comitia americana.

Reverse: Naval Engagement.

Legend: hostium navibus captis aut fugatis.

Exergue: ad oram scotiæ 23 sept. 1779.

The following, from the same to the same, bearing date February 15, 1789, throws some light on the prices of the medals engraved by M. Dupré:

It is to be supposed that Dupré accepted these conditions, since he is the engraver of the John Paul Jones medal, one of the finest specimens in our collection. The Daniel Morgan piece is no less remarkable as an effort of numismatic skill. The fight at the Cowpens, on the reverse, is a striking example of the boldness with which Dupré enlarged the limits of his art, and, in defiance of all traditional rules, successfully represented several planes in the background.

I cannot do better than to give the opinion, concerning this and the other of Dupré's American medals, of M. Charles Blanc,[10] from whom I quote freely in the following:

The Morgan medal, says this eminent French critic, seems to vibrate beneath the rush of cavalry and the tread of infantry flying in the background, indicated by the almost imperceptible lines of the metal where the smoke of the cannonade is vanishing away in air. In the Libertas Americana medal, which recalls, if we except the evacuation of Boston, the two most memorable events of the War of Independence, namely, the capitulation of General Burgoyne, at Saratoga, in October, 1777, and that of General Lord Cornwallis, at Yorktown, in October, 1781, Dupré has represented the new-born Liberty, sprung from the prairies without ancestry and without rulers, as a youthful virgin, with disheveled hair and dauntless aspect, bearing across her shoulder a pike, surmounted by the Phrygian cap. This great artist, in consequence of his intimacy with Franklin, had conceived the greatest enthusiasm for the cause of the United States. Franklin resided at Passy, and Dupré at Auteuil. As they both went to Paris every day, they met and made acquaintance on the road—an acquaintance which soon ripened into friendship. Dupré first engraved Franklin's seal with the motto, "In simplici salus," and afterward his portrait. This portrait presents an alto-rilievo which is well adapted for medals only; it is conceived in the spirit of the French school, which has always attached great importance to the truthful rendering of flesh. The artist has indicated the flat parts, the relaxation of the muscles, and, as it were, the quivering of the flesh, so as to convey an exact idea of the age of the model. He has conscientiously represented the lines which the finger of Time imprints on the countenance, but, above all, he has given us with wonderful fidelity the physiognomy of the American sage, his shrewd simplicity, his sagacity, and his expression of serene uprightness. A Latin hexameter from the pen of Turgot became the well-known legend of this medal: "Eripuit cœlo fulmen, sceptrumque tyrannis."

The four pieces executed by Duvivier are no less remarkable for beauty and excellence of workmanship. They all figured at the exhibitions of the members of the Royal Academy of Paris, that of the Chevalier de Fleury, as mentioned before, in the exhibition of 1781, and those of General and of Lieutenant-Colonel Washington, and of Lieutenant-Colonel Howard, in that of 1789.[11]

In those by Gatteaux, the personification of America as an Indian queen with an alligator at her feet is noteworthy.

With the exception of the Treaty of Commerce medal (1822), and perhaps of that of Captain Truxtun, our medals after the War of Independence were engraved and struck at home. Before that time, indeed, the one voted in 1779 to Major Henry Lee had been made by John Wright, of Philadelphia. From the close of the eighteenth century down to 1840 John Reich and subsequently Moritz Fürst were the engravers of the national medals. Reich's works are valued; unfortunately they are few in number. They consist of the medal voted in 1805 to Captain Edward Preble for his naval operations against Tripoli, of another voted in 1813 to Captain Isaac Hull for the capture of the British frigate Guerrière, and of those of Presidents Jefferson and Madison. That of President Jefferson especially deserves attention for its beauty.

But little can be said in commendation of the works of Fürst, whose numerous medals are very inferior to Reich's, and still less worthy of being compared with those of the French engravers. While wishing to avoid undue severity, I cannot but endorse the opinion of General Scott, given in a communication addressed to the Honorable William L. Marcy, Secretary of War, in regard to the medal voted to General Zachary Taylor, for victories on the Rio Grande: