COLLEGIA FUNERATICIA. – Term coined by Theodor Mommsen (De Collegii, p. 91) to designate ancient Roman “brotherhoods” or corporations established chiefly to provide for the funeral rites and burial of their members.
I. ORIGINS
Already during the republican period there existed guilds of artisans whose members had in common not only their craft or profession but also their tomb (e.g., collegium anularium, CIL, I, 1107; CIL, VI, 9144; restionum, CIL, VI, 9856; tibizinum, CIL, VI, 3877). Since certain guilds of artisans, even in the imperial age, bore religious names, it is likely that they also had a funerary character (e.g., collegium Salutare, Bull. arch. com., 1885, p. 51, pl. 6; collegium Sanctissimum, CIL, VI, 404; collegium Victoriae Augustae, CIL, III 1365, etc.). We have evidence of the existence of guilds with exclusively religious and funerary purposes only in the imperial period: these were the collegia tenuiorum (Marcian, Dig., XLVII, 22), associations that arose in the Augustan age and brought together people of modest means (clients, freedmen, slaves), with the dual purpose of venerating a common protective deity and ensuring a suitable burial for their deceased members.Contrary to Mommsen’s opinion (loc. cit.), which identifies all c. f. with these collegia tenuiorum, it must be held that other varieties of the former also existed; all the more so since Commodian’s assertion (Instruct., II, 33, 12) that people joined pagan guilds in order to receive sumptuous funerals presupposes the existence also of c. f. made up of people of considerable means. There were, moreover, as has been said, several guilds that had a funerary character as well, though not exclusively.
II. PURPOSES AND CHARACTERISTICS
The principal purpose of the c. f., which, it seems, comprised a limited number of members, was to constitute a “mutual provident fund” (arca communis) for the expenses of worship and burial of the members (sodales). This was accomplished through the payment by each associate of a fixed monthly contribution (funeraticum) into the aforementioned fund. The collegium, in turn, undertook to pay, upon the death of one of its members, a “benefit” to the latter’s heirs to cover the expenses of the funeral and burial. At the same time, the collegium performed worship of the deity whose name it bore. Like all authorized collegia, these too could have at their disposal a meeting room or place (schola, templum) and a burial place or a common sepulchral monument for all their members, sometimes also for the women and children of their family (CIL, VI, 9384, 9569; IX, 584, etc.). Slaves also belonged to the collegia, subject to the authorization of their masters (Dig. 6, 6).III. LEGAL REGULATION
The functioning of each of the c. f. was governed by a specific body of legal rules, constituting a true “statute.” Information on this is provided by the regulations concerning the Lanuvian college of the Cultores Dianae et Antinoi, established in A.D. 133 (CIL, XIV, 2112), and by the legal sources.The members of the college could not meet more than once a month, lest they abuse the authorization granted to them (Marciano, Dig., I, XLVII, tit. XXII, leg. 1, n. 1); but for religious purposes (e.g. sacred banquets) they could meet whenever they wished, provided always that they did not engage in unlawful conduct. The right to funeral rites and burial was conditional upon payment of the monthly contribution (stips mentrus) to the college treasury. Anyone who had failed to pay this contribution for 6 or more months lost the right to the benefit (CIL, X, 1579) or was expelled from the college. If the majority of the members proved to be in default, the college was obliged to dissolve. In the event of insolvency, the college could be sued by one of its members or by the heir of one of them; conversely, a college member’s creditor could not assert claims against the college, except when the member had assigned his right for half of the inheritance (CIL, XIV, 2112).
Only the testamentary heir was entitled to the funeral benefit; if a member died intestate, the college itself directly arranged the funeral. If he died parietus (CIL, XIV, 2112, lin. 26), he was entitled to 300 sesterces for his funeral, of which 50 were distributed ad vagus (sic) exequiri nomine. If he died more than 20 miles from his municipality and his death could have been announced, the college had to choose three “commissioners” from among its members to travel to the place, arrange the funeral, and render an account of the expenses incurred (ibid., lin. 26-29). Anyone who died by suicide, whatever reason had motivated him, lost the right to funeral rites (ibid., lin. 5).
Generally, the college itself took charge of the funerals (CIL, V, 4504, 7869; VI, 9384; VII, 49; XII, 732, 736, 1189, 5874); the members were obliged to attend them, under penalty of a fine for anyone who failed to do so (CIL, XIV, 2112; Eph. epigraphica, 5, 1884, 498). If the member had made a will, the college, relieving itself of its obligations, entrusted them to the instituted heir (CIL, XIV, 2112, II, lin. 1-9). In craftsmen’s colleges, the funerary monument often appears to have been erected by an heres et conlega (or procurator, CIL, III, 196, 265; VI, 8809, etc.) who had undoubtedly received the funeral “benefit.”
IV. RELIGIOUS CHARACTER
The fundamental concept informing the genesis of these c. f. is essentially religious in nature, since in ancient Roman civilization funeral rites are closely connected with beliefs about the afterlife, and the burial of the dead is the essential condition for the peace of their spirits.Alongside the worship of deceased members, the cult of the eponymous deity (e.g., collegium Aesculapii, Iovis Corneni, etc.) was practiced in the c. f., as has been stated; with respect to this deity, the members are called cultores (e.g., collegium cultorum Dianae et Antinoi, CIL, III, 926). Deceased members were honored on certain annual solemn occasions by the adornment of their tombs and commemorative banquets; the latter are often alluded to by the designations of the members (comestores, CIL, IX, 3693; convictores, CIL, III, 1825; CIL, IX, 5383; qui una epulo vesci solent, CIL, XI, 6244; sodales ex symposio, CIL, V, 6492). The wealthier members of the collegia sometimes made bequests for this purpose. The greatest diffusion of these c. f. in Italy and in the Latin provinces of the Empire coincides with the course of the second century A.D. Few examples are known in Africa; in the East and in the Greek provinces they are unknown. During the imperial age, in relation to the particular social conditions of their members, more complex forms arose, such as collegia of legionaries, which also provided for needs other than burial, such as travel expenses, etc. (Vegetius, in Salmasius, De usuris, p. 46; L. Renier, Inscriptions romaines de l'Algérie, Paris 1855–1886, pp. 60–70).
To explain the origins of Church property in the period (second century A.D.) when Christianity was officially proscribed, G. B. De Rossi proposed the theory that Christians took advantage of the legislation concerning pagan c. f., presenting their communities under this guise. But this theory is undermined by a set of circumstances: the Christians’ reluctance to pass themselves off as members of the pagan c. f., which they opposed (cf. Tertullian, Apolog., 39); the contradiction involved for Christians in placing themselves under the protection of a law that they would have violated by concealing an illicit association; and the difficulty of disguising as pagan c. f., normally composed of only a few dozen persons, a body numbering several thousand faithful. Finally, no literary or epigraphic documentation supports this theory. It is certain, however, that the collegia tenuiorum disappeared with the spread of Christianity, since the Church itself directly provided for the burial of the poor. By the time of Justinian, there should no longer have been any trace of c. f. On the various theories advanced by scholars to explain the Church’s juridical position during the first three centuries, V. CHIESA (A, I, VI).
BIRL.: On the c. f. and the collegia tenuiorum: Th. Mommsen, De collegis et sodalici Romanorum, Kiel 1843; L. Cohn, Zum römischen Vereinsrecht, Berlin 1873; G. B. De Rossi, I collegi funeratici famigliari e privati e le loro denominazioni, in Commentationes philol. in hon. Mommsen, Berlin 1877, p. 705 ff.; J. Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, III, Berlin 1881–83, passim; F. Schiess, Die römischen C. F. nach den Anschriften, Munich 1888; W. Liebermann, Zur Geschichte und Organisation des römischen Vereinswesens, Leipzig 1890; J. P. Waltzing, Etude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains depuis les origines jusqu'à le chute de l'Empire d'Occident, Brussels 1895–96; G. Boissier, La religion romaine d'Anguste aux Antonins, II, Paris 1908; A. De Vincenti, Fumis, in De Ruggiero, Dis. epigr., III, fasc. 1, p. 349; G. Humbert, in Daremberg-Saglio, Dict. Antiq., I, cols. 1203; E. Kornermann, Collegium, in Pauly-Wissowa, IV, 1, col. 387; G. M. Monti, Le corporazioni nell'evo antico e nell'alto medioevo, Bari 1934, pp. 247–287; A. Solmi, Corporazioni, in Enc. Ital., XI (1931), pp. 480–83. On De Rossi’s theory concerning the collegia tenuiorum: G. B. De Rossi, Roma Batterrana cristiana, I, Rome 1864, p. 101; II, ibid. 1869, p. viii; id., Bull. arch. crist., 2 (1864), p. 57; 3 (1865), p. 90. Against it: L. Duchesne, Hist. anc. de l'Eglise, I, Paris 1906, pp. 384–87; J.-P. Waltzing, C., in DACL, III, II, cols. 2107–2140; Fliche-Martin-Fruta, II (1938), p. 415. Maurizio Borda