CHRISTIAN COINAGEUNDER

CONSTANTINE

(Also see: Origins)

Old coins and their contribution. Considerable disparity exists among historians about the time ofConstantine’s conversion to Christianity and about the details of his momentous vision. There is alsodebate as to whether history can be deduced from the study of old coins or numismatics in general. Itappears that in all three cases, the ultimate judgment must rest with each student, depending upon thedegree of penetration and the quality of study applied. Verifiable facts -- the external evidence -- do notalways explain the meaning of historical events or their internal significance. The interpretation of historyis often a subjective involvement, as historians tend to provide their own understanding andinterpretations.

An exemplary case of historical interpretation based on ancient coinage and existing literature is thefollowing essay by the distinguished Constantinian Knight Commander, Craig Peter Barclay, M.A.,M.Litt. The author has served as Keeper of Numismatics at the Yorkshire Museum in York, U.K. and haspreviously held curatorial positions at the Royal Mint and University of Aberdeen.

______________________

Hoc Signo Victor Eris:Christian Symbolism on the Coinage of Constantine the Great

ByCraig Barclay

In a world without newspapers and television, the circulating coinage provided a potent means for rulingauthorities to disseminate political and religious propaganda. Few such authorities have been moreconscious of the potential value of this medium than the Roman emperors, and it can be argued that noneof those made more effective use of it than Constantine the Great.

As the first emperor to embrace the Christian faith, we might expect that Constantine’s religiousconvictions would figure prominently on the coinage of his reign. The degree to which this was actually thecase has provoked great deal of scholarly argument and, in so doing, has provided a number of fascinatinginsights into the development of religious symbolism in the fledgling Christian Empire.

1 z 11

General

As Andrew Alfoldi has rightly observed (p. 41), ‘The coin types of the period are, in every case, merefeeble copies of those great works of art that have not come down to us.’ Nevertheless, he would contend,they have also provided us with ‘absolute proof that the Emperor embraced the Christian cause with asuddenness that surprised all but his most intimate colleagues.’ (Alfoldi, pp. 1-2)

(Fig. 1) Constantine the Great; bronze follis; AD 337-40

A more recent scholar, Andrew Burnett, however argues that representations of pagan gods only disappearfrom Constantine’s coinage after AD 318 and, even then, the designs that replaced them were primarilyreligiously neutral in content. ‘The only explicitly Christian coin designs were the representations of theemperor in an attitude of prayer, and a very rare design used by the mint of Constantinople in about 327,showing a banner with a chi-rho monogram spearing a serpent, representing his enemy Licinius.’ (Burnett,p. 145)

Clearly the nature and significance of the designs used by Constantine on his coinage are open to morethan one interpretation. We must accordingly address the complex question: ‘Can we see the Christianfaith of Constantine the Great reflected in his coinage?’

Sol Invictus

Flavius Valerius Constantinus was born in about AD 285 at Naissus in Serbia, the son of the TetrarchConstantius I and his wife, the Empress Helena. After spending his early years as an effective hostage atthe courts of Diocletian and his successor Galerius, Constantine escaped to the west, joining his father inYork shortly before the latter’s death on 25 July AD 306. Proclaimed emperor by the army at York,Constantine spent the next eighteen years disposing of his rivals for control of the empire through anelaborate series of shifting political alliances and military campaigns.

During the early part of his reign representations of first Mars and then, from AD 310, Apollo-Soldominated Constantine’s coinage. Mars had been intimately associated with the Tetrarchy, andConstantine’s use of this symbolism served to emphasise the legitimacy of his rule. After his breach withhis father’s old colleague Maximian in AD 309-10, Constantine began to claim legitimate descent from thethird-century emperor Claudius Gothicus. Gothicus had claimed the divine protection of the Apollo-Sol .As Burnett notes (pp. 143-44), in AD 310 Constantine experienced a vision in which Apollo-Sol appearedto him with omens of success. ‘Thereafter his coinage was dominated for several years by "his companionthe unconquered Sol", SOLI INVICTO COMITI.’

