The Eve/Mary parallelism/antithesis in the light of Christian theological tradition and its reflection in the iconography of the Annunciation (15th century)

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

The Eve/Mary parallelism/antithesis in the light of Christian theological tradition and its reflection in the iconography of the Annunciation (15th century)

Josй Maria Salvador-Gonzalez

Abstract

This article's relevance derives from having documented the generic thesis of the parallelism between Eve and the Virgin Mary. For reaching these result, we have drawn on the solid doctrinal tradition established by countless exegetical texts of Greek and Latin Church Fathers and medieval theologians, as well as numerous liturgical hymns of the Middle Ages. The current article aims to undertake three mains goals: first to find out and explain some exegetical comments from Church Father and medieval theologians on the parallelism/antithesis between Eve and Mary, and, as a consequence, between Adam and Christ; second to analyze iconographi- cally some paintings of the Annunciation of the 15th century that include in the scene the figures of Adam and Eve; third to prove the possible relation between these doctrinal texts and those pictorial images. For achieving these goals, we will use two complementary methodological strategies: above all, the in-depth analysis of the patristic and theological comments, as well as some medieval liturgical hymns, to emphasize their eventual mutual concordances or discrepancies; in the second term, the iconographic analysis of several paintings of the Annunciation with Adam and Eve based on the millenarian patristic and theological tradition on this matter. As a credible conclusion, we can confirm that these pictorial images of the Annunciation with our first parents reflect the established doctrinal tradition on the parallelisms/antitheses between Eve and Mary, between Adam and Christ, as well as between sin-death and redemption-life. Finally, the current partial approach to the issue under study is just a first step for extensive and in-depth research that one can, and must, undertake over this complex subject, whose relevance is essential both for Mariology and Christology.

Key Words: Original Sin, Redemption, Annunciation, Eve, Virgin Mary, Christ's incarnation.

Methodological introduction

EoAuucbKuьEAazosicuuK№9 (2021)

The problem and its significance

You know well that the event of the Annunciation of the angel to Mary contains three fundamental theological nuclei: God the Son's incarnation as a man, his supernatural conception in Mary's womb through the intervention of God, and Mary's virginal divine motherhood. The parallelism/antithesis that the Church Fathers and theologians established early between Eve and the Virgin Mary, in a confrontation similar to the one they found between Adam and Christ, is also well known. After all, the Annunciation is just a decisive and founding event in mankind's history of salvation. In the Annunciation the angel Gabriel notified Mary of the divine plan of having been chosen as the Mother of God the Son when he will incarnate to redeem the sin with which Adam and Eve had contaminated the human race when they disobeyed God.

This article aims to briefly explore the extremely deep and complex parallelisms in the Annunciation between Original Sin and Redemption, and therefore between Eve and Mary, as well as between Adam and Christ. In this endeavor, we will not restrict only to the theological field but also see its reflection in this special events iconography. To be more exact, we will highlight how the exegetical reflections of the Fathers and theologians regarding these parallels are fully illustrated in some pictorial images of the Annunciation of the 15 th century.

First of all, it should be pointed out that this paper is only a slight outline or quick approach to the problematic and profound theological issue of the plural parallelism between Eve and Mary and between Adam and Christ according to the Christian doctrinal tradition. That is an issue studied more o less deeply by many authors, such as, for example, B. Capelle1, H. Barre B. Capelle, “Le thиme de la Nouvelle Иve chez les anciens docteurs latins”, Йtudes Mariales 12 (1954), 55-76. H. Barre, “Le mystиre d'Иve а la fin de l'йpoque patristique en Occident”, Йtudes Mariales 13 (1955), 61-97., WJ. Burghardt Burghardt, W.J., “Maria en el pensamiento de los Padres orientales. I. La nueva Eva”. In Carol, J.B. Mariologia (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1964), 488-499., Cignelli L. Cignelli, Maria nuova Eva nella Patrologia greca (sec. II-V) (Assisi: Studio Teologico “Porziuncola”, 1966)., L. F. Mateo Seco L. Mateo Seco, “Maria, nueva Eva, segun ls Padres”, Estudios Marianos 50 (1985), 53-69., J. L. Bastero de Eleizalde J. L. Bastero de Eleizalde, Maria, Madre del Redentor (Pamplona, Eunsa, 1995), 40-43., E. Romero Pose E. Romero Pose, “El paralelismo Eva -Maria en la primera teologia cristiana”, Estudios Marianos 64 (1998), 158-163.,

M. Ponce Cuellar Ponce Cuellar, M., Maria, madre del Redentor y de la Iglesia (Barcelona, Herder, 2001), 447-459., S. de Fiores de Fiores, S., Maria, Madre de Jesus. Sintesis historico-salvifica (Salamanca: Secretariado Trinitario, 2002)., 137-171: y de Fiores, S., Maria, sintesis de valores. Historia cultural de la mariologia (Madrid: Ediciones San Paolo, 2011), 120-124., R. Laurentin & S. Meo Laurentin, R. & Meo, S., “Nueva Eva”. In de Fiores, S. & Meo, S. (dirs.), Nuevo Diccionario di Mariologia (Madrid: Ediciones Paulinas, 19864), 1474-1787. Garcia Paredes, J. C. R., Mariologia (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 2015), 191-223., J.C.R. Garda Paredes,11 and M. Hauke M. Hauke, Introduction a la Mariologia (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 2015), 140-141.. It is not possible, indeed, in this short article to develop in full --not even in large part-- such a broad theme which, if it is already demanding in the mere theological sphere, it becomes even more compromising when it is also considered in its relation to the iconography.

A second clarification is necessary. The parallelisms/antitheses between the four mentioned protagonists reflect in various iconographic themes of Christian art. However, in this paper, we will focus our attention exclusively on the iconography of the Annunciation.

