Agricola's intellectual attainments and position in science

AGRICOLA' S INTELLECTUAL ATTAINMENTS AND
POSITION IN SCIENCE.
Agricola' s education was the most thorough that his times afforded in
the classics, philosophy, medicine, and sciences generally. Further, his writings
disclose a most exhaustive knowledge not only of an extraordinary range of
classical literature, but also of obscure manuscripts buried in the public libraries
of Europe. That his general learning was held to be of a high order is amply
evidenced from the correspondence of the other scholars of his timeErasmus,
Melanchthon, Meurer, Fabricius, and others.
Our more immediate concern, however, is with the advances which were due
to him in the sciences of Geology, Mineralogy, and Mining Engineering. No
appreciation of these attainments can be conveyed to the reader unless he
has some understanding of the dearth of knowledge in these sciences prior
to Agricola' s time. We have in Appendix B given a brief review of the
literature extant at this period on these subjects. Furthermore, no appreciation
of Agricola' s contribution to science can be gained without a study of De
Ortu et Causís and De Natura Fossílíum, for while De Re Metallíca is of much
more general interest, it contains but incidental reference to Geology and
Mineralogy. Apart from the book of Genesis, the only attempts at funda−
mental explanation of natural phenomena were those of the Greek Philosophers
and the Alchemists. Orthodox beliefs Agricola scarcely mentions; with the
Alchemists he had no patience. There can be no doubt, however, that his
views are greatly coloured by his deep classical learning. He was in fine to a
certain distance a follower of Aristotle, Theophrastus, Strato, and other leaders
of the Peripatetic school. For that matter, except for the muddy current
which the alchemists had introduced into this already troubled stream,
the whole thought of the learned world still flowed from the Greeks. Had he
not, however, radically departed from the teachings of the Peripatetic school,
his work would have been no contribution to the development of science.
Certain of their teachings he repudiated with great vigour, and his
laboured and detailed arguments in their refutation form the first battle in
science over the results of observation versus inductive speculation. To use
his own words: "Those things which we see with our eyes and understand
by means of our senses are more clearly to be demonstrated than if learned
by means of reasoning." 15 The bigoted scholasticism of his times necessi−
tated as much care and detail in refutation of such deep−rooted beliefs, as would
be demanded to−day by an attempt at a refutation of the theory of evolution,
and in consequence his works are often but dry reading to any but those
1
22
interested in the development of fundamental scientific theory.
In giving an appreciation of Agricola' s views here and throughout the
footnotes, we do not wish to convey to the reader that he was in all things
free from error and from the spirit of his times, or that his theories, constructed
long before the atomic theory, are of the clear−cut order which that
basic hypothesis has rendered possible to later scientific speculation in these
branches. His statements are sometimes much confused, but we reiterate that
1
23
their clarity is as crystal to mud in comparison with those of his predecessors
and of most of his successors for over two hundred years. As an indication of
his grasp of some of the wider aspects of geological phenomena we reproduce,
in Appendix A, a passage from De Ortu et Causís, which we believe to be the
first adequate declaration of the part played by erosion in mountain sculpture.
But of all of Agricola' s theoretical views those are of the greatest interest which
relate to the origin of ore deposits, for in these matters he had the greatest
opportunities of observation and the most experience. We have on page 108
reproduced and discussed his theory at considerable length, but we may repeat
here, that in his propositions as to the circulation of ground waters, that ore
channels are a subsequent creation to the contained rocks, and that they
were filled by deposition from circulating solutions, he enunciated the founda−
tions of our modern theory, and in so doing took a step in advance greater than
that of any single subsequent authority. In his contention that ore channels
were created by erosion of subterranean waters he was wrong, except for
special cases, and it was not until two centuries later that a further step in
advance was taken by the recognition by Van Oppel of the part played by
fissuring in these phenomena. Nor was it until about the same time that the
filling of ore channels in the main by deposition from solutions was generally
accepted. While Werner, two hundred and fifty years after Agricola, is
generally revered as the inspirer of the modern theory by those whose reading
has taken them no farther back, we have no hesitation in asserting that of the
propositions of each author, Agricola' s were very much more nearly in
accord with modern views. Moreover, the main result of the new ideas
brought forward by Werner was to stop the march of progress for half a
century, instead of speeding it forward as did those of Agricola.
