¹ cf. Walsh, R., Ancient Coins, Medals, and Gems as Illustrating the Progress of Christianity in the Early Ages (London 1828 ); Alföldi, Alföldi, ‘The Helmet of Constantine with the Christian Monogram,' Journal of Roman Studies 22 (1932) 9–23; idem, ‘Hoc signo victoreris. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Bekehrung Konstantins des Grossen,’ Pisciculi. Studien zur Religion und Kultur des Altertums, ed. Joseph Dölger, Franz (Münster 1939) 1–18; V. Schultze, , ‘Münze und Kirchengeschichte,’ Geschichte. Studien A. Harnack gewidmet (Berlin 1916) 326–330.Google Scholar

² Bruun, P., ‘The Christian Signs on the Coins of Constantine,' Arctos n.s. 3 (1956) 5–35; idem, The Roman Imperial Coinage (London 1966) VII 61–64. Hereafter, RIC. Google Scholar

³ Cochrane, C. N., Christianity and Classical Culture (Oxford 1944) 327–329; Vasiliev, A. A., History of the Byzantine Empire (University of Wisconsin Studies in the Social Sciences and History 13; Madison 1928) 104–105.Google Scholar

⁴ Socrates, , Historia ecclesiastica 5.17 (PG 67.608).Google Scholar

⁵ Clement, , Miscellany I. LXI.Google Scholar

⁶ The Old Testament, for instance, often speaks of God as if He had a human body and, therefore, also hands. These hands, in turn, become the symbol of divine power (Ps. 89.22) and of God's punishing justice (1 Sam. 5–6.11), but also of God's love and providence (Job 5.18). On this, see Dingermann, F., ‘Hand,' LThK ² 4 (1960) 1342.Google Scholar

⁷ Excavations at Dura Ėuropos (Sixth Season; New Haven 1936) 347, 355, Plate 49.Google Scholar

⁸ The Mersin medallion. An established order may be inferred from ca. A.D. 395 from the verse description of a mosaic given by Paulinus, of Nola in a letter to his friend Sulpicius Severus (Ep. 32.10 [CSEL 29.286]) where vox is taken to mean the Manus Dei, based on later representations of the baptism of Christ, where it is so employed; see Grabar, A., Christian Iconography, A Study of its Origins (Bollingen Series 35; Princeton 1968) 115. Among other, very rare, and purely religious instances of the Manus Dei, of our period, and in other media, may be noted: the mosaic in the Baptistery of Soter at Naples, where the cross, flanked by the alpha and omega, is crowned by the Manus Dei, dated a little after A.D. 400; a Palestinian ampulla, now at Monza, in which the Manus Dei is an element in the depiction of the Pentecost scene, dated in the fifth century; the Melchizedek mosaic from Maria Maggiore, S., with the full upper torso of God reaching down His blessing, dated A.D. 432; a Jewish amulet dated from the third to the fifth century ( Goodenough, E. R., Jewish Symbols from the Greco-Roman Period [Bollingen 37; Princeton 1953] 1024).Google Scholar

⁹ Jgs. 5.4, Ezk. 1.4, Matt. 17.5, Lk. 9.34 all perhaps descendants of Ex. 19.16, God as lawgiver and master of the world order. Google Scholar

¹⁰ Alföldi, Alföldi, ‘Insignien und Tracht der römischen Kaiser,' Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts. Römische Abteilung 50 (1935) 55–56 and n.Google Scholar

¹¹ He mentions no pagan analogies in art forms, and the literary citations are of doubtful value: Vita Aureliani 4.3, written after the first appearance of the symbol on the Constantius medallion; Pliny the Elder, N. H. 15.135, an anecdote recounting the emperor Tiberius' habit of donning a wreath of laurel whenever a thunderstorm threatened (in a section on the virtues of the laurel); Valerius Maximus, Fact. et dict. mem. 9.1.5, a rather strained metaphor attached to the golden crown worn by a general celebrating his triumph. Google Scholar

¹² The occasion of the issue of this piece was the founding of Constantinople, and its inscription, GAUDIUM ROMANORUM, as well as the type proclaim the rebirth of the Roman commonwealth under the new order, in which the endorsement of the Most High is both expected and necessary. Google Scholar

¹³ ἀλλὰ νν γε oὐϰέτ' ἀϰoας ὀνὁέ λόγων φήmαις τὸν βϱαχίoνα τὸν ὑεηλὸν τήν τε oὺϱάνιoν δεξιὰν τo παναγάΘoν ϰὶ παmβαsιλέως ἡmν Θεo παϱαλαmβάνoνsιν, … Historia ecclesiastica 10.4.6 (GCS 9.2.864). Google Scholar

