St Paul in art: Critique of a critical study

On the occasion of the Pauline year, the diocese of Gozo organised an artistic exhibition entitled St Paul - Faith And Iconography. Representations In Art In Malta: Late Medieval To The Present. The organising committee, led by Fr Joseph Calleja, published a lavish catalogue to the works on display.

The main contribution in this catalogue is a study by Mark Sagona, a visiting lecturer at the University of Malta, entitled St Paul In Art In Gozo c. 1300-1950 - A Critical Study. Mr Sagona wrote a good critique from an artistic point of view and he should have stopped at that. However, he decided to tread on ground of which he is unfamiliar and, in my opinion, made up a whole mess. Mr Sagona is seemingly unaware of recent developments in historic research related to the subject and other matters. Worse, he also let a tint of Rabat parochialism tarnish his contribution.

Mr Sagona is totally oblivious to the fact (p. 3) that no modern biblical scholar worth the name and no standard exegetical study of the past years put in doubt what he terms as the "alleged events" in the Acts of the Apostles, specifically the reference to Malta in Acts 28,1.

He is unaware that recent historic research (p. 3), partly published by Professor Stanley Fiorini and H.C.R. Vella, has backdated the Pauline cult in Malta from 1299 to the second quarter of the 12th century.

He wrote that "Gozo revered St George as its patron saint, while the cult of St Ursula as co-protectress of the island was added early in the seventeenth century". (p. 4). Unless he has discovered new sources that he is keeping close to his heart, St George was the dedication of late mediaeval parish church. It was St Ursula, and St Ursula alone, who was declared patron saint of Gozo by the Diocesan Synod of 1620.

He is seemingly unaware that since July 3, 1798, the Castle of Gozo is officially known as Citadel and not as Gran Castello (p. 4, 5) - or is he mimicking birds of the same feather to belittle Gozo's main historical centre?

He also does not know that the church that he refers to as "the Assumption in the Castello" (p. 5) was a Collegiate and a Matrice or mother church from at least 1435. Or is he shying away from the truth due to his parochial leanings?

He refers to the artist of St Paul in the old Matrice main altarpiece as identifiable with the Master of the Bir Miftuħ altarpiece (p. 5). Why not the opposite, that is, the latter is identifiable with the Master of the Matrice altarpiece? The Matrice altarpiece is documented earlier than that of Bir Miftuħ.

One last word about the other article, St Paul And The Island of Gozo. How is it that the editor of this catalogue did not aim at a substantially better contribution rather than be content with something like a mediocre essay written by a secondary school student?