In mineralogy Agricola made the first attempt at systematic treatment
of the subject. His system could not be otherwise than wrongly based,
as he could scarcely see forward two or three centuries to the atomic theory
and our vast fund of chemical knowledge. However, based as it is upon
such properties as solubility and homogeneity, and upon external character−
istics such as colour, hardness, &c., it makes a most creditable advance
upon Theophrastus, Dioscorides, and Albertus Magnushis only predecessors.
He is the first to assert that bismuth and antimony are true primary metals;
and to some sixty actual mineral species described previous to his time he
added some twenty more, and laments that there are scores unnamed.
As to Agricola' s contribution to the sciences of mining and metal−
lurgy, De Re Metallíca speaks for itself. While he describes, for the first
1
24
time, scores of methods and processes, no one would contend that they
were discoveries or inventions of his own. They represent the accumulation
of generations of experience and knowledge; but by him they were, for the
first time, to receive detailed and intelligent exposition. Until Schlüter' s
work nearly two centuries later, it was not excelled. There is no measure by
which we may gauge the value of such a work to the men who followed in
this profession during centuries, nor the benefits enjoyed by humanity
through them.
1
25
That Agricola occupied a very considerable place in the great awakening of
learning will be disputed by none except by those who place the development
of science in rank far below religion, politics, literature, and art. Of wider
importance than the details of his achievements in the mere confines of the
particular science to which he applied himself, is the fact that he was the first
to found any of the natural sciences upon research and observation, as opposed
to previous fruitless speculation. The wider interest of the members of the
medical profession in the development of their science than that of geologists
in theirs, has led to the aggrandizement of Paracelsus, a contem−
porary of Agricola, as the first in deductive science. Yet no comparative
study of the unparalleled egotistical ravings of this half−genius, half−alchemist,
with the modest sober logic and real research and observation of Agricola,
can leave a moment' s doubt as to the incomparably greater position which
should be attributed to the latter as the pioneer in building the foundation
of science by deduction from observed phenomena. Science is the base upon
which is reared the civilization of to−day, and while we give daily credit to all
those who toil in the superstructure, let none forget those men who laid its
first foundation stones. One of the greatest of these was Georgius Agricola.
1
26
Agricola seems to have been engaged in the preparation of De Re
Metallica for a period of over twenty years, for we first hear of the book in a
letter from Petrus Plateanus, a schoolmaster at Joachimsthal, to the great
humanist, Erasmus, 16 in September, 1529. He says: "The scientific world
will be still more indebted to Agricola when he brings to light the books
De Re Metallica and other matters which he has on hand." In the dedication
of De Mensuris et Ponderibus (in 1533) Agricola states that he means to
publish twelve books De Re Metallica, if he lives. That the appearance of this
work was eagerly anticipated is evidenced by a letter from George Fabricius
to Valentine Hertel: 17 "With great excitement the books De Re Metallíca
are being awaited. If he treats the material at hand with his usual zeal,
he will win for himself glory such as no one in any of the fields of literature
has attained for the last thousand years." According to the dedication of
De Veteríbus et Novis Metallís, Agricola in 1546 already looked forward to
its early publication. The work was apparently finished in 1550, for the
dedication to the Dukes Maurice and August of Saxony is dated in December of
that year. The eulogistic poem by his friend, George Fabricius, is dated in
1551.
The publication was apparently long delayed by the preparation of the
woodcuts; and, according to Mathesius, 18 many sketches for them were
prepared by Basilius Wefring. In the preface of De Re Metallíca, Agricola
does not mention who prepared the sketches, but does say: "I have hired
illustrators to delineate their forms, lest descriptions which are conveyed
by words should either not be understood by men of our own times, or
should cause difficulty to posterity." In 1553 the completed book was
sent to Froben for publication, for a letter 19 from Fabricius to Meurer in
March, 1553, announces its dispatch to the printer. An interesting letter 20
from the Elector Augustus to Agricola, dated January 18, 1555, reads:
"Most learned, dear and faithful subject, whereas you have sent to the Press
a Latin book of which the title is said to be De Rebus Metallícis, which has
been praised to us and we should like to know the contents, it is our gracious
command that you should get the book translated when you have the
opportunity into German, and not let it be copied more than once or be
printed, but keep it by you and send us a copy. If you should need a
writer for this purpose, we will provide one. Thus you will fulfil our
gracious behest." The German translation was prepared by Philip Bechius,
a Basel University Professor of Medicine and Philosophy. It is a wretched
work, by one who knew nothing of the science, and who more especially had no
appreciation of the peculiar Latin terms coined by Agricola, most of which
1
27
1
28
GEORGII AGRICOLAE
DE RE METALLICA LIBRI XII<28> QVI−
bus Officia, Instrumenta, Machinæ, acomnia denique ad Metalli−
tam spectantia, non modo luculentissimè describuntur, sed & per
effigies, suis locis insertas, adiunctis Latinis, Germanicis appel−
lationibus ita ob oculos ponuntur, ut clarius tradi non possint.
BIVSDEM
DE ANIMANTIBVS SVBTERRANEIS Liber, ab Autore re−
cognitus:cum Indicibus diuersis, quicquid in opere tractatum est,
pulchrè demonstrantibus.
BASILEAE M<28> D<28> LVI<28>
Cum Priuilegio Imperatoris in annos v.
& Galliarum Regis ad Sexennium.
1
29
he rendered literally. It is a sad commentary on his countrymen that no
correct German translation exists. The Italian translation is by Michelangelo
Florio, and is by him dedicated to Elizabeth, Queen of England. The title
page of the first edition is reproduced later on, and the full titles of other
editions are given in the Appendix, together with the author' s other works.
The following are the short titles of the various editions of De Re Metallica,
together with the name and place of the publisher:
LATIN EDITIONS.
De Re Metallíca, Froben .. .. Basel Folio 1556.
De Re Metallíca, Froben .. .. Basel Folio 1561.
De Re Metallíca, Ludwig König Basel Folio 1621.
De Re Metallíca, Emanuel König Basel Folio 1657.
In addition to these, Leupold, 21 Schmid, 22 and others mention an octavo
edition, without illustrations, Schweinfurt, 1607. We have not been able to
find a copy of this edition, and are not certain of its existence. The same
catalogues also mention an octavo edition of De Re Metallica, Wittenberg,
1612 or 1614, with notes by Joanne Sigfrido; but we believe this to be a
confusion with Agricola' s subsidiary works, which were published at this
time and place, with such notes.
GERMAN EDITIONS.
Vom Bergkwerck, Froben, Folio, 1557.
Bergwerck Buch, Sigmundi Feyrabendt, Frankfort−on−Main, folio, 1580.
Bergwerck Buch, Ludwig König, Basel, folio, 1621.
There are other editions than these, mentioned by bibliographers, but we
have been unable to confirm them in any library. The most reliable
of such bibliographies, that of John Ferguson, 23 gives in addition to the
above; Bergwerkbuch, Basel, 1657, folio, and Schweinfurt, 1687, octavo.
ITALIAN EDITION.
L' Arte de Metalli, Froben, Basel, folio, 1563.
1
30
OTHER LANGUAGES.
So far as we know, De Re Metallíca was never actually published in other
than Latin, German, and Italian. However, a portion of the accounts of
the firm of Froben were published in 1881 24 , and therein is an entry under
March, 1560, of a sum to one Leodigaris Grymaldo for some other work, and
also for "correction of Agricola' s De Re Metallíca in French." This may
of course, be an error for the Italian edition, which appeared a little later.
