]> 2026-04-22T11:18:18+00:00 Joseph Eckhel - Pietro Bastianelli - 1775-8-24 0 en 48.20835,16.3725 1775-08-24Z 2369600.5 -Letttre of 24 August 1775 (from Vienna): "Requiruntur etiam majore numero tabulae, nam cum omnis magnitudinis numi misceantur, foruli omnes tam capaces esse debent, ut singuli etiam maximi moduli pecuniam includere possint, nisi velis transversa ligna facere mobilia, quae pro numi volumine admoveri vel removeri possint, ut in museo M(agni) D(uci) praestitit Cocchius (Florence, Biblioteca nazionale centrale, Cambray Digny. Appendice IV, 18, f. 2r; Williams 2022, p. 257, note 116 and 119). 13361 Cambray Digny. Appendice IV, 18, f. 2r Latin Williams 2022, p. 257, note 116 and 119 florence collection classification coin cabinet (furniture) 13361 Joseph Eckhel - Pietro Bastianelli - 1775-8-24 Vienna Williams 2022, p. 257-258: "A report written by Eckhel after Cocchi’s death and attached to a letter addressed to Cocchi’s close collaborator, Pietro Bastianelli (c. 1728–after 1789), provides detailed information on the arrangement carried out.119 The main points can be summarised as follows. The ancient coins were divided into two groups: those minted outside of Rome and those minted in Rome. The material in the first group (that is the Greek and Roman provincial specimens) was arranged geographically starting from Hispania and proceeding clockwise around the Mediterranean Sea down to Africa, regardless of size and metal. The coins minted by the Hellenistic kings were included in the relevant minting regions, and not listed separately, as for example in the geographical arrangement proposed earlier by Pellerin. Groups of coins that were traditionally kept separate, such as specimens featuring heroes and llustrious men, coins minted by the Greek cities under Roman rule, and specimens struck at Alexandria, Egypt, during the Roman Empire were grouped together with the others under the respective mints. If Eckhel and Cocchi both agreed on the geographical order of the Greek coins, they argued about the arrangement of the Roman Imperial specimens.120 In the end, the re-edition of Occo’s work by Francesco Mezzabarba Birago was chosen as the main model.121 Eckhel recognised that the Roman Imperial coins were better organised chronologically than alphabetically according to the legends on the reverse, but believed that Mezzabarba Birago’s arrangement was partly wrong or confusing, like for example in the case of coins minted by an emperor for another family member, or in the case of coins without precise chronological indications, such as those struck during Hadrian’s third consulship. Eckhel criticised the arrangement of many coin cabinets that aimed at celebrating the collector (as was the case for example in Bologna and Rome, as we have seen); in his opinion collections presented in this way were not suitable for the study of antiquity. He considered the new arrangement of the Florentine cabinet to be more instructive than the traditional one, but at the same time not perfect. According to Eckhel, in order to manage the collection and easily find the coins in the cabinets in this new system, the curator needed three accurate additional catalogues: one for the Greek section and two for the Roman part. The Greek coins had to be catalogued also alphabetically with reference to their new location in the drawers, while the Roman coins needed to be listed chronologically according to the arrangement of the coins in the drawers, but also alphabetically, according to reverse legends, so that upon enquiry the pieces could be readily checked without going through all the drawers of a given emperor, especially when new specimens were offered for purchase". Correspondence.png 2022-10-29T09:52:56Z 2459881.9117593 2022-11-11T13:43:16Z 2459895.071713 false Joseph Eckhel - Pietro Bastianelli - 1775-8-24 0 fr Joseph Eckhel - Pietro Bastianelli - 1775-8-24#Williams 2022, p. 257-258: "A report written by Eckhel after Cocchi’s death and attached to a letter addressed to Cocchi’s close collaborator, Pietro Bastianelli (c. 1728–after 1789), provides detailed Williams 2022, p. 257-258: "A report written by Eckhel after Cocchi’s death and attached to a letter addressed to Cocchi’s close collaborator, Pietro Bastianelli (c. 1728–after 1789), provides detailed information on the arrangement carried out.119 The main points can be summarised as follows. The ancient coins were divided into two groups: those minted outside of Rome and those minted in Rome. The material in the first group (that is the Greek and Roman provincial specimens) was arranged geographically starting from Hispania and proceeding clockwise around the Mediterranean Sea down to Africa, regardless of size and metal. The coins minted by the Hellenistic kings were included in the relevant minting regions, and not listed separately, as for example in the geographical arrangement proposed earlier by Pellerin. Groups of coins that were traditionally kept separate, such as specimens featuring heroes and llustrious men, coins minted by the Greek cities under Roman rule, and specimens struck at Alexandria, Egypt, during the Roman Empire were grouped together with the others under the respective mints. If Eckhel and Cocchi both agreed on the geographical order of the Greek coins, they argued about the arrangement of the Roman Imperial specimens.120 In the end, the re-edition of Occo’s work by Francesco Mezzabarba Birago was chosen as the main model.121 Eckhel recognised that the Roman Imperial coins were better organised chronologically than alphabetically according to the legends on the reverse, but believed that Mezzabarba Birago’s arrangement was partly wrong or confusing, like for example in the case of coins minted by an emperor for another family member, or in the case of coins without precise chronological indications, such as those struck during Hadrian’s third consulship. Eckhel criticised the arrangement of many coin cabinets that aimed at celebrating the collector (as was the case for example in Bologna and Rome, as we have seen); in his opinion collections presented in this way were not suitable for the study of antiquity. He considered the new arrangement of the Florentine cabinet to be more instructive than the traditional one, but at the same time not perfect. According to Eckhel, in order to manage the collection and easily find the coins in the cabinets in this new system, the curator needed three accurate additional catalogues: one for the Greek section and two for the Roman part. The Greek coins had to be catalogued also alphabetically with reference to their new location in the drawers, while the Roman coins needed to be listed chronologically according to the arrangement of the coins in the drawers, but also alphabetically, according to reverse legends, so that upon enquiry the pieces could be readily checked without going through all the drawers of a given emperor, especially when new specimens were offered for purchase". 0 0 plainlist leaflet 1 [[:Joseph Eckhel - Pietro Bastianelli - 1775-8-24]] Joseph Eckhel - Pietro Bastianelli - 1775-8-24# QUERYb93ed8e86978e283c4cbce01975236c9 0 0 csv 1 [[:Joseph Eckhel - Pietro Bastianelli - 1775-8-24]] Joseph Eckhel - Pietro Bastianelli - 1775-8-24# QUERY299154914561d10d11e2a6840cd7bfe8