FOOTNOTES:

Title page

It comprises ten chapters in 168 folios demi-octavo. Other Italian editions of which we find some record are the second at Venice, 1552; third, Venice, 1558; fourth, Venice, 1559; fifth, Bologna, 1678. A French translation, by Jacques Vincent, was published in Paris, 1556, and this translation was again published at Rouen in 1627. Of the ten chapters the last six are almost wholly devoted to metal working and founding, and it is more largely for this description of the methods of making artillery, munitions of war and bells that the book is celebrated. In any event, with the exception of a quotation which we give on page297on silver amalgamation, there is little of interest on our subject in the latter chapters. The first four chapters are undoubtedly of importance in the history of metallurgical literature, and represent the first work on smelting. The descriptions are, however, very diffuse, difficult to follow, and lack arrangement and detail. But like theProbierbüchlein, the fact that it was written prior toDe Re Metallicademands attention for it which it would not otherwise receive. The ores of gold, silver, copper, lead, tin, and iron are described, but much interrupted with denunciations of the alchemists. There is little of geological or mineralogical interest, he too holding to a muddle of the classic elements astrology and alchemy. He has nothing of consequence to say on mining, and dismisses concentration with a few words. Upon assaying his work is not so useful as theProbierbüchlein. On ore smelting he describes the reduction of iron and lead ores and cupriferous silver or gold ores with lead. He gives the barest description of a blast furnace, but adds an interesting account of areverberofurnace. He describes liquation as consisting of one operation; the subsequent treatment of the copper by refining with an oxidizing blast, but does not mention poling; the cupellation of argentiferous lead and the reduction of the litharge; the manufacture of nitric acid and that method of parting gold and silver. He also gives the method of parting with antimony and sulphur, and by cementation with common salt. Among the side issues, he describes the method of making brass with calamine; of making steel; of distilling quicksilver; of melting out sulphur; of making vitriol and alum. He states thatarsenicoandorpimentoandetrisagallio(realgar) are the same substance, and are used to colour copper white.

In general, Biringuccio should be accredited with the first description (as far as we are aware) of silver amalgamation, of a reverberatory furnace, and of liquation, although the description is not complete. Also he is, so far as we are aware, the first to mention cobalt blue (Zaffre) and manganese, although he classed them as "half" metals. His descriptions are far inferior to Agricola's; they do not compass anything like the same range of metallurgy, and betray the lack of a logical mind.

Other works.There are several works devoted to mineralogy, dating from the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, which were, no doubt, available to Agricola in the compilation of hisDe Natura Fossilium. They are, however, practically all compiled from the jeweller's point of view rather than from that of the miner. Among them we may mention the poem on precious stones by Marbodaeus, an author who lived from 1035 to 1123, but which was first printed at Vienna in 1511;Speculum Lapidum, a work on precious stones, by Camilli Leonardi, first printed in Venice in 1502. A work of wider interest to mineralogists is that by Christoph Entzelt (or Enzelius, Encelio, Encelius, as it is variously given), entitledDe Re Metallica, and first printed in 1551. The work is five years later thanDe Natura Fossilium, but contains much new material and was available to Agricola prior to his revised editions.

FOOTNOTES:[Pg 607][1]See pages44and46.[Pg 610][2]Page75.[3]Der Mineralog Georgius Agricola, Zwickau, 1889, p. 46.[4]Andreas Möller,Theatrum Freibergense Chronicum, etc., Freiberg, 1653.[Pg 611][5]Paris, 1897, Vol.I. p. 501.[6]Cantor Lectures, London, April 1892.[7]Hans von Dechen,Das älteste deutsche Bergwerksbuch, reprint fromZts. für Bergrecht Bd.XXVI., Bonn, 1885.[8]Panzer'sAnnalen, Nürnberg, 1782, p. 422, gives an edition WormsbeiPeter Schöfern, 1512.[9]The Royal Library at Dresden and the State Library at Munich have each a copy, dated 1518, Worms.[10]Hans von Deckenop. cit., p. 48-49.[11]Annales typographiae augustanae ab ejus origine,MCCCLXVI.usque ad. an.M.D.XXX.Accedit dom Franc. Ant. Veith. Diatribe de origine ... artis typographicae in urbe augusta vindelica edidit....Georgius G. Zapf., Augsburg, 1778,X.p. 23.[Pg 612][12]See p.44.[Pg 613][13]Bibliotheca Chemica.[Pg 614][14]Book I., Chap. 2.

[Pg 607][1]See pages44and46.

[Pg 610][2]Page75.

[3]Der Mineralog Georgius Agricola, Zwickau, 1889, p. 46.

[4]Andreas Möller,Theatrum Freibergense Chronicum, etc., Freiberg, 1653.

[Pg 611][5]Paris, 1897, Vol.I. p. 501.

[6]Cantor Lectures, London, April 1892.

[7]Hans von Dechen,Das älteste deutsche Bergwerksbuch, reprint fromZts. für Bergrecht Bd.XXVI., Bonn, 1885.

[8]Panzer'sAnnalen, Nürnberg, 1782, p. 422, gives an edition WormsbeiPeter Schöfern, 1512.

[9]The Royal Library at Dresden and the State Library at Munich have each a copy, dated 1518, Worms.

[10]Hans von Deckenop. cit., p. 48-49.

[11]Annales typographiae augustanae ab ejus origine,MCCCLXVI.usque ad. an.M.D.XXX.Accedit dom Franc. Ant. Veith. Diatribe de origine ... artis typographicae in urbe augusta vindelica edidit....Georgius G. Zapf., Augsburg, 1778,X.p. 23.

[Pg 612][12]See p.44.

[Pg 613][13]Bibliotheca Chemica.

[Pg 614][14]Book I., Chap. 2.

As stated in thepreface, the nomenclature to be adopted for weights and measures has presented great difficulty. Agricola uses, throughout, the Roman and the Romanized Greek scales, but in many cases he uses these terms merely as lingual equivalents for the German quantities of his day. Moreover the classic language sometimes failed him, whereupon he coined new Latin terms adapted from the Roman scale, and thus added further confusion. We can, perhaps, make the matter clearer by an illustration of a case in weights. The Romancentumpondium, composed of 100librae, the old Germancentnerof 100pfundt, and the English hundredweight of 112 pounds can be called lingual equivalents. The first weighs about 494,600 Troy grains, the second 721,900, and the third 784,000. While the divisions of thecentumpondiumand thecentnerare the same, thelibrais divided into 12unciaeand thepfundtinto 16untzen, and in most places a summation of the units given proves that the author had in mind the Roman ratios. However, on p.509he makes the direct statement that thecentumpondiumweighs 146librae, which would be about the correct weight if thecentumpondiumreferred to was acentner. If we take an example such as "eachcentumpondiumof lead contains oneunciaof silver", and reduce it according to purely lingual equivalents, we should find that it runs 24.3 Troy ounces per short ton, on the basis of Roman values, and 18.25 ounces per short ton, on the basis of old German. If we were to translate these into English lingual equivalents of one ounce per hundredweight, then the value would be 17.9 ounces per short ton.

Several possibilities were open in translation: first, to calculate the values accurately in the English units; second, to adopt the nearest English lingual equivalent; third, to introduce the German scale of the period; or, fourth, to leave the original Latin in the text. The first would lead to an indefinite number of decimals and to constant doubt as to whether the values, upon which calculations were to be based, were Roman or German. The second, that is the substitution of lingual equivalents, is objectionable, not only because it would indicate values not meant by the author, but also because we should have, like Agricola, to coin new terms to accommodate the lapses in the scales, or again to use decimals. In the third case, that is in the use of the old German scale, while it would be easier to adapt than the English, it would be more unfamiliar to most readers than the Latin, and not so expressive in print, and further, in some cases would present the same difficulties of calculation as in using the English scale. Nor does the contemporary German translation ofDe Re Metallicaprove of help, for its translator adopted only lingual equivalents, and in consequence the summation of his weights often gives incorrect results. From all these possibilities we have chosen the fourth, that is simply to reproduce the Latin terms for both weights and measures. We have introduced into the footnotes such reductions to the English scale as we considered would interest readers. We have, however, digressed from the rule in two cases, in the adoption of "foot" for the Latinpes, and "fathom" forpassus. Apart from the fact that these were not cases where accuracy is involved, Agricola himself explains (p.77) that he means the German values for these particular terms, which, fortunately, fairly closely approximate to the English. Further, we have adopted the Anglicized words "digit", "palm", and "cubit", instead of their Latin forms.

For purposes of reference, we reproduce the principal Roman and old German scales, in so far as they are used by Agricola in this work, with their values in English. All students of weights and measures will realize that these values are but approximate, and that this is not an occasion to enter upon a discussion of the variations in different periods or by different authorities. Agricola himself is the author of one of the standard works on Ancient Weights and Measures (seeAppendix A), and further gives fairly complete information on contemporary scales of weight and fineness for precious metals in Book VII. p.262etc., to which we refer readers.

ROMAN SCALES OF WEIGHTS.

Troy Grains.1Siliqua=2.876Siliquae=1Scripulum17.24Scripula=1Sextula68.76Sextulae=1Uncia412.212Unciae=1Libra4946.4100Librae=1Centumpondium494640.0Also1Scripulum=17.23Scripula=1Drachma51.52Drachmae=1Sicilicus103.04Sicilici=1Uncia412.28Unciae=1Bes3297.6

SCALE OF FINENESS(AGRICOLA'S ADAPTATION).

4Siliquae=1Unit ofSiliquae3Units of Siliquae=1Semi-sextula4Semi-sextulae=1Duella24Duellae=1Bes

OLD GERMAN SCALE OF WEIGHTS.

Troy Grains.1Pfennig=14.14Pfennige=1Quintlein56.44Quintlein=1Loth225.62Loth=1Untzen451.28Untzen=1Mark3609.62Mark=1Pfundt7219.2100Pfundt=1Centner721920.0

SCALE OF FINENESS.

3Grenlin=1Gran4Gran=1Krat24Krat=1Mark

ROMAN LONG MEASURE.

Inches.1Digitus=.7264Digiti=1Palmus2.904Palmi=1Pes11.6111/2Pedes=1Cubitus17.415Pedes=1Passus58.1Also1RomanUncia=.9712Unciae=Pes11.61

GREEK LONG MEASURE.

Inches.1Dactylos=.7584Dactyloi=1Palaiste3.034Palaistai=1Pous12.13511/2Pous=1Pechus18.206Pous=1Orguia72.81

OLD GERMAN LONG MEASURE.

Inches.1Querfinger=.70316Querfinger=1Werckschuh11.2472Werckschuh=1Elle22.4943Elle=1Lachter67.518Also1Zoll=.8512Zoll=1Werkschuh

ROMAN LIQUID MEASURE.

Cubic inches.Pints.1Quartarius=8.6.2474Quartarii=1Sextarius31.4.9916Sextarii=1Congius206.45.94716Sextarii=1Modius550.415.8678Congii=1Amphora1650.047.577

(Agricola nowhere uses the Saxon liquid measures, nor do they fall into units comparable with the Roman).

Note.—The numbers in heavy type refer to the Text; those in plain type to the Footnotes, Appendices, etc.

Back to Index Next