Figure I in "Christian Topography" illustrates a map. Cosmas explains that the land inhabited by mortals is surrounded by the ocean. On his map the inhabited earth is shown as a rectangle, framed by a rectangular band of sea. Four large gulfs can be seen opening into the inhabited land, each identified by an inscription - the "Romaic Gulf" (that is, the Mediterranean), the "Arabian Gulf" (the Red Sea), the "Persian Gulf," and the "Caspian Sea." Surrounding the rectangular band of sea there is another band representing "the earth beyond the ocean." It is here in the east that the Earthly Paradise is located, recognizable from its trees, which, according the Early Christian writers, bore ripe fruit constantly at all times of the year. From the Earthly Paradise flow its four rivers, which traverse the "earth beyond the ocean," then pass under the ocean to come out again in the inhabited earth as the "Tigris'" the "Euphrates," the "Phison," and the "Gehon," or Nile.
As Boorstin states in The Discoverers (1983), "There was, of course, only one 'face' of the earth - that which God gave to us the descendants of Adam - which made any suggestion of Antipodes both abuser and heretical. Cosmas' work is still very much worth consulting as a wholesome tonic for any who believe there may be limits to human credulity." [63]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the influence of Cosmas:
According to Russell, Cosmas Indicopleustes' work Christian Topology "was widely ignored at the time and Christian scholars like John Philoponus derided it as the work of an uneducated fool" [63] (Note: We have searched for these references in Philoponus' works which deride Cosmas' flat earth views, but haven't found them yet.)
Some writers discount flat earth references as metaphors of speech. Or, they state that flat-earthers with clear religious ties were just fools that nobody listened to such as Cosmas Indicopleustes and Lactantius. Russell and others also admit that Lactantius, a Church father, believed the earth was flat, but state "no one paid much attention to him either."
Some argue that Cosmas and Lactantius were fringe writers whose works were either completely unknown or highly obscure in the medieval West. So how can they be held up as being representative of, let alone influential on, medieval thinking on the shape of the earth? Bede, by stark contrast, was one of the most influential and widely disseminated writers of the medieval period, and his clear and well demonstrated belief that the earth was spherical was well known. [82]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Cosmas Indicopleustes and Lactantius: Influential or "Fringe Writers"? in Chapter 3.
560-
636 CE St. Isidore of Seville (Isodurus Hispalenis, Bishop of Seville) - Isidore was a highly influential encyclopaedist who was widely copied and cited throughout the Middle Ages. Opinion is divided as to how he saw the shape of the earth, especially in light of his etymology regarding the Latin for 'world' being derived from the word for 'wheel'. The wheel analogy seems to be referring to the northern temperate zone - a disc-shaped 'slice' of the globe between the inhabitable arctic and the (supposedly) inhabitable equatorial zone. Hrabanus Maurus (780-856 - Bishop of Mainz) also used this wheel analogy for the 'habitable' part of the northern hemisphere, even though he clearly saw the earth as a globe. Isidore was NOT opposed to antipodean lands and was even open to the possibility that they were inhabited.
The discussion of Isidore is included here because his symbolic maps are often perceived as proof of flat earth thinking (see Medieval Maps: Symbolic or Cartographic? in Chapter 3). In fact, the Ethical Atheist initially viewed them in this manner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Famous for his flat "T-shaped" maps, also known as "wheel" maps or "T-O" maps. These maps had a circular O-shape, with a T-shaped waterway which divided the entire habitable earth into 3 parts: Asia, Africa and Europe.
In his book Etymologies (sometimes called Origins or Etymologiarum), he is creative in dealing with dangerous topics, such as the figure of the world, he does not lay down the law himself, but quotes 'the philosophers' as teaching this or that, though without finding fault with them". [15]
"Etymologiarum consists of 20 Books on 175 leaves, including a mappamundi (map of the world), and was meant to be an encyclopedia that summed up the knowledge accumulated by early 7th century Europe." ... " Isidore's sources were primarily the Spanish presbyter Orosius and, secondarily, Solinus, who is quoted some 200 times, and Pomponius Mela., as well as the teachings of the Church Fathers." ... "Concerning the earth we are told that it is named from its roundness (orbis) which is like a wheel; whence the small wheel is called "orbiculus". For the Ocean flows round it on all sides and encircles its boundaries." ... "Europe and Africa, occupy half of the world and that Asia alone occupies the other half. The former were made into two parts because the Great Sea (called the Mediterranean) enters from the Ocean between them and cuts them apart . . ." [39]
"Admits the possible existence of Antipodean lands: Moreover beyond [these] three parts of the world, on the other side of the ocean, is a fourth inland part in the south, which is unknown to us because of the heat of the sun, within the bounds of which the Antipodes are fabulously said to dwell. Indicates that he more than half believed in the sphericity of the earth and quite fully in the doctrine of the Antipodes." [39]
Maps show his belief in the Scriptures and his desire to depict their legends. The maps included Jerusalem at the center based on Ezekiel V:5: "This is Jerusalem: I have set it in the midst of the nations and countries that are round about her." Some maps bore the Biblical names only; others had explanatory inscriptions stating, for instance, that Asia was named after a Queen Asia, "of the posterity of Shem, and is inhabited by 27 peoples; that Africa is derived from Afer, a descendent of Abraham, and has 30 races in 360 towns"; and that Europe, named from the Europa of mythology, "is inhabited by the 15 tribes of the sons of Japhet and has 120 cities" [39]
Recommend viewing Isidore's maps of the world at "Index of Cartographic Images Illustrating Maps of the Early Medieval Period, 400-1300 A.D."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Included here only as a reference to works cited in the flat earth debates of contemporary authors. See previous discussion on "Medieval Maps: Symbolic or Cartographic".
673-
735 CE The Venerable Bede - an English monk, took his cosmology from Pliny. His De temporum ratione shows a knowledge of latitude and the annual movement of the sun into the north and south hemispheres from the evidence of varying lengths of shadows.
In our view, Bede represents a major turning point. He not only wrote of a spherical earth, but he did so without the cautious approach described above. This seems to indicate that a spherical view is widely held AND that the Church is not concerned about a scriptural conflict.
Another important fact with Bede is that he clearly held a spherical view, yet a 12th century edition of Bede's De natura rerum contained some of the well known T-O maps. [113] If these maps were meant to depict a flat earth, as some have claimed, why would they have been included in Bede's De natura rerum which clearly supports a spherical view? It simply wouldn't make sense. While this says nothing of Bede, it gives credit to the argument that T-O maps are NOT proof of flat earth thinking. (See previous discussion on "Medieval Maps: Symbolic or Cartographic".)
??-
755 CE St. Boniface - There is considerable debate regarding the conflict between St. Boniface and Vergilius (see below). Some material, such as The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV (1912), plainly state that "St. Boniface accused Vergilius of teaching a doctrine in regard to the rotundity of the earth, which was "contrary to the Scriptures". [35] {see also "St. Virgil of Salzburg (Vergilius), Bishop" discussion below} [33] Others in the debate say the conflict was not the 'rotundity' of the earth, but the old debate about the inhabitants of the Antipodes. We present it here so you can make your own conclusion. However, it is revealing to note, as discussed below, that Vergilius later continued his ascent up the Catholic hierarchy so he must have defended his position well before Pope St. Zachary I.
745-
784 CE St. Virgil of Salzburg (Vergilius), Bishop - One of the best educated people in Northern Europe, but his intellectualism may have worked against him. "His doctrine that the earth is a sphere was derived from the teaching of ancient geographers, and his belief in the existence of the antipodes was probably influenced by the accounts which the ancient Irish voyagers gave of their journeys." [35] "St. Boniface accused Vergilius of teaching a doctrine in regard to the rotundity of the earth, which was "contrary to the Scriptures". Pope Zachary's decision in this case was that "if it be proved that he held the said doctrine, a council be held, and Vergilius expelled from the Church and deprived of his priestly dignity" (Jaffe, "Biblioth. rerum germ.", III, 191). " [35] St. Virgil believed "that beneath the earth there was another world and other men, another sun and moon" (antipodes). Pope St. Zachary I censured Vergil for believing that people exist in the Antipodes but took no drastic action. In 767, Vergil was appointed Bishop of Salzburg. Worth stressing that Virgil was appointed bishop after the heresy investigation. [34] Note: Some claim that the writer Aethicus of Istria, author of Cosmography of the World (Cosmographia Aethici Istrii), was actually Virgil of Salzburg. [40] Aethicus wrote that the "earth of course is flat, the sun likewise (it is spoken of as a table, mensa solis), and it passes through the gate of the east every morning to lighten up the world, and passes in the evening through the gate of the west to return during the night to its starting-point through the south." [15]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was the Boniface/Vergilius conflict over the 'rotundity of the earth' or inhabited antipodes? (See St. Boniface, above.) We don't feel we have enough original material to make a conclusion. Therefore, we didn't include their conflict in our Summary of Findings in Chapter 2. You can make your own conclusion, but in either case, it seems obvious that Vergilius was playing the role of the "brave scholar championing the truth of ancient knowledge being accused by a pious idiot before the Pope." [82]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Aethicus of Istria we also do not feel we have enough evidence to believe this writer was in fact St. Virgil. This would be critical in the flat earth debate because it would push flat earth belief forward from 547 CD (Cosmas) to 784 CE (St. Virgil). Any help in resolving this would be greatly appreciated.
1080-
1154 CE William of Conches - one of the most famous masters of the schools which flourished in Northern France. In his Dragmaticon Philosophiae (Dialogue on Natural Philosophy), he affirmed that it not the task of the Bible to teach us about nature. [Chapter in this work entitled "The Form of the Earth" (Book VI, Chapter 2).] [103] Reveals that not only did intellectuals understand the Earth to be spherical, but they also felt the need to have a ready explanation for those who had never had the opportunity to think about it very carefully. "William also wrote commentaries, which he called Glosae (Glosses), on Plato’s Timaeus, on Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, on Macrobius’ Commentary on the Dream of Scipio, on Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae. These commentaries, often written in haste, reflect the everyday life of a school more faithfully than elaborated treatises. Thanks to these Glosae, the modern reader is ushered into a medieval school and introduced to the methods and the spirit with which teaching was offered there by masters like William of Conches." [104]
Dragmaticon was written as a dialogue between a philosopher and Duke Geoffrey le Bel of Anjou of Normandy. The following is from Dragmaticon, pp. 121-222:
DUKE. I do not care about disproving these, but I do have some doubts about the shape of the earth. Please, therefore, explain your standpoint.
PHILOSOPHER. Some people, like animals trusting their feelings ahead of their reason, have said that the earth is flat: for wherever they move, they do not sense its roundness. I will set myself to destroy their opinion with probable arguments. If the earth were flat, rainwater falling on its surface would not run off but collect in one place to form a lake.
Again, if it were flat, a city situated in the east would have morning and midday at the same time: for no sooner had the sun risen there than it would be high above that city; but a city located in the west would have midday and evening at the same time. And the closer the cities were to the east, the smaller would be the space between morning and midday, the greater between midday and evening; but the closer they were to the west, the other way round [that is, the greater would be the space, and so forth]. So that you can understand this better I shall sketch a figure in which I shall draw a line for the flat earth and at the two ends of it two cities, and above it I shall draw in the curve of the sun and above each of the two cities the [rising and setting] sun, in this way [fig. 25].
Since for all people the time interval from morning till midday and from midday till sunset is equally long, it is clear that the earth is not flat but round. For this reason people in the east experience sunrise, midday, and sunset earlier than those in the west. I shall draw four cities for you in one circle: one in the west, the other opposite this in the east, the third [midway] between east and west above the earth, the fourth opposite that below the earth; I shall indicate the eastern city with A, the midday one with B, the western city with C and the midnight one with D [fig. 26].
When the sun rises for the city at A, then it sets for its opposite C, it is midday for D and midnight for B. When the sun rises at B, it sets at its opposite D, it is midday at A and midnight at C. When it rises at C, it sets at its opposite A, it is midday at B and midnight at D. When it rises at city D, it sets at city B, C has midday and A midnight. Nor should it surprise you if there are no cities in [all] the [axial] points of the earth mentioned, but certainly there are places in which the sun rises and sets. So at every single hour the sun rises for one quadrant [pars] of the earth, sets for another, it is at midday for one quadrant and at midnight for another. This is a proof for the roundness of the earth.
There is another proof for the same tenet, namely, the fact that the stars that appear at one latitude [in uno climate] do not appear at another: the star of Canopus, which is visible in Egypt, is not visible at our latitude. This would never happen if the earth were flat. Therefore, the earth is round and spherical.
DUKE. When on the earth's surface we see how very deep some valleys are, and see mountains soaring above the clouds, how can the earth be round?
PHILOSOPHER. Our smallness makes the smallest things appear large. How big do you think Mount Olympus is when the whole earth has no dimension at all in comparison with the sky? Take a ditch one foot deep, which you could cross with a stride: you would consider it neither a valley nor a mountain. But let a louse enter it: it would think itself in a huge valley surrounded by huge mountains. Therefore valleys and mountains do not detract from the roundness of the earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The interaction above seems to be revealing. At this point in history, we are surprised to find this dialog in William of Conches' Dragmaticon. Is the Duke really this naive or he simply being used as a character for the dialog? We have not read the full book, so it is hard to judge the context and intentions of William. As mentioned above, it appears that he felt the need to have a ready explanation for questions like the Duke put forth (or at least to document an explanation for colleagues and others facing these questions). It does appear indicative of some residual flat earth thinkers. Since William was a teacher, maybe this thinking was still held by some of the young or uneducated. We did not include this in our Summary of Findings or Conclusions because it requires some speculation to arrive at a belief of flat earth thinking. Without reading the complete work, it could be argued that it is simply a dialog to demonstrate logic and debate.
