vaderspoel

In A.D. 362, Julian the Apostate reformed the bronze currency of the Late Empire,² almost certainly as part of the preparations for his war against the Persians. One new issue depicts a bull whose interpretation has exercised the minds of scholars for many years. The coin’s obverse pictures a draped and cuirassed, bearded Julian with a pearl diadem and the inscription D N FL CL IVLIANVS P F AVG. The reverse legend SECVRITAS REI PVB(LICAE) surrounds a standing bull with its head facing right. Above its head are two stars. One mint only, that at Arles, issued a second, somewhat different, version of the coin: the obverse is the same, but the reverse includes an eagle that stands on a diadem and, with a wreath in its beak, faces the bull. The coins were normally issued at a weight of 8.25 g, with a diameter of 27-28 mm. Minor variations in size and weight are not significant.³

Three ancient writers other than Julian refer to the coins. The Christian Ephraem of Nisibis castigates Julian for depicting on his coins a ‘bull of paganism’ (Carm. contra Iul. I.16-19).⁴ According to Ephraem, the Jews were ecstatic when they saw the coins, thinking that they represented the golden calf dedicated by Aaron during the Hebrews’ forty-year journey through the Arabian desert in their early history and the two calves set up by Jeroboam after the division of Solomon’s kingdom into Israel and Judah. To emphasise even further Julian’s personal involvement, Ephraem twice mentions that the bull was engraved on the emperor’s heart and once in his invective states that Julian himself had become the bull who ‘butted the churches.’ Though Julian was generally favourable to the Jews, it is unlikely that he minted this coin for their specific benefit, as Ephraem suggests. The Syriac writer was instead either confused about the significance of the coin⁵ or deliberately creating a false (but very plausible) link with the Jews to stir up Christian reaction.⁶ His remark about the polytheism inherent in the image of the bull seems to suggest the latter: the Jewish calves seem more reasonably to represent Hebrew idolatry than Graeco-Roman polytheism, but the lines are blurred, deliberately, one suspects, in Ephraem’s rendition. One point is very clear: Ephraem is certain that the coin has religious intent.

Two other ecclesiastical writers, Socrates (HE 3.17.4) and Sozomen (HE 5.19.2) refer to this coinage, it seems, when citing reasons for Antiochene mockery of Julian. Sozomen is the more accurate of the two about the coin itself, writing that the citizens of Antioch satirised the emperor’s beard (which characterised him as a polytheist philosopher) ‘and his coinage, because it offered the image of a bull. For they joked that the world had been turned upside down, just like the bulls on their backs, by this emperor’ και ες το νομισμα, οτι ταυρου ελξεν εικόνα. Τον γαρ κοσμον επισης των υπτιων ταύρων επ αυτω ηγεμονι ανατετραφθαι επετωθαζον. Socrates retails the same remark (that Julian had overturned the world), but also notes that the emperor ‘ordered an altar and a bull to be struck on his coinage’ βωμον και ταυρον εντυπτωθηναι κεκελευκει τω εαυτου νομισματα; he links the bull and altar to the emperor’s return to pagan sacrifices. Indeed, Ammianus Marcellinus (25.4.17), in his summation of Julian, mentions excessive sacrifices of cattle and, in consequence, allows a view that Socrates’ interpretation is not entirely unreasonable. The historian, in fact, criticises Julian with the remark that, had the emperor returned from Persia in victory, a shortage of cattle might soon have resulted, as it nearly did in the time of Marcus Aurelius; from that earlier age Ammianus quotes the epigramme, in Rolfe’s charming translation:

We, the white steers, do Marcus Caesar greet
Win once again, and death we all must meet.

Because no coin depicts an altar, scholars have not given full weight to the statements of the ecclesiastical historians. That ejects the infant with the purifying agent. Only Socrates in error refers to an altar, an altar quite to be expected in the vicinity of bulls ‘lying on their backs’, as he understood the saying. The fuller account by Sozomen indicates that the bull on the coin was equated with the bulls and world on their backs not literally, but metaphorically; in other words, no altar was immediately necessary. On a more generous interpretation, then, the evidence of the Christian writers, Ephraem, Sozomen, and Socrates, reveals clearly that they understood a religious meaning for the coins. Julian himself (Miso. 355D) confirms that the Antiochenes mocked the symbols ξαραγματα on his coinage.

One interpretation holds that the coin pictures the Egyptian Apis bull. Ammianus (22.14.6) reports the discovery of an Apis bull in late 362, and many scholars have followed J. Eckhel’s early identification of the coin with this bull.⁷ P.H. Webb contested this commonly accepted view; he pointed to the frequency of Apis bulls on Antonine coins, the stars on coins of both pagan and Christian emperors and the presence of the eagle, which does not appear on any known Apis coin, as arguments against the specific bull of 362.⁸ F.D. Gilliard marshalled additional counterpoints: an Apis bull is usually represented with a moon on its side and a disc between its horns and stands before an altar. Moreover, the coins were always minted at Alexandria.⁹ This last point may be conclusive: only three mints, Alexandria, Rome and Trier, did not issue this coinage of Julian.¹⁰ J.P.C. Kent suggests that the bull reflects a metaphor employed by Dio Chrysostom, who compares (Or. 2.36) the duties and activities of an emperor to the role of a bull in a herd.¹¹ While this would easily explain the puzzlement of Antiochenes (Ephraem does equate Julian with the bull, as noted), the allusion seems far too obscure to be useful on coinage. Interestingly, a similar metaphor appears in the fourth century in relation to Julian himself. Himerius, perhaps on 1 March 351 at the investiture of Gallus,¹² compares Julian, because of his attention to oratory and good deeds, to a high-spirited bull that leads a herd and to a spirited horse. Constantius, too, is compared to a horse, but one who heeds the bridle and reins, by Themistius (Or. 1.7c).¹³ Clearly, the metaphor was common enough in literary circles, but the average shop-keeper would not quickly understand the coin’s meaning, if it were this.

Having rejected the Apis bull, Gilliard proposes an alternative. In his view, the bull is a zodiacal representation of Julian who, in his opinion, was born in May, 332. The stars, he suggests, represent the Hyades and Pleiades segments of the constellation Taurus, while the eagle with wreath is Jupiter presenting a victory to Julian.¹⁴ The view naturally hinges on the question of Julian’s birthdate, and Gilliard himself in a later article argues, primarily on the basis of his interpretation of the coin, that Julian was born in May:¹⁵ the argument is circular, and the birthdate of Julian remains a matter of some dispute.¹⁶ In any case, it seems best to put some considerable emphasis on the fact that literary sources clearly regard the coin’s symbolism as religious.

The ‘bull of paganism’ to which Ephraem refers should, in the religious context of the fourth century, be the Mithraic bull. Julian’s own adherence to that religion is, however, in dispute. R. Turcan has suggested that the emperor’s Mithraism is a construct of modern scholarship, and some have followed his view.¹⁷ More recently, P. Athanassiadi argues convincingly that Julian was an initiate and that this is clear from his work;¹⁸ the most recent treatment, by R. Smith,¹⁹ reaffirms the emperor’s adherence to Mithraic belief as well as to the cult of Cybele. If correct, this would permit the resurrection of the nineteenth century view of C.W. King, for whom the coinage was Mithraic in its significance. In his view, the bull represents the earth, while the stars are symbols of the Dioscuri and suggest tranquillity.²⁰ While the interpretations of the details may be suspect and were partly responsible for the failure of King’s view to gain acceptance, the core of the suggestion need not be entirely abandoned. More recently, another scholar, H. Thieler, has also argued for a Mithraic meaning, with the stars representing the Dioscuri and the eagle on the issues minted at Arles as the eagle of Jupiter.²¹

The current direction of research into the nature of Mithraism and its beliefs and practices offers an opportunity to reconsider the meaning of the stars on the coins. Various writers have now concluded, against the long-standing views of Franz Cumont, that Mithraism is a religion of astronomy and that much of its symbolism has its origins in the stars and planets.²² R. Beck argues that in the most common representation of the tauroctony, with Cautes to the right and Cautopates to the left of the viewer, these torch-bearers are symbols of the sun in spring and autumn. He associates Cautes and Cautopates with the most important stars, Aldebaran and Antares, of the constellations Taurus and Scorpius respectively and argues convincingly for the attributions.²³ The fact that Cautes sometimes holds a bull’s head and Cautopates a scorpion²⁴ only confirms this interpretation. I would suggest that Julian’s coin symbolically depicts the Mithraic tauroctony. The meaning of the bull should be obvious enough, while the stars would then be Aldebaran and Antares as representatives of Cautes and Cautopates.²⁵ If they also represent the Dioscuri and the celestial equinoxes, as Ulansey argues,²⁶ so much the better: this would affirm the earlier views of King and Thieler and lead to a more multi-faceted interpretation of the coin.²⁷ The innovation introduced here is simply as follows. With the stars as Cautes/Aldebaran and Cautopates/Antares, the significance is deeper than has been realised even by those who have seen the coin as Mithraic. Not simply Mithraic in a general way, the coins actually depict the tauroctony, in shorthand. Ephraem, Socrates and Sozomen were therefore correct to refer to the ‘bull of paganism.’ Socrates errs only in mentioning an altar, probably from confusion with Apis coins, or perhaps from his knowledge of Julian’s inclination to sacrifice.

With this coin, Julian proclaimed that Mithraism was efficacious for the state and would help to win the war against Persia. The Mithraic explanation also clarifies the jests of the Antiochenes. In a largely Christian city,²⁸ Julian’s religious ideology was regarded as the height of pagan foolishness. The citizens of Antioch mocked Julian’s beard and coins not because they misunderstood them, but because they knew only too well what Julian was attempting to proclaim. The depth of their understanding can be judged from their remarks that Julian overturned the world like ‘the bulls on their backs’ των υπτιων ταυρων, i.e., sacrificed bulls. This may refer to the tauroctony, where a bull is usually lying down with its head twisted back. They were thinking, too, perhaps, of the taurobolium, the ceremony of the cult of Cybele where a bull was sacrificed on a slatted floor; in a chamber below, adherents of the religion were drenched with the bull’s purifying blood. Yet these Metroac cult practices were more widely known: the Antiochenes should not have been as puzzled, though they might be equally satirical.

The examples from Arles, with the eagle and wreath added to the image, remain enigmatic. In general, the symbolism has been linked to Jupiter and his association with the emperor. The eagle is, however, quite rare on coins of the period covered by RIC, VIII, appearing only on coins of Julian minted at Arles, even before he became sole emperor,²⁹ on early coins of the usurper Magnentius issued at Rome and on some coins of Constantius minted at Antioch and Thessalonica.³⁰ The fact that Constantius and later Gratian³¹ minted coins with eagles should indicate that the eagle is not necessarily to be regarded as religious in significance: it could be imperial in some other way. Specifically, the eagle is often associated with apotheosis, as the bearer of the soul to heaven.³² While the portrayal of an eagle on coins of a living emperor can hardly be apotheotic, Julian does relate that he (or his soul) ascended to heaven on one occasion. In Or. VII, to the Cynic Heracleius, he relates a myth whose subject is obviously himself. In dark despair because of the actions towards him of Constantius and his court, Julian was transported to the top of a mountain where he conversed with Helios (possibly Mithras in Greek manifestation),³³ who promised the young man that he would be emperor.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that Julian is referring this vision to the period when he first encountered the machinations of Constantius’ courtiers and received news of his impending appointment to the throne. Too often in the past, this is assumed to have been the few months before his accession on 6 November 355. On the contrary. Julian himself relates that he spent several periods at or near the court of Constantius before he became Caesar. On one occasion, he spent six months in the same city as his cousin (Ep. ad Ath. 274A). This must be close in time to a period mentioned by Ammianus (15.2.8), who states that Julian lived for a short while at Comum near Milan. The six months are almost certainly late 354 through spring 355, which Constantius spent at Milan in the period after the demise of Gallus; residence at Comum must have followed immediately thereafter, i.e., summer 355.³⁴ Julian also refers to a period of seven months during which he was dragged from place to place under guard. The few indications of time link this sequence to the machinations of Constantius and his courtiers against Gallus (Ep. ad Ath. 272D). The length of time is different from the first period, as is the locality, and, contrary to most modern views, occurred earlier in Julian’s life. Constantius spent the winter of 353/4 at Arles, where he began his tricennial celebrations on 10 October 353 (Am. Mar. 14.5.1) and moved early in the spring of 354 on campaign against the Alemanni before retiring to Milan later in the year.³⁵ A seven-month period which included movement from place to place can be accommodated without difficulty. Summoned to the court at Arles, Julian probably received some indication of his future, and the movement from place to place was probably nothing more than an attempt to familiarise Julian with the military situation in the West and give him some basic training and experience.³⁶ The myth in Oration VII should relate to this period. The eagle on coins issued at Arles,³⁷ where Julian’s dream probably occurred, may then signify heavenly approval of his future reign as related in the myth of Julian’s ascent to Helios. In other words, Arles was for Julian the place where his imperial destiny first became fully clear to him.³⁸

Other possibilities, more Mithraic in nature, exist, or, perhaps better, coexist. While the eagle was in the Graeco-Roman environment more closely linked to Jupiter than to any other God, it has sometimes a different symbolism entirely. Significantly for the present context, initiates of the seventh and final grade of Mithraism, the ‘Fathers’, were sometimes called ‘eagles’ and ‘hawks’.³⁹ Although the patron planet (and god) of the ‘Fathers’ was Saturn, other Mithraic imagery suggests links between Saturn and both the Sun and Jupiter,⁴⁰ the former important in Julian’s myth, the latter in Graeco-Roman imagery. Possibly, the eagle on these coins represents the migration of Julian’s soul as part the Mithraic progression through the grades of the Mysteries, symbolised as well by Julian’s account of his visit with Helios. Of course, only initiates of the Mysteries, or those informed about its beliefs, would be able to fully appreciate the significance, if this is indeed their meaning. The uninitiated would need to make do with the view that Julian was simply representing Jupiter on his coins, as other emperors before and after him had done and were to do again. Seen in this way, the coins offered something positive for all inhabitants of the empire, except Christians (and possibly Jews), who were informed that traditional religion and/or Mithraism were efficacious for the state. As the evidence cited earlier indicates, the significance was not lost on Christians.

It seems appropriate, then, to revive the view that Julian’s bull coinage is Mithraic in nature. More than that, the image on the coin is specifically a depiction of the tauroctony. No other explanation for the coin clarifies every aspect of the coinage, the bull and the stars, as well as the eagle and wreath on the coins produced at one mint. Moreover, the mockery of Julian’s Christian contemporaries is much easier to explain on the view that the imagery is Mithraic. The Apis bull or the astrological symbol of Taurus would not have attracted the ridicule of the Antiochenes, nor could either of them have been considered in any way a dangerous bull of paganism. The Mithraic bull, and the taurobolium as well, were clearly more dangerous, not for the survival of Christianity, but for their continuing ability to attract adherents at the highest levels of society.

Footnotes

1 I am grateful to Professor T.D. Barnes for discussing with me, on several occasions, some of the points raised in this article. The views expressed are, of course, my own.

2 G. Elmer, ‘Die Kupfergeldreform unter Julianus Philosophus’, NZ 70 (1937) 26 ff.

3 J.P.C. Kent, RIC, VIII (1981) 195, 229, 337, 380, 392, 423, 438, 462-3, 483-4, 500, 531-2.

4 Edited by E. Beck with a German translation at CSCO, 174-5 = Scriptores Syri, 78-9. I use the translation of Samuel N.C. Lieu, The Emperor Julian. Panegyric and Polemic (Liverpool, 1986) 111-12.

5 So, for example, G.W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate (Cambridge, Mass., 1978) 104, and Lieu, The Emperor Julian, 127 n.19.

6 In addition to some genuine letters, a spurious letter (Ep. 204) of Julian is addressed to the Jews, suggesting that such falsifications were credible. On the letter, cf. J. Vanderspoel, ‘Correspondence and Correspondents of Julius Julianus’, Byzantion (forthcoming) § 5.A.2.

7 Doctrina Nummorum Veterum, II.8 (1798) 113; G. Elmer (above, n.1) 29-30, and many of the standard reference works and catalogues.

8 ‘The Coinage of the Reign of Julian the Apostate’, NC 10 (1910) 244.

9 ‘Notes on the Coinage of Julian the Apostate’, JRS 54 (1964) 139.

10 RIC, VIII, 47.

11 ‘Notes on Some Fourth Century Coin-Types’, NC 14 (1954) 217. At RIC, VIII, 47, Kent regards his view and that of Gilliard discussed below as the only two plausible solutions. On Kent’s view that the Antiochenes misunderstood the coinage, see the discussion below.

12 On the possible occasion, T.D. Barnes, ‘Himerius and the Fourth Century’, CP 82 (1987) 209.

13 Cf. J. Vanderspoel, Themistius and the Imperial Court. Oratory, Civic Duty and Paideia from Constantius to Theodosius (Ann Arbor, 1995) 78, for brief comment.

14 (above, n.8) 140-1.

15 ‘The Birthdate of Julian the Apostate’, CSCA 4 (1971) 147 ff. On his arguments, cf. G.W. Bowersock, Numen 28 (1981) 91, reviewing R. Klein, ed., Julianus Apostata (1978), where the article is reprinted.

16 Gilliard may be right to think that Julian was born in May, but this does not necessarily mean that the bull represents the astrological sign of his birth. The birthdate of the emperor should have been known well enough that the link between his birthday and Taurus would not cause confusion.

17 Mithras Platonicus (Leiden, 1975) 105-28. He is followed by, e.g., J. Dillon, ‘The Platonizing of Mithra’, JMithStud 2 (1977) 83-4.

18 ‘A Contribution to Mithraic Theology: The Emperor Julian’s Hymn to King Helios’, JTS 28 (1977) 360-74, esp. 360 n.3, where she discusses Turcan’s view; cf. also P. Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism. An Intellectual Biography (Oxford, 1981) 38-41.

19 Julian’s Gods. Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate (Oxford, 1995), esp. chapters 5 and 6. Smith, 127, claims that Mithras does not appear on Julian’s coinage, citing the works mentioned in the foregoing notes.

20 Julian the Emperor (1888) xi-xii.

21 ‘Der Stier auf den Groß-Kupfermünzen des Julianus Apostata (355-360-363 n. Chr.)’, BerlNumZeit 27 (1962) 49-54. I am grateful to F.D. Campbell, librarian of the American Numismatic Society, for sending me, some years ago, a copy of this article.

22 To mention only a couple of recent books: R. Beck, Planetary Gods and Planetary Orders in the Mysteries of Mithras (Leiden 1988), and D. Ulansey, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries. Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World (Oxford 1989).

23 ‘Cautes and Cautopates: some Astronomical Considerations’, JMithStud 2 (1977) 6-10.

24 Cf. M. Schwartz, ‘Cautes and Cautopates, the Mithraic Torch-bearers’, in J.R. Hinnells, ed., Mithraic Studies (1975) II.406.

25 Unknown to me when I was preparing this paper, in press at the time and now published is T.D. Barnes, Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality (Ithaca, N.Y. 1998), who, 160, briefly mentions the equation of the stars with Cautes and Cautopates.

26 (above, n. 17) passim, but see esp. 131 n.3.

27 Throughout his book, Beck argues that multivalent interpretations of Mithraic imagery are to be sought.

28 Cf. J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Antioch. City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire (Oxford, 1972) 224-42.

29 Some dies of an issue of gold coinage at Arles for Julian in 360 (probably in connection with his quinqennalia) put two stars on the coins, and the eagle appears as well (cf. RIC, VIII, 45, noting that the eagle appears only at Arles).

30 RIC, VIII, 226-9, 263, 416, 518.

31 RIC, IX, 120.

32 Cf. J. Ferguson, The Religions of the Roman Empire (Ithaca, N.Y., 1970) 96, who on 96-97 quotes Herodian’s description of the ceremony (4.2).

33 For Mithras as Helios, cf. Ulansey (above, n. 17) passim. Smith, Julian’s Gods, 144 ff., is less sure.

34 O. Seeck, Regesten der Kaiser und Päpste für die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr. (Stuttgart, 1919) 200-201. Seeck suggests (cf. also Hermes 41, 501) that Julian was sent to Comum when Constantius went on campaign in the spring of 355. When the revolt of Silvanus broke out, Julian was sent to Greece and later, after the revolt had been suppressed, was summoned to court for his investiture (cf. Ep. ad Ath. 273D-274C).

35 Seeck, Regesten, 200-201.

36 Scholars have in general followed Julian’s own account of his total lack of military training before he became Caesar, but this is probably not entirely accurate.

37 Even before Constantius’ death; see n. 28 above.

38 Smith, Julian’s Gods, 136-8, having been, previously in the volume, very cautious about dating Julian’s initiation early, argues that the young Caesar’s first real contact with soldiers in the West is the best context for initiation into both the Mithraic and Metroac (Cybele) mysteries; he places in 355-356 what I suggest for 354.

39 So R.L. Gordon, ‘Reality, Evocation and Boundary in the Mysteries of Mithras’, JMS 3 (1980) 19-99, at 65-67, followed by Beck, Planetary Gods, 68.

40 Discussions of these points, too detailed and complex to summarise here, may be found in Beck, Planetary Gods, passim.