On the Minting of Money

Sound Money Review  |  Second Edition  |  2027

Nicolaus Copernicus (1526)
Edited by Ralph Benko

Download PDF

Abstract
In 1526, astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus applied the same scientific rigor he brought to astronomy to the analysis of money. In Theoretical Foundations, The Debasement of Prussian Currency, A Plan for Reform, and Epilogue on the Restoration of Money, he identifies the gradual debasement of currency as one of the most destructive acts kings — and today, central banks — regularly engage in. Through a historical account of Prussian coinage degraded by excessive minting and debasement, Copernicus lays a foundation for sound money roughly 350 years before the Austrian School of Economics.

Theoretical Foundations

Although there are countless maladies that are forever causing the decline of kingdoms, princedoms, and republics, the following four (in my judgment) are the most serious: civil discord, a high death rate, sterility of the soil, and the debasement of coinage. The first three are so obvious that everybody recognizes the damage they cause; but the fourth one, which has to do with money, is noticed by only a few very thoughtful people, since it does not operate all at once and at a single blow, but gradually overthrows governments, and in a hidden, insidious way.

Money, or coinage, is gold or silver that has been specially marked — in accordance with policy established by any government or head of government — for the purpose of reckoning the prices of things that are bought and sold. Money is therefore a kind of common “measuring stick” for the valuation of things. Now, whatever is taken as a measure has to be stable — must keep to a fixed limit. Otherwise, public order will necessarily be disturbed, and the buyers and sellers of things will be cheated many times over, just as if basic measures of length [Latin ulna, or ell], bulk measure [Latin modius, or peck], or weight did not have a fixed quantity. Now, I think that the relevant measure here is the valuation [Latin aestimatio] of the money as such, and, although this is founded in the quality of the metal it is made of, nevertheless, money’s material or metallic value [Latin valor] must be distinguished from its valuation as money [aestimatio]; for money can be valued more in itself than the material it is composed of and vice versa [i.e., its material value may be more than its actual valuation].¹

It is necessary for money to be established: even though exchange could also take place simply by weights of gold or silver alone (since, by universal human consent, gold and silver are everywhere highly valued); nevertheless, money is needed for two reasons: first, because of the inconvenience of always having to carry around heavy weights of metal, and second, because the real value of the metals is not easily grasped by everyone at a glance. Thus it has become customary to mark money with a public seal, by means of which the proper amount of gold or silver is indicated as present in each coin, and that the public authority is to be trusted in this.

It is customary for coins — especially silver coins — to be made with an alloy of bronze,² and this for two reasons (as I judge at least): (1) that the coins be less exposed to the danger of being hoarded up and remelted than they would be if they were made of pure silver and (2) so that the silver divided up into tiny portions, by being mixed with bronze, can have a convenient size in the form of small coins; a third reason can be added as well: (3) with the support of the bronze alloy, the coins will last longer and not quickly wear away with use.

Now a correct and fair valuation of money is in place when each coin holds slightly less gold or silver than the amount of gold or silver it can buy: the difference would be the added value due to the expense of minting the coins. The mark put on the coin, that is to say, must add some worth to the material as such.³

This worth is cheapened, for the most part, through too much quantity [of silver]: that is to say, if so much silver is made into coins that people desire the sheer mass of the silver⁴ more than the money itself; in this way, the worth of the money [dignitas] is damaged when it is not possible to buy as much silver by its means as the money itself contains, and a greater value is realized by destroying (i.e., melting down) the money to get the silver. The remedy for this problem is to withhold from the coining of new money until it equals out, and the money is worth more than the silver.⁵

The [material] value of money is lessened in many ways: either through defect of material alone, namely, when more bronze is mixed with silver than is right for that particular weight of coin; or through the loss of [total] weight of the coin, even though the proportion of bronze to silver is correct; or (and this is the worst case) through both of these defects occurring at the same time; finally, the value can just diminish on its own through usage, over a long passage of time, and this is the only reason for making new money. The evidence of this happening is, if the silver in the money is found to be significantly less than what can be bought with it — and this is rightly considered debasement [or poverty: Latin penuria] of the currency.⁶

The Debasement of Prussian Currency: A Brief History

These basic principles of coinage having been set out, let us consider the specific case of Prussian monetary history, and show, first, how it reached such a low level of value.

This money circulates under the names of marks, scots, and so forth, and there are also weights going by the same names: a weighed mark [i.e., a mark “of weight” — Latin marcha ponderis] is one half-pound. But a counted mark [i.e., a mark of money — Latin marcha numeri] consists of sixty solids [Latin solidi, French sous, German schillings]. All this is commonly known. In order to ward off any confusion about these two kinds of mark, from this point forward, whenever the term mark is used, it will be understood to refer to the counted or money type of mark; by the name of pound [Latin libra], however, a weight of two [weighed] marks will be signified, it being understood that a half-pound is equivalent to one mark of weight.

Now, we learn from ancient archives and written accounts that, under the reign of Conrad of Jungingen⁷ (i.e., not long before the Battle of Tannenberg⁸ [1410]), a ½-pound (or 1 mark) of pure silver could be purchased for 2 Prussian marks [of money] and 8 scots,⁹ when a 1/4th part of bronze was alloyed with 3/4ths of silver. From a ½-pound of that [alloyed] mass they made 112 solidi [or schillings].¹⁰ Adding 1/3rd of this to it (1/3rd of 112 equals 37 1/3) makes a total of 149, plus 2 denarii [i.e. 2 obols or pennies, each a 1/6th part of a schilling: or 1/3rd of a schilling] making 149 1/3 schillings, weighing 2/3rd of a whole pound, or 32 scots of silver [i.e., 24 for a 1-weight mark plus 8 for another 1/3rd of a mark], which will clearly be 3/4th pure silver (and that was a ½-pound of pure silver to begin with [in weight]). But it has already been said that the price of that much silver was 140 solidi per ½-pound. The other 9 1/3 solids were accounted for by the value of the coinage per se [i.e., its aestimatio].¹¹ In this way its valuation was conveniently correlated with its material value.

This was the money of Winrich [of Kniprode], and Conrad and Ulrich [of Jungingen],¹² and pieces of it can still be found in their treasuries. But after the defeat of Prussia and the battle mentioned above, the decline of the republic began to appear in the currency. The solids [i.e., schillings] under Heinrich¹³ although they looked just like the ones we described above, have been discovered to contain no more than 3/5ths silver. This error progressed to the point where there were 3 parts of bronze to a 1/4th part of silver — the exact inverse of before. It was really “copper money,” not silver anymore, even though the weight was still 112 solids per ½-pound.¹⁴ But since it does not at all make sense to introduce new, good money while the old, cheaper money is still in circulation, so much the more was it mistaken to introduce new, cheaper money when the old, better money was still circulating, because this not only tainted the old money, but as it were, overthrew it completely. The administration of Michael [of Sternberg] and [Paul Belitzer of] Rusdorff¹⁵ wanted to fix this problem and bring the currency back to its original state. They minted new solidi that we now call grossi; but since it didn’t seem possible to abolish the older, cheaper money without taking a substantial loss, the old solidi remained in use along with the new, and this was a signal error.

Two “old schillings” now passed for one of the new, and now the people had a double kind of mark, made of old schillings or of new ones. The new or good mark, and the old or cheap mark, were both worth sixty schillings. Obols [smallest unit, a kind of penny] remained in use, but for an old schilling six were exchanged, for a new one, twelve. (We can easily gather from this that originally a solidus was made up of twelve obols. For just as we call a fifteenth part a mandel, so in many parts of Germany the word schilling is used for a twelfth part). But the name of novi solidi [or new schillings] remained until the times when I can remember: how they eventually became grossi [or groats] I will explain below.

Eight marks, then, of new schillings (sixty each) contained one pound of silver. This is sufficiently clear from their composition: they are one-half bronze and one-half silver, and eight marks weigh about two pounds. The old ones weighed the same, but had half the silver content [Latin valor]: it took sixteen marks to get a pound of silver, so the ratio of weight to silver content was four to one.

