218
The British School at Rome.
Rev. Pegasus rising r. from rock. [This reverse is a surmoulage
from the medal of Cardinal Bembo by Benvenuto Cellini.] Diam.
49’5 mm.
Note.—Molinier (644) describes a specimen in the Bibliotheque Nationale two
millimetres smaller. Neither specimen can be as early as the fifteenth century,
since the reverse is a mechanical reproduction of Cellini’s medal of Bembo
(about 1539-40). But the obverse may be cast from an earlier specimen.
Fig. 2.—Two Medals in the British Museum.
2. Struck silver medalet (Fig. 2, b). Obv. similar to preceding,
but without inscription.
Rev. APIS TOT EA OYS above image of the Ephesian Artemis.
Diam. 22-5 mm.
Not earlier than sixteenth century.1 ”
The effigies of both large and small medal exaggerate, as it were,
the features of the ‘ Aristotle ’ of the plaque, so that the sixteenth-century
date assigned to them by Mr. Hill rather confirms than contradicts the
earlier date proposed above for the plaque itself. It was inevitable that
in the process of multiplication the character of the face should be altered,
but the descent from the portrait of the plaque is always clear.
1 Mr. Hill adds: “In the L. Welzl v. Wellenheim Cat. (Vienna, 1845) ii. No. 13121
is described a one-sided medal, of bronze, with evidently the same type and the inscription
APISTOTEAOYS. The size appears to be about 35 mm.’’
The British School at Rome.
Rev. Pegasus rising r. from rock. [This reverse is a surmoulage
from the medal of Cardinal Bembo by Benvenuto Cellini.] Diam.
49’5 mm.
Note.—Molinier (644) describes a specimen in the Bibliotheque Nationale two
millimetres smaller. Neither specimen can be as early as the fifteenth century,
since the reverse is a mechanical reproduction of Cellini’s medal of Bembo
(about 1539-40). But the obverse may be cast from an earlier specimen.
Fig. 2.—Two Medals in the British Museum.
2. Struck silver medalet (Fig. 2, b). Obv. similar to preceding,
but without inscription.
Rev. APIS TOT EA OYS above image of the Ephesian Artemis.
Diam. 22-5 mm.
Not earlier than sixteenth century.1 ”
The effigies of both large and small medal exaggerate, as it were,
the features of the ‘ Aristotle ’ of the plaque, so that the sixteenth-century
date assigned to them by Mr. Hill rather confirms than contradicts the
earlier date proposed above for the plaque itself. It was inevitable that
in the process of multiplication the character of the face should be altered,
but the descent from the portrait of the plaque is always clear.
1 Mr. Hill adds: “In the L. Welzl v. Wellenheim Cat. (Vienna, 1845) ii. No. 13121
is described a one-sided medal, of bronze, with evidently the same type and the inscription
APISTOTEAOYS. The size appears to be about 35 mm.’’