JACQUES LOUIS DAVID, OATH OF THE HORATII,
TENNIS COURT OATH
Pledge of Allegiance, Francis Bellamy, Edward Bellamy, & Looking
Backward http://rexcurry.net/nazi%20salute%209b.jpg
The infamous straight-armed salute of the National Socialist German
Workers' Party (Nazis) came from the USA's military salute and from the
salute's use in the original pledge of allegiance to the flag, and not
from ancient Rome. The early salute is shown in this Pledge of Allegiance
photograph http://rexcurry.net/pledge-allegiance-pledge-allegiance.jpg
The pledge of allegiance (and its original straight-arm salute) was
created by Francis Bellamy, a self-proclaimed National Socialist in the
USA. http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html
In the past, a modern writer promoted - with deliberate misrepresentation
- the "ancient Roman salute" myth on wikipedia. In response, the Art Historian
Dr. Rex Curry debunked the "ancient Roman salute" myth and explained how
that myth developed from the Pledge of Allegiance. http://rexcurry.net/roman-salute-oxford-english-dictionary.html
Thereafter, the debunked writer who had promoted the Roman myth searched
for another explanation and concocted the newer myth about neoclassical
artists in order to cover-up and suppress Professor Curry's discoveries.
The new myth is based on speculation that neoclassical artists created
the Roman salute myth.
There is no support for the idea that the "Roman Salute" concept arose
among neoclassical artists misinterpreting Roman images.
There is no evidence that Jacques-Louis David actually thought that
his painting "The Oath of the Horatii" represented an actual historical
Roman salute. All of the evidence indicates that David created the scene
out of whole cloth for drama. All of the speculating otherwise is actually
the machinations of a modern writer and people of his ilk. The intellectual
dishonesty is all the more evident in that the modern writer deliberately
fails to address those very points already made by Dr. Curry http://rexcurry.net/pledgehoratii.html
The Horatii painting depicts three people reaching for weapons.
A similar gesture is then repeated in the Tennis Court Oath, an unfinished
painting by David. It is a later painting than his Horatii, so David is
simply repeating his own concocted gesture. The Oath also uses other dramatic
gestures that David concocted, and puts them in a more modern setting.
There is no evidence that the Oath accurately depicts the event protrayed.
David was not there. Further, the oath was written on paper (the paper
being read or held by the central figure?) and the "oath was taken" by
signing the document. There is no evidence that anyone is taking an oath
in the painting (the central figure might be swearing, or he might be reading
his document and gesturing for quiet) while those people about him waive
hats, talk, holler, point, etc. Three figures on the left seem to
be an inside reference to the Horatii painting. Some modern writers
misrepresent the works or read into the works.
Even David never described the Horatii picture as a "Roman salute." Nor
did David ever use the term "Roman salute."
DEBUNKED: The Distribution of the Eagles by Jacques-Louis David
http://rexcurry.net/pledge-distribution-of-the-eagles.html
The distribution of the Eagle Standards was painted by David even
later, and uses dramatic gestures that David concocted, but in another
modern setting. There is no evidence that it accurately depicts the
event protrayed and there is no evidence that anyone is taking an oath in
the painting at all, nor "pledging allegiance." One modern writer claims
that this is the most important of these paintings. That painting
shows no use of the salute in pledging or oath-taking or at all and simply
shows various people, with various gestures, acclaiming the central figure
and grabbing for, and shouting for, the "Eagle Standards." A modern
writer misrepresents the works and reads into them.
The cover-up is also supported by the fact that a modern writer
knows (or should know) that Francis Bellamy explained the origin of his
salute and that it had nothing to do with imitating any painting, nor
imitating any "Roman" salute myth.
There is as much evidence that, after Dr. Curry's shocking discoveries
about the salute's origin with the Pledge of Allegiance, modern writers
deliberately looked for other explanations and then those writers seized
upon neoclassical artists in order to cover-up and suppress Professor Curry's
discoveries.
The painting "The Oath of the Horatii" http://rexcurry.net/pledgehoratii.html
might have inspired (or enlarged) the myth of the Roman salute. The
myth was also inspired by early movies that showed fictional Roman
scenes using a straight-arm salute. Those movies were inspired by
the original straight-arm salute of the pledge of allegiance to the U.S.
flag (from 1892). The "Roman salute" myth was reinforced when the
salute was adopted as the "Olympic salute" used at Olympic games on or before
1924.
The Roman salute myth might have sprung from
the fact that Francis Bellamy (the author of the pledge of allegiance
and of its original straight-arm salute) was from the city of Rome (in
the state of New York, not in Italy) and people and things from the city
in New York state were referred to as "Roman" and still are today. Francis
Bellamy (1855-1932) was born in Mount Morris, New York, where his father,
David Bellamy, was working as a pastor for the Baptist Church. In 1859,
David accepted a call at the First Baptist Church in Rome, New York. He
remained there until he died in 1864. Francis began schooling and graduated
from Rome Free Academy (RFA -the government high school that is still there)
in 1872, later becoming RFA's first president of its Alumni Association.
The RFA started as a non-government school in 1847 when a meeting of citizens
established Rome Academy. The Board of Trustees accepted a land site gift
from the estate of Dominick Lynch. In 1848 the RFA opened with a principal
and six teachers. It was a non-government school for 20 years until, in
1869, a government school district with a Board of Education was created
and Rome Academy became "Rome Free Academy." In 1873, after RFA, Bellamy
entered the University of Rochester where he studied for the Baptist ministry.
In 1898 the New York state legislature was the first in the nation
to pass a statute forcing children in government schools to robotically
chant the socialist's pledge. In 1905, as many as 19 States had passed
school flag laws. To this very day New York still has a law forcing
teachers to lead a recitation of the socialist pledge in socialist schools
(government schools).
Francis Bellamy, the person who created/popularized the misnamed
“Roman salute” was a person who admired ancient Rome and its militarism,
who grew up in the city of Rome in New York, where he and his neighbors
were known as “Romans,” and was educated in the Rome Academy there. To
this very day, the school banner appears as it does to the right and it
contains two fasces (axes through the middle of wood with binding). The
fasces actually was a symbol of government authority in ancient Rome. The
straight-arm salute was not.
There is no evidence that the painting "The Oath of the Horatii"
inspired the original straight-armed salute in the pledge of allegiance
to the U.S. flag.
Bellamy (the author of the pledge of allegiance) and Upham (with
whom Bellamy worked) discussed the process of creating the original flag
salute and the painting was not part of the process and it did not even
arise in their discussion. http://rexcurry.net/pledgesalute.html
Further, Bellamy and Upham explicitly rejected the idea of an
"oath" and specifically chose to use the word "pledge."
One would have to wildly speculate that if the painting inspired
the flag salute at all, then it was subliminally.
There is no speculation about the fact that Francis Bellamy was
a National Socialist in the USA three decades before the National Socialists
in Germany, and that the USA's National Socialists promoted their dogma
and their original straight-armed salute to the USA's flag for three
decades ahead of the similar dogma and behavior of National Socialists
in Germany.
The scene depicted in the painting "The Oath of the Horatii" was
not actually an oath (other than in the artist's title), nor a pledge,
nor a salute at all. The painting depicts a scene from a story in
which a father exhorts his sons to fight. The painting shows the sons
reaching for their weapons (swords) as the father hands them over.
The same idea of reaching for weapons is the right of self-defense (against
attack by one's own government or by other people) and is embodied in the
United States Constitution under the Second Amenment. The following photograph
shows the proper interpretation of the right arm salute, stiff arm salute. http://rexcurry.net/pledgeofallegiance-salute-girlandgun-stiff-arm.jpg
The painting by Jacques-Louis David (8/30/1748 - 12/29/1825) is
famous in the history of French painting and is exhibited at the Louvre
Museum. The story was taken from Titus-Livy. The painter
David chose to imagine the start of the story, rather than the action
that followed. David chose the idea of the oath (the oath
is not mentioned in the historical accounts). David may
have been the first person to "make up" a formal oath as part of the story.
In fact the very story depicted, even without the oath, may not
have actually happened. The story was inspired by the wars between Rome
and Alba, in 669 B.C. The painting depicts the three Roman brothers
of the Horatii family giving their "oath" or assurance that they will
fight and gesturing toward weapons held by their father who exhorts his
sons to fight.
If the painting had served as inspiration for the pledge of allegiance,
then the pledge of allegiance would probably have been a better pledge
that more accurately describes the painting: "I pledge allegiance to my
right to keep and bear arms, and to the liberty for which it stands, to defend
my father, my family and myself."
*************************
Rome was represented by the triplets Horatii, and Alba also by triplets
from the family of Curatii. As a result of the combat only one (Horatius)
survived and Rome was declared the victor. There may be a relationship
to the names "Horatio" or "Horace" (see Horace of the Horatian Ode),
and "Horatius Cocles" a hero of ancient Roman Legend, celebrated for his
defense of a bridge over the Tiber against the Etruscans.
Also worth exploring the relationship of the painting to the French
Revolution (1789–1799). It was a vital period in the history of France
and Europe as a whole. During this time, democracy replaced the absolute
monarchy in France. It brought the Reign of Terror. It that sense it shared
some similarities to the socialist movements in other countries where a
monarch or government was replaced with a more socialistic form of government
and massive deaths and suffering followed: under the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, under the National Socialist German Workers Party, under the
Peoples' Republic of China. The socialist ideas that grew from the French
Revolution influenced events in the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust
was a part): 62 million slaughtered under the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics; 21 million under the National Socialist German Workers Party;
49 million under the Peoples' Republic of China. The death toll under
the French Revolution was not as horrendous.
After the France's Socialist Revolution, the Jules Ferry laws were
imposed. They are a set of French laws which established (first)
expensive government schools paid for with taxes (1881) then mandatory
education (1882). They were proposed by the (Republican) Minister of Public
Instruction Jules Ferry during the Third Republic (1871-1940). Those laws
on government schools were in part a consequence of the defeat of the 1870
war with Prussia: the German soldiers were considered to be better educated
than Frenchmen, and that was thought to be one of the causes of the defeat.
The mistake that was made was in also believing that government schools
would correct the "problem."
The Ferry laws would also be the basis of the République des
instituteurs (Teachers' Republic): through-out its existence, the Third
Republic, dominated by the Radical-Socialist Party, would rest in a large
part on those middle-class civil servants which included teachers. Gustave
Le Bon stated in The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (1895) that public
instruction and the large amount of teachers created for this mission was
one of the cause of anarchism, socialism and other "subversive ideologies").
It is unfortunate to note that the same errors were being adopted in
the USA. Francis Bellamy (author of the "Pledge of Allegiance") and Edward
Bellamy (author of "Looking Backward") and other socialists in the USA
promoted a government takeover of schools. When the government granted their
wish, the schools imposed segregation by law and taught racism as official
public policy.
As part of the Pledge of Allegiance (1892), Francis Bellamy had initially
considered using a slogan popular during France's socialist Revolution,
"Liberty, Fraternity, Equality" but Bellamy thought it would be too trite.
At that time, the many problems of socialism in France were becoming
well known. Francis Bellamy died in 1931, and thus did not live long
enough to be completely aware of the monstrous socialist Wholecaust that
would eventually worsen after his death.
The Radical-Socialist Party, founded in 1901 (four years before the
socialist SFIO which unified the various socialist currents), remained
the most powerful party of the Third Republic starting at the end of the
19th century.
The website http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/his/CoreArt/art/neocl_dav_oath.html
gives this description of the Neo-classicist painting:
The painting was inspired by the period of the wars between Rome
and Alba, in 669 B.C. It has been decided that the dispute between
the two cities must be settled by an unusual form of combat to be fought
by two groups of three champions each. The two groups are the three Horatii
brothers and the three Curiatii brothers. The drama lay in the fact that
one of the sisters of the Curiatii, Sabina, is married to one of the Horatii,
while one of the sisters of the Horatii, Camilla, is betrothed to one
of the Curiatii. Despite the ties between the two families, the Horatii's
father exhorts his sons to fight the Curiatii and they obey, despite the
lamentations of the women."
David succeeded in ennobling these passions and transforming these
virtues into something sublime. Corneille and Poussin had already used
this same subject and treated it as a sentimental and aristocratic game
(Corneille's Horace). David himself stated: "If I owe my subject to Corneille,
I owe my painting to Poussin." He referred to Poussin's "Rape of the Sabine
Women" from whence David borrowed the figure of the lictor for his drawing
of the youngest Horatius. Unlike these, David decided to treat the beginning,
rather than the denouement of the action, seeing that initial moment as
being charged with greater intensity and imbued with more grandeur. And,
it was he who chose the idea of the oath (it is not mentioned in the
historical accounts), transforming the event into a solemn act
that bound the wills of different individuals in a single, creative gesture.
He was not the first painter to do so, but certainly the first to do it
in such a stirring manner.
The appeal of the elder Horatius is in the center, the reply on
the left is the spontaneous vigor of the oath, upheld loudly and with
a show of strength, while on the right it is a tearful anguish, movement
turned in upon itself, compressed into emotion.
The decor is reduced to a more abstract order, that of architectural
space--massive columns, equally massive arches, opening out onto a majestic
shadow. The three archways loosely correspond to the three groups. The
contemplative atmosphere is softened by shades of green, brown, pink, and
red, all very discreet. Instead of opening his painting out onto a landscape
or an expanse of sky, David closes it off to the outside, bathes it in shadow.
As a result, the light in this setting takes on a brick-toned reflection,
which encircles his figures with a mysterious halo.
Through David's rigorous and efficient arrangement, the superior
harmony of the colors, and the spiritual density of the figures, this
sacrifice, transfigured by the oath, becomes the founding act of a new
aesthetic and moral order. He consciously intended it to be a proclamation
of the new neoclassical style in which dramatic lighting, ideal forms, and
gestural clarity are emphasized. Presenting a lofty moralistic (and by
implication patriotic) theme, the work became the principal model for noble
and heroic historical painting of the next two decades. It also launched
David's personal popularity and awarded him the right to take on his own
students.
******************************
by Mike B. Knight
The Oath of the Horatii as Political Discourse
Pierre Corneille's Horace presents diverse dialogues
both effectively and persuasively. Numerous speeches in Horace are
intended to provoke political and philosophical discussion, while maintaining
a fairly straightforward meaning--there are clear motivations by the
author in his writing. This style and intention is typical of not only
plays during the same period, but also in multiple volumes of theatrical
works. Painters of seventeenth and eighteenth century France, however,
usually followed a different approach when deciding the subject and layout
of their works. Jacques-Louis David, when deciding to paint a scene related
to Horace, did not intend to create a clear-cut meaning as pronounced in
the play. David eventually chose a scene not represented by Corneille because
he wanted to construct a discourse-inducing environment by painting The
Oath of the Horatii that theatrics could not foster.
David was not trying to display a set, universal interpretation with
this painting. After all, he had already rejected two early sketches
that focused on scenes present in Horace. Both these two portrayals
would have presented a generous interpretation of established dialogue
present in the play; each probably would not have had a desirable reaction
considering French culture and expectations of the time. David presented
his first sketch to a group of respected individuals including Charles
de Wailly; they did not enjoy the work because the full meaning depended
on words the spectator could never hear (Crow 34). In other words, by viewing
a depiction of a scene from Horace, David realized the audience would
attempt to establish ideas based not upon the action in the painting,
but by the correlating events in Horace. This is one of the chief reasons
David chose not to paint a scene from Horace; there was an overwhelming
desire to allow room for analysis and eventual self-understanding--he wanted
the audience to determine meaning.
Corneille Sedaine was also present at the presentation of David's
initial sketch; he suggested David choose The Oath of the Horatii,
a scene not present in Corneille's play (38). He mentioned specifically
that David should avoid the climax, Camilla's death, due to various violent
overtones. Although not the main factor influencing David, Sedaine was
the first to suggest painting the oath and held certain significance in
David's ultimate decision. By painting this scene, Sedaine argued, David
could add dramatic appeal and not necessarily have as piercing a reaction
that a vicious or climatic scene may create (41). Therefore, Corneille Sedaine
acted as a catalyst to David's eventual embracement of the oath. The scene
also allowed David the ability to limit a potentially highly divisive reaction
by viewers. The final version of The Oath of the Horatii portrays
three brothers ready to risk their lives for the honor of Rome (41). Although
the moment never occurs in the written play it can be inferred as a real occurrence.
This depiction was in sharp contrast to his second sketch which showed a
definitive central character. He chose three brothers because he did not
want to have a central focus on one hero, which would have not been appreciated
by the audience. The conflict really arises between Roman culture where the
Horace took place and French culture--the viewers of the work. Roman culture
featured an established sense of near blind-faith to the nation; the Romans
have often been criticized for their appeal to heroics and their fundamental
lack of understanding of feeling (35). French culture had a near opposite
ideology on both the concept of state and patriotism to that state. The French
populace's idea of the state had a clear community feeling and was not nearly
as hierarchal as Roman thought. Basically, French political culture embraced
a completely different form of the idea of patriotism (35). David did not
want to create a clash whenever presenting his work. The written play did
not necessarily have this same immediate clash, mainly because of the differing
medium and Pierre Corneille's style. Still, the painting allows a large degree
of internal contrast and sharpness; while the male figures appear embraced
by the task at hand, the females are torn emotionally. Even this small interpretation
could be contested--and that is David's intent. Further personal interpretation
would illustrate the intellectual discourse desired by David; he seemed
to yield power to the spectators.
Visual art, then, seems to be less convincing overall and somewhat
involuntary. In theatrics, by contrast, the playwright, director, and
actor can all, to some degree, influence the audience's interpretation
of actions; each dramatist maintains a certain quantity of political persuasiveness.
In fact, some eighteenth century French individuals, felt certain plays
were nearly as effective as classical tragedies, they thought these plays
could harness the audience's emotional response and shape both civic
virtues and, to a certain extent, political culture (37). And they could--Horace
certainly falls into this category. The Journal des Dames, which was
"published and edited in the late 1770s by Louis-Sabastien Mercier,"
was one of the leading advocates of this ideology (36). In some cases,
this implies that a limited number of persons can control and reshape
the interpretation of action. In visual arts, especially David's works,
there is not necessarily a clear representation of one avenue of desired
interpretation. Additionally, the artistic environment in Revolutionary
France featured numerous painters who were not individually ascribing to
the work--the overall idea and justification the embraced was far superior
to the technique (37). Unlike the clearer meanings in plays, David wanted
to provoke thought on basic political ideologies, and make sure not to
portray a scene that would limit the wide array of interpretation.
David carefully chose The Oath of the Horatii in order to
foster political and philosophical conversation and ongoing debate about
the interpretation. David was able to craft an intellectual work by choosing
a scene and medium not represented in Pierre Corneille's Horace. "To the
world, this was going to be David's break-through work" and to the world,
it was (31). The Oath of the Horatii had certain political repercussions
in French society that heighten its importance and appeal, making it an
immediate and unquestionable classic, precisely because of David's intention
to provoke political discourse.
Work Cited
Crow, Thomas. "Fatherland," in Emulation; Making Artists for Revolutionary
France. Yale University Press, 1995: 31-45.
That question is raised by the History Channel's commercial promoting
its show about the French Revolution and stating "Stalin, Mao, and Castro
would be no one without the French Revolution." Is the History Channel saying
that the French Revolution was a disaster in that it led to the socialist
Wholecaust and the worst mass slaughter the world has ever known: 60 million
killed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; 50 million killed by
the Peoples's Republic of China; 20 million killed by the National Socialist
German Workers' Party? http://rexcurry.net/socialism.html
