Living god of the day.

[virtvsprobi]

One of these funky divine'n'dative post-Aurelian Serdica legends.

Pink's 2nd emission of Serdica, RIC 841.

Photo: John Lavender

IMP DEO ET DOMINO PROBO AVG

The coin is completely silvered, other than having a thin layer of encrustation.
I think I'll let it be. Reverse has a wee crack, but I'm showing it clemency also.

Jove looks like a California surfer god here, rather than being stately!


G/<

[Numerianus]

Have you an idea why this legend was used there? 

[virtvsprobi]

Aurelian was starting to experiment a bit with an eastern style approach to being an emperor.
("CRAWL BEFORE ME. YOU LOWLY WORMS!")

If he weren't killed in the "secretary plot" we would likely see such legends from ALL mints.
He was testing the waters in Serdica, if he tried that in Rome, he might have ended up dead sooner.

After Aurelian, Serdica seems to have retained a fondness for quite atypical obverse legends.

Under Carus, even Siscia issued a few rare coins with DEO ET DOMINO, some of which bear scrutiny
for more than one reason:



Of course nothing beats Aurelian's claim to have been born a god... DEO ET DOMINO NATO AVRELIANO AVG

Eckhel says, vol. vii p. 482 "...a memorable instance of the greatest arrogance of which a mortal can be guilty..."

See Stevenson DRC for the rest of the passage:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/Dictionary_Of_Roman_Coins/dictionaryByPage.asp?page=319

Tacitus did no allow such immodest legends to be used. Florian might have been tempted, but didn't even
have enough time to indulge in this vice.


G/<

[Numerianus]

I  am not so sure that emperors should be condemned in this case.
Probably, they never saw these coins.  They are so rare!
Apparently, it was a local initiative and not well met by superiors.

[virtvsprobi]

No, no. There's no way such a legend could appear without an imperial fiat!

For Probus, DEO ET DOMINO is actually not all that rare, but these coins are certainly very much in demand,
as the prices for other examples of RIC 841 attest:

http://www.coinarchives.com/a/results.php?results=50&search=DEO+ET+DOMINO+AND+841

G/<

[Rupert]

About two years ago I let this opportunity go by for 158€, and I still regret it today:

[virtvsprobi]

Not a great looker either:



but 525 Euro...


Well Rupert, you may yet find something even better, and for a good price too. And never mind, that was only that jerk Carus!
Hahahaahahah! 

Very surprising deals can be had. Such deals as to astonish one with the kindness of fellow man (yes, this coming from a cynic! ;-).

--

A further remark on the imperial policy in regard to these special legends - Diocletian yanked the DEVS, but retained the DOMINVS,
hence the appearance of D N (Dominus Noster) on his coinage. That emperor definitely retained some of Aurelian's ideas, and they
were transmitted further down the line.

One way for obtaining a very cheap DOMINO (or two ) is to go for Crispus:

Rev.: DOMINOR NOSTROR CAESS




Best,

G/<

[Numerianus]

No, no. There's no way such a legend could appear without an imperial fiat!

For Probus, DEO ET DOMINO is actually not all that rare, but these coins are certainly very much in demand,
as the prices for other examples of RIC 841 attest:

By itself, the inscription  cannot be interpreted as a signal of  unlimited ambitious of these emperors.
In the spiritual life of the empire the living emperor  ALWAYS  was a god (and the senior):
the cult of the current emperor  flourished  starting from August and was a matter of preocupation of Christian ideologists.
After the death a political decision should be taken as to  continue.  Deification was an evaluation of the reign,  an important event. Aurelianus, Probus and Carus were extremely clever and consequent guys who could caculate the pro and contra for a
legend with such type ...  The fact is that it was not generalized.


On the other hand,  the word "domino"  was in current use in 1st and 2nd century as a form of respect.  Then it evolved
and for Christians became an alias ...
May is happen that  DEO ET DOMINO appeared in the legend as a challenge to the propagation of Christianity?
Strangely, the title dominus remains even in Chrstian empire...

Why do you believe that the emperor was asked to give his OK for this particular legend? Was it  nearby at the pariod?
This could confirm the guess.
There is a more interesting question, about the  governance of mints. What was the chain of decisions?
Who decided on a regular basis that such and such series should be issued?  It seems that  emperors were rarely involved and gave only a general direction. 

As for prices,  for great  houses thay are not so high. Well, they were attained before vivienne5592 era.
Last week she payed 155 USD for PIVS on eBay...

[Robert_Brenchley]

I doubt whether DEO ET DOMINO was intended as a challenge to Christianity since Aurelian was quite positive towards it. Gallienus had legalised it in most contexts, but it remained punishable in the army and possibly other areas where pagan rites were seen as an essential part of the setup. He allowed bisjhops to go freely about their business, and restored church property. The only known martyr in his reign was Marinus, who was about to be promoted to centurion when a rival for the job made a great issue of his being a Christian, and eventually, with the encouragement of the bishop, he refused to take part in the necessary rite, and was beheaded. Maybe it would have been fudged in other circimstances, who knows?

This policy continued under Aurelian; after the recapture of Palmyra, the 'orthodox' Christians there petitioned the emperor for the return of a church which had been held by Paul of Samosata, a bishop who had been excommunicated for heresy, but who was close to Zenobia. Aurelian responded by returning the property to 'those whom the bishops of the doctrine in Italy and Rome should communicate in writing', a response which suggests a certain knowledge of how the church operated. The only fly in the ointment is a comment by Eusebuis which suggests that towards the end of his reign he was under pressure to persecute, and was on the point of doing so when he was killed. But he certainly never did anything about it; the backlash only came with Galerius.

[Numerianus]

Robert, your reply means that I was not enough clear. I think that it was a local initiative, to use the
legend DEO ET DOMINO, and not a deliberate policy of the emperor staff. 

[Robert_Brenchley]

If they dared initiate a new inscription without permission, that is! Is it associated with specific mints?

[Numerianus]

Serdica and, for Carus, Siscia.  Of course, someone gave an order.
Could the decision maker be the head of the mint?  To send afterwards
a report to the emperor headquaters ...  The rarity of these issues implies that
the legend was not considered as politically correct...  The emperors were comitted
to monotheism with a single god: Sol Invictus.

[virtvsprobi]

"The emperors were comitted to monotheism with a single god: Sol Invictus."

That, my friend, is sheer nonsense.

While Aurelian was heavily promoting the cult of the invincible sun, he certainly did not abandon the rest of the pantheon.
Probus wasn't as enthusiastic as his predecessor, and had somewhat more of a traditional approach to religion.
To say that Carus was committed to solar monotheism is quite risible.

In regards to such legends being local initiative... There's no chance that something which so heavily breaks with tradition could
be the result of a mint master's whimsy. In a way, these legends are more "impudent" than the appearance of Julius Caesar's
portrait on coins during his lifetime.

"On the other hand,  the word "domino"  was in current use in 1st and 2nd century as a form of respect"

It's one thing to use it in speech, it's another thing to carve it in marble or in metal.

G/<

[Numerianus]

Well,  please, give your explanation why this legend was localized and not generalized...   

[Robert_Brenchley]

As I say, Aurelian seems to have been under some pressure to adopt an anti-Christian policy towards the end of his reign, though he never actually did anything about it, and neither did his successors before Galerius. I've no clear evidence on this, but I find it very hard to resist the impression that anti-Christian predjudice was more of a factor in the east than the west. These are eastern mints, so maybe it was a case of local officials persuading Aurelian to use inscriptions in those areas which could bear an anti-Christian interpretation. Their rarity would then reflect imperial reluctance to go down that road, while offering a sop to the anti-Christian faction.

[Rupert]

Here are two interesting ant scarce antoniniani of aurelian from Cyzicus (RIC 353 and 357) that illustrate his "solar monotheism" - well, not really, but Sol's leading role in the traditional Pantheon. Please excuse the bad quality of the photograph.

Soli Conservatori - Sol shaking hands with the emperor, thus taking over Jupiter's traditional part.

Mars Invictus - Sol handing globe to Mars: Mars (i.e. the Roman army) is invincible since it gets its power directly from Sol.

As a single leading god, Sol would, naturally, have been far more in competition with the Christian God than, say, Jupiter or Venus, who had lots of space for other gods beside them.

Rupert

[Numerianus]

As I say, Aurelian seems to have been under some pressure to adopt an anti-Christian policy towards the end of his reign, though he never actually did anything about it, and neither did his successors before Galerius. I've no clear evidence on this, but I find it very hard to resist the impression that anti-Christian predjudice was more of a factor in the east than the west. These are eastern mints, so maybe it was a case of local officials persuading Aurelian to use inscriptions in those areas which could bear an anti-Christian interpretation. Their rarity would then reflect imperial reluctance to go down that road, while offering a sop to the anti-Christian faction.

This is exactly the idea I would like to work on. Aurelian was a great general (as well as Probus) and his first aim was to have an army ready to
fight and not to be splitted by religious controversions. The cult of  Invincible Sun was popular in army a long before  his rule and it was quite natural for a  soldier be devoted to this deity.  Ex officio he was Pontific Maximus, the supreme authority of Roman religion. He prefered not to aggravate his position
fighting Christians.  I just consulted Brezzi: this author uses also use  hesiating  form "seems" about eventual persecutions at the time of Aurelian.

Reading your posts, Robert, I have always a feeling that you are to much influenced by the Christian historical literature, very biased, with all
this wordings "anti-Christian emperors,  persecutions, martyrs".  For Romans of the 3rd Christian was a violent fundamentalist sect, intolerable to other religion, denying the major values and aiming to destroy the civilization.  The organization was growing dangerously and the most intelligent rulers were trying to stop it but they could not.  The outcome was terrible. The civilization was destroyed and the Dark Ages began.  Modern studies show that this was a result of Christian ideology  and a lot of time was needed to the point that it starts to play a positive role and  became a basis for a new civilization. 
 

 

[Robert_Brenchley]

There undoubtedly were emperors who took an anti-Christian stance; Galerius and his son-in-law Max Daia, for instance. Similarly, there were persecutions and martyrs. Shouldn't we say so? Unfortunately, the history of the interaction between the Roman state and the church was largely written by the latter, and I agree they indulged in a good bit of exaggeration at times. Later Christians have often magnified it beyond all measure, and continue to do so today. But my point is that from Gallienus to Diocletian, the emperors weren't anti-Christian. Valerian I was, and Dio was reluctantly pressurised into authorising the Great Persecution.

[FORVM AUCTIONS]

Monotheism as we know it must have been a nonsense to the ancients, and one reason to misunderstand and perhaps hate the new sect. Even a single particular ancient god was a multitude of invisible forces, sometimes even divergent ( good example in Xenofon - Anabasis ) (and this is not changed by the fact that humans used human forms to depict these forces)

Am I right we should not dare associate the cult of Sol, or emphasis on it by some Emperors, with the notion of monotheism ?

As for the appearance of exceptional legends at some mints, can we track the emperors ? An exceptional type could be well connected with the actual presence of the Emperor in that city. To be reminded these people traveled continously, they were not the 1st Century type of Emperor.