Academic literature on the topic 'Prussian Coins'

Although researchers have long considered the impact of the Thirteen Years’ War on the Teutonic Order’s coinage in Prussia, Polish coins were studied completely separately from the events of the war. In this paper we attempt to change this approach. In Prussia, after a war debasement, the ‘good shilling’ was restored in the years 1415–16, as a coin containing 0.87g of pure silver. The restoration was not complete because the former official shilling standard was higher. In 1407, it contained c.1.17g of pure silver. The new ‘good shilling’ most probably referred to an actual average standard of circulat�ing old coins regarded as ‘good coinage’, in contrast to debased coinage struck between 1410 and 1414. These new ‘good’ shillings were marked with a long cross on their two faces. New bracteate pfennigs of the Third Greek cross type were also introduced, containing 0.062g of pure silver and equal to a twelfth part of a ‘good’ shilling. The ‘base’ or ‘old’ shillings, however, were not removed from circulation and a rate of 1:2 between old and new coinage was formed. Because of the lack of silver, the number of good shillings was insufficient and base shillings actually prevailed in circulation, although they were not minted any more. Prussian mints struck mostly pfennigs and, spo�radically, good shillings according to the law of 1416. It was Grand Master Ludwig von Erlichshausen (1450–1467) who behaved differently. In secrecy, he reduced the silver content of shillings from 508/1000 to 342/1000 or even less. The change was possibly accomplished gradually and the last stages of the debasement took place during the Thirteen Years’ War. When the war broke out in the spring of 1454, the king of Poland granted the Prussian Confederationthe coinage rights. As the mint seats, four large cities were indicated: Toruń, Gdańsk, Elbląg and Königsberg. A mint standard had not been precisely defined but the local monetary system had been generally indicated. The new estates’ shillings were coined in Toruń only, and their standard, although uneven, was close to the earliest shilling as ordered by Grand Master Winrich von Kniprode in 1380. Such a high standard could not be upheld. After the three former cities were granted minting rights in 1457, they went back to the pre-1416 standard called the ‘old’ or ‘base’ shilling but alongside ‘new’ pfennigs. This formed a new basic Prussian monetary rate: one ‘old’ shilling was equal to six pfennigs. The Teutonic Order, having lost its main mint in Toruń, arranged another one in Malbork. Malbork was also lost in 1456 and the mint was moved to Königsberg where it stayed until the end of the Teutonic Order’s rule and beyond. The coinage debasement was soon revealed and eventually Master Ludwig reduced his Königsberg shilling’s official value by half in 1460 and made it equal to ‘old’ or ‘base’ shillings. Pfennigs minted during the war were withdrawn from circulation and the old pfennig standard was restored. Shillings struck from 1460 were ‘old’ or ‘base’ shillings and they were devoid of the long cross. The restored pfennigs were bracteates with the eagle shield. In the Kingdom of Poland a huge amount of small pennies was minted from 1430 up to the death of King Vladislas III at Varna in 1444. This coinage was intended to finance the unsuccessful war for the Bohemian crown in 1437–8 and the victorious albeit long war for the Hungarian crown, which began in 1440. The pennies were declared legal tender for all payments and they replaced larger coins, first of all, half-groat coins, in circulation. The official rate was 9 pennies = 1 half-grosz. It was believed that the Cracow mint was re-opened as late as in 1456 and minted few half-grosz coins. This was based on a misunderstanding of the evidence, both documentary and numismatic. In the early stage of the war – which was not prepared from a financial perspective – the Polish side apparently counted on the funds of rich Prussian cities. These resources were not sufficient and, seeing the pro�tracted war, the general assembly in Łęczyca agreed to open the mint in January 1455, in order to strike half-grosz and pennies for warfare expenditure. This was certainly done if Stanisław Morsztyn, a renowned financier and merchant, was acting as mint master in March 1456. Two months later, however, King Kazimierz IV appointed five other mint masters, apparently being unsatisfied with Morsztyn’s work. The volume of coinage increased and three years later at the general assembly in Piotrków, the opposition leader, Jan Rytwiański, accused the king of ‘shattering us with very light and unjust coinage as with ordinary arson’. However, we have no evidence about a decrease in the rate of Polish coinage from that time – this happened as late as in 1479. The Polish coins which were struck then, were similar not to preceding coinage of Vladislas III but to the much older, ‘good’ coins of Vladislas II Jagiełło from c.1400, both pennies and half-grosz coins. The standard of the new coins was probably also similar to that of the old ones, as far as the former are compared with worn out coins remaining in circulation during the 1450s. Despite a small volume of half-grosz coinage, caused by the shortage of silver, this ‘good’ coinage supported the rate of pennies and eventually contributed to the king’s victory, saving his kingdom from debasement.

AbstractIn the history of economic thought, monetary theories in the Germanspeaking world of the early modern era are considered backward compared to the approaches in other European countries. This backwardness can be illustrated by two authors from the mid-18th century who were not only contemporaries but also successively in the service of Frederick II (“the Great”) of Prussia. The first is Johann Philipp Graumann, one of the 'projectors' of the 18th century. As master of the mints in Prussia, he developed a coin project, where he tried to implement a new monetary standard to promote trade, generate seigniorage income and implement the Prussian coins as a kind of a reserve currency. In his writings, he developed a typical mercantilistic monetary theory with a clear understanding of the mechanism in the balance of payments. But even when he tried to include credit instruments, he did not take banks or broader financial markets into account. The second thinker is Johann Heinrich Gottlob Justi, who took the opposite position concerning the coin project as well as in his theory. He defended a strictly metalistic monetary approach where the value of money is only based on the metal's value. While Graumann rejected the English coin system, Justi recommended its laws for countries without their own mines, because the sovereign should not misuse his right of coinage. For him, the monetary system had tobe reliable and stable to serve trade and economic development.

After the unification of Germany in 1871, one of the unifying factors was the introduction of the single currency. The issuing bank was Reichsbank, which was based on a Prussian bank. From 1875, it issued coins and banknotes. Except for the central bank, however, the limited right to issue their own money was left to several provincial banks whose numbers were constantly decreasing. In the early twentieth century there were only four central banks of federal states. The banks of Baden, Bavaria, Saxony and Württemberg issued their own paper money until 1935 when they were deprived of their right to do so. Each of these institutions issued 100 Deutsche Mark banknotes whose graphic design differed from the appearance of Reichsbank’s paper money. Banknotes printed for these banks had a rich graphic design. It was not limited to simple ornamentation and symbols, but contained rich decoration in the form of allegorical figures ‘armed’ with the symbols of trade, crafts, agriculture and industry. Some of these characters and their attributes can be identified with specific Greek and Roman gods such as Hermes or Tyche. Among the figures appearing in the graphic design of the banknotes were women with wreaths of oak leaves on their heads, which may be interpreted as personifications of the states. Two busts have been identified as the symbolic rivers of Rhine and Neckar. The presence of allegorical characters is part of the global tendency during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. At that time, images of deities and symbolic figures referring to the economy were commonly placed on banknotes in European countries and their overseas colonies.

The relations of the Ukrainian medieval lands with the state of the Teutonic Order in Prussia left the relics in the documentary sources of the second half of the XIII century – beginning of the XVI century. However, the relations of the Ukrainian medieval lands with the State of the Teutonic Order in Prussia should have been left not only in written sources. Similar relations, even if they were occasional, left a sufficient number of numismatic sources in the cultural layers of the settlements. In this case, we have the Teutonic coins, lost by their owners.

The hoard of coins from Smolnik (formerly Alteiche, Kreis Rosenberg) was discovered in the early 1930s. A forestry worker came across the 19 well-preserved gold coins in the sandy soils of the forest. The hoard consisted of a total of 15 nobles and 3 half-nobles of the English King Edward III (1327–1377) and one franc á cheval of the French King John II ‘the Good’ (1350–1364). Based on the work of Prof. Grollmus of Iława, the author aims to carry out an analysis of the structure of the hoard. It is also very important to interpret the phenomenon of the inflow of gold coins to Prussia. The second half of the XIV century until the start of the 15th century was a period of increased trade relations between the Order and England. In addition, there is an increase in crusading, which includes the Teutonic Order’s campaigns into Lithuania. Guests of the Order participated in these, including Eng�lish crusaders.

The need to establish a national bank in the Polish Republic was addressed in 1763 by Fr Stanisław Konarski in his O skutecznym rad sposobie. The need to secure the issue of Polish money increased as a result of the crisis caused by the flooding of the Polish market with Polish coins counterfeited in Prussia. The discussion was joined by proponents of mercantilism, who saw the possibility of keeping good Polish money in circulation by using dead capital in “deposit coffers.” However, only the Sejm could establish a central bank. The first drafts saw the light during the sessions of the Four-Year Sejm (1788–1792). Among them, the proposal of the famous Warsaw banker Jędrzej Kapostas deserves our attention, who in 1789 published a work entitled O banku narodowym w Polszcze and Planta ułożenia projektu Banku Narodowego in the next year. Paper money in Poland appeared in circulation during the Kościuszko Uprising. To this end, the Treasury Notes Administration was established, which issued so-called “assignments.” They survived until the fall of the uprising. The Third Partition of Poland put an end to the discussion of the establishment of a central bank.

