutely no
> pun intended). However, I was not talking about
> medical situations where
> someone is facing difficult life choices. I was
> talking in reference to
> political bodies. If a political group does not
> allow for change it will not
> survive. There is no example of this occurring in
> history.
>
> As for Nova Roma being "contaminated" by the
> introduction of "modern
> ideas." I do not believe this to be a viable
> argument for discussion, since
> it is completely theoretical. The group exists now.
> It is not possible to
> turn back the hands of time (at least not with our
> current technology) and
> place the group in a pristine historic time frame.
> Nor is it possible to set
> up a group with a pristine historic foundation. If
> that were the goal we
> would have to eliminate all forms of
> anti-discrimination and go back to a
> strictly male ruled organization that stratified
> each member by their actual
> economic and geneological circumstance. Who ever had
> the most money would be
> on top of the pile and it would pyramid beneath
> them. I doubt seriously this
> would be acceptable.
>
> Personally, I wouldn't want to recreate Rome as it
> was at any single time
> period. I don't disagree that studying it and using
> the best portions is a
> noble goal. That was what I believed the goal of the
> group to be. However,
> exactly duplicating Rome means the first thing we'd
> have to do is throw out
> the computers. I don't believe the group would get
> very far at that rate.
>
> It has been my experience that change often
> frightens people. I'm not
> really sure why that is. I've always enjoyed the
> adventure - what ever it may
> be - and view change as a time to learn. But, I do
> know this is not usually
> the case with most other people. I've often also
> observed that change is
> frequently viewed as a loss of control. This also
> illicits reactions of fear.
> I, personally, have never been interested in
> controlling other people. I like
> to be in control of myself and make the choices I
> believe are right for me.
> I've never objected to the choices others make for
> themselves, even if I
> didn't agree with them. I have also found this to be
> an uncommon position to
> take. It is interesting to watch the group struggle
> with some of these issues
> and to see what arguments arise as a result. I am
> sure it will determine the
> shape of the organization as time moves forward.
>
> Valete,
> M. Varius
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Replies on the Slope
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Sat, 03 Aug 2002 00:18:12 -0400

Salve Consul,

Thank you for your opinions. There is little I can say to this except
that in the coming months as various laws are presented we will see what
the electorate feels NR's vision should be.

-Gualterus


Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:

> Salve Marce Corneli,
>
>
>>Perhaps there should be a ROMA INIQVA for those that just want a
>>partial/skewed/uneven reconstruction, picking out a handful of the
>>"good" and throwing away the rest? This was not the impression I
>>gathered from the website/Declaration/Constitution. Or, perhaps, I'm in
>>the wrong place and there needs to be a ROMA NOVA that is more
>>full-bodied... leaving the "modernized" effort with NR.
>>
>
> Our one remaining Pater Patriae is in support of this reform, in support
> of a citizen's right to make his own choices.
>
> It would seem, then, that those who have disdain for modern concepts
> of rights and equality are in the wrong place. The idea that a
> "paterfamilias" can hold another in his gens (or familia) was never
> intended to be a part of Nova Roma.
>
> The "mos maiorum" that some here pretend to champion is a fiction.
>
>
>>The world is a different place now;
>>
>
> Indeed, it is. In some cases, the change is for the better - and I
> firmly believe the growing recognition of individual rights to be
> the most significant and beneficial development of the last two
> thousand years. I would not support or be a part of any society
> that would willingly cast that aside.
>
>
>>Allow me to repeat it once again: let us see how a reconstruction -
>>as complete as possible give modern constraints - works, and then
>>we can decide if it is bound to be a social failure.
>>
>
> Nova Roma was never intended to be the sort of reconstruction
> you are advocating. Just ask it's founder.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
>

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Bipartisanship, ca. 410 A.D.
From:	"Amanda Bowen" <reason_prevails@hotmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 02 Aug 2002 23:49:13 -0500

Poor, maligned Alaric :( I do realize it wasnt a serious post, but I'd like
to say the following:

Alaric was not just an uncivilized brute that came riding down from the
plains out of spite. The tribes were already very Romanized by his time, due
to living in close proximity to Rome (she had lost many of her posessions by
this time, so the edge of the frontier was closer to civilization than one
would expect) Alaric was a learned and well-read man who spoke Latin
fluently. He came to Rome and asked one thing politely of the Senate: land
near the Rhine for his people. He was flatly refused and repeatedly insulted
by the Senate.

Why did he wish to settle in the Rhine valley? Bad harvests in the east had
pushed the tribes living there westward (they couldnt go eastward to China
because of the Great Wall) which had in turn pushed Alaric's people very
close to Rome. There was simply no room for the tribe. He wanted peaceably
to settle, to be a citizen, to be a commander in the military. Unfortunately
this wouldnt happen. In the end, as has been put forth, he sacked Rome. Of
course she would toddle on for another 40 years or so, ending with a Romulus
as she began with one.

Do tell me if I've gotten anything wrong... I do like my failings to be made
known to me :)

Crispina

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Bipartisanship, ca. 410 A.D.
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	03 Aug 2002 09:21:31 -0300

Em Sáb, 2002-08-03 às 01:49, Amanda Bowen escreveu:
> Poor, maligned Alaric :( I do realize it wasnt a serious post, but I'd like
> to say the following:
>
> Alaric was not just an uncivilized brute that came riding down from the
> plains out of spite. The tribes were already very Romanized by his time, due
> to living in close proximity to Rome (she had lost many of her posessions by
> this time, so the edge of the frontier was closer to civilization than one
> would expect) Alaric was a learned and well-read man who spoke Latin
> fluently. He came to Rome and asked one thing politely of the Senate: land
> near the Rhine for his people. He was flatly refused and repeatedly insulted
> by the Senate.
>
> Why did he wish to settle in the Rhine valley? Bad harvests in the east had
> pushed the tribes living there westward (they couldnt go eastward to China
> because of the Great Wall) which had in turn pushed Alaric's people very
> close to Rome. There was simply no room for the tribe. He wanted peaceably
> to settle, to be a citizen, to be a commander in the military. Unfortunately
> this wouldnt happen. In the end, as has been put forth, he sacked Rome. Of
> course she would toddle on for another 40 years or so, ending with a Romulus
> as she began with one.
>
> Do tell me if I've gotten anything wrong... I do like my failings to be made
> known to me :)

You got the general idea, but condenced some 40 years of history.
The visigoths were an allied tribe from outside the empire, civilized,
christianized etc. in the first half of the 4th century. When, around
375, the pressure from the barbarian tribes became to large they asked
for help and shelter on the roman side of the danube. Rome accepted.
They send first their women and children, the army staying as a
rear-guard on the northern side of the danube.
The women and children were sold in slavery by the roman commanders.
Hearing of that the Visigoths invaded in force and defeated an imperial
army killling the emperor (Adrianopolis 376). They got their families
back, and after that served loyally for the Empire for other 30 years,
earning promises of land to settle on in return for them serving Rome.

