1 PTOLEMY’S GEOGRAPHY IN BYZANTIUM Dr. Stella A. Chrysochoou
GEOGRAPHY FROM THE 2nd TO THE 12th CENTURY Claudius Ptolemaeus, known as Ptolemy, one of the great scientific minds of Greek antiquity, flourished in Alexandria, Egypt, around the middle of the second century AD. Ptolemy’s geographical treatise, Γεωγραφία (Geography) or Γεωγραφικὴ Ὑφήγησις (Geographike Hyphegesis)1, has been a subject of great scholarly interest both to philologists and historians, as well as to cartographers. It survives in 65 Greek manuscripts. Of those 16 comprise the text of the treatise and the maps, and 49 only the text, or part of it with or without scholia2. The Geographike Hyphegesis, which can be translated as Geographical Guide (or manual, handbook), comprises eight Books (I-VII). In Book I, containing 24 chapters, Ptolemy develops his theories on both world cartography (γεωγραφία, geography) and regional topography (χωρογραφία, chorography), explains the method of constructing a map of the then inhabited world (oikoumene) in proportion to the real world. In that map is depicted Europe without Scandinavia, Asia and the northern part of Africa with the famous terra incognita to the south of the Equator unifying Africa with Asia. Ptolemy knew very well that the earth is a sphere and he placed the oikoumene in the northern hemisphere occupying, one fourth (τεταρτημόριον) of the sphere. His aim was to convert the spherical surface of the earth to a plane one with his mathematical instructions to enable anyone to depict the oikoumene in a plane surface. In the same time he severely criticizes the views of his predecessor, Marinos of Tyre (ca. 1st c. AD), concerning his instructions for drawing a map on a plane surface3. By refuting Marinos’ views Ptolemy, in fact, rescued the works of the Tyrian geographer from oblivion, revealing the extraordinary wealth of Marinos’ knowledge, and the specific differences between the two geographers concerning the projections. According to Marinos, the spherical surface of the earth is better rendered on a plane surface by the orthogonal cylindrical projection (Plate, 1)4, while Ptolemy, developing his own views on drawing the map of the oikoumene, preferred the use of the conical projection, in two forms: conical projection A and conical projection B.
1
Greek text edited by Nobbe (1843, 1845, 1990); Fischer (1932); French translation, Aujac (1993); English translation, Berggren & Jones (2000); German translation Stückelberger & Grasshoff (2006); Müller (1867), 279-298. Bagrow (1946), 318-387; Dilke (1985), 77-83; Dilke (1987), vol. 1, 177-200 and 258-275; Swerdlow (1993), 125-168; Tsiotras(2006). Gautier Dalché (2009). 2 See the list of the manuscripts in the electronic data-base Pinakes: texts et manuscrits grecs accessible at http:// pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/rech_oeuvre/resultOeuvre/filter_auteur/5129/filter_oeuvre/10370 3 For Marinos, see Honigmann (1930), 1767-1796; Fischer (1932), vol. 1.I, pp. 58, 59, 67, 83 (1), 90, 155; Foteinos (1977); Dilke , (1985), 72-75; Berggren & Jones (2000) 23-28; Interestingly, Marinos’ name is not mentioned in the Suda Lexicon; cf. Suidae Lexicon, ed. Adler (1928-38). 4 Berggren & Jones (2000), 33, 34. Chrysochoou (2010), 158-168.
2 In conical projection A (Plate, 2)5 the meridians appear as straight lines all starting from an extended line representing the North Pole spreading outwards. The parallels are the circumferences of concentric circles, the centre of which is once more the North Pole. The circle with the longest circumference is the Equator, which is enclosed between the Westernmost and Easternmost meridians, stretching to the utmost lengthwise. As a result, conical projection A distorts to a large degree the spherical shape of the earth in the area of the Equator. Aware of this, Ptolemy introduced the conical projection B (Plate, 3)6. This time the meridians are curved lines. Thus, the stretching of the Equator is more limited, rendering the spherical shape of the earth much more accurately. Books II-VII contain a list of approximately 8,000 place-names of the then known world. Each place-name is accompanied by its co-ordinates, namely its latitude and longitude, which determine its position on the map. The place-names refer to coastal and inland cities, harbours, capes, peninsulas, gulfs, islands, mountains, rivers and deltas of rivers. This list is of a mathematical nature omitting descriptions of the landscape, historical information or mythical narrations. It is this element that fundamentally differentiates Ptolemy’s Geographike Hyphegesis from the surviving geographical treatises of all other geographers, as for example Strabo. Book II describes the Western Europe and Book III the Eastern Europe. Book IV describes Africa. Book V describes the Western Asia, whille Book VI the Central and Eastern Asia; and finally, Book VII describes India and Tabrovane (Sri Lanka). In the extant manuscripts of the Geographike Hyphegesis, which include 27 maps, Book VII closes with the first one, that of the oikoumene. Book VIII comprises 26 regional maps, appended to the corresponding chapters of Books II-VII, whith the co-ordinates of the listed place-names. Ten of these maps depict Europe, four depict Africa and twelve Asia. The question, who constructed the existing maps, Ptolemy or the Late Byzantium is asked from the end of the 19th century to our days. There are two views: the one supported by the German speaking philologists7, which attributes everything to Ptolemy, and which –without any study of the Byzantine sources– believes that the Byzantine scholars were simply copyists. The second view with Socrates Kugéas8 as pioneer is followed by a group of scholars, who focused on the maps9. They concluded that the treatise is a large cartographical database with detailed instructions enabling anyone to construct a map. Ultimately that was Ptolemy’s goal: to provide instructions, because he was aware that the continuous copying of the same map distorts its outlines. He clearly says that in Book I: “We must still investigate the method of drawing a map. This undertaking can take two forms: the first sets out the oikoumene in a part of a spherical surface, and the second on
5
Berggren & Jones (2000), 35-37; Chrysochoou (2010), 158-168. Berggren & Jones (2000), 37, 38; Chrysochoou (2010), 158-168. 7 Fischer (1932); Schnabel (1938); Stückelberger & Grasshoff (2006); Stückelberger & Mittenhuber (2009). 8 Kugéas (1909), 106-146. 9 Tudeer, (1917), 62-76; Bagrow (1946), 318-387; Diller (1940), 62-67; Dilke (1987), 258-275; Swerdlow (1993), 125168; Aujac (1993); Berggren & Jones (2000). 6
3 a plane. The object in both is the same, namely convenience; that is, to show how, without having a model already at hand, but merely by having the sections in the treatise beside us, we can most conveniently make the map. After all, continually transferring [a map] from earlier exemplars to subsequent ones tends to bring about grave distortions in the transcriptions through gradual changes”10 (my italics). The treatise then, comprises instructions, guides, as its title shows. A most detailed examination of the sources from the 2nd to 12th century AD testify the knowledge of the treatise by later scholars, who spoke with great admiration and respect for its author (Pappus of Alexandria, Ammianus Marcellinus, Theon of Alexandria, Synesius of Cyrene, Cassiodorus, Stephanus Byzantius)11. It is extremely interesting the fact that in Byzantium, at least as early as the ninth century, there was a tendency to comment on the writings of Strabo and Ptolemy jointly, treating them as complementary to each other12. This continued well into the twelfth century with John Tzetzes in Constantinople and Metropolitan Eustathios in Thessaloniki, who preserves the title of the treatise as Geographike Hyphegesis. Besides, Eustathios in his scholia in Dionysius Periegetes quotes almost verbatim the definition of geography from the introductory section of Ptolemy’s treatise without acknowledging his source. The careful reading of the scholia of Tzetzes and Eustathios show that they had not maps at their disposal and they had simply studied the text of the treatise, which under its specific title survived and was being read until the end of the twelfth century13. GEOGRAPHY IN THE 13th CENTURY The thirteenth century is the most important period for the revival of Ptolemy’s geographical texts in the Byzantine Empire. The best surviving testimony for this assertion is provided by the three codices, Urb. gr. 8214, Const. Seragl. 5715, and Fabr. gr. 2316, datable to the end of the century, which include the text of the Geographike Hyphegesis, Books I-VII closing with the map of 10
