9 • The Reception of Ptolemy’s Geography (End of the Fourteenth to Beginning of the Sixteenth Century) Patrick Gautier Dalché 285 The translation of Ptolemy’s Geography in Florence at the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fif- teenth century is often presented as an exceptional event that would radically transform the ways in which geo- graphical space was depicted. Characteristic of a view that sees intellectual history as describing a gradual accu- mulative progress, this interpretation talks in terms of before and after the “rediscovery of Ptolemy.” Before, mappaemundi were built on concepts that are described as “mythical,” “non-scientific,” or “influenced by Chris- tian dogma”; after, there came a “modern” concept of space, of homogeneous and isotropic extension that did not vary according to location and could be enclosed within a network of meridians and parallels that made it possible to locate any specific place with scientifically cal- culated coordinates. 1 However, this positive view of the whole matter has not gone unchallenged. Certain histori- ans of geographical discoveries have, in effect, claimed that the influential “errors” in Ptolemy actually prevented progress in the knowledge of the world. The ideas pro- pounded by the Geography —most notably, the claim that all the earth’s oceans were enclosed within a circuit of landmasses or that the Indian Ocean was landlocked— would, this argument goes, hinder rather than help the expansion of the West. It is difficult to reconcile these two conflicting opinions. Indeed, the truth is that they are both false. The former focuses in a sole moment a process that in fact took place over an entire century and comprised various conflicting tendencies. It is often the case that this so-called Ptole- maic Revolution is seen as being generated in a single place —humanist Florence — and “progress” thereafter is identified with the gradual improvement in Ptolemaic maps. 2 Such a reading of the history of cartography is of only limited interest. It forgets that, rather than being a single incident in the history of mapmaking, the transla- tion of Ptolemy and the diffusion of his work took place in an intellectual and cultural context within which com- plex and varied motivations were at play. The reception of the Geography, therefore, can be properly understood only by examining the numerous writings of various types in which it is echoed. Moreover, that ancient work com- prised not only a collection of maps —with indications as to how they were to be drawn—but also a text, most of which is in the form of a list of place-names. 3 The devel- opment of modern cartography has led us to overlook the importance of such lists in the constitution of geographi- cal knowledge, to forget that they are a fundamental means of ordering facts. The reading of Ptolemy’s text and the study of his maps worked together in forming a determinate conception of the structure of terrestrial space. So if one is to study the reception of the Geogra- phy, one cannot limit oneself to the maps, to listing the ways in which they were improved and identifying the progress made in the theory of “projection.” 4 The work as a whole must be considered within the wider context of the intellectual trends at work in the fifteenth and six- teenth centuries. Abbreviations used in this chapter include: America for Hans Wolff, ed., America: Das frühe Bild der Neuen Welt (Munich: Prestel, 1992); Cristoforo Colombo for Guglielmo Cavallo, ed., Cristoforo Colombo e l’apertura degli spazi: Mostra storico-cartografica, 2 vols. (Rome: Isti- tuto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, Libreria dello Stato, 1992); Guil- laume Fillastre for Didier Marcotte, ed., Humanisme et culture géo- graphique à l’époque du Concile de Constance: Autour de Guillaume Fillastre (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002); Regiomontanus-Studien for Gün- ther Hamann, ed., Regiomontanus-Studien (Vienna: Verlag der Öster- reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1980); BAV for Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican City; and ÖNB for Österreichische Na- tionalbibliothek, Vienna. 1. A recent example is Alfred W. Crosby, The Measure of Reality: Quantification and Western Society, 1250–1600 (Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 1997), 97–98. Many histories of cartography repeat this cliché without examining its relevance; a comprehensive list would take up several pages. 2. This thesis was first put forward in an article by Roberto Almagià, “Il primato di Firenze negli studi geografici durante i secoli XV e XVI,” Atti della Società Italiana per Progresso delle Scienze 18 (1929): 60 – 80. 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 Cartography in Ptolemy,” in HC 1:177–200, esp. 189–90. 4. Ptolemy did not give a theoretical exposé of projection; he provided empirical descriptions of how to transcribe a sphere onto a plane sur- face. What is more, he never spoke in terms of projection onto a cone; see Johannes Keuning, “The History of Geographical Map Projections until 1600,” Imago Mundi 12 (1955): 1–24, esp. 10. Hence, it is dou- bly anachronistic to talk about his “conical projection.” See J. L. Berggren, “Ptolemy’s Maps of Earth and the Heavens: A New Interpre- tation,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 43 (1991–92): 133 – 44.