Faustina the elder Medallion

End Notes

Medallions in the strictest sense of the term are those bronze pieces which are clearly differentiated from the regular currency by certain well-defined features of structure, style and content. Most important and characteristic are the large bronze medallions easily recognizable as exceeding the ordinary bronze coins of largest denomination—the sestertii, down to Gallienus—in size of diameter, thickness of flan and weight. Occasionally the specifically medallic character of such a piece is made immediately apparent to the eye by the addition of a broad rim or circle framing the central design. Such rims are decorated with concentric grooves and bevels or with ornamental borders of varying degrees of elaboration. In some cases rim and centre form one single flan; in others the rim was added to the central flan in ancient times. "Framed" medallions first occur under Hadrian, become specially numerous under Antoninus Pius and continue under the Antonine and Severan dynasties down to the reign of Alexander Severus.1 Some pieces, again, are set in narrow grooved or bevelled rims.2 In the case of other pieces, struck on particularly large flans exceeding in area the space required for the actual types, a plain, "natural" rim is formed round the designs on either side.3 From Antoninus Pius down to Diocletian and Maxmian another favourite device for stressing, externally, medallic character was that of striking a piece on a disc composed of two metals, with a central portion of one metal and an outer rim of anothe.4 The two metals thus employed were either two qualities of bronze or copper and bronze, the inner part being of the softer metal, the better to receive the impression of the types, the outer part being harder and more resisting. Often the line of division between the two metals runs through the letters of the circumference legends, showing that the two were put together to form a single flan before the piece was struck. Not infrequenty fine pictorial and colouristic effects are produced by the juxtapostiion of red centre and yellow rim. The bi-metaliic process was clearly intended to attract the eye; just as, in the third century, bronze pieces were plated and silver pieces gilded, as a simple, if somewhat crude and superficial, method of enhancing their medallic aspect.5

But such obvious devices were, after all, the exception rather than the rule. The great majority of large bronze medallions remain sufficiently stamped as such by size of diameter and thickness of flan; while, from the practical point of view, their intrinsic unsuitablitty for circulation as currency is only relatively less patent than that of "framed" and bi-metaliic pieces. Weight, on the other hand, has long been the rallying-point of those who would deny us the use of the word "medallion" in any real sense of the term. According to Kenner 6 and to the earlier theory of Gnecchi 7 the large bronze medallions down to Gallienus are nothing more than multiples of asses and sestertii. Gnecchi, again, in his later work, while rejecting his former equation of bronze medallion with multiple coin, takes 1318 bronze pieces dating from the time of Hadrian to that of Gallienus, works out their average weight as being c. 50.07 grammes and from this concludes that the value of a medallion was normally fixed at that of a double sestertius.8 But the appeal to averages can often be very misleading and produce, as in the present case, a totally false impression. Discounting the exceptional "framed" and bi-metallic pieces, weights of large bronze medallions of this period can be registered for almost every point on the scale from c. 30 to c. 83 grammes. C. 50 grammes may represent the commonest weight, but it does not necessarily imply a consciously fixed standard: were this so, we should hardly expect to find so many pieces, at both ends of the scale, failing thus conspicuously to conform to it. Kenner's system of multiples is too elaborate, and Gnecchi’s double sestertius theory is too simple, to fit the facts of the actual weights, which suggest, on the contrary, a complete absence of any fixed scheme or standard. For the post-Gallienic period, with the increasing disparity, not in structure only but also in style and content, between the large bronze medallions and the largest bronze coins, the multiple theory is obviously even less tenable.

Thus the main structural features of the large bronze medallions proper—size and thickness of flan and extreme variability of weight in the case of all pieces and the use of "frames" and bi-metallic striking in special cases—combine to establish the conclusion that they were never originally intended to circulate as coin of the realm. Some large medallions may, of course, have circulated later as currency accidentally, as it were; and this might account for the poor condition in which certain pieces have come down to us. But causes other than circulation can obviously be assigned to wear: even "framed" medallions, where circulation was clearly out of the question, are not wholly exempt from it.

When we turn from the structure to the style of our large bronze pieces we find again that they exhibit essentially medallic characteristics. The obverse dies, with their high relief and exquisite finish, provide a unique series of imperial portraits unsurpassed in the history of Roman iconography; while the reverse designs display a standard of skill and beauty which is normally quite unparalleled on the regular coinage. Bronze medallions are, before anything else, works of art; and here the distinction between coin and medallion is patently not one of degree only, but of kind. Closely allied to the artistic aspect of medallions is the question of their rarity and variety. Such outstanding and often superb products of the medallist’s art were not turned out in the mass. Bronze medallions are comparativey rare as a class and, with a few exceptions, rare individually. It is quite usual for a type to be represented by one example, or, at the most, by a very few examples; and subsequent discoveries have confirmed the opinion expressed by Gnecchi in 1912, that at every new medallion find the odds are in favour of new types, or at any rate new variants or combinations of types, being brought to light.9 When confronted with two or more pieces displaying identical obverse or reverse types, it is fairly normal, in the early period, to find that they were struck from identical dies. On the other hand, general identity of type is often accompanied by small die variations between one piece and its fellows; and indeed, in view of the hard blows required for striking dies in such high relief, the number of specimens obtainabe from a single die can never have been great. Again, the same reverse die is often combined with two or more different obverses, and vice versa; nor is it rare to find the same reverse die combined with obverses of two or more Emperors or Empresses. But it is exceptional to discover two or more pieces struck from identical dies both on obverse and reverse simultaneously. Finally, the content of the large bronze medallions proper reveals no less strikingly than do their structure and style a genuine independence of the regular currencies. Taken as a whole, the vast majority of medallion types either do not appear at all on ordinary coins or are only found there in less rich and complex versions. Some medallion types may seem to be mere elaborations of coin types. But a large proportion of the subjects depicted are derived, not from coins, but from major works of art; and thus the work of the medallist is linked less closely, in a sense, with that of the coin-designer than with that of the sculptor or of the painter. In their wealth and variety of interest the types unmistakably affirm the primary role of medallions as gift pieces presented to special persons on special occasions.

There remains a small and mysterious group of large bronze pieces to be considered, the unilateral medallions, so called from their blank reverses, but corresponding to the large medallions proper in size of diameter and thickness of flan, in the scale of their weights and in the style and technique of their obverse portraiture.10 Some of these, although recorded as unilateral, were obviously not so originally: sometimes the obverse has been cut from the reverse, while in other cases the reverse design has been scraped off or has virtually disappeared through wear. But others are genuinely unilateral. They have smooth, polished backs, sometimes slightly concave or ornamented with a central boss: they show no sign of having ever received a reverse type. Of the various explanations offered to account for these unilateral pieces—that they were "proofs" or experiments for obverse dies, samples of their work submitted by medallists competing for posts at the mint or specimens of imperial iconography destined to serve as models for provincial issues— none are really conclusive or wholly satisfactory. They remain a problem as yet unsolved. Meanwhile they must be included in our series on the grounds of their structure and style; nor is there anything to exclude the possibility that they were issued as presentation pieces of an experimental and quite exceptional type.

Our account of the large bronze pieces would be incomplete without at least a statement at this point of the well-known fact that the letters s c, which down to Gallienus appear normally, though not invariably, on the ordinary bronze coinage, are, with a few exceptions, omitted on the bronze medallions proper. To the problem of the real significance of these letters we shall afterwards retun.11 For the moment it is enough to insist that their presence or absence cannot rightly be used as a criterion in itself for distinguishing between coin and medallion, although their absence on the vast majority of medallions is a matter of obvious importance.

So far we have applied to bronze medallions proper the three criteria of structure, style and content. In the case of the large pieces, all three factors may be taken together as equally decisive. We now come to a series of smaller bronze pieces which are less clearly differentiated by their structure from the current coinage, but where style and content become the really decisive factors in vindicating their claim to be classed as true medallions. In size of diameter, in thickness of flan and in weight such pieces are often indistinguishable from coins of the regular denominations. Weights, it is true, are, on the whole, more variable than in the ordinary currencies; and there are pieces of regular coin dimensions the weight of which is distinctly higher than the normal weight of the corresponding coins.12 In the third century we even find small bi-metallic pieces, the medallic character of which is thus placed beyond doubt on structural ground.13 But for the most part, in detecting the small medallions, we must take as our true criteria high relief, special finish and fineness of touch, rarity and the use of reverse types unusual in themselves or tallying with those of the large medallions. It is here, above all, that the boundary between coin and medallion often becomes so difficult to draw. Gnecchi's adherence to the s c criterion for these smaller pieces led, as we shall see later, to somewhat strange results.14 There is, in fact, no royal road that we can follow. Each piece must be considered on its own merits and tested by its style and content. If the results are such as to establish its character as a special commemorative piece, suitable for solemn presentation within a restricted field, then we may safely include it in our class of medallions proper. It must, however, be borne in mind that the circulation of these smaller medallions as currency, if not originally intended, was rendered far more likely than in the case of the larger pieces, owing to their structural similarity to regular coins. The great majority of smaller bronze medallions proper were struck by Hadrian, Trajan and the Antonine Emperors down to Commodus. Pieces of sestertius size are most frequent under Trajan and Hadrian, after whose time they grow gradually rarer. Pieces of dupondius and as dimensions are also fairly frequent under Hadrian, while of the period from Pius to Commodus they are a regular and characteristic feature. In the second quarter of the third century these miniature bronze medallions were again much in vogue. A specially fine series was issued under Alexander Severus, some pieces bearing the formula scon the reverse, but inseparable, on grounds of style and content, from those without it; the exclusion of these s c pieces by Gnecchi from the medallion category is an instance of the fallaciousness of his criterion. Again, for the period from Gordian III to Gallienus we have a certain number of small bronze pieces of undoubtedly medallic character. From Gallienus onwards it becomes increasingly hard to differentiate small true medallions from ordinary coins on stylistic grounds: content is often the only guide. With Constantine I the history of small bronze medallions virtually comes to an end.

