1. Introduction1
It is not unusual that, among the numerous praises dedicated to the Virgin Mary in the ancestral Lauretan Litanies, the title Sedes Sapientiae (Seat of Wisdom) stands out. In fact, this metaphorical designation is not surprising if one remembers that a sentence from Proverbs that proclaims Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum (“Wisdom has built her house”. Prov 9:1).
Starting from the assumption that in the Judaic-Christian tradition the wisdom to which this biblical text alludes is synonymous with God, the Fathers, theologians, and liturgical hymnographers of the Greek-Eastern and Latin Churches interpreted this phrase from Proverbs with Christological and Mariological projections from an early date, as we will see in the following three sections. In Section 2 we will study the interpretations of some Greek Fathers; in Section 3 we will consider those of some Latin Fathers and theologians; finally, in Section 4 we will present many stanzas of Latin medieval liturgical hymns that develop this biblical metaphor in a Christological and Mariological sense.
2. The Metaphor domus Sapientiae in Greek Patristics
The Christological-Mariological interpretation of this sentence from Proverbs began relatively early within Eastern Christianity. Already in the first half of the third century, Saint Hippolytus Portuensis (c. 170–c. 235), Bishop of Portus, is, as far as we know, the Christian thinker who inaugurated in the Greek-Eastern Churches the exegetical variant that deciphers the house built for herself by divine Wisdom (domus Sapientiae) as a symbol of Christ’s human body, conceived in Mary’s virginal womb. Hippolytus assures that Christ, who is God the Father’s wisdom and power, built his human flesh as a house from that of the Virgin Mary. This is confirmed by the statement of the Creed, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us”, and the sentence from Proverbs, “Wisdom has built her house”. This fact —Hippolytus emphasizes— happened when Christ clothed himself with the human body engendered by his mother without needing a manly involvement.2
Some years later the scholar and ascetic Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–c. 254) also interpreted this phrase from Proverbs as a metaphor for the incarnation of God the Son in Mary’s womb, in the sense that the temple of the body (the human nature) of Christ was built by God by himself and for himself in the Virgin without human intervention. The Alexandrian writer adds that Daniel also predicted this when he stated that a stone not cut by hands grew and became a great mountain; thus, the body of Christ was made without human help.3 With such statements, Origen clearly defends the supernatural human conception/incarnation of God the Son in the unpolluted womb of the Virgin Mary, as well as her virginal divine motherhood.
Some decades later, the Greek bishop Saint Gregory the Thaumaturge (c. 213–c. 270) offers a Mariological interpretation of this biblical metaphor. According to him, the Virgin Mary is the domus Dei, the home where God the Son incarnate lived, asserting that Gabriel was sent to Mary, palace of the king of angels, to prepare a most pure bed worthy of the divine Spouse.4 In this regard, the author praises Mary with this warm greeting: “God save you, equivalent and worthy abode of heaven and earth. Hail, receptacle capable of perfectly containing the nature of the one which cannot be understood or contained”,5 due to his incomprehensible infinity. Thus, Gregory the Thaumaturge is, as far as we know, the first Greek-Eastern Church Father who defends the exclusively Mariological variant when interpreting the biblical metaphors we are studying. Despite that, the Thaumaturge also subscribes to Origen’s dogmatic position on Christ’s supernatural incarnation and Mary’s virginal divine motherhood.
Towards the middle of the fourth century, the hymnographer Saint Ephrem of Syria (c. 307–373) confirms the exegetical variant that interprets the metaphors domus Sapientiae and aula regalis as symbolic figures of the Virgin Mary, in whose womb God the Son built his house to reside in. In Hymn 12 of the Nativity of Christ, Ephrem proclaims that Mary’s womb was Christ’s royal palace, whom he supernaturally conceived and gestated without losing her virginity. In his Hymn 17 for the same feast, the Syrian poet insists on similar concepts, pointing out in dialogue with Christ that Mary is the royal palace for Him, Son of the divine King, and the Sancta Sanctorum for Him, the divine Great priest.6
Some decades later, Saint Gregory Nyssen, Bishop of Nyssa in Cappadocia (c. 330/35–c. 394/400), inaugurated in the Greek-Eastern Churches the double exegetical variant when interpreting the metaphors domus Sapientiae, aula regalis, palatium Dei, thronus deitatis, and other similar analogies referring to spaces or elements for the exclusive use of God or the king. In his opinion, such metaphors simultaneously symbolize Mary (her virginal womb) and the body or human nature that God the Son took from the Virgin’s womb.7 In this sense, the Nyssen points out that when the Holy Spirit came to the Virgin and the power of the Most High covered her to beget the new man Christ, she became the house of God, built by God, and not by the hand of man. Thus, the author confirms the Mariological projection of his exegesis. However, he then completes his interpretation, expanding it to the Christological projection, by arguing that, since God does not live in buildings built by man, divine Wisdom, making her house, entered it, so that the divine nature of God the Son would be united with the human nature in his body and soul.8
Furthermore, in a writing against Eunomius, the Nyssen insists that the phrase from Proverbs “Wisdom has built her house” is a symbolic way of signifying God the Son’s incarnation in Mary’s womb, since true Wisdom, God the Son, does not live in a strange building: that is why he built his house (his body or human nature) from Mary’s virginal body.9 Thus, for Gregory the Nyssen, this domus Sapientiae symbolizes both God the Son’s human body and the Virgin Mary, in whose virginal womb Christ was conceived as a man.
Almost half a century later, Saint Cyril of Alexandria (c. 370/73–444) reiterates these two interpretative variants by declaring that the Proverbs saying “Wisdom has built her house,” and Gabriel’s announcement that the Holy Spirit would come upon Mary and the power of the Almighty would overshadow her mean that in Christ the godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit do not operate separately but as a single whole, so that Christ’s human incarnation is the joint work of the Trinity’s entire divine nature.10 In another passage of this writing, Cyril reiterates that, when “Wisdom has built her house” and a truer tabernacle (the corporeal temple built from Mary), the divine Word, which is in God the Father’s bosom, descended within her and became a man.11
Around the same time, Saint Proclus of Constantinople († 446/48) and Hesychius of Jerusalem († post 450) subscribe to the Mariological interpretation of the domus Sapientiae as a symbolic reference exclusively to Mary. Thus, Proclus, in a sermon in honor of the Virgin, dedicates some warm praise to her, such as “glory of virgins”, “joy of mothers”, “sustenance of the faithful”, and “diadem of the Church”. It is interesting to note that among these praises, the “domicile of the Holy Trinity” stands out, an honor that, according to Proclus, derives from Gabriel’s announcement to Mary: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow; so the Holy One who will be born of you will be called the Son of God.”12
For his part, Hesychius of Jerusalem takes up in a sermon in honor of Mary the various praises that other Fathers dedicate to her. According to Hesychius, some call her the mother of light, another calls her the star of life, another calls her the throne of God, another calls her a temple grander than heaven, another considers her a chair higher than that of the cherubs, and another calls her a fertile garden without having been planted or cultivated.13
Towards the middle of the fifth century, Theodotus of Ancyra asserts in a homily on the Virgin and the Nativity of Christ that God the Son, without turning away from God the Father, descended to the Earth and made the fullness of divinity, which cannot be contained anywhere, fit in the womb of the Virgin. In addition, being the splendor of glory and the figure of the hidden substance of God the Father, he wanted to assume the human flesh of the immaculate Virgin. Furthermore, he who was begotten by God the Father in eternity, chose for himself a mother in new times, and divine Wisdom built for herself in the womb of the Virgin a temple not made with human hands, and dwelt among us.14
Almost half a century later, the famous Syriac hymn composer Jacob of Serugh (c. 451–521) adopts the restricted Mariological interpretation when, in a sermon on the Visitation, he says that Christ is holy and Mary is the house of holiness, whose closed door indicates that she always kept the seals of her virginity intact.15 In another sermon, Jacob of Serugh describes Mary as “a shining citadel, into which the King once entered, lived after building it, and was never opened before he came out of it.”16
A few years later, the Neoplatonic philosopher Procopius of Gaza (c. 465–528), writing on the Exodus, affirms that Christ, whom we consider a temple, born of Mary, enriched his home with his divine nature, thus improving the Holy Virgin.17 Perhaps around the same time, John Maxentius, monk of Antioch (first half of the sixth century), affirms that the Word, Son of God, consubstantial with God the Father and born of Him in eternity, without losing his divine nature, became man in time with a rational soul and a human body in the Virgin Mary’s womb without human semen, so that he came out of a virginal thalamus.18 A few lines later, Maxentius explains that the Word of God was united to the human nature generated from the Virgin’s entrails, since Wisdom built her house in her, in such a way that the Word of God was inserted into the human flesh and soul in the Virgin’s womb through a supernatural union.19
A decade or two later, Leontius of Byzantium (c. 485–c. 543) expressed in a treatise against the Arians that the orthodox faith affirms that God the Father begot the divine Word from eternity in an immutable, perfect, indivisible, substantial, and complete union with Him. Then the Word of God was conceived in time as a man by the work of the Holy Spirit supernaturally, without intercourse, in Mary’s womb.20 Leontius assures that neither by his first divine generation in eternity nor by his second human generation in time, the incarnate Word of God has anything in common with other men.21 The author emphasizes this essential difference by specifying that no being was generated eternal, immutable, undivided, and perfect such as God the Son, who was born in his first generation in eternity;22 nor was any being born without semen or corruption, conceived supernaturally by the Holy Spirit, as was the Word of God incarnate in his second generation. Thus God the Son, conceived perfect without time (in eternity), was formed and endowed with human members in the Virgin Mary’s chaste womb, taking from her only a perfect human body adapted to himself, as a temple and tabernacle of the divine Word.23 With such expressions, Leontius of Byzantium, in addition to accepting the double interpretation, Mariological and Christological, of the biblical metaphors under analysis, also subscribes to the already consolidated dogma of Christ’s double nature, divine and human (duophysitism), both substantially united in one single Person.
Therefore, Leontius assures that we cannot stop praising this Virgin, increasingly recognized as Mother of God, in whom and from whom the incarnate Word of God comes out as a bridegroom leaving his nuptial chamber, and through whom Wisdom (God the Son) built her house (his body).24 Leontius adds that what is admirable in this case is that Wisdom built and assumed her house (the human body) from Mary’s womb not due to natural conditions, but because of her supernatural divine nature, i.e., that of the Word of God who dwells in Mary: the divine Word supernaturally built his house (his body and nature as a man), engendered by this woman through whose inviolate vulva He entered (when being conceived) and left (at birth).25 Leontius concludes by arguing that, because of his infinite goodness, the Word of God, who was entirely spiritual, divinely provided for himself a corporeal form in the womb of Mary, thus intimately linking his divine nature with the human body he took from the Virgin.26
Almost a century later, Saint Modestos, bishop of Jerusalem († 634), reinterprets the biblical metaphor domus Sapientiae according to the restricted Mariological projection, stating that God turned Mary into the house and habitation of God the Son, who lived in her without restrictions, was incarnated in her by the work of the Holy Spirit, and, made a child, the one who is God inseparable from His Father and the Holy Spirit, remained nine months in Mary’s womb.27
A century later, Saint Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 650/60–c. 730/33), also seems to adhere to this strictly Mariological interpretation of the biblical metaphors above. Thus, in a sermon on Mary’s Presentation, he exalts her as the sacrosanctly built, immaculate, purest palace of God, the supreme King, adorned with his magnificence.28 Mary—the author goes on— is now the royal palace of God and his holy temple, not made by human hands and resplendent with beauty, in which the divine Word was incarnated to reconcile humankind with God the Father.29 Germanus then praises the Virgin with various metaphorical praises, such as “holy throne of God, divine altar, house of glory, charming ornament,” and “mercy seat of the entire world, which sings to heaven and the glory of God.”30
In another sermon on the Dormition of Mary, Germanus assures that the biblical sentence “You are beautiful” refers to the Virgin, because her body is virginal, completely chaste, and holy, “the perfect and complete house of God.”31 In a hymn in honor of Mary, Saint Germanus praises her with these metaphors referring to spaces or elements reserved for God or the King:
Some years later, Saint Andrew of Crete, Saint John Damascene, and Saint John of Euboea expressed similar exclusively Mariological interpretations. Saint Andrew of Crete or Jerusalem, bishop of Gortyn in Crete (c. 660–c. 740), declares in his fourth sermon on the Annunciation that Holy Scripture honored the Virgin Mary with many metaphors: among them are “conjugal room, house of God, holy temple, tabernacle, holy table, altar, mercy seat, golden censer, Sancta Sanctorum”, and other symbols, through which the interpreters of the Scriptures prophetically designate Mary.33 In his fifth sermon on the Annunciation, the Cretan theologian exalts the Virgin, calling her “magnificent temple of divine glory”, “palace of the King of sacred construction”, “marital room in which Christ married human nature with the divine.34
On the other hand, the prestigious Syrian Father Saint John Damascene (675–749), in his first sermon on Mary’s birth, praises her because her womb is the home of the one (God the Son) who does not fit anywhere, and because she is entirely the bridal chamber of the Holy Spirit, the complete city of the living God, animated by the emanation of the Holy Spirit’s graces.35 In another passage, the author exalts the Virgin, saying that there is no other home for God more worthy than her; therefore, all generations appreciate her holiness, for being the distinguished honor of humankind, the glory of the priests, the hope of Christians, and the fertile plant of virginity.36
In a second sermon on this same Marian event, John Damascene exalts Mary as the ark and refuge built by God, the receptacle of the new world, from which Christ, as a new Noah, emerged (at being conceived and at birth), filling the supreme world of incorruption.37 A few lines later, he exalts the Virgin in these terms: “Hail, house of God, resplendent with divine splendors, [...] house full of the glory of the Lord, and whose spirit shines more than the seraphim of fire.”38
Then, John Damascene exalts Mary with this sequence of poetic praises:
God save you, heaven, the noblest and cleanest abode in the whole world, which shines with the splendor of virtues as if they were stars: from where the Sun of justice was born [...]. Hail, throne elevated to the sublimity of glory, living seat, manifesting the seat of God in itself.39
A few lines later, he goes on to express:
God save you, Mother, the only one who knows no man, the only one intact among mothers [...]. God save you, Virgin who generates, the only one who gives birth among virgins, preserving the attributes of virginity among mothers, a surprising prodigy before the other [mothers].40
Perhaps during the same years, Saint John of Euboea (eighth century) assures in a sermon on Mary’s Conception that the heavenly king builds a palace without human hands, and—in reference to Ezekiel’s porta clausa—this palace has a gate facing East, and no one will enter through it, but only the Lord God, and it will be a closed gate.41 The author then adds:
It is a perfectly admirable Palace because even the angelic Virtues themselves admire it, and it is a work that surpasses all thought. For this Palace, built without the intervention of any human architect, appears more sublime than heaven and broader than any creature, and no one lived in it except this architect, maker, and Creator of all heavenly and earthly things.42
In another paragraph of this sermon, John of Euboea insists that Mary is the house that, with the blessing of God the Father and the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, Christ had built to inhabit in his incarnation when the time to come to save us was fulfilled.43
Around the same time, Cosmas of Maiuma (c. 675/706–c. 760) says in a hymn that the infinite wisdom of God the Son built her house (body) of her most chaste mother, the Virgin Mary, so that Christ, our God, clothed himself in the temple of his body.44
Towards the middle of the ninth century, the Byzantine monk Saint Joseph the Hymnographer († 883) adopts the exclusively Mariological interpretation of the metaphors at hand. In several hymns in honor of Mary, he praises her with multiple poetic expressions analogous to the metaphorical figures mentioned above. Thus, in one of them he states on the Virgin: “You have been made a temple and palace of the King, in which the supersubstantial Being, making it his abode, also converts the faithful into the domicile of the Holy Trinity.”45
In another Marian poem, Joseph the Hymnographer expresses that the faithful recognize Mary as “the urn and manna of divinity,” “the ark [of the Covenant] and the altar,” “the candelabra and the throne of God,” and “the palace and the bridge that leads to divine life those who sing songs to you.”46 In another ode, the Byzantine poet praises the Virgin as the fiery throne that carries the Creator to the animated bridal bedchamber and as the joyful palace that contains the King who became like us. In another canticle, the Hymnographer exalts Mary because God made her the throne of fire and the living palace of the King (Christ), who, after residing there, redeemed all human beings from original sin.47 In another paragraph of this hymn, he assures that all nations praise the Virgin, designating her as the golden urn, the candelabra, the table and the staff, the holy mountain and the cloud, the King’s palace and the flaming throne, for being the mother of God, who remained a virgin after childbirth.48
At the end of this tour of the main Greek-Eastern sources of Christian doctrine, we find that for about seven hundred years (third-nineth centuries), all the Church Fathers analyzed in this section manifest a substantial exegetical agreement on the biblical metaphors above. Regardless of whether they emphasize the Mariological or the Christological meanings, they all agree in defending that the various symbolic terms referred to—domus Sapientiae, palatium Dei, aula regalis, domicilium Trinitatis, thronus deitatis, and other similar metaphors—mean Mary’s virginal womb in which God the Son was supernaturally incarnated as a man, or they symbolize the body or human nature that God the Son assumed from Mary’s virginal entrails. In any case, such symbolic expressions essentially allude to two complementary dogmas: the first, that of the supernatural conception/incarnation of God the Son in Mary’s virginal womb; the second, and because of the first, that of Mary’s virginal divine motherhood. In this way, the interpretations of those Greek-Eastern Church Fathers, who for so many centuries substantially agreed on the interpretive approach to these metaphorical expressions, built a solid and unanimous doctrinal tradition on the two dogmas above.
