De Re Metallica, 1556. Part 2

Home , De re metallica, Georgius Agricola

Agricola’s De re metallica, 1556. Part 2

In Part 11 I mentioned the Hoover vocabulary, which Agricola himself translation of De re metallica. Since this is discusses in his introduction, he did the only English translation, it is likely to what all renaissance authors did, he be the lens through which most modern used general vocabulary to give readers will view Agricola’s work and so descriptions of particular things or merits some further discussion. processes. But he went much further; he added several hundred excellent It is a good translation in that it presents woodcuts, placed in the text beside the the meaning of Agricola’s text clearly verbal account, which make his and accurately and the extensive descriptions of physical arrangements accompanying notes by Herbert Hoover very clear indeed. And in his dedicatory are illuminating. But, for those who are preface, after summarising his book, he not mining engineers or metallurgists, explains exactly why he has done this: the replacement of Agricola’s rather So I have taken up this task, and if I general descriptions by modern have not completed it because it is technical words often adds little light – so extensive, I have certainly and sometimes has the opposite effect; endeavoured to do so; for I have for example, Hoover’s ‘upper cross ex libris RCPE expended much work and labour launder’ is less helpful to a general upon it and also laid out some reader than Agricola’s ‘upper transverse De re metallica libri XII expense. Indeed, I have not only channel’ and, in any case, the woodcuts Basel, 1556 described the veins, seams, machines make his meaning crystal clear. The and, furnaces but also paid artists to Introduction and Appendices, and portray them in pictures lest matters particularly the voluminous notes, show the application of set out in words might be unclear either to those of very considerable industry and not a little scholarship as our own time or might in future cause difficulty: just well as much technical expertise. But the Introduction as many words are unclear to us which the ancients detracts somewhat from the book’s appeal. It makes a – to all of whom they were familiar – handed down good deal of the difficulties the translators encountered without explanation. (Sig. a3 v,3 my translation). and, in this process, presents some nonsense which is But our translators say no more about the woodcuts than delivered in a tone sometimes condescending, irritable that it is uncertain who made the drawings for them. and rather pompous. There is nothing of their excellent quality, nothing of the care with which they are inserted in the text nor of how The Hoovers on Agricola’s language well they are printed, or how they illuminate the text’s meaning. And nothing of how unusual this close integration As we agreed with the Hoovers in Part 1, and as Agricola of text and illustration was – and how successful it is for himself said, appropriate Latin technical vocabulary was the reader. If Agricola’s book was not revolutionary in this not available to him; here is the translators’ explanation respect it is only because Vesalius had set the model for it for this: only a few years before with his Fabrica of 1543. Though …. in using Latin, the author availed himself of a Agricola’s woodcuts do not reach the pinnacle of medium which had ceased to expand a thousand years achievement of drawing of those of the Fabrica, they are before his subject had in many particulars come into being; fine pieces of work. in consequence he was in difficulties with a large number of ideas for which there were no corresponding The translators praise Agricola’s writing as clearer than words in the vocabulary at his command (my italics, that of his contemporaries, but are nevertheless Preface, i2) remarkably condescending about it: This is nonsense. Far from ceasing to expand in about 500 Agricola’s Latin, while mostly free from mediæval AD, Latin vocabulary expanded continuously for corruption, is somewhat tainted with German considerably more than another millennium. Agricola’s construction. Moreover some portions have not the lack of technical vocabulary was not because of lack of continuous flow of sustained thought which others expansion of Latin but because authors who did not write display, but the fact that the writing of the work about mining or metallurgy had no need of such extended over a period of twenty years, sufficiently vocabulary and so did not devise it. explains the considerable variation in style. The history technical descriptions in the later books often take Though the translators do touch on this, they apparently the form of House-that-Jack-built sentences which did not see it as crucial. In response to the problem of have had to be at least partially broken up and the

248 history

6 249 Ex librisEx are its most immediately most its are metallica re De of Sebastian Münster firstMünster Sebastian of Cosmographia An example of the monogram of the of the monogram An example of Figure 1 Figure the (width of Deutsch Manuel Rudolf blockcutter Hans is 13.23 mm) monogram Some of the blocks were cut by Hans Rudolf Manuel cut by Some of the blocks were withthem of seven signed who (fl.1525–1572) Deutsch Deutsch also illustrated books 1). his monogram (Figure his is probably work but his best-known Oporinus by the for maps not compared, been have woodcuts His 1544. in published Younger. the Holbein Hans of those with unfavourably, Zacharias is signed by metallica One block in De re the cutters of the unsigned blocks – the great Specklin; be combined with can Woodcuts unknown. majority – are their printed surface is in relief it, like because, letterpress on the commonand so both can be printed together from simultaneously impression a good produce To press. levelled be carefully the latter must and block, letterpress necessaryoften is it and to padding press the on add to also be the inking must to adjust the pressure; the frisket thewithin well was work exacting quite this of All careful. and, Froben’s compass of an excellent printing house like clear, the from see we as excellent is execution the here, impressions. even clean, ts The woodcu in illustrations The in quantity and high in quality they profuse striking feature; Agricola meaning. integrate with the text to illuminate its but a contemporary nothing of their makers pastor, says trade in his on their of including remarks who was fond drawings the attributes audience, mining his to sermons Joachimsthal. of Weffring to one Blasius the woodcuts for – writing on different topics in another age, often for quite often for age, topics in another different – writing on fallingas – audience different a for and purposes different Agricola’s on opinions translators’ The shortthem. of curiousone make they because only now matter Latin a by translation should be preceded a good about why and condescending pompous, so disagreeably preface original comments on the silly containing manifestly extraordinary is the faintness, more Even text. author’s skill, Agricola’s of their praise for almost to vanishing point, illustration combining in artists’his printer, his of and that which an achievement his material; and text to illuminate noticed. not to have seem simply the translators would ) of the Hoover translation, translation, of the Hoover 4 5 248–50 2015; 45: 2015; subject occasionally re-introduced. Ambiguities were Ambiguities were re-introduced. subject occasionally which it was necessary found also sometimes to carry translation. on into the of able to use the inflected language is well Fernel which English cannot lucid periods, Latin in long yet substantial undergo to has syntax that so handle, p.9 (Introduction. recasting. © 2015 RCPE J R Coll Physicians Edinb Coll Physicians J R Agricola wrote in the mid-16th century; to speak of his in the mid-16th century; Agricola wrote is akin to marvelling corruption’ ‘mediæval of Latin as free nor Dickens in cadences Chaucer’s find not do we that Wordsworth. in Poet Gawain scheme of the the rhyme general, in Latin, renaissance or mediæval was Nor ofAnd others. than better was some course, Of corrupt. and in the syntax, changes in style, were course there call To years. a thousand over words of range of meanings – and Latin language corruption changes in a developing one-and- than more much for language was a developing conclusions seem Two – is extraordinary. millennia a-half semi- Latin were possible – that post-classical writers in simply were literate – or that those making the claim well be would it these between deciding Before ignorant. that post-classical to remember a modern reader for up with Latin as their brought authors were scholarly had a familiarity with it from that they literary language, modern scholars can match and if any, childhood that few, written of medium daily natural their was it that model for a indeed, Classical writers were, expression. thewhat for As mould. rigid a not and model a but – them ‘House-that-Jack-built’ condescendingly, call, Hoovers bothered not have I I confess metallica, sentences in De re That the writing of the book took place them. to look for the translators for is an assumption by 20 years over long how do not know we is no evidence; which there His ideas no doubt developed Agricola spent writing it. theWhat different. but that is quite years 20 or more over stylethe of example an just probably is describe Hoovers in discussing succinctly remarks Forrester upon which John of the mid-16th centuryhis translation of the Physiologia Fernel: Jean physician Fairclough, a classicist at Stanford whom the Hoovers had whom the Hoovers at Stanford a classicist Fairclough, Agricola is ‘The Latinity of simply says consulted, though he does smooth and pure…’, comparatively it, takes he comment ‘House-that-Jack-built’ the repeat languagethe of technicality the to referring as apparently, syntax. Agricola’s rather than to contextthe of ignorant so apparently translators did How such a useful manage to produce of their source-text Latin probably Agricola’s about Their remarks translation? some the tendency of a fashion of the times, reflect ideals of writers with their own classically-educated authorsLatin later of contemptuous be to style classical These passages are very familiar to anyone who works on who works very familiar to anyone These passages are in renaissance sometimes found are such texts – and they is the occasional ambiguity as in Latin; as well vernaculars also unremarkable. in his 1916 review Interestingly, Ex libris

than it is now. Also, some types of dust are corrosive, he says, and this type of dust: eats away the lungs and implants consumption in the body... women are found who have married seven husbands, all of whom this terrible consumption has carried off to a premature death. This probably refers to the effects of toxic metallic dusts rather than to silicosis or pneumoconiosis, which would perhaps be unlikely to kill quickly enough to destroy seven successive men in a woman’s married lifetime. Agricola also warns that protective boots and gloves must be worn in mines where toxic arsenical or cobalt ores were mined.

The processes of smelting, refining and assaying ores were Figure 2 A woodcut showing a workman protecting his also hazardous and the workers were aware of these eyes from the radiant heat of an assay furnace by viewing the white-hot crucible though a narrow slit in a wooden board risks. Figure 2 illustrates an assayer protecting his eyes from radiant heat by looking at the crucible in the furnace through a narrow slit in a wooden board. The text does There is not space here to describe in any detail the very not suggest that Agricola devised any particular large and varied content of the book. In summary, it deals improvements in industrial safety but it leaves no doubt with the techniques of mining and the management of that he was well-informed about the risks. mines, of numerous metallurgical processes from preparing the ores for smelting to assaying the metal content and, in There is not space for more examples; those interested in many cases, refining it. As the Hoovers pointed out, the the technology of 16th century mining and metallurgy will book gives the most detailed account that exists of not find it difficult to find a copy of the Hoover translation contemporary mining and metallurgical technology in of De re metallica which, particularly if one does not pay renaissance Europe. too much attention to the preface, is a very adequate translation of a truly seminal book and, in which, the notes Industrial diseases by the mining engineer Herbert Hoover considerably aid the understanding. De re metallica contains the first real description of the industrial diseases of miners. Agricola was very aware of IML Donaldson the dangers of mining. The following translations are Honorary Librarian, RCPE from the Hoover edition. (email [email protected]) It remains for me to speak of the ailments and accidents of miners, and of the methods by which they can guard against these, for we should always References devote more care to maintaining our health, that we may freely perform our bodily functions, than to 1 Donaldson IM. Agricola’s De re metallica, 1556. Part I. J R Coll making profits. Of the illnesses, some affect the joints, Physicians Edinb 2015; 45: 180–2. http://dx.doi.org/10.4997/ JRCPE.2015.218 others attack the lungs, some the eyes, and finally 2 Agricola G, Hoover HC, Hoover LH. Georgius Agricola: De Re some are fatal to men. Metallica. Translated from the first Latin edition of 1556 with He was very clear about the necessity for adequate Biographical Introduction, Annotations and Appendices upon the ventilation and devotes many pages and illustrations to Development of Mining Methods, Metallurgical Processes, Geology, the ‘ventilating machines’ needed: Mineralogy and Mining Law from the earliest times to the 16th century. By Herbert Clark Hoover and Lou Henry Hoover. London: Published Stagnant air, both that which remains in a shaft and for the Translators, by The Mining Magazine, Salisbury House, that which remains in a tunnel, produces a difficulty London, E.C.; 1912. in breathing; the remedies for this evil are the 3 Agricola G. De re metallica libri XII. Basel: Apud Hieronymum ventilating machines which I have explained above. Frobenium et Nicolaum Episcopium; 1556. Then Agricola comments on lung disease produced by 4 Forrester JM. The Physiologia of Jean Fernel (1567)/translated and annotated by John M. Forrester, with an introduction by John Henry and dust: John M. Forrester. Transactions of the American Philosophical for the dust which is stirred and beaten up by digging Society [v. 93, pt. 1]. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society; penetrates into the windpipe and lungs, and produces 2003. difficulty in breathing, and the disease which the 5 Fairclough HR. Review Georgius Agricola: De Re Metallica. The history Greeks call ἆσθµα. Classical Weekly 1916; 9: 182–3. 6 Long PO. Of mining, smelting and printing: Agricola’s De re ‘Asthma’ in the 16th century was a more generally metallica. Technol Cult 2003; 44: 97–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/ inclusive diagnosis for diseases producing breathlessness tech.2003.0034

Woodcut from the eighth book of Agricola’s De re Metallica, Basel, 1556. See pages 248–50. Legend: A Water source; B the Fleece; C Argonauts.

Agricola used the legend of the Golden Fleece to illustrate one contemporary method of collecting relatively pure metals. Just as, according to the myth told by the poets, in Colchis the inhabitants used a fleece placed in a stream to collect gold so, Agricola says, in fact such fleeces are used by miners to collect not only gold but also silver and gems.

At the bottom left of this charming image two rather sleepy-looking Argonauts – or perhaps they are just exhausted by the voyage – and one cheerful fellow indicate not a fleece but a ram (which looks alive) in a pool beneath a little waterfall. The details seem to have gone a little awry since the ram’s head is apparently detached and supported by a stone wall at the edge of the pool and the fleece is not visible behind the head where the Argonaut is pointing. Interestingly, Agricola says that the Colchians put skins in the water, but that the poets constructed from this the legend of the Golden Ram (not the Golden Fleece).