Salve Livia

(I hope I can call you like that, that's how you signed yourself and at the
moment, using webmail, I can't check your full name.. no disrespect meant)

> This seems like a good opportunity to discuss whether
> we in fact think this is what the tribunes should be
> doing (irrespective of what the constitution says).

See, that is exactly what (unlike Maior) I can't do.. I can't think of
things irrespective of what the Constitution says. I did swear to protect
and uphold it and that is what I'm intend to do. It's my duty, and I don't
take my duties lightly.

I'm ready to fully agree with you that historically things were different, I
actually already admitted it, but untill the moment the Constitutio will not
mirror the history, I shall, I have, I want to follow the Constitutio. There
is no other thing I can do, or that I would do.

>
> I agree that the constitution appears to put you in a
> rather difficult situation, because for instance I
> could take some action over here in Britannia and you
> wouldn't necessarily know about it.  So I do see where
> you're coming from.
>
> But let's look at this from a historical perspective -
> the tribunes couldn't be everywhere at once, even
> within Rome.  If someone feared they needed
> protection, they could go to the tribunes and ask, but
> the tribunes were not required to know everything that
> every magistrate was doing or intending to do - they
> couldn't, it wasn't possible.  As NR moves further
> away from sole reliance on the internet, and towards
> real life activities, these practical issues will come
> up again and again.

Yes, Livia, which doesn't mean the tribunes have to sit in their houses
untill someone knocks on their doors. One thing is not acting when you don't
know a magistrate is taking actions, one thing is knowingly not even trying
to get yourself informed when you know something is going on. I hope you
shall agree with me on this point.

For that matter, incidentally, I try... I did subscribe many of the
provincial lists and I'm trying to follow things there. I perfectly know
it's somewhat impossible to take care fully of the obligations the
Constitution casts on a Tribunes, but that is not excuse for at least trying
the best you can.

Here, there is a magistrate action that is to the uttermost importance for
the whole Nova Roma, as it grants the maximum power a citizen have, the one
of votin. As I said, I fully believe everything is carried on in the best
way possible, but it is my precise duty, or at least it seems to me to and
you apparently agreed with me, to try and check it.

> Is it time to change the constitution and make the
> role of the tribunes more historical?

Yes, possibly so, but untill that happens, I can't but follow the
Constitutio as it (or at least, as I an interprete it in the most
intellectually honest way, because I could be wrong of course, but...).

> Believe me, I'm not being hostile (you would know if I
> was), I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.  I
> think I see better where you're coming from now that
> you've mentioned people who are denied citizenship,
> too, as it's true you can't get that from the website.

I didn't mean you were being hostile, but definitely someone has been.

> It doesn't deal with all of the problem, but
> provincial governors are automatically advised of
> every new citizen in their province - a similar
> automatic process could presumably be used to notify
> the tribunes of approvals (and possibly denials,
> depending on exactly how it all works).

See, I personally think that would be sufficient, if it included a
motivation about why a given person was denied citizenship and if the
tribunes would be allowed, upon request, to be presented with all the
documents (whatever they are) related to a given case, in order to, at most,
conduct some random checks.

> again maybe we should change the job description so
> you don't have to worry about it :)

again, yes, maybe, but untill then...

vale

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
Founder of Gens Constantinia
Tribunus Plebis
Aedilis Urbis
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Email.it Phone Card: chiami in tutto il mondo a tariffe imbattibili da
tutti i telefoni fissi e cellulari! Clicca e scopri come
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2686&d=20050223

Salve Octavia Indagatrix

>   While this whole idea seems one drawn out of thin air, I'm
> seriously bothered by the section snipped at the end of this post.
> The idea that, underlying all actions of NR, the Tribunes ultimately
> have "control" of them all, is ridiculous.

Yes, of course it is ridiculous, but I actually haven't said that. What I
said is that the Tribunes have to be able to "control" that the action of a
magistrate don't go against the Constitution, Laws, edicts and decreta. And
I actually haven't even said it, the Constitutio said it when it dictates
that we are *obliged* to veto those actions when they go against the
aforementioned documents.

To follow your example, I have never said that I want to be given every
single mail that go between the Censores and the perspective members, or
that I want to decide on them or whatever... all i said is that I'd like to
be given a way to make myself sure the whole process as been conducted and
concludd in observance of the Constitutio and laws and edicts and decreta of
Nova Roma. I can't help it, I'm obliged to.

Someone might even say I've delusions of powers, words are cheap, but I'm
actually just trying to be put in the condition of doing the work the
Consitutio dictates me and the others tribunes to do and to adfirm a
principl, the one that Tribunes have a right to know about the decisions of
the magistrates and on what basis they were taken, that, if denied, would
make void the role the Constitutio, for how ahistorical it can be, set for
us.

As for my tone, yes, you are probably right, but I'd ask you to stop a
moment and consider that what you are seeing on this list might not be the
whole of the story and that your comment came after I had already offered an
apology for it.

vale

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
Founder of Gens Constantinia
Tribunus Plebis
Aedilis Urbis



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Videogiochi PS2 XBOX GCUBE GBA a prezzi pazzeschi! Provare per credere!
Risparmia fino a 10 euro su ogni gioco, spedizione in 24h a casa tua!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2459&d=20050223

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Emilia Curia Finnica <e.curia@w...>
wrote:

> Salvete omnes,
>
> I and C. Curius Saturninus have become mater and pater familias, as

our little son M. Curius Saturninus Alexander was born on Monday 14th.


Wonderful news! Congratulations, proud mater and pater!

--
Julilla Sempronia Magna

Salve Fuscus et Omnes,

Since the matter of approvals has come up I think it is only appropriate, as
a rogator, that I should quote the part of the "Lex Equitia de Vigintisixviri"
that defines my duties under the supervision of the censores:

<quote>

2. a. Beginning on the Kalends of January MMDCCLVIII (1 January 2005), two
rogatores shall be elected to act as subordinate magistrates to the censores,
responsible for registering qualified voters, issuing voter codes, and
administering the routine citizenship application process.

2. b. During intervals when no censors are serving in office, the rogatores
may carry out the routine maintenance of the Album Civium and the Album Gentium
in concert with the magister aranearius.

2. c. Each rogator shall have the authority to appoint his own scribae,
should he deem it necessary

<unquote>

You will note, in particular, that the rogatores have the duty of
"administering the routine citizenship application process". It stands to reason,
therefore, that any query about applications and approvals should be addressed either
to myself or my illustris colleague M. Martiana Gangalia Marcella.
I fact, since the censores in their supervising duties, only set the
standards and the rules of the approval process, any query related to the forwarding
of any application (refused or accepted) should be first addressed and
discussed with the Rogatores and not the Censores.

Now, it has come to my attention that our work has been implicitley described
as opaque whereby the Rogatores would have extraordinary powers to bestow or
refuse the very much coveted prize we know as Nova Roman citizenship.
I fail to see what the Rogatores would achieve by claiming this terrible
power that would justify Tribunal scrutiny but I am ready to lend an ear to such
claim. I have to point out at this point and in response to that claim that the
Rogatores do not work on their own. let me explain:

First of all they work under the supervision of two Censores.
The Rogatores also appoint a number of scribae (between one and two) to help
them with the routine work.
The Rogatores conduct their business on a censorial list that is shared by
all censorial scribae, another ten people.

All in all, the applications that are dealt with by the Rogatores are
potentially already scrutinised by up to 16 people.

Furthermore, applicants who have not received satisfaction in the way their
query or application has been dealt with by the Rogatores, can simply e-mail
and complain to any other magistrate of NR whose address can be found on the
main website: We usually found that people that are motivated to become part of
NR are also ready to let their voice be heard.

As you can see it would take huge efforts and a well designed conspiracy
before any refused application was a result of incompetence or bias on the part of
the Rogatores.

Nevertheless, for reasons I can not fathom, a Tribune still wishes to double
check every single mail going back and forth from the Rogatorial office to
prospective citizens. Again please let me answer that point:

Should the Tribunes decide to go down this road, they must be ready to
dedicate one of them to do that and ONLY that as the amount of work involved in the
Rogatorial office takes 3 people plus 2 advisors everyday of the year.

The Rogatores are not law makers: Their decisions, on behalf of the Censor,
should, if anything, be scrutinised by the Justice Officers, the Praetores, NOT
the Tribunes.

If indeed a refusal letter must contain a provision for those refused
citizens to complain, I would be inclined to direct them to the Praetores, not the
Tribunes.

As a final point, I would like to state again that the Rogatores (or the
Censores for that matter) do not have ANY LEGAL obligation to provide ANY report
of ANY kind to ANYbody. I would be more than happy to provide assistance and
respond to any query on any matter arising during the course of my work. I am
however suspicious of ANY magistrate who would "demand" (sic) such and such
report on top of the heavy workload my colleague and myself have to face.
Furthermore, since I have started my work as censorial scriba and then
Rogator, we have NEVER refused anybody: Only the sustained failure of prospective
applicants to respond to our mails have had them flagged as "application
rejected". Conversely, and ironically, the major source of rejection came from what
we used to call "pater/materfamilias" (head of gentes) who would refused entry
to a gens on pretexts that nor the Censores nor the Rogatores were privy to.
This is the very same old system Tribune Fuscus would like to reinstate
therefore curtailing the freedom of a citizen to choose his own nomen!

I hope I have clarify a few points. I remain at your disposal if I can be of
further assistance.

Optime Valete

C. Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
Rogator


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

> Salve Livia
>
> (I hope I can call you like that, that's how you
> signed yourself and at the
> moment, using webmail, I can't check your full
> name.. no disrespect meant)

Yep, it's my name, and it's what I prefer to be called
anyway :)

> > This seems like a good opportunity to discuss
> whether
> > we in fact think this is what the tribunes should
> be
> > doing (irrespective of what the constitution
> says).
>
> See, that is exactly what (unlike Maior) I can't
> do.. I can't think of
> things irrespective of what the Constitution says. I
> did swear to protect
> and uphold it and that is what I'm intend to do.
> It's my duty, and I don't
> take my duties lightly.

I know - I didn't mean that you ought not to do it, I
just meant that the constitution *can* be changed, and
so we should consider whether we think that the
tribunes' duties are exactly what we think they should
be. And this seems like a good time to have that
discussion :) I wasn't suggesting that you should
ignore what the constitution currently says, at all.

Livia







___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

-- M. Hortensia Maior G. Fabiae Liviae spd;
Salve;
I think this is an ideal time for such a discussion.

Do we or did we ever envisage the idea of Tribunes scrutinising
every singe magisterial act? I find the idea absurd. But Fuscus
thinks it reasonable and even desirable.

Is this reasonable? Should we change the Constitution to reflect the
ways of Republican Rome.

And by the by, before November I worked in the Censorial cohors, now
as tribune I still do. My fellow scribes work like dogs to help
prosepective cives, if they felt any pain they can complain right
here on the ML, and have done so!
optime vale
M. Hortensia Maior TRP

Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ



-> I know - I didn't mean that you ought not to do it, I

> just meant that the constitution *can* be changed, and
> so we should consider whether we think that the
> tribunes' duties are exactly what we think they should
> be. And this seems like a good time to have that
> discussion :) I wasn't suggesting that you should
> ignore what the constitution currently says, at all.
>
> Livia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Salvete omnes,

Let me add my congratulations to the Saturnini family! I wish your
new youngster a happy an prosperous life and please instill in him a
passion for Rome as he grows.


Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Julilla Sempronia Magna"
<curatrix@v...> wrote:

>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Emilia Curia Finnica

<e.curia@w...>

> wrote:
> > Salvete omnes,
> >
> > I and C. Curius Saturninus have become mater and pater familias,

as

> our little son M. Curius Saturninus Alexander was born on Monday

14th.

>
>
> Wonderful news! Congratulations, proud mater and pater!
>
> --
> Julilla Sempronia Magna

Salve Moravius Laureatus Armoricus

In replying to your mail, I shall address a point before anything else.

> Now, it has come to my attention that our work has been implicitley

described

> as opaque whereby the Rogatores would have extraordinary powers to bestow

or

> refuse the very much coveted prize we know as Nova Roman citizenship.

I do not know who said it, it was certainly not me. I didn't said it for
sure. What I said is that the Constitutio says teh tribunes have teh
obligtion to veto any action of a magistrate that goes aginst teh
Constitutio etc etc and that therefore they must be able to know about those
actions and how they ame about.

> I fail to see what the Rogatores would achieve by claiming this terrible
> power that would justify Tribunal scrutiny but I am ready to lend an ear

to

> such claim. I have to point out at this point and in response to that

claim

> that the Rogatores do not work on their own. let me explain:

You see, you don't need terrible power to justify Tribunicial scrutiny. The
Tribunes are supposed (and we haven't decided it, the COnstitutio says it)to
check that the actions of any magistrate is respecting the Constitution and
the derived acts. You seem to think tribunician control as an extraordinary
act, when in fact, by the Constitution, is normal.

>As you can see it would take huge efforts and a well designed conspiracy
>before any refused application was a result of incompetence or bias on the

part of

>the Rogatores.
>
>Nevertheless, for reasons I can not fathom, a Tribune still wishes to

double

>check every single mail going back and forth from the Rogatorial office to
>prospective citizens.

And again, I do not know who induced you to think such things, but I
already, i think, cleared out that a) I personally don't think about any
conspiration and b) don't want to check any single email passing thro Nova
Roma.

I do not know if this, excuse me the term, paranoic syndrome comes from,
that when Caius asks to be shown something Sempronius immediatly goes to
think "Ah, the govern will now control everything and will know everything
about me, eventually enslaving me and my dog", but I can assure you that is
absolutely not the point.

So, once again, I'm not saying the Tribunes should be passed every document
of Nova Roma. Hell, I've just finished re-reading 1984 by Orwell and sure I
don't want the Tribunes to be 5 Big Brothers, but that at least they'd be
given a chance to do their job as they are requested to by the Constitutio.
How, I'm ready to discuss, but a Tribunus shoulnd't accept, as long as the
Constitutio stays as it is now, that a magistrate of Nova Roma can simply
say that by principle his actions can't be checked in any way. To accept
that would be to forfeit the role the Constitutio assigns (rightly or
wrongly is not for me to decide) to Tribunes. Shall we discuss how we
Tribunes can effectively play their constitutional work in regards to teh
magistral decision regaring citizenships (as Fabia Livia apparently started
to?)? I'm all for that.

About why I addressed the Censores and not the Rogatores: it is true that
the (undefined) "routine citizenship application process" is handled by
Rogatores, but it is expressely said in the Constitutio that it is the
Censores that eventually mantain the Albun Civium and I was under the
impression that it was ultimately on them that fell the responsability of
granting citizenships (as apparently Marinus confirmed by sayig "When I get
to the point of approving citizenship applications, I shall make sure that
the approvals are cc'd to the tribunes@... mailing list."), but if
you are telling me otherwise, ok... but even you said that you work under
the supervision of the Censores following their (unpublished) directives.
Now, generally speaking, one supervise someone else if the responsability of
the final decision falls on him.

So, eventually, who is that ultimately decide on citizenships? Because if it
is the Rogatores, I've the distincitve feeling that is against the spirit of
the Constitutio, while if it is indeed the Censores,then I indeed had to
addrss them on the matter.

Vale

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
Founder of Gens Constantinia
Tribunus Plebis
Aedilis Urbis

--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Telefonare all'estero risparmiando fino all'80%? Con Email.it Phone Card
puoi, clicca e scopri tutti i vantaggi
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2683&d=20050223

A. Apollonius Cordus Domitio Constantino Fusco
omnibusque sal.

> ... By
> looking at the website the
> tribunes might see, with an immensly larger effort
> than a simple forward of
> emails from the censores would require, who has been
> granted citizenship, but
> the tribunes couldn't check who has been denied
> citizenship and if it was done
> so correctly following the laws, or if the ones who
> were granted citizenships
> were done so following the laws.

I can see that you would be concerned to make sure
that people not be refused citizenship illegally or
unreasonably - that's an excellent goal. But I am not
sure what you would be able to do about it if such a
thing were to happen. A tribunus plebis can only veto
the act of a magistrate, not the inaction of a
magistrate. To grant citizenship is an act, since it
creates a change; but to deny it is simply inaction,
since it leaves the world as it was before. Do you see
the problem?

With regard to the more general question, it's also
quite reasonable that you feel you must do what the
constitution requires you to do, even when it requires
you to do things which were not part of the historical
duties of the tribuni plebis. The long-term solution,
as you've agreed, is to change the constitution to
remove the discrepancy between history and current
practice, but in the mean time the constitution is
what we have to live with.

It is possible, however, to take different
interpretations of the constitution. And when we
decide between different interpretations, one of the
things which should guide us is, I'm sure you'll
agree, historical practice. So let's look at the
relevant part of the constitution, which says that the
tribuni plebis...

"... shall have the following honors, powers, and
obligations:

To pronounce intercessio...

To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto)
against another Tribune...

To be immune from intercessio pronounced by other
magistrates...

To be privy to the debates of the Senate...

To call the Senate to order...

To call the comitia plebis tributa to order...

To administer the law...

To appoint scribae (clerks)..."

So it gives the tribuni plebis "the following honours,
powers, and obligations...", and then lists some
things. The wording is ambiguous. Does it mean that
each of the things on the list is an honour *and* and
power *and* an obligation? Clearly it can't possibly
mean that, unless we believe that the tribuni are
obliged to veto each other and to appoint scribae, or
that it is an honour to appoint scribae or to
pronounce intercessio. So each item on the list may be
only one of those three things, or two, or all three;
but it is not necessarily all three; or then again we
might say that each thing must be only one of those
three things.

Thus we can choose whether to interpret "to pronounce
intercessio" as a power, or as an obligation, or both
(or even neither). In choosing between these
interpretations, we can now allow ourselves to be
guided by historical practice. Were the tribuni plebis
of the old republic obliged to veto things which were
illegal or unconstitutional? No, they were not. So
this seems the preferable interpretation.

This is not to say, of course, that the tribuni ought
to do nothing with their power of veto - that would be
a waste of a magistracy. They must clearly use it for
the good of the res publica. But they have discretion
in its use. They do not have to peer into every nook
and cranny of public life to discover things to veto,
nor do they need to veto things which were not
historically matters of concern to them.

You seem to acknowledge that the idea of the tribuni
plebis having ultimate supervision of every aspect of
public life, and being obliged to examine and consider
intervening in even the smallest act of even the least
important magistrate. This is clearly an unreasonable
idea, but you have felt obliged to follow it
nonetheless, since you have considered that the
constitution forces you to do it. Well, it's time for
you to be happy, because you are not obliged to do it.
Article IV.A.7.a of the constitution doesn't impose a
legal obligation on the tribuni to veto, it merely
gives them the power. So it is up to you; if you
choose to arrogate to yourself and your colleagues the
unhistorical duty to supervise grants and denials of
citizenship, you can do it; but if you prefer to
follow historical practice and confine yourself to the
already very considerable province of the ancient
tribunes, you can do that in stead.

The question of new citizens entering existing gentes
is an interesting one. Salvius Astur has already set
out some of the evidence, but there's more to be had;
I'll give you a summary in the next few days. It all
points to the conclusion that a new Roman citizen was
quite free to choose his own nomen without
consultation with anyone.





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

A. Apollonius Cordus Domitio Constantino Fusco
omnibusque sal.

> I shall try to get to it within tomorrow, should not
> any of my collegues precede
> me.

Excellent - many thanks.





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

M. Hortensia Maior Quiritibus spd;
salvete omnes;
well I would say it takes a certain type of personality to go from
an 'obligation' to veto an unconstitional act which isn't true at all.
Cordus discussed this many times on the ML the word in the
Constitution is "MAY" may is a heck of a lot different from "MUST".
But this is the line of reasoning that goes from 'may' to 'must' to
then demanding the Censors report to a tribune.

