> > Yes a donation of $20 would help, just get 4 more
> > Romans to send in $20.00 and we will list all of
> > them.
>
> While I find this to be a bit discriminatory, I think
> your system should be specified publicly on the Main
> List, so that everybody is aware of it.
>
> BENE VALE
> M'Con.Serapio
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>> Imagine that you were the head of one of our current gentes :-).
> Sulla: I already am!

>> On D day, you will become the paterfamilias of one familia that
>> would have "Cornelius" as its nomen and no cognomen at all. So the
>> only naming requisite to belong to your familia would be to have
>> the nomen "Cornelius". All the members of the gens Cornelia who
>> decide to join your familia would not have to change their name at
>> all. They would just have to e-mail the censores stating: "I want
>> to be a member of the familia Cornelia". That would be it. And
>> your familia wouldn't have a cognomen unless the paterfamilias
>> (you) decided that it should. New familiae of the gens Cornelia
>> (should there be any) would be required to have a cognomen, though.
>
> Sulla: I see no reason to change the current structure to begin
> with because all of the members of the Gens Cornelia have already
> agreed to be accepted into the Gens in the first place, if they
> wanted to change they could do so quite easily by hopping into
> another gens or creating a new one. I see no reason to go through
> the process again.

>> Each gens should have one nomen, and each familia should have
>> either one nomen or one nomen and one cognomen.
>
> Sulla; I do not like coercive forced reform. I like keeping the
> Gens Cornelia exactly as it is. If you force me to change how I
> run the Gens Cornelia it is not reform it is a form of
> totalitarianism where the state uses its coercive power to deprive
> my and other Cornelians to conducting themselves as we desire to
> be. You know, Free Speech, Free association and all.

>> Where did I say that? If I did, I didn't mean *that*.
>> What I said was that each familia would be kept in the Ordo it
>> originally was ("originally" meaning right before D day, not many
>> years ago). No one would see his or her status changed to that
>> respect.
>
> Sulla: Thats not what you said, you said:
>
>> Exempli Gratia: the familia Aelia would be a patrician familia,
>> while the familia Aelia Baetica would be a plebeian familia.
>
>> III.- All the familiae with the same nomen would form a gens
>> called with that nomen.
>
>> Exempli Gratia: the familia Aelia and the familia Aelia Baetica
>> would both form the gens Aelia. There would initially be two
>> patresfamilias in the gens Aelia: the paterfamilias of the familia
>> Aelia and the paterfamilias of the familia Aelia Baetica.
>
> Sulla: This clearly points out your intent to go back into
> history and use that as your measuring stick....you also said you
> wanted a fully historical gens structure, as well. So, are you
> back peddling already or are you just picking and choosing as it
> suits your interests?

>>> does this mean that Audens Gens will be Plebian again?
>>
>> No.
>
> Sulla: That is not what you said above. I reposted your example
> above.

>>> And the Gens Cassia will be Plebian?
>>
>> No.
>
> Sulla: That is not what you said above. I reposted your example
> above.

>>> And what about the Gens Octavia?
>>
>> As patrician as any in Rome.
>
> Sulla: Really, Republican or Imperial? If its Republican, there
> were none....if you are talking Imperial, then Ok, so which is it?

> Sulla: I am using the example based on what you said. I am not
> making the mistake of Gentes of Familiae, we are not even on that
> road yet. I am aware that Gentes had both Plebs and Pats
> (Cornelians had them too) but I am talking about a gens that is
> KNOWN to be Plebian ie, Cassians and Munician. Given your example
> they will be Plebs unless, again if you are backpeddling from your
> earlier statements about wanting a fully historical structure.

> Sulla: Oh and you never answered my first post to you about
> materfamilia either....

> Right now in Massachussets one can't swing a dead cat without hitting
> a prophet of gloom and doom pronouncing the end of all civilization if
> Massachussets allows for same-sex marriage or a utopian visionary
> pronouncing that allowing for same-sex marriage will end all
> discrimination against all people for all time.

> If Massachussets doesn't start the Constitutional Amendment process then
> come the summer of 2004 same-sex marriage will be legally recognized
> as valid by the Commonwealth. If such a case were to arise where two
> Nova Romans of the same gender are legally married in Massachussets
> (or someother macro-national jurisdiction where same gender marriage
> is or becomes legally recognized) how should Nova Roma handle that
> vis-a-vis the gens/familial system?
>

> Same sex marriage is completely unhistorical in every aspect and
> could not be accomodated in an historical modeled gens system. Yet
> the Nova Roman Constitution does state that "Citizenship is open to
> anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation,
> or sexual orientation." - II.A.3 -- Constitution of Nova Roma.
>

> Personally I'm not opposed to same-gender marriage being recognized by
> civil authority, but completely opposed to forcing any religious
> institution to recognize a same-gender marriage as valid. As Nova
> Roma does have a state religion, I'm completely baffled as to how Nova
> Roma should handle such a situation.
>

>I.- On a given day, each one of the current gentes of Nova Roma would
>become a familia as well. The gens paterfamilias would become the
>paterfamilias of this new familia. This initial familia would have
>the same nomen the gens had, and either:
>
>(a) No cognomen at all if the ancient gens had one word as nomen.
>(b) The second part of the ancient gens nomen if it consisted in two
>words.
>

>II. Each familia would belong to the Ordo to which the ancient gens
>belonged. Ordo would then be linked to the familia, and not to the
>gens.
>

>III.- All the familiae with the same nomen would form a gens called
>with that nomen.
>

>IV.- For a given period of time (two months?), every citizen should
>be allowed to:
>
>(a) form his own familia within his current gens and be its
>paterfamilias (the familia being included in the paterfamilias'
>original ordo) or
>(b) join the familia of his choice (with the permission of the
>paterfamilias).
>

>To perform any of these two actions, a citizen would just need to e-
>mail the censores clearing stating what they want to do.
>

>In those cases in which a citizen wanted to form a new familia, a
>cognomen must be selected. The new paterfamilias would have to state
>that cognomen in their e-mail to the censores (it can be the same
>name they are currently using). In the case where two citizens wanted
>to found a new familia with the same nomen and cognomen, the censores
>would decide in favour of the oldest citizen. The other one would
>regrettably have to choose a different cognomen.

>In those cases where a citizen decides to join a familia under a
>different paterfamilias, his name will have to be changed according
>to the nomen and cognomen of his new familia (which will be selected
>by the paterfamilias). Additional agnomina may be chosen.
>

>V. After those two months, those citizens who had not made one of the
>choices above would be considered "Nemo" and be counted among the
>socii.
>

>VI. Once the transition period is over, new laws controlling the
>entry in a familia would take over. New citizens joining Nova Roma
>from then on would be given three different options:
>
>(a) Found a familia of their own within an existing gens. This would
>require the approval of one of the current patresfamilias of that
>gens.
>

>(b) Found a familia of their own within a new gens. This would
>require complying with any special provisions the law may set for
>founding a new gens.
>

>(c) Joining an existing familia. This would require the acceptance of
>the paterfamilias of that familia as well as complying with any
>provisions stated in the adoptio law. This would be the only way in
>which minors would be allowed to join Nova Roma (because a minor
>would not be allowed to be a paterfamilias).
>

>VII. From then on, familial relationships would be regulated by a
>series of laws dealing with:
>
>(a) marriage and divorce -- I think that Cordus explanation of Roman
>traditional practices has given a pretty good perspective of how we
>could actually do this;
>

>(b) patria potestas -- a law should define the rights and duties of
>the new patresfamilias, as well as the rights and duties of the
>members of their household;
>
>(c) manumissio -- although paterfamilial permission should be asked
>before a filius founded a new familia, ultimately the censores should
>have to grant the permission to a sui iuris citizen to form a new
>familia even against the wish of his current paterfamilias.
>

----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Salix Astur
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 4:28 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: [Contio] Gens Reform - General Planning


Salvete Quirites; et salve, senator Sulla.

>> Imagine that you were the head of one of our current gentes :-).
> Sulla: I already am!

I know, senator. It was supposed to be a joke :-).

Sulla: I figured as much.

>> On D day, you will become the paterfamilias of one familia that
>> would have "Cornelius" as its nomen and no cognomen at all. So the
>> only naming requisite to belong to your familia would be to have
>> the nomen "Cornelius". All the members of the gens Cornelia who
>> decide to join your familia would not have to change their name at
>> all. They would just have to e-mail the censores stating: "I want
>> to be a member of the familia Cornelia". That would be it. And
>> your familia wouldn't have a cognomen unless the paterfamilias
>> (you) decided that it should. New familiae of the gens Cornelia
>> (should there be any) would be required to have a cognomen, though.
>
> Sulla: I see no reason to change the current structure to begin
> with because all of the members of the Gens Cornelia have already
> agreed to be accepted into the Gens in the first place, if they
> wanted to change they could do so quite easily by hopping into
> another gens or creating a new one. I see no reason to go through
> the process again.

The reason is that the old system did not allow the creation of
traditional Roman families. With this, those who want to create a
true Roman familia would be allowed to do so.

Sulla: That is why we had the reform that was passed last year..which was nearly identicial to the one I presented when I was Consul. I see you are trying to create an infrastructure to have gentes breakdown into familias, but I think that if it is coercive in that all gentes become familias regardless of their wishes or desires then it is wrong.

>> Each gens should have one nomen, and each familia should have
>> either one nomen or one nomen and one cognomen.
>
> Sulla; I do not like coercive forced reform. I like keeping the
> Gens Cornelia exactly as it is. If you force me to change how I
> run the Gens Cornelia it is not reform it is a form of
> totalitarianism where the state uses its coercive power to deprive
> my and other Cornelians to conducting themselves as we desire to
> be. You know, Free Speech, Free association and all.

I would say that you would be allowed to operate in a manner very
similar to the way you have been doing it so far. And those who want
to create true Roman families also have rights, don't you think?

That is what you get when different people have rights that collide.
It's called "compromise".

Sulla: Compromise on rights? Did I hear you correctly? Look, the Gens Cornelia operates perfectly fine, and there is no reason that we should be forced to (at gunpoint probably) to change how we are. When a member of the Gens Cornelia asks me to form their own familia the person and I discuss it and work out a framework within the Gens becuase there are matters that concern US, not NR, not your gens, not the Gens Fabia. So we are developing our own framework where the dignitas of the Gens is upheld and we maintain our cohesiveness. I do not want the state to but its nose into my business, there is no reason to. If it happens that the state buts its nose into the business of my gens (and I say my because I am the Paterfamilias) then NR is nothing but a totalitarian sham. There is no issue about "compromising" one's rights, becuase you are flat out erroding them.

>> Where did I say that? If I did, I didn't mean *that*.
>> What I said was that each familia would be kept in the Ordo it
>> originally was ("originally" meaning right before D day, not many
>> years ago). No one would see his or her status changed to that
>> respect.
>
> Sulla: Thats not what you said, you said:
>
>> Exempli Gratia: the familia Aelia would be a patrician familia,
>> while the familia Aelia Baetica would be a plebeian familia.
>
>> III.- All the familiae with the same nomen would form a gens
>> called with that nomen.
>
>> Exempli Gratia: the familia Aelia and the familia Aelia Baetica
>> would both form the gens Aelia. There would initially be two
>> patresfamilias in the gens Aelia: the paterfamilias of the familia
>> Aelia and the paterfamilias of the familia Aelia Baetica.
>
> Sulla: This clearly points out your intent to go back into
> history and use that as your measuring stick....you also said you
> wanted a fully historical gens structure, as well. So, are you
> back peddling already or are you just picking and choosing as it
> suits your interests?

You will have to pardon me, senator, but I have not understood what
you are trying to say. The gens Aelia is a gens of Nova Roma, and,
according to the Album Gentium, it is a patrician gens:
http://www.novaroma.org/bin/view/gens?gensid=1

The gens Aelia Baetica is a plebeian gens of Nova Roma:
http://www.novaroma.org/bin/view/gens?gensid=2109

I just tried to explain how they would transform into two familiae
(one patrician and the other plebeian) and then be included into a
common gens. I chose this example because it was one of the most
complex ones. In my opinion, this would provide a fully historical
gens structure.

Where have I "gone back into history"?

Sulla: Well, Municia is a Plebian Gens or Familia, so does that mean that Audens's gens will now be Plebian, since in your first post you wanted complete historical accuracy? Same for Gens or Familia Octavia. See your assuming that each "gens" is going to break up into several familia. I do not see that happening. So then they should still remain a gens, if they do not start to break up into familia. Hence we will have "families" of members exceeding 20 members....I guess my question now is, is this a stunt to prevent recruitment into gentes becuase gentes allow for Nomen and Cognomen? Like Lucilla Cornelia Cinna is able to join my gens because she is a Cornelian...but now becuase of this "restructuring" she would not have the benefit of joining the Gens Cornelia because she choose the cognomen of Cinna and thus is forced to create her own familia regardless if it is her desire or not?

>>> does this mean that Audens Gens will be Plebian again?
>>
>> No.
>
> Sulla: That is not what you said above. I reposted your example
> above.

In the example above, I explained how an old *Novoroman* patrician
gens became a *Novoroman* patrician familia. That is what would
happen to the old *Novoroman* gentes you mention.

Sulla: If they do not break up, then they should remain Gentes. See, your altering the gens structure to just a familia, so, instead of having an accurate "familia" cornelia of say 4 members, we will now have a familia Cornelia of about 50 members, how accurate is that! I just think this is an attempt to curtail further recruitment.