Furthermore, those exegetical-dogmatic conclusions reached by the Greek-Eastern Fathers analyzed here are the same ones offered by the Fathers and theologians of the Latin Church during the long millennium that elapsed between the fourth and fifteenth centuries, as we will see in the next Section 3.
3. The Metaphor domus Sapientiae According to Latin Church Fathers and Theologians
In the second half of the fourth century, the prestigious master St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan (c. 339/40–397), decisively welcomed both the Christological and Mariological interpretations of the domus Sapientiae as a double, simultaneous symbol of Christ’s human body and Mary’s virginal uterus. Initially, Ambrose exclusively privileged the Mariological interpretation. He asserts in his treatise on virginity that, when the Word of God became flesh and dwelt among us, he entered through the closed gate of Mary’s virginity and dwelt in her as the King dwelling in the royal palace (aula regia) of Mary’s virginal womb. According to the author, this royal palace is the Virgin Mary, since she is not subject to any human male, but only to God.49
Furthermore, Ambrose retakes in his 63rd Epistle this Mariological projection, when considering how great was the grace of Mary’s virginity, who merited to be elected by Jesus Christ to become God’s bodily temple, in which divinity in full dwelt. That way the Virgin became the Savior of the world, and at the same time, remaining a virgin, gave birth to the life of every human being.50
Ambrose strengthens his Mariological interpretation in a couple of hymns in honor of the Virgin. In the first one, he refers to Christ’s conception/birth from Mary’s uterus through these poetic expressions:
| The Giant of two twin substances, | Procedens de thalamo suo |
In another Marian hymn, Ambrose alludes to Christ’s conception/birth from Mary’s virginal uterus in this stanza:
| The offspring of supreme light | Genus superni luminis, |
Nevertheless, in a second instance, Ambrose plainly subscribes the double Mariological and Christological interpretation of the analogous metaphors domus Sapientiae, templum Dei, aula regia, and palatium. In his 30th Epistle, he states that when Christ decided to find a temple where to live for redeeming humankind, he did not search stones or wood worked with human hands, but instead chose the Virgin Mary’s uterus to build it as aula regia and templum where the heavenly King could live, so that the human body generated from Mary would become the temple of God, which would resurrect three days after its death.53 Therefore, for St. Ambrose, these building metaphors—domus, palatium, aula, templum—mean simultaneously Mary’s virginal womb and Christ’s human body.
Two or three decades after St. Ambrose expressed such concepts, St. Jerome of Stridon (c. 347–420) subscribed to the Mariological variant, assuring in a comment to Isaiah that the Lord of the virtues and King of glory will descend into a virginal womb and, as Ezekiel predicted, will enter and exit through the eastern door, which is always closed. This stands according to the announcement of Gabriel to Mary: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; so the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35), and according to the sentence in Proverbs: “Wisdom has built her house”.54
Around the same period in which St. Jerome did so, St. Maximus, bishop of Turin († c. 420), joined those who supported the Mariological interpretation of the biblical metaphors under scrutiny, proclaiming Mary as a worthy abode for Christ, not according to the laws of physical nature, but by the original grace of the Holy Spirit. The Virgin—the author asserts—mysteriously carried, as in her womb’s tabernacle, the priest, Christ God, priest and host, God of the resurrection, and priest of the oblation.55 A few lines later, Maximus goes on to say that instead of the womb, he prefers to call Mary’s womb a temple since it is the temple in which all the holy things existing in heaven (Christ) dwell more valuable even than heaven, almost as if the divine mystery were installed in the most secret tabernacle.56 Likewise, in his Treatise 5 against the Jews, Maximus insists on affirming that Christ is the Word of God and the power and wisdom of God the Father, whom he sent to save humankind.57
Not many years later, St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) opted for the Christological interpretation of the metaphors above, considering that this domus Dei or domus Sapientiae signifies the body or human nature of God the Son incarnate. Augustine interprets the Proverbs’ sentence “Wisdom has built her house” in the sense that we recognize that the divine Wisdom, that is, the Word of God, coeternal with the Father, built for herself in Mary’s womb the temple of Christ’s body or human nature, a body to which he would later unite the Church, as the members are united to the head.58
Perhaps by the same decades, Arnobius Junior († post 455), in a comment to the Psalms, after affirming that every pure person will enter the Lord’s tabernacle and there will be purified, assures that the immaculate Jesus, the only one who entered Mary’s virginal palace (aula), freed her from the carnal stains and gave her much higher sanctification than he received from her.59 In another dogmatic treatise, Arnobius assures that God, who made the first man from the clay of the earth, manufactured by his omnipotence in the Virgin’s womb a human body in which to dwell, according to what we read in Proverbs: “Wisdom has built her house.”60
Towards the end of the fifth century or in the first decades of the sixth, St. Eleutherius of Tournai (c. 456–531) says in a sermon on Christ’s incarnation that entering the Holy Spirit in Mary’s royal palace of modesty (her womb) made her give birth to Christ, God the Son made man. So, he would redeem the sins of all people by shedding his innocent blood for humankind’s redemption, also making the invisible God appear visible before people through his visible only-begotten Son made man.61
Around the same years, Saint Fulgentius of Ruspe (460–533), speaking in a book to Thrasymond about the substantial union of Christ’s two natures, divine and human, writes:
For neither a part of him [God the Son] remained in the Father nor a part of him descended to the Virgin, but he remained in the Father all that he was [God], and [remained] in the Virgin in all that he was not [man]: filling everything and containing the world, being a whole like God the Father, and building as a whole a house for himself in the Virgin’s womb—for it is written: “Wisdom has built her house” (Prov. IX,1)—, [Christ] is a whole in the everlasting Father, and a whole in the received man [human nature], a whole in heaven, and a whole on earth.62
In other passages of this book, Fulgentius insists on the idea that, through God the Father, God the Son, divine wisdom built for herself a house, that is, a human nature, in the Virgin’s womb;63 and that Christ’s human body is designated by Holy Scripture as a house, according to Proverbs, and as a temple, according to the Gospel of John.64
About three generations later, St. Venantius Fortunatus, bishop of Poitiers (c. 530–c. 607/609), praises the Virgin Mary in a poem through these metaphorical concepts:
| Royal palace (aula) of God, ornament of paradise, glory of the kingdom; | Aula Dei, ornatus paradisi, gloria regni; |
Approximately a generation later, Saint Isidore, bishop of Seville (c. 556/60–636), assures that in Proverbs the double nature of God the Son, Christ, is prophesied: the divine is prophesied when he says that “The abysses did not yet exist, and I had already been conceived” and the human one is prophesied when he says that “Wisdom has built her house,” which is the temple of her human body in which the Son of God would dwell while the Word became flesh.66
Some decades later, St. Ildefonsus, archbishop of Toledo (607–667), in a book on Mary’s virginity written against three infidels, criticizes Helvidius for daring to defame Mary’s virginity in begetting Jesus.67 Moreover, he asks rhetorically Helvidius not to oppose this majesty’s power, so as not to diminish God’s property with his reckless daring nor to damage with his presumption the godhead’s mansion, and not to collapse the Lord’s house with insults of corruption, and let it not pretend to affirm that the door of God’s house, closed after He passed, can be passed through by anyone.68
Ildefonsus goes on to say that the God of virtues is the Lord of this possession, that the King of Heaven is the owner of this property, and Almighty God is the builder of this house, the only one who enters it, and the custodian of the door through which he entered.69 The saint prelate of Toledo also emphasizes that, when entering this house (when being conceived as a man), God the Son did not remove the seals of his mother’s virginity, and when leaving it (at birth), he enriched Mary with integrity (perpetual virginity).70 In another sermon on the Virgin’s assumption attributed to him,71 St. Ildefonsus describes Mary as a “Good house” into which the Deity of the Word enters, sliding into the house in which the wisdom of God, Christ, erected for himself seven columns, which sustain the whole house, and that way He constructed the Church.72
Some three generations later, Bede the Venerable (c. 673–735) briefly takes up the Proverbs sentence above to say that Christ, through his divine power, founded for himself a human substance, which he assumed at birth from the Virgin Mary.73
Towards the middle of the ninth century, the Benedictine monk Ratramnus of Corbie (c. 800–c. 870) states in a book on the Nativity of Jesus that Mary’s virginity before childbirth, in childbirth, and after childbirth can be affirmed since “the royal palace of her modesty” (the vulva) remained inviolate; therefore, when recognizing the truth of Christ’s birth, we acknowledge the reality of the birth of his mother, Mary.74 Because—Ratramnus asks rhetorically—what else does it mean that Mary is a virgin before childbirth but that her virginity was fertilized? And what else does it mean that Mary is a virgin in childbirth but that she gave birth being a virgin? And what else does it mean that Mary is a virgin after childbirth, but that she kept her virginity perpetually?75
Some two centuries later, Bruno of Würzburg, also known as Bruno of Carinthia (c. 1005–1045), cites the well-known sentence from Proverbs, asserting that God the Son was born into this world from the substance of his mother as a complete man, with body and soul, in everything like us, except in sin; and he was born of the substance of her mother, in every way equal to her human nature, for, according to the Proverbs saying above, Christ built for himself the human flesh (body) of the blessed Mary.76
By these same decades, the Benedictine monk St. Peter Damian, bishop of Ostia (1007–1072), sets in a sermon for the Nativity of Mary this assertion: as it was impossible for the redemption of humanity if Christ had not been born of the Virgin, it was necessary for the Virgin to be born, in whom the Word of God would be incarnated. Therefore, it was convenient for the King of heaven to build a house first—as Solomon said when pointing out that “Wisdom has built her house”—in which he wanted to have his lodging when he descended to earth. Mary is a house that the eternal Wisdom, Christ, has built in such a way that it was worthy to receive him and to procreate him from the womb of her immaculate flesh.77
Later, in a series of lyrical poems in honor of the Virgin, Peter Damian reiterates some similar ideas. Thus, in one of them, he exclaims:
| Beautiful royal palace of the heavenly King, | Aula caelestis speciosa Regis, |
In a new Marian canticle, the Italian poet expresses:
| Mary as the splendid honor of humankind, | Maria, decus hominum, |
In another ode, Peter Damian praises the Virgin in these metaphorical terms:
| You are the closed door of the temple, | Tu porta templi clausa, |
In the umpteenth poem, Peter Damian proclaims:
| The whole Trinity, God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, | Tecum tota Trinitas fecit mansionem, |
In the same way, Peter Damian, in a sermon on the birth of Mary, reiterates that eternal wisdom built in the Virgin a house that was worthy of receiving her and procreating her as a man from her inviolate womb.82 In another writing, he insists on the idea that divine wisdom built Mary as her own house, and she rested in her as in a most sacred bed through the mystery of assumed humility.83
One generation later, the Italian Benedictine St. Anselm, bishop of Canterbury (1033–1109), in a prayer in honor of the Virgin, addresses her in search of protection, calling her “the Royal Palace of Universal Propitiation, the cause of general reconciliation, a vessel, and the temple of life and salvation for all”.84 Then, after extolling Mary, calling her “an admirable Lady for her unique virginity, kind for her healthy fertility, venerable for her inestimable holiness,” he asserts that she showed God to the world, which did not know him; she made her Creator visible to the world, which did not see him; and she begot and gave birth to the reconciler that sinners needed.85
In another sermon in honor of Mary, Anselm exclaims, “Oh, blessed Mother of God, Virgin Mary, the temple of the living God, the palace of the eternal King, the tabernacle of the Holy Spirit!”86 Then, in a series of hymns of a Psalter composed in honor of the Virgin, Anselm repeatedly praises her with some poetic compliments related to God’s house, as when saying:
| Hail, mother of the advocate [Jesus], | Ave, mater advocati, |
Some verses later, he insists, proclaiming:
| Hail, singular Virgin, | Ave, Virgo singularis, |
After several stanzas, he goes on to assert:
| Hail, the entrance of heaven, | Ave, coeli introitus, |
Shortly afterward, he stresses:
| Hail, heavenly mansion, | Ave, coelestis mansio, |