Afterwards, however, when there was a change of government, when the cities were granted the power to mint coinage (and they fully used this privilege), money increased in quantity but not in quality [Latin bonitas — goodness].¹⁶ A fifth part of silver began to be combined with four parts of bronze in old schillings, until it required twenty marks to be changed for a pound of silver.¹⁷ At this stage, since the new schillings [i.e., of the reformed value] were now more than twice the worth of the latest schillings, they were made into scots, that were now to be twenty-four [instead of sixty] to the lightweight mark.¹⁸ Thereby a fifth part of the worth [Latin bonitas] of the mark was lost.¹⁹ After that, when the new schillings (now made into scots) disappeared since they had been accepted even through the March [of Brandenburg],²⁰ it was decided to recall them through the [new] valuation of groats [Latin grossi], that is, to have each groat be the equivalent of three [old, cheaper] schillings.²¹ This was a huge mistake and completely beneath the dignity of such a wise gathering of leaders; as if Prussia could not survive without them, although they were not worth more than fifteen pennies each [Latin denarii] of the current value of money, when the quantity was overwhelming its valuation [Latin aestimatio]. Thus the groats were out of sync with the schillings by being worth a fifth or sixth part less than what they were established to be,²² and by this fallacious and unfair valuation, they detracted from the dignity of the schilling. Perhaps it was only fitting to take revenge for the injury that schillings had first inflicted on the groats by forcing them to become scots!²³

But woe to you, Prussia! With your collapse, you are paying the price of a badly administered republic! And now, although both the material value and the valuation of your money are vanishing everywhere, still there is no cessation from the coining of money, and even when the expenses [of doing so] are not being met, through which the later coinages would seem to be equivalent of the earlier, and a later coin was always introduced that ruined the quality of the earlier coin, until the valuation of schillings became proportionate to the material worth of the groats, and twenty-four light marks went for one pound of silver. At long last, even such a diminished value of the money should have remained: indeed, there was no thought of formally establishing it. But what had over so long a period of time become the inveterate habit (or license) of adulterating, pilfering, and cheapening the money,²⁴ has not ceased in our day. For what it later became and what it is today I am ashamed to say. The value has collapsed so much that now thirty marks scarcely contain a pound of silver! What will come next, unless we do something? Prussia will be totally empty of gold and silver and will have only copper money. Imports of foreign goods will cease and soon all business dealings as well. What foreign merchant will want to exchange his goods for copper? And finally, what one of our merchants will be able to acquire foreign goods with that same money? But those who are in charge think little of this huge disaster of the Prussian republic, and their most sweet fatherland (to which they owe — in second place, of course, to their piety toward God — not only their occupations but their very lives) allow it to languish and go to ruin, more and more as the days go by, through their spineless negligence.

So then, while Prussian currency, and thus the entire country, suffers from such great problems, only the goldsmiths and people who are expert in judging the quality of metals profit from these miseries. This is because they are good at collecting the old money out of the mix, can melt it down and sell the silver, always getting more silver out of the inexperienced populace. Once those early shillings have completely disappeared, they start to collect the second best, leaving a pile of inferior money left over. This is what leads to that constant complaint people make that the price of gold, silver, the family grocery bill, the cost of services, and anything that anybody needs is going up; but we are blind to the fact that the expensiveness of everything proceeds from the debasement of the money. Everything goes up or down according to the condition of money, and especially gold and silver, whose value we do not determine by bronze or copper but by gold and silver: the point is, gold and silver are a kind of basis upon which the appreciation of money’s value [aestimatio] depends.

But perhaps someone will object, “A leaner money is more advantageous to human uses: it really helps the poor, by bringing a lower price of groceries and by supplying the other necessities of life more easily, whereas when the money is of higher value, everything becomes more expensive, and tenant farmers and people who have to pay annual rents are burdened more than usual.” The people who will applaud this point of view are the ones who have been deprived of their hope of the profits they were planning to make, before their ability to mint money was prohibited, and probably certain merchants and craftsmen might agree: people who won’t otherwise lose anything, when they sell their services and goods at the value of gold, and can exchange that for a greater sum of money, the cheaper the money’s worth.

But if such persons will only consider the common good [communis utilitas], they certainly will not deny that an excellent currency is good not only for the state but for themselves and all classes of people, and that cheap money is harmful. The truth of this is clear, not only for many other reasons but especially thanks to that wise teacher, experience: we see countries that have good money flourishing most of all, and those with poor money declining and perishing. It is no wonder that Prussia was flourishing when one Prussian mark was changed for two Hungarian florins, and when, as I said in the beginning, two Prussian marks and eight scots were exchanged for a half-pound, that is, a (weighted) mark of pure silver. But since then, the money has been cheapening more and more every day, and our country through this pestilence and other catastrophes has been nearly brought to ruin. It is also well known that wherever cheap money is in use, the practice of the better arts and human talents is neglected through laziness, lack of interest and a kind of cowardly idleness, and there is no abundance of anything: nobody has forgotten how inexpensively grain and food could be purchased in Prussia when we still had good money. Now that the currency is debased, we are experiencing a rise in the price of everything useful for human life. And therefore it is clear that cheap money encourages laziness rather than helps anyone’s poverty. Nor will an improvement of money burden those who pay a yearly rent, for although they may seem to be paying more than usual for their property, they will also be selling the fruits of their land, their livestock, and that kind of thing for a larger price themselves. The reciprocal give-and-take of buying and selling will be balanced out through the proportionate measurement of the money.

