So this is the first appearance of Apollo on the obverse of a Roman coin type since the creation of the stable denarius system (so 211 BCE).*  It is the very smallest of the bronze: 1/12 of an As.  So originally you’d have needed  120 of these to equal a single denarius and after the re-tariffing of the denarius 192.   Needless to say not many were made, and most were lost, and few come to us in as good of a condition as this specimen!

But what is really interesting about this appearance of Apollo is that he’s displacing ROMA.  Roma had been consistently the goddess of the uncia denomination since the creation of this bronze system.  The rest of this series (RRC 285) follows the traditional combination of denominations and gods, but not this one.   The series is also strange in its rejection of the prow reverse that has been the standard on the bronze and instead shows attributes of each of the typical gods.   Why forego Roma?  Was it just too complex to choose an attribute for her?  This seems weak.  Or did Apollo hold some special meaning?  We are unlikely to know.

FYI –  CRRO 241/6 (not is Crawford but identified by Russo 1998: no. 88) is catalogued as Mercury not Roma.  This is just a typo.  It is Roma in Russo and all known specimens. 

*- Yes, I’m deliberately overlooking the odd quincussis from Luceria made at the end of the Second Punic War.

This is the typical numismatic image associated with Quirinus, but Hollstein (JNG 2011) has revived the opinion of Fulvius Ursinus (sometimes called Fulvio Orsini) that in fact RRC 268/1 is a representation of the god, not a recent ancestor of the moneyer who was a priest of the god.  I find this convincing.  It harmonizes well with Servius’ commentary on Aen. VI, 859 which describes Quirinus as the Mars who presides over peace.

Servius’ Latin:

tertiaque arma patri suspendet capta quirino et tertia opima spolia suspendet patri, id est Iovi, ‘capta Quirino’, qualia et Quirinus ceperat, id est Romulus, de Acrone, rege Caeninensium, et ea Iovi Feretrio suspenderat. possumus et, quod est melius, secundum legem Numae hunc locum accipere, qui praecepit prima opima spolia Iovi Feretrio debere suspendi, quod iam Romulus fecerat; secunda Marti, quod Cossus fecit; tertia Quirino, quod fecit Marcellus. Quirinus autem est Mars, qui praeest paci et intra civitatem colitur: nam belli Mars extra civitatem templum habuit. ergo aut ‘suspendet patri’, id est Iovi: aut ‘suspendet patri Quirino’. varie de hoc loco tractant commentatores, Numae legis inmemores, cuius facit mentionem et Livius.

I’m not sure why but this portion of the Bocchus Monument just isn’t illustrated that much.  It’s important as a piece of mid 1st century BC comparative iconography for the use of the horse and rider motif on coinage.  On which I’ve blogged previously.  I’m indebted to this other blogger for the wonderful photographs documenting the Centrale Montemartini Museum so very well!  This post is almost as good an in person visit it is so thorough.  (It’s one of my favorite museums of all time.)

Trofimova (p. 55) believes that the Achilles representation on the obverse of this coin of Pyrrhus is a form of Alexander Imitation.  This grows out of and supports her argument in her second chapter regard ‘The Influence of Portraits of Alexander  on the Hellenistic Iconography of Achilles’ (p.33-58).

An earlier post on this coin and others on Pyrrhus generally.

One of the things I find most curious about private Roman art is how images correspond across vast distances of time and space.    We often talk about this in relation to Roman ‘copies’ of original Greek statues, but less so for 2 dimensional art.  Interestingly in 2D works the composition often echo rather than copy.

This is from the 1st Century AD Bay of Naples (now inv. no. 9110 in the Naples collection):

This is the same subject represented at Zeugma on the Euphrates in Mosaic some 200 years later.

The theme of both is Achilles among the daughters of Lycomedes, a cross-dressing hero narrative not unlike Herakles and Omphale.  A nice teaching example again for gender and sexuality.

Sometimes it is just nice to have all the references in one place.  For RRC 419/2 one of the key pieces for understanding the reverse is Meadows 1993.

To this discussion I would only add the clear allusion among other many more famous (even archetypal)  historical exempla at Cicero, de Finibus, 5.64

The passage of Trogus is here.

