The Coinage of Vetranio: Imperial Representation and the Memory of Constantine the Great Author(s): ALAN DEARN Source: The Numismatic Chronicle (1966-), Vol. 163 (2003), pp. 169-191 Published by: Royal Numismatic Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42667169 Accessed: 30-10-2018 05:53 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Royal Numismatic Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Numismatic Chronicle (1966-) This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms The Coinage of Vetranio: Imperial Representation and the Memory of Constantine the Great1 ALAN DEARN [PLATE 28] On 18 January ad 350, Magnentius rebelled against Constans in G him killed. Within a short period, he had extended his control ove territory which had been ruled by Constans, establishing his powe Gaul, North Africa and Italy, with the exception of the short-liv Constantine' s nephew Nepotian at Rome. However, Constans' east Illyricum, Dacia and Macedonia, with their mint cities of Siscia and Thessalonica, did not fall to Magnentius. On 1 March 350, Constans' magister peditum Vetranio was proclaimed emperor, and held Illyricum against Magnentius until his abdication to Constantius II on 25 December 350, during Constantius' march westward against Magnentius. Vetranio was then sent into retirement to Prusa in Bithynia. The purpose of this article is to consider how Vetranio represented the nature of his authority on the coins he struck in the light of the contradictory literary evi- dence for his reign. I will suggest that the coinage issued by Vetranio between March and December 350 reflects a coherent and self-conscious programme in the way it depicts Vetranio and his relationship with Constantius. Indeed, I will seek to demonstrate that the 'message' of the coinage is able to resolve the conflicting traditions found in the literary evidence for Vetranio's motivation and policy. In contrast to the officially sanctioned interpretation of Vetranio's actions which emerged in the years after 350, his coinage expresses subordination to Constantius II, and advertises the impending victory of the son of Constantine. As such, this discussion has wider relevance than the coinage of Vetranio alone, casting light upon some of the ways in which the memory of Constantine was evoked and fought over in the decades after his death. Vetranio's abdication was a 1 A version of this paper was presented to the Australian Centre for Ancient Numismatic Studies, to whose director, Kenneth Sheedy, I would like to record my thanks. I am also grateful to Jonathan Williams for access to the British Museum collection and for his assistance in supplying casts. Particular thanks are due to Cathy King, Ted Nixon and Altay Coçkun for their comments on this paper. Cathy King also kindly facilitated the photography of the coins. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 170 ALAN DEARN moment of high imperial t imperial regalia and autho armies. The negative treatm looks back to this event, in Constantius. However, Vet Vetranio's coins may be un upon Vetranio, but This interpretation of Vet ments presented by Bleckm forced the events Constantius Bleckmann of 350. Neithe throughout presents a his pictu legitimacy through his ex daughter Con owed his authority to the a Balkans felt for the Flavian by both authors as those o threats posed by Magnentiu of the evidence. Firstly, I of our literary evidence ma Drinkwater problematic, b Vetranio's reign. The coina to us for how he represen other sources interpret hi greater attention than they for the historian lies in V Constantine's on some of his bronze coin the Battle of Milvian Bridg unexpected Vetranio's medium coinage of than a co has 1. VETRANIO IN THE LITERARY SOURCES The 'usurpation' of Vetranio receives frequent attestation in our in connection with that of Magnentius, although with different different interpretations attached to Vetranio's actions. Before numismatic evidence, I will begin by surveying what the literary tell us about Vetranio's reign. Rather than seeking to synthesiz 2 B. Bleckmann, 'Constantina, Vetranio und Gallus Caesar', Chiron 24 (1994 3 J.F. Drinkwater, 'The revolt and ethnic origin of the usurper Magnentius rebellion of Vetranio (350)', Chiron 30 (2000), pp. 131-59. 4 Bleckmann, 'Constantina', pp. 44-8. 5 Drinkwater, 'Revolt', pp. 149-50. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE COINAGE OF VETRANIO 171 accounts to establish 'what really happened different attitudes towards Vetranio they I. NEUTRAL AND POSITIVE TRADITIONS To begin with, a number of sources simply refer to the fact of Vetranio tion to imperial power. The Consularia Constantinopolitana lists the com power of Vetranio and Nepotian after that of Magnentius, describing a with the same verb - leuatus est.6 Jerome, who appears to have Consularia as a source,7 gives a similarly terse account in his Chro Socrates9 and Sozomen10 also make brief and uncomplimentary ref Vetranio, although they add the information that he was proclaimed Au the Illyrian soldiers under his command. However, even in the brief acco the Consularia Constantinopolitana and Jerome, it is perhaps implicit t usurpation of Vetranio, and indeed that of Nepotian, was not of the sa that of Magnentius. In the case of the Consularia , reference to Vetran Nepotian is followed by the statement that there was war between the and Magnentians'.11 The followers of Magnentius are juxtaposed with Ro though they were barbarians. It is perhaps significant that Vetranio and are not castigated in this way. Similarly, in Jerome's account, the usurp Vetranio and Nepotian are portrayed as responses to Magnentius' execut Constans, rather than as usurpations like that of Magnentius.12 These hints of ambivalence towards Vetranio are explained when we tur fuller accounts of Philostorgios, the Chronicon Paschale and Theoph describing the usurpation and abdication of Vetranio, all three texts ap draw upon the same narrative source (now lost) as the Consularia Constantinopolitana , although it is unclear whether they drew upon it directly or via intermediate sources.13 The lost source is notable for its favourable posture towards Constantius and his ecclesiastical policies, preserved in the Chronicon Paschale , but omitted or explicitly rebuffed in Theophanes. Because of this, it is 0 Cons. Const, s.a. 350. 7 R.W. Burgess, The Chronicle of Hydatius and the Consularia Constantinopolitana : T Contemporary Accounts of the Final Years of the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1993), pp. 196-7. 8 Jer. Chron. s.a. 350. 9 Soc. HE 2.25.9: év 'IM,Dpioîç Ôè èv Zipjiíco 7ró^ei ëxepoç imo xœv éiceiae axpaxicoxœv £7rfļpxo xúpavvoç, co ovovia Bexpavícov (sic). 10 Soz. HE 4.1.1: Bpexavícov (sic) ôé xiç 'mò xcov 'IM/upícòv Gxpaxicoxíôv év xá) Zipfiícp paaiXeúç ávriYopeúôri. 11 Cons. Const, s.a. 350: '... et pugna magna fuit cum Romanis et Magnentianis.' 12 Jer. Chron. s.a. 350: '... quam ob rem turbata re publica Vetranio Mursae, Nepotianus Romae imperatores facti.' 13 For the difficulty of disentangling the sources of the late-Roman chronicles, see Burgess, Chronicle of Hydatius, p. 180. See also R.W. Burgess, Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronography (Stuttgart, 1999), pp. 122-6. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 172 ALAN DEARN generally reign The of referred to as an Valens.14 tradition of the lost the Chronicon Paschale Consularia Constantinop Constantius' emperor.15 sister In the Consta pastiche mentioned twice, being as 1 March 350. 16 The latte apparently derives from t revolt are placed in the Magnentius. Before he a emperor ... Vetranio is and raised up s speech before the army, a Campus Martius at Rome. Bithynia.18 Theophanes' a errors of chronology than The fullest account is fou subsequently appointed Vetranio as Cae Magnentius' rule. Hearing 14 C. Mango & R. Scott, The C History ad 284-813 (Oxford, 1997 Bidez (ed.), Philostorgius Kirche 15 I follow the communis opinio name also appears in the source 16 17 Chron. Ibid. s.a. Pasch. 350.2: s.a. 349; 7ipiv Tļ <1)0áaai aúxòv Ka^ávôaiç Mapxíaiç eíç rcpòç 18 Ibid. s.a. 350.3. XT1V 350. Kcovaxavxioi) Kcovax ßaaiÄi:a iiáxriv. 19 For example, Vetranio's elevation is dated to 356/7, and his abdication described as having occurred after the final defeat of Magnentius (Theoph. Chron. s.a. 356/7). Burgess, Chronography, p. 123, argues that Theophanes relies upon a narrative source, augmented clumsily by other sources, rather than the (lost) Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii which he used for events up to 350. 20 Philostrg. HE 3.22: ...Tļ Ttpsaßuxaxri xoúxcov 0t6eX<<ļ)fļ Kcovaxavxía (sic) ( AvafiaKkiavov ôè fļv K£xr|pco|iévr| ywr|), Ôeíaaaa fxfļ (ļ)0aaetev ó x')pavvf|aaç Mayvèvxioç xò rcávxcov avapxrļaaa0ai Kpáxoç, Oúexepavícová (sic) xiva, xcov axpaxriyoúvxcov èva, Ka0íaxr|ai Kaíaapa. èÔÓKei ôè ôúvaaÒai xfļv Tcpâ^iv, ôióxi Çcôv ó koivòç aúxcov rcaxrip ôiaÕf||j.axí xe a')xfļv èxaivíco aev Kai Aùyoûaxav è7icovó|Aaaev. ó Ôè Kcovaxávxioç xarna jxaGcov rcapauxÍKa |ièv Oúexepavícovi xò õiáõr||xa 7ré(i7rei, auvemK-upcòv aùxcò Kai xò xíiç ßaaiAeiaq á^ícojia- erceixa Ôè rcpòç 'Earcepío-uç Kaxà Mayvevxíoi) axpax£DÓ|j,evoç Kai cruļiļLŪ^ai (1)iAícoç xcò Oúexepavícovi pou^r|08Íç, èneínep ekeívoç 7iapéG%ev 'mo'j/íav é7tavaaxáa£coç, %£ipoí)xat (lèv xòv Oúexepavícova Kai xf1ç ßaaiAiKrjq ànoòvei axo^-nç- (xriôèv ôè kokòv éTrepyaoájievoç âXXo, àXkà Kai xpa7ièÇr|ç amco Koivcoviíaaç, eíç Ilpoûaav xrjç Bi0uvíaç éK7té|i7t£i, ^ajircpàç Kai ji£yata>7ip£7i£iç à<1>opíaaç aúxcò xàç xoprjyíaç, fxr|Ôevòç -òax£p£Ìa0ai, wv ávOpokou ßioq coç èv íôicoxaiç ei)Ôai(xov£Î, 7cpovor|aá|ievoç. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE COINAGE OF VETRANIO 173 recognizing his rule, but received his abdi is stripped of his imperial robe followi united armies, after which he is sent into esting features of Philostorgios' account not found in any other source, and the Constantina's actions. Constantina is sai because her father, Constantine, had bou the title Augusta , indications of both dy express it. These are themes to which w II. NEGATIVE TRADITIONS Vetranio also appears in the accounts of Eutropius and Aurelius Victor. A Eutropius does not mention the role played by Constantina in Vetranio' tion, his Breuiarium does reflect a generally positive view of the usurper pointing out his lack of learning. Vetranio, an old soldier popular with chosen by the soldiers so that he might hold Illyricum.22 Against whom is ified, but the implication seems to be that it was against Magnentius. A Victor, in contrast, records a highly negative interpretation of Vetranio' Since Eutropius and Aurelius Victor seem often to have drawn upon a m source - the lost Kaisergeschichte - this negative treatment of Vetranio i ing, albeit easily explained.23 Victor owed his advancement to Constant he wrote his De caesaribus while holding office under him.24 It is thus un ing to see in Victor the same treatment of Vetranio which we find in th gyrics delivered to Constantius by Themistios and Julian. At the very leas would have been exposed to the interpretation of the usurpation sanctio Constantius' court, and was prudent enough to adopt it.25 21 Note Bastien's slip in reading this as Magnentius sending a diadem to Vetranio: R B Monnayage de Magnence (350-353) (Wetteren, 1964 & 1983), p. 12. 22 Eutrop. 10.10.2: 'Post Constantis necem Magnentio Italiani, Africam, Gallias obtinen Illyricum res nouas habuit, Vetranione ad impérium consensu militum electo. Quem granda et cunctis amabilem diuturnitate et felicitate militiae ad tuendum Illyricum principem c uirum probum et morům ueterum ac iucundae ciuilitatis, sed omnium liberalium artium adeo, ut ne elementa quidem prima litterarum nisi grandaeuus et iam imperator acceperiť 23 H.W. Bird, Eutropius: Breuiarium (Liverpool, 1993), pp. xlvii-xlviii. Note however nature of the shared source or sources informing Eutropius and Aurelius Victor is contested there is also controversy as to whether the Kaisergeschichte, if it existed, terminated in 337 24 H.W. Bird, Aurelius Victor: De Caesaribus (Liverpool, 1994), pp. viii-ix. 25 See C.E.V. Nixon, 'Aurelius Victor and Julian', Classical Philology 86 (1991), pp Note in particular his conclusion on p. 124: 'It is clear that Victor, if he is not dealing with approved information, is at least offering an orthodox version of recent events from the vi the reigning emperor, a version that at several points reflects the latter 's propaganda.' See Marc. 15.1.2 for a reference to court interpretations of Constantius' suppression of Veterani Gallus. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 174 ALAN DEARN In Victor's account, Vetra of the role of Constan terizes Vetranio as an illite here focus upon Vetranio Vetranio's over foolish lac il sheer force of his eloquen Constantius' armies is liken tory was the and usurper thro responds closely with th Probably in 355, the new which little distinction i Vetranio. Constantius deser of arms, the latter th felt the need to refute the force alty on to Constantius. behalf explains far as so of Constantius' move to suggest that Vet rather than on support the Althou Constantius reflecting of a the subord umphing as he did over an the abdication ceremony i jurors. This interpretation also found in the panegyr with Victor and Julian also owed his advancement to Constantius.31 26 Aur. Vict. Caes. 41.26: '... tum quia Vetranio litterarum prorsus expers et ingenio stolidior idcircoque agresti uecordia pessimus, cum per Illyrios peditum magisterio milites curaret, dominationem ortus Moesiae superioris locis squalidioribus improbe occupauerat.' 27 Ibid. 42. 1-3: 'Eum Constantius cis mensem decimum facundiae ui deiectum imperio in priuatum otium remouit. Quae gloria post natum impérium soli processit eloquio clementiaque. Nam cum magna parte utrimque exercitus conuenissent, habita ad speciem iudicii contione, quod fere uix aut multo sanguine obtinendum erat, eloquentia patrauit.' 