18th Century Bellin showing the St. Lawrence River

With a hat-tip to the Map Room Blog I wanted to just write a short bit about a gorgeous map that they wrote about. It's an 18th Century Bellin showing the St. Lawrence River on three sheets. Here they are:

These are gorgeous maps, and can all be viewed in greater detail here.

I don't have much information beyond what the Map Room has provided as to information on the provenance of these maps. I'll content myself with pointing out a few little details that I enjoy.

I always love depictions of Montreal. Here, the island is named with just the settlement of Ville Marie shown. The city of Laval does not appear on the map, with only the name of Isle Jesus. Many of Montreal's suburbs are named here, including Longueil and Boucherville.



Quebec, the modern province through which the river flows, and the city it flows past is inconsistently named. In some places it's spelled the modern way: Quebec, in others, including the map title, it's Quebek. I'm not sure what accounts for this difference.





There are some great place names on this map. Two that stand out to me: Pot à l'Eau-de-Vie (Brandy Pot) and Mille Vaches (a Thousand Cows).





This is a gorgeous map with historic significance and it's clear why it belongs in Quebec's archives. Looking at it though, I am reminded of this other great map of the St. Lawrence, probably made just a few years later. It's hard to say which I like more. It's also interesting to compare these Bellin maps to this collection of other maps of his of the same region. the comparison in level of detail and focus is interesting.

Mitchell's 1867 Plan of Boston

On a trip to Boston I stopped in at Ward Maps (as always, no affiliation) which is a nice, neat, well organized map shop selling antiques, and I think also reproductions. I couldn't decide between two maps: one of, or perhaps the, first Boston public transit map ever produced or the one I actually bought. In the end, I think my choice was made purely based on aesthetics. The map I bought was simply more attractive. It's an 1867 Mitchell titled "Plan of Boston" with a beautifully coloured inset of the Boston region.

There are elements of this map that seem, to me at least, to scream that it's a Mitchell. For one, the border of the map, and something about the style, that I can't quite put my finger on, all seem to say that it's a Mitchell.

It's also a map that shows a Boston that's profoundly changed since the map was made. According to the general history of the city on Wikipedia, the mid 19th century, when this map was made, was an important time for the city. Boston was receiving many new immigrants and was growing. Neighborhoods were becoming little ethnic enclaves and the city needed more space. 

Compare the map above, to the boston of today:

 A number of differences stand out, including the absence of a "South Boston Bay", and some more subtle changes that are hard to see without more of a close-up. Many of these land reclamation projects were due to the growth of the city.

One, in particular is the addition of streets north of beacon street, which had been right up against the Charles River. After a major fire in the 1870s, so after this map was made, the debris from burned buildings was pushed into the marshy areas of the river to create new land for the city and creating what is today, Storrow Drive.

I also find the image above charming because of its depiction of the lovley Boston Common. In particular, I find that there's something somehow funny about the drawing of the pond with the note that it is indeed a pond on the common.

Another great aspect of this map is the inset, which also shows changes in the region over time.

This inset of the region around Boston shows how some areas had recently been incorporated into the town, such as South Boston and East Boston. Other areas, which are now part of the city, such as Dorchester, are shown as seperate areas from the city.

All told, this is an attractive map, with some interesting historic details of a great city. I'm pleased with my choice in this case!

Add it to the Wishlist: 1766 Map Showing Russian Discoveries of the West Coast of North America

At the time of my writing this post, I am planning a work-trip to Portland, Oregon. Naturally this got me thinking about maps of the region and I decided to see if I could find another west-coast of North America map to add to my virtual wishlist. I got some great ideas from a tweet from Vetus Carta (@rare_maps), an online, Ottawa-based, antique map dealer (as always, no affiliation).

Anyway, the tweet led me to the Vetus Carta site where this gorgeous 1766 of eastern Russia and western North America is on sale.

The image above is from Barry Lawrence Ruderman, where the image is available to zoom into in high-quality (and where it's on sale as well). Vetus Carta, though, provides an impressively detailed overview of the map, which, by the way, is properly titled Nouvelle Carte Des Decouvertes Faites par Des Vaisseaux Russiens Aux Cotes Inconnues De L'Amerique Septentrionale Avec Les Pais Adiacents ('New Map of Discoveries Made by Russian Vessels on the Unknown Coasts of North America with Adjacent Countries') published in Amsterdam in 1758 by Gerhard Friedrich Müller.

Anyone interested in the finer details of the map's history should visit the Vetus Carta site. From my perspective, one of the most important points of this history is that this map not only went on to inspire many other, contemporary map-makers, but that it helped to debunk some of the popular, though incorrect thinking about the region at the time. It was a groundbreaking map in that it was more scientific than other maps of the region that were already available.

Vetus Carta goes on to note some of the inaccuracies in this map, which, again, was more accurate than most of what was already out there: first, it shows a “River of the West” at the “entrance discovered by Martin d’Aguilar in 1609.” This river, which supposedly ran from Hudson's Bay to the Pacific, is a figment of someones imagination. There is also a supposed entrance into the continent that the map-maker says was discovered by Juan de Fuca in 1576, this is incorrect as well. There's also the incorrect shape of Alaska.

From my perspective, as a layperson who really enjoys these antique maps, there are some different things that have caused me to add it to my wishlist other than its historic significance.

I love the blanks on this map. Its amazing to think of a time when people looked at vast spaces of the world and said "we have no idea what's there". Of course, someone knew what was there, but the Russians who provided the information for this map, did not, and so we're left with an enormously large void whose contents could have been anything. For similar reasons, I love the inaccuracies in northern Quebec and around Hudson's Bay.

I also love the contrast in this map between the detailed Russian territory which appears to be a place that was known to European map makers on the one hand, and the supposed emptiness of North America on the other. The places seem so tantalizingly close to one another, and yet, the people living in the east, who knew their own lands, knew nothing of the west or the people in it.

Some of the annotations on this map are also wonderful. The indications of the voyages of Russian explorers are fascinating historic details, but comments like the one above are just great. It reads: 'Land about which we have claims from residents of Kamchatka, some of whom say that it can be seen from Bering Island'. This is just more reinforcement of how close the land of the map-maker is to the land about which he knows nothing, and how tempting such a place may be for an explorer.

This is really a great map, and one that I'd love to have if I could ever afford such wonderful things. Until then, I can enjoy it as part of my virtual wish-list collection.

Herisson's 1806 Map of South America

I recently blogged about my 1806 map by Herisson titled L'Amerique Septentrionale from the "Atlas du dictionnaire de géographie universelle" purchaced from V & J Duncan (as always, no affiliation). That map came with Herisson's 1806 L'Amerique Meridionale or South America. It had so many fascinating historical elements I felt it deserved it's own post. Here it is:

For the purposes of understanding just how historic this map is, here's a map of South America today:

 The differences are easy to see. Argentina is instead a mix of the Kingdom of La Plata and The lands of Magellan, Paraguay is part of that region. Chile is wider and shorter than it is today. Brazil is but a shadow of its current size, and there is a vast "Land of the Amazons". Peru is just a sliver, and the lands that today include Venezuela and Colombia are a region known as the Kingdom of New Granada.

I do not know very much about the history of South America, and I hope that a reader can provide more information for me, but I did learn quite a bit when researching this blog post.

Among the things that I find interesting is that this map refers to the "Kingdom of New Granada". This is an entity that, according to wikepedia, existed from 1550-1717 before being replaced by the Viceroyalty of New Granada which existed until 1810, four years after this map was published. I'm not certain what accounts for the difference in the names on this map.

Brazil, at the time this map was published, was on the cusp of important historical developments. One year after this map was published, the Portuguese Court would flee Portugal to escape Napoleon and set up in Rio de Janerio. This would effectively make Rio the capital of the Portuguese Empire for the next 15 years.

Another aspect of South American history that has me coming up empty handed is the history of the lands marked as "the lands of Magellan" in what is today Argentina. My cursory searching has not found anything on such a place, and I wonder if I'm translating incorrectly from the French.

I was also only able to find some basic history of the area listed as "pays des Amazones" or the country of the Amazons. Most of this region eventually became part of Brazil, and at the time this map was published, was on the cusp of an influx of non-native people who were after rubber and other natural resources of the area. In the meantime, however, the map suggests a region left largely to the indigenous peoples of the region. The limited resources I've been able to find suggest that the few Europeans in this region were missionaries and perhaps explorers, but not permanent settlers.

It should be clear by now that my knowledge of South American history is sparse, but the map is so interesting because it shows a region that is politically unrecognizable. It would be fascinating to hear more details about these divisions that, though they may persist in some form today, are quite different than what they were in 1806.