Maps from the first edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1768-1771 are interesting in demonstrating not only the polygraphic level of that time, but also the real state of geographical representations. Can you imagine that the king, lords and other aristocrats of the "nautical nation", "rulers of the seas" bought outdated information for very big money?
The fact that the publishers not only did not end up in jail for hack-work, but immediately continued publishing the encyclopedia, increasing the volume, additionally proves that everything was originally done by them with high quality, super-duper. The first edition of Britannica, 1768-1771, consisted of three volumes, 2670 pages, 160 tabs with illustrations; second edition 1777-1784 of 10 volumes, 8595 pages, 340 pictures; third edition 1788-1797 - 18 volumes, 14579 pages, 542 illustrations.
Maps of Europe in 1771 from Britannica: on the left is a fragment of the Shokalsky map (river basins), on which a red line separates the watershed of the Baltic and White Sea river basins, and red arrows above and below show the main directions of colonization from the seas; below on the same map added toponyms of interest to us, taken from the map from Britannica:
Now we cut out fragments from the map on the right and add the corresponding fragment (as far as we could with different projections) from the Britannica map of 1771. For ease of study, on both fragments, red dots mark cities near the rivers of the Baltic and White Seas, and green dots mark cities near the rivers of the Black and Caspian Seas:
Promotional video:
Now we consider and mark some points not even for discussion, but just to feel what the British aristocracy saw then:
- there is no Veliky Novgorod, on Volkhov only old Ladoga, which seems to have no place here;
- Narva is, Revel (Tallinn) is, Pleskov (Pskov) too, but Veliky Novgorod is not;
- on the other hand, some Novgorod is found near Smolensk, similar to the place of modern Vitebsk;
- there is no Tver, which was revered by the Oldenburgs as "our third capital".
Yes, okay, then we'll figure it out.
And now I recommend comparing the map of Asia (from the third edition of Britannica) of the late 18th century with the Shokalsky map of the late 19th century, paying special attention to the configuration of the Pacific coast. Is it true that progress has been noticeable in 100 years?
This progress became possible not only because in the 19th century, geodetic surveys began to be carried out by the triangulation method instead of the ancient "eyeball" survey and measuring distances with a measuring chain.
No, the main achievement was in solving the PROBLEM OF LONGEVITY. In short: latitude was measured quite accurately by the angle of ascent of the Sun, the North Star, etc., but the second coordinate, longitude, was very difficult to calculate.
In 1714 in England (by the parliament, by the queen?) A huge prize of 20,000 pounds sterling was awarded to anyone who solved the "problem of longitude." Astronomers fought over calculations for the satellites of Jupiter, the passage of the stars by the Moon, etc., but a practically applicable solution, both in accuracy and in real sea conditions, was not found.
In other words, almost until the very end of the 18th century, all maps were a version of a particular captain, a pioneer, or someone's consolidated interpretation of various sources. Everything depended on the accuracy of observations, the ability to use this or that technique and, ultimately, the low accuracy of the technique itself, why we see such strong discrepancies with modern ones on old maps.
The "problem of longitude" was solved by the invention of the Harrison chronometer. But from the first working model in 1734, it took many years of design improvements before the chronometer was brought to practical precision in 1761.
So only since 1761, sailors and cartographers had the potential to establish exact longitudes and create really accurate maps, but for this it was still necessary to create a sufficient number of chronometers and go with them on an expedition.
For the first time, the Harrison chronometer was taken by James Cook on his trip around the world in 1768-1771. on the Endeavor, and on his return he spoke highly of the device; the error did not exceed 8 seconds per day (i.e. 2 nautical miles at the equator) for three years sailing from the tropics to Antarctica. It is not known whether the most recent data of Cook were taken into account in Britannica, it is necessary to compare the time of publication of the volumes with the time of his return to England, but the map of 1771 from Britannica is so valuable because it reliably reflects ancient geographical ideas about the world before the advent of the "era of the chronometer" and can serve as a kind of benchmark for comparative research.
Now we return to the hypothesis that the Russian Empire in the form in which everyone was used to presenting it began to be created only after the conquests of the war of 1812. In order to substantiate the prescription of ownership, the easiest way is to create appropriate geographical political maps that visually record in the minds of the masses "as it was then / always."
It is quite possible that the atlas of the Russian Empire of 1745 belongs to such remarkable propagandistic fakes, on the title page of which it is written: sowing great empire, through the diligence and labors of the Imperial Academy of Sciences.
From Wikipedia and other sources, we can find out that this Atlas is Russian:
- a unique work of the early period of domestic cartography, published in 1745 by the Russian Academy of Sciences and recognized as the first official atlas of the Russian Empire, since for the first time it gave wide layers of society an idea of the state as a whole and each of its provinces. It was a logically connected collection of maps with a uniform design style. states;
- the publication of the Atlas was the result of 20 years of work by many cartographers who carried out instrumental survey of Russian lands by the decree of Peter I and is the pinnacle of Russian cartography at the end of the first half of the 18th century;
- The Atlas was in great demand and in 1749-1762 additional runs of 25, 50, 100 copies were repeatedly printed (this is not some 3000 Britannica for you);
- since the publication of the Atlas of Russia it has never been republished again;
- The Atlas was published in Russian, Latin, German and French.
Why was this "pinnacle" of cartography never reprinted again? After all, almost 50 years have passed before the release of the next one. Why did they publish so little, and even in several languages, for whom was it intended? Yes, they threw agitation into libraries of different countries and recorded the antiquity of the Russian Empire, for those scholars who suck, who find this atlas in the library and write history as it should, they say, saw the map with my own eyes. Are they really "cards don't lie"?
If earlier we blindly trusted what was written by scientists, now we can see a lot with our own eyes and draw independent conclusions.
It is as if the title page of the Atlas was printed in the Russian Empire in 1745, and a quarter of a century later, in 1769, paper money:
Not funny? Now compare the color version of the Atlas of Russia in 1745 with the Shokalsky map of the late 19th century, especially having checked the accuracy of the transmission of the Pacific coast and islands:
Doesn't it surprise you? Then compare the same map of allegedly 1745 (for ease of comparison in black and white) with the maps of Europe from Britannica of the first edition of 1771 and Asia (seemingly from the third edition of 1797):
A miracle atlas supposedly from 1745.
Reliable maps of 1771 and 1797.
So, I am modestly interested and who did they hang on their ears after all? British aristocrats in 1771 for their back-breaking work earned 12 pounds of silver or the whole world for free?
PS The Russian Atlas of 1745 was most likely created in the 1850s. Not being able to present the history of geodesy and cartography in this article, I recommend reading about the history of mapping Siberia and other similar sources. By the way, in the Atlas of Russia in 1745 Sakhalin was clearly marked as an island, but this fact was established by Admiral G. I. Nevelskoy in June 1849, before that Sakhalin was considered a peninsula.
PPS For those who have doubts, I recommend comparing the quality of engraving on maps of the atlas of 1745 with the banknotes of the State Bank of the Russian Empire "Peter-1" 500 rubles in 1898 and 1912, "Ekaterina-2" 100 rubles. 1898 and 1912
It was at the end of the 19th century that all sorts of "Peter's Readings" appeared, as well as the "Russian style" on banknotes, in fine arts, architecture and in general.