Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. All Items Purchased From Forum Ancient Coins Are Guaranteed Authentic For Eternity!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Internet challenged? We Are Happy To Take Your Order Over The Phone 252-646-1958 Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!  (Read 5595 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Scottino22

  • Guest
This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« on: September 21, 2007, 12:50:30 am »
 :afro: I'm trying to compile a bit of information for a project relative to the main themes on the coins of Constantine the Great. For all the controversy over wether he was or wasn't
thoroughly Christian based on the imagery on his coinage (the persistance of Sol on his coins) Lack of  :<a href='http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?vpar=810&pos=0' target='_blank'>Chi-Rho</a>: on his coins and so on, the one biggest puzzlement to me is the significance of the campgate. Was there some specific premise for this, or is there any exacting interpretation of this image. I believe I read somewhere that on some of his earlier campaigns Constantine would put up a tent outside the camp for observational purposes. Also, this can't be just specific to Constantine's cause (or his sons who prominently show this image too) seeing as how his enemy Licinius had the same images.
Any thoughts?

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2007, 03:11:37 am »
There have been lots of discussions on this one over the years, and no real conclusion has ever been reached due to lack of evidence.

Just to be awkward, I'm not convinced that the chi-rho was really much more than a Constantinian family symbol, at least at first. There are a lot of questions about the story of Constantine's troops putting the labarum on their chields at the Milvian Bridge, but it's clear that it was not a Christian army. If it was intended as an explicitly Christian symbol, I wonder why the pagan soldiers weren't offended. most likely it was an ambiguous Constantine symbol. Vetranio issued a coin in honour of Constantius II with a reverse showing Victory crowning an emperor, presumably Constantius, holding a labarum. IT fits perfectly if it was a family symbol, since the obvious intention of the coin was to proclaim Vetranio's allegiance to Constantius. But as usual, it's ambiguous, and nothing will ever shake the opinions of some!
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline PeterD

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1483
  • omnium curiositatum explorator
    • Historia
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2007, 10:11:21 am »
The "campgate" appeared on the silver coins of the of the Tetrarchs (including Constantine) before Constantine became Christian.

The issue of whether it really is a "camp" gate has been discussed many times before, but to my eyes, because of the brick-work is must be the gate of a permanent fort, at the least, and more likely a city or town gate. At any rate, the campgate doesn't have seem to have any religious significance or relate to Constantine's camping exploits.

It was not the labarum that Constantine was supposed to have seen and put on his soldiers' shields before Milvian Bridge, but a simple cross. That wouldn't have meant anything to the soldiers at the time. Only later was the labarum used.
Peter, London

Historia: A collection of coins with their historical context https://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia

Offline PeterD

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1483
  • omnium curiositatum explorator
    • Historia
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2007, 12:34:30 pm »
The famous Arras medal showing Constantius arriving at the gates of London is also interesting. The gateway obviously has tall circular towers with conical roofs.
Peter, London

Historia: A collection of coins with their historical context https://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia

Scottino22

  • Guest
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2007, 12:44:01 pm »
To All,

Thank you very much for the information! I think I have some good starts for my research now.

Scott

Offline slokind

  • Tribuna Plebis Perpetua
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6654
  • Art is an experimental science
    • An Art Historian's Numismatics Studies
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2007, 08:41:50 pm »
When one considers all the towns that started out as camps (and in England still have Chester- or -chester in their names), and travels all over the former Roman Empire seeing them, not excluding Italy, one realizes, I think, that what in Phase 1 was a camp gate often was remodeled, if the place grew and prospered, into a city gate; in other cases, where the castra did not evolve or where a town was built from scratch (the defensive gate being elsewhere), you see the plain military gate or the pretentious city gate; the Trier medallion shows the latter, a wonderful example.*  I remember a going-around-and-around thread about camp gates in a thread, I think elsewhere, and I'd like to toss in again the suggestion that on Æ3 Providentiae Aug(g) coins, what we have is the 'logo' (like the Trash in the corner of my computer screen, or Forvm's tetrastyle naos) of the gate of legionary castra, not, usually, a particular one (by particular, I mean like the preserved gates, minus their additions, in Rome or the gates of Cilician towns and settlements that Ramsey drew and illustrated in his book on Cilicia).
(I wonder whether the new Shorter OED has made camp gate one word or left it hyphenated!  I know one place where a hyphen remains comfortable for me, in the attributive 'camp-gate coins'). 
Pat L.
*This image and its accompanying posting has been removed.  I don't know why, unless it is too good to be true (I can't find it in Kent & Hirmer or in CA, for example).  One of the more elaborate Danubian ones could illustrate the same points: the statuary on top, the use of orders, for example.

