Forum Romanum


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Unnessacary Lex?
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 19:08:49 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Luci Sicini,

> "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?

An interesting idea; I hope that the next person trying to make
a change is able to use this to persuade the Censors to perform
that change, and to persuade the Consuls and Tribunes to support
it.

I don't think it is explicit enough, however. The paterfamilias
of the old gens would argue that, as he had not released the
departing citizen, and no person can be in two gentes simultaneously,
that the receiving paterfamilias has no right to "accept" this
person. (A load of rubbish, in my opinion, but some might give
it credence).

Whether that argument would be held to have merit would probably
be decided by the Censores. In the past, Censores have either
disallowed changes or apologized that they were powerless to
act.

I think something more explicit is needed. The Constitution is too
vague on this subject. Constitutional arguments have been put
forth both for and against the current proposal; all that this
shows is that something more clear and definite would be an
improvement.

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] Re: The REAL problem with our Gentes (III)
From:	"T. Cornelius Crispus" <centuriocornelius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 23:02:53 -0500

Marcus Cassius Julianus Wrote:
>>>Your Gens [Cornelia] washed away with such a change, and *not* being
replaced with a huge "extended family" you would still have control over?
<<<
I think this whole issue would go away if people would only understand that
Sulla does not *control* us. He is our Pater, and is there for us. We are
lead, advised, and loved, but not controlled. If he is on a power trip with
Gens Cornelia, he hides it well. Sulla has a passion for accuracy, for NOVA
ROMA.
T. Cornelius Crispus

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:	Fortunatus <labienus@texas.net>
Date:	Sun, 04 Aug 2002 01:19:39 -0500

Salve Tite Corneli

> I think this whole issue would go away if people would only understand that
> Sulla does not *control* us.

There are plenty of us who do understand that. The issue does not go
away in light of that because neither Sulla nor the Cornelii are the
point of all this. The real issues are our unhistorical gens system and
whether or not adult cives should have the freedom to leave a gens when
they so desire.

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] Bipartisanship, ca. 410 A.D.
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 4 Aug 2002 06:19:15 EDT

In a message dated 8/3/02 5:03:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
reason_prevails@hotmail.com writes:
Salvete.
Actually this pretty close to the truth.

> 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.
>

You left out the fact he wanted to be made Patrician, the 5th century term
for Magister Pedes (Master of Foot) He felt it was only fair, since the West
Goths would be acting as
Foederati in the Roman Army. The Senate did not want such a large amount of
barbarians in the Army. Everybody remembered what happened at Hadrianople.
The Senate thought to stall to wait on reinforcements from the East. The
insults may have happened, but I doubt it.
You don't stall learned Barbarian chieftains by insulting them.
Bury believes, and I see no reason to doubt him, that the Gothic king heard
about the Eastern Comititenses heading in his direction. Since they would
enter through Northern Italy, they would pin the Gothic force up. Aleric
would be pinned between Rome and Revenna. This was the reason he advanced
his campaign. Ironically, the Eastern force was never sent.

> Why did he wish to settle in the Rhine Valley? Bad harvests in the East had
> pushed the tribes living there westward (they couldn't go eastward to China
>
> because of the Great Wall) which had in turn pushed Alaric's people very
> close to Rome.

Well, not really. The Han had defeated the Xsuing-nu after a 12 year fight,
which sent this confederation of tribes westward. We know them today as the
Huns. In their flight across the Steppes to get away from the Chinese and
their allies, they bumped into the Sarmations and Gothic tribes, (East Goths,
Vandals, West Goths) and drove them into the Empire.

Valete

Q. Fabius Maximus.

[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] More about Gentes (was: The REAL problem with our Gentes...)
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 4 Aug 2002 06:24:21 EDT

In a message dated 8/3/02 7:07:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
labienus@texas.net writes:

> 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.
>

Livius and Dionysios indicate that this indeed was the case. And don't
dismiss any findings so quickly. A lot has come to light in the last ten
years, that has not even been made public yet.

That is the way it goes with scholarship.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus

[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:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Sun, 4 Aug 2002 12:07:43 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Fortunate.

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

Oh, no need to apologize :-). It was *my* English the one that failed
:-).

> 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.

Perfect, then. But what can I do if you deserve it? :-).

=====
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] (unknown)
From:	"gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@cs.com>
Date:	Sat, 03 Aug 2002 23:12:33 -0000

Salvete,

Does a gens restructuring really have to be so long in the
future?
Suppose the Consitution would be changed along these lines:

1. All gens within Nova Roma would be divided up into separate
families or households under their own Paterfamilias or Materfamilias.

2. The current Paterfamilias or Materfamilias would lose this title
{as far as the gens as a whole is concerned} and all such power over
members of the gens not in his or her own family. Let us, for lack
of a better word at the moment, call this person the "Gens Founder".

3. If the members of a gens wish to continue their relationship
under the original Nova Roma system {under the Gens Founder} they may
be adopted into the family of the paterfamilias, be under his power,
and live with the the consequences of their descision, good or bad.

4. Members of a gens who do NOT wish to be adopted into the Gens
Founder's family would not be forced to do so. Such persons may have
their own households within the gens and be the Paterfamilias or
Materfamilias of that household.

So, for example, if most of the Gens Cassia wish to have Cassius as
their Paterfamilias, they may be so adopted by Cassius. But if Gaius
Cassius Nerva does NOT wish to have Cassius as his Paterfamilias, he
may be the Pater of his own household, and keep the right to the
nomen 'Cassius'.

5. Gens Founders could still have certain perogatives regarding new
applicants. He could, for instance, set an age requirement for
entering the gens as a new family.

EXAMPLE: If a sixteen year old with parental consent applied to Nova
Roma, a Gens Founder could bar the applicant from the gens unless a
family adopted him until such a time as he is old enough to be a
paterfamilas himself. Minors so adopted would be mentored by the
adopting Paterfamilas, and subject to his discipline {which would NOT
violate Macronational, State, or Local Laws} So if a minor is acting
pretty badly, the Paterfamilas could ban him from the mailing list by
notifying the Paretor who would then remove him until such time as
the paterfamilas deems appropriate.

