|
Articles on Roman Government - XII - Pontifex
This text is provided here with cultural and educational purposes only. The text is copyright of its owner.
Pont#301;fex
(gephuropoios). A member of the highest priestly collegium in Rome, to which belonged the superintendence over all sacred observances, whether performed by the State or by private persons. The meaning of the name is uncertain; for the interpretation which follows most obviously from the form of the word, that of “bridge-builder,” referring in particular to the sacred bridge on piles (pons sublicius) over the Tiber (Varro, L. L. v. 83), is open to objection. (See Nettleship, Lectures and Essays, p. 27.) It is probable, however, that the pontifex got his name from the duty assigned him of performing rites for the propitiation of river deities on the building of bridges; for a widespread superstition regarded the spanning of a river by a bridge as in itself insulting to the divinity of the stream. See Pons.
The foundation of the college is ascribed to Numa. At first it probably consisted of six patrician members, with the addition of the king, whose place, after the abolition of the monarchy, was transferred to the Pontifex Maximus; from B.C. 300 it was composed of nine members (four patrician and five plebeian), from the time of Sulla of fifteen (seven patrician and eight plebeian); Caesar added another member; and the emperors also raised the number at their pleasure. The office was for life, as was also that of the president. While, in the time of the monarchy, the pontiffs were probably named by the king, under the Republic the college for a long time filled up its own numbers by coöptation, and also appointed the high-pontiff from among its members. From somewhere about B.C. 250 the election of the latter took place in the Comitia Tributa under the presidency of a pontiff, and, from B.C. 103, the other members were also elected in the Comitia out of a fixed number of candidates
presented by the college. Under the Empire a preliminary election was held by the Senate, and merely confirmed by the Comitia.
Besides the pontiffs proper, there were also included in the college the rex sacrorum, the three higher flamines and the three pontifices minores, who assisted the pontiffs in transactions relating to sacrifices and in their official business, besides sharing in the deliberations and the banquets of the whole college: these ranked according to length of service. In earlier times an advanced age with freedom from secular offices was necessary for eligibility to the pontificate; the high-pontiff, among other restrictions, was not allowed to leave Italy, was obliged to have a wife without reproach, and might not enter upon a second marriage or see a dead body, much less touch one. As regards his position, he was, as spiritual successor of the king, the sole holder and exerciser of the pontifical power; and his official dwelling was in the king's house, the regia of Numa adjoining the Forum, the seat of the oldest State worship. The college existed by his side only as a deliberative and
executive body of personal assistants. He appointed to the most important priestly offices of the State--those of flamen, of Vestal Virgin, and of rex sacrorum; he made public the authoritative decisions of the college. In matters which came within the limits of his official action, he had the right of taking auspices, of holding assemblies of the people, and of publishing edicts. He also exercised a certain jurisdiction over the persons subject to his highpriestly power, especially the flamens and Vestals, over whom his authority was that of an actual father. Owing to the great importance of the office, the emperors from the time of Augustus undertook it themselves until the year 382. As regards the functions of the college, besides performing a number of special sacrifices in the service of the household gods, they exercised (as already mentioned) a superintendence over the whole domain of the religious services recognized by the State, public and private. In all doubts which
arose concerning the religious obligations of the State towards the gods, or concerning the form of any religious offices which were to be undertaken, their [p. 1300] opinion was asked by the Senate and by the other secular bodies, which were obliged unhesitatingly to follow it. In the various religious transactions, expiatory offerings, vows, dedications, consecrations, solemn appropriations, undertaken on behalf of the State, their assistance was invited by the official bodies, in order that they might provide for the correct performance, especially by dictating the prayers. The knowledge of the various rites was handed down by the libri pontificii, which were preserved in the official dwelling of the highpontiff and kept secret. These included the forms of prayer, the rules of ritual for the performance of ceremonial observances, the acta pontificum-- i. e. the records relating to the official actions of the college--and the commentarii pontificum--i. e. the collection of
opinions delivered, to which they were as a rule obliged to have recourse when giving new ones.
An important and, indeed, universal influence was exercised by the pontiffs, not only on religious, but also on civic life, by means of the regulation of the calendar, which was assigned to them as possessing technical knowledge of the subject, and by means of their superintendence over the observance of the holidays. Owing to the character of the Roman reckoning of the year, it was necessary from time to time to intercalate certain days, with a view to bringing the calendar into agreement with the actual seasons to which the festivals were originally attached; and special technical knowledge was needed, in order to be sure on what day the festivals fell. This technical knowledge was kept secret by the pontiffs as being a means of power. It was for the month actually current that they gave information to the people as to the distribution of the days, the festivals falling within the month, and the lawful and unlawful days (fasti and nefasti; see Dies) for civil and legal
transactions. In B.C. 304 the calendar of the months was made public by Gnaeus Flavius; but the pontiffs still retained the right of regulating the year by intercalations, and thereby the power of furthering or hindering the aims of parties and individuals by arbitrary insertion of intercalary months. This they kept until the final regulation of the year introduced by Caesar as high-pontiff in B.C. 46. Closely connected with the superintendence of the calendar was the keeping of the lists of the yearly magistrates, especially of the consuls, since it was by their names that the years were dated, as well as the keeping of the yearly chronicle.
As experts in the law of ritual, the pontiffs had the superintendence over many transactions of private life, so far as ceremonial questions were connected with them, such as the conclusion of marriages, adoption by means of arrogation, and burial. Even upon the civil law they had originally great influence, inasmuch as they alone were in traditional possession of the solemn legal formulae, known as the legis actiones, which were necessary for every legal transaction, including the settlement of legal business and the forms for bringing lawsuits. They even gave legal opinions, which obtained recognition in the courts as customary law by the side of the written law, and grew into a second authoritative source of Roman law. Until the establishment of the praetorship (B.C. 366), a member of the college was appointed every year to impart information to private persons concerning the legal forms connected with the formulating of plaints and other legal business. The legis actiones were
made public for the first time by the above-mentioned Flavius at the same time as the calendar. See Bouché-Leclercq, Les Pontifes de l'Ancienne Rome (Paris, 1871); Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, ii. 18-70; and the article Iurisprudentia.
Harry Thurston Peck. Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. New York. Harper and Brothers. 1898.
PO´NTIFEX
PO´NTIFEX (hierodidaskalos, hieronomos, hierophulax, hierophantês). The origin of this word is explained in various ways. Q. Scaevola, who was himself pontifex maximus, derived it from posse and facere, and Varro from pons, because the pontiffs, he says, had built the Pons Sublicius, and afterwards frequently restored it, that it might be possible to perform sacrifices on each side of the Tiber. (Varro, L. L. v. 83, ed. Müller; Dionys. ii. 73.) This statement is, however, contradicted by the tradition which ascribes the building of the Pons Sublicius to Ancus Martins (Liv. i. 33), at a time when the pontiffs had long existed and borne this name. Göttling (Gesch. d. Röm. Staatsv. p. 173) thinks that pontifex is only another form for pompifex, which would characterise the pontiffs only as the managers and conductors of public processions and solemnities. Others have suggested (cp. Plut. Num. 9) that the word is formed from pons and facere (in the signification of the Greek rhezein, to
perform a sacrifice), and that consequently it signifies the priests who offered sacrifices upon the bridge. The ancient sacrifice to which the name in this view alludes, is that of the Argeans on the sacred or Sublician bridge, which is described by Dionysius (i. 38; cf. ARGEI). But as the word pons originally meant way (Curtius, Princ. Etym. i. 323), it is very probable that pontifex meant those who make the roads and bridges (cp. Lange, Röm. Alt. i.3 371), and are therefore possessed of mathematical and engineering skill (Mommsen, R. H. i. 178: cf. Jordan, Topog. Roms, i. 1, 397). Marquardt prefers to regard the name as coming from the root pu, to purify, in a participial form. No explanation is satisfactory which [p. 461] does not account for the fact that the title was used in many other Italian towns besides Rome.