Ptolemy, Geographike Hyphegesis, I.18.2-3: ‘λοιπὸν δ’ ἄν εἴη τὰ κατὰ τὴν ἔφοδον τῆς καταγραφῆς ἐπισκέψασθαι. Διπλῆς δὴ τῆς τοιαύτης οὔσης ἐπιβολῆς, καὶ πρώτης μέν, τῆς ἐν μέρει σφαιρικῆς ἐπιφανείας ποιουμένης τὴν τῆς οἰκουμένης διάθεσιν, δευτέρας δέ, τῆς ἐν ἐπιπέδῳ, κοινὸν μὲν ἐπ’ ἀμφοτέρων ἐστί προκείμενον τὸ εὔχρηστον, τουτέστι τὸ δεῖξαι, πῶς ἂν καὶ μὴ προϋποκειμένης εἰκόνος ἀπὸ μόνης τῆς διὰ τῶν ὑπομνημάτων παραθέσεως εὐμεταχείριστον ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα ποιώμεθα τὴν καταγραφήν. Τὸ τὲ γὰρ ἀεί μεταφέρειν ἀπὸ τῶν προτέρων παραδειγμάτων ἐπὶ τὰ ὕστερα διὰ τῆς κατὰ μικρὸν παραλλαγῆς εἰς ἀξιόλογον εἴωθεν ἐξάγειν ἀνομοιότητα τὰς μεταβολὰς’. My translation is based on Berggren & Jones (2000), 80. 11 Cf. Gautier Dalché (2009), 22-71; Chrysochoou (2010), 39-46. 12 Diller (1937), 174-184; Diller (1975), 38-44; Chrysochoou (2010), 47. 13 Chrysochoou (2010), 47-55. 14 Müller (1867), 282, 283; Stornajolo (1895), 128, 129; Fischer (1932), vol. 1.I, 192-205, 209, 219-234; Schnabel (1938), 26-27; Diller (1940), 62-67; Bagrow (1946), 343-387; Prato (1979), 151-193; Dilke (1985), 72-86, 154-182; Dilke (1987), vol. 1, 258-275; Berggren & Jones (2000), 43, 45, 49, 52, 53, plate, 1; Gentile (1992), 291-308; Gentile (1992), Firenze, 78-80, 219-221, plates V-VII; Agostino (1996), 238-241, plates, 154, 155; Τsiotras (2006), 52, 59, 9598, 108, 120-123, 126, 142, 191, 193; Chrysochoou (2010), 29, 58, 83-85, 95, 128-133. 15 Fischer (1932), vol. 1.I, 515-523; Deissmann (1933), 89-93; Schnabel (1938), 25; Diller (1939), 228-238; Diller (1940), 62-67; Berggren & Jones (2000), 44; The manuscript was published by Stückelberger & Grasshoff (2006); Cf. also Stückelberger & Mittenhuber (2009), 26-30; Chrysochoou (2010), 30, 58, 83-85, 95. 16 Cuntz (1923), 32-33; Fischer (1932), vol. 1. I, 210, 243-247; Schnabel (1938), 25; Diller (1939), 228-238; Diller (1940), 62-67; Wilson (1981), 395-404; Berggren & Jones (2000), 44; Schartau (1994), 361, 497, 498; Petersen (1999), 77-79. See the maps of the manuscript in http://www.kb.dk/permalink/2006/manus/31/eng/ of the Royal Library of Denmark; Chrysochoou (2010), 30.
4 oikoumene, plus Book VIII with 26 regional maps (10 maps of Europe, four maps of Africa, and 12 maps of Asia). Their similar size (570x420mm.), structure of the text and the arrangement of the maps suggests that these three codices were most probably produced by the same cartographical workshop and they are connected with Maximos Planoudes. The oldest manuscript is Urb. gr. 8217. The oikoumene is depicted with the conical projection A of Ptolemy and the 26 regional maps with the orthogonal cylindrical projection of Marinos. According to the well-known rule of cartography large areas, continents for instance, are drawn better on a small scale, so as to include as large a portion of the earthly surface as possible with the smallest distortion. When drawing the map of the oikoumene using Ptolemy’s two conical projections, especially Β, the results are quite accurate. When, however, a smaller area is drawn, a larger scale should be used; the projection that can reduce any possible distortion to an acceptable level is the orthogonal cylindrical of Marinos. This latter projection was solely used to depict all regional maps in all Byzantine manuscripts of Versions A and B. Const. seragl. 57, with his outstanding oikoumene depicted with conical projection B, is a real piece of art18. It is preserved in the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul and never arrived to the West. The three manuscripts with the 27 maps we have described above belong to the so-called Version A and they differ from the ones with the 64 maps, dated to the 14th century, which belong to Version B. Born in Nikomedeia in Asia Minor, Maximos Planoudes received his education most probably in Constantinople. This was a period which, despite ecclesiastical controversies and political upheavals, experienced a cultural and artistic revival under the patronage of Emperor Andronikos II Palaeologos (1282-1328)19, whose court had attracted, apart from Planoudes, a number of other distinguished intellectuals. We possess no evidence about Planoudes’ teachers or the intellectual circle he frequented as a student. It is very possible that he studied under the scholar George of Cyprus (later Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory II, 1283-1289), then teaching at the Monastery of Christ the Akataleptos, where Planoudes also resided for some time20. If so, it is very likely that he was initiated into arithmetic and geometry by George, who taught both Nikomachos’ Arithmetic and Euclid’s Elements. Planoudes may have also been initiated into Latin by George, who had acquired knowledge of this language in his native land of Cyprus. Sometime between 1283 and 1292 he entered the monastic life. It is possible that he first resided as a monk at the Akataleptos Monastery and at a later stage he moved to the Monastery of Chora. The information about his stay in the latter monastery comes from a subscription in Latin in f. 1r of codex Vat gr. 177, which preserves the Geographike Hyphegesis21: “Claudii Ptolemaei liber geographie et est p[ro]p[r]ius d[omi]ni Maximi philosophi greci ac monaci in |monasterio Chore in constantinop[o]li”. 17
See the map of the oikoumene in: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ptolemy-World_Vat_Urb_82.jpg See the map of the oikoumene in: http://www.ptolemaios.unibe.ch/Weltkarte.jpg 19 Constantinides (1982), 42, 45. 20 Constantinides (1982), 42-44. 21 Constantinides (1982), 68-70; Chrysochoou (2010), 60. 18
5 We know that the grand Logothetes, Theodore Metochites (1270-1332) splendidly restored the Chora Monastery (1316-1321)22, also re-organizing its library, approximately a decade after Planoudes’ death. Metochites, was member of the imperial circles, he studied astronomy and he was student of the eminent astronomer Manuel Bryennios, who was connected with Planoudes23. In conjunction with mathematics, Planoudes studied also Strabo’s Geographica and he had in his possession codex Par. gr. 1393 containing this work. That manuscript is copied by the same scribe, who wrote codices Const. seragl. 57 and Fr. Fabr. gr. 23 of the Geographike Hyphegesis connected with Planoudes and his collaborators24. It seems that Planoudes have simultaneously directed his studies to both Strabo and Ptolemy, which suggests that he wanted to combine the “mathematician” Ptolemy with the “descriptive” Strabo in such a way as to embrace all aspects of geographical knowledge, in order to present a coherent picture for the study and teaching of geography. This approach, already attested in the ninth century, was followed both by John Tzetzes and Eustathios of Thessalonike in the late twelfth century (p. 3 above). Given that the contradictory views about Planoudes’ contribution in the construction of the Ptolemaic maps persist, it becomes imperative to examine the literary evidence afresh. There are two very important testimonies crediting Planoudes for the extremely difficult task of the construction of the Ptolemaic maps. They are found in the codex Ambr. gr. 43 (A 119 sup.) of the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan, which is dated to the 14th century and preserves Planoudes’ letters and his Greek translation of Ovid, Metamorphoses25. They are written by Gregory, Archbishop of Bulgaria, old student /homilites of Planoudes. For reasons unknown to us, in f. 2v are recorded all the poems of Planoudes praising Ptolemy and the Geography. In the upper part of the folio (text, 1) there is the following text as title: “Τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου καὶ σοφωτάτου κυροῦ Μαξίμου τοῦ Πλανούδη εἰς τὸ διάγραμμα τοῦ Πτολεμαίου, ὃ [διάγραμμα] αὐτὸς ἀπὸ τῆς βίβλου τοῦ Πτολεμαίου μὴ παρὰ τινὸς λαβὼν ἀρχάς διενοήσατο καὶ διέγραψεν”. “Of the most holy and most wise Lord Maximos Planoudes, on the diagram of Ptolemy, which [diagram] he [Planoudes], based on Ptolemy’s book, thought out and delineated, having received instructions from no one”. What is that diagram, which the “most wise” Planoudes, “thought out” and “delineated” without any other help than the study of “Ptolemy’s book”, in other words Book I with the Ptolemaic instructions? All previous scholars who studied that text they believed that the diagram is the map 26. But, Strabo, Ptolemy and Planoudes himself name the map, “pinax /πίναξ”27. Something else must be