If such an ammendment to the Consitution as above were proposed and
on the table, would you support it or oppose it, and why?

Gaius Cassius Nerva


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Unnessacary Lex?
From:	"Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 19:31:56 -0400

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

Salvete,

Making more comments on those questions of the Propraetor Drusus, I'd like
to ask a legal question myself.

Section II.D.3.

"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...."

As far as I would interpret this, and this is using its own exact words,
each gens shall have a paterfamilias or materfamilias, whom shall be
determined by whatever means it may determine appropriate, meaning that the
pater- or materfamilias may be changed at the will of the majority of the
gens whenever they so deem it appropriate. Thus I would then also submit
that perhaps the proposed lex which started this debate would be
unnecessary, because the majority of the gens could electively remove the
'abusive' pater- or materfamilias from that position, or should that person
try to act as though they have a percieved power over the rest of their
cives, again they may be removed from their position by the same form of
action by the majority of the cives. Would this not be correct?

Bene Vale,

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] Hello
From:	"James Reynolds" <james@esperantohouston.org>
Date:	Sun, 4 Aug 2002 00:27:56 -0700

Hi!
My name's Jim and I just signed up with this group. Ancient Rome (particularly between 50 BCE and 50 CE) is one of my favorite periods in history. I'm not exactly sure how your group works. I've glanced at your website and you seem pretty involved. I was wondering if you don't mind me hanging around and occasionally asking stupid questions.:) I imagine that y'all know a tremendous amount about Ancient Rome and I'd be grateful if I could pick your brains.
Currently, I'm trying to find detailed info about the police force that Augustus sat up. Suetonius doesn't say much and I've spent hours searching websites to no avail. If anyone can tell me anything or point me in the right direction, I'd be very grateful.

-jim

--
The Esperanto Society of Houston:
http://esperantohouston.org

The Esperanto Enclave:
http://esperanto_enclave.tripod.com
--

__________________________________________________
D O T E A S Y - "Join the web hosting revolution!"
http://www.doteasy.com


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Gens Restructuring Idea
From:	"gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@cs.com>
Date:	Sat, 03 Aug 2002 23:17:21 -0000

I'm sorry if this is posted twice, but I'm not sure if the first
attempt worked. We are having a rian storm and the computer re0-
booted when we nearly lost power. So...

Salvete,

Does a gens restructuering really have to be so long in the
future?
Suppose the Consitution would be changed along these lines:

1. All gens within Nova Roma would be divided up into separate
families or households under their own Paterfamilias or Materfamilias.

2. The current Paterfamilias or Materfamilias would lose this title
{as far as the gens as a whole is concerned} and all such power over
members of the gens not in his or her own family. Let us, for lack
of a better word at the moment, call this person the "Gens Founder".

3. If the members of a gens wish to continue their relationship
under the original Nova Roma system {under the Gens Founder} they may
be adopted into the family of the paterfamilias, be under his power,
and live with the the consequences of their descision, good or bad.

4. Members of a gens who do NOT wish to be adopted into the Gens
Founder's family would not be forced to do so. Such persons may have
their own households within the gens and be the Paterfamilias or
Materfamilias of that household.

So, for example, if most of the Gens Cassia wish to have Cassius as
their Paterfamilias, they may be so adopted by Cassius. But if Gaius
Cassius Nerva does NOT wish to have Cassius as his Paterfamilias, he
may be the Pater of his own household, and keep the right to the
nomen 'Cassius'.

5. Gens Founders could still have certain perogatives regarding new
applicants. He could, for instance, set an age requirement for
entering the gens as a new family

EXAMPLE: If a sixteen year old with parental consent applied to Nova
Roma, a Gens Founder could bar the applicant from the gens unless a
family adopted him until such a time as he is old enough to be a
paterfamilas himself. Minors so adopted would be mentored by the
adopting Paterfamilas, and subject to his discipline {which would NOT
violate Macronational, State, or Local Laws} So if a minor is acting
pretty badly, the Paterfamilas could ban him from the mailing list by
notifying the Paretor who would then remove him until such time as
the paterfamilas deems appropriate.

If such an ammendment to the Cnsituion as above were proposed and on
the table, would you support it or oppose it, and why?

Gaius Cassius Nerva

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] (unknown)
From:	"gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@cs.com>
Date:	Sat, 03 Aug 2002 23:13:23 -0000


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Restructuring Idea
From:	Daniel Dreesbach <stakor2000@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 4 Aug 2002 06:22:05 -0700 (PDT)

I would oppose due to the fact I created my gens i want control of those that join mine
gcassiusnerva wrote:I'm sorry if this is posted twice, but I'm not sure if the first
attempt worked. We are having a rian storm and the computer re0-
booted when we nearly lost power. So...

Salvete,

Does a gens restructuering really have to be so long in the
future?
Suppose the Consitution would be changed along these lines:

1. All gens within Nova Roma would be divided up into separate
families or households under their own Paterfamilias or Materfamilias.

2. The current Paterfamilias or Materfamilias would lose this title
{as far as the gens as a whole is concerned} and all such power over
members of the gens not in his or her own family. Let us, for lack
of a better word at the moment, call this person the "Gens Founder".

3. If the members of a gens wish to continue their relationship
under the original Nova Roma system {under the Gens Founder} they may
be adopted into the family of the paterfamilias, be under his power,
and live with the the consequences of their descision, good or bad.

4. Members of a gens who do NOT wish to be adopted into the Gens
Founder's family would not be forced to do so. Such persons may have
their own households within the gens and be the Paterfamilias or
Materfamilias of that household.

So, for example, if most of the Gens Cassia wish to have Cassius as
their Paterfamilias, they may be so adopted by Cassius. But if Gaius
Cassius Nerva does NOT wish to have Cassius as his Paterfamilias, he
may be the Pater of his own household, and keep the right to the
nomen 'Cassius'.

