Note 1 — BOOK III.

[Pg 43][1] Modern nomenclature in the description of ore-deposits is so impregnated with modern views of their origin, that we have considered it desirable in many instances to adopt the Latin terms used by the author, for we believe this method will allow the reader greater freedom of judgment as to the author's views. The Latin names retained are usually expressive even to the non-Latin student. In a general way, a vena profunda is a fissure vein, a vena dilatata is a bedded deposit, and a vena cumulata an impregnation, or a replacement or a stockwerk. The canales, as will appear from the following footnote, were ore channels. "The seams of the rocks" (commissurae saxorum) are very puzzling. The author states, as appears in the following note, that they are of two kinds,—contemporaneous with the formation of the rocks, and also of the nature of veinlets. However, as to their supposed relation to the strike of veins, we can offer no explanation. There are passages in this chapter where if the word "ore-shoot" were introduced for "seams in the rocks" the text would be intelligible. That is, it is possible to conceive the view that the determination of whether an east-west vein ran east or ran west was dependent on the dip of the ore-shoot along the strike. This view, however, is utterly impossible to reconcile with the description and illustration of commissurae saxorum given on page 54, where they are defined as the finest stringers. The following passage from the Nützliche Bergbüchlin (see Appendix), reads very much as though the dip of ore-shoots was understood at this time in relation to the direction of veins. "Every vein (gang) has two (outcrops) ausgehen, one of the ausgehen is toward daylight along the whole length of the vein, which is called the ausgehen of the whole vein. The other ausgehen is contrary to or toward the strike (streichen) of the vein, according to its rock (gestein), that is called the gesteins ausgehen; for instance, every vein that has its strike from east to west has its gesteins ausgehen to the east, and vice-versa."

Agricola's classification of ore-deposits, after the general distinction between alluvial and in situ deposits, is based entirely upon form, as will be seen in the quotation below relating to the origin of canales. The German equivalents in the Glossary are as follows:—

Fissure vein (vena profunda)Gang.

Bedded deposit (vena dilatata)Schwebender gang oder fletze.

Stockwerk or impregnation (vena cumulata)Geschute oder stock.

Stringer (fibra)Klufft.

Seams or joints (commissurae saxorum)Absetzen des gesteins.

It is interesting to note that in De Natura Fossilium he describes coal and salt, and later in De Re Metallica he describes the Mannsfeld copper schists, as all being venae dilatatae. This nomenclature and classification is not original with Agricola. Pliny (XXXIII, 21) uses the term vena with no explanations, and while Agricola coined the Latin terms for various kinds of veins, they are his transliteration of German terms already in use. The Nützliche Bergbüchlin gives this same classification.

Historical Note on the Theory of Ore Deposits. Prior to Agricola there were three schools of explanation of the phenomena of ore deposits, the orthodox followers of the Genesis, the Greek Philosophers, and the Alchemists. The geology of the Genesis—the contemporaneous formation of everything—needs no comment other than that for anyone to have proposed an alternative to the dogma of the orthodox during the Middle Ages, required much [Pg 44]independence of mind. Of the Greek views—which are meagre enough—that of the Peripatetics greatly dominated thought on natural phenomena down to the 17th century. Aristotle's views may be summarized: The elements are earth, water, air, and fire; they are transmutable and never found pure, and are endowed with certain fundamental properties which acted as an "efficient" force upon the material cause—the elements. These properties were dryness and dampness and heat and cold, the latter being active, the former passive. Further, the elements were possessed of weight and lightness, for instance earth was absolutely heavy, fire absolutely light. The active and passive properties existed in binary combinations, one of which is characteristic, i.e., "earth" is cold and dry, water damp and cold, fire hot and dry, air hot and wet; transmutation took place, for instance, by removing the cold from water, when air resulted (really steam), and by removing the dampness from water, when "earth" resulted (really any dissolved substance). The transmutation of the elements in the earth (meaning the globe) produces two "exhalations," the one fiery (probably meaning gases), the other damp (probably meaning steam). The former produces stones, the latter the metals. Theophrastus (On Stones, I to VII.) elaborates the views of Aristotle on the origin of stones, metals, etc.: "Of things formed in the earth some have their origin from water, others from earth. Water is the basis of metals, silver, gold, and the rest; 'earth' of stones, as well the more precious as the common.... All these are formed by solidification of matter pure and equal in its constituent parts, which has been brought together in that state by mere afflux or by means of some kind of percolation, or separated.... The solidification is in some of these substances due to heat and in others to cold." (Based on Hill's Trans., pp. 3-11). That is, the metals inasmuch as they become liquid when heated must be in a large part water, and, like water, they solidify with cold. Therefore, the "metals are cold and damp." Stones, on the other hand, solidify with heat and do not liquefy, therefore, they are "dry and hot" and partake largely of "earth." This "earth" was something indefinite, but purer and more pristine than common clay. In discussing the ancient beliefs with regard to the origin of deposits, we must not overlook the import of the use of the word "vein" (vena) by various ancient authors including Pliny (XXXIII, 21), although he offers no explanation of the term.

During the Middle Ages there arose the horde of Alchemists and Astrologers, a review of the development of whose muddled views is but barren reading. In the main they held more or less to the Peripatetic view, with additions of their own. Geber (13th (?) century, see Appendix B) propounded the conception that all metals were composed of varying proportions of "spiritual" sulphur and quicksilver, and to these Albertus Magnus added salt. The Astrologers contributed the idea that the immediate cause of the metals were the various planets. The only work devoted to description of ore-deposits prior to Agricola was the Bergbüchlin (about 1520, see Appendix B), and this little book exhibits the absolute apogee of muddled thought derived from the Peripatetics, the Alchemists, and the Astrologers. We believe it is of interest to reproduce the following statement, if for no other reason than to indicate the great advance in thought shown by Agricola.

"The first chapter or first part; on the common origin of ore, whether silver, gold, tin, copper, iron, or lead ore, in which they all appear together, and are called by the common name of metallic ore. It must be noticed that for the washing or smelting of metallic ore, there must be the one who works and the thing that is worked upon, or the material upon which the work is expended. The general worker (efficient force) on the ore and on all things that are born, is the heavens, its movement, its light and influences, as the philosophers say. The influence of the heavens is multiplied by the movement of the firmaments and the movements of the seven planets. Therefore, every metallic ore receives a special influence from its own particular planet, due to the properties of the planet and of the ore, also due to properties of heat, cold, dampness, and dryness. Thus gold is of the Sun or its influence, silver of the Moon, tin of Jupiter, copper of Venus, iron of Mars, lead of Saturn, and quicksilver of Mercury. Therefore, metals are often called by these names by hermits and other philosophers. Thus gold is called the Sun, in Latin Sol, silver is called the Moon, in Latin Luna, as is clearly stated in the special chapters on each metal. Thus briefly have we spoken of the 'common worker' of metal and ore. But the thing worked upon, or the common material of all metals, according to the opinion of the learned, is sulphur and quicksilver, which through the movement and influence of the heavens must have become united and hardened into one metallic body or one ore. Certain others hold that through the movement and the influence of the heavens, vapours or braden, called mineral exhalations, are drawn up from the depths of the earth, from sulphur and quicksilver, and the rising fumes pass into the veins and stringers and are [Pg 46]united through the effect of the planets and made into ore. Certain others hold that metal is not formed from quicksilver, because in many places metallic ore is found and no quicksilver. But instead of quicksilver they maintain a damp and cold and slimy material is set up on all sulphur which is drawn out from the earth, like your perspiration, and from that mixed with sulphur all metals are formed. Now each of these opinions is correct according to a good understanding and right interpretation; the ore or metal is formed from the fattiness of the earth as the material of the first degree (primary element), also the vapours or braden on the one part and the materials on the other part, both of which are called quicksilver. Likewise in the mingling or union of the quicksilver and the sulphur in the ore, the sulphur is counted the male and quicksilver the female, as in the bearing or conception of a child. Also the sulphur is a special worker in ore or metal.

"The second chapter or part deals with the general capacity of the mountain. Although the influence of the heavens and the fitness of the material are necessary to the formation of ore or metal, yet these are not enough thereto. But there must be adaptability of the natural vessel in which the ore is formed, such are the veins, namely steinendegange, flachgange, schargange, creutzgange, or as these may be termed in provincial names. Also the mineral force must have easy access to the natural vessel such as through the kluffte (stringers), namely hengkluft, querklufte, flachekluffte, creutzklufft, and other occasional flotzwerk, according to their various local names. Also there must be a suitable place in the mountain which the veins and stringers can traverse."

Agricola's Views on the Origin of Ore Deposits. Agricola rejected absolutely the Biblical view which, he says, was the opinion of the vulgar; further, he repudiates the alchemistic and astrological view with great vigour. There can be no doubt, however, that he was greatly influenced by the Peripatetic philosophy. He accepted absolutely the four elements—earth, fire, water, and air, and their "binary" properties, and the theory that every substance had a material cause operated upon by an efficient force. Beyond this he did not go, and a large portion of De Ortu et Causis is devoted to disproof of the origin of metals and stones from the Peripatetic "exhalations."

No one should conclude that Agricola's theories are set out with the clarity of Darwin or Lyell. However, the matter is of such importance in the history of the theory of ore-deposits, and has been either so ignored or so coloured by the preconceptions of narrators, that we consider it justifiable to devote the space necessary to a reproduction of his own statements in De Ortu et Causis and other works. Before doing so we believe it will be of service to readers to summarize these views, and in giving quotations from the Author's other works, to group them under special headings, following the outline of his theory given below. His theory was:—

(1) Openings in the earth (canales) were formed by the erosion of subterranean waters.

(2) These ground waters were due (a) to the infiltration of the surface waters, rain, river, and sea water; (b) to the condensation of steam (halitus) arising from the penetration of the surface waters to greater depths,—the production of this halitus being due to subterranean heat, which in his view was in turn due in the main to burning bitumen (a comprehensive genera which embraced coal).

(3) The filling of these canales is composed of "earth," "solidified juices," "stone," metals, and "compounds," all deposited from water and "juices" circulating in the canales. (See also note 4, page 1).

"Earth" comprises clay, mud, ochre, marl, and "peculiar earths" generally. The origin of these "earths" was from rocks, due to erosion, transportation, and deposition by water. "Solidified juices" (succi concreti) comprised salt, soda, vitriol, bitumen, etc., being generally those substances which he conceived were soluble in and deposited from water. "Stones" comprised precious, semi-precious, and unusual stones, such as quartz, fluor-spar, etc., as distinguished from country rock; the origin of these he attributed in minor proportion to transportation of fragments of rock, but in the main to deposits from ordinary mineral juice and from "stone juice" (succus lapidescens). Metals comprised the seven traditional metals; the "compounds" comprised the metallic minerals; and both were due to deposition from juices, the compounds being due to a mixture of juices. The "juices" play the most important part in Agricola's theory. Each substance had its own particular juice, and in his theory every substance had a material and an efficient cause, the first being the juice, the second being heat or cold. Owing to the latter the juices fell into two categories—those solidified by heat (i.e., by evaporation, such as salt), and those solidified by cold, (i.e., because metals melt and flow by heat, therefore their solidification was due to cold, and the juice underwent similar treatment). As to the origin of these juices, some were generated by the solution of their own particular substance, but in the [Pg 47]main their origin was due to the combination of "dry things," such as "earth," with water, the mixture being heated, and the resultant metals depended upon the proportions of "earth" and water. In some cases we have been inclined to translate succus (juice) as "solution," but in other cases it embraced substances to which this would not apply, and we feared implying in the text a chemical understanding not warranted prior to the atomic theory. In order to distinguish between earths, (clays, etc.,) the Peripatetic "earth" (a pure element) and the earth (the globe) we have given the two former in quotation marks. There is no doubt some confusion between earth (clays, etc.) and the Peripatetic "earth," as the latter was a pure substance not found in its pristine form in nature; it is, however, difficult to distinguish between the two.

Origin of Canales (De Ortu, p. 35). "I now come to the canales in the earth. These are veins, veinlets, and what are called 'seams in the rocks.' These serve as vessels or receptacles for the material from which minerals (res fossiles) are formed. The term vena is most frequently given to what is contained in the canales, but likewise the same name is applied to the canales themselves. The term vein is borrowed from that used for animals, for just as their veins are distributed through all parts of the body, and just as by means of the veins blood is diffused from the liver throughout the whole body, so also the veins traverse the whole globe, and more particularly the mountainous districts; and water runs and flows through them. With regard to veinlets or stringers and 'seams in the rocks,' which are the thinnest stringers, the following is the mode of their arrangement. Veins in the earth, just like the veins of an animal, have certain veinlets of their own, but in a contrary way. For the larger veins of animals pour blood into the veinlets, while in the earth the humours are usually poured from the veinlets into the larger veins, and rarely flow from the larger into the smaller ones. As for the seams in the rocks (commissurae saxorum) we consider that they are produced by two methods: by the first, which is peculiar to themselves, they are formed at the same time as the rocks, for the heat bakes the refractory material into stone and the non-refractory material similarly heated exhales its humours and is made into 'earth,' generally friable. The other method is common also to veins and veinlets, when water is collected into one place it softens the rock by its liquid nature, and by its weight and pressure breaks and divides it. Now, if the rock is hard, it makes seams in the rocks and veinlets, and if it is not too hard it makes veins. However, if the rocks are not hard, seams and veinlets are created as well as veins. If these do not carry a very large quantity of water, or if they are pressed by a great volume of it, they soon discharge themselves into the nearest veins. The following appears to be the reason why some veinlets or stringers and veins are profundae and others dilatatae. The force of the water crushes and splits the brittle rocks; and when they are broken and split, it forces its way through them and passes on, at one time in a downward direction, making small and large venae profundae, at another time in a lateral direction, in which way venae dilatatae are formed. Now since in each class there are found some which are straight, some inclined, and some crooked, it should be explained that the water makes the vena profunda straight when it runs straight downward, inclined when it runs in an inclined direction; and that it makes a vena dilatata straight when it runs horizontally to the right or left, and in a similar way inclined when it runs in a sloping direction. Stringers and large veins of the profunda sort, extending for considerable lengths, become crooked from two causes. In one case when narrow veins are intersected by wide ones, then the latter bend or drag the former a little. In the other case, when the water runs against very hard rock, being unable to break through, it goes around the nearest way, and the stringers and veins are formed bent and crooked. This last is also the reason we sometimes see crooked small and large venae dilatatae, not unlike the gentle rise and fall of flowing water. Next, venae profundae are wide, either because of abundant water or because the rock is fragile. On the other hand, they are narrow, either because but little water flows and trickles through them, or because the rock is very hard. The venae dilatatae, too, for the same reasons, are either thin or thick. There are other differences, too, in stringers and veins, which I will explain in my work De Re Metallica.... There is also a third kind of vein which, as it cannot be described as a wide vena profunda, nor as a thick vena dilatata, we will call a vena cumulata. These are nothing else than places where some species of mineral is accumulated; sometimes exceeding in depth and also in length and breadth 600 feet; sometimes, or rather generally, not so deep nor so long, nor so wide. These are created when water has broken away the rock for such a length, breadth, and thickness, and has flung aside and ejected the stones and sand from the great cavern which is thus made; and afterward when the mouth is obstructed and closed up, the whole cavern is filled with material from which there is in time produced some one or more minerals. Now I have stated [Pg 48]when discoursing on the origin of subterranean humours, that water erodes away substances inside the earth, just as it does those on the surface, and least of all does it shun minerals; for which reason we may daily see veinlets and veins sometimes filled with air and water, but void and empty of mining products, and sometimes full of these same materials. Even those which are empty of minerals become finally obstructed, and when the rock is broken through at some other point the water gushes out. It is certain that old springs are closed up in some way and new ones opened in others. In the same manner, but much more easily and quickly than in the solid rock, water produces stringers and veins in surface material, whether it be in plains, hills, or mountains. Of this kind are the stringers in the banks of rivers which produce gold, and the veins which produce peculiar earth. So in this manner in the earth are made canales which bear minerals."

Origin of Ground Waters. (De Ortu p. 5). "... Besides rain there is another kind of water by which the interior of the earth is soaked, so that being heated it can continually give off halitus, from which arises a great and abundant force of waters." In description of the modus operandi of halitum, he says (p. 6): "... Halitus rises to the upper parts of the canales, where the congealing cold turns it into water, which by its gravity and weight again runs down to the lowest parts and increases the flow of water if there is any. If any finds its way through a canales dilatata the same thing happens, but it is carried a long way from its place of origin. The first phase of distillation teaches us how this water is produced, for when that which is put into the ampulla is warmed it evaporates (expirare), and this halitus rising into the operculum is converted by cold into water, which drips through the spout. In this way water is being continually created underground." (De Ortu, p. 7): "And so we know from all this that of the waters which are under the earth, some are collected from rain, some arise from halitus (steam), some from river-water, some from sea-water; and we know that the halitum is produced within the earth partly from rain-water, partly from river-water, and partly from sea-water." It would require too much space to set out Agricola's views upon the origin of the subterranean heat which produced this steam. It is an involved theory embracing clashing winds, burning bitumen, coal, etc., and is fully set out in the latter part of Book II, De Ortu et Causis.

Origin of Gangue Minerals. It is necessary to bear in mind that Agricola divided minerals (res fossiles—"Things dug up," see note 4, p. 1) into "earths," "solidified juices," "stones," "metals," and "compounds;" and, further, to bear in mind that in his conception of the origin of things generally, he was a disciple of the Peripatetic logic of a "material substance" and an "efficient force," as mentioned above.

As to the origin of "earths," he says (De Ortu, p. 38): "Pure and simple 'earth' originates in the canales in the following way: rain water, which is absorbed by the surface of the earth, first of all penetrates and passes into the inner parts of the earth and mixes with it; next, it is collected from all sides into stringers and veins, where it, and sometimes water of other origin, erodes the 'earth' away,—a great quantity of it if the stringers and veins are in 'earth,' a small quantity if they are in rock. The softer the rock is, the more the water wears away particles by its continual movement. To this class of rock belongs limestone, from which we see chalk, clay, and marl, and other unctuous 'earths' made; also sandstone, from which are made those barren 'earths' which we may see in ravines and on bare rocks. For the rain softens limestone or sandstone and carries particles away with it, and the sediment collects together and forms mud, which afterward solidifies into some kind of 'earth.' In a similar way under the ground the power of water softens the rock and dissolves the coarser fragments of stone. This is clearly shown by the following circumstance, that frequently the powder of rock or marble is found in a soft state and as if partly dissolved. Now, the water carries this mixture into the course of some underground canalis, or dragging it into narrow places, filters away. And in each case the water flows away and a pure and uniform material is left from which 'earth' is made.... Particles of rock, however, are only by force of long time so softened by water as to become similar to particles of 'earth.' It is possible to see 'earth' being made in this way in underground canales in the earth, when drifts or tunnels are driven into the mountains, or when shafts are sunk, for then the canales are laid bare; also it can be seen above ground in ravines, as I have said, or otherwise disclosed. For in both cases it is clear to the eye that they are made out of the 'earth' or rocks, which are often of the same colour. And in just the same way they are made in the springs which the veins discharge. Since all those things which we see with our eyes and which are perceived with our senses, are more clearly understood than if they were learnt by means of reasoning, we deem it sufficient to explain by this argument our view of the origin of 'earth.' In the manner which I have described, 'earths' originate in veins and veinlets, seams in the rocks, springs, ravines, and other openings, therefore all 'earths' are made in this way. [Pg 49]As to those that are found in underground canales which do not appear to have been derived from the earth or rock adjoining, these have undoubtedly been carried by the water for a greater distance from their place of origin; which may be made clear to anyone who seeks their source."

On the origin of solidified juices he states (De Ortu, p. 43): "I will now speak of solidified juices (succi concreti). I give this name to those minerals which are without difficulty resolved into liquids (humore). Some stones and metals, even though they are themselves composed of juices, have been compressed so solidly by the cold that they can only be dissolved with difficulty or not at all.... For juices, as I said above, are either made when dry substances immersed in moisture are cooked by heat, or else they are made when water flows over 'earth,' or when the surrounding moisture corrodes metallic material; or else they are forced out of the ground by the power of heat alone. Therefore, solidified juices originate from liquid juices, which either heat or cold have condensed. But that which heat has dried, fire reduces to dust, and moisture dissolves. Not only does warm or cold water dissolve certain solidified juices, but also humid air; and a juice which the cold has condensed is liquefied by fire and warm water. A salty juice is condensed into salt; a bitter one into soda; an astringent and sharp one into alum or into vitriol. Skilled workmen in a similar way to nature, evaporate water which contains juices of this kind until it is condensed; from salty ones they make salt, from aluminous ones alum, from one which contains vitriol they make vitriol. These workmen imitate nature in condensing liquid juices with heat, but they cannot imitate nature in condensing them by cold. From an astringent juice not only is alum made and vitriol, but also sory, chalcitis, and misy, which appears to be the 'flower' of vitriol, just as melanteria is of sory. (See note on p. 573 for these minerals.) When humour corrodes pyrites so that it is friable, an astringent juice of this kind is obtained."

On the Origin of Stones (De Ortu, p. 50), he states: "It is now necessary to review in a few words what I have said as to all of the material from which stones are made; there is first of all mud; next juice which is solidified by severe cold; then fragments of rock; afterward stone juice (succus lapidescens), which also turns to stone when it comes out into the air; and lastly, everything which has pores capable of receiving a stony juice." As to an "efficient force," he states (p. 54): "But it is now necessary that I should explain my own view, omitting the first and antecedent causes. Thus the [Pg 51]immediate causes are heat and cold; next in some way a stony juice. For we know that stones which water has dissolved, are solidified when dried by heat; and on the contrary, we know that stones which melt by fire, such as quartz, solidify by cold. For solidification and the conditions which are opposite thereto, namely, dissolving and liquefying, spring from causes which are the opposite to each other. Heat, driving the water (humorem) out of a substance, makes it hard; and cold, by withdrawing the air, solidifies the same stone firmly. But if a stony juice, either alone or mixed with water, finds its way into the pores either of plants or animals ... it creates stones.... If stony juice is obtained in certain stony places and flows through the veins, for this reason certain springs, brooks, streams, and lakes, have the power of turning things to stone."

On the Origin of Metals, he says (De Ortu, p. 71): "Having now refuted the opinions of others, I must explain what it really is from which metals are produced. The best proof that there is water in their materials is the fact that they flow when melted, whereas they are again solidified by the cold of air or water. This, however, must be understood in the sense that there is more water in them and less 'earth'; for it is not simply water that is their substance but water mixed with 'earth.' And such a proportion of 'earth' is in the mixture as may obscure the transparency of the water, but not remove the brilliance which is frequently in unpolished things. Again, the purer the mixture, the more precious the metal which is made from it, and the greater its resistance to fire. But what proportion of 'earth' is in each liquid from which a metal is made no mortal can ever ascertain, or still less explain, but the one God has known it, Who has given certain sure and fixed laws to nature for mixing and blending things together. It is a juice (succus) then, from which metals are formed; and this juice is created by various operations. Of these operations the first is a flow of water which softens the 'earth' or carries the 'earth' along with it, thus there is a mixture of 'earth' and water, then the power of heat works upon the mixtures so as to produce that kind of a juice. We have spoken of the substance of metals; we must now speak of their efficient cause.... (p. 75): We do not deny the statement of Albertus Magnus that the mixture of 'earth' and water is baked by subterranean heat to a certain denseness, but it is our opinion that the juice so obtained is afterward solidified by cold so as to become a metal.... We grant, indeed, that heat is the efficient cause of a good mixture of elements, and also cooks this same mixture into a juice, but until this juice is solidified by cold it is not a metal.... (p. 76): This view of Aristotle is the true one. For metals melt through the heat and somehow become softened; but those which have become softened through heat are again solidified by the influence of cold, and, on the contrary, those which become softened by moisture are solidified by heat."

On the Origin of Compounds, he states (De Ortu, p. 80): "There now remain for our consideration the compound minerals (mistae), that is to say, minerals which contain either solidified juice (succus concretus) and 'stone,' or else metal or metals and 'stone,' or else metal-coloured 'earth,' of which two or more have so grown together by the action of cold that one body has been created. By this sign they are distinguished from mixed minerals (composita), for the latter have not one body. For example, pyrites, galena, and ruby silver are reckoned in the category of compound minerals, whereas we say that metallic 'earths' or stony 'earths' or 'earths' mingled with juices, are mixed minerals; or similarly, stones in which metal or solidified juices adhere, or which contain 'earth.' But of both these classes I will treat more fully in my book De Natura Fossilium. I will now discuss their origin in a few words. A compound mineral is produced when either a juice from which some metal is obtained, or a humour and some other juice from which stone is obtained, are solidified by cold, or when two or more juices of different metals mixed with the juice from which stone is made, are condensed by the same cold, or when a metallic juice is mixed with 'earth' whose whole mass is stained with its colour, and in this way they form one body. To the first class belongs galena, composed of lead juice and of that material which forms the substance of opaque stone. Similarly, transparent ruby silver is made out of silver juice and the juice which forms the [Pg 52]substance of transparent stone; when it is smelted into pure silver, since from it is separated the transparent juice, it is no longer transparent. Then too, there is pyrites, or lapis fissilis, from which sulphur is melted. To the second kind belongs that kind of pyrites which contains not only copper and stone, but sometimes copper, silver, and stone; sometimes copper, silver, gold, and stone; sometimes silver, lead, tin, copper and silver glance. That compound minerals consist of stone and metal is sufficiently proved by their hardness; that some are made of 'earth' and metal is proved from brass, which is composed of copper and calamine; and also proved from white brass, which is coloured by artificial white arsenic. Sometimes the heat bakes some of them to such an extent that they appear to have flowed out of blazing furnaces, which we may see in the case of cadmia and pyrites. A metallic substance is produced out of 'earth' when a metallic juice impregnating the 'earth' solidifies with cold, the 'earth' not being changed. A stony substance is produced when viscous and non-viscous 'earth' are accumulated in one place and baked by heat; for then the viscous part turns into stone and the non-viscous is only dried up."

The Origin of Juices. The portion of Agricola's theory surrounding this subject is by no means easy to follow in detail, especially as it is difficult to adjust one's point of view to the Peripatetic elements, fire, water, earth, and air, instead of to those of the atomic theory which so dominates our every modern conception. That Agricola's 'juice' was in most cases a solution is indicated by the statement (De Ortu, p. 48): "Nor is juice anything but water, which on the other hand has absorbed 'earth' or has corroded or touched metal and somehow become heated." That he realized the difference between mechanical suspension and solution is evident from (De Ortu, p. 50): "A stony juice differs from water which has abraded something from rock, either because it has more of that which deposits, or because heat, by cooking water of that kind, has thickened it, or because there is something in it which has powerful astringent properties." Much of the author's notion of juices has already been given in the quotations regarding various minerals, but his most general statement on the subject is as follows:—(De Ortu, p. 9): "Juices, however, are distinguished from water by their density (crassitudo), and are generated in various ways—either when dry things are soaked with moisture and the mixture is heated, in which way by far the greatest part of juices arise, not only inside the earth, but outside it; or when water running over the earth is made rather dense, in which way, for the most part the juice becomes salty and bitter; or when the moisture stands upon metal, especially copper, and corrodes it, and in this way is produced the juice from which chrysocolla originates. Similarly, when the moisture corrodes friable cupriferous pyrites an acrid juice is made from which is produced vitriol and sometimes alum; or, finally, juices are pressed out by the very force of the heat from the earth. If the force is great the juice flows like pitch from burning pine ... in this way we know a kind of bitumen is made in the earth. In the same way different kinds of moisture are generated in living bodies, so also the earth produces waters differing in quality, and in the same way juices."

Conclusion. If we strip his theory of the necessary influence of the state of knowledge of his time, and of his own deep classical learning, we find two propositions original with Agricola, which still to-day are fundamentals:

(1) That ore channels were of origin subsequent to their containing rocks; (2) That ores were deposited from solutions circulating in these openings. A scientist's work must be judged by the advancement he gave to his science, and with this gauge one can say unhesitatingly that the theory which we have set out above represents a much greater step from what had gone before than that of almost any single observer since. Moreover, apart from any tangible proposition laid down, the deduction of these views from actual observation instead of from fruitless speculation was a contribution to the very foundation of natural science. Agricola was wrong in attributing the creation of ore channels to erosion alone, and it was not until Von Oppel (Anleitung zur Markscheidekunst, Dresden, 1749 and other essays), two centuries after Agricola, that the positive proposition that ore channels were due to fissuring was brought forward. Von Oppel, however, in neglecting channels due to erosion (and in this term we include solution) was not altogether sound. Nor was it until late in the 18th century that the filling of ore channels by deposition from solutions was generally accepted. In the meantime, Agricola's successors in the study of ore deposits exhibited positive retrogression from the true fundamentals advocated by him. Gesner, Utman, Meier, Lohneys, Barba, [Pg 53]Rössler, Becher, Stahl, Henckel, and Zimmerman, all fail to grasp the double essentials. Other writers of this period often enough merely quote Agricola, some not even acknowledging the source, as, for instance, Pryce (Mineralogia Cornubiensis, London, 1778) and Williams (Natural History of the Mineral Kingdom, London, 1789). After Von Oppel, the two fundamental principles mentioned were generally accepted, but then arose the complicated and acrimonious discussion of the origin of solutions, and nothing in Agricola's view was so absurd as Werner's contention (Neue Theorie von der Entstehung der Gänge, Freiberg, 1791) of the universal chemical deluge which penetrated fissures open at the surface. While it is not the purpose of these notes to pursue the history of these subjects subsequent to the author's time, it is due to him and to the current beliefs as to the history of the theory of ore deposits, to call the attention of students to the perverse representation of Agricola's views by Werner (op. cit.) upon which most writers have apparently relied. Why this author should be (as, for instance, by Posepny, Amer. Inst. Mining Engineers, 1901) so generally considered the father of our modern theory, can only be explained by a general lack of knowledge of the work of previous writers on ore deposition. Not one of the propositions original with Werner still holds good, while his rejection of the origin of solutions within the earth itself halted the march of advance in thought on these subjects for half a century. It is our hope to discuss exhaustively at some future time the development of the history of this, one of the most far-reaching of geologic hypotheses.