^{page 9 note 2} For a short sketch of this development, see my article in the publication, 25 Jahre Röm.-germ. Kommission (Frankfurt.-a.-M., 1929), p. 17 ff.

^{page 9 note 3} Grégoire, H., ‘La conversion de Constantin,’ Rev. de l'Université de Bruxelles, xxxvi, 1930, pp. 231 ff.Google Scholar, esp. p. 253: see particularly the valuable comments on the Christian prayer of the soldiers of Licinius.

^{page 9 note 4} Op. cit. pp. 268 f.

^{page 9 note 5} A vivid conception of Eusebius' method of composition is given by Laqueur, R., Eusebius als Historiker seiner Zeit, 1929CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 9 note 6} Against the letter of Cyrillus of Jerusalem, which seems to imply that the appearance of the Cross to Constantine with the τούτψ νικα was still unknown after the 30th January, 351, we must set the coins of Vetranio, with legend HOC SIGNO VICTOR ERIS, attesting a general familiarity with the story, in 350. A heathen prototype of this vision is detected by Grégoire (pp. 250 f.) in the following passage from the Gallic panegyrist of 310 (Paneg. vi, 21, 3–5, p. 217 f.—W. Baehrens) … ‘ipsa hoc sic ordinante fortuna ut te ibi rerum tuarum felicitas admoneret dis immortalibus ferre quam voveras, ubi deflexisses ad templum toto urbe pulcherrimum, immo ad praesentem, ut vidisti, deum. Vidisti, enim, credo, Constantine, Apollinem tuum comitante Victoria coronas tibi laureas offerentem, quae tricenum singulae ferunt omen annorum.’ But the bestowal of Voto-wreaths on the Emperor by divinities, is a typical part of the symbolism of the decennalian celebrations, e.g. on gold coins of Constantine (Maurice, , Numismatique Constantinienne, I, pl. xxiiGoogle Scholar, 17) or of Constantius II (Hirsch, xxix, 1910, no. 1463), on which Victory offers a wreath with the inscribed number of the Vota; similar wreaths offered by allegorical figures appear on pl. ii, 19, and iii, 20 (A.D. 315). The further quotation from the panegyrist ‘vidisti (Apollinem) teque in illius specie recognovisti, cui totius mundi regna deberi vatum carmina divina cecinerunt’ is the stock picture of the Emperor as the new beneficent world-ruler and goes back to the ‘tuus iam regnat Apollo’ of Virgil's fourth Eclogue.

^{page 10 note 1} Op. cit. pp. 253 f., 257 f.

^{page 10 note 2} Prudentius, Contra Symm. i, 488. The Christian monogram, filling the whole surface of a shield, occurs later on monuments as the special badge of Life-Guards of the highest rank, e.g., on the Column of Arcadius (Freshfield, , Archaeologia, lxxii, pl. xviiGoogle Scholar, xx), on a silver bowl of Constantius (Delbrueck, , Die Consulardiptychen, 1929, p. 71Google Scholar, fig. 26), on a diptych of the fifth century (ibid., pl. xlv), on a mosaic of San Vitale at Ravenna, etc. Similarly, the labarum was the standard of the Bodyguards (cf. Baynes, N. H. ‘Constantine the Great and the Christian Church,’ Brit. Acad. Proc. xvGoogle Scholar, note 33).

^{page 11 note 1} Num. Zeitschr. 1892, p. 27 ffGoogle Scholar. (offprint); cf. also ibid. 1920, pl. 8–9. That Count de Salis had here, as so often, been the first to detect the truth, may be gathered from his remarks in Wordsworth, J., Dict. of Christian Biography, i, 1877, p. 648.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 2} Maurice, J., Numismatique Constantinienne, vol. ii, 1911, pp. cviii, 330 ff.Google Scholar, 338 ff. Schulze, Victor in Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. xliv, 1925, pp. 321–337Google Scholar, omits to test the evidence of coins, giving only a brief survey based on Maurice. Maurice himself in his Constantin le Grand, p. 27 ff., does not offer any fresh analysis of them, nor do the many other writers who deal with the conversion of Constantine—whom I therefore omit here. I have had no chance of seeing Schulzberger, M., Le symbole de la croix et les monogrammes de Jésus cbez les premiers chrétiens (Liege, 1926).Google Scholar All the literature is given by Baynes, N. H., ‘Constantine the Great and the Christian Church,’ in Brit. Acad. Proc. xv, note 33Google Scholar; to his list may be added a recent paper by Laffranchi, L. ‘Il problematico segno della Croce sulle monete precostantiniane di Aquileia’ in Aquileia nostra iii (1932).Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 3} Alföldi, A., ‘II tesoro di Nagytétény,’ Riv. It. di Num. 1921, pp. 7 ff.Google Scholar, 45 ff. The date follows from the fact that these coins are not quite the first after the nomination of the Caesars on March the first, 317. (The controversy over the date of the nomination has been settled by Stein, E., in Zeitschr. f. neutestamentliche Wissenschaft xxx, 1931 PP. 177 ff.)Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 4} Pl. IV, II, 17–20 are from Vienna; 12–13, 21–24 from Berlin; 25–27 from Budapest.