5. Gens Founders could still have certain perogatives regarding new
applicants. He could, for instance, set an age requirement for
entering the gens as a new family

EXAMPLE: If a sixteen year old with parental consent applied to Nova
Roma, a Gens Founder could bar the applicant from the gens unless a
family adopted him until such a time as he is old enough to be a
paterfamilas himself. Minors so adopted would be mentored by the
adopting Paterfamilas, and subject to his discipline {which would NOT
violate Macronational, State, or Local Laws} So if a minor is acting
pretty badly, the Paterfamilas could ban him from the mailing list by
notifying the Paretor who would then remove him until such time as
the paterfamilas deems appropriate.

If such an ammendment to the Cnsituion as above were proposed and on
the table, would you support it or oppose it, and why?

Gaius Cassius Nerva


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Unnessacary Lex?
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	04 Aug 2002 10:35:31 -0300

Em S�b, 2002-08-03 �s 20:31, Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus
escreveu:
> Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus Praetoribus Novae Romae S.P.D.
>
> Salvete,
>
> Making more comments on those questions of the Propraetor Drusus, I'd like
> to ask a legal question myself.
>
> Section II.D.3.
>
> "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...."
>
> As far as I would interpret this, and this is using its own exact words,
> each gens shall have a paterfamilias or materfamilias, whom shall be
> determined by whatever means it may determine appropriate, meaning that the
> pater- or materfamilias may be changed at the will of the majority of the
> gens whenever they so deem it appropriate. Thus I would then also submit
> that perhaps the proposed lex which started this debate would be
> unnecessary, because the majority of the gens could electively remove the
> 'abusive' pater- or materfamilias from that position, or should that person
> try to act as though they have a percieved power over the rest of their
> cives, again they may be removed from their position by the same form of
> action by the majority of the cives. Would this not be correct?

I don't think so. If the Gens when it was a one person gens decided that
the title of paterfamilias will be for life (more or less what happened)
it can legally continue with this same unremovable Paterfamilias.

Salve

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] Gens Restructuring Idea
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 4 Aug 2002 09:50:39 -0700 (PDT)

--- gcassiusnerva <gcassiusnerva@cs.com> wrote:

> Does a gens restructuering really have to be so
> long in the
> future?

It may not be in the distant future, the Junior Consul
has a proposal for the first stage. It should be
presented to the Senate soon.

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] On Changing our Gentes/Adoption System
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 4 Aug 2002 13:04:46 EDT

Salvete,

Making our Gens system more historical is doable but will take work. I'm not
sure there'll ever be a better time to try than now. For once we're not
polarized into clear opposing factions, or arguing a bunch of tangental
issues also. We've also got a high concentration of active 'new folks' who
seem interested in improving NR!

As mentioned, there have been errors in our Gens structure since the
founding. We originally confused Gentes and Families. We made provision for
some of our joining Citizens to have independent status, but not all. We
never clearly defined the household, (Familiae) a unit crucial to Roman
society. Our concept of "adoption" is unhistorical. We've all learned a lot
since then!

I personally feel it would take more than one constitutional amendment or lex
to set things onto a more historical basis. Here are a few things that would
be necessary:

I. Our Gentes would need to constitutionally become collections of
independent familiae branches that share a nomen. Permission would not be
needed to join a Gens, or gain Citizenship itself. This would mean legally
redefining our concepts of Gens and Familia, as well as granting each current
individual households 'sui iuris' status.

II. Our system for Gaining Citizenship would have to be reworked. As things
stand, one must either found a Gens or be adopted into a family. Those that
found a Gens gain rights, those that join one lose rights. Gaining
Citizenship *should not equal adoption*. All familiae should be joining on an
equal and independent basis, no matter what nomen they choose! Those who
'found' a gens are in truth establishing an independant family branch of a
Gens (historical or new). Those who take an existing Gens name are actually
doing the same thing - and should not be penalized for this by being treated
as foreigners or 'children'.

III. The concept, rights and responsibilities of the "Familia" need to be
clearly defined, both in law and on our website for new Citizens. In Roma
antiqua the familiae were the foundation of both Romanitas and the Religio
Romana itself. Focusing on our community at this level would be of great help
in *rebuilding* Rome.

The importance of the Familiae should be stressed. There should be info on
how to make the Familia (household) as Roman as possible. There should be
info on how being an independent family branch fits into Roman society. The
religious responsibilities of the Familia should be also defined for those
who wish to take them up, and the overall rights of the Pater/Materfamiliae
should be legally codified.

IV. We would need to greatly redefine "adoption" in Nova Roma. Currently,
adoption is the means of joining a Gens, and the most common method of
gaining Citizenship itself. In Roma antiqua, adoption was by no means so
widespread. There were two forms of adoption - "Adoptio", where a Citizen not
of 'sui iuris status' passed from the power (potestas) of one Paterframilias
to another, and "Adrogatio" where two families merged under the 'potestas' of
one Paterfamilias.

In Adoptio, the person adopted was of younger age than the Paterfamilias
(except in one case where this rule was flouted by the adoption of P. Clodius
Pulcher in the late Republic.) It was done to provide a legitimate heir to a
family. Adoptio could be reversed by emancipation.

Adrogatio, the fusing of two families, was an even more serious process. The
person being adopted had to make a case before the Pontiffs (since the
'sacer' of one familia would be lost in the blending), and then the Adrogatio
had to be voted on by the Comitia Curiata. The adopter *had to be childless*.

Neither of these historical forms of adoption would allow our current
"Gentes" to reform into huge families. Instead of encouraging our Citizens to
emass into large 'tribes', we would need to instead focus on the importance
of the individual household and the inherent Romanitas contained therein.

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:	[Nova-Roma] Procrustes
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 4 Aug 2002 10:31:41 -0700 (PDT)

Procrustes was a highwayman who operated on the road
to Athens. Whenever any traveler fell into his hands
he was "invited" to sleep on Procrustes bed, which was
the ideal size. Once the traveler was on the bed
Procrustes would adjust his "guest" to fit the bed,
either by cutting off limbs that were too long or
streaching those who were too short on a rack. Men
were altered to fit Procrustes "ideal" bed until
Theseus killed the robber.

