The Fall of the Rebel Angels is a biblical telling of the first confrontation between good and evil; how Lucifer was expelled from paradise. Among the most famous visual depictions of the story include work by Flemish artists, Frans Floris (1517-1570) and Pieter Bruegel (1525-1569). As contemporaries of one another their work makes for an interesting comparison due to its striking differences despite the artists’ similar backgrounds. Active in the 15th century during the period of the Northern Renaissance, Floris and Bruegel were both masters of the Guild of St Luke within a decade of the other, and both travelled across Italy at the height of the Italian Renaissance. With the help of this contextual knowledge we may draw a comparison between Floris and Bruegel’s interpretations of The Fall of the Rebel Angels in terms of style and iconography, underpinned by their similar background but determined by their diverging artistic objectives. Ultimately, we will see two artists with distant styles inspired by dissimilar sources, in turn used to articulate similar iconography for different purposes.
We can first compare the two artists in terms of style. Frans Floris’ style can be traced to influences found in Rome, where he studied the work of Italian Renaissance painters such as Michelangelo and Raphael. Art historians seem to be in agreement that his style is a derivative of these artists, which is supported by visual and historical analysis. Floris was in Rome at the time of the revealing of Michelangelo’s The Last Judgement in the Sistine Chapel and there are drawings form Floris of his Italian contemporaries’ work. We can see their influence clearly in Floris’s The Fall of the Rebel Angels in the very Italian rendering of the smooth, idealised figures. In addition to this, Frans Floris’s teacher Lambert Lombard is among the great Romanticists, and we see this along with Italian Renaissance painters translating into his classically influenced style. The Fall of the Rebel Angels was commissioned by the Fencers’ guild for public display in Antwerp Cathedral, and so we see Floris employing this classical style in order to flatter his patrons, the importance of which we will see later.
Bruegel’s style could not be much further removed. The influence of his background in print design is clear, with an illustrative style, far removed from concerns of classical beauty and instead displaying fantastical and dreamlike design. His exposure to Hieronymus Bosch is of equal importance to that of Michelangelo in the case of Floris, and we can see the similarities when we consider Bosch’s Garden of Early Delights triptych. Bruegel has been referred to by historians as the ‘second Bosch,’ which is quite justified when we consider that his Fall of the Rebel Angels was mistaken for a Bosch painting until the discovery of his signature in 1898. Bosch’s eye-catchingly unique style that emerged in the late 1400s verges on surrealism at times, is rich in colour and clearly influenced Bruegel.
When we compare the two in terms of style we see a very stark contrast. While both fill the frames with the same subject neither is similar in execution. Where Floris’s figures appear muscular and strong, Bruegel’s seem thin and long. Bruegel’s seems more unified texturally, whereas Floris has more of a subtle range. While Floris has taken a classical painterly approach inspired by Italian renaissance, there is little trace of this in Bruegel’s fantastical style, a derivative of Bosch. In this respect, we see that Floris can be interpreted as having an imitative style of the Italian Renaissance, while Bruegel contributed to the development of a recognisably Flemish design. Artists like Frans Floris, “are not today considered the great artists of their time, whereas Bruegel, who despite his Italian journey, remained true to his Flemish style… is now considered a great Flemish artist, representative of his home culture.”
If we turn now to look at the iconography, first in the work of Frans Floris, it is clear that symbolism is chosen in order to flatter his patron – the Antwerp Fencers’ Guild. Compositionally, there is a strong downward force in a very shallow plane, with a distinct split between good and evil. Michael, the patron saint of the Fencers’ Guild, is portrayed in the central horizontal plane and serves as an example to those who would view it. As this painting was to be displayed publicly, Floris is flattering his patrons with a strong and muscular Michael, and shows the guild as a protector against evil. We notice that all of the ‘good’ angels are depicted clothed or in armour, whereas the beasts below are unclothed, naked, and their bodies seem contorted and stressed. There is a distinction here between an idea of us and the other, although the fact that the demons have human bodies brings them closer to the viewers idea of their own identity than is comfortable. Furthermore, the expulsion references the story of Adam and Eve, whereby upon being dispelled from the Garden of Eden they are suddenly aware of their nakedness. Another biblical reference is the seven-headed dragon Michael stands over, which comes from the apocalypse. Floris makes a link between the beginning and end of time. This marrying of two stories emphasises the omnipresence of good and evil, ichnographically ambiguous on purpose, by making links across time and space where both are present. The dragon is about to be struck by Michaels sword, which along with the weapons of his angel comrades resembles that of the Fencer’s guild, while the demons they fight use more primitive weapons such as bows and arrows and daggers. The Dragon looks up towards the left-hand corner of the painting, where in the distance we can see the Virgin Mary (in blue) being confronted by its gaze while she passes the Christ child to an angel who takes him away into a bright, hazy distance. This foreshadows Christ’s suffering and the struggle between good and evil. Finally, in the bottom right of the picture, there is a bumble bee which has been the source of debate for art historians who have tried to discern its ambiguous meaning. On the one hand, the bee could be in reference to the devil – its ability to sting – however on the other, it could have a more optimistic meaning, and become a symbol of diligence.
+ contemporary’s comment about devil’s hand (Krén and Marx 2017)
Bruegel’s Fall of the Rebel Angels does not have any documented evidence of patronage, but it is suggested by art historians that rather than being used for devotional use like Floris, it was intended for personal use by a wealthy patron of high status. Immediately we can recognise this context in the manifestation of iconography and its subsequent meaning. In terms of composition, the painting is roughly split in two halves: Heaven and Hell, which reinforces the idea of two sides. This is done in terms of the characters displayed, the angels at the top and the fallen demons below, with a hierarchical system in place, but also through colour. There are celestial blues at the top, light and sky-like to evoke the feeling of heaven, and as we move down the painting there are more ochres, browns and reds which give a sense of gravity to the painting. This sense of weight is enforced by the two demon silhouettes which creep into the top of the painting, shown as if they were falling down. At the centre of the image behind Michael, is an infernal spiral of demonic people, pouring down the painting. Michael is presented at the centre of the painting with a composed expression. He wears gold armour, and his cape billows behind him. We notice that another split occurs in the top-bottom relationship of the painting, similar to Frans Floris, in that all of the ‘good’ characters are clothed, and the ‘bad’ are naked and vulgar looking. Michaels shield has a red Latin cross, which symbolises the resurrection, but it is his foot that rests on the stomach of the seven-headed dragon that is perhaps most important. His foot is one of the only parts of the painting that appears visibly stable, showing his strength and power in overcoming sin. The seven-headed dragon below him has the same iconographical significance as Floris’s dragon – the omnipresence of evil across time and space. When we look at the other demons in the painting, we see the influence of Bosch, particularly in the white hooded figure on the right. Bosch’s humour is also present, as the figure in the bottom left is seen with his rear in the air, farting at the viewer in contempt.
However, there is another influence of iconographical importance coming into play here, which is a product of colonialism and the ‘cabinet of curiosities.’ Sailors and explorers would bring back objects of their travels, and a culture of presentation of these objects as a collection made its way into paintings like those of Bruegel. We see this in the wings of the demon at the centre, and the armadillo armour of the angel on the right, as well as the exotic puffer fish in the top right coming under blows from an attacking angel. The painting incorporates contrasts in this respect, between natural and artificial elements. There are lots of instruments, contributing to the loud and chaotic sensory experience of the painting. There are also weapons, clothing and other objects portrayed, such as the turban worn by a demon at the centre, suggested to be a nod to Jan van Eyck’s 1433 self-portrait, and a sun dial worn as armour which has similar iconographical significance to that of the dragon, referencing time and the everlasting nature of good and evil. It is interesting however that most of the ‘foreign’ objects are portrayed with the evils, rather than the good, and this is a political reference to ideas of the ‘other,’ reflected in the grotesque and beastly appearances of the demons. The final, and perhaps most important thing to note about Bruegel’s painting in terms of iconography is this figure in the bottom right, with a human face. Bruegel had just moved to Brussels around the time of the completion date of this painting, and was deeply troubled by the threatening political and religious upheaval. This painting is perhaps a reflection of these fears, and to this end we can see this figure – highlighted by a fiery glow – as man leading the world to apocalypse.
Historians Barker, Web and Wood are all in agreement that Bruegel and Floris’s work are ‘fundamentally different,’ despite telling the same story. Perhaps what underpins this is the contexts for which they were created. Floris work portrays archangel Gabriel in light of his power, surrounded by iconography that suggests a very stark contrast between good and evil, underpinned by the presence of the dragon, in order to portray the Fencers’ guild as defenders against evil. On the other hand, Bruegel’s work, probably designed for personal use, in terms of iconography, the ultimate message seems to be a very Bosch-like reminder or wariness of the eternal presence of evil, and man’s role in the bringing about of such evils. We see a contrast brought about by some very similar iconographical devices, but subtly taken in different directions.
– Devotional use vs. private use.
In conclusion, Frans Floris and Pieter Bruegel were two artist whose origin stories have many similarities, but in comparison of their individual interpretations of The Fall of the Rebel Angels, we see their artistic visions diverge. While the elder of the two, Floris, adopted a style assimilated from prolific artists of the Italian Renaissance, Bruegel remains true to a style adopted from his Flemish predecessor Bosch. In terms of iconography, while the symbolism and messages portrayed are similar (e.g. The Dragon) differences in style lead to a subtle but important distinction in their reading. [QUOTE]