BOOK I.

Produced by Malcolm Farmer, Stephen H. Sentoff and the

Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net

GEORGIUS AGRICOLA

DE RE METALLICA

TRANSLATED FROM THE FIRST LATIN EDITION OF 1556

with

Biographical Introduction, Annotations and Appendices upon

the Development of Mining Methods, Metallurgical

Processes, Geology, Mineralogy & Mining Law

from the earliest times to the 16th Century

BY

HERBERT CLARK HOOVER

A. B. Stanford University, Member American Institute of Mining Engineers,

Mining and Metallurgical Society of America, Societe des Ingenieurs

Civils de France, American Institute of Civil Engineers,

Fellow Royal Geographical Society, etc., etc.

AND

LOU HENRY HOOVER

A. B. Stanford University, Member American Association for the

Advancement of Science, The National Geographical Society,

Royal Scottish Geographical Society, etc., etc.

1950

_Dover Publications, Inc._

NEW YORK

TO

JOHN CASPAR BRANNER Ph.D.,

_The inspiration of whose teaching is no less great than his

contribution to science._

This New 1950 Edition of DE RE METALLICA is a complete and unchanged

reprint of the translation published by The Mining Magazine, London, in

1912. It has been made available through the kind permission of

Honorable Herbert C. Hoover and Mr. Edgar Rickard, Author and Publisher,

respectively, of the original volume.

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

TRANSLATORS' PREFACE.

There are three objectives in translation of works of this character: to

give a faithful, literal translation of the author's statements; to give

these in a manner which will interest the reader; and to preserve, so

far as is possible, the style of the original text. The task has been

doubly difficult in this work because, in using Latin, the author

availed himself of a medium which had ceased to expand a thousand years

before his subject had in many particulars come into being; in

consequence he was in difficulties with a large number of ideas for

which there were no corresponding words in the vocabulary at his

command, and instead of adopting into the text his native German terms,

he coined several hundred Latin expressions to answer his needs. It is

upon this rock that most former attempts at translation have been

wrecked. Except for a very small number, we believe we have been able to

discover the intended meaning of such expressions from a study of the

context, assisted by a very incomplete glossary prepared by the author

himself, and by an exhaustive investigation into the literature of these

subjects during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. That discovery

in this particular has been only gradual and obtained after much labour,

may be indicated by the fact that the entire text has been

re-typewritten three times since the original, and some parts more

often; and further, that the printer's proof has been thrice revised. We

have found some English equivalent, more or less satisfactory, for

practically all such terms, except those of weights, the varieties of

veins, and a few minerals. In the matter of weights we have introduced

the original Latin, because it is impossible to give true equivalents

and avoid the fractions of reduction; and further, as explained in the

Appendix on Weights it is impossible to say in many cases what scale the

Author had in mind. The English nomenclature to be adopted has given

great difficulty, for various reasons; among them, that many methods and

processes described have never been practised in English-speaking mining

communities, and so had no representatives in our vocabulary, and we

considered the introduction of German terms undesirable; other methods

and processes have become obsolete and their descriptive terms with

them, yet we wished to avoid the introduction of obsolete or unusual

English; but of the greatest importance of all has been the necessity to

avoid rigorously such modern technical terms as would imply a greater

scientific understanding than the period possessed.

Agricola's Latin, while mostly free from mediaeval corruption, is

somewhat tainted with German construction. Moreover some portions have

not the continuous flow of sustained thought which others display, but

the fact that the writing of the work extended over a period of twenty

years, sufficiently explains the considerable variation in style. The

technical descriptions in the later books often take the form of

House-that-Jack-built sentences which have had to be at least partially

broken up and the subject occasionally re-introduced. Ambiguities were

also sometimes found which it was necessary to carry on into the

translation. Despite these criticisms we must, however, emphasize that

Agricola was infinitely clearer in his style than his contemporaries

upon such subjects, or for that matter than his successors in almost any

language for a couple of centuries. All of the illustrations and display

letters of the original have been reproduced and the type as closely

approximates to the original as the printers have been able to find in a

modern font.

There are no footnotes in the original text, and Mr. Hoover is

responsible for them all. He has attempted in them to give not only such

comment as would tend to clarify the text, but also such information as

we have been able to discover with regard to the previous history of the

subjects mentioned. We have confined the historical notes to the time

prior to Agricola, because to have carried them down to date in the

briefest manner would have demanded very much more space than could be

allowed. In the examination of such technical and historical material

one is appalled at the flood of mis-information with regard to ancient

arts and sciences which has been let loose upon the world by the hands

of non-technical translators and commentators. At an early stage we

considered that we must justify any divergence of view from such

authorities, but to limit the already alarming volume of this work, we

later felt compelled to eliminate most of such discussion. When the

half-dozen most important of the ancient works bearing upon science have

been translated by those of some scientific experience, such questions

will, no doubt, be properly settled.

We need make no apologies for _De Re Metallica_. During 180 years it was

not superseded as the text-book and guide to miners and metallurgists,

for until Schlueter's great work on metallurgy in 1738 it had no equal.

That it passed through some ten editions in three languages at a period

when the printing of such a volume was no ordinary undertaking, is in

itself sufficient evidence of the importance in which it was held, and

is a record that no other volume upon the same subjects has equalled

since. A large proportion of the technical data given by Agricola was

either entirely new, or had not been given previously with sufficient

detail and explanation to have enabled a worker in these arts himself to

perform the operations without further guidance. Practically the whole

of it must have been given from personal experience and observation, for

the scant library at his service can be appreciated from his own

Preface. Considering the part which the metallic arts have played in

human history, the paucity of their literature down to Agricola's time

is amazing. No doubt the arts were jealously guarded by their

practitioners as a sort of stock-in-trade, and it is also probable that

those who had knowledge were not usually of a literary turn of mind;

and, on the other hand, the small army of writers prior to his time

were not much interested in the description of industrial pursuits.

Moreover, in those thousands of years prior to printing, the tedious and

expensive transcription of manuscripts by hand was mostly applied to

matters of more general interest, and therefore many writings may have

been lost in consequence. In fact, such was the fate of the works of

Theophrastus and Strato on these subjects.

We have prepared a short sketch of Agricola's life and times, not only

to give some indication of his learning and character, but also of his

considerable position in the community in which he lived. As no

appreciation of Agricola's stature among the founders of science can be

gained without consideration of the advance which his works display over

those of his predecessors, we therefore devote some attention to the

state of knowledge of these subjects at the time by giving in the

Appendix a short review of the literature then extant and a summary of

Agricola's other writings. To serve the bibliophile we present such data

as we have been able to collect it with regard to the various editions

of his works. The full titles of the works quoted in the footnotes under

simply authors' names will be found in this Appendix.

We feel that it is scarcely doing Agricola justice to publish _De Re

Metallica_ only. While it is of the most general interest of all of his

works, yet, from the point of view of pure science, _De Natura

Fossilium_ and _De Ortu et Causis_ are works which deserve an equally

important place. It is unfortunate that Agricola's own countrymen have

not given to the world competent translations into German, as his work

has too often been judged by the German translations, the infidelity of

which appears in nearly every paragraph.

We do not present _De Re Metallica_ as a work of "practical" value. The

methods and processes have long since been superseded; yet surely such a

milestone on the road of development of one of the two most basic of

human industrial activities is more worthy of preservation than the

thousands of volumes devoted to records of human destruction. To those

interested in the history of their own profession we need make no

apologies, except for the long delay in publication. For this we put

forward the necessity of active endeavour in many directions; as this

book could be but a labour of love, it has had to find the moments for

its execution in night hours, weekends, and holidays, in all extending

over a period of about five years. If the work serves to strengthen the

traditions of one of the most important and least recognized of the

world's professions we shall be amply repaid.

It is our pleasure to acknowledge our obligations to Professor H. R.

Fairclough, of Stanford University, for perusal of and suggestions upon

the first chapter; and to those whom we have engaged from time to time

for one service or another, chiefly bibliographical work and collateral

translation. We are also sensibly obligated to the printers, Messrs.

Frost & Sons, for their patience and interest, and for their willingness

to bend some of the canons of modern printing, to meet the demands of

the 16th Century.

_July 1, 1912._

The Red House,

Hornton Street, London.

INTRODUCTION.

BIOGRAPHY.[1]

Georgius Agricola was born at Glauchau, in Saxony, on March 24th, 1494,

and therefore entered the world when it was still upon the threshold of

the Renaissance; Gutenberg's first book had been printed but forty years

before; the Humanists had but begun that stimulating criticism which

awoke the Reformation; Erasmus, of Rotterdam, who was subsequently to

become Agricola's friend and patron, was just completing his student

days. The Reformation itself was yet to come, but it was not long

delayed, for Luther was born the year before Agricola, and through him

Agricola's homeland became the cradle of the great movement; nor did

Agricola escape being drawn into the conflict. Italy, already awake with

the new classical revival, was still a busy workshop of antiquarian

research, translation, study, and publication, and through her the Greek

and Latin Classics were only now available for wide distribution.

Students from the rest of Europe, among them at a later time Agricola

himself, flocked to the Italian Universities, and on their return

infected their native cities with the newly-awakened learning. At

Agricola's birth Columbus had just returned from his great discovery,

and it was only three years later that Vasco Da Gama rounded Cape Good

Hope. Thus these two foremost explorers had only initiated that greatest

period of geographical expansion in the world's history. A few dates

will recall how far this exploration extended during Agricola's

lifetime. Balboa first saw the Pacific in 1513; Cortes entered the City

of Mexico in 1520; Magellan entered the Pacific in the same year;

Pizarro penetrated into Peru in 1528; De Soto landed in Florida in 1539,

and Potosi was discovered in 1546. Omitting the sporadic settlement on

the St. Lawrence by Cartier in 1541, the settlement of North America did

not begin for a quarter of a century after Agricola's death. Thus the

revival of learning, with its train of Humanism, the Reformation, its

stimulation of exploration and the re-awakening of the arts and

sciences, was still in its infancy with Agricola.

We know practically nothing of Agricola's antecedents or his youth. His

real name was Georg Bauer ("peasant"), and it was probably Latinized by

his teachers, as was the custom of the time. His own brother, in

receipts preserved in the archives of the Zwickau Town Council, calls

himself "Bauer," and in them refers to his brother "Agricola." He

entered the University of Leipsic at the age of twenty, and after about

three and one-half years' attendance there gained the degree of

_Baccalaureus Artium_. In 1518 he became Vice-Principal of the Municipal

School at Zwickau, where he taught Greek and Latin. In 1520 he became

Principal, and among his assistants was Johannes Foerster, better known

as Luther's collaborator in the translation of the Bible. During this

time our author prepared and published a small Latin Grammar[2]. In 1522

he removed to Leipsic to become a lecturer in the University under his

friend, Petrus Mosellanus, at whose death in 1524 he went to Italy for

the further study of Philosophy, Medicine, and the Natural Sciences.

Here he remained for nearly three years, from 1524 to 1526. He visited

the Universities of Bologna, Venice, and probably Padua, and at these

institutions received his first inspiration to work in the sciences, for

in a letter[3] from Leonardus Casibrotius to Erasmus we learn that he

was engaged upon a revision of Galen. It was about this time that he

made the acquaintance of Erasmus, who had settled at Basel as Editor for

Froben's press.

In 1526 Agricola returned to Zwickau, and in 1527 he was chosen town

physician at Joachimsthal. This little city in Bohemia is located on the

eastern slope of the Erzgebirge, in the midst of the then most prolific

metal-mining district of Central Europe. Thence to Freiberg is but fifty

miles, and the same radius from that city would include most of the

mining towns so frequently mentioned in _De Re Metallica_--Schneeberg,

Geyer, Annaberg and Altenberg--and not far away were Marienberg,

Gottesgab, and Platten. Joachimsthal was a booming mining camp, founded

but eleven years before Agricola's arrival, and already having several

thousand inhabitants. According to Agricola's own statement[4], he spent

all the time not required for his medical duties in visiting the mines

and smelters, in reading up in the Greek and Latin authors all

references to mining, and in association with the most learned among the

mining folk. Among these was one Lorenz Berman, whom Agricola afterward

set up as the "learned miner" in his dialogue _Bermannus_. This book was

first published by Froben at Basel in 1530, and was a sort of catechism

on mineralogy, mining terms, and mining lore. The book was apparently

first submitted to the great Erasmus, and the publication arranged by

him, a warm letter of approval by him appearing at the beginning of the

book[5]. In 1533 he published _De Mensuris et Ponderibus_, through

Froben, this being a discussion of Roman and Greek weights and measures.

At about this time he began _De Re Metallica_--not to be published for

twenty-five years.

Agricola did not confine his interest entirely to medicine and mining,

for during this period he composed a pamphlet upon the Turks, urging

their extermination by the European powers. This work was no doubt

inspired by the Turkish siege of Vienna in 1529. It appeared first in

German in 1531, and in Latin--in which it was originally written--in

1538, and passed through many subsequent editions.

At this time, too, he became interested in the God's Gift mine at

Abertham, which was discovered in 1530. Writing in 1545, he says[6]:

"We, as a shareholder, through the goodness of God, have enjoyed the

proceeds of this God's Gift since the very time when the mine began

first to bestow such riches."

Agricola seems to have resigned his position at Joachimsthal in about

1530, and to have devoted the next two or three years to travel and

study among the mines. About 1533 he became city physician of Chemnitz,

in Saxony, and here he resided until his death in 1555. There is but

little record of his activities during the first eight or nine years of

his residence in this city. He must have been engaged upon the study of

his subjects and the preparation of his books, for they came on with

great rapidity soon after. He was frequently consulted on matters of

mining engineering, as, for instance, we learn, from a letter written by

a certain Johannes Hordeborch[7], that Duke Henry of Brunswick applied

to him with regard to the method for working mines in the Upper Harz.

In 1543 he married Anna, widow of Matthias Meyner, a petty tithe

official; there is some reason to believe from a letter published by

Schmid,[8] that Anna was his second wife, and that he was married the

first time at Joachimsthal. He seems to have had several children, for

he commends his young children to the care of the Town Council during

his absence at the war in 1547. In addition to these, we know that a

son, Theodor, was born in 1550; a daughter, Anna, in 1552; another

daughter, Irene, was buried at Chemnitz in 1555; and in 1580 his widow

and three children--Anna, Valerius, and Lucretia--were still living.

In 1544 began the publication of the series of books to which Agricola

owes his position. The first volume comprised five works and was finally

issued in 1546; it was subsequently considerably revised, and re-issued

in 1558. These works were: _De Ortu et Causis Subterraneorum_, in five

"books," the first work on physical geology; _De Natura Eorum quae

Effluunt ex Terra_, in four "books," on subterranean waters and gases;

_De Natura Fossilium_, in ten "books," the first systematic mineralogy;

_De Veteribus et Novis Metallis_, in two "books," devoted largely to the

history of metals and topographical mineralogy; a new edition of

_Bermannus_ was included; and finally _Rerum Metallicarum

Interpretatio_, a glossary of Latin and German mineralogical and

metallurgical terms. Another work, _De Animantibus Subterraneis_,

usually published with _De Re Metallica_, is dated 1548 in the preface.

It is devoted to animals which live underground, at least part of the

time, but is not a very effective basis of either geologic or zoologic

classification. Despite many public activities, Agricola apparently

completed _De Re Metallica_ in 1550, but did not send it to the press

until 1553; nor did it appear until a year after his death in 1555. But

we give further details on the preparation of this work on p. xv. During

this period he found time to prepare a small medical work, _De Peste_,

and certain historical studies, details of which appear in the Appendix.

There are other works by Agricola referred to by sixteenth century

writers, but so far we have not been able to find them although they may

exist. Such data as we have, is given in the appendix.

As a young man, Agricola seems to have had some tendencies toward

liberalism in religious matters, for while at Zwickau he composed some

anti-Popish Epigrams; but after his return to Leipsic he apparently

never wavered, and steadily refused to accept the Lutheran Reformation.

To many even liberal scholars of the day, Luther's doctrines appeared

wild and demagogic. Luther was not a scholarly man; his addresses were

to the masses; his Latin was execrable. Nor did the bitter dissensions

over hair-splitting theology in the Lutheran Church after Luther's death

tend to increase respect for the movement among the learned. Agricola

was a scholar of wide attainments, a deep-thinking, religious man, and

he remained to the end a staunch Catholic, despite the general change of

sentiment among his countrymen. His leanings were toward such men as his

friend the humanist, Erasmus. That he had the courage of his convictions

is shown in the dedication of _De Natura Eorum_, where he addresses to

his friend, Duke Maurice, the pious advice that the dissensions of the

Germans should be composed, and that the Duke should return to the bosom

of the Church those who had been torn from her, and adds: "Yet I do not

wish to become confused by these turbulent waters, and be led to offend

anyone. It is more advisable to check my utterances." As he became older

he may have become less tolerant in religious matters, for he did not

seem to show as much patience in the discussion of ecclesiastical topics

as he must have possessed earlier, yet he maintained to the end the

respect and friendship of such great Protestants as Melanchthon,

Camerarius, Fabricius, and many others.

In 1546, when he was at the age of 52, began Agricola's activity in

public life, for in that year he was elected a Burgher of Chemnitz; and

in the same year Duke Maurice appointed him Burgomaster--an office which

he held for four terms. Before one can gain an insight into his

political services, and incidentally into the character of the man, it

is necessary to understand the politics of the time and his part

therein, and to bear in mind always that he was a staunch Catholic under

a Protestant Sovereign in a State seething with militant Protestantism.

Saxony had been divided in 1485 between the Princes Ernest and Albert,

the former taking the Electoral dignity and the major portion of the

Principality. Albert the Brave, the younger brother and Duke of Saxony,

obtained the subordinate portion, embracing Meissen, but subject to the

Elector. The Elector Ernest was succeeded in 1486 by Frederick the Wise,

and under his support Luther made Saxony the cradle of the Reformation.

This Elector was succeeded in 1525 by his brother John, who was in turn

succeeded by his son John Frederick in 1532. Of more immediate interest

to this subject is the Albertian line of Saxon Dukes who ruled Meissen,

for in that Principality Agricola was born and lived, and his political

fortunes were associated with this branch of the Saxon House. Albert was

succeeded in 1505 by his son George, "The Bearded," and he in turn by

his brother Henry, the last of the Catholics, in 1539, who ruled until

1541. Henry was succeeded in 1541 by his Protestant son Maurice, who was

the Patron of Agricola.

At about this time Saxony was drawn into the storms which rose from the

long-standing rivalry between Francis I., King of France, and Charles V.

of Spain. These two potentates came to the throne in the same year

(1515), and both were candidates for Emperor of that loose Confederation

known as the Holy Roman Empire. Charles was elected, and intermittent

wars between these two Princes arose--first in one part of Europe, and

then in another. Francis finally formed an alliance with the

Schmalkalden League of German Protestant Princes, and with the Sultan of

Turkey, against Charles. In 1546 Maurice of Meissen, although a

Protestant, saw his best interest in a secret league with Charles

against the other Protestant Princes, and proceeded (the Schmalkalden

War) to invade the domains of his superior and cousin, the Elector

Frederick. The Emperor Charles proved successful in this war, and

Maurice was rewarded, at the Capitulation of Wittenberg in 1547, by

being made Elector of Saxony in the place of his cousin. Later on, the

Elector Maurice found the association with Catholic Charles unpalatable,

and joined in leading the other Protestant princes in war upon him, and

on the defeat of the Catholic party and the peace of Passau, Maurice

became acknowledged as the champion of German national and religious

freedom. He was succeeded by his brother Augustus in 1553.

Agricola was much favoured by the Saxon Electors, Maurice and Augustus.

He dedicates most of his works to them, and shows much gratitude for

many favours conferred upon him. Duke Maurice presented to him a house

and plot in Chemnitz, and in a letter dated June 14th, 1543[9] in

connection therewith, says: "... that he may enjoy his life-long a

freehold house unburdened by all burgher rights and other municipal

service, to be used by him and inhabited as a free dwelling, and that he

may also, for the necessities of his household and of his wife and

servants, brew his own beer free, and that he may likewise purvey for

himself and his household foreign beer and also wine for use, and yet he

shall not sell any such beer.... We have taken the said Doctor under our

especial protection and care for our life-long, and he shall not be

summoned before any Court of Justice, but only before us and our

Councillor...."

Agricola was made Burgomaster of Chemnitz in 1546. A letter[10] from

Fabricius to Meurer, dated May 19th, 1546, says that Agricola had been

made Burgomaster by the command of the Prince. This would be Maurice,

and it is all the more a tribute to the high respect with which Agricola

was held, for, as said before, he was a consistent Catholic, and Maurice

a Protestant Prince. In this same year the Schmalkalden War broke out,

and Agricola was called to personal attendance upon the Duke Maurice in

a diplomatic and advisory capacity. In 1546 also he was a member of the

Diet of Freiberg, and was summoned to Council in Dresden. The next year

he continued, by the Duke's command, Burgomaster at Chemnitz, although

he seems to have been away upon Ducal matters most of the time. The Duke

addresses[11] the Chemnitz Council in March, 1547: "We hereby make known

to you that we are in urgent need of your Burgomaster, Dr. Georgius

Agricola, with us. It is, therefore, our will that you should yield him

up and forward him that he should with the utmost haste set forth to us

here near Freiberg." He was sent on various missions from the Duke to

the Emperor Charles, to King Ferdinand of Austria, and to other Princes

in matters connected with the war--the fact that he was a Catholic

probably entering into his appointment to such missions. Chemnitz was

occupied by the troops of first one side, then the other, despite the

great efforts of Agricola to have his own town specially defended. In

April, 1547, the war came to an end in the Battle of Muehlberg, but

Agricola was apparently not relieved of his Burgomastership until the

succeeding year, for he wrote his friend Wolfgang Meurer, in April,

1548,[12] that he "was now relieved." His public duties did not end,

however, for he attended the Diet of Leipzig in 1547 and in 1549, and

was at the Diet at Torgau in 1550. In 1551 he was again installed as

Burgomaster; and in 1553, for the fourth time, he became head of the

Municipality, and during this year had again to attend the Diets at

Leipzig and Dresden, representing his city. He apparently now had a

short relief from public duties, for it is not until 1555, shortly

before his death, that we find him again attending a Diet at Torgau.

Agricola died on November 21st, 1555. A letter[13] from his life-long

friend, Fabricius, to Melanchthon, announcing this event, states: "We

lost, on November 21st, that distinguished ornament of our Fatherland,

Georgius Agricola, a man of eminent intellect, of culture and of

judgment. He attained the age of 62. He who since the days of childhood

had enjoyed robust health was carried off by a four-days' fever. He had

previously suffered from no disease except inflammation of the eyes,

which he brought upon himself by untiring study and insatiable

reading.... I know that you loved the soul of this man, although in many

of his opinions, more especially in religious and spiritual welfare, he

differed in many points from our own. For he despised our Churches, and

would not be with us in the Communion of the Blood of Christ. Therefore,

after his death, at the command of the Prince, which was given to the

Church inspectors and carried out by Tettelbach as a loyal servant,

burial was refused him, and not until the fourth day was he borne away

to Zeitz and interred in the Cathedral.... I have always admired the

genius of this man, so distinguished in our sciences and in the whole

realm of Philosophy--yet I wonder at his religious views, which were

compatible with reason, it is true, and were dazzling, but were by no

means compatible with truth.... He would not tolerate with patience that

anyone should discuss ecclesiastical matters with him." This action of

the authorities in denying burial to one of their most honoured

citizens, who had been ever assiduous in furthering the welfare of the

community, seems strangely out of joint. Further, the Elector Augustus,

although a Protestant Prince, was Agricola's warm friend, as evidenced

by his letter of but a few months before (see p. xv). However, Catholics

were then few in number at Chemnitz, and the feeling ran high at the

time, so possibly the Prince was afraid of public disturbances.

Hofmann[14] explains this occurrence in the following words:--"The

feelings of Chemnitz citizens, who were almost exclusively Protestant,

must certainly be taken into account. They may have raised objections to

the solemn interment of a Catholic in the Protestant Cathedral Church of

St. Jacob, which had, perhaps, been demanded by his relatives, and to

which, according to the custom of the time, he would have been entitled

as Burgomaster. The refusal to sanction the interment aroused, more

especially in the Catholic world, a painful sensation."

A brass memorial plate hung in the Cathedral at Zeitz had already

disappeared in 1686, nor have the cities of his birth or residence ever

shown any appreciation of this man, whose work more deserves their

gratitude than does that of the multitude of soldiers whose monuments

decorate every village and city square. It is true that in 1822 a marble

tablet was placed behind the altar in the Church of St. Jacob in

Chemnitz, but even this was removed to the Historical Museum later on.

He left a modest estate, which was the subject of considerable

litigation by his descendants, due to the mismanagement of the guardian.

Hofmann has succeeded in tracing the descendants for two generations,

down to 1609, but the line is finally lost among the multitude of other

Agricolas.

To deduce Georgius Agricola's character we need not search beyond the

discovery of his steadfast adherence to the religion of his fathers amid

the bitter storm of Protestantism around him, and need but to remember

at the same time that for twenty-five years he was entrusted with

elective positions of an increasingly important character in this same

community. No man could have thus held the respect of his countrymen

unless he were devoid of bigotry and possessed of the highest sense of

integrity, justice, humanity, and patriotism.

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 time--Erasmus, 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 Causis_ and _De Natura

Fossilium_, for while _De Re Metallica_ 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

fundamental 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 necessitated 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

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 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 Causis_, 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

foundations 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

characteristics such as colour, hardness, &c., it makes a most

creditable advance upon Theophrastus, Dioscorides, and Albertus

Magnus--his 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 metallurgy,

_De Re Metallica_ speaks for itself. While he describes, for the first

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 Schlueter'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.

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 contemporary 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.

DE RE METALLICA

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 Metallica_ 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 Veteribus et Novis Metallis_, 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 Metallica_,

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 Metallicis_, 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 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 Metallica_, Froben Basel Folio 1556.

" " " " " " 1561.

" " " Ludwig Koenig " " 1621.

" " " Emanuel Koenig " " 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.

" " Ludwig Koenig, 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.

Other Languages.

So far as we know, _De Re Metallica_ 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

Metallica_ 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 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.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] For the biographical information here set out we have relied

principally upon the following works:--Petrus Albinus, _Meissnische Land

Und Berg Chronica_, Dresden, 1590; Adam Daniel Richter, _Umstaendliche

... Chronica der Stadt Chemnitz_, Leipzig, 1754; Johann Gottfried

Weller, _Altes Aus Allen Theilen Der Geschichte_, Chemnitz, 1766;

Freidrich August Schmid, _Georg Agrikola's Bermannus_, Freiberg, 1806;

Georg Heinrich Jacobi, _Der Mineralog Georgius Agricola_, Zwickau, 1881;

Dr. Reinhold Hofmann, _Dr. Georg Agricola_, Gotha, 1905. The last is an

exhaustive biographical sketch, to which we refer those who are

interested.

[2] _Georgii Agricolae Glaucii Libellus de Prima ac Simplici

Institutione Grammatica_, printed by Melchior Lotther, Leipzig, 1520.

Petrus Mosellanus refers to this work (without giving title) in a letter

to Agricola, June, 1520.

[3] _Briefe an Desiderius Erasmus von Rotterdam._ Published by Joseph

Foerstemann and Otto Guenther. _XXVII. Beiheft zum Zentralblatt fuer

Bibliothekswesen_, Leipzig, 1904. p. 44.

[4] _De Veteribus et Novis Metallis._ Preface.

[5] A summary of this and of Agricola's other works is given in the

Appendix A.

[6] _De Veteribus et Novis Metallis_, Book I.

[7] Printed in F. A. Schmid's _Georg Agrikola's Bermannus_, p. 14,

Freiberg, 1806.

[8] Op. Cit., p. 8.

[9] Archive 38, Chemnitz Municipal Archives.

[10] Baumgarten-Crusius. _Georgii Fabricii Chemnicensis Epistolae ad W.

Meurerum et Alios Aequales_, Leipzig, 1845, p. 26.

[11] Hofmann, Op. cit., p. 99.

[12] Weber, _Virorum Clarorum Saeculi XVI. et XVII. Epistolae

Selectae_, Leipzig, 1894, p. 8.

[13] Baumgarten-Crusius. Op. cit., p. 139.

[14] Hofmann, Op. cit., p. 123.

[15] _De Ortu et Causis_, Book III.

[16] _Briefe an Desiderius Erasmus von Rotterdam._ Published by Joseph

Foerstemann & Otto Guenther. _XXVII. Beiheft zum Zentralblatt fuer

Bibliothekswesen_, Leipzig, 1904, p. 125.

[17] Petrus Albinus, _Meissnische Land und Berg Chronica_, Dresden,

1590, p. 353.

[18] This statement is contained under "1556" in a sort of chronicle

bound up with Mathesius's _Sarepta_, Nuremberg, 1562.

[19] Baumgarten-Crusius, p. 85, letter No. 93.

[20] Principal State Archives, Dresden, Cop. 259, folio 102.

[21] Jacob Leupold, _Prodromus Bibliothecae Metallicae_, 1732, p. 11.

[22] F. A. Schmid, _Georg Agrikola's Bermannus_, Freiberg, 1806, p. 34.

[23] _Bibliotheca Chemica_, Glasgow, 1906, p. 10.

[24] _Rechnungsbuch der Froben und Episcopius Buchdrucker und

Buchhaendler zu Basel_, 1557-1564, published by R. Wackernagle, Basel,

1881. p. 20.

[25] _Colecion del Sr Monoz_ t. 93, fol. 255 _En la Acad. de la Hist._

Madrid.

[26] Sir John Pettus, _Fleta Minor_, The Laws of Art and Nature, &c.,

London, 1636, p. 121.

[Illustration xix (Title page from first edition)]

GEORGIUS FABRICIUS IN LIBROS

Metallicos GEORGII AGRICOLAE philosophi

praestantissimi.[1]

AD LECTOREM.

Si iuuat ignita cognoscere fronte Chimaeram,

Semicanem nympham, semibouemque uirum:

Si centum capitum Titanem, totque ferentem

Sublimem manibus tela cruenta Gygen:

Si iuuat AEtneum 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, gremioque recondidit imo,

Omne tibi multis eruit ante libris:

Siue fluens superas ultro nitatur in oras,

Inueniat facilem seu magis arte uiam.

Perpetui proprijs manant de fontibus amnes,

Est grauis Albuneae sponte Mephitis odor.

Lethales sunt sponte scrobes Dicaearchidis orae,

Et micat e media conditus ignis humo.

Plana Nariscorum cum tellus arsit in agro,

Ter curua nondum falce resecta Ceres,

Nec dedit hoc damnum pastor, nec Iuppiter igne:

Vulcani per se ruperat ira solum.

Terrifico aura foras erumpens, incita motu,

Saepe facit montes, ante ubi plana uia est.

Haec abstrusa cauis, imoque incognita fundo,

Cognita natura saepe fuere duce.

Arte hominum, in lucem ueniunt quoque multa, manuque

Terrae multiplices effodiuntur opes.

Lydia sic nitrum profert, Islandia sulfur,

Ac modo Tyrrhenus mittit alumen ager.

Succina, qua trifido subit aequor Vistula cornu,

Piscantur Codano corpora serua sinu.

Quid memorem regum preciosa insignia gemmas,

Marmoraque excelsis structa sub astra iugis?

Nil lapides, nil saxa moror: sunt pulchra metalla,

Croese tuis opibus clara, Mydaque tuis,

Quaeque acer Macedo terra Creneide fodit,

Nomine permutans nomina prisca suo.

At nunc non ullis cedit GERMANIA terris,

Terra ferax hominum, terraque diues opum.

Hic auri in uenis locupletibus aura refulget,

Non alio messis carior ulla loco.

Auricomum extulerit felix Campania ramum,

Nec fructu nobis deficiente cadit.

Eruit argenti solidas hoc tempore massas

Fossor, de proprijs armaque miles agris.

Ignotum Graijs est Hesperijsque 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,

AEs, inque hostiles ferrea massa domos.

Scribuntur plumbo libri: quis credidit ante

Quam mirandam artem Teutonis ora dedit?

Nec tamen hoc alijs, aut illa petuntur ab oris,

Eruta Germano cuncta metalla solo.

Sed quid ego haec repeto, monumentis tradita claris

AGRICOLAE, quae nunc docta per ora uolant?

Hic caussis ortus, & formas uiribus addit,

Et quaerenda quibus sint meliora locis.

Quae si mente prius legisti candidus aequa:

Da reliquis quoque nunc tempora pauca libris.

Vtilitas sequitur cultorem: crede, uoluptas

Non iucunda minor, rara legentis, erit.

Iudicioque prius ne quis male damnet iniquo,

Quae sunt auctoris munera mira Dei:

Eripit ipse suis primum tela hostibus, inque

Mittentis torquet spicula rapta caput.

Fertur equo latro, uehitur pirata triremi:

Ergo necandus equus, nec fabricanda ratis?

Visceribus terrae lateant abstrusa metalla,

Vti opibus nescit quod mala turba suis?

Quisquis es, aut doctis pareto monentibus, aut te

Inter habere bonos ne fateare locum.

Se non in praerupta metallicus abijcit audax,

Vt quondam immisso Curtius acer equo:

Sed prius ediscit, quae sunt noscenda perito,

Quodque facit, multa doctus ab arte facit.

Vtque gubernator seruat cum sidere uentos:

Sic minime dubijs utitur ille notis.

Iasides nauim, currus regit arte Metiscus:

Fossor opus peragit nec minus arte suum.

Indagat uenae spacium, numerumque, modumque,

Siue obliqua suum, rectaue tendat iter.

Pastor ut explorat quae terra sit apta colenti,

Quae bene lanigeras, quae male pascat oues.

En terrae intentus, quid uincula linea tendit?

Fungitur officio iam Ptolemaee tuo.

Vtque suae inuenit mensuram iuraque uenae,

In uarios operas diuidit inde uiros.

Iamque 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 uenae spaciumque modumque,

Vtque regat positis finibus arua lapis,

Ne quis transmisso uiolentus limite pergens,

Non sibi concessas, in sua uertat, opes.

Hic docet instrumenta, quibus Plutonia 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 haec inuenta sub axe,

Si quis es, inuidiae contrahe uela tuae.

Ausonis ora tumet bellis, terra Attica cultu,

Germanum infractus tollit ad astra labor.

Nec tamen ingenio solet infeliciter uti,

Mite gerat Phoebi, 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 bonae prima fenestra spei.

Ergo instat porro grauiores ferre labores,

Intentas operi nec remouere manus.

Vrere siue locus poscat, seu tundere uerras,

Siue lauare lacu praeter euntis aquae.

Seu flammis iterum modicis torrere necesse est,

Excoquere aut fastis ignibus omne malum,

Cum fluit aes riuis, auri argentique 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 aere,

Seruatis, linquens deteriora, bonis.

Quae si cuncta uelim tenui percurrere uersu,

Ante alium reuehat Memnonis orta diem.

Postremus labor est, concretos discere succos,

Quos fert innumeris Teutona terra locis.

Quo sal, quo nitrum, quo pacto fiat alumen,

Vsibus artificis cum parat illa manus:

Nec non chalcantum, sulfur, fluidumque bitumen,

Massaque quo uitri lenta dolanda modo.

Suscipit haec hominum mirandos cura labores,

Pauperiem usque adeo ferre famemque graue est,

Tantus amor uictum paruis extundere natis,

Et patriae ciuem non dare uelle malum.

Nec manet in terrae fossoris mersa latebris

Mens, sed fert domino uota precesque Deo.

Munificae expectat, spe plenus, munera dextrae,

Extollens animum laetus ad astra suum.

Diuitias CHRISTUS dat noticiamque 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,

Auctoremque pia noscito mente Deum.

AGRICOLAE hinc optans operoso fausta labori,

Laudibus eximij candidus esto uiri.

Ille suum extollit patriae cum nomine nomen,

Et uir in ore frequens posteritatis erit.

Cuncta cadunt letho, studij monumenta uigebunt,

Purpurei donec lumina solis erunt.

Misenae M. D. LI.

eludo illustri.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] 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 licence. 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."

TO THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS

AND MOST MIGHTY DUKES OF

Saxony, Landgraves of Thuringia, Margraves of Meissen,

Imperial Overlords of Saxony, Burgraves of Altenberg

and Magdeburg, Counts of Brena, Lords of

Pleissnerland, To MAURICE Grand Marshall

and Elector of the Holy Roman Empire

and to his brother AUGUSTUS,[1]

GEORGE AGRICOLA S. D.

Most illustrious Princes, often have I considered the metallic arts as a

whole, as Moderatus Columella[2] considered the agricultural arts, just

as if I had been considering the whole of the human body; and when I had

perceived the various parts of the subject, like so many members of the

body, I became afraid that I might die before I should understand its

full extent, much less before I could immortalise it in writing. This

book itself indicates the length and breadth of the subject, and the

number and importance of the sciences of which at least some little

knowledge is necessary to miners. Indeed, the subject of mining is a

very extensive one, and one very difficult to explain; no part of it is

fully dealt with by the Greek and Latin authors whose works survive; and

since the art is one of the most ancient, the most necessary and the

most profitable to mankind, I considered that I ought not to neglect it.

Without doubt, none of the arts is older than agriculture, but that of

the metals is not less ancient; in fact they are at least equal and

coeval, for no mortal man ever tilled a field without implements. In

truth, in all the works of agriculture, as in the other arts, implements

are used which are made from metals, or which could not be made without

the use of metals; for this reason the metals are of the greatest

necessity to man. When an art is so poor that it lacks metals, it is not

of much importance, for nothing is made without tools. Besides, of all

ways whereby great wealth is acquired by good and honest means, none is

more advantageous than mining; for although from fields which are well

tilled (not to mention other things) we derive rich yields, yet we

obtain richer products from mines; in fact, one mine is often much more

beneficial to us than many fields. For this reason we learn from the

history of nearly all ages that very many men have been made rich by the

mines, and the fortunes of many kings have been much amplified thereby.

But I will not now speak more of these matters, because I have dealt

with these subjects partly in the first book of this work, and partly in

the other work entitled _De Veteribus et Novis Metallis_, where I have

refuted the charges which have been made against metals and against

miners. Now, though the art of husbandry, which I willingly rank with

the art of mining, appears to be divided into many branches, yet it is

not separated into so many as this art of ours, nor can I teach the

principles of this as easily as Columella did of that. He had at hand

many writers upon husbandry whom he could follow,--in fact, there are

more than fifty Greek authors whom Marcus Varro enumerates, and more

than ten Latin ones, whom Columella himself mentions. I have only one

whom I can follow; that is C. Plinius Secundus,[3] and he expounds only

a very few methods of digging ores and of making metals. Far from the

whole of the art having been treated by any one writer, those who have

written occasionally on any one or another of its branches have not even

dealt completely with a single one of them. Moreover, there is a great

scarcity even of these, since alone of all the Greeks, Strato of

Lampsacus,[4] the successor of Theophrastus,[5] wrote a book on the

subject, _De Machinis Metallicis_; except, perhaps a work by the poet

Philo, a small part of which embraced to some degree the occupation of

mining.[6] Pherecrates seems to have introduced into his comedy, which

was similar in title, miners as slaves or as persons condemned to serve

in the mines. Of the Latin writers, Pliny, as I have already said, has

described a few methods of working. Also among the authors I must

include the modern writers, whosoever they are, for no one should escape

just condemnation who fails to award due recognition to persons whose

writings he uses, even very slightly. Two books have been written in our

tongue; the one on the assaying of mineral substances and metals,

somewhat confused, whose author is unknown[7]; the other "On Veins," of

which Pandulfus Anglus[8] is also said to have written, although the

German book was written by Calbus of Freiberg, a well-known doctor; but

neither of them accomplished the task he had begun.[9] Recently

Vannucci Biringuccio, of Sienna, a wise man experienced in many matters,

wrote in vernacular Italian on the subject of the melting, separating,

and alloying of metals.[10] He touched briefly on the methods of

smelting certain ores, and explained more fully the methods of making

certain juices; by reading his directions, I have refreshed my memory of

those things which I myself saw in Italy; as for many matters on which I

write, he did not touch upon them at all, or touched but lightly. This

book was given me by Franciscus Badoarius, a Patrician of Venice, and a

man of wisdom and of repute; this he had promised that he would do, when

in the previous year he was at Marienberg, having been sent by the

Venetians as an Ambassador to King Ferdinand. Beyond these books I do

not find any writings on the metallic arts. For that reason, even if the

book of Strato existed, from all these sources not one-half of the whole

body of the science of mining could be pieced together.

Seeing that there have been so few who have written on the subject of

the metals, it appears to me all the more wonderful that so many

alchemists have arisen who would compound metals artificially, and who

would change one into another. Hermolaus Barbarus,[11] a man of high

rank and station, and distinguished in all kinds of learning, has

mentioned the names of many in his writings; and I will proffer more,

but only famous ones, for I will limit myself to a few. Thus Osthanes

has written on [Greek: chymeutika]; and there are Hermes; Chanes;

Zosimus, the Alexandrian, to his sister Theosebia; Olympiodorus, also an

Alexandrian; Agathodaemon; Democritus, not the one of Abdera, but some

other whom I know not; Orus Chrysorichites, Pebichius, Comerius,

Joannes, Apulejus, Petasius, Pelagius, Africanus, Theophilus, Synesius,

Stephanus to Heracleus Caesar, Heliodorus to Theodosius, Geber, Callides

Rachaidibus, Veradianus, Rodianus, Canides, Merlin, Raymond Lully,

Arnold de Villa Nova, and Augustinus Pantheus of Venice; and three

women, Cleopatra, the maiden Taphnutia, and Maria the Jewess.[12] All

these alchemists employ obscure language, and Johanes Aurelius

Augurellus of Rimini, alone has used the language of poetry. There are

many other books on this subject, but all are difficult to follow,

because the writers upon these things use strange names, which do not

properly belong to the metals, and because some of them employ now one

name and now another, invented by themselves, though the thing itself

changes not. These masters teach their disciples that the base metals,

when smelted, are broken up; also they teach the methods by which they

reduce them to the primary parts and remove whatever is superfluous in

them, and by supplying what is wanted make out of them the precious

metals--that is, gold and silver,--all of which they carry out in a

crucible. Whether they can do these things or not I cannot decide; but,

seeing that so many writers assure us with all earnestness that they

have reached that goal for which they aimed, it would seem that faith

might be placed in them; yet also seeing that we do not read of any of

them ever having become rich by this art, nor do we now see them growing

rich, although so many nations everywhere have produced, and are

producing, alchemists, and all of them are straining every nerve night

and day to the end that they may heap a great quantity of gold and

silver, I should say the matter is dubious. But although it may be due

to the carelessness of the writers that they have not transmitted to us

the names of the masters who acquired great wealth through this

occupation, certainly it is clear that their disciples either do not

understand their precepts or, if they do understand them, do not follow

them; for if they do comprehend them, seeing that these disciples have

been and are so numerous, they would have by to-day filled whole towns

with gold and silver. Even their books proclaim their vanity, for they

inscribe in them the names of Plato and Aristotle and other

philosophers, in order that such high-sounding inscriptions may impose

upon simple people and pass for learning. There is another class of

alchemists who do not change the substance of base metals, but colour

them to represent gold or silver, so that they appear to be that which

they are not, and when this appearance is taken from them by the fire,

as if it were a garment foreign to them, they return to their own

character. These alchemists, since they deceive people, are not only

held in the greatest odium, but their frauds are a capital offence. No

less a fraud, warranting capital punishment, is committed by a third

sort of alchemists; these throw into a crucible a small piece of gold or

silver hidden in a coal, and after mixing therewith fluxes which have

the power of extracting it, pretend to be making gold from orpiment, or

silver from tin and like substances. But concerning the art of alchemy,

if it be an art, I will speak further elsewhere. I will now return to

the art of mining.

Since no authors have written of this art in its entirety, and since

foreign nations and races do not understand our tongue, and, if they did

understand it, would be able to learn only a small part of the art

through the works of those authors whom we do possess, I have written

these twelve books _De Re Metallica_. Of these, the first book contains

the arguments which may be used against this art, and against metals and

the mines, and what can be said in their favour. The second book

describes the miner, and branches into a discourse on the finding of

veins. The third book deals with veins and stringers, and seams in the

rocks. The fourth book explains the method of delimiting veins, and also

describes the functions of the mining officials. The fifth book

describes the digging of ore and the surveyor's art. The sixth book

describes the miners' tools and machines. The seventh book is on the

assaying of ore. The eighth book lays down the rules for the work of

roasting, crushing, and washing the ore. The ninth book explains the

methods of smelting ores. The tenth book instructs those who are

studious of the metallic arts in the work of separating silver from

gold, and lead from gold and silver. The eleventh book shows the way of

separating silver from copper. The twelfth book gives us rules for

manufacturing salt, soda, alum, vitriol, sulphur, bitumen, and glass.

Although I have not fulfilled the task which I have undertaken, on

account of the great magnitude of the subject, I have, at all events,

endeavoured to fulfil it, for I have devoted much labour and care, and

have even gone to some expense upon it; for with regard to the veins,

tools, vessels, sluices, machines, and furnaces, I have not only

described them, but have also 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 the same way as to us difficulty is often caused by many

names which the Ancients (because such words were familiar to all of

them) have handed down to us without any explanation.

I have omitted all those things which I have not myself seen, or have

not read or heard of from persons upon whom I can rely. That which I

have neither seen, nor carefully considered after reading or hearing of,

I have not written about. The same rule must be understood with regard

to all my instruction, whether I enjoin things which ought to be done,

or describe things which are usual, or condemn things which are done.

Since the art of mining does not lend itself to elegant language, these

books of mine are correspondingly lacking in refinement of style. The

things dealt with in this art of metals sometimes lack names, either

because they are new, or because, even if they are old, the record of

the names by which they were formerly known has been lost. For this

reason I have been forced by a necessity, for which I must be pardoned,

to describe some of them by a number of words combined, and to

distinguish others by new names,--to which latter class belong

_Ingestor_, _Discretor_, _Lotor_, and _Excoctor_.[13] Other things,

again, I have alluded to by old names, such as the _Cisium_; for when

Nonius Marcellus wrote,[14] this was the name of a two-wheeled vehicle,

but I have adopted it for a small vehicle which has only one wheel; and

if anyone does not approve of these names, let him either find more

appropriate ones for these things, or discover the words used in the

writings of the Ancients.

These books, most illustrious Princes, are dedicated to you for many

reasons, and, above all others, because metals have proved of the

greatest value to you; for though your ancestors drew rich profits from

the revenues of their vast and wealthy territories, and likewise from

the taxes which were paid by the foreigners by way of toll and by the

natives by way of tithes, yet they drew far richer profits from the

mines. Because of the mines not a few towns have risen into eminence,

such as Freiberg, Annaberg, Marienberg, Schneeberg, Geyer, and

Altenberg, not to mention others. Nay, if I understand anything, greater

wealth now lies hidden beneath the ground in the mountainous parts of

your territory than is visible and apparent above ground. Farewell.

_Chemnitz, Saxony,

December First, 1550._

FOOTNOTES:

[1] For Agricola's relations with these princes see p. ix.

[2] Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella was a Roman, a native of Cadiz,

and lived during the 1st Century. He was the author of _De Re Rustica_

in 12 books. It was first printed in 1472, and some fifteen or sixteen

editions had been printed before Agricola's death.

[3] We give a short review of Pliny's _Naturalis Historia_ in the

Appendix B.

[4] This work is not extant, as Agricola duly notes later on. Strato

succeeded Theophrastus as president of the Lyceum, 288 B.C.

[5] For note on Theophrastus see Appendix B.

[6] It appears that the poet Philo did write a work on mining which is

not extant. So far as we know the only reference to this work is in

Athenaeus' (200 A.D.) _Deipnosophistae_. The passage as it appears in C.

D. Yonge's Translation (Bonn's Library, London, 1854, Vol. II, Book VII,

p. 506) is: "And there is a similar fish produced in the Red Sea which

is called Stromateus; it has gold-coloured lines running along the whole

of his body, as Philo tells us in his book on Mines." There is a

fragment of a poem of Pherecrates, entitled "Miners," but it seems to

have little to do with mining.

[7] The title given by Agricola _De Materiae Metallicae et Metallorum

Experimento_ is difficult to identify. It seems likely to be the little

_Probier Buechlein_, numbers of which were published in German in the

first half of the 16th Century. We discuss this work at some length in

the Appendix B on Ancient Authors.

[8] Pandulfus, "the Englishman," is mentioned by various 15th and 16th

Century writers, and in the preface of Mathias Farinator's _Liber

Moralitatum ... Rerum Naturalium_, etc., printed in Augsburg, 1477,

there is a list of books among which appears a reference to a work by

Pandulfus on veins and minerals. We have not been able to find the book.

[9] Jacobi (_Der Mineralog Georgius Agricola_, Zwickau, 1881, p. 47)

says: "Calbus Freibergius, so called by Agricola himself, is certainly

no other than the Freiberg Doctor Ruehlein von Kalbe; he was, according

to Moeller, a doctor and burgomaster at Freiberg at the end of the 15th

and the beginning of the 16th Centuries.... The chronicler describes him

as a fine mathematician, who helped to survey and design the mining

towns of Annaberg in 1497 and Marienberg in 1521." We would call

attention to the statement of Calbus' views, quoted at the end of Book

III, _De Re Metallica_ (p. 75), which are astonishingly similar to

statements in the _Nuetzlich Bergbuechlin_, and leave little doubt that

this "Calbus" was the author of that anonymous book on veins. For

further discussion see Appendix B.

[10] For discussion of Biringuccio see Appendix B. The proper title is

_De La Pirotechnia_ (Venice, 1540).

[11] Hermolaus Barbarus, according to Watt (_Bibliotheca Britannica_,

London, 1824), was a lecturer on Philosophy in Padua. He was born in

1454, died in 1493, and was the author of a number of works on medicine,

natural history, etc., with commentaries on the older authors.

[12] The debt which humanity does owe to these self-styled philosophers

must not be overlooked, for the science of Chemistry comes from three

sources--Alchemy, Medicine and Metallurgy. However polluted the former

of these may be, still the vast advance which it made by the discovery

of the principal acids, alkalis, and the more common of their salts,

should be constantly recognized. It is obviously impossible, within the

space of a footnote, to give anything but the most casual notes as to

the personages here mentioned and their writings. Aside from the

classics and religious works, the libraries of the Middle Ages teemed

with more material on Alchemy than on any other one subject, and since

that date a never-ending stream of historical, critical, and discursive

volumes and tracts devoted to the old Alchemists and their writings has

been poured upon the world. A collection recently sold in London,

relating to Paracelsus alone, embraced over seven hundred volumes.

Of many of the Alchemists mentioned by Agricola little is really known,

and no two critics agree as to the commonest details regarding many of

them; in fact, an endless confusion springs from the negligent habit of

the lesser Alchemists of attributing the authorship of their writings to

more esteemed members of their own ilk, such as Hermes, Osthanes, etc.,

not to mention the palpable spuriousness of works under the names of the

real philosophers, such as Aristotle, Plato, or Moses, and even of Jesus

Christ. Knowledge of many of the authors mentioned by Agricola does not

extend beyond the fact that the names mentioned are appended to various

writings, in some instances to MSS yet unpublished. They may have been

actual persons, or they may not. Agricola undoubtedly had perused such

manuscripts and books in some leading library, as the quotation from

Boerhaave given later shows. Shaw (A New Method of Chemistry, etc.,

London, 1753. Vol. I, p. 25) considers that the large number of such

manuscripts in the European libraries at this time were composed or

transcribed by monks and others living in Constantinople, Alexandria,

and Athens, who fled westward before the Turkish invasion, bringing

their works with them.

For purposes of this summary we group the names mentioned by Agricola,

the first class being of those who are known only as names appended to

MSS or not identifiable at all. Possibly a more devoted student of the

history of Alchemy would assign fewer names to this department of

oblivion. They are Maria the Jewess, Orus Chrysorichites, Chanes,

Petasius, Pebichius, Theophilus, Callides, Veradianus, Rodianus,

Canides, the maiden Taphnutia, Johannes, Augustinus, and Africanus. The

last three are names so common as not to be possible of identification

without more particulars, though Johannes may be the Johannes Rupeseissa

(1375), an alchemist of some note. Many of these names can be found

among the Bishops and Prelates of the early Christian Church, but we

doubt if their owners would ever be identified with such indiscretions

as open, avowed alchemy. The Theophilus mentioned might be the

metal-working monk of the 12th Century, who is further discussed in

Appendix B on Ancient Authors.

In the next group fall certain names such as Osthanes, Hermes, Zosimus,

Agathodaemon, and Democritus, which have been the watchwords of

authority to Alchemists of all ages. These certainly possessed the great

secrets, either the philosopher's stone or the elixir. Hermes

Trismegistos was a legendary Egyptian personage supposed to have

flourished before 1,500 B.C., and by some considered to be a corruption

of the god Thoth. He is supposed to have written a number of works, but

those extant have been demonstrated to date not prior to the second

Century; he is referred to by the later Greek Alchemists, and was

believed to have possessed the secret of transmutation. Osthanes was

also a very shadowy personage, and was considered by some Alchemists to

have been an Egyptian prior to Hermes, by others to have been the

teacher of Zoroaster. Pliny mentions a magician of this name who

accompanied Xerxes' army. Later there are many others of this name, and

the most probable explanation is that this was a favourite pseudonym for

ancient magicians; there is a very old work, of no great interest, in

MSS in Latin and Greek, in the Munich, Gotha, Vienna, and other

libraries, by one of this name. Agathodaemon was still another shadowy

character referred to by the older Alchemists. There are MSS in the

Florence, Paris, Escurial, and Munich libraries bearing his name, but

nothing tangible is known as to whether he was an actual man or if these

writings are not of a much later period than claimed.

To the next group belong the Greek Alchemists, who flourished during the

rise and decline of Alexandria, from 200 B.C. to 700 A.D., and we give

them in order of their dates. Comerius was considered by his later

fellow professionals to have been the teacher of the art to Cleopatra

(1st Century B.C.), and a MSS with a title to that effect exists in the

Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris. The celebrated Cleopatra seems to have

stood very high in the estimation of the Alchemists; perhaps her

doubtful character found a response among them; there are various works

extant in MSS attributed to her, but nothing can be known as to their

authenticity. Lucius Apulejus or Apuleius was born in Numidia about the

2nd Century; he was a Roman Platonic Philosopher, and was the author of

a romance, "The Metamorphosis, or the Golden Ass." Synesius was a Greek,

but of unknown period; there is a MSS treatise on the Philosopher's

Stone in the library at Leyden under his name, and various printed works

are attributed to him; he mentions "water of saltpetre," and has,

therefore, been hazarded to be the earliest recorder of nitric acid. The

work here referred to as "Heliodorus to Theodosius" was probably the MSS

in the Libraries at Paris, Vienna, Munich, etc., under the title of

"Heliodorus the Philosopher's Poem to the Emperor Theodosius the Great

on the Mystic Art of the Philosophers, etc." His period would,

therefore, be about the 4th Century. The Alexandrian Zosimus is more

generally known as Zosimus the Panopolite, from Panopolis, an ancient

town on the Nile; he flourished in the 5th Century, and belonged to the

Alexandrian School of Alchemists; he should not be confused with the

Roman historian of the same name and period. The following statement is

by Boerhaave (_Elementa Chemiae_, Paris, 1724, Chap. I.):--"The name

Chemistry written in Greek, or _Chemia_, is so ancient as perhaps to

have been used in the antediluvian age. Of this opinion was Zosimus the

Panopolite, whose Greek writings, though known as long as before the

year 1550 to George Agricola, and afterwards perused ... by Jas.

Scaliger and Olaus Borrichius, still remain unpublished in the King of

France's library. In one of these, entitled, 'The Instruction of Zosimus

the Panopolite and Philosopher, out of those written to Theosebia,

etc....'" Olympiodorus was an Alexandrian of the 5th Century, whose

writings were largely commentaries on Plato and Aristotle; he is

sometimes accredited with being the first to describe white arsenic

(arsenical oxide). The full title of the work styled "Stephanus to

Heracleus Caesar," as published in Latin at Padua in 1573, was "Stephan

of Alexandria, the Universal Philosopher and Master, his nine processes

on the great art of making gold and silver, addressed to the Emperor

Heraclius." He, therefore, if authentic, dates in the 7th Century.

To the next class belong those of the Middle Ages, which we give in

order of date. The works attributed to Geber play such an important part

in the history of Chemistry and Metallurgy that we discuss his book at

length in Appendix B. Late criticism indicates that this work was not

the production of an 8th Century Arab, but a compilation of some Latin

scholar of the 12th or 13th Centuries. Arnold de Villa Nova, born about

1240, died in 1313, was celebrated as a physician, philosopher, and

chemist; his first works were published in Lyons in 1504; many of them

have apparently never been printed, for references may be found to some

18 different works. Raymond Lully, a Spaniard, born in 1235, who was a

disciple of Arnold de Villa Nova, was stoned to death in Africa in 1315.

There are extant over 100 works attributed to this author, although

again the habit of disciples of writing under the master's name may be

responsible for most of these. John Aurelio Augurello was an Italian

Classicist, born in Rimini about 1453. The work referred to,

_Chrysopoeia et Gerontica_ is a poem on the art of making gold, etc.,

published in Venice, 1515, and re-published frequently thereafter; it is

much quoted by Alchemists. With regard to Merlin, as satisfactory an

account as any of this truly English magician may be found in Mark

Twain's "Yankee at the Court of King Arthur." It is of some interest to

note that Agricola omits from his list Avicenna (980-1037 A.D.), Roger

Bacon (1214-1294), Albertus Magnus (1193-1280), Basil Valentine (end

15th century?), and Paracelsus, a contemporary of his own. In _De Ortu

et Causis_ he expends much thought on refutation of theories advanced by

Avicenna and Albertus, but of the others we have found no mention,

although their work is, from a chemical point of view, of considerable

importance.

[13] _Ingestor_,--Carrier; _Discretor_,--Sorter; _Lotor_,--Washer;

_Excoctor_,--Smelter.

[14] Nonius Marcellus was a Roman grammarian of the 4th Century B.C. His

extant treatise is entitled, _De Compendiosa Doctrina per Litteras ad

Filium_.

BOOK I.

Many persons hold the opinion that the metal industries are fortuitous

and that the occupation is one of sordid toil, and altogether a kind of

business requiring not so much skill as labour. But as for myself, when

I reflect carefully upon its special points one by one, it appears to be

far otherwise. For a miner must have the greatest skill in his work,

that he may know first of all what mountain or hill, what valley or

plain, can be prospected most profitably, or what he should leave alone;

moreover, he must understand the veins, stringers[1] and seams in the

rocks[2]. Then he must be thoroughly familiar with the many and varied

species of earths, juices[3], gems, stones, marbles, rocks, metals, and

compounds[4]. He must also have a complete knowledge of the method of

making all underground works. Lastly, there are the various systems of

assaying[5] substances and of preparing them for smelting; and here

again there are many altogether diverse methods. For there is one method

for gold and silver, another for copper, another for quicksilver,

another for iron, another for lead, and even tin and bismuth[6] are

treated differently from lead. Although the evaporation of juices is an

art apparently quite distinct from metallurgy, yet they ought not to be

considered separately, inasmuch as these juices are also often dug out

of the ground solidified, or they are produced from certain kinds of

earth and stones which the miners dig up, and some of the juices are not

themselves devoid of metals. Again, their treatment is not simple, since

there is one method for common salt, another for soda[7], another for

alum, another for vitriol[8], another for sulphur, and another for

bitumen.

Furthermore, there are many arts and sciences of which a miner should

not be ignorant. First there is Philosophy, that he may discern the

origin, cause, and nature of subterranean things; for then he will be

able to dig out the veins easily and advantageously, and to obtain more

abundant results from his mining. Secondly, there is Medicine, that he

may be able to look after his diggers and other workmen, that they do

not meet with those diseases to which they are more liable than workmen

in other occupations, or if they do meet with them, that he himself may

be able to heal them or may see that the doctors do so. Thirdly follows

Astronomy, that he may know the divisions of the heavens and from them

judge the direction of the veins. Fourthly, there is the science of

Surveying that he may be able to estimate how deep a shaft should be

sunk to reach the tunnel which is being driven to it, and to determine

the limits and boundaries in these workings, especially in depth.

Fifthly, his knowledge of Arithmetical Science should be such that he

may calculate the cost to be incurred in the machinery and the working

of the mine. Sixthly, his learning must comprise Architecture, that he

himself may construct the various machines and timber work required

underground, or that he may be able to explain the method of the

construction to others. Next, he must have knowledge of Drawing, that he

can draw plans of his machinery. Lastly, there is the Law, especially

that dealing with metals, that he may claim his own rights, that he may

undertake the duty of giving others his opinion on legal matters, that

he may not take another man's property and so make trouble for himself,

and that he may fulfil his obligations to others according to the law.

It is therefore necessary that those who take an interest in the methods

and precepts of mining and metallurgy should read these and others of

our books studiously and diligently; or on every point they should

consult expert mining people, though they will discover few who are

skilled in the whole art. As a rule one man understands only the methods

of mining, another possesses the knowledge of washing[9], another is

experienced in the art of smelting, another has a knowledge of measuring

the hidden parts of the earth, another is skilful in the art of making

machines, and finally, another is learned in mining law. But as for us,

though we may not have perfected the whole art of the discovery and

preparation of metals, at least we can be of great assistance to persons

studious in its acquisition.

But let us now approach the subject we have undertaken. Since there has

always been the greatest disagreement amongst men concerning metals and

mining, some praising, others utterly condemning them, therefore I have

decided that before imparting my instruction, I should carefully weigh

the facts with a view to discovering the truth in this matter.

