Mandara
Mountains
Homepage

http://www.mandaras.info/RauchenbergerLeoAfricanusCosmographia.rtf
Gerhard Müller-Kosack, 2002. London: Mandaras Publishing. 
Book description of Dietrich Rauchenberger’s (1999) Johannes Leo der Afrikaner. Seine Beschreibung des Raumes zwischen Nil und Niger nach dem Urtext. Orientalia Biblica et Christiana, editors Eckart Otto and Siegbert Uhlig, volume 13 (499 pages), Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden. [With a special emphasis on the Montanari of Borno].
CONTENTS		
Introduction		
1.	Biographical data
2.	History of the Cosmographia		
3.	Comparison of the original manuscript with the Ramusio version		
4.	Distribution and impact of Ramusio’s Descrittione dell’ Africa		
5.	Leo Africanus’ Cosmographia & Geographia de Affrica	
6.	Leo Africanus’ description of the montagnards (Montanari) of Borno	
7.	L	eo Africanus’ concepts of civilita and bestialita	
8.	L	eo Africanus’ view of the slave trade of Borno	
Conclusion
Introduction			
I want to recommend this first edition of selections of the rediscovered handwritten manuscript of Leo Africanus’ Cosmographia to a wider international readership. It is a scholarly tradition in Germany to be interested in Leo Africanus’ work which goes back as far as the original manuscript. The German theologist, Jacob Ziegler, read it in Rome in 1529 and produced a bibliographical reference in his Description of Egypt (see Rauchenberger, page 160). The second German who represents an important link to Leo Africanus was the orientalist, Johann Albrecht von Widmanstetter. His attempt to visit Leo Africanus in 1532, in Tunis, provides us with the last historical trace of Leo. Georg Wilhelm Lorsbach, a German theologist, after centuries of editorial inactivity, published, in 1805, a new translation of the first published version of 1550. 
The reference to the Urtext (original text) in Rauchenberger’s title indicates that he deals with the old handwritten manuscript Cosmographia & Geographia De Affrica. Roma 1526. The manuscript was apparently discovered by Angela Codazzi in 1931 and subsequently acquired by the Italian Ministry of Education from the Libreria Antiquaria Ulrico Hoepli in Rome. Since then the document with the signature Ms. VE 953 has been in the possession of the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Vittorio Emanuele II in Rome. It predates the Descrittione dell’Affrica of Giovanni Leone Africano, which was printed by the Venetian publisher Giovanni Battista Ramusio in 1550.  
The original manuscript is known as the Cosmographia (in contrast to the Descrittione published by Ramusio) and consists of 930 pages, but Rauchenberger has chosen to deal with one fifth of it, the part about black Africa. Rauchenberger divides his book into a study of the new biographical data on Leo Africanus found in the original manuscript and the translation of his Terra de li Nigri and its comparison mainly with the Ramusio edition. 
Rauchenberger’s book consists not only of descriptions of thoroughly researched historical events around the life and writings of Leo Africanus but also contains many tables demonstrating the results of his analysis. He has also produced a list of Arabic manuscripts from the Vatican library, which Leo Africanus read between 1518 and 1521. In addition he has published facsimile copies of 42 pages of the handwritten manuscript VE 953 and a transcription of Leo’s travels in the Sahara and sub-Saharan Africa. The transcription is accompanied by a facing translation into German of this part of the Cosmographia. 
Apart from wanting to emphasis Leo’s academic capacity and highlighting new insights coming from the Cosmographia, this book description concentrates, not so much on the urban civilisations of the Sudan (like e.g. Tombutto or Songai), but more on the sections of populations Leo described as uncivilised, in particular, the montagnards of Borno. The reason for this focus stems from my ethnographic orientation, having myself worked for many years in the northern Mandara mountains of northeastern Nigeria and northern Cameroon. Leo Africanus is one of the first to mention the Medra (presumably Mandara) and I believe that Leo’s montagnards of Borno are the ancestors of the inhabitants of the Mandara mountains of today. His journey lasted about six months and he presumably visited Borno sometime in 1513 where he spent altogether one month (page 53).
The book (pages 3-26) begins with an introduction to the early phase of the age of discoveries (around 1500), giving special consideration to slavery in Europe, European pirates, diplomacy and existing knowledge of inner Africa. Leo Africanus’ work (Ramusio’s Descrittione) appeared under ideal circumstances at the height of the Italian Renaissance after a transitional period at the end of the Middle Ages. The schism of Avignon was a matter of the past and Rome was back in control. Printing already existed and Pope Leo X promoted the arts and literature (page 26). 
Biographical data 	
Rauchenberger thoroughly discusses the existing records and publications concerning the circumstances of Leo Africanus’ birth as al-Hassan al-Wazzan in the kingdom of Granada most likely sometime in autumn 1494 (page 36). Leo Africanus writes in the Cosmographia that he remembers only little about Granada and Rauchenberger (page 37) maintains that he moved with his father to Fez before the age of four. He argues that al-Hassan’s father was wealthy and independent enough to leave Granada for Fez of his own accord (page 38). This means that al-Hassan received his education in Fez and not in Granada and that he was of a privileged, if not noble social background.
Al-Hassan received the title of a faqih, a legal scholar, at a very young age in Fez (page 39). This was also the title, facchi, he used in the Vatican (page 39, footnote 169). Al-Hassan visited a Koran school until 1501/02 and one of the Medrassas (collegio/college) of Fez until 1506/07. This means that he achieved his faqih, an equivalent of a doctor title, at the age of about fourteen (page 42). Ramusio must have thought that he was too young for such a title and therefore changed the original manuscript by omitting those words and sentences which refer to his scientific methods. Rauchenberger accepts al-Hassan’s claim to have received the title of a faqih and that it is the equivalent of a doctorato (page 43). 
