126 REVIEWS

such a negative way (coinciding so conveniently with the ecodoom of the Sunday supple- ments), the depressing aspects of northern industrial landscapes are emphasized: strength and sublimity are forgotten. In such a short space Dr Pocock’s synthesis is probably a fair one, and he does refer readers to Raymond Williams’ The Country and the City. Margaret Drabble’s more recent A Writer’s Britain is more comforting for those of us who get our depression from the remains of Coketown daily, and contains perhaps the most apt comment on this sort of literary analysis: “Dickens evokes the fog, but does not add a lecture on air pollution”.

R. V. TOOLEY, Tooley’s Dictionary of Mapmakers (Tring: Map Collector Publications, 1979. Pp. xii + 684. 560.00)

It is an acknowledgment of distinction when a book comes to be referred to merely by its author’s surname (Wisden for cricket devotees, Partridge for those seeking the dis- tinctive expletive); to assume such a distinction in the title of the first edition is at best risky, at worst outrageously presumptive. Mr Tooley’s book, it is claimed, “provides information on about twenty thousand cartographers, engravers and publishers active from earliest times until 1900”. In fact, however, it is (pace the dustjacket) no more than a list of names (i.e., imprints: abbreviations, individuals or firms), personal dates (or dates when they flourished) in about 1520% of cases, and the short or paraphrased title of one or more of their works with, in most cases, the date of publication, Mr Tooley and his publishers are well known for providing information and services to dealers and collectors of “antique maps”. Doubtless this checklist will greatly interest this clientele, and its price will not daunt those who dabble in the auction rooms. Indeed, at least one international dealer has already used “Not in Tooley” as a mark of rarity, carrying all the weight of “As seen on TV”. Mere cartographic historians and map users may judge the work’s value from the following typical entries: ‘Darby, Henry William. London Guide 1842, Plan of Cheltenham 1843’; ‘Patten, John. “Traders Maps” : W. of AIlegany A4t.s. and S. of Lake Erie 1753 MS’; ‘Fox, H. I. Plan of estates Cambridgeshire 1804’; ‘Gregory. Engraver of Liverpool. Dublin 1809’; ‘Baker, Lt. A. Survey of Khyber Pass 1842’; ‘Butlin (with Noble) Plan of Northampton 1747’; ‘Harley, D. S. & J. P. Surveyors. Clinton Co., Mich 1864’; ‘Prince, Thomas. Louisbourg 1747’; ‘Lawton, W. Map Birkenhead [sic] Estate 1823, pub. 1893’. There is little overlap with Peter Eden’s Dictionary of Lund Surveyors although some miscellaneous names from manuscript maps are included. Referencing and explanatory or editorial matter are virtually absent, and Dr Wallis’s claims for the comprehensiveness of the work, in her foreword, are greatly exaggerated.

University of Liverpool PAUL LAXTON

JOHN CHAPMAN, The Common Lands of Portsea Island (Portsmouth: The City Council, Portsmouth Papers, 1978. Pp. 22. EO.50)

The fascination for the study of field systems shows no sign of abating, and the appear- ance of detailed, local studies serves as a useful complement and corrective to those of a more theoretical and general nature. This is a lucid and very well illustrated case study of the system of common arable and grazing land that evolved on an island, linked by a bridge to the mainland of Hampshire in southern England. Despite problems of nomenclature, the difficulties of distinguishing commons from land held in severalty, and the use of alternative names for fields, a detailed reconstruction of the various systems is provided. The complex field system of Portsmouth illustrates the difficulties that arose when an established field system had to be adjusted to meet the demands of a new settlement or one that was growing at a dramatic rate. Because the fields closest to Portsmouth were never formally enclosed, the layout of strips has exerted a con- siderable influence on the subsequent street pattern. There are also more subtle remnants to be found in the street names.