A Crisis in Faith: Roman State Religious Policy in

the Third Century

Dissertation submitted for MA (res) City of Rome

September 2012
Stuart McKie

Contents

Introduction

Tradition and the Romans

Case Study 1 Severus Alexander

13

Case Study 2 Gallienus

22

Case Study 5 Aurelian

30

Conclusions

40

Figures

43

Bibliography

46

Chapter 1 Introduction
In AD 249, the legions under the command of a prominent general did what many before
them had done, and proclaimed their leader as emperor of Rome. This man added to his name
that of an illustrious and deified emperor, and announced himself as Trajan Decius.1 Faced with the
problems that beset the empire at the beginning of his reign barbarian invasions, economic
collapse and natural disasters were all increasingly common in the middle decades of the third
century Decius issued a decree that was completely different to anything enacted by a Roman
emperor. He ordered that all his subjects across the Roman empire must sacrifice to the gods for
the well-being of the state. No specific cult was mentioned, and many of the records simply refer to
'ancestral gods.'2 This excluded the God of the Christians, and the decree unleashed a persecution
that saw many Christians martyred for refusing the sacrifice. Decius seemingly intended to secure
his position by forcing a large-scale act of devotion and loyalty, as well as fostering the peace of
the gods in a time of crisis.3 In doing so he set up traditional religion as the marker of Roman-ness,
and the structure through which that state could, for the first time, identify and punish those who
rejected this identity.4
The context of the third century in which the persecution of Decius features has been the
subject of scholarly debate for many decades. The so-called 'third-century crisis' has been greatly
discussed and disputed, and the terminology has been challenged regularly.5 Whether we use the
term 'crisis' to describe the whole period, specific points within it, or not at all, what cannot be
denied is that the Roman empire faced challenges unparalleled in any previous part of its history.6
War with peoples along the frontiers, especially the German peoples and the Persians, were
almost constant from the 190s, and civil wars between rival claimants to the throne weakened
Rome's ability to defend itself. The need to pay a larger army, and often to bribe them into
supporting a coup, put strain on the economy, which saw huge devaluation of the coinage along
with rampant inflation. Natural disasters were also common, especially earthquakes and plagues,
and all of this combined had a great effect on the morale of the empire. Religion was used to make
sense of the crises, and used as both an excuse for why the situation had become so dire, as well
as a method to return Rome to its former glory.
Scholarship on the third century has often focussed on the military and economic situation

1Rives 1999: 142.

2Potter 2004: 241-2.
3Lane Fox 1986: 452-3.
4Rives 1999: 153.
5Recently by Strobel 1993: 300.
6Manders 2012: 12-3.
1

in the empire, leaving religion to relative neglect.7 Traditional narratives of religion in this period
skip from the infamous reign of Elagabalus, which ended in 222, to the reforms of Aurelian in 274
with only brief mentions of what occurred in the intervening 50 years.8 Historians of Roman religion
have focussed a great deal of attention on the persecution of Christians in this period, as well as
on the apparent dominance of eastern-influenced sun worship, creating an image of system that
was intolerant, insecure and at the mercy of foreign cults. The study of the Roman sun god has
been particularly susceptible to these accusations, and there is a review of the literature on this
topic in the case study on Aurelian.
It is my contention that these are inaccurate images, and that traditional Roman polytheism
was alive and well in the third century, remaining true to its roots despite the turmoil of the times.
Recent scholarship supports this claim, as there is a welcomed trend towards a more nuanced
reading of third century religion, and an abandonment of the older narratives of decline and
decadence.9 The aim of this dissertation will be to examine the traditional aspects of state religious
policy in the third century, through case studies of three emperors: namely Severus Alexander,
Gallienus and Aurelian. Through an examination of the evidence for the policies of these three, it
will be possible to show how the traditional religion of Rome was used to justify and secure the rule
of an emperor by connecting him to Rome's golden past. These three have been chosen for a
variety of reasons. Partly they have been selected because they reigned for comparatively long
times. In a century when emperors changed with startling frequency, the 13 and 15 year reigns of
Severus Alexander and Gallienus are impressive. On top of this, there is enough evidence from the
reigns of these three to support developed conclusions about their religious policy. I began this
dissertation with a short paragraph covering the persecutions of Decius, but this emperor has not
been selected for a case study of his own, in part due to the fact that this event has received much
scholarly attention over the centuries, and I intent to cover less well-know parts of Roman history.
Also, the evidence for the rest of Decius' religious policy is too skant, and his reign to brief, to
create a complete picture, unlike the other emperors I will be studying.
The problems of evidence from the third century are well known, and have been
acknowledged by historians for decades. There is a general dearth of literary sources, especially
historical accounts. The work of one of our most reliable historians, Cassius Dio, ends during the
reign of Severus Alexander, and the rest of the century is covered only by the brief accounts of
Herodian and Aurelius Victor. There is also the Historia Augusta, but the reliability of these imperial
7For an overview of the Third century see Potter (2004). The economic situation is dealt with by Crawford
(1975) and the military by Southern and Dixon (1996).
8This is true even of the most recent edition of the Cambridge Ancient History volume 12, with Garth
Fowden's chapter on religion making very few mentions of the period from the end of the Severans to
Aurelian, despite being a volume specifically focussed on the third century (Fowden 2005).
9For example in the work of Berrens (2004), Hijmans (1996a, 1996b and 2009) and Manders (2012).
2

biographies is shaky to say the least. Syme called the biography of Severus Alexander 'almost total
fiction', and the other lives should be used with extreme caution, and where possible only with
supporting evidence from other sources.10 To fill in the gaps in the literary sources it had been
necessary to put greater reliance on the archaeological evidence available from the period,
especially epigraphic and numismatic materials. With regards to religious policy, coinage provides
a fantastic window onto the ways in which the imperial government projected images of itself out
into the empire. Images on coins are always symbolic of the state in some way, and whether
chosen by the emperor himself or some lower official they still represent what was important to the
regime.11 Depictions of gods and descriptions of their role within the state religion were common on
Roman coins throughout the imperial period, and remained so in the third century, and this coupled
with the fact that they provide continuous chronological and geographical coverage makes them a
valuable resource in the study of Roman religion.12 Along with coinage, there is the evidence
inscribed on stone, for example the records of the Arval Brethren that will be discussed in the case
study of Severus Alexander, and also manuscript and papyrus documents like the codex-calendar
of 354 and the Feriale Duranum. Built structures such as temples are also crucial pieces of
evidence, although owing to the economic situation in the Roman empire of the third century, the
state was not able to complete building programmes on the monumental scale of previous times.
There was also a superabundance of existing temples, meaning that there was little need for new
builds.13 Nevertheless, there are some temple buildings that are important to this study, especially
Aurelian's new temple of Sol on the Campus Martius.
There is a wealth of evidence for private religion from the third century, as from other
periods in Roman history, in the form of household shrines and altars, personal dedications and
funerary monuments. However, there is a distinction between private and public religion, in terms
of the sources of funding and the position of the people who carried out the rituals. For reasons of
space and clarity, this dissertation will focus entirely on the cults, festivals and buildings which have
clear state sponsorship, and will exclude private worship.
The combination of various information sources is enough to allow us to piece together
Roman imperial religious policy under the emperors I have selected, and what I aim to show is that
traditional gods and practices remained at the heart of public religion during the third century.

10Syme 1971: 111.

11Howgego 1995: 43, 70.
12ibid: 62.
13Liebeschuetz 2000: 985-6.
3

Chapter 2 Tradition and the Romans

At the outset, it is worth examining exactly what we mean by 'tradition', and what the
Romans themselves thought about it. This chapter will explore the Roman attitude to their
traditional religion, how its borders were policed and the uses to which it could be put in wider
social and political contexts. The perceptions and uses of tradition in the third century were firmly
rooted in the actions of the preceding centuries of Roman history, and this chapter will aim to show
the predecessors of the third century policies that will be discussed in the case studies later.
The Gods of Rome
Roman state religion was as old as Rome itself, having its origins in the mythical founding
of the city and the actions of Romulus, Numa and the Etruscan kings. The temple of Jupiter
Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline hill was begun before the founding of the Republic, and
several of the other temples in the city were attributed to very early times.14 The gods that
protected the Roman state were established early on, with the Capitoline triad of Jupiter, Juno and
Minerva at the pinnacle, supported by Mars, Vesta, Venus, Saturn and Neptune, among others. A
host of abstract deities and personifications such as Pudicitia, Concordia, Victoria and Salus were
added to the pantheon as the Roman empire expanded into the Greek east in the third and second
centuries BC, and became equally important in the preservation of the state as the older deities.
Various priesthoods attended the gods, usually staffed by members of the senatorial aristocracy,
and their worship was conducted at festivals celebrated throughout the year at venues scattered
across the city. This created a web of religious activity in time and space that permeated every
action of the Roman state, from declaring war and peace15 to ensuring the city's food supplies.16
The gods had their own individual roles to play within the religious system of Rome, and
were adopted or emphasised by various emperors for various reasons. As the most powerful deity
of Roman religion, Jupiter was a natural sponsor of the emperor, however it was not until
Vespasian and his successors that this connection was fully made. It was not until then that the
republican aura of the Capitoline was completely erased. Before Vespasian, the Julio-Claudians
had focussed their attention on the Palatine cults, especially Apollo who had been the central god
espoused by Augustus,17 and deliberately shied away from making too much of Jupiter Capitolinus
so as to side-step patrician dreams of restoring the republic. By the late-first century, this was no

14 Jupiter Optimus Maximus Livy 2.8.6, Tagliamonte 1996: 144; Vesta Dion. Hal. 2.64.5-66, Scott 1999:
125; Castor and Pollux Livy 2.42.5, Nielsen 1993: 242; Saturn Dion. Hal. 6.1.4, Coarelli 1999: 234.
15Opening and closing the gates of Janus (Livy 1.19.2).
16Festivals in honour of Ceres, goddess of agriculture and harvests (Ovid Fasti. 4.679-712).
17Wardle 1996: 213, 222.
4

longer an issue. Jupiter reappears on the coinage of Nero18 and many subsequent emperors used
Jupiter as a divine sponsor.19 The Julio-Claudians had not been without their gods, as the grand
temples of Apollo Palatinus, Mars Ultor, and Venus Victrix attest. Venus and Apollo in particular
would retain their associations with Augustus throughout the later centuries of Roman history, and
would be used by some emperors to connect themselves to him, as we will see with Gallienus in
chapter four. The god of war, Mars, symbolised the military might of Rome and his image was
predominantly used on coinage when the support of the army needed to be ensured. This will be
seen later with all three emperors I will be using as case studies.
Aside from Venus, other female deities were honoured by the state, with Vesta occupying a
prominent position. Her temple in the Forum guarded the sacred hearth, and her virginal
priestesses symbolised the virtue and fertility of the people of Rome. Another goddess, Pudicitia,
had been worshipped for centuries before Augustus, and under the empire would show the
imperial household as a source of inspiration for virtue and morality.20
The roles of many gods changed over time, depending on the whims of the people or the
conscious policies of the emperors and government. Saturn and Neptune, while clearly gods in
their own right with important individual mythologies and attributes, were over time reduced to
names on popular festivals at various times in the year.21 In these contexts the gods themselves
took a back seat, with the festive aspect of celebrating with friends and family being the central
aspect of the occasions. The people of the empire evidently had their favourite celebrations, and it
is worth reminding ourselves that Roman state religion was important to people beyond the narrow
confines of the imperial household and senatorial aristocracy.
Sol, the Roman sun god, has occupied a much debated place within the pantheon of Rome.
Earlier scholarship charted a development whereby a small-scale indigenous deity was replaced
by an aggressive foreign rival who would eventually become the uncontested head of Roman
religion.22 Aurelian's role is paramount in the fortune of this god, and will be discussed in detail in
case study three. At this point it will suffice to draw on the work of Hijmans, who shows
conclusively that the iconography of Sol never changed through all of Roman history, despite his
increasingly prominent role in imperial propaganda.23 This suggests that the Sol of the later imperial
period was the same traditional deity that had been worshipped in Rome since the early days of
the republic, and drastically changes our view of late-third and early-fourth century paganism.
As well as deities in the traditional sense, Roman state religion paid homage to deified
18Fears 1981: 70.
19Fears 1977: 194-7.
20Langlands 2006: 360.
21Fink, Hoey and Snyder 1940: 169-70.
22This view is best summed up in Halsberge 1972.
23Hijmans 2009: 621.
5

emperors, and worshipped them with temples, festivals an priesthoods much like any other god.
Not all divi had their own individual temples and priesthoods, with some family members being put
together, for example Antoninus Pius and his wife Faustina, who shared a temple in the Forum.
The importance of individual divi rarely lasted longer than their associated dynasty, as the
immediate past was more relevant than the more remote.24 This is untrue of paradigms like
Augustus or Trajan, who were still held up as model emperors long after the death of their
relatives, as we shall see in the case studies later. Scholars have suggested that the deification of
emperors was a didactic display on the part of the senatorial aristocracy, which was intended to
show the next emperor what awaited those who conformed to the senate's image of an ideal
ruler.25 The imperial cult is important in the development of Roman state religion, as it was the chief
source of innovation throughout the imperial period, in the addition of new deities and the building
of new temples.26 In the third century, Severus Alexander was the last emperor to receive a
dedicated priesthood, and after his death Divus was a standard imperial title. Even still, the
imperial cult clearly kept its significance, as the divi coinage of Decius demonstrates. This emperor
minted a series of coinage depicting 11 divi from a variety of dynasties, and through this action
linked himself to his divine predecessors.27
Religio versus Superstito
It was not simply a matter of which gods were worshipped that constituted traditional
religion in the minds of the Romans. New gods could be introduced, for example Aesculapius, who
was brought to Rome on the advice of an oracle after a plague in the 290s BC.28 What was more
important was the manner in which religion was carried out, and the intended outcome of religious
action. In the writings of Cicero we get the earliest examples of separating out 'good' religious
practice from 'bad,' with the employment of the Latin terms religio and superstitio.29 'Good' religion
was that which was done with the best interests of the state or community in mind. By ensuring
that the gods were honoured correctly, the Romans would secure their success at home and
abroad, in peace and war. Propertius' confident statement that we stand a strong nation as much
through pietas as through the sword30 reflects this, and shows how closely the survival of the state
was linked to religion. The favour of the gods was not secured by the satisfactory adherence to
demands on morality, but by the exact performance of rituals.31 This is true from the earliest days of
24Wardman 1982: 86.
25Gradel 2002: 347-9.
26Beard, North and Price 1998: 253.
27RIC 77-96.
28Livy 10.47, 11.
29Cicero. De Nat. Deo. 2.28.70-2.
30Elegies 3.22.21-2.
31Liebeschuetz 1979: 60-1.
6