The Roman pontiffs formed the most illustrious among the great colleges of priests. Their institution, like that of all important matters of religion, was ascribed to Numa. (Liv. i. 20; Dionys. ii. 73; Cic. de Orat. iii. 19, 73.) According to Livy (x. 6), the original number of pontiffs were four: it has been commonly assumed that this was exclusive of the pontifex maximus, and that Cicero (de Rep. ii. 14, 26) is including him when he says that Numa appointed five pontiffs. But it seems probable that there was no pontifex maximus under the monarchy, the king himself discharging the functions, which afterwards were fulfilled by him. Besides, the number three seems to have been attached to this office as well as to that of the augurs, being retained in the case of colonies, which often keep faithful to the earliest type. Hence we must assume that Livy is in error in the account which he gives of the changes made by the Ogulnian law; and instead of supposing with Niebuhr that four
pontiffs represent the two earliest tribes, the Ramnes and the Tities, it will be better to assume that the six, including the king, represent the three tribes. But we really cannot get beyond conjectures on this point. In the year B.C. 300, the Ogulnian law raised the number of pontiffs to eight, or, more probably according to the researches of Bardt, to nine, and four of them were to be plebeians (Liv. x. 6). The pontifex maximus, however, continued to be a patrician down to the year B.C. 254, when Tib. Coruncanius was the first plebeian who was invested with this dignity (Liv. Epit. xviii.). This number of pontiffs remained for a long time unaltered, until in 81 B.C. the dictator Sulla increased it to fifteen (Liv. Epit. lxxxix.), and Julius Caesar to sixteen (Dio Cass. xlii. 51). In both these changes the pontifex maximus is included in the number. During the Empire the number varied, though on the whole fifteen appears to have been the regular number.
The mode of appointing the pontiffs was also different at different times. It appears that after their institution by Numa, the college had the right of co-optation; that is, if a member of the college died (for all the pontiffs held their office for life), the members met and elected a successor, who after his election was inaugurated by the augurs (Dionys. ii. 22, 73). This election was sometimes called captio (Gellius, i. 12; cf. FLAMEN). But at some time in the course of the third century B.C. the practice sprang up, we do not know more precisely how or when, that the choice of the pontifex maximus from the other members should be made by the votes of seventeen of the tribes, a minority of the whole number, determined by lot. This was the case with the election after the death of L. Lentulus in B.C. 212 (Liv. xxv. 2, 5), and with other later instances (Liv. xxxix. 46, 1; xl. 42). The ordinary pontiffs were still co-opted. An attempt to deprive the college of its right of
co-optation, and to transfer the power of election to the people, was made in the year B.C. 145, by the tribune C. Licinius Crassus; but it was frustrated by the praetor C. Laelius. (Cic. de Am. 25, 96; Brut. 21, 43; de Nat. Deor. iii. 17, 43.) In 104 B.C. the attempt was successfully repeated by the tribune Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus: and a law (Lex Domitia) was then passed, which transferred the right of electing the members of the great colleges of priests to the seventeen tribes; that is, the people elected one from a list of candidates approved by the college, who was then made a member of the college by the cooptatio of the priests themselves, so that the cooptatio, although still necessary, became a mere matter of form. (Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 7, 18; ad Brut. i. 5; Vell. Pat. ii. 12, 3; Suet. Nero, 2.) The Lex Domitia was repealed by Sulla in a Lex Cornelia de Sacerdotiis (81 B.C.), which restored to the great priestly colleges their full right of cooptatio. (Liv. Epit. lxxxix.;
Pseudo-Ascon. in Divinat. p. 102, ed. Orelli; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 37.) In the year 63 B.C. the law of Sulla was abolished, and the Domitian law was restored by a plebiscite of Labienus, which prescribed that in case of a vacancy the college itself should nominate two candidates, and the people elect one of them (Dio Cass. xxxvii. 37). This mode of proceeding is expressly mentioned in regard to the appointment of augurs, and was, no doubt, the same in that of the pontiffs (Cic. Philip. ii. 2, 4). Julius Caesar modified but slightly this Lex Domitia, but M. Antonius is said to have again restored the right of cooptatio to the college (Dio Cass. xliv. 53). Mommsen (Staatsr. ii.2 29) doubts the accuracy of this statement. Under the Empire the right of appointment belonged formally to the senate, but virtually to the emperor.
The college of pontiffs had the supreme superintendence of all matters of religion, and of things and persons connected with public as well as private worship. A general outline of their rights and functions is given by Livy (i. 20) and Dionysius (ii. 73). This power is said to have been given to them by Numa; and he also entrusted to their keeping the books containing the ritual ordinances, together with the obligation to give information to any one who might consult them on matters of religion. They had to guard against any irregularity in the observance of religious rites that might arise from a neglect of the ancient customs, or from the introduction of foreign rites. They had not only to determine in what manner the heavenly gods should be worshipped, but also the proper form of burials, and how the souls of the departed (manes) were to be appeased; in like manner what signs either in lightning or other phenomena were to be received and attended to. They had the judicial
decision in all matters of religion, whether private persons, magistrates, or priests were concerned; and In cases where the existing laws or customs were found defective or insufficient, they made new laws and regulations (decreta pontificum) in which they always followed their own judgment as to what was consistent with the existing customs and usages (Gell. ii. 28; x. 15). They watched over the conduct of all persons who had anything to do with the sacrifices or the worship of the gods; that is, over all the priests and their servants. The forms of worship and of sacrificing were determined by the pontiffs, and whoever refused to obey their injunctions was punished by them, for they were rerum, quae [p. 462] ad sacra et religiones pertinent, judices et vindices. (Fest. s. v. Maximus pontifex; cf. Cic. de Leg. ii. 8, 12.) The pontiffs themselves were not subject to any court of law or punishment, and were not responsible either to the senate or to the people. The details of their
duties and functions were contained in books called libri pontificii or pontificales, commentarii sacrorum or sacrorum pontificalium (Fest. s. vv. Aliuta and Occisum), which they were said to have received from Numa, and which were sanctioned by Ancus Martius. These were preserved under the charge of the pontifex maximus in the regio. Ancus is said to have made public that part of these regulations which had reference to the sacra publica (Liv. i. 32); and when at the commencement of the Republic the wooden tables, on which these published regulations were written, had fallen into decay, they were restored by the pontifex maximus C. Papirius (Dionys. iii. 36). One part of these libri pontificales was called Indigitamenta, and contained the names of the gods as well as the manner in which these names were to be used in public worship (Serv. ad Verg. Georg. i. 21). A second part must have contained the formulas of the jus pontificium (Cic. de Rep. ii. 3. 1, 54). The original laws and
regulations contained in these books were in the course of time increased and more accurately defined by the decrees of the pontiffs, whence perhaps their name commentarii (Plin. H. N. xviii. 3: Liv. iv. 3; Cic. Brut. 14, 55). Another tradition concerning these books stated that Numa communicated to the pontiffs their duties and rights merely by word of mouth, and that he had buried the books in a stone chest on the Janiculum. (Pint. Num. 23; Plin. H. N. xiii. 27; Val. Max. i. 1, 12; August. de Civit. Dei, vii. 34.) These books were found in 181 B.C., and one-half of them contained ritual regulations and the jus pontificium, and the other half philosophical inquiries on the same subjects, and were written in the Greek language. The books were brought to the praetor urbanus Q. Petilius, and the senate ordered the latter half to be burnt, while the former was carefully preserved. Respecting the nature and authenticity of this story, see Hartung, Die Relig. d. Höm. i. p. 214. The
annales maximi were records of the events of each year kept by the pontifex maximus, from the commencement of the state to the time of the pontifex maximus P. Mucius Scaevola, B.C. 133 (Cic. de Orat. ii. 12, 52).
As to the rights and duties of the pontiffs, it must first of all be borne in mind that the pontiffs were not priests of any particular divinity, but a college which stood above all other priests, and superintended the whole external worship of the gods (Cic. de Leg. ii. 8, 20). One of their principal duties was the regulation of the sacra both publica and privata, and to watch that they were observed at the proper times (for which purpose the pontiffs originally had the whole regulation of the calendar: see CALENDARIUM Vol. I. p. 342 b, &c.), and in their proper form. In the management of the sacra publica they were in later times assisted in certain performances by the tres viri epulones [EPULONES], and had in their keeping the funds from which the expenses of the sacra publica were defrayed [SACRA].
The pontiffs convoked the assembly of the curies (Comitia Calata or Curiata) in cases where priests were to be appointed, and flamines or a rex sacrorum were to be inaugurated; also when wills were to be received, and when a detestatio sacrorum and adoption by adrogatio took place. (Gell. v. 19, xv. 27; ADOPTIO) Whether the presence of the pontiffs together with that of the augurs and two flamines were necessary in the Comitia Curiata also in cases when other matters were transacted, as Niebuhr thinks (i. p. 342, ii. p. 223), does not appear to be quite certain. The curious circumstance that after the decemvirate the pontifex maximus was commanded by the senate to preside at the election of tribunes of the people, is explained by Niebuhr (ii. p. 359: cf. Schwegler, iii. 66, and Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 34, note).
As regards the jurisdiction of the pontiffs, magistrates and priests as well as private individuals were bound to submit to their sentence, provided it had the sanction of three members of the college (Cic. de Harusp. Resp. 6, 12). In most cases the sentence of the pontiffs only inflicted a fine upon the offenders (Cic. Philip. xi. 8, 18; Liv. xxxvii. 51, xl. 42), but the person fined had a right to appeal to the people, who might release him from the fine. In regard to the Vestal Virgins and the persons who committed incest with them, the pontiffs had criminal jurisdiction and might pronounce the sentence of death (Dionys. ix. 40) Liv. xxii. 57; Fest. s. v. Probrum). A man who had violated a Vestal Virgin was according to an ancient law scourged to death by the pontifex maximus in the comitium, and it appears that originally neither the Vestal Virgins nor the male offenders in such a case had any right of appeal. Incest in general belonged to the jurisdiction of the pontiffs, and
might be punished with death (Cic. de Leg. ii. 1. 9, 47). In later times we find that even in the case of the pontiffs having passed sentence upon Vestal Virgins, a tribune interfered and induced the people to appoint a quaestor for the purpose of making a fresh inquiry into the case; and it sometimes happened that after this new trial the sentence of the pontiffs was modified or annulled (Ascon. ad Milon. p. 46, ed. Orelli). Such cases, however, seem to have been mere irregularities founded upon an abuse of the tribunician power. In the early times the pontiffs were in the exclusive possession of the civil as well as religious law, until the former was made public by C. Flavius. [ACTIO] The regulations which served as a guide to the pontiffs in their judicial proceedings, formed a large collection of laws, which was called the jus pontificium, and formed part of the libri pontificii. (Cic. de Orat. ii 43, 193; iii. 33, 134; pro Domo, 13, 34: JUS) The new decrees which the pontiffs
made either on the proposal of the senate, or in cases belonging to the sacra privata, or that of private individuals, were, as Livy (xxxix. 16) says, innumerable, (Compare Cic. de Leg. ii. 2. 3, 58, Macrob. Sat. iii. 3; Dionys. ii. 73.)
The meetings of the college of pontiffs, to which in some instances the flamines and the rex sacrorum were summoned (Cic. de Harusp. Resp. 6, 12), were held in the domus regia on the Via Sacra, to which were attached the offices of the pontifex maximus and of the rex sacrorum. (Suet. Jut. 46; Serv. ad Aen. viii. 363; [p. 463] Plin. Epist. iv. 11.) As the chief pontiff was obliged to live in a domus publica, Augustus, when he assumed this dignity, changed part of his own house into a domus publica (Dio Cass. liv. 27). All the pontiffs were in their appearance distinguished by the conic cap called tutulus or galerus, with an apex upon it, and the toga praetexta.
The pontifex maximus was the president of the college and acted in its name, the full rights of the king in religious matters having descended to him (Mommsen, R. Staatsr. ii. 17-70). He was generally chosen from among the most distinguished persons, and such as had held a curule magistracy, or were already members of the college (Liv. xxxv. 5; xl. 42). Two of his especial duties were to appoint (capere) the Vestal Virgins and the famines [VESTALES; FLAMEN], and to be present at every marriage by confarreatio. When festive games were vowed or a dedication made, the chief pontiff had to repeat over before the persons who made the vow or the dedication, the formula with which it was to be performed (praeire or praefari verba, Liv. iv. 27, v. 41, ix. 46). During the period of the Republic, when the people exercised sovereign power in every respect, we find that if the pontiff on constitutional or religious grounds refused to perform this solemnity, he might be compelled to do so by the
people.
A pontifex might, like all the members of the great priestly colleges, hold any other military, civil or priestly office, provided the different offices did not interfere with one another; Thus we find one and the same person being pontiff, augur, and decemvir sacrorum (Liv. xl. 42); instances of a pontifex maximus being at the same time consul are very numerous. (Liv. xxviii. 33; Cic. de Harusp. Resp. 6, 12; cf. Ambrosch, Studien und Andeutungen, p. 229, note 105.) But whatever might be the civil or military office which a pontifex maximus held besides his pontificate, he was not allowed to leave Italy. The first who violated this law was P. Licinius Crassus, in B.C. 131 (Liv. Epit. 59; Val. Max. viii. 7, 6; Oros. v, 10); but after this precedent, pontiffs seem to have frequently transgressed the law, and Caesar, though pontifex maximus, went to his province of Gaul.
The college of pontiffs continued to exist until the overthrow of paganism (Arnob. iv. 35; Symmach. Epit. ix. 128, 129); but its power and influence were considerably weakened as the emperors, according to the example of Caesar, had the right to appoint as many members of the great colleges of priests as they pleased (Dio Cass. xlii. 51, xliii. 51, li. 20, liii. 17; Suet. Caes. 31). In addition to this, the emperors themselves were always chief pontiffs, and as such the presidents of the college; hence the title of pontifex maximus (P. M. or PON. M.) appears on several coins of the emperors. If there were several emperors at a time, only one bore the title of pontifex maximus; but in the year A.D. 238, we find that each of the two emperors Maximus and Balbinus assumed this dignity (Capitol. Maxim. et Balb. 8). The last traces of emperors being at the same time chief pontiffs are found in inscriptions of Valentinian, Valens, and Gratianus (Orelli, Inscript. n. 1117, 1118). The last
formally renounced the title in A.D. 382. From this time the emperors no longer appear in the dignity of pontiff; but at last the title was assumed by the Christian bishop of Rome.
There were other pontiffs at Rome who were distinguished by the epithet minores. Various opinions have been entertained as to what these pontifices minores were. Niebuhr (i. p. 302, n. 775) thinks that they were originally the pontiffs of the Luceres; that they stood in the same relation to the other pontiffs as the patres minorum gentium to the patres majorum gentium; and that subsequently, when the meaning of the name was forgotten, it was applied to the secretaries of the great college of pontiffs. This supposition is contradicted by all the statements of ancient writers who mention the pontifices minores. Livy (xxii. 57; compare Jul. Capitol. Opil. Macrin. 7), in speaking of the secretaries of the college of pontiffs, adds, quos nunc minores pontifices appellant; from which it is evident that the name pontifices minores was of later introduction, and that it was given to persons who originally had no claims to it; that is, to the secretaries of the pontiffs. The only natural
solution of the question seems to be this. At the time when the real pontiffs began to neglect their duties, and to leave the principal business to be done by their secretaries, it became customary to designate these scribes by the name of pontifices minores. Macrobius (Sat. i. 15), in speaking of minor pontiffs previous to the time of Cn. Flavius, makes an anachronism, as he transfers a name customary in his own days to a time when it could not possibly exist. The number of these secretaries seems to have been, at least after the time of Sulla, three (Cic. de Harusp. Resp. 6, 12). The name cannot have been used long before the end of the Republic, when even chief pontiffs began to show a disregard for their sacred duties, as in the case of P. Licinius Crassus and Julius Caesar. Another proof of their falling off in comparison with former days, is that about the same time the luxurious living of the pontiffs became proverbial at Rome (Hor. Carm. ii. 14, 26, &c.; Mart. xii. 48, 12;
Macrob. Sat. ii. 9). (Cf. Bouché--Leclercq, Les Pontifes de l'anc. Rome, Paris, 1871; Marquardt, iii. 227-238; Madvig, Verf. u. Verw. ii. 612-633; Mommsen, R. Staatsr. ii. 18-70.) [L. S.] [A. S. W.]
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. William Smith, LLD. William Wayte. G. E. Marindin. Albemarle Street, London. John Murray. 1890.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail - Participe da pesquisa global sobre o Yahoo! Mail. Clique aqui!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|