Lyster 11 chaptnine layout.

indd 162 9/6/07 4:56:47 PM

 Elizabeth S. Bolman

chapter 9 The Medieval Paintings in the Cave

Church, Phase One
continuity

figure 9.1
Virgin Mary (e6), rst half of
the thirteenth century. Adp/sp 1
s250.05.
The earliest evidence for painted decoration of any kind in
the Cave Church of St. Paul dates to the thirteenth century,
a period during which the Monastery of St. Paul ourished
(g. 9.1). We know from textual sources that pilgrims had
been engaging in devotional practices at this location for
many centuries. We have a far richer array of evidence
enabling us to conclude that icons in various media and
sizes were a standard part of late antique shrines. Even sites
which were not linked to a saint were prepared for spiritual
practice in part with paintings for example, the monastic
oratories of the monasteries at Bawit and Saqqara under-
scoring the central role of representational subject matter
in devotional practice.1 Texts about and remnants from im-
portant loca sancta within and beyond Egypt provide ample
evidence for imagery, decoration, censers, and lamps, both
monumental and small-scale, adorning such holy places.2
Even solitary hermits without access to professional artists
seem to have had a strong impulse to depict crosses, birds,
boats, lamps, monograms, and other Christian symbols,
and sometimes entire passages of signicant texts, in their
caves and rustic habitations.3 Religious representations and
texts functioned for their Christian audiences as tools for
communication with the gures represented, as well as aids
in Christians efforts to nd the path to salvation.4 Addi-
tionally, Mark Swanson has observed textual evidence for
an Egyptian painting of St. Paul described as early as the
seventh century, in a monastic context, demonstrating the
existence of images of this subject in a late antique setting
(Chapter 2). Therefore, despite the lack of evidence for the
existence of late antique images in the Cave Church of St.
Paul, we should nevertheless imagine religious depictions
(informal or skilled) in both the Haykal of St. Paul and the
Shrine of St. Paul by at least the fth or sixth century.5
The reshaping of the cave shrine in the medieval pe-
riod, and the modern application of cement in the Haykal
of St. Paul, have contributed to the destruction of any
such early imagery. Two small areas of medieval painting
have survived at the outer (northern) end of the Shrine of
St. Paul, on both the eastern and western walls, which I
date on stylistic grounds to the later thirteenth-century
program in the Cave Church. Despite the paucity of mate-
rial evidence in the Haykal of St. Paul and the shrine, I am
condent that both late antique and medieval images in
one or more media existed in these two spaces most closely
associated with Paul.6 The medieval paintings in the Cave
Church should thus be understood as continuing a long
tradition of using Christian imagery as a religious tool and
to help constitute a site as holy.
Remains of two phases of thirteenth-century paint-
ings have survived in the Cave Church. Even though nei-
ther program is complete or extensive, each provides an
important opportunity to examine the complex character
of Christian art in Egypt in this period. In this chapter and
the next I consider these images from several points of view:
as works of art, examined for their style and character; as
iconographic subjects belonging to a long artistic tradi-
tion while forming ensembles unique to this church; and
as participants in the performance of both individual and
corporate devotions.
The Haykal of St. Antony
description
The thirteenth-century modications of the Cave
Church included an additional haykal, now dedicated to
St. Antony, and an expanded nave space to the north of the

163

Lyster 11 chaptnine layout.indd 163 9/6/07 4:56:48 PM


figure 9.2
Conservation record of the two
phases of medieval paintings in
the Haykal of St. Antony.
Lyster 11 chaptnine layout.indd 164
THE HERITAGE TR ANSFORMED
original Shrine of St. Paul. The sanctuary space is tall and
narrow, beginning at oor level as a cube and rising with
awkward squinches to a smoothly rounded dome (g. 9.2).
In its earliest medieval phase, this space included paintings
in the bottom third only. The upper zones were unpainted
plaster pierced with three levels of windows made of stucco
grills, creating a dynamic interplay of light and shadow as
the sun moved across the sky (g. 9.3). Fragments of all
three types of openings remained at the start of conserva-
tion, making it possible to re-create, to a large extent, the
original effect of the windows. The uppermost set of four
windows are cross-shaped and fretted with a lacelike stucco,
left completely white.7 The middle set, originally eight in
number, creates a sort of clerestory at the curved base of the
dome. The stucco grills form various repeating patterns of
crosses, eight-pointed stars, and other geometric motifs. A
broad band of red paint now frames each of these windows,
and thinner red lines trace their internal patterns. This
paint could have been applied as part of the earliest phase
of painting in this haykal, or as part of the second phase, as
both painters used similar red pigments. Three windows
in this group were blocked as part of the second phase of
164
medieval painting, in 1291/1292. The lowest set of windows,
in the drum of the dome, was lled with clear glass roundels
in stucco frames. Two of these four are currently lled in,
and two have been restored. The multiple patterns of light
and shadow, with their varied cross patterns, move across
what is essentially a simple space, making it considerably
more visually complex.
The paintings in the lowest third of this space have
survived in a fragmentary state. The lowest two meters or
so of the images have disappeared because of ooding and
the application of cement to the walls. This area would cer-
tainly have included the lower parts of the bodies of saints
now fragmentarily preserved on the northern wall. It may
also have been painted with imitation marble, or perhaps
a solid band of color. The most compelling painting of this
earlier medieval phase is that of the Virgin Mary and Christ
child, anked by what were once two archangels, in the
shallow niche of the eastern wall. Above this is a partially
preserved Annunciation, on the spandrels of the arch fram-
ing the niche (g. 9.4). Remnants of standing saints on the
northern wall show that originally there had been a contin-
uous row of these gures. The division between the western
9/6/07 4:56:48 PM
 THE MEDIEVAL PAINTINGS IN THE C AVE CHURCH, PHASE ONE
figure 9.3
Conserved windows grills in the
dome of the Haykal of St. Antony.
The black square next to the upper
window is an area of uncleaned
plaster, indicating the state of the
dome prior to conservation. It
was removed later in the project.
adp/sp 1 s1194.02.
end of the sanctuary and the nave is established by a tall,
postmedieval wooden screen and would likely have been
lled with something very similar when this addition to
the Cave Church was built in the early thirteenth century.8
The extent of the western wall in this lowest third of the
sanctuary was therefore restricted to a narrow, unpainted
frame. The south wall is also minimal in its expanse at this
level, being pierced with an arched opening that provides
the connection between this haykal and the sanctuary of St.
Paul, directly to the south. The current altar is a modica-
tion of the rst altar in this space, which was placed slightly
more to the north and therefore centered on the niche and
the painting of the Virgin Mary and child. The original
oor of the sanctuary was covered with a greenish stone,
providing a dark, rich, coloristic contrast to the light-lled
white dome above.9
Only the upper section of the composition of the
Virgin and child remains. She sits frontally, on a throne,
holding before herself the child in an oval, often called a
clipeus (shield) or mandorla (body halo). It is an icono-
graphic type usually identied as the Virgin Nikopoios
(victory-maker).10 Only part of the white-bordered oval
with the child survives, but one can still discern a blue
165
Lyster 11 chaptnine layout.indd 165
background, part of an inscription, and traces of red and
encaustic green pigments. Abbreviated inscriptions give
Mary the standard title of Mother of God (Meter Theou).
She stares directly at the viewer with an uncompromisingly
serious expression (g. 9.5). Her large eyes and fully vis-
ible pupils add a sense of otherworldliness to her gaze. The
strong red lines at the base of her eyebrow and delineating
her nose and lips, which are even suggested in her pupils,
add to the intense spirituality of her face. This redness is
repeated again in her maphorion (the garment covering her
head and shoulders), and in a red arch framing her face that
rises above the back of the throne. While the painter has
embellished her cloak only with small groups of white dots,
usually in clusters of seven (one in the middle surrounded
by six others), the throne back is densely patterned, as are
the angels wings and their clothing. The elaborate chair
back has a diagonal design suggesting luxurious padded
quilting, with decorated borders that were presumably
meant to suggest a carved wooden frame. The surviving
face of the angel at the viewers left exhibits a much more
benign facial expression than does Mary, with smaller eyes
that lack the intensity of those of the Virgin.
Two patterned bands establish the transition between
the enthroned Virgin and child, and the Annunciation
above. A red diaper pattern, featuring white crosses within
diamonds, spans the inner edge of the niche. A pleated rib-
bon pattern in red, white, and green marks the outer edge
and rises to a point that is slightly off center. Above, on
the left, Gabriel, the angel of the Annunciation, lls the
spandrel, reaching out to the Virgin with his right hand
(g. 9.6). The green encaustic of his wings and most of
the blue background, and possibly other centrally placed
iconographic features, have almost completely disappeared.
A half circle still extends down from the upper red border
of this painting, and whatever was in its interior also is now
missing. On the right side of the composition, most of a
domed architectural structure, the upper two-thirds of the
Virgins face, the dove of the Holy Spirit, and a few other
small decorative remnants have survived. The archangel
and Mary are named, and part of the text of the angels
salutation has also survived. While Gabriel and Mary are
turned toward each other, they make no eye contact.
On the northern wall, the remains of three stand-
ing saints can now be discerned, post conservation. These
haloed gures stand frontally within red-bordered frames,
against poorly preserved backgrounds that were once blue
at the top and bright green beginning just below shoulder
level. John the Evangelist stands closest to the eastern wall
and is identied by an inscription as: John the Celibate
9/6/07 4:56:48 PM
 figure 9.4
Enthroned Virgin Mary (e6) and
the Annunciation (e7e9). adp/sp
1 s248.05.

Lyster 11 chaptnine layout.indd 166 9/6/07 4:56:49 PM


figure 9.5 top left
Virgin Mary holding the Christ
child in a clipeus or mandorla,
attended by an angel (e6). adp/sp
214 s6 5 05.
figure 9.6 above
Angel of the Annunciation (e7).
adp/sp 20 s206 02.
Lyster 11 chaptnine layout.indd 167
THE MEDIEVAL PAINTINGS IN THE C AVE CHURCH, PHASE ONE
Evangelist (g. 9.7). The characteristic red highlights and
staring eyes appear here, too, but without the extreme in-
tensity of the face of the enthroned Virgin Mary. Only the
uppermost section of this painting, consisting of his white-
haired head and bearded face, still exists. Moving to the
viewers left, the face of the next gure is largely obscured,
but the upper section of his torso has survived, showing
that he holds a book and apparently wears Episcopal dress.
The remains of an inscription identify him as the Evangelist
Luke. Further left, only traces of a halo and the upper red
frame remain of a gure. This no doubt represents Mark.
Certainly enough space existed here for all four evangelists,
and it seems reasonable to assume that the artist included
Matthew as well.
The eastern and northern walls provided the great-
est expanse for painting, and the question remains what
else could have been depicted in the sanctuary. One might
expect to see Antony and Paul, although they may have
been located in the nave, next to the sanctuary entrance, as
one nds them in the Monastery of St. Antony, or placed
figure 9.7 top right in the Haykal of St. Paul to the south. The characteristic
John the Evangelist (e4). adp/sp red border survives on the southern wall, framing the far
14 s206 02. eastern corner, suggesting that this surface was also paint-
ed, but the original thirteenth-century plaster surface has
survived in this area, and, apart from the red border, it is
unpainted. Given the remaining evidence, it is impossible
to say whether the artist nished painting in this zone.
stylistic analysis and dating
The dating of the architectural addition of the Haykal
of St. Antony in the Cave Church depends solely on that of
the paintings in this lowest region, and the only evidence
167
9/6/07 4:56:49 PM
 THE HERITAGE TR ANSFORMED

available for suggesting a time frame for the work of the

figure 9.8
Virgin Mary holding the Christ
child, 1232/1233. Church of St.
Antony, Monastery of St. Antony.
adp/sp 6s 98.
rst medieval artist is an evaluation of style. While such
analyses are still very general when considering late antique
and early Byzantine art in Egypt, the situation with respect
to medieval paintings is somewhat clearer. This fortuitous
state, usually permitting the dating of medieval paintings to
a span of half a century or a century at most, is largely due
to the rm date provided by the inscriptions for most of
the paintings in the Monastery of St. Antony.11 Jules Leroy
and Paul van Moorsel associated the paintings in the lower
region of the Haykal of St. Antony (Monastery of St. Paul)
with those in the Church of St. Antony (Monastery of St.
Antony) of 1232/1233 by the artist Theodore, but without
discussion.12 As van Moorsel noted, the painter at the Mon-
astery of St. Paul worked in a very closely related style to
that used by Theodore at St. Antonys.13 I concur with his
opinion and, with the benet of cleaned paintings at both
sites, will take this opportunity to demonstrate it.
Parallels exist in the depiction of both ornamental ele-
ments and gural subjects. One is apparent, for example,
in the folded ribbon motif embellishing the arch above the
Virgin and child, and in the segmenting of pictorial elds
with red borders. However, the red-framed pearl border so
common at the Monastery of St. Antony, and in associated
but likely earlier paintings at the Monastery of St. Macarius
(Haykal of St. Mark, Wadi al-Natrun), appears nowhere in
the surviving decorative scheme at St. Pauls.14
An evaluation of the relationship between the Virgin
Mary at the Monastery of St. Paul and the same subject in
the apse of the central haykal in the Church of St. Antony
claries the situation with respect to gural and decorative
paintings (g. 9.8; see also g. 9.4). In both representa-
tions the Virgin has a rounded face, clearly outlined, with
reddish shading on the cheeks. Continuous lines delineate
the eyebrows and nose in each painting, but Theodore
typically used black or dark brown outlines, whereas the
artist at St. Pauls avoided them in favor, usually, of red
a distinctive choice apparently unique to this painter. Also,
the artist working in the Cave Church used broader strokes
and white pigment to build up the bridge of the nose, and
rendered the tip differently. The density of the shading be-
tween the eyebrow and eye is much heavier at St. Pauls.
At the Monastery of St. Antony the eyes are somewhat
longer and slightly less intense, but both share a similar
shape and large, staring pupils. The mouths differ as well,
in that curving lines frame pursed lips at St. Antonys, while
at the Monastery of St. Paul the lower part of the mouth
and suggestion of the chin echo this format, yet the upper
lip is fuller and more carefully shaped. At St. Antonys the
articulation of the neck is sometimes conveyed with a large
V shape, but never when showing the Virgin Mary.15 At St.
Pauls, this V appears prominently on the Virgins neck.
The handling of line in both cases is similar, with an even
density, often inscribing simple curves and straight lines.
The decorative features framing the two images of the
Virgin demonstrate the interesting ties between the two
paintings while emphasizing the notable absence of exact
similarities. The patterns on the backs of the two thrones
are very similar, but not identical, as well (g. 9.9). Particu-
larly, the decorative feature found in the interstices of the
diagonal pattern at St. Pauls cannot be found anywhere
in the paintings at the Monastery of St. Antony. The sche-
matic design that borders the throne in the Cave Church
painting, likely meant to suggest a leafy, undulating vine,
is ubiquitous in the Monastery of St. Antony. Nevertheless,
the same basic motif varies in signicant ways at the two
sites. In the Cave Church it is rendered with thin red lines
on white. In the Monastery of St. Antony, thicker red lines
adorn a golden-colored background. Similarities abound,
but the same hand is never evident. A consideration of
paintings belonging to the same general style at monaster-
ies in Cairo and the Wadi al-Natrun does not yield a closer
group of parallels.16 This makes dating the earliest medieval
phase of painting at St. Pauls to the same period as that
of Theodores work of 1232/1233 quite straightforward, but
establishing whether the St. Paul artist worked before or
after that date is impossible to determine.

168

Lyster 11 chaptnine layout.indd 168 9/6/07 4:56:50 PM

 figure 9.9
Detail of the throne of the Virgin
Mary (e6). adp/sp 4 s249 05.

Lyster 11 chaptnine layout.indd 169 9/6/07 4:56:50 PM

 THE HERITAGE TR ANSFORMED

Iconography: The Virgin and Christ Child

The enthroned Virgin and child make up one of the two
standard elements of a combination in Egyptian Christian
painting that rst appeared in the sixth or seventh century
and continued with remarkable iconographic stability into
the thirteenth century. It was not unique to Egypt, but it
seems to have remained a common choice longer here than
elsewhere. This type, rendered in an enormous variety of
styles over the centuries, consists of an enthroned Christ
in Majesty in a mandorla supported by four incorporeal
living creatures and anked by angels, above an image of
the Virgin and Christ child. In these images, and in others
of Mary and the Christ child alone, their presentation var-
ies, including, for example, the child seated on her lap, the
child nursing, and, as at St. Pauls, the child in a clipeus or
mandorla. The best-known early example of this common
two-level iconographic type comes from the Monastery of
Apa Apollo at Bawit (g. 9.10).17 It represents Christ en-
throned in majesty in an eternal realm in the upper zone.
Above, he manifests his divine nature, while below, where
he is shown as a child with the Virgin Mary, he is the in-
carnate Logos, or word of God.18 A smaller painting from
a cell found at the Monastery of Apa Jeremiah at Saqqara
figure 9.10 above shows an abbreviated version of this scene, with busts of
Christ in Majesty above the Virgin Christ depicted in roundels the adult Christ in the upper
and Christ child with apostles and level nicely paired with the Christ child in the lower one
saints, sixthseventh century, after (g. 9.11). Another painting in a monastic cell, found at
conservation. Room 6, Monastery Bawit but no longer surviving, showed a single zone only,
of Apa Apollo, Bawit, now in the with the Virgin holding a clipeus or mandorla containing
Coptic Museum, Cairo (inv. no. the full body of the Christ child, anked by angels.19 The
7118). version in the Cave Church most likely followed this model,
depicting the Virgin Mary holding a large oval framing the
figure 9.11 right entire body of the Christ child, as can be seen by the long
Roundel bust of Christ above the curve of the surviving part of the edge, which shows traces
Virgin Mary holding a roundel of the childs right hand. Theodore used this iconographic
with the face of the Christ child, type when painting his second image of the Virgin in the
sixthseventh century, after nave of the Church of St. Antony (g. 9.12).
conservation. Cell 1723, Monastery The fascinating depiction of the Virgin holding not
of Apa Jeremiah, Saqqara, now in the child himself but an image of the child (in the tradi-
the Coptic Museum, Cairo (inv. tion of the imperial depiction on a clipeus), or perhaps the
no. 7984). childs body halo, invites further analysis. This type is found
in late antique and Byzantine art, with many variations.20
Thomas Mathews has observed problems with interpreting
the oval as a shield, citing one example in a late antique
Armenian manuscript where the iconographer has inserted
this type into an Adoration of the Magi. Mathews noted
that the Magi visited the Christ child himself, not an im-
age of him, and plausibly argued for the interpretation of
the oval as a radiance, a circle of light, a zone of glory.21

170

Lyster 11 chaptnine layout.indd 170 9/6/07 4:56:51 PM

 THE MEDIEVAL PAINTINGS IN THE C AVE CHURCH, PHASE ONE
figure 9.12
Virgin Mary holding the Christ
child in a clipeus or mandorla,
1232/1233. Church of St. Antony,
Monastery of St. Antony. adp/sp
1999.
Another interpreter of the subject sees it as a depiction of
the Christ child in the Virgins womb, tying it to the notion,
expressed by such early theologians as Cyril of Alexandria,
that her womb was limitless, because a human female could
not encompass God.22 This possibility gains credence with
the inclusion of the oval in two twelfth-century icons of the
Annunciation.23 One of these is now, and perhaps was from
an early date, in the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount
Sinai, just across the Red Sea from the Monastery of St.
Paul. Most likely the image in the Cave Church was meant
to be seen in conjunction with the Annunciation just above
it; the Annunciation showed the narrative events surround-
ing the incarnation, and the iconic image below expressed
the paradox of Christs existence within Marys womb.
In the Haykal of St. Antony, in the Cave Church of
St. Paul, the rst medieval painter included the Virgin
holding the image of the Christ child in an oval, as well
as the unusual addition of the Annunciation, but not the
standard Christ in Majesty. The upper region was, at that
time, left white, with the regularly pierced windows in three
tiers. As I will discuss in the next chapter, the later medi-
eval painter transformed the upper area of the eastern wall
and established the more common double-zoned format.
The reasons for omitting the Christ in Majesty in the ear-
lier painters work may suggest that the two-zoned format
was not as ubiquitous as we think, or that this choice was
171
Lyster 11 chaptnine layout.indd 171
dictated by the presence of the windows. Apparently its
absence caused some discomfort, because it was maintained
for less than a century.
Iconography: The Annunciation
Depictions of the Annunciation feature with reasonable
frequency in Egyptian Christian art beginning in late an-
tiquity.24 The earliest surviving example is the painting in
the so-called Chapel of Peace at al-Bagawat (Kharga Oasis),
where there still exists a beautifully reduced image of the
Virgin and the dove next to Noahs ark. A dove ies to the
right, toward Noah, near the lower border of the image,
while another dove approaches Mary from the opposite
direction, directly above the rst dove.25 Most artists have
juxtaposed Gabriel and Mary tightly, although in many of
these depictions the Virgin is positioned completely fron-
tally, making no gesture toward the archangel, so their
proximity does not suggest direct communication.26 As van
Moorsel has observed, this subject was not represented in
the iconographic program at the Monastery of St. Antony at
any time, and so the artist at the Monastery of St. Paul does
not seem to have been copying from St. Antonys in this
instance.27 The St. Paul Annunciation represents a more
elaborate version of the subject, complete with a central
fountain or building. However, a close precedent for this
type of Annunciation, including its placement across an
arch, can be found in the Wadi al-Natrun at the Monastery
of St. Macarius (Haykal of St. Mark), probably dating to
within fty years or so of the Red Sea painting.28 At this
lower Egyptian site, and also at Bawit in a much earlier
sixth- or seventh-century painting, the Annunciation is
paired with the Nativity.29 Interestingly, no trace of the
Birth of Christ exists at St. Pauls, although it may well
have been depicted nearby, as I will discuss in the follow-
ing chapter.
The setting of the event near a fountain derives from
the Apocrypha and not the canonical Gospels. Jules Le-
roy has pointed out that the depiction at the Monastery of
St. Macarius fuses the two standard settings for the event:
a fountain and the Virgins house.30 The St. Paul painter
seems to have made the same choice, although because
of signicant damage to this area of the painting we can-
not be certain (g. 9.13). However, traces of a pattern at
the far right of the painting might indicate a throne, an
iconographical feature found in the Wadi al-Natrun ex-
ample. The semicircle of red arching behind the Virgins
head is also the same in both images. At the Monastery of
St. Macarius, a decorated roundel at the center holds the
place lled in Byzantine art by a half circle and the hand or
9/6/07 4:56:51 PM
 THE HERITAGE TR ANSFORMED
figure 9.13
Annunciation, detail of the house
or fountain building (e8). adp/sp
3 s1207 02.
bust of God, while at St. Pauls the painting is too damaged
to reveal more than a half circle. Oddly, no dove appears
at the Monastery of St. Macarius; perhaps it has been de-
stroyed. The dove is prominent and quite well preserved at
the Monastery of St. Paul (g. 9.14).
The expansion of the Annunciation at St. Pauls de-
viates from the late antique tradition, but both its more
elaborate iconography and its positioning on an archway
nd numerous parallels in Middle Byzantine art.31 In the
depiction of the scene at the Cappella Palatina (Palermo)
of circa 1143, a half circle descends from the center top of
the eld, from which extends the hand of God and a beam
of light. The light reaches from Gods nger to the Virgin
Mary, and the dove is shown midway along it, facing Mary.
In a Middle Byzantine painting of the subject in the Church
of the Panagia Phorbiotissa at Asinou (Cyprus), a white
line travels from God in the central half circle to the dove,
but not beyond (g. 9.15).32 Oddly, in the St. Paul painting,
no evidence has survived for the beam of light extending
from the heavenly space to the dove, but a denite white
line reaches from the dove to Mary. At Asinou, Mary sits
on a throne in front of an elaborate architectural setting,
part of which houses a fountain.
172
Lyster 11 chaptnine layout.indd 172
Medieval Coptic artists, such as the rst thirteenth-
century painter who worked in the Cave Church, may well
have drawn, at least initially, on Middle Byzantine examples
for this elaborate Annunciation type, including the dove,
the half circle denoting heaven with the hand of God, the
elaborate fountain building, and the placement of the scene
on an arch in the sanctuary.33 The artist working in the
Cave Church may also have seen it in the Monastery of
St. Macarius, or in a manuscript. Theodore incorporated
Middle Byzantine elements into his paintings in the Mon-
astery of St. Antony, such as the image of Christ in Majesty
in the dome of the sanctuary.34 Thirteenth-century Coptic
artists seem to have had access to examples of contempo-
rary Byzantine art. They would have seen some of it in its
architectural setting, not just in manuscript illuminations,
because the placement as well as the subject is sometimes
repeated.35
Erica Cruikshank Dodd sees such parallels spread over
a wide region (Sicily, Byzantium, Egypt, and, her focus,
Lebanon), all deriving from monumental art in Jerusalem.36
Artistic innovation at a holy site such as the Church of the
Annunciation in Nazareth would perhaps make more sense
in this instance if we were to follow Dodds general model.
To my mind, however, the process of narration and its
pictorial and textual expression follow more complex and
elusive routes. Artists may have seen or heard about works
at sites other than those in the Holy Land. Also, the role of
smaller-scale media should not be underestimated. They
could have functioned both as loci of innovation and as
readily portable objects potentially interacting with a much
broader audience than would have been possible with xed,
monumental art.
Iconography: The Evangelists
While Leroy and van Moorsel were able to discern with
clarity only the gure of John the Evangelist on the north-
ern sanctuary wall and traces of additional paintings, more
was visible in the early twentieth century.37 Happily, most
of these earlier remnants were uncovered during conserva-
tion (g. 9.16). A photograph taken during Thomas Whitte-
mores trip to the monastery in 1931 shows faint but clearly
identiable depictions of three frontal, standing gures in
separately framed compartments (g. 9.17). That at the far
right (east) shows John, and after conservation we were
able to identify the gure immediately to the west of him
as Luke. While in the Whittemore photograph Johns book
is clearly apparent, and one sees evidence of three-quarters
of his standing gure, now nothing remains but his head
and the region around it. Evaluation of the iconography of
9/6/07 4:56:51 PM
 THE MEDIEVAL PAINTINGS IN THE C AVE CHURCH, PHASE ONE

figure 9.14 above his halo, his beard, the upper part of his torso, his book,
Virgin Mary of the Annunciation and sections of the framed background still exist. Traces
(e9). adp/sp 4 s207 02. of the standard red-bordered frame, and ample space on
the wall, indicate that Luke and John were accompanied by
figure 9.15 right Matthew and Mark.
Annunciation, ca. 13501375, Van Moorsel has pointed out the unusual placement
Church of the Panagia Phorbio- of John the Evangelist, who is closest to the eastern wall. He
tissa, Asinou, Cyprus. Dumbarton suggested that perhaps John was the original patron saint of
Oaks Field Committee Negative, this haykal, and that additional standing gures to his left
as/b 67.81. Courtesy of Dumbarton may have been apostles.38 This explanation may account
Oaks, Washington, D.C. for John, but not for the presence of the other three. One
early representation of the four evangelists has survived on
the Freer Gospel covers, painted on wood in about the sixth
the Evangelist Luke from the archival photograph causes century with two frontal evangelists on each side.39 These
difculties, because a face, book, and torso are dimly visible, images of course have an immediate relationship with the
but they do not appear to relate more than generally to the manuscript, as they are of the authors of the four Gospels,
placement of these elements in the postconservation paint- but their placement in the Haykal of St. Antony also has
ing. This suggests that overpainting existed on this surface, close ties to the rst medieval painters iconographic pro-
and that it did not survive the dual assaults of dampness gram. All the evangelists testify to the divine and human
from rain coming in the window above and moisture aspects of Christ, while Matthew and Luke refer to or re-
pushed upward from cement applied in to the lower part count the Nativity, and Luke describes the Annunciation.
of the wall after oods in 1966 and 1971. De Cesaris and So much of the visual expression of Christian Egypt has
Sucato found no overpainting in this area. The medieval been destroyed over the centuries that we cannot know
level showing Lukes face has been largely destroyed, but if this painting of all the evangelists standing together in

173

Lyster 11 chaptnine layout.indd 173 9/6/07 4:56:52 PM


figure 9.16
Evangelists (e2e4) after conser-
vation. adp/sp 214 s1 5 05.
figure 9.17
Evangelists, 1931, Whittemore expe-
dition, b94. Courtesy of Dumbarton
Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Lyster 11 chaptnine layout.indd 174
THE HERITAGE TR ANSFORMED
the Cave Church was really an unusual choice for its time.
Certainly, full-gure representations of all four evange-
lists appear elsewhere in monumental Egyptian Christian
art for example, in the circa seventh- or eighth-century
paintings in the so-called Red Monastery church near
Sohag. In this instance they ank an enthroned Christ in
Majesty, two on each side, in the southern semi-dome of
the triconch sanctuary.40 This expansive space provides far
more opportunity for gural decoration than does the small
sanctuary in the Monastery of St. Paul. In fact, the Haykal
of St. Antony offered only two complete walls for painting.
The western and southern walls both have openings, and
perhaps the rst thirteenth-century artist was obliged to
place all four of the evangelists together on the northern
wall because of these restrictions. Unusual subjects such as
these once again underscore the vitality and exibility of
the iconographic tradition in the thirteenth century.
the central nave
Until the arce conservation project there was no evi-
dence that the rst medieval painter worked anywhere in
the Cave Church except the Haykal of St. Antony. While
consolidating the complex sequence of plaster layers in
174
the central nave, De Cesaris and his team removed a loose
fragment of eighteenth-century plaster on the eastern wall
(immediately to the south of the haykal screen), revealing
the only indication that the creator of the rst medieval
phase worked in the nave (g. 9.18). Beneath the detached
section of later plaster is part of a face and the upper left
corner of a red border that is painted on the earliest thir-
teenth-century layer, which is associated with the rst
medieval artist. The painter has framed a broad face with
curly white hair. The dominant reddish and pink hues,
the frontal face, the use of colored outlines to establish the
facial features, and the color and width of the halo all tie
this fragment to the better preserved works in the Haykal
of St. Antony. Nevertheless, these remains are not in good
enough condition to identify them unambiguously as being
by the same hand.
Very likely, the subject in this area was a row of stand-
ing saints that was subsequently covered twice with later
layers of plaster. The iconographic program in the Church
of St. Antony, in the Monastery of St. Antony, includes
rows of standing monastic saints in the eastern half of the
nave. Interestingly, the subject of the eighteenth-century
paintings that cover this portion of the early thirteenth-
9/6/07 4:56:52 PM

figure 9.18
Face of a saint (d9), found under
an eighteenth-century plaster
layers. adp/sp 6 s1192.02.
figure 9.19
Angel (e6) attending the Virgin
Mary. adp/sp 6 s1207 02.
Lyster 11 chaptnine layout.indd 175
THE MEDIEVAL PAINTINGS IN THE C AVE CHURCH, PHASE ONE
century program is a row of three monastic saints, Maxi-
mus, Dometius, and Macarius the Great. William Lyster
has considered the possibility that the rst medieval artists
placement of standing saints on the eastern wall of the nave
may have been repeated twice, once later in the thirteenth
century, and once in the eighteenth. The later medieval
artist was certainly active in this area of the church, but
most of his paintings here were destroyed when the plaster
he worked on fell from the walls at an unspecied date.
Only a long painted fragment remains in place below the
ceiling of the eastern wall, extending into the Shrine of St.
Paul. Although little survives, Lyster identied two curved
segments as possible red outlines of the halos of standing
saints, suggesting that the second medieval painter may
have reproduced the earlier subject, or expanded on it. The
eighteenth-century self-taught painter could have in turn
copied the gures rendered in 1291/1292, or, if the paint-
ings were already lost, perhaps he noted the remains of
the rst medieval program revealed by the fallen medieval
plaster, before covering it again with a new layer of plaster.
While no further evidence of painting dating to the early
thirteenth century is now visible in the nave, the recently
uncovered face nevertheless indicates the possibility that
175
the earliest medieval artists may have covered the entire
room with sacred images.
Conclusion
While van Moorsel and I have dated the rst phase of me-
dieval painting to circa 1232/1233 based on its similarity to
Theodores paintings in the Monastery of St. Antony, sig-
nicant and interesting differences exist between the two
painters and their images. Certainly, both artists worked
within the parameters of what I have characterized as a
traditional Coptic mode. Aspects of this style, with its use
of outlines and frontal representation, extend back to late
antiquity. In the medieval period, artists manifest a at-
ter expression of it, with harder lines, a denser applica-
tion of pigments, and a different palette.41 Yet within this
traditional Coptic style there was clearly some diversity.
In the rst place, no stylistic feature in the St. Paul paint-
ings enables us to tie their creator directly to Theodores
team. Most notably, the distinctive choice by the St. Paul
painter to omit black or dark brown lines in favor of red
ones sets his work apart (g. 9.19).42 He therefore seems to
have been working independently of the major endeavor
in the Church of St. Antony, although we cannot rule out
9/6/07 4:56:53 PM

figure 9.20
Newly discovered Christ in Majesty
with the four living creatures and
two archangels, ca. 1232. Church of
St. Sergius and St. Bacchus (Abu
Sarga), Old Cairo. Courtesy of
Angela Jones and arce.
Lyster 11 chaptnine layout.indd 176
THE HERITAGE TR ANSFORMED
the possibility that he had a minor role at St. Antonys, or,
indeed, that Theodore had a minor role at St. Pauls. Yet
based on the surviving evidence, it is fully plausible that
no direct connection existed between the two. Nothing
enables us to place the St. Paul painters work either before or
after Theodores, and the most we can say is that they have
enough stylistic similarity to date the depictions in the Cave
Church to the decades around 1232/1233. Van Moorsel has
asserted that the St. Paul painter would have worked after
Theodore because he could not imagine funds being paid
for work at St. Pauls until the more important Church of
St. Antony was decorated.43 This is an interesting point, but
it seems to me that we know too little of the circumstances
of artistic production to draw this conclusion.
The widespread use of the general style evident at the
monasteries of St. Paul and St. Antony has become clearer
with the recent discoveries of two paintings in Old Cairo, at
the Church of St. Sergius and St. Bacchus (Abu Sarga) (g.
176
9.20) and at the Hanging Church (al-Muallaqa) (g. 9.21).44
These newly uncovered images have close ties to the paint-
ings of the rst medieval artist of the Cave Church, and of
Theodore at St. Antonys, in addition to those at the Mon-
astery of St. Macarius (Wadi al-Natrun) and the Monastery
of St. Mercurius (Old Cairo).45 Details of facial rendering,
clothing, ornamental elements, and color scheme, and an
overall similarity in the shaping and conception of form as
a at, typically outlined pattern, unite them into a common
style dateable from about the mid-twelfth to well into the
thirteenth century. The two recent nds also tell us some-
thing new about artistic production in Egypt, namely that
urban ecclesiastical and remote monastic churches could
be decorated in the same style, employing, at least in some
cases, the same subject matter and perhaps even the same
painters.
The paintings at the two Red Sea monasteries are
much further apart iconographically than they are stylisti-
9/6/07 4:56:54 PM
 THE MEDIEVAL PAINTINGS IN THE C AVE CHURCH, PHASE ONE

cally. Only one of the precise subjects in the Cave Church

is also found in the Monastery of St. Antony, and that
is the Virgin holding the Christ child in a mandorla or
clipeus, but its location is not the same. We have traces of
a standing saint in the nave of the Cave Church but can-
not tie it to the same subjects in the Church of St. Antony
except generally, because we do not know which saint or
saints the rst St. Paul painter chose to represent. No feast
cycle images appear in Theodores program, making the
Annunciation in the Cave Church stand out by compari-
son. And yet depictions of this subject have survived from
late antiquity through the early thirteenth century in Egyp-
tian Christian art. This provides us with a salutary lesson,
namely that the thirteenth-century program in the Church
of St. Antony, which is unique in being almost complete,
shows us one impressive iconographic plan, but not the
only one available to medieval Coptic painters. Theodores
work represents one option, and monuments with fewer
paintings (for example, the rst medieval phase of the Cave
Church), or those which have not survived as well over the
centuries (such as the paintings in the Monastery of St.
Macarius), hint at what must have been a fantastic array of
iconographic ensembles.
Mark Swanson has located a miracle story set in the
Cave Church at the Monastery of St. Paul, in the 1260s,
which reminds us that however much art historians em-
phasize style and iconography, the paintings were not made
principally as works of art but were intended for devotional
purposes. According to this narrative, the monk Gabriel
sent a manuscript that he had just nished copying at the
Monastery of St. Paul to the Monastery of St. Antony.
Along with the donkey carrying the heavy book and other
items, the precious volume was stolen by bedouin en route.
When Gabriel heard this news he went to the church and
threw himself in front of the image of the Virgin Mary,
figure 9.21 where he prayed for three days. The Virgin then spoke to
Angel, thirteenth century, Gabriel, promising the return of the manuscript and telling
after a test cleaning by Luzi and him that he would become patriarch. While of course we
De Cesaris. Chapel of Thekla do not know for certain which image of the Virgin Mary
Haymanot, Church of the Virgin was in the mind of the author of this miracle, we can read-
(al-Mu allaqa), Old Cairo. ily imagine Gabriel directing his devotions to the intense
Courtesy of Father Maximous and authoritative image of the Virgin Mary in the Haykal
El-Anthony. of St. Antony. The limited remains of paintings by the rst
thirteenth-century master make it impossible properly to
address the meaning of his program and its connection to
the liturgy. This medieval account fortuitously provides us
with evidence for one specic role (among many) of the
paintings in the Cave Church. For Gabriel they served as
a vehicle for communication between those on earth and
those in heaven.

177

Lyster 11 chaptnine layout.indd 177 9/6/07 4:56:54 PM