Al-Hassan was an envoy of the Sultan of Fez (page 57) on a return mission from Istanbul when captured at sea by the brother of the Bishop of Salamanca (page 63) who was a pirate captain. This was in 1518 and al-Hassan was twenty-four years old (page 60).  The name of the Spanish captain was Don Pietro di Bovadiglia (page 64). Captain Bovadiglia had captured a group of Moors several months before at Cao Salamon or Capo Samonio on the eastern side of Crete (page 65). His plan was to take them to Rome as a gift for Pope Leo X in order to receive absolution.  Among the captured was also an envoy of the king of Tremissen (Tlemcen in Algeria) who was on his way back to Fez from a visit to their Turkish allies. This envoy was presumably al-Hassan (page 64). 
In October 1518 al-Hassan was taken to the Castello Sant’Angelo where he met Pope Leo X. Al-Hassan’s arrival was one of the most important events of this year in Rome (pages 61/62) and his time there was very productive in intellectual terms. During 1518/19 he already had access to the library of the Vatican where he worked his way through eight major volumes mainly by Coptic and Syrian authors who represented the Christian worldview between the 4th and the 14th Century (page 67). Pope Leo X spent most summers at the Castello Sant’Angelo and had close contact with al-Hassan during this time (page 70).
In 1520, at the Epiphany, al-Hassan al-faqih (al-Hassan the scholar) was baptised and subsequently freed by Pope Leo X receiving the name Giovanni Leone de Medicis (page 74). The choice of the day of the Medici (Epiphany) and the name Giovanni – John the Baptist was the patron of Florence – shows that Pope Leo’s decision to baptise and free al-Hassan was driven by political considerations. Leo had freedom of movement outside the Vatican from 1520 onwards (page 85).
Leo Africanus left Rome after Pope Leo X died in December 1921, only one year after he was baptised. Not only Leo Africanus, but also many intellectuals and artists Pope Leo had promoted found themselves suddenly left without much financial and social protection (page 88). Pope Leo was replaced by Hadrian VI (a non-Italian Pope) who came to Rome eight months after his election where he replaced his predecessor’s liberal reign with a strict course of moral and financial prudence. 
Leo decided to move to Bologna as a result, and it is believed that it is there that he worked intensively on his Cosmographia, from 1924 onwards. He later returned to Rome where he finished the manuscript on the 10th of March 1526 (page 89). Considering his limited mastery of the Italian language, which he had learnt during the previous seven years, this was a remarkable achievement. The Cosmographia informs us that Leo Africanus not only spent a considerable time in Bologna but that he also visited Naples and Florence (page 89).
He left Rome some time after 1527 and later moved to Tunis. His decision to leave Italy altogether was presumably influenced by the attack of the soldiers of Charles V who plundered Rome (page 94). This was the end of the Italian Renaissance and the political and social climate had changed in such a way that Leo decided to flee to find refuge in Venice or Naples. Rauchenberger (page 97) opts for a retreat to the north where he might have found refuge under the protection of Cardinal Egidios who had concentrated troops in Veterbo in order to free the Pope. It seems that Leo left a copy of his collection of biographies, De viris illustribus, in Viterbo. From there he might have headed for Venice because his most important manuscripts, the Cosmographia and the Vocabularium, can be traced there only a few years after he might have left for Tunis. 
Leo Africanus went to Tunis shortly after with the aim of buying Arabic books (page 96). It is believed that he decided not to return from Tunis and that he presumably died there only some years later. He can be indirectly traced in Tunis, in 1532, through a note of the German, Johann Albrecht von Widmanstetter (pages 98/99), who had plans to visit him there but never did. This disproves the belief of many scholars that Leo Africanus was still alive in Tunis around 1555 (page 100). Rauchenberger demonstrates that this mistake was based on a misinterpretation of Widmanstetter (see footnote 466) and points out that this had already been corrected by Lorsbach in 1805. Leo presumably abstained from taking his Italian writings to Tunis since this would have been too dangerous.
History of the Cosmographia			
Among Leo Africanus’ contemporaries (pages 101-116) were: Giovanni Maria de Medicis, a famous composer and musician of Jewish descent and like him adopted by the Pope, Elia Maronita, a Lebanese monk and his calligrapher, and Jacob Mantino, a Jew who encouraged him to produce a trilingual dictionary. 
Leo’s writings are in Arabic, Latin and Italian. The only certain manuscript before his capture in 1518 is a collection of Arabic epitaphs from 1505. While Leo Africanus gives a clear reference to the existence of such a collection, the reference to an Arabic manuscript of his expedition to southern Morocco in 1514/15 remains uncertain (page 124). Rauchenberger tries to prove that Leo’s section on Morocco was based on a pre-existing Arabic manuscript (page 117). 
Most of Leo’s surviving works were written after 1518. They consist of an Arabic version of the Epistles of St Paul (1521), an Italian-Arabic-Latin dictionary (1524), some short biographies of Arabic and Jewish scholars (1527), an Arabic metrics (1527) and, of course, the Cosmographia (1526). Leo’s writing (altogether more than 1300 pages) allows us to assume the existence of an underlying greater plan in which the Cosmographia seems to feature as the centrepiece, but, unfortunately, this plan never reached completion (page 125). However, considering the short period of time (1519-1527) in which most of this was achieved, Leo Africanus must be seen as a very active and accomplished academic writer. 
The book examines Leo Africanus’ hand-written manuscript of the Cosmographia and concludes (page 135) that Ramusio used the manuscript VE 953 as setting copy. The manuscript was the work of two men. One of them dictated and corrected while the other wrote it down. Both spoke Arabic as their mother tongue. The first one was Leo himself while the other was a man called Elia Ben Abraham, a talented calligrapher (page 132). Rauchenberger argues that the section on Morocco was reproduced from an existing manuscript – most likely in Arabic – and, that the manuscript VE 953 had been in England between 1820 and 1931.
Elia Ben Abraham, known as Elia Maronita, was a Lebanese monk (page 113) who had already assisted Leo in 1521 in producing an Arabic translation of the Epistles of St Paul. Elias was about Leo’s age and had arrived in Rome around 1515, at the age of twenty. He learnt Latin and Italian on the orders of Pope Leo X and he introduced the study of Syrian (Chaldaean) into European academia. Apparently his Italian was not very good and it is recorded from his work with Leo that he often confused the vowels e and i (page 114).
The English cover of what would become VE 953 in 1931 allows us to assume that the manuscript was in England for about 100 years. The leather cover (page 135) carries the tiny stamp, Bound by Mackenzie, the trademark of the famous bookbinder, John Mackenzie, who worked in the West End of London from 1811 onwards. However, the cover could not have been made before 1820 because the copy of a French text – a short biography of Leo Africanus by Eyriés which was published in 1819 – bound into the front, had only appeared the year before (page 134).
The fate of the manuscript is then discussed in greater detail (page 136). Starting from the date of its completion in March 1526, the German humanist, Jacob Ziegler, can be identified. He studied the manuscript in 1529. Next, in 1545, Ramusio sent a text on Africa to Cardinal Pietro Bembo,  private secretary of Pope Leo X. This can only have been a copy of the Cosmographia. In 1546, Girolamo Gastaldi, a cartographer, used information from the Cosmographia to produce his latest Ptolemaic Africa map and in 1549, one year before the publication of the Ramusio version, Guillaume Postel, a French orientalist, uses elements of the Cosmographia to enhance his map of Cano (Kano in northern Nigeria).
The gap between 1550 and 1820 can possibly be closed with Massignon who refers, in a footnote, to a ‘handwritten copy of the 16th Century’ in Venice (page 138). Apparently, the reference leads to the Benedictine abbot Giovanni Benedetto Mittarelli, who, before 1777, cited the conclusion of Ramusio’s Descrittione by using the words of Leo’s original Cosmographia. This means that the Cosmographia was in Venice from 1529 till 1777 (as already mentioned above, Leo presumably left the Cosmographia in Venice when he finally departed to Tunis). Between 1777 and 1820 the Cosmographia must have found its way to England before it was returned to Italy in 1931. 
Rauchenberger also discusses the idea of an original Arabic manuscript of the Cosmographia (page 137) and argues that such a manuscript might well have existed in parts, such as, the Moroccan part. He is of the opinion that such a manuscript might have been lost at sea during the transport of sections of the library of Vincenzo Pinelli from Venice to Naples at the beginning of the 17th Century. The other possibility is that Leo Africanus took the original Arabic manuscript (or at least field notes in Arabic) with him to Tunis since Arabic writing would not have raised suspicion there.  
Comparison of the original manuscript with the Ramusio version			
Ramusio admittedly changed Leo’s text considerably and he explains this by writing in a letter to his friend Hieronymus Fracastoro that …he [Leo Africanus] translated his book from the Arabic as well as he could (see Rauchenberger, page 139). As well as purely grammatical improvements Ramusio also tried to produce a shorter and more concise text. He used, in his section on Libia and Paese de li Nigri, in average about a quarter fewer words than Leo Africanus (page 140). 
Ramusio’s editorial interventions mainly aimed for a greater ease of use and reduction of costs. Some areas of the text were shortened by Ramusio by up to 40%. But not only was the text shortened considerably but also the meaning of words and whole paragraphs were changed. Ramusio also made additions to the text, although many less than his omissions.
In the Sahara and black Africa section of the printed version itself (the Descrittione) there are 85 differences in contents in comparison with the manuscript (the Cosmographia). Rauchenberger adds to this about 50 additional similar changes outside the actual section on Libia and Terra de li Nigri but which are nonetheless concerned with the region. However, these changes are not always on the same level. While half of the changes are the result of errors, the other half are influenced by personal opinion and Ramusio’s worldview. In some cases, Ramusio’s intention was to change things deliberately because he might have thought that potential readers would otherwise not understand.
Rauchenberger (pages 141-144) lists the different types of changes and categorises them, e.g. (A) unintended mistakes, like: putio = well (Leo Africanus) becomes piano = plain (Ramusio), or (C) distorting additions by Ramusio, like: as I saw with my own eyes. The opinion of many scholars that Ramusio improved Leo Africanus’ original manuscript cannot be upheld. Changes made by Ramusio are often found in sections of the Cosmographia which are difficult to read (page 144). This criticism particularly applies to the introduction to the land of the blacks and Tombutto. This is the case to a lesser extent in Gaogao and Nube whereas the Sahara, the area west of Tombutto and the Hausa region, has hardly been changed by Ramusio (page 145).
The changes dealing with personalities and black African civilisations are particularly significant because they represent areas of conflicting worldviews. For example (page 146, footnote 659), when Leo Africanus compares the table manners of an Italian nobleman with those of any African nobleman, Ramusio changes the comparison to the poorest Italian nobleman and the most powerful African ruler.
The most important differences between the Cosmographia (1526) and the Descrittione (1550) can be summarised into three main areas of concern (page 147): 
1.	to increase the social distance to Africa and its inhabitants, particularly the black populations
2.	to reduce the reflexivity and informality (die menschlichen Aspekte) in Leo’s writing, and
3.	to make aspects of informality sound unfavourable 
It seems that the main intention of Ramusio as the editor and publisher of Leo’s work on Africa was to distance Leo Africanus from his social and geographical closeness to black Africa in order to make him more acceptable to European readers of the time.  This trend is not reduced by the fact that Ramusio uses in the Descrittione the humanistic I (the use of the first person singular was very common during this time) instead of the third person (meaning he: the author…) Leo Africanus had chosen (which was more common in Islamic writing) in his Cosmographia.
Distribution and impact of Ramusio’s  Descrittione dell’Africa			
The first edition was the Ramusio version from 1550. Rauchenberger uses the third edition from 1563 for his comparison with the original manuscript. The reason for his choice was that this edition was:
(1)	still a product of Ramusio alone and 
(2) the edition of this kind with the widest distribution and therefore still available today. After the third edition there were five more editions with minor and only formal changes. They appeared in – 1588, 1606, 1613, 1837 and 1978. The new Italian edition of 1978 by Marisa Milanesi is apparently very good  (page 152).
The first translation of the Descrittione appeared in 1556 by Jean Temporal in Lyon. During this time Ramusio was still alive. After Ramusio’s death Temporal’s edition appeared three more times: 1564 in Leiden and 1830 and 1896 in Paris. 
A Spanish edition, by Luis del Mármol y Carvajal, appeared in 1667, and was translated into French the same year. Mármol was a soldier under Charles V and was captured in Tunis in 1535. He spent 22 years in slavery and travelled North Africa during this time. His edition does not seem to be very accurate (Leo Africanus is only mentioned once) and is mixed with his personal experiences. 
A completely new French edition of the Ramusio version of the Descrittione by Alexis Épaulard appeared in 1956 (after that editor’s death and with a commentary by Théodore Monod, Henri Lhote and Raymond Mauny), with a second edition in 1980. Rauchenberger (page 155) points out that Épaulard knew the Roman manuscript (VE 953) but hardly used it for his translation because of the beginning of World War II. However, the Épaulard edition forms the base for a translation of Leo Africanus into Arabic, which is of particular importance in the identification of place names.
In 1556, after the death of Ramusio, the Latin version of the Dutchman Johannes Blommaerts, who is also known as Florianus, appeared. This translation is rather negative in terms of contents as well as mastery of language. The Latin edition was widely distributed and served John Pory in 1600 as the basis for an English version of Leo Africanus’ work. Pory added even more mistakes and therefore increased the distance from Ramusio’s Descrittione (not to mention the Cosmographia). In 1665 the first Dutch translation appeared, also based on the poor Latin version (page 155). 
In 1805, a German version appeared which was the first based on the Italian version of Ramusio since Temporal (1556). The orientalist, Georg Whilhelm Lorsbach, taught theology at the Hohe Schule in Herborn, Hessen, and was also known as an adviser on oriental languages to the German poet, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. The Lorsbach translation has a very good reputation but was not widely distributed (page 156).
The first Spanish translation (apart from the Mármol plagiarism), by Beneites, was published in 1940 in Tetuan, Morocco. Unfortunately, the translation was not complete. A second Spanish translation, by Serafin Fanjul and Nadia Consolani, appeared in 1995 in Barcelona (page 156).
The sequence of editions can be divided into 5 stages (page 157). The first, from 1550 to 1564, is contemporary with the era of the successful expansion of the Mediterranean powers. This period ended in 1578/88 with the defeat of the Portuguese troops in Morocco and of the Spanish Armada by England. 
The second phase of publications is between 1588 and 1665 (6 editions altogether), which includes translations into Dutch, Latin and English. This period was a reflection of the shift of European sea powers from the south (Mediterranean powers) to the north.
After this there was no translation or publication of Leo Africanus’ work for almost 140 years (between 1665 and 1805). The reason for this was a fairly balanced power situation in Europe, consisting of more or less stable absolute regimes. In France, no book in Arabic characters was printed between 1696 and 1779.
During the 19th Century the situation changes and five new editions appear with the first German translation in 1805 followed by a second French translation (1830) and a new Italian edition (1837). The publication of the French and Italian versions can be interpreted in the context of the arrival of the French in Algeria and the English and French editions of 1896 (with very rich commentaries) as marking the end game of the European possession of Africa. During stage one (16th Century) and stage four (19th Century), European expansion was at the root of the great scholarly and public interest in Africa (page 157).
The last and fifth stage is from 1940 till today which has brought about eight new editions of the Descrittione (page 157). Altogether thirty editions have appeared since 1550 in eight languages. 
Leo Africanus’ Cosmographia & Geographia de Affrica				
Rauchenberger is especially concerned with the Sahara and black Africa between Niger and Nile. He explains (page 173) that Leo structured his work into 538 capitoli (text elements dealing with a particular location or subject matter), which he combines into 30 libri to which he also refers as tractati or compendi. One capitolo can comprise only a few lines or up to fifteen pages. The lengths of an individual libro can therefore vary in size quite considerably. The capitoli (chapters) as well as the libri (books) can be recognised by their titles.
The libri are often brought together in parti (sections), which seems to happen on three different levels. This turns out to be so complicated that Ramusio did not fully understand Leo’s system of parti and therefore invented in the Descrittione a completely new system. However, the existence of the Cosmographia allows us to study and understand Leo Africanus’ original way of organising and structuring his work. Rauchenberger claims to have understood Leo’s system and reveals its secret in the form of a table (page 174).
Leo Africanus emphasises his intention only to record the most important things in order to avoid boredom among his readers (page 175). Leo does not want to create scepticism and therefore leaves out accounts which may not seem credible because he only knew them from hearsay. He tried to avoid too many comments of a specialist nature, e.g. he keeps a discussion about leprosy brief for this very reason (footnote 788).
