388 SKETCH OF PALEOBOTANY. 



Brongniart has offered an apology for the ancients,^* on the ground 

 that no coal mines occur in Greece or Rome, and that Spain, ISTorthern 

 Africa, and Western Asia, with which alone they were acquainted, are 

 all equally wanting in that formation 5 and he very truly remarks that 

 the knowledge of fossil plants really began simultaneously with the use 

 of coal, as the destruction of the forests of Western and Northern Eu- 

 rope forced the growing population to discover some substitute for 

 wood as fuel. This is quite true so far as coal plants are concerned, 

 and somewhat so for all those fossils which are only exposed by min- 

 ing, yet when we consider the extensive public works that were carried 

 on by the Eomans, in connection with the large number of rich beds of 

 fossil plants now known in Italy, Dalmatia, Eubcea, and with the pet- 

 rified forests of northern Egypt and other countries of the Roman Em- 

 pire, some other explanation is certainly needed to account for the 

 silence of ancient literature upon the subject. This is to be found in 

 the highly artificial character of their civilization, and the little interest 

 taken in or attention paid to the phenomena of nature around them. 

 This state of society can be easily imagined by eliminating from our 

 own society the very minute fraction of the citizens of any modern coun- 

 try who ever observe or reflect upon natural objects or phenomena. In 

 any large city these can almost be counted upon the fingers, and this 

 could then be done for the whole Eoman Empire, while during the suc- 

 ceeding ages even these few were wanting, and the flicker that Pliny 

 kindled upon the dying embers of Grecian learning was allowed to go 

 entirely out. 



It was long supposed that Agricola^^ was the first to make unequiv- 

 ocal mention of petrified wood, but a passage has been found in Al- 

 bertus Magnus,^" which leaves no doubt that his attention had been 

 definitely drawn to this subject, and which carries it back to the thirteenth 

 century. This passage, however, seems to have attracted no attention, 

 and it was only after Agricola had twice ^' expressed his views on the 

 subject that other writers took it up. Matthiolus in his letter to Bauhin 

 (1564), and Gesner™ (1565), described specimens which came into their 

 possession. A long discussion followed as to the true nature of these 

 petrifactions and all kinds of theories were put forward. Already for 



"Histoire des v6g6taux fossiles, Tome I, p. 1. 



^Georgius Bauer Agricola. De natura fossilium, 1558, Lib. VII, pp. 324, 328. 



*s" Similiter aiitem ligaa jaceutia in quibusdam aquis et maribus convertunt in 

 lapides et retinent flguram lignorum. Et aliquando natse plantae in aquis et mari- 

 bus illis ita sunt vicinse lapidum naturis quod ad modicum exiocatie in aere, lapi- 

 dum formam assumunt," etc. (Beati Alberti Magni De mineralibus. Tractatus L 

 Caput VII. Opera, Tom. II, p. 216, Lugduni, 1651.) 



" " De ortu et causia subterraueorum. Lib. III. In De re metallioa, Basilese, 1657, 

 p. 507. Arbores * * * lapidesount * • * turn sic in saxa oommutataj, ut 

 suus cujuscunque; truncus et rami mox sub aspectum veniant : oprtex a, ligno non 

 difficiliter intornoscantur." 



6» Conrad Gesuer; De rerara fossilium, lapidum, et gemmarum maxime figuris et 

 similitudinibus. Tiguri, 1565. (See cap. ix, fol. 125, f. 1.) 