Analysis of the research and methodological tasks

To develop the problem from the proposed dual perspective, the theological and the iconographic, we will approach it according to two complementary methodological strategies, namely: first, the comparative analysis of texts from primary Christian sources referred to our object of study; secondly, the comparative analysis of images of the Annunciation of the 15 th century that include Adam and Eve in the represented scene.

In the iconographic aspect, the choice of the 15th century is justified because, in the previous centuries, no Annunciation includes our first parents. The centuries after the 15th already exceed the borders of our research interests, which concentrate in medieval iconography. For the rest, that 15 th century is especially illustrative of our problem. It is then when the Annunciation scene reaches a compositional-narrative complexity and a symbolic richness of extraordinary relevance On the iconographie theme of the Annunciation in the Middle Ages we have written some papers, among which we can highlight the following: “The bed in images of the Annunciation of the 14th and 15th centuries. A dogmatic symbol according to Greek-Eastern Patrology”, Imago. Revista de Emblematica y Cultura Visual, 12 (2020), 7-31. imago.12.17155; “The symbol of light's ray in images of the Annunciation of the 14th and 15th centuries according to Greek Patrology”, Historia Revista, 25 / 3 (2020), 334- 355. The temple in images of the Annunciation: a double dogmatic symbol according to the Latin theological tradition (6th-15th centuries)”, De Medio Aevo, 14 (2020), 56-68. “Haec porta Domini. Exegeses of some Greek Church Fathers on Ezekiel's porta clausa (5th -10th centuries)”, Cauriensia, 15 (2020). 615-633. Iconographic Interpretation of the Temple as a Theological Symbol in Images of the Annunciation of the 14th and 15th Centuries”, Fenestella. Inside Medieval Art, 1 (2020), 23-41. “The Symbol of Bed (Thalamus) in Images of the Annunciation of the 14th-15th Centuries in the Light of Latin Patristics”, International Journal of History, vol. 5, n. 4 (2019): 49-70; “Capitulo 3. La Anunciacion”. In Salvador-Gonzalez, J. M., Ancilla et Regina. Aproximaciones a la iconografia mariana en la Edad Media (Saarbrьcken: Editorial Acadйmica Espanola, 2012), 73-104.. In this area, we will proceed to detect, among the numerous images of the Annunciation, those that include Adam and Eve in their composition. After identifying the paintings with these specific characteristics, we will analyze them comparatively in light of the patristic and theological texts that we have found on the matter.

On the theological side, we will trace some prominent medieval Church Fathers and theologians` writings, aiming to discover some references to the parallelism/antithesis between Eve and Mary and between Adam and Christ. We will also try to detect through comparative analyzes the possible coincidences or discrepancies between the different versions of the Fathers and theologians on the subject under study.

To reach our objectives, we will first analyze the doctrinal sources in three successive stages: first the references of the Eastern Church Fathers, then the comments of the Western Fathers and theologians, and thirdly the liturgical hymns that refer to the subject studied.

After analyzing the textual sources, we will then iconographically analyze some images of the Annunciation of the 15th century that include Adam and Eve in the scene to highlight the perfect correspondence between the doctrinal texts and those images that illustrate them.

Prospecting the subject in primary patristic, theological, and liturgical sources

References in the Greek Patristics

As early as the middle of the 2nd century, St. Justin Martyr (c. 100/14-162/ 8) seems to be the first to address our subject. In his apologetic Dialogue with Trypho, in effect, Saint Justin establishes some eloquent parallels between the disobedient vprgin Eve and the obedient Virgin Mary, and between the Original Sin causing death and the regenerating Redemption restoring life. The apologist thereby seeks to ratify the Christological and Mariological thesis mentioned in the Introduction. Justin puts the matter like this:

[God the Son] became man through the Virgin, so that, by the same path that disobedience began because of the serpent, that path would also be destroyed. [...] Because Eve, being a virgin and uncorrupted, after conceiving with the words of the serpent, she gave birth to disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary, having received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced to her the joyous forewarning that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and that the power of the Most High would cover her with its shadow, for which the saint who would be born from her would be the Son of God, he replied: “Let it be done to me according to your word" And the Son born of this is from whom we have already demonstrated that the Holy Scriptures said that God through him would defeat the serpent and the angels and men assimilated to it; instead, he will free from death those who do penance for their sins and believe in him Justinus, Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo, 100, 4-6. PG 6, 709-711..

Similarly, in the second half of that 2nd century, Saint Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon (c.130-c. 202), establishes in his treatise against heretics suggestive double parallelism between EveMary and Adam's creation/Christ's conception. In the first of these parallels, he brings to light --as Saint Justin did before-- the correlation between the disobedience of Eve, who introduces death into the human race, and the obedience of Mary, who begets the regenerator of life for mankind. This is how he states it:

Just as Eve, disobeying, became the cause of death for herself and for the entire human race, Mary, having as her husband the one who had previously been destined for her, being a virgin, became with her obedience the cause of salvation for herself and all mankind Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus Haereres. Liber III, 22, 4. PG 7-1, 859..

In another passage in this book, the prelate of Lyon insists:

For in the same way that this one [Eve] was seduced by the speech of an [evil] angel who induced her to flee from God, and she prevaricated against the divine word, so the other one [Mary] was influenced by the speech of an angel [Gabriel] to lead God, obeying the divine word. If the first one had disobeyed God, the second, instead, allowed herself to be persuaded to obey God so that the Virgin Mary became the advocate of the virgin Eve. And in the same way that mankind was put to death by a virgin, it is also saved through a Virgin: the balance of virginal disobedience [of Eve] has been restored through virginal obedience [of Mary] Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus Haereres. Liber V, 19,1. PG 7-2, 1.175..

In another paragraph of the same apologetic treatise, Irenaeus takes up from another perspective the parallelism between Eve's lethal disobedience and Mary's redemptive obedience by pointing out:

Mary, too, being a virgin, manifested herself obedient by saying: “Behold, Lord, your handmaid; Let it be to me according to your word" Instead, Eve was disobedient because she, even being a virgin, did not obey. Just as Eve, having a husband, Adam, but remaining a virgin [...], by her disobedience was the cause of death for herself and the entire human race, so too Mary, even having a predestined husband [Joseph], remaining, however, a virgin, by her obedience became a cause of salvation, both for herself and the entire mankind Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus Haereres. Liber III, 22, 4. PG 7-1, 959. On this issue Josй Antonio Aldama states: “La armonia perfecta del plan divino para la redencion del mundo contiene todavia, para San Ireneo, otro aspecto que vuelve a demostrar la maternidad virginal de la madre del Salvador. Es un nuevo paralelismo. Pero ahora no entre las personas del primero y el segundo Adan, sino entre la escena de la caida y la escena de la reparacion: entre el pecado del paraiso y la redencion incoada en la encarnacion. Alli aparece Eva al lado de Adan en el momento de la ruina; aqui tenemos a Maria junto a Jesus cuando se inicia la salvacion. Como antes nos hablo San Ireneo de la correspondencia entre Jesus y Adan, asi ahora nos presenta el paralelismo entre Maria y Eva. Este nuevo paralelismo alcanza en el obispo de Lyon perspectivas muy amplias, como tendremos ocasion de verlo mas adelante. De momento nos interesa solo el punto de la virginidad; con mas precision, el de la concepcion virginal. Esta aparece aqui solo indirecta e incidentalmente. La intencion del pasaje se orienta mas bien hacia la actuacion de Maria y de Eva en el drama. Pero precisamente para subrayar la oposicion antitйtica de la actuacion de ambas se cuida San Ireneo de notar las caracteristicas en que coincidian sus personas. Entre ellas esta la virginidad de las dos en el momento de actuar. Eva era todavia virgen cuando peco desobedeciendo a Dios; Maria era igualmente virgin cuando concibio a Jesus plegandose d"ocilmente a la voluntad divina.” (Aldama,92-93)..

Several lines later, Saint Irenaeus confirms the thesis that Mary's faith and obedience have a powerful salvific value for mankind by pointing out: “But thus the knot of Eve`s disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience. What the virgin Eve bound with her unbelief, the Virgin Mary untied with her faith.” Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus Haereres. Liber III, 22, 4. PG 7-1, 959.

As if that were not enough, Saint Irenaeus highlights the antitheses between death and sin produced by virgin Eve's disobedience in the tree of the Earthly Paradise and the life created by Virgin Mary's obedience, by accepting to be the mother of the Redeemer; he stresses also the antithesis that contrasts the sinner Adam with the Savior Christ, who will regenerate life with his death on the tree of the cross. This is how the bishop of Lyon explains it:

Thanks to her obedience on the tree [of the cross, Mary] recapitulated the disobedience of the other tree [the tree of the Earthly Paradise]; and the unbridled seduction, by which unfortunately that virgin Eve, who was already destined for a man [Adam], was seduced, and was dispelled by the truth of the one [Mary] who was well evangelized by the angel and was already under a husband, the virgin Mary [...]. And, just as the one who allowed herself to be seduced disobeying God, so the second one allowed herself to be persuaded by obeying God so that the Virgin Mary would become the advocate of the virgin Eve [...]. Consequently, the sin of the first man was repaired by the righteous conduct of the Firstborn [Jesus], and the cunning of the serpent was overcome by the simplicity of the dove [Mary], and thus the ties that bound us to death were broken Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus Haereres. Liber V, 19,1. PG 7-2, 1.175..

Approximately a century and a half later, Saint Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 295-373) also takes up the antitheses Eve/Mary and Adam/Jesus. In his sermon in honor of Mary and her cousin Elizabeth, he assures that the Virgin Mary is the mother of all people, having engendered Life (Christ) for everyone. At the same time, Eve is the mother of the dead since all they die in Adam and all are made alive in Christ. The Alexandrian Father then adds that Eve tasted the fruit of the tree and made her husband eat with her, and that is why he died, while in Mary, a prudent Virgin, God the Son lives, who is the tree of life Athanasius Alexandrinus, Sermo de Maria Dei Matre et de Elisabeth Ioannis matre. In S. Alvarez Campos (comp.), Corpus Marianum Patristicum, (Burgos: Aldecoa, 1970), vol. II, 64..

St. Athanasius immediately says that, as Eve listened to serpent's suggestion, all people suffered deception, while Mary, hearing angel Gabriel's pleas, forgiveness flourished among the sons of mankind. Eve spoke with the serpent, and mankind was infected with serpents venom, and perfidies and gluttony came with slander. But Mary, in conversing with the angel about how she was to give birth, the lips of all people were cleansed through forgiveness and justification Ibid.. St. Athanasius concludes this disquisition by affirming that, when Eve looked at the tree of Paradise with lust, voluptuousness and impudence multiplied throughout the earth. Still, when Mary looked gently at Gabriel as he spoke, modesty blossomed in mankind along with temperance, purity, and virginity Ibid..

Around the same years that St. Athanasius expounded these ideas, the exquisite hymnographer and theologian St. Ephrem of Syria (307-373) pointed out in a hymn about the Church:

Mary and Eve, both innocent and straightforward, were put into a set: one origin of our death, the other origin of our life.

Eve's prudence corrupted her innocence, and she went mad. Mary, on the other hand, wisely constituted her prudence in the grace of her innocence Ephraem Syrus, Hymni de Ecclesia 35. In S. Alvarez Campos, Corpus Marianum Patristicum, (Burgos: Aldecoa, 1970), vol. II, 509)..

Several stanzas later, he goes on to say that, while Eve saw the beauty of the tree of Paradise and received in her soul the serpent's advice, Mary discovered by her ear the invisible God, who came through the angel's voice, and the fruit of her womb was the Power of the Most High that came to incarnate24 Ibid..

