Roman Times: The precarious existence of Constantine I's family members

These Roman treasures, solid gold medallions dated between 370-390 CE (I'm a little dubious about the dating as both of these sons of Constantine were already dead and had been subjected to damnatio memoriae before those dates), from the collections of the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. photographed by my good friend, Allan Gluck represent the precarious existence of members of Constantine I's family.

Gold medallions celebrating the consulships of Constantine's sons Crispus and Constantine II dated from 370-390 CE photographed at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. by Allan Gluck.

The museum's curator observes: The consummate skill used to create these pendants place them among the most highly accomplished examples of gold jewelry from the early Byzantine period. The elaborate frames around the imperial medallions combines two techniques: chisel cutting of sheet gold masterfully worked to create lacelike tendrils, scrolls, and geometric designs; and hollow, three-dimensional heads formed by working the gold from both the interior and the exterior. The contrast of flat, silhouette patterns and heads in the round produces a dynamic counterpoint rarely seen in jewelry of this period.

The medallions show the emperor Constantine wearing a crown of rays—an attribute of Apollo—while his sons Crispus and Constantine II are in consular robes on the reverse, co-celebrating their third consulate in 324 on the round pendant while the similarly designed, although hexagonal, pendant celebrates the second consulate in 321 of these same imperial sons. In mint condition, these medallions were never put into circulation; they were framed so that both sides are visible, allowing all the imperial portraits to be seen. Despite their different shapes, the shared techniques, style, and decorative schemes confirm that these pendants were made as part of a set. Three additional pendants belong to this set judged by medallion type, techniques, designs, and superb execution: a circular pendant (Musée du Louvre, Paris); a hexagonal pendant (British Museum, London); and a slightly larger octagonal pendant (Cleveland Museum of Art).

The curator speculates these pendants may have been an award from an emperor to an outstanding general or high ranking official, although their exact function is not certain.

These pieces were purchased from a Christie's auction in 1970.

Sadly, both of these sons suffered tragic fates.

Crispus, Constantine's eldest son, was initially seen as the heir apparent. He showed military prowess and held high positions within the Empire.

However, in 326, at the age of 28, Crispus was executed on Constantine's orders. The exact reason remains unclear, with various theories including:

False accusations: One theory suggests his stepmother, Fausta, falsely accused him of adultery to eliminate him as a rival for her own sons.

Palace intrigue: Others propose political conspiracies or power struggles within the family played a role.

Dynastic concerns: Some historians believe Constantine saw Crispus as a threat to his rule and took a ruthless step to secure his lineage.

Regardless of the reason, the execution was swift and brutal, followed by an act of "damnatio memoriae," erasing Crispus's name and achievements from official records.

Constantine II, born to Constantine and Fausta, was much younger than Crispus. He received titles and positions throughout his childhood, suggesting favor from his father.

Following Crispus's death, Constantine II gained further prominence, becoming Caesar and later co-emperor alongside his brothers.

However, Constantine II complained that he had not received the amount of territory that was his due as the eldest son. Annoyed that Constans had received Thrace and Macedonia after the death of Dalmatius (murdered in the purge of Constantine I's male relatives after his death), Constantine II demanded that Constans hand over the African provinces, to which he agreed in order to maintain a fragile peace. Soon, however, they began quarreling over which parts of the African provinces belonged to Carthage, and thus Constantine, and which belonged to Italy, and therefore Constans. Even after campaigning against the Alamanni in 338, Constantine II continued to maintain his position. The Codex Theodosianus recorded Constantine’s legislative intervention in Constans’ territory through issuing an edict to the proconsul of Africa in 339.

In 340 Constantine II marched into Italy at the head of his troops to claim territory from Constans. Constans, at that time in Naissus, detached and sent a select and disciplined body of his Illyrian troops, stating that he would follow them in person with the remainder of his forces. Constantine II was then killed by Constans's generals in an ambush outside Aquileia. Constans then took control of his deceased brother's realm and his brother, like Crispus before him was subjected to damnatio memoriae." Update 2/11/2024: The museum estimates the pendants have been produced between 370 and 390 CE, decades after both men were subjected to damnatio memoriae. I asked ChatGPT about it (I have Gemini working on an extensive conversation about Ptolemaic relations with southern India at the moment) pointing out that such pieces would have been commissioned by wealthy clients who would have been well aware of possible political ramifications of displaying such works.

"The specific context that these gold pendants celebrated Crispus and Constantine II, both of whom faced tragic fates, adds an additional layer of complexity to their production. Given this information, a few specific considerations may help explain why such pendants were created for wealthy clients aware of the political consequences:

"Selective Memory: The damnatio memoriae imposed on Crispus and Constantine II may not have been uniformly accepted or adhered to by all individuals, even within the ruling class. Some wealthy clients might have chosen to selectively remember and celebrate the achievements of these individuals, focusing on their campaigns in Africa and downplaying or ignoring the subsequent events leading to their deaths.

"Dynastic Loyalty: The clients who commissioned these pendants might have had personal or familial ties to Crispus or Constantine II. Loyalty to a particular branch of the imperial family could override political considerations, leading individuals to commemorate these figures despite their controversial fates.

"Political Complexity: The political landscape during the era of Constantine I and his sons was marked by power struggles and conflicts within the imperial family. Wealthy clients might have supported different factions or individuals within the family, contributing to the diverse responses and commemorations.

"Symbolic Resilience: The production of these pendants could signify a symbolic resilience against the tragedies that befell Crispus and Constantine II. The act of commissioning such items may have been a way for wealthy clients to express their belief in the positive aspects of these rulers' legacies, particularly their campaigns in Africa.

"Cultural and Artistic Value: Beyond political considerations, the cultural and artistic value of these pendants might have played a significant role. Wealthy patrons could have seen them as unique and aesthetically valuable pieces, and their historical significance may have been secondary to their artistic appeal.

"In summary, the production of gold pendants celebrating Crispus and Constantine II in the face of damnatio memoriae suggests a nuanced interplay of political, familial, and cultural factors among the wealthy patrons involved. The complexities of the historical context likely contributed to varying responses and commemorations of these individuals despite the controversial circumstances surrounding their lives and deaths." - ChatGPT

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!