For those with an interest in Eastern Mediterranean cults, solar worship, and the symbolism of imperial power, this book represents the long-awaited contribution from Steven E. Hijmans more than a decade after completing his doctoral thesis, Sol: The Sun in the Art and Religions of Rome (University of Groningen, 2009). This ambitious study explores the imagery of Sol in Roman art and its connections to religious practices and, by combining the analysis of visual culture with historical-religious interpretation, provides a re-evaluation of both solar worship and it artistic understanding in ancient Rome. Hijmans’ work addresses the complexity of this multifaceted deity, whose significance resonates across art, politics, the iconography of power, and religious practices, bridging Roman, Greek, and other cultural traditions.
The first volume of Hijmans’ work (Chapters 1-4) focuses on stylistic conventions of solar imagery, describing specific attributes and meanings in various contexts in the ancient world. The initial chapters explore the criteria for identifying depictions of Sol, considering influences from Greek and Etruscan art, as well as the unique “semantics” of Roman artistic expression. The discussion highlights the challenges of interpreting visual materials, proposing a framework for understanding how Sol’s attributes—such as the nimbus, rays, and quadriga—were employed in Roman iconography. Subsequent chapters delve into solar depictions in diverse settings, from mythological and funerary art to architectural reliefs, and Chapter 4 delves into specific cases such as Mithraic imagery, with particular attention to the symbolic interplay between Sol and Luna. This volume also includes an extensive catalogue of Sol’s appearances (pp. 190-821), categorising and analysing the graphic evidence of Sol by type of object and subdividing according to theme or topic. This rich material illuminating the deity’s complex role in Roman visual culture is followed by useful discussions of some specific sets of cases.
The second volume (Chapters 5-11) addresses the historical context, with attention to religious, social, and political dimensions of Sol’s imagery. It opens with an exploration of temples and priesthoods dedicated to Sol in Rome with a detailed discussion on their development and significance. This is followed by the analysis of “radiance” as a symbol of divinity and imperial authority, with a focus on the implications of radiate crown and other solar attributes from the Augustan age to Late Antiquity. The volume also delves into two intriguing case studies: the symbolism of Sol (and Luna) explored through Horace’s Carmen Saeculare, and the so-called “Christ-Sol” of Vatican Mausoleum M. Volume II concludes with a detailed investigation of Sol’s rising prominence during the third and fourth centuries. Chapter 10 explores the deity’s political and religious significance, tracing its evolution from Aurelian’s reforms to its role during Julian’s reign and examines complex issues, including the debate surrounding the celebrations of December 25, and its intersections with Christian Christmas. Chapter 11 engages critically with the historiography of Sol Invictus, revisiting traditional interpretations and their implications. Together, both chapters provide an extensive re-evaluation of Sol’s representation to offer critical perspectives on the deity’s imagery, cultic practices, and its significance in Late Antiquity.
The catalogue is extensive and thorough, undoubtedly the most complete compilation of solar iconography in the Roman world, encompassing coins, diverse artefacts, and inscriptions. This laborious undertaking is commendable, as it allows for a holistic view of the material, despite the inherent limitations of any work of this scale. The author himself cautions regarding the dating of the objects (p. 202), and many inscriptions, though presented in a conservative manner with minimal epigraphic updates, still remain useful. The images constitute an invaluable resource for any scholar of the subject and Hijman’s reliance on public-domain images is both commendable and effective, enabling the creation of a scholarly resource that might otherwise have been impossible.[1]
Beyond the richness of the catalogue, the work explores nearly every known aspect of Sol, addressing its presence in contexts such as Mithraic traditions and regional practices. The most compelling contribution is undoubtedly the reworking of Hijmans’ iconographic study of solar representation, which deserves recognition both for the utility of its classification of solar imagery into three main types—“standing figure, charioteer, and bust”, each with its own subtleties and uses—and for its analysis of the variation in solar representation beyond its intrinsically religious value, which addresses its potential role in different contexts. Therefore, the author’s work enhances the explanation of his doctoral thesis and expands the discussion of solar representation in two key areas: the definition of the iconographic code within the Roman world, and the use of solar elements in depictions of gods and emperors. The most original and compelling contribution is undoubtedly the reworking of the author’s iconographic study of solar representation regarding two areas: the definition of the iconographic code within the Roman world, and the use of solar elements in depictions of gods and emperors. While the former represents a notable advancement on Matern’s 2002 work, the latter serves as an ideal complement to Berrens’ 2004 study, resulting in a relevant and accessible proposal supported by a substantial and robust catalogue.[2]
Chapters 3 and 6, along with Chapter 7—which focuses on the specific treatment of emperors—arguably constitute the most valuable part of the work and an essential resource for scholars of the imperial cult, solar cults, or the iconography of power. Other sections, such as Chapter 5 on temples and priests in Rome, demonstrate a notable effort to streamline and clarify the discussion of complex topics such as the porticus solis in Trastevere. Although this chapter builds on the author’s earlier contributions rather than presenting entirely new perspectives, it exemplifies and advances his stance within the broader historiographical debate on solar worship in Rome and convincingly pushes against the traditional paradigm that views the cult of Sol—or more precisely, Sol Invictus—as primarily ‘Oriental’. While this approach is a strength of the book, it is also a limitation. The focus on visual culture offers a cohesive iconographic explanation but it fails to address some historical complexities of the religious polysemy of the solar image and Sol’s connections with other deities. For instance, some valuable cases are not exploited, such as the potential temple of Sol in Novae (Bulgaria), whose iconography is gathered in the catalogue without discussion.
Many parts of the book, unfortunately, do not offer significant insights beyond Hijmans’ inspiring 2009 doctoral thesis. Chapters such as the tenth and eleventh reproduce entire passages with only minor adjustments, and in other instances brief reformulations and restructured arguments appear without engaging with recent historiographical developments. While there are original reflections, such as the excursus on “Aurelian’s Changes to the Cult of Sol”, these parts primarily revisit material already known at the time of his doctoral research, without incorporating newer perspectives or acknowledging similar analyses conducted in the years since. Relevant contributions on the understanding of Sol in Late Roman culture, such as those found in Wallraff’s and my own works are notably overlooked.[3] Although other works in German, Spanish, and Italian are cited throughout the book, and other studies by these two scholars are referenced, their recent contributions could have provided an ideal opportunity to critically assess new proposals or substantiate Hijmans’ original theories. A case in point is Hijmans’ treatment of coinage and divine appellations of Sol in third century and its implications. Despite drawing on similar ideas as Manders’ Coining Images of Power—a key and well-established work published by Brill more than twelve years ago—the work neglects this essential source.[4] Manders’ thorough elaboration on imperial political imagery and epithets such as Invictus and Oriens could have enriched Hijmans’ treatment.
The writing style is fluent, persuasive and accessible to readers at various levels, as well as to scholars from diverse academic traditions. Hijmans’ argumentation is both compelling and firmly grounded in his thorough catalogue; however, it occasionally rests on a somewhat limited engagement with preceding scholarly works. Furthermore, the citation of inscriptions, and particularly coins, fluctuates inconsistently throughout the book, which may prove distracting.[5] The most significant formatting issue lies in the bipartite structure of the work. While separating the first volume, which focuses on imagery and contains the corpus, from the second, which addresses its implications and houses the images, might have been aimed at a parallel reading of history and art, it also separates the bibliography and images from the textual corpus. This decision, likely driven by the publisher, poses practical challenges. The images are located in a separate volume, and their order does not align with the corpus, which can complicate navigation.
The overall impression of this book is therefore mixed. On the one hand, it is an undeniably monumental work, meriting recognition for its scope and ambition. On the other hand, greater historiographical precision could have rendered it a groundbreaking contribution—an opportunity that, regrettably, Hijmans’s work does not fully seize. The two volumes stand as an important reference for the study of solar iconography in Rome and as a contextual resource for historians. Hijmans offers one of the most comprehensive counterarguments to orientalist interpretations and historical applications of solar imagery within the Roman world. For these reasons, the book is a recommended read for historians and an essential resource for specialists in art history.
Notes
[1] Notable is his discussion about the challenge faced by all historians: the financial costs associated with scientific use of images.
[2] Matern, P. (2002), Helios und Sol. Kulte und Ikonographie des griechischen und römischen Sonnengottes. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.. Berrens, S. (2004), Sonnenkult und Kaisertum von den Severern bis zu Constantin I. (193–337 N. Chr.). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. (Historia Einzelschriften 185).
[3] Wallraff, M. (2012), “In quo signo vicit? Una rilettura della visione e ascesa al potere di Costantino”. In: Bonamente, Giorgio; Lenski, Noel and Lizzi Testa, Rita (eds.), Costantino prima e dopo Costantino: Constantine before and after Constantine. Bari: Edipuglia. pp. 133-144; Wallraff, M. (2013), Sonnenkönig der Spätantike: die Religionspolitik Konstantins des Grossen. Fribourg: Herder (only quoted once); and Pérez Yarza, L. (2021), El culto de Sol en el Occidente romano. Sevilla: Editorial Universidad de Sevilla. (Colección Historia, n. 380).
[4] Manders, E. (2012), Coining Images of Power. Leiden: Brill. The case of Manders is not unique; it serves as an example among others, such as the interesting section dedicated to analysing the Danubian rider tablets (pp. 798–799), where no reference is made to a recent and fundamental work on the subject: Szabó, Á. (2017), Domna et Domnus. Vienna: Phoibos Verlag.
[5] For example the famous bilingual inscription CIL VI, 710 with Sol and Malakbel, which can be found quoted in a footnote as CIL VI, 711 without reference to the catalogue. At times, the corpus lacks references to standard sources such as the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.