As to 'paranoid' well Tribune Fuscus was the one who when angered by
my disagreeing with his opinion over the Saturninus issue , wanted
the Praetors to try me with Treason (sic, his term) for this
traditional act of a tribune - to put the issue to the people. That
would make any right thinking civis paranoid.
Vox Populi Vox Dei!
M. Hortensia Maior TRP

What I said is that the Constitutio says teh tribunes have teh

> obligtion to veto any action of a magistrate that goes aginst teh
> Constitutio etc etc and that therefore they must be able to know

about those

> actions and how they ame about.
>
>> I do not know if this, excuse me the term, paranoic syndrome comes

from,

>

Salve

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:10:30 -0000, Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:

> Do we or did we ever envisage the idea of Tribunes scrutinising
> every singe magisterial act? I find the idea absurd. But Fuscus
> thinks it reasonable and even desirable.

When shall you quit putting words into somone's else mouth or, as in this
case, fingers? I've not said it is reasonable (it actually has some sense
and a good reason, in principle, behind it, but that's not the point), nor
desirable, I said it is what it is, and that you, and I, and the other
Tribunes are there to respect the Constitutio as it is untill it is
changed.

> Is this reasonable? Should we change the Constitution to reflect the
> ways of Republican Rome.

Possibly, yes, but untill that is done you, of all the people in Nova
Roma, as a Tribunus and as a magistrate who swore to protect it, should
respect it for how it is now. I know, I know, you don't care at all...
nevermind.

DCF

Salve D C Fuscus -

I understand what you're saying, and I agree in principle that the
Tribunes are indeed responsible for seeing to it that magistrates
perform their duties within the law.

However, what you are asking implies that the Tribunes be copied at
every step of every magistrate's every action, and that is simply
unreasonable.

In order for you to verify that everything is being done properly, the
Tribunes would have to be sent a copy of everything done and checked -
for how else could you verify it was done properly?

That seems to mean that you think that Ti. Galerius and I should copy
the Tribs every time we check the PayPal account, every time we log a
Citizen as having paid their taxes, and copy you on every check notice
we receive from Patricia Cassia. After all, that's the only way you
could verify that a Citizen has been properly given Assiduus status and
century points.

In short, you seem to be suggesting that every magistrate should copy
you on every thing they do, so you can verify the proprieties. You
basically want to double everyone's workload with all this extra
copying and sending - for what? Do you know of or suspect improper
granting of Citizenship, or Assiduus status?

What possible justification can you give for doubling everyone's work
(which is what you are demanding), by making them copy you on
everything they do?

Vale
- S E M Troianus
Quaestor

On Feb 23, 2005, at 4:46 PM, Domitius Constantinus Fuscus wrote:

>
> Salve
>
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:10:30 -0000, Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
>> Do we or did we ever envisage the idea of Tribunes scrutinising
>> every singe magisterial act? I find the idea absurd. But Fuscus
>> thinks it reasonable and even desirable.
>
> When shall you quit putting words into somone's else mouth or, as in
> this
> case, fingers? I've not said it is reasonable (it actually has some
> sense
> and a good reason, in principle, behind it, but that's not the point),
> nor
> desirable, I said it is what it is, and that you, and I, and the other
> Tribunes are there to respect the Constitutio as it is untill it is
> changed.
>
>> Is this reasonable? Should we change the Constitution to reflect the
>> ways of Republican Rome.
>
> Possibly, yes, but untill that is done you, of all the people in Nova
> Roma, as a Tribunus and as a magistrate who swore to protect it, should
> respect it for how it is now. I know, I know, you don't care at all...
> nevermind.
>
> DCF
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Salve

> well I would say it takes a certain type of personality to go from
> an 'obligation' to veto an unconstitional act which isn't true at all.
> Cordus discussed this many times on the ML the word in the
> Constitution is "MAY" may is a heck of a lot different from "MUST".
> But this is the line of reasoning that goes from 'may' to 'must' to
> then demanding the Censors report to a tribune.

You should try to read the Constitutio you are supposed to uphold and
defend sometimes, rather than misquote Cordus.

"Tribuni Plebis (Tribune of the Plebs). Five tribunes of the plebs shall
be elected by the comitia plebis tributa to serve a term lasting one year.
They must all be of the plebeian order, and shall have the following
honors, powers, and obligations:
To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against the actions of any
other magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the interrex),
Senatus consulta, magisterial edicta, religious decreta, and leges passed
by the comitia when the spirit and/or letter of this Constitution or
legally-enacted edicta or decreta, Senatus Consulta or leges are being
violated thereby; once a pronouncement of intercessio has been made, the
other Tribunes may, at their discretion, state either their support for or
their disagreement with that intercessio."

You have the POWER and OBLIGATION to pronounce intercessio against the
actions of ANY other magistrate when when the spirit and/or letter of this
Constitution or legally-enacted edicta or decreta, Senatus Consulta or
leges are being violated thereby, while you MAY, at your discretion, state
your support or disagreement. It's a tad different than saying you may or
may not, at your discretion, veto an unconstitutional action, believe me.

> As to 'paranoid' well Tribune Fuscus was the one who when angered by
> my disagreeing with his opinion over the Saturninus issue , wanted
> the Praetors to try me with Treason (sic, his term) for this
> traditional act of a tribune - to put the issue to the people. That
> would make any right thinking civis paranoid.

To be exact, I called you that, and without any anger, for wanting to
arrogate yourself and consequently enforce the decision that Saturninus
was not a Tribunus. Apparently, all the others Tribunes at the time
thought, like me, that you in fact had not such power and that your
calling the Comitia on the point was an unconstitutional act. It was my
own thought, on the other side, I do not know if shared by the others or
not, that an unconstitutional act perfomed willfully and consciounsly by a
magistrate who is supposed to defend the constitution constitues a breech
of the magistrate oath and an act of treason. I still think so, for that.

I know, I know, you can't get rid of the habit of twisting facts and put
words in someone's else mouth. Maybe is genetic.

DCF

M. CALIDIVS GRACCHVS EMILAE CVRIAE FINNICAE S.P.D.

SALVE EMILIA

May I also extend my warmest congratulations to both you and your
husband on the most joyous occasion of the birth of your son.

The candle was lit and invocations made. Let us give thanks and
honour to the godesses CANDELIFERA, CARMENTIS ET LVCINA that all is
well.

May you all have health, long life, properity and good fortune.

In the Consulship of APVLVS CAESAR and POPILLIVS LAENAS.


VALE

M. CALIDIVS M.f. GRACCHVS

V.S.L.M.





--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Emilia Curia Finnica
<e.curia@w...> wrote:

> Salvete omnes,
>
> I and C. Curius Saturninus have become mater and pater familias,

as our

> little son M. Curius Saturninus Alexander was born on Monday 14th.
> Sincere thanks to all our friends who have already congratulated

us and

> praise to Ianus, Saturnus, Liber and Libera, Venus, Diana,

Hercules and

> Iuno Lucina, Opis, Vaticanus, Levana, Cunina, Rumina, Intercidona,
> Pilumnus and Deverra, all Lares and Latona. Tomorrow we'll be
> celebrating dies lustricus!
>
> Valete optime,
>
> Emilia Curia Finnica
> Scriba Araniae Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova
> Senatrix

-M. Hortensia Maoir Quiritibus spd;
THE CONSTITUTION "--and shall have the following

> honors, powers, and obligations:
> To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against the actions

of any

> other magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the

interrex), "

>>
> MAIOR: I "SHALL" have the power of intercessio, it does not mean I

MUST use it.

>
> > I know, I know, you can't get rid of the habit of twisting facts

and put

> words in someone's else mouth. Maybe is genetic.
>
> DCF

MAIOR: Since I'm Jewish as most in NR know, and last month marked
Holocaust Remembrance week, I find your remark deeply offensive.
Additionally I love and respect my parents, my genetic forebears,
who though in their 80's care for my sister who has chronic
epilepsy. I only hope to live up to their example.
As for you Fustis, I am sure you are entirely the author of your
character.
M. Hortensia Maior TRP

Salvete Quirites; this is from Cordus's post 33434# trimmed but the
number is included for those who wish to read the entire post.

>CORDUS: As for the absurd idea that proposing legislation
> constitutes treason, well, if you think it does, then
> you cannot cop out by asking someone else to
> investigate. The Roman judicial system, and our
> judicial system here, is based on the right of private
> accusation: in other words, if you want someone
> prosecuted, do it yourself.
>
>

MAIOR: I'm still waiting for you to prosecute me Fustis, as well as
read the entire Censorial list; your singular & strange
interpretations of the Constitution alway seems to result in your
controlling something - not greater freedom for the plebs.
M. Hortensia Maior TRP
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ

Salve omnes

A tad late for the reasons explained in a previous email, but here is the
report of the last Senate session.

To be noted, some senatores, during the debate, did change their already
expressed vote. Here is reported only the definitive vote and, in case, the
definitive comments attached to it. The comments and further explainations
about a given vote are not reported.

For brevity sake, the abbreviations of the Senatores' names will be used.




*******************************************************************************



The Senate Agenda was published the 31st of January, valid from the 1st of
febraury and the vote did close the 13th. Official results were published on
the Senate list the 14th of febraury with a formal request to the Tribunes to
delay publication to allow the Patres to control the correctness of the
results. Final request/permission to publish teh results was given the 18th of
Febraury.

Of 30 senatores, 25 did cast a vote on at least 1 of the 4 points in agenda
requiring the Patres to vote. 5 Senators (LSD, MOG, GMM, LCSF, MCJ)


***Item I***

Senate review and Comment on the Consul's Tax edict for 2758
a.u.c. (this item will not require a vote).

A discussion involving some minor adjustements was held on this item, no vote
was requested.


***Item II***

Senate Review and Comment on a draft of the Lex Popillia
Senatoria (this item will not require a vote).

A discussion involving some minor adjustements was held on this item, no vote
was requested.


***Item III***

Exemption from the Lex Equitia de Tirocinio Civium for Gaia Gladia Oceana.

The Senate hereby resolves to accept the petition of Censor Caeso
Fabius and waive the probationary period and examination of the Lex
Equitia de Tirocinio Civium for citizen Gaia Gladia Oceana.

Item was passed as follows:

AGG Antiquo
AICP Abstineo
ATMC Uti Rogas I will go along on this one, but I believe that we should have a
discussion about the frequency of exemptions, and take a hard look at the
necessity of each case.
CFD Uti Rogas
CFQ Uti Rogas
DIPI Abstineo
DIS Antiquo I am uncomfortable granting exemptions of this kind based on 'who'
someone knows. Certain conditions would certainly warrant an exemption, this is
not one of them.
ECF Uti Rogas
FAC Uti Rogas I give my approvation because the name of Pontifex Gaius Modius
Athanasius is an assurance for me. But I hope this exemptions would'nt be
considered in teh future.
GEM Uti Rogas with the understanding that this is an exceptional and
rare circumstance.
GFL Uti Rogas
GPL Uti Rogas
GSA Uti Rogas Since I believe that this procedure is not necessary, I do
not see any reason to deny an exemption from it.
JSM Abstineo
LAF Uti Rogas
LECA Uti Rogas I agree with others who have said it's an unnecessary
requirement
in any case.
LSA Antiquo
MAR Uti Rogas
MCS Uti Rogas
MIP Abstineo
MMTA Uti Rogas
PC Uti Rogas
PMTS Antiquo
QFM Uti Rogas Since it is an unnecessary requirement, the vote is only a
formality.
TLF Abstineo


***Item IV***

International Literary Contest (requires a vote of the Senate)

The Senate hereby resolves and gives permission to Plebian Aedile
Manius Constantinus Serapio to organize an international literary
contest in Nova Roma's name to include both Nova Roma cives and non-cives

Item was passed as follows:

AGG Uti Rogas
AICP Uti Rogas Very good project
ATMC Uti Rogas I wish this great success
CFD Uti Rogas
CFQ Uti Rogas It will be very interesting indeed to see the development of this
contest
DIPI Uti Rogas A worthy effort.
DIS Uti Rogas Sounds like agreat project that will raise Nova Roma's
profile.
ECF Uti Rogas As a plebeian senator I'm very happy to see a capable and active
Aedilis Plebis. This contest is a small but important step towards a
wider recognition of Nova Roma.
FAC Uti Rogas I stringly support this item, the project by Aedile Constantinus
Serapio could give credits and promotion to NR outside improving the number
of active citizens.
GEM Uti Rogas with thanks to Aedile Serapio for his initiative
GFL Uti Rogas
GPL Uti Rogas
GSA Uti Rogas with my best wishes for its success.
JSM Uti Rogas It's hard to imagine a better activity to promote Roman culture,
and I commend Manius Constantinus Serapio for taking the initiative
LAF Uti Rogas
LECA Uti Rogas
LSA Uti Rogas
MAR Uti Rogas
MCS Uti Rogas
MIP Uti Rogas
MMTA Uti Rogas
PC Uti Rogas Manius Constantius has been a consistent and
dedicated Citizen and I look forward to reading the results of this
event!
PMTS Uti Rogas
QFM Uti Rogas
TLF Uti Rogas


***Item V***

Recognition of Marco Horatio Piscino

The Senate hereby resolves and recognizes the great contributions of
Marco Horatio Piscino in the support and spread of knowledge of the
Religio Romana, via the course he has designed and presented through
the Academia Thules.

This recognition to be announced on the Nova Roma mailing lists and
entered into the Senate's records.

Item was passed as follows:

AGG Abstineo
AICP Uti Rogas
ATMC Uti Rogas I sincerely thank my Senate collegues for their support of this
item.
CFD Abstineo
CFQ Uti Rogas I am very happy to see that the Academia Thules have been able to
engage this truly dedicated individual and that the course has been
met with such interest and satisfaction.
DIPI Abstineo I was going to approve this, but in light of recent information
that this person may have resigned his citizenship, I will abstain.
DIS Abstineo
ECF Uti Rogas It's great to see the work of Academia Thules being noticed in
Nova Roma.
FAC Uti Rogas Congratulations to Illustrus Piscinus and to the Academia Thule
GEM Uti Rogas with most sincere thanks for the great gift provided
GFL Abstineo
GPL Uti Rogas
GSA Uti Rogas I hope that this will be only the first of many fruitful courses.
JSM Uti Rogas The citizenship status of Marcus Horatius Piscinus is immaterial
to me. This was an excellent course -- a well-balanced mix of lecture, reading
and exercises. I believe that this course, if repeated, will go far to further
understanding and practice of the Religio Romana. Offering appreciation for
outstanding effort of any kind, from anyone, should be the rule -- not the
exception.
LAF Uti Rogas
LECA Antiquo on account of this being someone who has resigned his citizenship.

I am EXTREMELY tired of the ongoing debate concerning 'resignations'. This has
been a totally absurd waste of time and effort. I guess some people just don't
take it seriously,... therefore they ought not be entrusted with positions of
authority, and certianly not given a reward of any note. Additionally, the
revolving door policy detracts from our Dignitas, Gravitas, Honestas, Pietas,
Nobilitas, Patientia et Virtus.
LSA Abstineo
MAR Uti Rogas
MCS Uti Rogas
MIP Abstineo
MMTA Uti Rogas
PC Uti Rogas
PMTS Uti Rogas
QFM Antiquo this person left nova roma. why should we reward that?
TLF Uti Rogas


***Item VI***

Approval of Candidacy of Titus Octavius Salvius

The Senate hereby resolves and approves the candidacy of Titus
Octavius Salvius for the open position of Quaestor for the year 2758
a.u.c.

Item was passed as follows:

AGG Abstineo
AICP Uti Rogas
ATMC Uti Rogas
CFD Antiquo I cannot see any reason for an exemption here
CFQ Uti Rogas
DIPI Antiquo Nothing has come to light regarding the worthiness
of this person.
DIS Uti Rogas It is unfortunate that there is a shortage of candidates for this
most important rung of the Cursus Honorum. As such, I wish Salvius well in his
bid for this magistracy.
ECF Uti Rogas
FAC Uti Rogas
GEM Uti Rogas
GFL Uti Rogas
GPL Uti Rogas
GSA Uti Rogas
JSM Antiquo This is no reflection on the abilities of the applicant, more that
I
do not feel that there is sufficient evidence at this time to make an
exception. The ML archives show he took the initiative early on in his
citizenship to ask for work. However, the archives also show few postings
before last Fall.
We have many avenues to serve Nova Roma and gain valuable experience. Titus
Octavius Salvius is already on the path and I'm sure that in the future he'll
climb the Cursus Honorum.
LAF Uti Rogas
LECA Antiquo I haven't seen anything extraordinary that would warrant me
voting
to bypass the age requirement.
LSA Antiquo
MAR Uti Rogas
MCS Uti Rogas
MIP Abstineo
MMTA Antiquo
PC Uti Rogas
PMTS Abstineo
QFM Antiquo nothing noteworthy from this individual has come to light that
justifies circumventing the age requirement
TLF Abstineo




*****************************************************************************



Valete,

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
Founder of Gens Constantinia
Tribunus Plebis
Aedilis Urbis

Salve, senator Astur!

D. Constantinus Fuscus scripsit:

> And even for the historicity I'd have some doubt: I have
> serious doubts the Censores would had given the first former
> barbarian moving in town tha name of a patrician family or
> of an anyway preminent gens in Rome.

Et Gn. Salvius Astur respondidit:

> Well, I am afraid that your serious doubts are founded in a
> lack of historical knowledge. When Joseph ben Mattathias
> became a Roman citizen, he adopted the name Titus Flavius
> Josephus -- and you can bet that the gens Flavia was pretty
> old by that time.

[Bardulus] Iosephus was a prisoner of war after the fall of
Jotapata fortress at 67 of common era. The jewish noble Joseph
ben Mattathia became personal servant (slave) of Flavius
Vespasianus. When, after two years of slavery, Vespasianus want
him as a free man, he was created "libertus", was released
according a Roman institution: the *manumissio*. When a slave
was released following this institution, the new libertus was
added into the gens and familia of his ancient owner and take
the nomen from him. So, Joseph was created Flavius Iosephus
because his ancient owner was the emperor Flavius Vespasianus.


Gn. Salvius Astur scripsit:

> We can find many similar examples. There was, for example, a >

certain C. Julius Vercondaridubnus, an Aeduan noble (with a

> cognomen like that there probably was very little doubt about
> his Gaulishness) who became a Roman citizen and reached a
> high position in the provincial administration of Gallia
> Lugdunensis. He became one of the Julii, and there were few
> gentes that would deserve the title of "preeminent"
> like the gens Julia did at the time. So there you have your
> former barbarian. You can read about this person in the
> following documents:

[Bardulus] This gaulish didn't become a Iulii because he *chose*
the Gens Iulia. Most probably he was another prisoner of war
that was manumited by Caesar, or maybe he was created a Iulii
because his citizenship was granted by a Iulii (Caesar). This is
an example of another Roman institution: the *donatio
civitatis*.


Gn. Salvius Astur scripsit:

> We must get rid of a certain historical misconception that
> has been around in Nova Roma since it was founded, more
> based -- I suspect -- on historical novels than on historical
> knowledge. The Julii were not an exclusive bunch, and neither
> were the Claudii. There were thousands of Julii, Claudii,
> Fabii and Papirii everywhere in the Roman world that were
> bakers, merchants, cleaners, sailors and papyri-makers, all
> of them plebeians to the bone. Now, being one of the Julii
> *Caesares* was a completey different affair. It is the
> familia that matters. Not the gens.