Quirites,
I have spent much of my life fighting against
Macronational Procrustes, men who declare some ism to
be the ideal system, and who want to force men to fit
their bed.

Here in Nova Roma the same danger exists. Each of us
has our own idea of Romanitas. Some wish to impose
their "ideal" of Romanitas on the rest of the
citizens. That is not my goal. I want to see a Nova
Roma where each citizen can persue his vision of Roma.
This is why I opposed the manditory names of the
Gender Lex. This is why I am opposing the Lex that is
currently under discussion, because it peresumes one
model of the Gens, a model that all citizens do not
agree with. This is the problem I have with many Gens
reform procedures that have been offered in the past.

If you disagree with Nemo's idea of Romanitas, then
leave it at that. It is absurd for you to attempt to
force Nemo to become your idea of a Roman. It is
absurd for Nemo to force his idea on you. You can't
create Romans by force. Let each citizen persue his
vision of Romanitas as he wishes, and keep leges that
say this is the only way stay out of our Taberlarium.
Don't try to turn Nova Roma into a Procrustian Bed
where civies are forced to fit a modernist or
traditionalist ideal.

All we need to do with Gens reform is make it possible
for those who have a different vision of the Roman
family to shape it on a diferent model than the
present one. To make it possible for others to persue
their view. Once we start trying to force Nemo's Gens
to follow someone else's ideal model of the family we
have left the path of what is needed, and entered the
path to Procrustes house.

I Have my view of Romanitas, and simply wish to persue
that goal. I May try to persuade others that my goal
is a better model, but I have no desire to force
others to follow my road, nor do I desire to be forced
to follow others views. You can't force someone to be
a Roman.

L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Procrustes
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 4 Aug 2002 12:48:37 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Luci Sicini,

> Here in Nova Roma the same danger exists. Each of us
> has our own idea of Romanitas. Some wish to impose
> their "ideal" of Romanitas on the rest of the
> citizens. That is not my goal. I want to see a Nova
> Roma where each citizen can persue his vision of Roma.

That's why I think the current lex is needed.

In all your talk of people being forced to accept one model of the
Gens, you consistently overlook the viewpoint of a citizen who is
forced to remain a member of a gens that he wishes to leave.

Why?

Why does your goal not allow non-patresfamilias to pursue their
vision of Roma?

Why is the vision of a paterfamilias who wants to run a gens as
a mafia family so much more deserving of protection than that
of the citizens whom he entraps?

By opposing this affirmation of rights, you are setting up hundreds
of mini-Procrustes, who, merely by being the first person to
grab some historic name, think they have the right to impose their
will on everyone else who comes after them.

Nova Roma is better off without these mini-Procrustes, and, with
the Lex Octavia Salicia, we will take away their hacksaws and
smash their racks.

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] Procrustes
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 4 Aug 2002 11:19:00 -0700 (PDT)

Consul,

I Oppose you lex because it is unnessacary, and
because it creates a dangrous precedent of the state
interfering with the affairs of the family.

We have had one incedent, long since corrected that
involved this matter.

What section of the Constitution grants a Pater the
power to hold a citizen against his will? The
Constitution says nothing more than a Pater can accept
an applicant or remove a citizen from his Gens.
Nowhere does it grant the power you are fighting

The Constitution gives a citizen the right to remain
under the Civil Rights and Laws of his Macronation,
which include gaining the status of becoming Sui Juris
at a given age, usualy 18.

Since there is nothing in the Constitution granting
Paters the ability to hold civies against there will,
then where is the Lex stating they have this power?

There isn't a Lex giving them this power. There isn't
a section of the Constitution giving them this power.
All there is the Mos Maiorum, a set of traditions that
no one is forced to follow by law. There is no way a
Pater can bind a citizen who is recognized as Sui
Juris by Macronational law to him. Even if there was a
Lex stating we had to follow the Mos Maiorum it would
be Unconstitunional under section II B 2 Which clearly
states
"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"

All the Lex Octavia Salicia does is establish an
unwelcome precedent of interfering with the affairs of
a Roman family in order to assert a right that
citizens allready pocess.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
wrote:
> Salve Luci Sicini,
>
> > Here in Nova Roma the same danger exists. Each of
> us
> > has our own idea of Romanitas. Some wish to impose
> > their "ideal" of Romanitas on the rest of the
> > citizens. That is not my goal. I want to see a
> Nova
> > Roma where each citizen can persue his vision of
> Roma.
>
> That's why I think the current lex is needed.
>
> In all your talk of people being forced to accept
> one model of the
> Gens, you consistently overlook the viewpoint of a
> citizen who is
> forced to remain a member of a gens that he wishes
> to leave.
>
> Why?
>
> Why does your goal not allow non-patresfamilias to
> pursue their
> vision of Roma?
>
> Why is the vision of a paterfamilias who wants to
> run a gens as
> a mafia family so much more deserving of protection
> than that
> of the citizens whom he entraps?
>
> By opposing this affirmation of rights, you are
> setting up hundreds
> of mini-Procrustes, who, merely by being the first
> person to
> grab some historic name, think they have the right
> to impose their
> will on everyone else who comes after them.
>
> Nova Roma is better off without these
> mini-Procrustes, and, with
> the Lex Octavia Salicia, we will take away their
> hacksaws and
> smash their racks.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>
>

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

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: Procrustes
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Sun, 04 Aug 2002 19:10:11 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> Consul,
>
> I Oppose you lex because it is unnessacary, and
> because it creates a dangrous precedent of the state
> interfering with the affairs of the family.
>

Absolute and utter nonsense. Republican Rome constantly interfered
with the affairs of the family. The biggest source of interference
was conscription. Tens of thousands of families were forced into
penury as husbands and sons were conscripted into the legions that
were led by inept generals who squandered their blood. These
families found their ancestorial lands being gobbled up into large
estates until they may have been "free" in name but in reality no
more than slaves to the wealthy and powerful of Rome. If that's not
state interference in the affairs of the family, I don't know what is.

