MOUSEIONJOURNAL OF THE CLASSICAL ASSOCIATION OF CANADA

REVUE DE LA SOCIETE CANADIENNE DES ETUDES CLASSIQUES

anciennement/formerly Echos du Monde Classique/Classical Views

XLVII - Series III, Vo1.3, 2003 No.3 ISSN 1496-9343

Mouseion (formerly Echos du Monde C1assiqlie/Classical Views) is published by theUniversity of Calgary Press for the Classical Association of Canada. Members of theAssociation receive both Mouseiol! and Phoenix. The journal appears three times peryear and is available to those who are not members of the CAC at $25.00 Cdn./U.S. (in­dividual) and $40.00 Cdn./U.S. (institutional). Residents of Canada must add 7% GST.ISSN: 1496-9343.

Mouseiol! (anciennement Echos du Monde Classique/Classical Views) est publie par lesPresses de l'Universite de Calgary pour Ie compte de la Societe canadienne des etudesclassiques. Les membres de cette societe re~oivent MOliseion et Phoenix. La revue paraittrois fois par an. Les abonnements sont disponibles, pour ceux qui ne seraient pas mem­bres des SCEC, au prix de $25.00 Cdn./U.S., ou de S40.00 Cdn./U.S. pour les institu­tions. Les residents du Canada doivent payer la 7% TPA. ISSN: 1496-9343.

Send subscriptions (payable to "Mouseion") to:

Envoyer les abonnements (a l'ordre de "Mouseion") a:University of Calgary Press2500 University Drive N.W.Calgary, Alberta, CANADA, T2N IN4

Back Numbers/Anciens nUl/uiros:

Vols. 9, 10, 12-25: $10 each/chacun. Vols. 26-28 (n.s. 1-3): $15. Vols. 29-41 (n.s. 4-17):$27. Single copies of any 1 issue: $10.

Editors/Redacteurs:JAMES L. BUTRICA, Department of Classics, Memorial University of New­

foundland, St. John's, NL, AIC 5S7, CANADA; Tel.: (709) 737-8593; FAX:(709) 737-4569; E-Mail: jbutrica@mun.ca

MARK A. JOYAL, Department of Classics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,MB, R3T 2M8, CANADA. Tel.: (204) 474-9987; FAX: (204) 474-7684; E­Mail: mjoyal@umanitoba.ca

LEA M. STIRLING (Archaeological Editor), Department of Classics, Univer­sity of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, CANADA; Tel.: (204) 474-7357;FAX: (204) 474-7684; E-Mail: lea_stirling@umanitoba.ca

Homepage: www.mun.ca/classics/mouseion

Manuscripts should be sent to one of the editors. Authors are strongly encour­aged to consult the Notes to Contributors/Avis aux Auteurs which follow theTable of Contents. Articles and reviews relating to archaeology and ancient artwill normally be published in the second issue of each volume, for which thesubmission deadline is 30 January each year. Opinions expressed in articles andreviews are those of the authors alone.

Publications Mail Agreement no. 40064590Registration no. 9700Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to: University of Calgary Press, 2500 Univer­sity Drive NW, Calgary AB T2N IN4. email: ucpmail@ucalgary.caPrinted and Bound in Canada

Photo Copyright © 2003 Leo C. Curran; from the website Maecenashttp://wings.buffalo.edu/AandLiMaecenas/

MOUSEIONJournal of the Classical Association of Canada

Revue de la Societe canadienne des etudes classiques

XLVII - Series III. Vol. 3. 2003

Special Issue

The Seasons: Greek and Roman Perspectives

NO·3

ARTICLES

J.J. Rossiter. Aara Suksi, Introduction 233

David Parrish. A Few Aspects of the Imagery of Winter in Romanand Late Antique Art 237

Kathryn Simonsen. Winter Sailing 259

Chris Epplett. Winter Warfare in Antiquity: Image and Reality 269

Hugh J. Mason. Winter on Lesbos: Imagination and Reality 285

M. Eleanor Irwin, Winter Flowers and Green Thumbs in ClassicalGreece 295

Pavlos Sfyroeras, Olive Trees. North Wind. and Time: A Symbolin Pindar. Olympian 3 313

John E. Thorburn. Jr., Winter in the Comedies of Aristophanes 325

Rebecca Nagel, Poets and Lovers in the Snow 339

J.J. Rossiter, A Shady Business: Building for the Seasons atPliny's Villas 355

Carol E. Steer. Interpreting Winter in the Mosaic of Neptuneand the Seasons: Another Look 363

Steven Hijmans. Sol Invictus. the Winter Solstice. and the Originsof Christmas 377

Michelle L. Mann and John Vanderspoel. The End of Winter:Belatucadrus as a Spring Deity 399

Index to Volume XLVII / Series III, Volume 3 415

Editorial Correspondents/Conseil consultatif: Janick Auberger. Uni­versite du Quebec a Montreal; Patrick Baker. Universite Laval; BarbaraWeiden Boyd. Bowdoin College; Robert Fowler. University of Bristol;John Geyssen. University of New Brunwsick; Mark Golden. Universityof Winnipeg; Paola Pinotti. Universita di Bologna; James Rives. YorkUniversity; C.J. Simpson. Wilfrid Laurier University

REMERCIEMENTS/ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Pour l'aide financiere qu'ils ont accordee a la revue nous tenons aremercier / For their financial assistance we wish to thank:

Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada / Social Sciencesand Humanities Research Council of Canada

Dean of Arts. Memorial University of Newfoundland

Dean of Arts. University of Manitoba

University of Manitoba Centre for Hellenic Civilization

Brock University

University of New Brunswick

University of Victoria

We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada,through the Publication Assistance Program (PAP). toward our mailingcosts.No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system ortransmitted. in any form or by any means, without the prior written consent ofthe editors or a licence from The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (AccessCopyright). For an Access Copyright licence, visit www.accesscopyright.ca orcall toll free to 1-800-893-5777.

Mouseion. Series III. Vol. 3 (2003) 377-39811"2003 Mouseion

SOL INVICTUS. THE WINTER SOLSTICE.AND THE ORIGINS OF CHRISTMAS

STEVEN HIJMANS

It is well known that we do not know the exact date of the birth of JesusChrist. In most churches December 25 is celebrated as such. althoughthe Armenian Church retains January 6 (Epiphany). But the fact is thatthe date was not recorded. Many early Christians. as Origen indicates inA.D. 245. actually opposed celebrating birthdays altogether. includingChrist's. because it was deemed to be a pagan practice.' All emphasis lay(and in the Orthodox church still lies) on the celebration of the passionand resurrection at Easter. In fact. the whole question of the exact dateof Christ's birthday appears to have arisen only when Christianchronographers began writing their chronologies.

Obviously the birthday of Christ had to be established in such chro­nologies. and numerous dates were proposed. In the late second centuryAD. Clement of Alexandria refers to speculations (which he dismissesas superstition) which dated the birth on April 19 or May 20. Clementhimself calculated it as November 17.3 B.C.2 Other suggested dates in­cluded March 28 and April 2. but not December 25.3 None of the dateswas influential or enjoyed any preference or official recognition. Theirbasis varied from learned calculations to pure guess-work. The De Pas­cha Computus. for instance. written in A.D. 243. argued that Creationbegan with the vernal equinox. Le. March 25. and that the Sun. createdon the fourth day. was therefore created on March 28. This obviouslymeant that Christ. the new "Sun of Righteousness." must have been

I Origen. Corom. in Mt 10.22; d. Kraabel (1982) 274.

