Naville Numismatics Ltd.
Auction 36 3 Dec 2017
View prices realized
► Sale information
Find similar lots
Nerva, 96-98 Sestertius circa 97, 34.5mm., 22.92g. IMP NERVA CAES AVG P M TR P COS III P P Laureate head r. Rev. FISCI IVDAICI CALVMNIA SVBLATA S C Palm tree with two clusters of dates. C 57. BMC 105. RIC 82. CBN 97. Hendin 1603b.
Very rare, light brown tone, Good Fine.
This remarkable issue has long attracted collectors, and has given rise to various explanations of its meaning. The design and inscription assure us that it reflects a contemporary perspective on the collection of the fisci iudaici the tax that the Romans collected annually from each male Jew for nearly three centuries, beginning under Vespasian and ending with Julian II the Apostate. Originally this was the Temple Tax that Jews paid to their priesthood, which amounted to two Roman denarii (a didrachm). A famous passage in Suetonius confirms that this tax was collected aggressively under Domitian, with men sometimes being examined in public to determine whether they were circumcised, by which their subscription to the Judaic faith was determined. There can be little doubt that this type was created in response to abuses of the legal process by which Jews were identified, and that it celebrates one of Nervas reversals of the harsh policies of his predecessor. However, modern scholars have taken this scenario too far when they presume the type reflects Nervas sympathy to the plight of the Jews, or that the coin represents an apology to the Jews. If this were true, this would be the only Roman coin that bore an apology to a vanquished people a prospect that is impossible. This wishful, revisionist view disintegrates when this coin is seen from the perspective of its issuers, rather than from the Jews. Romans did not use their coinage to admit error of judgment or to assuage the bruised feelings of non-Romans. If anything, their coinage expressed the opposite: their own actions are presented as infallible, and non-Romans are depicted as conquered, inferior or docile. In other words, so hopeful an explanation can only be conceived in the modern mind. Nervas regime was ever on the brink of collapse, and none of his other coin types demonstrate a willingness to offend his fellow Romans. This coin, if intended as an apology to the Jews, would have been dangerous and provocative; one can only imagine the offense that would be taken by the already hostile soldiers, many of whose fathers and grandfathers had served, and perhaps died, in the costly war that Vespasian and Titus had waged in Judaea. The solution, in fact, lies in how we perceive the removal of the calumnia associated with the collection of the Jewish Tax. First, we must presume that the type celebrated a reform that benefited the Romans, not Jews. Next, we must consider the immense experience Nerva had in government and law prior to becoming emperor: he had twice served as consul and was a prominent lawyer (as had been his father and grandfather). Thus, he must have been using the term calumnia in its legal sense, in which it describes a false or malicious accusation. During the oppressive regime of Domitian we may be sure that the degrading inspections permitted to identify Jews who were unwilling to profess their faith in order to avoid the Jewish Tax were used to harass Romans who were out of favour. In this light we could see the coin type as marking the abolition of a system of false accusation by which non-Jewish Romans could be victimized through the inappropriate use of a measure intended only for Jews.
Very rare, light brown tone, Good Fine.
This remarkable issue has long attracted collectors, and has given rise to various explanations of its meaning. The design and inscription assure us that it reflects a contemporary perspective on the collection of the fisci iudaici the tax that the Romans collected annually from each male Jew for nearly three centuries, beginning under Vespasian and ending with Julian II the Apostate. Originally this was the Temple Tax that Jews paid to their priesthood, which amounted to two Roman denarii (a didrachm). A famous passage in Suetonius confirms that this tax was collected aggressively under Domitian, with men sometimes being examined in public to determine whether they were circumcised, by which their subscription to the Judaic faith was determined. There can be little doubt that this type was created in response to abuses of the legal process by which Jews were identified, and that it celebrates one of Nervas reversals of the harsh policies of his predecessor. However, modern scholars have taken this scenario too far when they presume the type reflects Nervas sympathy to the plight of the Jews, or that the coin represents an apology to the Jews. If this were true, this would be the only Roman coin that bore an apology to a vanquished people a prospect that is impossible. This wishful, revisionist view disintegrates when this coin is seen from the perspective of its issuers, rather than from the Jews. Romans did not use their coinage to admit error of judgment or to assuage the bruised feelings of non-Romans. If anything, their coinage expressed the opposite: their own actions are presented as infallible, and non-Romans are depicted as conquered, inferior or docile. In other words, so hopeful an explanation can only be conceived in the modern mind. Nervas regime was ever on the brink of collapse, and none of his other coin types demonstrate a willingness to offend his fellow Romans. This coin, if intended as an apology to the Jews, would have been dangerous and provocative; one can only imagine the offense that would be taken by the already hostile soldiers, many of whose fathers and grandfathers had served, and perhaps died, in the costly war that Vespasian and Titus had waged in Judaea. The solution, in fact, lies in how we perceive the removal of the calumnia associated with the collection of the Jewish Tax. First, we must presume that the type celebrated a reform that benefited the Romans, not Jews. Next, we must consider the immense experience Nerva had in government and law prior to becoming emperor: he had twice served as consul and was a prominent lawyer (as had been his father and grandfather). Thus, he must have been using the term calumnia in its legal sense, in which it describes a false or malicious accusation. During the oppressive regime of Domitian we may be sure that the degrading inspections permitted to identify Jews who were unwilling to profess their faith in order to avoid the Jewish Tax were used to harass Romans who were out of favour. In this light we could see the coin type as marking the abolition of a system of false accusation by which non-Jewish Romans could be victimized through the inappropriate use of a measure intended only for Jews.