Mineral novelties from America during Renaissance: the “stones” in Hernández’ and Sahagún’s treatises (1576–1577)

Abstract

During Renaissance, information on American natural resources reached Europe first at random through administrative reports and then through the two planned scientific accounts: Francisco Hernández’ expedition reports and Bernardino de Sahagún’s questionnaires. These two accounts were definitively written up in Mexico during the years 1576–1577 and both remained mostly unavailable to scholars, because hindered in their circulation by the king of Spain, unwilling to spread information about the riches of his domains. Whilst Hernandez’ work was delayed, it could eventually be printed almost entirely (Rome, 1651) so as to contribute to the development of natural science. Sahagún’s full account did not achieve complete publication till rather recently (Florence, 1979). The short section on mineralia in Hernández’ encyclopaedic treatise, written in Latin, splits up into two parts: (1) 26 chapters are to be found in Nardo Antonio Recchi’s compendium (dated 1580–1582) and (2) 10 chapters are given in the supplement added by Cassiano dal Pozzo (dated 1626); both are included in Novae Hispaniae Thesaurus, finally published in 1651. Consequently, Hernández’ complete list of mineral-related matters was then made available: 47 gemstones, rocks, earths and artificial materials in no apparent logical order, with their names in both Náhuatl and Latin, and with the latter ones added with adjective modifiers such as “Mex.” or “No. Hisp.” so as to emphasize the peculiarities making them distinctive from similar European “stones”. Most such “stones” are in fact colouring earths to be used as dyes, either as they are or after fire treatment. There are also semiprecious stones, organic mineraloids and artificial products. The longest descriptions concern two impure mineral mixtures of economic interest: salt and nitre. In Sahagún’s Códice florentino, written in Náhuatl and Spanish, the “piedras” are distributed on the basis of their use: (1) medical “stones”, (2) precious “stones”, (3) metals, (4) useful “stones”, (5) dyes, (6) earths. They are intercalated with various organic materials having similar uses. The approach is ethnographic, rather than naturalistic, and the amount of information is greater than Hernández’ (94 names). In particular, the novel information made available on jade, amber, fire opal, turquoise and emerald is here revised. Contemporary evidence shows that Hernández’ influence on science was hindered due to delays in editing Thesaurus, and Sahagún’s impact was nil because his work was taken away from him as being suspected of spreading idolatry. It survived only because some copies were hidden away in remote libraries, but this made so that it could not contribute at all to the growth of natural sciences either during Renaissance or later. What did not occur in the early seventeenth century during the “scientific revolution”, it also continued more recently, having Sahagún’s contribution been lessened and by far superseded when it became available, first in a reduced Spanish form (1829–1830) and then as translation of the complete Náhuatl text (1950–1971). The conclusion reached is that knowledge of American minerals reached Europe slowly and by hear-say, mostly, rather than as a result of organised reports prepared by scientists, less than others by the above two ones. Thus, on the whole, novel mineral information reaching Europe from the Americas during Renaissance was neither large nor as new and important as to speed up the upgrading of the science studying the complexity of natural inorganic materials. This comprehensive science grew to the present, modern state much later on, only when crystallography took over on mining and metallurgy, and also petrography divided from mineralogy, i.e., during the final decades of the eighteenth century, with very little contribution, if any, of the American data.