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2007, 06:25:29 pm »
The medallion was the Berlin specimen of RIC VII Trier 1 (only two known examples - the other in a private collection), but as you say their are many examples of city gates captured on coins. Ray Wilk's site is a great resource:

http://citygate.ancients.info/

I deleted the post due to an issue with one of the images, and laziness in not being bothered to redo the composite!

Ben

Offline *Alex

  • Tribunus Plebis 2022
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2145
  • Etiam Iovis omnibus placere non possunt.
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2007, 07:35:06 pm »
*This image and its accompanying posting has been removed.  I don't know why, unless it is too good to be true (I can't find it in Kent & Hirmer or in CA, for example). 

The medallion was the Berlin specimen of RIC VII Trier 1 (only two known examples - the other in a private collection)

Here it is.

Alex   :angel:


Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12141
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #8 on: September 23, 2007, 12:18:26 am »
Just to be awkward, I'm not convinced that the chi-rho was really much more than a Constantinian family symbol, at least at first. There are a lot of questions about the story of Constantine's troops putting the labarum on their chields at the Milvian Bridge, but it's clear that it was not a Christian army. If it was intended as an explicitly Christian symbol, I wonder why the pagan soldiers weren't offended. most likely it was an ambiguous Constantine symbol. Vetranio issued a coin in honour of Constantius II with a reverse showing Victory crowning an emperor, presumably Constantius, holding a labarum. IT fits perfectly if it was a family symbol, since the obvious intention of the coin was to proclaim Vetranio's allegiance to Constantius. But as usual, it's ambiguous, and nothing will ever shake the opinions of some!

I don't know of any evidence to support your idea.  There is plenty of evidence to support that XP was a symbol for Christ, at the very least not long after.  The use of XP for Constantine doesn't fit since neither letter is in the name.  And the change over time seems extremely improbable.  I don't think it is ambiguous at all. 
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline *Alex

  • Tribunus Plebis 2022
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2145
  • Etiam Iovis omnibus placere non possunt.
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2007, 07:12:31 am »
Lactantius states that, in the night before the battle, Constantine was commanded in a dream to "delineate the heavenly sign on the shields of his soldiers" (Commonitus est in quiete Constantinus, ut caeleste signum Dei notaret in scutis atque ita proelium committeret).
He obeyed and marked the shields with a sign "denoting Christ".
Lactantius describes that sign as a "staurogram", or a Latin cross with its upper end rounded in a P-like fashion, but there is no certain evidence that Constantine ever used that sign (Staurogram  :Tao-Rho: ) or the better known Christogram:<a href='http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?vpar=810&pos=0' target='_blank'>Chi-Rho</a>: which is described by Eusebius) on the shields.
Both Lactantius and Eusebius were writing after the event, in the case of Eusebius, 25 years after and in his case Eusebius' detailed description of the Chi-Rho was in reference to the manufacture of the standard or "labarum" not the sign carried on the shields of the soldiers.
In the case of Lactantius, who wrote a year or so after the event, according to Schaff, the account from Lactantius has been questioned by Burckhardt to have actually been composed by Lactantius himself, especially since he attributed a similar vision to Licinius (Chapter 46).

What is not in dispute is that the soldiers inscribed some symbol on their shields.
In the vision of Constantine "He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, Conquer by this. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle. (1.28)"
Now Constantine had had a similar vision previously, described in the Panegyrici Latini, which is dated to A.D.310 or 311 and which took place before a battle with the Franks. "For, O Constantine, you saw, I believe, your protector Apollo (Sol Invictus), in company with Victory, offering you laurel crowns ....."

As Robert has stated, Constantine's army was largely pagan, and Constantine himself up to this point had adopted Apollo or Sol Invictus as his patron deity, so I think that the heavenly symbol inscribed on the shield was ambiguous and could be perceived as being the symbol of either Sol or of Christ. The symbol that best fits the bill is simply a cross, like that of St. Andrew. This symbol scratched or painted on the shields of the soldiers would be the heavenly symbol of Sol to the pagans and, to the Christians, the first two letters of Christ's name (Ch in Latin, translated into X in Greek).