Rome, and ritual action, rather than personal belief or emotional commitment, was the primary
emphasis of the system.32 The importance of ritual made it necessary to preserve the exact
prayers, movements and settings from generation to generation, making them incredibly repetitive,
and this repetitive nature means that very few descriptions survive. The only full description of a
Roman sacrifice to survive at all is found in the work of a Greek, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who
was a foreigner writing for a non-Roman audience.33 The implication here is that the process was
so ubiquitous that Romans saw no need to comment upon it, and it was only outsiders who
required a description. We know that these sacrificial rituals and rites needed to be performed to
an exact standard, and there were dire consequences if mistakes were made and left
unaddressed. Should the rite be incorrectly carried out, it would need to be repeated until done
perfectly, otherwise the gods would go unappeased.34 It follows then, that if the Roman state owed
its survival and success to correct religious conduct, then incorrect or illicit activity would endanger
it.
In the late republic and early empire, 'bad' religion was anything done for the good of the
individual, with no regard for its impact on wider society. This could include the petitioning of the
traditional gods, if they were called upon for selfish or harmful reasons,35 however, the majority of
accusations of superstitio came directed towards people or activities perceived as non-Roman.
This included the rituals and practices of Jews, Druids and Germans,36 as well as magic and
prophecy, which were seen as being influenced by Egyptians or other eastern peoples.37 These
cults were targeted over others with foreign origins, for example, Magna Mater and Aesculapius,
because there was a political threat inherent in them. Magna Mater and Aesculapius had been
brought to Rome on the advice of oracles at times of strife, and were therefore tolerated because
of their ability to protect the empire. No such situation was apparent for Judaism, Druidism or the
religion of the Germanic peoples, who were in no way connected to the city of Rome, nor its
history, and represented the beliefs of enemies of Rome. There was a justifiable fear of religious
action enacted by enemies, and the power that it could turn against the Romans.38
Astrology, magic, and prophecy became more and more proscribed as the imperial period
progressed because of the perceived ability for them to predict and influence the health and well-

32North 1976: 1.
33Dion. Hal. 7.72.15-8.
34Plin. N.H. 28.10-11; Cic.de.H.R 23.
35Cic. Pro Cluentio. 68.194.
36 Jews Cicero Pro Flacco 67; Druids Tac. Hist. 4.54 (here the Druids connect the burning of the Temple
of Jupiter Capitolinus to the loss of Roman supremacy, showing once again the intimate connection
between Roman piety and success); Germans Tac. Hist. 4.61.
37Martin 2004: 133.
38For example Hannibal's oath to destroy Rome, reported in Livy 21.1.4
7

being of the emperor, on whom the fate of the whole Roman system came to rely. 39 Tacitus relates
several moments where accusations of using magic against the emperor and his consort are used
to discredit members of the imperial household,40 and it is telling that, despite their existence and
use for almost the entire span of Greco-Roman history, the only explicit mention of curse tablets in
any surviving literary source is when some are found in the house of Germanicus after his death.41
They were evidently only deemed important enough to mention when their use directly impacted
upon a close relation of the emperor.
The position of the emperor and his family in the Roman religious system will be discussed
in more detail later, so for now it will suffice to say that after Augustus, much of Roman state
religion came to involve securing divine protection for the emperor. This was the case for the Arval
Brethren, a priesthood that was originally agricultural in outlook, but which took up annual
sacrifices to the safety of the emperor after the reforms of Augustus.42 With state religion so bound
up with the security of the emperor, magical or prophetic rituals that could potentially harm him
became a serious rejection of Roman values and normal practice, hence the negative portrayal in
literary sources.
Religio, superstitio and Christianity
Alongside Jews, Druids and the other groups of foreign religious groups branded as
superstitiones, the Romans also placed Christians, and as the church grew in strength and
numbers it would become the foremost among them. From the earliest references to the faith in
Roman sources we get a negative impression, as Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny describe it as
maleficent, infectious and shameful.43
Their objection to Christianity was twofold. On one hand they had broken with the ancestral
and ancient traditions of Judaism, which, even if they were wrong, were at least old.44 There was
no place for novelty in the Roman conception of acceptable religion, which saw truth and efficacy
as the result of age and length of veneration of a god.45 To break with ancient traditions not only
wronged the gods but also the ancestors themselves, who had preserved and passed down the
rituals and cults that they had held dear.46 By espousing a tradition that only had its beginning
under Tiberius,47 the Christians were in direct breach of the long and venerable traditions of both
39Liebescheutz 1979: 197-8.
40Tac. Ann. 4.52; 12.65.
41Ibid: 2.69. On curse tablets in general see Gager 1992.
42Beard 1985: 116-7.
43Suet. Nero 16.2; Tac. Ann. 15.44; Pliny Ep. 10.96.
44The gospels show this clear rejection, for example Mark 7: 1-23
45Porphyry De Abst. 2.18.
46Dio 52.36.
47Something admitted, but swiftly glossed over by Tertullian in Apol. 19.1f.
8

Rome and Judaism, an action unthinkable to the traditional Roman mind.

This connects to the second of the two objections to Christianity from traditional Roman
religion: their refusal to acknowledge the ancient gods of Rome or to participate in public sacrifices.
The famous letters between Pliny the Younger and Trajan concerning the prosecution and
execution of Christians is our earliest source for this clash between the Roman government and
the obstinate Christian refusal to sacrifice.48 At this early stage, there is a clear reluctance on the
part of the government to actively seek out Christians and force them to either sacrifice or be
executed, however their seemingly atheistic rejection of Roman religion and especially their nonparticipation in rituals designed to safeguard the emperor and by extension the whole Roman
world was already worrying. When assessing the religious beliefs of those who were accused of
being Christians, Pliny had them offer wine and incense at a statue of Trajan, as this was the
clearest way they could show their commitment to Rome and its traditions. This use of the imperial
cult to show loyalty would feature heavily in Decius and Valerian's persecutions in the third century,
as many provincial governors owed their position to the emperor. By forcing Christians to sacrifice
to the emperor they not only gauged the piety of the accused but also showed their own loyalty to
the man who gave them their position.49
As briefly mentioned above, much of Roman state religion after Augustus was refocussed
around the person of the emperor, his family and divine ancestors. As Pontifex Maximus the
emperor was the official head of Roman religion,50 and with an ever-growing number of deified
predecessors the imperial household was connected more and more to the divine world. The
emperor's position as the paterfamilias of the Roman state household meant that sacrifices
ensuring his security and success ensured that of the state as a whole.51 To refuse to take part in
these sacrifices then, was not only to deny the traditions of Rome but to actively put the survival of
the state in danger. On the Christian side of the debate there was also danger, but not that of the
state. It was the fate of their souls that was at stake in these matters, and the very real danger of
leaving themselves open to possession by the demons they believed inhabited the meat and
smoke that had been offered to the pagan gods.52 Tertullian's words make it clear that there was to
be no compromise between the authorities and this belief, and no Christian could hold office if in
that post they would be required to engage in any activity deemed as idolatrous.53 Sacrificing,
giving or presiding over games, taking oaths, sitting in judgement, passing sentences these were
the core functions of any Roman magistracy, and Tertullian would have known this when listing
48Pliny Ep. 10.96, with Trajan's reply at 10.97.
49Lane Fox 1986: 426
50Price 1996: 827.
51Gradel 2002: 197.
52Lane Fox 1986: 444.
53Tert. On Idolatry. 17.
9

them as activities no Christian could perform. If we try to see this from the Roman point of view, we
can appreciate why Christians were labelled as superstitiones, as this dogged concern for their
own individual salvation flew in the face of centuries of religious tradition that upheld religious
action for the collective good of the community as the ultimate display of religio.
Scapegoats and crises
By the third century, the unfortunate combination of the increase in the numbers of
Christians and the series of terrible disasters that beset the Roman empire made them attractive
scapegoats for the empire's failings. However, they were not the first group on whom the Roman
people had pinned blame for catastrophes, and there was a long history of religious persecution at
times of crisis. As we have seen, the success of the state in peace and war was attributed to the
correct honouring of the gods. It follows then, that military defeat, plague, famine and other
disasters would be the result of some affront to the gods which had lead to divine anger and
punishment. By performing purification rituals54 or expelling minority religious groups, the Romans
sought to placate the gods, and re-establish good relations with the divine. Throughout the imperial
period, various groups including Jews, philosophers and Isis-worshippers were all expelled from
Rome at times of civil strife in an attempt to ensure the purity of the city as the centre of state
religion.55 The decisions made by emperors in the third century to instigate persecutions of
Christians should be seen with this history in mind. Although the Christian persecutions were
unique in the capital punishment meted out, they should still be viewed within the context of
traditional Roman responses to crisis. We know that Christians were blamed for the disasters that
occurred in the empire from a series of Christian responses to the accusations. From Tertullian,
Arnobius and Augustine of Hippo we see that natural disasters, military defeats and poor harvests
were attributed to the irreligious behaviour of Christians.56 The standard response seems to be to
point out that there were plenty of calamities before the birth of Christ, but the wide chronological
spread of the Christian writers defending themselves in this way seems to suggest that their
argument fell on deaf ears. The religious survival of Rome mattered more than the history lessons
the Christians attempted to give.
Over time, as the person of the emperor became more and more central to state religion,
the importance of Rome itself diminished. Along with the seat of power, state religion was focussed
on the emperor no matter where in the empire he was.57 The importance of the city of Rome as a
54 Lucan 1.584-604 describes a ritual of lustration along the line of the pomerium after Caesar crosses the
Rubicon, which Price (1996: 818-9) suggests is a retrojection of imperial period preoccupations with
ensuring strong boundaries of acceptable religion.
55 Jews expelled by Claudius (Suet. Claud. 25.4) and Tiberius (Suet. Tib. 36.1), Philosophers by Domitian
(Suet. Dom. 10.3) and Isis-worshippers by Tiberius (Suet. Tib. 36.1).
56Tert. Ap. 40; Arnobius Against Heathens 1.4-5; Augustine CD. 2.3.
57Gordon 1990: 215-6.
10

physical centre of religion was lessened and detached, to the point where Rome could be
worshipped in the city itself. Hadrian's monumental temple of Venus and Rome between the Forum
and Colosseum imported a cult that had been present in the Greek east for centuries, but had
never been worshipped in Italy.58 It is evidence of the dislocation of Roman power away from the
geographical location of the city and into a much more abstracted form.59 The idea of Rome was no
longer strictly limited to the physical urban area on the banks of the Tiber, as it had been in the
republic and early principate,60 but was expanded out to the frontiers, and the limits of Roman
power of earth: if they even existed.61 It was personified in the goddess Roma Aeterna, and also in
the person of the emperor, who embodied the political and military power of Rome, and its religious
pedigree through his deified predecessors. The focus of state religion was moved onto the
emperor, and although the Capitoline temples remained central to the ritual practices of Roman
religion, their purpose shifted onto securing the safety and success of the emperor, rather than a
simple honouring of the gods by the senate and people.
Alongside this comes the increase in the importance of the emperor mentioned earlier,
putting a great amount of pressure on his shoulders to ensure the favour of the gods. In the good
times, emperors could reap great propaganda rewards from this situation, for example Trajan,
whose successes allowed him to be proclaimed as under the special protection of Jupiter,62 and
claim his reign as a golden age of religious virtue.63 However, when times were hard and the
empire was threatened, it could often be seen as down to a failing on the emperor's part to secure
the favour of the gods and lead to grumblings about whether they were the right man to rule.64 A
poor ruler could form just as attractive a scapegoat on whom to blame a crisis as a minority group,
and as a result, emperors made conscious efforts to display their traditional piety and connections
to the gods. This is something I will be discussing in great detail in the coming chapters.
This chapter has taken in a vast swathe of Roman religious action, from ancient and
traditional sacrifices to Jupiter on the Capitoline, through to curse tablets and Christianity. The
sheer variety of ways in which people could communicate with the gods is staggering to us, and

58Mellor 1975: 14.

59Purcell 2000: 416.
60 The speech that Livy (5.52) puts into the mouth of Camillus after the Gallic Sack in 390 BC shows just
how crucial the city, and in particular the Capitoline and Forum, was to the conception of Roman religion
up to the first century AD.
61 Jupiter's words in the Aeneid come to mind: To these I set no bounds, either in space or time; unlimited
power I give to them (Aen. 1.278-9).
62RIC 249.
63Dimitriev 2004: 215-6.
64MacMullen 1976: 30.
11

the relationships between them continue to be fruitful fields of discussion for scholars.
Traditionalism as a feature of Roman religion dominates the official cults of the state, and pervades
almost all policies of emperors from Augustus onwards. It was through dedication to Jupiter, Mars,
Venus and all the rest that the emperors connected themselves to the glories of Rome's past, and
ensured their own successes through divine aid. The borders of traditional religion were enforced
by the use of the pejorative term superstitio to denote any person, ritual or belief thought to be unRoman. Into this category went excessive or maliciously-intended devotions to traditional deities,
magical rites including astrology and cursing, as well as foreign groups such as Jews and Druids.
Christians fell outside the boundaries due to their rejection of the traditions of Judaism and of
Rome, as well as their tenacious refusal to engage in sacrifices designed to safeguard the empire.
For that was the main purpose of the traditional religion of Rome: to placate the anger of the gods
and secure their support for future ventures. When things went wrong it was natural to assume that
the gods had not been appeased in the correct manner, and that some form of impiety was to
blame. This led to persecutions of Christians and may have been a contributing factor in the quick
turnover of emperors in the mid-third century. In the following case studies we will see how three
different emperors used traditionalism in their own religious policies, and the ways in which this
changed over the course of the period.

