The Ordnance Survey of Great Britain as it exists to-day is a remarkable Publishing Bureau, from whose presses are given the most elaborate and accurate series of maps which any country possesses.
Maps not alone confined to the representation of the physical features of the country, but containing every detail of interest or value for civil or military purposes.
It has justly gained the commendation of the French that it is "a work without precedent, and should be taken as a model by all civilized nations."
The principal scales of publication adopted by the Ordnance Survey are: (1) A general map on the scale of one mile to one inch. (2) County plans on the scale of six inches to one mile. (3) Cadastral or Parish plans for the whole country on the scale of1/2500or about 251/3inches to one mile, on which one square inch on the plan represents an area of one acre. (4) For towns of over 4000 inhabitants a scale of1/500of actual length on the ground or 1056/100feet to one mile.
On the latter scale the city of London with its environs could not be well shown on a sheet of paper less than 300 feet long by 200 wide.
When the facts are taken into consideration, that the Ordnance Survey is a cadastral one, in other words, that one of its many objects is the measurement and definition of all existing boundaries, political, municipal, parochial or private, and a survey and valuation of property for assessments, that its maps are accepted in courts of law as authoritative on such questions, then the problem of the scales of publication is the most important one to be considered.
As an illustration of the relation of the scale of a map to the amount of detail, which can well be represented on it without confusion, assume for a moment that an observer is stationed in a balloon, which can be raised or lowered or placed at any desired height above the ground, and in addition that he is provided with a horizontal screen on which he is able to trace the details of the landscape below. The eye of the observer well represents the lens of a camera, and the screen the focussing plate. Therefore to produce a perfect image or map of the ground below it will be necessary to assume that all parts are stationary, balloon, plate and eye. For convenience assume that the eye remains over the centre of the screen at a distance of two feet. At a height of four miles above the ground the scale of the image on the screen would be exactly six inches to one mile, or a reproduction of the popular county map, on which every detail of importance such as houses, roads, paths, and fences is shown, and the smallest scale on which any attempt is made to preserve the relative proportions of such details.
On such a scale the1/100thpart of an inch represents a distance of very nearly nine feet on the ground and consequently however accurate the map might be in its projection, as an image showing the relative positions of all objects of importance on the ground, the scale is clearly too small for the measurement of areas for valuation purposes, and it is but a reproduction of the larger cadastral map.
Again assume that the balloon is stationed at a height of twenty-four miles above the ground, and that the observer places his eye at the same distance of two feet above the screen and attempts to construct a map from the image on the screen, which is now reproduced at a scale of one mile to one inch, or the exact scale of the general map. It needs but little imagination to foretell that houses would be mere specks, roads, faint lines, and forests, masses of color, in other words, that it would be more instructive to consult the general map, on which all details are magnified to be clearly visible and topographic features brought out with great distinctness than to attempt to trace with unaided eye, from the image of objects at a distance of twenty-four miles, the course of streams or roads through forest or moor, or to judge of the relative elevations or modeling of the ground from the values of light and shade. Without an intimate local knowledge of the county there would be nothing to indicate the name or boundaries of villages, or estates or the political and other subdivisions of the land, which are most clearly indicated on the map, in unmistakable styles of lettering.
Another and more serious problem which would be lessened as the balloon receded from the earth would be the distortion in perspective produced by the irregularities of the surface. The higher points being nearer the balloon would appear in the image on larger scale than the lower, and only in the case of a perfectly level country, would it be possible to produce a map without distortion by the method proposed, and then only for a limited area.
As the balloon receded, the relative differences of elevation would bear a smaller and smaller proportion or ratio to the distance, in other words, the distortion would grow less until at an infinite distance it might be neglected.
We might conceive that the observer was stationed at an infinitely great distance, and provided with a series of magnifying lenses of suitable powers to produce maps of any desired scale, yet, beyond a limited area, he would still be confronted with the problem of eliminating the distortion produced by the curvature of the earth.
Such is the conception of an accurate map which is an attempt to produce on a plain surface or sheet of paper, a horizontal projection of objects on the ground, which will show the relative positions of every detail on any desired scale with as little distortion as possible, and on which distances may be measured in any direction, and areas computed with a degree of accuracy only limited by the scale.
When a survey of a small area is made, such as an estate or parish, which bears but a small proportion in area to the surface of the earth, curvature is neglected, distortion due to this cause being imperceptible, but in the survey of a large country it is of primary importance.
