DOI issue:
Faculty of archeology, history and letters
DOI article:Hill, George Francis: The Roman medallists of the Renaissance to the time of Leo X
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.70028#0067
The Roman Medallists of the Renaissance.
47
delicacy, but the design is somewhat fussy. On the whole, this docu-
mented piece may be said to confirm the attribution to Caradosso of the
medals of Lodovico il Moro and Francesco Sforza, and of the large medals
of Julius II, to which we shall come later.
Cellini speaks of Caradosso in terms of enthusiastic praise, but it may
be observed that he says nothing of any medals (in our sense) or coins
of his ; in fact it is noticeable that he rather implies that he did not
engrave coin-dies. His words in his Autobiography1 are : 'Questo huomo
lavorava solamente di medagliette cesellate fatte di piastra, et molte
altre cose ; fece alcune Pace lavorate di mezo rilievo et certi Christi di
un palmo, fatti di piastre sottilissime d’oro, tanto ben lavorate, che io
giudicavo questo essere il maggior maestro, che mai di tai cose io havessi
visto, et di lui piii che di nessuno altro havevo invidia. Anchora c’era
altri maestri che lavoravano di medaglie intagliate in acciaio, le quali son
le madre et la vera guida a coloro che vogliono sapere fare benissimo le
monete.’ These ‘ medagliette ’ of Caradosso, as Cellini explains else-
where, were hat-badges, made by a technique quite different from that of
cast or struck medals2 ; and Caradosso seems to be contrasted with the
people who made dies for coins or medals. The argumentum ex silentio
is nearly always unsound, and we cannot take the evidence to prove that
Cellini supposed that Caradosso did not make medals at all ; but it
seems clear that he did not regard them as taking an important place in
the master’s activity.
In dealing with medals to be attributed to Caradosso in his Roman
period, since, so far as the archives have been searched, there is no docu-
mentary evidence of such works, with the exception of the medal of
Federigo Gonzaga, we depend greatly on the statement of Vasari, in his
life of Bramante.3 He describes that architect’s design of St. Peter’s
'come si vede nelle monete che batte poi Giulio II. e Leon X., fatte da
Carradosso eccellentissimo orefice, che nel far conj non ebbe pari; come
ancora si vede la medaglia di Bramante fatta da lui molto bella.’ Now
we have already seen that the evidence of Cellini is, to say the least, not
in favour of the view that Caradosso was a coin-engraver. Modern
numismatic authorities are unanimous in rejecting the statement that
Caradosso engraved dies for coins of Julius II. or Leo X. ; and indeed there
1 Ed. O. Bacci (1901), p. 52. 2 Op. cit. p. 64 ; cp. Oveficevia, cap, v.
3 Ed. Milanesi, ix». p. 161.
47
delicacy, but the design is somewhat fussy. On the whole, this docu-
mented piece may be said to confirm the attribution to Caradosso of the
medals of Lodovico il Moro and Francesco Sforza, and of the large medals
of Julius II, to which we shall come later.
Cellini speaks of Caradosso in terms of enthusiastic praise, but it may
be observed that he says nothing of any medals (in our sense) or coins
of his ; in fact it is noticeable that he rather implies that he did not
engrave coin-dies. His words in his Autobiography1 are : 'Questo huomo
lavorava solamente di medagliette cesellate fatte di piastra, et molte
altre cose ; fece alcune Pace lavorate di mezo rilievo et certi Christi di
un palmo, fatti di piastre sottilissime d’oro, tanto ben lavorate, che io
giudicavo questo essere il maggior maestro, che mai di tai cose io havessi
visto, et di lui piii che di nessuno altro havevo invidia. Anchora c’era
altri maestri che lavoravano di medaglie intagliate in acciaio, le quali son
le madre et la vera guida a coloro che vogliono sapere fare benissimo le
monete.’ These ‘ medagliette ’ of Caradosso, as Cellini explains else-
where, were hat-badges, made by a technique quite different from that of
cast or struck medals2 ; and Caradosso seems to be contrasted with the
people who made dies for coins or medals. The argumentum ex silentio
is nearly always unsound, and we cannot take the evidence to prove that
Cellini supposed that Caradosso did not make medals at all ; but it
seems clear that he did not regard them as taking an important place in
the master’s activity.
In dealing with medals to be attributed to Caradosso in his Roman
period, since, so far as the archives have been searched, there is no docu-
mentary evidence of such works, with the exception of the medal of
Federigo Gonzaga, we depend greatly on the statement of Vasari, in his
life of Bramante.3 He describes that architect’s design of St. Peter’s
'come si vede nelle monete che batte poi Giulio II. e Leon X., fatte da
Carradosso eccellentissimo orefice, che nel far conj non ebbe pari; come
ancora si vede la medaglia di Bramante fatta da lui molto bella.’ Now
we have already seen that the evidence of Cellini is, to say the least, not
in favour of the view that Caradosso was a coin-engraver. Modern
numismatic authorities are unanimous in rejecting the statement that
Caradosso engraved dies for coins of Julius II. or Leo X. ; and indeed there
1 Ed. O. Bacci (1901), p. 52. 2 Op. cit. p. 64 ; cp. Oveficevia, cap, v.
3 Ed. Milanesi, ix». p. 161.