|The "Percy Map"|
The Cartographic Image of New England and Strategic Planning during the American Revolution
Thomas Jefferys (ca.1710-1771) and the Mapping of North America
This document explores the career of the geographical publisher Thomas Jefferys, paying particular attention to his mapping of North America. It has three parts:
|Thomas Jefferys was one of the more prominent commercial
cartographers in London during the middle of the eighteenth century.
Although he was responsible for a wide variety of prints and for maps
of much of the world, he is particularly remembered for his publication
of many maps of North America, such as the Map of the Most
Inhabited Part of New England (1755). Jefferys did not himself
compile this map. Indeed, he was not a geographer per se. He was an
engraver and publisher of maps which other people had compiled and
drawn. In the ethically flexible map trade of the eighteenth century, he
made a significant name for himself. Harley's (1966)
remains the best account of Jefferys's life and forms the basis of
subsequent accounts (e.g., Ristow 1974; Winearls 1996).
Jefferys's beginnings in the map trade are somewhat confused. Our first record of him is in 1732, when he reworked an existing copper plate for a map. Yet the recently examined records of the Merchant Taylors' Company indicate that he apprenticed himself as an engraver to the map maker Emmanuel Bowen only in 1735 (Worms 1993, 3). This discrepancy remains unexplained. Thereafter, Jefferys's career seems to have followed a normal trajectory. He worked as an engraver for a variety of London publishers, as when he engraved twenty maps for Edward Cave's Gentleman's Magazine after 1746. He increasingly originated his own projects, although the need for capital required him to enter into partnerships with other engraver/publishers. During this period Jefferys worked in the east end of London, home of the "Hackney scribblers." The profits from such business eventually allowed him to set up shop for himself. In 1750 Jefferys acquired new and larger premises in the far more reputable district of Charing Cross, midway between the economic center of London and the governmental center of Westminster. In the same year, he also got married, a sure sign of his economic independence.
In 1746, Jefferys received the Court appointment of "geographer" to Frederick, prince of Wales. This translated in 1757 to geographer to George, prince of Wales and later, with George's accession to the throne in 1760, Jefferys became "geographer to the king." Too much should not be made of these titles because they signified only the status of a favored tradesman. The titles indicate that Jefferys was seen as a reputable publisher with a sufficiently large collection of maps to fill the prince's, or king's, personal needs. They did not represent an official position sanctioned and salaried by the government. Government agencies used a variety of commercial cartographers to publish maps; the Board of Trade and Plantations employed Thomas Kitchin, for example, to engrave and publish John Mitchell's Map of the British and French Dominions in North America (1755) (Harley 1966, 33-37).
We do not actually need to give Jefferys any special government privileges in order to explain his access to source materials. The British government was run in a rather unprofessional manner---excepting the agencies of taxation and, perhaps, warfare (Brewer 1988)---and did not have strictly regulated flows of information; from the modern perspective, there was much leakage. Since 1688, a growing public demand for information about the condition of the state, driven as much by distrust of the ever-growing government as by the Enlightenment desire for statistics and economic data, had also loosened access to the archives and had led to the expectation that much government information was indeed to be published (Brewer 1988, 221-49). Moreover, in an age when most government positions carried low salaries, it was expected that officials would be able to use the products of their service to their own benefit; many maps made by colonial officials were thus sent to London's commercial cartographers at the instigation of the original surveyors rather than of the government agencies, although the permission of the latter was usually required. James Cook was able, for example, to publish some of his charts of Newfoundland under his own imprint (Skelton 1965). The result is that eighteenth-century cartographers like Thomas Jefferys would already have had available to them a wide array of government information even without the benefit of any special access to official archives. What Jefferys's titles as "geographer to the prince/king" certainly did was to increase his status and business as a geographical publisher; as such, he would have been given first offer by government officials or by individuals of manuscripts to be engraved and published, and his profits would have given him greater opportunity to take advantage of the more publically available materials. Ultimately, "special relationships" would have evolved, as they did between Jefferys and the Board of Trade and Plantations in the 1760s (Harley 1966, 34-37), but such relationships did not translate into any official status or guarantee of business. (There seems after 1770 to have been conscious attempts to restrict the distribution of government information and to establish more formal arrangements for cartographic business; see in part Edney 1994b.)