2 z 11

(Fig. 2) Constantine the Great; bronze follis; AD 316-17

According to Lactantius, just prior to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in AD 312, Constantine experienceda dream-vision urging him to trust the fate of his army to the Christian God, and to place the symbol of themonogrammatic cross on the shields of his army. In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius’s account ofConstantine’s vision differs slightly, claiming that Constantine experienced a vision at the beginning of hismilitary campaign wherein the symbol of the cross appeared on the face of the sun, accompanied by theGreek words, ‘In this sign conquer’. Subsequently, Eusebius tells us, Constantine experienced a secondvision, in which he was urged to use the Christian sign to protect himself from his foes. In response to thislatter vision, Constantine had a labarum or standard produced, bearing the name of Christ in the form of amonogram of the Greek letters X and P (the Chi-Rho).

Whatever the detail, Constantine duly placed his trust in the Cross and duly defeated his imperial rival,Maxentius, on the outskirts of Rome itself. Nevertheless, in the wake of this great victory, no immediatechange took place in the basic design of the coinage, with issues celebrating Sol Invictus continuing toform the bulk of the circulating medium. Indeed, as Vermeule (p. 180) explains, even in AD 313, on thevery eve of the Edict of Toleration, Constantine was still portrayed on huge gold medallions in thecompany of Sol Invictus and bearing a shield decorated with a representation he sun-god’s chariot.

Nevertheless, after the final defeat of Licinius, the pagan gods disappeared from the coinage ofConstantine, their place being taken by religiously neutral images. The question might be asked as to whyConstantine did at last begin to make extensive use of specifically Christian images at this time but, asRunciman (p. 17) bluntly reminds us, ‘The earliest Christians took little interest in art.’

Accordingly, during the early 4th century AD, there were few artistic motifs available that could be reliedupon to convey a specifically Christian message. Even the Chi-Rho, which is today universally recognisedas a Christian sign, could be misinterpreted, Bruun (p. 61) reminding us that, ‘The sign, at the moment ofits creation, was ambiguous. In essence it was a monogram composed of the Greek letters X and P, and,while the monogrammatic combination of these two letters was by no means unusual in pre-Constantiniantimes, the occurrence of X P with a clearly Christian significance is exceedingly rare.’ The potentialsignificance of the sign would initially have been lost on the non Greek-speaking population of the empire,who might more readily have interpreted the sign as being linked to Solar or Mithraic worship.

Such initial ambiguities notwithstanding, there can be no doubt that Constantine saw his victorious sign asbeing an explicitly Christian symbol nor that, in the wake of the writings of Eusebius and Lactantius, itsreligious meaning came rapidly to be universally recognised. Constantine made only sparing use of theChi-Rho on his coins, confining its use to a few scarce issues only. Following his death however, this most

3 z 11

powerful symbol came to be used increasingly frequently, both as a means of celebrating the religiousconvictions of the succeeding emperors, and as a means of affirming the legitimacy of their successionfrom Constantine.

(Fig. 3) Eudoxia; gold solidus; AD 397-402

Although also adopted by Constantine’s sons, the most prominent early use of the Chi-Rho occurredduring the reign of the usurper Magnentius (AD 350-53), who struck large bronze double centenionalesdecorated with a large Christogram flanked by the Greek letters alpha and omega. Thereafter the symbolappeared time after time on the coinages of both the western and eastern empires, its position as theprimary symbol of the new state religion only gradually being superseded by the plain, unadorned Cross.

Constantinus Orans

As the image of the emperor most commonly seen by the public, the portrait of the emperor reproduced onthe imperial coinage was considered to be of the utmost importance. Constantine’s coinage portraits breakaway from the traditions of the previous two centuries, calling upon both earlier Imperial and Greekprecedents for inspiration. The Imperial beard, which had been sported by almost all emperors since thebeginning of the second century, was abandoned and replaced by a clean shaven image. Likewise, thelaurel wreath or solar crown which had dominated the coinages of the second and third centuries weredropped in favour of an eastern diadem, or, less frequently, a military helmet.

(Fig. 4) Constantine the Great; gold solidus; AD 326

One particular version of the new imperial image has attracted particular attention. Eusebius (4.15) wasquite explicit in his statement that Constantine was portrayed on his coinage in an attitude of prayer: ‘Hedirected his likeness to be stamped on a gold coin with his eyes uplifted in the posture of prayer to God …this coin was current through the Roman world and was a sign of the power of divine faith.’ Burnettrecognises this passage as important evidence implying ‘that important members of the higher socialclasses noticed coin designs’, adding that ‘There can hardly be any doubt that Eusebius had seen the coinsin question’.

