Licinius and Jupiter - how did it start ? (RIC VI Heraclea 64)

[Heliodromus]

When Galerius appointed Licinius as augustus in 308 AD, he gave him control of Pannoniae and Moesia, and along with it the mints of Siscia and Thessalonica. On his bronze coinage Licinius was content to follow Galerius, and issued Galerius' GENIO, VIRTVTI and VENERI VICTRICI reverse types from these two mints.

Following the death of Galerius in 311 AD, Licinius additionally assumed control of Thraciae, including the Heraclea mint, and now, it appears, decides to make a break from Galerius' coin types and starts issuing an IOVI CONSERVATORI type instead. Having chosen this reverse type, Licinius essentially stuck with it for the rest of his reign (through two coinage reforms) until his death in 324 AD !

So, Licinius evidentially liked the IOVI CONSERVATORI type, but why did he choose it following Galerius death?

If we look at Licinius' bronze coinage immediately following Galerius' death, one coin stands out as an oddity that it turns out holds at least part of the answer to why Licinius chose the IOVI reverse type, and is a bit of a surprise. The type is RIC VI Heraclea 64.

Here's a specimen of mine.

What at first appears odd about RIC 64 is that is has an obverse of Maximinus II, not Licinius, and per RIC is the only coin in this issue (i.e. no Constantine either). Additionally Maximinus has the deferential legend of PF INV(ICTVS) AVG, which had been initiated by Galerius, although this should not be a surprise in of itself since we see this continued into following issues.

Now, RIC 64 is fairly scarce, so it's no surprise that this apparent RIC VI oddity has since been resolved by new coin discoveries since it was written, and this issue in fact also contains Licinius himself and Constantine. I'm writing this up on occasion of just having upgraded my Licinius specimen, shown below together with my Constantine.

So, oddity resolved (or is it... 🙂), and at least we have Licinius apparently issuing this new IOVI type for himself as well as both co-emperors. Constantine can be seen to have also been afforded a deferential title of PF INV AVG, as well as being addressed in the dative form of CONSTANTINO, as had also originally been the case for Maximinus when Galerius started with these legends.

So, in wondering why Licinius may have started with this IOVI type, it turns out we're asking the wrong question! About 15 years ago on eBay I found, and bought, the coin below.

This is the same RIC 64 type, but issued for, and therefore BY, Galerius (IMP C GAL VAL MAXIMIANVS PF AVG). It seems quite rare since I'm only aware of one other specimen, also in a private collection - that of board member @galeriusmaximinus, and illustrated in his JNG article on the Heraclea mint. Has anyone seen another, perhaps ?

This is quite a significant discovery since it shows that RIC/Sutherland was wrong about who issued, and introduced, this type - it was Galerius, not Licinius (after Galerius' death), and we need to look to Galerius to try to understand why he issued it. Licinius, it now transpires, didn't introduce the IOVI type but rather just continued it from Galerius, with his own first issue being RIC 65-67.

This was more than just a new type by Galerius, or at least a special one, since this issue mark only contains this one IOVI reverse type, not his preceding GENIO IMPERATORIS type (where he had initiated the INV AVG legends for Maximinus & Consantine), nor his wife's sole VENERI VICTRICI type! The absense of Galeria Valeria seems especially surprising, so perhaps this was meant as a special issue, to be followed by a planned resumption of other types? In the event Galerius died before issuing anything else, so we don't know what he had in mind.

So, why did Galerius introduce this new, and/or special, type at this time? He continued the honorific INV AVG legends for Maximinus and Constantine, also no change for Licinius or himself, and doesn't appear to have been favoring himself in terms of officina assignments or volume of coinage, so there's no evidence of this being a new "Iovius Diocletian" assertion of primacy by himself, or of appointing Licinius as heir apparent after his own, perhaps anticipated, death.

The best I can suggest is that perhaps the type was related to Galerius extreme ill health (as gleefully, and vividly, described by Lactantius in his "De mortibus persecutorum") - perhaps an appeal to the supreme deity for personal salvation?! At the same time, right at the end of his life, Galerius had also issued his Edit of Toleration (aka Edict of Serdica) calling for an end to Christian persecution, which one might cynically suppose to be more about trying to appease the Christian god (in case he'd had any hand in Galerius' unfortunate circumstance), rather than an end of life change of heart.

Does anyone have any alternate theories for why Galerius may have introduced this type, or opinion on the sincerity of his Edict of Toleration ?

Does anyone else have any coins from the RIC 64 issue ?

Edited November 28, 2024 by Heliodromus

[Victor_Clark]

The tetrarchy were all in the family of either Jupiter or Hercules and Galerius may have issued the IOVI type because he was in the family of Jupiter.

[Heliodromus]

10 hours ago, Victor_Clark said:

The tetrarchy were all in the family of either Jupiter or Hercules and Galerius may have issued the IOVI type because he was in the family of Jupiter.

I'm not sure that really fits the circumstances... If Galerius had wanted to continue or revive Tetrarchic Jovian/Herculean associations, then why wait until he is on his death bed to do it, rather than immediately on becoming augustus, or after the death of Constantius I when he became senior augustus, or even after Carnuntum perhaps? Why only issue an IOVI type and not a HERVCLI type as well (as Daia had done) ? Why drop Galeria Valeria from the coinage at the same time ?!

Edited November 28, 2024 by Heliodromus

[seth77]

Heraclea 66, that I never posted anywhere before:

[galeriusmaximinus]

That is a very interesting question that Heliodromus raises here. Why did Galerius see a need to change to Jupiter after many years of Genius and Mars? And why did Licinius then continue for most of his Heraclea issues with Jupiter (either as reverse image or as a bust-style on the obverse of the initial camp gate issues)?

The first Jupiter series of Heraclea mint (see picture of the 5 types in my collection attached) is to be dated into early 311 and is mostly omitted in RIC.

• Galerius seems to be known from just 3 examples: Heliodromus' example with gamma, my two examples with beta and delta.
• Maximinus II as IMP C GAL VAL MAXIMINVS P F INV AVG (nominative) is the more common type and only one listed in RIC 64. It is known for 5 officinae (alpha to epsilon) which I all have in my collection.
• The other type of Maximinus II with IMP C GAL VAL MAXIMINO P F INV AVG legend in dative seems to be the rarest – I know only of my example with officina delta.
• Constantin is as well known for 5 officinae (alpha to epsilon) of which I have the first 3 officinae in my collection.
• Licinius is also known for 5 officinae (alpha to epsilon) of which I have 3 examples in my collection.

The average weight for this series is around 6.07g (from the 27 examples where weight was available to me, 16 in my collection) and the average diameter is around 24mm. Generally, the pearl-rand diameter cannot be measured that accurately as the pearl-rand often runs out of the flan.

Here some considerations:

As Jupiter seems the main emphasized god in the areas of Licinius after taking control of the Western part of Galerius’ former possessions, Licinius’ influence on the shift to Jupiter reverses cannot be excluded. Although Licinius had been originally promoted into the senior Western augustus position this did not imply him to be a Herculier. Both, Galerius and Licinius, were part of the Jovian family (Licinius being adopted in November 308 into the Valerien gens of Diocletian signaled by the new full name Valerianus Licinianus Licinius as known from ILS 678 and ILS 679). Thus both could naturally be understood to market their “family association” with Jupiter reverses.

We could also read the use of Jupiter as a symbol for the tetrarchy and thus eventually as a way of showing a differentiation of Galerius and then later Licinius from the usurpation of Maxentius (who holds the areas of Italy and Africa formally allocated to Licinius and markets himself as Herculian). After the death of Maximinus the continued use of Jupiter by Licinius could mark potentially a religious signal to “buy in” the support of the pagans in his new Eastern parts and differentiate himself versus Constantine.

[galeriusmaximinus]

Here is another Licinius I follis of that rare issue similarly to the example of Heliodromus also from officina Delta

6.52g   23-24mm  11h

[panzerman]

mine.....

[Heliodromus]

>> Here is another Licinius I follis of that rare issue similarly to the example of Heliodromus also from officina Delta

I noticed that one too - glad it went to a good home!

I wrote above that it was odd that Galerius omitted Galeria Valeria from this issue, but then it occurred to me how would we know?! The HTA issue mark used here in 311 AD is the same as had been used c.308-309 for Gal Val RIC 43, so perhaps some of the "RIC 43" specimens are really from this issue ?

