Faustina Friday – The Children of Faustina the Younger, Part I

[Roman Collector]

Friday felicitations, fellow Faustina Fanatics! Yeah, yeah, yeah -- it's Thursday. But I won't be able to post tomorrow morning and I'd rather post this installment early than late. I hope you have a coin-filled weekend ahead. Today we're going to explore a theme reflected several times over the course of Faustina the Younger's coinage, her growing family. This is intended to be a coin-themed summary of the births and fates of her children, not a scholarly thesis debating the various disagreements in the scholarly community over the years. I need to point out that I post the most likely dates of births and names of her children. The primary sources are extremely limited and vague and do not provide as much information as we would like about some of her children. Moreover, several of her children born in the 150s died in early childhood and they are poorly documented in the historical record, much less the numismatic one. The same can be said about her youngest two children. I don't want to bog this series down with unnecessary details; rather, I will refer to sources in notes and links for those who are interested in learning more.

Faustina the Younger delivered five children in the first decade of her reign as Augusta but only three are well-documented in the numismatic record. The first two children, the subjects of Part I of this series, are Domitia Faustina and Lucilla. They are well-documented in the numismatic record.

In contrast, the numismatic record is severely lacking in coins commemorating the birth of her third and fourth children, Faustina III and a son who died in infancy whose name is not entirely clear. Moreover, there are a few coins issued for Faustina the Younger in the 150s which depict various goddesses with one, two, or four children, but it's unclear which – if any – of Faustina's children may have been intended or whether the children are presented merely as standard iconography for the deities depicted. These are the subjects of Part II of this series.

Part III of the series discusses the births of Faustina's sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth children between 159 and 161 CE, Fadilla, Cornificia, and the twins, Titus Aurelius Fulvus Antoninus and Commodus. The births of these children are documented by an extensive numismatic record.

Part IV of the series concludes with the extensive coinage to commemorate the birth of Marcus Annius Verus in late 162 and touches on the scant numismatic record for the births of Hadrianus in 165 or 166, and Vibia Aurelia Sabina in 170 or 171 CE.

Let's get on with it!



Domitia Faustina, born 30 November 147

The birth of a child to Faustina the Younger on 30 November was a major event. The following day, Faustina was declared Augusta and her husband, Marcus Aurelius, was granted tribunician power.[1, 2, 3] There is some scholarly disagreement about the identity of this female child, with some believing her to be Faustina III, but this likely represents and error in reconstructing the text of the Fasti Ostenses and confusing the name of the child with that of her mother. The statues in Herodes Atticus's Nymphaeum demonstrate that Domitia Faustina was the oldest child.[4] The girl was named after her paternal and maternal grandmothers, Domitia Lucilla and Faustina the Elder, respectively.[5]

We know from Martin Beckmann's recently published die-linkage study of Faustina's aurei that three reverse types were issued nearly simultaneously in gold. Each of the reverse types refers to the birth of Domitia Faustina in their iconography.[6] These are: Venus Genetrix, Juno Lucina, and Laetitia Publica. These designs were also issued in the sestertius and middle bronze denominations. The Laetitia Publica design was also issued in silver.

Venus Genetrix ("Venus the Mother") is the aspect of Venus as goddess of motherhood and domesticity. Gold and bronze coins depict Venus standing, holding an apple and a swaddled infant, representing Faustina's newborn baby.[7] Here are the two bronze denominations in my collection.

Faustina II, 147-175 CE.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 22.96 gm, 30.4 mm.
Rome, December 147 – early 148 CE.
Obv: FAVSTINAE AVG PII AVG FIL, draped bust, right, and wearing stephane (Beckmann Type 1 hairstyle).
Rev: VENERI GENETRICI SC, Venus Genetrix standing left, holding apple and child in swaddling clothes.
Refs: RIC 1386b; BMCRE 2145; Cohen 237; Strack 1306; RCV 4718.

Faustina II, 147-175 CE.
Roman Æ as, 6.93 g, 26.1 mm, 11 h.
Rome, December 147 – early 148 CE.
Obv: FAVSTINAE AVG PII AVG FIL, draped bust, right (Beckmann Type 1 hairstyle).
Rev: VENERI GENETRICI S C, Venus standing facing, head left, holding up apple in right hand and holding child on left arm.
Refs: RIC 1407; BMCRE p. 375 *; Cohen 238; Strack 1306; RCV 4734.
Notes: Die-match to specimens sold by CNG Jan. 7, 2014 and Künker Oct. 18, 2016.

The IVNONI LVCINAE reverse type clearly refers to childbirth. Lucina was the aspect of Juno associated with light and childbirth, during which she eased the pain and made sure all went well. Coins portraying Juno Lucina typically commemorate a birth in the Imperial family or that the help of the goddess had been invoked.[8]

Faustina II, 147-175 CE.
Roman Æ as, 8.68 g, 25.9 mm.
Rome, December 147 – early 148 CE.
Obv: FAVSTINAE AVG PII AVG FIL, draped bust, right (Beckmann Type 1 hairstyle).
Rev: IVNONI LVCINAE S C, Juno, veiled, standing left, holding patera and scepter.
Refs: RIC 1400A; BMCRE 2153-54; Cohen --; Strack 1299; RCV 4728.

LAETITIAE PVBLICAE means "for public rejoicing." The word Laetitia in Latin carries connotations of fertility.[9] Coins depicting Laetitia as a reverse type were issued twice in Faustina's lifetime, each time in conjunction with the birth of a child. We are on safe ground to say that on coins of Faustina the Younger, Laetitia means a baby has been born. The birth of the young empress's first child was indeed cause for public rejoicing.

Faustina II, 147-175 CE.
Roman AR denarius, 3.63 g, 17.3 mm, 5 h.
Rome, December 147 - early148 CE.
Obv: FAVSTINAE AVG PII AVG FIL, draped bust, right, wearing stephane (Beckmann Type 1 hairstyle).
Rev: LAETITIAE PVBLICAE, Laetitia standing left, holding wreath and scepter.
Refs: RIC 506c; BMC 1050; Cohen --; Strack 491; RCV --; CRE 196.

Faustina II, 147-175 CE.
Roman Æ as or dupondius, 10.71 g, 27.6 mm, 12 h.
Rome, December 147 - early 148 CE.
Obv: FAVSTINAE AVG PII AVG FIL, bare-headed and draped bust, right (Beckmann Type 1 hairstyle).
Rev: LAETITIAE PVBLICAE, Laetitia standing left, holding wreath in in right hand and vertical scepter in left hand.
Refs: RIC 1401b; BMCRE 2155-56; Cohen 158; Strack 1300; RCV 4729.

Sadly, Domitia Faustina died in childhood. She was certainly dead by 161 CE, for her funerary inscription in the Mausoleum of Hadrian name her as a child of Marcus Caesar, not Marcus as Augustus.[10] She probably died much earlier; Birley places her death in 151,[11] Bol tentatively in 150.[12]

Annia Aurelia Galeria Lucilla, born 7 March, 149

Typically called Lucilla, Annia Aurelia Galeria Lucilla was named after members of both sides of the family, supplemented with the surname of Marcus's mother, Calvisia Domitia Lucilla.[13] An inscription preserving a list of holidays in the city of Gortyna in Crete gives Lucilla's birthday as 7 March.[14] Although there is scholarly disagreement as to the year of her birth, the numismatic evidence for 149 CE is extremely strong. There are several coins depicting the birth of a female child, of which three of which are firmly dated to 149 CE. I illustrate and discuss these coins below.

The first is the famous TEMPORVM FELICITAS issue of Antoninus Pius dated 149 CE, which depicts the confronted heads of two young children emerging from crossed cornuacopiae. Here's a coin depicting the two oldest girls. Lucilla, just a baby, is on the left and Domitia is on the right. You can see a hint of Domitia's stephane on my coin.

Antoninus Pius, 138-161 CE.
Roman orichalcum sestertius; 22.64 gm, 31.5 mm, 12 h.
Rome, 149 CE.
Obv: ANTONINVS AVG PIVS P P TR P XII, laureate bust right, slight drapery on left shoulder.
Rev: TEMPORVM FELICITAS, COS IIII in exergue, S C across field, crossed cornucopiae from which a grape bunch flanked by two grain ears hang, surmounted by confronted busts of two children.
Refs: RIC 857; BMCRE 1827-29; Cohen 813; RCV 4236; Strack 1026; Banti 411.

The notion that this coin in any way depicts the delivery of twins in 149 CE must be dispelled. There are no ancient sources that document the delivery of twins to Faustina the Younger apart from the birth of the twins, Titus Aurelius Fulvus Antoninus and Commodus, on 31 August 161. The entire notion of twins born to Faustina in 149 stems entirely from a misinterpretation of this coin and not from any primary source. This notion has been convincingly debunked by Ameling[15] and the numismatic evidence itself.

I have discussed the numismatic evidence for Lucilla’s birth in 149 CE in depth elsewhere, so I will provide only a brief summary here.

