★ BELLATOR TYRANNOR ★

Zeno AV Solidus. Antioch, AD 475-476. D N ZENO PERPET AЧϚ, pearl-diademed, helmeted and cuirassed bust facing slightly to right, holding spear and shield decorated with horseman motif / bELLAƮOR ƮYRAИИOR, Victory standing facing, head to left, holding long jewelled cross; star in right field, ANTIOB in exergue. Unpublished. 4.41g, 21mm, 5h.

Extremely Fine. Unique and of great numismatic importance.

The reverse of this remarkable solidus features a legend hitherto unknown to numismatists concerned with Roman coins of any period: BELLATOR TYRANNOR.

The latin noun ‘bellator’ refers to someone who is warlike, and can be translated as warrior or fighter. The second part of this legend ‘tyrannor’ can only be a contracted form of the genitive ‘tyrannorum’ - ‘of tyrants’, a choice of word with distinctly perjorative connotations. The full phrase ‘bellator tyrannorum’ can therefore be loosely translated as ‘fighter of tyrants’. There are no recorded examples of these two words found together on any ancient inscription that we are aware of, making this coin of great epigraphic, as well as numismatic interest.

The proclamation of Zeno as ‘fighter of tyrants’ is not only without precedent, it is unconventional during a period where evidently strict protocol produced limited reverse types and legends. The Victory and cross reverse type was invariably accompanied by the legend ‘Victoria Augustorum’ from the reign of Marcian (AD 450-457) until the end of Maurice Tiberius’ reign (AD 602). We can only speculate as to the reasons why this radical new legend might have been employed, however the expression is fascinating given Zeno’s Isaurian origin and the various political and military crises of his reign.

The Isaurian tribes are described by ancient writers as being the semi-civilised, warlike inhabitants of the rugged mountain territory between the plains of Adana and Pamphylia. By the fifth century, a considerable number of Isaurians were serving the Roman army as ethnic units under their own commanders. The war leaders of Isauria penetrated the highest echelons of the Roman army command structure and played a significant political role, culminating in Zeno’s eventual accession. The Isaurians were by no means united however and it has been argued Zeno’s countrymen were the ‘greatest problem’ of his reign (N. Lenski, ‘Assimilation and Revolt in the Territory of Isauria, from the 1st Century BC to the 6th Century AD’ in Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 42, No. 4, 1999, p. 428).

We know that the Constantinopolitan aristocracy, who generally viewed the Isaurians as a group of Romanised barbarians, identified Zeno as such and opposed him. A conspiracy to replace the Isaurian emperor by Aelia Verina (widow of Leo I) and her supporters resulted in Zeno being usurped by her brother Basilicus less than one year after taking power. Given the brevity of Zeno’s first reign, it is likely that this solidus was struck sometime after 9th January 475 when he fled Constantinople and is said to have reached Chalcedon before setting out across Anatolia. A solidus in the British Museum (1979,0503.1, RIC X 904), previously thought to be the only surviving gold coin struck at Antioch for Zeno prior to the publication of this catalogue (see lot 525), has been attributed to the period of the emperor’s exile (see Kent in RIC X p. 111, Grierson and Mays, DOCLR, p. 174). If this is the case, then we might view this reverse legend as propaganda aimed at Basiliscus, Verina and the Isaurian generals who had betrayed the now exiled Zeno. A problem with this interpretation is that the ancient sources seem to indicate that Zeno never made it as far as Antioch.

It may have been Zeno’s intention to try and convince the eastern army to support him, allowing him to establish a base at Antioch, however it seems that he was forced to retreat to one of the mountain fortifications in his homeland of Isauria. Basiliscus sent two generals of Isaurian origin, the brothers Illus and Trocundus, to find and capture Zeno at what is believed to be the town of Sbide. The problem for the new regime was that Zeno held an impregnable position which meant they could only hope to capture the former emperor by siege. This was crucial, for it guaranteed Zeno’s safety long enough for the capital to realise that Basiliscus was unfit to rule, which ultimately resulted in Illus and Trocundes switching sides (see P. Crawford, Roman Emperor Zeno: the perils of power politics in fifth-century Constantinople, 2019, pp. 111-112).

Hahn argued that it was unlikely coins were struck for Zeno at Antioch during his period of exile given that it was a stronghold of his opponents and he himself was trapped in the mountains of Isauria (MIRB, p. 46). An alternative theory put forward by Hahn is that the coins may have been struck early in Zeno’s second reign, when in the fall of AD 476 he sent Trocundus to depose Peter the Fuller, the patriarch of Antioch who had been restored by Basiliscus (ibid). This is entirely possible given that the letter forms we find on this solidus and lot 525 (but not the BM specimen) are comparable to other issues struck during the early part of Zeno’s second reign (see RIC X 906-9) which were a continuation of developments under Basiliscus. The terminus ante quem for the issue would seem to be AD 484 when Leontius occupied Antioch, especially given the poor mint execution of the coins struck for the usurper (see RIC X, p. 122).