There's certainly quite a large variety of style among the RIC 43 specimens, not that it proves anything.

Edited Friday at 06:45 PM by Heliodromus

[JAZ Numismatics]

I always thought the Edict of Serdica had a certain tone of resignation, especially this excerpt...

Finally when our law had been promulgated to the effect that they should conform to the institutes of antiquity, many were subdued by the fear of danger, many even suffered death. And yet since most of them persevered in their determination, and we saw that they neither paid the reverence and awe due to the gods, nor yet worship their own God, therefore we, in view of our most mild clemency and the constant habit by which we are accustomed to grant indulgence to all, we thought that we ought to grant our most prompt indulgence also to these, so that they may again be Christians and may hold their conventicles, provided they do nothing contrary to good order. 

"Ok fine, if you insist on being Christians, we'll let you do it on account of our good heartedness, sigh." Whenever a new religious ideology sweeps through a culture, traditionalists always find it disturbing in the extreme. Perhaps the new type was also a way of expressing a sentiment along the lines of "God help us," although the type wasn't exactly new. Domitian struck IOVI VICTORI aes and Septimius Severus issued IOVI CONSERVATORI denarii, but in both of those cases, Jupiter is seated.

Just out of curiosity, I went hunting for coins from this series to buy, and confirmed their scarcity. I found only two...

Edited Friday at 09:32 PM by JAZ Numismatics

[Heliodromus]

4 minutes ago, JAZ Numismatics said:

Just out of curiosity, I went hunting for coins from this series to buy, and confirmed their scarcity. I found only two...

Those are actually from the following issue, struck by Licinius after Galerius' death. The issue struck by Galerius (& including himself) have eagle in field vs wreath.

 

[Steppenfool]

Perhaps something has been posted that refutes this suggestion. I do sometimes find it hard to follow discussions surrounding mints and dates and rulers. However, this is one of those scenarios where I think the mundane explanation is possible.

Is it possible that Licinius instituted the type and the mint had some old Galerius obverses lying around and continued to get some use out of them or used them by accident? Is it also possible that someone engraved the old Galerius legend by accident while intending to engrave Maximinus'? Or is it possible that Licinius takes over Galerius' duties (including the monetary side) and institutes this change on his behalf while he is unwell?

This explanation doesn't require a dramatic deathbed numismatic symbolism change.

It explains the absense of Galeria Valeria.

It explains the small amount of examples in existence when Galerius is the senior Augusuts and in control of the mint.

Edited yesterday at 01:26 AM by Steppenfool

[Heliodromus]

Certainly the simplest explanation of anything is always going to be the one to beat, as long as it fits the evidence, but I'm not sure that any of those scenarios is really any simpler than taking the evidence at face value - that the type was issued while Galerius was alive (given that it includes him), and was therefore issued by himself.

The idea that Galerius might have delegated authority over his coinage to Licinius would AFAIK be unprecendented, and doesn't seem to solve anything. We'd still be left with the question of why the change was made, at that time, only at Heraclea, and still left with the fact the person over-represented on surviving specimens of the coinage is Maximinus II, not Galerius, nor Licinius.

It is conceivable that the type was introduced by Licinius, after Galerius' death, and the specimens for Galerius are mules, but Galerius is known on this type from 3 different officinas which seems to make it less likely. While mules are still a possibility, I don't think that freshly engraved error dies seems likely, or would add any explanatory power.

So, it seems that the alternatives to be considered are just that it was either issued by Galerius, or issued by Licinius after Galerius' death (with the Galerius specimens being mules).

As noted above, on reflection I don't think we can assume that Galeria Valeria was omitted from this issue, given no obvious way to distinguish any such potential coins from RIC 43. If it can be proved that she was omitted, then that might favor this issue having been made post-Galerius, but in the circumstances I'd say this could only be taken as supporting evidence, not primary.

When considering Galerius vs Licinius as the issuer (& hence date) we still have the fact that Maximinus II appears to be the one who was favored volume-wise is this issue, therefore making this type of evidence less useful as to who issued them.