Returning to the conception of an observer stationed at an infinite distance his position with reference to the new general one-inch map of England and Wales would be in the plane of a meridian passing through Delamere in Cheshire, and the published quarter sheets would be a series of rectangles each 18 miles by 12 miles, containing an area of 216 square miles whose edges were parallel to, and at right angles to the central meridian.
Those of Scotland and Ireland have for each country a central meridian and projection.
In viewing the county maps of six inches to one mile and larger scales, it would be necessary to assume that the observer was stationed over the center of each county except that, where two or three counties lie so well north and south of one another, the same meridian serves for more than one.
In the reproduction by photography of the maps on the scale of one mile to one inch from those of larger scale, these facts, that different planes of projection are used for the latter, have to be taken into consideration.
In countries of larger areas than England it is more customary to assume a central meridian for each sheet, in other words, the observer would be stationed in the zenith of the center of each sheet and would sketch but a limited area. The successive planes of projection, represented by the maps, would resemble the facets of a diamond, and it would be impossible to combine with any degree of precision a large number together in one plane surface. On the other hand, the whole of the one-inch series of England and Wales of Scotland or Ireland register perfectly, and the distortion due to curvature cannot be great, as the combined area of the three countries bears but a small ratio to the whole surface of the globe.
Attention has been called to the fact that viewed from a balloon in ordinary sunlight the minor features of topography become flattened and indistinct.
If, therefore, we regard a sheet of the one-inch map held at a distance of two feet from the eye as the picture of a country seen at the distance of twenty-four miles, we see that details, that would be invisible from above, are brought out with great distinctness on the map and every detail of topography is shown in bold relief. In other words the map is a diagram rather than a picture.
In the representation of relief on the one inch series, two systems are common, contours and hachures. Contours represent the successive shore lines which water at rest would form in following the modelling of the ground at successive stages or elevations. If now we assume that the water, having reached the highest point, is allowed to retreat steadily to sea level the paths which the particles of water would take from all points of the surface are those which the engraver would endeavor to reproduce in the shade lines of a hachured map. In addition he would adopt an arbitrary scale of shade increasing with the steepness of the slopes, from white on a horizontal surface to dead black on slopes of forty-five degrees, or greater, to produce the effect of a model of the surface illuminated from above.
In the Irish maps this effect is bolder and more artistic, an illumination from the northeast quarter having been carried out. The shade lines still preserve the paths of particles of water in motion on the surface, the color values being deeper on the eastern and southern slopes, shadows have even been projected across valleys and horizontal surfaces are in half tone, producing much the same effect as the illumination of the country at sunset in midsummer.
The Irish maps exhibited are considered the finest specimens of careful hill shading and will bear critical examination. For comparison with these, other topographic maps are exhibited of many scales and countries.
So far attention has simply been drawn to a few of the problems of map-making, which are, briefly:
1st. The reproduction on a finite scale on a plain surface, of the natural features of the terrain, with all the artificial boundaries and objects added by man, so far as the scale permits.
2d. The extension of such a series of maps to cover a large area of country still carried out with as little distortion as possible.
3d. The reproduction of such maps on suitable scales to meet all demands.
If the conception is still carried out that the map, at a distance of two feet, is but the image of the ground viewed from above, then the cadastral map of England, from which areas of fields and estates are measured for valuation purposes, would represent a view of the country from above at a range of 5,000 feet or nearly one mile, and a town plan, an image at 1,000 feet or a possible view from a series of Eiffel towers.
This suggestion of an observer stationed in a balloon will not have been valueless if it draws attention to the fact that vastly more information is given on the map than it would be possible for any single observer to discover from an elevated station with an unobstructed view, the map being the compilation of the results of hundreds of observations by many workers, and that its scale and the amount and character of the detail shown have been specially designed to meet definite ends.
It is beyond the limits of the paper to enter into the theory or practice of surveying, or to say more than a few words of the delicate and refined operations necessary in carrying out the geodetic or trigonometrical work of a national survey which binds together the many parts to make a complete whole.
The principal triangulation of the British Isles was begun in 1784 and finished in 1852. Two magnificent 3-feet theodolites made by Ramsden, one for the Royal Society, the other for the Master General of the Ordnance, an 18-inch theodolite also by Ramsden, and 2-feet theodolite by Troughton and Simms were used in these observations.
In the principal triangulation of Great Britain and Ireland there are 218 stations, at 16 of which there are no observations, the number of observed bearings is 1554—and the number of equations of condition, 920.
