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 Schlüter's work nearly two centuries later, it was not excelled. There is no measure by which we may gauge the value of such a work to the men who followed in this profession during centuries, nor the benefits enjoyed by humanity through them.
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:—