The dramatic rise in map production and demand occasioned by the Seven Years War (1756-63)---the Anglo-French struggle fought in Europe, North America (as the French and Indian War), South Asia, and across the oceans in between---gave Jefferys's business a massive boost. The cost of acquiring his source maps was likely low; at worst Jefferys would have had to pay a draftsman for taking a copy of a map or he would have had to give a portion of his profits to the map maker. His costs would have been mostly related to production; Harley has estimated that he employed about twelve draftsmen and engravers in his Charing Cross premises. The profits would likely have been relatively high (Harley 1966, 40).
Demand for maps of North America seems to have dropped off somewhat with the end of the war and the pattern of Jefferys's cartographic practice changed rapidly. He continued to print maps of the colonies and of foreign territories from his existing plates, but in his new work he emphasized the large-scale surveys of English counties. This was a vital and quite innovative arena of cartographic activity and Jefferys saw it as a new business opportunity. Not only would he receive profits from the sale of such maps, there was also the chance of receiving a prize of £100 offered by the Society of Arts after 1759 for each county survey of sufficient quality (Harley 1963-64; Harley 1965). Such county surveys bore a heavy cost in addition to the expenses of engraving and printing the final maps: good surveyors commanded good wages; expensive instruments had to be bought; the surveyors and their staffs had to be transported, fed, and housed in the field for many months. Harley cites the example of a 1766-69 survey of Northumberland that cost £350; the total cost of Benjamin Donn's 1765 map of Devon was "nearly £2,000." Much of these expenses were covered by subscriptions, but the survey's organizer would still incur a substantial capital outlay. Harley's evidence also suggests that sales of county maps were high when first published but they quickly dropped off thereafter and did not provide the sort of long-term income generated by smaller-scale chorographic maps. Despite this troubling economic picture, Jefferys embarked on an ambitious plan to survey several counties. Bedfordshire was surveyed and published in 1765; his survey of Nottinghamshire was judged too inaccurate to publish and so was a complete write-off; he attempted surveys of no less than three more counties in 1766. Harley persuasively argues that Jefferys's bankruptcy in November 1766 was not coincidental. Jefferys quite simply had insufficient capital for his surveys (Harley 1966, 43-44).
His bankruptcy forced Jefferys into a partnership with Robert Sayer, a successful publisher of a diverse range of materials (see Pedley 1986). Sayer provided the capital to reprint many of Jefferys's existing plates and presumably took the larger share of the profits. Of particular interest here is the publication by "Sayers and Jefferys" of Jefferys's General Topography (Jefferys 1768a). This put in one volume a large collection of 93 maps and charts in 106 sheets; several of the older maps were updated for this publication, perhaps to enhance sales. After Jefferys died in 1771, Sayer bought up more of Jefferys's plates and with a new partner, John Bennett, published several new editions of them. Most notable of these publications was the American Atlas of 1775 or 1776 (Jefferys 1775). This was a smaller and more selective collection of North American maps---only 23 on 29 plates---than the General Topography had proffered a few years before. Boosted by the American Revolution, the American Atlas was certainly a greater commercial success; it was reprinted in 1776 (i.e., 1777), 1778, and 1782. All the plates were old Jefferys's stock and the atlas was described on the title page as being by Jefferys. This highly popular work generated the great majority of surviving copies of the Map of the Most Inhabited Part of New England, in its third edition (November 1774).
After Jefferys's death, his son Thomas Jr. (born 1755) tried to continue the business. He seems not to have been successful and, in 1773, he entered into a partnership with William Faden. Faden's capital stake was probably provided by his father, a very successful printer. The partnership of "Jefferys and Faden" was dissolved in 1776, at which time Faden took sole possession of the Charing Cross property and began to publish under his own name (Harley 1966, 44-47 and 40 n. 61; corrected by Pedley 1996, 162). Faden took advantage of the American Revolution to build up for himself a highly profitable mapping business (Harley 1967). Unlike his former partner's father, Faden would not squander his profits.