In order to avoid the solution of this enormous number of equations, containing 920 unknown quantities, the network covering the kingdom was divided into a number of blocks, each presenting a not unmanageable number of equations of condition. These calculations, all in duplicate, were completed in two years and a half, an average of eight computers being employed. Many of the sides of the principal or primary triangulation are of great length, 66 of them exceeding 80 miles, while 11 measure more than 100 miles, the longest being 111 miles, that from Sea Fell to Sheir Donard. So great, however, had been the accuracy of the observers' work, that the average amount of correction of the observed angles was no more than 0".6, and the measured length of the Salisbury base differed from its length as computed from the Irish Base, 350 miles distant, by a difference of only five inches.
The secondary triangulation interpolates points at shorter distances apart ranging down to five miles, the observations being made with theodolites of 12-inch circle. These triangles again are broken up into smaller ones of sides from one to two miles in length, for the use of the surveyor who is to follow and measure between the stations with the chain; and a further subdivision of the trigonal spaces is made in towns to points about 10 chains apart, where the survey is to be made on the very large special scale. In the two last cases, 7 inch instruments suffice for the measurement of the angles.
LEVELLING.
LEVELLING.
From 1839 to 1855, lines of initial levelling extending all over England, Scotland and Ireland were run, and the observed altitudes of the bench marks were reduced by the method of least squares.
In England and Scotland, these levels are based on the Ordnance Datum at Liverpool, which is approximately the mean tide level of that place; in Ireland, they are based on the low water level at Dublin, which is about 8 feet below the mean level round the coast of Ireland.
The detail levelling is carried out contemporaneously with the progress of the cadastral survey. Starting from the marks on the initial series, lines are run along nearly all the turnpikes and parish roads, and bench marks cut at intervals of about a quarter of a mile.
The whole of the bench marks of the initial levelling are shown in position on the 25-inch manuscript plans, and their heights given to the nearest tenth of a foot. Surface heights, to the nearest foot are also marked on the plans, at frequent intervals between the bench marks.
CONTOURING.
CONTOURING.
Contrary to the custom in other countries, the contours of the English survey have all been surveyed and levelled on the ground, checked by the numerous bench marks, the standard of accuracy demanded in levelling being two-tenths of a foot.
Owing to the expense of the process, about $1.25 per lineal mile, only the 100 foot contours have been surveyed, except where greater detail is required for military purposes, which information is not furnished to the public.
HILLSHADING.
HILLSHADING.
The hill features for the one inch maps are first sketched in the field by the military method of slopes and sketch contours or proof impressions of the contoured sheet.
Finished drawings from the field sketches are then made on cardboard impressions from the one inch outline plates, and finished as guides for the engraver to work by.
Beautiful and delicate in finish as is all the work of the copperplate engravers on the Ordnance Survey, there is perhaps no branch in which they so peculiarly excel as in their delineation of hills on the one inch maps.
It is impossible in the limits of a single paper to attempt to describe the methods and processes of publication which are carried at the headquarters of the Ordnance Survey at Southampton.
Carefully prepared treatises on the subject have been written by officers engaged in the work, and for clear and concise description none are better than the series of articles by Captain H. Sankey, R. E., published inEngineering, in 1888.
There are two points of great interest in connection with the Ordnance Survey which cannot be neglected. The one its military organization, and the other the economy of its methods of publication.
Of its military organization, which has continued since the first surveys were made for military purposes, it may be said that the conservative precision of its methods of field work are best adapted for military control and discipline. Under the successive superintendence of highly educated officers of the Royal Engineer Corps, whose patriotic efforts have been to secure efficiency and economy in the service, the country has greatly profited.
Many of the improvements and inventions that have made possible the publication of maps of all scales at the lowest possible cost, are the results of experiments made by these officers.
It should not be forgotten in addition that as a branch of the War Office and the Publishing Department of the Intelligence Branch, military supervision is essential. Its offices are therefore not open for public inspection except on proper introduction.
The author had the rare privilege of spending three months at the Southampton office in 1888, through the introduction of the director of the Geological Survey, and the request of our recent minister in London, Mr. Phelps.
Nothing could have exceeded the courtesy and hospitality of the director of the survey, Sir Charles W. Wilson, and the officers in charge of the various departments, not alone in granting the necessary authority to inspect every branch of the work, but in lending personal aid and men for that purpose.
Great interest was also expressed in the topographic surveys of this country which differ so essentially from the Ordnance Survey. In the former, field work and methods are directly adapted to the scale of publication; in the latter, the largest scale of publication governs the operations of the survey, and the smaller scales are reduced by photography, with a gradual elimination of unnecessary details from the larger to the smaller scales until finally the topographic map of the country, on the scale of one mile to one inch is produced, which possesses an accuracy and character that could be obtained by no other method.
To illustrate this important subject there are exhibited a series of experimental and complete maps and diagrams which will well repay careful examination. They were prepared and collected at the Ordnance Survey at Southampton expressly for this purpose and with the kind permission of the present director, Colonel Sir Charles W. Wilson, R. E., C. B.
The author desires to state that many of the paragraphs of the paper, particularly those relating to the history of the Ordnance Survey, have been extracted from the following works and reports on the subject:
1. The Ordnance Survey of the United Kingdom, by Lieut.-Col. P. Pinkerton White, R. E.
2. The Ordnance Survey of the Kingdom, by Capt. H. S. Palmer, R. E.
3. Methods and processes adopted for the production of the maps of the Ordnance Survey, by Lieut.-Genl. Sir Henry James, R. E., F. R. S.
4. Reports of Col. Colby and others in the Blue Books presented to Parliament—1850–1860.
REMARKS BYHERBERTG. OGDEN, GUSTAVEHERRLE, MARCUSBAKER,ANDA. H. THOMPSON.
REMARKS BYHERBERTG. OGDEN, GUSTAVEHERRLE, MARCUSBAKER,ANDA. H. THOMPSON.
MR. OGDEN: It was expected that Professor Mendenhall would be with us this evening to address the society on the subject of Geographic Nomenclature but he is unavoidably absent, having been called to Philadelphia, and has requested me to represent him, and present to you an apology for his absence.
Professor Mendenhall has been greatly interested in this question since he assumed charge of the Coast and Geodetic Survey. Questions of orthography and nomenclature have been before him almost constantly, and the variety of views elicited in response to his inquiries confirmed him in the opinion that the subject is of serious import. He has had, of necessity, to decide a great many cases for publications which were being made: finally a long list relating to Alaska came from the Hydrographic office, which led to a discussion and the suggestion that a board should be formed consisting of representatives from the different departments and bureaus in Washington that were interested in this matter, and that were issuing maps, charts and other publications requiring geographic names. It is too true that the different bureaus are now using the same names spelled in different ways, sometimes different names for the same place, and the same name for different places; indeed, the confusion is so great you may even read publications relating to the same locality and at first not realize the fact.
The object that Professor Mendenhall had in view in organizing a board was to secure harmony; that all might come together; and that when a question arose between different bureaus it might be referred to this board to settle, with the concurrence of all. Such a board would also secure stability, as no bureau would undertake to make changes in names that have been accepted, as may now be the case when a bureau falls under new management, or the determination of the questions is referred to new officers without experience. This board, as proposed, was to be formed by representatives from the Hydrographic Office, Smithsonian Institution, War Department, Geological Survey, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Light-house Board, The National Geographic Society, Post Office Department, and the General Land Office. All these bureaus or departments gave their assent except the Post Office Department and the General Land Office; but we may hope that these departments will eventually be represented, when the practical usefulness of the board has been demonstrated by its decisions.
There are three, perhaps four classes of cases that cause the most trouble in geographic names. In the first class, those cases where we are certain of the name itself—that is, we agree in the pronunciation, but disagree in the orthography; in the second class, where there is no question as to the orthography, but where there is a question as to what name should be used—that is, several names are given to the same point, to the same body of water, or to the same island; in the third class, where there is no question as to the name or the orthography, but a question as to the place to which the name applies—that is, there is no dispute as to the name, but it is applied to different places; this class is sometimes modified by questions as to the geographical limits to which a name applies—that is to say, the area to be indicated by the name; for instance, some body of water or a range of mountains, and may be designated a fourth class.
To cite a few instances of these classes: we have the question of Wood's "Hole" and Wood's "Holl;" for many years it was called Wood's Hole, recently it would seem to be the conclusion that it should be called Wood's Holl; we formerly had "Hurl" Gate, and now "Hell" Gate; "Princess" Bay was at one time spelled "Prince's" Bay, the error arising, doubtless, from the pronunciation; we also have "Body's" Island or "Bodies" Island; we have a peculiar case on the North Carolina coast, "Pamplico" Sound has generally been used, now we have "Pamlico" Sound, legalized by the State legislature; on the coast of Virginia we have the case of "Metomkin," which has frequently been written "Metompkin" and "Matomkin;" in California we have Point Conception, whether it should be spelled with the "c," or with the "t," in the last syllable; we also have "Point Boneta" or "Bonita;" should Yaquina be spelled with one "n" or two ("nn"); Coos Bay, with "k" or "c." This name, I understand, is sometimes pronounced "Co-os," as though it had two syllables; if the spelling of this name was governed by the rules of the Royal Geographical Society the "K" would be used for the hard "C," but "Coos" has been adopted by the State legislature and will probably be retained. One of the most singular perversions is found in "Bering Sea;" the explorer wrote his name "Bering," and yet we find it is customary, almost everywhere, to spell it "Behring."
In the second class of cases, where we have different names for the same place, we may cite Bangs Island, at the entrance to Portland harbor; an effort was made not long ago to change this name on the Coast Survey charts to Cushing's Island, the evidence was so strong that an order was issued to effect the change, when the supporters of "Bangs" produced additional evidence and secured the retention of that name. On the coast of Florida we had two Saint Joseph's Bays, and a comparatively modern name, "Anclote Anchorage," was presented to take the place of a part of one of them, which led to designating the rest of the bay "Saint Joseph's Sound," Sound being more appropriate for the locality. We have also some notable instances on the Pacific coast, as "Cape Orford" or "Blanco;" "Cape Gregory" or "Arago;" "South Farallon" or "Southeast Farallon;" and in Alaska there are instances too numerous to mention.
In the third class of cases, the locality to which the name applies, we may cite "Isle-au-Haut" Bay and "East Penobscot" Bay, on the coast of Maine; "Hempstead" Bay, on the coast of Long Island, a bay which is almost filled with small islands, rendering it most difficult to satisfactorily define the limits; "Chincoteague" Bay, on the Jersey coast, is an instance of growth; it was at one time called "Assateague," and although "Assateague" was retained for many years as applicable to the upper part of the bay, it has finally been restricted to a very small cove in Assateague Island. On the Pacific coast there are a great many instances, possibly one of the most difficult relates to the limits of Admiralty Inlet, how far it extends into Puget sound? Again, to the northward, is what for years has been called "Washington" Sound, an effort is being made to change it to "Possession" Sound, the latter name, I believe, was once applied to a portion of the area; perhaps we shall eventually see both names on the chart. The difficulty of defining the limits to which a name applies may be experienced in dealing with "Hampton Roads," or "Tybee Roads;" apparently simple problems, but who will undertake to define the exact limits of these famous roadsteads?
These questions, even when stated in their simplest form, are oftentimes very complex, for several of the general classes I have referred to may be included in one question, and when we attempt to determine that which is best they become very perplexing. In seeking advice we are met with a variety of views; some will maintain that we should take the nick-names given by the fishermen; some prefer names that have been recognized independent of nick-names; some will abhor corruptions, while others prefer the corruptions, if expressive and in general use. The experts are very prone to hunting up the root, or, if necessary, to constructing one, and throwing out everything that will not conform with it. The fact that our country was settled by French, Spanish, and English, and that many names are derived from the Indian dialects, also causes peculiar difficulties in treating some sections. The rules of the Royal Geographical Society can be a great help, so far as they are applicable; they seem to have been used in the modern spelling of "Dakota"—for the man-of-war we had of this name some years ago, it was spelled "Dacotah," but in the name of the States recently admitted to the Union, "k" has been substituted for the hard "c" and the final "h" has been dropped. There is also great disagreement as to the propriety of the use of the possessive case; some will not admit it at all, others would like to drop the apostrophe and retain the "s" in certain cases for euphony: this is a question that requires special consideration in each case, as the omission of the possessive will sometime give the name a descriptive meaning not at all applicable to the locality or feature. The propriety of personal names is also questioned by many, and may lead to continued discussion in Alaskan nomenclature, where explorers and surveyors have been so liberal in bestowing new names on the same places. It would seem to be a good rule in selecting a new name to follow the old Indian custom of describing the place. An opportunity for an expressive nomenclature seems to have been lost in the north-west in transferring so many of our eastern names, instead of selecting new names from the rich native vocabularies.
As different bureaus may be governed by different principles, and may not even be consistent in their own rulings, through new principles that may come in by the frequent change of personnel, it has heretofore been impracticable to secure uniformity, and disputed questions have been carried along for years. The board that has been organized is in the direction of developing uniformity in the practice of all. It is no easy task, but if guided by a generous spirit, willing to yield a little here and there, its object may be successfully accomplished.
We cannot foresee to what extent the board will be called upon. It has not power to take the initiative; but we hope its rulings will prove acceptable; that it may establish a reputation that will be recognized by the people as well as by the departments interested in its organization; and that eventually rules may be recommended for the nomenclature of our own country that may be an acceptable guide in the determination of new names, as well as in the interpretation of those now in question.
MR. HERRLE: Any one conversant with the state of geographic nomenclature of a large part of the world cannot fail to appreciate the difficulties in the way of the establishment of a comprehensive and uniform system of writing geographic names, that would be acceptable to all nations using the Roman alphabet in their literature. But while some advance towards international uniformity has been made within the last five years, we are still very far from it; we may, however, at least rejoice in the prospect of the general acceptance of a uniform system in geographic orthography by all writing the English language.
I refer to the action of the British Hydrographic Office and of the Royal Geographical Society in 1885, when they adopted certainmainprinciples to guide the orthography of geographic names, and thereby took an important and far-reaching step in the line of a reform which had already been too long delayed.
In France a reform in geographic nomenclature had been earnestly agitated by Édouard de Luze since 1880, and soon after the publication of the system adopted by the Royal Geographical Society, the Société de Géographie appointed a commission which, in 1886, reported a system for the guidance of French geographers.
In Germany, we also find individual attempts made (Egli, Kirchhoff, Ewald and others) to bring system into the orthography and pronunciation of geographic names, primarily with a view to secure uniformity in text books and in the teaching of geography in schools.
No doubt influenced by the action of the British and French geographic societies the Imperial German Hydrographic office in 1888 also established rules for guidance in its future publications.
We thus see three of the principal nations of Europe inaugurate a reform, the beneficial effects of which will not, however, become apparent until a sufficient time has elapsed, that is, until the British, French and Germans have had time to apply the rules in their publications, and particularly in the construction of new and in the correction of old charts. No reform of this nature can be carried through by the stroke of a pen, but a generation's life-time will be required to accomplish it.
The adopted rules which lay down a general phonetic principle only require, of course, perfection in details, so as to furnish an unerring guide in the treatment of names belonging to special languages.
If we compare the British, French and German systems, we can clearly see a gravitation towards uniformity in the spelling of foreign geographic names that are not originally written in the Roman alphabet. Each of the three systems contains important concessions to the others; the British, by adopting the continental vowel system, and the French and German, by representing certain phonetic values differently from the old way, so as to approach the British system. In the French system, this is particularly the case in regard to the lettersou,c,ch,g,q,th,tch,wandy, and in the German system in regard to the lettersc,j,q,ch,shandy.
There is very little doubt that English and French geographers will readily adopt the systems set up by their foremost geographic societies; but whether scientific Germany will be willing to follow in the wake of its Hydrographic Office, we will probably learn after the next meeting of the German Geographic Congress.
If we compare the British, French and German systems further, we find also a perfect agreement in the treatment of the geographic names of those nations that use the Roman alphabet in their literature, they differing only as to exceptions from the rules of old forms of names, which, through long usage, are held almost sacred. The spirit of conservatism tends to retard every reform, and this one makes no exception from the rule. It is, however, to be regretted that neither the British, nor the French, nor the Germans have set any fixed limit to permissible exceptions, leaving, apparently, everybody to decide for himself what is meant by "long usage."
If a radical departure from past usage is perhaps too objectionable to many, this much could be done at present to greatly reduce the list of exceptions, leaving it to the future to smooth over the remaining cases: let all names which are now written but slightly different from their national form and which are easily recognized in the latter form, be corrected, and extirpate all gross corruptions. Also lessen the number of exceptions in those foreign names which are readily understood when written in accordance with the adopted phonetic rules: as Kalkutta for Calcutta, Mekka for Mecca, Kutch for Cutch, Selebes for Celebes, Bonni for Bonny, etc.
Another notable agreement in the British, French and German Hydrographic Office systems is found in their declarations in regard to diacritical marks in the writing of foreign geographic names. The British say that a system which would attempt to represent the more delicate inflections of sound and accent would become so complicated as to defeat itself. They therefore recommend only the use of the acute accent to denote the syllable on which stress should be laid. The German Hydrographic Office has adopted the same view. The French Commission in its deliberations expressed decided opposition to the adoption of Lepsius' or any similar system, and finally adopted besides the "tilde" and "créma," only the accent "circonflex" and the "apostrophe," signs of which the two last are ordinarily employed in the writing of the French language. "In our country," the French commission says, "a native of the Normandy and one of the Provence do not employ exactly the same sounds in pronouncing, for instance, Marseille, Enghien, or Montrichard, and, in foreign lands, we find still greater diversity in this respect." Therefore, we should use diacritical marks with the greatest economy, and only when they are indispensable.
It is of course not to be expected that a certain school of geographers, who are in favor of the strict application to geographic names of a simplified form of Lepsius' standard alphabet, will acquiesce in this view, but it is to be hoped that all practical minded geographers will agree to reserve the extended use of diacritical alphabets for purely linguistic literature only.
In the meanwhile, the United States has not been idle, and the Hydrographer, Captain Henry F. Picking, U. S. N., has taken the initiative by the appointment of a board to consider and report a system of orthography for foreign geographic names for guidance in the compilation of the Hydrographic Office charts, sailing directions and notices to mariners, which as we know cover all parts of the world.
The Hydrographic Office, by its daily experience with the subject matter, is thus peculiarly fitted to inaugurate a reform, and it is hoped that the board, profiting by what the British, French and Germans have already done, will report rules, that may become generally satisfactory to American geographers.
In our own country the territory of Alaska needs special attention in regard to settling the orthography of its geographic names of Russian origin. Russian names have always been more or less of a bugbear in geographic literature, since so great a number of them appear in different forms. The difficulties of transcribing Russian names so as to reproduce the correct pronunciation are well enough understood. In the first place the Russian alphabet contains 36 letters, of which 12 are vowels and diphthongs, 3 are semi-vowels, and the balance, consonants. In this alphabet, there are 12 elements which have no exact equivalents in the English alphabet, and, on the other hand, there are 4 English sounds (j,w,xandh) not represented in the Russian alphabet. Hence, whatever system is employed, we can only hope to give the pronunciation approximately. Many of the Russian names found to-day in English and American maps and publications show, by the way in which they are rendered, an utter absence of knowledge of the grammatical construction of Russian on the part of those who originally transcribed them. There are few other languages in which case and gender play such an important part in the terminal inflections of proper names as in this great Slavonic idiom. Any one not conversant with the Russian declensions should not, therefore, attempt to transcribe Russian geographic names into English, as he will be sure to blunder. On Russian maps, for instance; Behring Strait reads, "Beringov Proliv;" Behring Sea, "Beringovo More;" Kamchatka Bay, "Zaliv Kamchatkii;" Herald Island, "Ostrova Gheralda;" etc.
By the by, I cannot exactly understand why the spelling of the name ofBehringshould, within the last few years, have been changed on American and English maps toBering. The navigator of this name,Veit Behring, was a native of Germany, in the service of Russia, and it is safe to say that his name contained the letterh. Naturally, in transcribing his name into Russian, thehhad to drop out, as that letter is missing in the Russian alphabet.
The excellent system of transcribing Russian names into English, published in a recent number ofNature1having already been accepted by English and American representatives of various scientific institutions, it is greatly to be desired that English and American geographic societies should express their views of it at an early day. The system is easily brought in harmony with the general principles adopted by the Royal Geographical Society, by a simple declaration in regard to the diacritical marks by which, mainly for the purpose of facilitating correct re-transliteration of Russian names, the vowelsi,i[with macron],i[with breve],eandéand the silent semi-vowels are sought to be distinguished in the written names. For the benefit of those unacquainted with the system of transliterating Russian, published inNature, it is reprinted at the close of this paper.
1February 27, 1890.
A few words more in regard to the treatment of the Russian geographic names found in Alaska. This territory will in the course of time contain a large English-speaking population, and its geographic names of Russian and Eskimo origin should, in a certain sense, no longer be classed by us under the category of foreign names.
The future official orthography of Alaska might, therefore, be treated liberally, that is to say, complicated spelling following from a strict transliteration might be simplified to a certain extent, as has been done with the spelling of many aboriginal Indian names.
Of the geographic nomenclature of Asiatic countries none has become so rapidly well known as that of the Japan Archipelago, and we can already now class Japan among the countries having an official geographic nomenclature in Roman character.
Within less than twenty years, the wonderfully progressive Japanese have established a geographic service for the survey of their domain, and a hydrographic service for the survey of their coasts and navigable waters. They have now published several hundreds of nautical charts, which are as good and practical as any published by other nations.
On those Japanese charts, which are based exclusively on their own surveys, the names are printed in the signs of the 'Kana' with the transliteration of the name in Roman character added. It is this feature which has materially helped us to a better and correct knowledge of their geographic names. Within the last few years theRomaji-Kwai2has made immense progress, and I understand that the society's system forms already part of the instruction in a number of schools in Japan. Hence, we may look forward to the day when Japanese books printed in Roman characters will supersede, to a large extent, the books in the signs of the 'Kana.'
2Society for the introduction of the Roman character for writing the Japanese language.
One of the best authorities for writing and pronouncing the names of the districts, cities, towns and villages of Japan is a very recent publication3by our honored countryman, Mr. W. N. Whitney, interpreter at the U. S. Legation at Tokyo, who compiled this admirable book with great care and labor from the official records of the Japanese empire. It not only contains the names in the original Japanese print, but what is of chief value to us, also the transcription, in accordance with theRomaji-Kwaisystem. We cannot do better, at present, than to follow this book in determining the orthography of geographic names in Japan.
3A concise Dictionary of the principalroads,chief-townsandvillagesof Japan, withpopulations,post-offices, &c.; together with Lists ofKen,Kori, andRailways. By W. N. Whitney, M.D., Interpreter of the U. S. Legation, Tokyo.
In not so satisfactory a state as the orthography of Japanese geographic names is that of the countries adjacent to Japan. Considering that Asiatic names have been transcribed phonetically by explorers and surveyors of different nationalities, at different periods of time, and who were often but little, or not at all, acquainted with the languages they had to deal with, it is not surprising that many of the names we find on the charts should have been written utterly wrong. That such was the case on even comparatively recent surveys is, for instance, illustrated by the change in the nomenclature on the French plan of Cape Koan Lan, in the Gulf of Tongking (Plan No. 3721). In this French survey of 1878 the same names on the editions of 1879 and 1886, respectively, are rendered thus:
Such differences in spelling, and examples of pleonasm, as are indicated by these names, are found on the charts of all nations, but, under the beneficial working of the systems adopted by the British, French and Germans, similar errors are rapidly being corrected, and progress is being made towards international uniformity in the spelling of all geographic names.
Owing to the number of languages and alphabets in use in the Indian empire, the orthography of its geographic names has for a long time been in controversy. As we see from the "British System," the Royal Geographical Society has decided to spell Indian names in accordance with "Hunters' Imperial Gazetteer of India," a decision which, in view of the fact that the spelling in the Gazetteer is not always in harmony with the adopted rules, is to be regretted. But we can at the same time understand the difficulties of the situation, and appreciate the strong love of the British for old forms and long usage. The differences between the system and the Gazetteer are, however, not radical, since the continental vowel system is followed; still, it would be just as easy to write Kalkutta, Kutch, etc., for Calcutta, Cutch, etc., as it is to write Korea for Corea, and thus be consistent with the rules.
Geographic names in Malay and its branches we know mainly through Dutch, British and Spanish surveyors, and their status may be judged from the prefatory remarks in Maxwell's grammar of Malay, published in 1882, wherein he says, that the spelling of Malay words in the native character is hardly yet fixed, though the Perso-Arabic alphabet has been in use since the 13th century, and that thosefollow but a vain shadowwho seek to prescribe exact modes of spelling words, regarding which even native authorities are not agreed, and of which the pronunciation may vary according to locality.
On the charts published by the Batavian Hydrographic Office, the Malay names are rendered in accordance with the Dutch phonetic system of transliteration (only that the sound ofgis always hard) and as this differs from the British phonetic system in several particulars, it is clear that certain corrections must be applied to the spelling of "Dutch" Malay names to facilitate the approximately correct pronunciation of such names by English speaking peoples. But a source of trouble is the seeming uncertainty of the Batavian geographers themselves in regard to the orthography of many names, since it is a frequent occurrence to find the same names variously rendered on charts, or in sailing directions issued at short intervals of time.
We can see, from what has been said above, that chances for disagreement in the rendering of geographic names, originating in countries that do not use the Roman alphabet for their literature, are numerous, and hence, the occurrence of errors in the application of a new system should not be too harshly condemned; nor would the culprits deserve to be dealt with according to the law laid down by the municipal council of the good old Swiss town of Küssnacht, which not very long ago issued a decree that the finaltin the name of their town should be dropped in all official communications, and that any local official failing to obey this decree should be fined.