Rotterodamum: Romeyn de Hooghe’s Rejected Map of Rotterdam Rediscovered

Laurien Van der Werff

doi:10.52476/trb.10072

Abstract

Having been asked by the burgomasters of Rotterdam to make a prestigious wall map of their city, the famous printmaker Romeyn de Hooghe (1645-1708) initially supplied a disappointing product that the burgomasters rejected. It was known that this had happened, but what was not known is that a unique impression of the rejected map, titled Rotterodamum, survives in the Print Room’s collection. The discovery of Rotterodamum provided the opportunity to shed more light on De Hooghe’s commission, the production process and his working methods. Rotterodamum is thus an important link in the creation of the eventual, well-known map Rotterdam met al syn gebouwen, by De Hooghe and Johannes de Vouw (c. 1660-1707).

Highlights

The blind stamp indicates that the map was probably added to the collection in the nine teenth century.[8]. Why was this map rejected and what was its place in the production process of what would eventually become Rotterdam met al syn gebouwen? And can it tell us more about that production process? Before we investigate this aspect, we will examine the commission for the map
Part of the written contact must have gone directly through the burgomaster Herman van Zoelen (1636-1702).[23]. It is not clear exactly when the burgo masters approached De Hooghe, but it would have been soon after their decision on 25 September 1690. It is evident from a letter dated 23 April 1691 that ideas had already been exchanged about the lay-out of the decorative border; in response to a letter from De Hooghe to Van Zoelen, the burgomasters asked the artist to place their coats of arms above the ‘outline’ of the city.[24]
Rotterdam city council probably did not have the necessary up-to-date survey; had it had one, it would have been given to De Hooghe and he would have been unlikely to make a map that contained as many errors as the letter suggests

Summary

Introduction

Rotterdam city council probably did not have the necessary up-to-date survey; had it had one, it would have been given to De Hooghe and he would have been unlikely to make a map that contained as many errors as the letter suggests. When De Hooghe was commissioned to make the map it must have been clear that it was necessary and desirable to have a new survey done – in any case for the parts of the city that had changed after 1623.

Results

Conclusion