NOTES ON ITALIAN MEDALS-IX1 ca)BY G. F. HILL a

FRANCESCO DI GIORGIO AND FEDERIGO OF URBINO. T is with some reluctance that, for want of a better title, I write these words at the head of a note, of which the primary object is to illustrate an appar- ently unique portrait-medal of Federigo of Urbino (plate, fig. I). But this medal seems to bear on

the relation between the Duke and the Sienese artist, and on the attribution of the little group of reliefs comprising the Deposition of the Carmine at Venice, the Strife or Discordia of the Victoria and Albert Museum, and the Flagellation at Perugia- matters interesting a wider circle of students than is usually open to the appeal of an Italian medal. And although we are not brought to a certain solution of the problem, we can approach it from a slightly different point of view, and that is some- times stimulating.

The medal was originally in the collection of Sir J. C. Robinson,' who communicated an account of it (but without illustrations) to the Society of Antiquaries of London.8 It is now the property of Mr. Max Rosenheim, who has kindly suggested that I should publish it anew.

The piece (which is of bronze and measures 98mm. in diameter) is unfinished, having never been chased or worked up in any way, although it retains traces of an old lacquer. The obverse represents the armed bust of Federigo to the left, the head being in comparatively low relief, while the bust stands out boldly. The Duke's broken nose and cavernous eye-sockets are reproduced with a somewhat unpleasant fidelity. The mod- elling of the face and head is extraordinarily powerful, and the realism with which contour and forms are rendered is not exactly paralleled in any other portrait of Federigo known to me. A feature of the handling of the relief is seen in the sharp edges and absence of modulation between the relieved surfaces and the background. This, of course, is found in many other reliefs, but it gives a peculiar accent to certain portions of this one, notably to Federigo's bald head. The por- trait is set low down in the field; doubtless the vacant space above, had the medal ever been finished, would have been filled with lettering ; but even so it would have been impossible to effect an adequate balance, owing to the weight of metal at the bottom of the design. This at once suggests

the hand of someone who was not primarily a medallist. Some of the medals attributed to Francesco da Sangallo-such as the portrait of Leo X-show a similar tendency, but in them there is less discord between the various portions of the relief. A sharp contrast, on the other hand, between low and high relief within the same com- position, is a means frequently employed by artists, not usually artists of the first rank, to lend vivacity to their designs.

The medallist has not flattered his sitter. To see this, one has only to compare his work with the amiable presentations of the Duke on the re- lief in the Bargello or in Piero della Francesca's painting in the Uffizi-both of which, by the way, show the warts which are absent from this medal in its unfinished state. In characterisation it seems to be most nearly approached by some portraits from the hand of Justus of Ghent, such as that still in the Palace at Urbino, or, better still, the picture in the Palazzo Barberini.' The latter is generally dated about 1478 (as by Dennistoun and Bode), but Schmarsow, who maintains the attribution to Melozzo da Forli,5 would put it about

1475. Guidobaldo, who appears in the picture, was born on I7th or 24th January, 1472. I find it difficult to suppose that he is only three or four years old in this picture, and the date 1478 seems much more probable than 1475." But the work to which the medal bears the closest relation of all, the work which the first sight of it instantly suggested to my mind, is the relief, now in the Carmine at Venice, which was dedicated by Federigo to the Compagnia della S. Croce at Urbino.7 Here Federigo and his boy are represented kneeling at the side of the composition. This detail is here reproduced (plate, fig. 3). The treatment of the head, the peculiar contour, with its sharp vertical edge, the modelling of the region round the eye, the broken nose, the keen but tired mouth, the loose folds under the chin, show a re- semblance in the two works which is surely not due to mere identity of subject. There is one apparent point of difference: in the medal the back of Federigo's head seems to run in slightly, whereas on the relief, and indeed in all other por- traits, the contour seems to be fairly full at the back. As a matter of fact, the medal, if examined

1 For the previous articles see BURLINGTON MAGAZINE, Vol. ix, p. 408 (September, 19o6) ; Vol. x, p. 384 (March, 1907) ; Vol. xii, p. 141 (December, 1907); Vol. xiii, p. 274 (August, 1908); Vol. xiv, p. 21o (January, 1909) ; Vol, xv, pp. 31, 94 (April and May, 19o09). 2 Drouot Sale Catalogue, ' Medailles Artistiques,' 18 Mai, 1884, Lot 185. Armand II, 36, 29.

