SACERDOS
SACERDOS,
SACERDOTIUM. A priest among the
Greeks and Romans was a person whose duty was to perform on behalf of a
state, or of some organic group within the state, a certain ritual, the
object of which was to maintain the proper salutary relations between the
state or group and the local gods. This definition, it will be seen, implies
a fully developed state. That a priesthood did indeed exist before the
state, both in Greece and Italy, there can hardly be a doubt; but of its
nature and history we have scarcely any knowledge. Nor, indeed, do we
certainly know at what point in the development of a people the priest
proper first appears. Roughly, it may be said that an organised priesthood
is found wherever the relation of God to man is believed to have a certain
stable personal character on which the worshippers can calculate and act.
(See W. Robertson Smith in
Encycl. Brit. s. v.
Priest.) In Greece and Italy this stability of relation seems
to have gone with a corresponding stability of human society, i. e. a
certain amount of social and political development. In the following sketch
of the priesthoods of Greece and Rome such development is assumed, and no
attempt is made to unravel the earliest history of the growth of a
priesthood.
Priests in Greece.
The most general word for a priest is
ἱερεύς (for a priestess
ἱέρεια). This word is found in Homer, and lasted throughout
Greek history. At all periods its meaning is in the main the same; it
denotes a person charged with regular and permanent duties towards a
particular deity on behalf of a particular community, and thoroughly
acquainted with the traditional mode of performing those duties, whether
they consisted of prayer, sacrifice, purification, prophecy, or all of
these. He is one “skilled in the rules of sacrifice, prayer,
purification,” &c. (Stobaeus,
Ecl.
Eth. 6.5, 122; Gaisf. vol. ii. p. 562). These rules, too
technical for the ordinary individual, by which the gods could be in a
sense controlled and their goodwill secured, must necessarily be in the
charge of a specialist.
The word
ἱερεῖς also implies the
existence of a holy place to which the person so denominated was
attached. The priest was in Greece essentially a minister in the service
of a temple; this is his true differentia (Plato,
Legg.
759 A). He was the servant of the god (Plato,
Pol. 290 C;
Eur. Ion 94,
309; Poll. 1.14,
οἱ
δὲ τῶν θεῶν θεραπευταὶ ἱερεῖς) to whom the temple
was sacred. His history and development are therefore in each case
inseparable from those of the temple itself. In some places, we may
suppose, which had become famous for a sacred fountain, tree, or cavern,
it became convenient to build the local god a house for his own
habitation,
[p. 2.569]and a keeper would be assigned to
the house from among the members of the community interested in the
worship. This person, who devoted his life, or a certain portion of it,
to the care of the god's house and its
ἱερά, would be the
ἱερεύς. He would thus be a priest of a simple deity, for
each temple was the dwelling of one only. To the Greek, a priest was not
a priest in a general sense, but the priest of some local Zeus or
Apollo, and was almost always so distinguished in Greek literature. (See
Nägelsbach,
Nachhomerische Theologie, p. 207.)
Thus the word is far from containing the idea of a sacred caste, and
suggests no settled distinction between clergy and laity. The
ἱερεὺς was indeed, as compared with the
ordinary Greek citizen, a man of professional knowledge, but only in
respect of the ritual of his own temple. As every temple had its own
strict rules, there was no opportunity for any combined action which
might produce a common professional interest. Nor was there at any time
a common school of the priesthood, for each priest could learn his
duties in his own temple only. And it must be borne in mind that the
priests were by no means the only persons who exercised priestly
functions; for the king or other magistrate of a state, as well as the
heads of families and gentes, could, and did, all offer sacrifices and
prayers on behalf of their respective communities. How far the aid of
the priest was necessary in any such sacrifice is an obscure question
(see Martha,
Les Sacerdoces Athéniens, p. 73
foll.); but Aristotle clearly distinguished between those sacrifices
which were
ἱερατικαί, i. e. could only
be performed by a priest (probably in a temple), and those which were
undertaken by the lay head of the community (
Pol. 3.14, 12 = p. 1285 b, 10). Thus much is certain, that
the Greek mind did not connect the word
ἱερεὺς with any exclusive prescriptive right of exercising
liturgical functions, such as at the present day we are apt to associate
with the word
priest, save only in respect of
those which he exercised in his own temple. It is essential to remember
this in studying the Greek idea of a minister of religion; but in the
present article it is necessary to limit the subject by confining our
attention to its more technical aspect.
Not much is to be gathered from Homer as to the position and duties of
the priest in the age represented in the poems. Homer describes a state
of war and disturbance in which local priesthoods would naturally play
no part; and what we hear of them is chiefly from passages of incidental
reference. They are not mentioned among the prophets, poets, physicians,
&c., in the catalogue of
δημιόεργοι in
Od. 17.382
foll.: and this may show (1) that they were not a trained professional
body or guild; (2) that they were distinguished from the
μάντεις, or wandering diviners. Their duties
seemed to have been chiefly, as in later times, those of prayer and
sacrifice; hence the names
ἀρητὴρ
(
Il. 1.11;
5.78) and
θυόσκοος (
Il. 24.221). They were held in high
honour: of the priest of Scamander it was said that he was honoured as a
god by the whole people (
Il. 5.78; cf.
16.605). On one occasion only do we hear of insult offered to a priest;
i. e. at the opening of the Iliad, by Agamemnon to the priest Chryses:
and this was so startling as to rouse the anger of the army and bring
down the wrath of Apollo in the form of a pestilence. The local priest
is represented in
Il. 5.10 as wealthy and
important, a fact quite in keeping with the feeling of later times that
priests should be of high descent and substantial means. In
Od. 9.200 we hear of a local priest
dwelling in a house in close proximity to his temple, with his wife and
children; a glimpse of old Greek life which is confirmed, as we shall
see, by the evidence of a later age. But further details of the Homeric
priests are wanting, even in the Odyssey, and it cannot be assumed that
they played an important part in the civilisation which the poems
represent. (See Buchholz,
Hom. Realien, vol. iii. pt.
2.178; Gladstone,
Homer and the Homeric Age, 3.279 ff.,
where, however, the Trojan priests are wrongly considered as belonging
to a separate civilisation.)
Our information about priests in
historic times
is not only scattered about in a great number of authors and
inscriptions, but naturally refers to a great variety of the cities of
the Hellenic world, in which the usages varied considerably. It extends
also over a period of several centuries, down to the age of the Roman
empire; and it is unfortunately the last half of this long period, and
not the age of genuine Greek civilisation, which has yielded by far the
greater part of our results. It is, therefore, difficult to present a
consistent picture of the position and duties of the Greek priest in the
centuries which may more properly be called those of Greek history.
Under the heads, however, of the qualifications, mode of appointment,
duties, and privileges of the priesthood, some account may be given of
certain features of special interest.
Qualifications.
In the first place, it was essential that a priest, if a man, should
be a full citizen of the state to which the temple belonged of which
he had charge; and so also, if that worship were the peculiar
property of a gens or family within the state, he must be a full
member of that gens or family. Thus, at Athens, no
μέτοικος could hold a priesthood; e. g.
in the case of the priesthood of Heracles, we learn from Demosthenes
that no foreigner or metoec could qualify, or anyone who was not a
member of a phratria (at that time the test of true citizenship);
and he speaks of the priesthood as under the same conditions as the
magistracy (Dem.
Eubul. p. 1313, §
§ 46-48). In general terms Plato expresses the same
necessity (
Legg. 759 C), when he lays it down for his
ideal state that the priest should be
ὁλόκληρος καὶ γνήσιος, i. e. sound in all
respects, including birth. So also an inscription of Chalcedon
(probably of the 2nd century B.C.) forbids a priesthood to be. sold
to anyone who was not thus sound and in full possession of civic
rights (Dittenberger,
Syll. Ins. Gr. 369). These
regulations, however, did not exclude women from priesthoods, and
priestesses are met with in all parts of Greece. At Athens a
priestess seems to have enjoyed at least some rights of a citizen;
e. g. she could plead before the council, sign documents,
&c. (Martha,
op. cit. p. 22). For
priestesses persons of rank and substance seem to have been
preferred; thus in an inscription from Halicarnassus we find that
the priestess must be of aristocratic descent for three generations
at least (Dittenberger,
[p. 2.570]No. 371). And
Aristotle insists that no husbandman or mechanic should be a priest;
the gods should receive honour from the citizens only (
Pol. 7.9, 8=p. 1329 a, 29). The Pythia of
Delphi seems to have been an exception to this rule, as she was
chosen at large from among all the women of Delphi (
Eur. Ion 1323: cf. Plut.
Pyth.
Or. 22; Hermann,
Gr. Alterth. ii. p.
256). This was perhaps for reasons of state, or because it was
difficult to procure a woman of the peculiar temperament required by
the office.
The second chief, qualification was that of purity, bodily and
mental. This is also explicitly laid down by Plato in the passage
just quoted from the Laws, and is partly implied in the word
ὁλόκληρος already mentioned.
As all approach to the gods without purification was a sin even in
the ordinary worshipper,
à
fortiori it was so in the priest. At Athens no one could hold a
priesthood who had led a vicious life (Aeschines,
Timarch. § 19), or who had neglected his
parents (
Xen. Mem. 2.2,
13). Bodily purity was equally
essential. Strict regulations were often posted at the doors of
temples for the guidance of worshippers in keeping themselves pure,
which applied even more to the priest; and the highest state of
purity was to have a healthy mind, free from guilty conscience, in a
healthy body (Newton,
Art and Archaeology, p. 156).
All contact with a dead body, for example, defiled a man; and if a
priestly family were temporarily defiled by the death of one of its
own members, the priesthood was sometimes forfeited. Thus the death
of a child of a priest of Messene is said by Pausanias to have
caused a vacancy (
Paus. 4.12,
4). In the same way we find that many
priesthoods could only be filled by virgins; and Pausanias mentions
one at Calauria where a girl must resign the priesthood of the
temple of Poseidon when of age to marry (2.33, 3). On the other
hand, all the priests of the Ephesian Artemis were eunuchs (Roscher,
Myth. Lex. s. v.
Artemis, p. 501
a); and the priest and priestess of Artemis Hymnia at Orchomenus, in
Arcadia, were not only cut off from all bodily impurity, but from
all intercourse with the world (
Paus.
8.13,
1). Such exaggerated
asceticism, however, was not truly Greek in character, and was
undoubtedly of Oriental origin. There was no general rule against
the marriage of a priest. The regulations suggested by Greek
thinkers were also more moderate; both Aristotle and Plato recommend
only that priests should be of advanced age (Ar.
Pol. 7.9, 9; Plato,
Legg. 759 D). Old
men and women actually occur, as at Delphi and Athens, instead of
virgins, for the care of the perpetual fire; but this may have been
a later custom, arising from the difficulty of getting virgins to
serve (
Plut. Num. 9). Boy-priests are
occasionally mentioned, who served until the age of puberty (
Paus. 7.24,
2,
where the boy must be of remarkable beauty; and
C. I.
G. 6206). In these examples of priesthoods filled by persons
of old age or extreme youth, we may also perhaps see the call for
purity combined with the Greek feeling that a man in the prime of
life was required for the service of the state.
Mode of appointment.
This was by no means uniform; but we may discern three principal
methods, which in rough chronological order would be--(1) by
hereditary descent, i. e. by devolution or selection out of a gens
or family; (2) by public election, either by means of open voting or
the lot; (3) by purchase.
1. As regards the first of these, we have abundant evidence that many
priesthoods descended in the same family or gens, though we know
little of the method by which the priest was chosen from among its
members. The reason of such hereditary right is not far to seek. A
cultus which had been peculiar to a family or gens before its
absorption in a state, retained, even after that absorption, the
right to be served by a member of that minor group only; the perfect
performance of its ritual being in this way better secured. Thus the
family of Gelo of Syracuse claimed to be hereditary hierophants of
Demeter and Persephone in the city of Gela, because their ancestor
Telines had brought the
sacra of that
worship from Cnidos (
Hdt. 7.153). At
Athens the Eumolpidae held the office of hierophant of the
Eleusinian mysteries, the Eteobutadae the priesthood of Athene
Polias, the Gephyraei that of the Achaean Demeter, the Hesychidae
that of the Eumenides, the Phytalidae that of Demeter, Poseidon and
Theseus, &c. (see for these and other instances, Maury,
Rel. de la Grèce, vol. 2.387 foll.).
So too, at least in later times, it was not uncommon for a state to
grant a hereditary priesthood to one who had been a benefactor of
the cult (
C. I. G. 2448; Martha,
op. cit. p. 38). Maeandrius of Samos proposed to establish
in his family a perpetual priesthood of Zeus, as compensation for
giving up the tyranny, on the ground that he had built the temple of
the god (
Hdt. 3.142). As to the mode of
succession to the office in these cases, we know of instances in
which the eldest son succeeded (
C. I. A. 2.410;
C. I. G. 2448; Martha,
l.c.); and a Halicarnassian inscription informs us of a
priesthood in which the succession was not from father to son, but
from brother to brother, devolving to sons of the eldest brother in
order of seniority, then to sons of the next brother, and back again
to the grandsons of the eldest brother (Newton,
op. cit. p. 152). In other cases the lot seems to have
been used. Thus in the family of the Eteobutadae a priest is
mentioned as
λαχὼν ἐκ τοῦ γένους τὴν
ἱερωσύνην: in this case, however, he was able to
hand on the office to his brother, and perhaps too much stress
should not be laid on the word
λαχών (Plut.
Vit. X. Oratt. 38, 39, p.
843 F; Schömann,
Gr. Alt. 2.405). But our
knowledge on this point is still scanty.
2. Of appointment by voting we hear little. An instance seems to
occur as early as Homer (
cf. Il. 6.300,
τὴν γὰρ Τρῶες ἔθηκαν Ἀθηναίης
ἱέρειαν, with the note of the Scholiast in
Cod.
Venet. Marc. 453). Another is recorded in
C. I.
G. 2270, 18, from Delos; but this seems to have been a
preliminary selection of candidates only, and not the final
election, which was by means of the lot. At Athens, as elsewhere in
Greece, the commonest practice seems to have been to elect by lot;
and it is recommended by Plato on the ground that the lot was an
indication of he divine will (
Legg. 759 C). Virgil
was aware of the Greek custom, and describes Laocoon as
“ductus Neptuno
sorte
sacerdos”
[p. 2.571]（
Aen. 2.201). Examples are
found in inscriptions (see
C. I. A. 352 b and 567 b;
and a paper by Boeckh in
Phil. Museum, vol. ii. p.
453; also Dittenberger, No. 356, 9=
C. I. A. 489 b.).
In some cases at least, this sortition seems to have been preceded
by some kind of selection of candidates for whom the lot might be
cast. Thus in the case of the priesthood of Hercules, mentioned in
Demosth.
Eubul. l.c., it was counted an honour to
Eubulides to have been among those so selected. A somewhat similar
practice is mentioned in
Paus. 7.25,
13, in the case of a priestess at
Aegae in Achaia; and the Delian inscription quoted above (
C.
I. G. 2270; Martha, p. 32) mentions a priest of Dionysus
who was both chosen by the people and also by lot, and points
therefore in the same direction. But it does not appear whether the
selection was always by voting, or in some other way.
3. As to the practice of purchasing priesthoods, we have only in
recent years gained any adequate information. A passage of Dionysius
of Halicarnassus (2.21) had indeed suggested it, in which Romulus is
described as appointing to the Roman priesthoods neither by
putting them up for sale nor by the lot, but
in another way. In 1830 Boeckh published an inscription from
Halicarnassus (
C. I. G. 2656; Dittenberger, No. 371)
which contains a decree affecting the priestess of Artemis Pergaea,
who had purchased her priesthood; and it became evident that
Dionysius was alluding to a practice of his own city. Since that
time several other inscriptions have come to light, which show that
Halicarnassus was by no means the only place where priesthoods were
sold, and the practice is now proved for Chalcedon, Erythrae,
Andros, and Myconos (see Dittenberger, Nos. 369, 370, 371; Le-Bas
Waddington,
Asie Mineure, pp. 408 and 457). The
details of the transaction are still imperfectly understood, and
further light is needed. The inscription from Erythrae, however
(Ditt. 370), is an extremely interesting document, giving a very
long list of these purchases, and the prices paid for the
priesthoods, which ran as high as 4,600 drachmas in the case of that
of Hermes Agoraios, while others fetched comparatively small sums.
These priesthoods seem to have been put up for sale at the same
time, and could hardly have been held for life (see Lehmann,
Quaest. Sacerdot. p. 52, Königsberg,
1888; cf. also Herbrecht,
de Sacerdoti apud
Graecos venditione, Strasb. 1885); but these questions
are still under discussion. It is to be noticed that the practice,
so far as we know, was confined to Asia Minor and the islands of the
Archipelago; no instance is known at Athens, nor any of earlier date
than the 3rd century B.C. (Herbrecht, p. 6). It is probable,
therefore, that the custom arose under the financial pressure caused
by the wars among the successors of Alexander (Droysen,
Hellenismus, ii.2 p. 355;
3.191 foll.), and was found a sufficiently lucrative source of
revenue to spread rapidly (Lehmann, p. 53 foll.). It points not only
to the material advantages of the priest's position in later Greek
history, but also to a great multiplication of priesthoods, and to a
serious degeneracy in the popular estimation of the priestly office.
(The literature of this still obscure subject will be found quoted,
up to date, in Lehmann,
op. cit. p. 7.)
Duties.
These may be described as partly liturgical, partly administrative.
In no case did they include education, either moral or intellectual.
The liturgical duties would include the whole of the temple-service:
viz. the conduct of sacrifices, both those which were public (i. e.
on behalf of the state) and those offered by individuals on their
own account (see
SACRIFICIUM and Dittenb. No. 371), including the offering
of the proper prayers and invocations. How far the priest had the
exclusive right of sacrifice and prayer
in his own temple is uncertain; but there is no doubt that it was
usual for him to superintend private as well as public worship, as
being expert in the proper ritual and formulae. Thus in the parody
in
Aristoph. Birds 864 foll. it
is the priest who leads the prayer, selecting the proper epithets of
the supposed gods. (Cf. Aesch.
in Ctes. §
18, where the proper function of the priests is described as to pray
to the gods on behalf of the people; cf. also Dittenberger, 369,
371.) To these duties may also be added that of the care of the
statue of the deity to whom the temple was dedicated, which, in some
cases at least, had to be constantly washed, dressed, and served
with repasts on
τράπεζαι (Martha,
op. cit. p. 45, foll.), in accordance
with the survival of the primitive belief that the god actually
resided in the statue. Thus the priest was essentially the servant
of the god (
Serv. ad Aen. 1.73,
“dicatus est numini, hoc est ad obsequium datus
est” ; cf.
Eur. Ion 131; Poll.
1.14).
Under the head of administration may be included in the first place
the charge of the fabric and contents of the temple. In the
Chalcedonian inscription already quoted, the priest is directed
κοσμεῖν τὸν ναὸν καθ᾽
ἡμέραν, and to see that the stoa in front of it is swept
clean. He had also to see that the regulations of the temple in
respect of the conduct of worshippers were thoroughly carried out,
as we learn,
e.g., from an inscription of
Ialysus in Rhodes containing a law relating to the sacred precinct
round the temple of Alectrona (Newton,
Trans. Royal Soc.
Lit. 11.443). From Athens we have also an inscription
(
Ephem. Arch. 3139) containing a proclamation
issued by the priest of the temple of Apollo, who, in conjunction
with the demarch, is to exact a fine from anyone taking timber or
firewood from the
ἱερόν (Newton,
p. 156). The priest was thus in this case, as no doubt in many
others, joined with the civil authority in the protection of the
temple from sacrilege. But with him, as with the dean of a modern
cathedral, lay the immediate responsibility: thus we find the
priestess of Athene on the Acropolis personally withstanding
Cleomenes the Spartan king when he tried to force an entrance into
her temple (Herod, 5.73). In enforcing these rules they were in
larger temples assisted by vergers and constables under various
names (
ῥαβδοφόροι, κλειδοῦχοι, ζάκοροι,
νεωκόροι, &c.; see Martha,
op. cit. p. 88 foll.; for slaves and diaconi, Newton,
Essays, p. 165). With the more important
management of the revenues, repairs, &c., and the general
administration of the property of the temple, the priest in
historical times seems to have had little to do. The union of all
functions, liturgical and other, survived no doubt in smaller
temples in country districts (see esp.
[p. 2.572]Arist.
Pol. 6.8, 18); but in all
large cities of which we possess detailed information, the
management of sacred property had passed almost entirely into the
hands of the state by the time when inscriptions begin to be
instructive on this subject (i. e. from the latter half of the 5th
century B.C.). As the temples developed into public and also private
banks, it became impossible to make the priests responsible for
their treasures; under various names (
ταμίαι,
ἱεροποιοί, ναοποιοί, ἐπιμέληται, &c.)
public officers were appointed for the purpose not only of taking
charge of the treasures and other property, executing repairs,
&c., but for providing victims and disposing of their skins.
[On this subject, which lies outside of the scope of this article,
see articles ARGENTARII, DERMATICON,
SACRIFICIUM, and VECTIGALIA
TEMPLORUM; Schömann,
Gr. Alth. 2.397;
Homolle in
Bull. Corresp. Hell. vi. pp. 1-167 (for
Delos); Martha,
op. cit. pp. 88-114, and
Hicks,
Gr. Hist. Ins. p. 88 foll. (for Athens);
Dittenberger, No. 294 (for Delphi); Newton, p. 154.]
On the whole it may be concluded that the later the age the more
strictly ritualistic do the priest's duties become; and it is
significant that in one inscription, of a date not long before the
Roman empire, the conditions under which the priesthood is sold
include a rule that even the fees paid in by worshippers in the
temple of Artemis are to be under the charge, not of the priestess,
but of
ἐξετασταί, i. e. auditors
(Dittenb. No. 371, line 30, foll.).
Privileges.
In return for their duties, the advantages of the priests were
considerable. At all times they were held in high honour, and their
persons were deemed inviolable. Homer, as we saw, describes them as
honoured by the people like gods (
Il.
5.78,
16.605). When
Cleomenes insulted a priest at Argos, he was considered mad (
Hdt. 6.81 and 84). When Alexander sold the
Thebans into slavery, he excepted the priests only (Aelian,
Ael. VH 13.7). At Athens, where we know
most about their position, they were reckoned as equal to the
magistrates, accompanied them in public processions, and had seats
of honour with them at the dramatic representations (
C. I.
A. 2.410, 589; Martha, p. 128 f.); facts which are not
astonishing if it be remembered that the distinction between
magistrate and priest was not clearly conceived in the earliest
times, nor at any time so sharp as that to which we are ourselves
used. Decrees of special honours awarded them are not uncommon in
inscriptions (
C. I. G. 1063, 2270, 2462;
C. I.
A. 2.410, 589). In many cases they enjoyed a house
adjoining the temple (
Od. 9.200;
Paus. 2.11,
6;
10.34,
7); whether this was so, however, at Athens and in large
cities, may be doubted (Martha, p. 119). Lastly, they had certain
perquisites arising from sacrifices, which must have formed a
considerable source of income. These are described in many
inscriptions from various parts of Greece, and show a great variety
of usage in respect of the portion of the victim which fell to the
priest; generally, however, these were the skin and legs, and often
the tongue (Dittenb. 373, 376, 379;
C. I. A. 610,
631;
Journ. of Hellenic Studies, vol. ix. p. 328; and
article
SACRIFICIUM). These perquisites were apparently universal in
the case of private sacrifices, and fees paid on these occasions are
also mentioned (
C. I. G. 2656; Newton, p. 158); but
at Athens, when public sacrifices of a great number of victims were
offered at one time, the skins were sold for the state (Martha, p.
123 foll.; Boeckh,
Staatsh. Appendix viii. and viii.
b; DERMATICON). They were also enriched by
the offerings of fruits, cakes, &c., constantly brought by
worshippers for the use of the god, which, believed by primitive man
to be consumed by the god himself, had gradually come to be regarded
in Greece, as elsewhere, as the priest's perquisite (see esp.
Aristoph. Pl. 676). In some few
cases, but apparently only in later times, they were empowered to
collect money (Dittenb. 369, 371, 393; for the priests of Cybele,
Cic. de Leg. 2.9,
21). They must, therefore, have had ample means of amassing wealth;
and this is confirmed both by the monetary value of priesthoods
noticed above, by the competition for them, and by the evidence we
possess from inscriptions of valuable endowments presented by some
of them to their temples (Newton, p. 161).
In conformity with their general character as a part of the
community, and not distinct from it, the Greek priests wore no dress
that can be called distinctive. The wreath on the head, with which
the priest always appears in vase-paintings and sculptures, was worn
by all persons when sacrificing, and was as much the mark of the
magistrate as the priest. These wreaths seem to have been often
taken from the tree sacred to the deity to whom the sacrifice was
made; thus the laurel was used in the worship of Apollo
(Bötticher,
Baumkultus, p. 313). The
hierophant and daduchus of Eleusis wore also a
στρόφιον or head-band (Arrian,
Epictet. 3.21, 16), and also wore their hair long, a
practice which seems to have been not uncommon (
Plut. Arist. 5). On the monuments
priests generally appear in a long chiton, of the old-fashioned kind
discarded by the Athenians in the Periclean age; so the priest and
priestess of Athene appear in the frieze of the Parthenon. Such a
chiton would seem also to have been worn by the Pythia of Delphi, as
appears from a vase-painting of which a cut is given in Baumeister's
Denkm. p. 1110. These garments were certainly as
a rule white. This is what Plato enjoins in the Laws (956 A); and it
is also enjoined on the initiated in the mysteries of Andania
(Dittenberger, 388, 17). Thus Plutarch, writing of the son of Aratus
offering sacrifice at his father's grave, mentions, as an exception
to the general rule, that he wore a
στρόφιον which was not entirely white (
Plut. Arat. 57; Id.
Arist. 21). A more ornamental dress, both as to
colour and adornment, seems to have been occasionally worn in later
times, e. g. at the Eleusinian mysteries (Maury,
op. cit. 2.400), and purple is mentioned as early as
Aeschylus (in the cult of the dead:
Eum. 982; cf. Schömann,
Gr. Alt.
2.412). But in most cases where the dress is peculiar, we may
suspect that the priest or priestess is
personating the deity to whom sacrifices are offered. This
may be so in the case of Iphigeneia as priestess of Artemis
represented on a vase (Baumeister, p. 757; cf.
Paus. 10.24,
4). The
[p. 2.573]aegis of Athene was worn on certain
occasions by her priestess at Athens (Suidas, s. v.
αἰγίς). For this class of practices,
which in some cases seems to have a totemistic origin, see F. Back,
de Graecorum caerimoniis in quibus homines
deorum vice fungebantur, Berlin, 1883; Hermann,
Gr. Alth. ii. sec. 35.
There remains the question whether the Greek priest was consecrated
to the service of his deity by any kind of ceremony. If such
ceremony existed, we hear nothing certain of it. Lucian, indeed,
mentions the
ὁσίωσις of the
hierophant and daduchus of the Eleusinian mysteries
(
Lexiph. 10); and in the Chalcedonian inscription
already quoted the word
ἄνθεσις =
ἀνἀθεσις indicates some kind
of dedication of the priest; either an inauguration only, as
Dittenberger thinks (p. 524 note), or a dedication to the god of the
kind by which slaves at Delphi and elsewhere were made over to the
service of the temple (Herbrecht,
op. cit.
p. 33). Whatever was the ceremony at Chalcedon, it is at least
significant that the word
ἀνατιθέναι is habitually used of dedicating objects by
way of gift in the temples, and the inference would seem to be that
the priest himself was reckoned as the property of the god; a notion
which falls in sufficiently well with the other facts which have
been already mentioned in the foregoing account.
PRIESTS AT ROME.
An account of the several Roman priesthoods will be found in the articles
on PONTIFICES, AUGURES, FLAMINES, &c.;
it will be sufficient here to give a brief outline of the history of the
Roman priesthood generally, in order to compare it with the Greek
sacerdotal system. In the earliest times it is probable that the Roman
idea of a priest and his duties differed but little from that of the
Greeks; he was assigned to the worship of a particular god and exercised
no direct political influence. The general name for such priests was
flamen (i. e. kindler of sacrificial fire), and they continued in
existence with gradually decaying importance to the latest times. But
their influence was steadily overshadowed by that of those great
colleges which we always associate with religious government in Roman
antiquity, especially the pontifices and augurs; and thus a new element
was introduced which is quite foreign to anything we have met with in
Greece. It is a curious fact that at the very time (the end of the
monarchy and first age of the Republic) when Rome was becoming
penetrated by Greek religious ideas, the simple and unpolitical priestly
system which survived in Greece was giving way to a new development
which was distinctly Roman and political. It is the history of this
change which we must be content to trace here.
Period of the Monarchy.
Every Roman was the priest of his own household [
SACRA], and every action
of the household had its religious aspect. In the state we see the
same leading feature, that the rex was priest for the whole people.
This is sufficiently proved (1) by the appointment of the rex
sacrorum when the monarchy came to an end, in order to keep up the
virtue of certain sacrifices which had been performed by the king;
(2) by the position of the pontifex maximus from the outset of the
Republic: his office was in the king's house [
REGIA], the flamens and vestals were in his
patria potestas, and it was he who
succeeded the rex in most of his religious functions.
To maintain, then, the full rights of the god as against the state,
i. e. to fulfil in the minutest detail the state's duties towards
the gods, was a most important part of the king's sphere of action;
and here we get at once the germ of the whole Roman conception of a
public cult, which was maintained consistently throughout Roman
history. The gods are always in direct relation to the state and to
its magistrates. They are regarded as interested in the state as a
state, and as calling for the fulfilment of duty from the state in
the person of its appointed rulers. (This point may be illustrated
by reference to the significant fact that the property belonging to
the temples was not managed by the priests, but by the magistrates.
See Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, ii.2 1,
60 foll.)
In the earliest form of the state the king and his household may have
sufficed for the performance of these duties. His unmarried
daughters were the vestals who attended to the sacred fire of the
state in the king's house (Frazer,
Journal of
Philology, vol. 14.154 foll.); and the origin of flamines
may be traced to the king's sons, whose duties were to kindle the
sacrificial fire for the worship of particular deities, e. g.
Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus, &c. Such at least is a fair
inference from the fact that, as was mentioned above, both flamens
and vestals were in the
patria potestas
of the rex, as afterwards of the pontifex maximus. This was the
earliest form of state worship so far as we can guess it; for
further details as to the religious duties of the king, see
REX
It is obvious that as the state increased in size and began to come
into collision with its neighbours, i. e. as the judicial and
military duties of the king grew more complex, he would find it more
difficult to fulfil with the necessary precision the state's duties
towards the gods. Thus already in the regal period we hear of the
introduction, generally ascribed to Numa by the Romans themselves,
of certain colleges of priests besides the vestals and flamens.
Dionysius (
2.64,
70 foll.) mentions the AUGURES, PONTIFICES, SALII, FETIALES, and
TRIBUNI CELERUM, to which may
certainly be added the FRATRES ARVALES and
SODALES TITII. He also mentions the
thirty curiones or priests of the Curiae (see
CURIA and
SACRA), but these were not state priests in
the strict sense of the word.
None of these priesthoods, however, had any great influence on Roman
history, or contributed to the great change in the religious system
which took place in the period of the Republic. In order to
understand this, we must turn to the Pontifices and the Augurs.
It is not possible to determine with certainty what part was played
by these two colleges under the monarchy, or to what extent they
were, strictly speaking,
sacerdotes at
all (Mommsen,
Hist. 1.177). They may
have formed bodies of advisers of the king on religious matters of
importance; and the king was probably at the head of each of them,
and chose them himself from the patrician gentes, to which all
priesthoods then and for long afterwards were confined (Marquardt,
iii.2 240 foll.; Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, ii.3 24 foll.).
The Augurs, we may presume, advised the king, or acted for him
[p. 2.574]in all the minute lore of the old Italian
ritual of dedication and inauguration [see
TEMPLUM and AUSPICIA]; the Pontifices. in all matters of the
jus divinum, i.e. of the laws of marriage,
burial, portents, and general religious supervision (
Liv. 1.20). For detailed information about
these colleges, references may be made to the separate articles. It
is easy to see how with the rapid development of the state under the
last two kings, and with the admission of the Plebs to a voice in
the government, the increase of territory and the consequent
admission of new cults, the administration both of the
auspicia and the
jus
divinum must have tended to pass more and more from
the king into the hands of these experts. And it is in this way that
we must explain their rapid rise to power when the Republic came to
an end.
Period of the Republic.
Three great, though gradual, changes are to be noted in this period.
The first of these is the natural development of the influence of
the Pontifices and Augurs, which was already on the increase towards
the close of the Monarchical period, and the corresponding decay of
the purely sacrificial priesthoods. So long as the king was the
centre of all state religion, appointing and controlling the
priests, and being himself of their number, it had been impossible
for them to acquire any overpowering political influence; but when
the state came to be governed by yearly elected magistrates, who
could not be specially trained in religious law or lore, a great
opportunity was offered to the experts both in the
jus divinum and in the
ritus auspiciorum, of which full advantage was taken.
The Pontifices became the advisers of the republican magistrates on
all technical matters relating to religious law, and thus gained a
permanent hold on the state machinery as well as on the private life
of individuals.
Secondly, we have to note the rise to power in this period of a third
great priesthood, already instituted by the last king, which
henceforth ranked with the Pontifices and Augurs as one of the three
great religious collegia,--the
decemviri (at
first
duoviri, later
quindecimviri)
sacris
faciundis. [See
DECEMVIRI Vol. I. p. 601;
SIBYLLINI LIBRI]
Thirdly, the decay of the older priesthoods in this period is hardly
less striking than the gradual development of the power of the three
great colleges. So long as the Romans retained something of their
native religious feeling, these priesthoods no doubt kept a certain
hold on the popular mind; but as new forms of religion came in, as
the pontifical theology adapted itself to them, and as Rome advanced
in conquest and the absorption of foreigners, they were left, as it
were, stranded, and void of meaning. Towards the close of the
Republic they began to disappear altogether, and we have the
singular historical phenomenon of obsolete curiosities like the
Flamen Dialis and the Fratres Arvales being restored at the
beginning of the Empire, when once more the general supervision of
the state religion was concentrated in the hands of a monarch. One
only of these priesthoods retained its life and prestige almost
undiminished throughout the whole of Roman history--that of the
Vestal virgins; a fact that can be explained partly by its feminine
character, which kept it out of all competition for political
influence, and still more by the nature of the worship of Vesta as
the religious focus of the state-life, and the legends which in the
popular fancy connected it with the foundation of the city.
There were other changes of a more technical character in this
period, besides those which immediately affected the relative
importance of the several priesthoods. While the offices of Rex
sacrorum and the older sacrificial priesthoods were always confined
to patricians, the three great collegia were in course of time
thrown open to plebeians also. With the gradual equalisation of the
orders, it was found that those had grown too politically important
to escape the plebeianising of the secular magistracy. The
democratic changes first in the number of members in these collegia
and the admission of plebeians, and secondly in substituting
election for the more exclusive cooptation, have been detailed in
the articles AUGUR, DECEMVIRI, and
PONTIFEX Thus the great
Roman priesthoods were in this period steadily carried along by the
full force of the political current to which they owed their power,
while the more antiquated ones left the centre of the stream and
were gradually stranded. And thus also it came about that the Roman
religion and its ministers, though having to deal with matters so
technical and a sacred law so minute as apparently to offer every
chance for the growth of a powerful priestly caste, never became
dissociated from the state, or from the public life and interests of
the individual citizen; and Cicero could boast with truth that there
was no grander principle in the constitution than that which placed
the best men in the state at the head at once of the religious
system and of the political machinery (
de Dom. 1, 1).
And this in spite of the fact that the priesthood and the magistracy
were as such entirely dissociated from each other in Roman
constitutional law; no priest having by virtue of his office any
direct hold upon the state-machinery, and no magistrate having any
part in the state's religious functions (Mommsen,
op. cit. pp. 17 foll.). This was the republican theory;
and though towards the end of that period there were signs of its
collapse (as in the details of the new system of election), it
maintained itself on the whole until further great changes took
place on the establishment of the Empire.
(For the relation of the
haruspices to
the priesthoods during the Republic, see Marquardt,
Staatsverw. 3.410; they were not properly a
priesthood, and are here omitted from consideration. For what little
is known of the municipal priesthoods of Italy in this period, see
the same work, pp. 475 foll.)
Period of the Empire.
The history of the priesthood under the Empire is a subject of great
difficulty, and as yet imperfectly investigated. It must suffice
here to give a brief outline, which may partly be filled up from the
works of Mommsen and Marquardt already quoted, Henzen's
Acta
Fratrum Arvalium, and especially from a tract by P.
Habel,
de pontificum Romanorum inde ab Augusto
usque ad Aurelianum condicione publica. Popular
accounts of particular aspects will be found in Boissier,
Religion Romaine, vol. i., and
Friedländer,
[p. 2.575]Sittengeschichte, vol. iii. Cp. also
Bouche-Leclercq,
Les Pontifes. But no work can be
done in this period without constant reference to the
Corpus Inscriptionum, and the best works on
coins of the period.
The subject falls into three divisions: 1. The union of the existing
priesthoods in the person of the emperor; 2. The new priesthoods
connected in Italy and the provinces with the worship of the
emperors; 3. The priesthoods of the foreign worships introduced in
the period.
1. The union of the existing priesthoods in the person of the
emperor
Julius Caesar was already pont. max. when he attained to supreme
power. Augustus waited until the death of Lepidus, who had
succeeded Julius, and was not elected till B.C. 11 (
Mon.
Ancyr. ed. Mommsen, p. 28). From that time onwards
the office was not only an invariable accompaniment of the
imperium, but was reckoned at the head of all the other offices
(Mommsen,
Staatsr, 2.19), and in the title
followed the
cognomina immediately.
With this the emperor also held the augurship, and was a member
of the other two great collegia of the
quindecimviri and the
epulones (Marquardt, 222); and the same policy was
pursued, in a greater or less degree according to the standing
of the individual, with regard to his sons or other male
relatives (Habel,
Caesares, p. 60
f.). In his hands also, directly or indirectly, was the power of
filling up vacant places in these colleges (
D. C. 42.51); and thus it may be said
without exaggeration that the days of the early monarchy had
returned, and that the union of the secular and religious powers
in the state was complete. It must, however, be remembered that
these great priesthoods had by this time done their work, and
that we rarely find instances of their being put by their
imperial holders to any important practical use. They served to
increase the
dignitas rather than
the
potestas of the emperor, who
was seldom present at meetings of the collegia, and the actual
work, such as it was, was probably done by substitutes (
promagistri, Habel, 90). Even in the
case of the supreme pontificate, which alone might be regarded
as exercising a great influence over the life of Roman citizens
so long as questions of adoption, sepulture, &c., could
arise, it is hard to prove this influence by actual examples
(see, however,
Tac. Ann. 4.16,
6.12; Plin.
Epp. ad
Traj. 68). We must in fact regard them as little
more than useful ornaments; but as ornaments which increased
their prestige, and carried it into the remotest parts of the
Empire. In the same way the right of filling up the
collegia became a powerful source of
patronage, and served to secure the goodwill and allegiance of
important personages and their families, without giving them
burdensome duties. (
Agricola, e.g.,
was many years absent from Rome after his appointment to the
pontificate: Tac.
Agr. 9.) Thus it was an object
of ambition to secure one of these priesthoods, and we have the
evidence, both of historians and inscriptions, that they were
valued at a higher rate even than magistracies (Habel, 88, and
reff.). Thus the greater priesthoods of the Republic were
absorbed into the personal equipment and patronage of the
emperors, and so continued, gradually losing more and more of
their original use and meaning, until Christianity became the
state religion. Meanwhile the more antique priesthoods, which we
left in a state of decay at the end of the republican
period--the Rex Sacrorum, Flamines, Fratres Arvales, Salii,
Sodales Titii, &c. [see under the separate
articles]--had been revived indeed by Augustus, according to his
policy of renovating and completing the religious outfit of the
state, and thus satisfying the popular feeling for a better
service of the gods; but in most cases they survived, not so
much by pursuing their original ritual as by transforming it to
suit the worship of their patrons (Marquardt, 3.438), and may
thus be better noticed under the next heading.
2. The new priesthoods connected in Italy and the provinces
with the worship of the emperors.
The most striking feature of the religious history of the Empire,
viz. the deification of the emperor, naturally produced new
priesthoods, the importance of which, both in regard to society
in the capital and organisation in the provinces, forms a
complete study in itself, and can only be very briefly alluded
to here. In Rome and Italy, it was the policy of Augustus to
discourage his own worship (Suet.
Oct. 52;
D. C. 52.35); but inscriptions show
that in spite of this there was an unauthorised cult of him even
in his lifetime in several Italian cities, presided over by
flamines or
sacerdotes (flamen being the general word in use
in municipia), e. g. in Pisa, Praeneste, Pompeii, Beneventum
(Marquardt, 3.465, note 1). Later on this cult was organised in
all the municipia of Italy, in conjunction with that of other
emperors, and was maintained by
flamines together with
Augustales, a kind of sacred guild belonging chiefly
to the inferior classes, but invested apparently with a certain
priestly character (
C. I. L. 5.3386;
AUGUSTALES).
After the death of Augustus, Tiberius pursued the policy of
declining divine honours for himself, while on the whole he
encouraged the worship of his predecessor; and in the first year
of his reign (A.D. 14) was established the famous priesthood
which was specially intended in Italy to maintain the cult of
Augustus [
AUGUSTALES], which reckoned thenceforward as one of the
great priesthoods, and received as its symbol the
bucranium, answering to the
simpulum of the pontifices, the
patera of the
epulones, &c. In its sphere was included
the worship of Claudius, the next emperor who was deified, and
then we hear of Sodales Augustales Claudiales; later on again of
a new priesthood on the same model for the worship of Vespasian,
and afterwards of Titus (Sodales Flaviales Titiales), and so
also with that of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, so that the number
of these priesthoods became eventually four, the last
established serving for the cult of later emperors (Marquardt,
3.479 foll.; Dessau in
Eph. Epigr. 3.205 f.;
Desjardins, in
Revue de Philologie, 3.33 f.).
Thus, even in Rome and Italy, not only did the emperors absorb
into their own persons and families the dignity and prestige of
the great existing priesthoods, but they enjoyed the advantage
arising from an organised priestly worship of their
predecessors, with the anticipation of the same honour for
themselves afterdeath. And, with the same object as was
mentioned under the last head, the ancient sacrificial
priesthoods revived by Augustus were made to contribute, so that
throughout the whole range of priestly functions the new
political system
[p. 2.576]and the new turn
given to religion were alike everywhere present. Thus the name
of Augustus was included in the
Saliare
Carmen used by the Salii (
Mon.
Ancyr. p. 27), and this honour was also paid to several
later emperors and members of the imperial families. The
LUPERCI had a new
collegium gentilicium added to them in B.C. 44, that of the
Luperci Julii, which continued far into the Empire. The Sodales
Titii numbered Augustus and Claudius among their members, and
were under obligations to Vespasian (Marquardt, 447). But it is
from the fortunate discovery of the inscriptions of the Arval
Brotherhood that we gain far the most insight into the way in
which all kinds of religious ceremony were pressed into the
service of the Empire; and a study of Henzen's
Acta
Fratrum Arvalium is perhaps the best introduction to
a study of the new system [see
ARVALES FRATRES]. Thus the odour of
sanctity adhering to the oldest rural priesthood of the
primitive Romans was made to contribute to the lustre of the
latest imperial system, even down to the time of Constantine and
his sons, and after Christianity had become the recognised
religion of the Empire (Marquardt, 462).
In the
provinces the priesthoods of
the new worship came to be of very great importance. It was here
the policy of Augustus to associate his own cultus with that of
Dea Roma; and this conjunction
was steadily retained and systematised, and is to be carefully
distinguished from all other forms of the apotheosis which made
their way into the provinces. (See Desjardins, in
Rev. de
Philol. 1879, pp. 42, 63.) In almost every province
we find a
sacerdos (or
flamen)
Romae et
Augusti provinciae; the priestly title is found in
numberless inscriptions under various forms, both in Latin and
Greek (
ἀρχιερεύς), and occurs
in a shortened form as simply
sacerdos
provinciae. This great priest was elected yearly
(in most provinces, but for Asia see W. M. Ramsay in
Classical Review, vol. iii. p. 175) by the
general meeting of representatives from the various cities of
the province (
communia, concilia,
κοινά), from persons of
consideration among the provincials, and was charged with
important duties, such as the collection and management of the
funds for the temples of the cult, the presidency of the games,
and also of the assemblies of
legati just mentioned [
NEOCORI]. Of this assembly he was also
the immediate representative in all communications with the
emperor, and was thus independent even of the provincial
governor. His importance in the development of the imperial
system can hardly be over-estimated. (Desjardins,
l.c.; P. Giraud,
Les
Assemblées Provinciales, Paris, 1888;
Marquardt,
Staatsv. 1.366;
Ephem.
Epigr. 1.200 f.)
The cities of the provinces, as well as the
communia or
κοινά, possessed priests of the worship of Rome and
Augustus: this was at least the case in the African provinces,
where they constantly occur in inscriptions under the titles of
“flamen Augusti,”
“flamen Augusti perpetuus,” or
“flamen” simply. As these appear to have been
elected yearly, it is probable that the epithet
“perpetuus” indicated an honorary rank conferred in
some cases on the holder.
Flaminicae also occur, as in the worship of the
Divi in Italy. The word
sacerdos is also found in these
inscriptions, but it is uncertain whether these were identical
with the flamines. These municipal priesthoods may be considered
as a subordinate part of the main provincial organisation of the
worship of Rome and the emperors, and distinct from that of the
Divi, which is found in the provinces also (Desjardins,
op. cit. 55 f.;
FLAMEN).
In the 4th century A.D., after the
establishment of Christianity by the state, these titles, under
the forms of
sacerdotales and
flamines perpetui, constantly
occur, though their original meaning had vanished; and it is
supposed that they indicated some dignity or honorary rank in
the Ordo or Senate of a municipium (Desjardins,
l.c.); i.e. they are no more than the
civil survival of a once living religious organisation. It was
in fact in the first three centuries of the Empire that these
priesthoods were working realities in the imperial system; and
both the nature of the cult and of their duties would enable
them easily either to survive as nonreligious titles or to
disappear entirely. But the process by which these changes were
effected is not yet fully investigated.
3. The priesthoods of the foreign worships introduced in the
Empire.
Some reference must be made here, in general terms, to the
priests of the foreign worships which found their way to Rome
and Italy in the first three centuries of the Empire. In a
priesthood are usually found expressed the leading
characteristics of a religion, as we have already seen both in
Greece and Italy; and the success of a new form of priesthood
indicates the presence of a new type of religious feeling. The
Roman world, now become cosmopolitan, had outgrown the narrow
formulae of the native religion, and the Roman priesthood had
become first political, then imperial, in its character. Ever
since the attempted introduction of the Bacchic rites in the 2nd
century B.C., it had been obvious that
there was a growing desire in Italy for some more emotional form
of worship, which that priesthood could not supply, and which
could not be satisfied even with the continuous invasion of
Greek rites under the influence of the Sibylline books and their
keepers. The Roman priests had little or no desire or
opportunity of inculcating virtue; the notions of sin,
penitence, regeneration, brotherhood, were wholly foreign to
their worship, or at best were present there in a fossilised
form, and had reference to the state rather than the individual.
These were exactly the ideas which ruled in the Oriental forms
of religion which the Romans met with as their empire extended
itself in the East; and these, transported to Italy and even
further west, found there a congenial soil. It is the tendency
of all such worships to magnify the influence and mystic power
of the priesthood; and thus the last type of priest which we
find in the ancient world before the final victory of
Christianity was, in its relations with individuals, the most
powerful and efficacious of all the series. So much was this the
case, that the priestly defenders of the old religion against
Christianity frequently found it politic to, clothe themselves
also with the attributes of one of these more effective
priesthoods (Boissier,
Religion Romaine, 1.445).
Among these may be mentioned--
- 1. The priests of Cybele or the Magna Mater, whose
worship was introduced as early as 208 B.C., but did [p. 2.577]not take its most emotional form till the
period we are now dealing with [see MEGALESIA]. Of the same character were the famous
TAUROBOLIA, where the
priest (taurobolus) underwent a
baptism in the blood of the victim, the virtue of which
he then communicated to others.
- 2. Another cult in which the priestly power was great
was that of the Cappadocian Bellona, who even in republican times had
usurped the place and name of an old Italian goddess.
The priests and priestesses of this deity walked the
city robed in black (Mart.
12.57), wounding themselves as a sacrificial act:
“ipsi sacerdotes non alieno sed suo cruore
sacrificant” (Lact. Inst.
1.21, 16; cf. Tib. 1.6, 45).
- 3. But the most striking of all these priesthoods was
that of Isis and other Egyptian deities, especially
noticeable for the important share obtained in it by
women (one of the characteristic features of the
religion of the age); for the licence practised in its
rites, as described by Juvenal (6.522 foll.); and on the
other hand for the asceticism it preached, and its
doctrines of conviction of sin and the necessity of
purification and atonement. There can hardly be a doubt
that these priests really believed their initiations and
fastings to have a real power of bringing the worshipper
nearer to a knowledge of the divine nature, and of
leading him “ad portum quietis et aram
misericordiae” (Apul. Met.
11.15); and it is only thus that the marvellous spread
of this cult even to the western provinces of the Empire
can be accounted for (see Marquardt, 3.77; Boissier,
R. R. 1.398, 418). The same
tendencies are also seen in the cults of Jupiter of
Heliopolis, and especially in that of the Persian
sun-god Mithras, so famous in the third and fourth
centuries of the Empire. In all the priests are
all-powerful and all-persuasive; working privately and
independently of the state; having a definite yet mystic
doctrine to preach, and preaching it to all comers
without respect of persons; and lastly with a graduated
process of initiation, amounting to a veritable
discipline. As all these features were almost wholly
absent from the Roman notion of a priesthood, there
arose by degrees and spread over the whole Empire an
entirely new idea of the priestly office and its duties;
and this, eventually coinciding with the old Roman idea
of a state religion, pointed out earlier in this
article, paved the way for an official recognition in
the fourth century of an organised Christian
hierarchy.
[
W.W.F]