22
Ševčenko (1975), vol. 4, 28-29, 36-37; Chrysochoou (2010), 60-62, 96-115. Constantinides (1982), 96; Chrysochoou (2010), 61. 24 Diller (1940), 62-71; Chrysochoou (2010), 63, 64. 25 Martini & Bassi (1906), 52; Chrysochoou (2010), 69-75. 26 Kugéas (1909), 116; Wilson (1983), 234; Νavari (1998), 44; Τsiotras (2006), 60. 27 Chrysochoou (2010), 71, n. 213, 216, 217. 23
6 that diagram28. To my view, the diagram has another meaning more precise referring, probably, to a graticule/grid, which can be composed by the intersected parallels and meridians, which form a conical projection as they are recorded by Ptolemy in Book I.24. In that grid Planoudes depicted the maps according to the Ptolemaic instructions. That view was verified by the testimony of the scholar John Chortasmenos (1370-1431), bishop of Selymbria. Almost a century after Planoudes' death, Chortasmenos, studied thoroughly the Ptolemaic treatise in the early 15th century in the Chora Monastery. He, thus, continued the pre-existing tradition of the astronomical and geographical studies in the same monastery. His autograph codices Urb. gr. 80 and Vat. gr. 1059 preserve his astronomical and geographical studies29. In f. 40 of Urb. gr. 80, Chortasmenos depicts the conical projection A naming his drawing “ἐξήγησις καὶ διασάφησις τοῦ διαγράμματος τῆς γῆς ἢ τοῦ τεταρτημορίου” / “explanation and elucidation of the diagram of the earth or the fourth part of it”. We can conclude thus, that the diagram is not a map. It is the grid of the intersected parallels and meridians where the map of the oikoumene is depicted. The use of the term diagram verifies Planoudes’ parallel reading of the two ancient geographers. We must notice here that Ptolemy never used that term in his text. By contrast, Strabo in his Geographica refers to the ancient geographers as follows: “Συντιθέασιν [οἱ φιλομαθεῖς ἄνδρες] εἰς ἓν διάγραμμα τὴν τῆς ὅλης οἰκουμένης ὄψιν”30. “They form [men who are eager to learn] in one diagram their mental image of the oikoumene”. This Strabonic term must be adopted by Planoudes in this passage as the most convenient word for the graticule. Thus, Planoudes combined Ptolemy and Strabo’s texts, and used them to describe the construction of his own graticule31. It seems unlikely that one who simply copied maps from ancient exemplars would have spent considerable time using and combining these texts. It is rather one who is devoted to a systematic and painstaking study of geography and mathematics that would be able to do so. The second piece of evidence (text, 2) which attests to Planoudes’ instrumental role in the construction of the Ptolemaic maps is formed by the verses composed by Archbishop Gregory in the same manuscript f. 2v in memory of Planoudes. These verses reveal the efforts of Planoudes and his collaborators (συντρόφων), presumably, scholars, qualified scribes and artists with good knowledge of mathematics. “Εἴης κατοικῶν τῆς Ἐδὲμ τὸ χωρίον Μάξιμε σοῦ (και) θαῦμα συντρόφων λόγου ἀνθ’ οὗ πόνοις σοῖς ὁ Πτολεμαίου πόνος λήθης βυθοῖς κρυβεὶς γ(ὰρ) πλείστ(ας) εἰκόν(ας) πεφανέρωται πρᾶγμα κρεῖττον (καὶ) λόγου γεωγραφίαν τὴν σοφωτάτην λέγω”. 28
Cf. Liddell & Scott , LSJ (1961), 299, where is specified that: ‘diagram, is a figure marked out by lines, a plan’. Chrysochoou (2010), 71, 72. 30 Geographica, ΙΙ.5.11. 31 Chrysochoou (2010), 69-74. 29
7 “May you live in the place of Eden, Maximos, it was a miracle of yours and of your companions for it was thanks to your labours, that Ptolemy’s labour, hidden in the depths of oblivion, was revealed in numerous images, which is beyond words — I refer to the most wise geography”. In fact, Archbishop Gregory’s epigram is the only text known so far, which provides first-hand information on a group of people, who co-operated with Planoudes in this project. It seems that the expression “πλείστας εἰκόνας” (numerous images) refers to the 27 maps of the “most wise geography” produced under Planoudes’ guidance32. Finally the best testimony about Planoudes’ contribution is his 47 verses poem, Maximos Planoudes’ Praise to Ptolemy33. Maximos Planoudes’ Praise to Ptolemy/ Μαξίμου τοῦ Πλανούδη ἔπαινος εἰς Πτολεμαῖον Θαῦμα μέγα, χθονίοιο περίτροχον ἄντυγα κόσμου Πῶς σοφίῃ Πτολεμαῖος ὑπόψιον ἤγαγε πᾶσαν, ὡς εἴ τις μίαν ἔγραφεν ἐν πινάκεσσι πολίχνην. οὐ μὲν ἐγὼ τοιοῦτον ἴδον ποτὲ πέπλον Ἀθήνης δαίδαλα πάντα φερόντα πολύχροα καὶ κατὰ κόσμον,
1
It is a great earthly miracle how Ptolemy in his wisdom led the round earth before our eyes, as if someone had depicted a small town on maps. I myself have never seen such a peplos of Athene bearing such an elaborate, multicoloured and well-designed decoration as this.
1
οἵην τήνδ’ ἐνόησα Γεωγραφίην ἐρατεινήν, εὔθετον εὐκατάτακτον ἀληθέα μάρτυσι πολλοῖς, τοὶ πολλῶν μερόπων ἴδον ἄστεα καὶ νόον ἔσχον. καὶ δροσερὸν λιβάσιν μὲν ἰδὼν λειμῶνά τις ἤδη εἰαρινοῖς βρίθοντα μέτ’ ἄνθεσι τέρψεμεν ὄσσε
6
In this way I considered the beautiful Geography, its excellent arrangement and orderliness and also its truth, vouched for by many witnesses. So I have seen the cities of many men and learnt much. And just as, when one sees a cool meadow watered by streams and carpeted with spring flowers, his eyes are gladdened
6
32
Chrysochoou (2010), 74, 75. This extremely interesting and revealing poem insofar the history of Ptolemy’s Geographike Hyphegesis is concerned, is preserved in at least six codices, including Ambrosiani graeci 43 (A 119 sup.) and 581 (N 289), ff. 39r-40r; Matritensis gr. N 72, f. 129 v; Par. Coisl. gr. 355 (olim 104); Neapolitanus Borb. gr. 261; Vat. gr. 1411, ff. 127r-v, pp. 586, 587). The last twenty lines of the poem were published by Kugéas (1909), 118; Harlfinger (1992), 337, reproduced the first part of the poem from the Madrid codex; For a modern Greek translation of the poem, see Νavari (1998), 40-42; For an edition and translation into German see Stückelberger (1996), 200-202; an English summary was produced by Berggren & Jones (2000), 49-50; see also Gautier Dalché (2009), 82-83. 33
8 καὶ κραδίην ἐχάρη μέγα θαύματι θαῦμα κεράσσας∙ ἀλλ’ οὐδὲν μετόπισθεν ἐκεῖθεν ἐδρέψατο κέρδος. εἰ δὲ τις ὄμμα βάλῃσι νόον περίεργον ἐρείσας τῇδε Γεωγραφίῃ, τάχ’ ἂν οὐ μέμψαιτο ἑαυτῷ∙ ἀμφ’ ὀλίγῳ καμάτῳ γὰρ ὅλης ἀνεμάξατο γαίης
11
and his heart rejoiced, marveling at the great miracle, 11 without having a profit from that afterwards; if one looks at this Geography with an inquiring mind, he would not reproach himself, for with a little pain he could have sketched out the whole earth: σχῆμα, θέσιν, σχέσιας τ’ ἀλλήλων χωρὶς ἕκαστον, καὶ ποταμῶν προχύσεις πολίων ὀρέων τε κελεύθους, ἔθνεα θ’ ὅσσα νέμοιτο καὶ Ἀμφιτρίτην μετὰ νήσων. ἓν δέ τι ἐξερέω, πᾶν δ’ ἐν φρεσὶ βάλλεο σῇσι μή σε παραπλήξειε ποήσιος οὔνομα σεμνόν,
16
Shape, position, interrelations, and the mouths of rivers and the paths over the snow mountains, and nations that inhabited the earth, and the Amphitrete (i.e., sea) with its islands. And I proclaim that anyone who can grasp this in his mind would do well not to be led astray by the venerable name of poetry.
