Политическая теология на римских монетах (случай Галлиена)

R. B. Galanin; A. G. Kurbatov; V. S. Minak

R. B. Galanin Russian State University for the Humanities https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7143-0727
A. G. Kurbatov St. Petersburg Theological Academy https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7583-2883
V. S. Minak Dostoevsky Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6252-7883

Keywords: Roman theology, political subjectivity, visualization of power, ancient Roman propaganda, coin emission, ancient history, ancient philosophy

Abstract

The connection between ancient coin emissions, especially ancient Roman ones, and political, religious and cultural propaganda is one of the topics that make the study of ancient Greek and Roman coins not only a matter for numismatists, specialists in economic and political history, but also for historians of philosophy. In addition to its utilitarian purposes, coin minting had a number of symbolic tasks, including those related to political propaganda and the recording of the current mode of political subjectivity of the ruler. This is clearly visible in the example of the Roman emperors and their coinage. In a way, the coins become a continuation and projection of the “political body” of the sovereign, showing how the emperor understood it in the context of “numismatic theology”. The recording of the mode of political subjectivity was always accompanied by some sanction of gods, and a specific sanction, concerning circumstances understandable to the “reader” of the coin. The figures of deities, the sacred symbols accompanying them, animals, and interpretative inscriptions make the coin issue a clear political gesture, formulated in full accordance with the political and social connotations of Roman theology. The article gives an example of such theological-political subjectivity of the emperor (Gallienus’ coins). We compare the available information about his political activities, religious preferences, Philhellenism, and patronage of Plotinus with a visual presentation of Gallienus’ policies in various types of coins dating back to different periods of his reign. It is suggested that the abundance of gods on his coin issues, especially during the period of his sole rule, is caused by the emperor's claim to be the central factor of “god-human” communication. Thus, loyalty to the emperor became a necessary condition for protection from the divine realms.

Author Biography

R. B. Galanin, Russian State University for the Humanities

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34680/vistheo-2025-7-2-361-381

Rustam B. Galanin
Russian State University for the Humanities,
Moscow, Russia
mousse2006@mail.ru
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7143-0727

Anatolij G. Kurbatov
St. Petersburg Theological Academy,
St. Petersburg, Russia
anatolij.kurbatov.95@mail.ru
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7583-2883

Vyacheslav S. Minak
Dostoevsky Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities,
St. Petersburg, Russia
ordogeometricus@mail.ru
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6252-7883

Abstract

Abstract. The connection between ancient coin emissions, especially ancient Roman ones, and political, religious and cultural propaganda is one of the topics that make the study of ancient Greek and Roman coins not only a matter for numismatists, specialists in economic and political history, but also for historians of philosophy. In addition to its utilitarian purposes, coin minting had a number of symbolic tasks, including those related to political propaganda and the recording of the current mode of political subjectivity of the ruler. This is clearly visible in the example
of the Roman emperors and their coinage. In a way, the coins become a continuation and projection of the “political body”
of the sovereign, showing how the emperor understood it in
the context of “numismatic theology”. The recording of the mode
of political subjectivity was always accompanied by some sanction
of gods, and a specific sanction, concerning circumstances understandable to the “reader” of the coin. The figures of deities, the sacred symbols accompanying them, animals, and interpretative inscriptions make the coin issue a clear political gesture, formulated in full accordance with the political and social connotations of Roman theology. The article gives an example of such theological-political subjectivity of the emperor (Gallienus’ coins). We compare the available information about his political activities, religious preferences, Philhellenism, and patronage of Plotinus with a visual presentation of Gallienus’ policies in various types of coins dating back to different periods of his reign. It is suggested that
the abundance of gods on his coin issues, especially during
the period of his sole rule, is caused by the emperor's claim to be the central factor of “god-human” communication. Thus, loyalty to the emperor became a necessary condition for protection
from the divine realms.

Keywords: Roman theology, political subjectivity, visualization of power, ancient Roman propaganda, coin emission, ancient history, ancient philosophy

Funding: the research was funded by the Russian Science Foundation, project No. 23-1800971 “The concept of subject
in ancient philosophy: key paradigms and their reception
in the Western culture and Russia”, in Russian State University
for the Humanities, https://rscf.ru/project/23-18-00971/.

References

Ahiev 2015 – Ahiev S. N. The “Coin Propaganda” in the Late Roman Republic. Izvestiya of Saratov University. History. International Relations. 2015. Vol. 15. 4. Pp. 47–51. In Russian.

Abramzon 1995 – Abramzon M. G. Coins as a means of propaganda
of the official policy of the Roman Empire. Moscow, 1995. In Russian.

Armstrong 1987 – Armstrong D. Gallienus in Athens, 264. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. 1987. Bd. 70. S. 235–258.

Beaujeu 1955 – Beaujeu J. La religion romaine a l’apogee de l’empire. Paris, 1955.

Blois 1976 – Blois L. de. The policy of the emperor Gallienus.
Brill, Leiden, 1976.

Blois 1989 – Blois L. de. Plotinus and Gallienus. Fructus centesimus. Mélanges offferts à Gerard J. M. Bartelink à l’occasion de son soixante-cinquième anniversaire. Ed. by A. A. R. Bastiaensen, A. Hilhorst, C. H. J. M. Kneepkens. Steenbrugis, 1989. Pp. 69–82.

Bray 1995 – Bray J. Gallienus. A Study in Reformist and Sexual Politics. Adelaide, 1995.

Crawford 1983 – Crawford M. H. Roman Imperial Coin Types
and the Formation of Public Opinion. Studies in Numismatic Method Presented to Philip Grierson. Ed. by C. N. L. Brooke, I. Stewart, J. G. Pollard, T. R. Volk. Cambridge University Press, 1983. Pp. 47–64.

Deleuze, Guattari 1972 – Deleuze G., Guattari F. L’Anti-Oedipe.
Paris, 1972.

Göbl 2000 – Göbl R. Moneta Imperii Romani. 36, 43, 44.
Die Münzprägung der Kaiser Valerianus I. / Gallienus / Saloninus (253/268), Regalianus (260) und Macrianus / Quietus (260/262).
Wien, 2000.

Grant 1971 – Grant M. From Imperium to Auctoritas: A Historical Study of Aes Coinage in the Roman Empire, 49 B.C. – A.D. 14. Cambridge University Press, 1971.

Jones 1956 – Jones A. Numismatics and history. Essays in Roman Coinage presented to H. Mattingli. Oxford, 1956. Pp. 13–34.

MacCoull 1999 – MacCoull L. Gallienus the Genderbender.
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies. 1999. 40. Pp. 233–239.

Manders 2012 – Manders E. Coining images of power. Patterns
in the representation of Roman Emperors on Imperial Coinage.
A.D. 193–284. Boston, 2012.

Millar 1984 – Millar F. State and Subject: the Impact of Monarchy. Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects. Ed. by F. Millar, E. Segal. Oxford, 1984. Pp. 37–60.

Minak 2024 – Minak V. S. “Political subject” in Aristotle’s doctrine
of the state. Review of the Russian Christian Academy
for the Humanities. 2024. Vol. 25. 4. Pp. 25–33. In Russian.

Mommsen 1865–1875 – Mommsen T. Histoire de la monnaie romaine. Paris, 1865–1875.

Ordozgoiti 2023 – Ordozgoiti S. D. Bellum ad Danuvinus Limes:
The Self-Representation of Emperor Gallienus’ Power (253–268) through Coinage from the Mints at Segestica and Viminacium.
Sapiens Ubique Civis. 2023. Vol. 3. Pp. 291–318.

Reinhardt et al. 2022 – Reinhardt F., Sousa J. de, B. Heidemarie. Gallienus antoninianii. Portimão, 2022.

Schaps 2004 – Schaps D. The Invention of Coinage and
the Monetization of Ancient Greece. University of Michigan Press, 2004.

Seaford 2004 – Seaford R. Money and the Early Greek Mind.
Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy. Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Shtaerman 1987 – Shtaerman E. M. The social foundations
of the religion of Ancient Rome. Moscow, 1987. In Russian.

Southern 2001 – Southern P. The Roman Empire from Severus
to Constantine. London & New York, 2001.

Suarez 2005 – Suarez R. The Encyclopedia of Roman Imperial Coins. Asheville, 2005.

Svetlov 2022 – Svetlov R. V. Julian the Apostate’s interpretation
of the Religious Ekumene of the Empire in the Context of the Project
for the Restoration of the Jerusalem Temple. ΣΧΟΛΗ. Philosophical Antiquity and the Classical Tradition. 2022. Vol. 16. 1. Pp. 231–239.
In Russian.

Vedeshkin et al. 2024 – Vedeshkin M. A., Panteleev A. D., Svetlov R. V. The Pagan Utopia of Julian the Apostate. Kaliningrad, 2024.
In Russian.

Weigel 1990 – Weigel R. Gallienus’ ‘Animal Series’ Coins and Roman Religion. The Numismatic Chronicle. 1990. Vol. 150. Pp. 135–143.

Wolkow 2019 – Wolkow S. Catalogue des monnaies romaines. Gallien. L’émission dite «du bestiaire». Besançon, 2019.

About authors

Rustam B. Galanin
Cand. Sci. (Philosophy), Senior Research Fellow
Russian State University for the Humanities
6, Miusskaya Sq., Moscow, 125047, Russian Federation
E-mail: mousse2006@mail.ru

Anatolij G. Kurbatov
Master of Philosophy, Lecturer
St. Petersburg Theological Academy
17, Obvodny Canal Embankment, St. Petersburg, 191167,
Russian Federation
E-mail: anatolij.kurbatov.95@mail.ru

Vyacheslav S. Minak
Master of Philosophy, PhD Student
Dostoevsky Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities
15, Fontanka Embankment, St. Petersburg, 191023, Russian Federation
E-mail: ordogeometricus@mail.ru

For citation:
Galanin R. B., Kurbatov A. G., Minak V. S. Political theology on Roman coins (the case of Gallienus). Journal of Visual Theology. 2025.
Vol. 7. 2. Pp. 361–381. https://doi.org/10.34680/vistheo-2025-7-2-361-381