http://www.novaroma.org/vici/index.php?feed=atom&target=Gaius_Fabius_Buteo_Modianus&title=Special%3AContributions%2FGaius_Fabius_Buteo_Modianus 2026-04-26T13:23:52Z From NovaRoma MediaWiki 1.17.0 http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Marcus_Cassius_Iulianus_(Nova_Roma) 2008-07-13T10:27:38Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: </p> <hr /> <div>{{BioHeader|name=Marcus Cassius Iulianus|id=5}}<br /> '''Marcus Cassius Iulianus''', [[Pater Patriae]], is a [[Founder (Nova Roma)|Founder]], [[Senator (Nova Roma)|Senator]], [[Consular (Nova Roma)|Consular]], and the first [[Pontifex (Nova Roma)|Pontifex Maximus]] of [[Nova Roma]]. He served two terms as Consul, with the same colleague for both.<br /> <br /> ==[[Cursus Honorum (Nova Roma)|''Cursus Honorum'']]==<br /> <br /> * [[Pater Patriae (Nova Roma)|Pater Patriae]]<br /> :from {{2002}}<br /> <br /> * [[Censor (Nova Roma)|Censor]]<br /> :{{1999}}<br /> :{{1998}}<br /> <br /> * [[Consul (Nova Roma)|Consul]]<br /> :{{2001}}<br /> :{{1998}}<br /> <br /> * [[Senator (Nova Roma)|Senator]]<br /> :from {{1998}}<br /> <br /> * [[:Category: Governors (Nova Roma)|Proconsul]] of [[Provincia Nova Britannia (Nova Roma)|Nova Britannia]]<br /> :{{1998}}<br /> :{{1999}}<br /> :{{2000}}<br /> :{{2001}}<br /> <br /> * [[Pontifex Maximus (Nova Roma)|Pontifex Maximus]]<br /> :from {{1999}}<br /> :to {{2008}}<br /> <br /> * [[Pontifex (Nova Roma)|Pontifex]]<br /> :from {{1998}}<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Other Posts==<br /> <br /> * [[Comitia Curiata (Nova Roma)|Lictor Curiatus]]<br /> :from {{2001}}<br /> <br /> * [[Accensus (Nova Roma)|Accensus]]<br /> :{{2006}}<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category: Consulars (Nova Roma)|Cassius Iulianus, M.]]<br /> [[Category: Senators (Nova Roma)|Cassius Iulianus, M.]]<br /> [[Category: Governors (Nova Roma)|Cassius Iulianus, M.]]<br /> [[Category: Pontifices (Nova Roma)|Cassius Iulianus, M.]]<br /> [[Category: Magistrates (Nova Roma)|Cassius Iulianus, M.]]<br /> [[Category: Gens Cassia (Nova Roma)|Iulianus, M. Cassius]]<br /> [[Category: Equestrian order (Nova Roma)|Iulianus, M. Cassius]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Marcus_Cassius_Iulianus_(Nova_Roma) 2008-07-13T10:26:59Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: </p> <hr /> <div>{{BioHeader|name=Marcus Cassius Iulianus|id=5}}<br /> '''Marcus Cassius Iulianus''', [[Pater Patriae]], is a [[Founder (Nova Roma)|Founder]], [[Senator (Nova Roma)|Senator]], [[Consular (Nova Roma)|Consular]], and the first [[Pontifex (Nova Roma)|Pontifex Maximus]] of [[Nova Roma]]. He served two terms as Consul, with the same colleague for both.<br /> <br /> [[Image:OE-shop-Imperial Ancient Arts.gif|left]]<br /> As a member of the [[Ordo Equester (Nova Roma)|equestrian order]], he operates [http://www.imperiumarts.com/ Imperium Ancient Arts]. <br /> &lt;br style=&quot;clear:both&quot;/&gt;<br /> ==[[Cursus Honorum (Nova Roma)|''Cursus Honorum'']]==<br /> <br /> * [[Pater Patriae (Nova Roma)|Pater Patriae]]<br /> :from {{2002}}<br /> <br /> * [[Censor (Nova Roma)|Censor]]<br /> :{{1999}}<br /> :{{1998}}<br /> <br /> * [[Consul (Nova Roma)|Consul]]<br /> :{{2001}}<br /> :{{1998}}<br /> <br /> * [[Senator (Nova Roma)|Senator]]<br /> :from {{1998}}<br /> <br /> * [[:Category: Governors (Nova Roma)|Proconsul]] of [[Provincia Nova Britannia (Nova Roma)|Nova Britannia]]<br /> :{{1998}}<br /> :{{1999}}<br /> :{{2000}}<br /> :{{2001}}<br /> <br /> * [[Pontifex Maximus (Nova Roma)|Pontifex Maximus]]<br /> :from {{1999}}<br /> :to {{2008}}<br /> <br /> * [[Pontifex (Nova Roma)|Pontifex]]<br /> :from {{1998}}<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Other Posts==<br /> <br /> * [[Comitia Curiata (Nova Roma)|Lictor Curiatus]]<br /> :from {{2001}}<br /> <br /> * [[Accensus (Nova Roma)|Accensus]]<br /> :{{2006}}<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category: Consulars (Nova Roma)|Cassius Iulianus, M.]]<br /> [[Category: Senators (Nova Roma)|Cassius Iulianus, M.]]<br /> [[Category: Governors (Nova Roma)|Cassius Iulianus, M.]]<br /> [[Category: Pontifices (Nova Roma)|Cassius Iulianus, M.]]<br /> [[Category: Magistrates (Nova Roma)|Cassius Iulianus, M.]]<br /> [[Category: Gens Cassia (Nova Roma)|Iulianus, M. Cassius]]<br /> [[Category: Equestrian order (Nova Roma)|Iulianus, M. Cassius]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Marcus_Cassius_Iulianus_(Nova_Roma) 2008-07-13T10:23:47Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: </p> <hr /> <div>{{BioHeader|name=Marcus Cassius Iulianus|id=5}}<br /> '''Marcus Cassius Iulianus''', [[Pater Patriae]], is a [[Founder (Nova Roma)|Founder]], [[Senator (Nova Roma)|Senator]], [[Consular (Nova Roma)|Consular]], and [[Pontifex (Nova Roma)|Pontifex Maximus]] of [[Nova Roma]]. He served two terms as Consul, with the same colleague for both.<br /> <br /> [[Image:OE-shop-Imperial Ancient Arts.gif|left]]<br /> As a member of the [[Ordo Equester (Nova Roma)|equestrian order]], he operates [http://www.imperiumarts.com/ Imperium Ancient Arts]. <br /> &lt;br style=&quot;clear:both&quot;/&gt;<br /> ==[[Cursus Honorum (Nova Roma)|''Cursus Honorum'']]==<br /> <br /> * [[Pater Patriae (Nova Roma)|Pater Patriae]]<br /> :from {{2002}}<br /> <br /> * [[Censor (Nova Roma)|Censor]]<br /> :{{1999}}<br /> :{{1998}}<br /> <br /> * [[Consul (Nova Roma)|Consul]]<br /> :{{2001}}<br /> :{{1998}}<br /> <br /> * [[Senator (Nova Roma)|Senator]]<br /> :from {{1998}}<br /> <br /> * [[:Category: Governors (Nova Roma)|Proconsul]] of [[Provincia Nova Britannia (Nova Roma)|Nova Britannia]]<br /> :{{1998}}<br /> :{{1999}}<br /> :{{2000}}<br /> :{{2001}}<br /> <br /> * [[Pontifex Maximus (Nova Roma)|Pontifex Maximus]]<br /> :from {{1999}}<br /> :to {{2008}}<br /> <br /> * [[Pontifex (Nova Roma)|Pontifex]]<br /> :from {{1998}}<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Other Posts==<br /> <br /> * [[Comitia Curiata (Nova Roma)|Lictor Curiatus]]<br /> :from {{2001}}<br /> <br /> * [[Accensus (Nova Roma)|Accensus]]<br /> :{{2006}}<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category: Consulars (Nova Roma)|Cassius Iulianus, M.]]<br /> [[Category: Senators (Nova Roma)|Cassius Iulianus, M.]]<br /> [[Category: Governors (Nova Roma)|Cassius Iulianus, M.]]<br /> [[Category: Pontifices (Nova Roma)|Cassius Iulianus, M.]]<br /> [[Category: Magistrates (Nova Roma)|Cassius Iulianus, M.]]<br /> [[Category: Gens Cassia (Nova Roma)|Iulianus, M. Cassius]]<br /> [[Category: Equestrian order (Nova Roma)|Iulianus, M. Cassius]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/User:Gaius_Fabius_Buteo_Modianus 2008-05-24T18:07:19Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: </p> <hr /> <div>Salve!<br /> <br /> I think that former citizens should be mentioned in the Books By NR Citizens article. It's good to our reputation. Patricia was a NR citizen, her book is not only her pride but it's ours, too. Any good that is done by any current and former citizen should bring glory to us.<br /> <br /> Therefore I suggest you to undo the removal of Patricia's book.<br /> <br /> Vale!<br /> <br /> --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 10:01, 20 May 2008 (CEST)<br /> <br /> :Hmm...I think that would rather depend on the wishes of the former citizen. An author may appreciate the honor or the exposure of still being on Nova Roma's Web ring or booklist. Then again, depending on the circumstances leading to his or her departure, a former Novaroman may not wish any part of his or her lifework to &quot;glorify&quot; or enhance the reputation of an organisation he or she is no longer a part of, especially if there was any perception of ill-feeling on either side.<br /> <br /> :The best policy might be to ask departing ''cives'', case-by-case, if they still wish their works to be featured on the site. A little more labor-intensive, to be sure; but less likely to exacerbate tensions if there are any. -- [[User:Aldus Marius Peregrinus|Marius Peregrinus]] 07:22, 21 May 2008 (CEST)<br /> <br /> :Patrica Cassia is no longer a citizen of Nova Roma. If you want a page dedicated to books by former citizens then create one. -- [[User:Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Books_by_Nova_Roma_citizens 2008-05-19T12:03:06Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* Books by Nova Roma Citizens */ Patricia Cassia no longer a citizen.</p> <hr /> <div>{{CuruleAediles}}<br /> <br /> ==Books by Nova Roma Citizens==<br /> <br /> {{CitizenBookInfo |<br /> isbn=0964242648| <br /> title=Graveyards of Chicago| <br /> romanname=Marcus Octavius Gracchus| <br /> pubdate=1999| <br /> format=paperback| <br /> authors=Matt Hucke &amp;amp; Ursula Bielski| <br /> description=Chicago cemeteries, history, monuments.}}<br /> <br /> {{CitizenBookInfo | isbn=<br /> | title=Roman Gods<br /> | romanname=Publius Livius Triarius<br /> | pubdate=<br /> | format=Pamphlet (59 pages.)<br /> | authors=Diccon Frankborn<br /> | description=A Pagan Guide to the Greek and Roman Gods. Operation Crifanac Publications. dicconf@radix.net}}<br /> <br /> {{CitizenBookInfo |<br /> isbn=1578632080|<br /> title=Ogdoadic Magick: Being a Year of Study with an Aurum Solis Commandery|<br /> romanname=Marcus Galenus Cassius|<br /> pubdate=2001|<br /> format=Weiser Books|<br /> authors=Norman Kraft|<br /> description=www.ogdoadic.org Also available in Spanish as Magia Ogdoadica through Mirach Press in Madrid, Spain.}}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Macellum (Nova Roma)]][[Category:Curule Aediles]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Struggle_for_the_sacred_colleges_(Nova_Roma) 2008-04-23T11:10:02Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* L. Equitius Cincinnatus */</p> <hr /> <div>{{LanguageBar|Purge of MMDCCLXI (Nova Roma)}}<br /> <br /> [[Image:Purge-2008.png|frame|right]]<br /> The month of Februarius MMDCCLXI saw the loss of four long-serving magistrates and citizens, three of them Senators, three of them priests, mostly due to actions of Consul [[Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus (Nova_Roma)|M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus]] and Censor [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|K. Fabius Buteo Modianus]] to seize control of the [[Collegium Pontificum (Nova Roma)|Collegium Pontificum]] and [[Collegium Augurum (Nova Roma)|Collegium Augurum]].<br /> <br /> Mere months after obtaining the offices of [[Pontifex (Nova Roma)|Pontifex]] and [[Consul (Nova Roma)|Consul]], Consul Piscinus Horatianus obtained a Senatus Consultum forbidding owners of any official mailing list to deny membership as an observer to any Senator who wished it. With this in hand, he demanded that Pontifex Maximus [[Marcus Cassius Iulianus (Nova Roma)|M. Cassius Iulianus]] add Senators to the Collegium Pontificum list. Cassius saw this demand as rude and improper, and delayed doing so.<br /> <br /> ==C. Iulius Scaurus==<br /> <br /> On {{Jan 29}}, Pontifex [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|C. Iulius Scaurus]], in a posting to the Collegium Pontificum list, voluntarily resigned his offices and citizenship in protest of the &quot;Christians, atheists, and political appointees&quot; attempting to assert control over the priesthood. [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligioRomana/message/9785]<br /> <br /> ==M. Octavius Gracchus==<br /> <br /> On {{Feb 4}}, Senator and Consular [[Marcus Octavius Gracchus (Nova Roma)|M. Octavius Gracchus]], in a posting to the main list, resigned from the Senate and &quot;retired to private life&quot;, citing his disgust with the &quot;scheming&quot; and &quot;paranoia&quot; of persons he had once liked and respected. Octavius had been among the first ten people to join Nova Roma in {{1998}}, and had been an active Senator since {{2000}}. He had recently been voted a message of thanks for his services by the Senate, making his departure all the more tragic.<br /> <br /> ==L. Equitius Cincinnatus==<br /> <br /> On {{Feb 20}}, Senator, Consular and Pontifex [[Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur (Nova Roma)|L. Equitius Cincinnatus Augur]] was stripped of all his titles and even his [[Assidui|Assiduus]] status, being demoted to the status of [[Capite Censi]], resulting from a legal action initiated by Pontifex and Censor Modianus, for refusing to admit the latter to mailing lists owned by Lucius Equitius. Not only did the Praetores - both members of Censor K. Buteo Modianus's cohort - issue a default judgement against Lucius Equitius, but they added an additional penalty to the sentence due to his refusal to participate in the trial: he was fined $300, the most severe punishment in Nova Roma's history, for the invented charge of failing to appear for trial.<br /> <br /> The harsh treatment of Lucius Equitius caused the recently-departed Octavius to return to the main list, and to inform the Censores that the free technical support he had been providing &quot;stops, now&quot;. Censor [[Tiberius Galerius Paulinus (Nova Roma)|Ti. Galerius Paulinus]], as advocatus for Lucius Equitius, demanded the right of [[provocatio]]. [[Gnaeus Iulius Caesar (Nova Roma)|Cn. Iulius Caesar]] also became an outspoken advocate of justice for Lucius Equitius. In a message to the main list, Lucius Equitius accepted accepted Paulinus as advocate. <br /> <br /> As of this writing, the matter is unresolved, and the outcome uncertain.<br /> <br /> ==M. Cassius Julianus==<br /> <br /> {{Feb 29|b}}, publication of [[Collegium Pontificum (Nova Roma)|Collegium Pontificum]] [[Collegium pontificum decreta Februariae alter MMDCCLXI|voting results]] revealed that Pater Patriae [[Marcus Cassius Julianus (Nova Roma)|M. Cassius Julianus]] had been removed from the offices of Pontifex Maximus and Pontifex by a 6 to 1 vote. Pontifices M. Cassius Iulianus and L. Equitius Cincinnatus were not recorded as having voted, though both had been invited to the list {{Feb 23|b}}. <br /> <br /> Cassius was removed the day after the tenth anniversary of his founding of Nova Roma, marring the anniversary celebrations. <br /> <br /> ==Patricia Cassia==<br /> <br /> Patricia Cassia, Senatrix for eight years, long-serving CFO of Nova Roma, had been threatened with legal action by Consul M. Piscinus in January for alleged slowness in transferring financial control to the [[Senate_Vote_Januarius_MMDCCLXI_%28Nova_Roma%29|new CFO]]. On a [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaRoma-Announce/message/1376 posting to the NovaRoma-Announce list] {{Mar 27}}, she resigned citizenship without an explanation. This announcement came a day after a new Pontifex Maximus was appointed to the position that Patricia's husband, M. Cassius Iulianus, had created and held for exactly ten years.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:MMDCCLXI]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/MMDCCLXI 2008-04-21T23:43:38Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* Aprilis */</p> <hr /> <div>{{:Magistrates MMDCCLXI}}<br /> <br /> These are the current [[:Category:Magistrates (Nova Roma)|magistrates]], chosen by [[Election MMDCCLX (Nova Roma)|Election MMDCCLX]], [[Election MMDCCLX alter (Nova Roma)|Election MMDCCLX alter]] and [[Senate voting results December MMDCCLX|the Senate]].<br /> <br /> For the calendar for this year, see [[Fasti MMDCCLXI]].<br /> <br /> ==Magisterial pages==<br /> <br /> * [[Officina Consulum MMDCCLXI]] Office of the [[Consul (Nova Roma)|Consules]].<br /> * [[Officina Praetoris MMDCCLXI‎]] Office of the [[Praetor (Nova Roma)|Praetores]].<br /> * [[Officina Censorum MMDCCLXI]] Office of the [[Censor (Nova Roma)|Censores]].<br /> * [[Aedilitas curulis MMDCCLXI]] Office of the [[Aedilis Curulis (Nova Roma)|Aediles Curules]].<br /> <br /> ==Res Gestae==<br /> &lt;onlyinclude&gt;<br /> ===Ianuarius===<br /> * K. Fabius Buteo Modianus issues [[Edictum II censoris de censu anni MMDCCLX]].<br /> * M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus reports on the [[Inaugural auspicium for MMDCCLXI]].<br /> * New magistrates take the [[Oath of office (Nova Roma)|Oath of office]].<br /> * M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus performs the annual [[Consular Sacrificial Ceremony (Nova Roma)|Consular Sacrificial Ceremony]]<br /> * M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus performs the [[Annua Sacra (Nova Roma)|Annua Sacra]], opening the [[Senate (Nova Roma)|Senate]].<br /> * T. Iulius Sabinus assigned quaestores to magistrates.<br /> * M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus called the [[Senate (Nova Roma)|Senate]] into [[Senate Vote Januarius MMDCCLXI (Nova Roma)|session]].<br /> * [[Officina Consulum MMDCCLXI |Consules]] issues [[Officina_Consulum_MMDCCLXI#Edictum_consulare_IV:De_Feeris_Sementinis|Edictum consulare de Feriis Sementis]].<br /> * [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|C. Iulius Scaurus]] resigns as pontifex, pullarius, and as a citizen. [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligioRomana/message/9785]<br /> <br /> ===Februarius===<br /> ''Main article: [[Purge of MMDCCLXI (Nova Roma)]]''<br /> * After seven years as a Senator, [[Marcus Octavius Gracchus (Nova Roma)|Marcus Octavius Gracchus]] resigns from the Senate, citing &quot;scheming and paranoia&quot;.<br /> * [[Collegium pontificum decreta Februariae MMDCCLXI|Collegium Pontificum session]] concluded on {{Feb 10}}<br /> * [[Ludi Lupercalenses 2761 AUC (Nova Roma)|Ludi Lupercalenses]] was presented by [[Aedilitas curulis MMDCCLXI|aediles curules and their cohors]].<br /> * The Senate [[Senate Vote Februarius MMDCCLXI (Nova Roma)|votes]] on several issues, including the celebration of [[Concordialia MMDCCLXI|Concordialia]] on the Kalends of Martius.<br /> *[[Gnaeus Salvius Astur (Nova Roma)|Gnaeus Salvius Astur]] resigns from the Senate and Collegium Pontificum.<br /> * [[Officina_Praetoris_MMDCCLXI|Praetor M. Iulius Severus]] announces that the ''petitio actionis'' of Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Consul against Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur, Pontifex et Augur, will be accepted by the Praetores' Office in the first legally available date.<br /> * [[Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur (Nova Roma)|Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus]] fails to comply with the [[Senate Vote Januarius MMDCCLXI (Nova Roma)|Senatus Consultum regarding mailing lists]]. [[Officina_Praetoris_MMDCCLXI|Praetor M. Curiatius Complutensis]] accepts the ''petitio actionis'' [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaRoma-Announce/message/1300] of [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]] against Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus and appoints a panel of judges [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaRoma-Announce/message/1303]. Without Cincinnatus offering a defense, Praetor M. Curiatius Complutensis issues a [[Talk:Officina_Praetoris_MMDCCLXI#TRIALS |sentence]] against L. Equitius Cincinnatus. He is stripped of his agnomen and titles and fined.<br /> * The [[Collegium pontificum decreta Februariae alter MMDCCLXI|Collegium Pontificum votes]] to remove Pater Patriae [[Marcus Cassius Julianus (Nova Roma)|Marcus Cassius Julianus]] from the office of Pontifex Maximus (which he himself had created), ten years to the day after his founding of Nova Roma. Cassius deleted the Collegium Pontificum mailing list and was removed as Pontifex as well.<br /> * The 6th edition of the [[Vox Romana podcast]] is released.<br /> * The [[Comitia Curiata (Nova Roma)|Comitia Curiata]] witnesses three new appointments: [[Marca Hortensia Maior (Nova Roma)|Marca Hortensia Maior]] as Sacerdos [[Mens (Nova Roma)|Mentis]] , [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus]] as [[Priests (Nova Roma)|Flamen Palatualis]], [[Quintus Valerius Poplicola (Nova Roma)|Quintus Valerius Poplicola]] as [[Priests (Nova Roma)|Flamen Falacer]].<br /> * [[Ludi Conditorum 2761 AUC (Nova Roma)|Ludi Conditorum]] was presented by [[Aedilitas curulis MMDCCLXI|aediles curules and their cohors]].<br /> <br /> ===Martius===<br /> <br /> * [[Concordialia MMDCCLXI]]<br /> * Tribune L. Livia Plauta calls for an [[Suffect election MMDCCLXI (Nova Roma)|election]] to fill the vacancy in the office of Plebeian Aedile.<br /> * [[Flavius Galerius Aurelianus (Nova Roma)|Flavius Galerius Aurelianus]] is appointed [[Pontifex (Nova Roma)|Pontifex Maximus]] pro tempore by [[Decretum Pontificum de Pontificis Maximi Cooptatione Spatioque (Nova Roma)|pontifical decree]].<br /> * [[Patricia Cassia (Nova Roma)|Patricia Cassia]], Senatrix, resigns her citizenship, citing no reasons: &quot;At this time it seems fitting for me to resign from Nova Roma. I wish you all well.&quot; [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaRoma-Announce/message/1376]<br /> *[[Officina_Praetoris_MMDCCLXI|Praetor M. Curiatius Complutensis]] accepts the ''petitio actionis'' [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaRoma-Announce/message/1300] of [[Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus (Nova Roma)|M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus]] against Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus and appoints a panel of judges. During the trial M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus and the advocate of L. Equitius Cincinnatus, [[Tiberius Galerius Paulinus (Nova Roma)|Ti.Galerius Paulinus]], presented the evidences. The Iudices individually issued their sentences and the tribunal's majority decision was &quot;CONDEMNO&quot;. (7 CONDEMNO + 3 ABSOLVO): L. Equitius Cincinnatus was inhabilitated for a period of two years and fined. [[TRIALS_IN_THE_PRAETORSHIP_OF_2008#Sententia_2|(Read the complete text of Sententia here)]].<br /> <br /> <br /> ===Aprilis===<br /> * [[Ludi Megalenses 2761 AUC (Nova Roma)|Megalesia]] dedicated to [[Magna Mater]] was organized by [[Aedilitas curulis MMDCCLXI|aediles curules and their cohors]].<br /> * [[Ludi Cereales]] dedicated to [[Ceres]] was organized by [[Aedilis Plebis (Nova Roma)|plebeian aedile]] [[Publius Constantinus Placidus (Nova Roma)|P. Constantinius Placidus]].<br /> * [[Gaius Ambrosius Artorus Iustinus (Nova Roma)|C. Ambrosius Artorus Iustinus]] resigns from the offices of Flamen Volturanlis and Neptuni Aedes Sacerdos citing personal reasons.<br /> * [[Diana Octavia Aventina (Nova Roma)|Diana Octavia Aventina]] resigns as Veneris Aedis Sacerdos seemingly in protest over recent events. When questioned about why she did not honor Venus on behalf of Nova Roma for the Veneralia she stated, &quot;I did, at home, but not in the name of Nova Roma, especially considering that I would rather have some of you be granted a Darwin Award rather than receive any blessings of Venus.&quot;<br /> <br /> ===Maius===<br /> <br /> ===Iunius===<br /> <br /> ===Quinctilis===<br /> <br /> ===Sextilis===<br /> <br /> ===September===<br /> <br /> ===October===<br /> <br /> ====Reports of provincial governors====<br /> <br /> ===November===<br /> <br /> ===December===<br /> <br /> &lt;/onlyinclude&gt;<br /> [[Category:MMDCCLXI]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Diana_Octavia_Aventina_(Nova_Roma) 2008-04-21T23:39:28Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* Other Posts */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:CIV-Diana_Octavia_Aventina.jpg|thumb|right|{{albumcivium|id=4128}}]]Diana Octavia Aventina is the founder of the [http://www.omniavincitamor.org Temple of Venus]<br /> &lt;br style=&quot;clear:both&quot;&gt;<br /> <br /> ==[[Cursus Honorum (Nova Roma)|''Cursus Honorum'']]==<br /> <br /> * [[Quaestor (Nova Roma)|Quaestrix]]<br /> :{{2004}}<br /> <br /> * [[Tribunus Plebis (Nova Roma)|Tribunus Plebis]]<br /> :{{2003}}<br /> <br /> ==Other Posts==<br /> <br /> * [[Venus|Veneris]] Aedis [[Sacerdos (Nova Roma)|Sacerdos]] <br /> :from {{Jan 2}} {{2007}}<br /> :to {{Apr 21}} {{2008}}<br /> * [[Scriba (Nova Roma)|Scriba]]<br /> :{{2005}}<br /> :{{2004}}<br /> :{{2003}}<br /> :{{2002}}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Magistrates (Nova Roma)|Octavia Aventina, Diana]]<br /> [[Category:Sacerdotes (Nova Roma)|Octavia Aventina, Diana]]<br /> [[Category:Gens Octavia (Nova Roma)|Aventina, Diana Octaiva]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Priests_(Nova_Roma) 2008-04-21T23:38:02Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* Veneris Aedis Sacerdotes */ Diana Octavia Resigned</p> <hr /> <div>{{LanguageBar | Priests (Nova Roma)}}<br /> <br /> The public rites of the [[Religio Romana]] were performed and controlled by a number of different priestly collegia and other special priests and magistrates. Those priestly organizations that ranked below the collegia were known as sodalicia, and there were many &quot;independent&quot; priests of various cults who bore the title sacerdos. In addition, there were a number of priesthoods of well-established &quot;foreign&quot; cults (such as the cult of [[Isis]] and [[Serapis]]). For a list of current Foreign Priesthoods of these &quot;foreign cults&quot; within Nova Roma, see [[Foreign priesthoods (Nova Roma)|Foreign priesthoods in Nova Roma]]. Some of these cults were initiatory, and were called &quot;Mysteries&quot; (such as the [[Mysteries of Mithras]]). [[Nova Roma]] has reinstated these ancient Priesthoods as part of our effort to reconstruct Roman religion and culture.<br /> <br /> ==Joining the Priesthood==<br /> <br /> Nova Roma is accepting applications for various Priesthoods. If you are interested in helping to rebuild the Religio Romana and the worship of the ancient [[:Category:Roman Gods|Roman deities]] on an official public basis, we would be pleased to hear from you. The Priesthoods in Nova Roma are open to both men and women, with the exception of the [[Vestals (Nova Roma)|Vestals]]. As Priesthood is an important position of responsibility we do ask that you read the guidelines for applications before applying. Any questions about Priesthood should be directed to the [[Collegium Pontificum (Nova Roma)|Collegium Pontificum]].<br /> <br /> If you would like to become a Priest or Priestess of Nova Roma, please submit an [http://www.novaroma.org/religio_romana/guidelines.html Application].<br /> <br /> ==Offices of the Public Religio Romana==<br /> <br /> The [[Collegium Pontificum (Nova Roma)|Collegium Pontificum]] (College of Pontiffs)<br /> <br /> The Collegium Pontificum consists of fifteen priests who serve the public rites of the State religion and have general authority to determine the structure and nature of both the public rites and the priesthoods themselves. They act as the general oversight committee for the public rites of the Religio Romana and appoint members of the various Priesthoods. Some specific administrative duties of the Collegium include: advising the [[Senate (Nova Roma)|Senate]] on religious matters, setting the dates of religious festivals, organizing and assisting the Priesthood, and acting as the final arbiters of Sacred Law and religious disputes.<br /> <br /> ===Pontifex Maximus===<br /> The [[Pontifex Maximus (Nova Roma)|Pontifex Maximus]] acts as the Speaker for the Collegium Pontificum, and oversees the [[Comitia Curiata (Nova Roma)|Comitia Curiata]] and the Vestals. ''1 position; 0 filled.''<br /> <br /> ===[[Rex Sacrorum (Nova Roma)|Rex Sacrorum]] / [[Regina Sacrorum (Nova Roma)|Regina Sacrorum]]=== <br /> <br /> The Rex and Regina Sacrorum (King/Queen of the Sacred) are a legally married couple that perform various public rites and make announcements of Festival days. First among the Priests and members of the Collegium Pontificum, but subordinate to the Pontifex Maximus. The Rex and Regina Sacrorum may hold no other religious or political posts. ''2 positions; 0 filled; 2 available.''<br /> <br /> ===Pontifices===<br /> <br /> {{Table_Pontifices}}<br /> ''(15 positions; 10 filled; 5 available)''<br /> <br /> ==Flamines==<br /> <br /> The Flamines are thirteen priests who served specific deities - though they are allowed to worship other deities as well. The Flamines hold public rites on the days sacred to their deity, and oversee the general worship of that deity. The Flamines are present in the Collegium Pontificum.<br /> <br /> ===Flamines Maiores (Major Flamines)===<br /> <br /> {|width=&quot;100%&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=2|<br /> ====Flamen Dialis====<br /> <br /> Position not open at this time. The [[Flamen Dialis]] serves the cult of [[Iuppiter|Iuppiter (Jupiter)]], and participates in the Vinalia festivals and at conferratio marriage ceremonies. This priesthood is subject to a large number of complex taboos which have not yet been resolved for reconstruction. The wife of the Flamen Dialis was known as the Flaminica Dialis, and assisted in the rites and was subject to the same taboos.<br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> ====Flamen Martialis====<br /> The Flamen Martialis oversees the cult of [[Mars]], the God of War, leading public rites on the days sacred to Mars.<br /> <br /> |{{CitizenBox | n=Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur | img=Lucius.Equitius.Cincinnatus.Augur | id=9 |text=Flamen Martialis}}<br /> <br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Quirinalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Quirinalis oversees the cult of [[Quirinus]], a god related to the peaceful aspect of Mars, who presides over organized Roman social life. The Flamen Quirinalis leads public rites on the days sacred to Quirinus.<br /> <br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===Flamines Minores (Minor Flamines)===<br /> <br /> <br /> {|width=&quot;100%&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Carmentalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Carmentalis oversees the cult of [[Carmenta]] (Carmentis), a goddess of Prophecy and Oracles. The Flamen Carmentalis leads public rites on the days sacred to Carmenta.<br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus | img=Marcus.Moravius.Piscinus.Horatianus | id=432 |text=Flamen [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Carmentis|Carmentalis]] }}<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Cerealis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Cerealis oversees the cult of [[Ceres]], Goddess of grains (identified with the Greek Demeter). The Flamen Cerealis leads public rites on the days sacred to Ceres.<br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Flavius Galerius Aurelianus | id=2994 |<br /> text=Flamen [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Ceres|Cerealis]] }}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> ====Flamen Falacer====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Falacer oversees the cult of [[Falacer]], a deified Roman hero (who presumably personified qualities such as strength, courage, etc.) The Flamen Falacer leads public rites on days sacred to Falacer.<br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Quintus Valerius Poplicola|id=11334|text=Flamen {{Global|Falacer}} }}<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Florealis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Florealis oversees the cult of [[Flora]], the Goddess of flowers, and Spring (and therefore new beginnings). The Flamen Florealis leads public rites on the days sacred to Flora.<br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Gaius Iulius Iulianus | id=4239 |<br /> text=Flamen [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Flora|Florealis]] }}<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Furrinalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Furrinalis oversees the cult of [[Furrina]], a Goddess of Springs who had a sacred grove associated with water (possibly connected with health and healing). The Flamen Furrinalis leads public rites on the days sacred to Furrina.<br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Palatualis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Palatualis oversees the cult of [[Palatua]], the guardian of the Palatine Hill (the oldest settled part of Rome, therefore making Palatua possibly a goddess of Rome's beginnings.) The Flamen Palatualis leads public rites on the days sacred to Palatua.<br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus | id=1065|text=Flamen {{Global|Palatualis}} }}<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Pomonalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Pomonalis oversees the cult of [[Pomona]], Goddess of fruit. The Flamen Pomonalis leads public rites on days sacred to Pomona (there was no major single festival day).<br /> |{{CitizenBox | n=Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus | img=Gaius.Fabius.Buteo.Modianus | id=4006 |<br /> text=Flamen [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Pomona|Pomonalis]]}}<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Portunalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Portunalis oversees the cult of [[Portunus]], God of Harbors and doors. The Flamen Portunalis leads public rites sacred to Portunus.<br /> <br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Volcanalis====<br /> The Flamen Volcanalis oversees the cult of [[Volcanus]] (Vulcan), God of Fire and smithcraft. The Flamen Volcanalis leads public rites sacred to Volcanus.<br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> ====Flamen Volturnalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Volturnalis oversees the cult of [[Volturnus]], a River God sometimes also associated with the Southeast wind. (Both these aspects may be related to travel and trade.) The Flamen Volturnalis leads public rites sacred to Volturnus.<br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> <br /> ==Virgines Vestales (The Vestal Virgins)==<br /> <br /> A priesthood of six women who guard the Sacred Hearth of Rome. They oversee the cult of [[Vesta]], Goddess of the Hearth and Fire, and lead public rites sacred to Vesta. The duties of the Vestals included maintaining the fire in the Sacred Hearth of Rome, and making [[Mola Salsa]] (sacred cakes made from spelt flour used in public rites.)<br /> <br /> The Vestals also guarded some sacred objects, including the [[Palladium]] (an ancient image of Pallas Athene said to have been rescued from Troy). In ancient Rome the Vestals were virgins — in Nova Roma this has been replaced by a voluntary vow of chastity for the duration of office. Until Nova Roma has a central hearth, the Vestals each keep a Sacred Flame as a symbol of the Sacred Hearth of Rome. The Vestals receive great public respect for their work, and are entitled to be proceeded by Lictors.<br /> <br /> '''Chief Vestal''': Position open<br /> <br /> The Chief Vestal oversees the efforts of the Vestals, and is present in the Collegium Pontificum.<br /> <br /> {{Table Vestales}}<br /> ''(six positions, two filled, four available)''<br /> <br /> '''Past Vestals''': (honoured for their former vows and duties)<br /> <br /> * Vespasia Pollia<br /> * Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata<br /> * Gaia Iulia Caesaria Victorina<br /> * [[Lucia Modia Lupa (Nova Roma)|L. Modia Lupa]]<br /> <br /> ==Collegium Augurum (College of Augures)==<br /> <br /> Nine priests who take [[auspices]] and create [[templum|templa]], or sacred spaces. The Collegium Augurium is the second rank of priestly colleges. The duties of the Augurs include taking auspices before military and political actions, consecrating the sites of temples and shrines, overseeing the laws of augury ([[ius augurium]] — the discipline or art of augury itself) and advising the Senate.<br /> <br /> ===Active Augures===<br /> <br /> {{Table Augures}}<br /> <br /> ''(nine positions, three filled, six available (four plebeian, two patrician))''<br /> <br /> ===Augures Emeriti===<br /> * [[Flavius Vedius Germanicus (Nova Roma)|F. Vedius Germanicus]]<br /> * Caius Aelius Ericius<br /> * Marcus Gladius Saevus<br /> * Damianus Lucianus Dexippus<br /> <br /> ==Septemviri Epulones==<br /> <br /> Seven priests who oversee the organization of public religious feasts. The Epulones arrange the Epulum Iovis — (feast of Jupiter which is attended by the Senate and People, and presided over by the images of the [[Capitoline]] deities), as well as the public banquets at other festivals and games. The Epulones are one of the four major colleges of priests, and have sacred as well as organizational duties.<br /> <br /> ''(seven positions, seven open)''<br /> <br /> ==Sodales Fratres Arvales (The Arval Brethren)==<br /> <br /> Twelve priests who compose the oldest priestly college in Rome. The Arval Brethren offer public sacrifices for the fertility of the fields, and preside over the worship of the Dea Dia, a Goddess of Grain and Cereal crops.<br /> <br /> The rites of the Arval Brethren are one of the few virtually complete sets of Roman rituals to survive antiquity. In ancient Rome the Arval Brethren met in a grove sacred to the Dea Dia, where there was a circular temple and bath house. Until Nova Roma is able to provide such a central place, the Arval Brethren are to gather yearly in person if possible.<br /> <br /> ; Magister (President of the Arval Brethren): This position is elected yearly among the Arval Brethren.<br /> ; Flamen Arvales (Assistant to the President: This position is elected yearly among the Arval Brethren.<br /> ; Sacerdotes Arvales: twelve positions open<br /> <br /> ==Sodales Luperci==<br /> The Luperci (&quot;Wolfmen&quot; Priests who officiate at the Lupercalia) were responsible for purification and fertility, and the festival of Lupercalia is a time of fun and revelry. The exact number of Lupercii is not recorded and may have varied over time.<br /> <br /> ===Luperci Quinctiales (or Quintilii)===<br /> <br /> :(founded by Romulus): Positions open<br /> <br /> ===Luperci Fabiani (or Fabianii)===<br /> <br /> : (Founded by Remus): Positions open<br /> <br /> ==Sodales Salii==<br /> <br /> Twenty-four &quot;leaping priests&quot; of [[Mars]] who who dance in procession during public festivals of Mars. The Salii are responsible for keeping the sacred ancilia (shields) and dancing and singing the public festivals sacred to Mars. The Salii in antiquity wore archaic armor and carried arms, and would stop their procession at certain places to carry out ritual dances and sing.<br /> <br /> ===Sodales Palatini===<br /> <br /> A ''sodalis Palatinus'' is particularly devoted to Mars Gravidus. There are twelve sodales Palatini:<br /> <br /> * [[Marcus Martianius Gangalius (Nova Roma)|M. Martianius Gangalius]] <br /> * [[Lucius Curtius Paullus (Nova Roma)|L. Curtius Paullus]]<br /> <br /> ===Sodales Collini (or Agonenses)===<br /> <br /> Twelve priests particularly devoted to Quirinus<br /> <br /> ==Collegium Fetalium (College of the Fetiales)==<br /> <br /> Twenty priests who represent Rome in foreign diplomacy and the making of treaties and declarations of war. In Nova Roma the Fetiales act as diplomats with other nations and organizations, and are therefore expected to be well versed in Nova Roma laws and policy.<br /> <br /> * [[Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus (Nova Roma)|Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus]]<br /> <br /> ''(20 positions; 1 filled; 19 available)''<br /> <br /> ==Quindecimviri Sacris Faciundis==<br /> One of four major priestly colleges. Fifteen priests who are in charge of the Sibylline Books (and their restoration).<br /> <br /> * [[Flavius Vedius Germanicus (Nova Roma)|Fl. Vedius Germanicus]]<br /> <br /> ''(15 positions; 1 filled; 14 available)''<br /> <br /> ==Sacerdotes (minor priesthoods)==<br /> <br /> There are a vast number of major and minor Roman deities that were served by &quot;lesser known&quot; Priests and Priestesses in the ancient Roman world. The Sacerdotes are the lesser &quot;everyday&quot; priesthoods that tend the temples and shrines, indextain the worship of a deity, and who assist the populace with their worship of that deity.<br /> <br /> Within Nova Roma the Sacerdotes that oversee the worship of deities that do not have their own Flamen or Collegia (or who assist Flamens in the worship of specific God or Goddess). There is, in essence, no limit to the number of Sacerdotes that may serve a deity.<br /> <br /> Please note that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World, all the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here. If there is a Roman deity that you are interested in serving both publicly and privately, you are welcome to apply to be an official Sacerdos of that deity by applying to the Collegium Pontificum.<br /> <br /> ===Apollinis Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Cyrene Lucretia Corva Apollinaris (Nova Roma)|Cyrene Lucretia Corva Apollinaris]]<br /> <br /> ===Concordiae Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus (Nova Roma)|Cn. Cornelius Lentulus]]<br /> <br /> ===Dianae Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Lucia Modia Lupa (Nova Roma)|L. Modia Lupa]]<br /> * [[Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia (Nova Roma)|Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia]]<br /> <br /> ===Iani Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Tiberius Octavius Claudianus (Nova Roma)|Ti. Octavius Claudianus]]<br /> <br /> ===Magnae Matris Deum Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Quinta Iulia Caesar (Nova Roma)|Q. Iulia Caesar]]<br /> <br /> ===Mentis Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> *[[Marca Hortensia Maior (Nova Roma)|M. Hortensia Maior]]<br /> <br /> ===Mercurii Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Marcus Cornelius Felix (Nova Roma)|M. Cornelius Felix]]<br /> * [[Titus Iulius Sabinus (Nova Roma)|T. Iulius Sabinus]]<br /> <br /> ===Minervae Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix (Nova Roma)|C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix]]<br /> <br /> ===Neptuni Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Violentilla Galeria Saltatrix (Nova Roma)|Violentilla Galeria Saltatrix]]<br /> <br /> ===Palatuae Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Quinta Iulia Caesar (Nova Roma)|Q. Iulia Caesar]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Flamen_(Nova_Roma) 2008-04-17T20:55:11Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: </p> <hr /> <div>{{LanguageBar|Flamen (Nova Roma)}}{{ArticleStub}}<br /> <br /> ==The Flamen==<br /> <br /> The sources tell us that the flamen (pl., ''flamines'') was a ''sacerdos'' proper, and who was dedicated to the service of a particular deity. A number of sources fix the number of flamines at fifteen (three ''maiores'' and twelve ''minores''), however the names of only twelve of these are known with certainty.<br /> <br /> ==Album Flaminum==<br /> <br /> Listed here are all the flaminates of Nova Roma, together with a listing of the office holders and their terms of service.<br /> <br /> ===Flamines Maiores===<br /> <br /> ====Flamen Dialis====<br /> <br /> ('''not yet held''')<br /> <br /> ====Flamen Martialis====<br /> <br /> *[[Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur (Nova Roma)|Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur]]<br /> :from pr. Non. Quint. {{1999}}<br /> <br /> ====Flamen Quirinalis====<br /> <br /> *Marcus Cornelius Scriptor<br /> :from {{2000}} to ?<br /> *[[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]]<br /> :from {{2003}}<br /> :to {{2007}}<br /> <br /> ===Flamines Minores===<br /> <br /> ====Flamen Carmentalis====<br /> <br /> ====Flamen Cerealis====<br /> <br /> *[[Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus (Nova Roma)|Gnaeus Moravius Piscinus]]<br /> :from a.d. V Kal. Dec. {{2000}}<br /> :to Id. Mar. {{2001}}<br /> <br /> *[[Flavius Galerius Aurelianus (Nova Roma)|Flavius Galerius Aurelianus]]<br /> :from pr. Non. Sex. {{2004}}<br /> <br /> ====Flamen Falacer====<br /> <br /> ====Flamen Florealis====<br /> <br /> *Nicolaus Moravius Vado<br /> :from a.d. XII Kal. Iun. {{2000}}<br /> <br /> ====Flamen Furrinalis====<br /> <br /> *[[Caius Iulius Barcinus Ciconius (Nova Roma)|Caius Iulius Barcinus Ciconius]]<br /> :from {{2006}} to {{2007}}<br /> <br /> ====Flamen Palatualis====<br /> <br /> ====Flamen Pomonalis====<br /> <br /> *[[Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus]]<br /> :from {{Oct 11}} {{2002}}<br /> <br /> ====Flamen Portunalis====<br /> <br /> *Marcus Arcadius Pius<br /> :from a.d. IV Kal. Feb. {{2001}}<br /> <br /> ====Flamen Volcanalis====<br /> <br /> *Marcus Equitius Paternus<br /> :from a.d. III Id. Mai. {{2002}}<br /> <br /> ====Flamen Volturnalis====<br /> *[[Gaius Ambrosius Artorus Iustinus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Ambrosius Artorus Iustinus]]<br /> :from a.d. XII Kal. Feb. {{2004}}<br /> :to a.d. XVII Kal. Mai. {{2008}}<br /> <br /> ==Vide==<br /> <br /> ;The Flamen : (J. Vanggaard / 1988 / ISBN 8772890592) Gathers together all the known evidence on the Roman flamines.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Religio Romana (Nova Roma)]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Priests_(Nova_Roma) 2008-04-16T10:46:41Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: </p> <hr /> <div>{{LanguageBar | Priests (Nova Roma)}}<br /> <br /> The public rites of the [[Religio Romana]] were performed and controlled by a number of different priestly collegia and other special priests and magistrates. Those priestly organizations that ranked below the collegia were known as sodalicia, and there were many &quot;independent&quot; priests of various cults who bore the title sacerdos. In addition, there were a number of priesthoods of well-established &quot;foreign&quot; cults (such as the cult of [[Isis]] and [[Serapis]]). For a list of current Foreign Priesthoods of these &quot;foreign cults&quot; within Nova Roma, see [[Foreign priesthoods (Nova Roma)|Foreign priesthoods in Nova Roma]]. Some of these cults were initiatory, and were called &quot;Mysteries&quot; (such as the [[Mysteries of Mithras]]). [[Nova Roma]] has reinstated these ancient Priesthoods as part of our effort to reconstruct Roman religion and culture.<br /> <br /> ==Joining the Priesthood==<br /> <br /> Nova Roma is accepting applications for various Priesthoods. If you are interested in helping to rebuild the Religio Romana and the worship of the ancient [[:Category:Roman Gods|Roman deities]] on an official public basis, we would be pleased to hear from you. The Priesthoods in Nova Roma are open to both men and women, with the exception of the [[Vestals (Nova Roma)|Vestals]]. As Priesthood is an important position of responsibility we do ask that you read the guidelines for applications before applying. Any questions about Priesthood should be directed to the [[Collegium Pontificum (Nova Roma)|Collegium Pontificum]].<br /> <br /> If you would like to become a Priest or Priestess of Nova Roma, please submit an [http://www.novaroma.org/religio_romana/guidelines.html Application].<br /> <br /> ==Offices of the Public Religio Romana==<br /> <br /> The [[Collegium Pontificum (Nova Roma)|Collegium Pontificum]] (College of Pontiffs)<br /> <br /> The Collegium Pontificum consists of fifteen priests who serve the public rites of the State religion and have general authority to determine the structure and nature of both the public rites and the priesthoods themselves. They act as the general oversight committee for the public rites of the Religio Romana and appoint members of the various Priesthoods. Some specific administrative duties of the Collegium include: advising the [[Senate (Nova Roma)|Senate]] on religious matters, setting the dates of religious festivals, organizing and assisting the Priesthood, and acting as the final arbiters of Sacred Law and religious disputes.<br /> <br /> ===Pontifex Maximus===<br /> The [[Pontifex Maximus (Nova Roma)|Pontifex Maximus]] acts as the Speaker for the Collegium Pontificum, and oversees the [[Comitia Curiata (Nova Roma)|Comitia Curiata]] and the Vestals. ''1 position; 0 filled.''<br /> <br /> ===[[Rex Sacrorum (Nova Roma)|Rex Sacrorum]] / [[Regina Sacrorum (Nova Roma)|Regina Sacrorum]]=== <br /> <br /> The Rex and Regina Sacrorum (King/Queen of the Sacred) are a legally married couple that perform various public rites and make announcements of Festival days. First among the Priests and members of the Collegium Pontificum, but subordinate to the Pontifex Maximus. The Rex and Regina Sacrorum may hold no other religious or political posts. ''2 positions; 0 filled; 2 available.''<br /> <br /> ===Pontifices===<br /> <br /> {{Table_Pontifices}}<br /> ''(15 positions; 10 filled; 5 available)''<br /> <br /> ==Flamines==<br /> <br /> The Flamines are thirteen priests who served specific deities - though they are allowed to worship other deities as well. The Flamines hold public rites on the days sacred to their deity, and oversee the general worship of that deity. The Flamines are present in the Collegium Pontificum.<br /> <br /> ===Flamines Maiores (Major Flamines)===<br /> <br /> {|width=&quot;100%&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=2|<br /> ====Flamen Dialis====<br /> <br /> Position not open at this time. The [[Flamen Dialis]] serves the cult of [[Iuppiter|Iuppiter (Jupiter)]], and participates in the Vinalia festivals and at conferratio marriage ceremonies. This priesthood is subject to a large number of complex taboos which have not yet been resolved for reconstruction. The wife of the Flamen Dialis was known as the Flaminica Dialis, and assisted in the rites and was subject to the same taboos.<br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> ====Flamen Martialis====<br /> The Flamen Martialis oversees the cult of [[Mars]], the God of War, leading public rites on the days sacred to Mars.<br /> <br /> |{{CitizenBox | n=Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur | img=Lucius.Equitius.Cincinnatus.Augur | id=9 |text=Flamen Martialis}}<br /> <br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Quirinalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Quirinalis oversees the cult of [[Quirinus]], a god related to the peaceful aspect of Mars, who presides over organized Roman social life. The Flamen Quirinalis leads public rites on the days sacred to Quirinus.<br /> <br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===Flamines Minores (Minor Flamines)===<br /> <br /> <br /> {|width=&quot;100%&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Carmentalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Carmentalis oversees the cult of [[Carmenta]] (Carmentis), a goddess of Prophecy and Oracles. The Flamen Carmentalis leads public rites on the days sacred to Carmenta.<br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus | img=Marcus.Moravius.Piscinus.Horatianus | id=432 |text=Flamen [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Carmentis|Carmentalis]] }}<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Cerealis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Cerealis oversees the cult of [[Ceres]], Goddess of grains (identified with the Greek Demeter). The Flamen Cerealis leads public rites on the days sacred to Ceres.<br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Flavius Galerius Aurelianus | id=2994 |<br /> text=Flamen [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Ceres|Cerealis]] }}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> ====Flamen Falacer====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Falacer oversees the cult of [[Falacer]], a deified Roman hero (who presumably personified qualities such as strength, courage, etc.) The Flamen Falacer leads public rites on days sacred to Falacer.<br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Quintus Valerius Poplicola|id=11334|text=Flamen {{Global|Falacer}} }}<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Florealis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Florealis oversees the cult of [[Flora]], the Goddess of flowers, and Spring (and therefore new beginnings). The Flamen Florealis leads public rites on the days sacred to Flora.<br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Gaius Iulius Iulianus | id=4239 |<br /> text=Flamen [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Flora|Florealis]] }}<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Furrinalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Furrinalis oversees the cult of [[Furrina]], a Goddess of Springs who had a sacred grove associated with water (possibly connected with health and healing). The Flamen Furrinalis leads public rites on the days sacred to Furrina.<br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Palatualis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Palatualis oversees the cult of [[Palatua]], the guardian of the Palatine Hill (the oldest settled part of Rome, therefore making Palatua possibly a goddess of Rome's beginnings.) The Flamen Palatualis leads public rites on the days sacred to Palatua.<br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus | id=1065|text=Flamen {{Global|Palatualis}} }}<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Pomonalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Pomonalis oversees the cult of [[Pomona]], Goddess of fruit. The Flamen Pomonalis leads public rites on days sacred to Pomona (there was no major single festival day).<br /> |{{CitizenBox | n=Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus | img=Gaius.Fabius.Buteo.Modianus | id=4006 |<br /> text=Flamen [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Pomona|Pomonalis]]}}<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Portunalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Portunalis oversees the cult of [[Portunus]], God of Harbors and doors. The Flamen Portunalis leads public rites sacred to Portunus.<br /> <br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Volcanalis====<br /> The Flamen Volcanalis oversees the cult of [[Volcanus]] (Vulcan), God of Fire and smithcraft. The Flamen Volcanalis leads public rites sacred to Volcanus.<br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> ====Flamen Volturnalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Volturnalis oversees the cult of [[Volturnus]], a River God sometimes also associated with the Southeast wind. (Both these aspects may be related to travel and trade.) The Flamen Volturnalis leads public rites sacred to Volturnus.<br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> <br /> ==Virgines Vestales (The Vestal Virgins)==<br /> <br /> A priesthood of six women who guard the Sacred Hearth of Rome. They oversee the cult of [[Vesta]], Goddess of the Hearth and Fire, and lead public rites sacred to Vesta. The duties of the Vestals included maintaining the fire in the Sacred Hearth of Rome, and making [[Mola Salsa]] (sacred cakes made from spelt flour used in public rites.)<br /> <br /> The Vestals also guarded some sacred objects, including the [[Palladium]] (an ancient image of Pallas Athene said to have been rescued from Troy). In ancient Rome the Vestals were virgins — in Nova Roma this has been replaced by a voluntary vow of chastity for the duration of office. Until Nova Roma has a central hearth, the Vestals each keep a Sacred Flame as a symbol of the Sacred Hearth of Rome. The Vestals receive great public respect for their work, and are entitled to be proceeded by Lictors.<br /> <br /> '''Chief Vestal''': Position open<br /> <br /> The Chief Vestal oversees the efforts of the Vestals, and is present in the Collegium Pontificum.<br /> <br /> {{Table Vestales}}<br /> ''(six positions, two filled, four available)''<br /> <br /> '''Past Vestals''': (honoured for their former vows and duties)<br /> <br /> * Vespasia Pollia<br /> * Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata<br /> * Gaia Iulia Caesaria Victorina<br /> * [[Lucia Modia Lupa (Nova Roma)|L. Modia Lupa]]<br /> <br /> ==Collegium Augurum (College of Augures)==<br /> <br /> Nine priests who take [[auspices]] and create [[templum|templa]], or sacred spaces. The Collegium Augurium is the second rank of priestly colleges. The duties of the Augurs include taking auspices before military and political actions, consecrating the sites of temples and shrines, overseeing the laws of augury ([[ius augurium]] — the discipline or art of augury itself) and advising the Senate.<br /> <br /> ===Active Augures===<br /> <br /> {{Table Augures}}<br /> <br /> ''(nine positions, three filled, six available (four plebeian, two patrician))''<br /> <br /> ===Augures Emeriti===<br /> * [[Flavius Vedius Germanicus (Nova Roma)|F. Vedius Germanicus]]<br /> * Caius Aelius Ericius<br /> * Marcus Gladius Saevus<br /> * Damianus Lucianus Dexippus<br /> <br /> ==Septemviri Epulones==<br /> <br /> Seven priests who oversee the organization of public religious feasts. The Epulones arrange the Epulum Iovis — (feast of Jupiter which is attended by the Senate and People, and presided over by the images of the [[Capitoline]] deities), as well as the public banquets at other festivals and games. The Epulones are one of the four major colleges of priests, and have sacred as well as organizational duties.<br /> <br /> ''(seven positions, seven open)''<br /> <br /> ==Sodales Fratres Arvales (The Arval Brethren)==<br /> <br /> Twelve priests who compose the oldest priestly college in Rome. The Arval Brethren offer public sacrifices for the fertility of the fields, and preside over the worship of the Dea Dia, a Goddess of Grain and Cereal crops.<br /> <br /> The rites of the Arval Brethren are one of the few virtually complete sets of Roman rituals to survive antiquity. In ancient Rome the Arval Brethren met in a grove sacred to the Dea Dia, where there was a circular temple and bath house. Until Nova Roma is able to provide such a central place, the Arval Brethren are to gather yearly in person if possible.<br /> <br /> ; Magister (President of the Arval Brethren): This position is elected yearly among the Arval Brethren.<br /> ; Flamen Arvales (Assistant to the President: This position is elected yearly among the Arval Brethren.<br /> ; Sacerdotes Arvales: twelve positions open<br /> <br /> ==Sodales Luperci==<br /> The Luperci (&quot;Wolfmen&quot; Priests who officiate at the Lupercalia) were responsible for purification and fertility, and the festival of Lupercalia is a time of fun and revelry. The exact number of Lupercii is not recorded and may have varied over time.<br /> <br /> ===Luperci Quinctiales (or Quintilii)===<br /> <br /> :(founded by Romulus): Positions open<br /> <br /> ===Luperci Fabiani (or Fabianii)===<br /> <br /> : (Founded by Remus): Positions open<br /> <br /> ==Sodales Salii==<br /> <br /> Twenty-four &quot;leaping priests&quot; of [[Mars]] who who dance in procession during public festivals of Mars. The Salii are responsible for keeping the sacred ancilia (shields) and dancing and singing the public festivals sacred to Mars. The Salii in antiquity wore archaic armor and carried arms, and would stop their procession at certain places to carry out ritual dances and sing.<br /> <br /> ===Sodales Palatini===<br /> <br /> A ''sodalis Palatinus'' is particularly devoted to Mars Gravidus. There are twelve sodales Palatini:<br /> <br /> * [[Marcus Martianius Gangalius (Nova Roma)|M. Martianius Gangalius]] <br /> * [[Lucius Curtius Paullus (Nova Roma)|L. Curtius Paullus]]<br /> <br /> ===Sodales Collini (or Agonenses)===<br /> <br /> Twelve priests particularly devoted to Quirinus<br /> <br /> ==Collegium Fetalium (College of the Fetiales)==<br /> <br /> Twenty priests who represent Rome in foreign diplomacy and the making of treaties and declarations of war. In Nova Roma the Fetiales act as diplomats with other nations and organizations, and are therefore expected to be well versed in Nova Roma laws and policy.<br /> <br /> * [[Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus (Nova Roma)|Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus]]<br /> <br /> ''(20 positions; 1 filled; 19 available)''<br /> <br /> ==Quindecimviri Sacris Faciundis==<br /> One of four major priestly colleges. Fifteen priests who are in charge of the Sibylline Books (and their restoration).<br /> <br /> * [[Flavius Vedius Germanicus (Nova Roma)|Fl. Vedius Germanicus]]<br /> <br /> ''(15 positions; 1 filled; 14 available)''<br /> <br /> ==Sacerdotes (minor priesthoods)==<br /> <br /> There are a vast number of major and minor Roman deities that were served by &quot;lesser known&quot; Priests and Priestesses in the ancient Roman world. The Sacerdotes are the lesser &quot;everyday&quot; priesthoods that tend the temples and shrines, indextain the worship of a deity, and who assist the populace with their worship of that deity.<br /> <br /> Within Nova Roma the Sacerdotes that oversee the worship of deities that do not have their own Flamen or Collegia (or who assist Flamens in the worship of specific God or Goddess). There is, in essence, no limit to the number of Sacerdotes that may serve a deity.<br /> <br /> Please note that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World, all the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here. If there is a Roman deity that you are interested in serving both publicly and privately, you are welcome to apply to be an official Sacerdos of that deity by applying to the Collegium Pontificum.<br /> <br /> ===Apollinis Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Cyrene Lucretia Corva Apollinaris (Nova Roma)|Cyrene Lucretia Corva Apollinaris]]<br /> <br /> ===Concordiae Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus (Nova Roma)|Cn. Cornelius Lentulus]]<br /> <br /> ===Dianae Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Lucia Modia Lupa (Nova Roma)|L. Modia Lupa]]<br /> * [[Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia (Nova Roma)|Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia]]<br /> <br /> ===Iani Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Tiberius Octavius Claudianus (Nova Roma)|Ti. Octavius Claudianus]]<br /> <br /> ===Magnae Matris Deum Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Quinta Iulia Caesar (Nova Roma)|Q. Iulia Caesar]]<br /> <br /> ===Mentis Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> *[[Marca Hortensia Maior (Nova Roma)|M. Hortensia Maior]]<br /> <br /> ===Mercurii Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Marcus Cornelius Felix (Nova Roma)|M. Cornelius Felix]]<br /> * [[Titus Iulius Sabinus (Nova Roma)|T. Iulius Sabinus]]<br /> <br /> ===Minervae Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix (Nova Roma)|C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix]]<br /> <br /> ===Neptuni Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Gaius Ambrosius Artorus Iustinus (Nova Roma)|C. Ambrosius Artorus Iustinus]]<br /> * [[Violentilla Galeria Saltatrix (Nova Roma)|Violentilla Galeria Saltatrix]]<br /> <br /> ===Palatuae Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Quinta Iulia Caesar (Nova Roma)|Q. Iulia Caesar]]<br /> <br /> === Veneris Aedis Sacerdotes ===<br /> <br /> * [[Diana Octavia Aventina (Nova Roma)|Diana Octavia Aventina]]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Religio Romana (Nova Roma)]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Priests_(Nova_Roma) 2008-04-16T10:45:11Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* Flamines */ Flamen Volturnalis resigned.</p> <hr /> <div>{{LanguageBar | Priests (Nova Roma)}}<br /> <br /> The public rites of the [[Religio Romana]] were performed and controlled by a number of different priestly collegia and other special priests and magistrates. Those priestly organizations that ranked below the collegia were known as sodalicia, and there were many &quot;independent&quot; priests of various cults who bore the title sacerdos. In addition, there were a number of priesthoods of well-established &quot;foreign&quot; cults (such as the cult of [[Isis]] and [[Serapis]]). For a list of current Foreign Priesthoods of these &quot;foreign cults&quot; within Nova Roma, see [[Foreign priesthoods (Nova Roma)|Foreign priesthoods in Nova Roma]]. Some of these cults were initiatory, and were called &quot;Mysteries&quot; (such as the [[Mysteries of Mithras]]). [[Nova Roma]] has reinstated these ancient Priesthoods as part of our effort to reconstruct Roman religion and culture.<br /> <br /> ==Joining the Priesthood==<br /> <br /> Nova Roma is accepting applications for various Priesthoods. If you are interested in helping to rebuild the Religio Romana and the worship of the ancient [[:Category:Roman Gods|Roman deities]] on an official public basis, we would be pleased to hear from you. The Priesthoods in Nova Roma are open to both men and women, with the exception of the [[Vestals (Nova Roma)|Vestals]]. As Priesthood is an important position of responsibility we do ask that you read the guidelines for applications before applying. Any questions about Priesthood should be directed to the [[Collegium Pontificum (Nova Roma)|Collegium Pontificum]].<br /> <br /> If you would like to become a Priest or Priestess of Nova Roma, please submit an [http://www.novaroma.org/religio_romana/guidelines.html Application].<br /> <br /> ==Offices of the Public Religio Romana==<br /> <br /> The [[Collegium Pontificum (Nova Roma)|Collegium Pontificum]] (College of Pontiffs)<br /> <br /> The Collegium Pontificum consists of fifteen priests who serve the public rites of the State religion and have general authority to determine the structure and nature of both the public rites and the priesthoods themselves. They act as the general oversight committee for the public rites of the Religio Romana and appoint members of the various Priesthoods. Some specific administrative duties of the Collegium include: advising the [[Senate (Nova Roma)|Senate]] on religious matters, setting the dates of religious festivals, organizing and assisting the Priesthood, and acting as the final arbiters of Sacred Law and religious disputes.<br /> <br /> ===Pontifex Maximus===<br /> The [[Pontifex Maximus (Nova Roma)|Pontifex Maximus]] acts as the Speaker for the Collegium Pontificum, and oversees the [[Comitia Curiata (Nova Roma)|Comitia Curiata]] and the Vestals. ''1 position; 0 filled.''<br /> <br /> ===[[Rex Sacrorum (Nova Roma)|Rex Sacrorum]] / [[Regina Sacrorum (Nova Roma)|Regina Sacrorum]]=== <br /> <br /> The Rex and Regina Sacrorum (King/Queen of the Sacred) are a legally married couple that perform various public rites and make announcements of Festival days. First among the Priests and members of the Collegium Pontificum, but subordinate to the Pontifex Maximus. The Rex and Regina Sacrorum may hold no other religious or political posts. ''2 positions; 0 filled; 2 available.''<br /> <br /> ===Pontifices===<br /> <br /> {{Table_Pontifices}}<br /> ''(15 positions; 10 filled; 5 available)''<br /> <br /> ==Flamines==<br /> <br /> The Flamines are thirteen priests who served specific deities - though they are allowed to worship other deities as well. The Flamines hold public rites on the days sacred to their deity, and oversee the general worship of that deity. The Flamines are present in the Collegium Pontificum.<br /> <br /> ===Flamines Maiores (Major Flamines)===<br /> <br /> {|width=&quot;100%&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=2|<br /> ====Flamen Dialis====<br /> <br /> Position not open at this time. The [[Flamen Dialis]] serves the cult of [[Iuppiter|Iuppiter (Jupiter)]], and participates in the Vinalia festivals and at conferratio marriage ceremonies. This priesthood is subject to a large number of complex taboos which have not yet been resolved for reconstruction. The wife of the Flamen Dialis was known as the Flaminica Dialis, and assisted in the rites and was subject to the same taboos.<br /> |-<br /> |width=300|<br /> ====Flamen Martialis====<br /> The Flamen Martialis oversees the cult of [[Mars]], the God of War, leading public rites on the days sacred to Mars.<br /> <br /> |{{CitizenBox | n=Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur | img=Lucius.Equitius.Cincinnatus.Augur | id=9 |text=Flamen Martialis}}<br /> <br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Quirinalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Quirinalis oversees the cult of [[Quirinus]], a god related to the peaceful aspect of Mars, who presides over organized Roman social life. The Flamen Quirinalis leads public rites on the days sacred to Quirinus.<br /> <br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===Flamines Minores (Minor Flamines)===<br /> <br /> <br /> {|width=&quot;100%&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Carmentalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Carmentalis oversees the cult of [[Carmenta]] (Carmentis), a goddess of Prophecy and Oracles. The Flamen Carmentalis leads public rites on the days sacred to Carmenta.<br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus | img=Marcus.Moravius.Piscinus.Horatianus | id=432 |text=Flamen [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Carmentis|Carmentalis]] }}<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Cerealis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Cerealis oversees the cult of [[Ceres]], Goddess of grains (identified with the Greek Demeter). The Flamen Cerealis leads public rites on the days sacred to Ceres.<br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Flavius Galerius Aurelianus | id=2994 |<br /> text=Flamen [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Ceres|Cerealis]] }}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> ====Flamen Falacer====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Falacer oversees the cult of [[Falacer]], a deified Roman hero (who presumably personified qualities such as strength, courage, etc.) The Flamen Falacer leads public rites on days sacred to Falacer.<br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Quintus Valerius Poplicola|id=11334|text=Flamen {{Global|Falacer}} }}<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Florealis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Florealis oversees the cult of [[Flora]], the Goddess of flowers, and Spring (and therefore new beginnings). The Flamen Florealis leads public rites on the days sacred to Flora.<br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Gaius Iulius Iulianus | id=4239 |<br /> text=Flamen [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Flora|Florealis]] }}<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Furrinalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Furrinalis oversees the cult of [[Furrina]], a Goddess of Springs who had a sacred grove associated with water (possibly connected with health and healing). The Flamen Furrinalis leads public rites on the days sacred to Furrina.<br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Palatualis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Palatualis oversees the cult of [[Palatua]], the guardian of the Palatine Hill (the oldest settled part of Rome, therefore making Palatua possibly a goddess of Rome's beginnings.) The Flamen Palatualis leads public rites on the days sacred to Palatua.<br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus | id=1065|text=Flamen {{Global|Palatualis}} }}<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Pomonalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Pomonalis oversees the cult of [[Pomona]], Goddess of fruit. The Flamen Pomonalis leads public rites on days sacred to Pomona (there was no major single festival day).<br /> |{{CitizenBox | n=Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus | img=Gaius.Fabius.Buteo.Modianus | id=4006 |<br /> text=Flamen [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Pomona|Pomonalis]]}}<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Portunalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Portunalis oversees the cult of [[Portunus]], God of Harbors and doors. The Flamen Portunalis leads public rites sacred to Portunus.<br /> <br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Volcanalis====<br /> The Flamen Volcanalis oversees the cult of [[Volcanus]] (Vulcan), God of Fire and smithcraft. The Flamen Volcanalis leads public rites sacred to Volcanus.<br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> ====Flamen Volturnalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Volturnalis oversees the cult of [[Volturnus]], a River God sometimes also associated with the Southeast wind. (Both these aspects may be related to travel and trade.) The Flamen Volturnalis leads public rites sacred to Volturnus.<br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> <br /> ==Virgines Vestales (The Vestal Virgins)==<br /> <br /> A priesthood of six women who guard the Sacred Hearth of Rome. They oversee the cult of [[Vesta]], Goddess of the Hearth and Fire, and lead public rites sacred to Vesta. The duties of the Vestals included maintaining the fire in the Sacred Hearth of Rome, and making [[Mola Salsa]] (sacred cakes made from spelt flour used in public rites.)<br /> <br /> The Vestals also guarded some sacred objects, including the [[Palladium]] (an ancient image of Pallas Athene said to have been rescued from Troy). In ancient Rome the Vestals were virgins — in Nova Roma this has been replaced by a voluntary vow of chastity for the duration of office. Until Nova Roma has a central hearth, the Vestals each keep a Sacred Flame as a symbol of the Sacred Hearth of Rome. The Vestals receive great public respect for their work, and are entitled to be proceeded by Lictors.<br /> <br /> '''Chief Vestal''': Position open<br /> <br /> The Chief Vestal oversees the efforts of the Vestals, and is present in the Collegium Pontificum.<br /> <br /> {{Table Vestales}}<br /> ''(six positions, two filled, four available)''<br /> <br /> '''Past Vestals''': (honoured for their former vows and duties)<br /> <br /> * Vespasia Pollia<br /> * Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata<br /> * Gaia Iulia Caesaria Victorina<br /> * [[Lucia Modia Lupa (Nova Roma)|L. Modia Lupa]]<br /> <br /> ==Collegium Augurum (College of Augures)==<br /> <br /> Nine priests who take [[auspices]] and create [[templum|templa]], or sacred spaces. The Collegium Augurium is the second rank of priestly colleges. The duties of the Augurs include taking auspices before military and political actions, consecrating the sites of temples and shrines, overseeing the laws of augury ([[ius augurium]] — the discipline or art of augury itself) and advising the Senate.<br /> <br /> ===Active Augures===<br /> <br /> {{Table Augures}}<br /> <br /> ''(nine positions, three filled, six available (four plebeian, two patrician))''<br /> <br /> ===Augures Emeriti===<br /> * [[Flavius Vedius Germanicus (Nova Roma)|F. Vedius Germanicus]]<br /> * Caius Aelius Ericius<br /> * Marcus Gladius Saevus<br /> * Damianus Lucianus Dexippus<br /> <br /> ==Septemviri Epulones==<br /> <br /> Seven priests who oversee the organization of public religious feasts. The Epulones arrange the Epulum Iovis — (feast of Jupiter which is attended by the Senate and People, and presided over by the images of the [[Capitoline]] deities), as well as the public banquets at other festivals and games. The Epulones are one of the four major colleges of priests, and have sacred as well as organizational duties.<br /> <br /> ''(seven positions, seven open)''<br /> <br /> ==Sodales Fratres Arvales (The Arval Brethren)==<br /> <br /> Twelve priests who compose the oldest priestly college in Rome. The Arval Brethren offer public sacrifices for the fertility of the fields, and preside over the worship of the Dea Dia, a Goddess of Grain and Cereal crops.<br /> <br /> The rites of the Arval Brethren are one of the few virtually complete sets of Roman rituals to survive antiquity. In ancient Rome the Arval Brethren met in a grove sacred to the Dea Dia, where there was a circular temple and bath house. Until Nova Roma is able to provide such a central place, the Arval Brethren are to gather yearly in person if possible.<br /> <br /> ; Magister (President of the Arval Brethren): This position is elected yearly among the Arval Brethren.<br /> ; Flamen Arvales (Assistant to the President: This position is elected yearly among the Arval Brethren.<br /> ; Sacerdotes Arvales: twelve positions open<br /> <br /> ==Sodales Luperci==<br /> The Luperci (&quot;Wolfmen&quot; Priests who officiate at the Lupercalia) were responsible for purification and fertility, and the festival of Lupercalia is a time of fun and revelry. The exact number of Lupercii is not recorded and may have varied over time.<br /> <br /> ===Luperci Quinctiales (or Quintilii)===<br /> <br /> :(founded by Romulus): Positions open<br /> <br /> ===Luperci Fabiani (or Fabianii)===<br /> <br /> : (Founded by Remus): Positions open<br /> <br /> ==Sodales Salii==<br /> <br /> Twenty-four &quot;leaping priests&quot; of [[Mars]] who who dance in procession during public festivals of Mars. The Salii are responsible for keeping the sacred ancilia (shields) and dancing and singing the public festivals sacred to Mars. The Salii in antiquity wore archaic armor and carried arms, and would stop their procession at certain places to carry out ritual dances and sing.<br /> <br /> ===Sodales Palatini===<br /> <br /> A ''sodalis Palatinus'' is particularly devoted to Mars Gravidus. There are twelve sodales Palatini:<br /> <br /> * [[Marcus Martianius Gangalius (Nova Roma)|M. Martianius Gangalius]] <br /> * [[Lucius Curtius Paullus (Nova Roma)|L. Curtius Paullus]]<br /> <br /> ===Sodales Collini (or Agonenses)===<br /> <br /> Twelve priests particularly devoted to Quirinus<br /> <br /> ==Collegium Fetalium (College of the Fetiales)==<br /> <br /> Twenty priests who represent Rome in foreign diplomacy and the making of treaties and declarations of war. In Nova Roma the Fetiales act as diplomats with other nations and organizations, and are therefore expected to be well versed in Nova Roma laws and policy.<br /> <br /> * [[Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus (Nova Roma)|Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus]]<br /> <br /> ''(20 positions; 1 filled; 19 available)''<br /> <br /> ==Quindecimviri Sacris Faciundis==<br /> One of four major priestly colleges. Fifteen priests who are in charge of the Sibylline Books (and their restoration).<br /> <br /> * [[Flavius Vedius Germanicus (Nova Roma)|Fl. Vedius Germanicus]]<br /> <br /> ''(15 positions; 1 filled; 14 available)''<br /> <br /> ==Sacerdotes (minor priesthoods)==<br /> <br /> There are a vast number of major and minor Roman deities that were served by &quot;lesser known&quot; Priests and Priestesses in the ancient Roman world. The Sacerdotes are the lesser &quot;everyday&quot; priesthoods that tend the temples and shrines, indextain the worship of a deity, and who assist the populace with their worship of that deity.<br /> <br /> Within Nova Roma the Sacerdotes that oversee the worship of deities that do not have their own Flamen or Collegia (or who assist Flamens in the worship of specific God or Goddess). There is, in essence, no limit to the number of Sacerdotes that may serve a deity.<br /> <br /> Please note that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World, all the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here. If there is a Roman deity that you are interested in serving both publicly and privately, you are welcome to apply to be an official Sacerdos of that deity by applying to the Collegium Pontificum.<br /> <br /> ===Apollinis Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Cyrene Lucretia Corva Apollinaris (Nova Roma)|Cyrene Lucretia Corva Apollinaris]]<br /> <br /> ===Concordiae Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus (Nova Roma)|Cn. Cornelius Lentulus]]<br /> <br /> ===Dianae Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Lucia Modia Lupa (Nova Roma)|L. Modia Lupa]]<br /> * [[Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia (Nova Roma)|Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia]]<br /> <br /> ===Iani Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Tiberius Octavius Claudianus (Nova Roma)|Ti. Octavius Claudianus]]<br /> <br /> ===Magnae Matris Deum Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Quinta Iulia Caesar (Nova Roma)|Q. Iulia Caesar]]<br /> <br /> ===Mentis Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> *[[Marca Hortensia Maior (Nova Roma)|M. Hortensia Maior]]<br /> <br /> ===Mercurii Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Marcus Cornelius Felix (Nova Roma)|M. Cornelius Felix]]<br /> * [[Titus Iulius Sabinus (Nova Roma)|T. Iulius Sabinus]]<br /> <br /> ===Minervae Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix (Nova Roma)|C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix]]<br /> <br /> ===Neptuni Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Gaius Ambrosius Artorus Iustinus (Nova Roma)|C. Ambrosius Artorus Iustinus]]<br /> * [[Violentilla Galeria Saltatrix (Nova Roma)|Violentilla Galeria Saltatrix]]<br /> <br /> ===Palatuae Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Quinta Iulia Caesar (Nova Roma)|Q. Iulia Caesar]]<br /> <br /> === Veneris Aedis Sacerdotes ===<br /> <br /> * [[Diana Octavia Aventina (Nova Roma)|Diana Octavia Aventina]]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Religio Romana (Nova Roma)]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Struggle_for_the_sacred_colleges_(Nova_Roma) 2008-03-27T12:03:05Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* Flavius Galerius Aurelianus */ Accepted Office of Pontifex Maximus.</p> <hr /> <div>{{LanguageBar|Purge of MMDCCLXI (Nova Roma)}}<br /> <br /> [[Image:Purge-2008.png|frame|right]]<br /> The month of Februarius MMDCCLXI saw the loss of four long-serving magistrates and citizens, three of them Senators, three of them priests, mostly due to actions of Consul [[Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus (Nova_Roma)|Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus]] and Censor [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]] to seize control of the [[Collegium Pontificum (Nova Roma)|Collegium Pontificum]] and [[Collegium Augurum (Nova Roma)|Collegium Augurum]].<br /> <br /> Mere months after obtaining the offices of [[Pontifex (Nova Roma)|Pontifex]] and [[Consul (Nova Roma)|Consul]], Consul Piscinus Horatianus obtained a Senatus Consultum forbidding owners of any official mailing list to deny membership as an observer to any Senator who wished it. With this in hand, he demanded that Pontifex Maximus [[Marcus Cassius Iulianus (Nova Roma)|Marcus Cassius Iulianus]] add Senators to the Collegium Pontificum list. Cassius saw this demand as rude and improper, and delayed doing so.<br /> <br /> ==C. Iulius Scaurus==<br /> <br /> On {{Jan 29}}, Pontifex [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]], in a posting to the Collegium Pontificum list, voluntarily resigned his offices and citizenship in protest of the &quot;Christians, atheists, and political appointees&quot; attempting to assert control over the priesthood. [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligioRomana/message/9785]<br /> <br /> ==M. Octavius Gracchus==<br /> <br /> On {{Feb 4}}, Senator and Consular [[Marcus Octavius Gracchus (Nova Roma)|Marcus Octavius Gracchus]], in a posting to the main list, resigned from the Senate and &quot;retired to private life&quot;, citing his disgust with the &quot;scheming&quot; and &quot;paranoia&quot; of persons he had once liked and respected. Octavius had been among the first ten people to join Nova Roma in {{1998}}, and had been an active Senator since {{2000}}. He had recently been voted a message of thanks for his services by the Senate, making his departure all the more tragic.<br /> <br /> ==Cn. Salvius Astur==<br /> <br /> A few days later, Senator, Consular, and Pontifex [[Gnaeus Salvius Astur (Nova Roma)|Gnaeus Salvius Astur]] resigned from the Senate and Collegium Pontificum. His resignation notice was not made public, and his departure was entirely unrelated to these events.<br /> <br /> ==Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus==<br /> <br /> On {{Feb 20}}, Senator, Consular and Pontifex [[Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur (Nova Roma)|Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur]] was stripped of all his titles and even his [[Assidui|Assiduus]] status, being demoted to the status of [[Capite Censi]], resulting from a legal action initiated by Pontifex and Censor Modianus, for refusing to admit the latter to mailing lists owned by Cincinnatus Augur. Not only did the Praetores - both members of Censor Modianus's cohort - issue a default judgement against Cincinnatus Augur, but they added an additional penalty to the sentence due to Cincinnatus Augur's refusal to participate in the trial: he was fined $300, the most severe punishment in Nova Roma's history, for the invented charge of failing to appear for trial.<br /> <br /> The harsh treatment of Cincinnatus Augur caused the recently-departed Octavius to return to the main list, and to inform the Censores that the free technical support he had been providing &quot;stops, now&quot;. Censor [[Tiberius Galerius Paulinus (Nova Roma)|Tiberius Galerius Paulinus]], as advocatus for Cincinnatus Augur, demanded the right of [[provocatio]]. [[Gnaeus Iulius Caesar (Nova Roma)|Gnaeus Iulius Caesar]] also became an outspoken advocate of justice for Cincinnatus. In a message to the main list, Cincinnatus accepted accepted Paulinus as advocate. <br /> <br /> As of this writing, the matter is unresolved, and the outcome uncertain.<br /> <br /> ==Flavius Galerius Aurelianus==<br /> <br /> On {{Feb 24}}, [[Flavius Galerius Aurelianus (Nova Roma)|Flavius Galerius Aurelianus]] voluntarily resigned his position of [[Plebeian Aedile (Nova Roma)|Plebeian Aedile]], saying &quot;I am taking a sabbatical from Nova Roma to reflect and contemplate my future with this organization.&quot; On {{Mar 26}} [[Flavius Galerius Aurelianus (Nova Roma)|Flavius Galerius Aurelianus]] was elected Pontifex Maximus by the Collegium Pontificum, and he accepted.<br /> <br /> ==Marcus Cassius Julianus==<br /> <br /> {{Feb 29|b}}, publication of [[Collegium Pontificum (Nova Roma)|Collegium Pontificum]] [[Collegium pontificum decreta Februariae alter MMDCCLXI|voting results]] revealed that Pater Patriae [[Marcus Cassius Julianus (Nova Roma)|Marcus Cassius Julianus]] had been removed from the offices of Pontifex Maximus and Pontifex by a 6 to 1 vote. Pontifices Cassius Julianus and Equitius Cincinnatus were not recorded as having voted, though both had been invited to the list {{Feb 23|b}}. <br /> <br /> Cassius was removed the day after the tenth anniversary of his founding of Nova Roma, marring the anniversary celebrations. <br /> <br /> [[Category:MMDCCLXI]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Priests_(Nova_Roma) 2008-03-27T11:59:03Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* Minervae Aedis Sacerdotes */ Removed Patricia Cassia - resigned March 27, 2008.</p> <hr /> <div>{{LanguageBar | Priests (Nova Roma)}}<br /> <br /> The public rites of the [[Religio Romana]] were performed and controlled by a number of different priestly collegia and other special priests and magistrates. Those priestly organizations that ranked below the collegia were known as sodalicia, and there were many &quot;independent&quot; priests of various cults who bore the title sacerdos. In addition, there were a number of priesthoods of well-established &quot;foreign&quot; cults (such as the cult of [[Isis]] and [[Serapis]]). For a list of current Foreign Priesthoods of these &quot;foreign cults&quot; within Nova Roma, see [[Foreign priesthoods (Nova Roma)|Foreign priesthoods in Nova Roma]]. Some of these cults were initiatory, and were called &quot;Mysteries&quot; (such as the [[Mysteries of Mithras]]). [[Nova Roma]] has reinstated these ancient Priesthoods as part of our effort to reconstruct Roman religion and culture.<br /> <br /> ==Joining the Priesthood==<br /> <br /> Nova Roma is accepting applications for various Priesthoods. If you are interested in helping to rebuild the Religio Romana and the worship of the ancient [[:Category:Roman Gods|Roman deities]] on an official public basis, we would be pleased to hear from you. The Priesthoods in Nova Roma are open to both men and women, with the exception of the [[Vestals (Nova Roma)|Vestals]]. As Priesthood is an important position of responsibility we do ask that you read the guidelines for applications before applying. Any questions about Priesthood should be directed to the [[Collegium Pontificum (Nova Roma)|Collegium Pontificum]].<br /> <br /> If you would like to become a Priest or Priestess of Nova Roma, please submit an [http://www.novaroma.org/religio_romana/guidelines.html Application].<br /> <br /> ==Offices of the Public Religio Romana==<br /> <br /> The [[Collegium Pontificum (Nova Roma)|Collegium Pontificum]] (College of Pontiffs)<br /> <br /> The Collegium Pontificum consists of fifteen priests who serve the public rites of the State religion and have general authority to determine the structure and nature of both the public rites and the priesthoods themselves. They act as the general oversight committee for the public rites of the Religio Romana and appoint members of the various Priesthoods. Some specific administrative duties of the Collegium include: advising the [[Senate (Nova Roma)|Senate]] on religious matters, setting the dates of religious festivals, organizing and assisting the Priesthood, and acting as the final arbiters of Sacred Law and religious disputes.<br /> <br /> ===Pontifex Maximus===<br /> The [[Pontifex Maximus (Nova Roma)|Pontifex Maximus]] acts as the Speaker for the Collegium Pontificum, and oversees the [[Comitia Curiata (Nova Roma)|Comitia Curiata]] and the Vestals. ''1 position; 0 filled.''<br /> <br /> ===[[Rex Sacrorum (Nova Roma)|Rex Sacrorum]] / [[Regina Sacrorum (Nova Roma)|Regina Sacrorum]]=== <br /> <br /> The Rex and Regina Sacrorum (King/Queen of the Sacred) are a legally married couple that perform various public rites and make announcements of Festival days. First among the Priests and members of the Collegium Pontificum, but subordinate to the Pontifex Maximus. The Rex and Regina Sacrorum may hold no other religious or political posts. ''2 positions; 0 filled; 2 available.''<br /> <br /> ===Pontifices===<br /> <br /> {{Table_Pontifices}}<br /> ''(15 positions; 10 filled; 5 available)''<br /> <br /> ==Flamines==<br /> <br /> The Flamines are thirteen priests who served specific deities - though they are allowed to worship other deities as well. The Flamines hold public rites on the days sacred to their deity, and oversee the general worship of that deity. The Flamines are present in the Collegium Pontificum.<br /> <br /> ===Flamines Maiores (Major Flamines)===<br /> <br /> {|width=&quot;100%&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=2|<br /> ====Flamen Dialis====<br /> <br /> Position not open at this time. The [[Flamen Dialis]] serves the cult of [[Iuppiter|Iuppiter (Jupiter)]], and participates in the Vinalia festivals and at conferratio marriage ceremonies. This priesthood is subject to a large number of complex taboos which have not yet been resolved for reconstruction. The wife of the Flamen Dialis was known as the Flaminica Dialis, and assisted in the rites and was subject to the same taboos.<br /> |-<br /> |width=300|<br /> ====Flamen Martialis====<br /> The Flamen Martialis oversees the cult of [[Mars]], the God of War, leading public rites on the days sacred to Mars.<br /> <br /> |{{CitizenBox | n=Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur | img=Lucius.Equitius.Cincinnatus.Augur | id=9 |text=Flamen Martialis}}<br /> <br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Quirinalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Quirinalis oversees the cult of [[Quirinus]], a god related to the peaceful aspect of Mars, who presides over organized Roman social life. The Flamen Quirinalis leads public rites on the days sacred to Quirinus.<br /> <br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===Flamines Minores (Minor Flamines)===<br /> <br /> <br /> {|width=&quot;100%&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Carmentalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Carmentalis oversees the cult of [[Carmenta]] (Carmentis), a goddess of Prophecy and Oracles. The Flamen Carmentalis leads public rites on the days sacred to Carmenta.<br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus | img=Marcus.Moravius.Piscinus.Horatianus | id=432 |text=Flamen [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Carmentis|Carmentalis]] }}<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Cerealis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Cerealis oversees the cult of [[Ceres]], Goddess of grains (identified with the Greek Demeter). The Flamen Cerealis leads public rites on the days sacred to Ceres.<br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Flavius Galerius Aurelianus | id=2994 |<br /> text=Flamen [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Ceres|Cerealis]] }}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> ====Flamen Falacer====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Falacer oversees the cult of [[Falacer]], a deified Roman hero (who presumably personified qualities such as strength, courage, etc.) The Flamen Falacer leads public rites on days sacred to Falacer.<br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Quintus Valerius Poplicola|id=11334|text=Flamen {{Global|Falacer}} }}<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Florealis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Florealis oversees the cult of [[Flora]], the Goddess of flowers, and Spring (and therefore new beginnings). The Flamen Florealis leads public rites on the days sacred to Flora.<br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Gaius Iulius Iulianus | id=4239 |<br /> text=Flamen [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Flora|Florealis]] }}<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Furrinalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Furrinalis oversees the cult of [[Furrina]], a Goddess of Springs who had a sacred grove associated with water (possibly connected with health and healing). The Flamen Furrinalis leads public rites on the days sacred to Furrina.<br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Palatualis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Palatualis oversees the cult of [[Palatua]], the guardian of the Palatine Hill (the oldest settled part of Rome, therefore making Palatua possibly a goddess of Rome's beginnings.) The Flamen Palatualis leads public rites on the days sacred to Palatua.<br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus | id=1065|text=Flamen {{Global|Palatualis}} }}<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Pomonalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Pomonalis oversees the cult of [[Pomona]], Goddess of fruit. The Flamen Pomonalis leads public rites on days sacred to Pomona (there was no major single festival day).<br /> |{{CitizenBox | n=Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus | img=Gaius.Fabius.Buteo.Modianus | id=4006 |<br /> text=Flamen [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Pomona|Pomonalis]]}}<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Portunalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Portunalis oversees the cult of [[Portunus]], God of Harbors and doors. The Flamen Portunalis leads public rites sacred to Portunus.<br /> <br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> ====Flamen Volcanalis====<br /> The Flamen Volcanalis oversees the cult of [[Volcanus]] (Vulcan), God of Fire and smithcraft. The Flamen Volcanalis leads public rites sacred to Volcanus.<br /> | '''''position open'''''<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> ====Flamen Volturnalis====<br /> <br /> The Flamen Volturnalis oversees the cult of [[Volturnus]], a River God sometimes also associated with the Southeast wind. (Both these aspects may be related to travel and trade.) The Flamen Volturnalis leads public rites sacred to Volturnus.<br /> <br /> | {{CitizenBox | n=Gaius Ambrosius Artorus Iustinus | id=6125 |<br /> text=Flamen [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Volturnus|Volturnalis]] }}<br /> <br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Virgines Vestales (The Vestal Virgins)==<br /> <br /> A priesthood of six women who guard the Sacred Hearth of Rome. They oversee the cult of [[Vesta]], Goddess of the Hearth and Fire, and lead public rites sacred to Vesta. The duties of the Vestals included maintaining the fire in the Sacred Hearth of Rome, and making [[Mola Salsa]] (sacred cakes made from spelt flour used in public rites.)<br /> <br /> The Vestals also guarded some sacred objects, including the [[Palladium]] (an ancient image of Pallas Athene said to have been rescued from Troy). In ancient Rome the Vestals were virgins — in Nova Roma this has been replaced by a voluntary vow of chastity for the duration of office. Until Nova Roma has a central hearth, the Vestals each keep a Sacred Flame as a symbol of the Sacred Hearth of Rome. The Vestals receive great public respect for their work, and are entitled to be proceeded by Lictors.<br /> <br /> '''Chief Vestal''': Position open<br /> <br /> The Chief Vestal oversees the efforts of the Vestals, and is present in the Collegium Pontificum.<br /> <br /> {{Table Vestales}}<br /> ''(six positions, two filled, four available)''<br /> <br /> '''Past Vestals''': (honoured for their former vows and duties)<br /> <br /> * Vespasia Pollia<br /> * Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata<br /> * Gaia Iulia Caesaria Victorina<br /> * [[Lucia Modia Lupa (Nova Roma)|L. Modia Lupa]]<br /> <br /> ==Collegium Augurum (College of Augures)==<br /> <br /> Nine priests who take [[auspices]] and create [[templum|templa]], or sacred spaces. The Collegium Augurium is the second rank of priestly colleges. The duties of the Augurs include taking auspices before military and political actions, consecrating the sites of temples and shrines, overseeing the laws of augury ([[ius augurium]] — the discipline or art of augury itself) and advising the Senate.<br /> <br /> ===Active Augures===<br /> <br /> {{Table Augures}}<br /> <br /> ''(nine positions, three filled, six available (four plebeian, two patrician))''<br /> <br /> ===Augures Emeriti===<br /> * [[Flavius Vedius Germanicus (Nova Roma)|F. Vedius Germanicus]]<br /> * Caius Aelius Ericius<br /> * Marcus Gladius Saevus<br /> * Damianus Lucianus Dexippus<br /> <br /> ==Septemviri Epulones==<br /> <br /> Seven priests who oversee the organization of public religious feasts. The Epulones arrange the Epulum Iovis — (feast of Jupiter which is attended by the Senate and People, and presided over by the images of the [[Capitoline]] deities), as well as the public banquets at other festivals and games. The Epulones are one of the four major colleges of priests, and have sacred as well as organizational duties.<br /> <br /> ''(seven positions, seven open)''<br /> <br /> ==Sodales Fratres Arvales (The Arval Brethren)==<br /> <br /> Twelve priests who compose the oldest priestly college in Rome. The Arval Brethren offer public sacrifices for the fertility of the fields, and preside over the worship of the Dea Dia, a Goddess of Grain and Cereal crops.<br /> <br /> The rites of the Arval Brethren are one of the few virtually complete sets of Roman rituals to survive antiquity. In ancient Rome the Arval Brethren met in a grove sacred to the Dea Dia, where there was a circular temple and bath house. Until Nova Roma is able to provide such a central place, the Arval Brethren are to gather yearly in person if possible.<br /> <br /> ; Magister (President of the Arval Brethren): This position is elected yearly among the Arval Brethren.<br /> ; Flamen Arvales (Assistant to the President: This position is elected yearly among the Arval Brethren.<br /> ; Sacerdotes Arvales: twelve positions open<br /> <br /> ==Sodales Luperci==<br /> The Luperci (&quot;Wolfmen&quot; Priests who officiate at the Lupercalia) were responsible for purification and fertility, and the festival of Lupercalia is a time of fun and revelry. The exact number of Lupercii is not recorded and may have varied over time.<br /> <br /> ===Luperci Quinctiales (or Quintilii)===<br /> <br /> :(founded by Romulus): Positions open<br /> <br /> ===Luperci Fabiani (or Fabianii)===<br /> <br /> : (Founded by Remus): Positions open<br /> <br /> ==Sodales Salii==<br /> <br /> Twenty-four &quot;leaping priests&quot; of [[Mars]] who who dance in procession during public festivals of Mars. The Salii are responsible for keeping the sacred ancilia (shields) and dancing and singing the public festivals sacred to Mars. The Salii in antiquity wore archaic armor and carried arms, and would stop their procession at certain places to carry out ritual dances and sing.<br /> <br /> ===Sodales Palatini===<br /> <br /> A ''sodalis Palatinus'' is particularly devoted to Mars Gravidus. There are twelve sodales Palatini:<br /> <br /> * [[Marcus Martianius Gangalius (Nova Roma)|M. Martianius Gangalius]] <br /> * [[Lucius Curtius Paullus (Nova Roma)|L. Curtius Paullus]]<br /> <br /> ===Sodales Collini (or Agonenses)===<br /> <br /> Twelve priests particularly devoted to Quirinus<br /> <br /> ==Collegium Fetalium (College of the Fetiales)==<br /> <br /> Twenty priests who represent Rome in foreign diplomacy and the making of treaties and declarations of war. In Nova Roma the Fetiales act as diplomats with other nations and organizations, and are therefore expected to be well versed in Nova Roma laws and policy.<br /> <br /> * [[Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus (Nova Roma)|Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus]]<br /> <br /> ''(20 positions; 1 filled; 19 available)''<br /> <br /> ==Quindecimviri Sacris Faciundis==<br /> One of four major priestly colleges. Fifteen priests who are in charge of the Sibylline Books (and their restoration).<br /> <br /> * [[Flavius Vedius Germanicus (Nova Roma)|Fl. Vedius Germanicus]]<br /> <br /> ''(15 positions; 1 filled; 14 available)''<br /> <br /> ==Sacerdotes (minor priesthoods)==<br /> <br /> There are a vast number of major and minor Roman deities that were served by &quot;lesser known&quot; Priests and Priestesses in the ancient Roman world. The Sacerdotes are the lesser &quot;everyday&quot; priesthoods that tend the temples and shrines, indextain the worship of a deity, and who assist the populace with their worship of that deity.<br /> <br /> Within Nova Roma the Sacerdotes that oversee the worship of deities that do not have their own Flamen or Collegia (or who assist Flamens in the worship of specific God or Goddess). There is, in essence, no limit to the number of Sacerdotes that may serve a deity.<br /> <br /> Please note that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World, all the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here. If there is a Roman deity that you are interested in serving both publicly and privately, you are welcome to apply to be an official Sacerdos of that deity by applying to the Collegium Pontificum.<br /> <br /> ===Apollinis Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Cyrene Lucretia Corva Apollinaris (Nova Roma)|Cyrene Lucretia Corva Apollinaris]]<br /> <br /> ===Concordiae Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus (Nova Roma)|Cn. Cornelius Lentulus]]<br /> <br /> ===Dianae Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Lucia Modia Lupa (Nova Roma)|L. Modia Lupa]]<br /> * [[Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia (Nova Roma)|Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia]]<br /> <br /> ===Iani Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Tiberius Octavius Claudianus (Nova Roma)|Ti. Octavius Claudianus]]<br /> <br /> ===Magnae Matris Deum Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Quinta Iulia Caesar (Nova Roma)|Q. Iulia Caesar]]<br /> <br /> ===Mentis Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> *[[Marca Hortensia Maior (Nova Roma)|M. Hortensia Maior]]<br /> <br /> ===Mercurii Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Marcus Cornelius Felix (Nova Roma)|M. Cornelius Felix]]<br /> * [[Titus Iulius Sabinus (Nova Roma)|T. Iulius Sabinus]]<br /> <br /> ===Minervae Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix (Nova Roma)|C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix]]<br /> <br /> ===Neptuni Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Gaius Ambrosius Artorus Iustinus (Nova Roma)|C. Ambrosius Artorus Iustinus]]<br /> * [[Violentilla Galeria Saltatrix (Nova Roma)|Violentilla Galeria Saltatrix]]<br /> <br /> ===Palatuae Aedis Sacerdotes===<br /> <br /> * [[Quinta Iulia Caesar (Nova Roma)|Q. Iulia Caesar]]<br /> <br /> === Veneris Aedis Sacerdotes ===<br /> <br /> * [[Diana Octavia Aventina (Nova Roma)|Diana Octavia Aventina]]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Religio Romana (Nova Roma)]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Patricia_Cassia_(Nova_Roma) 2008-03-27T11:56:45Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: Resigned from Nova Roma March 27th 2008.</p> <hr /> <div>{{BioHeader|name=Patricia Cassia|id=282}}<br /> <br /> <br /> Resigned from Nova Roma March 27th :{{2008}}<br /> <br /> ==[[Cursus Honorum (Nova Roma)|''Cursus Honorum'']]==<br /> <br /> * [[Praetor (Nova Roma)|Praetrix]]<br /> :{{2002}}<br /> <br /> * [[Senator (Nova Roma)|Senatrix]]<br /> :from {{2000}}<br /> <br /> * [[Quaestor (Nova Roma)|Quaestrix]]<br /> :{{2001}}<br /> :{{2000}}<br /> :{{1999}}<br /> :{{1998}}<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Other Posts==<br /> <br /> * [[Curator Sermonis (Nova Roma)|Curatrix Sermonis]]<br /> :{{2000}}<br /> <br /> * [[Minerva|Minervae]] Aedis [[Sacerdos (Nova Roma)|Sacerdos]]<br /> :from {{2001}}<br /> <br /> * [[Comitia Curiata (Nova Roma)|Lictrix Curiata]]<br /> :from {{2001}}<br /> <br /> * [[Accensus (Nova Roma)|Accensa]]<br /> :{{2006}}<br /> :{{2003}}<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category: Magistrates (Nova Roma)|Cassia, Pa.]]<br /> [[Category: Senators (Nova Roma)|Cassia, Pa.]]<br /> [[Category: Gens Cassia (Nova Roma)| , Pa. Cassia]]<br /> [[Category:Sacerdotes (Nova Roma)|Cassia, Pa.]]<br /> [[Category: Tribus Falerna (Nova Roma)|Cassia, Pa.]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Category:Senators_(Nova_Roma) 2008-03-27T11:54:35Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: Removed Patricia Cassia. She resigned March 27th 2008</p> <hr /> <div>{{CategoryLanguageBar|Senators (Nova Roma)}}<br /> <br /> A ''senator'' is a member of the [[Senate (Nova Roma)|Senate]] of [[Nova Roma]].<br /> <br /> ''Senatores'' are appointed by the [[Censor (Nova Roma)|''Censores'']]. The list of ''senatores'' is regularly revised by the ''censores'', but ''senatores'' are only removed if they bring the Senate into disrepute.<br /> <br /> A person who has held a [[Magistracies (Nova Roma)|higher magistracy]] will normally become a ''senator''. Present and former holders of higher magistracies are not necessarily ''senatores'' but have the right to participate in meetings of the Senate (the ''ius sententiae'') by virtue of their office.<br /> <br /> This Category page lists all persons who are, or have been, ''senatores'' of [[Nova Roma]]. Some of them are no longer citizens, or in some cases are citizens but are no longer ''senatores''.<br /> <br /> <br /> The '''current ''senatores''''' and former magistrates with the '''''ius sententiae''''' are, in order of senatorial rank:<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |'''''Princeps senatus'''''<br /> |[[Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus (Nova Roma)|K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Thule<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Dictatorii'''''<br /> |[[Flavius Vedius Germanicus (Nova Roma)|Fl. Vedius Germanicus]] ''senator dictatorius''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Censorii'''''<br /> |[[Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus (Nova Roma)|K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Thule<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Gnaeus Equitius Marinus (Nova Roma)|Cn. Equitius Marinus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus (Nova Roma)|L. Equitius Cincinnatus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Cassius Iulianus (Nova Roma)|M. Cassius Iulianus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Nova Britannia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus (Nova Roma)|Dec. Iunius Palladius Invictus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Nova Britannia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Gaius Flavius Diocletianus (Nova Roma)|C. Flavius Diocletianus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Germania<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Gaius Marius Merullus (Nova Roma)|C. Marius Merullus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Nova Britannia<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Consulares'''''<br /> |[[Marcus Minucius Audens (Nova Roma)|M. Minucius Audens]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. Nova Britannia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Gaius Popillius Laenas (Nova Roma)|C. Popillius Laenas]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. America Austrorientalis<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Tiberius Galerius Paulinus (Nova Roma)|Ti. Galerius Paulinus]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Pompeia Minucia Strabo (Nova Roma)|Po. Minucia Strabo]] ''senatrix consularis''<br /> |P. Canada Orientalis<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Quintus Fabius Maximus (Nova Roma)|Q. Fabius Maximus]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. California<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Franciscus Apulus Caesar (Nova Roma)|Fr. Apulus Caesar]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |Italia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|K. Fabius Buteo Modianus]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. Lacus Magni<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Praetorii'''''<br /> |[[Marcus Arminius Maior (Nova Roma)|M. Arminius Maior]] ''senator praetorius''<br /> |P. Brasilia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Iulius Perusianus (Nova Roma)|M. Iulius Perusianus]] ''senator praetorius''<br /> |Italia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus (Nova Roma)|T. Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus]] ''senator praetorius''<br /> |P. Thule<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Gaius Equitius Cato (Nova Roma)|C. Equitius Cato]] ''senator praetorius''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Aula Tullia Scholastica (Nova Roma)|A. Tullia Scholastica]] ''senatrix praetoria''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Aedilicii'''''<br /> |[[Emilia Curia Finnica (Nova Roma)|Em. Curia Finnica]] ''senatrix aedilicia''<br /> |P. Thule<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Titus Iulius Sabinus (Nova Roma)|T. Iulius Sabinus]] ''senator aedilicius''<br /> |P. Dacia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Gaius Curius Saturninus (Nova Roma)|C. Curius Saturninus]] ''senator aedilicius''<br /> |P. Thule<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Tribunicii'''''<br /> |[[Marcus Bianchius Antonius (Nova Roma)|M. Bianchius Antonius]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Lacus Magni<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Julilla Sempronia Magna (Nova Roma)|Iul. Sempronia Magna]] ''senatrix tribunicia''<br /> |P. America Boreoccidentalis<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus (Nova Roma)|M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Lacus Magni<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Quintus Suetonius Paulinus (Nova Roma)|Q. Suetonius Paulinus]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Canada Occidentalis<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Publius Memmius Albucius (Nova Roma)|P. Memmius Albucius]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Gallia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marca Hortensia Maior (Nova Roma)|M. Hortensia Maior]] ''senatrix tribunicia''<br /> |P. America Austrorientalis<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Curiatius Complutensis (Nova Roma)|M. Curiatius Complutensis]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Hispania<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Flavius Galerius Aurelianus (Nova Roma)|Fl. Galerius Aurelianus]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. America Austrorientalis<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Quaestorii'''''<br /> |[[Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia (Nova Roma)|Arn. Moravia Aurelia]] ''senatrix quaestoria''<br /> |P. America Austroccidentalis<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Privati senatores'''''<br /> |[[Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato (Nova Roma)|Ap. Tullius Marcellus Cato]] ''senator''<br /> |P. Canada Orientalis<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Iulius Severus (Nova Roma)|M. Iulius Severus]] ''senator''<br /> |P. Mexico<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Lucretius Agricola (Nova Roma)|M. Lucretius Agricola]] ''senator''<br /> |P. Asia Ulterior<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=3 |The '''current magistrates''' with the '''''ius sententiae''''' are:<br /> <br /> |-<br /> |[[Censor (Nova Roma)|'''''Censores''''']]<br /> |[[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|K. Fabius Buteo Modianus]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. Lacus Magni<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Tiberius Galerius Paulinus (Nova Roma)|Ti. Galerius Paulinus]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |[[Consul (Nova Roma)|'''''Consules''''']]<br /> |[[Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus (Nova Roma)|M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Lacus Magni<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Titus Iulius Sabinus (Nova Roma)|T. Iulius Sabinus]] ''senator aedilicius''<br /> |P. Dacia<br /> |-<br /> |[[Praetor (Nova Roma)|'''''Praetores''''']]<br /> |[[Marcus Curiatius Complutensis (Nova Roma)|M. Curiatius Complutensis]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Hispania<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Iulius Severus (Nova Roma)|M. Iulius Severus]] ''senator''<br /> |P. Mexico<br /> |-<br /> |[[Tribunus Plebis (Nova Roma)|'''''Tribuni Plebis''''']]<br /> |[[Titus Flavius Aquila (Nova Roma)|T. Flavius Aquila]]<br /> |P. Germania<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Lucia Livia Plauta (Nova Roma)|L. Livia Plauta]]<br /> |P. Pannonia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Quintus Arrius Nauta (Nova Roma)|Q. Arrius Nauta ]]<br /> |P. Pannonia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Quintus Valerius Callidus (Nova Roma)|Q. Valerius Callidus]]<br /> |P. Nova Britannia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Quintus Iulius Probus (Nova Roma)|Q. Iulius Probus]]<br /> |P. Dacia<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Senate (Nova Roma)]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Template:Table_Pontifices 2008-03-02T21:36:42Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: Removed MCJ.</p> <hr /> <div>{{CitizenBox | n=Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur | id=9 |text=Pontifex}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Quintus Fabius Maximus | id=10 |text=Pontifex}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus | id=4006 | text=Pontifex}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus | id=4031 |text=Pontifex}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus | id=432 | text=Pontifex}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Flavius Galerius Aurelianus | id=2994 |text=Pontifex}}<br /> <br /> &lt;br style=&quot;clear:both&quot;/&gt;</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Caeso_Fabius_Buteo_Modianus_(Nova_Roma) 2008-03-02T07:31:06Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: </p> <hr /> <div>{{BioHeader|name=Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus|id=4006}}<br /> <br /> <br /> Originally Gaius Modius Athanasius, '''Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus''' became a citizen of Nova Roma {{May 26}} {{2002}}. He has since served as [[Tribunus Plebis (Nova Roma)|Tribunus Plebis]], and is currently [[Censor (Nova Roma)|Censor]] of Nova Roma, and [[Governor (Nova Roma)|Governor]] of the provincia Lacus Magni, as well as a [[Pontifex (Nova Roma)|Pontifex]], [[Augur (Nova Roma)|Augur]], and [[Flamen (Nova Roma)|Flamen Pomonalis.]]<br /> <br /> <br /> == Essays ==<br /> <br /> *[[In Defense of Women Pontifices (Nova Roma)|In Defense of Women Pontifices]].<br /> <br /> <br /> ==[[Cursus Honorum (Nova Roma)|''Cursus Honorum'']]==<br /> <br /> * [[Censor (Nova Roma)|Censor]]<br /> :{{2007}}<br /> * [[Consul (Nova Roma)|Consul]]<br /> :{{2006}}. ''vide'' [[Officina Consulis Maioris MMDCCLIX]]<br /> * [[Senator (Nova Roma)|Senator]]<br /> :from {{2005}}<br /> * [[Proconsul (Nova Roma)|Proconsul]] of [[Lacus Magni (Nova Roma)|Lacus Magni]]<br /> :{{2008}}<br /> :{{2007}}<br /> :{{2006}}<br /> * [[:Category:Governors (Nova Roma)|Propraetor]] of [[Lacus Magni (Nova Roma)|Lacus Magni]]<br /> :{{2005}}<br /> * [[Tribunus Plebis (Nova Roma)|Tribunus Plebis]]<br /> :{{2004}}<br /> * [[Pontifex (Nova Roma)|Pontifex]]<br /> :from {{2004}}<br /> * [[Augur (Nova Roma)|Augur]]<br /> :from {{2004}}<br /> <br /> ==Other Posts==<br /> <br /> * [[Flamen Pomonalis (Nova Roma)|Flamen Pomonalis]]<br /> :from {{2002}}<br /> * [[Comitia Curiata (Nova Roma)|Lictor Curiatus]]<br /> :from {{2004}}<br /> * [[Accensus (Nova Roma)|Accensus]]<br /> :{{2008}}<br /> :{{2005}}<br /> * [[Scriba (Nova Roma)|Scriba]]<br /> :{{2005}}<br /> :{{2004}}<br /> :{{2003}}<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category: Pontifices (Nova Roma)|Fabius Buteo Modianus, C.]]<br /> [[Category: Augures (Nova Roma)|Fabius Buteo Modianus, C.]]<br /> [[Category: Senators (Nova Roma)|Fabius Buteo Modianus, C.]]<br /> [[Category: Magistrates (Nova Roma)|Fabius Buteo Modianus, C.]]<br /> [[Category: Flamines (Nova Roma)|Fabius Buteo Modianus, C.]]<br /> [[Category: Governors (Nova Roma)|Fabius Buteo Modianus, C.]]<br /> [[Category: Gens Fabia (Nova Roma)|Buteo Modianus, C. Fabius]]<br /> [[Category: Tribus Cornelia (Nova Roma)|Fabius Buteo Modianus, C.]]<br /> [[Category:Provincia Lacus Magni (Nova Roma)|Fabius Buteo Modianus, C.]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Category:Senators_(Nova_Roma) 2008-02-20T10:38:29Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: </p> <hr /> <div>{{CategoryLanguageBar|Senators (Nova Roma)}}<br /> <br /> A ''senator'' is a member of the [[Senate (Nova Roma)|Senate]] of [[Nova Roma]].<br /> <br /> ''Senatores'' are appointed by the [[Censor (Nova Roma)|''Censores'']]. The list of ''senatores'' is regularly revised by the ''censores'', but ''senatores'' are only removed if they bring the Senate into disrepute.<br /> <br /> A person who has held a [[Magistracies (Nova Roma)|higher magistracy]] will normally become a ''senator''. Present and former holders of higher magistracies are not necessarily ''senatores'' but have the right to participate in meetings of the Senate (the ''ius sententiae'') by virtue of their office.<br /> <br /> This Category page lists all persons who are, or have been, ''senatores'' of [[Nova Roma]]. Some of them are no longer citizens, or in some cases are citizens but are no longer ''senatores''.<br /> <br /> <br /> The '''current ''senatores''''' and former magistrates with the '''''ius sententiae''''' are, in order of senatorial rank:<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |'''''Princeps senatus'''''<br /> |[[Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus (Nova Roma)|K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Thule<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Dictatorii'''''<br /> |[[Flavius Vedius Germanicus (Nova Roma)|Fl. Vedius Germanicus]] ''senator dictatorius''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Censorii'''''<br /> |[[Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus (Nova Roma)|K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Thule<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Gnaeus Equitius Marinus (Nova Roma)|Cn. Equitius Marinus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus (Nova Roma)|L. Equitius Cincinnatus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Cassius Iulianus (Nova Roma)|M. Cassius Iulianus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Nova Britannia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus (Nova Roma)|Dec. Iunius Palladius Invictus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Nova Britannia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Gaius Flavius Diocletianus (Nova Roma)|C. Flavius Diocletianus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Germania<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Gaius Marius Merullus (Nova Roma)|C. Marius Merullus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Nova Britannia<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Consulares'''''<br /> |[[Marcus Minucius Audens (Nova Roma)|M. Minucius Audens]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. Nova Britannia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Gaius Popillius Laenas (Nova Roma)|C. Popillius Laenas]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. America Austrorientalis<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Tiberius Galerius Paulinus (Nova Roma)|Ti. Galerius Paulinus]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Pompeia Minucia Strabo (Nova Roma)|Po. Minucia Strabo]] ''senatrix consularis''<br /> |P. Canada Orientalis<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Quintus Fabius Maximus (Nova Roma)|Q. Fabius Maximus]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. California<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Franciscus Apulus Caesar (Nova Roma)|Fr. Apulus Caesar]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |Italia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|K. Fabius Buteo Modianus]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. Lacus Magni<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Praetorii'''''<br /> |[[Patricia Cassia (Nova Roma)|Pa. Cassia]] ''senatrix praetoria''<br /> |P. Nova Britannia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Arminius Maior (Nova Roma)|M. Arminius Maior]] ''senator praetorius''<br /> |P. Brasilia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Iulius Perusianus (Nova Roma)|M. Iulius Perusianus]] ''senator praetorius''<br /> |Italia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus (Nova Roma)|T. Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus]] ''senator praetorius''<br /> |P. Thule<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Gaius Equitius Cato (Nova Roma)|C. Equitius Cato]] ''senator praetorius''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Aula Tullia Scholastica (Nova Roma)|A. Tullia Scholastica]] ''senatrix praetoria''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Aedilicii'''''<br /> |[[Emilia Curia Finnica (Nova Roma)|Em. Curia Finnica]] ''senatrix aedilicia''<br /> |P. Thule<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Titus Iulius Sabinus (Nova Roma)|T. Iulius Sabinus]] ''senator aedilicius''<br /> |P. Dacia<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Tribunicii'''''<br /> |[[Marcus Bianchius Antonius (Nova Roma)|M. Bianchius Antonius]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Lacus Magni<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Julilla Sempronia Magna (Nova Roma)|Iul. Sempronia Magna]] ''senatrix tribunicia''<br /> |P. America Boreoccidentalis<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Gaius Curius Saturninus (Nova Roma)|C. Curius Saturninus]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Thule<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus (Nova Roma)|M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Lacus Magni<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Quintus Suetonius Paulinus (Nova Roma)|Q. Suetonius Paulinus]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Canada Occidentalis<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Publius Memmius Albucius (Nova Roma)|P. Memmius Albucius]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Gallia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marca Hortensia Maior (Nova Roma)|M. Hortensia Maior]] ''senatrix tribunicia''<br /> |P. America Austrorientalis<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Curiatius Complutensis (Nova Roma)|M. Curiatius Complutensis]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Hispania<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Flavius Galerius Aurelianus (Nova Roma)|Fl. Galerius Aurelianus]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. America Austrorientalis<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Quaestorii'''''<br /> |[[Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia (Nova Roma)|Arn. Moravia Aurelia]] ''senatrix quaestoria''<br /> |P. America Austroccidentalis<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Privati senatores'''''<br /> |[[Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato (Nova Roma)|Ap. Tullius Marcellus Cato]] ''senator''<br /> |P. Canada Orientalis<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Iulius Severus (Nova Roma)|M. Iulius Severus]] ''senator''<br /> |P. Mexico<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Lucretius Agricola (Nova Roma)|M. Lucretius Agricola]] ''senator''<br /> |P. Asia Ulterior<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=3 |The '''current magistrates''' with the '''''ius sententiae''''' are:<br /> <br /> |-<br /> |[[Censor (Nova Roma)|'''''Censores''''']]<br /> |[[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|K. Fabius Buteo Modianus]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. Lacus Magni<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Tiberius Galerius Paulinus (Nova Roma)|Ti. Galerius Paulinus]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |[[Consul (Nova Roma)|'''''Consules''''']]<br /> |[[Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus (Nova Roma)|M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Lacus Magni<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Titus Iulius Sabinus (Nova Roma)|T. Iulius Sabinus]] ''senator aedilicius''<br /> |P. Dacia<br /> |-<br /> |[[Praetor (Nova Roma)|'''''Praetores''''']]<br /> |[[Marcus Curiatius Complutensis (Nova Roma)|M. Curiatius Complutensis]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Hispania<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Iulius Severus (Nova Roma)|M. Iulius Severus]] ''senator''<br /> |P. Mexico<br /> |-<br /> |[[Tribunus Plebis (Nova Roma)|'''''Tribuni Plebis''''']]<br /> |[[Titus Flavius Aquila (Nova Roma)|T. Flavius Aquila]]<br /> |P. Germania<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Lucia Livia Plauta (Nova Roma)|L. Livia Plauta]]<br /> |P. Pannonia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Quintus Arrius Nauta (Nova Roma)|Q. Arrius Nauta ]]<br /> |P. Pannonia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Quintus Valerius Callidus (Nova Roma)|Q. Valerius Callidus]]<br /> |P. Nova Britannia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Quintus Iulius Probus (Nova Roma)|Q. Iulius Probus]]<br /> |P. Dacia<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Senate (Nova Roma)]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Category:Senators_(Nova_Roma) 2008-02-15T23:37:20Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: Removed Astur.</p> <hr /> <div>{{CategoryLanguageBar|Senators (Nova Roma)}}<br /> <br /> A ''senator'' is a member of the [[Senate (Nova Roma)|Senate]] of [[Nova Roma]].<br /> <br /> ''Senatores'' are appointed by the [[Censor (Nova Roma)|''Censores'']]. The list of ''senatores'' is regularly revised by the ''censores'', but ''senatores'' are only removed if they bring the Senate into disrepute.<br /> <br /> A person who has held a [[Magistracies (Nova Roma)|higher magistracy]] will normally become a ''senator''. Present and former holders of higher magistracies are not necessarily ''senatores'' but have the right to participate in meetings of the Senate (the ''ius sententiae'') by virtue of their office.<br /> <br /> This Category page lists all persons who are, or have been, ''senatores'' of [[Nova Roma]]. Some of them are no longer citizens, or in some cases are citizens but are no longer ''senatores''.<br /> <br /> <br /> The '''current ''senatores''''' and former magistrates with the '''''ius sententiae''''' are, in order of senatorial rank:<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |'''''Princeps senatus'''''<br /> |[[Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus (Nova Roma)|K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Thule<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Dictatorii'''''<br /> |[[Flavius Vedius Germanicus (Nova Roma)|Fl. Vedius Germanicus]] ''senator dictatorius''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Censorii'''''<br /> |[[Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus (Nova Roma)|K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Thule<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Gnaeus Equitius Marinus (Nova Roma)|Cn. Equitius Marinus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus (Nova Roma)|L. Equitius Cincinnatus Augur]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Cassius Iulianus (Nova Roma)|M. Cassius Iulianus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Nova Britannia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus (Nova Roma)|Dec. Iunius Palladius Invictus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Nova Britannia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Gaius Flavius Diocletianus (Nova Roma)|C. Flavius Diocletianus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Germania<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Gaius Marius Merullus (Nova Roma)|C. Marius Merullus]] ''senator censorius''<br /> |P. Nova Britannia<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Consulares'''''<br /> |[[Marcus Minucius Audens (Nova Roma)|M. Minucius Audens]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. Nova Britannia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Gaius Popillius Laenas (Nova Roma)|C. Popillius Laenas]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. America Austrorientalis<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Tiberius Galerius Paulinus (Nova Roma)|Ti. Galerius Paulinus]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Pompeia Minucia Strabo (Nova Roma)|Po. Minucia Strabo]] ''senatrix consularis''<br /> |P. Canada Orientalis<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Quintus Fabius Maximus (Nova Roma)|Q. Fabius Maximus]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. California<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Franciscus Apulus Caesar (Nova Roma)|Fr. Apulus Caesar]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |Italia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|K. Fabius Buteo Modianus]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. Lacus Magni<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Praetorii'''''<br /> |[[Patricia Cassia (Nova Roma)|Pa. Cassia]] ''senatrix praetoria''<br /> |P. Nova Britannia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Arminius Maior (Nova Roma)|M. Arminius Maior]] ''senator praetorius''<br /> |P. Brasilia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Iulius Perusianus (Nova Roma)|M. Iulius Perusianus]] ''senator praetorius''<br /> |Italia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus (Nova Roma)|T. Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus]] ''senator praetorius''<br /> |P. Thule<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Gaius Equitius Cato (Nova Roma)|C. Equitius Cato]] ''senator praetorius''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Aula Tullia Scholastica (Nova Roma)|A. Tullia Scholastica]] ''senatrix praetoria''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Aedilicii'''''<br /> |[[Emilia Curia Finnica (Nova Roma)|Em. Curia Finnica]] ''senatrix aedilicia''<br /> |P. Thule<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Titus Iulius Sabinus (Nova Roma)|T. Iulius Sabinus]] ''senator aedilicius''<br /> |P. Dacia<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Tribunicii'''''<br /> |[[Marcus Bianchius Antonius (Nova Roma)|M. Bianchius Antonius]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Lacus Magni<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Julilla Sempronia Magna (Nova Roma)|Iul. Sempronia Magna]] ''senatrix tribunicia''<br /> |P. America Boreoccidentalis<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Gaius Curius Saturninus (Nova Roma)|C. Curius Saturninus]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Thule<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus (Nova Roma)|M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Lacus Magni<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Quintus Suetonius Paulinus (Nova Roma)|Q. Suetonius Paulinus]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Canada Occidentalis<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Publius Memmius Albucius (Nova Roma)|P. Memmius Albucius]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Gallia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marca Hortensia Maior (Nova Roma)|M. Hortensia Maior]] ''senatrix tribunicia''<br /> |P. America Austrorientalis<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Curiatius Complutensis (Nova Roma)|M. Curiatius Complutensis]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Hispania<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Flavius Galerius Aurelianus (Nova Roma)|Fl. Galerius Aurelianus]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. America Austrorientalis<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Quaestorii'''''<br /> |[[Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia (Nova Roma)|Arn. Moravia Aurelia]] ''senatrix quaestoria''<br /> |P. America Austroccidentalis<br /> |-<br /> |'''''Privati senatores'''''<br /> |[[Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato (Nova Roma)|Ap. Tullius Marcellus Cato]] ''senator''<br /> |P. Canada Orientalis<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Iulius Severus (Nova Roma)|M. Iulius Severus]] ''senator''<br /> |P. Mexico<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Lucretius Agricola (Nova Roma)|M. Lucretius Agricola]] ''senator''<br /> |P. Asia Ulterior<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=3 |The '''current magistrates''' with the '''''ius sententiae''''' are:<br /> <br /> |-<br /> |[[Censor (Nova Roma)|'''''Censores''''']]<br /> |[[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|K. Fabius Buteo Modianus]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. Lacus Magni<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Tiberius Galerius Paulinus (Nova Roma)|Ti. Galerius Paulinus]] ''senator consularis''<br /> |P. Mediatlantica<br /> |-<br /> |[[Consul (Nova Roma)|'''''Consules''''']]<br /> |[[Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus (Nova Roma)|M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Lacus Magni<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Titus Iulius Sabinus (Nova Roma)|T. Iulius Sabinus]] ''senator aedilicius''<br /> |P. Dacia<br /> |-<br /> |[[Praetor (Nova Roma)|'''''Praetores''''']]<br /> |[[Marcus Curiatius Complutensis (Nova Roma)|M. Curiatius Complutensis]] ''senator tribunicius''<br /> |P. Hispania<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Marcus Iulius Severus (Nova Roma)|M. Iulius Severus]] ''senator''<br /> |P. Mexico<br /> |-<br /> |[[Tribunus Plebis (Nova Roma)|'''''Tribuni Plebis''''']]<br /> |[[Titus Flavius Aquila (Nova Roma)|T. Flavius Aquila]]<br /> |P. Germania<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Lucia Livia Plauta (Nova Roma)|L. Livia Plauta]]<br /> |P. Pannonia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Quintus Arrius Nauta (Nova Roma)|Q. Arrius Nauta ]]<br /> |P. Pannonia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Quintus Valerius Callidus (Nova Roma)|Q. Valerius Callidus]]<br /> |P. Nova Britannia<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |[[Quintus Iulius Probus (Nova Roma)|Q. Iulius Probus]]<br /> |P. Dacia<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Senate (Nova Roma)]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Template:Table_Pontifices 2008-02-15T23:35:57Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: Removed Astur as a pontifex.</p> <hr /> <div>{{CitizenBox | n=Marcus Cassius Iulianus | id=5 | text=[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Pontifex Maximus (Nova Roma)|Pontifex Maximus]] }}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur | id=9 |text=Pontifex}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Quintus Fabius Maximus | id=10 |text=Pontifex}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus | id=4006 | text=Pontifex}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus | id=4031 |text=Pontifex}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus | id=432 | text=Pontifex}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Flavius Galerius Aurelianus | id=2994 |text=Pontifex}}<br /> <br /> &lt;br style=&quot;clear:both&quot;/&gt;</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Gaius_Iulius_Scaurus_(Nova_Roma) 2008-01-30T10:10:08Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: Changed from &quot;is a&quot; to &quot;was a&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{BioHeader|name=Gaius Iulius Scaurus|id=}}'''Gaius Iulius Scaurus''' was a [[pontifex (Nova Roma)|pontifex]], [[Flamen (Nova Roma)|Flamen Quirinalis]], and pullarius of [[Nova Roma]].<br /> <br /> Scaurus became a citizen of Nova Roma {{Mar 22}} {{2003}} and resigned his offices and citizenship {{Jan 30}} {{2008}}. [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligioRomana/message/9785]<br /> <br /> ==[[Cursus Honorum (Nova Roma)|''Cursus Honorum'']]==<br /> <br /> * [[Aedilis Curulis (Nova Roma)|Aedilis Curulis]]<br /> :{{2004}}<br /> * [[Quaestor (Nova Roma)|''Quaestor'']]<br /> :{{2007}}<br /> * [[Flamen Quirinalis (Nova Roma)|Flamen Quirinalis]]<br /> :from {{2003}}<br /> :to {{2007}}<br /> * [[Pontifex (Nova Roma)|Pontifex]]<br /> :from {{2003}}<br /> :to {{2008}}<br /> <br /> ==Other Posts==<br /> <br /> * [[Pullarius (Nova Roma)|Pullarius]]<br /> :from {{2003}}<br /> :to {{2008}}<br /> * [[Comitia Curiata (Nova Roma)|Lictor Curiatus]]<br /> :from {{2004}}<br /> :to {{2008}}<br /> * [[Accensus (Nova Roma)|Accensus]]<br /> :{{2004}}<br /> * [[Scriba (Nova Roma)|Scriba]]<br /> :{{2003}}<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category: Pontifices (Nova Roma)|Iulius Scaurus, C.]]<br /> [[Category: Flamines (Nova Roma)|Iulius Scaurus, C.]]<br /> [[Category: Magistrates (Nova Roma)|Iulius Scaurus, C.]]<br /> [[Category: Gens Iulia (Nova Roma)|Scaurus, C. Iulius]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/MMDCCLXI 2008-01-29T23:14:32Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* Ianuarius */</p> <hr /> <div>{{:Magistrates MMDCCLXI}}<br /> <br /> These are the current [[:Category:Magistrates (Nova Roma)|magistrates]], chosen by [[Election MMDCCLX (Nova Roma)|Election MMDCCLX]], [[Election MMDCCLX alter (Nova Roma)|Election MMDCCLX alter]] and [[Senate voting results December MMDCCLX|the Senate]].<br /> <br /> For the calendar for this year, see [[Fasti MMDCCLXI]].<br /> <br /> ==Magisterial pages==<br /> <br /> * [[Officina Consulum MMDCCLXI]] Joint office of the Consuls.<br /> * [[Officina Praetoris MMDCCLXI‎]] Office of the Praetors.<br /> * [[Aedilitas curulis MMDCCLXI]] Office of the Curule Aediles.<br /> <br /> ==Res Gestae==<br /> <br /> ===Ianuarius===<br /> * Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus issues [[Edictum II censoris de censu anni MMDCCLX]].<br /> * Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus reports on the [[Inaugural auspicium for MMDCCLXI]].<br /> * New magistrates take the [[Oath of office (Nova Roma)|Oath of office]].<br /> * Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus performs the annual [[Consular Sacrificial Ceremony (Nova Roma)|Consular Sacrificial Ceremony]]<br /> * Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus performs the [[Annua Sacra (Nova Roma)|Annua Sacra]], opening the [[Senate (Nova Roma)|Senate]].<br /> * Titus Iulius Sabinus assigned quaestores to magistrates.<br /> * Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus called the [[Senate (Nova Roma)|Senate]] into [[Senate Vote Januarius MMDCCLXI (Nova Roma)|session]].<br /> * [[Officina Consulum MMDCCLXI |Consules]] issues [[Officina_Consulum_MMDCCLXI#Edictum_consulare_IV:De_Feeris_Sementinis | Edictum consulare de Feriis Sementis]].<br /> * Gaius Iulius Scaurus resigns as pontifex, pullarius, and as a citizen.<br /> <br /> ===Februarius===<br /> <br /> ===Martius===<br /> <br /> ===Aprilis===<br /> <br /> ===Maius===<br /> <br /> ===Iunius===<br /> <br /> ===Quinctilis===<br /> <br /> ===Sextilis===<br /> <br /> ===September===<br /> <br /> ===October===<br /> <br /> ====Reports of provincial governors====<br /> <br /> ===November===<br /> <br /> ===December===<br /> <br /> [[Category:MMDCCLXI]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Template:TableOfLictoresCuriati 2008-01-29T23:12:54Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: </p> <hr /> <div>{{CitizenBox | n=Marcus Cassius Iulianus |img=Marcus Cassius Julianus | id=5 | text=[[Pontifex Maximus (Nova Roma)|Pontifex Maximus]], [[Lictor (Nova Roma)|Lictor]] |float=right}}<br /> &lt;br style=&quot;clear:both&quot;&gt;<br /> <br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix |img=Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix | id=8 |text=Lictor}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Marcus Cornelius Felix | img=Marcus Cornelius Felix | id=290 |text=Lictor}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Lucius Fabius Metellus | img=no photo| id=312 |text=Lictor}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus | img=Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus | id=17 |text=Lictor}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Titus Labienus Fortunatus | img=Titus Labienus Fortunatus | id=151 |text=Lictor}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Marcus Martianus Gangalius | img=Marcus Martianus Gangalius | id=173 |text=Lictor}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Marcus Minucius Audens | img=Marcus Minucius Audens | id=20 |text=Lictor}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Stephanus Ullerius Venator Piperbarbus | img=Stephanus Ullerius Venator Piperbarbus| id=252 |text=Lictor}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Marcus Arminius Maior | img=Marcus Arminius Maior | id=53 |text=Lictor}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Patricia Cassia | img=Patricia Cassia | id=282 |text=Lictrix}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur | img=Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur | id=9 |text=Lictor}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Caius Flavius Diocletianus | img=Caius Flavius Diocletianus| id=317 |text=Lictor}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Helena Galeria Aureliana | img=Helena Galeria Aureliana | id=1165 |text=Lictrix}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Gaius Geminius Germanus | img=no photo| id=1777 |text=Lictor}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Gaius Popillius Laenas | img=Gaius Popillius Laenas | id=1781 |text=Lictor}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Gnaeus Salvius Astur | img=Gnaeus Salvius Astur | id=2060 |text=Lictor}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Gnaeus Equitius Marinus | img=Gnaeus Equitius Marinus | id=2356 |text=Lictor}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus | img=Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus | id=4006 | text=Lictor}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Quintus Servilius Priscus | img=Quintus Servilius Priscus | id=2369 |text=Lictor}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Marcus Bianchius Antonius | img=Marcus Bianchius Antonius | id=69 |text=Lictor}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Franciscus Apulus Caesar | img=Franciscus Apulus Caesar | id=49 |text=Lictor}}</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Template:Table_Pontifices 2008-01-29T23:10:43Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: Added Piscinus &amp; Aurelianus</p> <hr /> <div>{{CitizenBox | n=Marcus Cassius Iulianus | id=5 | text=[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Pontifex Maximus (Nova Roma)|Pontifex Maximus]] }}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur | id=9 |text=Pontifex}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Quintus Fabius Maximus | id=10 |text=Pontifex}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus | id=4006 | text=Pontifex}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Gnaeus Salvius Astur | id=2060 |text=Pontifex}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus | id=4031 |text=Pontifex}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus | id=432 | text=Pontifex}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Flavius Galerius Aurelianus | id=2994 |text=Pontifex}}<br /> <br /> &lt;br style=&quot;clear:both&quot;/&gt;</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Template:Table_Pontifices 2008-01-29T23:07:45Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: Removal of Gaius Iulius Scaurus</p> <hr /> <div>{{CitizenBox | n=Marcus Cassius Iulianus | id=5 | text=[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Pontifex Maximus (Nova Roma)|Pontifex Maximus]] }}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur | id=9 |text=Pontifex}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Quintus Fabius Maximus | id=10 |text=Pontifex}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus | id=4006 | text=Pontifex}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Gnaeus Salvius Astur | id=2060 |text=Pontifex}}<br /> {{CitizenBox | n=Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus | id=4031 |text=Pontifex}}<br /> <br /> &lt;br style=&quot;clear:both&quot;/&gt;</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Gaius_Iulius_Scaurus_(Nova_Roma) 2008-01-04T13:07:39Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* ''Cursus Honorum'' */</p> <hr /> <div>'''Gaius Iulius Scaurus''' is a [[pontifex (Nova Roma)|pontifex]], [[Flamen (Nova Roma)|Flamen Quirinalis]], and pullarius of [[Nova Roma]].<br /> <br /> Scaurus became a citizen of Nova Roma {{Mar 22}} {{2003}}.<br /> <br /> ==[[Cursus Honorum (Nova Roma)|''Cursus Honorum'']]==<br /> <br /> * [[Aedilis Curulis (Nova Roma)|Aedilis Curulis]]<br /> :{{2004}}<br /> * [[Quaestor (Nova Roma)|''Quaestor'']]<br /> :{{2007}}<br /> * [[Flamen Quirinalis (Nova Roma)|Flamen Quirinalis]]<br /> :from {{2003}}<br /> :to {{2007}}<br /> * [[Pontifex (Nova Roma)|Pontifex]]<br /> :from {{2003}}<br /> <br /> ==Other Posts==<br /> <br /> * [[Pullarius (Nova Roma)|Pullarius]]<br /> :from {{2003}}<br /> * [[Comitia Curiata (Nova Roma)|Lictor Curiatus]]<br /> :from {{2004}}<br /> * [[Accensus (Nova Roma)|Accensus]]<br /> :{{2004}}<br /> * [[Scriba (Nova Roma)|Scriba]]<br /> :{{2003}}<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category: Pontifices (Nova Roma)|Iulius Scaurus, C.]]<br /> [[Category: Flamines (Nova Roma)|Iulius Scaurus, C.]]<br /> [[Category: Magistrates (Nova Roma)|Iulius Scaurus, C.]]<br /> [[Category: Gens Iulia (Nova Roma)|Scaurus, C. Iulius]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Collegium_Pontificum_voting_results_of_12_December_MMDCCLX_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T16:08:43Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: </p> <hr /> <div>'''QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO QUIRITIBVS'''<br /> <br /> The Collegium Pontificum having met in order to vote on priesthood applications and membership in the Comitia Curiata, the decision was as follows:<br /> <br /> Application of senatrix [[Marca Hortensia Maior (Nova Roma)|Marca Hortensia Maior]] for the position of Sacerdos Mentis.<br /> *'''Rejected.''' [2 Uti Rogas, 4 Antiquo, &amp; 1 Abstention]<br /> <br /> Application of [[Titus Arminius Genialis (Nova Roma)|Titus Arminius Genialis]] for the position of Flamen Furrinalis.<br /> *'''Rejected.''' [2 Uti Rogas, &amp; 5 Antiquo]<br /> <br /> Application of senator [[Flavius Galerius Aurelianus (Nova Roma)|Flavius Galerius Aurelianus]] for the position of Pontifex.<br /> *'''Approved.''' [7 Uti Rogas]<br /> <br /> Application of senator [[Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus (Nova Roma)|Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus]] for the position of Pontifex.<br /> *'''Approved.''' [6 Uti Rogas &amp; 1 Antiquo]<br /> <br /> The following members of the Comitia curiata were placed before the Collegium Pontificum for removal:<br /> <br /> *[[Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (Nova Roma)|Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix]] (inactive).<br /> *[[Lucius Fabius Metellus (Nova Roma)|Lucius Fabius Metellus]] (capite censi).<br /> *[[Titus Labienus Fortunatus (Nova Roma)|Titus Labienus Fortunatus]] (capite censi).<br /> *[[Gaius Geminius Germanus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Geminius Germanus]] (capite censi).<br /> *[[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] (unsubscribed from the comitia curiata e-mail list).<br /> <br /> *'''All retained.''' [4 to retain &amp; 3 to remove]<br /> <br /> The Collegium Pontificum was convened on 9 December by Pontifex [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]] and voting was declared ended on 12 December after all the pontifices had voted.<br /> <br /> prid. Id. Dec. {{2007}}</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Collegium_Pontificum_voting_results_of_12_December_MMDCCLX_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T16:08:07Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: </p> <hr /> <div>'''QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO QUIRITIBVS'''<br /> <br /> '''The Collegium Pontificum having met in order to vote on priesthood applications and membership in the Comitia Curiata, the decision was as follows:'''<br /> <br /> Application of senatrix [[Marca Hortensia Maior (Nova Roma)|Marca Hortensia Maior]] for the position of Sacerdos Mentis.<br /> *'''Rejected.''' [2 Uti Rogas, 4 Antiquo, &amp; 1 Abstention]<br /> <br /> Application of [[Titus Arminius Genialis (Nova Roma)|Titus Arminius Genialis]] for the position of Flamen Furrinalis.<br /> *'''Rejected.''' [2 Uti Rogas, &amp; 5 Antiquo]<br /> <br /> Application of senator [[Flavius Galerius Aurelianus (Nova Roma)|Flavius Galerius Aurelianus]] for the position of Pontifex.<br /> *'''Approved.''' [7 Uti Rogas]<br /> <br /> Application of senator [[Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus (Nova Roma)|Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus]] for the position of Pontifex.<br /> *'''Approved.''' [6 Uti Rogas &amp; 1 Antiquo]<br /> <br /> '''The following members of the Comitia curiata were placed before the Collegium Pontificum for removal:'''<br /> <br /> *[[Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (Nova Roma)|Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix]] (inactive).<br /> *[[Lucius Fabius Metellus (Nova Roma)|Lucius Fabius Metellus]] (capite censi).<br /> *[[Titus Labienus Fortunatus (Nova Roma)|Titus Labienus Fortunatus]] (capite censi).<br /> *[[Gaius Geminius Germanus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Geminius Germanus]] (capite censi).<br /> *[[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] (unsubscribed from the comitia curiata e-mail list).<br /> <br /> *'''All retained.''' [4 to retain &amp; 3 to remove]<br /> <br /> '''The Collegium Pontificum was convened on 9 December by Pontifex [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]] and voting was declared ended on 12 December after all the pontifices had voted.'''<br /> <br /> prid. Id. Dec. {{2007}}</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Collegium_Pontificum_voting_results_of_12_December_MMDCCLX_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T16:05:53Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: </p> <hr /> <div>QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO QUIRITIBVS<br /> <br /> The Collegium Pontificum having met in order to vote on priesthood applications and membership in the Comitia Curiata, the decision was as follows:<br /> <br /> Application of senatrix [[Marca Hortensia Maior (Nova Roma)|Marca Hortensia Maior]] for the position of Sacerdos Mentis.<br /> '''Rejected.''' [2 Uti Rogas, 4 Antiquo, &amp; 1 Abstention]<br /> <br /> Application of [[Titus Arminius Genialis (Nova Roma)|Titus Arminius Genialis]] for the position of Flamen Furrinalis.<br /> '''Rejected.''' [2 Uti Rogas, &amp; 5 Antiquo]<br /> <br /> Application of senator [[Flavius Galerius Aurelianus (Nova Roma)|Flavius Galerius Aurelianus]] for the position of Pontifex.<br /> '''Approved.''' [7 Uti Rogas]<br /> <br /> Application of senator [[Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus (Nova Roma)|Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus]] for the position of Pontifex.<br /> '''Approved.''' [6 Uti Rogas &amp; 1 Antiquo]<br /> <br /> The following members of the Comitia curiata were placed before the Collegium Pontificum for removal:<br /> <br /> *[[Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (Nova Roma)|Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix]] (inactive).<br /> *[[Lucius Fabius Metellus (Nova Roma)|Lucius Fabius Metellus]] (capite censi).<br /> *[[Titus Labienus Fortunatus (Nova Roma)|Titus Labienus Fortunatus]] (capite censi).<br /> *[[Gaius Geminius Germanus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Geminius Germanus]] (capite censi).<br /> *[[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] (unsubscribed from the comitia curiata e-mail list).<br /> <br /> '''All retained.''' [4 to retain &amp; 3 to remove]<br /> <br /> The Collegium Pontificum was convened on 9 December by Pontifex [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]] and voting was declared ended on 12 December after all the pontifices had voted.<br /> <br /> prid. Id. Dec. L. Arminio Ti. Galerio cos. (MMDCCLX a.u.c.)</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/MMDCCLX 2007-12-13T16:04:44Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* December */</p> <hr /> <div>{{LanguageBar | MMDCCLX }}<br /> <br /> {{year intro |<br /> aucyear=MMDCCLX | <br /> aucbefore=MMDCCLIX |<br /> aucafter=MMDCCLXI |<br /> ceyear=2007<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{AnnalsHeader | year=MMDCCLX| year_full={{2007}} | cos1=Lucius Arminius Faustus | cos2=Tiberius Galerius Paulinus<br /> | cos1extra= | cos2extra= }}<br /> <br /> These are the current [[:Category:Magistrates (Nova Roma)|Magistrates]].<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Censors |<br /> senior= Marcus Octavius Gracchus |<br /> junior= Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Consuls |<br /> senior= Lucius Arminius Faustus |<br /> junior= Tiberius Galerius Paulinus<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Praetors |<br /> senior= Gaius Equitius Cato |<br /> junior= Aula Tullia Scholastica<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Curule Aediles |<br /> senior= Iulia Caesar Cytheris Aege|<br /> junior= Tita Artoria Marcella<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Plebeian Aediles |<br /> senior= Gaius Curius Saturninus|<br /> junior= <br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Quaestor |<br /> senior= Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus |<br /> junior= Gnaeus Equitius Marinus<br /> }}<br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Quaestor |<br /> senior= Quintus Iulius Probus |<br /> junior= <br /> }}<br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Quaestor |<br /> senior= Titus Iulius Sabinus |<br /> junior= Publius Memmius Albucius<br /> }}<br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Quaestor |<br /> senior= Sextus Lucilius Tutor |<br /> junior= Gaius Iulius Scaurus<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Tribunus Plebis |<br /> senior= Marcus Curiatius Complutensis |<br /> junior= Gaius Arminius Reccanellus<br /> }}<br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Tribunus Plebis |<br /> senior= Quintus Servilius Priscus |<br /> junior= Marcus Pontius Sejanus<br /> }}<br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Tribunus Plebis |<br /> senior= Flavius Galerius Aurelianus |<br /> junior= <br /> }}<br /> <br /> == Vigintisexvirii==<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Magister aranearius |<br /> senior= Marcus Octavius Gracchus|<br /> junior=<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Editor commentariorum |<br /> senior= Appius Galerius Aurelianus|<br /> junior=<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Rogatores |<br /> senior= Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus|<br /> junior= Quintus Suetonius Paulinus|<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Custodes |<br /> senior= Pompeia Minucia Strabo|<br /> junior= Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Diribitor |<br /> senior= Marcus Arminius Maior|<br /> junior= <br /> }}<br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Diribitor |<br /> senior= Gaius Flavius Ductoris|<br /> junior= <br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Events of MMDCCLX==<br /> <br /> For the calendar for this year, see [[Fasti MMDCCLX]].<br /> <br /> ===Ianuarius===<br /> * [[Ianus (Nova Roma)|Iani Aedis Sacerdos]], [[Lucius Cassius Cornutus (Nova Roma)|Lucius Cassius Cornutus]] performs a New Year Ritual [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligioRomana/message/9144].<br /> <br /> ===Februarius===<br /> * The newly re-elected governor of [[Provincia Hispania (Nova Roma)|Provincia Hispania]], [[Lucius Minicius Sceptius (Nova Roma)|Lucius Minicius Sceptius]], resigns as propraetor and Senator.<br /> * Senator [[Lucius Sergius Australicus (Nova Roma)|Lucius Sergius Australicus]] resigns citizenship.<br /> <br /> ===Martius===<br /> * Consul [[Lucius Arminius Faustus]] calls people to a Contio about taxes for the current year.<br /> <br /> * [[Lucius Cassius Cornutus (Nova Roma)|Lucius Cassius Cornutus]] resigns as [[Ianus (Nova Roma)|Iani Aedis Sacerdos]] and [[diribitor (Nova Roma)|diribitor]].<br /> <br /> * [[Lucia Modia Lupa (Nova Roma)|Lucia Modia Lupa]] resigns as [[Virgo Vestalis (Nova Roma)|Virgo Vestalis]].<br /> <br /> ===Aprilis===<br /> <br /> ===Maius===<br /> * Provincial Governor of Dacia [[Titus Iulius Sabinus (Nova Roma)|Titus Iulius Sabinus]] reported that [[Quaestor (Nova Roma)|Quaestor]] [[Gaius Marius Maior (Nova Roma)|Gaius Marius Maior]] passed away.<br /> <br /> ===Iunius===<br /> * [[Quintus Suetonius Paulinus (Nova Roma)|Quintus Suetonius Paulinus]] is elected as [[rogator (Nova Roma)|rogator]] to fill the vacancy left since the last general election.<br /> <br /> ===Quinctilis===<br /> <br /> ===Sextilis===<br /> <br /> ===September===<br /> <br /> ===October===<br /> *Consul Paulinus and Tribunus Plebis Complutensis issue calls for [[Election MMDCCLX (Nova Roma)|candidates for election for MMDCCLXI]].<br /> <br /> *[[Marcus Antonius Gryllus Graecus (Nova Roma)|Marcus Antonius Gryllus Graecus]] resigned as *[[pontifex (Nova Roma)|pontifex]] in an e-mail to the [[Collegium Pontificum (Nova Roma)|Collegium Pontificum]].<br /> <br /> *Censor Modianus issues [[Edictum ces. K. Fabii Buteoni Modiani de censu anni MMDCCLX]].<br /> <br /> ====Reports of provincial governors====<br /> <br /> Provincial governors issue reports to the senate.<br /> <br /> *[[America Austroccidentalis provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[America Austrorientalis provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[America Boreoccidentalis provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[America Medioccidentalis Superior provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Argentina provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Asia Occidentalis provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Asia Orientalis provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Australia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Brasilia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Britannia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[California provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Canada Occidentalis provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Canada Orientalis provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Dacia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Gallia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Germania provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Hibernia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Hispania provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Italia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Lacus Magni provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Mediatlantica provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Mexico provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Nova Britannia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Pannonia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Sarmatia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Thule provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Venedia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> <br /> ===November===<br /> * [[Titus Pontius Silanus (Nova Roma)|Titus Pontius Silanus]] resigns as [[diribitor (Nova Roma)|diribitor]] during an election.<br /> <br /> * [[Sextus Apollonius Scipio (Nova Roma)|Sextus Apollonius Scipio]] resigns from the [[Senate (Nova Roma)|Senate]].<br /> <br /> * [[Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix (Nova Roma)|Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix]] resigned as [[pontifex (Nova Roma)|pontifex]]. It was announced in an e-mail to the [[Collegium Pontificum (Nova Roma)|Collegium Pontificum]], by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].<br /> <br /> *During the census [[Marcus Salix Vigilius (Nova Roma)|Marcus Salix Vigilius]], Sacerdotis of Isis et Serapis, resigns his priesthood and his citizenship from [[Nova Roma]].<br /> <br /> ===December===<br /> * [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] resigned as [[Flamen Quirinalis (Nova Roma)|Flamen Quirinalis]] on the Nova Roma Forum. [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/52996]<br /> *Consul [[Tiberius Galerius Paulinus (Nova Roma)|Tiberius Galerius Paulinus]] calls the senate to order to propose a [[Senatus consulta ultima (Nova Roma)|Senatus consulta ultima]] which was labeled [[Senate Call December 2760 (Nova Roma)|Senate Call December 2760]], which he announced on the main forum. It was later withdrawn.<br /> * The censores publish [[Edictum censoris de censu anni MMDCCLX]]<br /> * The censores publish [[Edictum censorium de adlegendis senatoribus (Nova Roma)|Edictum censorium de adlegendis senatoribus ]] appointing 9 new senatores, removing 4, and naming [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus]] as [[Princeps Senatus (Nova Roma)|Princeps Senatus]].<br /> * [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]] announces the result of the recent session of the Collegium Pontificum: [[Collegium Pontificum Voting Results of 12 December MMDCCLX (Nova Roma)|Collegium Pontificum Voting Results of 11 December MMDCCLX]].<br /> * [[Lex de imperio MMDCCLXI]]<br /> <br /> __NOTOC__<br /> <br /> [[Category:MMDCCLX]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Collegium_Pontificum_voting_results_of_12_December_MMDCCLX_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T16:04:20Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: Collegium Pontificum Voting Results of 11 December MMDCCLX (Nova Roma) moved to Collegium Pontificum Voting Results of 12 December MMDCCLX (Nova Roma): Mixed up dates.</p> <hr /> <div>QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO QUIRITIBVS<br /> <br /> The Collegium Pontificum having met in order to vote on priesthood applications and membership in the Comitia Curiata, the decision was as follows:<br /> <br /> Application of senatrix [[Marca Hortensia Maior (Nova Roma)|Marca Hortensia Maior]] for the position of<br /> Sacerdos Mentis.<br /> Rejected. [2 Uti Rogas, 4 Antiquo, &amp; 1 Abstention]<br /> <br /> Application of [[Titus Arminius Genialis (Nova Roma)|Titus Arminius Genialis]] for the position of Flamen Furrinalis.<br /> Rejected. [2 Uti Rogas, &amp; 5 Antiquo]<br /> <br /> Application of senator [[Flavius Galerius Aurelianus (Nova Roma)|Flavius Galerius Aurelianus]] for the position of Pontifex.<br /> Approved. [7 Uti Rogas]<br /> <br /> Application of senator [[Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus (Nova Roma)|Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus]] for the position of Pontifex.<br /> Approved. [6 Uti Rogas &amp; 1 Antiquo]<br /> <br /> The following members of the Comitia curiata were placed before the Collegium Pontificum for removal:<br /> <br /> [[Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (Nova Roma)|Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix]] (inactive).<br /> [[Lucius Fabius Metellus (Nova Roma)|Lucius Fabius Metellus]] (capite censi).<br /> [[Titus Labienus Fortunatus (Nova Roma)|Titus Labienus Fortunatus]] (capite censi).<br /> [[Gaius Geminius Germanus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Geminius Germanus]] (capite censi).<br /> [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] (unsubscribed from the comitia curiata e-mail list).<br /> <br /> All retained. [4 to retain &amp; 3 to remove]<br /> <br /> The Collegium Pontificum was convened on 9 December by Pontifex [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]] and voting was declared ended on 12 December after all the pontifices had voted.<br /> <br /> prid. Id. Dec. L. Arminio Ti. Galerio cos. (MMDCCLX a.u.c.)</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Collegium_Pontificum_voting_results_of_12_December_MMDCCLX_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T16:03:43Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: New page: QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO QUIRITIBVS The Collegium Pontificum having met in order to vote on priesthood applications and membership in the Comitia Curiata, ...</p> <hr /> <div>QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO QUIRITIBVS<br /> <br /> The Collegium Pontificum having met in order to vote on priesthood applications and membership in the Comitia Curiata, the decision was as follows:<br /> <br /> Application of senatrix [[Marca Hortensia Maior (Nova Roma)|Marca Hortensia Maior]] for the position of<br /> Sacerdos Mentis.<br /> Rejected. [2 Uti Rogas, 4 Antiquo, &amp; 1 Abstention]<br /> <br /> Application of [[Titus Arminius Genialis (Nova Roma)|Titus Arminius Genialis]] for the position of Flamen Furrinalis.<br /> Rejected. [2 Uti Rogas, &amp; 5 Antiquo]<br /> <br /> Application of senator [[Flavius Galerius Aurelianus (Nova Roma)|Flavius Galerius Aurelianus]] for the position of Pontifex.<br /> Approved. [7 Uti Rogas]<br /> <br /> Application of senator [[Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus (Nova Roma)|Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus]] for the position of Pontifex.<br /> Approved. [6 Uti Rogas &amp; 1 Antiquo]<br /> <br /> The following members of the Comitia curiata were placed before the Collegium Pontificum for removal:<br /> <br /> [[Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (Nova Roma)|Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix]] (inactive).<br /> [[Lucius Fabius Metellus (Nova Roma)|Lucius Fabius Metellus]] (capite censi).<br /> [[Titus Labienus Fortunatus (Nova Roma)|Titus Labienus Fortunatus]] (capite censi).<br /> [[Gaius Geminius Germanus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Geminius Germanus]] (capite censi).<br /> [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] (unsubscribed from the comitia curiata e-mail list).<br /> <br /> All retained. [4 to retain &amp; 3 to remove]<br /> <br /> The Collegium Pontificum was convened on 9 December by Pontifex [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]] and voting was declared ended on 12 December after all the pontifices had voted.<br /> <br /> prid. Id. Dec. L. Arminio Ti. Galerio cos. (MMDCCLX a.u.c.)</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/MMDCCLX 2007-12-13T15:58:47Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* December */</p> <hr /> <div>{{LanguageBar | MMDCCLX }}<br /> <br /> {{year intro |<br /> aucyear=MMDCCLX | <br /> aucbefore=MMDCCLIX |<br /> aucafter=MMDCCLXI |<br /> ceyear=2007<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{AnnalsHeader | year=MMDCCLX| year_full={{2007}} | cos1=Lucius Arminius Faustus | cos2=Tiberius Galerius Paulinus<br /> | cos1extra= | cos2extra= }}<br /> <br /> These are the current [[:Category:Magistrates (Nova Roma)|Magistrates]].<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Censors |<br /> senior= Marcus Octavius Gracchus |<br /> junior= Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Consuls |<br /> senior= Lucius Arminius Faustus |<br /> junior= Tiberius Galerius Paulinus<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Praetors |<br /> senior= Gaius Equitius Cato |<br /> junior= Aula Tullia Scholastica<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Curule Aediles |<br /> senior= Iulia Caesar Cytheris Aege|<br /> junior= Tita Artoria Marcella<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Plebeian Aediles |<br /> senior= Gaius Curius Saturninus|<br /> junior= <br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Quaestor |<br /> senior= Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus |<br /> junior= Gnaeus Equitius Marinus<br /> }}<br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Quaestor |<br /> senior= Quintus Iulius Probus |<br /> junior= <br /> }}<br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Quaestor |<br /> senior= Titus Iulius Sabinus |<br /> junior= Publius Memmius Albucius<br /> }}<br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Quaestor |<br /> senior= Sextus Lucilius Tutor |<br /> junior= Gaius Iulius Scaurus<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Tribunus Plebis |<br /> senior= Marcus Curiatius Complutensis |<br /> junior= Gaius Arminius Reccanellus<br /> }}<br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Tribunus Plebis |<br /> senior= Quintus Servilius Priscus |<br /> junior= Marcus Pontius Sejanus<br /> }}<br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Tribunus Plebis |<br /> senior= Flavius Galerius Aurelianus |<br /> junior= <br /> }}<br /> <br /> == Vigintisexvirii==<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Magister aranearius |<br /> senior= Marcus Octavius Gracchus|<br /> junior=<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Editor commentariorum |<br /> senior= Appius Galerius Aurelianus|<br /> junior=<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Rogatores |<br /> senior= Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus|<br /> junior= Quintus Suetonius Paulinus|<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Custodes |<br /> senior= Pompeia Minucia Strabo|<br /> junior= Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa<br /> }}<br /> <br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Diribitor |<br /> senior= Marcus Arminius Maior|<br /> junior= <br /> }}<br /> {{year magistracy NR |<br /> magistracy=Diribitor |<br /> senior= Gaius Flavius Ductoris|<br /> junior= <br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Events of MMDCCLX==<br /> <br /> For the calendar for this year, see [[Fasti MMDCCLX]].<br /> <br /> ===Ianuarius===<br /> * [[Ianus (Nova Roma)|Iani Aedis Sacerdos]], [[Lucius Cassius Cornutus (Nova Roma)|Lucius Cassius Cornutus]] performs a New Year Ritual [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligioRomana/message/9144].<br /> <br /> ===Februarius===<br /> * The newly re-elected governor of [[Provincia Hispania (Nova Roma)|Provincia Hispania]], [[Lucius Minicius Sceptius (Nova Roma)|Lucius Minicius Sceptius]], resigns as propraetor and Senator.<br /> * Senator [[Lucius Sergius Australicus (Nova Roma)|Lucius Sergius Australicus]] resigns citizenship.<br /> <br /> ===Martius===<br /> * Consul [[Lucius Arminius Faustus]] calls people to a Contio about taxes for the current year.<br /> <br /> * [[Lucius Cassius Cornutus (Nova Roma)|Lucius Cassius Cornutus]] resigns as [[Ianus (Nova Roma)|Iani Aedis Sacerdos]] and [[diribitor (Nova Roma)|diribitor]].<br /> <br /> * [[Lucia Modia Lupa (Nova Roma)|Lucia Modia Lupa]] resigns as [[Virgo Vestalis (Nova Roma)|Virgo Vestalis]].<br /> <br /> ===Aprilis===<br /> <br /> ===Maius===<br /> * Provincial Governor of Dacia [[Titus Iulius Sabinus (Nova Roma)|Titus Iulius Sabinus]] reported that [[Quaestor (Nova Roma)|Quaestor]] [[Gaius Marius Maior (Nova Roma)|Gaius Marius Maior]] passed away.<br /> <br /> ===Iunius===<br /> * [[Quintus Suetonius Paulinus (Nova Roma)|Quintus Suetonius Paulinus]] is elected as [[rogator (Nova Roma)|rogator]] to fill the vacancy left since the last general election.<br /> <br /> ===Quinctilis===<br /> <br /> ===Sextilis===<br /> <br /> ===September===<br /> <br /> ===October===<br /> *Consul Paulinus and Tribunus Plebis Complutensis issue calls for [[Election MMDCCLX (Nova Roma)|candidates for election for MMDCCLXI]].<br /> <br /> *[[Marcus Antonius Gryllus Graecus (Nova Roma)|Marcus Antonius Gryllus Graecus]] resigned as *[[pontifex (Nova Roma)|pontifex]] in an e-mail to the [[Collegium Pontificum (Nova Roma)|Collegium Pontificum]].<br /> <br /> *Censor Modianus issues [[Edictum ces. K. Fabii Buteoni Modiani de censu anni MMDCCLX]].<br /> <br /> ====Reports of provincial governors====<br /> <br /> Provincial governors issue reports to the senate.<br /> <br /> *[[America Austroccidentalis provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[America Austrorientalis provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[America Boreoccidentalis provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[America Medioccidentalis Superior provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Argentina provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Asia Occidentalis provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Asia Orientalis provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Australia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Brasilia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Britannia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[California provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Canada Occidentalis provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Canada Orientalis provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Dacia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Gallia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Germania provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Hibernia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Hispania provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Italia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Lacus Magni provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Mediatlantica provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Mexico provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Nova Britannia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Pannonia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Sarmatia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Thule provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> *[[Venedia provincial report MMDCCLX]]<br /> <br /> ===November===<br /> * [[Titus Pontius Silanus (Nova Roma)|Titus Pontius Silanus]] resigns as [[diribitor (Nova Roma)|diribitor]] during an election.<br /> <br /> * [[Sextus Apollonius Scipio (Nova Roma)|Sextus Apollonius Scipio]] resigns from the [[Senate (Nova Roma)|Senate]].<br /> <br /> * [[Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix (Nova Roma)|Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix]] resigned as [[pontifex (Nova Roma)|pontifex]]. It was announced in an e-mail to the [[Collegium Pontificum (Nova Roma)|Collegium Pontificum]], by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].<br /> <br /> *During the census [[Marcus Salix Vigilius (Nova Roma)|Marcus Salix Vigilius]], Sacerdotis of Isis et Serapis, resigns his priesthood and his citizenship from [[Nova Roma]].<br /> <br /> ===December===<br /> * [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] resigned as [[Flamen Quirinalis (Nova Roma)|Flamen Quirinalis]] on the Nova Roma Forum. [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/52996]<br /> *Consul [[Tiberius Galerius Paulinus (Nova Roma)|Tiberius Galerius Paulinus]] calls the senate to order to propose a [[Senatus consulta ultima (Nova Roma)|Senatus consulta ultima]] which was labeled [[Senate Call December 2760 (Nova Roma)|Senate Call December 2760]], which he announced on the main forum. It was later withdrawn.<br /> * The censores publish [[Edictum censoris de censu anni MMDCCLX]]<br /> * The censores publish [[Edictum censorium de adlegendis senatoribus (Nova Roma)|Edictum censorium de adlegendis senatoribus ]] appointing 9 new senatores, removing 4, and naming [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus]] as [[Princeps Senatus (Nova Roma)|Princeps Senatus]].<br /> * [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]] announces the result of the recent session of the Collegium Pontificum: [[Collegium Pontificum Voting Results of 11 December MMDCCLX (Nova Roma)|Collegium Pontificum Voting Results of 11 December MMDCCLX]].<br /> * [[Lex de imperio MMDCCLXI]]<br /> <br /> __NOTOC__<br /> <br /> [[Category:MMDCCLX]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Talk:Lex_de_imperio_MMDCCLXI 2007-12-13T15:26:08Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: New page: Including the plebeian aediles was a mistake on the part of the Pontifex Maximus Marcus Cassius Iulianus.</p> <hr /> <div>Including the plebeian aediles was a mistake on the part of the Pontifex Maximus [[Marcus Cassius Iulianus (Nova Roma)|Marcus Cassius Iulianus]].</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/In_defense_of_women_pontifices_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T05:33:58Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: </p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The argument below presented by [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] seems to be a narrow analysis of the current dilemma within the sacra publica of Nova Roma, and it is my hope that by illustrating his narrow view, as well as close analysis of ancient Roman religious tradition in light of our modern usage, the concept of women pontifices can be again embraced by Nova Roma. The argument, by Gaius Iulius Scaurus, seems to be a two-fold argument; the religious practices of Roma antiqua being incompatible with modern sentiments of gender equality, and the current practices of gender equality within Nova Roma itself. I hope to address both of these concerns and show that women pontifices are a potential reality again within Nova Roma and one that would not be impietas prudens dolo malo.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Argument against women pontifices as presented by Gaius Iulius Scaurus:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I have made a comprehensive survey of the primary and secondary literature on the question and am convinced that the adlection of female pontifices will violate fundamental gender taboos of the Religio and constitute an inexpiable impietas prudens dolo malo. Women are absolutely forbidden to attend any caerimonia to Hercules and the first caerimonia of the Neptunalia. The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia. Furthermore, at the caerimoniae of the mundus patet the only women permitted to attend are the Virgines Vestales. However, the attendance of the pontifices in the caerimoniae of Hercules, the Neptunalia, and the mundus patet is mandatory. The adlection of female pontifices would create a religious obligation to commit an impietas prudens dolo malo, which is a patent absurdity.<br /> <br /> <br /> I see no way to rationalize abandonment of this taboo on the grounds of the hypothesized sexism of Roman society. We simply do not know why the gender taboo existed any more than we know why there were no male Vestals, and anyone who claims the ability to distinguish between essential religious taboos and artifacts of sexual discrimination is engaged in willful self-deception. We know that the Romans assiduously respected these taboos and that these taboos were not generally extended across the entire cultus, which militates for prudently treating them as intrinsically important to the Religio and connected to specific aspects of the cultus. At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity. Following the latter strategy seems to me to place us entirely outside the enterprise of reconstruction and into the enterprise of creating a new religion out of whole cloth. The suggestion that female pontifices simply absent themselves from caerimoniae at which the attendance of women is prohibited ignores the fact that pontifical attendance at these caerimoniae was mandatory except in case of good cause, i.e., absence from the city or illness. 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Frankly, earlier adlection of female pontifices in Nova Roma is so grave a departure from the cultic practice of antiquity that our only hope to undo the offence it represents is to simply throw ourselves on the mercy of the Gods and plead abject ignorance for the affront. If we knowingly go down this path again, we shall be making genuine reconstruction of the Religio impossible. Why don't we just create male sacerdotes of Bona Dea while we're at it? <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Opening response to Gaius Iulius Scaurus and the case for gender equality:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his argument against women ''pontifices'', Scaurus makes the claim that women were prohibited from participating in some specific cults, and that these practices required the ''pontifices'' to participate. However, he makes the claim that ''pontifices'' could excuse themselves from participation for good cause. What better cause then gender equality? What we know of gender disparity shows that there were cult practices where women were the exclusive participants, yet if ''pontifices'' had jurisdiction over ceremonial matters then it serves that they would have influence over the rites of any state sponsored cultus.&lt;ref&gt; Shelton, Jo-Ann. “As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History,” Second Edition. Oxford University Press: New York 1998. Page 384 – 385.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction is evident in the ruling of the pontifices regarding Publius Clodius Pulcher and his unlawful attendance at the rites of Bona Dea, where the pontifices ruled that the rites had been polluted.&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. &lt;u&gt;From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 39.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction seems to transcend gender since the ''pontifices'' had cause to monitor the orthopraxy of ritual practice, yet were denied access to the cult of Bona Dea. In the sacerdotal culture of Nova Roma the proximity of ''pontifices'' to the cultic practices of the ''sacerdotes'' is not always guaranteed. Therefore, it seems only reasonable to assume that the mandated participation, that Scaurus mentions, is a practice from antiquity that will need modification in our modern global environment. I have, for example, been a pontifex for a couple of years now and I have never been to a “mandatory” ''caerimoniae'' to either Hercules or Neptune. Furthermore, since the ''pontifices'' of antiquity had jurisdiction over aspects of a female specific cult then logic would dictate that women ''pontifices'' within Nova Roma would have similar jurisdiction over male only cults. This jurisdiction, however, need not always include proximity to the actual ceremonial act, but deals with issues of orthopraxy.<br /> <br /> ==On the status and role of women in Nova Roma:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> At issue, as to whether women can or should be ''pontifices'', is the treatment of women in Nova Roma. Women are allowed, and encouraged, to participate in all aspects of civic life. That was not the case within Rome of antiquity, since women were typically under the ''patria potestas'' of their father, husband, or male relative.&lt;ref&gt; Arjava, Antti . &quot;Paternal Power in Late Antiquity.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Journal of Roman Studies&lt;/u&gt;. 88 (1998): 147-65. Page 148.&lt;/ref&gt; The ''patria potestas'' of the ''pater familias'' lasted as long as the pater was alive, and even in cases when the ''pater familias'' died, and those under his ''potestas'' became ''sui iuris'' (independent), the men under the ''potestas'' were completely free, but women were required to have a ''tutor'' or legal guardian.&lt;ref&gt; Carp, Teresa. &quot;Two matrons of the late republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt; Women's Studies&lt;/u&gt; 8 (1981): 189-200. Page 191.&lt;/ref&gt; This is one major difference between women in ancient Rome and women in Nova Roma, the idea of emancipation and independence. In Nova Roma, via Lex Equitia familiaris the ideal of gender equality is evident in subscribing ''potestas'' irrespective of gender, respecting the concept of both ''pater familias'' and ''mater familias'' along with allowing for male and female ''tutores'' in the case of ''minores''. This gender equality within Nova Roma is important because it represents a profound deviation of the ''mos maiorum'' in one sense, but also an evolution of that same ''mos maiorum'' reflecting a continuity between ancient and contemporary mores. Our contemporary usage of gender equality within our own family law is the departure from ancient practice that radically changes the role of women.<br /> <br /> <br /> In ancient Rome a woman could belong to one of three different categories; “Women who did not qualify as either matronae or virgins were effectively non-members of the Roman state and of its cult, banned, with a few specific exceptions, from participating (except perhaps as spectators along a parade route) in many of Rome’s most central religious rites.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore, a ''matrona'' and a ''virgo'' can be defined with the following definition, “To be a matrona, a woman had to be the respectable wife or widow of a Roman citizen. To be a virgo, a woman had to be the morally pure, respectable, sexually intact (as we define the English word virgin) marriageable daughter of a Roman citizen.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; In Nova Roma this classification of women does not apply, and as an example I’ll use a former vestal to illustrate my point. [[Lucia Modia Lupa (Nova Roma)|Lucia Modia Lupa]] was appointed a Vestal by Collegium Pontificum decretum dated ante diem XIII Kal. FEBRVARIAS MMDCCLVIII a.u.c. (20 January 2005). At the time of her appointment she was still under my ''patria potestas'', but was emancipated by me a day later (21 January 2005). Lucia Modia Lupa was neither a ''matrona'' or a ''virgo'', being unmarried and having a daughter. It would, in my opinion, be against the ancient Roman ''mos maiorum'' to have a women who was anything other than a ''virgo'' selected to become a ''vestal''; yet such an appointment did occur in Nova Roma because the requirement of being either a ''matrona'' or ''virgo'' is an antiquated practice that does not apply in the gender egalitarian environment that prevails in Nova Roma. This departure from antiquity is a radical departure when compared to the mores of the past, however, they seem less radical when contrasted against the mores of our contemporary “macronational” culture and the established mores within Nova Roma itself. In fact, the initial establishment of the Nova Roma Constitution of MMDCCLII states, “When determining applicability for Citizenship, Nova Roma shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age (except where such is mandated by the civil laws of a particular locality), or sexuality.,” and the current version of the Nova Roma Constitution reads, “Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.” Therefore, the distinction of ''matrona'' or ''virgo'' does not apply to the status of women in Nova Roma.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Scheid, John. “An Introduction to Roman Religion.” Indiana University Press: Bloomington &amp; Indianapolis 2003. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Senators clearly had religious authority,&lt;ref&gt; Warrior, Valerie M. “Roman Religion.” Cambridge University Press: New York 2006. Page 42.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Szemler, George J. &quot;Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Numen&lt;/u&gt; 18.2 (1971): 103-31. Page 106.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> ==On Change in the Sacra Publica:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Scaurus makes an argument that the gender disparity is a preference of the Gods: “At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the ''Di Immortales'' or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity.” This can be addressed by looking at the development of the ''sacra publica'' as circumstances changed. With each major transformation of Rome came change in the way the ''sacra publica'' operated. This change in the management of the ''pax deorum'' can be seen in this selection from Liebeschuetz, “Moreover the procedure for dealing with portents was intimately linked with the republican system of government and the management by the senate of sovereign popular assemblies. When that system collapsed, traditional ways of maintaining the pax deorum lost a principle reason for existence.”&lt;ref&gt; Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. “Continuity and Change in Roman Religion.” Oxford At the Claredon Press: Oxford 1979. Page 58.&lt;/ref&gt; For example, the priesthood of the ''Rex Sacrorum'' was established when the monarchy was abolished,&lt;ref&gt; Dowden, Ken “Religion and the Romans.” Bristol Classical Press: London 1992. Page 18.&lt;/ref&gt; and was a result of the Romans finding a solution to the disestablishment of the office of ''rex'' who had ceremonial obligations. Another example of the Romans dealing with change is the struggle between patricians and plebeians, and the passing of Lex Ogulnia in 300 BCE removing the patrician monopoly over the ''Collegium Pontificum'' and the ''Collegium Augurum''.&lt;ref&gt; Taylor, Lily R. &quot;Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The American Journal of Philology&lt;/u&gt; 63.4 (1942): 385-412. Page 386.&lt;/ref&gt; Most priesthoods were originally reserved for patricians alone, but were eventually opened up to include members of the plebeian order. Some priesthoods remained closed to plebeians, but these were highly ritualized priesthoods (i.e., the major Flamen, and Rex Sacrorum), while the more politicized priesthoods (priesthoods of ''pontifex'' and ''augur'' for example) were opened up to plebeians. Would it have been considered ''impietas prudens dolo malo'' at one time in the history of Rome to suggest that plebeians, for example, be admitted as ''pontifices'' or ''augures''? Patricians and plebeian classes where established, according to tradition, by Romulus himself with patricians as priests and magistrates, and the plebeians to do the other, often necessary, tasks.&lt;ref&gt; Watson, Alan. &quot;Roman Private Law and the Leges Regiae.&quot; The Journal of Roman Studies 62 (1972): 100-05. Page 100.&lt;/ref&gt; If it is acceptable to open up various priesthoods to plebeians then it seems reasonable to open up the same priesthoods to gender, especially those priesthoods that were not exclusively linked to gender (i.e., Vestals) and which have a certain political quality to them (viz., ''pontifex'' and ''augur''). This seems especially true since the establishment of the classes is attributed to Romulus himself. Certainly, the idea of plebeian magistrates and pontifices would not have been acceptable, for example, in the time of Numa Popilius, but later in the evolution of Rome the idea became more palatable, just like our current practice of women magistrates and senatores would have been unheard of during the Republic and afterwards, but is now an acceptable practice.<br /> <br /> <br /> It could be argued for example that, “The departure from the mos maiorum in permitting Plebeian pontifices altered the human component of the mos, not that which was demanded by the Di Immortales.” If this objection to women ''pontifices'' is based exclusively on the assumption that plebeian ''pontifices'' represent a human component while women ''pontifices'' represents some sort of divinely mandated prohibition, then it should also be the case that women should be excluded from all political offices and especially from the senate. This prohibition is based on the special character of magistrates and senatores. However, as I have shown above, the mores Nova Roma, while linked with the ''mos maiorum'' of antiquity, is much different from its counterpart in antiquity. Additionally, change was periodically introduced into the ''sacra publica'' by the senate and various priestly colleges. The ''sacra publica'' was and is, by its nature, inclusive and highly adaptable with one special caveat, “These new additions were only thought legitimate when they received official acceptance by the ruling elite.”&lt;ref&gt; Takács, Sarolta A. &quot;Politics and Religion in the Bacchanalian Affair of 186 B.C.E.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Harvard Studies in Classical Philology&lt;/u&gt; 100 (2000): 301-10. Page 302.&lt;/ref&gt; New cults established, such as the cult of Magna Mater, old cults re-activated (such as the Arval Brethren under Augustus), and other additions, changes, and adaptations to the ''sacra publica'' were possible, but only through the collegial character of the collegium pontificum, senate, etc. The objection that some departures from the mos maiorum involve only a human component while other departures would be a direct violation of the Di Immortales would imply that the ''Di Immortales'' presented some form of direct communication with someone from Roman antiquity. I am unaware of any “golden tablets,” or codified texts similar to the Bible of the Judeo-Christian faiths, or to the Quran of Islam. However, religious change has been possible within ancient Rome. An early example of change are the reforms of Numa Popilius, when “He established laws and customs among the Romans, who, because of their frequent hostilities, were until that point regarded as semibarbaric ''latrones''. Furthermore, he divided the previously unregulated years into ten months (sic) and founded numerous sacred rites and temples at Rome.”&lt;ref&gt; Bird, H W. &quot;Eutropius on Numa Pompilius and the Senate.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 81.3 (1986): 243-48. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Would the Romans of Numa’s time consider his reforms a violation of the mos maiorum, or as much needed reforms to move Rome forward? History portrays Numa Popilius in a very positive manner, so it would seem that his reforms benefited Rome. Additionally, great power over the ''sacra publica'' rested within the “ruling elite.” The senate, during the Empire, had the power of deification; “The deification of a deceased emperor was authorized by a formal decree of the senate, which alone had power to introduce new forms of worship.”&lt;ref&gt; Burton, Henry F. &quot;The Worship of the Roman Emperors.&quot; The Biblical World 40.2 (1912): 80-91. Page 84.&lt;/ref&gt; Therefore, the idea of change and adaption was prevalent within the ''sacra publica'' and permitted if done by the “ruling elite” according to law, such practices seem synonymous with the Roman system of change. Claiming some departures are acceptable and others are not, based on the assumption that some are divinely mandated, seems more appropriate to revealed religious traditions (such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) rather than the ''sacra publica'' of Nova Roma. Of course it could be argued that augury is a form of revelation, but if that is the case then augury could ideally solve all of our problems, and the reliance upon augury for this opens up a series of potential abuse by ''augures''.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of the Roman Priesthood:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Something to consider regarding the various priesthoods of Rome, ancient or otherwise, is the nature of the priesthood. The priesthood of Christianity (for example, those of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) is a sacramental priesthood believed to change the very essential character of the individual upon ordination as a priest, resulting in a special character upon the soul of the new priest. Likewise, the Aaronic priesthood of Jewish tradition was a hereditary priesthood passed from father to son. The priesthoods of ancient Rome were different; “Its religious officials were merely political functionaries of state like any other.”&lt;ref&gt; Merrill, Elmer T. &quot;The Attitude of Ancient Rome toward Religion and Religious Cults.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 15.4 (1920): 196-215. Page 200.&lt;/ref&gt; The religious character of the priesthood was linked with that of the state, and priests functioned on behalf of the state. Since Nova Roma makes no distinction of citizenship with regard to gender, as I have shown, and since the priesthood is a function of state then the priesthood should be open to citizens regardless of their gender.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of Vitium:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his critique of women ''pontifices'' Scaurus wrote, “The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia.” The use of the term ''vitium'' in the sense that it is used by Scaurus is an incorrect use of the term ''vitium''. It does happen to be a Latin word for blemish, defect, or fault. However, it has a more specific meaning within the confines of the ''sacra publica''. The word ''vitium'' has specific meaning in augurial law; “As a religious term, it definitely belongs to the language of augury alone.”&lt;ref&gt; Paschall, Dorothy. &quot;The Origin and Semantic Development of Latin Vitium.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association&lt;/u&gt; 67 (1936): 219-31. Page 220.