I wonder if @galeriusmaximinus has any thoughts or evidence on the possibility of the Galerius specimens being mules, and any thoughts on the relative likelihood of Licinius vs Galerius having introduced this type, given the respective considerations?

 

Edited 22 hours ago by Heliodromus

[galeriusmaximinus]

Galerius has indeed included Galeria Valeria in the previous issues from the mint of Heraclea. However, from my perspective, I do not see a reason why Galeria Valeria must have been part of this issue as well. The mint has separated the issues from each other with adding dots, stars, and half-moon as distinguishing signs. For including Galeria Valeria in this issue, we may have to expect some sign to distinguish it from RIC 43 and the following issues – which I don’t see.

Galerius seems to have omitted Galeria Valeria from the last issue in Nicomedia. For Thessalonica, we actually do not seem to know. RIC just believes that the second last issue in Thessalonica continues with her into the last issue without us being able to distinguish – so we seem to lack proof here as well.

We seem to know some 30 examples of this first Jupiter issue in Heraclea. The average weight of 28 examples (for which I got weight indication in my database) is 6,09g. This is significantly lower than the average weight of the two previous issues. The issue with the half-moon shows 6,46g (from >50 examples measured) and the issue with star and half-moon shows 6,41g (from >50 examples measured). Compare this to the average weight of 35 examples of Galeria Valeria RIC 43 where I have 6,87g in my database. This is even significantly higher. Also interestingly it is slightly higher than the average of the other emperors in that issue (in which we place RIC 43). Thus, the weight argument does not support a continuation of RIC 43 into the Jupiter issue – on the contrary. However, with the rarity of Jupiter issue we would perhaps also expect only a few of Galeria Valerias thus not having a real significant impact.

The first Jupiter issue does have an interesting high occurrence of Maximinus II – as Heliodromus already noted – also allocating 2 obverse legends to him. Similarly to the previous issue. However, it may be the issue of final transition from the dative to the nominative form of the legend. Subsequent Jupiter issues only maintain a nominative form for Maximinus. Maybe the issue started off with Galerius and then continued without him – placing it time-wise around his death. I do not see the 3 Galerius folles as mules and still believe the issue to be the last under Galerius' authority.

[Heliodromus]

1 hour ago, galeriusmaximinus said:

For including Galeria Valeria in this issue, we may have to expect some sign to distinguish it from RIC 43 and the following issues – which I don’t see.

I really wouldn't expect an issue mark .. normally all types in a single issue use the same issue mark (none in the case of this Galerian IOVI issue). I can only think of a single case where this was not true which is Aquileia 334-335 where the Gloria Exercitvs, Vrbs Roma and Constantinopolis types all had different issue marks! (cross, dot, star).

1 hour ago, galeriusmaximinus said:

Thus, the weight argument does not support a continuation of RIC 43 into the Jupiter issue – on the contrary. However, with the rarity of Jupiter issue we would perhaps also expect only a few of Galeria Valerias thus not having a real significant impact.

The weight evidence is interesting, and I just checked and see the same declining trend:

6.43g for 12 RIC 43

6.23g for 16 star+crescent

6.09g for 14 Galerian IOVI issue

You're right though that the numbers might be so small to make it hard to detect - just part of "long tail" RIC 43 weight distribution.

Do you have any theory for why Galerius (presumably) did issue this type ?

[Heliodromus]

I don't want to derail my own thread, but here's "AI for numismatics" in action :

I wonder how many people realize what AI is capable of nowadays - lot's of everyday uses.

A couple of days ago I gave it a photo of my credit card bill and just asked for recurring category subtotals, and it OCR'd it, wrote a Python program importing the data, and ran it to give me the answer.

Anyways ... back to Heraclea 311 AD.

[Heliodromus]

2 hours ago, galeriusmaximinus said:

Galerius seems to have omitted Galeria Valeria from the last issue in Nicomedia.

RIC concludes this based on the expansion of officinas at Nicomedia from 4 during Group IV of 308-310 to 6 during Group V of 310-311, having not recorded any coins of Galeria Valeria from officinas 5 & 6 (ε & ϛ). However on Not in RIC Lech has recorded both these missing officinas for RIC 58, so it seems she was certainly included in this final group.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/notInRic/6nic58_e.html