The Constantinian commemorative
issues of 317/18
By Gert Boersema[1]
Introduction
In
317/18 A.D. a series of commemorative issues was struck by a total of six
different mints[2] in the Roman
Empire. The series honored three dead and deified emperors: Claudius II
Gothicus, Maximian and Constantius I. To all of these three, the reigning
emperor at the time, Constantine the Great, had familial connections.
The
series comprises little bronze coins which are very collectable and offer the
collector a wide range of interesting issues to ponder on. In this article I
will take a close look at them. Firstly, I will describe and comment on the
different types. Secondly, I will try and look beyond the coins to answer the
question why these coins were issued at all, and why these particular emperors
were honored.
The
types
In the commemorative issues of 317/18 we encounter three different
types: ‘Emperor seated’, ‘Eagle’ and ‘Lion’. These three types were minted for
each of the three emperors. The type most frequently encountered by collectors
was minted in all of the six mints:
1 Obverse: Veiled and laureate head of the
deified emperor.
Reverse: REQVIES OPTIMORVM MERITORVM. The deified
emperor, sitting on a curule chair, holding a small scepter. (Figure 1 and 2)
The
two other types, only minted in Rome, are:
2 Obverse: Veiled and laureate head of the
deified emperor.
Reverse: MEMORIAE AETERNAE. Eagle.
(Figure 3)
3
Obverse: Veiled and laureate head
of the deified emperor.
Reverse: MEMORIAE AETERNAE. Lion. (Figure
4)
(Please note that in this article the legends are given in full. On the
actual coins they appear abbreviated in several different ways)
The
series consists predominantly of half folles, measuring 15 mm in diameter. Only
the mint in Rome struck the slightly larger full follis (18 mm) and only with
the ‘emperor seated’ type (figure 1).
Figure 1:
Divus Claudius – Full follis from Rome (RIC 106) and half follis from
Thessalonica (RIC 26)
The
obverses
The
obverses show the veiled and laureate bust of the emperor being honored. The
fact that he is veiled – and not just wearing his laurel wreath or his radiate
crown – signifies that the emperor concerned is dead and deified (The honor of
deification, which was given by the Roman senate, meant that the dead emperor
was awarded a personal cult with a temple and an order of priests). The veiled
bust marks the last stage in the portraiture of deified emperors; previously
the emperor was portrayed radiate or bare-headed. On some obverse dies a little
fibula is discernable, holding the emperor’s robes together.
The
obverse legends identify the emperor depicted, which is very convenient because
the portraits do not differ much in style. Each emperor is called ‘divus’, the
traditional title of a dead and deified emperor.
The
obverse legends, all of which are formulated in the dative case – the
dedicatory form, so to speak, appropriate to gods – list the name of the divus
and usually conclude with an honorary title. The most common title is ‘optimus imperator’:
DIVO CLAVDIO OPTIMO IMPERATORI (‘To the deified
Claudius, the best emperor’)
DIVO MAXIMIANO OPTIMO IMPERATORI (‘To the deified
Maximian, the best emperor’)
DIVO CONSTANTIO OPTIMO IMPERATORI (‘To the deified
Constantius, the best emperor’)
Although the notion of all three emperors being ‘the best’ at the same
time may seem peculiar to us, the ancient Romans were not too concerned about
this. ‘Optimus’ and ‘maximus’ were honorary titles that could be bestowed and
borne just like any other.
Interestingly,
the mints of Rome and Siscia give three different personal honorary titles to
each emperor individually.[3]
Claudius is called ‘optimus imperator’ only, but Maximian is called
‘fortissimus imperator’ (most brave emperor) and Constantius receives the title
of ‘pius princeps’ (pious/dutiful ruler):
DIVO CLAVDIO OPTIMO IMPERATORI
(‘To the deified Claudius, the best emperor’)
DIVO MAXIMIANO SENIORI FORTISSIMO IMPERATORI (‘To the
deified Maximian senior, most brave emperor’)
DIVO CONSTANTIO PIO PRINCIPI (‘To the deified
Constantius, pious and dutiful ruler’)
A comment on the letters SEN in the obverse legend for Maximian is
necessary. The question is: do these letters belong to ‘Maximianus’ or do they
belong to ‘fortissimus imperator’? It will have to be the first of these
options, for the following reasons:
- The
pattern of the honorary titles designed for each emperor is uniform. All
titles consist of a noun and an accompanying adjective (‘optimus
imperator’, ‘fortissimus imperator’ and ‘pius princeps’).