12

Case Study 1 Severus Alexander: the Last Dynast

The Severan dynasty had come to power after Septimius Severus' victory in the civil war of
AD 193. Although Septimius, Caracalla and Geta are all interesting characters whose reigns are
important in the history of late-second/early-third century Rome, it is with the latter emperors of the
dynasty that we are concerned here. Severus Alexander and especially his predecessor
Elagabalus are infamous names within the lists of rulers of Rome. Both were only in their midteens when proclaimed emperor, and both were murdered at young ages. Religion was an
important factor in the fates of the two young rulers, and has been instrumental in defining their
reputation in the centuries since their deaths. Although the primary subject of this case study is
Severus Alexander, it is impossible to consider his religious policy without first discussing
Elagabalus. The dramatic and well-known events of the young Syrian's time in Rome led to his
downfall, and a conscious reaction from his successor. As their actions are so closely related it is
necessary to first spend a little time outlining the religious policies of Elagabalus.
The case of Elagabalus
The Syrian city of Emesa had been the home of the god Elagabal since the first century
65

AD. Worshipped in the form of a black stone often depicted with an eagle, the god fits into the
Anatolian and north-Syrian category of storm or mountain gods who were often likened to
Zeus/Jupiter.66 There are many variants of spelling of the god's name in literature, inscriptions and
coins he is variously called Elagabal, Helagabalus, Aelagabalus and Helaiagabalos among
others but to avoid as much confusion as possible I will refer to the god as Elagabal and the
emperor as Elagabalus.
Officially known as Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, he became emperor in AD 218, aged of 14,
with the shaky claim to be the illegitimate son of Caracalla.67 He was already the high priest of
Elagabal, who by now had become more associated with the sun god, something very clearly
shown in Dio and Herodian.68 Despite this shift, the god's iconography remained unchanged, and
the new emperor took the divine rock with him when he moved to Rome. Several towns along the
route, namely Altava, Attaleia and Sardes, set up inscriptions or initiated festivals to the god, which
Icks had classified as part of normal and traditional methods for local authorities to secure imperial
honours.69 The imperial cortge arrived at Rome in mid-219, and construction for the new temple to

65Millar 1993: 301.

66Icks 2008: 32.
67Herodian 5.3.
68Dio 79.31.1; Herodian 5.3.4.
69Icks 2009: 118-9.
13

house the emperor's patron god must have begun in earnest on the Palatine.70 Over the next three
years Elagabalus shocked and offended the Roman elite with his uncompromising attitude
regarding the celebration of his god, from the manner of his dress, the lewdness of his behaviour
and the strange rituals involved in the honouring of Elagabal. Cassius Dio, Herodian and the
Historia Augusta report these in great detail, and the sheer outlandishness of some of the
accusations make their truthfulness doubtful. What is clear is that the devotion of Elagabalus got
out of hand, and went way beyond the intentions of his advisers in the imperial family and court.71
Having an emperor who was protected by a powerful god was an established and successful way
of strengthening their position, as seen in chapter two, but the choice of a niche Syrian deity did
not lend itself to this strategy. Coupled with the emperor's offensive behaviour towards traditional
Roman religion the whole policy became a recipe for disaster and eventually led to his downfall.72
There were a few actions that stood out as the most offensive to traditional religion, the first
being the marriage between the emperor and a Vestal Virgin, which was intended as a union
between the old gods and the new, but broke the centuries-old celibacy of the priesthood. He also
wanted to move the flame of Vesta from its ancient temple in the Forum up to the new temple of
Elagabal on the Palatine, along with the Palladium and other sacred items, so that the temple
would become the sole focal point of Roman religion.73 He had a portrait of himself sacrificing to
Elagabal placed above the Altar of Victory in the Curia,74 cementing the position of his god at the
top of the Roman pantheon. It was this supplanting of Jupiter Optimus Maximus that the
aristocracy and army could never accept, and Elagabalus was murdered only four years after
gaining the throne. The women of the Severan family, who had been a strong influence on their
men throughout the whole history of the dynasty, manoeuvred Severus Alexander, Elagabalus'
young cousin, into position to succeed the wayward emperor.
Alexander as Caesar
From the beginning, Elagabalus had been advised and controlled to some extent by his
maternal aunt and grandmother, Julia Mamaea and Julia Maesa. Following on from the strong
example set by Julia Domna, the wife of Septimius Severus, these women wielded considerable
power and influence at the top of Roman government. They could see the outrage being generated
by Elagabalus' actions, and did what they could to lessen the damage to the family as a whole.75
By issuing coins depicting gods and personified virtues such as Juno, Vesta, Pietas and Pudicitia
70 Broise and Thbert: 1999: 747. The column capital found in the Forum Romanum (figure 1) presumably
came from the temple, but this remains uncertain. For details see Studniczka 1901.
71Icks 2008: 71-2.
72Icks 2006: 177-8.
73S.H.A. Elag. 3.4.
74Herodian 5.5.7.
75ibid 5.7.1.
14

they attempted to reassure the public that the imperial family was as devoted to traditional religion
as ever.76 When it became clear that there was no saving the young emperor from the fury of the
Roman people, they ensured the survival of the dynasty by promoting Julia Mamaea's son
Alexander to Caesar, and having him adopted by Elagabalus.77 While in the position of Caesar,
Alexander issued coins depicting sacrificial implements and bearing the legend PIETAS AUG.78
These can be seen in a similar vein to the coins issued by his mother and grandmother discussed
above, and an attempt to set him up as conspicuously different to the emperor. However, it was not
until Elagabalus had been dispatched that the damage control could fully commence.
The reaction against Elagabalus
As soon as Elagabalus was dead, Alexander and the imperial women repealed and
corrected all of the worst elements of Elagabalus' reign. In government, the unworthy men who had
been elevated to positions of power were removed, and replaced by better men such as Ulpian
and Cassius Dio.79 Senators such as these had been young men under Marcus Aurelius, and after
the infamy of the reigns of Commodus, Caracalla and Elagabalus there now seemed an
opportunity to recapture the 'blessed prime of the Antonines', with their own age and wisdom giving
advice in the running of the state.80 The imperial women were careful to maintain senatorial
acceptance of the new boy-emperor, forming a council of hand-picked senators who were
consulted on policy.
Away from politics, the black stone of Elagabal was sent back to Emesa,81 and the temple
that had been built to house it on the Palatine was rededicated to Jupiter Ultor: the Avenger.82 The
traditional gods of Rome were back in force, and the coinage of Severus Alexander depicted
Jupiter, Mars, Romulus and Sol,83 as well as personifications like Pax, Aequitas, Pietas and
Libertas.84 Legends on the coins proclaimed Mars and Jupiter as VLTOR, CONSERVATOR and
STATOR, reassuring the people how crucial traditional religion was to the regime. The clearest
image of this reliance on traditional religion was the coin showing Alexander sheltering under
Jupiter's thunderbolt.85 The imperial family also made attempts to regain the loyalty and support of
76 Coins of Julia Maesa (under Elagabalus in RIC): Juno RIC 253; Vesta RIC 276; Pietas RIC 264;
Pudicitia 268.
77Cassius Dio 80.17-18.
78RIC 3, 382.
79Dio 80.1-2.
80Syme 1971: 160-1.
81Dio 79.21.2.
82This is celebrated on coins RIC 412, 413 and 146.
83Jupiter RIC 140-6; Mars RIC 71-5; Romulus RIC 85-6; Sol RIC 111-20.
84Pax RIC 164-8; Aequitas RIC 63-4; Pietas RIC 170-1; Libertas RIC 10-12.
85RIC 558 (figure 2).
15

the army, with coin issues showing the fides and pietas of the army and soldiers, and many
representations of Mars.86 There are also inscriptions from this period expressing a resurgence in
the popularity of Vesta, through renewed emphasis on the virtue of Vestals as a symptom of the
welfare of the state.87 This may have been a reaction to the outrages Elagabalus committed
regarding this cult, and the subsequent restoration of the temple of Vesta and its sacred objects by
Severus Alexander.88
Images of the emperor sacrificing in the traditional manner and the use of the legend
PIETAS AVG were also common, showing the active participation of Several Alexander in the
ancient rituals that preserved the state and ensured its success.89 Almost all of these images and
legends had been used before by previous emperors, to the point where Mattingly and Sydenham
could describe the overall themes as 'regular and conventional.'90 This in itself is noteworthy, as
there had been nothing conventional about Elagabalus' coins showing his Syrian deity and all the
strange ceremonies than went with it.91 The obvious and conspicuous return to the iconographic
programmes of past emperors was an attempt to assure people that it was business as usual at
the top of government, and that everything had returned to normal. Alexander also issued
memorial coins of Caracalla, connecting himself with the deified son of Septimus Severus, thereby
omitting Elagabalus, whose memory had already been erased by a senatorial damnatio memoriae,
from the dynastic family tree.92
The extend to which Elagabalus had disseminated the worship of his god throughout the
empire is unknown, as the evidence is incredibly scarce. I have mentioned above the few cities
that adopted the cult outside Rome, and their position on the route from Emesa to the capital
seems to suggest that there was no empire-wide policy of introducing the worship of Elagabal.93
There is no mention of the god in either the records of the Arval Brethren or the Feriale Duranum,
and these are the two best sources we have for public ritual during the reign of Severus Alexander.
Public ritual under Severus Alexander
We are incredibly fortunate to have two fantastic sources for public religion under the last
Severan, in the form of the records of the Arval Brethren and the papyrus calendar from the military
town of Dura Europos in Syria. These sources give us a detailed picture of the gods worshipped by

86FIDES/PIETAS EXERCITVS/MILITVM RIC 138, 139, 171; Mars 6, 7, 21-5, 36-7 etc.
87CIL 6.2134, 6.32414.
88Nock 1930: 257.
89Emperor sacrificing RIC 49, 50, 54, 68-70, 81, 273; PIETAS AVG RIC 170, 209.
90Mattingly and Sydenham (vol. 4.2) 1938: 64.
91For example RIC Elagabalus 61, 86, 131-5, 146-7,
92RIC 717-20.
93Icks 2009: 118.
16

the Roman government in the mid-third century and the ways in which it was carried out, both in
the capital and the provinces. As Rome is the primary focus of this study, I will discuss the Arval
records first.
From their sacred grove five miles outside Rome, the Arval Brethren had been primarily
dedicated to Dea Dia since Republican times, but after Augustus they took up annual prayers and
sacrifices for the safety of the emperor.94 There were 12 brothers at a time all solidly senatorial
throughout the order's history with the emperor always included as the thirteenth.95 From the
beginning of the first century AD they set up inscriptions at their grove recording their activities
there and at various temples and sacred sites in the city, often with exhaustive detail. The
importance of this record for our knowledge of Roman public sacrifice has only recently begun to
be realised by scholars, and the excellent work by J. Scheid in translating the texts and interpreting
the information is indispensable.96
Within the records, there seems to be a general trend towards increasing detail over time,
but regardless of changes in the manner of recording the overall ritual content remained
remarkably standardised over the three centuries through which the Arvals recorded.97 Their
annual vows and sacrifices for the safety of the emperor are particularly indicative of the
relationship between the imperial household and state religion, as under Alexander they include
sacrifices for the emperor, his mother, Julia Mamaea, and the whole divine household.98 This is a
much wider group of people than had been usual under previous emperors, and shows how central
Julia Mamaea and the imperial household were to the running of the empire as regents for the boyemperor.
The Arvals offered their New Year sacrifices in AD 231 on the Capitoline in front of the cella
of Juno, as they had since the time of Tiberius, using the same formulae and offering the same
victims to the same gods.99 This remarkable continuity speaks volumes on the position of
traditional religion in the Roman mind, and the goes some way to proving how crucial it was to
retain the rituals of the ancestors. We can also appreciate even more strongly how much of a
wrench the reforms of Elagabalus must have been, presenting huge and unprecedented changes
to a system that had been codified over 200 years before, and repeated with little or no variation
ever since. The Arval records from Elagabalus' reign are far from complete, with the most detailed
coming from the first year: AD 218. As this is before the black stone of Elagabal appeared in Rome
with its high priest in tow, it is unsurprising that there is no mention of the Syrian god in the lists of
94Beard 1985: 116.
95Gradel 2002: 18.
96Of his work see in particular Scheid 1990 and 1998.
97Beard 1985: 128, 134.
98Scheid 1998: 317-8; CIL 6.2108.
99Sacrifices under Tiberius CIL 6.2024.
17

deities to whom the brothers sacrificed that year. Frustratingly, we have only fragments from the
following years, and so it is impossible to say whether Elagabal played any part in the sacrifices of
the Arval Brethren, but it would not be implausible to tentatively assume so, considering what we
know of the emperor's actions regarding other priesthoods and cults in the city. If Elagabalus had
added his god to the rituals, Alexander would clearly have had to remove any mention of Elagabal
after his predecessor's death, and there are indeed no such words in the detailed records from
November 224. What we do have in that year, and again in 240 under Gordian III the last
emperor under whom the Arvals recorded is a list of stoutly traditional deities: Dea Dia, Janus,
Jupiter, Mars Ultor, Juno, the Lares, Fons, Flora, Summanus and Vesta. These were accompanied
in 224 by 20 deified emperors and empresses: probably Augustus, Claudius, Vespasian, Titus,
Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Lucius Verus, Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, Pertinax,
Septimus Severus, Caracalla, Marciana, Matidia, Plotina, Faustina, Julia Domna and Julia
Maesa.100 This number had changed as divi were either newly added, or came in to replace those
who had lost popularity or were no longer relevant. For example it is possible that in AD 224 Julia
Domna and Julia Maesa had replaced Sabina and one of the Faustinas, who had been in the total
of 20 included in AD 218.101
The imperial cult was the source of the vast majority of the innovations in Roman state
religion under the empire, and the divi were the only gods who were successfully added to the
state cult in the centuries after Augustus.102 Almost half of the new temples built in Rome from
Augustus up to Constantine were dedicated to deified emperors and/or empresses.103 We should
not be surprised then, when we turn our attention to the Feriale Duranum and see the huge part
that the imperial cult plays in the festivals it records.
The immense value of the calendar found at Dura cannot be overstated. It is one of the very
few calendars that survive from the period between the late-first century and the Codex-Calendar
of 354, and is therefore the one patch of light in the dark of our knowledge of public ritual during
the middle centuries of the Roman empire.104 Its use was intended for a very specific group of
people, namely the cohors XX Palmyrenorum, but the content is strictly Roman, with no
consideration of the locality in which it was used. There are no Syrian gods mentioned, and there is
no overall military theme to the celebrations.105 What we have then, seems to be an official list of
festivals compiled centrally and originally outlined in the time of Augustus, which was then

