一条罪，一句数不清。《史记·平准书》写汉武帝时的钱：「盗铸诸金钱罪皆死，而吏民之盗铸白金者不可胜数。」——盗铸金钱，罪都是死；可官民里盗铸白金的，多得数不清。同卷后面还有一句更直接：「犯者众，吏不能尽诛取。」——犯的人太多，官吏杀不完。这篇写的就是这两句之间的事：一条死罪，和它没能挡住的人。
一、先放后禁：政策的两头
开头是「放」。《史记》说，到孝文帝时，「荚钱益多，轻，乃更铸四铢钱，其文为『半两』，令民纵得自铸钱」。同一年，《汉书·食货志》的写法是：「为钱益多而轻，乃更铸四铢钱，其文为『半两』。除盗铸钱令，使民放铸。」——一个是「令民纵得自铸钱」，一个是「除盗铸钱令，使民放铸」；两书说的是同一道政令，用词不同，本篇并列照录。这一放的结果，本页也写了：「故吴诸侯也，以即山铸钱，富埒天子……邓通，大夫也，以铸钱财过王者。故吴、邓氏钱布天下，而铸钱之禁生焉。」——吴王的钱、邓通的钱布天下，禁钱的令就是从这儿来的。
中间隔了四十余年，到武帝： 「自孝文更造四铢钱，至是岁四十余年，从建元以来，用少，县官往往即多铜山而铸钱，民亦闲盗铸钱，不可胜数。钱益多而轻，物益少而贵。」国家自己在铜山铸钱，民间也偷着铸，数不清；钱越多越轻，东西越少越贵。之后是那次改币：销半两钱、更铸三铢钱，又造白金三品，紧接着就是那句刑罚。
二、一纸死罪
刑罚的话，两书几乎一字不差。《史记》：「盗铸诸金钱罪皆死，而吏民之盗铸白金者不可胜数。」《汉书》：「盗铸诸金钱罪皆死，而吏民之犯者不可胜数。」前半句一样，后半句一个写「盗铸白金者」、一个写「犯者」，本篇并列，不替它们统一。要说清的是：两页只给「罪皆死」这一层，不给刑名清单；「弃市」二字出现在贾谊的谏语里，是他说的，本篇算在他名下。
贾谊的谏语还有一笔账，算的是罚的等级：「法使天下公得顾租铸铜锡为钱，敢杂以铅铁为它巧者，其罪黥。然铸钱之情，非殽杂为巧，则不可得赢；而殽之甚微，为利甚厚。」——不掺假就赚不到钱，掺一点点就利很厚；所以「虽黥罪日报，其势不止」。他把两种罚都比过：「曩禁铸钱，死罪积下；今公铸钱，黥罪积下。」从前禁铸，死罪在下面堆着；如今公开放铸，黥罪在下面堆着。这是他的判断，标为贾谊语。
三、数十万坐罪者
规模在这几句里，量词照录：「自造白金五铢钱后五岁，赦吏民之坐盗铸金钱死者数十万人。其不发觉相杀者，不可胜计。赦自出者百馀万人。然不能半自出，天下大抵无虑皆铸金钱矣。犯者众，吏不能尽诛取。」——坐盗铸金钱当死、被赦的有数十万人；没被发觉而彼此杀害的，不可胜计；自首被赦的百余万人；然而自首的不到一半；天下大抵都在铸金钱；犯者太多，官吏杀不完。这几个数（数十万、百余万、不可胜计）各是各的量词，本篇照录，不相加、不推算总数、也不折成今天的数目。
为什么止不住，本页给的解释就到「犯者众，吏不能尽诛取」这一句：人多到杀不过来。本篇不替它加「货币主权」或「国家能力」这类说明；也不把「天下大抵无虑皆铸金钱矣」当成统计数——那是一句概括，照录就是概括。
四、钱越轻，法越重
再往后的一段，是收紧的过程，一句接一句：「郡国多奸铸钱，钱多轻，而公卿请令京师铸钟官赤侧，一当五，赋官用非赤侧不得行。」赤侧钱一当五，非它不行；接着「白金稍贱，民不宝用，县官以令禁之，无益」；「其后二岁，赤侧钱贱，民巧法用之，不便，又废」。最后是那句总收：「于是悉禁郡国无铸钱，专令上林三官铸。钱既多，而令天下非三官钱不得行，诸郡国所前铸钱皆废销之，输其铜三官。而民之铸钱益少，计其费不能相当，唯真工大奸乃盗为之。」——郡国一律不许铸，只让上林三官铸；旧钱全销毁，铜送三官；私铸的少了，因为算下来成本抵不过，只有真工大奸还干。
把贾谊那句话放在这段旁边看，很有意思：他说「令禁铸钱，则钱必重；重则其利深，盗铸如云而起，弃市之罪又不足以禁矣」。而后来的实况，本页写成「铸钱益少，计其费不能相当，唯真工大奸乃盗为之」——一边是预言禁后盗铸如云，一边是记录成本相当之后私铸转少。两段是两个时期的话，本篇并列，不拿后一段去证明前一段错，也不裁断谁对。
五、两页之外
分线要说清：半两钱的钱文与重量、五铢钱的三次收权、鹿皮与白金这些新币种，都是别的题目；本篇只写盗铸这件事和它的刑罚、坐罪人数，不复述钱制沿革的细节。两页也不给：一枚私钱的实物检测、私铸工场的规模、一个具体判决的案例、完整的刑名清单、赦免的手续。这些都不补。
最后一句留给数字的边界：「数十万」「百余万」「不可胜计」「不可胜数」都是原文的量词，本篇照录，不合计、不推总数、不折今值；也不写「货币主权」这类通论。这两页留下的，是一句「罪皆死」、一句「吏不能尽诛取」，和一个越收越紧、最后还是有人偷着铸的结局。
延伸阅读：康诰：封一个刚打下来的地方，先问商朝的老人家 · 王田与私属：汉代的奴婢与两次诏令 · 盟誓：一句话写下来，罚到玄孙
参考来源与延伸阅读
- 司马迁《史记》卷三十〈平准书〉（维基文库本，未与点校本复核） — The main narrative of the coinage and its forgeries. Emperor Wen's relaxation: 'the coin became more and more plentiful and light, so four-zhu coins were cast, with the inscription Ban Liang, and the people were allowed to cast coins freely' (令民縱得自鑄錢), after which the Wu and Deng coins 'spread through the realm, and the prohibition on casting coins arose'. Under Emperor Wu, after more than forty years: 'the offices often coined at the copper mountains, and the people also cast privately beyond count; the coins grew more numerous and lighter' (民亦閒盜鑄錢，不可勝數。錢益多而輕). Then the penalty clause — 'forging any of the gold coins is a capital offence' (盜鑄諸金錢罪皆死) — and the scale: 'after the white-metal and five-zhu coins were made, five years later, those among officials and people who had been condemned to death for coining gold were pardoned — several hundred thousand of them; those who killed each other before discovery cannot be counted; those who gave themselves up were over a million; yet not half came forward, and in the realm generally everyone was coining; offenders were so many that the officials could not execute them all' (赦吏民之坐盜鑄金錢死者數十萬人……犯者眾，吏不能盡誅取). It ends with the monopoly: 'all commanderies and kingdoms were forbidden to coin, and the casting was given solely to the three offices of the Shanglin park… coins not of the three offices might not circulate, and the coins previously cast in the commanderies were all abolished and melted, their copper sent to the three offices; private coining grew less, since the cost could not be matched — only true artisans and great villains still coined illegally' (唯真工大姦乃盜為之).
- 《汉书》卷二十四〈食货志〉（维基文库本，未与点校本复核） — The parallel account, used for the policy wording and Jia Yi's remonstrance. 'In the fifth year of Emperor Wen, because the coins were plentiful and light, four-zhu coins were cast with the inscription Ban Liang; the prohibition on private coining was removed, and the people were allowed to cast freely' (除盜鑄錢令，使民放鑄). Jia Yi's objection argues from the penalty ladder: the law allowed casting under licence but made adulteration with lead or iron a branding offence, yet 'unless the coin is adulterated one cannot profit, and the adulteration is very slight while the profit is very great… though branding be reported daily, the practice does not stop' (雖黥罪日報，其勢不止); and 'formerly, when coining was forbidden, death sentences accumulated below; now that it is public, branding sentences accumulate' (曩禁鑄錢，死罪積下；今公鑄錢，黥罪積下). He adds: 'if coining is forbidden, coins will be heavy; heavy means the profit is deep, and forgers rise like clouds, and the penalty of exposure in the market is again not enough to stop them' (棄市之罪又不足以禁矣). The same chapter repeats the penalty clause in the same words as the Shiji: 'forging any of the gold coins is a capital offence, and of officials and people who committed it there were countless numbers' (盜鑄諸金錢罪皆死，而吏民之犯者不可勝數).
