Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Apollonia Acta
From:	jo mama <minervalis02@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 28 Sep 2002 18:34:22 -0700 (PDT)

--- me-in-@disguise.co.uk wrote:
> ----Original Message-----
> From : jo mama <minervalis02@yahoo.com>
> >>
> >Hannibal was Iberian-Carthaginian, wasnt black. The
> >Carthaginians were not black. The moors were not
> >black, though many berbers have dark skin and
> “White
> >features“. Phonecians....think syria and
> >Lebanon....Hannibal, the Latini,Phoenicians,
> Mycenae,
> >Hellas,et al as all the Iberian Kin, were members
> of
> >the Mediterranean race.
> >
> Ave!
> Berbers, perhaps the real origin of Barbaros? Do
> not forget though that north Africa became a
> Teutonic Wendel/Vandal kingdom after the Goths
> pushed them out of (W)Andalusia and as such featured
> in Justinian's restutative camapaign. So there would
> be plenty of fair hair and blue eyes. There is also
> red hair and a prominent hooked nose (ie the
> 'Jewish' type of Nazi propaganda) typical of the
> western Caucusus and coastal peoples who must have
> migrated west (Hittite origin?) and count among the
> ancient Lebanese who founded Carthage.
> Vibius Ambrosius Caesariensis
>
Contrary to colloquial belief the vast majority of the
Vandal hords were already med berbers, they werent
northmen. Sure light eyes are found in med
populations, but in the tiniest minority.As for
western caucasus, Armenia eh? The armenians are a
brunette med race, with dark brown eyes in the
majority.

Min

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: OT - Appearance in roman film
From:	"gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@cs.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 01:36:41 -0000

I wish you the best of good luck in your audition. Have you been in
other films or stage shows?

Nerva








--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "Franciscus Apulus Caesar"
<sacro_barese_impero@l...> wrote:
> Franciscus Apulus CAesar Omnibus S.P.D.
>
> I'm going now to Matera (Italy - near my city, Bari) where in
November Mel
> Gibson will play own new film, "The Passion", about the last 12 hours of
> Juses Christ's life.
> He searchs 500 appearances and I hope to be one of their. Maybe
you'll see
> me in the next roman movie ;-)
> Please, say me "Good Luck"! :-)
>
> Valete
> Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> -------------------------------------------
> Propraetor Provinciae Italiae
> Quaestor Aedilis C. Fabius Quintilianus
> Scriba Curatoris Araneum
> -------------------------------------------
> Provincia Italia - http://italia.novaroma.org
> Paterfamilias Gens Apula - www.gensapula.too.it
> Cohors Aedilis C. Fabius Quintilianus -
> http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis
> Web Nova Roman Experiments - http://lab.novaroma.org/wnre

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] EDICTVM CENSORIBVS DE LIBERTATE GENTILIVM
From:	"MARCVS CALIDIVS GRACCHVS" <MLCRASSVS@aol.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 02:29:32 -0000

MARCVS CALIDIVS GRACCHVS QUIRITIBVS S.P.D.

AVETE,

Like POSTUMIVS NERO I wish to proffer the opinion of another civis.

I am of the view that this Edict is just, judicious and in the best
interests of all Rome's citizens present and future. It contains
just the right mix of checks and balances to prevent frivolous gens
hopping whilst permitting citizens to have the freedom to move from a
gens that they sincerely wish to leave. In this regard the CENSORES
are indeed to be commended.

Does it diminish the authority of Paterfamilias? No more than
accepting that the implementation full-blown PATRIA POTESTAS would
run contrary to our constitution, not to mention the rights and
sensibilities of our female CIVES. In ROMA ANTIQVA by the second
century CE, these powers, which came from the Royal Laws, id est, The
Twelve Tables, had largely gone.

Venerable Senator Audens spoke wisely and in measure, your "grey
beard" noble Senator is a sure outward sign that with age comes
wisdom. Although, I do not agree with those Senators and CIVES in
the "dissenting" camp, I defend their right to advance their views
and test with counter argument - that's part of Roman democracy.

Fellow Romans, we must find other ways to lessen the burden of the
CENSORES still further and introduce the appropriate LEGES / EDICTA
to this end. I agree with Senator Audens that we must find ways of
lessening the backlog of of pending citizen applications. The
current system places a burden on the CENSORES and is disheartening
to potentially new citizens - the life blood of RES PVBLICA. We
shall also have to lance the boil of gens reform particularly
inactive Paterfamilias. If we do not act now what is to happen when
our numbers grow still much larger, as was pointed out by our
PONTIFEX MAXIMVS?

I hope we will deal with these issues sooner rather than later.


VALETE


M. CALIDIVS GRACCHVS
CIVIS NOVAE ROMAE
PATERFAMILIAS - GENS CALIDIA


TVVS IN SODOLICIO RES PVBLICA ROMANAE

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Praetoral Address I: The Gentes/Familia Issues
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia Strabo" <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 05:41:38 +0000

P. Cornelia Strabo Praetrix Populesque Novae Romae S.P.D.

The Veto of the Gens Reform Proposal.

The subsequent argument of same.

Not something I totally unexpected, but one can only wish that such things
could be kept at bay.

If we are going to talk out of chambers perhaps we should allow Senate
conversations to be withing the lurk of the populace. When half is said in
chambers and half is said in the Forum, how does one get anything but a
completely unobscure picture of what is going on?

I was reading today the Forum post Pro Postuminius Nero...quite a wise
16-year-old, who reminded us about the voice and opinions of the people.

Well, the beauty of a dual government. I for one have faith in the
populace of today, not perhaps for knowing every iota of Roman Law, but that
they are educated enough to make common sense decisions on what is in their
best interest and what is not. Suffice it to say that they needn't be left
completely in the dark regarding what is going on. They have more ability to
petition and lobby than the populace of some periods of antiquita.

At very least, as an elected representative of you, I believe that you
should receive the entirety of the facts, not 'dribs and drabs'

We are not the plebia of early Rome, that is for sure.

However our elected magistrates, senators, tribunes keep us from making
serious mistakes and keep our reconstructionist efforts within a reasonable
replica of the ancient constitutional 'ideals' and religious elements we
cherish.



Now to get to the nitty gritty of the Praetoral Proposal for Gens/familia
growth. It was written by myself, with assistance (invaluable assistance)
from both my colleague Titus Labienus, who has been ill as of late, and
Proconsul Q. Fabius Maximus.

It is more or less a composite of all the positive ideas gleaned to date,
both from this forum and chambers, the constitution, historical models,
respect for the Religio. It contains a plan for future growth, entertaining
these factors. It is also the produce of compromise, as much that could be
extended in paying due attention to the law and accurate historical
reconstruction.

Why did I initiate the writing of it? To try to forge concordia and a
Senatorial consensus, regarding the best plan for positive historically
based growth , to wit, branching from gentes to familia, while
simulataneously facilitating some unifying elements. Religious, historical
and constitutional precepts were examined, with due fairness and precedence
provided for people comfortable in their current situation.

I felt a commitment to do this as Praetor, plus I have a certain degree of
passion toward having a fair family structure for the citizens, being that
the gentes are the 'backbone' of the republic...refer to the constitution
and the website for further information on the current mission of Nova Roma,
for new citizens reading this.


That there is an alliance of Senators who do not agree with the last
proposal and preferred to see another one, I am happy be a part of an effort
to provide an alternative draft which is quasi desirable. However, I am not
formally aligned with such a faction. If and when I am, I shall let you
know.

Actually, I already belong to a faction...the one who voted me in. My
faction, although they didn't 'all' vote for me, has over 1500 people. It
is the populace of Nova Roma. That is the faction I work for, first and
foremost, as Praetor, Governor and Senator.

Fabius and P. Cornelia have had to be sent to opposite ends of the ring on
varying occasions, as one might expect, but on issues of the gentes/familia,
we do agree. It is interesting how people discover they think alike when it
comes to certain issues, ie familia.


And Titus Labienus, an honourable man, was the Senator whose efforts to
make things fair for the citizens of Nova Roma, in the last proposal and to
a good extent in this one, should be well recognized and appreciated.

Just some information to explain my position, between pila and ballista
firings :)

Bene valete








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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Praetoral Post II: The Gentes/Familia Issues
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia Strabo" <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 05:48:44 +0000

P. Cornelia Strabo Praetor Populesque Novae Romae S.P.D.

Since the vetoed proposal on Gens Reforms was posted by our Senior Consul,
Marcus Octavius, which resulted in a segmental series of
magisterial/senatorial, ahh "posts", please allow me to give you more
complete information on how this proposal was composed.

I give this information to the best of my ability, as an elected magistrate
by the populace and some Senators, and as a Senator. In both capacities I
believe you should have the 'whole' story. For those who have additional
information, or would like to contradict me, they need no invitation to do
so.

And the only reason I give this to you, is that the cat was let out of the
bag, showing only fragments of the story. If we are going to break the
Senate Seal, let us break it so people see 'all' of story, and not just
'tidbits'

This vetoed proposal was meant to remedy the Lex Octavia/Salicia, proposed
earlier this year, which affirmed pretty much the current Censorial
Edict...which cites that you may leave your gens anytime you want...just
write the Censores.

