丁乐锶,edonis bex38,小狗眼屎多
1507年，对新世界的出版的激动之处在于这导致了对地图上，地球仪上大陆的命名和一篇在洛林孚日圣地耶出版的，由托勒密著作的论文作为附录发行。因为阿美利哥韦斯普奇的出现，对新世界大报的城市作出的网络分析显示了那篇文章主要是在德国的商业城市出版，特别是在1504年和1506年间的奥格斯堡和纽伦堡。有一明显的证据证明在此期间这篇有关阿美利哥韦斯普奇航海的文章是为了募捐德国对到亚洲的葡萄牙舰队进行金融商业投资而发行。1507年，以新名字命名的地图和地球仪表明如果康斯坦茨的国会议员支持马克西米利安远征意大利追求皇冠，那么他们可能可以获取财富。因此，马克西米利安一世和路易十二为了神圣罗马帝国皇帝的称号和与亚洲贸易的投资需要而斗争决定了美洲的诞生。
ABSTRACT
In 1507, the excitement over the publication of the Mundus Novus led to the naming of a new continent on the map, a globe and a learned treatise as an appendix to an edition of a work by Ptolemy published in Saint-Dié, Lorraine. Network analysis of the cities where the broadsheet Mundus Novus, attributed to Amerigo Vespucci appeared shows that the text was mainly published in German mercantile cities, especially Augsburg and Nuremberg between 1504 and 1506. There is strong evidence that this text about the voyages of Amerigo Vespucci was primarily issued to raise money in order to finance German mercantile investments in the Portuguese fleet to Asia in 1505-1506. In 1507, the map and the globe with the new name for the New World demonstrated the riches that the members of the Diet of Konstanz might obtain if they supported Maximilian in his expedition to Italy and his quest for the imperial crown. Thus, the struggle between Maximilian I and Louis XII for the title of Holy Roman Emperor and the need for investment in German trade with Asia determined the invention of America.
KEYWORDS: Maximilian I, Louis XII, Holy Roman Emperor, Konstanz, Augsburg, Nuremberg.
America was invented in Saint-Dié, Lorraine in 1507 (O’Gorman, 1995; Sanz, 1959) and immediately met with resounding success. In southern Germany, humanists copied and recopied the sketch of the new continent and its new designation. In contrast, the creator of the map of the new continent, cartographer Martin Waldseemüller, omitted the name America from the maps he printed from 1513 onwards. Nonetheless, America was already firmly attached to the New World in the German humanist consciousness. This story is very well known, but certain matters are still the subject of debate: why German humanists were much more familiar with the voyages of Amerigo Vespucci than with those of Christopher Columbus; why they retained the new name even when its inventor had dropped it; and why it was humanists from southern Germany, and not Spanish, Portuguese or Italian scholars, who determined the name of the New World.
In order to answer these questions, the transfer of information between the southern Atlantic and southern Germany which led to the dissemination of the deeds of Amerigo Vespucci will be analyzed. A reconstruction of the networks of printed media will be crucial to our understanding of why Vespucci received such enormous attention in contrast to other contemporary explorers. In order to place the publicity gained by the voyage of Vespucci in a broader context, it will be compared with the distribution of news about similar events, i.e. the first voyage of Columbus, as its most important predecessor based on number of publications. Comparison of the distribution of information about the first voyages of Columbus and Vespucci thus forms the basis of the following analysis. The spread of these messages will be studied mainly for the German Empire and Southern Europe, the centres of the printing press in Europe. Although ultimately the naming of the New World was a long process, its initial years will be the focus of the present study.
Historiography has followed the 1958 argument of Edmundo O’Gorman that America was invented and not really discovered (O’Gorman, 1996; Gil, 1989; Pietschmann, 2007: 367-389). The naming was the work of two German humanists from the University of Freiburg: Mathias Ringmann, a young scholar, and Martin Waldseemüller, an outstanding cartographer. In 1507, they published an edition of ClaudiusPtolemy’sGeography in Saint-Dié, Lorraine, a centre of learning recently created by Duke René II of Lorraine. Ringmann added an account of four voyages to Brazil attributed to Florentine humanist Amerigo Vespucci to Ptolemy’s work. Furthermore, Ringmann attached a geographical commentary in which he suggested calling the recently discovered landmass in the southwestern Atlantic after Vespucci’s first name: America, alliteration with Asia and Africa. The cartographer, Martin Waldseemüller, designed a large world map and a small globe, both printed as woodcuts. On the map and globe, the territories in the southwestern Atlantic were named America. This published sample from 1507 – the world map, the globe, the account of the voyages and the humanist commentary – determined the name of the New World. Lehmann (2010) offers a new edition and translation of Ringmann’s text. And although this information is widely known, it remains unclear why Ringmann and Waldseemüller chose the accounts of Vespucci rather than those of Columbus.
Historians have stressed that the images attributed to the New World had been deeply rooted in European culture since antiquity. The same monsters and giants that appeared in the grotesques of Renaissance gardens were used in descriptions of the Americas. In addition, these perceptions seemed to have been rather long-lasting and static (Elliot, 1970; Pagden, 1993; Siraisi, 1992). The same happened with the cartographic image by Martin Waldseemüller and especially the naming of the new continent. The reasons why changes occurred so slowly or not at all still remain obscure.
Another point that has been brought to the attention of historiographical analysis was the importance of German publications concerning the Americas, which were rather numerous, especially during the first decades of the 16th century (Hirsch, 1976: 537-558). The same applied to the naming of the New World, which happened within the sphere of the German humanists, but it is rather unclear why the German scholars at Saint-Dié were so influential, as they had no direct relation to the Iberian Peninsula and even less to the southern Atlantic.
Possible reasons why America was forever named after Vespucci at Saint-Dié in 1507 may be identified by comparing the dissemination of news about the Columbus and Vespucci voyages. The networks of the different editions will be reconstructed and analysed in chronological order, with short references to the circulation of manuscripts and maps in each case. This comparison of the networks for printed broadsheets needs to be preceded by a few general considerations regarding the economic aspects of printing in the early modern period.
The printing press has been regarded as an agent of considerable change in early modern times and especially as a means to further capitalism in the information business (Eisenstein, 1983). This historiographical concept of the 1970s and 1980s has been contested since the turn of the 21th century (Bethencourt and Egmond, 2007; Vivo, 2007; Infelise, 2002; Bouza, 2001). Recent studies stress the market orientation of manuscript production in numerous offices, where scribes copied and recopied the latest news based on demand from subscribers and readers. In contrast, printers needed large preliminary investments in paper, manpower and machinery. These were not usually paid for by readers in advance, but by persons interested in disseminating information, or in some cases, like manuscripts, by subscribers. Thus, printed publications were to a great extent financed by those concerned to exercise influence in the public sphere. Because this was one objective of printing, it is crucial to determine the parties interested in financing the broadsheets discussing the new continent and its naming.
The structure of the network implies that the publications were intended to serve as propaganda for the Catholic Monarchs. At least one of the publications from Barcelona was ordered, published and paid for by the Castilian-Aragonese crown (Rumeu de Armas, 1989). In the case of the Roman publications, specific data are lacking, but many of the titles suggest that the propaganda in Rome would have supported the position of the Catholic Monarchs in the Roman and Vatican public spheres. At the same time, the Castilian-Aragonese monarchs obtained several papal bulls from Aragonese pope Alexander VI to be used to reverse the Treaty of Alcáçovas (1479) with Portugal. According to this older treaty, the Castilians were required to avoid exploration south of Cape Bojador, near the Canary Islands. After the return of Columbus, the Treaty of Alcáçovas had to be replaced if the Castilian-Aragonese monarchs wanted to authorize further expeditions in the southwestern Atlantic. The use of these publications as propaganda proved to be effective, as the Spanish Monarchs obtained favourable papal bulls and was able to sign a new treaty with Portugal after just one year of negotiations, in 1494. The new Treaty of Tordesillas allowed the Castilians to explore territories in the western Atlantic even if they were located in the south. After 1493, publications which discussed the account of Columbus’s travels at length ceased on the Iberian Peninsula. Up to 1496, only three editions with an increasing number of engravings were issued by printing houses in northwestern Europe. Thus the first publications on the Columbian voyages must be attributed mainly to the political interests of the Castilian-Aragonese Catholic Monarchs. Columbus’s first published letters were not destined to have a long-lasting effect, but they were an effective use of fresh information in the ongoing political and commercial struggle between Castile and Aragon on the one hand and Portugal on the other. |