Furthermore I think that there is actually overlooked numismatic evidence that this was the symbol employed. Witness the coin below with the enigmatic reverse often described as the most unlikely "plan of a camp". This simple cross is a symbol which could easily have been scratched or painted on a shield and it is furthermore surmounted by the figure of Sol which indicates to me, on this coin at least, that the sign is in some way attributable to him.

Alex.


oldcoinz

  • Guest
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #10 on: September 23, 2007, 10:34:21 am »
Both Lactantius and Eusebius were writing after the event, in the case of Eusebius, 25 years after and in his case Eusebius' detailed description of the Chi-Rho was in reference to the manufacture of the standard or "labarum" not the sign carried on the shields of the soldiers.

However, Eusebius said in reference to the chi-rho, that-

"The symbol of the Saviour's name, two letters indicating the name of Christ by means of its initial characters, the letter P being intersected by X in its centre: and these letters the emperor was in the habit of wearing on his helmet at a later period."   Eusebius Vita Constantini Book 1,Chapter 31.

and we have a coin issued from Ticinum in 315 A.D. with a chi-rho on the crest. So even if Eusebius wrote some 25 years later, there is a coin issued only a few years after the battle of the Milvian Bridge which corroborates his story.



Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2007, 04:21:56 pm »
The symbol looks very much like a sunwheel or similar solar symbol, so I think the idea of its being ambiguous is on the right lines. It didn't offend the Christians, and it fitted Constantine's attachment, whether current or former, to the cult of Sol Invictus. He could even have combined the two; nixing and matching cults was well known in the Hellenistic world, and we have evidence from the following century of people doing devotions to the sun on the steps of St. Peter's while on their way in to Mass. Eusebius, of course, has an axe to grind; he's trying to move from being a persecuted cult (Caesarea was in Daia's territory, so they'd had a hard time of it) to being the dominant religion in a very multireligious world, so he's likely to exaggerate Constantine's adherence to Christianity.
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

oldcoinz

  • Guest
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #12 on: September 23, 2007, 04:39:49 pm »
so he's likely to exaggerate Constantine's adherence to Christianity.

Would Constantine have exaggerated his own adherence to Christianity... as there are extant copies of letters written by him.

Offline Jochen

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12309
  • Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat.
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #13 on: September 23, 2007, 05:51:55 pm »
Hi!

About the coin with the so-called 'plan of a camp' we have had a long thread. Eusebius tells us that Constantine has a vision short before the battle of the Milvian bridge where he saw a cross in the sky. Peter Weiss in 'The Vision of Constantine, Frankfurter Althistorische Studien, 1993' suggests, that this cross could be his vision and that it was a kind of halo.

Please look at https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=27709.0

Best regards

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2007, 06:27:42 pm »
I agree with Jochen that a fundamental advance in this question was made by Peter Weiss, The Vision of Constantine, Journal of Roman Archaeology 16, 2003, 237-259.

The vision in the sky, Weiss contends, was a solar halo, which appeared to Constantine and his army as he was marching north to counter a barbarian invasion on the Rhine after eliminating Maximian at Marseilles early in 310, and which is described in a Latin panegyric delivered before Constantine later in that year.  Constantine interpreted this vision as a promise of victory from the sun god, explaining the sudden emergence of Sol as the chief god on his coinage from 310 on.

In 312, there was no repeated heavenly vision, but Christ told Constantine in a dream that the sign he had seen in the sky two years earlier was Christ's sign, not Sol's, and he should put it on the shields of his soldiers before the impending battle with Maxentius.  

The victory over Maxentius convinced Constantine of Christ's sponsorship, as he states himself in his Letter to the Provincials of the East in 324: he calls upon the Greatest God to end the sufferings of the people of the East, not a vain request, "For under Thy guidance did I begin and bring to completion my salvation-bringing tasks.  Carrying Thy Holy Sign before me everywhere, I have led the army to glorious victories....Truly because of this I have consecrated to Thee my own soul...."

Why has this simple course of events, with two sudden revelations and changes of devotion by
Constantine, not been seen by previous scholars?  First because the language of the panegyric is complicated, and needs very careful reading and comparison with Eusebius' description of the heavenly vision.  And second because Eusebius' account seems to compress the events of two and a half years into a single day, as though Constantine and his army saw the vision one afternoon and that very night Constantine had the dream instructing him to place the sign on the shields of his soldiers.
Curtis Clay

Offline *Alex

  • Tribunus Plebis 2022
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2145
  • Etiam Iovis omnibus placere non possunt.
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2007, 06:36:35 pm »
Quote from: Valerius on September 23, 2007, 10:34:21 am
However, Eusebius said in reference to the chi-rho, that-

"The symbol of the Saviour's name, two letters indicating the name of Christ by means of its initial characters, the letter P being intersected by X in its centre: and these letters the emperor was in the habit of wearing on his helmet at a later period."   Eusebius Vita Constantini Book 1,Chapter 31.

and we have a coin issued from Ticinum in 315 A.D. with a chi-rho on the crest. So even if Eusebius wrote some 25 years later, there is a coin issued only a few years after the battle of the Milvian Bridge which corroborates his story.

 I was referring to the device or symbol which was scratched or painted on the soldiers' shields after Constantine's vision.  Eusebius was referring to the labarum, as is evident from the fuller extract which is written below:

 CHAPTER XXX.

AT dawn of day he (Constantine) arose, and communicated the marvel to his friends: and then, calling together the workers in gold and precious stones, he sat in the midst of them, and described to them the figure of the sign he had seen, bidding them represent it in gold and precious stones. And this representation I myself have had an opportunity of seeing.

CHAPTER XXXI.

Now it was made in the following manner. A long spear, overlaid with gold, formed the figure of the cross by means of a transverse bar laid over it. On the top of the whole was fixed a wreath of gold and precious stones; and within this, the symbol of the Saviour's name, two letters indicating the name of Christ by means of its initial characters, the letter P being intersected by X in its centre: and these letters the emperor was in the habit of wearing on his helmet at a later period. From the cross-bar of the spear was suspended a cloth, a royal piece, covered with a profuse embroidery of most brilliant precious stones; and which, being also richly interlaced with gold, presented an indescribable degree of beauty to the beholder. This banner was of a square form, and the upright staff, whose lower section was of great length, bore a golden half-length portrait of the pious emperor and his children on its upper part, beneath the trophy of the cross, and immediately above the embroidered banner
.

Alex.


Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2007, 08:33:23 pm »
Quote from: Valerius on September 23, 2007, 04:39:49 pm
Would Constantine have exaggerated his own adherence to Christianity... as there are extant copies of letters written by him.

If he was such a strong Christian, it's odd that he should have made 'the day of the Sun' a public holiday, and not 'the Lord's day' or some such expression! I think that's evidence of a position that was at least ambiguous, as late as 321.
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

oldcoinz

  • Guest
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2007, 10:33:27 pm »
If he was such a strong Christian, it's odd that he should have made 'the day of the Sun' a public holiday, and not 'the Lord's day' or some such expression! I think that's evidence of a position that was at least ambiguous, as late as 321.

On Sunday, Constantine allowed his Christian soldiers to go to church and had the pagan soldiers recite a monotheistic prayer in Latin, and in 321 a law was passed that made it illegal to conduct official business on Sunday, although it was permissible to do farm work as long as God allowed the weather to be nice. If you want to believe that the naming of this day meant that Constantine's religious position was ambiguous though, I guess you can, even though things you find odd are not necessarily the same things that may have been found odd in the fourth century-- especially by Constantine!


Here is a bit of a letter from Constantine circa 314 A.D., which I thought I would include because he mentioned the sun, and it also gives an unambiguous view of his opinion.

"In truth, not undeservedly has the mercy of Christ departed far from those men, in whom it is as clear as the sun of noon-day, that they are of such a character, as to be seen to be shut off even from the care of Heaven."

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #18 on: September 24, 2007, 03:13:55 am »
Where did you find the quote? It sounds like something out of his correspondence about Caecilian and the Donatists, but it's not always easy to be sure where you are when dealing with different translations of the same text. Don't forget Constantine continued to issue vast numbers of coins proclaiming Sol Invictus as his 'companion' long after 314.
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #19 on: September 24, 2007, 06:59:46 am »
If you pick and choose amongst the evidence you could argue that Constantine was either a committed solar monotheist or a committed Christian c. 314-315, but if you take an integrated view then I think the only plausible conclusion is that he had one foot in each camp and that his views were evolving. Here he is in 315, jugate with his Comes Sol (this coin issued at the same time, and from the same mint as the Ticinum medallion with the chi-rho decoration; the difference being that at actual size Sol here could be seen where as the Chi-Rho on the helmet would have been completely invisible - although nonetheless still interesting).

