Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="The Trachy Enjoyer, post: 7836449, member: 118358"]I recently acquired a coin type I thought I would never have the privilege to own: A Byzantine-Papal Siliqua! These highly rare and intriguing coins serve as evidence for the relationship between the Papal Curia and the Byzantine Empire in the 7th and 8th centuries. The dynamic between these two states, namely increasing papal independence and self asserted primacy, would come to define the history of the world, quite literally (how different would our world look with out Medieval Papal intrigue). Read about papal arrests, despot emperors, and more. The history of the early Church is a wild ride so sit back, grab a tea or coffee, and learn about the history of Christendom and how the Byzantine-Papal siliqua of the 7th century have helped shed light on this significant period in our history. [ATTACH=full]1347271[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1347270[/ATTACH] A forewarning on this writeup: Church history and Dogma is discussed. Such issues which are brought up have not "solved" in the sense that these issues are alive and thriving today. I present my own opinions here based on research. The validity of Papal Primacy is an issue which can be debated but is not the goal. This write up attempts to place the Byzantine-Papal siliqua within the medieval world of Papal power, authority, and claims. The Early Church Organization:Early Christianity presented a very different organizational structure to that which we are accustomed to through out the Middle Ages and today. The very early Church was remarkably democratic in its form. Across the Roman empire, as Church communities spread like wildfire, councils of local Bishops would meet to discuss issues. The first Ecumenical Council, a monumental event in which members from all churches across the Christian world congregated at one meeting to discuss Church theology, laid out the Sees of Christianity. The Council explicitly states the existence of 4 Sees (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome) with the alluding to "the other provinces". The Council makes no mention of any See having any primacy (Canons 6 & 7). With the founding of Constantinople and further Church development, the five main Sees were seen as also including Constantinople. In total, the office of Patriarchate was given to Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria first and subsequently to Constantinople and Jerusalem. The name this church organization has is the Pentarchy. Organization aside, the Church of Christianity was unified through 7 Ecumenical Councils and up until 1054. See Supremacy:The early Church organization laid out, was any See given supremacy during the foundation and establishment of the Christian Church? I am not here to hash out a 1,500 year old ongoing argument and pretend to have solved it. I will say, however, that for the first few hundred years all major Church issues were decided in council. No one Bishop ranked so much above the others as to have the final say on issues and still be acknowledged by other Church leaders. The See of Rome saw special deference and reverence but did not assume control over the other Churches. Its authority was a far cry from the later claim of "the Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls" Byzantine Papacy:The Papacy functioned first under Roman rule, persecuted and later allowed to flourish. Under Ostrogothic rule, the church faced some tension with their Arian overlords but were left alone for the most part. Thus came the Byzantines with their reconquest of the West. The Byzantines had more or less total authority over the Popes. Justinian used heavy handed tactics to install the Popes he liked best. All appointments of the Pope during this era were approved by the emperor with one notable exception (touched on later). The Papacy became ever more Eastern during this period, much to the consternation of the Italians. The unfortunate Pope Theodore attempted to stand up to Byzantine power by excommunicating Constantinople church members...Theodore was reprimanded, the papal residence looted, and papal authorities in Constantinople arrested. Theodore's successor Pope Martin tried to do one better. Martin accepted his Papal coronation before receiving Byzantine approval. Not only this, but Pope Martin rejected the Ecthesis doctrine of the previous emperor Heraclius and the Typos of Heraclius' son and the current reigning emperor, Constans II. Pope Martin thought he had the authority to do this and the ability to escape imperial clutches. He was right...for a brief period. Martin was captured and brought to chains to Constantinople and Constans II where he barely escaped execution thanks to the intercession of the Constantinople Patriarch. Martin was deposed and exiled where he shortly after died. Especially offensive to Martin was the election of a new Pope while he still lived. Pope Martin's successor, Pope Eugene, notably did not stand up to the emperors wishes to the same degree as his predecessor. When Constans II and the patriarch ordered Eugene to accept another theological dispute, however, the Pope did not comply. Constans II made moves to depose Eugene like he did Martin but the Pope died before action could be taken. Eugene's successor Pope Vitalian made friendly overtures to Constans II. Although the theological disputes of the previous Popes had not been solved, relations warmed. Constans II actually visited the city of Rome for two weeks during his Lombardic campaigns. During this time, the emperor and pope dined and celebrated mass. Ignominiously, Constans II looted artwork from the eternal city as he left. So ended the trip of the first emperor to set foot in Rome for 300 years. In this context, during the reigns of Popes Martin, Eugene, and Vitalian, this papal byzantine siliqua was minted! The Siliqua:I have used information on the byzantine siliqua itself from Michael O'Hara's "A find of Byzantine silver from the mint of Rome for the period AD 641-752". The siliqua I have is O'Hara type 4a, minted during the tumultuous reigns of the aforementioned Popes.[ATTACH=full]1347273[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1347275[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1347276[/ATTACH]The average Papal siliqua weighs 0.25 grams, mine of the lower end at .20 grams (but  standard for the issues of Constans II). Of a three coin sample size, average purity is around 70% AR and 30% CU. Some quotes from Michael O'Hara who has summarized this important topic far better than I could: O'Hara writes "There is reason to believe that the importance of Rome as a mint dates only from the reign of Constans II, and it therefore seems likely that Rome began to strike silver coins only during this reign. The RM was introduced to distinguish the Rome products from Ravenna which as the only silver mint in Italy had not previously found the use of any mint identification necessary and which did not adopt one in the future. Imperial coinage in Rome continued down to at least 776 and possibly to 781 when it came into line with the silver deniers of Charlemagne." O'Hara writes on Papal sovereignty "In general it seems that a greater degree of papal sovereignty was reflected in the coinage when there was a strong pope or when relations with the empire were good. That is to say, those periods when the empire had little choice but to accept good relations, or when relations could be described as neutral. For example the Vitalian coins are shown by the evidence of other coin types to have been struck under Constantine IV, when, bearing in mind Constans IIs tight control of Italy and his loot laden departure from Rome in 663, relations could only have become better...Even so, Constans II, well known for his despotic behaviour, was hardly a popular figure in Italy." O'Hara continues "His campaigns against the Lombards invariably meant ruthless extortion for his Italian subjects. However, Constans was the first emperor to visit Rome since the fall of the western half of the Empire over three hundred years before. During this twelve day visit (5-17 July 663) of solemn processions and services, Constans still managed to gain a reputation almost as bad as Gaiseric in wringing out forced contributions in money. On his departure he saw fit to carry away many precious bronzes including the gilded roof of the Pantheon" O'Hara says "Curiously in 640 the Rome garrison was commanded not by a duke but by the chartularius (Chamberlain) Maurice, a relatively inferior officer. The Lateran palace was sacked in 640 for its treasures by imperial troops under Maurice with the support of the exarch and by extension in the name of the Roman emperor. What impetus might this event have given to the striking of a separate papal coinage proper? The coincidence of this series of silver thirty nummi commencing in 641 should be noted. By the seventh century the attitude of the empires Italian subjects changed from one of unenthusiastic acceptance of imperial authority to one of pronounced independent mindness tempered by a vague respect for the imperial ideal and a readiness to use the imperial connection in their own interests. If one considers, in addition, that at this time there was a papal military force and that the pope usually seemed to act as banker for the empire, then it doesn't seem too unreasonable to speculate that there may have been papal control of the mint at this time. In any event, from the evidence of the Vitalian coins there was certainly papal control just a litte later, from sometime between 657-672 onwards. As the striking of early papal coins was apparently more prevalent than had previously been supposed, one may expect that other signed coins may yet come to light" Fun sidenote:The largest and smallest silver coins minted during the Byzantine empire: 6.5 gram Constantinople mint Hexagram of Constans II and a 0.2 gram Rome mint Siliqua of Constans II[ATTACH=full]1347274[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches