LE SYMPOSIUM INTERNATIONAL LE LIVRE. LA ROUMANIE. L ...

Similar and Differing – Mapping the Lower Danube... 615
Do these external data assembled by comparing the maps suffice to
really prove the 1:1 identity of the two firstly mentioned so-called copies
with the unknown autograph?
Map-producing Practise in the 17 th –18 th centuries
Map production in earlier times has later on been thoroughly ignored
by most researchers into the Cantemirian maps. Instead, they assume linear
progress in early Modern cartography – a common error with modern
authors generally. the testimony of the Dutch cartographers as well as
close observation of map collections makes it quite clear that copying
from others had been the rule – each cartographer trying to include new
details into older maps, possibly re-publishing his own maps, or sometimes
altogether changing frames, cartouches and imprints. 61
Such methods are aptly described by several 17 th century cartographers
themselves, as e.g. Willem Janzsoon Blaeu of Amsterdam. In the 1631
preface to his Atlantis Appendix ( 1 1630; augmented in 2 1631) he describes
his method as an authentic work in progress, using his own older maps and
a number of maps from ortelius’ Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (Antwerpen
1570) as well as from Mercator’s Orbis Terrae Compendiosa Descriptio
(Antwerpen 1570/72, 1587), adding copies from the printing plates by
hondius II he had bought in 1629, etc., etc. 62 Blaeu states with regard to the
incorporation of older maps in new collections: “We present these [maps]
in another form, in another way, more accurately made, enlarged, and
supplemented, so that they can practically be called new. I have considered
that, by doing this, attention would be paid to the value of the work and
that no one would think for one moment, that the same maps were being
published for the second time. the descriptions which it [the Atlas]
contains, if they refer to new maps, are new too; but those descriptions too
which refer to the maps previously published by ortelius and Mercator
will also be new to you, so that you will not be bored when reading them.
We know that they are collected from excellent works by older as well as
modern authors, dilligently, faithfully and with judgement, so that I believe
I have in all respects been of service to you.” 63
one of Blaeu’s rivals in business, Johannes Janssonius, in 1633 called
Atlantis Appendix disdainfully “a hotch-potch of old maps which he [Blaeu]
61 HARLEY – WOODWARD: the history of Cartography. 2 vol. Chicago, london
1987-1998, 10.
62 KENING: Willem Janzs. Blaeu, 112 f., 114 f.
63 quote from Blaeu’s preface, in: KENING, idem, 114.