Numismatic and History Discussion Forums > Roman Coins Discussion Forum
caesar's elephant coin
spqrclaudius:
I agree with you, Warren. The very choice of the imagery associated with the office of Pontifex Maximus on the reverse suggests that Caesar was always associated with this coin, even when Hirtius issued it.
Andrew McCabe:
Bernhard Woytek's book, Arma et Nummi, is devoted to the coinage of the period, and has a large photo of the elephant type, which he discusses at length, on the cover. There was also an article in the Numismatic Chronicle in I think 2011 about this issue and its symbolism. The elephant type is securely dated to 49-48 BC by findspots that track the civil war battles of the period; I can't comment on the Acilia type. Woytek I recall goes with the conventional good over evil interpretation. The Hirtius link is provided of course by the same type in bronze with Hirtius' name, A.HIRTIV in place of Caesar.
http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=316457
The elephant type (I make no comment on the Acilia). is probably unknowable beyond the plain evidence of what the type shows and the link to Hirtius, and CAESAR on the obverse. There is no obvious story that it clearly relates to, either historical or mythological. I suspect that if it wasn't obvious to the users, then we certainly won't make it out. We might look for a Caecilia to link it to, we can speculate on the issuer, but nothing is provable. What we know is what the coin actually says, the Hirtius link, the 49BC hoard evidence, and that there were several sub-issues involved (one from Narbo due to the minting technique used, i.e. multiple parallel dies, which incidentally is also the sub-issue that Hirtius copies, another from further east but in either Transalpine or Cisalpine Gaul, probably associated with the Marseilles siege in 49BC, and a third that uses the mint techology and engraving style of the Narbo issue but copies some of the stylistic peculiarities of the Marseille issue and that may perhaps be Spanish).
I don't know about the Acilia, but I guess it's placed by hoard examination, i.e. I suspect the 49BC date has been well founded by others. I recall it is treated in Arma et Nummi (as are all issues 49-42 BC)
Those interested in these series should get Woytek's book. It's easily available. Still in print. German text, but well indexed with lots of good plates and from the layout one can find specific issues and their discussion easily.
Warren makes a good point following from Grant's lecture that common types are important. If that is the case then they also probably have conventional and simple readings. There are other views. Crawford still thinks that no-one looked at the types, no more than that they looked at State Quarters or 2 euro commemoratives. Some unthinking beauraucrat put together a type from some simple guidance provided by the issuer. "Hey, give us a good over evil allegory. Make sure the bosses name is big and clear". Or even "my general is a Caecilia, put an elephant on it", and the snake was just decoration. That's what Crawford thinks generally happened, and he thinks it not productive to spend too much time worrying about types, unless (a crucial caveat) there is non-coin evidence to compare with.
mharlan:
The most commonly accepted interpretation of Caesar’s elephant coin is the Good over Evil theme. In Christian art the Virgin Mary is depicted stepping on the snake. This is a representation of the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15 where God tells Satan, the snake, that the seed of the woman would crush his head. The readily recognized figures of Mary, Jesus’ mother, and the snake, Satan, make it easy to see how this Christian image can be interpreted as the triumph of Good over Evil, but do the figures of elephant and snake on Caesar’s coin conjure up a similar idea in the pagan mind? There are no ancient myths that tell of a fight between an elephant and snake, but Pliny in his Natural History records a story about a battle between a python and an elephant. However, in this battle both the elephant and the python die, there is no victor. If the elephant and the snake are to be interpreted as an allegorical representation of the victory of good over evil, the snake has to be seen as evil and the elephant as good and the elephant must win. The snake is the biggest problem with this interpretation. Did the pagans see the snake as evil just as the Christians did? Although there are a number of myths involving evil snakes killed by heroes, the snake was never associated with the fall of man and never became demonized like the snake in the Garden of Eden. Snakes were more commonly associated with good things such as fertility, health (Salus), and rebirth in the pagan tradition. The snake was simply not an iconic symbol of evil to the pagan mind. It was the Christians who looked at the pagans worshipping the snake and labeled it Satanic worship. Would the pagan see the elephant as an iconic symbol of Good? Here there is nothing at all to suggest that the pagan associated the elephant with goodness. The only way we can get there is to assume that the elephant represents Caesar who put his name on the coin under the elephant (obviously good since he was minting the coin). But of the two animals on the coin, the one that the pagan mind would most easily associate with good things is the snake. Is Caesar the snake? Again, we have to ask what the people of his own time would be most familiar with, not what we are familiar with. The two most common explanations that make Caesar the elephant are etymological and historical: 1) the name Caesar derives from caesai, (possibly a Punic word for elephant) and 2) a tradition that the first Caesar had killed an elephant in battle. Quite simply the origin of the name was unknown even to the ancient Romans and the Historia Augusta gives four versions of the etymology, so it is hard to believe that the average Roman would make the association that the elephant is Caesar. It is the inscription CAESAR in the exergue that has led to the modern identification of the elephant as Caesar. But the exergue is the traditional place for the moneyer’s name and Caesar is separated from the field by the ground line. When Hirtius minted, he put his own name there. Presumably the Caesarian message remained the same with or without CAESAR inscribed on the coin. So whatever that message was, it had to be using symbols easily recognized by the people he was speaking to. The main problem with a Good over Evil interpretation is that the snake was not a symbol of evil in the pagan Roman mind. As for the elephant, the most frequent use of the elephant on coinage had been by the Metelli. Of all the families of Rome they had done more to connect their name with the elephant image than any other family line. And Metellus Scipio himself even used the elephant again (without snake, of course) after Caesar minted his coin.
As others have pointed out, the other side of the coin with the implements of the pontifex maximus makes an unmistakable reference to Caesar with or without the name Caesar. But that also got me to thinking. Why did he want to advertise that position? Simply put, the main concern of the Roman state religion was the Salus of the state, hence it was Caesar’s chief concern as Pontifex Maximus. If the Metellan elephant was trampling on the Salus of the state, it was his duty as Pontifex Maximus to protect and restore Salus.
spqrclaudius:
Don't get me wrong--this is a fascinating and well considered theory that should be fully respected. The problems are (1) I think the serpent is depicted as losing the battle; the elephant is huge, and trampling it. (2) The serpent is more like a dragon or monster than a snake. The legend that an early Caesar had killed an elephant in battle coupled with the animal's noble presentation on the coin would probably inspire contemporary Romans to associate the image with Caesar. Where your theory is most convincing has to do with the elephant being the sigil of the Metelli--why would Caesar choose an image that could be associated by some with his enemies (and, for that matter, even with Hannibal of Rome)? The reason might be what you suggest. It could also be that he was coopting the symbol for his own purposes. In ancient legend, the elephant and snake were said to be in constant conflict; if the thing actually is a snake, perhaps the whole thing is simply an allusion to Civil War. Some have even identified the serpent as a Gallic War trumpet. To me, this seems less badass than an elephant stepping on a snake, but the point is interesting--perhaps the monster is deliberately made to resemble a Gallic War horn so that the elephant's stepping on it can ALSO be taken as an allusion to Caesarian triumph in the Gallic War. Ultimately, whatever one's interpretation, it is cool that one of the most famous Roman denarii of all is so mysterious in its political message. At the end of the day, this new theory is a fascinating addition to the mix, but I am not convinced yet.
spqrclaudius:
*Hannibal of Carthage
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version