Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 September 2009
It is a commonplace that Roman religion was less concerned with the spiritual well-being than with the political success of the nobiles. The gods were the symbols and guarantors of varying, aspects of Roman power; keeping them content was of paramount importance, and it was the nobiles who were in general credited with the ability to ensure the continuation of this state of affairs.
1. Cic. De Nat. Deor. 3.87; Ogilvie, R. M., The Romans and their Gods (London, 1969), p. 17Google Scholar.
2. See Sutherland, C. H. V., Roman Coins (London, 1974), pp. 13 ffGoogle Scholar.
3. Warmington, B. H., Nero: Reality and Legend (London, 1969), p. 121Google Scholar.
4. Sutherland, C. H. V., Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy, 31 B.C.—A.D. 68 (London, 1951), p. 172Google Scholar.
5. Simon, E., Ara Pads Augustae (Tübingen, 1967), p. 12 and plate 5, 1Google Scholar.
6. Grant, M., Roman History from Coins (Cambridge, 1958), p. 70Google Scholar.
7. On the popularity of the cult at Rome, see Ogilvie, , op. cit., pp. 92—3Google Scholar.
8. Mattingly, H., Sydenham, E. A., and Sutherland, C. H. V., The Roman Imperial Coinage (London, 1962), Vol. IV 2, p. 23Google Scholar.
9. Jones, A. H. M., Constantine and the Conversion of Europe (London, 1972), pp. 85–105Google Scholar.
10. Jones, , op. cit., pp. 98 f.Google Scholar The relevant texts are Eusebius, , Vit. Const. 1.26Google Scholar, and Lactantius, , De Mort. Pers. 44.5Google Scholar.
11. Bruun, P., ‘The Christian signs on the coins of Constantine’, Arctos 3 (1956), 5—35Google Scholar. A bibliography on the subject is given by Bruun in his introduction to RIC 7 (1966), xxix fGoogle Scholar.
12. e.g. Cod. Theod. 16.2.5; 9.16. 1–2; 16.10.1.
13. Symmachus, , Rel. 3.6Google Scholar.
14. Alföldi, A., A Festival oflsis at Rome (Budapest, 1937)Google Scholar; RIC 9 (1933), xxix and 108Google Scholar.