Sabrina Higgins Divine Mothers: he Inluence of Isis on the Virgin Mary in Egyptian Lactans-Iconography* Abstract his article provides an overview of the scholarship on the relationship between depictions of Isis and Mary that show them breastfeeding or ofering their breast (representations of the lactans-type) in Egypt. In particular, it questions the notion of a deliberate cultic continuity between the two holy women based on the similarity of their iconography. he evidence demonstrates that whereas Isis lactans can be documented in the Mediterranean from 700 BCE until the fourth century CE, Maria lactans-imagery only appears uncontested in Egypt from the seventh century CE onwards. his evidence, therefore, does not warrant a generalization that there was a deliberate continuity between the cult of Isis and that of Mary. Although the similarities between the Isis and Maria lactans-imagery are undeniable, they need to be understood within their respective cultural contexts. INTRODUCTION hen looking at images of the Egyptian goddess Isis and those of the Virgin Mary, one may initially observe W iconographic similarities. hese parallels have led many scholars to suggest that there is a distinct iconographic relationship between Isis and Mary. In fact, some scholars have gone even further, and have suggested, on the basis of this relationship, a direct link between the cult of Mary and that of Isis. Other similarities have been noted in their epithets and the proximity of Marian churches to temples of Isis.1 hese factors have led various scholars to believe that Christians deliberately adopted “pagan” cults to mark Christian triumph. his idea its well into the persistent view of Late Antiquity as a time of conlict between “paganism” and Christianity, from which the new religion quickly emerged triumphant. In his he World of Late Antiquity, Peter Brown was the irst to seriously question the monolithic notions of “conlict” and Christian “triumph.”2 His book presents religious transformation as a complex and gradual process of cultural change, a period of interaction between the traditional cults and practices and Christianity, rather than one of conlict. As a result, scholars have moved * he author would like to thank Jitse H.F. Dijkstra and the anonymous reader for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article. 1 See below for a discussion of the scholarship concerning the relationship between Isis and Mary. 2 Brown, 1971. Journal of the Canadian Society for Coptic Studies 3–4 — 2012 71 Divine Mothers away from the notions of “conlict” and “triumph” towards a more nuanced understanding of religious transformation.3 It seems that the idea of a triumphalist adoption of “pagan” cults is also in need of revision. A good example to illustrate this point is the case of Menouthis (near Alexandria), where a church of Saints Cyrus and John was placed in the proximity of the temple of Isis Medica. Cyrus and John were martyrs whose cult at Menouthis was associated with oracles and miraculous dreams. While we cannot discount the possibility of continuity in the type of cult (both were oracular cults), there is no evidence to suggest that the cult of Isis was deliberately adopted. Some scholars have proposed that the similarity of the name Cyrus (Κύρος in Greek) might have been reminiscent of the epithet “lady” (κυρία) of Isis, and assumed from this similarity that a “cult adoption” took place.4 However, the similarity of these names seems to be pure chance and cannot be used as evidence for a deliberate adoption of a “pagan” cult. Other scholars have asserted that a “religious transference” took place, and suggest the similarity of the epithets or the perpetuation of the oracular cult as the basis for this transmission.5 But one need only to look at the distinct topography of the sites to observe that there is a disconnection in place of worship.6 What happened here, therefore, was merely a borrowing of function, a place in which the Christian cult adapted one aspect of an existing model of the cult of Isis. By extension, then, we need to be careful in assuming too readily a continuity of cultic worship from Isis to Mary.7 In this article, I will irst introduce the work of Tran Tam Tinh, whose thorough study on the iconography of Isis lactans in the 1970s has demonstrated that any connection between Isis and Mary is tenuous and can be discerned solely in the lactans-iconography. His departure from the previous line of scholarship was innovative, but despite his arguments, several later scholars continued to uphold the notion that a deliberate adoption took place from the cult of Isis to that of Mary. In the next section, I will briely discuss the studies of these scholars working on the relationship between the iconography of the holy women, and demonstrate that each author’s individual approach is determined by his/her ield of study. I