The German Paradoxical Fate of Greek Medals Collected by a French Numismatist

Paraskevi Michailidou

Assembled on Greek territory over more than three decades, the first and most significant numismatic collection of Esprit-Marie Cousinéry (1747–1833), a member of the French consular staff and an amateur numismatist, became highly sought after by many modern European institutions in the early nineteenth century. The history of the negotiations between Cousinéry and the Cabinet des Médailles de Paris over the acquisition of this collection shows that the antiquities market of the period underwent profound transformations on multiple levels, reshaping both its structure and dynamics.  In the medal market in particular, shifting sources of supply, the emergence of new actors, and the evolution of evaluation systems transformed traditional patterns of acquisition and collecting, creating the conditions for the development of an international market.

Up to the end of the Ancien Régime, heritage institutions expanded their numismatic collections in two main ways: by commissioning state-funded missionaries to travel in search of missing medals, or by purchasing established and prestigious private collections that frequently involved the risk of acquiring numerous duplicates. Both approaches required significant financial investment: the first to cover the considerable difficulties and expenses associated with organizing still-arduous voyages, and the second because institutions were paying not only for the collection itself but also for its reputation, which served as a guarantee of quality. Since the French Revolution, priorities and practices in the antiquities market evolved. The emergence of “field antiquarians”, who acted autonomously as both agents and collectors, introduced new dynamics between private individuals and institutions. Esprit-Marie Cousinéry, who spent much of his life in the Ottoman Empire and leveraged the privileges of his professional position to pursue his passion for archaeology, exemplifies this new type of actor. His collections, unlike those of the Ancien Régime, possessed a more archaeological than aesthetic or prestigious character, which made the estimation of their economic value, and consequently their negotiation, much more complicated.

In Cousinéry’s view, the value of a collection rested on three principal criteria: authenticity, rarity, and diversity. To guarantee the authenticity of his medals, he systematically avoided purchasing them from the well-established medal markets of major commercial centers in the Ottoman Empire, such as Istanbul, Thessaloniki, or Smyrna, where speculation and forgery were widespread due to the influx of travelers. Instead, he preferred to conduct his own excavations and organize trips to obtain medals directly from local inhabitants, who often kept them for their material value or used them to adorn women’s jewelry. To better orient his research, recognize precious and rare medals, and make informed choices when buying or exchanging them, he relied on the advice of some of the most renowned numismatists of his time, Abbé Joseph Eckhel (1737–1798), the curator of the Imperial Cabinet of Medals in Vienna ; Abbé Jean-Jacques Berthélemy (1716-1795), the curator of the Cabinet des médailles of Paris and Abbé Domenico Sestini (1750-1832 ), a Florentine scholar. Indeed, his direct access to the field, and physical contact with the medals, enabled him not only to join Europe’s antiquarian circles despite his lack of classical training, but also to provide valuable information about still-unpublished Greek coins. It was notably thanks to these correspondents that he succeeded in establishing the reputation of his collection as a significant contribution to the field of numismatics. The extreme diversity of its pieces, in terms of both type and geographical origin, further contributed to the collection’s value. Rather than aiming to form complete series or privileging medals made of precious metals or in perfect condition, Cousinéry sought out curious and unique pieces. It is therefore no coincidence that he was among the first to discover “paleographical” Greek coins featuring representations of animals, and consequently deemed ancient. To this end, he established a network of correspondents in various cities across Greece and Egypt in order to acquire and exchange medals from distant regions (Fig. 1).

The letter that Cousinéry addressed to the French government on 28 October 1803, in which he proposed the acquisition of his collection for 200.000 francs, marked the beginning of a long period of negotiations, which can be divided into three distinct phases, each reflecting a different approach to valuing the collection. First, there was the assessment of the collection’s conceptual value (1803–1804), based on the examination of the materials the collector had provided for this purpose: a report outlining the circumstances in which the collection had been assembled, a geographical summary of the provenance of the items, and a manuscript catalogue (Fig. 2). The conclusion of this assessment was that the collection represented a unique opportunity to enrich the holdings of the Paris’ Cabinet and that the proposed price was fully justified.

Nevertheless, in order to finalize the transaction, a physical examination of the collection was also required, initiating the second phase of the negotiation, which involved estimating the material value of the collection (1808–1810). This time, the valuation focused primarily on its material aspects rather than its uniqueness, and differed significantly from the first and second prices set by Cousinéry who had already revised his offer downwards asking for 170.000 francs. Approached as the sum of its individual pieces rather than as a unified whole, the physical collection was valued at 67.763 francs, thus less than half the amount Cousinéry had requested. The curators justified this considerable discrepancy on the grounds that most of the pieces were made of non-precious metals and that a significant number were poorly preserved, often casting doubt on their attribution. The argument of lack of restoration perfectly illustrates the ambiguous character of this transitional period, since the very same element that appeared as a flaw and a source of doubt to the Cabinet was, for Cousinéry, considered proof of authenticity.

Deeply disappointed by the new valuation, Cousinéry decided to withdraw his offer and place the collection abroad, illustrating its international value (1811). On a European scale, a collection’s value was at the time determined as much by timing as by its intrinsic qualities. Unfortunately, Cousinéry’s insistence on preserving the collection for his own country cost him a substantial sum, as the 160.000 francs offered by the Munich Cabinet in 1806 had decreased to 136.000 francs by 1811. The main reason for this decrease was not related to the collection itself, but rather to the fact that, in the meantime, other collections had already made their way from the Levant to European Cabinets. Nevertheless, this amount was still more than double the offer made by the Paris Cabinet.

Within the broader context of the rise of cultural capitals actively shaping national collections, Cousinéry’s medals could have enabled the Paris Cabinet to maintain its long-standing preeminence among European institutions. Caught in a transition from one era to another, despite the collector’s desire to preserve it for his own country, it was ultimately sold to the Munich’s Cabinet in 1811. Although the paradoxical, i.e. non-national, fate of this collection was partly related to the political, economic, and cultural challenges facing the French government at the time, it highlights not only the shift toward an internationally competitive market but also the impact of this transformation on the circulation of ancient objects and collections.

References

Louis Bergasse, Un consul de France en Orient, Esprit Cousinéry, voyageur, archéologue et numismate (1747-1833), Marseille, 1932.

Anne Gerritsen et Giorgio Riello (dir.), The Global Lives of Things: The Material Culture of Connections in the Early Modern World, London: Routledge, 2015.

Christophe Charle, Daniel Roche (dir.), Le temps des capitales culturelles européennes, Seyssel: Champ Vallon Editions, 2009. 

Thierry Sarmant, Le Cabinet des médailles de la Bibliothèque nationale, 1661-1848, Ecole Nationale des Chartes, 1994.

Thierry Sarmant, La République des médailles : numismates et collections numismatiques à Paris du Grand Siècle au Siècle des Lumières, Paris : Honoré Champion, 2003.

---

---

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons Attribution Utilisation non commerciale Pas d’Œuvre dérivée 4.0 International. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont “Tous droits réservés”, sauf mention contraire.

---

---