Abstract
Crispus was the eldest son of Constantine, and was eliminated by his own father in mysterious circumstances amidst the lavish celebrations of Constantine’s twentieth anniversary in power in 326. Crispus’ sudden disappearance has led to some scholars presenting the young emperor as an archetypal instance of damnatio memoriae, who had been obliterated from his father’s empire after his fall. This chapter offers a new angle of interpretation through a detailed examination of the epigraphic evidence for Crispus’ treatment as a disgraced figure. Unlike the literary accounts, many of which are scandalous stories written a long time after the event, erasures of Crispus’ name took place shortly after his death, and so represent the most contemporaneous body of evidence for the varied responses which his downfall provoked. As I argue, while some seem to have been hesitant to target the young emperor, many important people acted with confidence on the knowledge that Crispus was now a disgraced figure.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
MacMullen (1969: 59) and Potter (2013: 97–98) accept Minervina as Constantine’s legal wife, whilst Guthrie (1966), Pohlsander (1984), and Drijvers (1992b) argue that both the union and Crispus were illegitimate. See Arjava (1996: 205–210) for the legal status of concubines and their children in this period.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
Spain: e.g. CIL II.4764, AE 1977.436. Africa: e.g. CIL VIII.22211, 22,376. Britain: e.g. CIL VII.1153. Gaul: CIL XVII-2.90.
- 9.
Due to the political fracture between Constantine and Licinius, Crispus, and Constantine II’s consulships were only recognised in the west: Bagnall et al. (1987: 170–171, 176, 182–183).
- 10.
Consular date on altars: e.g. Rome: CIL VI.315; Carnuntum: AE 2003.1399. Christian funerary dedications in Rome: e.g. ICUR-3.8416; 4.9550. Bronze patronage documents from the house of the Valerii in Rome: CIL VI.1684–1685, 1687–1689.
- 11.
Soz. 1.5.2: τὸ δεύτερον σχῆμα τῆς βασιλείας.
- 12.
Licinius Iunior was born in either July or August 315, since he is identified as 20 months old at the time of his elevation to Caesar in March 317: Zos. 2.20.2, Epit. De Caes 41.4, PLRE I, Val. Licinianus Licinius 4, 509–510. Constantine II was born early in 316, though PLRE I, Fl. Claudius Constantinus 3, 223, identifies his birth as February 317, thus implying he was illegitimate since Fausta’s second son, Constantius II, was also born in 317.
- 13.
- 14.
Bruun (1966) RIC VII, Trier, nos. 186–187, 240, 243, 257. The panegyrist Nazarius, speaking in Rome in 321, also makes reference to these victories: Pan. Lat. IV(10) 17.2.
- 15.
E.g. Bruun (1966) RIC VII, Arles, no. 134; Rome, nos. 60–62.
- 16.
CIL VI.1155, LSA-1094 (C. Machado).
- 17.
E.g.: CIL XVII-2.534 (invictus); 90b, 92 (patre avo maioribus etc.).
- 18.
IG XII-8.244.
- 19.
LSA-241 (A. Sokolicek).
- 20.
PLRE I, Verus 4, 953. Base of Constantine: CIL IX.1115. Base of Crispus: CIL IX.1116.
- 21.
Base of Constantine: AE 1968/70.107, set up by Publius Aelius Proculus. Base of Crispus: AE 1969/70.108, set up by Iulius Aurelianus.
- 22.
Origo 5.23, 26–27. See also Zonar. 13.2, and Peter the Patrician ES 188, F 209 (Summer, 324 CE) in Banchich (2015: 143).
- 23.
- 24.
CIL X.517.
- 25.
CIL X.678. See also a fragmentary base of Fausta from Priverno: AE 2007.354. The entablature of a portico in Arles, the so-called Arch of Constantine, originally held a dedicatory inscription consisting of inlaid bronze letters which has been deciphered from the post-holes as honouring the emperors Constantine, Crispus, Constantine II, and Constantius II, along with Fausta as uxor materque, thus concealing Crispus’ different maternity: CIL XII.668, AE 1952.107. However, the monument was partially demolished in the seventeenth century, leaving scholars reliant on earlier drawings to restore the inscription. Heijmans (2004: 52–55) highlights how these reconstructions are highly tentative.
- 26.
Stephenson (2009: 200).
- 27.
Barnes (2011: 5).
- 28.
Subsequent historians, such Evagrius, quoted the version of the text which still included Crispus (3.41), which suggests that the removal of Crispus was either the work of the Syriac translator or the previously published text remained in circulation: see Johnson (2013: 104–112).
- 29.
Barnes (2011: 5).
- 30.
Aur. Vic. De Caes 41.11: quorum cum natu grandior, incertum qua causa, patris iudicio occidisset.
- 31.
PLRE I, Sex. Aurelius Victor 13.
- 32.
Zos. 2.29.2–5. For the lost history of Eunapius and its use by Zosimus, see Treadgold (2007: 81–89).
- 33.
Caes. 3.36 A-B, Potter (2013: 247).
- 34.
Sid. Apoll. Epist. 5.8.2: ut mihi non figuratius Constantini domum vitamque videatur vel pupugisse versu gemello consul Ablabius vel momordisse disticho tali clam Palatinis foribus appenso:
Saturni aurea saecla quis requirat?
sunt haec gemmea, sed Neroniana.
quia scilicet praedictus Augustus isdem fere temporibus extinxerat coniugem Faustam calore balnei, filium Crispum frigore veneni.
- 35.
PLRE I, Fl. Ablabius 4, 3–4. See Harries (2014: 206) for the suggestion there was a genuine graffito in Rome.
- 36.
Pohlsander (1984: 100).
- 37.
- 38.
Kelly (2002: 225–227; 2008: 286–287): ‘The word accepimus, ‘we have heard’, imparts an air of distance, which belies the recentness of the event, and the fact that Crispus’ death must have been described in lost books. Crucial historical detail (that Crispus was Caesar at the time he was killed on the orders of his father, the Augustus) is left for the reader to fill in for himself’.
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
- 42.
For example, the thesis of Woods (1998), who argues that Fausta died attempting to induce an abortion (this interpretation has been accepted by Stephenson 2009: 223). See (Odahl 2010: 207) for the idea that Fausta’s death in a calidarium was intended as a merciful death, comparative to ‘if one drinks too much wine and stays too long in a modern jacuzzi’. Desnier (1987: 305) argues that Fausta was placed in an overheated bath, first to torture her into confessing her adultery and then to kill her for this crime. Barnes (1981: 221) takes the bathroom location for Fausta’s death as given, suggesting that the domestic context indicates that she committed ‘suicide under compulsion’ in this part of the palace.
- 43.
See Harries (2014: 205–206) for how the story of the body in the bathhouse had been ‘embedded in an inventive historical tradition’ since the Julio-Claudian period.
- 44.
See, for example, Ginsburg’s 2006 re-evaluation of the characterisation of Agrippina the Younger, particularly the cultural assumptions and motives which lay behind accusations of transgressive female sexual behaviour (esp. 106–132). The Julio-Claudian period offers clear parallels for the treatment of Fausta, both in ancient discourse and modern interpretations: execution in the bathhouse (Octavia); the adulterous empress who is at the mercy of her sexual urges (Messalina); the paradigm of the ‘wicked stepmother’ (saeva noverca) who ruthlessly supports the interests of their own sons over their stepchildren (Livia; Agrippina). See also Varner (2001 esp. n.10, 42) and James (2013: 106–109).
- 45.
James (2013: 107–112).
- 46.
For example, the assumption that the empresses Helena, aged around 80, and Fausta, in her early to mid-30s, must have been jealous rivals, e.g. Pohlsander (1984: 106), and Odahl (2010: 205), who points to ‘the resentment Helena appears to have had for Fausta as the sister of “the other woman” Theodora’.
- 47.
- 48.
- 49.
Odahl (2010: 208), who argues that Crispus’ death was caused by Fausta’s plotting, attempts to square this circle by claiming that Constantine could not ‘rehabilitate the memory’ of his son because ‘he would have given himself a public reprimand for his grave mistake and he would have offered his sons an unpleasant remembrance of their mother’s horrible crimes’.
- 50.
- 51.
- 52.
Potter (2013: 243–244).
- 53.
Ramskold (2013).
- 54.
Varner (2004: 171).
- 55.
Diocesis Italiae: 19 of Crispus vs. 29 of Licinii. Dioceses Asiana and Pontica: 35 of Crispus vs. 68 of Licinii. Diocesis Africae: 11 of Crispus vs. 32 of Licinii. Dioceses Pannoniarum, Moesiarum, and Thraciae: 22 of Crispus vs. 18 of Licinii. The regional picture is distorted by the fact that milestones in regions such as Italy, Spain, and Anatolia have been published more thoroughly than other areas.
- 56.
Milestone from Florentia (Florence), dedicated to the full post-317 college, where Licinius and Licinius Iunior’s names have been erased: CIL XI.6671a. Aquileia, dedicated to the post-317 Caesars, Licinius Iunior’s name erased: AE 2011.399b. Montecchio Maggiore (Venetia & Istria), dedicated to the post-317 Caesars, Licinius Iunior erased: CIL V.8015. Milestone from Mutina, dedicated to the full post-317 college, where only Crispus has been erased: CIL XI.6652.
- 57.
SEG 26.773, Grünewald (1990, no. 398).
- 58.
In a bilingual example from Gebeceler (French 2014a no. 48), the Licinii were erased and the dedication adapted to honour just Constantine, Crispus, Constantine II, and Constantius II (so after Nov 324, when Constantius II was made Caesar). Crispus was erased from the rededication. On a Latin dedication from Hacıosmanlar (French 2014a no. 138), the Licinii were erased thoroughly, but Crispus’ name was only partially erased. See Appendix 3 sections A10 and 11.
- 59.
Diocesis Asiana: French (2012a nos. 16A, 16B, and 16C) (three examples from Çapalı where Licinius has been erased (in one case Licinius Iunior too), but Crispus spared); French (2012a nos. 88B and 90A) (two examples with Licinius erased in dedication to post-317 college; new dedications to Constantine, Crispus, and Constantine II, Crispus untouched); French (2012b no. 160) (Licinius and Licinius Iunior erased); French (2014a no. 56A) (dedication to Crispus, Licinius Iunior, and Constantine II as Caesars, where Licinius Iunior, and Constantine II have been erased). Diocesis Pontica: French (2014a no. 4) (pre-317 dedication to Constantine and Licinius, Licinius’ name has been erased and Crispus’ inscribed over the top); French (2014a no. 74) (both Licinius and his son erased); French (2013 no. 8B) (pre-317 dedication to Constantine and Licinius, Licinius erased, and Crispus and Constantine II then added); French (2013 no. 49D) (Licinius and Licinius Iunior erased).
- 60.
See Chapter 3 p. 151.
- 61.
AE 1967.341c, Schillinger-Häfele (1977 no. 216).
- 62.
CIL VI.40778b, LSA-1272 (C. Machado). It is now in the Museo Nazionale Romana in the Terme di Diocleziano.
- 63.
CIL VI.1155, LSA-1094 (C. Machado).
- 64.
Pflaum (2003 no. 7873). This is not the only possible reconstruction, since the remaining letters which can be read from the original inscription (Flavio) could also indicate Constantius I or Severus. However, of the two most likely reconstructions raised by de Bruyn (LSA-2250)—Crispus or Constantius I—I find the former far more likely. If Constantius I’s name was erased, this would have taken place when Maxentius controlled Africa, which makes little sense (the emperor’s regime minted coinage of divus Constantius I). Nevertheless, Lepelley (1981: 410) favours the identification of Constantius I.
- 65.
Wankel (1979: 112–113). The dedicators were Petronius Annianus (Constantine’s praetorian prefect) and Iulius Iulianus (Licinius’ praetorian prefect), the same pair who dedicated the city-gate inscription in Tropaea examined in the previous chapter.
- 66.
A. Sokolicek, LSA-241. A closer examination might reveal clues as to whether there was a gap between the erasure and rededication, such as whether the ‘C’ of Crispus’ name was left in order to enable its quick adaptation to Constantius’ name.
- 67.
Base of an erased Caesar, identified as Crispus (now lost): CIL II.4107, LSA-1983, Alföldy (1975 no. 97). Base of Constantine, rededicated from Licinius: CIL II.4106, LSA-1981, Alföldy (1975 n.95). Base of Constantius II: CIL II.4108, LSA-1982, Alföldy (1975 no. 96). Hübner in CIL II and Alföldy (1975) have argued that the bases were all contemporary. As C. Witschel, LSA-1982, points out, the dedicators of the Crispus and Constantius II bases were different, which might indicate a slightly different date, but their identical opening formula indicates they were intended to be displayed as a single group. It likely that there was also a base of Constantine II.
- 68.
See Keay (1996: 28–29) for the placement of the bases within their ancient urban context, and the roles of the high-ranking officials who erected them.
- 69.
The base is the last testament to Acindynus as vicarius of Spain, so the end of his office is assumed to be around 326: PLRE I, Septimius Acindynus 2, 11.
- 70.
IG XII-8.244, LSA-823 (U. Gehn).
- 71.
Friedrich in IG XII-8.244.
- 72.
As Gehn also points out, Crispus’ praenomina were ‘Flavius Iulius’ not ‘Flavius Valerius’, though the variant forms are attested on some other surviving inscriptions. It may, as he suggests, have honoured Constantine II: U. Gehn, LSA-823 (first use), LSA-826 (Constantinian rededication).
- 73.
Since Constantius II is not mentioned, the inscription must have been set up at some point before Constantius II’s appointment as Caesar in November 324. See Burgersdijk (2018: 146–147) for a comparison between the wording of this dedication and Nazarius’ panegyric of 321.
- 74.
The honorand was originally identified as Constans, but Camodeca (1980–1: 65 no. 18) makes a convincing case for Crispus on the basis of forensic analysis of the inscription and circumstantial details; this is now the accepted identification. AE 1969/70.108 (identified as Constans); Guarino and Panciera (1970: 111–112), Camodeca (1980–1: 63–8), LSA-1923.
- 75.
AE 1969/70.107), LSA-1922.
- 76.
Camodeca (1980–1: 64).
- 77.
As is common in such cases due to conventions of sculptural reuse, we do not know whether the statue of Crispus was also mutilated at the time that the base was erased. However, at least part of the statue was left on display, since the horse, missing both the head and hooves, was apparently found along with the base: Guarino and Panciera (1970: 120), LSA-2464. In the case of the base of Constantine, the horse was also the only part of the statue which survived and was recycled from a Flavian or Trajanic statue: Guarino and Panciera (1970: 112), LSA-1511, Bergemann (1990: 48).
- 78.
Camodeca (1980–1: 62–68). Crispus’ name is not erased from inscription commemorating the aqueduct’s restoration (AE 1939.151).
- 79.
Beyond the bases of Fausta at Sorrento and Privernum and the base of Helena at Salerno, two bases in honour of Helena survive from Neapolis (Naples): CIL X.1483 and 1484. Both of these bases, set up by the ordo et populus of the city, describe Helena as the avia of the Caesars, but the individual Caesars are not named. See also Guarino and Panciera (1970: 111–121) and C. Machado in LSA-1923.
- 80.
ILS 710, CIL X.678. Both Drijvers (1992a: 49) and Van Dam (2007: 303) say that Fausta’s name was replaced with that of Helena’s after its erasure. However, this detail is not recorded by the museum collection’s catalogue (Magalhaes 2003), and there are no visible traces of any recarving on the inscription in situ.
- 81.
AE 1914.177.
- 82.
Varner (2001: 80). Though Varner places Plautilla in his latter category, it could be argued that she qualifies for both: her condemnation can be seen as an extension of her father’s, whose name was also cut out of the Thugga inscription.
- 83.
It was discovered relatively recently in the abbey of Fossanova, close to the ancient town of Privernum in Campania. Since it was cut down for reuse as a column capital, only a fraction of the original inscription survives, enough to demonstrate that the letters are of far superior quality to the Sorrento base, and that Fausta’s name and the word uxor were carved out in rough trough. The inscription’s text has been reconstructed in comparison with the Sorrento base, so Crispus’ name has been recorded as erased, though this is impossible to say since this section is missing: Evangelisti (2007: 151–155), AE 2007.354, LSA-2570.
- 84.
Base of Helena: ILS 708, CIL X.517, LSA-1847. Base of Constantine: CIL X.516, LSA-1846.
- 85.
CIL X.517: Vocabula erasa nihilominus adhuc ipse vidi. ILS.708: Vocabula puntis signata erasa, sed leguntur. Guarino (1993: 137).
- 86.
For example, a base found in the amphitheatre of Aeclanum which, like the Puteoli base, appears to have been paired with a statue dedicated to Constantine. Base of Crispus: CIL IX.1116, LSA-1717. Base of Constantine: CIL IX.1115, LSA-1716. There is no record of the current location of either base. They are dated to before the defeat of the Licinii (C. Machado, LSA-1716), and this longer passage of time might account for why Crispus’ base was never erased.
- 87.
See Östenberg (2019: 332–333) for erasures shaping the opinions and actions of viewers.
References
Alföldy, G. (1975). Die römischen Inschriften von Tarracco. Berlin.
Arjava, A. (1996). Women and Law in Late Antiquity. Oxford.
Austin, N. J. E. (1980). ‘Constantine and Crispus.’ Acta Classica 23: 133–138.
Bagnall, R., Cameron, A., Schwartz, S. R., and Worp, K. A. (1987). Consuls of the Later Roman Empire. Atlanta.
Banchich, T. M. (2015). The Lost History of Peter the Patrician. London.
Barnes, T. D. (1981). Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge MA.
———. (1982). The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. Cambridge MA.
———. (2011). Constantine: Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire. Chichester.
Bergemann, J. (1990). Römische Reiterstatuen: Ehrendenkmäler im öffentlichen Bereich. Mainz.
Bruun, P. (1966). The Roman Imperial Coinage, Vol. VII: Constantine and Licinius. London.
Burgersdijk, D. (2018). ‘Constantine’s Son Crispus and His Image in Contemporary Panegyrical Accounts.’ In Imagining Emperors in the Later Roman Empire, eds. D. Burgersdijk and A. Ross. Leiden: 137–157.
Camodeca, G. (1980–1). ‘Richerce su Puteoli tardoromana (fine III-IV seculo)’, Puteoli : studi di storia antica 4/5: 59–128.
Desnier, J. L. (1987). ‘Zosime II.29 et la mort de Fausta.’ Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé: 1.3: 297–309.
Drijvers, J. W. (1992a). Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great and the Legend of her Finding the True Cross. Leiden.
———. (1992b). ‘Flavia Maxima Fausta: Some Remarks.’ Historia 1992: 500–506.
Evangelisti, S. (2007). ‘Nuovo inscrizioni imperiali da Priverno.’ Epigraphia e terretorio: Politica e societa. 8. Bari: 149–157.
Frakes, R. M. (1995). ‘Cross-References to the Lost Books of Ammianus Marcellinus.’ Phoenix 49.3: 232–246.
French. D. H. (2012). Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor. Vol. 3 Fasc. 3.3 (Cappadocia). London.
———. (2013). Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor. Vo.l 3 Fasc. 3.4 (Pontus et Bithynia). London.
———. (2014). Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor. Vol. 3 Fasc. 3.5 (Asia). London.
Grünewald, T. (1990). Constantinus maximus Augustus: Herrschaftspropaganda in der zeitgenössichen Überlieferung. Stuttgart.
Guarino, D. P. (1993). ‘Intervento conservativo su un elemento lapideo del Museo Archaeologico Provinciale di Salerno.’ Apollo: Bollettino dei Musei Provinciali del Salernitano 9: 136–142.
Guarino, D. P. (1993). ‘Intervento conservativo su un elemento lapideo del Museo Archaeologico Provinciale di Salerno.’ Apollo: Bollettino dei Musei Provinciali del Salernitano, 9: 136–142.
Guarino, D. P., and Panciera, S. (1970). ‘Nuove testimonianze sul governo della Campania in età Costantiniana.’ Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di scienze morali. storiche e filologiche. Rome: 111–121.
Guthrie, P. (1966). ‘The Execution of Crispus.’ Phoenix 20.4: 325–331.
Harries, J. (2012). Imperial Rome AD 284 to 363: The New Empire. Edinburgh.
———. (2014). ‘The Empresses’ Tale, AD 300–360.’ In Being Christian in Late Antiquity, eds. C. Harrison, C. Humfress, and I. Sandwell. Oxford: 199–215.