will conclude with a reevaluation of the current scholarship in order to provide a more balanced understanding of the interpretation of the association between Isis and Mary. THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY TRAN TAM TINH In his study, Tran Tam Tinh ofers a nuanced and detailed analysis of the development of lactans-iconography. He traces the iconography of the lactans-type from its earliest appearances in Egypt to its extensive use in Isiac imagery and concludes with an overview of its inluence on Marian iconography. he lactans, or the gesture of ofering the breast for feeding or the act of nursing, has a distinct symbolism in ancient Egypt. It symbolizes that the milk emitted from the divine is representative of the nourishment of life and divinity.8 From 700 BCE we can see a rise in popularity of Isiac votive statues of the lactans-type, almost all of which share the same characteristics: the goddess is sitting on a throne with no backrest or a very low one; sometimes 3 For an up-to-date overview of the scholarship on religious transformation in Late Antique Egypt, see Dijkstra, 2008: 14–18. 4 E.g. Merkelbach, 1995: 327–328; Richter, 2002: 134–135. 5 Athanassiadi, 1993: 15. 6 Montserrat, 1998. 7 Dijkstra, 2005: 168. 8 Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: 1. 72 Sabrina Higgins she has a throne on her head or she wears a horned sun-disk; her legs are parallel and feet are lat on the loor; her proper right hand is placed on her left breast and her left hand holds up Horus’ head; the legs of her son hang over the left hand side of her lap; and he holds his hands towards his body, while avoiding the gaze of his mother (igs. 1 and 2).9 Tran Tam Tinh’s study recognizes the similarities in the iconography of Isis and Maria lactans without suggesting that a deliberate adoption took place between the cults of Isis and Mary. He further notes the integral role of the feminine divinity in the religions of Egypt and the Mediterranean, especially the tradition of mother goddesses and the iconography associated with them.10 he strength of his approach is that it provides a sequential development of the Isis lactans-type and concludes with a discussion of its similarities to the iconography of Maria lactans. he earliest images of Mary concentrate especially on Christological and eschatological themes, including Jesus sitting on Mary’s knees or presenting Jesus to the Magi. Mary is secondary in these roles, and her presence in these images relects her role in the biblical narratives of the birth of Jesus.11 Tran Tam Tinh asserts that many scholars conlate the image of Jesus sitting on Mary’s lap with the Maria lactans-type. he lactans-imagery is characterized by the invitation of the child to the mother’s breast for feeding or nursing, and should not be confused with the quite diferent iconography of a seated mother and child. here are two images in the catacombs of Priscilla in Rome, both dating to the third century, that have been claimed as the earliest representations of Maria lactans. he irst depicts a group scene with a woman in a praying gesture (orans), to the left a virgin, and to the right a woman in a toga with a naked child (ig. 3).12 he child clings to the chest of the woman but there is nothing that would indicate a breastfeeding scene. Furthermore, the painting lacks any attributes which could positively identify this woman as Mary. he second scene depicts the Good Shepherd in the center, to the right the prophet Balaam with a seated Virgin and child (ig. 4).13 he child seems to be caressing the breast of his mother, but again there is no evidence to suggest breastfeeding. he igures in the catacombs are not of the lactans-type, and thus Tran Tam Tinh notes that they are not representative of the earliest Maria lactans-iconography. In fact, he demonstrates that the image of Maria lactans does not appear uncontested in the archaeological record until the seventh century, and only in Egypt.14 he lack of evidence for Isis lactans after the fourth century CE and the absence of any representations of Maria lactans which are deinitively dated prior to the seventh century end any discussion of a direct chronological sequence between Isis and Maria lactans in Egypt. Furthermore, while there are several depictions of Isis lactans in the third century, Tran Tam Tinh records only three such representations in the fourth century, 9 Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: 8–9, igs. 7 and 8. here is a statuette that has been interpreted as Isis lactans dating to 1,900 BCE. However, it has not been included in the present discussion, because its attribution is still questioned on account of its lack of deinitive attributes. Nevertheless, its presence demonstrates that the lactans-imagery was prevalent in Egypt for millennia prior to the arrival of Mary in Egypt. 10 Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: 42. 11 Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: 43. See also Wellen, 1960: 14–90 who demonstrates that many of the early depictions of Mary feature Jesus sitting on her lap. 12 Grabar, 1966: 116, ig. 115; Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: 46; Parlby, 2008: 48. 13 Grabar, 1966: 99, ig. 95; Parlby, 2008: 48–49. 14 Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: 42. 73 Divine Mothers including a limestone statue from Antinoe (ig. 5),15 a wall painting from Karanis (ig. 6) and a limestone statuette from Akhmim (ig. 7).16 hus, he demonstrates a decline in usage of this imagery in the fourth century CE and a signiicant sequential gap as compared with its later uses in Christian iconography. Tran Tam Tinh does, however, discuss one funeral stela that may provide the earliest chronological link between Isis and Maria lactans. He dates this stela, which has been found at Medinet el-Fayum, to the ifth or sixth century (ig. 8).17 he image was done in a “graito” style, lightly incised, and portrays a seated woman ofering her breast to her child. he woman may well be Christian as there is a cross on either side of her head; however, there is no indication that mother and child should represent Mary and Jesus.18 In a study that appeared four years after Tram Tan Tinh’s, Efenberger has demonstrated that this stela should be dated to the fourth century CE.19 In fact, two painted inscriptions (one on either side of the woman), which were discovered during an examination of the original in Berlin, have revealed that this stela is meant to represent a deceased woman. he inscription reads: 5. Left side of image: Right side of image: ευμυ̣η̣μ̣α̣ (?) ἔ̣τ̣ω̣[ν] κ̣α οὐ̣δίς ἀθάνατος. εὐψύχι ἀγαϑέ. he left column reads, “(Name?) 21 years old. No one is immortal,” the one to the right “Be of good cheer, you great one.”20 hus, Efenberger concludes that the stela from Medinet el-Fayum is not a representation of Maria lactans, but that it rather demonstrates a “spilling over” of the contemporary iconography of Isis lactans 15 Cf. Von Falck, 1996: 76, cat. no. 7, in which it is suggested that the statuette from Antinoe may be a partial falsiication as changes were made to the head of Isis, her left forearm, the surface of her garment, as well as the hand and head of the child. Furthermore, there is no conclusive evidence to attribute this statue to Antinoe, and a revised date of the third century has been suggested. his date further limits the number of Isis lactans representations in fourth-century Egypt. 16 Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: 54–55, 60–61, 72, igs. 17, 30 and 48. Tran Tam Tinh deines the term lactans as the ofering of the breast for the purpose of feeding or nursing. A distinction needs to be made, however, between the lactans and the simple gesture of showing the breast. For instance, in the fresco from Karanis and the statuette from Akhmim, there is no evidence of Horus reaching for the breast or engaging Isis in the act of nursing. he similarity of these representations to the lactans-type is undeniable and warrants an inclusion in a discussion of lactansimagery, but a more complex understanding of the distinction between the two postures is needed (cf. Matthews and Muller, 2005: 5–6), which will be worked out further in the author’s PhD-thesis. 17 Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: 45, ig. 202. See also Wessel, 1964: 17, ig. 5. 18 Cf. Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: 29–30, 45. 19 Effenberger, 1977. 20 Effenberger, 1977: 163–167. 74 Sabrina Higgins into individual funerary art.21 his interpretation has recently been taken up by Parlasca who discusses another funerary stela from Egypt, currently in Warsaw, with lactans-iconography, dating to the second century CE.22 his particular stela has an inscription that names the woman as a twenty-one-year-old mother named Sarapous and her son Hierax. In this case, we have a deinitive representation of a mother and child, not of a saint or a goddess, and there is no indication that this image should be designated as Christian. According to Efenberger, however, the addition of the crosses to the stela from Medinet el-Fayum indicates that we have here the irst Christian appropriation of the Isis lactans imagery and that the stela can be seen as a prototype for the later representations of Maria lactans.23 Two wall paintings, discovered in the excavations of the monastery of Apa Jeremiah at Saqqara, are identiied as the oldest surviving certain representations of Maria lactans, and have been dated to the seventh century CE.24 he irst of these is located in a monk’s cell (cell A), framed in a niche, and depicts Jesus sitting on Mary’s lap, holding her arm with both hands while she ofers him her breast (ig. 9).25 his representation of Mary is noticeably hieratic as her gaze is forward and static. he second image is located in cell 1725 and is iconographically close to the aforementioned image (ig. 10).26 In this case, however, Mary is visually more maternal in her gesture, although both consist of a deinitive maternal act. he same monastery yielded a third representation of the Maria lactans in cell 1807, but the painting is no longer extant.27 Two images of Maria lactans have also been recorded at the monastery of Apa Apollo at Bawit. Like the paintings at Saqqara, these images were also located in monastic cells. he irst image was placed in a niche in cell XLII of the monastery, although it is no longer extant.28 his painting has also been dated to the seventh century and conformed to the standard iconography of an enthroned Mary ofering Jesus her breast. he representation of Maria lactans in this cell is unique to our discussion as it was part of a double composition. he upper register featured Christ enthroned, while the lower register was occupied by an image of Maria lactans surrounded by the twelve apostles.29 Another Maria lactans was discovered in cell XXX at Bawit but is also no 21 For further discussion on this stela, see Corrington, 1989: 403–404; Von Falck: 1996: 114–115, cat. no. 61; Langener, 1996: 152–164; Thomas, 2000: 71; Török, 2005: 271–272; Parlasca‚ 2007: 323–324. 22 Parlasca, 2007: 324, with references. 23 Effenberger, 1977: 168; Langener, 1996: 156–157. Further study is required into the nature of the two crosses incised above the head of the deceased. hey do not conform to the incision depth or style of the rest of the stela, and in fact, they appear to have been squeezed into the stela as they cut into part of the image of the woman. he question of whether the crosses belong to the original stela or not, however, is beyond the scope of this paper, and will be examined in the author’s forthcoming PhD-thesis. 24 Bolman, 2004: 1174. 25 Quibell, 1908: 64, 81–82, pls. XL–XLIII; Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: 44, ig. 203. 26 Quibell, 1912: 23, pls. XX–XXIII; Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: 44, ig. 204. 27 For the excavation records see Quibell, 1912: 19. To my knowledge no photograph of this image has been published. 28 Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: 44. 29 Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: 44. Here he cites Clédat, 1904: 522, ig. 1; 1999: 39–55 for the original interpretation and analysis of the Maria lactans. Cf. Van Loon, 2007: 32 who states that a number of these double compositions have been found in the eastern niches of cells and chapels at Bawit and Saqqara. he upper zone usually contains 75 Divine Mothers longer extant. Both, however, conformed to the same iconography as at Saqqara; Jesus grabs Mary’s left arm with both hands, while she presents her breast with her left hand.30 hese ive images represent all of the certain, known images of the Maria lactans-type in Egypt when Tran Tam Tinh published his study in 1973. A sixth image of Maria lactans from the north conch of the church of Anba Bishay (church of the Red Monastery, near Sohag) can be added to this list (ig. 11).31 his igure is dated to the seventh-eighth century and shows Mary ofering her left breast to Jesus with her right hand. A seventh image of Maria lactans was discovered in 1996 during the removal of a layer of eighteenth-century wall plaster at the church of the Virgin Mary at the Monastery of the Syrians (Deir al-Surian) in the Wadi Natrun.32 his image depicts Mary ofering her right breast to Jesus with her left arm, while Jesus sits on her right lap (ig. 12). he wall painting was found on a column, on the eastern wall of the khurus, directly in front of the sanctuary. his image has been dated to the second half of the seventh century based on the monogram for Hagia Maria that was written on either side of her head, as well as the iconographic similarities of this painting to the image in cell XXX at Bawit. he addition of these two images to the iconographic type of Maria lactans raises the total number of representations, with deinitive dates, to seven (two paintings in churches and ive paintings in monastic cells).33 hus, the inclusion of these images further illustrates that Tran Tam Tinh’s observation that the iconographic similarities between Isis and Mary are limited to the lactans-type and to monastic contexts still stands. A MATTER OF APPROACH: EGYPTOLOGISTS VS. MARIOLOGISTS Until the observations of Tran Tam Tinh were published in the 1970s and in many instances in the decades following his publication, scholars working within the parameters of the Isis-Mary debate have often drawn parallels between the two divine women. he two streams of scholarship, which I will call here the Egyptologists and the Mariologists, fall generally on opposite ends of the spectrum; whereas the Egyptologists emphasize a continuity of cult between the two women, the Mariologists argue for a disassociation of the two igures. he irst group are the Egyptologists, who highlight the similarities between Isis and Maria lactans and indicate that the former had a strong inluence on the creation of the latter. While the similarity of the Isis and Maria lactans-iconography is undeniable, these scholars have projected further connections or transpositions a representation of Christ in Majesty and the lower zone is occupied by the Virgin Mary, either as an orant or enthroned with Child. 30 Walters, 1974: 286. 31 Bolman, 2006: pls. 1 and 5; 2008: 305–317; Laferrière, 2008: 26–28, pl. 4; Dijkstra and Van Loon, 2010: 8, 12. 32 Innemée, 1998; Innemée, et al., 1998: 86–87; Bolman, 2005: 21, ig. 2.2; 2008: 1182–1184, ig. 2. 33 Bolman, 2008: 1174 (n. 5) provides a list of all the known representations of Maria lactans, but surprisingly omits the Maria lactans from both the Red Monastery and Deir al-Surian, although she briely mentions the lactans from Deir al-Surian on p. 1182. Bolman also mentions a papyrus fragment which has been dated by its irst editor to the ifth-sixth century (Bartoletti, 1965: 29–31, pl. 10a, followed most recently by Bartoletti et al., 2008: 402, no. 1574). he date and interpretation of this papyrus will be addressed in the author’s PhD-thesis. Bolman also includes four manuscript front pieces dating to the ninth and tenth centuries; these manuscripts, however, exceed the established time parameters (fourth to eighth century) of the present article. 76 Sabrina Higgins of Isiac worship onto Mary. For example, a German dissertation of the 1950s by Unger suggests that the use of the epithet heotokos, or “God-Bearer,” was a transferral of the attributes of Isis onto Mary. he common title for Isis in ancient Egyptian, mwt ntr, can be translated as “divine mother.” his has led to the assertion that the title heotokos, with regards to Mary, would have been used for the irst time in Egypt and that the development of the cult of Mary would have begun in Egypt as well. hus, he concludes that the adaptation of Isiac iconography was a natural progression from the previous attributes of Isis.34 In the same way, Witt sees the continuity of Isiac worship ingrained in the theology and even the iconography of Mary.35 A more nuanced approach of the potential iconographic relationship between the two women may be observed in the work of the well-known Egyptologist Françoise Dunand. She recognizes that the imagery of a goddess holding a child in her arms is not unique to Isis and Mary, as it appears frequently throughout history in Greece, Anatolia, and even in the Neolithic period.36 Furthermore, the lactans-type has a precedent in ancient Egyptian religion outside of Isiac imagery, such as in depictions of the goddess Mut at Gebel-Silsila.37 Dunand further states that if scholars are to reconcile a relationship between Isis and Mary, Isis must have demonstrated an iconographical inluence over the Virgin in both time and space.38 Although Dunand provides a more nuanced understanding of the nature of mother goddess iconography throughout the Mediterranean, she still advocates for a direct connection between the iconography of Isis and Mary. She states that Isis’ prevalence in the psyche of Egyptians in Late Antiquity suggests that Christians would have adopted and reused her iconography in their new religion, which could in fact suggest a cultic continuation or syncretism of the two holy women.39 he second group of scholars are the Mariologists. For this group of scholars, the idea of a deliberate adoption from the cult of Isis to that of Mary has a negative connotation, since they work from the notion that most Christian cults were disassociated with the past.40 By approaching the study of Isis and Mary from this point of view, Marian scholars have emphasised that the venerated women do not function in the same manner. As a result, the scholarship confronting the issue from a Mariological approach is careful not to suggest a syncretism of the two cults. Averil Cameron, for example, states that religious development cannot be explained in mono-causal terms and argues that syncretism would only have played a minor role. Moreover, she suggests competition as a more efective model to understand their similarities.41 Maza, on the other hand, is more assertive in her disassociation of the two cults. Her study concludes that the igure of the Virgin Mary appears as a result of a gradual ampliication that converted her from a minor character in the Christian tradition to a divine presence by a process of theological re-creation for purposes of her newly established dogma at the Council of Ephesus in 431 CE.42 Maza further notes that Mary did not 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Unger, 1957: 116–117. Witt, 1997: 278. Dunand, 2000: 161. As mentioned by Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: 3. Dunand, 2000: 161. Dunand, 2000: 165. Maza, 2000: 213. Cameron, 2004: 13. Maza, 2000: 213. 77 Divine Mothers initially have any divine attributes, unlike Isis, who was wholly divine and autonomous from the beginning. hus, she asserts that it is inappropriate to suggest religious continuity from seeming parallels in iconography. his line of thought is taken up by McGuckin who argues that many of the representations of Mary, such as that of the Maria lactans, were understood by Christians from the outset within their own cultural syntax, and used by them to recruit followers of traditional religions.43 He recognizes that many of the similarities are incidental and might be insigniicant, whereas other iconographic features were deliberately selected because the image of Mary would ind resonance with followers of Isis. He does not suggest, however, that a syncretism took place from the Christian perspective. Other scholars, notably Corrington and Bolman, have provided additional clarity to the Mariological debate by marrying the disciplines of art history and theology, and focusing speciically on the meaning of the Maria lactans imagery within a Christological framework. hey have examined the physical act of nursing and have grounded its implications in Christology. he image of Maria lactans highlights the divine nature of Jesus because Mary was a virgin and was, as a result, incapable of producing milk. he divine nature of Christ is thus emphasized, as he suckles the divine food provided to him by God. he milk, or the act of nursing, acts primarily as a metaphor for the Eucharist, and maintains an entirely Christian meaning, independent of any iconographic similarities it may bear with Isis lactans.44 DISCUSSION: TOWARDS A MORE COMPLEX VIEW While both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, I opt for a middle approach in the interpretation of the relationship between Isis and Mary. On the one hand, there are clear iconographic links between the Isis and Maria lactans-type, but on the other, there is little substantiation to suggest that this particular Isiac imagery had a deep impact on the artistic repertoire of the Virgin Mary. While the iconographic parallel between both lactans-types is undeniable, its limited use and containment to a monastic context suggest that it was not widely adopted by those wishing to illustrate the Virgin. hus, we have a clear borrowing of the image, but this does not warrant making generalizations for a deliberate cultic continuity. While we have to take into account that the limited preservation of many sites, pillaging and modern construction has forever damaged many potential clues to the prevalence of this imagery, the sources as they stand limit both the number and provenience of extant Maria lactans images and suggest that even if there is some continuity in the imagery, this does not warrant the conclusion that a deliberate adoption took place between the cults of Isis and Mary. A reevaluation of the evidence thus suggests that a distinct iconographic link between the Isis and Maria lactans-type exists, but that this is not indicative of the adoption of the cult of Isis by the cult of Mary. Even though this speciic Marian image may well have been borrowed from the Isiac iconographic repertoire, it would have been understood within a distinctively Christological framework. Both Mary and Isis were worshipped diferently, Isis as a goddess in her own right, while Mary was important insofar as her relationship to her son was concerned. he monks were borrowing this image from the familiar iconographic repertoire of Isis and other Egyptian mother goddesses. he same notion of iconographic borrowing can also be seen with the ankh-cross.45 Still the symbolism of the imagery would have been understood from a Christian perspective. In 43 McGuckin, 2008: 11. 44 Corrington, 1989: 412–413; Bolman, 2004: 1181–1182. 45 See Dijkstra, 2012: 81, with references. 78 Sabrina Higgins sum, when taking away a triumphalist interpretation of the ties between Isis and Mary, a more intricate process of transformation arises, which deserves to be studied in its full capacity. 79 Divine Mothers BIBLIOGRAPHY Athanassiadi, P. 1993. “Persecution and Response in Late Paganism: he Evidence of Damascius.” Journal of Hellenic Studies, 113: 1–29. Bartoletti, V. 1965. “La Madonna con il Bambino in un papiro copto di Antinoe.” In Studi in onore di Luisa Banti. Edited by Becatti, G., Bandinelli, R.B., Caputo, G., Devoto, G. and Carratelli, G.P. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider: 29–31. Bartoletti, V., Bastianini, G., Messeri, G., Montanari, F. and Pintaudi, R. 2008. Papiri Greci e Latini XV. Firenze: Instituto Papirologico “G. Vitelli.” Benko, S. 1993. he Virgin Goddess: Studies in the Pagan and Christian Roots of Mariology. Leiden: Brill. Bolman, E.S. 2004. “he Coptic Galaktotrophousa Revisited.” In Coptic Studies on the hreshold of a New Millennium. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies. Leiden, August 27 - September 2, 2000. Edited by Immerzeel, M. and Van der Vliet, J. Louvain: Peeters: 1173–1184. ———. 2005. “he Enigmatic Coptic Galaktotrophousa and the Cult of the Virgin Mary in Egypt.” In Images of the Mother of God. Perceptions of the heotokos in Byzantium. Edited by Vassilaki, M. Aldershot: Ashgate: 13–22. ———. 2006. “Late Antique Aesthetics, Chromophobia, and the Red Monastery, Sohag, Egypt.” Eastern Christian Art, 3: 1–24. ———. 2008. “he Red Monastery Conservation Project, 2006 and 2007 Campaigns. Contributing to the Corpus of Late Antique Art.” In Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt. Vol. 1: Akhmim and Sohag. Edited by Gabra, G. and Takla, H.N. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press: 305–317. Brown, P. 1971. he World of Late Antiquity: From Marcus Aurelius to Muhammad. London: hames and Hudson. Cameron, A. 2004. “he Cult of the Virgin in Late Antiquity: Religious Development and Myth-Making.” In he Church and Mary. Edited by Swanson, R.N. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer: 1–21. Clédat, J. 1904. “Nouvelles recherches à Baouît: Campagnes 1903–1904.” Comptes rendus de l’académie des inscriptions et belles lettres, 48: 517–526. ———. 1999. Le monastère et la nécropole de Baouit. Edited by Bénazeth, D. and Rutschowscaya, M.-H., with contributions by Boud’hors, A., Coquin, R.-G. and Gaillard, É. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale. Corrington, G.P. 1989. “he Milk of Salvation: Redemption by the Mother in Late Antiquity and Early Christianity.” Harvard heological Review, 82: 393–420. 80 Sabrina Higgins Curl, J.S. 2005. he Egyptian Revival: Ancient Egypt as the Inspiration for Design Motifs in the West. New York: Routledge. Dijkstra, J.H.F. 2005. Religious Encounters on the Southern Egyptian Frontier in Late Antiquity (AD 298– 642). PhD diss., University of Groningen. ———. 2008. Philae and the End of Ancient Egyptian Religion: A Regional Study of Religious Transformation (298–642 CE). Louvain: Peeters. ———. 2012. Syene I: he Figural and Textual Graiti from the Temple of Isis at Aswan. Darmstadt/Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Dijkstra, J.H.F and Van Loon, G.J.M. 2010. “A Church Dedicated to the Virgin Mary in the Temple of Isis at Aswan?” Eastern Christian Art, 7: 1–16. Dunand, F. 2000. Isis: Mère des dieux. Paris: Errance. Effenberger, A. 1977. “Die Grabstela aus Medinet el-Fajum. Zum Bild der stillenden Gottesmutter in der koptischen Kunst.” Forschungen und Berichte, 18: 158–168. Grabar, A. 1966. Le premier art chrétien. Paris: Gallimard. Innemée, K.C. 1998. “Recent Discoveries of Wall-Paintings in Deir al-Surian.” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, 2. Online: www.acad.cua.edu/syrcom/hugoye. Innemée, K.C., Grossmann, P., Jenner, K.D., and Van Rompay, L. 1998. “New Discoveries in the al-Adra Church of Dayr as-Suryan in the Wadi al-Natrun.” Mitteilungen zur christlichen Archäologie, 4: 79–103. Laferrière, P.-H. 2008. La bible murale dans les sanctuaires coptes. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale. Langener, L. 1996. Isis Lactans – Maria Lactans. Untersuchungen zur koptischen Ikonographie. Altenberge: Oros. McGuckin, J. 2008. “he Early Cult of Mary and Inter-Religious Contexts in the Fifth Century Church.” In he Origins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary. Edited by Maunder, C. London and New York: Burns and Oates: 1–22. Matthews, T.F. and Muller, N. 2005. “Isis and Mary in Early Icons.” In Images of the Mother of God. Perceptions of the heotokos in Byzantium. Edited by Vassilaki, M. Aldershot: Ashgate: 3–11. Maza, C.M. 2000. “Los antecedentes isíacos del culto a María.” Aegyptus, 80: 195–214. 81 Divine Mothers Merkelbach, R. 1995. Isis regina - Zeus Serapis. Die griechisch-ägyptische Religion nach den Quellen dargestellt. Stuttgart: Teubner. Montserrat, D. 1998. “Pilgrimage to the Shrine of SS Cyrus and John at Menouthis in Late Antiquity.” In Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt. Edited by Frankfurter, D. Leiden: Brill: 261–266. Parlasca, K. 2007. “Pseudokoptische Grabreliefs aus Ägypten.” Chronique d’Égypte, 82: 323–329. Parlby, G. 2008. “he Origins of Marian Art in the Catacombs and the Problems of Identiication.” In he Origins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary. Edited by Maunder, C. London and New York: Burns and Oates: 41–56. Quibell, J. 1908. Excavations at Saqqara 1906–1907. Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français. ———. 1912. Excavations at Saqqara 1908–9, 1909–10: the Monastery of Apa Jeremias. Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français. Richter, S.G. 2002. Studien zur Christianisierung Nubiens. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. Shoemaker, S. 2008. “he Cult of the Virgin in the Fourth Century: A Fresh Look at Some Old and New Sources.” In he Origins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary. Edited by Maunder, C. London and New York: Burns and Oates: 71–87. Thomas, T.K. 2000. Late Antique Funerary Sculpture: Images for this World and the Next. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Török, L. 2005. Transigurations of Hellenism: Aspects of Late Antique Art in Egypt AD 250–700. Leiden: Brill. Tran Tam Tinh, V. 1973. Isis lactans. Corpus des monuments gréco-romains d’Isis allaitant Harpocrate. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1978. “De nouveau Isis lactans.” In Hommages à Maarten J. Vermaseren: recueil d’études ofert par les auteurs de la série Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain à Maarten J. Vermaseren à l’occasion de son soixantième anniversaire le 7 avril 1978, vol. 3. Edited by De Boer, M.B. and Edridge, T.A. Leiden: Brill: 1231–1268. Unger, R. 1957. Die Mutter mit dem Kinde in Ägypten. PhD diss., Leipzig. Van Loon, G.J.M. 2007. “he Art of Coptic Churches.” In he Churches of Egypt. From the Journey of the Holy Family to the Present Day. Edited by Gabra, G. and Van Loon, G.J.M. Cairo: he American University in Cairo Press: 30–37. 82 Sabrina Higgins Von Falck, M. 1996. Ägypten Schätze aus dem Wüstensand: Kunst und Kultur der Christen am Nil. Katalog zur Ausstellung/ herausgegeben vom Gustav-Lübcke-Museum der Stadt Hamm und dem Museum für Spätantike und Byzantinische Kunst, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin-Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. Walters, C.C. 1974. Monastic Archaeology in Egypt. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Wellen, G.A. 1960. heotokos: eine ikonographische Abhandlung über das Gottesmutterbild in frühchristlicher Zeit. Utrecht: Spectrum. Wessel, K. 1964. L’art copte. Brussels: Meddens. Witt, R.E. 1997. Isis in the Ancient World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Sa brin a Hig g in s PhD-candidate Department of Classics and Religious Studies University of Ottawa 83 Divine Mothers Figure 1. Isis lactans (eighth century BCE); Louvre, Paris (Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: ig. 7). Isis holds her right hand to her breast. 84 Figure 2. Isis lactans (seventh-sixth century BCE); National Archaeological Museum of Naples, Naples (Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: ig. 8). Isis holds her right hand to her breast, while Horus sits on her lap. Sabrina Higgins Figure 3. Woman and child (third century CE); Catacombs of Priscilla, Rome (Grabar, 1966: ig. 115). Woman holding a child on the right side of her body. Figure 4. Woman and child (third century CE); Catacombs of Priscilla, Rome (Grabar, 1966: ig. 95). Woman holding child on her right knee. 85 Divine Mothers Figure 6. Fresco of Isis lactans at Karanis (fourth century CE); Karanis (Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: ig. 48). Isis ofers her breast with her right hand, while Horus sits frontally on her left leg, holding his inger to his lips. Figure 5. Limestone statuette of Isis lactans from Antinoe (fourth century CE); Dahlem Museum, Berlin (Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: ig. 17). Isis holds her breast with her right hand, while Horus lies across her left knee. 86 Sabrina Higgins Figure 7. Limestone statuette of Isis lactans from Akhmim (fourth century CE); Staatliche Museen, Berlin (Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: ig. 30). Fragmentary statuette of Isis with Horus sitting on her left leg. Figure 8. Funeral stela from Medinet el-Fayum (fourth century CE); Ägyptisches Museum, Berlin (Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: ig. 202). Woman ofering her breast with her right hand, while she holds her child in her left arm. 87 Divine Mothers Figure 9. Maria lactans at the monastery of Apa Jeremiah at Saqqara (seventh century CE); Coptic Museum, Cairo (Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: ig. 203). Mary ofers her right breast with her left hand, while Jesus sits on her right knee. 88 Figure 10. Maria lactans in cell 1725 at the monastery of Apa Jeremiah at Saqqara (seventh century CE); Coptic Museum, Cairo (Tran Tam Tinh, 1973: ig. 204). Mary ofers her right breast with her left hand, while Jesus sits on her right knee. Sabrina Higgins Figure 11. Maria lactans in the church of Anba Bishay, Red Monastery (seventh-eighth century CE); reconstruction (Laferrière, 2008: pl. 4). Mary ofers her left breast with her right hand, while Jesus sits on her left knee. 89 Divine Mothers Figure 12. Maria lactans (second half of seventh century CE); wall painting, khurus, church of the Virgin Mary, Deir al-Surian (Bolman, 2004: ig. 2). Mary ofers her right breast with her left hand, while Jesus sits on her right knee. 90