Through a Netherlandish Looking Glass

Fragmenta 5 (2011) pp. 101-120 DOI 10.1484/J.FRAG.1.103513 101

�rough a Netherlandish Looking-Glass: Philips van Winghe and Jean l’Heureux in the Catacombs

Irina Oryshkevich

Abstract

�is chapter focuses on the investigation of the Roman catacombs by two Early Modern scholars �om the Netherlands – Philips van Winghe and Jean L’Heureux [Macarius]. Examining Van Winghe drawings and notes as well as Macarius’s treatise on early Christian Iconography (Hagioglypta), it discusses why these two foreigners in Rome exhibited a sensitivity to the style of the art of the catacombs absent in their Italian contemporaries, who appreciated catacomb art only for its value as historical evidence or holy relic. It proposes that it was Van Winghe and Macarius’s northern origins, experience living in a denominationally heterogeneous (Catholic-Protestant) region, and ‘outside’ status in the caput mundi that made them less committed to the confessional polemics of the Counter-Reformation and more open to an artistic style that deviated �om the classical norms of the Italian Renaissance.

The so-called rediscovery of the catacombs in the late sixteenth century has been invariably associ-

ated with the foundations of Christian archaeology, a discipline born to serve – at least in Rome – the apologetic aims of the Catholic Church. Although in recent years several scholars have questioned this claim – and rightly so – there is no denial that the hype surrounding the accidental, but seemingly ‘providen-tial’ discovery of a long forgotten cemetery in late May 1578 did much to rekindle interest in these most ancient of Christian monuments, whose contents and scale proved useful for defend-ing not only the cult of saints and images but also the primacy of Rome.1

�e much-publicized episode occurred when several workmen, mining pozzolana on Via Salaria, stumbled upon a cat-acomb, which, though heavily damaged by earlier relic hunters, nonetheless contained a number of legible paintings. According to public documents, three authorities were called in to inspect and identify the site while barricades were erected to keep out

I would like to thank Simon Ditch�eld and Maurizio Campanelli for reading an earlier dra� of this paper.

1 On modern theories regarding the origins of Christian archaeology, see the summaries and relevant bibliography in Schuddeboom, Philips van Winghe, pp. 3–25, and Herklotz, ‘Christliche und klassische Archäologie’, pp. 291–292, note 1.

Keywords

Macarius,Philips van Winghe,Hagioglypta,Alfonso Chacón,Abraham Ortelius

Irina Oryshkevich . . . .

2 �e event was recorded in three separate Avvisi: BAV, Vat. Urb. 1046, fols. 256r and 302r, and Vat. Lat. 12214, fols. 66r–66v.

3 �e document appears in Sauerlander, ‘De coemeterio Priscillae Romae’. (�is note continues on p. 117)

4 A common cliché of the period, voiced, for example, in Pompeo Ugonio’s dedication in Historia delle Stationi di Roma, fol. 2v; the introduction in Severano, Memorie sacre delle Sette Chiese, and the three pages of dedicatory poems preceding the table of contents in Bosio, Roma sotterranea.

5 Baronio, Annales Ecclesiastici, II, ‘anno 130’, p. 118.

6 �e Oratorians are commonly credited for the discipline of Christian archaeology though none of them actually explored the cemeteries. See most recently Fiocchi Nicolai, ‘San Filippo Neri’, now countered, however, by Gosselin, ‘�e Congregation of the Oratorians’.

7 On Chacón, see Grassi Fiorentini, ‘Chacón’; Recio Veganzones, ‘La Historica Descriptio Urbis Romae’. On Van Winghe, see Hoogewer�, ‘Philips van Winghe’ and Schuddeboom, Philips van Winghe, pp. 26–56. On Macarius, Le Glay, ‘Notice’ and Herklotz, ‘Die Hagioglypta des Jean L’Heureux’, and Oryshkevich, ‘Hagioglypta’.

8 L’Heureux, Hagioglypta, pp. 2–5. Bosio’s earliest visits to the catacombs were with Pompeo Ugonio in 1593; Bosio, Roma sotterranea, p. 195. (�is note continues on p. 117)

9 Francesco Barberini appropriated Bosio’s un�nished manuscript and notes a�er his death and gave them to the Oratorian Giovanni Severano for completion; Valeri, Cenni biogra�ci di Antonio Bosio, pp. 52–63. On Severano, see Vaccaro, Giovanni Severano.

the curious masses.2 Although an anonymously written descrip-tion later that summer identi�ed some of the paintings in the cemetery and remarked on their usefulness for proving the early origins of the Christian cult of images, it was the site’s human remains – allegedly of saints – that generated the greatest excite-ment and stimulated rediscoveries of additional catacombs.3 �e relics were deemed precious not only in their own right, but also because they recon�rmed the notion that the foundations of papal Rome were steeped in the holy blood of Christian mar-tyrs.4 Indeed, by 1588, a mere decade a�er the incident, enough cemeteries had been recovered to allow Cesare Baronio – pro-tégé of Saint Philip Neri, and author of the Annales Ecclesiastici, the de�nitive Catholic history of the church – to proclaim that Rome was full of “hidden cities in her suburbs, former Christian colonies from the era of persecutions”.5 It was to �esh out this image with material evidence that Neri’s Oratorians nurtured the budding discipline of Christian archaeology – more prop-erly Christian antiquarianism – while excising it as thoroughly as possible from the larger study of the pagan past.6

In the wings of this spectacular drama stood several actors who, though equally intrigued by the material, withstood engagement. Interested in both pagan and Christian antiquity and in the dialogue rather than moral antithesis between the two, they maintained a more humanist outlook than did ecclesiasti-cal authorities by proposing an integrated picture of the ancient world, despite – or as I argue here, in opposition to – the polemi-cal objectives of those who used the catacombs to glorify Rome. Most prominent among these were the Dominican friar Alfonso Chacón (1540–1599), Jean l’Heureux (1551–1617), alias Macarius, a minor cleric from Tournai, and Philips van Winghe (1575–1592) a promising antiquarian from a distinguished family in Louvain.7 All three became acquainted in Rome, no doubt drawn to each other by a common interest in antiquity. A�er Van Winghe’s death in 1593, Chacón and Macarius also befriended the young Antonio Bosio (1575–1639), whose copi-ous notes on the catacombs became the basis of Roma sotter-ranea (1632–34), the �rst systematic treatment of the subject, which neither they nor he lived long enough to see in print.8 It is through the writings, notes, drawings, and correspondence of Chacón, Macarius, and Van Winghe, however, that we know anything about the initial exploration of the catacombs, before their history and remains were neatly codi�ed and elucidated by Bosio’s posthumous co-writer and editor Giovanni Severano.9

Perhaps not surprisingly, all three men were foreigners in Rome: Chacón was a Spaniard, Macarius and Van Winghe Flemings. Although modern scholarship has o�en presupposed their association with Neri’s Oratory, it has done so merely on

. . . . �rough a Netherlandish Looking-Glass: Philips van Winghe and Jean l’Heureux in the Catacombs

10 Baronio, Annales Ecclesiastici, V, ‘anno 362’, p. 84: “accepimus illud a Philippo Winghio, nobili Lovaniensi. (�is note continues on p. 117)

11 L’Heureux, Hagioglypta.12 Baronio, Clement VIII’s confessor,

convinced the Pope to absolve Henry IV, and thus earned the enmity of the Spanish monarch and cardinals, who prevented his election to the papacy in 1605; Borromeo, ‘Il Cardinale Cesare Baronio e la corona spagnola’. (�is note continues on p. 117)

13 L’Heureux, Hagioglypta, pp. 1–6.14 Ivi, p. 3. Van Winghe also describes

the museum to Ortelius in a letter, see Ortelius, Epistulae, p. 411.

15 L’Heureux, Hagioglypta, pp. 3–4: “et imagines, uti suis oculis viderat, �deliter et coloribus et �guris veris exprimebat, cum diceret in picturiis (�is note continues on p. 117)

16 Chacón’s own copies are in BAV, Vat. Lat. 5409. Bosio’s are in Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, G6. Borromeo’s are in Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana F228 and F229, on which, see also Ferrua, ‘Antichità cristiana’.

17 Two sets of copies have been linked to Peiresc: BAV, Vat. Lat. 10545, and BnF, Nouvelles Acquisitions Latin, 2343. De Rossi, ‘Disegni di Filippo van Winghe’, pp. 80–81, attributed Vat. Lat. (�is note continues on p. 117)

18 Letters from Macarius to Ortelius, see Ortelius, Epistulae, pp. 586–588, 631–633, 730–732.

19 �eir correspondence is preserved in BnF, Fonds Français 9541, fols. 36r–37r. See also Schuddeboom, Philips van Winghe, pp. 63–75.

20 �e closest and best study of these drawings is still Wilpert, Die Katakombengemälde, pp. 4–45. On Chacón’s outline for the unrealized larger work, see Recio Veganzones, ‘La Historica Descriptio Urbis Romae’.

the basis of their interest in the catacombs. Baronio, it is true, did commend Van Winghe’s knowledge of antiquity in one instance in his Annales, but not in such a way as to imply personal acquaintance or even awareness that the Flemish youth was dead by 1594.10 Macarius, in turn, barely used Baronio’s monumen-tal work – the chief Catholic information bank on ecclesiastical history by the early 1590s – in his treatise on paleo-Christian iconography, Hagioglypta.11 As for Chacón, it is unlikely that he, with his ties to Philip II, would have been welcome among the Oratorians in Rome, given the Order’s anti-Hispanic and Franco- phile leanings.12

�e relationship between the Spaniard and the two Flemings, on the other hand, is solidly documented through their letters, drawings, and, most notably, Macarius’ proem to Hagioglypta.13 From these, it is clear that by 1588, the year of Van Winghe’s arrival in Rome, Chacón had organized a museum in his home that included – among fossils, shells, vases, strigils, a wide variety of bronze and terracotta lamps, amulets, keys, weights, marbles, medals and Greek coins – copies of the recently rediscovered catacomb murals.14 According to Macar-ius, Van Winghe criticized Chacón’s copyists for overly indulg-ing themselves and rushing through the task without observing the �gures carefully, and thus proceeded to render the images more faithfully, with accurate colours and forms.15 Chacón pre-sumably conceded to the younger antiquarian for he later had several copies made of Van Winghe’s drawings both for his col-lection as well as for those of Federico Borromeo, and Antonio Bosio.16 �ese copies as well as some seventeenth-century ones in colour have survived despite the loss of the originals.17 A�er Van Winghe’s unexpected death in 1592, Macarius shipped his friend’s possessions to the Netherlands,18 from where Philip’s brother Hieronymus lent at least some of the drawings to Nico-las Fabri de Peiresc, who, in turn, made copies of his own.19 Yet though the autograph works have vanished, the various sets of copies and their marginalia are su�ciently alike to vouch for their accuracy, and su�ciently unlike those commissioned by Chacón to give us an idea of what Van Winghe found neces-sary to ‘correct’.

Chacon’s drawings, executed on 45 x 18 cm. sheets pres-ently bound in a codex, were executed by professional dra�smen (Figs. 1–2). Although intended as illustrational material for a larger, never realized work, De coemeteriis vetustis Urbis Romae, they were available along with other drawings of antiquities for scholarly consultation in his museum.20

While the opening pages of the volume contain rep-resentations of contact relics (Longinus’ lance, a nail from the cruci�xion, torture instruments) – objects rendered sacred by

their physical contact with Christ or saints – and a brief essay on the ancient cemeteries of Rome, the rest of the pages feature drawings of catacomb paintings. �e murals, though elegantly framed, are ripped out of their architectural context (of which there are no renderings at all) making it clear that Chacón’s interest lay primarily in their iconography.

�e drawings are done in pen, ink, and watercolour. �ough faint, underlying pentimenti in pencil betray their mak-ers’ confusion in deciphering the contours of the originals. Pre-sumably they were sketched on site then modi�ed aboveground with ink, paint, and occasional white highlights. �e �gures depicted are very much all’antica, with elongated, twisted bod-ies in exaggerated contrapposto, pronounced musculature, wind-swept hair, and well-de�ned, o�en expressive facial features. Pencil lines reveal that many of them were �rst rendered nude, and then �t out with garments, in the sequence outlined by Leon Battista Alberti in De pictura and practiced by many sixteenth-century dra�smen. Drapery is dynamic, full of heavy folds, yet diaphanous enough to reveal anatomical details, such as navels. �e dra�smen rendered man-made geometric structures such as Noah’s Ark, Lazarus’ tomb, and Jonah’s gourd-covered trellis with linear perspective, and painted cast shadows behind forms, thereby lending greater depth and volume to the originals. �e

palette – leaning towards pastel shades – has little to do with the earthen tones of most catacomb paintings. Although the few drawings of marble reliefs and inscriptions betray their ruin-ous condition, those of the murals convey neither wear and tear nor the rough texture of tufa surfaces. �e copies thus show the murals not as they must have appeared underground, by light of torches or a few rays of sun passing through the occasional air sha�, twelve or thirteen centuries a�er their creation, but as they might have looked newly �nished by early Christians artists who

Fig. 2: Anon. copy of �ree Hebrews in the Fiery Furnace and the Sacri�ce of Isaac, c. 1585, Catacomb of Priscilla, Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. Lat, 5409, fol. 22r, © 2013 Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.

21 See, for example, Wilpert, Die Katakombengemälde, p. 2, and Leclercq, ‘Copies des peintures des catacombes’, cols. 2801–2810.

22 On Van Winghe’s relationship with artists, see Hoogewer�, ‘Philips van Winghe’, pp. 66–68; and Schuddeboom, Philips van Winghe, pp. 37–38. Van Winghe made an excursion to Naples with Goltzius and the silversmith Jan Mathijssen; Van Mander, Het Schilderboek, p. 196. As Van Mander dedicated the Schilderboek to Mathijssen, one may safely assume he was well informed.

23 In his correspondence to Ortelius, Van Winghe never, in fact, refers to his interest in the catacombs. Aside from Macarius, his contemporaries commend him solely for his knowledge of the ancient world; Hieronumus van Winghe refers to his brother as antiquitati addictissimum, in Ortelius, Epistulae, p. 137. See also Van Mander, Het Schilderboek, p. 196; Buchell, Diarium, p. 133; Baronio, note 10 supra.

24 Schuddeboom, Philips van Winghe, p. 136.

had received training in Chacón’s day. Indeed, stylistically speak-ing, they seem so incompatible with what modern art historians would consider ‘early Christian’ that their documentary value has o�en been dismissed as negligible.21

Compared to Chacón’s copies, Van Winghe’s appear sen-sitive to the originals (Figs. 3–4). Smaller in scale (though per-haps reduced by copyists), they contain far fewer mannerisms. Although the compositions are framed, they give the impression of on-site records rather than polished drawings. Figures are less animated, stockier, and blank in their expressions. �eir thick garments fall heavily, revealing little physical anatomy. Structural backdrops are �at with few if any orthogonals. Volumes cast no shadows. In the coloured copies, the palette is largely limited to reds, earthen tones, and dull greens. In all these respects, at least, Van Winghe’s copies do come closer to the catacomb prototypes.

�e discrepancy between the two sets may be due to the fact that Van Winghe, an antiquarian, prepared his own draw-ings as records for future reference. Given his apparent associa-tion in Italy with various artists from the Lowlands, including Hubert Goltzius, Gijsbert van Veen (Otto’s bother), Jan van der Straet (Stradanus), and Frans van de Casteele, it is conceiv-able that he had a better understanding of artistic style than did most antiquarians.22 Conceivably his experience drawing both pagan and Christian antiquities sensitized him to stylistic dif-ferences between them.23 By contrast, Chacon’s professional art-ists prepared drawings that were meant to be viewed alongside Greco-Roman antiquities in a sort of Kunstkammer plus paper museum. Trained in the academic manner of their day, and hav-ing no personal interest in copying the catacomb frescos, they had, as Van Winghe rightly pointed out, taken too many liber-ties with the originals, and used their artistry to breathe life into what to them must have seemed dull and ineptly painted �gures, and thus to integrate them more smoothly into the Spaniard’s collection. As Chacón was evidently most interested in the ico-nography of the images, he may have been oblivious to the sty-listic inconsistencies until the younger scholar pointed them out to him. Alternatively, eager to build up his museum holdings, he may have sent his artists to return with drawings of catacomb paintings, which he himself had never inspected.

Although modern scholars have generally accepted Van Winghe’s sketches of catacomb murals as the more objective ones, his copies would by no means pass today’s archaeological criteria. For one, like Chacón, Van Winghe drew the murals with no reference to their architectural context, and no hint of dam-age in�icted by time or relic hunters. Moreover, in at least one case – a mural of Christ among the Apostles – the distribution of �gures in Chacón’s copy is more accurate.24 In another – a

25 Wilpert, Die Katakombengemälde, p. 7 and pl. 1; Schuddeboom, Philips van Winghe, pp. 130–131, �gs. 64 and 69.

Fig. 3: Copy of Philip van Winghe, Cubiculum of Velatio in the Catacomb of Priscilla, c. 1590. Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat.lat. 10545, fol. 187r, © 2013 Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.

representation of a male orant with the inscription “Paulus Apos-tolus” – Van Winghe seems to have relied on Chacón’s rendition, as Saint Paul is not represented anywhere in the catacombs as an orant with a name tag.25 Although the staid gravity of Van Winghe’s �gures recalls that of the originals, their gestures, as in

Fig. 5: Cubiculum of the Velatio, third century, Rome, Catacomb of Priscilla.

the case of the Orant in the cubiculum of the Velatio in the cata-comb of Priscilla, do not always correspond (Figs. 3 and 5). �e same goes for colour; though his overall earthen-toned palette is convincing, the colours of individual motifs are not necessarily accurate. Finally, the style of the copies is utterly uniform, and thus fails to capture di�erences in the quality of catacomb paint-ings, which do in fact vary considerably.

Van Winghe’s drawings thus seem to be more correct than they actually are for the simple reason that they corrobo-rate the conventional view of paleo-Christian art as ‘artless’,

26 Although in more recent decades art historians have tended to avoid qualifying paleo-Christian art in such pejorative terms, the conventional view persists in sources such as Oxford Art Online, <http://www.oxfordartonline.com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/subscriber/article/opr/t118/e804?q=early+christian+art&search=quick&pos=1&_start=1#�rsthit> which notes that “Art historians have attempted to distinguish Christian and pagan art in stylistic terms: Christian art is seen as stylized, �atter, cruder, and two-dimensional; pagan art continues to use CLASSICAL forms;” or Davies et al, Janson’s Short History of Art, p. 160, which states that the wall paintings of the catacombs “do not show much detail or care in execution.”

27 L’Heureux, Hagioglypta, pp. 5–6; see note 52 below.

28 Herklotz, ‘Die Hagioglypta’, pp. 471–472.

29 Oryshkevich, ‘Roma sotterranea’.30 L’Heureux, Hagioglypta, 205–206.31 BAV, Vat. Lat. 5409, 84v–85r

et passim. See also Herklotz, ‘Christliche und klassische Archäologie’, pp. 293–295.

‘unsophisticated’, etc.26 Indeed his copies are in some cases, as in that of the Velatio Orant, actually cruder than their prototypes. �us the dissimilarity between the copies produced by Chacón’s dra�smen and Van Winghe may be more a consequence of dif-fering agenda and attitudes towards paleo-Christian art than of lesser or greater degrees of objectivity. While the professional copyists reconstituted damaged catacomb murals in what they perceived to be an ancient manner, the Flemish antiquarian did so with an emphasis on their lack of sophisticated re�nement. Yet his insistence that Chacón’s copies were wrong though from an iconographical view, they were nearly on a par with his own, suggests that he placed at least as much weight on their style as on their content.

In this respect, Van Winghe’s emphasis on form ech-oes the sentiment expressed by Macarius in the opening pages of Hagioglypta, namely, that the art of modern times surpasses that of the early Christians in terms of elegance to the same degree that the second far surpasses the �rst in terms of divine mystery.27 Yet rather than apologize for the ‘primitive’ quality of catacomb paintings and paleo-Christian mosaics, Macarius comments on the awe that such images may induce in viewers. Indeed it is precisely his ability to appreciate the style of an art that is less rooted in classical aesthetics and to analyze Christian images with no polemical intent that has prompted Ingo Herk-lotz to classify Hagioglypta as an anomaly – a scienti�c study of paleo-Christian art way ahead of its time.28

So it might seem in an era when the main function of the cemeteries was to prove that Rome had su�ered most at the hands of pagan emperors and thus deserved her designation as the New Jerusalem.29 Not only did Macarius refrain from dis-cussing the secondary functions of the catacombs during the per-secutions, but he also resisted from using their murals as evidence of the early Church’s espousal of the cult of images. Rather than argue that the paintings had served as foci of prayer – as media-tors between man and the Almighty – he claimed that their chief purpose lay in commemorating the dead and reminding the liv-ing of the possibility of Resurrection.30 �e same disinterest in Catholic controversy seems to underlie Van Winghe’s drawings and marginal commentary, which too bear few references to martyrs, and virtually none to relics, persecutions, or the devo-tional function of images. While Chacón still felt compelled to use his knowledge of the catacombs to celebrate the martyrs’ contribution to the Catholic Church,31 his companions did not.

Yet were these two Flemish antiquarians – as Herklotz presupposes – more ‘scienti�c’ because (for reasons inexplicable) their methodology came closer to that of modern archaeolo-gists? Was it simply their determined objectivity that shielded

32 On the question of inside/outside perspectives, see Merton, ‘Insiders and Outsiders’. My thanks to Mitchell Duneier for bringing this article to my attention.

33 L’Heureux, Hagioglypta, pp. 5 and 153.

34 Van Winghe to Ortelius in Ortelius, Epistulae, pp. 411–412. See also Denhaene, ‘Un témoignage’, who discusses only the prints, maps, and books mentioned in the letter.

35 Van Winghe to Ortelius in Ortelius, Epistulae, nos. 217, 521.

36 It was to Camilla Peretti, in fact, that Ugonio dedicated his Historia delle stationi di Roma. �e Pope’s sister is best known for her patronage of the Roman church of Santa Susanna; Vallone, ‘Women on the Quirinal’, pp. 134–136.

37 Van Winghe to Villiers (1 September 1590) in Ortelius, Epistulae, pp. 447–450. Interestingly, Van Winghe cites Saint Bernard in support of his attack on Romans, as does Calvin in his Institutions of the Christian Religion, Book IV, c. 5, XII.

them from the feverish adulation of martyrs sweeping Counter-Reformation Rome? Given the breadth and intensity of the movement, it is impossible that they were oblivious to its exist-ence. �eir oversight in this respect seems therefore to have been deliberate. �e question, however, is whether it was indebted to their precociously ‘modern’ appreciation of Late Antique art, or to a resistance rooted in other, possibly cultural factors that o�ered them a di�erent looking glass through which to observe Roman society.

Both Macarius and Van Winghe were, of course, out-siders in the city, which in itself would have a�ected their perspective of current events and trends.32 �eir dissociation comes across not only in their general disregard for issues related to Catholic polemic, but also in their disparaging com-ments on modern Rome and its people. Macarius, for exam-ple, wrote his book to educate ‘Romans’ on the early Christian art surrounding them, and complained that they had let the mosaics of Santa Maria Maggiore fall into ruin.33 �us, instead of maligning Protestants for destroying images, as did other contemporaneous Catholic authors writing on sacred art, he vented his exasperation at the Romans’ lack of respect for early Christian culture.

Such ambivalence – even scorn – comes across even more blatantly in Van Winghe’s correspondence to his friends back home. In the earliest surviving letter (24 December 1589) to the renowned cartographer, Abraham Ortelius, he notes that Rome is not as great as those who have not visited it might believe; though some things are pleasing, many more are not; only a fool would leave Antwerp (inferior to no place in Italy, even in terms of wine) to spend his money in this city, which despite being the Caput Mundi, produces nothing of its own.34 In another letter, shortly before his death (13 July 1592), he pro-nounces the maps prepared by Egnazio Danti in the Pope’s Gal-leria delle Carte Geogra�che to be worthless since their maker had no understanding of cartography.35 Although he does praise the accomplishments of Sixtus V in the letter of 1589, by 1590, when describing the events surrounding the Pope’s death to Dionysius Villiers, he expounds on Sixtus’ violence, stubbornness, gluttony, proclivity to drink, and political maneuvering. He speaks even worse of Sixtus’ sister Camilla, a former washerwoman, who managed through dishonest means to amass a huge amount of money with which she purchased multiple properties.36 As for the Romans, they are without exception “pecuers, malins, blas-phemateurs, detraiteurs”, etc. In the course of the conclave, they have committed a thousand follies, murdered four Jews, and tried to throw the Pope’s statue in the Tiber.37 Certainly a fasci-nating portrait of a city posing as the New Jerusalem!

38 Bouman ‘�e Religious Views of Abraham Ortelius’, p. 374.

39 Ibidem, p. 375.40 On Ortelius, see Ibidem, pp. 374–

377; Mangani, Il mondo di Abramo Ortelio. Van Winghe and Macarius’ correspondence with Ortelius appears in Ortelius, Epistulae, nos. 170, 185, 217, 247, 269, 310. Van Winghe made a drawing commemorating their friendship in the cartographer’s album; Puraye, Album Amicorum, p. 52. Van Mander likewise mentions their friendship in his vita of Goltzius; Van Mander, Het Schilderboek, p. 196.

41 On their joint exploration of Paris, see Buchell, Diarium, p. iv, note 1. On Van Buchell, see Pollmann, Religious Choice, and also the chapter by Jan de Jong and Sjef Kemper in this volume.

42 On Netherlanders in the catacombs, see Hensen, ‘Nederlanders op het eind der zestiende eeuw in de Catacombe van Domitilla’, and Hoogewer�, ‘Intorno al sepolcro di Bacco’. On the chant Vive les gueux! see Ortelius’ description of the 1566 iconoclastic attack in his letter to Emanuel Demetrius (27 August 1566), Ortelius, Epistulae, pp. 37–40.

In his o�en-cited article on the religious views of Abra-ham Ortelius, René Boumans noted that

[n]o biography of a sixteenth-century personality would be complete without a chapter on his religious convictions; yet these are o�en curiously di�cult to determine.38

�e same goes for Macarius and Van Winghe. Although there is little reason to doubt their Catholicism – the �rst was a minor cleric, the second had three brothers who were priests – a Catholic from the Low Countries, an area that had su�ered tre-mendously from religious wars, papal politics, and the Inquisi-tion, was not a Catholic from Rome. Antwerp – a city obviously dear to Van Winghe, and one in which 40–45% of the popula-tion was not Catholic in 158539 – was a place in which people of various, inimical denominations lived side by side, sometimes in the same household, and where individuals o�en underwent one or more religious conversions in a lifetime. Ortelius, a friend of Van Winghe and Macarius, for example, grew up in a family of Protestants, was disarmed in 1586 on suspicions of being a Lutheran, and associated with a Nicodemite sect known as the Family of Love.40 All this did not prevent him from serving as o�cial Cosmographer to the Catholic Spanish King, Philip II. Arendt van Buchell, on the other hand, with whom Van Winghe explored the antiquities of Paris, was born the illegitimate child of a canon in Utrecht, spent years with no religious a�liation, and �nally became a staunch Calvinist.41 In Rome, both Macar-ius and Van Winghe seem to have hung out with a mixed crowd. Among the gra�ti scrawled in the catacomb of Domitilla by members of the Netherlandish community with whom the anti-quarians would surely have been acquainted, are the words “Vive les gueux”, the battle cry of the iconoclasts who had stormed the churches of Antwerp in 1566.42 �ere is no way of knowing whether the phrase was written by good Calvinists in genuine de�ance of Catholic practices, or in jest by men who, like the scholar from Louvain, felt a bit alienated and homesick in Italy, and perhaps could not but be struck by the similarity between the damage wrought by image-breakers in the Netherlands and relic hunters in Rome.

In short, given their kinship with this cast of characters, one may assume that the two friends, like many scholars, artisans, and men of commerce in the Netherlands, where a�liation was a matter of choice and based on a variety of factors, spiritual and practical, were relatively open-minded with regard to denomi-nation, and wary of fanaticism. Like their cher amie Ortelius and others attracted to liberal Nicodemite sects, they must have realized that religious intolerance was bad for scholarship, the

43 On the ‘Family of Love’, particularly its appeal to artisans, scholars, and men of commerce, see Hamilton, �e Family of Love, pp. 65–82.

44 L’Heureux, Hagioglypta, esp. pp. 223–232.

45 Bosio, Roma sotterranea, p. 656.

arts, and business.43 �ough apparently content with their own church, their Catholicism seems to have more closely resem-bled that of Erasmus (whose grave in Basel Van Winghe made a special point of visiting on his way to Italy) than that of the Oratorians or Jesuits zealously promoting the cult of martyrs in Cinquecento Rome.

Equally plausible is that the two friends found it dif-�cult to accept the simplistic duality between good and evil that characterized Catholic apologetics in Rome. Since peo-ple in the Netherlands were denominationally diverse, it was more di�cult for them to split the world cleanly into black and white. While a Roman could hate all Calvinists without ever having met one, a Catholic in Antwerp was forced to come face to face with them on a daily basis and di�erentiate among those who were his neighbors, co-workers, employees, employers, schoolmates, or relatives. Such need for discrimi-nation may, in fact, have given these two Flemish scholars a better sense of how Christians had lived among pagans before the legalization of their religion. Illuminating here is the strik-ing di�erence between the ways in which Macarius and Gio-vanni Severano, who authored the section on early Christian images in Bosio’s Roma sotterranea, portray Christian-pagan relations in antiquity. Whereas the Oratorian, like Baronio in his Annales, presents these as a continuously �erce and bloody battle between good and evil that forced Christians underground for generations, Macarius barely touches on the persecutions and never proposes that the cemeteries served as hiding grounds. From what he writes in Hagioglypta, one might think that the only point of contention between the two groups lay in their attitude towards death: Christians believed in resurrection, pagans did not.44 Moreover, unlike Severano, Macarius draws no parallels between the pagans of antiquity and the heretics of the present despite being a native of a coun-try chock full of ‘in�dels’ and iconoclasts. Finally, Macarius integrates Christians �rmly in the ancient world by drawing heavily on classical Roman sources – material and literary – to interpret their visual vocabulary, while Severano denies any contact between the two and claims that pagan sources are largely irrelevant to the understanding of paleo-Christian ico-nography.45 In sum, the Oratorian imagines an impenetrable wall between pagans and Christians (a belief inherent in the very notion of a clandestine Roma sotterranea), which he then projects onto the current situation, while the Flemish cleric conjures a more permeable ancient world in which ideas �ow between communities despite their religious di�erences – a scenario more akin to that characterizing the Lowlands in the sixteenth century.

46 Cramer and Pijper, Bibliotheca Reformatoria Neerlandica, VIII, pp. 3–11.

47 Both martyrologies �rst came out in 1559. On John Foxe’s enormously popular Acts and Monuments, see www.johnfoxe.org, with online access to the work’s successive editions and modern commentary. On Van Haemstede, see Jelsma, Adriaan van Haemstede. On executions and martyrologies in the southern Netherlands, see Verheyden, Le Martyrologe Protestant.

48 Perhaps the most striking di�erence between early Christian and Protestant female martyrs are the number of mothers, even pregnant ones, among the latter; although there seems to be no modern study of this phenomenon, it was remarked by at least one sixteenth-century Catholic; Gibbons et al., Tertia pars concert. continens Apologiam martyrum, p. 315.

49 L’Heureux, Hagioglypta, p. 197. 50 See for example, Crespin, Histoire

des Martyrs, pp. 1–3 (Calvinist); and the introduction to Gilio, Le persecutioni della chiesa (Catholic).

51 �e Antibarbarians, 82–83.

Another factor that demands consideration is the real-ity of martyrdom in the north. While to Catholics in Rome, martyrdom was a concept embodied in painted narrative cycles, devotional pamphlets, and ornate reliquaries, to those in Flan-ders it was a regularly recurring public event. Antwerp had, in fact, witnessed the very �rst Protestant martyrdom – of several Augustinian monks in 1523 – and many therea�er.46 By the late 1580s, these trials and public executions had been molded into the formula of the early Christian Acts of the Martyrs by numer-ous Calvinist martyrologists, such as John Foxe and Adriaan van Haemstede.47

All this too may explain why Macarius and Van Winghe refrained from celebrating Rome on the basis of her ancient saints. Regardless of their denomination, they may have found it di�cult to reconcile the papally sanctioned executions in north-ern Europe with Rome’s self-promotion as the perpetual and innocent victim of diabolical forces. By the same token, possibly having seen a few executions with their own eyes, they may have been repelled by the sort of religious zeal that led people with families and social obligations to walk joyfully to their deaths. �e smell of burning �esh is a�er all a very di�erent experience from a stroll among the �ctive martyrdoms of Santo Stefano Rotondo, and one which might have made a thoughtful viewer question the ethics of abandoning one’s children and communal responsibilities to seek sainthood.48

Interesting in this regard is the one instance in Hagio-glypta where Macarius does discuss the Christian concept of martyrdom by drawing an analogy between it and the story of the hapless pagan Cleombrotus Ambraciotus, who chose to smash his head against a wall a�er reading Plato on the immor-tality of the soul.49 Such a parallel would, in fact, have been equally o�ensive to Catholics and Protestant theologians who went to great lengths to di�erentiate true martyrdom from sui-cide.50 On the other hand, it might have amused Erasmus, who in Antibarbarians, noted that the world owed more to some her-etics than to certain martyrs.51

All these factors shed some light on the di�erences between the two Flemings and their Italian contemporaries. Yet they do little to explain why both – the one in his drawings the other in his text – were interested in the simple and unre-�ned style of early Christian art. Given that it was the existence of paintings in the catacombs as well as their content that were of primary interest to sixteenth-century audiences, why did Van Winghe heap scorn on Chacón’s copyists for failing to duplicate the formal qualities of the originals? Similarly why did Macarius open a book on the origins of Christian iconography with the claim that the formal simplicity of early Christian art granted it

52 L’Heureux, Hagioglypta, pp. 5–6: “quae imagines [sacrae antiquitatis], ut a nostribus elegantia picturae vincantur, ita recondite sensu multum superant”.

53 On this issue, see Prodi, ‘Ricerche’.54 L’Heureux, Hagioglypta, p. 0: “et si

qui erunt qui libros veterum sacros profanosque penitius inspexerunt, habebunt quod magna cum voluptate notent, eadem marmoribus et picturis exhiberi, quae sententiis inclusa viderant, et mutuam sibi lucem operamque praestare libros picturis, picturas libris, et marmoribus saepe clara �eri quae in auctoribus obscura erant, aut ibi �equentia, quorum hic rara vel paene nulla mentio: simul veterum etiam christianorum eluscet et abstruse sapientia et pietas eximia, quorum non solum in chartis, sed etiam in parietibus et saxis impressa reliquerint argumenta”.

55 Baronio, Annales Ecclesiastici, I, “Praefatio […] ad lectorem”.

56 On Quattrocento humanist attitudes to Church history, see Oryshkevich, ‘�e History of the Roman Catacombs‘, pp. 101–216. Representative texts of the period include Platina, Liber de vita Christi ac omnium ponti�cum [1479] and Lapo da Castiglionchio, De curiae commodis dialogus [1438]. (�is note continues on p. 117)

57 Macarius also mentions artists and map-makers in his letters to Ortelius; Ortelius, Epistulae, nrs. 247, 269, and 310.

58 On Netherlandish artists in Rome, see Fiamminghi a Roma: 1508–1608; Sapori, ‘Di Hendrick de Clerck’, pp. 77–78.

59 Francisco de Holanda’s famous disparagement of the Flemish manner, placed in the mouth of Michelangelo, appears in the �rst dialogue of his Da pintura antigua, published in 1548. (�is note continues on p. 117)

a mystery that surpassed that of the elegant creations of his con-temporaries?52 It is true that other Catholic authors of the time commended the artlessness of the art of a vaguely de�ned earlier period, but they did so purely on the basis of its propriety and intelligibility to the unlettered masses.53 Macarius, by contrast, argues that the lack of formal re�nement in paleo-Christian art neither lessens the profundity of its meaning, nor simpli�es the intellectual content of the exegetical writings of the Church Fathers. �ose who scrutinize the sacred and profane books of the ancients, he notes, will �nd in them the same things they see expressed in marbles and paintings; since the abstruse wis-dom and exceptional piety of ancient Christians beams forth not only from paper but also from walls and stone reliefs, a mutual light turns books into images and images into books; indeed, what appears obscure in the authors may be clari�ed by the marbles, which, in turn, may contain things that rarely appear in writings.54

Furthermore, by drawing attention to the stylistic di�er-ence between ancient and modern Christian art, Macarius and Van Winghe undermine the premise of Baronio’s chief claim in the Annales, namely, that nothing in the Church has changed since her foundations in the �rst century.55 In this respect, they re�ect an older attitude, which viewed the Church as an evolving historical institution, a view, in fact, that was rapidly being sup-pressed in the Catholic world.56

Another factor, however, may have come into stronger play. Both men were from Flanders, and both maintained close ties with artists from their region.57 By the late sixteenth century a trip to Rome had become all but obligatory for ambitious art-ists from the Netherlands, a place where they could observe not only antiquities and the creations of the great Renaissance mas-ters, but also – and more importantly – re-train themselves to work in an Italianate manner. Such a pilgrimage was viewed not only as culturally enriching but also as a smart investment, since an ‘Italianate’ style guaranteed greater respect from connoisseurs and patrons and fetched higher prices on the market.58 Feed-ing this trend was Giorgio Vasari’s disparagement of “maniera tedesca” in his Lives of the Artists and Michelangelo’s purported dismissal of Flemish painting as lacking in symmetry, propor-tion, understanding, and art.59 Such allegations naturally placed Flemish artists on the defensive as it implied that their region was a cultural backwater. More importantly, it made it more di�cult for them to obtain prestigious commissions in Rome. Resentment of this sort is, in fact, evident in Van Winghe’s un�attering description of the capital to Ortelius, especially in his claim that the Caput Mundi is not what it is made out to be and that it produces nothing of its own.

60 Van Mander’s Schilderboek was �rst published in 1604; Macarius’ Hagioglypta received the approval from the Inquisitor of St-Omer in 1605.

61 See note 42 supra.

It may be precisely this frustration with Italian con-ceit and narrow de�nition of ‘art’ that sensitized Van Winghe and Macarius to the formal qualities of paleo-Christian works. Rather than automatically and thoughtlessly translate catacomb murals into Renissance mode in order to heighten their aesthetic appeal, as did Chacón’s copyists, Van Winghe retained and in some cases even exaggerated their non-classical features. In the same vein, Macarius – rather than apologizing for the static and non-naturalistic quality of paleo-Christian art – presented it as a worthy alternative to the re�ned productions of the present, in much the same way that his exact contemporary, Carel van Mander, placed the Netherlandish tradition on a par with that of Italy in Het Schilderboek.60 Indeed, as is clear from the author’s introductory statements, Hagioglypta is based on the principle that a less immediately pleasing art may in fact be as intellectu-ally challenging and spiritually upli�ing as its more sophisticated counterpart.

Neither Van Winghe nor Macarius claimed that the art of the early Church was superior to the present, or in any way resembled that of the Netherlands, but both suggested that its style was worthy of recognition. It is precisely this appreciation of the ‘primitive’ that makes these two scholars appear so ‘ahead of their time’. Yet their ability to detect artistry beyond the clas-sical canon may not have been unique. Curiously, with the sole exception of Toccafondo, one of Bosio’s hired dra�smen, only the names of Netherlandish artists have been found in the cata-combs in this period.61 Perhaps like Pieter Bruegel (likewise a dear friend of Ortelius), all these men were a bit frustrated by the ever narrower criteria by which the �ne arts were being assessed in Early Modern Italy.

One may thus argue that what shaped Macarius and Van Winghe’s view of the catacombs was less an archaeologi-cal approach avant la lettre than their status as outsiders in the eternal city. Skeptical of Rome’s exploitation of the catacombs and the ancient martyrs on the one hand, and Italy’s cultural pre-dominance on the other, they came up with new ways to assess paleo-Christian art, ones that conformed better to their world view. �at these approached closer to a modern sensibility has less to do with the two friends’ historical precocity, than with the advantage of possessing an outsider’s perspective and a stand-ing a�ection for their own culture. Or, one might venture to say, having been exposed from a young age to arts other than classical and seen a bit more of the world, they were less provincial than most of the scholars and clerics engaged in the rediscovery and exploration of the Roman catacombs.

As outsiders, however, they paid a price; their work had little impact on seventeenth-century antiquarian discourse.

62 Most notably those of murals in the catacomb discovered in 1578 (identi�ed back then as Santa Priscilla), which by Bosio’s time was no longer accessible; Bosio, Roma sotterranea, pp. 511–534. On the originals, see Josi, ‘Le pitture rinvenute’. As noted in note 10 supra, Baronio reproduced one of Van Winghe’s coins in his Annales; Jean-Jacques Chi�et reproduced several of Van Winghe’s drawings, see Chi�et, De linteis sepulchralibus, p. 172, without mentioning their provenance; Rosweydus, Paulinus Nolae opera, mentions several drawings by Van Winghe known to him on pp. 768, 788, 795, and 799; and a posthumous edition of Cartari, Imagini, pp. 364–365, contains a reproduction of Van Winghe’s drawing of the Mayan god Quetzalcoatl.

63 See the Praefatio editoris by Garruci in L’Heureux, Hagioglypta, pp. vi-vii.

64 �e correspondence between H. van Winghe and Peiresc is preserved in BnF, Fonds français 9541, fols. 36r–37r. Schuddeboom, Philips van Winghe, 72. As late as 1638, Miraeus, Regulae et constitutiones clericorum, p. 97, still hoped that the treatise would get published by the Plantin Press.

65 On the various authors who made use of Macarius’ text before its publication in 1856, see the Praefatio editoris by Garruci in L’Heureux, Hagioglypta, pp. v-xii.

A�er Van Winghe’s death, his drawings were sent from place to place until they disappeared. True, they were mentioned here and there by the likes of Baronio and Vicenzo Cartari and found their way into Borromeo’s library; several even appeared as engravings Bosio’s Roma sotterranea and Paolo Aringhi’s Latin 1650 re-working of the opus.62 Yet when reduced to black and white in a mechanically reproducible medium and cut-and-pasted into volumes intended to celebrate the martyrs of Rome, they were made to conform stylistically to the other illustrations in these volumes, and thus lost their distinct features. As for Macarius, despite receiving ecclesiastical permission to publish Hagioglypta in 1605, he never sent it to press.63 �ough a project to combine the text with his friend’s drawings was discussed by Hieronymus van Winghe (Philip’s brother), and Peiresc in 1521 a�er Macarius’ death, with time and the appearance of Bosio’s Roma sotterranea, interest seems to have �zzled out.64 As with Van Winghe’s copies, so too snippets of Hagioglypta were occa-sionally cited in works on the early Church.65 Such cannibaliza-tion of unpublished works was, of course, typical of the Republic of Letters, and is worthy of study in itself. In this case, however, the process of exchange robbed the originals of their power to o�er a deeper view of paleo-Christian art until the nineteenth century, when they were rediscovered by Ra�aele Garrucci and Giovanni Battista de’ Rossi. By then, not surprisingly, the moment was ripe, for the ‘primitive’ was back in vogue.

Continuation of footnotes from p. 1023 … Although thousands of relics were transported out

of the catacombs in the early Middle Ages, the 1578 rediscovery initiated a new bout of translations that continued through the nineteenth century; Signorotto, ‘Cercatori di reliquie’. For a more cynical view, see the account by Anthony Munday, a Protestant who in 1579 spent several months under a pseudonym at the Jesuit College in Rome; Munday, �e English Roman Life, pp. 60–69.

8 … On Ugonio, a Jesuit professor of rhetoric, who too investigated the catacombs, see Herklotz, ‘Historia sacra’. Ugonio may have been acquainted with Chacón through Bosio; Bosio, Roma sotterranea, p. 327.

Continuation of footnotes from p. 10310 … juvene erudito. ac rerum antiquarum studiosissimo,

quarum causa, patria solo relicta, Romae versatur”. �e remark, in fact, pertains to a Roman coin depicting Apollo, not a paleo-Christian artifact, and thus fails to prove that the Cardinal knew about van Winghe’s exploration of the catacombs.

12 … Chacón dedicated several books to Philip II, including one on all the books ever written, apparently a guide for the organization of the royal library at the Escorial: Chacón, Bibliotheca libros et scriptores. �e work was not published in his lifetime because it included texts placed on Paul IVs index; Grassi Fiorentini, ‘Chacon’, p. 355.

15 … Ciacconii pictores quos adhibuerat plus sibi indulsisse quam par erat, dum nimium properant, vel non satis �guras observant”.

17 … 10545 to Claude Ménéstrier. Schuddeboom, Philips van Winghe, pp. 58–120, rejected the attribution, claiming that the copies in the Bibliothèque National are van Winghe originals.

Continuation of footnotes from p. 11456 ... Van Winghe notes to Ortelius that he has been

consulting Platina’s Liber; Ortelius, Abrahami Ortelii, p. 522. Since Platina’s text was used by Protestants to prove the gradual decadence of the Latin Church, it was expurgated in the second half of the sixteenth century; Bauer, �e Censorship and Fortuna of Platina’s ‘Lives of the Popes’.

59 ... Giorgio Vasari coined the word ‘gothic’ to underscore the barbarism of the “maniera tedesca”; Vasari, Vasari on Technique, pp. 83–84; Flemings in Rome were o�en referred to as ‘Tedeschi’; Schulte van Kessel, ‘Les Institutions �amandes et neérlandaises à Rome’, p. 56.

BAM – Biblioteca Ambrosiana, MilanBAV – Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican CityBnF – Bibliothèque nationale de France, ParisBVR – Biblioteca Vallicelliana, Rome

BAM, F228 and F229. BAV, Vat. Lat. 12214, fols. 66r–66v; Vat. Lat. 5409,

84v–85r; Vat. Lat. 10545,BAV, Vat. Urb. 1046, fols. 256r and 302r, BNF, Fonds français 9541, fols. 36r–37r. BNF, Fonds Français 9541, fols. 36r–37r. BNF, Nouvelles Acquisitions Latin, 2343. BVR, MS G6

Baronio, Cesare, Annales ecclesiastici, 19 vols. (Luca: Leonardi Venturini, 1738–1746), I (1738); II (1738); V (1739).

Bauer, Stefan, �e Censorship and Fortuna of Platina’s ‘Lives of the Popes’ in the 16th Century, Late Medieval and Early Modern Studies; 9 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007).

Borromeo, Agostino, ‘Il Cardinale Cesare Baronio e la corona spagnola’, in Baronio storico e la Controriforma, ed. by Romeo de Maio, conference publication (Sora, 6–10 October 1979), Fonti e studi baroniani; 1 (Sora: Centro di studi sorani ‘Vincenzo Patriarca’, 1982), pp. 57–166.

Bosio, Antonio, Roma sotterranea opera postuma di Antonio Bosio Romano antiquario ecclesiastico singolare de’ suoi tempi. Compita, disposta, & accresciuta dal M.R.P. Giouanni Seuerani da S. Seuerino […] Nella quale si tratta de’ sacri cimiterii di Roma, del sito, […] Nuouamente visitati, e riconosciuti dal Sig. Ottavio Pico […] De’ riti funerali […] Publicata dal Commendatore Fr. Carlo Aldobrandino […] herede dell’autore (Rome: Guglielmo Facciotti,1632–34).

Boumans, René, ‘�e Religious Views of Abraham Ortelius’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 17 (1954), 374–377.

Buchell, Arend van, Diarium van Arend van Buchell, ed. by Gisbert Brom and L.A. van Langeraad (Amsterdam: J. Müller, 1907).

Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols., trans. and ed. by John Allen (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, 1936).

Cartari, Vincenzo, Cesare Malfatti, and Lorenzo Pignoria, Imagini delli dei de gl’antichi […] ridotti da capo a piedei alle loro reali simiglianze, cavate da’ marmi, bronzi, medaglie […] con studio et diligenza da Lorenzo Pignoria […] con le allegorie sopra le imagini di cesare Malfatti (Venice: Tomasini, 1647).

Chacón, Alfonso, Bibliotheca libros et scriptores ferme cunctos ab initio mundi ad annum MDLXXXIII:

ab initio mundi ad annum 1583 ordine alphabetico complectens (Paris: G. Jouvenel, 1731).

Chi�et, Johann Jacob, De linteis sepulchralibus Christi Servatoris crisis historica (Antwerp: Ex o�cina Plantiniana, 1624).

Cramer, Samuel and Frederik Pijper, Bibliotheca Reformatoria Neerlandica: Geschri�en uit den tijd der hervorming in de Nederlanden, 10 vols. (�e Hague: M. Nijho�, 1903–1914), VIII (1911).

Crespin, Jean, Histoire des martyrs: persecutez et mis a mort pour la vérité de l’Évangile depuis le temps des apostres jusques a present [1619], 3 vols. (Toulouse: Société des livres religieux, 1885–1889).

Davies, Penelope J. E. et al, eds., Janson’s Short History of Art, (Upper Saddle River: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2009).

Denhaene, Godelieve, ‘Un témoignage de l’intérêt des humanistes �amands pour les gravures italiennes: Une lettre de Philippe van Winghe à Abraham Ortelius’, Bulletin de l’Institut Historique Belge de Rome, 62 (1992), 69–137.

Erasmus, Desiderus, Collected works of Erasmus, 86 vols. (Toronto-New York: University of Toronto Press, 1974–1993), XXIII: Literary and Educational Writings 1: Antibarbari, Parabolae, edited by Craig R. �ompson (1978).

Ferrua, Antonio, ‘Antichità cristiana: Il Card. Federigo Borromeo e le pitture delle catacombe’, La Civiltà Cattolica (1962), 244–250.

Fiamminghi a Roma: 1508–1608: artisti dei Paesi Bassi e del Principato di Liegi a Roma durante il Rinascimento, exhib. cat. (Bruxelles, Palais des Beaux-Arts, 24 February - 21 May 1995; Rome, Palazzo delle Esposizioni, 16 June - 10 September 1995) (Milan: Skira, 1995).

Fiocchi Nicolai, Vicenzo, ‘San Filippo Neri, le catacombe di S. Sebastiano e le origine dell’archeologia cristiana’, in San Filippo Neri nella realtà romana del XVI secolo, ed. by Maria Teresa Bonadonna Russo and Niccolò Del Re, conference publication, Miscellanea della Società Romana di Storia Patria; 39 (Roma, 11–13 May 1995) (Rome: Società romana di storia patria, 2000), pp. 105–130.

Gibbons, John et al., Tertia pars concert. continens Apologiam martyrum, palinodias quatuor, duo Elizabethae contra catholicos edicta crudelia & horum contra defensionem; [Apologia Gulielmi Alani pro sacerdotibus Societatis Jesu & Seminariorum alumnis contra edicta regia; D. Gulielmi Alani Piissima admonitio & consolatio vere christiana ad a¶ictos catholicos Angliae.] Item librum ad persecutores Anglos quo confutatur justitia Britannica & respondetur sex articulis […] deinde aliud edictum […] & brevem ejusdem confutationem (Trier: Bock, 1588).

Bibliography

Through a Netherlandish Looking Glass

Documents

"Here's to Looking at Euclid"

Pieter Bruegel the Elder's Netherlandish Proverbs and Similar Proverbs in Traditional Japanese Art

Polyester Glass

The Lady in the Looking Glass: A Reflection • The First Year of

On the Structure of Knowledge in Bruegel's Netherlandish Proverbs

Looking into Cartoons

Bacterial diversity in the bacterioneuston (sea surface microlayer): the bacterioneuston through the looking glass

Looking for Missing Daughters

Glass Industry – Tariq Glass Limited (TGL) - Fortune Securities

looking at movie

Looking into Iraq 2005

Looking beyond

Through the far looking glass: collaborative remote observing with the W. M. Keck Observatory

mamluk glass

Through the Looking-Glass: Reading Warhol's Superman

Looking at full looking ahead

Environmental Reporting Through an Ethical Looking Glass

Atene Through the Looking-Glass

Maturation and Aging of the Human Cochlea: A View through the DPOAE Looking Glass

Glass defects