¹⁴ The rendering of the hand, the collection of the horses, and the angle of the quadriga are all subject to degradation, a common phenomenon of those large-volume copper issues of the fourth century, a fact which will effect the identification of a later example of the Manus Dei, but scholars are agreed that this is the basic form of the type. It must be noted that Alföldi, Alföldi, ‘Insignien und Tracht' (n. 10 supra), makes the Hand be that of the deified Constantius Chlorus. Here he is on much firmer ground, as this composition was well established as an apotheosis type under Septimus Severus, and may well have had a sculptural prototype; but it had also been adopted by Christianity as the ‘assumption of Elijah’ long before as well, and that allegory, of the restorer of true religion, would have appealed to Christian citizens. There is no inscription with the type to bias it in one direction or another; cf. Grabar, , Christian Iconography (n. 8 supra) 117, ill. 281–285.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The illustration of Figure IV is taken from Maurice, , Numismatique Constantinienne, 1. Pl. XXII, 8 (Paris 1908).Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Thieler, H., ‘Der Stier auf den Gross-Kupfermünzen des Julianus Apostata (355–360–363 n. Chr.),' Berliner Numismatische Zeitschrift 27 (1962) 49–54,.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Grabar, A., ‘Un Medaillon de Mersine,' Dumbarton Oaks Papers 6 (1951) esp. 36–40.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Pearce, J., ‘A New Aes Type of Valentinian I in the Museum at Budapest,' Numismatic Chronicle, series V 18 (1938) 126–128; RIC IX, xli, 159n.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Codex Theodosianus 16.5.5; 10, 7–9 (Theodosiani Libri XVI, edd. Th. Mommsen, and Meyer, P. M. [repr. of 2nd ed.; 2 vols in 3; Berlin 1954] 1.2.856; 899).Google Scholar

²⁰ Such items as the type of diadem (pearl or rosette), whether the obverse inscription was broken or unbroken, and the size of the bust, were at one or another time carefully differentiated for the seniority of the imperial house members; see Bruun, RIC VII 35; Pearce, RIC IX xxxvii. Google Scholar

²¹ These marks excited some interest as possibly reflecting in some way either the pagan-Christian conflict of the raging heretical crisis (Pearce, RIC IX xli), but Bruun's, arguments, cited above, probably still obtain. The Manus Dei escapes dismissal in the same fashion only for its overtly Christian character (i.e., it cannot be the imperial symbol or an artistic abbreviation thereof, a possibility which is ever present with a cross or Christogram) and the observation that field symbols or letters or variations in the mint mark were the ordinary means employed by the imperial mint masters to indicate sequence. If it is thought, however, that the Manus Dei fits more readily into those disputes rather than the imperial-political interpretation I have given it, one must remember that it was precisely the widely held view of the pagans that their gods were the source of Roman victory which occasioned the De civitate Dei. Google Scholar

²² First observed by the Rev. Daniel Clark, C. Degradation of the type makes identification of the symbol difficult. Carson, R. A. G. Dr., in a private communication, expressed the view that what we see on the Cyzicene coins is no more than a degraded tropaion; and he took no cognizance of the type-variant in Carson, R. A. G. and Kent, J. P. C., Late Roman Bronze Coinage II (London 1965 ). However, while we find examples of the Manus Dei quite clear, no such examples exist of a pre-degradation trophy. No shaft line survives on any example I have seen of this issue to reproduce the pole on which a trophy would rest, and there is plainly an artistic difficulty present in the treatment of Victory's right arm: the official prototype has Victory's right arm extended to support the trophy shaft, and this feature is retained in the Cyzicus variant with no function. Thus the artist occasionally has the right hand reaching up to grasp the E or I of the inscription, or simply terminates the arm in a rectangular block or cube. Bruck, G., Die spätrömische Kupferprägung (Graz 1961) 61, saw sufficient difference to rate the Cyzicene reverse type as a major variant of SALVS REIPUBLICAE, but did not recognize the Manus Dei symbol.Google Scholar

²³ The attempt of Magnus Maximus to obtain Church sanction of his usurpation by his persecution of the Priscillians illustrates well the value of Christian opinion in the imperial mind; cf. Ambrose, Ep. 24. Google Scholar

²⁴ The solitary example of the Manus Dei associated with Honorius is as a reverse type of his first Ravenna mint solidi, in the traditional ‘victorious Christian prince’ pose, celebrating the defeat of Gildo the Moor (symbolized by an expired lion lying at the emperor's feet; cf. Claudian, , De bello Gildonico 1.358–359) (Plate X). These coins were issued in A.D. 402.Google Scholar

²⁵ In addition to the illustrated gold and copper examples of the Manus Dei on the obverse, two issues of Aes III repeated and expanded the type on the reverse, showing the empress enthroned with the Manus above: inscribed CONCORDIA AVG for Pulcheria, Placida, and Eudocia at Constantinople, and GLORIA ROMANORUM for Eudoxia at all the eastern mints. Google Scholar

²⁶ A badly damaged specimen of the Constantinople mint, reverse inscribed CONCORDIA AGV ( Carson, and Kent, , Late Roman Bronze Coinage [n. 21 supra] 90, no. 2232) with the Manus Dei on the obverse, has been tentatively assigned to Theodosius II and dated ca. 430; but neither the inscription nor the bust is clear enough to make this attribution certain.Google Scholar

²⁷ The prerogatives of the emperor in this and in all other earthly affairs were not universally endorsed by all Christians. Thus, although Prudentius (Contra Symmachum 1.427–429 [CCL 126.200–210]) might proclaim ‘Hoc deus ipse / constituit, cuius nutu dominaris et orbi / imperitas et cuncta potens mortalia calcas’ (cf. ibid lines 408–410), Augustine, Augustine would caution that emperor's son against overpresumption (Retractationes 1.3.2.8).Google Scholar

²⁸ Grabar, , Christian Iconography (n. 8 supra) 117ff.Google Scholar

²⁹ Carson, and Kent, (Late Roman Bronze Coinage [n. 21 supra]), no. 2285, attributed to Basiliscus, is, in fact, an issue of Zeonis'.Google Scholar