This is a MapHist list message (when you hit 'reply' you're replying to the
whole list)
o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o +
In response to John Hebert and others, I now seem to recall that I looked
at the famous Diogo Ribeiro world map which (like Cantino) depicts the
treaty line although this Ribeiro map was made 20 years later circa 1530 --
after the major maritime conference between the Portuguese and Spanish in the
mid-1520 not long after the completion of the Magellan circumnavigation in
late 1522.
Somehow I came up with the figure of 52 degrees longitude west as to
where on the north coast of South America the Tordesillas treaty line hits
the coast as shown either in the Cantino or Ribeiro maps which as I recall
were very close in this regard. However, I would have to double-check
because I do not have access to the Ribeiro map at the moment.
In any case, turning to the Waldseemueller world map of 1507, I do not
see how one can argue that the Saint-Die scholars committed themselves in
this map to a precise position as to how that treaty line would or should
run southward through the new southern continent -- even though as John
Hebert emphasizes there are 2-3 clear indications or references or hints to
the
existence of this demarcation line in several places in the map.
My problem is that the straight edge and presumed bisection of a land
mass in the North Atlantic does not run parallel to any give line of
longitude in the Waldseemueller map. And I assume here that the treaty line
was
understood by both parties to this treaty to run from pole to pole -- which
should mean that any depiction of that treaty line should show it running
parallel to longitudinal lines. But this is not the case in the
Waldseemueller map of 1507. Quite the contrary.
At best it seems that the straight edge coast of the island in the
North Atlantic lies or falls between the two lines of longitude that are 60
and 70 degrees longitude west of London -- because fortunately Waldseemueller
has one line of longitude on his map run right through London (meaning
essentially Greenwich) on his map but for his grid this line through London
represents 20 degree east of where he ran or placed the Meridian line on his
map.
In any case, the conversion to modern longitude is simple to do (just
add 20 degrees).
And in this regard the straightedged west side of the land
mass/island in question in the North Atlantic with Portuguese flags that lies
on the
east side of the presumed treaty line is placed or located by
Waldseemueller in the North Atlantic between the lines of 60 and 70 degrees
longitude
west of London/Greenwich as we calculate it today.
If I am not in error here, this does not mesh well with the precise
depiction in the Cantino map which has the treaty line touching the north
coast of South America at a specific point whose longitude we can know.
I assume here that in the past I found that point of intersection to be 52
degrees longitude west -- though as Hebert observes originally the
demarcation line was defined or negotiated as being so many leagues west of a
known position.
If my analysis is not flawed, then it would not seem the Saint-Die
scholars made a made unambiguous bow or tilt in favor of Lisbon here in this
map with regard to the specific question as to exactly where the treaty line
should run through the new southern continent. They do not seem to commit
themseves as to where on the northern coast the treaty line separates the
Spanish and Portuguese zones. On the other hand, they did not cheat
Portugal and gave Lisbon its due with that little Portuguese flag at the
bottom
of the map along the east coast.
Perhaps I have missed something here.
Off hand, I cannot add anything more except to say that I still
believe that the Grand Prevot Louis Dommartin and the Ringmann-Waldseemueller
team under his supervision tried to avoid interjecting themselves into
delicate legal matters (the treaty line and the dispute between the Spanish
Crown
and the Columbus family) and also struck a political balance in packaging
their product, surely so with the carefully balanced dedications to King
Ferdinand and the Emperor Maxmilian for the reasons which I discussed in a
previous post.
Fernandez-Armesto underestimates the political and technical
sophistication of the Saint-Die scholars in my opinion. I do not think that
they
were "suckered" into accepting Vespucci's Letters at face value as he
claims in his Vespucci biography because if they had done that, then the
Waldseemueller map would have been more more meager, much more unimpressive in
terms of the geographical knowledge reflected in Waldseemueller's map and
globe gores. They knew a lot more -- from Portugual for sure -- that took
them beyond what Vespucci claims or reveals in his accounts of his two voyages
for Portugual.
I appreciate the post from one Maphister giving more details about
the Corte Real brothers.
Peter Dickson
_______________________________________________
MapHist: E-mail discussion group on the history of cartography
hosted by the Faculty of Geosciences, University of Utrecht.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of
the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of
Utrecht. The University of Utrecht does not take any responsibility for
the views of the author.
List Information: http://www.maphist.nl
Maphist mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.geo.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/maphist