2 Clement. Mise. 1.21; cf. Cullmann (1956) 22-23 n. 6.

3 March 28: see below; April 2: Hippolytos. Dan. 4.23. ms. A; Hippolytos cal­culated Christ's year of birth as A.D. 8 because that would make it 5500 yearsafter creation as he calculated it-despite the fact that as a result Christ wouldhave been crucified under Caligula rather than Tiberius. Cullmann (1956) 22 n.5. Kraabel (lg82) 274 (citing Cullmann). and the EEC s.v. Christmas (206) allclaim that as early as 221 Julius Africanus calculated the date as December 25 inhis fragmentarily preserved Chronicle. but provide no reference. Dr. MartinWallraff of the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitat in Bonn. who is di­recting a project to produce the first critical edition of all preserved fragmentsof the corpus of Julius Africanus. has kindly informed me that he does not knowof any such calculation by Africanus.

377

378 STEVEN HI]MANS

born on March 28. To support these dates the author proclaimed ex­plicitly that he had been inspired ab ipso Deo.4 It was only in the 330S.apparently. that December 25 was first promoted as a feast day cele­brating the birthday of Christ. Initially this happened only in Rome. butby the 380s it is attested as such in Asia Minor as well, and by the 430S inEgypt. Nonetheless. other churches, as we have seen, continued tomaintain Epiphany-January 6-as the birthday of Christ, and do so tothis day.

It is usually suggested that establishing a feast day on the birthday ofChrist became important as a result of doctrinal disputes concerningthe human and divine natures of Christ. There had been numerousgroups that argued for a strong distinction between the human and thedivine. For example. in the second century the Basilideans taught thatthe divine Christ appeared on Epiphany to reside temporarily in thebody of the human Christ. In their view. the date of birth of the humanJesus was of no interest. as he was only temporarily "host" to the divineChrist. Two centuries later the Manicheans went further, claiming thatJesus either was not born at all, or in any case did not take flesh of theVirgin Mary. but simply appeared among men-on Epiphany. One caneasily imagine how the feast of Epiphany cou; d be linked exclusively tothe divine aspect of Christ, which was somehow "revealed" on January6. If the church were to celebrate Epiphany only. but not the birth ofChrist, that could be seen to emphasize that there was indeed a distinc­tion of importance between the two natures of Christ, human (birth,unimportant) and divine (Epiphany. important). Developing a feast forthe birthday of Christ was a reaction to these views, counteracting suchdichotomies by stressing the importance of the physical birth of Jesus.s

But why was the birth date set at December 25. rather than March28, for instance, or one of those other dates previously proposed? In arecent article Franc;ois Heim ([1999] 651) states that it is now universallyaccepted "que la date de Noel a ete fixee au 25 decembre pour opposerles festivites chretiennes aux festivites paiennes." The pagan festivitiesHeim is referring to are those celebrating the winter solstice. which inthe Julian calendar was calculated as December 25th. According to thefamous Calendar of 354,30 chariot races were held on this day to cele-

4 Cullmann (1956) 21-22.

S Cf. Cullmann (1956) 30. Kraabel (1982) 276-278 discusses the lack of interestin Christ's birth displayed by the infancy gospels. such as the Protevangelium ofJames. He emphasizes the importance of a feast celebrating the birth of Christ(and thus his incarnation) to counter the views of docetism. of Arius. and laterof Apollinaris and Nestorius. and suggests that it was no chance that thestrongly anti-Arian Julius I (337-52) was bishop in Rome precisely at the timethat Christmas was first celebrated there.

SOL INVICTUS 379

brate the Natalis Invicti. that is. the birthday of Sol Invictus.6 This feastof Sol Invictus. then. was the festival that Heim claims the Church fa­thers wanted to displace with Christmas. And indeed. ever sinceHermann Usener's studies of the feast of Christmas. the idea that De­cember 25 was chosen as Christ's birthday because of this importantpagan festival has received wide acceptance.7

Usener referred to two sources in particular to support his conten­tion that December 25. the winter solstice, was consciously chosen be­cause of its pagan feast for the invincible sun. The first is a scholiast tothe Syriac author Bar Salibi. whom Usener ([1905] 466) quotes as writ­ing:

Die Ursache, weshalb die Vater das Fest des 6. Januar (Epiphanie)abanderten und auf den 25. Dezember verlegten, war folgende. Nachfeierlichem Herkommen pflegten die Heiden am 25. Dec. das Geburts­fest des Sonnengotts (wortlicher: das Fest des Aufgangs der Sonne) zufeiern und zur Erhohung der Festlichkeit Lichter anzuziinden. An die­sen festlichen Brauchen liessen sie auch das Christenvolk theilnehmen.Da nun die Lehrer der Kirche die Wahrnehmung machten. dass dieChristen an diesem (heidnischen) Feste hiengen, kamen sie nach reifli­cher Erwagung zu dem Entschluss. an diesem Tage (25. Dec.) fortan dasFest des wahren Aufgangs (dh. Geburt), am 6. Januar aber das Fest derErscheinung (Epiphanie) zu feiern. Und diesen Brauch haben sie biszum heutigen Tage zugleich mit der Sitte. Lichter anzuziinden. festge­halten.8

We will return to this passage below (p. 396). The second passagecomes from a homily referred to by Usener as the De solstitiis et aequi­noctiis. the full title of which is: De solstitia et aequinoctia conceptioniset nativitatis Domini Nostri Iesu Christi et Iohannis Baptistae ("On thesolstice and equinox of the conception and birth of Our Lord Jesus

6 Stern (1953) ro8. 110.254,285; Salzman (1990) 149-153.

7 Usener (1889) and (1905); Cullmann (r953); Heim (1999) 651-652 (with refs.).Kraabel ([1982] 277-278) lists three possible reasons: actual belief in the date.synchronicity. and Realpolitik. He suggests that insofar as Realpolitik played arole. it was not merely the replacement of a Solar festival which was at stake.but more generally the construction of a uniform. coherent Christian calendar.

8 "The reason why the Fathers changed the feast of January 6 (Epiphany) andmoved it to December 25 was as follows: according to festive custom the paganswere wont to celebrate the birthday of Sol (literally: the feast of the rising of thesun) on December 25. and to heighten the festivities they lit lights. They also letthe Christians participate in these festivities. Now because the doctors of thechurch saw that the Christians were attached to this (pagan) feast. they decidedafter long deliberation to celebrate henceforth the feast of the True Arising (i.e.birth) on this day (i.e. December 25), but on January 6 to celebrate the feast ofthe Appearance (Epiphany). And to this day they have maintained this custom.and with it the custom to light lights."

380 STEVEN HI]MANS

Christ and John the Baptist").9Towards the end. we read about the winter solstice:

sed et invicti natalem apellant. quis utique tam invictus nisi dominusnoster qui mortem subactam devicit? vel quod dicant solis esse natalemipse est sol iustitiae de quo malachias propheta dixit: orietur vobis ti­mentibus nomen ipsius sol iustitiae et sanitas est in pennis eius. to

According to Usener. these two passages indicate with "surprisingopenness" how Christmas was created by church politics to replace adangerous pagan feast of great significance. As Heim has indicated.most scholars since have followed his line. and scholars have invariablylinked this supplanting of the cult of the sun 1:0 the pervasive use of thesun as metaphor for Christ in early Christian literature. in which he isoften referred to as "Sol verus," "Sol Justitiae," etc. I1

Nonetheless. Usener's position raises serious questions. There can beno doubt that the church fathers who elected to celebrate December 25as the day of Christ's birth were fully aware of the significance that thatday had in the cult of Sol Invictus. The question is whether they chose itbecause of or despite that pagan significance. If we ignore. for a mo­ment, the two sources quoted by Usener-both will prove to be moreproblematic and less conclusive than they may appear at firstglance-then one must wonder whether the latter is not the more likely.If we accept that the decision to celebrate Christ's birth with a separatefeast was primarily a post-Nicaean move designed to emphasize theincarnation of Christ-a move taken in the context of the struggleagainst the Arians and other. comparable groups-that would make itprimarily an intra-faith (Christian versus Christian) polemical move.rather than an inter-faith (Christian versus pagan) one, with the initia­tive (and therefore the risk) on the side of those breaking with tradition.

9 Henceforth referred to in this article as De Solstitiis. There is no criticaledition available of the homily. but Botte (r932) gives the full text. based on hiscollation of a limited number of manuscripts.

10 Usener translates: "Aber man nennt den Tag auch Geburtsfest des Invic­tus. Ja wer ist denn so unbesiegbar ausser unserem Herrn. der den Tod sieg­reich unterworfen hat? Und wenn man sagt. es seJi der Geburtstag der Sonne.nun er selbst ist die Sonne der Gerechtigkeit. von dem der Prophet Malachiasgesagt hat: 'Aufgehn wird euch. wenn ihr seinen Namen fiirchtet. die Sonne derGerechtigkeit. und Heil ist in ihren Schwingen·." ["But they also call this <day>the birthday of the invincible one (Invictus). But who then is as invincible as ourlord who defeated the death he suffered? And if they say that this is the birth­day of the sun. well He Himself is the Sun of Justice ... "]: d. Botte (1932) lOS.lines 434-39.

II EECs.v. "Christmas": RACs.v. "Geburtstag," lip. 239: d. RAC S.v. Epipha­nie; Heim (I999) 65I. with refs.: d. now also Wallraff (200I).

SOL INVICTUS

Le.. the anti-Arians. They would need strong arguments to defend theirmove against the inevitable opposition. and one can easily imagine theproblems they would face if their main reason for choosing December25 was the fact that it was the date of a dangerous pagan feast.

Of course. it remains equally possible that the move was initially arelatively insignificant. local development in Rome. which was not di­rected explicitly against the Arians or other Christian groups. andwhich for a significant time had little impact beyond the city. Seen fromthe Christian perspective. the latter scenario would leave more oppor­tunity for the move to have been directed explicitly against a popularpagan feast or practice in Rome. in casu the celebrations in honour ofSol Invictus. However. whichever scenario one considers intrinsicallymore likely from a Christian perspective on the choice. it is obvious thatthe nature of the pagan feast in honour of Sol which is recorded for De­cember 25 will have played some role in the considerations. and it is tothis feast that we must now turn.

From Usener (1905) to Heim (1999). all scholars who argue thatChristmas was instituted to counteract the pagan feast of December 25in honour of Sol strongly emphasize the pagan nature of that feast andthe great importance and popularity of Sol Invictus in late antiquity.Little evidence is offered for the former contention beyond reference tothe 30 chariot races in honour of Sol recorded for December 25 in theCalendar of 354. The latter contention. however. is generally supportedby extensive discussions on the nature and importance of Sol Invictus.Heim dedicates over half his article to a substantial review of the cult ofSol Invictus in the Roman Empire (640-645). and the continuing influ­ence of the sun god after Constantine (645-651).12 Unfortunately thisreview and others like it are seriously flawed. both in their interpreta­tion of the Roman sun god in general and specifically in their treatmentof the sun in Late Antiquity as a typical-and important-pagan god.Indeed. I would argue that they misunderstand or misinterpret funda­mental aspects of Roman polytheism and its interaction with Christian­ity which are directly relevant to the problem at hand.

Rather than analyze and refute the views of all relevant scholars. Iwill limit myself to Heim (1999) as the most recent. but also quite typi­cal, example. In his article. Heim essentially repeats the position. firstproposed in the nineteenth century. that Sol Invictus was an orientalnewcomer to Rome. According to this view. Rome had had no sun godsince the disappearance of the traditional, but unimportant Sol Indiges

12 The rest of his article (651-666) is devoted to fourth-century and fifth­century homilies in which reference is made to the winter solstice-December25. birth of Christ-and the summer solstice.

STEVEN HI]MANS

in the first century AD. It was. we are told. the fourteen year old Ela­gabalus. coming to Rome from Syria in AD. 219. who was the first toimpose this oriental cult of Sol Invictus on Rome as its supreme deity.After Elagabalus' death in A.D. 222. the cult of Sol Invictus was discred­ited until it was reintroduced by Aurelian in AD. 274. and subsequentlythe sun-god remained a major deity in the Roman pantheon until wellinto the reign of Constantine (ca. A.D. 320).13 Faced by the rapid rise ofChristianity. the cult of Sol declined swiftly in the fourth century AD..although Julian (361-363) was a strong supporter of the cult. as shownby his Hymn to He1ios.

As I have argued in extenso elsewhere. this synopsis of the historyand development of the cult of Sol in Rome and the Roman Empire issimply untenable in light of the extensive archaeological. iconographic.epigraphic. numismatic. and literary evidence that documents the con­tinuous presence in Rome of the sun-god in some form or another fromas far back in history as we can trace Roman religion at all. 14 Literarysources place Sol (and Luna) among the gods introduced by Tatius l5

: Solwas already portrayed on one of the earliest coins minted by Romel6

and continued to appear on Roman state coins for the next 500years-sporadically until the late second century AD.. and almost an­nually. often with multiple issues in one year. from the reign of Com­modus until the reign of Constantinel7

; in art the iconography of the

13 Heim ([1999) 643) does not mention the Republican Sol Indiges. but doesrefer in passing to the solar aspects of the Augustan Apollo. Otherwise. he fol­lows the standard paradigm. although he suggests that during the quarter­century of the Tetrarchy the cult of Sol was eclipsed. but not stifled. by the cultsof Hercules and Jupiter. For a comparable synopsis of the cult of Sol. d.Salzman (1990) 149-153 (with refs.).

14 Hijmans (1996).

15 Varro. L. 5.74.16 An uncia minted between 217 and 215 B.C. (LIMes.v. Helios/Sol 18: GobI

[1978) nr. 1419). Various comparable coins were minted outside Rome in thisperiod. and there is some discussion whether this coin was minted by Romeitself. or elsewhere under Roman jurisdiction. Cf. Thomson (1961) 2.229-231:Crawford (1974) 150.39/4.

17 This presence of Solon Roman Imperial coins is itself sufficient evidenceof the fact that Sol was not deemed to be "foreign" or Syrian. The Romansfreely venerated deities of non-Roman origin. of course. and many gained asignificant degree of popularity (Isis and Sarapis. Jupiter Dolichenus. andMithras are numbered among the 14 deities most mentioned in Latin inscrip­tions: d. MacMullen [1981] 5-7). However. these non-Roman deities wererarely-if ever-depicted on official. imperial Roman coins. Sol. by contrast. isdepicted on well over 1500 issues. For the Republic. d. the issues (mainly de­narii) of M. Aburius. ca. 124-103 B.C. (Gruber [1910] 1.146 nos. 995-997):Cornelius Sisenna. ca. lI8-100 B.c. (LIMes.v. Helios/SoI398); Aulus Manlius.

SOL INVICTUS

Roman Sol was firmly established well before the destruction of Pom­peii '8 and remained esentially unchanged in subsequent centuries l9

;

likewise in inscriptions Sol occurs regularly through the centuries.without any break or hiatus. nor with any indication of a radical changein his nature. 20

ca. 115-107 B.C. (GobI [1978] nr. 3339. incorrectly stating that this is the oldestRoman coin of Sol); M.L. Aquila. probably 108 B.C. (Mattingly [1960]61, pI. XIVnr. 18); Lucretius Trio. 76 B.C. (GobI [1978] 3443); C. Coelius Caldus. middle ofthe first century B.C. (GobI [1978] 3833); Cordius Rufus. 46 B.C. (quinarius;LIMCs.v. Helios/Sol 20); Valerius Acisculus. 45 B.C. (Gruber [1910] I.41 10. p.536); Mark Antony. 42 B.c. (Gruber [1910] 2.398. nr. 60; LIMC s.v. Helios/Sol21); Mussidius Longus. 39 B.C. (Gruber [1910] 1.578. or. 4250); P. Clodius. 42-38B.C. (aureus. denarius; Gruber [1910] I. 585. nr. 4284-4289). The issues under theempire are far more numerous. and can only be summarized here without ref­erences (for the following survey. d. Hijmans [1989] 1.16-34 and 2.140-170. withrefs.; Hijmans [1996] 135-137): under Augustus. d. a range of coins of L. Aquil­lius Florus. ca. 14 B.C. (LIMC S.v. Helios/Sol 24); Vespasian minted a rare butfamous coin with Sol, and both he and his successors Titus and Domitian issuedcoins of Aeternitas holding busts of Sol and Luna (see n. 38 below); Trajan andHadrian minted a number of coins with Sol, and there are also some second­century medallions depicting Sol: from Commodus and especially SeptimiusSeverus onwards the number of imperial coins with Sol increased significantly.and in the third century the only emperors not to mint coins depicting Sol werethe four who reigned between 249 and 253 (Trajanus Decius. Herennius Etrus­cus. Trebonianus Gallus. and Volusianus). Clearly. the image of Sol was wellestablished on Roman coins long before the arrival of Elagabalus and neverdisappeared after his death. Certainly it is impOSSible to maintain that his cultwas somehow reintroduced by Aurelian. given the fact that he has a very sig­nificant presence in the coinage of. inter alia. Gordian III (238-242. annual emis­sions). Gallienus (253-268. probably annually. often multiple emissions peryear). and especially Claudius Gothicus (268-270. a surprisingly high number ofemissions). The number of emissions under Aurelian is high. but by no meansunprecedented. Following his reign. the number of iss'Jes is quite uneven; highunder Florianus (276). Probus (276-282). Numerianus (:.83-284). Maximinus Daia(305-313) and to a lesser extent Galerius Maximianus (293-31 I). but insignificantunder Tacitus (275-6). Carinus (282). Carus (282-3). Diocletian (284-305). Maxi­mianus Herculius (286-305), Constantius Chlorus (293-306) and Severus II(305-307). Constantine. finally. minted very significant numbers of coins untilabout 317. after which the number of emissions declines drastically until. ca. 323.the last Roman coin of Sol was minted.

18 Cf.. e.g.. LIMCs.v. Helios/So190.

19 For an overview d. LIMCs.v. Helios/Sol and Hijmans (1996) 127-134.137-138. listing numerous examples from the first and second centuries AD. Onthe significance of the raised right hand. an element of Sol's iconography fromthe late second century onwards and often identified by scholars as an "orien­tal" gesture indicating Sol's non-Roman origins (e.g. L'Orange [1935] 93-94). d.Hijmans (1996) 124-125 (with further refs. in n. 65).

20 Hijmans (1996) 123-127. On the epithet invictus. of which the earliest

STEVEN HI]MANS

It is important to note that in the nineteenth century. when the para­digm of a third-century A.D. oriental origin for Sol Invictus was estab­lished. this evidence was ignored. not as a result of poor or superficialscholarship. but because of a racistly tainted ideological bias against so­lar cults in general and. in particular. against its postulated corollary:ruler worship.21 Both were deemed decadent and therefore incompati­ble with the Roman psyche. making it both convenient and attractive torelegate their origin to the Semitic (and therefore decadent and infe­rior) Orient. 22 It is this ideological bias which originally produced theparadigm of an oriental origin for Sol Invictus which makes it especiallyunfortunate that it continues to be repeated uncritically in studies andhandbooks today.2J

It is clear. then. that iVe must beware not to take established views onthe origin and nature of Sol Invictus at face value. Furthermore. it mustbe stressed. pace Usener. that December 25 was neither a longstandingnor an especially important official feast day of Sol. It is mentioned onlyin the Calendar of 354 and as far as I can tell the suggestion that it wasestablished by Aurelian cannot be proven. In fact. there is no firm evi­dence that this feast of Solon December 2Ei antedates the feast ofChristmas at all.24 The traditional feast days of Sol. as recorded in the

firmly dated occurrence with Sol is on an inscriptiion from A.D. 158. ef. alsoWeinstock (1957).

21 The radiate crown of the Roman emperors was understood as the link be­tween the two. Bergmann (1998) has recently reite ated the position that theimperial radiate crown was indeed a solar symbol with no real-life counterpartin antiquity. an opinion that I contest (Hijmans. forthcoming).

22 For an extensive analysis of this process. d. Hijrnans (1996) 115-126.

2J Cf.. e.g.. the OCIY S.v. Sol.

24 On G. Wissowa's suggestion that the festival was instituted by Aurelian.d. Salzman (1990) 151 n. 106; Heim (1999) 643 with refs. There is no explicit evi­dence stating that the feast of December 25 was instituted by Aurelian. In factthe Calendar of 354 is our only conclusive evidence for an official feast day inhonour of Solon that day. Other sources certainly suggest that the winter sol­stice was marked as more than a purely astronomical event. referring to it asthe natalis of Sol. In the Calendar of Antiochus there is a discrepancy of threedays between the actual solstice (marked for December 22) and the birthday ofthe sun. marked for December 25; that the latter was nonetheless linked to thesolstice is suggested by the addition aV~EI <pwc (Bolli 1910] 16.40-44). Just howcomplicated matters could become is shown by another calendar (CCAG9.1.128-137; Weinstock [1948]). that marks the solstice on December 20. hasnothing for December 25. and April 12 as u\llU)~a 'HAiov and November 22

'HAloSUcla. Weinstock explains that these dates are of astrological significance.and their exact meaning need not concern us. For the important point for ourpurposes here is that none of this is evidence for the celebration of an official.traditional feast day for Solon Deceember 25. In fact. none of the other feast-

SOL INVICTUS

early imperial fasti. were August 8. August 9. August 28. and December11.

