Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Caesar's elephant and snake: what do they mean?!?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Severus Alexander, post: 3637156, member: 84744"]Thank you!!</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I think you've put your finger on exactly why some find the Harlan/crispina theory hard to swallow. But I also think [USER=57495]@zumbly[/USER] has exactly the right response. At this point in history, the biggest criticism that Caesar had to be wary of was that he was acting out of arrogance. I mean, the reason he crossed the Rubicon was fundamentally to avoid prosecution by the optimates. (They wouldn't allow him to maintain immunity to prosecution by running for consul <i>in absentia, </i>and he couldn't cross into Italy without losing his immunity from prosecution either.) Causing civil war for one's own self interest, just because you think you're so awesome? It really doesn't look good. (And has been central to Caesar criticism ever since.) So it was essential that his propaganda 1) <i>not</i> aggrandize him, 2) focus on his role as defender of the people, ideally by representing him and the people as essentially one and the same and 3) make his enemies look like the bad guys.</p><p><br /></p><p>Imagine him trying to figure out how to portray all this on his first civil war coin issue. I challenge you to come up with a better way to do it than this exact design, which meets all the desiderata!</p><p><br /></p><p>Of course, that's assuming the strongest associations for your average Roman paterfamilias would be 1) the elephant --> the Caecilii Metelli, and 2) that sort of snake --> a household genius. I made the case for these associations in the OP, but I think the further discussion has only made that case stronger.</p><p><br /></p><p>Strengthening the case for (1): Do a search on acsearch for denarii with elephants, and eliminate all the later (imperial) coins. The result? <i>Every single coin is issued by a Caecilius Metellus!</i> No kidding. That's an awfully strong association!</p><p><br /></p><p>By contrast, the case for an elephant --> Caesar association is very weak. Who at the time knew that Caesar's name vaguely sounded like the Punic word for elephant, or that his ancestor killed an elephant? Nobody, as far as we can tell. Our source for this stuff appears to be the notoriously inaccurate 4th or 5th century <i>Historia Augusta, </i>plus Servius at the same very late juncture. (It's sometimes said that this was Caesar's own theory of his name's origin, but I can find no direct evidence of this... that's coming from Servius I think.) We have so much contemporary literature about Caesar, including scads of stuff written by Caesar himself, and nothing (other than this coin type) to associate him especially with elephants. Let's just say that if Caesar meant to associate himself with elephants on the coin, it would have been the first time for the man on the street. Now, there's a first time for everything, but wouldn't the man on the street be a bit puzzled? [scratching head] "Geez, why is Caesar representing himself with the symbol of his enemies?" <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie5" alt=":confused:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Strengthening the case for (2):</p><p><br /></p><p>A very interesting observation, thank you! I agree.</p><p><br /></p><p>Thanks for this AA! I hadn't actually noticed that the bronze has exactly the same style snake on it, having focused on the silver. It's looks exactly like the genius of the paterfamilias again! I think the way it's depicted strengthens the case for the Harlan/crispina theory. Minerva is clearly striding forward <i>with the snake at her side</i>. The snake is an ally, which would only make sense if it represents Caesar and the People of Rome. The iconography would be utterly baffling if on the denarius the snake is the enemy, but here it is a friend. (I note that this dupondius is normally dated from late 46 while the civil war was ongoing.)</p><p><br /></p><p>I would be interested to hear if your skepticism has lessened at all, [USER=83845]@Curtisimo[/USER], [USER=91461]@Ryro[/USER], and [USER=74968]@Orfew[/USER]. But I greatly value that skepticism! And I should say that while I would bet on the Harlan/crispina theory, I wouldn't bet <i>that</i> much. I certainly wouldn't bet my elephant denarius on it! <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Severus Alexander, post: 3637156, member: 84744"]Thank you!! I think you've put your finger on exactly why some find the Harlan/crispina theory hard to swallow. But I also think [USER=57495]@zumbly[/USER] has exactly the right response. At this point in history, the biggest criticism that Caesar had to be wary of was that he was acting out of arrogance. I mean, the reason he crossed the Rubicon was fundamentally to avoid prosecution by the optimates. (They wouldn't allow him to maintain immunity to prosecution by running for consul [I]in absentia, [/I]and he couldn't cross into Italy without losing his immunity from prosecution either.) Causing civil war for one's own self interest, just because you think you're so awesome? It really doesn't look good. (And has been central to Caesar criticism ever since.) So it was essential that his propaganda 1) [I]not[/I] aggrandize him, 2) focus on his role as defender of the people, ideally by representing him and the people as essentially one and the same and 3) make his enemies look like the bad guys. Imagine him trying to figure out how to portray all this on his first civil war coin issue. I challenge you to come up with a better way to do it than this exact design, which meets all the desiderata! Of course, that's assuming the strongest associations for your average Roman paterfamilias would be 1) the elephant --> the Caecilii Metelli, and 2) that sort of snake --> a household genius. I made the case for these associations in the OP, but I think the further discussion has only made that case stronger. Strengthening the case for (1): Do a search on acsearch for denarii with elephants, and eliminate all the later (imperial) coins. The result? [I]Every single coin is issued by a Caecilius Metellus![/I] No kidding. That's an awfully strong association! By contrast, the case for an elephant --> Caesar association is very weak. Who at the time knew that Caesar's name vaguely sounded like the Punic word for elephant, or that his ancestor killed an elephant? Nobody, as far as we can tell. Our source for this stuff appears to be the notoriously inaccurate 4th or 5th century [I]Historia Augusta, [/I]plus Servius at the same very late juncture. (It's sometimes said that this was Caesar's own theory of his name's origin, but I can find no direct evidence of this... that's coming from Servius I think.) We have so much contemporary literature about Caesar, including scads of stuff written by Caesar himself, and nothing (other than this coin type) to associate him especially with elephants. Let's just say that if Caesar meant to associate himself with elephants on the coin, it would have been the first time for the man on the street. Now, there's a first time for everything, but wouldn't the man on the street be a bit puzzled? [scratching head] "Geez, why is Caesar representing himself with the symbol of his enemies?" :confused: Strengthening the case for (2): A very interesting observation, thank you! I agree. Thanks for this AA! I hadn't actually noticed that the bronze has exactly the same style snake on it, having focused on the silver. It's looks exactly like the genius of the paterfamilias again! I think the way it's depicted strengthens the case for the Harlan/crispina theory. Minerva is clearly striding forward [I]with the snake at her side[/I]. The snake is an ally, which would only make sense if it represents Caesar and the People of Rome. The iconography would be utterly baffling if on the denarius the snake is the enemy, but here it is a friend. (I note that this dupondius is normally dated from late 46 while the civil war was ongoing.) I would be interested to hear if your skepticism has lessened at all, [USER=83845]@Curtisimo[/USER], [USER=91461]@Ryro[/USER], and [USER=74968]@Orfew[/USER]. But I greatly value that skepticism! And I should say that while I would bet on the Harlan/crispina theory, I wouldn't bet [I]that[/I] much. I certainly wouldn't bet my elephant denarius on it! :D[/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Caesar's elephant and snake: what do they mean?!?
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...