mithraism in the private and public lives

8/13/2019 Mithraism in the Private and Public Lives

1/24

Mithraism in the private and public lives of 4th-c. senators in Rome*

A well-known series of inscribed dedications to Magna Mater from the Vatican

Phrygianum also attests the participation of late 4th-c.1

Roman senators in the cult of Mithras.

This group of dedications is intriguing for many reasons, not the least of which is that it attests

the devotion of senators to Mithras for the first time in the centuries-long history of the cult.

Years ago Reinhold Merkelbach advanced the view that the Mithraism these senators practiced

differed from that of earlier centuries, although he may have overstated his case when he denied

that the Magna Mater dedications were true testimonials of the Mithraic cult. 2More recently

Manfred Clauss has adopted a similar view by relegating the names of the 4th-c. senators

responsible for these dedications to a separate appendix in his Cultores Mithrae.3While both

scholars agree that the practice of Mithraism among 4th-c. senators in Rome constituted a

distinct phase and aspect of the cult, neither substantiates or otherwise elucidates his case. This

is an issue not readily apparent and thus well worth exploring. What distinguished 4th-c.

Mithraism was the avid participation of senators not the slaves, freedmen, and legionaries of

the previous centuries who went so far as to install mithraea in their domusand to worship

Mithras in the public context of the Phrygianum in the Ager Vaticanus. What concerns us here

is why these senators embraced Mithraism so wholeheartedly when they had never had done so

before.

Using Merkelbach and Clauss as a point of departure to examine the nature of

Mithraism in 4th-c. Rome, my aims in this discussion are twofold. First, I will show that the

social, historical, and in this particular case, political and topographical contexts shaped and

*This article is based on part of my dissertation, The archaeological evidence for Mithraism in imperial Rome(University of Michigan, 1993), and in a preliminary form it was the subject of a paper entitled Mithraism inRome: a domestic religion or a religion for domestics presented at the 93rd annual meeting of the ArchaeologicalInstitute of America. Since then my thinking on this subject has benefited greatly from comments and suggestionsby many mentors and colleagues. I therefore extend my sincerest thanks to Raymond Van Dam, Thelma Thomas,and Russell T. Scott, Richard Gordon, and especially to John DArms and the students of his Latin epigraphyseminar at the University of Michigan. Finally, I am grateful to Roger Beck for insightful comments on earlierdrafts of this article, and to my colleague, John Oakley, for many good suggestions about argument andpresentation, and to anonymous readers. All remaining errors are my own.1All dates are A.D. unless otherwise stated.2R. Merkelbach,Mithras(1984) 147 and 247.

3 M. Clauss, Cultores Mithrae (1992) 295-96; Id. Mithras (1990) 39-41; Id., Die sieben Grade des Mithras-Kultes, ZPE82 (1990b) 183-94 at 184. So also R. Beck, The Mysteries of Mithras, in J.S. Kloppenborg andS.G. Wilson (eds), Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-RomanWorld (1996) 176-85 at 179.


2/24

distinguished this phase of the Mithraic cult from that practiced elsewhere and at other times.

More importantly, I will explore the reasons for Mithraisms tremendous popularity in Rome

at a point when it had all but fallen into obscurity elsewhere in the empire4 by reassessing

the role of the cult in preserving certain ancestral traditions and social customs among senators.

The social nature of Mithraic worship created an excellent venue for advancing and facilitating

personal interactions among the senators who practiced it. Moreover, Mithraisms structure of

grades mimicked the hierarchy of Roman society and was thus able to replicate and promote the

social organization in which the senators had once had so much influence. Publicly, the cult

offered senators a locale for important interaction and, as one scholar has put it, a means for

public self-expression.5 Privately, as I hope to show, it reaffirmed hierarchy, and especially

fides, within thefamiliaand amongst peers.

Mithraism in 4th-c. Rome is comparatively well documented, not only by the

Phrygianum and other surprisingly loquacious inscriptions which reveal the names of individual

senators, the range of cults in which they participated, and even the date (often to the day) when

these dedications were made, but also by archaeological remains of mithraea from private

homes (domus). In the course of this investigation we must first lay out this archaeological

evidence for the 4th-c. cult, and at the same time examine the other major body of evidence,

inscribed dedications, to confirm the practice of Mithraism by senators and the extent of their

involvement in the cult. Finally, we will investigate the reasons for Mithraisms appeal to

senators and how that cult could serve them in different facets of their lives.

I.

The Via Giovanni Lanza mithraeum

This mithraeum on the Esquiline hill, associated with a garden larariumand domus, is

important for understanding the 4th-c. cult of Mithras.6It is a problematic sanctuary for several

4 See E. Sauer, The end of paganism in the north-western provinces of the Roman empire the example of theMithras cult(British Archaeological ReportsS634), who speaks to the issue of the decline of Mithraism in the 3rdand 4th c.5

N. McLynn, The fourth-century taurobolium, Phoenix50 (1996) 312-330 at 328.6The main publication about it is brief but pithy and includes several drawings: C. Visconti, Del larario e delmitreo scoperti nellEsquilino presso la chiesa di S. Martino ai Monti, BCR(1885) 27-38 and pls. 3-5. The finds

2


3/24

reasons: its layout does not conform to typical mithraea in every respect, its owner cannot be

identified, and it is difficult to date precisely. The subterranean sanctuary accessed by two

flights of stairs was uncharacteristically small and nearly square (l. 3.7 m x w. 2.43 m) and

lacked sufficient space for the requisite kline (dining couches), but statues of Cautes and

Cautopates in niches at the landing on the stairwell, a tauroctony relief resting on two brackets

on the left wall of the sanctuary, and the 4 niches for the lamps recovered during the excavation

confirm its identity. Clauss firmly states what Vermaseren only tentatively suggested: that the

owner of this domus and mithraeum was one Flavius Septimius Zosimus, who stated in a

dedicatory inscription that he was a vir perfectissimusand sacerdos of Bronto and Hecate, and

that he built a Mithraic cave (speleum).7I would emphasize that this dedication found its way to

the church of San Martino ai Monti and that the exact provenience and the circumstances of its

discovery are unknown. However tempting it may be to associate this individual with the owner

of the mithraeum, lararium, and domus, we cannot do so securely.

Dating the mithraeum, the lararium, and the associated domuswith any precision has

also proven difficult. In his analysis of the domus in late-antique Rome, Frederico Guidobaldi

considered the excavation reports carefully and has confirmed the Constantinian date

originally suggested by the excavators, although he noted that the domus, lararium, and

mithraeum were all installed in earlier structures which could date any time from the late 1st c.

B.C. through the 2nd c. A.D.8 Most other indicators are too general to be helpful. Garden

lararia were common enough that the presence of one here cannot help to determine a date. The

arrangement of larariumand mithraeum recalls the garden larariumand bicliniumat theDomus

are summarized in the two major catalogues of Mithraic monuments: CIMRM356-59 and TMMM2.15. See alsoM.J. Vermaseren, De Mithrasdienst in Rome (1951) 75-6 for a discussion of monuments in Rome and morerecently, S. Ensoli Vittozzi, Le sculture del larario di S. Martino ai Monti. Un constesto recuperato, BCR95(1993) 221-43. J. Calzini Gysens, Mithra, Spelaeum (Via G. Lanza 128; Reg. V), in E. M. Steinby (ed.), LexiconTopographicum Urbis Romae, Vol. III: H-O (Rome 1993) 260-61 provides a brief summary of the excavatorsreports, complete with contemporary and subsequent bibliographic references which discuss this mithraeum.7CILVI.733=ILS4226=CIMRM360=TMMM2.61. Clauss, op. cit., 1992 (n.3), 26. Vermaseren, op. cit. (n.6),75-76. Vermaseren tentatively suggested that the dedication to Deo Soli Invicto Mithre (sic) might belong to amithraeum close by such as the Via Giovanni Lanza sanctuary, but pointed out that no definite conclusion waspossible. F. Coarelli, Topografia Mitriaca di Roma, in U. Bianchi (ed.),Mysteria Mithrae (EPROv. 80) (1979)60-79 at 71 did not associate the mithraeum with this inscription.8F. Guidobaldi, Ledilizia abitava unifamiliare nella Roma tardoantica, in A. Giardina (ed.), Societ Romana e

impero tardoantico II: Roma: politica, economia, paesagio urbano (1986) 194-98. The lararium is brick, theentrance to the mithraeum is brick above opus reticulatum, the stairway walls are brick and tufa, and themithraeum tufa. Calzini Gysens, op. cit. (n.6) agrees.