4 z 11

(Fig. 5) Constantine the Great; gold solidus; AD 326-27

Not all authors have accepted these coins as representing the emperor’s devotion to the Christian faithand, as L’Orange has pointed out (1947, p.34), the ‘heaven-gazing’ coin portraits of Constantine havebeen the subject of numerous interpretations, including an argument that it should be interpreted as arepresentation of the Sol-emperor Constantine fixing his gaze upon the goddess Luna. L’Orange (1947,p.94) would consequently argue that, ‘Constantine as Christian orant is, therefore, an arbitraryinterpretation of his heavenward-looking portrait. This does not however alter the fact that the typebecame for Christians, perhaps owing to the very weight of Eusebius’ authority, an expression ofConstantine’s inspired relation to their own God, a representation of the Christ-emperor.’

This argument has in part been fuelled by the undoubted fact that the so-called Constantinus orans portraittype is ultimately derived from pagan prototypes first seen during the reign of the Hellenic monarchAlexander the Great (Toynbee, p. 148). Bruun (p. 33), who does not accept that the coin type bears anyspecific Christian significance, nevertheless concedes that the heavenward-gazing portraits of Constantinerecall ‘portraits of the Hellenistic ruler, whose heavenward look expresses the inner contact between theemperor and the heavenly powers.’

Most however have been more than content to recognise the Christian spirituality of these most beautifulimages. The heavenward-gazing portrait is not peculiar to the coinage and Alfoldi (p. 34) recalls that‘Apart from the monogram of salvation, the statues, paintings, and coin-types displayed, throughout theEmpire, the gaze of the "most religious Majesty", directed heavenward’. The same point has beeneffectively argued by L’Orange (1965, pp. 123-24), who noted in writing of a colossal head of Constantinefrom the Palazzo dei Conservatori in Rome that ‘The eyes, being supernaturally large and wide-open andframed by the accentuated concentric curves of the deepcut lids and brows, express more clearly than everthe transcendence of the ruler’s personality. In this gaze he travels far beyond his physical surroundingsand attains his goal in a higher sphere, in contact and identity with the governing powers. Providence inperson, the irresistible controller of fate, fatorum arbiter, rises before us, with all the future on his knees.’

Yet another distinguished scholar likewise observes that, ‘Long before his formal conversion toChristianity Constantine had associated himself with purely Christian policy, and his finer portrait showthe upward-tilted head of the man with his mind on the heavens, or the facing head, dazzling within itshalo, of the world’s half-Christian master.’ (Sutherland, p. 103). Irrespective of the pagan origins of theorant portrait it had, through its adoption by Constantine, come to express a wholly new significance. ‘Theoutward forms of expression remain very much as before … But the inner meaning has completelychanged. The pagan Emperor was never clearly distinguished in nature from the deity whose vice-regenthe was: hence the divine attributes and all his pomp and state. The maiestas of the Christian Emperor, the"vicarius Dei", is wholly derivative: between him and his God there is a fixed and impassable gulf, thatbetween the creature and his Creator, which God-given Grace alone can bridge.’ (Toynbee, p. 149)

It is significant that the orant portrait was used not only on coins of Constantine himself, but also on coinsstruck during his reign in the names of is appointed successors (L’Orange 1947, p. 91). After his death in

5 z 11

AD 337 however, Constantine’s sons made only very limited use of the highly distinctive portrait, perhapsregarding it as being a reflection of their father’s personal relationship with his God.

If the orant portrait did not long survive the death of Constantine, other stylistic elements of his coinportraits did. From this point onwards the imperial image reproduced on the coinage ceased to attemptaccurately to reproduce the actual features of the living monarch. Instead the portraits became mereciphers, representing a stylised rather than personal image of imperial majesty. All of these imagesnevertheless borrowed heavily from Constantinian prototypes adopting, for example, the eastern diademand clean-shaven features of the first Christian emperor. Indeed, the clean shaven portrait came so closelyto be associated with the new faith that when the pagan emperor Julian the Apostate (AD 360-63) brieflygained the throne, he swiftly adopted a bearded portrait in order to disassociate himself from his Christianpredecessors. With Julian’s death, shaven portraits once again became the norm, remaining so until longafter the fall of Rome.

Helmet

Alfoldi (p. 27), in arguing that Constantine’s religious policy was not based on ‘conscious ambiguity’,states that the appearance of the Chi-Rho on Constantine’s helmet ‘on issues of coins from all quarters,soon after the defeat of Maxentius, loudly and unmistakably claimed where Constantine stood.’ He furtherasserts that, ‘We can prove beyond a doubt, by the evidence of coin types appearing soon after, thatConstantine caused the monogram of Christ to be inscribed on his helmet before the decisive battle withMaxentius’. (Alfoldi, p. 17)

Alfoldi (pp. 39-40) further states, in defence of the significance of the Chi-Rho that, ‘Eusebius knows thatConstantine not only bore the Christian symbol on his helmet in the fight against Maxentius, but continuedto wear it in his golden, bejewelled helmet of state. When … the representation of this helmet, that wasnew in its pattern, soon appears on the coins, we cannot possibly regard it as a mere sign of zeal on the partof Christian subordinates. The tiniest detail of the imperial dress was the subject of a symbolism thatdefined rank, that was hallowed by tradition and regulated by precise rules. Anyone who irresponsiblytampered with it would have incurred the severest penalties. Especially would this have been the case ifanyone, without imperial authority, had provided the head-gear of the Emperor with a sign of such seriouspolitical importance as that attached to the monogram of Christ’.

A very similar position has been adopted by Voght (p. 90), who explains that, ‘we have other witnesses tothe piety of the new ruler of Rome and from these we learn that Constantine gave public expression to hisgratitude to his divine patron. The magnificent silver medallion, whose obverse and reverse depict theconquest and liberation of the city, was probably struck at the mint of Ticinum (near modern Milan) asearly as 313: and on the obverse the monogram appears, on the crested plume of Constantine’s helmet. Ina prestige issue of this type, the incorporation of the Christ-monogram into the portrait of the emperorcould only have been done on the highest authority.’

Burnett (p. 146) similarly draws attention to the same silver medallion (actually struck at Rome or Aquileia

6 z 11

in AD 315) and a series of small bronze coins struck at Siscia in c. AD 320. On all of these, the emperor isclearly portrayed with the Chi-Rho symbol prominently displayed on his helmet. ‘It is indeed hard todisassociate them from Eusebius’s explicit statement that Constantine placed the Chi-Rho on his helmet,but the very occasional nature of its appearance on coins should make us cautious about making too muchof this. On coins issued in about 322 at Trier, for instance, the chi-rho appears as the decoration on theshield held by Constantine’s son Crispus; but it happened on only one die and must represent the personalchoice of a die engraver, as the other shields for the same group of coins have different sorts of decorationon the shields.’

Even Bruun (p. 63), who is dismissive of the appearance of the Christogram on some Victoriae laetaeprinc perp coins of Siscia (describing them as ‘engraver’s slips’), accepts the symbolic significance of theuse of the same symbol on the silver medallions of AD 315, writing that, ‘The silver multiples with theirfacing portraits represent an altogether different case. The Chi-Rho is here set in a badge just below theroot of the crest. The official character of the badge has recently been demonstrated in a convincingmanner. No doubt, therefore, persists about the meaning of the new emblem: the emperor has adopted hisown victorious sign as a symbol of power.’

Labarum

The mint of Constantinople was in operation by AD 327, some three years before the formal dedication ofthe city. A series of bronze coins of that year celebrate the defeat of Licinius. The reverse of this issuebears the legend Spes Publica, and portrays a serpent being pierced by a Chi-Rho topped labarum.

For Alfoldi (p. 39), ‘The spectacle of the Christian monogram on works of art and coin-types, the blaze ofthe initials of Christ on the labarum, the new imperial banner, were all propaganda in the modern sense’.Even Bruun (p. 64), whilst generally dismissive of the existence of Christian symbols on the coinage ofConstantine, is forced to concede that ‘The problem of the labarum piercing the dragon on theConstantinopolitan Spes publica bronzes remains.’

Whilst rarely used during Constantine’s reign, the Christian labarum becomes a frequent and recurrentfeature of the coinage following his death, normally being closely associated with a representation of avictorious emperor. One particular issue, struck at Siscia in AD 350, makes specific reference toConstantine’s vision, bearing the labarum accompanied by the legend Hoc Signo Victor Eris - ‘In this signshalt thou conquer’.

(Fig. 6) Constantius II; bronze coin of Siscia; AD 350

Mintmarks

7 z 11

During the Roman period coins were struck at a large number of mints situated throughout the empire. Asa quality-control mechanism, the coins struck by each of these mints were required to bear distinctivemintmarks, identifying their place of manufacture. The decision to use the Chi-Rho or other apparentlyChristian symbols as mintmarks on some of Constantine’s coins is dismissed by Bruun (p. 62) as being theresponsibility of procurators or, in one case, the rationalis summarum. Approval to use these symbols wasgiven ‘very far from the emperor and court and comes sacrarum largitionum.’

Burnett (pp. 145-46) likewise acknowledges that the Chi-Rho appears on a number of issues of coins ‘asone of the stock symbols used for mint-marks’, but - like Bruun - argues that its use is more likely toreflect the rise of Christian administrators to positions of authority in Constantine’s regime rather than anofficial policy decision. Even if not centrally authorised, the first use of Christian mintmarks canaccordingly be seen to be of the greatest significance, illustrating as it does the shift in the status ofChristians within the machinery of the Roman state. Not surprisingly, in the years that followed, the choiceof both the Chi-Rho and the plain Cross came increasingly to form a key element of the privy marksadopted by the empire’s numerous mints.

Cross-sceptre

On 17 May AD 330 Constantine dedicated his new eastern capital of Constantinople. Alfoldi (p. 110)draws attention to ‘the small bronze coins and medallions, issued in mass, on which the sceptre of the"Tyche", the goddess who personifies the city, is shown the globe of Christ - which means to say that thenew capital is the ideal centre of the Christian world-empire.’ As Alfoldi (p. 116) explains, ‘On theshoulder of the personification of the New Rome is shown the globe of the world, set on the cross ofChrist, symbolising the new capital of Christendom.’

Bruun (p. 63) is dismissive of Alfoldi’s interpretation of the supposed ‘cross-sceptre’ carried by thepersonification of Constantinopolis. On the basis of an examination of related issues, he arguesconvincingly that the ‘globe’ is no more than the globular end of a reversed spear, and that the cross-barseen on many coins is in fact merely a two-dimensional representation of what was, in reality, a three-dimensional disc. Bruun accordingly contends that these issues convey no intended Christian significance.

(Fig. 7) Valentinian III; gold solidus; AD 455

Nevertheless, the supposed cross-sceptre was subsequently perceived by many to have possessed aChristian significance and, its original neutral status notwithstanding, it came to serve as a symbol of theChurch in its own right. On the coinage, this survival is well demonstrated by an issue of large bronzesstruck in the name of Valentinian II at Rome in AD 378-83. On these rare coins the emperor is portrayedbearing a cross sceptre tipped with a globular Chi-Rho, whilst on other later issues, the cross-sceptre isshown in a greatly simplified form.

8 z 11

Divus Constantinus

After his death in AD 337, Constantine was deified by the Senate, his sons issuing commemorative coins inhis name in the traditional style. Eusebius (4.37) records that, "A coin … (had) on one side a figure of ourblessed prince, with head closely veiled; the reverse showed him sitting as a charioteer drawn by fourhorses, with a hand stretched downward from above to receive him up to heaven".

(Fig. 8) Constantine the Great; posthumous bronze coin; AD 337-40

Burnett (p. 146) observes that the iconography of his metamorphosis, as represented on the coins struck tocommemorate it, was Christianised: ‘Previous emperors had ridden up to heaven in a chariot; Constantinewas received by the manus dei. The "hand of God" was, with the Chi-Rho monogram, one of the mostimportant Christian symbols to appear on the coinage of the late empire.’ By way of illustration, a verysimilar image to that appearing on the coins of the deified Constantine may be observed on one of thepanels of the early 5th century door of the Church of S. Sabina in Rome. There the Ascension of Elijah isportrayed, the prophet being conveyed heavenwards in a chariot with the divine assistance of an angel.The manus dei also appears on many coins, frequently crowning the emperor or his consort with a diademor laurel wreath.

(Fig. 9) Galla Palacidia; gold solidus; AD 426-30

Conclusion

Whilst there can be little dispute that the Coinage of Constantine the Great did indeed express his religiousconvictions, it is equally true that it was not exceptionally rich in Christian symbolism. As Bruun (p. 64)reminds us however, ‘There was no independently Christian artistic tradition. The Christian ideas nowabout to conquer the State had to employ old means to express new conceptions.’

(Fig. 10) Honorius; gold solidus; AD 422

Constantine was nevertheless recognised by his contemporaries and near-contemporaries as the first

9 z 11

Christian emperor, and through the writings of Eusebius, certain elements of his coinage came inextricablyto be associated with the triumphant faith. As Bruun correctly records, ‘The victor is the officialinterpreter of history, and Christianity was the true victor of the Milvian Bridge and Chrysopolis. ThusConstantine’s victorious sign, his helmet, his seeming cross-sceptre and the aura around his head wereadopted by posterity as Christian symbols, Christian signs of power.’ The Cross truly had triumphed.

(Fig. 11) Valentinian III; gold tremissis; AD 425-55

Bibliography

Alfoldi, A. (1948) The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bowder, D. (ed.) (1980) Who Was Who in the Roman World, Oxford: Phaidon.

Bruun, P. (1966) The Roman Imperial Coinage Vol. VII: Constantine and Licinius AD 313-337, London:Spink

Burnett, A. (1987) Coinage in the Roman World, London: Seaby.

Carson, R.A.G. (1981) Principal Coins of the Romans Vol. III: The Dominate, AD 294-498, London:British Museum Press.

L’Orange, H.P. (1947) Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture, Oslo: Aschehoug.

L’Orange, H.P. (1965) Art Forms and Public Life in the late Roman Empire, Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Parker, H.M.D. & Warmington, B.H. (1958) A History of the Roman World AD 138 to 337 (2nd ed.),London: Methuen.

Runciman, S. (1975) Byzantium: Style and Civilisation, London: Penguin.

Sutherland, C.H.V. (1955) Art in Coinage: The Aesthetics of Money from Greece to the Present Day,London: Batsford.

Toynbee, J.M.C. (1947) ‘Ruler Apotheosis in Ancient Rome’, Numismatic Chronicle.

Vermeule, C. (1978) ‘The Imperial Shield as a Mirror of Roman Art on Medallions and Coins’ in Carson,C. & Kraay, C.M. (eds.) Scripta Nummaria Romana: Essays Presented to Humphrey Sutherland, London:Spink.

Voght, J. (1965) The Decline of Rome: The Metamorphosis of Ancient Civilisation, London: Weidenfeldand Nicholson.

[Ed. The significance and contribution of old coins cannot be underestimated. ]

10 z 11

Go to Table of Contents ~ Contents Plus ~ Alphabetical Index ~ Home

Expansion of Western Civilization: from Constantine the Great to Constantinople and Byzantium and onward toAmerica

NEW BYZANTIUM is The AMERICAS We are sincerely pleased you have come to visit our Site and we extend to you our warmest greeting in the highest tradition of

BYZANTIUM. Our Principal goal is to impart to you heretofore intentionally little known facts about BYZANTIUM as the foundationof Western Civilization. We will avoid knowingly withholding the truth as an aim to social disorientation. Practice of historical

deception must cease. We hope that you will enjoy our contribution to the fullest. Welcome.Constantine the Great began his eventful climb in York, England and reached the apex of his achievement in Constantinople, the City

that he founded and named after himself (Constantine+Polis [city]=Constantinople). By means of these pages, our readers travelthrough time, touching upon the early periods, including that of Constantine, of historical Constantinople, and of Hagia Sophia—thenexus of the Christian world—to arrive at places and events of our present day. Our readers reach the outermost limit to which both

Eastern and Western Christian groups expanded, bringing forth the flower of Western Civilization. That limit is the WesternHemisphere as a whole, and in particular the coast of California near San Francisco and the Golden Gate Bridge where the two groups

converged as they approached from the North and from the South.

11 z 11