^{page 12 note 1} Paneg. vii, 2 (p. 224—W. Baehrens).

^{page 12 note 2} I hope soon to show, in a work on the introduction of Persian court ceremonial into Rome, that the charge that Diocletian was aping the Persians is an ancient commonplace—a conventional attacking motive in rhetorical invective; further, that Diocletian was not developing any new conception, but only rounding off a long course of evolution. [The main results of my investigations have been anticipated by Delbrueck in his brilliant study ‘Des spätantike Kaiserornat’ in Die Antike viii, pp. 1–21.] On the other hand the influence of Persia, coming through the Hellenistic basis of the ‘Dominatus’ is really present, as Kornemann (in Gercke-Norden, , Einleitung in die Alterthumswiss., ii, 2, 298 ff.Google Scholar) has in general made clear. An important parallel can be drawn for the evolution of art. The works of Strzygowski first opened our eyes, then Rostovtseff (Iranians and Greeks, 1922) proved the central importance of Iran. Koch, Later H., in Probleme der Spätantike (1930, pp. 47 ff.Google Scholar), has given an admirable sketch of the influence of Persia on Roman imperial art. He had already emphasised the point that the administration of the imperial court with its ceremonial corresponded to this orientalising tendency in art.

^{page 12 note 3} Eutrop. ix, 26. On the same source draw Victor, Caes 39. 2. 4, Hieronymus, Chron. 226a (Helm), Ammianus, xv, 5. 18 (shortened), Lydus, , de mag. i, 4Google Scholar, Anon. Matrit. p. 551, Bauer; cp. also Vita Alex. Sev. 18. 1–3 in the Historia Augusta, and, particularly, Epit. de Caes. 35, 5 (about Aurelian).

^{page 12 note 4} The emphasis on primus depends on the literary ‘inventor’ motiv. As a matter of fact Commodus already had a wreath set with jewels (Dio Cass. 72, 17, 3) and apparently Caligula before him (Suet. Calig. 52) had worn clothing with similar ornamentation; for the literary scheme, cp. for the time my remarks in Zeitschr. f. Num. xxxviii, 1928, pp. 160 ff.

^{page 13 note 1} Discovered by Voetter, O., Num. Zeitschr. n.f. x, 1917, P. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 2} Voetter, op. cit., thinks that Constantine is here equipped as Mars. But the representations of Mars of this same period at Trier (Voetter, , Num. Zeitschr., 1918, pl. 29Google Scholar) show, as we might expect, the conventional helmet only; the reverse of our coin, too, bears no reference to Mars, whereas the other two reverses both name and depict the gods of the obverses. Nor must we forget that these gods represent grades of rank in the tetrarchy and, as Constantine had been nominated by the senate on October 29th, 312, senior Augustus (Lact. de mart, pers., 44. 11, and Euseb. hist, eccles. ix, 10. 1) he could never in such a context have chosen the part of the fast fading Mars, but if any god, only one of the first rank. (In any case the precedence of Licinius as Jupiter over Daza as Sol is remarkable. See also below).

^{page 13 note 3} See Voetter, , Num. Zeitschr. 1917, p. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 4} Constantine must have continued to strike for Maximin some considerable time after the capture of Rome, for he first appointed him consul for 313 and in that year long avoided a break with him: cp. Seeck, O., ‘Die Anfänge Constantins des Grossen’ in Deutsche Zeitschr. f. Geschichtswiss., p. 224 n. 2, and p. 258.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 5} The appearance of two Victories does not imply reference to more than one emperor—the same two goddesses appear for emperors, like Florian and Probus for example, who reigned without colleague. The epithet laetae is given, because a victory from ancient times (cp. Livy, x, 45, I, etc.) is regarded as ‘laetitia publica’ or ‘gaudium publicum’ and is publicly celebrated (cp. Tertull. Apologet. 35, Cod. Theod. vii, 11. 1–5, etc.). In earlier times the attempt was made to link up the decennalia with actual victories (cp. coins of Caracalla, C. ii, 647, rev. imperial title and vic · PART ·, Victory seated by trophy inscribing ‘vo. xx’ on shield), but the emperor of later times, ‘semper victor’ ‘ubique victor’ no longer needs this link with actuality. There is, however, on the Arch of Constantine (in Rome) a connexion in symbolism between the decennalia and the conquest of Maxentius, and we are justified in asking if our reverse too may not celebrate the same defeat. Garrucci (Esame critico e cronologico della num. Cost, portante segni di cristianesimo, 1858, p. 19) had already pointed out that the victory of Constantine and his decennalia are celebrated by Lactantius de mort. pers. 1, 3, and 52, 4, as ‘triumphus Dei’ and, ‘pax post annos decem plebi suae data,’ which ‘laetificat’ the Christians too.

^{page 14 note 1} Cp. Schultze, V., Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. vii, 1885, pp. 343 ff.Google Scholar (We should have welcomed a discussion of the inscription on this statue in the excellent article by Stein, A. on Röm. Inschriften in der antiken Literatur, Prague, 1931).Google Scholar A very similar demonstration on the part of Constantine still exists in the shape of his Arch and its inscription. For the details see Baynes, N. H., ‘Constantine the Great and the Christian Church,’ Brit. Acad. Proc. xv, notes 35 and 36.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 2} Schanz-Hosius-Krüger, , Gesch. d. röm. Litt. iii, p. 147.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 3} Inc. paneg. (XII) Constantino Aug. d., 2, 4; 2, 5; 3, 4; cp. Seeck, O., Gesch. d. Unterg. d. ant. Welt, i, 4 (1922), p. 473Google Scholar and earlier, Die Anfänge Const., p. 233, n. 1.

^{page 14 note 4} The extreme rarity of the cross on the obverse of Licinius (cp. Voetter, Die ersten christl. Zeichen, p. 3, and Maurice, op. cit. ii, pp. 249 ft.) proves that Licinius only shared in the coinage at its very beginning or at its very end; most of it, therefore, falls into Constantine's war against him.

^{page 14 note 5} The incompatibility of the ideas involved can hardly have failed to attract attention. Can we see the intention of achieving with the cross beside the idols the sort of success that is reported in the story in Zonaras (xiii. 3, p. 128, Dind.)? Constantine, we hear, had had a famous statue of Apollo studded with nails from the Redeemer's coffin, to deprive it of its magic force.

^{page 15 note 1} The intentions of the government in its use of the Christian symbol on coins is clearly seen in the signature of the reverse of circa 320, ‘Virtus exercit. Vot. xx.’ with trophy. On these coins the monogram appears at the same time and always in the form in the mints of Thessalonica, Siscia, Ticinum and Aquileia. This could obviously be no mere act of a ‘praepositus scalptorum’ as J. Maurice (op. cit. ii, pp. 339 ff.) supposes, but can only represent a regulation of the central government.

^{page 15 note 2} Beside the main works quoted in Grégoire, op. cit. pp. 270–272, cp. for an estimate of the religiously sensitive, but unsentimental Constantine, the clever characterisation in Vogelstein, Max, Kaiseridee-Romidee und das Verhältnis vom Staat und Kirche seit Konstantin, Breslau, 1930.Google Scholar See also Laqueur, R. in Probleme der Spätantike, 1930, pp. 1 ff.Google Scholar, and W. Weber, ibid., p. 67f., 91 f., Baynes, N. H. in Menschen die Geschichte machten, 1931, 1, pp. 205–9.Google Scholar I may add subsequently the extremely useful and excellent introduction to all the widely scattered modern literature on the subject by Baynes, N. H., ‘Constantine the Great and the Christian Church,’ Brit. Acad. Proc. xv.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 3} Cp. Euseb., Fit. Const, i, 40, Lact. de mort. pers., Inc. paneg. ix, 2, 4; 3, 2 (p. 291—W. Baehrens), etc.: other passages and inscriptions in Groag, P–W art. ‘Maxentius’ (Regierung), col. 2481, par. 1. Here, we must admit, it is a mere justification after the event to stamp the defeated adversary as a tyrant: before October 28th, 312, such a change had little weight. For the language, cp. my notes in Zeitschr. f. Num. 1930, pp. 5 f. Laqueur, Eusebius als Historiker seiner Zeit., p. 680 ff., has shown how the church historians connected the revival of old Roman liberty with the help of the Christian God; the same thought is emphasized in the inscription of the Arch of Constantine.

^{page 15 note 4} The row of dots on the top of the helmet itself might represent such blobs as we see, for example., on the Stablesian helmet of Leyden. But the second row of dots on the plume above could have no such meaning. Perhaps we shall end by thinking of a kind of double nimbus, as seen, for example, commonly on coins of Hadrumetum, with pearls at the end of the rays, as, e.g., on the royal portrait of Kutscha in v. Le Coq, A., Bilderatlas zur Kunst u. Kulturgeschichte Mittelasiens, p. 43, ill. 20, pl. ii, 25Google Scholar. There are traces of the same little round blobs on contemporary bronze of Ticinum.

^{page 16 note 1} Cp. here, my remarks in 25 Jahre Röm.-germ. Komm., p. 42 ff.

^{page 16 note 2} Cp. e.g. Kraus, F. F., Die Münzen Odovacars und des Ostgotenreiches in Italien (1928), pl. ix–x, no. 29ff.Google Scholar Cp. also the Totila coins, ibid., pl. xiii, no. 53–63.

^{page 16 note 3} I owe this reference to my friend Zoltán von Tóth.

^{page 16 note 4} That there is no question here of Tarraco, as Voetter, Maurice and others have always maintained, is absolutely certain: I hope later to publish a survey of the ‘Ticinum-Tarraco controversy.’

^{page 16 note 5} For a sound general appreciation of the truth, see Elmer, G., Num. Zeit., 1930, p. 19Google Scholar, where nine types in the series are recorded.

^{page 17 note 1} As yet we know of no gold of Constantine of this period, but as contemporary bronze was struck with his obverse, we have a right to expect gold as well. Maurice, op. cit. ii, p. 217, no. vi, has NOSTROR· for NOSTR·, in error, at the end of the reverse legend; he does not give the mint-mark SMT on p. 219, no. vii; on p. 218, no. v 2. he had already conjectured that the piece pl. ii, 3., (Milan) existed.

^{page 17 note 2} Maurice, op. cit. ii, p. 242, no. xv.

^{page 17 note 3} To judge from the size and weight there is one more type that ought to belong to this or the next issue—the reverse PERPETVA VIRTVS AVG., illustrated in Evans' Sale Catalogue, Geneva, 1922, pl. vi, 178. Maurice, op. cit. ii, p. 244, no. xx (from Banduri).

^{page 17 note 4} Maurice, op. cit. ii, p. 261, no. ix, attributes them to 317–320, but after 315 ‘VOT X’ would be meaningless.

^{page 17 note 5} I learn from A. Barb that many more obverse than reverse dies are used up.

^{page 17 note 6} The similarity of the representation of the emperor on reverse of pl. iii, 21, compared with iii, 14, 22, as also the identity of the female figure, pl. iii, 20, and pl. ii, 19, are also in favour of this attribution.

^{page 18 note 1} Multiple pieces were issued in this special issue. One would like to include here the great gold medallion of the Beistegui Collection (Maurice ii, pp. 238 ff.), but as it appears that there was no coinage for Licinius in 315, the mention of two Augusti in the legend ‘felix adventus Augg. nn.’ tells against it.

^{page 18 note 2} Laffranchi, L., ‘L XI anno imperatorio di Constantino Magno,’ Atti della Pontif. Accad Rom. d'archaeologia, 1921.Google Scholar This solution is disputed by such eminent historians as Stein, E., Gesch. d. spätröm. Reiches, i, 1928, p. 133Google Scholar, no. 4, and E. Groag, P-W art. ‘Maxentius’ (Regierung), col. 2246—but only because they have been misled by the Tarraco error. In 309, 310, as we saw above, solidi of quite a different kind were being issued.

^{page 18 note 3} I cannot discuss here the series of ‘biniones,’ struck after the appointment of the Caesars with reverses, SOLI INVICTO COMITI (Gnecchi, I Medaglioni Rom. i, pl. 9. 5: Hirsch Sale Catalogue, xxix, 1910, no. 1388) and IOVI CONSERVATORI (Gnecchi, op. cit., pl. 6, 7). See Maurice, op. cit. ii, p. 260 ff.

^{page 18 note 4} With regard to the list that follows I should note that I cannot trace the coins described by Maurice, ii, p. 244, no. xviii, p. 245, no. xxii, p. 253, no. viii. Maurice ii, p. 219, no. viii, is not in the British Museum. Finally, I should express my sincerest thanks to my friend, H. Mattingly, for help in various ways. I am very much indebted, too, for the plaster-casts to the curators of the great Cabinets of Coins.