So I may begin with the question of utility, which is a two-fold one,

for either it may be asked whether the art of mining is really

profitable or not to those who are engaged in it, or whether it is

useful or not to the rest of mankind. Those who think mining of no

advantage to the men who follow the occupation assert, first, that

scarcely one in a hundred who dig metals or other such things derive

profit therefrom; and again, that miners, because they entrust their

certain and well-established wealth to dubious and slippery fortune,

generally deceive themselves, and as a result, impoverished by expenses

and losses, in the end spend the most bitter and most miserable of

lives. But persons who hold these views do not perceive how much a

learned and experienced miner differs from one ignorant and unskilled in

the art. The latter digs out the ore without any careful discrimination,

while the former first assays and proves it, and when he finds the veins

either too narrow and hard, or too wide and soft, he infers therefrom

that these cannot be mined profitably, and so works only the approved

ones. What wonder then if we find the incompetent miner suffers loss,

while the competent one is rewarded by an abundant return from his

mining? The same thing applies to husbandmen. For those who cultivate

land which is alike arid, heavy, and barren, and in which they sow

seeds, do not make so great a harvest as those who cultivate a fertile

and mellow soil and sow their grain in that. And since by far the

greater number of miners are unskilled rather than skilled in the art,

it follows that mining is a profitable occupation to very few men, and a

source of loss to many more. Therefore the mass of miners who are quite

unskilled and ignorant in the knowledge of veins not infrequently lose

both time and trouble[10]. Such men are accustomed for the most part to

take to mining, either when through being weighted with the fetters of

large and heavy debts, they have abandoned a business, or desiring to

change their occupation, have left the reaping-hook and plough; and so

if at any time such a man discovers rich veins or other abounding mining

produce, this occurs more by good luck than through any knowledge on his

part. We learn from history that mining has brought wealth to many, for

from old writings it is well known that prosperous Republics, not a few

kings, and many private persons, have made fortunes through mines and

their produce. This subject, by the use of many clear and illustrious

examples, I have dilated upon and explained in the first Book of my work

entitled "_De Veteribus et Novis Metallis_," from which it is evident

that mining is very profitable to those who give it care and attention.

Again, those who condemn the mining industry say that it is not in the

least stable, and they glorify agriculture beyond measure. But I do not

see how they can say this with truth, for the silver mines at Freiberg

in Meissen remain still unexhausted after 400 years, and the lead mines

of Goslar after 600 years. The proof of this can be found in the

monuments of history. The gold and silver mines belonging to the

communities of Schemnitz and Cremnitz have been worked for 800 years,

and these latter are said to be the most ancient privileges of the

inhabitants. Some then say the profit from an individual mine is

unstable, as if forsooth, the miner is, or ought to be dependent on only

one mine, and as if many men do not bear in common their expenses in

mining, or as if one experienced in his art does not dig another vein,

if fortune does not amply respond to his prayers in the first case. The

New Schoenberg at Freiberg has remained stable beyond the memory of

man[11].

It is not my intention to detract anything from the dignity of

agriculture, and that the profits of mining are less stable I will

always and readily admit, for the veins do in time cease to yield

metals, whereas the fields bring forth fruits every year. But though the

business of mining may be less reliable it is more productive, so that

in reckoning up, what is wanting in stability is found to be made up by

productiveness. Indeed, the yearly profit of a lead mine in comparison

with the fruitfulness of the best fields, is three times or at least

twice as great. How much does the profit from gold or silver mines

exceed that earned from agriculture? Wherefore truly and shrewdly does

Xenophon[12] write about the Athenian silver mines: "There is land of

such a nature that if you sow, it does not yield crops, but if you dig,

it nourishes many more than if it had borne fruit." So let the farmers

have for themselves the fruitful fields and cultivate the fertile hills

for the sake of their produce; but let them leave to miners the gloomy

valleys and sterile mountains, that they may draw forth from these, gems

and metals which can buy, not only the crops, but all things that are

sold.

The critics say further that mining is a perilous occupation to pursue,

because the miners are sometimes killed by the pestilential air which

they breathe; sometimes their lungs rot away; sometimes the men perish

by being crushed in masses of rock; sometimes, falling from the ladders

into the shafts, they break their arms, legs, or necks; and it is added

there is no compensation which should be thought great enough to

equalize the extreme dangers to safety and life. These occurrences, I

confess, are of exceeding gravity, and moreover, fraught with terror and

peril, so that I should consider that the metals should not be dug up at

all, if such things were to happen very frequently to the miners, or if

they could not safely guard against such risks by any means. Who would

not prefer to live rather than to possess all things, even the metals?

For he who thus perishes possesses nothing, but relinquishes all to his

heirs. But since things like this rarely happen, and only in so far as

workmen are careless, they do not deter miners from carrying on their

trade any more than it would deter a carpenter from his, because one of

his mates has acted incautiously and lost his life by falling from a

high building. I have thus answered each argument which critics are wont

to put before me when they assert that mining is an undesirable

occupation, because it involves expense with uncertainty of return,

because it is changeable, and because it is dangerous to those engaged

in it.

Now I come to those critics who say that mining is not useful to the

rest of mankind because forsooth, gems, metals, and other mineral

products are worthless in themselves. This admission they try to extort

from us, partly by arguments and examples, partly by misrepresentations

and abuse of us. First, they make use of this argument: "The earth does

not conceal and remove from our eyes those things which are useful and

necessary to mankind, but on the contrary, like a beneficent and kindly

mother she yields in large abundance from her bounty and brings into the

light of day the herbs, vegetables, grains, and fruits, and the trees.

The minerals on the other hand she buries far beneath in the depth of

the ground; therefore, they should not be sought. But they are dug out

by wicked men who, as the poets say, are the products of the Iron Age."

Ovid censures their audacity in the following lines:--

"And not only was the rich soil required to furnish corn and

due sustenance, but men even descended into the entrails of the

earth, and they dug up riches, those incentives to vice, which

the earth had hidden and had removed to the Stygian shades.

Then destructive iron came forth, and gold, more destructive

than iron; then war came forth."[13]

Another of their arguments is this: Metals offer to men no advantages,

therefore we ought not to search them out. For whereas man is composed

of soul and body, neither is in want of minerals. The sweetest food of

the soul is the contemplation of nature, a knowledge of the finest arts

and sciences, an understanding of virtue; and if he interests his mind

in excellent things, if he exercise his body, he will be satisfied with

this feast of noble thoughts and knowledge, and have no desire for other

things. Now although the human body may be content with necessary food

and clothing, yet the fruits of the earth and the animals of different

kinds supply him in wonderful abundance with food and drink, from which

the body may be suitably nourished and strengthened and life prolonged

to old age. Flax, wool, and the skins of many animals provide plentiful

clothing low in price; while a luxurious kind, not hard to procure--that

is the so called _seric_ material, is furnished by the down of trees and

the webs of the silk worm. So that the body has absolutely no need of

the metals, so hidden in the depths of the earth and for the greater

part very expensive. Wherefore it is said that this maxim of Euripides

is approved in assemblies of learned men, and with good reason was

always on the lips of Socrates:

"Works of silver and purple are of use, not for human life, but

rather for Tragedians."[14]

These critics praise also this saying from Timocreon of Rhodes:

"O Unseeing Plutus, would that thou hadst never appeared in the

earth or in the sea or on the land, but that thou didst have

thy habitation in Tartarus and Acheron, for out of thee arise

all evil things which overtake mankind"[15].

They greatly extol these lines from Phocylides:

"Gold and silver are injurious to mortals; gold is the source

of crime, the plague of life, and the ruin of all things. Would

that thou were not such an attractive scourge! because of thee

arise robberies, homicides, warfare, brothers are maddened

against brothers, and children against parents."

This from Naumachius also pleases them:

"Gold and silver are but dust, like the stones that lie

scattered on the pebbly beach, or on the margins of the

rivers."

On the other hand, they censure these verses of Euripides:

"Plutus is the god for wise men; all else is mere folly and at

the same time a deception in words."

So in like manner these lines from Theognis:

"O Plutus, thou most beautiful and placid god! whilst I have

thee, however bad I am, I can be regarded as good."

They also blame Aristodemus, the Spartan, for these words:

"Money makes the man; no one who is poor is either good or

honoured."

And they rebuke these songs of Timocles:

"Money is the life and soul of mortal men. He who has not

heaped up riches for himself wanders like a dead man amongst

the living."

Finally, they blame Menander when he wrote:

"Epicharmus asserts that the gods are water, wind, fire, earth,

sun, and stars. But I am of opinion that the gods of any use to

us are silver and gold; for if thou wilt set these up in thy

house thou mayest seek whatever thou wilt. All things will fall

to thy lot; land, houses, slaves, silver-work; moreover

friends, judges, and witnesses. Only give freely, for thus thou

hast the gods to serve thee."

But besides this, the strongest argument of the detractors is that the

fields are devastated by mining operations, for which reason formerly

Italians were warned by law that no one should dig the earth for metals

and so injure their very fertile fields, their vineyards, and their

olive groves. Also they argue that the woods and groves are cut down,

for there is need of an endless amount of wood for timbers, machines,

and the smelting of metals. And when the woods and groves are felled,

then are exterminated the beasts and birds, very many of which furnish a

pleasant and agreeable food for man. Further, when the ores are washed,

the water which has been used poisons the brooks and streams, and either

destroys the fish or drives them away. Therefore the inhabitants of

these regions, on account of the devastation of their fields, woods,

groves, brooks and rivers, find great difficulty in procuring the

necessaries of life, and by reason of the destruction of the timber they

are forced to greater expense in erecting buildings. Thus it is said, it

is clear to all that there is greater detriment from mining than the

value of the metals which the mining produces.

So in fierce contention they clamour, showing by such examples as follow

that every great man has been content with virtue, and despised metals.

They praise Bias because he esteemed the metals merely as fortune's

playthings, not as his real wealth. When his enemies had captured his

native Priene, and his fellow-citizens laden with precious things had

betaken themselves to flight, he was asked by one, why he carried away

none of his goods with him, and he replied, "I carry all my possessions

with me." And it is said that Socrates, having received twenty minae

sent to him by Aristippus, a grateful disciple, refused them and sent

them back to him by the command of his conscience. Aristippus, following

his example in this matter, despised gold and regarded it as of no

value. And once when he was making a journey with his slaves, and they,

laden with the gold, went too slowly, he ordered them to keep only as

much of it as they could carry without distress and to throw away the

remainder[16]. Moreover, Anacreon of Teos, an ancient and noble poet,

because he had been troubled about them for two nights, returned five

talents which had been given him by Polycrates, saying that they were

not worth the anxiety which he had gone through on their account. In

like manner celebrated and exceedingly powerful princes have imitated

the philosophers in their scorn and contempt for gold and silver. There

was for example, Phocion, the Athenian, who was appointed general of the

army so many times, and who, when a large sum of gold was sent to him as

a gift by Alexander, King of Macedon, deemed it trifling and scorned it.

And Marcus Curius ordered the gold to be carried back to the Samnites,

as did also Fabricius Luscinus with regard to the silver and copper. And

certain Republics have forbidden their citizens the use and employment

of gold and silver by law and ordinance; the Lacedaemonians, by the

decrees and ordinances of Lycurgus, used diligently to enquire among

their citizens whether they possessed any of these things or not, and

the possessor, when he was caught, was punished according to law and

justice. The inhabitants of a town on the Tigris, called Babytace,

buried their gold in the ground so that no one should use it. The

Scythians condemned the use of gold and silver so that they might not

become avaricious.

Further are the metals reviled; in the first place people wantonly abuse

gold and silver and call them deadly and nefarious pests of the human

race, because those who possess them are in the greatest peril, for

those who have none lay snares for the possessors of wealth, and thus

again and again the metals have been the cause of destruction and ruin.

For example, Polymnestor, King of Thrace, to obtain possession of his

gold, killed Polydorus, his noble guest and the son of Priam, his

father-in-law, and old friend. Pygmalion, the King of Tyre, in order

that he might seize treasures of gold and silver, killed his sister's

husband, a priest, taking no account of either kinship or religion. For

love of gold Eriphyle betrayed her husband Amphiaraus to his enemy.

Likewise Lasthenes betrayed the city of Olynthus to Philip of Macedon.

The daughter of Spurius Tarpeius, having been bribed with gold, admitted

the Sabines into the citadel of Rome. Claudius Curio sold his country

for gold to Caesar, the Dictator. Gold, too, was the cause of the

downfall of Aesculapius, the great physician, who it was believed was

the son of Apollo. Similarly Marcus Crassus, through his eager desire

for the gold of the Parthians, was completely overcome together with his

son and eleven legions, and became the jest of his enemies; for they

poured liquid gold into the gaping mouth of the slain Crassus, saying:

"Thou hast thirsted for gold, therefore drink gold."

But why need I cite here these many examples from history?[17] It is

almost our daily experience to learn that, for the sake of obtaining

gold and silver, doors are burst open, walls are pierced, wretched

travellers are struck down by rapacious and cruel men born to theft,

sacrilege, invasion, and robbery. We see thieves seized and strung up

before us, sacrilegious persons burnt alive, the limbs of robbers broken

on the wheel, wars waged for the same reason, which are not only

destructive to those against whom they are waged, but to those also who

carry them on. Nay, but they say that the precious metals foster all

manner of vice, such as the seduction of women, adultery, and

unchastity, in short, crimes of violence against the person. Therefore

the Poets, when they represent Jove transformed into a golden shower and

falling into the lap of Danae, merely mean that he had found for himself

a safe road by the use of gold, by which he might enter the tower for

the purpose of violating the maiden. Moreover, the fidelity of many men

is overthrown by the love of gold and silver, judicial sentences are

bought, and innumerable crimes are perpetrated. For truly, as Propertius

says:

"This is indeed the Golden Age. The greatest rewards come from

gold; by gold love is won; by gold is faith destroyed; by gold

is justice bought; the law follows the track of gold, while

modesty will soon follow it when law is gone."

Diphilus says:

"I consider that nothing is more powerful than gold. By it all

things are torn asunder; all things are accomplished."

Therefore, all the noblest and best despise these riches, deservedly and

with justice, and esteem them as nothing. And this is said by the old

man in Plautus:

"I hate gold. It has often impelled many people to many wrong

acts."

In this country too, the poets inveigh with stinging reproaches against

money coined from gold and silver. And especially did Juvenal:

"Since the majesty of wealth is the most sacred thing among us;

although, O pernicious money, thou dost not yet inhabit a

temple, nor have we erected altars to money."

And in another place:

"Demoralising money first introduced foreign customs, and

voluptuous wealth weakened our race with disgraceful

luxury."[18]

And very many vehemently praise the barter system which men used before

money was devised, and which even now obtains among certain simple

peoples.

And next they raise a great outcry against other metals, as iron, than

which they say nothing more pernicious could have been brought into the

life of man. For it is employed in making swords, javelins, spears,

pikes, arrows--weapons by which men are wounded, and which cause

slaughter, robbery, and wars. These things so moved the wrath of Pliny

that he wrote: "Iron is used not only in hand to hand fighting, but also

to form the winged missiles of war, sometimes for hurling engines,

sometimes for lances, sometimes even for arrows. I look upon it as the

most deadly fruit of human ingenuity. For to bring Death to men more

quickly we have given wings to iron and taught it to fly."[19] The

spear, the arrow from the bow, or the bolt from the catapult and other

engines can be driven into the body of only one man, while the iron

cannon-ball fired through the air, can go through the bodies of many

men, and there is no marble or stone object so hard that it cannot be

shattered by the force and shock. Therefore it levels the highest towers

to the ground, shatters and destroys the strongest walls. Certainly the

ballistas which throw stones, the battering rams and other ancient war

engines for making breaches in walls of fortresses and hurling down

strongholds, seem to have little power in comparison with our present

cannon. These emit horrible sounds and noises, not less than thunder,

flashes of fire burst from them like the lightning, striking, crushing,

and shattering buildings, belching forth flames and kindling fires even

as lightning flashes. So that with more justice could it be said of the

impious men of our age than of Salmoneus of ancient days, that they had

snatched lightning from Jupiter and wrested it from his hands. Nay,

rather there has been sent from the infernal regions to the earth this

force for the destruction of men, so that Death may snatch to himself as

many as possible by one stroke.

But because muskets are nowadays rarely made of iron, and the large ones

never, but of a certain mixture of copper and tin, they confer more

maledictions on copper and tin than on iron. In this connection too,

they mention the brazen bull of Phalaris, the brazen ox of the people of

Pergamus, racks in the shape of an iron dog or a horse, manacles,

shackles, wedges, hooks, and red-hot plates. Cruelly racked by such

instruments, people are driven to confess crimes and misdeeds which they

have never committed, and innocent men are miserably tortured to death

by every conceivable kind of torment.

It is claimed too, that lead is a pestilential and noxious metal, for

men are punished by means of molten lead, as Horace describes in the ode

addressed to the Goddess Fortune: "Cruel Necessity ever goes before thee

bearing in her brazen hand the spikes and wedges, while the awful hook

and molten lead are also not lacking."[20] In their desire to excite

greater odium for this metal, they are not silent about the leaden balls

of muskets, and they find in it the cause of wounds and death.

They contend that, inasmuch as Nature has concealed metals far within

the depths of the earth, and because they are not necessary to human

life, they are therefore despised and repudiated by the noblest, and

should not be mined, and seeing that when brought to light they have

always proved the cause of very great evils, it follows that mining is

not useful to mankind, but on the contrary harmful and destructive.

Several good men have been so perturbed by these tragedies that they

conceive an intensely bitter hatred toward metals, and they wish

absolutely that metals had never been created, or being created, that no

one had ever dug them out. The more I commend the singular honesty,

innocence, and goodness of such men, the more anxious shall I be to

remove utterly and eradicate all error from their minds and to reveal

the sound view, which is that the metals are most useful to mankind.

In the first place then, those who speak ill of the metals and refuse to

make use of them, do not see that they accuse and condemn as wicked the

Creator Himself, when they assert that He fashioned some things vainly

and without good cause, and thus they regard Him as the Author of evils,

which opinion is certainly not worthy of pious and sensible men.

In the next place, the earth does not conceal metals in her depths

because she does not wish that men should dig them out, but because

provident and sagacious Nature has appointed for each thing its place.

She generates them in the veins, stringers, and seams in the rocks, as

though in special vessels and receptacles for such material. The metals

cannot be produced in the other elements because the materials for their

formation are wanting. For if they were generated in the air, a thing

that rarely happens, they could not find a firm resting-place, but by

their own force and weight would settle down on to the ground. Seeing

then that metals have their proper abiding place in the bowels of the

earth, who does not see that these men do not reach their conclusions by

good logic?

They say, "Although metals are in the earth, each located in its own

proper place where it originated, yet because they lie thus enclosed and

hidden from sight, they should not be taken out." But, in refutation of

these attacks, which are so annoying, I will on behalf of the metals

instance the fish, which we catch, hidden and concealed though they be

in the water, even in the sea. Indeed, it is far stranger that man, a

terrestrial animal, should search the interior of the sea than the

bowels of the earth. For as birds are born to fly freely through the

air, so are fishes born to swim through the waters, while to other

creatures Nature has given the earth that they might live in it, and

particularly to man that he might cultivate it and draw out of its

caverns metals and other mineral products. On the other hand, they say

that we eat fish, but neither hunger nor thirst is dispelled by

minerals, nor are they useful in clothing the body, which is another

argument by which these people strive to prove that metals should not be

taken out. But man without metals cannot provide those things which he

needs for food and clothing. For, though the produce of the land

furnishes the greatest abundance of food for the nourishment of our

bodies, no labour can be carried on and completed without tools. The

ground itself is turned up with ploughshares and harrows, tough stalks

and the tops of the roots are broken off and dug up with a mattock, the

sown seed is harrowed, the corn field is hoed and weeded; the ripe

grain with part of the stalk is cut down by scythes and threshed on the

floor, or its ears are cut off and stored in the barn and later beaten

with flails and winnowed with fans, until finally the pure grain is

stored in the granary, whence it is brought forth again when occasion

demands or necessity arises. Again, if we wish to procure better and

more productive fruits from trees and bushes, we must resort to

cultivating, pruning, and grafting, which cannot be done without tools.

Even as without vessels we cannot keep or hold liquids, such as milk,

honey, wine, or oil, neither could so many living things be cared for

without buildings to protect them from long-continued rain and

intolerable cold. Most of the rustic instruments are made of iron, as

ploughshares, share-beams, mattocks, the prongs of harrows, hoes,

planes, hay-forks, straw cutters, pruning shears, pruning hooks, spades,

lances, forks, and weed cutters. Vessels are also made of copper or

lead. Neither are wooden instruments or vessels made without iron. Wine

cellars, oil-mills, stables, or any other part of a farm building could

not be built without iron tools. Then if the bull, the wether, the goat,

or any other domestic animal is led away from the pasture to the

butcher, or if the poulterer brings from the farm a chicken, a hen, or a

capon for the cook, could any of these animals be cut up and divided

without axes and knives? I need say nothing here about bronze and copper

pots for cooking, because for these purposes one could make use of

earthen vessels, but even these in turn could not be made and fashioned

by the potter without tools, for no instruments can be made out of wood

alone, without the use of iron. Furthermore, hunting, fowling, and

fishing supply man with food, but when the stag has been ensnared does

not the hunter transfix him with his spear? As he stands or runs, does

he not pierce him with an arrow? Or pierce him with a bullet? Does not

the fowler in the same way kill the moor-fowl or pheasant with an arrow?

Or does he not discharge into its body the ball from the musket? I will

not speak of the snares and other instruments with which the woodcock,

woodpecker, and other wild birds are caught, lest I pursue unseasonably

and too minutely single instances. Lastly, with his fish-hook and net

does not the fisherman catch the fish in the sea, in the lakes, in

fish-ponds, or in rivers? But the hook is of iron, and sometimes we see

lead or iron weights attached to the net. And most fish that are caught

are afterward cut up and disembowelled with knives and axes. But, more

than enough has been said on the matter of food.

Now I will speak of clothing, which is made out of wool, flax, feathers,

hair, fur, or leather. First the sheep are sheared, then the wool is

combed. Next the threads are drawn out, while later the warp is

suspended in the shuttle under which passes the wool. This being struck

by the comb, at length cloth is formed either from threads alone or from

threads and hair. Flax, when gathered, is first pulled by hooks. Then it

is dipped in water and afterward dried, beaten into tow with a heavy

mallet, and carded, then drawn out into threads, and finally woven into

cloth. But has the artisan or weaver of the cloth any instrument not

made of iron? Can one be made of wood without the aid of iron? The

cloth or web must be cut into lengths for the tailor. Can this be done

without knife or scissors? Can the tailor sew together any garments

without a needle? Even peoples dwelling beyond the seas cannot make a

covering for their bodies, fashioned of feathers, without these same

implements. Neither can the furriers do without them in sewing together

the pelts of any kind of animals. The shoemaker needs a knife to cut the

leather, another to scrape it, and an awl to perforate it before he can

make shoes. These coverings for the body are either woven or stitched.

Buildings too, which protect the same body from rain, wind, cold, and

heat, are not constructed without axes, saws, and augers.

But what need of more words? If we remove metals from the service of

man, all methods of protecting and sustaining health and more carefully

preserving the course of life are done away with. If there were no

metals, men would pass a horrible and wretched existence in the midst of

wild beasts; they would return to the acorns and fruits and berries of

the forest. They would feed upon the herbs and roots which they plucked

up with their nails. They would dig out caves in which to lie down at

night, and by day they would rove in the woods and plains at random like

beasts, and inasmuch as this condition is utterly unworthy of humanity,

with its splendid and glorious natural endowment, will anyone be so

foolish or obstinate as not to allow that metals are necessary for food

and clothing and that they tend to preserve life?

Moreover, as the miners dig almost exclusively in mountains otherwise

unproductive, and in valleys invested in gloom, they do either slight

damage to the fields or none at all. Lastly, where woods and glades are

cut down, they may be sown with grain after they have been cleared from

the roots of shrubs and trees. These new fields soon produce rich crops,

so that they repair the losses which the inhabitants suffer from

increased cost of timber. Moreover, with the metals which are melted

from the ore, birds without number, edible beasts and fish can be

purchased elsewhere and brought to these mountainous regions.

I will pass to the illustrations I have mentioned. Bias of Priene, when

his country was taken, carried away out of the city none of his

valuables. So strong a man with such a reputation for wisdom had no need

to fear personal danger from the enemy, but this in truth cannot be said

of him because he hastily took to flight; the throwing away of his goods

does not seem to me so great a matter, for he had lost his house, his

estates, and even his country, than which nothing is more precious. Nay,

I should be convinced of Bias's contempt and scorn for possessions of

this kind, if before his country was captured he had bestowed them

freely on relations and friends, or had distributed them to the very

poor, for this he could have done freely and without question. Whereas

his conduct, which the Greeks admire so greatly, was due, it would seem,

to his being driven out by the enemy and stricken with fear. Socrates in

truth did not despise gold, but would not accept money for his teaching.

As for Aristippus of Cyrene, if he had gathered and saved the gold which

he ordered his slaves to throw away, he might have bought the things

which he needed for the necessaries of life, and he would not, by reason

of his poverty, have then been obliged to flatter the tyrant Dionysius,

nor would he ever have been called by him a King's dog. For this reason

Horace, speaking of Damasippus when reviling Staberus for valuing riches

very highly, says:

"What resemblance has the Grecian Aristippus to this fellow? He

who commanded his slaves to throw away the gold in the midst of

Libya because they went too slowly, impeded by the weight of

their burden--which of these two men is the more insane?"[21]

Insane indeed is he who makes more of riches than of virtue. Insane also

is he who rejects them and considers them as worth nothing, instead of

using them with reason. Yet as to the gold which Aristippus on another

occasion flung into the sea from a boat, this he did with a wise and

prudent mind. For learning that it was a pirate boat in which he was

sailing, and fearing for his life, he counted his gold and then throwing

it of his own will into the sea, he groaned as if he had done it

unwillingly. But afterward, when he escaped the peril, he said: "It is

better that this gold itself should be lost than that I should have

perished because of it." Let it be granted that some philosophers, as

well as Anacreon of Teos, despised gold and silver. Anaxagoras of

Clazomenae also gave up his sheep-farms and became a shepherd. Crates

the Theban too, being annoyed that his estate and other kinds of wealth

caused him worry, and that in his contemplations his mind was thereby

distracted, resigned a property valued at ten talents, and taking a

cloak and wallet, in poverty devoted all his thought and efforts to

philosophy. Is it true that because these philosophers despised money,

all others declined wealth in cattle? Did they refuse to cultivate lands

or to dwell in houses? There were certainly many, on the other hand,

who, though affluent, became famous in the pursuit of learning and in

the knowledge of divine and human laws, such as Aristotle, Cicero, and

Seneca. As for Phocion, he did not deem it honest to accept the gold

sent to him by Alexander. For if he had consented to use it, the king as

much as himself would have incurred the hatred and aversion of the

Athenians, and these very people were afterward so ungrateful toward

this excellent man that they compelled him to drink hemlock. For what

would have been less becoming to Marcus Curius and Fabricius Luscinus

than to accept gold from their enemies, who hoped that by these means

those leaders could be corrupted or would become odious to their fellow

citizens, their purpose being to cause dissentions among the Romans and

destroy the Republic utterly. Lycurgus, however, ought to have given

instructions to the Spartans as to the use of gold and silver, instead

of abolishing things good in themselves. As to the Babytacenses, who

does not see that they were senseless and envious? For with their gold

they might have bought things of which they were in need, or even given

it to neighbouring peoples to bind them more closely to themselves with

gifts and favours. Finally, the Scythians, by condemning the use of gold

and silver alone, did not free themselves utterly from avarice, because

although he is not enjoying them, one who can possess other forms of

property may also become avaricious.

Now let us reply to the attacks hurled against the products of mines. In

the first place, they call gold and silver the scourge of mankind

because they are the cause of destruction and ruin to their possessors.

But in this manner, might not anything that we possess be called a

scourge to human kind,--whether it be a horse, or a garment, or anything

else? For, whether one rides a splendid horse, or journeys well clad, he

would give occasion to a robber to kill him. Are we then not to ride on

horses, but to journey on foot, because a robber has once committed a

murder in order that he may steal a horse? Or are we not to possess

clothing, because a vagabond with a sword has taken a traveller's life

that he may rob him of his garment? The possession of gold and silver is

similar. Seeing then that men cannot conveniently do all these things,

we should be on our guard against robbers, and because we cannot always

protect ourselves from their hands, it is the special duty of the

magistrate to seize wicked and villainous men for torture, and, if need

be, for execution.

Again, the products of the mines are not themselves the cause of war.

Thus, for example, when a tyrant, inflamed with passion for a woman of

great beauty, makes war on the inhabitants of her city, the fault lies

in the unbridled lust of the tyrant and not in the beauty of the woman.

Likewise, when another man, blinded by a passion for gold and silver,

makes war upon a wealthy people, we ought not to blame the metals but

transfer all blame to avarice. For frenzied deeds and disgraceful

actions, which are wont to weaken and dishonour natural and civil laws,

originate from our own vices. Wherefore Tibullus is wrong in laying the

blame for war on gold, when he says: "This is the fault of a rich man's

gold; there were no wars when beech goblets were used at banquets." But

Virgil, speaking of Polymnestor, says that the crime of the murderer

rests on avarice:

"He breaks all law; he murders Polydorus, and obtains gold by

violence. To what wilt thou not drive mortal hearts, thou

accursed hunger for gold?"

And again, justly, he says, speaking of Pygmalion, who killed Sichaeus:

"And blinded with the love of gold, he slew him unawares with

stealthy sword."[22]

For lust and eagerness after gold and other things make men blind, and

this wicked greed for money, all men in all times and places have

considered dishonourable and criminal. Moreover, those who have been so

addicted to avarice as to be its slaves have always been regarded as

mean and sordid. Similarly, too, if by means of gold and silver and gems

men can overcome the chastity of women, corrupt the honour of many

people, bribe the course of justice and commit innumerable wickednesses,

it is not the metals which are to be blamed, but the evil passions of

men which become inflamed and ignited; or it is due to the blind and

impious desires of their minds. But although these attacks against gold

and silver may be directed especially against money, yet inasmuch as the

Poets one after another condemn it, their criticism must be met, and

this can be done by one argument alone. Money is good for those who use

it well; it brings loss and evil to those who use it ill. Hence, very

rightly, Horace says:

"Dost thou not know the value of money; and what uses it

serves? It buys bread, vegetables, and a pint of wine."

And again in another place:

"Wealth hoarded up is the master or slave of each possessor; it

should follow rather than lead, the 'twisted rope.'"[23]

When ingenious and clever men considered carefully the system of barter,

which ignorant men of old employed and which even to-day is used by

certain uncivilised and barbarous races, it appeared to them so

troublesome and laborious that they invented money. Indeed, nothing more

useful could have been devised, because a small amount of gold and

silver is of as great value as things cumbrous and heavy; and so peoples

far distant from one another can, by the use of money, trade very easily

in those things which civilised life can scarcely do without.

The curses which are uttered against iron, copper, and lead have no

weight with prudent and sensible men, because if these metals were done

away with, men, as their anger swelled and their fury became unbridled,

would assuredly fight like wild beasts with fists, heels, nails, and

teeth. They would strike each other with sticks, hit one another with

stones, or dash their foes to the ground. Moreover, a man does not kill

another with iron alone, but slays by means of poison, starvation, or

thirst. He may seize him by the throat and strangle him; he may bury him

alive in the ground; he may immerse him in water and suffocate him; he

may burn or hang him; so that he can make every element a participant in

the death of men. Or, finally, a man may be thrown to the wild beasts.

Another may be sewn up wholly except his head in a sack, and thus be

left to be devoured by worms; or he may be immersed in water until he is

torn to pieces by sea-serpents. A man may be boiled in oil; he may be

greased, tied with ropes, and left exposed to be stung by flies and

hornets; he may be put to death by scourging with rods or beating with

cudgels, or struck down by stoning, or flung from a high place.

Furthermore, a man may be tortured in more ways than one without the use

of metals; as when the executioner burns the groins and armpits of his

victim with hot wax; or places a cloth in his mouth gradually, so that

when in breathing he draws it slowly into his gullet, the executioner

draws it back suddenly and violently; or the victim's hands are fastened

behind his back, and he is drawn up little by little with a rope and

then let down suddenly. Or similarly, he may be tied to a beam and a

heavy stone fastened by a cord to his feet, or finally his limbs may be

torn asunder. From these examples we see that it is not metals that are

to be condemned, but our vices, such as anger, cruelty, discord, passion

for power, avarice, and lust.

The question next arises, whether we ought to count metals amongst the

number of good things or class them amongst the bad. The Peripatetics

regarded all wealth as a good thing, and merely spoke of externals as

having to do with neither the mind nor the body. Well, let riches be an

external thing. And, as they said, many other things may be classed as

good if it is in one's power to use them either well or ill. For good

men employ them for good, and to them they are useful. The wicked use

them badly, and to them they are harmful. There is a saying of Socrates,

that just as wine is influenced by the cask, so the character of riches

is like their possessors. The Stoics, whose custom it is to argue subtly

and acutely, though they did not put wealth in the category of good

things, they did not count it amongst the evil ones, but placed it in

that class which they term neutral. For to them virtue alone is good,

and vice alone evil. The whole of what remains is indifferent. Thus, in

their conviction, it matters not whether one be in good health or

seriously ill; whether one be handsome or deformed. In short:

"Whether, sprung from Inachus of old, and thus hast lived

beneath the sun in wealth, or hast been poor and despised among

men, it matters not."

For my part, I see no reason why anything that is in itself of use

should not be placed in the class of good things. At all events, metals

are a creation of Nature, and they supply many varied and necessary

needs of the human race, to say nothing about their uses in adornment,

which are so wonderfully blended with utility. Therefore, it is not

right to degrade them from the place they hold among the good things. In

truth, if there is a bad use made of them, should they on that account

be rightly called evils? For of what good things can we not make an

equally bad or good use? Let me give examples from both classes of what

we term good. Wine, by far the best drink, if drunk in moderation, aids

the digestion of food, helps to produce blood, and promotes the juices

in all parts of the body. It is of use in nourishing not only the body

but the mind as well, for it disperses our dark and gloomy thoughts,

frees us from cares and anxiety, and restores our confidence. If drunk

in excess, however, it injures and prostrates the body with serious

disease. An intoxicated man keeps nothing to himself; he raves and

rants, and commits many wicked and infamous acts. On this subject

Theognis wrote some very clever lines, which we may render thus:

"Wine is harmful if taken with greedy lips, but if drunk in

moderation it is wholesome."[25]

But I linger too long over extraneous matters. I must pass on to the

gifts of body and mind, amongst which strength, beauty, and genius occur

to me. If then a man, relying on his strength, toils hard to maintain

himself and his family in an honest and respectable manner, he uses the

gift aright, but if he makes a living out of murder and robbery, he uses

it wrongly. Likewise, too, if a lovely woman is anxious to please her

husband alone she uses her beauty aright, but if she lives wantonly and

is a victim of passion, she misuses her beauty. In like manner, a youth

who devotes himself to learning and cultivates the liberal arts, uses

his genius rightly. But he who dissembles, lies, cheats, and deceives by

fraud and dishonesty, misuses his abilities. Now, the man who, because

they are abused, denies that wine, strength, beauty, or genius are good

things, is unjust and blasphemous towards the Most High God, Creator of

the World; so he who would remove metals from the class of blessings

also acts unjustly and blasphemously against Him. Very true, therefore,

are the words which certain Greek poets have written, as Pindar:

"Money glistens, adorned with virtue; it supplies the means by

which thou mayest act well in whatever circumstances fate may

have in store for thee."[26]

And Sappho:

"Without the love of virtue gold is a dangerous and harmful

guest, but when it is associated with virtue, it becomes the

source and height of good."

And Callimachus:

"Riches do not make men great without virtue; neither do

virtues themselves make men great without some wealth."

And Antiphanes:

"Now, by the gods, why is it necessary for a man to grow rich?

Why does he desire to possess much money unless that he may, as

much as possible, help his friends, and sow the seeds of a

harvest of gratitude, sweetest of the goddesses."[27]

Having thus refuted the arguments and contentions of adversaries, let us

sum up the advantages of the metals. In the first place, they are useful

to the physician, for they furnish liberally the ingredients for

medicines, by which wounds and ulcers are cured, and even plagues; so

that certainly if there were no other reasons why we should explore the

depths of the earth, we should for the sake of medicine alone dig in the

mines. Again, the metals are of use to painters, because they yield

certain pigments which, when united with the painter's slip, are injured

less than others by the moisture from without. Further, mining is useful

to the architects, for thus is found marble, which is suitable not only

for strengthening large buildings, but also for decoration. It is,

moreover, helpful to those whose ambition urges them toward immortal

glory, because it yields metals from which are made coins, statues, and

other monuments, which, next to literary records, give men in a sense

immortality. The metals are useful to merchants with very great cause,

for, as I have stated elsewhere, the use of money which is made from

metals is much more convenient to mankind than the old system of

exchange of commodities. In short, to whom are the metals not of use? In

very truth, even the works of art, elegant, embellished, elaborate,

useful, are fashioned in various shapes by the artist from the metals

gold, silver, brass, lead, and iron. How few artists could make

anything that is beautiful and perfect without using metals? Even if

tools of iron or brass were not used, we could not make tools of wood

and stone without the help of metal. From all these examples are evident

the benefits and advantages derived from metals. We should not have had

these at all unless the science of mining and metallurgy had been

discovered and handed down to us. Who then does not understand how

highly useful they are, nay rather, how necessary to the human race? In

a word, man could not do without the mining industry, nor did Divine

Providence will that he should.

Further, it has been asked whether to work in metals is honourable

employment for respectable people or whether it is not degrading and

dishonourable. We ourselves count it amongst the honourable arts. For

that art, the pursuit of which is unquestionably not impious, nor

offensive, nor mean, we may esteem honourable. That this is the nature

of the mining profession, inasmuch as it promotes wealth by good and

honest methods, we shall show presently. With justice, therefore, we may

class it amongst honourable employments. In the first place, the

occupation of the miner, which I must be allowed to compare with other

methods of acquiring great wealth, is just as noble as that of

agriculture; for, as the farmer, sowing his seed in his fields injures

no one, however profitable they may prove to him, so the miner digging

for his metals, albeit he draws forth great heaps of gold or silver,

hurts thereby no mortal man. Certainly these two modes of increasing

wealth are in the highest degree both noble and honourable. The booty of

the soldier, however, is frequently impious, because in the fury of the

fighting he seizes all goods, sacred as well as profane. The most just

king may have to declare war on cruel tyrants, but in the course of it

wicked men cannot lose their wealth and possessions without dragging

into the same calamity innocent and poor people, old men, matrons,

maidens, and orphans. But the miner is able to accumulate great riches

in a short time, without using any violence, fraud, or malice. That old

saying is, therefore, not always true that "Every rich man is either

wicked himself, or is the heir to wickedness."

Some, however, who contend against us, censure and attack miners by

saying that they and their children must needs fall into penury after a

short time, because they have heaped up riches by improper means.

According to them nothing is truer than the saying of the poet Naevius:

"Ill gotten gains in ill fashion slip away."

The following are some of the wicked and sinful methods by which they

say men obtain riches from mining. When a prospect of obtaining metals

shows itself in a mine, either the ruler or magistrate drives out the

rightful owners of the mines from possession, or a shrewd and cunning

neighbour perhaps brings a law-suit against the old possessors in order

to rob them of some part of their property. Or the mine superintendent

imposes on the owners such a heavy contribution on shares, that if they

cannot pay, or will not, they lose their rights of possession; while the

superintendent, contrary to all that is right, seizes upon all that they

have lost. Or, finally, the mine foreman may conceal the vein by

plastering over with clay that part where the metal abounds, or by

covering it with earth, stones, stakes, or poles, in the hope that after

several years the proprietors, thinking the mine exhausted, will abandon

it, and the foreman can then excavate that remainder of the ore and keep

it for himself. They even state that the scum of the miners exist wholly

by fraud, deceit, and lying. For to speak of nothing else, but only of

those deceits which are practised in buying and selling, it is said they

either advertise the veins with false and imaginary praises, so that

they can sell the shares in the mines at one-half more than they are

worth, or on the contrary, they sometimes detract from the estimate of

them so that they can buy shares for a small price. By exposing such

frauds our critics suppose all good opinion of miners is lost. Now, all

wealth, whether it has been gained by good or evil means, is liable by

some adverse chance to vanish away. It decays and is dissipated by the

fault and carelessness of the owner, since he loses it through laziness

and neglect, or wastes and squanders it in luxuries, or he consumes and

exhausts it in gifts, or he dissipates and throws it away in gambling:

"Just as though money sprouted up again, renewed from an exhausted

coffer, and was always to be obtained from a full heap."

It is therefore not to be wondered at if miners do not keep in mind the

counsel given by King Agathocles: "Unexpected fortune should be held in

reverence," for by not doing so they fall into penury; and particularly

when the miners are not content with moderate riches, they not rarely

spend on new mines what they have accumulated from others. But no just

ruler or magistrate deprives owners of their possessions; that, however,

may be done by a tyrant, who may cruelly rob his subjects not only of

their goods honestly obtained, but even of life itself. And yet whenever

I have inquired into the complaints which are in common vogue, I always

find that the owners who are abused have the best of reasons for driving

the men from the mines; while those who abuse the owners have no reason

to complain about them. Take the case of those who, not having paid

their contributions, have lost the right of possession, or those who

have been expelled by the magistrate out of another man's mine: for some

wicked men, mining the small veins branching from the veins rich in

metal, are wont to invade the property of another person. So the

magistrate expels these men accused of wrong, and drives them from the

mine. They then very frequently spread unpleasant rumours concerning

this amongst the populace. Or, to take another case: when, as often

happens, a dispute arises between neighbours, arbitrators appointed by

the magistrate settle it, or the regular judges investigate and give

judgment. Consequently, when the judgment is given, inasmuch as each

party has consented to submit to it, neither side should complain of

injustice; and when the controversy is adjudged, inasmuch as the

decision is in accordance with the laws concerning mining, one of the

parties cannot be injured by the law. I do not vigorously contest the

point, that at times a mine superintendent may exact a larger

contribution from the owners than necessity demands. Nay, I will admit

that a foreman may plaster over, or hide with a structure, a vein where

it is rich in metals. Is the wickedness of one or two to brand the many

honest with fraud and trickery? What body is supposed to be more pious

and virtuous in the Republic than the Senate? Yet some Senators have

been detected in peculations, and have been punished. Is this any reason

that so honourable a house should lose its good name and fame? The

superintendent cannot exact contributions from the owners without the

knowledge and permission of the Bergmeister or the deputies; for this

reason deception of this kind is impossible. Should the foremen be

convicted of fraud, they are beaten with rods; or of theft, they are

hanged. It is complained that some sellers and buyers of the shares in

mines are fraudulent. I concede it. But can they deceive anyone except a

stupid, careless man, unskilled in mining matters? Indeed, a wise and

prudent man, skilled in this art, if he doubts the trustworthiness of a

seller or buyer, goes at once to the mine that he may for himself

examine the vein which has been so greatly praised or disparaged, and

may consider whether he will buy or sell the shares or not. But people

say, though such an one can be on his guard against fraud, yet a simple

man and one who is easily credulous, is deceived. But we frequently see

a man who is trying to mislead another in this way deceive himself, and

deservedly become a laughing-stock for everyone; or very often the

defrauder as well as the dupe is entirely ignorant of mining. If, for

instance, a vein has been found to be abundant in ore, contrary to the

idea of the would-be deceiver, then he who was to have been cheated gets

a profit, and he who has been the deceiver loses. Nevertheless, the

miners themselves rarely buy or sell shares, but generally they have

_jurati venditores_[28] who buy and sell at such prices as they have

been instructed to give or accept. Seeing therefore, that magistrates

decide disputes on fair and just principles, that honest men deceive

nobody, while a dishonest one cannot deceive easily, or if he does he

cannot do so with impunity, the criticism of those who wish to disparage

the honesty of miners has therefore no force or weight.

In the next place, the occupation of the miner is objectionable to

nobody. For who, unless he be naturally malevolent and envious, will

hate the man who gains wealth as it were from heaven? Or who will hate a

man who to amplify his fortune, adopts a method which is free from

reproach? A moneylender, if he demands an excessive interest, incurs the

hatred of men. If he demands a moderate and lawful rate, so that he is

not injurious to the public generally and does not impoverish them, he

fails to become very rich from his business. Further, the gain derived

from mining is not sordid, for how can it be such, seeing that it is so

great, so plentiful, and of so innocent a nature. A merchant's profits

are mean and base when he sells counterfeit and spurious merchandise, or

puts far too high a price on goods that he has purchased for little; for

this reason the merchant would be held in no less odium amongst good

men than is the usurer, did they not take account of the risk he runs to

secure his merchandise. In truth, those who on this point speak

abusively of mining for the sake of detracting from its merits, say that

in former days men convicted of crimes and misdeeds were sentenced to

the mines and were worked as slaves. But to-day the miners receive pay,

and are engaged like other workmen in the common trades.

Certainly, if mining is a shameful and discreditable employment for a

gentleman because slaves once worked mines, then agriculture also will

not be a very creditable employment, because slaves once cultivated the

fields, and even to-day do so among the Turks; nor will architecture be

considered honest, because some slaves have been found skilful in that

profession; nor medicine, because not a few doctors have been slaves;

nor will any other worthy craft, because men captured by force of arms

have practised it. Yet agriculture, architecture, and medicine are none

the less counted amongst the number of honourable professions;

therefore, mining ought not for this reason to be excluded from them.

But suppose we grant that the hired miners have a sordid employment. We

do not mean by miners only the diggers and other workmen, but also those

skilled in the mining arts, and those who invest money in mines. Amongst

them can be counted kings, princes, republics, and from these last the

most esteemed citizens. And finally, we include amongst the overseers of

mines the noble Thucydides, the historian, whom the Athenians placed in

charge of the mines of Thasos.[29] And it would not be unseemly for the

owners themselves to work with their own hands on the works or ore,

especially if they themselves have contributed to the cost of the mines.

Just as it is not undignified for great men to cultivate their own land.

Otherwise the Roman Senate would not have created Dictator L. Quintius

Cincinnatus, as he was at work in the fields, nor would it have summoned

to the Senate House the chief men of the State from their country

villas. Similarly, in our day, Maximilian Caesar would not have enrolled

Conrad in the ranks of the nobles known as Counts; Conrad was really

very poor when he served in the mines of Schneeberg, and for that reason

he was nicknamed the "poor man"; but not many years after, he attained

wealth from the mines of Fuerst, which is a city in Lorraine, and took

his name from "Luck."[30] Nor would King Vladislaus have restored to the

Assembly of Barons, Tursius, a citizen of Cracow, who became rich

through the mines in that part of the kingdom of Hungary which was

formerly called Dacia.[31] Nay, not even the common worker in the mines

is vile and abject. For, trained to vigilance and work by night and day,

he has great powers of endurance when occasion demands, and easily

sustains the fatigues and duties of a soldier, for he is accustomed to

keep long vigils at night, to wield iron tools, to dig trenches, to

drive tunnels, to make machines, and to carry burdens. Therefore,

experts in military affairs prefer the miner, not only to a commoner

from the town, but even to the rustic.

