CC BY
0
UDC 930.271
Philologia Classica. 2023. Vol. 18. Fasc. 2
Initiatur in spelaeo: A Review of Ancient Terminology for Mithraic Cultic Spaces
Israel Campos Méndez
Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria,
1, calle Pérez del Toro, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35003, Spain; israel.campos@ulpgc.es
For citation: Campos Méndez I. Initiatur in spelaeo: A Review of Ancient Terminology for Mithraic Cultic Spaces. Philologia Classica 2023, 18 (2), 246-259. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2023.208
The most common word accepted in Mithraic historiography to refer to places of worship is "Mithraeum". The historical sources, however, offer us a multitude of terms that diverge from this expression which could be evoking different realities and could be referring to other kind of cultic spaces. In this paper, we have collected all the mentions supported in the epigraphy and literary sources, to have a complete vision of all these terms. With these testimonies, we have revised the previous interpretations related to the use of these different names. The variety of them has little to do with location or period. Still, we propose that this terminological variation is related to the consideration that ancient Mithra's followers had with the moment when they erected the cultic space. It is possible to connect the choice of the word "spelaeum" or "templum" with the first idea they had of what must be an "original Mithraic cave" if we consider the meaning of the verbs used by the dedicators in their inscriptions. The validity of this interpretation will allow for a better understanding of the symbolic universe in which the followers of Mithra moved, instead of the common acceptance of the modern word "mithraeum". Keywords: Mithraism, cave, Eastern Cults, epigraphy, Mithraeum.
Together with the tauroctony scene, the archaeological identification of the physical spaces where Mithraic worship took place have provided the most solid arguments for affirming the presence of Mithraism in a particular place. Indeed, the greatest advance in the knowledge of Mithraism within the borders of the Roman Empire has come from the proliferation of archaeological excavations, which have made it possible to revise and expand the map of its spread that was produced by the first systematic catalogue of Mithraic testimonies established by Franz Cumont1 in the late nineteenth century; however, it has also been suggested that errors have sometimes been made with regard to an excessive identification of certain places as Mithraic.2
This proliferation of newly discovered spaces of worship has led a considerable number of researchers to focus their attention on analyzing the traditional interpretations of "Mithraea" in the development, dissemination, and establishment of Mithraic worship. Initial classifications were based on a broad distinction between Mithraea in private spac-
1 With his work Textes et monuments figurés relatifs aux mystères de Mithra (Vol I. Brussels, 1896 and Vol. II. Brussels, 1899), F. Cumont laid the foundations for what would become the scientific study of Mithraism, carrying out the first systematic survey of all the epigraphic, literary, artistic, and archaeological documents known at the time. His landmark work was updated fifty years later by his disciple M. J. Verma-seren in his Corpus inscriptionum et monumentorum religionis mithriacae (CIMRM, vol. I and II, Leiden, 1956, 1960).
2 Alvar 2018; Silnovic 2022, 25.
© St. Petersburg State University, 2023
es and Mithraea in public spaces,3 with a particular emphasis on the ultimate ownership of the buildings in which the place of worship had been identified. Accordingly, "private" Mithraea were located in private urban insulae, villas or domus, as opposed to those located in buildings whose ownership would be linked to one of the public authorities or which had to have the permission of the authorities for their erection. Other authors have attempted to refine this categorisation, which only addresses the location of the building, by also incorporating the context and the interaction with the environment. Nielsen4 and Bornebye5 have proposed other divisions based on accessibility and visibility, identifying "semi-public" or "neighbourhood" Mithraea based on their distribution and location. Although the historiography has tended to establish certain general characteristics that are often repeated in most Mithraic spaces of worship,6 it is nevertheless possible to identify a certain variety in the final form of the building model used by Mithraists. This has led to the emergence of other classifications that, rather than focusing on their location, sought to clarify the formal diversity of the buildings identified. One starting point was initially established by Zotovic,7 who spoke about four types of places of worship: open-air sanctuaries, temples inside caves (spelaea), constructions adjoining caves (semi-spelaea) and artificial constructions (temples). Beck reduced the classification to two architectural categories (artificial constructions and structures in natural caves),8 but this distinction was too broad to be of any practical use. Schutte-Maischatz thus extended Beck's initial criterion to free-standing buildings and those incorporated into public buildings, combining the formal elements with those of location.9 These distinctions continue to be useful and have served as a reference for comprehensive studies that have been carried out on Mithraic places of worship10 as well as others of a broader nature.11
It is evident from the previous examples that the study of all the elements associated with the physical space where Mithraic worship took place within the frontiers of the Roman Empire has been a subject of enduring interest in the Mithraic historiography. There is, however, one aspect that has not received the same consideration in terms of research but that, despite the fact that there has been no significant change in the volume of testimonies available, could be examined in an attempt to make some progress in this area. The great typological diversity of Mithraic spaces of worship has traditionally been linked to a single term, "Mithraeum", which historiography has adopted as an accepted way of referring to all these kinds of buildings, irrespective of their type and location. Nevertheless, literary and epigraphic sources have provided a number of different terms with which the Mithraists seem to have described their places of worship. The previous studies have merely noted this diversity. Rarely has an attempt been made to investigate what possible meaning or motivation could lie behind the choice of different terms to refer to a particular building. Our intention with this study is to propose an interpretation that will make it possible to better
3 Becatti 1953, 113; Coarelli 1979, 69-79; Rubio 2001, 246.
4 Nielsen 2014, 165.
5 B0rnebye 2015, 228.
6 Turcan 1993, 74ss.; Nielsen 2014, 152-169; Campos 2017.
7 Zotovic, 1973, 153ss.
8 Beck 1984, 363, n. 18.
9 Schutte-Maischatz 2004, 116.
10 Hensen, 2017.
11 De Togni 2018; Silnovic, 2022; Sonnemans 2022.
understand what cultic reality or intentionality might have justified the choice of one term or another when used in a commemorative inscription or a literary reference.
Our starting point is the origin of the word Mithraeum, insofar as its modern acceptance and widespread use has resulted from a lack of interest in investigating the connotations present in the original terms found in the ancient testimonies. We should clarify that despite what is often said, it is not a contemporary neologism. The first textual reference is in Greek, MiGpatov, recorded in two Ptolemaic papyri dated to the 3rd century BCE.12 Gurob 22 (line 10) refers to a list of animals owned by different temples in Fayoum:13
MiGpatov ©u^pic; Xaiamo; прова(та) iy apve; £. In BGU X 1936, line 2 contains what appear to be references to an invoice or account book:
ало KaTox[-ca.?-] [-ca.?-] MiGpatov [-ca.?-] [-ca.?-].£WToc 5[-ca.?-j
Based on the chronologies of both fragments, it is impossible to establish a connection between the use of this term and the identification of two buildings associated with the Roman cult of Mithras, as Harris14 has already indicated. This may very well be a continuation in Macedonian times of the Zoroastrian worship of Mithra that began in Achaemenid times, of which there are other textual testimonies in Egypt, through the reference to Mithraic theonyms in the Aramaic papyri from Saqqara.15 We can identify some connection in the use of this term in Greek by two Christian authors to refer to a temple occupied by Christians in Alexandria in the mid-fourth century CE. Socrates, in his Ecclesiastical History (III. 2), gives us the expression ¿v тф абитш той MiGpeiou. Describing the same event, Sozomenus writes the following in his homonymous work (V. 7): то KaXou^evov nap auTotc MiGpiov. Despite the variants, both terms are used by the authors to designate the place of worship occupied by Mithraists, which the Christians wanted to convert into a church. They do not seem to have been aware of the references in the Ptolemaic papyri but are rather making a Mithraic translation of the term Serapeion, which is what Amianus Marcellinus (History XXII. II. 7) uses to situate this event. This word was lost until the early nineteenth century, when it was rediscovered by Zoëga,16 who in 1817 transcribed "Mithraion von Ostia" to refer to the Mithraic temple in the Italian city. Its Latinisation came a few years later, when in 1838 G. F. Creuzer used it in the title of his work Das Mithreum von Neuenheim bei Heidelberg, and it was later popularised by Franz Cumont and his followers in their works.
As such, if we rule out the historicity of the neologism Mithraeum for the first centuries of the era, we need to establish which term was used by the followers of Mithra to refer to the places where they worshipped during the Roman period. There are two main ways of accessing the references that were used to designate these worship spaces. First, we have found a significant number of inscriptions from the second to the fourth century CE in which certain terms are recurrent (templum and spelaeum) and others are used less frequently (antrum, fanum, sacraria, crypta and adytum). In the following table, we have listed the references, locations and dates of the Mithraic inscriptions that contain some of the aforementioned terms.
12 Rubsan 1974, 217; Lease 1986, 122-3; Bricault 2021, 205-6.
13 There is an ongoing debate as to whether the actual location should be in Fayoum or Memphis, cfr. Van Minnen 1998, 133; Sharafeldan, 2021, 84.
14 Harris 1996, 169.
15 Segal 1983, no. 50; Schmitt, 1991.
16 Zoëga 1817, 192.
Term Repertoire Provenance Date in centuries
Antra CIMRM I, 406 Italy, Rome II-III CE
Antrum CIMRM I, 407 Italy, Rome III CE
Speleum CIMRM I, 129 Africa, Cirta H IV CE
Spelaeum et Templum CIMRM I, 228 Italy, Ostia III CE
Spelaeum CIMRM I, 423 Italy, Rome H III CE
Speleum CIMRM I, 360 Italy, Rome III-IV CE
Spelaeum CIMRM I, 648 Italy, Nersa 172 CE
Speleum CIMRM I, 652 Italy, Aveia Vestina II-III CE
Speleo CIMRM I, 308 Italy, Ostia III CE
Speleus (sacratis) CIMRM I, 412 Italy, Rome IV CE
Spelaeum CIMRM I, 660 Italy, Volsini II CE
Speleum CIMRM I, 706 Italy, Mediolanum II CE
Spelaeum CIMRM I, 747 Italy, Aquileia II CE
Spelaeum CIMRM II, 1846 Dalmatia, Senia 151-200 CE
Speleum CIMRM II, 2350 Cyclades, Andros 202 CE
Spelaeum AE 1996, 601 Italy, Umbria II CE
Templum CIMRM I, 53 Syria, Dura Europos 209-211 CE
Templum CIMRM II, 1397 Raetia, Zwiefalten III CE
Templum CIMRM II, 1243 Germania Sup., Bingen 236 CE
Templo CIMRM II, 1297 Germania Sup., Murrhardt 151-250 CE
Templum CIMRM II, 1431 Noricum, Virunum 311 CE
Templum CIMRM II, 1438 Noricum, Virunum 239 CE
Templum CIMRM II, 1485 Noricum, Atrans-Trojana 171-300 CE
Templum CIMRM II, 1495 Pannonia Sup., Poetovio 151-230 CE
Templum CIMRM II, 1546 Pannonia Sup., Poetovio III CE
Templum CIMRM II, 1614 Pannonia Sup., Poetovio 301-310 CE
Templum CIMRM II, 1661 Pannonia Sup., Stix-Neusiedl III CE
Templum CIMRM II, 1673 Pannonia Sup., Carnuntum 171-300 CE
Templum CIMRM II, 1792 Pannonia Inf., Aquincum 213-222 CE
Templum CIMRM II, 1793 Pannonia Sup., Aquincum III CE
Templum CIMRM II, 1814 Pannonia Inf., Gorsium II CE
Templum AE 2016, 1278 Pannonia Inf., Sirmium 151-300 CE
Templo CIMRM II, 1808 Pannonia Inf., Campona III CE
Templum CIMRM II, 1951 Dacia, Apulum 171-270 CE
Templum AE 1998, 1079 Dacia, Apulum 197-230 CE
Templi CIMRM II, 2008 Dacia, Dostat III CE
Templum CIMRM II, 2208 Moesia Sup., Lopata III CE
Templum CIMRM II, 2222 Moesia Sup., Viminacium 151-250 CE
Templum AE 1994, 1335 Noricum, Virunum 201-209 CE
Templum AE 1996, 1189 Noricum, Virunum 182-184 CE
Templum CIMRM II, 2235 Moesia Sup., Guberevci III CE
Fanus (!) CIMRM II, 1315 Germania Sup., Gimmeldingen 325 CE
Crypta CIMRM II, 315 Italy, Ostia 180-200 CE
Sacrarium CIMRM II, 1698 Pannonia Sup., Carnuntum 308 CE
Sacrarium CIMRM I, 449 Italy, Rome III CE
Aedem CIMRM I, 247 Italy, Rome 151-200 CE
Aedem CIMRM I, 876 Britannia, Bremenium 219-222 CE
The mere observation of this diversity and the degree of repetition has generally led the Mithraic historiography to focus on the different terms and to emphasise the greater prevalence of one or the other in the centre and on the periphery of the empire.17 The term spelaeum is primarily used in Italy and is associated with antrum and crypta, also found in this territory, due to their similarity in meaning; the generic templum is the term most used by Mithraists in the provinces, particularly in the Rhine and Danube area.
There have been different interpretations of this diversity among those who have considered the subject. In the nineteenth century, Visconti had indicated that spelaeum was the name given to cave sanctuaries where initiations took place and that templum was used for places where public liturgies were performed.18 On this point, Lavagne clarifies that he regards this not so much as a distinction in function but rather in location and type of decoration.19 Turcan does not consider the nuances that each term might have,20 and Hensen seems inclined to emphasise the metaphorical nature of the use of spelaeum but without differentiating any other situation from the wider acceptance of the term tem-plum.21 Scherrer explored the idea of finding an explanation for the disparity in terms, pointing out that the references to antrum, crypt and spelaeum would be linked to the ap-sidal-shaped niche where the tauroctony scene was located and that the more generic use of temple, aedes or sacrarium could refer to the building as a whole.22 We can surmise that the diversity of terms must be associated with elements that go beyond simple linguistic richness, because there does not seem to be an equivalence between what is implied using spelaeum and templum.
The other set of testimonies that provides us with some reference to the term known in Roman times to describe the Mithraic place of worship comes from several Christian authors who made specific mention of Mithraism in their works. In general, there is a certain insistence on underscoring their critique of the obscurantist practices they attributed to the Mithraists, which was compounded by the space where the initiates gathered.23 By the second century CE, the earliest apologists echo the term "cave" when describing this place. Tertullian (De cor. 15) describes the rituals linked to the grade of Miles in the following way: qui cum initiatur in spelaeo, in castris vere tenebrarum ("Who, at his initiation in the gloomy cavern, in the camp, it may well be said, of darkness" (transl. Holmes 1869)). Justin (Dial. 70. 2-3), writing in Greek is much more explicit in using the term with which believers in Mithras refer to their place of worship:
"Otav 5s o[ Ta Tou MiGpou ^uat^pia napaSiSovrsc; xsywctiv ¿k nstpac; Y£Y£v^a9ai autov, Kal an^Xaiov KaAwm tov tonov svGa ^udv tou; naGo^svou; autw napaSiSouaiv, ¿vtauGa ou^i to slpn^svov uno Aavi^A.
Now when they who teach the mysteries of Mithra say that he was born from a rock and call the place where they teach the initiation of them that obey him a cave, do I not know that they have imitated the saying of Daniel. (Transl. Lukin Willians.)
17 Lavagne 1978, 272-3; Clauss 1992, 253; Scherrer 2008, 341-352; Csaba 2015, 123ss.; Hensen 2017, 393-394; Bricoult 2021, 207-208; Canciani 2022, 293-295.
18 Visconti 1864, 152ss.
19 Lavagne 1978, 273.
20 Turcan 1993, 73.
21 Hensen 2017, 388.
22 Scherrer 2008, 345-352.
23 Tolic 2020; Canciani 2022, 293.
The other authors are somewhat later (fourth to fifth century CE), they all reiterate the prominence of this term to describe the space where ceremonies take place. Jerome (Epist. 107. 2) uses it to refer to a "grotto of Mithras" destroyed by Gracchus, praetor of Rome in 378 CE:
cum praefecturam gereret urbanam, nonne specum Mithrae, et omnia portentosa simulacra, quibus Corax, Nymphus, Miles, Leo, Perses, Helios, Dromo, Pater initiantur, subvertit, fregit, excussit.
He held the prefecture of the city, overthrow, break in pieces, and shake to pieces the grotto of Mithra and all the dreadful images therein? Those I mean by which the worshippers were initiated as Raven, Bridegroom, Soldier, Lion, Perseus, Sun, Crab, and Father? (Transl. Wright.)
Paulinus of Nola makes the same reference in Carmen 32. 111 to indicate where the Mithraists have hidden the image of their god:
quid quod et Invictum spelaea sub atra recondunt quemque tegunt tenebris audent hunc dicere Solem.
For example, they keep the Unconquered One down in a dark cavern and dare to call him the sun though they hide him in darkness. (Transl. Walsh.)
Two other later authors maintain the same meaning. Firmicus Maternus (Err. prof. relig. V. 2) insists on the hidden nature of these places:
sacra vero eius in speluncis abditis tradunt, ut semper obscuro tenebrarum squalore demer-si gratiam splendidi ac sereni luminis vitent.
His cult they carry on in hidden caves, so that they may be forever plunged in the gloomy squalor of darkness and thus shun the grace of light resplendent and serene. (Transl. Forbes.)
Apart from the apologetic tradition, there are other authors who have provided references on this subject. The first literary account of Mithraic worship is associated with the late first century CE poet Statius, who at the end of Book I of his Thebaid associates the god with a cave-like context: Persaei sub rupibus antri indignata sequi torquentem cornua Mith-ram ("Mithras, that beneath the rocky Persean cave strains at the reluctant-following horns" (transl. Mozley)). This idea is later reinforced by Lactantius Placidus (Stat. Theb 4. 720) who, in his commentary on this work by Statius, further reinforces the idea that the Persians worshipped Mithra in caves: Persae in spelaeis Solem colunt ("The Persians are said to have been the first to worship the Sun in caverns" (transl. Burnam 1902)). However, Placidus refers (717) to this idea again using the term antro: apud Persas, ubi in antro colitur, Mithra voca-tur. ("the Persians Mitra and worship him in a cave" (transl. Burnam 1902)). One key author for the interpretation of the symbolic meaning that could be linked to the role of caves in Mithraic worship is Porphyry, in paragraph 6 on his work On the Cave of the Nymphs in the Odyssey24 where he bases the tradition of choosing a cave on Zoroaster himself, from whom the followers of Mithras would have taken the custom, be they natural or artificial caves:
out« Kal ffipaai t^v d; Kat« KaGoSov twv ^u^wv Kal naAiv s^oSov ^uataY«Youvt£c tsXouai tov ^uatr|v, ¿novo^daavts; on^Xaiov <tov> tonov- npwtou ^sv, £fr| Eu^ouAoc;,
24 For further reading about the relationship between Porphyry and Mithraism, see Alt 1998, Maurette 2005, and Ak^ay 2019.
ZwpoaaTpou auTofus; an^Xaiov ¿v Tot; nX^oiov opeai T^c nepai5o; dvGnpov Kal n^Ya; s^ov aviepwaavTo; el; Ti^v tou ndvTwv noi^Tou Kal naTpo; MiGpou, e'lKova fspovTo; aйтф Tou ann^aiou Tou koct^ou, ov о MiGpa; ¿Sn^ioupYn^e, twv 5' ¿vto; KaTa au^^sTpou; dnoCTTdCTei; CTu^oAa fepovTwv twv koct^ikwv CTToi^eiwv Kal KAi^aTwv- цета 5s toutov tov ZwpodCTTpnv KpaT^CTavTo; Kal napa Tot; aXXoi;, 5i' avxpwv Kal annXaiwv en"' ouv auTofuwv e'iTe ^eiponoi^Twv та; теХета; dno5i5ovai.
Thus, also the Persians, mystically signifying the descent of the soul into the sublunary regions, and its regression from it, initiate the mystic (or him who is admitted to the arcane sacred rites) in a place that they denominate a cavern. For, as Eubulus says, Zoroaster was the first who consecrated in the neighbouring mountains of Persia a spontaneously produced cave, florid and with fountains, in honour of Mithra, the maker and father of all things; a cave, according to Zoroaster, bearing a resemblance of the world, which was fabricated by Mithra. But the things contained in the cavern being arranged according to commensurate intervals were symbols of the mundane elements and climates. After Zoroaster, it was usual for others to perform the rites pertaining to the mysteries in caverns and dens, whether spontaneously produced or made by the hands. (Transl. Lamberton.)
Although we can clearly see the concurrence among these authors in their use of the terms spelaeum and antro in relation to the space where Mithraic ceremonies took place, only Justin (Dial. 70, 3) is categorical in his assertion that they "call the place where those who believe in him are initiated a cave"; for other authors, there is an atmosphere that underscores the dark and subterranean nature of Mithraic worship, and Justin associates the term spelaeum with the way in which the Mithraists themselves seem to have defined the space where they performed their rituals. Porphyry, as Tolic25 indicates, speaks of natural and artificial caves but does not appear to specify what type of space he is referring to. Similarly, when Firmicus Maternus (V. 2) wishes to condemn the practices of the followers of Mithras as Persianism, he writes that in his templis rite <sacra fieri> Magorum ritu Persico ("in the temples, the Magian rites are duly performed after the Persian ceremonial" (transl. Forbes)); he thus again uses the generic temple as a way of describing a physical place that corresponds to the Roman idea of a space consecrated for the performance of rituals.
In contrast to the terminological diversity found in the epigraphic materials (up to seven different terms), there is greater homogeneity in the term used by the classical authors to refer to the space studied herein. The inscriptions have an added value as a source, as they are directly connected to individuals involved in Mithraic worship. However, the literary testimonies come from indirect references, with a clearly combative intention-ality in many cases. Nevertheless, the consensus around underscoring the cave-like environment as a way of referring to the space where the god Mithra was worshipped by his followers must have been a familiar element that characterised this religious practice. Thus far, the emphasis has been more directly on underscoring the disparate origin of the inscriptions in relation to the term used. Accordingly, the use of templum-fanum — which represents 55 % of the total — is mostly located in territories on the north-eastern edge of the empire (Germania, Moesia, Dacia, Noricum, Pannonia and Raetia); while spelae-um-antrum-crypta — 40.4 % of those studied — are used in Italy, except for one in Dal-matia, another in the Cyclades and one in Britannia.
25 Tolic 2020, 165.
What might have been the motivation for using one term or another when commissioning the inscription? There is a certain disparity in the physical location of the Mithraea, with all the categories mentioned, a diversity that is also found in the external form they might have in relation to the environment in which they are located. Nevertheless, historiography has reached a consensus that the general plan, the internal division and the decorative-symbolic elements of Mithraic spaces of worship had a certain similarity that makes them recognisable, even in their variations.26 In this process of constructing the symbolic image that was to represent the place where the Mithraic liturgy took place, there is one component that seems to be recurrent: the intention to evoke inside the Mithraeum, regardless of the type of building chosen, an environment as close as possible to a cave, using construction materials that would facilitate this assimilation, for example, pumice stone27 or creating the right atmosphere through the judicious use of lights and shadows28 or pictorial decorations and the shape of the ceiling.29 As such, to progress towards finding an answer to the question posed, we must move beyond the approach that has hitherto been established for this spelaeum-templum dichotomy. The literary sources appear to focus on evoking the image of a cave in relation to the Mithraic space of worship. It is the inscriptions that introduce the terminological variation, and until now, they have been used only to indicate the territorial concentration of one term or another. There is, however, an element we could examine in this material that has not been considered thus far. Of the 47 inscriptions analysed in this study, which include some of the terms that refer to the space used by Mithraists, 41 provide specific information explaining the reason why the dedicator(s) decided that the stone? should be erected. This cause is expressed in the verb that, when it appears, indicates that the inscription was commissioned to commemorate either the construction of the worship space or its restoration. The following table shows the verbs used in each case.
Term Verb Repertoire
Templum Feci AE 1998, 1079
Fecit CIMRM II, 2008
Refecit CIMRM II, 2222
Exstruxerunt AE 1994, 1335
Restitui fecit CIMRM II, 1431
Restituit CIMRM I, 782, 842; II, 1814, 2208, 1485, 1495, 1397, 1673, 1614; AE 2016, 1278-9
Refecerunt CIMRM II, 1438
Restituerunt AE 1994, 1334; CIMRM II, 1661
Constituerunt CIMRM II, 1792-1793
Re instructum CIMRM II, 2235
Restitutum CIMRM I, 53
Restituto CIMRM II, 1297
Spelaeum Fecit CIMRM I, 412, 228, 747; II, 1846
Faceret CIMRM I, 423
26 Laechuli 1968, 74-5; Lavagne 1978, 273; Turcan 1993, 74; Hensen 2017, 384.
27 Sgubini 1979, 263.
28 Bjornebye 2012, 352; David 2020.
29 Hensen, 2017, 393.
Term Verb Repertoire
Constituit CIMRM I, 360; II, 2350
Restituit CIMRM I, 648, 706
Refecit AE 1996, 601
Restauravit CIMRM I, 308
Consummaverunt CIMRM I, 652
Dedit CIMRM I, 660
Antrum Facit CIMRM I, 406
fecerunt CIMRM I, 407
Aedem Extruxit CIMRM I, 876
What is relevant to the question at hand is that the verbs used in the inscriptions tend to be concentrated differently depending on whether they are associated with the term spe-laeum or templum. We thus observe that in the inscriptions in which spelaeum-antrum (15) are used, verbs whose meaning is related to the action of "building, erecting, raising, finishing" (facere, constituere, dare, consummare) are used more frequently; in the epigraphs in which templum (23) appears, verbs that evoke "rebuilding, remaking, restoring, re-erecting" (reficere, restituere, re-instruere) are repeated. We do not believe that this can be a coincidence when the figures are so disparate. Of the inscriptions with templum, 83 % are linked to the action of rebuilding. In contrast, 72 % of those with spelaeum-antrum are associated with the commemoration of their inauguration. We should bear in mind, as Sonnemans30 notes, that these buildings are presented as ideal spaces for self-promotion and that any participation in the founding or re-founding act for the place of worship had to be documented with its corresponding epigraph. This also explains the interest of the dedicators in emphasising this key role by means of the expressions de sua pecunia, ex suo omni inpensa, a solo, etc.