&lt;/ref&gt; It would seem that Scaurus has used the term ''vitium'' incorrectly. His example of women at a ''caerimoniae'' reserved exclusively for men is similar to the case of Publius Clodius Pulcher who secretly attended the rites of Bona Dea, but was discovered. The ''pontifices'' declared that the actions of Clodius were nefas,&lt;ref&gt; Strachan-Davidson, J L. &quot;Mommsen's Roman Criminal Law.&quot; The English Historical Review 16.62 (1901): 219-91. Page 221.&lt;/ref&gt; but no mention of it being a ''vitium''. As I’ve shown above the ''pontifices'' ruled that the presence of Clodius required the rituals to be performed again. In this case Scaurus seems correct that a ritual exclusively aligned to men, with women present, should be conducted over – just a ritual reserved for women had to conducted over after being polluted by a man. However, his argument against women as ''pontifices'' rests on his assertion that ''pontifices'' where and are required to attend the rites of Hercules. Since the cults of Hercules and Bona Dea were linked in their exclusivity of gender,&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 25.&lt;/ref&gt; it seems reasonable that if there was ever a time in Nova Roma where attendance was mandated upon our ''pontifices'' that men would attend the rites of Hercules, and women the rites of Bona Dea. Even if this was the case it would still be appropriate for women ''pontifices'' to guard the orthopraxy of the Herculean cult just as it was for the male ''pontifices'' of antiquity to guard the orthopraxy of the rites of Bona Dea.<br /> <br /> ==Response to the claim of impious hypocrisy:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 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''.<br /> <br /> ==Conclusion:==<br /> <br /> <br /> 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''.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].<br /> [[Category:Nova Roma]]<br /> [[Category:Religio Romana (Nova Roma)]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/In_defense_of_women_pontifices_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T05:31:42Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: </p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The argument below presented by [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] seems to be a narrow analysis of the current dilemma within the sacra publica of Nova Roma, and it is my hope that by illustrating his narrow view, as well as close analysis of ancient Roman religious tradition in light of our modern usage, the concept of women pontifices can be again embraced by Nova Roma. The argument, by Gaius Iulius Scaurus, seems to be a two-fold argument; the religious practices of Roma antiqua being incompatible with modern sentiments of gender equality, and the current practices of gender equality within Nova Roma itself. I hope to address both of these concerns and show that women pontifices are a potential reality again within Nova Roma and one that would not be impietas prudens dolo malo.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Argument against women pontifices as presented by Gaius Iulius Scaurus:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I have made a comprehensive survey of the primary and secondary literature on the question and am convinced that the adlection of female pontifices will violate fundamental gender taboos of the Religio and constitute an inexpiable impietas prudens dolo malo. Women are absolutely forbidden to attend any caerimonia to Hercules and the first caerimonia of the Neptunalia. The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia. Furthermore, at the caerimoniae of the mundus patet the only women permitted to attend are the Virgines Vestales. However, the attendance of the pontifices in the caerimoniae of Hercules, the Neptunalia, and the mundus patet is mandatory. The adlection of female pontifices would create a religious obligation to commit an impietas prudens dolo malo, which is a patent absurdity.<br /> <br /> <br /> I see no way to rationalize abandonment of this taboo on the grounds of the hypothesized sexism of Roman society. We simply do not know why the gender taboo existed any more than we know why there were no male Vestals, and anyone who claims the ability to distinguish between essential religious taboos and artifacts of sexual discrimination is engaged in willful self-deception. We know that the Romans assiduously respected these taboos and that these taboos were not generally extended across the entire cultus, which militates for prudently treating them as intrinsically important to the Religio and connected to specific aspects of the cultus. At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity. Following the latter strategy seems to me to place us entirely outside the enterprise of reconstruction and into the enterprise of creating a new religion out of whole cloth. The suggestion that female pontifices simply absent themselves from caerimoniae at which the attendance of women is prohibited ignores the fact that pontifical attendance at these caerimoniae was mandatory except in case of good cause, i.e., absence from the city or illness. 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Frankly, earlier adlection of female pontifices in Nova Roma is so grave a departure from the cultic practice of antiquity that our only hope to undo the offence it represents is to simply throw ourselves on the mercy of the Gods and plead abject ignorance for the affront. If we knowingly go down this path again, we shall be making genuine reconstruction of the Religio impossible. Why don't we just create male sacerdotes of Bona Dea while we're at it? <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Opening response to Gaius Iulius Scaurus and the case for gender equality:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his argument against women ''pontifices'', Scaurus makes the claim that women were prohibited from participating in some specific cults, and that these practices required the ''pontifices'' to participate. However, he makes the claim that ''pontifices'' could excuse themselves from participation for good cause. What better cause then gender equality? What we know of gender disparity shows that there were cult practices where women were the exclusive participants, yet if ''pontifices'' had jurisdiction over ceremonial matters then it serves that they would have influence over the rites of any state sponsored cultus.&lt;ref&gt; Shelton, Jo-Ann. “As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History,” Second Edition. Oxford University Press: New York 1998. Page 384 – 385.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction is evident in the ruling of the pontifices regarding Publius Clodius Pulcher and his unlawful attendance at the rites of Bona Dea, where the pontifices ruled that the rites had been polluted.&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. &lt;u&gt;From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 39.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction seems to transcend gender since the ''pontifices'' had cause to monitor the orthopraxy of ritual practice, yet were denied access to the cult of Bona Dea. In the sacerdotal culture of Nova Roma the proximity of ''pontifices'' to the cultic practices of the ''sacerdotes'' is not always guaranteed. Therefore, it seems only reasonable to assume that the mandated participation, that Scaurus mentions, is a practice from antiquity that will need modification in our modern global environment. I have, for example, been a pontifex for a couple of years now and I have never been to a “mandatory” ''caerimoniae'' to either Hercules or Neptune. Furthermore, since the ''pontifices'' of antiquity had jurisdiction over aspects of a female specific cult then logic would dictate that women ''pontifices'' within Nova Roma would have similar jurisdiction over male only cults. This jurisdiction, however, need not always include proximity to the actual ceremonial act, but deals with issues of orthopraxy.<br /> <br /> ==On the status and role of women in Nova Roma:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> At issue, as to whether women can or should be ''pontifices'', is the treatment of women in Nova Roma. Women are allowed, and encouraged, to participate in all aspects of civic life. That was not the case within Rome of antiquity, since women were typically under the ''patria potestas'' of their father, husband, or male relative.&lt;ref&gt; Arjava, Antti . &quot;Paternal Power in Late Antiquity.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Journal of Roman Studies&lt;/u&gt;. 88 (1998): 147-65. Page 148.&lt;/ref&gt; The ''patria potestas'' of the ''pater familias'' lasted as long as the pater was alive, and even in cases when the ''pater familias'' died, and those under his ''potestas'' became ''sui iuris'' (independent), the men under the ''potestas'' were completely free, but women were required to have a ''tutor'' or legal guardian.&lt;ref&gt; Carp, Teresa. &quot;Two matrons of the late republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt; Women's Studies&lt;/u&gt; 8 (1981): 189-200. Page 191.&lt;/ref&gt; This is one major difference between women in ancient Rome and women in Nova Roma, the idea of emancipation and independence. In Nova Roma, via Lex Equitia familiaris the ideal of gender equality is evident in subscribing ''potestas'' irrespective of gender, respecting the concept of both ''pater familias'' and ''mater familias'' along with allowing for male and female ''tutores'' in the case of ''minores''. This gender equality within Nova Roma is important because it represents a profound deviation of the ''mos maiorum'' in one sense, but also an evolution of that same ''mos maiorum'' reflecting a continuity between ancient and contemporary mores. Our contemporary usage of gender equality within our own family law is the departure from ancient practice that radically changes the role of women.<br /> <br /> <br /> In ancient Rome a woman could belong to one of three different categories; “Women who did not qualify as either matronae or virgins were effectively non-members of the Roman state and of its cult, banned, with a few specific exceptions, from participating (except perhaps as spectators along a parade route) in many of Rome’s most central religious rites.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore, a ''matrona'' and a ''virgo'' can be defined with the following definition, “To be a matrona, a woman had to be the respectable wife or widow of a Roman citizen. To be a virgo, a woman had to be the morally pure, respectable, sexually intact (as we define the English word virgin) marriageable daughter of a Roman citizen.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; In Nova Roma this classification of women does not apply, and as an example I’ll use a former vestal to illustrate my point. [[Lucia Modia Lupa (Nova Roma)|Lucia Modia Lupa]] was appointed a Vestal by Collegium Pontificum decretum dated ante diem XIII Kal. FEBRVARIAS MMDCCLVIII a.u.c. (20 January 2005). At the time of her appointment she was still under my ''patria potestas'', but was emancipated by me a day later (21 January 2005). Lucia Modia Lupa was neither a ''matrona'' or a ''virgo'', being unmarried and having a daughter. It would, in my opinion, be against the ancient Roman ''mos maiorum'' to have a women who was anything other than a ''virgo'' selected to become a ''vestal''; yet such an appointment did occur in Nova Roma because the requirement of being either a ''matrona'' or ''virgo'' is an antiquated practice that does not apply in the gender egalitarian environment that prevails in Nova Roma. This departure from antiquity is a radical departure when compared to the mores of the past, however, they seem less radical when contrasted against the mores of our contemporary “macronational” culture and the established mores within Nova Roma itself. In fact, the initial establishment of the Nova Roma Constitution of MMDCCLII states, “When determining applicability for Citizenship, Nova Roma shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age (except where such is mandated by the civil laws of a particular locality), or sexuality.,” and the current version of the Nova Roma Constitution reads, “Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.” Therefore, the distinction of ''matrona'' or ''virgo'' does not apply to the status of women in Nova Roma.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Scheid, John. “An Introduction to Roman Religion.” Indiana University Press: Bloomington &amp; Indianapolis 2003. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Senators clearly had religious authority,&lt;ref&gt; Warrior, Valerie M. “Roman Religion.” Cambridge University Press: New York 2006. Page 42.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Szemler, George J. &quot;Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Numen&lt;/u&gt; 18.2 (1971): 103-31. Page 106.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> ==On Change in the Sacra Publica:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Scaurus makes an argument that the gender disparity is a preference of the Gods: “At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the ''Di Immortales'' or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity.” This can be addressed by looking at the development of the ''sacra publica'' as circumstances changed. With each major transformation of Rome came change in the way the ''sacra publica'' operated. This change in the management of the ''pax deorum'' can be seen in this selection from Liebeschuetz, “Moreover the procedure for dealing with portents was intimately linked with the republican system of government and the management by the senate of sovereign popular assemblies. When that system collapsed, traditional ways of maintaining the pax deorum lost a principle reason for existence.”&lt;ref&gt; Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. “Continuity and Change in Roman Religion.” Oxford At the Claredon Press: Oxford 1979. Page 58.&lt;/ref&gt; For example, the priesthood of the ''Rex Sacrorum'' was established when the monarchy was abolished,&lt;ref&gt; Dowden, Ken “Religion and the Romans.” Bristol Classical Press: London 1992. Page 18.&lt;/ref&gt; and was a result of the Romans finding a solution to the disestablishment of the office of ''rex'' who had ceremonial obligations. Another example of the Romans dealing with change is the struggle between patricians and plebeians, and the passing of Lex Ogulnia in 300 BCE removing the patrician monopoly over the ''Collegium Pontificum'' and the ''Collegium Augurum''.&lt;ref&gt; Taylor, Lily R. &quot;Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The American Journal of Philology&lt;/u&gt; 63.4 (1942): 385-412. Page 386.&lt;/ref&gt; Most priesthoods were originally reserved for patricians alone, but were eventually opened up to include members of the plebeian order. Some priesthoods remained closed to plebeians, but these were highly ritualized priesthoods (i.e., the major Flamen, and Rex Sacrorum), while the more politicized priesthoods (priesthoods of ''pontifex'' and ''augur'' for example) were opened up to plebeians. Would it have been considered ''impietas prudens dolo malo'' at one time in the history of Rome to suggest that plebeians, for example, be admitted as ''pontifices'' or ''augures''? Patricians and plebeian classes where established, according to tradition, by Romulus himself with patricians as priests and magistrates, and the plebeians to do the other, often necessary, tasks.&lt;ref&gt; Watson, Alan. &quot;Roman Private Law and the Leges Regiae.&quot; The Journal of Roman Studies 62 (1972): 100-05. Page 100.&lt;/ref&gt; If it is acceptable to open up various priesthoods to plebeians then it seems reasonable to open up the same priesthoods to gender, especially those priesthoods that were not exclusively linked to gender (i.e., Vestals) and which have a certain political quality to them (viz., ''pontifex'' and ''augur''). This seems especially true since the establishment of the classes is attributed to Romulus himself. Certainly, the idea of plebeian magistrates and pontifices would not have been acceptable, for example, in the time of Numa Popilius, but later in the evolution of Rome the idea became more palatable, just like our current practice of women magistrates and senatores would have been unheard of during the Republic and afterwards, but is now an acceptable practice.<br /> <br /> <br /> It could be argued for example that, “The departure from the mos maiorum in permitting Plebeian pontifices altered the human component of the mos, not that which was demanded by the Di Immortales.” If this objection to women ''pontifices'' is based exclusively on the assumption that plebeian ''pontifices'' represent a human component while women ''pontifices'' represents some sort of divinely mandated prohibition, then it should also be the case that women should be excluded from all political offices and especially from the senate. This prohibition is based on the special character of magistrates and senatores. However, as I have shown above, the mores Nova Roma, while linked with the ''mos maiorum'' of antiquity, is much different from its counterpart in antiquity. Additionally, change was periodically introduced into the ''sacra publica'' by the senate and various priestly colleges. The ''sacra publica'' was and is, by its nature, inclusive and highly adaptable with one special caveat, “These new additions were only thought legitimate when they received official acceptance by the ruling elite.”&lt;ref&gt; Takács, Sarolta A. &quot;Politics and Religion in the Bacchanalian Affair of 186 B.C.E.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Harvard Studies in Classical Philology&lt;/u&gt; 100 (2000): 301-10. Page 302.&lt;/ref&gt; New cults established, such as the cult of Magna Mater, old cults re-activated (such as the Arval Brethren under Augustus), and other additions, changes, and adaptations to the ''sacra publica'' were possible, but only through the collegial character of the collegium pontificum, senate, etc. The objection that some departures from the mos maiorum involve only a human component while other departures would be a direct violation of the Di Immortales would imply that the ''Di Immortales'' presented some form of direct communication with someone from Roman antiquity. I am unaware of any “golden tablets,” or codified texts similar to the Bible of the Judeo-Christian faiths, or to the Quran of Islam. However, religious change has been possible within ancient Rome. An early example of change are the reforms of Numa Popilius, when “He established laws and customs among the Romans, who, because of their frequent hostilities, were until that point regarded as semibarbaric ''latrones''. Furthermore, he divided the previously unregulated years into ten months (sic) and founded numerous sacred rites and temples at Rome.”&lt;ref&gt; Bird, H W. &quot;Eutropius on Numa Pompilius and the Senate.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 81.3 (1986): 243-48. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Would the Romans of Numa’s time consider his reforms a violation of the mos maiorum, or as much needed reforms to move Rome forward? History portrays Numa Popilius in a very positive manner, so it would seem that his reforms benefited Rome. Additionally, great power over the ''sacra publica'' rested within the “ruling elite.” The senate, during the Empire, had the power of deification; “The deification of a deceased emperor was authorized by a formal decree of the senate, which alone had power to introduce new forms of worship.”&lt;ref&gt; Burton, Henry F. &quot;The Worship of the Roman Emperors.&quot; The Biblical World 40.2 (1912): 80-91. Page 84.&lt;/ref&gt; Therefore, the idea of change and adaption was prevalent within the ''sacra publica'' and permitted if done by the “ruling elite” according to law, such practices seem synonymous with the Roman system of change. Claiming some departures are acceptable and others are not, based on the assumption that some are divinely mandated, seems more appropriate to revealed religious traditions (such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) rather than the ''sacra publica'' of Nova Roma. Of course it could be argued that augury is a form of revelation, but if that is the case then augury could ideally solve all of our problems, and the reliance upon augury for this opens up a series of potential abuse by ''augures''.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of the Roman Priesthood:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Something to consider regarding the various priesthoods of Rome, ancient or otherwise, is the nature of the priesthood. The priesthood of Christianity (for example, those of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) is a sacramental priesthood believed to change the very essential character of the individual upon ordination as a priest, resulting in a special character upon the soul of the new priest. Likewise, the Aaronic priesthood of Jewish tradition was a hereditary priesthood passed from father to son. The priesthoods of ancient Rome were different; “Its religious officials were merely political functionaries of state like any other.”&lt;ref&gt; Merrill, Elmer T. &quot;The Attitude of Ancient Rome toward Religion and Religious Cults.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 15.4 (1920): 196-215. Page 200.&lt;/ref&gt; The religious character of the priesthood was linked with that of the state, and priests functioned on behalf of the state. Since Nova Roma makes no distinction of citizenship with regard to gender, as I have shown, and since the priesthood is a function of state then the priesthood should be open to citizens regardless of their gender.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of Vitium:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his critique of women ''pontifices'' Scaurus wrote, “The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia.” The use of the term ''vitium'' in the sense that it is used by Scaurus is an incorrect use of the term ''vitium''. It does happen to be a Latin word for blemish, defect, or fault. However, it has a more specific meaning within the confines of the ''sacra publica''. The word ''vitium'' has specific meaning in augurial law; “As a religious term, it definitely belongs to the language of augury alone.”&lt;ref&gt; Paschall, Dorothy. &quot;The Origin and Semantic Development of Latin Vitium.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association&lt;/u&gt; 67 (1936): 219-31. Page 220.&lt;/ref&gt; It would seem that Scaurus has used the term ''vitium'' incorrectly. His example of women at a ''caerimoniae'' reserved exclusively for men is similar to the case of Publius Clodius Pulcher who secretly attended the rites of Bona Dea, but was discovered. The ''pontifices'' declared that the actions of Clodius were nefas,&lt;ref&gt; Strachan-Davidson, J L. &quot;Mommsen's Roman Criminal Law.&quot; The English Historical Review 16.62 (1901): 219-91. Page 221.&lt;/ref&gt; but no mention of it being a ''vitium''. As I’ve shown above the ''pontifices'' ruled that the presence of Clodius required the rituals to be performed again. In this case Scaurus seems correct that a ritual exclusively aligned to men, with women present, should be conducted over – just a ritual reserved for women had to conducted over after being polluted by a man. However, his argument against women as ''pontifices'' rests on his assertion that ''pontifices'' where and are required to attend the rites of Hercules. Since the cults of Hercules and Bona Dea were linked in their exclusivity of gender,&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 25.&lt;/ref&gt; it seems reasonable that if there was ever a time in Nova Roma where attendance was mandated upon our ''pontifices'' that men would attend the rites of Hercules, and women the rites of Bona Dea. Even if this was the case it would still be appropriate for women ''pontifices'' to guard the orthopraxy of the Herculean cult just as it was for the male ''pontifices'' of antiquity to guard the orthopraxy of the rites of Bona Dea.<br /> <br /> ==Response to the claim of impious hypocrisy:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 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''.<br /> <br /> ==Conclusion:==<br /> <br /> <br /> 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''.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].<br /> [[Category:Nova Roma]]<br /> [[Category:Religio Romana]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/In_defense_of_women_pontifices_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T05:31:03Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: </p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The argument below presented by [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] seems to be a narrow analysis of the current dilemma within the sacra publica of Nova Roma, and it is my hope that by illustrating his narrow view, as well as close analysis of ancient Roman religious tradition in light of our modern usage, the concept of women pontifices can be again embraced by Nova Roma. The argument, by Gaius Iulius Scaurus, seems to be a two-fold argument; the religious practices of Roma antiqua being incompatible with modern sentiments of gender equality, and the current practices of gender equality within Nova Roma itself. I hope to address both of these concerns and show that women pontifices are a potential reality again within Nova Roma and one that would not be impietas prudens dolo malo.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Argument against women pontifices as presented by Gaius Iulius Scaurus:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I have made a comprehensive survey of the primary and secondary literature on the question and am convinced that the adlection of female pontifices will violate fundamental gender taboos of the Religio and constitute an inexpiable impietas prudens dolo malo. Women are absolutely forbidden to attend any caerimonia to Hercules and the first caerimonia of the Neptunalia. The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia. Furthermore, at the caerimoniae of the mundus patet the only women permitted to attend are the Virgines Vestales. However, the attendance of the pontifices in the caerimoniae of Hercules, the Neptunalia, and the mundus patet is mandatory. The adlection of female pontifices would create a religious obligation to commit an impietas prudens dolo malo, which is a patent absurdity.<br /> <br /> <br /> I see no way to rationalize abandonment of this taboo on the grounds of the hypothesized sexism of Roman society. We simply do not know why the gender taboo existed any more than we know why there were no male Vestals, and anyone who claims the ability to distinguish between essential religious taboos and artifacts of sexual discrimination is engaged in willful self-deception. We know that the Romans assiduously respected these taboos and that these taboos were not generally extended across the entire cultus, which militates for prudently treating them as intrinsically important to the Religio and connected to specific aspects of the cultus. At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity. Following the latter strategy seems to me to place us entirely outside the enterprise of reconstruction and into the enterprise of creating a new religion out of whole cloth. The suggestion that female pontifices simply absent themselves from caerimoniae at which the attendance of women is prohibited ignores the fact that pontifical attendance at these caerimoniae was mandatory except in case of good cause, i.e., absence from the city or illness. 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Frankly, earlier adlection of female pontifices in Nova Roma is so grave a departure from the cultic practice of antiquity that our only hope to undo the offence it represents is to simply throw ourselves on the mercy of the Gods and plead abject ignorance for the affront. If we knowingly go down this path again, we shall be making genuine reconstruction of the Religio impossible. Why don't we just create male sacerdotes of Bona Dea while we're at it? <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Opening response to Gaius Iulius Scaurus and the case for gender equality:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his argument against women ''pontifices'', Scaurus makes the claim that women were prohibited from participating in some specific cults, and that these practices required the ''pontifices'' to participate. However, he makes the claim that ''pontifices'' could excuse themselves from participation for good cause. What better cause then gender equality? What we know of gender disparity shows that there were cult practices where women were the exclusive participants, yet if ''pontifices'' had jurisdiction over ceremonial matters then it serves that they would have influence over the rites of any state sponsored cultus.&lt;ref&gt; Shelton, Jo-Ann. “As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History,” Second Edition. Oxford University Press: New York 1998. Page 384 – 385.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction is evident in the ruling of the pontifices regarding Publius Clodius Pulcher and his unlawful attendance at the rites of Bona Dea, where the pontifices ruled that the rites had been polluted.&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. &lt;u&gt;From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 39.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction seems to transcend gender since the ''pontifices'' had cause to monitor the orthopraxy of ritual practice, yet were denied access to the cult of Bona Dea. In the sacerdotal culture of Nova Roma the proximity of ''pontifices'' to the cultic practices of the ''sacerdotes'' is not always guaranteed. Therefore, it seems only reasonable to assume that the mandated participation, that Scaurus mentions, is a practice from antiquity that will need modification in our modern global environment. I have, for example, been a pontifex for a couple of years now and I have never been to a “mandatory” ''caerimoniae'' to either Hercules or Neptune. Furthermore, since the ''pontifices'' of antiquity had jurisdiction over aspects of a female specific cult then logic would dictate that women ''pontifices'' within Nova Roma would have similar jurisdiction over male only cults. This jurisdiction, however, need not always include proximity to the actual ceremonial act, but deals with issues of orthopraxy.<br /> <br /> ==On the status and role of women in Nova Roma:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> At issue, as to whether women can or should be ''pontifices'', is the treatment of women in Nova Roma. Women are allowed, and encouraged, to participate in all aspects of civic life. That was not the case within Rome of antiquity, since women were typically under the ''patria potestas'' of their father, husband, or male relative.&lt;ref&gt; Arjava, Antti . &quot;Paternal Power in Late Antiquity.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Journal of Roman Studies&lt;/u&gt;. 88 (1998): 147-65. Page 148.&lt;/ref&gt; The ''patria potestas'' of the ''pater familias'' lasted as long as the pater was alive, and even in cases when the ''pater familias'' died, and those under his ''potestas'' became ''sui iuris'' (independent), the men under the ''potestas'' were completely free, but women were required to have a ''tutor'' or legal guardian.&lt;ref&gt; Carp, Teresa. &quot;Two matrons of the late republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt; Women's Studies&lt;/u&gt; 8 (1981): 189-200. Page 191.&lt;/ref&gt; This is one major difference between women in ancient Rome and women in Nova Roma, the idea of emancipation and independence. In Nova Roma, via Lex Equitia familiaris the ideal of gender equality is evident in subscribing ''potestas'' irrespective of gender, respecting the concept of both ''pater familias'' and ''mater familias'' along with allowing for male and female ''tutores'' in the case of ''minores''. This gender equality within Nova Roma is important because it represents a profound deviation of the ''mos maiorum'' in one sense, but also an evolution of that same ''mos maiorum'' reflecting a continuity between ancient and contemporary mores. Our contemporary usage of gender equality within our own family law is the departure from ancient practice that radically changes the role of women.<br /> <br /> <br /> In ancient Rome a woman could belong to one of three different categories; “Women who did not qualify as either matronae or virgins were effectively non-members of the Roman state and of its cult, banned, with a few specific exceptions, from participating (except perhaps as spectators along a parade route) in many of Rome’s most central religious rites.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore, a ''matrona'' and a ''virgo'' can be defined with the following definition, “To be a matrona, a woman had to be the respectable wife or widow of a Roman citizen. To be a virgo, a woman had to be the morally pure, respectable, sexually intact (as we define the English word virgin) marriageable daughter of a Roman citizen.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; In Nova Roma this classification of women does not apply, and as an example I’ll use a former vestal to illustrate my point. [[Lucia Modia Lupa (Nova Roma)|Lucia Modia Lupa]] was appointed a Vestal by Collegium Pontificum decretum dated ante diem XIII Kal. FEBRVARIAS MMDCCLVIII a.u.c. (20 January 2005). At the time of her appointment she was still under my ''patria potestas'', but was emancipated by me a day later (21 January 2005). Lucia Modia Lupa was neither a ''matrona'' or a ''virgo'', being unmarried and having a daughter. It would, in my opinion, be against the ancient Roman ''mos maiorum'' to have a women who was anything other than a ''virgo'' selected to become a ''vestal''; yet such an appointment did occur in Nova Roma because the requirement of being either a ''matrona'' or ''virgo'' is an antiquated practice that does not apply in the gender egalitarian environment that prevails in Nova Roma. This departure from antiquity is a radical departure when compared to the mores of the past, however, they seem less radical when contrasted against the mores of our contemporary “macronational” culture and the established mores within Nova Roma itself. In fact, the initial establishment of the Nova Roma Constitution of MMDCCLII states, “When determining applicability for Citizenship, Nova Roma shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age (except where such is mandated by the civil laws of a particular locality), or sexuality.,” and the current version of the Nova Roma Constitution reads, “Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.” Therefore, the distinction of ''matrona'' or ''virgo'' does not apply to the status of women in Nova Roma.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Scheid, John. “An Introduction to Roman Religion.” Indiana University Press: Bloomington &amp; Indianapolis 2003. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Senators clearly had religious authority,&lt;ref&gt; Warrior, Valerie M. “Roman Religion.” Cambridge University Press: New York 2006. Page 42.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Szemler, George J. &quot;Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Numen&lt;/u&gt; 18.2 (1971): 103-31. Page 106.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> ==On Change in the Sacra Publica:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Scaurus makes an argument that the gender disparity is a preference of the Gods: “At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the ''Di Immortales'' or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity.” This can be addressed by looking at the development of the ''sacra publica'' as circumstances changed. With each major transformation of Rome came change in the way the ''sacra publica'' operated. This change in the management of the ''pax deorum'' can be seen in this selection from Liebeschuetz, “Moreover the procedure for dealing with portents was intimately linked with the republican system of government and the management by the senate of sovereign popular assemblies. When that system collapsed, traditional ways of maintaining the pax deorum lost a principle reason for existence.”&lt;ref&gt; Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. “Continuity and Change in Roman Religion.” Oxford At the Claredon Press: Oxford 1979. Page 58.&lt;/ref&gt; For example, the priesthood of the ''Rex Sacrorum'' was established when the monarchy was abolished,&lt;ref&gt; Dowden, Ken “Religion and the Romans.” Bristol Classical Press: London 1992. Page 18.&lt;/ref&gt; and was a result of the Romans finding a solution to the disestablishment of the office of ''rex'' who had ceremonial obligations. Another example of the Romans dealing with change is the struggle between patricians and plebeians, and the passing of Lex Ogulnia in 300 BCE removing the patrician monopoly over the ''Collegium Pontificum'' and the ''Collegium Augurum''.&lt;ref&gt; Taylor, Lily R. &quot;Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The American Journal of Philology&lt;/u&gt; 63.4 (1942): 385-412. Page 386.&lt;/ref&gt; Most priesthoods were originally reserved for patricians alone, but were eventually opened up to include members of the plebeian order. Some priesthoods remained closed to plebeians, but these were highly ritualized priesthoods (i.e., the major Flamen, and Rex Sacrorum), while the more politicized priesthoods (priesthoods of ''pontifex'' and ''augur'' for example) were opened up to plebeians. Would it have been considered ''impietas prudens dolo malo'' at one time in the history of Rome to suggest that plebeians, for example, be admitted as ''pontifices'' or ''augures''? Patricians and plebeian classes where established, according to tradition, by Romulus himself with patricians as priests and magistrates, and the plebeians to do the other, often necessary, tasks.&lt;ref&gt; Watson, Alan. &quot;Roman Private Law and the Leges Regiae.&quot; The Journal of Roman Studies 62 (1972): 100-05. Page 100.&lt;/ref&gt; If it is acceptable to open up various priesthoods to plebeians then it seems reasonable to open up the same priesthoods to gender, especially those priesthoods that were not exclusively linked to gender (i.e., Vestals) and which have a certain political quality to them (viz., ''pontifex'' and ''augur''). This seems especially true since the establishment of the classes is attributed to Romulus himself. Certainly, the idea of plebeian magistrates and pontifices would not have been acceptable, for example, in the time of Numa Popilius, but later in the evolution of Rome the idea became more palatable, just like our current practice of women magistrates and senatores would have been unheard of during the Republic and afterwards, but is now an acceptable practice.<br /> <br /> <br /> It could be argued for example that, “The departure from the mos maiorum in permitting Plebeian pontifices altered the human component of the mos, not that which was demanded by the Di Immortales.” If this objection to women ''pontifices'' is based exclusively on the assumption that plebeian ''pontifices'' represent a human component while women ''pontifices'' represents some sort of divinely mandated prohibition, then it should also be the case that women should be excluded from all political offices and especially from the senate. This prohibition is based on the special character of magistrates and senatores. However, as I have shown above, the mores Nova Roma, while linked with the ''mos maiorum'' of antiquity, is much different from its counterpart in antiquity. Additionally, change was periodically introduced into the ''sacra publica'' by the senate and various priestly colleges. The ''sacra publica'' was and is, by its nature, inclusive and highly adaptable with one special caveat, “These new additions were only thought legitimate when they received official acceptance by the ruling elite.”&lt;ref&gt; Takács, Sarolta A. &quot;Politics and Religion in the Bacchanalian Affair of 186 B.C.E.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Harvard Studies in Classical Philology&lt;/u&gt; 100 (2000): 301-10. Page 302.&lt;/ref&gt; New cults established, such as the cult of Magna Mater, old cults re-activated (such as the Arval Brethren under Augustus), and other additions, changes, and adaptations to the ''sacra publica'' were possible, but only through the collegial character of the collegium pontificum, senate, etc. The objection that some departures from the mos maiorum involve only a human component while other departures would be a direct violation of the Di Immortales would imply that the ''Di Immortales'' presented some form of direct communication with someone from Roman antiquity. I am unaware of any “golden tablets,” or codified texts similar to the Bible of the Judeo-Christian faiths, or to the Quran of Islam. However, religious change has been possible within ancient Rome. An early example of change are the reforms of Numa Popilius, when “He established laws and customs among the Romans, who, because of their frequent hostilities, were until that point regarded as semibarbaric ''latrones''. Furthermore, he divided the previously unregulated years into ten months (sic) and founded numerous sacred rites and temples at Rome.”&lt;ref&gt; Bird, H W. &quot;Eutropius on Numa Pompilius and the Senate.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 81.3 (1986): 243-48. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Would the Romans of Numa’s time consider his reforms a violation of the mos maiorum, or as much needed reforms to move Rome forward? History portrays Numa Popilius in a very positive manner, so it would seem that his reforms benefited Rome. Additionally, great power over the ''sacra publica'' rested within the “ruling elite.” The senate, during the Empire, had the power of deification; “The deification of a deceased emperor was authorized by a formal decree of the senate, which alone had power to introduce new forms of worship.”&lt;ref&gt; Burton, Henry F. &quot;The Worship of the Roman Emperors.&quot; The Biblical World 40.2 (1912): 80-91. Page 84.&lt;/ref&gt; Therefore, the idea of change and adaption was prevalent within the ''sacra publica'' and permitted if done by the “ruling elite” according to law, such practices seem synonymous with the Roman system of change. Claiming some departures are acceptable and others are not, based on the assumption that some are divinely mandated, seems more appropriate to revealed religious traditions (such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) rather than the ''sacra publica'' of Nova Roma. Of course it could be argued that augury is a form of revelation, but if that is the case then augury could ideally solve all of our problems, and the reliance upon augury for this opens up a series of potential abuse by ''augures''.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of the Roman Priesthood:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Something to consider regarding the various priesthoods of Rome, ancient or otherwise, is the nature of the priesthood. The priesthood of Christianity (for example, those of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) is a sacramental priesthood believed to change the very essential character of the individual upon ordination as a priest, resulting in a special character upon the soul of the new priest. Likewise, the Aaronic priesthood of Jewish tradition was a hereditary priesthood passed from father to son. The priesthoods of ancient Rome were different; “Its religious officials were merely political functionaries of state like any other.”&lt;ref&gt; Merrill, Elmer T. &quot;The Attitude of Ancient Rome toward Religion and Religious Cults.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 15.4 (1920): 196-215. Page 200.&lt;/ref&gt; The religious character of the priesthood was linked with that of the state, and priests functioned on behalf of the state. Since Nova Roma makes no distinction of citizenship with regard to gender, as I have shown, and since the priesthood is a function of state then the priesthood should be open to citizens regardless of their gender.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of Vitium:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his critique of women ''pontifices'' Scaurus wrote, “The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia.” The use of the term ''vitium'' in the sense that it is used by Scaurus is an incorrect use of the term ''vitium''. It does happen to be a Latin word for blemish, defect, or fault. However, it has a more specific meaning within the confines of the ''sacra publica''. The word ''vitium'' has specific meaning in augurial law; “As a religious term, it definitely belongs to the language of augury alone.”&lt;ref&gt; Paschall, Dorothy. &quot;The Origin and Semantic Development of Latin Vitium.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association&lt;/u&gt; 67 (1936): 219-31. Page 220.&lt;/ref&gt; It would seem that Scaurus has used the term ''vitium'' incorrectly. His example of women at a ''caerimoniae'' reserved exclusively for men is similar to the case of Publius Clodius Pulcher who secretly attended the rites of Bona Dea, but was discovered. The ''pontifices'' declared that the actions of Clodius were nefas,&lt;ref&gt; Strachan-Davidson, J L. &quot;Mommsen's Roman Criminal Law.&quot; The English Historical Review 16.62 (1901): 219-91. Page 221.&lt;/ref&gt; but no mention of it being a ''vitium''. As I’ve shown above the ''pontifices'' ruled that the presence of Clodius required the rituals to be performed again. In this case Scaurus seems correct that a ritual exclusively aligned to men, with women present, should be conducted over – just a ritual reserved for women had to conducted over after being polluted by a man. However, his argument against women as ''pontifices'' rests on his assertion that ''pontifices'' where and are required to attend the rites of Hercules. Since the cults of Hercules and Bona Dea were linked in their exclusivity of gender,&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 25.&lt;/ref&gt; it seems reasonable that if there was ever a time in Nova Roma where attendance was mandated upon our ''pontifices'' that men would attend the rites of Hercules, and women the rites of Bona Dea. Even if this was the case it would still be appropriate for women ''pontifices'' to guard the orthopraxy of the Herculean cult just as it was for the male ''pontifices'' of antiquity to guard the orthopraxy of the rites of Bona Dea.<br /> <br /> ==Response to the claim of impious hypocrisy:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 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''.<br /> <br /> ==Conclusion:==<br /> <br /> <br /> 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''.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].<br /> [[Category:Nova Roma]]</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/In_defense_of_women_pontifices_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T05:02:38Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* On the status and role of women in Nova Roma: */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The argument below presented by [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] seems to be a narrow analysis of the current dilemma within the sacra publica of Nova Roma, and it is my hope that by illustrating his narrow view, as well as close analysis of ancient Roman religious tradition in light of our modern usage, the concept of women pontifices can be again embraced by Nova Roma. The argument, by Gaius Iulius Scaurus, seems to be a two-fold argument; the religious practices of Roma antiqua being incompatible with modern sentiments of gender equality, and the current practices of gender equality within Nova Roma itself. I hope to address both of these concerns and show that women pontifices are a potential reality again within Nova Roma and one that would not be impietas prudens dolo malo.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Argument against women pontifices as presented by Gaius Iulius Scaurus:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I have made a comprehensive survey of the primary and secondary literature on the question and am convinced that the adlection of female pontifices will violate fundamental gender taboos of the Religio and constitute an inexpiable impietas prudens dolo malo. Women are absolutely forbidden to attend any caerimonia to Hercules and the first caerimonia of the Neptunalia. The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia. Furthermore, at the caerimoniae of the mundus patet the only women permitted to attend are the Virgines Vestales. However, the attendance of the pontifices in the caerimoniae of Hercules, the Neptunalia, and the mundus patet is mandatory. The adlection of female pontifices would create a religious obligation to commit an impietas prudens dolo malo, which is a patent absurdity.<br /> <br /> <br /> I see no way to rationalize abandonment of this taboo on the grounds of the hypothesized sexism of Roman society. We simply do not know why the gender taboo existed any more than we know why there were no male Vestals, and anyone who claims the ability to distinguish between essential religious taboos and artifacts of sexual discrimination is engaged in willful self-deception. We know that the Romans assiduously respected these taboos and that these taboos were not generally extended across the entire cultus, which militates for prudently treating them as intrinsically important to the Religio and connected to specific aspects of the cultus. At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity. Following the latter strategy seems to me to place us entirely outside the enterprise of reconstruction and into the enterprise of creating a new religion out of whole cloth. The suggestion that female pontifices simply absent themselves from caerimoniae at which the attendance of women is prohibited ignores the fact that pontifical attendance at these caerimoniae was mandatory except in case of good cause, i.e., absence from the city or illness. 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Frankly, earlier adlection of female pontifices in Nova Roma is so grave a departure from the cultic practice of antiquity that our only hope to undo the offence it represents is to simply throw ourselves on the mercy of the Gods and plead abject ignorance for the affront. If we knowingly go down this path again, we shall be making genuine reconstruction of the Religio impossible. Why don't we just create male sacerdotes of Bona Dea while we're at it? <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Opening response to Gaius Iulius Scaurus and the case for gender equality:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his argument against women ''pontifices'', Scaurus makes the claim that women were prohibited from participating in some specific cults, and that these practices required the ''pontifices'' to participate. However, he makes the claim that ''pontifices'' could excuse themselves from participation for good cause. What better cause then gender equality? What we know of gender disparity shows that there were cult practices where women were the exclusive participants, yet if ''pontifices'' had jurisdiction over ceremonial matters then it serves that they would have influence over the rites of any state sponsored cultus.&lt;ref&gt; Shelton, Jo-Ann. “As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History,” Second Edition. Oxford University Press: New York 1998. Page 384 – 385.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction is evident in the ruling of the pontifices regarding Publius Clodius Pulcher and his unlawful attendance at the rites of Bona Dea, where the pontifices ruled that the rites had been polluted.&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. &lt;u&gt;From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 39.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction seems to transcend gender since the ''pontifices'' had cause to monitor the orthopraxy of ritual practice, yet were denied access to the cult of Bona Dea. In the sacerdotal culture of Nova Roma the proximity of ''pontifices'' to the cultic practices of the ''sacerdotes'' is not always guaranteed. Therefore, it seems only reasonable to assume that the mandated participation, that Scaurus mentions, is a practice from antiquity that will need modification in our modern global environment. I have, for example, been a pontifex for a couple of years now and I have never been to a “mandatory” ''caerimoniae'' to either Hercules or Neptune. Furthermore, since the ''pontifices'' of antiquity had jurisdiction over aspects of a female specific cult then logic would dictate that women ''pontifices'' within Nova Roma would have similar jurisdiction over male only cults. This jurisdiction, however, need not always include proximity to the actual ceremonial act, but deals with issues of orthopraxy.<br /> <br /> ==On the status and role of women in Nova Roma:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> At issue, as to whether women can or should be ''pontifices'', is the treatment of women in Nova Roma. Women are allowed, and encouraged, to participate in all aspects of civic life. That was not the case within Rome of antiquity, since women were typically under the ''patria potestas'' of their father, husband, or male relative.&lt;ref&gt; Arjava, Antti . &quot;Paternal Power in Late Antiquity.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Journal of Roman Studies&lt;/u&gt;. 88 (1998): 147-65. Page 148.&lt;/ref&gt; The ''patria potestas'' of the ''pater familias'' lasted as long as the pater was alive, and even in cases when the ''pater familias'' died, and those under his ''potestas'' became ''sui iuris'' (independent), the men under the ''potestas'' were completely free, but women were required to have a ''tutor'' or legal guardian.&lt;ref&gt; Carp, Teresa. &quot;Two matrons of the late republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt; Women's Studies&lt;/u&gt; 8 (1981): 189-200. Page 191.&lt;/ref&gt; This is one major difference between women in ancient Rome and women in Nova Roma, the idea of emancipation and independence. In Nova Roma, via Lex Equitia familiaris the ideal of gender equality is evident in subscribing ''potestas'' irrespective of gender, respecting the concept of both ''pater familias'' and ''mater familias'' along with allowing for male and female ''tutores'' in the case of ''minores''. This gender equality within Nova Roma is important because it represents a profound deviation of the ''mos maiorum'' in one sense, but also an evolution of that same ''mos maiorum'' reflecting a continuity between ancient and contemporary mores. Our contemporary usage of gender equality within our own family law is the departure from ancient practice that radically changes the role of women.<br /> <br /> <br /> In ancient Rome a woman could belong to one of three different categories; “Women who did not qualify as either matronae or virgins were effectively non-members of the Roman state and of its cult, banned, with a few specific exceptions, from participating (except perhaps as spectators along a parade route) in many of Rome’s most central religious rites.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore, a ''matrona'' and a ''virgo'' can be defined with the following definition, “To be a matrona, a woman had to be the respectable wife or widow of a Roman citizen. To be a virgo, a woman had to be the morally pure, respectable, sexually intact (as we define the English word virgin) marriageable daughter of a Roman citizen.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; In Nova Roma this classification of women does not apply, and as an example I’ll use a former vestal to illustrate my point. [[Lucia Modia Lupa (Nova Roma)|Lucia Modia Lupa]] was appointed a Vestal by Collegium Pontificum decretum dated ante diem XIII Kal. FEBRVARIAS MMDCCLVIII a.u.c. (20 January 2005). At the time of her appointment she was still under my ''patria potestas'', but was emancipated by me a day later (21 January 2005). Lucia Modia Lupa was neither a ''matrona'' or a ''virgo'', being unmarried and having a daughter. It would, in my opinion, be against the ancient Roman ''mos maiorum'' to have a women who was anything other than a ''virgo'' selected to become a ''vestal''; yet such an appointment did occur in Nova Roma because the requirement of being either a ''matrona'' or ''virgo'' is an antiquated practice that does not apply in the gender egalitarian environment that prevails in Nova Roma. This departure from antiquity is a radical departure when compared to the mores of the past, however, they seem less radical when contrasted against the mores of our contemporary “macronational” culture and the established mores within Nova Roma itself. In fact, the initial establishment of the Nova Roma Constitution of MMDCCLII states, “When determining applicability for Citizenship, Nova Roma shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age (except where such is mandated by the civil laws of a particular locality), or sexuality.,” and the current version of the Nova Roma Constitution reads, “Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.” Therefore, the distinction of ''matrona'' or ''virgo'' does not apply to the status of women in Nova Roma.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Scheid, John. “An Introduction to Roman Religion.” Indiana University Press: Bloomington &amp; Indianapolis 2003. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Senators clearly had religious authority,&lt;ref&gt; Warrior, Valerie M. “Roman Religion.” Cambridge University Press: New York 2006. Page 42.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Szemler, George J. &quot;Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Numen&lt;/u&gt; 18.2 (1971): 103-31. Page 106.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> ==On Change in the Sacra Publica:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Scaurus makes an argument that the gender disparity is a preference of the Gods: “At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the ''Di Immortales'' or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity.” This can be addressed by looking at the development of the ''sacra publica'' as circumstances changed. With each major transformation of Rome came change in the way the ''sacra publica'' operated. This change in the management of the ''pax deorum'' can be seen in this selection from Liebeschuetz, “Moreover the procedure for dealing with portents was intimately linked with the republican system of government and the management by the senate of sovereign popular assemblies. When that system collapsed, traditional ways of maintaining the pax deorum lost a principle reason for existence.”&lt;ref&gt; Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. “Continuity and Change in Roman Religion.” Oxford At the Claredon Press: Oxford 1979. Page 58.&lt;/ref&gt; For example, the priesthood of the ''Rex Sacrorum'' was established when the monarchy was abolished,&lt;ref&gt; Dowden, Ken “Religion and the Romans.” Bristol Classical Press: London 1992. Page 18.&lt;/ref&gt; and was a result of the Romans finding a solution to the disestablishment of the office of ''rex'' who had ceremonial obligations. Another example of the Romans dealing with change is the struggle between patricians and plebeians, and the passing of Lex Ogulnia in 300 BCE removing the patrician monopoly over the ''Collegium Pontificum'' and the ''Collegium Augurum''.&lt;ref&gt; Taylor, Lily R. &quot;Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The American Journal of Philology&lt;/u&gt; 63.4 (1942): 385-412. Page 386.&lt;/ref&gt; Most priesthoods were originally reserved for patricians alone, but were eventually opened up to include members of the plebeian order. Some priesthoods remained closed to plebeians, but these were highly ritualized priesthoods (i.e., the major Flamen, and Rex Sacrorum), while the more politicized priesthoods (priesthoods of ''pontifex'' and ''augur'' for example) were opened up to plebeians. Would it have been considered ''impietas prudens dolo malo'' at one time in the history of Rome to suggest that plebeians, for example, be admitted as ''pontifices'' or ''augures''? Patricians and plebeian classes where established, according to tradition, by Romulus himself with patricians as priests and magistrates, and the plebeians to do the other, often necessary, tasks.&lt;ref&gt; Watson, Alan. &quot;Roman Private Law and the Leges Regiae.&quot; The Journal of Roman Studies 62 (1972): 100-05. Page 100.&lt;/ref&gt; If it is acceptable to open up various priesthoods to plebeians then it seems reasonable to open up the same priesthoods to gender, especially those priesthoods that were not exclusively linked to gender (i.e., Vestals) and which have a certain political quality to them (viz., ''pontifex'' and ''augur''). This seems especially true since the establishment of the classes is attributed to Romulus himself. Certainly, the idea of plebeian magistrates and pontifices would not have been acceptable, for example, in the time of Numa Popilius, but later in the evolution of Rome the idea became more palatable, just like our current practice of women magistrates and senatores would have been unheard of during the Republic and afterwards, but is now an acceptable practice.<br /> <br /> <br /> It could be argued for example that, “The departure from the mos maiorum in permitting Plebeian pontifices altered the human component of the mos, not that which was demanded by the Di Immortales.” If this objection to women ''pontifices'' is based exclusively on the assumption that plebeian ''pontifices'' represent a human component while women ''pontifices'' represents some sort of divinely mandated prohibition, then it should also be the case that women should be excluded from all political offices and especially from the senate. This prohibition is based on the special character of magistrates and senatores. However, as I have shown above, the mores Nova Roma, while linked with the ''mos maiorum'' of antiquity, is much different from its counterpart in antiquity. Additionally, change was periodically introduced into the ''sacra publica'' by the senate and various priestly colleges. The ''sacra publica'' was and is, by its nature, inclusive and highly adaptable with one special caveat, “These new additions were only thought legitimate when they received official acceptance by the ruling elite.”&lt;ref&gt; Takács, Sarolta A. &quot;Politics and Religion in the Bacchanalian Affair of 186 B.C.E.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Harvard Studies in Classical Philology&lt;/u&gt; 100 (2000): 301-10. Page 302.&lt;/ref&gt; New cults established, such as the cult of Magna Mater, old cults re-activated (such as the Arval Brethren under Augustus), and other additions, changes, and adaptations to the ''sacra publica'' were possible, but only through the collegial character of the collegium pontificum, senate, etc. The objection that some departures from the mos maiorum involve only a human component while other departures would be a direct violation of the Di Immortales would imply that the ''Di Immortales'' presented some form of direct communication with someone from Roman antiquity. I am unaware of any “golden tablets,” or codified texts similar to the Bible of the Judeo-Christian faiths, or to the Quran of Islam. However, religious change has been possible within ancient Rome. An early example of change are the reforms of Numa Popilius, when “He established laws and customs among the Romans, who, because of their frequent hostilities, were until that point regarded as semibarbaric ''latrones''. Furthermore, he divided the previously unregulated years into ten months (sic) and founded numerous sacred rites and temples at Rome.”&lt;ref&gt; Bird, H W. &quot;Eutropius on Numa Pompilius and the Senate.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 81.3 (1986): 243-48. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Would the Romans of Numa’s time consider his reforms a violation of the mos maiorum, or as much needed reforms to move Rome forward? History portrays Numa Popilius in a very positive manner, so it would seem that his reforms benefited Rome. Additionally, great power over the ''sacra publica'' rested within the “ruling elite.” The senate, during the Empire, had the power of deification; “The deification of a deceased emperor was authorized by a formal decree of the senate, which alone had power to introduce new forms of worship.”&lt;ref&gt; Burton, Henry F. &quot;The Worship of the Roman Emperors.&quot; The Biblical World 40.2 (1912): 80-91. Page 84.&lt;/ref&gt; Therefore, the idea of change and adaption was prevalent within the ''sacra publica'' and permitted if done by the “ruling elite” according to law, such practices seem synonymous with the Roman system of change. Claiming some departures are acceptable and others are not, based on the assumption that some are divinely mandated, seems more appropriate to revealed religious traditions (such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) rather than the ''sacra publica'' of Nova Roma. Of course it could be argued that augury is a form of revelation, but if that is the case then augury could ideally solve all of our problems, and the reliance upon augury for this opens up a series of potential abuse by ''augures''.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of the Roman Priesthood:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Something to consider regarding the various priesthoods of Rome, ancient or otherwise, is the nature of the priesthood. The priesthood of Christianity (for example, those of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) is a sacramental priesthood believed to change the very essential character of the individual upon ordination as a priest, resulting in a special character upon the soul of the new priest. Likewise, the Aaronic priesthood of Jewish tradition was a hereditary priesthood passed from father to son. The priesthoods of ancient Rome were different; “Its religious officials were merely political functionaries of state like any other.”&lt;ref&gt; Merrill, Elmer T. &quot;The Attitude of Ancient Rome toward Religion and Religious Cults.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 15.4 (1920): 196-215. Page 200.&lt;/ref&gt; The religious character of the priesthood was linked with that of the state, and priests functioned on behalf of the state. Since Nova Roma makes no distinction of citizenship with regard to gender, as I have shown, and since the priesthood is a function of state then the priesthood should be open to citizens regardless of their gender.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of Vitium:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his critique of women ''pontifices'' Scaurus wrote, “The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia.” The use of the term ''vitium'' in the sense that it is used by Scaurus is an incorrect use of the term ''vitium''. It does happen to be a Latin word for blemish, defect, or fault. However, it has a more specific meaning within the confines of the ''sacra publica''. The word ''vitium'' has specific meaning in augurial law; “As a religious term, it definitely belongs to the language of augury alone.”&lt;ref&gt; Paschall, Dorothy. &quot;The Origin and Semantic Development of Latin Vitium.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association&lt;/u&gt; 67 (1936): 219-31. Page 220.&lt;/ref&gt; It would seem that Scaurus has used the term ''vitium'' incorrectly. His example of women at a ''caerimoniae'' reserved exclusively for men is similar to the case of Publius Clodius Pulcher who secretly attended the rites of Bona Dea, but was discovered. The ''pontifices'' declared that the actions of Clodius were nefas,&lt;ref&gt; Strachan-Davidson, J L. &quot;Mommsen's Roman Criminal Law.&quot; The English Historical Review 16.62 (1901): 219-91. Page 221.&lt;/ref&gt; but no mention of it being a ''vitium''. As I’ve shown above the ''pontifices'' ruled that the presence of Clodius required the rituals to be performed again. In this case Scaurus seems correct that a ritual exclusively aligned to men, with women present, should be conducted over – just a ritual reserved for women had to conducted over after being polluted by a man. However, his argument against women as ''pontifices'' rests on his assertion that ''pontifices'' where and are required to attend the rites of Hercules. Since the cults of Hercules and Bona Dea were linked in their exclusivity of gender,&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 25.&lt;/ref&gt; it seems reasonable that if there was ever a time in Nova Roma where attendance was mandated upon our ''pontifices'' that men would attend the rites of Hercules, and women the rites of Bona Dea. Even if this was the case it would still be appropriate for women ''pontifices'' to guard the orthopraxy of the Herculean cult just as it was for the male ''pontifices'' of antiquity to guard the orthopraxy of the rites of Bona Dea.<br /> <br /> ==Response to the claim of impious hypocrisy:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 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''.<br /> <br /> ==Conclusion:==<br /> <br /> <br /> 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''.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/In_defense_of_women_pontifices_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T04:56:06Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* Conclusion: */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The argument below presented by [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] seems to be a narrow analysis of the current dilemma within the sacra publica of Nova Roma, and it is my hope that by illustrating his narrow view, as well as close analysis of ancient Roman religious tradition in light of our modern usage, the concept of women pontifices can be again embraced by Nova Roma. The argument, by Gaius Iulius Scaurus, seems to be a two-fold argument; the religious practices of Roma antiqua being incompatible with modern sentiments of gender equality, and the current practices of gender equality within Nova Roma itself. I hope to address both of these concerns and show that women pontifices are a potential reality again within Nova Roma and one that would not be impietas prudens dolo malo.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Argument against women pontifices as presented by Gaius Iulius Scaurus:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I have made a comprehensive survey of the primary and secondary literature on the question and am convinced that the adlection of female pontifices will violate fundamental gender taboos of the Religio and constitute an inexpiable impietas prudens dolo malo. Women are absolutely forbidden to attend any caerimonia to Hercules and the first caerimonia of the Neptunalia. The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia. Furthermore, at the caerimoniae of the mundus patet the only women permitted to attend are the Virgines Vestales. However, the attendance of the pontifices in the caerimoniae of Hercules, the Neptunalia, and the mundus patet is mandatory. The adlection of female pontifices would create a religious obligation to commit an impietas prudens dolo malo, which is a patent absurdity.<br /> <br /> <br /> I see no way to rationalize abandonment of this taboo on the grounds of the hypothesized sexism of Roman society. We simply do not know why the gender taboo existed any more than we know why there were no male Vestals, and anyone who claims the ability to distinguish between essential religious taboos and artifacts of sexual discrimination is engaged in willful self-deception. We know that the Romans assiduously respected these taboos and that these taboos were not generally extended across the entire cultus, which militates for prudently treating them as intrinsically important to the Religio and connected to specific aspects of the cultus. At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity. Following the latter strategy seems to me to place us entirely outside the enterprise of reconstruction and into the enterprise of creating a new religion out of whole cloth. The suggestion that female pontifices simply absent themselves from caerimoniae at which the attendance of women is prohibited ignores the fact that pontifical attendance at these caerimoniae was mandatory except in case of good cause, i.e., absence from the city or illness. 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Frankly, earlier adlection of female pontifices in Nova Roma is so grave a departure from the cultic practice of antiquity that our only hope to undo the offence it represents is to simply throw ourselves on the mercy of the Gods and plead abject ignorance for the affront. If we knowingly go down this path again, we shall be making genuine reconstruction of the Religio impossible. Why don't we just create male sacerdotes of Bona Dea while we're at it? <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Opening response to Gaius Iulius Scaurus and the case for gender equality:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his argument against women ''pontifices'', Scaurus makes the claim that women were prohibited from participating in some specific cults, and that these practices required the ''pontifices'' to participate. However, he makes the claim that ''pontifices'' could excuse themselves from participation for good cause. What better cause then gender equality? What we know of gender disparity shows that there were cult practices where women were the exclusive participants, yet if ''pontifices'' had jurisdiction over ceremonial matters then it serves that they would have influence over the rites of any state sponsored cultus.&lt;ref&gt; Shelton, Jo-Ann. “As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History,” Second Edition. Oxford University Press: New York 1998. Page 384 – 385.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction is evident in the ruling of the pontifices regarding Publius Clodius Pulcher and his unlawful attendance at the rites of Bona Dea, where the pontifices ruled that the rites had been polluted.&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. &lt;u&gt;From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 39.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction seems to transcend gender since the ''pontifices'' had cause to monitor the orthopraxy of ritual practice, yet were denied access to the cult of Bona Dea. In the sacerdotal culture of Nova Roma the proximity of ''pontifices'' to the cultic practices of the ''sacerdotes'' is not always guaranteed. Therefore, it seems only reasonable to assume that the mandated participation, that Scaurus mentions, is a practice from antiquity that will need modification in our modern global environment. I have, for example, been a pontifex for a couple of years now and I have never been to a “mandatory” ''caerimoniae'' to either Hercules or Neptune. Furthermore, since the ''pontifices'' of antiquity had jurisdiction over aspects of a female specific cult then logic would dictate that women ''pontifices'' within Nova Roma would have similar jurisdiction over male only cults. This jurisdiction, however, need not always include proximity to the actual ceremonial act, but deals with issues of orthopraxy.<br /> <br /> ==On the status and role of women in Nova Roma:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> At issue, as to whether women can or should be ''pontifices'', is the treatment of women in Nova Roma. Women are allowed, and encouraged, to participate in all aspects of civic life. That was not the case within Rome of antiquity, since women were typically under the ''patria potestas'' of their father, husband, or male relative.&lt;ref&gt; Arjava, Antti . &quot;Paternal Power in Late Antiquity.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Journal of Roman Studies&lt;/u&gt;. 88 (1998): 147-65. Page 148.&lt;/ref&gt; The ''patria potestas'' of the ''pater familias'' lasted as long as the pater was alive, and even in cases when the ''pater familias'' died, and those under his ''potestas'' became ''sui iuris'' (independent), the men under the ''potestas'' were completely free, but women were required to have a ''tutor'' or legal guardian.&lt;ref&gt; Carp, Teresa. &quot;Two matrons of the late republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt; Women's Studies&lt;/u&gt; 8 (1981): 189-200. Page 191.&lt;/ref&gt; This is one major difference between women in ancient Rome and women in Nova Roma, the idea of emancipation and independence. In Nova Roma, via Lex Equitia familiaris the ideal of gender equality is evident in subscribing ''potestas'' irrespective of gender, respecting the concept of both ''pater familias'' and ''mater familias'' along with allowing for male and female ''tutores'' in the case of ''minores''. This gender equality within Nova Roma is important because it represents a profound deviation of the ''mos maiorum'' in one sense, but also an evolution of that same ''mos maiorum'' reflecting a continuity between ancient and contemporary mores. Our contemporary usage of gender equality within our own family law is the departure from ancient practice that radically changes the role of women.<br /> <br /> <br /> In ancient Rome a woman could belong to one of three different categories; “Women who did not qualify as either matronae or virgins were effectively non-members of the Roman state and of its cult, banned, with a few specific exceptions, from participating (except perhaps as spectators along a parade route) in many of Rome’s most central religious rites.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore, a ''matrona'' and a ''virgo'' can be defined with the following definition, “To be a matrona, a woman had to be the respectable wife or widow of a Roman citizen. To be a virgo, a woman had to be the morally pure, respectable, sexually intact (as we define the English word virgin) marriageable daughter of a Roman citizen.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; In Nova Roma this classification of women does not apply, and as an example I’ll use a former vestal to illustrate my point. [[Lucia Modia Lupa (Nova Roma)|Lucia Modia Lupa]] was appointed a Vestal by Collegium Pontificum decretum dated ante diem XIII Kal. FEBRVARIAS MMDCCLVIII a.u.c. (20 January 2005). At the time of her appointment she was still under my ''patria potestas'', but was emancipated by me a day later (21 January 2005). Lucia Modia Lupa was neither a ''matrona'' or a ''virgo'', being unmarried and having a daughter. It would, in my opinion, be against the ancient Roman ''mos maiorum'' to have a women who was anything other than a ''virgo'' selected to become a ''vestal''; yet such an appointment did occur in Nova Roma because the requirement of being either a ''matrona'' or ''virgo'' is an antiquated practice that does not apply in the gender egalitarian environment that prevails in Nova Roma. This departure from antiquity is a radical departure when compared to the mores of the past, however, they seem less radical when contrasted against the mores of our contemporary “macronational” culture and the established mores within Nova Roma itself. In fact, the initial establishment of the Nova Roma Constitution of MMDCCLII states, “When determining applicability for Citizenship, Nova Roma shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age (except where such is mandated by the civil laws of a particular locality), or sexuality.,” and the current version of the Nova Roma Constitution reads, “Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.” Therefore, the distinction of ''matrona'' or ''virgo'' does not apply to the status of women in Nova Roma.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Scheid, John. “An Introduction to Roman Religion.” Indiana University Press: Bloomington &amp; Indianapolis 2003. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Senators clearly had religious authority,&lt;ref&gt; Warrior, Valerie M. “Roman Religion.” Cambridge University Press: New York 2006. Page 42.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Szemler, George J. &quot;Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Numen&lt;/u&gt; 18.2 (1971): 103-31. Page 106.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> ==On Change in the Sacra Publica:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Scaurus makes an argument that the gender disparity is a preference of the Gods: “At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the ''Di Immortales'' or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity.” This can be addressed by looking at the development of the ''sacra publica'' as circumstances changed. With each major transformation of Rome came change in the way the ''sacra publica'' operated. This change in the management of the ''pax deorum'' can be seen in this selection from Liebeschuetz, “Moreover the procedure for dealing with portents was intimately linked with the republican system of government and the management by the senate of sovereign popular assemblies. When that system collapsed, traditional ways of maintaining the pax deorum lost a principle reason for existence.”&lt;ref&gt; Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. “Continuity and Change in Roman Religion.” Oxford At the Claredon Press: Oxford 1979. Page 58.&lt;/ref&gt; For example, the priesthood of the ''Rex Sacrorum'' was established when the monarchy was abolished,&lt;ref&gt; Dowden, Ken “Religion and the Romans.” Bristol Classical Press: London 1992. Page 18.&lt;/ref&gt; and was a result of the Romans finding a solution to the disestablishment of the office of ''rex'' who had ceremonial obligations. Another example of the Romans dealing with change is the struggle between patricians and plebeians, and the passing of Lex Ogulnia in 300 BCE removing the patrician monopoly over the ''Collegium Pontificum'' and the ''Collegium Augurum''.&lt;ref&gt; Taylor, Lily R. &quot;Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The American Journal of Philology&lt;/u&gt; 63.4 (1942): 385-412. Page 386.&lt;/ref&gt; Most priesthoods were originally reserved for patricians alone, but were eventually opened up to include members of the plebeian order. Some priesthoods remained closed to plebeians, but these were highly ritualized priesthoods (i.e., the major Flamen, and Rex Sacrorum), while the more politicized priesthoods (priesthoods of ''pontifex'' and ''augur'' for example) were opened up to plebeians. Would it have been considered ''impietas prudens dolo malo'' at one time in the history of Rome to suggest that plebeians, for example, be admitted as ''pontifices'' or ''augures''? Patricians and plebeian classes where established, according to tradition, by Romulus himself with patricians as priests and magistrates, and the plebeians to do the other, often necessary, tasks.&lt;ref&gt; Watson, Alan. &quot;Roman Private Law and the Leges Regiae.&quot; The Journal of Roman Studies 62 (1972): 100-05. Page 100.&lt;/ref&gt; If it is acceptable to open up various priesthoods to plebeians then it seems reasonable to open up the same priesthoods to gender, especially those priesthoods that were not exclusively linked to gender (i.e., Vestals) and which have a certain political quality to them (viz., ''pontifex'' and ''augur''). This seems especially true since the establishment of the classes is attributed to Romulus himself. Certainly, the idea of plebeian magistrates and pontifices would not have been acceptable, for example, in the time of Numa Popilius, but later in the evolution of Rome the idea became more palatable, just like our current practice of women magistrates and senatores would have been unheard of during the Republic and afterwards, but is now an acceptable practice.<br /> <br /> <br /> It could be argued for example that, “The departure from the mos maiorum in permitting Plebeian pontifices altered the human component of the mos, not that which was demanded by the Di Immortales.” If this objection to women ''pontifices'' is based exclusively on the assumption that plebeian ''pontifices'' represent a human component while women ''pontifices'' represents some sort of divinely mandated prohibition, then it should also be the case that women should be excluded from all political offices and especially from the senate. This prohibition is based on the special character of magistrates and senatores. However, as I have shown above, the mores Nova Roma, while linked with the ''mos maiorum'' of antiquity, is much different from its counterpart in antiquity. Additionally, change was periodically introduced into the ''sacra publica'' by the senate and various priestly colleges. The ''sacra publica'' was and is, by its nature, inclusive and highly adaptable with one special caveat, “These new additions were only thought legitimate when they received official acceptance by the ruling elite.”&lt;ref&gt; Takács, Sarolta A. &quot;Politics and Religion in the Bacchanalian Affair of 186 B.C.E.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Harvard Studies in Classical Philology&lt;/u&gt; 100 (2000): 301-10. Page 302.&lt;/ref&gt; New cults established, such as the cult of Magna Mater, old cults re-activated (such as the Arval Brethren under Augustus), and other additions, changes, and adaptations to the ''sacra publica'' were possible, but only through the collegial character of the collegium pontificum, senate, etc. The objection that some departures from the mos maiorum involve only a human component while other departures would be a direct violation of the Di Immortales would imply that the ''Di Immortales'' presented some form of direct communication with someone from Roman antiquity. I am unaware of any “golden tablets,” or codified texts similar to the Bible of the Judeo-Christian faiths, or to the Quran of Islam. However, religious change has been possible within ancient Rome. An early example of change are the reforms of Numa Popilius, when “He established laws and customs among the Romans, who, because of their frequent hostilities, were until that point regarded as semibarbaric ''latrones''. Furthermore, he divided the previously unregulated years into ten months (sic) and founded numerous sacred rites and temples at Rome.”&lt;ref&gt; Bird, H W. &quot;Eutropius on Numa Pompilius and the Senate.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 81.3 (1986): 243-48. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Would the Romans of Numa’s time consider his reforms a violation of the mos maiorum, or as much needed reforms to move Rome forward? History portrays Numa Popilius in a very positive manner, so it would seem that his reforms benefited Rome. Additionally, great power over the ''sacra publica'' rested within the “ruling elite.” The senate, during the Empire, had the power of deification; “The deification of a deceased emperor was authorized by a formal decree of the senate, which alone had power to introduce new forms of worship.”&lt;ref&gt; Burton, Henry F. &quot;The Worship of the Roman Emperors.&quot; The Biblical World 40.2 (1912): 80-91. Page 84.&lt;/ref&gt; Therefore, the idea of change and adaption was prevalent within the ''sacra publica'' and permitted if done by the “ruling elite” according to law, such practices seem synonymous with the Roman system of change. Claiming some departures are acceptable and others are not, based on the assumption that some are divinely mandated, seems more appropriate to revealed religious traditions (such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) rather than the ''sacra publica'' of Nova Roma. Of course it could be argued that augury is a form of revelation, but if that is the case then augury could ideally solve all of our problems, and the reliance upon augury for this opens up a series of potential abuse by ''augures''.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of the Roman Priesthood:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Something to consider regarding the various priesthoods of Rome, ancient or otherwise, is the nature of the priesthood. The priesthood of Christianity (for example, those of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) is a sacramental priesthood believed to change the very essential character of the individual upon ordination as a priest, resulting in a special character upon the soul of the new priest. Likewise, the Aaronic priesthood of Jewish tradition was a hereditary priesthood passed from father to son. The priesthoods of ancient Rome were different; “Its religious officials were merely political functionaries of state like any other.”&lt;ref&gt; Merrill, Elmer T. &quot;The Attitude of Ancient Rome toward Religion and Religious Cults.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 15.4 (1920): 196-215. Page 200.&lt;/ref&gt; The religious character of the priesthood was linked with that of the state, and priests functioned on behalf of the state. Since Nova Roma makes no distinction of citizenship with regard to gender, as I have shown, and since the priesthood is a function of state then the priesthood should be open to citizens regardless of their gender.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of Vitium:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his critique of women ''pontifices'' Scaurus wrote, “The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia.” The use of the term ''vitium'' in the sense that it is used by Scaurus is an incorrect use of the term ''vitium''. It does happen to be a Latin word for blemish, defect, or fault. However, it has a more specific meaning within the confines of the ''sacra publica''. The word ''vitium'' has specific meaning in augurial law; “As a religious term, it definitely belongs to the language of augury alone.”&lt;ref&gt; Paschall, Dorothy. &quot;The Origin and Semantic Development of Latin Vitium.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association&lt;/u&gt; 67 (1936): 219-31. Page 220.&lt;/ref&gt; It would seem that Scaurus has used the term ''vitium'' incorrectly. His example of women at a ''caerimoniae'' reserved exclusively for men is similar to the case of Publius Clodius Pulcher who secretly attended the rites of Bona Dea, but was discovered. The ''pontifices'' declared that the actions of Clodius were nefas,&lt;ref&gt; Strachan-Davidson, J L. &quot;Mommsen's Roman Criminal Law.&quot; The English Historical Review 16.62 (1901): 219-91. Page 221.&lt;/ref&gt; but no mention of it being a ''vitium''. As I’ve shown above the ''pontifices'' ruled that the presence of Clodius required the rituals to be performed again. In this case Scaurus seems correct that a ritual exclusively aligned to men, with women present, should be conducted over – just a ritual reserved for women had to conducted over after being polluted by a man. However, his argument against women as ''pontifices'' rests on his assertion that ''pontifices'' where and are required to attend the rites of Hercules. Since the cults of Hercules and Bona Dea were linked in their exclusivity of gender,&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 25.&lt;/ref&gt; it seems reasonable that if there was ever a time in Nova Roma where attendance was mandated upon our ''pontifices'' that men would attend the rites of Hercules, and women the rites of Bona Dea. Even if this was the case it would still be appropriate for women ''pontifices'' to guard the orthopraxy of the Herculean cult just as it was for the male ''pontifices'' of antiquity to guard the orthopraxy of the rites of Bona Dea.<br /> <br /> ==Response to the claim of impious hypocrisy:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 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''.<br /> <br /> ==Conclusion:==<br /> <br /> <br /> 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''.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/In_defense_of_women_pontifices_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T04:55:28Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* Response to the claim of impious hypocrisy: */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The argument below presented by [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] seems to be a narrow analysis of the current dilemma within the sacra publica of Nova Roma, and it is my hope that by illustrating his narrow view, as well as close analysis of ancient Roman religious tradition in light of our modern usage, the concept of women pontifices can be again embraced by Nova Roma. The argument, by Gaius Iulius Scaurus, seems to be a two-fold argument; the religious practices of Roma antiqua being incompatible with modern sentiments of gender equality, and the current practices of gender equality within Nova Roma itself. I hope to address both of these concerns and show that women pontifices are a potential reality again within Nova Roma and one that would not be impietas prudens dolo malo.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Argument against women pontifices as presented by Gaius Iulius Scaurus:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I have made a comprehensive survey of the primary and secondary literature on the question and am convinced that the adlection of female pontifices will violate fundamental gender taboos of the Religio and constitute an inexpiable impietas prudens dolo malo. Women are absolutely forbidden to attend any caerimonia to Hercules and the first caerimonia of the Neptunalia. The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia. Furthermore, at the caerimoniae of the mundus patet the only women permitted to attend are the Virgines Vestales. However, the attendance of the pontifices in the caerimoniae of Hercules, the Neptunalia, and the mundus patet is mandatory. The adlection of female pontifices would create a religious obligation to commit an impietas prudens dolo malo, which is a patent absurdity.<br /> <br /> <br /> I see no way to rationalize abandonment of this taboo on the grounds of the hypothesized sexism of Roman society. We simply do not know why the gender taboo existed any more than we know why there were no male Vestals, and anyone who claims the ability to distinguish between essential religious taboos and artifacts of sexual discrimination is engaged in willful self-deception. We know that the Romans assiduously respected these taboos and that these taboos were not generally extended across the entire cultus, which militates for prudently treating them as intrinsically important to the Religio and connected to specific aspects of the cultus. At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity. Following the latter strategy seems to me to place us entirely outside the enterprise of reconstruction and into the enterprise of creating a new religion out of whole cloth. The suggestion that female pontifices simply absent themselves from caerimoniae at which the attendance of women is prohibited ignores the fact that pontifical attendance at these caerimoniae was mandatory except in case of good cause, i.e., absence from the city or illness. 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Frankly, earlier adlection of female pontifices in Nova Roma is so grave a departure from the cultic practice of antiquity that our only hope to undo the offence it represents is to simply throw ourselves on the mercy of the Gods and plead abject ignorance for the affront. If we knowingly go down this path again, we shall be making genuine reconstruction of the Religio impossible. Why don't we just create male sacerdotes of Bona Dea while we're at it? <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Opening response to Gaius Iulius Scaurus and the case for gender equality:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his argument against women ''pontifices'', Scaurus makes the claim that women were prohibited from participating in some specific cults, and that these practices required the ''pontifices'' to participate. However, he makes the claim that ''pontifices'' could excuse themselves from participation for good cause. What better cause then gender equality? What we know of gender disparity shows that there were cult practices where women were the exclusive participants, yet if ''pontifices'' had jurisdiction over ceremonial matters then it serves that they would have influence over the rites of any state sponsored cultus.&lt;ref&gt; Shelton, Jo-Ann. “As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History,” Second Edition. Oxford University Press: New York 1998. Page 384 – 385.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction is evident in the ruling of the pontifices regarding Publius Clodius Pulcher and his unlawful attendance at the rites of Bona Dea, where the pontifices ruled that the rites had been polluted.&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. &lt;u&gt;From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 39.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction seems to transcend gender since the ''pontifices'' had cause to monitor the orthopraxy of ritual practice, yet were denied access to the cult of Bona Dea. In the sacerdotal culture of Nova Roma the proximity of ''pontifices'' to the cultic practices of the ''sacerdotes'' is not always guaranteed. Therefore, it seems only reasonable to assume that the mandated participation, that Scaurus mentions, is a practice from antiquity that will need modification in our modern global environment. I have, for example, been a pontifex for a couple of years now and I have never been to a “mandatory” ''caerimoniae'' to either Hercules or Neptune. Furthermore, since the ''pontifices'' of antiquity had jurisdiction over aspects of a female specific cult then logic would dictate that women ''pontifices'' within Nova Roma would have similar jurisdiction over male only cults. This jurisdiction, however, need not always include proximity to the actual ceremonial act, but deals with issues of orthopraxy.<br /> <br /> ==On the status and role of women in Nova Roma:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> At issue, as to whether women can or should be ''pontifices'', is the treatment of women in Nova Roma. Women are allowed, and encouraged, to participate in all aspects of civic life. That was not the case within Rome of antiquity, since women were typically under the ''patria potestas'' of their father, husband, or male relative.&lt;ref&gt; Arjava, Antti . &quot;Paternal Power in Late Antiquity.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Journal of Roman Studies&lt;/u&gt;. 88 (1998): 147-65. Page 148.&lt;/ref&gt; The ''patria potestas'' of the ''pater familias'' lasted as long as the pater was alive, and even in cases when the ''pater familias'' died, and those under his ''potestas'' became ''sui iuris'' (independent), the men under the ''potestas'' were completely free, but women were required to have a ''tutor'' or legal guardian.&lt;ref&gt; Carp, Teresa. &quot;Two matrons of the late republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt; Women's Studies&lt;/u&gt; 8 (1981): 189-200. Page 191.&lt;/ref&gt; This is one major difference between women in ancient Rome and women in Nova Roma, the idea of emancipation and independence. In Nova Roma, via Lex Equitia familiaris the ideal of gender equality is evident in subscribing ''potestas'' irrespective of gender, respecting the concept of both ''pater familias'' and ''mater familias'' along with allowing for male and female ''tutores'' in the case of ''minores''. This gender equality within Nova Roma is important because it represents a profound deviation of the ''mos maiorum'' in one sense, but also an evolution of that same ''mos maiorum'' reflecting a continuity between ancient and contemporary mores. Our contemporary usage of gender equality within our own family law is the departure from ancient practice that radically changes the role of women.<br /> <br /> <br /> In ancient Rome a woman could belong to one of three different categories; “Women who did not qualify as either matronae or virgins were effectively non-members of the Roman state and of its cult, banned, with a few specific exceptions, from participating (except perhaps as spectators along a parade route) in many of Rome’s most central religious rites.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore, a ''matrona'' and a ''virgo'' can be defined with the following definition, “To be a matrona, a woman had to be the respectable wife or widow of a Roman citizen. To be a virgo, a woman had to be the morally pure, respectable, sexually intact (as we define the English word virgin) marriageable daughter of a Roman citizen.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; In Nova Roma this classification of women does not apply, and as an example I’ll use a former vestal to illustrate my point. [[Lucia Modia Lupa (Nova Roma)|Lucia Modia Lupa]] was appointed a Vestal by Collegium Pontificum decretum dated ante diem XIII Kal. FEBRVARIAS MMDCCLVIII a.u.c. (20 January 2005). At the time of her appointment she was still under my ''patria potestas'', but was emancipated by me a day later (21 January 2005). Lucia Modia Lupa was neither a ''matrona'' or a ''virgo'', being unmarried and having a daughter. It would, in my opinion, be against the ancient Roman ''mos maiorum'' to have a women who was anything other than a ''virgo'' selected to become a ''vestal''; yet such an appointment did occur in Nova Roma because the requirement of being either a ''matrona'' or ''virgo'' is an antiquated practice that does not apply in the gender egalitarian environment that prevails in Nova Roma. This departure from antiquity is a radical departure when compared to the mores of the past, however, they seem less radical when contrasted against the mores of our contemporary “macronational” culture and the established mores within Nova Roma itself. In fact, the initial establishment of the Nova Roma Constitution of MMDCCLII states, “When determining applicability for Citizenship, Nova Roma shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age (except where such is mandated by the civil laws of a particular locality), or sexuality.,” and the current version of the Nova Roma Constitution reads, “Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.” Therefore, the distinction of ''matrona'' or ''virgo'' does not apply to the status of women in Nova Roma.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Scheid, John. “An Introduction to Roman Religion.” Indiana University Press: Bloomington &amp; Indianapolis 2003. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Senators clearly had religious authority,&lt;ref&gt; Warrior, Valerie M. “Roman Religion.” Cambridge University Press: New York 2006. Page 42.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Szemler, George J. &quot;Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Numen&lt;/u&gt; 18.2 (1971): 103-31. Page 106.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> ==On Change in the Sacra Publica:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Scaurus makes an argument that the gender disparity is a preference of the Gods: “At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the ''Di Immortales'' or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity.” This can be addressed by looking at the development of the ''sacra publica'' as circumstances changed. With each major transformation of Rome came change in the way the ''sacra publica'' operated. This change in the management of the ''pax deorum'' can be seen in this selection from Liebeschuetz, “Moreover the procedure for dealing with portents was intimately linked with the republican system of government and the management by the senate of sovereign popular assemblies. When that system collapsed, traditional ways of maintaining the pax deorum lost a principle reason for existence.”&lt;ref&gt; Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. “Continuity and Change in Roman Religion.” Oxford At the Claredon Press: Oxford 1979. Page 58.&lt;/ref&gt; For example, the priesthood of the ''Rex Sacrorum'' was established when the monarchy was abolished,&lt;ref&gt; Dowden, Ken “Religion and the Romans.” Bristol Classical Press: London 1992. Page 18.&lt;/ref&gt; and was a result of the Romans finding a solution to the disestablishment of the office of ''rex'' who had ceremonial obligations. Another example of the Romans dealing with change is the struggle between patricians and plebeians, and the passing of Lex Ogulnia in 300 BCE removing the patrician monopoly over the ''Collegium Pontificum'' and the ''Collegium Augurum''.&lt;ref&gt; Taylor, Lily R. &quot;Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The American Journal of Philology&lt;/u&gt; 63.4 (1942): 385-412. Page 386.&lt;/ref&gt; Most priesthoods were originally reserved for patricians alone, but were eventually opened up to include members of the plebeian order. Some priesthoods remained closed to plebeians, but these were highly ritualized priesthoods (i.e., the major Flamen, and Rex Sacrorum), while the more politicized priesthoods (priesthoods of ''pontifex'' and ''augur'' for example) were opened up to plebeians. Would it have been considered ''impietas prudens dolo malo'' at one time in the history of Rome to suggest that plebeians, for example, be admitted as ''pontifices'' or ''augures''? Patricians and plebeian classes where established, according to tradition, by Romulus himself with patricians as priests and magistrates, and the plebeians to do the other, often necessary, tasks.&lt;ref&gt; Watson, Alan. &quot;Roman Private Law and the Leges Regiae.&quot; The Journal of Roman Studies 62 (1972): 100-05. Page 100.&lt;/ref&gt; If it is acceptable to open up various priesthoods to plebeians then it seems reasonable to open up the same priesthoods to gender, especially those priesthoods that were not exclusively linked to gender (i.e., Vestals) and which have a certain political quality to them (viz., ''pontifex'' and ''augur''). This seems especially true since the establishment of the classes is attributed to Romulus himself. Certainly, the idea of plebeian magistrates and pontifices would not have been acceptable, for example, in the time of Numa Popilius, but later in the evolution of Rome the idea became more palatable, just like our current practice of women magistrates and senatores would have been unheard of during the Republic and afterwards, but is now an acceptable practice.<br /> <br /> <br /> It could be argued for example that, “The departure from the mos maiorum in permitting Plebeian pontifices altered the human component of the mos, not that which was demanded by the Di Immortales.” If this objection to women ''pontifices'' is based exclusively on the assumption that plebeian ''pontifices'' represent a human component while women ''pontifices'' represents some sort of divinely mandated prohibition, then it should also be the case that women should be excluded from all political offices and especially from the senate. This prohibition is based on the special character of magistrates and senatores. However, as I have shown above, the mores Nova Roma, while linked with the ''mos maiorum'' of antiquity, is much different from its counterpart in antiquity. Additionally, change was periodically introduced into the ''sacra publica'' by the senate and various priestly colleges. The ''sacra publica'' was and is, by its nature, inclusive and highly adaptable with one special caveat, “These new additions were only thought legitimate when they received official acceptance by the ruling elite.”&lt;ref&gt; Takács, Sarolta A. &quot;Politics and Religion in the Bacchanalian Affair of 186 B.C.E.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Harvard Studies in Classical Philology&lt;/u&gt; 100 (2000): 301-10. Page 302.&lt;/ref&gt; New cults established, such as the cult of Magna Mater, old cults re-activated (such as the Arval Brethren under Augustus), and other additions, changes, and adaptations to the ''sacra publica'' were possible, but only through the collegial character of the collegium pontificum, senate, etc. The objection that some departures from the mos maiorum involve only a human component while other departures would be a direct violation of the Di Immortales would imply that the ''Di Immortales'' presented some form of direct communication with someone from Roman antiquity. I am unaware of any “golden tablets,” or codified texts similar to the Bible of the Judeo-Christian faiths, or to the Quran of Islam. However, religious change has been possible within ancient Rome. An early example of change are the reforms of Numa Popilius, when “He established laws and customs among the Romans, who, because of their frequent hostilities, were until that point regarded as semibarbaric ''latrones''. Furthermore, he divided the previously unregulated years into ten months (sic) and founded numerous sacred rites and temples at Rome.”&lt;ref&gt; Bird, H W. &quot;Eutropius on Numa Pompilius and the Senate.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 81.3 (1986): 243-48. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Would the Romans of Numa’s time consider his reforms a violation of the mos maiorum, or as much needed reforms to move Rome forward? History portrays Numa Popilius in a very positive manner, so it would seem that his reforms benefited Rome. Additionally, great power over the ''sacra publica'' rested within the “ruling elite.” The senate, during the Empire, had the power of deification; “The deification of a deceased emperor was authorized by a formal decree of the senate, which alone had power to introduce new forms of worship.”&lt;ref&gt; Burton, Henry F. &quot;The Worship of the Roman Emperors.&quot; The Biblical World 40.2 (1912): 80-91. Page 84.&lt;/ref&gt; Therefore, the idea of change and adaption was prevalent within the ''sacra publica'' and permitted if done by the “ruling elite” according to law, such practices seem synonymous with the Roman system of change. Claiming some departures are acceptable and others are not, based on the assumption that some are divinely mandated, seems more appropriate to revealed religious traditions (such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) rather than the ''sacra publica'' of Nova Roma. Of course it could be argued that augury is a form of revelation, but if that is the case then augury could ideally solve all of our problems, and the reliance upon augury for this opens up a series of potential abuse by ''augures''.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of the Roman Priesthood:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Something to consider regarding the various priesthoods of Rome, ancient or otherwise, is the nature of the priesthood. The priesthood of Christianity (for example, those of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) is a sacramental priesthood believed to change the very essential character of the individual upon ordination as a priest, resulting in a special character upon the soul of the new priest. Likewise, the Aaronic priesthood of Jewish tradition was a hereditary priesthood passed from father to son. The priesthoods of ancient Rome were different; “Its religious officials were merely political functionaries of state like any other.”&lt;ref&gt; Merrill, Elmer T. &quot;The Attitude of Ancient Rome toward Religion and Religious Cults.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 15.4 (1920): 196-215. Page 200.&lt;/ref&gt; The religious character of the priesthood was linked with that of the state, and priests functioned on behalf of the state. Since Nova Roma makes no distinction of citizenship with regard to gender, as I have shown, and since the priesthood is a function of state then the priesthood should be open to citizens regardless of their gender.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of Vitium:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his critique of women ''pontifices'' Scaurus wrote, “The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia.” The use of the term ''vitium'' in the sense that it is used by Scaurus is an incorrect use of the term ''vitium''. It does happen to be a Latin word for blemish, defect, or fault. However, it has a more specific meaning within the confines of the ''sacra publica''. The word ''vitium'' has specific meaning in augurial law; “As a religious term, it definitely belongs to the language of augury alone.”&lt;ref&gt; Paschall, Dorothy. &quot;The Origin and Semantic Development of Latin Vitium.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association&lt;/u&gt; 67 (1936): 219-31. Page 220.&lt;/ref&gt; It would seem that Scaurus has used the term ''vitium'' incorrectly. His example of women at a ''caerimoniae'' reserved exclusively for men is similar to the case of Publius Clodius Pulcher who secretly attended the rites of Bona Dea, but was discovered. The ''pontifices'' declared that the actions of Clodius were nefas,&lt;ref&gt; Strachan-Davidson, J L. &quot;Mommsen's Roman Criminal Law.&quot; The English Historical Review 16.62 (1901): 219-91. Page 221.&lt;/ref&gt; but no mention of it being a ''vitium''. As I’ve shown above the ''pontifices'' ruled that the presence of Clodius required the rituals to be performed again. In this case Scaurus seems correct that a ritual exclusively aligned to men, with women present, should be conducted over – just a ritual reserved for women had to conducted over after being polluted by a man. However, his argument against women as ''pontifices'' rests on his assertion that ''pontifices'' where and are required to attend the rites of Hercules. Since the cults of Hercules and Bona Dea were linked in their exclusivity of gender,&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 25.&lt;/ref&gt; it seems reasonable that if there was ever a time in Nova Roma where attendance was mandated upon our ''pontifices'' that men would attend the rites of Hercules, and women the rites of Bona Dea. Even if this was the case it would still be appropriate for women ''pontifices'' to guard the orthopraxy of the Herculean cult just as it was for the male ''pontifices'' of antiquity to guard the orthopraxy of the rites of Bona Dea.<br /> <br /> ==Response to the claim of impious hypocrisy:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 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''.<br /> <br /> ==Conclusion:==<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/In_defense_of_women_pontifices_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T04:54:24Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* On the Nature of Vitium: */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The argument below presented by [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] seems to be a narrow analysis of the current dilemma within the sacra publica of Nova Roma, and it is my hope that by illustrating his narrow view, as well as close analysis of ancient Roman religious tradition in light of our modern usage, the concept of women pontifices can be again embraced by Nova Roma. The argument, by Gaius Iulius Scaurus, seems to be a two-fold argument; the religious practices of Roma antiqua being incompatible with modern sentiments of gender equality, and the current practices of gender equality within Nova Roma itself. I hope to address both of these concerns and show that women pontifices are a potential reality again within Nova Roma and one that would not be impietas prudens dolo malo.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Argument against women pontifices as presented by Gaius Iulius Scaurus:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I have made a comprehensive survey of the primary and secondary literature on the question and am convinced that the adlection of female pontifices will violate fundamental gender taboos of the Religio and constitute an inexpiable impietas prudens dolo malo. Women are absolutely forbidden to attend any caerimonia to Hercules and the first caerimonia of the Neptunalia. The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia. Furthermore, at the caerimoniae of the mundus patet the only women permitted to attend are the Virgines Vestales. However, the attendance of the pontifices in the caerimoniae of Hercules, the Neptunalia, and the mundus patet is mandatory. The adlection of female pontifices would create a religious obligation to commit an impietas prudens dolo malo, which is a patent absurdity.<br /> <br /> <br /> I see no way to rationalize abandonment of this taboo on the grounds of the hypothesized sexism of Roman society. We simply do not know why the gender taboo existed any more than we know why there were no male Vestals, and anyone who claims the ability to distinguish between essential religious taboos and artifacts of sexual discrimination is engaged in willful self-deception. We know that the Romans assiduously respected these taboos and that these taboos were not generally extended across the entire cultus, which militates for prudently treating them as intrinsically important to the Religio and connected to specific aspects of the cultus. At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity. Following the latter strategy seems to me to place us entirely outside the enterprise of reconstruction and into the enterprise of creating a new religion out of whole cloth. The suggestion that female pontifices simply absent themselves from caerimoniae at which the attendance of women is prohibited ignores the fact that pontifical attendance at these caerimoniae was mandatory except in case of good cause, i.e., absence from the city or illness. 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Frankly, earlier adlection of female pontifices in Nova Roma is so grave a departure from the cultic practice of antiquity that our only hope to undo the offence it represents is to simply throw ourselves on the mercy of the Gods and plead abject ignorance for the affront. If we knowingly go down this path again, we shall be making genuine reconstruction of the Religio impossible. Why don't we just create male sacerdotes of Bona Dea while we're at it? <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Opening response to Gaius Iulius Scaurus and the case for gender equality:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his argument against women ''pontifices'', Scaurus makes the claim that women were prohibited from participating in some specific cults, and that these practices required the ''pontifices'' to participate. However, he makes the claim that ''pontifices'' could excuse themselves from participation for good cause. What better cause then gender equality? What we know of gender disparity shows that there were cult practices where women were the exclusive participants, yet if ''pontifices'' had jurisdiction over ceremonial matters then it serves that they would have influence over the rites of any state sponsored cultus.&lt;ref&gt; Shelton, Jo-Ann. “As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History,” Second Edition. Oxford University Press: New York 1998. Page 384 – 385.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction is evident in the ruling of the pontifices regarding Publius Clodius Pulcher and his unlawful attendance at the rites of Bona Dea, where the pontifices ruled that the rites had been polluted.&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. &lt;u&gt;From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 39.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction seems to transcend gender since the ''pontifices'' had cause to monitor the orthopraxy of ritual practice, yet were denied access to the cult of Bona Dea. In the sacerdotal culture of Nova Roma the proximity of ''pontifices'' to the cultic practices of the ''sacerdotes'' is not always guaranteed. Therefore, it seems only reasonable to assume that the mandated participation, that Scaurus mentions, is a practice from antiquity that will need modification in our modern global environment. I have, for example, been a pontifex for a couple of years now and I have never been to a “mandatory” ''caerimoniae'' to either Hercules or Neptune. Furthermore, since the ''pontifices'' of antiquity had jurisdiction over aspects of a female specific cult then logic would dictate that women ''pontifices'' within Nova Roma would have similar jurisdiction over male only cults. This jurisdiction, however, need not always include proximity to the actual ceremonial act, but deals with issues of orthopraxy.<br /> <br /> ==On the status and role of women in Nova Roma:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> At issue, as to whether women can or should be ''pontifices'', is the treatment of women in Nova Roma. Women are allowed, and encouraged, to participate in all aspects of civic life. That was not the case within Rome of antiquity, since women were typically under the ''patria potestas'' of their father, husband, or male relative.&lt;ref&gt; Arjava, Antti . &quot;Paternal Power in Late Antiquity.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Journal of Roman Studies&lt;/u&gt;. 88 (1998): 147-65. Page 148.&lt;/ref&gt; The ''patria potestas'' of the ''pater familias'' lasted as long as the pater was alive, and even in cases when the ''pater familias'' died, and those under his ''potestas'' became ''sui iuris'' (independent), the men under the ''potestas'' were completely free, but women were required to have a ''tutor'' or legal guardian.&lt;ref&gt; Carp, Teresa. &quot;Two matrons of the late republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt; Women's Studies&lt;/u&gt; 8 (1981): 189-200. Page 191.&lt;/ref&gt; This is one major difference between women in ancient Rome and women in Nova Roma, the idea of emancipation and independence. In Nova Roma, via Lex Equitia familiaris the ideal of gender equality is evident in subscribing ''potestas'' irrespective of gender, respecting the concept of both ''pater familias'' and ''mater familias'' along with allowing for male and female ''tutores'' in the case of ''minores''. This gender equality within Nova Roma is important because it represents a profound deviation of the ''mos maiorum'' in one sense, but also an evolution of that same ''mos maiorum'' reflecting a continuity between ancient and contemporary mores. Our contemporary usage of gender equality within our own family law is the departure from ancient practice that radically changes the role of women.<br /> <br /> <br /> In ancient Rome a woman could belong to one of three different categories; “Women who did not qualify as either matronae or virgins were effectively non-members of the Roman state and of its cult, banned, with a few specific exceptions, from participating (except perhaps as spectators along a parade route) in many of Rome’s most central religious rites.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore, a ''matrona'' and a ''virgo'' can be defined with the following definition, “To be a matrona, a woman had to be the respectable wife or widow of a Roman citizen. To be a virgo, a woman had to be the morally pure, respectable, sexually intact (as we define the English word virgin) marriageable daughter of a Roman citizen.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; In Nova Roma this classification of women does not apply, and as an example I’ll use a former vestal to illustrate my point. [[Lucia Modia Lupa (Nova Roma)|Lucia Modia Lupa]] was appointed a Vestal by Collegium Pontificum decretum dated ante diem XIII Kal. FEBRVARIAS MMDCCLVIII a.u.c. (20 January 2005). At the time of her appointment she was still under my ''patria potestas'', but was emancipated by me a day later (21 January 2005). Lucia Modia Lupa was neither a ''matrona'' or a ''virgo'', being unmarried and having a daughter. It would, in my opinion, be against the ancient Roman ''mos maiorum'' to have a women who was anything other than a ''virgo'' selected to become a ''vestal''; yet such an appointment did occur in Nova Roma because the requirement of being either a ''matrona'' or ''virgo'' is an antiquated practice that does not apply in the gender egalitarian environment that prevails in Nova Roma. This departure from antiquity is a radical departure when compared to the mores of the past, however, they seem less radical when contrasted against the mores of our contemporary “macronational” culture and the established mores within Nova Roma itself. In fact, the initial establishment of the Nova Roma Constitution of MMDCCLII states, “When determining applicability for Citizenship, Nova Roma shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age (except where such is mandated by the civil laws of a particular locality), or sexuality.,” and the current version of the Nova Roma Constitution reads, “Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.” Therefore, the distinction of ''matrona'' or ''virgo'' does not apply to the status of women in Nova Roma.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Scheid, John. “An Introduction to Roman Religion.” Indiana University Press: Bloomington &amp; Indianapolis 2003. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Senators clearly had religious authority,&lt;ref&gt; Warrior, Valerie M. “Roman Religion.” Cambridge University Press: New York 2006. Page 42.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Szemler, George J. &quot;Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Numen&lt;/u&gt; 18.2 (1971): 103-31. Page 106.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> ==On Change in the Sacra Publica:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Scaurus makes an argument that the gender disparity is a preference of the Gods: “At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the ''Di Immortales'' or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity.” This can be addressed by looking at the development of the ''sacra publica'' as circumstances changed. With each major transformation of Rome came change in the way the ''sacra publica'' operated. This change in the management of the ''pax deorum'' can be seen in this selection from Liebeschuetz, “Moreover the procedure for dealing with portents was intimately linked with the republican system of government and the management by the senate of sovereign popular assemblies. When that system collapsed, traditional ways of maintaining the pax deorum lost a principle reason for existence.”&lt;ref&gt; Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. “Continuity and Change in Roman Religion.” Oxford At the Claredon Press: Oxford 1979. Page 58.&lt;/ref&gt; For example, the priesthood of the ''Rex Sacrorum'' was established when the monarchy was abolished,&lt;ref&gt; Dowden, Ken “Religion and the Romans.” Bristol Classical Press: London 1992. Page 18.&lt;/ref&gt; and was a result of the Romans finding a solution to the disestablishment of the office of ''rex'' who had ceremonial obligations. Another example of the Romans dealing with change is the struggle between patricians and plebeians, and the passing of Lex Ogulnia in 300 BCE removing the patrician monopoly over the ''Collegium Pontificum'' and the ''Collegium Augurum''.&lt;ref&gt; Taylor, Lily R. &quot;Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The American Journal of Philology&lt;/u&gt; 63.4 (1942): 385-412. Page 386.&lt;/ref&gt; Most priesthoods were originally reserved for patricians alone, but were eventually opened up to include members of the plebeian order. Some priesthoods remained closed to plebeians, but these were highly ritualized priesthoods (i.e., the major Flamen, and Rex Sacrorum), while the more politicized priesthoods (priesthoods of ''pontifex'' and ''augur'' for example) were opened up to plebeians. Would it have been considered ''impietas prudens dolo malo'' at one time in the history of Rome to suggest that plebeians, for example, be admitted as ''pontifices'' or ''augures''? Patricians and plebeian classes where established, according to tradition, by Romulus himself with patricians as priests and magistrates, and the plebeians to do the other, often necessary, tasks.&lt;ref&gt; Watson, Alan. &quot;Roman Private Law and the Leges Regiae.&quot; The Journal of Roman Studies 62 (1972): 100-05. Page 100.&lt;/ref&gt; If it is acceptable to open up various priesthoods to plebeians then it seems reasonable to open up the same priesthoods to gender, especially those priesthoods that were not exclusively linked to gender (i.e., Vestals) and which have a certain political quality to them (viz., ''pontifex'' and ''augur''). This seems especially true since the establishment of the classes is attributed to Romulus himself. Certainly, the idea of plebeian magistrates and pontifices would not have been acceptable, for example, in the time of Numa Popilius, but later in the evolution of Rome the idea became more palatable, just like our current practice of women magistrates and senatores would have been unheard of during the Republic and afterwards, but is now an acceptable practice.<br /> <br /> <br /> It could be argued for example that, “The departure from the mos maiorum in permitting Plebeian pontifices altered the human component of the mos, not that which was demanded by the Di Immortales.” If this objection to women ''pontifices'' is based exclusively on the assumption that plebeian ''pontifices'' represent a human component while women ''pontifices'' represents some sort of divinely mandated prohibition, then it should also be the case that women should be excluded from all political offices and especially from the senate. This prohibition is based on the special character of magistrates and senatores. However, as I have shown above, the mores Nova Roma, while linked with the ''mos maiorum'' of antiquity, is much different from its counterpart in antiquity. Additionally, change was periodically introduced into the ''sacra publica'' by the senate and various priestly colleges. The ''sacra publica'' was and is, by its nature, inclusive and highly adaptable with one special caveat, “These new additions were only thought legitimate when they received official acceptance by the ruling elite.”&lt;ref&gt; Takács, Sarolta A. &quot;Politics and Religion in the Bacchanalian Affair of 186 B.C.E.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Harvard Studies in Classical Philology&lt;/u&gt; 100 (2000): 301-10. Page 302.&lt;/ref&gt; New cults established, such as the cult of Magna Mater, old cults re-activated (such as the Arval Brethren under Augustus), and other additions, changes, and adaptations to the ''sacra publica'' were possible, but only through the collegial character of the collegium pontificum, senate, etc. The objection that some departures from the mos maiorum involve only a human component while other departures would be a direct violation of the Di Immortales would imply that the ''Di Immortales'' presented some form of direct communication with someone from Roman antiquity. I am unaware of any “golden tablets,” or codified texts similar to the Bible of the Judeo-Christian faiths, or to the Quran of Islam. However, religious change has been possible within ancient Rome. An early example of change are the reforms of Numa Popilius, when “He established laws and customs among the Romans, who, because of their frequent hostilities, were until that point regarded as semibarbaric ''latrones''. Furthermore, he divided the previously unregulated years into ten months (sic) and founded numerous sacred rites and temples at Rome.”&lt;ref&gt; Bird, H W. &quot;Eutropius on Numa Pompilius and the Senate.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 81.3 (1986): 243-48. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Would the Romans of Numa’s time consider his reforms a violation of the mos maiorum, or as much needed reforms to move Rome forward? History portrays Numa Popilius in a very positive manner, so it would seem that his reforms benefited Rome. Additionally, great power over the ''sacra publica'' rested within the “ruling elite.” The senate, during the Empire, had the power of deification; “The deification of a deceased emperor was authorized by a formal decree of the senate, which alone had power to introduce new forms of worship.”&lt;ref&gt; Burton, Henry F. &quot;The Worship of the Roman Emperors.&quot; The Biblical World 40.2 (1912): 80-91. Page 84.&lt;/ref&gt; Therefore, the idea of change and adaption was prevalent within the ''sacra publica'' and permitted if done by the “ruling elite” according to law, such practices seem synonymous with the Roman system of change. Claiming some departures are acceptable and others are not, based on the assumption that some are divinely mandated, seems more appropriate to revealed religious traditions (such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) rather than the ''sacra publica'' of Nova Roma. Of course it could be argued that augury is a form of revelation, but if that is the case then augury could ideally solve all of our problems, and the reliance upon augury for this opens up a series of potential abuse by ''augures''.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of the Roman Priesthood:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Something to consider regarding the various priesthoods of Rome, ancient or otherwise, is the nature of the priesthood. The priesthood of Christianity (for example, those of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) is a sacramental priesthood believed to change the very essential character of the individual upon ordination as a priest, resulting in a special character upon the soul of the new priest. Likewise, the Aaronic priesthood of Jewish tradition was a hereditary priesthood passed from father to son. The priesthoods of ancient Rome were different; “Its religious officials were merely political functionaries of state like any other.”&lt;ref&gt; Merrill, Elmer T. &quot;The Attitude of Ancient Rome toward Religion and Religious Cults.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 15.4 (1920): 196-215. Page 200.&lt;/ref&gt; The religious character of the priesthood was linked with that of the state, and priests functioned on behalf of the state. Since Nova Roma makes no distinction of citizenship with regard to gender, as I have shown, and since the priesthood is a function of state then the priesthood should be open to citizens regardless of their gender.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of Vitium:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his critique of women ''pontifices'' Scaurus wrote, “The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia.” The use of the term ''vitium'' in the sense that it is used by Scaurus is an incorrect use of the term ''vitium''. It does happen to be a Latin word for blemish, defect, or fault. However, it has a more specific meaning within the confines of the ''sacra publica''. The word ''vitium'' has specific meaning in augurial law; “As a religious term, it definitely belongs to the language of augury alone.”&lt;ref&gt; Paschall, Dorothy. &quot;The Origin and Semantic Development of Latin Vitium.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association&lt;/u&gt; 67 (1936): 219-31. Page 220.&lt;/ref&gt; It would seem that Scaurus has used the term ''vitium'' incorrectly. His example of women at a ''caerimoniae'' reserved exclusively for men is similar to the case of Publius Clodius Pulcher who secretly attended the rites of Bona Dea, but was discovered. The ''pontifices'' declared that the actions of Clodius were nefas,&lt;ref&gt; Strachan-Davidson, J L. &quot;Mommsen's Roman Criminal Law.&quot; The English Historical Review 16.62 (1901): 219-91. Page 221.&lt;/ref&gt; but no mention of it being a ''vitium''. As I’ve shown above the ''pontifices'' ruled that the presence of Clodius required the rituals to be performed again. In this case Scaurus seems correct that a ritual exclusively aligned to men, with women present, should be conducted over – just a ritual reserved for women had to conducted over after being polluted by a man. However, his argument against women as ''pontifices'' rests on his assertion that ''pontifices'' where and are required to attend the rites of Hercules. Since the cults of Hercules and Bona Dea were linked in their exclusivity of gender,&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 25.&lt;/ref&gt; it seems reasonable that if there was ever a time in Nova Roma where attendance was mandated upon our ''pontifices'' that men would attend the rites of Hercules, and women the rites of Bona Dea. Even if this was the case it would still be appropriate for women ''pontifices'' to guard the orthopraxy of the Herculean cult just as it was for the male ''pontifices'' of antiquity to guard the orthopraxy of the rites of Bona Dea.<br /> <br /> ==Response to the claim of impious hypocrisy:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Conclusion:==<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/In_defense_of_women_pontifices_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T04:52:14Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* On Change in the Sacra Publica: */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The argument below presented by [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] seems to be a narrow analysis of the current dilemma within the sacra publica of Nova Roma, and it is my hope that by illustrating his narrow view, as well as close analysis of ancient Roman religious tradition in light of our modern usage, the concept of women pontifices can be again embraced by Nova Roma. The argument, by Gaius Iulius Scaurus, seems to be a two-fold argument; the religious practices of Roma antiqua being incompatible with modern sentiments of gender equality, and the current practices of gender equality within Nova Roma itself. I hope to address both of these concerns and show that women pontifices are a potential reality again within Nova Roma and one that would not be impietas prudens dolo malo.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Argument against women pontifices as presented by Gaius Iulius Scaurus:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I have made a comprehensive survey of the primary and secondary literature on the question and am convinced that the adlection of female pontifices will violate fundamental gender taboos of the Religio and constitute an inexpiable impietas prudens dolo malo. Women are absolutely forbidden to attend any caerimonia to Hercules and the first caerimonia of the Neptunalia. The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia. Furthermore, at the caerimoniae of the mundus patet the only women permitted to attend are the Virgines Vestales. However, the attendance of the pontifices in the caerimoniae of Hercules, the Neptunalia, and the mundus patet is mandatory. The adlection of female pontifices would create a religious obligation to commit an impietas prudens dolo malo, which is a patent absurdity.<br /> <br /> <br /> I see no way to rationalize abandonment of this taboo on the grounds of the hypothesized sexism of Roman society. We simply do not know why the gender taboo existed any more than we know why there were no male Vestals, and anyone who claims the ability to distinguish between essential religious taboos and artifacts of sexual discrimination is engaged in willful self-deception. We know that the Romans assiduously respected these taboos and that these taboos were not generally extended across the entire cultus, which militates for prudently treating them as intrinsically important to the Religio and connected to specific aspects of the cultus. At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity. Following the latter strategy seems to me to place us entirely outside the enterprise of reconstruction and into the enterprise of creating a new religion out of whole cloth. The suggestion that female pontifices simply absent themselves from caerimoniae at which the attendance of women is prohibited ignores the fact that pontifical attendance at these caerimoniae was mandatory except in case of good cause, i.e., absence from the city or illness. 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Frankly, earlier adlection of female pontifices in Nova Roma is so grave a departure from the cultic practice of antiquity that our only hope to undo the offence it represents is to simply throw ourselves on the mercy of the Gods and plead abject ignorance for the affront. If we knowingly go down this path again, we shall be making genuine reconstruction of the Religio impossible. Why don't we just create male sacerdotes of Bona Dea while we're at it? <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Opening response to Gaius Iulius Scaurus and the case for gender equality:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his argument against women ''pontifices'', Scaurus makes the claim that women were prohibited from participating in some specific cults, and that these practices required the ''pontifices'' to participate. However, he makes the claim that ''pontifices'' could excuse themselves from participation for good cause. What better cause then gender equality? What we know of gender disparity shows that there were cult practices where women were the exclusive participants, yet if ''pontifices'' had jurisdiction over ceremonial matters then it serves that they would have influence over the rites of any state sponsored cultus.&lt;ref&gt; Shelton, Jo-Ann. “As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History,” Second Edition. Oxford University Press: New York 1998. Page 384 – 385.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction is evident in the ruling of the pontifices regarding Publius Clodius Pulcher and his unlawful attendance at the rites of Bona Dea, where the pontifices ruled that the rites had been polluted.&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. &lt;u&gt;From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 39.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction seems to transcend gender since the ''pontifices'' had cause to monitor the orthopraxy of ritual practice, yet were denied access to the cult of Bona Dea. In the sacerdotal culture of Nova Roma the proximity of ''pontifices'' to the cultic practices of the ''sacerdotes'' is not always guaranteed. Therefore, it seems only reasonable to assume that the mandated participation, that Scaurus mentions, is a practice from antiquity that will need modification in our modern global environment. I have, for example, been a pontifex for a couple of years now and I have never been to a “mandatory” ''caerimoniae'' to either Hercules or Neptune. Furthermore, since the ''pontifices'' of antiquity had jurisdiction over aspects of a female specific cult then logic would dictate that women ''pontifices'' within Nova Roma would have similar jurisdiction over male only cults. This jurisdiction, however, need not always include proximity to the actual ceremonial act, but deals with issues of orthopraxy.<br /> <br /> ==On the status and role of women in Nova Roma:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> At issue, as to whether women can or should be ''pontifices'', is the treatment of women in Nova Roma. Women are allowed, and encouraged, to participate in all aspects of civic life. That was not the case within Rome of antiquity, since women were typically under the ''patria potestas'' of their father, husband, or male relative.&lt;ref&gt; Arjava, Antti . &quot;Paternal Power in Late Antiquity.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Journal of Roman Studies&lt;/u&gt;. 88 (1998): 147-65. Page 148.&lt;/ref&gt; The ''patria potestas'' of the ''pater familias'' lasted as long as the pater was alive, and even in cases when the ''pater familias'' died, and those under his ''potestas'' became ''sui iuris'' (independent), the men under the ''potestas'' were completely free, but women were required to have a ''tutor'' or legal guardian.&lt;ref&gt; Carp, Teresa. &quot;Two matrons of the late republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt; Women's Studies&lt;/u&gt; 8 (1981): 189-200. Page 191.&lt;/ref&gt; This is one major difference between women in ancient Rome and women in Nova Roma, the idea of emancipation and independence. In Nova Roma, via Lex Equitia familiaris the ideal of gender equality is evident in subscribing ''potestas'' irrespective of gender, respecting the concept of both ''pater familias'' and ''mater familias'' along with allowing for male and female ''tutores'' in the case of ''minores''. This gender equality within Nova Roma is important because it represents a profound deviation of the ''mos maiorum'' in one sense, but also an evolution of that same ''mos maiorum'' reflecting a continuity between ancient and contemporary mores. Our contemporary usage of gender equality within our own family law is the departure from ancient practice that radically changes the role of women.<br /> <br /> <br /> In ancient Rome a woman could belong to one of three different categories; “Women who did not qualify as either matronae or virgins were effectively non-members of the Roman state and of its cult, banned, with a few specific exceptions, from participating (except perhaps as spectators along a parade route) in many of Rome’s most central religious rites.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore, a ''matrona'' and a ''virgo'' can be defined with the following definition, “To be a matrona, a woman had to be the respectable wife or widow of a Roman citizen. To be a virgo, a woman had to be the morally pure, respectable, sexually intact (as we define the English word virgin) marriageable daughter of a Roman citizen.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; In Nova Roma this classification of women does not apply, and as an example I’ll use a former vestal to illustrate my point. [[Lucia Modia Lupa (Nova Roma)|Lucia Modia Lupa]] was appointed a Vestal by Collegium Pontificum decretum dated ante diem XIII Kal. FEBRVARIAS MMDCCLVIII a.u.c. (20 January 2005). At the time of her appointment she was still under my ''patria potestas'', but was emancipated by me a day later (21 January 2005). Lucia Modia Lupa was neither a ''matrona'' or a ''virgo'', being unmarried and having a daughter. It would, in my opinion, be against the ancient Roman ''mos maiorum'' to have a women who was anything other than a ''virgo'' selected to become a ''vestal''; yet such an appointment did occur in Nova Roma because the requirement of being either a ''matrona'' or ''virgo'' is an antiquated practice that does not apply in the gender egalitarian environment that prevails in Nova Roma. This departure from antiquity is a radical departure when compared to the mores of the past, however, they seem less radical when contrasted against the mores of our contemporary “macronational” culture and the established mores within Nova Roma itself. In fact, the initial establishment of the Nova Roma Constitution of MMDCCLII states, “When determining applicability for Citizenship, Nova Roma shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age (except where such is mandated by the civil laws of a particular locality), or sexuality.,” and the current version of the Nova Roma Constitution reads, “Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.” Therefore, the distinction of ''matrona'' or ''virgo'' does not apply to the status of women in Nova Roma.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Scheid, John. “An Introduction to Roman Religion.” Indiana University Press: Bloomington &amp; Indianapolis 2003. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Senators clearly had religious authority,&lt;ref&gt; Warrior, Valerie M. “Roman Religion.” Cambridge University Press: New York 2006. Page 42.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Szemler, George J. &quot;Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Numen&lt;/u&gt; 18.2 (1971): 103-31. Page 106.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> ==On Change in the Sacra Publica:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Scaurus makes an argument that the gender disparity is a preference of the Gods: “At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the ''Di Immortales'' or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity.” This can be addressed by looking at the development of the ''sacra publica'' as circumstances changed. With each major transformation of Rome came change in the way the ''sacra publica'' operated. This change in the management of the ''pax deorum'' can be seen in this selection from Liebeschuetz, “Moreover the procedure for dealing with portents was intimately linked with the republican system of government and the management by the senate of sovereign popular assemblies. When that system collapsed, traditional ways of maintaining the pax deorum lost a principle reason for existence.”&lt;ref&gt; Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. “Continuity and Change in Roman Religion.” Oxford At the Claredon Press: Oxford 1979. Page 58.&lt;/ref&gt; For example, the priesthood of the ''Rex Sacrorum'' was established when the monarchy was abolished,&lt;ref&gt; Dowden, Ken “Religion and the Romans.” Bristol Classical Press: London 1992. Page 18.&lt;/ref&gt; and was a result of the Romans finding a solution to the disestablishment of the office of ''rex'' who had ceremonial obligations. Another example of the Romans dealing with change is the struggle between patricians and plebeians, and the passing of Lex Ogulnia in 300 BCE removing the patrician monopoly over the ''Collegium Pontificum'' and the ''Collegium Augurum''.&lt;ref&gt; Taylor, Lily R. &quot;Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The American Journal of Philology&lt;/u&gt; 63.4 (1942): 385-412. Page 386.&lt;/ref&gt; Most priesthoods were originally reserved for patricians alone, but were eventually opened up to include members of the plebeian order. Some priesthoods remained closed to plebeians, but these were highly ritualized priesthoods (i.e., the major Flamen, and Rex Sacrorum), while the more politicized priesthoods (priesthoods of ''pontifex'' and ''augur'' for example) were opened up to plebeians. Would it have been considered ''impietas prudens dolo malo'' at one time in the history of Rome to suggest that plebeians, for example, be admitted as ''pontifices'' or ''augures''? Patricians and plebeian classes where established, according to tradition, by Romulus himself with patricians as priests and magistrates, and the plebeians to do the other, often necessary, tasks.&lt;ref&gt; Watson, Alan. &quot;Roman Private Law and the Leges Regiae.&quot; The Journal of Roman Studies 62 (1972): 100-05. Page 100.&lt;/ref&gt; If it is acceptable to open up various priesthoods to plebeians then it seems reasonable to open up the same priesthoods to gender, especially those priesthoods that were not exclusively linked to gender (i.e., Vestals) and which have a certain political quality to them (viz., ''pontifex'' and ''augur''). This seems especially true since the establishment of the classes is attributed to Romulus himself. Certainly, the idea of plebeian magistrates and pontifices would not have been acceptable, for example, in the time of Numa Popilius, but later in the evolution of Rome the idea became more palatable, just like our current practice of women magistrates and senatores would have been unheard of during the Republic and afterwards, but is now an acceptable practice.<br /> <br /> <br /> It could be argued for example that, “The departure from the mos maiorum in permitting Plebeian pontifices altered the human component of the mos, not that which was demanded by the Di Immortales.” If this objection to women ''pontifices'' is based exclusively on the assumption that plebeian ''pontifices'' represent a human component while women ''pontifices'' represents some sort of divinely mandated prohibition, then it should also be the case that women should be excluded from all political offices and especially from the senate. This prohibition is based on the special character of magistrates and senatores. However, as I have shown above, the mores Nova Roma, while linked with the ''mos maiorum'' of antiquity, is much different from its counterpart in antiquity. Additionally, change was periodically introduced into the ''sacra publica'' by the senate and various priestly colleges. The ''sacra publica'' was and is, by its nature, inclusive and highly adaptable with one special caveat, “These new additions were only thought legitimate when they received official acceptance by the ruling elite.”&lt;ref&gt; Takács, Sarolta A. &quot;Politics and Religion in the Bacchanalian Affair of 186 B.C.E.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Harvard Studies in Classical Philology&lt;/u&gt; 100 (2000): 301-10. Page 302.&lt;/ref&gt; New cults established, such as the cult of Magna Mater, old cults re-activated (such as the Arval Brethren under Augustus), and other additions, changes, and adaptations to the ''sacra publica'' were possible, but only through the collegial character of the collegium pontificum, senate, etc. The objection that some departures from the mos maiorum involve only a human component while other departures would be a direct violation of the Di Immortales would imply that the ''Di Immortales'' presented some form of direct communication with someone from Roman antiquity. I am unaware of any “golden tablets,” or codified texts similar to the Bible of the Judeo-Christian faiths, or to the Quran of Islam. However, religious change has been possible within ancient Rome. An early example of change are the reforms of Numa Popilius, when “He established laws and customs among the Romans, who, because of their frequent hostilities, were until that point regarded as semibarbaric ''latrones''. Furthermore, he divided the previously unregulated years into ten months (sic) and founded numerous sacred rites and temples at Rome.”&lt;ref&gt; Bird, H W. &quot;Eutropius on Numa Pompilius and the Senate.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 81.3 (1986): 243-48. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Would the Romans of Numa’s time consider his reforms a violation of the mos maiorum, or as much needed reforms to move Rome forward? History portrays Numa Popilius in a very positive manner, so it would seem that his reforms benefited Rome. Additionally, great power over the ''sacra publica'' rested within the “ruling elite.” The senate, during the Empire, had the power of deification; “The deification of a deceased emperor was authorized by a formal decree of the senate, which alone had power to introduce new forms of worship.”&lt;ref&gt; Burton, Henry F. &quot;The Worship of the Roman Emperors.&quot; The Biblical World 40.2 (1912): 80-91. Page 84.&lt;/ref&gt; Therefore, the idea of change and adaption was prevalent within the ''sacra publica'' and permitted if done by the “ruling elite” according to law, such practices seem synonymous with the Roman system of change. Claiming some departures are acceptable and others are not, based on the assumption that some are divinely mandated, seems more appropriate to revealed religious traditions (such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) rather than the ''sacra publica'' of Nova Roma. Of course it could be argued that augury is a form of revelation, but if that is the case then augury could ideally solve all of our problems, and the reliance upon augury for this opens up a series of potential abuse by ''augures''.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of the Roman Priesthood:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Something to consider regarding the various priesthoods of Rome, ancient or otherwise, is the nature of the priesthood. The priesthood of Christianity (for example, those of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) is a sacramental priesthood believed to change the very essential character of the individual upon ordination as a priest, resulting in a special character upon the soul of the new priest. Likewise, the Aaronic priesthood of Jewish tradition was a hereditary priesthood passed from father to son. The priesthoods of ancient Rome were different; “Its religious officials were merely political functionaries of state like any other.”&lt;ref&gt; Merrill, Elmer T. &quot;The Attitude of Ancient Rome toward Religion and Religious Cults.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 15.4 (1920): 196-215. Page 200.&lt;/ref&gt; The religious character of the priesthood was linked with that of the state, and priests functioned on behalf of the state. Since Nova Roma makes no distinction of citizenship with regard to gender, as I have shown, and since the priesthood is a function of state then the priesthood should be open to citizens regardless of their gender.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of Vitium:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his critique of women pontifices Scaurus wrote, “The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia.” The use of the term vitium in the sense that it is used by Scaurus is an incorrect use of the term vitium. It does happen to be a Latin word for blemish, defect, or fault. However, it has a more specific meaning within the confines of the sacra publica. The word vitium has specific meaning in augurial law; “As a religious term, it definitely belongs to the language of augury alone.”&lt;ref&gt; Paschall, Dorothy. &quot;The Origin and Semantic Development of Latin Vitium.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association&lt;/u&gt; 67 (1936): 219-31. Page 220.&lt;/ref&gt; It would seem that Scaurus has used the term vitium is an incorrectly. His example of women at a caerimoniae reserved exclusively for men is similar to the case of Publius Clodius Pulcher who secretly attended the rites of Bona Dea, but was discovered. The pontifices declared that the actions of Clodius were nefas,&lt;ref&gt; Strachan-Davidson, J L. &quot;Mommsen's Roman Criminal Law.&quot; The English Historical Review 16.62 (1901): 219-91. Page 221.&lt;/ref&gt; but no mention of it being a vitium. As I’ve shown above the pontifices ruled that the presence of Clodius required the rituals to be performed again. In this case Scaurus seems correct that a ritual exclusively aligned to men, with women present, should be conducted over – just a ritual reserved for women had to conducted over after being polluted by a man. However, his argument against women as pontifices rests on his assertion that pontifices where and are required to attend the rites of Hercules. Since the cults of Hercules and Bona Dea were linked in their exclusivity of gender,&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 25.&lt;/ref&gt; it seems reasonable that if there was ever a time in Nova Roma where attendance was mandated upon our pontifices that men would attend the rites of Hercules, and women the rites of Bona Dea. Even if this was the case it would still be appropriate for women pontifices to guard the orthopraxy of the Herculean cult just as it was for the male pontifices of antiquity to guard the orthopraxy of the rites of Bona Dea.<br /> <br /> ==Response to the claim of impious hypocrisy:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Conclusion:==<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/In_defense_of_women_pontifices_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T04:47:53Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* Opening response to Gaius Iulius Scaurus and the case for gender equality: */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The argument below presented by [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] seems to be a narrow analysis of the current dilemma within the sacra publica of Nova Roma, and it is my hope that by illustrating his narrow view, as well as close analysis of ancient Roman religious tradition in light of our modern usage, the concept of women pontifices can be again embraced by Nova Roma. The argument, by Gaius Iulius Scaurus, seems to be a two-fold argument; the religious practices of Roma antiqua being incompatible with modern sentiments of gender equality, and the current practices of gender equality within Nova Roma itself. I hope to address both of these concerns and show that women pontifices are a potential reality again within Nova Roma and one that would not be impietas prudens dolo malo.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Argument against women pontifices as presented by Gaius Iulius Scaurus:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I have made a comprehensive survey of the primary and secondary literature on the question and am convinced that the adlection of female pontifices will violate fundamental gender taboos of the Religio and constitute an inexpiable impietas prudens dolo malo. Women are absolutely forbidden to attend any caerimonia to Hercules and the first caerimonia of the Neptunalia. The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia. Furthermore, at the caerimoniae of the mundus patet the only women permitted to attend are the Virgines Vestales. However, the attendance of the pontifices in the caerimoniae of Hercules, the Neptunalia, and the mundus patet is mandatory. The adlection of female pontifices would create a religious obligation to commit an impietas prudens dolo malo, which is a patent absurdity.<br /> <br /> <br /> I see no way to rationalize abandonment of this taboo on the grounds of the hypothesized sexism of Roman society. We simply do not know why the gender taboo existed any more than we know why there were no male Vestals, and anyone who claims the ability to distinguish between essential religious taboos and artifacts of sexual discrimination is engaged in willful self-deception. We know that the Romans assiduously respected these taboos and that these taboos were not generally extended across the entire cultus, which militates for prudently treating them as intrinsically important to the Religio and connected to specific aspects of the cultus. At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity. Following the latter strategy seems to me to place us entirely outside the enterprise of reconstruction and into the enterprise of creating a new religion out of whole cloth. The suggestion that female pontifices simply absent themselves from caerimoniae at which the attendance of women is prohibited ignores the fact that pontifical attendance at these caerimoniae was mandatory except in case of good cause, i.e., absence from the city or illness. 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Frankly, earlier adlection of female pontifices in Nova Roma is so grave a departure from the cultic practice of antiquity that our only hope to undo the offence it represents is to simply throw ourselves on the mercy of the Gods and plead abject ignorance for the affront. If we knowingly go down this path again, we shall be making genuine reconstruction of the Religio impossible. Why don't we just create male sacerdotes of Bona Dea while we're at it? <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Opening response to Gaius Iulius Scaurus and the case for gender equality:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his argument against women ''pontifices'', Scaurus makes the claim that women were prohibited from participating in some specific cults, and that these practices required the ''pontifices'' to participate. However, he makes the claim that ''pontifices'' could excuse themselves from participation for good cause. What better cause then gender equality? What we know of gender disparity shows that there were cult practices where women were the exclusive participants, yet if ''pontifices'' had jurisdiction over ceremonial matters then it serves that they would have influence over the rites of any state sponsored cultus.&lt;ref&gt; Shelton, Jo-Ann. “As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History,” Second Edition. Oxford University Press: New York 1998. Page 384 – 385.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction is evident in the ruling of the pontifices regarding Publius Clodius Pulcher and his unlawful attendance at the rites of Bona Dea, where the pontifices ruled that the rites had been polluted.&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. &lt;u&gt;From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 39.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction seems to transcend gender since the ''pontifices'' had cause to monitor the orthopraxy of ritual practice, yet were denied access to the cult of Bona Dea. In the sacerdotal culture of Nova Roma the proximity of ''pontifices'' to the cultic practices of the ''sacerdotes'' is not always guaranteed. Therefore, it seems only reasonable to assume that the mandated participation, that Scaurus mentions, is a practice from antiquity that will need modification in our modern global environment. I have, for example, been a pontifex for a couple of years now and I have never been to a “mandatory” ''caerimoniae'' to either Hercules or Neptune. Furthermore, since the ''pontifices'' of antiquity had jurisdiction over aspects of a female specific cult then logic would dictate that women ''pontifices'' within Nova Roma would have similar jurisdiction over male only cults. This jurisdiction, however, need not always include proximity to the actual ceremonial act, but deals with issues of orthopraxy.<br /> <br /> ==On the status and role of women in Nova Roma:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> At issue, as to whether women can or should be ''pontifices'', is the treatment of women in Nova Roma. Women are allowed, and encouraged, to participate in all aspects of civic life. That was not the case within Rome of antiquity, since women were typically under the ''patria potestas'' of their father, husband, or male relative.&lt;ref&gt; Arjava, Antti . &quot;Paternal Power in Late Antiquity.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Journal of Roman Studies&lt;/u&gt;. 88 (1998): 147-65. Page 148.&lt;/ref&gt; The ''patria potestas'' of the ''pater familias'' lasted as long as the pater was alive, and even in cases when the ''pater familias'' died, and those under his ''potestas'' became ''sui iuris'' (independent), the men under the ''potestas'' were completely free, but women were required to have a ''tutor'' or legal guardian.&lt;ref&gt; Carp, Teresa. &quot;Two matrons of the late republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt; Women's Studies&lt;/u&gt; 8 (1981): 189-200. Page 191.&lt;/ref&gt; This is one major difference between women in ancient Rome and women in Nova Roma, the idea of emancipation and independence. In Nova Roma, via Lex Equitia familiaris the ideal of gender equality is evident in subscribing ''potestas'' irrespective of gender, respecting the concept of both ''pater familias'' and ''mater familias'' along with allowing for male and female ''tutores'' in the case of ''minores''. This gender equality within Nova Roma is important because it represents a profound deviation of the ''mos maiorum'' in one sense, but also an evolution of that same ''mos maiorum'' reflecting a continuity between ancient and contemporary mores. Our contemporary usage of gender equality within our own family law is the departure from ancient practice that radically changes the role of women.<br /> <br /> <br /> In ancient Rome a woman could belong to one of three different categories; “Women who did not qualify as either matronae or virgins were effectively non-members of the Roman state and of its cult, banned, with a few specific exceptions, from participating (except perhaps as spectators along a parade route) in many of Rome’s most central religious rites.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore, a ''matrona'' and a ''virgo'' can be defined with the following definition, “To be a matrona, a woman had to be the respectable wife or widow of a Roman citizen. To be a virgo, a woman had to be the morally pure, respectable, sexually intact (as we define the English word virgin) marriageable daughter of a Roman citizen.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; In Nova Roma this classification of women does not apply, and as an example I’ll use a former vestal to illustrate my point. [[Lucia Modia Lupa (Nova Roma)|Lucia Modia Lupa]] was appointed a Vestal by Collegium Pontificum decretum dated ante diem XIII Kal. FEBRVARIAS MMDCCLVIII a.u.c. (20 January 2005). At the time of her appointment she was still under my ''patria potestas'', but was emancipated by me a day later (21 January 2005). Lucia Modia Lupa was neither a ''matrona'' or a ''virgo'', being unmarried and having a daughter. It would, in my opinion, be against the ancient Roman ''mos maiorum'' to have a women who was anything other than a ''virgo'' selected to become a ''vestal''; yet such an appointment did occur in Nova Roma because the requirement of being either a ''matrona'' or ''virgo'' is an antiquated practice that does not apply in the gender egalitarian environment that prevails in Nova Roma. This departure from antiquity is a radical departure when compared to the mores of the past, however, they seem less radical when contrasted against the mores of our contemporary “macronational” culture and the established mores within Nova Roma itself. In fact, the initial establishment of the Nova Roma Constitution of MMDCCLII states, “When determining applicability for Citizenship, Nova Roma shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age (except where such is mandated by the civil laws of a particular locality), or sexuality.,” and the current version of the Nova Roma Constitution reads, “Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.” Therefore, the distinction of ''matrona'' or ''virgo'' does not apply to the status of women in Nova Roma.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Scheid, John. “An Introduction to Roman Religion.” Indiana University Press: Bloomington &amp; Indianapolis 2003. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Senators clearly had religious authority,&lt;ref&gt; Warrior, Valerie M. “Roman Religion.” Cambridge University Press: New York 2006. Page 42.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Szemler, George J. &quot;Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Numen&lt;/u&gt; 18.2 (1971): 103-31. Page 106.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> ==On Change in the Sacra Publica:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Scaurus makes an argument that the gender disparity is a preference of the Gods: “At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity.” This can be addressed by looking at the development of the sacra publica as circumstances changed. With each major transformation of Rome came change in the way the sacra publica operated. This change in the management of the pax deorum can be seen in this selection from Liebeschuetz, “Moreover the procedure for dealing with portents was intimately linked with the republican system of government and the management by the senate of sovereign popular assemblies. When that system collapsed, traditional ways of maintaining the pax deorum lost a principle reason for existence.”&lt;ref&gt; Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. “Continuity and Change in Roman Religion.” Oxford At the Claredon Press: Oxford 1979. Page 58.&lt;/ref&gt; For example, the priesthood of the Rex Sacrorum was established when the monarchy was abolished,&lt;ref&gt; Dowden, Ken “Religion and the Romans.” Bristol Classical Press: London 1992. Page 18.&lt;/ref&gt; and was a result of the Romans finding a solution to the disestablishment of the office of rex who had ceremonial obligations. Another example of the Romans dealing with change is the struggle between patricians and plebeians, and the passing of Lex Ogulnia in 300 BCE removing the patrician monopoly over the Collegium Pontificum and the Collegium Augurum.&lt;ref&gt; Taylor, Lily R. &quot;Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The American Journal of Philology&lt;/u&gt; 63.4 (1942): 385-412. Page 386.&lt;/ref&gt; Most priesthoods were originally reserved for patricians alone, but were eventually opened up to include members of the plebeian order. Some priesthoods remained closed to plebeians, but these were highly ritualized priesthoods (i.e., the major Flamen, and Rex Sacrorum), while the more politicized priesthoods (priesthoods of pontifex and augur for example) were opened up to plebeians. Would it have been considered impietas prudens dolo malo at one time in the history of Rome to suggest that plebeians, for example, be admitted as pontifices or augures? Patricians and plebeian classes where established, according to tradition, by Romulus himself with patricians as priests and magistrates, and the plebeians to do the other, often necessary, tasks.&lt;ref&gt; Watson, Alan. &quot;Roman Private Law and the Leges Regiae.&quot; The Journal of Roman Studies 62 (1972): 100-05. Page 100.&lt;/ref&gt; If it is acceptable to open up various priesthoods to plebeians then it seems reasonable to open up the same priesthoods to gender, especially those priesthoods that were not exclusively linked to gender (i.e., Vestals) and which have a certain political quality to them (viz., pontifex and augur). This seems especially true since the establishment of the classes is attributed to Romulus himself. Certainly, the idea of plebeian magistrates and pontifices would not have been acceptable, for example, in the time of Numa Popilius, but later in the evolution of Rome the idea became more palatable, just like our current practice of women magistrates and senatores would have been unheard of during the Republic and afterwards, but is now an acceptable practice.<br /> <br /> <br /> It could be argued for example that, “The departure from the mos maiorum in permitting Plebeian pontifices altered the human component of the mos, not that which was demanded by the Di Immortales.” If this objection to women pontifices is based exclusively on the assumption that plebeian pontifices represent a human component while women pontifices represents some sort of divinely mandated prohibition, then it should also be the case that women should be excluded from all political offices and especially from the senate. This prohibition is based on the special character of magistrates and senatores. However, as I have shown above, the mores Nova Roma, while linked with the mos maiorum of antiquity, is much different from its counterpart in antiquity. Additionally, change was periodically introduced into the sacra publica by the senate and various priestly colleges. The sacra publica was and is, by its nature, inclusive and highly adaptable with one special caveat, “These new additions were only thought legitimate when they received official acceptance by the ruling elite.”&lt;ref&gt; Takács, Sarolta A. &quot;Politics and Religion in the Bacchanalian Affair of 186 B.C.E.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Harvard Studies in Classical Philology&lt;/u&gt; 100 (2000): 301-10. Page 302.&lt;/ref&gt; New cults established, such as the cult of Magna Mater, old cults re-activated (such as the Arval Brethren under Augustus), and other additions, changes, and adaptations to the sacra publica were possible, but only through the collegial character of the collegium pontificum, senate, etc. The objection that some departures from the mos maiorum involve only a human component while other departures would be a direct violation of the Di Immortales would imply that the Di Immortales presented some form of direct communication with someone from Roman antiquity. I am unaware of any “golden tablets,” or codified texts similar to the Bible of the Judeo-Christian faiths, or to the Quran of Islam. However, religious change has been possible within ancient Rome. An early example of change are the reforms of Numa Popilius, when “He established laws and customs among the Romans, who, because of their frequent hostilities, were until that point regarded as semibarbaric latrones. Furthermore, he divided the previously unregulated years into ten months (sic) and founded numerous sacred rites and temples at Rome.”&lt;ref&gt; Bird, H W. &quot;Eutropius on Numa Pompilius and the Senate.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 81.3 (1986): 243-48. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Would the Romans of Numa’s time consider his reforms a violation of the mos maiorum, or as much needed reforms to move Rome forward? History portrays Numa Popilius in a very positive manner, so it would seem that his reforms benefited Rome. Additionally, great power over the sacra publica rested within the “ruling elite.” The senate, during the Empire, had the power of deification; “The deification of a deceased emperor was authorized by a formal decree of the senate, which alone had power to introduce new forms of worship.”&lt;ref&gt; Burton, Henry F. &quot;The Worship of the Roman Emperors.&quot; The Biblical World 40.2 (1912): 80-91. Page 84.&lt;/ref&gt; Therefore, the idea of change and adaption was prevalent within the sacra publica and permitted if done by the “ruling elite” according to law, such practices seem synonymous with the Roman system of change. Claiming some departures are acceptable and others are not, based on the assumption that some are divinely mandated, seems more appropriate to revealed religious traditions (such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) rather than the sacra publica of Nova Roma. Of course it could be argued that augury is a form of revelation, but if that is the case then augury could ideally solve all of our problems, and the reliance upon augury for this opens up a series of potential abuse by augures.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of the Roman Priesthood:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Something to consider regarding the various priesthoods of Rome, ancient or otherwise, is the nature of the priesthood. The priesthood of Christianity (for example, those of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) is a sacramental priesthood believed to change the very essential character of the individual upon ordination as a priest, resulting in a special character upon the soul of the new priest. Likewise, the Aaronic priesthood of Jewish tradition was a hereditary priesthood passed from father to son. The priesthoods of ancient Rome were different; “Its religious officials were merely political functionaries of state like any other.”&lt;ref&gt; Merrill, Elmer T. &quot;The Attitude of Ancient Rome toward Religion and Religious Cults.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 15.4 (1920): 196-215. Page 200.&lt;/ref&gt; The religious character of the priesthood was linked with that of the state, and priests functioned on behalf of the state. Since Nova Roma makes no distinction of citizenship with regard to gender, as I have shown, and since the priesthood is a function of state then the priesthood should be open to citizens regardless of their gender.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of Vitium:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his critique of women pontifices Scaurus wrote, “The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia.” The use of the term vitium in the sense that it is used by Scaurus is an incorrect use of the term vitium. It does happen to be a Latin word for blemish, defect, or fault. However, it has a more specific meaning within the confines of the sacra publica. The word vitium has specific meaning in augurial law; “As a religious term, it definitely belongs to the language of augury alone.”&lt;ref&gt; Paschall, Dorothy. &quot;The Origin and Semantic Development of Latin Vitium.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association&lt;/u&gt; 67 (1936): 219-31. Page 220.&lt;/ref&gt; It would seem that Scaurus has used the term vitium is an incorrectly. His example of women at a caerimoniae reserved exclusively for men is similar to the case of Publius Clodius Pulcher who secretly attended the rites of Bona Dea, but was discovered. The pontifices declared that the actions of Clodius were nefas,&lt;ref&gt; Strachan-Davidson, J L. &quot;Mommsen's Roman Criminal Law.&quot; The English Historical Review 16.62 (1901): 219-91. Page 221.&lt;/ref&gt; but no mention of it being a vitium. As I’ve shown above the pontifices ruled that the presence of Clodius required the rituals to be performed again. In this case Scaurus seems correct that a ritual exclusively aligned to men, with women present, should be conducted over – just a ritual reserved for women had to conducted over after being polluted by a man. However, his argument against women as pontifices rests on his assertion that pontifices where and are required to attend the rites of Hercules. Since the cults of Hercules and Bona Dea were linked in their exclusivity of gender,&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 25.&lt;/ref&gt; it seems reasonable that if there was ever a time in Nova Roma where attendance was mandated upon our pontifices that men would attend the rites of Hercules, and women the rites of Bona Dea. Even if this was the case it would still be appropriate for women pontifices to guard the orthopraxy of the Herculean cult just as it was for the male pontifices of antiquity to guard the orthopraxy of the rites of Bona Dea.<br /> <br /> ==Response to the claim of impious hypocrisy:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Conclusion:==<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/In_defense_of_women_pontifices_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T04:45:50Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* On the status and role of women in Nova Roma: */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The argument below presented by [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] seems to be a narrow analysis of the current dilemma within the sacra publica of Nova Roma, and it is my hope that by illustrating his narrow view, as well as close analysis of ancient Roman religious tradition in light of our modern usage, the concept of women pontifices can be again embraced by Nova Roma. The argument, by Gaius Iulius Scaurus, seems to be a two-fold argument; the religious practices of Roma antiqua being incompatible with modern sentiments of gender equality, and the current practices of gender equality within Nova Roma itself. I hope to address both of these concerns and show that women pontifices are a potential reality again within Nova Roma and one that would not be impietas prudens dolo malo.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Argument against women pontifices as presented by Gaius Iulius Scaurus:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I have made a comprehensive survey of the primary and secondary literature on the question and am convinced that the adlection of female pontifices will violate fundamental gender taboos of the Religio and constitute an inexpiable impietas prudens dolo malo. Women are absolutely forbidden to attend any caerimonia to Hercules and the first caerimonia of the Neptunalia. The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia. Furthermore, at the caerimoniae of the mundus patet the only women permitted to attend are the Virgines Vestales. However, the attendance of the pontifices in the caerimoniae of Hercules, the Neptunalia, and the mundus patet is mandatory. The adlection of female pontifices would create a religious obligation to commit an impietas prudens dolo malo, which is a patent absurdity.<br /> <br /> <br /> I see no way to rationalize abandonment of this taboo on the grounds of the hypothesized sexism of Roman society. We simply do not know why the gender taboo existed any more than we know why there were no male Vestals, and anyone who claims the ability to distinguish between essential religious taboos and artifacts of sexual discrimination is engaged in willful self-deception. We know that the Romans assiduously respected these taboos and that these taboos were not generally extended across the entire cultus, which militates for prudently treating them as intrinsically important to the Religio and connected to specific aspects of the cultus. At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity. Following the latter strategy seems to me to place us entirely outside the enterprise of reconstruction and into the enterprise of creating a new religion out of whole cloth. The suggestion that female pontifices simply absent themselves from caerimoniae at which the attendance of women is prohibited ignores the fact that pontifical attendance at these caerimoniae was mandatory except in case of good cause, i.e., absence from the city or illness. 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Frankly, earlier adlection of female pontifices in Nova Roma is so grave a departure from the cultic practice of antiquity that our only hope to undo the offence it represents is to simply throw ourselves on the mercy of the Gods and plead abject ignorance for the affront. If we knowingly go down this path again, we shall be making genuine reconstruction of the Religio impossible. Why don't we just create male sacerdotes of Bona Dea while we're at it? <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Opening response to Gaius Iulius Scaurus and the case for gender equality:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his argument against women pontifices, Scaurus makes the claim that women were prohibited from participating in some specific cults, and that these practices required the pontifices to participate. However, he makes the claim that pontifices could excuse themselves from participation for good cause. What better cause then gender equality? What we know of gender disparity shows that there were cult practices where women were the exclusive participants, yet if pontifices had jurisdiction over ceremonial matters then it serves that they would have influence over the rites of any state sponsored cultus.&lt;ref&gt; Shelton, Jo-Ann. “As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History,” Second Edition. Oxford University Press: New York 1998. Page 384 – 385.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction is evident in the ruling of the pontifices regarding Publius Clodius Pulcher and his unlawful attendance at the rites of Bona Dea, where the pontifices ruled that the rites had been polluted.&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. &lt;u&gt;From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 39.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction seems to transcend gender since the pontifices had cause to monitor the orthopraxy of ritual practice, yet were denied access to the cult of Bona Dea. In the sacerdotal culture of Nova Roma the proximity of pontifices to the cultic practices of the sacerdotes is not always guaranteed. Therefore, it seems only reasonable to assume that the mandated participation, that Scaurus mentions, is a practice from antiquity that will need modification in our modern global environment. I have, for example, been a pontifex for a couple of years now and I have never been to a “mandatory” caerimoniae to either Hercules or Neptune. Furthermore, since the pontifices of antiquity had jurisdiction over aspects of a female specific cult then logic would dictate that women pontifices within Nova Roma would have similar jurisdiction over male only cults. This jurisdiction, however, need not always include proximity to the actual ceremonial act, but deals with issues of orthopraxy.<br /> <br /> ==On the status and role of women in Nova Roma:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> At issue, as to whether women can or should be ''pontifices'', is the treatment of women in Nova Roma. Women are allowed, and encouraged, to participate in all aspects of civic life. That was not the case within Rome of antiquity, since women were typically under the ''patria potestas'' of their father, husband, or male relative.&lt;ref&gt; Arjava, Antti . &quot;Paternal Power in Late Antiquity.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Journal of Roman Studies&lt;/u&gt;. 88 (1998): 147-65. Page 148.&lt;/ref&gt; The ''patria potestas'' of the ''pater familias'' lasted as long as the pater was alive, and even in cases when the ''pater familias'' died, and those under his ''potestas'' became ''sui iuris'' (independent), the men under the ''potestas'' were completely free, but women were required to have a ''tutor'' or legal guardian.&lt;ref&gt; Carp, Teresa. &quot;Two matrons of the late republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt; Women's Studies&lt;/u&gt; 8 (1981): 189-200. Page 191.&lt;/ref&gt; This is one major difference between women in ancient Rome and women in Nova Roma, the idea of emancipation and independence. In Nova Roma, via Lex Equitia familiaris the ideal of gender equality is evident in subscribing ''potestas'' irrespective of gender, respecting the concept of both ''pater familias'' and ''mater familias'' along with allowing for male and female ''tutores'' in the case of ''minores''. This gender equality within Nova Roma is important because it represents a profound deviation of the ''mos maiorum'' in one sense, but also an evolution of that same ''mos maiorum'' reflecting a continuity between ancient and contemporary mores. Our contemporary usage of gender equality within our own family law is the departure from ancient practice that radically changes the role of women.<br /> <br /> <br /> In ancient Rome a woman could belong to one of three different categories; “Women who did not qualify as either matronae or virgins were effectively non-members of the Roman state and of its cult, banned, with a few specific exceptions, from participating (except perhaps as spectators along a parade route) in many of Rome’s most central religious rites.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore, a ''matrona'' and a ''virgo'' can be defined with the following definition, “To be a matrona, a woman had to be the respectable wife or widow of a Roman citizen. To be a virgo, a woman had to be the morally pure, respectable, sexually intact (as we define the English word virgin) marriageable daughter of a Roman citizen.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; In Nova Roma this classification of women does not apply, and as an example I’ll use a former vestal to illustrate my point. [[Lucia Modia Lupa (Nova Roma)|Lucia Modia Lupa]] was appointed a Vestal by Collegium Pontificum decretum dated ante diem XIII Kal. FEBRVARIAS MMDCCLVIII a.u.c. (20 January 2005). At the time of her appointment she was still under my ''patria potestas'', but was emancipated by me a day later (21 January 2005). Lucia Modia Lupa was neither a ''matrona'' or a ''virgo'', being unmarried and having a daughter. It would, in my opinion, be against the ancient Roman ''mos maiorum'' to have a women who was anything other than a ''virgo'' selected to become a ''vestal''; yet such an appointment did occur in Nova Roma because the requirement of being either a ''matrona'' or ''virgo'' is an antiquated practice that does not apply in the gender egalitarian environment that prevails in Nova Roma. This departure from antiquity is a radical departure when compared to the mores of the past, however, they seem less radical when contrasted against the mores of our contemporary “macronational” culture and the established mores within Nova Roma itself. In fact, the initial establishment of the Nova Roma Constitution of MMDCCLII states, “When determining applicability for Citizenship, Nova Roma shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age (except where such is mandated by the civil laws of a particular locality), or sexuality.,” and the current version of the Nova Roma Constitution reads, “Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.” Therefore, the distinction of ''matrona'' or ''virgo'' does not apply to the status of women in Nova Roma.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Scheid, John. “An Introduction to Roman Religion.” Indiana University Press: Bloomington &amp; Indianapolis 2003. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Senators clearly had religious authority,&lt;ref&gt; Warrior, Valerie M. “Roman Religion.” Cambridge University Press: New York 2006. Page 42.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Szemler, George J. &quot;Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Numen&lt;/u&gt; 18.2 (1971): 103-31. Page 106.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> ==On Change in the Sacra Publica:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Scaurus makes an argument that the gender disparity is a preference of the Gods: “At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity.” This can be addressed by looking at the development of the sacra publica as circumstances changed. With each major transformation of Rome came change in the way the sacra publica operated. This change in the management of the pax deorum can be seen in this selection from Liebeschuetz, “Moreover the procedure for dealing with portents was intimately linked with the republican system of government and the management by the senate of sovereign popular assemblies. When that system collapsed, traditional ways of maintaining the pax deorum lost a principle reason for existence.”&lt;ref&gt; Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. “Continuity and Change in Roman Religion.” Oxford At the Claredon Press: Oxford 1979. Page 58.&lt;/ref&gt; For example, the priesthood of the Rex Sacrorum was established when the monarchy was abolished,&lt;ref&gt; Dowden, Ken “Religion and the Romans.” Bristol Classical Press: London 1992. Page 18.&lt;/ref&gt; and was a result of the Romans finding a solution to the disestablishment of the office of rex who had ceremonial obligations. Another example of the Romans dealing with change is the struggle between patricians and plebeians, and the passing of Lex Ogulnia in 300 BCE removing the patrician monopoly over the Collegium Pontificum and the Collegium Augurum.&lt;ref&gt; Taylor, Lily R. &quot;Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The American Journal of Philology&lt;/u&gt; 63.4 (1942): 385-412. Page 386.&lt;/ref&gt; Most priesthoods were originally reserved for patricians alone, but were eventually opened up to include members of the plebeian order. Some priesthoods remained closed to plebeians, but these were highly ritualized priesthoods (i.e., the major Flamen, and Rex Sacrorum), while the more politicized priesthoods (priesthoods of pontifex and augur for example) were opened up to plebeians. Would it have been considered impietas prudens dolo malo at one time in the history of Rome to suggest that plebeians, for example, be admitted as pontifices or augures? Patricians and plebeian classes where established, according to tradition, by Romulus himself with patricians as priests and magistrates, and the plebeians to do the other, often necessary, tasks.&lt;ref&gt; Watson, Alan. &quot;Roman Private Law and the Leges Regiae.&quot; The Journal of Roman Studies 62 (1972): 100-05. Page 100.&lt;/ref&gt; If it is acceptable to open up various priesthoods to plebeians then it seems reasonable to open up the same priesthoods to gender, especially those priesthoods that were not exclusively linked to gender (i.e., Vestals) and which have a certain political quality to them (viz., pontifex and augur). This seems especially true since the establishment of the classes is attributed to Romulus himself. Certainly, the idea of plebeian magistrates and pontifices would not have been acceptable, for example, in the time of Numa Popilius, but later in the evolution of Rome the idea became more palatable, just like our current practice of women magistrates and senatores would have been unheard of during the Republic and afterwards, but is now an acceptable practice.<br /> <br /> <br /> It could be argued for example that, “The departure from the mos maiorum in permitting Plebeian pontifices altered the human component of the mos, not that which was demanded by the Di Immortales.” If this objection to women pontifices is based exclusively on the assumption that plebeian pontifices represent a human component while women pontifices represents some sort of divinely mandated prohibition, then it should also be the case that women should be excluded from all political offices and especially from the senate. This prohibition is based on the special character of magistrates and senatores. However, as I have shown above, the mores Nova Roma, while linked with the mos maiorum of antiquity, is much different from its counterpart in antiquity. Additionally, change was periodically introduced into the sacra publica by the senate and various priestly colleges. The sacra publica was and is, by its nature, inclusive and highly adaptable with one special caveat, “These new additions were only thought legitimate when they received official acceptance by the ruling elite.”&lt;ref&gt; Takács, Sarolta A. &quot;Politics and Religion in the Bacchanalian Affair of 186 B.C.E.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Harvard Studies in Classical Philology&lt;/u&gt; 100 (2000): 301-10. Page 302.&lt;/ref&gt; New cults established, such as the cult of Magna Mater, old cults re-activated (such as the Arval Brethren under Augustus), and other additions, changes, and adaptations to the sacra publica were possible, but only through the collegial character of the collegium pontificum, senate, etc. The objection that some departures from the mos maiorum involve only a human component while other departures would be a direct violation of the Di Immortales would imply that the Di Immortales presented some form of direct communication with someone from Roman antiquity. I am unaware of any “golden tablets,” or codified texts similar to the Bible of the Judeo-Christian faiths, or to the Quran of Islam. However, religious change has been possible within ancient Rome. An early example of change are the reforms of Numa Popilius, when “He established laws and customs among the Romans, who, because of their frequent hostilities, were until that point regarded as semibarbaric latrones. Furthermore, he divided the previously unregulated years into ten months (sic) and founded numerous sacred rites and temples at Rome.”&lt;ref&gt; Bird, H W. &quot;Eutropius on Numa Pompilius and the Senate.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 81.3 (1986): 243-48. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Would the Romans of Numa’s time consider his reforms a violation of the mos maiorum, or as much needed reforms to move Rome forward? History portrays Numa Popilius in a very positive manner, so it would seem that his reforms benefited Rome. Additionally, great power over the sacra publica rested within the “ruling elite.” The senate, during the Empire, had the power of deification; “The deification of a deceased emperor was authorized by a formal decree of the senate, which alone had power to introduce new forms of worship.”&lt;ref&gt; Burton, Henry F. &quot;The Worship of the Roman Emperors.&quot; The Biblical World 40.2 (1912): 80-91. Page 84.&lt;/ref&gt; Therefore, the idea of change and adaption was prevalent within the sacra publica and permitted if done by the “ruling elite” according to law, such practices seem synonymous with the Roman system of change. Claiming some departures are acceptable and others are not, based on the assumption that some are divinely mandated, seems more appropriate to revealed religious traditions (such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) rather than the sacra publica of Nova Roma. Of course it could be argued that augury is a form of revelation, but if that is the case then augury could ideally solve all of our problems, and the reliance upon augury for this opens up a series of potential abuse by augures.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of the Roman Priesthood:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Something to consider regarding the various priesthoods of Rome, ancient or otherwise, is the nature of the priesthood. The priesthood of Christianity (for example, those of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) is a sacramental priesthood believed to change the very essential character of the individual upon ordination as a priest, resulting in a special character upon the soul of the new priest. Likewise, the Aaronic priesthood of Jewish tradition was a hereditary priesthood passed from father to son. The priesthoods of ancient Rome were different; “Its religious officials were merely political functionaries of state like any other.”&lt;ref&gt; Merrill, Elmer T. &quot;The Attitude of Ancient Rome toward Religion and Religious Cults.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 15.4 (1920): 196-215. Page 200.&lt;/ref&gt; The religious character of the priesthood was linked with that of the state, and priests functioned on behalf of the state. Since Nova Roma makes no distinction of citizenship with regard to gender, as I have shown, and since the priesthood is a function of state then the priesthood should be open to citizens regardless of their gender.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of Vitium:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his critique of women pontifices Scaurus wrote, “The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia.” The use of the term vitium in the sense that it is used by Scaurus is an incorrect use of the term vitium. It does happen to be a Latin word for blemish, defect, or fault. However, it has a more specific meaning within the confines of the sacra publica. The word vitium has specific meaning in augurial law; “As a religious term, it definitely belongs to the language of augury alone.”&lt;ref&gt; Paschall, Dorothy. &quot;The Origin and Semantic Development of Latin Vitium.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association&lt;/u&gt; 67 (1936): 219-31. Page 220.&lt;/ref&gt; It would seem that Scaurus has used the term vitium is an incorrectly. His example of women at a caerimoniae reserved exclusively for men is similar to the case of Publius Clodius Pulcher who secretly attended the rites of Bona Dea, but was discovered. The pontifices declared that the actions of Clodius were nefas,&lt;ref&gt; Strachan-Davidson, J L. &quot;Mommsen's Roman Criminal Law.&quot; The English Historical Review 16.62 (1901): 219-91. Page 221.&lt;/ref&gt; but no mention of it being a vitium. As I’ve shown above the pontifices ruled that the presence of Clodius required the rituals to be performed again. In this case Scaurus seems correct that a ritual exclusively aligned to men, with women present, should be conducted over – just a ritual reserved for women had to conducted over after being polluted by a man. However, his argument against women as pontifices rests on his assertion that pontifices where and are required to attend the rites of Hercules. Since the cults of Hercules and Bona Dea were linked in their exclusivity of gender,&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 25.&lt;/ref&gt; it seems reasonable that if there was ever a time in Nova Roma where attendance was mandated upon our pontifices that men would attend the rites of Hercules, and women the rites of Bona Dea. Even if this was the case it would still be appropriate for women pontifices to guard the orthopraxy of the Herculean cult just as it was for the male pontifices of antiquity to guard the orthopraxy of the rites of Bona Dea.<br /> <br /> ==Response to the claim of impious hypocrisy:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Conclusion:==<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/In_defense_of_women_pontifices_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T04:38:13Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* Opening response to Gaius Iulius Scaurus and the case for gender equality: */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The argument below presented by [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] seems to be a narrow analysis of the current dilemma within the sacra publica of Nova Roma, and it is my hope that by illustrating his narrow view, as well as close analysis of ancient Roman religious tradition in light of our modern usage, the concept of women pontifices can be again embraced by Nova Roma. The argument, by Gaius Iulius Scaurus, seems to be a two-fold argument; the religious practices of Roma antiqua being incompatible with modern sentiments of gender equality, and the current practices of gender equality within Nova Roma itself. I hope to address both of these concerns and show that women pontifices are a potential reality again within Nova Roma and one that would not be impietas prudens dolo malo.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Argument against women pontifices as presented by Gaius Iulius Scaurus:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I have made a comprehensive survey of the primary and secondary literature on the question and am convinced that the adlection of female pontifices will violate fundamental gender taboos of the Religio and constitute an inexpiable impietas prudens dolo malo. Women are absolutely forbidden to attend any caerimonia to Hercules and the first caerimonia of the Neptunalia. The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia. Furthermore, at the caerimoniae of the mundus patet the only women permitted to attend are the Virgines Vestales. However, the attendance of the pontifices in the caerimoniae of Hercules, the Neptunalia, and the mundus patet is mandatory. The adlection of female pontifices would create a religious obligation to commit an impietas prudens dolo malo, which is a patent absurdity.<br /> <br /> <br /> I see no way to rationalize abandonment of this taboo on the grounds of the hypothesized sexism of Roman society. We simply do not know why the gender taboo existed any more than we know why there were no male Vestals, and anyone who claims the ability to distinguish between essential religious taboos and artifacts of sexual discrimination is engaged in willful self-deception. We know that the Romans assiduously respected these taboos and that these taboos were not generally extended across the entire cultus, which militates for prudently treating them as intrinsically important to the Religio and connected to specific aspects of the cultus. At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity. Following the latter strategy seems to me to place us entirely outside the enterprise of reconstruction and into the enterprise of creating a new religion out of whole cloth. The suggestion that female pontifices simply absent themselves from caerimoniae at which the attendance of women is prohibited ignores the fact that pontifical attendance at these caerimoniae was mandatory except in case of good cause, i.e., absence from the city or illness. 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Frankly, earlier adlection of female pontifices in Nova Roma is so grave a departure from the cultic practice of antiquity that our only hope to undo the offence it represents is to simply throw ourselves on the mercy of the Gods and plead abject ignorance for the affront. If we knowingly go down this path again, we shall be making genuine reconstruction of the Religio impossible. Why don't we just create male sacerdotes of Bona Dea while we're at it? <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Opening response to Gaius Iulius Scaurus and the case for gender equality:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his argument against women pontifices, Scaurus makes the claim that women were prohibited from participating in some specific cults, and that these practices required the pontifices to participate. However, he makes the claim that pontifices could excuse themselves from participation for good cause. What better cause then gender equality? What we know of gender disparity shows that there were cult practices where women were the exclusive participants, yet if pontifices had jurisdiction over ceremonial matters then it serves that they would have influence over the rites of any state sponsored cultus.&lt;ref&gt; Shelton, Jo-Ann. “As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History,” Second Edition. Oxford University Press: New York 1998. Page 384 – 385.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction is evident in the ruling of the pontifices regarding Publius Clodius Pulcher and his unlawful attendance at the rites of Bona Dea, where the pontifices ruled that the rites had been polluted.&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. &lt;u&gt;From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 39.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction seems to transcend gender since the pontifices had cause to monitor the orthopraxy of ritual practice, yet were denied access to the cult of Bona Dea. In the sacerdotal culture of Nova Roma the proximity of pontifices to the cultic practices of the sacerdotes is not always guaranteed. Therefore, it seems only reasonable to assume that the mandated participation, that Scaurus mentions, is a practice from antiquity that will need modification in our modern global environment. I have, for example, been a pontifex for a couple of years now and I have never been to a “mandatory” caerimoniae to either Hercules or Neptune. Furthermore, since the pontifices of antiquity had jurisdiction over aspects of a female specific cult then logic would dictate that women pontifices within Nova Roma would have similar jurisdiction over male only cults. This jurisdiction, however, need not always include proximity to the actual ceremonial act, but deals with issues of orthopraxy.<br /> <br /> ==On the status and role of women in Nova Roma:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> At issue, as to whether women can or should be pontifices, is the treatment of women in Nova Roma. Women are allowed, and encouraged, to participate in all aspects of civic life. That was not the case within Rome of antiquity, since women were typically under the patria potestas of their father, husband, or male relative.&lt;ref&gt; Arjava, Antti . &quot;Paternal Power in Late Antiquity.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Journal of Roman Studies&lt;/u&gt;. 88 (1998): 147-65. Page 148.&lt;/ref&gt; The patria potestas of the pater familias lasted as long as the pater was alive, and even in cases when the pater familias died, and those under his potestas became sui iuris (independent), the men under the potestas were completely free, but women were required to have a tutor or legal guardian.&lt;ref&gt; Carp, Teresa. &quot;Two matrons of the late republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt; Women's Studies&lt;/u&gt; 8 (1981): 189-200. Page 191.&lt;/ref&gt; This is one major difference between women in ancient Rome and women in Nova Roma, the idea of emancipation and independence. In Nova Roma, via Lex Equitia familiaris the ideal of gender equality is evident in subscribing potestas irrespective of gender, respecting the concept of both pater familias and mater familias along with allowing for male and female tutores in the case of minores. This gender equality within Nova Roma is important because it represents a profound deviation of the mos maiorum in one sense, but also an evolution of that same mos maiorum reflecting a continuity between ancient and contemporary mores. Our contemporary usage of gender equality within our own family law is the departure from ancient practice that radically changes the role of women.<br /> <br /> <br /> In ancient Rome a woman could belong to one of three different categories; “Women who did not qualify as either matronae or virgins were effectively non-members of the Roman state and of its cult, banned, with a few specific exceptions, from participating (except perhaps as spectators along a parade route) in many of Rome’s most central religious rites.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore, a matrona and a virgo can be defined with the following definition, “To be a matrona, a woman had to be the respectable wife or widow of a Roman citizen. To be a virgo, a woman had to be the morally pure, respectable, sexually intact (as we define the English word virgin) marriageable daughter of a Roman citizen.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; In Nova Roma this classification of women does not apply, and as an example I’ll use a former vestal to illustrate my point. Lucia Modia Lupa was appointed a Vestal by Collegium Pontificum decretum dated ante diem XIII Kal. FEBRVARIAS MMDCCLVIII a.u.c. (20 January 2005). At the time of her appointment she was still under my patria potestas, but was emancipated by me a day later (21 January 2005). Lucia Modia Lupa was neither a matrona or a virgo, being unmarried and having a daughter. It would, in my opinion, be against the ancient Roman mos maiorum to have a women who was anything other than a virgo selected to become a vestal; yet such an appointment did occur in Nova Roma because the requirement of being either a matrona or virgo is an antiquated practice that does not apply in the gender egalitarian environment that prevails in Nova Roma. This departure from antiquity is a radical departure when compared to the mores of the past, however, they seem less radical when contrasted against the mores of our contemporary “macronational” culture and the established mores within Nova Roma itself. In fact, the initial establishment of the Nova Roma Constitution of MMDCCLII states, “When determining applicability for Citizenship, Nova Roma shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age (except where such is mandated by the civil laws of a particular locality), or sexuality.,” and the current version of the Nova Roma Constitution reads, “Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.” Therefore, the distinction of matrona or virgo does not apply to the status of women in Nova Roma.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Scheid, John. “An Introduction to Roman Religion.” Indiana University Press: Bloomington &amp; Indianapolis 2003. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Senators clearly had religious authority,&lt;ref&gt; Warrior, Valerie M. “Roman Religion.” Cambridge University Press: New York 2006. Page 42.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Szemler, George J. &quot;Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Numen&lt;/u&gt; 18.2 (1971): 103-31. Page 106.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> ==On Change in the Sacra Publica:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Scaurus makes an argument that the gender disparity is a preference of the Gods: “At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity.” This can be addressed by looking at the development of the sacra publica as circumstances changed. With each major transformation of Rome came change in the way the sacra publica operated. This change in the management of the pax deorum can be seen in this selection from Liebeschuetz, “Moreover the procedure for dealing with portents was intimately linked with the republican system of government and the management by the senate of sovereign popular assemblies. When that system collapsed, traditional ways of maintaining the pax deorum lost a principle reason for existence.”&lt;ref&gt; Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. “Continuity and Change in Roman Religion.” Oxford At the Claredon Press: Oxford 1979. Page 58.&lt;/ref&gt; For example, the priesthood of the Rex Sacrorum was established when the monarchy was abolished,&lt;ref&gt; Dowden, Ken “Religion and the Romans.” Bristol Classical Press: London 1992. Page 18.&lt;/ref&gt; and was a result of the Romans finding a solution to the disestablishment of the office of rex who had ceremonial obligations. Another example of the Romans dealing with change is the struggle between patricians and plebeians, and the passing of Lex Ogulnia in 300 BCE removing the patrician monopoly over the Collegium Pontificum and the Collegium Augurum.&lt;ref&gt; Taylor, Lily R. &quot;Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The American Journal of Philology&lt;/u&gt; 63.4 (1942): 385-412. Page 386.&lt;/ref&gt; Most priesthoods were originally reserved for patricians alone, but were eventually opened up to include members of the plebeian order. Some priesthoods remained closed to plebeians, but these were highly ritualized priesthoods (i.e., the major Flamen, and Rex Sacrorum), while the more politicized priesthoods (priesthoods of pontifex and augur for example) were opened up to plebeians. Would it have been considered impietas prudens dolo malo at one time in the history of Rome to suggest that plebeians, for example, be admitted as pontifices or augures? Patricians and plebeian classes where established, according to tradition, by Romulus himself with patricians as priests and magistrates, and the plebeians to do the other, often necessary, tasks.&lt;ref&gt; Watson, Alan. &quot;Roman Private Law and the Leges Regiae.&quot; The Journal of Roman Studies 62 (1972): 100-05. Page 100.&lt;/ref&gt; If it is acceptable to open up various priesthoods to plebeians then it seems reasonable to open up the same priesthoods to gender, especially those priesthoods that were not exclusively linked to gender (i.e., Vestals) and which have a certain political quality to them (viz., pontifex and augur). This seems especially true since the establishment of the classes is attributed to Romulus himself. Certainly, the idea of plebeian magistrates and pontifices would not have been acceptable, for example, in the time of Numa Popilius, but later in the evolution of Rome the idea became more palatable, just like our current practice of women magistrates and senatores would have been unheard of during the Republic and afterwards, but is now an acceptable practice.<br /> <br /> <br /> It could be argued for example that, “The departure from the mos maiorum in permitting Plebeian pontifices altered the human component of the mos, not that which was demanded by the Di Immortales.” If this objection to women pontifices is based exclusively on the assumption that plebeian pontifices represent a human component while women pontifices represents some sort of divinely mandated prohibition, then it should also be the case that women should be excluded from all political offices and especially from the senate. This prohibition is based on the special character of magistrates and senatores. However, as I have shown above, the mores Nova Roma, while linked with the mos maiorum of antiquity, is much different from its counterpart in antiquity. Additionally, change was periodically introduced into the sacra publica by the senate and various priestly colleges. The sacra publica was and is, by its nature, inclusive and highly adaptable with one special caveat, “These new additions were only thought legitimate when they received official acceptance by the ruling elite.”&lt;ref&gt; Takács, Sarolta A. &quot;Politics and Religion in the Bacchanalian Affair of 186 B.C.E.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Harvard Studies in Classical Philology&lt;/u&gt; 100 (2000): 301-10. Page 302.&lt;/ref&gt; New cults established, such as the cult of Magna Mater, old cults re-activated (such as the Arval Brethren under Augustus), and other additions, changes, and adaptations to the sacra publica were possible, but only through the collegial character of the collegium pontificum, senate, etc. The objection that some departures from the mos maiorum involve only a human component while other departures would be a direct violation of the Di Immortales would imply that the Di Immortales presented some form of direct communication with someone from Roman antiquity. I am unaware of any “golden tablets,” or codified texts similar to the Bible of the Judeo-Christian faiths, or to the Quran of Islam. However, religious change has been possible within ancient Rome. An early example of change are the reforms of Numa Popilius, when “He established laws and customs among the Romans, who, because of their frequent hostilities, were until that point regarded as semibarbaric latrones. Furthermore, he divided the previously unregulated years into ten months (sic) and founded numerous sacred rites and temples at Rome.”&lt;ref&gt; Bird, H W. &quot;Eutropius on Numa Pompilius and the Senate.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 81.3 (1986): 243-48. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Would the Romans of Numa’s time consider his reforms a violation of the mos maiorum, or as much needed reforms to move Rome forward? History portrays Numa Popilius in a very positive manner, so it would seem that his reforms benefited Rome. Additionally, great power over the sacra publica rested within the “ruling elite.” The senate, during the Empire, had the power of deification; “The deification of a deceased emperor was authorized by a formal decree of the senate, which alone had power to introduce new forms of worship.”&lt;ref&gt; Burton, Henry F. &quot;The Worship of the Roman Emperors.&quot; The Biblical World 40.2 (1912): 80-91. Page 84.&lt;/ref&gt; Therefore, the idea of change and adaption was prevalent within the sacra publica and permitted if done by the “ruling elite” according to law, such practices seem synonymous with the Roman system of change. Claiming some departures are acceptable and others are not, based on the assumption that some are divinely mandated, seems more appropriate to revealed religious traditions (such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) rather than the sacra publica of Nova Roma. Of course it could be argued that augury is a form of revelation, but if that is the case then augury could ideally solve all of our problems, and the reliance upon augury for this opens up a series of potential abuse by augures.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of the Roman Priesthood:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Something to consider regarding the various priesthoods of Rome, ancient or otherwise, is the nature of the priesthood. The priesthood of Christianity (for example, those of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) is a sacramental priesthood believed to change the very essential character of the individual upon ordination as a priest, resulting in a special character upon the soul of the new priest. Likewise, the Aaronic priesthood of Jewish tradition was a hereditary priesthood passed from father to son. The priesthoods of ancient Rome were different; “Its religious officials were merely political functionaries of state like any other.”&lt;ref&gt; Merrill, Elmer T. &quot;The Attitude of Ancient Rome toward Religion and Religious Cults.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 15.4 (1920): 196-215. Page 200.&lt;/ref&gt; The religious character of the priesthood was linked with that of the state, and priests functioned on behalf of the state. Since Nova Roma makes no distinction of citizenship with regard to gender, as I have shown, and since the priesthood is a function of state then the priesthood should be open to citizens regardless of their gender.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of Vitium:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his critique of women pontifices Scaurus wrote, “The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia.” The use of the term vitium in the sense that it is used by Scaurus is an incorrect use of the term vitium. It does happen to be a Latin word for blemish, defect, or fault. However, it has a more specific meaning within the confines of the sacra publica. The word vitium has specific meaning in augurial law; “As a religious term, it definitely belongs to the language of augury alone.”&lt;ref&gt; Paschall, Dorothy. &quot;The Origin and Semantic Development of Latin Vitium.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association&lt;/u&gt; 67 (1936): 219-31. Page 220.&lt;/ref&gt; It would seem that Scaurus has used the term vitium is an incorrectly. His example of women at a caerimoniae reserved exclusively for men is similar to the case of Publius Clodius Pulcher who secretly attended the rites of Bona Dea, but was discovered. The pontifices declared that the actions of Clodius were nefas,&lt;ref&gt; Strachan-Davidson, J L. &quot;Mommsen's Roman Criminal Law.&quot; The English Historical Review 16.62 (1901): 219-91. Page 221.&lt;/ref&gt; but no mention of it being a vitium. As I’ve shown above the pontifices ruled that the presence of Clodius required the rituals to be performed again. In this case Scaurus seems correct that a ritual exclusively aligned to men, with women present, should be conducted over – just a ritual reserved for women had to conducted over after being polluted by a man. However, his argument against women as pontifices rests on his assertion that pontifices where and are required to attend the rites of Hercules. Since the cults of Hercules and Bona Dea were linked in their exclusivity of gender,&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 25.&lt;/ref&gt; it seems reasonable that if there was ever a time in Nova Roma where attendance was mandated upon our pontifices that men would attend the rites of Hercules, and women the rites of Bona Dea. Even if this was the case it would still be appropriate for women pontifices to guard the orthopraxy of the Herculean cult just as it was for the male pontifices of antiquity to guard the orthopraxy of the rites of Bona Dea.<br /> <br /> ==Response to the claim of impious hypocrisy:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Conclusion:==<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/In_defense_of_women_pontifices_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T04:36:22Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* On the Nature of Vitium: */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The argument below presented by [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] seems to be a narrow analysis of the current dilemma within the sacra publica of Nova Roma, and it is my hope that by illustrating his narrow view, as well as close analysis of ancient Roman religious tradition in light of our modern usage, the concept of women pontifices can be again embraced by Nova Roma. The argument, by Gaius Iulius Scaurus, seems to be a two-fold argument; the religious practices of Roma antiqua being incompatible with modern sentiments of gender equality, and the current practices of gender equality within Nova Roma itself. I hope to address both of these concerns and show that women pontifices are a potential reality again within Nova Roma and one that would not be impietas prudens dolo malo.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Argument against women pontifices as presented by Gaius Iulius Scaurus:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I have made a comprehensive survey of the primary and secondary literature on the question and am convinced that the adlection of female pontifices will violate fundamental gender taboos of the Religio and constitute an inexpiable impietas prudens dolo malo. Women are absolutely forbidden to attend any caerimonia to Hercules and the first caerimonia of the Neptunalia. The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia. Furthermore, at the caerimoniae of the mundus patet the only women permitted to attend are the Virgines Vestales. However, the attendance of the pontifices in the caerimoniae of Hercules, the Neptunalia, and the mundus patet is mandatory. The adlection of female pontifices would create a religious obligation to commit an impietas prudens dolo malo, which is a patent absurdity.<br /> <br /> <br /> I see no way to rationalize abandonment of this taboo on the grounds of the hypothesized sexism of Roman society. We simply do not know why the gender taboo existed any more than we know why there were no male Vestals, and anyone who claims the ability to distinguish between essential religious taboos and artifacts of sexual discrimination is engaged in willful self-deception. We know that the Romans assiduously respected these taboos and that these taboos were not generally extended across the entire cultus, which militates for prudently treating them as intrinsically important to the Religio and connected to specific aspects of the cultus. At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity. Following the latter strategy seems to me to place us entirely outside the enterprise of reconstruction and into the enterprise of creating a new religion out of whole cloth. The suggestion that female pontifices simply absent themselves from caerimoniae at which the attendance of women is prohibited ignores the fact that pontifical attendance at these caerimoniae was mandatory except in case of good cause, i.e., absence from the city or illness. 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Frankly, earlier adlection of female pontifices in Nova Roma is so grave a departure from the cultic practice of antiquity that our only hope to undo the offence it represents is to simply throw ourselves on the mercy of the Gods and plead abject ignorance for the affront. If we knowingly go down this path again, we shall be making genuine reconstruction of the Religio impossible. Why don't we just create male sacerdotes of Bona Dea while we're at it? <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Opening response to Gaius Iulius Scaurus and the case for gender equality:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his argument against women pontifices, Scaurus makes the claim that women were prohibited from participating in some specific cults, and that these practices required the pontifices to participate. However, he makes the claim that pontifices could excuse themselves from participation for good cause. What better cause then gender equality? What we know of gender disparity shows that there were cult practices where women were the exclusive participants, yet if pontifices had jurisdiction over ceremonial matters then it serves that they would have influence over the rites of any state sponsored cultus.&lt;ref&gt; Shelton, Jo-Ann. “As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History,” Second Edition. Oxford University Press: New York 1998. Page 384 – 385.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction is evident in the ruling of the pontifices regarding Publius Clodius Pulcher and his unlawful attendance at the rites of Bona Dea, where the pontifices ruled that the rites had been polluted.&lt;ref Staples, Ariadne. &lt;u&gt;From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 39.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction seems to transcend gender since the pontifices had cause to monitor the orthopraxy of ritual practice, yet were denied access to the cult of Bona Dea. In the sacerdotal culture of Nova Roma the proximity of pontifices to the cultic practices of the sacerdotes is not always guaranteed. Therefore, it seems only reasonable to assume that the mandated participation, that Scaurus mentions, is a practice from antiquity that will need modification in our modern global environment. I have, for example, been a pontifex for a couple of years now and I have never been to a “mandatory” caerimoniae to either Hercules or Neptune. Furthermore, since the pontifices of antiquity had jurisdiction over aspects of a female specific cult then logic would dictate that women pontifices within Nova Roma would have similar jurisdiction over male only cults. This jurisdiction, however, need not always include proximity to the actual ceremonial act, but deals with issues of orthopraxy.<br /> <br /> ==On the status and role of women in Nova Roma:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> At issue, as to whether women can or should be pontifices, is the treatment of women in Nova Roma. Women are allowed, and encouraged, to participate in all aspects of civic life. That was not the case within Rome of antiquity, since women were typically under the patria potestas of their father, husband, or male relative.&lt;ref&gt; Arjava, Antti . &quot;Paternal Power in Late Antiquity.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Journal of Roman Studies&lt;/u&gt;. 88 (1998): 147-65. Page 148.&lt;/ref&gt; The patria potestas of the pater familias lasted as long as the pater was alive, and even in cases when the pater familias died, and those under his potestas became sui iuris (independent), the men under the potestas were completely free, but women were required to have a tutor or legal guardian.&lt;ref&gt; Carp, Teresa. &quot;Two matrons of the late republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt; Women's Studies&lt;/u&gt; 8 (1981): 189-200. Page 191.&lt;/ref&gt; This is one major difference between women in ancient Rome and women in Nova Roma, the idea of emancipation and independence. In Nova Roma, via Lex Equitia familiaris the ideal of gender equality is evident in subscribing potestas irrespective of gender, respecting the concept of both pater familias and mater familias along with allowing for male and female tutores in the case of minores. This gender equality within Nova Roma is important because it represents a profound deviation of the mos maiorum in one sense, but also an evolution of that same mos maiorum reflecting a continuity between ancient and contemporary mores. Our contemporary usage of gender equality within our own family law is the departure from ancient practice that radically changes the role of women.<br /> <br /> <br /> In ancient Rome a woman could belong to one of three different categories; “Women who did not qualify as either matronae or virgins were effectively non-members of the Roman state and of its cult, banned, with a few specific exceptions, from participating (except perhaps as spectators along a parade route) in many of Rome’s most central religious rites.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore, a matrona and a virgo can be defined with the following definition, “To be a matrona, a woman had to be the respectable wife or widow of a Roman citizen. To be a virgo, a woman had to be the morally pure, respectable, sexually intact (as we define the English word virgin) marriageable daughter of a Roman citizen.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; In Nova Roma this classification of women does not apply, and as an example I’ll use a former vestal to illustrate my point. Lucia Modia Lupa was appointed a Vestal by Collegium Pontificum decretum dated ante diem XIII Kal. FEBRVARIAS MMDCCLVIII a.u.c. (20 January 2005). At the time of her appointment she was still under my patria potestas, but was emancipated by me a day later (21 January 2005). Lucia Modia Lupa was neither a matrona or a virgo, being unmarried and having a daughter. It would, in my opinion, be against the ancient Roman mos maiorum to have a women who was anything other than a virgo selected to become a vestal; yet such an appointment did occur in Nova Roma because the requirement of being either a matrona or virgo is an antiquated practice that does not apply in the gender egalitarian environment that prevails in Nova Roma. This departure from antiquity is a radical departure when compared to the mores of the past, however, they seem less radical when contrasted against the mores of our contemporary “macronational” culture and the established mores within Nova Roma itself. In fact, the initial establishment of the Nova Roma Constitution of MMDCCLII states, “When determining applicability for Citizenship, Nova Roma shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age (except where such is mandated by the civil laws of a particular locality), or sexuality.,” and the current version of the Nova Roma Constitution reads, “Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.” Therefore, the distinction of matrona or virgo does not apply to the status of women in Nova Roma.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Scheid, John. “An Introduction to Roman Religion.” Indiana University Press: Bloomington &amp; Indianapolis 2003. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Senators clearly had religious authority,&lt;ref&gt; Warrior, Valerie M. “Roman Religion.” Cambridge University Press: New York 2006. Page 42.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Szemler, George J. &quot;Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Numen&lt;/u&gt; 18.2 (1971): 103-31. Page 106.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> ==On Change in the Sacra Publica:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Scaurus makes an argument that the gender disparity is a preference of the Gods: “At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity.” This can be addressed by looking at the development of the sacra publica as circumstances changed. With each major transformation of Rome came change in the way the sacra publica operated. This change in the management of the pax deorum can be seen in this selection from Liebeschuetz, “Moreover the procedure for dealing with portents was intimately linked with the republican system of government and the management by the senate of sovereign popular assemblies. When that system collapsed, traditional ways of maintaining the pax deorum lost a principle reason for existence.”&lt;ref&gt; Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. “Continuity and Change in Roman Religion.” Oxford At the Claredon Press: Oxford 1979. Page 58.&lt;/ref&gt; For example, the priesthood of the Rex Sacrorum was established when the monarchy was abolished,&lt;ref&gt; Dowden, Ken “Religion and the Romans.” Bristol Classical Press: London 1992. Page 18.&lt;/ref&gt; and was a result of the Romans finding a solution to the disestablishment of the office of rex who had ceremonial obligations. Another example of the Romans dealing with change is the struggle between patricians and plebeians, and the passing of Lex Ogulnia in 300 BCE removing the patrician monopoly over the Collegium Pontificum and the Collegium Augurum.&lt;ref&gt; Taylor, Lily R. &quot;Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The American Journal of Philology&lt;/u&gt; 63.4 (1942): 385-412. Page 386.&lt;/ref&gt; Most priesthoods were originally reserved for patricians alone, but were eventually opened up to include members of the plebeian order. Some priesthoods remained closed to plebeians, but these were highly ritualized priesthoods (i.e., the major Flamen, and Rex Sacrorum), while the more politicized priesthoods (priesthoods of pontifex and augur for example) were opened up to plebeians. Would it have been considered impietas prudens dolo malo at one time in the history of Rome to suggest that plebeians, for example, be admitted as pontifices or augures? Patricians and plebeian classes where established, according to tradition, by Romulus himself with patricians as priests and magistrates, and the plebeians to do the other, often necessary, tasks.&lt;ref&gt; Watson, Alan. &quot;Roman Private Law and the Leges Regiae.&quot; The Journal of Roman Studies 62 (1972): 100-05. Page 100.&lt;/ref&gt; If it is acceptable to open up various priesthoods to plebeians then it seems reasonable to open up the same priesthoods to gender, especially those priesthoods that were not exclusively linked to gender (i.e., Vestals) and which have a certain political quality to them (viz., pontifex and augur). This seems especially true since the establishment of the classes is attributed to Romulus himself. Certainly, the idea of plebeian magistrates and pontifices would not have been acceptable, for example, in the time of Numa Popilius, but later in the evolution of Rome the idea became more palatable, just like our current practice of women magistrates and senatores would have been unheard of during the Republic and afterwards, but is now an acceptable practice.<br /> <br /> <br /> It could be argued for example that, “The departure from the mos maiorum in permitting Plebeian pontifices altered the human component of the mos, not that which was demanded by the Di Immortales.” If this objection to women pontifices is based exclusively on the assumption that plebeian pontifices represent a human component while women pontifices represents some sort of divinely mandated prohibition, then it should also be the case that women should be excluded from all political offices and especially from the senate. This prohibition is based on the special character of magistrates and senatores. However, as I have shown above, the mores Nova Roma, while linked with the mos maiorum of antiquity, is much different from its counterpart in antiquity. Additionally, change was periodically introduced into the sacra publica by the senate and various priestly colleges. The sacra publica was and is, by its nature, inclusive and highly adaptable with one special caveat, “These new additions were only thought legitimate when they received official acceptance by the ruling elite.”&lt;ref&gt; Takács, Sarolta A. &quot;Politics and Religion in the Bacchanalian Affair of 186 B.C.E.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Harvard Studies in Classical Philology&lt;/u&gt; 100 (2000): 301-10. Page 302.&lt;/ref&gt; New cults established, such as the cult of Magna Mater, old cults re-activated (such as the Arval Brethren under Augustus), and other additions, changes, and adaptations to the sacra publica were possible, but only through the collegial character of the collegium pontificum, senate, etc. The objection that some departures from the mos maiorum involve only a human component while other departures would be a direct violation of the Di Immortales would imply that the Di Immortales presented some form of direct communication with someone from Roman antiquity. I am unaware of any “golden tablets,” or codified texts similar to the Bible of the Judeo-Christian faiths, or to the Quran of Islam. However, religious change has been possible within ancient Rome. An early example of change are the reforms of Numa Popilius, when “He established laws and customs among the Romans, who, because of their frequent hostilities, were until that point regarded as semibarbaric latrones. Furthermore, he divided the previously unregulated years into ten months (sic) and founded numerous sacred rites and temples at Rome.”&lt;ref&gt; Bird, H W. &quot;Eutropius on Numa Pompilius and the Senate.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 81.3 (1986): 243-48. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Would the Romans of Numa’s time consider his reforms a violation of the mos maiorum, or as much needed reforms to move Rome forward? History portrays Numa Popilius in a very positive manner, so it would seem that his reforms benefited Rome. Additionally, great power over the sacra publica rested within the “ruling elite.” The senate, during the Empire, had the power of deification; “The deification of a deceased emperor was authorized by a formal decree of the senate, which alone had power to introduce new forms of worship.”&lt;ref&gt; Burton, Henry F. &quot;The Worship of the Roman Emperors.&quot; The Biblical World 40.2 (1912): 80-91. Page 84.&lt;/ref&gt; Therefore, the idea of change and adaption was prevalent within the sacra publica and permitted if done by the “ruling elite” according to law, such practices seem synonymous with the Roman system of change. Claiming some departures are acceptable and others are not, based on the assumption that some are divinely mandated, seems more appropriate to revealed religious traditions (such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) rather than the sacra publica of Nova Roma. Of course it could be argued that augury is a form of revelation, but if that is the case then augury could ideally solve all of our problems, and the reliance upon augury for this opens up a series of potential abuse by augures.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of the Roman Priesthood:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Something to consider regarding the various priesthoods of Rome, ancient or otherwise, is the nature of the priesthood. The priesthood of Christianity (for example, those of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) is a sacramental priesthood believed to change the very essential character of the individual upon ordination as a priest, resulting in a special character upon the soul of the new priest. Likewise, the Aaronic priesthood of Jewish tradition was a hereditary priesthood passed from father to son. The priesthoods of ancient Rome were different; “Its religious officials were merely political functionaries of state like any other.”&lt;ref&gt; Merrill, Elmer T. &quot;The Attitude of Ancient Rome toward Religion and Religious Cults.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 15.4 (1920): 196-215. Page 200.&lt;/ref&gt; The religious character of the priesthood was linked with that of the state, and priests functioned on behalf of the state. Since Nova Roma makes no distinction of citizenship with regard to gender, as I have shown, and since the priesthood is a function of state then the priesthood should be open to citizens regardless of their gender.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of Vitium:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his critique of women pontifices Scaurus wrote, “The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia.” The use of the term vitium in the sense that it is used by Scaurus is an incorrect use of the term vitium. It does happen to be a Latin word for blemish, defect, or fault. However, it has a more specific meaning within the confines of the sacra publica. The word vitium has specific meaning in augurial law; “As a religious term, it definitely belongs to the language of augury alone.”&lt;ref&gt; Paschall, Dorothy. &quot;The Origin and Semantic Development of Latin Vitium.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association&lt;/u&gt; 67 (1936): 219-31. Page 220.&lt;/ref&gt; It would seem that Scaurus has used the term vitium is an incorrectly. His example of women at a caerimoniae reserved exclusively for men is similar to the case of Publius Clodius Pulcher who secretly attended the rites of Bona Dea, but was discovered. The pontifices declared that the actions of Clodius were nefas,&lt;ref&gt; Strachan-Davidson, J L. &quot;Mommsen's Roman Criminal Law.&quot; The English Historical Review 16.62 (1901): 219-91. Page 221.&lt;/ref&gt; but no mention of it being a vitium. As I’ve shown above the pontifices ruled that the presence of Clodius required the rituals to be performed again. In this case Scaurus seems correct that a ritual exclusively aligned to men, with women present, should be conducted over – just a ritual reserved for women had to conducted over after being polluted by a man. However, his argument against women as pontifices rests on his assertion that pontifices where and are required to attend the rites of Hercules. Since the cults of Hercules and Bona Dea were linked in their exclusivity of gender,&lt;ref&gt; Staples, Ariadne. From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 25.&lt;/ref&gt; it seems reasonable that if there was ever a time in Nova Roma where attendance was mandated upon our pontifices that men would attend the rites of Hercules, and women the rites of Bona Dea. Even if this was the case it would still be appropriate for women pontifices to guard the orthopraxy of the Herculean cult just as it was for the male pontifices of antiquity to guard the orthopraxy of the rites of Bona Dea.<br /> <br /> ==Response to the claim of impious hypocrisy:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Conclusion:==<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/In_defense_of_women_pontifices_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T04:29:29Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* On the Nature of the Roman Priesthood: */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The argument below presented by [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] seems to be a narrow analysis of the current dilemma within the sacra publica of Nova Roma, and it is my hope that by illustrating his narrow view, as well as close analysis of ancient Roman religious tradition in light of our modern usage, the concept of women pontifices can be again embraced by Nova Roma. The argument, by Gaius Iulius Scaurus, seems to be a two-fold argument; the religious practices of Roma antiqua being incompatible with modern sentiments of gender equality, and the current practices of gender equality within Nova Roma itself. I hope to address both of these concerns and show that women pontifices are a potential reality again within Nova Roma and one that would not be impietas prudens dolo malo.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Argument against women pontifices as presented by Gaius Iulius Scaurus:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I have made a comprehensive survey of the primary and secondary literature on the question and am convinced that the adlection of female pontifices will violate fundamental gender taboos of the Religio and constitute an inexpiable impietas prudens dolo malo. Women are absolutely forbidden to attend any caerimonia to Hercules and the first caerimonia of the Neptunalia. The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia. Furthermore, at the caerimoniae of the mundus patet the only women permitted to attend are the Virgines Vestales. However, the attendance of the pontifices in the caerimoniae of Hercules, the Neptunalia, and the mundus patet is mandatory. The adlection of female pontifices would create a religious obligation to commit an impietas prudens dolo malo, which is a patent absurdity.<br /> <br /> <br /> I see no way to rationalize abandonment of this taboo on the grounds of the hypothesized sexism of Roman society. We simply do not know why the gender taboo existed any more than we know why there were no male Vestals, and anyone who claims the ability to distinguish between essential religious taboos and artifacts of sexual discrimination is engaged in willful self-deception. We know that the Romans assiduously respected these taboos and that these taboos were not generally extended across the entire cultus, which militates for prudently treating them as intrinsically important to the Religio and connected to specific aspects of the cultus. At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity. Following the latter strategy seems to me to place us entirely outside the enterprise of reconstruction and into the enterprise of creating a new religion out of whole cloth. The suggestion that female pontifices simply absent themselves from caerimoniae at which the attendance of women is prohibited ignores the fact that pontifical attendance at these caerimoniae was mandatory except in case of good cause, i.e., absence from the city or illness. 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Frankly, earlier adlection of female pontifices in Nova Roma is so grave a departure from the cultic practice of antiquity that our only hope to undo the offence it represents is to simply throw ourselves on the mercy of the Gods and plead abject ignorance for the affront. If we knowingly go down this path again, we shall be making genuine reconstruction of the Religio impossible. Why don't we just create male sacerdotes of Bona Dea while we're at it? <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Opening response to Gaius Iulius Scaurus and the case for gender equality:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his argument against women pontifices, Scaurus makes the claim that women were prohibited from participating in some specific cults, and that these practices required the pontifices to participate. However, he makes the claim that pontifices could excuse themselves from participation for good cause. What better cause then gender equality? What we know of gender disparity shows that there were cult practices where women were the exclusive participants, yet if pontifices had jurisdiction over ceremonial matters then it serves that they would have influence over the rites of any state sponsored cultus.&lt;ref&gt; Shelton, Jo-Ann. “As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History,” Second Edition. Oxford University Press: New York 1998. Page 384 – 385.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction is evident in the ruling of the pontifices regarding Publius Clodius Pulcher and his unlawful attendance at the rites of Bona Dea, where the pontifices ruled that the rites had been polluted.&lt;ref Staples, Ariadne. &lt;u&gt;From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 39.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction seems to transcend gender since the pontifices had cause to monitor the orthopraxy of ritual practice, yet were denied access to the cult of Bona Dea. In the sacerdotal culture of Nova Roma the proximity of pontifices to the cultic practices of the sacerdotes is not always guaranteed. Therefore, it seems only reasonable to assume that the mandated participation, that Scaurus mentions, is a practice from antiquity that will need modification in our modern global environment. I have, for example, been a pontifex for a couple of years now and I have never been to a “mandatory” caerimoniae to either Hercules or Neptune. Furthermore, since the pontifices of antiquity had jurisdiction over aspects of a female specific cult then logic would dictate that women pontifices within Nova Roma would have similar jurisdiction over male only cults. This jurisdiction, however, need not always include proximity to the actual ceremonial act, but deals with issues of orthopraxy.<br /> <br /> ==On the status and role of women in Nova Roma:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> At issue, as to whether women can or should be pontifices, is the treatment of women in Nova Roma. Women are allowed, and encouraged, to participate in all aspects of civic life. That was not the case within Rome of antiquity, since women were typically under the patria potestas of their father, husband, or male relative.&lt;ref&gt; Arjava, Antti . &quot;Paternal Power in Late Antiquity.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Journal of Roman Studies&lt;/u&gt;. 88 (1998): 147-65. Page 148.&lt;/ref&gt; The patria potestas of the pater familias lasted as long as the pater was alive, and even in cases when the pater familias died, and those under his potestas became sui iuris (independent), the men under the potestas were completely free, but women were required to have a tutor or legal guardian.&lt;ref&gt; Carp, Teresa. &quot;Two matrons of the late republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt; Women's Studies&lt;/u&gt; 8 (1981): 189-200. Page 191.&lt;/ref&gt; This is one major difference between women in ancient Rome and women in Nova Roma, the idea of emancipation and independence. In Nova Roma, via Lex Equitia familiaris the ideal of gender equality is evident in subscribing potestas irrespective of gender, respecting the concept of both pater familias and mater familias along with allowing for male and female tutores in the case of minores. This gender equality within Nova Roma is important because it represents a profound deviation of the mos maiorum in one sense, but also an evolution of that same mos maiorum reflecting a continuity between ancient and contemporary mores. Our contemporary usage of gender equality within our own family law is the departure from ancient practice that radically changes the role of women.<br /> <br /> <br /> In ancient Rome a woman could belong to one of three different categories; “Women who did not qualify as either matronae or virgins were effectively non-members of the Roman state and of its cult, banned, with a few specific exceptions, from participating (except perhaps as spectators along a parade route) in many of Rome’s most central religious rites.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore, a matrona and a virgo can be defined with the following definition, “To be a matrona, a woman had to be the respectable wife or widow of a Roman citizen. To be a virgo, a woman had to be the morally pure, respectable, sexually intact (as we define the English word virgin) marriageable daughter of a Roman citizen.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; In Nova Roma this classification of women does not apply, and as an example I’ll use a former vestal to illustrate my point. Lucia Modia Lupa was appointed a Vestal by Collegium Pontificum decretum dated ante diem XIII Kal. FEBRVARIAS MMDCCLVIII a.u.c. (20 January 2005). At the time of her appointment she was still under my patria potestas, but was emancipated by me a day later (21 January 2005). Lucia Modia Lupa was neither a matrona or a virgo, being unmarried and having a daughter. It would, in my opinion, be against the ancient Roman mos maiorum to have a women who was anything other than a virgo selected to become a vestal; yet such an appointment did occur in Nova Roma because the requirement of being either a matrona or virgo is an antiquated practice that does not apply in the gender egalitarian environment that prevails in Nova Roma. This departure from antiquity is a radical departure when compared to the mores of the past, however, they seem less radical when contrasted against the mores of our contemporary “macronational” culture and the established mores within Nova Roma itself. In fact, the initial establishment of the Nova Roma Constitution of MMDCCLII states, “When determining applicability for Citizenship, Nova Roma shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age (except where such is mandated by the civil laws of a particular locality), or sexuality.,” and the current version of the Nova Roma Constitution reads, “Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.” Therefore, the distinction of matrona or virgo does not apply to the status of women in Nova Roma.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Scheid, John. “An Introduction to Roman Religion.” Indiana University Press: Bloomington &amp; Indianapolis 2003. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Senators clearly had religious authority,&lt;ref&gt; Warrior, Valerie M. “Roman Religion.” Cambridge University Press: New York 2006. Page 42.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Szemler, George J. &quot;Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Numen&lt;/u&gt; 18.2 (1971): 103-31. Page 106.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> ==On Change in the Sacra Publica:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Scaurus makes an argument that the gender disparity is a preference of the Gods: “At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity.” This can be addressed by looking at the development of the sacra publica as circumstances changed. With each major transformation of Rome came change in the way the sacra publica operated. This change in the management of the pax deorum can be seen in this selection from Liebeschuetz, “Moreover the procedure for dealing with portents was intimately linked with the republican system of government and the management by the senate of sovereign popular assemblies. When that system collapsed, traditional ways of maintaining the pax deorum lost a principle reason for existence.”&lt;ref&gt; Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. “Continuity and Change in Roman Religion.” Oxford At the Claredon Press: Oxford 1979. Page 58.&lt;/ref&gt; For example, the priesthood of the Rex Sacrorum was established when the monarchy was abolished,&lt;ref&gt; Dowden, Ken “Religion and the Romans.” Bristol Classical Press: London 1992. Page 18.&lt;/ref&gt; and was a result of the Romans finding a solution to the disestablishment of the office of rex who had ceremonial obligations. Another example of the Romans dealing with change is the struggle between patricians and plebeians, and the passing of Lex Ogulnia in 300 BCE removing the patrician monopoly over the Collegium Pontificum and the Collegium Augurum.&lt;ref&gt; Taylor, Lily R. &quot;Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The American Journal of Philology&lt;/u&gt; 63.4 (1942): 385-412. Page 386.&lt;/ref&gt; Most priesthoods were originally reserved for patricians alone, but were eventually opened up to include members of the plebeian order. Some priesthoods remained closed to plebeians, but these were highly ritualized priesthoods (i.e., the major Flamen, and Rex Sacrorum), while the more politicized priesthoods (priesthoods of pontifex and augur for example) were opened up to plebeians. Would it have been considered impietas prudens dolo malo at one time in the history of Rome to suggest that plebeians, for example, be admitted as pontifices or augures? Patricians and plebeian classes where established, according to tradition, by Romulus himself with patricians as priests and magistrates, and the plebeians to do the other, often necessary, tasks.&lt;ref&gt; Watson, Alan. &quot;Roman Private Law and the Leges Regiae.&quot; The Journal of Roman Studies 62 (1972): 100-05. Page 100.&lt;/ref&gt; If it is acceptable to open up various priesthoods to plebeians then it seems reasonable to open up the same priesthoods to gender, especially those priesthoods that were not exclusively linked to gender (i.e., Vestals) and which have a certain political quality to them (viz., pontifex and augur). This seems especially true since the establishment of the classes is attributed to Romulus himself. Certainly, the idea of plebeian magistrates and pontifices would not have been acceptable, for example, in the time of Numa Popilius, but later in the evolution of Rome the idea became more palatable, just like our current practice of women magistrates and senatores would have been unheard of during the Republic and afterwards, but is now an acceptable practice.<br /> <br /> <br /> It could be argued for example that, “The departure from the mos maiorum in permitting Plebeian pontifices altered the human component of the mos, not that which was demanded by the Di Immortales.” If this objection to women pontifices is based exclusively on the assumption that plebeian pontifices represent a human component while women pontifices represents some sort of divinely mandated prohibition, then it should also be the case that women should be excluded from all political offices and especially from the senate. This prohibition is based on the special character of magistrates and senatores. However, as I have shown above, the mores Nova Roma, while linked with the mos maiorum of antiquity, is much different from its counterpart in antiquity. Additionally, change was periodically introduced into the sacra publica by the senate and various priestly colleges. The sacra publica was and is, by its nature, inclusive and highly adaptable with one special caveat, “These new additions were only thought legitimate when they received official acceptance by the ruling elite.”&lt;ref&gt; Takács, Sarolta A. &quot;Politics and Religion in the Bacchanalian Affair of 186 B.C.E.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Harvard Studies in Classical Philology&lt;/u&gt; 100 (2000): 301-10. Page 302.&lt;/ref&gt; New cults established, such as the cult of Magna Mater, old cults re-activated (such as the Arval Brethren under Augustus), and other additions, changes, and adaptations to the sacra publica were possible, but only through the collegial character of the collegium pontificum, senate, etc. The objection that some departures from the mos maiorum involve only a human component while other departures would be a direct violation of the Di Immortales would imply that the Di Immortales presented some form of direct communication with someone from Roman antiquity. I am unaware of any “golden tablets,” or codified texts similar to the Bible of the Judeo-Christian faiths, or to the Quran of Islam. However, religious change has been possible within ancient Rome. An early example of change are the reforms of Numa Popilius, when “He established laws and customs among the Romans, who, because of their frequent hostilities, were until that point regarded as semibarbaric latrones. Furthermore, he divided the previously unregulated years into ten months (sic) and founded numerous sacred rites and temples at Rome.”&lt;ref&gt; Bird, H W. &quot;Eutropius on Numa Pompilius and the Senate.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 81.3 (1986): 243-48. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Would the Romans of Numa’s time consider his reforms a violation of the mos maiorum, or as much needed reforms to move Rome forward? History portrays Numa Popilius in a very positive manner, so it would seem that his reforms benefited Rome. Additionally, great power over the sacra publica rested within the “ruling elite.” The senate, during the Empire, had the power of deification; “The deification of a deceased emperor was authorized by a formal decree of the senate, which alone had power to introduce new forms of worship.”&lt;ref&gt; Burton, Henry F. &quot;The Worship of the Roman Emperors.&quot; The Biblical World 40.2 (1912): 80-91. Page 84.&lt;/ref&gt; Therefore, the idea of change and adaption was prevalent within the sacra publica and permitted if done by the “ruling elite” according to law, such practices seem synonymous with the Roman system of change. Claiming some departures are acceptable and others are not, based on the assumption that some are divinely mandated, seems more appropriate to revealed religious traditions (such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) rather than the sacra publica of Nova Roma. Of course it could be argued that augury is a form of revelation, but if that is the case then augury could ideally solve all of our problems, and the reliance upon augury for this opens up a series of potential abuse by augures.