3


4/24

Fulminata at Ostia, but even if we posit a biclinium at the Via Giovanni Lanza lararium, a

handy substitution for the klinelacking from the mithraeum, theDomus Fluminatais generally

dated to the 1st and 2nd c.9Neither is the presence of a mithraeum on the grounds of domusa

good indicator because mithraea in domusand insulaeare documented in the middle of the 2nd

c. in Ostia and during the Severan period in Rome. What is most useful for supporting a

Constantinian date is the presence of a mithraeum in a particularly well-appointed domus

containing certain architectural features which might indicate a 4th-c. date, as here, 10and the

remarkable variety of deities in the lararium. Taken as a whole the group of 17 figures

contained a life-size statue of Egyptian Isis, and statuettes of Serapis, Horus, and Mithras

among the more traditional Jupiter, Diana, Venus, Mars, Hercules, Dionysus (represented by a

bacchant), two lares, and a genius (of what Visconti declined to say). Now of all these deities,

Mithras arrival was by far the most recent in Rome, and even it can be reasonably dated around

A.D. 90.11 Inscriptions dedicated by senators in the 4th c. to Magna Mater in the Vatican

Phrygianum, however, mention not only Magna Mater and Attis Menotyrannus, but also

Mithras, Hecate, Liber, and Isis. These are not merely joint dedications, as we shall see

presently, but a list of priesthoods in each of these cults. The variety of this list immediately

calls to mind the group of statues from the Via Giovanni Lanza lararium.

The mithraeum of the Nummii Albini and the Palazzo Barberini mithraeum

Two mithraea have been recovered on the Quirinal hill, both close to the ancient Alta

Semita, a street which ran from the baths of Constantine up to the baths of Diocletian and

beyond to the Porta Collina in the Servian wall (corresponding to the modern Via del Quirinale

and Via XX Settembre). The first of the two sanctuaries lies on what are now the grounds of the

Palazzo Barberini. No owner can be securely identified, nor can we determine how long the

sanctuary remained in use. We do know from the brickwork of the mithraeum and from a large

9For theDomus Fulminatasee J.E. Packer, The insulae of imperial Ostia,MAAR31 (1971) 171-72 and plan 22;Id., Housing and populations in imperial Ostia and Rome,JRS57 (1967) 80-95 and G. Becatti, Scavi di OstiaIV: mosaici e pavimenti marmorei(1962) 104-109 and figs. 37-43.10Guidobaldi, op. cit. (n.8), 194-98. Notable are the tri-conch nymphaeum and other apsidal rooms.11 R. Gordon, The date and significance of CIMRM 593 (British Museum Townley Collection), JMithSt 2

(1978) 148-74 (repr. in R. Gordon, Image and Value in the Graeco-Roman World: Studies in Mithraism andReligious Art(1996)) and R. Beck, The mysteries of Mithras: a new account of their genesis,JRS88 (1998) 115-128.

4


5/24

painted tauroctony scene, however, that the sanctuary had two distinct phases during the second

half of the 2nd c. and the first quarter of the 3rd c. 12The second sanctuary was in the domusof

the Nummii Albini, across the Alta Semita and slightly further up the hill towards the baths of

Diocletian. Several inscriptions13 recovered from the area are generally associated with the

architectural remains of a domus, which had a cryptoporticus surrounding several vaulted

rooms, including one which had been converted to a mithraeum.14

The remains of still another domus, that of Alfenius Ceionius Iulianus Kamenius,

include part of a peristyle courtyard found at the corner of the modern Vicolo di Santa Nicola

and the Via del Quirinale (now on the grounds of the Palazzo Barberini).15Lanciani identified

the owner of this domus as the individual named in inscriptions found nearby. The nearly

identical texts differ only in the quality of the lettering, certain spellings and abbreviations,

preservation, and dedicators.16Each identifies Alfenius Ceionius Iulianus Kamenius as apater

12G. Gatti and G. Annibaldi, Il mitreo Barberini I: topografia e monumenti del luogo; II: il santuario mitriaco,BCR71 (1943-45) 97-108; M. Guarducci, Quattro graffiti nel mitreo del Palazzo Barberini, in Bianchi, op. cit.(n.7), 187-91; M.J. Vermaseren, Mitriaca III: the mithraeum at Marino (EPRO v. 16.3) (1982) 83-89; and P.Meyboom, Excursion about the dating of the paintings, in Vermaseren, op. cit., 35-46. A useful summary ofthese reports can be found in J. Calzini Gysens, Mithra (Palazzo Barberini; Reg. VI), in E. M. Steinby (ed.),

Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, Vol. III: H-O (Rome 1993) 263-64.13The first was a dedication to M. Nummius Albinus on a statue base on the occasion of his second consulship in345. See A. Chastagnol, Les fastes de la prfecture de Rome au bas-empire (1962) 127. Another inscriptionrecovered in 1877 mentions M. Nummius Attidianus Tuscus (possibly the great uncle of M. Nummius Albinusaccording to PLRE I. 1142). See BCR (1877) 168 no. 145 and A. Capannari, Delle scoperte archeologicheavvenute per la costruzione del Palazzo del Ministero della Guerra, BCR (1885) 3-26 at 5-6 (CIL VI.1748)).Other fragments referring to family members were found in 1883 (NSc (1883) 233-34 and also Chastagnol, op.cit., 30). Finally two fragments found in 1884 and 1885 refer to a Nummius Tuscus as urban praefect in 302-303.Chastagnol, op. cit., 38-39, no. 12 suggests that this Nummius Tuscus may have been the son of M. NummiusTuscus, the consul of 258. See NSc(1884) 103 and 422 for the lower half of the inscription and Capannari, BCR(1885) 7 for the upper half. Capannari's article, which preceded the discovery of archaeological remains, focuseson the Nummii Albini known at that time. In 1893 still more architectural remains and statuary from the domuswere recovered when the foundations for the Methodist and Episcopal church at the corner of Via Firenze and Via

XX Settembre were dug. See NSc (1893) 357-58, 418-19, 430-31, and 517, and also (1894) 13-14. All thesesources are summarized in J. Calzini Gysens, Mithra (Domus Numii; Reg. VI), in E. M. Steinby (ed.), LexiconTopographicum Urbis Romae, Vol. III: H-O (Rome 1993) 262. See also F. Guidobaldi, Domus: Nummii, in E.M. Steinby (ed.),Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, Vol. II: D-G (Rome 1995) 146-47.14A. Capannari, Di un mitreo pertinente alla casa del Nummi scoperto nella Via Firenze, BCR(1886) 17-26 andpl. 4. For the general discussion of the remains, including the mithraeum, see also M. Santangelo, Il Quirinalenell'antichit classica, MemPontAc 5.2 Ser. 3 (1941) 153. These sources are summarized in J. Calzini Gysens,Mithra (Domus Numii; Reg. VI), in E. M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, Vol. III: H-O(Rome 1993) 262.15R. Lanciani, Supplimenti al volume VI del Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, BCR(1884) 44 and pl. 4 reportsthis infromation briefly. See also All these sources are summarized in F. Guidobaldi, Domus: Alfenius CaeioniusIulianus s. Camenius, in E. M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, Vol. II: D-G (Rome 1995)

119-20.16CILVI.1675=31902=CIMRM516/395B=TMMM2.24 and CILVI.31940=CIMRM395A. See also NSc(1884)21-22 andBCR(1884) 43-44 no.769 (=CILVI.31940), and Capannari, op. cit.(n.13) 10.

5


6/24

in the cult of Mithras, which has interesting implications for the mithraea under discussion

because both sanctuaries lay within a few meters of the inscriptions. The Barberini mithraeum

cannot be associated securely with the domus of Alfenius Ceionius Iulianus Kamenius for

several reasons: because of its Severan date, because we cannot establish how long it remained

in use, and because the original excavation reports do not contain enough information about the

stratigraphical context of the peristyle remains to allow us to draw a conclusion about their

relationship with the mithraeum. The sanctuary is, in fact, so close to the remains of the

peristyle that both could easily have been part of the same property. Any further conclusion

would be pure speculation.

Who used the mithraea in the domusof 4th-c. senators?

Before examining the epigraphical evidence for mithraea in 4th-c. mithraea in Rome let

us consider the heretofore implicit assumption that the senators themselves used the mithraea in

these 4th-c. domus. We might justifiably surmise that slaves and freedmen in the senators

familiae installed and used the sanctuaries in domus,since members of these marginal groups

were the basis of Mithraisms well-attested popularity prior to the 4th c.17 While the

archaeological record does show that mithraea in domusin Rome appeared at least as early as

the late 2nd- and early 3rd-c., ignorance of the owners identity for each of these earlier

examples prevents any conclusion about who installed and used the sanctuary. Richard Gordon

concedes that the owners of these 2nd- and 3rd-c. domusmust have recognized the value of

the cult at the very least, but he argues that a mithraeum in a domusprior to the middle of the

3rd c. proves only that the owner consented to the installation of the sanctuary and nothing

about his religious proclivities. In the case of private households, he asserts, the typical

leader seems to have been the freedman.18Nothing precludes the possibility that the freedman

himself was wealthy enough to afford his own domus. One practical consideration well worth

remembering, however, is that ancient Rome was crowded and almost certainly had high real

17The catalogues and introductory texts for the cult provide abundant documentation for participation of marginalmembers of Roman society, but none more than Clauss, op. cit., 1992 (n.3). See also TMMMand F. Cumont,Lesmystres de Mithra, 3rd. edn. (1913); Vermaseren, op. cit. (n.7), and Id., Mithras the Secret God, transl. T. and V.

Megaw (1963).18 R. Gordon, Mithraism and Roman Society, Religion 2 (1972), 92-114, esp. 104 and nn.70-71 (repr. inGordon, op. cit. (n.12)).

6


7/24

estate prices which, relative to the average wage, were perhaps similar to those of populous

modern cities such as New York, Tokyo, or even Rome. The owner of a domus, no matter what

his status, would be a generous patron to let his clients, freedmen, and slaves use part of his

house as a mithraeum when he himself had no personal stake in the cult.

The 4th-c. mithraea in domusreviewed above present an entirely different situation. The

dedication on Alfenius Ceionius Iulianus Kamenius statue base clearly indicates that he was a

pater, the highest grade of 7, in the Mithraic cult. Given this fact, the high-quality appointments

in the mithraeum of the Nummii Albini are at least as likely to indicate that the aristocratic

owners used this space as the members of the familia.19 After considering the long-standing

connection by marriage between the Nummii Albini and the Ceionii Kamenii, Alessandro

Capannari argued that Alfenius Ceionius Iulianus Kamenius was the paterin the mithraeum of

the Nummii Albini.20Of course it is entirely possible that Alfenius Ceionius Iulianus Kamenius

had his own mithraeum, but Capannaris provocative suggestion emphasizes a fundamental

point: senators, not lower-ranking members of their familia, used these mithraea. Several

inscriptions from the Campus Martius illustrate the disposition of the congregation of one of

these mithraea owned by an aristocratic family.

The Mithraic inscriptions found in the Campus Martius

A group of 5 inscribed dedications to Mithras was recovered in the 15th c. near the

modern Piazza San Silvestro, and a sixth was found in the 17th c.21No detailed account of the

discovery remains,22and all the inscriptions are now lost except for a seventh recovered from

the same area in 1867.23 The dedications celebrate the promotion of members of the

19Namely a black-and-white-mosaic floor laid in a geometric pattern and a wall-painting of the tauroctony scene.Capannari, op. cit. (n.13), 3-12 and (n.14), 17-26.20Capannari, op. cit. (n.14), 25, also noted the proximity of the two domus. Chastagnol, op. cit. (n.13), 38-39 andPLRE I. 34. M. Nummius Ceionius Annius Albinus, a praetor and urban prefect during the late 3rd c., is anexcellent example not only of the familial connections but also of the success of both families in Roman politcs.21 CIL VI.749=ILS 4267a=CIMRM 400=TMMM 2.7; CIL VI.750=ILS 4267b=CIMRM 401=TMMM 2.8; CILVI.751a=ILS 4267c=CIMRM 402=TMMM 2.9; CIL VI.751b=ILS 4268=CIMRM 403=TMMM 2.10; CILVI.752=ILS 4267d=CIMRM 404=TMMM 2.11; CIL VI.753=ILS 4267e=CIMRM 405=TMMM 2.12; CILVI.754=ILS4269=CIMRM406=TMMM2.13.22R. Lanciani, Ancient Rome in light of recent discoveries (1888) 166, stated that Fra Giovanni Giocondo and

Pietro Sabino witnessed the discovery of the inscriptions and the building in which they were located, but he doesnot give any more detail.23G. Henzen, Sacrario mitriaco,BdI(1868) 90-98.

7


8/24

congregation to higher grades in the years 357, 358, 359, 362, and 376 by both Nonius Victor

Olympius,24 a pater patrum of a Mithraic congregation, and his sons, Aurelius Victor

Olympius25 and Aurelius Victor Augentius,26 both patres of the same congregation. One

dedication also included Aurelius Victor Augentius son, Aemilianus Corfo Olympius. 27

Tamesius Olympius Augentius,28 the grandson of Nonius Victor Olympius and son of either

Augentius or Olympius, dedicated the one surviving inscription (which lacks a consular date),

and in it he refers specifically both to temples of Apollo (Phoebeia templa) built by his

grandfather and to caves (antra) he built himself. Although no architectural remains have been

recovered that can be convincingly associated with a mithraeum, the recovery of so many

dedications to Mithras from one location has rightly been interpreted as the site of the

mithraeum to which the last, surviving dedication by the grandson refers.29Because it attests

the worship of Mithras by three generations of a single family of senatorial rank, this group of

dedications offers a rare glimpse into the structure of the cult in 4th c. When added to the

evidence from Alfenius Ceionius Iulianus Kamenius statue base from his domus on the

Quirinal hill, this group also strengthens the case for identifying the Nummii Albini as the

primary users of the mithraeum in their domus.

The Phrygianum in the Ager Vaticanus

24PLRENonius Victor Olympius 18, p. 647 and CILVI.749-53=ILS4267a-e.25PLREAurelius Victor Olympius 17, p.647 and CILVI.752=ILS4267d.26PLREAurelius Victor Augentius 2, p.125 and CILVI.749-53=ILS4267a-e and 4268.27 PLRE Aemilianus Corfo Olympius 14, p.646=CIL VI.751b=ILS 4268=CIMRM 403. Interesting in thisinscription and also in CIMRM405 is the rare reference to the second grade, nymphus, here represented as cryfios(chryfiosin CIMRM405), the pupa being one of the alternate symbols, along with the snake and the diadem andlamp, for the second grade. The only other reference, and that to nymphus proper, also comes from a Romancontext, the late 2nd c./early 3rd c. Santa Prisca paintings (see n.82 below). The choice of an alternate orequivalent term expressed in Greek occurs elsewhere, as in hierocoraxfor corax(CIMRM 403) or hieroceryxforpater(CIMRM513 and 514, below n.35; CIMRM515 and 206, below nn.33-34 and elsewhere). The motivationmay differ in each case. In his discussion of the symbols relating to second grade, Merkelbach has noted thebutterfly and its stages, particularly the pupa, or chrysalis, as symbolic of the soul and of the eternal life and deathcycle (op. cit. (n.2), 88-91). The choice of vocabulary here may be philosphically inspired rather than a squeamishdesire to avoid nymphus(a male bride, possibly represented by a man in drag in Mithraic processions). The use ofhieroceryxand hierocoraxmay simply be philhellenism, or possibly a hellenization of the Mithraic mysteries by agroup also initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries.28PLRETamesius Olympius Augentius 1, p.124-25=CILVI.754=ILS4269.29 Vermaseren assigned a separate catalogue number to this mithraeum (CIMRM 399). The inscriptions are

numbered in sequence thereafter as CIMRM 400-406 (n.22), Coarelli, op. cit. (n.7), 73, accepted Vermaserensdesignation as a mithraeum, as did D. Gallo, Il mitreo di San Silvestro in Capite, in Bianchi, op. cit. (n.7), 231-42, who tried to locate it within Aurelians temple of Sol close to the same location in the Campus Martius.

8


9/24

The most conclusive evidence for senatorial participation in Mithraism comes from a

group of dedications to Magna Mater and other oriental deities between 305-90 recovered from

the foundation trench for the facade of St. Peters basilica in 1609.30 These dedications

comprise the main body of evidence for the Phrygianum, 31and while its exact location remains

uncertain, the provenience of the inscriptions recovered from under St. Peters and references in

the Curiosum urbis regionum XIV and theNotitia urbis regionum XIVsuggest that it was near

the circus of Gaius and Nero.32To this group from underneath the facade should be added an

inscribed marble altar found in Piazza S. Pietro in 1949 and dedicated to the Great Idaean

Mother of the gods and Attis Menotyrannus on July 19, 374 by none other than Alfenius

Ceionius Iulianus Kamenius.33This inscription, like many of the others recovered, reads like a

cursus honorum, but one with a more religious focus. Each dedicator identified himself as vir

clarissimusand listed his offices in various oriental cults in a manner which is nearly formulaic.

Alfenius Ceionius Iulianus Kamenius was a vir clarissimus, septemvir epulonum, pater and

hieroceryx of Invictus Mithras, hierophanta of Hecate, archibucolus of Liber, and a

tauroboliate and crioboliate, in that order. The statue bases from his house on the Quirinal hill

and his epitaph from Antium reiterate this information and add that he was a magister in the

30See O. Marrucchi, Cippo marmoreo con iscrizione greca e relievi riferibili al culto frigio della Magna Mater,NSc (1922) 81-87; J. Carcopino, tudes dhistoire Chrtienne (1953) 129-34; M. Guarducci, Le Christ et SaintPierre dans un document pre-Constantinien de la necropole Vaticane (1953) 68-74; and M. Guarducci,Linterruzione dei culti nel Phrygianum del Vaticano durante il IV secolo d. Cr., in U. Bianchi and M.J.Vermaseren (eds), La soteriologia dei culti orientali nellimpero Romano: atti del colloquio internazionale su lasoteriologia dei culti orientali nellimpero Romano(EPROv. 92) (1982) 109-22.31CILVI.497=ILS4145, CILVI.498, CILVI.499=ILS4147, CILVI.500=ILS4148, CILVI.501=ILS4149, CILVI.502=ILS4150, CILVI.503=ILS4151, CILVI.504=ILS4153. Whether other inscriptions also refer to the AgerVaticanus in Rome is contested. The reference to Vaticanus in a dedication from Lugdunum in honor of thecompletion of a taurobolium, L. Aemilianus Carpus IIIIIIvir Aug(ustalis), item | dendrophorus, | vires excepit et aVaticano trans|tulit, ara et bucranium | suo impendio consacravit (CIL XIII.1751= ILS4131) could indicate thesanctuary in Rome rather than an area of similar name in Lugdunum (see also M.J. Vermaseren, Corpus cultusCybelae Attidisque (CCCA) v. III: Italia--Latium (EPROv. 50.3) (1986) 133-34 no. 386). So also the MontemVaticanem in CIL XIII.7281=ILS 3805, a dedication to Bellona from Mainz-Kastell. The topographicaldictionaries do not even question the reference. See esp. H. Jordan and C. Huelsen, Topographie der Stadt Rm inAlterthum3 vols. (1871-1907), v. 1.3, 659; S.B. Platner and T. Ashby, A topographical dictionary of ancient Rome(1929) 325-26; and L. Richardson, A new topographical dictionary of ancient Rome (1992) 290. The issue issummarized and recanvassed thoroughly by R. Turcan in Les religions de lAsie dans la valle du Rhne(1972),85-88, who concludes that the only Vaticanus was that in Rome. We are left to wonder about the condition of theviresreferred to in CILXIII. 1751 (vires excepit et a Vaticano transtulit) after they arrived in Lugdunum fromRome. Vermaseren argues, and rightly I think, that these inscriptions attest to the recreation of a vaticanusoutside Rome (Cybele and Attis: the myth and the cult(1977) 46).32

Both the Curiosum urbis regionum XIVand theNotitia regionum urbis XIVmention in regioXIV Gaianum etFrigianum (H. Jordan (ed.), Topographie der Stadt Rm in Alterthumv. 2 (1907) 563.33AE1953 no. 238=CIMRM515.

9


10/24

cult of Mithras, quindecimvir sacrisfaciundis, and pontifex maior.34 Two other dedications

from the original St. Peters group of 1609 and a third found in the gardens of Julius III have

a similar list of religious offices held by their dedicators, Caelius Hilarianus, Ulpius Egnatius

Faventinus, and Iunius Postumianus.35Caelius Hilarianus was a vir clarissimus, duodecimvirof

the city of Rome, paterand hieroceryx of Mithras, and a hieroceryx of Liber and of Hecate.

Ulpius Egnatius Faventinus was a vir clarissimus, an augur publicus populi Romani Quiritium,

paterand hieroceryxof Mithras, archibucolusof Liber, hierophantaof Hecate, sacerdosof Isis,

and a tauroboliate and crioboliate. Iunius Postumianus was a vir clarissimus, pater patrumof

Mithras, quindecimvir sacris faciundis, andpontifex solis.

Taking into account inscriptions recovered elsewhere in Rome than those from the

Vatican or specific mithraea renders an even wider circle of senatorial participants. 36Petronius

Apollodorus and his wife, Ruf(ina?) Volusiana, dedicated an altar to Mithras in 370 with Greek

and Latin inscriptions.37Rufius Caeionius Sabinus,38Sextilius Agesilaus Aedesius,39C. Rufius

Volusianus,40and Vettius Agorius Praetextatus,41mention that they werepatresin the Mithraic

cult. Outside Rome two were other viri clarissimi, Publilius Ceionius Caecina Albinus, who

dedicated a Mithraic cave (speleum) while praeses proconsularisof Numidia from 364-67,42

and Appius Claudius Tarronius Dexter, who dedicated a tauroctony relief at Pausilypum. 43

The Phrygianum dedications to Magna Mater confirm what the archaeological evidence

for worship of Mithras amply suggests: that 4th-c. senators themselves used the mithraea in

their houses. Equally important, these inscriptions also reflect the pattern of usage revealed in

the Campus Martius inscriptions, that is, use of a mithraeum by a family. Members of the

34ILS1264=CIMRM206=TMMM2.147, EphEp8.648 andBdI(1884) 56 ff and CILVI.31902.35 CIL VI.500=ILS 4148=CIMRM 513=TMMM 2.19 (Caelius Hilarianus); CIL VI.504=ILS 4153=CIMRM514=TMMM 2.20 (Ulpius Egnatius Faventinus); and CIL VI.2151=CIMRM 521=TMMM 2.18 (IuniusPostumianus).36H. Bloch, A new document of the last pagan revival in the west 393-394 A.D., HThR 38 (1945) 199-224included a chart of twenty-three senators whose dedications show that they were participants in multiple orientalcults. I have selected only those who were Mithraists.37CILVI.509=CIMRM524=TMMM2.23=CIG6012b.38CILVI.511=CIMRM522=TMMM2.21.39CILVI.510=ILS4152=CIMRM520=TMMM2.17.40CILVI.846=ILS4154=CIMRM466=TMMM2.25.41

CILVI.1778=CIMRM420=TMMM2.14 and CILVI.1779=ILS1259.42 CILVIII.6975=CIMRM 129=TMMM2.530.43CILX.1479=ILS4196=CIMRM175=TMMM2.148.

10


11/24

Lampadii and Caeonii, including the urban prefect (365), C. Caeonius Rufius Lampadius

Volusianus, and three of his children, figure prominently among recorded tauroboliates. 44

Predominance by a single family seems to have been the exception in the case of the

taurobolium, but the recent conclusion that Lampadius actions were motivated by competition

and that he set a trend in high-profile taurobolia45 has important implications for what I

suggest is a similar competition among Mithraists with senatorial status.

II.

Senatorial interest in Mithraism

How Mithraism became popular among senators and the extent to which it was

associated with older and more firmly embedded foreign cults, and even with traditional

Roman religion, are issues worth considering. The recent observation that there was a trend

toward assimilating into traditional paganism cults in Rome which had not previously

received senatorial patronage46 is a point well taken, but it does not go far enough. This

association or assimilation and clearly there was one since the dedicators of the

Phrygianum altars obviously knew each other and had overlapping religious interests has

been the subject of significant scholarly discussion. The notion of an organized, well-defined

group of senators with religious tastes encompassing both traditional Roman religion and

oriental cults was a main tenet in the argument that a group of pagan senators actively

resisted Christianity by reviving paganism.47The the validity of the artificial dichotomy

Roman and Oriental applied to the interests of this group of senators has been

questioned.48 Moreover the generalized use of the term pagan (and paganism) as denoting

44As noted by McLynn, op, cit. (n.5), 327.45Ibid, 327-28.46M. Beard, J. North, and S. PriceReligions of Rome, Vol. I: A History(Cambridge 1998) 383-84.47 O. Seeck, Q. Aurelii Symmachi quae supersunt, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica Vol.6 (1883); D.N.Robinson, An analysis of the pagan revival of the late 4th c., with especial reference to Symmachus,TAPA46(1915) 87-101; Bloch, op. cit. (n.36) and The pagan revival in the west at the end of the 4th c., in A. Momigliano(ed.), The conflict between paganism and Christianity in the fourth century (1963) 193-218. With Seeck as theoriginal inspiration, these scholars have done much to illuminate the role of the alleged pivotal figures, VettiusAgorius Praetextatus and Q. Aurelius Symmachus. Clauss, op. cit., 1990 (n.3), 40 has even asserted that thePhrygianum in the Vatican (as opposed to the older and more established temple to Magna Mater on the Palatine

hill) served as a religious center for these inveterate pagans.48J. Matthews, Symmachus and the Oriental cults, JRS63 (1973) 175-95. emphasizing the nature of religioin a4th-c. context and the extent to which public and private aspects of the so-called oriental cults, and particularly

11


12/24

non-Christians has been exposed as anachronistic and redefined as an attitude of tolerance most

prevalent among, but not exclusive to, those who practiced traditional Roman religion or one or

more of the many cults.49Even the notion of a homogeneous movement of polytheists acting in

response to a similarly well-organized and homogeneous movement of Christians has fallen out

of favor in recognition of the diversity of religious practices geographically and socially,

particularly among different groups in Rome.50

The practice of Mithraism, still an unofficial cult in the 4th c.,51 is evidence of this

diversity. Its markedly different history distinguished it from the other imported deities such as

Magna Mater and Attis, or Isis and Serapis mentioned in the Phrygianum dedications. These

cults had prominent temples in Rome since the Republic and had, as Gordon succinctly put it,

suffered a civic takeover which included membership drawn from all levels of society. The

continuing interest and patronage of the aristocracy, under whose purview as quindecimviri

these cults fell is easily understood.52The available evidence for Mithraism, however, suggests

a relatively late date for attention from higher ranks in society, and contrary assertions that

senators and emperors participated in the cult earlier than the 4th c. are difficult to prove

unequivocally. There is little evidence for sustained, active participation by elites before the 4th

c. Of interest are A. Caedicius Priscianus dedication at the Castra Peregrinorum in Rome, 53a

recently recovered group of dedications at the Aquincum V mithraeum made by six tribuni

laticlaviiof senatorial rank,54and dedications by men of senatorial rank made at Lambaesis at

various points from the last quarter of the 2nd c. and the first quarter of the 3rd c., and again in

the late 3rd c. and early 4th c. 55 Whether these dedications represent true devotion or

the cults of Magna Mater and Mithras, were blurred. This view is upheld by M. Beard, J. North and S. Price, op.cit. (n.46) 384.49J. ODonnell, The demise of paganism, Traditio35 (1979) 45-88.50Ibid, 46ff. Christianity, he observed, is a vague term simply because there was no single doctrine. Similarly,there were Christians who had not renounced every aspect of their pagan way of thinking, and an enormousvariety of cults and modes of religious practice among non-Christians.51See below n.57.52R. Gordon, Religion in the Roman empire: the civic compromise and its limits, in M. Beard and J. North,(eds), Pagan priests: religion and power in the ancient world(1990), 250.53

S. Panciera, Il materiale epigrafico dallo scavo di S. Stefano Rotondo, in Bianchi, op. cit. (n.7), 88.54Clauss, op. cit., 1992 (n.3), 183-84.55Ibid, 248-49.

12


13/24

recognition of local religious tastes remains an open question for some.56 The Lambaesis

dedications are too few and too infrequent to suggest sustained, significant support by elites

holding high rank, and while the Aquincum V dedications represent a coherent group, I am

inclined to agree with Beck, who views them as patronage of a locally popular deity. 57

Aside from these dedications, there is little evidence for participation in Mithraism

among elites before the 4th c. It is beyond the scope of this paper, and perhaps even the realm

of possibility, to speculate on why senators had never worshipped Mithras before. Rather, the

important question is why now? In my view, 4th-c. senatorial interest in the cult of Mithras

seems to have arisen after a discernible, continuing increase in imperial attention pervasive

enough to elevate solar cults as close to official status as they ever came to be. Aurelians

worship of Sol was a decisive turning-point. The sumptuous temple to Sol in the Campus

Martius built in 273 and the newly created priesthood of Pontifex Solis encompassed many

manifestations of solar deities both eastern and western, Mithras undoubtedly among them. 58

Mithraism had also attracted the attention, if not the participation, of the emperors of the

Tetrarchy when in 308 Galerius convened some of the interested parties at Carnuntum in Upper

Pannonia. In celebration of the agreement they had reached the Jovian and Herculian augusti

and caesares dedicated a shrine (sacrarium) to Deus Sol Invictus Mithras, whom they also

identified as patron (fautor) of their rule.59On the surface this dedication seems to fit the same

56Ibid, 184.57Beck, op. cit. (n.3), 179. Aside from these limited examples, discussion of participation by emperors or elites inMithraism prior to the 4th c. focuses on dedications by imperial freedmen. The two earliest, by T. Flavius HyginusEphebianus (CIMRM362) and by Alcimus (CIMRM593-94) (see Merkelbach, op. cit. (n.2), 147-48; Clauss, op.cit., 1992 (n.3), 19-20; and Gordon, op. cit. (n.12), 151-53 and 155-56) are regarded as evidence for the earliestdate of the Roman cult. Recently Beck op. cit. (n.11), following Merkelbach, op. cit. (n.2) highlighted thesignificance of the early appearance of the cult among imperial freedmen, proposing a model for the developmentof the cult in Rome in which knowledge of the cult passed from the military and civilian dependents of the royalfamily of Commagene to thefamiliaeof the Roman aristocracy and even the imperialfamilia. With the exceptionof Commodus, whose interest in Mithraism is reported by a source of questionable integrity (...sacra Mithriacahomocidio vero polluit, cum illic aliquid ad speciem timoris vel dici vel fingi soleat. ...he polluted Mithraic riteswith a genuine murder, although it was customary for something to be said or to be pretended to produce theimpression of fear. HA Vit. Comm. 9), we have no direct evidence for a sustained interest in the cult by anyprincepsbefore the late 3rd c.58Matthews, op. cit. (n.48), 178-79, assumed rather than demonstrated Mithraisms status as an official cult. Hisunsupported assertion that ...Mithras and Magna Mater...functioned in the fourth century as personal initiationrites as well as officially sanctioned public cults is misleading and not technically correct as it applies to Mithras,whose official sanction was secondhand at best as it could have come only through Aurelians creation of the

Pontifex Solis. M. Beard, J. North and S. Price, op. cit. (n.46) argue for Mithraisms unofficial status. For therelationship with Sol Invictus see G. Halsberghe, The Cult of Sol Invictus(EPROv.23) (Leiden 1972) 130-54.59CILIII.4413=ILS659=CIMRM1698.

13


14/24

pattern as those of the Aquincum V mithraeum and from Lambaesis: patronage of a locally

popular cult by high-ranking elites whose interest in it was merely opportunistic. As evidence

for imperial devotion to Mithras this dedication is purely circumstantial. That the evidence for

worship of Mithras at Carnuntum is as copious as that from Aquincum and includes one of the

earliest datable Mithraic dedications in the empire may also be insignificant.60 What is

important, however, and what pertains to Mithraic dedications by senatorial elite in any military

context, is that these were ideologically well-suited to certain basic principles of military life,

particularly commeraderie and fides. We recognize this in the choice of Mithras as the tutelary

deity, the patron of the rule of the Tetrarchs. The problems which had plagued the Tetrarchy

since the planned retirement of Diocletian and Maximian in 305 were succession and unity. The

Carnuntum dedication celebrated thefidesamong the assembled augustiand caesaresas well as

that between legionaries and the emperors, and in this respect was not merely proposbut also

politically expedient. The importance of loyalty among emperors need not be stated, but that

such loyalty was a pre-requisite to having a loyal, unified army cannot be overstated the

legions had become, after all, the first resort of many who aspired to become emperor. What

lies at the heart of the Carnuntum dedication the association of Mithras withfides reveals

that Mithras was not merely one of many solar deities, but that many of his original assocations

remained with him and were meaningful to Mithraists in the late empire.

Mithras multiple associations (the sun, oaths and fealty, mediation) as a god honored by

Persian royalty are well recognized. Such associations continued under the hellenistic kings of

Commagene and were symbolized by a handshake between god and king, as is prominent on

Antiochus Is monument at Nemrud Dagh, and by the designation of the 16th of each month as

a day sacred to Mithras in his capacity as mediator.61The handshake was a common gesture

used for sealing agreements, including oaths and contracts, and it appears in numerous

monuments of the Roman Mithraic cult where Mithras shakes hands with Sol, not to mention on

imperial coins bearing the legend fides exercitum issued throughout the imperial period. In

this vein the logical extension of Becks recent hypothesis that the Mithraic cult was transferred

60See CIMRM1644-1722.61Merkelbach, op. cit. (n.2), 23-27, 51-59 and CIMRM28-32.

14


15/24

from the dependents of the royal family of Commegene to those of the Roman elite is that the

attendant symbols and meanings and particularly Mithras extended associations with the

sanctity of bonds, oaths and fealty, and the symbolization these in the handshake also

accompanied the cult.62 Such associations, which were important for building unity among

members of a group and reflect Roman social norms in which personal bonds played an

important role, are thus equally applicable and important to the subject at hand, loyalty among

the Tetrarchs and their legions.

This reunification of the Tetrarchs was an event whose impact extended beyond

Carnuntum. Its immediate objective was to secure the approval of the army, but we have also

noted Mithras specified role as fautorof the Tetrarchs reign. While this occasion may have

gone unnoticed by the Senate, it seems unlikely if only because the reaffirmation of loyalty was

working both horizontally and vertically between the Tetrarchs and their legions. Placed against

the background of Aurelians solar henotheism, the Carnuntum dedication to Mithras springs

into sharp relief: such strong, open support for the cult at such a high level was without

precedent.63

The Phrygianum dedications to Magna Mater are roughly contemporary with the

Carnuntum dedication, which may be more than mere coincidence. Certain complications

attend the dedications as a group, however, and the significance of one much-discussed

inscription referring to twenty-eight years of night remains controversial because it coincides

with a perceived gap in the dedications.64The notion of such a lacuna is often accepted but to

date not satisfactorily explained.65On the basis of this inscription Guarducci argued that the

construction of St. Peters Basilica would have made the surrounding neighborhood unfit for

worship, thereby causing a complete cessation of cult practices at the Phrygianum.66Even the

62Beck, op. cit. (n.11).63See Beck op. cit. (n.11). Presumably a cult popular among the late-1st c. familiaeof the Roman aristocracy hadits tacit approval, if not its active participation.64AE (1923) no.29. Complete bibliography is available in Guarducci, op. cit. (nn.30-31); and R. Duthoy, Thetaurobolium: its evolution and terminology(1969) 23-24.65 See, for example, R. Turcan, Les motivations de lintolrance Chrtienne et la fin du Mithriacisme au IV e

sicle ap. J.-C., Proceedings of the VIIth congress of the International Federation of the Societies of ClassicalStudies(1984) 209-26 at 224.66.Guarducci, op. cit. (n.30).

15


16/24

author herself has abandoned this theory since the basilica appears to have been completed

much earlier in 326. Guarduccis more recent suggestion that the death of Constans I and the

accession of Magnentius, an emperor more sympathetic to paganism, in 350 would have made

worship at the Phrygianum safe again67 does not account for the dedications made in the

decades after Magnentius rather short three-year reign. Indeed, it suggests an opportunistic,

intermittent worship of pagan gods according to the political and religious climate which, while

it may be true to a limited extent, is difficult to explain in light of this particular28-year gap,

which does not coincide with the reign of Constantius II, or of any other emperor for that

matter. Other objections include the application of the evidence from a single inscription

universally rather than to the dedicator himself.68 It is well worth noting here that our

knowledge of the Phrygianum is based solely on the location of these inscriptions; to date no

architectural remains have been recovered for associated buildings or even a precinct. Given

this situation, any (apparently) chronological lacunae in the evidence are at least as likely to be

caused by accident of preservation as they are by contemporary circumstances. None of this

dispute impinges on the present discussion of the practice of Mithraism among senators of the

late 3rd and early 4th century, who were certainly aware of the cult, and who, perhaps with

imperial, though not precisely official and legitimate, recognition of it clearly began to take

more than passing notice of it themselves. To identify two different brands of Mithraism

separated by a gap in the evidence is to be too positivist.

Mithraic hierarchy in 4th-c. mithraea

If senators were active participants in the Mithraic cult, the three extant mithraea

examined above are noteworthy in that they comprise almost a third of the 10 mithraea in Rome

for which there are (or were at the time of excavation) actual physical remains, and fully 40%

when combined with the evidence from the group of inscriptions from the Campus Martius.69

67Ibid, 117-18.68McLynn, op. cit. (n.5), 328-29 and Duthoy, op. cit. (n.64).69 The number of mithraea in Rome is often disputed. Vermaseren identified 16 mithraea in his catalogue(CIMRM), down from 100 (De Mithradienst in Rome, Nijmegen 1951, 89-95), and that was before those under S.Stefano (at the Castra Peregrinorum), and under the modern Ospedale S. Giovanni were recovered. Coarelli, op.

cit. (n.7) identified 40 on the basis of extant architectural remains and other monuments without an architecturalcontext. I have argued elsewhere that both Vermaserens and Coarellis estimates are too optimistic and that theevidence reflects a more conservative 15 definite mithraea, with another 10 possible mithraea. Definite mithraea

16


17/24

The detailed lists of priesthoods and offices attesting participation in several cults, and in state

religion, and the fastidious attention to the date in so many of the examples express

unmistakably the pride and depth of commitment on the part of the dedicators of the

Phrygianum inscriptions.70 If this religious cursus is somewhat unprecedented in dedicatory

inscriptions, it is at least appropriate in the context of private mithraea like those in the Campus

Martius and in domus, as well as in the relatively public context of the Phrygianum.

These cursus also reveal an interesting aspect of Mithraic grades in private mithraea.

