By Elizabeth Fitzpatrick ’26

 Major: Art History; Minors: French Studies and Museum, Field, and Community Education

Contributor Biography: Elizabeth Fitzpatrick is an art history major from Catonsville, MD. After graduation she is pursuing a master’s degree in art history at American University. In the future, she hopes to work in a museum to share her love of art with others. In her free time, she enjoys reading, making art, and watching really bad movies

Brief Description: This paper analyzes images of Eve and the Virgin Mary in medieval prayer books to demonstrate how the two figures function as part of a cycle of sin and redemption in Christian theology.

The following was written for ART 494: Medieval Illuminated Manuscripts.

Medieval Christian theologians were extremely interested in the ways in which different parts of the Bible connected to each other, a study known as typology. One particularly significant typological connection was found between Eve as the first sinner and Mary as the Mother of God, who, though very different, played important and related roles in the cycle of sin and redemption. Representations of the parallels between the two can be found in the decoration of manuscripts, particularly in Books of Hours, due to the way the narratives were placed in conversation with each other, encouraging the viewer to think about the relation between the two figures. 

Eve is often described and depicted as a temptress who lured Adam into sin through seduction. Modern feminist scholars have argued that no biblical texts indicate Eve’s responsibility for any temptation or deception, but the view of Eve as a seductress continues to dominate.¹ Various authors from the twelfth through fifteenth centuries describe Eve as the one to blame for the Fall, and for dragging Adam with her.² Other medieval writing about Eve argues that she is inherently secondary and inferior to Adam, due to being created from his rib.³ Through this understanding of Eve as duplicitous and subservient to Adam, as well as the belief that Adam and Eve are the first man and woman, Eve becomes representative of all women. For example, the fifteenth-century witch-hunter’s guide the Malleus Maleficarum says that there is much evil about women because of Eve and her “imitators,” and in Heloise’s twelfth-century letters, she repents of having been born a woman because it was a woman who led Adam into sin.⁴ 

Yet, at the same time that scholars and theologians enumerated the many sins of Woman/Eve, they also uplifted and venerated Mary due to her unique identity as a woman: the Mother of God.⁵ 

Humiliati nuns at the double monastery in Viboldone in the twelfth to fourteenth centuries would have encountered two very different images of women in their daily worship. The church was split down the middle by gender, and the differing contents of the frescoes on the side where the nuns entered versus the monks indicates that the subject matter was deliberately chosen and carefully placed in order to convey a gendered message to the nuns.⁶ The Virgin Mary is depicted in a prominent place visible to the nuns and contrasted with a seductive image of Eve. The frescoes presented Mary as a “virtuous role model” but also provided a warning in the form of Eve.7 By juxtaposing Mary and Eve, the nuns are reminded that they should strive to be like Mary, but they are also vulnerable to sin. 

In fact, Mary’s unique status, while positioning her as a role model and promoting devotion and obedience, also serves as a reminder that her rank is unattainable, particularly when paired with the sinful Eve. She acts as a singular opposite to Eve, reinforcing that all other women are sinners like Eve.8 

Nonetheless, it was possible for women to identify with Mary as an empowering female role model.⁹ At least one example also shows that if Mary was unattainable as a role model, women could also connect with the figure of Eve as a repentant sinner. A church in Thann with an unusual iconographic emphasis on a positively-portrayed Eve in its sculptural decoration was found to have a female patron, who likely requested the focus on Eve because she identified with the story of her as a repentant woman.10  

Although the disparity between the virtue of Mary and Eve is significant, ultimately their narrative function is what makes the connection between them so important. The Hildesheim Doors are famous for their typology, particularly the message they convey about the opposition of Mary and Eve through the placement of scenes from Genesis and the New Testament.¹¹ The depiction of Mary and Eve on the doors speaks to the growing cult of Mary and condemnation of Eve in the eleventh century, as the juxtaposition between them is not found in the manuscript sources from which much of the imagery on the doors was taken.¹² The contrast between Mary and Eve is highly emphasized through the choice to depict Eve as an eroticized temptress and the placement of narrative scenes directly adjacent to each other.¹³ 

Eve’s sin is understood to prefigure Mary’s ultimate redemption of not just women but humanity through the birth of Jesus. At the Annunciation, Mary became the vessel for redemption made necessary by Eve.14Mary became known as the “Second Eve” or “New Eve” who would complete the cycle of Redemption which began at the Fall.¹⁵ While Eve was disparaged for her sin, it was also understood as a necessary part of the narrative. Without Eve, there would be no need for Mary or the miracle of the Incarnation.16 Some even claimed that Mary’s ultimate redemption of Eve’s sin was evidence that the Fall and subsequent redemption was part of God’s plan all along, a necessary evil permitted by God.17 

Perhaps the most common narrative comparison between Mary and Eve is the parallel between the Fall and the Annunciation that can be found in many Books of Hours. Although the decoration and contents of a Book of Hours varied due to personalization, moralizing and devotional scenes were common choices for decoration.¹⁸ One scene that appears in many examples on the first page of Matins, the first prayer in the Hours of the Virgin, is the Annunciation, accompanied by the Fall of Adam and Eve in the margins. 

A marginal scene of the Fall can be found in Book of Hours M.1160 (figure 1). The main illumination depicts the Annunciation, with Mary reading on the left while the angel Gabriel appears to her on the right. The borders of the page are decorated with an ornamental pattern featuring flowers and berries. Within the borders, there are smaller marginal scenes. Located on the right outer edge is a scene depicting Mary weaving at her loom, and underneath the main Annunciation scene is a scene depicting the Fall. Adam and Eve stand on either side of the Tree of Knowledge, which has the Serpent wrapped around its trunk. Adam and Eve’s positions mirror each other, and they both raise a fruit to their mouths. 

The size of the Annunciation scene compared to the marginal scenes clearly shows that the focus is meant to be on the Annunciation, with the other scenes serving an auxiliary function, emphasizing aspects of the Annunciation. 

Within the Annunciation scene itself, Mary is depicted reading a book, likely a bible. In fact, she has two open books, one on her lap and the other on a lectern. Mary is often shown surrounded by books to encourage private religious devotion through reading for women, which was growing in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.¹⁹ She is also accompanied by a vase containing a lily, located prominently between her and the angel, a symbol that is also often used to represent Mary’s purity.²⁰  

In addition to depicting her private religious devotion and her purity in the main image, the marginal scene of Mary at her loom emphasizes that she participates in virtuous women’s work, and in apocryphal literature she is sometimes said to have been weaving at the Annunciation.²¹ In the Middle Ages, the two most important duties of a virtuous woman were considered to be motherhood and textile production.²² Mary’s participation in weaving in the marginal scene as she learns the news of her impending motherhood shows how she dutifully fulfills both aspects of her role as a woman. Similarly, Eve is typically depicted laboring with her distaff while Adam labors in the field after the Fall.²³  Engagement in fiber craft is another way the two women are connected, with Eve spinning thread and Mary weaving thread into fabric. 

Mary’s virtue is the very thing that allows her to redeem the sin of Eve, so emphasizing virtue through the marginal scene of her weaving connects to the idea of Mary as the “New Eve.” This connection is further underscored by the inclusion of the Fall scene directly under the Annunciation. By including the scene on the same page at all, the creators of the manuscript urge the viewer to think about the connections between the two scenes. Further compositional similarities draw further parallels. For example, the Tree of Knowledge with the Serpent divides Adam and Eve. If one were to draw a line straight up from the tree trunk, it would intersect with the Dove of the Holy Spirit. The rounded top of the Fall scene also comes almost to a point, directing the eye upwards towards the Dove. Where the Serpent served as a nefarious influence on Eve, the Dove functions as exactly the opposite. The scene of the Fall is located slightly off-center from the frame containing the Annunciation, indicating that it may have been an intentional choice to align the Tree/Serpent with the Dove, as a more natural choice would be to center the scene underneath the frame. 

The manuscript Garrett 56 (figure 2) is a later Book of Hours made by the same workshop as M.1160. The decoration of the Annunciation scene is more elaborate, and rather than being surrounded by an ornamental border, the scene takes up the majority of the page, with an architectural frame. Underneath the Annunciation is once again a marginal scene of Mary weaving, accompanied by a scene of the Presentation of the Virgin at the Temple, both of which again serve to emphasize Mary’s virtue and religious devotion. 

However, instead of depicting the Fall in a marginal scene, the artist has chosen to place Adam and Eve as part of the architectural frame. Their location in the frame rather than a marginal scene, by the very nature and definition of a frame emphasizes that not only are there parallels between the two events, but also that the Fall provides the context that frames the Annunciation: without Eve’s sin, Mary would not need to give birth to Christ the Redeemer. Garrett 56 again makes use of the vertical axis to bring attention to the contrast between Mary’s virtue and the sin of the Fall. The Tree/Serpent is located at the center of the top border of the frame, directly above the staff that Gabriel holds out and the lily in a vase that divides Mary and Gabriel. 

Garrett 56 is a later manuscript made by the same workshop as M.1160, so the development in the perception and depiction of Eve is apparent. While in M.1160 the poses of Adam and Eve directly mirror each other, Garrett 56 depicts them differently. They face towards each other, and both raise their fruit towards their mouths while covering their genitals with the other hand. However, Adam’s mouth is open, as if he has yet to take a bite, while Eve’s is not, and the fruit she holds appears to be halved, while Adam’s is still whole, emphasizing that she sinned first. Additionally, Adam stands upright, his legs straight, while Eve’s legs are crossed. In M.1160, they both had been depicted with crossed legs. As discussed in reference to the depiction of Eve in the Hildesheim Doors, the twisting motion of Eve compared to Adam’s stillness conveys falseness or vice,  andportrays Eve as more aggressive and active in sin, referencing her supposedly sexual seduction of Adam to entice him to eat the fruit.²⁴ 

Additionally, the depiction of the Serpent differs between M.1160 and Garrett 56. In M.1160, while the Serpent has a human head, it is small and androgynous. In Garrett 56, the Serpent’s head is larger in comparison to its body, emphasizing that the Serpent is depicted as feminine via long, flowing hair. Beginning in the thirteenth century, the Serpent is more commonly depicted with a female head and torso, connecting the sin that originated with the Serpent to Eve’s identity as a woman.²⁵ 

Both the depiction of the Serpent with a female head and the activeness of Eve’s pose in comparison to Adam’s serves to emphasize Eve/Woman’s culpability in sin compared to Adam/Man’s. If Eve is solely responsible for (woman’s) sin, then it is more necessary for Mary, as a virtuous woman and mother, to bring about redemption. 

Other examples from the same workshop appear in Books of Hours M.129 (figure 3) and M.151 (figure 4), where the poses of Adam and Eve and the prominence of the Serpent’s female head match Garrett 56, showing the consistency in the depiction of Eve as responsible for sin. An example from a different illuminator appears in Psalter-Book of Hours MA 113 (figure 5), that, while lacking a Serpent, also depicts Adam and Eve in an architectural frame surrounding the Annunciation, with Adam standing still and upright, while Eve stands twisted, showing that these iconographic choices to depict Eve as responsible for sin are not unique to one workshop. 

The Annunciation and the Fall were popular subjects to pair together in Books of Hours, and the iconography remains the same across different examples, demonstrating a consistent interpretation and manner of depiction. Book of Hours M.290 (figure 6) also features a main scene of the Annunciation with a depiction of the Fall in an architectural frame.  

Unlike some of the other examples discussed, Adam and Eve are not depicted in sculptural niches but as part of a relief along the base of the frame. Yet, this example still makes use of the vertical axis to draw a connection between the Tree/Serpent, the Dove of the Holy Spirit, and the staff of Gabriel, which even has a scroll wrapped around it, mimicking the way the Serpent wraps around the Tree. Depicting the entire scene of the Fall in the frame, rather than just Adam and Eve as some of the other examples have done, highlights the connections between the entire narratives of the Fall and Annunciation as significant moments in the overall narrative of sin and redemption, rather than just emphasizing the connections between the figures of Mary and Eve.  

These depictions of the Fall as a framework for the Annunciation that appear in Books of Hours are certainly helpful for understanding the perception of Mary as a “New Eve,” but they are not the only visual depiction of the connection between the two women. Page-spanning illustrated initial letters found in thirteenth-century bibles at the beginning of Genesis firmly cement an understanding of Eve’s original sin and Mary’s redemption as not only related, but as a part of God’s cosmic plan. 

These initials, such as one found in Bible G.42 (figure 7), show scenes from Creation and the narrative of Adam and Eve that are found in the Book of Genesis. Yet, they also include scenes from the New Testament, including the Annunciation and Crucifixion. The size of the initial, the entire length of the page, allows it to function as a vertical timeline, showing the progression of events, beginning with God creating the heavens and earth, and culminating in the Crucifixion. Focusing on the cycle of sin and redemption through the Fall, Annunciation, and Crucifixion and placing these scenes in proximity to the cycle of God’s Creation depicted at the beginning of Genesis, suggests that they were part of God’s plan for His creation from the beginning. 

Vertical alignment of scenes indicating that Original Sin is part of God’s cosmic plan has been used in other medieval art. Annette Reed argues that a mosaic in the S. Marco Creation Cupola depicting five angels treading on a serpent evokes imagery of Mary, and the proximity of this scene to scenes of Adam and Eve and the Creation sequence puts them in conversation with each other.²⁶ By locating the sin of Eve, the metaphorical evil of the serpent, and the scenes of Creation in proximity, the presence of sin in the world is shown to have been part of God’s intention.²⁷ Although the placement of the serpent in the cupola alludes to the Fall, the veiled angels, which evoke Mary, remind the viewer of the promised redemption.28 This same idea can be seen in the initials locating the Annunciation and Crucifixion in proximity to Creation and the Fall. Sin occurs with the understanding that it will one day be reversed by Jesus. 

An initial acting as a vertical timeline can also be found in Bible G.46 (figure 8). This initial contains three columns, while G.42 had consisted of only one. The central column of the initial contains the seven days of Creation, including the Creation of Eve, as well as the Crucifixion at the very bottom. The side columns contain the narrative of Adam and Eve, as well as the Annunciation and Nativity. The three columns make this initialmore visually challenging, as they do not provide a straightforward vertical timeline. For example, the Creation of Eve occurs in the sixth panel of the center column, while Adam and Eve are depicted beginning in the second panel of the side columns. While overall the initial continues to function as a timeline by connecting the cycle of sin and redemption to Creation, the complexity of the panel layout alludes to a more complex typology and encourages the viewer to think about the connections between adjacent panels. 

For instance, the panels on either side of the Creation of Eve show the Annunciation, directly connecting Eve and Mary. The moment of Eve’s creation parallels the moment where Mary is given her purpose as the Mother of Christ. While previously discussed depictions showed the connection between the Annunciation and the Fall highlighting the narrative of redemption, the proximity of the Annunciation and the Creation of Eve in the initial shows the importance of the figure of Mary as the “Second Eve.” 

However, narrative parallels are still present. In the side panels above the Annunciation, the Expulsion from the Garden takes place. Both the Annunciation and the Expulsion are given two panels, one on either side of the central column, while other scenes such as the Fall and the Nativity are confined to a single panel. In the Expulsion, the archangel Michael is located in the left panel, while Adam and Eve are located in the right panel, looking toward the left. In the Annunciation, the archangel Gabriel is located in the left panel, while Mary is located in the right panel, looking toward the left. The compositional similarities between the panel layout highlight the narrative connection between the sin of Adam and Eve and the eventual redemption via Mary as the Mother of God. 

When looking at illuminations that depict the Annunciation and Fall scenes in proximity to each other, there are a few examples that make use of the Tree of Jesse imagery, most notably a page found in the Book of Hours M.175 (figure 9). This page features a main Annunciation scene with a smaller scene of the Fall incorporated into the architectural border of the Annunciation, much like the images previously discussed. However, the frame encompassing the entire page is made of the Tree of Jesse, illustrating the lineage of kings from which Mary and Jesus are descended. The tree sprouts from the chest of Jesse, who reclines asleep in the lower margin. 

The reclining position of Jesse possibly references the Creation of Eve. Jesse’s sleeping posture appears similar to the way Adam is usually depicted in the scene, and the tree sprouts from his chest as Eve is most commonly depicted sprouting from Adam’s. This connection is readily brought to the forefront by the presence of Adam and Eve elsewhere on the page. The emphasis on lineage, paired with the positioning of Jesse that evokes the Creation of Eve and the use of a tree as both the means of depicting lineage and the instrument of the Fall, possibly has greater connections to the typological link between Eve as sinner and Mary as redeemer by emphasizing Eve as an ancestor and prototype of Mary. Investigating this connection would require further research that is beyond the scope of this paper. 

The ways in which Mary and Eve were represented in manuscripts, such as the choice of scenes and iconography, the proximity of certain scenes, and the compositional similarities and alignment of images on the page, demonstrates how Eve functions as a precursor to Mary in the cycle of sin and redemption as part of God’s plan for the universe. These depictions highlight the medieval Christian belief of redemption; even though there may be sin in the world, brought by Eve, God sent Christ, through Mary, to sacrifice himself on behalf of humanity. 

Bibliography 

Bell, Susan Groag. “Medieval Women Book Owners: Arbiters of Lay Piety and Ambassadors of Culture.” Signs 7, no. 4 (1982): 742–68. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173638. 

Bloch, R. Howard. “Medieval Misogyny.” Representations, no. 20 (1987): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/2928500.  

Bonnell, John K. “The Serpent with a Human Head in Art and in Mystery Play.” American Journal of Archaeology 21, no. 3 (1917): 255–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/497250. 

Cohen, Adam S., and Anne Derbes. “Bernward and Eve at Hildesheim.” Gesta 40, no. 1 (2001): 19–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/767193. 

Dunlop, Anne. “Flesh and the Feminine: Early-Renaissance Images of the Madonna with Eve at Her Feet.” Oxford Art Journal 25, no. 2 (2002): 127–47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3600481.  

Evangelatou, Maria. “Threads of Power: Clothing Symbolism, Human Salvation, and Female Identity in the Illustrated Homilies by Iakobos of Kokkinobaphos.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 68 (2014): 241–323. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24643760. 

Higgins, Jean M. “The Myth of Eve: The Temptress.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 44, no. 4 (1976): 639–47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1463485. 

Koch, Robert A. “Flower Symbolism in the Portinari Altar.” The Art Bulletin 46, no. 1 (1964): 70–77. https://doi.org/10.2307/3048141. 

Miller, Julia I. “Eve, Mary, and Martha: Paintings for the Humiliati Nuns at Viboldone.” Speculum 96, no. 2 (2021): 418–65. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27292764. 

Pinkus, Assaf. “The Patron Hidden in the Narrative: Eve and Johanna at St. Theobald in Thann.” Zeitschrift Für Kunstgeschichte 70, no. 1 (2007): 23–54. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20474386. 

Reed, Annette. “Blessing the Serpent and Treading on Its Head: Marian Typology in the S. Marco Creation Cupola.” Gesta 46, no. 1 (2007): 41–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/25067148.