Julian II, Double Majorina, Bull, Antioch

I recently saw this coin for sale (from a trusted seller), and I talked myself into buying it.
I have no idea what a 'Double Majorina' is, (presumably twice the value of a single Majorina). Constantius II seems to have had a Majorina, and along with Julianus II, Jovianus and Magnentius also had 'Double Majorinas'.
I have no idea where this coin (value) fits in amongst the As, Dupondius, Sestertius, (Etc.). Can anyone help, please?
Also, I would like to hear what you think of my coin?

(Seller's attribution

Julianus II. 360 - 363 AD.
Double Majorina. 7.24 gm. AE18 mm.
OBV: DN FL CL IVLI-ANVS P F AVG.
Rosette- diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust right.
REV: SECVRITAS REIPVB/ (palm- branch) ANT A (palm- branch).
Bull standing R., two stars above.
Antioch mint.
RIC 216.
nXF.

Please show your 'Double Majorinas'

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That's a beauty @Topcat7. Not sure about "double" but an AE Maiorina or Double Centenionalis = AE1 (Bronze, 27mm).

JULIAN II
Majorina
OBVERSE: D N FL CL IVLI-ANVS P F AVG, pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right
REVERSE: SECVRITAS REIPVB• dot, bull right, two stars above, •palm branch-CONSPA-palm branch in ex.
Struck at Constantinople 3 Nov 361 - 26 June 363 A.D
7.95g, 29.48mm
RIC VIII 164

JULIAN II
Majorina
OBVERSE: D N FL CL IVL-ANVS P F AVG, pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right
REVERSE: SECVRITAS REIPVB Bull, two stars above, CYZB in exergue
Struck at Cyzicus 3 Nov 361 - 26 June 363 A.D
8.3g, 29mm
RIC 127

 

Fourth century denominations are pretty mysterious. In any case, that's a very nice Antioch-style portrait!

 

Julian II AE1

 

I can't help you with the denomination but I do have one.


Julian II, AD 355-363
Æ28, 7.4g, 6h; Arles mint, AD 360-363
Obv.: DN FL CL IVLIANVS PF AVG; Diademed, draped, cuirassed bust right.
Rev.: SECVRITAS REIPVB; Bull standing right, two stars above, eagle to right, standing right on wreath, holding another wreath in its beak
In Ex.: SCONST

 

Great looking coin!

 

Gorgeous OP coin, and some nice AE1s
I like very much those big "double maiorinas" or whatever the double of they are. Apart from gold medaillions (which for some reason I don't have ), it's the only way to hold big chuncks of coins from the 4th century


Magnentius, AE 1 Amiens mint, AD 353,
D N MAGNEN TIVS P F AVG, Draped bust of Magnentius right
SALVS DD NN AVG ET CAES, Large christogram between alpha and omega. AMB at exergue
9.20 gr
Ref : Cohen #30, LRBC #19, Bastien # 135 (15 ex), RIC # 34 (C)



Julian II, AE 1 Antioch mint, 3 rd officina
D N FL CL IVLI ANVS P F AVG, Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust of Julianus right
SECURITAS REIPUB, Bull to right, two stars above. ANT gamma between two branches at exergue
8.73 gr
Ref : Cohen #38, RC #4072, LRBC #2641



Jovianus, AE 1 Antioch mint, 3 rd officina
D N IOVIAN VS P F AVG, Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust of Jovianus right
VICTORIA ROMANORVM, Jovianus standing, holding victory on a globe and labarum, ANT gamma at exergue
8.46 gr
Ref : RIC # 228, Cohen #22, RC #4085, LRBC #2645



Valentinian I, AE1 Nicomedia mint, 1st officina
D N VALENTINI ANVS P F AVG, diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right
RESTITVTOR REIPUBLICAE, Valentinian standing left, head right, holding standard and vicotry on globe. SMNA at exergue
9.66 gr
Ref : Cohen # 30, RIC # 7a (R2)



Valens, AE1 Aquilea mint, AD 364
DN VALEN - S PF AVG, diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right
RESTITVTOR REIPVBLICAE, Valens standing facing, head right, holding standard and victory. SMAQP at exergue
8.55 gr
Ref : Cohen # 40 (100Fr), RIC #6b

Q

 

That's a truly handsome portrait on the OP coin.
I enjoyed seeing all the coins in this thread.

 

I love those Julian bull coins. A fascinating man. The bull is a bit of a mystery, I think. Perhaps some reference to the Apis Bull sacred to Egyptians, or a reference to Julian's penchant for bull sacrifice. Either way, quite a departure from traditional Constantinian reverse types and a celebration of Julian's revival of pagan belief and practice.

The OP coin is lovely; I like the detailed beards on these issues.

 

Great coins all. Those big 4th century pieces are pretty cool compared to thousands and thousands of AE4's that were struck. No idea what you could buy with a double majorina, though. Maybe a loaf of bread. I guess we don't know how many of these coins it would take to equal a siliqua in value or even a solidus.