Around the same period, Saint Yvo, bishop of Chartres (1040–1115), adopted the idea that Christ, the power and wisdom of God, built for himself a house in the Virgin Mary’s womb.91 Some decades later, the Benedictine Rupert of Deutz (c. 1075–1129) reiterated in a treatise on the Trinity the usual interpretation of the Proverbs statement above, asserting that the Holy Spirit built wisely, decently adorned, and gloriously and happily dedicated this house not made by human hands as the temple of the Lord (Christ): he built it in the divine Word’s incarnation, he adorned it in his manifestation as a true man, and he dedicated it in his sacrosanct resurrection.92 In another commentary on the prophet Joel, Rupert of Deutz partially insists on similar concepts, stating that the “factory” of the body of Christ is the house that wisdom built for her.93
Around the same years, the Benedictine abbot Geoffrey of Vendôme (c. 1070–1132), in a sermon on the Nativity of Jesus, reiterates that the Virgin Mary, worthy of God, is called “house of the Lord,” whose eastern door was always closed; and very accurately, Mary is called by the name of the house, that is, the temple of God, because God himself dwelt in her both for the sanctification of the Holy Spirit and for human conception.94 Therefore—the abbot of Vendôme goes on to say—preserving the property of his divine nature, God the Son became flesh in the Virgin’s womb and, after becoming a true man in body and soul, was born of a virgin mother, leaving for the temple’s eastern door, which neither suffered in its integrity by him nor was opened by any other man.95
In another Marian sermon, Geoffrey of Vendôme confirms that God the Father sent his Only-Begotten Son to the Virgin Mary so that he would become her son and husband at the same time.96 God the Father arranged it by his charity, God the Son perfected it by his will, and the Holy Spirit prepared and decorated the nuptial bedroom, cleaning the womb of the Virgin from all corruption of sin and filling it with multiple sanctities. Therefore, God, who had previously created all things, created in Mary his royal palace.97
A couple of decades later St. Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux (1090–1153), joined the legion of theologians who interpreted the Proverbs sentence above according to the Mariological and Christological projections already explained. Thus, in a sermon in praise of the Virgin Mary, Bernard says that dwelling in Mary was a good pleasure from God when the wisdom of God built her house from the unpolluted substance of her flesh.98 In another sermon on the Annunciation, Saint Bernard assures that, according to Proverbs, divine wisdom built her house in the Virgin Mary, and she (Wisdom) prepared for herself a throne in her and from her (Mary), and she (Wisdom) adapted for her a perfect and convenient body in her and from her (Mary), so that this house would serve her (Wisdom) to rest, and this throne would serve her to judge, so that it would serve her as a tabernacle to fight and as a chair to teach.99
Some years later, canon Gerhoh of Reichersberg (1093–1169), in a commentary on Psalms, rhetorically putting himself in the role of God the Son, affirms that He is the eternal wisdom of God, in which eternal and paternal omnipotence is combined with his kindness, which is the Holy Spirit.100 So the temple of the body of God the Son is the temple of the entire Trinity, for, as the Gospel of John says, whoever sees me also sees the Father, and in the same way sees the Holy Spirit. Gerhoh goes on to express that, although divine wisdom built a house not made with human hands only for herself, and not for the Father or the Holy Spirit, since only divine wisdom was incarnated, however, as we believe that eternal power (God the Father) and eternal goodness (the Holy Spirit) are consubstantial with divine wisdom (God the Son), that is why the divine Word inhabits the temple of his human body through his incarnation, while God the Father and the Holy Spirit dwell in him through their full godhead.101
In parallel, canon Garnerius of St. Victor († 1170) states that the house built by wisdom for herself, according to Proverbs, designates the body of Christ. For wisdom built her house when the only begotten Son of God created for himself a human body through the soul in the womb of the Virgin Mary; therefore, the body of the only begotten is called the house and temple of God, but in such a way that it is the one and only and the same Son of God and man who dwells and is dwelt in that house.102
Several years later, the Premonstratensian canon Philip of Harveng (1110–1183) ensures that, in the incarnation of God the Son, there is no contradiction between the action of the divine Word and that of the Holy Spirit, since Proverbs affirms that wisdom has built her house, that is, God the Son built his house, and the Gospel of Matthew says that what was born in Mary comes from the Holy Spirit. Around those same years, Peter of Celle, bishop of Chartres (c. 1115–1183), states in a sermon on Advent that Mary is “the palace built with wonderful efforts, but enriched with incomparable treasures, enriched only for God and for God the Son.”103
A couple of decades later, the diplomat and poet Peter of Blois (c. 1135–c. 1203) states in a sermon on Mary’s birth that for her strength she is the city founded by the Most High; for the integrity of her virginity, she is the closed garden, the sealed fountain, the closed door, the uncut [cedar of] Lebanon; for her holiness, she is the temple of God, the door of the sanctuary, the ark of God, the tabernacle of the Holy Spirit; for her glory, she is the King’s palace, the cell of scents, the source of the orchards, the paradise of delights.104 A few lines later, Peter of Blois goes on to say that the wisdom of which we speak when we say that “Wisdom has built her house” is Christ, power, and wisdom of God, because Christ chose the womb of Mary as his shelter, and she, Mary, is “the house of the modest breast,” “the house of God and the door of heaven”.105
A generation later, the Cistercian poet Helinand of Froidmont (c. 1150–c. 1229/37) interpreted the Proverbs sentence above with the usual Mariological and Christological projections. Thus, in a Palm Day sermon, he states that Christ, conceived of the Holy Spirit and Mary, came into an undefiled body in which wisdom built a house for herself.106 In addition, in another homily on the assumption Helinand says that Mary was predestined from eternity to be the wife of God the Father and to have a son with him, and thus to be the mother of God the Son, the tabernacle of the Holy Spirit, the temple of all the Trinity and Wisdom’s own house, according to Proverbs saying “Wisdom has built her house.”107
About half a century later, the prestigious Franciscan master St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio (c. 1217/21–1274), known as the Seraphic Doctor, assures in a sermon on the assumption that the entire divine Trinity, with favorable influence, with great joy, and with the glory of divinity, knew Mary (in the sense of maintaining a symbolic marital relationship with her) as a wife of chaste love, a palace of holy cohabitation, and a factory of admirable operation, for which we must explicitly say that God the Father knew the blessed Mary as the house of his royal majesty.108
At the conclusion of this exploration of the main doctrinal sources of the Greek-Eastern and Latin Churches, we remark that for more than a millennium (third–13th centuries), all the Eastern and Western Fathers and theologians analyzed in this article manifest a substantial exegetical agreement on the domus Sapientiae metaphor and other similar metaphorical expressions, such as templum Dei or aula regis.
Now, regardless of whether one or another of the masters studied here emphasizes the Mariological or Christological sense separately, or both at the same time, they all agree in defending that the various symbolic terms referred to—domus Sapientiae, templum Dei, aula regalis, domicilium Trinitatis, thronus deitatis, and other analogous metaphors—signify Mary’s virginal womb in which God the Son was supernaturally incarnated as a man, or they symbolize the body or human nature that God the Son assumed from Mary’s virginal entrails.
In any case, for all those Fathers and theologians, such symbolic expressions essentially allude to two complementary dogmas: first, that of God the Son’s supernatural human conception/incarnation in the Virgin Mary’s womb; second, and because of the first, that of Mary’s virginal divine motherhood. In this way, the interpretations of those Greek-Eastern and Latin Fathers and theologians, who for eleven centuries substantially agreed on the interpretative approach to these metaphorical expressions, built a unanimous doctrinal tradition on the two dogmas mentioned above.
As we will see in the following Section 4, this doctrinal tradition will inspire numerous medieval hymnographers, who throughout the Middle Ages will produce countless poems and liturgical hymns, many of whose stanzas will lyrically take up the metaphors above.
4. The domus Sapientiae Metaphor and Other Similar Symbolic Figures in Medieval Latin Liturgical Hymns
Logically, among the liturgical hymns we have analyzed in this article, we will present here only the stanzas that allude to the biblical metaphors under analysis. To better gauge the evolution of the hymnographers’ exegeses on the matter, we will present these fragments of hymns in strict chronological order, grouping them by century.
4.1. Tenth-Century Hymns
From this century we have documented on the topic only Hymnus 575. De sancta Maria. hymni. Ad tertiam, that imprecates the saving mediation of Mary, mother of the Supreme Judge, with this stanza:
| Mary, beauty of men. | Maria, decus hominum |
4.2. Eleventh-Century Hymns
From the 11th century, we have registered only these two hymns:
Hymnus 68. In Assumptione Beatae Mariae Virginis, it proclaims the merciful mediation of the mother of Christ with these lyrical praises:
| 2a. Seat of Wisdom, | 2a. Sedes sapientiae, |
Some stanzas later, Hymnus 68 continues its applause in those terms:
| 10a. Origin of clemency | 10a. Origo clementiae, |
Hymnus 16. In Nativitate Beatae Mariae Virginis. Ad Vesperas, from around the 11th century, refers to God the Son’s virginal human conception/incarnation in Mary’s womb in this stanza:
| Wisdom has built | Domum sibi virgineam |
4.3. Twelfth-Century Hymns
From the twelfth century, we have found those three hymns:
Hymnus 143. De beata Maria Virgine exalts the mother of Christ with these symbolic figures:
| Nourishing mother of the Word of God, | Verbi Dei parens alma, |
Hymnus 504. Psalterium Mariae sings Mary’s virginal divine motherhood in these verses:
| Hail, house closed to men, | Ave domus clausa viro, |
Hymnus 90. Jubilus de singulis membris Beatae Mariae Virginis, from around the 12th century, proclaims the Virgin Mary as mother of Christ, God, and man through these biblical figures:
| Hail, virginal bridal bed | Salve, thorus virginalis, |
4.4. Twelfth- and Thirteenth-Century Hymns
Dated between the 12th and 13th centuries, Hymnus 498. Oratio super Ave maris stella implores the saving protection of God the Son’s virginal mother through these rhymes:
| Always make us blameless | Nos culpis solutos |
4.5. Thirteenth-Century Hymns
From the 13th century, we have documented these two hymns:
Hymnus 151. De beata Maria Virgine compliments the mother of God, exalting her virginal womb with these biblical symbolic figures:
| 6a. Your belly, oh maiden | 6a. Venter tuus, o puella, |
Hymnus 358. De S. Maria suggests the human conception of God the Son in the virginal womb of Mary with those lyrical metaphors:
| The king enters the palace | Aulam rex ingreditur |
4.6. Fourteenth-Century Hymns
From the 14th century, we have documented these eight hymns:
Hymnus 472. [De gloriosa Virgine Maria] ad nonam requests the Virgin Mary’s saving intercession with several metaphors related to grandiose constructions, expressing:
| Rejoice, marble temple | Gaude templum marmoreum |
Hymnus 469. [De gloriosa Virgine Maria] ad primam applauds Mary as the house of God in these verses:
| Rejoice, dawn of the world, | Gaude aurora saeculi, |
Hymnus 14. De conceptione BMV. In 2 Nocturno. Responsoria proclaims the virginal divine motherhood of Mary, equated to the abode and temple of God in this stanza:
| The House of the chaste breast | Domus pudici pectoris |
Hymnus 14. De conceptione BMV. In 3 Nocturno. Ad laudes. Antiphonae expresses the virginal divine motherhood of Mary, designating her as the impeccable house of God, in these rhymes:
| Holiness agreed | Hanc domum tuam, Domine, |
Hymnus 69. De beata Maria Virgine proclaims Mary’s virginal divine motherhood, calling her the impeccable throne of Wisdom in these stanzas:
| 6a. Wisdom, which by a septiform gift | 6a. Qui per septiforme donum |
Hymnus 491. De beata Maria Virgine proclaims the dignity of the Virgin, assimilating her to the throne and palace of God in these verses:
| Supreme King’s Palace, | Summi regis palatium, |
Hymnus 504. Psalterium Mariae proclaims the Virgin as the sublime seat of the Lord of the universe through these concise rhymes:
| Hail, Virgin, high seat | Ave, virgo, summae legis |
Hymnus 596. Laudes Mariae, from around the 14th century, honors Mary as the impeccable house of God in these short verses:
| Beautiful wife, | Sponsa speciosa, |
4.7. Fourteenth- and Fifteenth-Century Hymns
From some imprecise date between the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, we have found these two hymns:
Hymnus 52. Salutationes Beatae Mariae Virginis sings the sublimity of the mother of God the Son, whom it designates as the precious receptacle of divine Wisdom, through these rhymes:
| Hail, vessel of our salvation. | Salve, nostri vas salutis, |
A few stanzas later Hymnus 52 develops analogous concepts, assimilating Mary to the house built by wisdom for herself, expressing:
| Hail manufactured house | Salve, domus fabrefacta |
Hymnus 75. In Annuntiatione Beatae Mariae Virginis, it proclaims Mary as the one chosen by divine wisdom to be her property in this stanza:
| The Wisdom of God | Te Dei sapientia |
4.8. Fifteenth-Century Hymns
From the 15th century we have recorded these twenty-four hymns, twelve of which were written by the famous German hymnographer Ulrich Stöcklins von Rottach, abbot of Wessobrunn.
