Cálculo de la Potencia Eólica del Molino de Viento

To this end, d’Angiviller commissioned David to paint a scene from Book I of Livy’s History of Rome (c. 26 BCE). There Livy describes a border dispute between Rome and Alba in which city leaders let a proxy battle determine the resolution instead of embarking on a full-scale war. Coincidentally, triplet brothers served in the armies of both, and it was agreed that the winner of the fraternal battle would decide the outcome. The situation was complicated by the marriage of a sister of the Albans (Sabina) to Horatius, one of the Roman brothers, and the engagement of a sister

of the Romans (Camilla) to Curiatius, one of the Albans—clearly there could be no happy conclusion. Only Horatius survived, and when his sister Camilla scolded KLPIRUNLOOLQJKHUÀDQFpDQGFXUVHG5RPHKHNLOOHGKHULQDÀWRI UDJH$VDUHVXOW

Horatius was condemned to death, but his life was spared after his father convinced the judges of his honorable service to Rome. David proposed a commission depicting the last scene, the father pleading for the life of his sole surviving son, which d’Angiviller approved in 1783. David, whose radical Enlightenment ideas about individual freedom resulted in contempt for institutional authority, decided without asking to do something else.

David’s Oath of the Horatii (1784, Figure 2.8), was executed during a ten-month-long visit to Rome with his favorite pupil, Jean-Germain Drouais (1763–88), following the latter’s victory in the 1784 Prix de Rome competition. Here, David combined the

“moral painting” of Greuze with the classicism of Vien to create an exemplum virtutis (example of virtue) intended to inspire obedience to authority and the subordination of self-interest to a higher cause. The stage-like space, simple setting, lucid expression DQGJHVWXUHDQGGUDPDWLFOLJKWLQJRI 'DYLG·VÀJXUHVUHFDOO*UHX]H)LJXUH7KLV

PDGHVHQVHEHFDXVH'DYLGDGPLUHG*UHX]HLQÁXHQFHGSDUWO\SHUKDSVE\'LGHURW

and both artists admired Poussin and drew inspiration from contemporary theater.

'DYLGHYHQRFFDVLRQDOO\PDGHPRGHOVWDJHVDUUDQJLQJPLQLDWXUHZD[ÀJXUHVLQRUGHU

to arrive at an optimal composition.

David situated the father at the painting’s center to reinforce his symbolic LPSRUWDQFH 7KH VRQV IDFHG ZLWK WKH XOWLPDWH VDFULÀFH DFFHSW WKHLU IDWH ZLWK

XQDQLPRXVUHVROYHWKHLUSV\FKRORJLFDOVWDWHUHÁHFWHGH[WHUQDOO\LQWKHWHQVHGPXVFOHV

of their outstretched arms. Here obedience to paternal authority unites with the male citizen’s allegiance to the state, an idea popularized in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s philosophical treatise The Social Contract7KHUH5RXVVHDXLGHQWLÀHGWKHIDPLO\

as the basic organizational unit of the state, with the father as supreme authority.

Figure 2.8

Jacques-Louis David, Oath of the Horatii, 1784. Oil on canvas, 330 × 425 cm (10 ft 10 in × 13 ft 11 in). Musée du Louvre, Paris.

Since Oath of the Horatii belonged to d’Angiviller’s reform initiative, contemporaries would, or at least should, have interpreted the father as a symbol of Louis XVI, with the brothers modeling ideal behavior for male citizens and the women, for female ones. The adaptability of symbolism was demonstrated in 1791, when the painting was exhibited at the Salon during the reign of the revolutionary National Assembly government (1789–92), which had just passed a Constitution providing for a limited monarchy and equality before the law (like the English system). Now, Oath of the Horatii symbolized allegiance of a nation’s populace to a central authority—a message as desirable for France’s new government as for the monarchy it restricted.

Like Banks, David created a symmetrical composition of male and female groups, but whereas Banks’s soldiers exhibited various emotions, David’s betray none. Only the women are overcome with emotion, to the extent that they wilt into despondent heaps. Camilla and Sabina lean against each other, while Sabina’s friend Julia consoles the children. This uninhibited female behavior differed conspicuously from West’s self-controlled Agrippina, evidencing reservations about the capacity of women to exhibit stoic behavior. This disparity between male and female behavior in Oath of the Horatii embodied contemporary beliefs about their dialectically opposed natures: men were intellectual, physically and mentally strong, and their proper arena was the public sphere, whereas women were emotional, weak, and their proper place was the home. Philosophers like Rousseau promoted this view, as did scientists like Pierre Cabanis, whose research indicated that women’s organs were softer and more fragile than men’s (Reports on the Physical and Moral Aspects of Man, 1802). The era’s instability contributed to this assessment, with men utilizing their physical and legal ability to dominate women in order to assert control where they could. This view of gender consolidated during the course of the nineteenth century, affecting economic and social conditions.

Although David, like West and Banks, turned to Roman history for his subject, the multiple layers of meaning embedded in Oath of the Horatii make it more complex WKDQ LWV SUHGHFHVVRUV 6LJQLÀFDQWO\ WKLV VFHQH ZDV LQYHQWHG E\ 'DYLG QHLWKHU /LY\

nor other historical accounts describe a pre-battle oath. Nor did Pierre Corneille’s 1639 play, Les Horaces (The Horatii), which David saw at the Comédie Française in Paris in a 1783 production entitled Horace Condemned. David represented the decisive moral moment—the moment of unquestioning commitment with body and soul to a mission dictated by the state and the father, a message epitomizing liberal Enlightenment values and those of d’Angiviller. While this particular scene occurred nowhere in history or literature, the popular ballet-pantomime Les Horaces, written by Jean Noverre and performed in Paris in 1777, contained two relevant scenes—the sons’ departure from their despondent sisters and the sons’ subsequent oath to their IDWKHURQWKHEDWWOHÀHOG'DYLGIROORZHGWKHeFROH5R\DOHGLUHFWLYHWRVWXG\KLVWRU\

literature, exemplary paintings and sculpture past and contemporary, as well as human physiognomy and everyday objects, and to judiciously assemble elements that best conveyed a particular idea. David did so in a manner contemporaries perceived as completely new. In Oath of the Horatii David demonstrated his erudition and originality by distilling a complicated narrative into a single, powerful symbol. With disregard for protocol, David exhibited his painting before he left Rome, where it generated discussion before its appearance at the 1785 Salon and further annoyed d’Angiviller by submitting it to the Salon late. The popular success of David’s Oath was evidenced by the production in 1786 of a new opera entitled Les Horaces with a text by Nicolas

Guillard and music by Antonio Salieri, Mozart’s infamous rival. A critical disaster, it was restaged for Napoleon in 1800.

In the tumultuous year of 1789, the year the French Revolution began, David painted Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons (Figure 2.9), an exemplum virtutis of the most absolute sort. Here, Brutus—who helped depose the tyrannical last king of Rome, Tarquin, and establish a republican government based on the supremacy of law and order over individual desire—awaits the return of his sons’ corpses. When elected co-consul (ruler) along with Collatinus, Brutus swore an oath to uphold the laws of the Roman Republic, and his allegiance was put to the ultimate test when his sons Titus and Tiberius were convicted of the capital crime of treason for their participation in a conspiracy to restore the deposed king. Torn between paternal love and patriotic duty, Brutus subordinated his will to that of the state, a requirement for effective governance according to Rousseau’s Social Contract.

Commissioned by d’Angiviller as part of his reformatory program, Brutus conveyed a political message about the necessity of rulers placing the public good over personal happiness by safeguarding the rule of law at all costs. At the same time, it symbolized a regime change from monarchical tyranny to a democratic republic, a prophetic augury of future events. David expressed the psychological torment such a commitment might entail. Brutus broods in the shadows of his home’s entry hall, unable to face the mortal evidence of his harsh if mandatory decision; the females of the family, out of the public eye entirely, express the distressed emotional state Brutus so masterfully suppresses. As in the Horatii, David separated the male and female spheres both physically and emotionally. Although Brutus’s face remains H[SUHVVLRQOHVVKLVWHQVHSRVWXUHZLWKFURVVHGIHHWDQGÀVWHGKDQGKROGLQJWKHGHDWK

decree, subtly indicate his inner state; his right elbow rests on the socle of a statue of Roma, a reminder of the righteous patriotism motivating this family tragedy. The

5HSXEOLFDQ

Opponent of monarchy;

advocate of a form of government by and for its citizens. Used especially Returning to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons, 1789. Oil on

right hand curling toward and pointing to his head suggests that a tempest of regret and sorrow are encased within the mind of this stoic Roman.

David executed the painting with a degree of archaeological accuracy and painstaking detail that brought the subject alive to his viewers. The posture of David’s Brutus is suspiciously similar to that of Reynolds’s Ugolino (Figure 1.19), popularized by a large print edition, engraved by John Dixon and published by John Boydell.

It sold well during the 1780s at Haines’s English Engraving Shop in Paris, which specialized in the sale of British prints, and there can be little doubt that David knew it. Indeed, Ugolino was an appropriate model for Brutus, since he too was torn between FRQÁLFWLQJOR\DOWLHVWRIDPLO\DQGVWDWH

Ten years after David, Heinrich Füger (1751–1818) represented the Brutus VWRU\ ZLWK D GLIIHUHQW SLFWRULDO DSSURDFK DQG DW D GLIIHUHQW PRPHQW UHÁHFWLQJ WKH

more conservative artistic climate of the Austrian Empire (1799, Figure 2.10).

Füger studied in Rome from 1776 to 1783, became court painter to Emperor Josef II in 1783, and director of Vienna’s Royal Academy of Art in 1795. Despite the close connection between France and Austria (Marie-Antoinette was the sister of Josef II), Neoclassicism in Austria had a different character. It did not evidence the compositional severity or moralizing tendency of Neoclassicism in France. In Austria, SROLWLFDOVWDELOLW\ZDVUHÁHFWHGLQFXOWXUDOFRQVHUYDWLVPWKHUHZDVQRG·$QJLYLOOHULQ

Vienna, nor was the Hapsburg monarchy in turmoil as was the Bourbon monarchy in France. Füger (who had painted a Death of Germanicus in 1789) promoted the Neoclassical style he imported from Rome, which was well suited to the expression of imperial ideals.

In Judgment of Brutus, Füger selected an earlier moment than David—one when Brutus made the agonizing choice to subordinate his paternal feelings to the ODZ 7KH PHVVDJH RI  D UXOHU SODFLQJ KLV FLYLF GXW\ ÀUVW KDG SDUWLFXODU VLJQLÀFDQFH

during the 1790s, when Josef II endured the execution of his sister, whose marriage

Figure 2.10

Heinrich Füger, Judgment of Brutus, 1799. Oil on canvas, 88 × 111 cm (34½ × 43½ in).

Staatsgalerie Stuttgart.

to Louis XVI was arranged to strengthen ties between the two nations. Brutus, with VWHHO\UHVROYHSRLQWVDQDFFXVLQJÀQJHUWRZDUGKLVJXLOW\VRQVRQHRI ZKRPVHHPV

to appeal to the heavens for mercy while the other gazes downward with resigned DFFHSWDQFH)JHU·VFRPSRVLWLRQLQFOXGHGQXPHURXVÀJXUHVZLWKWKHPDLQFKDUDFWHUV

highlighted and arranged with theatrical clarity—a compromise between the austere Neoclassicism of David and the Baroque style dominant at the Vienna Academy.

Indeed, because of the association of David’s severe Neoclassical style with anti-monarchical revolutionary ideals during the 1790s, it is plausible that, even had Füger wanted to evolve a stricter Neoclassical style, he would have avoided doing so for political reasons. In consideration of the milieu in which he worked, Füger developed an approach that combined elements of Neoclassicism—archaeological accuracy, stoic morality, clear theatrical gestures and expressions—with the familiar Baroque grandeur preferred by Austria’s ruling elite.

'DYLGZDVWKHPRVWLQÁXHQWLDOSHUVRQLQWKH)UHQFKDUWZRUOGIURPXQWLO

1815. He had hundreds of students, many of whom became important teachers. His paintings, widely circulated in copies and prints, inspired artists long after his death, primarily, though, in their exacting detail rather than in their moralizing subject matter.

7KHPRVWLQÁXHQWLDORI 'DYLG·VVWXGHQWVZDV-HDQ$XJXVWH'RPLQLTXH,QJUHV² 1867), who won the Prix de Rome in 1801 based on his rendition of the designated competition subject, The Ambassadors of Agamemnon in the Tent of Achilles (1800, Figure 2.11), a work admired by Flaxman during his visit to the 1802 Salon (Hourticq 1928:

3). The son of a painter, Ingres studied at the art academy in Toulouse before going to Paris to study with David in 1797. Although Ingres lived much of his life in Rome, acting as director of the French Academy from 1834 to 1841, he also exhibited regularly at the Salon.

$FFRUGLQJWRWKHVSHFLÀFDWLRQVRI WKHeFROHGHV%HDX[$UWV6FKRRORI )LQH

Arts—the Académie and École Royale were reorganized and renamed during the turbulent 1790s), students should represent “the moment when the Greeks send

Figure 2.11

Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, The Ambassadors of Agamemnon in the Tent of Achilles, 1800. Oil on canvas, 113 × 146 cm (3 ft 8½ in ×

DPEDVVDGRUVWR$FKLOOHVZKRKDGZLWKGUDZQWRKLVWHQWZKHQWKH\ÀQGKLPZLWK

Patroclus amusing himself by singing the exploits of heroes on his lyre,” a subject from Book IX of the Iliad (Ingres 2006: 113). War was a timely topic, since France had been at war with Europe’s monarchies since the execution of Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette in 1793. Ingres depicted Achilles startled by the arrival of Ulysses and Ajax, envoys from Agamemnon, general of the Greek forces, who begged him WRUHWXUQWRWKHEDWWOHÀHOG([HFXWHGZLWKWKHDUFKDHRORJLFDODFFXUDF\VKDOORZVSDFH

and theatrical gestures characteristic of David, Ingres paraphrased two well-known Roman copies of Greek sculptures located in the pope’s collection at the Vatican to further impress the competition judges: General Phocion for Achilles (wearing the red cloak) and for Patroclus, the Capitoline Faun 1DSROHRQ KDG FRQÀVFDWHG WKH Faun from the papal collection in Rome and paraded it through the streets of Paris, along with other booty in a 1798 triumphal procession and subsequently exhibited it at WKH /RXYUH ZKHUH LW UHPDLQHG XQWLO  ,QJUHV DOVR ÁH[HG KLV DUWLVWLF PXVFOH E\

demonstrating to his teacher-judges his facility for representing the three main body types derived from antiquity: the graceful physique characterized by the sculptures of Praxiteles (fourth century BCE), the gnarly aging body found in sculpture from the Hellenistic period (third to second centuries BCE), and the virile athlete epitomized by WKHÀIWKFHQWXU\BCE classical sculptures of Polykleitos.

/LNH'DYLG,QJUHVGLYLGHGKLVÀJXUHVLQWRWZRGLVWLQFWJURXSVEXWLQVWHDGRI  David’s characteristic male-female constellation, Ingres opposed the svelte, youthful bodies of the men engaged in cultural pursuits with the knotty musculature of men toughened by war. In this way, Ingres reinforced the idea that the erroneous prioritizing of private pleasure above patriotic duty had emasculating consequences, and further, that withdrawal to the domestic sphere and engagement in cultural pursuits was a feminizing, properly feminine, activity. This failure of heroes to behave heroically suggested chinks in the Neoclassical armor that widened with time.

During the course of the eighteenth century and particularly during the revolutionary period in the 1790s, women were increasingly excluded from public view and sequestered in the private realm of domesticity, indicated here by the tiny IHPDOH ÀJXUH SHHULQJ DW WKH YLHZHU IURP WKH VKDGRZ\ LQWHULRU RI  $FKLOOHV·V WHQW

Before the Revolution, bourgeois and aristocratic French women enjoyed privileges abolished by Napoleon’s Civil Code in 1804, which was in turn based on Roman law.

Ingres invests the feminized bodies of Achilles and Patroclus with positive attributes of loyalty and gentleness that West ascribed to Agrippina, indicating on the one hand WKH LQVWDELOLW\ RI  LGHQWLWLHV DW D WLPH RI  XSKHDYDO ZKHQ QRUPV ÁXFWXDWHG DQG RQ

the other, the marginalization of women. As the nineteenth century progressed, the SV\FKRORJLFDOQHHGIRUVWDELOLW\UHVXOWHGLQDQRXWZDUGUHLÀFDWLRQRI WKHRSSRVLWLRQDO

understanding of gender described by Rousseau, masking a destabilizing undercurrent of professionalized eroticism (prostitution) and homosexuality, a dangerous dichotomy that the triumph of radical Enlightenment tolerance would have eliminated.