There is also mention 25 that a manuscript of De Re Metallica in Spanish was
1
31
seen in the library of the town of Bejar. An interesting note appears in
the glossary given by Sir John Pettus in his translation of Lazarus Erckern' s
work on assaying. He says 26 "but I cannot enlarge my observations upon
any more words, because the printer calls for what I did write of a metallick
dictionary, after I first proposed the printing of Erckern, but intending
within the compass of a year to publish Georgius Agricola, De Re Metallica
(being fully translated) in English, and also to add a dictionary to it, I
shall reserve my remaining essays (if what I have done hitherto be approved)
till then, and so I proceed in the dictionary." The translation was never
published and extensive inquiry in various libraries and among the family
of Pettus has failed to yield any trace of the manuscript.
1
32
GEORGIVS FABRICIVS IN LI−
bros Metallicos GEORGII AGRICOL AE phi
losophi præstantissimi.
AD LECTOREM.
Siiuuat ignita cognoscere fronte Chimæram,
Semicanem nympham, semibouem uirum:
Sicentum capitum Titanem, tot ferentem
Sublimem manibus tela cruenta Gygen:
Siiuuat Ætneum penetrare Cyclopis in antrum,
Atque alios, Vates quos peperere, metus:
Nunc placeat mecum doctos euoluere libros,
Ingenium AGRICOLAE quos dedit acre tibi.
Non hic uana tenet suspensam fabula mentem:
Sed precium, utilitas multa, legentis erit.
Quidquid terra sinu, gremio recondiditimo,
Omne tibi multis eruit ante libris:
Siue fluens superas ultro nitatur in oras,
Inueniat facilem seu magis arte uiam.
Perpetui proprns manant de fontibus amnes,
Est grauis Albuneæ sponte Mephitis odor.
Lethales sunt sponte scrobes Dicæarchidis oræ,
Et micat è media conditus ignis humo.
Plana Nariscorum cùm tellus arsitin agro,
Ter curua nondum falce resecta Ceres.
Nec dedit hoc damnum pastor, riec Iuppiterigne:
Vulcani per seruperat ira solum.
1
33
Terrifico aura foras erumpens, incita motu,
Sæpefacit montes, antè ubi plana uia est.
Hæcabstrusa cauis, imo incognita fundo,
Cognita natura sæpe fuere duce.
Arte hominum, in lucem ueniunt quoque multa, manu
Terræ multiplices effodiuntur opes.
Lydia sicnitrum profert, Islandia sulfur,
Acmodò Tyrrhenus mittit alumen ager.
Succina, quâ trifi do subit æquor Vistula cornu,
Piscantur Codano corpora serua sinu.
Quid memorem regum preciosa insignia gemmas,
Marmora excelsis structa sub astra iugis?
Nil lapides, nil saxa moror: sunt pulchra metalia,
Crfetuis opibus clara, Myda tuis,
Quæ acer Macedo terra Creneide fodit,
Nomine permutans nomina prisca suo.
Atnuncnon ullis cedit GERMANIA terris
Terra ferax hominum, terra diues opum.
Hic auri in uenis locupletibus aura refulget,
Non alio messis carior ulla loco.
Auricomum extulerit felix Campania ramum,
Nec fructu nobis desiciente cadit.
Eruit argenti solidas hoc tempore massas
Fossor, dc proprijs arma miles agris.
Ignotum Graijs est Hesperijs metallum,
Quod Bisemutum lingua paterna uocat.
Candidius nigro, sed plumbo nigrius albo,
Nostra quoque hoc uena diuite fundit humus.
Funditur in tormenta, corus cum imitantia fulmen,
Æs, in hostiles ferrea massa domos.
Scribuntur plumbo libri: quis credidit antè
Quàm mirandam artem Teutonis ora dedit?
Nec tamen hoc alijs, aut illa petuntur ab oris,
Eruta Germano cuncta metalla solo.
Sed quid ego hæc repeto, monumentis tradita claris
AGRICOLAE, quæ nunc docta per ora uolant?
Hic caussis ortus, & formas uiribus addit,
Et quærenda quibus sint meliora locis.
Quæ si mente prius legisti candidus æqua:
Da reliquis quoque nunc tempora pauca libris.
Vtilitas sequitur cultorem: crede, uoluptas
Non iucunda minor, rara legentis, erit.
Iudicio prius ne quis malè damnet iniquo,
Quæ sunt auctoris munera mira Dei:
1
35
Eripit ipse suis primùm tela hostibus, in
Mittentis torquet spicula rapta caput.
Fertur equo latro, uehitur pirata triremi:
Ergo necandus equus, nec fabricanda ratis?
Visceribus terræ lateant abstrusa metalla,
Vti opibus nescit quòd mala turba suis?
Quisquis es, aut doctis pareto monentïbus, aut te
Inter habere bonos ne fateare locum.
Se non in prærupta metallicus abijcit audax,
Vt quondam immisso Curtius acer equo:
Sed prius ediscit, quæ sunt noscenda perito,
Quod facit, multa doctus ab arte facit.
Vt gubernator seruat cum sidere uentos:
Sic minimè dubijs utitur ille notis.
Iasides nauim, currus regit arte Metiscus:
Fossor opus peragit nec minus arte suum.
Indagat uenæ spacium, numerum, modum,
Siue obliqua suum, rectaúe tendatiter.
Terra ferax hominum, terra diues opum.
Hic auri in uenis locupletibus aura refulget,
Non alio messis carior ulla loco.
Auricomum extulerit felix Campania ramum,
Nec fructu nobis desiciente cadit.
Eruit argenti solidas hoc tempore massas
Fossor, dc proprijs arma miles agris.
Ignotum Graijs est Hesperijs metallum,
Quod Bisemutum lingua paterna uocat.
Candidius nigro, sed plumbo nigrius albo,
Nostra quoque hoc uena diuite fundit humus.
Funditur in tormenta, corus cum imitantia fulmen,
Æs, in hostiles ferrea massa domos.
Scribuntur plumbo libri: quis credidit antè
Quàm mirandam artem Teutonis ora dedit?
Nec tamen hoc alijs, aut illa petuntur ab oris,
Eruta Germano cuncta metalla solo.
Sed quid ego hæc repeto, monumentis tradita claris
AGRICOLAE, quæ nunc docta per ora uolant?
Hic caussis ortus, & formas uiribus addit,
Et quærenda quibus sint meliora locis.
Quæ si mente prius legisti candidus æqua:
Da reliquis quoque nunc tempora pauca libris.
Vtilitas sequitur cultorem: crede, uoluptas
Non iucunda minor, rara legentis, erit.
Iudicio prius ne quis malè damnet iniquo,
Quæ sunt auctoris munera mira Dei:
1
35
Eripit ipse suis primùm tela hostibus, in
Mittentis torquet spicula rapta caput.
Fertur equo latro, uehitur pirata triremi:
Ergo necandus equus, nec fabricanda ratis?
Visceribus terræ lateant abstrusa metalla,
Vti opibus nescit quòd mala turba suis?
Quisquis es, aut doctis pareto monentïbus, aut te
Inter habere bonos ne fateare locum.
Se non in prærupta metallicus abijcit audax,
Vt quondam immisso Curtius acer equo:
Sed prius ediscit, quæ sunt noscenda perito,
Quod facit, multa doctus ab arte facit.
Vt gubernator seruat cum sidere uentos:
Sic minimè dubijs utitur ille notis.
Iasides nauim, currus regit arte Metiscus:
Fossor opus peragit nec minus arte suum.
Indagat uenæ spacium, numerum, modum,
Siue obliqua suum, rectaúe tendatiter.
1
36
Pastor ut explorat quæ terra sit apta colenti,
Quæ bene lanigeras, quæ malè pascat oucs.
En terræ intentus, quid uincula linea tendit?
Fungitur officio iam Ptolemæe tuo.
Vt suæ inuenit mensuram iura uenæ,
In uarios operas diuidit ind e uiros.