100 Gilliam 1969: 287.

101 ibid: 287-8.
102 Gradel 2002: 366.
103 Beard, North and Price 1998: 253.
104 For Roman calendars see Degrassi 1963.
105 Fink, Hoey and Snyder 1940: 167.
18

distributed to the troops in the provinces.106

The calendar closely mimics that of the state cults at Rome, and the gods worshipped are
without exception ancient and traditional. The Capitoline Triad feature heavily, either individually or
as a group, and are joined by Mars, Victory, Neptune, Roma, Saturn and Vesta. There is a large
number of imperial anniversaries celebrated including birthdays, dates of ascension and dates of
death mostly of members of the Severan dynasty or prominent ancestors. Twenty imperial
individuals are mentioned, far outweighing the number of regular gods included in the calendar,
showing how important the imperial cult was in state religion. The rituals on the Feriale Duranum
included the new year vows and sacrifices for the welfare of the emperor and the survival of the
empire that were also celebrated by the Arval Brethren.107 These particular ceremonies would have
been crucial for the army to observe, as they were at the front line of the efforts to secure the
empire and ensure its successes. It was on their shoulders that the hopes and fears of the empire
ultimately rested, and so their need to gain divine favour was paramount.108
At Dura, each god received appropriate blood sacrifices according to the traditions of
Rome, male victims for male deities and female victims for female deities, and even the order in
which the gods are invoked closely mirrors the records of the Arvals. These animal victims,
especially the oxen that were offered to Jupiter and the male divi, were very expensive, and
therefore marked the state occasions as separate and more lavish than any local or domestic acts
of worship.109 In their commentary on the Feriale, Fink Hoey and Snyder explain these traditional
aspects of the calendar as a didactic instrument that formed part of a provincial soldier's education
into the service of Rome.110 This is likely to be true, as pietas was a part of military loyalty, and on
top of this we have already seen how important public displays of devotion to traditional religion
became for marking out the difference between people who were loyal to Rome and those who
were not. The standard character of the calendar shows that the military were not considered
separate from the Roman people as a whole, and creates the impression of the whole empire
offering sacrifices at the same time to the same gods, a unified picture no doubt intentionally
propagated by the government in Rome.
There is clearly an emphasis on cults and festivals deemed necessary for the prosperity
and survival of the Roman state, as we have seen. This goes beyond any military theme, for
106 Fishwick 1991: 488-9. Although no calendars survive from other provinces, Fishwick has compiled a list
of dated inscriptions recording festivals in various western provinces that coincide with dates on the
Feriale Duranum see ibid: 598-607. This is a substantial amount of supporting evidence for the claim
that these festivals were celebrated across the empire, and not limited to Dura.
107 The text of the Feriale Duranum is translated in Fink 1971: 428-9, and can be compared to the text of
the Arval Brethren's records under Severus Alexander in Scheid 1998: 313-20.
108 Fink, Hoey and Snyder 1940: 205.
109 ibid: 190.
110 ibid: 206.
19

example the inclusion of worship of Vesta and Salus publica. However, there is an allowance for
celebrations with a greater public popularity, for example the Neptunalia and Saturnalia festivals,
which were incredibly popular among lower classes of Romans, as well as slaves.111 These were
likely retained on the official calendar to give a break from monotony and drudgery to soldiers and
civilians alike, rather than for any official need, or even out of any devout dedication to the gods
themselves.
Despite his overt and public devotion to the traditions of Rome, Severus Alexander
eventually succumbed to the fickle will of the people and the army, and was murdered along with
his mother while on campaign in Germania. Maximinus was declared his successor by his own
legions, and the 'crisis of the third century' began.112
Severus Alexander's 13-year long rule is characterised as one of conservatism and
pragmatism with regards to policy. A combination of influence from his mother, who had already
seen one emperor fall for offending traditional Roman sensibilities, and from senators who jumped
at the opportunity to attempt a recreation of the Antonine empire of their youth, resulted in a reign
in which the religious policy adhered very strongly to the models of the past. After the death of
Elagabalus it was crucial for the new emperor to be seen to completely reject the religious
outrages that had led to his predecessor's downfall, and so the traditional gods were returned with
a vengeance. The Palatine temple was reclaimed for Jupiter, and he featured prominently on
Severus Alexander' coinage with the epithets VLTOR, CONSERVATOR and STATOR.113 Alongside
the supreme god of Rome stood Mars, Sol, Romulus, Vesta and Pudicitia, and the emperor was
praised for his pietas, fortuna, and virtus. All celebrations and sacrifices that Elagabalus had
instigated at Rome for the worship of his god were abolished, and the minimal impact he had had
in the provinces was also erased. It is hard to tell whether Elagabal was included in the rites of the
Arval Brethren or in the religious calendars sent to the provincial military bases, but the records of
both of these under Severus Alexander show no sign. What they do display is an intensely
traditional series of celebrations the origins of which, in both cases, stretch back at least as far as
Augustus. At Dura and in Rome, the soldiers of the cohors XX Palmyrenorum and the Arval
Brothers all sacrificed for the safety of the emperor on January 3rd, and throughout the year marked
dates of significance to the old gods of Rome. The continuity and stability presented by the state
through these festivals were important in the creation of an image of longevity and connection to
the past that was necessary to reassure the people that the outrages of Elagabalus were not to be
111 ibid: 169-72.
112 Drinkwater 2005: 28-9.
113 Depictions of Jupiter featured on 13% of Severus Alexander's coinage, compared to a mere 2% of coins
issued by Elagabalus. The contrast could not be more stark, and would have been obvious to everyone
who used the coins on a daily basis (Rowan 2009: 144).
20

repeated. Rome was in safe hands with Severus Alexander and his mother in charge.
Unfortunately for Severus Alexander, events outside religious policy were a greater deciding
factor on his fate than his conduct regarding the traditional gods. He never acquitted himself
particularly well in battle, and the overbearing nature of his mother began to irk the troops under
his command. In a time when capacity to rule was becoming synonymous with ability to lead
military campaigns,114 the young Severus was too far from the ideal leader the army desired, and
he was despatched in favour of the first true soldier-emperor: Maximinus.

114 Campbell 2005: 27.

21

Case Study 2 Gallienus: In the Eye of the Storm

Between the death of Severus Alexander in 235 and the ascension of Gallienus in 253, as
joint emperor with his father Valerian, over a dozen men claimed the purple, and the situation in the
empire became even more severe. A vicious cycle developed, through which the throne was
contested by increased numbers of men promoted by the legions. The frontiers were assaulted
from several directions at once, and if the emperor was not personally in command of a victorious
army then the men might proclaim their own general as emperor. This usurper would then march
off to Rome with his legions to secure his position, leaving the frontier weakened, and allowing
further barbarian attacks, which may then be repelled by another local commander, who might then
be proclaimed emperor, starting the whole cycle again.115 The main external threats to the empire
of Valerian and Gallienus came from two groups, the Persians in the east, under a particularly
successful leader named Shapur I, who had been emperor since his father's death in the 240s,116
and the Goths further west, who raided along the Danube frontier, as well as across the Black Sea
into Asia Minor.117 It was from the areas under attack by these peoples that many of the soldieremperors came, especially Illyricum, where Decius, Hostilianus, Claudius II, Quintillian, Aurelian,
Probus and Diocletian were all born and served as military leaders. However, Italy could still
produce emperors, as shown by the subject of this case study, Gallienus.
Gallienus as co-emperor
Gallienus and his father Valerian, with whom he shared the office of emperor between 253
and 260, were of distinguished Italian aristocratic stock.118 They immediately divided responsibility
for the empire, with Valerian going east to meet the Persian threat, and Gallienus taking the north
and west. The religious policy of the joint reign is dominated by Valerian's persecutions of
Christians, which were decreed in 257 and 258. As discussed earlier, persecution of Christians was
primarily motivated by a desire to purify the empire, and through ending insults towards them, once
again put Rome in the favour of the gods.119 Valerian's attacks were milder than those of Decius
two years earlier, as punishment was primarily exile or confiscation of property, and there was a
greater reluctance to create martyrs. For example, in Numidia, the governor sentenced Christians
to the mines if they refused to sacrifice, rather than having them executed.120 Valerian focussed his
persecution on the church hierarchy the priests, deacons and bishops as well as high-class
115 Watson 1999: 5.
116 Drinkwater 2005: 35.
117 Todd 2005: 445-6.
118 Drinkwater 2005: 41.
119 See above, chapter 2.
22

laity, rather than requiring every person in the empire to sacrifice, as Decius had done.121 This
focus shows how important the religion of the aristocracy still was for the government of Rome,
and that it remained this class that predominantly summed up Roman religion, despite the
centuries that had passed since Cicero's time.122 There was never a period of Roman history when
there was not pressure on members of the senatorial aristocracy to conform to traditional religious
practices, and their community image was built around the idea of 'true Roman-ness.'123 This
excluded any excess or deviation in religion, as it was the senators who occupied the offices and
priesthoods that were entrusted with carrying out the ritual practices that pleased the gods.124
Naturally, the Christians saw the persecution as a terrible attack on their faith, and
described Valerian as a wicked and crippled creature, who would surely be the target of God's
wrath.125 What part Gallienus had in the decrees of his father, we do not know, but it is unlikely that
he would have opposed or hindered them in the parts of the empire under his control. The
persecutions continued for three years, until Valerian was captured by the Persians in 260, and
Gallienus became sole ruler of Rome.
Gallienus and the Christians
When emperor with his father, Gallienus was always considered the junior partner, and so
this case study will focus on the eight years of his sole rule, from which we can be more sure that
the policies and measures enacted were from either himself or his own administration, not that of
Valerian.126 Whatever his opinions on the persecution of Christians while Valerian was emperor,
Gallienus put and end to it almost as soon as his father had been taken captive in 260.127 Some
Christians portrayed this as being done through Gallienus' fear of their God, who had displayed his
displeasure at the persecutions by allowing Valerian to be captured, as well as through the
increased barbarian invasions of the empire.128 This is most likely an inaccurate assessment, as
there is no evidence to suggest that Gallienus ever acknowledged the Christian God. It is more
likely that he ended the persecutions because of a realisation that they were ineffective, and that
violence alone was not the answer to the Christian issue.129 Gallienus was hailed as a bringer of
120 Brauer 1975: 111-9. Working in the mines could be a death sentence in itself, as the conditions were
incredibly dangerous.
121 Brauer 1975: 111-3.
122 Lane Fox 1986: 551.
123 Beard, North and Price 1998: 229-30.
124 Gordon 1990: 204-5.
125 Eus. H.E. 7.10.
126 All coins referenced in this chapter are from the Gallienus: Sole Reign section of RIC 5.1 unless stated.
127 Jerome Chron. ad. Ann. 259.6.
128 Orosius Hist. Adv. Pag. 7.22.
129 Brauer 1975: 139.
23

peace by Bishop Dionysius, who used Messianic quotes from Isaiah to describe the new youth and
light that rejuvenated the empire.130 Considering that these words come from a letter intended for
an entirely Christian audience, we can appreciate the feelings of relief and renewed loyalty within
the Christian community after the end of the persecutions. Christians once again prayed for the
continuation of the state and the safety of the emperor, as they had done in previous times.131
'New Age' propaganda
The hope for the dawning of a new, peaceful age that we can detect in Christian literature
from the beginning of Gallienus' sole reign was mirrored and amplified in the official religious
imagery used on coinage. It was imperative for Gallienus to distance himself from the catastrophic
circumstances surrounding his father's humiliating capture, and reassure the Roman people that
he had not inherited Valerian's misfortune. Ending the persecutions fits into a portrayal of the
emperor as a man of peace, not only because it stopped the suffering of Christians, but also
because it removed a source of strife and disorder from within the empire. 132
Gallienus was one of a small group of emperors in the third century who had genuine
familial claims to the throne, but after Valerian's capture in Persia it would have not been wise to
emphasise them. Instead, he celebrated his maternal connections to Falerii (in Etruria) by issuing
coins bearing the legend VIRTVS FALERI,133 and made use of ancient New Age imagery with coins
depicting Janus, the traditional Roman god of transitions and new beginnings.134 Gallienus also
brought back the image of direct investiture of power by Jupiter onto Roman coinage, which had
last been used by Septimius Severus. By claiming that his power came directly from Jupiter,
Gallienus was side-stepping his father's infamy.135 He also reached back into Roman history, and
set up Augustus as the model emperor for his reign. DEO AVGUSTO appeared on his coinage,136
and there was a prominent place for Venus, the divine mother of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, 137 and
Apollo, who were Augustus' patron gods. Augustus was a powerful tool in the image of a peaceful
ruler, as shall be discussed further in the case study of Aurelian.138
Invasions into the empire made the first years in power difficult for Gallienus, but his
energetic travelling across the Roman world to ensure the defence of his realm contradicts the