28 Jul. Or. 1.1 A: ...Kai xaç xvpavviôaç orccoç avTipT1Kaç, xr|ç jiev Aoyco Kai 7t£i0oi xouç ôopix^ópouç à7coaxf|aaç, xrjç ôè xòiç önXoiq Kpaxriaaç, tò jxéyeOoç elpye xcov rcpá^ecov, où xò ßpa^i) ^ei(ļ)0fļvai xcò ^óyco xoòv epycov Ôeivòv Kpívovxa. Note that Vetranio is not named in the panegyric, as befits a defeated enemy. See also Jul. Or. 1.33A-B. 29 Ibid. 1.26D: Kai xécoç |ièv é7tr|yyé^^£xo xa 7ipoar|Kovxa ôpaaeiv, ovoajicoç amov açicov xrçç ápxíiç, £7ríxpo7iov Ôè oi|jm rciaxòv Kai (ļnj^aKa rcapé^eiv èrcayyeÂAójaevoç- ēļieĀAe ôè oùk eiç ļiaKpctv a7ciaxoç (1>av£Ìa0ai Kai ôíktjv ')c1)éÇeiv Kaíxoi (ļ)i^av0pco7iov. 30 Ibid. 1.30D: orne eÔeiaaç xrçç rcapaoKe-uriç xo |ieye0oç o'>xe amaxcov avòpcov çu|4ia%iav tûjzov e%£iv i)7té^apeç xfjç 8jj,<1)povoç yv(ó|a,r|ç. 31 See especially Them. Or. 2.34b; 2.38a; 3.45b-c and 4.56a-b: avaļj.vrļa0Tļxe odv rcpoç <ļ)iAiou fļviKa éÇeppáyri jièv fļ xupavviç rcepi xrçv ècné pav, cruļjjrapetļn) Ôè Kai èxépa èv 'IAXupioíç, coç ärcaaa oův fļ àp%f| òp0r| fļv Kai jiexécopoç rcpòç xò 'iéXkov ... Kai òMyco üaxepov 7ié|i7cei ai%|iátaoxov a')xfi xòv ëxepov xœv xvpávvcov, öv 7iâ>ç âv xiç Àé yoi aixiiátaoxov; où yàp aix|xf' èátao, àXX i) nò Xóyov f]vôparcoôía0r|, Kai àTieôúaaxo où xò yr1paç Ka0Ó7iep oi ô(1)£iç, àXXà xrçv ëÇcopov áXoDpyíÔa, xò yrjpaç ôè aùxcp ôiexipriaev ó paaiteùç ó KaMÁxe%voç àxe^vc òç, jxá^iaxa ôè èm xaúxfl xfj víkt], öxi xco Ka^íaxcp ottico éKxrjaaxo. For Themistius' advancement under Constantius and the role of his This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE COINAGE OF VETRANIO 175 The negative treatment of Vetranio, appar tioned interpretation of his 'usurpation', m which did not have the same overt agenda accounts of Zosimos, Petros Patrikios and many of the same topoi found in Constan pro-Constantian, panegyrical sources. Fo works via Eunapios. According to his ac became emperor after having been ove Magnentius.32 His forced abdication was ag the combined armies, whom Constantius wo alty they had sworn to Constantine's sons. retirement through Constantius' mercy.33 and Magnentius attempting to woo Vetrani mentary sixth-century account of Petros Vetranio sending joint ambassadors to Con attempted to contract a marriage alliance w of Zonaras, who seems to have used Pa explained as the result of a formal peace be both accounts, Constantius is dissuaded fro visited by Constantine in a dream. Holdin Constantine forbids his surviving son Constantius duly awakes, and has the amba the fragment of Patrikios which survives describe Vetranio's surrender to Constantiu III. SUMMARY OF THE LITERARY EVIDENCE The literary sources therefore convey two broad traditions concerning the vation and aims of Vetranio. In one, Vetranio is presented as stabilizing a gerous situation on behalf of Constantius. In the other, Vetranio is castigat oratory in achieving this, see R.M. Errington, 'Themistius and his emperors', Chiron 30 pp. 861-72. Themistios did so well from Constantius' patronage that he was required to defend self from accusations that he had compromised his philosophical integrity. See P. Heather Moncur, Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century: Select Orations of The (Liverpool, 2001), pp. 12-19, 47. 32 Zos. 2.43.1; Zon. 13.7.16. 33 Zos. 2.44.2-4: 'EKaxépou (ie Constantius and Magnentius) xoívdv KipuKaç rcepi xoúxo Bexpavícova axeíÀ,avxoç £ÍÂ,£xo Kcovaxavxícp 0éa0ai 1iâÀÀov r' Mayvevxíco- xcov oův May Tipeaßecov avaxcopriaavxcov ájcpdKxcov a')ve^0eív èç xaúxò xà axpaxÓ7ieôa Kcovcr 7cap8KÓ^ei, Kai GKéfj.fia koivòv rcepi xoû rcpòç Mayvévxiov 7īpoxe0fļvai 7io^éuo'). 34 Petr. Patr. fr. 16 ( FHG , vol. 4, p. 190). 35 Zon. 13.7.17-19. 36 Petr. Patr. frg. 16: Kai eíç wwov xparceiç eíôev ö'j/iv, öxi ó 7caxfļp amoû akmep èÇ í3'1/odç Kaxicov Kai xfļ %eipi Kaxé%cov xòv Kcóvoxavxa, ov áveiXe Mayvévxioç, xoûxov aúxco 7tpOG<1)épa>v xaûxa 7cpòç aúxòv èôÓKei xà pf||iaxa (ļ)0eYyea0af Koovoxávxie, iôoi) KcovGxavç ó tcoMíov ßaaiAecov àTióyovoç, ó éjiòç mòç Kai aòç àÔe^òç, xupavviKœç á7toMA)fj.£voç. cf. Zon. 13.7.24-8. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 176 ALAN DEARN treacherous emperor. different policy old man, a usu Most modern dis traditions after initial by synt loyalty Vetranio's motives in the after 350 to po bring glory to Constantiu winning a bloodless victory ing Vetranio as the saviour Turning to the numismatic of Vetranio's actions as mo imperative Vetranio's coinage tends Consularia Constantinopo Illyricum in willing subord how Vetranio represented authority must be consider which have attracted atten often the case with late R coin type in isolation as a within the context of the reveal its 'meaning'. Vetra discussions of his policy, in 2. THE COINAGE OF VETRANIO I. vetranio's coinage reflecting centralized policy The first observation to make about Vetranio's coinage is that both mints un his control, Siscia and Thessalonica, engaged in a coherent programm imperial representation, implying centralized organisation. In the Byzantinisc Forschungen of 1982, Shelton posed some interesting questions as to ho usurper such as Magnentius might have gone about seizing administrative con of monetary production in the territories to which he was laying claim.39 A points out, the usurpation of Magnentius brought about a dramatic break with coordination of coin types which had existed between the territories of Cons and Constantius II. Furthermore, the coinage struck under Magnentius reflec progressive achievement of uniformity in the portraiture and types struck at 37 As is the case in A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284-602. A Social, Economic Administrative Survey (Oxford, 1964), vol. 1, p. 113; M. DiMaio, Zonaras' Account of the Flavian Emperors: A Commentary (unpublished dissertation, (University of Missouri, 1 pp. 292-3; Bleckmann, 'Constantina', p. 44; S.N.C. Lieu & D. Montserrat, From Constanti Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views (London, 1996), pp. 210-11. 38 Bleckmann, 'Constantina', p. 47; Drinkwater, 'Revolt , pp. 151-2. 39 K. Shelton, 'Usurpers' coins: the case of Magnentius , ByzF 8 (1982), pp. 211-35. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE COINAGE OF VETRANIO 177 various mints. The coin issues in themselv control of types, and in Shelton's view als nel and fiscal administration from the rul However, Constans' three eastern dioceses ment not mentioned by Shelton. Perha simply did not want them.41 Following the elevation of Vetranio, the into three administrative and fiscal units. own bureaucracies, which presumably inc gitionum. The mints under the control of each other. The types introduced under Ve his mints alone. This explains their aband of Magnentius, despite the fact that they Constantius and Gallus after Vetranio' s a ment should be understood as the result o under the administrative control of Cons tionum , rather than of Constantius' con unpalatable.42 However, establishing the extent to which the coinage issued under Vetranio points to centralized control is itself problematic. Are we to see the coinage struck at Siscia and Thessalonica as an expression of the policy of Vetranio's court? Or was the choice of types made at a lower administrative level, perhaps according to the judgement of the procurator monetae controlling each mint?43 The problem is difficult to resolve. To a certain extent, the products of both mints share features which must be the result of centralized policy. Siscia and Thessalonica represent Vetranio in the same way on their obverse portraiture, and both follow the same policy of striking issues in the name of both Vetranio and Constantius. We may therefore imagine some form of centralized fiscal administration acting under Vetranio's orders, or those of his comes sacrarum largitionum , sending general directives and imperial imagines to the mints.44 On the other hand, there is little uniformity in the reverse types between Vetranio's two mints. The issues struck in gold and silver at both mints are quite different from one another, which is explicable if they were struck as accessional donatives, at the very outset of Vetranio's reign.45 However, the billon types struck at Thessalonica are also 40 Ibid. p. 218. 41 Drinkwater, 'Revolt', p. 148. 42 As is suggested by Drinkwater, 'Revolt', p. 152, n. 106, following Bleckmann, 'Constantina', p. 48. 43 See M.H. Crawford, 'Roman imperial coin types and the formation of public opinion', in C.N.L. Brooke (ed.), Studies in Numismatic Method Presented to Philip Grierson (Cambridge, 1983), p. 59. 44 For the transmission of imagines laureatae , see P. Bruun, 'The source value of imperial coin por- traits (the fourth century ad)', in T. Hackens & R. Weiller (eds), ProcINC 9, Berne, Sept. 1979 (Louvain-la-Neuve and Luxembourg, 1979), pp. 552-3. 45 J.P.C. Kent, RIC 8, p. 345. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 178 ALAN DEARN different adoption reflect an an from of to lack 'CO coordi overtaken the struc Siscian attempt attempt Despite the those of by p unif Thessalonica, it is neverthe policy, which I have refer Firstly, both mints contro name and that of Constant issues of solidi and miliaren ably represent a donative f ing collegiality need not i ued to strike billon coinage Aquileia before the appoint recognising Constantius Constans' territory. Conve struck coins in each other's came to some formal agre both his image and that of the two were able to be ju was able both to associate h his subordination to him. At this point it may be instructive to consider briefly the ways in which anoth- er usurper, Carausius, associated his image with those of Diocletian and Maximian. Carausius' coinage is a particularly vivid example of how a usurper could exploit coin types for political advantage.48 Most famous are the radiate types, probably struck in 292, which feature conjoined busts of Carausius, Diocletian and Maximian on the obverse with the legend 'CARAVSIVS ET FRATRES SVI' or 'AVGVSTIS CVM DIOCLETI ANO' .49 On the one coin, the images of the three emperors are associated with each other, in a manner which reflects the pattern of Carausius' other coinage struck at the same time, with obverses in the names of himself, Diocletian and Maximian.50 His desire to represent himself as sharing in an imperial college with Diocletian and Maximian is also reflected in the reverse legends associated with the series, which combine common slogans such as LAETITIA, PAX and SALVS with the collégial formula AVGGG. Carausius, 46 Ibid. p. 398. 47 Ibid. pp. 344-5. 48 RJ. Casey, Carausius andAllectus (Yale, 1994), pp. 55-69. 49 N. Shiel, 'Carausius et fratres sui', BNJ 48 (1980), pp. 7-11; R.A.G. Carson, 'Carausius et fratres sui: a reconsideration', in S. Scheers (ed.), Studio Paulo Naster Oblata.I. Numismatica Antiqua (Louvain, 1982), pp. 245-58; R.A.G. Carson, 'Carausius et fratres sui ... again', in H. Huvelin et al. (eds), Mélanges numismatiques offerts à Pierre Bastien (Wetteren, 1987), pp. 145-8. 50 See in particular Carson's overview in 'Carausius: a reconsideration', pp. 246-54. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE COINAGE OF VETRANIO 179 as in the case of Vetranio, therefore crea imperial images in his coinage. However, this context to portray subordination, th Carausius. The collégial formula, as well ture and regalia seems rather to sugg colleague.51 II. THE USE OF OBVERSE PORTRAITURE TO SHOW SUBORDINATION In contrast to Carausius' juxtaposition of imperial portraits, Vetranio re his subordination through the use of very different obverse portraiture f and Constantius. As King has argued, portraiture on the imperial coinag understood as expressing the aspirations and self-perception of an through visual triggers 4 . . . which had the effect of displaying, with eco immediate impact, the emperor as he wished to be seen'.52 On the coina by Vetranio, the different portraiture adopted for the two emperors had th effect of displaying how Vetranio wished to be seen in relation to Co His depiction of Constantius continued the iconography of Constantinia tic rule which had been established by Constantine for his quinquennalia and which had been emulated by his sons.54 These portraits are not nat but advertise a connection to the family of Constantine in the aquiline f the emperor, the long flowing hair and the absence of facial hair (PI. 2 This emphasis upon the similitudo of the members of a ruling college expense of realistic depiction, gave visual expression to the ideology o cohesion.55 The absence of similitudo between the portraits struck unde for himself and Constantius is therefore striking (PI. 28. 2, 4, 5, 7). In cant break with the established iconography of Constantine and his sons is depicted as bearded, the first time a bearded portrait had appeared since the fall of Licinius in 324.56 In addition, the squarer profile of the shorter hair depicted for Vetranio revives the earlier portraiture of Con Licinius, and stands firmly in the tradition of the depiction of Illyria emperors of the late third and early fourth century. Indeed, it could be ar 51 It is possible however that the unique 'AVGVSTIS CVM DIOCLETIANO' legend m belated attempt to claim equality with Maximian, while acknowledging Diocletian's pos ior colleague. See Carson, 'Carausius ... again', p. 146. 52 C.E. King, 'Roman portraiture: images of power?' in G.M. Paul & M. Ierardi (e Coins and Public Life Under the Empire (Ann Arbor, 1999), p. 127. 53 For Constantine's departure from the conventions of Tetrarchie portraiture, se 'Portrait of a conspirator: Constantine's break with the tetrarchy', in Studies in Con Numismatics (Rome, 1999), p. 107. First published in Arctos 10 (1976), pp. 5-25. P. Bastien, Le buste monétaire des empereurs romains (Wetteren, 1992) vol. 1, pp. 3 55 Bruun, 'Source value', p. 558. See also F. Kolb, Herrscherideologie in der Spätant 2001), pp. 61-3. 56 Bastien, Buste monétaire , vol. 1, p. 36. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 180 ALAN DEARN Vetranio traiture was claiming legi this seems unlike for Constantius, a macy 350 However, in than that of t III. DIADEM AND LAUREL WREATH An even more explicit expression of Vetranio's subordination to Const that Constantius appears on his coins wearing a diadem, whereas V depicted with a laurel wreath. Some clarification is necessary here. Firstl be established exactly what constituted a diadem in the context of 350, to establish that Vetranio is never depicted wearing this piece of imper Secondly, if Vetranio is depicted wearing a laurel wreath, in the contex of coins which depict Constantius with a diadem, what is meant by this in their headgear? When it was initially adopted by Constantine during 325-6, the diad the form of a simple band, in emulation of Hellenistic prototypes.57 imperial diadems became increasingly elaborate, and their depiction inc normative under his sons, with laureate bust types becoming unusual. and especially following the major reform of the billon coinage in 348 depiction of the diadem as either a double row of pearls with a frontal g a series of gems or rosettes with a frontal gem had essentially reached t would retain into the fifth century as the distinguishing mark of an Augu According to Kent's classifications in RIC 8, Vetranio never appears on his coins struck at Siscia. However, in the case of Thessalonica, he several of Vetranio's billon issues as bearing either a laureate or pearl- portrait, following the description of Voetter.60 This distinction betwe wreath and diadem becomes significant when considered in the Philostorgios' account of Vetranio's elevation. According to Philostorg Constantius heard that Constantina had appointed Vetranio as Caesar, nised Vetranio by sending him a diadem.61 Is this reflected in Vetranio' of a diadem on his coins? Unfortunately, the explanation lies rather in t ogy adopted by Voetter and Kent. Voetter rather misleadingly differ between what he calls the diadem and the more ornate Perlenschnur , ev 57 Ibid. vol. 1, pp. 156-7. For Constantine's adoption of the diadem, see Herrscherideologie , pp. 77-9. 58 For 348 as the probable date of the introduction of the FEL TEMP RJEPAKATIO type RIC 8, pp. 34-5. 59 See Bastien, Buste monétaire, vol. 1, pp. 143-166, for an overview of the developm diadem. 60 Kent, RIC 8, Thessalonica, nos. 127 ('VIRTVS EXERCITVM'); 131 and 135 ('CONCORDIA MILITVM'), following O. Voetter, Die Münzen der römischen Kaiser, Kaiserinnen und Caesaren von Diocletianus bis Romulus (Vienna, 1921), pp. 346-7. 61 Philostrg. HE 3.22. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE COINAGE OF VETRANIO 181 he applies this term to what are progressiv Kent incorporated Voetter's Perlenschn diadem'. However, neither author noted wh incorporated frontal gems.63 In the case of is crucial. At both Siscia and Thessalonica, Vetranio's laurel wreath receives varied treat- ment. In its most competent rendering, the wreath appears as a double row of leaves radiating diagonally forwards and away from each other (PL 28. A and 2). In other examples, the wreath appears to be made up of two rows of parallel leaves, or even as two or three parallel lines (Pl. 28. B and 4-5). The parallel rows of leaves are generally made up of oval shapes, but sometimes appear to comprise circular pellets, especially at Thessalonica (Pl. 28. 7). It is this type which most resembles a pearl-diadem, and which caused first Voetter and then Kent to classify them as such. However, when compared with the issues struck by Vetranio in the name of Constantius, it appears that what differentiated the laurel wreath from the diadem most clearly in the minds of the die cutters was that the diadem incor- porated a frontal gem. This is always depicted on the coins struck for Constantius, but never on those in Vetranio's name. At Siscia, the gem is usually rendered as an arc drawn between the two rows of pearls over Constantius' forehead (PL 28. 1, 3). At Thessalonica, the gem is often even more apparent, appearing as a full circle (Pl. 28. C), although it also appears as an arc (Pl. 28. 6). In addition, the laurel wreath is further distinguished from the diadem at both Siscia and Thessalonica by being tied with a looped ribbon at the back of the head. This detail almost always appears on the portraiture of Vetranio, but never on that of Constantius, whose diadem terminates in two ribbons without a loop. As it is clear that an attempt was made to differentiate the diadem from the lau- rel wreath, we may envisage a prosaic explanation for the sometimes imperfect rendering of the latter. By 350, it had been more than a decade since any coin struck at Siscia or Thessalonica had borne a laureate portrait. It should come as no surprise that depicting a laurel wreath seems to have caused problems for some die cutters. However, despite the problem of unfamiliarity, it is striking that effort was made systematically to differentiate the regalia of Constantius from that of Vetranio. This is a self-conscious act, reflecting policy. IV. THE LAUREL WREATH AS A SIGN OF SUBORDINATION We may therefore conclude that Vetranio is never depicted on his coins wear a diadem. How then are we to account for the evidence of Philostorgios, tha Constantius sent a diadem to Vetranio? Perhaps the reference in Philostorgi may be explained as an anachronism. Vetranio was the last Roman emperor 62 Voetter, Münzen, p. 5. Bastien, Buste monétaire , vol. 1, p. 147. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 182 to ALAN DEARN appear with wearing frontal visual a gem laurel became vocabulary was deve in numismati subordination diadem recorded in Philost he, his source, or his epit Vetranio received a diadem In the context of 350, ho conveyed subordination, w is suggested by the prec Constantine's reign. When band, it appeared on coins on his own. However, by increasingly ornate, and h Augustus, this while preservation his Caes d ideology of Constantine's his Caesars owed their pos case or not, it is clear that convey gear. was the It is relative likely inspired The of by the status that this numismatic o Vetr prece portrai example of the manipulati relative status. As with Ve dynastic absence likeness of Constantius' ing is with Co similitudo name w during his adoption of a ba some billon is elevation of Decentius, on How are we to account for exception of or diadem? An explanation may be suggested by the case of Hannibalianus. Although Hannibalianus was Constantine's nephew, he did not exercise power within the framework of Constantinian dynastic rule, but was appointed in 335 as rex re gum 64 For example, see the observations of J.W.E. Pearce, RIC 9, p. xxxvii, concerning the use of broken and unbroken obverse legends under the Valentinian and Theodosian dynasties. 65 Bastien, Buste monétaire , vol. 1, p. 159. 66 For example, see the billon 'GLORIA EXERCITVS' series struck at Siscia between ad 330-7 in P.M. Bruun, RIC 7, Siscia, nos. 219-21; 235-9; 252-6 and 261-6. 67 S. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, 1981), pp. 188-91. See espe- cially her discussion of the dynastic multiple ( RIC 7, Constantinople, no. 42) at p. 189. 68 Bastien, Buste monétaire, vol. 1, p. 47. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE COINAGE OF VETRANIO 183 et Ponticarum gentium.69 His status was him from dynastic connection or expectati Hannibalianus is depicted bareheaded on t headgear perhaps indicating his separatio Magnentius, rejecting the diadem of the depict himself as a liberator from the tyr than as a successor to Constantinian rule with the laurel wreath in his portraiture implied subordination to the bearer of a ed to advertise his rejection of the Const depict Gallus bareheaded surely subvert newly appointed Caesar without diadem clearly subordinate titulature, the bareh tion rather than separation. In addition, the Caesars Gallus and subsequently Juli unambiguous contrast when their portr Augustus. To return to Vetranio, an objection to this interpretation of his self-representation conveying subordination is that Vetranio used the title Augustus. Indeed, his ' obverse titulature at Siscia and Thessalonica followed the same general formula as that of Constantius ('DN VETRANIO/CONSTANTIVS PF AVG'). If his laurel wreath and different portraiture implied junior status, why did he not simply take on the title of Caesar? The answer may lie in his need to define his status not šim- ly in relationship to Constantius, but also to Magnentius. Since Magnentius had assumed the title Augustus, Vetranio would be portraying himself as subordinate to him if he merely took the title of Caesar: hardly a posture likely to guarantee military support. Despite taking the title Augustus, Vetranio's portraiture and rejection of the diadem on his coins provided a visual expression of his subordination to Constantius, when set alongside the coins he also struck in Constantius' name. However, there was nothing in the way he depicted himself which could be interpreted as implying juniority to Magnentius. 69 Anon. Val. 6.35: 'Eius (ie Dalmatius') fratrem Hannibalianum, data ei Constantiana [s¿c] filia sua, regem regum et Ponticarum gentium constituit.' 70 RIC 7, Constantinople, nos. 145-8. 71 Bastien, Buste monétaire , vol. 1, pp. 47-8. Bastien's observation is given weight by the fact that Magnentius' complete abandonment of the diadem coincides with the elevation of Decentius, and thus with his final abandonment of the hope of reaching an accommodation with Constantius. For the theme of libertas in the coinage of Magnentius, see W. Kellner, Libertas und Christogramm : Motivgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Münzprägung des Kaisers Magnentius (350-353) (Karlsruhe, 1968), pp. 16-56. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 184 ALAN DEARN V. REVERSE TYPES What of the reverse types struck under Vetranio? Before considering th detail, it is worth briefly describing in turn the issues and denominations str Siscia and Thessalonica. As noted already, it appears that Vetranio struck and miliarenses in his name alone. Siscia struck a solidus with the 'SALVATOR REI PVBLICAE', a 'heavy miliarensis ' ('GAVDIVM POPVLI ROMANI'), and a 'light miliarensis ' ('VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM').72 Thessalonica also struck a solidus and a 'heavy miliarensis ' (PL 28. 5), of different types, but both bearing the legend 'VIRTVS EXERCITVM' (sic).13 Thessalonica struck no siliquae , but a series was produced in the names of both Vetranio and Constantius at Siscia, depicting Victory carrying a trophy, and bearing the same legend as the 'light miliarensis ' ('VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM').74 The billon coinage presents a slightly more complex picture. Siscia struck in two denominations. The heavier denomination consisted of two types, struck in the names of both Vetranio and Constantius. The first depicted a diademed emperor, holding a standard decorated with a Chi-Rho symbol, being crowned by Victory (PI. 28. 1-2). The design had previously appeared as a solidus type in the name of Constans,75 and was also the same as Vetranio's 'SALVATOR REI PVBLICAE' solidus, although the legend - 'HOC SIGNO VICTOR ERIS' - was novel. The second type depicted an emperor holding two standards, each bearing a Chi-Rho, with a star above his head, and the legend 'CONCORDIA MILITVM' (PI. 28. 3-4).76 A smaller fraction struck in two types was also issued at Siscia ('GLORIA ROMANORVM' and 'VIRTVS AVGVSTORVM').77 Thessalonica struck billon coins in the name of Vetranio and Constantius, but unlike Siscia associated specific types with each emperor. The 'FEL TEMP REPARATIO' types depicting an emperor standing on galley, and emperor spearing falling horseman, which had been struck for Constans and Constantius since ad 348, were continued in Constantius' name at Thessalonica under Vetranio.78 The type associated with Vetranio bore the same design and legend as the 'heavy miliarensis ', depicting an emperor holding a standard bearing a Chi-Rho, and the legend 'VIRTVS EXERCITVM'.79 The Siscia 'CONCORDIA MILITVM' type was also introduced at Thessalonica for both emperors, perhaps representing a subsequent attempt to coordinate the issues of the two mints (PI 28. 6-7). 80 A smaller fraction of the same 'VIRTVS EXERCITVM' type is also found in Vetranio's name alone.81 The 72 Kent, RIC 8, Siscia, nos. 260-3. 73 Ibid. Thessalonica, nos. 124-5. 74 Ibid. Siscia, nos. 264-9. 75 Ibid. Siscia, nos. 9-11, with the legend 'SPES REI PVBLICAE'. 76 Ibid. Siscia, nos. 270-92. 77 78 79 80 81 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Siscia, nos. 293-6. Thessalonica, nos. 128-9; 133-4; 136-7. Thessalonica, nos. 126-7. Thessalonica, nos. 130-2; 135. Thessalonica, no. 138. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE COINAGE OF VETRANIO 185 'HOC SIGNO VICTOR ERIS' type does not ap tion of a unique solidus struck for Gallus a 351. 82 The type also appears in billon for C the opening of the mint in September 3 should be seen as merely the continuation of it apparently drew its personnel.83 The reverse types struck at Siscia and Th fore not uniform. Nevertheless, it is possibl of meaning, which reflect an attitude tow from a centralised directive. To begin with, tude of cooperation and unity between Vet plural formulae - 'VICTORIA' and 'VIRT 'VIRTVS EXERCITVM' at Thessalonica. Littl the choice of the 'VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM ued issues struck under Constantius and Con were innovative in their immediate contex choice. Combined with the obverse portrait out implying equality of authority. While drawing attention to Vetranio's AVGVSTORVM' type, it may be pertinent t continued under his authority. In particular haps be seen as reflecting a desire to avoid firmly entrenched. True, a sole votive typ MVL X', misleadingly implying the completi carried on the very rare 'GAVDIVM POFV However, the type continued that of Consta should see in it a type considered to be appr later discontinued as out of step with centr drawn here with the coinage of Magnentius elevation of Decentius, when it was clear th impossible.87 This change in attitude toward legend of the new type, which excluded Co imperial college (' VICTOŘI AE DD NN AVG this marks a break with the legends of M expressed recognition of Constantius. 82 Ibid. Thessalonica, no. 146. OJ ibid. p. Joz. 84 Ibid. Siscia, nos. 155-74. 85 For uota generally, see R. Burgess, 'Quinquennial v and fifth centuries, 337-511', NC 1988, pp. 77-96. Se lae as uota suscepta. 86 Kent, RIC 8, Siscia, nos. 149-53. For example, see ibid. Trier, nos. 306-17, and Kent This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 186 ALAN DEARN The most interesting and 'SALVATOR REI PVBLICAE VICTOR ERIS' and 'CONCOR Thessalonica. In conjunctio light on how Vetranio and Constantius and Magnentiu not illustrate his policies al in the context Constantine VI. THE was of our ot understood EVOCATION OF CONS Both cy of the large billon typ of Constantine, drawing Constantine's heir. Most ex shares the same of some tradition relating otherwise Bridge, paired with emperor's hand is a sents the This signum use of an im uexillu referred t Constantinia Bleckmann as evidence for interests of Constantius. K an attempt to portray him further, reading the numi had made common cause Vetranio asserted an author vation to Constantina.90 Vetranio's evocation of Constantine's vision is accord- ingly seen as a result of his past career in the army of Constantine.91 However, neither of these suggestions interpret the reverses of Vetranio's coins in the light of the pattern of their obverses. In the case of Bleckmann, and indeed Drinkwater,92 whose interpretation of the type will be discussed below, the 'HOC SIGNO VICTOR ERIS' type is discussed apart from any wider numismatic context whatsoever. As I have argued, seeing the reverses in their visual context reflects Vetranio's role as acting on behalf of the Constantinian dynasty, rather than his 88 Note the view of Wallace-Hadrill that the obverse and reverse of a coin must be 'read' as a coherent whole: A. Wallace-Hadrill, 'Image and authority in the coinage of Augustus', JRS 76 (1986), p. 69. 89 Kellner, Libertas , p. 103. 90 Bleckmann, 'Constantina, p. 47: 'Eher wollte Vetranio gegenüber dem leiblichen Sohn Constantins, für den er ja ebenfalls prägen ließ, einen gleichberechtigten, aufgrund seiner Erhebung durch Constantina legitimierten Anspruch auf die Nachfolge Constantins anmelden.' 91 Ibid. p. 48. 92 Drinkwater, 'Revolt', p. 152. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE COINAGE OF VETRANIO 187 attempt to supplant it or join it. This post interesting solidus issue at Siscia with the The use of the unusual word saluator , wi draws attention to Vetranio's own role in s The Constantinian legacy belonged to Con represents himself as supporting it, but w The 'CONCORDIA M1LITVM' type revives legend, although with some novel feature replaced by the emperor himself as the age goddess by the figure of the emperor was tion of an emperor holding two standard had no third-century precedent. There is o such a design, but can we say anything abo when 'read' in conjunction with the obvers concordia allows two complementary inte the reverse legends expressed in a wor Vetranio and Constantius as colleagues expresses the sanction and support of the implicitly commemorates their suppo Constantius. The specifically Constantinian nuance of the 'CONCORDIA M1LITVM' type is conveyed by the presence of the Chi-Rho monogram on the standards held by the emperor. I do not propose to discuss here the origin or use of the Chi-Rho under Constantine, but will confine myself to two propositions. Firstly, I cannot agree with Alföldi when he treats the Chi-Rho as an unambiguously Christian symbol. That may well have been Constantine's understanding of it, but that is not the same thing as suggesting that it was understood in this way by all those who encountered it.96 Secondly, the most important issue at stake here is not how Constantine used the symbol, but what it meant in the post-Constantinian world. In particular, what did it symbolize for its audiences in the context of ad 350? Was it understood as a Christian symbol, proclaiming the Christianity of the emperor, or was it seen as a symbol of Constantinian dynastic rule?97 The advantage of the ambiguity of the symbol was that it could represent both. 93 See Aug. Serm. 299.6 for Augustine's discussion of the word saluator and its novelty. 94 For previous appearances of CONCORDIA types at Siscia, see RIC 5(1), Aurelian, nos. 192ff; 214ff; 244ff; RIC 5 (2) Probus, nos. 663ff; Diocletian, nos. 256ff. 95 Kellner, Libertas, p. 102. See Bruun, RIC 7, pp. 61-4; differently, A. Alföldi, 'The helmet of Constantine with the Christian monogram', JRS 22 (1932), pp. 9-23; A. Alföldi, 'Hoc signo victor eris: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Bekehrung Konstantins des Großen', in T. Klausner & A. Ruecker (eds), Pisculi. Festschrift F. Dölger (Münster, 1939), pp. 1-18. 97 For a clear discussion of these issues, see RM. Bruun, 'The victorious signs of Constantine: a reappraisal', NC 1997, pp. 41-60. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 188 ALAN DEARN We see this reflected dard, which he calls the labarum , in his Vita Constantini written after in Constantine's death.98 Whatever their origin, standards involving a Chi-Rho were associated so strongly with Constantine by the time Eusebius wrote the Vita Constantini that he was able to use them as a visual symbol of Constantine's special relationship with God, and of his victorious rule. Secondly, the predominantly Christian character of the design is something Eusebius was at pains to assert, rather than a feature which would have been obvious to all. He does this not by emphasizing the Chi-Rho on the standard, but by asserting that the cruciform standard was supposed to evoke the cross of Christ. Given that this shape was integral to Roman uexilla , Eusebius' interpretation is a little tendentious. It supports his efforts in exhorting Constantine's sons to continue the religious policies of their father. Eusebius equates Constantine's standards with crosses, which bring victory to his armies. As Cameron and Hall point out, this is grist to Eusebius' mill in allowing him to liken Constantine to Moses. Just as Moses constructed the Ark of the Covenant in response to a vision, and used it to lead the Israelites, so Constantine used the sign of the saviour to lead his armies." The labarum is thus to Eusebius a sign of Constantine's allegiance to Christ, but is by implication also a dynastic symbol, in that Constantine's sons are to continue to employ it as his successors. That is, he uses the labarum as a symbol for Constantine's victorious rule, and asserts that Constantine continues to rule the empire through his sons.100 It follows from Eusebius' framework that the use of the labarum by his sons gives visual and ceremonial expression to a continuity of authority from Constantine, and may in this sense be described as a 'dynastic symbol'. It is with the usurpation of Magnentius and the proclamation of Vetranio that the dynastic potency of the symbol was exploited, which on reflection is not surprising. After all, the dynastic credentials of Constantine's sons required no defence. For Magnentius and Vetranio, the use of the Chi-Rho, with or without the context of a uexillum, presented a means of displaying an attitude towards what it represented: Constantinian imperial rule, with all its implications of victory, dynasty and Christianity. Consequently, I would disagree with Drinkwater's interpretation of the use of the Chi-Rho symbol on the Siscian 'HOC SIGNO VICTOR ERIS' type. He implies that the Chi-Rho was understood solely as a Christian symbol, and was thus able to be used by Vetranio to assert his divine 98 Euseb. VC 1.31. 99 For example, see ibid. 1.31.3; 1.37.1; 2.6.2-9.3. For the connection between the labarum and the Ark of the Covenant, see A. Cameron & S.G. Hall, Eusebius, Life of Constantine (Oxford, 1999), p. 209. See also R.H. Storch, 'The trophy and the cross: pagan and Christian symbolism in the fourth and fifth centuries', Byzantion 40 (1970), p. 114, who argues that the prominence of the labarum in the VC : ' . . . makes it the physical representation of the heavenly military alliance between Constantine and the Christian God.' i°° For the continuing rule of Constantine in his sons, see Euseb. VC 1.1.3. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms E THE COINAGE OF VETRANIO 189 patronage.101 But the symbol inescapably context of the legend which accompanied i Eusebius, the Chi-Rho and the standard wh did not belong to them. Yet it could be use dynastic interpretations to which the Constantinian emperors had more effectiv As in the case of imperial portraiture, the Rho symbol provides an interesting contras ly, his last billon type, struck also for Dece large Chi-Rho, flanked by an alpha and om AVG ET CAES'.102 The dating of this issue should be seen as a deliberate response to legacy. Indeed, the image may be seen as pl symbol from that of Vetranio. Vetrani Constantine's vision and military standard, Constantius. In contrast, Magnentius made hope of recognition by Constantius was los out the context of a military standard an alpha and omega should be seen as an at Constantinian ownership, exploiting its Ch macy greater even than that of Constantine's the Christological meaning of the symbol m Constantius' opposition to Nicaean 'orthod the Chi-Rho is further evidence of the pote in that it presented a legacy which requir could exploit. 3. DYNASTIC IDEOLOGY AND THE CONSTANTINIAN LEGACY I have argued that Vetranio's coinage may be understood as ref use of the memory of Constantine. I will end this study by br that his coinage may thus be seen in the light of other evidence f Constantine's legacy as a basis for asserting legitimacy dur revolt. 101 According to Drinkwater, 'Revolt', p. 152, the 'HOC SIGNO VICTOR ER interpreted as Vetranio's deliberate breaking of the Flavian link with the Deit change of imperial dynasty since Constantine it was important for God's guar attached to the ruling emperor, not to a particular individual or family. As the to Constantine I as a general, its potency was now claimed by the general Vetr 102 Kent, RIC 8, Amiens, nos. 34-45; Trier, nos. 3 18-27 A; Lyons, nos 188-202. 103 Bruun, 'Victorious signs', p. 52. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 190 ALAN To DEARN begin from his with, the election accoun by Const Augusta elevated by her fat to appoint Vetranio on beha troversy. For example, Holu support Philostorgios' claim Constantine. He therefore s at justifying Vetranio's Bleckmann.104 Whether the account of Constantina's involvement was a contem- porary reality or a later embellishment, it corresponds well with other examples of dynastic ideology which appear in connection with Vetranio's reign. For example, dynastic arguments are even more apparent in the accounts of Vetranio's abdication, which report Constantius' claim to take over Vetranio's army and territory by virtue of the fact that they were his by succession.105 Most explicitly, the account of Constantius' dream of Constantine preserved in Patrikios and Zonaras justifies his actions in dynastic terms.106 Indeed, the dynastic argument of Constantius in his address to the combined armies was apparently so well known that Athanasius was able to use it polemically against him.107 In addition to this evocation of dynastic ideology, there is other evidence point- ing towards the polemical use of Constantine's legacy in the context of Magnentius' usurpation. The use of the 'HOC SIGNO VICTOR ERIS' legend at Siscia evoked Constantine's victory over Maxentius, and thus advertised the impending victory of Constantius. Just as Constantine had defeated the tyranni Maxentius and Licinius, so his son would defeat the new tyrannus Magnentius. This connection between Constantius and Constantine on the one hand, and between Maxentius, Licinius and Magnentius on the other, also appears in other contexts. For example, Eusebius likens Licinius to a serpent,108 a polemical topos which also appeared in imperial art. Eusebius describes an encaustic painting above the door of Constantine's palace which depicted Licinius as a serpent, allowing Euesbius to make the further association between Licinius and Satan.109 104 K.G. Holum, Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, 1982), p. 31, n. 90; Bleckmann, 'Constantina', pp. 36-9. 105 Chron. Pasch. s.a. 350; Theoph. Chron. s.a. 356/7; Zos. 2.44.3: llapa%0évxoç ôè Bexpavicovoç xoîç KcovGxavTÍoi) Xóyoiç, èrci pr|1j,axóç xivoç ènï xoúxco KaxaGKet>aG0évxoç aveßriaav Kcovaxávxioç xoívuv X,axcov rcpcoxoç eircelv 5ià yévouç á^ícooiv, rcavxaxoíj xcòv Ttóycov xrjç xoû rcaxpòç áv£(aá|j,vr|aK£ xoùç Gxpaxicóxaç (jntamjxíaç Kai xrâv öpKcov otiç òikojiókccgiv, fļ ļj.fļv eüvoiav xoîç xoúxou <1)DÀ,áÇeiv íiaiaív, filiou xe ja.fi 7iepuôeív àGooov ccva%copoi)vxa Mayvévxiov, KcovGxavxívot) rcai Ôòç övxa (1)ovéa, jae0' ov noXXovq Ko)iēļiovq ôi£7ióvr'oav Kai jxeyÍGxaiç éxi|Liri0r|Gav ôcopeaíc. 106 Petr. Patr. frg. 16; Zon. 13.7.17-21. 107 Äthan. Hist. Ar. 50.1, where he accuses Constantius of not continuing his brother's policies: AXkà xòv |o,èv Bpexavícova KaBeîAev, è0£À,f)Gaç xò ÔÍKaiov àrcaixeîv, À,éycov Tívi jiexà Òávaxov àÔetajxôv iļ K^ripovojxía yí vexai; Ôià ôè xfļv (iDGapàv aipeGiv xcov XpiGXO|náxcov oike xò ÔÍKaiov oiôev, àXXà Kai rcpòç xoùç áôe^oúç àKaOrjKcov yí vexai. 108 Euseb. VC 2. 1,2. 109 Ibid. 3.3.1-3, on which see Cameron & Hall, Eusebius, pp. 255-6. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms ele THE COINAGE OF VETRANIO 191 Constantine's defeat of Licinius also seems t bronze coin issued at Constantinople betwe labarum piercing a serpent.110 The polemica to have been employed by Constantius. Dur a gold multiple was struck by Constantius a the emperor on horseback, trampling a 'DEBELLATOR HOSTIVM'.111 Finally, mention must be made of the visi 7 May 351. 112 Whatever the explanation f evoking Constantine's vision in the conte Magnentius is obvious. It is no wonder that confined to Jerusalem, but was incorporated paign. According to the Chronicon Paschale cross over Jerusalem was also seen by Cons prior to the battle of Mursa against Magnent The self-conscious innovation of coin typ to reflect the use of coinage for ideologica Vetranio reveals the potency of Constantine mid-fourth century and the manner in wh visual form. The numismatic evidence may text of coherent evidence for Vetranio's conscious subordination to Constantius as the son of Constantine. 110 Bruun, RIC 7, Constantinople, nos. 19; 26. Kent, RiC 8, Milan, no. 1. 112 Cyril, ep. ad Const. 4; Cons. Const, s.a. 351; Theoph. Chron. s.a. 354/5. See Bleckmann, 'Constantina', pp. 48-9. 113 Chron. Pasch. s.a. 351. This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms PLATE 28 DEARN, VETRANIO This content downloaded from 103.103.238.3 on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:53:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms