Talk:Copperplate map of London

Why were they painted on the back?

Anyone know why painters would paint on the back of worn out copper printing plates? Seems a very odd medium for a painting. Gymnophoria (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

circa 1660 (1559-1661) dating

Dear cartophile eds.,

On dating: If these two claims already in this article are true, then Copperplate map may be dated using them alone:

1) "All Hallows, Bread Street (western City plate) is shown with its spire. The spire was struck by lightning in 1559, and taken down shortly afterwards."

2) "St Paul's Cathedral (western City plate) is shown with its spire. The spire was lost in a fire in 1561"

All the other examples save one are irrelevant or merely secondary support for the above conclusion. For example <1553 to 58 doesn't matter if (1) is true; and 1661 to 66< doesn't matter if (2) is true. The exception is the cross at Boltophs, but to assess the marginal weight or bearing of that claim versus our given (1) then we need more accurate timing for the loss of spire and cross in 1559. Which we don't have. That's OK. We have enough information already to significantly improve this article and dating of famous map.

Conclusion:

It is impossible the maps dates to 1558 or before (violates 1).

It is possible the map dates to 1559, post steeple loss.

It is likely the map dates to 1660. It is irrefutable the map dates to circa 1660.

It is possible the maps dates to 1661, pre steeple loss.

It is unlikely the map was created after 1661 (violates 2).

Suggest editors update the article. It is useful already but could be moreso.

Regards, Anon.

Edit:fixed typos, added quotation marks to article copy cited.

2604:CA00:16B:34D:0:0:60:7451 (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Your argument is not helped by the fact that, in no fewer than 7 places above, you have given dates in the 17th century (1660 etc). All dates relevant to this map are in the 16th century (1560 etc). I'm left unsure whether those are just typos, or whether you've completely misunderstood the dating evidence.

However, assuming good faith, I will try to explain why all the evidence given in the article is relevant.

(a) As you say, the terminus post quem (earliest possible date) is straightforward. The map names Shrewsbury Place, which was first given that name in 1553, so it is quite impossible that that detail was supplied at any earlier date.

(b) The evidence for a terminus ante quem (latest possible date) is a bit more complicated. We have three key pieces of evidence in the form of physical features that appear on the map, but were later lost: the St Botolph's cross (removed 1559); All Hallows spire (lost c.1560); and St Paul's spire (lost 1561). The inclusion of all three suggests that the survey predated c.1560. If the map showed just one of the features, matters would be less certain: it would be theoretically possible that the cartographer was working from out-of-date information (old sketches, personal memories); or perhaps assuming that, even though the feature was lost for the time being, it was likely to be restored, and that it would be a good idea to show it. It is the cumulative evidence of having all three that strongly suggests that that was not the case, and that the survey was undertaken no later than 1559.

(c) To address any remaining margin of doubt that the cartographer might have included lost features, we also note the absence from the map of the Royal Exchange (built 1566–1571). It is unthinkable that a cartographer working after 1566 would have failed to include such a major landmark, so that piece of evidence provides a firm and irrefutable terminus ante quem.

You appear to be concerned about the absence of more precise dates for some of the events mentioned. Some exact dates are given in the cited source (Marks 2001). Coldharbour was given to the Earl of Shrewsbury on 30 June 1553 and presumably renamed shortly afterwards, though the old name is still found in use as late as 1560; St Botolph's cross was taken down on 25 August 1559; All Hallows spire was struck by lightning on 5 September 1559, and taken down shortly afterwards; St Paul's spire was lost to fire on 4 June 1561. However, given that the survey would have been carried out over a period of many months and perhaps years, I think it would be unwise to get too hung up on precise dates.

My own view is therefore that I see no good reason to make any significant changes to this section at present. GrindtXX (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)