Looking for GRE / TOEFL / SAT 2008 Study Materials? Join Now & get it free!

CAT 2:RevolutionsAnnotated Graphic Exercise:The Tennis Court Oath by Jacques-Louis David is perhaps the most prominent piece of artwork that captures the event that occurred on the 20th June 1789. It was at Versailles on this day that members of the clergy and the third estate met and excluding one person, made the solemn oath ‘not to disperse but to meet wherever circumstances demand, until the Constitution of the realm has been set up and consolidated on firm foundations’ . This was a significant turning point that paved the way for the French revolution. However, the credibility of this source is questionable as it is evident that David uses his artistic license to ‘heighten the drama of the event and underline the theme of unity’ to propagate certain ideas and values. Thus to understand the representation, one must distinguish between the literal and symbolic meanings that David has illustrated. David, a member of the Jacobin Club which commissioned the painting possibly out of ‘political sympathy’ , had a distinguished past. His atelier included works such as the ‘Oath of the Horatii’ and ‘Socrates Drinking the Hemlock’ which received outstanding reviews from connoisseurs; “the critics were united in the most exaggerated praise” . Another of his paintings ‘Lictors bringing Brutus the Bodies of his sons’ ‘made David the leader of the “patriotic” artists’ and consequently his profound sense of patriotism was a key element in his selection to illustrate the Tennis court Oath. This was his first painting of a modern historical event and his preliminary sketchbook indicated that he was thoroughly capable of representing modern history. The intended purpose of painting the Tennis Court Oath is debatable.

There are several symbolic aspects that upon closer inspection have particular functions, the most apparent being the weather. As David’s depiction shows, it had been raining heavily the day the Oath was taken . This weather shaped the winds that lift the curtain in the hall, announcing the arrival of the ‘winds of change’ thus emphasising the revolutionary nature of the event. ‘A bolt of electrically charged freedom’ that strikes the royal chapel behind the hall, was David’s attack on the ‘political-religious system on which absolute monarchy was founded’ . This section of the picture contradicts evidence that after the oath was sworn, the people cried “Vive le roi!” meaning “long live the King” . The probable cause of this being that David painted the picture in 1791 , when the monarchy was seen as despotic, while in fact at the event, the deputies intended only to restrict the King’s powers. Consequently, this contradiction of representation indicates the problematic nature of interpreting history. There are also uncertainties in the literal aspect of the painting, the inclusion of those in power and the removal of the discredited being the most significant. For example Dom Gerle, a prominent figure in David’s depiction, was not present at the actual event . With the inclusion of Gerle, David represents ‘an inspiring symbol of tolerance and reconciliation’ and harmony by portraying the unity of a member from the Catholic secular clergy, the regular clergy and a Protestant minister.

 This is the epitome of propaganda, as in actual fact, Protestant guards and Catholic rebels were killing each other in the Midi and Rhone Valley . For ‘an artist who wanted to be accurate’ , those faces that can be recognised, represent an inaccuracy to the illustration. Another misrepresentation on David’s part, is the number of people that filled the Jeu De Paume. Generally, this differentiates between sources, approximately 600, though David estimates that he had shown closer to 1200 persons in the hall . Of these people, Martin D’auch is clearly displayed as the only person to not have taken the oath but instead sits with his arms clutched to his breast, inharmonious with the rest. By increasing the amount of people, David would overwhelm this single figure, displaying the revolution as alluring and also inevitable. David has shown this before in previous pieces of artwork, displaying the firm figures who are ‘refusing to sink their differences with the revolutionary community’ . A man is clearly shown attempting to convince D’auch to take the oath, while another, intervenes on his behalf. The ideas and values emanating from this give the impression that the revolution at this time tolerated different views, and was therefore a noble cause. This appears to be a contradiction as it was later found of D’auch that ‘it was only with difficulty that the president was able to save him from bodily harm’ . The poses of the men in David’s Tennis Court Oath symbolically represent certain themes associated with the revolution. Some delegates are serious and frowning, some laughing as if filled with delight, some respectful and most are looking fiercely patriotic . In addition the soldiers painted imply the support of the army, these soldiers have their swords raised to add a hint of force to the oath pledging. Meanwhile, Le Chapelier, Lanjuinais and Kervelegan adopt an identical pose as the three central figures in David’s previous piece, the ‘Oath of the Horatii’ , conveying a ‘stern masculine determination’ of patriotism.

This is a somewhat vain attempt at immortalising the Tennis Court Oath, as the revolution had not finished and its subjects were not yet the heroes of the revolution. David was perhaps unaware of this though his intention was now becoming visible: to maintain ideas of unity that would sustain the glory of the oath taking.Several other depictions of the Tennis Court Oath were painted, none of which provide as much attention to detail as David’s. An anonymous print of the Oath has clearly visible differences - there are no figures that can be recognised and no windows. Another composition takes on a ‘transcendental dimension’ in its representation of the Tennis Court Oath. It has little historical credibility as the artist takes on a symbolic theme perhaps to stress the large role that this event played in the revolution. Evidence of this are the clouds and the angels inside the hall, of which one angel also hovers over the people holding the hat of Liberty on its sceptre. The basic ideas reflected in each of these representations is the significance of the event and the value of unity. An eyewitness account by Flouest is seemingly more reliable than David’s ‘grouping, which owed more to the theater than to reality’ . This gives the impression that the delegates in the hall were unified, while Flouest’s account shows Bailly in the middle of the hall dividing two groups of people. These are a few technical errors in the layout of those in the hall that David perhaps intended. Bailly, who administers the oath, appears to be addressing those who view the picture instead of the deputies in the hall. It is also evident that David has lowered the ceiling in the hall ‘to give greater prominence to the figures swearing the oath’

 This corresponds with the theory by many historians that ‘considerations of theatrical effect overrode all others’ . It appears ironic that the heroes of the revolution, the prominent figures in David’s Tennis court oath, over time, become enemies of the revolution and are discredited. In the process of painting the Oath, David created two representations; the first being the full detailed sketch and the second an incomplete painting. Once visible in the preliminary sketch, Bailly, who announced the Tennis Court oath is forced to resign as mayor of Paris after ordering the Champ de Mars massacre and was later guillotined in 1793 . Mirabeau died, shortly before being dishonoured for being a secret agent for the King followed by Barnave who was guillotined, for the same reason . David had said of the discredited ‘I intend to replace them by all those who have distinguished themselves since and who will therefore be of much greater interest to our descendants’ , displaying a lack of devotion as an artist to represent history as it occurred. However, later on he had ‘refused to modify the composition he had patiently elaborated’ and perhaps abandoned the work due to the central figures’ fall from grace .By becoming the ‘Propaganda artist of the revolution’ , it can be said that David had not intended his depiction of the Tennis Court Oath to be entirely accurate, but rather a propagandist medium to glorify the revolution to the people of France. As it is also likely that David was not present at the event, a great deal of artistic license has been used to capture the idealistic unity and patriotism. Specific inclusions and exclusions although incorrect, add to this idealism, once again displaying the subjective nature of history. And so, ‘David, a painter, became the man of the revolution, dictator of the artistic realm of his time’ when in fact, he was ‘No longer in touch with the revolution’