Subterranean Physics

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

Putting aside those matters that belong to a different kind of judgment, I believe we must not deprive of their due praise those things that truly deserve it. Indeed, if one chose to pay attention to such things, it would certainly be necessary to seek more solid evidence for condemning any man’s reputation than the rumors of the common people, the hatred of the royal court, the accusations of persecutors, the condemnations of the clergy, or any testimony given by parties with their own interests. But these matters are not our concern here.

What we do make our concern is this: that Becher, in this Subterranean Physics original: "Physica subterranea," Becher’s most famous work, which laid the groundwork for the phlogiston theory., regarding the theory of the origin or rather the hypostaseos original Greek: ὑποσάσεως, referring to the "substantial existence" or "underlying reality" of minerals and materials. of things beneath the earth, employed such solid theories, arguments, and experiments. He possessed such knowledge, diligence, skill, consistency, and carefulness in connecting facts and drawing conclusions on this subject as no one else has—neither before him, nor after him, nor even through his influence, up to this very day.

I beg you to refrain and hold back—especially those of you who judge without authority or good faith—from accusing me of indirectly praising myself by praising Becher in this way, as if I were suggesting that I am the only one capable of interpreting him. Consider for yourselves, according to your own way of thinking (for which nothing is valued unless it is profitable or brings gain, rather than being speculative), whether you do me a great injustice. If you suggest that a man who is not entirely dull or stupid—as most of you know—would find cause for pride, arrogance, or boasting in matters so speculative and so far below the akribeian original Greek: ἀκρίβειαν, meaning "exactness" or "mathematical precision." of today’s purely mechanical demonstrations, you do me wrong. Indeed, because of this very judgment of yours, you should expect a harsh verdict from more moderate men—if such a thing still matters.

Beyond these arguments, there are further points that can most solidly free me from any suspicion of excessive self-confidence:

I. Our author's entire Theory, as well as its foundations, evidence, and experiments, is inherently a simple and clear matter, already well-arranged and confirmed by the Author himself.

II. I have applied my mind to this subject for many years now. This is evidenced by the College A series of lectures or a seminar. I held at Jena in the year 1684; because it was dictated by me for the students to write down, it came into the hands of many through the curiosity and diligence of those students.

III. Very little—indeed, as far as I know, speaking frankly, almost nothing—of this Author’s Physics has gained any esteem or recognition among all those who, by their learning or office, could or should have applied some further refinement to these matters.

IV. Even if I were most...