25 Of these. only August 28 is still mentioned in the Calendar of 354.along with October 19 and October 22. the latter being the most impor­tant. judging by the 36 chariot races with which it was celebrated.26

There is direct evidence that in A.D. 274 Aurelian instituted quadrennialagones in honour of Sol. which were held from October 19-22. and cul­minated in the unprecedented 36 chariot races recorded in the Calendarof 354 for October 22.27 However. while our sources are quite clear onthe novelty of these quadrennial agones. they do not indicate whetherthey were an expansion of a pre-existing annual festival in honour ofSol or were something totally new. In the context of the nineteenth­century paradigm that Aurelian was (re)introdudng the whole cult ofSol. scholars have automatically assumed the latter. but in fact there isno evidence that this was the case. On the contrary. the evidence for acontinuous veneration of Sol in Rome. outlined above. postulates thatwe assume some continuity of festivals as well. One must wonder.therefore. whether Aurelian ignored the existing festivals when he in­stituted the agones. or expanded one of them. There is certainly circum­stantial evidence for the latter. because although the early imperial fastido not indicate a festival specifically in honour of Sol for October 19.

they do record an armilustrium for that day. which was held in the Cir­cus Maximus. The circus. of course. was closely linked to Sol. and priorto Aurelian the Circus Maximus was the site of the most important

days for Sol had any connection with cosmic. astronomical, or astrologicaldates. This is true not only for the traditional feast days but also for the feastdays in October. which sources do link directly to the Aurelian cult innovations(see below). It is therefore unwarranted to take for granted that the actual festi­val celebrating the Natalis Invicti with 30 chariot races. mentioned in the Calen­dar of354. was itself older than the Christian feast honoring Christ's birthdayon that day. On the evidence currently available we cannot exclude the possibil­ity that. for instance. the 30 chariot races held in honor of Solon December 25were instituted in reaction to the Christian claim of December 25 as the birthdayof Christ. This is purely conjectural. of course. but by no means unlikely. AsBowersock has argued ([I990] 26-27. 44-53). the extent to which late pagan fes­tivals copied. incorporated. or responded to Christian practices. elements. anddates deserves far more attention than it has received.

25 It is not clear whether the references to August 8 and 9 are to one festivalor two (Latte [1960] 231-232). Cf. Degrassi (1963) 493 (August 8. 9). 503 (August28). 535-536 (December II). all dependent upon the early imperial Fasti­inscriptions. Comparable sources for the period between the last fasti (middleof the first century A.D.) and the Calendar of354 are lacking. Cf. Hijmans (1996)117 nn. IS. 16 (with refs.).

26 Scul1ard (1981) 203; Stern (1953) 110; Salzman (1990) 149-153.

27 Salzman (1990) IS0 (with refs.).

386 STEVEN HI]MANS

temple dedicated to him.28 Given the location. it is at least conceivable.perhaps even likely. that some celebration of Sol was associated with orincorporated in this armilustrium. This may well have evolved into afestival dedicated primarily to Sol at some timte between the extant fastiand the reign of Aurelian.

The Julio-Claudian fasti. then. give direct evidence for significantfestivals of Solon August 8. 9. 28. and December I I. and may give a con­text for a festival on October 19. Other sources indicate that the 501­festival(s) of October 19 and 22. mentioned as such only in the Calendarof 354. were linked to or instituted by Aurelian as quadrennial agones.However. there is no evidence whatsoever that the 30 chariot races heldon December 25 were instituted by Aurelian. :far less that this celebra­tion in honour of Sol had older roots as a pubHc festival. One must con­clude that in the early fourth century A.D. anyone surveying the festivi­ties in honour of Sol would identify the period from October 19 toOctober 22 as far more important than December 25. and the festival ofAugust 28 as far older. It is true. of course. that being the winter sol­stice-the natalis invicti-December 25 was the most logical of the sun'sfeasts to serve as birthday of Christ. if that was the way the "selectionprocess" went. But this leads us to a different..important consideration.None of the traditional religious feast days of Sol were connected in anyway with a specific astronomical date-such as one of the solstices orequinoxes-except the late feast of the winter :;olstice on December 25.

Yet we know from the abundance of iconographic and other evidencethat astronomical dates and phenomena such as the solstices and equi­noxes played an important role in Roman society from at least the firstcentury B.C. onwards. One need but think of the numerous depictionsof seasons. zodiacs. calendars and planetary gods representing the daysof the week. already quite prominent in Pompeian art in the early firstcentury A.D.. and popular throughout the Roman imperial period. Theparapegmata (peg-calendars) discovered throughout the empire fur­ther attest to the pervasive influence of such concepts as the seven-dayweek.29 with each day represented by one of the seven planets (Sol.Luna. Mars. Mercury. Jupiter. Venus. and Saturn).30 This evidence issuggestive. because it indicates that there was great interest in the as­tronomical. astrological and calendrical aspects of the sun. sol. as heav-

28 Degrassi (1963) 532-534.

29 On the Republican origin of the seven-day week in Rome. d. Brind'amour(1983) 256-268 (with refs.).

30 Hijmans (1996) 142-144; LIMCs.v. Helios/SoLpassim; LIMCs.v. Planetae,passim. Cf. Meyboom (1978); Sadurska (1979); J. Riipke. Neue Pauly 9 s.v.parapegma. 322; Gundel (1992).

SOL INVICTUS

enly body. without these being central to the cult calendar of the RomanSun God. Sol Invictus.

This apparent dichotomy between astronomy and cult in the Romanpolytheist attitude towards the sun deserves closer attention. It touchesupon the central. indeed to my mind the fatal flaw in the contention thatChristmas was instituted on December 25 to counteract a pagan feast.Much of this is connected with the traditional understanding of Romanpolytheism in general that underlies the specific interpretations givento Sol Invictus and his cult.

It is clear both from the language used and from the interpretationgiven to the nature and history of the cult of Sol in late antiquity thatscholars have viewed it in essentially the same terms as Christianity.They present the cult as a henotheistic. almost monotheistic. religionwhich viewed Sol as the supreme deity and strove hard to attain uni­versal acceptance within the Roman Empire. After Heliogabalus' initialfailure to do so. solar religion was succesfully introduced from the ori­ent under Aurelian. resulting in the acceptance of Sol as the most im­portant Roman god for the next half century until the reign ofConstantine. Under the impetus of Christianity the cult subsequentlyrapidly disappeared. although it enjoyed a short revival under Julian.

In every respect this picture is very unrealistic. To begin with. thereis the sociologically problematic notion of a god. with a suspect past(under Elagabalus. 218-222). being "established" at a stroke of the pen assupreme deity by one emperor (Aurelian. 270-275). Could Sol reallyhave been accepted by "the Empire" (whatever that may mean) to suchan extent that his cult became sufficiently Widespread and firmly rootedto be a serious competitor for Christianity? After all. this cult is said tohave retained its position of dominance for a mere fifty years (untilConstantine. 313-337). only to disappear again as rapidly as it surfaced!To my mind this is as blatant an example as any I know of the subordi­nation of social reality and socially realistic potentiality to an abstractacademic juggling of perceived "facts" or "data." As an analysis of therole and influence of solar cult. this approach lacks even the most basicrespect for internal logic and cohesion. Think about it: there is no solarcult in Rome. we are told. until Aurelian reinstates a previously dis­credited cult in A.D. 274. Roman polytheism is by then so fickle3' thatRomans immediately allow this oriental god to supplant older. Romandeities such as Jupiter Optimus Maximus as the "most important"(whatever that may mean in a polytheistic context) god of the empire.Yet those same fickle Romans who in 274 readily downgraded the old

3' Halsberghe ([1972] 42) calls Roman polytheism of the second century A.D.an "undermined and weakened body."

388 STEVEN HIJMANS

and hallowed Roman cults in favor of a new and oriental one. in the330S so tenaciously maintain their ("old"? "new"?) solar festivals thatchurch leaders felt obliged to neutralize the threat of those ("en­trenched"?) practices by imposing Christian feast days on the paganones.

This will not work. It is troubling enough that such an unrealisticunderstanding of Roman Solar cult could be developed in total disre­gard of the evidence for Sol's longstanding but minor role in Romanpaganism. discussed above. But let me stress that I am not. at this point.taking issue with the perceived facts. which I have already refuted ear­lier. but with the lack of any realistic underlying understanding of thenature of Roman polytheism in support of this interpretation of anysuch facts. It is the very understanding of Roman polytheism which is atissue here. and not merely the actual data concerning the chronologyand precise nature of the cult of Sol Invictus. If the misinterpretation ofthe available data obliges us to reexamine the nature and chronology ofRoman solar cult in antiquity. the flawed and unrealistic notion of thenature of Roman polytheism which underlies the discredited paradigmshould alert us to the fact that we must question even the most funda­mental assumptions concerning the nature and religious role of this godand heavenly body in Roman religion.

Of course. the suggestion is no longer accepted that paganism wassomehow so moribund in late antiquity that the radical introduction ofnew cults was relatively straightforwardY But to state that paganismwas vigorous in the third century A.D. and beyond still does little todefine more clearly what it is that we mean by that word. first coinedby Christians not to define but to demean the traditional Roman relig­ion(s) which they opposed. It is actually extremely difficult. if not im­possible. to define Roman "religion" because. as Beard et al. have put it([1998] x):

one thing does seem clear enough: that many of our familiar categoriesfor thinking about religion and religious experience simply cannot beapplied here.... Even the idea of "personal belief" (to us. a self-evidentpart of religious experience) provides a strikingly inappropriate modelfor understanding the religious experience of ... Rome.33

This is particularly important when we face the problem of analyzing

32 Lane Fox (1986); Bowersock (1990); Fowden (1993) 37~0: Beard et al. (1998)

364-388.

33 Beard et al. are referring in particular to early Roman religion. but giventhat many hold that "belief" did not become a central focus of religion until theReformation or the Enlightenment. I feel justified in quoting this caveat in rela­tion to late antique paganism as well. 0. Rothaus (2000) 4 (with refs.).

SOL INVICTUS 389

the interaction and competition between "paganism" and "Christian­ity." as in the case of Christmas. Rothaus ([2000] 4-7) has succinctly andclearly summarized the issues which lie at the root of the problem. Inthe traditional dichotomy pagan-Christian. the people of late antiquityare essentially divided into a defined set (those who worship Christ)and a non-set (those who do not worship Christ). The latter are unde­fined. as they share no common characteristic and their "set" thereforehas no boundary or defined content.34 Of course. the dichotomy pagan­Christian has long been recognized as false. but it still clearly influencesmuch of our current understanding of paganism. In practice. whatmany scholars have done is to approach individual pagan cults as inter­changeable with paganism. treating those cults-singly or as agroup-as the "opposites" of Christianity. In this way they provide con­tent to the otherwise indefinable set "pagans." Opposite "those whoworship Christ" they set "those who worship Sol and/or Zeus and/orIsis etc." The Christocentricity of this approach is immediately appar­ent. and its effects clearly visible. As we discussed above. the Sol of thenineteenth-century oriental paradigm is implicitly understood as a godwith a self-contained cult and institutions. rooted in the orient andtransposed from there by believers (priests like Elagabalus. and otheradherents) to Rome and other parts of the empire whose inhabi­tants-through force. decree. or proselytization-were subsequently"solarized" and came to revere this new god as their supreme deitywithin a "fluid" polytheist context. Conceptualized in that way. the dif­ference between the cult of Sol and Christianity lies in what they be­lieved. not in how they perceived (and celebrated or experienced) re­ligion.

Such a Christocentric approach can only obscure. not elucidate. thenature of Roman polytheism. Many have argued that we must moveaway from a focus on its supposed teachings and beliefs (p. 388 above)to emphasize practice and rituaP5 That is to say: we must divest ourunderstanding of Roman religion of its (early modern. Christianizing)restrictions if we wish to grasp the full scope and effect of polytheismwithin Roman society.36 As a god. Sol. in everyday Roman polytheist

34 The former. of course. are also undefined. as one can hardly speak of"those who worship Christ" as one clearly distinct group. Rothaus's point re­mains valid. however. not because the set actually existed. but because the set("Christians") has been perceived to have existed-in clear opposition to "pa­gans"-by countless scholars of late antique polytheism and early Christianity.

35 Price (1984); Rothaus (2000) 4-7.

36 Cf. MacMullen (1981); Price (1984); Lane Fox (r986); Versnel (1990); Feeney

(1998); Beard et al. (1998).

390 STEVEN HI]MANS

consciousness. would then have been defined primarily by (public andprivate) practice and ritual (whether daily. annual or quadrennial)-therealm of religion. one might venture. Speculations concerning the na­ture of Sol. and his place and role in the cosmos of deities and human­kind. by contrast. were restricted to a tiny elite and deemed more therealm of philosophy. perhaps.

It should come as no surprise that our written sources concerningSol-in any event both scarce and late-are more or less restricted tothe philosophical musings of the elite. but shed little if any light on thebroader practice and ritual surrounding 501.37 More informative arematerial sources-often directly reflecting ritual action-but they posetheir own interpretative challenges. Nonetheless. in the following I willargue that material evidence for Sol and his cult presents a very differ­ent picture of the nature of this deity in Roman polytheism. especially ifwe abandon Christocentric preconceptions concerning polytheist cultand deity in general.

I have already suggested that there was a certain duality or ambigu­ity in the nature of Sol in Roman religion. In many respects. the differ­ence between the Sol whose major feast is celebrated October 22 and theSol who is the planetary symbol for Sunday. for instance. is the same asthe difference. in modern editions of Latin texts. between Sol with acapital letter and sol without. On the one hand there is a deity. with acult. temples. festivals and rituals. and on the other there is a heavenlybody which rises in the morning in the east and sets in the evening inwest on fixed times and according to a never-changing pattern. Thisambiguity in the nature of Sol-and Luna-is not shared to an equalextent by any of the other Roman gods and has not been sufficiently ac­knowledged by scholars dealing with the origins of Christmas Day.

In Roman art the manner in which the iconographic image of Sol isused clearly reflects and to some extent defines this ambiguity. On theone hand. there are images which depict Sol a~: a god among gods. ap­parently on an equal footing with his peers. There were presumablycult-statues in temples (although none have been preserved). on occa­sion statuettes in lararia (rare). depictions of Solon coins (sometimesclaimed to reflect cult statues). a small number of reliefs depict­ing-inter alia-a cult statue of Sol. etc. (fig. I). However. indisputablerepresentations of Sol as a god among gods were rare. Far more com­mon were representations of Sol as a cosmic and temporal symbol. Oncoins minted by Vespasian. Titus. and Domitian. we find Aeternitasstanding and holding small busts of Sol and Luna in her hands.38 Parallel

37 Fauth (1995).

38 LIMes.v. Aeternitas. 2-4.

SOL INVICTUS 391

Fig. 1. Two men and a child bringing a sacrifice on an altar in front of a statue ofSol. Despite the destruction of the head, Sol is readily recognizable because of

the characteristic iconography (naked but for a chlamys, right hand raised, tracesof a radiate nimbus immediately above his shoulders) which is standard for him.

Reign of M. Aurelius or Caracalla. Naples, Mus. Naz. 6678. Photo: author.

issues depict Aeternitas holding a Phoenix. These coins can serve as anintroduction to the most common type of representation of Sol. namelyas a symbol or attribute. together with Luna. in a wide range of con­texts. Sol and Luna are usually depicted as small busts flanking orframing some scene. but sometimes the pair is represented as full­length figures (very rare) or charioteers of their quadriga and biga re­spectively (figs. 2-4). That they do not participate in the main scene but

392 STEVEN HI]MANS

Fig. 2. Dolichenus triangle, fragment, with busts of Sol (right, nine rays. whip)and Luna (left) below a bust of Jupiter Dolichenus. From Heddernheim, Wies­

baden, Mus. Inv. 6776. Photo: Mus. Wiesbaden.

SOL INVICTUS 393

Fig. 3. Mithras slaying the bull. Upper corners: Sol in quadriga (left) and Luna inbiga (right). Relief, sandstone, from Osterburken; Karlsruhe, Bad. Landes­

museum C 118. Photograph: author, of the copy in the Limesmuseum at Aalen.

Fig. 4. Statue of Aphrodite of Aphrodisias, detail: mutilated busts of Sol (left) andLuna (right). Aphrodisias, Museum, second century A.D. Photo: author.

394 STEVEN HIJMANS

have a symbolic function in relation to the scene to which they are ap­pended is invariably clear from their position (peripheraD. relative size(small), iconography (bust), or a combination of these factors.

As the coins of Vespasian indicate, Sol and Luna in this symbolic roleare attributes defining or guaranteeing eternity. They are. of course, thetwo most visible cosmic bodies whose appearances follow clear. immu­table patterns, but as the parallel use of the phoenix as symbol of Aeter­nitas implies. the symbolism goes beyond that. The sun and the moonare in a constant flux-the moon either waxing towards or waningfrom full moon, and the sun never rising and setting at the same timetwo days running; from the winter solstice to the summer solstice thedays lengthen and the nights grow shorter, and then for the next sixmonths the pattern is reversed. Sol and Luna, then. not only symbolizeEternity but also explain how cosmic stability can be sustained despitetemporal fluctuations.

This symbolic use of Sol and Luna was common in a wide range ofreligious contexts in the Roman Empire: we find it on Jupiter Doli­chenus triangles. Mithraic reliefs, Danubian rider plaques. the epen­dytes of Aphrodite of Aphrodisias. Jupiter columns. etc.39 Nor was thissymbolic use limited to Sol and Luna as a pair. Comparable Danubianrider plaques depict Sol alone. and there are other examples of Sol aloneas a symbol as well. The temporal and cosmic symbolism of Sol in suchcases is exceptionally clear on a Mithraic bronze relief from Brigetio.40

Framing the main scene of the tauroctony we have Sol and Luna, thefour seasons, and the seven planetary gods of the week, all clear cosmicsymbols providing a framework for the main scene, rather than anyactors in it. In all these images Sol is clearly not depicted as a god to becelebrated with feast days and chariot-races, but as a cosmic bodywhose presence contributes to the framing and defining of the nature ofthe main scene.

That this was the case should not surprise us.. The cosmic reality andastronomical predictability of Sol was and is incontestable-not a mat­ter of religion but a matter of fact. It was to those incontestable aspectsof the sun and moon to which Sol and Luna or Sol alone refer. directlyas well as metaphorically, in the contexts we have just discussed. It isalso those aspects of Sol which are important in. for instance. the mosaicfloors of the late antique synagogues of Hammath Tiberias. Beth Alpha.and elsewhere. In the large. central panel of the floor of the main navewe find Sol in the traditional Roman iconography on a frontal chariotwithin a zodiac and with the four seasons in the corners. Here too Sol is

39 LIMCs.v. Helios/Sol.passim.40 LIMCs.v. Helios/Sol. 288.

SOL INVICIUS 395

the anthropomorphic representation of the visible "planet," and as suchis a cosmic symbol rather than a polytheistic god. further emphasizedby the zodiac around him and the four seasons accompanying him. Thisis the most plausible interpretation-given the problems which wouldarise if we were to treat these as images of the Roman polytheistic sungod. forcing us to explain why he dominated the floors of no fewer thanfour synagogues-and any lingering doubts about that interpretationwere removed by the recent discovery of yet another mosaic floor ofthis type, in which the head of Sol was replaced by a radiant discY

The adoption of this formerly polytheist symbolism is not limited toJudaism. In early Christian art we find the same use of the busts of thesun and the moon, flanking crucifixion scenes as well as other majorevents in the life of Christ. such as his baptism.42 In short. the most pro­lific imagery related to Sol (and Luna) treats the sun not as a god but assymbol. and despite the polytheistic religious source of the anthropo­morph iconography employed. the actual cosmic-symbolic connotationsof this imagery were so well understood that it could be employedwithout significant variations by pagans. Jews, and Christians alike.

Does this help us account for the choice of December 25 as Christmasday? I think it does. It shows that the sun played an ambiguous role inthe Roman world both as a cosmic body and as a god. Christians coulddeal with Sol. whose cosmic nature and reality were undeniable andwhose potential for cosmic symbolism was inspiring. without necessar­ily dealing with the pagan god Sol Invictus. The homilies dealing withthis topic support this view, for while they routinely refer to the wintersolstice and the like, they rarely mention (or attack) pagan feasts on De­cember 25. In fact, one of the earliest such homilies-if. that is. it hasbeen dated correctly to the early fourth century A.D.-is the De solsti­tiis, quoted by Usener, and it makes quite clear that we should see thedate of December 25 not in isolation but as part of a cosmic-symbolicsystem. The author argues that the birthday of John the Baptist was ex­actly six months before that of Jesus. so that he was born on the summersolstice. This means that John was conceived in the autumn-on theequinox to be exact-while Jesus was conceived on the vernal equinox.

41 The anthropomorphic Sol was depicted in the synagogues of Hammath

Tiberias (ca. A.D. 300), Husaifah (fifth century). Beth Alpha (sixth century) andNa'aran (sixth century); d. LIMe S.v. Helios/Sol 292. For the recently discov­ered mosaic at Sepphoris. where the anthropomorphic Sol has been replaced bya disc but. strangely, the quadriga of Sol has been maintained. see Weiss andNetzer (1996), esp. 26-29.

42 Compare an intaglio in the British Museum. depicting Christ on the cross.

with the small busts of Sol and Luna above (inv. EG 561). On this symbolism inearly Christian art, see Deonna (1946) and (1947). with numerous examples.

396 STEVEN HIJMANS

Having built up and argued this cosmic symbolic system throughout hishomily. the author at the very end. in the aside referred to at the begin­ning of this article. deals with the problem that the winter solstice alsohappens to be a feast day of Sol Invictus. That Christ was born on such afeast day can be no problem. he argues. as Christ is the true "sun of jus­tice" anyway. In fact. apart from the scholiast to Bar Salibi (p. 379above). we find no indication that the feast day of Sol Invictus playedany role in the choice of December 25. while we do find countless refer­ences to the winter solstice and cosmic considerations in numeroushomilies by many church leaders (Heim [1999] passim).

So let us return to the scholiast. Closer consideration shows thatUsener's quotation of the passage is misleading. Not only does Usenertranslate "birthday of the sun god" (polytheistic religious) where theSyriac merely states "feast day of the rising of the sun" (cosmic sym­boliC>. more importantly he presents the scholiasfs passage as an objec­tive statement of fact even though it is actually a hostile one. For imme­diately preceding the section quoted by Usener. the scholiast states:

The Lord was born in the month of January. on the day on which wecelebrate Epiphany; for the ancients celebrated the birth and epiphanyon the same day. because He was born and baptized on the same day.Likewise the Armenians celebrate both feasts on the same day. Oneshould also mention here the Doctors of the Church who speak of bothfeasts together.

Only then does the scholiast continue with the words quoted by Usener:"The reason why the Church fathers transposed this feast from January6 to December 25 is. it is said. the following ... " (Usener omits the "it issaid"). Clearly. the scholiast is orthodox. and he rejects the date of De­cember 25.

One such late. and obviously hostile. source has little value in thiscase. I would argue that the evidence is clear. In the Roman Empire. thenature of Sol was ambiguous. As a heavenly body. the sun was oftenused-together with Luna-as a cosmic symbol or allegory for eternity.The astronomical reality of the sun and the moon precluded such sym­bolism from being exclusively pagan. and the evidence of the De solsti­tiis. as well as the numerous passages from a wide range of homiliescollected by Heim (1999). suggests that it was readily adopted by Chris­tians. It is cosmic symbolism of this type which inspired the Churchleadership in Rome to elect the winter solstice. December 25. as thebirthday of Christ. and the summer solstice. June 25. as that of John theBaptist. supplemented by the equinoxes as their lrespective dates of con­ception. While they were aware that pagans celebrated a festival inhonour of Sol Invictus on that day. this did not concern them. and it cer-

SOL INVICTUS

tainly did not play any role in their choice of date for Christmas.

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND CLASSICS

UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA

EDMONTON. AB T6G 2H4

REFERENCES

397

Beard. M., North, J.. and Price. S.R.F. 1998. Religions of Rome I. A History.Cambridge.

Bergmann. M. 1998. Die Strahlen der Herrscher. Theomorphes Herrscherbildund politische Symbolik im Hellenismus und in der romischen Kaiserzeit.Mainz.

Boll. F. 19IO. Griechische Kalender I. Das Kalendarium des Antiochos.Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philoso­phisch-historische Klasse, 16.

Botte, B. 1932. Les origines de la noel et de repiphanie: Etude historique. Lou­vain.

Brind'Amour. P. 1983. Le calendrier romain: Recherches chronologiques. Col­lection d'etudes anciennes de rUniversite d'Ottawa 2. Ottawa.

Crawford. M.H. 1974. Roman Republican Coinage. 2 vols. Cambridge.Cullmann. O. 1956. "The origin of Christmas," in A.J.B. Higgins. ed. The Early

Church. London.Deonna, W. 1947. "Les crucifix de la vallee de Saas (Valais): Sol et Luna, histoire

d'un theme iconographique (premier article)," Revue de l'Histoire des Re­ligions 132: 5-47.

. 1948. "Les crucifix de la vallee de Saas (Valais): Sol et Luna. histoire d'un~me iconographique (deuxieme article)," Revue de l'Histoire des Religions

133:49-102.EEC =E. Ferguson. ed. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. New York/London

1990.Fowden. G. 1993. Empire to Commonwealth: Consequences of Monotheism in

Late Antiquity. Princeton.GobI. R. 1978. Antike Numismatik, 2 vols. Munich.Gri.iber. HA. 1910. Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum. 3 vols.

London.Gundel. H.-G. 1992. Zodiakos. Mainz.Halsberghe, G. 1972. The Cult of Sol Invictus. Etudes preliminaries de Religions

Orientales 23. Leiden.Heim. F. 1999. "Solstice d'hiver. solstice d't~te dans la predication chretienne du

VC siecle. Le dialogue des eveques avec Ie paganisme, de Zenon de Verone asaint Leon." La tomus 58: 640-660.

Hijmans,S.E. 1989. Sol Invictus. Een iconografische studie. Diss. Groningen.. 1996. "The Sun which did not rise in the East: The cult of Sol Invictus in

~1ight of non-literary evidence," Bulletin Antieke Beschaving71: US-ISO.__. 2000. "Language, metaphor, and the semiotics of Roman art," Bulletin

398 STEVEN HljMANS

Antieke Beschaving75: 151-168.__. forthcoming. "Reality and symbol: The radiate crown of Roman emper­

ors," Acta of the XVIth International Congress of Classical Archaeology,Boston 2003.

Latte, K. 1960. Romische Religionsgeschichte. Munich.LIMC= Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. Zurich 1981-.L'Orange, H.-P. 1935. "Sol Invictus Imperator. Ein Beitrag zur Apotheose," 50

14: 86-1I4·MacMullen, R. 1981. Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven/London.Meyboom, P.G.P. 1978. "Un monument enigmatique 'Dusari sacrum' a Pouz­

zoles." in Hommages aMaarten J. Vermaseren. Leiden: 782-'790.Price, S.R.F. 1984. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor.

Cambridge.RAC =Reallexicon fur Antike und Christentum. 5achworterbuch zur Ausein­

andersetzung des Christentums mit der antiken Welt. Leipzig 1950-.Rothaus. R.M. 2000. Corinth: The First City of Greece. An Urban History of

Late Antique Cult and Religion. Leiden.Sadurska, A. 1979. "Rzymskie Kalendarze manipulowane oraz ich uwarunkow­

anie historyczne," Archeologia 30: 6g-86.Salzman, M.R. 1990. On Roman Time: The Codex-calendar of 354 and the

Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity. Berkeley.Scullard. H.H. 1981. Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic. London.Stern. H. 1953. Le calendrier de 354. Etude sur son texte et ses illustrations.

Paris.Thomson, R. 1961. Early Roman Coinage, vols. 2 and 3. Copenhagen.Usener, H. 1889. Das Weihnachtsfest. Bonn.__.1905. "Sol Invictus," RhM60: 465-491.

__.1911. Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. Bonn.Wallraff, M. 2001. Christus Verus Sol. Sonnenverehrung und Christentum in

der Spiitantike. Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christe tum, Erganzungsband 32.Munster.

Weinstock. S. 1948. "A new Greek calendar and festivals of the Sun," IRS 38:37-42 .

__. 1957. "Victor and Invictus," HTR 50: 211-247.Weiss. Z. and Netzer. E. 1996. Promise and Redemption: A Synagogue Mosaic

from Sepphoris. Jerusalem.

\+. 'l:.~iJO./~.1~

UNIVERSITY orCALGARY~