Heijmans, M. (2004). Arles Durant l’antiquité tardive: de la duplex Arelas à l’urbs Genesii. Rome.
James, L. (2013). ‘Ghosts in the Machine: The Lives and Deaths of Constantinian Imperial Women.’ In Questions of Gender in Byzantine Society, eds. L. Garland and N. Bronwen. Abingdon-on-Thames: 93–112.
Johnson, A. P. (2013). Eusebius. New York.
Keay, S. (1996). ‘Tarraco in Late Antiquity.’ In Towns in Transition. Urban Evolution in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, eds. N. Christie and S. Loseby. London: 18–44.
Kelly, G. (2002). Ammianus Marcellinus: Autopsy, Allusion, Exemplum. Oxford diss.
———. (2008). Ammianus Marcellinus: The Allusive Historian. Cambridge.
MacMullen, R. (1969). Constantine. New York.
———. (1982). ‘The Epigraphic Habit.’ American Journal of Philology 103: 223–246.
Magalhaes, M. M. (2003). Storia, Instituzioni e Prospografia di Surrentum Romana. La Collezione Epigrafica del Museo Correle di Terranova. Naples.
Matthews, P. J. (1989). The Roman Empire of Ammianus. London.
Nixon, C. E. V., and Saylor Rodgers, B. (1994). In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini. Introduction, Translation, and Historical Commentary with the Latin Text of R. A. B. Mynors. Berkeley.
Odahl, C. M. (2010). Constantine and the Christian Empire (revised ed.). London.
Östenberg, I. (2019). ‘Damnatio Memoriae Inscribed: The Materiality of Cultural Repression.’ In The Materiality of Text—Placement, Perception, and Presence of Inscribed Texts in Classical Antiquity eds. A. Petrovic, I. Petrovic, and E. Thomas. Leiden: 324–347.
Panciera, S. (1996). Iscrizioni greche e latine del Foro Romano e del Palatino: inventario generale, inedita, revisioni. Rome.
Pflaum, H. G. (2003). Inscriptions Latines de l’Algérie. 2. Inscriptions de la confédération cirtéenne, de Cuicul et de la tribu des Suburbures. Vol 3. Paris.
Pohlsander, H. A. (1984). ‘Crispus: Brilliant Career and Tragic End.’ Historia 33.1: 79-106.
———. (1996). The Emperor Constantine. London.
Potter, D. S. (2013). Constantine the Emperor. Oxford.
Ramskold, L. (2013). ‘Constantine’s Vicennalia and the Death of Crispus.’ In Niš and Byzantium, Eleventh Symposium, ed. M. Rakocija. Niš: 409–456.
Rougé, J. (1980). ‘Fausta, femme de Constantin: Criminelle ou victim?’ Cahiers d’Histoire Lyon 25.1: 3–15.
Schillinger-Häfele, U. (1977). ‘Vierter Nachtrag zu CIL XIII und zweiter Nachtrag zu Fr. Vollmer, Inscriptiones Baivariae Romanae. Inschriften aus dem deutschen Anteil der germanischen Provinzen und des Treverergebiets sowie Raetiens und Noricums.’ Bericht der römisch-germanischen Kommission des deutchen archäologischen Instituts: 452–603.
Seeck, O. (1901). Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt. Berlin.
Stephenson, P. (2009). Constantine: Unconquered Emperor, Christian Victor. London.
Treadgold, W. T. (2007). The Early Byzantine Historians. Basingstoke.
Van Dam, R. (2007). The Roman Revolution of Constantine. Cambridge.
Varner, E. R. (2001). ‘Portraits, Plots, and Politics: “Damnatio Memoriae” and the Images of Imperial Women.’ Memoirs of the American Academy at Rome 46: 41–93.
———. (2004). Mutilation and Transformation: Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture. Leiden.
Wankel, H. (1979). Die Inschriften von Ephesos II. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, Vol. 12. Bonn.
Woods, D. (1998). ‘On the Death of the Empress Fausta.’ Greece and Rome 45.1: 70–86.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Usherwood, R. (2022). Crispus. In: Political Memory and the Constantinian Dynasty. New Approaches to Byzantine History and Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87930-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87930-3_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-87929-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-87930-3
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)