Good morning, Ben,
Thanks for the further replies offered here.
I don't know the origins of the gesture, but it'd certainly be interesting to try to find out more.
I sure agree – that it would be interesting, I mean… I’d love to know more about that.
My feeling is that it's a static gesture, with the hand position being the defining element.
I don’t even have anything to base an opinion on; but that is an interesting surmise.
the coin I'm talking about was actually minted by Constantine (ie. at a mint he controlled), who certainly closely associated himself with Sol at the time... The coin's interesting in that it appears to prove that this isn't just an arbitrary pose assigned to Sol, but rather that the gesture itself, being mirrored by the emperor, is itself significant.
Right, I did understand the latter from your original statement.
Re: minted by
Constantine is sure interesting… “..who certainly closely associated himself with Sol…”.
My point was merely that in the same light, neither is ‘only’ the gesture-itself significant in such manner – but the duality embodied on the coin. That it almost certainly implies some symbolic representation of the Emperor’s association with / relation to, Sol.
Here’s a question that show’s my ignorance again, but – why would
Constantine have minted a coin depicting
Maximinus II?
Well, let's not open up too large a can of worms... I was just popping open a smaller one... that this deity-related gesture may indeed have transferred over into the new religion.
Sure.
That was pretty much the gist of my point as well, & apologize if I merely echoed your point which you made well-enough.
The only addition within my intended ‘point’ was that the ‘associative’ significance of the ‘type-gesture,’ may offer insight to its meaning (interpretability) in either direction.
You’re right tho’, of course – that is a can of worms – and rather futile ones at that, since I’ve not even seen the image discussed.
(But it is fun to speculate sometimes, right?)
The Arian controvery, if that's what you're referring to, had been settled long before then at the council of Nicea in 325 (under Constantine). The logical decision was made that the son and father were different aspects of the same entity.
With all due respect, I think the subsequent 700, 800 years or so of the Empire show how untrue that is. That
Constantine (despite
his rather heavy-handed efforts) settled little if-anything about that controversy, other than the State’s official position with regard to the adherents of the various ‘doctrines.’ In large
part because
Constantine’s solution wasn’t
logical, but merely & unsuccessfully
diplomatic.
If true, that the Xristos depicted on the coin in question is shown making the same gesture (for same reason) - & if my suspicion has any
merit, it would seem a rather visible sign of a prevailing Monophysite doctrine reflected on the coin. Assuming, as well, that the ‘Xristos’ as depicted would be understood as more kin to the (earlier) ‘Emperor’
type than to the ‘Sol’ – a literal godhead.
It’s been quite a long while since I’ve looked at anything
Byzantine tho’, so - of course, I’m just musing out loud here…
That's actually his "chlamys" or cape thrown over his shoulder and hanging down.
..Ahhhh..! Ok – thank you. Yes, I see it now that you point it out.
Rather than add yet another post to this
thread following, I’ll say here too, that I’ve also enjoyed and profited from
Curtis’s and Howard’s comments.
Good stuff!
Very best regards,
Tia
PS. Really like your newly acquired
Constantius II /
Phoenix, too! Very neat!