Leo’s intention to write for a Christian readership becomes obvious in his attempt to translate Islamic notions in such a way that they often lose any specific meaning. For example, he refers to the Sufi movement as heresia (page 176). Leo does not aim for encyclopaedic completeness, a point he stresses in the context of his description of African animals. He only mentions those, which are not known in Europe. Leo also distinguishes between places he has himself visited, places which he only saw as a passer-by and those of which he was told about by others.
The methodological approach of Leo Africanus becomes obvious from the way he constructs his text. Rauchenberger demonstrates this for Terra de li Nigri: An introduction into the region as a whole and a conclusion at the end encapsulates his accounts on the individual realms of this part of Africa. This becomes particularly clear in his chapters on Cano, Borno and Nube where Rauchenberger identifies the following sequential structure (page 176):
1.	the geographical situation of the realm
2.	its organisation and products
3.	the capital
4.	the inhabitants
5.	dynasty, governmental system, finances and troops
It can be speculated whether these are the things his original patrons expected him to find. European travellers of the 19th Century kept similar lists (page 177, see also footnote 798).
Rauchenberger discusses unresolved research issues (pages 177-192) coming from the Descrittione and which would occupy explorers for centuries to come. One major issue is the mention of the enormous wealth of gold of the kings of Tombutto and Borno (in the case of Timbuktu, gold bars of up to 1300 pounds weight are mentioned). This was later perceived as an exaggeration, which subsequently had a very negative effect on Leo Africanus’ reputation as a historian. However, the Cosmographia seems to rectify this. Leo describes in the original manuscript gold bars of only 50 and of 300 pounds [1 pound is either 12 or 16 ounces, which is about 336 or 448 grams] in Tombutto and in Borno he only speaks of gold plated decorations (pages 177/78).
Apart from the gold, Leo’s mistake about the direction of the river Niger remains. Leo believed that the Niger ran from east to west and claims that he knows that because he travelled the Niger. However, the Niger sometimes runs very slowly and also has currents which can run in both directions (page 179). It is possible that Leo was not really sure and later decided to accept el-Bekri’s and Idrissi’s view (page 180).
The Cosmographia contains many references to geographical distances and Rauchenberger examines what Leo Africanus might have meant by a mile (page 181). He discounts the possibility that Leo meant English miles (1.609 km), sea miles (1,852 km) or a geographical mile (7,4204 km). Rauchenberger assumes, instead, that Leo Africanus used the Roman mile, which is 1.5 km long and goes on to compile Leo’s references to distances in a table. He concludes from his comparison that Leo might have travelled about 50 km per day, an average of 25 miles in Leo’s terms (page 182). 
From the 22 references to distances in the Cosmographia, 14 have a clear start and endpoint which can be geographically identified and measured.  Of these 14 distances about 65% are very close to reality – on the assumption that Leo used Roman miles – and for 5 of these the distances are wrong. The book has a table of these distances (page 183) from which we can conclude that Leo Africanus’ geographical distances are more accurate than those of his fellow countryman, Ibn Battuta, and that only the distances of the European explorers of the 19th Century reach a higher accuracy (page 184). 
Rauchenberger (pages 184-192) goes on to discuss place names mentioned in the Cosmographia, like Guangara, Gaogao, ‘Aidhab or Zibid, as well as Jemiam, Godem and other mysterious names.
For Guangara, he points out that the Cosmographia shows that Ramusio inserted in the Descrittione the sentence that ‘porters could make the journey twice per day with gold’ which created the impression that Guangara was very close to Wangara. In the Cosmographia Leo Africanus writes that slaves took this route repeatedly but he never said that they did this within a day. This removes the impression that Guangara and Wangara were very close to each other (page 186). 
With regard to Gaogao, the Descrittione mentions Gaogao three times and Gaoga seven times whereas the Cosmographia only speaks of Gaogao. Unfortunately, the literature has more or less settled for the name Gaoga, which makes it even more difficult to geographically locate and the problem remains. Most scholars seem to agree today that Gaogao existed around Lake Fitri in Chad (page 187).
In the context of Nube, the Descrittione speaks of a town Zibid, which is said to have disappeared 100 years before Leo Africanus came to Nube. Zibid is actually a town in Yemen and its connection with Nube is a mistake by Ramusio. Leo Africanus never speaks in context of Nube only of Zibid but only of ‘Aidab which is Italian for Hideb. The confusion was reinforced by Garcin who accused Leo of indecency because he based his judgement on Épaulard wrongly believing that he consulted the Cosmographia when he referred to Zibid as being in Nube (page 189).
Leo Africanus mentions that, in addition to the 15 realms between Gualeta and the Nile, he also wrote of 45 realms he never saw. Leo points out that they are south of those he visited and that these 45 realms traded with the 15 northern realms he himself visited. Of those 45 unvisited countries he only mentions 6 by name, which are Bito, Jemian, Dauma, Medra and Gorhan and adds that the other ones are remote and completely unknown to him. He explains that the lack of information comes from the remoteness of these unknown places and the strenuous journey required to get there, as well as with the strangeness of their language and religion. The Ramusio editions and the literature drawn from them (including Épaulard) never mention these entirely unknown countries. In addition, Ramusio changed the name Jemiam to Temian, which made it difficult to identify (page 189). 
Gorhan is the only name which appears a second time in the Cosmographia, in fact, as a people who, like the Seu (Sao), lived in the area around Lake Chad. Gorhan is an Arabic word meaning the mangy ones, which is still used today as a derogatory term for the Tibbu, Teda and Daza. All other names (Bito, Jemian, Dauma and Medra) are only mentioned once in the Cosmographia. Rauchenberger (page 190) says that all these names can be correctly located.
For example, he discusses the Seu and claims that the name means ‘settlers’ (Siedler), a translation he derives from Lange (1989:210). However, to my knowledge the word Seu or Sao/Saw/So is possibly better derived from the fact that the Sao were the builders of perimeter walls (sawé = wall in the Kotoko dialect of Gulfei; see Lebeuf and Detourbet 1950:26) with which they encircled their towns.
Another name, which is of special interest for ethnographers and archaeologists concerned with the history of the Lake Chad region, is Leo Africanus’ mentioning of the name Medra and its translation as Mandara by many researchers (page 191). This view remains unchanged in the Cosmographia, where Medra is mentioned at the end (page 341) of the section where Leo gives a general introduction to the division of the land of the blacks, kingdom by kingdom.  Leo writes in Rauchenberger’s transcription: In the south they border on many other kingdoms: Bito, Jemiam, Dauma, Medra and Gorham. They are developed and open for trading, wealthy and well governed by their rulers. As for the others they are worse than animals.
This shows that Medra is, in the eyes of Leo Africanus (who never visited Medra himself), more developed, civilised and open for trading, etc. whereas those further south are considered by him primitive, poor, uncivilised and so on. I agree with Rauchenberger (page 191) that Medra is the kingdom of Mandara, especially since we know that Mandara was known to Italian scholars of the time, Giovanni Lorenzo Anania (1582) who spelt it Mãdra and to Fra Mauro (1459) as Mandera. 
Leo Africanus’ description of the montagnards (Montanari) of Borno			
I would like to quote from a further passage of the Cosmographia  (pages 308/9), especially the part where he speaks of the mountain tribes in the kingdom of Borno. Before I do that I want to briefly discuss the geographical framework of Leo’s introduction. He begins his section on Borno by placing it to the east of Guangara, the previously described realm: 
Borno is a province, in the west bordering the previously described [realm] and stretches 500 miles eastwards. It is situated about 50 miles from the origin of the Niger. In the south it borders the desert of Seu and in the north the desert which leads to Barcha. 
That Leo describes Guangara before Borno is presumably a reflection of the fact that he travelled in an easterly direction. This fits in with the province of Gaogao, which he describes after Borno and where he names Borno as the previously discussed realm in the west. Gaogao is believed to have existed around Lake Fitri in Chad which is to the east of Borno. This conclusion is supported by the fact that Leo speaks of 500 miles (about 250 km) as the west-easterly extension of Borno but does not give a similar figure for its south-northerly extension. 
What appears odd is that he then places Borno only 50 miles (25km) away from the origin of the river Niger and that it, Borno, is bordered, in the south, by the desert of Seu (lo Deserto dè seu). Rauchenberger (page 309, footnote 1433) points out that Leo presumably meant Birni n’Gazargamu (at the time the capital of Borno) which was not far from Lake Chad (origin of the Niger). I assume that Leo’s statement …in the south it [Borno] is bordering the desert of Seu… must be related to Lake Chad (or the old capital of  Borno) and not to Borno as a whole. Seu (Sao) did indeed live south of Lake Chad. Also Leo shares this view in his general introduction to Africa, where he writes that the Seu live around a great lake (pages 360/61).
Leo then continues as follows:
The landscapes of this province are quite different. Some areas are mountainous while others consist of plains. In the plains there are big villages in which the more highly developed people live as well as the foreign, black and white merchants. The soils there are rich and heavy. In one of these large villages lives the king of Borno with his officials. In the mountains live tribes who raise goats and cattle. They plant millet and other, but unknown, cereals. They all go naked during the summertime and cover their private parts with small aprons of leather. During the wintertime they wear sheep hides and their beds are made of fur. Some of these montagnards [Leo speaks of Montanarj/Montanari; page 310] have no religion, neither Christian nor Jewish or Islamic. They live like animals without faith. They share their women, who work like men. They live in villages where they live together like families. These mountain people also fight with each other but they use only bows and wooden arrows, without iron, which they dip in poison. The author [Leo Africanus] says that he was told amazing things about them by a merchant who often met these people and who could understand their language. They do not give names to people but call them according to their appearance, for example something obvious about it or lacking. A tall person they call Tall, a fat one Fat and so on.
This is a back translation of the German translation of Rauchenberger (pages 309/10) from the Cosmographia (page 308), which may encourage the reader to refer to his transcription of the original. What is interesting is that Leo Africanus is correct as long as he speaks of things he has seen with his own eyes, for example, his description of the landscape existing of both mountains and plains. Considering the closeness of Borno to Lake Chad and Seu, we can be quite certain that he refers to the Mandara mountains. Although he only records from hearsay, he is also correct about the fact that the peoples of the mountains plant millet and other cereals (eleusine and maybe sorghum) and that they keep goats and cattle. Another truth is that they go naked (at least in the eyes of a Moslem). 
Where things no longer meet ethnographic reality is shown in his description of their social structure and lifestyle. His comments about their religion are equally derogatory but presumably not unusual for an educated man and traveller of his time, and especially one writing for his Italian audience. Still today the montagnards of the Mandara mountains are seen as ‘primitive’ and ‘uncivilised’ by some of the urban inhabitants of the plains. 
Rauchenberger recognises that he cannot provide ethnographic explanations for all of Leo’s accounts and interpretations. He uses ethnographic literature where accessible but only detailed specialist knowledge can really further our understanding in this respect. This applies particularly to those societies Leo tends to categorise as peoples without faith. Modern ethnography has let go of such views and uses terms like egalitarian or non-centralised societies instead. 
