31.12.2012 Views

Religious Intolerance in the Later Roman Empire - Bad request ...

Religious Intolerance in the Later Roman Empire - Bad request ...

Religious Intolerance in the Later Roman Empire - Bad request ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

for his cruelty when he was Proconsul of Africa. Ammianus says that he was “a man<br />

who, as if smitten by a blast of madness, was as greedy for human blood as a wild<br />

beast, as he showed when govern<strong>in</strong>g Africa with proconsular power.” 160 As such it<br />

seems likely that Julianus was not particularly averse to Donatists and this may be<br />

related to his own personal religion. There is some evidence that Julianus was a pagan;<br />

a fragmentary <strong>in</strong>scription from Rome (AE 1953.237), of which he was Praetorian<br />

Prefect <strong>in</strong> 387, records an <strong>in</strong>dividual who belonged to <strong>the</strong> grade of Pater Pa[trum ] <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

Mithraic cult. 161 The grade of Pater was, of course, <strong>the</strong> highest level of <strong>in</strong>itiation <strong>in</strong><br />

Mithraism. Unfortunately <strong>the</strong> only part of <strong>the</strong> name that is preserved reads “TICUS V<br />

C///” which could also be attributed to Pontius Atticus. 162 But it could be equally<br />

attributable to <strong>the</strong> addressee of this law Sextus Rusticus Julianus, if <strong>the</strong> surviv<strong>in</strong>g<br />

“TICUS” is restored to Rusticus.<br />

The o<strong>the</strong>r candidate for identification with <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual listed on AE 1953.237<br />

is Pontius Atticus and he has been thought, by <strong>the</strong> editors of <strong>the</strong> PLRE, to be<br />

“probably a pagan priest” s<strong>in</strong>ce he is listed on CIL 8.31118 which records his name<br />

among o<strong>the</strong>rs who are attested as hold<strong>in</strong>g different positions <strong>in</strong> pagan cults. However,<br />

and unlike <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs, Pontius Atticus himself has no priesthood, or grade of <strong>in</strong>itiation<br />

listed after his name on this <strong>in</strong>scription. If he had been a priest or even an <strong>in</strong>itiate of<br />

Mithras, and was <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual referred to on AE 1953.237, <strong>the</strong>n it seems<br />

likely that CIL 8.31118 would also have listed him as such, particularly as he would<br />

160 Amm. Marc. 27.6.1 quasi afflatu quodam furoris, bestiarum m ore hum ani sangu<strong>in</strong>is av idus, ut ostenderat<br />

cum proconsulari potestate regeret Africam . See Barnes (1998) 109-111 for Ammianus’ use of bestial<br />

stereotypes.<br />

161 AE 1953.237. Mithraism was, of course, particularly attractive to ambitious men from low social<br />

orig<strong>in</strong>s who, like Julianus, sought to better <strong>the</strong>mselves.<br />

162 As suggested by <strong>the</strong> editors of <strong>the</strong> PLRE. Pontius Atticus 3 PLRE Vol 1 123. In full <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>scription<br />

reads:<br />

DIIS Magnis<br />

M D MI ET Attidi m eno<br />

TYRANNO sextius rus<br />

TICUS V C et <strong>in</strong>lust<br />

RIS PATER Patrum dei <strong>in</strong><br />

VICTI MITHRae<br />

131

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!