3'Proc. Soc. Ant.,' May 24, 1894. I owe this reference to Sir Charles himself. He attributes the medal to Bertoldo.

4These and the other portraits mentioned are conveniently illustrated in Mr, Hutton's edition of Dennistoun, Vol. i. 5Schmarsow, 'Melozzo da Forli,' p. 105.

8 The later date is almost certain from the age of Guidobaldo in the picture at Windsor, where he is listening to a lecture in company with his father, Federigo, who wears the cloak and order of the Garter, conferred on him in 1474. The Windsor picture forms part of the same series of paintings from the Ducal Library at Urbino as the picture in the Palazzo Barberini, and must, therefore, be approximately of the same date. (See L; Cust, ' The Royal Collection of Paintings,' Vol. II, Windsor Castle.)

7C. v. Fabriczy, 'Beilage zur Allgem. Zeitung,' Munich, 15 February, 19o6, p. 292.

143

1 1

3 4

5

6 6

vT:" v

NoT•ES ON ITALIAN MEDALS•-IX

Notes on Italian Medals in the proper light, shows a hesitancy in this detail ; the actual contour of the relief is nearly the same as in other portraits, but a second rise of the relief within the outer contour gives the peculiar effect.

On the relief in the Carmine, the little Guidobaldo seems to me to be at least three years old. He is not in swaddling clothes, but in a sort of loose shirt. Dr. von Fabriczy, describing him as a ' Wickelkind,' suggests that the relief was dedicated by Federigo in commemoration of the events of 1472, the year of Guidobaldo's birth. In another passage, to be cited later, he is apparently willing to admit that the relief may be as late as 1475. There is nothing more difficult than to tell precisely the age of a child in a portrait; but sometimes one may be permitted to say that such and such an age seems impossibly young or old. One can hardly date this relief as early as 1472 or 1473, but one may put it, without much chance of error, two or three years later.

The reverse of the medal shows a spirited group of a nude horseman attacking a monster with a spear. The horse rears in terror; its rider, throw- ing himself forward on its neck,8 thrusts his spear down the throat of the monster, which is a lion in all its parts except its long, dragon-like tail. The lion's head has been deliberately erased-not on this medal, but on the model, in wax or whatever material, from which it was cast. The details which are not clear in the medal are recoverable from the plaquette versions of the same subject, of which two or three exist. One (of bronze gilt) is in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum,9 and is cast from a model in the exergue of which the word CHIMERA has been incised. Another, in Mr. Rosenheim's collection, of bronze ungilt, reads CHIMERRA, and is illustrated here (plate, fig. 2). These plaquettes are all considerably smaller in dimensions than the medal,"' but, except in the matter of the inscription, they give the impression of faithfully rendering the intention of the medallist.

In the comparative lack of nude forms it is not possible to say much of the relation between the Carmine relief and the reverse of our medal. But here the Discordia relief of the Victoria and Albert Museum comes to our help. There is a remark- able resemblance in modelling and proportions between the rider and some of the figures in the relief, such as the striding figure, or perhaps even

more the man standing with his back to the spectator on the left of the composition, both of which are reproduced for comparison (plate, figs. 4, 5). We have the same cast of figure, the same liking for back views, the same rather short arms, the same modelling in salient masses without rhythmical relation to each other.

The medal, then, if we are right in our com- parisons, is a connecting link between the two reliefs. Perhaps it will be said that they needed it not; for have they not of recent years been generally recognized as the work of the same artist ? It would, apart from the small satisfaction of adding to the list of works of an anonymous artist, only be of real value if it pointed to his identity. Does it ?

Were it not that the painter, sculptor and 'uni- versal genius,' Francesco Maurizio di Giorgio di Martino, has already been advanced by a com- petent authority" as the author of the reliefs, I should hesitate to bring him into a field where he has to compete with Verrocchio, Leonardo, Antonio Pollaiuolo and Bertoldo,'2 not to mention others who have retired, or whose names have not yet found their way into print in this connexion. I do not propose here to consider in detail all the rival claims to the authorship of the reliefs, especially as, for the most part, they have simply been advanced without argument. But since Bertoldo also made medals, it is necessary to consider his claim. Now we know Bertoldo's style as a medallist. His accredited medals and the piece with which we are dealing are poles apart. Of all the characteristics enume- rated by Dr. Bode,'3 sketchiness of design and absence of chasing, admirable pictorial grouping and the high perspective point, the clearness of composition, despite the number of diminutive figures, the parallel folds of fluttering drapery and the broad treatment of the curling hair in the powerful busts, only the absence of chasing is evident in the medal of Federigo, and that because it happens to be a 'waster.'

The mere fact that there is no record of Ber- toldo's having made a medal of Federigo must, it is necessary to admit, count for nothing. On the other hand, had there been such a record, it might have been considered to strengthen the case for the attribution of the medal to him. Now, Francesco di Giorgio, according to the statement of Vasari, did make the portrait of

8 His left hand, which appears to be doing nothing, may have been meant to be pulling on the bridle ; but there is no indica- tion of anything of the sort, either in the medal or in the plaquettes made after it. This is a weakness of a kind which is found in the group of reliefs mentioned above.

9' Ital. Bronzen,' No. 642, Pl. xliii, ' In der Art des Bertoldo, H. 95, Br. 94.'

10 Tested by a gauge which measures to one-tenth of a milli- metre, various measurements, taken from points near the edges of the medal (such as from the corner of the horse's mouth to the fetlock of its near hind leg), show a difference of about 3 mm, in favour of the medal,

" Schubring,' Die Plastik Sienas im Quattrocento,' pp. 186 ff. 12This is the most recent attribution: see Venturi, 6 Storia

dell' Arte Ital.,' vi, p. 508, where a bibliography is given. The attribution of the Discordia relief to Pollaiuolo is maintained by Miss Cruttwell in her book on that artist, pp. 125 ff.; Mr. Berenson has also included it among the works of the Pollaiuoli in his ' Florentine Painters ' (1909, p. 174), and I believe other distinguished critics hold the same view, although they have not published their reasons. I hope they may be induced to do this.

13' Florentine Sculptors of the Renaissance' (1908), p. 178,

I44

Notes on Italian Medals Federigo ' e in medaglia, e in pittura.' We have found a medal of Federigo showing close affinities to a group of reliefs which, on indepen- dent grounds, have been assigned to Francesco di Giorgio. Clearly it is worth while to reconsider the case on his behalf in the light of the new evidence. But first let us clear the ground.

A little piece," of which specimens in gold and silver exist in the Florence cabinet, and others at Berlin, Vienna and Paris,'5 has been mentioned in connexion with the Sienese artist. The Berlin specimen is illustrated for comparison (plate, fig. 6). The piece is evidently a pattern for a testoon. The attribution to Francesco di Giorgio is one of Milanesi's guesses. It is, of course, quite possible that the Duke may have employed the ingenious Francesco to design coins, and that this represents his work as master of the mint. But in the piece itself there is nothing to prove this; and in style it bears no resemblance to the medal with which we are concerned. I note, as a matter of some interest, that the reverse of this little testoon is reproduced with a fair amount of accuracy, in the margin of an illuminated copy of the Four Gospels, made for Federigo by a Ferrarese hand. It is accompanied by other devices, including the Garter.?6

Of the other medals of Federigo, the large one with the motto of the Garter,'7 though certainly not, as Armand thought, a modern work, is more likely to belong to the sixteenth than to the fifteenth century. Other medals of the Duke are signed by Paolo da Ragusa, Clemente da Urbino, and Sperandio, and have no sort of connexion with the matter in hand. The unique piece which, I would suggest, may be attributed to Francesco di Giorgio, is like no other medal that was ever made.

We are thus brought back to the reliefs which appear to be by the same hand as our medal. Schubring's attribution to Francesco di Giorgio has met with a somewhat cool reception, partly, it may be, because he has made his hero of this artist. His book seems to work up to Francesco as its final cause, and, since some of his attributions appear extremely hazardous, one is inclined to view the others with a certain degree of scepticism. But he has made out an extraordinarily good case for this particular theory. Certain Sienese char- acteristics, as he shows, are markedly present in the reliefs, and it is difficult to resist such an argument as that which is based on the terracotta figure of St. John in the Opera del Duomo at Siena and the same figure reversed in the Carmine relief.

Into the very important evidence afforded by the architectural elements in the reliefs we need not enter here; it has been sufficiently set forth by Schubring.

But some scholars remain quite unconvinced by Schubring's arguments. Thus, in reviewing his book,'8 Dr. von Fabriczy urges, first, that the relief cannot be later than 1475, because of the age of Guidobaldo, whereas Francesco is not known to have been at Siena before 1478'19; second, that the mature style of this relief cannot be reconciled with the paintings of Francesco at this date. To the first objection it may be replied that we know too little about the movements of artists to say definitely that Francesco may not have visited Urbino and received the commission; or indeed done the whole thing at home from data supplied to him. Further, the argument from absence applies with equal, if not greater, force to Verrocchio, Leonardo and Bertoldo. Leonardo, it is true, did visit Urbino, but not, so far as we know, before 1502. And whereas no one of these artists can be otherwise connected with Federigo, Francesco was highly favoured by the Duke. The question of the exact date of the relief, therefore, is of small importance in coming to a decision as to the attribution. Much more serious is the apparent discord between the styles of the reliefs and of the authenticated paintings of Francesco; between the somewhat violent and exaggerated movement of the sculptures and the comparatively tame and conventional conception of the paintings. We must, however, remember two things. The first is that Sienese painting was the willing thrall of a powerful tradition, which cannot be paralleled in any other Italian city in the fifteenth century. This may well have retarded the development of Francesco's style in painting, especially if, as it would seem, he did not take so kindly to painting as to other arts. At a more mature age, Francesco's energy found expression in his pictures also. Even in such a quiet scene as the Adoration of the Child in S. Domenico, those two figures of shepherds on the right strike a note of restlessness and exaggera- tion, which is not alien to the wild gestures of the reliefs.

In sculpture, on the other hand, Siena had produced, early in the fifteenth century, one of the greatest artists of all time. And although Jacopo della Quercia left no one in his native city even remotely worthy to follow in his footsteps, he did make a most effective break with past traditions. Consequently, nearly all the sculptors who succeeded him, having lost their ancient faith, and lacking power to construct a new one, spent their efforts in experiment, sometimes lively, too often futile. The divorce between Sienese sculpture and

"Armand II, 36, 28; III, 164, i; Supino, No. 202; diam, 28 rMm.

1" I owe casts of these to the kindness of Dr. Regling, Ritter A. von Loehr and M. de Foville,

16 See' L'Arte' III (1900oo) p. 343 7 Armand II, 36, 3o. Franks and Grueber, ' Medallic Illus-

trations,' P1. 1, 3.

Is In ' Repertorium,' xxxi, 390.o, 19The date given by Schubring and others is I477. The

margin in dispute is obviously very narrow.

'45

Notes on Italian Medals painting is, for instance, clearly recognized in Burckhardt's ' Cicerone,'• where it is said of Fran- cesco and others that their paintings almost entirely lack the freshness, the energy and the feeling for nature which are to be found in their plastic work.

The peculiar conditions of Sienese art, then, make it not impossible that the painter, Francesco di Giorgio, may have produced these reliefs and the medal of Federigo.