Fe3O4 magnetic nanoparticles (Fe3O4-MNPs) have attracted much interest for their potential medical applications due to their desirable magnetic properties. However, their potential cytotoxicity, high RES clearance in circulation, and nonspecific distribution in tissue might be the main obstacles in practice. In the present study, a novel bi-functional 14-mer peptide with both ovarian carcinoma cells targeting and magnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles affinity was designed and synthesized, and then a facile and effective modification method was developed to bestow the Fe3O4-MNPs with tumor-targeting capability via modification, using the bi-functional peptides. First, on the basis of a tumor-targeting 7-mer peptide QQTNWSL (Q-L) and another Fe3O4-MNPs-targeting 7-mer peptide TVNFKLY (T-Y)—screened by phage-displayed peptide libraries—two bi-functional 14-mer peptides sequenced as LSWNTQQ-YLKFNVT (abbreviated as LQ-YT) and QQTNWSL-YLKFNVT (QL-YT) were synthesized through combining the Q-L peptide and T-Y peptide in predetermined configurations. Their specificity for bonding with A2780 tumor cells and affinity for Fe3O4-MNPs were verified. Then the bi-functional 14-mer peptides were applied to modify the Fe3O4-MNPs. Results showed that both bi-functional 14-mer peptides could be conjugated to the Fe3O4-MNPs surface with high affinity. Immunofluorescence and Prussian blue staining assays indicated that the LQ-YT-modified Fe3O4-MNPs could specifically bond to A2780 tumor cells. In addition to our findings suggesting that more β-turns and random coils are conducive to increasing polypeptide surface area for binding and exposing the target group and bonding sites on LQ-YT to external targets, we demonstrated that the bi-functional 14-mer peptide has affinity for Fe3O4-MNPs, and that Fe3O4-MNPs, which was modified with a 14-mer peptide, could be bestowed with a targeting affinity for ovarian carcinoma cells.

The Lithuanian national movement of the 19th c. had mostly manifested itself in the literature, which, under the Lithuanian press ban, was being published both in East Prussia and in Lithuanian communities in the United States, and which was being distributed likewise in Lithuania, East Prussia, and the United States. That same time period saw the forming of a new system designed to inform readers of new releases, which was utilized to help any members of the Lithuanian diaspora to keep updated on the newest literature affairs. This system had encompassed the press of both East Prussia and the United States, and it would inform the readers of the newest publications both from the location of where the newspaper was being released and about the new books and periodicals that were being published in foreign countries; thus, it had created a reflection of Lithuanian literature as a whole. The aim of this article is to analyze the circumstances surrounding the informing of readers about the newest publications as it had occurred in the American Lithuanian press up to 1904; main focus is paid here to the information regarding Lithuanian and Lithuanistic publications released in East Prussia and elsewhere in Europe. The basis of this study is a list of 322 Lithuanian and Lithuanistic publications released in Europe; the list itself took shape after overviewing 11 Lithuanian newspapers published in the United States. The 322 publications had been distributed in Lithuanian communities in the United States and were announced by the local Lithuanian press.This study has showed that the first announcements about the new books appeared in the US Lithuanian press in the late 1890s, and in the early 20th c., designated columns for publishing news became an ordinary practice. Unfortunately, a lack of authors capable of writing critical reviews of the new publications forced the émigré press to be content with mostly annotations and very laconic commentaries about the pros and cons of new publications. The fact that announcements were made about books (mostly publications released in Europe) that were not part of the American salespeople’s repertoire allows us to believe that the editorial boards of the newspapers behaved thus acting upon the informational mission of their newspapers, their societal role, and in seeking to support the national movement and the dissemination of its ideas as well as the mission of its consolidation. In evaluating the repertoire of the introduced publications, we may speak not only of the dissemination of information on these works but also of a particular perspective that the editorial boards of these periodicals had and which was based on a particular set of values. Attention is paid to Lithuanian literature, its growth and place in the society of that time, and how it matches the needs of the readers. The introduced literature repertoire was dominated by secular works that had reflected the growth of Lithuanian literature and answered the demands of education. The books were oftentimes evaluated first and foremost based on the aspect of how much practical information could they provide – this had to do with the restricted possibilities of Lithuanian education; for example, the amount of information these works could give on the topics of farming, medicine, craftsmanship, and the natural sciences was an important aspect. With time, more attention began to be paid to societal-political literature, which was associated to the dissemination of the ideologies of those times, and Lithuanistic works written by foreign (not Lithuanian) authors. The works were also increasingly evaluated based on the political views of the editorial boards, which had also determined the fact that the readers were urged to buy some books while others were introduced as no good. Yet at the same time it may be observed that attention was being paid to publishing culture, the linguistic aspects especially, prompted by the changes that were happening in written Lithuanian. Attempts were made to limit the distribution of books that had not met the standards of the written languages; however, owing to the poorness of literature, the practical value of the book was of the most importance. The perspective regarding the importance of some books can also be seen based on how many newspapers had referenced those books in their news and how well were these works met. In understanding that the system designed to inform the readership of the books did not meet the standards of even its contemporaries, it must still be said that during those times, a tradition had taken shape to introduce publishing news in the periodicals. This tradition was developed and perfected during later times, but its proper evaluation would require the continuation of its study.

