Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.
Here is an essay I wrote "In Defense of Women Pontifices." It is a
direct response to Gaius Iulius Scaurus (pontifex), who has advocated
against women pontifices in Nova Roma. It is enclosed in this e-mail,
and can also be found here:
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/In_Defense_of_Women_Pontifices_%28Nova_Roma%29
Valete:
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
In Defense of Women Pontifices
By Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
Introduction:
The argument below presented by 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.
--
Argument against women pontifices as presented by Gaius Iulius Scaurus:
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.
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.
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?
--
Opening response to Gaius Iulius Scaurus and the case for gender equality:
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. (Shelton.
Page 384 – 385) 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. (Staples 39) 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.
On the status and role of women in Nova Roma:
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. (Arjava. Page
148) 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. (Carp. 191) 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.
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." (Wildfang page 53). 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." (Wildfang page 53) 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.
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." (Scheid 143) Senators clearly had religious
authority, (Warrior 42) 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." (Szemler 106)
Therefore, it would seem impietas prudens dolo malo to deny a woman
the priesthood of pontifex or augur simply on the grounds of her
gender if she were a senator. Furthermore, if pontifex or augur can
be bestowed upon a woman of senatorial rank then it seems feasible to
entertain the notion that it could be bestowed upon a woman outside of
the senate if she was given the same non-gender related criteria that
men enjoy.
On Change in the Sacra Publica:
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.
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.
On the Nature of the Roman Priesthood:
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.
On the Nature of Vitium:
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.
Response to the claim of impious hypocrisy:
The final argument by Scaurus that I wish to address is, "Claiming
that intentional circumvention of a religious taboo and a cultic
obligation for reasons of modern personal preference is a good cause
for such a practice strikes me as rank, impious hypocrisy." It would
seem that our current customs regarding women, as I have illustrated
above, are a direct result of "modern personal preference," does that
make everyone in Nova Roma who supports women as magistrates and
senatores guilty of impious hypocrisy? Does adapting practices to
changing mores make someone guilty of impious hypocrisy? The
increased privilege afforded to the plebeian class was certainly a
result of changing times within ancient Rome and therefore a "modern
preference" of that time, just like gender equality if a preference in
our contemporary time. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume
"modern personal preference" in many instances where ancient custom
and taboos are impractical, impossible, or simply an impediment to an
effective reconstruction of the sacra publica. There is no reason for
Nova Roma to become a slave to one persons idea of the mos maiorum in
such a way that our efforts to reconstruct Roman religion are retarded
because of a false sense of piety, or fear of impietas prudens dolo
malo. There are many practices within Nova Roma that are a departure
from antiquity, it is irresponsible to, for example, allow vestals
without proof of virginity but deny women the opportunity to serve as
pontifices or augures. Likewise, it is irresponsible to allow
unmarried men to assume the role of flamen maiores and deny women the
opportunity to serve as pontifices or augures.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, I believe I have shown the possibility of women as
pontifices, and therefore refuted the claims of Scaurus to the
contrary, including his assertion that women as pontifices is impietas
prudens dolo malo. Additionally, it seems reasonable that if the
ancient Romans worked through problems as they transitioned from one
system to another that we too in our society of Nova Roma also have
the ability to work through our own problems without being "entirely
outside the enterprise of reconstruction" as Scaurus claims. It seems
important and meritorious to be aware of taboos and differences
between Roma antique and our modern Nova Roma, but to work through
these taboos and problems as the Romans have always done – without the
fear of accusations of impious hypocrisy, blasphemy, and impietas
prudens dolo malo.
References:
Arjava, Antti . "Paternal Power in Late Antiquity." The Journal of
Roman Studies 88 (1998): 147-65.
Bird, H W. "Eutropius on Numa Pompilius and the Senate." The Classical
Journal 81.3 (1986): 243-48.
Burton, Henry F. "The Worship of the Roman Emperors." The Biblical
World 40.2 (1912): 80-91.
Carp, Teresa. "Two matrons of the late republic." Women's Studies 8
(1981): 189-200.
Dowden, Ken "Religion and the Romans." Bristol Classical Press:
London 1992. Page 19.
Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. "Continuity and Change in Roman Religion."
Oxford At the Claredon Press: Oxford 1979.
Merrill, Elmer T. "The Attitude of Ancient Rome toward Religion and
Religious Cults." The Classical Journal 15.4 (1920): 196-215.
Paschall, Dorothy. "The Origin and Semantic Development of Latin
Vitium." Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological
Association 67 (1936): 219-31.
Scheid, John. "An Introduction to Roman Religion." Indiana
University Press: Bloomington & Indianapolis 2003.
Shelton, Jo-Ann. "As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social
History," Second Edition. Oxford University Press: New York 1998.
Page 384 – 385.
Szemler, George J. "Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman
Republic." Numen 18.2 (1971): 103-31.
Staples, Ariadne. From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and
category in Roman religion. London: Routledge, 1998.
Strachan-Davidson, J L. "Mommsen's Roman Criminal Law." The English
Historical Review 16.62 (1901): 219-91.
Takács, Sarolta A. "Politics and Religion in the Bacchanalian Affair
of 186 B.C.E." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 100 (2000):
301-10.
Taylor, Lily R. "Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College." The
American Journal of Philology 63.4 (1942): 385-412.
Warrior, Valerie M. "Roman Religion." Cambridge University Press:
New York 2006.
Watson, Alan. "Roman Private Law and the Leges Regiae." The Journal of
Roman Studies 62 (1972): 100-05.
Wildfang, Robin L. Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal
priestesses in the late Republic and early Empire. London: Routledge,
2006.