|Jefferys and the
Mapping of North
|The English had made manuscript maps, charts, and surveys since their earliest settlements in Virginia and New England, but few of these cartographic productions were ever printed (see Boulind 1982). Most, like John Smith's New England (1616), appeared as part of larger geographical texts; there were only a very few separately published maps, such as those printed on broadsides by William Penn to promote his colony (Black 1978, 115-17). The steady expansion of settlement and of the Atlantic trade led to a sufficient demand to warrant the publication of charts (notably in the English Pilot, The Fourth Book, 1689) and increasingly specialized chorographic maps (see Woodward 1978). This expansion paralleled the general rise of English print culture after Parliament allowed censorship to lapse in 1695 (Kernan 1987, 48-90).|
|The real spurt in demand for maps of the American colonies came
after 1748 and the realization that the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle's
maintenance of the Anglo-French status quo in North America was
only temporary. A more definitive resolution to the conflicting imperial
claims was clearly looming and interest in the colonies climbed
dramatically. At the same time, the existing maps of the American
colonies lacked detail. The cartographic image of New England, for
example, might be typified by the small-scale map of John Speed
(1676) and the anonymous map in Cotton Mather's Magnalia Christi
Americana (Mather 1702), shown at left.
There was a definite demand
for large, highly detailed maps of all parts of the colonies.
Jefferys moved to take advantage of the increasing demand for maps of North America. Indeed, two of his maps---both compiled by John Green---are among the many highly significant maps of the colonies which first appeared in 1755 (Winearls 1996, 33). Once war was officially declared with France in 1756, Jefferys's output of North American maps increased dramatically. Jefferys took a highly partisan line against the French and their territorial claims in North America. It is unnecessary to argue that he was being paid by the government to produce his cartographic and textual polemics; nor was he cynically meeting a demand created by the political tenor of the day. Rather, Jefferys's sentiments were part of that political tenor. There were few, if any, dissenters who argued that the French policy of encircling and encroaching on the English colonies in North America did not pose a substantial threat.
To build up his substantial collection of North American maps, Jefferys drew on five sources of data.
First, Jefferys used existing French maps of North America. The critical geography of Guillaume de l'Isle (1675-1726) and his successors---Jean Nicolas Bellin (1693-1772), Jean Baptiste d'Anville (1697-1782), and Philippe Buache (1700-1773)---had coincided with the great amount of information generated by the French explorations along the interior waterways of North America to produce a number of large, detailed, and highly reputable maps of the continent (Tooley 1985). Jefferys sold many of these maps; he tipped advertisements announcing the availability at his shop of new maps from Paris into two works published in 1755 ([Green] 1755; Washington 1755; see Harley 1966, 37 n. 50, and Pedley 1996, 170 n. 5). More importantly, Jefferys also translated the French maps into English and published them anew (see Winearls 1996; also Pedley 1986). He did not pass off these copies as his own work. Instead, he prominently displayed the identities of their reputable authors, thereby stressing the maps' accuracy and quality. An example of these maps is Jefferys's North America From the French of Mr D'Anville (London, May 1755), which was used as the frontispiece to the first (1755) London edition of Douglass (1749-52).
Jefferys did not restrict himself to stealing French maps. His second source of materials for North America were maps already printed either in the colonies, which did not enjoy copyright protection, or even other works printed in London. For example, in 1755, Jefferys directly pirated George Washington's journal and map of his expedition to the Ohio in 1753 (Harley 1966, 37; Washington 1755).
Third, Jefferys followed the simple expedient of buying existing plates from other cartographers. Thomas Kitchin had in 1756, for example, pirated Lewis Evans's General Map of the Middle British Colonies, in America (Philadelphia, 1755); Jefferys subsequently acquired this plate and reissued under his own name in 1758, against the opposition of Evans's friend, Thomas Pownall (1949 [1776/84], 10-11; see Klinefelter 1971, 54-57; Ristow 1974, x). Again, Jefferys---or perhaps more properly Sayer---bought the plates of James Cook's surveys of Newfoundland, originally published at Cook's own cost and under his own imprint, and reprinted them in 1769 as part of a large collection of charts of the Canadian maritimes (Jefferys 1769; see Skelton 1965, 22-27, and Skelton & Tooley 1985, 180-81). Those other charts reflect Jefferys's other sources (Skelton 1965, 27-32).
The fourth, and perhaps largest, set of source materials for Jefferys's maps of North America were original manuscripts produced in the colonies and sent back to London. Some were sent back to London specifically to be engraved; Harley quotes a colonial advertisement in 1764 for a map that was explicitly to be engraved in London by Jefferys (Harley 1966, 37 n. 53). Most of this category of maps, however, were published by Jefferys as a contractor to different government agencies. For example, the Board of Trade and Plantations in 1750 ordered the colonies to make maps of their territories (in order to get information to be used by John Mitchell for making his 1755 map of North America); Virginia directed Joshua Fry and Peter Jefferson to make such a map, which they completed in 1751 and sent back to London; ultimately, the board passed it on to Jefferys to be published and the map eventually appeared in print, probably in 1754. Harley also quotes the board's records with respect to Jefferys's printing in 1760 of a map of Halifax harbor (Harley 1966, 35).
Jefferys's fifth source of publishable maps---and pamphlets---was in-house: he employed geographers to compile new maps and books which he could then publish. We know today of the identity of only one of these employees, John Green. Green seems to have gone to work for Jefferys at about the same time as Jefferys moved to Charing Cross; we know that he produced three, or perhaps four, maps and three books which appeared under Jefferys's imprint; he also planned and perhaps constructed other maps which did not appear in print. After Green committed suicide in 1757, Jefferys apparently employed a new geographer, who wrote the Natural and Civil History of the French Dominions (Jefferys 1760). Reviewers of this work did not think it as "perfect" as it might have been, which Harley has interpreted as indicating the lesser qualities of Green's replacement (Harley 1966, 37; Winearls 1996, 39-41).
It might be thought that Jefferys's employment of critical geographers was part of the sort of ambitious, larger scheme in which Jefferys would later engage when he mapped several English counties. The similarity of the titles of the Fry and Jefferson map (1754) and of the Jefferys-Green map of New England (1755) is suggestive in this regard. Telling against such a supposition is the lack of critical concern displayed by Jefferys in the rest of his cartographic business. Green (1753, 48) had concluded, for example, that the famed voyage by Admiral de Fonte to the northern Pacific was in fact completely fictitious, yet Jefferys continued to publish maps showing the spurious geography of Northwestern America derived from that fiction (e.g., Jefferys 1768b; see Winearls 1996, 45-47). Jefferys's hiring of Green and his anonymous successor was clearly a business investment. The geographer's wages constituted an extra cost, but in return Jefferys got a quality product that would only enhance his reputation. From the sorts of maps which we know Green to have worked on, but which were never completed, it does not seem that Jefferys sought to have new maps created so as to provide complete cartographic coverage across all the English territories in North America. Jefferys did not have a larger agenda, such as the advancement of geographical knowledge, other than the generation of profit.
of the Map of the
Most Inhabited Part
of New England
|For details of the different editions, refer to the cartobibliography.
Once Green had compiled the Map of the Most Inhabited Part of New England, it was engraved and printed. The imprint in the lower margin gives its formal publication date as "November 29th. 1755." The map was published as a separate document rather than as part of any book. One of the strange elements of this map was its spelling of Connecticut with "k"s: "Konektikut" (see the image, at left, of the title cartouche).
The first change in the map came with a number of corrections made sometime after 1759. Unfortunately, the date in the copyright imprint was not updated, so we cannot fix the date of this second version with precision. The most prominent change was in the title, which now read "Conecticut"'; other instances of "Konektikut" on the original plates were not changed and remain on all subsequent impressions. The changes in detail are relatively minor and lead to this version being called the "second issue" of the "first edition." I would suggest that this version represents an updating for sale sometime before the war ended and demand for such maps declined. This would give a date range of 1759-63.
More detailed images
|The third version of the map---often referred to as the "second
edition"---includes significant changes made to the upper two sheets;
the lower sheets, including the title and imprint, remained unchanged.
On the second (upper-right) sheet, Lake Winnipesaukee is more
angular and exact than its original, rather crude rendition. The most
noticeable changes were in the first (upper-left) sheet. The inset of Fort
Frederik, on the western shore of Lake Champlain, has been replaced
by a larger inset of the town of Boston. The original inset was part of
the first issue's polemical stance against the French
English settlement. Its replacement by an image more clearly relevant
to New England reflects the end of the French and Indian War and the
removal of French claims to Canada. Furthermore, most of the blank
lands between the Connecticut River and Lake Champlain have
become a sea of newly organized townships. The last of these was
established in 1764. The decline in demand for maps of North America
after the end of the war leads me to believe that this version was not
actually published soon after 1763.
The publication of the second edition seems to be related to Jefferys's bankruptcy in November 1766 and his partnership early in 1767 with Robert Sayer. Together, they printed in 1768 the General Topography of North America and the West Indies (Jefferys 1768a). The purpose of this project seems to have been to raise money: as the prefatory list of maps remarked, it would cost more than eleven guineas to buy all the maps in this atlas separately, but the whole work, half-bound, was priced at only six guineas. What a deal! The version of the Map of the Most Inhabited Part of New England found in the General Topography was usually the fourth version ("second edition, second issue"). That version was the same as the second edition except with the addition of a note on the first sheet, referring to the Crown's 1764 decision that New York had right to the territories west of the Connecticut River. But one copy of the General Topography, at the Library of Congress (Sellers & Van Ee 1981, no.798), is of the first issue of the second edition, without the note. That is, it seems that the second edition was prepared in conjunction for the General Topography in 1767-68; the addition of the note, to complete the image, was made early in the print run for the General Topography.
After Jefferys's death, his plates were acquired by Robert Sayer. With the increasing tension in the colonies, leading up to the Revolution, Sayer and his partner John Bennett, re-printed the map of New England and many more of Jefferys's maps, in The American Atlas (Jefferys 1775). Although this atlas's title page bore the copyright date of 1775, it was probably not printed until 1776; similarly, the 1776 edition contains some maps whose individual imprints are 1777 (see Jefferys 1974 and Gardiner 1976). Sayer and Bennett published two more editions of this atlas in 1778 and 1782. The only change made to the Map of the Most Inhabited Part of New England, for the first atlas edition, was to the imprint: the original date of 1755 was altered to 1774. This edition of the map---the "third edition"---remained unchanged throughout the publication history of The American Atlas. Of all the versions of the map, the third edition had by far the most copies printed; it is certainly the most commonly found version today.
Subsequently, the commercial company of Laurie and Whittle purchased the plates to the map, changed the imprint, and re-printed the map in 1794, almost forty years after the map's original publication.
In London, Carrington Bowles published a one-sheet reduction of the second issue of the first edition of the map in about 1765. He omitted the insets and the complex title cartouche, but he copied the geographic detail faithfully and kept the title. With the outbreak of the American Revolution, he reprinted the map, but now with a changed title: Bowle's Map of the seat of war in New England, which he soon changed to Bowles's New Pocket Map of the Most Inhabited Part of New England. There was initially no change in geographical content, other than the addition of an inset of Boston, but by 1780 even a hack copyist like Bowles had to add "Vermont" to the map in recognition of that state's self-creation. Some time after the war, Bowles's heirs issued the map yet again, but under yet another title Bowles's New One-Sheet Map of New England. These title changes seem to reflect the conflict between two commercial practices, of referring back to the original, reputable source map to display the copy's authority and quality, and of claiming novelty and originality to promote new sales.
The American Revolution also prompted French and German publishers to copy the map in a variety of editions. Both Tobias Lotter in Augsburg and Georges Louis Le Rouge made precise copies of the second issue of the second edition of the map, which had been distributed within the General Topography. I. M. Probst made a further copy of Lotter's map. All three copies kept the English title of the source map, as if to reassure the French and German readership of the authenticity of the information. Le Rouge provided an alternate French title; Probst added a lengthy Latin subtitle. The nature of the copying of these maps is brought home by the engraving of the title cartouche for Le Rouge's edition: the engraver made a direct copy of the original cartouche; when printed, the image was thus reversed (see Benes 1981, 17).
In all, the Map of the Most Inhabited Part of New England was a most successful cartographic image.