AbstractThe nucleus of the collection of paintings in the Mauritshuis around 130 pictures - came from the hereditary stadholder Prince William v. It is widely believed to have become, the property of the State at the beginning of the 19th century, but how this happened is still. unclear. A hand-written notebook on this subject, compiled in 1876 by - the director Jonkheer J. K. L. de Jonge is in the archives of the Mauritshuis Note 4). On this basis a clnsor systematic and chronological investigation has been carried out into the stadholder's. property rights in respect of his collectcons and the changes these underwent between 1795 and 1816. Royal decrees and other documents of the period 1814- 16 in particular giae a clearer picture of whal look place. 0n 18 January 1795 William V (Fig. 2) left the Netherlands and fled to England. On 22 January the Dutch Republic was occupied by French armies. Since France had declared war on the stadholder, the ownership of all his propergy in the Netherlands, passed to France, in accordance with the laws of war of the time. His famous art collections on the Builerth of in. The Hague were taken to Paris, but the remaining art objects, distributed over his various houses, remained in the Netherlands. On 16 May 1795 the French concluded a treaty with the Batavian Republic, recognizing it as an independent power. All the properties of William v in the Netehrlands but not those taken to France, were made over to the Republic (Note 14), which proceeded to sell objects from the collections, at least seven sales taking place until 1798 (Note 15). A plan was then evolved to bring the remaining treasures together in a museum in emulation of the French. On the initiative of J. A. Gogel, the Nationale Konst-Galerij', the first national museum in the .Netherlands, was estahlished in The Hague and opened to the public on ,31 May 1800. Nothing was ever sold from lhe former stadholder's library and in 1798 a Nationale Bibliotheek was founded as well. In 1796, quite soon after the French had carried off the Stadholder, possessions to Paris or made them over to the Batavian Republic, indemnification was already mentioned (Note 19). However, only in the Trealy of Amiens of 180 and a subaequent agreement, between France ararl Prussia of 1 802, in which the Prince of Orarage renounced his and his heirs' rights in the Netherlands, did Prussia provide a certain compensation in the form of l.artds in Weslphalia and Swabia (Note 24) - William v left the management of these areas to the hereditary prince , who had already been involved in the problems oncerning his father's former possessions. In 1804 the Balavian Republic offered a sum of five million guilders 10 plenipotentiaries of the prince as compensation for the sequestrated titles and goods, including furniture, paintings, books and rarities'. This was accepted (Notes 27, 28), but the agreement was never carried out as the Batavian Republic failed to ratify the payment. In the meantime the Nationale Bibliolkeek and the Nationale Konst-Galerij had begun to develop, albeit at first on a small scale. The advent of Louis Napoleon as King of Hollarad in 1806 brought great changes. He made a start on a structured art policy. In 1806 the library, now called `Royal', was moved to the Mauritshuis and in 1808 the collectiorts in The Hague were transferred to Amsterdam, where a Koninklijk Museum was founded, which was housed in the former town hall. This collection was subsequertly to remain in Amsterdam, forming the nucleus of the later Rijksmuseum. The library too was intended to be transferred to Amsterdam, but this never happened and it remained in the Mauritshuis until 1819. Both institutions underwent a great expansion in the period 1806-10, the library's holdings increasing from around 10,000 to over 45,000 books and objects, while the museum acquired a number of paintings, the most important being Rembrandt's Night Watch and Syndics, which were placed in the new museum by the City of Amsterdam in 1808 (Note 44). In 1810 the Netherlands was incorporated into France. In the art field there was now a complete standstill and in 1812 books and in particular prints (around 11,000 of them) were again taken from The Hague to Paris. In November 1813 the French dominion was ended and on 2 December the hereditary prince, William Frederick, was declared sovereign ruler. He was inaugurated as constitutional monarch on 30 March 1814. On January 3rd the provisional council of The Hague had already declared that the city was in (unlawful' possession of a library, a collection of paintings, prints and other objects of art and science and requested the king tot take them back. The war was over and what had been confiscated from William under the laws of war could now be given back, but this never happened. By Royal Decree of 14 January 1814 Mr. ( later Baron) A. J. C. Lampsins (Fig. I ) was commissioned to come to an understanding with the burgomaster of The Hague over this transfer, to bring out a report on the condition of the objects and to formulate a proposal on the measures to be taken (Note 48). On 17 January Lampsins submitted a memorandum on the taking over of the Library as the private property of His Royal Highness the Sovereign of the United Netherlartds'. Although Lampsins was granted the right to bear the title 'Interim Director of the Royal Library' by a Royal Decree of 9 February 1814, William I did not propose to pay The costs himself ; they were to be carried by the Home Office (Note 52). Thus he left the question of ownership undecided. On 18 April Lampsins brought out a detailed report on all the measures to be taken (Appendix IIa ) . His suggestion was that the objects, formerly belonging to the stadholder should be removed from the former royal museum, now the Rijksmuseum, in Amsterdam and to return the 'Library', as the collectiort of books, paintings and prints in The Hague was called, to the place where they had been in 1795. Once again the king's reaction was not very clear. Among other things, he said that he wanted to wait until it was known how extensive the restitution of objects from Paris would be and to consider in zvhich scholarly context the collections would best, fit (Note 54) . While the ownership of the former collections of Prince William I was thus left undecided, a ruling had already been enacted in respect of the immovable property. By the Constitution of 1814, which came into effect on 30 March, the king was granted a high income, partly to make up for the losses he had sulfered. A Royal Decree of 22 January 1815 does, however, imply that William had renounced the right to his, father's collections, for he let it be known that he had not only accepted the situation that had developed in the Netherlands since 1795, but also wished it to be continued (Note 62). The restitution of the collections carried off to France could only be considered in its entirety after the defeat of Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo on 18 June 1815- This was no simple matter, but in the end most, though not all, of the former possessions of William V were returned to the Netherlands. What was not or could not be recovered then (inc.uding 66 paintings, for example) is still in France today (Note 71)- On 20 November 1815 127 paintings, including Paulus Potter's Young Bull (Fig. 15), made a ceremonial entry into The Hague. But on 6 October, before anything had actually been returned, it had already been stipulated by Royal Decree that the control of the objects would hence forlh be in the hands of the State (Note 72). Thus William I no longer regarded his father's collections as the private property of the House of Orange, but he did retain the right to decide on the fulure destiny of the... painting.s and objects of art and science'. For the time being the paintings were replaced in the Gallery on the Buitenhof, from which they had been removed in 1795 (Note 73). In November 1815 the natural history collection was made the property of Leiden University (Note 74), becoming the basis for the Rijksmuseum voor Natuurlijke Historie, The print collection, part of the Royal Library in The Hague, was exchanged in May 1816 for the national collectiort of coins and medals, part of the Rijksmuseum. As of 1 Jufy 1816 directors were appointed for four different institutions in The Hague, the Koninklijke Bibliotheek (with the Koninklijk Penningkabinet ) , the Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen and the Yoninklijk Kabinet van Zeldzaamheden (Note 80) . From that time these institutions led independenl lives. The king continued to lake a keen interest in them and not merely in respect of collecting Their accommodation in The Hague was already too cramped in 1816. By a Royal Decree of 18 May 1819 the Hotel Huguetan, the former palace of the. crown prince on Lange Voorhout, was earmarked for the Koninklijke Bibliotheek and the Koninklijk Penningkabinet (Note 87) . while at the king's behest the Mauritshuis, which had been rented up to then, was bought by the State on 27 March 1820 and on IO July allotted to the Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen and the Koninklijk Kabinet van Zeldzaamheden (Note 88). Only the Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen is still in the place assigned to it by William and the collection has meanwhile become so identified with its home that it is generally known as the Mauritshui.s'. William i's most important gift was made in July 1816,just after the foundation of the four royal institutions, when he had deposited most of the objects that his father had taken first to England and