National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books

tion from a common source is evident, though they have been spelt in a more or
less careful way. Sanson, 1654, rejects the lake, so far as can be judged from his
maps Pl. XXIX and XXX. On Martini's map, 1655, the oblong lake has disappeared
definitely, but the name has, in a purer version Cinghai, been transferred to the
real Koko-nor.

We have thus the series Cirheuai, Cuicui Hay, Cincui Hay, and Cinghai, all of
which are the Chinese Tsing-hai or Koko-nor, and we are justified in surmising that
the mysterious lake is nothing else than the Koko-nor. For some 60 years Hwang-
ho has been supposed to come, partly, from this lake, but Father Martini has got
more reliable news, and shows that it has no connection whatever with the river.

Pl. XXXII is a reproduction of a most interesting map: *Indiæ Orientalis nec
non Insularum adiacentium Nova Descriptio Per Nicolaum Visscher.*¹ The
editor, C. H. COOTE, says of it: »It will be convenient to note here the date of the
production of this map; it will be found inserted in J. Jansson's *Novus Atlas, das
ist Welt Beschreibung 5th vol., Grosse Atlas (8th part) Wasser-Welt, Amster-
dam, 1657—58 folio.* (*Brit. Mus. 9 Tab. 23.*) Also in other editions of about
the same date.« It would therefore seem to be certain that the map must have been
drawn before 1658. But SYLVAIN LÉVI proves in a most convincing way that this cannot
possibly be the case.² For NICOLAUS VISSCHER has, probably as the first amongst
cartographers, made use of Grueber's discoveries, and Grueber finished his journey
in 1662. According to Lévi our map, Pl. XXXII, was inserted in *Atlas Minor sive
totius orbis terrarum contracta delineatio, ex conatibus Nic.Visscher (Amsterdam Bat.
apud Nicolaum Visscher*). The *Atlas Minor* has no date, but the map, Pl. XXXII,
can under no conditions have appeared before 1663. All the names mentioned in
Grueber's narrative, as related in Kircher's *China Illustrata*, appear on the map, even
with the characteristic spelling which comes directly from Grueber. Coote's assertion
that the map should be taken from Jansson's *Novus Atlas* is therefore, accord-
ing to Lévi, inacceptable, and even a hasty examination shows that Lévi is right.³
Visscher places Necbal with Cutlu, a misprint for Cuthi S.W. of Lassa; then follow
Cadmenda, Hedonda, Mutgari, Battana, Benares, Cadampor, and Agra. Patna had
appeared already on Herbert's map of 1638 (Pl. X), and on Sanson's of 1654 (Pl.
XXIX), though placed far above Benares. When Visscher hears the name Battana of
Grueber, he believes it is another city and has both Patna and Battana on his map.