Pirro Ligorio and the restoration of the statue of Saint Hippolytus
in the Vatican Library.

In this paper, Ginette Vagenheim retraces the history of the statue of Hippolytus and its
restoration as recounted by Pirro Ligorio (1512c.-1583), and Francesco Caglioti identifies the
artist who worked under Ligorio’s order to restore the statue during the reign of Pius IV.

I. The history of the statue of Hippolytus and its restoration as recounted by Pirro Ligorio

The Farnese circle

Let's begin by situating Ligorio as well as his account about the statue within the cultural context in which it took place, that is the “Farnese circle” during the Counter reformation. The “Farnese circle” is a term which encompasses all the most illustrious italian and oreign erudites, artists, architects, antiquarians present in Rome in the second half of the sixteenth century who were connected in some way to Alessandro Farnese (1520–1584, also so-called “Gran Cardinale” in different periods of the Cardinal’s life<fnref n="1" />. There was the “first circle” to which Ligorio belonged and which included figures such as the cardinal’s physician, Girolamo Mercuriale (1530-1606) for whom Ligorio illustrated *De arte gymnastica* with drawings based on ancient coins and monuments (1573)<fnref n="2" />, his librarians, Onofrio Panvinio (1529-1568) and Fulvio Orsini (1529-1600), who acquired for the Cardinal, the first version of Ligorian “Roman

<footnote n="1">¹ Still fundamental are the works of C. Riebesell, *Die Sammlung des Kardinal Alessandro Farnese, Acta Humaniora, 1986* and Clare Robertson, *Il Gran Cardinale: Alessandro Farnese, Patron of the Arts, Yale University Press, 1992*; B. Jestaz, ‘The art objects of the Farnese studiolo according to its earliest inventories’, *Mélanges de l’École française de Rome – Italy and modern and contemporary Mediterranean, 122-2* | 2010, pp. 253-296. On the Farnese circle: E. Mandowsky-Ch.Mitchell, *Pirro Ligorio’s Roman Antiquities: the drawings in MS XIII B 7* in the National Library in Naples. - London, 1963 and W. Stenhouse, *Reading Inscriptions and Writing Ancient History: Historical Scholarship in the Late Renaissance*. - London: Institute of Classical Studies, 2005.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² On Mercuriale : Girolamo Mercuriale : medicina e cultura nell'Europa del Cinquecento ; atti del convegno "Girolamo Mercuriale e lo spazio scientifico e culturale del Cinquecento", (Forli, 8 - 11 novembre 2006), edd. A. Archangeli V. Nutton, 2008; G. Vagenheim, Due lettere inedite di Girolamo Mercuriale (1530 - 1606) a Piero Vettori (1499 - 1585) e le illustrazioni del "De arte gymnastica" (1573), Studi umanistici piceni, 28.2008, 275-283 ; ead., Il contributo di Pirro Ligorio e di Pietro Vettori al "De arte gymnastica" di Girolamo Mercuriale : il disegno del "Braccio con disco", Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, 54.2010/12, 1, 185-195.</footnote>
antiquities” composed of then manuscripts as well as his coins collection both preserved now
in Naples, just before Ligorio’s departure for Ferrara (1567)<fnref n="3" />.

We learn from Orsini that the cardinal considered his library to be a “public school” for the
scholars; they also gathered in Orsini’s private “studio”, located on the top floor of the Palace:

> « Above, on the top floor of the Palace is the studio that belonged to Fulvio Orsini, an important figure in the field of antiquity. Inside, there were drawings by Michelangelo Buonarroti, Raphael Santi, and other artists, along with paintings, cameos, and ancient medals; the place was the apartment where Fulvio himself lived »<fnref n="4" />.

These same scholars would meet during the summer in the bucolic setting of the
Cardinal's villa in Caprarola, built by the architect Jacopo Vignola (1507-1573)<fnref n="5" /> and decorated
according to the iconographic program conceived by Annibal Caro (1507-1566)<fnref n="6" />:

> “Onofrio Panvinio would relax there from his work on Roman chronology, composing the inscriptions for the frescoes; Lorenzo Gambara from Brescia, author of the poem about Christopher Columbus, described in Latin verse the palace and its paintings; Latino Latini sharpened his epigrams there; the physician Girolamo Mercuriale brought news from Venice and Padua; Guido Lolgi recounted his stay in France, Antonio Agustin his travels in Spain and Sicily; the Servite friar Ottavio Bagatto enlivened the circle with his wit and good humor—and in the evening, the whole company of erudites, presided over by the cardinal, would enjoy the cool air on the terraces, facing the most magnificent view ».”<fnref n="7" />

What these people share was the passion for the study of antiquities in which, as we have seen,
Orsini was considered excellent. As in Caprarola, they discussed about themes linked to ancient
civilization, this time in Agustín's home; as the Jesuit Andreas Schott tells us in his preface to
the whole works of the Spanish scholar, revealing the names of several other members of this
circle:

<footnote n="3">³ Still usefull on Orsini : P. de Nolhac, La bibliothèque de Fulvio Orsini : contributions à l'histoire des collections d'Italie et à l'étude de la Renaissance, Genève, 1976. On Panvinio, J.-L., Ferrary, Onofrio Panvinio et les antiquités romaines, Rome, 1996.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ **</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Studi su Jacopo Barozzi da Vignola : atti del convegno internazionale di studi, ed. A.M. Affanni, P. Portoghesi, Roma, 2011.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ G. Sapori, Dal programma al dipinto : Annibal Caro, Taddeo Zuccari, Giorgio Vasari, Firenze, 2004.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ De Nolhac, p. **</footnote>
« Since Antonio, the most impartial judge of papal causes, had a residence in Rome, and as if it were the seat of his affairs and fortunes there, if he could have lived there perpetually as he wished, in his spare hours, which were freed from public business for bodily and mental relaxation, he was accustomed to gather the most learned men who frequented his house assiduously for the sake of learning: Octavio Pantaghato, Gabriele Faerno, Basilio Zancho, Onofrio Panvinio, Pyrrho Ligorio, Paolo Manuzio (son of Aldus), Carlo Sigonio, and those who live today, Latino Latini and Fulvio Orsini, as well as Metello Sequano ».

Some of these names appear, this time in Ligorio’s writings, for example in the chapter devoted to the Roman army; he informs us that the scholars who helped him in composing the commentary on the soldier called *tesserarius* were members of the Accademia degli Sdegnati, thus linking Agustín’s home and the seat of this institution:

« Thi is what could be drawn from the authors and judgments of the very learned men of this time with whom I have consulted so as not to make mistakes, such as Father Ottavio Pantagato and Messer Latino da Viterbo of the Accademia degli Sdegnati, who has read the whole castrametation of Polybius » <fnref n="8" />:

The Accademia degli Sdegnati was founded when the famous Accademia Vitruviana closed, after the departure of its founder Claudio Tolomei (1492–1556); it brought together, under the presidency of Marcello Cervini—future Pope Marcellus II—“most noble gentlemen and lords”, as Giorgio Vasari recalls, “who attended the lecture of Vitruvius”<fnref n="9" />. The goal of this academy was to “fully measure all the antiquities of Rome,” and, for such a purpose, his members invited, in some meetings, architects such as Jacopo Barozzi da Vignola (1507-1573). The new accademia degli sdegnati, largely composed of members of the Vitruvian academy, will fully integrate architects and antiquarians, like Ligorio in order to be able to realize the whole program outlined by Tolomei in his letter to Agostino Landi of 1542; the goal to complement

<footnote n="8">⁸ On this Academy, see G. Vagenheim, Les “Antichità romane” de Pirro Ligorio et “l’Accademia degli Sdegnati”, in *Académies dans l’Europe humaniste. Idéaux et pratiques*, edd. M. Deramaix, P. Galand-Hallyn, G. Vagenheim et Jean Vignes, Genève, 2008, p. 111 and ead. Antiquari e letterati nell’Accademia degli Sdegnati: il sodalizio di Pirro Ligorio e Francesco Maria Molza, in *Intrecci virtuosi. Letterati, artisti e accademie tre Cinque e Seicento*, Ed. C. Chiummo, A. Geremicca, P. Tosini, Roma, 2017.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ On the Accademia vitruviana, see: Margaret Daly Davis, "Jacopo Vignola, Alessandro Manzuoli und die Villa Isolani in Minerbio: zu den frühen Antikenstudien von Vignola", in *Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz*, 36. Bd., H. 3, 1992, po. 287-328.</footnote>
the study of Vitruvius’s text with that of all the antiquities of Rome, preceded by a historical
overview of the topography of the city.

« By observing, with respect to architecture, the buildings of Rome, another study will be made (...) to consider and fully understand all the antiquities by means of history (...), investigating the gates and streets, temples, porticoes, theaters and amphitheaters, seats, basilicas, arches, baths, circuses, bridges and every other building that leaves any trace whatsoever ».<fnref n="10" />

This project was carried out by Ligorio, who “fully measured” the antiquities and made drawings of “the gates and streets, temples, porticoes, theaters and amphitheaters, seats, basilicas, arches, baths, circuses, bridges and every other building that leaves any trace whatsoever » that he collected in his encyclopedia of the “Antichità romane”; these were preceded by a historical overview who allow us “to fully understand all the antiquities by means of history”, provided by the members of the “Farnese circle” within the Accademia degli Sdegnati<fnref n="11" />.

The Statue of Hippolytus

Among the “Antichità romane” collected by Ligorio, we also find some Christian antiquities
(“antiche memorie de’ Christiani”), such as the bronze statue of saint Peter located in his time
in the Vatican Basilica and that Ligorio partially drew in his “book on illustrious men” (Fig.1)<fnref n="12" />;
we also find Ligorio’s commentary and drawing preserved in the Naples manuscript( fig.2a-
b)<fnref n="13" />; the drawing was copied, only once, in the Vat.lat. 3439 (f.124v.) by the clumsy hand of

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ See Vagenheim, art.cit.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">11 See G. Vagenheim, Les "Antichità Romane" de Pirro Ligorio et l"'Accademia degli Sdegnati", in, Les Académies dans l'Europe humaniste, 2008, pp. 99-127, ead., Antiquari e letterati nell'accademia degli Sdegnati : il sodalizio di Pirro Ligorio e Francesco Maria Molza, in Intrecci virtuosi, letterati, artisti e accademie tra Cinque e Seicento, edd. C. Chiummo, A. Geremicca, P. Tosini, 2017, 91-100.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² AST, J.a.II.10, vol. 23, f. 61. The image and text are publisehd in P.Ligorio, Libri degli antichi eroi e uomini illustri, ed. B. Palma venetucci, Roma, 2005, p. 51, fig.36.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ The bibliography on the subject is very extensive; for a summary, I refer to the article by Andràs Handl: *A Heavily Bearded Philosopher in Women's Underwear. Deconstructing and Reconstructing the Identity of the*</footnote>

<footnote>'Hippolytus-statue', *Louvain Studies* 44, no. 4 (2021): 340-364. Mention should also be made of the important
contribution of Allen Brent, which also contains an important bibliography: *Hippolytus and the Roman Church in
the Third Century*, Leiden, 1995.</footnote>
Panvinio (fig.3) between the date of the acquisition of Ligorio’s manuscripts in 1567 and the death of Panvinio in 1568; it then passed, along with the rest of the album, into the greedy hands of Orsini (olim Codex Ursinianus)<fnref n="14" />.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2a</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2b</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ On Panvinio and the Vat.lat. 3439, see G. Vagenheim, *Les inscriptions ligoriennes: notes sur la tradition manuscrite, Italia medioevale e umanistica*, 1987, *sub nomine* ; Silvia Tomasi Velli, *Gli antiquari intorno al circo romano. Rediscovery of an ancient monumental typology*, Annals of the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, 1999, III, serie, vol. XX, fasc. 1, *sub nomine and E. Lurin*, "Les restitutions de scènes antiques : Onofrio Panvinio iconographe et inventeur d'images", in *Programme et invention dans l'art de la Renaissance*, edd. M.Hochmann, J. Koering, Ph. Morel, Somogy, 2007, pp. 153-173.</footnote>
I will first retrace the narrative of the critics about the history of the statue of Hippolytus<sup>15</sup>,
based on Ligorio’s passage, the most prolific author on the subject in his time:

«Between the Via Nomentana and that of Tivoli outside the walls of Rome, and not far from the Castro, over the daily lodging of the praetorians, in certain ruins, **this image** was found **that sits**, broken and badly treated; on both sides of the chair are placed **these exemplars in Greek**; of this bishop, who commented on the Apocalypse and composed other beautiful works as the writers say; **and he is held to be that saint Hippolito** of **whom Eusebius mentions honorably; but he does not say of what diocese he was**.

But only Theophane writes that he was a Roman and that he **was a bishop**»<sup>16</sup>

Ligorio tells us that a seated statue ("imagine che siede") attributed to Bishop Hippolytus ("si tiene esser quel santo Hippolito"), mentioned by Eusebius but whose seat is unknown ("di cui fa mentione honoratamente Eusebio non dice di cui diogesi fusse"), was found ("fu trovata") in some ruins ("in certe ruine") near the Castro Pretorio between the Via Nomentana and the Via di Tivoli and that it was in a pitiful state ("rotta et mal trattata"). It is indeed an acephalous and incomplete statue that the antiquarian draws in the upper part of f. 424 of the Naples manuscript cited above (Fig.2a). We can therefore see the bust, from the beginning of the neck, with a slight protuberance at the level of the left breast; The right arm is placed on the chest while the left arm is sketched in a gesture that can correspond to a gesture of greeting or harangue, covered with a piece of toga in its upper part. The lower part of the statue is covered with a woman's

<footnote n="15"><sup>15</sup> Some of the points that I will raise in this article have already been raised previously, as, for example, the skepticism about the place of discovery of the statue indicated by Ligorio; this is the case, for example, of Margherita Guarducci, 1989, p. 67, who also evokes the reluctance of Margherita Cecchelli (1982); or the place where the "block of stone" was located before its stay in the Loggia (p.70). However, for the sake of clarity, I will not mention the entire bibliography for each point; However, it is clear that everything I will say, which also appears in the bibliography cited, and which I will not indicate as personal research, can be attributed to the authors in question.</footnote>

<footnote n="16"><sup>16</sup> «Tra la via Nomentana e quella di Tivoli fuor delle mura di Roma, e poco discosto dal Castro, over alloggiamentocotidiano dei pretoriani, in certe ruine, fu trovata questa imagine che siede, rotta et mal trattata; nelli duoi lati del(l)a sedia sono posto questi esemplari in greco; di questo vescovo, il quale commentò l’Apocalypsis et compose altre bellissime opere come dicono i scrittori; et si tiene esser quel santo Hippolito di cui fa mentione honoratamente Eusebio; ma non dice di cui diogesi fusse. Ma solamente scrive Theophane che egli fu romano et che fu vescovo».</footnote>
garment that goes down to the feet shod with sandals<sup>17</sup>. The statue is seated on a seat with armrests in the form of leonine protomes whose right side can be seen; it is decorated with inscriptions of which we can guess that they are in Greek; they are also reproduced legibly, face to face, in the lower part of f. 424 for the right side (fig.2a) and on f. 425 for the left side of the seat (Fig.2b). The statue of Hippolytus is mentioned again by Ligorio in a passage taken from a volume of the second recension of his "Antichità romane" preserved in Turin and written, between 1569 and 1581, based on material collected during his stay in Rome<sup>18</sup>. This time, the statue is described as completely restored, enthroned at the entrance to the Belvedere Theatre, where it arrived in 1564, alongside the statue of Aristide de Smirne:

> «which statue (of St. Hippolytus) being badly treated, I, Pyrrho Ligorio, having taken care of the construction and care of the apostolic palatine atrium, under the most holy pontificate of Pope Pius Quarto, **have had it restored**»<sup>19</sup>.

Actually, Ligorio does not say that he "restored" the statue but that « he had it restored », presumably by an artist working in Ligorio’s team (See Francesco Caglioti’s contribution). In the same manuscript, Ligorio also informs us about the successive relocation of the statue in the Vatican Library during the pontificate of Pius V (from 1566).

> « It was taken from the hemicyclo where it was placed, in the part of the aforesaid atrium towards Belvedere, and placed in the apostolic library »<sup>20</sup>.

## *The date of the discovery*

Among the authors who transmitted the inscriptions, Martinus Smetius (1520ca-1567)<sup>21</sup> is the first to indicate the date of 1551 for the discovery of the statue (“reperta”) but with a certain

<footnote n="17"><sup>17</sup> Margherita Guarducci was the first to note that the dress was feminine: M.Guarducci, ****</footnote>

<footnote n="18"><sup>18</sup> Turin, State Archives, Cod.a.III. II J.9, f. 52v.</footnote>

<footnote n="19"><sup>19</sup> «la qual statua (di S. Ippolito) essendo malamente trattata, io Pyrrho Ligorio, havendo la cura di fabricare et curare l'atrio palatino apostolico, sotto il santissimo ponteficato di Papa Pio Quarto, l'ho fatta ristaurare».</footnote>

<footnote n="20"><sup>20</sup> «tolta all'hemicyclo dove era posta nella parte dell'atrio sudetto verso Belvedere et posta nella libraria apostolica»,</footnote>

<footnote n="21"><sup>21</sup>On Smetius: P. Van De Woestyne, *De Oostwinkelse humanist Martijn De Smet (ca.1520-1567)*, vader van de epigrafie, «Appeltjes van het Meetjesland», 60 (2009), pp. 215-296</footnote>
caution ("ut vocant")<fnref n="22" />; he also precises that he saw, read and copied the inscriptions together with Stephanus Pighius (1520-1604)<fnref n="23" />

«Tabulae inveniendi Paschatis descriptae e sede statuae sedentis (ut videtur) Hippolyti/ episcopi cuius meminit divus Hieronymus in catalogo scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, reperta /non procul ab aede Laurentij extra muros, ut /vocant. Anno MDLI. In dextro latere/in sinistro latere. Egomet vidi et una cum Pighio legi atque excripsi»<fnref n="24" />.

The second source is a document of 16 April 1551 indicating that order was given to transfer a block of stone with the Greek calendar (sasso col calendario greco) from the "Loggia del Papa" to the Library<fnref n="25" />.

Therefore, from these two sources, a narrative has been shaped by scholars, according to which the statue had been discovered by Ligorio in 1551 in the ruins "Between the Via Nomentana and that of Tivoli outside the walls of Rome, and not far from the Castro, over the daily lodging of the praetorians » and from there transported to the "Loggia del Papa" and then in the Library in 1551.

Actually, the date of discovery, for which Smetius's testimony is not reliable<fnref n="26" />, as well as the place of it, have no foundation; besides, neither Ligorio nor anyone else has never claimed to

<footnote n="22">²² In view of the punctuation, one can nevertheless wonder if the expression "ut vocant" refers only to the place of discovery or to the date as well.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ On Pighius: C. Nativel, Stephanus Vinandus Pighius, un humaniste accompli, *Humanistica Lovaniensia*, 72 (2023), pp. 157-172.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ « Tables for calculating Easter, inscribed on the base of the statue of a seated (as it seems) Hippolytus, bishop mentioned by Saint Jerome in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, found not far from the church of Saint Lawrence outside the walls, as they call it, in the year 1551. On the right side / on the left side. I myself saw them and, together with Pighius, read and copied them ». The first copy by Smetius is in his manuscript preserved in the national library of Naples (ms V.E.4, ff.33-34); the second one, executed after his return in Flanders in 1551, around 1563, does not mention any date: « NORMA REPERIENDI PASCHAE. In sede statuae, ut videtur Hippolyti episcopi, cuius meminit divus Hieronymus in catalogo scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, reperta non procul a sancto Laurentio extra muros » : Leiden, Universiteitbibliotheek, ms. BPL 1 ; ff.37v-38. Pighius also omitted to date his copy : « In sinistro latere sedis/ in dextro latere sedis (Vat.gr.1902 (ff.197 et 223) ».</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ Vat.lat. 3965, f.24v.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ In fact, regarding another inscription, that is (CIL VI 1168), Smetius first wrote that the «basis marmorea praegrandis» was found «in hortis SS. Ioannis et Pauli posteaque ad vineam card. Carpensis translata» and in a second copy of the inscription, in the same manuscript, instead, that it was «eff.(ossa) in foro Romano ad S.(ancti) Hadriani»; this second location is similar as that of Ligorio «In S. Adriano in via sacra».</footnote>
have personally discovered a statue of Hippolytus; they all write, in the passive form, that the
statue « has been discovered» (Ligorio: "fu trovata"; Smetius: "reperta").

The date of the drawing of the statue

Margherita Guarducci had put forward the date of 1553 for the redaction of the Naples
manuscript, following a proposal by Erna Mandowsky and Charles Mitchell who quoted a letter
of Andreas Masius of February 10, 1553, in which the scholar announces the discovery of an
ancient bust of Miltiades; this bust is also cited by Ligorio in the manuscript XIII.B. 7 of Naples,
which states that the discovery took place « in these days ("in questi giorni (f.415)"). But, what
M. Guarducci omits to mention is that Mandowsky and Mitchell underlined that this is one of
the many dates found in this manuscript, which is clearly composed over several years<fnref n="27" />;
moreover, they show that some parts of the Naples manuscript were written later, and precisely
around 1564, that is, when Ligorio ordered the complete restoration of the statue of Hippolytus
(1564-1565); in fact, the antiquarian drew in this same manuscript the busts of a number of
statues that he had also made restored contemporaneously with the statue of Hippolytus and
had placed, together with that of Aristides (fig.4) —which closely resembles the statue of
Hippolytus—, in the Belvedere Theatre now in the Vatican Museums (fig. 5).

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig.6</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ Mandowsky-Mitchell, *Pirro Ligorio's* cit., n. 12, p. 115, n. 120.</footnote>
Among the other busts quoted by Ligorio, we find that of Sappho Eresia, whose head is considered authentic while the front part is a modern addition with a false Greek inscription, containing errors and for this reason, attributed to Ligorio (IG XIV 253* XIII.B.: 7, f. 412); this is also the case for the bust of Alcibiades (IG XIV 150* XIII.B.7, f. 413) and that of Plato (IG XIV 243*, XIII.B.7, f. 413) with, for both figures, the same process of a modern addition of a false Greek inscription riddled with mistakes, and besides, written in the same characters as that of the bust of Sappho; in Sappho's inscription, the first three letters were engraved on other letters that were erased, as it is the case for the inscriptions on the statue of Hippolytus. We can observe the same type of correction on the stone in several places on Hippolytus's throne, such as on line 14 (fig. 9), where the 'lambda' in 'Platon' was added in smaller script (ΠΡΟΣ ΠΑΤΩΝΑ corr. ΠΛΑΤΩΝΑ). These are details that prompt us to reconsider the dating of these inscriptions and to question their authenticity.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig.7</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig.8</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig.9</figcaption></figure>

Besides, these three busts (Sappho, Alcibiades and Plato) met the same destiny as the statue of Hippolytus (and Aristides), since they were removed from the Belvedere Theater in 1566, by decision of Pius V, and sent to the Capitoline Museums (« It was taken from the hemicyclo where it was placed, in the part of the aforesaid atrium towards Belvedere, and placed in the apostolic library ») as Ligorio tells us in the passage from the Turin manuscript cited above; that of Aristides, whose origins are no less obscure than those of the statue of Hippolytus, took the road to the Vatican Museums, where it is still to be found today (fig. 6).

Returning to the dating of the Naples manuscript, there is therefore nothing to allow us to affirm, at this point, that the commentary, the drawing of a first draft of a statue and the inscriptions
were written in 1553; the only acceptable range is from about 1551 to the complete restoration
in 1564.

*The manuscript transmission of the Hippolytus's inscriptions*

All the scholars who transmitted the inscriptions from the throne of Hippolytus present them in the same form as Ligorio, that is, by placing the inscriptions of the back of the seat near that of the right side, as if they were both on the right side of the throne; besides, all of them indicate the break in the back of the seat visible before its restoration. We may therefore assume that a "paper model" of the text/drawing circulated among all the people who transmitted these inscriptions. It seems that Ligorio transcribing them, without understanding properly their contents, it as it did for other Greek texts<sup>28</sup>; in fact, in his commentary in the upper part of f. 424, in the Naples manuscript, Ligorio represents the inscriptions on the sides as "esemplari in greco", and mentions the commentary on the Apocalypse and, about the other writings of Hippolytus, he cited "other wonderfull works ("altre bellissime opere") but without further precision; all this information undoubtedly comes to him from a third person, probably belonging to the "Farnese circle" mentioned above, and familiar with the texts of the Fathers of the Church, in this case, Eusebius and Jerome. Besides, in the lower part of the text, Ligorio writes a sentence in Greek which clearly indicates that the list that follows is that of the works of Hippolytus : ταῦτα εἰσὶν ἄτινα συνέγραψεν ὁ ἄγιος ἱππόλυτος· ("This is what the holy Hippolytos has written")<sup>29</sup>.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 10</figcaption></figure>

Such a discrepancy between Ligorio's commentary on the works of Hippolytus and this sentence, written for the first and unique time in minuscule, clearly indicates that Ligorio copied

<footnote n="28">28 G. Vagenheim,</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹ Thank you to Stefan Schorn, Professor of Ancient History at the KUL, for his lecture.</footnote>
the sentence and the three inscriptions, together with the erudite conjectures, without
understanding it and making beginners mistakes in such a short sentence<fnref n="30" />.

It was only later, probably at the time of the complete restoration of the statue, around 1564,
that Ligorio understood the content of the inscriptions; after this date, he will no longer speak
of vague « exemplars in greek ("esemplari in greco" ) but will specify that the inscriptions were
engraved on the seat indicate the period in which the calculation of Easter and Easter Sundays
was elaborated ((from the time of Emperor Tiberius until Alexander Mamaeus Augustus); he
will also wrongly quotes another work by the bishop (Comment on St John's Gospel)<fnref n="31" /> and
most curiously claims that Hippolytus is from Porto :

«Near the image of Hippolytus, bishop of Portuense restored by the same pontifex
maximus, because there are written on the sides of his chair some beautiful things, such
as the **feasts of the Jews** and the years and **Sundays of the Passover** of the Resurrection,
from **the time of Emperor Tiberius until Alexandrus Mamaeus Augustus**; and there
is noted the works that the bishop wrote and mentions how St. Joanne, apostle and
evangelist, wrote the Apocalypse and commented on it by the divine Hippolytus<fnref n="32" /> ».

Or again:

«He was another bishop saint to whom the temple was made in the ancient city of Porto
sixteen miles distant from Rome on the Fiumicino river, derived from the Tiber river,
and had in Rome in addition to the praetorian castro another church from the heretics,
ruined where his statue was found ruined, which sits in a solium written with Greek
characters that show it was from the time of the Principate of Alexander Mamaeus;
he was a scholar and in his works listed we see how he made the **feasts of the Hebrew**
in order according to the old testament with his numbers and on the other side it is
written how he studied to find the **KYRIAKH most holy passover of the resurrection**

<footnote n="30">³⁰ Stefan Schorn noted that “The writer makes two typical beginners’ mistakes with the word εἰσὶν: The word is enclitic which means that it loses its accent, if this is possible. It is transferred to the preceding word: ταῦτά εἰσὶν. But the writer makes another mistake: the first word tauta is neuter plural. But in Greek with a subject that is neuter plural, the verb is in the singular. Thus correct Greek would have been: ταῦτά ἐστιν. Also the third person singular of the verb “to be” is enclitic, so the accent goes over to the last syllable of the preceding word”.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹ Ligorio does not understand that the what is mentioned is a comment by Hippolytus on St John’s Gospel and not a comment by St Johns on the Apocalypse.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³² Turin, State Archives, ms.</footnote>
of Our Lord, beginning from the first Sunday and comes until his age; where mention
is also made of the paradoxes which indicate who are the true apostles and who are not
; and as the Apocalypse of the divine Ioanne the Apostle commented»<fnref n="33" />.

Hippolytus as bishop of Porto

Remember that Ligorio claimed, in the Naples manuscript, that he did not know to which
diocese Bishop Hippolytus belonged ("ma non dice di cui diogesi fusse"), thus repeating the
information taken from Saint Jerome<fnref n="34" />. In the Turin manuscript, however, he mentions
"another" Hippolytus whose temple was in the city of Porto but who also had a Church in the
vicinity of the *castrum pretorium*; and it is there that the statue of Hippolytus was supposedly
discovered. It is such an ambiguous position that was probably adopted by the papal court
around 1564, when, according to me, the inscription was engraved on the base of the statue;
Hippolytus is presented as bishop of Porto and his statue is said to have been discovered in the
city, without specifying whether it is the *Urbs* or the city of Porto:

« Statua Hippolyti Portuensis episcopi/ qui vixit Alexandro Pio Im./ ex urbis ruinis effossa/ a Pio IV Medice Pont.maximo/ restituta »<fnref n="35" />.

Another detail seems quite surprising : in the same passage of the Turin manuscript, Ligorio
describes the throne using a term which is unexpected in the language of an antiquarian; he
mentions a "statua che siede in un solio scritto con caratteri greci"; the erudite term "solio",

<footnote n="33">³³ «Fu un altro episcopo santo a cui fu fatto il tempio nell'antica città di Porto sedici miglia discosto da Roma sul Fiumicino rivo, derivato da Tibere fiume, et hebbe a Roma oltre al castro pretorio un altra chiesa dall'heretici rovinata dove fu trovata guasta la sua statua che siede in un solio scritto con caratteri greci che mostrano essere stato del **principato di Alexandro Mamaeo**; studioso e nelle sue opere notate si vede come egli fece le **feste degli Hebraei** per ordine secondo il testamento vecchio con li suoi numeri et dall'altro fianco è scritto come studio a trovare la **KYRIAKH santissima pasqua della resurrettione del Nostro Signore**, cominciando da principio dalla prima domenica et viene insino alla sua etate; dove si fa ancora mentione delle paradoxe fatte quali sono i veri apostoli et quale non; et come ha commentato l'apocalipse del divo Ioanne apostulo».</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴ Jérome, *De viris illustribus*, VI, 61 : « Hippolytus cuiusdam ecclesiae episcopus, nomen quippe scrire non potui»</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ On this inscription, which Brent states was written by Ligorio but without supporting his argument with proof, see this author, who in turn refers to M. Guarducci, La statua di "Sant'Ippolito", StephEphAug, 13, 1977, p. 23, and to the manuscript Cod. Barb. Lat. 2733, f. 42r where we can read this inscription, Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century, Leiden, 1995, p. 8. On the other hand, the current inscription speaks of the transfer to the Library (in 1959) of a " *statuam Hippolyti ecclesiastici viri doctissimi* " without mentioning either his discovery in the ruins of Rome or his quality as bishop of Porto : “IOANNES XXIII PONT MAX/ STATVAM/ HIPPOLYTI/ ECCELSIASTICI VIRI DOCTISSIMI/ IN ADITV/ VATICANAE BIBLIOTHECAE/ COLLOCARI IVSSIT/ XVI KAL AVGVSTI A D MCMLIX/ PONT SVI ANNO”.</footnote>
based on the refind latin word "solium", appears instead, without surprise, in the
*Martyrologium romanum* of Cesare Baronio (1538-1607) when he mentioned the throne :
«Viget adhuc in Portu Romano memoria sancti Hippolyti... His adijcimus, eiusdem
Romani Portus ruderibus effossum esse **eiusdem Hippolyti antiquum marmoreum
simulachrum solio insidens**, in quo circumcirca Graecis litteris inscripti sunt cycli
Paschales annorum sexdecim: quod inde Romam delatum, positum est in Vaticana
bibliotheca»<fnref n="36" />.

Thanks to this detail, we can suppose that there is a link between the information transmitted
by Ligorio about Hippolytus, in his Turin manuscript, and the *Martyrologium romanum*
published in 1586. Although the Turin manuscript was written between 1569 and 1583, it was
based on the research carried out by the antiquarian during his stay in Rome (1545-1568). It is
also known that the work directed by Guglielmo Sirleto (1514-1585) for the writing of this
work, in which Pedro Chacòn (1570ca.-1581), actively participated, began well before 1586³⁷.
Other similarities between the scholars of the Farnese circle and Baronio can also be
highlighted, such as the presumed place of discovery of the statue, linked to the cult of the
martyr Hippolytus as mentioned in the hagiographic sources: "Castro Pretorio" in Ligorio ("
crypta quae est iuxta agrum praetorianum in *Passio Sancti Sixti, Laurentii, Hippolyti*), "aedes
sancti Laurentii" in his friends ("iuxta sanctum Laurentium, in *Liber Pontificalis, Vita
Hadriani*) and "ager veranus" in Baronio (" ad latus agri verani" in *Passio Polychronis*)<fnref n="38" />.

Antiquarianism and the Counter reformation

With Baronio and Chacòn, the study of the statue of Hippolytus leads us, quite naturally, into
the ecclesiastical circles of the Curia and allows us to guess the role and interests of these

<footnote n="36">³⁶ “There still remains at Porto Romano the memory of Saint Hippolytus... To this we add that an ancient marble statue of the same Hippolytus, seated on a throne, was excavated from the ruins of the same Porto Romano, on which are inscribed in Greek letters around it the Paschal cycles for sixteen years. This statue was then brought to Rome and placed in the Vatican Library”: C. Baronius, *Martyrologium Romanum*, Rome, 1586 p. 379.</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ On Sirleto : G. Denzler, *Kardinal Guglielmo Sirleto (1514-1585): Leben und Werk: Ein Beitrag zur nachtridentinischen Reform*, München, 1964 ; I. Backus and B. Gain, *Le Cardinal Guglielmo Sirleto: 1514-1585, sa bibliothèque et ses traductions de saint Basile*, Rome, 1986 ; *Il Sapientissimo Calabro. Guglielmo Sirleto nel V centenario della nascita (1514-2014): Problemi, ricerche, prospettive*, edd. B. Clausi and S. Lucà, Roma Rome. Giacomo Cardinali, fixes the beginning of these works at 1580, in «*Qui havemo uno spagnolo dottissimo*». *Gli anni italiani di Pedro Chacòn (1570ca.-1581)*, «Studi e Testi», 513 (2017), p. 65.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸ Quoted by Brent, pp.18-19</footnote>
prelates, close to the "Farnese circle", for this first evidence of a Christian statue in a critical
moment for the Roman Church. One of the actors in the history of the statue of Hippolytus was
Cardinal Marcello Cervini (1501-1555), the future Pope Marcellus II, whose role is still
unknown in this context; however, Baronio claimed both in his Martyrologium romanum and
in his *Annales ecclesiastici* (1590), that Cervini was the one who ordered the transfer of the
statue to the Vatican ³⁹Library ; what is intriguing, and which did not attract so much the
attention of critics, is that Baronio first mentions the ruins of the city of Porto as a place of
discovery of the statue and then those of the "ager veranus" in the second version of the
Martyrologium romanum (1602).<fnref n="40" /> What is also striking is that this hesitation was already
perceptible in the last testimony of Ligorio; in fact, we have seen that he also mentions another
bishop named Hippolytus, whose seat was in Porto ("Fu un altro episcopo santo a cui fu fatto
il tempio nell'antica città di Porto") but who also had a church in Rome, beyond the castrum
pretorium, where his statue is said to have been discovered ("et hebbe a Roma oltre al castro
pretorio un altra chiesa dall'heretici rovinata dove fu trovata guasta la sua statua"). Baronio, like
Ligorio, mentioned the transfer of the statue to the Vatican library, claiming that this was done
directly from the place of excavations (Porto or Rome); he does not mention his presence in the
courtyard of the Belvedere, where the statue was enthroned at the entrance to the hemicylce in
1564, after its restoration; nor does it mention the presence of the statue in the "loggia del Papa",
as indicated in the archival document of 1551. At that time, however, the library was directed
by a faithful friend of Cervini, Cardinal Guglielmo Sirleto (1514-1585), an excellent Hellenist
who was mainly in charge of Greek manuscripts <fnref n="41" />. Now, in addition to Chacòn, another person
was related to the two cardinals: it is Stephanus Pighius (1520-1604) ; in fact, the Dutch scholar
had been Cardinal Cervini's secretary and his protégé during his stay in Rome (1545-1555)<fnref n="42" />
and both shared the same passion for antiquities and especially inscriptions; Pighius had
composed for Cervini a magnificent collection of inscriptions and drawings of statues visible

<footnote n="39">³⁹ C. Baronius, *Annales ecclesiastici*, Rome, 1590, p. 323.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ See for example, Brent,</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ See B. Clausi and S. Lucà (edd.), *Il Sapientissimo Calabro. Guglielmo Sirleto nel V centenario della nascita (1514-2014): Problemi, ricerche, prospettive*, Università degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata, 2018.</footnote>

<footnote n="42">⁴² On Pighius, see M. Laureys, *Lipsius and Pighius. The changing Face of Humanist scolarship*. In: *Filologie en literatuurgeschiedenis (Philologie et histoire lettéraire)* 68, 1998, pp. 329–344.</footnote>
in Rome in his time<fnref n="43" />; the scholar also had access to the cardinal's personal epigraphic cards (schedae epigraphicae), as we learn from a note preserved in the Leiden manuscript of Martinus Smetius (*Steph. Pighius descripsit e schedis Marcelli Cervini, card. S.tae Crucis, qui postea summus Pont. XXI dieb. fuit*: fol. XVII)); part of his schedae had been written by Sirleto, during his pre-regrinations through the excavation fields of Rome, at the request of Cervini <fnref n="44" />. Regarding the statue of Hippolytus, the presence of Pighius’s copy of the inscriptions in a manuscript of Sirleto, the Vat.gr. 1902 attested a link between the two scholars which is not clear to date<fnref n="45" />. What seems strange in this context, is the total silence of the two prelates about the presumed discovery, near the "castro pretorio" or "Sanctum" Laurentium", of a statue of Hippolytus. In fact, Cervini's keen interest in Christian antiquities is well known<fnref n="46" />; while he was in Bologna in 1547 to lead the discussion "*De indulgentis*" for the sessions of the Council of Trent, Cervini had not hesitated to send Sirleto to explore, in the middle of the heat wave of August, the ancient churches, in search of inscriptions relating to indulgences <fnref n="47" />. How can we explain the absence of exchanges between the two prelates at the time of the statue of Hippolytus, especially when, in the other hand, Baronio describes the extraordinary enthusiasm that the discovery of such a monument aroused in all the scholars present in Rome at that time ("Hippolyti prae se ferente imaginem in Portu romano summa omnium eruditorum laetitia apparauit, Annales 1590")?

## Conclusion

In the light of this investigation, which are still in their early stages, some points can already be stated with certainty: Ligorio does not say to have discovered the mutilated statue that he draws in his Naples Manuscript but that it has been discovered between the Via Nomentana and the

<footnote n="43">⁴³ See note 23. Pighius recovered the manuscript after the premature death of his patron who had become Pope Marcellus II (1555) and offered it to Janus Gruterus. See CIL VI, *sub nomine*.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ Giacomo Cardinali, illustrated the zeal that the two cardinals never ceased to deploy to collect the inscriptions that came out of the ground every day in Rome: *Horti Pii Carpenses. La raccolta di Rodolfo Pio e il collezionismo antiquario a Roma nel XVI secolo*, Roma 2021, *sub nomine*.</footnote>

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵ This led Bovini to say that Sirleto was the author of the copy of the Vat.gr. 1902.</footnote>

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ This is what Cardinali tells us:</footnote>

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷ Cardinals</footnote>
road to Tivoli; he does not provide a date of discovery either and we can't we date with
certainty the drawing of the statue, its commentary and the copy of the inscriptions in the same
manuscript. There is no evidence that such a mutilated statue has been unearthed in the region
of the *Ager Veranus* and transported in the Loggia of the Pope; the earliest mention of the
monument is not of a statue but of a simple block formed by the siege with the inscriptions
("sasso con il calendario greco"), as testified by the archival documents in 1551. Smetius and
Pighius seem to have been the first to have copied this "sasso con il calendario greco" in an
unspecified place but which could be either the Loggia or the Vatican library. What is very
intriguing is that these scholars do not indicate the place where the inscribed throne was
preserved at the time they copied the inscriptions, as they are used to do for all the inscriptions
they collected in their manuscripts and especially for those discovered and preserved in Rome
that they have seen; this is the case, for example, in Smetius's collection where we read "in two
Greek inscriptions engraved on two columns, found on the Via Appia near the tomb of Metella,
and transferred to the Farnese Gardens (in duabus columnis, Via Appia, apud sepulchrum
Metellae repertis, atque in hortos farnesianos translatis ed. 1588, f. 5v., no. 2) »; this is also
the case in Pighius's work, who indicated that the inscription CIL VI 921 was " found in the
Via Lata; sent by Nicolaus Florentius on the Kalends of August, 1562 («reperta in Via Lata;
Misit Nic.(olaus) Florentius kal. Aug. 1562»)<fnref n="48" />. Smetius did not help Ligorio in reading the
inscriptions as their copies are different. As already said, it seems, on the other hand, that a
"standard copy" of the inscriptions was established in 1551 or soon after and that it circulated
among scholars, including Ligorio, Johannes Metellus (1517-1597),<fnref n="49" /> Aldo Manuzio Junior
(1547- 1597) and Chacòn, with numerous and still unclear variants. Curiously, the
identification of Hippolytus changed between 1551 when he was unanimously presented, but
with caution, as the bishop cited by Eusebius and Jerome ("si tiene"; "ut videtur") and the time
of the restoration, where the latin inscription – which was to erudite to be written by Ligorio-
mentioned him as the bishop of Porto, like Ligorio in the second version od his "Antichità
romane" preserved in his Turin manuscripts. This identification was taken up by Baronio and
subsequent criticism<fnref n="50" />.

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Ms. Lat.fol.61 A, f. 103r.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ P.A. Heuser, *Jean Matal. Humanistischer Jurist und europäischer Friedensdenker (um 1517-1597)*, Köln, 2003.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ See the article by William Stenhouse in this volume.</footnote>
Regarding the date of the inscriptions, there is no conclusive palaeographic element to date them to the third century A.D. as claimed by M. Guarducci<sup>51</sup>; they show traces of erasure of earlier letters -and perhaps words- and there are also successive corrections made on the first redaction of the stone (see the word Plato) which lead to the hypothesis of a false inscription composed by the humanists. In this case, we can imagine that the inscriptions, were engraved, by a poorly talented lapicide, on an ancient throne similar to the fragmentary seated statue, probably a copy of a Greek statue of a poet of the mid-2nd century B.C., preserved in the Metropolitan Museum. Like the Hippolytus statue, that of the Metropolitan Museum bears a Greek inscription that identifies his author as Zeuxis but it contains errors, as in the case of the busts of Sappho, Plato and Miltiades mentioned above.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Fig.11</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Fig.12</figcaption></figure>

The addition of the inscriptions on the Hippolytus statue could have been made before 1551, by someone who knew very well the Greek language and the patristic literature; remember that 1551 is the date given by Smetius, the first to provide us with a copy of the texts, along with Pighius, if we believed the Flemish erudite, and it is also the date of the archival document mentioned above. Consequently, between 1551 to 1564, Ligorio may have drawn the throne and the inscriptions, to which he added a female body of a seated statue without its head and arms; what we can notice today is that the actual statue of Hippolytus had a female dress.

The name of Cardinal Marcello Cervini is implicitly linked to the statue of Hippolytus by Cesare Baronio and was taken up by subsequent critics; besides, the copies of the inscriptions by Pighius, Marcello Cervini's secretary, are preserved in a manuscript owned by Sirleto (Vat.gr. 1902), a member of Cervini's entourage who occupies the position of “scriptor graecus” in the Vatican Library. Sirleto and Chacòn played an important role in the reform of the Gregorian

<footnote n="51"><sup>51</sup> M. Guarducci, **</footnote>
calendar. The latter, who was a great expert on calendars and who also commented the *Calendarium Maffeianum*, transmits us a version of the Hippolytus inscriptions engraved that is different from other scholars, but has a link, not yet clarified, with Manuzio’s copy (Vat.lat. 5234, ff. 88-89)<fnref n="52" />. Later, Vignoli will connect the transfer of the Hippolytus in the Vatican Library by Cervini to the reform of the calendar by Pope Gregory XIII, as well as the contemporary discovery of the *Calendarium Maffeianum*, whose history is just as obscure as that of the Statue of Hippolytus<fnref n="53" />.

The numerous written testimonies of Ligorio and his drawing of the mutilated statue, the only one at the time have given it an oversized place in the history of the statue of Hippolytus in the Renaissance, concealing, in my opinion, the motivations of such a “pastiche” ant the real protagonists of the enterprise starting with the role played in its restoration.

<footnote n="52">⁵² See G. Vagenheim</footnote>

<footnote n="53">⁵³ G. Vignoli, *Dissertatio de anno primo imperii Severi Alexandri Aug.*, Romae 1712.</footnote>