Hill, George Francis: A corpus of Italian medals of the Renaissance before Cellini: in 2 volumes (Volume 1): Text (London: British Museum, 1930)

■ ^HE object of this work is to classify and describe the known varieties of
medals produced by Italian artists from 1390 to about 1530. As first planned,
the period extended to the end of the sixteenth century; but the immensity
B of the material made it necessary, if the task was to be completed by the
present compiler, to adopt narrower limits. The period thus covered (the same as that
which was dealt with in Friedlander’s masterly work) is artistically the more important.
For the medallists who after the advent of Cellini continued the old method of casting
from wax models were comparatively few, though some of them, such as Leone Leoni,
Pastorino, and Antonio Abondio, had a comparatively large output. As medallists
Cellini and the engravers who followed in his steps present little artistic interest.
At the same time the object in view is not primarily artistic criticism, but rather
the provision of materials for such criticism, and also for the iconography of the period; to
group the medals under artists and schools; to illustrate as good a specimen as is available
of each one ; and to state in which public collections (and also, in certain cases, in which
private collections) specimens are to be found, so far as the compiler’s information goes.
It has not been possible to examine more than a small proportion of the recorded
specimens, or even as many plaster casts or photographs as might have been desired. But
where a printed catalogue exists, the specimens which it describes have been incorporated,
so that the student may know that in such and such a museum there exists a specimen
(good, bad, or indifferent) of the medal in which he is interested. That it is a good or
early specimen must not be assumed; for every old collection contains a very large
number of late reproductions, or after-casts, not to say downright forgeries; and too
many a printed catalogue gives an entirely misleading idea of the importance of
a collection by failing to distinguish between good and bad examples. In more than
one of the Italian collections which boast catalogues enumerating some hundreds
of pieces it would be difficult to find a score of specimens which a collector of judgement
would admit to his cabinet. The description 1 after-cast’, and adjectives such as ‘poor’
or ‘ bad ’ or ‘ late ’, when they occur in this work, indicate an opinion formed by
examination of the original or borrowed from good authority; their absence must not
be assumed to imply that a specimen is considered to be good. This does not apply
to collections to which the compiler has had constant access, such as those in London;
unless a specimen in such a collection is otherwise described, it may be assumed that
it is, in his opinion, of respectable quality. The material obtained from the Kaiser
Friedrich Museum at Berlin, the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris, and the Bundessamm-
lung at Vienna has usually been accompanied by an opinion of the authorities there as
to the quality of the specimen; in the case of Vienna (which it was not possible for the
compiler to visit until a great part of the volume was already in print) a manuscript
catalogue kindly lent by the authorities supplied notes of the quality of the specimens;
such notes will be found between inverted commas. A recent visit gave opportunity
for the revision of these notes and an examination of the whole collection, and some
resulting modifications will be found among the Addenda. In the case of Paris, I have
also examined nearly all the medals myself. The collections which have actually been
[v]