132 remembering constantine at the milvian bridge

indeterminate expressions in some of his recent letters. The terminol-

ogy in the inscription would probably have been acceptable even to both
sides of Lactantius’ dual identity, as a Christian and as a rhetorician who
taught classical Latin literature.43
To situate Constantine in the generic context of ancient Roman tra-
ditions, the dedicatory inscription and the iconography on the arch
highlighted not the mutual celebration of religious cults but the impos-
ing precedent of earlier emperors. The architects apparently wanted the
arch to emphasize the proper conduct of emperors at the capital rather
than to promote specific religious traditions. At Rome a shared history
was more important than a shared religion, and the correct behavior of
emperors was more important than their particular beliefs.

memories of the future

The arch furthermore offered an interpretive narrative of specific con-
temporary events, including Constantine’s invasion of Italy, his victory
in 312, and his earlier visit to the capital, that likewise promoted a
distinctive perspective about Rome. Locating Constantine in a longer
historical context had involved the use of panels and roundels recy-
cled from earlier imperial monuments. In contrast, this narrative about
recent events consisted of six long panels that were new for the arch.
These panels were apparently meant to be read as a sequence, starting
with a scene of a departure on the west end, then scenes of a siege of a
city and a battle over water, that is, at the Milvian Bridge, on the south
face, then a scene of a ceremonial arrival on the east end, and ending
with scenes of a speech on the Rostra in the Forum and the distribution
of gifts on the north face.
This new iconographical narrative joined the panegyric of 313, Lac-
tantius’ Deaths, and Eusebius’ first edition of History in offering one

43
Dedication: ILS 1:156, no. 694 = Grünewald (1990) 217, no. 239, “instinctu divinitatis mentis
| magnitudine.” For possible influences on the dedicatory inscription, see Grünewald (1990)
78–86, discussing similarities with the terminology of contemporary panegyrics, Hall (1998),
stressing Cicero’s treatise on divination, and Lenski (2008) 231, “instinctu divinitatis was a
noticeably pagan way of referring to Constantine’s divine inspiration.” For Constantine’s
letters, see Chapter 7.