Page:De re metallica (1912).djvu/22

xii. AGRICOLA'S INTELLECTUAL 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 disclose a most 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 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 Fossilium, 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 necessitated 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