This essay will explore how the events of the French Revolution affected the way that Jacques Louis David created his History Paintings. The Revolution allowed for painters, such as David, to outwardly express their political ideologies through their art thus being able to display their beliefs without fear of reprisal as they were hidden in an allegory.
This can be seen in the comparison of David’s two paintings The Oath of Horatii and The Death of Marat.
History paintings were introduced as a genre in the seventeenth century by the French Royal Academy – it was established as ‘the most important’ style of painting, overtaking portraiture and landscape.
Traditionally, until the late eighteenth century, History paintings depicted scenes of classical mythology, such as Troilus and Cressida; in the eighteenth century, depicting modern historical scenes began to become favoured.
Both the paintings by Jacques Louis David featured in this essay will demonstrate that the shift from classical mythology to contemporary scenes in History Paintings was due to the French Revolution. This led to History Paintings becoming used as a political device.
The traditional style of History painting before the French Revolution included noble scenes, with historically accurate clothing and accessories. This was to display the patriotism of the country and its ‘once great past’.
David was the leading figure of Neo-classical painting in France. He became a member of the Academy in 1783. As referenced in the introduction, the Academy greatly favoured this style of painting. This was due to the History Paintings status in the hierarchy of genres being equal to that of the Epic in literature; they feature events that are important historically, highlighting a country’s ‘proud past’.
Therefore, it was no surprise that David, who painted such realistic epic scenes, quickly gained a notable reputation – especially due to his lifelike portraits of the Royals.
The theme of patriotism is featured in David’s painting The Oath of Horatii, which can be seen above. The Oath of Horatii was painted in 1784, and it depicts the story of Horatii, which can be found in the Roman histories of Plutarch, and Livy; the story describes the three Roman sons of Horatii being chosen to fight against Alba, which was the adjacent kingdom – these two families, however, were not only connected by marriage, but also by blood since they were cousins.
Regardless of this connection the sons and cousins still fought to the death with only one surviving and achieving victory for Rome. The moment that David chooses to depict is when the father is presenting his sons with weapons to fight for Rome.
This moment which David selected to paint highlights the idea of oath-taking and the concept of dying for one’s country, since the sons had to kill their family for the victory of their kingdom.
In the painting, the figures stand, seamlessly composed, with the three arches framing them perfectly. The figures on the left, are the three sons – they are all dressed in traditional Roman clothing and are in a classical setting, in keeping with the theme of traditional History painting.
The red clothing of the son closest to us grabs the viewer’s attention because he is wearing such a vivid red; it causes our eyes to drift over to their figures first, with the brightness of the colour standing out against the shadowed background.
Our eyes naturally look to the left and move right, as if we are reading the story rather than seeing an image of it. Both the sons’ and the fathers’ positions create multiple triangles, formulating a rectangle, emphasising their familial relations and the solid foundation of the oath to their kingdom.
The pillar divides the four figures, allowing for the father to be framed by the middle arch, this can be seen in Figure 3. The bright red robe that, Horace the father figure, wears defines his position as the focus of the painting.
The rich red is a stark contrast to the dulled blues and muted reds that the figures on the right wear, as well as standing out against the near-black background. Horace’s raised hand catches the light, drawing our focus there and then back down the raised arms of the sons, allowing for a further connection between the figures.
The pillar at Horatii’s back divides him from the figures on the right, with the arch framing them, as seen in Figure 4.
The figures on the right are all hunched in sorrow, leaning on each other for support. This is in direct contrast to the upright statues of the group of men, showing their weakness.
Their dull-coloured clothes make them less noticeable than the men on the left. We look at the women last, especially with their position on the right. To David or even society, their lives were not as important to highlight as that of Horatii and his sons.
The father is painted with his back turned towards the women – shutting them out of the patriarchal bond that the brothers and father are creating with their oath.
Furthermore, the women are depicted as physically smaller than the men, as well as the pillar completely isolating the women from the oath being taken. This gender inequality was a prominent idea of the time, with it conforming with Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s idea of the ‘separate spheres’.
This was the leading school of thought towards gender at the time and the French Revolution, and in turn David, identified with the concept. Rousseau believed that there were these two ‘spheres’, one was the public sphere, which is where men could act politically.
The second sphere was where their wives, or daughters, would encourage the men to act politically.Essentially, men were to run the public sphere, and have influence, whereas women ran the private sphere, the domestic and family influence.
The French Revolution had different goals, all of which excluded women; active, liberty, and individual sovereignty. This was contradictory to how women were viewed; passive, duty, dependency.
How could women be involved in the Revolution if they did not identify with the goals necessary to achieve full political freedom? Their position as passive citizens excluded them from the Revolution in the eyes of the political radicals of the time, including David.
