III.

"STAMPARE A CONIO." HOW DID THE ROMANS STRIKE THEIR MEDALLIONS? Communicated by the Rev. C. W. KING, M.A., Trinity College.

[February 28, 1881.]

EVERY intelligent numismatist must often have asked himself the question, "How did the Romans manage without the aid of the coin-press to strike pieces (often in hard bronze), of the dimensions of their so-called medallions, varying from two to

Obv. Bust of Probus, laureated and wearing a cuirass: on his right side is seen a lance, on the left a shield ornamented with an equestrian figure of the Emperor, preceded by a Victory and followed by a soldier. IMP(erator) PROBVS P(ius) F(elix) AVG(ustus).

Rev. The three Monetae, standing erect and looking to the left; each one holds in her right hand a balance and in the left hand a cornucopiae; at the feet of each is a money-bag full of coin. MONETA AVG.

three and a half inches in diameter? Their dies, as many existing specimens attest, were of no better material than a brittle mixed metal, something like fusible brass, which, though

C. A. S. Comm. Vol. V.

3

available for the small surface of the current coin, would be certain, as any one acquainted with the process will admit, to fly into fragments under any blow of sufficient force to bring up the relief upon blanks so extensive as those required by the medallions. Besides, examination of the field of the latter clearly proves that the impression of the die was produced by some power that acted evenly and steadily upon the whole surface at once, thus forcing the metal into the most delicate lines of the engraving, not by the violent impact of a single blow given with a heavy hammer; of which latter method all so-called "hammered money" always presents unmistakeable evidence in the unevenness of the relief, the shifting of the letters, and the general irregularity of circumference, resulting from the difficulty of applying such momentary pressure upon the head of a die (the tressel) held in the left hand of the monetarius. In coins made by this primitive and expeditious process, the two circumferences of the upper and the lower die seldom exactly coincide, and frequently the one has so far overlain the other, that even where much care has evidently been taken with the mintage, part of the legend on one side is driven, as collectors call it, "off the field." No such failure as this ever disfigures the medallion of the same period; the dies fit as exactly, and the field and edge come forth in almost as true a circle, as are seen in the productions of the modern coiningpress.

The latest writer upon the subject, Lenormant', has devoted much space to the consideration of the various explanations which have been offered of this difficult problem, but with no better success, it seems to me, than those who have preceded him. He finds his solution of the difficulty in the oft-repeated story about a wall-painting discovered in a crypt at Posilipo representing the interior of a mint, where a great stone suspended over the dies did the duty of a "monkey" by its sudden 1 La Monnaie dans l'antiquité, vol. 1. pp. 251–255.

fall. But it must be borne in mind that the violent and momentary impact of the "monkey," although available and actually often employed for striking current coin in flat relief, would not produce the effect of the operation to which the medallions are due, even if it did not destroy the dies themselves by the sudden jar. But as no copy is forthcoming of this picture, invaluable as it would be to every student of numismatics, and as there is great possibility of mistake on the part of the ignorant artist who tells the story, no certain argument can be based upon the tradition.

Having said thus much to express my dissatisfaction with the explanation of the eminent French archaeologist, I shall proceed in my turn to propose another, which seems to me at least to meet all the exigencies of the case. It was suggested to me, some time ago, in reading a highly valuable work, very little known to archaeologists; otherwise, I make no doubt, I should have been anticipated in my application of its rules to the present emergency. Cellini in his treatise Oreficeria, cap. IX., describes with great minuteness the "old" method of striking medals (as distinguished from current coin), which he calls "stampare a conio," "striking by wedge"; at that time (1560) nearly superseded by the coining-press, "la vite." The apparatus consisted of an oblong iron frame, called staffa, "stirrup," 10 in. high, 3 in. broad, and 1 in. thick': within which were placed the dies, which were cut square, and exactly fitted into the frame, so as to prevent all possibility of shifting during the operation. This left a vacancy of 23 in. between the top of the upper die and the inside of the staffa, into which were driven, from opposite sides, two great iron wedges, each 15 in. long, and half as thick again at the head as at the point, so as to come well over the top of the dies in the frame. The whole machine was then lifted up, and placed with the head of one

1 Cellini gives these sizes in dita, parts of the Tuscan braccio = 21 inches; but I have reduced them to English measure for the sake of clearness.