|
VI
|
DE NATURA FOSSILIUM
|
||
|
|
|||
|
heavy with philosophical reasoning directed toward supporting prior authorities and contemporary religious dogmas.
In
the course of a thorough classical education in Germany and Italy
Agricola became acquainted with the writings of Greek and Roman
authors as well as the rather sterile works of the Dark and Middle
Ages. Having a professional and natural interest in minerals, rocks and
earths, it is particularly fortunate that he was destined to take up
residence in a booming mining district. During his study of the mineral
wealth opening before his eyes even the most cursory observations could
not fail to demonstrate the fallacies of many of the old theories
accepted as valid by his contemporaries. Although he held the opinions
of many of the older writers in high esteem he was constantly testing
them on the touchstone of observation and experience and discarding
those proven to be erroneous.
Prior to the publication of De Natura Fossilium few
writers had attempted to classify minerals. The common practice was to
either list all minerals alphabetically or first describe the more
common and better known minerals and then list the remaining in
alphabetical order. Without the sister sciences of chemistry and
crystallography the only basis for a classification in the sixteenth
century was the physical properties and, with the exception of color,
little attention was given to these properties. Agricola, with the
opportunity and desire to study the physical properties of minerals by
observation, was able to work backward through the literature and
separate many facts about minerals from the mass of fantasies of the
earlier writers. The work De Architectura by Vitruvius proved
to be particularly valuable. As a result of these studies he was the
first to propose a systematic mineral classification, one based upon
observed physical properties. It is for this contribution in De Natura Fossilium that
he is justly known as the Father of Mineralogy. Although physical
properties can be used for the sight identification of minerals,
unfortunately they cannot serve as the basis for an adequate
classification and his effort was doomed to failure, particularly since
he was confined within the framework of the concept of the four
Peripatetic elements. This does not detract, in any manner, from
Agricola's contributions, especially when we judge them against the
background of the general level of learning in his day and when we
realize that it was not until the end of the eighteenth century, over
two hundred years later, that the next important advances in mineralogy
were to be made.
Agricola
recognized and used all the physical properties of minerals known to
present day mineralogists. The outline of his classification is as
follows:
Non-Composite Minerals Simple
Earths
Congealed Juices Harsh
|
|||
|
|
|||