WI: Napoleon picks the elephant as the Imperial Symbol

Proclaimed Emperor of the French on 28 Floréal, An XII (18 May, 1804), Napoleon approached the problem of the emblems of sovereignty on 23 Prairial (12 juin) during a session of the Conseil d’Etat. The choice of the new symbols so as to make a clean break with the monarchy of the Ancien Régime proved difficult. Crétet proposed successively an eagle, a lion and an elephant. Cambacérès preferred bees since France was a republic with a head, like a hive; Ségur thought that a lion would be better, stronger than the English leopard; Laumond was for the elephant, ” the strongest of animals “; Duroc preferred the oak and Lebrun the fleur de lys, which he felt was the emblem of France and not the Bourbons. The Conseil d’Etat finally went for the cockerel, but Napoleon preferred the lion. However, on 21 Messidor, An XII (10 July, 1804), the emperor crossed out the lion from the decree instituting his seal and coat of arms and imposed the eagle. Developed by Denon, Gay and Biennais, the ‘armes de l’Empire’ (Empire coat of arms), taking their inspiration from both Ancient Rome and Charlemagne, were re-used largely unchanged by the Second Empire.

Even though he picked the imperial eagle, there still was a connection between Napoleon and the elephant, as seen in the famous Bastille Elephant

upload_2019-4-10_21-6-0.png
 
Maybe the Eagle could be the standard of the Empire as a state, and the Elephant could be a personal standard of the reigning Emperor? Might be a little too complicated, though.
 
I think the elephant would be a much more durable symbol of Bonapartism. Everyone has an eagle. It's the national equivalent of naming your high school football team the Wildcats. An elephant is unique for Europe, and so more memorable. I'm sure British cartoonists will have a field day with it, especially in synergy with their dwarfish caricature of Napoleon. Maybe through that it would become permanently associated with France in general, at least in Britain. Napoleon III would probably build some giant dumb elephant statue. Unlikely but nice to imagine, maybe it would lead to better protection for elephants in the French colonies. The association between elephants and the (American) Republican Party started in the 1870s - would it do so here? Assuming no major changes, that would be right after Napoleon III tanks. Maybe it just leads to some righteous puns involving the Bourbon Democrats.
 
Cambacérès preferred bees since France was a republic with a head, like a hive;

Uh no. The carvings/figurines of cicadas(?) found in some Merovingian king's tomb were mistaken for bees. This was seen as a suitably pre-Capetian/-Carolingian symbol. What they didn't know was that they were a) cicadas and b) from his wife's stuff, not his.

The Conseil d’Etat finally went for the cockerel,

Much to Napoléon's disgust. When someone suggested a rooster to him, he remarked "a rooster belongs in a farmyard, besides, it has no strength. Leave it there!" IIRC he passed some comment about how ridiculous an army would look with a rooster as its mascot, given the bird's association with weakness and vanity.

As to the elephant, it becomes problematic as an allegory, since in the 17th and 18th centuries, while it is associated with wisdom (although, AFAIK, surprisingly not strength), prudence and forbearance, it has another even odder quality associated with it: chastity/abstinence. Some Roman/early Christian writer(?) said that the elephant ABHORS sex and even shuns it, preferring to live by itself etc etc.

Now, much like the pelican's association with virginity, this is a bunch of rubbish. The writer (it might have been Pliny co-opted by some later church father) had obviously never seen elephants in the wild. Or rather, probably had seen herds with the males expelled (or had seen singular males wandering around) and presumed this to be the reason. (I'm not a zoologist, so I have no idea).

Either way, a cool use of the pachyderm on the coat-of-arms would be to show it grasping its own tail (a sort of re-imagining of the tail eating dragon of the heraldry of an earlier era)
 
As to the elephant, it becomes problematic as an allegory, since in the 17th and 18th centuries, while it is associated with wisdom (although, AFAIK, surprisingly not strength), prudence and forbearance, it has another even odder quality associated with it: chastity/abstinence. Some Roman/early Christian writer(?) said that the elephant ABHORS sex and even shuns it, preferring to live by itself etc etc.

Would that really be problematic? AFAIK it's not as if free love was part of Bonapartist ideology, so the association with chastity would probably be seen as either positive (France returning to virtue and moderation after the excesses of the Revolutionary period) or irrelevant (irrelephant?).
 
Would that really be problematic? AFAIK it's not as if free love was part of Bonapartist ideology, so the association with chastity would probably be seen as either positive (France returning to virtue and moderation after the excesses of the Revolutionary period) or irrelevant (irrelephant?).

For France, probably not. But as a dynastic symbol it could be problematic. Bees are hard working and lions are strong which are both admirable qualities for a monarch Sure, elephants are "wise" but a monarch who is chaste can lead to problems
 
For France, probably not. But as a dynastic symbol it could be problematic. Bees are hard working and lions are strong which are both admirable qualities for a monarch Sure, elephants are "wise" but a monarch who is chaste can lead to problems

Chastity means refraining from extra-marital sex. It has nothing at all to do with refraining from sex with your wife. Indeed if we take an Aristotelian golden mean approach to virtue, a man who refuses to have sex when he ought would be going against the virtue of chastity just as much as a man who has sex when he shouldn't...
 
Top