References Mr. A. B. C. D. . . . Ah! Ah! ou relation véritable . . . de la conversation . . . au sallon du Louvre, en examinant les tableaux qui y sont exposés . 1787, p. 13 [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 386, p. 585].Année littéraire ([1787]) [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 397, pp. 863–65], admires it, with some qualifications.Lanlaire au salon académique de peinture . 1787, p. 24 [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 375, p. 244], admires it, observing that the figure of Socrates may be a bit too upright.Le cousin Jacques hors du sallon; folie sans conséquence à l'occasion des tableaux exposés au Louvre en 1787 . 1787, pp. 45–47 [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 389, pp. 661–63], admires it.The World (October 2, 1787) [the original article is reprinted in Ref. Bordes 1992; however Ref. David 1880 and other scholars erroneously identified the author as Sir Joshua Reynolds, who appears to have translated the article into broken French and mailed it to David], calls it the greatest work of art since the Sistine Chapel and Raphael's stanzas in the Vatican.Mercure de France ([1787]) [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 396, pp. 836–38, transcribed from edition of September 1787, p. 177], notes that the head of Socrates follows his appearance as it is known from an antique bust portrait.Examen des critiques qui ont été publiées sur l'exposition des tableaux au Salon du Louvre en 1787 . [1787] [see Ref. Rosenberg and Sandt 1983, p. 126], praises Peyron's picture but observes that David has triumphed.Critique des quinze critiques du salon, ou notices faites pour donner une idée de ces brochures . 1787, pp. 7, 10–12 [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 390, pp. 683, 686–88], finds the criticisms of "Merlin" to be excessive [see Ref. Merlin au salon 1787].Le bouquet du sallon . [1787], p. 5 [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 388, p. 613].Letter to David . August 10, 1787 [published in Ref. David 1880, p. 42], implies in his remarks that David wrote him expressing concern that the figure of Socrates would be too cold.Letter to David . June 13, 1787 [published in Ref. David 1880, pp. 41–42], writing from Rome, notes that he has heard the painting is superb.Letter to David . December 19, 1787 [published in Ref. David 1880, p. 51], writes enthusiastically about the painting, which he could see in an engraving of the Salon installation.General Evening Post (September 8–11, 1787), p. 3 [as extract of a September 3 letter from Paris; published in Ref. Carr 1993], mentions it as belonging to Trudaine, and gives dimensions.La plume du coq de Micille, ou aventures de critès au sallon . 1787, p. 38 n. 2 [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 382, p. 462 n. 2], dislikes the painting, noting that as usual the enthusiasts are blind; considers it one of David's most ordinary paintings.Inscriptions pour mettre au bas de différens tableaux exposés au sallon du Louvre en 1787 . 1787, p. 11 [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 387, p. 603].Letter to John Trumbull . August 30, 1787 [see Ref. Brejon de Lavergnée 1976, p. 154; erroneously as from 1784], comments on the Salon, observing that "the best thing is the 'Death of Socrates' by David, and a superb one it is".Journal de Paris (1787) [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 394, pp. 765–66; according to Ref. Verbraeken 1973, p. 54 n. 16, transcribed from Journal de France (sic?), September 22, 1787].Journal encyclopédique ([1787]) [Collection Deloynes, vol. 50, no. 1360, pp. 393–94].Journal général de France ([1787]) [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 402, pp. 957–59].La bourgeoise au sallon . 1787, pp. 16–17 [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 384, pp. 524–25], admires it in spite of some weaknesses.Encore un coup de patte, pour le dernier, ou dialogue sur le salon de 1787, première partie . 1787, pp. 23–26 [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 378, pp. 319–22], notes that in this painting great faults are balanced by sublime beauties, and gives details.L'ombre de Rubens au sallon, ou l'école des peintres, dialogue critique . 1787, pp. 37, 41 [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 371, pp. 97, 101; see Notes], notes that the bottom of the picture seems to project from the frame and that the sharpness and murderous effect ["effet meurtrier"] of this work suggest a colored sculpture and not the sweet harmony of painting.Lettre d'un amateur de Paris à un amateur de province sur le sallon de peinture de l'année 1787 . Paris, 1787, pp. 11–13 [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 381, pp. 411–13], admires it but wishes for a "vapeur légere" that would better unite the figures with the background.Merlin au salon en 1787 . 1787, pp. 15–20 [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 385, pp. 547–52], comments on the affectation of some of the poses and what he views as the excessive degree of finish; observes that the figures appear to be glued on top of each other.Morning Chronicle and London Advertiser (September 26, 1787), p. 3 [published in Ref. Carr 1993], notes that Boydell took "great notice of Mr David's picture, the death of Socrates".Observations contenues dans les petites affiches de Paris . 1787 [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 395, p. 807].Observations critiques sur les tableaux du sallon de l'année 1787 . Paris, 1787, pp. 15–17 [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 373, pp. 157–59], praises the picture.Lettre d'un étranger sur le salon de 1787 . [1787] [reprinted in Ref. Zoltowska 1974, pp. 28–39; this picture mentioned pp. 34, 36–38; see Ref. David 1880, pp. 46–48, where commentary on this picture is quoted], enthusiastically describes it, observing that Peyron's painting of the same subject serves as an example of how far below David one can be, even with talent.Les grandes prophéties du Grand Nostradamus sur le grand salon de peinture de l'an de grâce 1787 . 1787, pp. 17–19 [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 374, pp. 193–95], admires it, observing that it is less harmonious than other works of David, as the secondary figures are given almost the same value as the primary figures.L'ami des artistes au sallon . Paris, 1787, pp. 36–38 [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 379, pp. 374–76], admires it with some reservations; publishes a poem by M. Duchofal written in homage to David and to this painting.Tarare au sallon de peinture . 