This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
MITHRAISM
303

slaves in the Roman families were also instrumental in spreading Mithra worship. Mithra rapidly conquered vast dominions for his cult in Europe, and brought a large multitude of votaries from distant lands to his feet. His fame reached the borders of the Aegean Sea. He came to be worshipped between India and Pontus Euxinus. He was the only Iranian divinity who won popularity for himself in Greece. In the Near East his cult spread in the different parts of Asia Minor and reached India in the third century a.d. where it had its root in the North-Western provinces and Gujarat.[1]

Mithraism patronized by the State. Mithraism prospered everywhere under the patronage of the emperors. Antiochus I, king of Commagene on the Euphrates, in his epithaph (about 35 b.c.) pays homage to Ahura Mazda, Mithra, and Verethraghna and orders that the priests shall put on Persian dress at the festivals, shall clothe the images in Persian costume and shall cover them with golden diadems.[2] Antiochus is shown in relief clasping the right hand of Mithra, who appears in Persian costume with radiate nimbus. Mithra appears on horseback in Persian costume on coins. Nero[3] desired the Magi who accompanied Tiridates, King of Armenia, to initiate him in the mysteries of Mithra. Diocletian, Galerius, and Licinius dedicated a temple to Mithra, and Diocletian officially recognized Mithra as the protector of his empire in 307 a.d. During the middle of the third century, Mithraism was at the height of its triumph, and it seemed as if all Europe would turn Mithraic.

Mithraism was thus honoured by the emperors because it encouraged and supported their autocratic pretensions. The emperor was theoretically the first magistrate of Rome and derived his authority from the people. Mithraism brought the idea of hvarena or Kingly Glory with it from Iran. This Kingly Majesty was a shining halo that descended upon the king. It encircled his head and made his person sacred. It was believed to be inherent in the person of the king, who proclaimed himself the descendant of divinity or divinity in the flesh.[4] It came to

  1. Bhandarkar, Vaisnavism, Śaivism, and Minor Religious systems in Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie, 3. 6, p. 153-157, Strassburg, 1913.
  2. Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, vol. 1. p. 598, Leipzig, 1903-1905.
  3. 54-68 A. D.
  4. Hj. Inscr. 1-4.