In defense of women pontifices (Nova Roma) - Revision history

M. Lucretius Agricola at 09:17, 1 June 2010

2010-06-01T09:17:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:17, 1 June 2010
Line 34:		Line 34:


−	What I have shown thus far is that the status of women is different in Nova Roma than what it was in ancient Rome, and that this difference is a departure from the ''mos maiorum'' of antiquity, but is very much a part of the customs and traditions (i.e., mores) of Nova Roma. Since women are not discriminated against based upon their gender with respect to citizenship within Nova Roma, it is also true that this citizenship allows women to engage in the electoral process as legislated for in the [[Lex Vedia de cursu honorum (Nova Roma)\|''lex Vedia de cursu honorum'' (Nova Roma)]], which allows for any citizen to run for political office after six months of citizenship. Another important aspect of the mores of Nova Roma is the [[Lex Popillia senatoria (Nova Roma)\|''lex Popillia senatoria'' (Nova Roma)]] (and subsequent leges of a similar nature), which allows adlection into the senate of any citizen who has served as a magistrate or who has otherwise demonstrated exceptionally good character. The criteria is citizenship in both cases (viz., election in ''comitia'' as a magistrate, and being adlected into the senate), and is irrespective of gender. What is especially important is the senatorial rank, which is gender-blind, in that it is based upon merit alone and ignores potential impediments based upon gender. There is an important passage from Scheid regarding the correlation between senatorial rank and the priesthood: “Under the Republic, not all the priests in the major colleges had been of senatorial rank. By the end of that period all major priests were senators and rather less than half were patricians.”<ref> Scheid~~, John. “An Introduction to Roman Religion.” Indiana University Press: Bloomington & Indianapolis 2003.~~ Page 143.</ref> Senators clearly had religious authority,<ref> Warrior, Valerie M. “Roman Religion.” Cambridge University Press: New York 2006. Page 42.</ref> and many who occupied the major priesthoods were of senatorial rank. It seems safe to make the assertion that if women are allowed into the senate then they should be allowed to occupy important priesthoods, namely, ''pontifex'' and ''augur''. To deny a female senator as ''pontifex'' or ''augur'' seems an affront to the rank of senator itself, “since the priestly colleges consisted mostly of senatorials, their advice should be considered as that given by a permanent committee of the senate.”<ref> Szemler, George J. "Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic." <u>Numen</u> 18.2 (1971): 103-31. Page 106.</ref> Therefore, it would seem ''impietas prudens dolo malo'' to deny a woman the priesthood of ''pontifex'' or ''augur'' simply on the grounds of her gender if she were a senator. Furthermore, if ''pontifex'' or ''augur'' can be bestowed upon a woman of senatorial rank then it seems feasible to entertain the notion that it could be bestowed upon a woman outside of the senate if she was given the same non-gender related criteria that men enjoy.	+	What I have shown thus far is that the status of women is different in Nova Roma than what it was in ancient Rome, and that this difference is a departure from the ''mos maiorum'' of antiquity, but is very much a part of the customs and traditions (i.e., mores) of Nova Roma. Since women are not discriminated against based upon their gender with respect to citizenship within Nova Roma, it is also true that this citizenship allows women to engage in the electoral process as legislated for in the [[Lex Vedia de cursu honorum (Nova Roma)\|''lex Vedia de cursu honorum'' (Nova Roma)]], which allows for any citizen to run for political office after six months of citizenship. Another important aspect of the mores of Nova Roma is the [[Lex Popillia senatoria (Nova Roma)\|''lex Popillia senatoria'' (Nova Roma)]] (and subsequent leges of a similar nature), which allows adlection into the senate of any citizen who has served as a magistrate or who has otherwise demonstrated exceptionally good character. The criteria is citizenship in both cases (viz., election in ''comitia'' as a magistrate, and being adlected into the senate), and is irrespective of gender. What is especially important is the senatorial rank, which is gender-blind, in that it is based upon merit alone and ignores potential impediments based upon gender. There is an important passage from Scheid regarding the correlation between senatorial rank and the priesthood: “Under the Republic, not all the priests in the major colleges had been of senatorial rank. By the end of that period all major priests were senators and rather less than half were patricians.”<ref>{{Scheid}} Page 143.</ref> Senators clearly had religious authority,<ref> Warrior, Valerie M. “Roman Religion.” Cambridge University Press: New York 2006. Page 42.</ref> and many who occupied the major priesthoods were of senatorial rank. It seems safe to make the assertion that if women are allowed into the senate then they should be allowed to occupy important priesthoods, namely, ''pontifex'' and ''augur''. To deny a female senator as ''pontifex'' or ''augur'' seems an affront to the rank of senator itself, “since the priestly colleges consisted mostly of senatorials, their advice should be considered as that given by a permanent committee of the senate.”<ref> Szemler, George J. "Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic." <u>Numen</u> 18.2 (1971): 103-31. Page 106.</ref> Therefore, it would seem ''impietas prudens dolo malo'' to deny a woman the priesthood of ''pontifex'' or ''augur'' simply on the grounds of her gender if she were a senator. Furthermore, if ''pontifex'' or ''augur'' can be bestowed upon a woman of senatorial rank then it seems feasible to entertain the notion that it could be bestowed upon a woman outside of the senate if she was given the same non-gender related criteria that men enjoy.

