Harmonious opposition (part 1): pythagorean themes of cosmogenic mediation I the roman mysteries of Mithras

- CULTUS DEORUM. STUDIA RELIGIONUM AD HISTORTAM VOL. IE DE REBUS AE EATIS GRAECORUM ET ROMANORUM IN MEMORLAM [STUN TOTH | | I» © N | ZEKE MAZUR |, | \pls 3 HARMONIOUS OPPOSITION (PART D: PYTHAGOREAN THEMES OF COSMOGONIC MEDIATION IN THE ROMAN MYSTERIES OF MITHRAS | INTRODUCTION The Mithraic thought-world presents the historian with a hermeneutic challenge that is virtually unique among ancient religions. In the absence of a substantial corpus of, texrual evidence, any interpretation of the cult’s complex and polysemous iconographic] system requires a speculauve “reading” that depends a priori upon the relation one accords the material remains of the mysteries) with one or another better- attested domain of ancient knowledge. The resultant vicissitudes in the history of Mithraic studies are well known to scholars currently working in the Field. Vortunately, we now have a substantial and relatively stable foundation of brilliant scholarship upon which to build, scholarship whose most Fruitful inv estigations involve astrological interpretations of the tauroctony.! Here, however, 1 would like to offer a new reading of another stratum of iconographic discourse, one that is superimposed over both the litera) denotation of the bull- slaying and the second-order astro logical symbolism: specifically, the structural and geometrical relationships among the elements of the typical Mithraic tauroctony. The purpose of this paper is to suggest that (1) these structural relationships comprise a semantic: stratum that derives from contemporancaus Neopythagorean thought and consequently can be “read” according lo what might be considered a contemporaneous Neopythagorean symbological “lexicon” that (2) these features may have been deliberately encrypted in order to symbolize the Pythagorean notion of the harmo-nization and reconciliation of metaphysical opposites; and finally that (3) Mithras’ central position amidst these cosmogonic mediation. This thesis has implications symbols indicates his role involved | for our understanding of the milieu in which the cult developed, and also suggests, a | io on | its ris now virtually inconreevertible rhat the central vulr-icon of the bull-slayıng scene with to attendant animals represents (at least at vee interpretanive stratum) the so- called poraratellonta clase bull byithe represented respectively themselves Scorpias, and Taurus berween the zodincal constellations ascdat aad the scorpion; it has further been prapescs thar this serves as a celestial map for the salv ifit | 1988. 1976; Gorden 2006; 19928, 1994: 1984, Beek ala, and eventual drevades of the soul, See cure singe 2 Such a reading of Mithraic iconogtaphy dees not compete with the asteological interpretation, at the the superimposition of semantic stfati— already evident from the multiplicity of meanings astrological level alone— suggests thar multiple readings may coexist in harmony. Three very interesting arricles by Gorden (1980b, 1988; | 1994) illustrate rhe remarkably polyvalent nature af Mirthsaic symbolism,

CU LT U S D E OR U M . ST U D I A R E LI G I ON U M A D H I ST OR I A M V OL. I I : D E R E B U S A E T A T I S G R A E COR U M E T R OM A N OR U M IN MEMORIAM ISTVÁN TÓTH Z E K E M AZ U R HARMONIOUS OPPOSITION (PART I): PYTHAGOREAN THEMES OF COSMOGONIC MEDIATION IN THE ROMAN MYSTERIES OF MITHRAS I NTR ODU CTION The Mithraic thought-world presents the historian with a hermeneutic challenge that is virtually unique among ancient religions. In the absence of a substantial corpus of textual evidence, any interpretation of the cult’s complex and polysemous iconographic system requires a speculative “reading” that depends a priori upon the relation one accords the material remains of the mysteries with one or another better-attested domain of ancient knowledge. The resultant vicissitudes in the history of Mithraic studies are well known to scholars currently working in the field. Fortunately, we now have a substantial and relatively stable foundation of brilliant scholarship upon which to build, scholarship whose most fruitful investigations involve astrological interpretations of the tauroctony. 1 Here, however, I would like to offer a new reading of another stratum of iconographic discourse, one that is superimposed over both the literal denotation of the bull-slaying and the second-order astrological symbolism: specifically, the structural and geometrical relationships among the elements of the typical Mithraic tauroctony. The purpose of this paper is to suggest that (1) these structural relationships comprise a semantic stratum that derives from contemporaneous Neopythagorean thought and consequently can be “read” according to what might be considered a contemporaneous Neopythagorean symbological “lexicon”; 2 that (2) these features may have been deliberately encrypted in order to symbolize the Pythagorean notion of the harmo-nization and reconciliation of metaphysical opposites; and finally that (3) Mithras’ central position amidst these symbols indicates his role involved cosmogonic mediation. This thesis has implications for our understanding of the milieu in which the cult developed, and also suggests a 1 I t i s n o w v i r t ua l l y i n c o n t r o v e r t i b l e t h a t t h e c e n t r a l c ul t -i c o n o f t h e b ul l -sl a y i n g sc e n e wi t h i t s a t t e n d a n t a n i m a l s r e p r e se n t s ( a t l e a st a t o n e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e st r a t um ) t h e so -c a l l e d p a ra n a t e l l o n t a c l o se t o t h e zo d i a c a l c o n st e l l a t i o n s b e t we e n T a ur us a n d S c o r p i us, t h e m se l v e s r e sp e c t i v e l y r e p r e se n t e d b y t h e b ul l a n d t h e s c o r p i o n ; i t h a s f ur t h e r b e e n p r o p o s e d t h a t t h i s s e r v e s a s a c e l e s t i a l m a p f o r t h e s a l v i f i c a sc e n t a n d e v e n t ua l d i e xo d o s o f t h e so ul . S e e , i n t e r a l i a , B e c k 1 9 8 4 ; 1 9 9 4 ; 1 9 9 8 ; 2 0 0 6 ; G o r d o n 1 9 7 6 ; 1 9 8 8 . 2 S uc h a r e a d i n g o f M i t h r a i c i c o n o g r a p h y d o e s n o t c o m p e t e wi t h t h e a st r o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , s i n c e t h e sup e r i m p o si t i o n o f se m a n t i c st r a t a — a l r e a d y e v i d e n t f r o m t h e m ul t i p l i c i t y o f m e a n i n g s a t t h e a st r o l o g i c a l l e v e l a l o n e — sug g e st s t h a t m ul t i p l e r e a d i n g s m a y c o e xi st i n h a r m o n y . T h r e e v e r y i n t e r e st i n g a r t i c l e s b y G o r d o n ( 1 9 8 0 b ; 1 9 8 8 ; 1 9 9 4 ) i l l ust r a t e t h e r e m a r k a b l y p o l y v a l e n t n a t ur e o f M i t h r a i c sy m b o l i sm .

closer relationship than is generally appreciated between philosophical speculation and cultic praxis in the Roman world. 1. P OL AR I TY AND OPPOSI TI ON I N THE M I THR AI C TAU R OCTONY AND THE ENIGMA OF M I THR AS ’ POSTU R E 1.1. The emphasis on polarity and binary opposition that has been observed in many diverse systems of ancient thought is particularly evident, even central, in the Roman mysteries of Mithras. 3 In the composition of the principal cult-icon, the theme of opposition is immediately, viscerally, evoked by the dualities of Mithras and the bull, Sol and Luna, and the torchbearers Cautes and Cautopates: dualities which respectively represent the differing relationships between dominator and dominated, agent and patient, and complementary but equal principles. 4 Yet there is an additional opposition, so obvious as to be almost imperceptible, which has hitherto apparently escaped scholarly scrutiny: that between Mithras’ right and left leg. The god’s right leg, appearing on the left as one faces the tauroctony, is nearly always straight as it pins the bull’s hoof to the ground, while his left leg, which is usually resting on the back or flank of the bull, is bent at the knee with his foot often partially obscured beneath the folds of his tunic. 5 3 R . B e c k h a s s ug g e s t e d t h a t a p a s s a g e o f P o r p h y r y , De a n t r. n ymp h . 2 9 .1 2 -2 1 — wh i c h c o n c l ud e s wi t h t h e statement that (according to his translation) “there is a tension of harmony in opposition, and it shoots f r o m t h e b o ws t r i n g t h r o ug h o p p o s i t e s ” ( i t se l f ul t i m a t e l y d e r i v e d f r o m H e r a c l e i t us , f r . 5 1 D – K ) — r e f e r s to Mithraic doctrine and reveals a principal theme of the mysteries: that of the “harmony of tension in o p p o si t i o n .” T h i s i s a m a j o r t h e si s o f B e c k ’s m o st r e c e n t wo r k ( 2 0 0 6 ) ; b ut se e a l so B e c k 1 9 8 8 ; 2 0 0 0 . On t h e l e f t -r i g h t o p p o s i t i o n i n t h e t a ur o c t o n y a n d i n M i t h r a i c i c o n o g r a p h y i n g e n e r a l , s e e a l s o , i n t e r a l i a , G o r d o n 1 9 7 6 ; H i n n e l l s 1 9 7 6 ; B e c k 1 9 8 0 ( e sp . 1 0 4 a n d n . 6 5 ) ; 1 9 9 8 ; V e r m a se r e n 1 9 8 2 , 4 9 -5 0 . On p o l a r i t y a s a f un d a m e n t a l c l a ssi f i c a t o r y sy st e m i n a n c i e n t t h o ug h t , se e Ll o y d 1 9 6 6 . 4 O n e c a n a l s o d i s c e r n a n o p p o s i t i o n i n a n um b e r o f i m p l i c i t a st r o l o g i c a l d ua l i t i e s a t a s e c o n d a r y i n t e r p r e t a t i v e st r a t um b e n e a t h t h e m o st l i t e r a l m e a n i n g o f t h e b ul l -sl a y i n g sc e n e : f o r e xa m p l e , t h a t b e t we e n t h e t o r c h b e a r e r s r e p r e se n t i n g t h e sp r i n g a n d a ut um n e qui n o xe s ( o r si m p l y d a y a n d n i g h t ) ; t h e d i a m e t r i c a l l y o p p o s i n g s y m b o l s o f t h e zo d i a c a l c o n s t e l l a t i o n s T a ur us ( t h e b ul l ) a n d S c o r p i us ( t h e s c o r p i o n i n v a r i a b l y d e p i c t e d p i n c h i n g t h e h a p l e s s b ul l ’s t e s t i c l e s ) ; o r e v e n t h a t b e t we e n t h e t a ur o c t o n o us M i t h r a s a s t h e S un a n d t h e b ul l i n i t s c a p a c i t y a s l un a r s y m b o l . 5 Of t h e 1 9 2 t a ur o c t o n y p h o t o g r a p h s i n V e r m a se r e n 1 9 5 6 -1 9 6 0 [ =CI MRM] i n wh i c h M i t h r a s’ l e g s a r e v i si b l e , 1 8 8 c a se s, o r 9 8 % , un e qui v o c a l l y p o r t r a y t h e p a t t e r n i n wh i c h t h e r i g h t l e g i s st r a i g h t a n d t h e l e f t l e g i s b e n t , l e a v i n g f o ur p o s s i b l e c o un t e r e xa m p l e s t o M i t h r a s ’ usua l t a ur o c t o n o us p o s t ur e ( V e r m a se r e n d o e s n o t n o t e t h e i r i r r e g ul a r i t y ) , a s f o l l o ws. ( 1 ) A st e l e f r o m P r e g r a d e , Cr o a t i a , ( CI MRM i t e m n um b e r 1 4 6 8 ) , wh i c h V e r m a se r e n c a l l s “ p r i m i t i v e ,” sh o ws a r o ug h M i t h r a s wi t h b o t h l e g s a p p a r e n t l y b e n t . ( 2 ) A c r ud e t a ur o c t o n y f r o m A r s h a -wa -Q i b a r i n S y r i a ( n o . 7 1 ) s h o ws a “ m o n s t r o us l y sm a l l ” M i t h ra s ( o p . ci t . v o l . 1 p . 7 2 ) , s t a n d i n g a t o p t h e b ul l , a l s o wi t h b o t h o f h i s l e g s b e n t . ( 3 ) A b r o k e n t a ur o c t o n y ( 6 0 7 ) , o st e n si b l y f r o m R o m e , a n o n y m o usl y d o n a t e d t o t h e M us e um o f F i n e A r t s i n B o s t o n ( i n v . n o . 9 2 .2 6 9 2 : a p p a r e n t l y t h e o n l y a n o n y m o us g i f t i n t h e G r a e c o -R o m a n c o l l e c t i o n !) s h o ws M i t h r a s un c h a r a c t e r i st i c a l l y a st r i d e t h e b ul l a n d f a c i n g i t s h e a d ; c o n se que n t l y h i s l e f t l e g , st i l l v i si b l e o n t h e f a r si d e o f t h e b ul l , i s st r a i g h t , wh i l e h i s r i g h t l e g , i n t h e f o r e g r o un d , i s b e n t . B e c a use M i t h r a s’ p e l v i s i s i n a n o n s t a n d a r d o r i e n t a t i o n , t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e s t r a i g h t a n d b e n t l e g wi t h r e s p e c t t o t h e o b s e r v e r h a s b e e n p r e se r v e d wh i l e t h e l e f t -r i g h t p o l a r i t y o f t h e l e g s wi t h r e sp e c t t o t h e g o d ’s b o d y h a s b e e n r e v e r se d ( l e f t st r a i g h t , r i g h t b e n t ) . I f i t i s i n a ut h e n t i c o r a l a t e c o p y o n e m i g h t a ssum e t h a t a sc ul p t o r un f a m i l i a r wi t h t h e un d e r l y i n g s c h e m a r a t i o n a l i ze d t h e un n a t ur a l b ut c o n v e n t i o n a l p o s i t i o n o f t h e g o d i n t o o n e m o r e

