Please add updates or make corrections to the NumisWiki text version as appropriate.

MEDALLION. - Under this term are, without distinction, comprised all monetary productions of the ancients, whether in gold, silver, brass, the volume and weight of which materially exceed the usual size of coins struck in those respective metals.
There is, however, a difference of opinion amongst numismatic antiquaries as to whether what are called medallions were or were not used for money.

Patin observes that they were made for no other original purpose than that of satisfying the curiosity of princes, as is done this day with fancy pieces (pièce de plaiser).

Jobert, in his Science des Médailles, remarks that their workmanship was too exquisite, and their size too unwieldy for common currency.

Bimard, in his historical and critical notes on the work of the last named writer, agrees that it is most probable not to have been the intention of those, who in ancient times caused medallions to be struck, that they should serve for money; but with his usual cautious and discriminative judgment adds - "I think, nevertheless, that when those pieces had fulfilled their first destination, and were dispersed abroad (distribuées), a free currency was given them in commerce, by regulating their value in proportion to their weight and to their standard of purity. At least I have thought myself warranted in coming to this conclusion, from the countermarks which I have seen on several Greek medallions of the Imperial series, and it is certain that the Greek medallions were real money. It was doubtless after the example of the Greeks, that the Romans put also their medallions into circulation as current coin."

Mahudal, to whose dissertation on the same subject Bimard refers, supports the opinion, "that medallions were pieces distinguished from money, as they were with us from medals." - But, says Millin, "there are other writers, who for from entertaining this opinion, maintain against the system of Mahudal, that we are to recognise money in those medallions which are multiplied from a piece generally acknowledged to be money, such as the tetradrachms and the cistophori, the only pieces with which the province of Asia payed its tributes to the Roman republic ; and by analogy, all the Greek medallions of the same weight and form. Millin himself goes on to instance the fine gold medallion of the Emperor Augustus, found at Herculaneum, which "ought, be says, to be regarded as a piece of money, so likewise those of Domitian and Commodus, all these quadruples of the aurei of Augustus, which weigh nearly two gros. Whatever might have been the weight of their monies, the Romans neither knew, nor employed, more than the two synonyms numi and numismata to designate them all. Marcus Aurelius caused a great number of medallions of the largest volume to be struck, numos maximos, says Julius Capitolinus. A particular word would have been invented to name these extraordinary pieces, if they had been anything else than extra sized money. An inference favourable to this opinion (adds Millin) is derived from types which adorn the Roman medals in each metal ; these types and their legends are absolutely the same with those of the ordinary sized medals. We find, indeed, on the medallions, especially from the reign of Gallienus to that of the Constantines, the figure of Moneta, sometimes alone, at others under the emblem of three women, bearing each a balance. These symbols are accompanied with legends used, in a similar case ; MONETA AVG. ; AEQVITAS AVG. ; MONETA AVGG.; and upon a medallion of Crispus, MONETA VRBIS VESTRAE. Some medallions, few how­ever in number, bear the two letters S. C., that is to say, Senatus Consultus, which are gene­rally placed on the bronze medals of the three modules (first, second, and third brass), and announce the authority of the Senate.—As it is nowhere read that the Senate made largesses or liberalities, the pieces which have the mark of the Senatus Consultus, [...to be continued...]

Please add updates or make corrections to the NumisWiki text version as appropriate.

MEDALLION. - Under this term are, without distinction, comprised all monetary productions of the ancients, whether in gold, silver, brass, the volume and weight of which materially exceed the usual size of coins struck in those respective metals.
There is, however, a difference of opinion amongst numismatic antiquaries as to whether what are called medallions were or were not used for money.

Patin observes that they were made for no other original purpose than that of satisfying the curiosity of princes, as is done this day with fancy pieces (pièce de plaiser).

Jobert, in his Science des Médailles, remarks that their workmanship was too exquisite, and their size too unwieldy for common currency.

Bimard, in his historical and critical notes on the work of the last named writer, agrees that it is most probable not to have been the intention of those, who in ancient times caused medallions to be struck, that they should serve for money; but with his usual cautious and discriminative judgment adds - "I think, nevertheless, that when those pieces had fulfilled their first destination, and were dispersed abroad (distribuées), a free currency was given them in commerce, by regulating their value in proportion to their weight and to their standard of purity. At least I have thought myself warranted in coming to this conclusion, from the countermarks which I have seen on several Greek medallions of the Imperial series, and it is certain that the Greek medallions were real money. It was doubtless after the example of the Greeks, that the Romans put also their medallions into circulation as current coin."

Mahudal, to whose dissertation on the same subject Bimard refers, supports the opinion, "that medallions were pieces distinguished from money, as they were with us from medals." - But, says Millin, "there are other writers, who for from entertaining this opinion, maintain against the system of Mahudal, that we are to recognise money in those medallions which are multiplied from a piece generally acknowledged to be money, such as the tetradrachms and the cistophori, the only pieces with which the province of Asia payed its tributes to the Roman republic ; and by analogy, all the Greek medallions of the same weight and form. Millin himself goes on to instance the fine gold medallion of the Emperor Augustus, found at Herculaneum, which "ought, be says, to be regarded as a piece of money, so likewise those of Domitian and Commodus, all these quadruples of the aurei of Augustus, which weigh nearly two gros. Whatever might have been the weight of their monies, the Romans neither knew, nor employed, more than the two synonyms numi and numismata to designate them all. Marcus Aurelius caused a great number of medallions of the largest volume to be struck, numos maximos, says Julius Capitolinus. A particular word would have been invented to name these extraordinary pieces, if they had been anything else than extra sized money. An inference favourable to this opinion (adds Millin) is derived from types which adorn the Roman medals in each metal ; these types and their legends are absolutely the same with those of the ordinary sized medals. We find, indeed, on the medallions, especially from the reign of Gallienus to that of the Constantines, the figure of Moneta, sometimes alone, at others under the emblem of three women, bearing each a balance. These symbols are accompanied with legends used, in a similar case ; MONETA AVG. ; AEQVITAS AVG. ; MONETA AVGG.; and upon a medallion of Crispus, MONETA VRBIS VESTRAE. Some medallions, few how­ever in number, bear the two letters S. C., that is to say, Senatus Consultus, which are gene­rally placed on the bronze medals of the three modules (first, second, and third brass), and announce the authority of the Senate.—As it is nowhere read that the Senate made largesses or liberalities, the pieces which have the mark of the Senatus Consultus, large and heavy as they may be, were therefore struck by order of that body, only to be used as money.—As to the rest it is generally to be observed on medallions of all the three metals, that they are worn just like the coins. This wearing of the coin is certainly attributable to the same cause, namely the continual rubbing to which circulation exposes all monies. The medallions, therefore, (proceeds Millin,) served for the same purpose, although they were much more rare. They moreover often exhibit a characteristic which only belongs to money, and which is the countermark. Their fabrication, therefore, has always had a commercial object, into which they entered, after having originally been presentation pieces (pièces de largesses).—Such (concludes Millin) was doubtless their first destination. The Emperors caused them to be struck for the purpose of distributing them on solemn days, and on occasions of state pomp. Those who came afterwards into possession of them, were compdent to supply with them the wants of life and the demands of commerce."
Amongst the number of writers opposed to this theory is our own Addison, who, in his "Dialogues
upon the usefulness of Ancient Medals,"makes Philander tell his numismatic pupils that "formerly there was no difference between money and medals.[...to be continued...]