I haven't read that book - really should do - but I've been continually disappointed by books on
Constantine (worst being Odahl's "
Constantine and the
Christian Empire", which presents itself as a biography but is closer to a panegyric or apologia). It seems too many authors have an
axe to grind and let that get in the way of an unbiased presentation.
I'm not sure I would agree with lumping
Constantine's hitching himself to Sol together with
his invented Claudian ancestry, although it's true they do occur around the same time in 310, when a panegyrist mentions both
his "vision of
Apollo" (commonly understood to be
his witnessing "sun dogs"), and
his ancestral relation of which "most people, perhaps, are
still unaware" (Nixon: The Panegyrici Latini, p.219).
https://www.google.com/search?q=sun+dogs (click on "Images" to see many examples)
The argument, I suppose, is that on the death of
Maximianus in 309-310, who
had elevated
Constantine to
augustus, that
his legitimacy was looking a
bit shakey, so he wanted to buttress it not only with other (invented) imperial ties, but also the divine recognition of
Apollo (no mention in the panegyric of Sol Invictus, so maybe it precedes
his coinage reform).
I'm not sure that the invented Claudian ancestry was necessarily, at least initially, meant as the basis of dynastic ambitions since in 310 that would seem rather over-presumptuous, and the recent (and painful to many) death of
Maximianus seems to provide a better, more timely, explanation. It's not obvious how widely this Claudian ancestry was pushed, or who he was really appealing to, since it doesn't seem to have been widely disseminated. It's only later in 318-319, on the "
Memoriae Aeternae" and "
Reqvies Optimorvm Meritorvm" coins that we see
Claudius, and a rehabilitated
Maximianus (who it was claimed tried to have
Constantine murdered), being used in what may be interpreted as dynastic fashion. In 318, as opposed to 310, with victories over
Maxentius and Licinius, and sons elevated to
caesar, dynastic ambitions seem more reasonable, but this is now well after the ancestry
had been invented and so does not provide proximal cause for it.
The most interesting one of
Constantine's "Claudian ancestry" coins is the unlisted one below, now in
Berlin, where
Claudius II is afforded the special
reverse "Memoriae Rest" (restituted memory). This coin is from Zschuckes's "Die Bronze-Teilstück-Prägungen der römischen Münzstätte Trier" featuring
his diseased friend Dieter Alten's
collection from Trier, which
Zschucke published after
his death (dedicated friend!) and donated to
Berlin.
I see no reason why we can't simply explain
Constantine's adoption of Sol Invictus on
his coinage as reaction to to
his "vision of
Apollo" (i.e sun dogs), and
his personal beliefs. There are a number of hints that he was quite superstitious, as well as evidentially religious (perhaps more sincere than some), so to me it seems quite reasonable that he might react to this "sign from god" (the basis of
his pre-battle hoc-signo dream in 312) in a personal way by adopting Sol as
his comes (
Apollo being too
provincial) and protector. This belief in protection by Sol seems to have been quite genuine, and as we've already noted he seems to have been reluctant to give up on it altogether until very late in
his reign, despite
his shifting religious beliefs.
The halo/nimbus was certainly not a
Christian invention - we see it on
Roman coins at least as early as
Vespasian (in
radiate halo form) and closer to
Constantine on the "plomb de Lyons" (
BnF) showing the seated tetrarchs with nimbii (plural?) behind their heads, the same way later
byzantine emperors are depicted.
I've also attached another ex. Dieter Alten coin, which I'm proud to own, below. This is a
Qvies Avgg fraction (
RIC VI Trier 841b) for
Maximianus, before he came out of retirement and started
Constantine's familial problems!
Ben