later to Oranienstein in the Koninklijk Kabinet van Zeldzaamheden. The rarities (Fig. 17), curios (Fig. 18) and paintings (Fig. 19), remained there (Note 84), while the other art objects were sorted and divided between the Koninklijke Bibliotheek (the manuscripts and books) and the koninklijk Penningkabinet (the cameos and gems) (Note 85). In 1819 and 182 the king also gave the Koninklijke Bibliotheek an important part of the Nassau Library from the castle at Dillenburg. Clearly he is one of the European monarchs who in the second half of the 18th and the 19th century made their collectiorts accessible to the public, and thus laid the foundatinns of many of today's museums. But William 1 also made purchases on behalf of the institutions he had created. For the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, for example, he had the 'Tweede Historiebijbel', made in Utrecht around 1430, bought in Louvain in 1829 for 1, 134 guilders (Pigs.30,3 I, Note 92). For the Koninkijk Penningkabinet he bought a collection of 62 gems and four cameos , for ,50,000 guilders in 1819. This had belonged to the philosopher Frans Hemsterhuis, the keeper of his father's cabinet of antiquities (Note 95) . The most spectacular acquisition. for the Penninukabinet., however, was a cameo carved in onyx, a late Roman work with the Triumph of Claudius, which the king bought in 1823 for 50,000 guilders, an enormous sum in those days. The Koninklijk Kabinet van Zeldzaamhedert also received princely gifts. In 1821- the so-called doll's house of Tzar Peter was bought out of the king's special funds for 2.800 guilders (Figs.33, 34, ,Note 97) , while even in 1838, when no more money was available for art, unnecessary expenditure on luxury' the Von Siebold ethnographical collection was bought at the king's behest for over 55,000 guilders (Note 98). The Koninklijk Kabinel van Schilderyen must have been close to the hearl of the king, who regarded it as an extension of the palace (Notes 99, 100) . The old master paintings he acquzred for it are among the most important in the collection (the modern pictures, not dealt with here, were transferred to the Paviljoen Welgelegen in Haarlem in 1838, Note 104). For instance, in 1820 he bought a portrait of Johan Maurice of Nassau (Fig.35)., while in 1822, against the advice of the then director, he bought Vermeer' s View of Delft for 2,900 guilders (Fig.36, Note 105) and in 1827 it was made known, from Brussels that His Majesty had recommended the purchase of Rogier van der Weyden's Lamentation (Fig.37) . The most spectacular example of the king's love for 'his' museum, however, is the purchase in 1828 of Rembrandt's Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp for 32,000 guilders. The director of the Rijksmuseum, C. Apostool, cortsidered this Rembrandt'sfinest painting and had already drawn attention to it in 1817, At the king'.s behest the picture, the purchase of which had been financed in part by the sale of a number of painlings from. the Rijksmuseum, was placed in the Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen in The Hague. On his accession King William I had left the art objects which had become state propery after being ceded by the French to the Batavian Republic in 1795 as they were. He reclaimed the collections carried off to France as his own property, but it can be deduced from the Royal Decrees of 1815 and 1816 that it Was his wish that they should be made over to the State, including those paintings that form the nucleus of the collection in the Mauritshuis. In addition, in 1816 he handed over many art objects which his father had taken with him into exile. His son, William II, later accepted this, after having the matter investigated (Note 107 and Appendix IV). Thus William I'S munificence proves to have been much more extensive than has ever been realized.

The article describes the main stages of the founding of the Duchy of Prussia. Biographical information is provided on the Albrecht Brandenburg-Ansbach Hohenzollern, on the introduction of monetary reform and coinage of the duke. A review of the literary sources describing Albrecht Hohenzollern's coins. An interesting numismatic material on the standards of chasing (weight and content of pure silver in the coins of the Duchy of Prussia), the design of the time coins, the place of minting of coins (mint), nominal values, and years of issue are given. Separately, attention was paid to the release of commemorative coins (medallions) under Albrecht Hohenzollern. A certain classification of the Albrecht Brandenburg-Ansbach Hohenzollern Coin for collecting both beginners and numismatists with experience has been proposed, which will make it possible to clearly understand the variety and special interest of the Albrecht Brandenburg-Ansbahsky coins of the Hohenzollern family.