An analysis of the rationale behind the variations in the verbs used could explain the nuance that determines the use of one term or another to designate Mithraic places of worship. Regardless of the place of origin of the inscription, when the term spelaeum or antrum is used (it could also be linked to crypt, but we do not have the verb), it refers to the founding moment of the building chosen for Mithraic worship practices, irrespective of the other parameters mentioned above (cave, free-standing, private, public, etc.). Thus, in our opinion, spelaeum is the word that the Mithraists would use when naming their communal gathering place. The terminology would thus reflect the symbolic meaning that it should convey in the set of beliefs and elements that compose Mithraism, which would be specifically confirmed in the evocation of a cave through decoration and other elements incorporated into the interior of the appointed building. As can be interpreted from the meaning of the other inscriptions that use the term templum, the Mithraists who commissioned them wished to refer to an intervention carried out on an existing building. Accordingly, the idea underlying them does not refer to the symbolic sense of what it means to inaugurate a new Mithraic cave but rather to a specific intervention carried out on a building already consecrated to liturgical activity, which more directly corresponds to the meaning of templum in the Roman mentality. Although this word was originally associated with the delineation of a space by an augur where auspices were taken,31 over
30 Sonnemans 2022, 39.
31 Castillo 2000, 88; Chatzivasiliou 2015, 214.
time it was eventually assimilated and replaced by the terms aedes and fanum to refer to a constructed building.32 Consequently, the use of these words in the Mithraic inscriptions under analysis describe the relationship that the dedicators establish with a sacralised space,33 which has already been fully integrated into the religious praxis of the Mithraists and the physical environment where it is located, where the building that has been altered is defined (without renouncing its cave-like symbolic component) using traditional Roman religious terminology.
The epigraphic testimonies do, however, contain some exceptions to the distinction we have made regarding the verbs associated with the terms spelaeum and templum. Nevertheless, if we consider the information they provide, we can understand those exceptions. In the inscription from Umbria (AE, 1996, 601), the use of refecit is explained by the fact that it is a complete reconstruction of the spelaeum, as the previous one had completely collapsed following an earthquake. Something similar occurs in the case of Nersa (CIMRM I, 648), Ostia (CIMRM I, 308) and Milan (CIMRM I, 706), where it is explained that the restoration is due to the collapse and destruction of the previous building and that it is therefore a new building. A different situation is observed in the limited use of fecit associated with templum. Using the example of Apulum (AE 1998, 1079), despite the verb used, the term indicated the rehabilitation of a pre-existing place of worship;34 in the epigraph from Dostat (CIMRM II, 2008), there is a similar case, as the dedicator Publius Aelius Artemidorus becomes a pater in an already existing community in Dostat (Singi-dava), Apulum or Sarmizegetusa.35 The inscription of Fructosus found in Ostia (CIMRM I, 228) represents a paradoxical testimony for the entire debate analysed herein:
[---]rius Fructosus patron(us) corp(oris) s[tup(patorum?)
[---te]mpl(um) et spel(aeum) Mit(hrae) a solo suapec(unia) feci(t)
[...]rius Fructosus, patron of the guild of the tow-makers,
built the temple and cave of Mithras, alone and at his own expense. (Transl. mine — I. C.)
It is a unicum in which both terms appear together in connection with the construction of a Mithraic place of worship. This situation has posed a problem since its discov-ery,36 as it was not clear how to interpret the mention of temple and spelaeum. However, if we consider the context in which this space is located and the role of the patron who commissioned the inscription, there is no conflict with the conclusion we are drawing in this study. The text appears on two cornices found in the collegiate seat of the stuppatores, which encompassed an entire insula; the complex consisted of several adjoining tabernae, and the collegiate house,37 with a central courtyard and outbuildings around it, was in the south. This building is dated to the early third century CE and its plans included a temple that was possibly to be dedicated to Minerva. However, construction was halted at the podium, and later, this part was used as the site of a "Mithraeum". This halt was attrib-
32 Morani 1983, 25.
33 Rupke 2020, 4.
34 Szabo 2013, 58.
35 Carbo 2010, 767.
36 Becatti 1953, 24.
37 Subias 1994, 101.
uted by Hermansen38 to a lack of funds in the confraternity, which may have been taken advantage of by one of its members with sufficient capital — the Fructosus identified as the patronus — in order to cover the expenses to complete the first phase and adapt it to the specificities of a Mithraic cavern. What was to be the favissa of the original temple was modified to a vaulted form.39 The inscription thus refers in the same text to the involvement of Fructosus in the intervention carried out on the initial templum and the adaptation of a place for the gathering of the Mithraic community to which he belonged in the city of Ostia.
By examining the information provided by the inscriptions as well as the verb used to clarify the cause being commemorated by them, it is possible to explain the variations in the terms used to designate places of worship. We thus believe that the use of templum-fa-num cannot be considered to be equivalent to the use of spelaeum-crypta-antrum in the inscriptions studied. On the contrary, it is clear that the primary word used among the initiates was spelaeum (or any other synonym), insofar as it served to define the idea of what the space used for worship represented and sought to evoke the characteristics of a cave when it was artificially constructed. Its replacement by templum (or fanum or aedes) reflects situations in which a specific intervention has been carried out on a pre-existing spelaeum, and what this term underscores is the full incorporation of Mithraic worship cave into the religious conceptual framework of the Mithraists that, in turn, is fully integrated into the Roman legislation governing religious practices and spaces. The acceptance of Mithraeum as a way of defining Mithraic sanctuaries today has obscured the nuance that Mithraists would have had in mind when evoking their gathering places. As a term that has played a key role in the construction of the entire modern Mithraic historiography, we find it difficult to relinquish its use as a valid and recognisable expression. Nevertheless, in this study, we have endeavoured to explore the conceptual reality that would come as close as possible to the one that existed at the time when Roman Mithraism flourished.
References
Akçay K. N. Porphyry's On the cave of the nymphs in its intellectual context. Leiden, Brill, 2019. Alt K. Homers Nymphengrotte in der Deutung des Porphyrios. Hermes 1998, 126 (4), 466-487. Alvar J. El culto de Mitra en Hispania. Madrid, Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté, 2018. Becatti G. Scavi di Ostia. I Mitrei. Vol. II. Roma. La Libreria dello Stato, 1953. Beck R. The Rock-Cut Mithraea of Arupium (Dalmatia). Phoenix 1984, 38 (4), 356-371. Bricoult L., Roy L. Les cultes de Mithra dans l'Empire Romain. Toulouse, Presses Universitaires Du Midi, 2021.