I have, personally no problem with this as an edict, but as a Lex which
cites this practise as more the 'norm' than the exception to the rule,
rather muddies our religious definition of family, and potentially erodes
our gentes/familia as the Backbone of the Republic.

I liken it to ads like "Divorce only $50.00"...hey for that price don't
bother trying to work it out...you can walk away for pennies...

Or..."did you fall because your hostess forgot to mop up that floor well
enough after they invited you in for tea? " Well, we'll sue the gluteus off
her!

It is a bastardization (not a swear, in the dictionary) of our laws and our
regard for family. If you have a problem, there is definitely recourse...it
is in the constitution.

****I have never held the attitude that one should remain in the same gens
over adverse circumstances***

But I don't invite a come and go tea atmosphere either...akin to the
resignation edict/law...you cannot come and go...many times over...it
implies that you are not seriously committed to citizenship in Nova Roma.

I have been here for three years almost, and most people know they can come
to me if they have a problem. I have had many people approach me for
different things, but, during this year as Praetor, the only complaint I
have had with respect to one's gens is the inability to get into one, and
not wanting to leave one. So, I didn't issue an edict of the latter nature,
but I quickly issued one to help get a long awaited applicant into Nova
Roma.

How the Vetoed Proposal Came to Be

After the Lex Octavia Salicia was withdrawn by the Tribune as some of
populace had some problems with it, a proposal was subsequently presented
to the Senate, which called for adoptio (as most of you are today, 'adopted'
by your Paterfamilias) with optional splitting into familia.

This was countered by "let's split all gentes up into familia, manditorily,
in keeping with historicity"...well, this is all well and good, but what if
people, after four years are quite content the way they are, and already
have married couples/families in their gens, but adoptees too...and are
content.

This was not well received by this Praetrix, admittedly, simply because
although it was historical, it didn't grandfather existing circumstances in
a very virtuous manner, and how on earth do we say "'whoops...we are doin'
it differently, sorry folks", after all these years of promoting the same
mission to the public. I felt that we had to be fair, but we could take
baby steps toward a more historical model. That is my take.

Another Senator et Magistrate, stepped boldly in and forged a compromise, in
allowing a period of time where people could stay the way they were, or form
a new familia, ie themselves and their blood families, within the gens.

So, that is how this proposal, now vetoed, came to be.

I did not know when the Senate was going to be called into session, my
colleague was ill, and I am afraid we never got to the Senate in time to be
considered for the ballot with 'our' proposal. It has since been shown to
the Senate, rewritten to accommodate some religious elements and
nomenclature, and I shall let you see it as well.

I didn't want to let the Consuls know about the Praetoral proposal, as I
wanted to present it to as an impartial effort on the part of myself,
Labienus and augmented and reformatted by Q. Fabius.

The proposal was vetoed by L. Cornelius Sulla, as the provision for adoptio
did not appear, as I understand him. He felt some provision for adoptio
should be there. Further, I will let him speak for himself.

I believe it should too, for extenuating circumstances, and circumstances
unaccounted for in the future. Plus, we should not 'hem ourselves in' with
our own legislation.

Our proposal has restrictions on adoptio, to avoid the potential ridiculous
practise of same, but it is there, as it was in antiquita.









_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Praetoral Address III: The Nature of a Veto
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia Strabo" <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 05:53:54 +0000

P. Cornelia Strabo Populesque Novae Romae S.P.D.

The Veto

The Constitution of Nova Roma provides Consuls, Praetores and the Tribunes
with ability to pronounce Intercessio on a magistrate of lesser authority.

The Tribunes may veto Consuls, Praetores and Censores if they feel that
proposed legislation is against the spirit and/or wording of the
constitution.

Magistrates in keeping with their oath of office, to wit, "to act always in
the best interests of the Roman People", and "to honour the Gods and
Goddesses in their public dealings" are expected on this basis alone, to
pronounce intercessio 'responsibly', I should think, atleast in my
interpretation, as opposed to 'because they can'

The proposal presented to the Senate before the Praetoral proposal was
vetoed; it was expressed by a couple of Senatores that the veto was
irresponsible and shameful. Indeed the Senior Consul expressed unfairness
with same, in his appraisal. Indeed they are entitled to their opinions.

Let us talk about a fair veto for a minute.

Yesterday, it was told to me in this forum, by Consul Marcus Octavius, that
he wanted to be 'fair' about the proposal myself, et al wrote, but he draws
another breath and says he will veto it if it doesn't go to the Senate
first.

Why?

He saw one draft, and it has since been amended to accommodate a couple of
important religious points made and some nomenclature, which I said I would
do, but why is it so important that you cannot see it? It is not the Magna
Carta :), but it is well within historic, religious, constitutional ideals,
and a composite of what many senators have spoken of as important, so ...why
does he practically 'forbid' it be shown to you, on pain of veto, like some
politically caustic manifesto?
Likewise, you would be shown any proposal that was about to be balloted for
a Senate vote.

Should the proposal not be vetoed 'responsibly', because it is against the
'spirit of the current constitution'?..in the best interests of the people
in mind?

I don't understand: If you don't do things 'my' way, as opposed to one of
two legal ways, it shall be vetoed...period...no discussion?



There are two ways a law can be introduced: as a Senatus Consultum voted by
the people, or a law promulgated to comitia by either Consuls, Tribunes, and
in some instances Praetors. That is the law, and no veto should be issued
because the Consul prefers that the people not see it, unless it is
dangerous and disruptive. Well, being that I have had 'some' positive
feedback on it, coupled with my knowledge of Roman law and that I am a
Praetor, I think otherwise.


It is ok...he can say he will not support it, but why does he threaten to
veto a proposal if I show it to you.

Am I moderated?

I am not sure I agree with these political strategies, to be honest.

So I guess this means that if I can painstakingly talk the other consul into
promulgating it to you, that's no good either, he'll veto it.

Why is it so necessary that it is scrutinized by the Senate 'before' it is
shown to you, in the mind of the Good Consul?


This is a Praetoral 'catch 22', and it would seem to me the people are
getting the short end of things.









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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Praetoral Address: Fini
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia Strabo" <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 06:22:54 +0000

Salvete Omnes:

My thanks for allowing me to dominate the mailbox tonight.

As I indicated in , now which post was that? I don't see the illegality or
harm of allowing you to see this proposal. For the moment, it is stuck in
html format, which is not allowed on our list.

I shall retype it if I have to....but not tonight.

In the meantime...

If you wish a copy, drop me a line or just say so in the forum, whichever,
and I'll forward you a copy of the draft, free and post paid :) Your tax
dollars at work.


Bomam Noctem,
Pompeia Cornelia
Praetor




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Senate call
From:	"G.Porticus Brutis" <celtic4usa@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:48:49 -0700 (PDT)

Hail Nova Roma
I want to know if someone could tell me about this annual membership fee and why have I never read about on the NR web site?If I've over looked it please show me where to look and how much to give.
Thank you for your help.
G.Porticus Brutis

M Arminius Maior wrote:Senate call

Last week, the Senate was called to order by the
Consul M. Octavius Germanicus.
For to the information of the people, here is a brief
versin of the Senate agenda.

-----

SCHEDULE
Debate begins Tuesday 17 September, 19:00 Rome
Voting begins Saturday 21 September, 19:00 Rome
and ends Tuesday 24 September, 19:00 Rome

VOTING AGENDA:

ITEM I. Appointment of Aurelia Iulia Pulchra as
Italian translator.

ITEM II. [VETOED] Was about the Cassius/Labienus gens
reform, legally vetoed by Consul L. Cornelius Sulla,
so the voting in this item was forbidden in the
Senate.

ITEM III. Restructure annual membership fees to be
proportional to national per capita GDP.
The author, Consul M. Octavius Germanicus, recommended
the vote aginst his own proposal because he prefers a
slightly adjusted version.

ITEM IV. Approval of candidacy for Quaestor of Manius
Constantinus Serapio.

ITEM V. Policy on the surrender of elected/appointed
offices upon resignation of citizenship and subsequent
retraction of resignation.

ITEM VI. Appointment of G. Cassius Nerva as Propraetor
for Mediatlantica.

ITEM VII. Sponsorship of Legio XIV G.M.V. Cohort I of
Wisconsin
-----

Vale
Marcus Arminius Maior
Tribunus Plebis

_______________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! PageBuilder
O super editor para criação de sites: é grátis, fácil e rápido.
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/v/pb.html

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Praetoral Address III: The Nature of a Veto. (Clarification)
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 05:55:37 EDT

In a message dated 9/28/02 10:54:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
scriba_forum@hotmail.com writes:


> . Indeed the Senior Consul expressed unfairness with same, in his
> appraisal. Indeed they are entitled to their opinions.


Which leads us to the question, if our laws as set forth by the constitution
slows a controversy change down, then it is a good thing. We have to assume
the Romans knew what they were doing. So this leads me to my second
question, why, when a magistrate vetos, is it a bad thing? Granted the
people on the losing end of the veto are vexed, since now they must
compromise to get the veto lifted, or abandon the legislation and return to
it at later time. However that is all part of the process.
It took me three years to get the Senate to accept a dues system, my biggest
objectors were the two founding fathers. Most people faced with that
obstacle would have retired but not I. I was convinced that these dues were
an important part of Nova Roma's growth towards its final goal. So I
continued to gather support. At last it became a reality.
So since neither side is too far apart here with their stated needs, I
suspect that a compromise will eventually be reached, and we will be able to
travel on.

>
> Yesterday, it was told to me in this forum, by Consul Marcus Octavius, that
>
> he wanted to be 'fair' about the proposal myself, et al wrote, but he draws
>
> another breath and says he will veto it if it doesn't go to the Senate
> first.
>

Did he? I missed that. Most laws are issued with the "advice of the Senate"
before they go to Comitia. So perhaps he was reminding you of an essential
step.

> Why?
>
> He saw one draft, and it has since been amended to accommodate a couple of
> important religious points made and some nomenclature, which I said I would
>
> do, but why is it so important that you cannot see it? It is not the Magna
>
> Carta :), but it is well within historic, religious, constitutional ideals,
>
> and a composite of what many senators have spoken of as important, so
> ...why
> does he practically 'forbid' it be shown to you, on pain of veto, like some
>
> politically caustic manifesto?
> Likewise, you would be shown any proposal that was about to be balloted for
>
> a Senate vote.


No, I believe he is following procedure, which according to the NR
constitution is something he has to do, in the day to day running of Nova
Roma.

Why is it so necessary that it is scrutinized by the Senate 'before' it is
shown to you, in the mind of the Good Consul?

As for the text of a Lex, when I was consul, only the general details in
several sentences would be revealed by the Tribunes on the agenda. The
actual verbage would be debated over if neccessary, then the vote taken.
The reason for this is twofold.
I. it allows a magistrate to threaten a veto if certain things are not fixed
if he has Imperium and of course the Senators are allowed to place their own
input into the legislation.
This is important, as if a 2/3rds majority is needed, and that is not
forthcoming, it dies.
II. If the senate and the people are debating together, then we are no
longer following the Roman constitution. Polybios tells us the people are
the last to know, but theirs is the most important contribution. They are
the ones that object or accept such legislation, and make them laws through
the Comitia. If the legislation is rejected, then of course the issuing
magistrate could issue it as an edict, but that is only good for the term of
office. And no doubt, the other magistrate, would veto it, since it was the
will of the people for it not to be a law in the first place.
The Consul is following procedure.
>
> Should the proposal not be vetoed 'responsibly', because it is against the
> 'spirit of the current constitution'?..in the best interests of the people
> in mind?
> I don't understand: If you don't do things 'my' way, as opposed to one of
> two legal ways, it shall be vetoed...period...no discussion?
>

Imperium says that you do not need to apologize. The people gave the power,
expecting the elected magistrate to protect them. If the magistrate refuses,
the check is the Tribunes. These acting as protectors of the people would
step in.
It does not exactly work that way here in NR. Here the Tribunes are bound to
protect the spirit if not the letter of the constitution. So if the
magistrate decided to operate outside the bounds of the constitution, the
Tribunes would be expected to veto all harmful legislation that affected the
people, and nothing could be done to overturn that veto.


> There are two ways a law can be introduced: as a Senatus Consultum voted by
>
> the people, or a law promulgated to comitia by either Consuls, Tribunes,
> and
> in some instances Praetors. That is the law, and no veto should be issued
> because the Consul prefers that the people not see it, unless it is
> dangerous and disruptive. Well, being that I have had 'some' positive
> feedback on it, coupled with my knowledge of Roman law and that I am a
> Praetor, I think otherwise.
>

But Praetor, to use your argument right back at you, a Consul outranks you,
and he may veto you if he so wishes. There is no "reasonable" veto. It is
or it is not. And he needs to make no explanation to you. Such is the way
of Rome.

> Valete
> Q. Fabius Maximus


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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Praetoral Address III: The Nature of a Veto. (Clarification)
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:16:29 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 9/28/02 10:54:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> scriba_forum@h... writes:
>
>
> > . Indeed the Senior Consul expressed unfairness with same, in
his
> > appraisal. Indeed they are entitled to their opinions.
>
>
> Which leads us to the question, if our laws as set forth by the
constitution
> slows a controversy change down, then it is a good thing. We have
to assume
> the Romans knew what they were doing. So this leads me to my
second
> question, why, when a magistrate vetos, is it a bad thing? Granted
the
> people on the losing end of the veto are vexed, since now they must
> compromise to get the veto lifted, or abandon the legislation and
return to
> it at later time. However that is all part of the process.
> It took me three years to get the Senate to accept a dues system,
my biggest
> objectors were the two founding fathers. Most people faced with
that
> obstacle would have retired but not I. I was convinced that these
dues were
> an important part of Nova Roma's growth towards its final goal. So
I
> continued to gather support. At last it became a reality.
> So since neither side is too far apart here with their stated
needs, I
> suspect that a compromise will eventually be reached, and we will
be able to
> travel on.

Pompeia: I rendered no emotional assignment to the veto in this
discourse, honoured Senator. I only stated that other Senators did.
>
> >
> > Yesterday, it was told to me in this forum, by Consul Marcus
Octavius, that
> >
> > he wanted to be 'fair' about the proposal myself, et al wrote,
but he draws
> >
> > another breath and says he will veto it if it doesn't go to the
Senate
> > first.
> >
>
> Did he? I missed that. Most laws are issued with the "advice of
the Senate"
> before they go to Comitia. So perhaps he was reminding you of an
essential
> step.

Pompeia: Well, Consul Germanicus broke alot of laws, because more
often than not he approached comitia first, only to have the
legislation ratified by the Senate later. Also, we have this year
ratified laws in chambers which have first gone to comitia. No, I
have missed nothing. So this cannot be considered standard procedure
in Nova Roma because both venues are utilized for the introduction of
legislation. Perhaps not the historical ideal, but certainly not
unprecedented in Nova Roma.
>
> > Why?
> >
> > He saw one draft, and it has since been amended to accommodate a
couple of
> > important religious points made and some nomenclature, which I
said I would
> >
> > do, but why is it so important that you cannot see it? It is not
the Magna
> >
> > Carta :), but it is well within historic, religious,
constitutional ideals,
> >
> > and a composite of what many senators have spoken of as
important, so
> > ...why
> > does he practically 'forbid' it be shown to you, on pain of veto,
like some
> >
> > politically caustic manifesto?
> > Likewise, you would be shown any proposal that was about to be
balloted for
> >
> > a Senate vote.
>
>
> No, I believe he is following procedure, which according to the NR
> constitution is something he has to do, in the day to day running
of Nova
> Roma.

Pompeia: Please see above.
>
> Why is it so necessary that it is scrutinized by the
Senate 'before' it is
> shown to you, in the mind of the Good Consul?
>
> As for the text of a Lex, when I was consul, only the general
details in
> several sentences would be revealed by the Tribunes on the agenda.
The
> actual verbage would be debated over if neccessary, then the vote
taken.
> The reason for this is twofold.
> I. it allows a magistrate to threaten a veto if certain things are
not fixed
> if he has Imperium and of course the Senators are allowed to place
their own
> input into the legislation.
> This is important, as if a 2/3rds majority is needed, and that is
not
> forthcoming, it dies.
> II. If the senate and the people are debating together, then we
are no
> longer following the Roman constitution. Polybios tells us the
people are
> the last to know, but theirs is the most important contribution.
They are
> the ones that object or accept such legislation, and make them laws
through
> the Comitia. If the legislation is rejected, then of course the
issuing
> magistrate could issue it as an edict, but that is only good for
the term of
> office. And no doubt, the other magistrate, would veto it, since
it was the
> will of the people for it not to be a law in the first place.
> The Consul is following procedure.
> >
> > Should the proposal not be vetoed 'responsibly', because it is
against the
> > 'spirit of the current constitution'?..in the best interests of
the people
> > in mind?
> > I don't understand: If you don't do things 'my' way, as opposed
to one of
> > two legal ways, it shall be vetoed...period...no discussion?
> >
>
> Imperium says that you do not need to apologize. The people gave
the power,
> expecting the elected magistrate to protect them. If the
magistrate refuses,
> the check is the Tribunes. These acting as protectors of the people
would
> step in.
> It does not exactly work that way here in NR. Here the Tribunes
are bound to
> protect the spirit if not the letter of the constitution. So if
the
> magistrate decided to operate outside the bounds of the
constitution, the
> Tribunes would be expected to veto all harmful legislation that
affected the
> people, and nothing could be done to overturn that veto.
>
>
> > There are two ways a law can be introduced: as a Senatus
Consultum voted by
> >
> > the people, or a law promulgated to comitia by either Consuls,
Tribunes,
> > and
> > in some instances Praetors. That is the law, and no veto should
be issued
> > because the Consul prefers that the people not see it, unless it
is
> > dangerous and disruptive. Well, being that I have had 'some'
positive
> > feedback on it, coupled with my knowledge of Roman law and that I
am a
> > Praetor, I think otherwise.
> >
>
> But Praetor, to use your argument right back at you, a Consul
outranks you,
> and he may veto you if he so wishes. There is no "reasonable"
veto. It is
> or it is not. And he needs to make no explanation to you. Such is
the way
> of Rome.