Iam aggressus opus, uiden' ut mouet omne quod obstat,
Assidua ut uersat strenuus arma manu?
Ne tibi surdescant ferri tinnitibus aures,
Ad grauiora ideo conspicienda ueni.
Instruit ecce suis nunc artibus ille minores:
Sedulitas nulli non operosa loco.
Metiri docet hic uenæ spacium modum,
Vt regat positis sinibus arua lapis,
Ne quis transmisso uiolentus limite pergens,
Non sibi concessas, in sua uertat, opes.
Hic docet instrumenta, quibus Piutonia regna
Tutus adit, saxi permeat atque uias.
Quanta (uides) solidas expugnet machina terras:
Machina non ullo tempore uisa prius.
Cede nouis, nulla non inclyta laude uetustas,
Posteritas meritis est quoque grata tuis.
Tum quia Germano sunt hæc inuenta sub axe,
Si quis es, inuidiæ contrahe uela tuæ.
Ausonis ora tumct bellis, terra Attica cultu,
Germanum insractus tollit ad astra labor.
Nec tamen ingenio solet infeliciter uti,
1
37
Mite gerát PhSbi, seu graue Martis opus.
Tempus adest, structis uenarum montibus, igne
Explorare, usum quem sibi uena ferat.
Non labor ingenio caret hic, non copia fructu,
Est adaperta bonæ prima fenestra spei.
Ergo instat porrò grauiores ferre labores,
Intentas operi nec remouere manus.
Vrere siue locus poscat, seu tundere uenas,
Siue lauare lacu præter euntis aquæ.
Seu flammis iterum modicis torrere necesse est,
Excoquere aut fastis ignibus omne malum,
Cùm fluit æs riuis, auri argenti metallum,
Spes animo fossor uix capit ipse suas.
Argentum cupidus fuluo secernit ab auro,
Et plumbi lentam demit utrique moram.
Separat argentum, lucri studiosus, ab ære,
Seruatis, linquens deteriora, bonis.
1
38
Quæ si cuncta uelim tenui percurrere uersu,
Ante alium reuehat Memnonis o ra diem.
Postremus labor est, concretos disceresuccos,
Quos fert innumeris Teutona terra locis.
Quo sal, quo nitrum, quo pacto fiat alumen,
Vsibus artisicis cùm parat illa manus:
Necnon chalcantum, sulfur, fluidumque bitumen,
Massa quo uitri lenta dolanda modo.
Suscipit hæc hominum mirandos cura labores,
Pauperiem usqueadeo ferre famem graue est,
Tantus amor uictum paruis extundere natis,
Et patriæ ciuem non dare uelle malum.
Nec manet in terræ fossoris mersa latebris
Mens, sed fert domino uota preces Deo.
Munificæ expectat, spe plenus, munera dextræ,
Extollens animum lætus ad astra suum.
Diuitias CHRISTVS dat noticiam fruendi,
Cui memori grates pectore semper agit.
Hoc quoque laudati quondam fecere Philippi,
Qui uirtutis habent cum pietate decus.
Huc oculos, huc flecte animum, suauissime Lector,
Auctorem pia noscito mente Deum.
AGRICOLAE hinc optans operoso fausta labori,
Laudibus eximij candidus esto uiri.
Ille suum extollit patriæ cum nomine nomen,
Et uir in ore frequens posteritatis erit.
Cuncta cadunt letho, studij monumenta uigebunt,
1
39
Purpurei doneclumina solis erunt.
Misenæ M. D. LI.
èludo illustri.
For completeness' sake we reproduce in the original Latin the laudation of Agricola
by his friend, Georgius Fabricius, a leading scholar of his time. It has but little intrinsic
value for it is not poetry of a very high order, and to make it acceptable English would require
certain improvements, for which only poets have license. A "free" translation of the last
few lines indicates its complimentary character:
"He doth raise his country' s fame with his own
And in the mouths of nations yet unborn
His praises shall be sung; Death comes to all
But great achievements raise a monument
Which shall endure until the sun grows cold."