Bornebye J. Secrecy and Initiation in the Mithraic Communities of Fourth Century Rome, in: C. H. Bull, L. Lied, J. D. Turner (eds). Mystery and Secrecy in the Nag Hammadi Collection and Other Ancient Literature: Ideas and Practices. Leiden, Brill, 2012, 349-374. Bornebye J. Mithraic Movements: negotiating topography and space in Late Antique Rome, in: K. Ostenberg (ed.) The Moving City. Processions, Passages, and Promenades in Ancient Rome. London, Bloomsbury Academic, 2015, 225-236. Burnam J. M. (transl.) The Placidus Commentary on Statius. Cincinatti, University Press, 1902. Campos I. Architettura e religione. Il mithraeum come rappresentazione simbolica della grotta" in: A. Mauiri (ed.) Antrum. Riti e simbologie dellegrotte nel Mediterraneo antico. Roma, Morcelliana, 2017, 232-243.
38 Hermansen 1982, 125.
39 Becatti 1953, 24; Sonnemans 2017, 80-83.
Canciani V. Archaeological Evidence of the Cult of Mithras in Roman Italy. PhD diss., Verona, Università degli Studi di Verona, 2022.
Carbó J. R. Los Cultos Orientales en la Dacia Romana. Formas de difusión, integración y control social e ideológico. Salamanca, Servicio de Publicaciones, 2012.
Castillo M. J. Las propiedades de los dioses griegos: los loca sacra. Iberia: Revista de la Antigüedad 2000, 3, 83-110.
Chatzivasiliou D. Fana, templa, delubra: Lieux de culte de l'Italie antique Corpus raisonné, actualités scientifiques et réflexions. Anabases 2015, 21, 213-221.
Clauss M. Cultores Mithrae. Die Anhängerschaft des Milhras-Kultes. Stuttgart 1992.
Coarelli F. Topografia Mitriaca di Roma, in: U. Bianchi (ed.) Mysteria Mithrae Leiden — Roma, Brill, 1979, 67-80.
Creuzer F. Das Mithreum von Neuenheim bei Heidelberg. Heidelberg, C. F. Winter, 1838.
Csaba S. Microregional Manifestation of a Private Cult. The Mithraic Community of Apulum, in: I. Moga (ed.) Angels, Demons and Representations of Afterlife within the Jewish, Pagan and Christian Imaginery. Iasi, Universitätii "Alexandra loan Cuza", 2013, 43-72.
Csaba S. Placing the gods. Sanctuaries and sacralised spaces in the settlements of Apulum. ReDIVA 2015, 3, 123-160.
Cumont F. Textes et monuments figurés relatifs aux mystères de Mithra, vol. I. Brussels, Lamertin, 1896.
Cumont F. Textes et monuments figurés relatifs aux mystères de Mithra, vol. II. Brussels, Lamertin, 1899.
David M., Melega A., Rossetti E. «Effetto notte». Problemi e sistemi di illuminazione nel Mitraismo tardoan-tico. Hortus Artium Medievalium 2020, 26, 579-588.
De Togni S. The so-called "Mithraic Cave" of Angera. A new perspective from archaeological investigations, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 2018, 58 (1-4), 143-155.
Forbes C. A. (transl.) Firmicus Maternus: the Error of the Pagan Religions, New York, Newman Press, 1970.
Harris J. R. Mithras at Hermopolis and Memphis, in: D. M. Bailey (ed.) Archaeological research in Roman Egypt, Ann Arbor, Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1996, 169-176.
Hensen A. Templa et spelaea Mithrae. Unity and Diversity in the Topography, Architecture and Design of Sanctuaries in the Cult of Mithras, in: S. Nagel, J. F. Quack, C. Witschel (eds). Entangled Worlds: Religious Confluences between East and West in the Roman Empire, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2017, 384-412.
Hermansen G. The Stuppatores and their guild in Ostia. AJA 1982, 86 (1), 121-126.
Holmes J. (transl.) The Writings of Tertullian. Vol. 1. London, 1869.
Laechuli S. Urban Mithraism. The Biblical Archaeologist 1968, 31 (3) (Sep.), 73-99.
Lamberton R. D. Porphyry on the Cave of the Nymphs: Translation and Introductory Essay. New York, Station Hill Press, 1983.
Lavagne H. L'importance de la grotte dans le Mithriacisme en occident. Acta Iranica 1978, 17 (4), 271-279.
Lease G. Mithra in Egypt, in: B. A. Pearson, J. E. Goehring (eds) The roots of Egyptian Christianity. Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1986, 114-129.
Lukyn Williams A. (transl.) Justin Martyr. The Dialogue with Trypho. London, MacMillan Co., 1930.
Maurett P. Porphyry and Mithraism: De antro nympharum and the Controversy against the Christians, Dionysius 2005, XXIII, 63-82.
Morani M. Sull'espressione linguistica dell'idea di "santuario" nelle civiltà classiche, in: M. Sordi (cur.) San-tuari e Politica nel Mondo Antico. Milano, Vita e Pensiero, 1983, 3-32.
Mozley J. H. (transl.) Statius, Thebaid, Achilleid, London, Loeb, 1928.
Nielsen I. Housing the Chosen. The architectural context of Mystery Groups and Religious Associations in the Ancient World. Turnhout, Brepols, 2014.
Rubio R. Difusión, asimilación e interacción de los cultos mistéricos orientales en Etruria y Umbría. Madrid, UCM, 2001.
Rübsam W. J. R. Rübsam, Götter und Külte in Faijum während der griechisch-romisch-byzantinischen Zeit. Bonn, Habelt, 1974.
Rüpke J. La religión 'vivida' frente a la 'religión cívica' en la Antigüedad: un cambio de perspectiva. Auster 2020, 25. Available at: https://www.memoria.fahce.unlp.edu.ar/art_revistas/pr.12270/pr.12270.pdf (accessed: 12.01.2023).
Scherrer P. Spelaeum sine camera? Bemerkungen zur Innenraumgestaltung von Mithraeen. Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World 2008, 8, 341-352.
Schmitt R. Name und Religion: Anthroponomastisches zur Frage der religiösen Verhältnisse des Achämenid-enreiches, in: J. Kellens (ed.) La Religion Iranienne à l'époque achéménide. Paris — Gent, 1991, 111-128.
Schütte-Maischatz A., Winter, E. Doliche — eine kommagenische Stadt und ihre Götter. Mithras und Iupiter Dolichenus. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt, 2004.
Segal J. B. Aramaic Texts from North Saqqara, London, Egypt Exploration Society, 1983.
Sgubini A. M. Nota preliminare su un Mitreo scoperto a Vulci, in: U. Bianchi (ed.) Mysteria Mithrae, Leiden — Roma, Brill, 1979, 259-296.
Sharafeldan R. M. Archaeological and Historical Evidence of the Existence of the Cult of Mithra in Egypt in the Graeco-Roman Period. JAAUTH 2021, 21 (5), 79-99.
Sinovic S. Invicto Mithrae Spelaeum fecit. Typology and Topography of Mithraic Temples in the Roman Province of Dalmatia. PhD diss. Budapest, 2022.
Sonnemans I. R. Mithras in the Urban Landscape: New Perspectives on the Cult of Mithras in the City of Ostia c. 150-400 CE. Leiden, Brill, 2017.
Sonnemans I. R. The Mithras-Scape: A Case Study from Ostia Antica, in: A. K. Rieger, J. Stöger (eds). Cities, Resources and Religion — Economic Implications of Religion in Graeco-Roman Urban Environments. Heidelberg, Propylaeum, 2022, 39-48.
Subías E. Las sedes colegiales en época romana: cuestiones de tipología arquitectónica. Boletín Arqueológico de la Real Sociedad Arqueológica Tarraconense 1994, 16, 85-110.
Tolic I. Zn|\aiov KaXwai róv Tónov: Justin the Philosopher and the Mithraic Cave. Philologia Classica 2020, 15 (1), 162-166.
Turcan R. Mithra et le Mithraicisme. Paris, PUF, 1993.
Van Minnen P. Boorish or Bookish? Literature in Egyptian villages in the Fayum in the Graeco-Roman period. The Journal of Juristic Papyrology 1998, XXVIII, 99-184.
CIMRM I: M. J. Vermaseren. Corpus inscriptionum et monumentorum religionis mithriacae. Vol. I. Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1956.
CIMRM II: M. J. Vermaseren. Corpus inscriptionum et monumentorum religionis mithriacae. Vol. II. Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1960.
Visconti C. L. Del mitreo annesso alle terme ostiensi di Antonino Pio. Annali dell'Instituto di Corrisponden-za Archeologica 1864, 36, 147-183.
Walsh P. G. (transl.) The Poems of St. Paulinus of Nola. New York, Newman Press, 1975.
Wright F. A. (transl.) Jerome, Select Letters. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1983.
Zotovic Lj. Mitraizam na tlu Jugoslavije. Beograd, Arheoloski institut, 1973.
Zoëga J. Abhandlugen. Gottingen, Dieterich, 1817.
Initiatur in spelaeo: обзор античной терминологии для обозначения
митраистских культовых пространств
Исраэль Кампос Мендес
Университет Лас-Пальмас-де-Гран-Канария,
Испания, 35003, Лас-Пальмас-де-Гран-Канария, ул. Переса дель Торо, 1; israel.campos@ulpgc.es
Для цитирования: Campos Méndez I. Initiatur in spelaeo: A review of Ancient Terminology for
Mithraic Cultic Spaces. Philologia Classica 2023, 18 (2), 246-259.
https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2023.208
Наиболее распространенным словом, принятым в митраистской историографии для обозначения мест поклонения, является Mithraeum. Однако исторические источники предлагают нам множество терминов, расходящихся с этим определением, которые могут отражать различные реалии и обозначать культовые помещения другого типа. В данной работе мы собрали все упоминания, встречающиеся в эпиграфике и литературных источниках, чтобы иметь полное представление обо всех этих терминах.
Благодаря данным свидетельствам мы пересмотрели прежние интерпретации, связанные с использованием различных наименований. Их разнообразие не обусловлено ни местом, ни периодом. Но мы предполагаем, что это терминологическое разнообразие связано с тем, как последователи древнего Митры относились к моменту создания культового пространства. С выбором слова spelaeum или templum можно связать первое представление о том, что должно быть "первоначальной митраистской пещерой", если учесть значение глаголов, которые использовали посвятители в своих надписях. Справедливость такой интерпретации позволит лучше понять ту "символическую вселенную", в которой действовали последователи Митры, противопоставив ей общепринятый современный термин mithraeum.
Ключевые слова: митраизм, пещера, восточные культы, эпиграфика, митраистский храм.
Received: April 20, 2023 Accepted: August 8, 2023
