I recently bought this coin of Constantine with the scarce (rare?) obverse legend CONSTANTINUS FIL AUGG. The two G’s presumably mean that the word would be the genitive plural “augustorum,” with the expanded legend meaning, “Constantine, son of the Augusti.” I’ve read Warren Esty’s very helpful article that answers many questions about this coin. http://esty.ancients.info/FILAVGG/ In a nutshell, the title “filius augustorum” was a kind of bogus title invented by Galerius to placate Constantine and Maximinus II ca. 308-310 A.D. and keep them from seeking further power. It didn’t work. Neither man particularly liked the title for himself. Yet I am still left with a (not so) simple question: Who are the “augusti” referenced here in the “augustorum” of the obverse legend? If I’m reading him right, Warren seems to imply that the second G is meant to signify both Constantine and Maximinus II: “Galerius, who thought up the idea, struck FIL AVGG coins (with two G's) for both Constantine and Maximinus II at Siscia and Thessalonica. In addition, FIL AVG coins (with one G) were struck by Galerius for Constantine at Nicomedia and by Maximinus for Constantine at Antioch and Alexandria. Maximinus did not strike them for himself.” The confusing thing for me, then, is that such a reference does not work with the grammar of the Latin. Constantine and Maximinus II were filii, not augusti. “FILL AUG” might make better sense. But not “FIL AUGG,” since the “sons’” identities should not make up the plural augustorum. They aren’t the augusti. Maybe I misreading Warren and he’s not implying that reference at all. Alternately, I wondered if “augustorum” referred to the two men’s actual parentage, since both were, indeed, sons of an augustus–Constantius Chlorus for Constantine, and Galerius (via adoption) for Maximinus II. Or is “augustorum” to be taken figuratively? Are Constantine and Maximinus II figuratively the “sons” or heirs apparent to the Augusti of West and East –Licinius and Galerius, respectively? If you’re still reading this, congratulations. Any thoughts on who the real-world referents of augustorum are in this obverse legend?
Here is my speculation. I acknowledge that I am not a Latin expert. FIL AVGG, I think, should refer to one "son" of the two (or more) Augusti recognized at the mint in question. FIL AVG "should" differ in that only one Augustus was recognized at the mint in question. But, that theory fails. For proof, this example from Antioch has one G in the obverse legend and two Gs in the reverse legend of the same coin: Here is the data from RIC VI about Augusti and FIL coins: FIL AVGG Thessalonica with Augusti Galerius and Licinius FIL AVGG Siscia with Augusti Galerius and Licinius FIL AVGG Nicomedia with Augusti Galerius and Licinius FIL AVG Antioch with Galerius, Licinius, and Maximian second reign as Augusti (but Maximian was not honored in the issue, so maybe he was not really recognized) FIL AVG Alexandria with Galerius, Licinius, Maximian as "senior" and Maximinus II as Augusti. So, it seems there were enough Augusti for the GG endings to be correct by the usual plural convention (and maybe even more Gs in some cases). Why did some coins use only one G? I don't know, but I can speculate. Two Gs were used in the center of the empire, in Europe, ruled by Galerius who thought up the idea. He acknowledged Licinus and hoped the FIL title would be agreed upon and used by both Augusti (actually, Licinius did not use it for anone). The single-G endings are further east, in Asia. I think Maximinus II had more influence in Asia and was not playing the game with this title and did not agree that any Augustus but Galerius was either. If Constantine was a "son" it was only of the one Augustus (Galerius) who said so, therefore, FIL AVG with one G. Of course, that does not and can not explain the above coin with both versions on one coin.
Thank you for that detailed and thoughtful reply. And perhaps more importantly, thank you for that extended Celator article that really gave me an education on this coin and made me feel good about buying it. Perhaps it is too much to ask for consistent mint logic during such a contested and chaotic period in history. Your explanation sounds more plausible than anything I can dream up. Needless to say, if others have some perspectives to share on this title, I would enjoy hearing them. And of course, if you have any FIL AUG or FIL AUGG coins, I'd love to see those as well.
Don't know if this is helpful or not, but my Constantine with the GENIO CAESARI reverse has one G while the GENIO AVGVSTI reverse has two: Nicomedia mint, A.D. 308-310 RIC 56 Obv: FL VAL CONSTANTINVS FIL AVG Rev: GENIO CA-ESARIS [CMH lignate] - Genius, modius on head, holding patera and cornucopiae SMNΓ in exergue 24 mm, 7.4 g. Siscia mint, A.D. 309-310 RIC 200b Obv: CONSTANTINVS FIL [dot] AVGG Rev: GENIO AV-GVSTI - Genius, wearing modius on head, with patera and cornucopiae SIS in exergue; U in left field, Γ in right 25 mm, 5.4 g.
Interesting discussion that I can't add to, but here's a Constantine I and a Max II, both from the Thessalonica mint with FIL AVGG. CONSTANTINE I AE Follis. 6.01g, 24.6mm, Thessalonica mint, AD 309-10. RIC VI 32b (Scarce). O: CONSTANTINVS.FIL AVGG, laureate head right. R: GENIO CA-ESARIS, Genius standing left pouring liquid from patera and holding cornucopia; dot SM dot TS dot in exergue, star in left field, delta in right field. MAXIMINUS II 'DAIA' AE Follis. 6.25g, 26.7mm, Thessalonica mint, 4th officina, AD 309-310, RIC VI 39a (scarce). O: MAXIMINVS FIL AVGG, laureate head right. R: VIRTVTI E-XERVITVS, Mars advancing right, holding spear and trophy; star and delta in field, dot SM dot TS dot in exergue.
Thanks for these additional posts. Sometimes amassing details/examples that don't seem to be decipherable at the time might provide insight for someone down the line. BTW, here's a brief write-up for my coin that strives to get the essentials all in one place. I restricted the write-up just to Constantine for the note I include with my cataloguing of this coin: So I bought this coin yesterday. It’s currently wending its way to my hot little hand. Upon first glance, a collector of late Roman imperial bronzes would not see anything remarkable–it looks like (quite literally) a million other Constantine coins of the fourth century, with “the genius of the Augustus” celebrated on the reverse. But it’s the last seven letters of the obverse legend that make this coin quite interesting: “FIL AUGG,” which stand for “filius augustorum,” or “son of the Augusti.” The Augusti were the emperors of the western and eastern Roman empires. The Augustus in the East, Galerius, essentially invented this title “filius augustorum” as a means of placating a 36-year-old Constantine, who was gaining power in the West against Galerius’s hand-picked successor, Severus. This title was somehow designed to be flattering–perhaps a step above the typical title of “caesar” often given to the Augustus-in-waiting. But Constantine rejected the bogus title and called himself the full-fledged Augustus of the West in 307 A.D. Indeed, Constantine never struck coins with the “filius augustorum” title, and the legend “CONSTANTINUS FIL AUGG” was only used at eastern mints controlled by Galerius, whence the coin in the photo, struck ca. 309-310 A.D. at Siscia (present-day Sisak, in Croatia). Thus, this coin is quite scarce, if not rare, due to the limited and short-lived striking period with this obverse title. Constantine would continue to amass power–power which culminated, of course, in his triumph at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 A.D., cementing his status as Augustus, a title he would not relinquish until his death in 337.