Pompeia: "Responsible" veto, not "reasonable" veto was my actual
text.
Despite the power to veto, by virtue and oath I believe it needs to
be exercized 'responsibly' with the needs of the people in
mind...regardless of 'who' the magistrate is.

May we agree to disagree, but I believe vetos should be made with
some consideration. And to remind you, that the people gave this
power of veto to be used in good faith to protect them, so therein is
a certain command to be responsible, no? I am not asking for an
apology, either, I don't believe, from the Consul.

Bene vale,
Pompeia


>
> > Valete
> > Q. Fabius Maximus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Praetoral Address III: The Nature of a Veto. (Clarificat...
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 06:31:15 EDT

In a message dated 9/29/02 3:17:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
scriba_forum@hotmail.com writes:


> Well, Consul Germanicus broke alot of laws, because more
> often than not he approached comitia first, only to have the
> legislation ratified by the Senate later. Also, we have this year
> ratified laws in chambers which have first gone to comitia. No, I
> have missed nothing. So this cannot be considered standard procedure
> in Nova Roma because both venues are utilized for the introduction of
> legislation. Perhaps not the historical ideal, but certainly not
> unprecedented in Nova Roma.
>

Ah Vedius. Praetor, Founder Flavius Vedius had his own way to introduce
laws. He'd tell the people that "you need this" then tell them what they
needed. However he'd include the Senate's input before he actually wrote
legislation unless he was Dictator.
Not all Consuls are like Vedius. I was not. Octavius strikes me as one
more traditional. I think that the Consul sets the tone of the
administration, while the other magistrates follows his example. I would not
use Vedius as an example of a typical Consul.
Good questions BTW.
Valete

Q. Fabius Maximus


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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Praetoral Post II: The Gentes/Familia Issues
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 14:41:49 -0000

Salvete,


I have snipped for brevity:
--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "Pompeia Cornelia Strabo" <scriba_forum@h...>
wrote:
> The proposal was vetoed by L. Cornelius Sulla, as the provision for
adoptio
> did not appear, as I understand him. He felt some provision for
adoptio
> should be there. Further, I will let him speak for himself.
>

I do wish L. Cornelius Sulla would speak for himself and explain to
the people the reason(s) for his veto. But for whatever reason he
seems to be remaining silent at this time, and that vacuum of silence
is a breeding ground for all sorts of speculation both public and
private. I'm not going to publically speculate on his reasons for
his veto. However, I will publically state that with his silence he
loses any future vote from this particular cive for any future office
he might wish to run. It is my personal belief that if any
magistrate does not hold him or her self accountable for his or her
actions to the People and the Senate of Rome that is a magistrate I
can not in good conscience cast my vote for in the future.

I do sincerely hope that L. Cornelius Sulla does break his silence,
and I sincerely hope that his reason is not that the the provision of
adoptio did not appear in the proposed Senatus Consultum. I have read
the proposal that was posted and forgive me a moment to "cheat" with
cut and paste, but it does indeed provide for adoptio. I really hate
to believe that L. Cornelius Sulla didn't read the proposal before he
vetoed it. I you will allow me to cut and paste the sections
relevant to adoption:

]2. Membership in a familia is determined by formal ties such as blood
] kinship, legal marriage, or shared residence in a physical
household.
] Familiae may occupy separate physical households provided they share
] a formal tie of kinship by blood or marriage, or that a legal and
] formal adoptio or adrogatio (adoption) has taken place according to
the
] provisions established by the laws of Nova Roma.
]
] 3. Each separate familia shall, through whatever means it may
determine
] appropriate, have a paterfamilias (fem. materfamilias ) who shall
act as
] the leader of the family 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 from
their
] familiae, and in accordance with formal laws of adoption accept new
] members into their family as designated heirs.
]
] (Note: The two sections above require official adoption laws being
set.)


Valete,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Praetoral Address III: The Nature of a Veto. (Clarification)
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 15:18:29 -0000

Salve,

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:


>
> But Praetor, to use your argument right back at you, a Consul
outranks you,
> and he may veto you if he so wishes. There is no "reasonable"
veto. It is
> or it is not. And he needs to make no explanation to you. Such is
the way
> of Rome.

Legally a Consul or any other magistrate with the power of intercesso
needs not make any explanation for an intercesso. However imperium
and intercesso are intrinsic to those offices and are bestowed upon
the holder through the action of the People of Rome in their tribes
and centuries. The only exception to that rule is the office of
Dictator which even then the actions of the office holder is held to
account by the Senate at the expiration of the term of Dicatorship to
affirm or nullify the actions taken.

It is my opinion as a voter that any elected official who refuses to
give explanation for actions taken during the conduct of office is
unworthy of my vote in the future. That said, I do hope that L.
Cornelius Sulla does state his reason(s) for his veto because deep
down I know that he is worthy of my vote for any future office he may
wish to run for even if it turns out that I totally disagree with him
on one or two instances.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] appearance in roman film
From:	Arnamentia Aurelia <arnamentia_aurelia@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 07:15:52 -0700 (PDT)

Franciscus Apulus,

Please let us know if the film succeeds in it's goal
to be played *only* in Latin and Aramaic. (I have a
hunch they may add subtitles later.)

Arnamentia Aurelia

*******************
Original Message: 1
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:05:02 +0200
From: "Franciscus Apulus Caesar"
<sacro_barese_impero@libero.it>
Subject: OT - Appearance in roman film

Franciscus Apulus CAesar Omnibus S.P.D.

I'm going now to Matera (Italy - near my city, Bari)
where in November Mel Gibson will play own new film,
"The Passion", about the last 12 hours of
Juses Christ's life. He searchs 500 appearances and I
hope to be one of their. Maybe you'll see me in the
next roman movie ;-)
Please, say me "Good Luck"! :-)

Valete
Franciscus Apulus Caesar


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Nature of a Veto. (Clarification)
From:	"Gaius Basilicatus Agricola" <jlasalle@kc.rr.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:59:01 -0500

Salve

It is my understanding that offices such as consul carry with them a limited amount of imperium. I understand "imperium" to mean the quasi-religious power to command armies and to coerce citizens. And that consuls are accountable for their actions after their term. However, a dictator has unfettered imperium, is not subject to veto, and cannot be held accountable for his actions after the term is over. This is expressly stated by ancient writers (Zonar. vii.13, Dionys. v.70, vii.56; Plut. Fab. 3; Appian, B.C. ii.23), and, even if it had not been stated, it would follow from the very nature of the dictatorship. Who would want to assume dictatorial powers, only to be prosecuted afterwards? There is no instance recorded in which a dictator, after his resignation, was made answerable for the misuse of his power, with the exception of Camillus, whose case was an extraordinary one.

Vale

Gaius Basilicatus Agricola






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: quintuscassiuscalvus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 10:18 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Praetoral Address III: The Nature of a Veto. (Clarification)


Salve,

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:


>
> But Praetor, to use your argument right back at you, a Consul
outranks you,
> and he may veto you if he so wishes. There is no "reasonable"
veto. It is
> or it is not. And he needs to make no explanation to you. Such is
the way
> of Rome.

Legally a Consul or any other magistrate with the power of intercesso
needs not make any explanation for an intercesso. However imperium
and intercesso are intrinsic to those offices and are bestowed upon
the holder through the action of the People of Rome in their tribes
and centuries. The only exception to that rule is the office of
Dictator which even then the actions of the office holder is held to
account by the Senate at the expiration of the term of Dicatorship to
affirm or nullify the actions taken.

It is my opinion as a voter that any elected official who refuses to
give explanation for actions taken during the conduct of office is
unworthy of my vote in the future. That said, I do hope that L.
Cornelius Sulla does state his reason(s) for his veto because deep
down I know that he is worthy of my vote for any future office he may
wish to run for even if it turns out that I totally disagree with him
on one or two instances.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus




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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Praetoral Address III: The Nature of a Veto. (Clarification)
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 16:08:39 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@a...> wrote:
> Salve,
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@y..., qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:
>
>
> >
> > But Praetor, to use your argument right back at you, a Consul
> outranks you,
> > and he may veto you if he so wishes. There is no "reasonable"
> veto. It is
> > or it is not. And he needs to make no explanation to you. Such
is
> the way
> > of Rome.
>
> Legally a Consul or any other magistrate with the power of
intercesso
> needs not make any explanation for an intercesso. However imperium
> and intercesso are intrinsic to those offices and are bestowed upon
> the holder through the action of the People of Rome in their tribes
> and centuries. The only exception to that rule is the office of
> Dictator which even then the actions of the office holder is held
to
> account by the Senate at the expiration of the term of Dicatorship
to
> affirm or nullify the actions taken.
>
> It is my opinion as a voter that any elected official who refuses
to
> give explanation for actions taken during the conduct of office is
> unworthy of my vote in the future. That said, I do hope that L.
> Cornelius Sulla does state his reason(s) for his veto because deep
> down I know that he is worthy of my vote for any future office he
may
> wish to run for even if it turns out that I totally disagree with
him
> on one or two instances.