In another hymn about the Church, St. Ephrem expresses that Eve`s body was perfect and whole before her creation, and as a symbol, it was extracted from a rib of Adam, since Eve is the occasion of sins; and, as that rib was destined to destroy Adam's wall the magnificent and honorable lightning coming from Adam and Eve disappeared because of Eve, and returned through Mary25 Ephraem Syrus, Hymni de Ecclesia 45. In S. Alvarez Campos, Corpus Marianum Patristicum, (Burgos: Aldecoa, 1970), vol. II, 511)..

Some decades later, St. Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315 / 20-403) expresses in a passage from his treatise against heretics:

Indeed, Eve had been called the mother of the living after hearing the words: “You are earth, and to earth, you will return" after accepting sin. It seems worthy of admiration that she, after this sin, is attributed such an illustrious title. Looking at things from the outside, it is noticed that Eve is the one who is the origin of all humankind on earth. Instead, life itself has now been introduced into the world by the Virgin Mary so that she begets the living being [Christ], and thus Mary is the mother of the alive people. Therefore, similarly [to Eve], Mary is designated as the mother of all living people26.

A few lines later, St. Epiphanius delves into the Eve / Mary antithesis, arguing in these terms:

Eve became the cause of death for men because death entered the world through her. On the other hand, Mary was the cause of life because life was produced for us through her. For this reason, God the Son came into the world, and "where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more" From where death originated, life also arrived so that life would supplant death; if death came from a woman [Eve], the child of another woman [Mary] was born to exclude death and so that we would have life. And since, while the Virgin Eve was in Earthly Paradise, she offended God with her stubbornness, that is why the obedience characteristic of grace flowed from the Virgin Mary, after it was announced that the Word of God and eternal life would come from heaven incarnated in a [human] body27.

Perhaps during those same decades, St. Gregory Nyssen or of Nyssa (c. 330/35-c. 395) took up the thesis of the parallelisms/antithesis between Eve and Mary, and between Adam and Christ, when in a sermon on the Nativity of Jesus argued :

Death came through one man [Adam], and salvation came through another man [Christ]. The first man fell into sin; the second lifted whom had fallen. The woman [Eve] is defended by a woman [Mary]: the first opened the way to sin, while the second managed to open the way to justification. The first followed the serpent's advice, and the second one showed who would kill the serpent and gave birth to the author of the light. Through the wood [of Earthly Paradise's tree], the first introduced sin; the second, on the contrary, through the wood [of the cross], introduced the good. By wood, I understand the cross, whose fruit [Christ] is always green and becomes immortal life for those who taste it2S.

Towards the end of the 4th century or the first half of the 5th, St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 370 /73-444), after affirming that Christ came to be baptized and to sanctify baptism, states that, as the death occurred because of the virgin Eve, it was necessary that life be born through the Virgin, or, instead, be born

Epiphanius Salamis, Adversus Haereses, 78,17-18. PG 42, 728.

Epiphanius Salamis, Adversus Haereses, 78,17-18. PG 42, 728-729.

Gregorius Nyssenus, In diem natalem Christi. PG 46, 1.148.

of the Virgin. And, as the serpent deceived that one, so the messenger Gabriel gave this security CyrillusAlexandrinus, Cathechesis XII. De Christo incarnato, 15. PG 33, 742..

Probably around the same years, St. Proclus of Constantinople (c. 390-c. 446/47), in a sermon on Christ's incarnation, outlines some exciting ideas about the parallelism/antithesis between Adam and Christ poetically. In that text, in fact, after asking the Jews to be ashamed for denying the virginal childbirth of Mary, for saying that, if she gave birth, she could not be a virgin, Proclus confirms that, in the same way, that Adam was formed by God without any pain nor stain, the human birth of God incarnate is free from corruption Proclus Constantinopolitanus, Oratio De Incarnatione Domini nostri Jesu Christi, 1. PG 65, 695.. Then, he points out that Christ is called the second Adam according to the flesh, because his predecessor, the first Adam, was an image of God when the clay gave form to his figure, and, ultimately, Adam carried the figure of Christ, so that he foreshadowed Christ incarnate Ibid.. Proclus concludes his discourse at this point by stating that God, the endless principle of life, formed Adam with his divine hands as an image of himself, while he became incarnate in Christ, his own image being uncreated of him; and while Adam, whose house is the Earthly Paradise, received his soul through an insufflation of God and had an insidious woman for his wife, Christ, whose house is heaven, was seen in the form of a servant and had the Virgin Mary in his thalamus Ibid..

In a sermon in praise of Mary, Proclus now dwells on the parallelism/antithesis between Eve and Mary, stating that Eve withered in the wild desire of the tree of Paradise, readily accepting the bad advice of the serpent. In contrast, Mary, rejecting evil thoughts, quickly closed her ears. And while Eve, lovingly picking the fruit of the tree, imagined that she would become a goddess, Mary, on the other hand, composed praises to God with the dignified union with God. And if Eve, in turning to corruption, intended to achieve an eminent dignity quickly, Mary, entering into divine joy, did not forget human stupidity Proclus Constantinopolitanus, Oratio De Laudibus sanctae Mariae, 16. PG 65, 751..

Around the same years that Proclus issued such concepts, Hesychius of Jerusalem (t c. 450), in a sermon on the Annunciation, responded in these terms to a rhetorical self-question:

Do you see how much and what is the dignity of the Virgin Mother of God? For she gestated as a child the Only Begotten Son of God creator of the universe, and reformed Adam, and sanctified Eve; she annulled the dragon [the devil] and opened heaven, preserving the seal [of virginity] of the womb34.

Some three-quarters of a century later, Procopius of Gaza (c. 465-528) states in a book of commentaries on Genesis that, while a woman (Eve) is condemned to sadness and servitude for her sin, Christ, born of woman, removed the curse for love of men; and, so that the objectionable cannot appear guilty, the angel Gabriel, coming from heaven, eliminated sadness with joy, using the introductory greeting “Hail,” and manifesting the cause of it by saying “the Lord is with you.” Hesychius Hierosolymitanus, Sermo V. Ejusdem de eadem [Sancta Maria Deipara]. PG 93, 1462. Procopius Gazensis, Commentarius in Genesin, Vers. 16. PG 87-1, 212. 36 Ibid.Procopius then adds that Mary was Eve`s image since they were both virgins, and Eve, being still a virgin, sinned and obtained sadness from the serpent and founded sadness for all who sinned afterward; instead, Mary brought joy from God and removed the curse of mankind36.

Almost a century and a half later, St. John Damascene (675-749) begins by greeting Mary in a sermon for the Annunciation with the praise “Hail, daughter of Eve, [...] the first woman.”37 Iohannes Damascenus, Homilia in Annuntiationem B.V. Mariae. PG 96, 650. 38 Iohannes Damascenus, Homilia I In Nativitatem B.V. Mariae, 1. PG 96, 662. 39 Iohannes Damascenus, Homilia II In Dormitionem B.V. Mariae, 3. PG 96, 727. Then, in his first sermon on the birth of the Virgin, he affirms that, if the gentiles, deceived, deluded and far from the truth, celebrate the birthdays of their kings with all honor, we must honor with much greater right the birth of the Mother of God, by whom the whole mankind has been reintegrated, and by whom the sadness of our first mother Eve has been turned into joy; as, while Eve heard the divine sentence “You will give birth in pain” and “Your desire will go to your husband,” Mary heard “Hail, full of grace” and “The Lord is with you.”38

In his second sermon for the Dormition of the Virgin, the Damascene says that Eve listened to the announcement of the serpent and heard the suggestion of the enemy, giving way with her senses to the fallacious voluptuousness, with which she deserved the divine sentence of giving birth with pain and being condemned to death along with Adam39. On the contrary, the Holy Virgin Mary, who listened to the word of God and was filled by the intervention of the Holy Spirit, and impregnated by the power of the Father, conceived without male concourse the person of the Word of God, and she delivered him painlessly. Therefore, Damascene asks rhetorically, how could death devour such a privileged woman?

How was hell going to take her in? How could corruption invade that select body from which Christ received life as a man? Iohannes Damascenus, Homilia II In Dormitionem B.V. Mariae, 3. PG 96, 727.

References in Latin Patristics and theology

Although scarcer and less effusive than those of the Greek-Eastern Fathers, numerous are also the statements of Latin-Western Fathers and theologians on the subject under study. By way of a series of representative examples, we will now glean some of those comments in the Latin sphere.

Towards the middle of the 4th century, St. Zeno of Verona (c. 300-371/72) accepts this double parallelism/antithesis between the four referred protagonists, exclaiming with an emphasis in one of his apologetic treatises:

Oh charity, how pious and how rich! How powerful! Who does not have you has nothing. You were able to change God into a man. You made him pilgrim from the immensity of his abbreviated majesty for a short time. You locked him up for nine months in your virginal jail. You reinstated Eve as Mary. You renewed Adam in Christ "O charitas, quam pia et quam opulenta! O quam potens! nihil habet, qui te non habet. Tu Deum in hominem demutare valuisti. Tu eum breviatum, paulisper a maiestatis suae immensitate peregrinari fecisti. Tu virginali carceri novem mensibus relegasti. Tu Evam in Mariam redintegrasti. Tu Adam in Christo renovasti” (Zeno Veronensis, Liber I, Tractatus II, 9. PL 11, 278)..

A couple of decades later, St. Ambrose of Milan (330-397) takes up the Eve / Mary parallelism, posing it through emphatic antitheses. This is how the holy bishop of Milan argues:

Therefore, evil came for a woman, likewise good came for a woman; as for Eve we have fallen, for Mary, we are standing; for Eve we are prostrate, for Mary we are upright; Eve led us into servitude, Mary set us free. Eve subdued us for a long time; Mary restored us in perpetuity. Eve gave us condemnation for the apple of a tree. Mary absolved us for the fruit of another tree because Christ was hanging on a tree [the cross] like a fruit42 "Ergo malum per feminam, imo per feminam bonum; quia per Evam cecidimus, per Mariam stamus: per Evam prostrati, erecti per Mariam: per Evam servituti addicti, per Mariam liberi effecti. Eva nobis sustulit diuturnitatem, Maria nobis reddidit perpetuitatem: Eva nos damnari fecit per arboris pomum, Maria absolvitper arboris donum; quia et Christus in ligno pependit, ut fructus” (Ambrosius Mediolanensis, Sermo 45. De primo Adamo et secundo, 2. PL 17, 715)..

Approximately three decades later, the famous polygraph St. Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420) states in one of his epistles:

Eve was constantly giving birth in pain. But, after the Virgin conceived in her womb and gave birth to her Child [...], the curse was broken. Death entered through Eve, life through Mary. For this reason, and more richly, the gift of virginity flowed to women because it began with a woman*3.

More than a century later, St. Eleutherius of Tournai (c. 456-531) insisted on this antithesis between Eve and Mary, stating in a sermon for the Annunciation:

Our mother, Eve, was aggravated by three evils, but the Holy Virgin Mary is excluded from them, and she rejoices with tripartite happiness. As she is comforted with the angel's greeting; after she is already comforted, she is blessed, and it is announced that she will be fertilized with the fullness of grace "et in doloribus jugiter Eva pariebat. Postquam vero Virgo concepit in utero, et peperit nobis puerum [...] soluta maledictio est. Mors per Evam: vita per Mariam. Ideoque et ditius virginitatis donum fluxit in feminas, quia coepit a femina" (Hieronymus Stridonensis, Epistula XXII, 21. PL 22, 408). "Mater nostra Eva tribus malis aggravatur, beata vero Maria ab his excluditur, et tripartita felicitate laetatur. Salutatione etenim angelica confortatur, confortata benedicitur, et plenitudine gratiae fecunda esse nuntiatur" (Eleutherius Tornacensis, Sermo in Annunciationis festum. PL 65, 97)..

Towards the middle of the 6th century, the bishop St. Venantius Fortunatus (c. 530-c. 607/10)-- proclaims in one of the stanzas of his famous Marian liturgical O Gloriosa Domina :

What sad Eve took from us, you restore it with your divine Son;

For the unfortunate can enter glory,

You have been turned into a window to heaven45 Quod Eva tristis abstulit, / tu reddis almo germine; / intrent ut astra flebiles, / coeli fenestra facta es. (Venantius Fortunatus, O Gloriosa Domina. Miscellanea. Liber VIII. Caput IV. De Sancta Maria. PL 88, 265)..

Six centuries later, the controversial writer Peter Abelard (1079-1142) notes in a sermon on the Assumption of Mary:

The devil certainly tempted our first parents in the serpent of the forbidden tree, he captivated the male and the female, and we are condemned by those four; namely, the forbidden tree, the persuasive serpent, Eve seduced, and Adam deceived. But for as many, we have been repaired. While Mary believed the angel that was sent to her, just as Eve gave her consent to the devil; the new Adam [Christ] redeemed us on the tree of the cross, and with that tree, he repaired the damage to the other tree [of the Earthly Paradise] and cured as with medicine the lethal taste of the poisonous apple; and for those fruits assumed from the tree of the cross46.

Some years later, the influential Cistercian teacher Saint Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux (1090-1153), in his second sermon in honor of the Virgin Mary, addresses our first parents in these rhetorical terms:

Rejoice, Father Adam, but rejoice even more, O mother Eve, who, as parents of all human beings, were also their destroyers, and, what is even more unhappy, were more destroyers than parents. Console each other in the daughter [Mary], and such a daughter; but even more this one [Eve], from whom evil was first born, whose reproach then passed to all women. [...] Therefore, Eve, run towards Mary; run, mother, to her daughter; let the daughter answer for the mother, eliminate the reproach of the mother, satisfy the father for the mother, because, if the man fell for the woman, he no longer gets up except through the intermediary of a woman47.

Almost half a century later, Adam of Saint-Victor (1122-1192), in a hymn for the octave of Christmas, formulates:

The old Adam at last joyful promote a new song Fugitive and captive:

Proclaim in public

“Diabolus quippe in serpente de ligno vetito primos parentes tentavit, virum et feminam captivavit, et per haec qoatuor damnati sumus, scilicet lignum prohibitum, serpentem suadentem, Evam sedu--ctam, Adam deceptum. Per totidem etiam reparati sumus. Dum angelo ad se misso Maria credidit, sicut diabolo Eva consensit; Adam novus in ligno erucis redemit, et de ligno ligni damna reparavit, et noxii pomi lethiferumgustum quasi medicamine quodam curavit;fructibus illis de arbore crucis assumptis (Petrus Abelardus, Sermo XXVI. In Assumptione Beatae Mariae. PL 178, 545).

“Lњtare, pater Adam, sed magis tu, o Eva mater, exsulta, qui sicut omnium parentes, ita omnium fuistis peremptores, et, quod infelicius est, prius peremptores quam parentes. Ambo, inquam, consolamini super filia, et tali filia; sed illa amplius, de qua malum ortum est prius, cuius opprobrium in omnes pertransiit mulieres. Instat namque tempus, quo iam tollatur opprobrium, nec habeat vir quid causetur adversus feminam, qui utique, dum se imprudenter excusare conaretur, crudeliter illam accusare non cunctatus est, dicens: Mulier, quam dedisti mihi, dedit mihi de ligno, et comedi. Propterea curre, Eva, ad Mariam; curre, mater, ad filiam; filia pro matre respondeat, ipsa matris opprobrium auferat, ipsa patri pro matre satisfaciat, quia ecce si vir cecidit per feminam, iam non erigitur nisi per feminam (Bernardus Claraevallensis, Homilia II. In laudibus Virginis Matris Homilia II, 3. In Obras completas de San Bernardo. Edicion bilingьe promovida por la Conferencia Regional Espanola de Abades Cistercienses, vol. II. Tratados (2°) (Madrid: La Editorial Catolica, 1984), 616).

The sadness of Eve: the joyful Virgin Produced the fruit of life "Adam vetus tandem laetus / Novum promat canticum / Fugitivus et captivus :/Prodeat in publicum. / Eva luctum : vitae fructum / Virgo gaudens edidit" (Adamus a Sancto Victore, Sequentiae III. Dominica intra octavas Nativitatis. PL 196, 1432)..

Not many years later, the ecclesiastic and poet Peter of Blois [1135-1204] assures in one of his sermons:

Eve was created from old Adam, but the new Adam and the Redeemer of the old Adam is born of Mary. That [Eve] expelled from paradise the one who was both her husband and her father; he assumes her [Mary] as her husband as her son to an even happier Paradise. [...] Eve's pride took away paradise, Mary's humility returned us to heaven.49 "De veteri Adam creata est Eva ; novus autem Adam et veteris Redemptor generatur ex Maria. Illa de paradiso illum suum tam virum quam parentem expulit, hanc hodie suus tam sponsus quam filius ad feliciorem paradisum assumpsit. [...] Evae superbia nobis abstulitparadisum, Mariae humilitas nos revexit ad coelum. (Petrus Blesensis, Sermo XXXIV, In eadem Assumptione, PL 207, 663-665).

References in medieval liturgical hymns

Based on the concordant patristic and theological tradition, firmly consolidated from generation to generation for more than a millennium, countless liturgical hymns arose from early on, recited or sung in various religious ceremonies and prayers and recitation of the Hours. We are especially interested in analyzing the hymns produced in honor of the Virgin Mary for our topic. In this regard, we have drawn on the vibrant collection of Marian medieval hymns collected in 1854 by the German historian and archaeologist Franz Josef Mone in the second volume of his famous repertoire of medieval liturgical hymns F. J.Mone (ed.). Hymni Latini Medii Aevi. E Codd. Mss. Edidit et adnotationibus illustravit Franc. Jos. Mone. Tomus Secundus. Hymni ad. B.V. Mariam (Friburgi Brisgoviae: Sumptibus Herder, 1854 From now on we will quote this compilation of medieval hymns with the abbreviation Mone, followed by the page on which the quoted stanza of the hymn is found..

Among all these Marian hymns, we have selected --because they somehow capture the parallelism/antithesis between Eve and Mary, and between Adam and Christ-- the following, which we will cite with the number with which FJ. Mone register them:

Hymn 324 Ad beatam Virginem Mariam (12th century) states:

Your conception restored us,

to whom the deception of the serpent overwhelmed us, and ended To exile

promoted by Eve Tua nos restituit / conceptio, / quos serpentis obruit / deceptio , / de mortis eripuit / confinio, / et finem imposuit / exilio, / quod Eva promeruit. (Hymnus 324, Ad b. V. Mariam. In Mone, 6)..

Hymn 357 De beata Maria. Prosa (14th century) expresses:

As the mankind been fallen by crime of mother Eve,

Gabriel quickly sent to this [Mary]

With the Alliance,

Promises her: “Hail.” ^{5 2} 3 24. Tua nos restituit / conceptio, / quos serpentis obruit / deceptio, / de mortis eripuit / confinio, / et finem imposuit / exilio, / quod Eva promeruit. (Hymnus 324, Ad b. V Mariam. In Mone, 6).

The hymn 492 Oratio de beata Maria virgine (14th century) says:

The banished sons of Eve And the wayward sinners [trust] in the name of your Son, who suffered for mankind, so that with his blood spilled wash us from sin Exules Evae filios /peccatoresque devios / in tui filii nomine, / qui passus est pro homine, / ut ejus sparso sanguine/ nos lavaret a crimine. (492. Oratio de b. M.v. In Mone, 212)..

The hymn 498 Oratio super Ave maris stella (from the 15th century) states:

Changing Eve's name, give us a slight burden, so that the gall of primeval guilt do not corrupt us.

You have a loving man And famous,

You have a sweet soul You, heavenly honey.

Turn the cry of Eve In a joyous laugh,

So that we enter the meeting like this In which God abides Mutans nomen Evae, / confer onus leve, / ne culpae primaevae / nos corrumpat fel. / nomen amorosum / habes et famosum, / spiritum favosum, / tu coeleste mel. / Evae transfer fletum / in arrisum laetum, / sic intremus coetum, / ubi manet el. (Hymnus 498. Oratio super Ave maris stella. In Mone, 221)..

Hymn 363 De Annuntiatione. Prosa (undated) says:

Gabriel was sent from heaven,

As a faithful messenger of the Word,

To say holy words To the holy Virgin.

The excellent and gentle Word

It unfolds inside the room [the womb of Mary]

And forming “Ave” from Eve, reversing Eve's name Missus Gabriel de coelis, / verbi bajulusfidelis, / sacris disserit loquelis / cum beata virgine. / Verbum bonum et suave /pandit intus in conclave / et ex Eva formans ave, / Avae verso nomine. (Hymnus 363. De annuntiatione. Prosa. In Mone, 55)..

Iconographic analysis of some annunciations of the 15th century

After exposing the doctrinal meanings brought to light by the Greek and Latin Fathers and theologians and by the Marian hymns analyzed on the parallelsisms/antitheses between Eve and Mary, and between Adam and Christ, as well as between sin-death / redemption-life, it is now time to analyze some images of the Annunciation that include the figures of our first parents in their scene.

Fra Angelico, Altarpiece of the Annunciation, 1425-26.

Prado Museum, Madrid.

In this emblematic Annunciation Altarpiece in the Prado Museum, Fra Angelico stages the episode in an elegant house in the shape of a Renaissance loggia or portico. Both protagonists fill almost the entire space We hace studied this Prado Museum altarpiece in the chapter J.M. Salvador-Gonzalez, "La Anunciacion de Fra Angelico en el Museo del Prado. Interpretacion de sus significados doctrinales'. In P. de Paz Amйrigo & I. Sanz Extremeno (eds.), Eulogia. Estudios sobre cristianismo primitivo. Homenaje a Mercedes Lopez Salva (Madrid, Guillermo Escolar Editor, 2018), 345-367.. With respectful attitude, the radiant angel Gabriel begins to kneel before the Virgin Mary, who, sitting modestly, with the prayer book open on her right leg, crosses the hands on her chest and bows her head as a sign of acceptance before the divine will that the heavenly messenger communicates to her.

In the upper left corner of the painting, the hands of God the Father emit towards Mary the ray of light - a symbol of God the Son--, in whose wake the dove of the Holy Spirit flies, in a clear illustration of the angelic announcement: “The Holy Spirit will come over you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." The ray of light and the dove thus symbolize the immediate conception of the divine Son incarnate as man in the Virgins womb at the very instant that she accepts the will of the Most High to become the mother of the Redeemer. Perhaps to make this incarnation more evident, the painter has represented the adult Christ's head in the tondo located over the central column.

Now, for our aims, the most exciting thing in this altarpiece is, in the left sector of the composition, the prominent presence of Adam and Eve, modestly covered with one-piece dresses, who, embarrassed by the Original Sin just committed, are being expelled from the Earthly Paradise by the angel that flies over their heads. It should be noted how, in the middle of that lush forest that symbolizes Paradise, a standing palm tree emerges, which could suggest the Tree of the Science of Good and Evil. exegetical parallelism christ theologian

In any case, it is clear that the cult painter Fra Angelico (a Dominican friar) has here significantly highlighted the figure of our first parents after sinning and being thrown out of Paradise, in contrast to the scene of the Annunciation as an effective way to signify the parallelisms/antitheses between Eve and Mary, and between Adam and the newly incarnate Christ the Redeemer. Oddly enough, not a few commentators on this work, such as Josй Manuel Cruz Valdovinos In commenting this Prado Museum Annunciation, Josй Manuel Cruz Valdovinos (Escuela italiana” In Buendia, J.R. et al., El Prado. Colecciones de pintura, 11-350) not even mentions Adam and Eve. or Magnolia Scudieri58 In her comment on the Annunciation by Fra Angelico in the Prado Museum, Magnolia Scudieri (in Scudieri, M. & Giacomelli, S., Fra Giovanni Angelico. Pittore miniatore o miniatore pittore? (Firenze, Giunti, Firenze Musei, 2007) does not mention the theme of Adam and Eve., forget to mention these essential parallelisms/antitheses. In contrast, others interpret them unconvincingly, as in Diego Angulo feiguez59 When analyzing various Annunciations by Fra Angelico, Diego Angulo Miguez, Museo del Prado. Pintura italiana anterior a 1600 (Madrid, Gredos, 1979) makes this insignificant comment on the subject: “Tanto en el Museo del Prado como en Cortona el tema de la Anunciacion va acompanado por el comentario de la historia de la expulsion del Paraiso de nuestros primeros padres, pero desde elpunto de vista artistico lo importante es quepermite alpintor conceder una cierta parte delescenario alpaisaje(p. 33-34). and Adolfo Sarabia On this Prado Museum altarpiece, Adolfo Sarabia (Cinco Anunciaciones en el Museo del Prado, Madrid, Fundacion Amigos del Museo del Prado, 1998) highlights the gestures of Adam and Eve that way: "Aqui, sin embargo, tenemos dolor contenido, el }que he hecho? de Adвn y un gesto ya de oracion de Eva. Nada mвspecar aparece e\ arrepentimiento y, con el arrepentimiento la esperanza del perdon. No van desnudos, sino vestidos de una forma una vez mвs, simbolica. [...] Pues ese mismo vestido [de peregrinos] es el que llevan aqui Adвn y Eva, peregrinos para siempre por una tierra llena de dificultadesy de espinas como las que simbolicamente cinen sus cinturas, y lejos del lugar donde todo era dicha, del Edйn, del que literalmente estвn saliendo”. (p. 51).

Fra Angelico structures this altarpiece of San Giovanni Valdarno with a compositional-narrative model almost identical to the one used in the recently analyzed Prado Museum altarpiece: an almost similar house-portico, equal positions in the Virgin and the angel, opening of the portico to the left into a garden. There are also some differences between the two altarpieces: the vaulted ceiling of the Prado Museum becomes a flat roof in the Valdarno altarpiece, the hands of God the Father and the ray of light disappear, and the dove of the Holy Spirit is now.

Fra Angelico, Annunciation of San Giovanni Valdarno, c. 1430-32. Museum of Santa Maria delle Grazie.

on the head of the Virgin, while in the tondo on the central column now shows the bust of the prophet Isaiah displaying a phylactery with his prophecy "Ecce virgo concipiet

However, from the point of view of visual prominence, the most notable difference is that the expulsion of Paradise in the Valdarno altarpiece appears relatively minimized in the distance, in a fragment of the upper part of the left band. However, despite its small size, this scene of the expulsion from Paradise retains the same tragic density as in the altarpiece in the Prado Museum, especially when in Valdarno our first parents step on, not a flowery garden, as in the painting of Madrid, but a barren and bare land, a symbol of the sufferings and death of those who have been condemned after sinning disobeying God.

Fra Angelico, Altarpiece of the Annunciation, 1433-34. Diocesan Museum of Cortona

In this third version of the Annunciation, Fra Angelico reformulates to a large extent the compositional and narrative approaches that he structured in his two previous versions of Madrid and Valdarno, although with a closer approach to the latter: similar house-portico open towards the flowery garden, similar flat roof, similar bust of the prophet Isaiah in the tondo over the central column, similar arrangement of the divine dove (without a ray of light or the hands of the Most High) over the head of the Virgin, similar location of the scene of the expulsion from Eden towards an arid land in the upper left corner of the painting, although in the Cortona altarpiece the figures of the first parents and the angel who expels them are more extensive than in Valdarno painting.

A remarkable difference concerning the Prado and Valdarno versions is that Fra Angelico brings Gabriel a more active pose in this Cortona altarpiece, using two visual resources. First of all, because, instead of having the hands crossed over his chest, as in the other two altarpieces, Gabriel points up here with his left index finger -- to signify the origin of the message he communicates to Mary--, while with the right one points to the Virgin, to indicate that she is the one chosen by God to be the mother of his divine Son. Secondly, because the painter makes the dialogue between the two protagonists visible, through inscriptions in gold letters that flow from their mouths: Gabriel emits his speech in two separate lines: the upper line, curving upwards, carries the phrase Sp[iritu]s S[anctus] sup[er]ve[n]iet i[n] te; the lower line, descending rectilinearly, bears the phrase virt[us] Alti[s]si[mi] obu[m]brabit tibi. For her part, Mary responds in the middle line -- with the letters inverted from bottom to top, as if the Most High can read them -- with the sentence, Ecce ancilla Do[mi]n[i fiat mihi secundum] v[er] bu[m] tuum.

As in the two preceding altarpieces, this one of Cortona Fra Angelico clearly illustrates the parallelism and antitheses Eve/Mary, Adam/Christ, sin/redemption, so clearly explained by the Fathers and theologians of the Eastern and Western Churches When analyzing this Cortona Annunciation of Fra Angelico, A. Zuccari (“Simbolismi medievali e forme rinascimentali: la `porta dischiusa' nell'arte dell'Angelico”. In Zuccari, Morello & de Simone, Beato Angelico. Lalba del Rinascimento, 247-274) brings this irrelevant comment: "Nell'Annunciacione di Cortona (1434 curca, fig. 4) ilprospettico colonnato creato dal punto di fuga esterno al dipinto indiriza lo sguardo verso la `caduta dei Progenitori senza sminuire la centralita della porta e la valenza simbolica della colonna che si frappone tra langelo e la Vergine(p. 35)..