Hymnus 369. De Maria matre Domini exalts the mother of God, designating her as the palace of wisdom, in this stanza:
| Beautiful palace of the King of heaven | Aula coelestis speciosa regis, |
Hymnus 342. De praesentatione beatae Mariae, ad vesperas. Hymnus proclaims Christ the Savior as the divine wisdom coming from the house of Mary’s womb, expressing:
| Oh Wisdom of God | O Dei sapientia, |
Hymnus 563. Ad beatam Virginem Mariam implores the saving protection of the mother of God, designating her as his palace, in these rhymes:
| Oh, you, singular Virgin, | O tu virgo singularis, |
Hymnus 598. Laudes Mariae Virginis sings the greatness of the Redeemer’s caring mother, identifying her as his palace and other symbolic figures, in these verses:
| Oh, how holy, how benign | O quam sancta, quam benigna |
Hymnus 51. De Nominibus Beatae Mariae Virginis exalts the Virgin as the seat of divine wisdom in these rhymes:
| Mother of mercy, | Mater misericordiae, |
Hymnus 94. Acrostichon super “Ave Maria” proclaims Mary as the virginal mother of God, calling her the exclusive abode of divine Wisdom, in these verses:
| You are the door that closes | Tu es porta, quae clauditur |
Hymnus 108. Ad Beatam Mariam Virginem honors the immaculate mother of God, highlighting the fact that she was built by divine Wisdom, stating:
| Hail, Fountain of mercy, | Ave, fons clementiae, |
In almost the same terms as the latter hymn, Hymnus 109. Ad Beatam Mariam Virginem expresses these concepts:
| Hail, light of grace, | Ave, lumen gratiae, |
Hymnus 110. Ad Beatam Mariam Virginem refers to the Virgin Mother of God through various metaphors alluding to abodes and containers, indicating:
| Mansion of the Father’s Word, | Verbi Patris atrium, |
Hymnus 140. De beata Maria Virgine implores the protection of Mary, recognizing her as the mother of divine Wisdom, in these terms:
| 4a. Hail, Virgin, Star of the sea, | 4a. Ave virgo stella maris, |
Hymnus 113. De Beata Maria Virgine greets the patron mother of the Savior with several metaphorical figures, including the seat of Wisdom, through these rhymes:
| Hail, vessel of clemency, | Ave, vas clementiae, |
Hymnus 78. De beata Maria Virgine glorifies Mary as the beneficent mother of divine Wisdom in these stanzas:
| 2a. Hail, healthy salvation, | 2a. Salve, salus salutaris, |
The German hymnographer Ulrich Stöcklins von Rottach, abbot of Wessobrunn from 1438 until 1443, presents these twelve brilliant hymns on the topic at hand:
In Hymnus 21, “O pulcherrima mulierum” he celebrates the Virgin Mary for the sublimity of her virtues, designating her with several poetic figures, among them the house of Wisdom, by pointing out:
| 3. Hail, source of joy, | 3. Ave, fons laetitiae, |
Several stanzas later in this Hymnus 21. “O pulcherrima mulierum” the poet develops similar concepts in these rhymes:
| Hail, flower of cleansing, | Ave, flos munditiae, |
In Hymnus 24. Centinomium Beatae Virginis. Primae partis. In Caput quartum, Ulrich Stöcklins von Rottach praises the Virgin as the incomparable house of gold prepared by the Creator, formulating:
| O house of gold | O domus aurea, |
A few stanzas later in the fourth chapter of the first part of this Centinomium Beatae Virginis, the Wessobrunn hymnographer asks for the saving protection of the mother of divine wisdom in this stanza:
| You are the vessel of honor | Tu vas honoris es |
Then, in the fifth chapter of the first part of this Centinomium Beatae Virginis, Ulrich Stöcklins von Rottach requests the protective aid of the mother of divine wisdom in this stanza:
| Oh, land watered | O terra pluviis |
Ulrich Stöcklins von Rottach, in section I of the first part for Matins of Hymnus 25. Laudatorium Beatae Mariae Virginis, requests the saving patronage of Mary, whom he designates with lyrical metaphors, among them the house of the divine Trinity, by expressing:
| Hail, oh fig tree | Ave, o ficulnea |
In section III of this first part for Matins of this Laudatorium Beatae Mariae Virginis, the hymnographer of Wessobrunn congratulates the merciful mother of divine Wisdom in these elaborate rhymes:
| Rejoice, you who became | Gaude, quae laetitiam |
In the fourth part for Tertias of this Laudatorium Beatae Mariae Virginis, Ulrich Stöcklins von Rottach requests the help of the Virgin, whom he recognizes as filled with divine wisdom in these verses:
| Hail, vessel of mercy, | Ave, vas clementiae, |
In the sixth part of that extensive Laudatorium Beatae Mariae Virginis, Ulrich Stöcklins von Rottach asks for the saving protection of Mary, designating her as the house of wisdom and grace, expressing:
| Rejoice, house of grace | Gaude, domus gratiae |
In Hymnus 42. Abecedarius 2, Ulrich Stöcklins von Rottach invokes the regenerating protection of Mary, whom he designates as the seat of wisdom in this stanza:
| Sapphire seat | Summae sapientiae |
In Hymnus 48. Rosarium I, IV, Ulrich Stöcklins von Rottach demands the redemptive intercession of the Virgin, whom he calls the mother of divine wisdom in this stanza:
| Hail, Virgin, Gate of Heaven, | Ave, virgo, coeli porta, |
In the third block of Hymnus 50. Rosarium III, III, Ulrich Stöcklins von Rottach requests the help of Mary, whom he recognizes as the mother of Wisdom, by stating:
| Hear us, those of us who hail you with joy: | Audi nos clamantes laete: |
In the fourth block of this Rosarium III, Ulrich Stöcklins von Rottach praises Mary for being the virginal mother of wisdom, by proclaiming:
| Well!, mother of Jesus Christ, | Euge, mater Jesu Christi, |
In Hymnus 52. Rosarium 2, I Ulrich Stöcklins von Rottach extols Mary for being the spotless house built by wisdom for herself in these rhymes:
| The Wisdom, which preserved you | Qui ab injustitia |
Finally, in Hymnus 14. Super Ave Maria, Ulrich Stöcklins von Rottach glorifies Mary because her womb was the throne on which the new wise Solomon (Christ) sat in these verses:
| The ivory throne of the womb, | Ventris thronus eburneus, |
At the conclusion of this partial exploration of the texts of the Church Fathers, theologians, and medieval liturgical hymnographers, one remark emerges: all these authors interpreted the biblical metaphor “Wisdom has built her house” through the Mariological and/or Christological meanings already explained about God the Son’s human conception/incarnation in Mary’s virginal womb. That is why this biblical metaphor and its patristic, theological, and liturgical interpretations acquire an undeniable essentiality in Christian doctrine. Therefore, it is strange that almost no modern author of Mariology books (De Fiores 1992; Forte 1993; Bastero de Eleizalde 1995; de La Potterie 1995; Fernández 1999; Stock 1999; Ponce Cuéllar 2001; Pozo 2005; Cerbelaud 2005; de La Soujeole 2007; Scheffczyk 2010; Calero de los Ríos 2010; Casás Otero 2015; García Paredes 2015; Bonarrigo 2018; Hauke 2021) mentions—fewer explain—this crucial topic. The only one who extensively echoes this Marian symbol is Ángel Castaño Félix (2019), with his homonymous monograph María “Sedes Sapientiae”. Mariología.
5. The domus Sapientiae in Some Images of the Annunciation from the Fifteenth Century
We have confirmed the unanimity with which Eastern and Western Fathers, theologians, and liturgical hymnographers interpreted for more than a millennium the Proverbs sentence “Wisdom has built her house” with Mariological and/or Christological projection. According to them, this house built by divine wisdom is the womb of Mary that God the Son chose to be conceived and reside there during the nine months of gestation, or, alternatively, it is the human body (or nature) of Christ in which God the Son “housed” (substantially united) his divine nature.
Now, the Annunciation of the angel to Mary is the event in which God the Son’s human conception/incarnation takes place at the very moment in which the Virgin unconditionally accepts God the Father’s plan to make her the virginal mother of his divine Son. Therefore, it is not surprising that it is in images of the Annunciation where the biblical textual metaphor “Wisdom has built her house” could be most pertinently visually metaphorized. In this sense, among the numerous artistic representations of the Annunciation in which Mary’s house is shaped as a palace to symbolize the Mariological and Christological meanings already explained,157 we have selected the following eight Italian Renaissance paintings of the Annunciation.
Fra Filippo Lippi (1406–1489) in L’Annunciazione delle Murate, c. 1443–1450 (Figure 1)158—so called because it was painted for the Suore Murate convent in Florence—, depicts the Virgin’s abode as a luxurious marble palace of Renaissance style. Inside this royal building, the archangel Gabriel, holding a huge lily stem—whose dogmatic symbolism we have explained elsewhere (Salvador-González 2013, pp. 183–222; 2016a, pp. 117–44)—, kneels before Mary while a second angel stands on the left carrying another lily stem. Standing in front of Gabriel, the Virgin, astonished by the celestial messenger’s unexpected arrival, seems to have suddenly risen from the prie-dieu where she was praying with the prayer book open over the armrest. In the upper left corner of the painting, God the Father radiates with his open hands toward the Virgin the fertilizing rays of light, symbolizing of God the Son (Salvador-González 2022, pp. 39–85), carrying in his wake the dove of the Holy Spirit to signify the immediate conception/incarnation of God the Son in Mary’s virginal womb. Thus, the divine plan, verbalized by Gabriel through his announcement “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you”, becomes real at the very moment that Mary accepts the divine design unconditionally as the humble “slave of the Lord” (ancilla Domini). She manifests such acceptance through her submissive gesture of bowing her head and putting her right hand on her chest.
It is crucial to highlight here that, shaping the ordinary Mary’s house in Nazareth into a splendid royal palace, the cult Carmelite friar and priest Fra Filippo Lippi, who undoubtedly knew the exegetical tradition on the matter—ideally symbolizes the Virgin’s womb and Christ’s human nature (body), according to the double exegetical tradition of Church Fathers, theologians, and hymnographers on the biblical metaphor domus Sapientiae.
Fra Carnevale (1420–1484) stages the scene of The Annunciation, c. 1445–1450, from the Alte Pinakothek in Munich (Figure 2)159 inside a magnificent Renaissance palace, splendidly furnished. Genuflecting before Mary, Gabriel points toward her with his right index finger to manifest her election by God the Father to be the mother of God the Son incarnate as a man. Standing in front of a prie-dieu/lectern, the Virgin, keeping open her prayer book, lowers with compliance her head and eyes in a gesture of accepting as a humble “slave of the Lord” the divine plan announced to her by the archangel. Behind Mary, the open door of her bedroom unveils her conjugal bed, whose deep Mariological and Christological meanings we have explained in other studies (Salvador-González 2020, pp. 7–31; 2021, pp. 77–93; 2024).
Moreover, it is important to highlight in this painting the Virgin’s house shaped as a luxurious royal palace to illustrate the Proverbs’ statement “Wisdom has built her house”. It is important to indicate that Fra Carnevale was a cultured Dominican priest and friar, and by such a status, he knew well all the Mariological and Christological interpretations of the Church Fathers, theologians, and medieval hymnographers about the biblical metaphor domus Sapientiae. Therefore, Fra Carnevale wanted to make these dogmatic meanings perceptible in this Annunciation from the Alte Pinakothek in Munich by figuring Mary’s above as a monumental royal palace.
Francesco del Cossa (1436–1479) presents in this Annunciation, 1472, from the Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister in Dresden (Figure 3)160 another brilliant example of how to illustrate in an image of this Marian episode the proclamation of Proverbs, according to which “Wisdom has built her house.” That is why the painter places his Annunciation in the scenic context of a magnificent palace with monumental architectural elements carved in precious marble. Presiding over the event, God the Father levitates in the sky in the upper left part of the painting while sending the Holy Spirit, depicted as a dove, towards the Virgin. Beginning to kneel in the foreground, the archangel Gabriel raises his right hand in the double gesture of blessing Mary and showing her the heavenly origin of the message he is delivering to her. Standing in a demure attitude, lowering her head and eyes, she seems to show, by placing her right hand on her chest, her willingness to unconditionally accept the Almighty’s will.
It is worth noting here that the artist, perhaps instructed by some ecclesiastic fellow, has here represented Mary’s humble house in Nazareth as a luxurious palace to illustrate the Mariological and Christological meanings deciphered by the Church Fathers, theologians, and medieval liturgical hymnographers when interpreting the passage from Proverbs “Wisdom has built her house.”
Gentile Bellini (c. 1429–1507) sets The Annunciation, c. 1475, from the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum in Madrid (Figure 4)161 in the context of a monumental Renaissance palace of polychrome marbles. Beginning to kneel before the Virgin in the adjacent plaza, carrying a stalk of lilies in his left hand, Gabriel raises his right hand in the double gesture of blessing Mary and pointing upward to indicate the origin of the announcement he is communicating to her. Framed by the robust arch in the foreground, Mary prays devoutly on her knees with her hands joined in a room of the palace, at the back of which one can see her bedroom with her immaculate conjugal bed.
Now, apart from the predictable elements in this Marian episode, it is important to underline here a doctrinal pronouncement: through the visual metaphor of this unreal painted palace, with which Gentile Bellini—probably instructed by a priest or friar—transfigured Mary’s humble abode in Nazareth to illustrate the textual metaphors already explained, through which the Fathers, theologians, and liturgical hymnographers referred to the Virgin Mary as the “house of Wisdom”, where God the Son was conceived and lived during the five months of his gestation.
Carlo Crivelli (c. 1435–c. 1495) plans The Annunciation with Saint Emidius, 1486, from the National Gallery in London (Figure 5)162 —one of the panels of the altarpiece of the main altar of the church of the Santissima Annunziata of the Franciscan convent of the Observant Friars in Ascoli Piceno—through a complex composition with great visual impact.
We omit here the compositional-narrative details of highly political intention, which allude to the privilege of partial administrative independence granted by Pope Innocent VIII to the city of Ascoli Piceno through the intervention of its bishop. We are interested, on the other hand, in highlighting the spectacular Renaissance palace with which Crivelli—probably instructed by one of the observant friars of the community who commissioned the altarpiece for the main altar of his conventual church—shaped the humble abode of Mary in Nazareth. Through the visual metaphor of this dazzling palace, the intellectual author of this Annunciation wanted to illustrate the textual metaphors domus Sapientiae, palatium Dei, or other similar symbolic expressions, interpreted by the Fathers, theologians, and hymnographers according to the Mariological and Christological projections above: first, to symbolize Mary’s virginal womb as the supernatural residence that God the Son built to inhabit upon his incarnation; second, to symbolize Christ’s human body, generated from Mary, in which God the Son united his divine nature with his human nature.
Sandro Botticelli (1445–1510) structures his Annunciation, c. 1490, from the Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum in Glasgow (Figure 6),163 in a splendid fashion, placing the Marian episode inside a colossal Renaissance palace. On the left side, framed by a vaulted gallery and a porticoed courtyard, the archangel Gabriel completes his flight, holding a lily stem in his left hand while blessing the Virgin with his right. Inside the room on the right side, Mary stands, bowing her torso and lowering her head and eyes as a sign of respectful obedience to the divine plan announced to her by Gabriel. Crossing the opening on the left, the beam of rays (God the Son) reaches the head/ear of the Virgin as a sign of her immediate supernatural impregnation, according to the outstanding thesis of the conceptio per aurem (Salvador-González 2016b, pp. 83–122), after unrestrictedly accepting the will of God the Father as the modest ancilla Domini. Furthermore, it is noteworthy to highlight in this Annunciation from Glasgow the colossal palace through which Botticelli shapes the ordinary house of Mary in Nazareth. It seems that the painter—induced likely by an ecclesiastical mentor—wants to illustrate through this monumental royal construction the Christological and Mariological meanings explained by the Fathers, theologians, and hymnographers when interpreting the biblical metaphor domus Sapientiae.
Pietro del Donzello (1452–1509) sets The Annunciation, 1498, from the Basilica di Santo Spirito in Florence (Figure 7)164 in a monumental Renaissance palace with wide vaulted galleries, one of which opens onto a landscape of distant mountains. The dialogue between the two protagonists of the event takes place in one of the wings of the portico that surrounds the vast internal patio of the palace complex. With his hands crossed on his chest, the archangel Gabriel begins to kneel respectfully before the demure Virgin, while she interrupts her reading/prayer of the book she holds in her left hand, while raising her right hand as if she wanted to express her full consent to God the Father’s design transmitted to her by the celestial messenger. Between both interlocutors, a symbolic vase with iris flowers stands out in the foreground and in the center of the compositional axis.
Now, apart from these predictable details in the Renaissance images of the Annunciation, it is important to highlight here the representation of Mary’s house in Nazareth as a monumental palace. It is assumed that Pietro del Donzello, perhaps instructed by a clergyman, wanted to illustrate with this outstanding palatial building the Mariological and Christological interpretations brought to light by the Fathers, theologians, and medieval liturgical hymnographers on the Proverbs saying “Wisdom has built her house.”
Bernardino di Betto di Biagio, better known by his pseudonym Pinturicchio (1454–1513), depicts his Annunciation, 1501, of the Cappella Baglioni in the Collegiata di Santa Maria Maggiore in Spello (Figure 8),165 in the context of a colossal Renaissance palace, structured by large arched galleries supported by pilasters richly decorated with friezes and candelieri. The main room where the Virgin and Gabriel dialogue connects with a central gallery widely open to a beautiful landscape of gardens, mountains, and villages. Inside this monumental palatial space, the archangel kneels respectfully before Mary, blessing her with his right hand while holding a lily stem in her left hand. Interrupting her prayer before the open book placed over a massive lectern, the Virgin extends her hands and lowers her head and eyes in a humble gesture to indicate her unrestricted obedience to the plan of the most high of electing her as the virginal mother of God the Son incarnate. Therefore, in the upper left side of the painting, God the Father, encircled by a mandorla of cherubs, blesses Mary while sending to her right ear the beam of rays (a symbol of God the Son) with the Holy Spirit shaped as a dove flying in its wake.
It seems evident that Pinturicchio—perhaps influenced by some cleric—wanted to represent in this Annunciation of Spello the humble abode of Mary in Nazareth in the form of a huge palace to symbolically illustrate the meanings of the domus Sapientiae metaphor as they were explained for more than a millennium by the Fathers, theologians, and medieval liturgical hymnographers.
6. Conclusions
As a final point of this article, we can compile these essential results:
(1) For more than a millennium (third-thirteenth centuries), all the Fathers, theologians, and medieval liturgical hymnographers of the Greek-Eastern and Latin Churches analyzed here manifest a substantial exegetical agreement on the metaphor domus Sapientiae and other similar analogies, such as templum Dei, aula regalis, domicilium Trinitatis, or thronus deitatis.
(2) All those masters of Christian doctrine interpret these metaphors in a Mariological or Christological sense separately, or, as some do, in both simultaneously. In its Mariological projection, many interpret the “house of Wisdom” and other analogous symbolic figures as the virginal womb of Mary in which God the Son was supernaturally incarnated as a man, uniting his divine nature with his human nature, and where he resided during the nine months of pregnancy. Others interpret the domus sapientiae and other similar metaphors as the body that God the Son built for himself in the virginal womb of Mary to hypostatically unite his divine nature with his human nature. Some simultaneously defend both Mariological and Christological projections as essentially intertwined.
(3) In any case, for more than a millennium, all the Fathers, theologians, and medieval liturgical hymnographers studied here interpret these metaphors as symbolic expressions of two complementary dogmas: God the Son’s supernatural human conception/incarnation in Mary’s virginal womb and, as a necessary consequence, Mary’s virginal divine motherhood.
(4) Given this ancient patristic, theological, and liturgical tradition on the subject under study, it was not surprising that some artistic images of the Annunciation, the crucial event in which God the Son’s human conception/incarnation in Mary’s virginal womb took place, could visually illustrate these textual metaphors and their dogmatic meanings. This is illustrated by the eight Renaissance pictorial Annunciations that we have analyzed in this article, in which the humble home of Mary in Nazareth is shaped as a monumental, splendid palace.
(5) Now, there is no reason to think that all the material authors of those eight paintings perfectly knew the doctrinal meanings of the house/palace they were depicting: the painter was required to know how to paint, without necessarily being an expert in theological subtleties. It is evident that Fra Filippo Lippi and Fra Carnevale, due to their status as priests and friars, knew in-depth the dogmatic contents of the domus Sapientiae doctrine, by which they were fully aware of what they were trying to signify when painting the house/palace in their respective Annunciations. Regarding the other six painters studied here, two hypotheses could explain their position: as the best alternative, they could have received from some ecclesiastic or theological expert the necessary instructions to represent Mary’s home in Nazareth as a luxurious palace; as a second hypothesis, we can conjecture that some painter simply just “copied” (paraphrasing it) the model of an Annunciation with a house/palace painted by a prestigious artist.
No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
1. This article is a part of the doctoral thesis for the “Compendium of Publications” modality in the International Doctorate in History, Culture and Thought at the University of Alcalá de Henares.
2. Hippolytus Portuensis, Pars I. Exegetica. Fragmenta in Proverbia. PG 10, 626.
3. Origen, In Exodum Homilia VI. PG 12, 340.
4. Gregorius Thaumaturgus, Homilia III. In Annunciatione sanctae Virginis Mariae. PG 10, 1171.
5. Ibid., 1178.
6. Efremus, Hymni de Nativitate 17, 5.
7. Gregorius Nyssenus, In Christi Resurrectionem Oratio Prima. PG 46, 615.
8. Gregorius Nyssenus, Contra Eunomium, 3, 44. PG 45, 579.
9. Ibid.
10. Cyrillus Alexandrinus, In Joannis Evangelium. Liber IV. Caput III. PG 73, 586–587.
11. Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Commentarius in S. Joannis Evangelium. Liber Quartus. Caput IV, 3. PG 73, 615.
12. Proclus Constantinopolitanus, Oratio VI. Laudatio sanctae Dei genitricis Mariae. PG 65, 758.
13. Hesychius Hierosolymitanus, Sermo V. De sancta Maria Deipara Homilia. PG 93, 1462.
14. Theodotus Ancyranus. Homilia VI in S. Deiparam et nativitatem Domini. PG 77, 1429.
15. Jacopus Sarugensis, Homilia de Mariae visitatione. In Álvarez Campos, 1981, vol. V, 54.
16. Jacopus Sarugensis, Homilia de beata Virgine Matre Dei Maria. In Álvarez Campos, 1981, vol. V, 11.
17. Procopius Gazensis, In Exodum 25, 26, 1. PG 87-1, 645–646.
18. Joannes Maxentius Antiochenus, Adunationis Verbi Dei ad propriam carnem. PG 86-1, 89–90.
19. Ibid., 91–92.
20. Leontius Byzantinus, Adversus Nestorianos. Liber IV, 9. PG 86-1, 1670.
21. Ibid
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid., 1670–1671.
27. Modestus Hierosolymitanus, Encomium in Dormitionem SanctissimaeDominae Nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae. PG 86-2, 3285.
28. Germanus Constantinopolitanus, In Praesentationem SS. Deiparae. Sermo I. PG 98, 306.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid., 307.
31. Ibid., 346.
32. Germanus Constantinopolitanus, Hymnus in Sanctam Dei Genitricem. PG 98, 454.
33. Andreas Cretensis, Oratio IV. In sanctam Nativitatem praesanctae Dominae nostrae Dei Genitricis, semperque virginis Mariae. PG 97, 867–870.
34. Andreas Cretensis, Oratio V. In sanctissimae Deiparae Dominae nostrae Annuntiationem. PG 97, 894–895.
35. Iohannes Damascenus, Homilia I In Nativitatem B.V. Mariae, 9. PG 96, 675.
36. Ibid., 679.
37. Iohannes Damascenus, Homilia II In Nativitatem B.V. Mariae, 11. PG 96, 690.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid., 691.
40. Ibid.
41. Joannis Euboeensis, Sermo in Conceptionem Santae Deiparae. PG 96, 1487.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid., 1499.
44. Cosmas de Maiuma (Cosmas Hierosolymitanus), Hymni. VI. Pro Magna Quinta Feria. PG 98, 478.
45. Josephus Hymnographus, Mariale. I. In pervigilio Nativitatis SS. Deiparae Canon I. PG 105, 983–986.
46. Josephus Hymnographus, Mariale. Theotocia seu Deiparae Strophae. PG 105, 1258.
47. Josephus Hymnographus, Mariale. Theotocia Ex Paracletica Graecorum. PG 105, 1295.
48. Ibid., 1303.
49. “Ipse ergo Rex Israel transivit hanc portam, ipse dux sedit in ea; quando Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis (Joan. 1, 14), quasi Rex sedens in aula regali uteri virginalis, vel in olla ferventi […]. Utrumque enim diversis in codicibus invenitur. Aula regalis est virgo, quae non est viro subdita, sed Deo soli.” (Ambrosius Mediolanensis, De institutione virginis, XII, 79. PL 16, 324).
50. “Quid autem loquar quanta sit virginitatis gratia, quae meruit a Christo elegi, ut esset etiam corporale Dei templum, in qua corporaliter, ut legimus (Coloss. 2, 9) habitavit plenitudo divinitatis? Virgo genuit mundi salutem, virgo peperit vitam universorum”. (Ambrosius Mediolanensis, Epistula LXIII, 33. PL 16, 1249–1250).
51. Ambrosius Mediolanensis, Hymnus IV. PL 16, 1411.
52. Ambrosius Mediolanensis, Hymnus XII. PL 16, 1412.
53. “Neque enim terrenorum parietum constructiones, et silvestrium ligna culminum desiderabat, quae cum fuissent, manus dirueret hostilis; sed illud templum quaerebat, quod in hominum conderetur mentibus […], in quo habitaret Dominus Jesus, et unde ad redemptionem universorum procederet, ut in utero Virginis sacra reperieretur aula, in qua Rex habitaret coelestium, et corpus humanum Dei templum fieret; quod etiam, cum solutum esset, in triduo resuscitaretur”. (Ambrosius Mediolanensis, Epistola XXX, 3. PL 16, 1107).
54. “Dominus enim virtutum ipse est rex gloriae (Ps. 23, 10): ipse descendet in uterum virginalem, et ingredietur et egredietur Orientalem portam, quae semper est clausa (Ezech. 44); de qua Gabriel dicit ad Virginem: Spiritus sanctus veniet super te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi: propterea quod nascetur in te sanctum, vocabitur Filius Dei (Lc. 1, 35). Et in Proverbiis: Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum (Prov. 9, 1)”. (Hieronymus, Commentariorum in Isaiam Prophetam. Liber III. Caput VII, 14. PL 24, 110).
55. “Idoneum plane Maria Christo habitaculum, non pro habitu corporis, sed pro gratia originali. (Maximus Taurinensis, Homilia V. De eadem [ante natale Domini]. PL 57, 235).
56. “Mariae ergo uterum non uterum dixerim fuisse, sed templum; templum plane est, in quo habitat sanctum quidquid in coelo est: nisi quod super coelos aestimandum est, ubi quasi in secretiore tabernáculo mysterium a divinitate disponitur, quemadmodum a pluribus ascendatur ad coelum”. (Ibid., 236).
57. “Ceterum illud inexplicabile est et indicibile, quod est Pater et Filius, Filius Patris, Verbum Patris, virtus et sapientia Patris, in quo et per quem fecit Pater omnia. Hoc Verbum intellige Filium Dei, quem misit pro salute mundi, sicut propheta dixit: Misit Verbum tuum, et sanavit eos (Psal
58. “‘Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum (Prov. 9, 1)’… Hic certe agnoscimus Dei Sapientiam, hoc est, Verbum Patri coaeternum, in utero virginali domum sibi aedificasse corpus humanum, et huic, tamquam capiti membra, Ecclesiam subiunsisse”. (Augustinus Hipponensis, De Civitate Dei. Liber Decimus Septimus, 20. PL 41, 555).
59. “‘Domine, quis habitabit in tabernaculo tuo, aut quis requiescet in monte sancto tuo? Qui ingreditur sine macula et operatur iustitiam (Ps. 14, 1–2)’ [...] Omnis immaculatus ingreditur tabernaculum Domini, et ibi immaculatus efficitur. Jesus autem immaculatus solus virgineam aulam ingressus, ipsam tabernaculum a maculis carnalibus liberavit, et dedit sanctificationem potius quam accepit”. (Arnobius Junior, Commentarii in Psalmos. Psalmus XIV. PL 53, 340–341).
60. “Ille qui de limo terrae virginis primum hominem fecit, ipse in utero Virginis sanctae hominem in quo ipse habitaret sua incomprehensibili omnipotentia fabricavit, secundum quod legimus: Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum (Prov. IX,1).” (Arnobius Junior, Conflictus de Deo trino et uno. Liber II. PL 53, 275).
61. “Ingrediens namque sanctus Spiritus virgineam pudicitiae aulam, talem Christum, hominem factum ex ea fecit procedere, qui Perdita restauraret, et omnium delicta relaxaret, qui innocens innocentem sanguinem suum pro redemptione humanae fragilitatis effunderet, et per hominem visibilem Deus invisibilis unigenitum suum visibilem hominibus praesentaret”. (Eleutherius Tornacensis, Sermo De Incarnatione Domini. PL 65, 92).
62. “Neque enim pars ejus remansit in Patre, et pars ejus descendit in Virginem, cum totus in Patre maneret quod erat, et tutus in Virgine fieret quod non erat: totus cum Patre totum implens et continens mundum, totus sibi in utero Virginis aedificans domum (scriptum est enim: Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum (Prov., IX,1)), totus in Patre sempiterno, totus in homine suscepto, totus in coelo, totus in mundo”. (Fulgentius Ruspensis, Ad Trasimundum. Liber III. PL 65, 271).
63. “Sicut enim carnem suam in Virginis útero, faciente Patre, etiam ipse fecit (quia secundum humanam naturam de Christo scriptum est: […] Quia sapientia aedificavit sibi domum (Prov., IX,1)” (Fulgentius Ruspensis, Ad Trasimundum. Liber III. PL 65, 297).
64. “Nam et ipsum corpus Filii, et domum Scriptura sancta nominavit et templum, cum dicit Salomon: Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum (Prov., IX,1; et evangelista huic sensui concordans ait: Ipse autem dicebat de templo corporis sui (Joan, II, 21)” (Fulgentius Ruspensis, Ad Trasimundum. Liber III. PL 65, 302).
65. (Venantius Fortunatus, Miscellanea. Liber VIII. Caput VII. In laudem sanctae Mariae Virginis et matris Domini. PL 88, 281).
66. “Prophetia in Proverbiis in una eademque Christi persona sic declarat utramque naturam: […] divinam secundum illud: Necdum erant abyssi et ego jam concepta eram; humanam secundum hoc: Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum, corporis utique sui templum in quo Filius Dei inhabitaret, dum Verbum est caro factum.” (Isidorus Hispalensis, Collectio canonum S. Isidori Hisp. Adscripta. PL 84, 600).