Pompeia Respondeo: Salve Quinte Cassi: Although I cannot answer
these questions for you definitively, I was in process of trying to
mediate, with help of course, a plan which was agreeable with respect
to the sensitive issue of adoptio. Because the Senior Consul, and I
am in full agreement with his rationale in this instance, could not
wait forever to call the Senate into session, he could thus not wait
for the completion of the proposal produced through mediation. My
collegia was ill as well. The proposal you quote from was put on the
ballot and vetoed.

Therefore, any concessions made through mediation efforts hence may
not be reflected in the proposal vetoed. However, these things
happen. Again, I don't speak for anyone; I cannot say that some of
those in the Senate are satisfied with the product produced. I leave
that to their contemplation.

Vale,
Pompeia
>
> Vale,
>
> Q. Cassius Calvus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Praetoral Address III: The Nature of a Veto
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 11:10:49 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Praetrix Pompeia Cornelia,

I have just returned from our second Lacus Magni provincial event, held
in Columbus, Ohio, and organized by Propraetor Marcus Bianchius Antonius.
Although there were few attendees, those of us who were there had an
excellent time.

But, on my return, I am dismayed at how you have interpreted my statements
made in the last few hours before I boarded the airplane in Chicago; could
you not have privately asked for further clarification first?

You say that I "threaten" a veto, because I said that I would allow
your proposal to be voted on by the Senate; it will have *more*
of a fighting chance than ours did. Is that so unfair?

> Yesterday, it was told to me in this forum, by Consul Marcus Octavius, that
> he wanted to be 'fair' about the proposal myself, et al wrote, but he draws
> another breath and says he will veto it if it doesn't go to the Senate
> first.
>
> Why?

Because the Senate has debated this issue for two months, we are
intimitely familiar with the issues involved, and it is not right that
the Senate should be completely bypassed. The Senate has already
suffered one insult, by being forbidden to vote on gens reform;
why should it happen again?

> He saw one draft, and it has since been amended to accommodate a couple of
> important religious points made and some nomenclature, which I said I would
> do, but why is it so important that you cannot see it?

I have never said that citizens cannot see your proposal. By all means,
post it here if you wish; I do not object to that in the slightest.

I said only that it must be approved by the Senate before being
"presented to the People" - and by that I was referring to an official
summoning of the Comitia. I am sorry if I chose my words poorly; I have
no problems whatsoever with discussion of the specifics of your proposal
here (as long as you will tolerate similar discussion of the
Cassius/Labienus plan).

> why does he practically 'forbid' it be shown to you, on pain of veto,
> like some politically caustic manifesto?

Praetrix, I really wish you had written to me first. You knew I would
be out of town; this could have waited.

I have not forbidden you to show anything to anyone. I said only that
it would be voted on by the Senate first, before the Comitia; and I stand
by that. This issue began in the Senate, every active member of the
Senate has given the matter much thought, and the Senate has already
once been stopped from expressing its official opinion, as a body,
on the subject of gens reform.

The Senate must have its say.

Were I truly interested in maliciously interfering with your proposal,
I could have simply vetoed it in the Senate. I did not do that, nor
did I threaten to, nor do I plan to.

After the proposal of my allies was vetoed, in spite of broad support,
a very different plan was put forth as an alternative to it. I could have
vetoed it, out of retribution perhaps, or perhaps in order to force
changes to it.

I'm not going to do that.

I will let your proposal have the chance that Cassius's never had; it
may go to the Senate. Regardless of my personal opinions on the subject,
I am willing to accomodate alternative ideas. But I will not allow
the Senate to be bypassed. I do not think it right that a proposal
supported by about four Senators should go directly to the People
after one supported by nine Senators was shot down.

> It is ok...he can say he will not support it, but why does he threaten to
> veto a proposal if I show it to you.

As I said above, that was a misunderstanding, for which you and I are
both at fault. Show it to anyone; but a call for votes cannot happen
until the Senate has given its approval.

I am well aware that there is no legal requirement for potential
leges to be approved in the Senate first, and in most cases, they are
not. But this is an issue on which the Senate is deeply divided,
and has been discussing for months, and on which my opposition has
already issued one veto.

> I am not sure I agree with these political strategies, to be honest.

Where were your words of condemnation against Sulla's veto, then? He
blocked a proposal that he disliked, inspite of wide support in the
Senate. I have done no more than say that the counter-proposal must
follow a certain path. I have not vetoed it. I have not arbitrarily
shot it down.

Why do you hold me to such a higher standard than you hold
my colleague?

> So I guess this means that if I can painstakingly talk the other consul into
> promulgating it to you, that's no good either, he'll veto it.

Only if you try to bypass the Senate. Regardless of my personal opinion
on your counter-proposal, I will not strangle it at birth. I am
showing you much more accomodation than my colleague showed to me and
my allies.

> This is a Praetoral 'catch 22', and it would seem to me the people are
> getting the short end of things.

I won't let the Senate get the short end of things either.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Senate call
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 16:19:37 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "G.Porticus Brutis" <celtic4usa@y...> wrote:
>
Salve friend,

The fee has been voluntary for many of us. If you signed up for NR
after Dec. 2001 the fee was waived for the year. Oh well, why not
contribute anyway I thought. It is 18.00 US a year. Just go to the
main Nova Roma Web page and scroll about half way down until you see
the merchant section. There you will see a blue flashing flag saying
Dono Dare / give to Nova Roma via paypal. Just click and follow the
instructions.

Regards - Quintus Lanius Paulinus.

> Hail Nova Roma
> I want to know if someone could tell me about this annual
membership fee and why have I never read about on the NR web site?If
I've over looked it please show me where to look and how much to give.
> Thank you for your help.
> G.Porticus Brutis
>
Snip to save space
Yahoo! PageBuilder
> O super editor para criação de sites: é grátis, fácil e rápido.
> http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/v/pb.html
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] A compromise has not yet been reached!
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 11:52:49 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Senator Quinte Fabi,

> Which is what we are all doing. Is not this correct? You told the people
> you speak for the Senate. You implied that we were united. When actually
> that wasn't the case. While I know you did not mean to do this, I just
> wanted to set the record straight.

I don't think I implied that the Senate was united; if I seemed to say
that, I apologize. Clearly, there is a division; we agree on that.

I still firmly believe that the pro-reform faction is in the majority.

> As for trampling rights, that lex wishes to only allow families in NR that
> are blood related.

Labienus' amendment, which was a part of the final version, would have
allowed for a 30-day period in which anyone can choose to be a part of
the familia of their old gens head, without restriction. (I'd be
willing to double or triple that time period). While future familiae
in Nova Roma would be based on real-life families, the grandfathered
exceptions would continue; each individual who chooses to belong to
such families would be able to do so.

> Most people here are not related by blood, and it seems do not wish to
> be separated forcefully (I know you say that is not what will happen,
> but read the lex, man) from their gens. I'd say that's "trampling rights."

No one will be separated forcefully - read the proposed lex! 30 days
in which to choose to be "adopted" by the paterfamilias.

> By the way, if a blood related family member wishes to leave his family and
> join another non blood related family, is that allowed?

The leaving would be; the joining would not - that citizen would then
be head of their own household.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] A question
From:	"Mike Rasschaert" <morosbe2001@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 17:26:47 -0000

Salvete
I have a question about how women were seen in ancient Rome from the
days of the Republic to the Imperial times? I mean by this social,
religious political aspects of these women. Not just the upper class
women, but the rest to?

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] A Brief Essay On The Compatibility of Roman Virtues with Judeo-Christian Morals
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 18:35:02 -0000

A Brief Essay On The Compatibility of Roman Virtues with Judeo-
Christian Morals

By Quintus Cassius Calvus

Historians have debated the reasons for the gradual growth and
acceptance of Christianity despite periodic persecution by the Roman
State and have reached many conclusions. A commonly accepted
conclusion was that the Christian message of the meek inheriting the
earth and a level of nirvana like equality in the afterlife appealed
to the disadvantaged, the poor, slaves, and women. While this
message certainly had appeal to the many disadvantaged in the Roman
world, that is a simplistic answer that does not take into account
the theological disparity between the pantheist Religio Romana and
the monotheism of the Judeo-Christian theology.

Christianity having its roots in the Judaism; in particular
the Messianic Prophecies of Jewish scripture; begs the question, "Why
Christianity succeeded in supplanting the Religio Romana as the
official religion of state and why Judaism did not?" Some would
argue that Christianity was a religion of inclusion while Judaism
remained an "exclusive" religion. That argument is too simplistic
and ignores evidence within Jewish scripture that Judaism has
historically welcomed converts. As examples of such converts, one
has Rahab the Prostitute from Joshua 2:6 (coincidently included in
Jesus' genealogy in Matthew 1:6), Ruth, and in Christian scripture we
have Timothy. Christianity's success over Judaism (if the reader
will permit me to use that terminology) in supplanting the Religio
Romana lies less in its theological distinctions between its parent
Judaism then in its active proselytizing where Judaism didn't
actively proselytize but did accept sincere converts.

Socio-economic conditions while having a factor in the
receptiveness of the Christian message; does not explain fully the
acceptance of the new religion. Nor can one apply the axiom
of "Say it long enough, loud enough, people will come to believe,"
to the active proselytizing of the early Christian preachers as
explanation for the supplanting of the Religio Romana either.
Theologically the teachings of Christianity and Judaism were foreign
to a vast majority of the Roman world. Even the similitaries
between Christianity and Mithraism, which embraced by many, do not
fully explain the embracing of something so foreign to the
traditional theological thinking of the Roman world. For such a
radical change in theology to occur the proselytizers must have found
a common ground of understanding with their audience. I submit that
the common ground was in the nature of Roman Virtues and the Moral
Teachings of the Judeo-Christian Tradition.

The foundation of Judeo-Christian morality is the Ten
Commandments. The first five Commandments concern the theology of
monotheism. The next five Commandments concern personal conduct and
correlate to Roman Virtues. There is disagreement between the major
branches of Christianity and the Jewish reckoning of the exact
ordering of the commandments, but this is not an essay on the proper
division. However, so one understands what I mean by the exact
ordering (all the major branches of Christianity and Judaism agree
that the full number of Commandments is indeed ten and agree on the
fullness of context) I will diverge for a moment to explain. The
Jewish reckoning of the First Commandment is "I am the Lord your
God." While Christian (both Catholic and Protestant) places the
start of the Commandments as "You shall have no other gods before
me", within the branches of Christianity there is debate whether the
First Commandment includes "You shall not make for yourself a graven
image" or if that is the Second Commandment.

A person who claims to be a Jew or a Christian who uses the
name of God as common swear breaks not only the commandment against
such acts, but breaks against the virtue of Pietas. Deeper still a
person who practices the Religio Romana who envies another's car,
house, wife, even political office violates the commandment to not
envy the possessions of others, but violates the virtues of
Industria, Frugalitas as well as Severitas. One who embraces the
virtues of Comitas and Clementia would surely not violate the
commandment to honor their mother and father, nor would they kill,
steal, or lie. Perjury violates the commandment to not give false
testimony and violates the virtues of Aequitas, Justica, and
Veritas.

While the Religio Romana and Monotheism are theologically
opposed to one another, the virtues and morals that each represent
are whole compatible and should be the basis of agreement between
Nova Romans who are practitioners of the Religio Romana and those who
are Jewish or Christian. These virtues and morals are universal and
transcend the boundaries of disparate theological positions. I am a
Christian and by upholding traditional Roman Virtues, I in no way
violate the Ten Commandments. Indeed, by embracing these virtues a
Christian or Jew strengthens their commitment to those Commandments.

Respectfully,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: OT - Appearance in roman film
From:	"Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <sacro_barese_impero@libero.it>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 16:40:36 +0200

Franciscus Apulus Ceasar Omnibus et G. Cassio Nerva S.P.D.

Thank you all for your kind words, I'll receive the answer from the movie's
production in the next days. However there were a lot of people: during 3
days the production have tested almoust 9.000 candidates for 500 places. :-(

> I wish you the best of good luck in your audition. Have you been in
> other films or stage shows?

Yes, I have been in some movies and telefilms as appearance for the italian
public network RAI.
In the same way I have been interviewed several times from european TVs
becuase I'm the leader of a famous satyrical organization. In November I'll
be in a argentinian tv show.

Valete
Franciscus Apulus Caesar
-------------------------------------------
Propraetor Provinciae Italiae
Quaestor Aedilis C. Fabius Quintilianus
Scriba Curatoris Araneum
-------------------------------------------
Provincia Italia - http://italia.novaroma.org
Paterfamilias Gens Apula - www.gensapula.too.it
Cohors Aedilis C. Fabius Quintilianus -
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis
Web Nova Roman Experiments - http://lab.novaroma.org/wnre

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] A question
From:	"Gaius Galerius Peregrinator" <gaiusgalerius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 20:33:50 +0000

Salve:

This is not, really, authoritative by the way I heard it. Supposedly,
there were the stories of the rich ladies who'd buy gladiators for
themselves, as many rich people did, and so, sometimes a lady would be
walking down the street, nose up, surrounded by a couple of gladiators; for
protection she'd say.

Then there was the story of the guys playing checkers in the afternoon
and complaining to each other about the wives, and how they will not put up
with it anylonger. Then a wife shows up angry with her husband, calling him
lazy and such, because she'd been waiting for him to bring firewood, and
he's playing checkers instead. And he meekly gets up, and says: yes dear!
which reminds me of Ralph Kramdon.

Vale

Galerius Peregrinator.


>From: "Mike Rasschaert" <morosbe2001@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Nova-Roma] A question
>Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 17:26:47 -0000
>
>Salvete
>I have a question about how women were seen in ancient Rome from the
>days of the Republic to the Imperial times? I mean by this social,
>religious political aspects of these women. Not just the upper class
>women, but the rest to?
>
>
>




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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] New Citizen
From:	"Gaius Galerius Peregrinator" <gaiusgalerius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 21:23:21 +0000

>From: Camille Klein <acidqueen@evilnet.net>
>Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Nova-Roma] New Citizen
>Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 05:56:29 -0400
>
>Salvete omnes (I think that's how you say "Hello everybody")!
>
>I don't know if I can be considered "new" anymore--my application for
>citizenship was approved like 2 weeks ago, and I have been lurking on this
>list and several others since then.
>
>I really don't have a speech prepared, so please forgive the terseness of
>this post as I've always been horrible with self-introductions. :)
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Fortuna Galeria Fidelia
>
>
>
I want to say hello too.

Salve and welcome. You made a wise choice by joining our family. You
probably heard about the ongoing controversy in the senate about gens. You
don't have to worry about that because those who join our family never
leave. You will find our materfamilias most kind and responsive, and the
rest of us kids we are all like the Lake Wobegone kids.

Again welcome and vale

Gaius Galerius Peregrinator.



_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Apollonia Acta
From:	me-in-@disguise.co.uk
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:05:49 +0100 (BST)

-----Original Message-----
>From : jo mama <minervalis02@yahoo.com>
>>
>Contrary to colloquial belief the vast majority of the
>Vandal hords were already med berbers, they werent
>northmen.

The ones pushed south from Spain must have had a large Nordic proportion, at least among the aristocracy.

Sure light eyes are found in med
>populations, but in the tiniest minority.As for
>western caucasus, Armenia eh? The armenians are a
>brunette med race, with dark brown eyes in the
>majority.
>
No, not blue eyes in the Caucusus but red hair and 'Semitic' features with somewhat paler skin than lowlanders. However, it's pure guess that any of them may have come west to the Lebanon at ay time. It just seems odd that while we know Germanic and Slavic tribes wandered across Europe and Asia because we can't avoid the evidence, we are so reluctant to assume anybody else ever migrated either en bloc or as small groups.
Vibius Ambrosius Caesariensis.



--
Personalised email by http://another.com

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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] question
From:	"Gaius Galerius Peregrinator" <gaiusgalerius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:40:13 +0000

Salvete omnes:

Does anybody out there know where can I get specifications for a roman
toga.

Valete

Galerius Peregrinator.

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] question
From:	"Proculus Postumius Nero" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 18:50:01 -0400

Salve Peregrinator,

The answer to your question depends on whether or not you want the imperial
toga or the republican toga. For the imperial toga, I suggest here:
http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/reenactments/toga.html

For the Republican toga, my preference, I suggest here:
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/civcloth.html
(scroll about half way down)

I hope they help.

Optime Vale in Pace Sui Aeterna,

Nero

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Praetoral Address III: The Nature of a Veto
From:	"Proculus Postumius Nero" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 19:13:43 -0400

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus Pompeiae Corneliae Straboni Praetori
Senatorique Populoque Novae Romae S.P.D.

<ab Manu Praetoris Corneliae Strabonis>

The Veto

The Constitution of Nova Roma provides Consuls, Praetores and the Tribunes
with ability to pronounce Intercessio on a magistrate of lesser authority.

The Tribunes may veto Consuls, Praetores and Censores if they feel that
proposed legislation is against the spirit and/or wording of the
constitution.

Magistrates in keeping with their oath of office, to wit, "to act always in
the best interests of the Roman People", and "to honour the Gods and
Goddesses in their public dealings" are expected on this basis alone, to
pronounce intercessio 'responsibly', I should think, atleast in my
interpretation, as opposed to 'because they can'
<stop>

I agree with this. It would be my belief, as it is now, and always will be,
that the magistrates are so empowered not to do just what they want, but
rather, to do what is best for the people, or what is the common want of the
people. It is the duty of a magistrate to protect the people by any legal
means, however, it is the duty of the People to elect people who will do
this responsibly. I should hope those of you whom do vote in the elections
conduct yourselves this way when deciding whom is or is not worthy of
recieving your votes. Later, when candidates for offices begin presenting
themselves for given offices, if they don't do so on their own, I'll do what
is in my abilities to pry from them what they intend to do with their
office, how they intend to do it, and all that other good information that
the people inviariably have the right to know about magistrates.

<begin again>

The proposal presented to the Senate before the Praetoral proposal was
vetoed; it was expressed by a couple of Senatores that the veto was
irresponsible and shameful. Indeed the Senior Consul expressed unfairness
with same, in his appraisal. Indeed they are entitled to their opinions.

Let us talk about a fair veto for a minute.

Yesterday, it was told to me in this forum, by Consul Marcus Octavius, that
he wanted to be 'fair' about the proposal myself, et al wrote, but he draws
another breath and says he will veto it if it doesn't go to the Senate
first.
<stop>

I don't believe I read the post, however, I would have to agree with the
Senior Consul M. Octavius, on the point that he has already made, that it
should be proposed to the Senate first. Though, I too draw another breath
and go on to say that, as the Consul too said, it is permissible to present
your proposal to the People, but not as an official proposal, just as an
'idea,' if that makes any sense.

<begin again>

Why?

He saw one draft, and it has since been amended to accommodate a couple of
important religious points made and some nomenclature, which I said I would
do, but why is it so important that you cannot see it? It is not the Magna
Carta :), but it is well within historic, religious, constitutional ideals,
and a composite of what many senators have spoken of as important, so ...why
does he practically 'forbid' it be shown to you, on pain of veto, like some
politically caustic manifesto?Likewise, you would be shown any proposal that
was about to be balloted for a Senate vote.

Should the proposal not be vetoed 'responsibly', because it is against the
'spirit of the current constitution'?..in the best interests of the people
in mind?

<stop>

I do feel, though, that all vetoes should be done responsibly, however,
there would be no way to force the responsibility part of the ability to
veto upon a magistrate.

<begin>

I don't understand: If you don't do things 'my' way, as opposed to one of
two legal ways, it shall be vetoed...period...no discussion?

There are two ways a law can be introduced: as a Senatus Consultum voted by
the people, or a law promulgated to comitia by either Consuls, Tribunes, and
in some instances Praetors. That is the law, and no veto should be issued
because the Consul prefers that the people not see it, unless it is
dangerous and disruptive. Well, being that I have had 'some' positive
feedback on it, coupled with my knowledge of Roman law and that I am a
Praetor, I think otherwise.


It is ok...he can say he will not support it, but why does he threaten to
veto a proposal if I show it to you.

Am I moderated?

I am not sure I agree with these political strategies, to be honest.

So I guess this means that if I can painstakingly talk the other consul into
promulgating it to you, that's no good either, he'll veto it.

Why is it so necessary that it is scrutinized by the Senate 'before' it is
shown to you, in the mind of the Good Consul?

<stop>

I feel the Consul made a good point, and perhaps you misunderstood him
before he clarified the point. You may 'show' your proposal to the People,
but not as a proposal. I believe what the Consul is trying to say is that it
must be 'proposed' to the Senate before it is 'proposed' to the people as a
law, but it may be conferred upon by the people before it is formally
proposed, if that makes any sense to you.

<begin>

This is a Praetoral 'catch 22', and it would seem to me the people are
getting the short end of things.

<end>

Not really. Just a misinterpretation of things. And now that the
misinterpretation is corrected, I think, it seems as though things should be
a little smoother now.

I hope this helps.

Optime Valete in Pace Sui Aeterna,

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus
--
Retiarius Lacuum Magnorum
Scriba Curatoris Araneae
Discipolus Anno Tertio Linguae Latinae
Civis Lacuum Magnorum Provinciae
Civis Patriae Novae Romae, Optima Maxima

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" -- Q. Horati Flacci

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Praetoral Post II: The Gentes/Familia Issues
From:	"Proculus Postumius Nero" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 19:29:43 -0400

Pro. Postumius Nero Quiritibus S.P.D.

Salvete,

I trust you all have read the post which this is a response to, and so, I will not quote it here, rather, I will merely comment on it.

Through all of what the Praetor Strabo said in the referred to post, I agree. I too feel that the Consul Sulla should come forth, as he has in the past, and speak for himself, rather than allowing the People to compose a perhaps incorrect interpretation of his position. So in that, I ask Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, Consul of the Year 2755 in his Second Term, Senator, and Citizen, to speak his position on this matter, such that the constituency may better understand what his stance is on this.

Further, though this may cause inexhaustable noise, I ask the rest of the Senators and Magistrates whom are involved with this, as well as the citizens, therefore including everyone, to speak their position on this matter, but I also ask that this be done with the utmost civility and understanding, and not the deplorable discivilization that I have seen before. It is agreed that something must be done about the gentilic problem that has become obvious in recent months, but I feel that if everyone makes a statement about it, ideas may be exchanged and a reasonable and greatly acceptable solution may come about, with the least amount of offence and insulting and such as possible.

That is my position as of now.

Optime Vale in Pace Sui Aeterna,

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus
--
Retiarius Lacuum Magnorum
Scriba Curatoris Araneae
Discipolus Anno Tertio Linguae Latinae
Civis Lacuum Magnorum Provinciae
Civis Patriae Novae Romae, Optima Maxima

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" -- Q. Horati Flacci


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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Praetoral Address III: The Nature of a Veto
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:40:09 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...> wrote:
> Salve Praetrix Pompeia Cornelia,
>
> I have just returned from our second Lacus Magni provincial event,
held
> in Columbus, Ohio, and organized by Propraetor Marcus Bianchius
Antonius.
> Although there were few attendees, those of us who were there had an
> excellent time.

Pompeia: I knew you would. I almost made it last year, but had to
withdraw due an ill child.
>
> But, on my return, I am dismayed at how you have interpreted my
statements
> made in the last few hours before I boarded the airplane in
Chicago; could
> you not have privately asked for further clarification first?

Pompeia: Actually, I was more concerned about some posts in the
forum that afternoon, plus some pending state business I discussed
with you, that I did not actually have a chance to give the exchanges
serious consideration until well after you left.

You left, Consul Octavius, and I issued these posts on Sunday
morning, like in the middle of the night, just hours before you
arrived home. You could easily have just been in bed as out of town.
I sat on them all of Saturday and into the night, thinking not only
of your words, but of the whole shamazle and how fragmented this must
look to the populace.

No, I did not watch the clock, estimate the time you would be
airborne, then jump on my keyboard.

Being that you, forgive me, are not exactly a proponent of my point
of view, coupled with your words, painted a picture of unfairness,
which I legally questioned.

I was not rude; indeed I was far less caustic than a couple of folks
choosing to have 'stokes' over a three line post...but I respect
superior judgement on that, no questions asked.
>
> You say that I "threaten" a veto, because I said that I would allow
> your proposal to be voted on by the Senate; it will have *more*
> of a fighting chance than ours did. Is that so unfair?

Pompeia: I guess it all depends what side of the fence one is on, so
to speak.
>
> > Yesterday, it was told to me in this forum, by Consul Marcus
Octavius, that
> > he wanted to be 'fair' about the proposal myself, et al wrote,
but he draws
> > another breath and says he will veto it if it doesn't go to the
Senate
> > first.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because the Senate has debated this issue for two months, we are
> intimitely familiar with the issues involved, and it is not right
that
> the Senate should be completely bypassed. The Senate has already
> suffered one insult, by being forbidden to vote on gens reform;
> why should it happen again?

Pompeia: I was working to try to prevent that, but was late, for
reasons I already digressed on. I was just sitting on the situation,
but your position didn't seem fair. I had delusions of asking Sulla
to promulgate it perhaps, but, that apparently is not acceptable.
>
> > He saw one draft, and it has since been amended to accommodate a
couple of
> > important religious points made and some nomenclature, which I
said I would
> > do, but why is it so important that you cannot see it?
>
> I have never said that citizens cannot see your proposal. By all
means,
> post it here if you wish; I do not object to that in the slightest.
>
> I said only that it must be approved by the Senate before being
> "presented to the People" - and by that I was referring to an
official
> summoning of the Comitia. I am sorry if I chose my words poorly; I
have
> no problems whatsoever with discussion of the specifics of your
proposal
> here (as long as you will tolerate similar discussion of the
> Cassius/Labienus plan).

Pompeia: Senator Octavius, I believe I tolerate quite alot. Nobody
mollycoddles me and gives me a heads up everytime they disagree with
me. I am sorry, but I think you are taking this personally. I
talked about an 'awful lot' in my posts, the matter of the veto and
your subsequent position, which I interpreted as an ultimatum of
sorts, was only a segment of that series of discussions.
>
> > why does he practically 'forbid' it be shown to you, on pain of
veto,
> > like some politically caustic manifesto?
>
> Praetrix, I really wish you had written to me first. You knew I
would
> be out of town; this could have waited.

Pompeia: Yes, I knew you would be out of town. To re-explain myself
would be redundant. See above.
>
> I have not forbidden you to show anything to anyone. I said only
that
> it would be voted on by the Senate first, before the Comitia; and I
stand
> by that. This issue began in the Senate, every active member of the
> Senate has given the matter much thought, and the Senate has already
> once been stopped from expressing its official opinion, as a body,
> on the subject of gens reform.
>
> The Senate must have its say.

Pompeia: Of course it must be ratified by the Senate; changes will
likely have to be made to the consitution, even if minor. It is
usually a 'one or the other' route in Nova Roma. You were stating it
had to be 'your way' or forget it, and your language led me to
believe you meant I couldn't even disclose it.
>
> Were I truly interested in maliciously interfering with your
proposal,
> I could have simply vetoed it in the Senate. I did not do that, nor
> did I threaten to, nor do I plan to.

