De Re Metallica, Translated from the First Latin Edition of 1556

by Georg Agricola

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.