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...]

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 competent 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. An old Roman had his purse full of the same pieces that we now preserve in cabinets. As soon as an Emperor had done anything remarkable, it was immediately stamped on a coin, and became current through the whole dominions." (p. 147). And a little further on, in answer to Cynthio's question, "were all the ancient coins that are now in cabinets once current money?" our illustrious countryman, through the mouth of his imaginary representative, replies, "It is the most probable opinion that they were all of them such, excepting those we call medallions. These in respect of the other coins were the same as modern medals in respect of modern money. They were exempted from all commerce, and had no other value but what was set upon them by the fancy of the owner. They are supposed to have been struck by Emperors for presents to their friends, foreign princes, or ambassadors. However, that the smallness of their number might not endanger the loss of the devices they bore, the Romans took care generally to stamp the subject of their medallions on their ordinary coins that were the running cash of the nation. As if in England, we should see on our half-penny and farthing pieces, the several designs that show themselves iu their perfection on our medals."--(p. 148.)

A later and perhaps more practised English numismatist, the dogmatical but still scientific and sagacious Pinkerton, in his " Essay on Medals," says— "Under the term of medallions are included all the pieces produced by the ancient mints, which, from their superior size, were evidently not intended for circulation as coins, but for other occasions. Medallions were presented by the emperor to his friends, and by the mint-masters to the emperor, as specimens of fine workmanship. They were struck upon the commencement of the reign of a new emperor, and other solemn occasions, as monuments of gratitude or of flattery. Sometimes they were merely what we would call trial, or pattern pieces, testimonia probatae monetae; and such abound after the reign of Maximian, with the tres monetae on the reverse."—(vol. i. p. 273.)

The most recently published observations on the subject in question are from the pen of M. Hennin, a very acute and accomplished French numismatist, who in his " Manuel" of the Science, devotes a chapter to the purpose of defining the difference between coins and medals," (différence des monnaies aux médailles), words which are continually confounded with each other, particularly in reference to the mintage of ancient times.

"Coins" (les monnaies), says the above-named writer, " are pieces of metal which, uniformly and very numerously multiplied, and bearing similar impressions in evidence of their value, whether real or fictitious, serve for an  universal medium of exchange against all other objects of value.-