Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 33

Society for Comparative Studies in Society and History

Putting the State on the Map: Cartography, Territory, and European State Formation Author(s): Michael Biggs Source: Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 41, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 374-405 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/179451 . Accessed: 23/10/2011 23:18
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and Society for Comparative Studies in Society and History are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Comparative Studies in Society and History.

http://www.jstor.org

Putting the State on the Map: Cartography,Territory, and European State Formation
MICHAEL BIGGS
HarvardUniversity

Lookingat any wall mapor atlas,we see a worldcomposedof states.The earth's surfaceis divided into distinct state territories. Each is demarcated a linear by boundary,an edge dividing one sovereigntyfrom the next. The division is accentuatedwhen each territoryis blocked out in a separatecolor from neighboringstates,implyingthatits interioris a homogeneousspace, traversed evenly by state sovereignty.Our world is a jigsaw of territorial states, and we take this picturefor granted.Thus ourhistoricalatlasesshow medievalChristendom also divided into demarcated homogeneousterritories, and thoughperhapsless neatly (see, for example, McEvedy 1992). Only the configurationis different. Familiarto us, such a depictionwould have been utterlyunknownto people at the time, who rarelyused maps to representgeographicalinformationand did not imagine states (or ratherrealms) as enclosed spaces. The transformation of their world into ours the way the state was put on the map is the subjectof this essay. The basis of every sociological definition of the state is delimited territory. In Thatfoundation,I will argue,is not a universalproperty. its spatialform, the modernstateis qualitativelydifferentfromthe medievalrealm,a differencethat owes somethingto the techniquesof knowing and representing space originating in the Renaissance.The formationof the modernstatedepictedon the map was constitutedin partthroughcartography as a store of knowledge reflectthe ing surveysthatrulerssponsoredto penetrate groundover which they ruled; as a spatial form modeled on the map's linear boundaryand homogeneous and space;and,in the imagination,as politicalauthority symbolizedby territory the earth'ssurfacecomprehended a composite of states.By the beginningof as the nineteenthcentury,rulershipand groundhad become fused in a peculiarly state. modernform the territorial
For comments and criticisms I am indebted to Julia Adams, William Alonso, Paula Frederick, Andreas Glaeser, John Glenn, Michael Handel, Pratap Mehta, Claire Morton, Prasannan Parthasarathi, Theda Skocpol, John Torpey, and the Political Theory Group of Harvard University. 0010-4175/99/2769-4587 $7.50 + .10 C 1999 Society for Comparative Study of Society and History

374

PUTTING

THE STATE

ON THE MAP

375

In the sociology of Europeanstate formation,the dominantinterpretation conceives the stateas a machinefor fighting and taxing. Statebuildingis therefore the story of wars becoming deadlierand states wealthier.This interpretation is most forcefullyadvancedby CharlesTilly (1992), butsociologists of opposing theoretical orientationstell a similar story, whether in the guise of Marxism(P.Anderson1974) or rationalchoice (Levi 1988). While the renewed emphasis on militaryimperativesis valuable for reviving the insights of Otto Hintze and Max Weber,recent work tends to efface the distinctivenessof the modernstate.It is symptomaticthatWeber'swell-worndefinitionof the statean organizationclaiming the legitimatemonopoly on violence-is continually misreadas defining a universalsocial form. In fact he used the termstateto denote the modernoccidental state, characterized rationallaw and bureaucraby cy, as a peculiar species of the genus, political organization (see Weber 1922:904). Whatdoes this matter?It can be useful to treatthe state as an entity thathas variable attributes.State-buildingthen can be conceptualizedas quantitative growth:moreofficials, greaterrevenues,andlargerarmies.This has provedempiricallyfruitful,as in MichaelMann's(1980) analysisof Englishstatefinances over several centuries.This quantitativeapproach,however, requiresqualification.The modernstateis the productof a qualitativetransformation, it is and necessary to understandthis both for adequatehistorical descriptionand for conceptualclarification.Exploringthe natureof the state, ratherthantaking it for granted,is surely worthwhile. This essay is aboutthe naturalgroundof the state: territory. The state, after all, is a spatial form, a dimensiongiven valuableemphasisby Mann, who defines the state as "both a central place and a unified territorial reach" (1984:123). The definition is intended to be universal.Yet feudal kingdoms were neithercenterednor unified. The state was a "mobile camp" (Mumford 1961:353). King and household were peripatetic,ceaselessly traveling from place to place. The state's reach was severely limited. Hugh Capet, for example, was titled King of France,but his realpowerextendedno further thansome lands in the northwhich he held in his own right as count. We should not eleI vate the shape of the modernstate to an inherentpropertyof rulership. As an ideal-type,ourconcept of the stateis "abstracted fromthe unclearsyntheses which are found in the mind of humanbeings"(Weber1904:99). "LT]he mannerin which those syntheses are made ... by the membersof a state, or in otherwordsthe ideas which they constructfor themselves aboutthe state . . is of great practical significance." This study investigates the relationshipbetween state and territory known throughcartography, shown on the map.After
' To overcome the difficultyof maintaining terminologicalconsistencywhile avoidinganachronism, this essay resortsto the termsrulershipor rule (and rulers),to denote somethingakin to Weber's Herrschaft(cf. Roth's 1968 introduction Weber 1922:cx). to

376

MICHAEL

BIGGS

all, the modernconception of the state is representedas an image as well as a word; for it is depicted as well as writtenand spoken.An investigationof this image is a contributionto the "conceptualhistory"of the state, begun by historiansof politicalthoughtlike QuentinSkinner(1989). Thatbody of work,unduly ignoredwithin sociology, is limited,however,by the assumptionthatconcepts are expressedonly in words (see Parr1989:38). While political theorists discoveredit as deducedLeviathanas a philosophicalnecessity,cartographers a geographicalreality. The terrainof this inquiry western Europe, particularlyFrance and England is confined to maps of Europeanlands and does not treatthe vast subMy jects of colonial andmaritimecartography. workfollows in the steps of several excellent studies by Benedict Anderson, Peter Sahlins, and Thongchai with broaderhistoricalprocesses.The reWinichakulthatconnectcartography searchdrawson the evidence of the maps themselves and on specialized work It by historiansof cartography. does not, however, adoptthe theoreticalstance to of J. B. Harley,the most prominenthistorianof cartography theorizethe relationshipbetween knowledge and powers.2He pursuesan interpretivestrategy familiarfrom otherfields of culturalstudies. Maps are unmaskedas tokens of power which circulateto sustain its omnipotence.They are propagandaif published by rulers and, if not, testify to a conspiracyof silence. Above all, and maps serve to "reinforce legitimize the statusquo"(1992:247). Knowledge and power are thus conflated:the formerreducedto a mere tool of the latter.3 There is a similarconflationof decorationwith content.The aim here, by conas trast,is not to expose cartography a ruse of power,but ratherto show how it state. shapedthatpeculiarlymodernform of power-the territorial begins by sketchingthe significanceandoriginsof moderncarMy argument tography.It then examines three parallel processes: acquiringspatial knowledge, shapingspatialform, and groundingpolitical authority.
MODERN CARTOGRAPHY

Medieval Christendomwas essentially a mapless world, as P. D. A. Harvey points out. We can impose our concept of "map"on variousimages, just as we At can groupvariousinstitutionsunderthe heading"state." the time, however, there was no conception of a distinct category of representation(Harvey 1987:464). This categoryenteredthe English and Frenchlanguagesin the sixteenth century.There were no maps drawnexplicitly to scale, and any kind of
2 Harley (1988a, 1988b, 1992) is not the only one to "deconstruct" similarclaims cartography; are advancedby Denis Wood (1992). An incisive critique,from within the field, is supplied by J. H. Andrews (1994). 3 An instrumental notion of knowledge is not confined to such work; it is indeed predominant for in sociology. ChandraMukerji(1983: ch. 3), for example, considers maps as "capital-goods" the world-system,"useful to governmentsfor centralizingpolitical authorityand controllingthe economy"(p. 117).

PUTTING

THE STATE

ON THE MAP

377

graphicaldepiction of the earth's surface was a rarity.Most familiarto rulers would have been the mappamundi (literally,cloth of the world) which graced cathedralsand courtchambers(cf. Barber1992:26; mappamundi analyzed are by Woodward1985). It depicteda sacred,cosmological space, whereEarthand Heaven cleaved together.The map was oriented(literally)towardsParadise,a definite place. Space was depicted in accordwith its quality,so Jerusalemoccupied a preponderant area and was often depicted as the center of the world. Finally, the image had no temporallocation: disparatepasts, Noah's Ark and Alexander the Great, mingled in cosynchronous time (see B. Anderson 1991:22-24). Rulerscertainlydid not see the "medievalstates"delineatedso surelyin our historical atlases.4 How, then, did they know the ground over which they claimed dominion?In the virtualabsence of appropriate maps, the realm must have been known primarilyas a succession of places (Hale 1971:52). This accords with the medieval itinerary,usually writtenbut sometimes drawn as a schematicmap, recordingthe route and time takento travelbetween places without any attemptto indicate their relative position (Harvey 1980: ch. 9). More important,it accords with lived experience; for rulers saw their realm from horseback.In the year 1205, JohnI spent less thanfour weeks in London or Westminster(Pounds 1990:83). "He was always on the move," wrote Walter Map, "in this respect merciless beyond measureto the household that accompaniedhim" (quotedin J. Burke 1978:89). Three centurieslater,the complaint was echoed by the Venetianambassadorto FrancoisI, who was forced to follow a court which never spent two weeks in the same place (Febvre 1925:18). Besides the peregrinationsof the royal household, there was also hunting,commendedby Machiavellias providing"anexact knowledge of the lie of the land in which the sporttakes place" (1531, III, 39:511). However the realm was known, we should not underestimate difference the of rulershipin a mapless world. Before examining the origins of moderncartography,it is worthclarifyingits characteristics significance.I will use the and termcartography denote a set of techniquesfor producingspatialknowledge to and also a form the map for representing thatknowledge.5 Cartography apprehends space as purequantity,abstracted fromthe qualities of meaningand experience.Whatmattersis "therelationof distances"(Ptolemy 2nd century:26).It objectifies the world as a mundanesurface, no longer
4 The dangerof these convenientreferencetools is pointedout by Denis Hay (1959, 1968, 1975). 5 The word "map"can encompass myriadforms of representation. The maps defined here as cartography should be differentiated from two otherforms. One is the schematicmap,drawnwithout referenceto scale, like HenryBeck's celebrateddiagramof the Londonunderground Gar(see land 1994). Anotheris the pictureof town or landscapedrawnaccordingto the conventionsof linear perspective; the higher the point of view, the closer the resemblance to a map. A beautiful example from the seventeenthcenturyis Jan Micker's bird's-eye view of Amsterdam(see Alpers 1983:plate3). Both have flourishedalongsidethe kind of maps investigatedhere,but they have not helped to define the territorial state.

378

MICHAEL

BIGGS

the hub of a sacredcosmos or a succession of tangibleplaces. It differentiates ocean or land, the the form of knowledgefromits content.A map can represent objectification,and differentiation entireearthor one parish.Such abstraction, space is analogousto the modern modern.Cartographic are characteristically of apprehension time, a quantitymeasuredby the tick of the clock (B. Anderof is son 1991:24). Indeed,cartography predicatedon the differentiation space and time; it makes an acre a measure of two-dimensionalarea, no longer as much land as a man can plow in a day. map is defined by the explicit the As a form of representation, cartographic measurementof space. The kind of measure depends on the map's scale. A small-scale map, depicting a sizable portionof the world, locates positions on the earthby referenceto the graticule:lines of latitudeand longitude.Positions are transferred from the sphericalearthto the flat map by projection,a mathematicalfunction.Thereis an infinitudeof possible projections,so the choice of but, any one is arbitrary; once chosen, the projectiondeterminesthe position of every pointon the map.A large-scalemapdepictinga smallportionof the world measuresdistancebetween points by means of a linearscale: One inch on the map correspondsto so many miles on the ground. The larger the scale, of grid. In adof course,the greaterthe approximation the graticuleto a rectilinear map is defined by its dition to the explicit measureof space, the cartographic of orthographicrepresentation space. This is very different from linear perspective, where space is picturedfrom a single vantagepoint which the viewer is invited to share.The map readeris not so much above space as outside it.6 and The map's surfacecorrespondsto the groundin a way that is arbitrary yet completely determined,given the projectionand scale. It is at once mimetic:It with the ground,and artificial,for it shows someclaims exact correspondence thing no one could ever see. The map representsspatialknowledge producedby observation.Following the distinctionbetween graticuleand linear scale, there are two kinds of techobservation.This niques for producingspatialknowledge. One is astronomical readilymeasureslatitude;longitudewas far more difficultbecause of the need to measuretime so as to synchronizeobservationsin differentlocations. The second kind of technique is distance measurement.Estimatingit from travel time, correctedfor deviationsfrom a straightpath,entailedserious inaccuracy. This meant first Observationwas introducedby the method of triangulation. measuringa shortbase line on suitablylevel groundand then extendingit by a chain of sighted triangles over the landscape, calculating distances trigonothus allows the exact measuremetricallyfrom observedangles. Triangulation verticalheight. ment of horizontaldistanceand were broughttogetherin Renaissance The elements of moderncartography Europe.Althoughthis still awaits systematicexplanation,two forces were un6

This parallelsthe distinctionbetween map and 'mirror'drawnby E. H. Gombrich(1975).

PUTTING

THE STATE

ON THE MAP

379

doubtedlycrucial. One was the Italianrinascita, the revaluationand revival of Antiquity.At the beginning of the fifteenth century,a quest for Greek manuturnedup Ptolemy's Geography,a systematictreatise scriptsin Constantinople writtenin Alexandriain the second century.Though long known in the Islamic world, it was new to LatinChristendom.7 establishedthe basic theoretical It principles of cartography, introducinglatitude and longitude, providing a by methodof projection,and stressingempiricalobservationandrationalcalculation. It also specified the coordinatesof several thousandlocations, shown on twenty-seven accompanyingmaps of Eurasia,North Africa, and the Middle East.A codex was takento Florence,andtranslated Latinby 1415. The iminto portance of this new (albeit ancient) knowledge is attested by the surviving manuscript copies, an impressivefifty (Harvey 1980:12).8 A second criticaldevelopmentwas print-capitalism.9 Copyingmapsby hand severely restrictedtheir numberand accuracy (Eisenstein 1979:479-83). By means of woodcuts and engravings, identical copies of maps could be reproduced in unprecedentednumbers,spreadingthe new knowledge north of the Alps. The first image of the world to be reproducedwas a medieval diagram, but only five years latercame the first edition of Ptolemy,complete with maps printedat Bologna in 1477. Five more editions (Rome, Florence,and Ulm) appearedbefore the end of the century. Ptolemy provided the elements of cartographyon a small scale. From the same milieu came techniquesfor mapping at a large scale. Leon BattistaAlberti,the theoristof linearperspective,undertook perhapsthe firstrecordedsurvey of a city for a map of Rome (Gadol 1969:72-73). Each landmarkwas located by sighting its bearings from a central point and pacing out its radial distance.The same methodwas laterused by Leonardoda Vinci (Clayton 1996: cat. 49-50, pp. 90-94). These ventures are significant for what they reveal aboutthe mappingimpulseof the quattrocentro: Because they languishedin obscuremanuscripts, theirsubsequentinfluencewas slight. Moreimportant this in respectwere printedmapswith an explicit linearscale. One of the firstappeared in 1492, a mapof Nuremberg (Harvey1980:147).Really accuratemeasurement on the groundhad to wait for the invention of the techniqueof triangulation. This was codified in a treatisepublishedin 1533 by Gemmaof Frisius,who had studiedmathematicsat Louvain University.
I This is invariablydescribedas the "rediscovery" Ptolemy,as if the RomanEmpireand of RenaissanceEuropewere stages in the growthof an enduringentity.Alexandriais not in Europe. 8 Some scholars (notably Edgerton 1975) conjecturethat Ptolemy directly inspiredthe invention of linearperspective.This is unwarranted (Kemp 1978). Nevertheless,it is intriguingthatboth these novel techniquesof representation germinatedin Florence in the first thirdof the fifteenth century. 9 This aptphraseis BenedictAnderson's(1991:36); the connectionwas madepreviouslyby Garrett Mattingly,who describesprintedobjects as "thefirst standardized, mass-produced commodity" (1955:107-8).

38O

MICHAEL

BIGGS

By the early sixteenth century,then, the basic principlesand techniquesof had cartography been establishedin mapsandmanualsreplicatedthroughprinting. In the following centuries,methodswere refined and new instrumentsintroduced, but there was no departurefrom the cartographyof Ptolemy and change would come only in the late twentiethcentury, Gemma. Fundamental with positioningby satellite and mappingby computer.
ACQUIRING SPATIAL KNOWLEDGE

These techniquesfor producingand representingknowledge were not created to serve the needs of princes. Knowledge could be produced,however, only with materialsupport.There were two sources of supportby the beginning of to enabledmapmakers sell theirproducts the sixteenthcentury.Print-capitalism to a readingpublic. Alternatively,they could look to princes (and nobles) for patronageand commissions. Thereforeinterestsin accumulatingcartographic knowledge became intertwined with interests in aggrandizingmonarchical in power. Rulers acquiredknowledge; cartographers returngained material as merely a means to the end of state building support.Viewing cartography would be misleading. In this confluence of power and knowledge, each came to define the object of the other. In the fifteenthcentury,rulersrarelycommissionedmaps.Leaving aside the jealously guardedmaritimechartsof Portugal,thereare only a few precocious examples of terrestrialmaps, orderedby the Duke of Burgundyand by the became an VenetianCouncil (Harvey 1980:96; Marino 1992:6). Cartography instrumentof rule in the sixteenth century.It was initially adopted for war. Around1495, the firstmap,commissionedby a king of France,showed the Italian peninsulaalong with Alpine passes suitablefor an invadingarmy.Mapsbecame used regularlyunderFrancois I, stimulatedby the Italiancampaignsof the early sixteenthcentury(Buisseret 1992:101-3). Conversely,fear of invasion led Henry VIII of England to commission maps of the coastline in the 1530s (Barber 1992:32-34). In both cases, the most common early cartographicproductionswere large-scale maps, or plats, for the design of new artillery fortifications;engineers trainedin Italy played a significantrole in diffusing these techniques. of By the end of the century,maps had become instruments rule in the more advancedmonarchies,andnotjust for militarycampaignsandfrontierdefense. One example of how they were used in practiceis the annotatedmapcollection under of WilliamCecil, Lord Burghley,Secretaryof State and LordTreasurer ElizabethI (Barber1992:68-77). His maps were used for locating nobles and for gentry,eitheras potentialrebels or as local agentsof government; assessing of administrative units;and for planning taxes; for establishingthe boundaries routes.Mapswere also used to managethe royaldomain,as for communication any landowner.

PUTTING

THE STATE

ON THE MAP

381

was not only valued for its utility.As a componentof RenaisCartography sance learning,maps of all kinds were possessed and displayed as partof the paraphernaliaof princely magnificence or, literally, "stateliness" (Anglo 1992:6-10). Moreover,a few monarchsof the sixteenth century when cartographywas still a novel way of knowing the world sharedthe fascination of maps. One was HenryVIII. In 1539 the LordHigh Admiral,who described him as "marvellously inflamed"by a chartof the Dutchcoast, secretlysketched for a plan to bringAnne of Cleves to Englandfrom Guelderland,"supposing many things to be done thereon"(quotedin Barber1992:39).Anotherinterested monarchwas Henri IV. Sully recountsan incident from his long campaign for the kingdom.Coming upon a strategicallysited abbey,"he resolved to fortify it, and immediatelybegan to drawit (faire le desseing) himself, calling me to give him my advice, knowing that I had studied mathematics,and liked to make maps (cartes), to draw plans (plants) of places, and to design fortifications" (Buisseret 1992:107; Sully 1638:167-8). Rulers had ample motivation,therefore,to map the lands over which they claimed to rule whetherto gain geographicalinformation,to indulge an interest,or simply to representthe fact of theirdominion.But it was one thing to commission a map, quite anotherto have it completed,and yet anotherfor it to survive. The history of territorialsurveys from the sixteenthto the eighteenth centuryreveals an important facet of stateformation: institutionalization the of agencies and archivesfor producingand preservingknowledge. First to be surveyed by triangulationwas probablythe Duchy of Brabant, when Jacobvan Deventer,a fellow studentof Gemma,presentedhis mapto its Council in 1536. He executed similarcommissions for four otherprovincesin the Low Countries(de Vries 1995:25-26, 28-29). The Duke of Bavariacommissioned a survey (at a scale of 1 to 50,000) by PhilippApian in 1554. Within two decades, surveyorswent to work in England,Ireland,France,and the Iberianpeninsula.Their methods were generally not recorded,and triangulation over such large areas was hardlyfeasible. But they were based on observation timing distances on horseback, sighting angles between landmarks, establishinglocations by astronomicalreadings on the ground. The English survey had the most enduringresults. Christopher Saxton was appointedto survey England and Wales "by special direction and commandment from the Queen's Majesty"in 1573 (quotedin Skelton's 1974 introduction to Saxton 1583:8). The venturewas a combinationof royal initiative,noble patronage, and commercial enterprise (Barber 1992:64-65; Helgerson 1988:328-9; Morgan 1979:140-1). Patronagecame from the queen's Master of Requests,Thomas Seckford,who financedthe survey.The motive force behind the project was probablyBurghley.Direct governmentsupporttook the formof official passes, grantsof land andoffices to Saxton,anda 10-yearprinting monopoly for Seckford.Printingwas the thirdcomponent,for the maps (at

382

MICHAEL

BIGGS

scales varyingfrom a scale of 1 to 300,000 to thatof 1 to 141,000) were gathto ered into an atlas in 1579, and transferred a wall-map(at a scale of approxi1 to 444,000) in 1583. mately The project was a remarkablesuccess. It not only furnishedBurghley and detail and acother ministerswith geographicalinformationof unprecedented curacybut also establishedan image of Englandthat was to be reproducedfor surveys,however,revealsthe pittwo centuries.The fate of othercontemporary falls of patronage.Since each projectwas entirelyin the handsof one individual, if he could not finish, then it languished. Surveying an entire kingdom, however, was a long and arduoustask; Saxton was exceptionally quick, perhaps because he could use the existing networkof beacons (for warningof invasion) as triangulationstations (Ravenhill 1983). More typical was Robert Lythe, sent by the Privy Council to Irelandin 1567, who covered over half the islandbeforehe retired lame andalmostblind to England(Andrews 1965). It was not simply thatmanyprojectsremainedincomplete.Moreremarkable so is the fact thattheirresults simply disappeared, they made no lasting contributionto geographicalknowledge, andwere neverused by the rulerswho commissioned them. Lythe's maps were lost, though some informationwas obtained by commercial map-makersin England and the Low Countries.The Spanish survey, which Philip ILcommissioned from Pedro de Esquivel, was largely finished by the time Esquivel died in 1575. But nothing was recorded in the posthumousinventoryof Philip II's possessions (Parker1992:130-1). An incompleteatlas and a list of coordinates,presumablybased on the survey, were discovered in the nineteenthcentury;but this came too late to help the In Habsburgs. 1642, when PortugalandCataloniawere in revolt, the royal coscould only resortto a commercialatlas (by AbrahamOrtelius),first mographer publishedseven decades before (Parker1992:124). Knowledgewas preservedonly throughpublicationbecausethe statehad no institutionalmemory.Attemptswere made duringthe sixteenthcenturyto establish central archives and to institutethe separationof public from private "In of characteristic bureaucracy. the Collection of things I would wish a distinctionbetweenthatwhich is public andthatwhich is private"pleadedthe author of an Elizabethantreatise on the office of Principal Secretary (Beale in 1592:431). This was not maintained practice,however.Burghleybuilt up his collection by pillaging the royal libraryat Whitehalland the papers of other councilorsaftertheirdeaths;and in turnhis own librarysufferedthe same fate (Barber1992:73, 83). Equallytelling is the fact thatNicolas de Nicolay, commissionedby Catherinede Medicis to survey France,kept an extensive collection of drawingsat his chateau,wherethey were consultedby HenriIII andlater by Sully (Karrow1993:442). Over the seventeenthand eighteenthcenturies,surveying and map-making graduallybecame institutionalized,conducted by permanentagencies. This providedthe continuityrequiredfor national surveys based entirely on trian-

PUTTING

THE STATE

ON THE MAP

383

of The duration gulationand adheringto rigorousstandards scientific accuracy. of these surveys was on the orderof decades ratherthan years. The foremost agencies responsible for cartographicprojects were military and scientific. They ensuredthat projectswould continue despite changes in personnel;they preserved(and, in some cases, circulated)information,thus ensuringits accumulation;andby the eighteenthcenturythey often providedtechnicaltraining. It is worthtracingthe lengthy gestationof the most influentialand ambitious nationalsurvey,the cartographic epitomeof Frenchabsolutism(thisaccountfollows Konvitz 1987:ch.1). Nicolay hadcompletedmapsforonly a few provinces. Both RichelieuandColbertissued ordersfor a surveyof the kingdomshortlyafter coming to power,but nothingcame of eitherinitiative(Buisseret 1992:113, 99-100). One obstacle was the lack of technicalexpertise.The GeographeOrdinairedu Roi, Nicolas Sanson,was a compilerof maps,not a surveyor.Colbert neverthelesspersevered. askedthe newly foundedAcademieRoyale des SciHe ences to recommendmore accuratesurveyingmethodsandluredGianDomenico Cassini,an experton the astronomical determination longitude,fromItaly. of The problemwas of greatscientific consequence,for Newton's theorycould be tested if distancecould be measuredaccuratelyenoughto ascertainwhetherthe earthwas flattenedor elongatedat the poles. After various techniqueshad been tested, and existing coordinatesof many places proved inaccurate,the king in 1679 approveda new map of France. Withina few years, the outline of the kingdom was redrawn,trimmingits area the by a fifth. The backboneof the work, triangulating length of Francealong the Parismeridian,was not completed by Cassini's son until 1718. Continuity did not depend on personallineage, however. The Academie facilitated the cooperationof many scientists in differentfields, thus ensuringthe circulation of the latest findings.A second stage of field work,extendingtriangulation chains across France,began in 1733. The impetusthis time was practical.The Corpsdes Pontset Chauseesrequiredmapsfor planninga networkof improved highways to integratethe kingdom. The result was an eighteen-sheet map of France,publishedin 1744. Only threeyears later,a wholly new projectwas launched.At the scale of 1 to 86,400, this new map would cover Francein 180 sheets. It was orderedby Louis XV afterbeing impressedby a mapof this scale madeby the thirdgeneration Cassini for military campaignsin Flanders when comparedagainst the actual terrain.This massive logistical exercise was at first funded by the state, but financialstringencysoon forced the thirdCassini to float a company. Shareswere boughtby prominentnobles, includingseveral ministers;revenue would come from map sales. It was assisted by a subvention equivalentto 2 years' expenses, raised from the ge'ne'ralites.10 The work took more than 4
I Several opted insteadto conduct the survey on their own lands; they were pawsd'tats (like Burgundy,Provence, Brittany),jurisdictionsmost recentlybroughtunderthe king's authority.

384

MICHAEL

BIGGS

decades to complete, with all but 21 sheets published by 1789. The state reall claimed direct control in 1793, when the Conventiontransferred materials to the army. surThis Cassini map of Francebecame the model for eighteenth-century veying projects and was even emulated, eventually, across the Channel. For most of the century,the British landscapewas surveyedcountyby county,in a multitudeof private ventures (Harley 1965). Each map was funded by subscriptions from local notables and by sale of the engravedplates to London printers.As an additionalstimulus,the Society of Arts offered an annualprize scale, one inch to the mile (1 for the most accuratecounty map at the standard to 63,360). The resultwas a mosaic of maps, generallyat a largerscale thanthe Cassini mapbut varyingin accuracyandwithoutthe unifyingframeworkof national triangulation.The most persistent advocate of a national survey was William Roy (Seymour et al. 1980). As Lieutenant-Colonelin the army, he helped survey the rebellious Scottish highlands and later proposeda military map of England.As Fellow of the Royal Society, he superviseda joint effort with the Academie to extend triangulationacross the Channel in the 1780s. Proddedby the Royal Society, the Board of Ordnancebegan a survey of England at one inch to the mile in 1790. The last sheet would be publishedeight decades later,and full coverage of Scotlandwould take even longer. The OrdnanceSurveyandthe Cassini maps were publicprojects.They were not only directed and (largely) funded by the state; they were also intended public.Thus the institutionalizafor-and even demandedby-a map-reading secrecy. Publication tion of knowledge productiondid not entail bureaucratic it helped subsidize the cost of surveying,of course. More important, reflected a degree of symbiosis between the state and an emergingpublic sphere.Whatever the differencebetween Britainand Francein the timing and level of state example is the involvement,this symbiosis was common to both.A contrasting In Habsburgmonarchy. 1764, following the Seven YearsWar,it commissioned a comprehensiveseries of maps of its possessions. There existed only three the copies, for the Emperor, archives,andthe presidentof the milhand-drawn itary board. They remaineda closely guardedsecret well into the nineteenth century(Vane 1992:163-4). Whether made public or kept secret, a national map survey had become obligatoryby the end of the eighteenthcentury (for a summaryof other surveys, see Brown 1949:266-75). It was no longer a matterof ruling over land; the land had to be traversedby surveyorsand subjectedto measurement.The result was geographical knowledge of unprecedentedaccuracy and detail. Louis XIV was the first king to see the shape of France we know today.The magnificationof knowledgeis indicatedby the following comparison:the first printedmodernmap of France,which appearedin a versificationof Ptolemy (Berlinghieri1482), was about 2 squarefeet in size; three centurieslater,the Cassini map sheets covered 1,300 squarefeet. These sheets gave Versaillesa

PUTTING

THE STATE

ON THE MAP

385

commandingview of the entirekingdom:"Oneknows thatthe smallestparishes andthe finest details aremarkedthereto a greatdegreeof exactitude"(Sieyes 1789:4). The confluence of interestsin accumulatingknowledge and aggrandizing power had given rise to the cartographicinstitutions of the modern state a state of knowledge.
RESHAPING SPATIAL FORM

The acquisitionof cartographic knowledge helped rationalizethe activities of rule. Maneuveringarmies,assessing taxes, and planningroadscould be undertaken more effectively with detailedand accuratemaps. Cartography thus was indispensableas a means for the accretionof power.Yet it also came to define the shapeof power andto constitutethe objectof stateformation. landswere As surveyedand mapped,they were reshapedinto a territory: homogeneous and a uniform space, demarcatedby linear boundaries.The old dynastic realm was transformedinto a distinctively new shape, the territorialstate."IThis spatial rationalization was modeled on the map. Because the territorial stateis so often mistakenas the universalshapeof rule, it is worth sketching the characteristics the dynastic realm. That covered a of certainamountof ground,to be sure;but it was an agglomerationof disparate jurisdictions,with varyingrelationsto the prince a "compositemonarchy," in H. G. Koenigsberger's(1986) apt phrase.The inheritanceof EmperorCharles V is an extremeinstance,but othermonarchiesdifferedonly in degree.For one thing, monarchsruled multiple entities. The King of France ruled recent acquisitionsas Duke of Burgundy, Countof Provence,andso on, beforethey were absorbedinto the kingdomitself. Monarchsthereforeconfrontedmorethanone representativeassembly.An exception was the single parliamentfor England and Wales; the Irish parliamentwas of lesser status, subordinated the Engto lish council from the end of the fifteenthcentury.Moreover,each kingdomwas dividedinto disparate jurisdictionsfor differentfunctions.In France,therewere distinct units for customs, taxation,justice, and so on' 2; differentparts were governed accordingto fundamentallydifferentrules. Just as the dynasticrealm was not unified, it was not clearly demarcated.In principlethere were definite limits, for while a village might have many lords, it shouldhave only king (Bloch 1940:382).Thereweretwo qualifications,however. Lordshipover lands within a kingdom could be held by a neighboring monarch-in theory as vassal of the king, but often with effective control. Interpenetration exacerbatedby princesacquiring was jurisdictionsthatwere not
" "Dynasticrealm" and "territorial state," ideal-types of the relation between rulershipand ground,are borrowedfrom B. Anderson(1991:19) and Sahlins (1990), respectively. 12 One example will suffice. "The election of Vezelay is in the province of Nivernais, in the bishopricof Autun;in the Generaliteandjurisdictionof Paris;and the town of Vezelay in the Gouvernementof Champagne.... Its composition is all the more bizarrebecause, as small as it is, it contains several enclaves in neighbouringNections, in which it also has isolated exclaves."

386

MICHAEL

BIGGS

contiguouswith the rest of theirlands.The resultwas a borderriddledwith enclaves and enclaves. In addition,a monarch'seffective control tended to fade before reaching the realm's limits. In less-populated areas, limits became was contestednot only by the neighboringprincebut marches,where authority also by local lords and banditgangs. In practice,the realm's limits could be a horizontalarearatherthan a verticaldivision. In sum, the dynastic realm did not map neatly on to geographicalspace, as we expect. This did not matter,however, when there were no maps. The composition of the realmcould be adequatelyrecordedin writing.Any area could be describedby listing its componentunits(Konvitz 1990:7).At the highestlevin el, this was articulated the monarch'sstyle, which proclaimedthe separate kingdoms,counties,duchies, and lordshipsacquiredby the rulingdynasty(see Bindoff 1945). This conception of dominion over a concatenationof places ratherthana two-dimensionalspace extendedto lower-leveljurisdictions.The wording of the Treatyof the Pyreneesin 1659 is revealing:It defined the area annexed to France as the "countries,towns, castles, boroughs, villages, and places" comprisingthe Countiesof Rousillon and Conflent(quotedin Sahlins 1990:299). The geographicalextentof entities such as the countyor kingdomwas in turn and (Hay 1959).To determinethe precise limdefinedby tradition relationships its of a kingdom,it was necessary to send a commission there.An example is the investigationof the borderin Picardyorderedby HenriIV in 1602, the first to record its results in cartographicform. The oldest villagers were asked to whom they owed allegiance, where they paid taxes andboughtsalt, and which courts judged local disputes (Buisseret 1982:104). Actual relationshipswith royal authoritythus determinedthe realm's spatialextent, and not the reverse; thanland(Sahlins 1989:28).Customdid rulewas exercisedover subjectsrather not imply permanence,ironically.A village could changejurisdictionwithin a generationor two; a seigneurie could shift from allegiance to independence (Buisseret 1984:74). As rulersbegan mappingtheir lands, they did much more than multiplythe quantityof geographicalknowledge. The map representsan area as a demarcated space locatedin relationto an imaginarygrid, withoutreferenceto tradirevealed anomaliesand suggested new postion or relationships.Cartography the sibilities. While early mapsportrayed space of the dynasticrealm,they also of implied a rationalization that space its demarcationand homogenization. On the map, separationis drawnby a line, a vertical edge between spaces. linearboundaryon the ground. By implication,thereshouldbe a corresponding to The power of cartography divide is exemplified by the use of nonexistent lines as boundaries.Soon after the translationof Ptolemy, in the 1420s an attemptwas made to resolve a boundarydisputebetween Florenceand Milan by resortingto longitude (Edgerton1975:114-5). It cannot have been calculated with adequate precision to have practical effect, but this has significance

PUTTING

THE STATE

ON THE MAP

387

nonethelessas a harbingerof the future.A similarattemptwas Pope Alexander VI's division of the non-Christian worldbetween Castile and Portugalin 1493. lines was less imto WithinEurope,the power of cartography draw arbitrary portantthan its potentialto delineate existing borders.Francecan serve as an example of the gradualprocess of demarcation. Border mappingwas first carriedout undermilitary auspices. The investigation in Picardymarkedthe beginningof systematicmappingby the royal engineers,establishedby HenriIV and Sully (Buisseret 1967, 1982, 1984). While the earliest maps were made to record the boundary,subsequenttopographic maps were made to preparefor militarycampaignson the frontiersand to plan fortifications(Konvitz 1987:38-40, 92-103). From a militarypoint of view, the boundarywas irrelevant,since the intentwas to advanceacrossit when war to began. Fortificationneverthelesscontributed the new conceptionof the state as a demarcatedspace. "The King ought to think a little about squaringhis field," wrote Vauban,masterof militaryengineering,in 1673. "Thisconfusion of friendly and enemy fortresses mixed together does not please me at all" (quoted in Sahlins 1989:68). He plannedto replace it with an "ironfrontier": "two lines of fortresses. .. like an armydrawnup for battle"(quotedin Duffy 1985:85). The choice of words reflectedthe etymology of the term frontiere in French,which had previously denotedthe front line of troops in battle formation (Febvre 1928). By the end of the seventeenthcenturyit was defined as "the extremityof a realmor a provincewhich an enemy is faced with when it wants
to enter" and had supplanted the older termfins (quoted on 1985:210). The bor-

der had a new connotation:the glacis of the state's space. The actualdelineationof boundariesbelonged to diplomacy.The linearideal was soon acknowledged.Commissionersappointedto divide the Countyof Cerdanyabetween France and Spain, after the Treaty of the Pyrenees, wrote that "the line, which has to be almost mathematical, necessarilyto occupy has a very narrowwidth"(quotedin Sahlins 1989:52). Puttingthe ideal into effect was anothermatter.In practicethe Commissionersfollowed the outline of customaryjurisdictions,like villages, resultingin a borderof the old sort, which included an enclave. These anomalies were shown up sixty years later by a cadastralsurvey on the Spanish side. That map proposeda continuousboundary line, cutting across the intermingledseigneurialjurisdictions.Land should be divided by this line, insteadof accordingto whetherit was owned by a subject of the King of Franceor of the King of Spain. Cartography thus implied a new kind of space. But it did not always have immediateeffect. In this case Frenchofficials arguedthat"to drawstraightlines would resultin a greatprejudice to the king's jurisdiction"; the opposing intendantsultimatelyagreed and to leave the borderunchanged(quotedin Sahlins 1989:86). Ultimately,though, boundarieswere made congruentwith the cartographic ideal. The aim was clearly expressed by a royal engineer, the Chevalier de Bonneval, in 1745: to "purgethe kingdom of foreign enclaves," to "close the

388

MICHAEL

BIGGS

(Sahlins 1989:95).This required stateas far as the natureof the districtpermits" a comprehensivecollection of maps, separatefrom the army'sclosely guarded topographicalsurveys. Bonneval himself outlined a plan to provide diplomats with the necessary information. Decades later, in 1775, a Bureau pour la Demarcationdes Limites was createdwithin the MinTopographique istry of Foreign Affairs, acquiring a large private map collection (Konvitz 1987:3-35). At the same time, diplomatswere makinga sustainedeffort to delineate boundarieson the ground.In the 1770s and 1780s Francesigned more than two dozen treatiesof delimitationwith its neighborsfrom AustrianLuxembourgto Spain (Sahlins 1990:1438-9).'3 Parallelto the demarcationof boundarieswas the homogenizationof territory.The heterogeneityof the dynastic realm was shown in sixteenth-century surveys, even those encompassingan entire kingdom. Saxton's was entitled a surveyof "allandsingularthe countiesof England"(quotedin Skelton 1974:8). In the field, Saxton kept within county boundaries,surveying one at a time. Each map depictedone or more counties on a scale that variedwith their size. nevertheless implied a different conception of space, however. Cartography knit The most accuratesurveymethod,triangulation, togetherthe entireareato be mappedwith a chain of triangles.The map itself depicted space as empty, divisible, and homogeneous;it made sense to divide the whole areainto maps of equal size and uniformscale. This did not, of course, dictatewhat shouldbe the expanse to be mapped.Indeed,several maps-of AustrianHabsburglands such as Styria and Moravia, and in Aragon (Vane 1992:160-2; Parker 1992:134) were commissioned in the seventeenthcenturyby territorialestates assertingtheirrights againstmonarchicalpower. knowledge with monarchicalpower, however, The alliance of cartographic surveyswas the kingdom.The Cassimeantthatthe areaof eighteenth-century ni survey unified the entire countryin a web of trianglesstretchingfrom hilltraditional jurisdictions,it dividedFranceon the batop to hilltop.Disregarding sis of an arbitrary grid, so thateach map sheet depicteda rectangleof 80 by 50 kilometers.Thus, paperingover the realityof a confused hodgepodgeof intermingled jurisdictions, the Cassini map depicted France as a homogeneous raspace. As such, it could be divided anew on a rationalbasis. Cartographic tionalizationwas advocatedby Robertde Hesseln in 1780. His maps divided Franceinto nine squareregions, each in turnsubdividedinto nine conte'es, and so on in a tenfoldprogressionto the smallestunit(Hesseln 1780). This geometry would allow any propertyin the kingdomto be easily located. Withrevolution,the homogeneousspace of the mapbecame the basis of powhich the nationhad to litical authority. Among the relics of feudal barbarism
13 To my knowledge there has been no systematicresearchon the role of maps in treatydocuments, let alone the negotiationprocess. George Clarkstates thatthe earliesttreatyknown by him as having a map as an integralpartof the documentdates from 1718 (1947:144); this referenceis not supersededby Konvitz (1987), Sahlins (1989), or JeremyBlack (1990).

PUTTING

THE STATE

ON THE MAP

389

discard, the "antiquedivisions" of the ancien regime reviled because each function had its own spatialdivision and because each kind of circumscription varied widely in area (Comite de constitution 1789:202). The replacementof jurisdictions,"whichonly habitcould rendertolerand these "bizarre unequal" Indeed,the iniable,"was boundup with the creationof a new statestructure.14 tial plan (presentedto the ConstituentAssembly in September 1789) apporaccordingto territoryas well as populationand taxation: tioned representation A thirdof the deputieswould be allocatedto each.The principleof equalitywas actuallyappliedmore strictlyto landthanto citizens, alreadycategorizedas aceighty square tive or passive.The kingdomwas to be divided like a chessboard: de'partements (plus one for Paris), each subdividedinto nine communes, and each in turnsubdividedinto nine cantons(Comitede constitution1789:202-3). The inspirationwas cartographic.The prime mover on the constitutional committee, Abbe Sieyes, renowned authorof What is the Third Estate?, "exmap of Cassiplainedthathe would begin "by obtainingthe greattriangulated the most exact positions;I would divide it first of ni, which has withoutdispute all geometrically"(1789:3). The resemblanceto Hesseln's map is not coincidental.The committeeemployed his successorto depict the new departements, literallydrawnover Hesseln's base map (Hennequin1911:55-57). Geometri15 cal precisionwas soon dropped. As Sieyes himself acknowledged,the actual features delineationwould take accountof the historicalboundariesandnatural (as revealedby large-scalemaps: 1789:4).Thus modified,the plan for partition was to createunits equalin popover rival schemes. One alternative triumphed ulationratherthanarea.But therewas no demographicequivalentof the Cassini survey and withoutinformation,the scheme foundered."Thedivision following the plan of the committee is at least traced on the map," replied a colleague of Sieyes duringthe debate in the NationalAssembly, "butcan the honorablemembertrace his own, and in how many months will he show us?" (Thouret1789:724). was the productof intense rivalry The actual demarcationof departements among towns vying for the prize of chef-lieu, or of at least theirown districtor commune.As a noble scornfullyrecalled, "Eachdeputy,with a pin and a piece . of thread,came to markhis departement .. squabblingover vast territories, compass in hand"(quoted in Margadant1992:179). The Assembly nevertheless maintainedthe fundamentalprinciple of partition:equality of area. The final delineationwas inscribedon the Cassini sheets. Just as the revolutionaries "used the debris of the old order for building up the new" (Tocqueville 1856:vii), so they reshaped the state on the map of the ancien regime. The new entities were namedfor mountains,rivers,andotherphysical features,im14 These phrasesare respectivelyfrom Rabaudde Saint-Etienne(1789:667) and the Comite de (1992) and is constitution(1789:202). The formationof departements analysedby Ted Margadant (1986, 1989). Marie-VicOzouf-Marignier 15 Not, however, before catching the irateeye of EdmundBurke (1790:152 ff.).

390

MICHAEL

BIGGS

plying the triumphof geographicalabstractionover historical tradition.The significanceof this erasuredid not escape observers,who seized on (and exaggerated)the arbitrary natureof the new spatialunits. ForEdmundBurke,nothing betterexemplified the monstrousnatureof revolution."I cannot conceive how any man can. . . considerhis countryas nothingbut carte Blanche-upon which he may scribble whatever he pleases" (1790:138). The map provided the space for this scribbling,or ratherruling, to be conceived; and it provided the geographicalknowledge necessary for this ruling to be carriedout on the ground. As revolutionburstthe bounds of France,it swept away the medieval rubbish of dynastic realms. Most significant was the destructionof the Holy Roman Empire,a hierarchical formationantitheticalto the principleof territorial sovereignty (Breuilly 1993:97-98). With the settlementof 1815, the map of Europewas redrawnin territorial states,albeitcappedwith monarchies.The rationalizationof space was not completed immediately,of course. The delineation of international boundaries,as providedby the settlement,took decades (Hertslet 1875, 1:8, 346, 625-6). Reform of the English county system came only in the 1830s. Nevertheless,by the early nineteenthcenturythe territorial state had been establishedboth as dominantideal and as incipientreality.
GROUNDING POLITICAL AUTHORITY

As the map was a model for reshapingspatialform, it was also an image for representing political authority. Here we shift from the calculationsand aspirato tions of kings andministers(andrevolutionaries) the imaginationsof a wider readingpublic. The "territorialization rule,"the symbolic fusion of political of authorityand geographicalarea, had two aspects. One was the cartographic symbolizationof the state as territory. Geographicalarea did not figure in the concepts and images which repreas sented the dynasticrealm. "Kingship," BenedictAndersonobserves, "organizes everythingarounda high center"(1991:19). In person,the monarchhimself (or herself) stood for the realm as a whole, embodying "representative publicness"(Habermas1962:5-14). Even when the realm was representedas an objective entity,it was symbolizedby the coat of arms,like the fleurs-de-lis of of France. These various representations the realm did not define it geographically,by its spatial extent. With cartographya geographicalimage became possible. Published maps-whether sponsored by rulers or not enterritoryon the imagination.This graved the distinctive shape of a particular a familiarshape providedan alternativesymbol of political authority: body of land, or "geobody"(Thongchai 1994). It representedan entity that was impersonal-set apartfrom the person of the ruler(and even from the characterof rulership)-and natural,groundedin physical reality. The earliest example was perhapsSaxton's image of Englandas an assemblage of counties (Helgerson 1988; Morgan 1979). Aside from the atlas (the

PUTTING

THE STATE

ON THE MAP

391

first of a kingdom to be published)and wall map, the image was circulatedon playing cards (by happy coincidence there were fifty-two counties) and was woven into tapestriesto hang in countryhouses. It was also used as the basis of a portrait Queen Elizabeth,paintedaround1592 on the commission of Sir of Henry Lee (see Pomeroy 1989:plate 11). It picturedher standingon Saxton's England,in an oblique view of the globe's surface,with miniatureships navigating the coastal waters.The queen's feet met the groundin Oxfordshire,the home of Lee. By juxtaposingthe two symbols of figure and geobody,the painting representedmonarchicalauthorityin a new manner. The relation between these symbols was not necessarily as harmoniousas was painted."Thecartographic image of England,"arguesRichardHelgerson, "strengthened sense of both local and nationalidentityat the expense of an the identity based on dynastic loyalty" (1988:332). That this image fostered local loyalty-with its locus in the county reflected the way Saxton's survey was conceived and conducted.Verydifferentwas the image of Franceconveyed by the Cassini map. Whetherthe image was a cluster of counties or a unified terthe ritory,cartographic representation undermined dynasticprincipleby objectifying political authority,implying that it was located in an impersonalstate and not descendedfrom a royal lineage. The decline of dynasticloyalty did not entailthe end of monarchy,of course.After all, while county atlasesof England were still being publishedat the beginningof the nineteenthcentury,by then it was only one partof a United Kingdom.16 The cartographic image of the statedid not imply thatit was coterminous with a nation.While every nationalismhas its hearthland, map is less suited to the conveying the relationbetween people and soil. The map rationallyrepresents quantitiesof distance,not the qualityof myth;comparethe emotionallyfreighted symbolof the nation,the flag. Whatever use of the "map-as-logo" Anthe (B. derson 1991:175)for nationalismin the twentiethcentury,this was hardlyrelevantbeforethe centurybefore,the nineteenth. Europewas dividedintoterritorial statesbefore nationalismbecame the governingprincipleof partition. While cartography came to constitutethe object-as shapedandimaginedof state formation,there was also a reverse influence. The state came to constitute the object of cartographyby an imposition of state territorieson the groundso thatthey inheredin geographicalreality.This was the second aspect of the territorialization rule. The process can be seen in publishedmaps of of
16 This distinctionseems controversial.The skepticalreaderis invited to experimentby comparingtwo images fromNazi propaganda (fromourcentury,andthereforestill emotionallycharged for us). One figure juxtaposes the cartographicshapes of the British Empire and the German Reich, accentuating vast imbalancein size (Monmonier1996:figure7.11:102). Anotheris a carthe toon: a grotesqueJew looms over a beautifulblonde, her throatslit from ear to ear; a chalice imprintedwith a Starof David drips with her blood (Gombrich1963:figure 112). Is one image more 'rational" one more "mythical"? reactto the first, I would suggest, with skepticism(a cogand We nitive response);we recoil from the second with repugnance(an emotive response).

392

MICHAEL

BIGGS

Europefrom the early sixteenthcenturyto the early nineteenth,which together provide a kind of qualitativetime series of the place of states in the imagitime in historination.17 Comparisonwith our depictionof the corresponding cal atlases controls for the changing configurationof powers. It reveals how of slowly the two converge:Ourunderstanding geographicalrealityas a jigsaw of states is surprisinglyrecent. The maps of Europe analyzed below were producedby map-makerssupportedby the sale of theirwork, althoughthey were not isolated from political and Royal titles were bestowed on many commercialcartographers, authority. almostall mapsandatlaseswere dedicatedto a reigningsovereign(or the States Generalfor publicationsin Dutch).They reacheda readingpublic across western Europe,as the text of a popularatlas would be publishedin the main vernacularlanguagesand (untilthe eighteenthcentury)in Latin.Fromthe late sixteenthcentury,at the latest, theirimage of Europewas undoubtedlyfamiliarto nobles, officials, merchants,scholars,and otherswho read as partof their daily affairs. The maps accompanyingPtolemy did not include one of Europe. Indeed, maps of the westerncornerof the Eurasianland mass helped constitutethe Reto naissance "discoveryof Europe,"in contradistinction Christendom(Hale 1993:ch. 1; Hay 1968). One of the earliest was Carta itinerariaEuropae, by (Strasbourg,1511). It neatly portrayedthe characterisMartinWaldseemiuller tics of the dynasticrealm.Political units were not indicatedin the space of Europe (aside from the lettering"Anglia Regnum"and "PoloniaRegnum").Powas litical authority insteadsymbolizedoutsidespace,displayedon the margins of the map:all foursides areadornedwith coats of arms,142 in all. The arrangement was a visual equivalentof the monarch'sstyle, showing separateand disparateunitsjoined only in the person of ruler.The rightborderwas headed by a portraitof CharlesV in armorbearingthe Habsburgeagle, followed by the armsof three dozen patrimonies.The left borderillustratedhis parallelrole as Holy Roman Emperor.This kind of heraldicdetail was not continuedin later maps of Europe,thoughmaps of smallerareascommonly displayedtheirarms within the cartouche. map Waldseemuiller's designatedthe landsof Europeaccordingto the framework of Ptolemy's Geography.That specified regions such as InsulaeBrittanicus, Hispania, Gallia, Italia, and Germania.They were defined implicitly by riversand mountains,but no boundarieswere drawnbetween them. Ptolemaic for regions constitutedthe framework the map of Europein Ortelius'Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (Antwerp,1570), which has claim to be the firstmodernatlas. versionsof the printedmap Illuminated This againhadno engravedboundaries. overlaideach classical region in a differentcolor, fading togetherat the edges
17 The depictionof stateterritories investigated also by JamesAkerman(1982, 1995) andPaul is Solon (1982), thoughthey do not assemble maps into a long-termtime series.

PUTTING

THE STATE

ON THE MAP

393

(see Ortelius 1584) (See Figure 1). It was in this regionalframeworkthat state territoriesemerged,graduallyand unevenly. The transitionbegan with the engravingof linearboundaries,symbolizedby a dotted line-"Rows of Pricks, or Points" (Smith 1705:101). This appeared, tentatively,on the maps of GerardMercatorand sons. Mercator'swall map of Europe(Duisberg, 1554) depicteda dottedline dividingArtoisandPicardy,but left the rest of Gallia's borderto the imaginationof the readeror illuminator. The corresponding map in the atlas (Duisberg, 1595) was more definite. Gallia was dividedfromGermaniaandItaliaby linearmountainranges(Vosges,Alps) or, in theirabsence, by a dottedline. The use of mountainsto denote the border reinforcedthe concept of "naturalfrontiers,"recently scrutinizedby Sahlins (1990). It held that political units were, or should be, determinedby topography. On occasion map-makersfollowed this principleto the point of drawing nonexistent mountains. Even real mountainsdo not neatly divide one space fromanother, course.Map-makers of represented them as linearchainsonly because there was not yet an orthogonalsymbolizationfor land surfaceform. Whetherrepresentedby mountainranges or dotted lines, boundariesmay have implied a territorial ratherthan regional division. On the second Mercator map, for instance, Gallia could be understoodas the kingdom of France. Nevertheless, regions like Germania(still encompassingthe Low Countries) did not correspondto any political unit. This inconsistencycontinuedthroughout the seventeenthcentury.On one hand,the regionalframework persisted.On the other,interiorprovinceswere commonly given boundariesof equal weight. This can be seen in the map of Europeproducedby Willem Blaeu, who founded the greatest family of Dutch map publishers (Amsterdam, 1617, also includedin an atlasof 1630) (see Figure2). Engravedboundaries dividednot only the classical regions but also two new areas-the Low Countries(unnamed) and Helvetia. They also divided Catalonia,not even a kingdom, from the rest of Spain.Variation amongcopies of the same mapwas addedby coloring(compare the Blaeu 1630 facsimile; Koeman 1970: figure 6; Blaeu 1662). Within one atlas, moreover, different maps of the same border frequently drew the same boundaryin differentplaces (Akerman1982; Solon 1982). Such inconsistencies show that map-makersdid not intend to depict contemporary political units.Even more telling is anachronism. Most glaringis the unity of the Low Countries(Akerman 1982:88; compareKrogt 1995:116-7). In the initial stages of the Dutch revolt, to be sure,the situationwas in flux and the outcomeuncertain. the armisticeof 1607, however,the UnitedProvinces By were clearly separatefrom the remainingHabsburgpossessions. This partition cannot have had greatersalience than seen from Amsterdam.Yet Blaeu, like other cartographers, not recordit on the map. And when his son Joan predid paredthe multivolumeAtlas Major (Amsterdam,1662), he used the same plate again. By then, afterpartitionwas confirmedby the Peace of Westphalia, truit ly belied its title, Europarecens descripta.Thoughnew engravingswere cost-

394

MICHAEL BIGGS

..-........... ,z,D2 ,~~~~~~~

S,

cI

_e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

P"

3........

C >

e7;:_ ^

FIGURE 1.

Europe composed of classical

regions:

Abraham

Ortelius'

atlas of 1570, in an edition~C

of

58 Corts ... . .

avr

olcin

PUTTING

THE STATE

ON THE MAP

395

D-E V,C'A.L

ONr

A -N

X : A..:- -T

T
.

.,. ..,'%..s

* > S<
S

<-

jl,^j;7/

boundaries: Willem Blaeu's map FIGURE2. Europe traversedby inconsistentand anachronistic of 1617, in Joan Blaeu's atlas of 1662. Courtesy of Harvard Map Collection.

396

MICHAEL

BIGGS

ly, the old plate could have been alteredor updatedby the use of color.The political configurationafterWestphaliawas depictedwith greaterconsistency in a map publishedsoon afterby Sanson (Paris,circa 1650). Besides dividing the it UnitedProvincesfrom"PaysBas Catholiques," carefullydelineatedFrance's fromexternalones. easternborderandclearlydistinguishedinternalboundaries Nevertheless, when his son Guillaume issued another map "revised and changed in many places following the most recent reports"(Paris, 1683), it showed Portugalas a province of Spain, four decades after the overthrowof Habsburgrule. Such examples do not mean that map-makersor their readers were ignorant of contemporarypolitical divisions. Rather,the depiction of those divisions was of little importance political authoritystill hovered over the ground,as it were. A more consistentdivision appearsin the eighteenthcentury.There was no glaring anachronismin Guillaume Delisle's map of Europe (Paris, 1724). Moreover,it used differentletteringto sharpenthe contrastbetween states and The effect was replicated provinces,between externaland internalboundaries. by the map in Gilles and Didier Robertde Vaugondy'sAtlas Universel(Paris, 1757; English version by Kitchin(London, 1772), which showed the land "divided into its principle states."Thus Europewas conceived as a political jigsaw. In fact the earliestjigsaw puzzle to have surviveddepicts EuropeDivided jigsaw originated into Its Kingdoms,etc. (London,circa 1766). The ubiquitous in "dissectedmaps"createdby Londonpublishersto aid instructionin geography (Hannas 1972:15-21). The land was now literallycut into pieces by state Eachpiece could be held in isolationfromits geographicalcontext. boundaries: political Thejigsaw's boundedspaces still did not fully depictcontemporary of those spaces, like Italy,remainedregions. Moreover,there was units. Some no attemptto indicatewherecommonsovereigntyuniteddifferentspace such as Hungaryand the Low Countries,both underHabsburgrule. This is a cardinal principleof ourhistoricalatlases,which use color and shadingto unify disThis paratepossessions into a homogeneous, albeit non-contiguous,territory. in moderndepictionof statesfinally appeared the 1790s, a decadewhen boundaries and sovereignty were in continual flux. One example is a wall map by Aaron Arrowsmith(London, 1798), which carefully portrayedFrance's exThe pandedterritory.'8 recentlyannexedsouthernLow Countrieshad engraved boundaries,althoughthey were outlined in the same color as France. Similar and was appliedto Habsburg Hohenzollernlands:The possessions of treatment each house bothwithin andwithoutthe Empire were pickedout in one colinto its componentsovwas fragmented or."Germany" finally cartographically ereignties,long afterthe Empirehad ceased to be an effective political unit.
18 UniAnotherexampleis Bowles 's UniversalAtlas (n.d.), firstpublishedin 1792. The Harvard configurationof the late 1790s; the ilversity MapLibrary'scopy is colored to show the territorial luminatorhas overlaid northernItaly with the CisalphineRepublic.I have found no earliermaps in the modernstyle. The map of Europein RigobertBonne's Atlas EncvclopMdique (1787) resembles Robertde Vaugondy's.

PUTTING THE STATE ON THE MAP

397

FIGURE3.

Europeportionedamongterritorial states.A. M. Brue'smapof 1821. Courtesyof HaryardMap Collection.

398

MICHAEL

BIGGS

Modernprinciplesof representation were fully realized in maps of the configurationestablishedin 1815. It was now essential to be up to date. One of the foremost London map publishers,John Cary,issued A New Map of Europe in 1816. Revised editionsof his world atlaswere advertisedas showing states and kingdoms"arranged accordingto the Congressof Vienna,andTreatiesof Paris" (Fordham1925:21). Every characteristic the moderndepictionof states apof pears in a map by A. M. Brue (Paris, 1821) (see Figure3). Italywas finally distributedinto territorial states;the tiniest Germanstateless were distinguished, where necessaryby a numberedkey; Prussianand Austrianpossessions were each unified by color. It could be a page out of our historicalatlas only the configurationof states is differenton maps today. In the imaginationof mapmakersand readers,political authorityhad been imposed on the ground,turning the earth's surfaceinto a jigsaw of stateterritories.
CONCL USION

By the early nineteenthcentury,the modern,territorial state with its cartographictechniquesand mappedimage had been establishedin Europe.Since then, it has spreadthroughout world. It was appliedto lands conqueredand the colonized by Europeans,of course;but it was also adoptedby foreign monarchies. This happenedin nineteenth-century Siam, the subject of Thongchai's (1994) importantwork. It underwenta transformation remarkablysimilar to that which happenedin Europe,telescoped into a few decades. Mappingwas spurredby colonial expansion,but it was not only a matterof defendingterritory from predation.Even a friendlypower, GreatBritain,was anxious to demarcatea boundary betweenits annexationsandSiam.Thus,the dynasticrealm was forced into the mold of a territorialstate. Aside from compulsion, cartographic techniques had their own power. The policy of westernizationwas adoptedunderking Mongkut,who was convertedto the superiorityof European science and spent much of his time calculatinggeographicalcoordinates and planetarymovements. This essay has examined Europeanstate formationfrom a particularperspective; as with any map, it has depictedsome things by leaving othersinvisible. While the specific andpeculiarform of the modernstatecan be conceived in many ways, my inquirydraws attentionto three salient characteristics. The modern state consists of agencies and archives for producingand preserving objective knowledge, includingknowledge of the groundon which it stands.It a exists in the shape of territory, uniform,homogeneous space demarcatedby And it exists in the imaginationas an object symbolizedby a linearboundary. territorial shape, one piece of a terrestrial jigsaw. has My argument advancedtwo claims: first, thatstateformationinvolved a transformation the relationshipbetween ground and rule; second, that the of modern form was constituted,in part, throughcartographicknowledge. The claim for transformation may seem obvious, even trivial.Yet thereis a persis-

PUTTING

THE STATE

ON THE MAP

399

stateback into the past.More tenttendencyto projectourimage of the territorial than what we see in the historicalatlas is how we write abouthisformidable toricalchange. Ourlanguageleads us to conceive of change as additionalrather than integral,as the variationin an entity's attributesratherthan the transformation from one kind to another(see Elias 1978). It is easy to say "the state implying that a preexistingentity increasedthe quantity mappedits territory," of its knowledge. It is muchharderto say that,throughthe process of mapping, a new kind of territoryand hence a new kind of statecame into being. The difficulty of conceptualizingchange in kind broughtaboutby gradualmodification, ratherthan by suddenreplacement,is not confined to social science. The same problem faces evolutionarybiology: Organismswithin a single species may change so muchover generationsthatdescendantsand ancestors,if placed side by side, would not be classified as the same species. Similarly,a line of defrom the Capetianmonarchy scent can be traced,revolutionnotwithstanding, to the FrenchFifth Republic but to include both underthe same concept of state is to stretchthat to breakingpoint. The second claim, for knowledge as constitutive, may seem curious, even materialism"which dubious, at least from the perspective of "organizational on dominatesthe literature state formation.Yet the developmentof knowledge has its own timing and proceeds accordingto its own logic. Moderncartography did not originate in the functionalrequirementsof rulership;once established, it was drivenby internalimperativesof greateraccuracyandlargerscale. Moreover,knowledgeexercises its own fascinationandinterest.Lives were devoted to surveying and map-making,while rulerswere sufficiently impressed by maps to supportthem. All this is not to imply that we should substitutefor a one-sided materialistican equally one-sided idealistic causal interpretation. The developmentof knowledge requiresmaterialresources:Thus, knowledge must always attachitself, as it were, to power.And power inevitablyinfluences and the contentof knowledge. So it was with cartography rulership.Whatever the interplaybetween forms of knowledge and forms of power, all action is predicatedupon what is thought as real. Putting the state on the map meant knowing and imagining it as real and, so, makingit a reality.
REFERENCES

Akerman,JamesR. 1982. "Cartography the Emergenceof Territorial and Statesin Western Europe." Proceedings of the Tenth Anniual Meeting of the Western Societv for French History, 84-93.

in 1995. "The Structuring Political Territory PrintedAtlases." Im.agoMunof di, no. 47:138-54.
Alpers, Svetlana. 1983. The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century.

Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.


Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Conmmunities: Reflectionis on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, 2nd ed. New York: Verso. Anderson, Perry. 1974. Lineages of the Absolutist State. London: New Left Books.

Andrews,J. H. 1965. "TheIrishSurveysof RobertLythe."ImagoMundi,no. 19:22-3 1.

400

MICHAEL

BIGGS

.1994. "Meaning,KnowledgeandPowerin the MapPhilosophyof J. B. Harley." TrinityPapers in Geography,no. 6. Dublin:TrinityCollege. Anglo, Sydney. 1992. Images of TudorKingship.London:Seaby. Arrowsmith, Aaron. 1798. Map of EuropeDrawnfrom All the Best Surveys,and Rectified by AstronomicalObservations[map,4 sheets]. London:A. Arrowsmith. Barber,Peter.1992. "England Pageantry, I: Defense and Government: Maps at Courtto 1550,""England Monarchs,Ministers,andMaps, 1550-1625," in Monarchs,MinII: isters, and Maps: The Emergenceof Cartography a Toolof Government Early as in ModernEurope(The KennethNebenzahl,Jr,Lecturesin the Historyof Cartography), David Buisseret,ed., 26-56, 57-98. Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. B[eale], R[obert]. 1592 [1925]. "ATreatiseof the Office of a Councellorand Principall Secretarieto Her Ma[jes]tie," in Conyers Read, Mr Secretary Walsingham and the Policy of Queen Elizabeth, I: appendix, 423-43. Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press;Oxford:ClarendonPress. Berlinghieri,Francesco. 1482 [1966]. Geographia,R. A. Skelton, ed. (Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, ser., vol. 4). Amsterdam: 3rd Theatrum OrbisTerrarum. Bindoff, S. T. 1945. "The Stuarts and Their Style." English Historical Review, no. 237:192-216. Black, Jeremy. 1990. TheRise of the EuropeanPowers, 1679-1793. London:Edward Arnold. Blaeu, Joan. 1662 [1991]. Atlas Major, sive, CosmographiaBlauiana. Blaeu's The GrandAtlas of the 17th- CenturyWorld, John Goss, ed. New York:Rizzoli. Blaeu, Willem. 1630 [n.d.]. Europa recens descripta [map]. n.p.: Witney,Wynchwood
editions.

Bloch, Marc. 1940 [1961]. Social Classes and Political Organization,vol. 2 of Feudal Society.Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press Bonne, Rigobert. 1787. Atlas Encyclopedique,vol. 1. Paris:H6tel de Thou. Bowles's UniversalAtlas. n.d. [c. 1794-97]. London:Bowles and Carver. Breuilly, John. 1993. "Sovereigntyand Boundaries:ModernState Formationand Nain tional Identityin Germany," National Histories and EuropeanHistory,MaryFulbrook, ed., 94-140. Boulderand San Francisco:Westview Press. Brown, Lloyd A. 1949. The Storyof Maps. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Brue,A. M. 1821. Cartephysique et politique de l'Europe [map].Paris:J. Goujon. Buisseret, David. 1964. "Les Ing6nieursdu roi de Henri IV."Bulletin de la Section de geographie, no. 77:13-84. and on . 1982. "Comment Session: Cartography Power in the SeventeenthCenAnnualMeetingof the Western tury." Proceedingsof the Tenth Societyfor FrenchHistory, 103-5. Definition of France'sEasternBoundaryin the Ear. 1984. "The Cartographic ly SeventeenthCentury." Imago Mundi,no. 36:72-80. .1992. "Monarchs, Ministers,andMapsin FrancebeforetheAccession of Louis XIV,"in Monarchs,Ministers,and Maps: The Emergenceof Cartographyas a Tool in of Government EarlyModernEurope(The KennethNebenzahl,Jr,Lecturesin the History of Cartography),David Buisseret, ed., 99-123. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Burke,Edward.1790 [1987]. Reflectionson the Revolutionin France, J. G. A. Pocock, ed. Indianapolis: HackettPublishing, 1987. Burke,John. 1978. Life in the Castle in MedievalEngland.London:B. T. Batsford. Clark,George. 1947. The SeventeenthCentury,2nd ed. New York:Oxford University Press. Clayton, Martin. 1996. Leonardo da Vinci:A Singular Vision. New York:Abbeville Press.

PUTTING

THE STATE

ON THE MAP

401

Comite de constitution. 1789. "Rapportsur les bases de la representationproportionelle." Archives Parlementaires de 1787 a 1860, vol. 9:202-6.

Darby,H. C.; andHaroldFullard,eds. 1970.Atlas, vol. 14 of TheNew CambridgeModern History.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.


Delisle, Guillaume. 1724. Carte d'Europe: Dresse'e pour I 'usage du roy [map]. Paris:

chez l'auteur.
Duffy, Christopher. 1985. The Fortress in the Age of Vauban and Frederick the Great,

London:Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1660-1789, vol. 2 of Seige Warfare:.


Edgerton, Samuel Y., Jr. 1975. The Renaissance Rediscovery of Linear Perspective. New

York:Basic Books.
Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. 1979. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe, 2 vols. Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversity Press. Elias, Norbert. 1978. WhatIs Sociology? (EuropeanPerspectives).New York:Columbia UniversityPress. Farr,James. 1989. "Understanding ConceptualChange Politically,"in Political Innovationand ConceptualChange(Ideasin Context),TerenceBall, JamesFarr,andRussell Hanson,eds, 24-49. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Febvre,Lucien. 1925 [1977]. "TheSilhouetteof a Civilization,"in Life in Renaissance France, MarianRothstein,ed. CambridgeMA: Harvard UniversityPress.
1928 [1973]. "Frontiere: The Word and the Concept," in A New Kind of His-

tory and OtherEssays, Peter Burke,ed., 208-18. New York:Harperand Row.


Fordham, Herbert George. 1925. John Cary: Engraver, Map, Chart and Print-Seller and GlobeMaker, 1754 to 1835: A Bibliography with an Introduction and Bibliographi-

cal Notes. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.


Gadol, Joan. 1973. Leon Battista Alberti: Universal Man of the Early Renaissance, 2nd

ed. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Garland,Ken. 1994. Mr Beck's Underground Map. HarrowWeald,Middlesex: Capital Transport. Gombrich,Ernst. 1963. "The Cartonist'sArmory,"in Meditationson a Hobby Horse
and Other Essays on the Theory of Art, 127-42. London: Phaidon Press.

. 1975. "Mirror and Map: Theories of PictorialRepresentation." Philosophical


Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B: Biologicail Sciences, 270:903, 119-49. Habermas, Jurgen. 1962 [1989]. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Hale, JohnR. 1971. RenaissanceEurope,1480-1520 (FontanaHistoryof Europe).London: FontanaPress.


. 1993. The Civilization of Europe in the Renaissance. London: Harper Collins. Hannas, Linda. 1972. The English Jigsaw Puzzle, 1760-1890: With a Descriptive Check-List of Puzzles in the Museums of Great Britain and the Author's Collection.

London:WaylandPublishers. Harley, J. B. 1965. "The Re-Mapping of England, 1750-1800." Imago Mundi, no. 19:56-67.
1988a. "Maps, Knowledge, and Power," in The Iconography of Landscape: Essays on the Symbolic Representation, Design, and Use of Past Environments (Cam-

bridge Studies in HistoricalGeography),Denis Cosgrove and StephanDaniels, eds., 277-312. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. . 1988b. "Silences and Secrecy: The Hidden Agenda of Cartography Early in ModernEurope."hrnago Mundi,no. 40:57-76.
1992. "Reconstructing the Map," in Writing Worlds: Discourse, Text, and Metaphor in the Representation of Landscape, Trevor J. Barnes and James S. Dun-

can, eds., 231-47. New York:Routledge.

402

MICHAEL

BIGGS

Harvey,P. D. A. 1980. TheHistoryof Topographical Maps: Symbols,Pictures,and Surveys. London:Thames and Hudson. 1987. "LocalandRegional Cartography Medieval Europe,"in Cartography in in Prehistoric,Ancient, and Medieval Europeand the Mediterranean,vol. 1 of The History of Cartography, B. Harleyand David Woodward,eds, 464-501. Chicago: J. Universityof Chicago Press. Hay, Denys. 1959. "Geographical Abstractionsand the Historian." Historical Studies: Papers Read Before the ThirdConferenceof Irish Historians, 1-16. . 1968. Europe:TheEmergenceof an Idea, 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Transac. 1975. "England,Scotlandand Europe:The Problemof the Frontier." tions of the Royal Historical Society,5th series, 25:77-91. Helgerson, Richard.1988. "TheLand Speaks:Cartography, Chorography, Subverand sion in Renaissance England,"in Representingthe English Renaissance, Stephen Greenblatt, 93-134. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress. ed., de Hennequin,Ren6. 1911.La formationdu de'partement l Aisne en 1790. Soissons: Societe acad6miquede Laon. Hertslet,Edward.1875. A Map of Europeby TreatyShowing the VariousPolitical and Territorial Changeswhich have Taken Place since the GeneralPeace of 1814, vol. 1. London:Butterworths; Harrison. Hesseln, Robertde. 1780. Nouvelle topographicou descriptiondetaille'ede la France, divise'e carre'suniformes.Paris:de l'Imprimeriede Michel Lambert. par Karrow, RobertW., Jr. 1993. Mapmakers the SixteenthCentury of and TheirMaps: BioBibliographiesof the Cartographers ofAbrahamOrtelius,1570. Chicago:Speculum Orbis Press for the NewberryLibrary. Kemp, Martin. 1978. "Science, Non-Science, and Nonsense: The Interpretation of Brunelleschi'sPerspective." History, 1:2, 134-61. Art Kitchin,Thomas. 1772.A New andAccurateMap of Europe,Divided into Its Kingdoms, States and Republics,&c., Drawn by the Sieur Robertde Vaugondv [map,4 sheets]. London:RobertSayer. Koeman,C. 1970. Joan Blaeu and His GrandAtlas. Amsterdam: TheatrumOrbisTerrarum. Koenigsberger,H. G. 1986. "DominiumRegale or Dominium Politicum et Regale: Monarchiesand Parliamentsin Early ModernEurope,"in Politicians and Virtuosi: Essays in Early ModernHistory, 1-25. London:HambledonPress. in Konvitz,Josef W. 1987. Cartography France, 1660-1848: Science, Engineeringand Statecraft.Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. . 1990. "The Nation-State, Paris, and Cartographyin Eighteenth- and NineFrance."Journal of Historical Geography,16:1, 3-16. teenth-Century in Krogt, Peter van den. 1995. "Commercial Cartography the Netherlandswith Particular Reference to Atlas Production(16th_18th Centuries),"in La Cartografia dels 4rt Paisos Baixos (Cicle de ConferenciessobreHistoriade la Cartografia; curs), 73de 140. Barcelona:InstitutCartografic Catalunya. Levi, Margaret.1988. Of Rule and Revenue.Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress. McEvedy,Colin. 1972. ThePenguinAtlas of ModernHistory (to 1815). London:Penguin Books. . 1992. The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History.London:Penguin Books. Machiavelli,Nicolo. 1531 [1870]. Discourses on the First TenBooksof TitusLivy,Leslie J. Walker,trans.S.J. Harmondsworth: PenguinBooks. Mann,Michael. 1980. "Stateand Society, 1130-1815: An Analysis of English StateFinances."Political Power and Social Theory,1:165-208.

PUTTING

THE STATE

ON THE MAP

403

. 1984. "TheAutonomousPower of the State:Its Origins,Mechanisms,and Results,"in States in History,JohnA. Hall, ed., 109-36. Oxford:Basil Blackwell. Margadant, Ted W. 1992. Urban Rivalries in the French Revolution.Princeton,N.J.: PrincetonUniversity Press. Marino,John. 1992. "Administrative Mappingin the ItalianStates,"in Monarchs,Minin isters, and Maps: The Emergenceof Cartographyas a Toolof Government Early ModernEurope(The KennethNebenzahl,Jr,Lecturesin the Historyof Cartography), David Buisseret, ed., 5-25. Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. Mattingly,Garrett.1955. RenaissanceDiplomacy.Boston: HoughtonMifflin Company. Mercator,Gerard.1554 [1891]. Beneuol lectori: Europamdescripturi[map, 15 sheets]. Drei karten von GerhardMercator: Europa-Britische inseln-Weltharte. Berlin: W. H. Kuhl. . 1595 [n.d.]. Atlantis pars altera: Geographia nova totius mundi. (Cultureet Civilisation.)Brussels: n.p. Monmonier, MarkS. 1996. How to Lie withMaps, 2nd ed. Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. Morgan,Victor. 1979. "TheCartographic Image of 'The Country'in EarlyModernEurope." Transactionsof the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 29:129-54. Mukerji,Chandra.1983. From GravenImages: Patterns of ModernMaterialism.New York:ColumbiaUniversity Press. Mumford, Lewis. 1961. The City in History: Its Origins, Transformations,and Prospects. New York:Harcourt, Brace, andWorld. Ortelius,Abraham. 1570 [1964]. TheatrumOrbis Terrarum. R. A. Skelton (TheEd. atrumOrbisTerrarum, ser., vol. 3). Amsterdam: Israel. 1st N. . 1584. Theatrum Orbis Terrarum. Antwerp. Marie-Vic.1986. "De l'universalismeconstituentaux inter&ts Ozouf-Marignier, locaux: le debat sur la formationdes departements France(1789-1790)." Annales, 41:6 en (Strategiesspatiales), 1193-213. . 1989. Laformation des de'partements: repre'sentation territoire la du francais a lafin du I8e siecle (Recherchesd'historireet de sciences sociales; 36). Paris:Editions de l'Ecole des hautesetudes en sciences sociales. Parker,Geoffrey. 1992. "Mapsand Ministers:The Spanish Habsburgs," Monarchs, in Ministers,and Maps: TheEmergenceof Cartography a Toolof Government Earas in ly ModernEurope(The KennethNebenzahl,Jr,Lecturesin the History of Cartography), David Buisseret,ed., 124-52. Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. Pomeroy,ElizabethW. 1989. Readingthe Portraitsof QueenElizabethI. Hamden,CN: ArchonBooks. Pounds,N. J. G. 1990. TheMedieval Castle in Englandand Wales:A Social and Political History.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Ptolemy, Claudius. 2nd century [1991]. The Geography,Edward Luther Stevenson, trans.New York:Dover Publications. . 1477 [1963]. Cosmographia,R. A. Skelton,ed. (Theatrum OrbisTerrarum, st I ser., vol. 1). Amsterdam: Israel,MeridianPublishing. N. Rabaudde Saint-Etienne,Jean Paul. 1789. Reflexionssur la nouvelle division du royoume et sur les privileges et les assemble'esdes provinces d'Etats. Archives Parlementairesde 1787 a 1860, 9:666-70. Ravenhill, William. 1983. "Christopher Saxton's Surveying:An Enigma,"in English Map-Making,1500-1650: Historical Essays, SarahTyacke, ed., 112-19. London: The British Library. Robert de Vaugondy,Gilles; and Didier Robert de Vaugondy. 1757. Atlas Universel. Paris:n.p.

404

MICHAEL

BIGGS

Sahlins, Peter. 1989. Boundaries: The Making of France and Spain in the Pyrenees. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress. FrontiersRevisited:France'sBoundariessince the Seventeenth . 1990. "Natural Century." AmericanHistorical Review,95:5, 1423-5 1. Sanson, Nicolas. 1665 [1988]. Cartes generales de toutes les parties du monde.Atlas ed. du monde, 1665, Mireille Pastoureau, Paris:Sand et Conti. Sanson, Guillaume.1683. L'Europe:Reveueet change'een plusieurs endroits-suivant bound Map Library, les memoiresle plus recents[map].Paris:chez l'auteur.Harvard in Atlas de 100 Cartes, 1641-1686. Saxton, Christopher.1579 [1992]. Anglia hominunumero. ChristopherSaxton's 16th CenturyMaps: The Countiesof Englandand Wales,WilliamRavenhill,ed. ShrewsLibrary. bury:Chatsworth 1583 [1974] Saxtons Surveyof England and Wales[map, 20 sheets]: Witha no. of Facsimile of Saxton'sWall-Map 1583 (ImagoMundi,supplement 6), R. A. SkelNico Israel, 1974. ton, ed. Amsterdam: Seymour,W.A. et al. 1980. A Historyof the OrdnanceSurvey.Folkestone:Dawson. de [Sieyes, EmmanuelJoseph]. 1789. Observationssur le rapportdu Comite' constitua tion concernantla nouvelle organisationde la France: par un depute' I 'Assemble rationale. Versailles:chez Baudouin. Skinner,Quentin. 1989. "The State,"in Political Innovationand ConceptualChange (Ideasin Context),TerenceBall, JamesFarr,andRussell Hanson,eds., 90-131. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. and and Solon, Paul. 1982. "Frontiers Boundaries:FrenchCartography the Limitation AnFrance."Proceedingsof the Tenth of BourbonAmbitionin Seventeenth-Century Societyfor FrenchHistory,94-102. nual Meeting of the Western Sully, Maximilien de Bethune, duc de. 1638 [1970]. 1572-1594, vol. 1 of Les Oeconomies royales de Sully, David Buisseret and BernardBarbiche, eds. Paris: LibrairieC. Klincksieck. ThongchaiWinichakul.1994. Siam Mapped:A History of the Geo-Body of a Nation. Honolulu:Universityof Hawaii Press. 1789. "Speechof November9." ArchivesParlementaires Thouret,Jacques-Guillaume. de 1787 a 1860, 9:723ff. Tilly, Charles. 1992. Coercion,Capital,and EuropeanStates,AD 990-1992 (Studies in Social Discontinuity),2nd ed. Cambridge,MA: Blackwell. and Tocqueville,Alexis de. 1856 [1955]. The Old Re'gimne the French Revolution,StuartGilbert,trans.New York:AnchorBooks. in Vann,James. 1992. "Mappingunderthe AustrianHabsburgs," Monarchs,Ministers, in and Maps: The Emergenceof Cartographyas a Toolof Government Earlv ModerniEurope (The KennethNebenzahl, Jr., Lectures in the History of Cartography), David Buisseret,ed., 153-67. Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. Vauban,SebastienLe Prestrede. 1696 [1933]. Descriptiongeographiquede I'lection de Vezelay,in Projet d'une Dixme Royale suivi de deux ecrits financiers, 274-95. Paris:LibrairieFelix Alcan. in in Vries, Dirk de. 1995. "OfficialCartography the Netherlands," La Cartografiadels 4rt Paisos Baixos (Cicle de ConferenciessobreHist6riade la Cartografia; curs), 17de 69. Barcelona:InstitutCartografic Catalunya. Martin.1520 [1971]. CartaitinerariaEuropae[map,4 sheets plus borWaldseemuiller, der strips].Bonn: Kirschbaum Verlag. Weber,Max. 1904. "'Objectivity'in Social Science and Social Policy,"in TheMethodology of the Social Sciences, EdwardA. Shils andHenryA. Finch,eds., 49 -110. New York:Free Press.

PUTTING

THE STATE

ON THE MAP

405

. 1922. Economy and Society: An Outline of InterpretiveSociology, Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich,eds. Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress. Wood, Denis; with John Fels. 1992. The Power of Maps. New York:GuildfordPress. Woodward,David. 1985. "Reality,Symbolism, Time, and Space in Medieval World Maps."Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers,75:4, 510-21.