[Bardulus] And what were the Gentes? A Gens was a group of
individuals that were descendants of the same ancestor.
According the tradition, there was a period in the Roman history
when there was only one family per gens. That period in the
archaic Rome was being reconstructed in Nova Roma a few months
ago, with the old Gens System. The new citizens were adopted in
the Gentes (through the institution of *adoptio*) or they
created their own ones when their citizenship were granted. That
was indeed historical.

But this new gens system, with a Censor instead of a
paterfamilias, managing, dealing and authorizing the
manumissiones and adoptiones... this is the ahistorical system.


=====
Si vales bene est et gaudeo; ego autem valeo.

P·RVTILIVS·I·F·R·N·CLV·BARDVLVS·HADRIANVS



______________________________________________
Renovamos el Correo Yahoo!: ¡250 MB GRATIS!
Nuevos servicios, más seguridad
http://correo.yahoo.es

Salve Tribune Constantine Fusce,

Thank you for your reply. I will not respond to it as I think we are
diametrally opposed on the issue of tribunician power. Until this issue is resoved I
will not engaged in this discussion any further.
The only thing I can say is why focus now on the applications procedures
only? I would have, perhaps, supported you if you had included in your reasoning
any other routine act from all magistrates. Until such time I see the
Praetores, the Consules and others being on the same obligation to produce some kind of
report on their day to day activity, I am afraid I will have to disagree with
you.

Finally I would like to clarify one thing:

In a message dated 23/02/05 21:26:52 GMT Standard Time, dom.con.fus@...
writes:

> but even you said that you work under
> the supervision of the Censores following their (unpublished) directives.
> Now, generally speaking, one supervise someone else if the responsability of
> the final decision falls on him.
>

The Censores guidelines are not "unpublished". Their guidelines are the
edicta they issue and are available for all to see. Now who is being paranoid?

Please feel free to respond but I am out of the loop now.

Optime vale

C. Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
Rogator


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

Salve

> Thank you for your reply.

Welcome, even if I do not see why you should thank me for something like that,
truly.

> I will not respond to it as I think we are
> diametrally opposed on the issue of tribunician power. Until this issue
> is resoved I will not engaged in this discussion any further.
> The only thing I can say is why focus now on the applications procedures
> only?

I've already explained in detail way, on a previous mail, on this very list,
why.it's in message #33818, in case you are actually interested in the matter
and yours was not a mere rethorical question.

>> but even you said that you work under
>> the supervision of the Censores following their (unpublished)
>> directives.Now, generally speaking, one supervise someone else if the
>> responsability of the final decision falls on him.
>
> The Censores guidelines are not "unpublished". Their guidelines are the
> edicta they issue and are available for all to see. Now who is being
> paranoid?

Not me, it was you to use an unclear terminology ingenerating the feeling there
were more directives other than the edicts. Why you decided to call the edicts
directives is not for me to know, but if you use different terms for the same
thing without explaining it, you can't blame someone if he gets the feeling
there are indeed two different things you are talking about, can you?

vale

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
Founder of Gens Constantinia
Tribunus Plebis
Aedilis Urbis

Salvete,

This praetor and former tribune will give a little contribution also
to the research.

It is very clear documented on roman sources that since the Tribunus
Plebis hasn´t Curulis Dignitatis, but instead Sainctitatis on the
body, and Tribunicia Potestas, all acts of the Tribune reached the
boundaries of its body.

So, the Tribunes should BE PRESENT to veto something. That is why:

I. The tribune shoudnt leave Rome. Alas, there was a very smart
consul that called the Comitia Centuriata outside the Ager Romanus.
Since the army was called, and the Comitia Centuriata IS the army, it
was legal. The tribunes, pissed by having their intercessio avoided,
passed a law on Comitia Tributa putting to death any magistrate which
called from them a Comitia outside Roma.

II. The tribune should always let the door of home open, to any
plebeian reach its body. It is very poetic, but I dont know if it
really happened.

III. Since the tribuncia potestas heppened in the body of the
tribune, their work was not so powerful as we imagine. That is why
the plebeians always asked a raise on the number of the tribunes. So,
the consul from home could enact a order ´arrest that man´ on his
Imperium. However, the tribune couldnt enact from home ´release him´.
The tribune should MOVE to the place, and when the lictores were
arresting the guy, THEN AND HERE he would issue the ´order to
release´. On a limit situation, the tribune would release the man
with his own hands, and the lictores couldn´t use force due to the
Sainctatis, as they would use on however would try to free an
arrested.

Based on III, we can conclude a very eager tribune would follow all
steps of a magistrate and check all his acts ´on the time´ to veto
anything. Except when this magistrate would conduct the army outside
Rome, if he has Imperium to do so.

IV. Alas, much of the Tribunicia Potestas ´real power´ would come by
the support of the Plebs, denying conscription, with a tribune
backing releasing the arrested by disobeying the call... or even
fleeing from Rome and let the patricians ´armyless´.

Valete bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus PR


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:

> A. Apollonius Cordus Domitio Constantino Fusco
> omnibusque sal.
>

Salvete,

I. Por este édito, eu faço Philippus Arminius Caesar um escriba propretoriano. Na sua ´potestas´, ele terá a tarefa de tratar de todos os assuntos referentes ao ´website´ da província.

By this edict, I enact Philippus Arminius Caesar as a scriba propraetoris. On his potestas, he will have the duty to deal with all subjects refering to the website of the provincia.

II. Current list of provincial apparitores, atualization:

2.1) M. Arminius Maior, C. Arminius Reccanellus, T. Arminius Genialis - Legatus (shares the Imperium)

2.2) Philippus Arminius Caesar - Scriba (shares a kind of Potestas)



Valete bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus, Propraetor Brasiliae


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador do Yahoo! agora.

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

A. Apollonius Cordus P. Rutilio Bardulo omnibusque
sal.

I had said I would gather some more evidence on this
subject in a few days, and I shall, but in the mean
time let me reply to a couple of your points:

> When a slave
> was released following this institution, the new
> libertus was
> added into the gens and familia of his ancient owner
> and take
> the nomen from him. So, Joseph was created Flavius
> Iosephus
> because his ancient owner was the emperor Flavius
> Vespasianus.

Your first sentence is missing the word "customarily".
In fact there was no rule which required a freed slave
to enter the gens of his former owner, though it was
often done this way. Remember, though, Cicero's slave
whom he manumitted not into the gens Tullia but into
his friend's gens. It is more accurate to say that in
cases of manumission, the former owner chose what
nomen to give his former slave; and, vanity being what
it is, most masters chose to give their freedman their
own nomina. But they could choose otherwise.

> Gn. Salvius Astur scripsit:
> > We can find many similar examples. There was, for
> example, a >
> certain C. Julius Vercondaridubnus, an Aeduan noble
> (with a
> > cognomen like that there probably was very little
> doubt about
> > his Gaulishness) who became a Roman citizen and
> reached a
> > high position in the provincial administration of
> Gallia
> > Lugdunensis. He became one of the Julii, and there
> were few
> > gentes that would deserve the title of
> "preeminent"
> > like the gens Julia did at the time. So there you
> have your
> > former barbarian. You can read about this person
> in the
> > following documents:
>
> [Bardulus] This gaulish didn't become a Iulii
> because he *chose*
> the Gens Iulia. Most probably he was another
> prisoner of war
> that was manumited by Caesar, or maybe he was
> created a Iulii
> because his citizenship was granted by a Iulii
> (Caesar). This is
> an example of another Roman institution: the
> *donatio
> civitatis*.

You seem to have no evidence of this statement other
than the fact that you believe it. You say that he was
"most probably" a prisoner of war. But is it "most
probable" that a former prisoner of war would have
been honoured with a priesthood in a newly-created
cult of divus Julius? I think the best we can say
about this individual is that we don't know how he
gained his citizenship.

> [Bardulus] And what were the Gentes? A Gens was a
> group of
> individuals that were descendants of the same
> ancestor.
> According the tradition, there was a period in the
> Roman history
> when there was only one family per gens.

Not even the Romans believed that everyone in the same
gens was descended from a single ancestor, and
certainly no modern scholar believes it. If it were
true, how could it come about that many gentes
contained both patrician and plebeian families? It is
now recognized that many of the oldest nomina are
really patronymics: Octavius, the son of Octavus;
Lucilius, the son of Lucius; Plautius, the son of
Plautus. If this is so, two completely unrelated
people could easily have had the same nomen simply
because their fathers had the same praenomen or
cognomen.

> ... That period
> in the
> archaic Rome was being reconstructed in Nova Roma a
> few months
> ago, with the old Gens System. The new citizens were
> adopted in
> the Gentes (through the institution of *adoptio*) or
> they
> created their own ones when their citizenship were
> granted. That
> was indeed historical.

You are mistaken about adoptio - only a Roman citizen
could be adopted by adoptio or by adrogatio. In order
to be a Roman citizen one had to be a member of a
gens. So anyone who was adopted must already have had
a nomen.

You are also mistaken to say that the system which has
recently been abolished was in any way similar to the
social system of Rome at any time in its history. Even
if we imagine a gens which originated as a single
family, the paterfamilias of that family would have
been able to emancipate his children and thus allow
them to become patresfamilias. Was this possible under
the old system? It was not, because the only way to
become a paterfamilias was to found a new gens. Also,
on the death of that paterfamilias, all his children
would have become patresfamilias. But in the old
system, if a paterfamilias vanished or died, did his
gens divide into various independent families each
under its own paterfamilias? It did not; rather, a new
paterfamilias was found to replace the old one, and
the gens continued to be a single unit.

If you wish to claim that the old system was based on
that of archaic Rome and that it would, over
generations, have evolved naturally into the system
which is recorded in the middle republic, then you
must explain how that could ever have happened when
the system was designed to prevent a gens ever having
more than one paterfamilias.

> But this new gens system, with a Censor instead of a
> paterfamilias, managing, dealing and authorizing the
> manumissiones and adoptiones... this is the
> ahistorical system.

There are no manumissions in Nova Roma because there
are no slaves. Adoption, as I've said above, is not a
mechanism for gaining citizenship, because one must
already be a citizen in order to be adopted.

So how was citizenship acquired by free men in the
republic? There were two principal ways. First, the
populus could pass a lex giving citizenship to a whole
community. Second, a citizen of a community with which
Rome had a Latin treaty could acquire citizenship
automatically by coming to live in Rome. Let's look at
these two mechanisms.

When a whole city was given citizenship at once, every
citizen of that city became a Roman citizen. He would
therefore have to have a nomen, and thus a gens. Did
every single person in that city suddenly adopt the
nomen of the person who had proposed the lex? I very
much doubt it - surely some ancient author would have
commented on the existence of whole cities of Julii or
Marii. Presumably they took names as they pleased, or
used the ones they already had.

The ones they already had? Yes, the is a very
important point: most Italians, at least in the upper
classes, already had nomina. What was the name of
Appius Claudius before he became a Roman citizen? It
was Attius Clausus. When he settled at Rome and was
given citizenship, his nomen was simply Latinized to
Claudius. This was back in the fifth century B.C.; but
it remains true even after the end of the republic. In
Pompeii there are preserved on the walls of houses
posters from past municipal elections, saying 'vote
for so-and-so' or 'the cobblers' guild supports
so-and-so'. And these obviously allow us to see the
names of some non-citizen Italians. They all have
nomina. When they were elected to the highest civic
office, they automatically gained Roman citizenship;
and when they had gained it, they kept their existing
nomina.

You may say, 'yes, but all this proves is that new
citizens could create new gentes which had not
previously existed in Rome; it doesn't prove that they
could join existing ones'. But it does, because what
do we find among the nomina of the inhabitants of
Pompeii? Existing Roman nomina. A certain C. Gavius
Rufus ran for office in Pompeii in A.D. 79; in 50 B.C.
there had been a Roman citizen named L. Gavius whom
Cicero appointed his prefect in Cappadocia. The Helvii
occasionally held offices in the Roman government from
203 B.C. until 44 B.C.; and who stood for election
against C. Gavius but one Cn. Helvius Sabinus, another
citizen of Pompeii. In A.D. 78 the candidates included
a Lollius (five or six Lollii held magistracies at
Rome during the republic) and an Albucius (who shared
his nomen with a praetor of c.105 B.C.). We may also
imagine that the Pompeians Cuspius and Popidius would
have Latinized their nomina to the Roman Curtius (r
and s were closely related in Latin) and Popillius
respectively. One or more of these people must have
won an election and become a Roman citizen - do you
imagine that he then had to change his nomen because
he was forbidden to enter an existing gens? Of course
not.

Now, what about those who didn't have nomina to begin
with, like Greeks? Were they forbidden to enter
existing gentes while their Italian equivalents were
not? It seems very unlikely.

I hope this glance at some of the evidence has been
enjoyable; but really, I wonder whether there's any
need to do more than to quote the perfectly
unambiguous statement of Prof. Solin in the Oxford
Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed., under the entry on
names:

"When enfranchised, new citizens normally retained
their individual name as their cognomen. They were
free to choose their praenomen and nomen; during the
empire, it became common for new citizens to adopt
those of the reigning emperor"

There you have it: "They were free to choose their
praenomen and nomen".

Finally, if you are not exhausted, let me address your
argument that it is unhistorical for the censores to
be in charge of registering new citizens. Now,
remember the second way of becoming a citizen in the
republic: a citizen of a city which had a certain type
of treaty with Rome could acquire Roman citizenship
simply by coming to live at Rome. This is nowadays
called the jus migandi, and though that term wasn't
used by the Romans themselves, it described the thing
pretty well.

So they became citizens just by coming to live at
Rome. But how was their citizenship known and
registered? It was registered at the census, when the
censores called every citizen to declare himself and
his wealth to them so that they could be registered,
taxed, and called up for military service. Our migrant
from an Italian town would go to be counted at the
census, and would be asked his name. He would state
his name, in the Roman style (a name which he had
chosen for himself, without asking anyone for
permission). The censores, not recognizing him or his
name and not finding him on the register from the
previous census, would no doubt ask him where he came
from. 'Such-a-town', he would say, and the censores
would say, 'ah, yes, you have the right to Roman
citizenship according to our treaty with that place';
and they would mark him on the list.

So what the censores do is not to create citizens, but
merely to register them. The same is true today. The
censores do not have any power to refuse citizenship
to anyone, provided the rules laid out in law are met.
All that has happened is that we have extended the jus
migrandi to the whole world: anyone can now become a
Roman citizen by coming to join our community and
registering his presence with the censores.

The patresfamilias have not been deprived of the right
to create new citizens. They can create them in the
same way that ancient patresfamilias created new
citizens, and we have just heard that our own C.
Curius Saturninus and Emilia Curia Finnica have done
precisely that! Their son now has an automatic right
to citizenship, guaranteed by the lex Equitia de
familia (a right which was not recognized by the law
of Nova Roma before the lex Equitia).

But for new citizens who are not born to parents who
are already citizens, what is the historical method
for them to acquire citizenship? Not by the grant of a
paterfamilias - no ordinary citizen of the republic,
paterfamilias or not, could bestow Roman citizenship
on a foreigner. The way they become citizens is
through the jus migrandi, and they are registered by
the censores, just as was done in the old republic.
The new system is, as you can see, fully historical;
the old system was never so.





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

CN·SALVIVS·ASTVR·QVIRITIBVS·S·P·D

S·V·B·E·E·V

P·RVTILIVS·BARDVLVS·SCRIPSIT

> [Bardulus] Iosephus was a prisoner of war after the fall of
> Jotapata fortress at 67 of common era. The jewish noble Joseph
> ben Mattathia became personal servant (slave) of Flavius
> Vespasianus. When, after two years of slavery, Vespasianus want
> him as a free man, he was created "libertus", was released
> according a Roman institution: the *manumissio*. When a slave
> was released following this institution, the new libertus was
> added into the gens and familia of his ancient owner and take
> the nomen from him. So, Joseph was created Flavius Iosephus
> because his ancient owner was the emperor Flavius Vespasianus.

I am not sure if Josephus was ever actually considered a slave. He was
from a rather important Jewish family to begin with. He probably was a
prisoner of war at first (after betraying his own comrades) and an
ally later on, when he was used by Vespasianus with a propagandistic
goal in mind.

But it is correct that many foreigners entered Roman citizenship (or
rather Roman libertus state) after manumissio from slavery.

[...]

> [Bardulus] This gaulish didn't become a Iulii because he *chose*
> the Gens Iulia. Most probably he was another prisoner of war
> that was manumited by Caesar, or maybe he was created a Iulii
> because his citizenship was granted by a Iulii (Caesar). This is
> an example of another Roman institution: the *donatio
> civitatis*.

I don't think that this person was ever a prisoner of war; he was an
Aeduan noble and a Roman ally. So I think that you are right in
pointing out that this is an example where a donatio civitatis was
conceded. And please keep that term in mind, because we will return to
it later on.

> Gn. Salvius Astur scripsit:
> > We must get rid of a certain historical misconception that
> > has been around in Nova Roma since it was founded, more
> > based -- I suspect -- on historical novels than on historical
> > knowledge. The Julii were not an exclusive bunch, and neither
> > were the Claudii. There were thousands of Julii, Claudii,
> > Fabii and Papirii everywhere in the Roman world that were
> > bakers, merchants, cleaners, sailors and papyri-makers, all
> > of them plebeians to the bone. Now, being one of the Julii
> > *Caesares* was a completey different affair. It is the
> > familia that matters. Not the gens.
>
> [Bardulus] And what were the Gentes? A Gens was a group of
> individuals that were descendants of the same ancestor.

Theoretically, yes. Just like all the Smiths could theoretically be
considered descendants from a common ancestor. But I don't think that
American actor Will Smith has too many common ancestors with Joseph
Smith, founder of the Church of the Saints of the Last Days (a.k.a.
the Mormons).

> According the tradition, there was a period in the Roman history
> when there was only one family per gens.

And when was that? Can you point at historical sources contemporary to
that period?

This idea of a one-gens-one-family system has been defended by others
before you, but no one so far has been able to present historically
reliable sources to back it. The reason is because, even if there had
been one point in history were this was actually true, it was well
into the mists of Roman prehistory, of which we know very little.

But there is something even more significant: if there had been such a
system in Roman prehistory, it would be so ancient as to have very
little connection with Roman historical practice. In other words: the
'leader' of such a 'gens' would not practice the Roman religious
rituals of the sacra privata that we know, because the only rituals we
know were the ones performed centuries after his time. In fact, the
'leader' of such a 'gens' would speak such an archaic Latin that
perhaps he would not call his 'gens' a 'gens' to begin with...
'*kents' would probably be the term he would use.

So if we want to reconstruct a social system based on large clans and
clan leaders, we should start by getting rid of our Res Publica and
Senate. Our religious institutions and practices would also have to go
-- at least in the way they were known by the distant descendants of
the prehistorical Indo-European culture we would be recreating, and
we'd do well to appoint a rex. Or at least a chieftain. Probably we
should change our name to "Nova Alba Longa" as well... certainly there
wouldn't be too much of "the best of Rome" in it.

> That period in the archaic Rome was being reconstructed in Nova Roma a few
> months ago, with the old Gens System. The new citizens were adopted in
> the Gentes (through the institution of *adoptio*) or they
> created their own ones when their citizenship were granted. That
> was indeed historical.

It was not. It was historical-fantasy at best, and just a bunch of
badly written and incoherent procedures provoked by a lack of true
historical knowledge at worst.

> But this new gens system, with a Censor instead of a
> paterfamilias, managing, dealing and authorizing the
> manumissiones and adoptiones... this is the ahistorical system.

Now we come to the point were I would like to bring back a term you
used earlier on: DONATIO CIVITATIS.

As you have mentioned, there were several ways to become a Roman
citizen. One was to be the slave of a Roman citizen and then, if your
master freed you (which could or could not happen), your children
would eventually be Roman citizens. But, for some reason, I suspect
that not many prospective citizens would like to become your property
in order to have the possibility of becoming Roman citizens, so I am
afraid that this will never be our main source of new citizens.

The second option would be that a Roman magistrate conceded you Roman
citizenship: DONATIO CIVITATIS, as you have said. What magistrate
conceded Roman citizenship in the example above? The emperor. But we
have no emperors, so we must solve it in a different way. What Roman
magistrates kept the records of who was a senator, who belonged to the
third class of the Comitia Centuriata and -- yes! -- who was a Roman
citizen? The censores, of course.

So it is just natural that our censores be allowed to grant DONATIO
CIVITATIS to prospective citizens so that they can join us in our
Romanitas.

BENE·VALETE·VOS·VESTRIQVE·OMNES

CN·SALVIVS·T·F·A·NEP·OVF·ASTVR·SCRIPSIT

Test, please ignore,

L. Arminius Faustus


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador do Yahoo! agora.

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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
<dom.con.fus@e...> wrote:

> Salve
>
> On the matter of gentes and familiae, I announce you that is my

firm intention

> to propose, within next month, a lex to the comitia to revise the

present law

> and partially bring back the old system (even if I can forecast

already the

> yells and turmoil it will cause).

Salve,

Just how do you plan to do this with a mere Lex? The breakup of the
gens into individual families and domi is enshrined in the
Constitution of Nova Roma in II.D.1 thru 5.a. Unless there has been
Constitutional amendments changing the amendment process and who may
call the Comitia Centuriata to order to vote on Constitutional
amendments (which still require a 2/3's vote of approval in the
Senate) it can not be done by a Tribune presenting a Lex because a
Tribune can not call the Comitia Centuriata to order to vote.

If you are planning any intercessio in the future you should read
the Lex Didia Gemina de Potestate Tribunicia found at
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2003-11-15-i.html which
clearly states the elements and forms required in order for an
intercessio by a Tribune of the Plebs to be valid.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Salve Q. Cassius Calvus

>> On the matter of gentes and familiae, I announce you that is my
>> firm intention to propose, within next month, a lex to the comitia to revise

the

>> present law and partially bring back the old system (even if I can forecast
>> already the yells and turmoil it will cause).
>
> Just how do you plan to do this with a mere Lex? The breakup of the
> gens into individual families and domi is enshrined in the
> Constitution of Nova Roma in II.D.1 thru 5.a. Unless there has been
> Constitutional amendments changing the amendment process and who may
> call the Comitia Centuriata to order to vote on Constitutional
> amendments (which still require a 2/3's vote of approval in the
> Senate) it can not be done by a Tribune presenting a Lex because a
> Tribune can not call the Comitia Centuriata to order to vote.

If there was one thing I hoped I had demonstrated, is that this Tribunus stands
to the Constitution fully. That's what the "partially bring back" is for. I
don't mean to try and change the role of familiae in Nova Roma, at all. The
thing I intend to do is just to arrange how you can create a familia within an
already existing gens. For the rest, in that regard, things would stay exactly
as they are. Nor I do plan to give the "original name-holder" any directive
power over people wearing his name, as someone seem to be afraid of.

> If you are planning any intercessio in the future you should read
> the Lex Didia Gemina de Potestate Tribunicia found at
> http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2003-11-15-i.html which
> clearly states the elements and forms required in order for an
> intercessio by a Tribune of the Plebs to be valid.

Yes, I indeed know that law. Incidentally, I always find fascinating that people
yelling for historicity at all costs (not meaning you, Q. Cassius Calvus, it's
a general comment) actually apparently fail to notice how ahistorical the
tribunician veto is within Nova Roma and apparently plan to do nothing to bring
it to a more historical way. Yet, again, I'm one who strive the follow the
rules as they are, untill they are changed, and I hope you will have noticed
that the two times I had to use the Intercessio so far I did always put it into
a Constitutional framework, just as I di when I explained why, in a given
circumnstance, I couldn't use it. So, all in all, your comment sounds slightly
offensive, you will allow me to say that I hope, to someone who, again, has
always tried to follow the rules as they are to his best ability (even when
they didn't suit him or when he thought the rules were plain wrong).

Vale

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
Founder of Gens Constantinia
Tribunus Plebis
Aedilis Urbis

Salve, Corde, et salve, Astur!

Ok, both you have given to me a good lesson about Roman family
law! But let me discuss some of your affirmations. :-)

Cordus scripsit:

> Your first sentence is missing the word "customarily".
> In fact there was no rule which required a freed slave
> to enter the gens of his former owner, though it was
> often done this way. Remember, though, Cicero's slave
> whom he manumitted not into the gens Tullia but into
> his friend's gens. It is more accurate to say that in
> cases of manumission, the former owner chose what
> nomen to give his former slave; and, vanity being what
> it is, most masters chose to give their freedman their
> own nomina. But they could choose otherwise.

[Bardulus] Well, it isn't exactly a rule about the nomen, but a
rule about the origin and place of home of the freed, which the
master could not choose: see Ulpian, Dig. 50.1.6.3: "Libertini
originem patronorum vel domicilium sequuntur: item qui ex his
nascuntur." If the home and origin isn't a matter of choice, I
can't figure how the gens can be. About Cicero's slave, it is
indeed a very rare case.


Cordus scripsit:

> You seem to have no evidence of this statement other
> than the fact that you believe it. You say that he was
> "most probably" a prisoner of war. But is it "most
> probable" that a former prisoner of war would have
> been honoured with a priesthood in a newly-created
> cult of divus Julius? I think the best we can say
> about this individual is that we don't know how he
> gained his citizenship.

[Bardulus] Then you cannot use this as an example, since, as you
say, we don't know how was granted the citizenship to this man.


Cordus scripsit:

> Not even the Romans believed that everyone in the same
> gens was descended from a single ancestor, and
> certainly no modern scholar believes it. If it were
> true, how could it come about that many gentes
> contained both patrician and plebeian families? It is
> now recognized that many of the oldest nomina are
> really patronymics: Octavius, the son of Octavus;
> Lucilius, the son of Lucius; Plautius, the son of
> Plautus. If this is so, two completely unrelated
> people could easily have had the same nomen simply
> because their fathers had the same praenomen or
> cognomen.

Et Astur tandem scripsit:

> This idea of a one-gens-one-family system has been defended
> by others before you, but no one so far has been able to
> present historically reliable sources to back it. The reason
> is because, even if there had been one point in history were
> this was actually true, it was well into the mists of Roman
> prehistory, of which we know very little.

[Bardulus] But there are certain elements that show the gens as
in some period of Roman history it were something like a "broad
family":

1. The sacra gentilicia. Like the family with its sacra
domestica and its worship to the ancestors, there is some
evidence that the sacra gentilicia of the patrician gentes has
also a worship to a divinized pater fundator.

2. The burial. In early times, each gens had its own burial
place and its own rites. For example, was a costume of the
Cornelii the inhumation instead of incinerate the corpses.

3. Finally, the civil law has some indications of this concept
of the gens as a "broad family". See the XII Tables, 5, 4: "Si
intestato moritur cui suus heres nec escit, gentiles familiam
habento". If a man dies without a heir, then the gentiles
(members of his gens) will inherit him.

On the other hand, it's true that the gens being only one family
would only happen in a very early period of Roman history. But
imagine that a new citizen in a donatio civitatis founds his own
gens at a historic period. It would be a gens formed by a single
family. Why not in Roman prehistory?


Cordus scripsit:

> I hope this glance at some of the evidence has been
> enjoyable; but really, I wonder whether there's any
> need to do more than to quote the perfectly
> unambiguous statement of Prof. Solin in the Oxford
> Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed., under the entry on
> names:
> There you have it: "They were free to choose their
> praenomen and nomen".

[Bardulus] You are completely right.


Cordus scripsit:

> So what the censores do is not to create citizens, but
> merely to register them. The same is true today. The
> censores do not have any power to refuse citizenship
> to anyone, provided the rules laid out in law are met.
> All that has happened is that we have extended the jus
> migrandi to the whole world: anyone can now become a
> Roman citizen by coming to join our community and
> registering his presence with the censores.

[Bardulus] So, aren't there peregrini at all? Is the whole world
enjoying the benefits of the ius migrandi? This is a ahistorical
legal fiction. Let me explain you why.

This kind of ius migrandi, the right to be citizen simply by
building a house in Rome to live in it, was only granted to the
latini iuniani, not to the latini prisci nor the latini veteres
nor the peregrini (of course not!). And who were the latini
iuniani? Ancient slaves, freed through an imperfect manumissio.
They were created by Lex Iunia Norbana.

But you said:

> There are no manumissions in Nova Roma because there
> are no slaves.

[Bardulus] And certainly you're right: there are no slaves in
Nova Roma, nor in any other place of the world (except Sudan).
If there are no slaves, there are no imperfect libertini. If
there are no imperfect libertini, there are no latini iunianis.
If there are no latini iunianis, there are no this kind of ius
migrandi for anybody.


Cordus scripsit:

> But for new citizens who are not born to parents who
> are already citizens, what is the historical method
> for them to acquire citizenship? Not by the grant of a
> paterfamilias - no ordinary citizen of the republic,
> paterfamilias or not, could bestow Roman citizenship
> on a foreigner. The way they become citizens is
> through the jus migrandi, and they are registered by
> the censores, just as was done in the old republic.
> The new system is, as you can see, fully historical;
> the old system was never so.

[Bardulus] I can acknowledge that the old system was not fully
historical, but you should acknowledge that the new system isn't
either. The old one was based in a certain kind of manumissio,
and this new is based in the legal fiction mentioned above:
another kind of manumissio.


Et Astur scripsit:

> The second option would be that a Roman magistrate conceded
> you Roman citizenship: DONATIO CIVITATIS, as you have said.
> What magistrate conceded Roman citizenship in the example
> above? The emperor. But we have no emperors, so we must solve
> it in a different way. What Roman magistrates kept the
> records of who was a senator, who belonged to the third class
> of the Comitia Centuriata and -- yes! -- who was a Roman
> citizen? The censores, of course.

[Bardulus] In ancient Rome, the censores weren't the ones that
granted the citizenship. Only the people (at the Comitia), the
Senate authorized by the people, and magistrates with imperium
(like Caesar do while had imperium proconsulare in the Gaul),
thru a lex data. And were also the Censores who can do the
mancipatio, instead of the paterfamilias? Another serious
historical inaccuracy.

Anyway, I am not questioning the convenience or not of this new
gens system. It seems to me that the old one had many mistakes.
But what I'm saying is: please, don't try to sell this new
method saying that it is a historical system, because it isn't.
It can be more advisable for Nova Roma (or not), but not more
historical.


=====
Si vales bene est et gaudeo; ego autem valeo.

P·RVTILIVS·I·F·R·N·CLV·BARDVLVS·HADRIANVS



______________________________________________
Renovamos el Correo Yahoo!: ¡250 MB GRATIS!
Nuevos servicios, más seguridad
http://correo.yahoo.es

G. Equitius Cato Q. Salvio Astur P. Rutilio Bardulo Hadriano A.
Apollonio Cordo D. Constantinio Fusco S.P.D.

Salvete, viri.

I too have found the discussion of gentes/familiae fascinating. What
I might point out, in regards to Constantinius Fuscus' rather forceful
presentation, is something that Apollonius Cordus wrote:

"So what the censores do is not to create citizens, but merely to
register them."

The Censors are not "acting", per se, in that the registration of a
new citizen is really not an individual act. The Censors are merely
applying the laws of Nova Roma as they have been empowered to do so by
the will of the People. If the Censors were to pluck someone off the
street and "grant" him citizenship without them having gone through
the application process, this might constitute the kind of action
against which Constantinius Fuscus' argument might prevail, and be
subject to an intercessio.

Valete bene,

Cato

P.S. - I am using Constantinius Fuscus' corrected name, as I am sure
he would want it to be used in its proper form. As was pointed out
earlier, the gens "Constantinia", of which he is the rightfully proud
creator, has as its masculine form "Constantinius", not
"Constantinus".

Salve Cato

> P.S. - I am using Constantinius Fuscus' corrected name, as I am sure
> he would want it to be used in its proper form. As was pointed out
> earlier, the gens "Constantinia", of which he is the rightfully proud
> creator, has as its masculine form "Constantinius", not
> "Constantinus".

No, you are wrong, I actually like to be called with the name I've been using
for almost 5 years now and with which I'm universally (as far as Nova Roma
goes) known for.

It's not my fault if the censores of the time I joined made a mistake and
refused, despite my repeated (5) attempts, to correct it.

Now, after years, I have my own name that you are kindly asked to use as it is
and that I have no intention whatsoever to have changed (I think I have a right
to my own name, don't I?) and my gens name that you are equally kindly asked to
use as it is.

Vale

DCF

G. Equitius Cato D. Constantino Fusco S.P.D.

Salve, Constantinus Fuscus.

My apologies; I assumed improperly.

I must admit that it is curious to me, though, that if, as you say,

"It's not my fault if the censores of the time I joined made a mistake
and refused, despite my repeated (5) attempts, to correct it",

that you would not continue now take steps to correct something you
know (and have publicly acknowledged) to be a mistake. There has been
a great deal of energy put into the correction of citizens' names
(Salvius Astur's being the most recent one that pops to mind), and it
seems odd that you would not take advantage of that fact. The obvious
pride you have in your (properly-named) gens, Constantinia, would seem
to spur you to making the correction across the board. It is of course
not your fault if this occurred as you say it did; but now that you
can fix it...

But, as you say, if you are content with a misnomer, I will certainly
not give you cause for offense intentionally.

Vale bene,

Cato

A. Apollonius Cordus Domitio Constantino Fusco
omnibusque sal.

> ... Incidentally, I always
> find fascinating that people
> yelling for historicity at all costs (not meaning
> you, Q. Cassius Calvus, it's
> a general comment) actually apparently fail to
> notice how ahistorical the
> tribunician veto is within Nova Roma and apparently
> plan to do nothing to bring
> it to a more historical way.

You're quite right about that - it's high time for
this reform. Last year I worked briefly with Ti.
Galerius Paulinus on a draft which would make the
tribunician veto more historical, but constraints of
time meant it didn't get onto the agenda before the
end of the year.

If you or any of your colleagues would like to have a
look at the draft, I certainly wouldn't mind, and I'm
sure Paulinus wouldn't either.





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

A. Apollonius Cordus P. Rutilio Bardulo omnibusque
sal.

> [Bardulus] Well, it isn't exactly a rule about the
> nomen, but a
> rule about the origin and place of home of the
> freed, which the
> master could not choose: see Ulpian, Dig. 50.1.6.3:
> "Libertini
> originem patronorum vel domicilium sequuntur: item
> qui ex his
> nascuntur." If the home and origin isn't a matter of
> choice, I
> can't figure how the gens can be. About Cicero's
> slave, it is
> indeed a very rare case.

It may not have been the freedman's choice, but it
certainly was somebody's choice - the choice of the
patron, apparently. As for the case of Cicero's slave,
it is rare, but it's important to remember that
information about slaves in the republic is rare all
round! How many examples can you find of freedmen in
the republic who *did* have their patron's nomen?

> [Bardulus] But there are certain elements that show
> the gens as
> in some period of Roman history it were something
> like a "broad
> family":
>
> 1. The sacra gentilicia. Like the family with its
> sacra
> domestica and its worship to the ancestors, there is
> some
> evidence that the sacra gentilicia of the patrician
> gentes has
> also a worship to a divinized pater fundator.
>
> 2. The burial. In early times, each gens had its own
> burial
> place and its own rites. For example, was a costume
> of the
> Cornelii the inhumation instead of incinerate the
> corpses.
>
> 3. Finally, the civil law has some indications of
> this concept
> of the gens as a "broad family". See the XII Tables,
> 5, 4: "Si
> intestato moritur cui suus heres nec escit, gentiles
> familiam
> habento". If a man dies without a heir, then the
> gentiles
> (members of his gens) will inherit him.

These are all true, but what's more significant is
that in the whole of Roman life we can only find these
three examples which indicate any sort of shared
gentile activity or feeling. They may indicate that
some gentes were originally single families, but, as
Astur has said, this was certainly not the case by the
time our knowledge of Roman society begins, and
equally it doesn't tell us how many gentes were of
this kind.

Also, your point number 3 is slightly over-simplified.
There were several different layers of heir in
republican law, and if the first sort of heir could
not be found, the second inherited; if the second
could not be found, then the third; and so on. The
gens was the absolute last of these layers, and it
must have been extremely rare for this layer ever to
be necessary.

> On the other hand, it's true that the gens being
> only one family
> would only happen in a very early period of Roman
> history. But
> imagine that a new citizen in a donatio civitatis
> founds his own
> gens at a historic period. It would be a gens formed
> by a single
> family. Why not in Roman prehistory?

Indeed, there must always have been one person who was
the first to bear a certain nomen; and at that time,
of course that was a one-family gens. But then the
second person to bear that nomen was not necessarily a
relative of the first. The same is true in the new
system here. A newly-created gens will always be a
one-family gens, until the second family joins it.

> > All that has happened is that we have extended the
> jus
> > migrandi to the whole world: anyone can now become
> a
> > Roman citizen by coming to join our community and
> > registering his presence with the censores.
>
> [Bardulus] So, aren't there peregrini at all? Is the
> whole world
> enjoying the benefits of the ius migrandi? This is a
> ahistorical
> legal fiction. Let me explain you why.
>
> This kind of ius migrandi, the right to be citizen
> simply by
> building a house in Rome to live in it, was only
> granted to the
> latini iuniani, not to the latini prisci nor the
> latini veteres
> nor the peregrini (of course not!). And who were the
> latini
> iuniani? Ancient slaves, freed through an imperfect
> manumissio.
> They were created by Lex Iunia Norbana.

You need to look further back into Roman history. The
Junian Latins were not the first to have the jus
migrandi. The early treaties between Rome and other
Latin cities gave the citizens of each city certain
legal rights in the other city. These included the
right to contract marriages (conubium), the right to
trade (commercium), and the right to acquire
citizenship through migration (the jus migrandi).
Because these treaties were mostly with Latin towns,
this set of rights became known as "Latin rights".
Later, "Latin rights" were given to non-Latins also,
and eventually the lex Junia gave them also to a
certain category of freedmen, who thus became known as
the Junian Latins. But the first holders of Latin
rights were the citizens of the Latin cities with
which Rome had such treaties.

It is, as you say, unhistorical to treat all human
beings as having Latin rights, but this is precisely
what Nova Roma does. The constitution (article II.A.1)
that anyone over 18 may become a citizen. Also, the
lex Equitia de familia recognizes marriages between
our citizens and those of other countries (conubium);
and non-citizens are welcome to trade with citizens
through the Macellum (commercium). So non-citizens of
Nova Roma have all the Latin rights, including the jus
migrandi.

> [Bardulus] I can acknowledge that the old system was
> not fully
> historical, but you should acknowledge that the new
> system isn't
> either. The old one was based in a certain kind of
> manumissio,
> and this new is based in the legal fiction mentioned
> above:
> another kind of manumissio.

The new system is nothing to do with manumissio. There
cannot be manumissio in Nova Roma because, as we've
agreed, there are no slaves. How a freedman acquired
Roman citizenship is comletely irrelevant, and frankly
it is rather a waste of time to discuss it except for
academic interest. What we need to take as our example
is the process by which free people acquired Roman
citizenship during the republic, and this was, as I've
said, by block-grants or by the jus migrandi. All we
have done is given the jus migrandi, and the other
Latin rights, to all non-citizens. This is only
unhistorical in the sense that it is something the
Romans didn't happen to do. In another sense it is
fully historical in that it is done through the
historical procedures of Roman law, and if the Romans
had wished to allow all non-citizens to acquire
citizenship, this is how they would have done it. That
places the new system in a far superior category to
the old one, in which citizenship was acquired in ways
which no Roman would have understood or accepted.

> [Bardulus] In ancient Rome, the censores weren't the
> ones that
> granted the citizenship. Only the people (at the
> Comitia), the
> Senate authorized by the people, and magistrates
> with imperium
> (like Caesar do while had imperium proconsulare in
> the Gaul),
> thru a lex data.

Not quite. Only the people could give citizenship,
full stop. They could give it by a specific lex
(usually to whole communities - the block-grant I
mentioned before); or they could give people a right
to it (by ratifying a Latin treaty - all treaties were
ratified by the comitia); or they could give
magistrates a right to grant it (by a specific lex
giving that magistrate the power). Magistrates,
whether with or without imperium, did not have the
power to bestow citizenship without being specifically
authorized in advance by the comitia.

So which of these three options do we do in Nova Roma?
I prefer to say that we do the second: by enacting the
constitution, the people gave the jus migrandi to all
non-citizens. But one could alternatively say it is
the third: the comitia have given, once and for all,
the power to grant citizenship to the censores by a
lex. Either way, it is perfectly historical.

> ... And were also the Censores who can
> do the
> mancipatio, instead of the paterfamilias? Another
> serious
> historical inaccuracy.

Mancipatio? Do you mean emancipatio? If so, you must
be confused: the censores in the new system do not
have the power to emancipate anyone.

> Anyway, I am not questioning the convenience or not
> of this new
> gens system. It seems to me that the old one had
> many mistakes.
> But what I'm saying is: please, don't try to sell
> this new
> method saying that it is a historical system,
> because it isn't.
> It can be more advisable for Nova Roma (or not), but
> not more
> historical.

It is a thousand times more historical, and, if you
like, I can spend many, many days explaining in
tedious detail all the many, many ways in which it is
more historical. Once while I and others were working
on the lex Equitia, I wrote a brief analysis of the
historical accuracies and inaccuracies of the new
system. At least 70% of the paragraphs said something
liike "this is completely historical"; about another
20% said something like "this is as historical as
we'll ever be able to get"; and the rest said
something like "this is deliberately unhistorical, but
it is done in the most historical way possible, by
analogy with other historical examples".





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

C. Minucius Hadrianus S.P.D.

Salvete.

My wife and I will be traveling to Italy for a week in April (6th-13th),
staying in Rome for 4 days (in Trastevere), and then off to Naples for 2
more days, flying home on the 13th. We had hoped to be in Rome for the
21st of April, but unfortunately neither of us could take vacation days
that week. We would love the opportunity to meet with any local Nova Romans!

Valete,

Gaius Minucius Hadrianus et Octavia Minucia Sabina

Salve C. Minucius Hadrianus

I shall be out of town on the far away Baltic between the 3 and the 10th.
If you will be in Rome still on sunday night, it will be my pleasure to
meet you. In any case, I'm sure the other Citizens of the Urbs will be
there to take care of teh customary host duties :)

Vale

DCF



On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:07:36 -0500, Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix
<c.minucius.hadrianus@...> wrote:

> C. Minucius Hadrianus S.P.D.
>
> Salvete.
>
> My wife and I will be traveling to Italy for a week in April (6th-13th),
> staying in Rome for 4 days (in Trastevere), and then off to Naples for 2
> more days, flying home on the 13th. We had hoped to be in Rome for the
> 21st of April, but unfortunately neither of us could take vacation days
> that week. We would love the opportunity to meet with any local Nova
> Romans!
>
> Valete,
>
> Gaius Minucius Hadrianus et Octavia Minucia Sabina
>

Just ignore

Ave Paulinus,
In reply to your note I think I paid my taxes on or around Januarius 29th,my name is Decimus Gladius Lupus,Provincia Hibernia,my payment will be under my name Alan Whelan.
Optime Vale Lupus.

"Timothy P. Gallagher" <spqr753@...> wrote:
Salve Romans

Could the following citizen drop me a private note with the requested information. I am maintaining a spreadsheet with tax payment for this year and some information was left off your payments. Citizen # 1777 (DD) could you please send me your Roman name and Province.

all others

If you have paid you taxes between Jan 1 and February 22 could you also drop me a private note with your Roman, Macro and Provencal name as some of this information was not included in your payment.

Could all Citizens who are going to pay your taxes soon please include your Roman and Macro national name and your Province as well.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Consular Quaestor









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



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

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

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

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



Bill Hicks Lives On ! It`s Just a Ride.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
<dom.con.fus@e...> wrote:

>
> No, you are wrong, I actually like to be called with the name I've

been using

> for almost 5 years now and with which I'm universally (as far as

Nova Roma

> goes) known for.
>
> It's not my fault if the censores of the time I joined made a

mistake and

> refused, despite my repeated (5) attempts, to correct it.

Salve,

As Scriba Censoris adCommunicationes Primus to Censor Caeso Fabius
Quintilianus, may I inquire as to when you made these five attempts
to have you name corrected? I need to know in order to determine if
a breakdown in the procedures developed to handle communications
with civies of Nova Roma has occured and to develop and put into
place any corrective actions to prevent such a breakdown in the
future.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus
Scriba Censoris adCommunicationes Primus
to Censor Caeso Fabius Quintilianus

Salve

> Salve,
>
> As Scriba Censoris adCommunicationes Primus to Censor Caeso Fabius
> Quintilianus, may I inquire as to when you made these five attempts
> to have you name corrected? I need to know in order to determine if
> a breakdown in the procedures developed to handle communications
> with civies of Nova Roma has occured and to develop and put into
> place any corrective actions to prevent such a breakdown in the
> future.

5 years ago, as I joined Nova Roma and the following months as the first
Constantinii joined the gens :) It's definitely not your, the present
cohor's, nor the Censor's fault. And, again, now, after 5 years, I don't
feel there is anything that has to be corrected, but is nice of you to
inquire anyway.

vale

DCF

OSD G. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

Today is ante diem IV Kalendas Martias; the day is Endotercisus.

"Non omnes qui habent citharam sunt citharoedi." (Not all those who
own a musical instrument are musicians) - M. Terentius Varro

"On the conclusion of the treaty the six combatants armed themselves.
They were greeted with shouts of encouragement from their comrades,
who reminded them that their fathers' gods, their fatherland, their
fathers, every fellow-citizen, every fellow-soldier, were now watching
their weapons and the hands that wielded them. Eager for the contest
and inspired by the voices round them, they advanced into the open
space between the opposing lines. The two armies were sitting in front
of their respective camps, relieved from personal danger but not from
anxiety, since upon the fortunes and courage of this little group hung
the issue of dominion. Watchful and nervous, they gaze with feverish
intensity on a spectacle by no means entertaining. The signal was
given, and with uplifted swords the six youths charged like a
battle-line with the courage of a mighty host. Not one of them thought
of his own danger; their sole thought was for their country, whether
it would be supreme or subject, their one anxiety that they were
deciding its future fortunes. When, at the first encounter, the
flashing swords rang on their opponents' shields, a deep shudder ran
through the spectators; then a breathless silence followed, as neither
side seemed to be gaining any advantage. Soon, however, they saw
something more than the swift movements of limbs and the rapid play of
sword and shield: blood became visible flowing from open wounds. Two
of the Romans fell one on the other, breathing out their life, whilst
all the three Albans were wounded. The fall of the Romans was welcomed
with a burst of exultation from the Alban army; whilst the Roman
legions, who had lost all hope, but not all anxiety, trembled for
their solitary champion surrounded by the three Curiatii. It chanced
that he was untouched, and though not a match for the three together,
he was confident of victory against each separately. So, that he might
encounter each singly, he took to flight, assuming that they would
follow as well as their wounds would allow. He had run some distance
from the spot where the combat began, when, on looking back, he saw
them following at long intervals from each other, the foremost not far
from him. He turned and made a desperate attack upon him, and whilst
the Alban army were shouting to the other Curiatii to come to their
brother's assistance, Horatius had already slain his foe and, flushed
with victory, was awaiting the second encounter. Then the Romans
cheered their champion with a shout such as men raise when hope
succeeds to despair, and he hastened to bring the fight to a close.
Before the third, who was not far away, could come up, he despatched
the second Curiatius. The survivors were now equal in point of
numbers, but far from equal in either confidence or strength. The one,
unscathed after his double victory, was eager for the third contest;
the other, dragging himself wearily along, exhausted by his wounds and
by his running, vanquished already by the previous slaughter of his
brothers, was an easy conquest to his victorious foe. There was, in
fact, no fighting. The Roman cried exultingly: "Two have I sacrificed
to appease my brothers' shades; the third I will offer for the issue
of this fight, that the Roman may rule the Alban." He thrust his sword
downward into the neck of his opponent, who could no longer lift his
shield, and then despoiled him as he lay. Horatius was welcomed by the
Romans with shouts of triumph, all the more joyous for the fears they
had felt. Both sides turned their attention to burying their dead
champions, but with very different feelings, the one rejoicing in
wider dominion, the other deprived of their liberty and under alien
rule. The tombs stand on the spots where each fell; those of the
Romans close together, in the direction of Alba; the three Alban
tombs, at intervals, in the direction of Rome." - Livy, History of
Rome 1.25

Valete omnes!

Cato

Salve Romans


For all of you who have paid and for all of you who are going to pay your taxes

THANKS.

Please remember to include your Roman and macro national name and the name of your province in the note section of your correspondence and with Paypal.


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Consular Quaestor

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

Ave Hadriane,

it will a pleasure to meet you, as well. Maybe we'll have the
opportunity to arrange a meeting of the citizens of the Urbs in
those days, or at least meet to just shake our hands.
We'll write later for details about your staying and a place to meet.

vale
M IVL PERVSIANVS
Praetor

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Domitius Constantinus Fuscus"
<dom.con.fus@e...> wrote:

> Salve C. Minucius Hadrianus
>
> I shall be out of town on the far away Baltic between the 3 and

the 10th.

> If you will be in Rome still on sunday night, it will be my

pleasure to

> meet you. In any case, I'm sure the other Citizens of the Urbs

will be

> there to take care of teh customary host duties :)
>
> Vale
>
> DCF
>
>
>
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:07:36 -0500, Gaius Minucius Hadrianus

Felix

> <c.minucius.hadrianus@n...> wrote:
>
> > C. Minucius Hadrianus S.P.D.
> >
> > Salvete.
> >
> > My wife and I will be traveling to Italy for a week in April

(6th-13th),

> > staying in Rome for 4 days (in Trastevere), and then off to

Naples for 2

> > more days, flying home on the 13th. We had hoped to be in Rome

for the

> > 21st of April, but unfortunately neither of us could take

vacation days

> > that week. We would love the opportunity to meet with any local

Nova

> > Romans!
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Gaius Minucius Hadrianus et Octavia Minucia Sabina
> >

AVETE CIVES ROMANI

Finally, I got the answers! I will publish here two of the 5 answers
that prof A. Giardina gave to our questions.
Theme: Slavery in Ancient Rome.

You can read tomorrow the other answers, here:
http://www.novaroma.org/expert/index.htm

His brief biography:
Prof. Andrea Giardina (Palermo 1949) teaches roman history at the
University of La sapienza, Rome.He is president of the Istituto
italiano per la storia antica. Among his recent works and
publications: 'L'Italia romana. Storie di un'identità incompiuta',
Laterza, Roma-Bari 1997 (terza ed. 2004). 'Il mito di Roma da Carlo
Magno a Mussolini' (in collaborazione con A. Vauchez), Laterza, Roma-
Bari 2000; french ed.: 'Rome, l'idée, le mythe', Fayard, Paris 2000.
His volume 'L'uomo romano' (Roman Man) is at its nineth italian
edition and was translated in english, spanish, portugese, german,
polish and some other languages. He wrote also 'Roma antica', second
ed. Laterza, Roma-Bari 2003.

Question n°1
How could a slave in Rome obtain his freedom?

With the term manumissio, the Romans indicated the action through
which the lord granted the freedom to his slave (the lord renounced,
through that action, to the authority, called in latin manus, that
had on the slave). In Rome, the liberation of a slave involved a
quite simple procedure: the decision of the lord was practically
unobjectionable and demanded a banal formal approval from a
magistrate.
But the lord could free the slave also for testament. The freed
slave, or libertus, was a "nearly citizen": could vote in the
assemblies, but not be elected; his sons, instead, became roman
citizens with plenty of powers and rights: integration of the former
slaves in the roman society was much faster than in other societies.
The Romans boasted themselves of being the only community that
easily integrated therefore the slaves and this characteristic was
an important aspect of their "autorepresentation". The only among
the ancient cultures, the Roman one quite valued the slavery element
of their own origins: they said, as an example, that the mother of
the great king Servius Tullius was a slave; they used to say that
Romulus received in a sacred fencing called "asylum" individuals of
every origin, just to give body to the new city: from this nucleus
would have had origins the first peopling of the city.
The roman slavery had therefore two faces: one is that, terrible, of
the exploitation, the punishments, the crucifixions (who does not
remember the film "Spartacus" of S. Kubrick?). The other is that of
the relatively easy liberation and integration. This characteristic
of the roman society struck a lot also the strangers. At the times
of the second Punic war the Macedonian king Philips V, allied to
Hannibal, wrote a letter to the inhabitants of a Greek city in order
to urge them to grant more easily the citizenship to the
strangers: "Do like Romans, he wrote, that when they free the slaves
they put them in the citizenship. In this way they have increased
their native land and become much more powerful ". The king of
Macedonians picked a fundamental point. The freed slaves, in fact,
became suddenly soldiers to serve in the roman armies. Rome widely
adopted the practical chance of the manumissio and therefore had
more numerous armies.
In the complex existing psychological tie between slave and lord the
perspective of the liberation carried out a precious function: it
rendered the slaves desirous to acquire merits in front of the lord
and pushed them to assume docile and submitted behaviours. But this
happened nearly exclusively for the domestic slaves or however for
who of them that had more contacts with the lord. For the others -
and it was a matter of the great majority - the slavery was a
condition for the life. The roman conceptions of slavery did not
differ a lot from the Greek ones: also in Rome the slave was
considered a property of his lord, and could be beaten or killed to
his will.
In Italy the slaves were a multitude: we don't have any precise
information, but it is probable that they represented a third to the
half part of the entire population. Therefore this great number of
slaves, often held in conditions of extreme suffering, determined a
constantly explosive situation. Particularly serious were the
revolts exploded in Sicily between the 139 and the 132 b.C. and the
revolt of Spartacus, that caused great bloodshed in Italy between
the 73 and 71 b.C.


Question n°2
The sources attest, above all during the reign and the republican
age, a sacral approach of the Roman towards the main events, from
most complex inherent to the life of the state, to the simplest
legacies and to the daily events. I ask if, in the cited ages, it is
recognizable a sacral sphere in the roman approach to the slavery or
if everything can be brought to a pure utilitaristic sphere.

A "sacral approach" to the slavery did not exist. However, some
aspects of the relationship between dominus and slave had some
religious connotations. We have seen how the slave was an object in
the hands of the lord. But a cruel lord, that used to beat, torture
or sentence to death his slave without any reason or with vain
reasons, was considered by the members of his own class a censurable
man. In other words, was strong the conviction that also with the
enslaved had to be used a behaviour respectful of the pietas. This
concept, that would be reductive to translate with "mercy", was
steeped both in moral and religion.
The pius man was appreciated not only by the other men (free or
enslaved who were) but also by the Gods. The stoicism (we can all
remember the words of Seneca) showed a certain comprehension for the
condition of slaves (ET homines sunt..., "they are men, anyhow") but
it never arrived to sentence the moral necessity to abolish the
slavery. The same conclusion was arrived by the Christianity, that
exhorted the lords to deal in the mild way their slaves, but
exhorted at the same time these ones to accept their own condition.
It was diffused the conviction that the slavery corresponded to a
right jus, just a nature jus.

VALETE BENE
L IUL SULLA
Aedilis Curulis
Rector Academiae Italicae

Salve Marce!

Wonderful - we're looking forward to it!

Vale bene,

Hadrianus et Octavia


Marcus Iulius Perusianus wrote:

>Ave Hadriane,
>
>it will a pleasure to meet you, as well. Maybe we'll have the
>opportunity to arrange a meeting of the citizens of the Urbs in
>those days, or at least meet to just shake our hands.
>We'll write later for details about your staying and a place to meet.
>
>vale
>M IVL PERVSIANVS
>Praetor
>
>--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Domitius Constantinus Fuscus"
><dom.con.fus@e...> wrote:
>
>
>>Salve C. Minucius Hadrianus
>>
>>I shall be out of town on the far away Baltic between the 3 and
>>
>>
>the 10th.
>
>
>>If you will be in Rome still on sunday night, it will be my
>>
>>
>pleasure to
>
>
>>meet you. In any case, I'm sure the other Citizens of the Urbs
>>
>>
>will be
>
>
>>there to take care of teh customary host duties :)
>>
>>Vale
>>
>>DCF
>>
>>
>>
>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:07:36 -0500, Gaius Minucius Hadrianus
>>
>>
>Felix
>
>
>><c.minucius.hadrianus@n...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>C. Minucius Hadrianus S.P.D.
>>>
>>>Salvete.
>>>
>>>My wife and I will be traveling to Italy for a week in April
>>>
>>>
>(6th-13th),
>
>
>>>staying in Rome for 4 days (in Trastevere), and then off to
>>>
>>>
>Naples for 2
>
>
>>>more days, flying home on the 13th. We had hoped to be in Rome
>>>
>>>
>for the
>
>
>>>21st of April, but unfortunately neither of us could take
>>>
>>>
>vacation days
>
>
>>>that week. We would love the opportunity to meet with any local
>>>
>>>
>Nova
>
>
>>>Romans!
>>>
>>>Valete,
>>>
>>>Gaius Minucius Hadrianus et Octavia Minucia Sabina
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Edictum Propraetoricium about the appointment of a Scriba and Release
of a Legate.

I. Salvia Sempronia Graccha is appointed my Scriba for America
Medioccidentalis Superior Province.

II. Gaius Basilicatus Agricola is released from duties as Legate. I
thank him for his service to the Province. A New Legate will be named
soon.

III. This edictum becomes effective immediately.

Given the 26th of February, in the year of the Consulship of
Franciscus Apulus Caesar and Gaius Popillius Laenas, 2758 AUC.


Quintus Servilius Fidenas
Propraetor, America Medioccidentalis Superior
Lictor Curiatas
Founder of Gens Servilia

iChatAV/AIM/Yahoo: QServilius

Good Day All

I would like to apologize for being anyway for soo long but I have been absent in the service of my country, and I just wanted to inform everyone that I, Quintus Sertorius, am now back as a Legate in the service of his Provincia and Nova Roma!

Quintus Sertorius

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

Salve Sertori!

Nathan Guiboche wrote:

> Good Day All
>
> I would like to apologize for being anyway for soo long

No apologies necessary!

> but I have been absent in the service of my country, and I
> just wanted to inform everyone that I, Quintus Sertorius, am
> now back as a Legate in the service of his Provincia and Nova Roma!

Good to see your name in my e-mail again, Quinte. It's a pleasure to
see you safely returned to us.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Salve Quintus Sertorius


Welcome back indeed.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: Nathan Guiboche<mailto:nate@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 5:56 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Contact


Good Day All

I would like to apologize for being anyway for soo long but I have been absent in the service of my country, and I just wanted to inform everyone that I, Quintus Sertorius, am now back as a Legate in the service of his Provincia and Nova Roma!

Quintus Sertorius

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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129dj0bhc/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1109544968/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>




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

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

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.



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

Salve! I include this message as a request for
information/ clarification. Ill accept all viewpoints.
Also, didnt Imp. M.Aurelius have a bad campaign in
Iraq?
--- praefectus2324@...
<praefectus2324@...> wrote:

> parthia, enemy of the romans and later called persia
> is also Iraq. The Romans also an eagle, fought them
> until the eastern romans were destroyed by Persia.
> --- Sunset1881@... <Sunset1881@...> wrote:
> >
> > ------------
> > Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:13:11 -0500
> > From: grippie@...
> > To: sunset1881@...
> > Subject: FW: iRAQ
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > IRAQ - VERY INTERESTING - DID YOU KNOW?
> > > 1. The garden of Eden was in Iraq.
> > > 2. Mesopotamia, which is now Iraq, was the

cradle

> of civilization!
> > > 3. Noah built the ark in Iraq.
> > > 4. The Tower of Babel was in Iraq.
> > > 5. Abraham was from Ur, which is in Southern

Iraq!

> > > 6. Isaac's wife Rebekah is from Nahor, which is

in

> Iraq.
> > > 7. Jacob met Rachel in Iraq.
> > > 8. Jonah preached in Nineveh - which is in Iraq.
> 9. Assyria, which is in I
> > raq, conquered the ten tribes of Israel.
> > > 10. Amos cried out in Iraq!
> > > 11. Babylon, which is in Iraq, destroyed
> Jerusalem.
> > > 12. Daniel was in the lion's den in Iraq!
> > > 13. The three Hebrew children were in the fire

in

> Iraq (Jesus had been in
> > Iraq also as the fourth person in the fiery
> furnace!)
> > > 14. Belshazzar, the King of Babylon saw the
> "writing on the wall" in Iraq.
> > > 15. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, carried the
> Jews captive into Iraq.
> > > 16. Ezekiel preached in Iraq.
> > > 17. The wise men were from Iraq.
> > > 18. Peter preached in Iraq.
> > > 19. The "Empire of Man" described in Revelation

is

> called Babylon, which w
> > as a city in Iraq!
> > > And you have probably seen this one. Israel is

the

> nation most often menti
> > oned in the Bible. But do you know which nation is
> second? It is Iraq! Howev
> > er, that is not the name that is used in the

Bible.

> The names used in the Bi
> > ble are Babylon, Land ! of Shinar, and

Mesopotamia.

> The word Mesopotamia mea
> > ns between the two rivers, more exactly between

the

> Tigris and Euphrates Riv
> > ers. The name Iraq, means country with deep roots.
> > >
> > > Indeed Iraq is a country with deep roots and is

a

> very significant country
> > in the Bible.
> > > No other nation, except Israel, has more history
> and prophecy associated i
> > t than Iraq.
> > > And also... This is something to think about!
> Since America is typically r
> > epresented by an eagle. Saddam should have read up
> on his Muslim passages...
> > > The following verse is from the Koran, (the
> Islamic Bible)
> > > Koran (9:11) - For it is written that a son of
> Arabia would awaken a fears
> > ome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt
> throughout the lands of Alla
> > h and lo, while some of the people trembled in
> despair still more rejoiced;
> > for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of
> Allah; and there was peace.
> > > (Note the verse number!) Hmmmmmmm?! God Bless

you

> all Amen !

=== Message Truncated ===


=====
S P Q R

Fidelis Ad Mortem.

Marcvs Flavivs Fides
Roman Citizen





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Salvete Marce Flavi et omnes,

I checked around and found this article from the "History Net" which
addresses this situation in a professional like manner. I think you
will enjoy it as it covers a lot of your thoughts:


http://www.thehistorynet.com/mhq/blromespersianmirage/


Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, raymond fuentes
<praefectus2324@y...> wrote:

> Salve! I include this message as a request for
> information/ clarification. Ill accept all viewpoints.
> Also, didnt Imp. M.Aurelius have a bad campaign in
> Iraq?
> --- praefectus2324@y...
> <praefectus2324@y...> wrote:
> > parthia, enemy of the romans and later called persia
> > is also Iraq. The Romans also an eagle, fought them
> > until the eastern romans were destroyed by Persia.
> > --- Sunset1881@a... <Sunset1881@a...> wrote:
> > >
> > > ------------
> > > Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:13:11 -0500
> > > From: grippie@h...
> > > To: sunset1881@a...
> > > Subject: FW: iRAQ
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > IRAQ - VERY INTERESTING - DID YOU KNOW?
> > > > 1. The garden of Eden was in Iraq.
> > > > 2. Mesopotamia, which is now Iraq, was the
> cradle
> > of civilization!
> > > > 3. Noah built the ark in Iraq.
> > > > 4. The Tower of Babel was in Iraq.
> > > > 5. Abraham was from Ur, which is in Southern
> Iraq!
> > > > 6. Isaac's wife Rebekah is from Nahor, which is
> in
> > Iraq.
> > > > 7. Jacob met Rachel in Iraq.
> > > > 8. Jonah preached in Nineveh - which is in Iraq.
> > 9. Assyria, which is in I
> > > raq, conquered the ten tribes of Israel.
> > > > 10. Amos cried out in Iraq!
> > > > 11. Babylon, which is in Iraq, destroyed
> > Jerusalem.
> > > > 12. Daniel was in the lion's den in Iraq!
> > > > 13. The three Hebrew children were in the fire
> in
> > Iraq (Jesus had been in
> > > Iraq also as the fourth person in the fiery
> > furnace!)
> > > > 14. Belshazzar, the King of Babylon saw the
> > "writing on the wall" in Iraq.
> > > > 15. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, carried the
> > Jews captive into Iraq.
> > > > 16. Ezekiel preached in Iraq.
> > > > 17. The wise men were from Iraq.
> > > > 18. Peter preached in Iraq.
> > > > 19. The "Empire of Man" described in Revelation
> is
> > called Babylon, which w
> > > as a city in Iraq!
> > > > And you have probably seen this one. Israel is
> the
> > nation most often menti
> > > oned in the Bible. But do you know which nation is
> > second? It is Iraq! Howev
> > > er, that is not the name that is used in the
> Bible.
> > The names used in the Bi
> > > ble are Babylon, Land ! of Shinar, and
> Mesopotamia.
> > The word Mesopotamia mea
> > > ns between the two rivers, more exactly between
> the
> > Tigris and Euphrates Riv
> > > ers. The name Iraq, means country with deep roots.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed Iraq is a country with deep roots and is
> a
> > very significant country
> > > in the Bible.
> > > > No other nation, except Israel, has more history
> > and prophecy associated i
> > > t than Iraq.
> > > > And also... This is something to think about!
> > Since America is typically r
> > > epresented by an eagle. Saddam should have read up
> > on his Muslim passages...
> > > > The following verse is from the Koran, (the
> > Islamic Bible)
> > > > Koran (9:11) - For it is written that a son of
> > Arabia would awaken a fears
> > > ome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt
> > throughout the lands of Alla
> > > h and lo, while some of the people trembled in
> > despair still more rejoiced;
> > > for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of
> > Allah; and there was peace.
> > > > (Note the verse number!) Hmmmmmmm?! God Bless
> you
> > all Amen !
> === Message Truncated ===
>
>
> =====
> S P Q R
>
> Fidelis Ad Mortem.
>
> Marcvs Flavivs Fides
> Roman Citizen
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Salve Romans

FYI Forwarded from explorator 7.44 February 27, 2005


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus


AFRICA, EUROPE, AND ASIA
================================================================


An ancient (4000 b.p.) perfumery has been found on Pyrgos:

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=18533&archive=1<about:blank>
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=212432005<about:blank>
http://tinyurl.com/3l5tp<about:blank> (Reuters)


Plenty of attention (and lots of discussion in various online
sources) given to the discovery of a pile of decapitated bodies
in a Roman cemetery in York:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1498756,00.html<about:blank>
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4175395<about:blank>
http://tinyurl.com/5cwq8<about:blank> (This is York)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/4295653.stm<about:blank>

cf: http://www.yorkarchaeology.co.uk/driffield.htm<about:blank>


Roman coin hoard from Norfolk:

http://tinyurl.com/4rwfl<about:blank> (EDP24)


A 1000 b.p. coin hoard from Morocoo:

http://www.moroccotimes.com/paper/article.asp?idr=11&id=4158<about:blank>
================================================================

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

Salve, Corde, et salvete omnes!


Cordus scripsit:

> It may not have been the freedman's choice, but it
> certainly was somebody's choice - the choice of the
> patron, apparently. As for the case of Cicero's slave,
> it is rare, but it's important to remember that
> information about slaves in the republic is rare all
> round! How many examples can you find of freedmen in
> the republic who *did* have their patron's nomen?

[Bardulus] Well, we have the example of *another* freed slave of
Cicero: his secretary Tiro (see Cicero, Epistulae ad
Familiares). He was freed with the name of Marcus Tullius Tiro.
As for the first slave, it would be a case of "manumissio per
vindictam" or "manumissio vindicta". With this action, a friend
(assertor libertatem) of the legitimate owner claims the freedom
of the slave before a magistrate; the owner, of course,
recognizes the claim, and the magistrate makes the slave a
libertus. See Gaius, Inst. I, 17, and Dig. 40, 2.
The freed through a manumissio vindicta probably takes his nomen
from his assertor libertatem, in our case it could be Pomponius
Atticus, Cicero's good friend.


Cordus scripsit:

> Also, your point number 3 is slightly over-simplified.
> There were several different layers of heir in
> republican law, and if the first sort of heir could
> not be found, the second inherited; if the second
> could not be found, then the third; and so on. The
> gens was the absolute last of these layers, and it
> must have been extremely rare for this layer ever to
> be necessary.

[Bardulus] Not at all: see Gaius Inst. III, 17: "Si nullus
agnatus sit, eadem lex XII tabularum gentiles ad hereditatem
uocat. Qui sint autem gentiles, primo commentario rettulimus; et
cum illic admonuerimus totum gentilicium ius in desuetudinem
abisse, superuacuum est hoc quoque loco de eadem re iterum
curiosius tractare."

So *there were* a "gentilicium ius" (Gens-based civil law) in
Roman history, but unused ("in desuetudinem") since long ago in
Gaius' times (probably he lived during the reign of emperor
Marcus Aurelius). It's a pity that the definition of the Gentes
made by Gaius ("primo commentario rettulimus") hasn't been
conserved in the texts that remained of the Institutiones.


Cordus scripsit:

> You need to look further back into Roman history. The
> Junian Latins were not the first to have the jus
> migrandi. The early treaties between Rome and other
> Latin cities gave the citizens of each city certain
> legal rights in the other city. These included the
> right to contract marriages (conubium), the right to
> trade (commercium), and the right to acquire
> citizenship through migration (the jus migrandi).
> Because these treaties were mostly with Latin towns,
> this set of rights became known as "Latin rights".
> Later, "Latin rights" were given to non-Latins also,
> and eventually the lex Junia gave them also to a
> certain category of freedmen, who thus became known as
> the Junian Latins. But the first holders of Latin
> rights were the citizens of the Latin cities with
> which Rome had such treaties.

[Bardulus] After the fall of the Latin League in 384 before the
common era, the ius migrandi for the latini as a method of
gaining the full citizenship, was replaced by the requirement of
being a local magistrate of the city of origin (civitas per
magistratum). The ius migrandi dissapeared until the Lex Iunia
Norbena (year 12 of common era), and then only applies to the
latini iuniani (former slaves).

But there is a problem, Corde: you talked about "early
treaties". I wonder how many treaties Nova Roma has and with
what nations. Of course we always can ask the French Republic,
the United States of America, the Kingdom of Spain or the United
Kingdom of Great Britain, the recognition of the Republic of
Nova Roma. It would be an interesting thing to see the answers
of their Foreign Affairs departments.


Cordus scripsit:

> It is, as you say, unhistorical to treat all human
> beings as having Latin rights, but this is precisely
> what Nova Roma does. The constitution (article II.A.1)
> that anyone over 18 may become a citizen. Also, the
> lex Equitia de familia recognizes marriages between
> our citizens and those of other countries (conubium);
> and non-citizens are welcome to trade with citizens
> through the Macellum (commercium). So non-citizens of
> Nova Roma have all the Latin rights, including the jus
> migrandi.

[Bardulus] But the latini veteres also had the right to vote in
the Comitia Tributa, in a random tribe, if they were at Rome
during an election. Will give Nova Roma the right to vote in our
comitia to the non-citizens?


Cordus scripsit:

> Not quite. Only the people could give citizenship,
> full stop. They could give it by a specific lex
> (usually to whole communities - the block-grant I
> mentioned before); or they could give people a right
> to it (by ratifying a Latin treaty - all treaties were
> ratified by the comitia); or they could give
> magistrates a right to grant it (by a specific lex
> giving that magistrate the power). Magistrates,
> whether with or without imperium, did not have the
> power to bestow citizenship without being specifically
> authorized in advance by the comitia.

[Bardulus] Read again my last message. Apart from the people,
through the Comitia, or the Senate, authorized by the people,
only magistrates *with imperium* could grant citizenship rights,
according the Lex Iulia de Civitati Latinis et Sociis Danda
(year 90 before the common era). Those acts of granting
citizenship had the rank of a lex data (a lex without the
rogatio ad populum). You can see an example of this at the
inscription from the Bronze of Ascoli (CIL I, 709).


Cordus scripsit:

> So which of these three options do we do in Nova Roma?
> I prefer to say that we do the second: by enacting the
> constitution, the people gave the jus migrandi to all
> non-citizens. But one could alternatively say it is
> the third: the comitia have given, once and for all,
> the power to grant citizenship to the censores by a
> lex. Either way, it is perfectly historical.

[Bardulus] This new system is based in too many legal fictions.
You can see all the rest of the world as latini iuniani
(libertini, this is, former slaves) to grant them the
citizenship through the ius migrandi; or you can try to make a
treaty with any of the modern nations in order to grant their
citizens latin rights. Yes, very historical and very realistic
thing. :-)


Cordus scripsit:

> Mancipatio? Do you mean emancipatio? If so, you must
> be confused: the censores in the new system do not
> have the power to emancipate anyone.

[Bardulus] Oh, I had forgotten that the censores aren't who
emancipate! They were the filiifamiliarum who emancipate
theirselves. Again, really historical. :-)


Cordus scripsit:

> It is a thousand times more historical, and, if you
> like, I can spend many, many days explaining in
> tedious detail all the many, many ways in which it is
> more historical. Once while I and others were working
> on the lex Equitia, I wrote a brief analysis of the
> historical accuracies and inaccuracies of the new
> system. At least 70% of the paragraphs said something
> liike "this is completely historical"; about another
> 20% said something like "this is as historical as
> we'll ever be able to get"; and the rest said
> something like "this is deliberately unhistorical, but
> it is done in the most historical way possible, by
> analogy with other historical examples".

[Bardulus] Corde, this system isn't and *never* will be a
historical system (as the old wasn't at all), because Nova Roma
isn't a real nation nor a true state. Nova Roma is only an
international association, nothing more and nothing less.
Internal civil laws has no sense in an association. We should
talk about membership rules, and not about "granting
citizenship". And since it's a matter of association membership,
and not of national citizenship, we could choose one system or
another. This is based in legal and historical fictions, and the
other was too. If you prefer this, ok, go ahead, but don't tell
us that this is historical and the old wasn't, please, because
that's not true.

By the way, it will be interesting to read the answers of this
month's expert about slavery, one of the issues of this
discussion :-)


=====
Si vales bene est et gaudeo; ego autem valeo.

P·RVTILIVS·I·F·R·N·CLV·BARDVLVS·HADRIANVS



______________________________________________
Renovamos el Correo Yahoo!: ¡250 MB GRATIS!
Nuevos servicios, más seguridad
http://correo.yahoo.es

FRANCISCVS APVLVS CAESAR CONSVL OMNIBVS S.P.D.

Salvete Omnes,
I'm going to call the Senatus in Consultum during the next week for
the appointment of the Provincial Governors.

As written in the Nova Roman Costitution (V C) "The Senate may, by
Senatus Consultum, create provinciae for administrative purposes and appoint
provincial governors therefor, who shall bear such titles as the
Senate may deem appropriate. The Senate may review each governor on a yearly
basis and it remains in the discretion of the Senate whether or not to
prorogue such governors, although this review shall not constitute a ban on the
authority of the Senate to remove governors from office as its discretion.
Governors shall have the following honors, powers, and obligations:
- To hold imperium and have the honor of being preceded by six
lictors solely within the jurisdiction of their respective provinciae;
- To proclaim those edicta (edicts) necessary to engage in those
tasks which advance the mission and function of Nova Roma, solely within the
jurisdiction of their provinciae (such edicts being binding upon themselves
as well as others);
- To manage the day-to-day organization and administration of their
provinciae;
- To appoint officers to whom authority may be delegated, subject to
those restrictions and standards as the Senate shall deem appropriate;
- To remove officers whom they have appointed, or make changes to
their titles and/or delegated authority, subject to those restrictions and
standards as the Senate shall deem appropriate."

I add to this paragraph that the Propraetores are called to make the
own assigned Provincia as active as possible organizing local projects,
live events and meetings, contacting the cultural public Istitutions and
private organizations, raising citizens and taxes, etc.
In my personal opinion the Provinciae are the hearth of our Res
Publica because they permit to our citizens to "touch" directly Nova Roma
making it real. The future of our Res Publica depends by our Provinciae and by
the job of their Magistrates: an active Provincia means more soddisfied
citizens which mean more activities, more services and more payed taxes.
I as Senior Consul would give my full support to all the Givernors
serious local projects increasing the provincial activities.

I call for candidates to stand for the office of Governors for the
Nova Roman Provinciae and in particular way for the following:

(The Governors of the following provinciae have expressed their
intention to step down from their position)

- America Austrorientalis
- Canada Orientalis
- Gallia
- Germania
- Hibernia
- Thule
- Venedia

(The following Provinciae are currently without Governor)

- America Austroccidentalis
- Asia Occidentalis
- Asia Orientalis
- Mexico
- Pannonia
- Sarmatia

Candidates should be assiduii, citizens since a minimum of 6 months
and meet all the requirements as stipulated by the leges of Nova Roma.

I remember you that there will no elections, the Senatus will
appoint the Propraetores in its own discretion during the next Consultum.

Those wishing to stand must to send the own candidacy to me at
fraelov@... or directly to the Senatus at senatus@...
I invite all the current Propraetores to contact me informing about
their own intention to continue their job or to withdraw it.

I will be accepting statements of candidacy for this opening
beginning today, 27th February, and continuing until 3 days from today, 2nd March.
After this period, I'll call the Senatus Consultum.

Valete bene
Franciscus Apulus Caesar
------------------------------
NOVA ROMA
------------------------------
Senior Consul
Senator
Legatus Italiae - http://italia.novaroma.org
Lictor et Scriba
Pater Familiae Gens Apula - http://italia.novaroma.org/apula/
Dominus Factionis Russatae - http://aediles.novaroma.org/russata/
Magister Academiae Italicae - http://italia.novaroma.org/academiaitalica/


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

EDICTUM MAGISTER ARANEARIUS
Edictum concerning the posting of Edicta

Last year after reviewing the policies of the previous Magister
Aranearius as well as the content of the Edicta section of the Nova
Roma website I determined that Edicta purely of the nature to
appoint Apparitores and those only having force within a specific
Province of Nova Roma made up a large percentage of the inactive
Edicta posted to the website.

In my capacity as Magister Aranearius I, Quintus Cassius Calvus, do
issue the following instructions:

I. Edicta issued merely to appoint Apparitores as prescribe in the
Constitution of Nova Roma, with the exception of Lictors to the
Comitia Curiata and other priesthood appointments, shall not be
published in the Tabularium except by special request of the issuing
magistrate. The appointment of Lictors to the Comitia Curiata and
other priesthood appointments being in the care of the The Collegium
Pontificum, all such Decreta shall be published in the Tabularium in
the Priestly Decreta section thereof.

II. Edicta issued by proconsul and propraetors for the governance of
their respective provinces shall not be published in the Tabularium
except by special request of the issuing Magistrate.

III. It is the responsiblity of the issuing magistrate to notify
the Magister Aranearius and in the case of appointments of
Apparitores the Censors with the full text of edicta to be included
in the Tabularium.

Issued February 27, 2758 in the
Consulship of Franciscus Apulus Caesar and Gaius Popillius
Laenas

EDICTUM MAGISTER ARANEARIUS
Edictum concerning the posting of citizen's images in the Album
Civium

A. Due to the nature of the Album Civium and citizen profiles being
accessible to those deemed as under age by various macronational
authorities, the Magister Aranearius and/or those appointed by the
Magister Aranearius reserve the right to reject and refuse to
publish electronic images submitted by citizens for the following
reasons:

1. Exposed genitalia
2. Lewd or sexually suggestive poses
3. and/or images in the background that meet one or more of the
requirements above.

Issued February 27, 2758 in the
Consulship of Franciscus Apulus Caesar and Gaius Popillius
Laenas

Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiritibus salutem dicit


CAERIMONIA EQUIRRIAE

I bathed in preparation, then, garbed in toga praetexta, cinctu Gabino,
capite velato, I began the praefatio.

Praefatio

"Iane Pater, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies volens
propitius mihi et Senatui Populoque Novae Romae
[Father Ianus, by offering this incense to you I pray good prayers, so that you may be willingly propitious to me and the Senate and People of Nova Roma"].
I placed incense in the focus of the altar.

"Iuppiter Optime Maxime, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti
sies volens propitius mihi et Senatui Populoque Novae Romae
[Iuppiter Best and Greatest, by offering this incense to you I pray good prayers,
so that you may be willingly propitious to me and the Senate and People
of Nova Roma"].
I placed incense in the focus of the altar.

"Iuno Dea, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies volens
propitia mihi et Senatui Populoque Novae Romae
[Goddess Iuno, by offering this incense to you I pray good prayers, so that you may be willingly propitious to me and the Senate and People of Nova Roma"].
I placed incense in the focus of the altar.

"Minerva Dea, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies volens
propitia mihi et Senatui Populoque Novae Romae
[Goddess Minerva, by offering this incense to you I pray good prayers, so that you may be willingly propitious to me and the Senate and People of Nova Roma."
I placed incense in the focus of the altar.

"Quirine Pater, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies
volens propitius mihi et Senatui Populoque Novae Romae
[Father Quirinus, by offering this incense to you I pray good prayers, so that you may be willingly propitious to me and the Senate and People of Nova Roma.]"
I placed incense in the focus of the altar.

"Iane Pater, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto
[Father Ianus, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

"Iuppiter Optime Maxime, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene
precatus sum, eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto
[Iuppiter Best and Greatest, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

"Iuno Dea, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum, eiusdem
rei ergo macte vino inferio esto
[Goddess Iuno, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

"Minerva Dea, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto
[Goddess Minerva, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

"Quirine Pater, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto
[Father Mars, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

I washed my hands in preparation for the praecatio.

Precatio

"Mars Pater, te precor uti fortitudine et peritia horum equitum
Equirriae Senatus Populusque Norvorum Romanorum Quiritum iniciantur et
sies volens propitius mihi et Senatui Populoque Novorum Romanorum
Quiritum. Mars Pater, qui currui temporis equos citos suos iungit ut
mensem Martii adduucat, tibi fieri oportet culignam vini dapi, eius rei
ergo hac illace dape pullucenda esto
[Father Mars, I pray you that the Senate and People of the Nova Romans, the Quirites, may be inspired by the courage and skill of these horsemen of the Equirria and that you may be propitious to the Senate and People of the Nova Romans, the
Quirites. Father Mars, who hitches his swift horses to the chariot of time to bring on the month of March, to you it is proper for a cup of wine to be given, for the sake of this thing therefore may you be honoured by this feast offering]."
I poured a libation on the altar and added laurel.

Again I washed my hands in preparation for the redditio.

Redditio

"Mars Pater, qui in campo suo certamen Equirriae semper prospicit, macte
istace dape pollucenda esto, macte vino inferio esto
[Father Mars, who always observes from afar the race of the Equirria on his own field, may you be honoured by this feast offering, may you be honoured by the
humble wine.]"
I offered Mars Pater laurel, cakes and wine on the altar.

"Quirine pater, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto
[Father Mars, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

"Minerva Dea, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto
[Goddess Minerva, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

"Iuno Dea, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum, eiusdem
rei ergo macte vino inferio esto
[Goddess Iuno, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

"Iuppiter Optime Maxime, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene
precatus sum, eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto
[Iuppiter Best and Greatest, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

"Iane Pater, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto
[Father Ianus, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

"Vesta Dea, custos ignis sacri, macte vino inferio esto
[Goddess Vesta, guardian of the sacred fire, be honoured by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.

"Illicet [It is permitted to go.]"

I profaned wine and cakes, and I partook of the epulum with Mars Pater,
praying as I ate and offering libations in my private devotions.

Piaculum

Since the historical caerimonia of the feria of the Equirria has not yet
been recovered (in fact we know virtually nothing about it; a few
formulae here have been adapted from Ovid's _Fasti_) , I offered a
piaculum to Mars Pater if anything in this caerimonia should offend him:

"Mars Pater, si quidquam tibi in hac caerimonia displicet, hoc ture
veniam peto et vitium meum expio
[Father Mars, if anything in this ceremony is displeasing to you, with this incense I ask forgiveness and expiate my fault.]"
I offered incense on the altar.

"Mars Pater, si quidquam tibi in hac caerimonia displicet, hoc vino
inferio veniam peto et vitium meum expio
[Father Mars, if anything in this ceremony is displeasing to you, with this humble wine I ask forgiveness and expiate my fault.]"
I poured a libation on the altar.


Valete

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

Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiritibus salutem dicit

Salvete,

As posted last year by my Amicus Fraterque Pontifex Scaurus, whom I respect and admire, is historical background for the 'CAERIMONIA EQUIRRIAE'.


The day of the Equirria begins shortly after dawn with a sacrifice* at
the Ara Martis in the Campus Martius, not far from the Porta
Fontinalis in the Servian wall, west of the Via Latia, the altar where
Romulus and Numa sacrificed. The pontifices are there and the Flamen
Martialis. Silence is pronounced and the sacred flute plays to
prevent an inauspicious sound from disturbing the caaerimonia. The
Capitoline Triad is invoked with Quirinus by offerings of incense and
libations of unmixed wine, prayers to Mars Himself addressed by the
Flamen Quirinalis on half of the Senate and People of Rome, the
Quirites. The victim, an ox, garlanded white white and scarlet woolen
ribbons, his back covered with an elaborately embroidered and fringed
dorsuale, is brought forward. The dorsuale is removed by attendants,
then the Flamen Martialis pours a few drops of wine upon the ox's
head, sprinkles the victim's back with mola salsa, and draws the
bronze sacrificial blade down the ox's back. The Flamen Martialis
commands the victimarius to strike, bringing the bronze poleaxe down
upon the victim's head. Stunned, the ox goes to his knees, and another
victimarius neatly cuts the victim's throat. Within moments the
victim is dead. This victim is placed on his back, the belly opened
quickly, and the haruspex inspects the internal organs (exta): the
liver, the lungs, the biliary blister, peritoneum and heart. Each is
normal, and the haruspex and Flamen Martialis pronounce the sacrifice
to be litatio -- accepted by Mars Pater. These exta are reserved and
skewered to be grilled before offering to Mars. The victimarii render
the remainder of the ox in preparation for the epulum.

When the skewered exta are grilled, the Flamen Martialis sprinkles
them with mola salsa and salt before placing them upon the burning
focus of the altar, the offers a libation of unmixed wine, "Mars
Pater, macte istace dape pollucenda esto, macte vino inferio esto
[Father Mars, may you be honoured by this feast offering, may you be
honoured by the humble wine]." He pours then a libation to each of
the invoked Gods and Goddeses in turn, and to Vesta, custodian of the
sacred fire. He profanes the remainder of the meat which is taken to
be roasted for the epulum feast.

The participants in the sacrifice partake of the epulum, eating the
meat and bread, drinking wine, praying and offering libations to Mars
Pater, joining in a common meal with the Gods to celebrate the feria.

It is likely that a second sacrifice, or perhaps a series of
libations, was offered somewhat later in the morning at the Aedes
Martis in Circo Flaminio, the temple of Mars adjoining the Circus
Flaminius near the Theatre of Pompey. This temple was designed for D.
Iunius Brutus Callaicus by Hermodorus of Salamis and dedicated in 138
BCE. According to Pliny, it contained Scopas' colossal statues of
Mars and Venus, and Valerius Maximus informs us it was decorated with
poetry by Accius. The ceremony here is believed to have served as a
preparation for the races of the day.

__________________
* - The precise formulae of the caerimoniae of the sacrifices of the
Feria Equirriae are unknown, but it is likely that they followed the
general form of most propritiatory sacrifices of the ritus Romanus, as
suggested here. Since Nova Roma is not in the position to offer
animal sacrifices at this time, the Flamen Martialis will offer a
non-animal sacrifice for the feria.


Valete

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

Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiritibus salutem dicit

Salvete,

________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:23:52 -0000
From: "Lucius Iulius" <21aprile@...>
Subject: Expert-Prof Giardina: some answers

AVETE CIVES ROMANI

Finally, I got the answers! I will publish here two of the 5 answers
that prof A. Giardina gave to our questions.
Theme: Slavery in Ancient Rome.

You can read tomorrow the other answers, here:
http://www.novaroma.org/expert/index.htm

His brief biography:
Prof. Andrea Giardina (Palermo 1949) teaches roman history at the
University of La sapienza, Rome.He is president of the Istituto
italiano per la storia antica. Among his recent works and
publications: 'L'Italia romana. Storie di un'identità incompiuta',
Laterza, Roma-Bari 1997 (terza ed. 2004). 'Il mito di Roma da Carlo
Magno a Mussolini' (in collaborazione con A. Vauchez), Laterza, Roma-
Bari 2000; french ed.: 'Rome, l'idée, le mythe', Fayard, Paris 2000.
His volume 'L'uomo romano' (Roman Man) is at its nineth italian
edition and was translated in english, spanish, portugese, german,
polish and some other languages. He wrote also 'Roma antica', second
ed. Laterza, Roma-Bari 2003.

Question n°1
How could a slave in Rome obtain his freedom?

With the term manumissio,

Question n°2
The sources attest,... I ask if, in the cited ages, it is
recognizable a sacral sphere in the roman approach to the slavery or
if everything can be brought to a pure utilitaristic sphere.

A "sacral approach" to the slavery did not exist.

VALETE BENE
L IUL SULLA
Aedilis Curulis
Rector Academiae Italicae

L Equitius: Thank you for your report.
If anyone is interesting in the subject of slavery at Roma Antiqua I
recommend
"Slavery and Society at Rome" by Keith Bradley
Cambridge University Press,1994
ISBN 0-521-37887-7

Valete

AMS_NR@yahoogroups.com, Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
AMS Scriba Appointment

Ave Quinte Servili Fidenas, et avete omnes! Salvia Sempronia Graccha
salutem plurimam dicit.
I am honored to be appointed scriba to the propraetor of Provincia
America Medioccidentalis Superior, and shall uphold my responsibilities to
the best of my ability.
Valete! Habitetis in luce deorum.
Salvia Sempronia Graccha




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

Salve,

Is anyone involved with or playing Second Life? If so, have you created
a Roman World? Here's the website if anyone is interested and the
description from the site as to what they are. A 3D digital world
imagined, created and owned by its Residents. You can chat, play games,
build houses, and go to parties, all with thousands of other people
from around the world.

http://secondlife.com/

Vale,
QSF

Salvete,

Pretty good. I agree. The Provinciae throught its scribae must have
its own files for that, otherwise the Tabularium would grow awfully.

Valete bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus PR


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "quintuscassiuscalvus"
<richmal@c...> wrote:

>
> EDICTUM MAGISTER ARANEARIUS
> Edictum concerning the posting of Edicta
>
> Last year after reviewing the policies of the previous Magister
> Aranearius as well as the content of the Edicta section of the Nova
> Roma website I determined that Edicta purely of the nature to
> appoint Apparitores and those only having force within a specific
> Province of Nova Roma made up a large percentage of the inactive
> Edicta posted to the website.
>
> In my capacity as Magister Aranearius I, Quintus Cassius Calvus, do
> issue the following instructions:
>
> I. Edicta issued merely to appoint Apparitores as prescribe in the
> Constitution of Nova Roma, with the exception of Lictors to the
> Comitia Curiata and other priesthood appointments, shall not be
> published in the Tabularium except by special request of the

issuing

> magistrate. The appointment of Lictors to the Comitia Curiata and
> other priesthood appointments being in the care of the The

Collegium

> Pontificum, all such Decreta shall be published in the Tabularium

in

> the Priestly Decreta section thereof.
>
> II. Edicta issued by proconsul and propraetors for the governance

of

> their respective provinces shall not be published in the Tabularium
> except by special request of the issuing Magistrate.
>
> III. It is the responsiblity of the issuing magistrate to notify
> the Magister Aranearius and in the case of appointments of
> Apparitores the Censors with the full text of edicta to be included
> in the Tabularium.
>
> Issued February 27, 2758 in the
> Consulship of Franciscus Apulus Caesar and Gaius Popillius
> Laenas

Salvete, omnes cives!

I'm not sure where in the NR groups to post this, so will try here
first, as there doesn't seem to be a group that would include
clothing.

It seems that there will be many Rites in the upcoming month. If you
feel inspired to add to your wardrobe for the events . . .

I would like to recommend a website that I haven't seen mentioned in
NR. THE COSTUMER'S MANIFESTO (google will get it)is a meta-site with
links to just about everything to do with clothing and fashion. From
the home page, click on (Costume) History, then click Roman. You can
also click by type of clothing, jewellery, hairstyles, etc. A great
resource site!

www.costumes.org

Valete, omnes! Habite in luce deorum.

Kluane Dawson

MAGNA MATER PROJECT BULLETIN FEBRUARY 2758 A.U.C.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Who is the Mother of the Gods? She is the source of the intellectual and creative Gods, who in their turn guide the creative Gods; she is both the Mother and the Spouse of Mighty Zeus; she came into being next and together with the Great Creator; she is in control of every form of life and the course of all generations; she easily brings to perfection all things that are made, without pain she brings to birth; she is the Motherless Maiden; enthroned at the very side of Zeus, and in very truth is the Mother of All the Gods.

..........Julian II 'The Blessed', from an oration to Cybele composed at Pessinus MCXVI A.V.C. (1116 years Ab Urb Condita)

______________________________________________________________________________



MAGNA MATER GENERAL PLAN


Listed below are the general goals being worked on to the achieve our overall objectives of the Magna Mater Project:

i. Official Website

Thanks to the work of the administration of Marcus Iulius Perusianus Curule Aedile 2757, this is at long last a reality.

A domain has recently been purchased for hosting of our official website http://www.magnamaterproject.org from Aruba.it Servers.

The task which lies ahead is to develop the site in cooperation with University of Rome personnel (more on this below). In addition, the translation of website material to other languages has been discussed, and incorporation of sound dynamics. Three dimensional graphic presentations of the Magna Mater Temple structures as they appeared in antiqua is another work in progress. Have a look!



ii. Material to Promote This Project
....leaflets
....publications
....business cards
....DVD:
Filming has been completed, and we are now focused on the more technical aspects of production, as well as deciding on the most efficient distribution avenues. We will keep you updated.

iii. A 6-month scholarship for a student of the University of Rome (est. 6,000 Euros)

iv. Multimedia CD ROM
There are three viable options:
a) simple CD of presentation of the Project (10-50 pictures, 5-20 text pages, 100-1000 copies)
b) generic content CD (100-200 pictures, 25-70 text pages, music and audio effects, 3-D animations, more than 1000 copies)
c) professional CD (cost would be higher than the above: pictures, some with reserved rights, 2 or 3 experts in the multimedia field)

__________________________________________________________________________


UNIVERSITY OF ROME AND SOPRINTENDENZA COOPERATION


Our primary contact individual with the University of Rome La Sapienza is Professor Patrizio Pensabene, Dipartimento Di Scienze Storiche, Archeologiche e Antropologiche dell Antichita

http://antichita.let.uniroma1.it/def_eng.htm

Our website texts and accompanying graphics are currently being developed by our cohors, and they will be presented to Professor Pensabene for his inspection and feedback, prior to their appearance on the site. It is a mutual goal of the collaboration of the Magna Mater Project and the University that all academic content on the website be as historically accurate as possible.

________________________________________________________________________________


COHORS AEDILES WEBSITE

For any inquiries concerning the work of the Curule Aedile or the Magna Mater Project in general, please contact Lucius Iulius Sulla @ 21Aprile@...


The address MagnaMater@... remains available as well.

Please visit http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/perusianus for a detailed look at the work of the Cohors and the Magna Mater Project.

Coming up in April we will celebrate the Ludi Megalesia! Details will be in the next MM Bulletin.


__________________________________________________________________________


THE MAGNA MATER PROJECT: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Our thanks to Curule Aedile 2757, Marcus Iulius Perusianus and Flamen Cerealis T. Galerius Aurelianus for providing the answers to these questions.


??? Could someone please explain to me the purpose of the Magna Mater Project ???

The ultimate goal of the project is the restoration of the temple, but this is honestly, within itself, a very long term objective, especially when one takes into account our current financial situation. But even having money, there are several other small necessary steps which are already under development to 'restore' the temple, in a wider significance of the meaning. To 'restore' it also means to 'valorize' the Sanctuary, its historical and archaelogical aspects, the significance of the cult of the Magna Mater. Put another way, 'enhancing' would be perhaps a better term for these first steps of the project.


??? How are donations from Nova Roma utilized in the Magna Mater Project ???

Consider this list of things to do in the near future (as part of the MM Project):
i. development of the official website
ii. material to promote this project (see above)
iii a six month scholarship for a student of the University of Rome
iv. Multimedia CD ROM

Thanks to the donations received so far, we have been able to purchase a website and domain, and we have been able to complete filming for the promotional DVD. Funds will be utilized this year to further develop our website and promote the project according to the goals listed in this bulletin.


??? What is the return on this investment? Why is the Magna Mater Project so important ???

The project is important because it permits NR to spread its name into the academic world, and provides the mechanism by which we may be entitled to manage Roman monuments. It's an opportunity to make our name in the macronational, physical world, after having done so much in the virtual, electronic world.


??? Will Nova Roma ever be allowed to hold ritual to the Magna Mater at the temple site ???

A certain number of NR citizens were able to visit the proximity of the temple last year, courtesy of a special pass by the Soprintendenza (the entire south-west side of the Palatine, the Germalus, has been closed for the past 5-7 years). We were accompanied by a guardian for almost the entire visit, and at our tour of the house of Augustus. I guess a very simple rite could have been held. I believe that a longer than 5 minute ceremony, with an attendance of more than 10-15 people would hardly be tolerated. This is not a matter of 'religious intolerance' ; it is more a matter of security. Soprintendenza is working in the Germalus area and it is not easy to attain permission to enter, much less hold a ritual...atleast for the time being.


??? What historical importance to the trees currently growing on top of the MM Sanctuary hold? Why are they more historically important than the restoration of one of the more important temple sites in Rome ???

This question was put to the manager of the Palatine ruins. Currently, it is deemed a useless effort to cut these environmentally and historically protected trees, as the only part of the structure remaining is the basement of the Magna Mater temple (not considering the short remains of a couple of columns). We won't have a better view of the bricks with the presence of these trees, which have been there for some centuries. The general guidelines of the Soprintendenza Archaelogica of Rome mandate the maintaining of the monuments as they are, unless there is original material of the structure to position in their respective places. And, even when these materials are found, it takes alot of time to study exactly where they fit. It is a matter of official academic opinion that not a single reconstruction effort can be made without appropriate archaeological evidence to support such action.

_______________________________________________________________________________



FINANCIAL STATUS AND FUNDRAISING

Currently, our balance is $689.66 EUROS, accounting for monetary conversion rates to EUROS from USD and other currencies.

All donations to this exciting initiative are very much appreciated.

Our heartfelt thanks to those who have contributed financially to this project to date!

Again, thanks to YOU we have been able to purchase a website for this project!
And thanks to YOU we have been able to complete filming for the DVD to promote this project!

**...And...**

................your continued financial support will assist us in the production of a CD ROM and further developments to our new website, as well as our other goals for the Magna Mater Project......


NO donation is too small!

Donations may be made by using the current Paypal link on the mainpage of the NR website www.novaroma.org. Just stipulate that your contribution is for the Magna Mater Fund...and thank you in advance!


.If you wish to help out with fundraising, yet don't have time to actively participate, or are perhaps tight on cash, you can help out tremendously by displaying the Magna Mater link on your website. If you have any questions about this please contact Lucius Iulius Sulla Curule Aedile 21Aprile@...

__________________________________________________________________________


PROMOTION OF THE MAGNA MATER PROJECT

........IV Conventus Novae Romae 2758 Roma Italia!

Your chance to convene with other Novae Romae in the Eternal City!!!
And...your chance to tour many of the city's ancient sites, including those of the Magna Mater Project !!!
August 4-11

Please visit the main website page for the link to the details

http://www.novaroma.org

Fill out your passport application if you do not have one, and save your sestertii, amici!




____________________________Fini







































---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

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

A. Apollónius Cordus P. Rutilió Barduló omnibusque
sal.

> [Bardulus] Well, we have the example of *another*
> freed slave of
> Cicero: his secretary Tiro (see Cicero, Epistulae ad
> Familiares). He was freed with the name of Marcus
> Tullius Tiro.
> As for the first slave, it would be a case of
> "manumissio per
> vindictam" or "manumissio vindicta". With this
> action, a friend
> (assertor libertatem) of the legitimate owner claims
> the freedom
> of the slave before a magistrate; the owner, of
> course,
> recognizes the claim, and the magistrate makes the
> slave a
> libertus. See Gaius, Inst. I, 17, and Dig. 40, 2.
> The freed through a manumissio vindicta probably
> takes his nomen
> from his assertor libertatem, in our case it could
> be Pomponius
> Atticus, Cicero's good friend.

Ah, that's a very good point - it may well have
occurred that way. And indeed Tiró might have been
emancipated in the same way, but with the process
going through only two and a half iterations rather
than the full three. Manumissions per vindictam could
be done either way.

As you've already agreed, though, slaves are
irrelevant to the point under discussion, because
we're not considering what to do about manumitted
slaves - we're considering what to do about free
foreigners.

> Cordus scripsit:
> > Also, your point number 3 is slightly
> over-simplified.
> > There were several different layers of heir in
> > republican law, and if the first sort of heir
> could
> > not be found, the second inherited; if the second
> > could not be found, then the third; and so on. The
> > gens was the absolute last of these layers, and it
> > must have been extremely rare for this layer ever
> to
> > be necessary.
>
> [Bardulus] Not at all: see Gaius Inst. III, 17: "Si
> nullus
> agnatus sit, eadem lex XII tabularum gentiles ad
> hereditatem
> uocat. Qui sint autem gentiles, primo commentario
> rettulimus; et
> cum illic admonuerimus totum gentilicium ius in
> desuetudinem
> abisse, superuacuum est hoc quoque loco de eadem re
> iterum
> curiosius tractare."

And see Zulueta's commentary on that passage in the
Oxford edition:

"The right of the gens to succeed in default of sui
heredes must be older than the Twelve Tables, which so
far from creating the right seem to have reduced it by
giving preference to the nearest agnate. But the whole
subject of the gens and the nature of its succession
is conjectural. Gaius dismisses it as obsolete, and
the praetor simply ignored it... In early Rome it [the
gens] was of very considerable social and even
political importance, but by the time of the Twelve
Tables it was already in decay. Its right of
succession may have been in the nature of an escheat,
by which land, the main form of wealth, went back to
the body from which it had come. One should not infer
from the fact that the Twelve Tables said gentiles,
not gens, that the gentiles succeeded individually and
not as a corporation, but there is some evidence that
this was so in later times. Traces of gentilitial
succession and tutela are found up to the beginning of
the Empire, but not later."

> So *there were* a "gentilicium ius" (Gens-based
> civil law) in
> Roman history, but unused ("in desuetudinem") since
> long ago in
> Gaius' times (probably he lived during the reign of
> emperor
> Marcus Aurelius).

You have imported the word "civil" into your
translation of "gentílicium jús", but I don't know
where you've got it from. "Gentílicium jús" doesn't
mean that there was a huge body of law dealing with
many aspects of the life of the gens - it simply means
that there were some legal rules (however many or few
of them there were originally) relating to gentés.
Since Gaius' only reference to the gentílicium jús is
in this context, and since indeed this is pretty well
the only reference to such a thing in any source that
I know of, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume
that the gentílicium jús consisted entirely of this
rule of inheritance. Certainly to suggest that it
contained a significant number of other rules,
mysteriously lost, would be totally without reason.

But even if we imagine a large complex of legal rules
pertaining to gentés, we are faced with Gaius'
statement "tótum gentílicium jús in désuétúdinem
abisse" - "that the whole gentílicium jús has fallen
into disuse"; and, as Zulueta says, it had probably
been in a state of decay already by the time of the
lex duodecim tabulárum, traditionally dated to c. 450
B.C.

> ... It's a pity that the definition of
> the Gentes
> made by Gaius ("primo commentario rettulimus")
> hasn't been
> conserved in the texts that remained of the
> Institutiones.

Yes, it is.

> [Bardulus] After the fall of the Latin League in 384
> before the
> common era, the ius migrandi for the latini as a
> method of
> gaining the full citizenship, was replaced by the
> requirement of
> being a local magistrate of the city of origin
> (civitas per
> magistratum).

Your evidence for this? Your statement is flatly
contradicted by A. N. Sherwin-White, "The Roman
Citizenship" (Oxford University Press, 1973):

"A third important part of early Republican Latium [he
means Latin status, not the geographical territory of
Latium] was the peculiar right of migratio to Rome. We
have seen that this corresponds to a very early
institution of the tribal period of Latin history. How
far this sank out of sight in the great days of the
independent city-states is hard to tell. While the
possible partial limitation of its exercise in 268
B.C. suggests that it remained lively, and the
practice of exilium must have served to preserve it,
there is no doubt that the increased value of the
Roman citizenship after the second Punic War
encouraged a sudden revival of the old custom,
somewhat to the detriment of the Latins themselves.
Large numbers of Latins removed to Rome and began by
registering themselves at the census acquired Roman
citizenship. Such an institution, however much Roman
and Latin authorities sought to check its use, would
at least keep alive the Roman traditions of the
Latins, and encourage that sense of a specially
privileged status second only to Roman citizenship.
This right of gaining the franchise per migrationem et
censum disappeared by the time of the Social War, very
probably in the interess of the Latins themselves."
(pp.110-11)

Far from being "replaced" after 384 B.C., the jús
migrandí continued until the time of the Social War,
in the late 90s B.C. - that is, until the last or
second-last generation of the republic.

> But there is a problem, Corde: you talked about
> "early
> treaties". I wonder how many treaties Nova Roma has
> and with
> what nations. Of course we always can ask the French
> Republic,
> the United States of America, the Kingdom of Spain
> or the United
> Kingdom of Great Britain, the recognition of the
> Republic of
> Nova Roma. It would be an interesting thing to see
> the answers
> of their Foreign Affairs departments.

Indeed, but there is no need for a treaty. What we
have done is to unilaterally grant a legal right to
foreigners. The early treaties were mutual
arrangements whereby Rome gave the Latins the right to
settle in Rome, and the Latins gave Romans the right
to settle in Latin cities. But if Rome had decided to
simply give the Latins the right to settle in Rome
without asking anything in exchange, there would have
been no need for a treaty.

Remember the nature of a treaty in Roman law. The
terms of the treaty were negotiated by ambassadors and
debated in the senate, but when the text of the treaty
was ready, it was proposed to the comitia and enacted
as a lex. This gave legal force to the parts of the
treaty which were binding on Rome. The same sort of
thing probably happened in the Latin cities, to bind
the latter to their part of the treaty. If the Roman
comitia had simply passed such a lex without
negotiating with the Latin cities, the Latins would
still have had the jús migrandí at Rome. This is what
we've done.

> [Bardulus] But the latini veteres also had the right
> to vote in
> the Comitia Tributa, in a random tribe, if they were
> at Rome
> during an election. Will give Nova Roma the right to
> vote in our
> comitia to the non-citizens?

This was not originally a part of the package of Latin
rights. Let's hear from Sherwin-White again:

"The number of iura that are late accretions [to the
Latin rights] can be thus reduced to a modest figure.
Most obvious is the ius suffragi ferendi: one tribe
was set aside at Rome in the concilium plebis in which
Latins could cast their votes. Dionysius has taken
this custom to be primitive, but elsewhere it has left
no trace until Livy's mention of it during the second
Punic War. As a primitive institution, beside the ius
mutandae civitatis it seems superfluous; but later,
when Roman citizens were being drafted off in large
numbers to Latin colonies, in distant parts of Italy,
the custom, suggesting vaguely the yet unformed
concept of dual citizenship, becomes highly
interesting."
(p. 35)

So the answer is "no", as far as I'm concerned.

> [Bardulus] Read again my last message. Apart from
> the people,
> through the Comitia, or the Senate, authorized by
> the people,
> only magistrates *with imperium* could grant
> citizenship rights,
> according the Lex Iulia de Civitati Latinis et
> Sociis Danda
> (year 90 before the common era). Those acts of
> granting
> citizenship had the rank of a lex data (a lex
> without the
> rogatio ad populum). You can see an example of this
> at the
> inscription from the Bronze of Ascoli (CIL I, 709).

Yes, I did read your last message, and within it I
read your statement that only magistrates with
imperium could grant citizenship. That statement was
incorrect, and that is why I contradicted it.
Magistrates, with or without imperium, could not grant
citizenship on their own authority. The first grants
of citizenship by a magistrate without the prior
authorization of a lex was by Marius in 101 B.C. But
his action was clearly illegal, and he never denied
it, merely remarking that "in the din of battle he
could not hear the voice of the law" (Plutarch,
"Marius" 28).

The lex Júlia which you mention was, of course, late
republican, but it was also less than you claim. It
did not give magistrates with imperium a general right
to grant citizenship to all and sundry for ever after:
it gave them the right to give citizenship to Italians
who laid down their arms during the Social War. Since
the Social War is no longer being fought, this law is
now obsolete.

Compare, however, the lex Gellia Cornélia of 72, which
authorized in advance the grant of citizenship by
Pompéjus after the Sertorian war (I expect you know
all this well, since it's local history for you). This
shows quite clearly that even as late as 72 a
magistrate had to be given authority by lex in advance
before he could grant citizenship. Chapter III of
Goodfellow's "Roman Citizenship" (Lancaster Press,
1935) gives a good overview of this subject.

> [Bardulus] This new system is based in too many
> legal fictions.
> You can see all the rest of the world as latini
> iuniani
> (libertini, this is, former slaves) to grant them
> the
> citizenship through the ius migrandi; or you can try
> to make a
> treaty with any of the modern nations in order to
> grant their
> citizens latin rights. Yes, very historical and very
> realistic
> thing. :-)

Ah, but as I've shown above it is not based on any
fiction at all! We do not see foreigners as freedmen;
nor do we have to have a treaty with any other
country. All we have to do is say that foreigners all
have the jús migrandí. That is what the constitution
says, though not in those very words.

> Cordus scripsit:
> > Mancipatio? Do you mean emancipatio? If so, you
> must
> > be confused: the censores in the new system do not
> > have the power to emancipate anyone.
>
> [Bardulus] Oh, I had forgotten that the censores
> aren't who
> emancipate! They were the filiifamiliarum who
> emancipate
> theirselves. Again, really historical. :-)

I think you've misread something somewhere.
Fíliífamiliás cannot emancipate themselves either.
It's true that some people talked recently about
"emancipating oneself", but that was sloppiness. The
lex Labiena dé gentibus granted all citizens the
extraordinary right to change their gens and domus (or
stirps) within the year following its approval. That
was certainly unhistorical, but it was an
extraordinary measure designed to ease the transition
from the old system to the new system. Now that
year-long amnesty is over, and the new system is fully
in place. Now people cannot emancipate themselves, nor
can the censórés emancipate them. Only their
patrésfamiliás or mátrésfamiliás can emancipate their
fílií (although there is a provision for emancipation
by the praetórés in unusual cases - this is a minor
departure from historical practice, but it is by
analogy with a historical procedure relating to
marriage-law).

May I suggest that you read the lex you are
criticising?

> [Bardulus] Corde, this system isn't and *never* will
> be a
> historical system (as the old wasn't at all),
> because Nova Roma
> isn't a real nation nor a true state. Nova Roma is
> only an
> international association, nothing more and nothing
> less.
> Internal civil laws has no sense in an association.

Well, this is true, of course, but if you wish to
raise this objection then you must surely concede that
nothing at all in Nova Róma is historical. The
sovereignty of Nova Róma is a legal fiction, but it is
the one on which the entire organization is based. If
we do not assume it, then we may as well dismantle the
whole thing.

> We should
> talk about membership rules, and not about "granting
> citizenship". And since it's a matter of association
> membership,
> and not of national citizenship, we could choose one
> system or
> another.

And presumably you would also like us to stop talking
about Nova Róma as a state, and therefore stop talking
about a state religion? Shall we stop having consulés
and tribúní plébis? Shall we stop having pontificés
and fláminés? Either you accept the legal fiction of
Nova Róma's sovereignty or you reject it. If you
accept it, then you cannot use it as a means to
criticise the historicity of any particular lex. If
you reject it, then I really don't understand what you
are doing here in the first place.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

M. Flavius Philippus Conservatus omnibus salutem didit.

Well, I'm not sure whether someone knows this song.
But this is running on TV nearly every day as benefit for the
Tzunami victims in SE-Asia in Germany, Austrai, Switzerland.

Hmm, as far as I cab remember this is the only song in latin which
is in the top 5 in Germany and top 20 in Austria and Swiss.

I just have one little point to repine: the singer uses the "typical catholic latin pronounciation",
that means a "c" before an "e"/"i" is spoken like a "z"....
Well, I guess nobody is perfect, hu? :))

So enjoy the songtext

Bene valete
Conservatus




Captivitas desperatio,
Pugnacitas dicio,
Miseria dominatio
Tristitia formido (Chor: servitium et timor)
Victoria reverentia, magna via

Liberatio speramus,
Liberatio optamus,
Gaudiamus redemptionem
Liberatio vobiscum
Liberatio nobiscum
Celebramus felicitatem

Sodalitas gratulatio,
audatia gaudium
Festivitas fides libertas
Felicitas dignitas (Chor: concordia et amor)
Victoria reverentia, magna via

Liberatio speramus,
Liberatio optamus,
Gaudiamus redemptionem
Liberatio vobiscum
Liberatio nobiscum
Celebramus felicitatem

Viva reverentia, viva fides libertas
viva magnificentia, viva cura

Liberatio speramus,
Liberatio optamus,
Gaudiamus redemptionem
Liberatio vobiscum
Liberatio nobiscum
Celebramus felicitatem


(Singer: Sylvia Gonzalez Bolivar Song: Liberatio All rights reserved by Krypteria)
______________________________________________________________
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193

>Salve Kluane;

thanks for the url and may I recommend our civis Julilla
Sempronia Magna's website; Julilla's Villa.
I had my tunica and toga designed from her site by a good NR
friend and I looked a treat:) so please do check it out. Also please
do join the group conventusmatronarum , it's for discussion of women
in Roma Antiqua, men are always welcome too.
bene vale in pace deorum
Marca Hortensia Maior


Salvete, omnes cives!

>
> I'm not sure where in the NR groups to post this, so will try here
> first, as there doesn't seem to be a group that would include
> clothing.
>
> > resource site!
>
> www.costumes.org
>
> Valete, omnes! Habite in luce deorum.
>
> Kluane Dawson

G. Equitius Cato M Flavio Philippo Conservato quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve et salvete.

Just downloaded it; powerful, beautiful song. And extraordinary to
hear the great lingua latina in a modern context :-)

Thanks for the info.

Vale et valete,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, <philipp.hanenberg@w...> wrote:
> M. Flavius Philippus Conservatus omnibus salutem didit.
>
> Well, I'm not sure whether someone knows this song.
> But this is running on TV nearly every day as benefit for the
> Tzunami victims in SE-Asia in Germany, Austrai, Switzerland.
>

> I just have one little point to repine: the singer uses

the "typical catholic latin pronounciation",

> that means a "c" before an "e"/"i" is spoken like a "z"....
> Well, I guess nobody is perfect, hu? :))

Ave Conservatus, and thanks for signalling this song - really great.
The pronunciation, though, as far as I can hear is not "typical
Catholic"... the Catholic church pronunciation never had "gn"
pronounced like in the English word "Incognito", but has always had
it like the "ñ" in "España". Likewise, the C before E or I has never
been pronounced as Z, but always with the sound of "ch" in "reach".
So I think that the pronunciation used in the song is not the Roman
Catholic one, but the present-day English/German one, i.e. exactly
like Enya pronounces Latin. :)

Optime vale,
P Con. Placidus

Te saluto, Placide !

>So I think that the pronunciation used in the song is not the Roman
>Catholic one, but the present-day English/German one, i.e. exactly
>like Enya pronounces Latin. :)

In any way, I never learned it in the way Enya is pronouncing Latin.
I can't speak for all Germans just for the group I know and we all use the classic
way you may also here on:

http://www.yleradio1.fi/zgo.php?z=20031213131686314670

click: Recitatio (ok ok, they have a finish tough but i like this more than radio vatican :)

on the other side i also find lots of Latin groups in Germany who don't use "Enya" pronounciation too :))


Bene vale in pace deorum
Conservatus
__________________________________________________________
Mit WEB.DE FreePhone mit hoechster Qualitaet ab 0 Ct./Min.
weltweit telefonieren! http://freephone.web.de/?mc=021201

Does someone have a link to the song?

V.

Those who won our independence believed that fear feeds
repression, that repression nurtures hate, that hate
threatens the stability of the government and that the path
to security is found in freely discussing the wounds and
the remedies proposed.
--Louis Brandeis, US Supreme Court Justice


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