Terentius Priscus

Virtually nothing is known about Terentius Priscus, son of Publius, apart from a dedicatory inscription discovered in 1727 near the church of Santa Balbina on the Aventine in Rome. The triangular base, now lost, bears one of the most unusual inscriptions connected with the Roman cult of Mithras (TNMM 653; CIL VI 742; CIMRM 501).

The dedication was addressed to the invincible god Nabarze (Invicto deo Navarze), a divine name generally regarded as belonging to the Mithraic sphere despite the absence of Mithras’ name from the inscription itself. Modern scholarship accepts the Mithraic character of the monument because Nabarze (or Navarze) is an otherwise distinctive Mithraic theonym, although its precise meaning and etymology remain uncertain (Bricault & Roy 2021).

The current reading of the inscription indicates that Terentius Priscus, son of Publius, dedicated the monument under the supervision of Eucheta and together with fellow initiates (curante et sacratis), in fulfilment of a vow. Earlier editions interpreted Eucheta as part of his name, but this reading has since been abandoned in favour of the revised text adopted in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum and by recent scholarship.

The deity Nabarze has long puzzled scholars. Since Franz Cumont, numerous Iranian etymologies have been proposed, interpreting the name as “the victorious”, “the strong”, “the radiant one” or “the great man”. Others have suggested that it may even have been coined within the Greco-Roman world to reinforce the Persian character of the Mithraic mysteries. No consensus has emerged, and the theonym remains one of the most enigmatic elements of Mithraic theology (Bricault & Roy 2021).

The archaeological context of the dedication is equally uncertain. Although the monument was found near Santa Balbina, no Mithraeum has been securely identified there. Filippo Coarelli proposed the existence of a sanctuary in the vicinity, but, as noted by Aleš Chalupa (2023), the available evidence consists only of isolated inscriptions without associated architectural remains. The supposed Mithraeum should therefore be regarded as hypothetical rather than established.