xm. 



AORICOLAS INTKLLECTUAL ATTAINMENTS AND 

 POSITION IN SCIENCE. 



Agricola's education was the most thorough that his times afforded in 

 the classics, philosophy, medicine, and sciences generally. Further, his writings 

 disclosi^ a most exhaustive knowledge not only of an extraordinary range of 

 classical literature, but also of obscure manuscrijits buried in the public libraries 

 of Europe. That his general learning was held to be of a high order is amply 

 evidenced from the correspondence of the other scholars of his time — Erasmus, 

 Melanchthon, Meurer, Fabricius, and others. 



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 FossiUum, 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 funda- 

 mental 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. "^^ The bigoted scholasticism of his times necessi- 

 tated 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 



^^De Ortu et Causis, Book III. 