It is, perhaps, worth remarking, before we leave the question of the style of the reliefs, that the interest of the problems they present has obscured the numerous faults which they contain. The artist's idea of composition is puerile; his only notion of a scene is a series of studied figures, having no essential relation with each other, but pulled together by external means, such as archi- tectural features. Others have already called attention to his combination of high with low relief ; this he used with the object of breaking the monotony which he doubtless felt might pervade his work. He is vaguely reminiscent of earlier models, with the result that every critic sees grounds for attributing the reliefs to a different artist; so too, in the medal, the rider reminds us of the young king hunting the boar on Pisanello's medal of Alfonso of Aragon. Of his tendency to rant-a tendency far too common in Italian art, though usually dignified by the term ' vigour of expression '-the Magdalen of the Carmine relief is typical. The greatest artists do not do this kind of thing.

A word is necessary as to the significance of the reverse type. This is no Chimaera, nor is the horse a Pegasus,2' so that, even allowing for the fantastic notions of ancient mythology which pre- vailed in Italy, it is legitimate to assume that the artist of the medal meant to represent something else. Sir Charles Robinson's suggestion that what was originally intended was an idea for a St. George and the Dragon, in commemoration of Federigo's election as a Knight of the Garter on I8th August, 1474,"2 is most attractive. Similarly, or with still more certainty, the little medal or testoon with the ermine seems to refer to the investiture of Federigo with the Order of the Ermine in September of the same year. One of the legends of the Order was Nunquamn, which is translated by the Non mai of

the testoon. But absolute certainty on this point is not obtainable, since the ermine already occurs on a medal of Federigo which cannot have been cast later than 1450.-

The deliberate effacement of the monster's lion- head must-to judge from its present appearance- have taken place before this piece was cast, for the edges of the cuts are blunt, as the result of casting. Was the erasure made in the original wax model ? Probably not; for in a material so easily worked, there would have been no sense in making a metal cast from the injured wax without repairing the defaced portion. Further, in order to deface wax, it is not necessary to make several deep cuts with a sharp instrument. The plaquettes, too, seem to go back to an uninjured original. We may take it that the only known specimen of the medal is cast from a trial proof in metal, probably lead,"2 on which the lion's head had been defaced, possibly, as Sir Charles Robinson has suggested, by Federigo himself in disapproval of the artist's novel idea of a wingless, lion-headed dragon.

But these speculations are of comparatively small importance. Be it noted, however, that the association of the medal with the Garter squares admirably with the date of approximately 1475 at which we had, on other grounds, arrived for the first commission given by Federigo to Francesco di Giorgio.

I take this opportunity of correcting an error in my last contribution on Italian Medals.25 The father of Federigo III of Naples, who is there represented on Plate II, 6, was Fernando I (who reigned 1458-1494), not Fernando II (1495-1496). The medal may therefore have been made at any time between 1458 and 1494. Federigo was born in 1452, and as he looks fully thirty years old, if not more, we may date the portrait to the last ten or twelve years of his father's reign.

20 Ninth ed., p. 671. 2t Bertoldo, by the way, as his signed bronze group at Vienna

shows, knew all about Bellerophon and Pegasus, and pre- sumably, therefore, also about the Chimaera, 2 Dennistoun, ed: Hutton, I, p. 223.

2 See Fabriczy, ' Ital. Medals,' p. 98. 24 Mr. A. P. Ready, consulted on this point, agrees that the

metal was probably lead. Mr. Rosenheim, on the other hand, considers that no stage has intervened between the wax and thc medal. It is to be noted that the surface of the reverse is in many places covered with marks, as though it had been tapped all over with a very blunt point. I have no explanation of this to offer, but it reminds one of the tapping which takes the place of chasing in some Italian bronzes, like the Salting Hercules published in THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE, March 1900oo, p. 312, P. I, 2.

2 BURLINGTON MAGAZINE, Vol. xvi, No, 79, Oct., 1909, p. 25.

146