>
> Salvete Omnes:
>
> I too, have been following this discussion. I have a thought for

>
> I would propose, as I think Ive done in this forum in that
> past...that 'Rome is where the heart is'.
>
> When will we agree on 'what' is the true Rome, 'where' she is

> is likely when our hearts start beating more in synch.
>
> Valete
> Po
>

> Salvete omnes.
>
> We have to make a very clear distinction between the
> macronational
> policies and direction of the world's only
> superpower - the USA -
> and the policies and direction of Nova Roma. They
> are not the same.
>
> If Nova Roma is to survive, let alone thrive, it has
> to be inclusive
> not exclusive. That means that neither the old
> world, nor the new,
> can lay claim to be Nova Roma's homeland or eventual
> base.
>
> It is also the height of delusion to imagine that
> Nova Roma will
> somehow be absorbed into the political structure of
> either the USA
> or Italy, or anywhere else. It is flights of fantasy
> like this that
> cause those outside who look through the door of
> Nova Roma to shake
> their head sadly, and move on.
>
> Nova Roma has only one center, one existence, both
> now and for the
> forseeable future. I cannot say for sure "forever"
> but I strongly
> suspect it, namely here in cyberspace. Nova Roma
> found its home and
> its means of survival on the "net" and here is
> exactly where we will
> remain (notwithstanding face to face events),
> probably for
> generations to come. If Nova Roma is to grow we have
> to accept
> reality and make of that the best we can, for the
> universal appeal
> of Rome is best served by the transnational nature
> of the internet,
> which is universal in its reach.
>
> We need to stop trying to lay claim to our
> individual macronational
> nations being the only, best or natural eventual
> homeland for Nova
> Roma. Apart from being totally dislocated from
> reality, all it does
> is set encourage discord based on national or
> continental
> identities.
>
> We have enough differences already without adding
> that bottle of
> poison into the cauldron.
>
> Vale
> Gn. Iulius Caesar
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, raymond fuentes
> <praefectus2324@y...> wrote:
> >
> > That my amicus, will never happen. Rome WILL rise
> but
> > it wont be in Italia much less Roma.That is where
> our
> > spirit is,but our strength is in the new Rome-the
> US
> > --- Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <ivlianvs309@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > Salvete omnes! I've been following this thread
> for
> > > awhile now. But to me there is only ONE truly
> > homeland
> > > that I look to that is geographical, and for a
> > future
> > > RES PVBLICA and that is ROMA, ITALIA!!!:) For it
> is
> > > there that I envision the renewed PAX DEORVM!
> > Valete!
> > > Frater GAIVS IVLIVS IVLIANVS, PGI
> > >
> > > --- Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus
> > <cn_corn_lent@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Cn. Cornelius A. Apollonio legato s. p. d.:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>>With the greatest respect and admiration,
> Cn.
> > > > Lentulo, I must say that it is rather
> difficult to
> > > > argue convincingly against you when you offer
> no
> > > > evidence other than your own opinion - by what
> am
> > I
> > > > to
> > > > be persuaded beyond your own (by no means
> > > > negligible)
> > > > auctoritas?<<<
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I wonder if you don't find my argumentation
> being
> > > > confirmed by evidences: I tried to achieve so
> that
> > > > my
> > > > standpoint will be acceptable to you being
> > explained
> > > > from your argumentation. These arguments I've
> > > > offered
> > > > are mostly intrinsic arguments, however: like
> > yours,
> > > > except of the Cicero-quotation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>>Similarly, it seems to me... (...)
> > > > We cannot be certain, of course, what the
> > > > Romans would have thought if this or if that.
> But
> > to
> > > > my mind there are sufficient indications to
> make
> > it
> > > > likely.<<<
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, both of us have to confess that we cannot
> be
> > > > certain what the Romans would think... We can
> > argue
> > > > beside this or beside that, by your mind, or
> by my
> > > > mind... Some qutations or some suppositions
> will
> > not
> > > > convince us completely. However, you must
> admit
> > that
> > > > such a state like ours would seem very strange
> to
> > > > the
> > > > Romans and even Cicero itself would be
> thinking
> > > > about
> > > > what he had to call it... and finally he would
> > have
> > > > called Nova Roma as a theoretical state,
> perhaps.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>>You feel that the Romans would have
> > acknowledged
> > > > that
> > > > a res publica could exist in the absence of a
> > > > geographical homeland provided that the
> absence
> > were
> > > > only temporary; well, this is easily solved,
> for
> > our
> > > > lack of a homeland is indeed temporary. We had
> one
> > > > once, inasmuch as our res publica regards
> itself
> > as
> > > > a
> > > > continuation of the ancient Roman republic
> itself,
> > > > which was of course based in Rome. And we hope
> to
> > > > have
> > > > one again, one day.<<<
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't say "temporary" 1500 years... and
> our
> > res
> > > > publica is necessarily another res publica,
> namely
> > > > the
> > > > former was ceased entirely, with its land,
> state,
> > > > people, laws, gods, army etc...
> > > > But: may the gods help us in this! This is a
> very
> > > > daring hope and most of us don't share it. I
> > however
> > > > do. And I presume you also do: so we are two
> at
> > > > least.
> > > > Hop to it! I will be your faithful fellow in
> this
> > > > struggle.
> > > >
> > > >
> > === Message Truncated ===
>

>|P. Dominus Antonius|<

On 10/23/05, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa <canadaoccidentalis@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes
>
> A small group of dedicated citizens has been hard at work since June
> designing a new coin for Nova Roma and we have narrowed our mint choices
> down to two. Now comes the 'easy' part - paying for it.
>
> In our estimation it will cost at least 3500 dollars US to proceed with
> the minting of the coins. As to this date, we only have 1300 dollars US
> pledged. I would like to ask anyone who can to please invest in this worthy
> enterprise. We are not asking for a donation as we will return all invested
> funds once we begin selling the coins. All profits from the sale of the new
> coins will be given to Nova Roma's central treasury.
>
> I have started the ball rolling by investing 500 US$ in this project. If
> anyone wants to join in please send your investment to me, via paypal
>
> vipsaniusagrippa@...
>
> Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
>
>


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

>|P. Dominus Antonius|<

On 10/23/05, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa <canadaoccidentalis@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes
>
> A small group of dedicated citizens has been hard at work since June
> designing a new coin for Nova Roma and we have narrowed our mint choices
> down to two. Now comes the 'easy' part - paying for it.
>
> In our estimation it will cost at least 3500 dollars US to proceed with
> the minting of the coins. As to this date, we only have 1300 dollars US
> pledged. I would like to ask anyone who can to please invest in this worthy
> enterprise. We are not asking for a donation as we will return all invested
> funds once we begin selling the coins. All profits from the sale of the new
> coins will be given to Nova Roma's central treasury.
>
> I have started the ball rolling by investing 500 US$ in this project. If
> anyone wants to join in please send your investment to me, via paypal
>
> vipsaniusagrippa@...
>
> Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
>
>


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





SPONSORED LINKS
Ancient history Fall of the roman empire The fall of the roman empire Roman empire

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "Nova-Roma" on the web.

