De re metallica (1912)/Book I

by Georgius Agricola

BOOK I.

 

ANY 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 Schonberg 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 fanlt 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 ah’ve 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."^[24]

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."^[25]

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."^[26]

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 laughingstock 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^[27] 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.^[28] 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 Fiirst, which is a city in Lorraine, and took his name from " Luck."^[29] 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.^[30] 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.

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 booksellers 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

   2. Mineral bodies $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right.}$		A. Homogenous bodies$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right.}$ B. Mixtures.	(a) (b)
   		Being heterogeneous mixtures of (a)
   		Compound minerals. Being homogenous mixtures of (a)
   				Simple minerals $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	Earths Solidified juices Stones Metals

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 Nützlich Bergbuchlin (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, huddling, 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, n., 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, II., 17-20.
21. Horace. Satires, ii., 3, II., 99-102.
22. Virgil. Eneid, iii., l. 55, and i, l. 349.
23. Horace. Satires, i., l. 73; and Epistle, i., 10, l. 47.
24. Theognis. Maxims, ii., 1. 210.
25. Pindar. Olymp. ii., 58-60.
26. Antiphanes, 4.
27. Jurati Venditores "Sworn brokers." (?)
28. 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.
29. 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 Gliick 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 Fiirst 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 Gliick is mentioned by Albinus (Meissnische Land und Berg Chronica, Dresden, 1589, p. 116), Mathesius (Sarepta, Nuremberg, 1578, fol. xvi.), and by others.
30. 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.