This becomes obvious in relation to the account of the montagnards of Borno cited above. Although it is correct to interpret some of his accounts on marriage and sexual life as extremely derogatory we must be careful not to overlook the possibility of some being ethnographic fact. Some facts he knows from hearsay might be hidden behind his moralistic interpretations, while others might belong in a different ethnographic context. The latter is presumably the case where he speaks of examples of naming, A tall person they call Tall, a fat one Fat and so on, which is not known in the Mandara mountains but in the Muri Hills, further south in north-eastern Nigeria. 
Other elements of his account might be a misinterpretation as the result of a moral/cultural reaction from his side. Polyandry, the marriage of one woman to more than one man, existed in pre-colonial central Nigeria and he might well have interpreted this in his own ethnocentric way and attributed it to the montagnards of Borno who only practice polygyny, the marriage of one man to more than one woman.
Another interesting question, which rises from this section, is his statement that they use wooden arrows without iron. I put Leo’s statement to Scott MacEachern, archaeologist of the region, and he replied saying that it doesn't require much penetration to get poison into a wound, and thinks that it is likely that – if this part of Leo Africanus' description is accurate – using wooden arrows with poison might be quite an effective approach to saving metal. 
What is almost certain is that Leo Africanus mixed information from various regions and than applied it to many of his peoples without faith. The mixing of ethnographic information is something, known from other travellers of his time, for example, Marco Polo.
Rauchenberger’s edition gives us an opportunity to look at these issues without the filter of Ramusio. I have tried to do that in the context of the montagnards of the Mandara mountains, although Borno might not be such a good example since the inconsistencies between the Cosmographia and the Descrittione are less marked here than in other regions.
Leo Africanus’ concepts of civilita and bestialita				
Rauchenberger also deals with open questions rising from the Descrittione in relation to the peoples of black Africa (pages 199 – 234) and explores the Cosmographia for possible answers. After dealing with Tombutto and Songai, he explores the names of kings in Leo’s original manuscript and what Leo had to say about the existence of coin (Münzgeld). He subsequently discusses civilisations in the Sudan by first concentrating on (1) villages, cities and regions, (2)  kings, urban citizens and states (3) long-distance trade, and finally (4) civilita and bestialita.
Before I discuss Leo’s concepts of civilita and bestialita, I would like to briefly explore Rauchenberger’s analysis of the size of villages, since this is relevant to my previous citation on large villages in Borno. Leo Africanus records types of settlements and the various geographical spaces very thoroughly and clearly. Rauchenberger has analysed Leo’s material (pages 211-214) and organised it in two tables. Leo apparently distinguishes between what he calls casale or villaggio, which Rauchenberger translates as villages (Dörfer). In relation to the large villages in the plains of Borno (see above) Leo uses the expression grandi caslj and Casali Grandj (page 308) and not the expression villaggio grande. It seems that Leo is using both terms in an alternating manner and Rauchenberger (page 213) comes to the conclusion that a casale grande or villaggio grande in Leo’s terms can have up to 6,000 households or 30,000 inhabitants. A cipta grandissima (large city = Großstadt) can consist of 10,000 households or 50,000 inhabitants, while, at the other end of the scale, a casale piccolo (small village = kleines Dorf) does not number more than 300 households or 1,500 inhabitants. This means that the casale grande or villaggio/villaggio grande comprises the widest range of a human settlement category, which is between about 2,000 and 30,000 inhabitants.
With regard to the settlement units of the montagnards of Borno, Leo speaks of casalè (page 310), which is translated by Rauchenberger (page 311) as villages (Dörfer). Although Leo has never been in the mountains of Borno we can deduce that he thought of their settlements as hamlets and villages of a smaller size than those in the plains.
Rauchenberger devotes a separate section (pages 228-233) to Leo’s view of civilita and bestialita where he intends to show that Leo Africanus uses the term bestialita in a different way to European authors of the same period. For example, Sebastian Münster categorises sections of the African population as being part of the animal kingdom (page 229). Even Leo’s way of setting the context, for example, in his sentence ‘lived like animals’ (vivevano como bestie; page 258), in the reference to the inhabitants of some oases of the Sahara, we see that he only uses the term animal-like as a metaphor for humans he considers as uncivilised.
Leo Africanus did not use the term bestialita in a racist way because he believed both white and black Africans to be descendants of Ham, the son of Noah.  Leo also didn’t interpret his concepts of bestialita from an ethnic point of view. This can be concluded from Leo’s description of how the Bugiha in Nube became extremely poor, turned into bandits and walked around naked (pages 326/27) after the Turks had destroyed their wealthy home town, Hideb.
Rauchenberger (page 229) summarises Leo’s view of the lifestyles of the ‘savages’, ‘animal-like humans’ or ‘primitives’ as follows:
•	Without knowledge and incompetent – they are illiterate and have no skills in crafts.
•	They are pagans, do not know the meaning of dogma (doctrina = Lehre), and know no authority of the State.
•	Some are poor, mean, and inhospitable, others are robbers and murderers who lie in hiding to waylay merchants.
•	They don’t fight proper wars for which they don’t have the right weapons. Their poisoning arrows are only good for hunting and ambush attacks.
•	They never leave their places of origin and don’t trade.
•	Apart from raising goats and cattle they have sparse knowledge of agriculture.
•	They go naked or cover themselves with animal skins and live in huts made of leaves.
•	They don’t know the institution of marriage.
In his listing, Rauchenberger produces references to Leo’s original manuscript and concludes that they are the opposite of urban civilisations in the Sudan. He points out that, with regard to black Africa, Leo’s view of bestialita as the opposite of civilita is mainly to be found in his description of the montagnards of Borno and the peoples of Gaogao.
Leo Africanus’ view of the slave trade of Borno				
For Leo, as a Berber from North Africa, the long-distance trade had to serve, for its main purpose, the activities of the State (page 219). Main goods of exchange were humans and gold (as raw materials) against horses for breeding, weapons and textiles (as finished products). Horses and weapons helped to secure the power of the State and to produce raw materials (like the capture of slaves). Rauchenberger sees this kind of cycle emerging from the Cosmographia, especially for Tombutto and Borno, and argues that it ensured the continuity and development of the State. He argues that the maintenance of public order and the relationships with neighbours were secondary to this and adds that, according to Leo Africanus, the most important long-distance trading goods of Borno during his time were imported horses and exported slaves.
The following back translation is a continuation of the section already discussed earlier, where Leo Africanus introduced the main geographical features (plains and mountains) of Borno and the lives of the montagnards. It deals only with the plains and describes the trading conditions with the white merchants which were controlled by the king of Borno:
The province of Borno is governed by a particularly powerful king, who originates from the peoples of Berdao in Libia. He commands about 3,000 warriors on horses and an indefinite number of foot soldiers, as many as he likes because his whole people is liable to service. He takes them wherever he wants. Apart from demanding a tithe [Decima] from the fruit of their agricultural labour he asks no more from his people. He [the king] has no other income than what he gains from killing his enemies on the borders who are also black by origin and who live in the desert of Seu. They are without number and, in earlier times, tended to cross the desert by foot in order to inflict as much harm to the province of Borno as they could. Ever since there are kings who rule over Borno, they [the kings] allow merchants from Barbaria [Berber countries of north Africa] to bring horses and they exchange them for slaves. They give 10 to 20 slaves for each horse and also gold. However, the king delays the merchants. Only when he buys horses he begins to prepare an attack on the countries of his enemies and it takes two or three months before he returns. After his return, he sometimes brings a great number of slaves with him which is sufficient for the merchants, but sometimes it is not enough. In that case the merchants have to wait until the next year because the king cannot carry out more than one foray per year. This is the reason why the merchants have now almost completely stopped trading with his country.
The result of this is that the king, who ruled during the time the author [Leo Africanus] was there, took the goods of the merchants and then covered their living expenses as long as they had to wait to be paid. The [general] view exists that the king has unlimited wealth because it can be seen at his court that the equipment of his horses, stirrups, spurs and the decorations of the bridle are made of gold. In his household are wooden bowls and pots plated with gold leaf. Also the chains for the dogs are made of fine gold. However, the king is reluctant to pay his debts with gold. Instead of compensating them with gold, he prefers to cover their cost of living for a whole year in order to pay them in slaves. This king has beneath him several other kings. The whites [presumably Berber merchants] also refer to those countries dependent on him as Borno because they don’t really know the area well enough to remember all the details. This also applies to the author [Leo Africanus] who only spent one month in this land.
We can conclude that (in the early 16th Century) slaves and horses were the main long-distance trading goods in Borno. It also seems that gold was not a good the king of Borno liked to use for payment. There is also hardly any mention of where the king of Borno went when he was away for many months capturing enough slaves to pay the white merchants (who were presumably Berber). We may infer that he also raided in the Mandara mountains since these, apart from the Seu (Sao), were the only uncivilised peoples he mentions in his account of the kingdom of Borno. Leo Africanus devoted a considerable amount of text to the montagnards of Borno. This is of particular significance since he discusses the situation of the merchants waiting to be paid in slaves in such great detail. Leo Africanus also tells us that he got most of his information on the lifestyle of the montagnards of Borno from one of the merchants. 
Considering that the montagnards of the Mandara mountains have a history of slavery which goes back more than 500 years, it is quite possible that Leo refers to them not only as an example of peoples without faith but also, indirectly, as a significant section of the population of Borno which was subjected to intense slave raiding. This is even more likely if we take into account that Qur’anic law does not usually allow the enslavement of Moslems, but only of non-believers. Moreover, the increase in population density of the northern Mandara mountains is attributed, by many scholars of today, to the intense enslavement of pagan groups, not only of the mountains but also from the plains. This is a process which began from about 1500 onwards. It might well have been that even during Leo’s time the mountains served as a refuge for pagans from the plains in order to escape enslavement during the raids organised by the king of Borno his lieutenants, and tributary kings including perhaps the Medra.
Conclusion 				
It is the main purpose of this book description to encourage international readership, especially so that ethnographers and archaeologists may make use of this important work in German. Rauchenberger has shown that the Descrittione and resulting editions and translations, which have dominated our view of Leo Africanus for almost 500 years, must be revised. As Rauchenberger writes in his summary and conclusion (pages 234-237), the handwritten manuscript of the Cosmographia & Geographia dell’Affrica gives a first clear and unfiltered view of Leo Africanus’ work. Rauchenberger could also show that Leo himself used the name Affricano and that it was not a derogatory expression but a proud statement of his Berber origin. 
With regard to his account on Borno, which was of particular interest to me as an ethnographer of the region, it can be summarised that Leo was very conscious about what he considered important to report. First of all, he chose to emphasise the mountains and the plains as being the main contrasting geographical features of the region. He also chose to give a description of the montagnards of Borno and we have good reason to believe that he was speaking about the inhabitants of the Mandara mountains of today. Leo Africanus was the first to actually use the word montagnard for these remote groups. 
In relation to the myth of the wealth of gold of Borno, it could be clarified that it was his intention to show that such unlimited wealth did not exist in Borno. Leo Africanus shows that it was the slave trade and the interest in horses, which kept the mercantile economy of Borno going, at least in the 16th Century. If we accept that the montagnards of Borno were those of the Mandara mountains of today we can infer that the mountains were already well populated during Leo’s time. This indirectly confirms the theory that the population increase there goes back about 500 years and that the slave trade of Borno is one its most important historical causes.