In 1433, Lorenzo Valla attacked contemporary jurisprudence with a treatise attributed to the civilian lawyer Bartolus of Saxoferrato, the “De insigniis et armis.” This was considered Europe's first treatise on heraldry until a team of legal historians questioned its subject matter and authenticity. Meanwhile, visual culture continues to be seen as peripheral to Valla's critical agenda. This article proposes that Valla engaged images as manifestations of social authority and historical change. His epistle against Bartolus participates in an intellectual history of intersections between philology, antiquarianism, and the anthropology of images in which heraldry has been defined.

Recent scholarship on the first English translation of Thomas More's “Utopia” has asked how its publication in the 1550s fits with the larger agenda of Protestant Reformers who promoted the book alongside their other civic projects. This article argues that the initiatives of greatest relevance were the new house of correction at Bridewell (est. 1553–57) and the infamous Vagrancy Act of 1547–49, which failed to introduce slavery as a punishment in English law. Evidence of user interactions with the 1550s editions, including indexing, annotation, commonplacing, and quotation, helps to analyze how the text's complicated ideas about penal labor were received and reemphasized by early English readers.

Early modern ornament might profitably be considered as a set of systems, each with its own rules. It signaled wealth and status. It offered pleasure and prompted curiosity. It cut across the apparent divide between the vernacular and the classicizing. It was relational, understood in the context of a given subject but not necessarily subservient to it. The notion of ornament as essentially supplemental and the prejudice against ornamental excess are both children of the late eighteenth century. Both ideas depend on a post-Enlightenment conviction of the work of art as an autonomous, aesthetically self-sufficient object, an idea not fully formed in the early modern era.

This article argues that, despite the protestations to the contrary of William Camden (1551–1623), the antiquarian methods of his “Britannia” are indebted to the “Origines Antwerpianae” of Johannes Goropius Becanus (1519–73). Both Goropius and Camden posited the contemporary existence of an unchanged primeval language (Dutch for Goropius and Welsh for Camden) wherein etymologies could be used to trace the origins and migrations of ancient peoples. Even as humanist philology underscored the mutability of language, Goropius and Camden selectively ignored this mutability in order to have a basis other than myth or legend for reconstructing antiquity. Their efforts, however, created new myths about language and its ability to bridge present and distant past.

The “Codex Mendoza” is one of the earliest, most detailed, and most important postconquest accounts of pre-Hispanic Aztec life. Nahuas and Spaniards manufactured the codex through a complex process that involved translations across media, languages, and cultural framings. Translations made Aztec culture legible and acceptable to nonnative viewers and readers by recasting indigenous practices, knowledge, ontology, and epistemology. Following a stratigraphic approach that examines the process through which natives and Spaniards created a transcultural manuscript, the article examines the multiple interpretations and negotiations involved in producing images, books, and information about the indigenous world in early colonial Mexico.