They contend that, inasmuch as Nature has concealed metals far within the depths of the earth, and because they are not necessary to human life, they are therefore despised and repudiated by the n.o.blest, and should not be mined, and seeing that when brought to light they have always proved the cause of very great evils, it follows that mining is not useful to mankind, but on the contrary harmful and destructive.

Several good men have been so perturbed by these tragedies that they conceive an intensely bitter hatred toward metals, and they wish absolutely that metals had never been created, or being created, that no one had ever dug them out. The more I commend the singular honesty, innocence, and goodness of such men, the more anxious shall I be to remove utterly and eradicate all error from their minds and to reveal the sound view, which is that the metals are most useful to mankind.

In the first place then, those who speak ill of the metals and refuse to make use of them, do not see that they accuse and condemn as wicked the Creator Himself, when they a.s.sert that He fashioned some things vainly and without good cause, and thus they regard Him as the Author of evils, which opinion is certainly not worthy of pious and sensible men.

In the next place, the earth does not conceal metals in her depths because she does not wish that men should dig them out, but because provident and sagacious Nature has appointed for each thing its place.

She generates them in the veins, stringers, and seams in the rocks, as though in special vessels and receptacles for such material. The metals cannot be produced in the other elements because the materials for their formation are wanting. For if they were generated in the air, a thing that rarely happens, they could not find a firm resting-place, but by their own force and weight would settle down on to the ground. Seeing then that metals have their proper abiding place in the bowels of the earth, who does not see that these men do not reach their conclusions by good logic?

They say, "Although metals are in the earth, each located in its own proper place where it originated, yet because they lie thus enclosed and hidden from sight, they should not be taken out." But, in refutation of these attacks, which are so annoying, I will on behalf of the metals instance the fish, which we catch, hidden and concealed though they be in the water, even in the sea. Indeed, it is far stranger that man, a terrestrial animal, should search the interior of the sea than the bowels of the earth. For as birds are born to fly freely through the air, so are fishes born to swim through the waters, while to other creatures Nature has given the earth that they might live in it, and particularly to man that he might cultivate it and draw out of its caverns metals and other mineral products. On the other hand, they say that we eat fish, but neither hunger nor thirst is dispelled by minerals, nor are they useful in clothing the body, which is another argument by which these people strive to prove that metals should not be taken out. But man without metals cannot provide those things which he needs for food and clothing. For, though the produce of the land furnishes the greatest abundance of food for the nourishment of our bodies, no labour can be carried on and completed without tools. The ground itself is turned up with ploughshares and harrows, tough stalks and the tops of the roots are broken off and dug up with a mattock, the sown seed is harrowed, the corn field is hoed and weeded; the ripe grain with part of the stalk is cut down by scythes and threshed on the floor, or its ears are cut off and stored in the barn and later beaten with flails and winnowed with fans, until finally the pure grain is stored in the granary, whence it is brought forth again when occasion demands or necessity arises. Again, if we wish to procure better and more productive fruits from trees and bushes, we must resort to cultivating, pruning, and grafting, which cannot be done without tools.

Even as without vessels we cannot keep or hold liquids, such as milk, honey, wine, or oil, neither could so many living things be cared for without buildings to protect them from long-continued rain and intolerable cold. Most of the rustic instruments are made of iron, as ploughshares, share-beams, mattocks, the p.r.o.ngs of harrows, hoes, planes, hay-forks, straw cutters, pruning shears, pruning hooks, spades, lances, forks, and weed cutters. Vessels are also made of copper or lead. Neither are wooden instruments or vessels made without iron. Wine cellars, oil-mills, stables, or any other part of a farm building could not be built without iron tools. Then if the bull, the wether, the goat, or any other domestic animal is led away from the pasture to the butcher, or if the poulterer brings from the farm a chicken, a hen, or a capon for the cook, could any of these animals be cut up and divided without axes and knives? I need say nothing here about bronze and copper pots for cooking, because for these purposes one could make use of earthen vessels, but even these in turn could not be made and fashioned by the potter without tools, for no instruments can be made out of wood alone, without the use of iron. Furthermore, hunting, fowling, and fishing supply man with food, but when the stag has been ensnared does not the hunter transfix him with his spear? As he stands or runs, does he not pierce him with an arrow? Or pierce him with a bullet? Does not the fowler in the same way kill the moor-fowl or pheasant with an arrow?

Or does he not discharge into its body the ball from the musket? I will not speak of the snares and other instruments with which the woodc.o.c.k, woodp.e.c.k.e.r, and other wild birds are caught, lest I pursue unseasonably and too minutely single instances. Lastly, with his fish-hook and net does not the fisherman catch the fish in the sea, in the lakes, in fish-ponds, or in rivers? But the hook is of iron, and sometimes we see lead or iron weights attached to the net. And most fish that are caught are afterward cut up and disembowelled with knives and axes. But, more than enough has been said on the matter of food.

Now I will speak of clothing, which is made out of wool, flax, feathers, hair, fur, or leather. First the sheep are sheared, then the wool is combed. Next the threads are drawn out, while later the warp is suspended in the shuttle under which pa.s.ses the wool. This being struck by the comb, at length cloth is formed either from threads alone or from threads and hair. Flax, when gathered, is first pulled by hooks. Then it is dipped in water and afterward dried, beaten into tow with a heavy mallet, and carded, then drawn out into threads, and finally woven into cloth. But has the artisan or weaver of the cloth any instrument not made of iron? Can one be made of wood without the aid of iron? The cloth or web must be cut into lengths for the tailor. Can this be done without knife or scissors? Can the tailor sew together any garments without a needle? Even peoples dwelling beyond the seas cannot make a covering for their bodies, fashioned of feathers, without these same implements. Neither can the furriers do without them in sewing together the pelts of any kind of animals. The shoemaker needs a knife to cut the leather, another to sc.r.a.pe it, and an awl to perforate it before he can make shoes. These coverings for the body are either woven or st.i.tched.

Buildings too, which protect the same body from rain, wind, cold, and heat, are not constructed without axes, saws, and augers.

But what need of more words? If we remove metals from the service of man, all methods of protecting and sustaining health and more carefully preserving the course of life are done away with. If there were no metals, men would pa.s.s a horrible and wretched existence in the midst of wild beasts; they would return to the acorns and fruits and berries of the forest. They would feed upon the herbs and roots which they plucked up with their nails. They would dig out caves in which to lie down at night, and by day they would rove in the woods and plains at random like beasts, and inasmuch as this condition is utterly unworthy of humanity, with its splendid and glorious natural endowment, will anyone be so foolish or obstinate as not to allow that metals are necessary for food and clothing and that they tend to preserve life?

Moreover, as the miners dig almost exclusively in mountains otherwise unproductive, and in valleys invested in gloom, they do either slight damage to the fields or none at all. Lastly, where woods and glades are cut down, they may be sown with grain after they have been cleared from the roots of shrubs and trees. These new fields soon produce rich crops, so that they repair the losses which the inhabitants suffer from increased cost of timber. Moreover, with the metals which are melted from the ore, birds without number, edible beasts and fish can be purchased elsewhere and brought to these mountainous regions.

I will pa.s.s to the ill.u.s.trations I have mentioned. Bias of Priene, when his country was taken, carried away out of the city none of his valuables. So strong a man with such a reputation for wisdom had no need to fear personal danger from the enemy, but this in truth cannot be said of him because he hastily took to flight; the throwing away of his goods does not seem to me so great a matter, for he had lost his house, his estates, and even his country, than which nothing is more precious. Nay, I should be convinced of Bias's contempt and scorn for possessions of this kind, if before his country was captured he had bestowed them freely on relations and friends, or had distributed them to the very poor, for this he could have done freely and without question. Whereas his conduct, which the Greeks admire so greatly, was due, it would seem, to his being driven out by the enemy and stricken with fear. Socrates in truth did not despise gold, but would not accept money for his teaching.

As for Aristippus of Cyrene, if he had gathered and saved the gold which he ordered his slaves to throw away, he might have bought the things which he needed for the necessaries of life, and he would not, by reason of his poverty, have then been obliged to flatter the tyrant Dionysius, nor would he ever have been called by him a King's dog. For this reason Horace, speaking of Damasippus when reviling Staberus for valuing riches very highly, says:

"What resemblance has the Grecian Aristippus to this fellow? He who commanded his slaves to throw away the gold in the midst of Libya because they went too slowly, impeded by the weight of their burden--which of these two men is the more insane?"[21]

Insane indeed is he who makes more of riches than of virtue. Insane also is he who rejects them and considers them as worth nothing, instead of using them with reason. Yet as to the gold which Aristippus on another occasion flung into the sea from a boat, this he did with a wise and prudent mind. For learning that it was a pirate boat in which he was sailing, and fearing for his life, he counted his gold and then throwing it of his own will into the sea, he groaned as if he had done it unwillingly. But afterward, when he escaped the peril, he said: "It is better that this gold itself should be lost than that I should have perished because of it." Let it be granted that some philosophers, as well as Anacreon of Teos, despised gold and silver. Anaxagoras of Clazomenae also gave up his sheep-farms and became a shepherd. Crates the Theban too, being annoyed that his estate and other kinds of wealth caused him worry, and that in his contemplations his mind was thereby distracted, resigned a property valued at ten talents, and taking a cloak and wallet, in poverty devoted all his thought and efforts to philosophy. Is it true that because these philosophers despised money, all others declined wealth in cattle? Did they refuse to cultivate lands or to dwell in houses? There were certainly many, on the other hand, who, though affluent, became famous in the pursuit of learning and in the knowledge of divine and human laws, such as Aristotle, Cicero, and Seneca. As for Phocion, he did not deem it honest to accept the gold sent to him by Alexander. For if he had consented to use it, the king as much as himself would have incurred the hatred and aversion of the Athenians, and these very people were afterward so ungrateful toward this excellent man that they compelled him to drink hemlock. For what would have been less becoming to Marcus Curius and Fabricius Luscinus than to accept gold from their enemies, who hoped that by these means those leaders could be corrupted or would become odious to their fellow citizens, their purpose being to cause dissentions among the Romans and destroy the Republic utterly. Lycurgus, however, ought to have given instructions to the Spartans as to the use of gold and silver, instead of abolishing things good in themselves. As to the Babytacenses, who does not see that they were senseless and envious? For with their gold they might have bought things of which they were in need, or even given it to neighbouring peoples to bind them more closely to themselves with gifts and favours. Finally, the Scythians, by condemning the use of gold and silver alone, did not free themselves utterly from avarice, because although he is not enjoying them, one who can possess other forms of property may also become avaricious.

Now let us reply to the attacks hurled against the products of mines. In the first place, they call gold and silver the scourge of mankind because they are the cause of destruction and ruin to their possessors.

But in this manner, might not anything that we possess be called a scourge to human kind,--whether it be a horse, or a garment, or anything else? For, whether one rides a splendid horse, or journeys well clad, he would give occasion to a robber to kill him. Are we then not to ride on horses, but to journey on foot, because a robber has once committed a murder in order that he may steal a horse? Or are we not to possess clothing, because a vagabond with a sword has taken a traveller's life that he may rob him of his garment? The possession of gold and silver is similar. Seeing then that men cannot conveniently do all these things, we should be on our guard against robbers, and because we cannot always protect ourselves from their hands, it is the special duty of the magistrate to seize wicked and villainous men for torture, and, if need be, for execution.

Again, the products of the mines are not themselves the cause of war.

Thus, for example, when a tyrant, inflamed with pa.s.sion for a woman of great beauty, makes war on the inhabitants of her city, the fault lies in the unbridled l.u.s.t of the tyrant and not in the beauty of the woman.

Likewise, when another man, blinded by a pa.s.sion for gold and silver, makes war upon a wealthy people, we ought not to blame the metals but transfer all blame to avarice. For frenzied deeds and disgraceful actions, which are wont to weaken and dishonour natural and civil laws, originate from our own vices. Wherefore Tibullus is wrong in laying the blame for war on gold, when he says: "This is the fault of a rich man's gold; there were no wars when beech goblets were used at banquets." But Virgil, speaking of Polymnestor, says that the crime of the murderer rests on avarice:

"He breaks all law; he murders Polydorus, and obtains gold by violence. To what wilt thou not drive mortal hearts, thou accursed hunger for gold?"

And again, justly, he says, speaking of Pygmalion, who killed Sichaeus:

"And blinded with the love of gold, he slew him unawares with stealthy sword."[22]

For l.u.s.t and eagerness after gold and other things make men blind, and this wicked greed for money, all men in all times and places have considered dishonourable and criminal. Moreover, those who have been so addicted to avarice as to be its slaves have always been regarded as mean and sordid. Similarly, too, if by means of gold and silver and gems men can overcome the chast.i.ty of women, corrupt the honour of many people, bribe the course of justice and commit innumerable wickednesses, it is not the metals which are to be blamed, but the evil pa.s.sions of men which become inflamed and ignited; or it is due to the blind and impious desires of their minds. But although these attacks against gold and silver may be directed especially against money, yet inasmuch as the Poets one after another condemn it, their criticism must be met, and this can be done by one argument alone. Money is good for those who use it well; it brings loss and evil to those who use it ill. Hence, very rightly, Horace says:

"Dost thou not know the value of money; and what uses it serves? It buys bread, vegetables, and a pint of wine."

And again in another place:

"Wealth h.o.a.rded up is the master or slave of each possessor; it should follow rather than lead, the 'twisted rope.'"[23]

When ingenious and clever men considered carefully the system of barter, which ignorant men of old employed and which even to-day is used by certain uncivilised and barbarous races, it appeared to them so troublesome and laborious that they invented money. Indeed, nothing more useful could have been devised, because a small amount of gold and silver is of as great value as things c.u.mbrous and heavy; and so peoples far distant from one another can, by the use of money, trade very easily in those things which civilised life can scarcely do without.

The curses which are uttered against iron, copper, and lead have no weight with prudent and sensible men, because if these metals were done away with, men, as their anger swelled and their fury became unbridled, would a.s.suredly fight like wild beasts with fists, heels, nails, and teeth. They would strike each other with sticks, hit one another with stones, or dash their foes to the ground. Moreover, a man does not kill another with iron alone, but slays by means of poison, starvation, or thirst. He may seize him by the throat and strangle him; he may bury him alive in the ground; he may immerse him in water and suffocate him; he may burn or hang him; so that he can make every element a partic.i.p.ant in the death of men. Or, finally, a man may be thrown to the wild beasts.

Another may be sewn up wholly except his head in a sack, and thus be left to be devoured by worms; or he may be immersed in water until he is torn to pieces by sea-serpents. A man may be boiled in oil; he may be greased, tied with ropes, and left exposed to be stung by flies and hornets; he may be put to death by scourging with rods or beating with cudgels, or struck down by stoning, or flung from a high place.

Furthermore, a man may be tortured in more ways than one without the use of metals; as when the executioner burns the groins and armpits of his victim with hot wax; or places a cloth in his mouth gradually, so that when in breathing he draws it slowly into his gullet, the executioner draws it back suddenly and violently; or the victim's hands are fastened behind his back, and he is drawn up little by little with a rope and then let down suddenly. Or similarly, he may be tied to a beam and a heavy stone fastened by a cord to his feet, or finally his limbs may be torn asunder. From these examples we see that it is not metals that are to be condemned, but our vices, such as anger, cruelty, discord, pa.s.sion for power, avarice, and l.u.s.t.

The question next arises, whether we ought to count metals amongst the number of good things or cla.s.s them amongst the bad. The Peripatetics regarded all wealth as a good thing, and merely spoke of externals as having to do with neither the mind nor the body. Well, let riches be an external thing. And, as they said, many other things may be cla.s.sed as good if it is in one's power to use them either well or ill. For good men employ them for good, and to them they are useful. The wicked use them badly, and to them they are harmful. There is a saying of Socrates, that just as wine is influenced by the cask, so the character of riches is like their possessors. The Stoics, whose custom it is to argue subtly and acutely, though they did not put wealth in the category of good things, they did not count it amongst the evil ones, but placed it in that cla.s.s which they term neutral. For to them virtue alone is good, and vice alone evil. The whole of what remains is indifferent. Thus, in their conviction, it matters not whether one be in good health or seriously ill; whether one be handsome or deformed. In short:

"Whether, sprung from Inachus of old, and thus hast lived beneath the sun in wealth, or hast been poor and despised among men, it matters not."

For my part, I see no reason why anything that is in itself of use should not be placed in the cla.s.s of good things. At all events, metals are a creation of Nature, and they supply many varied and necessary needs of the human race, to say nothing about their uses in adornment, which are so wonderfully blended with utility. Therefore, it is not right to degrade them from the place they hold among the good things. In truth, if there is a bad use made of them, should they on that account be rightly called evils? For of what good things can we not make an equally bad or good use? Let me give examples from both cla.s.ses of what we term good. Wine, by far the best drink, if drunk in moderation, aids the digestion of food, helps to produce blood, and promotes the juices in all parts of the body. It is of use in nourishing not only the body but the mind as well, for it disperses our dark and gloomy thoughts, frees us from cares and anxiety, and restores our confidence. If drunk in excess, however, it injures and prostrates the body with serious disease. An intoxicated man keeps nothing to himself; he raves and rants, and commits many wicked and infamous acts. On this subject Theognis wrote some very clever lines, which we may render thus:

"Wine is harmful if taken with greedy lips, but if drunk in moderation it is wholesome."[25]

But I linger too long over extraneous matters. I must pa.s.s on to the gifts of body and mind, amongst which strength, beauty, and genius occur to me. If then a man, relying on his strength, toils hard to maintain himself and his family in an honest and respectable manner, he uses the gift aright, but if he makes a living out of murder and robbery, he uses it wrongly. Likewise, too, if a lovely woman is anxious to please her husband alone she uses her beauty aright, but if she lives wantonly and is a victim of pa.s.sion, she misuses her beauty. In like manner, a youth who devotes himself to learning and cultivates the liberal arts, uses his genius rightly. But he who dissembles, lies, cheats, and deceives by fraud and dishonesty, misuses his abilities. Now, the man who, because they are abused, denies that wine, strength, beauty, or genius are good things, is unjust and blasphemous towards the Most High G.o.d, Creator of the World; so he who would remove metals from the cla.s.s of blessings also acts unjustly and blasphemously against Him. Very true, therefore, are the words which certain Greek poets have written, as Pindar:

"Money glistens, adorned with virtue; it supplies the means by which thou mayest act well in whatever circ.u.mstances fate may have in store for thee."[26]

And Sappho:

"Without the love of virtue gold is a dangerous and harmful guest, but when it is a.s.sociated with virtue, it becomes the source and height of good."

And Callimachus:

"Riches do not make men great without virtue; neither do virtues themselves make men great without some wealth."

And Antiphanes:

"Now, by the G.o.ds, why is it necessary for a man to grow rich?

Why does he desire to possess much money unless that he may, as much as possible, help his friends, and sow the seeds of a harvest of grat.i.tude, sweetest of the G.o.ddesses."[27]

Having thus refuted the arguments and contentions of adversaries, let us sum up the advantages of the metals. In the first place, they are useful to the physician, for they furnish liberally the ingredients for medicines, by which wounds and ulcers are cured, and even plagues; so that certainly if there were no other reasons why we should explore the depths of the earth, we should for the sake of medicine alone dig in the mines. Again, the metals are of use to painters, because they yield certain pigments which, when united with the painter's slip, are injured less than others by the moisture from without. Further, mining is useful to the architects, for thus is found marble, which is suitable not only for strengthening large buildings, but also for decoration. It is, moreover, helpful to those whose ambition urges them toward immortal glory, because it yields metals from which are made coins, statues, and other monuments, which, next to literary records, give men in a sense immortality. The metals are useful to merchants with very great cause, for, as I have stated elsewhere, the use of money which is made from metals is much more convenient to mankind than the old system of exchange of commodities. In short, to whom are the metals not of use? In very truth, even the works of art, elegant, embellished, elaborate, useful, are fashioned in various shapes by the artist from the metals gold, silver, bra.s.s, lead, and iron. How few artists could make anything that is beautiful and perfect without using metals? Even if tools of iron or bra.s.s were not used, we could not make tools of wood and stone without the help of metal. From all these examples are evident the benefits and advantages derived from metals. We should not have had these at all unless the science of mining and metallurgy had been discovered and handed down to us. Who then does not understand how highly useful they are, nay rather, how necessary to the human race? In a word, man could not do without the mining industry, nor did Divine Providence will that he should.

Further, it has been asked whether to work in metals is honourable employment for respectable people or whether it is not degrading and dishonourable. We ourselves count it amongst the honourable arts. For that art, the pursuit of which is unquestionably not impious, nor offensive, nor mean, we may esteem honourable. That this is the nature of the mining profession, inasmuch as it promotes wealth by good and honest methods, we shall show presently. With justice, therefore, we may cla.s.s it amongst honourable employments. In the first place, the occupation of the miner, which I must be allowed to compare with other methods of acquiring great wealth, is just as n.o.ble as that of agriculture; for, as the farmer, sowing his seed in his fields injures no one, however profitable they may prove to him, so the miner digging for his metals, albeit he draws forth great heaps of gold or silver, hurts thereby no mortal man. Certainly these two modes of increasing wealth are in the highest degree both n.o.ble and honourable. The booty of the soldier, however, is frequently impious, because in the fury of the fighting he seizes all goods, sacred as well as profane. The most just king may have to declare war on cruel tyrants, but in the course of it wicked men cannot lose their wealth and possessions without dragging into the same calamity innocent and poor people, old men, matrons, maidens, and orphans. But the miner is able to acc.u.mulate great riches in a short time, without using any violence, fraud, or malice. That old saying is, therefore, not always true that "Every rich man is either wicked himself, or is the heir to wickedness."

Some, however, who contend against us, censure and attack miners by saying that they and their children must needs fall into penury after a short time, because they have heaped up riches by improper means.

According to them nothing is truer than the saying of the poet Naevius:

"Ill gotten gains in ill fashion slip away."

The following are some of the wicked and sinful methods by which they say men obtain riches from mining. When a prospect of obtaining metals shows itself in a mine, either the ruler or magistrate drives out the rightful owners of the mines from possession, or a shrewd and cunning neighbour perhaps brings a law-suit against the old possessors in order to rob them of some part of their property. Or the mine superintendent imposes on the owners such a heavy contribution on shares, that if they cannot pay, or will not, they lose their rights of possession; while the superintendent, contrary to all that is right, seizes upon all that they have lost. Or, finally, the mine foreman may conceal the vein by plastering over with clay that part where the metal abounds, or by covering it with earth, stones, stakes, or poles, in the hope that after several years the proprietors, thinking the mine exhausted, will abandon it, and the foreman can then excavate that remainder of the ore and keep it for himself. They even state that the sc.u.m of the miners exist wholly by fraud, deceit, and lying. For to speak of nothing else, but only of those deceits which are practised in buying and selling, it is said they either advertise the veins with false and imaginary praises, so that they can sell the shares in the mines at one-half more than they are worth, or on the contrary, they sometimes detract from the estimate of them so that they can buy shares for a small price. By exposing such frauds our critics suppose all good opinion of miners is lost. Now, all wealth, whether it has been gained by good or evil means, is liable by some adverse chance to vanish away. It decays and is dissipated by the fault and carelessness of the owner, since he loses it through laziness and neglect, or wastes and squanders it in luxuries, or he consumes and exhausts it in gifts, or he dissipates and throws it away in gambling:

"Just as though money sprouted up again, renewed from an exhausted coffer, and was always to be obtained from a full heap."

It is therefore not to be wondered at if miners do not keep in mind the counsel given by King Agathocles: "Unexpected fortune should be held in reverence," for by not doing so they fall into penury; and particularly when the miners are not content with moderate riches, they not rarely spend on new mines what they have acc.u.mulated from others. But no just ruler or magistrate deprives owners of their possessions; that, however, may be done by a tyrant, who may cruelly rob his subjects not only of their goods honestly obtained, but even of life itself. And yet whenever I have inquired into the complaints which are in common vogue, I always find that the owners who are abused have the best of reasons for driving the men from the mines; while those who abuse the owners have no reason to complain about them. Take the case of those who, not having paid their contributions, have lost the right of possession, or those who have been expelled by the magistrate out of another man's mine: for some wicked men, mining the small veins branching from the veins rich in metal, are wont to invade the property of another person. So the magistrate expels these men accused of wrong, and drives them from the mine. They then very frequently spread unpleasant rumours concerning this amongst the populace. Or, to take another case: when, as often happens, a dispute arises between neighbours, arbitrators appointed by the magistrate settle it, or the regular judges investigate and give judgment. Consequently, when the judgment is given, inasmuch as each party has consented to submit to it, neither side should complain of injustice; and when the controversy is adjudged, inasmuch as the decision is in accordance with the laws concerning mining, one of the parties cannot be injured by the law. I do not vigorously contest the point, that at times a mine superintendent may exact a larger contribution from the owners than necessity demands. Nay, I will admit that a foreman may plaster over, or hide with a structure, a vein where it is rich in metals. Is the wickedness of one or two to brand the many honest with fraud and trickery? What body is supposed to be more pious and virtuous in the Republic than the Senate? Yet some Senators have been detected in peculations, and have been punished. Is this any reason that so honourable a house should lose its good name and fame? The superintendent cannot exact contributions from the owners without the knowledge and permission of the Bergmeister or the deputies; for this reason deception of this kind is impossible. Should the foremen be convicted of fraud, they are beaten with rods; or of theft, they are hanged. It is complained that some sellers and buyers of the shares in mines are fraudulent. I concede it. But can they deceive anyone except a stupid, careless man, unskilled in mining matters? Indeed, a wise and prudent man, skilled in this art, if he doubts the trustworthiness of a seller or buyer, goes at once to the mine that he may for himself examine the vein which has been so greatly praised or disparaged, and may consider whether he will buy or sell the shares or not. But people say, though such an one can be on his guard against fraud, yet a simple man and one who is easily credulous, is deceived. But we frequently see a man who is trying to mislead another in this way deceive himself, and deservedly become a laughing-stock for everyone; or very often the defrauder as well as the dupe is entirely ignorant of mining. If, for instance, a vein has been found to be abundant in ore, contrary to the idea of the would-be deceiver, then he who was to have been cheated gets a profit, and he who has been the deceiver loses. Nevertheless, the miners themselves rarely buy or sell shares, but generally they have _jurati venditores_[28] who buy and sell at such prices as they have been instructed to give or accept. Seeing therefore, that magistrates decide disputes on fair and just principles, that honest men deceive n.o.body, while a dishonest one cannot deceive easily, or if he does he cannot do so with impunity, the criticism of those who wish to disparage the honesty of miners has therefore no force or weight.

In the next place, the occupation of the miner is objectionable to n.o.body. For who, unless he be naturally malevolent and envious, will hate the man who gains wealth as it were from heaven? Or who will hate a man who to amplify his fortune, adopts a method which is free from reproach? A moneylender, if he demands an excessive interest, incurs the hatred of men. If he demands a moderate and lawful rate, so that he is not injurious to the public generally and does not impoverish them, he fails to become very rich from his business. Further, the gain derived from mining is not sordid, for how can it be such, seeing that it is so great, so plentiful, and of so innocent a nature. A merchant's profits are mean and base when he sells counterfeit and spurious merchandise, or puts far too high a price on goods that he has purchased for little; for this reason the merchant would be held in no less odium amongst good men than is the usurer, did they not take account of the risk he runs to secure his merchandise. In truth, those who on this point speak abusively of mining for the sake of detracting from its merits, say that in former days men convicted of crimes and misdeeds were sentenced to the mines and were worked as slaves. But to-day the miners receive pay, and are engaged like other workmen in the common trades.

Certainly, if mining is a shameful and discreditable employment for a gentleman because slaves once worked mines, then agriculture also will not be a very creditable employment, because slaves once cultivated the fields, and even to-day do so among the Turks; nor will architecture be considered honest, because some slaves have been found skilful in that profession; nor medicine, because not a few doctors have been slaves; nor will any other worthy craft, because men captured by force of arms have practised it. Yet agriculture, architecture, and medicine are none the less counted amongst the number of honourable professions; therefore, mining ought not for this reason to be excluded from them.

But suppose we grant that the hired miners have a sordid employment. We do not mean by miners only the diggers and other workmen, but also those skilled in the mining arts, and those who invest money in mines. Amongst them can be counted kings, princes, republics, and from these last the most esteemed citizens. And finally, we include amongst the overseers of mines the n.o.ble Thucydides, the historian, whom the Athenians placed in charge of the mines of Thasos.[29] And it would not be unseemly for the owners themselves to work with their own hands on the works or ore, especially if they themselves have contributed to the cost of the mines.

Just as it is not undignified for great men to cultivate their own land.

Otherwise the Roman Senate would not have created Dictator L. Quintius Cincinnatus, as he was at work in the fields, nor would it have summoned to the Senate House the chief men of the State from their country villas. Similarly, in our day, Maximilian Caesar would not have enrolled Conrad in the ranks of the n.o.bles known as Counts; Conrad was really very poor when he served in the mines of Schneeberg, and for that reason he was nicknamed the "poor man"; but not many years after, he attained wealth from the mines of Furst, which is a city in Lorraine, and took his name from "Luck."[30] Nor would King Vladislaus have restored to the a.s.sembly of Barons, Tursius, a citizen of Cracow, who became rich through the mines in that part of the kingdom of Hungary which was formerly called Dacia.[31] Nay, not even the common worker in the mines is vile and abject. For, trained to vigilance and work by night and day, he has great powers of endurance when occasion demands, and easily sustains the fatigues and duties of a soldier, for he is accustomed to keep long vigils at night, to wield iron tools, to dig trenches, to drive tunnels, to make machines, and to carry burdens. Therefore, experts in military affairs prefer the miner, not only to a commoner from the town, but even to the rustic.