I collected all three emperors with reverse REQVIES OPTIMORVM MERITORVM. Post your examples and what you think is relevant. Why is struck for these three emperors only? Divus Claudius Gothicus. Half Follis. Struck under Constantine I. Thessalonica. Obv: DIVO CLAVDIO OPTIMO IMP, Veiled and laureate head right. Rev: REQVIES OPTIMORVM MERITORVM / TSΓ, Emperor seated left on curule chair, raising hand and holding sceptre. RIC 26. Divus Maximianus. Half Follis. Struck under Constantine I. Siscia. Obv. DIVO MAXIMIANO SEN FORT IMP, laureate and veiled bust right. Rev. REQVIES OPTIMORVM MERITORVM, Emperor veiled, seated left in curule chair, holding short sceptre, SIS. RIC 41. Divus Constantius I. Half Follis. Siscia. Obv: DIVO CONSTANTIO PIO PRINCIP, Laureate, veiled and draped bust right. Rev: REQUIES OPTIMORVM MERITORVM/ SIS, Emperor, veiled, seated left on curule chair, holding sceptre and raising hand. RIC 42.
Interesting coins, I can't say I have ever seen the type before - Requies Optimorum Meritorumum - retirement most deserved. Given none of these emperors had an opportunity to retire of their own volition (eg they all died while reigning) it is a curious legend.
Constantine, who issued the coins, claimed the three as family. Lacking DNA tests, we have to take his word for it.
http://numismatics.org/ocre/results?q=fulltext:MERITORVM It is curious that coins were struck for the late Claudius Gothicus under the Tetrarchy and then Constantine. Does anyone have any idea why would they want to be associated with him in particular? Presumably the coins for Maximian were struck as part of Constantine's efforts to rehabilitate his image. However it might be that Constantine was also making a bit of a grim joke - the legend retirement most deserved has a certain irony given Constantine forced him to committ suicide after a failed coup!. From Wikipedia: In early 310, Maximian attempted to seize Constantine's title while the emperor was on campaign on the Rhine. Few supported him, and he was captured by Constantine in Marseille. Maximian killed himself in mid-310 on Constantine's orders. During Constantine's war with Maxentius, Maximian's image was purged from all public places. However, after Constantine ousted and killed Maxentius, Maximian's image was rehabilitated, and he was deified. Is there any write up on these coins that anyone is aware of?
From Wikipedia: The unreliable Historia Augusta reports Claudius and Quintillus having another brother named Crispus and through him a niece, Claudia, who reportedly married Eutropius and was mother to Constantius Chlorus.[22]Some historians suspect this account to be a genealogical fabrication, however, intended to link the family of Constantine I to that of a well-respected emperor. Some historians assume anything in "the unreliable Historia Augusta" is wrong by definition. Constantine believed it and that is enough to explain the coin.
So recently I’ve been researching gesture in Roman art. (I know, I need to get more.) While it’s reductive to posit a one-to-one correspondence between a single gesture and meaning, often the Roman gesture of the raised arm/hand indicates that the figure is speaking. Take, for example, this image from the Vatican Vergil, ca. 400, depicting an aged, seated man speaking in the Georgics: With this strong convention in mind, I am puzzled by the memorial issues for Claudius II, Maximianus, and Constantius Chlorus referenced in this thread. The obverse identification of each man as “Divus” indicates that the men are depicted as deceased and conventionally deified—I take their head cover to indicate their sacred status; to me the cover even resembles a winding sheet. These coins date from about 317 or so—well after Constantine’s conversion experience. I doubt Constantine actually believes these men are gods; he’s probably just following a cultural convention that’s as much political as religious. But the reverse type celebrating their “rest of the greatest merit” or “most deserved rest” seems to depict the same shrouded (and therefore, dead), seated emperor. Then why is the figure’s hand raised? Is he speaking? He’s not reaching out to God, as on the Constantine “Hand of God” memorial coinage. He doesn’t seem to be imploring the heavens. He seems to be speaking, or instructing, as in the Georgics painting above. But if dead men tell no tales, what could the dead man have to say? Maybe it’s a simple iconographical borrowing of earlier issues, like this one. But the raised hand/speech motif is so strong in late antiquity that I think speech is implied here. Would anyone care to speculate on how we are to parse that raised hand gesture from the dead?
That hand configuration is common on coins showing greetings of blessings. I posted several examples o the thread that honored TIF's five years here so I won't repeat them here. https://www.cointalk.com/threads/my-5-year-cointalk-anniversary.322490/page-3 post #52 If you are having trouble with the not yet fully Christian Constantine using Divus in this manner, what do you have o say about his own consecration coins? All his children were raised as Christians. Should we distinguish between Divus and Deus or should we just realize that details of theology were then, as now, under development and discussion? DV CONSTANTINVS PT AVGG
I have no trouble with religious beliefs and practices being in flux. The idea of a raised hand being a blessing makes better sense to me than speech. A salute seems harder to reconcile; it seems the living should salute the dead. But a blessing from a divus "ancestor"? That makes sense.
I don't think we can equate Christian theology of the 4th century with Christian beliefs today. My guess is that Constantine was drawn to Christianity because he assumed that the Christian god was more powerful than the pagan gods, and so he wanted that god's patronage. I know that he received a lot of tutoring in Christianity during his lifetime and eventually came to accept the belief that the Christian god was the only true god, but many of the beliefs that he took with him to his grave were still very different from what most Christians believe today. I think the deification coins were simple depicting Constantine going to meet his patron (and, considering his ego, probably ruling jointly with him!).
RIC VII describes busts raising a hand (like my avatar) as "imperatorial gestus" Gestus is the physical embodiment of an attitude- in this case, the attitude of "I am Emperor"
As the Tetrarchy fell apart, Constantine I began to publicly assert that he was descended from Claudius Gothicus. This illustrious ancestry formed the basis for Constantine's claim to have the right to rule over an undivided empire. Constantine claimed that his grandmother was a daughter or a niece of Claudius II, who died of the plague nearly 50 years previously, in AD 270. Here's the only example I have; it's from Siscia: Divus Claudius II Gothicus. Died AD 270. Roman billon half follis, 1.31 g, 15.3 mm, 8 h. Siscia mint. Struck under Constantine I, AD 317-318. Obv: DIVO CLAVDIO OPTIMO IMP, laureate and veiled head right. Rev: REQVIES OPTIMO-RVM MERITORVM, Divus Claudius seated left on curule chair, raising right hand and holding scepter in left; SIS in exergue. Refs: RIC VII 43; Cohen 245; RCV 16398.
I have all three Claudius II (upgraded but haven't imaged the new one yet) Constantius I Maximian If we're entertaining probably false genealogies... - Constantine claimed to be a great great nephew of Claudius II - Aurelius Victor claims that Claudius II was an illegitimate son of Gordian II - Gordian III, the nephew of Gordian II, is said to have been the great-great grandson of Aelius Caesar - Therefore, Constantine was a member of the Nerva-Antonine dynasty!
I think this claim of decent from Claudius Gothicus shows that Claudius Gothicus, more than any other emperor, including Aurelian, was regarded as the most important saviour of the empire from external (Gothic) threat. These small denominations are rarely in good conditions. These are my best examples. The first one is unusually large and heavy. At 3.47g it is more than twice the weight of many of these coins. It is really more a follis than a half-follis: The eagle reverse is much scarcer. This coin is small at 15mm, but quite heave at 2.2 gm.
I think only half-follis denominations were struck. However, as noted above, my exemplar is of follis-size (18.6 mm) and follis-weight (3.47 gm). The flan is even a bit small for the dies. Maybe some were struck as full folles? I would be very interested to see others of similar size and weight. This is the coin I'm talking about: I also have this one (sorry for the poor picture). It weighs 1.43 gm, which is about right for a half-follis
The REQVIES OPTIMORVM MERITORVM type was struck as a fraction (half-nummus) from Trier, Arles, Rome, Aquileia, Siscia and Thessalonica. Rome also issued the type as a nummus with (oddly - larger coin, shorter legend) the legend REQVIES OPTIMOR MERIT (RIC 104-106). At the same time, Rome also issued MEMORIAE AETERNAE fractions for the same line-up of Divus Constantius, Maximianius and Claudius II, but with reverses of a lion (with or without Hercules club) or eagle. The most interesting of all of these is an unlisted type MEMORIAE REST (restituted memory), for Claudius II, issued from Trier, which I believe is only known from a single specimen in Berlin. Trier is where a Panegyric was delivered c.310 AD first introducing Claudius II as a (fictitious) ancestor of Constantine. These types are all an appeal to legitimacy via imperial descent, which had been an especially sensitive issue in 310 AD when Constantine had just forced his father-in-law, and auctor imperii, Maximianus to suicide. Maxentius had earlier done the same thing, being on much shakier ground than Constantine (who had at least been begrudgingly accepted by Galerius), and issued types honoring his father (who had tried to usurp him), father-in law Galerius (who had lead an army against him), and even his brother-in-law's father, Constantius I, who at least was in good standing. The appeal to imperial ties was too strong a claim to ignore, however the deceased may have regarded you !
Congrats, @gogili1977 for scoring the set! I did not realize that I had one with this legend: Constantius I Chlorus 293-306 AD Bronze Quinarius (16 mm ; 1.41 gm) Thesalonika mint 317-318 AD Obv: DIVO CONSTANTIO PIO PRINCIPI ; Laureate, bearded, and veiled head, right Rev: REQVIES OPTIMORVM MERITORVM ; Constantius seated left on curule chair raising right hand and holding scepter. Mintmark : .TS.B. RIC vol VII #25 Thesalonika (R5) Ex: Vaughn Coins
Fantastic coin! It looks heavy. Could you give us the weight. I'm really curious to know whether there are more examples in the 3.5 gm weight range.
Thanks! That one's 19mm 3.55g, and here's my Claudius II which is 19mm 3.6g. There are two denominations of these coins from Rome, which RIC doesn't make very clear! These heavy ones, with short REQVIES OPTIMOR MERIT legends, are RIC VII Rome 104-106 and are regular coins (not fractions). The RIC VII Rome 107-109 group, with long REQVIES OPTIMORVM MERITORVM legends, are fractions (half-nummi).