Pompeia: Consul Octavius, one cannot veto a discussion. It was
never placed on a ballot to be vetoed..we never got that far.
>
> After the proposal of my allies was vetoed, in spite of broad
support,
> a very different plan was put forth as an alternative to it. I
could have
> vetoed it, out of retribution perhaps, or perhaps in order to force
> changes to it.
>
> I'm not going to do that.

Pompeia: That is encouraging. You must admit, you have softened your
stance.
>
> I will let your proposal have the chance that Cassius's never had;
it
> may go to the Senate. Regardless of my personal opinions on the
subject,
> I am willing to accomodate alternative ideas. But I will not allow
> the Senate to be bypassed. I do not think it right that a proposal
> supported by about four Senators should go directly to the People
> after one supported by nine Senators was shot down.

Pompeia: As I have indicated, those who wish to express opposition
to the veto of Sulla are entitled to their opinions. I do not think
it is worth having strokes over, but they are entitled to their
opinions. Also, L. Cornelius Sulla is accountable for his veto. I
will not speak for him.
>
> > It is ok...he can say he will not support it, but why does he
threaten to
> > veto a proposal if I show it to you.
>
> As I said above, that was a misunderstanding, for which you and I
are
> both at fault. Show it to anyone; but a call for votes cannot
happen
> until the Senate has given its approval.
>
> I am well aware that there is no legal requirement for potential
> leges to be approved in the Senate first, and in most cases, they
are
> not. But this is an issue on which the Senate is deeply divided,
> and has been discussing for months, and on which my opposition has
> already issued one veto.
>
> > I am not sure I agree with these political strategies, to be
honest.
>
> Where were your words of condemnation against Sulla's veto, then?
He
> blocked a proposal that he disliked, inspite of wide support in the
> Senate. I have done no more than say that the counter-proposal must
> follow a certain path. I have not vetoed it. I have not
arbitrarily
> shot it down.


>
> Why do you hold me to such a higher standard than you hold
> my colleague?

Pompeia: Of course not. I hold you to the 'same' standard. He is
accountable for his actions. I just couldn't see the difference
between 'your' definition of fairness and 'his', based on my reading
and rereading of your account. You have since asserted that you
really are trying to be fair.


>
> > So I guess this means that if I can painstakingly talk the other
consul into
> > promulgating it to you, that's no good either, he'll veto it.
>
> Only if you try to bypass the Senate. Regardless of my personal
opinion
> on your counter-proposal, I will not strangle it at birth. I am
> showing you much more accomodation than my colleague showed to me
and
> my allies.
>
> > This is a Praetoral 'catch 22', and it would seem to me the
people are
> > getting the short end of things.
>
> I won't let the Senate get the short end of things either.

Pompeia: Well being a Senator and Praetor, I am not thinking that I
do either. But in this mess, where do the people fit in? That is my
concern also, as is yours, in our election by them and certain
members of the Senate.

Senator Octavius, I work odd hours and I get my posts in when I can,
as I have other things to do in and out of Nova Roma.

Senator Q. Fabius opposed my rationale on this one, believing that
you are just following procedure. Did he call me from Los Angeles
and ask me if was ok? ***not***

Nobody does...they let Po have it with both barrels, because if Po
can't take political criticism, well, maybe she doesn't belong as
Praetor.

In matters of state we cooperate well, Consul. We agree and things
are done. We are politically divided on this issue, which makes it
difficult. I cannot, however, guarantee that my posts will never be
made at an inopportune time or be in agreement with whom I am
addressing.



Bene vale,
Pompeia
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: A compromise has not yet been reached!
From:	"Gaia Fabia Livia" <racheledugdale@yahoo.co.uk>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 21:02:55 -0000

> > By the way, if a blood related family member wishes to leave his
family and
> > join another non blood related family, is that allowed?
>
> The leaving would be; the joining would not - that citizen would
then
> be head of their own household.

I'm muddled. The proposal you posted to this list suggested that
citizens could be adopted in to the families of others, even after
the specified period had ended, subject to adoption laws passing.
Are you now suggesting that there wouldn't be any such laws? Because
if there were, surely someone *could* leave a blood-related family
and be adopted in to another family of their choice?? I'd appreciate
clarification on this. Thanks.

G. Fabia Livia

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Praetoral Address I: The Gentes/Familia Issues
From:	"Proculus Postumius Nero" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 19:42:21 -0400

Salvete Quirites,

Again, I'll cut and paste, and comment accordingly.
----

P. Cornelia Strabo Praetrix Populesque Novae Romae S.P.D.

The Veto of the Gens Reform Proposal.

The subsequent argument of same.

Not something I totally unexpected, but one can only wish that such things
could be kept at bay.
<>

I too expected the argument, however, I hoped the argument would not be so
incivil as it appears it may become. I have spoken about my wishes for
civility in a message prior to this one.
<//>

If we are going to talk out of chambers perhaps we should allow Senate
conversations to be withing the lurk of the populace. When half is said in
chambers and half is said in the Forum, how does one get anything but a
completely unobscure picture of what is going on?

<>

I do respect the 'privacy' (if you will) of the chambers of the Senate.
However, if something is leaked to the general public, I feel that
everything on the subject should be said in public, not only as a means to
keep the trust it tact, but also to prohibit the procreation of incorrect
judgments of what our senators and magistrates are doing. If that makes any
sense.
<//>

I was reading today the Forum post Pro Postuminius Nero...quite a wise
16-year-old, who reminded us about the voice and opinions of the people.

<>

What can I say? I try. Although I'm not wise at all, just more inclined for
peace that for war and incivility.
<//>


Well, the beauty of a dual government. I for one have faith in the
populace of today, not perhaps for knowing every iota of Roman Law, but that
they are educated enough to make common sense decisions on what is in their
best interest and what is not. Suffice it to say that they needn't be left
completely in the dark regarding what is going on. They have more ability to
petition and lobby than the populace of some periods of antiquita.

At very least, as an elected representative of you, I believe that you
should receive the entirety of the facts, not 'dribs and drabs'

<>

Very much agreed. And I think here, you have the epitome of what an elected
representative should be.
<//>

We are not the plebia of early Rome, that is for sure.

However our elected magistrates, senators, tribunes keep us from making
serious mistakes and keep our reconstructionist efforts within a reasonable
replica of the ancient constitutional 'ideals' and religious elements we
cherish.



Now to get to the nitty gritty of the Praetoral Proposal for Gens/familia
growth. It was written by myself, with assistance (invaluable assistance)
from both my colleague Titus Labienus, who has been ill as of late, and
Proconsul Q. Fabius Maximus.

It is more or less a composite of all the positive ideas gleaned to date,
both from this forum and chambers, the constitution, historical models,
respect for the Religio. It contains a plan for future growth, entertaining
these factors. It is also the produce of compromise, as much that could be
extended in paying due attention to the law and accurate historical
reconstruction.

Why did I initiate the writing of it? To try to forge concordia and a
Senatorial consensus, regarding the best plan for positive historically
based growth , to wit, branching from gentes to familia, while
simulataneously facilitating some unifying elements. Religious, historical
and constitutional precepts were examined, with due fairness and precedence
provided for people comfortable in their current situation.

I felt a commitment to do this as Praetor, plus I have a certain degree of
passion toward having a fair family structure for the citizens, being that
the gentes are the 'backbone' of the republic...refer to the constitution
and the website for further information on the current mission of Nova Roma,
for new citizens reading this.

<>

As a citizen, I too would lump this into your duties as a praetor, and I
feel that you have been, in doing this, performing those duties which you
have been charged with performing.
<//>


That there is an alliance of Senators who do not agree with the last
proposal and preferred to see another one, I am happy be a part of an effort
to provide an alternative draft which is quasi desirable. However, I am not
formally aligned with such a faction. If and when I am, I shall let you
know.

Actually, I already belong to a faction...the one who voted me in. My
faction, although they didn't 'all' vote for me, has over 1500 people. It
is the populace of Nova Roma. That is the faction I work for, first and
foremost, as Praetor, Governor and Senator.

<>

Isn't this the faction that every magistrate and senator should be a part
of? I do believe that it is the Citizenry whom are represented therein,
correct?
<//>

Fabius and P. Cornelia have had to be sent to opposite ends of the ring on
varying occasions, as one might expect, but on issues of the gentes/familia,
we do agree. It is interesting how people discover they think alike when it
comes to certain issues, ie familia.


And Titus Labienus, an honourable man, was the Senator whose efforts to
make things fair for the citizens of Nova Roma, in the last proposal and to
a good extent in this one, should be well recognized and appreciated.

Just some information to explain my position, between pila and ballista
firings :)

<>

I've been there. Happy to report, I wasn't hit! :)
<//>


Bene valete

----
Optime Valete in Pace Sui Aeterna,

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus
--
Retiarius Lacuum Magnorum
Scriba Curatoris Araneae
Discipolus Anno Tertio Linguae Latinae
Civis Lacuum Magnorum Provinciae
Civis Patriae Novae Romae, Optima Maxima

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" -- Q. Horati Flacci