“The Death of Marat” is a painting by Jacques-Louis David that portrays the killing of Jean-Paul Marat, a prominent figure in the French Revolution and leader of the Jacobins. Marat was also known for founding the controversial newspaper, L’Ami du Peuple (“the Friend of the People”).
Marat gained widespread recognition for his paper titled “the Friend of the People,” in which he frequently advocated for violent actions against politicians. He belonged to a group known as the Sans Culottes, who strongly supported him and were influenced by his ideas. Marat’s primary targets were the Girondins, whom the Jacobins held responsible for military losses and increasing food prices.
On June 2nd, the Convention was infiltrated and the Girondins, who were leading figures, were expelled by the Sans-Culottes, who were supporters of the Jacobins. The Girondins who were expelled feared the newly introduced guillotine and fled Paris. Their departure caused revolts in provinces that supported them, and by the summer of 1793, 60 out of 83 departments had revolted against the government.
On April 6th, the Convention established the Committee of Public Safety in response to significant difficulties. This was ironic because, on September 17th, the implementation of “The Law of Suspects” ensued. This law marked the beginning of the “Reign of Terror.” Consequently, citizens in each town were compelled to compile lists of individuals thought to be in opposition to the government.
Citizens of any sex, age, or condition were mercilessly executed solely for being suspected of opposing the government. The notion of “public safety” was actually at its worst. Marat openly supported these executions, which ultimately resulted in his death. On July 13th, 1793, Charlotte Corday, a woman with sympathies for the Girondins, managed to enter Marat’s apartment and kill him.
After being commissioned by the convention, Jacques-Louis David painted a portrait of Marat. The purpose of this painting was to ensure the continual progress of the revolution. In order for Marat to serve as a symbol for maintaining the revolution’s momentum, David had to depict him in the most favorable light possible, as a beloved figure of the people and a martyr. Therefore, David could not portray Marat as an elderly and sickly individual.
The objective of David was to create images of the secular saint, ensuring Marat’s political beliefs would be remembered. David’s portrayal of Marat as a martyr boosted support for the Sans Culottes and guaranteed the continuation of their ideals, thus sustaining the revolution’s momentum. The assassination of Marat had a profound impact on Paris.
The leaders, especially Robespierre, were frightened when they discovered that a “Girondin” had entered Paris and assassinated a prominent revolutionary figure in his own residence. They were concerned that they could be targeted in the same manner and therefore needed to use Marat’s death to garner support for their parties and prevent any future assassinations by counter-revolutionaries.
David is known for his talent in painting historical events, and one of his most renowned works is “The Oath of the Horatii.” This painting reflects the essence of the French Revolution, portraying three brothers who vow to fight to the death as defenders of their city against a rival city, all for the betterment of the people. The overall theme of The Oath of the Horatii revolves around devotion and selflessness.
David’s portrayal of Marat expressed the same theme as the previous mention. The painting shows Marat as a martyr who sacrificed his life for his country. Marat is depicted holding a letter, which belonged to Corday. This inclusion of the letter by David is historically inaccurate, revealing the challenges of representing the past. The letter was never shown to Marat but was intended for Corday to use if her initial attempt to see him failed. Artists often manipulate or distort facts like these to support a specific perspective or agenda.
Next to Marat lies an assignat on a wooden crate, bearing the inscription, “You shall give this assignat to the mother of five children whose spouse perished while defending the fatherland.” This document, near Marat’s hand, represents irrefutable evidence of his virtuousness. Moreover, it supports David’s endeavor to depict Marat as a heroic figure deeply empathetic towards the suffering of the French population.
Marat holds the pen he was using to write, while a cloth on the bathtub acts as his makeshift desk. David’s portrayal of Marat as a “friend of the people” and Corday as someone who deceitfully sought his generosity while he was addressing citizen’s needs, reveals an evident bias.
However, this contradicts other depictions of the event. At Corday’s trial, it was stated that her decision to stab Marat was influenced by his reaction upon learning about the opposition. Marat’s response to this opposition was “Good, in a few days I will have them all guillotined.” This contrast shows him as a supposed “friend of the people” on one hand, but also as a vengeful and powerful man on the other.
David’s further inaccuracies are evident as the appalling skin disease is not visible. Instead, we see a young and healthy man. The poverty and inglorious surroundings in which Marat lived are highlighted by the presence of an old wooden crate and a white sheet covering his head, complete with a patch.
Additionally, the painting’s background lacks vibrancy, with plain and colorless walls. In truth, Marat’s actual residence had adorned and stylish wallpaper, enhancing the interior’s beauty. The Convention specifically requested David to create Marat’s portrait, making The Death of Marat a commissioned piece. David’s own viewpoint is integrated into the painting.
The large crowds drawn to his painting indicate that it would have had a significant impact and influenced the perception of Marat among Parisians, even though it contained inaccuracies. These images demonstrated the ability of art to captivate and inspire ordinary citizens. Instead of creating a magnificent portrait of Marat, David chose to depict him in a bathtub, surrounded by poverty and vulnerability. Once again, David’s bias is evident.
Historians frequently encounter challenges when dealing with history, as events are frequently marred by inaccuracies such as the assignat. Consequently, historians should not solely rely on representations without considering the possibility of distortion.
The reason for David’s bias in painting this picture is his friendship with Marat and a blend of admiration, as well as his intention to portray Marat as a symbol of the revolution. David’s advantage in this endeavor was that his portrayal of Marat easily captivated and reached a large audience, effectively impacting public opinion and perpetuating the revolution’s progress.
Marat is depicted in the bathtub, with his hand outstretched, in a tranquil and peaceful portrayal. The pose is reminiscent of Michelangelo’s masterpiece Pieta, where Christ is shown with his arm outstretched, like David depicted Marat. The implication is that Marat selflessly gave himself up for the benefit of the people, similar to the supposed sacrifice of Christ.
Other religious elements are noticeable in the painting, such as the turban around Marat’s head resembling a halo and the celestial light that illuminates his angelic face. Marat’s intention was to create depictions of a non-religious saint. This portrayal of Marat differs from other descriptions of him. Marat was a violent individual who endorsed the execution of anyone who opposed the government until his final moments. He had been quoted as saying, “To maintain public tranquillity, 200,000 heads must be severed.”
Joseph Roques also portrays Marat in a pose reminiscent of the Pieta. This highlights how historical representations frequently replace actuality with a purpose, specifically referring to the revolution.
The Jacobins aimed to benefit from Marat’s high status. They made various changes in France to support the Jacobin party. As part of this, they renamed places to honor Marat, such as Montmartre becoming Mont-Marat, and rue des Cordeliers becoming rue Marat. Over thirty communes in the Republic incorporated Marat’s name into their new names. The Jacobins found Marat’s death more advantageous than his unpredictable and volatile nature when he was alive.
When examining historical depictions, it is important to acknowledge the reasons behind them. During a period marked by extensive violence, the portrayal of reality was substituted by misleading visuals, leading to distorted historical interpretations. This phenomenon stemmed from both the fear individuals felt and the sympathies they harbored.
David’s support for the Jacobins resulted in a biased representation that solely reflected the Jacobin perspective, disregarding the viewpoints of Corday and the Girondins, who harbored intense hatred towards Marat. Historical accounts inevitably display bias due to numerous factors like differing political opinions and allegiances, which undermine their reliability and accuracy.
These disparities impact how individuals reflect on and process an event or experience, resulting in one person’s perception and interpretation differing greatly from another person’s. Thus, it becomes necessary to scrutinize historical depictions like David’s “The Death of Marat” and the legitimacy of conflicting perspectives.