1787, pp. 19–20 [Collection Deloynes, vol. 15, no. 376, pp. 275–76], calls it the most beautiful picture of the Salon, worthy of Raphael.The World (October 18, 1787), p. 2 [published in Ref. Carr 1993, p. 315], describes it as having "particular excellence"; reports that "the original price, to Mons. Chatelet, was 150 Guineas. Since the Exhibition opened, 1000 Guineas have been offered, and refused!".The World (October 11, 1787), p.2 [published in Ref. Carr 1993, p. 315], names David among the most distinguished artists in the 1787 exhibition, singling out this picture for particular praise.Letter to Sir Joshua Reynolds . January 26, 1788, observes that "M. David tho' a remarkably modest person is ambitious of fame. He wishes to have a picture seen in England, and would send either the Horatii or the Socrates if by any mode it could be admitted into your next academical exhibition . . .".London Times (April 18, 1788), p. 2 [published in Ref. Carr 1993], as purchased by the Duke of Orleans.Mémoires secrets . 36, London, 1789, pp. 318–20, 346–47, identifies the figures on the stairway as the judges who have just informed Socrates of his sentence; compares Peyron's painting of Socrates unfavorably to this picture, calling his "hero philosopher" an ordinary man.Vérités agréables ou le salon vu en beau . Paris, 1789, pp. 15–16 [Collection Deloynes, vol. 16, no. 415, pp. 173–74], compares versions of the 'Death of Socrates' by Peyron and David, both exhibited at the Salon of 1787, calling Peyron's the work of "a profound philosopher," and David's that of "a great logician".Chronique de Paris ([1791]) [Collection Deloynes, vol. 17, no. 452, p. 601].Explication des peintures, sculptures et gravures de messieurs de l'Académie Royale . . . Paris, 1791, p. 17, no. 88 [Collection Deloynes, vol. 17, no. 432].Lettres analitiques, critiques et philosophiques sur les tableaux du sallon . Paris, 1791, pp. 59–60 [Collection Deloynes, vol. 17, no. ?, pp. 419–20], notes that it was painted between the artist's "Oath of the Horatii" and his Brutus [both Louvre, Paris], better than the latter and inferior to the former.Explication et critique impartiale de toutes les peintures, sculptures, gravures, dessins, &c., exposés au Louvre d'après le décret de l'assemblée nationale, au mois de septembre 1791 . . . Paris, 1791, p. 37, no. 299 [Dezallier d'Argenville, A. N., is inscribed in pencil on the title page of the FARL catalogue; Montaiglon (see Notes) identifies the author as "M. Chery, peintre"; Collection Deloynes, vol. 17, no. 436, p. 171].Le plaisir prolongé, le retour du Salon chez soi et celui de l'abeille dans sa ruche . Paris, 1791, p. 39, no. 299 [Collection Deloynes, vol 17, no. 437, p. 243].Journal de Paris (March 20, 1792) [reprinted in G. Walter, ed., "Oeuvres complètes," 1940, p. 284; also see Ref. Oberreuter-Kronabel, 1986, p. 143 n. 206].Mémoire pour les citoyennes Trudaine veuve Micault, Micault veuve Trudaine et le citoyen vivant Micault-Courbeton fils . Paris, 1794, p. 79, names Trudaine de Montigny, the elder of the two Trudaine brothers, as the one who commissioned this picture from David.Sur la situation des beaux-arts en France, ou lettres d'un Danois à son ami . Paris, 1801, p. 89, notes that many people criticized the picture for resembling antiquity too closely and faulted the artist for the highly finished drawing, but observes that the manner in which a work is censured is often a form of praise: "does not drawing constitute one of the principal beauty's of antiquity?".Journal entry . September 20, 1802 [published in Garlick, K., and Macintyre, A., eds. "The Diary of Joseph Farington," vol. 5, New Haven, 1979, p. 1861], mentions having seen in David's apartments in the Louvre "a drawing of the death of Socrates made by one of the Pupils of David from the celebrated picture which he painted abt. the Year 1786 or 7.- it is composed much in the manner of Nicolo Poussin and is the best of the compositions I have seen designed by David".Annales du musée et de l'école moderne des beaux-arts 3 (1803), pp. 147–48, ill. (C. Normand's engraving), regards it as one of the pictures which has most contributed to David's reputation; as in the collection of Micault de Courbeton, brother-in-law of M. Trudaine [thus Charles-Louis Trudaine de Montigny], for whom it was painted; notes that it is being engraved by Massard père.The Historic Gallery of Portraits and Paintings, or, Biographical Review . London, 1807, vol. 1, pp. 255–56, ill. opp. p. 255 (W. Cooke's engraving) [a paraphrase or translation of Ref. Landon 1803].Le Pausanias français, ou description du salon de 1806 . 2nd ed. [1st ed. 1806]. Paris, 1808, pp. 155–56, admires it as one of David's masterpieces; states that the artist told him that the pose of the grief-stricken Crito (seated on stool) was based on the position assumed by Uncle Harlowe during the reading of Clarissa's will in Richardson's novel Clarissa.The Life of George Romney, Esq. London, 1809, p. 149, states that when he and Romney saw this picture during a trip to Paris in 1790 it "imprest us with considerable respect for [David's] talents".Examen moral des principaux tableaux de la galerie du Luxembourg en 1818, et considerations sur l'état actuel de la peinture en France . [probably 1818] [cited in Ref. Saunier 1913, p. 380 n. 1, and Ref. Hautecoeur 1954, pp. 93–94], mentions it in his discussion of the importance of the moral aspect of art.Notice sur la vie et les ouvrages de M. J.-L. David . Paris, 1824, pp. 32–34, relates the anecdote that Napoleon tried to buy it from M. de Trudaine for 60,000 francs.Annuaire nécrologique, ou complément annuel . . . année 1825 . Paris, 1826, p. 135, as belonging to the marquis de Vérac.Vie de David . Paris, 1826, pp. 31, 129–30, 162, as belonging to the marquis de Vérac.Sur le but moral des arts . [1827?], pp. 2, 6, 10 [see Ref. Rosenthal 1900].Essai sur J. L. David, peintre d'histoire . . . Paris, 1827, pp. 19, 53 [see Refs. Blanc 1845 and Sterling 1955], observes that David included Plato in the scene of Socrates's death although actually he was not present due to illness; identifies the disciple who touches the master as Crito, and relates the anecdote about André Chénier suggesting the change in Socrates's gesture.Histoire des peintres français au dix-neuvième siècle . Paris, 1845, vol. 1, pp. 171–73, 203, 209, claims that David originally painted the picture with Socrates holding the cup offered him by his slave, but that André Chénier had said, "No, no, Socrates would not have taken the cup until he had finished speaking".Le corsaire-satan (January 21, 1846) [reprinted in Y.-G. Le Dantec and C. Pichois, eds., "Baudelaire: Oeuvres complètes," Paris, 1961, pp. 868–69], calls it an admirable composition which everyone knows, but which has a commonplace look reminding him of Duval-Lecamus, père [a pupil of David].Journal des artistes (January 11, 1846), pp. 9–10 [entire article; reprinted in "Le baron Taylor, l'association des artistes et l'exposition du Bazar Bonne-Nouvelle en 1846," Fondation Taylor, 1995, p. 169].Journal des débats (January 28, 1846) [reprinted in "Le baron Taylor, l'association des artistes et l'exposition du Bazar Bonne-Nouvelle en 1846," Fondation Taylor, 1995, pp. 237–38, 240], sees in this picture David's reaction to French rococo painters such as Boucher, Restout, and Natoire and his return to the study of antiquity and the works Le Sueur and Poussin.Le correspondant (1846) [reprinted in "Le baron Taylor, l'association des artistes et l'exposition du Bazar Bonne-Nouvelle en 1846," Fondation Taylor, 1995, pp. 277–78], comments on the animation of the figure of Socrates, but notes that later works by pupils of David, and by the master himself, reveal the difficulty one encounters giving the animation of life to borrowed statuary.Le constitutionnel (February 9, 1846) [reprinted in "Le baron Taylor, l'association des artistes et l'exposition du Bazar Bonne-Nouvelle en 1846," Fondation Taylor, 1995, pp. 206–8], notes that it continues the philosophical tradition in French art, of which Poussin is the best representative.Le constitutionnel (March 10, 1846) [reprinted in "Le baron Taylor, l'association des artistes et l'exposition du Bazar Bonne-Nouvelle en 1846," Fondation Taylor, 1995, pp. 222, 224], calls it an Apotheosis which impels the viewer to take the side of Socrates and of truth.Mémoires de David, peintre et député à la Convention . Paris, 1850, pp. 36, 100, 189, 232, asserts that David was careless in the preparation of his canvases, citing this picture as an example, painted "on red canvas, which later showed through a great deal"; states that when Napoleon tried to buy it the picture belonged to the heirs of the comte de Trudaine, and that the amount offered was 80,000 francs; adds that, not wanting to deprive the public, they agreed to exhibit it for a year or two.Lectures on the True, the Beautiful and the Good . New York, 1854, pp. 147–48.Revue des deux mondes , 2nd ser., 10 (May 15, 1855), pp. 752–53 [all or parts of this article appear to have been reprinted in Ref. Delaborde 1964], admires the "severe beauty and nobility of the composition" but finds the execution "heavy, cold, petty" and inferior to the artist's later works.Louis David, son école & son temps . Paris, 1855, pp. 119, 348–49, 399 [reprinted in "Louis David, son école & et (sic) son temps," Paris, 1983], as perhaps the most perfect composition ever conceived by David, superior to his "Oath of the Horatii"; notes that it was more admired by artists than by the public.Gazette des beaux-arts 7 (1860), pp. 291–92, describes it as David's compositional masterpiece; mentions drawings for the figures of the disciples in the Vinchon collection.Le mouvement moderne en peinture: Louis David . Paris, 1861, p. 10 [see Ref. Sterling 1955], analyzes and finds fault with this picture.Histoire des peintres de toutes les écoles: École française . 2, Paris, 1862, pp. 6–7, ill. p 13 ( the engraving by A. H. Cabasson and J. Quartley).La Peinture française au XIXe siècle: Les Chefs d'école . Paris, 1862, pp. 11–13, 29, calls it the principal work of David's "second manner"; finds some of the poses unnatural, in particular that of Socrates; emphasizes the reliance on antique sculpture.Revue universelle des arts 18 (1863–64), pp. 119–20.Revue universelle des arts 18 (1863–64), pp. 361–62, notes that it has been on view for some time at the Musée du Luxembourg.Études sur les beaux-arts en France et en Italie . Paris, 1864, vol. 2, pp. 181, 183 [?reprint of Ref. Delaborde 1855].Guide théorique et pratique de l'amateur de tableaux . 1, Paris, 1864, p. 385, lists it as belonging to the marquise de Vérac.Notice sur le Marat de Louis David suivie de la liste de ses tableaux dressée par lui-même . Paris, 1867, p. 35, as no. 26 in a list of works drawn up by the artist by 1819.Gazette des beaux-arts , 2nd ser., 10 (September 1874), pp. 200–202, ill. (engraving by Cabasson and Quartley), supposes that the painting of Socrates exhibited in Paris in 1874 was a second version of the subject in smaller format; claims that this smaller picture was lent by David to the Salon of 1791; comments that in spite of all kinds of literary and philosophical merits, it is a picture of extraordinary coldness, not among works responsible for the artist's growing public favor.Les amateurs d'autrefois . Paris, 1877, p. 419.Le peintre Louis David, 1748–1825 . 1, Paris, 1880, pp. 41–42, 45–51, 637, notes that the desire to win a complete victory over his rival Peyron, who had been commissioned to paint the same subject by the King [now Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen], induced David to push this painting to a degree of finish inappropriate to the subject; doubts that the gesture of Socrates was the idea of Chénier, noting David's habit of careful reflection over his compositions as well as the fact that the same gesture is found in Peyron's work [see Ref. Seznec, 1957, fig. 8]; publishes an appreciation of the picture sent to the artist by "Le Courier Anglais," and identified as by Sir Joshua Reynolds of the London Academy [but see Refs. Bordes 1991 and 1992]; states that it was commissioned by "M. de Trudaine, conseiller au Parlement et amateur éclairé"; publishes a poem of unknown authorship presented to Trudaine and celebrating this painting, as well as three letters from Drouais, in which the painting is mentioned; calls the disciple seated at the right Crito and the one on the left in profile Plato; observes that Socrates's family climbs the stairs in the background; gives wrong dimensions for the picture; extends the provenance.Histoire anecdotique des salons de peinture depuis 1673 . Paris, 1881, p. 102.Le peintre Louis David, 1748–1825 . 2, Paris, 1882, ill. (etching).La peinture française au XVIIe siècle et au XVIIIe . 2nd ed. Paris, [1900], p. 326.La peinture romantique . Paris, 1900, pp. 12, 102, stresses the importance of the 1826 exhibition at Galerie Le Brun as a retrospective emphasizing the strength of classicism against the new romanticism.Louis David . Paris, [1904], pp. 33–36, 44, 165, ill. opp. p. 30, compares it to Poussin's "Testament of Eudamidas" [Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen], but finds it lacks the humanity of the earlier work; mentions it with other works that David exhibited for the second time at the Salon of 1791 as paintings on which his political reputation was based; as in the Bianchi collection, engraved by Martini, Massard père, Landon, and Jules David.Louis David . Paris, 1904, p. 35.Rome et la renaissance de l'antiquité à la fin du XVIIIe siècle . Paris, 1912, p. 162, states that Socrates was copied from a Greco-Roman bust.Die Beinstellungen in der Kunstgeschichte . 1912, p. 67 [see Ref. Sterling 1955].Revue de l'art ancien et moderne 33 (May 1913), pp. 340–41, observes that the smallness of the execution, the puerility of intention, and the lustre of porcelain were criticized by amateurs at the Salon of 1787 and continue to offend today.Gazette des beaux-arts , 4th ser., 9 (May 1913), pp. 373, 380 [misnumbered 273, 280], describes it as "severe and purposefully cold, as it aspired to be a colored bas-relief," but notes that it did not seem so to David's disciples.Nicolas Poussin: Sein Werk und sein Leben . Munich, 1914, vol. 1, p. 302, sees details from Poussin's "Washing of the Feet" ["Penance," Duke of Sutherland, on loan to the National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh] in this picture and in Peyron's "Death of Socrates".L'art vivant 1 (December 15, 1925), p. 29.L'art vivant 1 (December 15, 1925), pp. 4–5.L'art vivant 1 (December 15, 1925), p. 22.Artists and Their Friends in England, 1700–1799 . London, 1928, vol. 1, p. 101 [see Refs. Lilley 1990 and Bordes 1991and 1992], reproduces a portion of the 1787 "Courier Anglais" article in English [see Ref. Boydell 1787] and identifies the source as the Paris correspondent of an unnamed London newspaper.Jacques Louis David and the French Revolution . New York, 1929, p. 14, observes that the composition is too studied and lacks feeling.Jacques-Louis David, 1748–1825 . Paris, 1930, pp. 24, 104, no. 52, pl. 18, mentions the first version of the composition as a drawing at the Musée Wicar at Lille but describes it erroneously, and also mentions studies at the museums at Tours and Narbonne; observes that although the picture was an immense success at the Salon of 1787, and can be compared with Poussin in its gravity and simplicity, it lacks his breadth of execution and the naturalism of his poses; states that M. Bianchi bought it for 17,600 francs, and that it currently belongs to the vicomtesse Fleury.Art Digest 5 (July 1, 1931), p. 11, ill.Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 26 (June 1931), pp. 140–44, ill., as completed within two years.Gazette des beaux-arts , 6th ser., 19 (1938), pp. 311–15, ill., as still in the collection of the vicomtesse de Fleury [or could this ill. be the smaller exact replica referred to in Ref. Sterling 1955?]; assumes that the picture was commissioned in March 1786 by Charles-Louis Trudaine de Montigny, "un des plus jeunes conseillers de Parlement"; publishes a hitherto unknown letter, dated April 8, 1786, written by Jean Felicissme Adry, confrère de l'Oratoire, who, at David's request, suggested the choice of Socrates's disciples and their attitudes, prescribing an immobile attitude for Plato, strong emotion for Crito, and agitated grief for Apollodorus [presumably far right]; notes that Adry also indicated models for the portraits of Socrates and Plato, as well as for the composition as a whole—reproducing an engraving after a Roman sarchophogus with the Death of Meleager (fig. 1) as an example.Revue archaeologique 12 (July–December 1938), p. 112, observes that the actual "Sarcophagus with the Death of Meleager" [see Ref. Bonnardet 1938] belongs to Villa Albani, Rome; notes that the engraving does not follow it closely and that David did not, in fact, follow its composition.David, son evolution et son style . Paris, 1940, pp. 50–51, 55, 117 nn. 41–43, p. 118 nn. 44–47, p. 126, fig. 9, erroneously publishes it as in the Detroit museum; describes it minutely, comparing the figures to antique statues; comments on Grautoff's [Ref. 1914] comparison of the composition to Poussin's "Washing of the Feet" [Penance], noting that David has not achieved Poussin's profundity or originality, but has appropriated the same artistic language; suggests the composition and the gestures of the disciples may have been inspired by Leonardo's Last Supper [Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan], and the gesture of Socrates by that of Zeus in Raphael's School of Athens [Vatican Museums, Rome]; mentions a wash drawing with the vicomtesse Fleury.Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 4 (1940–41), p. 133 n. 6, notes that Diderot wrote a pantomime of the "Death of Socrates".David . Monaco, 1943, pp. 8, 117, no. 41, ill.Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 6 (1943), pp. 223–24, discusses the "Courier Anglais" article mentioned in Ref. David 1880 and believes that it probably did not appear in the first edition of Reynolds' literary works (1797) because of hostility in England toward the Revolutionary David.Bulletin de la Société de l'Histoire de l'Art Français (1945–46), p. 179.Burlington Magazine 90 (October 1948), p. 279.Musées de France (November 1948), pp. 258–60, notes that it is signed twice.David . Exh. cat., Orangerie des Tuileries. [Paris], 1948, pp. 49–50, no. M.O. 21, states that an analagous composition is in the collection of the vicomtesse Fleury (referring to the ill. in Ref. Bonnardet 1938 [which may be the MMA painting]); provides detailed provenance; mentions two pencil studies of the figures at the right in the Narbonne museum; mentions a small lithograph by Julien Deltin.The Painter Jacques-Louis David . London, 1948, pp. 51, 72.David to Delacroix . New York, 1952, p. 17, fig. 4, as "'Socrates Drinking the Hemlock' . . . not a new subject, but one closely allied to the new neoclassic sentiment".Art Treasures of the Metropolitan: A Selection from the European and Asiatic Collections of The Metropolitan Museum of Art . Exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1952, p. 232, no. 139, colorpl. 139.David: Naissance du génie d'un peintre . [Monte Carlo?], 1953, pp. 42–43, 59–60, as commissioned by Trudaine de Montigny in 1786; reproduces a number of studies after classical monuments made by David in Rome, some of which were drawn upon for this painting.Louis David . Paris, 1954, pp. 90–96, 189, 219, 285, 291, 297, 301, cites other examples of this subject in French painting preceding David; notes that the gesture of Socrates, supposedly the idea of André Chénier, had existed in many earlier works [but does not cite them], and was also used by Peyron; adds that Trudaine owned a sketch (première pensée, 11 x 18 in.) for the picture that was "seized during the Revolution at the same time as the painting".Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 12, part 2 (January 1954), pp. 6, 45, ill.Gazette des beaux-arts , 6th ser., 45 (1955), p. 219.Gazette des beaux-arts , 6th ser., 45 (February 1955), pp. 103–4.The Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of French Paintings . 1, Cambridge, Mass., 1955, pp. 191–96, ill., claims that Charles-Michel Trudaine, rather than his older brother Charles-Louis, commissioned the painting, and believes it was commissioned in 1786; identifies the source as Plato's dialogue, the Phaedo; observes that the composition follows the tradition established in the preceding century by Poussin's "Death of Germanicus" (Minneapolis Institute of Arts) and his "Testament of Eudamidas" (Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen); notes that in 1795 the Committee of Public Instruction ordered an engraving of the picture as propaganda directed against Robespierre and his reign of terror; states that "a smaller but exact repetition belongs to the heirs of Viscountess de Fleury"; provides extensive bibliography and provenance.Essais sur Diderot et l'antiquité . Oxford, 1957, pp. 19–20, fig. 9, traces the history of this subject in the literature and painting of the eighteenth century, illustrating numerous examples and noting that the subject was chosen for the Prix de Rome competition in 1762; also remarks that both David and Peyron represent the moment from a tableau conceived by Diderot in his "Traité de la poésie dramatique" of 1758; publishes excerpts from the "Traité," including one in which Diderot mentions the suffering of the mother and daughter in Poussin's "Testament of Eudamidas" as having just the right quality of pathos for mourners at Socrates bedside; calls the MMA picture the perfect illustration of Diderot's theory of pantomime applied to painting.Apollo 68 (September 1958), pp. 71–72, finds Peyron's Socrates "actually a better composition than that of David" but observes that David has a sense of theatre and a commitment to the events of his age that his predecessors and followers lacked.Death of the Hero: French Painting from David to Delacroix . London, 1960, pp. 55–57, 61, fig. 2, states that the figure of Plato is based on a beggar sketched by David in Rome, but does not give the present whereabouts of the sketch.Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 40 (1962), pp. 90–111, ill. opp. p. 100, discusses other painted versions of this subject; compares the MMA picture with the description of Socrates's death in Plato's "Phaedo", observing that David follows the details of the setting as faithfully as possible but takes some liberties with the characters.L'Oeil no. 124 (April 1965), p. 59, fig. 16.Stil und Überlieferung in der Kunst des Abendlandes . Berlin, 1967, vol. 1, p. 189, pl. I/45, states that iconographically the subject goes back no further than Diderot and that formally it has its origins in Poussin's "Sacraments"; observes that "the sacrifice, as David paints it, is not so much stoical as eucharistic" and notes that there are even twelve disciples present; sees in it "a shade of that dislocated piety that can be felt so strongly in Greuze and Diderot".Transformations in Late Eighteenth Century Art . Princeton, 1967, pp. 73–76, 103, 125–26, fig. 74, discusses the history of the subject; notes that the combination of archaeological realism with the realism of "flesh, wood, cloth, hair" distinguishes David's vision of antiquity from Poussin's.Neo-classicism . Baltimore, 1968, p. 72.A History of Art and Music . Englewood Cliffs, N.J., [1968], pp. 158–59, fig. 202, find it "more 'Poussiniste' than Poussin himself," with the lighting and realistic detail derived from Caravaggio; remark [following Ref. Brookner 1967] that Socrates is shown not only as an "example of Ancient Virtue," but also as a Christ-like figure.Merchants and Masterpieces: The Story of The Metropolitan Museum of Art . New York, 1970, p. 224 [rev., enl. ed., 1989].The Attainment of Delacroix . Baltimore, [1970], p. 202, ill.Art and Artists 7 (November 1972), pp. 28–29, ill.David, Voltaire, 'Brutus' and the French Revolution: An Essay in Art and Politics . New York, 1972, pp. 39, 48, 68, describes it as "another piece [the first being The Horatii] of individual heroism for an abstract cause," and suggests that the frieze-like arrangement of the figures against broad planes of architecture—seen here and in David's Horatii and Brutus—was inspired by the paintings of Herculaneum and Pompeii, "which had created such excitement in his generation".Country Life 152 (September 7, 1972), p. 569, ill.in The Age of Neo-Classicism . Exh. cat., Royal Academy of Arts. [London], 1972, pp. xxvi, 41–42, 44, no. 63, pl. 2.Antiques 102 (September 1972), p. 338, ill.The Life and Art of Henry Fuseli . New York, 1972, p. 90.Dessins français du Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: De David à Picasso . Exh. cat., Musée du Louvre. [Paris], 1973, p. 31, discuss studies for this painting in the entry for the drawing for the figure of Crito (MMA 61.161.1).Jacques-Louis David jugé par ses contemporains et par la postérité . Paris, 1973, pp. 24–25, 28–30, 33, 46, 54–55, 80–82, 85 n. 58, pp. 87, 88 n. 11, pp. 94, 106, 108, 149 n. 54, pp. 150, 245, cites early references.Documents complémentaires au catalogue de l'oeuvre de Louis David . [Paris], [1973], document nos. 162, 180, 188–89, 191–92, 195, 303, 327, 352, 1165, 1167, 1543, 1810, 1929, 1931, 1938, 2039, 2049 (20), 2062 (97), 2080; and for the print nos. 2041 (46), 2062 (127), 2073; five sketches for the drapery, no. 2062 (97).Jacques-Louis David: A Personal Interpretation . London, 1974, pp. 8, 11–14, pl. 1b, notes that Diderot described the ideal staging of the last tableau of Socrates's drama in his "Traité de la poésie dramatique" of 1758, and that "it was a recognized exercise of 18th-century painters to try and match Diderot's text"; stresses the picture's "eucharistic . . . flavor".The Artist and the Writer in France: Essays in Honour of Jean Seznec . Oxford, 1974, p. 67 n. 59, observes that David studied Moreau-le-Jeune's engraving of the subject, dated 1785, for Voltaire's "Socrate" [see Ref. Oberreuter-Kronabel 1986, pl. 2].Revue du Louvre et des musées de France 24 (1974), pp. 433, 435, ill.Bulletin de la Société de l'Histoire de l'Art Français (1974), pp. 235–37, publishes the Peyron "Socrates" of 1787 (then in the Moltke collection, Copenhagen; now Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen), calling it a sketch for a painting of the subject commissioned by Louis XVI.Dix-huitième siècle no. 6 (1974), pp. 335, 337, 339–40 [reprinted in "Stanislas Kostka Potocki, David, et le Salon de 1787 . . . ," Antemurale 24 (1980), pp. 13, 16, 20, 45 n. 60, p. 49 nn. 89–92, p. 50 nn. 93–98, ill. p. 54], identifies the author of the "Lettre" as Count Stanislas Kostka Potocki.Sacrifice of the Hero: The Roman Years. A Classical Frieze by Jacques Louis David . Sacramento, 1975, p. 110 n. 88.The Age of Louis XV: French Painting, 1710–1774 . Exh. cat., Toledo Museum of Art. [Toledo], 1975, p. 33.in French Painting, 1774–1830: The Age of Revolution . Exh. cat., Detroit Institute of Arts. Detroit, 1975, pp. 41–42, 367–68, 562, no. 32, ill. p. 82 [French ed., De David à Delacroix: La peinture française de 1774 à 1830, 1974, pp. 42–43, 367–68, 555, no. 32, pl. 36], gives a detailed list of related works.in The Eye of Th. Jefferson . Exh. cat., National Gallery of Art. Washington, 1976, pp. xxviii, 154, 190, 377, no. 331, ill. (color).La Relève de l'imaginaire. La Peinture française au XIXe siècle: Réalisme, romantisme . Paris, 1976, pp. 71, 73, 120.in René Huyghe. La Relève de l'imaginaire. La Peinture française au XIXe siècle: Réalisme, romantisme . Paris, 1976, p. 447.Aspects of "Official" Painting and Philosophic Art, 1789–1799 . New York, 1976, pp. 18, 22–23, 35, 53–54, 121, 144, pl. 2.Art Bulletin 59 (June 1977), pp. 289, 291, sees David's history paintings of the 1780s—in particular his Horatii, Socrates, and Brutus—as exemplifying extreme states of absorption in an action or state of mind, as well as pictorial autonomy from the world of the viewer; believes that by the mid-1790s David had come to feel that these pictures had "overshot the mark" and drew back from such theatrical extremes.Thoré-Bürger and the Art of the Past . New York, 1977, p. 125.Art History 1 (December 1978), pp. 429–30.Girodet-Trioson: An Iconographical Study . New York, 1978, pp. 8, 35–36, 70, states, without providing evidence, that Girodet helped David paint some of the figures in the background.Gazette des beaux-arts , 6th ser., 91 (May–June 1978), pp. 202–6, fig. 1, discusses as David's point of departure for this picture a painting of the Death of Socrates by a seventeenth-century Caravaggisti in Rome (fig. 2, Giustiniani collection, Rome, until 1812; later Kaiser Friedrich Museum, destroyed in World War II ["attributed to J. Sustermans" according to Ref. Rosenberg, 1983]); publishes a drawing after the Giustiniani picture (fig. 3, in an album of David's drawings, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm), as "Attributed to David" and almost certainly bound into this album before he painted his Death of Socrates.American Artist 43 (September 1979), pp. 64–65, ill. (black and white and color), analyzes the composition.Jacques-Louis David . New York, 1980, pp. 29, 44, 46, 79–80, 82–86, 90, 99, 103, 112, 135, 167–68, fig. 43, erroneously states that Peyron painted a Death of Socrates for d'Angiviller in 1780.Absorption and Theatricality: Painting and Beholder in the Age of Diderot . Berkeley, 1980, pp. 136, 157, 160, 193 n. 81, p. 232 n. 60, p. 239 n. 102, p. 240 n. 108, comments on the use of off-center perspective [the deep tunnel depicted at the left] and the "translation of the principal action away from the main axis (that of the vanishing point) as a means of retarding the viewer's grasp of what is taking place and thereby heightening the dramatic impact of the composition".The Metropolitan Museum of Art . New York, 1980, pp. 385, 387–88, fig. 693 (color).Bulletin de la Société de l'Histoire de l'Art Français (1981), pp. 179, 181–84, fig. 8, nn. 19–21, publishes as fig. 7 an 1844 lithograph (Musée des Beaux-Arts, Rennes) by David's pupil Jean-Baptiste Debret after a lost preparatory study by David for this painting, calling it the first known study to handle the composition in its entirety.Word and Image: French Painting of the Ancien Régime . Cambridge, 1981, pp. 205, 226, 233–35, 240, fig. 78, points out that Socrates was a polemical figure in Enlightenment France, raising the question of whether a high standard of morality could be achieved outside Christianity; notes that the coexistance in this picture of eucharistic symbolism with pagan stoicism creates an ambiguous moral message.Painting in Eighteenth-Century France . Oxford, 1981, pp. 107–8, ill.Art in America 69 (September 1981), p. 168.Kunstmuseets Årsskrift 1977–1980 (1981), pp. 21–27, 30 nn. 31, 44 [apparent translation into Danish of article by Meir Stein in the Bulletin de la Société de l'Histoire de l'Art Français; also published as a chapter in "Idé og form i fransk kunst: Fra Barok til impressionisme, Copenhagen, 1981].David . English ed. [French ed. 1980]. New York, 1982, pp. 59, 72, 77, 80–84, 86, 100–101, 130, 174, fig. 39, notes that d'Angiviller commissioned a Death of Socrates from Peyron in 1780; mentions sources for the MMA picture in the drawing after an anonymous Caravaggesque painting [David's album, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, see Ref. Nash 1978], as well as in a drawing in David's Berlin album [Kupferstichkabinett, inv. 79 d 30a, folio 23; ill. Ref. Oberreuter-Kronabel 1986, figs. 31–32], which he cites as a source for the gesture of Socrates.Le Serment du Jeu de Paume de Jacques-Louis David: Le peintre, son milieu et son temps de 1789 à 1792 . Paris, 1983, pp. 21–22, 95 n. 39, pp. 131–32, publishes the complete French text of Le Courier Anglais 1787 [see Ref. Boydell 1787]; states that Trudaine commissioned from David a Death of Socrates "dans les dimensions des toiles de Poussin".Pierre Peyron, 1744–1814 . Neuilly-sur-Seine, 1983, pp. 124–26, fig. 113, state that Trudaine "commissioned" this picture from David in March 1786 after the subjects of pictures commissioned by Louis XVI were already known; conclude that David suggested the subject to Trudaine and that in his rivalry with Peyron he put all his effort into the Socrates, completely neglecting a royal commission; cite contemporary criticism comparing the two paintings.Images of Man and Death . Cambridge, Mass., 1985, p. 102, fig. 157.Painters and Public Life in Eighteenth-Century Paris . New Haven, 1985, pp. 215–16, 243–47, ill., believes that the initiative for the choice of this subject came from David, who wished to "show that when appropriate . . . he could surpass Peyron effortlessly at the point of the latter's maximum strength"; describes David's "Paris and Helen" of 1788 (Louvre, Paris), as "a dramatic foil for the Socrates, underscoring the stoic virtues of the philosopher by pointedly juxtaposing them to an example of their absence".Jacques-Louis David . New York, 1985, pp. 24, 58, 60, 63, 68, 94, 106, 132, colorpl. 12.in 1770–1830: Autour du Néo-Classicisme en Belgique . Exh. cat., Musée Communal des Beaux-Arts d'Ixelles. [Brussels], 1985, p. 30.Der Tod des Philosophen: Zum Sinngehalt eines Sterbebildtypus der französischen Malerei in der zweiten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts . Munich, 1986, pp. 24, 27–28, 33, 60–84, 91–94, 142–43 nn. 195, 206, p. 144 nn. 109, 211, p. 146 nn. 230, 232–33, p. 147 n. 236, p. 148 nn. 266–67, p. 149 nn. 268–69, 285, ill. on cover (detail), discusses the composition and its development at length, including related works, possible influences, and studies by David; notes similarities, particularly in the pose of Socrates, to the engraving of the Death of Socrates by Moreau le jeune exhibited in the Salon of 1785; publishes part of an "inventaire des objets reservés pour la Nation" from the Trudaine residence [Paris, Archives Nationales, F17 1267 (T, No. 190)] where this picture is listed as no. 1, and no. 13 is a painted study for it: "La première pensée de la mort de Socrate. esquisse peinte composition de 9 figures. Sur toile, hauteur 11 pouces sur 18. De David..."; identifes and illustrates a Greek votive relief in the Vatican Museums (fig. 32) that was the source for the early drawing by David that inspired Socrates' gesture [see Ref. Schnapper 1982].A Social History of Modern Art . 1, Chicago, 1987, pp. 405, 407–11, 417, 430, ill.Art Bulletin 69 (March 1987), pp. 102–3, ill., observes that if "Paris and Helen" (Musée du Louvre, Paris) had "been completed, as anticipated, for the Salon of 1787, it would have hung as a pendant, and moral antithesis, to the stoic 'Death of Socrates'".L'art et la Révolution française, 1789–1804 . Neuchâtel, Switzerland, 1987, pp. 220–21, ill. (color).Burlington Magazine 129 (June 1987), p. 399, reviews Ref. Crow 1985.David . Paris, [1988], pp. 49, 52–53, ill. pp. 50–51 (color).Aux armes & aux arts!: Les arts de la Révolution, 1789–1799 . Paris, 1988, pp. 13, 15, 26, 36.Art Bulletin 70 (September 1988), p. 520.in Goya and the Spirit of Enlightenment . Exh. cat., Museo Nacional del Prado. Boston, 1988, p. lxxvii, fig. 1.David: L'art et le politique . Paris, 1988, pp. 44–47, 170, ill. (color, overall and details).in 1789: French Art During the Revolution . Exh. cat., Colnaghi. New York, 1989, p. 58, mentions the scroll and beakers on the floor as examples of David's equivocation in his grand manner canvases between formal abstraction and the detailed visual accuracy of northern genre painting.in La Révolution française et l'Europe, 1789–1799 . Exh. cat., Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais. Paris, 1989, p. 293, comments on the general preference for history subjects during the revolutionary period following the lead of David and mentions that there were numerous contemporary representations of the Death of Socrates.Les salons de peinture de la Révolution française, 1789–1799 . Paris, 1989, p. 174, ill. p. 175.Art Bulletin 71 (March 1989), p. 111.La vie et l'oeuvre de Jacques-Louis David . Paris, 1989, pp. 82, 84, ill. p. 85 (color).David: La terreur et la vertu . [Paris], 1989, pp. 32, 35, 139.David . Paris, 1989, pp. 20, 24, 26, ill.Jacques-Louis David, Revolutionary Artist: Art, Politics, and the French Revolution . Chapel Hill, 1989, pp. 19, 32, 34, 111, 123, 204, fig. 6, discusses the picture as a product of the philosophical atmosphere around the société Trudaine before the Revolution.in Jacques-Louis David, 1748–1825 . Exh. cat., Musée du Louvre. Paris, 1989, pp. 18–19, 21, 122–23, 160, 178–80, 186, 197–98, 329–30, 571–73, 577, 601, 635, fig. 44, publishes a newly discovered drawing signed and dated 1782 (no. 76, private collection), which he considers among David's first studies for the composition as a whole, and evidence that he attempted the subject before Trudaine's commission; observes that the surprising date is supported by the fact that the verso of the drawing depicts Horace and Camille in the same poses in which they appear in a 1781 wash drawing (cat. no. 52); notes that Debret's 1844 lithograph of the Socrates composition [see Ref. Bordes 1979] must have used the 1782 drawing as a model; doubts Korshak's [Refs. 1987 and 1988] association of this picture with David's "Paris and Helen".in 1789: French Art During the Revolution . Exh. cat., Colnaghi. New York, 1989, pp. 112, 114, 116–19, fig. 1, states that the Princeton replica was clearly made in David's shop and proposes Girodet as the copyist, noting that his departure for Rome in 1790 could explain the picture's abandonment; suggests the picture was made for someone in the circle of the Trudaine brothers.The Burlington Magazine 132 (February 1990), p. 154, claims that the signature and date of 1782 on the recently discovered drawing [see Ref. Schnapper 1989] are additions.Art in America 78 (May 1990), pp. 203, 259, states that the The Oath of the Horatii and the Death of Socrates "were performed on Oct. 31, 1789, at the Théâtre Ombres Chinoises in the Palais Royal in what contemporary accounts called parodies—a curious turn on their high seriousness".British Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies Bulletin no. 21 (Summer 1990), pp. 10–13, discusses the 1787 "Courier Anglais" article [see Ref. Boydell 1787]; doubts that the paragraph cited in Ref. Whitley 1928 is a translation; notes that the author of the article "may indeed prove to be a Reynolds but surely not Sir Joshua" [see Refs. Bordes 1991 and 1992].Lecture . October 28, 1991, observes that Sir Joshua Reynolds could not have traveled to Paris in 1787 as he was aged, ill, and nearly blind; suggests that the print dealer John Boydell, who was in Paris at this time, was the author of the praise-filled review, "The State of the Arts in Paris" [see Ref. Boydell 1787], and that it appeared in Journal of the World; also suggests that Reynolds translated the review and mailed it to David, and that the "Extray du couroir anglois" mentioned in the French manuscript can be understood as an "extract from the English press".The Loves of the Gods: Mythological Painting from Watteau to David . Exh. cat., Kimbell Art Museum. New York, 1992, pp. 509–10.Burlington Magazine 134 (August 1992), pp. 482, 484, 487, 490, ill., publishes the entire original text of the October 2, 1787 article in The World.Colnaghi in America: A Survey to Commemorate the First Decade of Colnaghi New York . New York, 1992, p. 33.Fragonard et le dessin français au XVIIIe siècle dans les collections du Petit Palais . Exh. cat., Petit Palais, Musée des Beaux Arts de la Ville de Paris. Paris, 1992, p. 100.Apollo 137 (May 1993), pp. 304, 306.David contre David . Paris, 1993, vol. 1, pp. 145, 151, fig. 65.David contre David . Paris, 1993, vol. 1, p. 343, fig. 65.David contre David . Paris, 1993, vol. 1, fig. 65; vol. 2, p. 722, sees a contrast of gender between the bearded Socrates (described as "masculine") and his young acolytes, in particular the clean-shaven young man who offers him the cup (described as "femininized").Apollo 137 (May 1993), pp. 307–8, 310–13, 315, ill. (color), attributes the October 2, 1787 article in The World to John Boydel [see Ref. Boydell 1787]l; reviews the circumstances within France and in David's workshop which caused David to cancel his plans to visit London with either the Socrates or the Horatii.David contre David . Paris, 1993, vol. 2, p. 854.David contre David . Paris, 1993, vol. 1, pp. 207–8, 211, 216, 223, fig. 65.David contre David . Paris, 1993, vol. 1, fig. 65; vol 2, pp. 938–39.David contre David . Paris, 1993, vol. 1, pp. 434, 436.David contre David . Paris, 1993, vol. 1, p. 50.Jacques-Louis David: Art in Metamorphosis . Princeton, 1993, pp. 66–68, 86, 97, fig. 37.David contre David . Paris, 1993, vol. 1, fig. 65; vol. 2, pp. 1095, 1100–06, 1110.David contre David . Paris, 1993, vol. 1, fig. 65; vol. 2, p. 904.David contre David . Paris, 1993, vol. 1, fig. 65; vol. 2, pp. 809, 812–13.Fifty Paintings, 1535–1825, to Celebrate Ten Years of Collaboration between The Matthiesen Gallery, London, and Stair Sainty Matthiesen, New York . London, 1993, pp. 186, 194.David contre David . Paris, 1993, vol. 2, p. 1132 n. 14.David contre David . Paris, 1993, vol. 1, p. 568.David contre David . Paris, 1993, vol. 1, fig. 65; vol. 2, pp. 649, 652.David contre David . Paris, 1993, vol. 1, fig. 65; vol. 2, p. 885, discusses the influence of the picture on the "Mort de Phocion" painted by David's pupil Georges Rouget.David contre David . Paris, 1993, vol. 1, p. 309.David contre David . Paris, 1993, vol. 1, fig. 65; vol. 2, p. 1085.David contre David . Paris, 1993, vol. 1, pp. 130, 137 n. 35.David contre David . Paris, 1993, vol. 2, pp. 915, 917.Femininity and Masculinity in Eighteenth-Century Art and Culture . Manchester, 1994, pp. 205, 211–13, 217, n. 18, fig. 35, identifies this painting as one in which Greek same-sex "eros" is central; describes it as a tribute to "one ideal of leisured, disinterested masculine fellowship," and links this ideal to the environment in David's studio in the 1780s.Emulation: Making Artists in Revolutionary France . New Haven, 1995, pp. 95–102, 108, 140, 183, 316 nn. 50, 54, colorpl. 72.in "La critique artistique devant l'exposition du Bazar Bonne-Nouvelle." Le baron Taylor, l'Association des artistes et l'exposition du Bazar Bonne-Nouvelle en 1846 . Paris, 1995, pp. 26, 29, ill. p. 43.New York Times (March 31, 1995), p. C27.Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und Allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft 40 (1995), pp. 249–71, fig. 1, analyzes it at length in comparison with Johannes Grützke's 1975 painting of the same subject.Art in America 84 (February 1996), pp. 25, 27, 29.Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 2 (1996), p. 275 n. 41.New York Times (January 5, 1996), p. C5.The Farewell of Telemachus and Eucharis . Los Angeles, 1997, pp. 10, 12, ill.Le sens du beau . Paris, 1998, ill. p. 88 (color).David et le néoclassicisme . Paris, 1998, pp. 73, 78; ill. in color pp. 76–77, describes it as a posthumous homage to Diderot.Our Homosocial Constitution: Some Sexual and Political Themes in Paintings Admired by the Founding Fathers . June 1999, pp. 3, 7, 12–13, 23 n. 49, 27 n. 90 [see http://www.andromeda.rutgers.edu/~hyde/homo.htm].David . London, 1999, pp. 70, 99–105, 108, 116, 144, 217, pl. 66–67 (color), describes the unfinished replica in Princeton as probably painted with Girodet's assistance.Figure and Fantasy in French Painting, 1650–1800 . Exh. cat., Berry-Hill Galleries. New York, 1999, p. 64, mentions it in a discussion of Peyron's painting of the subject from 1788 [now Joslyn Art Museum], which he sees as a response to David's picture as well as an evolution in Peyron's thinking.Jacques-Louis David and Jean-Louis Prieur: Revolutionary Artists . Albany, 2000, pp. 240–41.in "Terror and the 'Tabula Rasa': David's 'Marat' in its Pictorial Context." Jacques-Louis David's "Marat" . Cambridge, 2000, p. 84.Art Bulletin 82 (December 2000), p. 717 n. 12.in "La collezione Giustiniani tra Settecento e Ottocento: Fortuna e dispersione." Caravaggio e i Giustiniani: Toccar con mano una collezione del Seicento . Exh. cat., Palazzo Giustiniani. Milan, 2001, p. 117.in Final Moments: Peyron, David, and "The Death of Socrates" . Exh. cat.Omaha, 2001, pp. 20–25, 29, 31, 33, 35, 42, fig. 3, describes this picture's "'semaphoric' figures whose postures and gestures 'signal' emotions rather than enact them".in Final Moments: Peyron, David, and "The Death of Socrates" . Exh. cat.Omaha, 2001, pp. 5, 10–12, fig. 3.in "David e la collezione Giustiniani." Caravaggio e i Giustiniani: Toccar con mano una collezione del Seicento . Exh. cat., Palazzo Giustiniani. Milan, 2001, p. 104.Mélanges en hommage à Pierre Rosenberg: Peintures et dessins en France et en Italie, XVIIe–XVIIIe siècles . Paris, 2001, p. 401.L'invention de la critique d'art . Rennes, 2002, pp. 138–39, cites Cousin's comments [see Ref. 1854] as an example of precocious and refined art criticism.History and Theory 41 (December 2002), p. 24.Jacques-Louis David, 1748–1825: Catalogue raisonné des dessins . Milan, 2002, vol. 1, pp. 50, 67, 70–72, 79, 88, 97, 100–01, 109–10, 182, 226, 344, 429, 454, 560, 657, fig. 52b; vol. 2, pp. 756, 1173, 1191, 1214, 1221, discuss a large number of related drawings.Orages: Litterature et Culture [L'imaginaire du héros] 2 (2003), pp. 28, 34–36, 39–42, ill.La science et l'amour: Madame Lavoisier . Paris, 2004, p. 105.The French Portrait: Revolution to Restoration . Exh. cat., Smith College Museum of Art. Northampton, Mass., 2005, p. 53.in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: Chefs-d'œuvre de la peinture européenne . Exh. cat., Fondation Pierre Gianadda. Martigny, 2006, pp. 16–17 [Catalan ed., Barcelona, 2006, p. 17].Only in America: One Hundred Paintings in American Museums Unmatched in European Collections . Milan, 2006, pp. 17, 156, ill. (color).David after David: Essays on the Later Work . Williamstown, Mass., 2007, p. 21.in Laure Pellicer and Michel Hilaire. François-Xavier Fabre (1766–1837): De Florence à Montpellier . Exh. cat., Musée Fabre, Montpellier. Paris, 2008, p. 248–50, fig. 1 (color), includes it in his discussion of Fabre's 1802 painting of the same subject (Musée d'Art et d'Histoire, Geneva).Metropolitan Museum Journal 43 (2008), pp. 159, 164.Sparsae , hors série, no 4. (2009), p. 73.
Add to My Met Gallery
Print
List View
Enlarge
Zoom