67. “Quid sine reverentia occurris [Helvidius]? Quid sine pudore vexaris? Quare virginis nostrae principia corruptionis fine coarctas? Quam ob rem initia pudoris exitu actae procreationis infamas? Cur integritatem divinitate sacram humana conventione deturpas?” (Ildefonsus Toletanus, Liber de virginitate perpetua S. Mariae adversus tres infideles, II. PL 96, 61).
68. “Nolo hujus maiestatis vim irrumpas, ne possessionem Dei convexare ausu temerario pertentes, ne mansionem divinitatis noceas praesumptione contemptionis, ne domum Domini injuriis corruptionis confodias, ne portam domus Dei, ejus exitu clausam, a quocumque posse adiri contendas”. (Ibid.).
69. “Virtutum Deus est Dominus possesionis hujus. Coelorum rex est possessor juris istius. Omnipotens est artifex aedificii hujus. Solus egressor et custos est portae egressionis hujus”. (Ibid.).
70. “Hanc domum ingrediens non pudoris spolia tulit, sed egrediens integritate ditavit.” (Ibid.).
71. Jacques-Paul Migne places this sermon among the dubious works of St. Ildefonsus.
72. “Bona siquidem domus, charissimi, in qua tota simul divinitas illabitur Verbi, in qua sapientia Dei Patris septem sibi columnas erexit, super quam omnis innititur domus, et fabricatur Ecclesia”. (Ildefonsus Toletanus, Sermo III. De eadem Assumptione beatae Mariae III. PL 96, 257).
73. “Et pulchre Saul filius Jemini, id est dexterae meae dicitur, quia ipse sibi Christus ex divinitatis suae potentia condidit hominis substantiam, quam ex virgine nasciturus susciperet; juxta quod alibi legitur: Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum (Prov. IX)” (Beda Venerabilis, In Samuelem prophetam allegorica expositio. Liber II. PL 91, 559).
74. “Propter namque inviolatam pudoris aulam, virginitatem praedicat et ante partum, et in partu, et post partum: et propter verae nativitatis exortum, verum parientis partum confitetur”. (Ratramnus Corbeiensis, Liber de Nativitate Christi, 2. PL 121, 84).
75. “Quid est virgo in partu, ni pariens virgo? Et quid virgo post partum, nisi virgo perseverans post partum?” (Ibid.).
76. “Et homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus, id est totus homo cum corpore et anima, in omnia similis nobis absque peccato (Hebr. IV). Ex substantia matris, id est de aequalitate naturae matris. […] Unde Salomon dicit: Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum (Prov, IX): hoc est Christus aedificavit sibi Carnem de beata Maria”. (San Bruno Herbipolensis, Commentarium in Orationem Dominicam. PL 142, 566).
77. “Sicut ergo impossibile erat ut humani generis redemptio fieret, nisi Dei Filius de Virgine nasceretur; ita etiam necessarium fuerat ut Virgo, ex qua Verbum caro fieret, nasceretur. Oportebat quippe prius aedificari domum, in quam descendens coelestis Rex habere dignaretur hospitium. Illam videlicet, de qua per Salomonem dicitur: ‘Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum, excidit columnas septem (Prov. 9).’ [...] Quam utique aeterna Sapientia, quae attingit a fine usque ad finem fortiter, et disponit omnia suaviter (Sap. 8), talem construxit quae digna fieret illum suscipere, et de intemeratae carnis suae visceribus procreare”. (Petrus Damianus, Sermo XLV. II. In Nativitate Beatissimae Virginis Mariae (VIII Sept.). PL 144, 741).
78. Petrus Damianus, Carmina et Preces. XLVII. In assumptione ipsius S. Virginis, Hymus ad vísperas. PL 145, 934–935.
79. Petrus Damianus, Carmina et Preces. LIII. Hymnus ad tertiam. PL 145, 936.
80. Petrus Damianus, Carmina et Preces. LXI. Rhythmus de S. Maria Virgine. PL 145, 938.
81. Ibid., 939.
82. “Quam [Mary] utique aeterna Sapientia, quae attingit a fine usque ad finem fortiter, et disponit omnia saviter (Sap. VIII), talem construxit quae digna fieret illum suscipere, et de intemeratae carnis suae visceribus procreare.” (Petrus Damianus, Sermo XLV. In Nativitate Beatissimae Virginis Mariae. PL 144, 741).
83. “Quam [María] nimirum sibi Sapientia domum aedificavit (Prov. IX), atque in ea per humilitatis assumptae mysterium velut in sacratissimo lectulo requievit.” (Petrus Damianus, Opusculum XXXIII. De bono suffragorum, Caput IV. PL 145, 566).
84. “Aula universalis propitiationis, causa generalis reconciliationis, vas et templum vitae et salutis universorum, nimium contraho merita tua, cum in me homunculo vili singulariter recenseo beneficia tua, quae mundus amans gaudet, gaudens clamat esse sua”. (Anselmus Cantuariensis, Orationes sive Meditationes. 7. Oratio ad Sanctam Mariam pro impetrando eius et Christi amore. In Obras completas de San Anselmo, Madrid, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1953, vol. 2, 316).
85. “Tu namque Domina admirabilis singulari virginitate, amabilis salutari fecunditate, venerabilis inaestimabili sanctitate, tu ostendisti mundo Dominum suum et Deum suum quem nesciebat, tu visibilem exhibuisti mundo creatorem suum quem prius non videbat, tu genuisti mundo restauratorem quo perditus indigebat, tu peperisti mundo reconciliatorem quem reus non habebat”. (Ibid.).
86. “O beata Dei genitrix, virgo Maria, templum Dei vivi, aula Regis aeterni, sacrarium Spiritus sancti”. (Anselmus Cantuariensis, Oratio LV. Ad eamdem Sanctam Virginem Mariam. PL 158, 961).
87. Anselmus Cantuariensis, Hymni et Psalterium de Sancta Virgine Maria. Psalterium Dominae nostrae (Pars I). PL 158, 1037.
88. Ibid.
89. Ibid., 1040.
90. Ibid.
91. “Noli despicere bonitatem figuli qui te plasmavit et fecit et voluit; ipse est Dei virtus, et Dei sapientia (I Cor. 1) quae in utero Virginis aedificavit sibi domum.” (Ivo Carnotensis, Decreti Pars VI. De clericis. PL 161, 534).
92. “Etenim Spiritus sanctus domum istam non manufactam templum Dominici corporis, sapienter per semetipsum aedificavit, decenter exornavit, gloriose ac feliciter dedicavit (III Reg. VII,8). Aedificavit, inquam, in ipsa Verbi incarnatione, exornavit in illius veri hominis manifestatione, dedicavit in ejusdem sacrosancta resurrectione.” (Rupertus Tuitensis, De glorificatione Trinitatis et Processione Sancti Spiritus. Liber IX. PL 169, 181).
93. “quae videlicet domus recte intelligitur fabrica corporis Christi, etenim ipsa est “domus quam sapientia sibi aedificavit (Prov. IX)”,” (Rupertus Tuitensis, Commentaria in duodecim Prophetas Minores. In Joel. Liber I. PL 168, 254).
94. “Honorabilis et praedicabilis femina, digna Deo virgo Maria domus Domini appellatur, in qua porta orientalis clausa semper esse perhibetur. Recto nomine Maria, domus, id est templum Domini dicitur, quia Deus ipse habitavit in ea, et per sanctificationem Spiritus, et per humanam conceptionem”. (Goffridus Vindocinensis, Sermo IV. In Nativitate Domini IV. PL 157, 249).
95. “Servata itaque divinae proprietate naturae, in utero virginis factus est caro, et perfectus homo in veritate carnis et animae, et per portam templi quae respicit ad Orientem, quae nec per se patuit, nec ab alio aperta fuit, processit de virgine matre”. (Ibid., 250).
96. “Ad hanc beatissimam virginem Deus Pater ex se genitum Filium misit, ut ipse Dei Filius, virginis etiam filius fieret et sponsus”. (Goffridus Vindocinensis, Sermo VIII. In omni festivitate B. Mariae Matris Domini. PL 157, 267).
97. “Hoc Pater disposuit charitate, Filius voluntate complevit, Spiritus sanctus paravit thalamum et ornavit, id est ab omni corruptione peccati mundavit virginis uterum, et multiplici sanctitate replevit. Ibi tanquam in aula regia Deus qui omnia ante creaverat, seipsum creavit in Maria”. (Ibid.).
98. “Vere beneplacitum fuit Deo habitare in te, quando ex ipsa illibata carnis tuae substantia, quasi de lignis Libani, architectura ineffabili, domum sibi aedificavit Dei Sapientia”. (Bernardus Claraevallensis, Ad Beatam Virginem deiparam. Sermo panegyricus. PL 184, 1011).
99. “In ipsa [Maria] quippe et ex ipsa, Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum (Prov. ix, i), in ipsa et ex ipsa paravit sibi thronum, cum in ea et ex ea corpus aptavit sibi ita ad omnia perfectum et congruum, ut et domus ei sit ad quiescendum, et thronus ad judicandum, quod primo tabernaculum ei fuit ad pugnandum, et cathedra ad docendum.” (Bernardus Claraevallensis, De Annuntiatione Domini. Sermo I. PL 185, 117).
100. “Ego quippe sum aeterna Dei sapientia, cui aeterna et paterna ineat omnipotentia cum benignitate, quae Spiritus Dei est. Quocirca templum corporis mei templum totius Trinitatis est in quo templo, qui videt me, vide et Patrem meum (Joan. xiv, 9), pariterque Spiritum sanctum.” (Gerhohi Rheicherspergensis, Commentarium in Psalmos, Pars II. Psal. XXVII. PL 193, 1220–1221).
101. “El licet quodammodo specialiter ego sapientia aedificaverim mihi domum sive templum hoc non manufactum, dum solummodo ego Dei sapientia sim incarnata, non Pater aut Spiritus sanctus: tamen dum mihi aeternae sapientiae consubstalitialis creditur aeterna potentia et aeterna bonitas, id est Pater et Spiritus sanctus, templum corporis mei, quod ego sapientia, ego Verbum, ego Filius inhabito per suscriptionem Incarnationis, Pater quoque ac Spiritus sanctus inhabitant per plenitudinem divinitatis suae”. (Ibid.).
102. “Domus corpus Christi designat, sicut Salomon dicit: Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum (Prov. IX,1. Sapientia quippe sibi domum condidit, cum unigenitus Dei Filius in seipse intra uterum virginis, mediante anima, humanum sibi corpus creavit. Sic namque corpus unigeniti domus Dei dicitur, sicut etiam templum vocatur, ita vero ut unus idemque Dei, atque hominis filius ipse sit qui inhabitat ipse, qui habitatur.” (Garnerius Sancti Victoris, Gregoriana. Liber XIII. Caput VI. PL 193, 395).
103. “Ecce palatium mirificis impensis constructum, sed et gazis incomparabilibus locupletatum; solique Deo Dei Filio locupletatum”. (Petrus Cellensis, Sermo VI. In Adventu Domini. In eodem tempore VI Adventu. PL 202, 649–654).
104. “Propter fortitudinem civitas quam fundavit Altissimus; propter virginitatis integritatem hortus conclusus, fons signatus, porta clausa, Libanus non incisus, propter sanctitatem templum Dei, porta sanctuarii, arca Dei, sacrarium Spiritus sancti; propter gloriam aula regis, cella aromatum, fons hortorum, paradisus deliciarum”. (Petrus Blesensis, Sermo XXXVIII. In Nativitate Beatae Mariae. PL 207, 673).
105. “Haec est sapientia de qua loquimur: haec est sapientia quae aedificavit sibi domum, hic est Christus Dei virtus, et Dei sapientia. Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum, quia Jesus Christus in habitationem uterum Mariae elegit. Haec est domus pudici pectoris. […]: haec est domus Dei et porta coeli”. (Ibid.).
106. “Christus autem conceptus est ex Spiritu Sancto et Maria Virgine, venit ad corpus incoinquinatum, in quo Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum (Prov. IX).” (Helinandus Frigidi Montis, Sermo X. In Ramis Palmarum III. PL 211, 562).
107. “[Maria] ad aeterno praedestinata fuit velut in conjugem patris spirituum, et commune cum illo haberet filium et esset mater Filii Dei, sacrarium Spiritus sancti, templum totius Trinitatis, propria domus sapientiae, sicut scriptum est: Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum (Prov. IX).” (Helinandus Frigidi Montis, Sermo XIX. In Assumptione B. Mariae I. PL 212, 638).
108. “Occurrit enim tota Trinitas, etsi non motu locali, tamen influentia favorabili, laetitia principali et gloria deiformi. Tota siquidem beata Trinitas te cognovit, Maria, sponsam castae dilectionis, aulam sanctae inhabitationis, officinam mirae operationis. Vel distinctive dicamus: Cognovit beatam Mariam Pater domum suae maiestatis”. (Bonaventura de Balneoregio, De Assumptione B. Virginis Mariae. Sermo III. In Obras de San Buenaventura, Madrid, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1963), vol. 4, 706–707).
109. Hymnus 575. De s. Maria. hymni. Ad tertiam. Mone, 390.
110. Hymnus 68. In Assumptione BMV. AHMA 9, 55.
111. Hymnus 68. In Assumptione BMV. AHMA 9, 56.
112. Hymnus 16. In Nativitate BMV. Ad Vesperas. AHMA 14, 170.
113. Hymnus 143. De beata Maria V. AHMA 10, 108.
114. Hymnus 504. Psalterium Mariae. Mone, 238.
115. Hymnus 90. Jubilus de singulis membris BMV. AHMA 15, 110.
116. Hymnus 498. Oratio super Ave maris stella. Mone, 223.
117. Hymnus 151. De beata Maria V. AHMA 10, 113.
118. Hymnus 358. De S. Maria. Mone, 51.
119. Hymnus 472. [De gloriosa virgine Maria] ad nonam. Mone, 187.
120. Hymnus 469. [De gloriosa Virgine Maria] ad primam. Mone, 182.
121. Hymnus 14. De conceptione BMV. In 2 Nocturno. Responsoria. AHMA 5, 55.
122. Hymnus 14. De conceptione BMV. In 3 Nocturno. Ad laudes. Antiphonae. AHMA 5, 56.
123. Hymnus 69. De beata Maria V. AHMA 8, 63.
124. Hymnus 491. De b. Maria v. Mone, 211. Published also, with the title Hymnus 91. De Beata Maria V., en AHMA 9, 74
125. Hymnus 504. Psalterium Mariae. Mone, 250.
126. Hymnus 596. Laudes Mariae. Mone, 409.
127. Hymnus 52. Salutationes BMV. AHMA 15, 69.
128. Hymnus 52. Salutationes BMV. AHMA 15, 72.
129. Hymnus 75. In Annuntiatione BMV. AHMA 15, 101.
130. Hymnus 369. De Maria matre domini. Mone, 62.
131. Hymnus 342. De praesentatione b. Mariae, ad vesp. hymnus. Mone, 30.
132. Hymnus 563. Ad b. virg. Mariam. Mone, 371.
133. Hymnus 598. Laudes Mariae v. Mone, 410.
134. Hymnus 51. De Nominibus BMV. AHMA 15, 65.
135. Hymnus 94. Acrostichon super “Ave Maria”. AHMA 15, 122.
136. Hymnus 108. Ad B. Mariam V. AHMA 15, 134.
137. Hymnus 109. Ad B. Mariam V. AHMA 15, 135.
138. Hymnus 110. Ad B. Mariam V. AHMA 15, 136.
139. Hymnus 140. De beata Maria V. AHMA 10, 107.
140. Hymnus 113. De B. Maria V. AHMA 15, 139.
141. Hymnus 78. De beata Maria V. AHMA 8, 68. Published also, with the title Hymnus 141. De beata Maria V., in AHMA 10, 107.
142. Udalricus Wessofontanus, Hymnus 21. “O pulcherrima mulierum”. AHMA 6, 60. Published also, with the title Hymnus 512. De beata virgine, in Mone, 291.
143. Udalricus Wessofontanus, Hymnus 21. “O pulcherrima mulierum”. AHMA 6, 61.
144. Udalricus Wessofontanus, Hymnus 24. Centinomium Beatae Virginis. Primae partis. Caput quartum. AHMA 6, 74.
145. Udalricus Wessofontanus, Hymnus 24. Centinomium Beatae Virginis. Primae partis. Caput quartum. AHMA 6, 75.
146. Udalricus Wessofontanus, Hymnus 24. Centinomium Beatae Virginis. Primae partis. Capitulum quintum. AHMA 6, 83.
147. Udalricus Wessofontanus, Hymnus 25. Laudatorium B.V.M. Prima Pars. Ad Matutinum. I. AHMA 6, 88.
148. Udalricus Wessofontanus, Hymnus 25. Laudatorium B.V.M. Prima Pars. Ad Matutinum. III.AHMA 6, 90.
149. Udalricus Wessofontanus, Hymnus 25. Laudatorium B.V.M. Quarta Pars. Ad Tertiam. I. AHMA 6, 97.
150. Udalricus Wessofontanus. Hymnus 25. Laudatorium B.V.M. Sexta Pars. Ad Nonam. III. AHMA 6, 105.
151. Udalricus Wessofontanus, Hymnus 42. Abecedarius 2. AHMA 6, 141.
152. Udalricus Wessofontanus, Hymnus 48. Rosarium I. IV. AHMA 6, 155.
153. Udalricus Wessofontanus, Hymnus 50. Rosarium III. III. AHMA 6, 162.
154. Udalricus Wessofontanus, Hymnus 50. Rosarium III. IV. AHMA 6, 162.
155. Udalricus Wessofontanus, Hymnus 52. Rosarium 2. I. AHMA 6, 168.
156. Udalrichus Wessofontanus, Hymnus 14. Super Ave Maria. AHMA 6, 46.
157. We have studied this topic in two articles: “Interpretaciones de los Padres de la Iglesia greco-oriental sobre la domus Sapientiae y su influencia en el tipo iconográfico de la Anunciación del siglo XV”, Imago. Revista de Emblemática y Cultura Visual 13 (2021), 111–135; and “The House/Palace in Annunciations of the 15th Century. An Iconographic Interpretation in the Light of the Latin Patristic and Theological Tradition”, Eikón Imago, 10 (2021), 391–406.
158. Fra Filippo Lippi, L’Annunciazione delle Murate, c. 1443–1450. Alte Pinakothek, Munich. Photo Wikipedia:
159. Fra Carnevale, The Annunciation, c. 1445–1450. The Alte Pinakothek, Munich. Photo Wikimedia Commons:
160. Francesco del Cossa, The Annunciation, 1472. Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden. Photo Wikimedia Commons:
161. Gentile Bellini, The Annunciation, c. 1475. Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum, Madrid. Photo Wikipedia:
162. Carlo Crivelli, The Annunciation with Saint Emidius, 1486, The National Gallery, London. Photo Wikipedia:
163. Sandro Botticelli, The Annunciation, c. 1490. Art Gallery and Museum, Glasgow. Photo Wikipedia:
164. Pietro del Donzello, The Annunciation, 1498, Basilica di Santo Spirito, Florence. Photo Basilica di Santo Spirito, Firenze:
165. Pinturicchio, The Annunciation, 1501. Cappella Baglioni, Collegiata di Santa Maria Maggiore, Spello. Photo Wikimedia Commons:
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
References
Primary Sources
AHMA, 5. Dreves, Guido María. 1892. Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi, 5. Historiae rhythmicae. Liturgische Reimofficien des Mittelalters. Erste Folge. Aus Handschriften und Wiegendrucken. Leipzig: Fues’s Verlag (R. Reisland).
AHMA, 6. Dreves, Guido María. 1889. Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi, 6. Udalricus Wessofontanus. Ulrich Stöcklins von Rottach Abts zu Wessobrunn 1438–1443 Reimgebe und Leselieder mit Ausschuss der Psalterien. Leipzig: Fues’s Verlag (R. Reisland).
AHMA, 8. Dreves, Guido María. 1890. Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi, 6. Sequentiae ineditae. Liturgische Prosen des Mittelalters aus Handschriften und Wiegenbrucken. Erste Folge Leipzig: Fues’s Verlag (R. Reisland).
AHMA, 9. Dreves, Guido María. 1890. Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi, 9. Sequentiae ineditae. Liturgische Prosen des Mittelalters aus Handschriften und Wiegenbrucken. Zweite Folge. Leipzig: O. R. Reisland.
AHMA, 10. Dreves, Guido María. 1891. Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi, 10. Sequentiae ineditae. Liturgische Prosen des Mittelalters aus Handschriften und Wiegenbrucken. Dritte Folge. Leipzig: O. R. Reisland.
AHMA 14, Dreves, Guido María. 1893. Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi, 14. Hymnarius Severinianus. Das Hymnar der Abtei S. Severin in Neapel nahc den Codices Vaticanus 7172 und Parisinus 1092, Leipzig: O.R. Reisland.
AHMA, 15. Dreves, Guido María. 1893. Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi, 15. Pia dictamina. Reimgebete und Leselieder des Mittelalters. Erste Folge. Aus Handschriften und Wiegendrucken, Leipzig: O.R. Reisland.
Álvarez Campos, Sergio, ed. 1970–1981. Corpus Marianum Patristicum. Burgos: Aldecoa, 8 vols.
Ambrosius Mediolanensis. De institutione virginis, XII, 79. PL 16, 324.
Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistula LXIII, 33. PL 16, 1249–1250.
Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Hymnus IV. PL 16, 1411.
Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Hymnus XII. PL 16, 1412.
Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Epistola XXX, 3. PL 16, 1107.
Andreas Cretensis. Oratio IV. In sanctam Nativitatem praesanctae Dominae nostrae Dei Genitricis, semperque virginis Mariae. PG 97, 867–870.
Andreas Cretensis. Oratio V. In sanctissimae Deiparae Dominae nostrae Annuntiationem. PG 97, 894–895.
Anonymus hymnographus, Hymnus 12. En Sergio Alvarez Campos, Corpus Marianum Patristicum, Burgos, Aldecoa, 1981, vol. V, 171.
Anselmus Cantuariensis. 1953. Obras completas de San Anselmo, Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 2 vols.
Anselmus Cantuariensis. Orationes sive Meditationes. 7. Oratio ad Sanctam Mariam pro impetrando eius et Christi amore. In Obras completas de San Anselmo, Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, vol. 2, 316.
Anselmus Cantuariensis. Oratio LV. Ad eamdem Sanctam Virginem Mariam. PL 158, 961.
Anselmus Cantuariensis. Hymni et Psalterium de Sancta Virgine Maria. Psalterium Dominae nostrae (Pars I). PL 158, 1037–1040.
Arnobius Junior. Commentarii in Psalmos. Psalmus XIV. PL 53, 340–341.
Arnobius Junior. Conflictus de Deo trino et uno. Liber II. PL 53, 275.
Augustinus Hipponensis. De Civitate Dei. Liber Decimus Septimus, 20. PL 41, 555.
Beda Venerabilis. In Samuelem prophetam allegorica expositio. Liber II. PL 91, 559.
Bernardus Claraevallensis. Ad Beatam Virginem deiparam. Sermo panegyricus. PL 184, 1011.
Bernardus Claraevallensis. De Annuntiatione Domini. Sermo I. PL 185, 117.
Bonaventura de Balneoregio. De Assumptione B. Virginis Mariae. Sermo III. In San Buenaventura. 1963. Obras de San Buenaventura. Vol. IV. Teología mística. Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, vol. IV, 706–707.
Buenaventura, San. 1963. Obras de San Buenaventura. Vol. IV. Teología mística. Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos.
Bruno Herbipolensis. Commentarium in Orationem Dominicam. PL 142, 566.
Cosmas Hierosolymitanus. Hymni. VI. Pro Magna Quinta Feria. PG 98, 478.
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. In Joannis Evangelium. Liber IV. Caput III. PG 73, 586–587.
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarius in S. Joannis Evangelium. Liber Quartus. Caput IV, 3. PG 73, 615.
Efremus Syrus. Hymni de Nativitate 12, 2. In Corpus Marianum Patristicum. Álvarez Campos, ed. 1970. vol. II, 487. Burgos: Aldecoa.
Efremus Syrus. Hymni de Nativitate 17, 5. In Corpus Marianum Patristicum. Álvarez Campos, ed. 1970. vol. II, 492. Burgos: Aldecoa
Eleutherius Tornacensis. Sermo De Incarnatione Domini. PL 65, 92.
Fulgentius Ruspensis. Ad Trasimundum. Liber III. PL 65, 271–302.
Garnerius Sancti Victoris. Gregoriana. Liber XIII. Caput VI. PL 193, 395.
Gerhohi Rheicherspergensis. Commentarium in Psalmos, Pars II. Psal. XXVII. PL 193, 1220–1221.
Germanus Constantinopolitanus. In Praesentationem SS. Deiparae. Sermo I. PG 98, 306–346.
Germanus Constantinopolitanus. Hymnus in Sanctam Dei Genitricem. PG 98, 454.
Goffridus Vindocinensis. Sermo IV. In Nativitate Domini IV. PL 157, 249–250.
Goffridus Vindocinensis. Sermo VIII. In omni festivitate B. Mariae Matris Domini. PL 157, 267.
Gregorius Nyssenus. In Christi Resurrectionem Oratio Prima. PG 46, 615
Gregorius Nyssenus. Contra Eunomium, 3, 44; PG 45: 579.
Gregorius Nyssenus, In Canticum Canticorum. Homilia XIII. PG 44, 1054.
Gregorius Thaumaturgus. Homilia III. In Annunciatione sanctae Virginis Mariae. PG 10, 1171–1178.
Gregorius Thaumaturgus, Homilia I in Annunciatione VirginisMariae. PG 10, 1151.
Gregorius Thaumaturgus, Homilia III in Annunciationem Virginis Mariae. PG 10, 1174.
Guerricus Igniacensis Abbas, Sermo I. In Assumptione B. Mariae. PL 185, 189.
Helinandus Frigidi Montis. Sermo X. In Ramis Palmarum III. PL 211, 562.
Helinandus Frigidi Montis. Sermo XIX. In Assumptione B. Mariae I. PL 212, 638.
Hesychius Hierosolymitanus. Sermo V. De sancta Maria Deipara Homilia. PG 93, 1462.
Hieronymus Stridonensis. Commentariorum in Isaiam Prophetam. Liber III. Caput VII, 14. PL 24, 110.
Hippolytus Portuensis. Pars I. Exegetica. Fragmenta in Proverbia. PG 10, 626.
Honorius Augustodunensis, Sigillum Beatae Mariae ubi exponuntur Cantica Canticorum. PL 172, 495–518.
Hymnus 1. In Nativitate Domini. AHMA 44, 13.
Hymnus 2. Crinale B. M. V. Mone, 270. Also included in AHMA 3, 34.
Hymnus 2. AHMA 20, 37.
Hymnus 3. Cantio de Domina. AHMA 2, 150.
Hymnus 3. In Sanctificatione Conceptionis BMV. In 2. Nocturno. Antiphonae. AHMA 17, 22.
Hymnus 5. Sertum Christi. AHMA 36, 228.
Hymnus 6. De Fecunditate sanctae Mariae. AHMA 19, 12.
Hymnus 6. De Beata Maria V. In 1. Vesperis. Super Psalmos. AHMA 45a, 23.
Hymnus 8. Sertum beatae Mariae V. AHMA 36, 242.
Hymnus 9. In Vigilia Natalis Domini. Ad Laudes. AHMA 23, 13.
Hymnus 11. De Adnuntiatione. B. V. M. AHMA 2, 154.
Hymnus 11. Rosarium beatae Mariae V. Auctore Iacobo Merlone Horstio. AHMA 36, 265.
Hymnus 12. De conceptione BMV. In 3 Nocturno. Responsoria. AHMA 5, 49.
Hymnus 12. Ad Benedicamus. AHMA 20, 222.
Hymnus 13. De Assumptione B. M. V. AHMA 2, 155.
Hymnus 14. De conceptione BMV. In 2 Nocturno. Responsoria. AHMA 5, 55.
Hymnus 14. De conceptione BMV. In 3 Nocturno. Ad laudes. Antiphonae. AHMA 5, 56.
Hymnus 15. De beata Maria V. In 2 Vesperis. AHMA 24, 52.
Hymnus 16. In Nativitate BMV. Ad Vesperas. AHMA 14, 170.
Hymnus 20. AHMA 1, 63.
Hymnus 21. Hymnus in nativitate Domini ad vesperas. AHMA 2, 36
Hymnus 22. De laude sanctae Mariae. AHMA 19, 25.
Hymnus 24. AHMA 1, 65.
Hymnus 25. De Praesentatione BMV. In 3. Nocturno. Responsoria. AHMA 24, 78.
Hymnus 32. In festo Paschatis. AHMA 9, 89.
Hymnus 34. De sanctissima Trinitate. AHMA 37, 38.
Hymnus 35. AHMA 20, 61.
Hymnus 42. AHMA 1, 82.
Hymnus 43. Hymnus de beata Maria. AHMA 2, 46.
Hymnus 45. Infra Octavam Assumptionis BMV. AHMA 39, 50.
Hymnus 47. De Conceptione BMV. Ad Laudes. AHMA 11, 35
Hymnus 49. De Nominibus et Titulis BMV. AHMA 15, 61–62.
Hymnus 50. De Nominibus BMV. AHMA 15, 64.
Hymnus 51. De B.V. Maria. AHMA 4, 39.
Hymnus 51. De Nominibus BMV. AHMA 15, 65.
Hymnus 52. Salutationes BMV. AHMA 15, 70.
Hymnus 52. Salutationes BMV. AHMA 15, 69–72.
Hymnus 53. De septem Gaudiis BMV. In 2. Nocturno. Antiphona. AHMA 24, 162.
Hymnus 56. AHMA 1, 95.
Hymnus 56. In Nativitate BMV. AHMA 9, 48.
Hymnus 56. In Nativitate BMV. AHMA 9, 49.
Hymnus 58. Horae beatae Mariae V. Ad Vesperas. AHMA 30, 136.
Hymnus 60. In Annunciatione BMV. AHMA 9, 51.
Hymnus 63. De Beata Maria V. AHMA 39, 63.
Hymnus 68. In Assumptione BMV. AHMA 9, 55–56.
Hymnus 69. De beata Maria V. AHMA 8, 63.
Hymnus 69. De Beata Maria V. AHMA 39, 67.
Hymnus 70. De Beata Maria V. Ad Matutinum. AHMA 12, 48.
Hymnus 72. In Assumptione BMV. AHMA 9, 59.
Hymnus 73. De Beata Maria V. AHMA 37, 74.
Hymnus 74. De Gaudiis BMV. AHMA 15, 101.
Hymnus 74. De Beata Maria V. Ad Laudes. AHMA 16, 63.
Hymnus 75. In Annuntiatione BMV. AHMA 15, 101.
Hymnus 78. De beata Maria V. AHMA 8, 68.
Hymnus 79. In Conceptione BMV. Ad Matutinum. AHMA 12, 51.
Hymnus 81. De beata Maria V. AHMA 9, 67.
Hymnus 81. De Beata Maria V. AHMA 40, 88.
Hymnus 81. AHMA 20, 139.
Hymnus 84. De Beata Maria V. AHMA 40, 90.
Hymnus 85. In Assumptione BMV. Ad Sextam. AHMA 11, 55.
Hymnus 87. Ad B. Mariam V. AHMA 15, 107.
Hymnus 88. In Festo Reliquiarum BMV. Ad Laudes. AHMA 11, 56.
Hymnus 90. Jubilus de singulis membris BMV. AHMA 15, 110.
Hymnus 91. De Beata Maria V. AHMA 9, 74
Hymnus 93. De Beata Maria V. AHMA 42, 98.
Hymnus 93. AHMA 1, 117.
Hymnus 94. De beata Maria V. AHMA 9, 76.
Hymnus 94. Acrostichon super “Ave Maria”. AHMA 15, 122.
Hymnus 95. Super Ave Maria. AHMA 30, 201.
Hymnus 98. Ad B. Mariam V. AHMA 15, 124.
Hymnus 98. Super Ave Maria. AHMA 30, 206.
Hymnus 98. De Beata Maria V. AHMA 40, 101.
Hymnus 101. AHMA 1, 121.
Hymnus 101. De Beata Maria V. AHMA 8, 81–82.
Hymnus 102. In Purificatione BMV. AHMA 7, 116.
Hymnus 103. In Assumptione B. M. V. AHMA 10, 95.
Hymnus 103. Alphabetum archangelicum in laudem BMV. AHMA 15, 129.
Hymnus 104. In Assumptione BMV. AHMA 14, 108.
Hymnus 104. Oratio deV.M. matre Jesu. AHMA 15, 129.
Hymnus 104. Super Ave Maria. AHMA 30, 211.
Hymnus 105. De Beata Maria V. AHMA 40, 105
Hymnus 107. Ad B. Mariam V. AHMA 15, 133.
Hymnus 108. Ad B.Mariam V. AHMA 15, 135.
Hymnus 108. Ad B. Mariam V. AHMA 15, 134.
Hymnus 109. Ad B. Mariam V. AHMA 15, 135.
Hymnus 110. Ad B. Mariam V. AHMA 15, 136.
Hymnus 112. AHMA 20, 100.
Hymnus 113. De B. Maria V. AHMA 15, 139.
Hymnus 113. De Beata Maria V. AHMA 40, 111.
Hymnus 116. Super Ave Maria. AHMA 30, 229.
Hymnus 118. De Beata Maria V. AHMA 40, 114.
Hymnus 119. Ad B. Mariam V. AHMA 15, 142.
Hymnus 122. De Beata Maria V. AHMA 40, 116–117.
Hymnus 122. De B. Maria V. AHMA 15, 148.
Hymnus 122. Super Ave Maria. AHMA 30, 237.
Hymnus 122. De Beata Maria V. AHMA 40, 116.
Hymnus 124. De Beata Maria V. AHMA 42, 119.
Hymnus 126. Carmina de Laudibus Virginis. AHMA 46, 169.
Hymnus 130. De Nominibus BMV. AHMA 31, 132.
Hymnus 134. Oratio ad laudem beatae Mariae, matris Domini. AHMA 46, 176.
Hymnus 135. Super Ave Maria. AHMA 30, 251.
Hymnus 136. Super Ave Maria. AHMA 30, 253.
Hymnus 136. De Beata Maria V. AHMA 46, 182.
Hymnus 137. Thalamus beatae Mariae V. AHMA 31, 137.
Hymnus 139. AHMA 1, 144.
Hymnus 140. De beata Maria V. AHMA 10, 107.
Hymnus 141. De beata Maria V., in AHMA 10, 107.
Hymnus 143. De beata Maria V. AHMA 10, 108.
Hymnus 150. Super Ave Maria. AHMA 30, 270.
Hymnus 151. De beata Maria V. AHMA 10, 113.
Hymnus 156. Super Ave Maria. AHMA 30, 281.
Hymnus 157. De Beata Maria V. AHMA 46, 209.
Hymnus 173. AHMA 20, 133.
Hymnus 173. De Beata Maria V. AHMA 46, 218.
Hymnus 178. AHMA 1, 164.
Hymnus 184. AHMA 1, 169.
Hymnus 186. AHMA 1, 170.
Hymnus 188. AHMA 1, 171.
Hymnus 191. AHMA 20, 150.
Hymnus 193. AHMA 20, 151.
Hymnus 196. AHMA 20, 153.
Hymnus 210. AHMA 20, 165.
Hymnus 216. AHMA 1, 184.
Hymnus 235. AHMA 20, 179.
Hymnus 243. AHMA 20, 184.
Hymnus 326. De conceptione s. Mariae virg. Mone, 11.
Hymnus 342. De praesentatione b. Mariae, ad vesp. hymnus. Mone, 30.
Hymnus 358. De S. Maria. Mone, 51.
Hymnus 364. De eadem. [Annunciatione]. Mone, 57.
Hymnus 365. De b. Maria v. Mone, 58.
Hymnus 366. Ad eandem. [B. Mariam Virginem]. Mone, 59.
Hymnus 369. De Maria matre domini. Mone, 62.
Hymnus 373. De b. Maria v. Mone, 67.
Hymnus 400. Ave Maria. Mone, 107.
Hymnus 422. Hymni domini Anselmi de s. Maria, matre domini. Mone, 132.
Hymnus 469. [De gloriosa Virgine Maria] ad primam. Mone, 182.
Hymnus 472. [De gloriosa virgine Maria] ad nonam. Mone, 187.
Hymnus 473. De gloriosa b. Maria. Ad vesperas. Mone, 188–189.
Hymnus 487. Super antiphona Salve regina. Mone, 203.
Hymnus 491. De b. Maria v. Mone, 211.
Hymnus 498. Oratio super Ave maris stella. Mone, 223.
Hymnus 504. Psalterium Mariae. Mone, 234–250.
Hymnus 505. Letania de domina nostra Virgine Maria. Mone, 260–261.
Hymnus 510. Ad b. Mariam v. Mone, 285.
Hymnus 512. De beata virgine. Mone, 290–291.
Hymnus 563. Ad b. virg. Mariam. Mone, 371.
Hymnus 575. De s. Maria. hymni. Ad tertiam. Mone, 390.
Hymnus 596. Laudes Mariae. Mone, 409.
Hymnus 598. Laudes Mariae v. Mone, 410.
Hymnus 600. Laudes Mariae. Mone, 411.
Ildefonsus Toletanus. Liber de virginitate perpetua S. Mariae adversus tres infideles, II. PL 96, 61.
Ildefonsus Toletanus. Sermo III. De eadem Assumptione beatae Mariae III (Opera Dubia). PL 96, 257.
Iohannes Damascenus. Homilia I In Nativitatem B.V. Mariae, 9. PG 96, 675–679.
Iohannes Damascenus. Homilia II In Nativitatem B.V. Mariae, 11. PG 96, 690–691.
Isidorus Hispalensis. Collectio canonum S. Isidori Hisp. Adscripta. PL 84, 600.
Ivo Carnotensis. Decreti Pars VI. De clericis. PL 161, 534.
Jacopus Sarugensis. Homilia de Mariae visitatione. In Corpus Marianum Patristicum. Álvarez Campos, ed. 1981. vol. V, 54. Burgos: Aldecoa.
Jacopus Sarugensis. Homilia de beata Virgine Matre Dei Maria. In Corpus Marianum Patristicum. Álvarez Campos, ed. 1981. vol. V, 11. Burgos: Aldecoa.
Joannes Maxentius Antiochenus. Adunationis Verbi Dei ad propriam carnem. PG 86-1, 89–92.
Joannis Euboeensis. Sermo in Conceptionem Santae Deiparae. PG 96, 1487–1499.
Josephus Hymnographus. Mariale. I. In pervigilio Nativitatis SS. Deiparae Canon I. PG 105, 983–986.
Josephus Hymnographus. Mariale. Theotocia seu Deiparae Strophae. PG 105, 1258.
Josephus Hymnographus. Mariale. Theotocia Ex Paracletica Graecorum. PG 105, 1295–1303.
Leontius Byzantinus. Adversus Nestorianos. Liber IV, 9. PG 86-1, 1670–1671.
Maximus Taurinensis. Homilia V. De eadem [ante natale Domini]. PL 57, 235–236.
Maximus Taurinensis. Tractatus V. Contra Iudaeos. PL 57, 805.
Modestus Hierosolymitanus. Encomium in Dormitionem SanctissimaeDominae Nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae. PG 86-2, 3285.
Mone, Franz Josef. 1854. Hymni Latini Medii Aevi. E codd. Mss. Edidit et adnotationibus illustravit Franc. Jos. Mone. Tomus Secundus. Hymni ad. B.V. Mariam, Friburgi Brisgoviae, Sumptibus Herder. Quoted with the abbreviation Mone.
Origen. In Exodum Homilia VI. PG 12, 340.
Petrus Blesensis. Sermo XXXVIII. In Nativitate Beatae Mariae. PL 207, 673.
Petrus Cellensis. Sermo VI. In Adventu Domini. In eodem tempore VI Adventu. PL 202, 649–654.
Petrus Damianus. Sermo XLV. II. In Nativitate Beatissimae Virginis Mariae (VIII Sept.). PL 144, 741.
Petrus Damianus. Carmina et Preces. XLVII. In assumptione ipsius S. Virginis, Hymnus ad visperas. PL 145, 934–935.
Petrus Damianus. Carmina et Preces. LIII. Hymnus ad tertiam. PL 145, 936.
Petrus Damianus. Carmina et Preces. LXI. Rhythmus de S. Maria Virgine. PL 145, 938–939.
Petrus Damianus. Sermo XLV. In Nativitate Beatissimae Virginis Mariae. PL 144, 741.
Petrus Damianus. Opusculum XXXIII. De bono suffragorum, Caput IV. PL 145, 566.
Philippus de Harveng. Epistola V. Philipphi ad Joannem. PL 203, 38.
Proclus Constantinopolitanus, Oratio VI. Laudatio sanctae Dei genitricis Mariae. PG 65, 758.
Procopius Gazensis. In Exodum 25, 26, 1. PG 87-1, 645–646.
Ratramnus Corbeiensis. Liber de Nativitate Christi, 2. PL 121, 84.
Rupertus Tuitensis. De glorificatione Trinitatis et Processione Sancti Spiritus. Liber IX. PL 169, 181.
Rupertus Tuitensis. Commentaria in duodecim Prophetas Minores. In Joel. Liber I. PL 168, 254.
Theodotus Ancyranus. Homilia VI in S. Deiparam et nativitatem Domini. PG 77, 1429.
Udalricus Wessofontanus. Hymnus 14. Super Ave Maria. AHMA 6, 46.
Udalricus Wessofontanus. Hymnus 21. “O pulcherrima mulierum”. AHMA 6, 60–61.
Udalricus Wessofontanus. Hymnus 24. Centinomium Beatae Virginis. Primae partis. Caput quartum. AHMA 6, 74–75.
Udalricus Wessofontanus. Hymnus 24. Centinomium Beatae Virginis. Primae partis. Capitulum quintum. AHMA 6, 83.
Udalricus Wessofontanus. Hymnus 25. Laudatorium B.V.M. Prima Pars. Ad Matutinum. I. AHMA 6, 88.
Udalricus Wessofontanus. Hymnus 25. Laudatorium B.V.M. Prima Pars. Ad Matutinum. III. AHMA 6, 90.
Udalricus Wessofontanus. Hymnus 25. Laudatorium B.V.M. Quarta Pars. Ad Tertiam. I. AHMA 6, 97.
Udalricus Wessofontanus. Hymnus 25. Laudatorium B.V.M. Sexta Pars. Ad Nonam. III. AHMA 6, 105.
Udalricus Wessofontanus. Hymnus 42. Abecedarius 2. AHMA 6, 141.
Udalricus Wessofontanus. Hymnus 48. Rosarium I, IV. AHMA 6, 155.
Udalricus Wessofontanus. Hymnus 50. Rosarium III, III. AHMA 6, 162.
Udalricus Wessofontanus. Hymnus 50. Rosarium III, IV. AHMA 6, 162.
Udalricus Wessofontanus. Hymnus 52. Rosarium 2, I. AHMA 6, 168.
Venantius Fortunatus. Miscellanea. Liber VIII. Caput VII. In laudem sanctae Mariae Virginis et matris Domini. PL 88, 281.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
This article sheds light on the repercussions of the Proverbs sentence “Wisdom has built her house” on Christian doctrine and on the Marian iconography of the Annunciation. To achieve his objectives, the author uses a double comparative analysis as a methodology. To begin with, he analyzes a vast corpus of texts in which numerous Fathers, theologians, and liturgical hymnographers of Eastern and Western Churches interpret this biblical locution according to Mariological and Christological projections. Secondly, he analyzes eight pictorial Annunciations from the Italian Renaissance in which Mary’s house in Nazareth is depicted as a luxurious palace. As a result of these two sets of analyses, the author concludes that the interpretations of the Fathers, theologians, and hymnographers about the house built by Wisdom and the form of the house/palace in images of the Annunciation allude to the dogma of God the Son’s supernatural human conception/incarnation in Mary’s virginal womb.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Art History Department, Faculty of Geography and History, Complutense University of Madrid, Campus Moncloa, 20040 Madrid, Spain;