16
αἴκε μὲν ὠκεανοῖο βαθὺν ῥόον ἐνθάδε λεύσσῃς γῆν μετροῦντα πρόπασαν ἀπειρεσίῃσιν ἐρωαῖς. κλέπτειν ἀτρεκίην γὰρ ἀεὶ φιλέουσι ποηταί, ψευδαλέοις ἐπέεσσι καὶ ἀλλοκότοις ἐνὶ μύθοις. ἱστορίῃ σὺ δὲ μούνῃ πείθεό μοι Πτολεμαίου,
21
If we see here the deep stream of the Ocean which encircles the whole earth with its innumerable currents for the poets like to conceal the truth with false words and strange myths. History, you alone, will be convinced by me that Ptolemy
21
ὅττι καὶ ἀξιόπιστος ἀνήρ, προφερέστατος ἀνδρῶν. οὐδέ μὶν οὐδαμόθεν Διονυσίῳ αὐτὸς ἐίσκω. Τῶν δὲ μὲν οὗν ἅλις∙ ἔργον ἀτὰρ τόδε τηλίκον οἷον νηρίθμοις ἐτέεσσι κεκευθμένον οὔποτ’ ἐραστοῦ ἔμμορεν, ὅς φιλόκαλον ἔχων κέαρ ἐς φάος αὐτὸ
26
is a trustworthy man and superior to them; and in no way can I liken him to Dionysius [Periegetes]. But enough of that. The fact is that so great a work as this remained hidden for countless years without ever coming to the attention of a lover who might lovingly bring it to light,
26
ᾖσι φιλοφροσύνῃσιν ἐφωρμήθη προενεγκεῖν. ἀλλὰ θεοστέπτοιο μένος μεγάλου βασιλῆος Ἀνδρονίκου Ῥωμαίων ἡγητῆρος ἀγαυοῦ
31
9 οἷον ἀνέπλασεν ἄν τις ἐλευθερίοισι λογισμοῖς κάρτα φιλορρώμαιος ἀνακτορέης τύπον εἰκοῦς. motivated by benevolence. But, the God-crowned passion of the great Emperor, Andronikos, illustrious leader of the Romans — such a great man, whom one who truly loves the Romans would remodel with the liberty of thought to resemble the image of a palace —
31
ἔσσυτο καὶ προυτρέψατο θήιον ἄνδρ’ ἐπὶ τῷδε, ποιμένα τὸν πόλις ἔσχεν Ἀλεξάνδροιο θεουδῆ, οἷα σοφὸν καὶ τηλεδαπῶν ἐπιΐστορα χώρων∙ ὃς καὶ τούτου ἕκητι πόνον ἀνεδέξατο πουλύν, τέρμα δ' ἐπισταμένως πινυτῶς τ’ ἐπεθήκατo τῷδε,
36
urged and stimulated on this task the divine man who was the God-fearing pastor of the city of Alexander, such a wise man, and acquainted with distant lands. And for the Emperor’s sake the wise man set himself to the arduous task, and completed it in a skilful and scholarly manner
36
λισσόμενος βασιλῆα θεόν, πάλιν οὕρια γαίης Ῥωμαίων πλατύνειν ἅτ’ἐνὶ προτέροισι βασιλεῦσιν. ἀλλὰ σὺ χαῖρε, μέγα κράτος ἔξοχον Αὐσονιήων, ἀγλαΐῃ χαρίτων φιλίῃ τε κεκασμένε Μουσῶν, ὅττι χρόνοις σοῖς ἔργον τηλίκον ἐξεφαάνθη
41
entreating God to allow the Emperor to enlarge the realm of the Romans to the boundaries it had had under former emperors. Come then rejoice, o great and illustrious country of the Ausonians [Romans], excelling in the splendour of the Graces and the friendship of the Muses, that so great a work has been revealed in your time
41
σπουδῇ ἡμετέρῃ. καί σοι κλέος ἔσσεται αἰεὶ καὶ χάρις ὀψιγόνοισι μετ’ ἀνδράσιν εἵνεκα τοῖο.
46
by our efforts. May your glory endure forever, and grace to your male descendants, on account of this.
46
From the first three lines of the poem it is clear that Planoudes expresses his admiration for Ptolemy's wisdom (σοφίῃ Πτολεμαῖος) having in his mind or, most probably, in front of him a map of the oikoumene. The “great earthly miracle” (Θαῦμα μέγα χθονίοιο) refers to that map, but Planoudes does not state, either here or indeed in the rest of the verses, that Ptolemy is the maker of this map. By contrast, he clearly says that Ptolemy in his wisdom led, guided (ἤγαγε) “the round earth before our eyes”. The choice of this verb does not seem to be accidental. It is a clear reminiscence in the form of a parechesis of the title of Ptolemy’s work, Γεωγραφικὴ Ὑφήγησις. According to this interpretation, Planoudes affirms that if one is guided by Ptolemy —as this was Ptolemy's aim— he should be able to compose a map easily, “as if someone had drawn or depicted (ἔγραφεν) only a small town on maps”. This latter statement implies the method of constructing a
10 map of the oikoumene following Ptolemy’s instructions (Book I.24), and the list of place-names with their co-ordinates (Books II-VII). Thus, the “small town” can be conceived just as a point, formed by the intersection of the parallel with the meridian according to the co-ordinates34. Besides, Ptolemy’s primary aim, as stressed above, was simply to instruct the reader on how to draw a map without copying previous exemplars, given the inevitable distortion from successive copying. Inspired by Homer35, and using also Nonnus of Panopolis Dionysiaca36, Planoudes describes the beauty and colours of the map with its cities, meadows, islands and oceans (lines 4-10), stating that, “he have never seen such a peplos of Athena”, (οὐ μὲν ἐγὼ τοιοῦτον ἴδον ποτὲ πέπλον Ἀθήνης), “bearing such an elaborate, multicoloured and well-designed decoration as this”, (δαίδαλα πάντα φερόντα), “so I have seen the cities of many men and learnt much” (πολλῶν μερόπων ἴδον ἄστεα καὶ νόον ἔσχον), “carpeted with spring flowers, his eyes are gladdened” (εἰαρινοῖς βρίθοντα μέτ’ ἄνθεσι), “and the Amphitrete (i.e., sea) with its islands” (καὶ Ἀμφιτρίτη μετὰ νήσων) “that anyone who can grasp this in his mind” (πᾶν δ’ ἐν φρεσὶ βάλλεο σῇσι), “the deep stream of Ocean” (ὠκεανοῖο βαθὺν ῥόον). Expressing his passion for geography (ἐρατεινὴν γεωγραφίαν), Planoudes states that “if someone looks at this geography with an inquiring mind, he would not reproach himself, for with a little pain he could have sketched out the whole earth” (lines 13-15): εἰ δὲ τις ὄμμα βάλησι νόον περίεργον ἐρείσας / τῇδε γεωγραφίῃ, τάχ’ ἂν οὐ μέμψαιτο ἑαυτῷ∙ / ἀμφ’ ὀλίγῳ καμάτῳ γὰρ ὅλης ἀνεμάξατο γαίης. It is noteworthy, if not incredible, to see a thirteenth century pious monk to compare the map with the peplos of the goddess Athena and to name the sea, metaphorically, as the wife of Poseidon, Amphitrete! Even if he used texts of Homer or Nonnus the real fact is his freedom to do so. Planoudes then advises his reader not to trust the poets, who prefer to conceal the truth with false words and strange myths. On the contrary, he says, “History, you alone, will be convinced by me that Ptolemy is a trustworthy man and superior to them”, unlike Dionysius (lines 24-27), (ἱστορίῃ σὺ δὲ μούνῃ πείθεό μοι πτολεμαίου, / ὅττι καὶ ἀξιόπιστος ἀνήρ, προφερέστατος ἀνδρῶν∙ / οὐδέ μιν οὐδαμόθεν Διονυσίῳ αὐτὸς ἐΐσκω)37. Thus, he makes clear his preference for the wellestablished —through mathematics and geometry— Ptolemaic Geography, from the narrative one of Dionysius Periegetes. In the second section of the poem (line 28) Planoudes introduces the Emperor Andronikos II Palaeologos (μεγάλου βασιλῆος Ἀνδρονίκου Ῥωμαίων ἡγητῆρος ἀγαυοῦ) and the Patriarch Athanasios II of Alexandria (d. ca 1316) (ποιμένα τὸν πόλις ἔσχεν Ἀλεξάνδροιο θεουδῆ). It is well known that Athanasios, persecuted by the Mameluks in 1275-6, abandoned Egypt and found refuge in Constantinople living in the intellectual circles of the Emperor Andronikos II38. According to Planoudes, “The fact is that so great a work as this [Geographike Hyphegesis] remained hidden / for countless years without ever coming to the attention of a lover / who might lovingly bring it to light, / motivated by benevolence” (lines, 28-31): ἔργον ἀτὰρ τόδε τηλίκον οἷον / νηρίθμοις ἐτέεσσι κεκάθμενον οὔποτ’ ἐραστοῦ, / ἔμμορεν ὅς φιλόκαλον ἔχων κέαρ ἐς φάος 34
The verb, “γράφω” / depict is not connected with paintings [Νavari (1998), 41]. Chrysochoou (2010), 77-79. 36 Pontani (2010), 195-199. 37 Planoudes refers here to Dionysius Periegetes (2nd c. AD), and his geographical treatise, Oikoumenes Periegesis. 38 Chrysochoou (2010), 79-81. 35
11 αὐτὸ / ᾖσι φιλοφροσύνῃσιν ἐφωρμήθη προενεγκεῖν. The most likely explanation for the loss of Ptolemy’s treatise is the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade and the destruction of its libraries in 120439. Planoudes states (lines 32-39) that “the God-crowned passion of the great Emperor” (θεοστέπτοιο μένος) that urged the Patriarch to search for a manuscript containing Ptolemy’s treatise, which Athanasios succeeded in finding with considerable efforts (line 40: ὃς καὶ τούτου ἕκητι πόνον ἀνεδέξατο πουλύν), without however specifying where exactly the Patriarch Athanasios traced the manuscript. That poem is the only source connecting the Emperor and the Patriarch with the Geographike Hyphegesis40. Most importantly, Planoudes does not mention whether the Patriarch’s manuscript contained maps. In fact, the existence of maps in this unspecified manuscript of the Geographike Hyphegesis is not recorded either by Planoudes, or by any other contemporary or later source41. There are different views about the finding of this mysterious manuscript42. Stückelberger, ignoring Athanasios biography, expressed the view that he was able to find an old majuscule manuscript with maps, in Egypt or in the Middle East. Though this may be possible, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis43, given the fact that Athanasios remained away from Egypt after 1275 when Planoudes was 15-18 years old. Moreover, if we examine Urb. gr. 82 or Const. ser. 57 we will see that the first 60 folios (570X420 mm) in two columns include the miniscule text and the last 50 folios the maps. If the majuscule writing has been used we must expect, at least, another 60 folios for the text, to include the 8000 places names and their coordinates, most probably, in one column that time. Another question is raised concerning the Emperor’s role in the finding of the manuscript with the Geographike Hyphegesis. Apart from this poem no other source links Andronikos with Ptolemy’s treatise. We do know, however, that Planoudes belonged to the Emperor’s intellectual entourage and corresponded with him. It is very possible therefore, that Andronikos’ interest in Ptolemy may have been instigated by Planoudes. Thus, it is difficult to tell whether it was Andronikos or Planoudes who was actually behind the discovery of the manuscript with the Geographike Hyphegesis, for the simple reason that Planoudes’ encomiastic verses to Andronikos, reflecting his gratitude for his patron, not without the usual tone of flattery, are not clear on this. This observation is strengthened by the fact that Planoudes does not mention in this poem, or indeed anywhere in his surviving works, his own contribution to the finding and study of the manuscript, including the construction of the maps, which are attributed to him by Archbishop Gregory (texts 1, 2). At the end of the poem (lines 45-47), addressing the Emperor, Planoudes exclaims that “such a great work was revealed in your times” (ὅττι χρόνοις σοῖς ἔργον τηλίκον ἐξεφαάνθη). The word “ἐξεφαάνθη” must have been carefully chosen by Planoudes, so that he does not credit the Emperor with something he was not responsible for. What is clear in Planoudes’ poem, therefore, is that the Emperor and the Patriarch are associated simply with the finding of a Ptolemaic geographical manuscript.
39
Constantinides (1982), 134, 146, 151. Chrysochoou (2010), 80. 41 Chrysochoou (2010), 80, 81. 42 Navari (1998), 42, 43; Berggren & Jones (2000), 49. 43 Stückelberger (1996), 204, 205. 40
12 More importantly, the transmission of the penultimate verse (line 46) of the poem contains a variant reading, which shows the confusion of the scribes as to whom the copious efforts concerning the “revealing” of the manuscript should be attributed. Codices Ambrosianus gr. 43 (A 119 sup), f. IIv and Matritensis gr. N 72, f. 129v state, σπουδῆ ἡμετέρη (for σπουδῇ ἡμετέρῃ) (adopted by J. Iriarte and Stückelberger) with reference to Planoudes and his team, while Neapolitanus Borb. gr. 261 states σπουδῆ ὑμετέρη (for σπουδῇ ὑμετέρῃ) with reference to the Emperor and the Patriarch. In Ambrosianus gr. 581 (N 289), f. 39v, the scribe was uncertain and thus copied σπουδῇ ὑμετέρῃ, adding ἡ (as an alternative: ἡ<μετέρῃ>) above the line. The meaning of the second variant (σπουδῇ ὑμετέρῃ) is straightforward. If, however, we accept the first variant (σπουδῇ ἡμετέρῃ) this should include the Emperor, the Patriarch and Planoudes (possibly also his own team). The possibility that Planoudes refers solely to himself by σπουδῇ ἡμετέρῃ is improbable, since the Byzantines did not use the plural for a single person, not even for the emperor or the patriarch. In such case, Planoudes should have used σπουδῇ ἐμῇ. Verses in lines 15-17, as already pointed out, stress the fact that a person “with an inquiring mind he could have sketched out the whole earth with a little pain”. This statement seems to imply that Planoudes was able, or at least aware of how to draw the map of the oikoumene simply by following Ptolemy’s instructions. The fact that nowhere in this poem or elsewhere does he, or indeed other persons, refer to existing maps, suggests that Planoudes constructed the map without having an exemplar in front of him. If so, the verses (in lines 4-6), “I myself have never seen such a peplos of Athena / bearing such an elaborated, multicoloured and well-designed decoration as this”, with reference to the map of the oikoumene (οὐ μὲν ἐγὼ τοιοῦτον ἴδον ποτὲ πέπλον Ἀθήνης / δαίδαλα πάντα φερόντα πολύχροα καὶ κατὰ κόσμον /οἵην τὴν δ’ ἐνόησα γεωγραφίην ἐρατεινήν), should be seen as a description of the map he constructed with his team, following the Ptolemaic instructions. These verses should be taken literally, and not metaphorically. In the final stage of my research I decided to confirm Planoudes’ capabilities to draw the maps constructing three Ptolemaic maps using the Geographical Information System (GIS). Furthermore, my second thought was to go back to the 13th century myself, and draw the map of the oikoumene using the instruments they would have been available to Planoudes or earlier scholars, namely a large piece of paper, a simple graduated ruler and a pair of ordinary compasses. The process of plotting an outline by hand —once the basic graticule has been constructed— would be equally successful though, naturally, much more time-consuming. The first attempt was to reconstruct the maps of the Peloponnese, Crete and Albion with the help of the GIS. Using the Excel program I have compiled a list of the coastal place-names of Albion (66), honoring the country where I had conducted my thesis, the Peloponnese (68), and Crete (46), two Greek areas I knew very well and they are characteristic cartographical examples. I had added their corresponding co-ordinates as stated in Geographike Hyphegesis, Books II and III. This list constitutes the digital data base, which was automatically converted into a graphic one by the GIS and the outlines of the maps they have been drawn automatically. Then, using the Adobe Photoshop program I had copied separately the maps of the Peloponnese, Crete and Albion, from Urb. gr. 82 keeping only their outlines. Thus, it became possible to accurately collate the contour of the plotted and the Byzantine maps. The similarity between the manuscript and computerized maps it was indeed impressive, demonstrating that it is possible to construct a map following Ptolemy’s instructions and lists of place-names with their co-ordinates without using an exemplar,
13 as it was his dictum. The second attempt was to follow Ptolemy’s instructions (Βοοk 1.24) and construct in a piece of paper (1.00x0.70) a rectangular parallelogram ΑΒΓΔ with the two sides ΑΒ and ΓΔ approximately twice the length of ΑΓ and ΒΔ, with AB at the top, representing the North part of the map. The perpendicular straight line EZ divides AB into two equal parts: ΑΒ and ΓΔ. In the same parallelogram I had extended EZ to the North, according to Ptolemy’s instructions, adding another line, EH, where H represents the Northernmost part. Using H as centre I had defined the three most important parallels: the Northernmost parallel (διὰ Θούλης / through Thoule) ΞΟΠ, the parallel of Rhodes (διὰ Ρόδου) ΘΚΛ, the Equator (Ἰσημερινὸς) ΡΣΤ, and the Southernmost parallel (νοτιώτατος) ΦZΧ. I traced the Westernmost meridian ΗΞΘΡ at 0° in the islands of Blessed (Νῆσοι Μακάρων /Canary islands) and the Easternmost meridian HΠΛT at 180° in the borders of China; I had also draw the rest of the 34 meridians, which, according to Ptolemy’s instructions, must be five degrees distant from each other on the parallel of Rhodes (ΘΚΛ), (Plate, 4). In that way the Ptolemaic diagram /graticule was ready for the depiction of the northern African coast with its 248 toponyms, from the Westernmost part of the continent, Cape Kotis (6° West, 35° 55΄ North) to its Easternmost part (64° 50΄ East, 31° 40΄ North). This area comprises Mauritania Tigitane (Maroco), Mauritania Caisarensia (western Algeria), Noumidia, Africa44 (eastern Algeria, Tunisia, western Libya), Cyrenaica (Libya), Marmarike (eastern Libya) and Egypt. I also decided to add the outlines of the south part of the Peloponnese with its most characteristic capes, Acritas, Tainaron, Maleas and the island of Crete, as the southernmost parts of eastern Europe close to Africa (Plate, 5), with the intention to test the results of the construction of their outlines against that of a large continent, and, also, the distance between them in terms of proportion and scale. The resemblance of my drawing with the corresponding maps of codices Urb. gr. 82 and Konst. seragl. 57 is more than impressive. Thus, no one can refuse Planoudes’ capabilities in the construction of the maps, since I had depicted the map myself, without having his mathematical and geometrical knowledge.
GEOGRAPHY IN THE 14th CENTURY Five new illustrated manuscripts of Version B comprising the text of the Geographike Hyphegesis with maps, are dated to the middle of the fourteenth century and beginning of the fifteenth: Ambr. gr. 997 (D 527 inf.), Urb. gr. 83, Const. Seragl. 27, Laurent. gr. Plut. XXVIII.49, and Burney gr. 111. That time the regional maps are 64, not 26 and they are interleaved into the text. Every map is divided in two or more parts according to the text of the corresponding chapters. Thus, the British islands are divided in two maps: Iouernia (Book, II.2.1-12), and Albion (Book, II.3.1-33). The same is for Greece which is depicted in five map: Macedonia and Thessaly (Book, III.13.1-47), Epirus and the Ionian Islands (Book, III. 14.1-13), Achaia-Hellas (Book, III.15.1-31), Peloponnese (Book, III.16.1-23) and, finally, Crete (Book, III.17.1-11). 44
Worthy to note is that Ptolemy names, ὅλην Λιβύην / entire Libya, todays Africa, and Africa today’s eastern Algeria, Tunisia, and western Libya (Geographike Hyphegesis, ΙΙΙΙ.3.1-47).
14 The subdivision of the maps is not at all connected with a possible administrative structure, either of the Roman period or of fourteenth-century Byzantium, but simply represents the chapters of each Book. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that the size of the folios (280x400 mm) are large enough to depict Iouernia and Albion on one map rather than two, as is the case with the five maps that set out Greece and which can be depicted on two facing folios, exactly as in all thirteenth century manuscripts. Besides, and more importantly, the fourteenth century codices Ms. Athos Vatop. 9.655 (34.5x25.5), and Ms. Ven. Marc. 516 (0.33x0.22) belonging to Version A, are smaller than Ambr. gr. 997 (D 527 inf.). We must notice here that up to this point it was paid very little attention in the study of the 14th century manuscripts, and their dating was wrong. The most significant and complete of the five illustrated manuscripts is Ambr. gr. 997 (D 527 inf.), which comprises Ptolemy’s Geographike Hyphegesis with maps (ff. 3r-101r) and Dionysius’ Oikoumenes Periegesis (ff. 101v-117r). The manuscript contains 64 regional maps instead of 26, depicted with the orthogonal cylindrical projection. This time the 64 maps are interleaved through the different chapters of Books II-VII, following the description of each area, thus enabling the reader to relate the textual data provided with the map which portrays each region. At the end of the Book VII and after the depiction of the last regional map of Asia (Taprovane /Sri Lanka), a typical map of the oikoumene is depicted (ff. 94v+95r) using Ptolemy’s conical projection A, which looks similar to the corresponding maps of all Version A manuscripts. This is followed by four other maps, one of Europe (ff. 96v+97r), one of Africa, (ff. 97v+98r), one of North Asia (ff. 98v+99r), and one of South Asia (ff. 99v+100r). These four new subdivided maps have the same size as the map of the oikoumene, but they are drawn with the orthogonal cylindrical projection of Marinos. The Ptolemaic treatise does not contain any instruction for the splitting up of the 26 regional maps into 64, and even more, for the division of the map of oikoumene into four maps and, still more importantly, for the alteration of the projection. In this sense Ambr. gr. 997 (D 527 inf.) presents a different way of reading and editing the Ptolemaic text, which appears to have emerged in the 14th century. The question is why the scholar/s opted for this. Once more, the well-known rule of cartography that large areas, as the oikoumene, are better drawn on a small scale using Ptolemy’s two conical projections, while smaller areas are better drawn on a large scale with Marinos’ orthogonal cylindrical projection45 can define that phenomenon. In the absence of further evidence concerning the existence of such maps in Byzantium prior to the fourteenth century, it is legitimate to assume that this use of the projections and different scales in the cartographical depiction of the oikoumene is the product of a scholar, or a group of scholars, who decided in the 14th century to employ the orthogonal cylindrical projection using the large scale for smaller regions. In this way, Europe is depicted now separately in a single map. The same applies to Africa, and Asia, which, on account of its large surface, is divided into two maps (North and South). If this hypothesis is correct, then the division of the oikoumene reveals a good understanding of cartographical rules in 14th century Byzantium. Concerning the manuscripts of Version B, the question is raised whether these manuscripts with their maps derive from an earlier 45
See p. 4 above.
15 tradition independent from Ptolemy’s Version A. If these manuscripts are based directly on Marinos’ tradition, this would explain the fact that not only the regional maps are drawn according to the orthogonal cylindrical projection, but even more, the map of the oikoumene is divided into four individual maps using also the orthogonal cylindrical projection. This, however, cannot be supported by the available evidence, for so far, apart from Ptolemy (Book I.6-20), no other source mentions Marinos. If we look carefully at the four subdivided maps of the oikoumene in Ambr. gr. 997 (D 527 inf.) we can notice that the graticule on which they are plotted differs in the two maps of Asia where the distance between the meridians is almost half of the corresponding distance between the meridians on the maps of Europe and Africa. In addition, the 14th meridian, east of the river Nile, which separates Africa from South Asia and North Eastern Europe from North Asia, is the point at which the meridians begin to diminish in width, thus presenting Asia double the size of Europe and Africa. This becomes even clearer when we look at the entire map of the oikoumene in all Version A manuscripts where it is depicted using Ptolemy’s conical projections A or B: in every parallel the meridians are completely equidistant throughout the graticule. In order to understand better the reason why the Byzantine scholars drew the four maps of the oikoumene in this way, and indeed how they were able to do so, I employed the GIS program to redraw the four maps on the same scale. The result was that Europe and Africa fit together, joined at the 13th parallel from North to South passing through Gibraltar, the Peloponnese and Crete, thus composing a single map. The same process was applied for the two maps of North and South Asia. They perfectly fit on the same parallel, and thus a second map is produced. However, on account of the very large size of Asia it would be impossible to reconstruct a complete map joining the four maps together using the orthogonal cylindrical projection, for the distortion would be enormous. The only way to produce a complete map where the oikoumene can be depicted without serious distortion is to adopt Ptolemy’s conical projections A or B. This would explain why the Byzantine scholars needed two facing folios to depict the four individual maps of the continents using the orthogonal cylindrical projection. The enormous width of Asia in the orthogonal cylindrical projection could only be depicted by reducing the distance between the meridians ―in other words by reducing their latitudinal width. This leads us to conclude that the Byzantine cartographers of the 14th century were able to construct such maps using both the conical projection A and the orthogonal cylindrical, which presupposes advanced understanding of the use of scale, a practice employed already by Planoudes at the end of the thirteenth century. Thus, the most important question raised concerning the Version B manuscripts is to find the identity of the scholars, who evidently took the study of the Geographike Hyphegesis further, interpreting it in their own way. The responsible of that cartographical achievement was found in the well-known, from Planoudes’ time, cartographical workshop: the Monastery of Chora. It was there where he lived the scholar Nicephoros Gregoras (1293/4-1359/61), who belonged in the same intellectual circle with Planoudes46. Gregoras was student of Theodore Metochites (1270-1332)47, and he continued in the 46
Guilland, R. (1926), 4-6.
16 Monastery, circa 1330, the astronomical and geographical studies. This is testified by codex Par. Coisl. gr. 173 of the Geographike Hyphegesis, bearing, mostly, his grammatical and syntactical scholia devised to correct the Ptolemaic text and facilitate its reading48. Gregoras’ student, Isaac Argyros (1300/10-1371/75), worked in the Chora Monastery following his teacher in the same studies49. Argyros’ geographical scholia are to be found in codex Vat. gr. 176 of the Geographike Hyphegesis50, where he composed two important long scholia concerning Book I.24 with Ptolemy’s instructions for the depiction of the oikoumene on a plane surface (ff. 19v-20r, ff. 26v-27r)51. The most probable date for the copying of Vat. gr. 176 is after 1331/2, when Argyros was already a monk in the Chora Monastery alongside his teacher Gregoras. This strengthens the argument for the continuity of Ptolemaic studies in the Monastery in the middle of the fourteenth century. In his first scholion in Vat. gr. 176, f. 19v, Argyros severely criticized Ptolemy for his way to depict the conical projection A (Book I.24). He starts by presenting the Ptolemaic instructions for the drawing of this projection on which, according to Ptolemy, the map should be constructed in a rectangular parallelogram ABΓΔ of which sides AB and ΓΔ are approximately twice AΓ and BΔ (see p. 13 above). After a series of complex mathematical calculations Argyros estimated the two longest sides AB and ΓΔ as 174° 40΄ and the sort ones ΑΓ and ΒΔ as 97° 25΄, which is not the proportion ½ Ptolemy stated in his treatise. The fact that Argyros, speaking about Ptolemy’s projection, used the same letters of the alphabet to nominate the different points on the drawing indicates that he must have had in front of him a Ptolemaic graticule from the older manuscripts available in the Monastery of Chora. As a result of the analysis of this ‘Ptolemaic error’, Argyros composed his second and most important scholion, analysing step-by-step the method used by Ptolemy for the drawing of his conical projection A, proposing another way to draw the graticule for the construction of the map. For his own graticule (Plate, 6), Argyros drew the horizon as a large circle ΑΒΓ with Δ as its centre and its diameter ΑΓ identified with the Equator, placing there a semi-circle representing the Northern inhabited hemisphere that is the oikoumene. He then added as three homocentric arcs the Northern parallel of Thule (ΗΛΖ), the parallel of Rhodes (ΠΡΣ) and the Equator (ΑΚΓ)52. Thus, he succeeded in depicting Ptolemy’s conical projection A. He did so, having in mind his first scholion, where the analogy of HΣ to ΗΟ corresponds to the analogy of ΡΣΤ to ΞΟΠ. If we compare the two graticules –the one according to Ptolemy’s instructions and the one by Argyros– we will find that the map of the oikoumene in Urb. gr. 82 fits to Ptolemy’s diagram (Plate, 2), while the map of the oikoumene in Ambr. gr. 997 (D 527 inf.) perfectly fits to the diagram, which can be traced using Argyros’ instructions (Plate, 6). In the latter case even if the meridians number 36, and their distance is 5˚, the Equator and Thule’s parallel are not so large as in Urb. gr. 82. This means that Argyros’ ΘO is longer than Ptolemy’s HE. Otherwise, if ΘO and HE are equals, the Equator in Argyros’ shape is shorter than Ptolemy’s Equator, or Argyros’ central
47
Guilland, (1926); Constantinides (1982), 91, 92, 97, 98; Chrysochoou (2010), 103-105. Τsiotras (2006), 63-193, 384-444; Chrysochoou (2010), 105-107. 49 Constantinides (1982), 92, 97; Τsiotras (2006), 127-131; Chrysochoou (2010), 107-109. 50 Τsiotras (2006), 132-136, 146-149; Chrysochoou (2010), 107-109. 51 Τsiotras (2006), 150-155; In pages 427-432 are published the two scholia of Argyros. 52 Chrysochoou (2010), 108, 109. 48
17 meridian ΘΝ is longer than Ptolemy’s ΗΖ. It is obvious that the Ptolemaic studies have been continued in the Chora Monastery after Planoudes’ death ca. 1305-10, and a second important period was the one with Gregoras and Argyros ca. 1330-60. After Argyros’ death another scholar, John Chortasmenos (1370-1431), continued the Ptolemaic studies both of astronomy and geography in the Chora Monastery. His own autograph codices are Vat. gr. 1059 and Urb. gr. 80. In fact Vat. gr. 1059 is an apograph of Vat. gr. 176, including the Geographike Hyphegesis annotated by Argyros. On f. 22r of Vat. gr. 1059 Chortasmenos remarked that, “Argyros’ scholia were very useful for the first shape for the depiction of the oikoumene on a plane surface”, thus agreeing with Argyros’ criticism against Ptolemy’s instructions in Book I.24 for the depiction of the oikoumene53. Urb. gr. 80 clearly presents Chortasmenos’ efforts to understand and explain Ptolemy’s treatise in copying Argyros’ two scholia54. During our research it became evident that Chortasmenos was the scribe and, presumably, the owner of codex Burney 111 of the Geographike Hyphegesis, with 65 maps of Version B, now in the British Library55. Thus, we can assume that Burney 111, the result of the copious geographical studies of Chortasmenos, chronologically follows Vat. gr. 1059 and Urb. gr. 80 and can be dated ca. 1415-1420. CONCLUSIONS Working in Alexandria, a major centre of commerce, scholarship and culture, Ptolemy collected geographical and astronomical data from any available source —including lists of locations used in itineraries over land and accounts of coastal voyages. He was a ‘polymath’ on account of his profound knowledge of all branches of the exact sciences, including mathematics, astronomy, physics, optics, harmonics and geography. Ptolemy’s approach to geography is his strict scientific method, devoid of any desire to propagate or please political interests and masters. In his geographical texts he never mentions anything about the powerful Roman Empire of his time, in contrast to Dionysius Periegetes, who, ‘ne manquait pas de glorifier Rome’ as Germaine Aujac judiciously put it56. In fact, he is the philosopher of the earth as it is pointed correctly in Souda: ‘Ptolemy, Claudius, from Alexandria, was a philosopher; “Πτολεμαῖος, ὁ Κλαύδιος χρηματίσας, Ἀλεξανδρεύς, φιλόσοφος”. Τhe same, seems to me, to be true for the “humanist” Planoudes, on account of his own contributions not only to mathematics, astronomy, harmonics and geography, but also to grammar and rhetoric, translations of Latin works, editions and commentaries of texts, poetry and theology. Presumably, the most outstanding of all his scientific achievements was the revival of the Ptolemaic Geographike Hyphegesis, and the construction of the maps. Planoudes’ legacy was followed by Gregoras, Argyros, Chortasmenos. All of them were monks or clergymen, who apart from theology studied also classical texts and scientific treatises, especially 53
Τsiotras (2006), 150. Chrysochoou (2010), 112. 55 Chrysochoou (2010), 113, n. 374. 56 Aujac (1993), 188. 54
18 mathematics. This shows the degree of freedom scholar-churchmen enjoyed in Orthodox Byzantium in their pursuit of secular wisdom. They had studied the Ptolemaic Geography, not as topographers engineers in the service of the empire. It is hardly to believe that the Emperor Andronikos II could ever decide to send these pious monks to survey the boundaries of the state! This in turn raises the question whether these scholars, while constructing their maps, had in their minds cartography in its proper sense, that of a science aiming to represent with accuracy the space of the earthly sphere on a plane surface, or whether they were simply enjoying an academic exercise of a very high standard, as philosophers do in the sphere of ideas. Following Ptolemy’s approach, Planoudes and the other Byzantine scholars who studied the Geographike Hyphegesis did not attempt to correct or update Ptolemy’s treatise on the basis of contemporary geographical information available to them. Nor is there evidence to suggest that they traveled or navigated in order to confirm Ptolemy’s data, or indeed that they questioned these data —they simply accepted that these were accurate and indisputable. This academic exercise, or ‘intellectual game’ one might say, of constructing the map of oikoumene and regional maps solely on the basis of the data provided in Ptolemy’s Geographike Hyphegesis, involved no less an emperor, a patriarch and a team of scholars, scribes and craftsmen, some of whom were men of the cloth, who continued the long tradition of the study of ancient Greek literature and culture in Byzantium. In the Greek Orthodox East, ancient Greek texts were always available and therefore they were read, studied, re-edited and commented upon continually throughout the Byzantine period and beyond. Thus, in the last two centuries of the Eastern Roman Empire —the so-called Byzantium— the rebirth of Ptolemy’s Geographike Hyphegesis held a very important place in the cultural movement, which Steven Runciman describe as “the last Byzantine Renaissance”.
ΒΙΒΛΙΟΓΡΑΦΙΑ Agostino, d’M., (Rome, 1996). ‘Tolomeo, Geografia’, Vedere i classici: l’illustrazione libraria dei testi antichi dall'età romana al tardo medioevo, ed. Buoncore, M. Aujac, G., (Paris, 1993). Claude Ptolémée astronome, astrologue, géographe. Bagrow, L., (1946). “The Origin of Ptolemy’s Geographia”, Geografiska Annaler 27, 318-387. Berggren, J.L., & Jones, A., (Princeton & Oxford, 2000). Ptolemy's Geography. An Annotated Translation of the Theoretical Chapters. Chrysochoou, S., (2010). The Cartographical Tradition of Ptolemy’s Geographike Hyphegesis in the Palaeologan Period and the Renaissance (13th-16th c.), Ph.D. Thesis, Hellenic Institute, Royal Holloway College, University of London. Constantinides, C., (Nicosia, 1982). Higher Education in Byzantium in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries (1204-ca.1310). Cuntz, O., (Berlin, 1923). Die Geographie des Ptolemaeus. Galliae, Germania, Raetia, Noricum, Pannoniae, Illyricum, Italia. Handschriften, Text und Untersuchung. Deissmann, A., (Berlin & Leipzig, 1933). Forschungen und Funde im Serai, mit einem Verzeichnis der nichtislamischen Handschriften im Topkapu Serai zu Istanbul. Dilke, O.A.W., (London, 1985). Greek and Roman Maps.
19 Dilke, O.A.W., (Chicago, 1987). “The Culmination of Greek Cartography’ και ‘Cartography in the Byzantine Empire’”. In: The History of Cartography, Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient, and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean (eds. J.B. Harley & D. Woodward), 177-200, 258-275. Diller, A. (1937). “The Vatopedi Manuscript of Ptolemy and Strabo”. AJPh 58, 174-184. Diller, A., (1939). “Lists of Provinces in Ptolemy’s Geography”. CPh 34, 87-97. Diller, A., (1940). ‘The Oldest Manuscripts of Ptolemaic Maps’, TAPA 71, 62-67. Diller, A., (Amsterdam, 1975). The Textual Tradition of Strabo’s Geography Fischer, J., (Leiden & Leipzig, 1932). Claudii Ptolemaei Geographiae, codex Urbinas graecus 82, Phototypice depictus consilio et opera curatorum bibliothecae Vaticanae, 2 vols. in 4 parts. Gautier Dalché, P., (Turnhout, 2009). La Géographie de Ptolémée en Occident (IVe -XVIe siècle). Gentile, S., (1992a). “Emanuele Crisolora e la “Geographia” di Tolomeo”. In: Dotti bizantini e libri greci nell’Italia del secolo XV: Atti del convegno internazionale Trento 22-23 Ottobre 1990 (ed. Μ., Cortesi & E.V., Maltese), 291-308. Gentile, S., (Florence, 1992b). Firenze e la scoperta dell’America Umanesimo e geografia nel ‘400 Fiorentino. Guilland, R., (Paris, 1926). Essai sur Nicéphore Grégoras, l’homme et l’œuvre. Harlflinger, D., (Wiesbaden, 1992) Die Wiedergeburt der Antike und die Auffindung Amerikas: 2000 Jahre Wegbereitung einer Entdeckung: Bildkatalog zur Ausstellung 337. Honigmann, Ε., (1930). “Marinos von Tyros Geograph und Kartograph”. RE XIV, 1767-1796. Kugéas, S., (1909). “Analecta Planudea”. BZ 18, 106-146. Martini, E., & Bassi, D., (Milan, 1906). Catalogus codicum graecorum Bibliothecae Ambrosianae. Müller, C., (Paris, 1867). “Rapports sur les manuscrits de la Géographie de Ptolémée”. In: Archives des Missions Scientifiques et Littéraires, 2ème série 4, 279-298. Νavari, L., (Αthens, 1998). “Ὁ Κλαύδιος Πτολεμαῖος ἡ Γεωγραφικὴ Ὑφήγηση καὶ τὸ πτολεμαϊκὸ πρόβλημα”. In: Κλαύδιος Πτολεμαῖος, Γεωγραφικὴ Ὑφήγησις. Claudius Ptolemaeus, Geographia: Ὁ Ἑλληνικὸς Κώδικας 388 τῆς Μαρκιανῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τῆς Βενετίας, 33-49. Nobbe, C.F.A., (Leipzig, 1843-45, Hildesheim, 1966-1990). Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia. Petersen, E., (ed.), (Copenhagen, 1999). Living Words & Luminous Pictures. Medieval Book Culture in Denmark, Catalogue. Pontani, F., (2010). “The World on a Fingernail: an Unknown Byzantine Map”. Traditio 65, 177200. Prato, G., (1979). “Scritture librarie arcaizzanti della prima età dei Paleologi e loro modelli ». Scrittura e civiltà 3, 151-193. Schartau, B., (Copenhagen, 1994). Codices Graeci Hauniensis. Ein descriptiver Katalog des griechischen Handschriftenbestandes der Königlichen Bibliothek Kopenhagen. Schnabel, P., (Leipzig, 1938). “Text und Karten des Ptolemäus”. In: Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte der Geographie und Völkerkunde 2, ed. A. Hermann. Ševčenko, I., (Princeton, 1975). “Theodore Metochites, the Chora, and the Intellectual Trends of his Time”. In: The Kariye Djami (ed. P.A., Underwood), vol. 4, 17-91. Stornajolo, C., (Rome, 1895). Codices Urbinates graeci bibliothecae Vaticanae. Stückelberger, A., (1996). “Planoudes und die Geographia des Ptolemaios”. Museum Helveticum 53, 197-205. Stückelberger, A., & Grasshoff, G., (Basel, 2006). Ptolemaios Handbuch der Geographie Stückelberger, A., & Mittenhuber, F., (Basel, 2009). Ptolemaios Handbuch der Geographie,
20 Ergänzungsband mit einer Edition des Kanons bedeutender Städte. Swerdlow, N.M., (Washington, 1993). “The Recovery of the Exact Sciences of Antiquity: Mathematics, Astronomy, Geography”. In: Rome Reborn (ed. A. Grafton), 125-168. Tsiotras, B., (Αthens, 2006). Ἡ Ἐξηγητικὴ Παράδοση τῆς Γεωγραφικῆς Ὑφηγήσεως τοῦ Κλαυδίου Πτολεμαίου. Οἱ Ἐπώνυμοι Σχολιαστές. Tudeer, L.O.T., (1917). “On the Origin of the Maps Attached to Ptolemy’s Geography”. JHS 37, 62-76. Foteinos, Ν., (Αθήνα, 1977). Μαρῖνος ὁ Τύριος Μέγας Ἕλλην γεωγράφος σχεδιαστὴς τοῦ ναυτικοῦ χάρτου. Wilson, N.G., (1981). “Miscellanea Palaeographica”. GRBS 22, 395-404. Wilson, N.G., (London, 1983). Scholars of Byzantium.
PLATES Plate 1. The οrthogonal cylindrical projection of Marinos Plate 2. Ptolemy’s conical projection Α Plate 3. Ptolemy’s conical projection B Plate 4. The construction of the diagram using the instruments of Planoudes’ time Plate 5. The depiction of Africa’s northern coast on the Planoudean diagram Plate 6. Conical projection according to Isaac Argyros drawing
21
22
23