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

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


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




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

>
> Salvete Po et omnes,
>
> Here is a poem I stumbled across that I found quite reflective and
> related to this discussion of where Rome truly is:
>
> Pillars of Ancient Rome
>
> Under the skies of ochre and red,
> Where the warmth of the sun never reaches
> Drifting past the silent pillars of ancient Rome,
> I glimpse fleeting memories of an earlier time.
>
>
> The oars I abandoned with a fatalistic ease,
> And my ties to the world, long since withered and worn,
> Tore finally with their descent into the sea,
> Leaving me alone at last, accompanied only by my thoughts.
>
>
> There is no light in the distance I can see,
> And no end to these mournful caverns of the dead.
> Only a soft, yet persistent breeze,
> To gently chide and remind, to breathe life into me.
>
>
> Occasionally your voice whispers in the darkness,
> And an ethereal image in your likeness visits,
> Sitting awhile beside me in my aimless journey,
> Through this desolate, woeful land.
>
>
> For though reason and will have fled,
> Leaving in their absence only a yearning for something lost,
> And though the mind shrouds itself in vagueness and rue,
> Rememberances of you are always warm and true.
>
>
> I regret now what happened all those years in the past,
> When I looked into your longing eyes and said farewell,
> Beneath skies of gold and red,
> And demolished yoru pillars of faith.
>
>
> The water beneath me is black and brackish,
> And my provisions, I fear, are no more.
> There is little here to inspire even the slightest of hope,
> And this leaves me alone, awaiting destiny.
>
>
> If you are dancing among the seraphs of heavin,
> Know this:
> There is a dream that some men enter voluntarily,
> From which there is no escape, no awkening,
> and though the body may in time depart,
> The soul is forever imprisoned and can never leave.
>
>
> — Demandred
>
>
> Perhaps we can transfer this to to our files. Sounds like he's
> equating Rome to a lover deceased but I see much double meaning

> regards to equating a yearning for a past love to the loss of Rome.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> QLP
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia"
> <pompeia_minucia_tiberia@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete Omnes:
> >
> > I too, have been following this discussion. I have a thought for
> today.
> >
> > I would propose, as I think Ive done in this forum in that
> > past...that 'Rome is where the heart is'.
> >
> > When will we agree on 'what' is the true Rome, 'where' she is
> located,
> > is likely when our hearts start beating more in synch.
> >
> > Valete
> > Po
> >
>

> Salvete omnes,
>
> I hereby communicate the official position of the

> the Edictum Censorium de Nominibus Mutandis,

> edictum."
>
> In our collective judgment, the following clause of

> incompatible with the interests of the gens

>
> "II. Nomen
> "II.a. All men's nomina should end in -ius or -aeus;

> "All nomina that do not end in -ius/-ia or

> prospective citizen at the application stage when

>
> I joined Nova Roma as its 173rd citizen, and formed

> during the first year of Nova Roma's existence in

> then extant. The name and the gens Martiana have

> years. The edictum is ex post facto in action and

> the principles of Roman justice. To bar new

> Martiana constitutes an unjust act of discrimination

> government of Nova Roma perpetrated against the gens

> have never offered offense to Nova Roma, whose

> republic faithfully, and who only desire to seek

> unhindered, and in peace. The edictum is a

> sterilization and ethnic cleansing, for a gens that

> members is doomed to eventual extinction. The

> probably the first micronation-sponsored genocide,

> suppression and extinguishment of a gens. Indeed,

> afflicts many gentes in Nova Roma, the republic has

> committing multiple acts of genocide.
>
> Unwilling to go quietly into that good night, to

> policy of Nova Roma, the gens Martiana has no choice

> beyond the republic. Anticipating of the

> gens Martiana passed the following sententia by

> members on Kalendis October, MMDCCLVIII AUC:
>
> "Whereas Nova Roma's ever-growing list of onerous

> has discouraged applicants to the gens Martiana from

> citizenship process; and
>
> "Whereas the gens Martiana was established in

> Martis CCVII and was accepted by the Censors of Nova

> of Nova Roma now obstruct new citizens from joining

> making the gens a closed one against its will and

> extinction; and
>
> "Whereas the current policy of the Censors of Nova

> post facto law to the disparagement of the

> violates the most basic human right, that of

> derived from jus naturale, which is recognized as a

> jurisprudence;
>
> "Therefore be it resolved that the gens Martiana,

> its very survival as well as its liberty, declares

> Censors of Nova Roma to be unjust and un-Roman, that

> membership to all people who profess any of the

> cultures that existed during the Republican and

> classical Rome, and that no distinction shall be

> gens as to their status in Nova Roma; and
>
> "Resolved, that since the republic now discourages

> Martiana, thus the gens is no longer obligated to

> the republic, and indeed, the growth of the republic

> the interests of our gens and our constituent

> Roma shall be removed from the Gens Martiana

>
> I am pleased to report that in the three weeks since

> adopted, the gens Martiana has experienced a

> increasing its membership by 28%, including the

> Romano-Celtic familia... in only three week

On 10/23/05, Thomas Gangale <marcus@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> I hereby communicate the official position of the gens Martiana regarding
> the Edictum Censorium de Nominibus Mutandis, hereafter referred to as "the
> edictum."
>
> In our collective judgment, the following clause of the edictum is
> incompatible with the interests of the gens Martiana:
>
> "II. Nomen
> "II.a. All men's nomina should end in -ius or -aeus; women's in '-ia' or
> 'aea.'
> "All nomina that do not end in -ius/-ia or -aeus/-aea cannot be chosen by
> a
> prospective citizen at the application stage when joining Nova Roma."
>
> I joined Nova Roma as its 173rd citizen, and formed the gens Martiana
> during the first year of Nova Roma's existence in accordance with the laws
> then extant. The name and the gens Martiana have existed for seven
> years. The edictum is ex post facto in action and is therefore contrary to
> the principles of Roman justice. To bar new citizens from joining the gens
> Martiana constitutes an unjust act of discrimination on the part of the
> government of Nova Roma perpetrated against the gens Martiana, a people
> who
> have never offered offense to Nova Roma, whose members have served the
> republic faithfully, and who only desire to seek Romanitas unmolested,
> unhindered, and in peace. The edictum is a cyberspace form of forced
> sterilization and ethnic cleansing, for a gens that cannot receive new
> members is doomed to eventual extinction. The edictum constitutes what is
> probably the first micronation-sponsored genocide, the systematic
> suppression and extinguishment of a gens. Indeed, as the edictum similarly
> afflicts many gentes in Nova Roma, the republic has begun the process of
> committing multiple acts of genocide.
>
> Unwilling to go quietly into that good night, to escape the genocidal
> policy of Nova Roma, the gens Martiana has no choice but to seek its
> future
> beyond the republic. Anticipating of the promulgation of this edictum, the
> gens Martiana passed the following sententia by unanimous vote of its
> members on Kalendis October, MMDCCLVIII AUC:
>
> "Whereas Nova Roma's ever-growing list of onerous citizenship requirements
> has discouraged applicants to the gens Martiana from completing the
> citizenship process; and
>
> "Whereas the gens Martiana was established in MMDCCLI ab urbe condita,
> anno
> Martis CCVII and was accepted by the Censors of Nova Roma, yet the Censors
> of Nova Roma now obstruct new citizens from joining the gens, effectively
> making the gens a closed one against its will and threatening its eventual
> extinction; and
>
> "Whereas the current policy of the Censors of Nova Roma constitutes an ex
> post facto law to the disparagement of the principles of Roman justice,
> and
> violates the most basic human right, that of identity, such right being
> derived from jus naturale, which is recognized as a source of law in Roman
> jurisprudence;
>
> "Therefore be it resolved that the gens Martiana, acting in the interest
> of
> its very survival as well as its liberty, declares said policy of the
> Censors of Nova Roma to be unjust and un-Roman, that the gens opens its
> membership to all people who profess any of the Mediterranean and European
> cultures that existed during the Republican and Imperial periods of
> classical Rome, and that no distinction shall be made among members of the
> gens as to their status in Nova Roma; and
>
> "Resolved, that since the republic now discourages the growth of the gens
> Martiana, thus the gens is no longer obligated to encourage the growth of
> the republic, and indeed, the growth of the republic has become inimical
> to
> the interests of our gens and our constituent familiae, all mention of
> Nova
> Roma shall be removed from the Gens Martiana website."
>
> I am pleased to report that in the three weeks since the sententia was
> adopted, the gens Martiana has experienced a remarkable growth spurt,
> increasing its membership by 28%, including the formation of a new
> Romano-Celtic familia... in only three weeks! At this rate, it will not be
> long before Nova Roma citizens constitute a minority of the membership of
> the gens Martiana. As time passes, Nova Roma will become increasingly
> irrelevant to us.
>
> The gens Martiana are a Roman people, but we are also a free people. It is
> regrettable that Romanitas and libertas are no longer compatible in Nova
> Roma.
>
> Bonus noctis, et bona fortuna.
>
> Marcus Martianus Gangalius, Pater gentis Martianum
> Pater, Familia Gangalia
> Lictor
> Sodalus Palatinus
> Legatus, California Superior
> Aedilis Curule, MMDCCLII
>


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

> C. Fabius Buteo Modianus Marco Martiano Gangalio

> I would urge you to contact the tribunes if you

> Posting to the main list your disdain for the edict,

> "seek a future beyond the republic" is something

> other options have been exhausted. I would urge you

> and see if a solution could be found. Perhaps the

> recommendation that all venerable and established

> continue. Seven years is a long time, and precedence

> However, the Censors do a difficult job. They

> of Nova Roma at heart, and I do not feel they intend

> "genocide." Surely there can be some sort of

> We must be patient with one another, and realize

> same side.
> Valete;
> C. Fabius Buteo Modianus
> On 10/23/05, Thomas Gangale <marcus@...>

> >
> > Salvete omnes,
> >
> > I hereby communicate the official position of the

> > the Edictum Censorium de Nominibus Mutandis,

> > edictum."
> >
> > In our collective judgment, the following clause

> > incompatible with the interests of the gens

> >
> > "II. Nomen
> > "II.a. All men's nomina should end in -ius or

> > 'aea.'
> > "All nomina that do not end in -ius/-ia or

> > a
> > prospective citizen at the application stage when

> >
> > I joined Nova Roma as its 173rd citizen, and

> > during the first year of Nova Roma's existence in

> > then extant. The name and the gens Martiana have

> > years. The edictum is ex post facto in action and

> > the principles of Roman justice. To bar new

> > Martiana constitutes an unjust act of

> > government of Nova Roma perpetrated against the

> > who
> > have never offered offense to Nova Roma, whose

> > republic faithfully, and who only desire to seek

> > unhindered, and in peace. The edictum is a

> > sterilization and ethnic cleansing, for a gens

> > members is doomed to eventual extinction. The

> > probably the first micronation-sponsored genocide,

> > suppression and extinguishment of a gens. Indeed,

> > afflicts many gentes in Nova Roma, the republic

> > committing multiple acts of genocide.
> >
> > Unwilling to go quietly into that good night, to

> > policy of Nova Roma, the gens Martiana has no

> > future
> > beyond the republic. Anticipating of the

> > gens Martiana passed the following sententia by

> > members on Kalendis October, MMDCCLVIII AUC:
> >
> > "Whereas Nova Roma's ever-growing list of onerous

> > has discouraged applicants to the gens Martiana

> > citizenship process; and
> >
> > "Whereas the gens Martiana was established in

> > anno
> > Martis CCVII and was accepted by the Censors of

> > of Nova Roma now obstruct new citizens from

> > making the gens a closed one against its will and

> > extinction; and
> >
> > "Whereas the current policy of the Censors of Nova

> > post facto law to the disparagement of the

> > and
> > violates the most basic human right, that of

> > derived from jus naturale, which is recognized as

> > jurisprudence;
> >
> > "Therefore be it resolved that the gens

> A. Tullia Scholastica M. Hortensiae Maiori quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque
> omnibus S.P.D.
>
>
> M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> my as my good friend Cordus would say, what a tempest in a
> teapot. In my "Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominium Latinorum"
> right before me on p 113 there is "Martiannius" PIR M 337
> When Cordus returns we can locate this nomen as it is found in
> the newer inscriptions, I wish people would contact the Censors first.
> That's why they have a host of Latinists, Classicists and researchers
> to help everyone here. That's my job.
>
>
> ATS: I agree completely. Especially when such a minor change would bring the
> name of this gens into compliance with correct Latin, and correct Roman
> onomastic practice, it is incomprehensible why anyone would object. Many
> things were wrong in the beginning of Nova Roma, notably many things about the
> Latin and the historical fidelity of our institutions. There were no experts
> here who could rule on such matters. That is no longer the case‹we have
> several highly qualified people here, including a world-class Latinist most of
> you have never heard of because he isn¹t active in politics, and isn¹t on the
> ML. The name of the oldest sodality here, the cooking sodality, was highly
> incorrect Latin, but at my suggestion, its dominus changed its name to more
> correct Latin. I am one of several citizens who have changed their names in
> keeping with more correct Roman practice. We have changed the titles of two
> minor magistrates, and rearranged the duties of some others; the rogatores no
> longer count votes, they register new citizens. New offices exist for the
> counting of votes, and the certification of their accuracy. The first 50 or
> so laws were proofread and corrected, but our former webmaster took the
> working page down. We hope to reestablish something in that regard. Other
> corrections have been made in our institutions and our use of the language of
> the Romans. Maturity and a true desire for Romanitas (and Latinitas) will
> lead the true Romans among us to accept, even welcome, such changes.
>
> bene valete
> Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
> Caput Officina Iuris
> et Investigatio CFB
>
> Vale, et valete,
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica
>
>
>

> A. Tullia Scholastica M. Martiano Gangalio quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque
> omnibus S.P.D.
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> I hereby communicate the official position of the gens Martiana regarding
> the Edictum Censorium de Nominibus Mutandis, hereafter referred to as "the
> edictum."
>
> In our collective judgment, the following clause of the edictum is
> incompatible with the interests of the gens Martiana:
>
> "II. Nomen
> "II.a. All men's nomina should end in -ius or -aeus; women's in '-ia' or
> 'aea.'
> "All nomina that do not end in -ius/-ia or -aeus/-aea cannot be chosen by a
> prospective citizen at the application stage when joining Nova Roma."
>
> I joined Nova Roma as its 173rd citizen, and formed the gens Martiana
> during the first year of Nova Roma's existence in accordance with the laws
> then extant.
>
> ATS: I joined Nova Roma with a name all of whose elements were good and
> historically attested Latin, as befits someone who is a classicist. Every
> element of my name was chosen for a very good reason, and all were perfectly
> acceptable to the censores at the time, and in keeping with the guidelines for
> women¹s names at the time. However, as it turned out, I had a surfeit of
> nomina, and a deficit of a true praenomen, and changed these in keeping with
> Roman practice. I¹m not alone.
>
> The name and the gens Martiana have existed for seven
> years. The edictum is ex post facto in action and is therefore contrary to
> the principles of Roman justice. To bar new citizens from joining the gens
> Martiana constitutes an unjust act of discrimination on the part of the
> government of Nova Roma perpetrated against the gens Martiana, a people who
> have never offered offense to Nova Roma, whose members have served the
> republic faithfully, and who only desire to seek Romanitas unmolested,
> unhindered, and in peace. The edictum is a cyberspace form of forced
> sterilization and ethnic cleansing, for a gens that cannot receive new
> members is doomed to eventual extinction. The edictum constitutes what is
> probably the first micronation-sponsored genocide, the systematic
> suppression and extinguishment of a gens. Indeed, as the edictum similarly
> afflicts many gentes in Nova Roma, the republic has begun the process of
> committing multiple acts of genocide.
>
> ATS: Most of us scholars don¹t do well with emotional reactions to simple
> factual material, and I certainly don¹t. The fact is that we are imitating
> the Roman republic, and this is the way Roman republican nomina were formed.
> As M. Hortensia Maior, who is on the nomenclature research team, has pointed
> out, a very minor change in spelling would permit the continued existence of
> this gens, which makes this reaction all the more overblown. Yes, other
> gentes will be affected. Some have names that are morphologically impossible,
> and others, even those with the proper termination, are nouns, not adjectives,
> as nomina must be in order to admit both masculine and feminine genders.
> There are no feminine swords. There are no masculine willow trees. This
> edictum is a minor step in the right direction, one anyone who truly wants to
> follow the Romans would be glad to take‹along with the others which must
> follow. Some of these nomina can be converted to proper Latin by a minor
> change. Others may require a bigger change, but one which will still make
> them viable.
>
> Unwilling to go quietly into that good night, to escape the genocidal
> policy of Nova Roma, the gens Martiana has no choice but to seek its future
> beyond the republic. Anticipating of the promulgation of this edictum, the
> gens Martiana passed the following sententia by unanimous vote of its
> members on Kalendis October, MMDCCLVIII AUC:
>
> ATS: There¹s nothing genocidal about this policy.
>
> "Whereas Nova Roma's ever-growing list of onerous citizenship requirements
> has discouraged applicants to the gens Martiana from completing the
> citizenship process; and
>
> "Whereas the gens Martiana was established in MMDCCLI ab urbe condita, anno
> Martis CCVII and was accepted by the Censors of Nova Roma, yet the Censors
> of Nova Roma now obstruct new citizens from joining the gens, effectively
> making the gens a closed one against its will and threatening its eventual
> extinction; and
>
> "Whereas the current policy of the Censors of Nova Roma constitutes an ex
> post facto law to the disparagement of the principles of Roman justice, and
> violates the most basic human right, that of identity, such right being
> derived from jus naturale, which is recognized as a source of law in Roman
> jurisprudence;
>
> "Therefore be it resolved that the gens Martiana, acting in the interest of
> its very survival as well as its liberty, declares said policy of the
> Censors of Nova Roma to be unjust and un-Roman, that the gens opens its
> membership to all people who profess any of the Mediterranean and European
> cultures that existed during the Republican and Imperial periods of
> classical Rome, and that no distinction shall be made among members of the
> gens as to their status in Nova Roma; and
>
> "Resolved, that since the republic now discourages the growth of the gens
> Martiana, thus the gens is no longer obligated to encourage the growth of
> the republic, and indeed, the growth of the republic has become inimical to
> the interests of our gens and our constituent familiae, all mention of Nova
> Roma shall be removed from the Gens Martiana website."
>
> I am pleased to report that in the three weeks since the sententia was
> adopted, the gens Martiana has experienced a remarkable growth spurt,
> increasing its membership by 28%, including the formation of a new
> Romano-Celtic familia... in only three weeks! At this rate, it will not be
> long before Nova Roma citizens constitute a minority of the membership of
> the gens Martiana. As time passes, Nova Roma will become increasingly
> irrelevant to us.
>
> The gens Martiana are a Roman people, but we are also a free people. It is
> regrettable that Romanitas and libertas are no longer compatible in Nova Roma.
>
> I haven¹t noticed this‹Romanitas and libertas seem quite compatible‹but
> libertas is not the same as licentia‹a matter frequently confused in the U.S.
> at least.
>
> Bonus noctis, et bona fortuna.
>
> Marcus Martianus Gangalius, Pater gentis Martianum
> Pater, Familia Gangalia
> Lictor
> Sodalus Palatinus
> Legatus, California Superior
> Aedilis Curule, MMDCCLII
>
> Vale, et valete,
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica
> Classicist
> Scriba Censoris Gn. Equiti Marini
> Scriba Praetoris M. Iuli Perusiani
> Interpres Linguae Latinae
> Praeceptrix Linguae Latinae Academiae Thules
> Moderatrix Sodalitatis Latinitatis
> Coryphaea Sodalitatis Musarum
> Sodalis Gregis Latine Loquentium
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: raymond fuentes<mailto:praefectus2324@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Martiana et Edictum Censorium de Nominibus Mutandis


