Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;DonnaML, post: 4587280, member: 110350&quot;]I thought I&#039;d follow up on my &quot;Four Sons of Constantine the Great&quot; thread from a while ago (see <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-four-sons-of-constantine-the-great.360683/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-four-sons-of-constantine-the-great.360683/">https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-four-sons-of-constantine-the-great.360683/</a> ) -- and on the coins I&#039;ve posted of other family members like his nephew Julian II, his father-in-law Maximian, and his brothers-in-law Maxentius (his wife&#039;s brother) and Licinius I (his sister&#039;s husband) -- by posting two more recently-arrived coins of members of his family.</p><p><br /></p><p>First, his father:</p><p><br /></p><p>Constantius I Chlorus Caesar (father of Constantine I), Billon Follis, 296-297 AD, Heraclea Mint (3rd Officina). Obv. Laureate head right, FL VAL CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES / Rev. Genius wearing modius on head, standing left, nude, chlamys draped over left shoulder, holding cornucopiae in left hand and pouring libation from patera in right hand, GENO POPV-L-I ROMANI; mintmark HT Γ[gamma] [Γ= 3rd Officina] in exergue. RIC VI Heraclea 18a (p. 531), Sear RCV IV 14061.&nbsp; 29 mm., 9.91 g.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1135923[/ATTACH]</p><p>At 29 mm., this is actually the largest follis I have from the period; all the others -- two issued by Diocletian, and one each by Maximian, Galerius, and Maxentius -- range from 27-28 mm.&nbsp; The heaviest, though, is the one from Maximian at 10.26 g.&nbsp; This is the second heaviest.</p><p><br /></p><p>Second, his wife Fausta:</p><p><br /></p><p>Fausta (wife of Constantine I and daughter of Maximian), Billon reduced Centenionalis, Alexandria Mint (First Officina) 326 AD. Obv. Draped bust right, FLAV MAX FAVSTA AVG / Rev. Veiled Fausta standing facing, head left, holding two children (Constantius II and Constans?) in her arms, SPES REIP-VBLICAE; in exergue, SMALA [Alexandria, First Officina].&nbsp; RIC VII Alexandria 40 (p. 709), Sear RCV IV 16582. 19 mm., 2.92 g. <i>Ex. Dr. Frank Sternberg Collection, Sternberg I, Zurich, Nov. 30-Dec. 1, 1973, part of Lot 524 (catalogue p. 61.).</i></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1135925[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>The coin came with the old Sternberg ticket, and [USER=44316]@Valentinian[/USER] kindly provided me with a copy of the relevant page from the 1973 Sternberg auction describing Lot 524:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1135926[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>I found the cover page for the catalogue on the Internet:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1135927[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>You may have noticed that I tentatively identified the two infants as Constantius II and Constans, adopting Sear&#039;s identification. Typically, in other sources, in descriptions of the Fausta coins showing her holding two infants on the reverse -- all with SALVS REIPVBLICAE and SPES REIPVBLICAE reverse legends -- the two infants are described as Constantine II and Constantius II. The sources identify those two sons even though these coins were all issued from 324-326 (see Sear RCV IV 16536-16582), at which time both boys were 7-10 years old.&nbsp; Constans, the youngest, is generally omitted from consideration as one of the children in such descriptions, even though he was an actual infant, assuming that, as generally stated, he was born in 323. (He was at most six years old when these coins were issued if, as some sources state, he was born in 320.) </p><p><br /></p><p>By contrast, Sear identifies the two children as Constantius II and Constans. He does so not only because it makes more sense to include the one actual infant among Fausta&#039;s sons in a depiction of Fausta holding two infants, but because -- even though almost every single source I&#039;ve looked at states without equivocation that Fausta had three sons by Constantine I -- Sear argues that in fact she and Constantine had only two sons.&nbsp; According to Sear, Constantine II, typically described as the oldest of her three sons by Constantine, was the child of Constantine I and a concubine.&nbsp; See Sear RCV IV at p. 507 (&quot;Fausta did not bear Constantine any sons until the birth of Constantius II in 317 followed by Constans six years later&quot;); Sear RCV V at p. 77:</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;Constantine II is sometimes described as the eldest of three sons of Constantine I and Fausta. However, it seems clear that he was illegitimate as Fausta gave birth to Constantius II in early August of 317, only six months after the birth of Constantine II. Additional evidence is provided by Fausta&#039;s coinage which depicts her holding just two children in her arms (Constantius II and Constans).&quot;&nbsp; Sear&#039;s logic, presumably, is that if she had had three sons, the coins would have shown all three.&nbsp; (Query: if, in fact, she had only two sons, and showing only two on her coinage implied to the general public that the eldest, Constantine II, was not her son and was illegitimate, would the Imperial administration really have been likely to allow the issuance of coins carrying such an implication?)</p><p><br /></p><p>Most of the other sources I looked at ignore this supposed problem, because most of them state that Constantine II was born in 316, one year before Constantius II&#039;s birth in 317, rather than in the same year.&nbsp; Which is correct?&nbsp; I have no idea, and have no idea how we could know for sure one way or the other.&nbsp; Does any of you know how one could conclusively determine when the two were actually born?</p><p><br /></p><p>In poking around for half an hour or so, I have found only two sources even alluding to this issue. First, in the book <i>Imperial Rome AD 264-383</i>, by Jill Harries (Edinburgh 2012), the author refers at p. 112 to &quot;Fausta&#039;s (or a concubine&#039;s) first-born, Constantine II,&quot; and explains in n. 35 that &quot;There are problems with the dates of the births of Constantine II and the next son, Constantius II, very soon after (see entry in <i>PLRE</i> [<i>Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire</i>] on Constantine II). If, hypothetically, Constantine [II] was the son of an unknown mother, not Fausta, this would have implications for the position of the still childless Fausta in 316 . . . .&nbsp; [citations omitted].&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>By contrast, although acknowledging the issue in his book <i>Coinage and History of the Roman Empire</i> (2016), David Vagi dismisses it: he states at p. [? -- the Google Books version is unpaginated] that &quot;[a]lthough [Constantine II&#039;s] parentage was questioned in ancient times, we may be certain that Constantine the Great was his father, and that Fausta -- not a concubine -- was his mother. . . . Sometime late in 316, before he had reached his first year, Constantine II was given the extraordinary rank of Caesar alongside his much older half-brother, Crispus. About half a year later . . .&nbsp; Constantine II and Crispus were formally invested with that rank together with the child Licinius II, who was the heir of Constantine the Great&#039;s rival, Licinius I. The ceremony was held at March 1, 317, at Serdica.&quot; Note that if that date is correct, and at the same time Sear is correct that Constantine II was born six months prior to Constantius II in August 317, then this ceremony would have to have been held when Constantine II was a newborn -- and an illegitimate one to boot, with Fausta pregnant with Constantius II at the time.</p><p><br /></p><p>Is any of you familiar with this issue?&nbsp; Do you all identify the children shown on Fausta&#039;s coins as Constantine II and Constantius II, or does any of you identify Constans as one of them?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in