9 • the Reception of Ptolemy's Geography (End

9 • The Reception of Ptolemy’s Geography (End of the Fourteenth to Beginning of the Sixteenth Century) Patrick Gautier Dalché The translation of Ptolemy’s Geography in Florence at to how they were to be drawn—but also a text, most of the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fif- which is in the form of a list of place-names.3 The devel- teenth century is often presented as an exceptional event opment of modern cartography has led us to overlook the that would radically transform the ways in which geo- importance of such lists in the constitution of geographi- graphical space was depicted. Characteristic of a view cal knowledge, to forget that they are a fundamental that sees intellectual history as describing a gradual accu- means of ordering facts. The reading of Ptolemy’s text mulative progress, this interpretation talks in terms of and the study of his maps worked together in forming a before and after the “rediscovery of Ptolemy.” Before, determinate conception of the structure of terrestrial mappaemundi were built on concepts that are described space. So if one is to study the reception of the Geogra- as “mythical,” “non-scientific,” or “influenced by Chris- phy, one cannot limit oneself to the maps, to listing the tian dogma”; after, there came a “modern” concept of ways in which they were improved and identifying the space, of homogeneous and isotropic extension that did progress made in the theory of “projection.” 4 The work not vary according to location and could be enclosed as a whole must be considered within the wider context within a network of meridians and parallels that made it of the intellectual trends at work in the fifteenth and six- possible to locate any specific place with scientifically cal- teenth centuries. culated coordinates.1 However, this positive view of the whole matter has not gone unchallenged. Certain historians of geographical discoveries have, in effect, claimed Abbreviations used in this chapter include: America for Hans Wolff, that the influential “errors” in Ptolemy actually prevented ed., America: Das frühe Bild der Neuen Welt (Munich: Prestel, 1992); progress in the knowledge of the world. The ideas pro- Cristoforo Colombo for Guglielmo Cavallo, ed., Cristoforo Colombo e l’apertura degli spazi: Mostra storico-cartografica, Geography 2 vols. (Rome: Isti- pounded by the —most notably, the claim tuto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, Libreria dello Stato, 1992); Guil- that all the earth’s oceans were enclosed within a circuit laume Fillastre for Didier Marcotte, ed., Humanisme et culture géo- of landmasses or that the Indian Ocean was landlocked— graphique à l’époque du Concile de Constance: Autour de Guillaume would, this argument goes, hinder rather than help the Fillastre (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002); Regiomontanus-Studien for Gün- expansion of the West. ther Hamann, ed., Regiomontanus-Studien (Vienna: Verlag der Öster- reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1980); BAV for Biblioteca It is difficult to reconcile these two conflicting opinions. Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican City; and ÖNB for Österreichische Na- Indeed, the truth is that they are both false. The former tionalbibliothek, Vienna. focuses in a sole moment a process that in fact took place 1. A recent example is Alfred W. Crosby, The Measure of Reality: over an entire century and comprised various conflicting Quantification and Western Society, 1250 –1600 (Cambridge: Cam- tendencies. It is often the case that this so-called Ptole- bridge University Press, 1997), 97–98. Many histories of cartography repeat this cliché without examining its relevance; a comprehensive list maic Revolution is seen as being generated in a single would take up several pages. place—humanist Florence—and “progress” thereafter is 2. This thesis was first put forward in an article by Roberto Almagià, identified with the gradual improvement in Ptolemaic “Il primato di Firenze negli studi geografici durante i secoli XV e XVI,” maps.2 Such a reading of the history of cartography is of Atti della Società Italiana per Progresso delle Scienze 18 (1929): 60 –80. only limited interest. It forgets that, rather than being a 3. Concerning the issue of the presence of maps in the original work by Ptolemy, see O. A. W. Dilke and eds., “The Culmination of Greek single incident in the history of mapmaking, the transla- Cartography in Ptolemy,” in HC 1:177–200, esp. 189–90. tion of Ptolemy and the diffusion of his work took place 4. Ptolemy did not give a theoretical exposé of projection; he provided in an intellectual and cultural context within which com- empirical descriptions of how to transcribe a sphere onto a plane sur- plex and varied motivations were at play. The reception face. What is more, he never spoke in terms of projection onto a cone; of the Geography, therefore, can be properly understood see Johannes Keuning, “The History of Geographical Map Projections until 1600,” Imago Mundi 12 (1955): 1–24, esp. 10. Hence, it is dou- only by examining the numerous writings of various types bly anachronistic to talk about his “conical projection.” See J. L. in which it is echoed. Moreover, that ancient work com- Berggren, “Ptolemy’s Maps of Earth and the Heavens: A New Interpre- prised not only a collection of maps—with indications as tation,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 43 (1991–92): 133– 44. 285 286 The History of Renaissance Cartography: Interpretive Essays There is a similar anachronism at the basis of both the too little attention, she offers a broad outline of the re- positive and the negative evaluations of the supposedly ception of Ptolemy, from the humanist “discovery” of the revolutionary effect of the “rediscovery” of Ptolemy. This work—motivated by purely philological interests—to anachronism can be found in Jacob Burckhardt’s claim the relegation of the Geography to a position as mere that the “discovery of the world” was one of the leitmo- documentation of a distant world.8 Milanesi’s arguments tifs of the Renaissance,5 a reading backed up by an as- are at the basis of the present study, which focuses on the sumption found in some schools in the history of science early days of the reception of the Geography, up to the that emphasize the primacy of “experience and experi- period of the new translation produced by the German ment” over “recognized authority” and “the bookish.” humanist Willibald Pirckheimer, which was published in Again, it should be stressed that historians of carto- Strasbourg in 1525, an important date in the history of graphic representation should not be engaged in a dis- the text. This discussion neither reviews the facts pre- cussion of progress; indeed, the very notion of progress sented by Fischer (which should nonetheless be brought hampers them in understanding the true course of events. up to date) nor explores studies of printed editions, which They should not really be interested in whether scholars are now better known thanks to the works of Codazzi of the Renaissance “discovered” the world through expe- and Lindgren.9 Moreover, words and phrases such as rience or through books. They have a more humble and “tradition,” “innovation,” “knowledge inherited from more interesting task: to describe what was going the Ancients,” “medieval knowledge,” “myths,” “leg- through the minds of these scholars as they read the work ends,” “fables,” “inconsistency,” “experience,” and “em- of the Alexandrine geographer; to articulate what they saw as the purpose behind the study of such texts and 5. Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, maps; and finally, to judge whether the results measured trans. S. G. C. Middlemore, intro. Peter Gay (New York: Modern Li- up to their expectations. brary, 2002), 195–246. 6. The main aim of the introductions to facsimile editions of manu- A study of extant source material reveals that the his- scripts of the Geography does not seem to be the advancement of schol- tory of Ptolemy’s reception during the fifteenth and six- arship; they are generally full of second-hand ideas and factual errors. teenth centuries was much more complex than the previ- Other works of this kind do not go beyond the results achieved by his- ously mentioned discussions lead us to imagine. The torians in the first half of the twentieth century. See, for example, the translation of the Geography was a major intellectual following four articles by Germaine Aujac: “Continuità delle teorie tole- maiche nel medioevo e nel rinascimento,” in Cristoforo Colombo, event, but it was an event with a mixed history, involving 1:35–64; Claude Ptolémée, astronome, astrologue, géographe: Con- different intellectual milieus and different cultural connaissance et représentation du monde habité (Paris: C.T.H.S., 1993), texts ranging over all the intellectual centers of Europe. In 173–78; “La Géographie de Ptolémée: Tradition et novation,” in La effect, the history of this event has yet to be written: not Géographie de Ptolémée, ed. François Robichon (Arcueil: Anthèse, all the relevant information has come to light, and de- 1998), 8–20, esp. 16 –18; and “La redécouverte de Ptolémée et de la géographie grecque au XV e siècle,” in Terre à découvrir, terres à par- tailed monographs on many important aspects (for ex- courir: Exploration et connaissance du monde XII e–XIX e siècles, ed. ample, the varied range of interests that emerges from Danielle Lecoq and Antoine Chambard (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1998), extant working manuscripts) have yet to become avail- 54 –73. See also Józef Babicz, “La Résurgence de Ptolémée,” in Gérard able. Indeed, such indispensable tools as critical editions Mercator cosmographe: Le temps et l’espace, ed. Marcel Watelet of the Latin translations, as well as studies of the transla- (Antwerp: Fonds Mercator Paribas, 1994), 50 –69.

Load more