Wow.
--- Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com> <marcus@...<mailto:marcus@...>>
wrote:
> Salvete omnes,
>
> I hereby communicate the official position of the
gens Martiana regarding
> the Edictum Censorium de Nominibus Mutandis,
hereafter referred to as "the
> edictum."
>
> In our collective judgment, the following clause of
the edictum is
> incompatible with the interests of the gens
Martiana:
>
> "II. Nomen
> "II.a. All men's nomina should end in -ius or -aeus;
women's in '-ia' or 'aea.'
> "All nomina that do not end in -ius/-ia or
-aeus/-aea cannot be chosen by a
> prospective citizen at the application stage when
joining Nova Roma."
>
> I joined Nova Roma as its 173rd citizen, and formed
the gens Martiana
> during the first year of Nova Roma's existence in
accordance with the laws
> then extant. The name and the gens Martiana have
existed for seven
> years. The edictum is ex post facto in action and
is therefore contrary to
> the principles of Roman justice. To bar new
citizens from joining the gens
> Martiana constitutes an unjust act of discrimination
on the part of the
> government of Nova Roma perpetrated against the gens
Martiana, a people who
> have never offered offense to Nova Roma, whose
members have served the
> republic faithfully, and who only desire to seek
Romanitas unmolested,
> unhindered, and in peace. The edictum is a
cyberspace form of forced
> sterilization and ethnic cleansing, for a gens that
cannot receive new
> members is doomed to eventual extinction. The
edictum constitutes what is
> probably the first micronation-sponsored genocide,
the systematic
> suppression and extinguishment of a gens. Indeed,
as the edictum similarly
> afflicts many gentes in Nova Roma, the republic has
begun the process of
> committing multiple acts of genocide.
>
> Unwilling to go quietly into that good night, to
escape the genocidal
> policy of Nova Roma, the gens Martiana has no choice
but to seek its future
> beyond the republic. Anticipating of the
promulgation of this edictum, the
> gens Martiana passed the following sententia by
unanimous vote of its
> members on Kalendis October, MMDCCLVIII AUC:
>
> "Whereas Nova Roma's ever-growing list of onerous
citizenship requirements
> has discouraged applicants to the gens Martiana from
completing the
> citizenship process; and
>
> "Whereas the gens Martiana was established in
MMDCCLI ab urbe condita, anno
> Martis CCVII and was accepted by the Censors of Nova
Roma, yet the Censors
> of Nova Roma now obstruct new citizens from joining
the gens, effectively
> making the gens a closed one against its will and
threatening its eventual
> extinction; and
>
> "Whereas the current policy of the Censors of Nova
Roma constitutes an ex
> post facto law to the disparagement of the
principles of Roman justice, and
> violates the most basic human right, that of
identity, such right being
> derived from jus naturale, which is recognized as a
source of law in Roman
> jurisprudence;
>
> "Therefore be it resolved that the gens Martiana,
acting in the interest of
> its very survival as well as its liberty, declares
said policy of the
> Censors of Nova Roma to be unjust and un-Roman, that
the gens opens its
> membership to all people who profess any of the
Mediterranean and European
> cultures that existed during the Republican and
Imperial periods of
> classical Rome, and that no distinction shall be
made among members of the
> gens as to their status in Nova Roma; and
>
> "Resolved, that since the republic now discourages
the growth of the gens
> Martiana, thus the gens is no longer obligated to
encourage the growth of
> the republic, and indeed, the growth of the republic
has become inimical to
> the interests of our gens and our constituent
familiae, all mention of Nova
> Roma shall be removed from the Gens Martiana
website."
>
> I am pleased to report that in the three weeks since
the sententia was
> adopted, the gens Martiana has experienced a
remarkable growth spurt,
> increasing its membership by 28%, including the
formation of a new
> Romano-Celtic familia... in only three week
=== Message Truncated ===


S P Q R

Fidelis Ad Mortem.

Marcvs Flavivs Fides
Roman Citizen






__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com<http://mail.yahoo.com/>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Nova-Roma<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma>" on the web.

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 My friend Marcvs Flavivs Fides said
>
> "Whereas the current policy of the Censors of Nova
> Roma constitutes an ex post facto law"
>
>
> If you really think this edict is an "ex post facto" law then

>
> 1.. Ex Post Factis
> 2.. No one shall suffer a penalty for an action which was not

> 3.. No one shall suffer a greater penalty for an action than the

>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: raymond fuentes<mailto:praefectus2324@y...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 10:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Martiana et Edictum Censorium de

>
>
> Wow.
> --- Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>

> wrote:
> > Salvete omnes,
> >
> > I hereby communicate the official position of the
> gens Martiana regarding
> > the Edictum Censorium de Nominibus Mutandis,
> hereafter referred to as "the
> > edictum."
> >
> > In our collective judgment, the following clause of
> the edictum is
> > incompatible with the interests of the gens
> Martiana:
> >
> > "II. Nomen
> > "II.a. All men's nomina should end in -ius or -aeus;
> women's in '-ia' or 'aea.'
> > "All nomina that do not end in -ius/-ia or
> -aeus/-aea cannot be chosen by a
> > prospective citizen at the application stage when
> joining Nova Roma."
> >
> > I joined Nova Roma as its 173rd citizen, and formed
> the gens Martiana
> > during the first year of Nova Roma's existence in
> accordance with the laws
> > then extant. The name and the gens Martiana have
> existed for seven
> > years. The edictum is ex post facto in action and
> is therefore contrary to
> > the principles of Roman justice. To bar new
> citizens from joining the gens
> > Martiana constitutes an unjust act of discrimination
> on the part of the
> > government of Nova Roma perpetrated against the gens
> Martiana, a people who
> > have never offered offense to Nova Roma, whose
> members have served the
> > republic faithfully, and who only desire to seek
> Romanitas unmolested,
> > unhindered, and in peace. The edictum is a
> cyberspace form of forced
> > sterilization and ethnic cleansing, for a gens that
> cannot receive new
> > members is doomed to eventual extinction. The
> edictum constitutes what is
> > probably the first micronation-sponsored genocide,
> the systematic
> > suppression and extinguishment of a gens. Indeed,
> as the edictum similarly
> > afflicts many gentes in Nova Roma, the republic has
> begun the process of
> > committing multiple acts of genocide.
> >
> > Unwilling to go quietly into that good night, to
> escape the genocidal
> > policy of Nova Roma, the gens Martiana has no choice
> but to seek its future
> > beyond the republic. Anticipating of the
> promulgation of this edictum, the
> > gens Martiana passed the following sententia by
> unanimous vote of its
> > members on Kalendis October, MMDCCLVIII AUC:
> >
> > "Whereas Nova Roma's ever-growing list of onerous
> citizenship requirements
> > has discouraged applicants to the gens Martiana from
> completing the
> > citizenship process; and
> >
> > "Whereas the gens Martiana was established in
> MMDCCLI ab urbe condita, anno
> > Martis CCVII and was accepted by the Censors of Nova
> Roma, yet the Censors
> > of Nova Roma now obstruct new citizens from joining
> the gens, effectively
> > making the gens a closed one against its will and
> threatening its eventual
> > extinction; and
> >
> > "Whereas the current policy of the Censors of Nova
> Roma constitutes an ex
> > post facto law to the disparagement of the
> principles of Roman justice, and
> > violates the most basic human right, that of
> identity, such right being
> > derived from jus naturale, which is recognized as a
> source of law in Roman
> > jurisprudence;
> >
> > "Therefore be it resolved that the gens Martiana,
> acting in the interest of
> > its very survival as well as its liberty, declares
> said policy of the
> > Censors of Nova Roma to be unjust and un-Roman, that
> the gens opens its
> > membership to all people who profess any of the
> Mediterranean and European
> > cultures that existed during the Republican and
> Imperial periods of
> > classical Rome, and that no distinction shall be
> made among members of the
> > gens as to their status in Nova Roma; and
> >
> > "Resolved, that since the republic now discourages
> the growth of the gens
> > Martiana, thus the gens is no longer obligated to
> encourage the growth of
> > the republic, and indeed, the growth of the republic
> has become inimical to
> > the interests of our gens and our constituent
> familiae, all mention of Nova
> > Roma shall be removed from the Gens Martiana
> website."
> >
> > I am pleased to report that in the three weeks since
> the sententia was
> > adopted, the gens Martiana has experienced a
> remarkable growth spurt,
> > increasing its membership by 28%, including the
> formation of a new
> > Romano-Celtic familia... in only three week
> === Message Truncated ===
>
>
> S P Q R
>
> Fidelis Ad Mortem.
>
> Marcvs Flavivs Fides
> Roman Citizen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com<http://mail.yahoo.com/>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "Nova-

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

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

>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Q. Caecilius Metellus
To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com ; religioromana@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 11:38 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] A Short Survey


Q. Metellus Pont. Quiritibus sal.

If you would be so kind as to indulge me by answering this survey, I'd
greatly appreciate it. Depending on the results, which I'll publish on
both the lists to which I'm sending this, something more might come of
this, but for now, I'd just like to gauge interest. If those of you who
wish to respond would be so kind as to send your responses to me at
metellus@..., I would be appreciative.

Valete,

Q. Caecilius Metellus
Pontifex

-----

1. Do you consider yourself a practitioner of the Religio Romana? No

2. Would you subscribe to a publication focused on the Religio Romana? Maybe

2.a. How much, in any currency, would you be willing to pay for such a
publication? Options?

2.b. With what frenquency would you like said publication to be issued?
Bi-Weekly, Monthly, Bi-monthly, Quarterly, Semi-Annually Monthly

3. Would you be willing to contribute to such a publication? If I could

3.a. How much and at what frequency? Once a year or as reqested

3.b. What, specifically, would you be willing to contribute? Probably not a lot. I'm new to NR

4. What features, in particular, would you like to see in such a
publication?
As a writer who wants honors and respects the Religio Romana, I would be interested in accurately as possible represent the gods and the sactums of the ceremonies. I know I am very ignorante of these and do NOT want to misrepresent the respect due.
I hope I have helped.
Iulia Galeria Casca




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Nova-Roma" on the web.

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

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


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



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

> On a side note. Has anyone been following the ethnic

> legislation. I am certainly no expert on this, but

> some form of trans-border sovereignty for anyone of

> would be subject to their own law rather than the

> they happen to reside. Whether it passes or not the

> broached. Surely the applicability to this vis a vis

>
> --
> >|P. Dominus Antonius|<
> Tony Dah m
>
> Oderint dum metuant - Cicero
> Si vis pacem, para bellum - Vegetius
>
>
> On 10/18/05, Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus

> >
> > Cn. Lentulus propraetor Q. Lanio quaestori
> > Quiritibusque SPD:
> >
> > Salve, Q. Lani Pauline quaestor!
> >
> > Thank you for this very important and interesting
> > issue. I personally cannot write long about (time

> > language barries), but feel to be important to

> > this:
> >
> >
> > >>>Here is an interesting point from this citizen

> > worth some
> > discussion. I must admit that I waver somewhat

> > the two
> > concepts of nationhood vs social club.<<<
> >
> >
> > EXACTLY! At the present situation of our Nova

> > can only think of somewhat similar, and you are a

> > man and Roman patriot if you stand for the

> > evolution in this way.
> >
> >
> > >>>2) While getting people interested and sold on

> > idea of NR,
> > experience has taught me that if I tell them right

> > that NR is
> > Rome reborn and a soverign nation, many think that

> > are a group of
> > eccentrics like those villains (...)
> > ...More often than not when Nova Roma is
> > initially presented more like a club full of

> > who have a
> > passion for Rome (...)
> > ...then I find that their initial responses are

> > positive.<<<
> >
> >
> > The same experience is mine. We MUST consider this
> > when we promote ourselves. Though I am a devoted
> > "refounder" of Rome and with all my heart I make
> > efforts to live as a Roman, I try to not overdo

> > side of Nova Roma and to not deter those people of
> > sterling worth who want to join us simply because

> > their iterest in the ancient Rome.
> >
> >
> > >>>3) In conclusion I feel that on many occasions

> > we need to act
> > along the lines of a club or society until we grow
> > large enough in
> > both population and especially finances.<<<
> >
> >
> > YES, yes, yes: you sound as if I would say it.

> > the only rational way if we want to resuscitate

> > And the strongest emphasis on "especially in
> > finances"!
> >
> >
> > >>>Therefore, at least for
> > the time being we need to operate more like a club

> Q. Metellus Pont. Quiritibus sal.
>
> If you would be so kind as to indulge me by
> answering this survey, I'd
> greatly appreciate it. Depending on the results,
> which I'll publish on
> both the lists to which I'm sending this, something
> more might come of
> this, but for now, I'd just like to gauge interest.
> If those of you who
> wish to respond would be so kind as to send your
> responses to me at
> metellus@..., I would be appreciative.
>
> Valete,
>
> Q. Caecilius Metellus
> Pontifex
>
> -----
>
> 1. Do you consider yourself a practitioner of the
> Religio Romana? No
>
> 2. Would you subscribe to a publication focused on
> the Religio Romana? Yes
>
> 2.a. How much, in any currency, would you be willing
> to pay for such a
> publication? $15 or $20 a year
>
> 2.b. With what frenquency would you like said
> publication to be issued? Monthly
> Bi-Weekly, Monthly, Bi-monthly, Quarterly,
> Semi-Annually
>
> 3. Would you be willing to contribute to such a
> publication? Yes
>
> 3.a. How much and at what frequency? As much as I

>
> 3.b. What, specifically, would you be willing to
> contribute? Cover Art, or help putting it together.
>
> 4. What features, in particular, would you like to
> see in such a
> publication? I'm not sure, maybe each mothe have

>
>

> Salvete omnes,
>
> I hereby communicate the official position of the gens Martiana regarding
> the Edictum Censorium de Nominibus Mutandis, hereafter referred to as "the
> edictum."

>In a message dated 10/23/2005 6:55:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, writes:
>I hereby communicate the official position of the gens Martiana regarding
>the Edictum Censorium de Nominibus Mutandis, hereafter referred to as "the
>
>
>Salve
>Marti for the Gods' sake.
>
>Before you go off half cocked, simply ask the Censors for an exemption,
>you have the nomen and it was approved by Nova Roma, both legally and
>religiously seven years
>ago. Its not like you have Smithus or something.
>If the Censors don't want to listen, contact the Tribunes. That's what
>they are there for
>to limit extreme excesses of magistratal power.
>
>Calm down.
>
>Bene Vale
>
>Fabius

> CENSORIBVS: K FABIO BVTEONI: CN EQVITIO MARINO:
> SALVTEM DICIT: CN CORNELIVS LENTVLVS:
>
>
> Esteemed Censors, I would like to ask some questions
> concerning to your edictum and add a little comment.
> At first, I have to say that it is a very useful
> edictum and sorely needed, too. Thank You for Your
> efforts on it!

> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Comment 1:

> Looking over the Album Gentium of NR I see such nomina
> which must't be in a serious, scholarly, competent
> Roman assocition.

> Comment 2:
>
>
>>>>I. Praenomina...<<<
>
>
> I would like to ask that what is Your source
> concerning the use of Vibius/Vibia as praenomen?

> I am
> interested because I have never heared a Roman with
> such a praenomen.

> I would also interested in sources of female
> praenomens. According to my knowledges there are very
> rare examples for female praenomens and I don't
> understad why are women constrained to use praenomina
> in NR when it is in contempt of the Roman practice?

> Comment 3:

> I have written a letter to Tullia Scholastica about
> the same question. There are nomina ening with -anus,
> -enus, -a. I know from A. Apollonius Cordus' message
> that this problem is known by the censorial team: but
> I think that it would be useful to mention that in a
> censorial document so that everybody can be informed
> about these exceptional type of nomina.

> Thank You, Censores amplissimi, for Your attention and
> patience regarding my enquiry!