But to bring this discussion to an end, inasmuch as the chief callings

are those of the moneylender, the soldier, the merchant, the farmer, and

the miner, I say, inasmuch as usury is odious, while the spoil cruelly

captured from the possessions of the people innocent of wrong is wicked

in the sight of God and man, and inasmuch as the calling of the miner

excels in honour and dignity that of the merchant trading for lucre,

while it is not less noble though far more profitable than agriculture,

who can fail to realize that mining is a calling of peculiar dignity?

Certainly, though it is but one of ten important and excellent methods

of acquiring wealth in an honourable way, a careful and diligent man can

attain this result in no easier way than by mining.

END OF BOOK I.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Fibrae_--"fibres." See Note 6, p. 70.

[2] _Commissurae saxorum_--"rock joints," "seams," or "cracks." Agricola

and all of the old authors laid a wholly unwarranted geologic value on

these phenomena. See description and footnotes, Book III., pages 43 and

72.

[3] _Succi_--"juice," or _succi concreti_--"solidified juice." Ger.

Trans., _saffte_. The old English translators and mineralogists often

use the word juices in the same sense, and we have adopted it. The words

"solutions" and "salts" convey a chemical significance not warranted by

the state of knowledge in Agricola's time. Instances of the former use

of this word may be seen in Barba's "First Book of the Art of Metals,"

(Trans. Earl Sandwich, London, 1674, p. 2, etc.,) and in Pryce's

_Mineralogia Cornubiensis_ (London, 1778, p. 25, 32).

[4] In order that the reader should be able to grasp the author's point

of view as to his divisions of the Mineral Kingdom, we introduce here

his own statement from _De Natura Fossilium_, (p. 180). It is also

desirable to read the footnote on his theory of ore-deposits on pages 43

to 53, and the review of _De Natura Fossilium_ given in the Appendix.

"The subterranean inanimate bodies are divided into two classes, one of

which, because it is a fluid or an exhalation, is called by those names,

and the other class is called the minerals. Mineral bodies are

solidified from particles of the same substance, such as pure gold, each

particle of which is gold, or they are of different substances such as

lumps which consist of earth, stone, and metal; these latter may be

separated into earth, stone and metal, and therefore the first is not a

mixture while the last is called a mixture. The first are again divided

into simple and compound minerals. The simple minerals are of four

classes, namely earths, solidified juices, stones and metals, while the

mineral compounds are of many sorts, as I shall explain later.

"Earth is a simple mineral body which may be kneaded in the hands when

moistened, or from which lute is made when it has been wetted. Earth,

properly so called, is found enclosed in veins or veinlets, or

frequently on the surface in fields and meadows. This definition is a

general one. The harder earth, although moistened by water, does not at

once become lute, but does turn into lute if it remains in water for

some time. There are many species of earths, some of which have names

but others are unnamed.

"Solidified juices are dry and somewhat hard (_subdurus_) mineral bodies

which when moistened with water do not soften but liquefy instead; or if

they do soften, they differ greatly from the earths by their

unctuousness (_pingue_) or by the material of which they consist.

Although occasionally they have the hardness of stone, yet because they

preserve the form and nature which they had when less hard, they can

easily be distinguished from the stones. The juices are divided into

'meagre' and unctuous (_macer et pinguis_). The 'meagre' juices, since

they originate from three different substances, are of three species.

They are formed from a liquid mixed with earth, or with metal, or with a

mineral compound. To the first species belong salt and _Nitrum_ (soda);

to the second, chrysocolla, verdigris, iron-rust, and azure; to the

third, vitriol, alum, and an acrid juice which is unnamed. The first two

of these latter are obtained from pyrites, which is numbered amongst the

compound minerals. The third of these comes from _Cadmia_ (in this case

the cobalt-zinc-arsenic minerals; the acrid juice is probably zinc

sulphate). To the unctuous juices belong these species: sulphur,

bitumen, realgar and orpiment. Vitriol and alum, although they are

somewhat unctuous yet do not burn, and they differ in their origin from

the unctuous juices, for the latter are forced out from the earth by

heat, whereas the former are produced when pyrites is softened by

moisture.

"Stone is a dry and hard mineral body which may either be softened by

remaining for a long time in water and be reduced to powder by a fierce

fire; or else it does not soften with water but the heat of a great fire

liquefies it. To the first species belong those stones which have been

solidified by heat, to the second those solidified (literally

'congealed') by cold. These two species of stones are constituted from

their own material. However, writers on natural subjects who take into

consideration the quantity and quality of stones and their value, divide

them into four classes. The first of these has no name of its own but is

called in common parlance 'stone': to this class belong loadstone,

jasper (or bloodstone) and _Aetites_ (geodes?). The second class

comprises hard stones, either pellucid or ornamental, with very

beautiful and varied colours which sparkle marvellously; they are called

gems. The third comprises stones which are only brilliant after they

have been polished, and are usually called marble. The fourth are called

rocks; they are found in quarries, from which they are hewn out for use

in building, and they are cut into various shapes. None of the rocks

show colour or take a polish. Few of the stones sparkle; fewer still are

transparent. Marble is sometimes only distinguishable from opaque gems

by its volume; rock is always distinguishable from stones properly

so-called by its volume. Both the stones and the gems are usually to be

found in veins and veinlets which traverse the rocks and marble. These

four classes, as I have already stated, are divided into many species,

which I will explain in their proper place.

"Metal is a mineral body, by nature either liquid or somewhat hard. The

latter may be melted by the heat of the fire, but when it has cooled

down again and lost all heat, it becomes hard again and resumes its

proper form. In this respect it differs from the stone which melts in

the fire, for although the latter regain its hardness, yet it loses its

pristine form and properties. Traditionally there are six different

kinds of metals, namely gold, silver, copper, iron, tin and lead. There

are really others, for quicksilver is a metal, although the Alchemists

disagree with us on this subject, and bismuth is also. The ancient Greek

writers seem to have been ignorant of bismuth, wherefore Ammonius

rightly states that there are many species of metals, animals, and

plants which are unknown to us. _Stibium_ when smelted in the crucible

and refined has as much right to be regarded as a proper metal as is

accorded to lead by writers. If when smelted, a certain portion be added

to tin, a bookseller's alloy is produced from which the type is made

that is used by those who print books on paper. Each metal has its own

form which it preserves when separated from those metals which were

mixed with it. Therefore neither electrum nor _Stannum_ is of itself a

real metal, but rather an alloy of two metals. Electrum is an alloy of

gold and silver, _Stannum_ of lead and silver (see note 33, p. 473). And

yet if silver be parted from the electrum, then gold remains and not

electrum; if silver be taken away from _Stannum_, then lead remains and

not _Stannum_. Whether brass, however, is found as a native metal or

not, cannot be ascertained with any surety. We only know of the

artificial brass, which consists of copper tinted with the colour of the

mineral calamine. And yet if any should be dug up, it would be a proper

metal. Black and white copper seem to be different from the red kind.

Metal, therefore, is by nature either solid, as I have stated, or fluid,

as in the unique case of quicksilver. But enough now concerning the

simple kinds.

"I will now speak of the compounds which are composed of the simple

minerals cemented together by nature, and under the word 'compound' I

now discuss those mineral bodies which consist of two or three simple

minerals. They are likewise mineral substances, but so thoroughly mixed

and alloyed that even in the smallest part there is not wanting any

substance that is contained in the whole. Only by the force of the fire

is it possible to separate one of the simple mineral substances from

another; either the third from the other two, or two from the third, if

there were three in the same compound. These two, three or more bodies

are so completely mixed into one new species that the pristine form of

none of these is recognisable.

"The 'mixed' minerals, which are composed of those same simple minerals,

differ from the 'compounds,' in that the simple minerals each preserves

its own form so that they can be separated one from the other not only

by fire but sometimes by water and sometimes by hand. As these two

classes differ so greatly from one another I usually use two different

words in order to distinguish one from the other. I am well aware that

Galen calls the metallic earth a compound which is really a mixture, but

he who wishes to instruct others should bestow upon each separate thing

a definite name."

For convenience of reference we may reduce the above to a diagram as

follows:

1. Fluids and gases.

{ { Earths

{ (a) Simple { Solidified juices

{ minerals { Stones

{ { Metals

{ A. Homogenous {

{ bodies {

{ { (b) Compound { Being heterogeneous mixtures

{ { minerals { of (a)

{

2. Mineral {

bodies {

{

{ B. Mixtures. Being homogenous mixtures of (a)

[5] _Experiendae_--"a trial." That actual assaying in its technical

sense is meant, is sufficiently evident from Book VII.

[6] _... plumbum ... candidum ac cinereum vel nigrum_. "Lead ... white,

or ash-coloured, or black." Agricola himself coined the term _plumbum

cinereum_ for bismuth, no doubt following the Roman term for

tin--_plumbum candidum_. The following passage from _Bermannus_ (p. 439)

is of interest, for it appears to be the first description of bismuth,

although mention of it occurs in the _Nuetzlich Bergbuechlin_ (see

Appendix B). "_Bermannus_: I will show you another kind of mineral which

is numbered amongst metals, but appears to me to have been unknown to

the Ancients; we call it _bisemutum_. _Naevius_: Then in your opinion

there are more kinds of metals than the seven commonly believed?

_Bermannus_: More, I consider; for this which just now I said we called

_bisemutum_, cannot correctly be called _plumbum candidum_ (tin), nor

_nigrum_ (lead), but is different from both and is a third one. _Plumbum

candidum_ is whiter and _plumbum nigrum_ is darker, as you see.

_Naevius_: We see that this is of the colour of _galena_. _Ancon_: How

then can _bisemutum_, as you call it, be distinguished from _galena_?

_Bermannus_: Easily; when you take it in your hands it stains them with

black, unless it is quite hard. The hard kind is not friable like

_galena_, but can be cut. It is blacker than the kind of _rudis_ silver

which we say is almost the colour of lead, and thus is different from

both. Indeed, it not rarely contains some silver. It generally indicates

that there is silver beneath the place where it is found, and because of

this our miners are accustomed to call it the 'roof of silver.' They are

wont to roast this mineral, and from the better part they make metal;

from the poorer part they make a pigment of a kind not to be despised."

[7] _Nitrum._ The Ancients comprised many salts under this head, but

Agricola in the main uses it for soda, although sometimes he includes

potash. He usually, however, refers to potash as _lixivium_ or salt

therefrom, and by other distinctive terms. For description of method of

manufacture and discussion, see Book XII., p. 558.

[8] _Atramentum sutorium_--"Shoemaker's blacking." See p. 572 for

description of method of manufacture and historical footnote. In the

main Agricola means green vitriol, but he does describe three main

varieties, green, blue, and white (_De Natura Fossilium_, p. 219). The

blue was of course copper sulphate, and it is fairly certain that the

white was zinc vitriol.

[9] _Lavandi_--"Washing." By this term the author includes all the

operations of sluicing, buddling, and wet concentration generally. There

is no English equivalent of such wide application, and there is some

difficulty in interpretation without going further than the author

intends. Book VIII. is devoted to the subject.

[10] _Operam et oleum perdit_--"loss of labour and oil."

[11] In _Veteribus et Novis Metallis_, and _Bermannus_, Agricola states

that the mines of Schemnitz were worked 800 years before that time

(1530), or about 750 A.D., and, further, that the lead mines of Goslar

in the Hartz were worked by Otho the Great (936-973), and that the

silver mines at Freiberg were discovered during the rule of Prince Otho

(about 1170). To continue the argument to-day we could add about 360

years more of life to the mines of Goslar and Freiberg. See also Note

16, p. 36, and note 19, p. 37.

[12] Xenophon. Essay on the Revenues of Athens, I., 5.

[13] Ovid, _Metamorphoses_, I., 137 to 143.

[14] Diogenes Laertius, II., 5. The lines are assigned, however, to

Philemon, not Euripides. (Kock, _Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta_ II.,

512).

[15] We have not considered it of sufficient interest to cite the

references to all of the minor poets and those whose preserved works are

but fragmentary. The translations from the Greek into Latin are not

literal and suffer again by rendering into English; we have however

considered it our duty to translate Agricola's view of the meaning.

[16] Diogenes Laertius, II.

[17] An inspection of the historical incidents mentioned here and

further on, indicates that Agricola relied for such information on

Diogenes Laertius, Plutarch, Livy, Valerius Maximus, Pliny, and often

enough on Homer, Horace, and Virgil.

[18] Juvenal. _Satires_ I., l. 112, and VI., l. 298.

[19] Pliny, XXXIV., 39.

[20] Horace. _Odes_, I., 35, ll. 17-20.

[21] Horace. _Satires_, II., 3, ll. 99-102.

[22] Virgil. _AEneid_, III., l. 55, and I., l. 349.

[23] Horace. _Satires_, I., l. 73; and Epistle, I., 10, l. 47.

[25] Theognis. Maxims, II., l. 210.

[26] Pindar. _Olymp._ II., 58-60.

[27] Antiphanes, 4.

[28] _Jurati Venditores_--"Sworn brokers." (?)

[29] There is no doubt that Thucydides had some connection with gold

mines; he himself is the authority for the statement that he worked

mines in Thrace. Agricola seems to have obtained his idea that

Thucydides held an appointment from the Athenians in charge of mines in

Thasos, from Marcellinus (_Vita_, Thucydides, 30), who also says that

Thucydides obtained possession of mines in Thrace through his marriage

with a Thracian woman, and that it was while residing on the mines at

Scapte-Hyle that he wrote his history. Later scholars, however, find

little warrant for these assertions. The gold mines of Thasos--an island

off the mainland of Thrace--are frequently mentioned by the ancient

authors. Herodotus, VI., 46-47, says:--"Their (the Thasians') revenue

was derived partly from their possessions upon the mainland, partly from

the mines which they owned. They were masters of the gold mines of

Scapte-Hyle, the yearly produce of which amounted to eighty talents.

Their mines in Thasos yielded less, but still were so prolific that

besides being entirely free from land-tax they had a surplus of income

derived from the two sources of their territory on the mainland and

their mines, in common years two hundred and in best years three hundred

talents. I myself have seen the mines in question. By far the most

curious of them are those which the Phoenicians discovered at the time

when they went with Thasos and colonized the island, which took its name

from him. These Phoenician workings are in Thasos itself, between

Coenyra and a place called Aenyra over against Samothrace; a high

mountain has been turned upside down in the search for ores."

(Rawlinson's Trans.). The occasion of this statement of Herodotus was

the relations of the Thasians with Darius (521-486 B.C.). The date of

the Phoenician colonization of Thasos is highly nebular--anywhere from

1200 to 900 B.C.

[30] Agricola, _De Veteribus et Novis Metallis_, Book I., p. 392,

says:--"Conrad, whose nickname in former years was 'pauper,' suddenly

became rich from the silver mines of Mount Jura, known as the

_Firstum_." He was ennobled with the title of Graf Cuntz von Glueck by

the Emperor Maximilian (who was Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire,

1493-1519). Conrad was originally a working miner at Schneeberg where he

was known as Armer Cuntz (poor Cuntz or Conrad) and grew wealthy from

the mines of Fuerst in Leberthal. This district is located in the Vosges

Mountains on the borders of Lorraine and Upper Alsace. The story of

Cuntz or Conrad von Glueck is mentioned by Albinus (_Meissnische Land und

Berg Chronica_, Dresden, 1589, p. 116), Mathesius (_Sarepta_, Nuremberg,

1578, fol. XVI.), and by others.

[31] Vladislaus III. was King of Poland, 1434-44, and also became King

of Hungary in 1440. Tursius seems to be a Latinized name and cannot be

identified.