	==On change in the ''sacra publica''==		==On change in the ''sacra publica''==

Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus: recat

2008-10-15T23:14:59Z

recat

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:14, 15 October 2008
Line 73:		Line 73:

	Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)\|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].		Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)\|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].
−	~~[[Category:Nova Roma]]~~	+
	[[Category:Religio Romana (Nova Roma)]]		[[Category:Religio Romana (Nova Roma)]]

Aldus Marius Peregrinus: minor caps, punctuation, wording; link to lex Equitia; italics throughout

2007-12-14T21:01:25Z

minor caps, punctuation, wording; link to lex Equitia; italics throughout

Show changes

Titus Iulius Sabinus: In Defense of Women Pontifices (Nova Roma) moved to In defense of women pontifices (Nova Roma): capital letters

2007-12-14T09:00:34Z

In Defense of Women Pontifices (Nova Roma) moved to In defense of women pontifices (Nova Roma): capital letters

← Older revision

Revision as of 09:00, 14 December 2007

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus at 05:33, 13 December 2007

2007-12-13T05:33:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:33, 13 December 2007
Line 75:		Line 75:
	Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)\|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].		Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)\|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].
	[[Category:Nova Roma]]		[[Category:Nova Roma]]
−	[[Category:Religio Romana]]	+	[[Category:Religio Romana (Nova Roma)]]

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus at 05:31, 13 December 2007

2007-12-13T05:31:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:31, 13 December 2007
Line 75:		Line 75:
	Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)\|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].		Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)\|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].
	[[Category:Nova Roma]]		[[Category:Nova Roma]]
		+	[[Category:Religio Romana]]

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus at 05:31, 13 December 2007

2007-12-13T05:31:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:31, 13 December 2007
Line 74:		Line 74:

	Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)\|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].		Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)\|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].
		+	[[Category:Nova Roma]]

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* On the status and role of women in Nova Roma: */

2007-12-13T05:02:38Z

On the status and role of women in Nova Roma:

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:02, 13 December 2007
Line 35:		Line 35:


−	What I have shown thus far is that the status of women is different in Nova Roma than what it was in ancient Rome, and that this difference is a departure from the ''mos maiorum'' of antiquity, but is very much a part of the customs and traditions (i.e., mores) of Nova Roma. Since women are not discriminated against based upon their gender, with respect to citizenship within Nova Roma, it is also true that this citizenship also allows women to engage in the electoral process as legislated for in Lex Vedia de cursu honorum, which allows for any citizen to run for political office after six months of citizenship. Another important aspect of the mores of Nova Roma is the Lex Popillia senatoria (and subsequent leges of a similar nature), which allows adlection into the senate of any citizen who has served as a magistrate or who has otherwise demonstrated exceptionally good character. The criteria is citizenship in both cases (viz., election in comitia as a magistrate, and being adlected into the senate), and is irrespective of gender. What is especially important is the senatorial rank, which is gender blind, in that it is based upon merit alone and ignores potential impediments based upon gender. There is an important passage from Scheid regarding the correlation between senator rank and the priesthood, “Under the Republic, not all the priests in the major colleges had been of senatorial rank. By the end of that period all major priests were senators and rather less than half were patricians.”<ref> Scheid, John. “An Introduction to Roman Religion.” Indiana University Press: Bloomington & Indianapolis 2003. Page 143.</ref> Senators clearly had religious authority,<ref> Warrior, Valerie M. “Roman Religion.” Cambridge University Press: New York 2006. Page 42.</ref> and as I noted above many who occupied the major priesthoods were of senatorial rank. It seems safe to make the assertion that if women are allowed into the senate then they should be allowed to occupy important priesthoods, namely, ''pontifex'' and ''augur''. To deny a female senator as ''pontifex'' or ''augur'' seems an affront to the rank of senator itself, “since the priestly colleges consisted mostly of senatorialcs, their advice should be considered as that given by a permanent committee of the senate.”<ref> Szemler, George J. "Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic." <u>Numen</u> 18.2 (1971): 103-31. Page 106.</ref> Therefore, it would seem ''impietas prudens dolo malo'' to deny a woman the priesthood of ''pontifex'' or ''augur'' simply on the grounds of her gender if she were a senator. Furthermore, if ''pontifex'' or ''augur'' can be bestowed upon a woman of senatorial rank then it seems feasible to entertain the notion that it could be bestowed upon a woman outside of the senate if she was given the same non-gender related criteria that men enjoy.	+	What I have shown thus far is that the status of women is different in Nova Roma than what it was in ancient Rome, and that this difference is a departure from the ''mos maiorum'' of antiquity, but is very much a part of the customs and traditions (i.e., mores) of Nova Roma. Since women are not discriminated against based upon their gender, with respect to citizenship within Nova Roma, it is also true that this citizenship also allows women to engage in the electoral process as legislated for in [[Lex Vedia de cursu honorum (Nova Roma)\|Lex Vedia de cursu honorum (Nova Roma)]], which allows for any citizen to run for political office after six months of citizenship. Another important aspect of the mores of Nova Roma is the [[Lex Popillia senatoria (Nova Roma)\|Lex Popillia senatoria (Nova Roma)]] (and subsequent leges of a similar nature), which allows adlection into the senate of any citizen who has served as a magistrate or who has otherwise demonstrated exceptionally good character. The criteria is citizenship in both cases (viz., election in comitia as a magistrate, and being adlected into the senate), and is irrespective of gender. What is especially important is the senatorial rank, which is gender blind, in that it is based upon merit alone and ignores potential impediments based upon gender. There is an important passage from Scheid regarding the correlation between senator rank and the priesthood, “Under the Republic, not all the priests in the major colleges had been of senatorial rank. By the end of that period all major priests were senators and rather less than half were patricians.”<ref> Scheid, John. “An Introduction to Roman Religion.” Indiana University Press: Bloomington & Indianapolis 2003. Page 143.</ref> Senators clearly had religious authority,<ref> Warrior, Valerie M. “Roman Religion.” Cambridge University Press: New York 2006. Page 42.</ref> and as I noted above many who occupied the major priesthoods were of senatorial rank. It seems safe to make the assertion that if women are allowed into the senate then they should be allowed to occupy important priesthoods, namely, ''pontifex'' and ''augur''. To deny a female senator as ''pontifex'' or ''augur'' seems an affront to the rank of senator itself, “since the priestly colleges consisted mostly of senatorialcs, their advice should be considered as that given by a permanent committee of the senate.”<ref> Szemler, George J. "Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic." <u>Numen</u> 18.2 (1971): 103-31. Page 106.</ref> Therefore, it would seem ''impietas prudens dolo malo'' to deny a woman the priesthood of ''pontifex'' or ''augur'' simply on the grounds of her gender if she were a senator. Furthermore, if ''pontifex'' or ''augur'' can be bestowed upon a woman of senatorial rank then it seems feasible to entertain the notion that it could be bestowed upon a woman outside of the senate if she was given the same non-gender related criteria that men enjoy.

	==On Change in the Sacra Publica:==		==On Change in the Sacra Publica:==

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* Conclusion: */

2007-12-13T04:56:06Z

Conclusion:

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:56, 13 December 2007
Line 67:		Line 67:


−	In conclusion, I believe I have shown the possibility of women as pontifices, and therefore refuted the claims of Scaurus to the contrary, including his assertion that women as pontifices is impietas prudens dolo malo. Additionally, it seems reasonable that if the ancient Romans worked through problems as they transitioned from one system to another that we too in our society of Nova Roma also have the ability to work through our own problems without being “entirely outside the enterprise of reconstruction” as Scaurus claims. It seems important and meritorious to be aware of taboos and differences between Roma antique and our modern Nova Roma, but to work through these taboos and problems as the Romans have always done – without the fear of accusations of impious hypocrisy, blasphemy, and impietas prudens dolo malo.	+	In conclusion, I believe I have shown the possibility of women as ''pontifices'', and therefore refuted the claims of Scaurus to the contrary, including his assertion that women as ''pontifices'' is ''impietas prudens dolo malo''. Additionally, it seems reasonable that if the ancient Romans worked through problems as they transitioned from one system to another that we too in our society of Nova Roma also have the ability to work through our own problems without being “entirely outside the enterprise of reconstruction” as Scaurus claims. It seems important and meritorious to be aware of taboos and differences between Roma antique and our modern Nova Roma, but to work through these taboos and problems as the Romans have always done – without the fear of accusations of impious hypocrisy, blasphemy, and ''impietas prudens dolo malo''.

	==References==		==References==

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* Response to the claim of impious hypocrisy: */

2007-12-13T04:55:28Z

Response to the claim of impious hypocrisy:

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:55, 13 December 2007
Line 62:		Line 62:


−	The final argument by Scaurus that I wish to address is, “Claiming that intentional circumvention of a religious taboo and a cultic obligation for reasons of modern personal preference is a good cause for such a practice strikes me as rank, impious hypocrisy.” It would seem that our current customs regarding women, as I have illustrated above, are a direct result of “modern personal preference,” does that make everyone in Nova Roma who supports women as magistrates and senatores guilty of impious hypocrisy? Does adapting practices to changing mores make someone guilty of impious hypocrisy? The increased privilege afforded to the plebeian class was certainly a result of changing times within ancient Rome and therefore a “modern preference” of that time, just like gender equality if a preference in our contemporary time. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume “modern personal preference” in many instances where ancient custom and taboos are impractical, impossible, or simply an impediment to an effective reconstruction of the sacra publica. There is no reason for Nova Roma to become a slave to one persons idea of the mos maiorum in such a way that our efforts to reconstruct Roman religion are retarded because of a false sense of piety, or fear of impietas prudens dolo malo. There are many practices within Nova Roma that are a departure from antiquity, it is irresponsible to, for example, allow vestals without proof of virginity but deny women the opportunity to serve as pontifices or augures. Likewise, it is irresponsible to allow unmarried men to assume the role of flamen maiores and deny women the opportunity to serve as pontifices or augures.	+	The final argument by Scaurus that I wish to address is, “Claiming that intentional circumvention of a religious taboo and a cultic obligation for reasons of modern personal preference is a good cause for such a practice strikes me as rank, impious hypocrisy.” It would seem that our current customs regarding women, as I have illustrated above, are a direct result of “modern personal preference,” does that make everyone in Nova Roma who supports women as magistrates and senatores guilty of impious hypocrisy? Does adapting practices to changing mores make someone guilty of impious hypocrisy? The increased privilege afforded to the plebeian class was certainly a result of changing times within ancient Rome and therefore a “modern preference” of that time, just like gender equality if a preference in our contemporary time. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume “modern personal preference” in many instances where ancient custom and taboos are impractical, impossible, or simply an impediment to an effective reconstruction of the sacra publica. There is no reason for Nova Roma to become a slave to one persons idea of the ''mos maiorum'' in such a way that our efforts to reconstruct Roman religion are retarded because of a false sense of piety, or fear of ''impietas prudens dolo malo''. There are many practices within Nova Roma that are a departure from antiquity, it is irresponsible to, for example, allow ''vestals'' without proof of virginity but deny women the opportunity to serve as ''pontifices'' or ''augures''. Likewise, it is irresponsible to allow unmarried men to assume the role of flamen maiores and deny women the opportunity to serve as ''pontifices'' or ''augures''.
−		+

	==Conclusion:==		==Conclusion:==