Medieval Maps and Monsters

Medieval Maps and Monsters

If Bob Seidensticker, New Atheist author of the Cross Examined blog, knows anything about the Middle Ages, he knows they were bad. According to Seidensticker, this was a period in which “Christianity was in charge” and learning and reason suffered as a result. So when Seidensticker looked at the medieval Hereford Map, he did not like what he saw.

The Hereford mappa mundi

In a blog post entitled “When Christianity Was in Charge, This Is What We Got”, Seidensticker made it very clear how disgusted he was with those stupid medieval Christians who created the Hereford Map. For people like Seidensticker, history is divided into “good” and “bad” periods. The “good” ones are where we seem to find elements that we moderns like or approve of, like science, reason, developing technology, exploration, intellectual curiosity, increasing knowledge etc. The “bad” ones are where, apparently, we find less of these elements, but more things like religion, superstition, ignorance, insularity, dogma and things taken on faith. Therefore the Middle Ages have to, by this simple Whiggish formulation, fall into the “bad” category. And the Hereford Map or, more correctly, mappa mundi, is thus a product of one of the “bad” periods and so also a bad thing.

The Hereford mappa mundi is not strictly a map, in the modern sense of the word. It is more of a geographical diagram, encoding a range of information in visual and textual form. It is drawn mainly in black ink, with red and gold highlights and uses green or blue for seas and rivers. The entire work is on one large piece of vellum, 158 cms high and 133 cms wide, making it over five feet at its widest point and therefore made of a whole skin of a large calf. Unusually for any medieval map, it carries an inscription that mentions its maker:

Let all who have this history, Or shall hear or read or see it,

Pray to Jesus in His Divinity, To have pity on Richard of Haldingham and Lafford,

Who has made and planned it, To whom joy in heaven be granted

“Richard of Haldingham and Lafford” is most likely Richard de Bello, prebend of Lafford in Lincoln Cathedral in around the year 1283, who later became an official of the Bishop of Hereford, and in 1305 was appointed prebend of Norton in Hereford Cathedral. This means the mappa was most likely created in Lincoln by a team of scholars, scribes and illuminators under Richard’s direction, and then found its way to Hereford after his appointment there. It would then have been bequeathed to Hereford Cathedral on his death c. 1326. Note that on the mappa Lincoln is shown as large and important like London, but Hereford is much less prominent.

Like all such medieval “O-T maps”, it places Jerusalem symbolically at its centre and is oriented with the east at the top and the north to the left side; meaning Britain is squeezed into the edge of its bottom left quadrant. Despite its diagrammatic style, even a modern viewer can find their way around the mappa once they work out its orientation. But this is a tool for instruction rather than a chart for navigation, so as well as listing 420 cities and towns and marking over 100 rivers, it depicts Biblical events and locations, various animals and plants, historical people and scenes from Classical mythology (a large-scale image of the mappa can be explored in detail here).

For most people, even those without any great interest in medieval culture, the Hereford mappa is at least a fascinating artefact – unique in its size and remarkable for its wealth of detailed information and illustrations. But for Seidensticker it is “bizarre”, but also an occasion for a sermon on science and religion.

A medieval illumination of a headless Blemmyes.
A medieval illumination of a headless Blemmyes.

Snarks and Grumpkins

Seidensticker acknowledges that a medieval mappa mundi was often not like a modern map:

This is not the kind of map we’re used to. There is little attempt at accurate geography. This map wouldn’t serve an explorer or navigator, and its creators didn’t pretend that it would. Using the theme of a world map, medieval cartographers embellished maps like this one to make them into something of an encyclopedia. 

He claims the problem here was that “science was in its infancy” and so the information this diagrammatic encyclopedia preserves is, to us, “bizarre”. This is entirely true, but because of his anti-religious biases, Seidensticker puts the blame for this on medieval Christianity. Firstly, he emphasises the silliness of many of the elements in the mappa by comparing it to the surrealism of Lewis Caroll’s Through the Looking-Glass, where Alice reads the nonsensical pseudo-heroic poem “Jabberwocky” and then has some of its terms explained to her by the pedantic but equally nonsensical Humpty Dumpty. Seidensticker sneers:

Assuming our interest is the real world rather than Wonderland, the zoology we’re taught by the Mappa Mundi might as well have come from Humpty Dumpty.

He then gives us some examples of the ridiculous races and beasts we find on the mappa: hopping Sciapods, with their single huge foot that they also use to shield themselves from the tropical sun, the warlike but headless Blemmyes with their faces in their chests, the dog-headed but otherwise human Cynocephali, and the cave-dwelling Troglodites. All about as “scientific” as the borogoves or mome raths of “Jabberwocky”, to be sure. Then there are mythic beasts like griffins and salamanders and the bonnacon, with its explosive diarrhea. But it gets worse:

Even actual animals are misunderstood. The map reports, “The Lynx sees through walls and urinates a black stone.”

Our poor benighted ancestors cannot get the most fundamental things straight. So Jerusalem is placed at the geographical centre of the world, the locations of Biblical events are portrayed and myth and history are hopelessly muddled:

We see Jason’s Golden Fleece and the Labyrinth where Theseus killed the Minotaur, but we also see the camp of Alexander the Great.

What on earth were these people thinking? Well, according to Seidensticker, the problem was that they were not thinking. And this was because of the stranglehold Christianity had on their poor befuddled minds:

Christianity has been given a chance at understanding reality, and this is what it gave us. When Christianity was in charge, the world was populated by mystical creatures, we had little besides superstition to explain the caprices of nature, and natural disasters were signs of God’s anger.

Of course, some of Seidensticker’s readers might pause there and ask exactly what the mystical creatures have to do with Christianity. The Biblical events and places found on the map clearly do derive from Christian holy writ, obviously, but where is the connection between Blemmyes and Christianity? If the Cynocephali and the salamander are not from the Bible, where did the makers of the mappa get their bizarre and unscientific information from?

Medieval illumination of monstrous races.
Medieval illumination of monstrous races.

The Authority of Ancient Authorities

The answer is that they got their information from the scientific works of the Greeks and Romans. All of the races and beasts on the Hereford mappa that Seidensticker finds so ludicrous can be found in the pages of the largest and most comprehensive scientific work available in the Middle Ages – the Naturalis Historia by Pliny the Elder. Gaius Plinius Secundus (23–79 AD) had a military and then political career, before famously dying while trying to observe the eruption of Vesuvius which destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum. He wrote a number of books, ranging from one on the use of missile weapons by cavalry to a 20 book history of the Roman wars in Germania, which sadly does not survive. But he is best remembered for the Naturalis Historia: a massive 37 book encyclopaedia summarising a wide range of Greek and Roman authors on astronomy, mathematics, geography, ethnography, anthropology, human physiology, zoology, botany, agriculture, horticulture and much more.

Pliny himself tells us that no-one before him had undertaken such a comprehensive catalogue of ancient knowledge of the physical world, and his work remains one of the most substantial surviving ancient texts and a remarkable source of information about ancient proto-science that draws on over 400 earlier sources, most of which are now lost.

It was even more invaluable in the Middle Ages, given that it was one of the most extensive repositories of the wisdom of the ancients to survive the wreckage of the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The evidence of surviving medieval manuscripts of the Naturalis shows what a vital source it was to a culture that was forced to scavenge in a few surviving works for lost information from the “authorities” of a bygone age.

Pliny drew on other, earlier works and cited and quoted them extensively. A careful medieval scholar would also have found elements of the information he gives in other surviving ancient works – something that would have bolstered the authority of Pliny still further. And much of the other information in the Naturalis certainly seemed to be based on sound reasoning and observation. So Naturalis II.21 gives the reader a carefully reasoned calculation of the size of the observable cosmos, out to the sphere of fixed stars. Similarly, Naturalis II.10 gives a logical explanation for how and why eclipses of the sun and moon occur when they do, drawing on observations and citing “the sagacity of Hipparchus” as an authority on the matter.

So, given both the great creedence given to all ancient writers by their medieval descendants and this extensive, rational and authoritative material making up the bulk of the book, a medieval scholar would have little reason to question Pliny when he turns to the issue of the various forms races take in far off lands to the east. Here is Pliny on the Sciapods, for example:

He speaks also of another race of men, who are known as Monocoli, who have only one leg, but are able to leap with surprising agility. The same people are also called Sciapodæ, because they are in the habit of lying on their backs, during the time of the extreme heat, and protect themselves from the sun by the shade of their feet.

(Naturalis VII.2 )

Pliny is equally categorical about the Blemmyes:

The Blemmyæ are said to have no heads, their mouths and eyes being seated in their breasts. 

(Naturalis, V.8)

And the dog-headed Cynocepahli:

On many of the mountains again, there is a tribe of men who have the heads of dogs, and clothe themselves with the skins of wild beasts. Instead of speaking, they bark; and, furnished with claws, they live by hunting and catching birds. According to the story, as given by Ctesias, the number of these people is more than a hundred and twenty thousand.

(Naturalis VII.2 )

Pliny also mentions the Troglodites several times (e.g. Naturalis V.8 and, again, VII.2), though the Herefod mappa‘s details that they are “very swift; they live in caves, eat snakes and catch wild animals by jumping on them” comes from, another ancient authority:

The Garamantes hunt the Ethiopian hole-men, or troglodytes, in four-horse chariots, for these troglodytes are exceedingly swift of foot—more so than any people of whom we have any information. They eat snakes and lizards and other reptiles and speak a language like no other, but squeak like bats.

(Herodotus, Histories, IV.183)

The mythic creatures that Seidensticker finds so silly can also be found in Pliny. Here is his bonnacon:

In Pæonia, it is said, there is a wild animal known as the bonasus; it has the mane of the horse, but is, in other respects, like the bull, with horns, however, so much bent inwards upon each other, as to be of no use for the purposes of combat. It has therefore to depend upon its flight, and, while in the act of flying, it sends forth its excrements, sometimes to a distance of even three jugera; the contact of which burns those who pursue the animal, just like a kind of fire.

(Naturalis VIII.16)

And if our early fourteenth century medieval reader found that hard to believe, he could also have found the bonnacon described in Pliny’s source, Aristotle’s History of Animals (B. ix. c. 45), available in the Latin translation from its Arabic version by Michael Scot in the early thirteenth century. The remarkable quality of lynx urine also comes from Pliny:

The urine of the lynx, in the countries where that animal is produced, either becomes crystallized, or else hardens into a precious stone, resembling the carbuncle, and which shines like tire. This is called lyncurium; and hence it is, that many persons believe that this is the way in which amber is produced. The lynx, being well aware of this property, envies us the possession of its urine, and therefore buries it in the earth; by this, however, it becomes solid all the sooner.

(Naturalis VIII.57)

So our fourteenth century reader of Pliny, like the creator of the Hereford mappa, would actually have little reason to question what Pliny was telling him. Not only were these references to marvellous races and beasts in a book alongside highly rational and observation-based informaton about astronomy and natural phenomena, much of which our reader could check for themselves, but Pliny also liberally cited other, even more ancient authorities, including several in the passages in question. Further, if our reader was well-studied (note that the Hereford mappa‘s designer, Richard de Bello, would have had access to Lincoln Cathedral’s famously extensive medieval library), he could read much the same information in other ancient sources, including such esteemed authorities as Herodotus, Aristotle and Solinus. In other words, the things on the mappa that Seidensticker finds so ludicrous and unscientific and blames on the ignorance of the Church come directly from the best information available at the time – that of the enitirely non-Christian and supposedly rational Greeks and Romans.

To a medieval scholar, these ancient authorities were to be held in high esteem and treated as almost as high an authority as the Bible. But they did not go unquestioned and, as the Middle Ages proceeded, some of what Pliny and others said came to be corrected by direct observation.

Medieval travellers.
Medieval travellers.

Medieval Exploration

The Greeks had contact with the far east in the Hellenic Era, thanks to the conquests of Alexander, and a Greco-Bactrian Kingdom in what is now northern Afghanistan survived into the early first century AD. On the whole, however, ancient Greek and Roman information about India and China was second or third hand – resulting in the rather garbled information we find in Pliny and other ancient sources, whereby Indian people carrying parasols become Sciapods shielding themselves from the sun with their giant single feet etc. The Romans were a market for luxury goods like silk from China but this came mostly via a series of intermediaries. The Romans did trade directly with India by sea once they had conquered Egypt and opened a maritime route via the Red Sea, and the Roman Empire was a good market for spices, exotic animals and luxury goods like coral. There are several references to Indian embassies to the Roman emperors, but none of embassies or exploration in the other direction. Overall, the ancients were not overly curious about the “barbarian” lands far to the east.

This situation changed in the later medieval period, when the Mongol Empire united or at least connected large swathes of central Asia and China, opening up a much more direct route east from medieval European enclaves on the Black Sea all the way to Beijing and beyond. The result was a medieval age of overland exploration that was the precursor to the later maritime exploration that led to the Early Modern expansion of Europe into new lands.

J.R.S Phillips’ The Medieval Expansion of Europe details the remarkable period between 1000 and 1500 which saw a far greater curiosity about the world beyond Europe by medieval explorers. Traders, missionaries and diplomats ventured to China, re-opened the sea routes to India and began to explore the coasts of Africa. Papal emissaries sent to the courts of the Mongol khans failed in their mission to convert the Mongol leaders, but they made enough converts that by 1305 – around the time the Hereford mappa was created – the Franciscan John of Montecorvino was able to write back to the Pope to report the conversion of 5000 people, the building of a church in Beijing with a bell tower and three bells and the translation of the New Testament and Psalms into Mongolian. In 1307 Pope Clement V recognised his achievements by making him the first Catholic Archbishop of Beijing and sending him six more Franciscans who had been consecrated as bishops (though only three survived the hazardous journey east).

Religious zeal was one motivation for these perilous journeys, but riches were another. Medieval Europe had a huge appetite for eastern luxury goods and central European silver mines opened up in the medieval period meant the westerners had the cash to trade for them. Goods such as silk and, especially, spices were easily transportable and – despite the immense distances and dangers the journeys entailed – gave an extremely high return on investment. So medieval Europeans increasingly chose to cut out the middle men and trade directly with the Mongols, China and the Indies.

The most famous of these medieval trading explorers was Marco Polo, but he was far from the first. He had been preceeded by his father and his uncle, the Venetian brothers Niccolo and Maffeo. Genoese merchants established themselves at Tabriz in what is now northern Iran and traded across the Caspian Sea and in 1291 the papal emissary John of Montecorvino was accompanied by an Italian merchant, Peter of Lucalongo, whose interests seem to have been less than religious. Trade with and travel to the far east appears to have been a family tradition for many of these merchants. In 1264 Pietro Vilioni made his will in Tabriz. Seventy-eight years later, in 1342, Catherine Vilioni – a likely relative of Pietro – was buried in Yangzhou alongside her father Domenico Vilioni and her brother Antonio was also buried nearby two years later. So here we seem to see perhaps three generations of Italians who had been trading in the far east for almost a century and evidence of a European community in eastern China well established enough to have unmarried women with them.

Medieval Europeans went further afield still. Another Franciscan missionary, the Italian Ordoric of Pordenone, was accompanied by an Irish friar James of Hibernia on an epic journey in around 1320. They travelled first to Iran and then by sea to India and Sri Lanka and then via Sumatra, Java and Borneo before sailing on north to China. In 1292 Marco Polo and his father and uncle had made much the same journey in reverse, accompanying a Mongol princess to Iran via Java, Sumatra and Sri Lanka.

Accounts of these journeys were both informed by and conflated with ancient information about these eastern lands found in writers like Solinus, Pliny and Herodotus. As a result, Marco Polo’s book on his journeys is as full of references to fabulous beasts and races as they are to direct observations of genuine eastern marvels like paper money and burning oil fields. But these medieval travellers were far from credulous and were happy to correct the ancients when they saw they were wrong. John of Marignolli was another Papal emissary to the Mongol khans who, in 1348, returned to Europe on the sea route via Java. Here he noted that he had clearly passed below the equator and concluded that the ancient Greek and Roman writers had been wrong when they had declared the equator too hot for habitation and said the tropical zone around it was therefore impassable. More relevantly, he was equally sceptical and dismissive about the monstrous races described by Pliny and other learned ancients:

The truth is that no such people do exist as nations, though there may be an individual monster here and there. Nor is there any people at all such as has been invented, who have but one foot which they use to shade themselves withal. But as all the Indians commonly go naked, they are in the habit of carrying a thing like a little tent-roof on a cane handle, which they open out at will as a protection against sun or rain. This they call a chatyr; I brought one to Florence with me. And this it is which the poets have converted into a foot.

So here we have a medieval churchman, a Papal emissary no less, contradicting Greek and Roman writers via direct observation and bringing home evidence that they had been wrong. So much for the wicked credulity of the medieval Church. No Greek or Roman writer that I can find expresses anything but unquestioning belief in the monstrous races, but
John of Marignolli was not alone in doing so among the medieval explorers. Yet another Francisan missionary to the khans, William of Rubruck, was sent on a mission to the Great Khan by King Louis IX of France in 1248. He travelled via Constantinople and the Crimea first to the court of Batu Khan on the Volga and then on to the court of the Great Khan Möngke at Karakorum. Rubruck was a good observer and a sceptical inquirer and was careful to ask questions and to not take ancient lore or local folktales as fact. While in Karakorum he asked about the monstrous races found in Pliny and later ancient writers:

[I] made inquiries about the monsters or human monstrosities of which Isidore and Solinus speak. They told me they had never seen such things, which makes me wonder very much if there is any truth in the story.

The 1305 letter to the Pope by John of Montecorvino mentioned above also contains an account of his travels in India and includes a further expression of scepticism about the ancients’ claims of monsters and strange races:

As regards men of a marvellous kind, to wit, men of a different make to the rest of us, and as regards animals of a like description, and as regards a Terrestial Paradise, much have I asked and sought, but nothing have I been able to discover.

So while Seidensticker, in his wilful and self-imposed ignorance of the medieval period, portrays the monsters and beasts of the Hereford mappa as, somehow, the result of Christian stupidity and credulousness, we can see they actually derive from the non-Christian and supposedly far more rational Greeks and Romans. While those Greeks and Romans repeated their stories without much sign of scepticism, it was the travels of the rather more curious medieval explorers that began to call these creatures into question. And far from it being the Church that somehow restricted any questioning of belief in these creatures, it was medieval churchmen who fact-checked Pliny and the ancients as far as they could and, as a result, concluded the ancients were often wrong. So who were the credulous believers who lived unquestioning in a “world was populated by Sciapods, Blemmyes, and bonnacons” here? Not the medievals. Yet again, ideologically-driven ignorance by another New Atheist has resulted in pseudo historical garbage delivered with all the vast assurance of the smugly clueless.

Portolan chart of Italy
Portolan chart of Italy

Medieval Maps and Charts

Of course, it is not just the monsters and mythic beasts that attract Seidensticker’s modern scorn – there is also the matter of the mappa‘s silly cartography. He writes:

As with all mappae mundi, this one puts Jerusalem in the center. It locates places of important biblical events such as the Tower of Babel, the Garden of Eden, the route of the Exodus, and Sodom and Gomorrah.

And goes on to note, as already quoted, that on the mappa “mythology and history are mixed without distinction”. All this is more evidence, for him, that these ridiculous elements are also thanks, somehow, to Christianity being “in charge”.

But this is a document that is serving more than one purpose. Close analysis of the mappa shows that the monstrous races and beasts depicted tend to be at the extremes or the more remote regions of the inhabited world. So the Sciapods are in the far east, the Blemmyes and Troglodites are in furthest Africa and the only strange race depicted in Europe are the dog-headed Cynocephali, depicted in the far off Arctic. Scott D. Westrem notes this is in keeping with ancient and medieval conceptions of how geography affects physiology:

As one approached the edges of the earth’s landmass and encountered increasing cold and aridity or heat and moisture, one inevitably came across people who looked or behaved in extreme ways. The idea is discussed especially in geographies written during the 1200s, such as Thomas of Cantimpré’s Liber de natura rerum (1237/1240).

(Scott D. Westram, “Making a Mappamundi: The Hereford Map”, Terrae Incognitae: The Journal of the Society for the History of Discoveries, 34, 2002,)

The nearer parts of Asia and Africa, by contrast, are the ones that tend to depict Biblical and ancient historical themes in the mappa‘s scheme. And Europe is largely devoted to geographical detail, with far more cities, rivers and ports depicted and with much greater accuracy, for obvious reasons.

That Jerusalem is depicted in the centre of the inhabited world is is obviously symbolic and theological, though not completely nonsensical. All maps are projections of a globe onto a plane (and Richard de Bello and his team definitely understood the world to be a globe – see The Great Myths 1: The Medieval Flat Earth). This means any map maker has to choose a point for the “centre” of their projection. Modern maps, of course, have the equator as their latitudinal axis, but which continent tends to be put in the centre of the longitudinal axis depends on where the map is made. Seidensticker, as an American, is probably used to maps centred on the Americas. British and European maps tend to have Europe and Africa at their centre. And as an Australian, I have grown up with Australia at the centre of maps and as a child found that British and American maps looked slightly odd as a result. Then, as now, it was all a matter of perspective.

The ancient and Biblical elements are clearly meant to be instructive, not purely geographical. Obviously the mappa‘s makers did not believe there still was a labyrinth on Crete or that the Tower of Babel still stood – these were depicted to illustrate history. Richard de Bello’s dedicatory inscription even refers to the mappa as “this history”; on at least one level the diagram is supposed to depict time as well as space. As for “mythology and history [being] mixed without distinction”, for the mappa‘s makers and for their various ancient and medieval sources, there was no such distinction. For Pliny and Solinus as well as Isiodore and Orosius, Jason was as historical as Alexander and Theseus as real as Augustus, all of whom can be found on the Hereford mappa. Seidensticker is imposing anachronistic ideas on pre-modern conceptions of time and history.

But symbolism, history and bestiaries aside, what about the mappa‘s geography? Seidensticker says “this map wouldn’t serve an explorer or navigator”, but it was not designed to. After all, a wall map a metre and half tall and almost as wide would not be very practical for either. As a diagrammatic map, it was more schematic than truly cartographic. So someone looking at it on the wall in Hereford would not be able to plan a trip from London to Paris with it, at least not with much accuracy. But they would know what sequence of major ports and towns they would pass through and where the Seine was in relation to the Loire.

This means that Seidensticker’s scorn for the mappa‘s cartography is something like someone in the future looking the famous schematic map of London’s tube system and concluding twenty-first century people did not know the real geography of London. As it happened, in the centuries before and after the creation of the Hereford mappa, medieval people had in fact learned how to create navigational charts of remarkable accuracy.

Exactly when they began to do this is unclear, but from the thirteenth century onwards a new kind of map called a portolan chart began to appear. These were naviational charts for sailors, so their geography of inland areas ranges from sketchy to completely blank. But the remarkable thing about them is the detail and accuracy of their depictions of coastlines and ports. A portolan chart worked by depicting “windrose lines” radiating from compass roses at various points on the chart, representing “lines of bearing” according to the sixteen points of the Mariner’s compass. Used with the pilots’ notes in an accompanying periplus manuscript, listing ports and coastal fatures and the sailing distance between them, a navigator could use the chart and his compass to navigate with a high degree of accuracy.

A mid-fourteenth century portolan chart
A mid-fourteenth century portolan chart.