 

Some good reading on this guy. (Pic is upside down for some reason. ) The Bowersock bio is thin and scholarly, yet very accessible. And of course the Gore Vidal fiction "biography" is justly famous and may get at Julian's Life and Times more accurately in some ways than nonfiction books. Julian's own writing--of which there is plenty--can be slow going. But his "Letter to a Priest" is a good place to start, demonstrating just how much Christianity influenced Julian's revival of paganism. In short, Julian wanted the philosophical sophistication of paganism to be imbued with the philanthropic tendencies of the best of Christianity, hence this letter detailing the responsibilities of the pagan priesthood. It can be read online here: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_letter_to_a_priest.htm

I assign this letter in some of my world lit classes after we read Augustine's Confessions. My intro to the letter is below.

Julian was born in Constantinople and grew up in the Christian court of Constantine. Perhaps due to the Christian hypocrisy witnessed in that very secular setting (e.g., the familial bloodbath following the death of Constantine in 337), Julian gradually abandoned Christianity. In 337 Julian was spared Constantius II’s purge of family rivals due to his youth, and he was brought up in the Greek East, studying under Neo-Platonic philosophers–an education which contributed to his interest in pagan intellectual life. Once he rose to the status of Augustus, Julian proved quite intolerant of Christianity and strove to resurrect the great pagan religious traditions which had atrophied under Constantine and his immediate successors. His tract “Against the Galileans” is one of the most vigorous denunciations of Christianity remaining from Antiquity. (Julian repeatedly calls Christians “Galileans” to imply that this religion came from some backwater region of the Empire.) To Christians, he is called “Julian the Apostate” because he renounced his early Christian faith; for others he is called “Julian the Philosopher” because of his scholarly inclination and writings.
In the attached selection, Julian writes to a pagan priest on his sacred responsibilities. Though fragmentary, the letter offers a strong sense of how Julian wanted to shape pagan practice and belief as paganism competed with Christianity for the soul of the Empire.

 

There are two references to majorina in the Theodosian Code.

"We have learned that some metal casters purge the majorina criminally and frequently, by separating the silver from the bronze. If any person hereafter should be apprehended in this trickery, he shall know that he has committed a capital crime. Also those persons who furnish the use of houses and lands to counterfeiters must be punished by the delivery of their property to the imperial largesses. Of course, Our Clemency must be informed of the names of such persons." 9:21:6 (12 Feb 349)

"...evertyhing shall be sold with the customary freedom except the coins that are usually called majorinas or common centenionalis or other moneys which are known to be forbidden. 9:23:3 (8 March 356)

in the above quote it is not clear if majorina and common centenionalis are two different names for the same coin or two different coins.

of course we are not sure what these large AE1's were called but double majorina works out if consistently used; so you would need to call Julian's VOT coinage majorina, which weigh roughly half of the bull coinage.


conversely, double majorina is always wrong, since majorina means biggest as in biggest coin, so the bull is of course a majorina (with no need to say double) and the VOT coinage is called something else, perhaps centenionalis.

 

Whether or not a "double majorina" is an impossible construction, the majorina was the new coin introduced in 348 by Constans and Constantius II. These were typified by the Æ2-sized FEL TEMP REPARATIO of the emperor and captive(s) types, fallen horseman, and phoenix/Victory galley types being most common.
A smaller denomination - probably either a half or quarter majorina was also introduced, the "hut" and the smaller Phoenix/Victory galley types as well as the Phoenix on globe/mound types.
Since the coin which Constantine I introduced in ca. 318 to replace the ailing follis was called a "centenionalis", it makes no sense to call later coins of larger size centenionales - although that was a custom followed in many books.
In order to uncomplicate things, David Sear, in the Millennium Edition of Roman Coins and Their Values calls the Æ3-and later Æ4's up to the reform of Constans and Constantius II "Centenionalis" to separate it from the folles previously struck. Some have called those centenionales "reduced folles" in earlier references, but since the Licinii continued to strike the follis, typified by its primarily pagan reverse types, at the mints he controlled while Constantine struck his own centenionales, it makes sense to make that distinction. With Licinius' demise, there were no more folles struck after the early 320's, The follis had been typified by its primarily pagan reverse types. Constantine's fairly similar-sized silvered piece was a departure from convention with almost all secular or military reverse themes, so it makes sense to call Constantine's coin a centenionalis and the post 348 larger denomination a "majorina" to minimize confusion.

It wasn't long until a few much larger pieces (the Chi-Rho's of Magnentius, Decentius and Constantius II fall in this category) than the "majorina" were attempted. Being much larger, it makes sense to call this a multiple of the prevailing majorina. Julian, as we know, was attempting to revive something like the Diocletianic follis and its pagan reverses with his SECVRITAS REIPVB Apis bull Æ1's, but since they were the size of the earlier double majorinae, it made sense to use the same term. His Æ3's are referred to as centenionales.
The House of Valentinian did away with the, by then, sadly diminished majorina as a denomination and the substantial unsilvered Æ3's that typify their reign are again referred to as "Centenionalis", since at that time there was no current centenionalis with which to confuse it.
Jovian ended the experiment with the Pagan Apis bull reverses as part of his re-instatement of Christianity, and instead used a secular reverse. Valentinian I and Valens continued the Æ1 experiment for a while, but it was abandoned fairly early-on.
From there on, the Æ2 sized coins are called majorinae and the Æ3-Æ4 sized coins are called centenionales or half-centenionales.

I know, this "simplified" identification system seems pretty complex - but so was the coinage of the era to the extent that we understand it and the old system has so many contradictions and disagreements that this nomenclature-system works and makes sense - allthough not, necessarily, in strict Latin terms.

Your Jovian is one of the nicest authentic pieces I've ever seen - but folks need to beware of this rather dangerous fake which has been around for many years:

http://www.stoa.org/gallery/album167/63_Jovian_VIR_ANT_2?full=1

I'd say there is no question yours is good, but I've seen quite a number of the copies over the years, too.


Jovianus, AE 1 Antioch mint, 3 rd officina
D N IOVIAN VS P F AVG Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust of Jovianus right
VICTORIA ROMANORVM, Jovianus standing, holding victory on a globe and labarum, ANT gamma at exergue
8.46 gr
Ref : RIC # 228, Cohen #22, RC #4085, LRBC #2645

 

but both terms were being used as late as A.D. 356-- "the coins that are usually called majorinas or common centenionalis"

and given the ambiguous nature of the quote, we don't truly know what the coins were called.

if you truly want to minimize confusion, it might be best to use the terms AE1, AE2, AE3, and AE4; biggest to smallest.

in A.D. 395, the centenionalis is named as the largest kind of pecunia allowed to remain in circulation. So is it a large coin, or were larger coins pulled from circulation?

 

In 395 and thereafter, there were almost no base-metal coins larger than an Æ3/4
This piece is typical of a "large Æ" current in 395:


http://www.stoa.org/gallery/album83/06_Honorius_VIR_CON?full=1
For what it's worth, these are ca. 17mm and David Sear calls this denomination a "bronze centenionalis".

Prior to 395, there was what might be called: "the last of the Æ2's" - the GLORIA ROMANORVM with emperor standing holding labarum and globe reverse- discontinued in 395.
Perhaps this is the coin referred to in the passage quoted - the date seems to fit:

http://www.stoa.org/gallery/album82/I_01_Honorius_2_GloRom?full=1
For what it's worth, this is a ca. 20mm piece - David Sear calls this denomination a "bronze majorina".

The occasional issue of Æ2-size coins past this date accounts for only a very small handful of virtually unobtainable rarities. Even Æ3's are few and far between as the vast bulk of base metal coinage after 395 consists of Æ4's which David Sear calls "half centenionalis or nummus" (and what are sometimes called "Æ5's", 12mm or smaller)

 

it does not matter what Sear or anyone else calls these coins...what did the Romans call them. This is why I quoted some primary sources. Going by the very few sources which might specifically call coins by name, we have precious little information and the simple answer is that we do not know.

There are even three references to Julian's bull coinage, which use the generic word "nomisma"

my favorite bull coin quote- some of the people of Antioch demonstrated against him “shouting…that his coinage had a bull and that the world was overturned.” (Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 3.17)

 

I am a big fan of the AE1-4 system rather than arguing at length about names that may or may not have been used in some or all places for all or part of what we call late Roman. The Theodosian Code dates to fifty years after the coins being discussed here. I can see the names given as meaning nothing more than 'the old fashioned coins that had silver in them'. We simply do not know the answers with certainty and assuming that the terms meant the same thing to every time period is an assumption that can not be proven. Will evidence turn up that will confirm one theory or another or will another generation rewrite their interpretations of old data? We can call coins and, for that matter, people anything we decide is pleasing. I came on the scene when we used antoninianus rather than aurelianianus, numbered Julian II without worrying about who was Julian I (Didius or the Pannonian) and took comfort in the lack of Greek bronzes smaller than 5mm so we did not have to wonder what was meant by AE4. I do remember thinking Cohen was old fashioned using MB for both dupondii an asses but that just shows that we tend to accept standards as we first met them.

 

I agree with you on all points Doug, as I already said that we don't know what the coins were called and I also said it might be best to use the AE1-AE4 system; but, the Theodosian Code which was assembled later, is a compilation of laws written at different times, many from the Constantinian period. The two uses of the word majorina are from A.D. 349 and A.D. 356. I included the dates in parenthesis after the quotes.

 

I've been looking at a lot of these Julian coins since the OP piqued my interest in them again. Does anyone know what the current thinking is about the "cyclops" bull? I thought maybe it was just a bungled attempt at profile, but the cyclops bull is pretty consistent for these coins, and these die engravers are good enough that one would think they could execute a better profile. Any thoughts as to the meaning of this one-eyed bull?