Salve Diana Moravia,

Our Gallic cousins will be extended a most hearty
welcome!!

Decimus Iunius Silanus.

> The Gallic 'headquarters' of Gens Moravia has
> discussed (over a few Belgian
> beers ;-) coming to Britannia for a regional
> gathering and we say with great
> enthusiasm "Ja ! Do it! We'll be there!"

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html

Well said Tiberius Galerius Paulinus!!

The same situation applies to myself, except that I am approaching the
age of 68!!!

Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius Audens

A wet sheet and a flowing sea, and a wind follows fast, and fills the
white and rustling sail, and bends the gallant mast; and bends the
gallant mast my boys while like the eagle free, our good ship starts and
flies and leaves old England on our lee------Fair Winds and following
Seas!!!

Gaia Flavia, if you could please please please take some photos, we'd
forever be in your debt...

> Salve Omnes;
> one of the cives in the NR course, Gaia Flavia of Britannica,tells
>that there will be chariot racing at the racetrack in Chester, with
>full Roman dress.

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Honored Marinus;

Hmmmmmmmmm!! I didn't mean to upset the apple cart here!!! My point
was that we do have a wide range of the Roman world to consider, and
that it is sometimes confusing,-- not that we should neglect any part
of it. I also made the point that the Legions that we sponsor usually
differ from the period from which we take our Administative and
Governmental examples.

I stand by those statements because they are true. My reenactment
activities have nothing to do with my Nova Roma activities. I have had
a difficult time convincing new people and some older people of that
fact, that an individual can do two thngs at once. Please don't jostle
that hard-won victory (Grin!!!!!).

My discussion with Senator Drusus was a series of ideas, some of which I
agree with and some of which I do not, and some which I have not yet
reached a decision about until I review his points thoroughly to find
the kernal of his "truth."

Senator Drusus is a very clever, intelligent and talented individual,
and has some very unique ideas, many of which, to my mind, are right on
the money. He is devoted to Nova Roma, and so when his ideas differ
from mine I like to be able to understand why, simply because I believe
that we both want the same things, differing only in our methodology. I
do not always agree with him, but I A:LWAYS consider what he has to say
very carefully, simply because he is also quicker than I am, and
sometimes it takes me a little longer (Grin!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

There is also another aspect, in that situation that I must keep
carefully in mind, and that is that he and I being Senators, we will
disagree on some things and agree on others. We must ad wiil work
together amicably for a common cause in the Senate to the best of our
ability, and we must retain a respect for one another. Such has not
always been the case in the Senate, for a variety of reasons which would
be inappropriate to discuss here, and which has only returned
disappointment for the individuals concerned and lost opportunities for
the Citizens of Nova Roma.

In that way, we are an effective team, other wise we are opposed always
not mainly to the issues but rather to each other, and that is
unacceptable. I do not wish to walk that road again.

No, my very good friend, I do not propose to ignore one part of the
Roman Panorama for another, but the very extensive length of the Roman
period, during which a myriad of changes to laws, duties,
responsibilities, acceptable activities, etc., are confusing, and do
need to be carefully considered, and some kind of agreement reached by a
majority of modern day Nova Romans. This is needed periodically in
order to move forward in our goal as stated in the Constitution, which
we have all agreed to live by.

I am firmly in agreement that the basis of Nova Roma should be taken
from the Roman world. Having said that, I am fully aware that those
major differences that have been repeatedly mentioned are not simply
"strawmen" but rather impact heavily on what we are trying to do. Add
to those items the modern conviences and the cultural changes which have
occurred since that period, and they all further impact upon our
efforts, in my view.

You are certainly correct, that we are all members of the modern day
with all that means. But by the same token we have pledged to adhere to
the words of our governing documents, which as I pointed out earlier to
Senator Drusus, can be very difficult to agreed upon.

Consider all those occurances which Romans knew nothing about which
impact our considerations every day;

--governments since the years 1000 A.D.;

--Political Parties which have risen and fallen and how they have
changed our world;

--Industrial Revolutions;

--Religious Revolutions, which have through man's inability to live to
the precept's of his own beliefs have plunged the world into war after
war. --etc., etc. etc.

I am well aware of what Nova Roma is supposed to do, and be. I have
served her in the Cursus Honorium, the Senate, as a Provincial Legate
and ProConsul, and as a founder of two Sodalitis. I have remained when
many ctizens more clever, capable, and inspired than myself have left,
most for good reason. I am a plodder, and not a "bright light" , but as
the turtle said to the hare, "I may not be quick but I am sure!!!!"

Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius Audens

A wet sheet and a flowing sea, and a wind follows fast, and fills the
white and rustling sail, and bends the gallant mast; and bends the
gallant mast my boys while like the eagle free, our good ship starts and
flies and leaves old England on our lee------Fair Winds and following
Seas!!!

Salve, Quinte

That's good to know - maybe she and Aulus can meet sometime, since they are
on the same continent!<LOL>

Vale,

Falco


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

--- Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@...> wrote:

> Salvete Quirites; et salve, senator L. Sicini Druse.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius
> Drusus"
> <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
>
> <<snipped>>
>
> > The Gender issue arose before I became a citizen,
> so I had no input
> > on attempting to do the right thing (encourage the
> proper use of
> > Roman Names) in the wrong way.
>
> I fully agree that to encourage the proper use of
> Roman names is "the
> right thing". I also agree in that the gender name
> lex does not try
> to promote it in the right way.
>
> > The Language issuse was largely a quirk of some
> people who weren't
> > exacly traditionalists.
>
> I don't know if they were what you continue to call
> "traditionalists"
> or no, given that there is no way to check who
> belongs to
> which "faction". Or is there perhaps a roll of
> "traditionalists"?
> :-).
>
> > I'm far more in agreement with the Traditionalists
> than with the
> > Modernists. We want a Nova Roma that is as Roman
> as possible, while
> > the Modernists have no qualms about dropping much
> of our culture
> > for modern ideas.
>
> Do you mean "modern ideas" like our current gens
> system? Why do you
> continue to claim that you defend Roman tradition
> when it is so
> clearly obvious that it is not the case?
>
> > Sir, I'm intrested in Roman culture, if I had any
> intrest in
> > Utopian Social Engineering I would join or start a
> group that had
> > that as it's primary focus rather than seeking to
> impose those
> > alien ideas on a group that was founded for
> another purpose
> > entirely.
>
> The fact is that I am not interested at all in
> "utopian social
> engineering". That is why I want to change our
> current gens system to
> something that resembles the Roman historical model.
> As it is now, it
> simply looks like something taken right out from
> Stalin's mind :-).
>
> > Nova Roma was founded to promote the Religio and
> Roman Culture. We
> > haven't accomplished as much as we could have in
> that area because
> > of constant fights over the introduction of ideas
> that have little
> > or nothing to do with Roma.
>
> I couldn't agree more. The problem is that you do
> not stand in that
> fight where you claim to be standing.
>
> CN�SALIX�ASTVR�T�F�A�NEP�TRIB�OVF
>
>

Sir,
Last year's attempt at Gens reform was a repeat of the
Gender Lex, another attempt to do the right thing in
the wrong way.

The corecive element in the Gender lex resulted in two
mass resignations and several indiviual resignations.

The corercive element of the Gens lex would have
resulted in a mass resignation larger than both of the
mass resignations due to the Gender lex, and likely
some more indiviual resignations.

I Favor enabling legislation in this matter, a lex
that removes the legal problems and enables setting up
historic Gens and Families. I'm opposed to introducing
a corecive element into the legislation because it
will result in the loss of more citizens.

Attempting to coerce citizens into doing the right
thing can not and will not work in Nova Roma. All it
will do is result in citizens leaving the Res Publica,
eithier via a public resignation, or by simply walking
off without bothering to resign.

If they remain in Nova Roma, given some time they may
be persuaded to adopt the proper use of Roman names or
a proper Gens structure. It you drive them away then
you have lost any chance of persuading them.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

--- Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@...> wrote:

> Salvete Quirites; et salve, Q. Lani Pauline.

SNIP

>
> I think that senator L. Sicinius Drusus is referring
> to the following
> law:
>

http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2002-02-27-ii.html

> This law defines English as the official language of
> the Republic of
> Nova Roma.

No it dosen't. It defines Latin as the Offical
language and English as the Business language. Those
sections of the lex are directly from a Sentus
Consulta passed on 15 November 2754.

See
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/senate/2001-11-15-results.html

English doccuments do have precedance over doccuments
written in other languages in the event of a dispute
over meaning. It's common in international treaties to
include a clause like this in the event of a dispute.

Since English is the business language, it was the
logical choice for which doccument would have
preferance in the event of a dispute over divergent
translations.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Salvete omnes,

It is bedtime in Europe and quitting time in Eastern North America.
Time to shut my discussion down.
This idea of compulsory Latin is, of course, a foolish idea. If such
demands were ever asked we'd be lucky to have 1/2 a dozen people left
in Nova Roma. Then what else follows? A 6 year active service in a
reenactment legion for citizenship qualification as was just pointed
out by one of our citizens in my email? I will study my Latin for
enjoyment, fufillment and mental gymnastics but forcing it on to
citizens would be just awful! Still the key to opening the door to
any culture is its language and that "should" be a minimum
requirement if we were to actually adhere strictly to the old
republic, culture, religion etc. And for religio Romano, one should
be able to read the old Latin about it themselves and not rely upon
other people's translations and interpretations.

I just threw on the Latin requirement post to teach us all a lesson
about where things would quickly go if we are highly selective and
adhere to the old republic very strictly. Also this is for people who
have an interest and passion in Ancient Rome; some are better
equipped and educated than others, some are deeply committed and
others more casual and thoughts as well as opinions, both
conservative or liberal should always be gracefully entertained and
considered. Above all we ought not to tell citizens to start or look
for other lists if their goals or commitments are not up to our
personal beliefs or standards. Should one look for another list if
he or she will not learn Latin proficiency or serve in a legion?
Women, of course will stay out of politics here and confine
themselves to Sodalistas coq et coq or the muses - errrr - Nope, bad
idea! We have a lovely bunch of lady citizens here and I can't
imagine NR without them in a stricter less flexible society.

Anyway I won't make a habit of pulling stunts like this. My apologies
to anyone who may have been offended or put off by my posting on the
Latin language requirements. Simplifying or taking time to explain
complex political issues for the newbies still stands.


Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Alright Paulie, I've had just about enough of this crap. One gig as a hack reporter and all of a sudden you're the Goddess' gift to the theatre?? You're not even qualified to dig my latrine, pal! My agent negotiated 10 on-stage lines, two off-stage lines and a nude scene with the Vestal Virgin. <Rips up contract> Tell you what I'm gonna do. Get them to change my character's name to Antonius Sopranus and give me one million solidi an episode or tonight...you sleep with the fishes.

Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote: Some funny stuff



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

Salve, Quintus Lanius Paulinus -

On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 09:50:38PM -0000, Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) wrote:

[ snip ]

> I just threw on the Latin requirement post to teach us all a lesson
> about where things would quickly go if we are highly selective and
> adhere to the old republic very strictly.

For which demonstration I sincerely thank you. It underscores one of the
points which I believe need to be strongly made and remembered here:
tougher requirements for joining or maintaining citizenship in NR simply
mean that more people will resign and fewer will join - period.

For those who mutter about how this isn't consistent with how the Romans
did it, citizenship in Nova Roma does not confer anything resembling the
benefits of Roman citizenship. Our entrance requirements reflect that.
Exclusivity in granting citizenship is usually a privilege of power -
and this is not one of the places where "fake it till you make it" can
bring any positive results.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Melius frangi quam flecti.
It is better to break than to bend.
-- N/A

Salve Tiberi Galeri,

Thank you for the humor! It was indeed a welcome break from the politics in the forum. And though I thank you for mentioning me, might I ask why I had not one line in the piece? And, as a second point, whose daughter (originally) Octavia is? T. Pius, M. Solaris, or M. Germanicus? They are all honorable men, and I'd love to be a son-in-law to either of the three, should they permit me, someday.

Vale,

Postumius

--- Bill Gawne <gawne@...> wrote:

> Salve Marcus Audens, et salvete omens,
>
> Marcus Minucius Audens wrote, while addressing L.
> Sicinius Drusus:
>
> > Well, I must agree to your point that the wide
> period of time recognized
> > by Nova Roma is indeed confusing.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, dear friend, Nova Roma
> exists in the
> 28th century a.u.c. Some of us do historical
> recreations of
> earlier times, some of us study earlier times, and I
> think all
> of us are impressed by the accomplishments of the
> Romans of
> antiquity. But we live here and now.
>
> We chose, as our point of departure, the
> governmental forms of
> the late Republic. This can be seen in things like
> the establishment
> of 193 centuries, which we later realized were too
> many and reduced
> to the current more flexible form requiring not
> fewer than 51.

LSD: The number of Centuries was established under the
Kings and remained at 193 throughout the Republic. It
isn't indictive of any stage of the Republic.

> It is also evident in our magesterial offices and in
> the number
> of Tribunes we have.

The Office of Tribune was established shortly after
the founding of the Republic with the election of two
tribunes in 494 BCE. Most ancient sources agree that
this number was soon raised to 5 Tribunes. In 457 BCE
the number was raised to 10 and remained at 10
throughout the remainder of the Republic.

5 Tribunes is indictive of the Early Republic.

The Office of Praetor was established in 356 BCE. At
first there was only one Praetor. This number was
raised to two in 246 BCE, four in 227 BCE and 6 in 197
BCE. The Dictator Sulla raised it to 8. The Dictator
Caesar raised it to 10, then 12, then 14 and reached
16 before his assination.

2 Praetors is indictive of the Middle Republic.

The office that we call Consul was established at the
start of the Republic, however the title was Praetor
prior to 305 BCE.

Use of the title "Praetor" for the highest office
would be indictive of the Early Republic.

Use of the title "Consul" could be indictive of either
the middle or late Republic.

The number remained at two throughout the Republic and
isn't indictive of any phase.

The Office of Plebian Aedile was established at the
same time as the Tribunes in 494 BCE. The number
remained at two through the Republic and isn't
indictive of any phase.

The Office of Curile Aedile was established in 365
BCE, and remained at two throughout the Republic. It's
existance is indictive of either the middle or late
Republic.

With the exception of the Tribunes, our Magistraital
structure is more indictive of the middle Republic
than any other period.



=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

G. Iulius Scaurus Q. Lanio Paulino salutem dicit.

Salve, Q. Lani.

Condicione tua accepta, visne ut inquisitionem in lingua Latina
apparem? Exempli gratia:

1. Estne conligatio fellatoris irrumptorisque quam simillima:

a. Equus equesque?
b. Optimatis popularisque?
c. Antonius Cleopatraque?
d. Attikos kai ephebos?
e. Hic nullum?

2. Scribe carmen in metro hendecasyllabico Catulli, sed de gloria
gentis Iuliae (forsan sitne "gentis Laniae"?).

3. Tertium quidque verbum in legibus Saliciis et in legibus Corneliis
e Anglico in Latinum converte.

Num haec vis?

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus (fortasse etiam Scurra)

--- "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)"
<mjk@...> wrote:

> Salvete omnes,

SNIP

>
> I just threw on the Latin requirement post to teach
> us all a lesson
> about where things would quickly go if we are highly
> selective and
> adhere to the old republic very strictly. Also this
> is for people who
> have an interest and passion in Ancient Rome; some
> are better
> equipped and educated than others, some are deeply
> committed and
> others more casual and thoughts as well as opinions,
> both
> conservative or liberal should always be gracefully
> entertained and
> considered. Above all we ought not to tell citizens
> to start or look
> for other lists if their goals or commitments are
> not up to our
> personal beliefs or standards. Should one look for
> another list if
> he or she will not learn Latin proficiency or serve
> in a legion?
> Women, of course will stay out of politics here and
> confine
> themselves to Sodalistas coq et coq or the muses -
> errrr - Nope, bad
> idea! We have a lovely bunch of lady citizens here
> and I can't
> imagine NR without them in a stricter less flexible
> society.
>

Sir,
Many of us have intrests that have nothing to do with
Nova Roma. These might be Cars, Computers, Video
Games, Model Airplanes or Modern Political theory.

Most of the citizens who have these outside intrests
are able to refrain from demanding that thier intrests
become an offical part of Nova Roma, though this
dosen't seem true of citizens who have a passion for
modern political theory. They seek to inflict this on
the rest of us.

I Have, and continue to suggest that these people do
the same as the citizens who have an intrest in Video
Games or or Model Airplanes and persue intrests that
have nothing to do with Roma in another venue.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Salvete Quirites; et salve, L. Sicini Druse.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"
<lsicinius@y...> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> Sir,
> Last year's attempt at Gens reform was a repeat of the
> Gender Lex, another attempt to do the right thing in
> the wrong way.
>
> The corecive element in the Gender lex resulted in two
> mass resignations and several indiviual resignations.
>
> The corercive element of the Gens lex would have
> resulted in a mass resignation larger than both of the
> mass resignations due to the Gender lex, and likely
> some more indiviual resignations.

Last year's proposal was not coercitive, senator. People were allowed
to choose where they would be, *including* their current gens
leader's familia (even though that would have been quite
unhistorical). Many efforts were made to reach a compromise; the
problem was that one of the parts was not willing to reach a
compromise at all, because it was more than happy with the current
anti-historical situation.

> I Favor enabling legislation in this matter, a lex that removes the
> legal problems and enables setting up historic Gens and Families.

Then why are you against a reform that seeks to do exactly that?

> I'm opposed to introducing a corecive element into the legislation
> because it will result in the loss of more citizens.

You will have to forgive me, senator, but I am beginning to think
that you should re-read last year's proposal very carefully. You keep
insisting in its coercitive nature; the truth is that it allowed each
citizen to decide his personal status. What we currently
call "gentes" would have been allowed to continue to exist with minor
changes (basically, it would be called a "familia" instead of
a "gens", and it would need a cognomen as well as a nomen to be
differentiated from other familiae in the same gens).

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF

Salve Diana

> DMA: Good question. I think it is a 'they' thing in which citizens are
> accused of being a part of when they are not in accord with the main stream.

No, it is not. The boni list exists, and Q Fabius has mentioned being
on it in the Back Alley. Its Yahoo Groups Web site proclaims it to be
the list of a "Nova Roman Faction".

Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"magna pars consilii in tempore"
- Seneca

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Quinte Lani.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:

> Salvete omnes,
>
> It is bedtime in Europe and quitting time in Eastern North America.
> Time to shut my discussion down.
> This idea of compulsory Latin is, of course, a foolish idea. If
> such demands were ever asked we'd be lucky to have 1/2 a dozen
> people left in Nova Roma. Then what else follows? A 6 year active
> service in a reenactment legion for citizenship qualification as
> was just pointed out by one of our citizens in my email? I will
> study my Latin for enjoyment, fufillment and mental gymnastics but
> forcing it on to citizens would be just awful! Still the key to
> opening the door to any culture is its language and that "should"
> be a minimum requirement if we were to actually adhere strictly to
> the old republic, culture, religion etc. And for religio Romano,
> one should be able to read the old Latin about it themselves and
> not rely upon other people's translations and interpretations.

<<snipped>>

I think that Quintus Lanius has pointed out a valid concern.

We all are here because we would like to see more of Ancient Rome in
our modern world. In Roma Aeterna, we have a lamplight that
illuminates our thoughts and visions. But we must be careful not to
loose common sense.

In our efforts to be as Roman as possible, we might end up being more
Roman than the Romans, and taking decisions like the one Q. Lanius
jokingly suggested. Let's hope that the Immortal Gods will keep our
minds calm and clear to avoid this kind of mistakes.

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF

--- Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@...> wrote:

> Salvete Quirites; et salve, L. Sicini Druse.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius
> Drusus"
> <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
>
> <<snipped>>
>
> > Sir,
> > Last year's attempt at Gens reform was a repeat of
> the
> > Gender Lex, another attempt to do the right thing
> in
> > the wrong way.
> >
> > The corecive element in the Gender lex resulted in
> two
> > mass resignations and several indiviual
> resignations.
> >
> > The corercive element of the Gens lex would have
> > resulted in a mass resignation larger than both of
> the
> > mass resignations due to the Gender lex, and
> likely
> > some more indiviual resignations.
>
> Last year's proposal was not coercitive, senator.
> People were allowed
> to choose where they would be, *including* their
> current gens
> leader's familia (even though that would have been
> quite
> unhistorical). Many efforts were made to reach a
> compromise; the
> problem was that one of the parts was not willing to
> reach a
> compromise at all, because it was more than happy
> with the current
> anti-historical situation.
>
> > I Favor enabling legislation in this matter, a lex
> that removes the
> > legal problems and enables setting up historic
> Gens and Families.
>
> Then why are you against a reform that seeks to do
> exactly that?
>
> > I'm opposed to introducing a corecive element into
> the legislation
> > because it will result in the loss of more
> citizens.
>
> You will have to forgive me, senator, but I am
> beginning to think
> that you should re-read last year's proposal very
> carefully. You keep
> insisting in its coercitive nature; the truth is
> that it allowed each
> citizen to decide his personal status. What we
> currently
> call "gentes" would have been allowed to continue to
> exist with minor
> changes (basically, it would be called a "familia"
> instead of
> a "gens", and it would need a cognomen as well as a
> nomen to be
> differentiated from other familiae in the same
> gens).
>
> CN�SALIX�ASTVR�T�F�A�NEP�TRIB�OVF
>
>

1. A Family was defined so narrowly that my
Macronational Extended family woudn't qualify as a
Nova Roman Family. The narrow definition of a family
was ahistoric.

2. Citizens within a Gens that wished to retain it's
structure were forced to opt in in rather than opt
out. Changes were being applied without a citizens
consent if he failed to take action. This should never
happen, a change in status should only come on the
request of the citizen. This was a later version.
Earlier versions would have required a Macronational
adpotion, something that is every bit intrusive as the
Gender Lex.

3. New citizens would be banned from joining an
existing ahistoric Gens even if they wished to do so.
The sugestion was made that they undergo a
Macronational Adoption process, again a process as
intrusive as anything in the Gender lex.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

A. Apollonius Cordus to Sp. Postumius Tubertus and all
citizens and peregrines, greetings.

> And though I thank you for mentioning me, might I
> ask why I had not one line in the piece?

Hey, at least you got a mention!

I can only take my absence from the series as a sign
that I am not sufficiently well-known to boost the
ratings: I must raise my profile by posting longer
messages and more of them.

You have been warned... ;)

Cordus

=====
www.collapsibletheatre.co.uk

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/

Salve Sp. Postumius Tubertus,

I was in the Navy so seeing your noting that you are joining the Navy
kinda perked my ears up a little. May I inquire if you are enlisting
or have you been accepted at the Naval Academy?

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus
"Fluctuat nec mergitur"

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Sp. Postumius Tubertus"
<postumius@g...> wrote:

>
> From one going into the Navy, I can tell you in full certainty that

Paganism, Wicca, and a lot of other not so highly populated religions
are not illegal within the military.

Salve Scaure,

Well Spanish is my second langauge and if this were my 36 month
deadline, out on my ass I would go from NR. I'll tell you what I can
understand or not at this point. I haven't taken Latin yet but I gave
give your instructions a try. Took me about 50 minutes to figure your
text out (if more or less correct).A POEM would take a week or more,
a few months for a lex translation.

Thus is the fate of a stricter Nova Roma!!!!!!


Hello, Q. Lanius,

As a condition to your acceptance look at the questions in apparent
Latin: examples free:

1)Is it not the poison that similarily penetrates?

a) horse and knight
b) Optimist party and populist party (republican Rome)
c) Marc Anthony and Cleopatra?
d) Attikos(Greek hero) and ehpebes (some athenian military oath?)
e) Here, nobody?


2) Write a poem in meter, (hendecasysyllabico catulli)-some poetic or
music format? about the glory of the Julian family (perhaps the Lania
family?)


3) Third, whatever word about the Saliciss bill and about the
Cornelius bill from English and modify them into Latin.

Surely you would be willing to do this?

Goodbye,


G.Iulius Scaurus (it maybe actually Scurra)

> Salve, Q. Lani.
>
> Condicione tua accepta, visne ut inquisitionem in lingua Latina
> apparem? Exempli gratia:
>
> 1. Estne conligatio fellatoris irrumptorisque quam simillima:
>
> a. Equus equesque?
> b. Optimatis popularisque?
> c. Antonius Cleopatraque?
> d. Attikos kai ephebos?
> e. Hic nullum?
>
> 2. Scribe carmen in metro hendecasyllabico Catulli, sed de gloria
> gentis Iuliae (forsan sitne "gentis Laniae"?).
>
> 3. Tertium quidque verbum in legibus Saliciis et in legibus

Corneliis

> e Anglico in Latinum converte.
>
> Num haec vis?
>
> Vale.
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus (fortasse etiam Scurra)

MarcusAudens@... wrote:

>
> Honored Marinus;
>
> Hmmmmmmmmm!! I didn't mean to upset the apple cart here!!!

And indeed, my dear friend, you did not upset any apple cart of
mine. I think that you and I see the matter similarly.

> My point
> was that we do have a wide range of the Roman world to consider, and
> that it is sometimes confusing,-- not that we should neglect any part
> of it.

Indeed, I agree. My primary point is that we live in 2756 a.u.c.
and we should not - with respect to our Nova Roman activities - be
trying to live in the past.

-- Marinus

Salve Quinte Cassi,

> I was in the Navy so seeing your noting that you are joining the Navy
> kinda perked my ears up a little. May I inquire if you are enlisting
> or have you been accepted at the Naval Academy?

Neither, actually. The Navy has offered me an NROTC scholarship, but, at the moment, it is solely dependant on whether or not I get accepted to a college having an NROTC program. Needless to say, (I think Marinus would be interested to hear) I had a meeting with the Marine recruiter today.... He scored no points with me.

Vale,

Sp. Postumius Tubertus

"Nam nemo sine vitiis nascitur; optimus ille est qui minima habet." -- Q. Horatius Flaccus

Salvete Honorable Senators et Tribunes,

I am posting this message on the ML since your email read
undeliverable.

This is just a short note to voice my support for NR sponsership of
Kaeso Maximus Tiberius and the XX1 Legion. I live just 3 hours north
of them in Edmonton, AB. and plan on joining and participating with
this group as soon as I spring free from my drilling projects. I am
confident that this group will bring Canada Occidentales into new
vigour and out of the doldrums which we have been in until very
recently. Your consideration for their request of sponsership is
greatly appreciated.

Yours respectfully

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Salve we will just have to wait for the next chapter of " As the Tiber Flows" to fine out who your future Pater-in Law will be HUMMMMMMMMMM?

Vale

Tiberius

----- Original Message -----
From: Sp. Postumius Tubertus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] "As the Tiber Flows TOP SECRET! ADVANCED COPY


Salve Tiberi Galeri,

Thank you for the humor! It was indeed a welcome break from the politics in the forum. And though I thank you for mentioning me, might I ask why I had not one line in the piece? And, as a second point, whose daughter (originally) Octavia is? T. Pius, M. Solaris, or M. Germanicus? They are all honorable men, and I'd love to be a son-in-law to either of the three, should they permit me, someday.

Vale,

Postumius


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/





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

Salvete,

You are quite right in that it isn't illegal, but I've been in for
17 years and can speak, as an officer who is pagan, that your career
is definitely hampered by being such. Perhaps enlisted can get away
with it and have no effect on their career, but the community is
simply too small in the officer world for it not to follow you. Like
myself, most other pagan officers that I know keep it very, very
quiet and simply draw no attention to it. Those who "come out" are
suddenly walking into the wardroom that becomes silent upon entry,
are "missed" on the email list for wardroom golfing outings (read as
schmoozing for face time), and other informal outings. For myself,
I'm silent as can be on the topic of my religion to avoid that. I
want the promotions and the assignments I need to get them. It might
be construed as taking the safe way out and thereby not promoting the
cause of equality but I've seen too much honesty backfire.

Valete,
Christy Nemo

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Sp. Postumius Tubertus"
<postumius@g...> wrote:

> Salvete Omnes,
>
> From our dearest Diana Moravia:
>
> "I don't think that Paganism is illegal within the military, so I

don't think

> this will be a problem. I know one Lt Col. in the US Army who does

Wiccan

> rituals with permission on his base and also did them during Desert

Storm.

> Supposedly, the Chaplains in some areas are now being versed on the
> different types of pagansim.
> Anyway, I'll look up his name and forward Patricia Cassia's email

to him."

>
> From one going into the Navy, I can tell you in full certainty that

Paganism, Wicca, and a lot of other not so highly populated religions
are not illegal within the military. In fact, the military is not
permitted to ban a religion, unless irrefutable facts are presented
which show that the beliefs of the religion condone and mandate
willful harm to a person, animal, or to the property of another. So
far as I have practiced, none of these apply to Wicca, nor to any
other form of Paganism.

>
> I hope this answers some questions. When I find the official

information regarding this, I'll post it here, and make sure it gets
to the beginning of this thread.

>
> Vale,
>
> Sp. Postumius Tubertus
>
> "Nam nemo sine vitiis nascitur; optimus ille est qui minima

habet." -- Q. Horatius Flaccus

Salve my dear Cordus that was just episode MCXXLLYYQQ or some such Roman number just wait for the next

installment of : "As the Tiber Flows" on WSPQR . When you here some one say


ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Latin I don't have any time to study Latin

I have a 460 page LEX I need to finish or I am out of the Cohort ( Little JOKE)


Vale

Tiberius "David Lean" Galerius

----- Original Message -----
From: A. Apollonius Cordus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] "As the Tiber Flows TOP SECRET! ADVANCED COPY


A. Apollonius Cordus to Sp. Postumius Tubertus and all
citizens and peregrines, greetings.

> And though I thank you for mentioning me, might I
> ask why I had not one line in the piece?

Hey, at least you got a mention!

I can only take my absence from the series as a sign
that I am not sufficiently well-known to boost the
ratings: I must raise my profile by posting longer
messages and more of them.

You have been warned... ;)

Cordus

=====
www.collapsibletheatre.co.uk

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.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/





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

G. Iulius Scaurus Q. Lanio Paulino salutem dicit.

Salve, Q. Lani.

> Well Spanish is my second langauge and if this were my 36 month
> deadline, out on my ass I would go from NR. I'll tell you what I can
> understand or not at this point. I haven't taken Latin yet but I gave
> give your instructions a try. Took me about 50 minutes to figure your
> text out (if more or less correct).A POEM would take a week or more,
> a few months for a lex translation.

On the basis of your translation I'm not certain you're proposing
enough time. I am, however, pleased to inform you that the current
translation does qualify you for a servile position in Provincia
Tarraconensis :-). The down side is that I can't guarantee there
won't be a crucifixion for failing to follow instructions eventually
(some misunderstandings can be _so_ unfortunate).

> Thus is the fate of a stricter Nova Roma!!!!!!

Tu quoque, Pauline.

Now about that translation...

> Hello, Q. Lanius,

That's good.

> As a condition to your acceptance look at the questions in apparent
> Latin: examples free:

Not quite. Try: "When your proposal has been accepted [it's an
ablative absolute construction; I could have used a "cum" clause, but
ablative absolutes are fairly common], do you want me to prepare an
examination in the Latin language? For example:"

> 1)Is it not the poison that similarily penetrates?

This is a little further off the mark. Try: "The relationship of
fellator and irrumptor [for the sake of impuberes I'll translate those
in email if you'd like; "irrumptor" is a variant of "irrumator" which
appears fairly frequently in classical graffiti] is most like to:"

> a) horse and knight

Yes.

> b) Optimist party and populist party (republican Rome)

"Optimates" comes from the the superlative of "bonus" -- "optimus" --
"The faction of the Best" rather than the optimist party; "populist"
will do if you don't make modern political associations with it.

> c) Marc Anthony and Cleopatra?

Yes.

> d) Attikos(Greek hero) and ehpebes (some athenian military oath?)

Not exactly. Try: "Atticus and an adolescent boy". No points off,
since it's Greek not Latin.

> e) Here, nobody?

More like, "None of it." And you didn't answer the question.

> 2) Write a poem in meter, (hendecasysyllabico catulli)-some poetic or
> music format? about the glory of the Julian family (perhaps the Lania
> family?)

Again, not exactly. It's "write a poem in the hendecasyllabic meter
of Catullus, but about the glory of the gens Iulia (perhaps it should
be 'the gens Lania'?)."

> 3) Third, whatever word about the Saliciss bill and about the
> Cornelius bill from English and modify them into Latin.

No. Try: "Translate every third word of the Salician and the
Cornelian laws from English into Latin."

> Surely you would be willing to do this?

No, "num" introduces questions to which the questioner expects a
negative answer, so "Surely you don't want these?"

> Goodbye,

Righto.

> G. Iulius Scaurus (it maybe actually Scurra)

Half is right, but it is the half that doesn't need translation; the
parenthetical is "perhaps also the jokester."

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus (certe etiam Scurra)

--- "A. Apollonius Cordus" <cordus@...>
wrote:

> A. Apollonius Cordus to Senator L. Sinicius Drusus
> and
> all citizens and peregrines, greetings.
>
> Senator, I must tell you that I am most frustrated
> by
> your most recent message on this topic. I am on the
> verge of becoming convinced that you have no
> interest
> in testing the Fabian system at all, and are merely
> using your demand for mock-elections as an excuse
> not
> to discuss the system on its merits.

Actually I'm giving you the benifit of the doubt by
sugesting that we try it out in a Mock election, and
then allowing the voters to decide.

Since you insist on my thoughts,

The supporters of this measure are being less than
honest in bringing up endless runoffs. Those occured
in a Comita that the Senior Consul can't even vote in,
let alone promulgate leges in. This proposal will have
zero effect in the Plebian assembly if the Tribunes
don't promulgate it there, and if there have been any
posts on thier plans to do so I missed them in the
deluge of mail of late. In the Comitiae where the
Senior Consul can promulgate leges we have not had
endless runoffs.

BOTH the Fabian and the Julian proposals contain
voting for multiple canidates, which is historic. That
is a plus for both. It is also about the only historic
element in your proposal. this method of voting has a
tendancy to produce factionalism. Minor parties who
could never achive the support of a majority are big
advocates of it. Once you reach the stage where there
are many factions the result is the need to form
coalations. Some may think this sort of compramise
will have good effects, but there is a darker side to
it. Coalations are inheritally unstable. This can lead
to wild shifts in the manner a nation is governed.
Minor partners in a coalation are often able to use
the threat of withdrawl to gain concessions far beyond
whta could be expected from thier electorial stength.
A good case in point is Isreal where the minor
partners in the Likuid party's coalation have made the
government more radical.

The Fabian proposal has no safegaurds against this
balkanization of Nova Roma politics. The Sequential
voting of the far more historic system proposed by
Giaus Julius should help mitigate this problem. I have
observed the effects of Sequential voting for over
thirty years, not in an Ivory tower exercise, or a
computer simulation, but in the very real world of
American Politics. The Primary System that is used to
nominate canidates for the American Presidancy. As
earlier results become known support tends to swing
towards the leading canidates culling the weaker
canidates from the field.

Multiple voting is historic, but it is also just part
of the system that the Romans used to elect
magistrates. Just adopting part of the system can have
consequances that create a very ahistoric political
landscape in Nova Roma. I'm being very kind to your
proposal when all I do is ask for a simple trial run
in a mock election for a system who's full negative
consequances might not be known for several years, and
who's tendancy towards factionalism make make a reform
of this reform impossible short of apointing a
dictator.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

G. Iulius Scaurus T. Galerio Paulino salutem dicit.

Salve, T. Galeri.

You do realise that if you marry me off to Lollia Paulina, you will
have to go to your knees and worship me? After all, if that
historicist-traditionalist viewpoint you've advocated is consistent...
Ah, the burdens of Iulian ancestry....

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus
(who has had entirely too much fun today)

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Avete, Quirites.

Speaking of Catullus (as I did earlier with Q. Lanius), here are two
Catullus-related links:

Richard Cardona's "Catullus on the Web":

http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/rcardona/poetry/catullus/catullus.html

And the excellent "Studienbibliographie zu Catull [Bibliography of
Studies on Catullus]" from Ulrich Schmitzer (Univ. of Erlangen):

http://www.phil.uni-erlangen.de/~p2latein/schmitzer/catbib.html

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Sp. Postumius Tubertus C. Iulio Scauro S.P.D.

Salve,

I've been holding this in for a while, but Caius Iulius, you're just so useful to Nova Roma, I don't know how I'd get information without you (other than relying to Quintus Fabius)! Multas Gratias tibi ago, Amice Mi Iuliane!

Vale,

Sp. Postumius Tubertus

"Nam nemo sine vitiis nascitur; optimus ille est qui minima habet." -- Q. Horatius Flaccus

Salve Lucius Cornelius Sardonicus :

Sir

Our firm is in receipt of your message to our client, Tiberius Galerius Paulinus and he has asked us to convey to you his regrets that you are leaving the show " As the Tiber Flows after just one year.

He wishes you the best ........in the time you have remaining.

Vale on behalf of our firm

Marius
Umbrius
Rufus
Domitius
Equitis
Rutilius
Iulivu
Novius
carius

----- Original Message -----
From: Lucius Cornelius Sardonicus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] "As the Tiber Flows TOP SECRET! ADVANCED COPY


Alright Pauline, I've had just about enough of this crap. One gig as a hack reporter and all of a sudden you're the Goddess' gift to the theatre?? You're not even qualified to dig my latrine, pal! My agent negotiated 10 on-stage lines, two off-stage lines and a nude scene with the Vestal Virgin. <Rips up contract> Tell you what I'm going do. Get them to change my character's name to Antonius Sopranus and give me one million solidi an episode or tonight...you sleep with the fishes.

Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote: Some funny stuff



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

[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/





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

Salve My dear friend G. Iuli Scauro ( Not right is it)

Just remember that the Ides of March come again next year. Or worst in the next episode , of

As the Tiber Flows we find out that she is your long lost sister that was kidnapped by Punic pirates.


Vale

Tiberius "David Lean" Galerius

----- Original Message -----
From: GÂ¥IVLIVSÂ¥SCAVRVS
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 1:04 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: "As the Tiber Flows TOP SECRET! ADVANCED CO


G. Iulius Scaurus T. Galerio Paulino salutem dicit.

Salve, T. Galeri.

You do realise that if you marry me off to Lollia Paulina, you will
have to go to your knees and worship me? After all, if that
historicist-traditionalist viewpoint you've advocated is consistent...
Ah, the burdens of Iulian ancestry....

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus
(who has had entirely too much fun today)




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/





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

----Original Message Follows----
From: "A. Apollonius Cordus" <cordus@...>
Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] "As the Tiber Flows TOP SECRET! ADVANCED COPY
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:14:43 +0100 (BST)

A. Apollonius Cordus to Sp. Postumius Tubertus and all
citizens and peregrines, greetings.

> And though I thank you for mentioning me, might I
> ask why I had not one line in the piece?

Hey, at least you got a mention!

I can only take my absence from the series as a sign
that I am not sufficiently well-known to boost the
ratings: I must raise my profile by posting longer
messages and more of them.

You have been warned... ;)

Cordus


Oh no! Now you've done it Tiberius.

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Salvete Omnes !

I have just put on my site ancient photographs of Roma (taken about
MMDCCL ?)

http://latiniter.net/Latinitas/Pinacotheca/Roma01.htm

Valete Omnes !

Lucius Rutilius Minervalis

Salvete Cives,

It seems the discussion has moved on somewhat so forgive me for
posting on old news. Work this week has kept me from this discussion
but I wanted to make my position plain. I wish I had the time to
respond message by message, point by point on the issues discussed
lately: electoral reform and tangentially, the purpose of Nova Roma,
whether recreation (I prefer the term revival or restoration) or a
hybrid New Republic. I cannot hope to cover all bases with this one
post but will try. I will strive to be succinct; I know people are
sick of LONG discussions of minutiae that often end up being deleted
rather than read.

I spoke in support of the rough outline of a proposal Iulius Scaurus
posted to this list to have the comitia centuriata vote more
historically. I still think it is the most fitting system proposed
since I have been here as it follows the historical model in a
practical way. I know it is a rough draft but that draft is better
than any finished product I have seen in my time here. That rough
draft should be the basis for a proposed Lex.

Flavius Vedius and Titus Labienus Fortunatus designed the current
system with the express purpose of preventing any one faction from
dominating Nova Roman politics by preventing block voting, as
explained in a recent post by the consul. The so-called modernist
faction has recently put forward a proposal designed to encourage
block voting and allow the political dominance of their faction.
Understandable, that is politics. However, the proposal by Iulius
Scaurus has brought back to mind the importance of emulating the
ancients rather than designing modern systems to fit our needs
(preventing factional dominance or allowing it).

As a result of the Iulian proposal, the modernist vs. restorationist
debate has arisen, as has the question of why we are here. What is
each of these camps? Who are they? What do they represent? The
Restorationists (Traditionalists, Revivalists, whatever name you
prefer) wish to continue Nova Roma's mission of restoring the Roman
Republic in the modern world. In order to do that, Nova Roma must
become "in all manners practical and acceptable, as the modern
restoration of the ancient Roman Republic. The culture, religion, and
society of Nova Roma shall be patterned upon those of ancient Rome."

The primary influence for anything we do here should be ancient Rome,
followed by the traditions we have established since the founding of
Nova Roma and followed lastly by our macronational influences. Cives,
in order to reasonably act like Romans, think like Romans, BE Romans,
we have to do as the Romans did. The republic must be restored, the
culture revived before it can move forward to become the Rome of the
28th century that some so grandly speak of without thinking what that
phrase means. How can the Republic be taken into the 28th century
without going back to where Rome left off? We are not in the 28th
century of Roman civilization; we are in the 21st century of the
Christian era. There are no intervening 16 centuries of Roman
history, we must restore what WAS as closely as possible before we
think of modern innovations. It is useless to speculate what the Rome
would look like had it survived into the 28th century of Rome. It
didn't—it fell. However, we have a pretty good idea of what Rome
looked like and we can recreate that as closely as humanly possible
and in doing so revive Roman culture and restore the republic.

To do otherwise is to play parts in a modern role-playing Roman game,
a "what Rome could have been" act. Latin names, occasionally don the
toga, use Roman terms for completely modern ideas and say they are
Roman. Well, they're not Roman. What we do here isn't Roman because
we say it is Roman, it is Roman because it emulates the ancients as
closely as possible. That is the measurement of what is Roman. As
Romanitas becomes ingrained in us what we do will be Roman by virtue
of the habit of acting as Romans. What we do cannot truly be "Roman"
until we have been Romans for quite awhile.

Naturally there are going to be times when we can't follow the
ancients closely because it is impossible or extremely difficult to
do in the modern world but that should not be used as an excuse to
not follow the ancients when it is possible. We are not trying to
live in the past but rebuild what once was so that can be carried
into the future.

I used to be much closer to the "modernist" position 3 or 4 years ago
than I am now. I prattled on about the centuries of philosophy and
theology that could not be ignored in "rebuilding" Rome. All that is
vital to us as moderns but I came to realize that was not Rome but my
perception of what I thought Rome should look like in the modern
world (though I was never of the extreme modernist variety evident
now). In the last two years I moved closer to being a
reconstructionist as I saw people come in to Nova Roma and take the
extreme view evident on this list lately, those who speak of
the "spirit" of Rome (however they interpret that) and who chatter on
more about their macronatiomnal influences and fairness than about
Roman influences. I realized that many were not here to rebuild Rome
but to put a THIN Roman veneer over a micronation that would
essentially be a copy of their macronations. Obviously the Roma of
Nova Roma was of little importance to them. I began to wonder why
these "the 28th century of Rome" roleplayers were here. I still do.

Valete,

Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus

<No, it is not. The boni list exists, and Q Fabius has mentioned being
<on it in the Back Alley. Its Yahoo Groups Web site proclaims it to be
<the list of a "Nova Roman Faction".

Thank you Junior Consul. After my reply to Lucius Equitius, I saw your post
with the boni_nr link. I am sure that I am not the only one who was curious
to learn more about a faction that is not afraid to call themselves one and
that is publicly listed on yahoogroups.

Vale,
Diana Moravia

Salve my dear friend Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus

You were missed in the recent debates but you have just now made up for it very nicely .

Good to have you back!!! As your words speak for themselves, I will use one thing you said to make a point:

You said in part "I will strive to be succinct; I know people are sick of LONG discussions of minutiae that often end up being deleted rather than read."

It would not be very "Roman" to simply delete something before it is read. It would not show respect for someone else's hard work, it would show an absences of gravitas, and a lack of patientia.

When I get home from work I have to wade through nearly 150-200 e-mails a day some are disposed quickly but everything from Nova Roma is opened and read regardless of what the topic is or who posted it.

It is simply good manners.

Pax vobiscum
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

Homines libenter quod volunt credunt




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

Salvete Diana et omnes,

And a great welcome to our gallic friend if they find time to join us in
Britannia soon.
We have now narrowed the potential dates to two W/e : 4/5 and 11/12 October
2003.
We have a little poll on the Britannia list so that people can choose which
week end they prefer to attend to before we make the final choice.
You may all contact me privately on CornMoraviusL@... with your choice
and also let me know what can of budget you are on ie how much per night can
you spare ?

Diana, cara soror, can you please forward me a list of people who would be
interested ?

Multas gratias omnibus ago

Corn. Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
"To a man with a hammer, every issue looks like a nail"

Salvete omnes,

Before leaving for Carthage on my holidays, I have to answer to this:

If, and I repeat, IF, a lex is proposed which makes Latin compulsory for all citizens, I would certainly first of all see if this lex is not against the constitution of NR. It would dicriminate many citizens, make NR just another elite club and go against everything I thought NR stands for!!!

I have no problem with Latin, don't understand me wrong, I study Latin, but I canot understand why some people think that Latin should be the only language which should be officially allowed in NR. Many of those say, that this should be because it was also so in ancient times. That, however, can be proved wrong!!!!!! How do you think Pontius Pilatus and Jesus comunicated? In Latin? NO!!!! Most probably in ancient Greek!!! So why not make that language our official one??

I is my personal opinion, that the idea of compulsory Latin is not good for NR and that the most used argument for this idea is not even historically correct.

That's it for now, I'm off to the Greek speaking part of the imperium. Valete bene, TiAnO



Tiberius Annaeus Otho (TiAnO) Factio Praesina
Lictor curiatus
Translator linguae Germanicae
Paterfamilias gentis Annaearum
Praefectus scribarum regionis Germaniae Superioris
Tribunus laticlavius militum legionis XI CPF
Homepage: http://www.tiano.ch.tt


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, GÂ¥IVLIVSÂ¥SCAVRVS <gfr@i...> wrote:

> G. Iulius Scaurus Q. Lanio Paulino salutem dicit.
>
> Salve, Q. Lani.
>
> > Well Spanish is my second langauge and if this were my 36 month
> > deadline, out on my ass I would go from NR. I'll tell you what I

can

> > understand or not at this point. I haven't taken Latin yet but I

gave

> > give your instructions a try. Took me about 50 minutes to figure

your

> > text out (if more or less correct).A POEM would take a week or

more,

> > a few months for a lex translation.
>
> On the basis of your translation I'm not certain you're proposing
> enough time. I am, however, pleased to inform you that the current
> translation does qualify you for a servile position in Provincia
> Tarraconensis :-). The down side is that I can't guarantee there
> won't be a crucifixion for failing to follow instructions eventually
> (some misunderstandings can be _so_ unfortunate).
>
> > Thus is the fate of a stricter Nova Roma!!!!!!
>
> Tu quoque, Pauline.
>
>Snip,

Well thanks Iuli,

I would have just squeaked by expulsion and would have improved over
time. Now for bad translating you'd have to dispatch me with a sword
if I still retained Roman citizenship since cruxcifiction or flogging
of a Roman citizen was not allowed according to some research I did
on another list. (LOL)

Thanks for giving me and correcting the exercise. I think those cases
for the nouns and sentence structure will be challenging to say the
least. Anyway I am taking our beginners Latin course from Thules,
bought a dictionary and a few Latin for dummies and idiot series
books as well as Wheelock's Latin. I shall see where it takes me from
here!

Regards

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Merhan Karimi Nasseri is a former citizen of Iran. He
had his Iranian citizenship revoked for opossing the
Islamic regime and was evicted from the country. His
Mother was a British Subject so he attempted to move
to her homeland, but his luggage containing his
doccuments was stolen.

Mr Nasseri was denied entry to the UK because ofhis
lack of documents and sent back to Paris. French
Officals arrested him for entering the nation
illegally. The French Courts freed him from that
charge, but the French government refused to admit him
into the country. Since he isn't a citizen of any
nation there was nowhere to deport him to.

This happened in 1989. For 10 years Mr Nasseri
couldn't leagally leave the Airport in Paris. Finally
in 1999 The French Government offered him travel
doccuments. These listed his natinality as Iranian. Mr
Nasseri has refused these because he considers himself
a British Subject and the documents wouldn't allow him
entry into his Mother's homeland. He's still stuck in
the Paris Airport!

What does Mr Nasseri have to do with Nova Roma? If he
became a citizen he would be Nova Roma's only citizen
who wasn't also a citizen of a "modern" nation. The
Modernists act like they are in Mr Nasseri's postion,
that a failure to modernize Nova Roma would leave them
without citizenship in a modern nation.

All the citizens currently in Nova Roma are allready
citizens of a modern nation, one of the Macronations.
That is the proper venue for modern politics. Turning
Nova Roma into a "modern" nation does nothing but make
it's members into citizens of two modern nations,
reducing Nova Roma to redunancy.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

> 1. A Family was defined so narrowly that my
> Macronational Extended family woudn't qualify as a
> Nova Roman Family. The narrow definition of a family
> was ahistoric.

The sweeping definition of family that you like to see (i.e., any
random horde of people who know each other only through email) is
equally ahistoric.

> 2. Citizens within a Gens that wished to retain it's
> structure were forced to opt in in rather than opt
> out. Changes were being applied without a citizens
> consent if he failed to take action.

And what was this change that would be applied without the citizens'
consent? That citizen would be given the freedom to leave the gens.
Your faction insisted that citizens who failed to respond during an
initial notification period would forevermore be bound to their
current paterfamilias, even more tightly than before.

> This should never happen, a change in status should only come on the
> request of the citizen.

We did not seek to change the status of any citizen, except to grant
them more freedom. Your faction sought to impose restrictions on
citizens without their consent.


--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://cynico.net/~hucke/

Salve Deci Iuni Palladi Invicte

Regarding Post # 12148

You apologize for a long post, but I must thank you my firned for so
succinctly stating what I and others have neem trying to say.

Bravo!

Vale,
Gaius Popillius Laenas

Salve Deci Iuni,

Your analysis is, in some ways, accurate. However, you turn a
blind eye towards the fundamental flaw in the thinking of the
Reactionary ("Reconstructionist") faction:

The Reactionaries do not seek to restore an accurate recreation of
the Roman Republic, but instead seek to create a system that
exaggerates the Roman Republic to absurdity.

Specifically, with regards to the gens debate, the Reactionaries seek
not only to restore pater potestas, but to extend it to include people
that the so-called paterfamilias has never even met!

The Reactionaries believe that, by exchanging email with someone whose
name and address were seen on a web page, that the person doing so
has irrevocably placed himself under the authority of this random
stranger.

Would any true Roman have ever willingly participated in such a
system? And what would they think of those who claim that a random
hodgepodge of strangers is actually a "family" and should be treated
as such? Would they accept this grotesque parody of a sacred institution?

The Modernists seek to preserve a freedom that we take for granted
in the civilized countries of the world; that an association freely
entered into (such as a gens) may be freely departed from. The
Reactionaries who oppose us claim to do so out of a desire to preserve
Roman tradition - but that is a fraud, for there was no Roman
tradition anything like our process of entering a gens.

What the Reactionaries want is role-playing, in which online
relationships are exaggerated into familial relationships - and treated,
legally, as such. What would an outsider think of a someone forty
years old in Germany speaking of a person thirty years old in the
United States (who he has never actually met) as his "pater"? The
outsider would conclude, rightfully, that he was engaged in some
sort of role-playing.

The Reactionaries crave power. This debate started last year when
I sought to ensure that all citizens would have the freedom to
escape an absent or malicious "pater"; that they would be able to
leave a sub-group of Nova Roma without having to resign citizenship
entirely; that a relationship voluntarily entered into could
be severed voluntarily by either power. The Reactionaries would
not allow this; they insisted that one side of a relationship must
hold all of the power, and that an inferior member of a so-called
"family" would have no more freedom to leave than a dog or a slave.
I find this sort of thinking abhorrent and believe it has no place
in the laws of Nova Roma or anywhere else.

The Modernists are trying to build a real Roman nation, not a game,
and not a fascist state where the first person to choose a famous
name has power over all others using it, forever.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://cynico.net/~hucke/

Salvete,

My father, (the owner of my family business), has advanced lung cancer, and
has been out of commission while receiving chemotherapy. The extra workload for
me has caused me to fall behind on all the NR forums. :(

As I've been catching up here, the "Compulsory Latin in NR" post by Quintus
Lanius Paulinus caught my eye as an *excellent* example of how difficult it can
be to communicate on these lists.

Quintus Lanius Paulinus was NOT advocating that there be compulsory Latin in
NR. He was not even making a joke about it.

In a nutshell, he was trying to say that 'forcing our new Citizens to deal
with NR politics is a lot like a requirement for us all to speak Latin would
be... many of us would find the task too confusing or too difficult, and would
drop out.' He was merely showing us an example of something equally as
difficult as NR politics can be.

His point is well taken - and deserves some consideration. Perhaps one of the
reasons we 'lose' some new citizens is that Nova Roman politics (and our
list) can get so difficult that it's easier to leave than sort it all out! (I'll
try to think about this some more, maybe something can be done.)

What I'm writing about here, however, is how *easily* his message was
confused. Everyone took his example of 'over-the-top' behavior seriously - and within
two or three replies the example was being referred to as "the proposed lex."
(!!!!!), with citizens stating they'd have to leave should it be voted in.

Quintus' post might perhaps have been clearer... but it wasn't *that* obtuse.
My guess is that people read the message quickly and never noticed the real
message he was trying to convey.

The 'moral' of the story? I dunno. But I will say that I personally will try
to pay more attention to the intent of messages from here on in. Almost any
situation can be mistaken as this one was... and that can make the list even
more confusing and difficult.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus






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

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@...>
wrote:

>
> > 1. A Family was defined so narrowly that my
> > Macronational Extended family woudn't qualify as a
> > Nova Roman Family. The narrow definition of a
> family
> > was ahistoric.
>
> The sweeping definition of family that you like to
> see (i.e., any
> random horde of people who know each other only
> through email) is
> equally ahistoric.
>
> > 2. Citizens within a Gens that wished to retain
> it's
> > structure were forced to opt in in rather than opt
> > out. Changes were being applied without a citizens
> > consent if he failed to take action.
>
> And what was this change that would be applied
> without the citizens'
> consent? That citizen would be given the freedom to
> leave the gens.
> Your faction insisted that citizens who failed to
> respond during an
> initial notification period would forevermore be
> bound to their
> current paterfamilias, even more tightly than
> before.

LSD: While you would cast those who failed to reply,
but who wished to retain thier status out with no
recourse other than an expensive, intrusive, and
sometimes impossible to obtain macronational adoption
process.

You also suported the Gens name lex, which also forced
citizens into intrusive Macronational legal
procedings.

Support of a measure that would deny real extended
families recognition under Nova Roman law, and 2
measures that entail forcing citizens into intrusive
and time consuming Macronational legal procedings
hardly qualifies you as as a champion of freedom.

Leaving a Gens could have been addresed in a Nova
Roman adoption law, yet you chose to grant this
freedom in a lex that stripped other freedoms from
Nova Roma's citizens.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Salve Marcus Cassius Julianus

All our prays go to you and your family and our hope that your Father's treatment is successful.



Pax

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: cassius622@...
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 12:08 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] The Compulsory Latin thread...


Salvete,

My father, (the owner of my family business), has advanced lung cancer, and
has been out of commission while receiving chemotherapy. The extra workload for
me has caused me to fall behind on all the NR forums. :(

As I've been catching up here, the "Compulsory Latin in NR" post by Quintus
Lanius Paulinus caught my eye as an *excellent* example of how difficult it can
be to communicate on these lists.

Quintus Lanius Paulinus was NOT advocating that there be compulsory Latin in
NR. He was not even making a joke about it.

In a nutshell, he was trying to say that 'forcing our new Citizens to deal
with NR politics is a lot like a requirement for us all to speak Latin would
be... many of us would find the task too confusing or too difficult, and would
drop out.' He was merely showing us an example of something equally as
difficult as NR politics can be.

His point is well taken - and deserves some consideration. Perhaps one of the
reasons we 'lose' some new citizens is that Nova Roman politics (and our
list) can get so difficult that it's easier to leave than sort it all out! (I'll
try to think about this some more, maybe something can be done.)

What I'm writing about here, however, is how *easily* his message was
confused. Everyone took his example of 'over-the-top' behavior seriously - and within
two or three replies the example was being referred to as "the proposed lex."
(!!!!!), with citizens stating they'd have to leave should it be voted in.

Quintus' post might perhaps have been clearer... but it wasn't *that* obtuse.
My guess is that people read the message quickly and never noticed the real
message he was trying to convey.

The 'moral' of the story? I dunno. But I will say that I personally will try
to pay more attention to the intent of messages from here on in. Almost any
situation can be mistaken as this one was... and that can make the list even
more confusing and difficult.

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/





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

That's prayers

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Gallagher
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] The Compulsory Latin thread...


Salve Marcus Cassius Julianus

All our prays go to you and your family and our hope that your Father's treatment is successful.



Pax

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus


----- Original Message -----
From: cassius622@...
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 12:08 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] The Compulsory Latin thread...


Salvete,

My father, (the owner of my family business), has advanced lung cancer, and
has been out of commission while receiving chemotherapy. The extra workload for
me has caused me to fall behind on all the NR forums. :(

As I've been catching up here, the "Compulsory Latin in NR" post by Quintus
Lanius Paulinus caught my eye as an *excellent* example of how difficult it can
be to communicate on these lists.

Quintus Lanius Paulinus was NOT advocating that there be compulsory Latin in
NR. He was not even making a joke about it.

In a nutshell, he was trying to say that 'forcing our new Citizens to deal
with NR politics is a lot like a requirement for us all to speak Latin would
be... many of us would find the task too confusing or too difficult, and would
drop out.' He was merely showing us an example of something equally as
difficult as NR politics can be.

His point is well taken - and deserves some consideration. Perhaps one of the
reasons we 'lose' some new citizens is that Nova Roman politics (and our
list) can get so difficult that it's easier to leave than sort it all out! (I'll
try to think about this some more, maybe something can be done.)

What I'm writing about here, however, is how *easily* his message was
confused. Everyone took his example of 'over-the-top' behavior seriously - and within
two or three replies the example was being referred to as "the proposed lex."
(!!!!!), with citizens stating they'd have to leave should it be voted in.

Quintus' post might perhaps have been clearer... but it wasn't *that* obtuse.
My guess is that people read the message quickly and never noticed the real
message he was trying to convey.

The 'moral' of the story? I dunno. But I will say that I personally will try
to pay more attention to the intent of messages from here on in. Almost any
situation can be mistaken as this one was... and that can make the list even
more confusing and difficult.

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/





[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/





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

My dear Marcus Cassius,

While racing through the accumulated messages, I noticed:

> My father, (the owner of my family business), has advanced lung cancer, and
> has been out of commission while receiving chemotherapy.

I wish him all success in overcoming the illness. And I hope that you
and yours are managing to get through this difficult time together.

It is, as always, a pleasure to see your wise words.

-- Marinus

Honored Pontifex Maximus and Senator Cassius;

You may well be correct that the true nuance of the gentleman's mesage
may have been missed. Considering the large amount of argumentative
E-Mails flying around, I am not surprised. My comment on the subject
was based similarly on Senator Drusus' comments about NR Citizens and
thier skills and interests outside of NR. He said it much better, of
course, but the idea is there.

In regard to your comment regarding the amount of political argument
that crowds our Main List, you have identified a problem which has been
with us for some time now. However, on the occasions that others have
mentioned alternatives, they have been blasted by those who are some of
the biggest producers of such material, and those who are worried about
"freedom of speech" on the Main List. Well, we have "freedom of speech"
of a sort here, but the volume of political disagreement is choking the
list, and, I suspect, as in times past, is costing NR new citizens who
did not come here to get into these arguments.

Clearly something should be done. However, it is a minority of Citizens
who use the Main List to generate this kind of communication and as such
are the loudest to proclaim that the Main List should remain as it is.
The silent majority have little to say, in my view, because they clearly
recognize the penalty for an objection is a continuous diatribe that
would be unleashed against them by those who apparently have little else
to do. Therefore, it is easier to simply go elsewhere, as so many have
done, than to deal with the onslaught launched against any such idea to
"clean up" this communication highway, which is now dminated with
political traffic,

As a result of this "freedom of speech" we now seem to have developed
two distinct factions which have been named, and who seem destined to
become political parties as in the modern world. The Reconstuctionists
(Reactionaries) and the Modernists. Since both groups seem to have one
foot or the other firmly planted firmly in the others proposed areas,
such a "labeling" seems both strange and somewhat amusing. I can
already hear the cries of "Anti-Reconstructionists" directed against one
set of opponents, with similar accusations flung against thier opposite
number with equal ferocity. At least it would be amusing, if the end
result were not so predictable.

This micronation, I do not believe, was started with the idea of arguing
politics in a Modern Way. It was created for a very different reason,
but that reason seems to have gone astray in the fury of argument over
areas which seem to concern only a very few.

By all means Senator, give the situation some thought, it badly needs
some mature thoughts applied to it. But in doing so, beware those who
will decry with fierce energy anything but thier own narrow views.
Perhaps a simple application of the Roman Virtues by each poster to this
Main List, might be a screen through which a moderate and enjoyable
amount of communications could emerge.

Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius Audens

A wet sheet and a flowing sea, and a wind follows fast, and fills the
white and rustling sail, and bends the gallant mast; and bends the
gallant mast my boys while like the eagle free, our good ship starts and
flies and leaves old England on our lee------Fair Winds and following
Seas!!!

> LSD: While you would cast those who failed to reply, but who wished
> to retain thier status out with no recourse other than an expensive,
> intrusive, and sometimes impossible to obtain macronational adoption
> process.

The version that sought to equate NR families with actual families
would have still kept such persons as part of the Gens to which they
actually belonged; they could call the "paterfamilias" of that gens
"pater" or "grandpa" or whatever they wished. We were only removing
the coercive element of that relationship by removing the power that
one individual held over another.

The version backed by the Reactionaries would have made nonresponsive
people into chattels of their paterfamilias - the very people who
would be least likely to favor such a relationship, for their very
unresponsiveness demonstrates that they do not have a close
relationship with the so-called pater. With our version, only those
who explicitly chose to be chattels would have had that status.

> You also suported the Gens name lex, which also forced
> citizens into intrusive Macronational legal
> procedings.

I was wrong to do so. I hereby publicly apologize to Lucius Marius
and all other good people who were driven away by that unnecessary
and intrusive lex.

> Support of a measure that would deny real extended
> families recognition under Nova Roman law,

Wrong. These real extended families could be recognized as a gens, with
each household having its own paterfamilias, and none of these
patresfamilias being superior to the others.

> and 2 measures that entail forcing citizens into intrusive
> and time consuming Macronational legal procedings

They would be "forced" into such proceedings only if they wished to
place themselves irrevocably under the authority of another. Practically
speaking, who among us would be so stupid and contemptful of their own
rights to do such a thing?

[For those who were not aware of the debate last year: we are
speaking of a proposal to have within a gens familiae that corresponded
to actual, real-life familiae; being in the same gens as your
friends would be a simple matter of informing the Censores that you
wish to join that gens, but you would not be considered part of
a particular familias within that gens unless you were actually
part of the same real-life family; thus Sentator Sicinius speaks
here of adoptions.]

But that proposal is dead; it never got off the ground, and its
specifics are moot. I suspect that whatever gens reform we
eventually pass will have no such thing.

> hardly qualifies you as as a champion of freedom.

As a defender of a paterfamilias having "authority" over strangers,
your opinion of who is a champion of freedom means less than nothing
to me.

> Leaving a Gens could have been addresed in a Nova Roman adoption law,

It has, for now, been adequately addressed by edict of the Censores.
I'd like to see it become permanent, as a lex.

> yet you chose to grant this freedom in a lex that stripped other
> freedoms from Nova Roma's citizens.

What "freedom" did I try to strip from anyone? The "freedom" to be
irrevocably under the authority of another citizen? Does anyone
actually want that "freedom"? (Let them speak up now!)

I seek to grant all citizens the right to choose any gens and to
enter and leave it freely. I have never sought to deprive anyone
of any freedoms - except those who believe their "freedom" includes
the right to enslave another.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://cynico.net/~hucke/

Salve Cassi,

First, let me express my sympathy for your father's critical health
situation and we'll all have him and your family in our prayers.



I read your post carefully and agree with your points. The way and
why I presented the posting you have figured 100%. (Audens saw it
immediately too!) This "over-the-counter top" presentation is my one
shot deal and that will be that; my previous post saying " not make a
habit" I rescind. People do not always read the posts in enough
detail and NR is not alone. I belong to another Roman "discussion"
group and over the last 2 weeks we discussed the movie "Druids" about
the battles of Caesar and Vercingetorix. The highlight of the
discussion was the battle of Alesia. To make a long story short I
went to the net and spent several hours looking up data regarding the
battle and posted it. From the comments of the list members I could
tell that only one person had actually read the posted historical
account. Another young person jumped into the post yesterday and
started a thread about the seige. I reposted; still the same argument
so I took out a segment which negated his argument and ground the
article right in his face. All this was done tactfully of course but
what I was saying was "wake up and smell the GD coffee boy!
Now "Druids" was a harmless discussion like is Exxon gas superior to
Shell? As you say Pontiff Cassius a more serious discussion like
serious political bills, NR policies etc. should be read and consider
in their entirety. In future, if I do not have time to review posts
on a contraversial subject I'll be sure to: 1) Ask the author of the
post to reafirm or review what he said or stay out of the post
entirely instead of jumping in on re # 5, 6 and so on.

Yours respectfully,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@...>
wrote:
SNIP

>
> The Reactionaries crave power. This debate started
> last year when
> I sought to ensure that all citizens would have the
> freedom to
> escape an absent or malicious "pater"; that they
> would be able to
> leave a sub-group of Nova Roma without having to
> resign citizenship
> entirely; that a relationship voluntarily entered
> into could
> be severed voluntarily by either power. The
> Reactionaries would
> not allow this; they insisted that one side of a
> relationship must
> hold all of the power, and that an inferior member
> of a so-called
> "family" would have no more freedom to leave than a
> dog or a slave.
> I find this sort of thinking abhorrent and believe
> it has no place
> in the laws of Nova Roma or anywhere else.
>

So where are all the citizens held in thrall by a
"malicious" pater?

You took a sitaution that dosen't exist and used it as
an excuse to promulgate a lex that would deprive
citizens of the right to enter into an association
that they wanted to enter of thier own free will
unless they endured an intrusive Macronational legal
process.

Many members of Gens Cornelia beleav that your agenda
was to use the "malicious" pater strawman as an excuse
to break up thier Gens for no other purpose than an
attempt to weaken thier Pater politically.

I Had thought this was a misunderstanding, but the
tone of your latest post has me wondering if they
accessed the situation more accuratly than I did.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Salvete Quirites; et salve, senator L. Sicini Druse.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"
<lsicinius@y...> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> 1. A Family was defined so narrowly that my Macronational Extended
> family woudn't qualify as a Nova Roman Family. The narrow
> definition of a family was ahistoric.

Perhaps you are right in that the definition of a family could be
extended to include close relatives. I think that mostly everyone who
supports gens reform would be willing to accept that compromise.

> 2. Citizens within a Gens that wished to retain it's structure were
> forced to opt in in rather than opt out. Changes were being applied
> without a citizens consent if he failed to take action. This should
> never happen, a change in status should only come on the request of
> the citizen. This was a later version. Earlier versions would have
> required a Macronational adpotion, something that is every bit
> intrusive as the Gender Lex.

The truth is that NOT requiring the citizens' consent does seem far
more coercitive to me than the alternative, senator. Very few people
find it too intrusive to be asked what they want. It seems that
forcing someone who has not expressed his will to enter a closer
relationship with someone else without their consent is not fair.

> 3. New citizens would be banned from joining an existing ahistoric
> Gens even if they wished to do so. The sugestion was made that they
> undergo a Macronational Adoption process, again a process as
> intrusive as anything in the Gender lex.

This is not true, senator. Nobody spoke about a macronational
adoption process; we talked about a Traditional Roman adoption
process (traditional like in "traditionalist").
Roman families are a serious affair, and not some role playing game.
If someone wanted to join someone else's familia without being a
blood relative, then he should clearly understand what the process
entails in religious and legal terms within Nova Roma. Anything less
is *not* Roman enough for Nova Roma (or traditional enough, if you
prefer).

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF

> So where are all the citizens held in thrall by a
> "malicious" pater?

Citizens left Nova Roma several years ago for this very reason, an
incident I learned about only shortly before last year's debate
because their former paterfamilias had mentioned it on a mailing
list.

Right now, one citizen is in the process of switching gentes; his
current paterfamilias has neither consented nor challenged it.

> You took a sitaution that dosen't exist

It happened in the past. It happened in the future.

As you know, I work as a programmer. Any programmer who doesn't
anticipate and deal with exceptions is considered grossly incompentent.
Cleaning up their messes afterwards is much harder than doing it right
the first time.

> and used it as an excuse to promulgate a lex that would deprive
> citizens of the right to enter into an association that they wanted
> to enter of thier own free will unless they endured an intrusive
> Macronational legal process.

The Reactionaries sought to deprive citizens of the right to leave
and association of their own free will.

I sought to fix this; your faction then then complained that this was
non-historical. We then tried to create a historical solution (which
would recognize *real* adoptions) but you didn't like that any better -
because you want dominion over the inferiors members of your gens.

You seem to think that we expected people to go through real-world
adoption proceedings (the "intrusive process" you are so obsessed about)
in order to become a member of another familias. Of course not.
Why would anyone be so foolish as to actually be adopted by someone
just to make a slight change to their legal status in NR?

We sought to make a Gens an organization into which anyone could enter
or leave freely. A Familias within that gens would not be something
which one seeks entry lightly - for they would just be recognition of
actual families in real life.

> Many members of Gens Cornelia beleav that your agenda
> was to use the "malicious" pater strawman as an excuse
> to break up thier Gens for no other purpose than an
> attempt to weaken thier Pater politically.

Break it up, how? They'd all *still* be members of Gens Cornelia under
the new system! They could still call Senator Sulla "pater" or "daddy"
or "Bob" or whatever term was agreeable to all involved. This "break-up"
existed only in your imagination.

As for what they "believed", that's not our fault at all. I and my
allies had no access to that Gens' private mailing list, and those
Cornelii who were learning of the debate in the Senate only from
what was repeated on that list were almost certainly not getting both
sides of the story. If some of them have become inactive because of
that debate, then I regret that they left because of a misperception.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://cynico.net/~hucke/

EXTRA EXTRA BREAKING NEWS IN NOVA ROMA


EXCUSIVE TO THE EAGLE


FACTIONS ARE FOUND IN NOVA ROMA


ARCHAEOLOGIST, POLITICAL SCIENTISTS AND OTHER EXPERTS ARE BAFFLED NOT THAT FACTIONS EXIST IN NOVA ROMA BUT THAT ANYBODY WOULD THINK THAT NOVA ROMA WAS IMMUNIZED FROM THEM.


FACTION AND COMPETITION ( From

Faction and competition form a theme which runs throughout the study of the late republican period, and is something which students should consider when looking at the preceding topics in the Special Topic for Roman history.

Roman aristocratic society was a highly competitive one - individual achievement was the name of the game.

Gloria was an end in itself; but, more than this, only through individual achievement could a family be ennobled or maintain its nobility.

Achievement could only be registered through the winning of high office, the Latin word for which was honos or honor.

In any one year, twenty 30-year olds (or men in their early 30s) could secure election to the quaestorship (the bottom rung on the cursus honorum).

Each would view his fellows with a wary eye.

Only half of them (at most) could expect to win a praetorship ten years later at the minimum age, and only two of this group might go on to a consulship.

It follows that Roman politics in the late republic involved a steeply narrowing pyramid of office and was essentially a matter of individual rivalry and competition.

Such calculations governed the thinking of every Roman aristocrat who aimed at pursuing a public political career.

To succeed, politicians needed friends; allies might be a more appropriate word.

Factions were formed. "Between good men (boni) it is called amicitia, between bad men (mali), a factio", said Sallust (The Jugurthine War, 31.15).

In other words, one's amici ('friends') were, naturally, good men (boni), and one's inimici ('enemies') would be called bad men (mali or improbi).

This essential element of Roman political life is covered by Beryl Rawson in her book on The Politics of Friendship; P.A. Brunt, in his article 'Amicitia' in the Late Roman Republic' (= R. Seager (ed.), The Crisis of the Roman Republic, pp. 199-218), goes further and suggests that there was real friendship between some Roman political figures.

But the essential obverse of amicitia was inimicitia, and in an aristocratic political society as competitive as this one, enmity was more of the essence than friendship. (Boy are we Roman)

Consider the following as examples of rivalries and political vendettas:

Crassus and Pompey: Plutarch, Pompey, 23, 43; Crassus, 6-7, 12; cf. Suetonius, Life of Caesar, 19.

Caesar and Bibulus: Suetonius, Life of Caesar, 10, 19, 20.

Cicero and Clodius: Plutarch, Cicero, 29, 30, 33, 34.

Caesar and Cato: Sallust, The Conspiracy of Catiline, 50-54.



READING

Prescribed and reference books

L.R. Taylor, Party Politics in the Age of Caesar, consult index under 'Factio', 'Friendship' and 'Inimici'.

Other reading

W.K. Lacey, 'Clodius and Cicero: A Question of Dignitas', Antichthon 8 (1974), 85-92

Writing on Roman history Barbara F. McManus, The College of New Rochelle

NOTES ON ROMAN POLITICS
Social Classes:
Rome was a highly hierarchical and class-conscious society, but there was the possibility of mobility between classes because by the second century BCE class was no longer determined solely by birth. The classes described below superseded the old patrician/plebeian distinction, though certain elements of dress were still reserved for patricians.

a.. Senatorial class: (basis was political), composed of all who served in the Senate, and by extension, their families, though only men actually serving in the Senate could wear the tunic with broad stripes (laticlavi). This class was dominated by the nobles (nobles), families that had had at least one consul among their members. The first man in his family to be elected consul, thus qualifying his family for noble status, was called a "new man" (novus homo).
b.. Equestrian class (equites): (basis was economic), composed of families that possessed and maintained a specified minimum amount of wealth (landed property worth at least 400,000 sesterces) but were not senators. Equestrians wore the tunic with narrow stripes (angusti clavi).
c.. Commons, "the people": all other freeborn Roman citizens. The special mark of dress for males was the toga.
d.. Freedpeople (liberti): men and women who had been slaves but had bought their freedom or been manumitted. They were not fully free because they had various restrictions on their rights and owed certain duties to their former masters, but they could become citizens if their masters had been citizens. The next generation, their freeborn children, became full citizens and could even be equestrians if rich enough. Freedpeople had low social status but might become quite wealthy. They had no special distinction of dress.
e.. Slaves: system of chattel slavery where human beings were born into slavery or sold into slavery through war or piracy. Slaves were the property of their owners by law, but by custom some slaves (especially urban, domestic slaves) might be allowed their own savings (peculium) with which they might later buy their freedom, or their masters could manumit them, so some mobility into the previous class was possible. Roman slavery was not racially based.
Nature of Roman Politics:
The conduct of political affairs was heavily dominated by the senatorial class, particularly by a small number of noble families. The upper classes generally followed one of two informal political factions:

a.. Populares ("the party of the people"): power base was the Assembly of the Tribes and the tribunes. Though also composed of Senators and nobles, this faction appealed to the interests of the commons. Today, we might call this faction "left-wing."
b.. Optimates ("the party of the best men" or of the aristocrats): power base was the Senate. This faction promoted conservative policies that supported the interests of the wealthy and the old noble families. Today, we might call this faction "right-wing."
This is how the historian Sallust (mid-first century BCE) described the two political factions during his lifetime:

After the restoration of the power of the tribunes in the consulship of Pompey and Crassus, this very important office was obtained by certain men whose youth intensified their natural aggressiveness. These tribunes began to rouse the mob by inveighing against the Senate, and then inflamed popular passion still further by handing out bribes and promises, whereby they won renown and influence for themselves. They were strenuously opposed by most of the nobility, who posed as defenders of the Senate but were really concerned to maintain their own privileged position. The whole truth-to put it in a word-is that although all disturbers of the peace in this period put forward specious pretexts, claiming either to be protecting the rights of the people or to be strengthening the authority of the Senate, this was mere pretence: in reality, every one of them was fighting for his personal aggrandizement. Lacking all self-restraint, they stuck at nothing to gain their ends, and both sides made ruthless use of any successes they won. (Sallust Bellum Catilinae 38, translated by S. A. Handford [Penguin Classics, 1963], 204-205)
Campaigning: Personal wealth was essential for political office, since no salaries were paid and the process of campaigning was very expensive; showmanship was essential. See an important setting for Roman politics and find out more about campaigning by visiting the Rostra in VRoma via the web gateway (be sure to click on the capsa and read what's inside) or the anonymous browser (this mode will not allow you to read the scrolls in the capsa).

a.. A candidate for office wore an artificially whitened toga and so was candidatus ("made shining white").
b.. The social institution of patronage (clientela) was essential in politics, and one of the key duties of clients was to accompany their patron on official business and all kinds of campaigning, and of course to vote with him on all issues.
c.. Powerful families supported each other through informal alliances (amicitia) often cemented through arranged marriages; the functioning of government was greatly influenced by "backroom politics."
d.. During the last century of the Republic, bribery was not at all uncommon:
a.. indirect: provision of free grain, free entertainment (baths, shows, chariot races and gladiatorial games), even huge outdoor banquets
b.. direct: actually paying off officials or giving the commoners money directly in return for votes
e.. During this same period, intimidation was also a campaign strategy. Candidates sometimes incited riots, or hired thugs or gladiators to rough people up. Those who were generals occasionally used the threat of their loyal soldiers to pressure the state.
f.. Commoners' only way to influence politics was through their sheer numbers-by votes, and especially by riots.
Women: Women were excluded by law from any political role; they could not vote or hold office. Upper-class women, however, had the possibility of behind-the-scenes influence, because they could possess and control wealth, could move about in public freely without losing respectability, and could represent their birth families in various ways, especially by cementing family alliances through marriage.

Sources
Barbara F. McManus, The College of New Rochelle
bmcmanus@...

Salve Romans

I hate to say this but I think it may be time to put Political discussions on another Nova Roma List and leave the main list for other purposes .

If we lose any citizens over politics then shame on us.



Vale



Tiberius Galerius Paulinus









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

> It happened in the past. It happened in the future.

(danger! inappropriate verb usage!)

This should have been "It is likely to happen in the future".

And it will. The laws are the same, the personalities are the same
now as they were in. Another such incident is inevitable.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://cynico.net/~hucke/

In expansion on the notes that I firnishd earlier regarding archaeology
teams the 2003 Earthwatch Institute Catalog lists the following areas of
Roman interest:

--Roman Fort on Tyne, England;

--Diving Greek Ruins, Campania, Italy (Extensive Early Roman Structures
including the submerged city of Baia);

--Roman Fort on the Danube, Romania;

--Food and Drink in Ancient Pompeii, Italy;

--Medicinal Plants of Antiquity,Italy

See specifics at:

www.earthwatch.org

Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


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

Salve Illustrus Pater Patriae!

I will include You and your family in my prayers and pray that your
father will overcome his illness!

>Salvete,
>
>My father, (the owner of my family business), has advanced lung cancer, and
>has been out of commission while receiving chemotherapy. The extra
>workload for
>me has caused me to fall behind on all the NR forums. :(

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Consul et Senator
Propraetor Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Cohors Consulis CFQ
http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Marcus Octavius Germanicus
<hucke@c...> wrote:

>
> > It happened in the past. It happened in the future.
>
> (danger! inappropriate verb usage!)
>
> This should have been "It is likely to happen in the future".
>
> And it will. The laws are the same, the personalities are the same
> now as they were in. Another such incident is inevitable.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
> Censor, Consular, Citizen.
> http://cynico.net/~hucke/

Salvete Marce et omnes,


Now with this idea I am serious! Should it not be required for all
Nova Roman citizens to watch miniseries I Claudius? There one gets a
terrific idea about the politics, in - fighting and family /
political posturing in Ancient Rome, particularily the Julian -
Claudian dynasty. It is well done and in my Marco nation work
environment I have used so many quotes from that series which work as
well today as they did then. I own a VHS version but the Hispania
list says its available on DVD now. Specialty video stores rent the
series as well.

Enjoy!

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@...>
wrote:
SNIP

>
> > Support of a measure that would deny real extended
> > families recognition under Nova Roman law,
>
> Wrong. These real extended families could be
> recognized as a gens, with
> each household having its own paterfamilias, and
> none of these
> patresfamilias being superior to the others.
>

Having multiple Paters in an extended family is as
ahistoric as our current system, a substitution of one
ahistoric element for another.

Many aspects of the Paters ancient powers are not
fesible under current Macronational laws. A Pater that
put a member of family to death would be prosucated
under Macronational law, as would a Pater that took
over earnings or properity that belonged to an adult
son. Even if it was desirable (Which I DON'T think it
is) to revive these aspects of the Paterfamilis it
would be illegal to do so.

In the modern world the Paterfamilis will mainly be an
honorific postion. Nothing should be done that would
dilute this aspect of the postion.

In Roma as long as your Pater remained alive, he
remained your Pater unless he emancipated you. You
couldn't just wake up one morning and say, "Hey I'll
become a Paterfamilis today"

The postion of Paterfamilis should be retained as a
postion that has the honors of antiquita without the
powers that modern Macronational laws forbid to it.

In Nova Roma this would take the form that as long as
a Paterfamilis remained alive he would remain the
titular head of the family, even though he wouldn't
have powers over adult heads of households within his
family. The postion would be that of the honored elder
who served as spokesman for the family as a unit (but
not for indiviuals within the family) and serve as
person who performed rites on behalf of the family.
The Adult children would become Paters in thier own
right apon the death of thier Pater. This would mean
if my Grandfather was my Paterfamilis apon his death
my Father would become my Paterfamils even though I
was an adult. My Uncle would become the Paterfamilis
of my cousin.

IMHO the most important aspects of the Paterfamilis
are his postion as the honored elder in family and his
postion as the family priest. These should be
maintained at all costs.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

--- cassius622@... wrote:

> Salvete,
>
> My father, (the owner of my family business), has
> advanced lung cancer, and
> has been out of commission while receiving
> chemotherapy. The extra workload for
> me has caused me to fall behind on all the NR
> forums. :(
>

Having faced a similar situation last year I know what
you are going through. My prayers are with you and
your family.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

> In the modern world the Paterfamilis will mainly be an
> honorific postion. Nothing should be done that would
> dilute this aspect of the postion.

There's nothing to prevent the independent familiae under the
improved gens system from electing a "Senior Paterfamilias",
or "Grand Pater" or whatever; it would be an honorific title.

> In Roma as long as your Pater remained alive, he
> remained your Pater unless he emancipated you. You
> couldn't just wake up one morning and say, "Hey I'll
> become a Paterfamilis today"

In Roma citizens did not choose their paterfamilias from a list of
names of citizens thousands of miles away.

> The postion of Paterfamilis should be retained as a
> postion that has the honors of antiquita without the
> powers that modern Macronational laws forbid to it.

Or the power to restrict another citizen from leaving the gens.

> IMHO the most important aspects of the Paterfamilis
> are his postion as the honored elder in family and his
> postion as the family priest. These should be
> maintained at all costs.

Fine with me.

At the beginning of the argument last year, all I wanted was to stop
patresfamilias from preventing citizens from switching gentes. The
Reactionary faction was opposed to this - and that's what prompted
the debate about a complete overhaul of the system, and removing all
of its ahistorical elements by clearly differentiating familiae
and gentes.

Whether we'll just patch the minor problems with the current system
or rebuild it completely is up to this year's Consuls.

Vale, Octavius.
--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://cynico.net/~hucke/

Salvete Diana Moravia omnesque

> Thank you Junior Consul.

You're quite welcome.

> After my reply to Lucius Equitius, I saw your post with the boni_nr link. I
> am sure that I am not the only one who was curious to learn more about a
> faction that is not afraid to call themselves one and that is publicly
> listed on yahoogroups.

ROFL And one to which you are apparently sympathetic, considering the
spin you've chosen to put on it. (I assume you're using your
dictionary's definition of faction.)

I'll again point out that the Boni have chosen not to announce their
membership. Q Fabius "outed" himself on the Back Alley in what could
easily have been a slip of the keyboard. This seems to me to be roughly
equivalent to refusing to accept the label of faction. After all, which
is better, "Here we are, but we're not a faction", or "We're a faction,
but we won't tell you who we are"?

In any case, from what I have seen, I don't think it's accurate to call
the entirety of my collega's Cohors Consularis a faction. The term may
apply--depending upon which dictionary one wishes to consult--to some
subset of that group, but not to the whole of it.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"magna pars consilii in tempore"
- Seneca

Salvete Deci Iuni omnesque

I generally agreed with much that you said. However, I do not believe
that the so-called Traditionalists (Reactionaries, Reconstructionists,
Fascists, What-Have-Yous) are as traditionalist as they claim. Nor do I
believe that the so-called Modernists (Liberals, Revivalists, Commies,
What-Have-Yous) are as dedicated to modernity as they seem to be
portrayed. Indeed, the rhetoric and goals of the two camps seem
relatively similar to me when talking privately to members of both
sides, and there are certainly members of both who are truly dedicated
to making Nova Roma work.

> The so-called modernist faction has recently put forward a
> proposal designed to encourage block voting and allow the
> political dominance of their faction.

I do not believe that the current comitial reform proposal was put forth
with the purpose of allowing a particular faction to dominate Nova Roman
politics. I believe it was done with an eye toward historical practice
and eliminating the possibility of endless rounds of run-off elections.
Note that the race for praetor *has* involved run-off elections in the
past, so the argument that the Comitia Centuriata has not experienced
this problem is patently false.

> Understandable, that is politics. However, the proposal by Iulius
> Scaurus has brought back to mind the importance of emulating the
> ancients rather than designing modern systems to fit our needs
> (preventing factional dominance or allowing it).

Note that the "Iulian proposal" also allows for block voting and
therefore contains the possibility of allowing one faction to dominate
Nova Roman politics. It has been argued that sequential voting will
ameliorate this, which the historical record has also proven to be
patently false.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"magna pars consilii in tempore"
- Seneca

The postion of Paterfamilis has religous connotations.
Honoring and respecting living ancesters is just as
important as honoring those who have crossed the styx.

Destroying this aspect of Roman culture may not matter
to the Radical faction, but it is very important to
those of us who haven't lost sight of Roma.

I Have sugested something that preserves the honors of
the Paterfamilis in a way that is consistant with your
claimed goal of freeing a citizen from the Pater's
control over him. The Pater would have no control,
just an honary postion that is in keeping with the
traditions of the Romans. That isn't good enough for
you. You demand something that destroies everything
about the postion,leaving only an empty title.


--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@...>
wrote:

>
> > In the modern world the Paterfamilis will mainly
> be an
> > honorific postion. Nothing should be done that
> would
> > dilute this aspect of the postion.
>
> There's nothing to prevent the independent familiae
> under the
> improved gens system from electing a "Senior
> Paterfamilias",
> or "Grand Pater" or whatever; it would be an
> honorific title.
>
> > In Roma as long as your Pater remained alive, he
> > remained your Pater unless he emancipated you. You
> > couldn't just wake up one morning and say, "Hey
> I'll
> > become a Paterfamilis today"
>
> In Roma citizens did not choose their paterfamilias
> from a list of
> names of citizens thousands of miles away.
>
> > The postion of Paterfamilis should be retained as
> a
> > postion that has the honors of antiquita without
> the
> > powers that modern Macronational laws forbid to
> it.
>
> Or the power to restrict another citizen from
> leaving the gens.
>
> > IMHO the most important aspects of the
> Paterfamilis
> > are his postion as the honored elder in family and
> his
> > postion as the family priest. These should be
> > maintained at all costs.
>
> Fine with me.
>
> At the beginning of the argument last year, all I
> wanted was to stop
> patresfamilias from preventing citizens from
> switching gentes. The
> Reactionary faction was opposed to this - and that's
> what prompted
> the debate about a complete overhaul of the system,
> and removing all
> of its ahistorical elements by clearly
> differentiating familiae
> and gentes.
>
> Whether we'll just patch the minor problems with the
> current system
> or rebuild it completely is up to this year's
> Consuls.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
> Censor, Consular, Citizen.
> http://cynico.net/~hucke/
>
>

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

> The postion of Paterfamilis has religous connotations.

Yes, even though we allowed it to be held by nonpractitioners.

> Destroying this aspect of Roman culture may not matter
> to the Radical faction, but it is very important to
> those of us who haven't lost sight of Roma.

It's just as important to those of who have not lost sight of Freedom.

> That isn't good enough for
> you. You demand something that destroies everything
> about the postion,leaving only an empty title.

WHAT, precisely, am I demanding?

I have demanded only that citizens can freely leave a gens. How
does this "destroy everything" about the title?

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://cynico.net/~hucke/

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@...>
wrote:

>
> > The postion of Paterfamilis has religous
> connotations.
>
> Yes, even though we allowed it to be held by
> nonpractitioners.
>
> > Destroying this aspect of Roman culture may not
> matter
> > to the Radical faction, but it is very important
> to
> > those of us who haven't lost sight of Roma.
>
> It's just as important to those of who have not lost
> sight of Freedom.

So will your next assault on tradition be a campaign
to give anyone who wants it the freedom to become a
Patrician?

>
> > That isn't good enough for
> > you. You demand something that destroies
> everything
> > about the postion,leaving only an empty title.
>
> WHAT, precisely, am I demanding?

That anyone who wants the honors and duties of a
Paterfamilis can assume them, qualified or not.

>
> I have demanded only that citizens can freely leave
> a gens. How
> does this "destroy everything" about the title?
>

Read my sugestion again. It plainly states that the
Paterfamilis would have no control over adult heads of
households in his family (something he can't exercise
under Macronational laws anyway). How can a person who
holds a honorific postion with no powers over an adult
prevent that adult from leaving to join another family
(provided that they wanted him)?


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

> > It's just as important to those of who have not lost
> > sight of Freedom.
>
> So will your next assault on tradition be a campaign
> to give anyone who wants it the freedom to become a
> Patrician?

Everyone has that *now*, and it's not my doing.

> > > That isn't good enough for you. You demand something that destroies
> > everything about the postion,leaving only an empty title.
> >
> > WHAT, precisely, am I demanding?
>
> That anyone who wants the honors and duties of a
> Paterfamilis can assume them, qualified or not.

How does it "destroy" anything to have more people performing the
duties of a paterfamilias?

Are these new patresfamilas somehow less qualified than those who
have the title now? I wasn't aware that there had ben an entrance
examination when the current patresfamilias gained that title.

Are current patresfamilias more intelligent or pious than the
new ones who could potentially be created if we switch to more
historical system?

> How can a person who holds a honorific postion with no powers over
> an adult prevent that adult from leaving to join another family
> (provided that they wanted him)?

If you believe that to be the case, then why did you oppose my
attempt to guarantee that right by law?

Before there was any discussion of a complete overhaul of the gens
system, I sought simply to preserve the rights of adult citizens
to switch gentes without interference. You and the rest of your
faction were vehemently against it; and we countered your
accusations of being ahistorical with a proposal for a truly
historical system, which you hated even more.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://cynico.net/~hucke/

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@...>
wrote:

>
> > > It's just as important to those of who have not
> lost
> > > sight of Freedom.
> >
> > So will your next assault on tradition be a
> campaign
> > to give anyone who wants it the freedom to become
> a
> > Patrician?
>
> Everyone has that *now*, and it's not my doing.

LSD: Oh Goody! Every one that wants to become a
Patracian write the Censor so he can record your new
status in the Album Gentium.

> Before there was any discussion of a complete
> overhaul of the gens
> system, I sought simply to preserve the rights of
> adult citizens
> to switch gentes without interference. You and the
> rest of your
> faction were vehemently against it; and we countered
> your
> accusations of being ahistorical with a proposal for
> a truly
> historical system, which you hated even more.

LSD: If your system was "truly historical" then a
citizen wouldn't be able to switch Gens at all, unless
he had the permission of his paterfamilis to be
formally adopted into the new family. Your alledged
reason for changing the law is ahistoric, and no lex
that contains it can ever be "truly historical".

The proposal was more historic than the present system
in some areas, less in others.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

> LSD: Oh Goody! Every one that wants to become a
> Patracian write the Censor so he can record your new
> status in the Album Gentium.

You'll have to find a patrician gens that will take you.

> LSD: If your system was "truly historical" then a
> citizen wouldn't be able to switch Gens at all, unless
> he had the permission of his paterfamilis to be
> formally adopted into the new family.

In a truly historical system, that paterfamilias would be someone
who that citizen had actually met and had a strong bond to - not
just someone role-playing the part.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://cynico.net/~hucke/

--- Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@...> wrote:

> Salvete Quirites; et salve, senator L. Sicini Druse.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius
> Drusus"
> <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
>

SNIP

>
> This is not true, senator. Nobody spoke about a
> macronational
> adoption process; we talked about a Traditional
> Roman adoption
> process (traditional like in "traditionalist").
> Roman families are a serious affair, and not some
> role playing game.
> If someone wanted to join someone else's familia
> without being a
> blood relative, then he should clearly understand
> what the process
> entails in religious and legal terms within Nova
> Roma. Anything less
> is *not* Roman enough for Nova Roma (or traditional
> enough, if you
> prefer).

The Author of the legaslation is claiming it's purpose
was to allow citizens to freely switch Gens. You are
claiming that traditional Roman adoption procedures
are needed.

That is a contradiction. Roman adoption procedures
required the consent of a Paterfamilis when a filis
was being adopted into another Gens/family.

Requiring Adoption negates the freedom to hop from one
Gens to another.

So which will it be? The freedom to be an Octavian
today, a Julian tomorrow, and a Cornelian next week,
or a historic Roman adoption process?



=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

> The Author of the legaslation is claiming it's purpose
> was to allow citizens to freely switch Gens. You are
> claiming that traditional Roman adoption procedures
> are needed.
>
> That is a contradiction. Roman adoption procedures
> required the consent of a Paterfamilis when a filis
> was being adopted into another Gens/family.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

You know very well that there was more than one proposal last year.

The first (mine) was about the freedom to leave a gens - nothing more.

The second was a proposal for a massive reform, which established
familiae within gentes - and it was that later proposal (of which I
was not the author - Senator Cassius was) which had more traditional
adoption procedures.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://cynico.net/~hucke/

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@...>
wrote:

>
> > LSD: Oh Goody! Every one that wants to become a
> > Patracian write the Censor so he can record your
> new
> > status in the Album Gentium.
>
> You'll have to find a patrician gens that will take
> you.
>

Dosen't that interfer with someone's "freedom" to be a
Patrician? Allowing a Paterfamilis to interfere with
that "freedom"?

> > LSD: If your system was "truly historical" then a
> > citizen wouldn't be able to switch Gens at all,
> unless
> > he had the permission of his paterfamilis to be
> > formally adopted into the new family.
>
> In a truly historical system, that paterfamilias
> would be someone
> who that citizen had actually met and had a strong
> bond to - not
> just someone role-playing the part.
>

No they wouldn't but the "freedom" that "nessitates"
Gens reform can never be part of a truely historic
system.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

> Dosen't that interfer with someone's "freedom" to be a
> Patrician? Allowing a Paterfamilis to interfere with
> that "freedom"?

A choice to form a relationship must be acceptable to both
parties. A choice to dissolve a relationship need be acceptable
only to one.

Consider marriage: both parties must agree to get married, but if
either wishes to depart, they may obtain a divorse without the
consent of the other.


--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://cynico.net/~hucke/

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@...>
wrote:

>
> > Dosen't that interfer with someone's "freedom" to
> be a
> > Patrician? Allowing a Paterfamilis to interfere
> with
> > that "freedom"?
>
> A choice to form a relationship must be acceptable
> to both
> parties. A choice to dissolve a relationship need
> be acceptable
> only to one.
>
> Consider marriage: both parties must agree to get
> married, but if
> either wishes to depart, they may obtain a divorse
> without the
> consent of the other.
>

I'm not talking about forming an association. I'm
talking about the "freedom" to assume the postion of
Patrician regardless of meeting the qualification of
belonging to the right family. Surely citizens have as
much "right" to assume the title of Patrician as that
of Paterfamilis without worrying about any ancient
traditions that might stand between them and thier
whim.



=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

> I'm not talking about forming an association. I'm
> talking about the "freedom" to assume the postion of
> Patrician regardless of meeting the qualification of
> belonging to the right family.

If Plebeian citizens were somehow being oppressed or discriminated
against, and if membership in a patrician gens were no so trivially
easy to obtain, I might support that. However, such a compelling
need has never been demonstrated.

> Surely citizens have as
> much "right" to assume the title of Patrician as that
> of Paterfamilis without worrying about any ancient
> traditions that might stand between them and thier whim.

Citizens have the right to be out from under the thumb of a
so-called "pater" that they despise.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://cynico.net/~hucke/

A. Apollonius Cordus to Praetor, Senator & Consular
Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus and all citizens and
peregrines, greetings.

Sir, I want to assure you at the outset that I have
great respect for you, and take your words seriously.
I think understanding this will help you to understand
why I must respond to your message as I do.

I shall not engage you in conversation about the
Iulius Scaurus' outlined electoral system: I have
written at great length about it recently, and though
evidently you have not yet read my criticisms of it
(for if you had I would be at a loss to understand how
you can continue to assert its superiority), I trust
that should you ever wish to know what is wrong with
it, you will look up the message in the archives. It
is entitled 'On the Iulian system', or something
similar.

What I wish to respond to is the following:

> The so-called modernist faction has recently put
> forward a proposal designed to encourage
> block voting and allow the political dominance of
> their faction.

I am more profoundly insulted by this sentence than I
have ever been before in this Forum. It combines two
separate assertions which are both false and
defamatory.

First, you are asserting that the 'faction' that has
proposed the Fabian electoral system is the same group
as that which has been called the 'modernist faction'.
Now, we have had a discussion on this list about
whether it is legitimate to identify the Senior
Consul's staff as a faction, and I have accepted that
it is in its essentials a factually accurate, though
disparaging, description. This faction, if you wish to
call it that, is defined by a very clear criterion:
anyone employed by the Senior Consul as an assistant
or scribe is a member, anyone not so employed is not.

I have also in the last few days seen various messages
on this list discussing a 'modernist faction',
particularly in relation to last year's 'gens reform'
debate. I have not participated in this discussion,
since that particular issue arose before I became a
citizen and since I do not consider myself a member of
any faction or group which defines itself by a common
policy on the extent to which historical accuracy is
desirable in Nova Roma. I have never discussed such a
policy with any other citizen in any detail, nor have
I yet met a citizen whose ideas on that question
appear to be wholly in line with mine. My own ideas on
the question are not, indeed, precisely formulated. I
am not a member of a modernist or a traditionalist
faction.

The draft of the lex Fabia was prepared and published
by the Senior Consul with the help of his staff,
including myself. It was nothing to do with any
'modernist faction' as far as I know. Members of a
'modernist faction' may find it easier to support than
members of a 'traditionalist' faction would because it
sacrifices a certain amount of historical accuracy for
the benefit of fairness, accuracy and efficiency. That
it was drafted or proposed by any 'modernist faction'
is, however, utterly false.

Secondly and even more outrageously you assert that
the system was "designed to encourage block voting and
allow the political dominance of their faction."
Almost every word of this is unfounded and malicious.
The system was designed to put an end to the need for
run-off elections, to make the electoral system more
historical, and to make it produce a more accurate
reflection of the will of the electorate. Regardless
of whether you believe that it does these things,
these were the purposes for which it was designed, and
if you say otherwise then you are calling me a liar.

The system does not encourage block voting. In fact,
as Iulius Scaurus has pointed out on this very list,
it has if anything a tendency to encourage the
formation of smaller and smaller political groups and
alliances. It is designed specifically to free voters
from the fear that to vote for a candidate who is not
popular will be a waste of a vote: what it encourages
is that voters vote for the candidates they genuinely
support, whereas other electoral systems encourage
voters to vote for one or other of the two largest
parties or factions in their political system.

Similarly, the system does not make the dominance of
any particular faction or group more likely. It
produces a more accurate reflection of the will of the
electorate than does any other system which has been
used or suggested in Nova Roma to date, which means
that if the voters wish a given faction to dominate,
it will, and if they do not so wish, it will not.

That the Fabian system encourages block voting and
would lead to the dominance of a given faction is a
statement that has been made by various individuals on
this list recently. Never has a single piece of
evidence been produced to back it up. Never has a
single piece of evidence been produced to disprove
that, on the contrary, the system is fair and
even-handed.

But you may make as many false and unsubstantiated
statements about the Fabian system as you please
without causing me any offence. What offends me deeply
is that you assert that the Consul and his staff
designed the system with the specific intent to
suppress the will of the voters and to perpetuate
their hold on power. This is not just very serious
libel (no need to telephone your solicitor, Senator, I
am not going to sue you) but amounts to an accusation
of treason and tyranny. How you dare to utter it in
public I cannot conceive.

Out of respect for your integrity and for your
distinguished record, I cannot bring myself to believe
that you made this statement maliciously and without
believeing it, and nor can I believe that you truly
believe the Consul or his employees guilty of such a
despicable conspiracy as that of which you accuse us.
I must conclude that you have made a slip of the
fingers and that what you said is not what you meant.
I hope you will assure me that this is true and that I
need not lower my considerable estimation of you.

Cordus

=====
www.collapsibletheatre.co.uk

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@...>
wrote:

>
> Citizens have the right to be out from under the
> thumb of a
> so-called "pater" that they despise.
>

I Have made a sugestion that preserves the Honors of
the Paterfamilis without placing anyone under "his
thumb" That was quickly rejected, so don't bother
attempting to continue that line.

An Honorific Paterfamilis wouldn't be able to exercise
any controls over the lives of adults. They could
leave to be adopted into another family any time they
found one willing to accept them. The only thing they
couldn't do is assume the title and honor of a
Paterfamilis unless his paterfamilis was willing to
emancipate him, much like he couldn't assume the
honors and title of a Patrician unless a Patrician
Paterfamilis is willing to adopt him.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

> I Have made a sugestion that preserves the Honors of
> the Paterfamilis without placing anyone under "his
> thumb" That was quickly rejected, so don't bother
> attempting to continue that line.

It was I who first proposed this, and you were staunchly against it.

If the EDICTUM CENSORIBUS DE LIBERTATE GENTILIUM is proposed as a law
this year, will you support it? If not, why not?

To refresh your memory, the text can be found here:

http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/edicts/censor-2002-09-26.html

Note that this is *not* the later proposal of Cassius to create familiae
within gentes (which you seem to think will result in patresfamilias
less worthy than those who have the title now). That is a *different*
proposal; please do not confuse them.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://cynico.net/~hucke/