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 in 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.

—Coins, or money, ought necessarily to unite these three determinate, uniform, and known characters—standard, weight, and types.

"Medals (médailles) are pieces of metal which, multiplied in an uniform manner, without having any precise value, and without uniting the known and determinate characters for standard, weight, and types, are designed to serve in commemoration of events or of personages.'

M. Hennin proceeds to remark that, in giving the name of medals to the money of the ancients, three inconveniences are incurred—the first is that of calling these pieces by what is not their real name ; the second, that of giving a false idea of what they were in the ages of antiquity ; the third, that of confounding thereby antique coins with antique medals, for the ancients themselves knew the difference between one and the other.

So much for the question, whether any of the pieces called medallions passed as coins with the ancients, a matter of no intrinsic importance. It is of much greater moment to notice the different articles belonging to the class of medallions. There were a great number of medallions struck in the Greek cities, subject to the Roman empire, and they are of considerable importance on account of the extent of their inscriptions, which elucidate many extremely curious points connected with antiquity. Pellerin has published and explained many of these medallions, and the Royal Library at Paris possesses a large collection of them. They are particularly useful to beginners, because their legends are more easily read than those on coins of a smaller module, and because they exhibit themselves in a great variety of form.—But passing by the Greek, both Autonomous and Imperial, which though highly interesting in each metal, from the general excellence of their workmanship and the diversity of their types, do not come within the province of this work, we proceed to that more trulyRoman branch of the Imperial series, commonly called Latin Medallions. All gold and silver pieces larger than the diameter ordinarily assigned to imperial money may be regarded as comprised in this category, and are all of greater or less rarity.

Medallions are indeed generally more adapted to facilitate the study of antiquity than common medals, because their types present more curious and interesting subjects in reference to mythology, and to ceremonies and customs religions, civil, military, &c., representing as they generally do, on their reverses, triumphs, games, edifices, and other monuments, which are the most particular objects of an antiquary's research. Nor is the information to be derived from medallions less important with regard to the history of art. Their superior size has enabled those who executed them to charge their reverses with more complex designs; and accordingly we find amongst the medallions of the Roman Emperors, many specimens of workmanship

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 in 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.

—Coins, or money, ought necessarily to unite these three determinate, uniform, and known characters—standard, weight, and types.

"Medals (médailles) are pieces of metal which, multiplied in an uniform manner, without having any precise value, and without uniting the known and determinate characters for standard, weight, and types, are designed to serve in commemoration of events or of personages.'

M. Hennin proceeds to remark that, in giving the name of medals to the money of the ancients, three inconveniences are incurred—the first is that of calling these pieces by what is not their real name ; the second, that of giving a false idea of what they were in the ages of antiquity ; the third, that of confounding thereby antique coins with antique medals, for the ancients themselves knew the difference between one and the other.

So much for the question, whether any of the pieces called medallions passed as coins with the ancients, a matter of no intrinsic importance. It is of much greater moment to notice the different articles belonging to the class of medallions. There were a great number of medallions struck in the Greek cities, subject to the Roman empire, and they are of considerable importance on account of the extent of their inscriptions, which elucidate many extremely curious points connected with antiquity. Pellerin has published and explained many of these medallions, and the Royal Library at Paris possesses a large collection of them. They are particularly useful to beginners, because their legends are more easily read than those on coins of a smaller module, and because they exhibit themselves in a great variety of form.—But passing by the Greek, both Autonomous and Imperial, which though highly interesting in each metal, from the general excellence of their workmanship and the diversity of their types, do not come within the province of this work, we proceed to that more truly Roman branch of the Imperial series, commonly called Latin Medallions. All gold and silver pieces larger than the diameter ordinarily assigned to imperial money may be regarded as comprised in this category, and are all of greater or less rarity.

Medallions are indeed generally more adapted to facilitate the study of antiquity than common medals, because their types present more curious and interesting subjects in reference to mythology, and to ceremonies and customs religions, civil, military, &c., representing as they generally do, on their reverses, triumphs, games, edifices, and other monuments, which are the most particular objects of an antiquary's research. Nor is the information to be derived from medallions less important with regard to the history of art. Their superior size has enabled those who executed them to charge their reverses with more complex designs; and accordingly we find amongst the medallions of the Roman Emperors, many specimens of workmanship

almost equal in point of exquisiteness to that of the finest engraved stones.

Millin places at the head of these antique pieces of metal the gold medallion of Justinian, in the French. King's Cabinet. This magnificent product of coinage, not for money purposes, is more than three inches (French) in diameter, and in proportionably high relief. Its extraordinary volume, equal to that of the gold medallion of <i>Tetricus</i>, shews it to have been appropriated to the same use. The perforated rams-horns (bélières, as the French call them), which are attached to the former, clearly point out that it was originally destined to serve as an ornament, principally for suspension from the neck.

With these medallions should be classed those pieces, which are surrounded with borders, encircled with ornamental mountings, and which are double the size of coins, to which, however, their types are common. Sometimes the circles are of the same metal as that 'of those extra. ordinary pie., and in that case they are con-tinuous with the fixed of the coin ; at other times they are found composed A a metal, or rather A a mixture of metals (alive.), different from that of the medallion with which they have been soldered after being placed between the di.. These sorts A medallions do not commence until the reign of Commodus. Sometimes even the circle made of a different metal, or alloy, is itself enclosed in a rim, the material A which still differs from its own. In these singularities is seen a marked intention to place them out of currency. It was the custom to use these extraordinary medidlions as ornaments for the decoration of military ensigns, whether they were suspended to them with believes, or fixed to the standards by means of holes pierced in the centre df their diameter, or whether they were inlaid on them from space to space, Per-haps the medallions which were composed of ; two different metals were employed for the same pttr po.. Medallions from the time of Julius to that of Hadrian, are very uncommon, and of enormous price; from Hadrian to the close of the western empire they are generally spe.a.ig less rare. The largeness of medallions is not to be understood merely in comparison with that of common coins, of which the greater have some advantage over the others. The size of me-dallions is so considerable, that it sometimes exceeds the ordinary weight of medals by one or two proportions. The thickness, the height of relief, and the extent of surface are the qualities which are held by numismatists in the higher esteem. A remarkable distinction between tho Greek and Roman medallions lies in their different thickness, the Roman being often three or four lines thick, whilst the other seldom exceed one. M. Mionnet, in some observations which he makes (in the preface to his celebrated work De la raretd et du prig At Meriailles Rornaines,) on the module A the coins, says,-"Silver medals of the larger size, as they are called, 1 ought not to bo confounded with medallions; they e vtirgsul'is,t,b,les 1:iy,thtatecis head of the laureate(' on coins of the common size. These medals were not struck till the period from Caracalla's reign to that of the elder Philip inclusive.-As to medallions of gold and of silver, it is very easy to recognise them ; A suffices that they are found to exceed the usual module by their weight, or their diameter ; when however of extraordinary dimensions they are of extreme rarity, and should not be mixed up with the smaller size, which in general are less estimated.-Brass medallions and large brass ' medals have for the most part been frequently 1the object of mistaken notions with authors , and connoisseurs. Some, for the reign of Postumus especially, have given us for mixIal-lions the coins which belong only to large brass; pv,;1,isi;I:(t, others, foie. brass Lohwr Ernbpirze. , h(riivce, as . more than fiddle brass." can ' regarded The following remarks concerning the Roman 'medallian4 are chiefly drawn from Pinkerton and Millin :-Many of these have s. c. as being struck by order of the Senate ; others Have not, as being by order of the Emperor. Of Augustus a noble gold medallion was found in. Herculaneum. There are many of Tiberius  and Claudi.. Some of Agrippina, Nero, Gallia, Vespasian, and Domitian, are also extant. Those of r14ajan and Hadrian have generally a broad rim beyond the legend with indented circles. Above all it was under the reign of Antonini. Pius, and some of his first successors, that very  fine medallions were struck. That emperor had a religious respect for all which recalled the history of Rome's foundation and that of her first ages. Thus we find on these medallions Hercules, whom the inhabitants of Mount Aventine thanked, for having delivered them from the giant Cacus ; likewise we see Horatius Codes defend* the Subliciau bridge ; the arrival of hisculapius at Rome, Under the form of a serpent, &c., &e. These medallions, more-over, retrace many ancient and important features of mythological and heroic history. A medallion of Lueilla represents the combat of the Romans and the Sabin., and Hersilia throwing herself between Tatius ber father and Romalus her husband.-A fine one of the same empress has for the type of its reverse that lady walking in a garden and several cupids overturning each other-" A meet emblem (says Pinkerton) of her various amours ; and which calls to mind Anacreon's description of his heart, as a nest in which old loves begot young ones." There are medallions of Commodus remarkable for but superior workmanship : one of them in bronze, Patin has engraved in Ms " Hi<stoire des Madailles," of which the reverse is enriched with one of the finest sacrificial groups, a master-piece of ancient art.-On another of this emperor we see him and his concubine Marcia ; their heads joined, and she wearing a helmet.- One of Per.= has for reverse that emperor sacrificing, with vorm DECEN14ALIBV8, Of Septimina Severna there are many. The mints of Gordian III. and of Philip eontribute to the number. Numerous varieties subsequently appear of Trebonianus Gallas, Valerian, Gallienns, Aurelian, Prob., Diocletian, Maximian L, Coustantius I., Constantinus I. and II., Constana and Constantius IL—Vor a notice of the curious brass medallion of Conatans, which represents him standing in a ship, and a human figure in the waves,---see the legend BONONIA OCXANEN. It has been asserted that no medallions were ever struck in the colonies. Nevertheless, Valliant has published one of Cordova and another of Saragossa. The medallions called Canto-raid, from an Italian word, indicating the manner in which they are struck, are quite a distinct class of pieces.—See the word. It is very difficult to form a numerous snits of medallions; those extant do not furnish all the Emperors, and thus the series remains always imperfect.—The first who collected any considerable number of these pieces was Gothifredi, a Roman gentleman, who possessed nearly two hundred of them about the middle of the seventeenth century. These he augmented from time to time, and in 1672, when they became the property of Christi, Queen of Sweden, they amounted to more than three hundred.--Cardinal Gaspard Carpegna was also one of the earliest who attached themselves to the task of forming a suite of medallions. lie caused one hundred and ninety-five of them to be engraved, and they were accompanied with observations by Buonarotti.—Vaillant has de-scribed about four hundred and fifty from Julius Cesar to Constans, which he had seen in different cabinets of France and Italy.--According to a catalogue published at Venice, there were two hundred and twenty-nine medallions in the Museum Pisani.---The Carthusians at home had a very fine collection of medallions, which was afterwards .1d to the Emperor of Germany; the engravings from it are now extremely rare —In the seventeenth century more than four hundred medallions in the French King's Cabinet were engraved. Their number had been much increased since the acquisition made of all that belonged to Marshal D'Estrees. This suite comprised all the medallions which had enriched the collection of the Abbe de Camps, besides those which appeared with the explana-tions of Valliant, and which did not exceed one hundred and forty. The Abbe de Rothelin also possessed a very considerable series of them.—Above all, Cardinal Albani's fine series of medallions ought to be mentioned. These after-wards passed to the Vatican ; Vernal engraved and described them. This collection and those of Cardinal Carpegna were, in Buonaparte's time, united to that in the cabinet of antiques is the national Library at Paris, which even before that period was one of the most numerous in Europe. [Restored to the Vatican at the feats of 1815.) In 1806, when M. Millie was Comereateur des Mitlailles in that magnificent establishment, the =saber of antique medallions there accumulated was not less than 1,500,