130 Eus. H.E. 7.23.2-4.

131 Tert. Apol. 31-2.
132 De Blois 1976: 183.
133 RIC 596; Manders 2012: 178.
134 RIC 45. The coins bears the legend IANO PATRI, further dissociating Gallienus from his captive father.
135 Fears 1981: 115-6.
136 RIC 9, 28 (figure 3).
137 RIC 288-9.
138 Below, chapter 5.
24

negative image put across in the Historia Augusta.139 It was crucial that he could depend on the
loyal support of the legions during these years, and coins were issued with legends praising the
FIDES MILITVM, and others depicting Mars, the god of war.140 It was not until 265-6, when the
Goths had been successfully beaten back and the Persians had been defeated by Odenathus in
Palmyra, that Gallienus could fully utilise his victory and peace propaganda, and it is this period
when it is most intense.141 Depictions of Pax on coins, as well as the legend PAX AVG, were
incredibly common from these years, as were Victoria and Mars the Pacifier.142 As with many of his
predecessors, Gallienus made sure to emphasise that it was his pietas that resulted in his
successes, and therefore his ability to usher in this new age of peace.143 He not only appeared as
the earthly emperor paying the proper dues to the gods, but also in the guise of deities such as
Hercules and Mars. These martial and heroic depictions portrayed Gallienus as the divine saviour
of the empire, who would lead it into a new golden age of peace and prosperity.144 It also linked
back to the images of previous emperors, especially Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, under whom
Hercules had been particularly popular.
Conservator Augusti and the 'animal series'
We have seen that Gallienus used Mars, Jupiter, and Hercules on his coins, but these were
not the only divine figures to be used by the emperor. In fact, Gallienus is alone in the sheer
number of gods who are given the title Conservator on his imperial coinage. The majority of these
are part of the so-called 'animal series', which features the animal representations of Apollo, Diana,
Hercules, Jupiter, Juno, Liber Pater, Mercury, Neptune and Sol.145 On top of the 'animal series'
coins, Aesculapius and Mars also feature as Conservatores Augusti, taking Gallienus' total to
eleven: a huge variation from previous emperors, who almost all reserved the title for Jupiter
alone.146 There are still some precedents for the series however, as Titus issued a series honouring
various gods after the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79, and Philip I issued coins depicting various

139 Brauer 1975: 78.

140 FIDES MILITVM RIC 10-3, 38-41, 102, 192a, 366-7, 416-7; Mars 56-8, 90, 112, 131-2, 134, 151,
196 etc. Gallienus was also represented as Mars RIC 89.
141 De Blois 1976: 124.
142 Pax and PAX AVG RIC 14; Victoria RIC 80-7; MARS PACIFERO RIC 56.
143 PIETAS AVG RIC 261-4; Gallienus sacrificing RIC 4, 153. Gallienus as CONSERVAT(or) PIETAT(is)
RIC 171.
144 De Blois 1976: 125.
145 Animal series coins: Apollo RIC 163-7; Diana RIC 176-83; Hercules RIC 201-2; Jupiter RIC 207;
Juno RIC 222; Liber Pater RIC 229-30; Mercury RIC 242; Neptune RIC 244-6; Sol RIC 282-5.
146 Weigel 1990: 135-6. The only exception to this is Elagabalus, who extended the title Conservator
Augusti to the god Elagabal (RIC Elagabalus 61).
25

exotic animals after he celebrated the Secular Games.147 The latter example may well have been a
direct influence on Gallienus, whose series included tigers, panthers, lions, wild boars and
antelopes, as well as mythical creatures such as winged horses, gryphons, hippocamps and
capricorns.
De Blois put forward the theory that the 'animal series' was an attempt to strengthen
Gallienus' position among the troops,148 but this has been challenged by Weigel, who convincingly
proposes a more likely motive behind the coins. The choice of gods was made based on their
proven history of aiding Rome in times of need, as well as their strong connections to Sibylline
prophecies and games which entertained the plebeians.149 Gallienus' reign came at an incredibly
difficult time for the Roman empire, and therefore an explicit plea to gods who had aided Rome
since the republic makes a great deal of sense. The gods on display are all ancient and traditional,
and combined with the other deities Gallienus depicted on his coins Vesta, Venus, Hercules,
Mars, Aesculapius, Romulus and Remus and the Genius populi Romani cover almost the entire
Roman pantheon.150
His wide and varied calls for aid to the gods make Gallienus' coinage some of the most
original from the third century, when the increased quantities needed to pay the army led to an
overall decline in the quality of iconographic design on imperial coins.151 The overt reliance on
traditional motifs show that it was still to the ancient gods of Rome that the state turned in times of
crisis, and Gallienus was no exception. Although we have none of the ritual evidence that exists
from the reign of Severus Alexander the Arval Brethren had stopped recording in 240, under
Gordian III what we can deduce from his coinage leads us to assume that the traditional religion
of Rome must have continued under Gallienus with all its polytheistic character in tact.
Philosophy and Philhellenism
There have been suggestions that Gallienus set in motion a trend towards solar mono- or
henotheism, under the influence of the philosophers Plotinus and Porphyry.152 The philosophical
school that they promoted neoplatonism saw all the various gods of the Roman world
(excluding that of the Christians) as emanations from the One. In the fourth and fifth centuries,
Macrobius and the emperor Julian would use the writings of Porphyry and Plotinus as a rallying call
for pagans to unite under the banner of the Unconquered Sun God, in an ultimately unsuccessful
attempt to create a pagan church to compete with Christianity.153 However, there is no indication
147 Weigel 1990: 140.
148 De Blois 1976: 161.
149 Weigel 1990: 143.
150 ibid: 142.
151 Bland 2012: 531-2.
152 For an outlining of the history of this point in scholarship, see De Blois 1976: 167-9.
153 Macrobius 17.2; Julian Hymn to King Helios.
26

that this philosophy had any impact on the religious policies of Gallienus. Neither of the
neoplatonist philosophers were in sufficiently close contact with the emperor to influence his
thought, although they were active in Rome in the 260s.154 It is true that Sol has a greater
prominence in the iconographic programme of Gallienus than under any previous emperor
excluding Elagabalus but there is no substantial difference between the symbolism used by
Gallienus and that of the traditional Sol, which suggests no new concept of the deity.155 Sol is
depicted in the traditional manner: with a radiate crown, holding a whip and/or a globe, and riding a
quadriga. This iconography was well established by at least the second century,156 and remained
unchanged throughout the third, as will be discussed in the case study of Aurelian.
The lack of evidence for the influence of neoplatonism is backed up by a consideration of
the purpose of images on coins. As they were circulated throughout the empire, and would be
viewed by a large range of people, the iconographic messages had to have wide appeal, or at least
be understood by the majority. This gave rise to the trend in the imperial period towards
standardised and easily understood images, and away from more nuanced and complicated ones
that had appeared earlier in Roman history.157 In the Roman world, philosophy was the preserve of
the literate minority, and therefore depicting the beliefs of neoplatonists on coinage would not have
been suitable when attempting to communicate messages to the masses.158
Philosophical discussions and theological speculation had had little effect on Roman public
religion over the centuries, and ritual systems continued irrespective of the contemporary fashions
in philosophy.159 Therefore there is no reason to think that, even if there was some otherwise
undetected influence of neoplatonism on Gallienus, that it would have affected his policies
regarding the ritual aspects of Roman religion that are unrecorded from his reign.
Although he may not have made use of Greek philosophy in his religious policy, Gallienus
certainly had a well-developed relationship with other aspects of Greek religion and culture. He
was initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries, putting him in the company of Augustus, Hadrian
Antoninus Pius, Lucius Verus, Marcus Aurelius, and Commodus, who had all undergone these
rituals.160 He was therefore the first emperor in over a century to be initiated at Eleusis, and no
doubt did so to claim a revival of ancestral traditions. Philhellenism is a strong characteristic of
many of the emperors with whom he linked himself, especially Hadrian. Like Hadrian, Gallienus
was made Archon at Athens and on various occasions identified himself with Zeus Panhellenios.161
154 Brauer 1975: 160.
155 De Blois 1976: 166-8.
156 Hijmans 1996b: 133.
157 Howgego 1995: 75.
158 De Blois 1976: 169.
159 Gradel 2002: 24-5.
160 De Blois 1976: 146.
161 ibid: 131-2.
27

The use of Hadrian as a model for Gallienus' reign is another facet of his peace propaganda, much
like the Augustan connections already mentioned.
He revived the policies of other emperors too, including the Severi, who were the last rulers
before Gallienus to have statues erected at Delphi and to give tax breaks to victorious athletes.162
Under Gallienus, as well as his father Valerian, there was a last flourishing of the imperial cult in
Asia Minor.163 Although no new temples were built for these emperors, there were festivals
celebrated in their honour at Antioch and Nicaea. In total, 28 different cities minted coins
celebrating the staging of various religious festivals during Gallienus' reign, considerably more than
any other emperor in the late-second or third century.164 This included traditional Roman festivals
including Capitolia at Heliopolis and Aphrodisias,165 and was part of the official promotion of GrecoRoman culture evident in his other actions.
If the crisis of the third century was a storm that battered the Roman empire, then the eightyear sole reign of Gallienus can be seen as its eye. The most intense barbarian invasions
occurred, two large parts of the empire broke away, and a variety of men challenged Gallienus for
the throne. The inflation and debasement of the coinage continued to ravage the economy, making
it increasingly hard to pay for the defence of the realm. All of this, topped off by poor harvests and
natural disasters, made the Romans wonder if the gods had abandoned their empire. After the
capture of his father, Gallienus' reign was not given the best start in this respect, and he made
every effort to distance himself from this infamy. By championing Augustus and Hadrian as his role
models, both of whom were worshipped as gods, Gallienus realigned his ancestry onto more
illustrious forebears, as well as concentrating on his mother's noble family tree. Much like
Alexander Severus, Gallienus revoked unpopular religious policies enacted by his predecessor, in
this case Valerian's persecution of the Christians. This brought the nascent church onto the
emperor's side, as evident in the letters of Bishop Dionysius.
Desperate times called for a drastic action, and Gallienus' coinage shows the lengths to
which the Roman state was willing to go in order to regain divine favour and end the problems it
faced. Eleven different gods were proclaimed as Conservator Augusti, and the emperor himself
was likened to saviour figures such as Hercules. Gods were chosen on the strength of their
established traditional history of coming to the aid of Rome when called, and their links to
entertainments for the people. Away from the city too, festivals and celebrations were promoted, in
a programme of revival in the Greek east. Gallienus was initiated at Eleusis and patronised Delphi,
both sites renowned as places to gain help from the gods.
162 De Blois 1976: 146.
163 Price 1984: 59.
164 Karl 1975: 27-8.
165 ibid: 72.
28

Gallienus used his revival of traditional religion and his wide patronage of different gods and
sacred sites as a justification for his rule. It was to be a new, peaceful golden age for Rome in
which the old gods would protect the empire and ensure its success as they had done in previous
centuries. The intentions behind his policies meant that the neoplatonism of Plotinus and Porphyry,
which blossomed in Rome during his reign, had little relevance to the goals he was trying to
achieve. There was no point promoting beliefs only held by a few members of the literate elite
when attempting to ensure the loyalty and peace of a geographically, economically and socially
diverse empire.
Despite his best efforts, Gallienus was unable to fully get to grips with the issues facing the
empire. In the already established trend of the third century he was murdered on campaign in a
military coup, the result of which put Claudius II on the throne in his place. The emperor was
supposed to be a divine saviour of the empire, and his lack of success made him a scapegoat for
the troubles. As discussed above, the army and people could and did easily change allegiances to
other men who they perceived as more fit to rule, and Gallienus fell victim to this. His memory was
tarnished and his character dragged through the mud, facing accusations of non-traditional
behaviours and beliefs.166 This chapter has gone some way towards rehabilitating our view of
Gallienus' attitudes regarding traditional religion, in that it is clear that he valued it as much, if not
more, than many other third century soldier-emperors.

166 Drinkwater 2005: 47.

29

Case Study 3 Aurelian: the Sun-Emperor

In the two years between the death of Gallienus in 268 and the seizing of power by Aurelian
in 270, the empire remained in the hands of military generals proclaimed emperor by their soldiers.
Claudius II and, after his death from plague, his brother Quintillus, had led cavalry battalions but
were unable to use their military experience to unite an ever more fractured empire. In the west,
Postumus still controlled the Gallic Empire separately from Rome, and Vaballathus and Zenobia
had broken away in Palmyra. As had happened many times before, the legions under another
leader, this time Aurelian, declared their own general emperor, and the troops previously loyal to
Quintillus had him murdered before switching sides to Aurelian.
Although his reign was to be considerably shorter than those of the other two emperors I
have discussed in this dissertation, Aurelian's influence on Roman religion is arguably much
greater. His policies regarding Sol, his patron god, have dominated scholarship on third-century
religion for a hundred years, and as a result cannot be ignored. There has been a strong current in
scholarship that sees Aurelian as the promoter of a foreign god, Sol Invictus, who was totally
different from the indigenous sun god of Rome and had supplanted this deity some time in the
second century. Under a succession of emperors, especially Elagabalus and Aurelian, Sol Invictus
conquered the Roman pantheon, neatly encapsulating the fall into eastern-influenced decadence
that scholars in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries saw as the overarching narrative
of later Roman history.167 More recent studies of sun worship in Rome have begun to debunk these
opinions, predominantly through a close examination of solar iconography on statues, inscriptions
and coinage throughout the whole Roman period. These show that it is incorrect to label Aurelian's
Sol as an eastern deity, and that the god he promoted was the indigenous sun god that had been
worshipped in Rome since the republic.168 If we accept that this is true, it is worth briefly examining
the position of sun worship in Rome before Aurelian, so that his reforms can be seen in their
historical context.
Sol before Aurelian which god(s)?
The first issue we must face when considering sun worship in Rome is the problem of
exactly which god we are looking at. Confusion on this point has been one of the greatest reasons
for the misidentification of Aurelian's Sol as an eastern god. To the supposedly distinct gods Sol
Indiges and Sol Invictus we can add Mithras and Elagabal, both of whom appear as Sol Invictus

167 This argument is promoted by the central study of Roman sun worship of the twentieth century,
Halsberghe 1972. This book brings together an incredible wealth of source material, but its core
arguments have since been convincingly disproved, especially by Hijmans 2009.
168 Hijmans 2009: 621.
30

on Roman inscriptions, as well as Syrian Ba'alim169 such as Jupiter Heliopolitanus who have been
given solar connections by various scholars over the years. In accepting Hijmans' conclusions that
there is no distinction between Sol Indiges and Sol Invictus we can remove that particular question,
and I have covered Elagabal in detail earlier. That deity was usually represented as a conical stone
and an eagle, not in the standard way that Romans depicted Sol ie as a young, radiate male
either standing or driving a quadriga, and holding a whip and/or globe.170 Elagabal was clearly a
separate deity from Sol, and there is no reason to think that he had any presence in Rome before
the reign of Elagabalus, nor that Aurelian would reintroduce him in the 270s.171
The other Syrian Ba'alim, as well as Mithras, can be dismissed in a restatement of the
purpose of this dissertation. Neither Mithras nor Syrian gods like Jupiter Heliopolitanus ever
received any central state funding or sponsorship in Rome. They never feature in the records of
the Arval Brethren or any of the state fasti that survive to us, nor are they ever represented on
imperial coinage minted in Rome. Despite a vast and healthy scholarly tradition, especially in the
study of Mithraism, they fall outside the remit of a dissertation focussed on state religion in the third
century. There is no evidence that the Sol worshipped as part of the state calendar from at least
the early first century AD172 had any connection to Mithras, as even Halsberghe notes.173 Although
Mithras was incredibly popular among soldiers stationed across the whole Roman empire, the
evidence from Dura Europos that has already been examined shows that this popularity had no
influence on the official calendar distributed to the army.174 The evidence suggests that Sol as
worshipped by the state should not be confused with Mithras, Elagabal or any eastern deity, and as
a result these gods will not be considered here.
Sol before Aurelian temples, festivals and priests
From the evidence available to us, there seem to have been at least three temples
dedicated to Sol in the early empire, two of which were likely older.
Probably the oldest was the joint temple of Sol and Luna in the Circus Maximus, which
some scholars have traced back even as far as the time of the Etruscan kings.175 It was considered
old by Tacitus, and appears to have been represented on a coin of Mark Anthony, making it late-

169 Ba'alim (singluar Ba'al) were storm gods originating in North Syria and Asia Minor, usually identified with
Zeus/Jupiter. For more information see Seyrig 1971.
170 Hijmans 1996b: 127.
171 Hijmans 1996a: 84.
172 On the Fasti Vallenses in Degrassi 1963: 149.
173 Halsberghe 1972: 117.
174 Beard, North and Price 1998: 325.
175 Humphrey 1986: 92.
31

republican at the very earliest.176 Coins issued under Trajan and Caracalla177 depict the temple in
the cavea on the slopes of the Aventine, and although this has yet to be confirmed by archaeology,
Tertullian's description of the temple as being surmounted by a statue of Sol and located on the
finish line in the circus makes this location likely.178 The connection between the temple and the
finish line of the race track, as well as its use as a winner's podium led Tertullian to claim that the
whole structure was chiefly dedicated to the sun, and the obelisk erected by Augustus on the spina
would have added to this.179 The temple is mentioned in the Fasti Praenestini (dated between AD
6-9) and the calendar of 354, in the entries for the 28th August, which seems to have been the main
festival dedicated to Sol and Luna.180
From elsewhere in the Fasti we know of another temple to Sol, this time on the Quirinal,
where celebrations were held on August 8th or 9th from as early as AD 7.181 Unfortunately very little
else is known about this temple, including its exact location and design. There is a brief mention of
the structure by Quintillian, who uses the term pulvinar.182 Usually this refers to a couch set up for a
god, for example the one reserved for Jupiter at certain state banquets.183 The site must have fallen
out of use by the fourth century, as there is no mention of it on the calendar of 354.
As well as these two temples, there may have been another across the river in Trastevere.
It is only attested through inscriptions, but appears to have been located somewhere close to the
Porta Portese.184 The age of the structure is unknown, but as it required restoration in AD 102 it is
likely to have been built a number of decades before this.185 On this occasion the temple was
restored through the agency of an otherwise unattested man named C. Iulius Anicetus, who is also
named in two other inscriptions relating to the upkeep of the temple.186 Both he and another man,
Q. Octavius Daphnicus,187 sought the approval of the kalatores junior assistants to the pontifices
when renovating or adding to the structure, leading Hijmans to conclude that there were firm links
between central public cult and the Trastevere shrine.188
As well as the temples and festivals, we know comparatively little about the priests of Sol
176 Tac. Ann. 15.74.1; coin of Anthony RSC Anthony 12.
177 Trajan RIC 571; Caracalla RIC 500a.
178 Tert. De Spec. 8.1.
179 Ibid: 8.1; obelisk inscription showing dedication to Sol CIL 6.701.
180 Degrassi 1963; 135, 253.
181 ibid: 149.
182 Quintillian Inst. 1.7.12.
183 Livy 5.52.6.
184 Nonnis 2008: 97.
185 Inscription commemorating the restoration CIL 6.31034.
186 CIL 6.52, 709.
187 Dedication of an altar in his name CIL 6.712.
188 Hijmans 2009: 488.
32

before Aurelian's reforms. There are at least three sacerdotes Solis attested on inscriptions, and
they seem to be from less than illustrious backgrounds.189 None of them date to before the second
century, and we have no idea where the office was based in the city, but considering the ages of
the temples of Sol it is likely that the priesthood existed before the first dated office-holder.
When all the evidence for cult activity surrounding Sol in Rome before Aurelian is
considered, the impression we get is fairly low-key. The temples are not large or impressive and
the priesthood lacks the prestige given to other cults. When the state cult became directly involved
it was through junior officials such as the kalatores. When we come to examine Aurelian's reform of
the cult of Sol in the 270s it should be done with this background in mind.
Sol featured on imperial coinage under various emperors from Vespasian onwards,190 and
received dedications in the form of monuments from the likes of Nero and Augustus.191 His
involvement in earlier imperial image-construction and propaganda is complex, and as a result will
be dealt with when discussing its usage by Aurelian to draw comparisons to earlier reigns, and to
show that little of what Aurelian did was original, but rather adhered to already established
traditions.
Aurelian: Restorer of the World
The Historia Augusta relates that during his final battle against Zenobia, Aurelian and his
troops were saved from disaster by some divine force that the emperor later recognised as Sol
when visiting the temple of Elagabal in Emesa.192 The emperor took up the sun god as his divine
sponsor, and the literary sources for this are backed up by a study of his coinage. In the first years
of his reign, the iconography of Aurelian's coinage is fairly standard, frequently honouring Jupiter
Conservator, Venus, and Mars.193 Jupiter is the primary divine sponsor of his early reign, and is
shown handing Aurelian the globe, using an image that had been common since the early second
century.194 His pietas is emphasised with a common depiction of the emperor sacrificing at an altar
in traditional dress.195 Much like Severus Alexander and Gallienus, Aurelian needed the army on his
side through the battles of his early reign, and used his predecessors' methods of issuing coins
with pro-legion legends such as CONCORDIA MILITVM and FIDES MILITVM.196
After his victory over Zenobia under the divine aid of Sol, Aurelian switches to almost
exclusively representing Sol as his divine sponsor. This was a sudden and dramatic change, and
189 CIL 6.590, 1358, AE 1960.365. Only one is a senator, M. Aurelius Victor (CIL 6.1358).
190 Hijmans 1996b: 135.
191 In these cases the Colossus of Nero and the two Augustan obelisks.
192 S.H.A. Aur. 25.3-6.
193 RIC 129, 70, 15.
194 Aurelian and Jupiter - RIC 48, 129, 174, 225-8; the image was first used under Hadrian RIC 534.
195 RIC 138.
196 CONCORDIA MILITVM RIC 59; FIDES MILITVM RIC 28
33

the dissemination of the new imagery can even be detected emanating from where Aurelian was
stationed in Palmyra out to the other mints, from east to west.197 The battle-changing event may
have even been commemorated on an issue depicting Sol without rays, suggesting that it was an
eclipse which boosted the soldier's moral.198 Further victories over the Goths, as well as the
reintegration of the Gallic empire, reinforced Aurelian's use of victory imagery, and his coins
proclaimed him as RESTITVTOR ORBIS restorer of the world.199 This claim was not empty
bragging; for the first time since the break away of Postumus in Gaul in 260 the Roman empire
was whole again, united under one emperor. His power and authority were linked to the rising of
the sun, using the legend ORIENS AVG to give them an eternal quality.200
Sol in Rome after Aurelian the temple
Aurelian entered Rome in triumph in 274, and to celebrate the sponsor of his victories, built
a magnificent temple dedicated to the Unconquered Sun. Little detailed evidence on the structure
survives, either from literary sources or archaeology. Zosimus and Aurelius Victor mention the
building, but only to briefly comment on its opulence.201 Its location is only known from the
Regionary Catalogues and the Chronographer of 354, who place it near to the Campus Agrippae in
Regio VII.202 Since the late 19th century, scholars have used a plan drawn by the Renaissance
architect Andrea Palladio as a reconstruction of the temple, owing to Palladio's annotations
locating the planned buildings on the Via Flaminia near to the Arco di Portogallo, and also the
former site of the Campus Agrippae, which we know was nearby.203 The few archaeological
remains from the site support an east-west alignment of the building, not north-south as originally
proposed by Hlsen, a conclusion backed up by a series of other Renaissance maps of Rome.204
Palladio and the other Renaissance artists all drew either round or square buildings inside
the enclosures on their plans, and this had led to a debate among modern scholars around the
exact nature of the temple cella. Historians such as Moneti have suggested that Palladio and his
contemporaries would not have invented these, but were forced to embellish scant remains with
their own observations from other buildings, whereas others, including Torelli, have dismissed them
as pure fantasy.205 The wide variety of designs used on the plans, along with the confused and
197 Watson 1999: 189.
198 Pedroni 2011: 118-9.
199 RIC 287-306.
200 RIC 61-5.
201 Zos. 1.61; Aur. Vict. 35.7.
202 Valentini and Zucchetti 1940: 111, 278-9.
203 Palladio's plan is in Zorzi 1959 no. 68 (figure 4 below). This site as a location for the temple of Sol was
first proposed by Hlsen (1895: 55), and has been accepted by the majority of scholars ever since.
204 Torelli 1992: 112.
205 Moneti 1992: 12; Torelli 1992: 114.
34

contradictory names given to the various structures included on them seem to suggest that the
Renaissance artists did not have a clear idea what they were drawing, which makes Torelli's
dismissal of the cella buildings a convincing argument. Either way, a cella is not strictly necessary,
as an open-air temple for Sol would conform to Vitruvius, who advises that structures dedicated to
Sol, Luna and other sky-gods be left open to their presence, to better facilitate appreciation of their
power.206 This is followed in sites such as the Circus Maximus, which was chiefly dedicated to Sol,
as discussed above. Other open-air spaces in Rome, such as Augustus' Horologium, also had
solar connections, and Aurelian's temple could easily fit into this tradition.
In locating his temple on the Via Flaminia, Aurelian reinforced the association with this
tradition, as the site is directly opposite the Horologium.207 This was a location redolent in solar
symbolism, as would have been well known in Rome, due in part to its function as a tracker of the
sun's movements.208 Although this had ceased to function before the time of Pliny the Elder,209
there is no reason to think that its original purpose had been forgotten by the third century. Even if
it had, the monument itself would have been sufficient to remind people of the site's dedication to
Sol, as the obelisk was the paramount representation of Egyptian sun worship, and the inscription
itself proclaimed Sol as the god to whom Augustus had dedicated the monument.210
As well as the Horologium, the new temple of Sol was also in close proximity to the
Augustan Ara Pacis, which formed part of Augustus' peace propaganda.211 Aurelian would have
been keen to connect to this message, as he had gained much success through war, but needed
to reassure the people that he could rule away from the battlefield too.212 By building his temple
near to this Augustan complex, Aurelian was connecting himself to the first emperor, and
confidently asserting his claim to have caused the dawn of a new era of peace for the empire, as
his power rose with the sun.
By drawing parallels to Augustus, Aurelian successfully presented his reform of the cult of
Sol in traditional terms. He closely followed the example of Augustus, who had built a magnificent
new temple to Apollo and instigated games in honour of the god who had helped him win at Actium
in 31 BC. By celebrating his own victory over a rebellious eastern queen in similar ways to
Augustus, he sought to allay fears among Romans that he was supplanting the traditional order
with his new cult. In this way he showed that elevating a god with the power to aid Roman victories
could not be more traditional, and through the priesthood and games that Aurelian put in place, he
brought his god to the whole city.
206 Vitr., de Arch. 1.2.5.
207 See figure 5.
208 Heslin 2007: 4.
209 Plin. NH 36.72-3.
210 Humphrey 1986: 269, CIL 6.702.
211 Zanker 1988: 144.
212 Berrens 2004: 116.
35

Sol in Rome after Aurelian the senate and people

The involvement of the senatorial aristocracy in state religion at Rome had continued into
the imperial period despite the reduction of the senate's political power. Senators occupied all of
the major priesthoods, and in the third century some offices became increasingly accumulated and
inherited within certain families.213 When he elevated Sol to his prominent position as imperial
conservator, Aurelian promoted senatorial involvement by adding another priesthood over which
they could compete. The Pontifices Solis were a markedly different group of men than those who
had been sacerdotes Solis before 274, with a considerable number of senators, and even some
famous names such as Vettius Agorius Praetextatus and Memmius Vitrasius Orfitus.214 Many of the
men who occupied the pontificate went on to be Urban Prefect, Consul or both, and the priesthood
was an important and prestigious step onto higher career goals. No doubt the imperial source of
the priesthood added to its distinction, and by taking no special title himself, Aurelian improved his
image as a preserver of traditional religion. His authority over the cult of Sol was incorporated into
his role as Pontifex Maximus, consciously distancing himself from the last emperor to promote a
sun god, Elagabalus, who had valued his title of sacerdos amplissimus Dei Solis Elagabali before
his traditional titles.215
There is another facet of the Augustan connections here, in the form of the position of the
temple near to the Horologium. Augustus had erected the obelisk in the Campus Martius as a
declaration of his power over the Roman calendar as Pontifex Maximus, and the fulfilment of his
duty to ensure that religion was properly enacted.216 As the latest occupier of Augustus' highpriesthood, Aurelian located his temple next to this monument, and thereby showed his
commitment to preserving Rome's traditions, and keeping the city and empire in the good graces
of the gods.
The city of Rome was not just the senate, but also the people lower down the social ladder.
Aurelian gained their support by linking the cult of Sol to the traditional, and somewhat clichd,
mantra of previous emperors: panem et circenses.217 The temple of Sol on the Via Flaminia
became the centre for new doles of wine and pork, as epigraphic and literary evidence attests.218
Palmer suggests that new ports were required on the Tiber to deal with the sheer volume of wine
and pork, showing that it was no small gesture.219 It is possible that the administration of food doles
from the temple was the inspiration for the unusual design of two quadriporticoes, with the smaller
213 Cameron 1999: 110.
214 Praetextatus CIL 6.1774; Orfitus CIL 6.1739.
215 Halsberghe 1972: 147-8.
216 Heslin 2007: 6.
217 Originally from Juvenal Satires 10.81.
218 CIL 6.1785, Aur. Vict 35.9.
219 Palmer 1990: 52-5.
36

one reserved for food distribution, and sacred functions being carried out through the joining room
in the larger enclosure.
Aurelian created a new quadrennial celebration of Sol in the Circus Maximus, further
demonstrating to the Roman people how valuable the sun god was to their continued safety and
happiness. On the calendar of 354 the Ludi Solis were spread over four days, and culminated in 36
races on the last day, the most for any festival on the calendar for that year.220 Their location in the
Circus Maximus cannot be doubted, as races on this scale could not have been hosted anywhere
else in the city. The solar symbolism of this structure has already been discussed, and as the
chariots raced around Augustus' obelisk dedicated to Sol, the connections between Aurelian's cult
of Sol and the traditions of Rome cannot have escaped the spectators.
Symbolism and Sol
The sun god was a convenient deity to come to Aurelian's aid in the battle against Zenobia,
as espousing him allowed Aurelian to tap into many favourable veins of symbolism that already
existed in Rome, and could now be exploited to their full. As the victorious charioteer, Sol had
presided over the Circus Maximus for centuries with his temple forming the finish line and winner's
podium, and this arrangement became the norm to be copied elsewhere.221 The inclusion of an
obelisk was also a pattern to be exported and emulated across the empire, for example at Tyre,
Antioch and Arles, and this further reinforced the connections between Sol and victory in contests
and conflicts.222
Paired with Luna, as he was in the temple in the Circus, Sol had been part of the imagery of
Aeternitas since at least the time of Vespasian.223 The divine pair symbolised the eternal stability of
the cosmos, despite fluctuations and temporary patches of bad fortune.224 The Flavian remodelling
of Nero's Colossus may have formed part of the genesis of this iconography later, Hadrian
apparently intended to create a matching statue of Luna225 and if so the monument itself formed
a suitably long-lasting reminder of Sol's eternal character to the city's people up to the time of
Aurelian and beyond. In many frescoes and sculptures, Sol and Luna form flanking figures,
unrelated to the central image, but creating the impression of the eternal ebb and flow of time.226
The attributes that define images of Sol, especially the radiate crown, globe and quadriga,
were already standard parts of imperial iconography by the time of Aurelian, and so the images of
220 Degrassi 1963: 253. For an in-depth examination of the games of Sol on the calendar of 354 see
Hijmans 2009: 583-92.
221 For example the Circus of Maxentius on the Via Appia (Humphrey 1986: 598).
222 ibid: 269.
223 LIMC Aeternitas 2-10, 16-24, 26.
224 Hijmans 2009: 607-8.
225 S.H.A. Had. 19.12-3 (with the usual reservations about the reliability of the Historia Augusta).
226 Hijmans 1996b: 143.
37

Sol that were to adorn his coins would not have been unfamiliar to the people who used them. The
radiate crown had appeared on the silver coinage of every emperor since Caracalla,227 and divine
investiture imagery, symbolised in the transfer of the globe from a god (usually Jupiter) to the
emperor were common since Hadrian, as we have seen.228 Tertullian says that the quadriga was
consecrated to Sol,229 but we must be careful not to unthinkingly assume that all four-horse
chariots are driven by the sun god, as we need a combination of elements to be sure of
identification.230 Where emperors have taken one or more of the sun god's attributes we can see an
attempt to echo Sol, and allude to his associated ideas of eternal victory and order, without
explicitly identifying themselves as Sol.231 Septimus Severus and his wife, Julia Domna, were
represented on coins with radiate and lunate crowns respectively, not to specifically identify
themselves as Sol and Luna, but more to allude to the eternal symbolism attached to the attributes
of the divine pair.232 Although built after the period under study, the Arch of Constantine provides an
excellent example of the variety of ways in which Sol could be used for symbolic meanings, as he
appears as a flanking figure with Luna, symbolising eternity, as a divine companion of the emperor,
and alone as an individual god all on the same monument.233
Aurelian's religious policy was dominated by the adoption of Sol as a divine sponsor. Before
this action his iconography on coins suggests that he was happy to use standard images of the
traditional gods and his own pietas. After Sol's aid in Aurelian's capitulation of the Palmyran
Empire, there is a dramatic shift to solar themes on his coinage. With Sol as his companion,
Aurelian continued to be victorious over his enemies, and celebrated a triumph in 274. Although
Jupiter and the other old gods of Rome disappeared from his coin issues, Aurelian's reforms can
still be seen as adhering to established traditions. The very methods Aurelian used to elevate Sol
within the Roman pantheon closely echoed the actions Augustus had taken when promoting Apollo
after his victory at Actium, and the Augustan parallels were reinforced by locating the new temple
of Sol near to Augustus' Horologium and Ara Pacis. The sun god Aurelian promoted was
thoroughly Roman, sharing no iconography with any Syrian deity that he may have encountered on
campaign. Through the long-standing associations of the Roman sun god with victory in the circus
and eternity in art, as well as imperial propaganda, Aurelian's god carried the perfect messages for
an emperor whose rule came around 50 years since the last period of relative stability in the
Roman world.
227 Watson 1999: 189.
228 Note 191 above
229 Tert. De Spect. 9.3.
230 Hijmans 1996b: 130.
231 ibid: 147-8.
232 The coin was issued by Caracalla and bears the legend CONCORDIAE AETERNAE (figure 6).
233 Hijmans 1996b: 144.
38

Aurelian's reign is generally seen as the beginning of the end for the 'crisis of the third
century,' as he is the first of the soldier emperors to get a proper handle on the issues that befell
the empire. The Gallic and Palmyran empires were reintegrated, and his monetary reform went
some way to stabilising the fragile economy.234 After his death in 275, there would be another
decade of short-lived emperors proclaimed and subsequently murdered by their troops, until the
accession of Diocletian brought the 'crisis' to a conclusion. Under Diocletian and his successors,
up to the conversion of Constantine to Christianity, Sol was the joint second god most often
represented on imperial images, with Mars and behind Jupiter, showing how successfully Aurelian
had integrated his patron god into the Roman pantheon.235 The priesthoods and games that
Aurelian set up in Rome lasted well into the fourth century, coming to an end with the rest of
traditional Roman religion under Theodosius. The last Pontifex Solis was in fact Vettius Agorius
Praetextatus, one of the champions of late antique paganism, who held priesthoods in a startling
array of different cults. Fourth century paganism is a hugely different topic, and well outside the
boundaries of this dissertation, but looking at the longevity of the policies put in place by the third
century emperors under study here can tell us something of their success, and succeed they
evidently did.

234 For more on Aurelian's economic policies see Watson 1999: 125-42.
235 Hijmans 2009: 619.
39

Chapter 6 Conclusions
Included in the great praises heaped on the emperors of the early fourth century were
realisations of how severe the problems of the third century had been. Through the aid of the gods,
Diocletian, Constantine and Maximian were lauded as the divine restorers of a collapsed empire
that had been at the whims of disparate and savage men.236 There was a general belief that the
empire had suffered greatly, and that it was only through the agency of their current emperors, or in
the case of Christians, their God,237 that the situation had been improved. In Roman literature, the
theme of returning to a golden age was present in every period, but the third century stood out due
to the combination of crises and catastrophes that had occurred at the same time.238 It was
acknowledged that religion and morals had declined, but also that it was possible for an emperor to
take the initiative and return Rome to the pious order of the past.239 Christians appreciated this as
much as pagans,240 and there was always pressure on new emperors to facilitate the changes that
people wished to see in the world.241 As a result, it was important that third-century emperors be
seen to espouse the ancient traditions of Rome, especially the religious rituals that had preserved
the state in the past.
Since the days of the republic, and especially after the restructuring of state religion by
Augustus, honouring the gods in the correct manner had been a central concern of the state. In
this way, the Roman empire made sure of its successes and prosperity. The emperor had a pivotal
role in this, both in his capacity as Pontifex Maximus and as heir to the divine honours of his
ancestors. When faced with military defeats, invasions, plagues, earthquakes, economic collapse
and the other disasters that beset the empire in the third century, emperors like Severus Alexander,
Gallienus and Aurelian all turned to traditional religious policies in an attempt to secure divine
support for their rule, and to ensure the loyalty of the people. Each of them faced unique individual
issues, and responded in different ways, but similarities can be taken from their reigns and can
allow us to draw conclusions about the state of traditional Roman religion in the third century.
The need to proclaim their rule as a break with an impious or infamous predecessor was a
pressing concern for both Severus Alexander and Gallienus, after the insults of Elagabalus and the
humiliating capture of Valerian. Jupiter Ultor and Janus were employed to show that the traditional
gods were ushering in a new age of moral virtue, and that the immediate past was of no concern to
the bright new future that was unfolding for Rome. Many evidently believed the propaganda,
236 Paneg. 2 (10) 4.2; 3 (11) 5.3; 5 (9) 18.1.
237 Arnobius 2.78.
238 Alfldy 1974: 104.
239 MacMullen 1976: 26.
240 Eus. HE. 7.23.3.
241 MacMullen 1976: 26-30.
40

including Christians like Dionysius,242 and when victories were won the imagery switched to
conquering heroes and bringers of peace. Gallienus was depicted as Mars and Hercules, and
Aurelian's power was linked to the ever-rising and unconquered sun. Illustrious ancestors were
brought in to deepen the imagery, especially Augustus, who was the prince of peace par
excellence. Augustan imagery on coins as well as topographical links between old and new
buildings both connected them to the first emperor, along with implicit parallels through images of
Venus and Apollo, who had been Augustus' patron gods. Iconography that had been defined and
popularised under other imperial paradigms, such as Vespasian, Trajan and Hadrian, were revived.
This included a reliance on Jupiter as imperial protector, an affinity for Greek culture and the
emphasis on the eternal symbolism of the sun god.
The Roman state religious system was polytheistic, and would remain so until the
conversion of Constantine. Despite the popularity among the literate elite of philosophical schools
such as neoplatonism, which put forward more monotheistic interpretations of the divine world, the
actual ritual religious life of Rome changed little over time. The Arval Brethren sacrificed to the
same gods using the same language and rituals under Severus Alexander as they had when
Tiberius was emperor. At Dura Europos, the soldiers of the cohors XX Palmyrenorum observed
religious festivals from a calendar that had its origins in the early principate, and had seen little or
no change, bar the additions of deified emperors and empresses, in the following three centuries.
The gods who were honoured by the state were constant; Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Mars, Neptune,
Saturn, Vesta, Venus and Apollo. Some emperors appealed to others, most notably Gallienus, who
claimed eleven different gods and goddesses as his divine Conservatores, including Liber Pater
and Aesculapius. Unusual as this might be, the gods he chose were all traditional, and had been
worshipped at Rome since the republic. They had all come to the aid of the Romans at various
times, and therefore are sensible choices considering the catastrophes that faced the emperor.
Aurelian's promotion of Sol has been seen as a break with established Roman traditions, but this
view does not take into account the Augustan precedents, nor the iconographic similarities
between the traditional sun god of Rome and that of Aurelian's reforms. There is no question that
Jupiter remained the supreme deity of Rome after Aurelian, with Sol merely elevated to a position
more appropriate for a god who had secured the restoration of Roman rule in Gaul and the east.
There is an evident trend towards traditionalism in the religious policies of the third-century
emperors we have discussed. The traditions of Rome were a source of great strength for the
empire, especially in times of trial, and this was used to the best advantage of emperors who
needed every ounce of it to justify their claims to power. As so many of the men who claimed the
throne during the 'crisis' did so through military coups, there was immense value in portraying
themselves as champions of ancient Roman virtue. Unfortunately for minority groups such as
Christians, this came at the expense of those who were deemed un-Roman, whose beliefs were
242 Eus. HE. 7.23.3.
41

seen as potentially harmful for the empire. Rather than risk angering the gods, persecutions were
enacted under Decius and Valerian, although Gallienus deemed such violence incompatible with
his peace propaganda, and issued edicts of toleration. Even still, there was no hint of allowing such
novel religions affect the ritual life of Rome, and Christians were not fully tolerated before
Constantine.
Traditionalist policies in the running of state religion were ultimately unable to protect the
emperors from the fickle will of the army, who effectively controlled the imperial succession for
much of the third century. Adherence to the ancient rituals of Rome may have secured the reigns of
Severus Alexander, Gallienus and Aurelian for a time, but events outside the sphere of religious
policy were more decisive in deciding their fates. Military victories and reliable pay were more
pressing concerns to the legions than religious policy, and it was these factors that were more
dominant in the rise and fall of third century emperors. However, religion was still a central concern
of the government and the civilian population, and would remain so into the future, as the great
debates surrounding the transition from a pagan to a Christian empire attest. The events of the
third century are crucial in these debates, as the stress of crisis hardened the beliefs that traditional
religion was the only way to save the empire, and crystallised the state's resistance to Christianity.

42

Figures

Figure 1: Column capital found in the Forum Romanum depicting Elagabal flanked by two female
deities. Author's own photograph.

Figure 2: RIC 558. Reverse: Severus Alexander sheltered by Jupiter's thunderbolt, with the legend
IOVI CONSERVATORI. Image from http://wildwinds.com/coins/ric/severus_alexander/RIC_0558.jpg
accessed 6/9/2012.

43

Figure 3: RIC Gallienus 9. Reverse: head of Augustus with the legend DEO AVGVSTO. Image
from http://wildwinds.com/coins/ric/gallienus/RIC_0009.jpg, accessed 6/9/2012

Figure 4: Plan of the temple of Sol, drawn by Palladio. Taken from Zorzi 1959.

44

Figure 5: Map of the Northern Campus Martius from Torelli 1992, showing the Temple of Sol
(no. 8) in relation to the Horologium (no. 10) and the Ara Pacis (no. 9).

Figure 6: RIC Caracalla 52. Reverse: Septimius Severus radiate and Julia Domna lunate with the
legend CONCORDIAE AETERNAE. Image from
http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/caracalla/RIC_0052.1.jpg, accessed 6/9/2012

45

Bibliography
Abbreviations
AE L'Anne pigraphique
ANRW - Aufstieg und Niedergang der Rmischen Welt
APA American Philological Association
BullComm Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma
CAH Cambridge Ancient History
FS J. Rpke. (2008) Fasti Sacerdotum: A Prosopography of Pagan, Jewish and Christian
Religious Officials in the City of Rome, 300 BC to AD 499. Oxford
GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
LIMC - Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae
LTUR Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae
MEFRA - Mlanges de l'cole Franaise de Rome Antiquite
NC Numismatic Chronicle
PBSR Papers of the British School at Rome
RIC - H. Mattingly and E. A. Sydenham et al. (1923-94) The Roman Imperial Coinage. 10 Vols.
London.
RSC H. A. Seaby. (1952). Roman Silver Coinage. 2 vols. London
Ancient sources quoted in translation
Propertius. Elegies. Translated by G. P. Goold. (1990) Cambridge, Mass.
Virgil. The Aeneid. Translated by C. Day Lewis. (1986) Oxford
Secondary works
G. Alfldy. (1974) The Crisis of the Third Century as seen by Contemporaries. GRBS 15: 89-111
M. Beard. (1985) Writing and Ritual: A Study of Diversity and Expansion in the Arval Acta. PBSR
53: 114-62
M. Beard, J. North and S. Price. (1998) Religions of Rome. Cambridge
S. Berrens. (2004) Sonnenkult und Kaisertum von den Severen bis zu Constantin I (193-337
n.Chr) Historia 185. Stuttgart
R. Bland. (2012) From Gordian III to the Gallic Empire (AD 238-274). In W. E. Metcalf. (ed) Oxford
Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford. 514-37
G. Brauer. (1975) The Age of the Soldier Emperors: Imperial Rome, AD 244-284. Park Ridge, New
Jersey
H. Broise and Y. Thbert. (1999) lagabal et la Complexe Religieux de la Vigna Barberini. MEFRA
46

111: 729 747

A. Cameron. (1999) The Last Pagans of Rome. In Harris, W. V. (ed). The Transformations of Urbs
Roma in Late Antiquity (JRS Supplementary Series 33). Portsmouth, Rhode Island. 109122
B. Campbell. (2005) The Severan Dynasty. CAH XII 2nd Edition. Cambridge. 1-27
H. Chadwick. (1981) The Church of the Third Century in the West. In A. King and M. Henig (eds).
The Roman West in the Third Century: Contributions from Archaeology and History. 2
Volumes. BAR International Series 109. Oxford. 5-13
F. Coarelli. (1999) Saturnus, Aedes. LTUR vol. 4. Rome. 234-6
M. H. Crawford. (1975) Finance, coinage and money from the Severans to Constantine. ANRW II.
2. 560-93
L. De Blois. (1976) The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus. Leiden
A. Degrassi. (1963) Inscriptiones Italiae: Vol. 13. Fasti et Elogia. Rome
S. Dimitriev. (2004) "Good Emperors" and Emperors of the Third Century. Hermes 132: 211-24
J. Drinkwater. (2005) Maximinus to Diocletian and the 'Crisis.' CAH XII 2nd Edition. Cambridge. 2866
J. Fears. (1977) Princeps a diis electis: the Divine Election of the Emperor as a Political Concept at
Rome. Rome
J. Fears. (1981) The Cult of Jupiter and Roman Imperial Ideology. ANRW II.17.1: 1-141
R. O. Fink, A. S. Hoey and W. F. Snyder. (1940) The Feriale Duranum. Yale Classical Studies 7: 1222
R. O. Fink. (1971) Roman Military Records on Papyrus (APA Monograph 26). Cleveland
D. Fishwick. (1991) Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western
Provinces of the Roman Empire. Volume 2.1 Leiden
G. Fowden. (2005) Late Polytheism. CAH XII 2nd Edition. Cambridge. 521-72
J. Gager. (1992) Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World. Oxford
J. F. Gilliam. (1969). On Divi Under the Severi. In J. Bibauw (ed). Hommages Marcel Renard:
Collection Latomus 102. Brussells. 284-9.
R. Gordon. (1990) The Veil of Power: Emperors, Sacrificers and Benefactors. In M. Beard, and J.
North (eds). Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World. London. 199-231
I. Gradel. (2002) Emperor Worship and Roman Religion. Oxford
G. Halsberghe. (1972) The Cult of Sol Invictus. Leiden
P. Heslin. (2007) Augustus, Domitian and the So-Called Horologium Augusti. JRS 97: 1-20
S. Hijmans. (1996a) Contextualising Sol Invictus: An Essay on the Role of Post-Processual
Archaeology in the Study of the Roman Sun God. In K. Gilliver, W. Ernst and F. Scriba
(eds) Archaeology, Ideology, Method: Inter-Academy Seminar on Current Archaeological
Research 1993. Rome. 77-97
47

S. Hijmans. (1996b) The Sun Which Did Not Rise in the East: the Cult of Sol Invictus in the Light of
Non-Literary Evidence. BaBesch 71: 115-50
S. Hijmans. (2009) Sol: The Sun in the Art and Religions of Rome. PhD Thesis, Rijksuniversiteit
Groningen. Online at http://irs.ub.rug.nl/ppn/321539664 (Accessed 15/5/12)
C. Howgego. (1995) Ancient History From Coins. London
C. Hlsen. (1895) Il Tempio del Sole nella Regione VII di Roma. BullComm 35: 39-59
J. H. Humphrey. (1986) Roman Circuses: Arenas for Chariot Racing. London
M. Icks. (2006) Priesthood and Imperial Power: The Religious Reforms of Heliogabalus, 220-222
AD. In L. De Blois, P. Funke and J. Hahn (eds). The Impact of Rome on Religions, Ritual
and Religious Life in the Roman Empire: Proceedings of the Fifth International Network
Impact of Empire (Roman Empire 200BC AD476) Leiden. 196-93
M. Icks. (2008) Images of Elagabalus. Nijmegen
M. Icks. (2009) Empire of the Sun? Civic Responses to the Rise and Fall of Sol Elagabal in the
Roman Empire. In O. Heksler, S. Schmitt-Hofner and C. Witschel (eds) Ritual Dynamics
and Religious Change in the Roman Empire: Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop of the
International Network Impact of Empire. Leiden. 111-120
H. Karl. (1975) Numismatische Beitrge zum Festwesen der Kleinasiatischen und
Nordgreichischen Stde im 2./3. Jahrhundert. Saarbrcken
R. Lane Fox. (1986) Pagans and Christians In the Mediterranean World from the Second Century
AD to the Conversion of Constantine. London
R. Langlands. (2006) Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge
J. Liebeschuetz. (1979) Continuity and Change in Roman Religion. Oxford
J. Liebeschuetz. (2000) Religion. CAH XI 2nd Edition. Cambridge. 984-1008
R. MacMullen. (1976) The Roman Government's Response to Crisis AD 235-337. New Haven and
London
E. Manders. (2012) Coining Images of Power: Patterns in the Representation of Roman Emperors
on Imperial Coinage, A.D. 193-284. Leiden
D. Martin. (2004) Inventing Superstition: From the Hippocratics to the Christians. Cambridge,
Mass.
H. Mattingly and E. A. Sydenham et al. (1923-94) The Roman Imperial Coinage. 10 Vols. London
R. J. Mellor. (1975) Thea Roma: the worship of the goddess Roma in the Greek world. Gttingen
F. Millar. (1993) The Roman Near East: 31 BC AD 337. Cambridge, Mass.
A. Moneti. (1992) La Rotunda nel Santuario del Sole di Aureliano e il 'Tempio di Proserpine' nella
Villa di Erode Attico: Considerazione su alcune disegni Cinquecenteschi. Palladio 9: 1118
I. Nielsen. (1993) Castor, Aedes, Templum. LTUR vol. 1. Rome. 242-5
A. Nock. (1930) A diis electa: a Chapter in the Religious History of the Third Century. Harvard
48

Theological Review 23: 251-74. In A. Nock (1972) Essays on Religion and the Ancient
World. Oxford. 252-70
D. Nonnis. (2008) Solis Tricliae, Porticus, Ara. LTUR Suburbium vol. 5. Rome. 97-8
J. North. (1976) Conservatism and Change in Roman Religion. PBSR 44: 1-12
R. Palmer. (1990) Studies of the Northern Campus Martius in Ancient Rome. Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society: 80 part 2. Philadelphia
L. Pedroni. (2011) The Sun Without Rays and the Eclipse of 272. The Journal of Late Antiquity 4.1:
116-23
D. Potter. (2004) The Roman Empire at Bay: AD 180-395. London and New York
S. Price. (1984) Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge
S. Price. (1996) The Place of Religion: Rome in the Early Empire. CAH X 2nd Edition. Cambridge.
812-47
N. Purcell. (2000) Rome and Italy. CAH XI 2nd Edition. Cambridge. 405-43
J. Rives. (1999) The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire. JRS 89: 135-54
C. Rowan. (2009) Becoming Jupiter: Severus Alexander, the Temple of Jupiter Ultor, and Jovian
Iconography on Roman Imperial Coinage. American Journal of Numismatics 21:123-150
J. Rpke. (2008) Fasti Sacerdotum: A Prosopography of Pagan, Jewish and Christian Religious
Officials in the City of Rome, 300 BC to AD 499. Oxford
J. Scheid. (1990) Romulus et Ses Frres: Le Collge des Frres Arvales, Modle du culte Public
dans la Rome des Empereurs. Rome
J. Scheid. (1998) Commentarii Fratrum Arvalum Qui Supersunt: Les Copies pigraphiques des
Protocoles Annuels de la Confrrie Arvales (21 AV 304 Ap.J-C). Rome
R. T. Scott. (1999) Vesta, Aedes. LTUR vol. 5. Rome. 125-8
H. A. Seaby. (1952). Roman Silver Coinage. 2 vols. London
H. Seyrig. (1971) Antiquits Syriennes 95: Le Culte du Soleil en Syria a l'poque Romaine. Syria
48: 337-73
K. Strobel. (1993) Das Imperium Romanum in 3. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart
F. Studniczka. (1901) Ein Pfeilercapitell auf dem Forum. Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archologischen Instituts. Rmisch Abteilung 16: 273-82
P. Southern and K. Dixon. (1996) The Late Roman Army. London
R. Syme. (1972) Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta. Oxford
G. Tagliamonte. (1996) Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus, Aedes, Templum (Fino all'a. 83
a.C). LTUR vol. 3. Rome. 144-8
M. Todd. (2005) The Germanic Peoples and Germanic Society. CAH XII. 2nd Edition. Cambridge
M. Torelli. (1992) Topografia e Iconologica: Arco di Portogallo, Ara Pacis, Ara Providendiae,
Templum Solis. Ostraka 1:105-31
R. Valentini and G. Zucchetti. (1940-46) Codice Topografico della Citt di Roma. Vols 1-3. Rome
49

D. Wardle. (1996) Vespasian, Helvidius Priscus and the Restoration of the Capitol. Historia:
Zeitschrift Fr Alte Geschichte. 45: 208-22
A. Wardman. (1982) Religion and Statecraft Among the Romans. London
A. Watson. (1999) Aurelian and the Third Century. London and New York
R. D. Weigel. (1990) Gallienus' 'Animal Series' Coins and Roman Religion. NC 150: 135-43
P. Zanker. (1988) The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Translated by A. Shapiro. Ann
Arbor
G. Zorzi. (1959) I Disegni delle Antichit di Andrea Palladio. Venice

50