Ben

oldcoinz

  • Guest
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #20 on: September 24, 2007, 09:48:46 am »
If you pick and choose amongst the evidence you could argue that Constantine was either a committed solar monotheist or a committed Christian c. 314-315, but if you take an integrated view then I think the only plausible conclusion is that he had one foot in each camp and that his views were evolving.

As an interesting exercise, one could list the Christian churches or buildings built by order of Constantine alongside buildings or temples he had built in honor of Sol or any other pagan deity, and then decide where his feet were!


I like what Timothy Barnes said about the coinage,

"The new ideology naturally took time to be felt everywhere, and the Constantinian mints continued to portray the originally pagan Sol Invictus as the emperor's divine comes, protector, and patron for several years more. That fact attests not imperial devotion to a vague solar monotheism, but the dead weight of iconographic tradition."

Constantine and Eusebius, 48.

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #21 on: September 24, 2007, 03:57:19 pm »
He built plenty of churches, but don't forget that there was a history of expropriation of church property. He lived in an age when syncretism was common, and I don't think we can be certain about his personal views; as I suggested before, he may even have combined the two cults. His church building may have been nothing more than a desire to see a favoured cult housed in 'suitable' premises. We just don't know.
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #22 on: September 24, 2007, 10:08:37 pm »
Quote from: Valerius on September 24, 2007, 09:48:46 am
As an interesting exercise, one could list the Christian churches or buildings built by order of Constantine alongside buildings or temples he had built in honor of Sol or any other pagan deity, and then decide where his feet were!

I wonder what Constantine might have done on the steps to St. Peters - gone straight in, or turned east to pray to Sol as Pope Leo bemoaned much of the congregation doing? The more interesting question isn't where his feet were but where his mind was... At what point (if ever) did Constantine reject Sol as part of the Summus Deus? As late as 333 Constantine chose Natalis Invictus as the day to elevate Constans to caesar... surely one would choose an auspicious day for such an event, not one to be distanced from? Why would someone as superstitious as Constantine, a rejecter (at least later in life) of idol worship and polytheism continue to put Sol on this coins? Why do the festival of Isis coins first introduced under Diocletian become (relativly) more common under Constantine - after his supposed conversion? Just by luck a panygyric records Constantine's lavish gifts to a temple of Apollo (Granno?), but what other pagan temples did he support, and more interestingly when did that end? Do we even know where Sol Invictus was normally worshipped, or what his relationship was to Mithraism? Why does Constantine appear on some of his coins with a radiate crown and raised hand - the signs of a high level Mithraic initiate (Heliodromus)?

Quote
I like what Timothy Barnes said about the coinage,

"The new ideology naturally took time to be felt everywhere, and the Constantinian mints continued to portray the originally pagan Sol Invictus as the emperor's divine comes, protector, and patron for several years more. That fact attests not imperial devotion to a vague solar monotheism, but the dead weight of iconographic tradition."

Constantine and Eusebius, 48.

This argument would hold more weight if Constantine's post "conversion" coinage were indeed a tepid and rote continuation of his prior pagan coinage. At a stretch you could claim that of his bronze coinage (if you are willing to ignore him celebrating "Christian" victories with pagan types!), but how then to explain his gold coinage? Why for that matter would one even question a 4th C Roman holding Roman syncretic views on religion rather than the decidedly un-Roman exclusivity doctrine of the new religion he was becoming interested in?

Ben

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2007, 02:53:36 pm »
I've no idea of Tim Barnes' background, but even the most scholarly of scholars can become remarklably subjective over something that impinges on their religion! That's why I chose to study New Testament under an atheist; there are too many people looking for a Jesus who looks uncomfortably like them, and usually finding him.
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline gordian_guy

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1767
Re: This should be simple, but I'm befuddled!
« Reply #24 on: September 28, 2007, 12:18:49 pm »

This has been a fascinating discussion, might I recommend for further reading by the posters: Gods, Emperors, and Coins
David Shotter, Greece & Rome, 2nd Ser., Vol. 26, No. 1. (Apr., 1979), pp. 48-57. A well written article that covers more than just this topic but it is short and succinct and I would recommend it to all collectors at all levels.

c.rhodes

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity