A BEAUTIFUL EARLY WASH COLOUR example of the third state of the Richard Daniel map of 1679. ‘This extremely rare map in any state covers the entire extent of the English colonies in North America, and shows them in relation to the French presence to the north. The map itself we are told is drawn by R. Daniel who is not known for any other cartographic work. Even his forename, believed to be Richard, was not identified for sure, but private correspondence with Donald Watson and David Bosse uncovered an undated manuscript in the New York Public Library. It was printed for the first time in 1899 in a limited edition of fifty copies and is entitled The Present State of New England by Richard Daniel, Gent. It is a short fifteen-page paper bemoaning the inability of the colonists to defend themselves from attacks of only a few hundred French and Indians. It talks about the political divisions between the colonists and the unity between the French and Indians. It goes on to advocate bribing the Moaks (Mohawks), a spelling curiously repeated on the map. The document appears to be referring to the period from around 1689 with Governor Andros, the Glorious Revolution in England, and the French and Indian incursions. Might this be the same Daniel?’ (Burden).
‘The description of New England is a fascinating blend of some of the most recent English cartography and new introductions. Morden and Berry had already published a similar map entitled A Map of New England New Yorke New Iersey Mary-Land & Virginia in 1676. The author of that map is unknown and Daniel may have had a hand in it also. Similarities can be seen especially with the delineation of Long Island. The Connecticut River is improved and for the first time in a printed map the south-easterly flow near its mouth is accurately depicted. Upriver there is the turn in its flow near Dierfield, first seen on the John Thornton and Robert Greene A Mapp of Virginia Mary’Land New’Jarsey New’York & New England, c.1678. From this point the Connecticut is shown to swing wildly north eastwards to reach a point only just shy of the St Lawrence River. The neighbouring Thames River also follows Thornton and Greene, as does Narragansett Bay, although the Taunton River system more closely adheres to the John Foster map of 1677. Woster Massachusetts makes its first appearance also.
Cape Cod is derived from John Seller’s original depiction in 1676, which along with the Marimake R. derive from the manuscript of William Reed, 1665. Like the Connecticut River the latter swings north-easterly, taking its source deep into New France. One interesting feature here is the reflection of the findings of the Massachusetts General Court in 1652 in declaring the source of the river to be the southern end of Lake Winnipesaukee and that this latitude matched that of an island in Casco Bay. This was an important declaration in settling the northern boundary and is not really reflected in any other map of the period, even the John Foster of 1677, which is most closely linked to the original surveys for the colony at the time. This lends further support to the author’s supposition that Daniel was connected in some way with the colony. One very interesting feature is the first depiction on a printed map of North America of roads, four being identified, all leading from Boston. Further to the north the Duke of York’s claims to the land between the Kennebec and St Croix rivers are highlighted. This was one of his rewards in 1664 for services rendered in the restoration of his brother Charles II to the throne of England.
The region of New Jersey is in general outline very similar to Morden and Berry’s earlier work. In detail, it brings in features of the Thornton and Greene map such as Antioch, Bethlem, Bridlington, and James Wasse’s plantation, itself drawn from the surveys of three commissioners appointed by William Penn and the Quakers to bolster their new interest in West New Jersey. The latter interestingly is not identified. Despite prior commentators stating that the Chesapeake Bay region follows the Augustine Herrman map of 1673, the author can see little evidence of it. There are none of the improvements that Herrman made to the south-east shore, or to the upper bay region. Indeed, the author sees much more of a correlation with John Ogilby’s Nova Terræ-Mariæ tabula of 1671, with the admitted mild improvement of the easterly slant to the top of the bay.
The inset map lower right depicts the southern English colonies and illustrates the region from Cape Henry to St Augustine in Florida. It is classic John Lederer cartography, omitting only the route he took, and appears to be drawn from the First Lords Proprietors map by John Ogilby, c.1673. Charles Towne is depicted on the Ashley River, although the Cooper River incorrectly empties further up the coast. The whole map is decorated with scenes of native flora, fauna, wildlife and hunting scenes. One of the most interesting is just off the shores of the Hamptons on Long Island, where men in three long boats are attempting to capture a whale’ (Burden).
A second state of the map was published by Robert Morden alone and is again undated. On internal evidence the date of publication appears to be c.1685 and the majority of the alterations relate to the new colony of Pennsylvania. ‘A third and final edition was published by Christopher Browne (fl. 1688-1712, d. after 1737), whose imprint replaces that of Morden’s. The title is altered to A NEW MAPP OF/ NEW ENGLAND/ and/ ANNAPOLIS/ with the Country’s adjacent. In this issue, he celebrates the success of the English in capturing Port Royal from the French with the assistance of a squadron of ships in October 1710 and renaming it Annapolis Royal in honour of the Queen. Control was not confirmed until the signing of the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 which ended the War of Spanish Succession in Europe, which had raged since 1701 and concerned the French attempts to absorb the Spanish Empire. This conflict had erupted in North America in 1702 and was known there as Queen Anne’s War. The main area of conflict in America was unsuccessful raids against Port Royal in Acadia by New Englanders in 1704 and 1707. By the terms of the treaty the French ceded Acadia to the British, as well as Newfoundland and the Hudson Bay territory. The French retained Cape Breton Island. However, the terms stated ‘all Nova Scotia with its ancient boundaries’, which was open to interpretation as was the detail for the Hudson Bay territory. The French interpreted it as only the peninsula of present day Nova Scotia and excluding all of the mainland area between New England and the St Lawrence. It provided fuel for future conflicts but the treaty marked the beginning of the end of the French presence in North America.
‘The Daily Courant’ published in London 2 August 1712, contained an advertisement announcing ‘Just Publish’d … A Map of New England and Annapolis … Sold by C. Browne … at his Shop at the North Gate of the Royal Exchange.’ One other major alteration is the inset of the south-east is replaced by a large plan of Boston harbour. This is drawn from Thomas Pound’s extremely rare A New Mapp of New England, 1691. In 1715 George Willdey took over Browne’s business and no further states are known. Browne appears to have stepped aside and is known to have survived until at least 1737. In that year, he wrote a letter to Sir Hans Sloane referring to his old shop. Buisseret has recently written that this map is only the second printed to use the Greenwich Meridian. Only two examples are known of the first state and only two in private hands of the second state. A rare map in any state particularly in such fabulous early wash colour.
Provenance: private English collection since 1991. Arber (1903) vol. 1, p. 372; Baer (1949) nos. 36 & 116; Black (1975) p. 80; Buisseret (2010) ‘Charles Boucher of Jamaica and the Establishment of Greenwich Longitude’, in Imago Mundi 62 pp. 239-47, 245; Burden (2007) 514; Cumming & De Vorsey (1998) nos. 82 & 103; Deák (1988) no. 63; Kershaw (1993-98) III no. 731 (not citing the first two states); McCorkle (2001) no. 679.1; Stevens & Tree (1967) no. 19; Stokes (1915-28) volume 2, p. 158, pl. 51; Tyacke (1978) pp. 109-10, 113 & 123; Watson, Donald (private correspondence).