>>> And the Gens Cassia will be Plebian?
>>
>> No.
>
> Sulla: That is not what you said above. I reposted your example
> above.

Read my reply above.

>>> And what about the Gens Octavia?
>>
>> As patrician as any in Rome.
>
> Sulla: Really, Republican or Imperial? If its Republican, there
> were none....if you are talking Imperial, then Ok, so which is it?

The Novoroman ones, perhaps? The current ones? The ones we have now?

> Sulla: I am using the example based on what you said. I am not
> making the mistake of Gentes of Familiae, we are not even on that
> road yet. I am aware that Gentes had both Plebs and Pats
> (Cornelians had them too) but I am talking about a gens that is
> KNOWN to be Plebian ie, Cassians and Munician. Given your example
> they will be Plebs unless, again if you are backpeddling from your
> earlier statements about wanting a fully historical structure.

When I speak about a fully historical gens structure, senator, I do
not speak about that. The gentes I speak about are the ones we have
in Nova Roma. I wouldn't ever have imagined that someone would
understand that. It is... surprising, to say the least.

Sulla: So you are not going for total historical accuracy then, your motivation is just to curtail the recruitment of new people into existing gentes. I see.

> Sulla: Oh and you never answered my first post to you about
> materfamilia either....

What are you talking about?

Sulla: Go back in the archieves and read my first response to you.

Vale,

Sulla

S.V.B.E.E.V.
CN.SALIX.T.F.A.NEP.OVF.ASTVR




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

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

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



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

----- Original Message -----
From: QFabiusMaxmi@...
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma][Contio] Gens Reform-- Same sex marriages


In a message dated 2/9/04 3:19:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
richmal@... writes:

> Right now in Massachussets one can't swing a dead cat without hitting
> a prophet of gloom and doom pronouncing the end of all civilization if
> Massachussets allows for same-sex marriage or a utopian visionary
> pronouncing that allowing for same-sex marriage will end all
> discrimination against all people for all time.

Salvete.

Oh boy, I was hoping that nobody would mention this. I have been privately
puzzling over this for the last three days and its implications for Nova Roma.


> If Massachussets doesn't start the Constitutional Amendment process then
> come the summer of 2004 same-sex marriage will be legally recognized
> as valid by the Commonwealth. If such a case were to arise where two
> Nova Romans of the same gender are legally married in Massachussets
> (or someother macro-national jurisdiction where same gender marriage
> is or becomes legally recognized) how should Nova Roma handle that
> vis-a-vis the gens/familial system?
>
The Constitution makes that very clear. We follow Macronational precedent.


> Same sex marriage is completely unhistorical in every aspect and
> could not be accomodated in an historical modeled gens system. Yet
> the Nova Roman Constitution does state that "Citizenship is open to
> anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation,
> or sexual orientation." - II.A.3 -- Constitution of Nova Roma.
>

Exactly.

> Personally I'm not opposed to same-gender marriage being recognized by
> civil authority, but completely opposed to forcing any religious
> institution to recognize a same-gender marriage as valid. As Nova
> Roma does have a state religion, I'm completely baffled as to how Nova
> Roma should handle such a situation.
>

I imagine the same way the Catholic Church will, frown disapprovingly, and do
nothing else. The Constitution says nothing about none traditional marriage
being illegal in NR. If one interprets the Constitution in fact, a none
traditional union is allowed, based on the clause "Citizenship is open to anyone
regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual
orientation." - II.A.3

It would be left up to the Censors, and then that makes them moral cops
again, which caused a major rift in NR the first time such a thing happened.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus


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




Yahoo! Groups Links







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

> Same sex marriage is completely unhistorical in every aspect and
> could not be accomodated in an historical modeled gens system. Yet
> the Nova Roman Constitution does state that "Citizenship is open to
> anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation,
> or sexual orientation." - II.A.3 -- Constitution of Nova Roma.

> In a message dated 2/9/04 3:19:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> richmal@c... writes:
>
> > Right now in Massachussets one can't swing a dead cat without

> > a prophet of gloom and doom pronouncing the end of all

> > Massachussets allows for same-sex marriage or a utopian visionary
> > pronouncing that allowing for same-sex marriage will end all
> > discrimination against all people for all time.
>
> Salvete.
>
> Oh boy, I was hoping that nobody would mention this. I have been

> puzzling over this for the last three days and its implications for

>
>
> > If Massachussets doesn't start the Constitutional Amendment

> > come the summer of 2004 same-sex marriage will be legally

> > as valid by the Commonwealth. If such a case were to arise where

> > Nova Romans of the same gender are legally married in

> > (or someother macro-national jurisdiction where same gender

> > is or becomes legally recognized) how should Nova Roma handle that
> > vis-a-vis the gens/familial system?
> >
> The Constitution makes that very clear. We follow Macronational

>
>
> > Same sex marriage is completely unhistorical in every aspect and
> > could not be accomodated in an historical modeled gens system.

> > the Nova Roman Constitution does state that "Citizenship is open

> > anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious

> > or sexual orientation." - II.A.3 -- Constitution of Nova Roma.
> >
>
> Exactly.
>
> > Personally I'm not opposed to same-gender marriage being

> > civil authority, but completely opposed to forcing any religious
> > institution to recognize a same-gender marriage as valid. As Nova
> > Roma does have a state religion, I'm completely baffled as to how

> > Roma should handle such a situation.
> >
>
> I imagine the same way the Catholic Church will, frown

> nothing else. The Constitution says nothing about none traditional

> being illegal in NR. If one interprets the Constitution in fact, a

> traditional union is allowed, based on the clause "Citizenship is

> regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or

> orientation." - II.A.3
>
> It would be left up to the Censors, and then that makes them moral

> again, which caused a major rift in NR the first time such a thing

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

> Salve Q. Fabius Maximus said in part
>
> "If one interprets the Constitution in fact, a non traditional union
> is allowed, based on the clause "Citizenship is open to anyone
> regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or
> sexual orientation." - II. A.3
>
> How in the heck do you get "Gay" marriage is ok in NR from the fact
> the constitution allows people in ...regardless sexual orientation."
> - II.A.3 ?
>
> One has nothing to do with the other . Let's try a little "strict
> Construction" of the constitution and not read things into it that are
> not there.
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

> Salvete Quirites; et salve, Q. Cassi Calve.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "quintuscassiuscalvus"
> <richmal@c...> wrote:
>
> > If such a case were to arise where two Nova Romans of the same
> > gender are legally married in Massachussets (or someother macro-
> > national jurisdiction where same gender marriage is or becomes
> > legally recognized) how should Nova Roma handle that vis-a-vis the
> > gens/familial system?
>
> A very good question, Q. Cassi.
>
> > Same sex marriage is completely unhistorical in every aspect and
> > could not be accomodated in an historical modeled gens system. Yet
> > the Nova Roman Constitution does state that "Citizenship is open to
> > anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation,
> > or sexual orientation." - II.A.3 -- Constitution of Nova Roma.
>
> But homosexual relationships were neither forbidden nor socially
> despised in the Classical World. Or at least so I have read. Would
> you please delve a little more into this subject, Q. Cassi? I think
> that we need to know how the Romans treated this situation in order
> to make an informed decision.

> Salvete.
>
> Oh boy, I was hoping that nobody would mention this. I have been

> puzzling over this for the last three days and its implications for

> Taking into consideration the two aforementioned clauses of the Nova
> Roma Constitution, together with the fact that there are currently no
> leges, edicta or decreta concerning the right and institution of
> marriage in Nova Roma, it is clear to me that if a citizen's macro
> nation allows gay marriage (or civil unions) then Nova Roma must

> that right. Given the controversial and potentially divisive nature of
> this issue, I think that it is best left to macro national law, at

> until such time that Nova Roma possesses sovereign territory.
>
> Valete,
>
> C. Minucius Hadrianus

> By equaling anything other than a union of one man and one woman as a
> marriage we effectually destroy any objective standards in our world.

> Will society and NR allow a person to "marry" their _____________(

>
> No human society in history has ever viewed marriage as anything

>
> By equaling anything other than a union of one man and one woman as

> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

> Hi Folks,
>
> This is copied and pasted from another mailing list, as I thought
> it important
> information, and I felt that I should pass it around to fellow
> Yahoo users.
>
>
> ADMIN: Yahoo Opt Out - do this for your privacy
>
> Sorry if this has been posted before (forwarded
> from a friend on another yahoo list). . .
>
> Yahoo is now using something called
> "Web Beacons" to track Yahoo Group
> users around the net and see what you're
> doing and where you are going - similar
> to cookies. Take a look at their updated
> privacy statement:
>
> http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/pixels/details.html
>
> About half-way down the page, in the section
> "Outside the Yahoo! Network", you'll see a
> little "click here" link that will let you
> "opt-out" of their new method of snooping.
> I strongly recommend that you do this.
> Once you have clicked that link, you are opted
> out. Notice the "Success" message the top the
> next page.
>
> Be careful because on that page there is a
> "Cancel Opt-out" button that, if clicked,
> will *undo* the opt-out. Feel free to
> forward this to other groups.

> "8. Nova Roma Endowment. We've recently seen efforts by several
> generous citizens who want to donate significant amounts of money to
> Nova Roma for long term investment....."

> Yes we need a investment fund so that any money citizens want to invest
> in our future but we also need safeguards to protect the funds. How would
> you propose we do that?

> How in the heck do you get "Gay" marriage is ok in NR from the fact the
> constitution allows people in ...regardless sexual orientation." - II.A.3 ?
>
> One has nothing to do with the other . Let's try a little "strict
> Construction" of the constitution and not read things into it that are not there.
>

> As to marriage between two people of the same gender at any time in
> Roman history? I can say with 100% certainty that same-gender
> marriage was not recognized as a marriage in either civil terms or
> religious terms by either Roman society or the compartively more
> liberal Hellenic society. But we don't live in 200 BCE, we live in
> 2003 CE and society has evolved considerably since then.

> how much time has passed for society to evolve to the point where
> same-gender marriage is even seriously considered a possibility says
> we can't really look to history on this one since it is a very

> societal development.

>
> [...snipped...]
>... In future though, when
> our priests have licences from the maronational states to marry,
> will they be willing to marry same sex couples in Nova Roma?

>I have no idea on how the Religio throughout the ages viewed
>this situation of same sex marriage [...snipped...]

> P. Galerius Cicero S.P.D.
>
> Salve citizens,
>
> Hope that all are well. As I scanned over the main list posts
> tongiht this interesting subject caught my eye and quite frankly I
> am taken back by it. It seems to me, though I am no great

> scholar, but from what I have read in classical literature that

> practice was looked upon with shame. For my reference I cite
> Suetonius where I. Caesar was accused of having homosexual

> with a king whom I cannot palce his name and went so far as to say
> that Caesar had played his queen. Cicero himself was accused of
> such by Sallust in his Invictive Against Cicero, Cicero accused
> Verres' son of such in In Verresand etc. Even from these three
> sitations one should find enough proof that in classical Rome such
> was not an acceptable practice so therefore how can it be
> acknowledged in NR? This is just from my classical point of view
> not to mention from my religious point of view which I will not
> bring into my arguement due to the fact that others here are of the
> religio roma persuasion. I can assure you of this I for one cannot
> and will not support it nor will I continue my citizenship here if
> it is to be acknowledged. Pax vobiscum.
>
> Valete,
> P. Galerius Cicero

> Salvete Quirites; et salve, senator Sulla.

> No. Let me please explain it with an example.
>
> Imagine that you were the head of one of our current gentes :-).
> On D day, you will become the paterfamilias of one familia that
>would have "Cornelius" as its nomen and no cognomen at all. So the
>only
> naming requisite to belong to your familia would be to have the
> nomen "Cornelius". All the members of the gens Cornelia who decide
>to join your familia would not have to change their name at all.
>They
> would just have to e-mail the censores stating: "I want to be a
> member of the familia Cornelia". That would be it.

> I thought that you didn't like the reform :-).
> Each gens should have one nomen, and each familia should have

> one nomen or one nomen and one cognomen.
>
> > As for another part of this, you state that familias will be

> > up into patrician and Plebian families as accurately as
> > possible...
>
> Where did I say that? If I did, I didn't mean *that*.
> What I said was that each familia would be kept in the Ordo it
> originally was ("originally" meaning right before D day, not many
> years ago). No one would see his or her status changed to that
> respect.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@t...> wrote:
>
>
> I don't think any propraetor has hundreds of *citizens,* though
>there may be a few that come close to 75 or 100. Some propraetors
>have fewer than ten citizens.

A slight correction to my email of last night. One province,
Mediaatlantica, does have over 100 citizens. 147 to be exact, not
including socii of course. I did not mean to slight that province, my
apologies.

