This is a MapHist list message (when you hit 'reply' you're replying to the whole list) o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o +
I have recently acquired a Hondius composite atlas that seems to have a complicated history. The atlas has the title-page to the 1633 Henricus Hondius Atlas Appendix (Koeman Me 35.) But the contents in no way resemble those of that atlas. 27 of its 29 maps bear the imprint of Jodocus Hondius and are printed from the plates sold by the heirs of Jodocus Hondius Jr. to Willem Blaeu in 1629. Koeman list a composite (Me 30), which he describes as being "composed of maps ... By Jodocus Hondius not used for the Mercator atlas [1629].") Virtually all of our maps are found there. Although it is never appears in the more frequently cited sources, I presume that when it is stated that Blaeu bought 36 Jodocus Hondius plates from the heirs of Jodocus Hondius Jr., we are speaking about plates only engraved by Jodocus Hondius Jr., and not Jodocus Hondius Sr. I have gone through the collation of the 1623 and 1628 Mercator Hondius atlases and do not see any maps there that appear to be printed from these plates, and Koeman specifically says that no such maps appeared in the 1629 edition. That he does not mention the 1628 or earlier editions suggests that the plates may not have been ready until late 1628 or 1629, and then were sold before they could be included in the 1629 edition. I note that one of the maps, that of the Elbe, is dated 1628. I further note that another, the map of Virginia is generally described as the rarest of the John Smith derivatives. Am I correct in assuming that these plates were very recently engraved, and had not yet appeared in any regularly produced Hondius atlas when they were sold? If so, a certain number of map sheets must have already been pulled by the time of the sale. If this is true, how were these maps presented to the public? In composites such as ours and that cited by Koeman? Henricus Hondius and Joannes Jansson do not seem to have included any of them in the Atlas Majoris Appendix (from 1630) or the Atlas Appendix (from 1633). If they were recently engraved, thus up-to-date, and had not yet appeared in any Hondius atlases, it might explain why they were of such interest to the Blaeus. Can anyone shed some light on this subject? Henry Taliaferro _______________________________________________ MapHist: E-mail discussion group on the history of cartography hosted by the Faculty of Geosciences, University of Utrecht. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Utrecht. The University of Utrecht does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. List Information: http://www.maphist.nl Maphist mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.geo.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/maphist