Let us, O conscript fathers, think as highly of ourselves as we please; and yet it is not in numbers that we are superior to the Spaniards, nor in personal strength to the Gauls, nor in cunning to the Carthaginians, nor in arts to the Greeks, nor in the natural acuteness which seems to be implanted in the people of this land and country, to the Italian and Latin tribes; but it is in and by means of piety and religion, and this especial wisdom of perceiving that all things are governed and managed by the divine power of the immortal gods, that we have been and are superior to all other countries and nations.

Why does Rome rule?  They are on the best terms with the gods.  This message is fully explored in the Vergil’s Aeneid (cf. esp. the prophesy of Jupiter in BK I) and so many other examples of Augustus’ ‘restoration’.   Here we get to hear the same ideology from Cicero in 56BC (Har. 19).  Nice to see the seed.

Post-Script.  I also notice that Africa and Syria and Asia a left off this list of other types of people?  Is this because the stereotypes of these ethnicity are so wholly negative?

Hello.  Welcome to my academic blog.  This where I re-trained myself how to write.  When I was a graduate student each sentence was an agonizing construction.  I couldn’t move on to the next until it perfectly captured the idea I wanted to express.  This was slow and stressful.  It also made me less open to revision and restructuring than I should have been.  One of the first great pieces of writing advice I ever received was to write like I teach or lecture.  I started calling my drafts “scripts”and putting in “stage directions” this helped me think about how my thoughts sounded and sequentially communicated the points of evidence my argument required.   I love writing letters and casual sketches.  This blog transformed by writing again by giving me a drafting space for serious ideas in my most casual voice.  I enjoy my research.  I find it hard at times, funny at times.  It isn’t linear.  My final research needs structure but my first tackling of a piece of evidence doesn’t have to be such.

WHAT THE HECK does this have to do with active/passive voice?  Too much passive voice is a way teachers and peers habitually criticize the style of our writing.  Yes, you may want a gripping writing style, one with a varied, distinctive authorial voice but this may have nothing to do with your verb choice!

1. Why do you think you use too much passive voice? In what context did you learn this rule?  Who has said this criticism to you most recently?  Did they justify their criticism with regard to a particular instance of your writing?  Or, did they just present it as a truism?
2. Take a few of academic book chapters and peer reviewed articles in your field that you really admire.  Randomly select a couple of pages from each.   Photocopy them and then highlight each and every verb on the page.  One color for active and one color for passive.   Do your academic heroes really avoid passive voice?   When are they using active voice the most?
3. When you sit down to write, take a deep breath, and just write.  Don’t worry about grammar, syntax, or style.  (Do worry about making some basic citations – so you don’t have to reconstruct these from nothing later.)   Give yourself permission to write what ever words come.  Even sentences don’t matter, resort to lists if that makes it easier.
4. Re-read your work after a night’s sleep.  Re-word and add and delete freely.

BUT, Professor Yarrow, I do that and I still can’t figure out how to get rid of the dreaded passive voice?!  Ok, Ok.  Here are some basic tips, but really this is usually a red herring issue.

5. Go back to those highlighted pages.  Are there ‘active verbs’ that you highlighted that are really just doing the passive verb’s job?  ‘X illuminates Y’,  ‘Juxtaposing blah and blah, reveals blah blah blah blah…’  That sort of jargon.    Borrow some verbs and sentence structures from your academic heroes.

6. Remember that active voice is most relevant in, well, ACTIVE parts of your writing.  Narration is most typical.  When describing what happened you should be able to report actor, action, and result in active voice.   When you are describing what is relevant about a piece of evidence or how it move your argument forward those are also points where active verb choices are more called for.

7. One of the big problems with passive voice is that it suppresses agency.  The lamp was broken.   The lamp was broken by Billy.  Billy broke the lamp.  As a historian you are seeking out not just what happened but also the why and by who.   It may feel safer not to ascribe agency, but it is your job.  After the Civil War, thousands of blacks were displaced.  What displaced them?!  We could write instead: The Civil War displaced thousands of blacks.  It’s active voice sure, but is it really intellectually any stronger?!  The first may be more honest as it leaves open the question of agency.

But really.  Don’t worry about it.  It is usually a lazy criticism, an excuse not to engage with the substantive intellectual issues OR an inability to suggest or guide positive reframings.