Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Foreword -- Part One -- Prologue -- Chapter 1 -- Chapter 2 -- Chapter 3 -- Chapter 4 -- Chapter 5 -- Chapter 6 -- Chapter 7 -- Chapter 8 -- Chapter 9 -- Chapter 10 -- Chapter 11 -- Chapter 12 -- Chapter 13 -- Chapter 14 -- Chapter 15 -- Part Two -- Chapter 16 -- Chapter 17 -- Chapter 18 -- Chapter 19 -- Chapter 20 -- Chapter 21 -- Chapter 22 -- Chapter 23 -- Chapter 24 -- Part Three -- Chapter 25 -- Chapter 26 -- Chapter 27 -- Chapter 28 -- Chapter 29 -- Chapter 30 -- Chapter 31 -- Chapter 32 -- Chapter 33 -- Chapter 34 -- Epilogue -- Appendix 1 -- Appendix 2 -- Appendix 3 -- Appendix 4 -- Appendix 5 -- Appendix 6 -- Appendix 7 -- Photo Inserts -- Index -- Copyright.

Kant's "Copernican revolution" as existential -- Hegel's inauguration of the language of existence -- Schelling on the beyond of existence -- Nietzsche : philosophy as existence -- Heidegger's achievement despite the betrayal of philosophical existence -- Existence without refuge as the response of Levinas -- Derrida's dissemination of existence as différance -- Kierkegaard's prioritization of existence over philosophy -- Epilogue: Modernity as responsibility.

Much has been written on the religious aspects of life in the Roman military community, but the role of soldiers as temple patrons has rarely been discussed. Yet temples and shrines have been found at military settlements across the Roman Empire, and many temples situated in urban areas have produced evidence of financial support from soldiers. Thus, exploring the relationship between military communities and temples is important for our understanding of the religious dimension of these communities and, moreover, of wider developments in temple-based worship in the Roman Empire. Indeed, the emperors of the late third century came from this social milieu, and their disposition towards temples would have been affected by their experiences in military life. I will demonstrate here, for the first time, how and why support for temple construction and repair among the military communities in two of the most militarized provinces, Britain and Pannonia, decreased dramatically after the early third century, and why certain temples (mithraea and dolichena) did not adhere to this decline. In doing so, I shall illustrate how the changing relationship between military communities and temples influenced the attitudes of late third-century emperors towards temple construction and repair.

A number of inscriptions from the Tetrarchic period indicate that various Mithraic communities received the patronage of governors, duces and even the emperors themselves. Such support for a so-called mystery cult is striking given that in other cases the imperial government failed to restore the temples of more traditional cults that had fallen into decay. In this paper I will demonstrate that such anomalous building activity associated with mithraea is evident in proceeding generations, for while the construction and repair of temples generally declined significantly in the third century mithraea continued to be erected and maintained unabated throughout this period. I then go on to argue that there is evidence to indicate Mithraic congregations took the conscious decision to divide upon reaching a certain number followers, hence why newly constructed mithraea continued to remain small in size and are often to be found in close proximity to pre-existing mithraea. By applying sociological theory, it is clear that such circumstances provided the ideal situation in which to foster a particularly high level of commitment among the Mithraists, thus making them willing to continue contributing to the construction and repair of mithraea even when resources became scarce, while other cults that had a popular, but less committed following, saw their temples fall into disrepair. When the imperial government provided for support for various Mithraic communities in the Tetrarchic period this was not due to any religious reasons, but rather as a political move designed to channel this commitment into support for their own rule.