It was the execution of those promises of payment for a job well done
that Alaric was demanding when he was insulted by the senate.

Even less barbarian isn it?

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:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Digest Number 94
From:	Patricia Cassia <pcassia@novaroma.org>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 08:24:45 -0400

On Saturday, August 3, 2002, at 07:31 AM, Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
wrote:

> does it not serve the purpose of Nova Roma to discuss the
> structure of her political organization with reference to systems that
> do and
> do not work?

Of course. On the other hand, an entire post about Native Americans or
third-world sweatshops qualifies as off-topic, and introducing such
topics tends to spark off-topic debates.

With a little thought, it should not be difficult to find *Roman*
systems that can serve as examples.

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


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] More about Gentes (was: The REAL problem with our Gentes...)
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@texas.net>
Date:	Sat, 03 Aug 2002 09:05:29 -0500

Salvete Quirites

I have two things to say about Lucius Sicinius' post.

First:
> All the Roman Gens were started by a
> single Family...

This is highly speculative at best. If gentes were ever actually
composed of a single familia, they were almost certainly not that way at
the time of Roma's founding according to the archaeological evidence
available to us.

Second:
> The Political reality is we have a large number of
> citizens who prefer the current arrangement.

From this point on, I agree in spirit with what he's said, though I am
less absolutely certain of the outcome than he is. This topic does have
the potential to be as bad or worse than the gender edictum brouhaha
because it strikes at the very heart of both the experiences to date and
the expectations for the future of every Nova Roman within Nova Roma.
Those of you who are writing proposed leges, be very careful to keep
this in mind as you craft them.

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


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] Replies on the Slope
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 07:41:48 -0700 (PDT)

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
wrote:

>
> Indeed, it is. In some cases, the change is for the
> better - and I
> firmly believe the growing recognition of individual
> rights to be
> the most significant and beneficial development of
> the last two
> thousand years. I would not support or be a part
> of any society
> that would willingly cast that aside.
>

Salve Consul,
"individual rights"? That is an intresting term. Are
there other rights besides "individual rights"?

If we are going to introduce modern concepts into a
historic setting then these concepts need to be
defined. In the Macronational world I see people
claiming every thing from the "right to bear arms" (US
Bill of Rights) to a "right to holidays with pay"
(Universal Declaration of Human Rights), but rarely do
I see a discussion of exactly what the concept "Right"
means. Instead I see a laundry list of "Rights" with
no more justification for calling it a "Right" than
it's written on a scrap of paper.

Consul, What does "Right" mean to you? I Want to know
exactly what we are introducing under the term
"individual rights", and if the addition of the word
"indiviual" (Which is a redunancy from a Libertarian
viewpoint) means there are some other flavors of
"Rights" that will have to be added to have a modern
state?

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] Minimum Standards for Appointment as Propraetor 2753
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <christer.edling@telia.com>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 16:41:29 +0200

Salve Illustris Curator Araneum!

I am well aware that You have very much to do. But I can find Th
Senatus Consultum: Minimum Standards for Appointment as Propraetor
2753. Could You please get it back because I need it. (I will send
You a cc mail as why. ;-)
--
Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senator et Senior Curule Aedile
Propraetor Thules
AUCTOR LEGIONIS, Legio VII "Res Publica"
Sodalitas Egressus Praefectus Provincia Thules
"Fautor Societatis Iuventutis Romanae"


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Sententiae Praetoris
From:	Ira Adams <iadams@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 10:03:55 -0500

Salve Titus Labienus!

Obviously I am falling behind in reading in this Forum. Nova Roma is not
the only place in which I have to cope with ugly crises.

On 7/30/02 10:27 PM Titus Labienus Fortunatus wrote:

[snipped]
>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.
>
It's a shame that we have to be continually reminded of these truths, but
thank you for reminding us once again. I fear that those who feel weak or
threatened will continue to resort to any means to corral a majority of
citizens on their side of the issue. As one fairly central party in the
Gender Edictum debacle and its unsavory sequelae, I hope that we (and I)
may never find ourselves at such extremes again.

>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.
>
I think that your three postulates reflect the stated intentions of Nova
Roma's founders. We are all three of those by design. Others may have
their own reasons and designs, and when those are incompatible with our
original purposes (as was the case with Apollonius, for instance) there
will be strife and contention. For instance, the focus of bitter,
rancorous debate when I first became a citizen was over the contention by
some that Nova Roma should exist for the primary purpose of providing a
safe haven and a forum for all forms of "pagan" religion, and that no
other purpose could be central. We weathered that one as I have seen us
weather several more since then.

I have come to often see Nova Roma as a great ship in stormy seas.
Sometimes it seems that the winds of dissension and the towering seas of
contending purposes are certain to overwhelm her, pouring across her
decks and thundering against her bridge. So far she always staggers up
from the trough, crashes through the crest, and continues onward, albeit
sometimes losing bits of loose gear and unwary souls along the way (one
of our Founders was washed away recently). Let us hope that she will
always rise up and continue onward.

I think that the current debate and the insight of our remaining Founder
have revealed a serious design flaw in our ship of state. The concept of
the Gens and the Paterfamilias/Materfamilias that were incorporated into
Nova Roma at the start have NO RESEMBLANCE to the Roman tradition. A
paterfamilias was the head of a nuclear, biological family. He was not
the "Don" of a widespread clan of mostly unrelated individuals who once
in were not allowed to leave. That is a model for Mafiosi, not for
Romans. By using the term Paterfamilius for a clan leader, we have
totally lost connection to Roman tradition. The unit of Roman political
and religious life is the family and not the clan (gens). I am the
supreme head of my immediate family, which is a part of Gens Sergia. The
other cives scattered in other areas of the world who are Sergii are
similarly the supreme heads of their own families, which are also parts
of Gens Sergia. Sometimes design flaws only become clear when the ship is
in service (remember the Hood).

This fundamental departure from the Roman model of society cannot be
adequately fixed by the Lex Octavia Salicia or any other patch. Like
badly written code (to borrow from Octavius' field of expertise), this
particular flaw deserves to be re-written and not just patched. Our ship
of Nova Roma needs a re-fit. Let us bring it into line with the
traditions of Rome and her Mos Maiorum, and excise the Mafia clans from
her design. Let us return to the Roman family as the fundamental unit of
Roman society - a society in which the head of the family is the priest
and general and consul of that nuclear family, and not the ruler of a
far-flung clan.

As I have said, I am behind in my reading here. Perhaps this movement is
already proceeding. If so, I support it. If not, I advocate it. We must
reform the gentes for the survival of Nova Roma as a Roman republic. She
must be re-fitted (again, Remember the Hood!).

Vale et valete,

Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
Senator and ex-Tribune



------------------------------------------------------------
vita brevis, amor longus, et amor omnia vincit

Life is short, Love is long, and Love conquers all.

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Wondering about the gens system
From:	Ira Adams <iadams@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 10:03:58 -0500

Ave Lucius Cornelius

Once again we find ourselves on the same side of a debate (scary, isn't
it? ;-) ).

I can no longer support the Lex Octavia Salicia, because it has been made
clear that it is only a patch that does not fix the underlying problem.

I agree that we need to return to the Mos Maiorum and the traditions of
ancient Rome. But in the Mos Maiorum and the traditions of ancient Rome,
the nuclear family was the basic unit of Roman society, and the
Paterfamilias was the supremem head of the nuclear family. He was not the
head of any far-flung Gens made up of many subject families.

Our Nova Roman republic has gone astray in implementing the thoroughly
un-Roman idea of a paterfamilias as the ruler of a gens instead of a
family. I am the paterfamilias of my nuclear family. The other members of
Gens Sergia are paterfamilii of their own families. I have no ambitions
to rule them and their families and have never sought to assume such a
role. I am supreme within my family but not within our Gens.

The Lex Octavia Salicia cannot fix this flaw and so I call on the
Tribunes to withdraw it and to throw their support behind a fundamental
reform of our system of gentes and families, so that we may return to
closer conformity to Roman tradition and to the Mos Maiorum of Roma.

I am truly sorry that the recent debate on the Lex Octavia Salicia has
repeatedly been focused on you and Gens Cornelia. Once the flaw in our
gentes has been fixed, you and your gens members will continue to be free
to associate, communicate, and cooperate just as you choose, with any or
all of them free to continue to give you respect and obedience as the
founder of Gens Cornelia. You will lose nothing by a reform of the
gentes, and Nova Roma will gain a more Roman family structure.

I hope that you will support reform.

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.


On 7/30/02 10:27 PM Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix wrote:

>Where is the tradition in this law? I have been told that my quoting from
>scholars is to be utterly disregarded because it does not fit into some
>individual's view of family. I have been told "I" role play because I
>take my duties too seriously. I have been told that the Gens Cornelia is
>not a family, when the Cornelians who have posted on this list affirm that
>we are a family.
>
>The Lex Octavia Salicia throws Roman Tradition out the window and
>establishes a new hybrid that cannot be justified historically, in any
>stage of Rome's development. I am sorry Tribune, while you and I are
>friends and I enjoy chatting with you, I think your interpretation is
>flawed in this instance. I do not see tradition anywhere in this Lex
>Octavia Salicia.
>
>In no post dealing with any compromise has anyone even mentioned the Mos
>Maiorum. In no post dealing with any compromise has no one focused on the
>ancients. It seems to me that Nova Roma has decided to strike out on its
>own in complete disregard for the ancients. This depresses me more than I
>can put into words.
>
>I will not support this lex. Nor will I support any modification and
>revision.
>
>Vale,
>
>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>


"Never ask what sort of computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user,
he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him?" -- Tom Clancy

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Re: Re: Gens Hopping - enough already!!!
From:	Ira Adams <iadams@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 10:04:00 -0500

Salvete Omnes

Just out of curiosity, who was the ingenious propagandist who introduced
the ridiculous straw man of "gens hopping" into this topic, thereby
successfully diverting a number of citizens away from intelligent debate
and into an endless exchange of ideas to combat a problem that has never
existed and probably never could??? And one which is irrelevant to the
serious topic some are trying to discuss here.

The very few citizens who have changed gentes have not sought to do so
repeatedly, and had much better reasons than wanting to role-play or have
a neat new nomen.

Truly this is a non-problem if there ever wasn't one.

PLEASE drop it and move on to serious matters, or at least stay out of
the way and quit wasting our bandwidth!

Gratii!!

Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
Senator, ex-Tribune, and Paterfamilias of his own family _within_ Gens
Sergia


On 7/31/02 10:46 AM A. Hirtius Helveticus wrote:

>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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Digest Number 89
From:	Ira Adams <iadams@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 10:04:02 -0500

On 7/31/02 8:08 PM Lucius Arminius Faustus <lafaustus@yahoo.com.br> wrote:
>
>Salvete quirites,
>
[snipped]
>
>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.
>
[snipped]

Salvete Omnes

I submit that what we need is NOT to "...transform the gens in something
that look like a family." We need to quit pretending that Gens and Family
mean the same thing. In Roman society, a Paterfamilias was the head of a
family and not of a gens. (That might be why he was called the
PaterFAMILIAS and not the Patergentis -- you think?)

Our gentes structure MUST be repaired. People would be free to pick a
Gens upon becoming citizens, but require approval of a family head if
they want to be considered members of any particular family unit _within_
that gens. They could also choose to start their own nuclear family unit
within that gens.

For example: If someone chooses to join Nova Roma as Lucius Sergius
Arcticus, that's between him and the Censores. He doesn't affect me and
doesn't need my approval or the approval of any of the other paterfamilii
of families within Gens Sergia. If he admires me personally so much that
he wants to be considered my adopted family member, subject to my
authority within my family, then he must convince me to adopt him into my
_family_. (He'll first have to convince me that he's not crazy.)

That's the way it worked in ancient Rome (except that usually gens
affiliation came with birth). That's the way I handle things now within
Gens Sergia. That's the way it should be in Nova Roma. I await a legal
proposal to establish it that way. I will wholeheartedly support it, as
will all who truly want a Roman society here.

Those who want to continue as heads of Mafia-style clans will always be
free to do so, except that they will need to maintain the loyalty of
those they want to rule. They will not be able to use our laws to coerce
loyalty.

Valete,




Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
Senator, ex-Tribune, and Paterfamilias of his own family _within_ Gens
Sergia

(ar Pereldar - alassea nan Elda)

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] COMITIA POPULI RESULTS
From:	Matt Haase <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 10:04:42 -0500 (CDT)

Salvete Cives,

Voting in the Comitia Populi Tributa has concluded. The results, as
agreed upon by the Rogatores:

for ROGATOR:

Gnaeus Salix Galaicus - 19 Tribes:
2 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 15 17 20 22 24 25 27 29 31 33 34
Quintus Cassius Calvus - 14 Tribes:
1 3 5 8 13 14 18 19 21 23 26 28 30 35
Publius Caelius Orestes - 1 Tribe:
32

Gnaeus Salix Galaicus is elected Rogator.

on the Lex Octavia de Privatus Rebus:

YES 31 tribes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 20 21
22 23 25 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
NO 2 tribes: 19 24*

The Lex Octavia de Privatus Rebus is enacted. This lex allows
patresfamilias to have access to the email addresses of their
gens members.

As a result of this, I have now modified the gens member approval tool
http://www.novaroma.org/bin/editgens?cmd=members
to show email addresses. (This URL requires login/password and will
work for patresfamilias only).

Valete,
M. Octavius Germanicus, Consul.



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] The REAL problem with our Gentes...
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <christer.edling@telia.com>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 17:07:24 +0200

Salvete Quirites and Esteemed Senatores!

Since I returned to Rome I have been sitting at my computer about 25
hours (in 4 days) working with the Nova Roman Rally in Belgium, the
Ludi Romani, the Academia and other Nova Roman things.

I this has prevented me from taking part in the great Gens debatte,
especially as the heat of the discussion was out as I arrived in
Rome. ;-)

But I would like to state that I centainly agree with our Esteemed
Pater Patriae Marcus Cassius Julianus in that the whole Gens/Familia
system in Nova Roma is wrong and I will most certainly support a
reform to this system that will mean a definitive change towards a
more historical system.

I will not support any system that means that citizens of Nova Roma
can be hindered, even theoretically, from leaving his Gens. Still I
also hope for a new legislation that gives those who want to be in
the same Familia a chance to be that. I think that Illustruis Manius
Villius Limitanus has said this quite well in his latest mail. Until
such change of the Gens system is proposed to the people I hope to be
able to support a modificated Lex by the Illustris Tribunus Gnaeus
Salix Astur!

>Even though the "Lex Octavia Salacia" Gens law has been withdrawn so that it
>may be amended, discussion seems to continue. Citizens such as Lucius
>Cornelius Sulla continue to declare that the proposed law is against the 'mos
>maiorum' - a departure from Roman tradition.
>
>I hate to say this folks, but the REAL departure from tradition is our Gens
>system as it stands. It was a good first effort, but the *entire system*
>would need to be broken down and rebuilt before it could be considered
>anything like 'tradition'.


...........................
..................................

--
Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senator et Senior Curule Aedile
Propraetor Thules
AUCTOR LEGIONIS, Legio VII "Res Publica"
Sodalitas Egressus Praefectus Provincia Thules
"Fautor Societatis Iuventutis Romanae"

************************************************
The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an official opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
The homepage of Senior Curule Aedile
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and his Cohors Aedilis
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."

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] COMITIA CENTURIATA RESULTS
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 10:08:46 -0500 (CDT)

Salvete Cives,

Voting in the Comitia Centuriata has concluded. The
Lex Secunda Octavia de Centuriata has been approved,
with 64 centuries voting in favor and 9 centuries voting against.

In addition, the Senate vote which concluded on Wednesday 31 July
has approved, by a vote of 14 to 1, the Constitutional Amendment
which makes this possible. Thus, the number of centuries will
be reduced to a number more appropriate for our voting population,
and will afterwards be adjusted as our population grows.

Valete, Octavius.

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


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: Wondering about the gens system
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 18:19:33 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, L. Sergi Australice.

--- Ira Adams <iadams@earthlink.net> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> The Lex Octavia Salicia cannot fix this flaw and so I call on the
> Tribunes to withdraw it and to throw their support behind a
> fundamental reform of our system of gentes and families, so that we
> may return to closer conformity to Roman tradition and to the Mos
> Maiorum of Roma.

I have said this before, and I have the impression that I will have to
repeat it a few times more :-).

As you probably already know, I, as a tribunus plebis, can *not*
propose leges to the Comitia Centuriata. And a constitutional
ammendment (such as the one that is necessary to reform our current
gens system) must be approved by the Comitia Centuriata. Only the
consules (and perhaps the praetores) can do that.

So my hands are tied. I wish they weren't. I would propose a reform of
our gens system along a historical line immediately.

I have always expressed my *full* support for a proposal that brings
our gens system to historical correction. When that proposal comes, I
will be more than happy to modify my current proposal to adapt it to
the new situation.

However, the Lex Octavia Salicia does not try to solve this problem
(that is why it doesn't solve it, as you have pointed out). It handles
a completely different issue: What happens when an adult citizen
decides to leave a gens? This possibility is simply not contemplated in
our current legal system.

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: COMITIA POPULI RESULTS
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Sat, 03 Aug 2002 17:21:18 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., Matt Haase <haase@c...> wrote:
> Salvete Cives,
>
> Voting in the Comitia Populi Tributa has concluded. The results, as
> agreed upon by the Rogatores:
>
> for ROGATOR:
>
> Gnaeus Salix Galaicus - 19 Tribes:
> 2 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 15 17 20 22 24 25 27 29 31 33 34
> Quintus Cassius Calvus - 14 Tribes:
> 1 3 5 8 13 14 18 19 21 23 26 28 30 35
> Publius Caelius Orestes - 1 Tribe:
> 32
>
> Gnaeus Salix Galaicus is elected Rogator.

Salve Cives,

I would first like to thank all who turned out to vote in the
election. No matter for whom you voted, the most important thing is
that you voted. Let me be the first to extend my congratulations to
Gnaeus Salix Galaicus on his electorial victory. I would also like
to thank two other people in specific. First, I'd like to thank
Consul Marcus Octavius Germanicus, for accepting my offer to run for
the unexpired term of Rogator and placing me on the ballot. Secondly
I'd like to thank Senator Marcus Minucius Audens for his words of
wisdom when I needed them.


Pax,

Quintus Cassius Calvus



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] oath as scriba rpopraetoris
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Tiberius=20Apollonius=20Cicatrix?= <consulromanus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 18:54:20 +0100 (BST)

I, Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix (Dennis Temmerman) do
hereby solemnly swear to uphold the honor of Nova
Roma, and to act always in the best interests of the
people and the Senate of Nova Roma.

As a magistrate of Nova Roma, I, Tiberius Apollonius
Cicatrix (Dennis Temmerman) swear to honor the Gods
and Goddesses of Rome in my public dealings, and to
pursue the Roman Virtues in my public and private
life.

I, Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix (Dennis Temmerman)
swear to uphold and defend the Religio Romana as the
State Religion of Nova Roma and swear never to act in
a way that would threaten its status as the State
Religion.

I, Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix (Dennis Temmerman)
swear to protect and defend the Constitution of Nova
Roma.

I, Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix (Dennis Temmerman)
further swear to fulfill the obligations and
responsibilities of the office of scriba propraetoris
to the best of my abilities.

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


=====
Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix
Aedilis Plebis
Coryphaeus Sodalitatis Musarum
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae
civis Novae Romae

***HORUM OMNIUM FORTISSIME SUNT BELGAE***

__________________________________________________
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

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] Congratulation to the position as Rogator
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <christer.edling@telia.com>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 20:19:36 +0200

Salvete Illustris Gnaeus Salix Galaicus et Quirites!

Congratulation to the position as Rogator Illustris Gnaeus Salix
Galaicus. As You work for me in the Cohors Aedilis as my Scriba
Aedilis Cursus Equorum I _know_ that You do a good job.

>Voting in the Comitia Populi Tributa has concluded. The results, as
>agreed upon by the Rogatores:
>
>for ROGATOR:
>
>Gnaeus Salix Galaicus - 19 Tribes:
> 2 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 15 17 20 22 24 25 27 29 31 33 34
>Quintus Cassius Calvus - 14 Tribes:
> 1 3 5 8 13 14 18 19 21 23 26 28 30 35
>Publius Caelius Orestes - 1 Tribe:
> 32
>
>Gnaeus Salix Galaicus is elected Rogator.

--
Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senator et Senior Curule Aedile
Propraetor Thules
AUCTOR LEGIONIS, Legio VII "Res Publica"
Sodalitas Egressus Praefectus Provincia Thules
"Fautor Societatis Iuventutis Romanae"

************************************************
The homepage of Senior Curule Aedile
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and his Cohors Aedilis
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Wondering about the gens system
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 11:45:10 -0700

Avete Senator et Omnes,

I will support reform of the gentes and families to make it more accurate with the ancients.

I am very much looking forward to reviewing the suggestions and changes of my accesnus et Propraetor Lucius Sicinius Drusus.

As soon as I review it I will be posting it to the Senate for consideration.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul
----- Original Message -----
From: Ira Adams
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 8:03 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Wondering about the gens system



Ave Lucius Cornelius

Once again we find ourselves on the same side of a debate (scary, isn't
it? ;-) ).

I can no longer support the Lex Octavia Salicia, because it has been made
clear that it is only a patch that does not fix the underlying problem.

I agree that we need to return to the Mos Maiorum and the traditions of
ancient Rome. But in the Mos Maiorum and the traditions of ancient Rome,
the nuclear family was the basic unit of Roman society, and the
Paterfamilias was the supremem head of the nuclear family. He was not the
head of any far-flung Gens made up of many subject families.

Our Nova Roman republic has gone astray in implementing the thoroughly
un-Roman idea of a paterfamilias as the ruler of a gens instead of a
family. I am the paterfamilias of my nuclear family. The other members of
Gens Sergia are paterfamilii of their own families. I have no ambitions
to rule them and their families and have never sought to assume such a
role. I am supreme within my family but not within our Gens.

The Lex Octavia Salicia cannot fix this flaw and so I call on the
Tribunes to withdraw it and to throw their support behind a fundamental
reform of our system of gentes and families, so that we may return to
closer conformity to Roman tradition and to the Mos Maiorum of Roma.

I am truly sorry that the recent debate on the Lex Octavia Salicia has
repeatedly been focused on you and Gens Cornelia. Once the flaw in our
gentes has been fixed, you and your gens members will continue to be free
to associate, communicate, and cooperate just as you choose, with any or
all of them free to continue to give you respect and obedience as the
founder of Gens Cornelia. You will lose nothing by a reform of the
gentes, and Nova Roma will gain a more Roman family structure.

I hope that you will support reform.

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.


On 7/30/02 10:27 PM Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix wrote:

>Where is the tradition in this law? I have been told that my quoting from
>scholars is to be utterly disregarded because it does not fit into some
>individual's view of family. I have been told "I" role play because I
>take my duties too seriously. I have been told that the Gens Cornelia is
>not a family, when the Cornelians who have posted on this list affirm that
>we are a family.
>
>The Lex Octavia Salicia throws Roman Tradition out the window and
>establishes a new hybrid that cannot be justified historically, in any
>stage of Rome's development. I am sorry Tribune, while you and I are
>friends and I enjoy chatting with you, I think your interpretation is
>flawed in this instance. I do not see tradition anywhere in this Lex
>Octavia Salicia.
>
>In no post dealing with any compromise has anyone even mentioned the Mos
>Maiorum. In no post dealing with any compromise has no one focused on the
>ancients. It seems to me that Nova Roma has decided to strike out on its
>own in complete disregard for the ancients. This depresses me more than I
>can put into words.
>
>I will not support this lex. Nor will I support any modification and
>revision.
>
>Vale,
>
>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>


"Never ask what sort of computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user,
he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him?" -- Tom Clancy

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The REAL problem with our Gentes...
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 11:58:16 -0700

Ave Senator,

I got this message right before I departed to work and did not have the time to respond. Now I have the time to respond:
----- Original Message -----
From: tlfortunatus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 5:54 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The REAL problem with our Gentes...


Salvete Corneli Consul omnesque

> This sounds like a workable plan and in keeping with the Mos
> Maiorum. Propraetor, in May I asked you if you could write up this
> law. Has your schedule cleared up enough that you could help
> prepare this draft. Because if you could I will present it to the
> People...

When Cn Salix, myself, and some others proposed almost exactly the
same revisions to our gens system on the Vedian_Baths and
NovaRomaLaws lists, you were the among their loudest and staunchest
opponents, O consul.

I do not believe your proposed plan was the exactly the same as discussed by Propraetor Lucius Sicinius. I am, and always, have been against the forcing of gentes to comply with anything with respect to reform unless they want to voluntarily comply. Those gentes that are happy the way they are should be allowed to operate the way they are.

In an attempt at compromise, I suggested the
very simple and mild semi-solution of changing the wording of the
constitution to read "familia" where it now says "gens". And yet,
you fought against even this.

At first I did, but at the time I had a long discussion with Propraetor Lucius Sicinius Drusus and it was explained that there would be no change on how gentes (families) would operate. Since that time I have used the name Gen interchanibly with family.

What is so different about this
proposal that you now embrace the idea of gens reform?

My embracing the idea of gens reform is for two specific reasons:

1. It is accurate with the ancients (depending on your time of reference). Anything that brings us more accurate is something I am for.

2. It does not compel those gentes (families) to change their internal structure. Because, I am of the opinion that the state has no right to interfere in the internal operations of gentes (families). That was the very nature of my opposition before.

I hope this answers your inquiry.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Legal Observation (was Re: Wondering about the gens system)
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@texas.net>
Date:	Sat, 03 Aug 2002 14:49:12 -0500

Salvete Gnaee Salix omnesque

This is offered purely for informational purposes.

> And a constitutional
> ammendment (such as the one that is necessary to reform our current
> gens system) must be approved by the Comitia Centuriata. Only the
> consules (and perhaps the praetores) can do that.

The praetores cannot directly promulgate legislation in Nova Roma unless
the consules are unable to do so (edicta notwithstanding).

Constitution, IV.A.3.c grants praetores the power and duty "To call the
Senate, the comitia centuriata, and the comitia populi tributa to order
when the Consuls are unavailable".

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



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] Legal Observation (was Re: Wondering about the gens system)
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 21:10:06 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, honorabilissime Tite Labiene.

--- Fortunatus <labienus@texas.net> wrote:
> Salvete Gnaee Salix omnesque
>
> This is offered purely for informational purposes.
>
> > And a constitutional
> > ammendment (such as the one that is necessary to reform our current
> > gens system) must be approved by the Comitia Centuriata. Only the
> > consules (and perhaps the praetores) can do that.
>
> The praetores cannot directly promulgate legislation in Nova Roma
> unless the consules are unable to do so (edicta notwithstanding).
>
> Constitution, IV.A.3.c grants praetores the power and duty "To call
> the Senate, the comitia centuriata, and the comitia populi tributa to
> order when the Consuls are unavailable".

Thank you very much for the explanation, Fortunate. You have been very
helpful, like you always are.

Just one question: do you ever get tired of being so good? ;-).

=====
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

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] More about Gentes (was: The REAL problem with our Gentes...)
From:	"Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 11:03:36 -0400

Salvete,

My comments on comments follow in caps, so no, I'm not screaming my own name
everytime I have something to say.

----
Salvete Quirites; et salve, Druse.

I would like to make a few commensts on the ideas of reforming our
currently antihistorical gens system to bring it closer to the
historical system.

--- "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Senator,
> I have made many posts regarding the Need for Reform
> of our Gens/Family structure. Rather than go over them
> I'd like to discuss the political side of this
> problem.
>
> We have many Citizens who are comfortable with the
> present concept of a Gens and a Family being one and
> the same thing. All the Roman Gens were started by a
> single Family, and some hold that since we are
> starting Roma anew we would be following a historic
> role by allowing a Gens that consists of a single
> family to develop over time into multi family Gens.
> Others look at the Republican Gens and want to base
> our Gens on this model with indiviual families.
>
> BOTH of these models are correct depending on which
> time frame you referance, the start of a Gens or the
> way they were hundreds of years later. If this was the
> first day of Nova Roma we might be able to agree on a
> common model. However we don't have a DeLoren with a
> Flux Capacitor to use as a time machine. We don't have
> the option of going back and asking you and Germanicus
> to set up a different arrangement.

That is quite speculative, propraetor. The truth is that we can not be
sure of how gentes and familiae were at the time of the Founding of
Rome. That falls directly into Roman prehistory.

We can be sure of how gentes and familiae were during the Middle and
Late Republic. We have historical data about that.

Besides, although Nova Roma is pretty young, we have chosen the model
of the Middle to Late Republic as our base to build it. If we wanted to
base Nova Roma on the state of affairs at the time of the Foundation,
we would have to have a rex instead of two consules.

Postumius Nero -- When was it declared that we have chosen the model of the
Middle to Late Republic?

> The Political reality is we have a large number of citizens who
> prefer the current arrangement. ANY attempt to force them to change
> is going to have very unplesant results. The Gender Lex kept Nova
> Romans at each other's throats for over a year, and this has the
> potential to be far worse.

That is why we shall *vote* on any proposal: we will know the *real*
will of the People of Nova Roma when we present these items to vote.

Postumius Nero -- Agreed.

> I have been looking over the changes that will be needed to have a
> Gens/Family structure that is closer to the model used during the
> Republic, that is it will legalize families much like you mention. I
> will be sending the Junior Consul some recomendations on changes that
> will have to be made to the Constitution this weekend. I will include
> a reccomendation that these be presented to the Senate before they
are
> presented to the People, but what he does with them is his choice not
> mine.

Any constitutional ammendment will have to be retified by the Senate.

> You will have the chance to suggest any changes you wish in the
> Senate.
>
> I Fell it is my duty to make this warning before we start on this
> road. This isn't based on any secrect information, just my reading of
> public opion based on the reactions to the Lex under present
> discussion, and on past discussions of Gens Reform. This can turn
into
> the most devissive issue Nova Roma has ever seen.
> Worse than the Gender Edict or the Civil war that led
> to the dictatorship. Any attempt to force Gens to change their status
> will tear us apart. This needs to be limited to making multi family
> Gens possible, NOT manditory. IF you attempt to make changes in the
> current Gens manditory it will create a hate filled enviroment that
> will make the Gender Lex fight look like a love in. If manditory
> changes are forced on the Citizens who don't want them, you will
> likely see a repaet of the Ides of March of 2754, but on a larger
> scale, perhaps as large as 25% of the active citizens resigning.

We have heard the opinions of about twenty citizens. Countless others
have chosen not to express their opinion in public. Of those twenty
citizens, a huge majority has expressed their support for a gens system
that follows the Roman Republican historical model.

So I would say that your fears are unfounded.

Postumius Nero -- There's always the other one-thousand three-hundred
eighty-three who haven't bothered to speak, but may when elections come
around.

> If we are going to have Gens reform without spending a year tearing
> Nova Roma apart we are going to have to let Gens that do not wish to
> modify their current structure remain as they are.

Who should decide inside each gens which model to follow?

Postumius Nero -- Who else but the entire gens themseves. They can
internally re-organize themselves if they choose to, and I think that
internally they can all come to a peaceful decision.

> For any claims that this isn't accurate, having to go to the Censor
> for approval of citizenship isn't accurate. In Antiquita a forigner
> who wanted to become a Roman citizen went to the Proconsul or
> Propraetor of the Province, not to Roma to see the Censors, so to be
> fully accurate we would have to transfer approval of citizenship to
> the Governors, who would be able to retain a bribe or if you prefer
> the term "membership fee" for approving an application.
>
> Senator, your name and your order are inaccurate.
> Cassius is a Plebian Nomen. Should we force all Patricians with a
> Plebian Nomen to drop Patrician Status or change their name?

Our laws explicitly state that the original order to which a certain
familia belonged in Antiquity has no relation with the order to which
that familia can belong in Nova Roma.

Postumius Nero -- In agreement to that let me just point out that the
Postumians were patricians in the Antique days, but as you can see, I'm just
a meager little plebeian.

> I'm not going that far, I want to leave Force out of this. I want to
> move towards accuracy, but not at the expense of attempting to force
> people to be accurate.

As a final word, it has never been my intention to force others to
follow the model that I prefer. I just think that a historical model
should:

- be allowed
- be set as a "default" option.

Postumius Nero -- Default option and the allowance thereof. Seems calm
enough, but we'll find out, won't we?

Bene Valete,

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus,
Civis Novae Romae

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



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: The REAL problem with our Gentes (III)
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 16:38:13 EDT

Lucius Cornelius Sulla writes:
(In answer to why he is in favor of Gens reform)

1. It is accurate with the ancients (depending on your time of reference).
Anything that brings us more accurate is something I am for.

Cassius:
I personally am glad to hear this, Consul Sulla. Especially since *real* Gens
reform would break down both our Gentes, and remove in essence *all* of the
"patria potestas" we now posses. Those families now "in our Gens" would not
suddenly become "children in our family"... they would be come independent
Paters and Maters with 'sui iuris' status. Nova Roma becoming more truly
historical would in fact still remove the powers you were demanding in
opposition to the "Lex Octavia Salacia" law. In fact the change would be more
sweeping, turning your "family members" into separate families of their own.

Frankly, I thought you'd be the one individual most opposed to the suggestion
of removing Gentes and making all familiae independent. I was actually
hesitant to propose the idea because of that! Your Gens washed away with such
a change, and *not* being replaced with a huge "extended family" you would
still have control over? You being left with "Patria Potestas" over only your
own home? It even took ME a while to get used to the idea. Happily, it seems
your love of historical accuracy is paramount within you, something to be
admired. :)

Sulla:
2. It does not compel those gentes (families) to change their internal
structure. Because, I am of the opinion that the state has no right to
interfere in the internal operations of gentes (families). That was the very
nature of my opposition before.

Cassius:
Actually, I'm afraid it would force the "Gentes" to change their internal
structure. Our Gentes would be completely broken up and replaced by a
different system. The Gentes would not simply turn into large families - it
would break Nova Roma up by household units, and make all households separate
and equal.

Instead of yourself being the "Pater" of 86 people, (and me, "Pater" of 38
people) Gens Cornelia would have something along the line of 70-80
independent branches, (and Gens Cassia something like 25-30) each branch
having an independent Pater or Mater under no obligation to either of us.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus








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


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Legal Observation (was Re: Wondering about the gens system)
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@texas.net>
Date:	Sat, 03 Aug 2002 15:37:44 -0500

Salve iterum Gnaee Salix

> Thank you very much for the explanation, Fortunate. You have been very
> helpful, like you always are.

You're quite welcome.

> Just one question: do you ever get tired of being so good? ;-).

Well, it's a heavy load, but someone's got to bear it. (My
ever-supportive wife suggests that that load is due primarily to the
size of my head, and that you should therefore cease to inflate it.)

Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"Since death alone is certain and the time of death uncertain, what
should I do?"


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] Legal Observation (was Re: Wondering about the gens system)
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 21:46:48 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Fortunate.

--- Fortunatus <labienus@texas.net> wrote:
> Salve iterum Gnaee Salix
>
> > Thank you very much for the explanation, Fortunate. You have been
> > very helpful, like you always are.
>
> You're quite welcome.
>
> > Just one question: do you ever get tired of being so good? ;-).
>
> Well, it's a heavy load, but someone's got to bear it. (My
> ever-supportive wife suggests that that load is due primarily to the
> size of my head, and that you should therefore cease to inflate it.)
>
> Vale
> T Labienus Fortunatus

I am sure that you are joking, but you have just surpassed the limits
of my English linguistic skills :-). From the context, I guess that an
"inflated head" is what one gets when too much flattering affects one.
The other possibility would be that an "inflated head" is a head that
is aching because of excessive pestering. If the second option happens
to be the right one, please accept my apologies :-).

=====
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

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: The REAL problem with our Gentes (III)
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	03 Aug 2002 17:51:03 -0300

Em Sáb, 2002-08-03 às 17:38, cassius622@aol.com escreveu:
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla writes:
> (In answer to why he is in favor of Gens reform)
>
> 1. It is accurate with the ancients (depending on your time of reference).
> Anything that brings us more accurate is something I am for.
>
> Cassius:
> I personally am glad to hear this, Consul Sulla. Especially since *real* Gens
> reform would break down both our Gentes, and remove in essence *all* of the
> "patria potestas" we now posses. Those families now "in our Gens" would not
> suddenly become "children in our family"... they would be come independent
> Paters and Maters with 'sui iuris' status. Nova Roma becoming more truly
> historical would in fact still remove the powers you were demanding in
> opposition to the "Lex Octavia Salacia" law. In fact the change would be more
> sweeping, turning your "family members" into separate families of their own.
>
> Frankly, I thought you'd be the one individual most opposed to the suggestion
> of removing Gentes and making all familiae independent. I was actually
> hesitant to propose the idea because of that! Your Gens washed away with such
> a change, and *not* being replaced with a huge "extended family" you would
> still have control over? You being left with "Patria Potestas" over only your
> own home? It even took ME a while to get used to the idea. Happily, it seems
> your love of historical accuracy is paramount within you, something to be
> admired. :)
>
> Sulla:
> 2. It does not compel those gentes (families) to change their internal
> structure. Because, I am of the opinion that the state has no right to
> interfere in the internal operations of gentes (families). That was the very
> nature of my opposition before.
>
> Cassius:
> Actually, I'm afraid it would force the "Gentes" to change their internal
> structure. Our Gentes would be completely broken up and replaced by a
> different system. The Gentes would not simply turn into large families - it
> would break Nova Roma up by household units, and make all households separate
> and equal.
>
> Instead of yourself being the "Pater" of 86 people, (and me, "Pater" of 38
> people) Gens Cornelia would have something along the line of 70-80
> independent branches, (and Gens Cassia something like 25-30) each branch
> having an independent Pater or Mater under no obligation to either of us.

But since gens cornelia works as a happy caring family, all of his members
would immediately ask for adoption by Sulla and after this show of
affection Sulla's family will be again intact.

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:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Legal Observation (was Re: Wondering about the gens system)
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@texas.net>
Date:	Sat, 03 Aug 2002 16:03:59 -0500

Salve Gnaee Salix

> I am sure that you are joking, but you have just surpassed the limits
> of my English linguistic skills :-). From the context, I guess that an
> "inflated head" is what one gets when too much flattering affects one.

My apologies. You got it right the first time. In colloquial English
of the US, an inflated head (also an inflated ego) is due to excessive
flattery.

Vale bene
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"Since death alone is certain and the time of death uncertain, what
should I do?"


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: Wondering about the gens system
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 16:40:03 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Luci Sergi,

> The Lex Octavia Salicia cannot fix this flaw and so I call on the
> Tribunes to withdraw it and to throw their support behind a fundamental
> reform of our system of gentes and families, so that we may return to
> closer conformity to Roman tradition and to the Mos Maiorum of Roma.

The Lex Octavia Salicia is intended to repair a single flaw.

I have earlier referred to philosophies of software engineering in
reference to this law. You spoke of this as a "patch" - and a patch
it is. The patch is necessary because the next complete revision
in the system is at some unknown date in the future; perhaps it will
never arrive. I do not ignore bugs in software because I expect that
it will be fixed in the next major release; I apply the patches as
soon as they are available.

Today, I am patching both of my FreeBSD 4.5 servers to eliminate
a recently-discovered security flaw in the OpenSSL libraries. It's
rather unlikely that anyone will ever attack my servers using this
vulnerability - yet it is always a possibility. Rather than waiting
for the 4.7 distribution with the fixed OpenSSL libraries, I am
fixing what I have now - in order to prevent an attack that may or
may not ever happen.

While reforming the gens system entirely is a noble goal, this will
not happen right away - indeed, I have grave doubts that it will ever
happen. Considering the fundamental disagreement between persons on
either side of this debate, how likely is it that we could ever agree
on a full reform? How likely is it that a proposal from either side
would get the 2/3rds vote of the Senate that are required for
Constitutional changes?

I also do not expect the proposal of L. Sicinius and his allies to
address the fundamental problem that inspired the Lex Octavia Salicia,
the possibility of a person being held in a gens (or familia) against
his will. Considering how much effort they have put into opposing
the Lex Octavia Salicia, how likely is it that a guarantee of the right
to leave will be in any gens reform proposal that comes from the
opponents of our current proposal?

Whether the proposed fundamental reform of gentes is legitimately
desired by our opponents, or merely a distraction tactic, the Lex
Octavia Salicia is still needed.

Vale, Octavius.

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


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] Minimum Standards for Appointment as Propraetor 2753
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 18:57:41 -0300 (ART)

Salve

You know, the Tabularium is so old, some bricks are
slipping away! A small reform is necessary. Well, not
so small, it seems.

Vale
Marcus Arminius

--- Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
<christer.edling@telia.com> escreveu: > Salve
Illustris Curator Araneum!
>
> I am well aware that You have very much to do. But I
> can find Th
> Senatus Consultum: Minimum Standards for Appointment
> as Propraetor
> 2753. Could You please get it back because I need
> it. (I will send
> You a cc mail as why. ;-)
> --
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> Senator et Senior Curule Aedile
> Propraetor Thules
> AUCTOR LEGIONIS, Legio VII "Res Publica"
> Sodalitas Egressus Praefectus Provincia Thules
> "Fautor Societatis Iuventutis Romanae"
>
>
> 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/
>
>

_______________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! PageBuilder
O super editor para criação de sites: é grátis, fácil e rápido.
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:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Congratulation to the position as Rogator
From:	"mcserapio" <mcserapio@yahoo.it>
Date:	Sat, 03 Aug 2002 22:37:08 -0000

AVE OPTIME GNAEE SALIX GALAICE

Congratulations on your election as Rogator!
I always hear a lot of good things about you, and I am sure that your
job will be impeccable!

VALE BENE
MANIVS-CONSTANTINVS-SERAPIO
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Italiae
Scriba Aedilis Plebis Cicatricis
Dominus Praefectus Sodalitatis Egressus



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] Unnessacary Lex?
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 16:06:56 -0700 (PDT)

I Have been going over the Constitution to see what
changes would be needed to allow citizens to form
Multi-Family Gens, and have submitted a report to The
Junior Consul as he requested.

If he decides not to make use of my sugestions I will
present them to this list for consideration by the
citizens.

While reading the Constitution I noticed some sections
that may have a bearing on the proposed Lex, and I
would like to hear the views of the Praetors.

Section II B of the Constitution deals with the rights
of citizens and it includes subsection 2,

"The right and obligation to remain subject to the
civil rights and laws of the countries in which they
reside and/or hold citizenship, regardless of their
status as dual citizens of Nova Roma"

I Am not aware of a macronation that dosen't set an
age where a citizen is Sui Juris.

Praetors,
Does Section II B 2 mean that a citizen who is Sui
Juris according to the laws of his Macronation is also
recognized as Sui Juris under the laws of Nova Roma,
and that any permissions asked from a Paterfamilis is
more a matter of courtesy to Roman traditions than
legal requirement?

Section II D 3 states

"Each gens shall, through whatever means it may
determine appropriate, have a paterfamilias (fem.
materfamilias) who shall act as the leader of the gens
and speak for it when necessary. The holder of this
position must be registered as such with the censors.
The paterfamilias may, at his or her discretion, expel
members of their gens, or accept new members into it"

Praetors,
Since the Constitution states that a Paterfamilis may
"accept new members" at "his or her discretion"
without putting any restrictions on that discretion,
Then does a Paterfamilis have the right to accept a
new member without asking permission from a current
Pater? Is asking the permission of the current
Paterfamilis more a matter of courtesy to Roman
traditions than a legal requirement?

If these Permissions are in fact a more a courtesy
than a requirement, then what is the point of a Lex
that allows something that is already allowed? Why
enact a lex that does nothing but weaken a courtesy
towards Roman traditions that allready may not be
enforcable under our Constitution?

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/