In view of the abundant output of current coins with consecration types and reference, the comparative scarcity of medallions occasioned by deaths in the imperial family need not surprise us. The consecration of an Emperor or Empress was essentially a public event, whereby the seal of official approval was set upon the life and character of the deceased. The distribuiion of medallions as individual and private gifts was therefore less appropriate to these occasions than to others of a more personal kind. Again, there are few consecration medallions of which the types do not coincide, in all but a few details at the most, with the types of the corresponding coins. If some special pieces were struck for presentation, as has been suggested, on the actual consecration day, their types appeared later, in an identical or modified form, and accompanied by a wide variety of other types, on the coins of the next regular issues of imperial currency. The series of consecration medallions opens,49 however, with no less than six different types issued for the occasion of Faustina I's death and consecration in 141. Some of these show interesting divergencies from the corresponding coins. The rogus type (consecratio), with Faustina in a biga crowning the elaborate erection, is shared with the coinage.50 But the type of the Empress with flying cloak, driving beside Aeternitas in a biga to right (consecratio), is peculiar to medallions.51 A third medallion, without reverse legend, shows Faustina, wearing a stephane, in the act of stepping into a biga, the reins of which she holds in her hands, for her last journey.52 Aurei show the same design; but the figure wears no stephane and has a decidedly more juvenle appearance than her opposite number on the medallion.53 Is she, not Faustina starting for heaven, but Aeternitas waiting for the imperial traveller to mount—on the coins an abstraction, on the more personal medallions Faustina herself? Another legend-less medallion portrays the Empress in a galloping biga, holding her flying cloak with both hands.54 Sestertii show a somewhat similar type, but there the figure suggests Aeternitas, for she holds a long torch.55 A fifth medallion, to which, again, no coins correspond, shows a dignified, matronly standing figure, leaning on a column and holding a globe surmounted by a nimbate phoenix (aeternitas)56 In spite of the legend we may, perhaps, discern in this stately personage the features and bearing of the Empress herself, with the symbols of Eternity, rather than Eternity personified. Similarly, in Faustina's sixth, also legend-less, reverse type we may possibly see, not Aeternitas, but the immortal Empress in the figure who stands beside a lighted altar and holds a bust of Sol (?) and a zodiac frame.57 On the other hand, the legend avgvsta, which accompanies a somewhat similar figure on the coinage, does not necessarily imply that the person there depicted is the Empress, for it is also combined with a variety of other types.58 The consecratio bronze medallion of Antoninus Pius has no counterpart on the regular coinage. It shows an apotheosis scene in which Pius is borne aloft on the back of an eagle, while Campus Martius reclines below.59 Both of Faustina II's consecration medallions are shared with coins. One shows Diana standing with crescent, quiver and torch (sideribvs recepta);60 the other shows Faustina-Aeternitas standing and leaning on a column, a sceptre in one hand, in the other a phoenix perched on a globe (aeternitas)61

After the Antonine period only three more consecration medallions remain to be recorded. A bronze piece of Divus Pertinax (193) has the legend aeternitas and a type unknown to his ordinary consecration coinage—an elephant-quadriga carrying a statue of the deceased Emperor beneath a canopy.62 We know that Septimius Severus, in his capacity as the avenger of Pertinax, celebrated his apotheosis in full style.63 For Valerian II (died c. 255) we have a bronze piece with the legend consecratio and a rogus topped by the dead prince in a biga.64 The fine gold medallion struck at Ostia in memory of Maxentius' son Romulus (died 309) has an obverse portrait peculiar to itself, but shares its reverse legend and type—aeternae memoriae and circular temple—with the regular coinage.65