Valete,

Palladius

>---
>>
>> Oh, we already have plenty of those. Never fear. What we're
>trying to
>> do though is to make it easier for those familia that want to be
>> somewhat more historically accurate to be such.
>>
> Salvete Marinus Quiritesque;
> thanks for the directions;) So here I am in the Contio.
>
> I don't know enough Roman law and history yet to contribute
>profitably, but just thinking of families and gens & brainstorming....
>
>1. will families belong to one gens: will it be the female's or
>male's once the couple say are married. What gens will children
>belong to?
> 2. with unmarried families; will they be treated as 1.?
> 3. Once in a gens are you there forever? Is the alternative
>adoption? What if one spouse gets adopted but the other loves their
>original gens, what happens to the children's gens membership? who
>does it travel with.
> 4. This to me is an interesting issue; when a new person joins NR,
>whoosh you choose a gens, really knowing nothing about the
>pater/materfamilias from Adam, or the reasons to choose being a pleb
>over a patrician. Would it be better to give new cives the gens Nemo
>for 1 year so they can learn and then make an informed choice?
>
> valete Fabia Vera
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

>On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 10:36:14AM -0500, Servius Equitius Mercurius
>Troianus wrote:
>> Salvete omnes ~
>>
>> While I can certainly appreciate the frustration of "official"
>> merchandise being unavailable, likewise the proprietory rights of
>> the person who came up with the idea, designed it, and found a
>> manufacturer must be taken into consideration.
>
>Well, Gaius Popillius Laenas' answer has presumably resolved the issue
>of ownership for these coins, but in general, the concept of ownership
>is not just something that "must be taken into consideration" but that
>overrides nearly all other considerations. If someone owns the design,
>it is theirs to do with as they will. NR's official recognition grants
>NR no part of that ownership, although it can be withdrawn if
>conditions
>become unsuitable, etc. People are always welcome not to buy a
>specific
>product if they're not satisfied with it - and note that by "product"
>I
>do not mean simply the item but their entire experience with the
>vendor.
>
>> Perhaps a fair compromise would be to pass an "official
>merchandise"
>> lex: If an item has been unavailable for a set time - let's say
>six
>> months - then the idea becomes "open" for any to use and create
>> merchandise for sale.
>
>So... you're saying that the ownership of that idea should be taken
>from
>its owner based on some arbitrary time scale? I urge you to reconsider
>what you're saying.
>
>> This would give plenty of time for a vendor
>> who has been "backordered" by a manufacturer to find another
>> manufacturer and thereby maintain the proprietory rights to their
>> idea, while simultaneously assuring that "Official NR" merchandise
>> (whether flags, coins, etc.) are not unavailable for too long - if
>> not the original designer then some other vendor can have the item
>> available within the year.
>
>NR is always welcome to withdraw its recognition and find another
>vendor. I hesitate to use a word like "theft", but that's how the
>taking of property - which includes ideas - without the owner's
>consent
>is defined.
>
>
>Vale,
>Caius Minucius Scaevola
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Faber est suae quisque fortunae.
>Every man is the artisan of his own fortune.
> -- Appius Claudius Caecus
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Bill Gawne <gawne@c...> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites, et salve Tiberi Galeri,
>
> I had mentioned:
> > "8. Nova Roma Endowment. We've recently seen efforts by several
> > generous citizens who want to donate significant amounts of money
to
> > Nova Roma for long term investment....."
>
> And you replied:
> > Yes we need a investment fund so that any money citizens want to
invest
> > in our future but we also need safeguards to protect the funds.
How would
> > you propose we do that?
>
> By choosing a good financial manager to manage our Endowment fund.
>
> Up until the point where funds are transfered from Nova Roma to this
> financial manager, they will be under the scrutiny of our Quaestors,
> who are sworn to act in our fiduciary interest. The Endowment fund
will
> have to be created by a vote of the Senate, with appropriate
separation
> from the general funds of the treasury. Once it exists, the
Quaestors
> will transfer funds from it to the fund manager on a schedule to be
> defined by the Senate. We shall have to enter into a contract with
> a fund manager to do this. These contracts are fairly standard, and
> many independent churches, just to give one example, have them.
>
> --
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

> I believe that this would cause a great deal of confusion. Take for
> example Gens Cornelia. As currently constituted, we have, for
> example, two citizens Livia and five named Lucius. Each have their
> own chosen cognomens. On this "given day" we will have two named
> Livia Cornelia and five Lucius Cornelius with no distinguishing
> cognomen.

> [...snipped...]
>> II. Each familia would belong to the Ordo to which the ancient gens
>> belonged. Ordo would then be linked to the familia, and not to the
>> gens.
>>
>
> How are we defining "ancient"? Most history books regard anything
> from the dawn of writing to the fall of Rome to be "ancient". That
> is about 4500 to 5000 years. So does this mean anything from the
> traditional founding of the City in 753 BCE to the removal of the
> altar of Victory in 394 CE? Even in the Republic some familia were
> elevated to from the Plebeian to the Patrician Order. What is the
> cut-off?

> [...snipped...]
>> III.- All the familiae with the same nomen would form a gens called
>> with that nomen.
>>
>
> Ok. That seems to make sense. So all of the Cornelius Scipio family
> and all of the Cornelius Tacitus family would all be of gens
> Cornelia. Right?

> [...snipped...]
>> IV.- For a given period of time (two months?), every citizen should
>> be allowed to:
>>
>> (a) form his own familia within his current gens and be its
>> paterfamilias (the familia being included in the paterfamilias'
>> original ordo) or
>> (b) join the familia of his choice (with the permission of the
>> paterfamilias).
>>
>
> It may be implied here, but its not clear to me. If the Citizen
> so wishes, can she change to another gens as well as familia at
> this time? If she changes gens, can she form her own familia
> within that gens and be its materfamilias?

>> To perform any of these two actions, a citizen would just need to
>> e-mail the censores clearing stating what they want to do.
>>
>
> This will, of course, be an administrative nightmare for the
> Censors and their staffs. If and when this happens, I do hope that
> people will be patient and understanding.

>> In those cases in which a citizen wanted to form a new familia, a
>> cognomen must be selected. The new paterfamilias would have to
>> state that cognomen in their e-mail to the censores (it can be the
>> same name they are currently using). In the case where two
>> citizens wanted to found a new familia with the same nomen and
>> cognomen, the censores would decide in favour of the oldest
>> citizen. The other one would regrettably have to choose a
>> different cognomen.
>
> These cognomens, will also, I hope, be either historical or at
> least not do violence to history.

> I see that we have some Citizens with the cognomen "Cicero" who are
> not in gens Tullia. Please correct me if I am wrong, but in all my
> reading and study I have never seen that particular and rather
> unusual cognomen outside of the gens Tullia. The cognomen "Scipio"
> was also, as I can tell, not seen outside of gens Cornelia.

> By "not doing violence to history", I would see a cognomen of
> "Americanus" as acceptable, even though no ancient Roman would
> have ever had it. "Smithicus" as a cognomen of even agnomen should
> NOT be acceptable even if the Citizen's macronational name WERE
> "Smith"!

>> In those cases where a citizen decides to join a familia under a
>> different paterfamilias, his name will have to be changed
>> according to the nomen and cognomen of his new familia (which will
>> be selected by the paterfamilias). Additional agnomina may be
>> chosen.
>>
>
> This makes sense.

>> V. After those two months, those citizens who had not made one of
>> the choices above would be considered "Nemo" and be counted among
>> the socii.
>
>
> Two months is really not all that long these days. Especially for
> Citizens in the military of their macronations, who are frequently
> away for six months to a year without the benefit of regular web
> or email access. Whether we like or dislike the reasons why these
> macronations are sending their troops overseas, we need to honor
> those Citizens who are serving in the best traditions Rome.

>> VI. Once the transition period is over, new laws controlling the
>> entry in a familia would take over. New citizens joining Nova Roma
>> from then on would be given three different options:
>>
>> (a) Found a familia of their own within an existing gens. This
>> would require the approval of one of the current patresfamilias of
>> that gens.
>>
>
> Only one? What if a large gens such as Cornelia ends up with
> ten familia? Then only one in ten of the pater/materfamilias
> would be needed to OK the new familia?

> Would the Censors have any review of the cognomen to ensure that it
> was not unhistorical?

>> (b) Found a familia of their own within a new gens. This would
>> require complying with any special provisions the law may set for
>> founding a new gens.
>>
>
> Again, would the Censors have "censorship" over the names chosen?

> If not, we would just end up with more unhistorical names.

>> (c) Joining an existing familia. This would require the acceptance
>> of the paterfamilias of that familia as well as complying with any
>> provisions stated in the adoptio law. This would be the only way
>> in which minors would be allowed to join Nova Roma (because a minor
>> would not be allowed to be a paterfamilias).
>>
>
>> VII. From then on, familial relationships would be regulated by a
>> series of laws dealing with:
>>
>> (a) marriage and divorce -- I think that Cordus explanation of
>> Roman traditional practices has given a pretty good perspective of
>> how we could actually do this;
>>
>
> I think that marriage/divorce has little effect on gens reform.
> Traditionally Roman women did not change their family name, in fact
> they only had one name anyway! They just had the feminine version
> of their gens name. We have moved beyond that. Nova Roman women
> have three names AND full social and political rights. There is no
> worry about which male's authority they are under.
>
> I think that we might want to carry on the tradition of not
> changing family names upon marriage as a matter of course as we
> do in most macronational cultures in the West today.

>> (b) patria potestas -- a law should define the rights and duties of
>> the new patresfamilias, as well as the rights and duties of the
>> members of their household;
>>
>> (c) manumissio -- although paterfamilial permission should be asked
>> before a filius founded a new familia, ultimately the censores
>> should have to grant the permission to a sui iuris citizen to form
>> a new familia even against the wish of his current paterfamilias.
>>
>
> Items b) and c) sound reasonable. The result will depend upon what
> the final leges look like.

> Sulla: That is why we had the reform that was passed last
> year..which was nearly identicial to the one I presented when I was
> Consul.

> I see you are trying to create an infrastructure to have
> gentes breakdown into familias, but I think that if it is coercive
> in that all gentes become familias regardless of their wishes or
> desires then it is wrong.

> Sulla: Compromise on rights? Did I hear you correctly? Look, the
> Gens Cornelia operates perfectly fine, and there is no reason that
> we should be forced to (at gunpoint probably) to change how we
> are.

> When a member of the Gens Cornelia asks me to form their own
> familia the person and I discuss it and work out a framework within
> the Gens becuase there are matters that concern US, not NR, not
> your gens, not the Gens Fabia. So we are developing our own
> framework where the dignitas of the Gens is upheld and we maintain
> our cohesiveness. I do not want the state to but its nose into my
> business, there is no reason to. If it happens that the state buts
> its nose into the business of my gens (and I say my because I am
> the Paterfamilias) then NR is nothing but a totalitarian sham.
> There is no issue about "compromising" one's rights, becuase you
> are flat out erroding them.

> Sulla: Well, Municia is a Plebian Gens or Familia, so does that
> mean that Audens's gens will now be Plebian, since in your first
> post you wanted complete historical accuracy? Same for Gens or
> Familia Octavia.

> See your assuming that each "gens" is going to break up into
> several familia. I do not see that happening. So then they should
> still remain a gens, if they do not start to break up into
> familia. Hence we will have "families" of members exceeding 20
> members....I guess my question now is, is this a stunt to prevent
> recruitment into gentes becuase gentes allow for Nomen and
> Cognomen? Like Lucilla Cornelia Cinna is able to join my gens
> because she is a Cornelian...but now becuase of
> this "restructuring" she would not have the benefit of joining the
> Gens Cornelia because she choose the cognomen of Cinna and thus is
> forced to create her own familia regardless if it is her desire or
> not?

> Sulla: If they do not break up, then they should remain Gentes.
> See, your altering the gens structure to just a familia, so,
> instead of having an accurate "familia" cornelia of say 4 members,
> we will now have a familia Cornelia of about 50 members, how
> accurate is that!

> I just think this is an attempt to curtail further recruitment.

>> When I speak about a fully historical gens structure, senator, I
>> do not speak about that. The gentes I speak about are the ones we
>> have in Nova Roma. I wouldn't ever have imagined that someone
>> would understand that. It is... surprising, to say the least.
>
> Sulla: So you are not going for total historical accuracy then,
> your motivation is just to curtail the recruitment of new people
> into existing gentes. I see.

> It is Athanasios' idea of rushing to appoint "NOW" without consulting the people most effected that I feel is lacking in merit. Ask the Citizens of Gallia before rushing to
> appoint - Prudence is the best course.

> What I have been trying to explain is that the changes would be
> *minimal*. A partial change of denomination, perhaps. But since you
> have already been using "gens" and "family" as synonimous, I fail to
> see where the problem is.
>
>

> Salve Q. Fabius Maximus said in part
>
> "If one interprets the Constitution in fact, a non traditional union is allowed, based on the clause "Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation." - II. A.3
>
> How in the heck do you get "Gay" marriage is ok in NR from the fact the constitution allows people in ...regardless sexual orientation." - II.A.3 ?
>
> One has nothing to do with the other . Let's try a little "strict Construction" of the constitution and not read things
> into it that are not there.
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

> How large is the city of Rome? How many acres does the city cover?

> Salve Romans
>
> "Neque enim est ulla res,
> in qua propius ad deorum numen
> virtus accedat humana,
> quam civitates aut condere novas
> aut conservare iam conditas."
>
>
>
> ("For there is really no other occupation
> in which human virtue approaches
> more closely the august function of the gods than that of founding

> or preserving those already in existence.")
>
>
>
> Cicero, De Re Publica, Book I, VII, paragraph. 12.
>
>
>
>
>
> The Society of St Johns is building a Catholic city in PA. This

>
> http://www.ssjohn.com/library/city.html#_Toc458167710
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Salvete Quirites, et salve Tiberi Galeri,
>
> > How large is the city of Rome? How many acres does the city

>
> The present day city fits roughly into a rectangle 4.5 miles wide
> and 5.6 miles high (with 'height' being North-South). The original

> Quadrata was much smaller, being essentially the Palatine hill. See
>
> http://garyb.0catch.com/rome-map/walls-and-hills.html
>
> The Severan walls define the City as it was in ~700 auc, the period

> often discuss here.
>
> The modern city of Rome contains just a bit over 25 square miles of
> territory. At 640 acres per square mile, 25 square miles is 16,000
> acres. Perhaps one of our citizens who is fortunate enough to live

> the Imperial City can give us the exact numbers.
>
> Valete,
>
> -- Marinus

> Square miles? And on Square Kilometers (km2)?

> Much of us knows only the International System.

> PS 2. On NR declaration, we desire 180 acres of land

> (inevitable question). How large is this acre, on km2?

----- Original Message -----
From: AthanasiosofSpfd@...
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 5:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma][Contio] Gens Reform-- Same sex marriages


Gaius Modius Athanasius Tiberio Galerio Paulino SPD

If Nova Roma can allow Christian magistrates within our Republic, that was created to rebuild the Religio, then why not allow homosexual unions? It has become clear that those Christian magistrates have NOT attemped to turn Nova Roma into Nova Byzantium, then why do you think that legalized homosexual unions would harm Nova Roma.

If we protect the Constitution then we MUST protect the right of same sex marriages, just as much as we protect Christians becoming magistrates. Both are constitutionally mandated - in my opinion. As Tribune I will support both.

I think the Gens system should be left alone. This "familia" idea opens up a complexity that I don't think Nova Roma is ready for. Gens should be allowed to organize themselves as they see fit. Its ironic that during all of this the Pater Familia were never truly consulted.

Gaius Modius Athanasius
Tribunus Plebis & Pater Familias - Gens Modia



In a message dated 2/9/2004 8:53:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, spqr753@... writes:

> Salve Q. Fabius Maximus said in part
>
> "If one interprets the Constitution in fact, a non traditional union is allowed, based on the clause "Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation." - II. A.3
>
> How in the heck do you get "Gay" marriage is ok in NR from the fact the constitution allows people in ...regardless sexual orientation." - II.A.3 ?
>
> One has nothing to do with the other . Let's try a little "strict Construction" of the constitution and not read things
> into it that are not there.
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

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

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



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

> Its not ironic that the pater familia were never consulted, it was

>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: AthanasiosofSpfd@a...
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 5:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma][Contio] Gens Reform-- Same sex marriages
>
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius Tiberio Galerio Paulino SPD
>
> If Nova Roma can allow Christian magistrates within our

>
> If we protect the Constitution then we MUST protect the right of

>
> I think the Gens system should be left alone. This "familia"

>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
> Tribunus Plebis & Pater Familias - Gens Modia
>
>
>
> In a message dated 2/9/2004 8:53:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,

>
> > Salve Q. Fabius Maximus said in part
> >
> > "If one interprets the Constitution in fact, a non traditional

> >
> > How in the heck do you get "Gay" marriage is ok in NR from

> >
> > One has nothing to do with the other . Let's try a

> > into it that are not there.
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Salix Astur
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 3:08 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: [Contio] Gens Reform - General Planning


Salvete Quirites; et salve, senator Sulla.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
<alexious@e...> wrote:

> Sulla: That is why we had the reform that was passed last
> year..which was nearly identicial to the one I presented when I was
> Consul.

Then why should you oppose it?
Sulla: Consul, I voted for that law, it was practically identical to the one authored by Senator Lucius Sicinus, which I presented to the Senate when I was Consul. I was not able to vote for it in the Senate because my PC died, so please do not make assumptions, it only lowers your dignitas. I oppose this because it is totalitiarian in nature you are involving the state in matters that the state NEVER got involved with in ancient Rome. You are trying to errode our rights in the Gens Cornelia and any other gens by making the state determine how we will be recognized. You are taking our rights away and replacing it with a statist structure that is not only ahistorical but something that the ancients would have cringed at, yet you pass it off as getting closer to tradition. Ok, what about materfamilia? Are you going to get rid of that aberration and bring us closer to tradition? What about pater protesta, are you going to restore at least portions of that fundamental Roman concept? Or is your statement in message 20501 a lie when you said you want us to move into a more fully historical structure? Because it sure looks like your picking and choosing at your whim without regard to its affect on people. I never thought we would have a more devisve subject than the gender wars, but it looks like we are surpassing it now.


> I see you are trying to create an infrastructure to have
> gentes breakdown into familias, but I think that if it is coercive
> in that all gentes become familias regardless of their wishes or
> desires then it is wrong.

If *one* gens becomes *one* familia, in how many familiae has that
gens been broken down? *One*, perhaps?

Nobody is going to be forced to do anything. If none of the members
of the gens Cornelia want to found a new familia, there would just be
one familia within the gens Cornelia.

Sulla: There is no reason gentes should be compelled to become families, to force such a change is no better than being a petty thug. As I have said before, the Gens Cornelia is happy the way it is, we should not be compelled, forced or coercied to change. When members want to branch off and create their own familia then that is worked out amongst ourselves but to force gentes to become families is coercive and I believe it is wrong. It smakes of a totalitarian dictator trying to impose his will at his whim. Are you going to force me to become a Family when we are perfectly happy in being a gens (and yes I know the difference)?

> Sulla: Compromise on rights? Did I hear you correctly? Look, the
> Gens Cornelia operates perfectly fine, and there is no reason that
> we should be forced to (at gunpoint probably) to change how we
> are.

Don't worry, senator; I do not own a gun :-).
What I have been trying to explain is that the changes would be
*minimal*. A partial change of denomination, perhaps. But since you
have already been using "gens" and "family" as synonimous, I fail to
see where the problem is.

Sulla: But the change is what I object to in the first place. You can create a law saying this is how a familiy is created WITHOUT FORCING all gentes to become a family. When you force such a change you are no better than a dictator. A Gens is a clan and that is a proper explanation of the Gens Cornelia, when individiual members of the Gens Cornelia want to start branching off, then they become families. In other words - 1 Familia should equal 1 Gens as the default. Then when branches are created THOSE will be families, but the core stays as a gens til that happens.

> When a member of the Gens Cornelia asks me to form their own
> familia the person and I discuss it and work out a framework within
> the Gens becuase there are matters that concern US, not NR, not
> your gens, not the Gens Fabia. So we are developing our own
> framework where the dignitas of the Gens is upheld and we maintain
> our cohesiveness. I do not want the state to but its nose into my
> business, there is no reason to. If it happens that the state buts
> its nose into the business of my gens (and I say my because I am
> the Paterfamilias) then NR is nothing but a totalitarian sham.
> There is no issue about "compromising" one's rights, becuase you
> are flat out erroding them.

I see. So you simply want to have the last word on whether a member
of your familia can found a new familia of their own. It's all
reduced to your personal power, then.

Sulla: LOL, like I would fall for that petty accusation, especally when you are trying to be a dictatorial thug in trying to take away any of the independence that the gentes system has. You know in ancient Rome the family (extended family) was considered a state within a state, yet in your totalitarian point of view that is something that needs to be erroded as far as possible. I disagree strenously and will never support this attempt to make Nova Roma into a Totalitarian society where the state governs every action that we the People should be deciding for ourselves. What rights will you remove next Consul?

I am afraid that we will not reach an agreement, then. I do *not*
consider that it is your inalienable right to force an adult citizen
to stay in your familia against his or her will.

Sulla: So, you want a fully historical structure as long as it leaves out several fundamental Roman concepts, I see. Your attempted reform is just a sham. Thank you for clearing that up.

> Sulla: Well, Municia is a Plebian Gens or Familia, so does that
> mean that Audens's gens will now be Plebian, since in your first
> post you wanted complete historical accuracy? Same for Gens or
> Familia Octavia.

False. They are both patrician gentes:
http://www.novaroma.org/bin/view/gens?gensid=20
http://www.novaroma.org/bin/view/gens?gensid=22

They have the word "Patrician" written on the upper right corner, you
see.

Sulla: ANCIENT ROME, Consul. Remember, you are the one who said you wanted a fully historical structure, I guess that means only as long as it fits your narrow view. So, materfamilias will be allowed as well? LOL

> See your assuming that each "gens" is going to break up into
> several familia. I do not see that happening. So then they should
> still remain a gens, if they do not start to break up into
> familia. Hence we will have "families" of members exceeding 20
> members....I guess my question now is, is this a stunt to prevent
> recruitment into gentes becuase gentes allow for Nomen and
> Cognomen? Like Lucilla Cornelia Cinna is able to join my gens
> because she is a Cornelian...but now becuase of
> this "restructuring" she would not have the benefit of joining the
> Gens Cornelia because she choose the cognomen of Cinna and thus is
> forced to create her own familia regardless if it is her desire or
> not?

No one would *ever* be forced to form a new familia if they don't
want to. *Ever*. Lucilla Cornelia Cinna could be adopted into your
personal familia under the praenomen Lucilla, the nomen Cornelia and
the *agnomen* Cinna, if that is what she wants.

Sulla: Ok

Sulla: No, I take this very seriously, and I still see you have not responded to my first post about this, when you opened your Contio.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

S.V.B.E.E.V.
CN.SALIX.T.F.A.NEP.OVF.ASTVR




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

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

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



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

> Salve Luci Armini,
>
> You asked, in reply to my earlier post:
> > Square miles? And on Square Kilometers (km2)?
>
> Roma moderna? 7.25 km by 9 km. 65.25 square kilometers.

>
> > Much of us knows only the International System.
>
> Whereas American scientists like myself have to know both, and do
> conversions between SI and English (not that the English use it

> all the time.

>
> > PS 2. On NR declaration, we desire 180 acres of land
>
> Not 180. 108 acres. That is the size of Vatican City.

>
> > (inevitable question). How large is this acre, on km2?
>
> From http://www.wordreference.com/english/definition.asp?en=acre
>
> A unit of area used in certain English-speaking countries, equal to

> square yards or 4046.86 square metres. (An acre is also 1/640 part

> square English mile.) So in km2 that'd be, what, 0.00404686 km2,

> There being 10^6 square meters in one square kilometer.
>
> Anyhow, the 108 acre site would be just a bit over 0.4 km2.
>
> -- Marinus

----- Original Message -----
From: Lucius Arminius Faustus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 10:01 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: A Vision of Peace and Worship: a Catholic City


Salve,

This text provides extensive discussion and it is really very nice.
I´ve visited many religious houses and was fascinated by its
equilibrium and simpleness, indeed on the best tradition of roman
architecture, places worthy to live an entire life, and this roman
Saint Benedictus was really a genius.

However, I fear our own prejudice will not allow we use the text.
Unfortunatly. Concordia Paxque save us all!

Vale bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus

PS. If my knowledge of the Roman Church is not flawed, this ´Society´
is a valid order recognized by the Vatican? It seems to me too
´ultraortodox´ or perhaps a extremist branch. Seemed to me odd and
unnecessary the idea of ´catholic city´. The Roman Church always
survived living on interaction with the social environmental, what
explain it sucess, there is no need of ´confined´ spaces for leigos.
Form my experience, difficultly this project will become something
even inside the Church.



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@m...>
wrote:
> Salve Romans
>
> "Neque enim est ulla res,
> in qua propius ad deorum numen
> virtus accedat humana,
> quam civitates aut condere novas
> aut conservare iam conditas."
>
>
>
> ("For there is really no other occupation
> in which human virtue approaches
> more closely the august function of the gods than that of founding
new cities
> or preserving those already in existence.")
>
>
>
> Cicero, De Re Publica, Book I, VII, paragraph. 12.
>
>
>
>
>
> The Society of St Johns is building a Catholic city in PA. This
information was given to be last year and I feel that it might be a
good model for Nova Roma to follow. Please take a few minutes to
review this site for it illustrates the need for in-depth planning
and massive fundraising.
>
> http://www.ssjohn.com/library/city.html#_Toc458167710
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links







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

> Salve L. Arminius Faustus
>
> Yes it is and they are not extremist. "Seemed to me odd and

>
> Why?
>
> We want a Roman City after all.
>
> They want a City build and run on the precepts of the Catholic

>
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lucius Arminius Faustus
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 10:01 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: A Vision of Peace and Worship: a

>
>
> Salve,
>
> This text provides extensive discussion and it is really very

> I´ve visited many religious houses and was fascinated by its
> equilibrium and simpleness, indeed on the best tradition of roman
> architecture, places worthy to live an entire life, and this

> Saint Benedictus was really a genius.
>
> However, I fear our own prejudice will not allow we use the text.
> Unfortunatly. Concordia Paxque save us all!
>
> Vale bene in pacem deorum,
> L. Arminius Faustus
>
> PS. If my knowledge of the Roman Church is not flawed, this

> is a valid order recognized by the Vatican? It seems to me too
> ´ultraortodox´ or perhaps a extremist branch. Seemed to me odd

> unnecessary the idea of ´catholic city´. The Roman Church always
> survived living on interaction with the social environmental,

> explain it sucess, there is no need of ´confined´ spaces for

> Form my experience, difficultly this project will become

> even inside the Church.
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher"

> wrote:
> > Salve Romans
> >
> > "Neque enim est ulla res,
> > in qua propius ad deorum numen
> > virtus accedat humana,
> > quam civitates aut condere novas
> > aut conservare iam conditas."
> >
> >
> >
> > ("For there is really no other occupation
> > in which human virtue approaches
> > more closely the august function of the gods than that of

> new cities
> > or preserving those already in existence.")
> >
> >
> >
> > Cicero, De Re Publica, Book I, VII, paragraph. 12.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The Society of St Johns is building a Catholic city in PA. This
> information was given to be last year and I feel that it might be