A Plan for Reform

If it has finally been determined, then, to rescue, some day, the present disastrous condition of Prussia through a restoration of the currency, we must first of all take care to avoid the confusion that comes from having a variety of mints producing the money. The multiplicity prevents uniformity, and it will be more work to keep a number of mints on the right path than one. … It would be advantageous therefore for there to be only one common mint for all Prussia,²⁵ in which every type of money would be stamped on one side with the insignia of the lands of Prussia: they should have a crown at the top, so that the superiority of the kingdom would be recognized. On the obverse, the insignia of the duke of Prussia could be seen under the crown above it.

But if the duke of Prussia refuses this arrangement, and wants to have his own mint … let two places (at most) be designated, one in the lands of the royal majesty and the other in the territory of the duke.²⁶ In the former, let money be minted with royal insignia on one side but with [the insignia of] the lands of Prussia on the other, but in the latter mint, let one side have royal insignia and the other the duke’s insignia. Let both coinages be subject to the royal authority and be used and accepted throughout the entire land by the order of His Royal Majesty. This measure will have no small impetus toward reconciling those who disagree and toward encouraging the successful pursuit of business operations.

It would be worth the trouble to have both these coinages of the same grain [granum], metallic value [valor], and monetary value [aestimatio], and that they stay that way permanently, through the vigilant supervision of the political authorities, according to the arrangement now to be established.²⁷ And it would also be important that the authorities in both operations obtain no profit from coining money: let only so much bronze be added that the monetary value exceeds the metallic value just enough to reimburse the cost of making the money, and to remove the temptation to melt it down again.²⁸

In order, then, to avoid falling once again into the confusion of our times caused by the mixture of the new money with the old money, it seems imperative to get rid of the old money completely, and let it perish, once the new money has been made; and that this old money then be exchanged for new, according to the proportion of its metallic value. Otherwise, the work of renewing the coinage will be a waste of time, and the resulting confusion perhaps worse than before. Once again, the old money will adulterate the worth of the new money: the mixed money will make the total weigh less than what is proper, and once it has been excessively increased [in quantity], will lead to the problem described above.²⁹ Now, before this time people have sought to solve this problem by keeping the old money in circulation and simply allowing it a smaller comparative worth in proportion as its metallic value is less or cheaper than that of the new money. But this cannot be done without huge confusion: there is already such a complicated diversity of groats [grossi] and schillings [solidi] and even pennies [denarii] that any given coin can hardly be judged for its value, or be distinguished from other coins. This is how an artificially induced variety of money generates inextricable confusion and increases trouble for merchants and labor contractors, not to mention other problems. Therefore, it will always be preferable to completely abolish the old money when restoring new money. Such a relatively minor loss should always be endured with patience — if we should even consider a “loss” what actually increases profits and brings continual improvement and growth to the republic. But it is extremely difficult — and, after the catastrophe we have suffered, almost impossible — to restore Prussian money to its original quality. But, although any restoration will take a lot of trouble, nevertheless in the conditions of our time it does seem possible and convenient to effect a renovation, so that at least one pound of silver would go into twenty marks, in the following way: let three pounds of bronze be used for the schillings, along with one pound of silver minus one half-ounce or however much must be allowed for the expenses of minting. Let that molten mass be made into twenty marks, which will be able to pay for one pound (or two-weight marks) of silver. Scots, groats, and obols [i.e., pennies] could then be produced as desired, according to the same formula.

Epilogue on the Restoration of Money

The following points need to be taken into account in understanding the repair and preservation of money.

First: let there be no renewal without the slow deliberation and unanimous decree of the rulers.

Second: let there be only one place set aside, if possible, for an official mint, and let such a mint produce money with a stamp on it, not in the name of one city alone, but for the whole country, together with its symbols. The Polish money demonstrates the significance of this recommendation, for it is only because of this that it keeps its value over so much territory.

