1541. Henry was succeeded in 1541 by his Protestant son Maurice, who was

the Patron of Agricola. At about this time Saxony was drawn into the storms which rose from the long-standing rivalry between Francis I., King of France, and Charles V. of Spain. These two potentates came to the throne in the same year (1515), and both were candidates for Emperor of that loose Confederation known as the Holy Roman Empire. Charles was elected, and intermittent wars between these two Princes arose--first in one part of Europe, and then in another. Francis finally formed an alliance with the Schmalkalden League of German Protestant Princes, and with the Sultan of Turkey, against Charles. In 1546 Maurice of Meissen, although a Protestant, saw his best interest in a secret league with Charles against the other Protestant Princes, and proceeded (the Schmalkalden War) to invade the domains of his superior and cousin, the Elector Frederick. The Emperor Charles proved successful in this war, and Maurice was rewarded, at the Capitulation of Wittenberg in 1547, by being made Elector of Saxony in the place of his cousin. Later on, the Elector Maurice found the association with Catholic Charles unpalatable, and joined in leading the other Protestant princes in war upon him, and on the defeat of the Catholic party and the peace of Passau, Maurice became acknowledged as the champion of German national and religious freedom. He was succeeded by his brother Augustus in 1553. Agricola was much favoured by the Saxon Electors, Maurice and Augustus. He dedicates most of his works to them, and shows much gratitude for many favours conferred upon him. Duke Maurice presented to him a house and plot in Chemnitz, and in a letter dated June 14th, 1543[9] in connection therewith, says: "... that he may enjoy his life-long a freehold house unburdened by all burgher rights and other municipal service, to be used by him and inhabited as a free dwelling, and that he may also, for the necessities of his household and of his wife and servants, brew his own beer free, and that he may likewise purvey for himself and his household foreign beer and also wine for use, and yet he shall not sell any such beer.... We have taken the said Doctor under our especial protection and care for our life-long, and he shall not be summoned before any Court of Justice, but only before us and our Councillor...." Agricola was made Burgomaster of Chemnitz in 1546. A letter[10] from Fabricius to Meurer, dated May 19th, 1546, says that Agricola had been made Burgomaster by the command of the Prince. This would be Maurice, and it is all the more a tribute to the high respect with which Agricola was held, for, as said before, he was a consistent Catholic, and Maurice a Protestant Prince. In this same year the Schmalkalden War broke out, and Agricola was called to personal attendance upon the Duke Maurice in a diplomatic and advisory capacity. In 1546 also he was a member of the Diet of Freiberg, and was summoned to Council in Dresden. The next year he continued, by the Duke's command, Burgomaster at Chemnitz, although he seems to have been away upon Ducal matters most of the time. The Duke addresses[11] the Chemnitz Council in March, 1547: "We hereby make known to you that we are in urgent need of your Burgomaster, Dr. Georgius Agricola, with us. It is, therefore, our will that you should yield him up and forward him that he should with the utmost haste set forth to us here near Freiberg." He was sent on various missions from the Duke to the Emperor Charles, to King Ferdinand of Austria, and to other Princes in matters connected with the war--the fact that he was a Catholic probably entering into his appointment to such missions. Chemnitz was occupied by the troops of first one side, then the other, despite the great efforts of Agricola to have his own town specially defended. In April, 1547, the war came to an end in the Battle of Muehlberg, but Agricola was apparently not relieved of his Burgomastership until the succeeding year, for he wrote his friend Wolfgang Meurer, in April, 1548,[12] that he "was now relieved." His public duties did not end, however, for he attended the Diet of Leipzig in 1547 and in 1549, and was at the Diet at Torgau in 1550. In 1551 he was again installed as Burgomaster; and in 1553, for the fourth time, he became head of the Municipality, and during this year had again to attend the Diets at Leipzig and Dresden, representing his city. He apparently now had a short relief from public duties, for it is not until 1555, shortly before his death, that we find him again attending a Diet at Torgau. Agricola died on November 21st, 1555. A letter[13] from his life-long friend, Fabricius, to Melanchthon, announcing this event, states: "We lost, on November 21st, that distinguished ornament of our Fatherland, Georgius Agricola, a man of eminent intellect, of culture and of judgment. He attained the age of 62. He who since the days of childhood had enjoyed robust health was carried off by a four-days' fever. He had previously suffered from no disease except inflammation of the eyes, which he brought upon himself by untiring study and insatiable reading.... I know that you loved the soul of this man, although in many of his opinions, more especially in religious and spiritual welfare, he differed in many points from our own. For he despised our Churches, and would not be with us in the Communion of the Blood of Christ. Therefore, after his death, at the command of the Prince, which was given to the Church inspectors and carried out by Tettelbach as a loyal servant, burial was refused him, and not until the fourth day was he borne away to Zeitz and interred in the Cathedral.... I have always admired the genius of this man, so distinguished in our sciences and in the whole realm of Philosophy--yet I wonder at his religious views, which were compatible with reason, it is true, and were dazzling, but were by no means compatible with truth.... He would not tolerate with patience that anyone should discuss ecclesiastical matters with him." This action of the authorities in denying burial to one of their most honoured citizens, who had been ever assiduous in furthering the welfare of the community, seems strangely out of joint. Further, the Elector Augustus, although a Protestant Prince, was Agricola's warm friend, as evidenced by his letter of but a few months before (see p. xv). However, Catholics were then few in number at Chemnitz, and the feeling ran high at the time, so possibly the Prince was afraid of public disturbances. Hofmann[14] explains this occurrence in the following words:--"The feelings of Chemnitz citizens, who were almost exclusively Protestant, must certainly be taken into account. They may have raised objections to the solemn interment of a Catholic in the Protestant Cathedral Church of St. Jacob, which had, perhaps, been demanded by his relatives, and to which, according to the custom of the time, he would have been entitled as Burgomaster. The refusal to sanction the interment aroused, more especially in the Catholic world, a painful sensation." A brass memorial plate hung in the Cathedral at Zeitz had already disappeared in 1686, nor have the cities of his birth or residence ever shown any appreciation of this man, whose work more deserves their gratitude than does that of the multitude of soldiers whose monuments decorate every village and city square. It is true that in 1822 a marble tablet was placed behind the altar in the Church of St. Jacob in Chemnitz, but even this was removed to the Historical Museum later on. He left a modest estate, which was the subject of considerable litigation by his descendants, due to the mismanagement of the guardian. Hofmann has succeeded in tracing the descendants for two generations, down to 1609, but the line is finally lost among the multitude of other Agricolas. To deduce Georgius Agricola's character we need not search beyond the discovery of his steadfast adherence to the religion of his fathers amid the bitter storm of Protestantism around him, and need but to remember at the same time that for twenty-five years he was entrusted with elective positions of an increasingly important character in this same community. No man could have thus held the respect of his countrymen unless he were devoid of bigotry and possessed of the highest sense of integrity, justice, humanity, and patriotism. 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 fundamental 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."[15] 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 their clarity is as crystal to mud in comparison with those of his predecessors--and of most of his successors for over two hundred years. As an indication of his grasp of some of the wider aspects of geological phenomena we reproduce, in Appendix A, a passage from _De Ortu et Causis_, which we believe to be the first adequate declaration of the part played by erosion in mountain sculpture. But of all of Agricola's theoretical views those are of the greatest interest which relate to the origin of ore deposits, for in these matters he had the greatest opportunities of observation and the most experience. We have on page 108 reproduced and discussed his theory at considerable length, but we may repeat here, that in his propositions as to the circulation of ground waters, that ore channels are a subsequent creation to the contained rocks, and that they were filled by deposition from circulating solutions, he enunciated the foundations of our modern theory, and in so doing took a step in advance greater than that of any single subsequent authority. In his contention that ore channels were created by erosion of subterranean waters he was wrong, except for special cases, and it was not until two centuries later that a further step in advance was taken by the recognition by Van Oppel of the part played by fissuring in these phenomena. Nor was it until about the same time that the filling of ore channels in the main by deposition from solutions was generally accepted. While Werner, two hundred and fifty years after Agricola, is generally revered as the inspirer of the modern theory by those whose reading has taken them no farther back, we have no hesitation in asserting that of the propositions of each author, Agricola's were very much more nearly in accord with modern views. Moreover, the main result of the new ideas brought forward by Werner was to stop the march of progress for half a century, instead of speeding it forward as did those of Agricola. In mineralogy Agricola made the first attempt at systematic treatment of the subject. His system could not be otherwise than wrongly based, as he could scarcely see forward two or three centuries to the atomic theory and our vast fund of chemical knowledge. However, based as it is upon such properties as solubility and homogeneity, and upon external characteristics such as colour, hardness, &c., it makes a most creditable advance upon Theophrastus, Dioscorides, and Albertus Magnus--his only predecessors. He is the first to assert that bismuth and antimony are true primary metals; and to some sixty actual mineral species described previous to his time he added some twenty more, and laments that there are scores unnamed. As to Agricola's contribution to the sciences of mining and metallurgy, _De Re Metallica_ speaks for itself. While he describes, for the first time, scores of methods and processes, no one would contend that they were discoveries or inventions of his own. They represent the accumulation of generations of experience and knowledge; but by him they were, for the first time, to receive detailed and intelligent exposition. Until Schlueter's work nearly two centuries later, it was not excelled. There is no measure by which we may gauge the value of such a work to the men who followed in this profession during centuries, nor the benefits enjoyed by humanity through them. That Agricola occupied a very considerable place in the great awakening of learning will be disputed by none except by those who place the development of science in rank far below religion, politics, literature, and art. Of wider importance than the details of his achievements in the mere confines of the particular science to which he applied himself, is the fact that he was the first to found any of the natural sciences upon research and observation, as opposed to previous fruitless speculation. The wider interest of the members of the medical profession in the development of their science than that of geologists in theirs, has led to the aggrandizement of Paracelsus, a contemporary of Agricola, as the first in deductive science. Yet no comparative study of the unparalleled egotistical ravings of this half-genius, half-alchemist, with the modest sober logic and real research and observation of Agricola, can leave a moment's doubt as to the incomparably greater position which should be attributed to the latter as the pioneer in building the foundation of science by deduction from observed phenomena. Science is the base upon which is reared the civilization of to-day, and while we give daily credit to all those who toil in the superstructure, let none forget those men who laid its first foundation stones. One of the greatest of these was Georgius Agricola. DE RE METALLICA Agricola seems to have been engaged in the preparation of _De Re Metallica_ for a period of over twenty years, for we first hear of the book in a letter from Petrus Plateanus, a schoolmaster at Joachimsthal, to the great humanist, Erasmus,[16] in September, 1529. He says: "The scientific world will be still more indebted to Agricola when he brings to light the books _De Re Metallica_ and other matters which he has on hand." In the dedication of _De Mensuris et Ponderibus_ (in 1533) Agricola states that he means to publish twelve books _De Re Metallica_, if he lives. That the appearance of this work was eagerly anticipated is evidenced by a letter from George Fabricius to Valentine Hertel:[17] "With great excitement the books _De Re Metallica_ are being awaited. If he treats the material at hand with his usual zeal, he will win for himself glory such as no one in any of the fields of literature has attained for the last thousand years." According to the dedication of _De Veteribus et Novis Metallis_, Agricola in 1546 already looked forward to its early publication. The work was apparently finished in 1550, for the dedication to the Dukes Maurice and August of Saxony is dated in December of that year. The eulogistic poem by his friend, George Fabricius, is dated in 1551. The publication was apparently long delayed by the preparation of the woodcuts; and, according to Mathesius,[18] many sketches for them were prepared by Basilius Wefring. In the preface of _De Re Metallica_, Agricola does not mention who prepared the sketches, but does say: "I have hired illustrators to delineate their forms, lest descriptions which are conveyed by words should either not be understood by men of our own times, or should cause difficulty to posterity." In 1553 the completed book was sent to Froben for publication, for a letter[19] from Fabricius to Meurer in March, 1553, announces its dispatch to the printer. An interesting letter[20] from the Elector Augustus to Agricola, dated January 18, 1555, reads: "Most learned, dear and faithful subject, whereas you have sent to the Press a Latin book of which the title is said to be _De Rebus Metallicis_, which has been praised to us and we should like to know the contents, it is our gracious command that you should get the book translated when you have the opportunity into German, and not let it be copied more than once or be printed, but keep it by you and send us a copy. If you should need a writer for this purpose, we will provide one. Thus you will fulfil our gracious behest." The German translation was prepared by Philip Bechius, a Basel University Professor of Medicine and Philosophy. It is a wretched work, by one who knew nothing of the science, and who more especially had no appreciation of the peculiar Latin terms coined by Agricola, most of which he rendered literally. It is a sad commentary on his countrymen that no correct German translation exists. The Italian translation is by Michelangelo Florio, and is by him dedicated to Elizabeth, Queen of England. The title page of the first edition is reproduced later on, and the full titles of other editions are given in the Appendix, together with the author's other works. The following are the short titles of the various editions of _De Re Metallica_, together with the name and place of the publisher:-- Latin Editions. _De Re Metallica_, Froben Basel Folio 1556. " " " " " " 1561. " " " Ludwig Koenig " " 1621. " " " Emanuel Koenig " " 1657. In addition to these, Leupold,[21] Schmid,[22] and others mention an octavo edition, without illustrations, Schweinfurt, 1607. We have not been able to find a copy of this edition, and are not certain of its existence. The same catalogues also mention an octavo edition of _De Re Metallica_, Wittenberg, 1612 or 1614, with notes by Joanne Sigfrido; but we believe this to be a confusion with Agricola's subsidiary works, which were published at this time and place, with such notes. German Editions. _Vom Bergkwerck_, Froben, Folio, 1557. _Bergwerck Buch_, Sigmundi Feyrabendt, Frankfort-on-Main, folio, 1580. " " Ludwig Koenig, Basel, folio, 1621. There are other editions than these, mentioned by bibliographers, but we have been unable to confirm them in any library. The most reliable of such bibliographies, that of John Ferguson,[23] gives in addition to the above; _Bergwerkbuch_, Basel, 1657, folio, and Schweinfurt, 1687, octavo. Italian Edition. _L'Arte de Metalli_, Froben, Basel, folio, 1563. Other Languages. So far as we know, _De Re Metallica_ was never actually published in other than Latin, German, and Italian. However, a portion of the accounts of the firm of Froben were published in 1881[24], and therein is an entry under March, 1560, of a sum to one Leodigaris Grymaldo for some other work, and also for "correction of Agricola's _De Re Metallica_ in French." This may of course, be an error for the Italian edition, which appeared a little later. There is also mention[25] that a manuscript of _De Re Metallica_ in Spanish was seen in the library of the town of Bejar. An interesting note appears in the glossary given by Sir John Pettus in his translation of Lazarus Erckern's work on assaying. He says[26] "but I cannot enlarge my observations upon any more words, because the printer calls for what I did write of a metallick dictionary, after I first proposed the printing of Erckern, but intending within the compass of a year to publish Georgius Agricola, _De Re Metallica_ (being fully translated) in English, and also to add a dictionary to it, I shall reserve my remaining essays (if what I have done hitherto be approved) till then, and so I proceed in the dictionary." The translation was never published and extensive inquiry in various libraries and among the family of Pettus has failed to yield any trace of the manuscript. FOOTNOTES: [1] For the biographical information here set out we have relied principally upon the following works:--Petrus Albinus, _Meissnische Land Und Berg Chronica_, Dresden, 1590; Adam Daniel Richter, _Umstaendliche ... Chronica der Stadt Chemnitz_, Leipzig, 1754; Johann Gottfried Weller, _Altes Aus Allen Theilen Der Geschichte_, Chemnitz, 1766; Freidrich August Schmid, _Georg Agrikola's Bermannus_, Freiberg, 1806; Georg Heinrich Jacobi, _Der Mineralog Georgius Agricola_, Zwickau, 1881; Dr. Reinhold Hofmann, _Dr. Georg Agricola_, Gotha, 1905. The last is an exhaustive biographical sketch, to which we refer those who are interested. [2] _Georgii Agricolae Glaucii Libellus de Prima ac Simplici Institutione Grammatica_, printed by Melchior Lotther, Leipzig, 1520. Petrus Mosellanus refers to this work (without giving title) in a letter to Agricola, June, 1520. [3] _Briefe an Desiderius Erasmus von Rotterdam._ Published by Joseph Foerstemann and Otto Guenther. _XXVII. Beiheft zum Zentralblatt fuer Bibliothekswesen_, Leipzig, 1904. p. 44. [4] _De Veteribus et Novis Metallis._ Preface. [5] A summary of this and of Agricola's other works is given in the Appendix A. [6] _De Veteribus et Novis Metallis_, Book I. [7] Printed in F. A. Schmid's _Georg Agrikola's Bermannus_, p. 14, Freiberg, 1806. [8] Op. Cit., p. 8. [9] Archive 38, Chemnitz Municipal Archives. [10] Baumgarten-Crusius. _Georgii Fabricii Chemnicensis Epistolae ad W. Meurerum et Alios Aequales_, Leipzig, 1845, p. 26. [11] Hofmann, Op. cit., p. 99. [12] Weber, _Virorum Clarorum Saeculi XVI. et XVII. Epistolae Selectae_, Leipzig, 1894, p. 8. [13] Baumgarten-Crusius. Op. cit., p. 139. [14] Hofmann, Op. cit., p. 123. [15] _De Ortu et Causis_, Book III. [16] _Briefe an Desiderius Erasmus von Rotterdam._ Published by Joseph Foerstemann & Otto Guenther. _XXVII. Beiheft zum Zentralblatt fuer Bibliothekswesen_, Leipzig, 1904, p. 125. [17] Petrus Albinus, _Meissnische Land und Berg Chronica_, Dresden, 1590, p. 353. [18] This statement is contained under "1556" in a sort of chronicle bound up with Mathesius's _Sarepta_, Nuremberg, 1562. [19] Baumgarten-Crusius, p. 85, letter No. 93. [20] Principal State Archives, Dresden, Cop. 259, folio 102. [21] Jacob Leupold, _Prodromus Bibliothecae Metallicae_, 1732, p. 11. [22] F. A. Schmid, _Georg Agrikola's Bermannus_, Freiberg, 1806, p. 34. [23] _Bibliotheca Chemica_, Glasgow, 1906, p. 10. [24] _Rechnungsbuch der Froben und Episcopius Buchdrucker und Buchhaendler zu Basel_, 1557-1564, published by R. Wackernagle, Basel,