Abstract

This article investigates the maps of the moon produced in the mid-seventeenth century by Jesuit Giambattista Riccioli and Johannes Hevelius, whose cartographic projects competed for widespread acceptance. Although Hevelius’s Selenographia was applauded for its many detailed, self-engraved pictures of the moon, his cartography and proposed nomenclature were supplanted by Riccioli’s as offered in Almagestum novum, in spite of the latter’s simplistic pictures and promotion of geocentric cosmology. Exploring this paradox through pictorial analysis, three types of images common to both Selenographia and Almagestum novum are compared, employing an analytical tool developed by Svetlana Alpers in The art of describing. A focus on this debate exposes the tensions evoked by new technologies of vision and competing cultures of visual epistemology in seventeenth-century astronomy. As both selenographers grappled with questions about the role of representation and what kinds of knowledge could be generated visually, the successes and failures of their competing projects present implications for the course of visual astronomy, as well as for our understanding of the use of ‘visual technologies’ in a period of controversy.Keywords: Johannes Hevelius; Giambattista Riccioli ; Svetlana Alpers; Astronomy; Early modern; Moon maps; Visual culture; Images in science.