The Canadian Historical Review

610 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW Inventing theFlat Earth:Columbus andModernHistorians. JEFFREY BURTON RUSS•.LL. NewYork:Praeger 1991.Pp.xiv, 118,illus.$12.95 In thisquincentennial year of Columbus's world-changing voyage, the discoverer's epicachievement isbeingcelebrated withfloodsof printedand filmed material, not to mention exhibitionsand a host of eventsof various sorts. Whatexacfiy did Columbus dotoinspiresucha frenzyofcelebration? Besidesthe obviousanswerof discoveringunsuspected continents,the response thatis oftengivenis that 'Columbus showed that the worldwas round.'That is pure invention, according toJeffreyRussell, whomaintains thatthesphericity oftheEarthwas already wellknown in Columbus's day, as wasitsapproximate drcumference. WhatColumbus hadsetouttodowasto reach'India' - a terrathatreferredto the entire Far East- to openitsriches to Europeantrade,and the soulsof its peoplesto Christianmissionaries. Columbus sharedthe generalEuropean beliefthatAsiawaswaitingto be Chrisfianized. The doubts he had to overcome concerned the distance he wouldhavetosailtoreach .hisobjective; authorities fearedit wouldbetoofar for the supplies the shipsof the daycouldcarryfor the subsistence of the crews,and that the curvatureof the Earth wouldpreventa safereturn. Besides, theydid notthinktherecouldbeinhabitants on theothersideof the planet,because theywouldnot be descended from Adam.Columbus finallywonhispointbycooking thefigures: he estimated the voyage at 20 percentofitsactuallength.AsRussell observed, it wasthenavigator's great goodluckthattheAmericas werein hisway. What, then, aboutthosestories of the Councilof Salamancea arguing against Columbus thattheworldwasflat,andif he sailed toofar, hewould falloff?Russell attributes themprincipally toWashington Irving (1783-1859) andAntoine-Jean Letronne (1787-1848). Irvingwasabetterstoryteller than historian; asonecriticobserved, 'hisfinalclaimmust •restuponhishaving turnedthestoryofColumbus intoa workofart.'Letronne's prestige wasso great inacademic circles thatwhenhewrotethatmedieval scholars generally espoused theflatEarthfallacy, hisviews wereaccepted withoutchecking. He had usedthe fact that a few of thosescholars did supportthe theoryLactantius wasa much-used example - toarguethatthebeliefwasgenerally heldin the'DarkAges.' ThuswaserrorbuiltuponerroruntiltheflatEarth fallacy became inextricably linkedwiththemedieval wordview in mainstream scholarship of thenineteenth andtwentieth centuries. The errorremains pervasive today,despite overwhelming evidence against it. Russell's tracingout of the process by whichsucha thing canhappen makes forcompelling reading. Ashesays, therearesome important things to be learnedfromall this.His points are worthrepeating in abridged form. First,thereis the ease withwhicherrorsof factor interpretation canbe REVIEWS 611 unwittingly repeated andpropagated when methodology andsources arenot checked; no one'sword is aboveverification. Second,scholars and scientists can beledbytheirbiases ratherthanbytheevidence. Third,therecanbeno privileged systems bywhich tojudgethetruthofother systems. Accepted theories andworld views should becritically assessed, as well asreputed facts. Fourth,the assumption thattoday's viewsare superior to thoseof older cultures leadsto undervaluing thepast.The fiatEartherrorisbased onthe convictions thatignorance andsuperstition ruledtheday intheMiddle Ages, andthatthechurchwasconsistenfiy opposed toscience. Thiswasdemonstrablynotthecase , particularly in theearlier period. Finally, it isimportant to realize thatfallacies or'myths' can become soembedded inthought thatthey takeon a life of their own;a shared bodyof suchmythcanoverwhelm reason and evidence. Historians ofscience have known formorethansixty years thatColumbus was sharing a widespread beliefof hisdaywhenheheldthattheworldwas spherical. That hasnot prevented theflat Earthfallacy fromcontinuing to appear in histories. OLIVE PATRICIA DICKASON University ofAlberta Objectivity, Method andPoint ofView: Essays inthe Philosophy ofHistory. Editedby wd.VAN DER DUSSEN and LIONEL RUBINOFF. LeidenandNewYork:E.J.Brill 1991.Pp.x, 206. $51.28 Thiscollection ofessays originated in aconference heldinhonour ofWilliam H. DrayatTrent University. 'DrayDay,'oneof thecontributors informs us, washeldon 24 May 1986.Four of thebook's essays werepresented at the conference, andtheremaining sixwerelatercommissioned, including a conriseandinformative survey of Dray's workbyLionelRubinoff. Drayhimself offers a commentary on theessays, andthevolume concludes witha comprehensive listof hispublications. The bookis ratherlikea Festschrifi, in short, butmoreinteresting tothegeneral readerand,onewouldguess, more valued bytheFestschri. fi-eeforhaving beenorganized around issues in the critical philosophy ofhistory thathehas substantially helped todefine. Someof the contributors usetheoccasion to continue disputes withDray onparticular points: R.F.Atkinson ontheautonomousness ofthephilosophy of history, for example; DavidBoucher, morepointedly, on thelimited relevance ofquestions concerning thelogic ofexplanation tothephilosophic investigation ofhistories considered as'discursive formations'; andL. Pompa ontheplace ofvalue judgments inhistorical inquiry. Michael Krausz affirms thatthepast weknow isa past constituted byhistorians, though heclaims thereis a difference between 'praxialconstructionism' and 'ontological constructionism.' ...