> The Censors have already barred an applicant from joining the gens
> Martiana,

> ... Regrettably, they have acted injudiciously and unjustly.

> I also question the legality of the Censors' action in the specific case of
> the gens Martiana, for they barred this application to our gens a full
> month before they officially announced this edictum.

> The gens Martiana judges this edictum unjust, and considers it nullus.

----- Original Message -----
From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 2:18 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: RE Gens Martiana et Edictum Censorium de Nominibus Mutandis


Salvete omnes,

I sometimes have problems understanding why citizens get their
shirts in such a knot and quit NR. This time it looks like a whole
family will pack it in and move on. There are always dispute
resolving mechanisms in NR and it is never over until its over. As I
said to another citizen yesterday, if Rome survived Cannae, the
Teutoburg Wald, Catalline Conspiracy and all yet came out of it all
smelling like a Rose, NR will do likewise whenever she loses
citizens or an entire family for that matter. Several months ago one
of the gens from Gallia (France) left in a huff yet we are still
here and continuing on. I have heard nothing more from their new
revived Rome they promised to this point.

I might add that perhaps we should reflect and look to some of our
senior founding citizens who have had some awful clashes or
differences with one another in the 3 years I've been here. Many are
still here, may take a breather or time off here and there but they
are Stoic enough to stay and continue on weathering the storms just
the same.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Nova-Roma" on the web.

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

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


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




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


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/147 - Release Date: 10/24/2005


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

On 10/24/05, Thomas Gangale <marcus@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Quinte Fabi Maxime,
>
> With respect, sir, I believe your message proceeds from a false
> premise. When you examine the facts, it is clear that it is the Censors
> who have gone off half-cocked.
>
> The Censors have already barred an applicant from joining the gens
> Martiana, and they have done so without bothering to first review the case
> of our gens. Had they reviewed the case of the gens Martiana, they might
> well have granted an exemption. This would have been a judicious course of
> action. Regrettably, they have acted injudiciously and unjustly. They
> have fired the first shot, and the gens Martiana has had no choice but to
> respond in the interest of its self-preservation.
>
> I also question the legality of the Censors' action in the specific case
> of
> the gens Martiana, for they barred this application to our gens a full
> month before they officially announced this edictum. Is Nova Roma now
> governed by secret laws, or by laws anticipated but not yet promulgated?
>
> In no society that is governed by the rule of law does a new law become
> effective on the same day it is announced, whereas this practice is common
> in totalitarian regimes. The reason is obvious. A future date of
> effectivity allows for a legal challenge to be prepared and entered, in
> which case the court holds the new law in abeyance while the case is
> resolved, and no citizen is affected by the new law until its
> constitutionality has been ascertained. In a totalitarian state, where
> such legal recourse does not exist, so there is no reason for a new law
> not
> to become effective on the same day it is announced.
>
> Finally, the Censors have crafted their new edictum in contravention of
> the
> principles of Roman jurisprudence, in that it is ex post facto in its
> action. If there is a Smithus in Nova Roma who was accepted by past
> Censors, then I speak in the defense of such a Smithus. The government of
> Nova Roma is ethically bound to give full faith and credit the past acts
> of
> its officers, and citizen Smithus is entitled his status in
> perpetuity. The Censors are entitled to set new standards for future
> citizenship applications; they are not are entitled to afflict citizens
> who
> were accepted in good faith according to the laws then extant, and who
> have
> committed no wrongs.
>
> The gens Martiana judges this edictum unjust, and considers it nullus.
>
> Optime vale,
> Marcus Martianus Gangalius
>
> At 12:05 AM 10/24/2005, Qfabiusmaxmi@... wrote:
> >In a message dated 10/23/2005 6:55:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, writes:
> >I hereby communicate the official position of the gens Martiana regarding
> >the Edictum Censorium de Nominibus Mutandis, hereafter referred to as
> "the
> >
> >
> >Salve
> >Marti for the Gods' sake.
> >
> >Before you go off half cocked, simply ask the Censors for an exemption,
> >you have the nomen and it was approved by Nova Roma, both legally and
> >religiously seven years
> >ago. Its not like you have Smithus or something.
> >If the Censors don't want to listen, contact the Tribunes. That's what
> >they are there for
> >to limit extreme excesses of magistratal power.
> >
> >Calm down.
> >
> >Bene Vale
> >
> >Fabius
>


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

> Notice how those who can muster no logical refutation of the gens
> Martiana's position resort to thinly-veiled ad hominem remarks, implying
> some sort of hysteria on my part, and even on the part of the entire gens:

> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus: "Members of gens Martiana find this edictum so
> terribly upsetting."

> Salve Quintus Lanius Paulinus,
>
> I too almost left NR recently. I was infuriated at being censured

>
> I got caught up in this grand idea pretty badly, even going as far

>

> So there you have it, even when someone sincerely tries to

>

> Is there anyone out there willing to quit there 'day' job and move

>

> This grand idea has indeed attracted quite a few followers. I

>

> Vires et honos,
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 2:18 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: RE Gens Martiana et Edictum Censorium

>
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> I sometimes have problems understanding why citizens get their
> shirts in such a knot and quit NR. This time it looks like a

> family will pack it in and move on. There are always dispute
> resolving mechanisms in NR and it is never over until its over.

> said to another citizen yesterday, if Rome survived Cannae, the
> Teutoburg Wald, Catalline Conspiracy and all yet came out of it

> smelling like a Rose, NR will do likewise whenever she loses
> citizens or an entire family for that matter. Several months ago

> of the gens from Gallia (France) left in a huff yet we are still
> here and continuing on. I have heard nothing more from their

> revived Rome they promised to this point.
>
> I might add that perhaps we should reflect and look to some of

> senior founding citizens who have had some awful clashes or
> differences with one another in the 3 years I've been here. Many

> still here, may take a breather or time off here and there but

> are Stoic enough to stay and continue on weathering the storms

> the same.
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "Nova-Roma" on the web.
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms

>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/147 - Release Date:

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

> A. Tullia Scholastica G. Equitio Catoni amico quiritibus, sociis,
> peregrinisque omnibus S.P.D.
>
>
> G. Equitius Cato M. Martiano Gangalio Ti. Galerio Paulino M.
> Hortensiae Maori quiritibusque S.P.D.
>
> Salvete omnes.
>
> The key ingredient here is the wording of this section:
>
> "3. a. No one shall suffer a penalty for an action which was not
> subject to a penalty when the action was performed. If an action was
> subject to a penalty when the action was performed but is no longer
> subject to any penalty, no penalty shall be applied for that action."
> - LEX EQVITIA GALERIA DE LEGIBVS EX POST FACTIS (passed non. Oct. 2757
> A.U.C.)
>
> In non-legalese, no-one gets punished for doing "X" if it wasn't
> punishable before any particular law regarding "X" was passed.
>
> The question then becomes "does the Edict concerning the correction of
> names impose a penalty upon the members of the gens Martiana?"
>
>
> First, let me look at the edict itself:
>
> "II.a. All men's nomina should end in -ius or -aeus; women's in '-ia'
> or 'aea.' The -ius/-ia ending is by far more common in the
> historical record.
>
> All nomina that end in -ius/-a or -aeus/aea in Nova Roma can be
> chosen by any prospective citizen at the application stage when
> joining Nova Roma." - EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE NOMINIBVS MVTANDIS (issued
> a.d. XII Kal. Nov. 2758 A.U.C.)
>
> Now, I would argue that, as published, the edict has no claim on the
> gens Martiana. Why? Because, by either oversight, clerical error, or
> some other mechanism, the second paragraph of this portion of the
> edict states that "all nomina that end in ius/a...can be chosen".
>
> ATS: Cato, amice, this is one of the standard methods of writing Latin
> terminations; it presupposes that the terminations will be ­ius for males, and
> ­ia for females; there is no need for the neuter in regard to nomina, though
> we have had prospective citizens asking for various names in the neuter
> gender‹a violation of the Lex Cornelia et Maria de Mutandis Nominibus, as are
> certain other matters, such as names inappropriate for one¹s gender, names
> incapable of Latin declension, and agnomina of distinction, inter alia. The
> word Œgens¹ is feminine in Latin, so it must be modified by a feminine
> adjective; the names of all gentes must therefore be feminine adjectives.
> Those of male members of a given gens, of course, must then be masculine
> adjectives.
>
> Since the gens name "Martiana" ends in "a", the edict allows it. In
> order to change it, the censors must issue another official edict
> correcting what may be a simple clerical mistake. For the time being
> it has, however, been published officially and stands as is.
>
> ATS: There¹s no need to change this for existing members of this (or any
> other) gens, though they are ENCOURAGED to do so. Moreover, in this case, a
> simple spelling change will take care of any problem. Why anyone would
> contend with correct spelling is beyond me, but then there may be those who
> quibble with first-grade arithmetic, and such hot topics as one plus one
> equals two, two plus two equals four...and Roman gentile names of the
> Republican period end in ­ius for men, -ia for women, or ­aeus for men, and
> ­aea for women. I note that Proconsul Gnaeus Salvius Astur changed his nomen
> from ŒSalix,¹ which is a feminine noun meaning Œwillow tree,¹ to ŒSalvius,¹
> though a simple spelling change to ŒSalicius¹ (feminine, Salicia) would have
> rendered his previous nomen morphologically correct; he chose to take the name
> of a historic gens when he learned more Latin. Several citizens have asked
> about the correctness of their names; today a citizen who is of quite mature
> years asked about the correctness of her name, and received a response on this
> issue.
>
>
> Now it is true that the third paragraph says that
>
> "All nomina that do not end in -ius/-ia or -aeus/-aea CANNOT be chosen
> [my emphasis]"
>
> but this merely makes the edict self-contradictory. A prospective
> citizen wishing to join the gens Martiana need only point to the
> second paragraph; this edict simply creates another of Nova Roma's
> endlessly circling legal battles unless and until it is corrected.
>
> ATS: There¹s no real contradiction here.
>
>
> In addition, the first paragraph says that all men's nomina "should"
> end in "-ius or aeus", but not that they *must* do so; the existence
> of endings besides those encouraged by the edict is attested to in the
> second paragraph of the edict itself when it states that these endings
> are "more common" --- in generally understood English, something can
> only be "more common" if there exist *other* versions of that thing
> which are "less common".
>
> ATS: The ­aeus/-aea ending is less common than the ­ius/-ia one, and as
> Auitus has pointed out, derives from an earlier variant which did, in fact,
> end in ­ius/-ia.
>
> So. The edict itself is a bit of a mess. Easily corrected, but until
> the necessary corrections have been made, it cannot be used to support
> the removal of any nominae.
>
> ATS: nomina...and I disagree on that point.
>
>
> Now, to the question of penalizing the gens Martiana (or, in fact, any
> gens with a nomina that falls into a contested area). If the censors
> refuse to allow any prospective citizen to choose the name Martiana,
> then they are, in fact, commiting a specific act. A prospective
> citizen is asking for something and the censors are secifically
> responding in an official capacity to that request.
>
> Does this penalize the gens Martiana? The paterfamilas projects into
> the future, seeing the eventual extinction of the gens as no new
> members would be allowed to join and so keep its numbers either at
> current levels or expand. I assume he is not counting on any of the
> current members reproducing fast enough to create new citizens on a
> scale large enough to keep the numbers at least static. This same
> scenario would apply to the gens Constantinus, of which the tribune
> Fuscus is paterfamilias --- unless he changes his gens name to
> "Constantinius", it will fall into a worse situation as there is no
> error in the edict which would technically allow "-us" endings.
>
> Yes, I believe that this can easily be perceived as a penalty, and a
> violation of the lex Equitia Galeria regarding ex post facto
> punishment, though not the "genocide" that Martianus Ganglius
> portrays, as there is no inherent intent on the part of the censors to
> destroy any particular
> people. While I certainly do not wish to underestimate the
> disturbance this has caused the members of the gens Martiana, I cannot
> ascribe to the censors any evil intent.
>
> Roman law does not, however, care about intent. It cares only about
> cause and effect. This effect (the destruction of the gens Martiana)
> might very well have a direct cause (this censorial edict).
>
> ATS: At worst, the effect of this edictum will be to change the spelling
> of the name of this gens, and of its members. Buchstabierungwechsel.
>
>
> The censors and their staffs have worked very hard at this, and spent
> innumerable hours working towards an extraordinary and highly
> commendable goal; regardless of what I think is extremely hasty action
> on his part, the tone taken with Martianus Ganglius has been, however,
> rather short and dismissive, and not demonstrative of the respect due
> to the paterfamilias of one of the oldest gentes in the res publica.
> Claims of "expertise" do not in any way whatsoever lessen the personal
> and emotional impact that this edict is obviously having.
>
>
> ATS: Adults (human ones, anyway) control their emotions under normal
> circumstances, though illness or the like may make this difficult. Nova Roma
> is the laughingstock of anyone who knows Latin and reads the Album Civium, or
> the Album Gentium, and sees impossible names there as being those of Roman
> citizens, for there are many highly competent Latinists in this world, some of
> whom do look at our website‹and howl. Even the others who inspect these
> lists, but aren¹t Latinists, can certainly get a good laugh out of some of the
> names. Some here truly want to have names that are more correct. Provision
> has been made for those who prefer to retain their existing names; moreover,
> in many cases, only a minor adjustment will rectify the morphology of these
> nomina. If someone misspells ŒCaesar¹ as ŒCaersar¹ or what have you, why
> should he or she be unwilling to correct this error? If it¹s wrong, it gets
> corrected.
>
> M. Martianus has not been terribly respectful of the censores, who are
> elected magistrates, and highly educated men into the bargain, nor of their
> staffs, which are composed of highly educated people, some of whom have done
> extensive research into the field of Roman nomenclature‹and, I would point
> out, intelligence, education, and learning carry authority independent of any
> other factors. In the person of Auitus alone we have a highly respected,
> world-class Latinist who is writing a book in Latin on the development of
> Latin vocabulary and teaching three or four courses at the Academia on top of
> his own macro workload, and while the rest of us cannot lay claim to such
> honors, none of us is either dull or uneducated; probably all of us have
> graduate degrees.
>
> Valete bene,
>
> Cato
>
> Vale, et valete, bene.
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica
>


>