Third: when new money is being minted and distributed, let the old money be taken out of circulation and abolished.

Fourth: let it be invariably, and without any compromise, perpetually, observed that twenty marks and no more be made from one pound of pure silver, with only so much being subtracted as can cover the expenses of the minting. In this way, Prussian money will be proportionate to Polish money, and twenty Prussian groats as well as twenty Polish groats will be the equivalent of one Prussian mark.

Fifth: that the excess production of money be avoided.

Sixth: that the money be simultaneously produced in all its denominations. Scots or groats, solids [schillings], and obols [pennies] should all be minted. With respect to the amount of alloy: whether groats or solids are produced, or even silver denarii which can add up to a ferto [one fourth of a mark — German Viertel] or half-mark, or even a whole mark, let it be decided according to the wishes of those who are concerned, provided only that moderation be exercised and that a decision is made that can have lasting effectiveness.

Let there be provision for obols as well, since they have simply too little value now, with an entire mark’s worth of them containing barely more silver than in one groat.

A final difficulty arises from the existence of contracts and obligations made before and after the renewal of the money. A way should be found for solving these issues that does not overly burden the contracting parties.

Footnotes

1. This distinction appears to be one of Copernicus’s most serious points, as will be seen in its applications later. The French translation by Wolowski (1864) and the German translation by Sommerfeld (1978), as well as the four previous English translations by Taylor (1955), Moore (1965), Reiss (1979), and Rosen (1985) have been helpful for clarifying many choices in my translation.
2. The Latin word aes refers usually to an alloy of mostly copper and a small amount of tin, known as bronze (not brass). This alloy is in turn alloyed with silver in the making of silver coins.
3. Later in the essay it is explained that 1/15th of the silver value was allowed for this — at least in the early days.
4. That is, in ingot, bar, or bullion form.
5. This can happen when money is circulating with the same “face value” but quite different material values: if you can tell the difference between a silver-rich coin and a silver-poor coin, it would make sense to smelt the good ones down and produce a greater quantity of the cheaper type. This would be an instance of “Gresham’s Law.”
6. We should note the important difference between the metallic value of the coin being “slightly less” (Latin paulo minus — two paragraphs above) and “significantly less” (Latin notabili quantitate minus) than its power to purchase gold or silver. The former is a sign of healthy money, the latter of unhealthy.
7. Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights, 1393–1407.
8. Also known as the Battle of Grunwald. The Knights, defeated by Poles and Lithuanians, afterwards began to decline.
9. This would be 140 solids. A scot was 1/24th of a mark, and so 8 scots = ⅓ mark. Therefore, 2⅓ marks (2 marks, plus 8 scots) could in those days buy a ½-pound of pure silver. This sum would also be 140 solidi, or “solids” (1 mark = 60 solids; 2 × 60 = 120; 120 + 20 solids [i.e., ⅓ of 60, which is also the equivalent of 8 scots] = 140 solids).
10. The figure 112 is arrived at as follows: we now have (in our alloy) only 3/4 of the original ½-pound of silver (which cost 140 solidi). That means the worth of the silver in this smaller quantity is now only 105 solidi. Seven solidi (or 1/15th of 105) are then added to this to reflect the cost of the minting itself (the bronze, the stamping, etc.): 105 + 7 = 112.
11. Copernicus appears now to be showing the consistency of the old system by explaining how the outcome coin value of the ¾-silver–¼-copper alloy can be computed a different way: by starting with the original ½-pound of silver — to which the 1/4th part of bronze has already been alloyed (i.e., already a full 140 solids’ worth of silver) — we would still have to add something to reflect the value of the minting, as before. Again, the proportion of the small addition would be the same (i.e., 9⅓ solids’ worth, or exactly 1/15th of 140), for a total of 149⅓ solids.
12. These reigns cover the years 1352–1410 (see Reiss and Hinderliter 1979, p. 307, n. 54, and Sommerfeld 1978, p. 79).
13. Heinrich Reuss reigned 1410–13.
14. This point illustrates how the “½-pound weight” (or “weight mark”) used for making 112 solidi was always a ½-pound of alloyed metal, but now with the proportion of pure silver ever shrinking, it is ¼ silver, ¾ copper.
15. See Reiss and Hinderliter 1979, p. 307 n. 56, who correct the names. The period is 1413–40.
16. In the second half of the fifteenth century, a large part of Prussia became subject to the Polish crown (“Royal Prussia”). The eastern parts were still under the Teutonic Knights until 1525, when they became a secular dukedom in feudal subordination to the Kingdom of Poland (“Ducal Prussia”). The area where Copernicus lived (Varmia) was yet another semi-independent ecclesiastical province of Poland, surrounded on three sides by Ducal Prussia.
17. The steps of the decline would be (a) ¾ silver–¼ copper: about 5 marks per pound of silver; (b) 3/5 silver–2/5 copper: about 6 marks and 10 solidi for a pound of silver; (c) ¼ silver–¾ copper: about 16 marks per pound of silver; (d) reform under Michael and Rusdorff: ½ silver–½ copper: 8 marks per pound of silver (“new shillings”); (e) new coinages of the cities: 1/5 silver–4/5 copper: 20 marks per pound of silver.
18. We should recall from an earlier paragraph that the scot was worth 1/24th of a mark. Now, setting 8 marks’ worth of new schillings (60 × 8 = 480 schillings to a pound of silver) beside 20 marks of the “recent” schillings (60 × 20 = 1,200 schillings to a pound of silver), shows that the new were exactly 2½ times as valuable as the old (8 × 2.5 = 20). Since 24 × 2.5 = 60, it was reasonable to redefine a new schilling as a scot (or 1/24th) of the light (or cheap) mark.
19. Copernicus seems to be referring here to the change from the 16-mark pound (= stage c in n. 17 above) to the 20-mark pound (= stage e), since an inflation of 4 marks is exactly 1/5th of 20.
20. Reiss and Hinderliter 1979, p. 308. The use of multiple coinages from the variety of neighboring states is clearly another part of the problem.
21. This is the narration promised earlier: how solidi became grossi.
22. There are now 20 groats to the mark in the place of 60 schillings: 3 (old) schillings now make 1 groat (instead of 2½ old schillings being the equivalent of the new schilling-turned-scot). An inflation from 2½ to 3 is “a fifth or sixth part” (1/5th of 2½ and 1/6th of 3).
23. A touch of humor. New schillings became scots (and disappeared), but then groats got revenge by “taking over” the old schillings, 3 to 1.
24. Taylor 1955 has it thus: “[the] habit of melting down money and re-issuing it at a debased value”; Reiss 1979 has it as the “custom … of counterfeiting, clipping and altering money.” Taylor’s rendition seems closer to the meaning in the context, where the quasi-official actions of local minting enterprises is in question, rather than sheer criminal “counterfeiting.”
25. The sentences in italics appear in three manuscripts but were crossed out in two. Since the sentences recommend only a single mint for both Prussias, the attempt to remove the passage probably reflects the interests of Ducal Prussia in having its own mint rather than sharing a single mint with other parts of Prussia. If the sentences in italics are omitted, the treatise tactfully leaves aside the disagreement between the king and the duke on this point.
26. Duke Albrecht (1490–1568), the former grand master of the Teutonic Knights, ruled his part of Prussia after April 8, 1525, as a secular (and Lutheran) fief of the Kingdom of Poland. Since the word duke (Latin dux, ducis) is used here instead of Magister as with earlier rulers, the document has been dated to after April 8, 1525, and probably before July 17, 1526, when a royal decree concerning new currency brought some, but not all, of Copernicus’s recommendations into effect. See Rosen 1985, p. 171.
27. This appears to refer to the new regulations that would be put into effect on July 17, 1526.
28. Note again Copernicus’s emphasis on the delicate balance between too much and too little metallic worth: if the money is too “rich” in silver, it will be tempting to re-melt it down at some later time; if it is too “lean” in silver, the mint authorities will be making a profit on debased coinage.
29. There is a divergence among the previous English translators at this point in the text. Rosen’s interpretation seems to be the most correct one, but I have followed the Latin wording somewhat more closely: I have translated “summam … nimium multiplicatam” as “total … excessively increased” (as opposed to Rosen’s “aggregate’s … quantity excessive”; Rosen 1992, p. 193). This would describe “Gresham’s Law.”

Cite this article

Copernicus, Nicolaus. “On the Minting of Money.” 1526. Edited by Ralph Benko. Sound Money Review, 2nd ed. (2027). Money Metals Exchange, Sound Money Defense League, and Sound Money Foundation. https://www.soundmoneydefense.org/review/on-the-minting-of-money.

Img credit: WikiCommons, DocentX