Note on Citation and Translation
Five early modern books have played a key role in the elaboration of this essay and are discussed individually in chapter 2, but a few considerations concerning their citation are to be made in advance.
Jan David’s Paradisus sponsi et sponsae: in quo messis myrrhae et aromatum ex instrumentis ac misterijs passionis Christi colligenda, ut ei commoriamur et pancarpium marianum septemplici titulorum serie distinctum, ut in B. Virginis odorem curramus et Christus formetur in nobis (Antwerp, 1607) comprises two volumes which are not numbered as such—i.e., vol.1/pars 1 and vol.2/pars 2—but feature different titles. For this reason, I have provided just one entry in the bibliography, but, given that the numbering starts anew with each part, shortened citations in footnotes and texts transcribed in Appendix 2 indicate the title of the volume from which the quotation is taken. Furthermore, since David’s explanations are accompanied by letters printed in the margin, I have specified this information between brackets after the page number.
The Spanish edition of Benedictus van Haeften’s Schola cordis sive aversi à Deo cordis ad eumdem reductio, et instructio (Antwerp, 1629), translated by Diego de Mecolaeta and titled Escuela del corazon, was published for the first time in Madrid in 1720—i.e., a few years before the commission of the applied emblems studied in this essay. Nevertheless, for this study I quote from the third edition (Madrid, 1791), which, unlike the first one, lacks the notes in the margin specifying the authoritative sources used in the text. Moreover, given that both the Latin work and the Spanish translation are divided into four books, which are in turn composed of several lessons, I have also provided this information between brackets after the page number.
Filippo Picinelli and Augustin Erath’s Mundus symbolicus, in emblematum universitate formatus, explicatus, et tam sacris, quam profanis eruditionibus ac sententiis illustratus: subministrans oratoribus, praedicatoribus, academicis, poetis, &c. innumera conceptuum argumenta was first issued in Cologne in 1681. I have used, however, the second edition (Cologne, 1687), and since the page numbering varies from edition to edition, for each quotation I have also indicated the chapter title followed by the number of the book, chapter, and paragraph which contains it.
Charles van Hoorn’s Tractatus moralis de laudibus et praerogativis divae Virginis Mariae (Ghent, 1660) reads Tractatus marialis in its title page. The word moralis, instead of marialis, appears in its frontispiece, in the licence of the prior general, in the approval of the ordinary censor, and in the sum of privileges, and therefore it is the one which I have respected in this study. However, it is worth noting that when this treatise was published a few years later as the second part of the Cornucopiae Concionum sacrarum et moralium formatarum, the title would be Tractatus marialis—except in the licence of the prior general, since the one issued in 1659 was still in force—and that in bibliographies and databases it can be found under both titles.
Most of the other texts quoted throughout this essay are contemporary or prior to the emblematic cycle under study here, although their English translation—whenever it exists—may be significantly later. For instance, all English translations of the Litany of Loreto written by Franciscus Xavier Dornn are from The Illustrated Litany of Loreto in Fifty-Six Titles; Each Title Elucidated in a Pious Meditation, and Illuminated by an Emblematical Scriptural Picture, trans. Thomas Canon Pope (Dublin, 1878). Nevertheless, the first Latin edition and its first Spanish translation were published in the mid-18th century; respectively, Litaniae Lauretanae ad Beatae Virginis, caelique Reginae Mariae, honorem, et gloriam…. (Augsburg, 1750) and Letania lauretana, cantada la primera vez por los ángeles de la Casa Santa de Loreto…. (Seville, 1763). The prints included in this essay come from the third Latin edition (Augsburg, 1771).
As regards the texts written by the Fathers of the Church and other ecclesiastical authors, in addition to citing the source of their English translation, I have noted the volume and column(s) of Jacques-Paul Migne’s Patrologia Latina (PL) and Patrologia Graeca (PG) where they can be found. Although some of these quotes have been integrated into the body of the text, the majority can be found in Appendix 2, alphabetically arranged according to the author’s name.
As for the Scriptural quotes, given that the Council of Trent declared in 1546 that the Latin Vulgate edition was to be held as authentic “in public lectures, disputations, preachings, and expositions” and it was thus used by early modern Roman Catholic writers, who frequently quoted its verses and made plays on words with them, I have respected the Latin form of the Clementine Vulgate (Vulg.) and indicated in square brackets the English translation found in the Douay-Rheims Bible. Specifically, I have relied upon the New York edition of 1844, The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate, Diligently Compared with the Hebrew, Greek, and Other Editions in Divers Languages; The Old Testament First Published by the English College at Douay, A.D. 1609; and the New Testament, First Published by the English College at Rheims, A.D. 1582. With Annotations, References, and an Historical and Chronological Index. From the Last London and Dublin Editions. The Whole Revised and Diligently Compared with the Latin Vulgate. When the Spanish translation was necessary as well, I have used the Bible of Scio, particularly the edition published in Madrid between 1850 and 1853 in 11 volumes, La Biblia Vulgata Latina, traducida en español y anotada conforme al sentido de los Santos Padres y Espositores Católicos … Novísima segunda edicion, traducida palabra por palabra de la tercera, y además cotejada con la edicion Romana de 1593, que es el verdadero original.
Unless otherwise noted, all other translations from non-English texts are my own. When translating them, I have attempted to respect the original presentation—punctuation, italics, capitalization of proper nouns and adjectives, etc.—although priority has been given to coherence and readability.
When they contained biblical verses, I employed the criteria mentioned before: I have retained the form of the Vulgate as it appears in the original material and added the Douay-Rheims Bible translation. Concerning the identification of these verses, most authors noted, usually in the margin, the book of the Scriptures from which they are taken; in these cases, offering their source and translation was easier. When this information was omitted and the use of a Scriptural verse was only suggested by the context—as happened, for instance, with the edition of the Escuela del corazon used in this essay—I located its specific source whenever possible and applied the same rule. When changes to biblical verses as regards the Clementine Vulgate were made on purpose, usually so as to tally with the author’s argumentation, I have left proof of it in the corresponding footnote.
When the definition of a specific Spanish word was necessary in order to clarify its early modern meaning or usage and thus offer its most accurate translation, I have used the Diccionario de autoridades [Dictionary of Authorities], published by the Royal Spanish Academy between 1726–1739.
As regards the Latin word salus and its Spanish equivalent salud, considering that it can mean both “health” and “salvation,” I have translated it simply as “salvation” when the context made it clear that this theological concept was the one emphasised, although reference to the physical state of the individual could somehow be involved as a requirement to achieve salvation. When such emphasis was not so obvious, I have retained both words, “health/salvation.”
When a chapel or church was cited for the first time in the book, usually to mention the connection between its decoration and one or several printed models, I have maintained the name in the vernacular language and added the English translation in square brackets, because there is frequently a link between its name—i.e., the patron saint—and the sources(s) chosen to adorn it. The same rule applies to the name of the chapel which motivates this essay, the Capilla de Nuestra Señora de los Ojos Grandes [Chapel of Our Lady of the Big Eyes].
Furthermore, I have also included in Appendix 2 the excerpts of the primary sources—emblem books, religious treatises, oratorical literature, and the like—quoted and cited throughout this essay. When transcribing the Latin or vernacular texts, I have attempted to respect the original spelling, accents, punctuation, and italics. Nonetheless, I have replaced the long “ʃ” with the short “s,” used “ae” instead of the ligature “æ,” substituted diacritical marks placed over consonants with the missing letter(s)—normally [m] or [ue]—and omitted the notes printed in the margins.
I have also provided a diplomatic transcription of the inscriptions as they occur in the Lugo paintings, without any correction—except in the index. When they are partial or completely lost, but they can be reconstructed on the basis of their printed sources, I have placed the illegible word(s) between square brackets.
Last but not least, the inconsistencies and lack of consensus around the terms “emblem,” “impresa,” and “hieroglyph”—which are addressed in chapter 1—have led me, when discussing printed materials, to stick to the names used by their authors, and when analysing paintings, to always use the words “emblem” and “applied emblem.”