Anyone familiar with the cult’s iconography will immediately recognize this awkward and possibly unnatural posture as a typical or even essential aspect of the tauroctony. The remarkable consistency of this particular feature is underscored by comparison with the subtle variability of others. For example, the exact configurations of the animals surrounding the bull vary between tauroctonies and between regions, while even the respective position of the torchbearers, Cautes (torch upwards) and Cautopates (torch downwards), is occasionally reversed. 6 Moreover, in contrast with the invariability of his stance, other aspects of Mithras’ posture are not entirely consistent between examples. Thus, for instance, among all tauroctonies represented by photographs in M. J. Vermaseren’s Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae (CIMRM) in which the god’s head and legs are clearly visible, Mithras is portrayed frontally in roughly half of all cases, while in more than one third of the examples he is facing some degrees towards the tail of the bull, in the direction of Sol (i.e away from, rather than towards, the sacrificial act). The relative invariability of the positions of the god’s legs suggests that this feature of the tauroctony was accorded some kind of special importance. 7 1.2. Given the prevalence of this feature of Mithras’ posture, it is surprising that (at least to my knowledge) no real attempt has yet been made to analyze it, although scholars have occasionally offered various art-historical hypotheses for the origin of the bull-slaying scene as a whole. Thus, for instance, it has been suggested that it is based upon typical Hellenistic hunting motifs and the familiar images of centauricidal Lapiths. 8 Yet even if a n a t o m i c a l l y f e a si b l e wh i l e l e a v i n g t h e b a si c c o m p o si t i o n a l r e l a t i o n sh i p o f t h e p i e c e i n t a c t . On t h i s st e l e se e a l so S a xl 1 9 3 1 , 1 2 a n d p l . 3 5 . ( 4 ) F i n a l l y , t h e h i g h l y r e a l i st i c m a r b l e g r o up t a ur o c t o n y o f t h e B a t h s o f M i t h r a s i n Ost i a ( 2 3 0 ) sh o ws a n o t h e r un c h a r a c t e r i st i c M i t h r a s, P h r y g i a n -c a p l e ss a n d i n R o m a n a t t i r e , c r o uc h i n g o v e r t h e b ul l wi t h h i s d a g g e r r a i se d . T h e r i g h t l e g i s v e r y s l i g h t l y b e n t , b ut a s i f t o e m p h a s i ze t h e d i f f e r e n c e , t h e l e f t l e g i s b e n t b a c k r a d i c a l l y so t h a t o n l y t h e k n e e c a p t o uc h e s t h e b ul l . T h e st r a i g h t b e n t o p p o s i t i o n t h e r e f o r e a p p e a r s t o b e r e t a i n e d d e l i b e r a t e l y t o t h e b e s t o f t h e a bi l i t y o f t h e a c t ua l h um a n wh o un d o ub t e d l y m o d e l e d ( i n R o m a n d r e ss) f o r t h i s un c h a r a c t e r i st i c a l l y l i f e l i k e sc ul p t ur e . H e r e t h e e xc e p t i o n p r o v e s t h e r ul e , d e m o n s t r a t i n g n o t o n l y t h e un n a t ur a l n e s s o f t h e p o s t ur e i t s e l f b ut a l s o t h e l e n g t h s t o wh i c h t h e c ul t i st s we n t i n o r d e r t o p r e se r v e i t a t t h e e xp e n se o f a r t i st i c g r a c e . I n a l l b ut f o ur a n o m a l o us e xa m p l e s , t h e r e f o r e — o n e o f wh i c h i s p o s s i b l y i n a ut h e n t i c — M i t h r a s ’ r i g h t l e g i s st r a i g h t wh i l e h i s l e f t i s b e n t . 6 S e e Ca m p b e l l 1 9 5 4 ; B e c k 1 9 8 2 ; S c h o f i e l d 1 9 9 5 . 7 Of t h e 1 4 5 CI MRM t a ur o c t o n y p h o t o g r a p h s i n wh i c h M i t h r a s ’ h e a d i s v i s i b l e , h e f a c e s a t l e a st a f e w d e g r e e s t o t h e r i g h t o f c e n t e r , t h us t o wa r d s t h e t a i l o f t h e b ul l , i n 5 7 c a se s, 3 9 % o f t h e t i m e ; h i s g a ze i s p e r p e n d i c ul a r t o t h e a xi s o f t h e sp i n e o f t h e b ul l i n 7 7 c a se s, 5 3 % o f t h e t i m e ; a n d f o r wa r d i n o n l y 1 1 c a se s, 8 % o f t h e t i m e . F o r t y -se v e n e xa m p l e s i n CI MRM a r e e i t h e r t o o b a d l y d a m a g e d o r n o t suf f i c i e n t l y c l e a r t o d e t e r m i n e . M i t h r a s’ a v e r t e d g a ze m i g h t r e f l e c t t h e so l a r o r i e n t a t i o n o f t h e c ul t , si n c e i n t h e v a st m a j o r i t y o f c a s e s i n wh i c h t h e t wo l um i n a r i e s a r e v i s i b l e , S o l a p p e a r s i n t h e up p e r r i g h t -h a n d r e g i s t e r o f t h e s c e n e , a b o v e t h e t a i l o f t h e b ul l , wh i l e L un a oc c up i e s t h e o p p o s i t e c o r n e r a b o v e t h e b ul l ’s h e a d ; t h e g o d se e m s t o b e t r y i n g t o g a ze b a c k wa r d a t t h e S un . Of 7 6 p l a t e s i n CI MRM i n wh i c h e i t h e r l um i n a r y i s v i s i b l e , S o l o c c ur s o n t h e r i g h t a n d L un a o n t h e l e f t ( f r o m M i t h r a s ’ p e r s p e c t i v e ) 7 2 t i m e s , o r 9 5 % o f t h e t i m e ; t h i s p a t t e r n i s r e v e r s e d i n o n l y 4 c a s e s , o r 5 % o f t h e t i m e ; o f t h e s e a n o m a l o us c a s e s i n wh i c h S o l i s t o M i t h r a s’ l e f t , t h e l a t t e r f a c e s p e r p e n d i c ul a r t o t h e b ul l i n 3 c a se s a n d o n c e t o wa r d s t h e t a i l , i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f L un a . 8 A t t h e t ur n o f t h e l a st c e n t ur y , Cum o n t ( 1 8 9 6 -1 8 9 8 : 1 8 1 , 2 1 4 -2 1 9 ) sug g e st e d t h a t t h e t a ur o c t o n y h a d b e e n i n sp i r e d b y P e r g a m e n e r e l i e f s o f t h e g o d d e ss N i k e sl a y i n g a b ul l ; t h i s h y p o t h e si s wa s f o l l o we d ,

the posture derives from these artistic prototypes, one still might wonder why the cult’s founders should have selected this particular model in the first place, and if they did adopt such a model, why they exaggerated certain aspects while reversing others; and further, why this specific structural relationship was crystallized and repeated more or less unaltered throughout the three centuries (or so) of the Roman cult’s florescence. 9 For we may be confident that the tauroctony is at least in part based upon a complex and polyvalent astral symbolism, and it therefore cannot have been solely dependent upon the mere repetition of traditional forms or upon strictly aesthetic criteria. Furthermore, the widespread and nearly simultaneous emergence of an extremely consistent iconographic system suggests that Mithraism had been conceived more or less at once, in its entirety, according to a carefully elaborated system of thought (it is thus dissimilar to most other Graeco-Roman mystery-cults to which it is often compared). Indeed, the complex interrelationship between the various multivalent elements of the tauroctony seem to have been guided by an underlying rationale, a logos, whose origin was probably less a result of diachronic evolution than of careful, deliberate design at one point in time by an individual or perhaps a small group of collaborators. 10 So if in fact the relative configuration of Mithras’ legs— right leg straight, left leg bent sharply at the knee— remains one of the most constant iconographic features of the tauroctony, what, then, accounts for its invariance? And wherefore this particular opposition? 2. T HE T AU R OCTONY AN D THE P Y THAGOR E AN TABL E OF OPPOSI TE S 2.1. Here I would like to suggest that this apparently insignificant feature of Mithras’ posture, remarkable for its peculiar awkwardness as much as its relentless consistency, might hold a key not only to the composition of the tauroctony but also to an essential wi t h qua l i f i c a t i o n s, b y o t h e r sc h o l a r s; t h us F . S a xl ( 1 9 3 1 : 4 -1 3 & p l . 3 2 ) c o n c ur r e d t h a t t h e P e r g a m e n e N i k e h a d f i g ur e d i n t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e t a ur o c t o n y b ut a l s o t h o ug h t t h e m o t i f t o h a v e d e r i v e d i n p a r t f r o m e a r l i e r G r e e k r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f H e r a k l e s a s we l l a s f r o m o t h e r n o n -G r e e k s o ur c e s . Y e t t h e r e a r e si g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t we e n t h e t a ur o c t o n y a n d t he H e l l e n i s t i c r e l i e f s p r o f f e r e d a s p r o t o t y p e s : f o r e xa m p l e , N i k e i n v a r i a b l y l o o k s t o wa r d s t h e b ul l wh i l e M i t h r a s usua l l y f a c e s a wa y f r o m t h e d e e d ; a l so , t h e N i k e r e l i e f s a n d t h e M i t h r a i c t a ur o c t o n y f r e que n t l y m i r r o r e a c h o t h e r , wi t h t h e b ul l a n d t h e g o d d e ss f a c i n g t o t h e l e f t a s o n e o b s e r v e s t h e s c e n e . F i n a l l y , N i k e ’s e xt e n d e d l e g i s o f t e n n o t c o m p l e t e l y st r a i g h t . S e e a l so W i l l 1 9 5 5 , 1 6 9 f f . ( wi t h t h e o b j e c t i o n s o f T ur c a n 1 9 9 3 , 4 8 f f .) . 9 S e e k i n g t o d e s c r i b e t h e h i s t o r i c a l e v o l ut i o n o f M i t h r a i c i d e o l o g y t h r o ug h t i m e a n d s p a c e , s c h o l a r s o p e r a t i n g wi t h i n a d e v e l o p m e n t a l p a r a d i g m ( e .g . Ca m p b e l l 1 9 5 4 ; H i n n e l l s 1 9 7 6 ) e xa m i n e d t h e r e g i o n a l t y p o l o g i c a l v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e s ub s i d i a r y m y t h i c a l s c e n e s p o r t r a y e d i n p a n e l s s ur r o un d i n g t h e t a ur o c t o n y o r up o n t h e s ub t l y c h a n g i n g p o s i t i o n s o f t h e t o r c h b e a r e r s a n d a n i m a l s , ( i .e . p r e c i s e l y t h o s e a sp e c t s wh i c h d o v a r y c o n si d e r a b l y ) , wh i l e l e ss a t t e n t i o n wa s a c c o r d e d M i t h r a s h i m se l f . Y e t t h e g o d ’s p o st ur e a p p e a r s n o t t o h a v e c h a n g e d c o n s p i c uo us l y o v e r t i m e a n d t h us s e e m s t o h a v e b e e n s t a n d a r d i ze d a t t h e o r i g i n o f t h e R o m a n m y st e r i e s, p e r h a p s i n a c c o r d wi t h so m e sp e c i f i c a sp e c t o f d o c t r i n e . M o r e r e c e n t s c h o l a r s h a v e t e n d e d t o m i n i m i ze t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t we e n i c o n o g r a p h y a n d d o c t r i n e ; t h us S c h we r t h e i m 1 9 7 4 ; B e r c i u a n d P e t o l e sc u 1 9 7 6 ; S c h o f i e l d 1 9 9 5 ; b ut c f . G o r d o n 1 9 8 0 a , wh o a sse r t s c o n v e r se l y t h a t t h e f o r m o f M i t h r a i c a r t , f a r f r o m c o n c e a l i n g o r e n c o d i n g m e a n i n g , i s t h e m e a n i n g i t se l f . 10 T h i s p o i n t i s m a d e b y H i n n e l l s 1 9 7 8 , B o y c e a n d G r e n e t 1 9 9 1 , 4 7 0 ; se e a l so t h e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l d i sc ussi o n i n B e c k 1 9 8 4 , e sp . 2 0 7 4 f f . a n d n . 1 0 8 .

and overarching aspect of Mithraic doctrine as a whole. The contrast between “straight” and “bent” occurs most notably in Aristotle’s description of the Pythagorean table of opposite principles (archai) comprising the primordial origin of all things (Metaphysics 986a23-26). In this passage, the opposition of “straight” (euthu) with “bent” (kampulon)— in that order— may be found among a list of ten opposing pairs, along with limit– unlimited, odd–even, one–many, right–left, male–female, rest–motion, light–darkness, good–evil, and square–oblong. 11 The correspondence between, on the one hand, the Pythagorean doctrine associating right with straight and left with bent, and, on the other hand, the iconographic configuration of Mithras’ legs— also, clearly, right–straight and left–bent— might at first seem to be merely coincidental or trivial, yet upon closer examination it becomes evident that certain complementary elements in the respective zones of the tauroctony correspond to additional oppositions of the Pythagorean table. As is evident from a perusal of CIMRM, the typical tauroctony shows a pronounced visual division created by the implicit diagonal line ascending from the lower left to the upper right, formed roughly by the line of contact between Mithras’ straight right leg and the hind leg of the bull, proceeding upwards between his legs (where it is sometimes made visible by a crease in his tunic) and then finally following either his chest or the angle of his right arm upwards to the top of the bull’s head, where his hand usually grasps the animal by its nostrils. This implicit line divides the scene into upper righthand and lower left-hand zones (right and left, that is, from Mithras’ perspective), with terrestrial animals (dog, serpent, scorpion) in the lower-left zone and the aerial animal (raven) in the upper-right zone. With this lateral division in mind, besides (a) the initial straight-bent polarity with which we began, one may observe (b) the light-dark opposition implied by the daylight accompanying Sol and nocturnal darkness concomitant with Luna, 12 and (c) the male-female duality clearly represented by the two luminaries, with Sol to Mithras’ right and Luna to his left. 13 That this correspondence is 11 T h e so ur c e s f o r e a r l y P y t h a g o r e a n i sm a r e p r o b l e m a t i c , a n d A r i st o t l e ’s a c c o un t s o f t h e P y t h a g o r e a n s m us t b e t r e a t e d wi t h p a r t i c ul a r c a ut i o n . N e v e r t h e l e s s , s c h o l a r s h a v e g e n e r a l l y h e l d t h e t a b l e o f o p p o s i t e s t o r e f l e c t g e n ui n e P y t h a g o r e a n d o c t r i n e . A s e a r l y a s t h e 5 t h c e n t ur y B CE t h e P y t h a g o r e a n s we r e r e p ut e d t o h a v e t a ug h t t h a t t h e p h e n o m e n a l wo r l d a r i se s f r o m a s e r i e s o f p a i r s o f m e t a p h y s i c a l o p p o s i t i o n s , t h e m o st f un d a m e n t a l usua l l y b e i n g t h a t b e t we e n Li m i t ( p e ra s ) a n d U n l i m i t e d ( a p e i ro n ) ; t h i s p r e sum a b l y r e f e r s t o t h e m ut ua l l y e xc l usi v e se t s o f t h o se t h i n g s wh i c h a d m i t d e g r e e s o f d i f f e r e n c e a n d t h o se t h a t d o n o t . P l a t o a l l ud e s t o P y t h a g o r a s a s h a v i n g i n t r o d uc e d t h i s d o c t r i n e a t Ph l b . 1 6 c -d ; a l so 1 8 b -c , 2 3 c -2 8 b . T h a t t h i s p a ssa g e i s i n f a c t a n i n t e n d e d a l l usi o n t o P y t h a g o r a s i s d e f e n d e d b y B ur k e r t ( 1 9 7 2 : 8 5 -9 2 ) b ut se e i b i d . 5 1 f f ., wh e r e h e c o n s i d e r s t h e o p p o s i t e s t o b e g e n ui n e P y t h a g o r e a n d o c t r i n e a l t h o ug h n o t n e c e ssa r i l y a n c i e n t ; c f . h o we v e r G ut h r i e ( 1 9 9 5 : 2 3 2 , 2 4 5 -2 5 1 ) , wh o c o n si d e r s t h i s t o b e e a r l y ; t h us a l so K a h n 1 9 7 4 . I sh a l l d e f e r t h e que st i o n o f t h e p r e c i se r e l a t i o n b e t we e n P y t h a g o r e a n a n d P l a t o n i c t h o ug h t ; f o r t h e p ur p o s e s o f t h e p r e s e n t s t ud y , l e t us a s s um e n o a b s o l ut e h i s t o r i c a l d e m a r c a t i o n c a n b e m a d e b e t we e n t h e se i n t e l l e c t ua l m o v e m e n t s i n l a t e a n t i qui t y . 12 T h i s f e a t ur e i s a l so m a d e e xp l i c i t b y c o l o r sh a d i n g o n t h e p a i n t e d f r e sc o e s a t M a r i n o , t h e P a l a zzo B a r b e r i n i ( CI MRM 3 8 9 ) a n d S a n t a M a r i a Ca p ua V e t e r e ( 1 8 1 ) . 13 O n e a l s o m i g h t e xp e c t t o f i n d a n o d d ( r i g h t ) — e v e n ( l e f t ) o p p o s i t i o n , b ut i f t h i s o c c ur s i t i s l i m i t e d t o a f e w a t y p i c a l t a ur o c t o n i e s: CI MRM 1 1 3 7 , 1 9 2 0 , 1 9 5 8 , 1 9 7 2 , 2 0 3 6 , 2 0 8 5 , 2 1 5 4 , 2 2 1 4 a n d 2 3 3 8 , f o r e xa m p l e , p o r t r a y Ca ut e s, t o M i t h r a s’ l e f t , wi t h t wo r a i se d t o r c h e s, a n d Ca ut o p a t e s, t o M i t h r a s’ r i g h t ,

noncoincidental and that the structural opposition of the tauroctony might indeed have been deliberately designed according to the Pythagorean table of archai is further supported by a curious tradition, more or less contemporaneous with Roman Mithraism, that Pythagoras himself had learned the doctrine of opposing archai from “Zaratas” (i.e. Zoroaster), who was also reputed (falsely, one presumes) to have established the Mithraic mysteries (e.g. by Porphyry, De antro nympharum 6). 14 3. P Y THAG OR E AN G E OME TR I CAL SY MBOL I SM I N THE TAU R OCTON Y 3.1. It therefore appears that beneath both the literal, first-order imagery of the bullslaying and also the second-order representation of an astrological map, the tauroctony is governed by a more abstract stratum, a third-order symbolism involving a series of structural oppositions related to Pythagorean thought. This initial hypothesis appears to be further supported by the fact that additional Pythagorean elements may be discovered lurking beneath the surface of Mithraic iconography. In several important studies, Prof. István Tóth— in whose memory this paper is offered— has noted that both an equilateral triangle and a pentagram— two geometric figures which, as he suggests, had marked symbolic value for the Pythagoreans— are encrypted in the relief from Intercisa (Dunaújváros) in Pannonia. As an explanation for these figures, Tóth proposed that the sectaries who commissioned this particular relief were well-versed in contemporaneous Neopythagorean thought. 15 Yet these two geometric figures occur more widely in Mithraic art than Tóth apparently realized, and aspects of his suggestions concerning Intercisa may be extrapolated to the tauroctony in general. 16 wi t h o n l y o n e l o we r e d t o r c h . T h e r e a r e n o c a se s wh e r e t h i s a n o m a l y i s r e v e r se d . T h e i n f r e que n c y o f t h i s p a t t e r n a l l o ws n o f i r m c o n c l us i o n t o b e d r a wn . 14 H i p p o l . H a e r. 1 .2 .1 2 wi t h S p o e r r i 1 9 5 5 ; K i n g sl e y 1 9 9 0 ; a l so P l ut ., De a n . p ro c. i n T i m 1 0 1 2 e . A l t h o ug h H i p p o l y t us m a k e s n o m e n t i o n o f t h e s t r a i g h t – b e n t d i c h o t o m y s o c r uc i a l f o r t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e t a ur o c t o n y , t h i s p a s s a g e n e v e r t h e l e s s p r o v i d e s e v i d e n c e f o r t wo c o m m o n n o t i o n s : f i r s t , t h a t t h e P y t h a g o r e a n d o c t r i n e o f o p p o s i n g a rch a i wa s a sso c i a t e d wi t h ( a n d i n d e e d e v e n p ur p o r t e d t o h a v e d e ri v e d f r o m ) P e r si a n d ua l i sm , a n d se c o n d , t h a t t h i s e n t i r e sc h e m e wa s i n so m e wa y a sso c i a t e d wi t h t h e c y c l e o f t h e sun ( t h i s l a t t e r n o t i o n so t a n t a l i zi n g l y r e m i n i sc e n t o f M i t h r a s’ so l a r r o l e ) . W h a t e v e r i t s a c t ua l p r o v e n a n c e o r a n t i qui t y , i n t h e f i r st f e w c e n t ur i e s CE t h e r e c i r c ul a t e d a n um b e r o f d i f f e r e n t a c c o un t s o f t h e P y t h a g o r e a n t a b l e o f o p p o s i t e s , a l l o f wh i c h p r e s e r v e d t h e g e n e r a l n o t i o n o f a p r i m o r d i a l , c o s m o g o n i c o p p o s i t i o n : e .g . P l ut . De I s . e t O s . 4 8 ; P o r p h . V . Pyt h . 3 8 ; V a r r o L i n g . 5 .1 1 . T h e se a c c o un t s d e sc ri be m o re or l e ss t h e sa m e sc he m e , a l t houg h s o m e t i m e s wi t h e m p h a s i s o n o t h e r e l e m e n t s o r t h e o m i s s i o n o r a d d i t i o n o f d e t a i l s. T h us, f o r i n s t a n c e , P o r p h y r y i n c l ud e s “ s t a b l e ” a n d “ un s t a b l e ” un d e r r i g h t a n d l e f t r e s p e c t i v e l y , wh i c h i s s ug g e s t i v e o f t h e o p p o s i t i o n b e t we e n t h e s t a bi l i t y o f M i t h r a s’ f i xe d r i g h t f o o t , p l a n t e d f i r m l y o n t h e b ul l ’s h i n d h o o f , a n d t h e p r e c a r i o us n e s s o f h i s b e n t l e f t k n e e a s h e a t t e m p t s t o f o r c e d o wn t h e un f o r t un a t e a n i m a l . 15 T ó t h 1 9 9 9 ; 2 0 0 3 . I a l so h a d t h e o p p o r t un i t y t o s e e a n e a r l i e r un p ub l i sh e d m a n us c r i p t v e r s i o n o f “ A z I n t e r c i sa i M i t h r a e um n a g y k ul t uszk é p e .” P r o f . T ó t h wa s , i n c i d e n t a l l y , o n e o f v e r y f e w a ut h o r s ( a l o n g wi t h Ca r c o p i n o a n d T ur c a n , o n wh o m , s e e n n . 2 3 i n f ra ) t o sug g e st m o r e t h a n a c i r c um st a n t i a l l i n k b e t we e n M i t h r a i sm a n d P y t h a g o r e a n i sm . 16 T ó t h d o e s n o t e xt e n d t h i s h y p o t h e s i s t o t h e c ul t a s a wh o l e , p r e s um a b l y b e c a use n o t a l l t a ur o c t o n i e s d i sp l a y t h e p r e c i se p e n t a g r a m o f t h e so r t h e se e s a t I n t e r c i sa . I n t h e I n t e r c i sa r e l i e f t h e b ul l ’s n o st r i l s a n d t a i l a r e e xe p t i o n a l l y o n t h e sa m e a p p r o xi m a t e h o r i zo n t a l l i n e wi t h r e sp e c t t o t h e b a se o f t h e sc e n e ;