> What section of the Constitution grants a Pater the
> power to hold a citizen against his will? The
> Constitution says nothing more than a Pater can accept
> an applicant or remove a citizen from his Gens.
> Nowhere does it grant the power you are fighting
>
> The Constitution gives a citizen the right to remain
> under the Civil Rights and Laws of his Macronation,
> which include gaining the status of becoming Sui Juris
> at a given age, usualy 18.
>
> Since there is nothing in the Constitution granting
> Paters the ability to hold civies against there will,
> then where is the Lex stating they have this power?

<snipped for brevity>

>
> All the Lex Octavia Salicia does is establish an
> unwelcome precedent of interfering with the affairs of
> a Roman family in order to assert a right that
> citizens allready pocess.

This argument is as consistant as tapioca pudding. First you argue
that the law violates the constitution then you argue it is not
needed because that right already exists. Which one is it? Does it
exist or does it not exist in the Nova Roman constitution? You can't
argue against a law saying it is unconstitutional and unneccessary
because the constitution already grants this right.

Even if you decided that the right exists under the Nova Roman
constitution without the law to enforce the right, the right doesn't
exist. Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, African-Americans had
the right to vote according to the U.S. constitution. How much
voting did they do? Not a whole heck of a lot. In the People's
Republic of China, according to that nation's constitution the people
have freedom of religion. Tell that to Falen Gong and Christians
that don't subscribe to the official state run Christian church. In
short a right can exist on a piece of paper but not exist in reality
until the state enforces that right through its legal system.

Of course this whole issue would go away with reforming the gens
system to a more accurate historical model and the reforms brought
before the people to decide. But I give that happening short of a
Dictatorship about as much chance as a snowflake has in Vulcan's
Forge because it seems that no matter what is offered neither side
seems to be willing to compromise.

Nova Roma's gens system may be completely ahistorical, but the
politics is certainly very historical. We have consuls at each others
throat, end runs around veto by way of the Tribunes. Congratulations
you have managed to recreate the exact political conditions that
existed at the time of the Gracchi. I thank Fortuna that I lost the
rogator election because I wish no part in the "politics of personal
destruction."

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] Advice Needed
From:	"Diana Apollonia Aventina" <apollonia@pandora.be>
Date:	Sun, 4 Aug 2002 21:16:52 +0200

Salvete,

I have been reading all of the emails regarding changing gens with great
interest because actually because the discussions began, I requested a
change of Gens with the Censores. I do not at all want to start an argument,
so I have been sitting back waiting and being nervous about writing this
:-(( To begin with, my change of Gens has nothing at all to do with the
Paterfamilias of my new Gens Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix: He's a great guy
and does a lot of work within NR! I am glad to say that we will meet in
person at the NR Rally next week to be held in Tongeren.

I joined NR in June of 1999 as a citizen of Gens Moravia and was very happy
here. Due to personal chaos going on in my life, I unsubscribed from the
lists around Nov of 2000. Along the way, I moved & changed my email address.
>From time to time, I looked at the NR website etc. and was happy to see the
NR was thriving. Around April of 2002, I returned to the lists, only to be
quite surprised to see that all of my former Gens Moravia had packed up and
moved. It was an even bigger surprise to see that I was not listed as a
citizen of Gens Moravia -- no doubt my fault! I changed my email address and
forgot to inform a lot of people, just assuming that NR would be here
waiting for me just as I left it.

So I emailed the only remaining citizen of Gens Moravia (the Paterfamilias
Lucius Moravius Messala) asking to be part of the Gens again. He didn't
answer. I emailed 2 more times in May and again no answer. During that
time, I began helping to organize the Nova Roma rally which will take place
in Tongeren Belgium next week. It became clear that it would be better to
have an organizer who was a citizen, so after more than a month of waiting
for a reply from Lucius Moravius Messala, Gens Apollonia was kind of enough
to take me in.

If I had not been so stupid as to forget to inform the Censores of my new
email address, by right (I think) that I should have inherited Gens Moravia
as the oldest citizen. The Paterfamilias now seems to be totally inactive
and perhaps only joined NR on a whim. I've asked around and no one has
received an email from him since the first week that he joined NR-- sometime
early in 2001, I believe. So my question is how do I proceed from here? How
does one change gens when the Paterfamilas is inactive and doesn't answer
his emails to give permission or approve new citizens? I already have the
permission of Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix. I contacted him first before I
contacted anyone else.
I would like to be in gens Moravia again, because well, it is where I began
in NR and where I would still like to be, without even a slight insult
intended to Gens Apollonia. I don't need to be made the Materfamilias of
Gens Moravia but I feel that it is better for NR to have at least one member
of a gens to be active rather than to have a Gens and Paterfamilias listed
on the Album Gentum who are in actuality only a number on a page.

If anyone has any ideas on how I should proceed from here, I would welcome
the advice.

Diana Apollonia (formerly Moravia) Aventina

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] Response to Proculus Postumius
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@texas.net>
Date:	Sun, 04 Aug 2002 14:14:07 -0500

Salvete Procule Postumi aliique

> Section II.D.3.
> "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...."
>
> As far as I would interpret this, and this is using its own exact words,
> each gens shall have a paterfamilias or materfamilias, whom shall be
> determined by whatever means it may determine appropriate, meaning that the
> pater- or materfamilias may be changed at the will of the majority of the
> gens whenever they so deem it appropriate.

This is an understandable misinterpretation. The clause "whatever means
it may determine appropriate" includes all means, and is not limited to
a democratic process. If the gens' bylaws say that a paterfamilias
holds the position for life, then he holds the position for life.

Instead, the clause protects gentes from having the state interfere with
the means by which their patres et matres familias are chosen. Exempli
gratia: it would, therefore, be unconstitutional for me to issue an
edictum making C Cassius Nerva the paterfamilias of Gens Cassia. Only
the Cassii or a constitutional amendment could accomplish that.

Note that the gens registration lex (Lex Cornelia de Tabulis Gentium
Novaromanarum Agendis) is not unconstitutional due to the constitutional
requirement for patres et matres familias to be registered with the
censores. If a given paterfamilias fails to register, he is therefore
no longer a paterfamilias according to the constitution, and his gens
must therefore select a new leader or cease to exist because it has
become unconstitutional in turn ("each gens *shall*... have a
paterfamilias...").

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] On Changing our Gentes/Adoption System
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Sun, 4 Aug 2002 16:20:59 -0300 (ART)

Salvete

--- cassius622@aol.com escreveu: > Salvete,
>
> Making our Gens system more historical is doable but
> will take work. I'm not
> sure there'll ever be a better time to try than now.

MAIOR: Perhaps it can be done in coordination with the
great census of this year. Firts, "clean" the empty
gentes and uncontacted cives, and then implement the
new system.

Vale
Marcus Arminius

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

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

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Reply to Lucius Sicinius
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@texas.net>
Date:	Sun, 04 Aug 2002 14:43:35 -0500

T Labienus Fortunatus Praetor Lucio Sicinio Druso Quiritibusque SPD

Please note that my collega is currently at the gathering at Fort
Malden, and is therefore unable to offer her opinions at this time.

> 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?

The answer to this question is quite debatable, and there are good
arguments to be made both for and against such a suggestion. There are,
after all, countries whose laws contradict some of the basic assumptions
of Nova Roman law. Any place under Sharia comes to mind. On the other
hand, I would be hesitant to deny a civis some reasonable protection
that his or her macronational laws provide, but which Nova Roman law has
not yet covered. In the end, I would have to say that this particular
right should be addressed on a case-by-case basis, and I would therefore
conclude, primarily in light of other sections of the constitution, that
section II.B.2 does imply--which is not the same thing as a
guarantee--that a civis ought to be considered sui iuris in Nova Roma if
he or she is sui iuris in his or her macronation.

> 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?

Yes, absolutely. However, it is important to note that it is heavily
implied both in the constitution and our leges--and is absolutely
definite historically!--that a civis may only belong to a single gens at
a time. If the current paterfamilias retains the right to keep the
civis in question in his gens against his will, then all the acceptance
in the world from the desired paterfamilias-to-be will not make any
difference to the civis' affiliation.

> Is asking the permission of the current
> Paterfamilis more a matter of courtesy to Roman
> traditions than a legal requirement?

Again, yes--assuming that one does not agree that it is both reasonable
and acceptable to extend the ancient power to keep filii and filiae in a
familia against his or her will to the Nova Roman version of a
paterfamilias. My collega might very well decide that the permission of
the current paterfamilias is, indeed, a legal requirement. Cornelius
Consul and Fabius Proconsul have both made that argument.

> 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?

If a constitutional protection is regularly denied in words and
occasionally denied in action by some of the Res Publica's highest
magistrates, it most certainly becomes desirable to ask the populace if
they would prefer to explicitly and unequivocally spell out that protection.

Valete
--
"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: Procrustes
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 4 Aug 2002 13:01:40 -0700 (PDT)

--- quintuscassiuscalvus <richmal@attbi.com> wrote:
> --- In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Sicinius Drusus"
> <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> > Consul,
> >
> > I Oppose you lex because it is unnessacary, and
> > because it creates a dangrous precedent of the
> state
> > interfering with the affairs of the family.
> >
>
> Absolute and utter nonsense. Republican Rome
> constantly interfered
> with the affairs of the family. The biggest source
> of interference
> was conscription. Tens of thousands of families
> were forced into
> penury as husbands and sons were conscripted into
> the legions that
> were led by inept generals who squandered their
> blood. These
> families found their ancestorial lands being gobbled
> up into large
> estates until they may have been "free" in name but
> in reality no
> more than slaves to the wealthy and powerful of
> Rome. If that's not
> state interference in the affairs of the family, I
> don't know what is.
>

DRUSUS: Which Section of the Nova Roman Constitution
grants the state the power to draft citizens into the
Legios? Point that section out and I'll work for it's
immediate repeal. Fail to pint it out and I'll
consider your point about the draft to be a strawman.

> > What section of the Constitution grants a Pater
> the
> > power to hold a citizen against his will? The
> > Constitution says nothing more than a Pater can
> accept
> > an applicant or remove a citizen from his Gens.
> > Nowhere does it grant the power you are fighting
> >
> > The Constitution gives a citizen the right to
> remain
> > under the Civil Rights and Laws of his
> Macronation,
> > which include gaining the status of becoming Sui
> Juris
> > at a given age, usualy 18.
> >
> > Since there is nothing in the Constitution
> granting
> > Paters the ability to hold civies against there
> will,
> > then where is the Lex stating they have this
> power?
>
> <snipped for brevity>
>
> >
> > All the Lex Octavia Salicia does is establish an
> > unwelcome precedent of interfering with the
> affairs of
> > a Roman family in order to assert a right that
> > citizens allready pocess.
>
> This argument is as consistant as tapioca pudding.
> First you argue
> that the law violates the constitution then you
> argue it is not

DRUSUS: Do NOT put words in my mouth. I said it was
unnessacary, that the right exists, and any attempt to
enforce the traditional rights would be unconstionual.

> needed because that right already exists. Which one
> is it? Does it
> exist or does it not exist in the Nova Roman
> constitution? You can't
> argue against a law saying it is unconstitutional
> and unneccessary
> because the constitution already grants this right.
>
>
> Even if you decided that the right exists under the
> Nova Roman
> constitution without the law to enforce the right,
> the right doesn't
> exist. Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
> African-Americans had
> the right to vote according to the U.S.
> constitution. How much
> voting did they do? Not a whole heck of a lot.

DRUSUS: So instead of taking care of violations of
voting rights the 1964 Civil rights act attempted to
create a new "right" that did not exist, the "right"
not to be discriminated against, which has led to
racial quotas, and helped make lawsuits a growth
industry. the 1964 law violated the rights of freedom
of association, and the rights of a person to control
his properity in an attempt to create a "right" of
forcing people to accept you even if they don't like
you.

The Laws requiring Segration, and the impediments to
Black Voting were a violation of Rights. The 1964 act
went beyond what was nessacary to create new
violations.

In
> the People's
> Republic of China, according to that nation's
> constitution the people
> have freedom of religion. Tell that to Falen Gong
> and Christians
> that don't subscribe to the official state run
> Christian church. In
> short a right can exist on a piece of paper but not
> exist in reality
> until the state enforces that right through its
> legal system.

DRUSUS"Nor does calling something a "right" on a scrap
of papper make it into a right that the state should
enforce. People have claimed the "right" to own
slaves, and the "right" to have sex with their wives
against their will, and states have enforced these
"rights"

I Can have Billionaire tattooed on my Podex, but it
won't make me one. Labeling something a "right"
dosen't make it one.

>
> Of course this whole issue would go away with
> reforming the gens
> system to a more accurate historical model and the
> reforms brought
> before the people to decide. But I give that
> happening short of a
> Dictatorship about as much chance as a snowflake has
> in Vulcan's
> Forge because it seems that no matter what is
> offered neither side
> seems to be willing to compromise.

DRUSUS: The Junior Consul has informed me that my
recomendations for Gens reform will be forwarded to
the Senate for it's apprasial today.
>
> Nova Roma's gens system may be completely
> ahistorical, but the
> politics is certainly very historical. We have
> consuls at each others
> throat, end runs around veto by way of the Tribunes.
> Congratulations
> you have managed to recreate the exact political
> conditions that
> existed at the time of the Gracchi. I thank Fortuna
> that I lost the
> rogator election because I wish no part in the
> "politics of personal
> destruction."
>
> Pax,
>
> Quintus Cassius Calvus
>
>

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Advice Needed
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@texas.net>
Date:	Sun, 04 Aug 2002 15:59:15 -0500

Salve Diana Apollonia

> I would like to be in gens Moravia again...
>
> If anyone has any ideas on how I should proceed from here, I would welcome
> the advice.

One thing you might do is wait until after the registration of
patresfamilias and gentes in June of next year. If the current
paterfamilias Moraviae is really no longer interested in Nova Roma, then
he won't register either himself or the gens. This will result in the
gens being disbanded, at which time you will be free to leave the
Apollonii and restart the Moravii.

Unfortunately, that solution leaves you waiting nearly a year. Since
the censores are not empowered to remove or replace patresfamilias as
they see fit, and cannot place cives into a gens without a
paterfamilias' consent, I don't see much of any other solution for you
if Moravius doesn't resurface.

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Advice Needed
From:	Kristoffer From <from@darkeye.net>
Date:	Sun, 04 Aug 2002 23:10:57 +0200

Fortunatus wrote:
> > I would like to be in gens Moravia again...
>
> Unfortunately, that solution leaves you waiting nearly a year. Since
> the censores are not empowered to remove or replace patresfamilias as
> they see fit, and cannot place cives into a gens without a
> paterfamilias' consent, I don't see much of any other solution for you
> if Moravius doesn't resurface.

Salve, Tite Labiene Fortunate.

Well...on the other hand: If she in the first case neither gave up her
citizenship nor were expelled from gens Moravia, then it could probably
be claimed that she, in fact, never left it. And thus is, still, a
member thereof, her affiliations with the Apollonii being just
some...temporary misunderstandings. Right? :)

(Why WERE her records stricken, by the way?)

Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.

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] Advice Needed
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <christer.edling@telia.com>
Date:	Sun, 4 Aug 2002 23:21:19 +0200

Salve Honorable Diana Apollonia (formerly Moravia) Aventina!

Accordin to a new law each Parefamilias sometime next summer. If the
Paterfamilias of you old Gens will not register then he will be
removed from the registers of Nova Ronma as far as I understand. What
would happen then? I really don't know, Gens Moravia would ceese to
exist, that much is clear, but then?

Then is an example of an issue that should be answered in the new
package of Gens legislation that Illustris Lucius Sicinius Drusus has
written.

Could You please look into this Illustris Lucius Sicinius Drusus. A
situation as this one will probably be scarce, but still it would be
a shanme if Honorable Diana Apollonia (formerly Moravia) Aventin
couldn't return to her Gens and be the Mater of a Moravia familia.

>If anyone has any ideas on how I should proceed from here, I would welcome
>the advice.
>
>Diana Apollonia (formerly Moravia) Aventina

--
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"

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: Advice Needed (useful bureaucracy?)
From:	"mcserapio" <mcserapio@yahoo.it>
Date:	Sun, 04 Aug 2002 22:26:57 -0000

AVETE OMNES

> > Unfortunately, that solution leaves you waiting nearly a year.
Since
> > the censores are not empowered to remove or replace
patresfamilias as
> > they see fit, and cannot place cives into a gens without a
> > paterfamilias' consent, I don't see much of any other solution
for you
> > if Moravius doesn't resurface.

Sorry, if this situation is actually already existing, why should
Nova Roma wait a whole year?
This waiting would be in my opinion, and in *this* case, a useless
bureaucracy.
How many new citizens could accept in a year a gens with an
*inactive* Pater Familias?
On the other hand, how many new citizens could accept in a year a
gens with an *active* Mater Familias?
I believe that *in this case* our Censor could try to contact the
actual Pater Familias of Gens Moravia: if after 2 or 3 attempts he
doesn't answer, then Diana Aventina could take his place.

It would be something little compared to the whole Nova Roma, but it
would be a little immediate improvement.

BENE VALETE
MANIVS-CONSTANTINVS-SERAPIO

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

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Caesar on Neal Boortz
From:	"Gaius Galerius Viator" <gaiusgalerius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 04 Aug 2002 22:04:35 +0000

Salvete omnes:

That doesn't sound like Caesar unless he lived in 20th century America.

Valete.

>>
>>>From: "Charlie Collins" <cotta@spamcop.net>
>>>Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>>>To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
>>>Subject: [Nova-Roma] Caesar on Neal Boortz
>>>Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:04:06 -0500
>>>
>>>Salve,
>>> Radio Talk Show Host Neal Boortz(www.boortz.com)
>>>has a quote from Julius Caesar on his webpage. It says:
>>>
>>>"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the
>>>citizenry
>>>into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword.
>>>It
>>>both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums
>>>of
>>>war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind
>>>has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the
>>>citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by
>>>patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly
>>>so.
>>>How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." - - Julius
>>>Caesar
>>>
>>>I thought it was very interesting as he is a Libertarian
>>>as I am.
>>>
>>>Sextus Cornelius Cotta
>>>Propraetor
>>>America Medioccidentalis Superior
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.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] A Classical Reading Plan
From:	"Gaius Galerius Viator" <gaiusgalerius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 04 Aug 2002 21:03:46 +0000

Salve Nerva;

I Like your list. I heard some people speaking of adding to it. One could
always add, but if I were you I'd cross out a couple of titles there:

Jewish and Christian writings, and confessions too.

These are ok for the specialist, just like pre-Columbian archeology, and
that's about it. And since we are in the subject, does anybody out there
know if anybody ever wrote a biography of Horace.

Valete omnes

G. Galerius Viator

>From: "gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@cs.com>
>Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Nova-Roma] A Classical Reading Plan
>Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 02:55:31 -0000
>
>Salvete,
>
> If you are like me, then you wish {1} that you were better
>educated, and {2} would like to read in the ancient classics, but have
>no idea where to begin, or you need some structure. If you are like
>this, then this reading list may be of help for you.
> This is a reading plan covering the age of Homer to Late Antiquity.
> I made this list by comparing the syllabuses of some liberal arts
>"Great Books" programs offered at St. Johns College, St. Thomas
>Aquinas College, the Great Books of the Western World Ten Year Reading
>Plan, and one or two other lists.
>
> These books can be read in any order you like! The authors are
>listed in a rough chronological order most of the time, with some
>exceptions. I grouped the mathematical selections together and most
>of the philosophy together. There is also a section of Jewish and
>Christian writings.
>
> A trained classicist may wonder why some books are not here, and
>why others ARE here. But all I can say is that this is my reading
>project for the next ten years or so, and that it is offered as a help
>to any who may wish to join me. If you are interested, just print the
>list out and have fun for a few years or more.
>
>Gaius Cassius Nerva
>
>HOMER
>The Iliad, The Odyssey
>
>AESCHYLUS
>Prometheus Bound, Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, The Eumenides
>
>SOPHOCLES
>Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Colonus, Antigone, Ajax, Electra, Philoctetes
>
>EURIPIDES
>The Medea, Hippolytus, The Trojan Women, Electra, The Bacchae
>
>ARISTOPHANES
>The Clouds, The Birds, The Frogs, Lysistrata, The Poet and the Women,
>The Assemblywomen, Wealth
>
>HERODOTUS
>The Histories
>
>THUCYDIDES
>The Peloponnesian War
>
>PLATO
>The Seventh Letter, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Meno, Theatetus, Ion, The
>Symposium, Phaedrus, Sophist, Statesman, Gorgias, Philebus, Timaeus,
>The Laws
>
>ARISTOTLE
>Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics,
>Physics, Metaphysics, On The Soul, Nicomachean Ethics, Politics,
>Rhetoric, On Poetics
>
>HIPPOCRATES
>The Oath, On Ancient Medicine, On Airs, Waters, and Places, The
>Book of Prognostics, Of the Epidemics, The Law, On the Sacred Disease
>
>GALEN
>On The Natural Faculties
>
>NICHOMACHUS OF GERASA
>Introduction To Arithmetic
>
>EUCLID
>Elements {book 1}
>
>ARCHIMEDES
>Measurement of a Circle, On the Equilibrium of Planes {book 1} The
>Sand-Reckoner,
>On Floating Bodies {book 1}
>
>APOLLONIUS OF PERGA
>On Conic Sections, Book One, propositions 1-15, Book 3, propositions
>42-55
>
>PTOLEMY
>The Almagest {Book 1, chapters 1-8}
>
>EPICURUS
>Letter To Herodotus, Letter to Menoeceus
>
>LUCRETIUS
>On the Nature of Things
>
>EPICTETUS
>The Enchiridion, Discourses
>
>MARCUS AURELIUS
>Meditations
>
>PLOTINUS
>The Six Enneads
>
>VIRGIL
>The Ecologues, The Aeneid
>
>CICERO
>The Second Philippic, On Duties, The Republic, On the Nature of the
>Gods, On Divination
>
>LIVY
>The Early History of Rome
>
>POLYBIUS
>The Histories
>
>SUETONIUS
>Lives of the Twelve Caesars
>
>TACITUS
>The Annals, The Histories
>
>PLUTARCH
>Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans {selections}
>Theseus
>Romulus
>Theseus and Romulus Compared
>Lycurgus
>Numa Pompilius
>Lycurgus and Numa Compared
>Solon
>Pericles
>Fabius
>Pericles and Fabius Compared
>Alcibiades
>Coriolanus
>Alcibiades and Coriolanus Compared
>Aristides
>Marcus Cato
>Aristides and Cato Compared
>Caius Marius
>Sulla
>Crassus
>Pompey
>Alexander
>Caesar
>Cato the Younger
>Tiberius Gracchus
>Caius Gracchus
>Cicero
>Antony
>Marcus Brutus
>
>JEWISH and CHRISTIAN WRITINGS
>Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Amos, Micah, Isaiah, Lamentations,
>Ezekiel, Psalms
>The Gospel of Luke, Acts, The Gospel of John, The Letters of Paul
>{Galatians, 1st Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philemon} The Letter
>to the Hebrews, The Didache
>
>AUGUSTINE
>The Confessions
>
>BOETHIUS
>The Consolation of Philosophy
>
>
>
>
>
>

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