High grade examples of the TEMPORVM FELICITAS issue demonstrate that the two children are of different ages. Moreover, they wear the stephane and are thus female.

Aureus of Antoninus Pius dated December 148 – December 149 (RIC 185b) depicting crossed cornuacopiae, each surmounted by bust of a child. Note that each child is female and appears to wear a stephane. Moreover, the child on the left is a newborn, whereas the child on the right is about a year or year-and-a-half old. British Museum, BMCRE 679.

Orichalcum sestertius of Antoninus Pius dated December 148 – December 149 (RIC 857) depicting crossed cornuacopiae, each surmounted by bust of a child. Note that the child on the right is clearly female and clearly wears a stephane. Moreover, the child on the left is an infant, whereas the child on the right is a toddler. CNG Triton VIII, lot 1024, 11 January 2005.

In addition to the often-misinterpreted TEMPORVM FELICITAS issues of Antoninus Pius, two reverse types on coins of Marcus Aurelius as Caesar dated TRP III (December 148 to December 149) depict two children. Bronze coins depict Pietas standing, holding an infant in her left arm while she stretches her right arm over a young girl standing beside her.

Orichalcum sestertius of Marcus Aurelius (RIC 1274a) depicting Pietas holding an infant while an older girl stands before her. British Museum, BMCRE 1854.

The second of Marcus Aurelius' coin types, appearing on silver and gold issues of Marcus Caesar, depicts Concordia flanked not by an adult male and female, but by two girls, one larger than the other. Beckmann concludes the iconography must represent "children, and that one is older than the other."[16]

Aureus of Marcus Aurelius (RIC 441) depicting Concordia flanked by two girls, one larger than the other. British Museum, BMCRE 690. See also the corresponding denarius, BMCRE 681.

Most importantly, the year 149 saw the introduction of the IVNO reverse type.[17] It features Juno, likely in her aspect as Lucina, a goddess of childbirth, seated left, cradling a scepter in her left arm and with two children, a larger one standing before her and a smaller child seated on her lap. Both are fully clothed and wear girl's hairstyles, indicating they were female (male children may – not always – be depicted nude on coins).

Aureus of Faustina the Younger depicting Juno with two girls, a larger one standing before her and a smaller one seated on her lap (RIC 504). British Museum, BMCRE 1043.

Lastly, similar iconography is seen on this exceedingly rare sestertius known only from the three museum specimens cited by Strack and a single coin sold at auction (this coin). The coin features the dative obverse inscription in use from December 147 to about May 151. It also features the Beckmann Type 1 coiffure, which was still in use in March 149. Although undated, it is certainly consistent with an issue to celebrate the birth of a child in early 149 CE.

Orichalcum sestertius of Faustina the Younger depicting Pudicitia, veiled, seated left, with two children, a larger one standing before her and a smaller one seated on her lap (RIC 1382). Bertolami E-Auction 59, lot 739, 20 May, 2018.

The numismatic evidence is strong. The coins depict the birth of a single female child in AD 149. Assuming the two girls on these coins of AD 149 represent Faustina and Marcus's actual daughters and not attributes of the personifications of Juno, Pudicitia, Pietas, and Concordia, we are faced with the problem of identifying them. The identity of the older girl is clear. She is Domitia Faustina, the firstborn child of the imperial couple, born on 30 November AD 147.

Although the identity of the second child puzzled some historians and numismatists over the years, many numismatists have long postulated she is Lucilla. Mattingly states of the two children on the coin of Antoninus Pius, "it seems certain Lucilla was one of the two."[18] Similarly, recent reanalysis of the historical and numismatic evidence by Walter Ameling, Barbara Levick, and Martin Beckmann have convincingly concluded that Lucilla was the second child born to Faustina the Younger and Marcus Aurelius and that she was born on 7 March, 149.

Ameling's reasoning is as follows. As I have previously noted, an inscription preserving a list of holidays in the city of Gortyna in Crete gives Lucilla's birthday as 7 March. With her birthday as March 7, we know she could not be the firstborn child, whose birthday was 30 November. Lucilla married Lucius Verus, which meant that she was the oldest living daughter at the time; Faustina III outlived Pius, meaning that she was still alive when Lucilla and Verus married, making her younger than Lucilla or she would have been the one to marry Verus. Domitia Faustina died before Pius, so she must have died before Lucilla married Verus, or she herself – as oldest daughter – would have married him. Moreover, we know from the Fasti Ostienses that a son was born in AD 152 and from a contemporary inscription excavated in Smyrna that a son was born in AD 157/8. That simply leaves no room for a son born between Domitia Faustina and Lucilla.[19]

The conclusion is inescapable that the coins discussed above depicting two female children were issued in AD 149 and depict Domitia Faustina and her baby sister Lucilla.

Conclusion and Preview

We have firmly established the identity and birthdays of Faustina's first two children, Domitia Faustina, born 30 November 147, and Lucilla, born 7 March, 149. We have also reviewed how Domitia Faustina died in early childhood, likely by 151 CE. We have also hinted at the birthdates of subsequent children, a son in 152 CE and another son born in 157/8 CE. We hinted at the subsequent birth of Faustina III.

In Part 2 of this series, we will discuss the scant numismatic evidence for a birthdate for Faustina III as well as discuss some coins of Faustina the Younger that depict children, but don't quite fit the paradigm of an otherwise well-founded chronology of births. Tune in!



~~~

Notes

1. As recorded in the Fasti Ostienses (Pb.13-15).

2. Beckmann provides a translation:

"One day before the Kalends of December a daughter was born by Annia Faustina to Aurelius Caesar. On the Kalends of December Aurelius Caesar entered the tribunician power and Faustina was named Augusta."

Beckmann, Martin, Faustina the Younger: Coinage, Portraits, and Public Image, A.N.S. Numismatic Studies 43, American Numismatic Society, New York, 2021, p. 24.

3. For the full text of the relevant portion of the Fasti Ostienses, consult Vindman, L. Fasti Ostienses edendos illustrandos restituendos curavit. 2^nd ed. Prague: Nakl, Ceskoslovenské Akademie Ved, 1982, Fr. 14f.v.

4. Bol, Renate. "Das Statuenprogramm des Herodes–Atticus–nymphäums." (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Olympische Forschungen, 15 (1984): 31-45. Cited by Levick, Barbara. Faustina I and II: Imperial Women of the Golden Age. Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 116.

5. Mommsen first pointed out the significance of the child's names. Mommsen, Theodor. "Die Chronologie der Briefe Frontos." Hermes, vol. 8, 1874, pp. 198–216; specifically, p. 205.

6. Beckmann, op. cit., pp. 24ff.

7. See the extensive discussion in Beckmann, op. cit., pp. 28-29, as to the relationship between Venus Genetrix and the birth of Faustina's child.

8. Jones, J.M. A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins. London: Seaby, 1990, p. 153.

9. Lewis, Charlton Thomas, et al. A Latin Dictionary: Founded on Andrews' Edition of Freund's Latin Dictionary, Rev., ENL. and in Great Part Rewritten by Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short. Clarendon, 1879, s.v. laetitia, II. See also: Glare, P.G.W. Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford University Press, 2016; s.v. laetus, 1.

10. The inscriptions, no longer preserved, are recorded in the codex Einsiedlensis. The Latin text is cited in Beckmann, op. cit., p. 112.

11. As cited in Levick, op. cit., p. 116.

12. Bol, op. cit., p. 41; cited in Levick, op. cit., p. 116.

13. Levick, op. cit., p. 114.

14. Cagnat, René, and Georges Lafaye. Inscriptiones Graecae Ad Res Romanas Pertinentes. E. Leroux, 1906-1927 (4 vols.), p. 1509, ll.7-8; cited in Beckmann, op. cit., p. 40.

15. Ameling, Walter. "Die Kinder des Marc Aurel und die Bildnistypen der Faustina Minor." Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 90 (1992):147-166, specifically, 152-156 and n. 43; p. 161 for chronology. Available online at https://www.jstor.org/stable/20187629?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.

16. Beckmann, op. cit., p. 39.

17. The coin itself is undated, but Beckmann's die study firmly establishes a date of 149 CE. Beckmann, op. cit., p. 36

18. Mattingly, Harold. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum: Antoninus Pius to Commodus. Vol. 4, British Museum, 1940, p. lxvii, n.4.

19. Ameling, op. cit.

Edited February 25 by Roman Collector
Spelling.

[Marsyas Mike]

Great FF as always, @Roman Collector

I have but one to share from this selection - a Laetitia denarius:

[Ryro]

Super fun and enlightening write up! That women knew how to produce babies!

Here she is surrounded by little ones:

[DonnaML]

All completely fascinating, @Roman Collector! As you know, I have my own small collection of coins depicting various numbers of the children of Faustina II and Marcus Aurelius.

Assuming that "LAETITIA" symbolizes fertility, and that Lucilla was born on 7 March 149, then what exactly do you believe is incorrect about the analysis set forth in my lengthy footnote to my description of this LAETITIA aureus of Antoninus Pius (based primarily on @curtislclay's research), concluding that Lucilla was born on 7 March 151? Do you believe that the AD 151 date ascribed to the coin is wrong? That the conclusion that it celebrates the birth of Lucilla is wrong? Or both, and/or something else? 

Antoninus Pius AV aureus, ca. AD 151 [see fn], Rome Mint. Obv. Laureate head right, ANTONINVS AVG – PIUS P P TR P XIIII / Rev. On left, Ceres [possibly representing Faustina II] standing three-quarters facing, head right, holding two grain ears in right hand; on right, Proserpina standing facing, head left, next to her mother, holding pomegranate in extended left hand, the two gazing at and embracing each other [possibly celebrating birth of Lucilla in AD 151, and, as a result, the restoration of a granddaughter to the Imperial family; hence the reverse inscription naming Laetitia, the personification of joy; see fn.], LAETITIA – COS IIII.  19 mm., 6.89 g., 6 h. RIC III 199c [“Scarce”] (see http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.3.ant.199C ); Cohen 476; Sear RCV II 4008; BMCRE IV Antoninus Pius 725 & Pl. 15 No. 14; Strack 224 [Strack, Paul L., Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichsprägung des zweiten Jahrhunderts, Teil III: Die Reichsprägung zur Zeit Antoninus Pius (Stuttgart, 1937)]; Calicó 1556 [Calicó, E. Xavier, The Roman Avrei, Vol. I: From the Republic to Pertinax, 196 BC - 193 AD (Barcelona, 2003)]; Dinsdale 037180 [Dinsdale, Paul H, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius Caesar AD 138-161: Antonine Coinage (2nd Rev. ed., Leeds 2021) Ch. 18 at p. 421; photo at same page, indicating a probable obverse die match to my specimen] [see http://romanpaulus.x10host.com/Antoninus/old/18 - Antoninus Pius - TR POT XIIII Period - 150-151 (med_res).pdf.]* Purchased from Arete Coins [George Matev], Seattle, WA, Feb. 2022; ex Classical Numismatic Group [CNG] E-Auction 360, Sep. 30, 2015, Lot 458 (from “Group SGF” Collection); ex Jesús Vico, S.A., Auction 141, Mar. 5, 2015, Lot 121.**

*My example also appears to be an obverse die match to the specimen at the Münzkabinett Berlin; see http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.3.ant.199C and photo of obverse at https://ikmk.smb.museum/image/18273198/vs_exp.jpg.
 
**This type (with its minor variations in the obverse portrait [see RIC 199a-b, Dinsdale 037150, 037160, 037170] as well as in the placement of “COS IIII” in the reverse exergue in some dies [see Dinsdale 037200]), is one of only two representations of Proserpina, with or without her mother Ceres, on Roman Imperial coinage. (The only other such representation is on the reverse of an antoninianus of Claudius II Gothicus, depicting the pair facing each other, each holding a long-handled torch; see MER-RIC V.1 No. 1072 [temp.], at https://ric.mom.fr/en/coin/1072?from=map&Mint=Antioch&mod=result&page=7&hpp=10.).

All attempts to date this issue have necessarily been based on the TR P XIIII in the obverse inscription, signifying the 14th annual renewal of Antoninus Pius’s tribunician power [“Tribunicia Potestas”]. (The “COS IIII” on the reverse is of no assistance, since Antoninus held the consulship for the fourth time in AD 145, and never held a fifth.) See the explanation at Sear RCV II p. 72 of the significance of renewals of tribunician power in dating Roman Imperial coins:

“As the emperor [Augustus] wished the tribunician power to be regarded as the basis for his authority it was natural that he should introduce the custom of reckoning the years of his reign by the date of its symbolic annual renewal. The precedent having thus been instituted, this became the normal practice of Augustus’ successors and the number of annual renewals of the tribunican power, appearing regularly in the inscriptions on the coinage, provide valuable evidence in establishing the numismatic chronology of each reign.”

According to the traditional chronology, Antoninus Pius’s 13th renewal of the tribunician power (TR P XIII) ran from 149-150, and his 14th  year (TR P XIIII) from 150-151, meaning that this aureus must have been issued in either 150 or 151. See the table of TR POT years for Antoninus Pius at Sear RCV II pp. 76-77.  More specifically: “The method employed for selecting the actual date of this annual renewal seems to have varied from reign to reign. Some emperors used the day of its initial conferment (June 27 in the case of Augustus), whilst others preferred the traditional Republican date for the appointment of the tribunes (December 10th). Yet another practice was to renew on January 1st, thus making the tribunician year coincide with the calendar year.” Id. p. 72.

In the case of Antoninus Pius’s tribunician day, according to @curtislclay, “we know it was 10 Dec. by the end of his reign in 161, and that day has been assumed to go back to at least 147, when Marcus was voted that same power.” (See his Aug. 19, 2014 post on the Forvm discussion board, at https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=97313.msg601699#msg601699.)  Using that date, Antoninus’s 14th tribunician year ran from Dec. 10, AD 150 to Dec. 10, AD 151, and this aureus must have been issued during that period. See, e.g., Dinsdale, supra, Ch. 18 at p. 421, listing the aurei of Antoninus Pius’s “TR POT XIII Period, Dec. 150 – Dec. 151,” including this aureus (Dinsdale 037180).

However, in a post on Forvm Ancient Coins dated Aug. 22, 2014 (see https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=97313.msg601994#msg601994), as well as in a more recent post at Coin Talk on Nov. 22, 2020 (see https://www.cointalk.com/threads/questions-about-new-faustina-ii-denarius.370212/page-2#post-5143304), @curtislclay has proposed that at the time of Antoninus Pius’s 13th-15th tribunician years, his tribunician day was instead the anniversary of Hadrian’s original conferral of tribunician power on Antoninus Pius when he adopted him and the Senate proclaimed him Caesar in AD 138, namely Feb. 25. See Aug. 22, 2014 post, supra (Antoninus’s tribunician day during this period was not Dec. 10 but “25 February, when Hadrian had adopted Antoninus”); Nov. 22, 2020 post, supra (“Perhaps Antoninus' tribunician day was . . . when his tribunician assembly met, 25 Feb. having been the day when Hadrian adopted him and the Senate proclaimed him Caesar”). Thus, Antoninus Pius’s 14th tribunician year would have run not from 25 Dec. 150 – 25 Dec. 151, but began and ended a few months later, running from 25 Feb. 151 to 25 Feb. 152, meaning that this coin was minted during that period.    

In both comments, @curtislclay used this chronological discussion (and a parallel discussion of the dates of Marcus Aurelius’s tribunician years as Caesar, omitted here) to propose that the reverse of this aureus, depicting Ceres and Proserpina together with the legend LAETITIA (Joy), actually celebrates the birth of Lucilla to Faustina II on 7 March, 151 – after she and Marcus Aurelius had been childless for  a period of time, because their first two children, a girl born in 147 and a son born in 148-49, depicted together on a coin with crossed cornucopiae, had both died by March 149. See Aug 22, 2014 post, supra:   

“I think we can say with fair certainty that Lucilla was born on 7 March 151 not 152.

In the first place, Lucilla can hardly have been born on 7 March 152, since the Ostian Fasti record that in that same year Faustina also gave birth to a son, who however apparently immediately died; see text and discussion in Strack, pp. 117-8. But after 7 March 152 only nine months and three weeks remained before the end of 152, a very short time indeed in which to produce another child! Of course we should not exclude a premature birth, which might fit with the immediate death of the baby, but still it seems unlikely. Unfortunately the exact date of the baby's birth and death is lost from the fragmentary Fasti, but these events are recorded more towards the beginning than the end of the 15 lines of text devoted to the year 152.

Secondly, dating Lucilla's birth to 7 March 151 allows a rather attractive interpretation of the LAETITIA COS IIII type on Antoninus' aurei, showing Ceres embracing her daughter Proserpina (image below), which was apparently produced at exactly this time. The type belongs to the beginning of Antoninus' 14th tribunician year, which I think began on 25 Feb. 151, because though most of the surviving specimens are dated TR P XIIII, one has the numeral of the preceding year, TR P XIII. The type shows Ceres welcoming her daughter back from the underworld, a fitting analogy, it would seem, for Faustina II giving birth to another daughter, after the tragic deaths of her first daughter and son at very young ages!

The course of events, then, might have been:

On 25 Feb. 151 Antoninus began his 14th tribunician year; Marcus, still being childless, had renounced that power so continued calling himself TR P III. On 7 March 151 Faustina gave birth to Lucilla, an event which was commemorated by the LAETITIA type, mostly struck from TR P XIIII obv. dies, but also, erroneously, from one TR P XIII die which had remained in use in the new tribunician year.” [Discussion of Marcus’s resumption of tribunician power in 152, as TR P VI, omitted.] (https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=97313.msg601994#msg601994; emphasis added.)

See also Curtis’s discussion in his 2020 Coin Talk post, at https://www.cointalk.com/threads/questions-about-new-faustina-ii-denarius.370212/page-2#post-5143304:

“If I am correct about Marcus' temporary resignation from his tribunician power in 150-151 AD, then the birth dates of his first three children are likely to have been as follows:

1. A daughter, born 30 Nov. 147, resulting in the titles Augusta for Faustina and TR P for Marcus, as recorded in the Ostian Fasti.

2. A son, born between c. Sept. 148 (nine months after Faustina's first childbirth) and March 149, commemorated on the crossed cornucopias coins of Antoninus Pius as TR P XII. The children on the two cornucopias in this type are traditionally assumed to have been male twins, but there is no reason why the type should not commemorate the birth of a single son to join the earlier daughter, and on a couple of dies the portraits seem to be differentiated, with the daughter on the right having longer hair with a small bun (cf. Strack, pl. XIII, 1026). Both of these children had died, however, before March 149, for by that time Marcus was no longer numbering his TR P. 

3. Lucilla, born 7 March 151, apparently commemorated by the LAETITIA COS IIII type (Ceres and Proserpina) on aurei of Antoninus as TR P XIIII. A longed-for daughter had now been restored to Faustina too, so the type seems appropriate." (Emphasis added.)

Thus, just as Proserpina was restored to Ceres at the conclusion of that myth (even if only for six months of the year, after consuming six pomegranate seeds!), the birth of Lucilla restored a daughter and granddaughter to the Imperial family. 
 
The one issue with identifying the Ceres and Proserpina depiction with a celebration of Lucilla’s birth is that obviously, if the Ceres & Proserpina design did actually originate not with Antoninus Pius’s 14th tribunician year but with his 13th tribunician year -- which ended either in Dec. 150 or February 151 regardless of whether one accepts @curtislclay’s theory -- both those dates preceded the birth of Lucilla on March 7, 151, and the design could not have been originally intended to celebrate her birth. Curtis concedes the existence of one specimen bearing the TR P XIII date, from one die, but given that extreme rarity, argues that its production must have been “erroneous[], from one TR P XIII die which had remained in use in the new tribunician year.” What I believe must be the one example he cites of the type with a TR P XIII legend, held by the British Museum since 1864, can be found at:

https://media.britishmuseum.org/media/Repository/Documents/2014_10/11_14/ef80efed_046e_4223_9331_a3c100ecd091/mid_00658499_001.jpg

(This type has been cataloged as RIC III 190 [citing British Museum example]; BMCRE IV Antoninus Pius 714 & Pl. 15 No. 7 [see also https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1864-1128-70]; Dinsdale Ch. 16 036130 at p. 414 [illustrated with British Museum example]; Strack III 215, and Calicó 1555.) 

At least one other specimen of the type exists, sold by LHS Numismatick AG, Auction 95, Lot 813, on 25 Oct. 2005. See photo at https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=261692. However, this second specimen appears to me to be a double die match to the British Museum specimen, which would mean that it’s still true that only a single die of this type is known. Therefore, I don’t think the existence of the second specimen materially detracts from the plausibility of @curtislclay's theory, and I’m still comfortable adopting his theory that the depiction of Ceres and Proserpina on the reverse of this aureus – one of only two such numismatic depictions during the Roman Empire – symbolizes the joy of the Imperial family in the birth of Lucilla. Particularly given the frequent designs on other coins (issued both by Faustina II herself and by her grandfather Antoninus Pius), symbolically depicting Faustina II and her various children.

Finally, it should be noted that @curtislclay was not the first or only scholar to identify Ceres and Proserpina as depicted on the aurei of Antoninus Pius with Faustina II and Lucilla. Paul L. Strack, writing in 1937, also appears to have made that identification. See Dinsdale, supra p. 414 n. 1, citing Strack 215. 

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by DonnaML

[Roman Collector]

@DonnaML: Faustina III was born in 150/51. Part II of this series discusses this. 

[DonnaML]

Just now, Roman Collector said:

@DonnaML: Faustina III was born in 150/51. Part II of this series discusses this. 

So, Proserpina on the aureus represents which daughter in your opinion?

[Roman Collector]

50 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

So, Proserpina on the aureus represents which daughter in your opinion?

Faustina III. And a question for you: if Lucilla was born in 151, who is the girl born in 149 and why didn't she marry Lucius Verus?

Edited November 18, 2023 by Roman Collector

[DonnaML]

4 hours ago, Roman Collector said:

Faustina III. And a question for you: if Lucilla was born in 151, who is the girl born in 149 and why didn't she marry Lucius Verus?

According to the theory summarized in my footnote, the second child born in 149 was a son who died in infancy, not a second daughter -- a theory that I assume is based on interpreting one of the heads on the crossed cornucopiae coin as male, rather than both being female as you point out from that type and other evidence. (I can't really tell whether the younger child on the left is a boy or a girl, or see a stephane on that child on either example of the crossed cornucopiae you posted, but the Marcus Aurelius Caesar aureus you post appears to make clear that both children depicted are girls.) In any event, I suppose the simplest answer to your question would be that the second child, assuming she was a girl, didn't marry Lucius Verus because she died in infancy.

But your interpretation does make sense in general, so I suppose I will reluctantly be required to change my identification of Proserpina on the reverse of my aureus from Lucilla to Faustina III.  How much less prestigious can one get!

[Roman Collector]

32 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

According to the theory summarized in my footnote, the second child born in 149 was a son who died in infancy, not a second daughter -- a theory that I assume is based on interpreting one of the heads on the crossed cornucopiae coin as male, rather than both being female as you point out from that type and other evidence. (I can't really tell whether the younger child on the left is a boy or a girl, or see a stephane on that child on either example of the crossed cornucopiae you posted, but the Marcus Aurelius Caesar aureus you post appears to make clear that both children depicted are girls.) In any event, I suppose the simplest answer to your question would be that the second child, assuming she was a girl, didn't marry Lucius Verus because she died in infancy.

But your interpretation does make sense in general, so I suppose I will reluctantly be required to change my identification of Proserpina on the reverse of my aureus from Lucilla to Faustina III.  How much less prestigious can one get!

If you propose a child born in 149 who died in infancy, what was its name? The Fasti Ostiensis records the birth of a son in 152 CE and the basis in the aqueduct of Herodes Atticus (likely dating to 153) mentions Lucilla, Faustina III and a child named T. Aelius Antoninus. So, who was born in 149? You'd have to propose this: Domitia Faustina 30 November 147, some short-lived child of unknown gender in 149 who was extensively celebrated on coinage yet whose name is lost to history, Lucilla in 151, T. Aelius Antoninus in 152, and Faustina III in 153. I don't buy it and neither does Walter Ameling, Barbara Levick, or Martin Beckmann. The simple chronology is Domitia Faustina, born 147 and dead by 151, Lucilla born 149, Faustina III born 150 or 151, male child named either T. Aelius Antoninus or T. Aurelius Antoninus in 152. All accounted for in ancient inscriptions (funerary inscriptions in the mausoleum of Hadrian and/or the exedra of Herodes Atticus), without postulating unknown children born in 149.

Edited November 19, 2023 by Roman Collector

[DonnaML]

18 minutes ago, Roman Collector said:

If you propose a child born in 149 who died in infancy, what was its name? The Fasti Ostiensis records the birth of a son in 152 CE and the basis in the aqueduct of Herodes Atticus (likely dating to 153) mentions Lucilla, Faustina III and a child named T. Aelius Antoninus. So, who was born in 149? You'd have to propose this: Domitia Faustina 30 November 147, some short-lived child of unknown gender in 149 who was extensively celebrated on coinage yet whose name is lost to history, Lucilla in 151, T. Aelius Antoninus in 152, and Faustina III in 153. I don't buy it and neither does Walter Ameling, Barbara Levick, or Martin Beckmann. The simple chronology is Domitia Faustina, born 147 and dead by 151, Lucilla born 149, Faustina III born 150 or 151, male child named either T. Aelius Antoninus or T. Aurelius Antoninus in 152. All accounted for in ancient inscriptions (funerary inscriptions in the mausoleum of Hadrian and/or the exedra of Herodes Atticus), without postulating unknown children born in 149.

I wasn't arguing with you -- I've already accepted your theory! It certainly appears to be the simplest theory accounting for all the relevant facts. Speaking of which: why is it called "Occam's razor" when the man who inspired it was William of Ockham?

[Roman Collector]

44 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

Speaking of which: why is it called "Occam's razor" when the man who inspired it was William of Ockham?

Hmmm. I postulate because Ockham Latinized his name as Occamus or similar.

[Roman Collector]

11 hours ago, Marsyas Mike said:

Great FF as always, @Roman Collector

I have but one to share from this selection - a Laetitia denarius:

Fantastic!!! That's what I'm talkin' about!!

[Roman Collector]

10 hours ago, Ryro said:

Super fun and enlightening write up! That women knew how to produce babies!

Here she is surrounded by little ones:

That's a lot of rugrats, indeed!! Stay tuned for Part III of the Faustina's rugrats series!