These charts seem to have evolved out of practical navigational lore in the Mediterranean and so only work across smaller stretches of water, given that their projection is flat and so does not take into account the curvature of the earth. But within those limits their accuracy is so startling that at least one researcher, Dutch geodetic scientist Roelof Nicolai, has come to the conclusion that they are simply “too accurate to be medieval” and posits that they are based on lost ancient projections similar to that of Gerardus Mercator in the sixteenth century. Actual historians of cartography, however, reject Nicolai’s hypothesis and can find plenty of evidence that the portolans did indeed develop in the Middle Ages. Mathematical analysis by John Hessler, curator at the Library of Congress, has shown how medieval navigators created these charts using the (to them) relatively new Mariner’s compass, demonstrating that small but consistent errors in portolan charts can be traced to the fact medieval chart makers did not correct for the difference between magnetic north and true north.

Portolan charts proved so useful that, as medieval explorers began to venture beyond the Mediterranean, discovered the Azores and the Canaries and then explored the west coast of Africa and beyond, they created portolan charts of these new regions as well. It was only with the discovery of the Americas and the beginning of ocean voyaging that the limits of these charts forced cartographers to find new ways to project geographical information in a way that could be used by navigators and Mercator’s Projection solved this problem for open ocean travel. Even then, portolan charts and variants on them continued to be used for sailing in the Caribbean and East Indies for centuries. Because they worked.

So while the Hereford mappa looks primitive and inaccurate when judged as a navigational map, this is because it is not one. It is something else. And far from representing the poverty of medieval cartography, it existed alongside navigational charts of remarkable sophistication. Medieval T-O maps like the Hereford example are projected onto a circle for symbolic reasons, but about 250 years before its time the Anglo-Saxon Cotton Map shows people were capable of a rectangular projection that did not distort the geography the way a T-O mappa does. A century later the Moroccan geographer Muhammad al-Idrisi worked with European scholars at the court of Roger II of Sicily to produce the Tabula Rogeriana, which is even more accurate. By the time the Catalan Atlas was produced in the mid fourteenth cenury, medieval cartographers were combining portolan charts with a depiction of the whole known world and the symbolic and historical details found on the mappae. Scott Westram notes that the guide book the makers of mappae like the Hereford example drew on, the twelfth century Expositio mappe mundi, was most likely written by Roger of Howden, a Yorkshire cleric who accompanied Richard I on the Third Crusade. Roger was also the author of two important medieval navigational guides, De viis maris and Liber nautarum, which means the mappae were not as divorced from navigation and practical geography as many scholars have presumed. Westram concludes wryly that “thus the only thing really monstrous about the Hereford Map, perhaps, is the way it and its making have been misunderstood and expected to conform to modern taste”.

And Seidensticker is definitely guilty of trying to get the Hereford mappa to conform to his taste and finding it distasteful when it did not. Because of his ignorance of history generally and medieval history in particular, he has come to conclusions about the mappa driven almost entirely by his prejudices rather any detailed understanding. He assumes, wrongly, that its monsters and mythic beasts are somehow a product of the ignorance imposed by the medieval Church, when in fact they are drawn almost totally from ancient non-Christian sources like Pliny and Solinus. He thinks the Church stifled real scientific inquiry, when it was in fact the ancients who accepted these mythic details unquestioningly and, by contrast, it was far-travelling medieval churchmen who used reason, evidence and observation to question them. And he thinks the Hereford mappa shows medieval geography and cartography was hopelessly primitive, when in fact it existed alongside an increasingly sophisticated tradition that was eventually to lead to modern cartography. The main ignorance and irrationality on display here is not that of Richard de Bello and his fellow medieval clergy, but a profoundly and wilfully ignorant New Atheist bigot, who scorns things he simply does not understand out of irrational prejudice. We atheists need to stop doing that.

Further Reading

P.D.A. Harvey, Mappa Mundi: The Hereford World Map (British Library Studies in Medieval Culture) (Toronto, 1996)

John Larner, Marco Polo and the Discovery of the World (Yale, 1999)

J.R.S Phillips, The Medieval Expansion of Europe (Oxford, 1988)

Scott D. Westram, “Making a Mappamundi: The Hereford Map”, Terrae Incognitae: The Journal of the Society for the History of Discoveries, 34, 2002

Westram’s article and two other useful analyses of the Hereford mappa, its context and its production, can also be found online here.

63 thoughts on “Medieval Maps and Monsters

  1. A mappa mundi is a philosophical map that displays a particular world view and is not intended to be a topographical map. However, it is no more or less realistic than our modern topographical maps. All maps are symbolic and in order to read them one first has to learn the set of symbols used to create them.

    18
    1. “The Hereford mappamundi is unique; it is one of the most important maps in the history of cartography, and the largest of its kind to have survived intact for nearly 800 years. It is an encyclopedic vision of what the world looked like to a thirteenth-century Christian. It offers both a reflection and a representation of the medieval Christian world’s theological, cosmological, philosophical, political, historical, zoological, and ethnographical beliefs.” (p. 84)

      “This is not a map as we understand it in any modern sense. Instead it is an image of a world defined by theology, not geography, where place is understood through faith rather than location, and the passage of time according to biblical events is more important than the depiction of territorial space. At its centre stands the place that is so central to the Christian faith: Jerusalem, the site of Christ’s crucifixion, graphically depicted above the city itself, which is represented with circular walls, rather like a giant theological cog: It takes its position at the heart of the map from God’s pronouncement in the Old Testament’s Book of Ezekiel: ‘This is Jerusalem: I have set it in the midst of the nations and countries that are around her ‘ (Ezekiel 5:5). The layered theological geography of al-Idrīsī’s description of the city is gone, and is replaced by an exclusively Christian vision.
      Tracing the map’s topography outwards from Jerusalem in terms of theology rather than geography, we begin to see a clearer logic to its shape.” (p. 89)

      Quotes from Jerry Brotton, Faith: Hereford Mappamundi, c. 1300 Chapter 3 in A History of the World in Twelve Maps, Allen Lane, 2012, pp. 82-113

  2. Few will be surprised to learn that Bob Seidensticker takes a “Teach the Controversy” position on Jesusmythology. He has a very 19th Century admiration for especially the Romans, who build aquaducts and the Colosseum etc. Never mind that those pesky people from the Middle Ages build the equally impressive Notre Dame de Paris …. Now I come to think of it, never mind either that (according to his standards) maps constructed during Antiquity are not any better than medieval ones. I have little problems pointing out everything medieval scholars got wrong, but be consistent if you admire Enlightenment so much and recognize that Roman scholars didn’t do any better. If “science was in its infancy” during the Middle Ages, so it was during Antiquity.
    For New Atheists consistency is something only to be demanded from the opposition. Because New Atheists are the bearers of The TRVTH.

    PS: I wrote this before arriving at “The answer is that they got their information from the scientific works of the Greeks and Romans.”
    I think it a shame that this needs any explaining.

    “one of the most extensive repositories of the wisdom of the ancients to survive the wreckage of the fall of the Western Roman Empire.”
    This quite silly perspective is slightly less outdated than Seidensticker’s admiration for the Romans. The intellectual centers of the Roman Empire all were to be found in the Eastern half, which survived just fine for centuries to come. There never was that much wisdom to be wrecked in the western half. Nobody went to Lutetia, Londinium or some Hispanian city for study. The exception is Rome, which was not ruined when the Western Empire fell, but during the sieges by the Byzantines and the Goths of the 6th Century.

    “So someone looking at it on the wall in Hereford would not be able to plan a trip from London to Paris with it, at least not with much accuracy.”
    The medieval people used a method for which maps did not need to be accurate – compare the Peutinger map: travel from A to B, cross the sea to C, then travel to D and then finally to E. As they traveled in groups there was always someone who knew how to travel from one point to another.

    “an increasingly sophisticated tradition that was eventually to lead to modern cartography. ”
    Now that’s highly interesting. Thanks. Of course it’s highly unsurprising that all this happened during the heydays of the Middle Ages as in Western Europe there wasn’t much intellectual activity before the conquest of Toledo (1085 CE). I find it stunning that self-declared rationalists refuse to recognize how much intellectual activity began almost immediately after this event. That scholars got things wrong, so what? It’s mandatory for good science to realize that we may get lots of stuff wrong as well.

