|
2
|
DE NATURA FOSSILIUM
|
||
|
|
|||
|
on
stones and two books on petrifactions. Others who have written about
stones are Socrates Rhodius, Xenocrates, Sudines, Callistratus,
Megas-thenes, Ismenias, Horus, Satyrus, Archelaus, Bocchus, Nicander,
Jacchus, Juba, Zactalias, Agatharchides Samius, Thrasyllus Mendesius,
Heraclitus Sicyonius, Nicias Maleotes, Dorotheus Chaldaeus, Theophilus,
Dercyllus, Dionysius Afer, Diogenes, Orpheus, Epiphanius, and Didymus
Alexandri-nus.3 Each of these wrote so much concerning
marbles that it is most surprising that some wrote only about gems. Of
all the writings of these men only a small book by Theophrastus and
some verses by Orpheus have been preserved. No work on the engraving of
gems is extant. Theophrastus, in his small book, mentions many
differences in stones and in characteristic style discusses the form of
a few of them. The verses of Orpheus are of little value to us. The two
books by Theophrastus on metals have not been preserved. Medical men
have written only those things concerning minerals which pertain to
their particular field and from their writings we see that the older
authors knew little or nothing about complex minerals. The medical
writers followed some of the older authors as did Theophrastus.4
Pliny,
in his last five books and in parts of others, is the only writer who
has discussed minerals at any length. It is regrettable that he was not
able to study the minerals he writes about as I believe that many of
them were brought to Rome at that time. In this field, as in others, he
brought order out of the disorder he found in the writings of others
but since he had no intimate knowledge of minerals he failed to observe
that different writers had two or three different names for the same
thing and, following other writers, he sometimes gave the same name to
two or three different substances. Later on we will take up this
question when we consider the more obscure passages of certain writers
who treat of subterranean things. Although these errors exist in his
writings, nevertheless Pliny has performed a great service in writing
with such diligence on so many different subjects and in preserving
from loss many notable expositions of other writers. He has given both
Latin and Greek names for many things and were it not for his writings
these names would surely be lost.
At
times I shall make use of his learned explanations, even use his own
words. Since the work exists it is proper to select certain material
from it although the things whose nature I shall discuss will not be
copied entirely from his or other writings. Only in this way can
several obscure points be clarified by our own interpretations of the
writings of others and scattered and unrelated information arranged in
proper order. Pliny gives credit openly and frankly to those whose
writings he uses and likewise I shall give credit by name to those whom
I quote.
* Agricola should have included Solinus, Sotacus, Zenothemis and Zoroaster. 1 Maecenas and Olympicus Theocrestos who were known to Agricola could have been included.
|
|||
|
|
|||