BABESCH 92 (2017), 209-210. doi: 10.2143/BAB.92.0.3242695 One more note on the Constantinian Cameo in Leiden Ruurd Halbertsma As a reply to my 2015 BABESCH article on the In his article Stephenson repeats the theory of Gemma Constantiniana in Leiden, Paul Stephenson Gerda Bruns, who identified the young boy in the made some interesting remarks, which deserve an chariot as Constantine’s third son, Constantius.3 answer.1 Many of his observations are useful, In his view the whole scene is not intended to accurate and give additional information on impe- illustrate a formal triumphus, but alludes more to rial iconography in the 4th century CE. But the the celebration which followed the promotion of main issue still remains the date of the cameo. In Constantius to the rank of Caesar.4 The victory, my article I proposed (in line with earlier publica- then, is over Licinius at the battle of Chrysopolis tions e.g. by A.N. Zadoks -Josephus Jitta) the years on 24 September 324, and the scene represents 312-315 as the period of its creation, following the elevation of Constantius to Caesar in the pres- Constantine’s victory over Maxentius and antici- ence of his mother and grandmother, both ren- pating the festivities of his ten years’ reign, the dered as Augustae. Of course, as a hypothesis this Decennalia in 315-316.2 I saw the cameo as one of view is valid, as it was in Bruns’ publication, but the gifts of the Roman senate to their new emperor, a few problems remain. In the whole sequence of celebrating his victory over the ‘tyrant’ Maxentius imperial cameos not one is to be found that cel- and appraising the fact that an heir to the throne ebrates the elevation of one of the emperor’s sons was present in the person of Crispus, who was to the rank of Caesar. This was usually done by issu- then in his early teens. In the triumphal chariot ing coins, showing the prince with a diadem and Constantine’s mother Helena and his wife Fausta designing him as CAESAR. To dedicate an impe- are pointing at the young boy, who, clad as a sol- rial cameo of this extraordinary size to a rather dier, engages directly with the viewer of the repetitive political event seems unlikely. Secondly, cameo. The general objection against the date 312- if the young Caesar is the main player of the scene, 315 lied in the fact that both women are wearing a why is he not wearing his newly earned diadem? headgear, a laurel wreath (Helena) and maybe a Thirdly, at the moment of Constantius’ promotion, diadem (Fausta). These signs of imperial rank Constantine’s eldest son Crispus was at the height were allowed to both women in the fall of 324, of his popularity, having fought against Licinius’ after Constantine had gained the final victory over troops as commander of the fleet. And there was the army and fleet of Licinius. Helena and Fausta another brother, Fausta’s first son Constantinus. were elevated to the rank of Augustae on 8 Novem- Seeing their (step-)brother Constantius honoured in ber 324, on which date Constantine conferred the this way with an imperial cameo would have been title of Caesar to his third son Constantius, raising rather troublesome for the elder brothers, who the number of Caesares to three (Crispus and Con- could claim earlier rights of succession than Con- stantinus had been created Caesares in 317). A closer stantius. As said before, a coin issue for a new Cae- look at the cameo, especially at the hairdos and sar was normal practice in the Roman empire. headgears of the various persons, led me to the sug- Moreover, the date in the years 324-325 does not gestion that on Helena a wreath was incised at a explain the rather awkward hairstyles of the two later date, reducing the volume of her hair and giv- ladies, the poor execution of Helena’s wreath (in ing it a rather stiff and rigid look. As for Fausta I comparison to Constantine’s) and the questionable suggested that the intention of the original sculptor headgear of Fausta (‘wreath or diadem’ according was to give her the corona spicea (in line with the to earlier publications). Ascribing these anomalies corn ears and poppy in her left hand), which on to ‘a mistake by the original artist or the nature of occasion of her elevation to Augusta in 324 was the stone’5 as Stephenson argues, is not convincing reworked into an awkward diadem. The reworked in view of the accurate rendering of all the other imperial cameo could thus have been presented to hairdos and the fine execution of other attributes.6 Constantine in Rome during the festivities of his Recently a numismatic article came to my 20 years’ reign, the Vicennalia (325-326). attention, which offers another argument against 209 a date of the cameo in 324-325.7 In his publication This might have been excusable in 315, but was Constantine’s vicennalia and the death of Crispus certainly risky in 325. With Constantine’s laurel Lars Ramskold gives numismatic and epigraphic wreath, his thunderbolt and the hairdos of the evidence concerning Constantine’s celebration imperial ladies the date of the cameo fits per- journey from Nicomedia to Rome. Donatives in the fectly in the years 312-315, if we agree on a form of coins were produced on each major stop reworking of the cameo between the fall of 324 along the way, portraying the emperor, the three (!) and the early summer of 325, the beginning of the Caesares and the two Augustae. A newly discov- Vicennalia. ered bronze honorary coin, struck in Rome on Constantine’s arrival, depicts Crispus with full NOTES titles, showing that he was still favoured by his father. This arrival is dated 18 July 326. In the 1 See for my article Nulli tam laeti triumphi: Halbertsma summer of 326 the tragedy at the imperial court 2015. For Stephenson’s reaction: Stephenson 2015. 2 Halbertsma 2015, 229-231. took place, which led to the execution of Crispus 3 Bruns 1948, 8. and the death of Fausta. The party was over: after 4 Stephenson 2015, 237. August 326 no coins of Crispus or Fausta were 5 Stephenson 2015, 239-40. issued anymore. He and his stepmother met with 6 Stephenson 2015, 239-40. 7 Ramskold 2013. damnatio memoriae. Helena departed for the Holy 8 Ramskold 2013, 415. Land, and Constantine left Rome for Constan- 9 8 Ramskold 2013, Appendix I tinople and Nicomedia, probably in August 326. 10 Ramskold 2013, 430-431. Thus there is numismatic evidence that Crispus’ 11 Halbertsma 2015, 233, n. 38. 12 fall from grace can be placed in Rome and dated Halbertsma 2015, 228. to the second half of July or August 326. Discussing the chronology concerning the BIBLIOGRAPHY coins around Constantine’s vicennalia, Ramskold discusses at length the headgear on these coins. Bruns, G. 1948, Staatskameen des 4. Jahrhunderts nach Christi Silver coins from Antioch9 seem to indicate that Geburt, Berlin. Halbertsma, R.B. 2015, Nulli tam laeti triumphi – Constan- the plain diadem, replacing the laurel wreath, tine’s victory on a reworked cameo in Leiden, BABESCH was introduced at least six months before Con- 90, 221-235. stantine’s arrival in Rome. There are no coins Ramskold, L. 2013, Constantine’s vicennalia and the death later than July 325 that show Constantine wearing of Crispus, Niš & Byzantium 11, 409-456. Stephenson, P. 2015, A note on the Constantinian Cameo, a laurel wreath. The only exceptions are to be found now in Leiden, BABESCH 90, 237-240. in mints in the outer regions, far away from court.10 This means that already around mid-325 on official portraits the wreath was replaced by the diadem. RUURD HALBERTSMA If we try to identify the scene on the Gemma NATIONAL MUSEUM OF ANTIQUITIES Constantiniana with the events following Licinius’ PO BOX 11 11 4 defeat on 24 September 324, then we encounter a NL-2301 EC LEIDEN timeframe that poses problems. An agate of con- [email protected] siderable size had to be designed and cut before July 325, as after that date the official portraiture changed in favour of the diadem. If we suppose that the senate of Rome were responsible for this gift, then we have to remember the reactions of the emperor ten years earlier, when he saw him- self sitting in the pose of Jupiter in the Basilica of Maxentius. He ordered the scepter to be replaced by a cross, and an inscription to be added, which reminded all Romans that the ‘salutary sign of the cross’ had liberated their city from the ‘tyr- anny’ of Maxentius.11 The connotations of the senatorial gifts during the decennalia may have caused the banishment of Gaius Volusianus as praefectus urbi.12 Why risk the same unpleasantness with a cameo depicting Constantine as Jupiter? 210.