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of the Roman Priesthood:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Something to consider regarding the various priesthoods of Rome, ancient or otherwise, is the nature of the priesthood. The priesthood of Christianity (for example, those of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) is a sacramental priesthood believed to change the very essential character of the individual upon ordination as a priest, resulting in a special character upon the soul of the new priest. Likewise, the Aaronic priesthood of Jewish tradition was a hereditary priesthood passed from father to son. The priesthoods of ancient Rome were different; “Its religious officials were merely political functionaries of state like any other.”&lt;ref&gt; Merrill, Elmer T. &quot;The Attitude of Ancient Rome toward Religion and Religious Cults.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 15.4 (1920): 196-215. Page 200.&lt;/ref&gt; The religious character of the priesthood was linked with that of the state, and priests functioned on behalf of the state. Since Nova Roma makes no distinction of citizenship with regard to gender, as I have shown, and since the priesthood is a function of state then the priesthood should be open to citizens regardless of their gender.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of Vitium:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his critique of women pontifices Scaurus wrote, “The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia.” The use of the term vitium in the sense that it is used by Scaurus is an incorrect use of the term vitium. It does happen to be a Latin word for blemish, defect, or fault. However, it has a more specific meaning within the confines of the sacra publica. The word vitium has specific meaning in augurial law; “As a religious term, it definitely belongs to the language of augury alone.” (Paschall 220) It would seem that Scaurus has used the term vitium is an incorrectly. His example of women at a caerimoniae reserved exclusively for men is similar to the case of Publius Clodius Pulcher who secretly attended the rites of Bona Dea, but was discovered. The pontifices declared that the actions of Clodius were nefas, (Strachan-Davidson 221) but no mention of it being a vitium. As I’ve shown above the pontifices ruled that the presence of Clodius required the rituals to be performed again. In this case Scaurus seems correct that a ritual exclusively aligned to men, with women present, should be conducted over – just a ritual reserved for women had to conducted over after being polluted by a man. However, his argument against women as pontifices rests on his assertion that pontifices where and are required to attend the rites of Hercules. Since the cults of Hercules and Bona Dea were linked in their exclusivity of gender, (Staples 25) it seems reasonable that if there was ever a time in Nova Roma where attendance was mandated upon our pontifices that men would attend the rites of Hercules, and women the rites of Bona Dea. Even if this was the case it would still be appropriate for women pontifices to guard the orthopraxy of the Herculean cult just as it was for the male pontifices of antiquity to guard the orthopraxy of the rites of Bona Dea.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Response to the claim of impious hypocrisy:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Conclusion:==<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/In_defense_of_women_pontifices_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T04:28:09Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* On Change in the Sacra Publica: */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The argument below presented by [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] seems to be a narrow analysis of the current dilemma within the sacra publica of Nova Roma, and it is my hope that by illustrating his narrow view, as well as close analysis of ancient Roman religious tradition in light of our modern usage, the concept of women pontifices can be again embraced by Nova Roma. The argument, by Gaius Iulius Scaurus, seems to be a two-fold argument; the religious practices of Roma antiqua being incompatible with modern sentiments of gender equality, and the current practices of gender equality within Nova Roma itself. I hope to address both of these concerns and show that women pontifices are a potential reality again within Nova Roma and one that would not be impietas prudens dolo malo.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Argument against women pontifices as presented by Gaius Iulius Scaurus:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I have made a comprehensive survey of the primary and secondary literature on the question and am convinced that the adlection of female pontifices will violate fundamental gender taboos of the Religio and constitute an inexpiable impietas prudens dolo malo. Women are absolutely forbidden to attend any caerimonia to Hercules and the first caerimonia of the Neptunalia. The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia. Furthermore, at the caerimoniae of the mundus patet the only women permitted to attend are the Virgines Vestales. However, the attendance of the pontifices in the caerimoniae of Hercules, the Neptunalia, and the mundus patet is mandatory. The adlection of female pontifices would create a religious obligation to commit an impietas prudens dolo malo, which is a patent absurdity.<br /> <br /> <br /> I see no way to rationalize abandonment of this taboo on the grounds of the hypothesized sexism of Roman society. We simply do not know why the gender taboo existed any more than we know why there were no male Vestals, and anyone who claims the ability to distinguish between essential religious taboos and artifacts of sexual discrimination is engaged in willful self-deception. We know that the Romans assiduously respected these taboos and that these taboos were not generally extended across the entire cultus, which militates for prudently treating them as intrinsically important to the Religio and connected to specific aspects of the cultus. At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity. Following the latter strategy seems to me to place us entirely outside the enterprise of reconstruction and into the enterprise of creating a new religion out of whole cloth. The suggestion that female pontifices simply absent themselves from caerimoniae at which the attendance of women is prohibited ignores the fact that pontifical attendance at these caerimoniae was mandatory except in case of good cause, i.e., absence from the city or illness. 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Frankly, earlier adlection of female pontifices in Nova Roma is so grave a departure from the cultic practice of antiquity that our only hope to undo the offence it represents is to simply throw ourselves on the mercy of the Gods and plead abject ignorance for the affront. If we knowingly go down this path again, we shall be making genuine reconstruction of the Religio impossible. Why don't we just create male sacerdotes of Bona Dea while we're at it? <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Opening response to Gaius Iulius Scaurus and the case for gender equality:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his argument against women pontifices, Scaurus makes the claim that women were prohibited from participating in some specific cults, and that these practices required the pontifices to participate. However, he makes the claim that pontifices could excuse themselves from participation for good cause. What better cause then gender equality? What we know of gender disparity shows that there were cult practices where women were the exclusive participants, yet if pontifices had jurisdiction over ceremonial matters then it serves that they would have influence over the rites of any state sponsored cultus.&lt;ref&gt; Shelton, Jo-Ann. “As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History,” Second Edition. Oxford University Press: New York 1998. Page 384 – 385.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction is evident in the ruling of the pontifices regarding Publius Clodius Pulcher and his unlawful attendance at the rites of Bona Dea, where the pontifices ruled that the rites had been polluted.&lt;ref Staples, Ariadne. &lt;u&gt;From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 39.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction seems to transcend gender since the pontifices had cause to monitor the orthopraxy of ritual practice, yet were denied access to the cult of Bona Dea. In the sacerdotal culture of Nova Roma the proximity of pontifices to the cultic practices of the sacerdotes is not always guaranteed. Therefore, it seems only reasonable to assume that the mandated participation, that Scaurus mentions, is a practice from antiquity that will need modification in our modern global environment. I have, for example, been a pontifex for a couple of years now and I have never been to a “mandatory” caerimoniae to either Hercules or Neptune. Furthermore, since the pontifices of antiquity had jurisdiction over aspects of a female specific cult then logic would dictate that women pontifices within Nova Roma would have similar jurisdiction over male only cults. This jurisdiction, however, need not always include proximity to the actual ceremonial act, but deals with issues of orthopraxy.<br /> <br /> ==On the status and role of women in Nova Roma:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> At issue, as to whether women can or should be pontifices, is the treatment of women in Nova Roma. Women are allowed, and encouraged, to participate in all aspects of civic life. That was not the case within Rome of antiquity, since women were typically under the patria potestas of their father, husband, or male relative.&lt;ref&gt; Arjava, Antti . &quot;Paternal Power in Late Antiquity.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Journal of Roman Studies&lt;/u&gt;. 88 (1998): 147-65. Page 148.&lt;/ref&gt; The patria potestas of the pater familias lasted as long as the pater was alive, and even in cases when the pater familias died, and those under his potestas became sui iuris (independent), the men under the potestas were completely free, but women were required to have a tutor or legal guardian.&lt;ref&gt; Carp, Teresa. &quot;Two matrons of the late republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt; Women's Studies&lt;/u&gt; 8 (1981): 189-200. Page 191.&lt;/ref&gt; This is one major difference between women in ancient Rome and women in Nova Roma, the idea of emancipation and independence. In Nova Roma, via Lex Equitia familiaris the ideal of gender equality is evident in subscribing potestas irrespective of gender, respecting the concept of both pater familias and mater familias along with allowing for male and female tutores in the case of minores. This gender equality within Nova Roma is important because it represents a profound deviation of the mos maiorum in one sense, but also an evolution of that same mos maiorum reflecting a continuity between ancient and contemporary mores. Our contemporary usage of gender equality within our own family law is the departure from ancient practice that radically changes the role of women.<br /> <br /> <br /> In ancient Rome a woman could belong to one of three different categories; “Women who did not qualify as either matronae or virgins were effectively non-members of the Roman state and of its cult, banned, with a few specific exceptions, from participating (except perhaps as spectators along a parade route) in many of Rome’s most central religious rites.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore, a matrona and a virgo can be defined with the following definition, “To be a matrona, a woman had to be the respectable wife or widow of a Roman citizen. To be a virgo, a woman had to be the morally pure, respectable, sexually intact (as we define the English word virgin) marriageable daughter of a Roman citizen.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; In Nova Roma this classification of women does not apply, and as an example I’ll use a former vestal to illustrate my point. Lucia Modia Lupa was appointed a Vestal by Collegium Pontificum decretum dated ante diem XIII Kal. FEBRVARIAS MMDCCLVIII a.u.c. (20 January 2005). At the time of her appointment she was still under my patria potestas, but was emancipated by me a day later (21 January 2005). Lucia Modia Lupa was neither a matrona or a virgo, being unmarried and having a daughter. It would, in my opinion, be against the ancient Roman mos maiorum to have a women who was anything other than a virgo selected to become a vestal; yet such an appointment did occur in Nova Roma because the requirement of being either a matrona or virgo is an antiquated practice that does not apply in the gender egalitarian environment that prevails in Nova Roma. This departure from antiquity is a radical departure when compared to the mores of the past, however, they seem less radical when contrasted against the mores of our contemporary “macronational” culture and the established mores within Nova Roma itself. In fact, the initial establishment of the Nova Roma Constitution of MMDCCLII states, “When determining applicability for Citizenship, Nova Roma shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age (except where such is mandated by the civil laws of a particular locality), or sexuality.,” and the current version of the Nova Roma Constitution reads, “Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.” Therefore, the distinction of matrona or virgo does not apply to the status of women in Nova Roma.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Scheid, John. “An Introduction to Roman Religion.” Indiana University Press: Bloomington &amp; Indianapolis 2003. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Senators clearly had religious authority,&lt;ref&gt; Warrior, Valerie M. “Roman Religion.” Cambridge University Press: New York 2006. Page 42.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Szemler, George J. &quot;Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Numen&lt;/u&gt; 18.2 (1971): 103-31. Page 106.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> ==On Change in the Sacra Publica:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Scaurus makes an argument that the gender disparity is a preference of the Gods: “At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity.” This can be addressed by looking at the development of the sacra publica as circumstances changed. With each major transformation of Rome came change in the way the sacra publica operated. This change in the management of the pax deorum can be seen in this selection from Liebeschuetz, “Moreover the procedure for dealing with portents was intimately linked with the republican system of government and the management by the senate of sovereign popular assemblies. When that system collapsed, traditional ways of maintaining the pax deorum lost a principle reason for existence.”&lt;ref&gt; Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. “Continuity and Change in Roman Religion.” Oxford At the Claredon Press: Oxford 1979. Page 58.&lt;/ref&gt; For example, the priesthood of the Rex Sacrorum was established when the monarchy was abolished,&lt;ref&gt; Dowden, Ken “Religion and the Romans.” Bristol Classical Press: London 1992. Page 18.&lt;/ref&gt; and was a result of the Romans finding a solution to the disestablishment of the office of rex who had ceremonial obligations. Another example of the Romans dealing with change is the struggle between patricians and plebeians, and the passing of Lex Ogulnia in 300 BCE removing the patrician monopoly over the Collegium Pontificum and the Collegium Augurum.&lt;ref&gt; Taylor, Lily R. &quot;Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The American Journal of Philology&lt;/u&gt; 63.4 (1942): 385-412. Page 386.&lt;/ref&gt; Most priesthoods were originally reserved for patricians alone, but were eventually opened up to include members of the plebeian order. Some priesthoods remained closed to plebeians, but these were highly ritualized priesthoods (i.e., the major Flamen, and Rex Sacrorum), while the more politicized priesthoods (priesthoods of pontifex and augur for example) were opened up to plebeians. Would it have been considered impietas prudens dolo malo at one time in the history of Rome to suggest that plebeians, for example, be admitted as pontifices or augures? Patricians and plebeian classes where established, according to tradition, by Romulus himself with patricians as priests and magistrates, and the plebeians to do the other, often necessary, tasks.&lt;ref&gt; Watson, Alan. &quot;Roman Private Law and the Leges Regiae.&quot; The Journal of Roman Studies 62 (1972): 100-05. Page 100.&lt;/ref&gt; If it is acceptable to open up various priesthoods to plebeians then it seems reasonable to open up the same priesthoods to gender, especially those priesthoods that were not exclusively linked to gender (i.e., Vestals) and which have a certain political quality to them (viz., pontifex and augur). This seems especially true since the establishment of the classes is attributed to Romulus himself. Certainly, the idea of plebeian magistrates and pontifices would not have been acceptable, for example, in the time of Numa Popilius, but later in the evolution of Rome the idea became more palatable, just like our current practice of women magistrates and senatores would have been unheard of during the Republic and afterwards, but is now an acceptable practice.<br /> <br /> <br /> It could be argued for example that, “The departure from the mos maiorum in permitting Plebeian pontifices altered the human component of the mos, not that which was demanded by the Di Immortales.” If this objection to women pontifices is based exclusively on the assumption that plebeian pontifices represent a human component while women pontifices represents some sort of divinely mandated prohibition, then it should also be the case that women should be excluded from all political offices and especially from the senate. This prohibition is based on the special character of magistrates and senatores. However, as I have shown above, the mores Nova Roma, while linked with the mos maiorum of antiquity, is much different from its counterpart in antiquity. Additionally, change was periodically introduced into the sacra publica by the senate and various priestly colleges. The sacra publica was and is, by its nature, inclusive and highly adaptable with one special caveat, “These new additions were only thought legitimate when they received official acceptance by the ruling elite.”&lt;ref&gt; Takács, Sarolta A. &quot;Politics and Religion in the Bacchanalian Affair of 186 B.C.E.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Harvard Studies in Classical Philology&lt;/u&gt; 100 (2000): 301-10. Page 302.&lt;/ref&gt; New cults established, such as the cult of Magna Mater, old cults re-activated (such as the Arval Brethren under Augustus), and other additions, changes, and adaptations to the sacra publica were possible, but only through the collegial character of the collegium pontificum, senate, etc. The objection that some departures from the mos maiorum involve only a human component while other departures would be a direct violation of the Di Immortales would imply that the Di Immortales presented some form of direct communication with someone from Roman antiquity. I am unaware of any “golden tablets,” or codified texts similar to the Bible of the Judeo-Christian faiths, or to the Quran of Islam. However, religious change has been possible within ancient Rome. An early example of change are the reforms of Numa Popilius, when “He established laws and customs among the Romans, who, because of their frequent hostilities, were until that point regarded as semibarbaric latrones. Furthermore, he divided the previously unregulated years into ten months (sic) and founded numerous sacred rites and temples at Rome.”&lt;ref&gt; Bird, H W. &quot;Eutropius on Numa Pompilius and the Senate.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Classical Journal&lt;/u&gt; 81.3 (1986): 243-48. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Would the Romans of Numa’s time consider his reforms a violation of the mos maiorum, or as much needed reforms to move Rome forward? History portrays Numa Popilius in a very positive manner, so it would seem that his reforms benefited Rome. Additionally, great power over the sacra publica rested within the “ruling elite.” The senate, during the Empire, had the power of deification; “The deification of a deceased emperor was authorized by a formal decree of the senate, which alone had power to introduce new forms of worship.”&lt;ref&gt; Burton, Henry F. &quot;The Worship of the Roman Emperors.&quot; The Biblical World 40.2 (1912): 80-91. Page 84.&lt;/ref&gt; Therefore, the idea of change and adaption was prevalent within the sacra publica and permitted if done by the “ruling elite” according to law, such practices seem synonymous with the Roman system of change. Claiming some departures are acceptable and others are not, based on the assumption that some are divinely mandated, seems more appropriate to revealed religious traditions (such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) rather than the sacra publica of Nova Roma. Of course it could be argued that augury is a form of revelation, but if that is the case then augury could ideally solve all of our problems, and the reliance upon augury for this opens up a series of potential abuse by augures.<br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of the Roman Priesthood:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Something to consider regarding the various priesthoods of Rome, ancient or otherwise, is the nature of the priesthood. The priesthood of Christianity (for example, those of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) is a sacramental priesthood believed to change the very essential character of the individual upon ordination as a priest, resulting in a special character upon the soul of the new priest. Likewise, the Aaronic priesthood of Jewish tradition was a hereditary priesthood passed from father to son. The priesthoods of ancient Rome were different; “Its religious officials were merely political functionaries of state like any other.” (Merrill 200) The religious character of the priesthood was linked with that of the state, and priests functioned on behalf of the state. Since Nova Roma makes no distinction of citizenship with regard to gender, as I have shown, and since the priesthood is a function of state then the priesthood should be open to citizens regardless of their gender.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of Vitium:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his critique of women pontifices Scaurus wrote, “The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia.” The use of the term vitium in the sense that it is used by Scaurus is an incorrect use of the term vitium. It does happen to be a Latin word for blemish, defect, or fault. However, it has a more specific meaning within the confines of the sacra publica. The word vitium has specific meaning in augurial law; “As a religious term, it definitely belongs to the language of augury alone.” (Paschall 220) It would seem that Scaurus has used the term vitium is an incorrectly. His example of women at a caerimoniae reserved exclusively for men is similar to the case of Publius Clodius Pulcher who secretly attended the rites of Bona Dea, but was discovered. The pontifices declared that the actions of Clodius were nefas, (Strachan-Davidson 221) but no mention of it being a vitium. As I’ve shown above the pontifices ruled that the presence of Clodius required the rituals to be performed again. In this case Scaurus seems correct that a ritual exclusively aligned to men, with women present, should be conducted over – just a ritual reserved for women had to conducted over after being polluted by a man. However, his argument against women as pontifices rests on his assertion that pontifices where and are required to attend the rites of Hercules. Since the cults of Hercules and Bona Dea were linked in their exclusivity of gender, (Staples 25) it seems reasonable that if there was ever a time in Nova Roma where attendance was mandated upon our pontifices that men would attend the rites of Hercules, and women the rites of Bona Dea. Even if this was the case it would still be appropriate for women pontifices to guard the orthopraxy of the Herculean cult just as it was for the male pontifices of antiquity to guard the orthopraxy of the rites of Bona Dea.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Response to the claim of impious hypocrisy:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Conclusion:==<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/In_defense_of_women_pontifices_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T04:20:54Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* On the status and role of women in Nova Roma: */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The argument below presented by [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] seems to be a narrow analysis of the current dilemma within the sacra publica of Nova Roma, and it is my hope that by illustrating his narrow view, as well as close analysis of ancient Roman religious tradition in light of our modern usage, the concept of women pontifices can be again embraced by Nova Roma. The argument, by Gaius Iulius Scaurus, seems to be a two-fold argument; the religious practices of Roma antiqua being incompatible with modern sentiments of gender equality, and the current practices of gender equality within Nova Roma itself. I hope to address both of these concerns and show that women pontifices are a potential reality again within Nova Roma and one that would not be impietas prudens dolo malo.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Argument against women pontifices as presented by Gaius Iulius Scaurus:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I have made a comprehensive survey of the primary and secondary literature on the question and am convinced that the adlection of female pontifices will violate fundamental gender taboos of the Religio and constitute an inexpiable impietas prudens dolo malo. Women are absolutely forbidden to attend any caerimonia to Hercules and the first caerimonia of the Neptunalia. The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia. Furthermore, at the caerimoniae of the mundus patet the only women permitted to attend are the Virgines Vestales. However, the attendance of the pontifices in the caerimoniae of Hercules, the Neptunalia, and the mundus patet is mandatory. The adlection of female pontifices would create a religious obligation to commit an impietas prudens dolo malo, which is a patent absurdity.<br /> <br /> <br /> I see no way to rationalize abandonment of this taboo on the grounds of the hypothesized sexism of Roman society. We simply do not know why the gender taboo existed any more than we know why there were no male Vestals, and anyone who claims the ability to distinguish between essential religious taboos and artifacts of sexual discrimination is engaged in willful self-deception. We know that the Romans assiduously respected these taboos and that these taboos were not generally extended across the entire cultus, which militates for prudently treating them as intrinsically important to the Religio and connected to specific aspects of the cultus. At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity. Following the latter strategy seems to me to place us entirely outside the enterprise of reconstruction and into the enterprise of creating a new religion out of whole cloth. The suggestion that female pontifices simply absent themselves from caerimoniae at which the attendance of women is prohibited ignores the fact that pontifical attendance at these caerimoniae was mandatory except in case of good cause, i.e., absence from the city or illness. 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Frankly, earlier adlection of female pontifices in Nova Roma is so grave a departure from the cultic practice of antiquity that our only hope to undo the offence it represents is to simply throw ourselves on the mercy of the Gods and plead abject ignorance for the affront. If we knowingly go down this path again, we shall be making genuine reconstruction of the Religio impossible. Why don't we just create male sacerdotes of Bona Dea while we're at it? <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Opening response to Gaius Iulius Scaurus and the case for gender equality:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his argument against women pontifices, Scaurus makes the claim that women were prohibited from participating in some specific cults, and that these practices required the pontifices to participate. However, he makes the claim that pontifices could excuse themselves from participation for good cause. What better cause then gender equality? What we know of gender disparity shows that there were cult practices where women were the exclusive participants, yet if pontifices had jurisdiction over ceremonial matters then it serves that they would have influence over the rites of any state sponsored cultus.&lt;ref&gt; Shelton, Jo-Ann. “As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History,” Second Edition. Oxford University Press: New York 1998. Page 384 – 385.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction is evident in the ruling of the pontifices regarding Publius Clodius Pulcher and his unlawful attendance at the rites of Bona Dea, where the pontifices ruled that the rites had been polluted.&lt;ref Staples, Ariadne. &lt;u&gt;From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 39.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction seems to transcend gender since the pontifices had cause to monitor the orthopraxy of ritual practice, yet were denied access to the cult of Bona Dea. In the sacerdotal culture of Nova Roma the proximity of pontifices to the cultic practices of the sacerdotes is not always guaranteed. Therefore, it seems only reasonable to assume that the mandated participation, that Scaurus mentions, is a practice from antiquity that will need modification in our modern global environment. I have, for example, been a pontifex for a couple of years now and I have never been to a “mandatory” caerimoniae to either Hercules or Neptune. Furthermore, since the pontifices of antiquity had jurisdiction over aspects of a female specific cult then logic would dictate that women pontifices within Nova Roma would have similar jurisdiction over male only cults. This jurisdiction, however, need not always include proximity to the actual ceremonial act, but deals with issues of orthopraxy.<br /> <br /> ==On the status and role of women in Nova Roma:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> At issue, as to whether women can or should be pontifices, is the treatment of women in Nova Roma. Women are allowed, and encouraged, to participate in all aspects of civic life. That was not the case within Rome of antiquity, since women were typically under the patria potestas of their father, husband, or male relative.&lt;ref&gt; Arjava, Antti . &quot;Paternal Power in Late Antiquity.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Journal of Roman Studies&lt;/u&gt;. 88 (1998): 147-65. Page 148.&lt;/ref&gt; The patria potestas of the pater familias lasted as long as the pater was alive, and even in cases when the pater familias died, and those under his potestas became sui iuris (independent), the men under the potestas were completely free, but women were required to have a tutor or legal guardian.&lt;ref&gt; Carp, Teresa. &quot;Two matrons of the late republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt; Women's Studies&lt;/u&gt; 8 (1981): 189-200. Page 191.&lt;/ref&gt; This is one major difference between women in ancient Rome and women in Nova Roma, the idea of emancipation and independence. In Nova Roma, via Lex Equitia familiaris the ideal of gender equality is evident in subscribing potestas irrespective of gender, respecting the concept of both pater familias and mater familias along with allowing for male and female tutores in the case of minores. This gender equality within Nova Roma is important because it represents a profound deviation of the mos maiorum in one sense, but also an evolution of that same mos maiorum reflecting a continuity between ancient and contemporary mores. Our contemporary usage of gender equality within our own family law is the departure from ancient practice that radically changes the role of women.<br /> <br /> <br /> In ancient Rome a woman could belong to one of three different categories; “Women who did not qualify as either matronae or virgins were effectively non-members of the Roman state and of its cult, banned, with a few specific exceptions, from participating (except perhaps as spectators along a parade route) in many of Rome’s most central religious rites.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore, a matrona and a virgo can be defined with the following definition, “To be a matrona, a woman had to be the respectable wife or widow of a Roman citizen. To be a virgo, a woman had to be the morally pure, respectable, sexually intact (as we define the English word virgin) marriageable daughter of a Roman citizen.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; In Nova Roma this classification of women does not apply, and as an example I’ll use a former vestal to illustrate my point. Lucia Modia Lupa was appointed a Vestal by Collegium Pontificum decretum dated ante diem XIII Kal. FEBRVARIAS MMDCCLVIII a.u.c. (20 January 2005). At the time of her appointment she was still under my patria potestas, but was emancipated by me a day later (21 January 2005). Lucia Modia Lupa was neither a matrona or a virgo, being unmarried and having a daughter. It would, in my opinion, be against the ancient Roman mos maiorum to have a women who was anything other than a virgo selected to become a vestal; yet such an appointment did occur in Nova Roma because the requirement of being either a matrona or virgo is an antiquated practice that does not apply in the gender egalitarian environment that prevails in Nova Roma. This departure from antiquity is a radical departure when compared to the mores of the past, however, they seem less radical when contrasted against the mores of our contemporary “macronational” culture and the established mores within Nova Roma itself. In fact, the initial establishment of the Nova Roma Constitution of MMDCCLII states, “When determining applicability for Citizenship, Nova Roma shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age (except where such is mandated by the civil laws of a particular locality), or sexuality.,” and the current version of the Nova Roma Constitution reads, “Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.” Therefore, the distinction of matrona or virgo does not apply to the status of women in Nova Roma.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Scheid, John. “An Introduction to Roman Religion.” Indiana University Press: Bloomington &amp; Indianapolis 2003. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Senators clearly had religious authority,&lt;ref&gt; Warrior, Valerie M. “Roman Religion.” Cambridge University Press: New York 2006. Page 42.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Szemler, George J. &quot;Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt;Numen&lt;/u&gt; 18.2 (1971): 103-31. Page 106.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> ==On Change in the Sacra Publica:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Scaurus makes an argument that the gender disparity is a preference of the Gods: “At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity.” This can be addressed by looking at the development of the sacra publica as circumstances changed. With each major transformation of Rome came change in the way the sacra publica operated. This change in the management of the pax deorum can be seen in this selection from Liebeschuetz, “Moreover the procedure for dealing with portents was intimately linked with the republican system of government and the management by the senate of sovereign popular assemblies. When that system collapsed, traditional ways of maintaining the pax deorum lost a principle reason for existence.” (Liebeschuetz 58) For example, the priesthood of the Rex Sacrorum was established when the monarchy was abolished, (Dowden page 18) and was a result of the Romans finding a solution to the disestablishment of the office of rex who had ceremonial obligations. Another example of the Romans dealing with change is the struggle between patricians and plebeians, and the passing of Lex Ogulnia in 300 BCE removing the patrician monopoly over the Collegium Pontificum and the Collegium Augurum. (Taylor 386) Most priesthoods were originally reserved for patricians alone, but were eventually opened up to include members of the plebeian order. Some priesthoods remained closed to plebeians, but these were highly ritualized priesthoods (i.e., the major Flamen, and Rex Sacrorum), while the more politicized priesthoods (priesthoods of pontifex and augur for example) were opened up to plebeians. Would it have been considered impietas prudens dolo malo at one time in the history of Rome to suggest that plebeians, for example, be admitted as pontifices or augures? Patricians and plebeian classes where established, according to tradition, by Romulus himself with patricians as priests and magistrates, and the plebeians to do the other, often necessary, tasks. (Watson. 100) If it is acceptable to open up various priesthoods to plebeians then it seems reasonable to open up the same priesthoods to gender, especially those priesthoods that were not exclusively linked to gender (i.e., Vestals) and which have a certain political quality to them (viz., pontifex and augur). This seems especially true since the establishment of the classes is attributed to Romulus himself. Certainly, the idea of plebeian magistrates and pontifices would not have been acceptable, for example, in the time of Numa Popilius, but later in the evolution of Rome the idea became more palatable, just like our current practice of women magistrates and senatores would have been unheard of during the Republic and afterwards, but is now an acceptable practice.<br /> <br /> <br /> It could be argued for example that, “The departure from the mos maiorum in permitting Plebeian pontifices altered the human component of the mos, not that which was demanded by the Di Immortales.” If this objection to women pontifices is based exclusively on the assumption that plebeian pontifices represent a human component while women pontifices represents some sort of divinely mandated prohibition, then it should also be the case that women should be excluded from all political offices and especially from the senate. This prohibition is based on the special character of magistrates and senatores. However, as I have shown above, the mores Nova Roma, while linked with the mos maiorum of antiquity, is much different from its counterpart in antiquity. Additionally, change was periodically introduced into the sacra publica by the senate and various priestly colleges. The sacra publica was and is, by its nature, inclusive and highly adaptable with one special caveat, “These new additions were only thought legitimate when they received official acceptance by the ruling elite.” (Takacs 302) New cults established, such as the cult of Magna Mater, old cults re-activated (such as the Arval Brethren under Augustus), and other additions, changes, and adaptations to the sacra publica were possible, but only through the collegial character of the collegium pontificum, senate, etc. The objection that some departures from the mos maiorum involve only a human component while other departures would be a direct violation of the Di Immortales would imply that the Di Immortales presented some form of direct communication with someone from Roman antiquity. I am unaware of any “golden tablets,” or codified texts similar to the Bible of the Judeo-Christian faiths, or to the Quran of Islam. However, religious change has been possible within ancient Rome. An early example of change are the reforms of Numa Popilius, when “He established laws and customs among the Romans, who, because of their frequent hostilities, were until that point regarded as semibarbaric latrones. Furthermore, he divided the previously unregulated years into ten months (sic) and founded numerous sacred rites and temples at Rome.” (Bird 243) Would the Romans of Numa’s time consider his reforms a violation of the mos maiorum, or as much needed reforms to move Rome forward? History portrays Numa Popilius in a very positive manner, so it would seem that his reforms benefited Rome. Additionally, great power over the sacra publica rested within the “ruling elite.” The senate, during the Empire, had the power of deification; “The deification of a deceased emperor was authorized by a formal decree of the senate, which alone had power to introduce new forms of worship.” (Burton 84) Therefore, the idea of change and adaption was prevalent within the sacra publica and permitted if done by the “ruling elite” according to law, such practices seem synonymous with the Roman system of change. Claiming some departures are acceptable and others are not, based on the assumption that some are divinely mandated, seems more appropriate to revealed religious traditions (such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) rather than the sacra publica of Nova Roma. Of course it could be argued that augury is a form of revelation, but if that is the case then augury could ideally solve all of our problems, and the reliance upon augury for this opens up a series of potential abuse by augures.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of the Roman Priesthood:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Something to consider regarding the various priesthoods of Rome, ancient or otherwise, is the nature of the priesthood. The priesthood of Christianity (for example, those of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) is a sacramental priesthood believed to change the very essential character of the individual upon ordination as a priest, resulting in a special character upon the soul of the new priest. Likewise, the Aaronic priesthood of Jewish tradition was a hereditary priesthood passed from father to son. The priesthoods of ancient Rome were different; “Its religious officials were merely political functionaries of state like any other.” (Merrill 200) The religious character of the priesthood was linked with that of the state, and priests functioned on behalf of the state. Since Nova Roma makes no distinction of citizenship with regard to gender, as I have shown, and since the priesthood is a function of state then the priesthood should be open to citizens regardless of their gender.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of Vitium:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his critique of women pontifices Scaurus wrote, “The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia.” The use of the term vitium in the sense that it is used by Scaurus is an incorrect use of the term vitium. It does happen to be a Latin word for blemish, defect, or fault. However, it has a more specific meaning within the confines of the sacra publica. The word vitium has specific meaning in augurial law; “As a religious term, it definitely belongs to the language of augury alone.” (Paschall 220) It would seem that Scaurus has used the term vitium is an incorrectly. His example of women at a caerimoniae reserved exclusively for men is similar to the case of Publius Clodius Pulcher who secretly attended the rites of Bona Dea, but was discovered. The pontifices declared that the actions of Clodius were nefas, (Strachan-Davidson 221) but no mention of it being a vitium. As I’ve shown above the pontifices ruled that the presence of Clodius required the rituals to be performed again. In this case Scaurus seems correct that a ritual exclusively aligned to men, with women present, should be conducted over – just a ritual reserved for women had to conducted over after being polluted by a man. However, his argument against women as pontifices rests on his assertion that pontifices where and are required to attend the rites of Hercules. Since the cults of Hercules and Bona Dea were linked in their exclusivity of gender, (Staples 25) it seems reasonable that if there was ever a time in Nova Roma where attendance was mandated upon our pontifices that men would attend the rites of Hercules, and women the rites of Bona Dea. Even if this was the case it would still be appropriate for women pontifices to guard the orthopraxy of the Herculean cult just as it was for the male pontifices of antiquity to guard the orthopraxy of the rites of Bona Dea.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Response to the claim of impious hypocrisy:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Conclusion:==<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus http://www.novaroma.org/nr/In_defense_of_women_pontifices_(Nova_Roma) 2007-12-13T04:19:48Z

<p>Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus: /* On the status and role of women in Nova Roma: */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The argument below presented by [[Gaius Iulius Scaurus (Nova Roma)|Gaius Iulius Scaurus]] seems to be a narrow analysis of the current dilemma within the sacra publica of Nova Roma, and it is my hope that by illustrating his narrow view, as well as close analysis of ancient Roman religious tradition in light of our modern usage, the concept of women pontifices can be again embraced by Nova Roma. The argument, by Gaius Iulius Scaurus, seems to be a two-fold argument; the religious practices of Roma antiqua being incompatible with modern sentiments of gender equality, and the current practices of gender equality within Nova Roma itself. I hope to address both of these concerns and show that women pontifices are a potential reality again within Nova Roma and one that would not be impietas prudens dolo malo.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Argument against women pontifices as presented by Gaius Iulius Scaurus:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I have made a comprehensive survey of the primary and secondary literature on the question and am convinced that the adlection of female pontifices will violate fundamental gender taboos of the Religio and constitute an inexpiable impietas prudens dolo malo. Women are absolutely forbidden to attend any caerimonia to Hercules and the first caerimonia of the Neptunalia. The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia. Furthermore, at the caerimoniae of the mundus patet the only women permitted to attend are the Virgines Vestales. However, the attendance of the pontifices in the caerimoniae of Hercules, the Neptunalia, and the mundus patet is mandatory. The adlection of female pontifices would create a religious obligation to commit an impietas prudens dolo malo, which is a patent absurdity.<br /> <br /> <br /> I see no way to rationalize abandonment of this taboo on the grounds of the hypothesized sexism of Roman society. We simply do not know why the gender taboo existed any more than we know why there were no male Vestals, and anyone who claims the ability to distinguish between essential religious taboos and artifacts of sexual discrimination is engaged in willful self-deception. We know that the Romans assiduously respected these taboos and that these taboos were not generally extended across the entire cultus, which militates for prudently treating them as intrinsically important to the Religio and connected to specific aspects of the cultus. At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity. Following the latter strategy seems to me to place us entirely outside the enterprise of reconstruction and into the enterprise of creating a new religion out of whole cloth. The suggestion that female pontifices simply absent themselves from caerimoniae at which the attendance of women is prohibited ignores the fact that pontifical attendance at these caerimoniae was mandatory except in case of good cause, i.e., absence from the city or illness. 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Frankly, earlier adlection of female pontifices in Nova Roma is so grave a departure from the cultic practice of antiquity that our only hope to undo the offence it represents is to simply throw ourselves on the mercy of the Gods and plead abject ignorance for the affront. If we knowingly go down this path again, we shall be making genuine reconstruction of the Religio impossible. Why don't we just create male sacerdotes of Bona Dea while we're at it? <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Opening response to Gaius Iulius Scaurus and the case for gender equality:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his argument against women pontifices, Scaurus makes the claim that women were prohibited from participating in some specific cults, and that these practices required the pontifices to participate. However, he makes the claim that pontifices could excuse themselves from participation for good cause. What better cause then gender equality? What we know of gender disparity shows that there were cult practices where women were the exclusive participants, yet if pontifices had jurisdiction over ceremonial matters then it serves that they would have influence over the rites of any state sponsored cultus.&lt;ref&gt; Shelton, Jo-Ann. “As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History,” Second Edition. Oxford University Press: New York 1998. Page 384 – 385.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction is evident in the ruling of the pontifices regarding Publius Clodius Pulcher and his unlawful attendance at the rites of Bona Dea, where the pontifices ruled that the rites had been polluted.&lt;ref Staples, Ariadne. &lt;u&gt;From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman religion&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 1998. Page 39.&lt;/ref&gt; This jurisdiction seems to transcend gender since the pontifices had cause to monitor the orthopraxy of ritual practice, yet were denied access to the cult of Bona Dea. In the sacerdotal culture of Nova Roma the proximity of pontifices to the cultic practices of the sacerdotes is not always guaranteed. Therefore, it seems only reasonable to assume that the mandated participation, that Scaurus mentions, is a practice from antiquity that will need modification in our modern global environment. I have, for example, been a pontifex for a couple of years now and I have never been to a “mandatory” caerimoniae to either Hercules or Neptune. Furthermore, since the pontifices of antiquity had jurisdiction over aspects of a female specific cult then logic would dictate that women pontifices within Nova Roma would have similar jurisdiction over male only cults. This jurisdiction, however, need not always include proximity to the actual ceremonial act, but deals with issues of orthopraxy.<br /> <br /> ==On the status and role of women in Nova Roma:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> At issue, as to whether women can or should be pontifices, is the treatment of women in Nova Roma. Women are allowed, and encouraged, to participate in all aspects of civic life. That was not the case within Rome of antiquity, since women were typically under the patria potestas of their father, husband, or male relative.&lt;ref&gt; Arjava, Antti . &quot;Paternal Power in Late Antiquity.&quot; &lt;u&gt;The Journal of Roman Studies&lt;/u&gt;. 88 (1998): 147-65. Page 148.&lt;/ref&gt; The patria potestas of the pater familias lasted as long as the pater was alive, and even in cases when the pater familias died, and those under his potestas became sui iuris (independent), the men under the potestas were completely free, but women were required to have a tutor or legal guardian.&lt;ref&gt; Carp, Teresa. &quot;Two matrons of the late republic.&quot; &lt;u&gt; Women's Studies&lt;/u&gt; 8 (1981): 189-200. Page 191.&lt;/ref&gt; This is one major difference between women in ancient Rome and women in Nova Roma, the idea of emancipation and independence. In Nova Roma, via Lex Equitia familiaris the ideal of gender equality is evident in subscribing potestas irrespective of gender, respecting the concept of both pater familias and mater familias along with allowing for male and female tutores in the case of minores. This gender equality within Nova Roma is important because it represents a profound deviation of the mos maiorum in one sense, but also an evolution of that same mos maiorum reflecting a continuity between ancient and contemporary mores. Our contemporary usage of gender equality within our own family law is the departure from ancient practice that radically changes the role of women.<br /> <br /> <br /> In ancient Rome a woman could belong to one of three different categories; “Women who did not qualify as either matronae or virgins were effectively non-members of the Roman state and of its cult, banned, with a few specific exceptions, from participating (except perhaps as spectators along a parade route) in many of Rome’s most central religious rites.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore, a matrona and a virgo can be defined with the following definition, “To be a matrona, a woman had to be the respectable wife or widow of a Roman citizen. To be a virgo, a woman had to be the morally pure, respectable, sexually intact (as we define the English word virgin) marriageable daughter of a Roman citizen.”&lt;ref&gt; Wildfang, Robin L. &lt;u&gt;Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire&lt;/u&gt;. London: Routledge, 2006. Page 53.&lt;/ref&gt; In Nova Roma this classification of women does not apply, and as an example I’ll use a former vestal to illustrate my point. Lucia Modia Lupa was appointed a Vestal by Collegium Pontificum decretum dated ante diem XIII Kal. FEBRVARIAS MMDCCLVIII a.u.c. (20 January 2005). At the time of her appointment she was still under my patria potestas, but was emancipated by me a day later (21 January 2005). Lucia Modia Lupa was neither a matrona or a virgo, being unmarried and having a daughter. It would, in my opinion, be against the ancient Roman mos maiorum to have a women who was anything other than a virgo selected to become a vestal; yet such an appointment did occur in Nova Roma because the requirement of being either a matrona or virgo is an antiquated practice that does not apply in the gender egalitarian environment that prevails in Nova Roma. This departure from antiquity is a radical departure when compared to the mores of the past, however, they seem less radical when contrasted against the mores of our contemporary “macronational” culture and the established mores within Nova Roma itself. In fact, the initial establishment of the Nova Roma Constitution of MMDCCLII states, “When determining applicability for Citizenship, Nova Roma shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age (except where such is mandated by the civil laws of a particular locality), or sexuality.,” and the current version of the Nova Roma Constitution reads, “Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.” Therefore, the distinction of matrona or virgo does not apply to the status of women in Nova Roma.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Scheid, John. “An Introduction to Roman Religion.” Indiana University Press: Bloomington &amp; Indianapolis 2003. Page 143.&lt;/ref&gt; Senators clearly had religious authority,&lt;ref&gt; Warrior, Valerie M. “Roman Religion.” Cambridge University Press: New York 2006. Page 42.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.”&lt;ref&gt; Szemler, George J. &quot;Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic.&quot; Numen 18.2 (1971): 103-31. Page 106.&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> ==On Change in the Sacra Publica:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Scaurus makes an argument that the gender disparity is a preference of the Gods: “At base our choice is either to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these gender taboos were rigorously respected in antiquity and are likely, therefore, to be directly connected to the preferences of the Di Immortales or to impose an interpretation grounded solely in a modern social-political agenda which rejects the evidence and practice of antiquity.” This can be addressed by looking at the development of the sacra publica as circumstances changed. With each major transformation of Rome came change in the way the sacra publica operated. This change in the management of the pax deorum can be seen in this selection from Liebeschuetz, “Moreover the procedure for dealing with portents was intimately linked with the republican system of government and the management by the senate of sovereign popular assemblies. When that system collapsed, traditional ways of maintaining the pax deorum lost a principle reason for existence.” (Liebeschuetz 58) For example, the priesthood of the Rex Sacrorum was established when the monarchy was abolished, (Dowden page 18) and was a result of the Romans finding a solution to the disestablishment of the office of rex who had ceremonial obligations. Another example of the Romans dealing with change is the struggle between patricians and plebeians, and the passing of Lex Ogulnia in 300 BCE removing the patrician monopoly over the Collegium Pontificum and the Collegium Augurum. (Taylor 386) Most priesthoods were originally reserved for patricians alone, but were eventually opened up to include members of the plebeian order. Some priesthoods remained closed to plebeians, but these were highly ritualized priesthoods (i.e., the major Flamen, and Rex Sacrorum), while the more politicized priesthoods (priesthoods of pontifex and augur for example) were opened up to plebeians. Would it have been considered impietas prudens dolo malo at one time in the history of Rome to suggest that plebeians, for example, be admitted as pontifices or augures? Patricians and plebeian classes where established, according to tradition, by Romulus himself with patricians as priests and magistrates, and the plebeians to do the other, often necessary, tasks. (Watson. 100) If it is acceptable to open up various priesthoods to plebeians then it seems reasonable to open up the same priesthoods to gender, especially those priesthoods that were not exclusively linked to gender (i.e., Vestals) and which have a certain political quality to them (viz., pontifex and augur). This seems especially true since the establishment of the classes is attributed to Romulus himself. Certainly, the idea of plebeian magistrates and pontifices would not have been acceptable, for example, in the time of Numa Popilius, but later in the evolution of Rome the idea became more palatable, just like our current practice of women magistrates and senatores would have been unheard of during the Republic and afterwards, but is now an acceptable practice.<br /> <br /> <br /> It could be argued for example that, “The departure from the mos maiorum in permitting Plebeian pontifices altered the human component of the mos, not that which was demanded by the Di Immortales.” If this objection to women pontifices is based exclusively on the assumption that plebeian pontifices represent a human component while women pontifices represents some sort of divinely mandated prohibition, then it should also be the case that women should be excluded from all political offices and especially from the senate. This prohibition is based on the special character of magistrates and senatores. However, as I have shown above, the mores Nova Roma, while linked with the mos maiorum of antiquity, is much different from its counterpart in antiquity. Additionally, change was periodically introduced into the sacra publica by the senate and various priestly colleges. The sacra publica was and is, by its nature, inclusive and highly adaptable with one special caveat, “These new additions were only thought legitimate when they received official acceptance by the ruling elite.” (Takacs 302) New cults established, such as the cult of Magna Mater, old cults re-activated (such as the Arval Brethren under Augustus), and other additions, changes, and adaptations to the sacra publica were possible, but only through the collegial character of the collegium pontificum, senate, etc. The objection that some departures from the mos maiorum involve only a human component while other departures would be a direct violation of the Di Immortales would imply that the Di Immortales presented some form of direct communication with someone from Roman antiquity. I am unaware of any “golden tablets,” or codified texts similar to the Bible of the Judeo-Christian faiths, or to the Quran of Islam. However, religious change has been possible within ancient Rome. An early example of change are the reforms of Numa Popilius, when “He established laws and customs among the Romans, who, because of their frequent hostilities, were until that point regarded as semibarbaric latrones. Furthermore, he divided the previously unregulated years into ten months (sic) and founded numerous sacred rites and temples at Rome.” (Bird 243) Would the Romans of Numa’s time consider his reforms a violation of the mos maiorum, or as much needed reforms to move Rome forward? History portrays Numa Popilius in a very positive manner, so it would seem that his reforms benefited Rome. Additionally, great power over the sacra publica rested within the “ruling elite.” The senate, during the Empire, had the power of deification; “The deification of a deceased emperor was authorized by a formal decree of the senate, which alone had power to introduce new forms of worship.” (Burton 84) Therefore, the idea of change and adaption was prevalent within the sacra publica and permitted if done by the “ruling elite” according to law, such practices seem synonymous with the Roman system of change. Claiming some departures are acceptable and others are not, based on the assumption that some are divinely mandated, seems more appropriate to revealed religious traditions (such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) rather than the sacra publica of Nova Roma. Of course it could be argued that augury is a form of revelation, but if that is the case then augury could ideally solve all of our problems, and the reliance upon augury for this opens up a series of potential abuse by augures.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of the Roman Priesthood:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Something to consider regarding the various priesthoods of Rome, ancient or otherwise, is the nature of the priesthood. The priesthood of Christianity (for example, those of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) is a sacramental priesthood believed to change the very essential character of the individual upon ordination as a priest, resulting in a special character upon the soul of the new priest. Likewise, the Aaronic priesthood of Jewish tradition was a hereditary priesthood passed from father to son. The priesthoods of ancient Rome were different; “Its religious officials were merely political functionaries of state like any other.” (Merrill 200) The religious character of the priesthood was linked with that of the state, and priests functioned on behalf of the state. Since Nova Roma makes no distinction of citizenship with regard to gender, as I have shown, and since the priesthood is a function of state then the priesthood should be open to citizens regardless of their gender.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==On the Nature of Vitium:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In his critique of women pontifices Scaurus wrote, “The attendance of women at any of these caerimoniae constitutes vitium and requires reperformance of the caerimonia.” The use of the term vitium in the sense that it is used by Scaurus is an incorrect use of the term vitium. It does happen to be a Latin word for blemish, defect, or fault. However, it has a more specific meaning within the confines of the sacra publica. The word vitium has specific meaning in augurial law; “As a religious term, it definitely belongs to the language of augury alone.” (Paschall 220) It would seem that Scaurus has used the term vitium is an incorrectly. His example of women at a caerimoniae reserved exclusively for men is similar to the case of Publius Clodius Pulcher who secretly attended the rites of Bona Dea, but was discovered. The pontifices declared that the actions of Clodius were nefas, (Strachan-Davidson 221) but no mention of it being a vitium. As I’ve shown above the pontifices ruled that the presence of Clodius required the rituals to be performed again. In this case Scaurus seems correct that a ritual exclusively aligned to men, with women present, should be conducted over – just a ritual reserved for women had to conducted over after being polluted by a man. However, his argument against women as pontifices rests on his assertion that pontifices where and are required to attend the rites of Hercules. Since the cults of Hercules and Bona Dea were linked in their exclusivity of gender, (Staples 25) it seems reasonable that if there was ever a time in Nova Roma where attendance was mandated upon our pontifices that men would attend the rites of Hercules, and women the rites of Bona Dea. Even if this was the case it would still be appropriate for women pontifices to guard the orthopraxy of the Herculean cult just as it was for the male pontifices of antiquity to guard the orthopraxy of the rites of Bona Dea.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Response to the claim of impious hypocrisy:==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Conclusion:==<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> Written by [[Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus (Nova Roma)|Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus]].</div>

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus