|
FOREWORD
|
||
|
|
||
|
In
Classical Times knowledge of minerals was based almost entirely upon
philosophical speculations. Interesting theories were never tested by
direct observations and mining was not a socially acceptable
occupation. Little attention was given to mining and minerals, other
than gems, and then only as an adjunct to the broader theories
concerning the origin of the Universe. Although there may have been
earlier writers Aristotle is the first known to us to have presented a
comprehensive theory of the origin and nature of minerals. In his Meteorologica he
advanced the theory that all natural substances consisted of four
properties, dryness, dampness, heat and cold, and these were combined
in the four primitive elements, water, air, earth and fire, elements
that could be transmuted by altering the relative proportions of the
properties. This concept dominated the thinking of man for the next two
thousand years.
Another early treatise on minerals was De Mineralibus by
Theophras-tus, a contemporary of Aristotle. Theophrastus accepted the
theory of four primitive elements and separated mineral substances into
two classes, those affected by heat and those not affected.
The
next important work on minerals was the monumental Natural History of
Pliny, an encyclopedia of the entire field of Nature, written in 77 a.d. In
it are collected all the theories, fables and observations of Greek,
Latin and Oriental writers up to that time. This work served as the
authority and source book for writers on Natural History subjects for
sixteen centuries, although it did not dominate or shape the thinking
of men as did the works and teachings of Aristotle.
There was no important work on mineralogy from the time of Pliny until Agricola published his De Natura Fossilium in 1546 and the shorter introductory work Bermannus in
1530. During the intervening fourteen centuries that spanned the rise
and fall of the Roman Empire and the Dark and Middle Ages, writers on
mineralogical subjects merely elaborated on the information and much
of the misinformation contained in Pliny's Natural History. The
development of mineralogy, if it could be called development, can be
traced through the numerous lapidaries and encyclopedias that began to
appear after the time of Pliny. There was no factual foundation to this
development. Each writer cited some previous writer as his authority
for the most ridiculous and incredible facts and theories and commonly
embellished some of the more fanciful. The result was a spreading
structure of theories supported by fables, a structure top
|
||
|
|
||
|
ν
|
||
|
|
||