A New Interpretation of Jacques-Louis David's Tennis Court ..., Exercises of Painting

Download A New Interpretation of Jacques-Louis David's Tennis Court ... and more Exercises Painting in PDF only on Docsity! W O L F G A N G K E M P The Theater of Revolution: A New Interpretation of Jacques-Louis David's Tennis Court Oath A S artistes manquees, as would-be artists, we art historians feel a strong inclination toward the great unfinished projects. Here we JL J L are not only entitled but asked to complete what was left frag­ mentary. But especially in the case of works that never stood the test of realization, we are tempted to do what we do more often than not to normal works of art: We transfer them to a kind of ideal space, severing their bonds to function, place, and viewer. In this chapter, I present a new interpretation for a famous fragment, using it to demonstrate the decisiveness of a work's function and place of destination, especially in this case of a bold and failed design. In the case of David's Tennis Court Oath, we find authorization in an argument that David himself put forward some years after he began the painting. He said: To be sure, France does not really love the Fine Arts. An affected taste rules. Even if Italy's masterpieces are met in France with great enthusiasm, one regards them in reality as curiosities or treasures. The place a work of art occupies, the distance which you have to overcome in order to see it, these factors contribute in a special way to the work's aesthetic value. In particular the paintings which previously served as church ornament lose much of their attraction and power when they do not remain at the place for which they were made.1 I shall give you only a very short summary of the well -known facts about the Tennis Court Oath.2 O n zo July 1789, the six hundred depu­ ties of the Third Estate met in a tennis court at Versailles, after the king had kept them away from their normal meeting place. There they took an oath to remain in permanent assembly until they had drawn up a constitution for their country: They would "die rather than disperse be­ fore France was free." Even the revolutionary events that followed in Originalveröffentlichung in: Bryson, Norman (Hrsg.): Visual culture : images and interpretations, Middletown, Conn. 1994, S. 202-227 Theater of Revolution 203 rapid succession could not interfere with the primordial importance of this day. After celebrating the first anniversary on 20June 1790, deputy Dubois- Crance entered a threefold motion at the Jacobin club: that the tennis court of Versailles should be preserved as a landmark of national inter­ est, that parliament should assemble there every year and renew the oath, and that "the most energetic brush and the most skillful graving-tool" should " immortal ize" the event.3 The last part of the motion essentially spelled out the fact that Jacques-Louis David was Dubois-Crance's man. The first suggested step was to paint a picture of the Tennis Court Oath for the assembly hall of the parliament, a work measuring twenty to thirty feet. This huge painting was then to be reproduced in engrav­ ings. The Jacobin club approved this motion, introduced it in parlia­ ment, and parliament approved it on 6 November 1790. David went to work. The Salon of 1791, which opened in September, witnessed the first result of his intensive studies: a large, very detailed drawing (fig. 1), which attracted much attention and induced parliament to pass a resolu­ tion: "That the painting, which represents the oath at the Tennis Court and was begun by the painter J . L. David, should be executed at public expense, and is to be hung at the location which serves as Parliament's meeting place, in order to remind the lawmakers of the courage, that is necessary for their task."4 David had received a commission, which was unique in many respects. To begin with, the patron was without precedence. The parliament, the representatives of the people, had taken the initiative, in former times a prerogative of the king or the munici­ pality. The work was to be executed at public expense. It was destined for a building, for a public space, that France never had seen and that was still being planned when David got the commission: the floor of a parliament. Uncommon, even according to feudal standards, was the bold scale of the work, which Dubois-Crance had estimated at twenty to thirty feet and which was even enlarged by David to twenty-seven to thirty-five feet. To execute a one hundred-square-meter picture not as a wall painting, not as a mosaic, as Dubois had first proposed, but as an easel painting confronted a painter with many technical and artis­ tic problems. Also without precedent was the subject: a revolutionary crowd, six hundred actors figuring in such a large composition. And , finally, a radically new understanding of history painting was at work in choosing an event of the very recent past and enlarging it to monu­ mental scale. ^RffiPiff P̂ lĝ P , f- f|;|. : ̂ ; 3. Dav id , Tennis Court Oath, 1791. Cambridge, courtesy Fogg Art Museum. ,. , i. mmwmh i N Jt^Z W I 1 ^ sera T'+ f -a I I a&e- • •. 1 #t) «< *i -Tti-A 'if'./ i w W4 m i 1 i I «2 - - 33c; _ 4. Dav id , Tennis Court Oath {vide fig. 3), diagonals and vanishing point. Theater of Revolution 2.07 A r i j J V j v , ••• . - \ , ". \ . ,1 1 ' " • \y y- y<S' S/\ / • / / / V 'yK-r1 . / . \ I [\ r \ • X f ''•f ;-'*X-'i| s / tbgw' 'M*'f& \ > ' i ^^PSJSBF''' "'•"•••••JSIJ \) v * *', -!*. sr i -y^s^ff j r i i>* jr. \K^r JpRifc.''' ' HUK ' : • / ' , ' ; ; - • * •"J^V. til 7 • 1 S*i¥s5SSF;' IV%jU/'- VJJ; 'l • jfcj '̂ i'lSfcArt-VW''! i'l grifcrjBk *̂ sflfr' '•'' fiff %• \ *fi fs&K u s v f l <jKyM JWi SiJf \ X 5. Dav id , Tennis Court Oath {vide fig. 1), diagonals and vanishing point. viewer is thus there, face to face with Bailly, a little bit above the crowd. More stress couldn't be laid upon this single point; we will have to bear that in mind. It should be noted here that David, who was not very strong in per­ spective, is said to have left the geometrical construction of his paint­ ing to a specialist, a "perspecteur," in this case probably the architect Charles Moreau. The result of his efforts would then have been the large drawing in the Fogg (fig. 3), which is exactly the same size as the drawing for the Salon.7 In one respect, the two drawings differ: they have different vanishing points. In the Fogg drawing, the vanishing lines come together where Bailly's hand should be and, in his hand, the paper containing the formula of the oath (fig. 4). In the finished version it is— as we have seen—the point between Bailly's eyes (fig. 5). The difference is a subtle one, but it marks two different conceptions about the central point. The first drawing, the Fogg drawing, is the result of consider­ ations based on the logic of the event. This work concentrates on the symbolic essence of the event, on the document that is holding out the promise of a greater document, the constitution of the bourgeois state. To make the vanishing point coincide with Bailly's eyes would make no sense on this level. Bailly is engaged in taking the oath in many ways: 2 0 8 W O L F G A N G K E M P by having the document, by raising his right arm, by pronouncing the formula—but the look of his eyes matters little in this respect. The tran­ sition from the first to the second vanishing point indicates a shift from a conception based on the logic of the event to one that stresses the painting's physical context. The final placement of the vanishing point focuses the composition on the point at which two systems of commu­ nication merge: one within the painting and one between the painting and the viewer. This creates a center of exceptionally active radiation, as well as acknowledges the viewer. Upon consideration, this shift in the central point might only be the logical outcome of prior compositional ideas. One could say that the final placement of the vanishing point is the keystone of a construction that fulfills the needs of an aesthetical reception rather than historical accuracy. The accent on the document would have been only a symboli­ cal compensation for the deficit in the logic of the narrative. After all, the way David pictures the event in both drawings does not meet the claims of historical reality. Never would the deputies of the Third Estate have arranged themselves in this way. They did not stand behind Bailly, and Bailly, when pronouncing the oath, did not turn his back on them. They did not press closely together in one half of the court, in order to leave the other half void. Lacking an authentic depiction of the event, we can assume that all the other versions of the Tennis Court Oath— versions that show Bailly in the middle of the crowd, as the center of a, so to speak, natural circle and not as the protagonist of a frieze-like group—get closer to the truth. "He [Bailly] is too far at the front, where only a few stand, while a multitude are behind him; it is not natural that he turns his back on them," as a critic said of the picture in 1791.8 To understand David's forced composition we have to deal with prob­ lems of its reception. We must ask about its spatial context, the kind of addressees the work was intended for, and how its composition re­ sounded to its external conditions and requirements. The Tennis Court Oath is a picture of a provisional parliament, destined for a permanent parliament. The style for a parliament building was not yet realized on the continent before the French Revolution. Even the "Constituante," the parliament that commissioned David, met in a makeshift place; but by the time David started working on his large painting, certain formal and ideological notions concerning the appearance and function of a parliament had arisen. Without knowing the final shape of the new building, David could at least presuppose a basic structure, and, equally 1 Theater of Revolution z n How close the relations were between the two building types can be seen very clearly from a comparison of Ledoux's theater with the de­ signs for the new parliament, which were published by Jacques Legrand and Jacques Molinos in 1791 (figs. 8,9). These architects planned to re­ model the partly finished church La Madeleine into a "Palais National" in such a manner that the nave could be used as an extended vestibule and the choir (plus transepts) as the amphitheatrical floor. A new build­ ing type would never again succeed an old one in such an outspoken manner. "Every place," says the commentary on this project, "where the deputies meet is transformed into a sanctuary. Even that obscure gym­ nasium, that tennis court, where the National Assembly took upon its oath to live in freedom or to die, . . . instantly became a sacred place and will remain such forever."11 A "temple" was to be built. But the massive changes that the plans provide for the remodeling of the church are in­ debted to the model of the theater. The theater designs lent themselves to the transformation of the extant church into the parliament. No doubt Legrand and Molinos worked from a knowledge of Ledoux's building for Besancon. They opted for the pure semicircular ground plan, which was not yet the norm in theater-architecture. Their rationale is Ledoux's: "The representatives of the Nation, arranged on the steps of the amphi­ theatre, have approximately the same distance from the president of the assembly; their eyes are fixed on him in a very natural way, and from his lectern the speaker can see all his colleagues."12 Further, Legrand and Molinos refer to the monumental colonnade of the theater of Besancon, with whose help Ledoux made an optical distinction between the gods and the expensive tiers. But whereas Ledoux uses the space behind the colonnade for more seats, Legrand and Molinos provide seats for the public above the colon­ nade. And Legrand and Molinos elaborate upon Ledoux's design by substituting the flat ceiling for a half dome, with the result that the floor incorporates three geometrical or stereometrical forms, pure forms ac­ cording to the philosophy of revolutionary architecture: namely, the half circles of the ground plan and of the upper part of the front wall and the quartersphere of the cupola. But it is not only formalistic purism that dictates the choice of forms; it becomes clear when we read the description of the "voute immense" that they also serve the needs of "architecture parlante," for here the architects wanted to display the flags of France's twenty-four departments to evoke the unity of France, France as a whole. Another symbolic statement was assigned to the half circle of the front wall (fig. 10): Here was to appear the northern 8. Legrand -Mo l inos , Plan for a Parliament (section), 1791. Courtesy Soc. A m i s Bibl . Ar t . Arch . ) H'/•(>/<•/ t)'«/te v^'tt/Zf /lt>f"'^***~_ v<m " -"||• •• ^/(ty^if/ii/i/tp (//////f>/tr//<- ? | ,K«., A <//„„,„//,» ' . „ "*So- J ' U w ^ i J U « A .; * ^ ^ ^ . . . ^ " f ^ Q ^ \ * ^ 