- The
shortest forms of obverse legends that we find in Rome imply that SEN
belongs to ‘Maximianus’ (we encounter: DIVO CLAVDIO, DIVO CONSTANTIO and
DIVO MAXIMIANO SEN).
- The
addition of SEN makes perfect sense and is as to be expected. The use of
the abbreviations for senior and junior (SEN and IVN) in coin legends is
the established way to distinguish between two emperors of the same name,
ruling at the same moment in time. The mints evidently felt it was
important to clarify the elder Maximian was intended and not the
younger Maximian. This younger namesake, known to us by the name of
Galerius – some coins call him MAXIMIANUS IVN – died in 311 and was also
deified. Confusion of the two was a real possibility and so it had to be
made clear that Constantine’s adoptive grandfather was subject to the
honor and not the other Maximian.
The reverses
The
reverses of the series show more variations than the obverses. As I mentioned
earlier, there are three different types. The type most frequently encountered
by collectors is the following.
Emperor seated
On
this reverse type the honored emperor is depicted seated on a curule chair. He
is holding a small scepter and, as on the obverse, he is veiled. The curule
chair (sella curulis) was a backless chair, Etruscan in origin. It was
used by the highest magistrates of the Roman state (consuls, quaestors and
aediles, also called the ‘curule magistracies’). On the coinage it symbolizes
the power the emperor has, or in the case at hand, had. The scepter is another
symbol of power, imperial and divine.
The reverse legend accompanying the type reads REQVIES OPTIMORVM
MERITORVM, which translates as ‘the rest/retirement of the best and most
meritorious [emperors]’. These emperors of course being Claudius II, Maximian
and Constantius. There is something worth mentioning here, namely that the
legend, stated in plural, does not match the single seated emperor depicted.
The legend only makes sense when it is applied to the whole series of coins of
the three emperors together. This is quite unique in Roman coinage: the average
Roman citizen, who happened to read the legend of, for example, the Claudius
specimen, had to search his purse to find out who were the other ‘best and most
meritorious’ emperors.
Figure 2:
Divus Maximianus - ‘Emperor Seated’ (RIC 41)
Eagle
The
two remaining types of the issue, struck for each of the three emperors, were
only minted in Rome. The first of the two is the traditional coin type for dead
and deified emperors: the eagle. The eagle is of course sacred to Jupiter, the
supreme god of the Roman pantheon. On coins, the bird signifies the ascension to
heaven of the dead emperor
in order to become a god. The eagle
is depicted in two different ways: head left and head right.
Figure 3: Divus Constantius - ‘Eagle’ (RIC Rome 111)
Lion
The
third and last reverse type of the series depicts a lion. This is not
surprising for a number of reasons. Just like the eagle belongs to Jupiter, the
lion belongs to Hercules (this is made clear by the fact that the club of
Hercules is added to the design of some coins depicting the lion). Jupiter and
Hercules were at the center of the Roman emperor cult. A few decades earlier
Diocletian and Maximian had claimed each of these gods as their personal patron
and the two imperial ‘houses’ ruling the East and the West were perceived as
Jovians and Herculians. It is certainly true that this system was no longer
working by the time the coins considered here were minted, but the two gods
must have still been on everyone’s mind.
Furthermore, just like the seated
emperor on the curule chair holding a scepter emphasizes his power (once as a
mortal, but now as an eternal god), the animals also symbolize power. Since the
beginning of time the lion is considered to be the master of the earth, just as
the eagle is the lord of the skies.
The
legend accompanying the eagle and the lion is MEMORIAE AETERNAE, indicating
that the coins were struck ‘to the eternal memory’ of the deified emperors.
Figure 4: Divus Maximianus - ‘Lion’ (RIC 123)
Why
were the coins minted?
The emperors honored by the coins discussed above were, as I stated in
the introduction to this article, relatives of the reigning emperor,
Constantine. Constantius was his father, Maximian his adoptive grandfather and
Claudius II his ancestor. I will now focus on why these coins were minted at
all, and why these three particular emperors were honored.
The
primary reason for Constantine issuing these coins probably is political propaganda:
Constantine tried to legitimize and consolidate his power by turning to his
distinguished family tree of famous imperial relatives. But some observations
have to be made to add some nuance to this rather one-sided statement.
Firstly,
in this period of time, the real basis for imperial power was the support of as
many legions as possible. No one could become (and stay) emperor solely based
on his ancestry, no matter how many distinguished forebears he could boast of.
On
the other side, the Roman legions did value the concept of hereditary imperial
power.[4]
This was perhaps one of the major reasons why Diocletian’s tetrachic system (in
which the next ‘Augustus’ was chosen based on his personal merits, rather than
on his descent) failed: after the death of Constantius in 306 A.D., his legions
applauded his son Constantine as the new emperor, circumventing the rightful
successor, Severus.
In other words, Constantine did not require an extensive line of famous
forefathers, dressed in purple, to ‘legitimize’ his imperial power. He had his
legions to serve that purpose. But it certainly did not hurt his position to
stress his descent from ‘the best emperors’ the Empire had known, emperors who
became divinities also. Certainly this would not have fallen on deaf ears as
far as the legions were concerned.
Lastly,
it would not be fair to attribute the order to issue these coins to political
propaganda alone. Constantine, apart from being a ruthless politician, was very
aware of the divine world, and more specifically, of divine wrath.[5]
The issue can also be seen in this perspective. ‘To honor thy father and thy
mother’ was one of the commandments of the Christian God, and the coins were
issued after Constantine’s conversion to Christianity. Moreover, this idea of
respecting and honoring one’s parents was also one of the most important
virtues of the Romans. It was called ‘pietas’ and the issue of commemorative
coins can be seen as a ‘pious’ act (As to this the Historia Augusta relates
that Antoninus Pius got his surname because he had deified his ‘father’, the
emperor Hadrian[6]).
Why
these particular emperors?
The
last issue I would like to discuss is: why these particular emperors? The
choice of Constantius is obvious. He was Constantine’s father. However, the
choice to include Maximian in the series is perhaps a little peculiar. To say
that Constantine and Maximian had not been on the best of terms is an
understatement. Just before his death in 310 A.D., the old emperor Maximian,
who had been living at Constantine’s court in Arles since his second
abdication, raised a rebellion against Constantine. He was proclaimed
‘Augustus’ for the third time, confiscated the imperial funds and took the city
of Marseilles. However, his adoptive grandson laid siege to this city and after it fell, Maximian committed suicide.
Until
310 A.D., Constantine had laid stress on his connection to Maximian, but now he
found himself in a precarious position, being responsible for the death of the
illustrious ‘senior Augustus’. The sources show that in the immediate aftermath
of Maximian’s rebellion, Constantine turned to another ancestor (who happened
to be Claudius II) and did not mention Maximian for a while. However, a few
years later his name reappears in Constantine’s lists of ‘glorious
predecessors’, perhaps because Constantine wanted ‘inaccurately, to demonstrate
the “clemency” with which he had treated Maximian’.[7]
And so, in the issue of coins dated 317/18 A.D., Maximian was included.
As
mentioned above, after the unfortunate demise of Maximian, Constantine decided
to proclaim a descent in which his adoptive grandfather had no part.[8]
This forefather was to be Claudius II Gothicus, and the claim is expressed for
the first time in the sixth panegyric of the Panegyrici Latini, dated
310 A.D.: ‘For an ancestral relationship links you with the deified Claudius,
who … destroyed on land and sea huge numbers of Goths’ (VI.2.2).
The
interesting part is that this claim is entirely fictitious. However, this
proved to be no obstacle to the fact that Constantine’s ancestral ties to
Claudius became accepted history within years. A number of sources mention the
descent, but they differ in the details of the family tree – something that
might be expected considering there were no grounds or records to prove the
assumption. Several inscriptions imply that Claudius was Constantine’s
grandfather. Eutropius writes Constantine descended from the daughter of
Claudius. The Historia Augusta claims he descended from Claudius’
brother.[9]
Why
did Constantine choose to invent a famous ancestor? It has to be said that he
certainly could use a renowned ancestry. His father Constantius came from a
rather humble background and, according to some sources, his mother Helena had
been a lowly bar maid when Constantius married her. There even seems to be some
doubt that Constantius and Helena were married at all at the time of
Constantine’s birth.
But
why Claudius? Why not Aurelian (270-275 A.D.) or Probus (276-282 A.D.), who
were two famous emperors at the time? That was exactly the point: they were too
famous: ‘Aurelian held the power for five years, Probus for six. Too much
was known about them.’ Then why not the rather obscure emperor Tacitus (275
A.D.)? Not a good candidate either because of the opposite: ‘No evil was
reported [about Tacitus], and nothing much else.’[10]
It was useless for Constantine to claim descent from an emperor, albeit a
respectable one, but with no military glory attached to his name. The choice of
Claudius was a logical choice because of ‘a combination of his fame as a
destroyer of Goths [he acquired a victory over the Goths at Naissus] … and his
short reign: conveniently little was known of him’.[11]
I
would like to add one other consideration Constantine might have had in picking
his fictitious ancestor: the imperial forefather had to have been deified. To
emphasize descent, not from a mere mortal, but from a god was an important
instrument of imperial propaganda. It had been done before on numerous occasions.
For example, the first Roman emperor Augustus proclaimed to be the son of
‘Divus Julius (Caesar)’ on his coinage, while Hadrian proclaimed to be the son
of ‘Divus Trajanus’ and the grandson of ‘Divus Nerva’.[12]
Constantine did the same: the divinity of Claudius as Constantine’s ancestor
was an important thing to lay stress on, which is shown by the fact that it is
emphasized time and time again in the sources.
As
stated above, to choose Claudius was a logical choice. He was the only emperor
at the time (1) about whom sufficiently little was known, (2) who had no living
relatives who could question the claim, (3) who had a reputation for fame on
the battlefield, and (4) who was deified after his death. Possibly around the
same time Constantine proclaimed his descent from Claudius, his rival emperor Licinius traced his lineage back to the emperor
Philippus (only attested in the Historia Augusta: Gord. 34.5).
Perhaps this claim was not successful because Philippus does not match the
preceding profile as neatly as does Constantine’s choice of Claudius.
Epilogue – A new imperial
dynasty
Let
us take a closer look at what the Historia Augusta has to say about the
family tree of Constantine’s ancestor, the emperor Claudius. It is interesting
to see the writer of this ancient account inserts a number of names in his
biography of Claudius that are clearly taken from the family of Constantine.
First of all, the nomenclature of Claudius, known from coins and inscriptions
to be Marcus Aurelius Claudius, appears in the Historia Augusta as
Flavius or Valerius Claudius. Clearly, these names appear because Constantine’s
father was named Flavius Valerius Constantius. Furthermore, the (invented)
brother of Claudius, the brother that Constantine allegedly descended from, is
called Crispus. This is obviously a name that was chosen because Constantine’s
eldest son bore that name. Furthermore, the alleged grandfather of Constantine
(married to the daughter of ‘Crispus’, named Claudia) is named Eutropio. This
is another invented name inspired by the fact that Constantine’s sister was
named Eutropia. Lastly, the Historia Augusta reports that Claudius also
had a sister. At this point, it will come as no surprise to the reader to find
this sister is called Constantina.[13]
What
all this indicates is the following: the claim of descent from Claudius was not
meant for Constantine alone. It was primarily meant to serve his family, or
more specifically, his sons. The claim was made for the purpose of
founding a new imperial dynasty.
That
is why it is no coincidence that the commemorative issues were minted in 317/18
A.D. This year also saw the elevation of Constantine’s sons to the rank of caesares
as well as the birth of his third child, Constantius, named after its
grandfather. It can be said that the year 317 A.D. signifies the foundation of
the dynasty of Constantine: with the new caesares it showed the promise
of imperial rule in the future, while at the same time, with the famous
ancestor Claudius, it was rooted in the past.
Although
his son and namesake was also proclaimed caesar in 317, the emperor
Licinius could have read the signs. Constantine would not approve of another
emperor ruling next to him. When he ultimately defeated the Licinii in 324, the
imperial dynasty of Constantine would rule the Roman Empire alone. No longer
the future emperor was chosen based on his innate abilities, like Diocletian
had in mind when he founded his tetrarchic system. A new imperial dynasty was
established by Constantine, and with it, the Empire saw the return of
heriditary imperial power.
Photo credit
Photos
courtesy of Brent Upchurch. The coin illustrated in figure 2 is from my own
collection.
Bibliography
Failmezger,
V., Roman bronze coins, from paganism to christianity 294-364 A.D.,
Washington D.C. 2002.
Grant,
M., The emperor Constantine, London 1993.
Nixon,
C.E.V. and B. Saylor Rodgers, In praise of later Roman emperors. The Panegyrici
Latini, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1994.
Southern,
The Roman Empire. From Severus to Constantine, London 2001.
Syme,
R., “The ancestry of Constantine.” in Historia Augusta Papers, Oxford
1983: 237-253 (Reprinted from Bonner HAC 1971 (1974) 237ff).
Warmington,
B.H., “Aspects of Constantinian propaganda in the Panegyrici Latini.”, TAPA 104
(1974) 371-384.