Heraclius Constantine

Intro ...

(641)

CONSTANTINOPLE

Heraclius Constantine (641). AV Solidus. Constantinople mint. Sear 932.

Obv: ∂. ɴ. cᴏɴsτᴀɴτıɴчs ᴘᴘ . ᴀᴠ . Bust facing, beardless, wearing plumed helmet and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger.

Rev: ᴠıcᴛᴏʀıᴀ ᴀᴠҁч. Г . or [retrograde] z. Cross potent on 3 stamps, cᴏɴᴏʙ beneath.

…

Heraclius Constantine (641). AV Solidus. Constantinople mint. Sear 933.

Obv: ∂. ɴ. cᴏɴsτᴀɴτıɴчs ᴘᴘ . ᴀч . Bust facing, beardless, wearing plumed helmet and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger.

Rev: ᴠıcᴛᴏʀıᴀ ᴀᴠҁч. [retrograde] z. Cross potent on 3 stamps, cᴏɴᴏʙᴋ beneath.

…

RAVENNA

Heraclius Constantine (641). AV Solidus. Ravenna mint. Sear 934.

Obv: ∂. ɴ. cᴏɴsτᴀɴτıɴчs ᴘᴘ . ᴀᴠ . Bust facing, beardless, wearing plumed helmet and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger; with heavy annular border.

Rev: ᴠıcᴛᴏʀıᴀ ᴀᴠҁч. ᴀ . Cross potent on 3 stamps, cᴏɴᴏʙ beneath; border as obverse.

…

Heraclius Constantine (641). AV Solidus. Ravenna mint. Sear 935.

Obv: ∂. ɴ. cᴏɴsτᴀɴτıɴчs ᴘᴘ . ᴀᴠ . Bust facing, beardless, wearing plumed helmet and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger; with heavy annular border.

Rev: ᴠıcᴛᴏʀıᴀ ᴀᴠҁч. ᴀ . Cross potent on 3 stamps, cᴏɴᴏʙ beneath; in field to right, є; border as obverse.

DOES THIS TYPE ALSO HAVE A heavy annular border LIKE 934 ??

…

CHRONOLOGY

Heraclius had endeavored to secure the future of his dynasty by elevating his son Heraclius Constantine to the rank of Augustus on 2 January 613, within a few months of his birth (3 May 612). But the boy, like all Heraclius’ children, was sickly, and Heraclonas, the eldest surviving son of Heraclius by his second wife Martina, was added as co-emperor in 638. Forty years earlier, Maurice had envisaged the eventual partition of the Empire between his sons Theodosius and Tiberius. Heraclius, instead, laid down in his will that hissons should rulejointly, respecting hiswidow Martina as “mother and empress.”

Eight months of political strife ensued. Martina was ambitious both on her own behalf and on that of Heraclonas, but she was intensely disliked and public sentiment in general favored Heraclius Constantine, and after the latter's death his son, the future Constans II. The family feud was exacerbated by religious dissension, for Martina’s chief supporter was the Monothelete patriarch, Pyrrhus. Heraclius Constantine died after a brief reign of just over three months, probably of consumption, though Martina was inevitably supposed. to have poisoned him. Heraclonas was left sole Augustus, Heraclius Constantine having inexplicably failed to associate his young son with him as co-emperor.

The precise dates of these events are uncertain, mainly because we do not know that of Heraclius’ death. Heraclius Constantine ruled for just over three months: 10 days — the wording indicates that itisintended only as a round number — according to John of Nikiu, 103 days according to Nicephorus. Most modern authors follow Nicephorus and reckon the 103 days from Heraclius’ supposed date of death on 11 February, putting Heraclius Constantine's death in consequence on 24 May. The recently discovered list of imperial obits, however, gives 20 April, and since this is exactly 10 days from 11 January, the date given by the same source for Heraclius’ death, I am disposed to accept it.

COINAGE

No coinage is commonly assigned to Heraclius Constantine's brief reign as senior Augustus. This is partly due to the absence of any two-figure coins on which he is associated with Heraclonas, partly to the absence of any bearing the double name Heraclius Constantine which had been regularly given him on coins on which he is associated with his father. Such a gap in minting is obviously strange, for a reign of over three months should have allowed sufficient time: coins of the four months’ joint reign of Justin I and Justinian are not excessively rare, and there are even two solidi known of the ten days’ joint reign of Justin II and Tiberius II. But possible explanations are not lacking: perhaps a reluctance on the part of Heraclius Constantine to issue coins in the joint names of himself and Heraclonas, perhaps a simple consequence of his state of health. According to John of Nikiu he had been seriously ill, spitting and vomiting blood, from the date of his accession or even earlier, and if it was indeed apparent that his reign would be short the authorities would have been in no hurry to prepare dies for a coinage. Another gap in the Byzantine coin series, that of the reign of Stauracius in the early ninth century, is certainly best explained in this way. He was badly wounded in the battle in which his father Nicephorus I was killed, and though his reign in fact lasted over two months it was evident from the first that he could not long survive.

It is not necessary to invoke these explanations, however, for coins do exist which cannot be fitted into the sequence of issues of either Constans II or Constantine IV. Most of them, it will be argued later, belong to Heraclonas, but some rare solidican best be attributed to Heraclius Constantine. They give him the title of Constantinus only, but this need occasion no surprise. He had been baptized Heraclius, but had been named in addition “the new Constantine” either at once or on the occasion of his coronation in January 613. He figures under the double name of Heraclius Constantine on the coins on which he is associated with his father and as 'Hρακλειος ο νεος Κωνσταντῖνος or Heraclius Constantinus novus in date formulae of the years from 613 onward. In the 630's, however, it was common to refer to him simply as “Constantine”, as for example in the official account of the promotion of Heraclonas to the rank of Augustus in July 638? and in the formal acclamations of the imperial colleagues in the following January. There is therefore nothing surprising in his minting with the name of Constantine only, any more than there is in the omission of the name and effigy of Heraclonas from his coins. The association of a junior emperor on the coins was a privilege, not a right, and the relations between Heraclius Constantine and his stepmother made the elimination of any reference to Heraclonas a matter of common prudence if the throne were in the future to be secured for Heraclius Constantine's own family.

The coins in question are solidi with a youthful facing bust, beardless, wearing a helmet. They are distinguished from the solidi of Constans II by the small size of the head, its symmetrical hair, and the presence ofahelmet; theportrait is totally unlike any of those of Constans and cannot be fitted into the pattern of the latter’s coins. It resembles that on the coins attributed to Heraclonas, though differing from these in being helmeted, and it could conceivably be another issue of this ruler. Certainly it must be very close to his coins in time, for the exergues of both series of solidi sometimes have CONOBK instead of CONOB, the only occasion on which this short-lived variant was used in the seventh century. In the circumstances, taking the shortness of the reigns into account, I believe that we are justified in attributing the two series of coins to different rulers. The fact of the helmeted bust being beardless is no argument against identifying it with Heraclius Constantine, for though he is sometimes shown with a short beard on the solidi of Herac- lius’Clas IT (629-631), he is normally beardless on Heraclius’ last coinage. The presence or absence of a beard on coin portraits had not yet become the customary method of establishing the distinction between a senior emperor and his junior colleague, and in real belong to Heraclius Constantine, but with three emperors in succession beating the name of Constantinus and two of them reigning for only a few months it is impossible to separate their coins except where there is a change in type. Where no such change occurs, as with the semisses and tremises, one has no alternative but to attribute the whole series to the emperor who had by far the longest reign. No silver coins are known with a helmeted bust resembling that of the gold. Nor are there any copper coins which can be satisfactorily attributed to Heraclius Constantine. One is naturally tempted to suppose that the coin type so characteristic of Constans II’s early folles, a standing figure of the emperor with the inscription εν τουτω νίκα (In hoc [signo] vinces) which had accompanied Constantine’s vision of the cross, was designed for Heraclius Constantine rather than for Constans II. Inscription and type together would have been more suited to a grown man than to a boy of eleven, more particularly to a man whose status as “the new Constantine” was one which his father had constantly sought to emphasize. But if Heractius Constantine had struck folles in 641 they would have been dated Year 29, since he had become Augustus in 613, and no such coins are known. Coins dated Year 1 are of course plentiful, but it would have been quite contrary to custom for a Byzantine ruler to have started his regnal dating from his predecessor's death and not from his own coronation. A departure from custom cannot be excluded, but unless and until further evidence is forthcoming it seems life, at the time of Heraclius’ death, Heraclius Constantine may well have been clean-shaven. It is possible that some of the semisses and tremisses attributed to Constans II really best to assign all coins dated Year 1 to Constans II.

There are no specimens at Dumbarton Oaks of the solidi here attributed to Heraclius Constantine, but in view of their rarity and the fact that they are virtually unpublished, the four specimens known to me have been included in the catalogue and are illustrated on PL XXIII.

(from DOC vol. ll)

Heraclius Constantine's coinage