'Ks^'Y? 11 ' 1 « ; » v vX \ ^. i r t r^ 'K^ t i uri X V w :** T f ' li LI" 1 « : U rtirttiU m W - W A » W /'JJHMAU • • « • « 'A' rT >T*nwMr Kur I j./ *! • » • « II fmUmv X v w m o /Urn A- ifrvvv AHVMVH1 9. Legrand -Mo l inos , / b r a Parliament (groundplan), 1791. Courtesy Soc. A m i s Bibl. Ar t . Arch . Theater of Revolution 213 CQUPE SUK L A L A R G E UB. D E X A S A L L E D ' A S S E M B L E E Rcb«iU <l* In ru»| i f i i M H t r - — t r KcUlL J . U 10. Legrand-Molinos, Plan for a Parliament (section), 1791. Photo by author. hemisphere, with France at the center and the genius of liberty above it. What Dubois-Crance said in his speech in 1790 when he argued for commissioning David with the Tennis Court Oath helps us understand this composition. He said: "No sooner had the structure of the French constitution extricated itself from the ruins of old superstitions, than it presented itself to the neighbour-nations in a sublime way. Imitating our example, the whole world [as a matter of fact, he said 'the circle of the world'] will be free."13 The extension of the visual program to cosmic dimensions has its political sense, but we should not overlook that highest utilization of circular and spheric forms, the analogy with the cosmos itself. Again we are reminded of Ledoux, who placed at the front of his treatise on architecture the image of the planetary system, or of his great rival, Etienne-Louis Boullee, who claimed for himself the introduction of the sphere into architecture and who wrote on behalf of the circular form: "In nature everything is circle: the stone, which falls into a lake, makes numberless circles; centrifugal force expresses itself in circles; the air, the sea circle around endlessly; the satellites revolve around Jupiter and Saturn, and the planets are on their immense orbit."14 The circle was provided by nature and is therefore right, good, and beautiful. The circle is the symbol of unity, equality, and infinity; it is practical and proper. For the revolutionary architects all these at- Z l 6 W O L F G A N G K E M P o f the floor a n d the p l e n u m o f the deput ies . T h e pa in ted ha l f c ircle o f the p r o v i s i o n a r y p a r l i a m e n t a n d the real ha l f circle o f the true p a r l i a m e n t c o m p l e m e n t each o ther to f o r m the appea l - s t ruc ture {appellstruktur) o f D a v i d ' s c o m p o s i t i o n . In th is case, t h o u g h , v i ewers and actors , p u b l i c a n d stage, are n o t b r o u g h t together b y archi tectura l m e a n s a lone . T h i s in teract ion o f p a i n t ­ i ng a n d arch i tec ture w o u l d have been a so lu t i on that fits ve ry we l l i n t o the c o n c e p t o f neoc lass ica l art: c lose c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the t w o s ides bu t p r o t e c t i o n o f their respect ive a u t o n o m y . In this respect , the e x p o s e d s tr ip in the f o r e g r o u n d speaks a clear language . Bu t D a v i d goes o n e step fur ther to secure the contac t be tween the t w o ha lves o f the c irc le . T h e figure o f Ba i l l y , w h i c h faces the v i ewer , w h i c h indeed faces all v i e w e r s , co l lects the energy o f the c r o w d , focuses it, and redirects it t o the v i ewer . T h i s k i n d o f p e r f o r a t i o n i n to the c losed m e c h a n i s m o f neoc lass ica l p a i n t i n g is n o t unprecedented in D a v i d ' s w o r k , bu t w h a t is u n p r e c e ­ d e n t e d is that a pa in t i ng o f this size c o m e s to o n e p o i n t or head . T h r o u g h a subt le m a n i p u l a t i o n o f the re la t ionsh ip o f the c o m p o s i t i o n a n d the ac tant , w h a t is n o r m a l l y the remotes t and deepest p o i n t in th is p a i n t ­ i n g — t h e v a n i s h i n g p o i n t — h a s been reversed to f o r m the o p p o s i t e : Ba i l l y ' s l o o k , w h i c h m a r k s this center, t ransmi ts , w i t h o u t i n t e r m i s s i o n , the f o c u s e d message o f the pa in t i ng in to the in f in i ty o f h is aud ience l ike a b e a c o n . T h e l o o k as the act ive a n d act ivat ing center, the a l l - see ing eye, a n d the " f igura cunc ta v iden t i s , " all p o i n t t o issues that a f fect theater a n d p a r l i a m e n t , art a n d po l i t i cs , in a s imi lar m a n n e r . First o f a l l , let 's l o o k in to the m o s t f a m o u s eye o f the p e r i o d , p r o ­ v i d e d b y an i l lus trat ion t o L e d o u x ' s treatise o n archi tecture (fig. 12.). T h e t i t le , " S y m b o l i c representat ion o f the a u d i t o r i u m t h r o u g h the p u p i l o f an eye , " refers t o the a u d i t o r i u m o f the theater of B e s a n c o n , w h i c h w a s o p e n e d in 1784 (whereas the b o o k w a s pub l i shed o n l y in 1804) . Seen " t h r o u g h the p u p i l o f an e y e " can be u n d e r s t o o d , o n the o n e h a n d , as: W e l o o k t h r o u g h the pup i l i n to the eye, in to its inner ha l f - c i r cu la r or , better, c o n c a v e b a c k g r o u n d , in this case in to the amph i thea te r . T h e na tura l d i s p o s i t i o n o f o u r s ight o r g a n is in accordance w i t h the s truc­ ture o f the a u d i t o r i u m : the theater is all eyes. L e d o u x devo tes a l o n g passage to th is t h o u g h t , parts o f w h i c h w e have a l ready q u o t e d : " E q u a l s ight f o r a l l " is h is m a x i m . If w e transfer this m o d e l t o the s i tua t ion f o r w h i c h D a v i d ' s pa in t i ng w a s dest ined , w e get the floor o f a p a r l i a m e n t that a l l o w s equa l s ight {rayon egal) f or all the v i ewers /depu t i e s , as w e l l as equa l s ight o n the stage, that is, o n the p l a t f o r m a n d o n the stage set. Such is the case in D a v i d ' s Tennis Court Oath. L i k e the rad ius o f a Theater of Revolution 217 SB? ipn mR j^M 12. Ledoux , Symbolic representation of the auditorium [of the theatre in Besangon] through the pupil of an eye, 1804. Photo courtesy Bildarchiv Foto Marburg. quar te r - sphere al l the l ines o f s ight were to run u p to the center, t o the a l l - c ap t i va t i ng eye o f Bai l ly . I f , o n the o the r h a n d , w e unders tand the s y m b o l i c eye as an act ive o r g a n — a n d this is the w a y the w o r d s seen " t h r o u g h the p u p i l o f an e y e " are n o r m a l l y r e a d — a s m e a n i n g n o t i n t o but w i t h the a i d o f th is eye , then w e see h o w the m i g h t y eye receives the i m a g e o f the a u d i t o ­ r i u m a n d m i r r o r s it b a c k t o us. T h i s eye w o u l d have been loca ted w h e r e Ba i l l y ' s eyes are, o n the stage, in a rather e levated p o s i t i o n a n d fac ing the a u d i t o r i u m f ronta l l y . A remarkab le co inc idence b e t w e e n D a v i d ' s a n d L e d o u x ' s w o r k s is that the exac t v i sua l center is, in b o t h cases, a rather neutra l z o n e and n o t a p lace of specif ic interest: t h r o u g h the cen ­ ter o f L e d o u x ' s p u p i l runs a re l ie f - f r ieze; Ba i l l y ' s l ine of s ight meets the a m b u l a t o r y and n o t the deput ies o r the general pub l i c , if w e i m a g i n e the h a n g i n g o f the pa in t i ng acco rd ing to the p lans of L e g r a n d a n d M o l i n o s . W e can fa i r ly safe ly say that these l o o k s are d i rected t o w a r d n o t h i n g spec ia l , b u t see all and every th ing ; and this is the w a y they are s h a p e d , these s tar ing a n d to ta l l y o p e n eyes. L e d o u x ' s bas ic l a w sa id n o t o n l y that all s h o u l d see equa l l y we l l but a l so that all s h o u l d be seen e q u a l l y w e l l . O u r shor t t rea tment of theater -archi tecture has a l ready suggested that th is cal l for a t w o - w a y c o m m u n i c a t i o n h a d to meet m o r e t h a n just a techn ica l o r — s o t o s p e a k — h y g i e n i c d e m a n d . H o w far w e s tand in Z l 8 W O L F G A N G K E M P V M U m 1 liiW- ccLxxvr M;G> 1 jiiWSSKI 13. Tfce Great Sea/ o/^fce United States (from the one-dollar bill). Photo courtesy Bildarchiv Foto Marburg. the arena of politics becomes clear when we consult the eye-symbolism of the French Revolution. The basic scheme of David's composition was already prefigured in the Great Seal of the United States, which everybody can study on the one-dollar bill (fig. 13) and which dates back to the penultimate de­ cade of the eighteenth century: a pyramid with an eye at its peak.17 I have already mentioned that Bailly's eyes mark not only the intersection of the vanishing lines but also the point where the diagonals intersect. Theater of Revolution 221 engraved publication of the human rights statement, which probably followed the political iconography of the American Revolution. The old interpretation has been preserved. According to the preamble of the dec­ laration, which says, "resolved and declared in face of and under the auspices of the Supreme Being," the divine eye shines upon the founda­ tion, the block of human rights, which is flanked by allegories of France and Justice. Whether the vignette or emblem of the Convention, the single eye, still retains this meaning may be reasonably doubted. After 1789 the symbol was thoroughly reevaluated and indeed intensified; it resurfaced, for ex­ ample, as the logo of the most radical party in parliament, the Cordeliers (since February 1791; fig. 17), and as the vignette of the Convention's most powerful group, the "Comite de salut public" (fig. 18). Both these cases and many others established the meaning of the eye as a symbol of surveillance. The "public welfare committee" under Robespierre and, before it, the Cordeliers declared the securing of permanent revolution against the inner and outer enemies the highest objective of their poli­ tics. The reign of terror, "la terreur," based its power on a close-meshed control and surveillance system: "Activite-Purete-Surveillance" was the motto of the eye vignette of the "public welfare committee," and a more appropriate device could not be found for the "Great Incorruptible" himself. That David was aware of this shift in meaning and supported it is evident from the decorations that he designed for the "Festival of Unity," 10 August 1793: " N o w the pageant proceeds through the boule­ vards. It is led off by the crowd of the united societies of the people. They carry a banner, on which the stern eye of the law is represented, as it pierces through a thick cloud. The second group is formed by the mem­ bers of the Convention National; eight of them carry on a handbarrow a chest: it is covered by a veil and contains the tables, in which the human rights and the constitution are inscribed."20 Again, the combination of the eye and the tables of law. H o w does the Tennis Court Oath relate to this development of a sym­ bol, of a natural sign? This is not an academic question; it has nothing to do with getting the iconography straight. We are dealing with a time when "a generalized visual paranoia in Paris" reigned. Norman Bryson states: It was a period when one could be denounced by one's servant for wear­ ing clean linen; when debates could take place in the National Assembly concerning right sumptuary conduct: is it counter-Revolutionary or is it if, . Trim (re //(' / %. •" ' c-' / '•cilia* ,/t> laiivus* ^ a o - W ^ y ^ ^ j* 17. Membership card of the Cordeliers (after February 1791) Photo by author. M sb QC S V s W f ACTTVITE P U R E T E SURVEILLANCE. COMITEDE 5AX.UT PUBLIC. 18. Vignette of the Comite de Salut Public 1793-1794. Photo by author. Theater of Revolution Z23 patriotic for women to wear oak-leaves in their hair? is it an insult to the General Will for a Quaker not to remove his hat before the Bar? is the red cap a true sign of Liberty, or the mask of intrigue? During the Jacobin supremacy, life and death turned on the interpretation of signs: to uproot a tree of Liberty, to sing "O Richard o mon roi," to deface the image of Marat, these were crimes of the utmost seriousness."21 Bryson is talking about the terreur, but I would contend that this sort of public visual awareness and sensitivity to symbols dates back at least to 1790/1791, when the Tennis Court Oath was in the making. Again, how does this work of art fit into the symbolic discourse? Bailly's gaze works, works very well, as I wanted to show, on the level of reception—but not only on this level. In this point, geometry and poli­ tics, past and present, merge as the gaze reaches all, as all gazes become absorbed in it. But as I said, the gaze does not only function as a device for focusing visual energies, it is also a sender. It is a stern gaze, but is it also a gaze that has ultimate authority? Bailly is more elevated than the other deputies around him, elevated by the height of a quickly supplied table. His makeshift position and his gaze really cannot claim what the eye of G o d and of the king could claim: that they not only see all and everything but give rise to all and everything. The gazes of G o d and the king have no counterparts that look back: These gazes are directed one­ way. In this painting, however, it is crucial that gaze answers gaze and that the half circles unite. More than the combined action of painting and space is at stake here. In my opinion, there are two open questions concerning the status of the bourgeois revolution that are made visible by this active and open composition and that remain open: the ques­ tion of the permanent revolution, "revolution en permanence," and the question of the legitimation of the novus ordo, the new order of society. The objective of the oath of 1789 was to constitute the bourgeois state. This task was never regarded as finished. The idea was that Parliament would form the general will into new laws and amendments, as the will was laid down in the declaration of human rights in 1789. Substituting the will of the "one" for the "one wi l l " was of paramount importance for the French Revolution. It adhered to a principle that would not allow the Revolution to end in stable institutions but to be carried on as a permanent revolution. " A revolutionary law," says Condorcet, "is a law whose object is to maintain the revolution and to accelerate or regu­ late its course."22 And Rousseau, who was responsible for this idea, had already insisted that it would "be absurd for the will to bind itself for Z2.6 W O L F G A N G K E M P 5. Schnapper, David, n 8 f f . ; Bordes, Le Serment, 85ff. 6. F. -L. Bruel, Un siecle d'histoire de France par I'estampe 1770-1871. La Collection Vinck (Paris, 1909), Nr. 1460. 7. For David's preliminary drawings, see D. Ho lma , Son evolution et son style (Paris, 1940), 58ft., fig. i8f f . ; V. Lee, J . -L . David, "The Versailles Sketch­ book , " The Burlington Magazine III (1969): 197ft.; W . Kemp, "Das Bild der Menge (1789-1830)," Stadel-Jahrbuch 4 (1973): 2.53ff.; M . -D . de La Patelliere, "Rysunki Jana Piotra Norblina przedstawiajace 'Przysiege w Jeu de Paume' w zbiorach amerykanskisch," Biuletyn Histori Sztuki (1979): 413ft.; P. Bordes, Dav id , and Norbl in , " 'The Oath of the Tennis Court ' and two Problems of Attr ibution," The Burlington Magazine 122 (1980): 569ft.; Schnapper, David, i05ff . ; Bordes Le Serment, 39ft. 8. Quoted in Bordes, Le Serment, 72.. 9. F. Boyer, "Projets de salles pour les assemblies revolutionaires a Paris (1789—92)," Bulletin de la societe de I'histoire de I'art francais (1933): 183. For the building and planning history of the revolutionary parliaments, see A . Brette, Histoire des edifices ou ont siege les assemblies parlementaires sous la revolu­ tion, vol. 1 (Paris, 1902.); F. Boyer, "Les Tuileries sous la convention," Bulletin de la societe de I'historie de I'art francais (1934): 197ft.; J . - M . Perouse de Montc los , £ . -L . Boullee 1718-1799 (Paris, 1969), i 8 i f . The notion of "parlia­ ment as theater" has been treated splendidly by M . -H . Huet, Rehearsing the Revolution. The Staging of Marat's Death 1793-1797 (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London , 1982). 10. C. - N . Ledoux, L'architecture consideree sous le rapport de I'art, des moeurs et de la legislation (Paris, 1804), 223. See also J . Rittaud-Hutinet, La vision d'un futur: Ledoux etses theatres (Lyon, 1983). 11. A . -G . Kersaint, Discours sur les monuments publics (Paris, 1792), 56. 12. Ibid., 63L 13. Dubois-Crance, quoted in David, Le peintre Louis David, 89. 14. H . Rosenau, Boullee and Visionary Architecture (London, N e w York , 1976), 147- 15. Ibid. 16. Archives parlementaires de 1787 a i860 (Paris, 1862ft.), 49: 652. 17. F. H . Sommer, "Emblem and Device. The Origin of the Great Seal of the United States," Art Quarterly 24 (1961): 57ft. 18. Werner Hof fmann, ed., Luther und die Folgen fur die Kunst (Miinchen, 1983) , 430L 19. A . Boppe, Les vignettes emblematiques sous la Revolution (Paris, 1911), passim. 20. Quoted in K . Scheinfuss, ed., Von Brutus zu Marat. Kunst im National- konvent 1789-1795 (Dresden, 1973), 98. 21. N . Bryson, Tradition and Desire, From David to Delacroix (Cambridge 1984) , 96. Theater of Revolution zzj zz. Quoted in H. Arendt, Uber die Revolution (Miinchen, 1974), 237. 23. Ibid., 97. 24. I. B. Jaffe, Trumbull, The Declaration of Independence (New York, 1976). 25. Rousseau quoted in Arendt, Uber die Revolution, 238. 26. Ibid.