SECTION 1 - via - School of Visual Arts

embodiment of the age of enlightenment.” 11 Trumbull achieved the goal of traditional history
painting by presenting the viewer with an example of morally significant and edifying action.
Indeed, in all his work we can see emerging a stress found in so many nineteenth-century
history paintings: the desire to inculcate patriotic pride. But Trumbull’s Declaration is a static
work; history paintings need action or emotional events to work well. Contrast it with Emanuel
Leutze’s (1816-1868) giant painting, Washington Rallying the Troops at Monmouth (1854).
Trumbull’s Declaration is by far the more significant, but Leutze’s painting works better
because of the swirling action around the central figure of our national hero.
Consider William T. Ranney’s Marion Crossing the Pedee (1850). It is a history painting
showing General Marion moving his troops during the Revolutionary War. It’s so realistic,
however, that despite its large size, it is almost a genre painting. Marion himself is hard to find;
he is taking directions from someone else. There is nothing heroic or inspiring here. But
compare Ranney to my favorite of all history paintings, one that was finished a year later in
1851 on a very similar subject: Emanuel Leutze’s Washington Crossing the Delaware (12-andhalf
by 21 feet; also at the Met). Four times bigger than the Ranney, this is a “grand machine”
if there ever was one. Washington is easy to find; in fact, he is theatrically spotlighted. Unlike
the crowd in Ranney’s picture, here all extraneous figures have been removed and those that
remain reflect Washington’s grim and stoic determination. Unlike Ranney’s sluggish Pedee,
even the river in the Leutze is a challenge to be overcome. There is no flag in the Ranney; in
the Leutze the flag is the focal point of the picture, at the apex of a pyramid of figures. The
drama and the visual impact of the Leutze make it a perfect example of history painting in the
grand manner.
Leutze also succeeded in creating a masterpiece of history painting because he grasped a point
Ranney ignored. In Ranney’s painting, General Marion is simply moving his troops across a
river. Leutze’s Washington is leading his men into a crucial battle of the Revolutionary War.
Leutze was adhering to a widely accepted principle of neoclassicism: it was “preferable to show
a great warrior in a state of composure which follows from or anticipates his martial exploits,
nobility of character being best conveyed through balanced self-possession rather than
unbridled passion.” 12 This was true of all the heroes in history paintings. Note how calm
David’s Socrates is in the midst of his weeping disciples.
The closeness of Washington Crossing the Delaware to the ideal of history painting as
envisioned by Reynolds does not alter the fact that history painting changed greatly in the
nineteenth century, especially in French painting. It was a change that began in the reign of
Napoleon. Rather than encourage art that glorified the principles of the revolution or
strengthened patriotism and civic virtues, Napoleon and his state-controlled Salons sought
paintings that idealized him. An example is Antoine-Jean Gros’ General Bonaparte Visiting the
Pesthouse at Jaffa (1804; 17 by 23 feet). It depicted an event that occurred in March 1799
when Napoleon, at the end of his disastrous Egyptian campaign, visited a hospital in an effort
to convince his soldiers that the plague that was raging through the army was not contagious.
Although he apparently avoided all contact with the sick, to the extent that he kicked one ill
soldier away from him, the Gros painting tells quite a different story. In it, Napoleon shows no
fear of the sick, going so far as to touch the bulbous sore of a plague victim. The gesture was a
reference to the mythical power historically ascribed to French kings to be able to heal
scrofulous abscesses. Thus Gros makes Napoleon a heroic figure and an heir to the miracleworking
kings.
5