Hrvatski otoci na kartama u Velikom izolaru i peljaru Andréa Theveta The Croatian Islands on maps in André Thevet's Le Grand Insulaire et Pilotage

The French royal cosmographer André Thevet wrote many works, including Le Grand Insulaire et Pilotage . The second volume of this work (a navigation manual), prepared in manuscript form in 1586, describes the Croatian coast and islands and includes maps of Krk, Pag, Ugljan with Pašman, Čiovo, Brač, Hvar, and Korčula. These achievements are completely unknown in Croatian scientific literature. The subject of this paper is Thevet’s maps showing the Croatian islands. Their geographical content is compared to maps published in the second half of the 16th century in isolarios by Giovanni Francesco Camocio (1571), Antonio Millo (1582), and Giuseppe Rosaccio (1598). The study shows that Thevet’s maps were completely different from those produced by his contemporaries, especially in terms of the contours of island coastlines and depicted geographical features. Thevet’s maps were a reflection of the author’s personal competence, primarily his knowledge of geography and methods of spatial data collection, processing and cartographic visualisation, and are also a vivid testimony to French insight into the geography of the eastern Adriatic coast during the Renaissance.


Introduction
The first decades of the modern age coincided with the cultural epoch of the Renaissance, which was based on the (re)discovery of classical heritage, great geographical discoveries, and significant socio-economic progress; interwoven with the development of science, technology and the arts, all of which literally and symbolically widened European horizons. This was particularly obvious in the development of geography and cartography, which had the task of systematising and representing a complex, multi-layered corpus of geographic discoveries, (local, regional, or state level) that could be used in different ways to manage spatial resources (in administration, the military, navigation, etc.) at the continental or global level, and enabled insights into the spatial reality of the known world. André Thevet (Angoulême, 1516 -Paris, 1592), a French royal cosmographer, belonged to the group of European cosmographers and geographers who were immersed methodologically in Ptolemy's Geography. He wrote several works in the spirit of Renaissance cosmography, covering geographical, ethnological, historical, maritime, and other knowledge of the spatial features of continents and oceans (Lestringant, 1994;2003). His primary vocation was that of a priest in the Franciscan Order, and he was also chaplain to Queen Catherine de' Medici and cosmographer to the last French kings in the Valois dynasty-Henri II, Francois II, Charles IX, and Henri III. Although he had no formal academic education in the fields of geography and cartography, he wanted to make a personal contribution to the popular way of viewing the world as a whole via great geographical discoveries, and make this knowledge more accessible to the European public of the time. To this end, he organised various journeys, primarily within the bounds of classic pilgrim routes to the eastern Mediterranean, with their final destination in the Holy Land, but also across the Atlantic, particularly to the Brazilian coastline, where France was attempting to take advantage of temporary Portuguese weaknesses to establish its own colony (France Antarctique).
In terms of contents, it corresponds in many ways to isolarios by Venetian authors. These cartographic encyclopaedias of the islands were common in early modern geographic culture (Tolias, 2007;2012). During the 16 th century, a certain degree of standardisation took place in regard to isolarios, prompted by the work of Benedetto Bordone, Tommas Parcacchi, Giovanni Francesco Camocio, Guiseppe Rosaccio, and others (Stouraiti, 2013). In their works, the islands were described and depicted on maps in order to present basic geographic knowledge to a wide circle of readers. This was often based more on experience than scientific research, primarily in regard to Mediterranean islands, and all other known islands throughout the world, the number of which continually increased thanks to great geographic discoveries. The contents and purpose of isolarios were perhaps best expressed by Guiseppe Rosaccio on the title page of his work about a journey from Venice to Byzantium and then on to the Holy Land by land and sea. It was published in Venice in 1598 as Viaggio da Venetia a Constantinopoli per Mare e per Terra et insieme quello di Terra Santa. After the title, he explicitly claimed that the work contained brief geographic and chorographic depictions with 72 maps, dealing with towns, fortresses, harbours, bays, islands, mountains, rivers and seas (con brevità descritto -nel quale, oltre à settantadui disegni, di Geografia e Corografia si discorre, quanto in esso viaggio, si ritrova cioe Città, Castelli, Porti, Golfi, Isole, Monti, Fiumi, e Mari). At the end, it was stated for whom it was intended: merchants; sailors; and geographic researchers (Opera utile à Mercanti, Marinari, & à Studiosi di Geografia).
Thevetov Veliki izolar i peljar po vrsti sadržaja umnogome se podudara s knjigama o otocima mletačkih autora. Te su kartografske enciklopedije u ranom novom vijeku bile jedne od najčešćih artefakata geografske kulture (Tolias, 2007;2012 Thevet. Thevet prepared the manuscript in 1586, while several copies of the maps were printed earlier, or at least in the same year. Most of the maps are bound in the manuscript of the book alongside the relevant chapters describing them. The manuscript is housed in the manuscript collection of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris. Not all the maps prepared for the isolario are included, and many have been scattered throughout other institutions, where they do not form parts of bound cartographic units (Lestringant, 1984). Some of Thevet's maps have been lost. M. Destombes (1974) says that 160 maps from the Le Grand Insulaire et Pilotage were owned by the antique collector Francois Roger de Gaignières (1642-1715), and were inventoried around 1750, but have since disappeared.
The goals of this research were to improve existing knowledge of the depiction of the Croatian islands in isolarios and sailing manuals during the Renaissance, and to indicate to the scientific and wider community the hitherto unknown contribution of A. Thevet in terms of the development of cartographic depictions of the Croatian islands. Since these islands were geographically placed on the eastern Adriatic sailing route, they were of great importance in the maritime-geographic system of the Adriatic and Mediterranean Seas.
Koliko je autorima članka poznato, ovo je prvo istraživanje Thevetova kartografskoga opusa u kontekstu prikaza otoka istočne obale Jadrana. Uz kratki opis geografskoga sadržaja na Thevetovim kartografskim prikazima dana je i usporedba prikaza na tim kartama s prikazima otoka na kartama koje su, također tijekom druge polovine 16. st., izradili i u izolarima objavili Giovanni Francesco Camocio (1571.) For the purpose of comparing the depictions of the islands on Thevet's maps with the same islands on a modern map, digital reproductions (acquired from scans) of Thevet's maps and maps by Camocio, Millo, and Rosaccio were overlaid on a modern map of the Adriatic Sea in GIS software in vector format (shapefile) produced at the Flanders Marine Data and Information Centre, by vectorisation of the template in the 1 : 466,188 scale (Claus et al, 2017). After overlaying them on the modern map, vectorisation of the coastline renderings of all the maps in the sample was performed (Fig. 1). This allowed the clear establishment of distortions in relation to the actual shape of the coastline, and, also, their comparison against the island coastline renderings performed by different cartographers. By interpreting Thevet's cartographic opus, based on a comparison of his cartographic depictions, among other things, and selected maps by other authors, we were able to enhance recent understandings of how these authors perceived the eastern Adriatic coastline during the second half of the 16 th century. dataka, čije se reprodukcije donose uz suglasnost ustanova u kojima se čuvaju (na čemu im posebno zahvaljujemo) rezultirala je razmjerno detaljnom interpretacijom sadržaja Thevetovih karata na kojima je prikazan hrvatski otočni prostor.
Tab. 1. Točke (naselja, rtovi, uvale) prikupljene s karata iz uzorka u svrhu vizualnoga preklapanja s prikazom na suvremenoj karti Tab. 1 Points (settlements, capes, bays) gathered from the maps in the sample for the purpose of visual overlay on a modern map * -uz točku nije upisan toponim, već je, s obzirom na konfiguraciju prikaza, pretpostavljeno da prikazuje tu lokaciju / the toponym is not entered by the point, but it can be assumed that this location is meant due to the configuration of the depiction

Overview of previous research
The descriptions of the Croatian islands and maps in the Le Grand Insulaire et Pilotage were hitherto unknown in Croatian scientific circles. As far as we know, apart from one mention in a note in a work by M. Kandido-Rožman about descriptions of Dalmatia in the works of French travel writers (Kandido-Rožman, 1990, note 17), not a single text has been written in Croatian geographic or cartographic literature about Thevet's manuscript. However, Thevet's descriptions of other parts of Croatia were not completely unknown. He described Croatia in Cosmographie de Levant, published in Lyon in 1554, and P. Matković (Matković, 1992: 76-77 Hasluck (1914) and in a catalogue of maps from a work edited by F. Lestringant (1984), a scholar who devoted most of his opus to Thevet's works (Lestringant 1991;1994;2003). It is important, however, when interpreting Thevet's maps of the Croatian islands, to take into consideration the general opinion of Thevet as a geographer and cartographer expressed not only by Lestringant, but by M. Destombes (1972), P. E. H. Hair (1982), G. Van Den Abbeele (1992), E. Dumotier-Sigwalt (2002), and G. Tolias (2012). Tolias announced in 2012 that he was preparing to publish with Lestringant the part of Thevet's Le Grand Insulaire et Pilotage which relates to the Mediterranean islands. As far as we know, this has not yet happened.

Thevet's cartographic depiction of the Croatian islands
In Le Grand Insulaire et Pilotage, Thevet described the Croatian coast and several islands in detail and showed some of them on maps (Krk, Pag, Ugljan with Pašman-together named the "Zadar island"-Čiovo, Brač, Hvar and Korčula). Printed maps of Pag, Čiovo, Hvar and Korčula were bound with the manuscript as appendices (Tab. 2). These maps, along with maps of Krk, Ugljan with Pašman, and Brač were kept as part of the King George III Topographical Collection in the King's Library Gallery at the British Museum, and have formed part of the library holdings of the British Library since 1998. (Tab. 3). F. W. Hasluck (1914) was the first to draw attention to Thevet's maps of the Croatian islands in the British Museum. However, Hasluck wrongly claimed that the maps of Pag, Čiovo, and Korčula were not part of Thevet's manuscript, while he neglected to mention that the map of Hvar was also in the British Museum. In his catalogue of maps from Le Grand Insulaire et Pilotage, Lestringant correctly noted the location of the maps of the Croatian islands from the manuscript of Thevet's work kept in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris and the British Library in London (Lestringant, 1984).
The text in the Le Grand Insulaire et Pilotage forms a functional unit with the description of Croatia (Chapter III), particularly the Republic of Dubrovnik (Chapter IIII) in book XVIII of the second volume of La Cosmographie Universelle (Thevet, 1575: 777b-783a). In the Le Grand Insulaire et Pilotage, Thevet refers several times to his own writing in La Cosmographie Universelle, indicating to the reader that he shortened it appropriately in order to avoid repetition.
The order of the texts and accompanying maps in the Le Grand Insulaire et Pilotage is not logical in terms of the geographical position of the individual islands, despite the fact that Thevet wrote all the relevant latitudes and longitudes in the middle of the inter-frame area surrounding each map field (apart from those showing Ugljan with Pašman). The Croatian islands (apart from Ugljan with Pašman and Čiovo) are not described one after another, but their descriptions and maps are found among material about other Mediterranean islands, in the Adriatic or Aegean seas, or in other parts of the eastern Mediterranean.

Geographic content on Thevet's maps of the Croatian islands
All the Croatian islands depicted on Thevet's maps, regardless of their actual size, were reduced (using no standardised mathematical methods, since the maps were not the result of geodetic surveys) in order to match the dimensions of the copper plates used for printing. Each map field is bordered by an inner and outer frame, while the latitudes and longitudes, expressed in the decimal system, can be found in the inter-frame area and refer to the coordinates of the centre of the area shown on the map (Tab. 4). The map of Ugljan with Pašman is the exception. The numerical values of the central coordinates are not written on this map, but as with all the others, lines are inserted representing excerpts of images of parallels and meridians.
Latitude values are, as usual, expressed relative to the plane of the equator the plane of the equator, while the prime meridian Thevet used was probably the one passing through São Miguel in the Azores (about 25.50° W of Greenwich). The differences in the latitudes on Thevet's maps and the "actual" latitudes of the geometric centres of islands shown on his maps (Δφ), range from 0.09° to 0.54°. Differences in longitude (Δλ), when expressed in relation to the meridian passing through São Miguel, range from 0.03° to 0.77°. For example, Thevet's recorded latitude of Krk is in reality the latitude of Gerovo in Gorski Kotar, and latitude of Čiovo on his map is actually the latitude of Knin. Also, according to Thevet, both Čiovo and Brač were on the same longitude, while in reality Brač lies to the east of Čiovo.
However, when the values of the coordinates he noted are contextualised in accordance with the period in which Thevet was active and the accuracy of his cartographic representations in general, it is appropriate to assess the data as being of reasonably high accuracy for several reasons. First, it is not possible to establish with certainty that Thevet carried out any exact land surveys on the islands he depicted, or even measured the latitudes (which at that time could be determined relatively accurately by measuring the height of certain celestial bodies like the Sun and Polaris). Also, at the time Thevet was preparing the maps, a method for the accu-
Ipak, vrijednosti koordinata koje je zapisao, kad ih se kontekstualizira u skladu s razdobljem u kojem je Thevet djelovao i točnosti njegovih kartografskih prikaza općenito, prikladno je ocijeniti kao podatke razmjerno visoke točnosti iz nekoliko razloga. Prvo, nije moguće sa sigurnošću utvrditi da je Thevet provodio ikakvu egzaktnu izmjeru na otocima koje je prikazao, pa tako ni mjerenje geografske širine (koje je tada bilo moguće razmjerno točno odrediti na temelju opažanja visine Sunca i show similar values, so it is reasonable to assume that all these coordinates were obtained from an older source. Second, the method of pinpointing the "actual" centre point of any given island carried out in this study is purely computational, and was done by calculating the geometric centres of islands represented by digital objects in vector graphics. However, it is not possible to determine exactly which objects in nature Thevet assigned as the centres of the islands he mapped, if this was even the method he used to determine central coordinates. Third, the rather deformed and disproportionate depictions of the islands imply that geometric accuracy was not a high priority for him, or that the corpus of geographic knowledge he possessed was not large enough to achieve accuracy even if he had wanted to do so. For example, on the map of Pag, Thevet did not map the entire island, but only its south-eastern part, although the map gives the impression of it being a "rounded whole", and it is not possible to determine with certainty why he did this. Polarne zvijezde). Također, u vremenu u kojem je Thevet priredio karte metoda točnoga određivanja geografske dužine još nije bila poznata, stoga je nije bio u mogućnosti osobno primijeniti. Pogreške geografske širine po iznosima slične su pogreškama geografske dužine, zbog čega je opravdano pretpostaviti da je vrijednosti svih koordinata preuzeo iz nekoga starijeg izvora. Drugo, metoda određivanja "stvarnih" središnjih točaka otoka provedena u ovom istraživanju je računalna, a svodi se na izračunavanje geometrijskih centara otoka prikazanih uz pomoć vektorskih objekata. Međutim, nije moguće odrediti koje je točno objekte u prirodi Thevet odredio za središta otoka koje je prikazao, ako je uopće pristupio određivanju središnjih koordinata na taj način. Treće, razmjerno deformirani i disproporcionalni prikazi otoka impliciraju da mu geometrijska točnost prikaza nije bila prioritet ili da mu postojeći korpus geografskih spoznaja nije bio dovoljno velik da bi tu točnost postigao i da je to htio. Thevet, primjerice, na karti Paga nije prikazao čitav otok, nego samo njegov jugoistočni dio iako prikaz ostavlja dojam "zaokružene cjeline", a nije sa sigurnošću moguće utvrditi zašto je tako postupio. Compass roses with marked cardinal and inter-cardinal points of the compass are drawn on all the maps. North is indicated by the letter T (Tramontana) and the stylised tip of a magnetic needle, while other points are indicated by the initial letters of Italian names that were common throughout the Mediterranean: G (Greco; northeast), L (Levante, east), S (Scirocco; southeast), O (Ostro; south), A (Affricone; southwest), P (Ponente; west) and M (Maestro; northwest). Compass lines or bearings at 45° intervals (the resolution of the rose of four compass points) radiate from the major and secondary points. Five maps contain north-south bearing drawn parallel to the sides of the map frame. He made a mistake on the map of Ugljan with Pašman by rotating the entire compass rose +90°, therefore the mark indicating north on the map (Tramontana) actually shows east in the displayed area. On the remaining two maps, the north-south bearings are not drawn parallel to the lateral edges of the map, but there is a tilt of -6° on the Čiovo map and of -14° on that of Pag. Excluding the error of rotating the compass rose on the map of Ugljan with Pašman, the main axes of the islands' geographic direction shown on the maps seem proportionate to their true values. Geo-referencing of the maps revealed the rotation of the depiction in relation to the northsouth direction as a consequence of transformation, so that the depiction of Brač was rotated by -25°, Čiovo by -31° (-25° if the tilt of the northern bearing is taken into account: south -6°), Korčula by -3°, Hvar by -23°, Pag by +60° (+46° if the tilt of the north-south bearing of -14° is taken into account), Krk by +19°, and Ugljan with Pašman by +78°. Due to the extremely low redundancy of the input data, this procedure cannot be considered representative from a cartometric perspective, so the obtained values of the rotations of the displayed areas should be taken with reserve. That is to say, they cannot serve as proof of an exact "discrepancy" between Thevet's quantitative data and actual values, but are merely an additional reason for assuming his insufficient knowledge of the areas he mapped and the high probability that he did not perform any land surveys prior to his map production.
Razlike između geografskoga sadržaja na Thevetovim kartama i sadržaja na kartama mletačkih i drugih kartografa koji su u drugoj polovini 16. st. objavljivali izolare vjerojatno je rezultat metodologije prikupljanja i obrade prostornih podataka. Dok su veliki izdavači poput G. F. Camocia i G. Rosaccio, a njihovim tragom i mnogi drugi, kom-Due to the lack of exact mathematical bases and spatial measurements taken in advance, and due to the low redundancy of the input data, the scale of Thevet's maps cannot be determined precisely, but only roughly conjectured. Average values from measurements obtained on samples of two to five distances per map give a result of about 1: 250,000 (not taking into account the Čiovo map, which is drawn at a scale of approximately 1: 75,000), however, the differences between values calculated along different lines of measurement are extremely large (Tab. 5). For example, the maximum range of calculated scale factors of the map of Hvar is approximately 225,000, while the map of Korčula has a maximum range of about 310,000. In addition to the general deformation of the coastline, and thus the shape of the islands, such large differences in scale factor values are a consequence of local exaggeration of certain spatial features, such as the town of Korčula, or the bay where the harbour of Hvar is located. Simply put, Thevet's maps were not made in a unified linear scale to express the relationship between lengths on the map and their equivalents in actual space. Scale values differ for individual spatial units within the same map field, and the same rule applies to maps by G. F. Camocio, G. Rosaccio, and A. Millo.
Based on a comparison of Thevet's cartographic representations and depictions of the same islands on maps by G. F. Camocio, G. Rosaccio, and A. Millo, it is quite clear that Thevet's representations differ in terms of cartographic and geographic content ( Fig. 2 -Fig. 21). Thevet's cartography is similar to Thomaso Porcacchi's in his isolario L'isole piu famose del mondo, first published in Venice in 1572. However, Porcacchi did not depict a single Croatian island in his work. G. Tolias (2007;2012) states that Thevet hired the printer Thomas de Leu to engrave the maps intended for publication in Le Grand Insulaire et Pilotage.
The differences between the geographical content on Thevet's maps and on maps by Venetian and other cartographers, who published isolarios in the second half of the 16 th century, were probably the result of the methods used for collecting and processing spatial data. While major publishers such as G. F Camocio and G. Rosaccio, fol-HRVATSKI GEOGRAFSKI GLASNIK 82/2, 39−79 (2020.) lowed by many others, compiled data from various maritime, military, and administrative sources, and hired many copper engravers as collaborators, including two from Šibenik: Martin Rota Kolunić and Božo Bonifačić (Natale Bonifacio) 4 , A. Thevet, like A. Millo, personally visited the Croatian islands he depicted. However, Thevet and Millo's insights, perceptions, and focuses differed. Thevet was a cosmographer interested in creating a general picture of geographical objects while emphasising various geographical features, whether natural, social, or economic. On the other hand, Millo was a sailor (Kljajić and Razum, 2015) and implement-J. Faričić T. Marelić P. Levačić Đ. Šinko-Depierris
Na prikazu otoka Krka Thevet je pogrešno smjestio grad Krk (Ville de Weggia) podalje od obale, u zaobalju Baške, dok je uz Puntarsku dragu prikazao Vrbnik (Verbenique) koji se zapravo nalazi na obalama Vinodolskoga kanala, nasuprot mjestu na kojemu je prikazan. Bašćansku dragu ucrtao je sjevernije od njezina stvarnoga položaja. Na više mjesta ucrtani su vodotoci. Crtežima stiliziranih uzvisina prikazao je brdovit krčki krajolik, a na sjevernom dijelu otoka, u zaobalju Omišlja i Njivica, bilješkom je naznačio prostor raries (Destombes, 1972). Therefore, it is difficult, at least in terms of his depiction of the Croatian islands, to clearly distinguish the mistakes he made out of negligence or a lack of good geographical knowledge from what is likely falsification. For example, it is difficult to establish with certainty whether there were really as many orange trees on the island of Pag in the second half of the 16 th century as seems to be the case from the depiction and notes on his map (Orangiers). At the same time, he did not depict any citrus trees at all on the islands of central and southern Dalmatia, where they were in fact more abundant.
In the depiction of the island Krk, Thevet incorrectly located the town Krk (Ville de Weggia) away from the coast in the hinterland of Baška, while he showed Vrbnik (Verbenique) next to Puntarska Draga, though it is actually located on the banks of the Vinodol Channel, opposite the place where it is shown. He placed Bašćanska Draga further north than its actual position. Watercourses were drawn in several places. He used stylised drawings of mounds to depict the hilly landscape of Krk and, in the hinterland of Omišalj and Njivice on the northern part of the island, he drew attention to wheat  Nasuprot Krku Thevet je pogrešno ucrtao Jablanac (Lablana en Dalmatie), koji se zapravo na-fields in a note. In several places, he showed the forest cover with drawings of trees, and the macchia with stylised drawings of bushes. Along the coast of Krk, islands are shown, and among them sailboats and boats powered by oars are drawn. The number of boats indicates that local maritime activities were well-developed, especially in terms of fishing and communication with the mainland and neighbouring islands. On the western part of the island, he marked a monastery (Oratoire). It was probably the monastery run by Franciscans of the Third Order in Glavotok. Thevet depicted the Fortresse Unine inland instead of on the northern part of the island. This was Kaštela, the fortified residence of the princes of Krk (the Frankopans) in Omišalj.
Opposite Krk, Thevet erroneously drew Jablanac (Lablana en Dalmatie), which is actually located on  GLASNIK 82/2, 39−79 (2020.) the mainland at the foot of Velebit, opposite the island of Rab. The fact that Jablanac was geographically located in Dalmatia corresponds to his text in the chapter on the island of Čiovo, in which he stated that the entire coastal area between Raša and Drim belonged to Dalmatia.
On the map of Krk and all other maps of the Croatian islands (except Pag), the name La Mer Adriatique is written in the sea area. This was also done by other cartographers at the time, including the Venetians, who regularly used the name Golfo do Venezia for the Adriatic during the 17 th and 18 th centuries, expressing Venetian aspirations for legal jurisdiction and political and economic influence throughout the Adriatic, although they did not control it in its entirety. lazi na kopnu podno Velebita, i to nasuprot otoku Rabu. To što je Jablanac geografski smjestio u Dalmaciju odgovara njegovu tekstu u poglavlju o otoku Čiovu u kojemu je naveo da Dalmaciji pripada cijeli primorski prostor između Raše i Drima.
Na karti Krka, a tako i na svim drugim kartama hrvatskih otoka (osim Paga) na morskom je prostoru ispisano ime La Mer Adriatique. Tako su u to doba činili i drugi kartografi, uključujući i mletačke, koji su tijekom 17. i 18. st. redovito za Jadransko more koristili ime Golfo do Venezia, iskazujući tako mletačke težnje za pravnom jurisdikcijom te političkim i gospodarskim utjecajem na cijelom Jadranu premda ga cijeloga nisu posjedovali. On the map of the island of Pag, the only relatively credible depiction is of the south-eastern part of the island with Dinjiška, Vlašići, and Stara Povljana bays. Thevet did not depict the elongated, instantly recognisable Lun Peninsula, although he did draw the Dolphin Islet (Delfin) located to its west. Therefore, one gets the impression that the whole island is not shown, but only its south-eastern part (Dinjiška, Vlašići and Stara Povljana bays), which is identified as the whole island for reasons unknown. Although he stated in the chapter on Pag that there was a town on the island with one of the best harbours in the Croatian islands, Thevet showed the town of Pag on the shores of Košljun Bay, but did not show the deeply indented Pag Bay (so he did not show Pag's salt pans, the most important economic-geographical feature of the island, which A. Millo and G. Rosaccio studiously noted). Similar to the map of the island of Krk, he depicted the hilly landscape with drawings of stylised hills that do not provide any reliable information about the shapes of these hills, nor about the relative heights or inclines of the slopes. Drawings of trees and shrubs show vegetation distributed equally throughout the island, so assuming that the actual spatial arrange-Sl. 7. Rosacciova karta otoka Paga (Aikaterini Laskaridis Foundation, Piraeus, Travelogues -Travellers' Views) Fig. 7 Rosaccio's map of the island of Pag (Aikaterini Laskaridis Foundation, Piraeus, Travelogues -Travelers' Views) HRVATSKI GEOGRAFSKI GLASNIK 82/2, 39−79 (2020.) prostorni raspored biljnoga pokrova podudarao s onim današnjim, nisu mogli steći uvid u razlike između sjeveroistočnih padina otoka velikoga nagiba izloženih mehaničkim udarima bure i posolici te otočnih površina manjega nagiba i debljih slojeva tla obraslih biljnim pokrovom u zavjetrini u odnosu na buru. Thevet je na karti prikazao Vlašiće (Bislagi) i dva sakralna objekata, crkve sv. Nikole (S. Nicolas) i sv. Dionizija (S. Denis). Dok su se u Thevetovo vrijeme na Pagu nalazile dvije crkve sv. Nikole (jedna na Punti Paga i druga u Povljani), nije poznato da je neki od više desetaka paških sakralnih objekata (ili barem neki oltar u nekom od njih) bio posvećen svetom Dioniziju (usp. Hilje, 2011), jednomu od zaštitnika Francuske. ment of the vegetation corresponds to the present situation, users of the map would not have guessed there was any difference between the north-eastern slopes of the island with their steep inclines exposed to the force of the bora wind and sea spray, and the vegetation cover on the shallower slopes where there were deeper layers of soil in locations sheltered from bora. Thevet showed Vlašići (Bislagi) and two ecclesiastical buildings, the churches of St. Nicholas (S. Nicolas) and St. Dionysius (S. Denis). While there were two churches dedicated to St. Nicholas on Pag in Thevet's time (one in Punta Pag and the other in Povljana), it is not known whether any of the dozens of church buildings on Pag (or at least an altar in one of them) was dedicated to Saint Dionysius (cf. Hilje, 2011), one of the patron saints of France. Na karti Ugljana i Pašmana ta su dva otoka prikazana kao jedna geomorfološka cjelina. U arhivskim dokumentima ta se dva otoka od srednjega vijeka redovito navode kao posebni otoci, ali su istodobno na kartama tijekom renesanse redovito prikazivani kao jedan otok. Razlog je tomu činjenica da plitki i uski tjesnac (Mali Ždrelac) među njima nije bio plovan (produbljivan je i proširivan u nekoliko navrata tek od 19. st.; Faričić, 2012). Ugljanski dio Thevetova Zadarskog otoka mnogo je kraći od pašmanskoga dijela toga istog otoka. Među oblicima obalne razvedenosti nije moguće sa sigurnošću identificirati niti jednu uvalu ili rt, iako se može naslutiti da je autor bar pokušao prikazati najveće otočne uvale -Sutomišćicu na sjeveroistočnoj obali Ugljana, Veliku i Malu Lamjanu na jugozapadnoj obali toga otoka te uvale On the map of Ugljan with Pašman, the two islands are shown as one geomorphological unit. In archive documents, these two islands have been regularly mentioned as separate islands since the Middle Ages, yet they were usually shown as one island on maps during the Renaissance. The reason was that the shallow, narrow strait (Mali Ždrelac) between them was not navigable (it has been deepened and widened several times since the 19 th century; Faričić, 2012). The Ugljan part of Thevet's Island of Zadar is much shorter than the Pašman part. We cannot identify with certainty any bay or cape among the forms of coastal indentation, although we can assume that the author at least tried to show the largest island bays-Sutomišćica on the northeast coast of Ugljan, Velika and Mala Lamjana on the southwest coast, and Soline, Žinčana and Lanđin on the southwest coast of Pašman. The Na karti Čiova prikazani su taj otok, grad Trogir, dio kaštelanskoga primorja i dio poluotoka Marjana. Na prikazu čiovske obale prepoznatljivi su zaljev Sladun, uvala Movarčica i Punta Okruk. Thevet je na istočnom dijelu otoka prikazao dvije duboko uvučene uvale kojih na otoku zapravo nema. Primijenio je istu though they may be Molat, Sestrunj and Rivanj; or Sestrunj, Iž and Rava. None of them can possibly be Dugi Otok, because they are much smaller than Ugljan with Pašman. Zadar and the Zadar-Biograd coast are shown on the mainland opposite, where only the settlement Pakoštane is labelled by name.
The map of Čiovo shows the island, Trogir, part of the Kaštela coast and part of the Marjan Peninsula. In the depiction of the Čiovo coast, Sladun Bay and Movarčica Bay in Punta Okruk are recognisable. Thevet showed two deeply indented coves on the eastern side of the island which do not actually exist. He applied the same cartography in terms of depicting the island relief and vegetation as on his other maps of the Croatian islands, though this does not really enable a reconstruction of these natural spatial elements. In Sl. 11. Camociova karta otoka Čiova (Aikaterini Laskaridis Foundation, Piraeus, Travelogues -Travellers' Views) Fig. 11 Camocio's map of the island of Čiovo (Aikaterini Laskaridis Foundation, Piraeus, Travelogues -Travelers' Views) HRVATSKI GEOGRAFSKI GLASNIK 82/2, 39−79 (2020.) kartografiku pri prikazu otočnoga reljefa i biljnoga pokrova kao što je to učinio i na drugim kartama hrvatskih otoka, a ona ne omogućuje rekonstrukciju tih prirodnih elemenata prostora. U tekstu o Čiovu pozvao se na kartu na kojoj su prikazani mostovi kojima su Čiovo i Trogir povezani s kopnom. Prikaz je tih mostova točan, i bolje su smješteni nego oni na prikazima Čiova i Trogira na Camociovoj i Rosacciovoj karti. Kao i ta dvojica kartografa, Thevet je na istočnom dijelu Čiova prikazao veliku ujezerenu površinu (Baing, iskrivljeno od Bagno na kartama citiranih mletačkih autora). Takve hidrološke pojave na Čiovu više nema, ali u Slatinama (čije ime upućuje na pojave voda) ima mnogo zdenaca pa je Thevet vjerojatno prikazao hidrogeografsku pojavu kada je u vrijeme veće količine oborina the text on Čiovo, he referred to a map showing the bridges that connected Čiovo and Trogir to the mainland. The depiction of these bridges is accurate; they are more precisely located than those on the depictions of Čiovo and Trogir by Camocio and Rosaccio. Like those two cartographers, Thevet depicted a large lake-like area in the eastern part of Čiovo (Baing, a distortion of Bagno on maps by the previously mentioned Venetian authors). This kind of hydrological phenomenon no longer exists on Čiovo, but there are many wells in Slatine (the name indicates the presence of water), so Thevet was probably showing a hydro-geographic phenomenon which occurred when the area between Slatine and Gaj, i.e. flooding during heavy rainfall. The ancient ruins mentioned in the text in Le Grand Insulaire et Pilotage are not shown on the island, which indicates that Thevet mixed up Čiovo and Sa- Thevetov kartografski prikaz otoka Brača, osim onoga Millova, nema pandana u istovrsnim ostvarenjima drugih renesansnih kartografa. Nije poznata njegova motivacija da uz Milla jedini posebno istakne taj otok jer on nije imao važnost za plovidbu istočnom obalom Jadrana kakvu su imali, primjerice, Lošinj, Vis i Mljet, a koje taj francuski kozmograf (za razliku od Milla) nije prikazao. Na Braču je istakao tri uvale na južnoj strani otoka i jednu na sjeveroistočnoj obali. Dok je moguće samo naslutiti da je najzapadnija od južnih uvala jedna od onih na području Milne, za druge uvale na južnom dijelu Brača nije moguće dati ni tako uopćenu prostornu identifikaciju. Posebno istaknuta uvala na sjeveroistoku otoka (uz koju stoji bilješka koja upućuje na dobro sidrište) mogla bi biti ona uz koju su smještena Pučišća ili ona uz koju se nalaze Povlja jer su te dvije uvale najdublje uvučene na tom dijelu otoka. Na više mjesta Thevet je prikazao potoke, a onaj na istočnom dijelu Brača posebno je označio bilješkom (Torrent). Riječ je povremenim vodotocima koji jarugama otječu prema dnima bračkih uvala. Sudeći po prikazu biljnoga pokrova, on je po Thevetu na Braču siromašniji negoli je na svim drugim Thevet's cartographic depiction of the island of Brač has no counterpart in similar achievements by other Renaissance cartographers, with the exception of Millo. His motivation for being the only person apart from Millo to draw particular attention to this island remains unknown, because it was not as important for sailing along the eastern Adriatic coast as were Lošinj, Vis, and Mljet, for example, which the French cosmographer (unlike Millo) did not depict. On Brač, he pointed out three bays on the south side of the island and one on the northeast coast. While it is only possible to guess that the westernmost of the southern bays is one of those in the area of Milna, the other bays in the southern part of Brač cannot be assigned even a general spatial identification. A particularly prominent bay in the northeast of the island (with a note indicating a good anchorage) could be the one by Pučišća or Povlja, because these two bays are the deepest in that part of the island. In several places, Thevet showed streams, and the one in the eastern part of Brač was marked with a note (Torrent). These were occasional watercourses that flowed through ravines to the bases of Brač's bays. Judging by the description of the vegetation, according to Thevet it was poorer on Brač than on Sl. 14. Vektorizirani prikazi razlika u izgledu obalne crte otoka na Thevetovim kartama i izgledu obalne crte na kartama njegovih suvremenika: otoci Ugljan, Pašman, Čiovo i Brač   (Cvitanić, 1984). Kobac tada nastanjuje i okolne otoke, a očito je Thevet pri svojem obilasku Brača opazio vrlo mnogo tih ptica kad im je posebno atribuirao otočne uzvisine i, k tomu, posvetio više rečenica u poglavlju o tom otoku.
Uz zapadnu obalu otoka Brača Thevet je prikazao mnoštvo otočića, a tu se zapravo nalazi samo otočić Mrduja. Na mjestu Bola prikazano je utvrđeno naselje koje nosi ime otoka (Ville de all the other islands. He wrote an interesting note on the central, hypsometrically most prominent part of the island: Monts aux esperviers. In that part of Brač, according to the author, there were hills which were the habitat of sparrow-hawks. The sparrow hawk (Accipiter nisus) is a bird that usually spends the winter months on Brač (Cvitanić, 1984). It also inhabits the surrounding islands, and apparently Thevet noticed many of these birds during his tour of Brač, since he specifically attributed the island hills to them and also dedicated several sentences to them in the chapter on the island.
Along the west coast of the island of Brač, Thevet depicted many islets, while there is actually only onethe islet of Mrduja. Where the town of Bol is situated, a fortified settlement bearing the name of the island  Millo). Možda je tako nastojao naglasiti značenje grada Hvara u pomorsko-geografskom sustavu Jadrana jer je taj otočni grad među svim otočnim naseljima u ranom novom vijeku doista bio najvažniji, a to je podrazumijevalo i značenje njegove (Ville de Brazza) is shown. A. Millo also noted a fortified settlement in the same place, but did not name it. Thevet did not name other settlements on Brač, although they are depicted by drawings of houses and churches. It is possible that Thevet was motivated to represent Bol in this way by the fact that there was a large Dominican monastery surrounded by walls in the settlement.
In his depiction of the island of Hvar, like Camocio and Rosaccio, Thevet exaggerated the harbour of the town of Hvar, which according to him was much larger than Stari Grad Bay (unlike A. Millo, who mapped it as smaller). Perhaps he was trying to emphasise the importance of the town of Hvar in the maritime-geographical system of the Adriatic, as this island town was indeed the most important of all the Uz grad Hvar (Liesena), koji je prikazan s mnogo detalja, posebno u pogledu fortifikacijskoga sustava, imenima su na karti otoka označeni Stari Grad (Vieille Lesena), Vrboska (Barlos) i Jelsa (Gelso). Posebno je imenovana i crkva sv. Pelegrina (S. Pelegrin) po kojoj ime nosi i najzapadniji hvarski rt. Općenito, Thevetov se prikaz Hvara umnogo-Croatian island settlements in the early modern age, and therefore its harbour was also quite significant (Duboković-Nadalini, 1962). This is also indicated by me podudara s onim na Camociovoj i Rosacciovoj karti toga otoka pa bi se s velikom sigurnošću moglo zaključiti da je, s obzirom na kronološki redoslijed nastanka tih karata, Camociova karta i Thevetu i Rosacciu poslužila kao predložak. Slično se može utvrditi i za kartografske prikaze Korčule. Za razliku od karata toga trojca, Millove su karte Hvara i Korčule, premda i one s mnogim izobličenjima, bolje, posebno u pogledu prikaza glavnih elemenata obalne crte. Millo je kao pomorac veliku pozornost pridavao sigurnosti plovidbe i mogućnostima sidrenja, tj. vezivanja brodova u sigurnim lukama pa je, zanemarujući unutrašnjost otoka, pozornost posvećivao obalnim oblicima relevantnima u terestričkoj navigaciji. Na Thevetovu prikazu otoka Korčule nije moguće prepoznati izduženost toga južnodalmatinskog otoka niti glavne elemente obalne razvedenosti. Primjerice, na zapadnom dijelu otoka nije dobro prikazan najveći zaljev na otoku -Vela Luka, a preuveličani su prikazi pet uvala na južnom dijelu otoka. Zapadno od grada Korčule prikazane su četiri uvale u čijem je pročelju ispisana bilješka koja upućuje na to da je riječ o dobrom sidrištu (Bonne is also named, which gave its name to the westernmost cape of Hvar. In general, Thevet's depiction of Hvar largely coincides with Camocio and Rosaccio's maps of the island, so we can conclude with great certainty that, given the chronological order of these maps, Camocio's map served both Thevet and Rosaccio as a template. The same can be said of the cartographic representations of Korčula. Unlike the maps by the aforementioned, Millo's maps of Hvar and Korčula are better, though there are also many distortions, especially in terms of depicting the main elements of the coastline. As a seafarer, Millo paid great attention to the safety of navigation and anchoring, i.e. mooring ships in safe harbours. While he neglected the interiors of islands, he paid attention to some extent to coastal features relevant to terrestrial navigation. In Thevet's depiction of the island of Korčula, it is not possible to recognise the specific elongation of the island or the main elements of its coastal indentation. For example, in the western part of the island, the largest bay on the island (Vela Luka) is not depicted well, while the depictions of five bays in the southern part of the island are exaggerated. To the west of the town of Korčula, four bays are shown, Prikaz krajolika je, uz crteže stiliziranih uzvisina i biljnoga pokrova, dopunjen crtežom omeđenih obradivih čestica koje su na jednom mjestu bilješkom označene kao vrtovi (Jardrins). Te vrtove spomenuo je i u tekstu poglavlja o Korčuli. Thevet je na karti posebno označio grad Korčulu (Cursola), cijeli okružen bedemima (opet posve podudarno s njegovim opisom toga grada), a među naseljima imenovana je još samo Lumbarda (Bombarde). Na jugoistočnom dijelu otoka prikazane su dvije kule, jedna je atribuirana vitezovima and Mala Sestrica, Gojak, Planjak, Sutvara, Bisače, Vrnik, Kamenjak, and Gubavac that are positioned near Badija island. Part of the Pelješac Peninsula is also shown, though Thevet did not write its name, rather he marked it with a note indicating that it was part of Dalmatia (Pais de Dalmatie).
The depiction of the landscape, with drawings of stylised hills and vegetation, is supplemented by a drawing of bordered arable plots, which are marked in one place as gardens (Jardrins). Thevet also mentioned these gardens in the chapter on Korčula. He specifically marked the town of Korčula (Cursola) on the map, entirely surrounded by ramparts (again completely coinciding with his description of that town), but among the settlements, only Lumbarda (Bombarde) was named. Two towers are shown in

Conclusion
During the Renaissance, on a wave of new discoveries and methodological strides forward in geography and cartography, many European writers described and depicted the eastern shore of the Adriatic and the most important Adriatic islands. These spatial units of modern-day Croatia were an object of interest for many countries which were keen to control the precious coastal and maritime spatial resources and establish control over navigation, in order to control the exchange of people and goods, ideas and technologies. At the same time, these places were a focus of European culture and science, not only as the actual arenas of military-political confrontation between European countries and the Ottoman Empire, but as a transit area between European starting-points and pilgrim destinations in the Holy Land. In this context, the achievements of the French royal cosmographer André Thevet (1516-1592) should be considered. This includes Le Grand Insulaire et Pilotage which has survived in manuscript form, compiled in Paris in 1586.
In the Le Grand Insulaire et Pilotage, Thevet both described and mapped several Croatian islands: Krk, Pag, Ugljan with Pašman, Čiovo, Brač, Hvar and Korčula. In terms of its textual content and accompanying maps, it was the most comprehensive work of that genre in the second half of the 16 th century. The fact that it covered the whole known world in two volumes and paid considerable attention to the Croatian islands indicates that its author was aware of their importance in the maritime-geographic system of the Adriatic and Mediterranean.
Vectorisation of the coastline and geo-referencing of Thevet's maps yielded insights on considerable deformities in the basic island morphological structures, while the qualitative analysis indicated an unsystematic approach to selecting geographic content. This was because Thevet did not carry out a land survey or any detailed topographic observations prior to compiling his maps of the Croatian islands. Instead, he drew them based on superficial knowledge "spiced" with claims from available data sources, the authenticity and reliability of which, in accordance with the level of geographic knowledge and information exchange in that era, was obviously quite difficult to verify. Komparativna analiza Thevetovih karata s kartama istih otoka koje su izradili njegovi suvremenici Giovanni Francesco Camocio, Antonio Millo i Giuseppe Rosaccio, rezultirala je zaključkom kako je Thevet koristio jedinstvenu kartografiku i djelomično je unaprijedio dotadašnje geografske spoznaje o spomenutim hrvatskim otocima. Dok je u pogledu Krka, Paga i Brača Thevet dao originalne, premda ne uvijek i kvalitetne prikaze geografske stvarnosti, u prikazu Ugljana, Pašmana, Čiova, Hvara i Korčule mogu se prepoznati podudarnosti s prikazima tih otoka na kartama mletačkih autora. To upućuje na činjenicu da je Thevet poznavao dotadašnja djela o hrvatskoj obali i otocima, ali je pokušao dati i svoj doprinos.
Thevet je u Velikom izolaru i peljaru nastojao predstaviti golem korpus geografskih spoznaja o svim najvažnijim svjetskim otocima, pa tako i onim hrvatskim. Zbog činjenice da to svoje djelo nije uspio objaviti ono nije imalo odjek koji je, unatoč očiglednim kvantitativim i kvalitativnim greškama, The comparative analysis of Thevet's maps with maps of the same islands made by his contemporaries, Giovanni Francesco Camocio, Antonio Millo, and Guiseppe Rosaccio, led to the conclusion that Thevet used a unique cartographic approach and to some extent improved contemporary geographical knowledge of the Croatian islands in question. For Krk, Pag, and Brač he provided original, though not always high quality depictions of geographic reality, but for Ugljan with Pašman, Čiovo, Hvar and Korčula, there is a great deal of overlap with the mapping of these islands by Venetian authors. This indicates that Thevet was familiar with previous cartographic works regarding the Croatian coast and islands, and also that he attempted to add his own contributions.
In contrast to the cartographers whose island maps were published in isolarios, and whose geographic content was to a great extent adapted to the needs of sailors and travellers passing through the area, and who were most interested in spatial features close to the shore (bays, capes and settlements), Thevet attempted to observe spatial reality in a more holistic way, though he lacked the relevant data to do so consistently. Nonetheless, the data which he managed to collect allowed a completely new view of the Croatian island area, which was only later replaced by detailed topographic-cadastral depictions produced from the 17 th century onwards in local and Venetian surveyors' offices. The spirit of the natural science which informed this French adventurer and cosmographer was unable to overlook important information about the island landscape (from the "sterile" rocks of Pag to the intensive agrarian valorised areas of Korčula), or certain agricultural crops (wheat on Krk, oranges on Pag), and animal species (sparrow-hawks on Brač). On all his maps, Thevet drew various boats and ships. These drawings may have been for aesthetic reasons, but they also indicated the intensity of maritime activity (particularly fishing and shipbuilding) along the eastern Adriatic coast.
In Le Grand Insulaire et Pilotage, Thevet attempted to present a huge corpus of geographic knowledge about all the most important islands in the world, not just Croatian islands. Since he never managed to publish the manuscript, it did not elicit the response which it might have had, in spite of its