


My wife and I collect maps of the British Isles (she is English and we met in Oxford) and two of the first maps we purchased were a pair of woodcuts by Sebastian Munster issued his 1540 edition of Ptolemy’s Geographia. One of these maps is a depiction of the British Isles that was based on 1400 years old geography, while the other, which focused just on England, has a depiction that Rodney Shirley wrote was “substantially in advance of any others printed hitherto.” (Early Printed Maps of the British Isles, p. 28)



It amused us that here were two maps published in the same atlas that had radically different depictions of essentially the same region taken from sources fourteen centuries apart! This pairing of “ancient” and “modern” depictions of the same place was not limited in Munster just to the British Isles, nor were similar pairings limited to just Munster’s atlas. For about 100 years beginning in 1482, many such pairs of maps, of the entire world and of its parts, were issued in a series of atlases, all published without comment, the old and new maps both presented with equal prominence. What is the story here? Why would mapmakers produce maps that were so clearly out-of-date while they had more current maps in the same atlas?
To understand this, we need to look at the way that knowledge of the world was viewed during the early Renaissance. The Renaissance was partly spawned by the rediscovery in Europe of Greek and Roman literature and scientific works, particularly through the diaspora of Greek scholars from Byzantium in 1453. The appearance of these ancient works was an mind-blowing event for thinkers of the time, for here was a body of lost knowledge seemingly handed down as from Heaven. The authors of these works, such as Plato, Aristotle, and Ptolemy, were seen as figures who had access to Truth and Knowledge and they took on an aura of omniscience.
At the same time, Europe was politically and religiously in a period when individuals and institutions were consolidating their authority, with lords, kings and the Church broadening and strengthening their positions of power. Society developed strict rules for each person’s “place,” setting down a structure in which each person had a clear position in the hierarchy. Those who had a stake in this social organization (i.e. those with power and privilege) were very strict in their protection of the structure, fiercely trying to maintain the status quo and ruthlessly putting down any perceived threat to the established rules and roles.
As part of this overarching protection of the status quo within society, the ancient authorities and their works were afforded great respect and those in power usually reacted to any questioning of their “truths” with suppression. Some understanding of the thinking of the time can be found in Iain Pears’ An Instance of the Fingerpost, a book I recently read and enjoyed. In that novel, an Italian who believed in experimental knowledge (as opposed to accepted knowledge), had a discussion with some classical scholars at an Oxford college in 1663. (The Italian’s words are in italics):
"It is true, though, that you seek to cast off the knowledge of the ancients, and replace it with your own?"
I said I respected all opinions of worth.
"Aristotle?" he said in a challenging way. "Hippocrates? Galen?"
I said that these were all great men, but could be proven to be wrong in many particulars. He snorted at my reply.
"What advances? All that you novelists have done is to find out new reasons for ancient practice, and show how a few trifles work in ways other than was supposed."
"Not so, sir. Not so," I said, "Think of the barometer, the telescope."
"He waved his hand in scorn. "And the people who use them all come to entirely different conclusions. What discoveries has the telescope made? Such toys will never be a substitute for reason, the play of the mind upon imponderables."
"But the advances of philosophy, I am convinced, will achieve wonders."
"I have yet to see a sign of it."
"You will," I replied warmly.
...."You are wrong, sir....All knowledge is to be found in ancient texts, if you know how to read them aright..."
...."Did not Aristotle himself say that our ideas must conform to our experience of things as they are?"....
"And after you have put Aristotle to your proof? And, no doubt, found him wanting. Then what? Will you submit the monarchy to your investigations? The church, perhaps? Will you presume to put Our Savior Himself to your proofs? There lies the danger, sir. Your quest leads to atheism, as it must unless science is held firmly in the hands of those who wish to strengthen the word of God, rather than challenge it."

The appearance of two maps, one ancient and one modern, in atlases of the late fifteenth through the second half of the sixteenth century must be seen in light of this social reality. Ptolemy was considered as “The Geographer”, the ultimate authority on the subject and so his maps, even when known to be wrong, could not easily be discarded.



No comments:
Post a Comment