De Re Metallica (Hoover English translation)

AGRICOLA’S INTELLECTUAL ATTAINMENTS AND POSITION IN SCIENCE.

Agricola’s education was the most thorough that his times could provide in the classics, philosophy, medicine, and the sciences in general. Furthermore, his writings reveal an 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 in high regard is amply evidenced by the correspondence of other scholars of his time—Erasmus, Melanchthon, Meurer, Fabricius, and others.

Our more immediate concern, however, is with the advances he contributed to the sciences of Geology, Mineralogy, and Mining Engineering. No appreciation of these attainments can be conveyed to the reader unless they have some understanding of the scarcity of knowledge in these sciences prior to Agricola’s time. We have provided a brief review of the literature extant at this period on these subjects in Appendix B. Furthermore, no appreciation of Agricola’s contribution to science can be gained without a study of De Ortu et Causis (On the Origin and Causes of Subterranean Things) and De Natura Fossilium (On the Nature of Fossils/Minerals); for while De Re Metallica is of much more general interest, it contains only incidental references to Geology and Mineralogy. Aside from the book of Genesis, the only attempts at a fundamental explanation of natural phenomena were those of the Greek philosophers and the alchemists. Agricola scarcely mentions orthodox religious beliefs; he had no patience for the alchemists. There can be no doubt, however, that his views were greatly colored by his deep classical learning. He was, to a certain extent, a follower of Aristotle, Theophrastus, Strato, and other leaders of the Peripatetic school. Indeed, except for the muddy current the alchemists had introduced into this already troubled stream, the entire thought of the learned world still flowed from the Greeks. However, had he not radically departed from the teachings of the Peripatetic school, his work would have contributed nothing to the development of science. He repudiated certain of their teachings with great vigor, and his laborious and detailed arguments in their refutation form the first scientific battle 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.”original: "Ea quae videmus oculis et percipimus sensibus, multo clarius demonstrantur, quam quae ratiocinatione discuntur." (De Ortu et Causis, Book III). The bigoted scholasticism of his times necessitated as much care and detail in refuting such deep-rooted beliefs as would be required today to refute the theory of evolution. Consequently, his works are often dry reading for any but those interested in the development of fundamental scientific theory.

In providing an appreciation of Agricola’s views here and throughout the footnotes, we do not wish to imply that he was in all things free from error or the spirit of his times, or that his theories—constructed long before the atomic theory—are as clear-cut as that basic hypothesis has made possible for later scientific speculation in these branches. His statements are sometimes quite confused, but we reiterate that