The Lopo Homem Map Once More

Abstract

THE results of M. Destombes' theory, as set out in his article published in the Journal for November 1937, are that the Lopo Homem world map of 1519 forms part of the Miller Atlas; that this Atlas should be dated 1519 and not, as previously, i5i6ori5i7; and that it should be attributed to Homem, and not to the Reinels. I believe that M. Destombes' argument is to a considerable extent valid, and I propose to establish here the accuracy of his first two conclusions, but to show that there is little likelihood of his third conclusion being true. In my work 'La Mer Rouge,' volume II, I reproduced most of the sheets of the Miller Atlas in colour, and, in black, the Lopo Homem map. Without committing myself on the authenticity of a document which I had not personally examined, I summarized the points at issue, and showed the resemblance it bore to a sheet in the Miller Atlas, that of the Malay archipelago. M. Destombes is right in saying that one of the two sheets missing from the Miller Atlas is quite likely to be the Homem map. By its shape and general character, it would fit normally into the Atlas, and form the logical opening, as it is a general map. The resemblance between the semi-gothic characters of the title in the first verso of the Homem map and those of the numerous framed legends of the Atlas excludes the possibility of the former being a forgery. As to the identity of the colours, affirmed by M. Destombes, I am unable to judge. I had concluded that if the Homem map was a forgery, the forger was exceedingly clever, and possessed a profound knowledge of contemporary cartography. I cannot however agree with M. Destombes that an examination of the outlines shows that the Homem map formed an integral part of the Atlas. He considers that the drawing of the coasts of Northern Europe, the sea of the Moluccas, and the China sea is the same in both documents. I agree fully as regards the sea of the Moluccas, and partially as regards the China sea. For the rest, I prefer to reverse M. Destombes' reasoning and to attempt to discover how, despite the serious divergences between the outlines, the Homem map may have formed part of the Miller Atlas without the whole having been the work of one cartographer. If we first compare the outlines, it is clear from the north-west Europe sheet of the Miller Atlas, reproduced with M. Destombes' article, that the outline of the Homem map is different, though perhaps related. The outlines of the British Isles, the Norwegian coast, and the Baltic are far from identical. It is not possible to compare the representations of Africa, as the Central and South African sheet is missing from the Miller Atlas. Madagascar is however very characteristic in the Atlas, and is worth attention. The approximate coast-line was revealed by Portuguese navigators from 1500 onwards. On all portolans earlier than this Atlas, the outline is pure fantasy. In the Atlas however the shape displays a standard which was not surpassed for two centuries, and which had already served as a model for the Reinel charts of 1517 and 1520 at Munich. The shape in the Homem map is much inferior.