3.2. First, one should note that virtually every tauroctony— not only that of Intercisa— contains an implicit triangle, a figure to which the Pythagoreans accorded enormous mathematical, cosmological, and even theological significance. 17 To be precise, in most of the tauroctonies represented in CIMRM, Mithras’ straight right leg extends to the base of the relief at an angle more or less mirrored by a corresponding angle on the opposite side of the scene, formed by either the dog or the bent foreleg of the bull. This line is often continued by the subtle ridge of the bull’s shoulder, thereby tacitly delineating an isosceles or occasionally equilateral triangle whose apex converges at Mithras’ chest or on his head. 18 That this figure was intended to be “read” as a geometric symbol rather than as a purely naturalistic feature is implied by the fact that on typical tauroctonyT ó t h t a k e s t h e s e t wo p o i n t s a s t h e l e f t - a n d r i g h t -m o s t p o i n t s o f t h e p e n t a g r a m . Y e t i n m o s t o t h e r e xa m p l e s o f t h e t a ur o c t o n y — t h o se e xa m p l e s wh i c h , i n m y o p i n i o n , c l e a r l y d i sp l a y a n e n c r y p t e d p e n t a g r a m — t h e s e t wo p o i n t s , a r e a p p a r e n t l y s i t ua t e d o n o t h e r l a t e r a l l y -sy m m e t r i c a l f e a t ur e s o f t h e sc e n e , suc h a s t h e t o r c h b e a r e r s’ h e a d s, a n d n o t , a s a t I n t e r c i sa , o n t h e h e a d a n d t a i l o f t h e b ul l . U n d e r s t o o d i n t h i s wa y , t h e p e n t a g r a m i s a c o m m o n f e a t ur e o f m a n y o t h e r t a ur o c t o n i e s a s we l l . 17 P h i l o l a us a n d o t h e r e a r l y P y t h a g o r e a n s a r e sa i d t o h a v e c o n si d e r e d t h e a n g l e s o f t r i a n g l e s sa c r e d t o sp e c i f i c g o d s; P r o c l . I n Eu cl . 1 3 0 , 1 6 6 -9 , 1 7 3 -4 ; i d e m , T h e o l . Pl a t . 1 .4 , ; P l ut . De I s . e t O s . 3 0 ; D a m . De p ri n c. 2 .1 2 7 .7 . H uf f m a n ( 1 9 9 3 , 3 8 1 -3 9 1 ) c o n si d e r s t h e se f r a g m e n t s sp ur i o us a n d a t t r i b ut e s t h e m t o t h e e a r l y A c a d e m y i n st e a d ; h e se e s t h e se a s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e G r a e c o -R o m a n a st r o l o g i c a l c o n c e p t o f t r i g o n o n a n d t e t r a g o n o n ( e .g . i n M a n i l i us, As t ro n . 2 .2 7 0 f f .: t h e t r i a n g l e s a n d squa r e s i n sc r i b e d i n t h e c i r c l e o f t h e zo d i a c l i n k i n g t h r e e a n d f o ur si g n s r e sp e c t i v e l y ) b ut c o n si d e r s t h e 1 2 -si g n zo d i a c t o h a v e d e v e l o p e d t o o l a t e f o r t h e se t o b e g e n ui n e f r a g m e n t s o f P h i l o l a us. S e e h o we v e r K i n g sl e y ’s ( 1 9 9 4 ) a r g um e n t f o r t h e a ut h e n t i c i t y o f t h e se f r a g m e n t s a n d a n e a r l y d a t e f o r t h e 1 2 -si g n zo d i a c a n d c o n se que n t l y t h e g e n ui n e l y P y t h a g o r e a n n a t ur e o f a n g ul a r t h e o l o g y . R e m a r k a b l y , G o r d o n ( 1 9 7 6 : 1 3 4 1 3 7 ) c o m p l e t e s t h e c y c l e o f a sso c i a t i o n s b y r e l a t i n g t h e t r i g o n o n a n d t e t r a g o n o n t o M i t h r a i sm . L a t e r t h i n k e r s i n f l ue n c e d b y P y t h a g o r e a n i sm a sso c i a t e d t r i a n g l e s wi t h v a r i o us e n t i t i e s: a c c o r d i n g t o P l ut a r c h ( De d e f . o r. 4 1 6 d ) t h e P y t h a g o r e a n i zi n g P l a t o n i c sc h o l a r c h Xe n o c r a t e s e qua t e d e qui l a t e r a l t r i a n g l e s wi t h g o d s, i so s c e l e s t r i a n g l e s wi t h d a e m o n e s a n d s c a l e n e t r i a n g l e s wi t h m e n . P y t h a g o r a s h i m se l f , o f c o ur s e , wa s r e p ut e d t o h a v e d i sc o v e r e d t h e so -c a l l e d P y t h a g o r e a n t h e o r e m — t h a t t h e sum s o f t h e squa r e s o f t h e t wo c a t h e t i o f a r i g h t t r i a n g l e a r e e qua l t o t h e s qua r e o f t h e h y p o t e n use — a t wh i c h p o i n t , a c c o r d i n g t o a n a n e c d o t e p r e se r v e d b y P l ut a r c h ( N o n p o s . s u a v . 1 0 9 4 b ) a n d P r o c l us ( I n Eu cl . 4 2 6 ) , h e sa c r i f i c e d a n o x, a n i m a g e i t se l f c ur i o usl y r e m i n i sc e n t o f t h e M i t h r a i c t a ur o c t o n y . S e e a l so D i o g . La e r t . 8 .1 2 a n d 8 .2 2 , i n wh i c h t h e o n e o x h a s b e e n e xp a n d e d t o o n e h un d r e d ; t h i s l e s t o n e i m a g i n e t h a t t h e v e g e t a r i a n i sm l a t e r a sso c i a t e d wi t h P y t h a g o r a s p r e c l ud e s t h e p o ssi b i l i t y o f a P y t h a g o r e a n o r i g i n o f t h e t a ur o c t o n y . P o r p h y r y ( V . Pyt h . 3 6 ) s o l v e s t h i s a p p a r e n t p r o b l e m b y c l a i m i n g t h e o x wa s m a d e o f f l o ur , wh i c h , i n t e r e s t i n g l y e n o ug h , i s r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e e a r s o f wh e a t o c c a s i o n a l l y s p r o ut i n g f r o m t h e t a i l o r wo un d o f t h e b ul l whi c h M i t h ra s sl a ug h t e rs. 18 A n i n f o r m a l p e r us a l o f CI MRM p h o t o g r a p h s r e v e a l e d 9 3 t a ur o c t o n i e s wh i c h a p p e a r e d t o c o n t a i n a n i m p l i c i t i so sc e l e s o r e qui l a t e r a l t r i a n g l e wi t h b o t h a n g l e s a t t h e b a se a p p r o xi m a t e l y e qua l ( a m o n g t h e se e xa m p l e s t h e a n g l e o f M i t h r a s ’ l e g v a r i e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y , a n d i n e a c h c a s e t h e a n g l e o p p o s i t e c h a n g e s c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , s ug g e s t i n g a h i g h l y d e l i b e r a t e s c h e m e ) ; 3 0 d i s p l a y e d a n g l e s a t t h e b a s e s wh i c h we r e c l e a r l y un e qua l , wh i l e 6 1 we r e i n suf f i c i e n t l y c l e a r t o d e t e r m i n e o n e wa y o r t h e o t h e r . A n o t h e r t r i a n g l e m a y a l s o b e i m p l i e d b y M i t h r a s ’ l e g s , wh o s e a wk wa r d p o s i t i o n v e r y o f t e n i n v o l v e s a r i g h t a n g l e . T h i s i s not immediately evident, since in most cases neither the top of his thigh nor the angle of his shin is p r e c i se l y 9 0 d e g r e e s f r o m h i s st r a i g h t r i g h t l e g . R a t h e r , i n t h e se i n st a n c e s t h e r i g h t a n g l e t e n d s t o b e formed by a short line representing the meeting point of the bottom of his left calf and his thigh. In a l m o s t h a l f o f t h e v i s i b l e e xa m p l e s i n CI MRM, t h i s a n g l e wa s r o ug h l y 9 0 d e g r e e s; i n a l a r g e m a j o r i t y o f t h e r e st o f t h e e xa m p l e s, e i t h e r h i s l e f t t h i g h i t se l f o r t h e l i n e o f h i s c a l f f o r m e d a r i g h t a n g l e .

reliefs, the animals and Mithras’ legs— the figurative elements comprising the triangle— are almost invariably depicted on the same two-dimensional plane in an otherwise threedimensional scene, which in real life would imply a clumsy and unstable, if not physically impossible, position astride the bull. Moreover, emphasizing the importance of the symbol to Mithraism, undisguised representations of triangles occur in several Mithraea, usually on centrally-located altars separate from the main cult-icon. 19 3.3. The second figure that Tóth perceives in the Intercisa relief— the pentagram— is similarly associated with Pythagoreanism and even thought to have been a symbolon by which Pythagoreans could secretly recognize one another. 20 Yet I would suggest that the pentagram is also embedded in many other reliefs, not just that of Intercisa, although the exact composition of the figure varies between examples. Like the triangle with which it is often contiguous, the pentagram is not depicted explicitly but rather is suggested by a number of subtle features. In the typical tauroctony, a plainly visible segment originates in Mithras’ right foot (point A), appears to follow Mithras’ right leg and back, and culminates at his head (B); this point B often also coincides with the ceiling of the grotto. A corresponding segment then redescends from point B, follows the dog’s back, and ends at (C) the dog’s hind legs, or occasionally, when the dog is in a nonstandard position, at the bull’s forelegs or Cautopates’ feet. The segment BC is often also suggested to some extent by a number of coincident details, such as the bull’s eye, the top of the handle of the dagger, the line of bull’s shoulder, the head of Cautopates’ downward-pointing torch, the dog’s back or the bull’s bent foreleg, and other more variable features as well such as inconspicuous and seemingly inconsequential creases in the neck of the bull. From the termination of this segment at point C, an ascending diagonal (the mirror image of AB) follows a path usually delineated by the dog’s forelegs 19 T h e se i n c l ud e a y e l l o w sa n d st o n e i so sc e l e s t r i a n g l e a d o r n e d wi t h a c r e sc e n t sy m b o l , f o un d a t H e d d e r n h e i m , CI MRM 1 1 2 0 , a n d a n e qui l a t e r a l t r i a n g l e wi t h a h e m i sp h e r i c a l p r o t ub e r a n c e ( 4 8 7 ) un e a r t h e d a t S a n t a P r i sc a i n R o m e , o n wh i c h se e V e r m a se r e n a n d v a n E sse n 1 9 6 5 , 3 4 2 a n d p l . LXXI X.3 ; a l so t h e v a g ue l y l e o n i n e f a c e e m e r g i n g f r o m a n “ up si d e -d o wn ” e qui l a t e r a l t r i a n g l e , p . 3 4 3 a n d p l . LXXV I I I .6 .. M o n um e n t s wi t h o st e n si b l y a r c h i t e c t ur a l t r i a n g ul a r e l e m e n t s o r o t h e r sub t l e d e c o r a t i o n i n c l ud e CI MRM 9 8 7 b i s, 1 1 2 7 , 1 2 0 6 , 1 2 4 7 f r o n t a n d b a c k , 1 3 4 7 , 1 4 0 0 , 1 9 0 2 , 1 9 1 9 , 1 9 4 4 , 2 0 3 7 , 2 2 4 4 , 2 3 0 5 . Ot h e r t y p e s o f t r i a n g l e sy m b o l s i n c l ud e CI MRM 1 1 , 2 2 9 , 2 3 4 , 3 6 9 , 3 9 0 , 4 1 1 , 4 3 4 , 4 5 7 , 4 8 7 , 5 0 8 , 6 7 6 , 8 2 9 ( a n i so sc e l e s t r i a n g l e h e wn o ut o f t h e wa l l n e a r t h e a l t a r ) , 1 0 0 4 , 1 1 2 0 , 1 1 5 2 , 1 2 0 0 , 1 2 0 6 , 1 3 0 6 , 1 3 9 4 , 1 6 6 0 , 1 9 4 4 , 2 0 2 8 , 2 1 6 4 , a n d 2 3 5 1 . U n usua l t r i a n g ul a r a l t a r -b a se s a l so o c c ur i n t h e M i t h r a e um a t S p o l e t o ( 6 7 6 ) ; a t R o m e i n t h e M i t h r a e a o f t h e B a t h s o f Ca r a c c a l l a ( 4 5 7 ) a n d t h e P a l a zzo d e i M use i ( 4 3 4 ) , ( o n wh i c h se e P i e t r a n g e l i 1 9 4 0 , 1 4 3 -1 7 3 ) , a n d a t Ost i a i n t h o se o f t h e P a r e t i D i p i n t i ( 2 6 4 ) a n d t h e B a t h s o f M i t h r a s ( 2 2 9 ) . E a c h e xa m p l e o c c ur s i n a v e r y c e n t r a l p o si t i o n o n o r n e a r t h e a xi s o f t h e c e l l a a n d a l so qui t e n e a r t h e p r i n c i p a l t a ur o c t o n y , s ug g e s t i n g t h a t t h i s f e a t ur e p o s s e s s e d a s p e c i a l i m p o r t a n c e i n t h e c ul t ; sp a t i a l a r r a n g e m e n t s wi t h i n M i t h r a e a we r e sy m b o l i c a l l y si g n i f i c a n t ; se e G o r d o n 1 9 7 6 . I n t h e sum m e r o f 1 9 9 8 I wa s a b l e t o p h o t o g r a p h t r i a n g ul a r a l t a r s a t t h e M i t h r a e a o f t h e P a l a zzo d e i M us e i i n R o m e a n d t h e B a t h s o f M i t h r a s a n d t h e P a r e t i D i p i n t i a t Ost i a . Li k e t h e t r i a n g l e s e n c r y p t e d i n t h e t a ur o c t o n y , t h e a n g l e s o f t h e t r i a n g l e s d e p i c t e d o n t h e s e a l t a r s v a r y : t h o s e o f t h e B a t h s o f M i t h r a s a n d t h e P a l a zzo a r e d i st i n c t l y i so sc e l e s t r i a n g l e s, wh i l e t h a t o f t h e P a r e t i D i p i n t i se e m s e qui l a t e r a l ; o t h e r t h a n t h e c o m p l e t e a b se n c e o f sc a l e n e t r i a n g l e s t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n t c o n si st e n c y i n t h e p r e c i se sy m b o l i sm . On t r i a n g l e s i n M i t h r a i sm i n g e n e r a l se e W o r t m a n n 1 9 6 9 , 4 1 0 -4 2 3 a n d Le n t z 1 9 7 5 . 20 Luc i a n , L a p s . 5 , wi t h sc h o l i um ( Sch o l . L u c. 2 3 4 .2 1 R a b e ) , B ur k e r t 1 9 6 1 , 2 3 0 n . 4 ; 1 9 7 2 , 1 7 6 n . 8 1 ; d e V o g e l 1 9 6 6 , 2 4 7 -2 9 1 .

and / or those of the bull, the angle of Mithras’ bent left shin or the crease between his thigh and shin, and occasionally the furrows of his garment; this segment culminates in (D) the cap or forehead of the torchbearer to Mithras’ right (our left). In addition, the implicit ascending diagonal line described by Mithras’ right foot (A) and the point of his bent left knee almost invariably alligns with the torchbearer to his left (usually Cautopates, with downward-pointing torch), generally meeting (E) the crest of his Phrygian cap, his eyes, his forehead, or, less frequently, other marked points on his body, in each case at or near the wall of the grotto. This relationship is typically maintained whatever the angle of this imaginary diagonal line with respect to the base of the scene. 21 In each case this line AE also intersects other significant points of the scene, such as the entrance wound of the knife (e.g. CIMRM nos. 181, 368, and 588) or the snout of the dog (e.g. 390, 588, 650, and Marino). The pentagram is completed by the horizontal segment DE, extending between Cautes and Cautopates and often intersecting the top or the hilt of the dagger or some other more conspicuous point on Mithras’ right hand, often following the line of either of the god’s forearms, and occasionally also intersecting the flame of Cautes’ torch or the tuft (or ear of wheat) at the end of the bull’s upturned tail to Mithras’ right. To reiterate, the five angles of the tacit pentagram thus usually occur at the following points, now describing a pentagon in clockwise order: (D) the head of the torchbearer (either Cautes or Cautopates) to Mithras’ right; (B) Mithras’ head or the top of his cap; (E) the head of the other torchbearer to Mithras’ left; (C) the dog’s hind legs, the bent knee of the bull, or, occasionally, the left-hand torchbearer’s feet; and finally (A) Mithras’ right foot planted on the bull’s hoof. Although the pentagram is rarely precisely equilateral, there is at least a general lateral symmetry, which means that the angle at Mithras’ right foot with respect to the base of the scene (BAC) is rarely more than 5 degrees (and never more than 10 degrees) different from that at the dog’s hind feet (BCA). 22 The variability of the composition suggests that the pentagram’s presence is due not to the mere replication of a fixed model but rather to a conscious and deliberate encryption of this particular figure, perhaps through the use of a geometrical template by the sculptor. 4. A P Y THAG OR E AN “ R E ADI NG ” OF THE GE OME TR I C SY MBOL I SM OF THE TAU R OCTONY 4.1. If this reading is correct, Mithraic iconography may involve (at least in part) a deliberate encryption of certain Pythagorean sumbola. At present I shall leave aside the historical question of how exactly Neopythagorean ideas might have permeated Mithraism at what must have been a germinal stage of the Roman cult’s development, 21 T h us, f o r i n st a n c e , a t Ca p ua , t h e a n g l e i s 2 5 d e g r e e s t o t h e c r e st o f Ca ut o p a t e s’ c a p , a t M a r i n o , 2 6 d e g r e e s si m i l a r l y a t t a i n i n g h i s c a p , a t B a r b e r i n i ( CI MRM 3 9 0 ) 2 2 d e g r e e s t o t h e b e n d o f h i s l e f t e l b o w; i n t h e V i l l a B o r g h e se st e l e ( 5 8 8 ) , 2 3 d e g r e e s t o h i s f o r e h e a d ; i n t h e st e l e f o un d o n t h e E squi l i n e i n R o m e (368) 32 degrees to the point of his cap. 22 F o r e xa m p l e , t h e r e l a t i v e a n g l e s B A C a n d B CA a t M a r i n o a r e 3 5 a n d 4 0 d e g r e e s, r e sp e c t i v e l y , a t CI MRM 5 8 8 , 3 6 a n d 4 0 ; a t 3 9 0 , 4 0 a n d 3 5 ; a t 3 6 8 , 3 4 a n d 2 9 ; a t 6 5 0 , 4 1 a n d 3 7 ; a n d a t 1 8 1 , 3 0 a n d 4 0 .

although I do believe there is a strong case to be made that they did. 23 What is important for our immediate purposes is simply to note that the embedding of geometrical symbolism itself seems to be consistent with a long tradition of Pythagorean praxis. The anecdotal evidence for early Pythagoreanism already suggests a concern with both the graphic expression of abstract ideas and the symbolic encryption of doctrine. 24 Yet there is also explicit evidence from late antiquity that symbols in the form of geometrical shapes and bodily postures were deliberately encrypted in figurative cult-icons and theurgical statuettes. 25 It is therefore plausible that the third-order, symbolic subtext of 23 S o n um e r o us a r e t h e c i r c um s t a n t i a l c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s b e t we e n M i t h r a i sm a n d P y t h a g o r e a n i s m t h a t o n e m i g h t r e a so n a b l y s up p o s e t h e c ul t ’s f o un d e r s t o h a v e b e e n N e o p y t h a g o r e a n s o r a t l e a st we l l -v e r s e d i n P y t h a g o r e a n l o r e ; t h i s d e se r v e s a se p a r a t e st ud y i n t h e f ut ur e . F o r a t i n y g l i m p se o f so m e suc h c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s , o n e m i g h t s i m p l y c o n s i d e r t wo b i o g r a p h i c a l m y t h o l o g o um e n a a b o ut P y t h a g o r a s: f i r s t , t h a t o f h i s v i s i t s t o a n d p e r s i st e n t l i n k s wi t h P e r s i a n M a g i ( e .g . D i o g . L a e r t . 8 .2 ; P o r p h . V . Pyt h . 1 2 ; I a m b l . V P 4 ) , a n d s e c o n d , h i s c o n s t r uc t i o n o f a n a r t i f i c i a l s ub t e r r a n e a n c h a m b e r , r e m i n i s c e n t o f a M i t h r a i c s p e l a e u m, t o se r v e a s a r e t r e a t ( D i o g . La e r t . 8 .4 1 ; P o r p h . V . Pyt h 9 ; I a m b l . V P 5 ; B ur k e r t 1 9 7 2 , 1 5 6 -1 6 1 ) . Ca r c o p i n o ( 1 9 2 7 : 2 1 1 -2 1 6 ) sug g e st s t h a t t h i s l e g e n d i n sp i r e d a N e o p y t h a g o r e a n c o n v e n t i c l e i n R o m e t o c o n st r uc t a n d d e c o r a t e a sub t e r r a n e a n b a si l i c a a n d n o t e s a n a p p a r e n t si m i l a r i t y wi t h M i t h r a i sm ; i n t r i g ui n g l y , t h e m i d -1 s t c e n t . CE d a t e p r o p o s e d f o r t h i s m o n um e n t wo ul d s i t ua t e i t j us t p r i o r t o t h e e m e r g e n c e o f t h e f i r st M i t h r a i c s p e l a e u m. T h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t we e n M i t h r a i sm a n d P y t h a g o r e a n i s m h a s b e e n l a r g e l y n e g l e c t e d b ut f o r a f e w s c h o l a r s ; t h us T ó t h , a s a b o v e , b ut a l s o Ca r c o p i n o ( o p . ci t . 2 1 3 , n . 7 ) : “ La r e sse m b l a n c e e n t r e s l e s r i t e s p y t h a g o r i c i e n s e t m i t h r i a que s p e ut ê t r e f o r t ui t e . Ce l l e e n t r e l e s e xp l i c a t i o n s t h é o l o g i que s d e c e s r i t e s p e ut l ’ê t r e a ussi . M a i s si c e s a n a l o g i e s p r o c è d e n t d ’un e i n f l ue n c e , i l e st b i e n m a l a i sé d e d e v i n e r e n que l se n s e l l e s’e xe r ç a . E st -c e l e m a zd é i sm e qui , à l ’o r i g i n e , p é n é t r a l e p y t h a g o r i sm e ? E st -c e l e p y t h a g o r i sm e qui , p l us t a r d , a d é t e i n t sur l e m i t h r i a c i sm e r o m a n i sé ? Le s d e ux r é p o n s e s n e s ’e xc l ue n t p a s , e t c ’e s t un f a i t qu’a ux e n v i r o n s d e n o t r e è r e , o n n e d i s t i n g ue p a s e n t r e l e s m a g e s e t l e s p y t h a g o r i c i e n s.” T ur c a n ( 1 9 7 5 ) m a k e s a si m i l a r co n n e c t i o n b e t we e n P y t h a g o r e a n i s m a n d t h e we st e r n so ur c e s ( e .g . i b i d . 5 9 : “ … l e s s e ul s a ut e ur s g r e c s c o n n us p o ur s ’ê t r e i n t é r e s s é s s p é c i a l e m e n t e t t e c h n i que m e n t , s i j ’o s e d i r e , a u m i t h r i a c i sm e p y t h a g o ri sa i e n t d e f a ç o n p r e sque sy st é m a t i que ” ) b ut r e j e c t s t h e we st e r n e v i d e n c e a s c o r r up t e d wi t h N e o p y t h a g o r e a n a n d P l a t o n i c i d e a s t h a t h e d e n i e s t h e m y st e r i e s t h e m s e l v e s . T h e s ug g e s t i o n o f a N e o p y t h a g o r e a n o r i g i n f o r M i t h r a i sm i s n o t i n c o n f l i c t wi t h B e c k ’s r e c e n t ( 1 9 9 8 ; 2 0 0 1 ) sug g e st i o n t h a t t h e c ul t wa s d e v e l o p e d i n t h e m i l i e u o f t h e Co m m a g e n e a n r o y a l d y n a st y , p e r h a p s b y t h e a st r o l o g e r T . Cl a ud i us B a l b i l l us, so n o f t h e f a m o us P l a t o n i st ( a n d r e p ut e d N e o p y t h a g o r e a n ) T . Cl a ud i us T h r a sy l l us; o n t h e l a t t e r ’s N e o p y t h a g o r e a n i sm , se e T a r r a n t 1 9 9 3 . 24 E .g . t h e c l a i m o f A r i st o t l e ( Me t a p h . 1 0 9 2 b 8 ) t h a t t h e P y t h a g o r e a n E ur y t us o f T a r e n t um a sso c i a t e d e n t i t i e s s uc h a s “ m a n ” a n d “ h o r s e ” wi t h t h e l o we s t n um b e r o f p e b b l e s wh i c h c o ul d b e a r r a n g e d t o r e p r e se n t i t . S t r uc k 2 0 0 4 h a s p ro p o s e d a P y t h a g o r e a n o r i g i n f o r t h e c o n c e p t o f t h e “ s y m b o l ” ( s u mb o l o n ) use d t o d e n o t e a t o k e n c o n v e y i n g h i d d e n m e a n i n g . T h e r e a r e a l s o v a r i o us l e g e n d s t h a t t h e P y t h a g o r e a n s k e p t c e r t a i n e so t e r i c a sp e c t s o f g e o m e t r y r i g o r o usl y se c r e t a n d se v e r e l y p un i sh e d t h o se wh o r e v e a l e d t h e m ; t h us, i n t e r a l i a , P l ut . N u m. 2 2 ; B ur k e r t 1 9 7 2 , 4 5 7 f f .. T h e P y t h a g o r e a n c o n c e r n wi t h e so t e r i c s y m b o l i sm h a d a p r a c t i c a l s i d e a s we l l : un d e r t h e t h r e a t o f t o t a l a n n i h i l a t i o n f r o m o n g o i n g p e r s e c ut i o n s , t h e e a r l y P y t h a g o r e a n s we r e sa i d t o h a v e p r e se r v e d t h e i r d o c t r i n e i n sy m b o l s wh i c h we r e t h e n p a sse d d o wn c l a n d e st i n e l y wi t h i n f a m i l i e s; t h us I a m b l . V P 2 3 ; D i o g . La e r t . 7 .4 2 . 25 T h us P r o c l . I n Eu cl . 1 3 8 ; I a m b l . Mys t . 1 8 4 .2 -1 4 . Le st o n e i m a g i n e a f e a t ur e so a p p a r e n t l y i n c o n s e que n t i a l a s t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e g o d ’s l e g s t o b e t o o p e r i p h e r a l a f e a t ur e f o r g e n ui n e P y t h a g o r e a n c o n c e r n , a n o f f h a n d r e m a r k o f P l ut a r c h i s t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e P y t h a g o r e a n s n e v e r c r o sse d t h e i r l e f t l e g o v e r t h e i r r i g h t o n e ( De v i t . p u d . 5 3 2 c ) . W h a t p r e c i se l y t h i s m e a n s i n t h e c a se o f M i t h r a i sm i s un c e r t a i n , si n c e Ca ut e s o r Ca ut o p a t e s i s o f t e n d o i n g j ust t h a t ; b ut i t m a k e s c l e a r t h a t a s a sy m b o l i c e l e m e n t t h e l e g s i n p a r t i c ul a r we r e n o t t h o ug h t t o b e b e n e a t h P y t h a g o r e a n s c r ut i n y .

the tauroctony was similarly designed, and that it represented an especially esoteric aspect of Mithraic discourse, a discourse encrypted at an iconographic level well beneath the first symbolic stratum (the literal denotation of the mythical bull-slaying) or the second stratum (the astrological schema). It is, of course, impossible to know whether the Mithraic rank-and-file were themselves aware of this third-order symbolic stratum, but one might reasonably conjecture that the geometrical relationships underlying the tauroctony and their symbolic connotations were known to the cult’s founders as well as the spiritual leaders (i.e., the Fathers) of each congregation, and thus presumably also to the artists and craftsmen under the Fathers’ patronage. One may also speculate that the superimposition of several symbolic strata would have lent itself conveniently to the hierarchical grade structure of the cult in which increasingly esoteric or abstract interpretations could have been revealed progressively to the initiates. 4.2. At this point, if I am correct thus far, one may ask why the founders of the mysteries chose to embed these particular Pythagorean symbols so centrally in the principal cult-icon. An answer might be suggested by the convergence of “meanings”— I use the term advisedly 26— that the Pythagoreans were thought to have accorded the two figures. Although the triangle was closely associated with cosmogony in Pythagorean thought 27— a significance which would correspond well with Mithras’ ostensibly demiurgic role as despotês geneseôs, if we are to trust Porphyry (De antro 6)— the figure also seems to have represented the harmonization of opposites. The Pythagoreans assimilated the triangle to the notion of the “triad,” which apparently represented the abstract notion of mediation between extremes and the harmonization and unification of opposite principles. 28 According to a passage of Nicomachus of Gerasa preserved in the Theologoumena Arithmeticae (an anonymous Neopythagorean compendium transmitted in the corpus of Iamblichus), the triad represents the symmetry of the “mean” term between extremes, as well as a number of abstract qualities— such as “friendship” (philia), 26 B e c k ( 2 0 0 6 ) — f o l l o wi n g a n e a r l y a n t i -st r uc t ur a l i st c ur r e n t i n a n t h ro p o l o g y ( e s p e c i a l l y t h e wo r k o f D . S p e r b e r ) — h a s a r g ue d f o r e xt r e m e c a ut i o n i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f M i t h r a i c sy m b o l s, wh i c h a r e p o l y v a l e n t a n d o f t e n se l f -r e f e r e n t i a l . W h i l e I a g r e e i n p r i n c i p l e , I t a k e e xc e p t i o n i n t h i s c a se , si n c e t h e P y t h a g o r e a n s y m b o l i sm I h a v e p r o p o s e d ( 1 ) h a s a n e xt r e m e l y we l l -d e f i n e d c o n t e xt f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n t h e N e o p y t h a g o r e a n a r i t h m o l o g i c a l a n d s y m b o l o g i c a l “ l e xi c o n ” a n d ( 2 ) h a s b e e n , i n t h a t s a m e c o n t e xt , s e l f -c o n s c i o us l y t h e o r i ze d ( e .g . n n . 2 4 a n d 2 5 s u p ra ) a s a sy m b o l i c l a n g ua g e wi t h a sp e c i f i c m e a n i n g . T h e r e f o r e , i f m y t h e si s i s c o r r e c t , t h e n t h e h e r m e n e ut i c e r r o r — i f i t i s a n “ e r r o r ” — i s a l re a d y p r e se n t i n t h e N e o p y t h a g o r e a n s o ur c e f o r t h e s y m b o l i sm wh i c h wa s l a t e r a d o p t e d b y t h e f o un d e r s o f t h e m y s t e r i e s . 27 E .g . P r o c l . I n Eu cl . 1 6 6 . T h e P y t h a g o r e a n s we r e r e p ut e d t o h a v e c o n si d e r e d t h e t e t ra k t ys — a n e qui l a t e r a l t r i a n g l e f o r m e d f r o m t h e g r a p h i c a r r a n g e m e n t o f t h e f i r st f o ur i n t e g e r s wh o se sum i s t e n ( i .e ., 1 +2 +3 +4 =1 0 ) — t o b e t h e s o ur c e o f t h e n a t ur a l wo r l d ; T h e o n o f S m y r n a , Exp o s . 3 8 ; S e xt . E m p . Ma t h . 7 .9 4 -9 5 ; A ë t . 1 .3 i n D i e l s, Do x. G ra e c. 2 8 0 ; I r e n a e us, H a e r. 1 .1 .1 ; B ur k e r t 1 9 7 2 , 7 2 -7 3 , 1 8 7 -1 8 8 ; D e l a t t e 1 9 1 5 , 2 4 9 -2 6 8 . I n t h e T i ma e u s , a d o c t r i n e o s t e n s i b l y b a s e d o n a P y t h a g o r e a n s o ur c e , P l a t o a t t r i b ut e s t h e o r i g i n o f a l l b o d i e s t o i so s c e l e s a n d s c a l e n e r i g h t t r i a n g l e s ( 5 3 c -5 5 c ) , a n d t h e n o t i o n o f t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e p h y s i c a l wo r l d f r o m v a r i o us t y p e s o f t r i a n g l e s wa s f r e que n t l y r e p e a t e d i n t h e H e l l e n i s t i c p s e ud o p y t h a g o r i c a . 28 On t h e P y t h a g o r e a n s a sso c i a t i o n o f t r i a n g l e wi t h t r i a d , se e N i c o m a c h us, I n t ro d u ct i o n t o Ari t h me t i c 2 .8 .1 ; A n o n . [ I a m b l .] T h e o l . Ari t h . 1 7 f . d e F a l c o ; o n t h e s o ur c e s f o r t h i s k i n d o f t h o ug h t m o r e g e n e r a l l y , s e e O’M e a r a 1 9 8 9 , 1 4 -2 5 .

“peace” (eirênê), “harmony” (harmonia), “unanimity” (homonoia) and “marriage” (gamos)— all associated with the unification of opposites. 29 Moreover, a similar significance seems to have been accorded the pentagram. A passage of Lucian attests that the Pythagoreans associated this figure with “health” (hugeia). 30 According to Pythagorean medical doctrine, health entails the harmonious balance between opposing qualities, such as hot and cold, moisture and dryness, and so on, while disease results from the preponderance of one such quality over another. 31 The pentagram would therefore have had the distinct connotation of the harmony of opposites. Yet perhaps more importantly, by the same logic that the triangle was related to the triad, the pentagram could be assimilated to the “pentad,” or the set of five (often arranged graphically as a pentagon), which, as Plutarch attests, the Pythagoreans called “marriage” (gamos) in that it is the sum of the first male “male” number (i.e. 3) and the first “female” one (i.e. 2). 32 The Theologoumena accords the Pentad the role of mediation par excellence (mesotêtos tês aristês kai phusikôtatês: 31.16 de Falco); the figure is further repeatedly related to a familiar constellation of mediatory concepts, such as “marriage” (gamos), “justice” (dikaiosunê) the “midpoint” (kentron), the “absence of strife” (aneikia), and, more generally, to the harmonious reconciliation of opposites. The treatise also attributes to a Pythagorean named Megillus the association of the Pentad’s mediatory function and its ability to unite opposites with the characteristics of luminosity and planetary motion. 33 4.3. It therefore appears that the two embedded geometric figures, the triangle and the pentagram, may have been intended to represent the reconciliation and harmonization of cosmological and metaphysical opposites of the sort we have already seen to be encrypted by the reciprocal zones of the tauroctony. According to this “reading,” then, the tauroctony represents both (1) symbols of primordial opposition (i.e. the dualities right—left, male—female, light— dark, straight—bent, etc.), and (2) symbols of the harmonization of opposites (i.e. triangle, pentagram). That this third-order symbolic stratum concerns the function of the tauroctonous Mithras himself is suggested by the fact that the god’s body is both central and structurally essential to both geometrical figures as well as to the lateral division between the two opposing zones, zones that he simultaneously separates and unites while also governing the subtly unequal 34 29 A n o n . [ I a m b l .] T h e o l . Ari t h . 2 6 d e F a l c o ; c f . P o r p h . V . Pyt h . 5 1 . I n l a t e r P l a t o n i sm , t h e t wo P y t h a g o r e a n c o n n o t a t i o n s o f t h e t r i a n g l e — b o t h d e m i ur g i c a n d h a r m o n i zi n g — s e e m t o h a v e c o n v e r g e d ; t h us P r o c l us ( I n Eu cl . 1 3 0 ) a t t r i b ut e s t o T h e o d o r us o f A si n e ( a st ud e n t o f I a m b l i c h us) t h e p e c ul i a r n o t i o n t h a t v a r i o us g o d s a r e a s s o c i a t e d wi t h t h e d i f f e r e n t a n g l e s o f a t r i a n g l e , s o m e p r e s i d i n g o v e r t h e c r e a t i v e o r c o s m o g o n i c p r o c e s s o f e m a n a t i o n , o t h e r s o v e r t h e r e un i f i c a t i o n o f d i sp a r a t e e l e m e n t s. 30 Luc i a n , L a p s . 5 . T h e a sso c i a t i o n se e m s t o b e c o n f i r m e d b y a r c h a e o l o g i c a l e v i d e n c e ; S t a p l e t o n 1958, 35 n. 43. 31 P s.-T i m a e us o f Lo c r i i , O n t h e Co s mo s 1 0 -1 1 ; B ur k e r t 1 9 7 2 , 2 7 2 . 32 P l ut . De E a p . De l p h . 3 3 7 f f f .; A n o n . [ I a m b l .] T h e o l . Ari t h . 3 0 d e F a l c o . 33 A n o n . [ I a m b l .] T h e o l . Ari t h . 3 5 .1 -6 d e F a l c o . T h e se c h a r a c t e r i st i c s a r e , o f c o ur se , r e m i n i sc e n t o f b o t h M i t h r a s ’ s o l a r r o l e a n d t h e a st r o l o g i c a l c o n t e xt o f t h e t a ur o c t o n y . 34 T h e g o d ’s g a ze i s o f t e n st r a n g e l y a v e r t e d f r o m t h e sa c r i f i c i a l a c t , e i t h e r st a r i n g o ut f r o n t a l l y f r o m t h e s c e n e o r t ur n i n g b a c k o v e r h i s r i g h t s h o ul d e r t o wa r d s S o l . T h i s s ug g e s t s t h a t wh i l e un i t i n g o p p o s i t e s wi t h h i s l e g s , h e n e v e r t h e l e s s usua l l y f a v o r s t h e b r i g h t , s o l a r , r i g h t s i d e o v e r t h e t e n e b r o us a n d l un a r l e f t

relationship between them. 35 We may further juxtapose this graphic schema with a certain amount of independent textual evidence to the effect that Mithras served as mediator: evidence whose relevance to the mysteries themselves has often been questioned. 36 There is, for instance, Plutarch’s oft-cited excursus on ostensibly “Persian” religion at De Iside et Osiride 39, in which he refers to Mithras as “mediator” (mesitês), midway between the opposing principles of light (Oromazes) and darkness (Areimanius). More important, perhaps, is the extensive testimony of the Emperor Julian, who was himself, arguably, a Mithraic initiate. In his Hymn to King Helios, Julian repeatedly emphasizes the sun-god’s cosmically-central position, and attributes to him the role of “some kind of mediation” (tinôn mesotêtôn) between opposing metaphysical principles, as well as the power to unite them. 37 Finally, one might also consider the aforementioned (n. 3, supra) passage of Porphyry’s De antro nympharum 29, which enumerates a series of cosmic oppositions and concludes with the statement, at lines 20-21, “from this tension of opposition there is harmony, and it shoots through the opposites” (dia touto palintonos hê harmonia kai toxeuei dia tôn enantiôn). Beck has shown this passage to be of Mithraic provenance, but it may also— and indeed may simultaneously— refer to the Pythagorean archai. 38 The cumulative weight of this evidence suggests that at least one significant s i d e . T h i s i s a l s o c o n g r ue n t wi t h P y t h a g o r e a n d ua l i sm , f o r , a l t h o ug h t h e o p p o s i t e s a r e a t t un e d i n s o m e wa y , t h e y a r e n o t e t h i c a l l y e qui v a l e n t , A r i st o t l e i n d i c a t e s a t Me t a p h . 9 8 6 a a n d Et h . Nic. 1 1 0 6 b 2 9 . 35 T h i s, t o o , i s c o n s i st e n t wi t h P y t h a g o r e a n co n c e r n s, f o r we m a y r e c a l l t h a t t h e c o n c e p t o f h a rmo n i a — b o t h t h a t o f t h e e l e m e n t s a n d r e g i o n s o f t h e c o s m o s a s we l l a s t h a t a r i si n g b e t we e n p r o t o l o g i c a l o p p o s i t e s — wa s v e r y i m p o r t a n t t o t h e P y t h a g o r e a n s , wh o c o n s i d e r e d t h e o p p o s i n g p r i n c i p l e s n o t m ut ua l l y h o s t i l e b ut r a t h e r c o n j o i n e d i n a h a r m o n i o us t e n s i o n . O n t h e e a r l y P y t h a g o r e a n n o t i o n o f h a r m o n y , P h i l o l a us f r . 6 D – K [ =S t o b . Ecl . 1 .2 1 .7 d ] a n d D i o g . La e r t . 8 .8 5 wi t h H uf f m a n 1 9 9 3 , 3 7 -5 3 ; o n t h e l i k e l y a ut h e n t i c i t y o f f r . 6 , se e i b i d . 9 3 -1 0 1 ; T h e sl e f f 1 9 6 1 , 4 1 -4 5 ; B ur k e r t 1 9 7 2 , 3 5 0 -3 5 7 ; d e V o g e l 1 9 6 6 , 1 0 3 f f .. T h e n o t i o n wa s c o m m o n i n N e o p y t h a g o r e a n a c c o un t s; t h us, f o r e xa m p l e , I a m b l . V P 9 . 36 I a m n o t t h e f i r s t t o p r o p o s e a m e d i a t o r y r o l e f o r M i t h r a s ; t h i s i d e a h a s a l r e a d y a l o n g a n d t r o ub l e d h i st o r y . I n 1 8 9 9 F . Cum o n t h a d m a d e t h i s sug g e st i o n o n t h e b a si s o f a n a ssum e d a n a l o g y wi t h I r a n i a n d ua l i sm a n d o f c o ur s e a l s o t h e we l l -k n o wn t i d b i t s o f t e xt ua l e v i d e n c e . Cum o n t ’s t h e s i s h a s n o t b e e n un a n i m o usl y a c c e p t e d ; t h us, f o r e xa m p l e , i n a n i n f l ue n t i a l 1 9 7 5 a r t i c l e , R . G o r d o n — wh o wa s b o t h s k e p t i c a l o f Cum o n t ’s e xp l a n a t i o n o f R o m a n M i t h r a i sm s o l e l y wi t h r e f e r e n c e t o Z o r o a st r i a n d o c t r i n e a n d d ub i o us a b o ut t h e r e l e v a n c e o f t h e t e xt ua l e v i d e n c e t o t h e c ul t — a t t a c k e d Cum o n t ’s c l a i m a s e n t i r e l y un j ust i f i e d , a sse r t i n g t h a t “ a l t h o ug h t h e r e i s W e st e r n e v i d e n c e t h a t M i t h r a s h e l d a n a st r o n o m i c a l l y c e r t i f i e d m i d d l e p o s i t i o n o n t h e c o s m i c s p h e r e , t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e t o p e r m i t t h e b e l i e f t h a t h e wa s s up p o s e d t o b e a me s i t ê s b e t we e n t wo o p p o s i n g d o m i n i o n s .” S i m ul t a n e o usl y , b ut f o r qui t e d i f f e r e n t r e a so n s, T ur c a n ( 1 9 7 5 : 1 5 -2 2 ) r e j e c t e d t h e a t t r i b ut i o n o f m e d i a t i o n t o M i t h r a s a s a p h i l o s o p h i c a l g l o s s . H o we v e r , s o m e s ub s e que n t s c h o l a r s h i p h a s t e n d e d g i v e t h e t e xt ua l e v i d e n c e g r e a t e r we i g h t a n d t h e r e f o r e t o r e -a t t r i b ut e t h e g o d so m e t h i n g o f a m e d i a t o r y r o l e . I n 1 9 7 7 , P . A t h a n a ssi a d i r e j e c t e d G o r d o n ’s c r i t i c i sm o f Cum o n t o n t h e i ssue o f m e d i a t i o n a n d sug g e st e d i n st e a d a c l o se c o n n e c t i o n b e t we e n J ul i a n ’s t e xt — s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e E m p e r o r ’s a t t r i b ut i o n o f t h e r o l e o f m e t a p h y s i c a l m e d i a t i o n t o t h e sun — a n d t h e i d e o l o g y o f t h e a c t ua l m y st e r i e s. M o r e r e c e n t l y B e c k ( 1 9 8 8 ; 2 0 0 0 ; 2 0 0 6 ) h a s a d d uc e d a st r o l o g i c a l e v i d e n c e f o r M i t h r a s’ c o sm i c a l l y -c e n t r a l p o si t i o n . 37 J ul i a n , O r. 4 , 1 3 2 d , 1 3 5 c , 1 3 8 c -d , 1 3 9 b -d , 1 4 0 b -c , 1 4 2 a , 1 4 3 c -d , 1 4 6 c , 1 4 8 b -c , 1 5 6 c . On e sh o ul d n o t e t h a t t h e v a l ue o f J ul i a n ’s t e st i m o n y f o r M i t h r a i sm i s c o m p r o m i se d so m e wh a t b y t h e f a c t t h a t t h e E m p e r o r r e f e r s t o M i t h r a s b y n a m e o n l y o n c e , a t 1 5 5 b , b ut se e A t h a n a ssi a d i 1 9 7 7 ; B e c k 1 9 8 4 , 2 0 5 3 . 38 S e e B e c k 2 0 0 0 ; 2 0 0 6 , 8 1 -8 5 . A l t h o ug h B e c k i s un d o ub t e d l y c o r r e c t a b o ut t h e M i t h r a i c a sso c i a t i o n s o f De a n t r. n ymp h . 2 9 .1 2 -2 1 , i t i s c ur i o us t h a t P o r p h y r y d o e s n o t a t t r i b ut e t h i s p a s s a g e e i t h e r t o h i s usua l

aspect of Mithras’ function— ingeniously represented beneath the more obvious iconographic layers of mythical and astrological symbolism— was that of an overarching principle capable of mediating and harmonizing otherwise incommensurable opposites, the primordial Pythagorean oppositions upon whose harmonious coexistence the cosmos depends. 5. C ONCL U SI ON : W HE R E FOR E M ITHR AS IN R OMAN N E OPY THAGOR E AN I SM ? 5.1. Finally, if it is in fact the case that clandestine Pythagorean ideas lie at the heart of the mysteries, one might wonder why the cult’s founders might have chosen this particular Iranian deity, reconceptualized as a personification of an abstract metaphysical principle, to compete with the profusion of other options for personal salvation in the early Empire. 39 It is important to recognize that however humble many of the cult’s eventual adherents were, the original founders were almost certainly members of the Hellenized Roman intellectual elite, perhaps even— as has often been suggested in one way or another— specialists at the forefront of contemporaneous religious and cosmological thought. It therefore seems reasonable to suppose that the hypothetical founders of the mysteries were well-schooled not only in the science of astrology but also in contemporaneous Neopythagorean thought (itself by no means exclusive of astrological concerns), and that they adopted the deity at least partially in response to the philosophical need for a supreme, ungenerated principle which could mediate harmoniously between primordial opposites. 40 Here we may have yet another example of the intricate and often underappreciated interrelation of philosophical and religious concerns in Graeco-Roman antiquity. 5.2. To be absolutely clear, I do not mean to suggest that this particular philosophical exigency was the only factor involved in the creation of the cult (for the astrological component was certainly as important); but that it was at least one significant motivation is rendered plausible by the following consideration. The Pythagorean doctrine of archai had long been a source of sectarian controversy. While some early Pythagoreans seem to have believed that the first principle was a duality of opposites, others posited a prior, so ur c e f o r M i t h r a i c l o r e , E ub ul us ( t h e susp i c i o usl y P y t h a g o r e a n -se e m i n g a ut h o r o f a l o st m ul t i -v o l um e d wo r k , Pe ri t o u Mi t h ra , o n wh o m se e T ur c a n 1 9 7 5 , 2 3 -4 3 ) , o r t o t h e M i t h r a i zi n g N e o p y t h a g o r e a n s N um e n i us a n d Cr o n i us; r a t h e r , r i g h t b e f o r e t h i s p a ssa g e , t h e l a st sour c e P o rphy ry c i t e s by na m e , a t 2 8 .1 6 , i s a c t ua l l y P y t h a g o r a s h i m se l f ( b ut f r o m wh a t s o ur c e ? ) ; t h us t h e e n um e r a t i o n o f o p p o s i t e s h e r e m a y s i m p l y b e a s um m a r y o f t h e P y t h a g o r e a n d o c t r i n e o f a rch a i . T h i s d o e s n o t , h o we v e r , p r e c l ud e t h a t i t i s a l s o M i t h r a i c ; i n d e e d , t h i s v e r y a m b i g ui t y i s f un d a m e n t a l t o m y t h e si s. 39 T h a t i s, i f t h e c ul t ’s f o un d e r s we r e n o t a l re a d y M i t h r a -wo r sh i p p e r s, a s B e c k h a s r e c e n t l y sug g e st e d ( 1 9 9 8 ; 2 0 0 1 ) . Of c o ur se , N e o p y t h a g o r e a n i sm a n d M i t h r o l a t r y a r e n o t m ut ua l l y e xc l usi v e : i f B e c k i s i n f a c t r i g h t — i .e . t h a t t h e m y st e r i e s we r e f o un d e d b y Co m m a g e n e a n M i t h r a -wo r sh i p p i n g n o b i l i t y i n c o n n e c t i o n wi t h T . Cl a ud i us B a l b i l l us, so n o f t h e N e o p y t h a g o r e a n T h r a sy l l us— t h e n t h e t wo hypothetical origins coincide. 40 D e i t i e s we r e o c c a s i o n a l l y i n v o k e d b y p h i l o s o p h e r s t o f ul f i l l a n a b st r a c t m e d i a t o r y r o l e ; o n e i s r e m i n d e d o f t h e Ch a l d a e a n t h e ur g i st s’ s o m e wh a t a n o m a l o us a d o p t i o n o f t h e g o d d e s s H e c a t e t o s e r v e a s a m e d i a t o r b e t we e n t h e se n si b l e a n d i n t e l l i g i b l e wo r l d s; se e Jo h n s t o n 1 9 9 0 .

all-embracing unity— a transcendental Monad— which would generate the first monad— dyad pair at the subjacent ontological level and ensure the harmonious cooperation of complementary principles. 41 The ancient controversy about the nature of the first principle— i.e. whether it was a unitary principle or a dyadic pair— continued well into late antiquity; thus, for example, we know that disagreement on this issue gave rise to one of many sectarian schisms among the Neopythagoreanizing Valentinians of the 2nd century CE. 42 Moreover, it was specifically during the period contemporaneous with the emergence of Mithraism that the notion of a transcendent unitary principle became common within Neopythagorean circles. 43 5.3. My suggestion, then, is that the founders of the Roman mysteries— perhaps a schismatic offshoot of some Neopythagorean school of the sort that began to emerge in Rome of the 1 s t century CE 44— sought an ostensibly traditional deity to fulfill what was in effect a new role, namely, that of a high god who could also serve as a superincumbent mediatory principle capable of transcending and thus reconciling the primordial opposites, and yet one who would be better suited to the additional task of personal salvation than the rather aloof-seeming, impersonal Monad. To find such a deity, a group of Pythagoreanizing intellectuals might have turned to Persia, a country with which Pythagoras was reputed to have close connections, and which, despite a long history of political antagonism with the West, traditionally had been admired by Greek philosophers for its exotic wisdom; 45 there they would have encountered the authentically Persian Mithra, a god of justice, contracts, and friendship, who, it would seem, had long been ready to fulfill this role. Indeed, while much of the recent scholarship has sought to distance the Roman cult from its putative Iranian origin, scholars of comparative mythology have also noted the surprising continuity of Mithras’ Indo-Iranian and Roman incarnations. The adoption of this Persian deity would not have been mere “Orientalizing”; rather, it would have been an eminently reasonable decision for these sectaries to venerate a solar deity who ensured the harmony of “good unions”: 41 T h e p o s t ul a t e o f a p r i m o r d i a l M o n a d s up e r c e d i n g t he f i r st d ua l i t y o f m o n a d a n d d y a d se e m s t o h a v e b e e n c o m m o n t o o n e s t r a n d o f A c a d e m i c t h o ug h t a m o n g P y t h a g o r e a n i zi n g P l a t o n i s t s s uc h a s E ud o r us a n d M o d e r a t us , p e r h a p s f o l l o wi n g a d o c t r i n e o f S p e us i p p us o r e v e n P l a t o ’s o wn s o -c a l l e d “ un wr i t t e n d o c t r i n e s” ; se e W h i t t a k e r 1 9 7 3 . A p a ssa g e o f S y r i a n us ( I n Me t a p h . 1 6 5 .3 3 ) a t t e st s t h a t t h e e a r l y P y t h a g o r e a n s P h i l o l a us a n d A r c h y t us p o si t e d a sup r e m e p r i n c i p l e o v e r a r c h i n g b o t h l i m i t a n d un l i m i t e d . H uf f m a n ( 1 9 9 3 ) c o n si d e r s t h e P h i l o l a us f r a g m e n t sp ur i o us, b ut c e r t a i n p a ssa g e s i n P l a t o d e sc r i b i n g a t h i r d p r i n c i p l e o v e r a r c h i n g b o t h t h e Li m i t e d a n d t h e U n l i m i t e d a n d c a p a b l e o f c a usi n g t h e i r m i xt ur e wo ul d s e e m i n d i c a t e t h i s i d e a h a d o c c ur r e d d ur i n g h i s t i m e i f n o t b e f o r e ; t h us P l . Ph l b . 2 5 c -d a n d e sp . 2 7 b -c . 42 H i p p o l . H a e r. 7 .2 9 . 43 K r ä m e r 1 9 6 4 , 2 3 8 -2 5 4 . 44 E .g ., t h e N e o p y t h a g o r e a n r e v i v a l a t t e m p t e d i n t h e 1 s t c e n t . B CE b y N i g i d i us F i g ul us ( Ci c . F a m. 4 .1 3 ; T i m. 1 ) ; o n E ud o r us ’ r o l e i n t h i s r e v i v a l , a n d e s p . h i s n o t i o n o f a s i n g ul a r M o n a d t r a n s c e n d i n g t h e f i r s t d ua l i t y o f o p p o s i t e s , D i l l o n 1 9 7 7 , 1 1 7 -1 2 1 ; o n si m i l a r d o c t r i n e s ch e z T h r a sy l l us, se e T a r r a n t 1 9 9 3 , 2 1 0 211. 45 On t h e p e r si st e n t i n f a t ua t i o n o f P l a t o n i st s a n d P y t h a g o r e a n s wi t h Z o r o a st e r , se e K i n g sl e y 1 9 9 0 ;

unions between friends and nations, but also perhaps between opposites on whose harmonious reconciliation the cosmos itself, and our salvation therefrom, depends. 46 B I BL I OGR APHY Athanassiadi, P. 1977. “A Contribution to Mithraic Theology: the Emperor Julian’s Hymn to King Helios,” Journal of Theological Studies 28, 360-371. Beck, R. 1980. “Interpreting the Ponza Zodiac: II,” Journal of Mithraic Studies 3:1-2, 87147. ——— 1982. “The Mithraic Torchbearers and Absence of Opposition,” Classical Views 26, 126-140. ——— 1984. “Mithraism Since Franz Cumont,” 2002-2115 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römsiche Welt. [II.2.17.4]. Berlin: de Gruyter. ——— 1988. Planetary Gods and Planetary Orders in the Mysteries of Mithras. [EPRO 109]. Leiden: Brill. ——— 1994. “In the Place of the Lion: Mithras in the Tauroctony,” 29-50 in Hinnells 1994. ——— 1998. “The Mysteries of Mithras: a New Account of Their Genesis,” Journal of Roman Studies 88, 115-128. ——— 2000. “Ritual, Myth, Doctrine, and Initiation in the Mysteries of Mithras: New Evidence from a Cult Vessel,” Journal of Roman Studies 90, 144-179. ——— 2001. “New Thoughts on the Genesis of the Mysteries of Mithras,” Topoi 11, 5976. ——— 2006. The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire: Mysteries of the Unconquered Sun. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Berciu, I. and C. C. Petolescu 1976. Les Cultes orientales dans la Dacie méridionale. [EPRO 54]. Leiden: Brill. Boyce, M. 1969. “On Mithra’s Part in Zoroastrianism,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 32, 27-28. Boyce, M. and F. Grenet, 1991. A History of Zoroastrianism, vol. 3. Leiden: Brill. 46 On t h e c o n t i n ui t y o f I n d o -I r a n i a n a n d R o m a n M i t h r a s, se e Li n c o l n 1 9 9 1 . On M i t h r a s a s g ua r d i a n o f c o n t r a c t s, se e D um é zi l 1 9 7 6 ; B o y c e 1 9 6 9 ; T h i e m e 1 9 7 5 . I n a f ut ur e a r t i c l e ( “ H a r m o n i o us Op p o s i t i o n , P a r t I I ” ) I h o p e t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t M i t h r a s ’ p o we r o f m e d i a t i o n wa s a l s o a c r uc i a l e l e m e n t o f t h e m y s t e r i e s ’ s o t e r i o l o g y , a s i t e n a b l e d t h e i n i t i a t e s t o b r e a c h t h e o t h e r wi se i m p e n e t r a b l e b o un d a r y b e t we e n se n si b l e ( c o sm i c ) a n d i n t e l l i g i b l e ( h y p e r c o sm i c ) r e a l m s.

Burkert, W. 1961. “Hellenistische Pseudopythagorica,” Philologus 105, 16-43, 226-246. ——— 1972. Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Campbell, L. A. 1954. “Typology of Mithraic Tauroctones,” Berytus Archaeological Studies 11, 3-60. Carcopino, J. 1927. La Basilique pythagoricenne de la Porte Majeure. Paris: L’Artisan du livre. Cumont, F. 1896-1898. Textes et monuments figurés relatifs aux mystères de Mithra, 2 vols. Bruxelles: H. Lamertin. de Vogel, C. 1966. Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism: an Interpretation of the Neglected Evidence on the Philosopher Pythagoras. Assen: van Gorcum. Delatte, A. 1915. Études sur la littérature pythagoricienne, Paris: Champion. Dillon, J. 1977. The Middle Platonists: 80 B.C. to A. D. 220. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Dumézil, G. 1976. “The Vedic Mitra: a Résumé of Theses and References,” Journal of Mithraic Studies 1:1, 25-35. Gordon, R. L. 1975. “ Franz Cumont and the Doctrines of Mithraism,” 215-248 in Hinnells 1975. ——— 1976. “The Sacred Geography of a Mithraeum: the Example of Sette Sfere,” Journal of Mithraic Studies 1, 119-165. ——— 1980a. “Pannelled Complications,” Journal of Mithraic Studies 3:1-2, 200-227. ——— 1980b. “Reality, Evocation and Boundary in the Mysteries of Mithras,” Journal of Mithraic Studies 3:3-4, 19-99. ——— 1988. “Authority, Salvation and Mystery in the Mysteries of Mithras,” 45-80 in J. Huskinson, M. Beard and J. Reynolds, eds. Image and Mystery in the Roman World: Three Papers Given in Memory of Jocelyn Toynbee. Cambridge: Alan Sutton. ——— 1994. “Mystery, Metaphor and Doctrine in the Mysteries of Mithras,” 103-124 in Hinnells 1994.

Guthrie, W. C. K. 1995. A History of Greek Philosophy, Vol. I: The Earlier Presocratics and the Pythagoreans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hinnells, J. R. 1975, ed. Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies, 2 vols. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ——— 1976. “The Iconography of Cautes and Cautopates I: the Data,” Journal of Mithraic Studies 1:1, 36-67. ——— 1978. “The Iranian Background of Mithraic Iconography,” 242-250 in J. Duchesne-Guillemin, (ed.) Études Mithriaques: Actes du 2e Congrés internationale, Teheran. [Acta Iranica 4]. Leiden: Brill. ——— 1994. (Ed.) Studies in Mithraism. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Huffman, C. A. 1993. Philolaus of Croton: Pythagorean and Presocratic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johnston, S. I. 1990. Hekate Soteira. [American Classical Studies 21]. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Kahn, C. H. 1974. “Pythagorean Philosophy Before Plato,” 161-185 in A. Mourelatos, ed. The Presocratics: a Collection of Critical Essays, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kingsley, P. 1990. “The Greek Origin of the Sixth-Century Dating of Zoroaster,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 53, 245-265. ——— 1994. “Philolaus,” Classical Review 44, 294-296. ——— 1995a. Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic: Empedocles and the Pythagorean Tradition, New York: Oxford University Press. ——— 1995b. “Meetings with Magi: Iranian Themes among the Greeks from Xanthus of Lydia to Plato’s Academy,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 5, 173-209. Krämer, H.-J. 1964. Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Platonismus zwischen Platon und Plotin. Amsterdam: Schippers. Lentz, W. 1975. “Some Peculiarities Not Hitherto Understood of ‘Roman’ Mithraic Sanctuaries and Representations,” 358-377 in Hinnells 1975. Lincon, B. 1991. “Mithra(s) as Sun and Savior,” 76-96 in B. Lincoln, Death, War and Sacrifice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lloyd, G. E. R. 1996. Polarity and Analogy: Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought. Indianapolis: Hackett. O’Meara, D. 1989. Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Clarendon. Pietrangeli, C. 1940. “Il Mitreo del Palazzo dei Musei di Roma,” Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 68, 143-173. Saxl, F. 1931. Mithras: Typengeschichtliche Untersuchungen. Berlin: Heinrich Keller. Schofield, A. 1995 “The Search for Iconographic Variation in Roman Mithraism,” Religion 25, 51-66. Schwertheim, E. 1974. Die Denkmäler orientalischer Gottheiten im römischen Deutschland, Leiden: Brill. Spoerri, W. 1955. “A Propos d’un texte d’Hippolyte,” Revue des études Anciennes 57, 267290. Stapleton, H. E. 1958. “Ancient and Modern Aspects of Pythagoreanism,” Osiris 13, 1253. Struck, P. 2004. Birth of the Symobol: Ancient Readers at the Limits of their Texts. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Tarrant, H. 1993. Thrasyllan Platonism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Thesleff, H. 1961. An Introduction to the Pythagorean Writings of the Hellenistic Period. Abo: Abo Akademi. Thieme, P. 1975. “The Concept of Mithra in Aryan Belief,” 21-39 in Hinnells 1975. Tóth, I. 1999. “The Composition of the Mithras Relief from Intercisa, in Pannonia and Beyond,” 535-537 and 801-802 in A. Vaday, ed. Studies in Honour of László Barkóczi [Antaeus: Communicationes ex Instituto Archaeologico Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 24]. Budapest.

——— 2003. Mithras Pannonicus. [Specimina Nova 17]. Budapest–Pécs: M. Opitz. Turcan, R. 1975. Mithras Platonicus: Recherches sur l’hellénisation philosophique de Mithra. [EPRO 30]. Leiden: Brill. ——— 1993. Mithra et le Mithriacisme. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Vermaseren, M. J. 1956-1960. Corpus Inscriptionem et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 2 vols. ——— 1982. Mithriaca III: The Mithraeum at Marino. [EPRO 16]. Leiden: Brill. Vermaseren, M. J. and C. C. van Essen, 1965. The Excavations in the Mithraeum of the Church of Santa Prisca in Rome. Leiden: Brill. Whittaker, J. 1973. “Neopythagoreanism and the Transcendent Absolute,” Symbolae Osloenses 48, 77-86. Will, E. 1955. Le relief cultuel gréco-romain: contribution à l’histoire de l’art de l’Empire romain. Paris: Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome. Wortmann, D. 1969. “Ein Mithrasstein aus Bonn,” Bonner Jahrbuch 169, 410-423.