Effeminate Angels?
In every
instance in the Bible where an angelic messenger is described in
any way, that description includes note that the angel was in a
form like a human. Although there are a few instances in which
the being appeared in full supernatural “glory,” shining or
glowing, a number of times such angels looked so normal that the
people visited didn’t even realize that it was an angel until
after the incident was over! There is never any mention of such
beings having wings or haloes as a “giveaway” to their identity.
(See “On Angel’s Wings?” and “Heavenly
Halos” for details on the origin of the artistic
representation of angels with wings and haloes.)
But if one
were to judge by the common pictures and statues of angels today
in the Angel Shops that fill shopping malls and the Internet, it
would be logical to assume most of the accounts in the Bible
must have represented the beings as having the form of a human
female. For the vast majority of artwork of angels of the
past century and more … including even Christmas tree topper
angels such as the two shown here … have depicted creatures of
graceful feminine beauty.
This
assumption would be wrong. Angelic messengers are always
described in the Bible as having the form of human males.
Why, then, the almost unrelenting modern representation of
angels being feminine?
Perhaps,
once many religious circles accepted the erroneous notion that
Bible angels had wings, some early artists, looking for examples
from which to draw inspiration, were attracted to the feminine
“winged Nike” figure of ancient Greek mythology and art. This
example is from around 550 B.C.
Greek art
had already been influenced by Egyptian art, and the depiction
of the Egpytian winged goddess Isis may well have been of
interest to Greek artists looking for motifs.
But what is
even more likely is that what modern viewers and artists
perceive as “feminine” angels in many famous medieval European
paintings were not intended by the artists to be females at all.
Particularly during the Medieval period, the overt “sexuality”
of much classic Greek and Roman art was almost totally
repressed. Bodies were totally covered, both male and female, in
long robes. For instance, consider this painting of the angel
Gabriel (described clearly in the Bible as appearing as a male
figure) from about 1400:
Modern eyes
see this as a woman with soft facial features in a pretty,
colorful, feminine dress.
But artists
of the time seldom painted overtly “chiseled,” square-jawed,
masculine features on the faces of men. So unless a male was
bearded, and particularly if he was represented as a young man,
it wasn’t all that easy to sort out the vaguely uni-sex heads in
pictures by gender.
And as for
that pretty “dress,” look at a painting of the coronation of
Pope Boniface IX, done during the same century. All of these are
male figures, in typical religious garb of the time. Bright
colors and flowing garments were obviously not limited to just
the ladies of those days!
Even the
more typical “white gown” of angels in some paintings is not
intended at all to look feminine, but reflects instead the
typical garb of Roman Catholic priests. Even to this day, the
main piece of wardrobe of a Catholic priest is the white “alb,”
that is almost identical to the robe of the angel in this
picture, high collar, wide sleeves, belted waist, and all.
Although
there has been one recent instance of a woman wearing the same
outfit …
Outside
their historical and cultural context, all of these features of
paintings can be very misleading. Even hairstyles which to us
may look stereotypically feminine because of length or curliness
or the like may well have been just typical male hairstyles of
the time. The robes probably cause the most confusion, as they
tend to totally obscure any hints that we might pick up of male
musculature in bodies. Here are some Medieval paintings which,
because of slight differences in costume, allow it to be
abundantly clear that these are depictions of “masculine”
angels.
15th Century
12th Century
12th Century
17th Century
However,
these are, in general, the exception rather than the rule for
the depiction of the most famous classic paintings that have
included angels. So by the 1800s, many artists who engaged in
creating “popular” pictures of angels had been brought up on
seeing artwork which may have seemed to them to feature many
“female angels.” But even this is likely not the primary cause
of the shift to feminine angel representations.
Perhaps the
most significant influence on the “feminization” of angels of
the past 200 years or so is the severing of the topic of angels
from a specific Biblical context. Medieval and Renaissance
angels show up in scenes from the Bible, or at least from
popular religious legends (such as the “Assumption of Mary”).
They are depicted either delivering important messages to
significant personages from Bible stories, witnessing important
events (such as in nativity scenes in Bethlehem like this one by
Charles Poerson from the 1600s), or perhaps engaged in rapturous
worship around the throne of God. Even if the artist himself
wasn’t a particularly “religious” person, much if not most of
the patronage of the arts at the time was from people wanting
Biblical art.
But the
motif of angels has been appropriated by many modern artists and
their patrons who may well have no Biblical interests at all.
In fact, their angels have been removed from any particular
connection to the God of the Bible, and are much more akin to
mythological creatures such as fairies and leprechauns … and
perhaps even pagan gods and goddesses. They may have a
“spiritual aura” connected to them, which makes them look
otherworldly, but without any special link to a Heaven where
God’s throne is. They are viewed by many as being benevolent
supernatural beings whose primary interest is helping out
people—not necessarily because they have been sent by God to do
so, but because it is just “their nature.”
And as this
“new” kind of angel has taken shape in the past century or two,
the emphasis has shifted more and more to a sort of gentle,
nurturing, “motherly” (or “big sisterly”) role for angels—hence
the trend toward almost entirely representing them as female.
Even younger versions, of adolescent and preadolescent angels,
seem aimed almost entirely at just the sentimentality of the
“prettiness” of little girls and young ladies with wings. (There
is a small subset of angels who are viewed as being
“supernatural warriors,” and believed by some to do battle with
malicious supernatural beings, and these are still depicted as
male.) The Internet is full of websites and online shops
specializing in angels—angel posters, figurines, artwork,
collectibles—and only a minority have any biblically religious
emphasis at all. Most emphasize a very “New Age” sort of
pseudo-spirituality.
This trend
started in the 1800s, as can be seen by angelic art works such
as this 1899 painting by Thayer (the model was his young
daughter) and the others below.
Greeting Card 1911
Greeting
Card circa 1900
And the
trend continues to this day, removing angels farther and farther
in the public mind from the reality of the powerful heavenly
messengers of the Bible, and essentially implying that they are
an army of Fairy Godmothers!
For an
overview of what real angels are really like, see
“Biblical Angelology: What the Bible
has to say about angels.”
