Abstract

Scholars of Mithraic studies disagree on the origins of the Roman mystery cult of Mithras. Iranologists have largely insisted on a Persian origin of the cult. Alternatively, Roman historians emphasize the separation between the Persian Yazāt Miϑra and the Roman cult of Mithras; they interpret the cult as a Roman production informed by ancient astrology and Neoplatonic philosophy. Recent scholarship has addressed how Greco-Roman appropriation of the god Miϑra, included a process of selection and instrumentalisation of Persian tradition which informed how the Roman Mithraists developed a novel religious expression. Building on this recent approach that attends to the complex dynamics of cultural transmission, this dissertation argues that the Hellenistic reception of the god Miϑra coupled with Roman ideals of Persia can be traced in Mithraic art and its ritual language. This thesis suggests a new model for the development of Roman Mithraic imagery and visual language, and its complex relationship to Persian antecedents.
This study has four main objectives: The first objective is to establish a visual and textual inventory of the Persian Miϑra that provides an ample account for comparing the oriental manifestation of the god with his Roman counterpart Mithras. The second account is to explore the Greek depictions of the Zoroastrian Miϑra that transmitted the Persian figure of the god to Rome as the result of Rome’s interest in the Orient. The third objective is to demonstrate how the Mithraic Mystagogues embraced the Greek imagination of “handsome Oriental” as well as Greek depictions of Zoroastrian Miϑra to invent an esoteric iconography and visual language for their novel religiosity in the Roman cultural milieu, which was a novel visual language that affected the descriptions of those intellectuals who had no personal engagement with the Roman cult. The last objective is to examine the appearance of Mithras cult in the broader context of Rome’s imperial ideology and the attendant idea that Rome is defined by its openness to others and outsiders, particularly in terms of cultic life. It concludes that this cultural transmission and borrowing on the part of Romans should be understood in relation to Rome’s imperial ideology and cultural identity.