 |
BIOGRAPHYCAL UNIVERSAL LIBRARY |
 |
 |
CONSTANTINE THE GREATTHE REORGANISATION OF THE EMPIREANDTHE TRIUMPH OF THE CHURCHBY
JOHN B. FIRTH
THE TRUE FACE OF CONSTANTINE THE GREATDavid H.WrightThe head of Constantine in the Boar Hunt medallion (Figs. 1
and 2) is the best preserved of the portraits of Constantine on his Roman Arch.
Although recut from a head of Hadrian, it shows no trace of the earlier face,
and agrees in every surviving detail of physiognomy with the other portraits of
Constantine on his Arch, two of them recut from heads of Hadrian, two from
heads of Trajan, and one in one of the original historical reliefs, the Siege
of Verona. Since the head in the Boar Hunt is also of remarkably high artistic
quality, it has an obvious claim to authenticity. We may take it to represent
accurately the image of himself that Constantine wanted to present to the Roman
People at the time of his decennalia, on 25 July 315,
the occasion indicated by the votive inscription on the Arch.
We see a youthful face, with a broad forehead and prominent
cheekbones that give the upper part of his face a rectangular character. This
is complemented by strongly modeled facial muscles flanking the nose, mouth,
and chin, and by a jawbone that expands outward slightly at the back of the
jaw, giving clear-cut articulation between jaw and neck. Intrinsically, this is
a face both strong and muscular, handsome and youthful. We sense intuitively
that it is appropriate for the heroic hunter and, by obvious implication, the
heroic victor, the man who calls himself Liberator urbis in one of the inscriptions inside the Arch.
The beholder of 315 saw a more specific meaning in this head.
Constantine was clean-shaven as well as handsome and youthful, the first
emperor to show himself clean-shaven after a long succession of emperors who
adopted the military iconography of close-cropped hair and stubble beard, and
who generally affected an intense expression, often a look of ferocious power,
in the tradition of Caracalla, instead of the ideal calm we perceive in
Constantine. More specifically, both in combing his rather short hair casually
over his brow, and in the shape and bony character of his youthful face,
Constantine reminded the Roman beholder of Augustus. The other inscription
inside the Arch with which Constantine characterized his accomplishments, Fundator quietis, reinforced the allusion without actually quoting the founder of Augustan Peace.
This head, together with the others on the Arch, is the key
witness for any attempt to identify and put in order the marble portraits of
Constantine. On this basis a considerable group of heads of similar expressive
character but generally lower quality can be recognized. One other head has a
claim to authenticity almost equaling those on the Arch, the colossal marble
head found in the main apse of the Basilica Nova (Fig. 3). Its date is not documented,
but circumstances suggest the same era as the Arch. This head is quite
different in style and expressive character because it is a cult image about
eight times lifesize instead of a narrative image
somewhat less than lifesize. In a style that emphasizes
the abstract organization of forms, rather than the organic rendering of
anatomy, the eyes are made much larger and more arbitrarily shaped, and the
muscular articulation of the cheeks is relatively suppressed. But the basic features
of the face are the same as those on the Arch, and because the colossal head
preserves the complete nose it is particularly helpful in establishing the
profile of Constantine. It seems he had a long nose, sharply indented at the top
between the eyes, with a prominently projecting ridge in the middle and a pointed tip at the end. It seems he
also had a strongly projecting chin and a squarely articulated jaw.
To pursue questions of physiognomy further, and secure a
broader basis for interpreting Constantinian portraiture, it is necessary to
turn to numismatic evidence, where the range of material is vast, and where
most examples are reliably dated and localized. We can therefore select series
of coins that can be assumed to have been struck under Constantine’s immediate
supervision, and if we select specific examples on the basis of artistic
quality as well as condition, if we seek out the prime die rather than a
derivative copy, we can gain a much better understanding of Constantine’s
intentions in publishing his official image than can be reached on the basis of
the marble portraits alone.
For Constantine’s early years we must turn to the mint at
Trier, which had been established in 293/4 as the principal mint of
Constantius, the newly selected Caesar for the West. It struck gold coins and
medallions of remarkably high artistic quality, and by 305, when Constantius
became Augustus for the West, it had developed a style much more naturalistic
than that of any of the other western mints, a style very different from the
harsh and schematic style of the eastern mints. A gold coin of Constantius from
305/6 (Fig. 4) shows the expected close-cropped hair and beard of Tetrarchic iconography, but it also shows subtly modeled
musculature in the brow and cheek, and a convincing three-dimensional eye
socket with the eyeball in profile, qualities very different from our normal
expectations of Tetrarchic style. These qualities
imply physiognomic accuracy, and we recognize the family trait of the long
hooked nose.
A gold coin of Maximinus Daia as
Caesar, struck at Trier at about the same time (Fig. 5), must on the other hand
be viewed as a standard type for a youthful Caesar, not as a physiognomically accurate portrait. Maximinus was the
nephew and adoptive son of Galerius, selected by him as his Caesar in the East
when he became Augustus in 305. We know almost nothing about the previous
career of Maximinus, but apparently he was quite young and inexperienced. Just
as the first coins struck for Constantine in eastern mints are demonstrably
inaccurate in physiognomy, we should not expect a true portrait of Maximinus in
Trier in 305/6. What we have is a very youthful beardless face, softly modeled
in what appears to be a naturalistic style, but a face without distinctive
physiognomy or character. Other coins of Maximinus as Caesar struck at Trier
in the years 305—308 have a squarer shape and harsher features more like normal Tetrarchic iconography, but they do not agree among
themselves in physiognomy. A few have sideburns and moustache, but none has the
stubble beard that we expect on Tetrarchic coins.
Such iconography emphasizing the youth of the Caesar and
successor is rare at this time but not unique. Similar coin portraits of
Maximinus as Caesar were struck at Rome, Aquileia, and Carthage, and a similar
iconography had been used for some of the coins of Numerianus,
the younger son of Carus, when he was named Caesar in
282. The specific meaning of this iconography becomes clearer when we realize
that Carinus, the older son of Carus,
was always shown bearded, even as Caesar, and that Numerianus was always shown bearded when he was raised to the rank of Augustus in 283.
Clearly, it was not just youth but the idea of expected succession that was the
main burden of this beardless iconography for a caesar.
With this background in mind we may turn to the first coin
portraits of Constantine, those struck in 306/7 with the title Caesar.
Unfortunately the gold of this period is extremely rare, and two of the three
recorded issues, each known to me in only one specimen, are no help. A unique
aureus in the British Museum, with reverse SPES PUBLICA, shows a beautifully
modeled version of the Tetrarchic caesar type, generally similar to the Maximinus of Figure 5, clean-shaven except for slight
sideburns, but with a simple straight nose. A medallion of two
solidi in Berlin has a very square-shaped head, clean-shaven but otherwise
essentially Tetrarchic in character and with only a
slight hint of Constantine’s distinctive nose. Both coins must be set aside as
coming from dies cut before the die-cutters had an authentic model. It is easy
to imagine such circumstances in the first weeks after 25 July 306, when
Constantius died at York and young Constantine, essentially an unknown only
lately arrived on the scene, was hailed by soldiers loyal to that very popular
general.
Of the only other Trier issue of gold coins recorded for
Constantine as Caesar I have found only two specimens, from different dies
(Figs. 6 and 7.) Both follow the youthful iconography used for Maximinus, but
both have the distinctive Constantinian nose; both show the short hair combed
forward over the brow (clearer in the Oxford example, Fig. 7), tending to
cover the sharp angle at the back of the top of the forehead that is normal in Tetrarchic portraits, including the coins of Constantius
and Maximinus; and both emphasize youthfulness by making the neck more slender
than normal in coin portraits at this time. In its softer modeling and less
schematic rendering of details such as eyebrow and lower eyelid, the London
specimen (Fig. 6) gives the impression of greater physiognomic accuracy, while
the Oxford specimen seems based more on a formula for details around the eye
and for the prominent cheekbone. Two other details of the Oxford specimen are
disturbingly different from the next series of authentic portraits and seem to
reflect some confusion with Tetrarchic conventions.
There are slight sideburns and a ridge on the upper lip that may have been
intended as a moustache and, strangest of all, there are small scattered marks
suggesting a stubble beard on the lower part of the jaw, marks that obviously
were cut in a separate campaign, using a different tool, probably by a craftsman
less skilled than the one who originally cut the die. It is interesting to
notice that the die for the London coin was first cut to show a slight beard on
the lower part of the jaw (just visible in Fig. 6) but that this area was
smoothed out before the surviving coin was struck. Again we find signs of
confusion in the workshop, apparently an incomplete understanding of the new
Caesar’s intentions.
If we take the London example (Fig. 6) as physiognomically more accurate, we get the impression of a very young face, rather long in
proportions, with fairly prominent cheekbones, but with a rather small jaw. In
particular there is no sign of the added breadth at the back of the jaw that
gives such a clear articulation between jaw and neck in the heads on the Arch,
though such articulation is present in the youthful type used for Maximinus.
Constantine’s year of birth is not clearly established. According to one line
of argument, which I favor, he was about twenty-three in 306, which would seem
a reasonable age for such a face, and would confirm our general impression of
physiognomic accuracy in this coin. The opposite line of argument has sought
to confirm the statement of Eusebius that Constantine succeeded his father at
the age when Alexander died, thirty-three; but those who favor this argument
also emphasize the many indications that Constantine wished to present himself
as very youthful, and that interpretation would explain from a different point
of view the character of this first portrait.
After this small initial issue of Constantine as Caesar there
was scarcely any gold struck at Trier until the quinquennalia of 310; therefore we must turn to the almost equally rare silver. There was a
small issue of argentei showing Constantine as
Caesar, and Galerius as Augustus, with at least one reverse die used for both
emperors. The first of the dies for Constantine (known to me from specimens in
London and Rome) resembles the London gold coin of Figure 6 in physiognomy and
style of modeling, and has a nascent beard like the one originally cut in the
die of the London gold coin but smoothed out before the surviving gold coin was
struck, while the other six dies I have identified all show Constantine
clean-shaven. What seems to be the third in this sequence of dies, known to me
from specimens in Oxford and Paris (Fig. 8), is of particularly high artistic
quality, and suggests a significantly different direction of stylistic
development. The profile is essentially the same, but the bony structure of the
face is rendered more emphatically, particularly the cheekbone and the articulation
of the back part of the jaw; the head is more square in shape, and the neck is
thicker. Indeed, this face of Constantine is coming to look remarkably like the
one in the Boar Hunt medallion on the Arch; it is a face with stronger and more
heroic character, less a sallow youth, than in the two gold coins.
The five other dies I have identified in this series show
similar features somewhat less well rendered, and a unique gold coin of
Constantine as Augustus, probably to be dated 307, which passed through the
London market some years ago and is known to me only from an electrotype in the
British Museum made before the coin was cleaned of incrustation, also shows
this character. These observations make it clear that even in the first months
of his reign Constantine decided to base his image on that of Augustus. One
confirming detail is the fact that the hair combed forward over the brow is
slightly longer in the silver coin than in the gold, and thus resembles more
closely the Augustan hairdo. There may have been some hesitation in his mind
at first, as well as some confusion among the die-cutters, and the beardless caesar iconography may have been all that first occurred to
Constantine as his model, but the heroic character of the best silver die
surely depends on the Augustan model. As an example of the recent tradition of
that image I illustrate a rare gold coin of Gallienus, which has the deified
Augustus on the reverse (Fig. 9). Battered though this specimen is, we
recognize the Augustan hairdo, the square shape of the head with its strong
brow, prominent cheekbones, and clearly articulated jaw, and more generally the
idealized youthful character of Augustan iconography. We could find the same
features somewhat more clumsily rendered on the more common silver coins of
the deified Augustus issued some dozen years by Decius, around 251. There can
be no doubt that the Roman public of Constantine’s time recognized the Augustan
iconography and character when they saw earlier it on a coin.
Knowing the heads on the Arch, and other examples of this
standard portrait for Constantine, we might suppose that the type was
established during the first months of his reign, as seen in this silver
coinage, and then continued in normal use with only slight modifications for
nearly three decades. But apparently late in 307, at the time of his marriage
with Fausta and his assumption of the title Augustus, he adopted a very
different portrait. This can be discerned on the small silver coins struck on
that occasion, and it is reflected with varying degrees of
accuracy on the base metal coins of the next few years, but to find a reliably
dated and artistically significant example we must wait for the votive issue of
the quinquennalia of 25 July 310 (Fig. 10). Although
the distinctive nose is recognizable—usually with a more pronounced protrusion
in the middle than in this example—Constantine’s face is now shown with puffy
cheeks, a receding chin, and jowls that tend to obscure the articulation of the
back of the jaw.
The shape and character of the face is so different that, if
it were not for the nose and the hairdo (now more luxuriant even than that of
Augustus), we would not be likely to recognize this as Constantine. But if I
may anticipate the results of our studying the last numismatic portraits of
Constantine, it will emerge that these features are essentially accurate.
With that knowledge in mind, we can look back to the London example of the
first gold coins of Constantine (Fig. 6) and realize that it does suggest a
slightly receding chin, moderately fleshy cheeks, and a jaw that does not stand
out sharply from the neck at the back of the jaw. In each of these aspects this
face is significantly different from the ideal youthful formula used for Maximinus
(Fig. 5), and each seems more accurate in the London example than in the Oxford
example (Fig. 7). In retrospect it seems we should suppose that the die-cutter
of the London coin was working from the formula we see in this Maximinus, introducing
selected modifications for physiognomic accuracy but staying close to the ideal
youthful character of the formula. Then the die-cutter of the silver coin (Fig.
8) turned to the specifically Augustan formula, modifying it only for the
profile of the nose.
While the fleshy portrait of Figure 10 wasn’t formula as used
in the Trier mint, the formula was not used elsewhere, and it has no obvious
precedent. It must have been developed in the Trier mint on essentially
naturalistic criteria and then codified for repetition. Certainly the last
portraits of Constantius (as in Fig. 4) show that the best Trier die-cutters
were capable of very naturalistic portrayal within the conventions of Tetrarchic iconography. The many Trier coins I have
examined with the fleshy portrait type shown in Figure 10 vary slightly because
of clumsy execution, not because of any distinctions of physiognomy among the
coins, and none equals in artistic quality the best coins of Constantius. For
the art historian the emergence and limited occurrence of this fleshy type is a
curious episode that stands apart from the normal reliance in this period upon
preexistent types.
When Constantine defeated and killed Maxentius on 28 October
312 he inherited the mints at Rome and Ostia. Presumably almost at once, and
following their lead also the mint at Ticinum (modern
Pavia), they began to issue coins for Constantine. Typical of the
Constantinian portraits on these first coins is the one in Figure 12, struck at
Rome. Here is the familiar Constantinian nose and hairdo, the minimal traits to
make it a portrait as that notion seems to have been understood at the time,
but here also are prominent cheekbones, projecting chin, and clearly
articulated jaw. To some extent these features, and the simplified planar
modeling and generally blocky character of the face, can be seen as having been
inherited from the Tetrarchic type used for
Maxentius. But the type is quickly modified to introduce more subtle modeling
that gives the impression of being naturalistic, and this becomes the standard
Augustan portrait of Constantine, as we saw it on the Arch. Figure 13 shows an
example typical of the best numismatic versions of this portrait type, a
solidus struck at Trier in the first half of 315 while Constantine was in
residence there. The subtleties in the modeling of cheek and brow give the
impression of naturalistic observation, and correspond to the contemporary
heads on the Roman Arch.
The intrinsically heroic qualities of this idealized youthful
head speak for themselves. It is easy to imagine Constantine deciding that the
accurate but unflattering fleshy type would not adequately serve his
propaganda, and it is easy to imagine his deciding to return to the specifically
Augustan iconography that he had briefly used in 306/7 (Fig. 8). For his Arch
he deliberately selected reliefs from three great predecessors, Marcus
Aurelius, Hadrian, and Trajan, and for his portrait he returned to the founder
of the empire, Augustus.
It is worth stressing that Augustan source because Maria Alfoldi has claimed that this portrait type was based on
Trajan rather than Augustus. It is true, as she points out, that
Constantine’s hairdo could have been derived from Trajan, but particularly at
the beginning of his portraiture it more closely resembles the hairdo of
Augustus. It is also true, as she points out, that Constantine copied a
specifically Trajanic reverse type with the legend
SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI and three legionary standards, but this type was used at
Ostia in 312/3 with a portrait like that in Figure 12, and in Trier in 313 with
a portrait like that in Figure 10. The reverse must have been quoted
after the conquest of Rome without reference to questions of portrait iconography.
More to the point, if we compare the numismatic image of Trajan as then likely
to have been known, one of the deified emperors in the silver coins struck by
Decius in Milan around 251 (Fig. 11), both the physiognomy and the style of
modeling in the muscles of cheek and chin are strikingly different from any of
the portraits of Constantine. One could say that the relatively naturalistic
purpose in the portrait of Trajan was comparable to that of the fleshy
portrait of Constantine in Figure 10, but to impose such an aesthetic selfawareness, a way of thinking intrinsic to modern art
criticism, upon a Constantinian die-cutter is unrealistic.
We must conclude that the Augustan model was first chosen for
the silver coins of 306 (which Maria Alfoldi seems
not to have known) probably as a variation and improvement upon the youthful caesar type. At Trier this type was then set aside for the
more naturalistic but unflattering fleshy type, for reasons we cannot identify,
though following the generally naturalistic tradition developed at Trier for
the portrait of Constantius. But after the conquest of Rome it was natural for
the man who styled himself Liberator urbis and Fundator quietis to return to the Augustan model.
When Constantine defeated Licinius on 18 September 324 he had
effectively conquered the East and
was the sole ruler of all the civilized world. Accordingly it is understandable
that he would adopt the diadem of Alexander the Great and also his
heaven-gazing pose for special issues of coins such as that in Figure 14,
struck later that year in Nicomedia, which was Constantine’s principal residence
at the time. The iconography of this portrait is specific and readily
understandable, but the physiognomy is essentially still the same as in the
heroic Augustan type that had been standardized a dozen years earlier. Similar
coins were struck in 324/5 at Thessalonica, Sirmium, and Ticinum;
at Ticinum and about two years later at Trier this
special type was rendered with more naturalistic modeling, in keeping with
the general distinction in style between eastern and western mints at this
time, but it remained an iconography used for special purposes. The
iconography associated with Alexander supplied the pose and the diadem, the attributes
of divinely guided kingship, but it did not require any change in the idealized
youthful physiognomy that had been developed on the basis of the Augustan
model.
That physiognomy began to change, however, around 333.
Gradually, as particularly evident in coins of the highest artistic quality,
the jaw became heavier and the jowls came to obscure the transition from the
back of the jaw to the neck. The end of this evolution of Constantine’s old-age
portrait can be seen in a fine medallion of two solidi struck in Constantinople
in 336/7 (Fig. 16) or in the posthumous coin of Divus Constantinus struck in Constantinople shortly after
his death on 22 May 337 (Fig. 15). In physiognomy this is easily recognized as
the fleshy-faced portrait of Figure 10 grown old. The modeling is subtle and in
some ways more naturalistic than in the early fleshy portrait, especially in
the neck. Our search for the actual physiognomy of Constantine is now accomplished.
We can define the fleshy-cheeked and heavy-jowled aspect of Constantine’s face as confidently as we can the distinctive shape of
his nose, and we might wonder if the receding chin of Figures 6 and 10 is not
more accurate than the projecting chin of Figures 15 and 16.
But the question of a true portrait is more complex, and each
of these main types has some claim on that designation. The first British
Museum coin (Fig. 6), showing Constantine in the formula of the young caesar and eventual successor, was certainly true in
expressing his situation in the months just after his father’s death. The
modification of this type later that year, under the influence of Augustan
iconography, suggests a political resourcefulness and determination we can deduce from his later career. The return to the Augustan
type in 312 and the introduction of the Alexander type in 324 are obvious cases
of modifying an established portrait to take advantage of the associative
aspects of a generally recognized iconography. This is art conditioned by
external considerations, and that is clearly true to the course of
Constantine’s political career.
The two more naturalistic and less flattering portrait types,
the fleshy portrait and the old-age portrait, are more difficult to explain.
Searching for a comparable incident in Roman history, we could cite the
strikingly naturalistic portrait of Galba that appeared on his coins in 68, advertizing to the Roman People his opposition to Nero, and
implying a promise to return to the good old days by using a style of
portraiture easily recognized as a Republican tradition. Correspondingly, when
Otho issued his coins early in 69 he effectively told the Roman People that he
had been Nero’s friend, and he sought legitimacy through association of
portrait styles. But in the years following 307 there was no current tradition
to which the youthful, clean-shaven, fleshy-faced portrait could refer. For
nearly two centuries emperors of mature years had always been shown bearded,
except for Valerian (253—260), who was normally clean-shaven; although he also
had a very fleshy face, there was no reason for Constantine to want to be
associated with him, and their coin portraits are not significantly similar in
style.
The current Tetrarchic tradition
emphasized similitudo among the portraits to
express concordia among the augusti and caesars, as is
obvious in the porphyry monuments and also in coins struck in eastern mints. At
Trier Constantius had moved away from this tradition by making his own portrait
considerably more individualized than those of his colleagues, and some similar
developments can be seen in other western mints; but this was no more than a
partial precedent for Constantine’s fleshy portrait, which is more schematic in
style than the last of his father’s portraits (Fig. 4). The fleshy portrait
cannot be seen, therefore, as having been conditioned by external factors, as
having been selected to make a public statement. It must have been chosen,
apparently late in 307, as a matter of personal taste, a taste partially
predicted by that of Constantius.
The old-age portrait evolved over a period of two or three
years at a time when Constantine was secure on the throne, when he had not had
a significant rival for a decade. It had no direct precedent—after all,
Augustus did not allow his image to grow old—and therefore it, too, must be
seen as the result of personal choice, effectively the same taste that had led
to the early fleshy portrait, now freed of the restrictions of political
iconography. But if Constantine was now presenting to the Roman People the
true physical appearance of his face, without self-flattery or pretentious
political allusion, he was also presenting the true result of his spiritual
evolution. The enormous eye, now depicted almost in frontal aspect, jumps out
of organic context, dominating the expressive quality of the face, and it is
lifted up to heaven even more emphatically than in the early versions of the Alexander
type. That is the true image of spiritual authority in the man who had himself
portrayed as Helios in a colossal statue on a column in the Forum of his new
capital, and who provided that he was to be buried in his new Church of the
Apostles in a manner indicating that he was slightly more equal than any of the
Twelve.
Considered as part of Constantinian art in general this
series of portraits is significant for its naturalistic qualities and particularly
for the predominance of the Augustan type, a clear symptom of Constantine’s
classical revival in art, which we know from works such as the ceiling
paintings from his palace in Trier and the decorative sculpture from his Baths
and the Baths of Helena in Rome.
Considered in the full tradition of Roman portraiture this
series constitutes an extraordinary case study. No other emperor changed his
public image as drastically or as often, and none was more resourceful in
manipulating his portrait for propagandistic effect. More specifically, from
the point of view of the Roman idea of the physiognomically accurate and incisively expressive portrait, here we are near the end of a
tradition. The sons of Constantine accepted formulaic portraits that are essentially
interchangeable, and so did most of their successors. Julian, Procopius, and
Eugenius are bearded, but it is really only Magnentius and his brother Decentius who developed physiognomically distinctive and expressive portraits in the century after Constantine.
Isolated survivals of the old portrait tradition were still possible, as in
some private marble portraits from Aphrodisias, but
the very notion of portraiture was changing. As Ernst Kitzinger has pointed
out, it would reemerge as a special mode in sixth-century wall painting and
seventh-century coinage. Constantine’s repeated manipulation of his public
image during his long career stands both as a remarkable achievement in itself
and as an important aspect of the artistic revival he brought about. But it
was not to be repeated.
|
|