This is why the women in the painting of the Oath of Horatii are so small and unimpactful, even though their lives are important to the story. His political landscape is extremely prominent in this painting, especially regarding his idea of the state before all, but also his beliefs around gender ideals.
The Revolution did not provide equality for women and continued to maintain gender inequality throughout. This is surprising as one would think that the Revolution for equality would include everyone, regardless of gender, but it did not, and thus women remained small in David’s History Paintings, and even completely disregarded in some.
Marat was killed by a woman, and yet, there is barely any presence of her in the actual painting The Death of Marat.
In the story, one of Horace’s daughters, Camilla, who is seen weeping in the bottom right of the painting, was married to one of the warriors chosen to fight for Alba, who consequently died.
Camilla is likely crying because she is aware that she will lose someone she loves in this fight, either a brother or her husband. When the Horatii brothers returned victorious, they found their sister troubled by the death of her husband and killed her.
This message likely resonated heavily with the French people at the time – the Revolution was tearing the country apart, and families being separated by different ideologies.
The painting was commissioned by the King of France, Louis XVI, and so David used all the traditional styles of History painting so that the actual meaning behind the painting could be hidden. At face value, it was a normal neoclassical History painting, however, David was politically strategic in his composition.
The overall message behind the story is that patriotism takes precedence over bloodlines and family ties. This was particularly relevant for the time, because of the French Revolution – David was demonstrating his belief in the state coming before anything else; it shows the idea of sacrificing yourself for the greater good or your loved ones.
David wanted the French people to view his paintings, knowing that he is supporting the French Revolution. To do this he had to disguise the actual meaning behind antiquity so that the Academy would display his works. It is interesting to see how David could use his painting to show his political beliefs, without it being detected by those commissioning them.
This is in stark comparison to how David painted his History Paintings after the start of the Revolution, this can be shown through one of David’s most famous paintings, The Death of Marat.
The Death of Marat, seen in Figure 5, was painted by David in 1793, four years after the French Revolution began, and almost ten years after David painted the Oath of Horatii. The Death of Marat was a contemporary History painting, showing a recent event that happened the previous year.
This was very different to the other History paintings that David had created up until this point, with stories of antiquity being the main focus. This painting, although it features a contemporary event, was painted in the style of traditional History paintings, with the neoclassicist style. Marat was a radical supporter of the French Revolution; he was stabbed to death by Charlotte Corday a member of the political party opposing the Revolution.
The painting transformed the idea of History painting, by using a modern subject. However, the painting still embodied the ideas of traditional History painting by using values that were respected during the Roman Republic.
These were easy to identify with because they emphasised heroism, simplicity, and stoicism, all of which were demonstrated in the Death of Marat painting. These values could also be seen in David’s Oath of Horatii painting, demonstrating how, although the scene of the Death of Marat is contemporary, the style of History painting remains the same.
This allows for the people to still resonate with the patriotism that History paintings provide, whilst still focusing on the political events that were occurring at the time. The simple composition of the painting emphasises these values further – it reflects the lack of necessity for hidden metaphors and meanings that David had to do in the Oath of Horatii.
David’s political beliefs no longer had to be disguised within the paintings, rather, because of the start of the Revolution David could outwardly express his beliefs in his art.
The painting features only Marat’s lifeless body, limp against the side of the bathtub, he is leaning towards the viewer, forcing us to witness and be a part of his death. His arm hangs over the edge, quill in hand, drawing your eyes towards the bloody knife on the floor, the very weapon that killed him.
The colour palette of the painting is autumnal and warm, with yellows, greens, and browns. The background is plain, with the darkest corner being where Marat lies, drawing focus to his body. The blood dripping from his open wound into the bath water is the only red featured in this painting, making it stand out against the yellow hue and green cloth.
Your eyes immediately focus on this wound, realising instantly what has happened to him. Marat’s other hand still holds the letter that Marat was reading before he was assassinated, dating his day of death. 1793 was dated as the year that The Terror had begun.
The table next to the bath states “A Marat, David. -L’an deux” This is the title, signature, and date of the painting; this is formatted like a tombstone, symbolising his death.
This symbolism could extend from the tombstone to the wound found on Marat’s dead body. The wound, although not in the exact placement of the stigmata wound on Jesus, is painted in a similar light.
Marat’s assassination was bloody and violent, he was stabbed to death, and yet the wound looks clean and pristine. The wound, which is emphasised in the same way as stigmata, establishes a saintly status upon Marat.
It was not just David who viewed Marat’s death in this way, because not soon after his assassination, the Jacobins established his position as a martyr. David has painted Marat in this light.
Marat’s lifeless body is painted in a similar fashion to that of Jesus on the crucifixion – he has suffered greatly and yet he looks peaceful and saintly. His face has no reflection of agony, and if it were not for the bloody wound, one might imagine he had just fallen asleep.
The fact that Marat is the only figure in the painting further emphasises this idea of his saintliness. Marat was killed by Charlotte Corday because he was a radical revolutionary, whereas she was against the Revolution – this differing ideology was the reason behind most Saints’ deaths.
For example, St Sebastian was killed for being a supporter of the Catholic Church during the early Roman Empire. This is the case with many of the Catholic Saints. Many History Paintings also feature religious stories, as well as historical scenes, further allowing for the Death of Marat to be categorised as a History Painting.
Furthermore, most Saints were killed in their most vulnerable times, Marat was assassinated whilst he was nude in the bathtub, a time when a person is most defenceless. As well as this, Corday had asked to meet with Marat, and he had welcomed her whilst he was in this state of vulnerability.
This behaviour could be viewed as the very embodiment of spirituality. David has painted Marat in this saintly light due to the Revolution establishing his status as a martyr. If Marat was not viewed with such a status, one wonders how he might have been depicted, or if he would have been depicted at all.
David’s change in History painting was hardly surprising at the time – David was extremely vocal regarding his political ideologies. He was an active member of the aforementioned Jacobin Club; this club was the most famous political group during the French Revolution.
They were immensely radical and violent – qualities that David identified with. The two paintings, although one is a traditional History Painting depicting a story from Roman Antiquity and the other is a contemporary event, are remarkably similar.
Both paintings have a deep political message engrained, which would have resonated with the French people greatly. David used his art to support the rebels of the French Revolution.
The Revolution allowed for painters, such as David, to outwardly show the people their support for the cause, and that they were not alone in the fight. David could use his art to motivate the people – the Death of Marat allowed the people to properly visualise the death of one of their leaders, further motivating them in the Revolution.
Many were dying over this cause, including the radical Revolutionaries, and so the people needed to achieve victory for the martyrs who helped them thus far. David’s paintings helped do this, his position allowed him to help the people and the Revolution.
Therefore, the French Revolution affected the way that Jacques-Louis David painted History Paintings through the shared radical ideology, the gender inequality of the time, as well as depicting impactful contemporary events as History Paintings, going against the Academy, motivating the people to stay strong during the Revolution, and no longer having to use allegories to demonstrate his political ideologies.
Belton, Robert J. ““The Elements of Art.”” Art History: A Preliminary Handbook, by Robert J. Belton, 1996.
Boime, Albert. A Social History of Modern Art: Art in the Age of Revolution 1750 – 1800. The University of Chicago Press, 1990.
Crow, Thomas . “THE OATH of the HORATII in 1785: Painting and Pre-Revolutionary Radicalism in France.” Art History, vol. 1, no. 4, 1978, pp. 424–471.
Hazlehurst, F. Hamilton. “The Artistic Evolution of David’s Oath.” The Art Bulletin, vol. 42, no. 1, Mar. 1960, pp. 59–63, https://doi.org/10.2307/3047876. Accessed 5 Jan. 2021.
“Jacobin Club | French Political History.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 20 June 2017, www.britannica.com/topic/Jacobin-Club.
Maleuvre, Didier. “David Painting Death.” Diacritics, vol. 30, no. 3, 2000, pp. 13–27, www.jstor.org/stable/1566340.
Roy Donald McMullen. “Jacques-Louis David | French Painter.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 22 Jan. 2019, www.britannica.com/biography/Jacques-Louis-David-French-painter.
Schama, Simon . “Simon Schama’s Power of Art: Jacques-Louis David.” BBC, 2006, www.infocobuild.com/books-and-films/art/PowerOfArt/david.html.
Scott, Joan Wallach. “French Feminists and the Rights of “Man”: Olympe de Gouges’s Declarations.” History Workshop, vol. 28, no. 28, 1989, pp. 1–21, www.jstor.org/stable/4288921?seq=4. Accessed 8 May 2024.
Tate. “History Painting – Art Term | Tate.” Tate, 2017, www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/h/history-painting.
Taylor, Katherine . “1.2: Neoclassicism and the French Revolution.” Humanities LibreTexts, 22 Sept. 2019, human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Art/Western_Art_from_18th_to_Mid-20th_Century_(Taylor)/01%3A_Chapters/1.02%3A_Neoclassicism_and_the_French_Revolution.
Thomas, Paul. “Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Sexist?” Feminist Studies, vol. 17, no. 2, 1991, pp. 195–217, https://doi.org/10.2307/3178331. Accessed 13 Jan. 2020.