None of the viri clarissimiwho made the dedications under discussion held a grade lower than

pater, and several had reached the super-rank pater patrum. The term pater patrum itself

indicates that a hierarchy, albeit top heavy, flourished, and the evidence of promotions from the

dedications in the mithraeum of Nonius Victor Olympius and his family (all but the third grade,

miles, are mentioned) further attests the continuing importance of grades.71Pater patrumis an

interesting term, especially since it so often accompanies identification of status, vir

clarissimus. Of the 15 instances ofpater patrum(or some declension of it) in the empire, 11 are

from Rome.72Of these, 9 pertain to the dedicators of the Phyrgianum inscriptions, but the other

two examples also come from men of high social rank; one by Flavius Antistantius, vir

egregius,73and the other by Agrestius, vir clarissimus.74Explicit disclosure of social rank and

include the 10 for which there are actual physical remains (of which only 7 can still be seen today), and anadditional 5 from buildings known to exist and from which we have evidence of Mithraic worship: the baths ofTitus, the Castra Praetoria, the temple of Jupiter Dolichenus on the Aventine hill, and the imperial palace on thePalatine hill. The last is the mithraeum referred to in the group of inscriptions from the Campus Martius (n.21). SeeA. Griffith, The archaeological evidence for Mithraism in imperial Rome, (diss., The University of Michigan,1993) 14-162 but especially 23-5.70McLynn, op. cit. (n.5), 323-26, has also observed the strong presence of the individual in these inscriptions, or

the arrogation by the dedicants of the epigraphic spotlight and concludes that ...the tauroboliumhad becomenot personal, but personalized. He further notes that in the context of the Phrygianum inscriptions that it had anunusually high public profile and that the taurobolium itself occurred in a context of competitive publicity.71 Clauss, op. cit., 1990b (n.3), 188-89 noted that for the years 150-250 70% of the documentation for gradescomes from Italy, but only 34% of the Mithraic dedications which include names of individuals (compare theDanubian provinces, which produced 43% of all the names of individuals, but only 14% of the inscriptions whichmention grades, or Dacia in particular with 96 names and a Mithraic grade mentioned only once). In Italy one outof every two inidviduals who identified themselves also identified their Mithraic grade.72The other four are from Ostia (CIL XIV.403=CIMRM235=TMMM2.141); Dura Europos (in Greek) (CIMRM57); Venetonimagus (CILXIII.2540=CIMRM911=TMMM2.94); and Augusta Emerita (CIMRM779).73CILVI.86=CIMRM336=TMMM2.26 (the so-called Ottaviano Zeno relief).74CILVI.47=CIMRM369=TMMM2.27. I am at a loss to explain the lack of the tria nominahere. Bloch, op. cit.

(n.36) did not include Agrestius on his chart of viri clarissimi. P. Herz, Agrestius v(ir) c(larissimus),ZPE49(1982) 221-24 convincingly established a terminus post quemof 364 for Agrestius but offered no thoughts on hisname.

17


18/24

Mithraic grade was clearly important for those at the top, a circumstance which compels us to

ask both why this was so, and who occupied the lower grades so carefully but anonymously

recorded in the Campus Martius inscriptions. The context of the mithraea and the Mithraic

dedications offers insight.

As previously observed, evidence for familial groups among the dedicators and the

stipulation of Mithraic grade and social rank reveals that senatorial fathers and sons used the

mithraea in domus. By contrast to Mithraism before the 4th c., when freedmen and slaves (and

also legionaries) participated in the cult in great numbers, the 4th c. lacks evidence for these

groups. Now if Mithraic grades persisted into the 4th c. and no senators held a grade below

pater, at least according to extant evidence, we must consider who filled these lower grades.

The hierarchical nature of the Romanfamiliasuggests that it might have been its other members

young sons, younger brothers, freedmen, slaves, and clients. As we shall see, the arguments

advanced for the well-attested popularity of Mithras among the Roman legions prior to the 4th

c. can also explain the cults attraction for family groups.

Mithraism among the Roman legions and in the Roman familia

The comparison between the hierarchical structure of both Roman society and the

Mithraic grades is obvious, and it has often been extended to explain Mithras great appeal

among the ranks of the Roman legions. Gordon, however, has argued persuasively that

Mithraism constituted a means of social control because promotion through a hierarchy

necessarily demanded a degree of acceptance of and submission to authority or social

conformity.75 Mithraism would thus have offered to a soldier the reaffirmation of such

submission and to a centurion the reaffirmation of his own elevated status. 76To my knowledge,

no one has applied this notion of social control achieved by honoring social conformity directly

to the congregations of mithraea in domus to other groups in Roman society worshipping

Mithras. Yet we can easily substitute for the younger sons, freedmen, slaves of thefamilia,and

75 Gordon, op. cit. (n.18), 95, 109, and n.103. Gordon argued against two then common assumptions: thatMithraism's ladder of 7 grades offered a comforting replication of real life to soldiers accustomed to the rigidmilitary hierarchy and that Mithraisms hierarchy could also act as a social equalizer since any legionary could,

theoretically, surpass the grade of his superior officers. Gordon dismissed this idea of a subordinate lording itover a superior officer as absurd.76Gordon, op. cit. (n.18), 10.

18


19/24

perhaps even the extended clientele the soldiers of lower rank. The domusmithraeum could

thus function as the consummate expression of its aristocratic owners power as pater familias;

in it he led his congregation not only with the authority of a Mithraic pater, but also with the

legal power of patria potestasor dominus, or with the social influence of a patronus. Such a

notion also happily accords with Clauss recent theory77 that priests and not initiates passed

through the 7 grades further reinforces this view of Mithraism as reaffirmation of military and

domestic hierarchy and also explains why no senator occupied the lower ranks. In such a

scenario the hierarchy of the mithraeum was rendered more complex by adding on top of the

regular initiates a group of priests pursuing the Mithraic cursus. This priesthood increased the

distance between thepaterand the general congregation and in doing so further emphasized the

high status of the pater patrum.78Naturally the senator who owned his own mithraeum in his

own domus would rise straight to the top, perhaps taking his eldest son with him (the pater

patrumandpater), while other younger sons, other relatives, and various clients filled the lower

ranks and the congregation.79I do not mean to imply that reaffirmation of social conformity and

high social status was the sole reason for worshipping Mithras in the context of the familia, but

rather to suggest that it was a useful by-product which Roman participants themselves might

have recognized.

77Clauss, op. cit., 1990b (n.3) challenged the assumption that all initiates passed through the 7 grades. If suchwere the case, he argued, then we would expect to see grades mentioned frequently in dedications, although wecertainly might expect to see some grades mentioned more than others. Clauss observed that between the years 150and 250 only certain grades appeared regularly, namely the fourth grade, leoand the seventh, pater(at a ratio of3:1,pater: leo) while of the remaining grades coraxappeared 5 times, milesandpersesonce each, and nymphusand heliodromus not at all in more than one thousand inscriptions. It was this infrequency, as well as theappearance of several other words for priest (antistes, sacerdos, magister, hieroceryx) that led Clauss to hisconclusion. Clauss (op. cit. (n.3) 189) also noted that Italy produced 70% of the Mithraists reporting grades butonly 34% of Mithraic material with names, indicating that the cult was more intensively ranked in Rome, possibly

because of similar ranking in society and the family. Oddly, Clauss omitted the appearance of Nama Nym[phos]tutela Veneris and [N]a[ma] Nymph[i]s tut[ela Ve]n[eri]s on the upper and lower layers, respectively, of theSanta Prisca mithraeum wall paintings (CIMRM480,6) and in the Dura-Europos mithraeum, where nymphos orsome form of it appear more than once (CIMRM63). The two examples of cryfios (CIMRM403, nn.21 and 27)and chryfios (CIMRM 405, n.21), a substitution for nymphos, fall outside Clauss selected chronological

period.78Gordon has observed a growing attraction to ascetism and world-denying experiences among priests during thelater empire. In this context, as Gordon fully elaborates, secret religions would be instantly appealing, butMithraism particularly so because the paterwas not only set apart by his grade, but also by his costume, whichimitated that of Mithras and thus removed him somewhat from the human world. See Gordon, op. cit. (n.52), 250-5.79

CIMRM403 (n.27) is an interesting case in which Aemilius Corfinius Olympius was inducted as a hierocorax(corax), the lowest grade, almost certainly because he was only 13 years old at the time. This may indicate thatsons went through the ranks properly but started at an extremely young age.

19


20/24

The personal benefits to be derived from the worship of Mithras were undoubtedly the

basis of the cults attraction for soldiers and civilians alike, and thus the communal nature of

Mithraic worship, which included a cult meal, could offer something well beyond reassurance

that social conformity was a virtue. Even so, personal satisfaction and pleasure in social

interaction mingled with religious worship were minor aspects; what mattered more was the

benefit that accrued over time: loyalty. If, as is commonly believed, the hierarchical

relationships of the Roman familiawere a microcosm of those in Roman society, we may now

consider why Mithraism had any appeal at all for senators and how it could meet their needs in

the public sphere just as adequately as it served them privately.

Mithraism in the private and public lives of senators

The attraction of Mithras in the context of the Carnuntum conference applies equally

well to the public and private lives of senators. A god to whom oaths, contracts, and other

bonds were sacred was perfectly suited to the senator who presided over hisfamiliaas apater.

The Phrygianum dedications, however, present the opposite set of circumstances in which

Alfenius Ceionius Iulianus Kamenius and his peers openly and proudly proclaimed their

devotion to Mithras. Mithraea in domus met all the requirements of secrecy, privacy, and

intimacy which traditionally surrounded Mithraic ritual, but the Phrygianum was decidedly

more public.80Even if Mithraic worship never happened there and no evidence confirms that

it did these senators clearly intended their peers to know who was and who was not a

Mithraist. This sort of revelation directly compromised the discretion and seclusion normally

associated with Mithraic communities to the extent that the designation mysteries became a

misnomer. It stands to reason therefore that senators not only wanted their Mithraic beliefs

known, but also perceived some benefit from doing so.

The social aspects of Roman Mithraic practice are worth considering here. If the

socially interactive nature of Mithraism reinforced the structure and loyalty within familiae,

then the possibility that it did so outside also exists. In the readily available and comparatively

80For a similar view applied to worship of Magna Mater in the Phrygianum, see McLynn, op. cit. (n.5), 325 ff.,

and for a discussion of the blurring of public and private in the cults of Magna Mater and Mithras, Matthews, op.cit. (n.48), 178.

20


21/24

public venue of the Phrygianum any sort of interaction could potentially occur, enabling

senators to fulfill diverse customary social duties, particularly of religio, but possibly also of

negotium, and even of amicitia.81 Mithraea in domus could provide another locale for these

social duties simply with the inclusion of social peers from outside the immediate circle of the

familia. The owner who worshipped Mithras privately with his peers could meet at least some

of the demands of amicitiaand display to a social equal not only his sense of duty, but also his

authority, power, and worth, in addition to reinforcing the structure of hisfamiliaand fulfilling

his own obligations of religio. In essence, this close group of worshippers could revive and

uphold the old values of the ancestors in the context of worshipping a deity with non-Roman

origins. The benefit to the invited social peer might seem minimal; he could foster amicitiaand,

almost as a by-product, negotium, but as a guest in the mithraeum of another he actually

demeaned himself somewhat since he was not pater patrumthere, and since he might not have

had a mithraeum of his own to return the invitation. Here we must recall what increased the

importance of Mithras in the 4th c.: he was the god of oaths, bonds, and loyalty who was

invoked to oversee the reaffirmation of the Tetrarchy at Carnuntum.

That bonds and loyalty could be of concern to 4th-c. pagan senators is not a difficult

premise to accept. These were men whose political influence in the empire had long since

dwindled and whose social influence faced a new challenge from senators more closely bound

to the emperor through Christianity. The common meal of the Mithraic liturgy, whether or not it

intentionally mimicked the Eucharist, certainly offered a clear alternative to pagans. But the

natural outgrowth of Mithraic worship, the loyalty among worshippers, was far more useful to

senators who clung to paganism. Loyalty to each other and to the social and religious traditions

of Rome also sustained their influence as senators, or at least offered the pretense of doing so.

Though pagan priesthoods had not been the exclusive preserve of senators for the past

millennium, they were, as it would appear from the Phrygianum inscriptions, the last retreat.

The religious experience Mithraism, with its hierarchical structure, socially interactive ritual,

81Matthews, op. cit. (n.48), 176-79, understood religioto refer not merely to the relations between men and the

gods, but equally to those among men themselves according to Cicero's definition in Natura Deorum2.8, cultusdeorum, and from its later, and frequent use, by Symmachus in his letters. Thus the diverse meanings of religioand its synonyms, officiumand munus,include amicitia.

21


22/24


23/24

Mithraic cave (specus) and its images by Gracchus during his urban prefecture (probably in

378).83

Violence may indeed have been a factor in Christian opposition to Mithraic worship, but

neither it nor the ban on sacrifice and revocation of funding of state cults recorded in the Codex

Theodosianus for 391 and 392 were the leading cause of its demise.84 The Codex records

frequent and escalating bans on sacrifice of various sorts and on superstition during the 4th c.

Such repetition suggests that such prohibitions were utterly ineffective, and perhaps that the

laws of this part of the Codexwas difficult to enforce.85Mystery cults proper were not formally

outlawed until 396.86 The death of the senators themselves coincides with the cessation of

Mithraic dedications,87 the last reference to Mithras being Alfenius Ceionius Iulianus

Kamenius epitaph from Antium in 385. So final was this end that in Macrobius Saturnalia,

written only a generation or so later, the confirmed Mithraist Vettius Agorius Praetextatus

failed to mention Mithras as one of the many manifestations of the sun. 88

Mithraism of the 4th c. was indeed something altogether different, as Clauss and

Merkelbach have hinted. Aurelians reinvigoration of solar cults was extended by the Tetrarchy,

whose dedication to Mithras coincided with dedications to Magna Mater at the Vatican

83Hieron., Ep. 107.2. No details about the mithraeum are mentioned, and it is thus impossible to connect it withany of the sanctuaries discussed herein.84Cod. Theod. 16.10.10-12.85Periodic bans began in 320 (Cod. Theod. 16.10.1) when Constantine permitted consultation of proper authoritiesconcerning omens provided only that they abstain from domestic sacrifices, which are specifically prohibited (C.Pharr, The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions (1952). The significance ofConstantines legislation in light of the Edict of Milan and the question of whether it was ever enforced have beenmuch debated (Turcan, op. cit. (n. 67), 211-12 provides a useful summary). The debatable impact of Constantineslegislation notwithstanding, such bans escalated during the course of the 4th c.: superstition and sacrifices were

banned under Constantius in 341 (Cod. Theod.16.10.2) and again in 346, 354, and 356 (Cod. Theod16.10.4 and6), and there was a special ban on nocturnal sacrifices in 353 (Cod. Theod.16.10.5), which many have interpretedas being especially aimed at Mithraism. Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius made similar bans in 381 (Cod.Theod.16.10.7), again in 382 (Cod. Theod.16.10.8), again in 385 (Cod. Theod.16.10. 9) as well as in 391, 392,and 395 (Cod. Theod.16.10.10-12). The exact dating of certain laws is problematical, but even with adjustmentssuch frequent reiteration is significant. See O. Seeck, Regesten der Kaiser und Ppst fr die Jahre 311 bis 476 n.Chr.(1919 repr. 1984) and B. Sirks, The Sources of the Code, in J. Harries and I. Wood (eds), The TheodosianCode (1993) 45-69, for adjustments in dating, and the time delay between promulgation and actual publication.Turcan (op.cit.) argued that Christian opposition to Mithraism was not a matter of ideas but of practice andproposed that these continuing legal bans were the heart of Christian opposition, which treated sacrifice as an actof culture, not religion, and as such an act that could be banned by law.86Cod. Theod.16.10.14.87Of the senators who held Mithraic priesthoods and whose dates of death we know, Petronius Apollodorus died

in 370, Ulpius Egnatius Faventinus died in 376, Caelius Hilarianus and Rufius Caeionius Sabinus died in 377,Vettius Agorius Praetextatus died in 384, and Alfenius Ceionius Iulianus Kamenius died in 385.88Macrob. Sat. I.17-23.

23


24/24

Phrygianum by senators also devoted to Mithras. The archaeological evidence indicates that

some of these senators were so committed to the cult that they built mithraea or installed them

in their domusnot merely for reasons of personal convenience or conspicuous consumption,

but, as I have tried to show, because the nature of Mithraic ritual, which placed a high value on

conformity to social status, on good relations between members of the congregation, and most

of all on loyalty, was uniquely suited to the public and private needs and aspirations of these

senators. It was not merely a solar cult that upheld the sanctity of oaths and bonds, but also an

institution whose very nature, simultaneously hierarchical and social, sustained the ancient

Roman values and customs, and therefore, traditional Roman society.

Christchurch, New Zealand A. B. Griffith

Frequently used abbreviations

CIMRM M.J. Vermaseren, Corpus inscriptionum et monumentorumreligionis Mithriacae, 2 vols. (1956 and 1960)

EPRO tudes prliminaires aux religions orientales dans lempireRomain

PLRE A.H.M. Jones, J.R. Martindale, and J. Morris (eds),

Prosopography of the later Roman empire, vol. 1 (1971)TMMM F. Cumont, Textes et monuments figurs relatifs aux mystresde Mithra, 2 vols. (1896 and 1899)

mithraism in the private and public lives

Documents