Investigating visual material on ancient artifacts can provide useful information about the provenance of the latter and their changes of ownership, about scattered, lost and therefore difficult to reconstruct collections, but also about the process of their visualization – i. e. depicting directly the original object or copying from earlier images – and the strands of argumentation related to it. The following case study aims to shed light on some of these aspects.
Giacomo Bosio (1544–1627), uncle of the archaeologist and author of Roma Sotterranea [1] Antonio Bosio (c. 1575/76–1629), due to his position as historian of the Order of Malta, dealt in his publications mainly with historical-religious topics. [2] Only in La Trionfante e Gloriosa Croce (1610) [3] we can find personal information about Giacomo, among other things concerning three ancient Egyptian artifacts in his possession, each of which he presents with a brief characterizing description and an illustration. Bosio discusses first a statuette of Harpokrates made of white marble (fig. 1) [4] and then a Statue of an Egyptian god about five palmi high, made of black, white spotted stone (fig. 2) [5] : both artifacts remain untraced to this day. Finally, he brings up a pictorial evidence for the Statues of Canopus discussed earlier, and comes up with two very ancient artifacts of this type located in Rome.
One, he says, belongs to Cardinal Farnese and, because of its value and rarity, was engraved in copper and published for the whole world by Claudio Duchetti. The other belonged to Bosio's own private collection: made of black stone and a little less than three palmi long (“è lunga poco men di trè palmi”), the artifact is said to have the same size as that of the cardinal. Both are covered with hieroglyphics on the front and back sides and are provided with a small base instead of the usual small feet. Bosio shows the following figure (fig. 3) as a representative of both specimens. [6] Although the identification as 'canopus', from which the now common naming of vase-shaped vessels for storing mummified organs as 'canopic jars' is derived, has erroneously prevailed for over three centuries in the sources relating to the object in question, in our eyes it can be traced back to an Egyptian statue now in the Louvre. Its provenance or graphic fortuna, which has so far been described most extensively by Alfred Grimm, [7] receives an unexpected addition through the inclusion of Giacomo Bosio as a new witness but, at the same time, several suggestions for further research are opened up.
At this point, there are three questions in connection with Bosios so-called ‘canopic statue’, which will be dealt with in the following:
Two inventories might help to answer the question of the extent of Giacomo Bosio's supposed collection of antiquities. First, the inventory of property drawn up after his death (on March 26, 1627), which gives the impression of not being very precise and which does not mention any of the three Egyptian sculptures. [8] Second, the inventory of property (September 9, 1629) of his nephew and universal heir Antonio, who died only two years later, in which there is a possible reference to the latter statue. An Egyptian idol seems to have stood in the portico next to the garden, it was inscribed in several places with Egyptian letters, made of porphyry, two palmi high, and with outstretched hands and head. [9]
The Order of Malta, appointed universal heir after the death of Antonio, came to possess not only the properties (a house in Malta, a palazzetto in Rome – the current headquarters of the Order in today's Via Condotti – and a villa suburbana), but also the heterogeneous collection of the two Bosio. This included furniture, objects of various genres and of everyday culture, a very rich library (about 600 volumes), paintings, ancient and modern sculptures, and archaeological finds. [10] Unfortunately, the inventories do not allow at present determining more precisely the antiquities in possession of Giacomo Bosio. Nevertheless, his information and the graphic representation of the so-called ‘canopic statue’ in his printed work lead to further considerations. The image of the artifact makes one wonder because it reminds one of the block statue of Petamenophis (figs. 4a–4e) now in the Louvre, and Bosio's claim that there were two 'similar canopic figures' in Rome at the beginning of the 17th century is no less surprising and will be the source of some misunderstanding in later years.
The seated statue in the Département des Antiquités égyptiennes of the Louvre (Inv. No. N 93; h: 45.50 cm, w: 24.00 cm, d: 21.00 cm, figs. 4a–4e) was made of black granodiorite and belongs to a type of Egyptian statue characterized by a squatting figure covered with hieroglyphics inserted into a block of stone. [11] Such cuboid statues were reserved for private individuals; often they were Egyptian officials. According to the inscription and the deities and persons mentioned in it, the figure comes from the temple of Amun-Re (Karnak), where it was created between 690 and 595 BC, i.e. at the end of the XXV and the beginning of the XXVI dynasty. Petamenophis was an ancient Egyptian royal scribe and chief lector priest during the Sais period, and secretary of the king. [12] He also owned the huge tomb complex in the necropolis of al-Asasif in Thebes-West (TT33). [13]
Before the block statue of Petamenophis reached the Louvre, it belonged to the collection of Duke Louis-Hercule-Timoléon de Cossé-Brissac (1734–1792), kept in the hôtel of the same name (116, rue de Grenelle) in Paris, where it was confiscated on April 16, 1794. [14] When and under what circumstances the sculpture had arrived in France is not yet known, but a series of previous changes of ownership in Rome can be reconstructed on the basis of some written and several graphic evidences.
While it is still unknown how the figure came to Italy or under what circumstances it was rediscovered in the Tiber city, Pirro Ligorio gives as its first owner in the mid-16th century the humanist and former secretary of pope Leo X Angelo Colocci (1467–1549) (fig. 6). [15] A little later, the Codex Ursinianus, includes an illustration of the same figure with the indication that it was in the possession of the Lateran canon Gentile Delfini (1505–1559) (fig. 7) [16], as Ulisse Aldovrandi (1556) affirms in his description of the antiquities in Rome. [17] In the caption to Jean Jacques Boissard’s drawings in the Codex Holmiensis (c. 1559), it is then stated that the statue was in the palace of Mario Delfini [18] (figs. 10a, 10b), as well as in the sixth volume of Boissard’s Antiquitates Romanarum, published in 1602 (figs. 11a, 11b). [19]
Without any indication of ownership or place of storage, the sculpture is shown in front and rear views in two etchings, which were first published in Rome perhaps during the lifetime of the print publisher Antonio Lafreri (1512–1577), but certainly before 1579 (figs. 16a, 16b). [20] In their second state, both have the address “Romae Claudij Duchetti formis”, which Duchetti certainly had put on the plates only after his succession to Lafreri’s publishing house was settled in 1581. It is likely that this was the state Giacomo Bosio knew, since he merely paraphrases Duchetti’s address, which is later supplemented in the third state by the address of Giovanni Orlandi and the year “1602”.
In 1610, with Bosio, as already seen above, new information is presented that will cause confusion among some later authors. [21] New is the claim that there are two ‘canopic statues’ of similar form: one in the possession of Cardinal Farnese and one in Bosio’s collection (fig. 3). Nevertheless, Bosio provides only one illustration, which is supposed to stand for both artifacts that are identical in his eyes, but due to the small scale and a rather schematic woodcut it is not very informative.
At about the same time, north of the Alps, Hans Georg Herwart von Hohenburg (1553–1622) publishes his Thesaurus Hieroglyphicorum, in which two block statues appear in three views on two different plates, the similarity of which is explicitly referred to (“homologa”) in the inscription of the second (figs. 12, 19). [22] Beyond that, there is no information about the origin of the illustrations or the places where the statues were kept.
In 1644, Giovanni Battista Casali (1578–1648) was the first to follow Bosio's claims in the first part of his work De profanis et sacris veteribus ritibus, dedicated to the rites of the Egyptians. He, too, reported two ancient depictions of ‘canopic statues’ in Rome: one was in the Palazzo Farnese, the other in the house that had belonged to Giacomo and Antonio Bosio (fig. 22). [23]
In 1654, Athanasius Kircher (1602–1680) mixes up this information even more. On the plate to the 14th Syntagma in the third volume of his Oedipus Aegyptiacus (1654) he repeats the three illustrations of Herwart von Hohenburg from 1610 (fig. 13, 20). However, since he could not find any indication of location there, his information in this regard on the plate itself as well as in the accompanying text must come from another source. He locates the object of the first illustration in the Palazzo Farnese (“in palatio Farnesiano”). He also refers to the second object, shown in front and rear view, as “Canopus Farnesianus”, but adds: “In palatio Bosioru[m] olim, modò Equitu[m] Melitens[ium]” and “In palatio Bosiorum olim, modò Equitum Melitensium ord. S. Io[an]is Hierosol, respectively.” Since Kircher, in the passage in the text related to the plate, expressly emphasizes the present place of preservation of the statue in the palace of the Knights of Malta, he probably knew the specimen from his own observation. [24] What he may have learned on the spot, or what he may have made it up in knowledge of Bosio's or Casali's works is that this palazzo had previously belonged to the two Bosio. What he, however, could not deduce from his sources is how the alleged Farnese copy might have looked like but, since both the earlier authors (Hohenburg, Bosio, Casali) considered it identical and he himself stated the great similarity of the inscriptions in the two versions shown by Hohenburg, he assigned the attribute “Farnesianus” to both illustrations.
Obviously, with regard to the owners and the number of artifacts, there is plenty of confusion in the sources of the first half of the 17th century. This becomes fully impenetrable when one adds the fourth state of the two Duchetti/Orlandi etchings, which must have been made at an unknown time after 1602 (the date of their third state). In this one, the earlier addresses are erased and instead the depicted object is marked with the localization “Romae in Capitolio” (front) or ”Romae in Campitolio” (back) (figs. 5a, 5b). [25]
The statue is depicted again in Bernard de Montfaucon’s monumental work L'antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures (1719), [26] based on Boissard's two views of 1602 (figs. 15a, 15b). But Montfaucon is in no way concerned with the location of the artifact, and in fact we do not know whether the object was still in Rome or already in Paris at that time.
If the written information on the destiny of the statue or statues does not give a contradiction-free image, can possibly a look at the visual information provide clarification? The main question here is when and by whom did an ‘autopsy’ of the artifact occur, or in which cases pre-existing graphic models were adopted. Further, what are the most significant similarities or differences in the representations?
If we count paired illustrations in two complementary views of the piece by the same hand as one source, we know at the present time 16 pictorial evidences produced from the mid-16th century to the 18th century, which can be classified in four graphic lines of transmission.
With some certainty, we can say that Ligorio and Boissard personally saw the ‘canopus’ or block statue, respectively, because their drawings are each at the beginning of a line of tradition and the two different modes of representation confirm the individual approach to the object in each case.
Pirro Ligorio (fig. 6) shows the sculpture in an oblique view from the front left and in apparently intact condition. The distribution of the hieroglyphs on the front in eight columns corresponds to that on the statue, which taper off irregularly at the lower end. The characters themselves are cursorily sketched and they only rarely match with those on the object. Above the plinth, two feet protrude from beneath the figure's robe.
The reception of this image, though immediate, was short-lived: Etienne Dupérac copied it true to the original around 1565 for Onofrio Panvinio in the Codex Ursinianus (fig. 7). Also by Dupérac's hand are two other copies that show no motivic deviations (Louvre, Dép. des Arts graphiques, inv. no. 26398; BnF, Ms. fr. 382, fol. 16 r) (figs. 8, 9). [27]
Jean Jacques Boissard's recording of the front and side of the statue, on the other hand, enjoyed greater success. The two drawings preserved in the Codex Holmiensis (figs. 10a, 10b) are certainly already copies of Boissard’s own studies made by himself before the antique original – he stayed in Rome twice for a longer period between 1553 and 1559 [28] –, in which he paid special attention to documenting the damaged condition of the statue which was missing a considerable piece on the front of the plinth including the lower end of the figure, as well as the nose. In the representation of the hieroglyphs, Boissard is clearly more precise compared to Ligorio, but he allows himself some liberties, which are certainly due to the fact that he was not very familiar with this type of writing.
The versions of the two Boissard drawings that appeared in print in 1602 (figs. 11a, 11b) were obviously executed by an engraver who was unable to interpret his model correctly in all details or who deliberately did not want to follow it, as the side view in particular vividly demonstrates. Here the body appears to be additively assembled from a sharp-edged cube and a vase-shaped extension. The hands and the face – provided with a nose absent in the drawings – have also departed far from the original.
Hans Georg Herwart von Hohenburg had the engraving of the front view copied, true to the original for his Thesaurus Hieroglyphicorum around 1610 (fig. 12). Athanasius Kircher, in turn, used this model for his third volume of the Oedipus Aegyptiacus, published in 1654 (fig. 13).
In Joachim von Sandrart's Teutscher Academie of 1675/79, a reduced and laterally reversed copy of the front view of the statue is inserted into one of Sandrart's characteristic capriccios together with other Boissard copies (fig. 14). [29]
Finally, Bernard de Montfaucon had Boissard's two plates copied directly for volume 2.2 of his Antiquitée expliquée (1719) (figs. 15a, 15b).
The beginning of the third line of graphic transmission cannot be clearly dated. It is formed, on the one hand, by the two complementary etchings of front and back side from the press of (Lafreri?)-Duchetti (figs. 16a, 16b) and, on the other hand, by an almost identical pair of drawings by Etienne Dupérac, which in turn exist in two versions (Louvre, Dép. des Arts graphiques, inv. nos. 26396, 26397, figs. 17a, 17b); BnF, Ms. fr. 382, fol. 14 r–15 r, figs. 18a, 18b). The prints must have first appeared before 1579, because there are copies of the first state in a Speculum convolute datable to that year. [30]
The drawings by Dupérac are very similar to the etchings at first glance, but they show the sculpture somewhat wider in its overall proportions, and thus the lower end of the hieroglyphic columns is somewhat different. Moreover, the eyes of the figure look directly at the viewer in the drawings, while in the etching the gaze is directed slightly to the right. However, the reproductions of all hieroglyphs are of such great similarity that a parallel creation of both evidences from the same prototype seems to be the most plausible explanation. It should be noted that the accuracy of the transcription of the hieroglyphic characters in this recording is superior to that of Boissard. On the other hand, it omits any suggestion of possible damage to the artifact. Since any explanatory inscriptions are also missing, the original occasion or purpose of the depiction in this case is unclear.
Nevertheless, also this representation experiences – starting from the etchings, not from the drawings – a clearly traceable reception by Herwart von Hohenburg (fig. 19) and via him again also by Athanasius Kircher (fig. 20), where they occur in each case united as a paired illustration of front and back side and appear next to Boissard’s front.
The fourth line finally begins in Giacomo Bosio’s La Trionfante e Gloriosa Croce of 1610 (fig. 21). Although the statue is in his possession, he apparently refrains from ordering an independent new drawing of the artifact. In fact, the comparison with the two other prints available on the market at that time shows that Bosio's image is also a copy, although of course with different results than those of von Hohenburg, Kircher, or Montfaucon. While Boissard and Dupérac/Lafreri/Duchetti each devote a full sheet or even two full sheets to the image of the statue, Bosio opts for a woodcut illustration accompanying the text in a small format. Essential features of his representation suggest that his illustrator copied the Duchetti etching (fig. 16a). As there, the object is shown intact, not damaged as in Boissard. Between the hands and the hieroglyphs in Bosio's work runs a dividing line that is also present only in the etching. Finally, the parallels in the hieroglyphs themselves are much more numerous in comparison to the etching than with Boissard (fig. 11a). [31] Due to the reduced space available within his text illustration, however, the wood cutter had to limit himself considerably here. He renounced entirely to represent the third column from the left and the outer right column and, starting from above, also only reached about half of the columns, whereby the majority of the characters remained recognizable despite the reduction.
Bosio's illustration was then copied more faithfully in the two editions of Casali's De profanis et sacris veteribus ritibus (1644 and 1681), where only the rectangular framing was replaced by a circular one (figs. 22, 23).
While the relationships of the pictorial reproductions to each other are thus largely comprehensible, some observations and open questions cannot yet be satisfactorily explained or answered at the present time:
At the instigation of whom and under what circumstances was made the representation of the front and back side of the statue, which survives in Dupérac's drawings and etchings? The precision in the reproduction of the hieroglyphs suggests an antiquarian interest, but the neglect of the damage and the absence of any explanatory inscription relativize the documentary or learned character. Was Dupérac aware that he was drawing the same object twice – once as a copy after Ligorio and once after the unknown prototype of the etchings?
Does the indication of location “Romae in Capitolio” in the fourth state of the etchings merely refer summarily to the location of Palazzo Delfini, where the statue was located at the beginning of the 17th century, below the Capitol (in today's Via dei Delfini 16)? Or does it refer to another intermediate location for the piece before it changed hands to Giacomo Bosio?
What is the basis for Giacomo Bosio's claim that, in addition to the 'canopic statue' in his own possession, there was another identical copy in the Farnese house, which he explicitly associated with the Duchetti etchings, but which then, as it seems, was used as a model for the illustration in his work? If there had been a comparable sculpture in the Farnese collection, which is one of the most thoroughly studied collections of antiquities in Rome, it would certainly be traceable in other sources, but this is not the case.
Does it matter for the history of the block statue and its illustrations that there were direct personal relations between Angelo Colocci, Gentile Delfini, Onofrio Panvinio and Fulvio Orsini – the latter two involved in the creation of the Codex Ursinianus and in the service of the Farnese? [32]
How reliable are Giacomo Bosio’s claims regarding the other antiquities allegedly in his possession, the Harpocrates statuette and the statue of an Egyptian figure?
Finally, can the gaps in the provenance of the statue of Petamenophis – its journey from Egypt to Rome or from Rome to Paris – still be filled?
As so often the case, the discovery of a new source opens up more new challenges than it provides answers to old questions. One of the tasks of the Antiquitatum Thesaurus is to record them in the current state of research and to point out new possible connections. In this way, the Thesaurus database will hopefully stimulate further engagement with its subjects.
[1] Antonio Bosio: Roma sotterranea, Rome 1632.
[2] La Corona del Cavalier Gierosolimitano, Rome 1588; Gli Statuti della Sacra Religione di San Giovanni Gierosolimitano, Rome 1589; Dell'Istoria della Sacra Religione et Illustrissima Militia di San Giovanni Gierosolimitano, Rome 1594; Le Imagini de' Beati e Santi della Sacra Religione et Illustrissima Militia di Santo Giovanni Gierosolimitano, Rome 1622.
[3] Giacomo Bosio: La trionfante e gloriosa croce, trattato di Iacomo Bosio. Lettione varia, e divote; ad ogni buon Christiano utile e gioconda, Rome 1610.
[4] Bosio 1610, op. cit., p. 453.
[5] Bosio 1610, op. cit., p. 477.
[6] Bosio 1610, op. cit., p. 501–502: "[…] gran credito, e grand’autoritade apportano due antichissime Statue di Canopo, che si trouano in Roma; L’vna delle quali, tiene l’illustrissimo Cardinal Farnese, che come cosa veramente degna, e rarissima; già fù intagliata in rame, e và per il mondo stampata, frà le forme di Claudio Duchetto. E l’altra, per buona sorte, capitò in mano mia, alcuni anni sono; e la conseruo frà le mie antichità, con la cura, che merita vn’Antichità così segnalata, e rara; già ch’altre, da queste due impoi, non credo, ch’in Italia, nè forse in tutta Europa, se ne trouino. La mia è di pietra nera, o più tosto, di color berettino scurissimo; ch’alcuni di questi Antiquarij chiamano Balsate [sic], et altri, selce Egittiaca. Et è lunga poco men di trè palmi; e così credo, che sia ancora quella dell’Illustrissimo Farnese. Et ambedue sono Ieroglificate dalla parte dinanzi, e dalla banda di dietro. E sono appunto della forma, che Ruffino Aquileiense le descriue; se non in quanto, in luogo de’ piccioli piedi descritti da Ruffino; hanno vna basetta, che serue per il piede del vaso, o sia della Vetina. E sono in somma della forma, che nel seguente picciolo disegno, si vede.”
[7] Cf. Winckelmann und Ägypten. Die Wiederentdeckung der ägyptischen Kunst im 18. Jahrhundert, ed. by Alfred Grimm and Sylvia Schoske, Munich 2005, pp. 70–72, cat. no. I. E. 1 (A. Grimm).
[8] Archivio del collezionismo romano, progetto diretto da Luigi Spezzaferro, ed. by Alessandro Giammaria, Pisa 2009 (Strumenti, 9), pp. 143–144.
[9] "Un idolo di porfido egittiano sopra uno di detti scabelloni scritto in diversi luochi con lettere egittiache alto palmi due in circa con le mani et testa di fuora", quoted in: Archivio del collezionismo romano 2009, op. cit., pp. 131–142, here p. 133, no. 0049.
[10] Camilla Fiore: “La collezione di Giacomo e Antonio Bosio tra palazzo e villa suburbana”, in: I Cavalieri di Malta e Caravaggio. La Storia, gli Artisti, i Committenti, ed. by Stefania Macioce, Rome 2010, pp. 212–218.
[11] "The design occurring in the Middle Kingdom is not only to be understood as an imitation of a man squatting on the ground, but is a symbolic expression of the hope of resurrection. The stone block takes in the dead like a womb, the squatting position is an indication of the embryonic position"; Manfred Lurker: Lexikon der Götter und Symbole der alten Ägypter, Munich 2011, p. 229, s.v. "Würfelhocker".
[12] Olivier Perdu: Les statues privées de la fin de l’Égypte pharaonique (1069 av. J.-C. – 395 apr. J.-C.), vol. 1, Paris 2012, pp. 118-119, no. 5.
[13] TT = Theban Tomb. Cf. Claude Traunecker, Isabelle Régen: "La tombe du prêtre Padiaménopé: éclairages nouveaux", in: Bulletin de la Société française d'Égyptologie 193–194, (2016), pp. 52–83.
[14] Michel Dewachter: "Remarques et hypothèses à propos d'une collection égyptienne d'Ancien Régime: le cas de l'Hôtel de Brissac", in: Bulletin de la Société française dÉgyptologie 179 (2011), pp. 5–15.
[15] Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli, Ms. XIII B 7, fol. 195 r: "Nella casa di Monsignor Agnolo Colotio. il quale e scritto con simili caratteri dal canto di dietro". For documents relating to the 16th century, cf. the Census entry.
[16] Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ms. Vat. lat. 3439 (Codex Ursinianus), fol. 7 v: "G. Delphino". On Gentile Delfini's collection, cf. Silvia Orlandi: Un contributo alla storia del collezionismo. La raccolta epigrafica Delfini, Rome 1993, where the block statue is mentioned only in passing on p. 9.
[17] Tutte le statue antiche, che in Roma in diversi luoghi, e case particolari si veggono, raccolte e descritte per Ulisse Aldroandi …, in: Lucio Mauro: Le antichita della città di Roma, Venice 1556, p. 236: "In vna sala di sopra e vna statua di marmo nero; dicono, che sia di Canopo dio Egittio: perche Canopo e vna delle foci del Nilo; e i gentili a tutte le cose attribuiuano la deita, e la drizzauano le statue." Cf. Margaret Daly Davis, "Ulisse Aldrovandi: Tutte le statue antiche ….", in: Fontes 29 (March 31st, 2009).
[18] Stockholm, Kungliga Biblioteket, Ms. S 68 (Codex Holmiensis), fol. 75 r: "Canopi agyptiorum dei statua antiquissima diuersis charachteribus ornata in Palatio Marii Delphinii". Regarding the nature of the familial relationship between Gentile and Mario as brothers, reference is made to the following: Orlandi 1993, op. cit., pp. 8–9, 38.
[19] Jean Jacques Boissard: VI. Pars antiquitatum romanarum sive IIII tomus inscriptionum & monumentorum, quae Romae in saxis & marmoribus visuntur, Frankfurt am Main 1602, pl. 6 ("Antiquissima Canopi Statua apud Marium Delfinum") and pl. 7.
[20] Cf. Emmanuel Lurin: Etienne Dupérac, Graveur, Peintre et Architecte (vers 1535 ?–1604). Un Artiste-antiquaire entre l’Italie et la France, unpublished dissertation, Paris, Université Paris IV–Sorbonne 2006, vol. 2, pp. 1305–1310, cat. no. E 96–E 97; Birte Rubach: Ant. Lafreri formis Romae. Der Verleger Antonio Lafreri und seine Druckgraphikproduktion, Berlin 2016, p. 342, cat. no. 342–343. Four states are known from the etchings: 1st state without inscriptions; 2nd state "Romae Claudij Duchetti formis"; 3rd state "Romae Claudij Duchetti formis / Ioannes Orlandi formis rome 1602". For the 4th state with the legends "Romae in Capitolio" (front side) and "Romae in Campitolio" (back), respectively, see below.
[21] Cf. note 6.
[22] Hans Georg Herwart von Hohenburg: Thesaurus Hieroglyphicorum, s.l., s.a. [around 1610], pl. 26, figs. 51 and 52; pl. 27, fig. 57: "effigies Canopi hieroglyphici .57., homologa effigiei mae [?] .51."
[23] Giovanni Battista Casali: De profanis et sacris ritibus, Rome 1644, pp. 53–54: "[…] ex duobus antiquissimis simulacris hic Romae Canopu[m] repraesentantibus è silice Aegyptiaco, quorum vnum reperitur in Palatio Farnesiorum, & alterum in Domo, quae erat Dominorum Iacobi, & Antonij de Bosijs: Vtrumque, ante, & retro repletum est Caracteribus Hieroglyphicis, & sunt in forma Hydriae, supra quam appositum est Caput Canopi eodem modo, quo à Ruffino fit descriptio relata […]". In 1681 a new edition of Casali's work was published, in which the same illustration was repeated, but this time as an engraving (pl. [2], fig. 4).
[24] Athanasius Kircher: Oedipus Aegyptiacus, Rome 1652–1654, vol. 3 (1654), pl. to p. 435, fig. 2 and fig. 6 [A and B] as well as p. 440: "Canopi figura II. […]. Fuit hic Canopus ex Theatro Hieroglyphico Georgij Herwartij depromptus, cui & quo ad figuram, & inscriptionem hieroglyphicorum prorsus similis est Canopus ille, qui in hunc vsque diem superstes spectatur in palatio Legati Ord. Equitum Melitensium, & indicatur per figuram VI. bipartitus in anteriorum & posteriorem."
[25] The erasure concerns the image of the front; the state of the image of the back can only be reconstructed indirectly by a fifth state, in which the location information is also erased again; cf. Lurin 2006, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 1305, 1309.
[26] Bernard de Montfaucon: L’antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures …, 15 vols., Paris 1719–1724, vol. 2,2 (1719), pl. 133, fig. 1 und pl. 134, fig. 1.
[27] Lurin 2006, op. cit., vol. 3, pp. 1662–1663, no. L 77.2.
[28] Johann Baptist Keune: "Fälschungen römischer Inschriften zu Metz und die neuesten Funde in der Trinitarierstrasse", in: Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für lothringische Geschichte und Altertumskunde 8 (1896), pp. 1–118, here pp. 15–16.
[29] Joachim von Sandrart: L’Academia Todesca della Architectura, Scultura & Pittura oder Teutsche Academie der Edlen Bau- Bild- und Mahlerey-Künste, Nuremberg 1675–1679, vol. 2,2 (1679), pl. SS, fig. 2. Cf. Joachim von Sandrart: Teutsche Academie der Bau-, Bild- und Mahlerey-Künste, Nürnberg 1675–1680, Scholarly annotated online edition, ed. by T. Kirchner, A. Nova, C. Blüm, A. Schreurs and T. Wübbena, 2008–2012, Database entry pl. SS, fig. 2.
[30] Lurin 2006 op. cit., vol. 2, p. 1305.
[31] Particularly striking is the takeover of the two djed pillars at the beginning of the second (Bosio) or third (Duchetti) column from the right, in whose place Boissard shows a human figure walking towards an upright staff.
[32] Cf. Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 79 (2013), s.v. "Orsini, Fulvio" (Federica Matteini); ebd., vol. 81 (2014), s.v. "Panvinio, Onofrio" (Stefan Bauer).
Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Antiquitatum Thesaurus: Antiquities in European Visual Sources from the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries
© 2018-2024
