I have a website on Roman coins with early Christian symbolism: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Christian/ChristianSymbols.html It has been up for years and I thought it was complete for AE before the time of Valentinian (Under Valentinian chi-rhos on Roman coins became so common that they were no longer special). No one wrote me and told me of the omission of this type. When I noticed this piece I bought it. It required looking again at the types of Magnentius. The result was I had to add three rare types with chi-rhos that I had omitted. Noice the chi-rho on the standard, which makes the Christian connection. When Magnentius took over Lyons from Constans, the mint continued the legend used by Constans with this new type for Magnentius (and with the common "galley" type). This type was not issued for Decentius and is therefore dated to 19 Jan. 230 - Spring 351 (when Decentius was elevated). FEL TEMP REPARATIO Emperor standing holding labarum with chi-rho A in left field, FPLC in exergue. RIC VIII Lyons 108 "R", but I think it is rarer than that. acsearch has only 4, all from 2005-6, when I suppose a group was found and disbursed. The CNG "Research" site has none and the Sixbid archive has none. The plated coin in Bastien, Magnentius 148, is very crowded with "REPARATIO" largely off the flan. The type is not on wildwinds. Now this type, along with two other types, has been added as the last three entries in Table 6: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Christian/ChristianSymbols.html#T6 Some of the FEL TEMP REPARATIO types from the coin reform of 348 are very common. If you decide to collect the types with that legend you can assemble a very attractive group relatively inexpensively. However, it will be hard to get this type, because I bought this one and my online search has not turned up another one that was offered since 2006! Show us either a Roman coin with an early Christian symbol or a FEL TEMP REPARATIO type!
That is a very useful reference, thank you. I think this is an official Magnentius with a chi-rho, but it's not always clear when they're official or barbarous, and the chi-rho is more of a cross. Magnentius, 350-351 Lugdunum. Bronze, 20mm, 4.5g. FELICITAS REIPVBLICAE. Mintmark RPLG (RIC 114). This one's official but the chi-rho is still a bit confused. Magnentius Centenionalis, 350-351 Lugdunum. Bronze, 22mm, 5.3g. FELICITAS REIPVBLICAE. Mintmark RPLG (RIC 112).
Congrats on your recent acquisitions ! I've enjoyed browsing through your website many times . Pictured below is a common type coin in my collection that is well struck & has a clear chi-rho symbol.
Here's a few ... Arles was very fond of their Christian symbols and repeated them a few times, so here's the X being used again twice after Constantine's death. RIC VIII Arles 25 Constantinopolis: Unlisted type for issue, cf RIC VIII Arles 40-50 Those above two issues also included Arles' Aeterna Pietas with same symbol, meanwhile Lyons used a Tau-Rho like symbol instead. I like this Lyonese Aeterna Pietas because it seems that symbol might be closer to Lactantius' "transversa X littera, summo capite circumflexo" than a Chi-Rho proper. I've seen that translated various ways, not sure if there's any agreement on the best way. Keeping that in mind, here's the Tau-Rho variant of the Hoc Signo too.
That’s a great coin at the top. Very rare and in great condition. I’d love to have one but fear I wouldn’t pay what it would take to get one! Congrats! OMG, that hair is amazing! Reminds me of this hairstyle that seems to exist in Russia. source: the googles
I have none of the rare FTR coins of Magnentius but do have the Tau Rho from Amiens for Magnentius and Chi Rho from Arles Decentius. Still, I consider most interesting the matter that the ruler (Magnentius) making greatest use of the symbol was a pagan. He was attempting to gain favor with Western 'Catholic' Christians who were quite unhappy with Constantius II who was an Arian Heretic. Arius held that Jesus Christ was begotten by the Father but was did not exist before his birth while the Roman church held that he was co-eternal and had always been and was equal to the Father. This was expressed in Greek as ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί (Same essence as the Father) while the Arians believed Christ was ὁμοIούσιον τῷ Πατρί (Similar essence as the Father). The words differed by one letter, an iota, and gave us the phrase "doesn't make an iota of difference". http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2012/09/not-one-iota-of-difference.html Magnentius was banking on the then current tendency for Christians to prefer a non-Christian to a Christian of the wrong 'flavor'. This general attitude has continued through history with conflict, for example, between Catholics and Protestants or Catholics and Orthodox. The large Chi Rho type is flanked by the all important Alpha and Omega (first and last letters of the alphabet) emphasizing the belief that Christ was there from the beginning and would be there until the end. This led to the 'problem' coins showing that fine points of theology were not a strong point at the Trier mint when the type was continued for a short time after the fall of Magnentius on coins bearing the portrait of Constantius II. I can only assume that someone got a 'cut it out!!!' order from higher authorities resulting in these coins being scarce. Of the coins that I do NOT have but would really like to own is the turbo-rare FEL TEMP REPARATIO Falling Horseman in the name of Magnentius. This morning, I even failed to find a photo of one. As always here when this comes up I must show my Falling Horseman that does not count because it is obviously barbarous and not the product of any 'recognized' mint. It is less than 100% clear whether it was intended to be Magnentius or Decentius (counting the bumps makes the shorter name seem better). This coin points out the situation that there is one thing more rare than 'unique' and that is 'does not exist' (zero being less than one). This coin for Decentius does not exist in an official version and anything is possible when we look at the unofficial. If forced to read the thing I would get DN MACENTIUS AVG. One has to wonder if the person who made it even had a 'First' language. It certainly was not Latin.
@Valentinian, and interesting coin and your website a valuable resource. I will deviate from the request and share my only Magnentius which is lacking any Christian symbols - at 2.81 grams perhaps this is a "half-maiorina" from Lugdunum - in the family of your 6.3 coins. Roman Imperial, Magnentius, AD 350-353, Æ half-maiorina (?) (17-18mm, 2.81g, 5h), Lugdunum (Lyon) mint Obv: Bareheaded and cuirassed bust right; A behind Rev: Two Victories standing facing one another, holding wreath inscribed VOT/V/MVL/X in four lines; /SV//RPLG Ref: uncertain; this looks official to me (not expert in late Roman) - at this weight and with legend "MVL/X" it does not appear to be catalogued in RIC - see similar heavier coin RIC VIII Lugdunum 130 A fun MACENTIUS, I would expect coins that do not exist to be priceless.....and I enjoyed the story of the iota in ὁμοIούσιον τῷ Πατρί. I was reading recently of the divide from the time of Anastasius (reign 491–518) between Chalcedonians (Jesus is one person with two natures) Miaphysites (Jesus is one nature - μία "one" plus φύσις "nature") - Anastasius a Miaphysite. A concordance found in AD 1990 with some careful wording.
- Bronze coin (AE 3) minted at BSISC = Siscia during the reign of VALENTINIAN I between 367 - 375 A.D. Obv. D.N.VALENTINI-ANVS.P.F.AVG. Pearl-diademed, dr. & cuir. r. Rev. GLORIA.RO-MANORVM. VALENTINIAN advancing r., F in l field, with r. hand dragging captive & holding labarum in l. A R in r. field. RCS #4102. RICIX #14a pg.147. DVM #42. Full legends, round flan.
Bronze coin (AE 3) minted at CON* OF in l. field, II in r. field, Constantinopolis during the reign of VALENS between 364 - 367 A.D. Obv. D.N.VALEN-S.P.F.AVG. Pearl-diademed, dr. & cuir. r. Rev. GLORIA.RO-MANORVM. VALENS advancing r., dragging captive & holding labarum. OF in l., II in r. field. RCS #4117 pg.347. RICXI #16b pg.214. DVM #46. LRBC #1272.
Bronze coin (AE 2) minted at Nicomedia during the reign of VALENTINIAN II between 383 - 388 A.D. Obv. D.N.VALENTINIANVS.P.F.AVG. Pearl-diademed, draped & cuirassed, r. Rev. VIRTVS.E-XERCITI. Emperor stg. r. holding standard & globe, a captive at his feet. RCS #4163. RICIX #44a pg.261. DVM #33. LRBC #2393.
Here's a Constantius II and a Magnentius, both FTR, and with the chi-rho mark, unfortunately both rough
The OP Magnentius coin is now on wildwinds on the Magnentius page: https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/magnentius/i.html Lyons 108.
Revisiting this thread with another of the interesting coins shared by @dougsmit with two relevant articles from Walter Holt on the “Evidence of the Coinage of Poemenius' revolt at Trier.” American Journal of Numismatics (1989-), vol. 15, 2003, pp. 61–76. and Usurping a usurper: the revolt of Poemenius at Trier, The Numismatic Association of Australia, Volume 17 2006 Constantius II, AD 337-361, Æ Centenionalis (25mm, 6.46g), Treveri (Trier) mint, 1st officina. Struck AD 353 Obv: Pearl-diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust right Rev: SALVS AVG NOSTRI, large Christogram; A ω flanking; TRP Ref: RIC VIII 332 Notes: my notes on this coin can be found here: The Usurper Usurped
