...40 and a half degrees for the longitude of Rome. Likewise, in other places, Ptolemy assumes longitudes for some cities in the Almagest that differ from those he places in this Geography. To me, however, by way of answer, it seems one can say that when Ptolemy wrote the Almagest, he had not yet compiled this geographical work. Thus, at that time, he assumed the longitudes of some cities according to some more famous author, perhaps Marinus of Tyre. When, however, he wrote the Geography, he applied greater consideration to this task and did not wish to follow any one particular author, but examined the opinions and differences of all geographers—especially those of Marinus, whom he preferred above the others—valuing for this task the itinerary distances he elicited from histories. Thus, he completed the work perfectly, the parts of which could fit together most excellently. Furthermore, I say that Ptolemy did not care to write the distances of places and their longitudes with absolute precision, for in the Geography itself there are some things that agree little with one another. This certainly does not happen due to the negligence of this distinguished author, but due to the difficulty of the subject matter itself. For example, in the third book of this work, he places the longitude of the city of Rome at 36 degrees and 40 minutes. Later, in the eighth book, he says that Rome is distant from Alexandria by one hour and a half, which is nothing other than placing Rome at a longitude of 38 degrees. For if 22 and a half degrees, which correspond to one hour and a half, are subtracted from the 60 and a half degrees of the longitude of Alexandria, there remain 38 degrees for the longitude of Rome. It could also be said that the numbers of Ptolemy abound with errors, which would be quite reasonable, given that such diversity is observed in these numbers in various copies of this Geography.

That Ptolemy wrote the Almagest before the Geography appears clearly at the end of the second book of the Almagest in these words:

But the matter of angles now being finished, it would follow that we should compute the distances of illustrious cities according to longitude and latitude in relation to appearances. But since this task is principal in itself and is connected to geographical reasoning, we shall place it alone and separately before our eyes, in which we shall follow those who have handed down this kind of history as much as possible. We shall also ascribe by how many degrees each illustrious city is distant from the Equinoctial Equator according to the meridian described through them, and by how many degrees the meridian of each city toward the East or West on the Equinoctial is distant from the Meridian which is designated through Alexandria. For to this are the times of our calculations accommodated.

What Ptolemy promises here, he therefore performed excellently in this Geography of his, by placing the longitudes and latitudes of all cities and places, and in the eighth book he notes indeed the distances of the meridians of illustrious cities from the meridian of Alexandria, which distances, excerpted from Ptolemy, we have placed before his ancient maps. Those who deny that Ptolemy was the author of this Geography have another foundation: that he did not compile the Almagest, but flourished long after. They elicit this from chapter 8, book 1 of this Geography, in which the author makes mention of Julius Maternus, when he says that Julius Maternus arrived from Leptis Magna in four months to the region of the Ethiopians. If, therefore, this was that Julius Maternus who wrote about the judgments of the stars to Lollianus, and who flourished in the time of the Emperor Flavius Constantine, around the year of the Lord 320, as is evident from the preface of his own first book, where he remembers the aforementioned Emperor reigning at that time, there is no doubt that the author of this geographical work was much later than that Ptolemy who wrote the Almagest in the times of Antoninus Pius, that is, around the year of the Lord 150. But it can be answered that there were two Julius Materni rather than two Ptolemies, especially since the one who wrote about Judgments is named Julius Firmicus Maternus Junior, that is, later than the other. Furthermore, this same Maternus often makes mention of Ptolemy, that is, in the preface of the second book, in chapter 32, and elsewhere as well. To these I add that Ptolemy in the Geography and in the Almagest assumes the same maximum solar declination, namely 23 degrees and 30 minutes. Furthermore, in the Geography he maintains the same method in collecting the sides of triangles and the magnitude of angles that he follows in the Almagest, as is clear in the last chapter of the first book of this work. But why do I waste time in the confirmation of this truth with probable reasons and conjectures, if the author himself in the eighth book of this Geography openly confirms that he wrote the Almagest or the Great Composition, when he says: "But when in the Mathematical Composition The Almagest we showed that the sphere of the fixed stars also falls in the sequence of the world around the Tropics and the Equinoctial signs, and not at all around the Equinoctial poles, but around those which are in the middle of the circles through the Zodiac, just as those of the wandering stars planets do." Which he certainly did in the third chapter of the seventh book of the Almagest. Therefore, I think no one will doubt this matter further. That this author lastly also wrote four books on the Judgments of the Stars is evident from the seventh chapter of the second book of the Quadripartitum, where he cites the eighth book of the Great Composition. And let these things suffice for the present chapter.

The Author's Intention.

A woodcut ornamental initial 'R' is decorated with leafy scrolls and a small architectural landscape in the background.

It remains, finally, for us to say that the scope or intention of this author in this work was not only to place before the eyes the true position of all parts of the inhabited earth with their due distances and sites, just as all regions and places maintain themselves in relation to one another; but also to instruct the student, so that with firm reasons and rules he might again be able to complete a universal or particular description of the whole globe or any part of it. Now, however, let us proceed to the explanation of the text.

ANNOTATIONS

ON THE FIRST CHAPTER

OF THE FIRST BOOK.

A large historiated woodcut initial 'G' depicts a seated figure, likely a scholar or astronomer, holding a measuring instrument and looking towards a globe or celestial sphere within a decorative frame.

"Geography is an imitation of a picture of the whole of the known part of the earth," etc. The author proposes first at the beginning of this chapter the definition of Geography itself, saying that Geography is an imitation of a picture of the whole of the known part of the earth, with those things which are annexed to it, as it were, universally. And he says indeed an "imitation of a picture," and not a picture itself, because a picture is properly that which expresses and represents before our eyes various things from which it is taken. Geography, however, does not provide such a picture of all parts of the known earth, but rather describes, either on a plane or on a globe, all places and the more principal parts, by noting them with points, or circles, or other signs of this kind, near which he writes the names of those places, rivers, lakes, and mountains which are represented by such signs. He strives, however, that these signs obtain the same distances, sites, and positions, both among themselves and with respect to the heavens, which those same places of the earth that are figured by such signs possess. Furthermore, it must be noted that the author says "of the whole of the known part of the earth," and not absolutely of the whole world, because in his time the whole earth was not known, but only about a fourth part, which contains 80 degrees according to latitude and 180 degrees according to longitude, as can be seen in his universal description. Nor, indeed, in our times is the whole world explored, although after Ptolemy a much larger portion has been detected by the voyages and travels of most skillful men. By "part of the known earth," we must also understand not simple earth, but at the same time the rivers, seas, or other waters which irrigate and surround the earth.

"It differs from Chorography," etc. We have said that Geography does not care to describe exactly all the smallest and particular things which are on the earth, and to represent them to our eyes in their likeness, because this pertains to another faculty, which is called Chorography. This word is derived from Choros or chora, which signifies a place or region, and from the verb grapho, which means to describe. Hence, it is worth as much to say "Chorography" as the description of a place or region, that is, of one particular city or one particular territory, in which are noted all towns, villages, mountains, rivers, lakes, and any other smallest things. This same faculty is called by others Topography, which word signifies the same as above, because topos is interpreted as "place." There are, however, those who set this distinction between the two: that Chorography is occupied with the linear description of a particular place, whereas Topography describes the place of the same thing only in words, not by signs. Geography therefore differs from Chorography, first, in this: that Geography describes the whole known earth according to due quantity, proportion, and disposition,