    1
    6
    1. This quite silly perspective is slightly less outdated than Seidensticker’s admiration for the Romans.

      You think I’m not aware that the material largely lost in the west was preserved in the Eastern Empire? You need to be careful where you’re pointing the word “silly”. What I said about Pliny is correct and not “silly” in any way. And your observations don’t contradict what I said in the slightest. You need to read what I say more carefully. You also need to watch your tone.

      The medieval people used a method for which maps did not need to be accurate

      I’m talking about land travel. And they didn’t use mappae mundi for that. And I go on to talk about how they navigated very effectively by sea as well. Again, try reading what I say before launching into pompous lecturing about things I already know and even things I say in the very article you’re commenting on. You are becoming more than a bit tiresome.

      12
    2. Well, there are some sweeping statements here!

      I take issue with the concept that there were no centres of learning in the ‘western empire’ . What about Bordeaux, a centre for rhetoric so renowned that it supplied a tutor for a future emperor? Milan was a major centre of theological debate , based on strong classical traditions of learning and intellectual skill: that was where Augustine went for instruction, although he was from Africa, and Constantinople was in full flower. The aristocratic correspondents of Gaul and Italy, with their large libraries, would have been surprised to hear themselves categorised as ignorant.

      As for the apparent dearth of scholarship and ‘ intellectual activity’ in Western Europe, are we just ignoring Bede, Alcuin, Gregory of Tours, Isidore….oh please,this is almost as bad as the original ignoramus being discussed.

      13
  3. This ‘Bob’ person is actually a type of person i disliked the most. People like him like to judge unknown culture on his own ‘taken for granted’ wisdom of the modern world, just as moderns love to discredit ancients because they believe geocentrism and such.

    And that is temporal arrogance at its finest. I hope you’re patient with ‘jerks’ like this, Tim. Good post as always.

    1. It would certainly be extremely wrong to call the Hereford Mappamundi Judeocentric, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the Jews or the Jewish religion. It would be equally wrong to call it Christocentric, a word that means, a form of Christianity that concentrates on the teaching of Jesus Christ.
      One could call it a Medieval Christian map because, as I said above, a mappamundi is a philosophical map that codifies the medieval Christian view of the world.

      1. But isn’t all Christianity named for Christ? And therefore rather Christocentric?

        Especially given frequent sermons that tell us that Jesus “fulfilled” – or updated – the Old Testament. With a “new” covenant.

        1. “But isn’t all Christianity named for Christ? And therefore rather Christocentric?”

          Yes, but as Thony said, “Christocentric” is a word that already has a specialised meaning.

    1. Jimmy, why cite Dave Armstrong? The man is a genocide apologist, among other things: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/01/can-god-order-massacre-innocents-amalekites-etc.html#disqus_thread

      If was a choice between the two for the last seat at the bingo table, I’d choose Bob even though he is an ignorant blowhard. Dave appears to be sick and dull minded. His type of thinking is behind countless “God on our side” war propaganda, suicide and murder cults.

      5
      1
    2. To be fair to Seidensticker, that “critique” was pretty weak stuff. It’s debateable if his characterisations of Christianity are much more than uncharitable generalisations or, at worst, oversimplifications. So to call them “dishonest” and say he is “lying” is rather feeble – it seems the writer simply didn’t like what Seidensticker said about his religion. And screaming that your opponet is “lying” when you simply mean they disagree with you has shades of Richard Carrier. People often respond to me by Googling around the net, finding some butthurt clique or other that I’ve tangled with and then produce their condemnations of me as though sour grapes or mere disagreement laced with invective somehow means something. It doesn’t. Ol’Grandpa Godfrey huffs and puffs and expends many windy words on what a naughty person I am, but that doesn’t make him right.

      I’ve emcountered Seidensticker before when I engaged with him and his coterie of howler monkeys over some typically dumb claims about the medieval Church stifling technology. Let’s just say he isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed and his followers less so.

      10
      1. Thanks for a response, Tim, but I find that my reference is a wee bit more credible than that. I’ve also engaged Seidensticker myself. He has a post arguing that Christianity outright opposed reason for a millennium, and to support this, has some quote from Martin Luther. The problem is, I pointed out that the quote is faked … and yet he still has it under his post. It does appear dishonest to me. Perhaps we differ but I’m not coming to any charitable conclusions about his honesty.

        Frankly, Hugo’s response is a wee bit too ridiculous for me to respond to.

        1
        4
        1. As I said, I’ve had enough dealings with Seidensticker to be well aware that he has many flawed ideas. In fact, a future “Great Myths” article on medieval technology will be based on his claims about it being retarded by the Church and the wildly idiotic things he and his followers said when I challenged that. But the article you linked to was not a strong or even a very coherent critique of Seidensticker. And the article Hugo linked to that justified what we would condemn as horrific war crimes “because he’s God and so that makes it okay” is idiotic apologetic bullshit of the first order.

          11
          1. Well, OK, let’s try this. What problems do you see with Armstrong’s points on Seidensticker? His point is clearly that Seidensticker ignores opposing views and continuously spews vapid crap with little education on the topic. I’m not sure you disagree with that at all. What’s the problem?

            1
            6
          2. I’ve already said what is wrong with his points. Now can we keep the comments on topic? Thanks.

          3. Looking forward to more discussion of technology in the Middle Ages in the future. I’m curious at what point a Medieval military would have been able to defeat a Roman one.

            Perhaps a silly sounding question, but being able to state a Medieval army would’ve defeated a Roman one might change the view most people have about what happened after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

            Sorry if this has been addressed before.

          4. I tend to avoid hypotheticals like “could a medieval army defeat a Roman army”, which I usually describe as “could Batman beat up Spiderman arguments”. The problems with them are many. Which “Roman army”? When? Led by who? You can manipulate the parameters of this answer to contrive any answer you like. After all, we have examples of Roman armies being defeated by forces that were even less well-equipped and disciplined than most medieval forces – Varus in 9 AD, Decius in 251 or Valens in 378 for example. But you could also weight the parameters so that the Romans would defeat the army of Harold Godwinson in 1066 or so that Harold defeats some Roman army.

            Then there is the problem of “which Roman army?” A fourth century BC Roman hoplite army? A Polybian legion? The classic first century AD heavy infantry army of the Empire’s height? The fourth century mixed cavalry/infantry army of the Late Empire? All are different. The last of these evolved in the third century precisely because the earlier classic Roman heavy infantry army was not doing well against Sassanian armies with highly effective heavy cavalry. So would a Medieval heavy cavalry army of, say, the late twelfth century be effective against it? How about against Trajan’s army? Or Caesar’s? Then there is the question of numbers. Medieval armies were usually drawn from small kingdoms or even smaller political units, and so were tiny compared to most Roman field armies, which drew on the resources of a vast and rich Empire. So are we talking even numbers here? The whole thing gets too tangled to give any kind of coherent answer.

            13
          5. Thanks, I appreciate that, and it actually answers the question in the sense that the Medievals would at least have a chance of winning if the parameters were right. Obviously, you’d have to assume similar numbers and leadership on each side to be meaningful.

            It does make me wonder if more or less men per capita were devoted to military service in Western Europe before the fall of Rome or after. Most of us assume a lot of small “squabbling” states would mean more, but maybe not.

          6. Rob,
            If you want more information on Roman armies, there is Adrian Goldsworthy’s “In the Name of Rome” which covers the whole period of the Western Empire. It does concentrate on the successful generals, with the failures treated briefly, but it does give a good flavour of how Roman armies changed over the centuries.

      2. “I’ve encountered Seidensticker… …Let’s just say he isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed…”

        Now careful there.
        This almighty Bob Seidensticker in his own words graduated from MIT, designed digital hardware, programmed in a dozen computer languages and blah blah blah, is a co-contributor to 14 software patents and has worked at a number of technology companies from a 10-person startup to Microsoft and IBM.

        How can you dare even question such an all-knowing intellectual powerhouse? Don’t you realise that he must know everything 😉

        1. IOW he’s another damned know-it-all engineer (I get to say that, I am one) who thinks that because he’s clever at technology he’s right about everything. It’s been a problem since antiquity — see what Socrates says about the technoi in the Apology.

  4. Enjoyable and stimulating as always – just a minor point; Pliny’s Natural History is in thirty seven books – it is the Loeb edition that is in ten volumes.

  5. Hi Tim,

    I don’t often comment, but I read all your posts and find them all informative and entertaining. This is no exception. Thanks for the work you put in to researching.

    PS trivial typo: para 3, “world” should be “word”.

  6. Tim, how accurate is this article by an atheist blogger that accuses christianity of having “a long and romantic relationship with torture
    “https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2018/08/12/the-gruesome-history-of-christian-torture/
    (The post mentioned a quote from Bart ehrman so you might be interested in reading it)
    I have some trouble with my email so it’s hard for me to ask this in the “contact the author” section.

    1. That is a very odd article. It notes that “[the] primary symbol of the religion is a torture device” and then later speculates that maybe this Christian focus on torture has something to do with “the brutal practices of the Roman empire”, but somehow doesn’t manage to connect those two ideas (hint: crucifixion was a Roman form of execution). It also says “[maybe] the powerlessness of early Christians fanned these flames”, but doesn’t connect this “powerlessness” to the fact that at least some prominent early Christians were tortured to death by the Romans, that stories of these events formed foundational myths for the early sect and that they also form the bulk of the depictions of torture in later Christian art that this writer finds so strange.

      He then quotes Ramsay McMullen (a historian not renowned for his neutrality toward Christianity) saying the hagiography of the martyrs was “the only sadistic literature I am aware of in the ancient world.”. That’s probably true, given that it is a literature that sympathises with the victims and lionises their courage in the face of hideous pain. Most ancient literature was, to us, weirdly callous about the suffering of victims of torture and gory execution, and mentions it in the most off-hand way. He then quotes Tertullian saying how much he was delighted by the thought of actual torturers and executors of Christian martyrs suffering in hell as evidence of “Christian sadism”, as though gleefully imagining revenge for actual torture is as bad as … actually torturing people to death. Something, it should be noted, the Christians boasted of NOT doing to the pagans once they were the ones in control.

      Then we get a lot about capital punishment of heretics and supposed witches in a period where you could suffer capital punishment for stealing a cow. And some stuff about how the Enlightenment saved us from all this religious barbarity while ignoring that what we consider to be “barbarity” was the general norm in the pre-Modern and early Modern eras. Then it quotes that eminent historian … Sam Harris! Who, as usual, stitches together a series of myths and misrepresentations in a paragraph of silly overblown rhetoric. The whole article is confused crap.

      1. Just a little question related to the middle-ages in general. When you mentioned “you could suffer capital punishment for stealing a cow”, I started to think about medieval punishment and justice. Was it as savage and brutal as hollywood makes it out to be(probably not), and are there any good articles/books on the subject by actual scholars that is worth a read?

        1. It depends, but in medieval England it was generally pretty rough and ready justice, but nowhere near as savage and mindless as Hollywood makes out. Medieval societies tended to be highly legalistic and taking people to court, mainly for civil disputes, was commonplace. Most criminal justice was local and based on the idea that an offence was an offence against your peers and local community. This is where the English idea of trial by jury came from – your peers decided if you had offended against them and then your local lord (or his designated subordinates) passed the judgement.

          In England, contrary to that guy’s silly article, torture was banned for most of the Middle Ages, though some interrogations would have effectively been under what we would regard as torture. Almost all of the lurid devices of torture described in such loving detail in modern popular articles and books are either much later or are pure fantasies dreamed up in the nineteenth century – the Iron Maiden never existed, for example. Most smaller thefts, most assaults and the majority of crimes generally were punished by fines, though murder and larger thefts were capital crimes. Execution was usually by hanging. “Petty treason” – ie the murder of your lord, employer or husband) could be punished by being burned alive, but this was rare. High treason against the king could be punished with being hanged, drawn and quartered, but that was rarer still – beheading was more common. England saw no heresy trials until the fourteenth century and no “witches” executed until the late fifteenth. In both cases the punishment was hanging, not being burned, though a crackdown on “Lollardy” in the early fifteenth century did see some Lollards who defied the authorities burned. Contrary to popular myth, the Church had little do with witchcraft trials in England – that was a state crime. And heresy trials only rarely ended in execution – fines, imprisonment and penances were the most usual penalty.

          There is a good account of the later medieval English legal system and justice in Ian Mortimer’s excellent book The Time Traveller’s Guide to Medieval England (2008), pp. 215-46.

          1. According to Gerhard Prause in Tratschkes Lexikon für Besserwisser, München 1984 and some other German sources the RCC during the Middle Ages actively contested the idea that witches existed. Hence it opposed witch hunts. It were “great” reformers like Luther, Paracelsus and Calvin who promoted them. There is much to dislike about the RCC (antisemitism being the first example), so it’s utterly stupid to accuse her of something she’s innocent of.

          2. During most of the Middle Ages, the Catholic consensus was that “witches” were a peasant superstition and belief in them was both irrational and sinful. This began to change in the later fourteenth century and by the end of the fifteenth century the theology had changed and it was acceptable to believe “witches” were real. But for various, mainly socio-political, reasons the “Witch Craze” did not take hold in Catholic territories in the same way it did in many Protestant countries. That said, there were still plenty of enthusiastic Catholic witch-hunters, but mainly in regions contested by both Catholics and Protestants. It was, to a major extent, a symptom or side-effect of the Reformation and its reactions.

          3. Tim, I agree with much of what I have seen you write but on this occasion I can’t agree. Medieval England didn’t have a free press, a literate lower class, an audio-visual device in everyone’s hand (mobile phone), democracy, whistle blower protections, free speech or, a left-wing “elite” of academics and others with soft power and influence to check the worst excesses of those in power. Even in the most advanced and civilised western countries, such as Australia, it takes something special like serious and sometimes dangerous investigate reporting (eg “The Moonlight State” re Queensland police corruption in the 1980s) or Royal Commissions (eg. on institutional child abuse, financial institutions) before we have documentary evidence of the true state of affairs.
            For the above stated reasons and the rigid stratification of feudalism, the dehumanisation of peasants etc I suspect the most shocking Hollywood depictions of medieval life are probably a reasonable approximation of the truth.
            I take it as axiomatic that the records we have from the distant past conceal much more than they reveal.
            I’m pessimistic about the accuracy of all historiographies and I suspect the truth is nearly always much bleaker than the history books show, especially for those without power or the ability to document their own stories.

          4. “Tim, I agree with much of what I have seen you write but on this occasion I can’t agree.”

            What exactly do you think you’re disagreeing with me on?

            “Medieval England didn’t have a free press, a literate lower class, an audio-visual device in everyone’s hand (mobile phone), democracy, whistle blower protections, free speech or, a left-wing “elite” of academics and others with soft power and influence to check the worst excesses of those in power.”

            Luckily for me I have never said it did. What the hell are you talking about?

            “For the above stated reasons and the rigid stratification of feudalism, the dehumanisation of peasants etc I suspect the most shocking Hollywood depictions of medieval life are probably a reasonable approximation of the truth.”

            That is total nonsense. Leaving aside the fact that “feudalism” is a largely nineteenth century invention that never actually existed, that medieval societies were rarely totally “rigid” in their stratification and peasants had plenty of rights and could not be said to be “dehumanised”, the silly depictions of medieval life in pretty much all movies are utter bullshit. And how the hell the stuff in your confused earlier paragraph supports the idea they are “a reasonable approximation of the truth” I have no idea. “The Middle Ages were not a modern democracy so any braindead depiction of them as am oppressive dark age is okay” does not strike me as an exercise in clear logic.

            “I take it as axiomatic that the records we have from the distant past conceal much more than they reveal.”

            I take that as a trite cliche at best and as general bollocks. We have these people called “historians” who are pretty good at getting “records” to reveal the past, despite their limits and biases. That’s actually what historians do.

            “I’m pessimistic about the accuracy of all historiographies and I suspect the truth is nearly always much bleaker than the history books show, especially for those without power or the ability to document their own stories.”

            You don’t seem to know how history is analysed. Or what the word “historiographies” means.

            10
          5. I don’t think one can generalise about the witch hunt in terms of religion. Both the Catholic dioceses in Franconia of Bamberg and Würzberg were major centres of persecution for witchcraft, whereas Lutheran Protestant Nürnberg in between the two saw very little activity in this direction.

          6. “I don’t think one can generalise about the witch hunt in terms of religion”

            That was precisely my point.

          7. @Hugo: “Medieval England …..”
            Exactly in Mediëval England witch hunts were very rare. The feudal system in western Europe broke down in 1350. CE due to the Black Plague. The witch hunts became serious after that catastrophe. The above mentioned Gerhard Prause even dates the start 100 – 150 years later. If anything there is a negative correlation – feudalism/lack of witch hunts, no feudalism/the zenith of witch hunts.
            So you could not be more wrong.

            “I’m pessimistic about the accuracy of all historiographies.”
            In other words: if sources support your conclusion you accept them, if they don’t you reject them. The correct
            word for this method is quackery.

          8. ThonyC
            Brian Levack’s “The witch-hunt in early modern Europe” 3rd ed (2006) says (p122) “Witch-hunting was most severe in countries or regions where either large religious minorities lived within the boundaries of a state, or the people of one state or territory adhered to one religion and the residents of a neighbouring state adhered to another.”

            Levack also notes that accusations of witchcraft were linked to the fear of rebellion (pp65-67), so it may well be that the citizens of Franconia of Bamberg and Würzberg feared that the Protestantism of Nürnberg might spread to their areas, while the Nürnbergers felt more secure.

          9. Ronald Hutton’s recent book The Witch: A History of Fear, from Ancient Times to the Present (Yale, 2017) makes similar observations about the patterns of witch hunting as well as noting reasons it died out much faster in most Catholic territories.

  7. It is a bit late to comment… But if you ever get a look at Albertus Magnus’ book on geography, or the one on animals, or indeed many of his natural philosophy commentaries, he is always pointing out that Pliny said this and Aristotle said that, but I went to X place and saw Y thing. It is actually something that some of his modern scholar readers find irritating, but I think it is good fun. And of course it all goes to experience and observation as a form of knowledge.

    It is also how you find out that he loved ant lions when he was a kid.

  8. Tim, excluding military campaigns(like the albigensian crusade), how big is the total death toll for heresy trials in europe in both the middle ages and the modern era?

    1. It’s very hard to put a figure on executions by the various medieval inquisitions into heresy, as most were small scale, local and short lived and we have, as usual for the period, only patchy surviving documentation. What documents we do have indicate that a very small percentage of people questioned were convicted and then only a tiny percentage of those convicted were executed. We have better documentation for the later Spanish and Italian Inquisitions of the early modern period, which shows that of the circa 50,000 trials held by those two bodies (most of them by the Spanish Inquisition) between 1560-1700, somewhere between between 3,000 and 5,000 people were executed.

  9. Thanks for the critique. I just came across it. I had 2 quick points.

    You mentioned “Seidensticker’s scorn for the mappa’s cartography.” And yet you quote from my post: “There is little attempt at accurate geography. This map wouldn’t serve an explorer or navigator, and its creators didn’t pretend that it would.” Perhaps you forgot my awareness of the purpose of the map when you wrote that criticism.

    Second, I appreciate the background of the mythical creatures from Pliny. I’ll make note of that and add that if I ever update the post. But identifying the origin of this information doesn’t change the point of the post. Christianity was in charge, and they had 1000 years for God to nudge his followers in the right direction. And yet this example illustrates how little had progressed.

    Of course, I’ve made just one illustration serve to show how little Christianity did with its opportunity. You might argue that looking at the complete sweep of social progress (to include cathedral building, say, or maybe hospitals) you find that Christianity actually did make progress so great that one is almost compelled to see the hand of God. I don’t think this argument can be made, but at least you would be responding to the post’s point.

    12
    1. “all I got was this lousy map”
      Meaning: “if something produced by a mediëval christian doesn’t serve my needs but only those of contemporaries it’s stupid and backward”.
      That’s not clear thinking nor an energetic critique, that’s an egocentric burp. It shows a total incapability of imagining how the people back then could have used the map. You didn’t even try.
      In another article you displayed exactly the same egocentric attitude:
      “The Middle Ages were the Dark Ages, because ‘religion.’”
      [this] “is an intriguing area of research”
      No, it’s a lousy and badly outdated approach, that shows that the “researcher” (and given your enthousiasm also you) lets his/her own prejudices get in the way of ( again) “clear thinking” and “energetic critique”. It’s the historical equivalent of flogging a dead (atheist) horse. You could as well promote researching phlogiston.

    2. Perhaps you forgot my awareness of the purpose of the map when you wrote that criticism.

      No. Your comment about the cartography of the map sounds very much like scorn, even though you acknowledge that it was not intended to be geographically accurate. In the context of your scorn for the intellectual culture the map represents and your total lack of any acknowledgement of the advances in contemporary medieval cartography (which you seem to be totally unaware of), your acknowledgement that it was not intended to be geographically accurate doesn’t temper my noting your scorn – the implication is that they were not capable of any greater geographical accuracy. Which is nonsense, like pretty much everything else in your article.

      Second, I appreciate the background of the mythical creatures from Pliny. I’ll make note of that and add that if I ever update the post.

      The only way you could usefully “update” your post is by deleting it.

      But identifying the origin of this information doesn’t change the point of the post. Christianity was in charge, and they had 1000 years for God to nudge his followers in the right direction. And yet this example illustrates how little had progressed.

      Utter gibberish. Firstly, Christianity was not “in charge” in the medieval period. That’s just your childish, kiddie’s-picture-book conception of the period, which shows how woefully ignorant you are about history. Secondly, as I show in my article above, medieval Europeans did query, investigate and correct the information they inherited from the Classical world. In a way that the far less curious Romans did not. These medieval writers drew on reports from people who actually travelled into the east and analysed the claims of Pliny, Solinus etc. sceptically – and most of those travellers and writers were clergy. So your ignorant conception of the issue is not just wrong, but it’s totally misinformed by your irrational bigotry.

      Now that you understand that the makers of the mappa did not get their ideas about geography, zoology and anthropology from Christianity, but got them from the Greeks and Romans, what malignant influence was “in charge” that prevented the Greeks and Romans from getting this stuff right or correcting it once it was established? And if Christianity being “in charge” was the issue, why was it Christian thinkers and travellers, many of them clergy, that began the process of correcting this Greek and Roman fantasia and replacing it with more accurate knowledge? And how the hell does the fact that this happened in the Middle Ages, beginning a centuries long process of Europeans gathering proper and accurate knowledge about the outside world, fit with your silly cartoonish crap about the retardant effect of Christianity? It doesn’t. Because you’re wrong. Because you’re a wilfully ignorant idiot.

      Of course, I’ve made just one illustration serve to show how little Christianity did with its opportunity.

      Your childish conception of Christianity being “in charge” aside, your “illustration” is wrong on pretty much every point, as I demonstrate in detail. You are a classic example of what happens when total methodological incompetence combines with utterly naive ignorance and blindly irrational prejudice. The result is the kind of hilarious sludge we see in your dimwitted article. You’re not just an ignorant fool, you’re also an irrational bigot. And a disgrace to actual rationalists.

      You might argue that looking at the complete sweep of social progress (to include cathedral building, say, or maybe hospitals) you find that Christianity actually did make progress so great that one is almost compelled to see the hand of God.

      I’m an atheist. So no, I would not do that.

      I don’t think this argument can be made, but at least you would be responding to the post’s point.

      Since the post’s point was premised on a cartoonish caricature of the medieval period, any point it was trying to make is doomed to failure. Your post is a laughing stock to anyone with any grasp of history. Stick to nitpicking at apologists and leave history alone – you are hopeless at it.

      15
      1
  10. Tim, I just have a little question about the middle ages based on a claim that I as a swede often come across as a on various blogs and internet forums by both swedish neopagans and atheists alike. They claim that the pagans of northern europe were super egalitarian and friendly towards women untill the wicked, evil and oppresive “Desert cultists” (aka christians) came and violently seized power turning the region into a misogynist hellhole. Is this a myth and are there any good books/articles that at least briefly touches upon the subject of women in germanic pagan cultures compared to women in christian cultures in the middle ages?

  11. Yes, finally. Someone who realizes a lot of the bad science in the Middle Ages came from the Ancients, NOT from Christianity. We are far too hung up on this idea that anything which came from Classical Greece or Rome was fantastic and infinitely superior to anything which came later.

    I actually think the over-reliance on the classics held Medievals back, rather than being helpful. It was only when they started investigating things for themselves that the real discoveries were often made.

  12. This is a fascinating article, but it is not true that no Greek or Roman author ever questioned the existence of the bizarre creatures discussed in this article. In fact, the very first mention of the “Headless People” (whom you call by their later name “Blemmyes”) in any extant source is in Herodotos’s Histories 4.191. Herodotos also mentions the Dog-Headed People in the same passage, but he attributes the stories about the Headless People and Dog-Headed People to the Libyans and uses language that indicates he doubted the veracity of these reports. I have long suspected that probably very few people ever seriously believed in such creatures. I think the Greeks and Romans and later medieval people mainly only told stories about them because they found such fanciful creatures humorous and amusing to tell stories about.

    1. “it is not true that no Greek or Roman author ever questioned the existence of the bizarre creatures discussed in this article. In fact, the very first mention of the “Headless People” (whom you call by their later name “Blemmyes”) in any extant source is in Herodotos’s Histories 4.191. Herodotos also mentions the Dog-Headed People in the same passage, but he attributes the stories about the Headless People and Dog-Headed People to the Libyans and uses language that indicates he doubted the veracity of these reports.”

      Really? Here is what Herodotus has to say:

      “Their country, and the rest of the western part of Libya, is much fuller of wild beasts and more wooded than the country of the nomads. For the eastern region of Libya, which the nomads inhabit, is low‑lying and sandy as far as the river Triton; but the land westward of this, where dwell the tillers of the soil, is exceeding hilly and wooded and full of wild beasts. In that country are the huge snakes, and the elephants and bears and asps, the horned asses, the dog‑headed men and the headless that have their eyes in their breasts, as the Libyans say, and the wild men and women, besides many other creatures not fabulous.”(Histories, IV.191)

      The simple attribution of reports on these various creatures to the Libyans does not rise to the level of scepticism you suppose. The Blemmyes and Cynocephali are reported alongside huge snakes, elephants and bears etc. with no differentiation and these are all considered “fabulous” – which they would be to a Greek. There is no indication that Herodotus doubts what the Libyans reports; he just says that he is relating what they say.

      “I have long suspected that probably very few people ever seriously believed in such creatures. “

      I see no sign of this. There is certainly no sign of it in Herodotus. Contrast his reporting with that of the medieval travellers I quote, who quite clearly express scepticism or even give rational explanations for how these fabulous stories arose. We see nothing like that in any of the ancients.

      1. The translation you have just quoted is A. D. Godley’s translation, which he produced for the Loeb Classical Library in 1920. Unfortunately, much of Herodotos’s skeptical language in this passage seems to be lost in that translation. In order to get the full of it, you have to go back to the original Greek. The Greek text of Herodotos’s Histories 4.191.4 reads as follows:

        “καὶ γὰρ οἱ ὄφιες οἱ ὑπερμεγάθεες καὶ οἱ λέοντες κατὰ τούτους εἰσὶ καὶ οἱ ἐλέφαντές τε καὶ ἄρκτοι καὶ ἀσπίδες τε καὶ ὄνοι οἱ τὰ κέρεα ἔχοντες καὶ οἱ κυνοκέφαλοι καὶ οἱ ἀκέφαλοι οἱ ἐν τοῖσι στήθεσι τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντες, ὡς δὴ λέγονταί γε ὑπὸ Λιβύων, καὶ οἱ ἄγριοι ἄνδρες καὶ γυναῖκες ἄγριαι, καὶ ἄλλα πλήθεϊ πολλὰ θηρία ἀκατάψευστα.”

        The first crucial part of the passage for our purposes here is the phrase “ὡς δὴ λέγονταί γε ὑπὸ Λιβύων.” “ὡς,” as it is used in this passage, is an adverb meaning “as” or “as it seems.” It often carries the implication of the author distancing himself from a report or indicating a degree of skepticism concerning it. “γε” is a limiting particle meaning “at least” or “at any rate.” For some reason, Godley totally omits this particle from his translation, which changes the meaning.

        Literally, the phrase “ὡς δὴ λέγονταί γε ὑπὸ Λιβύων” translates: “as indeed it seems [these things] are said at least by the Libyans.” If we were to translate the phrase somewhat more loosely into more idiomatic English, we might translate it as “or so the Libyans say at least.” It is also important to note that Herodotos uses this phrase immediately after the lengthy mention the Akephaloi, but before the mention of the “wild men and women,” as though the statement is meant to apply to the Akephaloi in particular.

        Later in the passage, Herodotos goes on to say that there are many other creatures in Libya, which he describes as “ἀκατάψευστα.” Godley’s translation renders this word as “not fabulous,” but the word ἀκατάψευστα comes from the verb καταψεύδομαι, meaning “to lie,” “to fabricate,” or “to make up.” A more accurate translation of the Greek phrase “πολλὰ θηρία ἀκατάψευστα” would therefore be something along the lines of “many creatures that aren’t made up.” Now, Herodotos’s wording here is admittedly rather ambiguous, but I am strongly inclined to take this as Herodotos essentially implying that at least some of the creatures he has just mentioned might be made up.

        From the Greek text, it seems to me at least that Herodotos is rather skeptical of these reports he has heard. Herodotos’s skepticism—if indeed that is what it is—is admittedly rather low-key and very subtly expressed. I would agree that what Herodotos says here does not exactly rise to the level of an outright, unequivocal rejection. Nevertheless, I think this passage qualifies as good evidence that Herodotos had at least some doubts regarding the existence of the Akephaloi.

        It is also worth mentioning that the very first known mention of the Skiapodes in any ancient Greek literary work is not in an encyclopedia or historical treatise, but rather in a line from a comedy: Aristophanes’s Birds, line 1554. That fact by itself does not really prove anything, but it is an interesting fact to notice when it comes to discussion of how many people in ancient Greece actually took the existence of these creatures seriously.

        In any case, none of this diminishes the achievements of the later medieval skeptics who came to reject the existence of such fanciful creatures. I strongly agree with nearly everything you have said in this article; people in the Middle Ages were certainly no idiots. I am just saying that I would disagree with your assertion that the Greeks and Romans never doubted the existence of creatures such as the Kynokephaloi, Akephaloi, Skiapodes, etc.

        Again, everything I am saying here is extremely nit-picky. Overall, what you have written here is extremely good. I have actually been a huge fan of your blog for years now. I think it is wonderful that you are correcting misconceptions about history that have been promoted by various New Atheist writers. I occasionally debunk misconceptions, mainly about classical history, on my own blog, although, unlike yours, my blog is not specifically devoted to the purpose of debunking misconceptions.

        1. Thanks for an excellent and detailed comment. I must say that – to me- it still doesn’t quite make what he says “sceptical”. I’d say it’s more like he’s putting some caveats around a report that he (understandably) finds rather strange. But yes, it is certainly more cautious than credulous.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *