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."
This painting (above) is The Tennis Court Oath by Jacques-Louis
David
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
