1

Squaring the Circle:

Rhumbs, Globes and the Making of the Mercator Projection (1569)

How Mercator constructed his projection in 1569

Warburg Institute
London, November 2013
Joaquim Alves Gaspar

[1] In a letter written in 1546 to his friend Antoine Perronet de Granvelle

(who would become Cardinal and a minister of Emperor Charles V),
Mercator complained that sea charts, which he was expecting to use as a
reference for his own maps, showed numerous errors and inconsistencies,
which he attributed to the ignorance of the cartographers about the
properties of the magnet. Apparently Mercator had only a limited
understanding of the problems affecting sea charts when he wrote the
letter. Although it was true that magnetic declination played an important
role in the geometric idiosyncrasies of the charts of the time, that was not
the only or even the worst problem. In the sixteenth century nautical
charts were constructed on the basis of compass courses, estimated
distances and astronomically-observed latitudes. The courses were not
corrected for magnetic declination and all quantities measured on the
spherical surface of the Earth were transferred directly onto the plane, as
if were flat. The process made those charts geometrically inconsistent and
caused significant errors in the directions and distances between the
places when depicting large areas.

[2] A solution for the problem was found by Mercator himself 23 years
later, in 1569, with the construction of his world map Nova et aucta orbis
terrae descriptio ad usum navigantium emendate accomodata, that is,
‘’New and improved description of the Earth corrected for use in
navigation’’. [*] In this map meridians and parallels form a regular mesh of
rectangles where the spacing between parallels increases with latitude in
such a way that rhumb-lines [3] (that is, those lines having a constant
course on the surface of the Earth) are represented by straight segments
making true angles with the meridians. What Mercator didn’t know (could
not have known) is that his invention was well ahead of its time, as
1
 2

navigation was still not prepared for using a chart where the places were
located by latitude, longitude and true geographic directions. Two
hundred years had still to pass, until the longitude problem was solved,
the spatial distribution of magnetic declination was known and the pilot’s
reluctances removed, so that Mercator’s projection could be fully adopted
in navigation and the old ‘plane chart’ definitely dismissed.

[4] According to the testimony of Walter Ghim, the mayor of the town of
Duisburg and Mercator’s first biographer, he said more than once that his
invention corresponded to the squaring of the circle in a way that nothing
seemed to be lacking save a proof. Mercator did not explain how (and
when) the invention was conceived and his method has been the object of
a long and inconclusive debate among historians for more than a century.
However this cryptic statement contains some clarifying elements which
combine perfectly with the conclusions that we have reached in our
research.

The goal of our research was to identify the method used by Mercator to
calculate the projection adopted in his world map of 1569. [5] Here is the
summary of the presentation. [*] First a quick overview of Mercator’s
world map is made focused on its most relevant geometric features; [*]
second a cartometric analysis of the chart’s geographic graticule is
presented, with the purpose of estimating the errors associated with the
construction method, which we have called the ‘error signature’ of the
chart; [*] third, a few of the methods described in the literature are
reviewed, taking into account the error distribution determined before. A
new method, based on the use of a table of rhumb is proposed and
tested; [*] and finally, the results obtained before are re-assessed in the
light of Mercator’s comments and explanations about his projection, and
the best solution is chosen.

[6] Mercator’s world map is composed of eighteenth sheets which, when

assembled, measure about 125 x 203 cm. The original copper plates were
lost but three printed copies are extant: [*] one in the French national
Library, [7] one in the University Library of Basel, [8] and one in the Naval
Museum of Rotterdam, in the form of a coloured atlas. An additional copy

2
 3

previously kept in the municipal library of Breslau, [9] Poland, was lost
during World War II; only this facsimile remains.

[10] The map contains two scales graduated in one degree intervals: [*]
one scale of longitudes along the equator, from 0˚ to 360˚; [*] and one
scale of latitudes, from 66.5˚S, at the bottom, to a little less than 80˚N, at
the top. [*] Near the lower right corner there is an abacus, entitled
Organum Directorium, [11] composed of a graticule of meridians and
parallels for the northern hemisphere, matching the one of the map. [*]
From its lower and top left corners radiate seven straight lines
representing the seven classical rhumbs. [*] Centred on these same two
points two quarter circles graduated in one-degree intervals are shown.
According to the instructions given by Mercator in one of the legends of
the map, the Organum was intended to be used to solve simple problems
of navigation, like finding the coordinates of the point of arrival given the
course and the distance from some point of departure.

[12] The first part of our research consisted in making measurements on

the chart’s scales of latitudes and longitudes aiming to determine their
errors and, from there, to identify the method used by Mercator to
calculate the spacing between the parallels. [13] We know that the
eighteen sheets of paper where the map was printed are affected by
considerable physical distortion due to aging. [14] Not only this distortion
is different from sheet to sheet and from map to map, but also varies
inside a single sheet. In order to determine accurately the original spacing
between the parallels, it was absolutely necessary to eliminate the effects
of distortion first. [15] In the present case the task was much facilitated by
the existence of the Organum Directorium, which not only contains a
mesh of meridians and parallels identical to the one of the map [*] but
also exhibits two quarter circles centred in the top and bottom left corners
of the grid, graduated in degrees [*]. This construction makes possible to
determine the original spacing of the parallels by reading the polar
coordinates of their intersections with the graduated circles, a fact that
has passed unnoticed to the previous researchers. [*] For example, the
polar angle of the point of intersection of the 40º parallel with the lower
circle is 60.8 degrees, a number that can be read directly on the scale of

3
 4

the circle. With this quantity and the radius of the circle (which is a little
less than 90 equatorial degrees) we can easily determine the original
ordinate of the parallel, a value not necessarily equal to the vertical
distance measured on the paper, due to distortion. [16] Notice that this
result does not depend on the physical distortion of the abacus because
we don’t make any direct measurements on it.

[17] Thus the next step was to determine the ordinates of all parallels of
the Organum, compare them with the theoretical values of the Mercator
projection (the so-called meridional parts, which are calculated by a
formula) and derive an error distribution. [18] The results are shown in the
table at left, were the last column is the difference between the ordinates
we have determined from the Organum (the Ys in the table) and the
theoretical values of the projection (the MPs in the table). These
differences are illustrated on the graph at right as yellow circles, together
with a smoothed line, which was interpolated through the individual
values. To this line, which we consider to reproduce very closely the
original errors associated with Mercator’s method, we have called the
error signature of the chart. [19] The next phase was to compare this error
signature with the errors produced by the various methods described in
the literature. Here, we have assumed that the scale of latitudes in the
Organum is identical to the one of the chart. This is a more than
reasonable assumption given the fact that the Organum was supposed to
replace the main chart in the resolution of navigational problems.

[20] In 2005, the French engineer Raymond D’Hollander published a book

in which a cartometric study of Mercator’s chart is presented and sixteen
construction theories found in the literature are reviewed. Most of these,
dating from 1889 to 2003, are based on some formula or graphic
construction for estimating the spacing between the parallels. Two consist
in transferring coordinates from a globe to the plane of the chart.
D’Hollander concluded, based on his own assessment of the chart’s errors,
that none of the methods based on formulae or graphical constructions
could reproduce Mercator’s graticule exactly.

This is not surprising if we recall that most of those proposals don’t take
into account the errors affecting Mercator’s graticule and that none of
4
 5

them considers the distortion of the paper. I will refer to only two of the
methods reviewed by D’Hollander, which illustrate those facts. [21] The
first was proposed by the Finnish geographer Nils Albert Nordenskjöld, in
1889; the second, by the Portuguese Captain Abel Fontoura da Costa, in
1933. [*] Both adopt a concept equivalent to the one introduced by Pedro
Nunes in 1537, in which a series of rectangular grids with growing
latitudes are piled up, where the proportion between the length of the
meridian and parallel arcs are locally conserved in each of them. In the
solution of Nordesnkjold, the range of each partial grid is 10 degrees of
latitude (as in the figure). The method of Fontoura da Costa is based on
the same principle but uses variable latitude intervals. These were chosen
in such a way as to reproduce the errors affecting the copy of the chart
kept in the French national Library. What the author didn’t realize with
this ad hoc solution was that about a half of those errors were caused by
physical distortion of the paper and had nothing to do with Mercator’s
method. [22] Here we have the comparison between the corresponding
error curves and the error signature of the chart. It is clear that none of
the solutions is good enough: one because the errors are too small; and
the other because they are too large.

[23] Having rejected all solutions based on formulae and geometric

constructions, D’Hollander concluded that the best method was the one
presented by Hermann Wagner in 1910, in which the coordinates taken
from rhumb-lines drawn on a globe were transferred to the plane of the
chart in a way that they were represented by straight segments. [*]
Wagner made precise measurements on Mercator’s globe of 1541, in
which a dense pattern of rhumb-lines is shown, and determined the
corresponding latitude errors. He realized that most points of the rhumb-
lines were closer to the equator than the theoretical curve and concluded
that such differences were comparable to the negative errors of
Mercator’s chart. However, both Wagner and D’Hollander made here a
fatal flaw. None of them realized that when transferring the coordinates
of a rhumb-line from a globe to the chart, using the method described by
Wagner, negative latitude errors in the rhumb originate positive ordinate
errors in the latitude scale and vice versa. [*] This mistake kills Wagner’s

5
 6

theory, as we can see in the graph, showing the errors associated with his
method, together with the error signature of the chart.

[24] As Henrique already explained a Table of Rhumbs is a set of seven

lists, each containing the latitudes and longitudes of a series of points
laying on each of the seven classical rhumbs, on a sphere. [25] The
animation that follows shows the line corresponding to the 4th rhumb (45
degrees), on the sphere, together with the geographical coordinates of its
points, in the table. The line starts at the Equator, and progresses
northward, making a spiral around the Pole. [26-33]. (and so on)

When Mercator engraved his world map, in 1569, at least two different
tables had been calculated in central Europe: [34] the one by the English
mathematician John Dee, around 1558, in his Canon Gubernauticus; [35]
and the other described mathematically (although not calculated) by
Pedro Nunes, in his Opera, published in 1566. Other tables of rhumbs
were made after 1569, such as the one by Edward Wright, in 1599, and by
Simon Stevin, in 1605. All of them, except the one by Wright, were
calculated by solving iteratively small triangles along a rhumb-line on the
sphere.

The fact that I want to stress now, and this is an important point of our
presentation, is that constructing a Mercator’s graticule with a table of
rhumbs is very simple and intuitive. [36] On square paper, [*] draw a
horizontal line representing the equator, and graduate this line with a
scale of longitudes. [*] Draw a series of straight and equally-spaced
meridians, perpendicular to the equator. [*] Choose one of the traditional
rhumbs, for example the fourth rhumb (45º), and represent it as a straight
segment starting from the lower left corner and making an angle of 45
degrees with the meridians. All we have to do now is to trace the parallels
of the projection in such a way that this straight line will match the fourth
rhumb on the sphere. [*] For the purpose, we will be using this table of
rhumbs, the same as before. [*] The first point of the rhumb will be the
lower left corner of the graph, whose coordinates are 0 degrees of
latitude and longitude. [*] Now, take the second point on the list, with
latitude 10º and longitude 10º 3’. [*] Trace a vertical line representing its
meridian, using the scale on the equator, and find the intersection with
6
 7

the red line. (and now comes the magic part) [*] The horizontal line
containing this point will represent the parallel of latitude 10º N in our
projection. [**] Repeat the procedure with the other points until all
parallels have been found. [37] The work is done. Very simple, is it not?
But how can we be sure that all rhumb lines, and not only the one used to
construct the projection, are represented correctly? We can prove it
mathematically today, but not at Mercator’s time. The only way available
to him would be to experiment with all the seven rhumbs and confirm
that they were indeed depicted as expected [*]. Under this light
Mercator’s comment that nothing seemed to be lacking in his invention
save a proof begins to make sense.

But can we conclude, just because the method is simple, intuitive and
historically plausible, that Mercator actually used it to construct his
projection? Certainly not. We would be making the same mistake as the
researchers of the past, who didn’t care to compare the output of their
methods with the real map. Thus the next step will be to identify, among
the various types of rhumb tables, the one replicating as closely as
possible the error signature of the chart. [38] Two obvious candidates
come immediately forward: John Dee’s Canon Gubernauticus, and the
table of Pedro Nunes. Surprisingly none of them comes even close to the
error signature. [*] The one by Dee because is too accurate and [*] the
one by Nunes because the errors have the wrong sign. So other types of
tables of rhumbs had to be considered. Before proceeding, let me explain
very briefly how a table of rhumbs can be constructed.

[39] The principle consists in calculating the sides of a large number of

right-angled triangles connected by their vertexes, whose hypotenuses
make a constant angle with the meridians, on the surface of the sphere.
That angle (R, in the figure) is the rhumb. [*] The result of the calculation
will be a table containing the latitudes and longitudes of the successive
vertexes, which are supposed to lay on a rhumb-line. The triangles can be
plane, like the ones in the figure and those used by John Dee; spherical,
like the ones used by Pedro Nunes; or even hybrid, like the ones used by
Simon Stevin. Furthermore the points can be spaced in equal intervals of
latitude, of longitude, or unequal intervals of latitude and longitude, like

7
 8

Pedro Nunes did. In all cases, the accuracy of a table is inversely

proportional to the size of the triangles, that is, the smaller and more
numerous the triangles the more accurate the results. In our research we
have investigated various types of tables, with several variations. I will
spare you the technical details and only introduce the winners, that is,
those methods which have shown the best performance in reproducing
the error signature of the chart. [40] And the winners are: in the first
place, ex-aequo, two tables of rhumbs both using equal intervals of
longitude: [*] one for the second rhumb (22.5º) and one-degree intervals
(blue line), [*] and the other for the fourth rhumb (45º) and two-degrees
intervals (red line); [*] in third place, there is a table for the second rhumb
(22.5º) with one-degree intervals of latitude. Notice how good the two
first solutions are, with differences to the error signature of the chart
almost always smaller than 1/5 of an equatorial degree, to which
correspond less than one third of a millimetre on the Organum
DIrectorium.

[41] One additional reason, other than their simplicity and performance,
makes these two solutions ideal candidates, which is the fact that they
produce rhumb lines that never reach the pole, a feature shared by all
other tables using equal intervals of longitude. Being a mathematician and
a cosmographer who was well aware of the properties of the rhumb-line,
Mercator was certainly sensitive to this fact.

[42] Having concluded that the errors produced by a certain kind of table
of rhumbs closely match the error signature of Mercator’s chart, a
relevant question remains: would it be possible to achieve a similar result
using an alternative method, based on a different requirement? In theory,
yes. Instead of having forced the rhumb lines to be represented by
straight segments, by spacing the parallels appropriately, Mercator could
have used the concept enunciated 30 years ago by Pedro Nunes, that is,
that the proportion between the lengths of the parallels and meridians
arcs on the sphere should be conserved on the chart. [43] That would lead
to using this simple formula, identical to the one proposed by
Nordenskjold and many others. Such possibility is implicit in one of the
maps’ legends, where Mercator states that he has increased progressively

8
 9

the degrees of latitude towards each pole in proportion to the lengthening

of the parallels relative to the equator. However, none of the proposals
based on this formula produces a result as good as the ones obtained with
our table of rhumbs.

[44] In order to better settle this issue let us go back to Mercator’s

comment, witnessed by Walter Ghim, that is invention would correspond
to the squaring of the circle in a way that nothing seemed to be lacking
save a proof. In our opinion, the reference to the old puzzle (the squaring
of the circle) is either an analogy with the problem solved by Mercator
(going from the sphere to the plane as from the circle to the square) or, as
suggested by other researchers, a metaphor emphasizing the difficulty of
the problem. More important to the present quest is the statement
referring to the completeness of the invention and the lack of a proof
(nothing seemed to be lacking save a proof). In our opinion this statement
makes full sense when we consider that the projection was constructed
using a table of rhumbs. In such case, the completeness of the solution
would consist: first, in all rhumbs, and not only the one used to calculate
the projection, being represented by straight segments correctly oriented;
and second, in the proportion between the lengths of the meridian and
parallel arcs being conserved as well. The important point to stress here is
that Mercator was certainly aware that the observance of one of the
requirements (straight rhumb-lines) would lead automatically to the
observance of the other (correct proportion), although he could not prove
it formally. [45] The property whose proof he was likely seeking was that
in a projection depicting straight rhumb lines, correctly oriented, the
proportion of the lengths of meridians and parallels are conserved, and
vice-versa.

Most authors writing about Mercator’s achievement have considered that

his solution was empirical and that he only had a shallow knowledge of
the related theory. We don’t share this interpretation. [46] Although it is a
fact that the latitude scale was calculated using an empirical approach, [*]
the explanations given in the Latin legends on the use of the Organum
Directorium in navigation demonstrate that he had a deep understanding
of its properties. Seen under this light, the identification of the precise

9
 10

method used by Mercator loses much of its importance because he was

most certainly aware that they were basically equivalent. We do not know
how thorough Mercator was in the experimentation and designing phases.
But we have no doubt that his conviction about the correctness of the
solution had been achieved long before he held the burin and started
engraving the copper plates.

[47] Whichever method Mercator actually used to solve the problem, his
genius did not consist in developing a new projection from the void (ex
nihilo) but in assuming that a solution existed and in being able to use
effectively the knowledge that was available to him at the time. [48] In
other words: on the shoulders of giants.

10