Jacques-Louis David
Self portrait of Jacques-Louis David, 1794, Musée du Louvre
Birth name	Jacques-Louis David
Born	(1748-08-30)30 August 1748 Paris, France
Died	29 December 1825(1825-12-29) (aged 77) Brussels, Netherlands
Nationality	France
Field	Painting, Drawing
Movement	Neoclassicism
Works	Oath of the Horatii (1784), The Death of Marat (1793)
Awards	Prix de Rome

Jacques-Louis David ( /ʒɒkˈlwiˈdɒvid/) (30 August 1748 – 29 December 1825) was an influential French painter in the Neoclassical style, considered to be the preeminent painter of the era. In the 1780s his cerebral brand of history painting marked a change in taste away from Rococo frivolity toward a classical austerity and severity, heightened feeling^[1] chiming with the moral climate of the final years of the Ancien Régime.

David later became an active supporter of the French Revolution and friend of Maximilien Robespierre (1758–1794), and was effectively a dictator of the arts under the French Republic. Imprisoned after Robespierre's fall from power, he aligned himself with yet another political regime upon his release, that of Napoleon I. It was at this time that he developed his Empire style, notable for its use of warm Venetian colours. David had a huge number of pupils, making him the strongest influence in French art of the early 19th century, especially academic Salon painting.

Early life[link]

Jacques-Louis David was born into a prosperous family in Paris on 30 August 1748. When he was about nine his father was killed in a duel and his mother left him with his prosperous architect uncles. They saw to it that he received an excellent education at the Collège des Quatre-Nations, but he was never a good student: he had a facial tumor that impeded his speech, and he was always preoccupied with drawing. He covered his notebooks with drawings, and he once said, "I was always hiding behind the instructor’s chair, drawing for the duration of the class". Soon, he desired to be a painter, but his uncles and mother wanted him to be an architect. He overcame the opposition, and went to learn from François Boucher (1703–1770), the leading painter of the time, who was also a distant relative. Boucher was a Rococo painter, but tastes were changing, and the fashion for Rococo was giving way to a more classical style. Boucher decided that instead of taking over David’s tutelage, he would send David to his friend Joseph-Marie Vien (1716–1809), a painter who embraced the classical reaction to Rococo. There David attended the Royal Academy, based in what is now the Louvre.

David attempted to win the Prix de Rome, an art scholarship to the French Academy in Rome, five times. At each failure he became increasingly frustrated with the Academy for denying him the prize, and this dissatisfaction sowed the seeds of a long-standing grudge against the institution. Once, he lost according to legend because he had not consulted Vien, one of the judges. Another time, he lost because a few other students had been competing for years, and Vien felt David's education could wait for these other mediocre painters. In protest, he attempted to starve himself to death. Finally, in 1774, David won the Prix de Rome. Normally, he would have had to attend another school before attending the Academy in Rome, but Vien's influence kept him out of it. He went to Italy with Vien in 1775, as Vien had been appointed director of the French Academy at Rome. While in Italy, David observed the Italian masterpieces and the ruins of ancient Rome. David filled twelve sketchbooks with material that he would derive from for the rest of his life. He met the influential early neoclassical painter Raphael Mengs (1728–1779), and through Mengs was introduced to the pathbreaking theories of art historian Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717–1768). While in Rome, he studied great masters, and came to favor above all others Raphael. In 1779, David was able to see the ruins of Pompeii, and was filled with wonder. After this, he sought to revolutionize the art world with the "eternal" concepts of classicism.

Early work[link]

Equestrian portrait of Stanisław Kostka Potocki (1781)

David's fellow students at the academy found him difficult to get along with, but they recognized his genius. David was allowed to stay at the French Academy in Rome for an extra year, but after 5 years in Rome, he returned to Paris. There, he found people ready to use their influence for him, and he was made a member of the Royal Academy. He sent the Academy two paintings, and both were included in the Salon of 1781, a high honor. He was praised by his famous contemporary painters, but the administration of the Royal Academy was very hostile to this young upstart. After the Salon, the King granted David lodging in the Louvre, an ancient and much desired privilege of great artists. When the contractor of the King's buildings, M. Pécoul, was arranging with David, he asked the artist to marry his daughter, Marguerite Charlotte. This marriage brought him money and eventually four children. David had his own pupils, about 40 to 50, and was commissioned by the government to paint "Horace defended by his Father", but he soon decided, "Only in Rome can I paint Romans." His father-in-law provided the money he needed for the trip, and David headed for Rome with his wife and three of his students, one of whom, Jean-Germain Drouais (1763–1788), was the Prix de Rome winner of that year.

In Rome, David painted his famous Oath of the Horatii, 1784. In this piece, the artist references Enlightenment values while alluding to Rousseau’s social contract. The republican ideal of the general will becomes the focus of the painting with all three sons positioned in compliance with the father. The Oath between the characters can be read as an act of unification of men to the binding of the state.^[2] The issue of gender roles also becomes apparent in this piece, as the women in Horatii greatly contrast the group of brothers. David depicts the father with his back to the women, shutting them out of the oath making ritual; they also appear to be smaller in scale than the male figures.^[3] The masculine virility and discipline displayed by the men’s rigid and confident stances is also severely contrasted to the slouching, swooning female softness created in the other half of the composition.^[4] Here we see the clear division of male-female attributes which confined the sexes to specific roles, under Rousseau’s popular doctrines.

Oath of the Horatii (1784)

These revolutionary ideals are also apparent in the Distribution of Eagles. While Oath of the Horatii and Oath of the Tennis Court stress the importance of masculine self-sacrifice for one's country and patriotism, the Distribution of Eagles would ask for self-sacrifice for one's Emperor (Napoleon) and the importance of battlefield glory.

In 1787, David did not become the Director of the French Academy in Rome, which was a position he wanted dearly. The Count in charge of the appointments said David was too young, but said he would support him in 6 to 12 years. This situation would be one of many that would cause him to lash out at the Academy in years to come.

The Death of Socrates (1787)

For the salon of 1787, David exhibited his famous Death of Socrates. "Condemned to death, Socrates, strong, calm and at peace, discusses the immortality of the soul. Surrounded by Crito, his grieving friends and students, he is teaching, philosophizing, and in fact, thanking the God of Health, Asclepius, for the hemlock brew which will ensure a peaceful death... The wife of Socrates can be seen grieving alone outside the chamber, dismissed for her weakness. Plato is depicted as an old man seated at the end of the bed." Critics compared the Socrates with Michelangelo’s Sistine Ceiling and Raphael's Stanze, and one, after ten visits to the Salon, described it as "in every sense perfect". Denis Diderot said it looked like he copied it from some ancient bas-relief. The painting was very much in tune with the political climate at the time. For this painting, David was not honored by a royal "works of encouragement".

The Lictors Bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons (1789)

For his next painting, David created The Lictors Bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons. The work had tremendous appeal for the time. Before the opening of the Salon, the French Revolution had begun. The National Assembly had been established, and the Bastille had fallen. The royal court did not want propaganda agitating the people, so all paintings had to be checked before being hung. David’s portrait of Lavoisier, who was a chemist and physicist as well as an active member of the Jacobin party, was banned by the authorities for such reasons.^[5] When the newspapers reported that the government had not allowed the showing of The Lictors Bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons, the people were outraged, and the royals were forced to give in. The painting was hung in the exhibition, protected by art students. The painting depicts Lucius Junius Brutus, the Roman leader, grieving for his sons. Brutus's sons had attempted to overthrow the government and restore the monarchy, so the father ordered their death to maintain the republic. Thus, Brutus was the heroic defender of the republic, at the cost of his own family. On the right, the Mother holds her two daughters, and the nurse is seen on the far right, in anguish. Brutus sits on the left, alone, brooding, seemingly dismissing the dead bodies of his sons. Knowing what he did was best for his country, but the tense posture of his feet and toes reveals his inner turmoil. The whole painting was a Republican symbol, and obviously had immense meaning during these times in France.

The French Revolution[link]

In the beginning, David was a supporter of the Revolution, a friend of Robespierre and a member of the Jacobin Club. While others were leaving the country for new and greater opportunities, David stayed to help destroy the old order; he was a regicide who voted in the National Convention for the Execution of Louis XVI. It is uncertain why he did this, as there were many more opportunities for him under the King than the new order; some people suggest David's love for the classical made him embrace everything about that period, including a republican government.

Others believed that they found the key to the artist's revolutionary career in his personality. Undoubtedly, David's artistic sensibility, mercurial temperament, volatile emotions, ardent enthusiasm, and fierce independence might have been expected to help turn him against the established order but they did not fully explain his devotion to the republican regime. Nor did the vague statements of those who insisted upon his "powerful ambition... and unusual energy of will” actually account for his revolutionary connections. Those who knew him maintained that "generous ardor", high-minded idealism and well-meaning, though sometimes fanatical, enthusiasm rather than selfishness and jealousy, motivated his activities during this period.

Soon, David turned his critical sights on Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture. This attack was probably caused primarily by the hypocrisy of the organization and their personal opposition against his work, as seen in previous episodes in David’s life. The Royal Academy was chock full of royalists, and David’s attempt to reform it did not go over well with the members. However, the deck was stacked against this symbol of the old regime, and the National Assembly ordered it to make changes to conform to the new constitution.

David then began work on something that would later hound him: propaganda for the new republic. David’s painting of Brutus was shown during the play Brutus, by the famous Frenchman, Voltaire. The people responded in an uproar of approval.

In 1789, Jacques-Louis David attempted to leave his artistic mark on the historical beginnings of the French Revolution with his painting of The Oath of the Tennis Court. David undertook this task not out of personal political conviction but rather because he was commissioned to do so. The painting was meant to commemorate the event of the same name but was never completed. A meeting of the Estates General was convened in May to address reforms of the monarchy. Dissent arose over whether the numerous members of the Third Estate would be counted by head or – following tradition – as one body. On June 17 the members of the Third Estate renamed themselves the National Assembly. The new assembly decided that each individual would be counted by head and the members alone would levy taxes. Shortly thereafter, on June 20, the National Assembly attempted to meet but the chamber doors were locked and guarded by soldiers of the monarchy. Members of the new National Assembly convened at a nearby tennis court and vowed they would not be disbanded until they had created a constitution. In 1789 this event was seen as a symbol of the national unity against the ancien regime. David was enlisted by the Society of Friends of the Constitution, the body that would eventually form the Jacobins, to enshrine this symbolic event.^[6]

This instance is notable in more ways than one because it eventually led David to finally become involved in politics as he joined the Jacobins. The picture was meant to be massive in scale; the figures in the foreground were meant to be life-sized portraits of the counterparts, including Jean-Sylvain Bailly, the President of the Constituent Assembly. Seeking additional funding, David turned to the Society of Friends of the Constitution. The funding for the project was to come from over three thousand subscribers hoping to receive a print of the image. However, when the funding was insufficient, the state ended up financing the project.^[7]

David set out in 1790, to transform the contemporary event into a major historical picture, which would appear at the Salon of 1791 as a large pen and ink drawing. As in the Oath of the Horatii, David represents the unity of men in the service of a patriotic ideal. In what was essentially an act of intellect and reason, David creates an air of drama in this work. The very power of the people appears to be “blowing” through the scene with the stormy weather, in a sense alluding to the storm that would be the revolution.

Symbolism in this work of art closely represents the revolutionary events taking place at the time. The figure in the middle is raising his right arm making the oath that they will never disband until they have reached their goal of creating a “constitution of the realm fixed upon solid foundations.”^[8] The importance of this symbol is highlighted by the fact that the crowd’s arms are angled to his hand forming a triangular shape. Additionally, the open space in the top half contrasted to the commotion in the lower half serves to emphasize the magnitude of the Tennis Court Oath.

Sketch by Jacques-Louis David of the Tennis Court Oath. David later became a deputy in the National Convention in 1792

In his attempt to depict political events of the Revolution in “real time,” David was venturing down a new and untrodden path in the art world. However, Thomas Crow argues that this path “proved to be less a way forward than a cul-de-sac for history painting.”^[6] Essentially, the history of the demise of David’s The Tennis Court Oath illustrates the difficulty of creating works of art that portray current and controversial political occurrences. Political circumstances in France proved too volatile to allow the completion of the painting. The unity that was to be symbolized in The Tennis Court Oath no longer existed in radicalized 1792. The National Assembly had split between conservatives and radical Jacobins, both vying for political power. By 1792 there was no longer consensus that all the revolutionaries at the tennis court were “heroes.” A sizeable number of the heroes of 1789 had become the villains of 1792. In this unstable political climate David’s work remained unfinished. With only a few nude figures sketched onto the massive canvas, David abandoned The Oath of the Tennis Court. To have completed it would have been politically unsound. After this incident, when David attempted to make a political statement in his paintings, he returned to the less politically charged use of metaphor to convey his message.

When Voltaire died in 1778, the church denied him a church burial, and his body was interred near a monastery. A year later, Voltaire’s old friends began a campaign to have his body buried in the Panthéon, as church property had been confiscated by the French Government. In 1791 David was appointed to head the organizing committee for the ceremony, a parade through the streets of Paris to the Panthéon. Despite rain, and opposition from conservatives based on the amount of money that was being spent, the procession went ahead. Up to 100,000 people watched the "Father of the Revolution" be carried to his resting place. This was the first of many large festivals organized by David for the republic. He went on to organize festivals for martyrs that died fighting royalists. These funerals echoed the religious festivals of the pagan Greeks and Romans and are seen by many as Saturnalian.

Republican costume designed by David. Engraving by Denon.

David incorporated many revolutionary symbols into these theatrical performances and orchestrated ceremonial rituals; in effect radicalizing the applied arts, themselves. The most popular symbol David was responsible for as propaganda minister, was drawn from classical Greek images; changing and transforming them with contemporary politics. In an elaborate festival held on the anniversary of the revolt that brought the monarchy to its knees, David’s Hercules figure was revealed in a procession following the lady Liberty (Marianne). Liberty, the symbol of Enlightenment ideals was here being overturned by the Hercules symbol; that of strength and passion for the protection of the Republic against disunity and factionalism.^[9] In his speech during the procession, David “explicitly emphasized the opposition between people and monarchy; Hercules was chosen, after all, to make this opposition more evident”.^[10] It was the ideals that David linked to his Hercules that single-handedly transformed the figure from a sign of the old regime into a powerful new symbol of revolution. “David turned him into the representation of a collective, popular power. He took one of the favorite signs of monarchy and reproduced, elevated, and monumentalized it into the sign of its opposite.”^[11] Hercules, the image, became to the revolutionaries, something to rally around.

In June 1791, the King made an ill-fated attempt to flee the country (flight to Varennes), but was apprehended short of his goal on the Austrian Belgian border and was forced to return under guard to Paris. Louis XVI had made secret requests to Emperor Joseph II of Austria, Marie-Antoinette's brother, to restore him to his throne. This was granted and Austria threatened France if the royal couple were hurt. In reaction, the people arrested the King. This led to an Invasion after the trials and execution of Louis and Marie-Antoinette. The Bourbon monarchy was destroyed by the French people in 1792—it would be restored after Napoleon, then destroyed again with the Restoration of the House of Bonaparte. When the new National Convention held its first meeting, David was sitting with his friends Jean-Paul Marat and Robespierre. In the Convention, David soon earned a nickname "ferocious terrorist". Soon, Robespierre’s agents discovered a secret vault of the king’s proving he was trying to overthrow the government, and demanded his execution. The National Convention held the trial of Louis XVI and David voted for the death of the King, which caused his wife, a royalist, to divorce him.

When Louis XVI was executed on 21 January 1793, another man had already died as well — Louis Michel le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau. Le Peletier was killed on the preceding day by a royal bodyguard, in revenge for having voted the death of the King. David was called upon to organize a funeral, and he painted Le Peletier Assassinated. In it the assassin’s sword was seen hanging by a single strand of horsehair above Le Peletier's body, a concept inspired by the proverbial ancient tale of the sword of Damocles, which illustrated the insecurity of power and position. This underscored the courage displayed by Le Peletier and his companions in routing an oppressive king. The sword pierces a piece of paper on which is written ‘I vote the death of the tyrant’, and as a tribute at the bottom right of the picture David placed the inscription ‘David to Le Peletier. 20 January 1793’. The painting was later destroyed by Le Peletier's royalist daughter, and is known only by a drawing, an engraving, and contemporary accounts. Nevertheless, this work was important in David's career, because it was the first completed painting of the French Revolution, made in less than three months, and a work through which he initiated the regeneration process that would continue with The Death of Marat, David's masterpiece.

The Death of Marat (1793)

On 13 July 1793, David's friend Marat was assassinated by Charlotte Corday with a knife she had hidden in her clothing. She gained entrance to Marat's house on the pretense of presenting him a list of people who should be executed as enemies of France. Marat thanked her and said that they would be guillotined next week upon which Corday immediately fatally stabbed him. She was guillotined shortly thereafter. Corday was of an opposing political party, whose name can be seen in the note Marat holds in David's subsequent painting, The Death of Marat. Marat, a member of the National Assembly and a journalist, had a skin disease that caused him to itch horribly. The only relief he could get was in his bath over which he improvised a desk to write his list of suspect counter-revolutionaries who were to be quickly tried and, if convicted, guillotined. David once again organized a spectacular funeral, and Marat was buried in the Panthéon. Because Marat died in the bathtub, writing, David wanted to have his body submerged in the bathtub during the funeral procession. This did not play out because the body had begun to putrefy. Instead, Marat’s body was periodically sprinkled with water as the people came to see his corpse, complete with gaping wound. The Death of Marat, perhaps David's most famous painting, has been called the Pietà of the revolution. Upon presenting the painting to the convention, he said "Citizens, the people were again calling for their friend; their desolate voice was heard: David, take up your brushes.., avenge Marat... I heard the voice of the people. I obeyed." David had to work quickly, but the result was a simple and powerful image.

The Death of Marat, 1793, became the leading image of the Terror and immortalized both Marat, and David in the world of the revolution. This piece stands today as “a moving testimony to what can be achieved when an artist’s political convictions are directly manifested in his work".^[12] A political martyr was instantly created as David portrayed Marat with all the marks of the real murder, in a fashion which greatly resembles that of Christ or his disciples.^[13] The subject although realistically depicted remains lifeless in a rather supernatural composition. With the surrogate tombstone placed in front of him and the almost holy light cast upon the whole scene; alluding to an out of this world existence. “Atheists though they were, David and Marat, like so many other fervent social reformers of the modern world, seem to have created a new kind of religion.”^[14] At the very center of these beliefs, there stood the republic.

Marie Antoinette on the Way to the Guillotine, 16 October 1793

After executing the King, war broke out between the new Republic and virtually every major power in Europe. David, as a member of the Committee of General Security, contributed directly to the reign of Terror.^[15] The committee was severe. Marie Antoinette went to the guillotine; an event recorded in a famous sketch by David. Portable guillotines killed failed generals, aristocrats, priests and perceived enemies. David organized his last festival: the festival of the Supreme Being. Robespierre had realized what a tremendous propaganda tool these festivals were, and he decided to create a new religion, mixing moral ideas with the republic, based on the ideas of Rousseau, with Robespierre as the new high priest. This process had already begun by confiscating church lands and requiring priests to take an oath to the state. The festivals, called fêtes, would be the method of indoctrination. On the appointed day, 20 Prairial by the revolutionary calendar, Robespierre spoke, descended steps, and with a torch presented to him by David, incinerated a cardboard image symbolizing atheism, revealing an image of wisdom underneath. The festival hastened the "Incorruptible's" downfall.

Soon, the war began to go well; French troops marched across the southern half of the Netherlands (which would later become Belgium), and the emergency that had placed the Committee of Public Safety in control was no more. Then plotters seized Robespierre at the National Convention and he was later guillotined, in effect ending the reign of terror. As Robespierre was arrested, David yelled to his friend "if you drink hemlock, I shall drink it with you."^[16] After this, he supposedly fell ill, and did not attend the evening session because of "stomach pain", which saved him from being guillotined along with Robespierre. David was arrested and placed in prison. There he painted his own portrait, showing him much younger than he actually was, as well as that of his jailer.

Post-revolution[link]

After David’s wife visited him in jail, he conceived the idea of telling the story of the Sabine Women. The Sabine Women Enforcing Peace by Running between the Combatants, also called The Intervention of the Sabine Women is said to have been painted to honor his wife, with the theme being love prevailing over conflict. The painting was also seen as a plea for the people to reunite after the bloodshed of the revolution.^[17]

David conceived a new style for this painting, one which he called the "Grecian style," as opposed to the "Roman style" of his earlier historical paintings. The new style was influenced heavily by the work of art historian Johann Joachim Winkelmann. In David's words, “the most prominent general characteristics of the Greek masterpieces are a noble simplicity and silent greatness in pose as well as in expression.”^[18]

The Intervention of the Sabine Women (1799)

This work also brought him to the attention of Napoleon. The story for the painting is as follows: "The Romans have abducted the daughters of their neighbors, the Sabines. To avenge this abduction, the Sabines attacked Rome, although not immediately—since Hersilia, the daughter of Tatius, the leader of the Sabines, had been married to Romulus, the Roman leader, and then had two children by him in the interim. Here we see Hersilia between her father and husband as she adjures the warriors on both sides not to take wives away from their husbands or mothers away from their children. The other Sabine Women join in her exhortations." During this time, the martyrs of the revolution were taken from the Pantheon and buried in common ground, and revolutionary statues were destroyed. When he was finally released to the country, France had changed. His wife managed to get David released from prison, and he wrote letters to his former wife, and told her he never ceased loving her. He remarried her in 1796. Finally, wholly restored to his position, he retreated to his studio, took pupils and for the most part, retired from politics.

In August 1796, David and many other artists signed a petition orchestrated by Quatremère de Quincy which questioned the wisdom of the planned seizure of works of art from Rome. The Director Barras believed that David was "tricked" into signing, although one of David's students recalled that in 1798 his master lamented the fact that masterpieces had been imported from Italy.

Napoleon[link]

Napoleon at the Saint-Bernard Pass (1801)

In one of history's great coincidences, David's close association with the Committee of Public Safety during the Terror resulted in his signing of the death warrant for one Alexandre de Beauharnais, a minor noble. De Beauharnais's widow, Rose-Marie Josèphe de Tascher de Beauharnais would later be known to the world as Joséphine Bonaparte, Empress of the French. It was her coronation by her husband, Napoleon I, that David depicted so memorably in the Coronation of Napoleon and Josephine, 2 December 1804.

David had been an admirer of Napoleon from their first meeting, struck by the then-General Bonaparte's classical features. Requesting a sitting from the busy and impatient general, David was able to sketch Napoleon in 1797. David recorded the conqueror of Italy's face, but the full composition of General Bonaparte holding the peace treaty with Austria remains unfinished. Napoleon had high esteem for David, and asked him to accompany him to Egypt in 1798, but David refused, claiming he was too old for adventuring and sending instead his student, Antoine-Jean Gros.

After Napoleon's successful coup d'état in 1799, as First Consul he commissioned David to commemorate his daring crossing of the Alps. The crossing of the St. Bernard Pass had allowed the French to surprise the Austrian army and win victory at the Battle of Marengo on 14 June 1800. Although Napoleon had crossed the Alps on a mule, he requested that he be portrayed "calm upon a fiery steed". David complied with Napoleon Crossing the Saint-Bernard. After the proclamation of the Empire in 1804, David became the official court painter of the regime.

The Coronation of Napoleon, (1806).

One of the works David was commissioned for was The Coronation of Napoleon in Notre Dame. David was permitted to watch the event. He had plans of Notre Dame delivered and participants in the coronation came to his studio to pose individually, though never the Emperor (the only time David obtained a sitting from Napoleon had been in 1797). David did manage to get a private sitting with the Empress Josephine and Napoleon's sister, Caroline Murat, through the intervention of erstwhile art patron, Marshal Joachim Murat, the Emperor's brother-in-law. For his background, David had the choir of Notre Dame act as his fill-in characters. The Pope Pius VII came to sit for the painting, and actually blessed David. Napoleon came to see the painter, stared at the canvas for an hour and said "David, I salute you". David had to redo several parts of the painting because of Napoleon's various whims, and for this painting, David received only 24,000 Francs.

Exile and death[link]

Mars Being Disarmed by Venus and the Three Graces, David's last great work (1824)

On the Bourbons returning to power, David figured in the list of proscribed former revolutionaries and Bonapartists — for having voted execution for the deposed King Louis XVI; and for participating in the death of Louis XVII. Mistreated and starved, the imprisoned Louis XVII was forced to confess to incest with his mother, Queen Marie-Antoinette, (untrue; separated early, son and mother were disallowed communication, nevertheless, the allegation helped earn her the guillotine). The new Bourbon King, Louis XVIII, however, granted amnesty to David and even offered him the position of court painter. David refused, preferring self-exile in Brussels. There, he trained and influenced Brussels artists like François-Joseph Navez and Ignace Brice, painted Cupid and Psyche and quietly lived the remainder of his life with his wife (whom he had remarried). In that time, he painted smaller-scale mythological scenes, and portraits of citizens of Brussels and Napoleonic émigrés, such as the Baron Gerard.

David created his last great work, Mars Being Disarmed by Venus and the Three Graces, from 1822 to 1824. In December 1823, he wrote: "This is the last picture I want to paint, but I want to surpass myself in it. I will put the date of my seventy-five years on it and afterwards I will never again pick up my brush." The finished painting — evoking painted porcelain because of its limpid coloration — was exhibited first in Brussels, then in Paris, where his former students flocked to view it. The exhibition was profitable — 13,000 francs, after deducting operating costs, thus, more than 10,000 people visited and viewed the painting. In his later years, David remained in full command of his artistic faculties, even after a stroke in the spring of 1825 disfigured his face and slurred his speech. In June 1825, he resolved to embark on an improved version of his Anger of Achilles (also known as the Sacrifice of Iphigenie; the earlier version was completed in 1819 and is now in the collection of the Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas. David remarked to his friends who visited his studio "this [painting] is what is killing me" such was his determination to complete the work, but by October it must have already been well advanced as his former pupil Gros wrote to congratulate him, having heard reports of the painting's merits. By the time David died, the painting had been completed and the commissioner Ambroise Firmin-Didot brought it back to Paris to include it in the exhibition "Pour les grecs" that he had organised and which opened in Paris in April 1826.

When David was leaving a theater, a carriage struck him, and he later died, on 29 December 1825. At his death, some portraits were auctioned in Paris, they sold for little; the famous Death of Marat was exhibited in a secluded room, to avoid outraging public sensibilities. Disallowed return to France for burial, for having been a regicide of King Louis XVI, the body of the painter Jacques-Louis David was buried at Brussels Cemetery, while his heart was buried at Père Lachaise, Paris.

Medical analysis of his face[link]

Jacques-Louis David’s facial abnormalities were traditionally reported to be a consequence of a deep facial sword wound after a fencing incident. These left him with a noticeable asymmetry during facial expression and resulted in his difficulty in eating or speaking (he could not pronounce some consonants such as the letter 'r'). A sword scar wound on the left side of his face is present in his self-portrait and sculptures and corresponds to some of the buccal branches of the facial nerve. An injury to this nerve and its branches are likely to have resulted in the difficulties with his left facial movement.

Furthermore, as a result of this injury, he suffered from a growth on his face that biographers and art historians have defined as a “benign tumour” or “exostosis”. These however may have been a granuloma, or even a post-traumatic neuroma.^[19] As Simon Schama has pointed out, witty banter and public speaking ability were key aspects of the social culture of 18th century France. In light of these cultural keystones, David's tumor would have been a heavy obstacle in his social life.^[20] David was sometimes referred to as "David of the Tumor".^[21]

Portraiture[link]

In addition to his history paintings, David completed a number of privately commissioned portraits. Warren Roberts, among others, has pointed out the contrast between David's "public style" of painting, as shown in his history paintings, and his "private style", as shown in his portraits.^[22]

For example, in 1788, he painted a portrait of Antoine Lavoisier and his wife.

Antoine Lavoisier and his wife, (1788).

In the painting of Brutus (1789), the man and his wife are separated, both morally and physically. It was paintings like these, depicting the great strength of patriotic sacrifice, that made David a popular hero of the revolution.^[22]

In the Portrait of Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier and his wife the man and his wife are tied together in an intimate pose. She leans on his shoulder while he pauses from his work to look up at her. David casts them in a soft light, not in the sharp contrast of Brutus or of the Horatii. Also of interest – Lavoisier was a tax collector, as well as a famous chemist. Though he spent some of his money trying to clean up swamps and eradicate malaria, he was nonetheless sent to the guillotine during the Reign of Terror as an enemy of the people. David, then a powerful member of the National Assembly, stood idly by and watched.^[23]

Other portraits include paintings of his sister-in-law and her husband, Madame and Monsieur Seriziat. The picture of Monsieur Seriziat depicts a man of wealth, sitting comfortably with his horse-riding equipment. The picture of the Madame shows her wearing an unadorned white dress, holding her young child's hand as they lean against a bed.

Towards the end of David's life, he painted a portrait of his old friend, Abbé Sieyès. Both had been involved in the revolution, both had survived the purging of political radicals that followed the reign of terror.

Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès, 1817.

Shift in attitude[link]

The shift in David's perspective played an important role in the paintings of David's later life, including this one of Sieyès.^[24] During the height of the reign of terror, David was an ardent supporter of radicals such as Robespierre and Marat, and twice offered up his life in their defense. He organized revolutionary festivals and painted portraits of martyrs of the revolution, such as Lepeletier, who was assassinated for voting for the death of the king. David was an impassioned speaker at times in the National Assembly. In speaking to the Assembly about the young boy named Bara, another martyr of the revolution, David said, “O Bara! O Viala! The blood that you have spread still smokes; it rises toward Heaven and cries for vengeance.”^[25]

After Robespierre was sent to the guillotine, however, David was imprisoned and changed the attitude of his rhetoric. During his imprisonment he wrote many letters, pleading his innocence. In one, he apologized for his misconduct, writing, “I am prevented from returning to my atelier, which, alas, I should never have left. I believed that in accepting the most honorable position, but very difficult to fill, that of legislator, that a righteous heart would suffice, but I lacked the second quality, understanding.”^[26]

Later, while explaining his developing "Grecian style" for paintings such as The Intervention of the Sabine Women, David further commented on a shift in attitude: “In all human activity the violent and transitory develops first; repose and profundity appear last. The recognition of these latter qualities requires time; only great masters have them, while their pupils have access only to violent passions.”^[27]

Afterlife and legacy[link]

Jacques-Louis David was, in his time, regarded as the leading painter in France, and arguably all of Western Europe; many of the painters honored by the restored Bourbons following the French Revolution had been David's pupils.^[28] David's student Antoine-Jean Gros for example, was made a Baron and honored by Napoleon Bonaparte's court.^[28] Another pupil of David's, Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres became the most important artist of the restored Royal Academy and the figurehead of the Neoclassical school of art, engaging the increasingly popular Romantic school of art that was beginning to challenge Neoclassicism.^[28] To be one of David's students was considered prestigious and earned his students a lifetime of reputation.^[29]

Despite David's reputation, he was more fiercely criticized right after his death than at any point during his life. His style came under the most serious criticism for being static, rigid, and uniform throughout all his work. David's art was also attacked for being cold and lacking warmth.^[30] David, however, made his career precisely by challenging what he saw as the earlier rigidity and conformity of the French Royal Academy's approach to art.^[31] David's later works also reflect his growth in the development of the Empire style, notable for its dynamism and warm colors. It is likely that much of the criticism of David following his death came from David's opponents; during his lifetime David made a great many enemies with his competitive and arrogant personality as well as his role in the Terror.^[29] David sent many people to the guillotine and personally signed the death warrants for King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. One significant episode in David's political career that earned him a great deal of contempt was the execution of Emilie Chalgrin. A fellow painter Carle Vernet had approached David, who was on the Committee of Public Safety, requesting him to intervene on behalf of his sister, Chalgrin. She had been accused of crimes against the Republic, most notably possessing stolen items.^[32] David refused to intervene in her favor, and she was executed. Vernet blamed David for her death, and the episode followed him for the rest of his life and after.

In the last 50 years David has enjoyed a revival in popular favor and in 1948 his two-hundredth birthday was celebrated with an exhibition at the Musée de l'Orangerie in Paris and at Versailles showing his life's works.^[33] Following World War II, Jacques-Louis David was increasingly regarded as a symbol of French national pride and identity, as well as a vital force in the development of European and French art in the modern era.^[34]

Filmography[link]

Danton (Andrzej Wajda, France, 1982) – Historical drama. Many scenes include David as a silent character watching and drawing. The film focuses on the period of the Terror.

Gallery[link]

• 

  Belisarius (1781), Musée de Beaux Arts, Lille

• 

  Andromache mourns Hector (1783), Musée du Louvre, Paris

• 

  The Death of Socrates (1787), Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

• 

  Portrait of Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier and his wife (1788), Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

• 

  Paris and Helen (1788), Musée du Louvre, Paris (detail)

• 

  The Lictors Bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons (1789), Musée du Louvre, Paris

• 

  Portrait of Anne-Marie-Louise Thélusson, Comtesse de Sorcy (1790), Neue Pinakothek, Munich

• 

  The Death of Marat (1793), Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, Brussels

• 

  Portrait of Madame de Verninac), (1798–1799), born Henriette Delacroix, elder sister of Eugène Delacroix, Musée du Louvre, Paris

• 

  Madame Récamier (1800), Musée du Louvre, Paris

• 

  Portrait of Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres, or Portrait of Georges Rouget, 1800

• 

  Portrait of Pope Pius VII (1805), Musée du Louvre, Paris

• 

  The Coronation of Napoleon, (1806), Musée du Louvre, Paris

• 

  Full length portrait of Napoleon standing|Napoleon in His Study (1812), National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.

• 

  Marguerite-Charlotte David (1813), National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.

• 

  Leonidas at Thermopylae (1814), Musée du Louvre, Paris

• 

  Étienne-Maurice Gérard (1816), Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

• 

  The Comtesse Vilain XIIII and Her Daughter (1816), National Gallery, London

• 

  Cupid and Psyche (1817), Cleveland Museum of Art

• 

  The Anger of Achilles (1825), Private Collection

References and sources[link]

References

Sources

• Boime, Albert (1987), Social History of Modern Art: Art in the Age of Revolution, 1750-1800 volume 1, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-06332-1 
• Bordes, Philippe (1988), David, Paris, FRA: Hazan, ISBN 2-85025-173-9 
• Bordes, Philippe (2005), Jacques-Louis David: From Empire to Exile, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-10447-2 
• Brookner, Anita, Jacques-Louis David, Chatto & Windus (1980)
• Carlyle, Thomas (1860) [1837]. The French Revolution: A History. II. New York: Harper & Bros. OCLC 14208955. http://books.google.com/books?id=MUYQAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
• Chodorow, Stanley, et al. The Mainstream of Civilization. New York: The Harcourt Press (1994) pg. 594
• Crow, Thomas E. (1995), Emulation: Making Artists for Revolutionary France (1st ed.), New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-06093-9 
• Crow, Thomas E. (2007), "Patriotism and Virtue: David to the Young Ingres", in Eisenman, Stephen F., Nineteenth Century Art: A Critical History (3rd ed.), New York City, NY: Thames & Hudson, pp. 18–54, ISBN 0-500-28683-3 
• Delécluze, E., Louis David, son école et son temps, Paris, (1855) re-edition Macula (1983)
• Dowd, David, Pageant-Master of the Republic, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, (1948)
• Honour, Hugh (1977), Neo-Classicism, New York City, NY: Penguin Books, ISBN 0-14-013760-2 
• Hunt, Lynn (2004), Politics, Culture, and Class in the French Revolution, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-24156-8 
• Janson, Horst Waldemar; Rosenblum, Robert (1984), 19th-Century Art, New York City, NY: Harry Abrams, ISBN 0-13-622621-3 
• Johnson, Dorothy,Jacques-Louis David. New Perspectives, Newark (2006)
• Lajer-Burcharth, Ewa, Necklines. The art of Jacques-Louis David after the Terror, ed. Yale University Press, New Haven London (1999)
• Lee, Simon, David, Phaidon, London (1999). ISBN 0714838047
• Lévêque, Jean-Jacques, Jacques-Louis David édition Acr Paris (1989)
• Leymarie, Jean, French Painting, the 19th century, Cleveland (1962)
• Lindsay, Jack, Death of the Hero, London, Studio Books (1960)
• Malvone, Laura, L'Évènement politique en peinture. A propos du Marat de David in Mélanges de l'Ecole française de Rome. Italie et Méditerranée 106, 1 (1994)
• Michel, R. (ed), David contre David, actes du colloque au Louvre du 6-10 décembre 1989, Paris (1993)
• Monneret, Sophie Monneret, David et le néoclassicisme, ed. Terrail, Paris (1998)
• Noël, Bernard, David, éd. Flammarion, Paris (1989)
• Rosenblum, Robert (1969), Transformations in Late Eighteenth Century Art (1st paperback ed.), Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-00302-5 
• Roberts, Warren, Jacques-Louis David, Revolutionary Artist: Art, Politics, and the French Revolution, The University of North Carolina Press (February 1, 1992), ISBN 0-8078-4350-4
• Rosenberg, Pierre, Prat, Louis-Antoine, Jacques-Louis David 1748-1825. Catalogue raisonné des dessins, 2 volumes, éd. Leonardo Arte, Milan (2002)
• Rosenberg, Pierre, Peronnet, Benjamin, Un album inédit de David in Revue de l'art, n°142 (2003-4), pp. 45–83 (complete the previous reference)
• Sahut, Marie-Catherine & Régis Michel, David, l'art et le politique éditions Gallimard-Découvertes et RMN Paris (1988)
• Sainte-Fare Garnot, N., Jacques-Louis David 1748-1825, Paris, Ed. Chaudun (2005)
• Schnapper, Antoine, David témoin de son temps, Office du Livre, Fribourg, (1980)
• Thévoz, Michel, Le théâtre du crime. Essai sur la peinture de David, éd. de Minuit, Paris (1989)
• Vanden Berghe, Marc, Plesca, Ioana, Nouvelles perspectives sur la Mort de Marat: entre modèle jésuite et références mythologiques, Bruxelles (2004) / New Perspectives on David's Death of Marat, Brussels (2004) - online on www.art-chitecture.net/publications.php [1]
• Vanden Berghe, Marc, Plesca, Ioana, Lepelletier de Saint-Fargeau sur son lit de mort par Jacques-Louis David: saint Sébastien révolutionnaire, miroir multiréférencé de Rome, Brussels (2005) - online on www.art-chitecture.net/publications.php [2]
• Vaughan, William and Weston, Helen (eds),Jacques-Louis David’s Marat, Cambridge (2000)
• The Death of Socrates, accessed 29 June 2005. New York Med.
• Jacques-Louis David, on An Abridged History of Europe, accessed 29 June 2005
• J.L. David on CGFA, accessed 29 June 2005

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Jacques-Louis David

• A Closer Look at David's Consecration of Napoleon multimedia feature; Louvre museum official website
• The Intervention of the Sabines (Louvre museum)
• Web Gallery of Art
• www.jacqueslouisdavid.org 101 paintings by Jacques-Louis David
• Jacques-Louis David at Olga's Gallery
• Jacques-Louis David in the "History of Art"
• smARThistory: Death of Socrates
• Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute 2005 exhibition, Jacques-Louis David: Empire to Exile
• The equestrian portrait of Stanislaw Kostka Potocki at the Wilanow Palace Museum

v t e Jacques-Louis David Works The Death of Marat Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki Oath of the Horatii The Death of Socrates The Lictors Bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons The Intervention of the Sabine Women Napoleon at the Saint-Bernard Pass The Coronation of Napoleon Belisarius Begging for Alms Portrait of Madame Récamier Portrait of Pope Pius VII Leonidas at Thermopylae Napoleon in His Study Portrait of Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier and his wife Mars Being Disarmed by Venus Andromache Mourning Hector

King David
King of Israel
Statue of David by Nicolas Cordier, in the basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome
Reign	over Judah c. 1010–1003 BC; over Judah and Israel c. 1003–970 BC
Born	c. 1040 BC
Birthplace	Bethlehem
Died	c. 970 BC
Place of death	Jerusalem
Predecessor	Saul (Judah), Ishbaal (Israel)
Successor	Solomon
Royal House	House of David (new house)
Father	Jesse
Mother	not named in the Bible; identified by the Talmud as Nitzevet, daughter of Adael

David (Hebrew: דָּוִד, דָּוִיד, Modern David Tiberian Dāwîḏ; ISO 259-3 Dawid; Strong's Daveed; beloved; Arabic: داوود‎ or داود‎ ^[a] Dāwūd) was, according to the Hebrew Bible, the second king of the United Kingdom of Israel and, according to the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, an ancestor of Jesus. David is seen as a major Prophet in Islamic traditions. ^[1][2] His life is conventionally dated to c. 1040–970 BC, his reign over Judah c. 1010–1003 BC,^{[citation needed]} and his reign over the United Kingdom of Israel c. 1003–970 BC.^{[citation needed]} The Books of Samuel, 1 Kings, and 1 Chronicles are the only sources of information on David, although the Tel Dan stele records "House of David", which some take as confirmation of the existence in the mid-9th century BC of a Judean royal dynasty called the "House of David".

David is very important to Jewish, Christian and Islamic doctrine and culture. In Judaism, David, or David HaMelekh, is the King of Israel, and the Jewish people. Jewish tradition maintains that a direct descendant of David will be the Messiah. In Islam, he is known as Dawud, considered to be a prophet and the king of a nation. He is depicted as a righteous king, though not without faults, as well as an acclaimed warrior, musician, and poet, traditionally credited for composing many of the psalms contained in the Book of Psalms.

Historicity[link]

Archaeological evidence[link]

Tel Dan Stele and Mesha Stele[link]

The Tel Dan Stele.

A fragment of an Aramean victory stele discovered in 1993 at Tel Dan and dated c.850–835 BC contains the phrase ביתדוד (bytdwd). Because the ancient Aramaic script is written without vowels, different readings are possible. Scholars agree that the first part should be read בֵּית (beyt), meaning "house". However, the second part can be read as דּוֹד (dod), which means "uncle" or "beloved" or as דָּוִד (David). The phrase therefore can mean either "House of the beloved", "House of the uncle" or "House of David".^[3] Since the stele recounts the victory of an Aramean king over "the king of Israel",^[4] the translation of "ביתדוד" as "the House of David" is not illogical.^[5][6]

The Mesha Stele from Moab, dating from approximately the same period, may also contain the name David, in two places: in line 12, where the interpretation is uncertain, and בת[ד]וד in line 31, where one destroyed letter must be supplied (here it is bracketed in the middle).^[7] Kenneth Kitchen has proposed that an inscription of c. 945 BC by the Egyptian Pharaoh Shoshenq I mentions "the highlands of David."^[8] Although a reference to King David in this geographical name is not certain, some scholars suggest it is reasonable.^[9]

City of David and Judah, ca. 1000 BC onward[link]

Part of the Large Stone Structure thought by some archaeologists to be the remains of King David's Palace.

The Bronze and Iron Age remains of the City of David, the original urban core of Jerusalem identified with the reigns of David and Solomon, were investigated extensively in the 1970s and 1980s under the direction of Yigal Shiloh of the Hebrew University, but failed to discover significant evidence of occupation during the 10th century BC,^[10] In 2005, Eilat Mazar found a Large Stone Structure which she claimed was David's palace, but the archaeology is contaminated and impossible to date accurately.^[11][12] Finkelstein and Silberman feel the archaeological evidence from surface surveys indicates that Judah at the time of David was a small tribal kingdom, although both do accept that David and Solomon were likely historical figures in Judah about the 10th century BC. They describe the earliest tales of David as a "classical bandit tale".^[13]

The biblical account[link]

The biblical account about David comes from the book of Samuel and the book of Chronicles (each of which are divided into two books in Jewish and Christian traditions). While almost half of the Psalms are headed "A Psalm of David", the headings are later additions, and no psalm can be attributed to David with certainty.^[14] Chronicles merely retells Samuel from a different theological vantage point, and contains little if any information not available there, and the biblical evidence for David is therefore dependent almost exclusively on the material contained in the chapters from 1 Samuel 16 to 1 Kings 2.

Russian icon of St. David, the Prophet and King, 18th century (Iconostasis of Kizhi monastery, Karelia, Russia).

Since Martin Noth put forward his analysis of the Deuteronomistic History, biblical scholars have accepted that these two books form part of a continuous history of Israel, compiled no earlier than the late 7th century BC, but incorporating earlier works and fragments. Samuel's account of David "seems to have undergone two separate acts of editorial slanting." The original writers show a strong bias against Saul, and in favour of David and Solomon. Many years later the Deuteronomists edited the material in a manner that conveyed their religious message, inserting reports and anecdotes that strengthened their monotheistic doctrine. Some of the materials in Samuel I and II — notably the boundary, allotment and administrative lists — are believed to be very early, since they correspond closely to what we know of the territorial conditions of the late Davidic-early Solomonic period.^[15]

Beyond this, the full range of possible interpretations is available. The late John Bright, whose History of Israel, which went through four editions from 1959 to 2000, takes Samuel at face value, but Donald B. Redford thinks all reconstructions from Biblical sources for the United Monarchy period are examples of 'academic wishful thinking',^[16] and Thomas L. Thompson measures Samuel against the archaeological evidence and concludes that "an independent history of Judea during the Iron I [i.e., the period of David] and Iron II periods has little room for historicizing readings of the stories of I-II Samuel and I Kings."^[17] Some interesting studies of David have been written: Baruch Halpern has pictured David as a lifelong vassal of Achish, the Philistine king of Gath;^[18] Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman have identified as the oldest and most reliable section of Samuel those chapters which describe David as the charismatic leader of a band of outlaws who captures Jerusalem and makes it his capital.^[19] Steven McKenzie, Associate Professor of the Hebrew Bible at Rhodes College and author of King David: A Biography, states the belief that David actually came from a wealthy family, was "ambitious and ruthless" and a tyrant who murdered his opponents, including his own sons.^[14]

Biblical narrative[link]

Samuel anoints David, Dura Europos, Syria, Date: 3rd c. AD.

Chosen by God[link]

God withdraws his favour from Saul, king of Israel, "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king, for he is turned back from following me, and has not performed my commandments."^[20] The prophet Samuel seeks a new king from the sons of Jesse of Bethlehem. Seven of Jesse's sons are led before Samuel, but Samuel says, "Yahweh has not chosen these." "And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither. And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he."^[21]

At the court of Saul[link]

God sends an evil spirit to torment Saul (1 Samuel 16:14) and his attendants suggest he send for David, a young warrior famed for his bravery and for his skill with the harp. Saul does so and makes David one of his armor-bearers and "whenever the spirit from God came upon Saul, David would take his harp and play. Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him."

David and Goliath[link]

Young David holds the impaled head of the Philistine giant and marches in front of a general riding a white horse, most likely King Saul.

The Israelites, under King Saul, faced the Philistines in the Valley of Elah. He heard the Philistine giant Goliath challenge the Israelites to send their own champion to decide the outcome in single combat. David told Saul he was prepared to face Goliath and Saul allowed him to make the attempt. He was victorious, striking Goliath in the forehead with a stone from his sling. Goliath fell, and David killed him with his own sword and beheaded him; the Philistines fled in terror. Saul inquired about the name of the young champion, and David told him that he is the son of Jesse.^[22]

David and Jonathan[link]

Saul makes David a commander over his armies and offers him his daughter Michal in marriage for bringing more than 200 foreskins of the Philistines to him. David is successful in many battles, and his popularity awakes Saul's fears — "What more can he have but the kingdom?" By various stratagems the jealous king seeks his death, but the plots only endear David the more to the people, and especially to Saul's son Jonathan, who loves David (1 Samuel 18:1, 2 Samuel 1:25–26).^[23][24] Warned by Jonathan, David flees into the wilderness, where he gathers a band of followers and becomes the champion of the oppressed while evading the pursuit of Saul. He accepts the town of Ziklag from the Philistine king Achish of Gath, but continues secretly to champion the Israelites. Achish marches against Saul, but David is excused from the war on the accusation of the Philistine nobles that his loyalty to their cause cannot be trusted.

Anointed king[link]

Panorama of the Harod Valley below, part of the Jezreel- see Mount Gilboa.

Jonathan and Saul are killed in battle with the Philistines at Mount Gilboa. David mourns their deaths, especially that of Jonathan, his friend. He goes up to Hebron, where he is anointed king over Judah. In the north, Saul's son Ish-Bosheth becomes king of the tribes of Israel. War ensues between Ish-Bosheth and David, until Ish-Bosheth is murdered. The assassins bring the head of Ish-Bosheth to David hoping for a reward, but David executes them for their crime against the Lord's anointed. Yet with the death of the son of Saul, the elders of Israel come to Hebron and David, who is 30 years old, is anointed King over Israel and Judah.^[25]

Jerusalem and the Davidic Covenant[link]

David conquers the Jebusite fortress of Jerusalem, and makes it his capital, and "Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, also carpenters and masons who built David a house." David brings the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem, intending to build a temple, but God, speaking to the prophet Nathan, is pleased, saying the temple will be built. God makes a covenant with David, promising that he will establish the house of David : "Your throne shall be established forever."

With God's help, David is victorious over his people's enemies. The Philistines are subdued, the Moabites to the east pay tribute, along with Hadadezer of Zobah, from whom David takes gold shields and bronze vessels.^[26]

Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite[link]

David commits adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite.^[27] Bathsheba becomes pregnant. David sends for Uriah, who is with the Israelite army at the siege of Rabbah, so that he may lie with his wife and conceal the identity of the child's father. Uriah refuses to do so while his companions are in the field of battle and David sends him back to Joab, the commander, with a message instructing him to abandon Uriah on the battlefield, "that he may be struck down, and die." David marries Bathsheba and she bears his child, "but the thing that David had done displeased the Lord."^[28] The prophet Nathan confronts David, saying: "Why have you despised the word of God, to do what is evil in his sight? You have smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife." Nathan presents three punishments from God for this sin. First, that the "sword shall never depart from your house" (2 Samuel 12:10) second, that "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel., (2 Samuel 12:12) and finally, that "the son born to you will die."2 Samuel 12:14 David repents, yet God "struck the [David's] child ... and it became sick ... [And] on the seventh day the child died." David leaves his lamentations, dresses himself, goes to the House of the Lord and worships, and then returns home to eat. His servants ask why he wept when the baby was alive, but ends his mourning when the child dies. David replies: "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."2 Samuel 12:22–23

David's son Absalom rebels[link]

David's son Absalom rebels against his father, and they come to battle in the Wood of Ephraim. Absalom is caught by his hair in the branches of an oak and David’s general Joab kills him as he hangs there.^[29] When the news of the victory is brought to David, he does not rejoice, but is instead shaken with grief: "O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would I had died instead of you, O Absalom, my son, my son!"^[30]

Old age[link]

When David has become old and bedridden, Adonijah, his eldest surviving son and natural heir, declares himself king and worthy to marry Abishag. Bathsheba, David's favorite wife, and Nathan the prophet, fearing that they will be killed by Adonijah, go to David and procure his agreement that Solomon, Bathsheba's son, should sit on the throne. And so the plans of Adonijah collapse, and Solomon becomes king.^[31] It is to Solomon that David gives his final instructions, including his promise that the line of Solomon and David will inherit the throne of Judah forever, and his request that Solomon kill his oldest enemies on his behalf.^[32] David dies and is buried in the City of David, having ruled forty years over Israel, seven in Hebron and thirty-three in Jerusalem.

Religious view[link]

Judaism[link]

King David the Prophet
King David in Prayer, by Pieter de Grebber (c. 1640)
Holy Monarch, Prophet, Reformer, Spiritual Poet & Musician, Vicegerent of God, Psalm-Receiver
Born	c. 1040 B.C.E. Bethlehem
Died	c. 970 B.C.E. Jerusalem
Honored in	Judaism Christianity Islam
Attributes	Psalms, Harp, Head of Goliath

David is an important figure in Judaism. Historically, David's reign represented the formation of a coherent Jewish kingdom centered in Jerusalem. David is an important figure within the context of Jewish messianism. In the Hebrew Bible, it is written that a human descendant of David will occupy the throne of a restored kingdom and usher in a messianic age.

David is also viewed as a tragic figure; his acquisition of Bathsheba, and the loss of his son are viewed as his central tragedies.

Many legends have grown around the figure of David. According to one Rabbinic tradition, David was raised as the son of his father Jesse and spent his early years herding his father's sheep in the wilderness while his brothers were in school. Only at his anointing by Samuel – when the oil from Samuel's flask turned to diamonds and pearls – was his true identity as Jesse's son revealed.

David's adultery with Bathsheba was only an opportunity to demonstrate the power of repentance, and some Talmudic authors stated that it was not adultery at all, quoting a Jewish practice of divorce on the eve of battle. However, in tractate Sanhedrin, David's broken heart pleads and numerous actions for forgiveness are discussed, God ultimately forgives but would not remove his sins from Scripture.^[33]

Furthermore, according to David's apologists, the death of Uriah was not to be considered murder, on the basis that Uriah had committed a capital offence by refusing to obey a direct command from the King.^[34]

According to midrashim, Adam gave up 70 years of his life for the life of David.^[35] Also, according to the Talmud Yerushalmi, David was born and died on the Jewish holiday of Shavuot (Feast of Weeks). His piety was said to be so great that his prayers could bring down things from Heaven.

Christianity[link]

David and King Saul, by Rembrandt. David plays the lyre (depicted here as a harp) to the king "tormented by an evil spirit."

The concept of the Messiah is important in Christianity. Originally an earthly king ruling by divine appointment ("the anointed one", as the title Messiah had it), the "son of David" became in the last two pre-Christian centuries the apocalyptic and heavenly one who would deliver Israel and usher in a new kingdom. This was the background to the concept of Messiahship in early Christianity, which interpreted the career of Jesus "by means of the titles and functions assigned to David in the mysticism of the Zion cult, in which he served as priest-king and in which he was the mediator between God and man."^[36] The early Church believed that "the life of David [foreshadowed] the life of Christ; Bethlehem is the birthplace of both; the shepherd life of David points out Christ, the Good Shepherd; the five stones chosen to slay Goliath are typical of the five wounds; the betrayal by his trusted counsellor, Achitophel, and the passage over the Cedron remind us of Christ's Sacred Passion. Many of the Davidic Psalms, as we learn from the New Testament, are clearly typical of the future Messiah."^[37] In the Middle Ages, "Charlemagne thought of himself, and was viewed by his court scholars, as a 'new David'. [This was] not in itself a new idea, but [one whose] content and significance were greatly enlarged by him."^[38] The linking of David to earthly kingship was reflected in later Medieval cathedral windows all over Europe through the device of the Tree of Jesse, its branches demonstrating how divine kingship descended from Jesse, through his son David, to Jesus.

Western Rite churches (Roman Catholic, Lutheran) celebrate his feast day on 29 December, Eastern-rite on 19 December.^[39] The Eastern Orthodox Church and Eastern Catholic Churches celebrate the feast day of the "Holy Righteous Prophet and King David" on the Sunday of the Holy Forefathers (two Sundays before the Great Feast of the Nativity of the Lord), when he is commemorated together with other ancestors of Jesus. He is also commemorated on the Sunday after the Nativity, together with Joseph and James, the Brother of the Lord.

Mormonism[link]

The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cites David as one directed by God to practice polygamy, but who sinned in committing adultery with Bathsheba and having Uriah killed.^[40]

Islam[link]

Main article Islamic view of David

David (Arabic داود, Dāwūd) is a highly important figure in Islam as one of the major prophets sent by God to guide the Israelites. David is mentioned several times in the Qur'an, often with his son Solomon. In the Qur'an: David killed Goliath (II: 251), Goliath was a powerful king who used to invade random kingdoms and villages. Goliath was spreading evil and corruption. When David killed Goliath, God granted him kingship and wisdom and enforces it (XXXVIII: 20). David is made God's "vicegerent on earth" (XXXVIII: 26) and God further gives David sound judgment (XXI: 78; XXXVII: 21–24, 26) as well as the Psalms, which are regarded as books of divine wisdom (IV: 163; XVII, 55). The birds and mountains unite with David in ushering praise to God (XXI: 79; XXXIV: 10; XXXVIII: 18), while God instructs David in the art of fashioning chain-mail out of iron (XXXIV: 10; XXI: 80). Together with Solomon, David gives judgment in a case of damage to the fields (XXI: 78) and David judges in the matter between two disputants in his prayer chamber (XXXVIII: 21–23). Since there is no mention in the Qur'an of the wrong David did to Uriah nor is there any reference to Bathsheba, Muslims reject this narrative.^[41]

Muslim tradition and the hadith stress David's zeal in daily prayer^[42] as well as in fasting. Qur'an commentators, historians and compilers of the numerous Stories of the Prophets elaborate upon David's concise Qur'anic narratives and specifically mention David's gift in singing his Psalms as well as his musical and vocal talents. His voice is described as having had a captivating power, weaving its influence not only over man but over all beasts and nature, who would unite with him to praise God.^[43]

Baha'i Faith[link]

David is described as a minor prophet who came in the shadow of the dispensation of Moses to develop and consolidate the process he set in motion.^[44]

Succession[link]

The oldest complete Tree of Jesse window is in Chartres Cathedral, 1145.

Genealogy[link]

According to Genesis 46:12 and Ruth 4:18–22, David is the eleventh^[45] generation from Judah, the fourth son of the patriarch Jacob (Israel). The genealogical line runs as follows: (1) Judah → (2) Pharez → (3) Hezron → (4) Ram → (5) Amminadab → (6) Nahshon → (7) Salmon → (8) Boaz (the husband of Ruth) → (9) Obed → (10) Jesse → (11) David.^[45]

Family[link]

David was born in Bethlehem, in the territory of the Tribe of Judah. His father was named Jesse. His mother is not named in the Bible, but the Talmud identifies her as Nitzevet daughter of Adael.^[46] David had seven brothers and was the youngest of them all. He had eight wives: Michal, the second daughter of King Saul; Ahinoam the Jezreelite; Abigail the Carmelite, previously wife of Nabal;^[47] Maachah, daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur; Haggith; Abital; Eglah; and Bathsheba, previously the wife of Uriah the Hittite.

The Book of Chronicles lists David's sons by various wives and concubines. In Hebron he had six sons 1 Chronicles 3:1–3: Amnon, by Ahinoam; Daniel, by Abigail; Absalom, by Maachah; Adonijah, by Haggith; Shephatiah, by Abital; and Ithream, by Eglah. By Bathsheba, his sons were: Shammua; Shobab; Nathan; and Solomon. His sons born in Jerusalem by other wives included: Ibhar; Elishua; Eliphelet; Nogah; Nepheg; Japhia; Elishama; and Eliada. 2 Samuel 5:14–16 According to 2 Chronicles 11:18, Jerimoth, who is not mentioned in any of the genealogies, is mentioned as another of David's sons. According to 2 Samuel 9:11, David adopted Jonathan's son Mephibosheth as his own.

David also had at least one daughter, Tamar by Maachah, who was raped by Amnon, her half-brother. Her rape leads to Amnon's death. 2 Samuel 13:1–29 Absalom, Amnon's half-brother and Tamar's full-brother, waits two years, then avenges his sister by sending his servants to kill Amnon at a feast to which he had invited all the king's sons. 2 Samuel 13

Legend and legacy[link]

In European Christian culture of the Middle Ages, David was made a member of the Nine Worthies, a group of heroes encapsulating all the ideal qualities of chivalry. His life was thus proposed as a valuable subject for study by those aspiring to chivalric status. This aspect of David in the Nine Worthies was popularised firstly through literature, and was thereafter adopted as a frequent subject for painters and sculptors.

The musician[link]

"David Playing the Harp" by Jan de Bray, 1670.

In various biblical passages, David is referred to as “the favorite of the songs of Israel,”^[48] the one who soothed Saul with music,^[49] and the founder of Temple singing.^[50][51] A Psalms scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QPs^a) attributes 3600 tehilim (songs of praise) plus other compositions to David.^[52] Seventy-three of the 150 Psalms in the Bible are attributed to David.^[53] The supreme kingship of Yahweh is the most pervasive theological concept in the book of Psalms,^[54][55] and many psalms attributed to David are directed to Yahweh by name,^[56] whether in praise or petition, suggesting a relationship.^[57] According to the Midrash Tehillim, King David was prompted to the Psalms by the Holy Spirit that rested upon him.^[58]

In addition to ascribing authorship to David, several Psalms are identified with specific events in David’s life.^[59] Psalm 34 is attributed to David on the occasion of his escape from the Abimelech (king) Achish by pretending to be insane.^[60] According to the narrative in 1 Samuel 21, instead of killing the man who had exacted so many casualties from him, Abimelech allows David to depart, exclaiming, “Am I so short of madmen that you have to bring this fellow here to carry on like this in front of me? Must this man come into my house?"^[61] Psalm 34 is one of seven acrostic Psalms in the original Hebrew; most English translations do not retain the acrostic form.^[62] The first part of Psalm 34 is directed toward Yahweh in complete and humble gratitude (David does not even mention his own royal status); the second part confidently directs others to Yahweh.^[63]

This poor man cried, and the LORD heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles. The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him, and delivers them … Come, O children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the LORD.

— Psalm 34:6–7,11 (ESV)

In contrast, Psalm 18 is not related to a specific incident but rather to God’s faithful deliverance from “all of his enemies and from the hand of Saul.”^[64][65] The text of this Psalm was thought to date to the 10th century BC even before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls^[66] and is very similar to that of 2 Samuel 22.^[67] In this Psalm, David recalls being in deadly situations: “The cords of death entangled me, the torrents of destruction overwhelmed me.”^[68] He cries out to God for help, and God rescues David.

I love you, O LORD, my strength. The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. I call to the LORD, who is worthy of praise, and I am saved from my enemies.

— Psalm 18:1–3 (NIV)

The Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661) notes that crying out to God is mentioned in many Psalms attributed to David.^[69] He comments, “Fervour is a heavenly ingredient in prayer. An arrow drawn with full strength hath a speedier issue.” ^[70] The Midrash Tehillim teaches from Psalm 4 “that the mere mechanical application to the Throne of Mercy is not efficacious is plainly seen from the words of King David, who says God is nigh to all that call upon Him, and … he adds the important words, 'to those who call upon Him in truth.'”^[71]

According to Psalm 40, David’s cries to God were heartfelt though not necessarily impatient; the poignant combination of a cry for help with a confident expression of faith echo today in the song “40” by the rock group U2 and that encapsulates David’s experience with his God:

I waited patiently for the LORD; he turned to me and heard my cry. He lifted me out of the slimy pit, out of the mud and mire; he set my feet on a rock and gave me a firm place to stand. He put a new song in my mouth, a hymn of praise to our God. Many will see and fear and put their trust in the LORD.

— Psalm 40:1–3 (NIV)

Representation in art and literature[link]

Art[link]

Famous sculptures of David include (in chronological order) those by:

• Donatello (c. 1430 – 1440), David (Donatello)
• Andrea del Verrocchio (1476), David (Verrocchio)
• Michelangelo (1504), David (Michelangelo)
• Gian Lorenzo Bernini (1624), David (Bernini)
• Antonin Mercié (1873)

Literature[link]

• Dryden's long poem Absalom and Achitophel is an allegory that uses the story of the rebellion of Absalom against King David as the basis for his satire of the contemporary political situation, including events such as the Monmouth Rebellion (1685), the Popish Plot (1678) and the Exclusion Crisis.
• Elmer Davis's novel Giant Killer (1928, The John Day company) retells and embellishes the Biblical story of David, casting David as primarily a poet who managed always to find others to do the "dirty work" of heroism and kingship. In the novel, Elhanan in fact killed Goliath but David claimed the credit; and Joab, David's cousin and general, took it upon himself to make many of the difficult decisions of war and statecraft when David vacillated or wrote poetry instead.
• Gladys Schmitt wrote a novel titled "David the King" (1946, Doubleday Books) which proceeds as a richly embellished biography of David's entire life. The book took a risk, especially for its time, in portraying David's relationship with Jonathan as overtly homoerotic, but was ultimately panned by critics as a bland rendition of the title character.
• In Thomas Burnett Swann's Biblical fantasy novel How are the Mighty Fallen (1974, DAW), David and Jonathan are explicitly stated to be lovers. Moreover, Jonathan is a member of a winged semi-human race (possibly nephilim), one of several such races co-existing with humanity but often persecuted by it.
• Joseph Heller wrote a novel based on David, God Knows (1984, Simon & Schuster). Told from the perspective of an aging David, the humanity — rather than the heroism — of various biblical characters is emphasized. The portrayal of David as a man of flaws such as greed, lust, selfishness, and his alienation from God, the falling apart of his family is a distinctly 20th century interpretation of the events told in the Bible.
• Juan Bosch, Dominican political leader and writer, wrote "David: Biography of a King" (1966, Hawthorn, NY) a realistic approach to David's life and political career.
• Allan Massie wrote "King David" (1996, Sceptre), a novel about David's career which portrays the king's relationship to Jonathan and others as openly homosexual.
• Madeleine L'Engle's novel Certain Women (1993, HarperOne) explores family, the Christian faith, and the nature of God through the story of King David's family and an analogous modern family's saga.
• Sir Arthur Conan Doyle used the story of David and Bathsheba as the main structure for the Sherlock Holmes story The Adventure of the Crooked Man. The betrayal of the Crooked Man is paralleled with David's betrayal of Uriah the Hittite, carried out in order to win Bathsheba.
• Stefan Heym's "The King David Report" (1998, Northwestern University Press) is a fiction depicting the writings of the Bible historian Ethan, upon King Solomon's orders, of a true and authoritative report on the life of David, Son of Jesse.
• Malachi Martin's 1980 factional novel King of Kings: A Novel of the Life of David relates the life of David, Adonai's champion in his battle with the Philistine deity Dagon.
• William Faulkner's "Absalom, Absalom!"(1936) refers to the story of Absalom, David's son; his rebellion against his father and his death at the hands of David's general, Joab. In addition it parallels Absalom's vengeance for the rape of his sister Tamar by his half-brother, Amnon.
• Dan Jacobson's The Rape of Tamar (1970) is an imagined account, by one of David's courtiers Yonadab, of the rape of Tamar by Amnon.

Film[link]

• Gregory Peck played King David in the 1951 film David and Bathsheba, directed by Henry King. Susan Hayward played Bathsheba and Raymond Massey played the prophet Nathan.
• Jeff Chandler played David in the 1960 film A Story of David
• Finlay Currie played an aged King David in the 1959 film Solomon and Sheba, directed by King Vidor. Yul Brynner played Solomon and Gina Lollobrigida played the Queen of Sheba.
• Richard Gere portrayed King David in the 1985 film King David directed by Bruce Beresford.

Music[link]

• Josquin des Prez's Planxit autem David is a polyphonic setting of 2 Samuel Chapter I verses 17–27, David's lamentation for the dead Saul and Jonathan. His Absalon fili mi is a polyphonic lamentation from David's perspective on the death of his son.
• George Frideric Handel's oratorio Saul features David as one of its main characters
• Arthur Honegger's oratorio Le Roi David ('King David'), with a libretto by Rene Morax, was composed in 1921 and instantly became a staple of the choral repertoire; it is still widely performed.
• Leonard Cohen's song "Hallelujah" has references to David ("there was a secret chord that David played and it pleased the Lord", "The baffled king composing Hallelujah") and Bathsheba ("you saw her bathing on the roof") in its opening verses.
• "Mad About You", a song on Sting's 1991 album The Soul Cages, explores David's obsession with Bathsheba from David's perspective.
• Dead by the Pixies is a retelling of David's adultery and repentance.
• Herbert Howells (1892–1983) composed an artsong for voice and piano called "King David".
• Eric Whitacre composed a choral piece, "When David Heard," chronicling the death of Absalom and David's grief over losing his son.

Musical theater[link]

• King David, a modern oratorio, with a book and lyrics by Tim Rice and music by Alan Menken.

Television[link]

• Nathaniel Parker portrayed King David in the 1997 TV film David, with Leonard Nimoy as Samuel and Jonathan Pryce as Saul.
• Max von Sydow portrayed an older King David in the TV film Solomon, a sequel to David above, with Ben Cross as Solomon.
• In 2009, NBC introduced the series Kings, which was explicitly designed as a modern retelling of the David story.
• In the PBS television series Wishbone the episode "Little Big Dog" recounts the story of David, his favor with Saul, and his triumphant battle over Goliath.
• The season two episode of Xena: Warrior Princess "Giant Killer" features David and his killing of Goliath.

Trivia[link]

For a considerable period, starting in the 15th century and continuing until the 19th, French playing card manufacturers assigned to each of the court cards names taken from history or mythology.^[72][73] In this context, the King of Spades was often known as "David".

See also[link]

Saints portal

• David and Jonathan
• King David's Palace site
• King David's Tomb
• Midrash Shmuel (aggadah)
• Passover songs
• Tel Arad

Notes[link]

References[link]

Translations of 1 and 2 Samuel[link]

• Samuel 1 and 2 at Bible Gateway
• Kirsch, Jonathan (2000) King David: the real life of the man who ruled Israel. Ballantine. ISBN 0-345-43275-4.
• See also the entry "David" in Easton's Bible Dictionary.
• Dever, William G. (2001) What did the Bible writers know and when did they know it? William B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., Cambridge UK.
• Thiele, E.R. (1983). The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Eerdmans. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Wx4GsZH3dzAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Mysterious+Numbers+of+the+Hebrew+Kings&hl=en&ei=QaveTrDtNuOeiAfcycCqBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Mysterious%20Numbers%20of%20the%20Hebrew%20Kings&f=false. 

Commentaries on Samuel[link]

• Auld, Graeme (2003). "1 & 2 Samuel". In James D. G. Dunn and John William Rogerson. Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Eerdmans. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=2Vo-11umIZQC&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=There+are+two+common+types+of+strategy+for+reading+the+books+of+Samuel#v=onepage&q=There%20are%20two%20common%20types%20of%20strategy%20for%20reading%20the%20books%20of%20Samuel&f=false. 
• Bergen, David T. (1996). 1, 2 Samuel. B&H Publishing Group. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=eGT6fWsajqcC&pg=PA49&dq=I+%26+II+Samuel:+a+commentary+Gordon&cad=3#v=onepage&q=I%20%26%20II%20Samuel%3A%20a%20commentary%20Gordon&f=false. 
• Gordon, Robert (1986). I & II Samuel, A Commentary. Paternoster Press. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=JMJ1ZAnswuUC&pg=PA338&lpg=PA338&dq=I+%26+II+Samuel:+a+commentary+Gordon#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
• Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm (1964, trans. from German 2nd edition 1960). I & II Samuel, A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=friNN7IdjOIC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=I+%26+II+Samuel:+a+commentary+Hans+Wilhelm+Hertzberg#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
• Tsumura, Hans Wilhelm (2007). The First book of Samuel. Eerdmans. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=iLKAlhLDkMwC&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=The+First+book+of+Samuel+Tsumura#v=onepage&q&f=false. 

General[link]

• Breytenbach, Andries (2000). "Who Is Behind The Samuel Narrative?". In Johannes Cornelis de Moor and H.F. Van Rooy. Past, present, future: the Deuteronomistic history and the prophets. Brill. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uP22QHpnKq8C&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=Breytenbach+Who+is+behind+the+Samuel+narrative#v=onepage&q=Breytenbach%20Who%20is%20behind%20the%20Samuel%20narrative&f=false. 
• Coogan, Michael D. (2009) A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament: the Hebrew Bible in its Context Oxford University Press
• Dick, Michael B (2004). "The History of "David's Rise to Power" and the Neo-Babylonian Succession Apologies". In Bernard Frank Batto and Kathryn L. Roberts. David and Zion: biblical studies in honor of J.J.M. Roberts. Eisenbrauns. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Vlkb0cSBGlIC&pg=PA373&lpg=PA373&dq=David+and+Zion:+biblical+studies+in+honor+of+J.J.M.+Roberts#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
• Eynikel, Erik (2000). "The Relation Between the Eli Narrative and the Ark Narratives". In Johannes Cornelis de Moor and H.F. Van Rooy. Past, present, future: the Deuteronomistic history and the prophets. Brill. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uP22QHpnKq8C&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=Breytenbach+Who+is+behind+the+Samuel+narrative#v=onepage&q=Breytenbach%20Who%20is%20behind%20the%20Samuel%20narrative&f=false. 
• Halpern, Baruch (2001). David's secret demons: messiah, murderer, traitor, king. Eerdmans. http://books.google.com/books?id=tn8PG4XfuBAC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=David's+secret#v=onepage&q=lahmi+bethlehemite&f=false. 
• Jones, Gwilym H (2001). "1 and 2 Samuel". In John Barton and John Muddiman. The Oxford Bible Commentary. Oxford University Press. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=wCRYl9Ikk6EC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=Gwilym+Jones+1+and+2+Samuel#v=onepage&q=Gwilym%20Jones%201%20and%202%20Samuel&f=false. 
• Klein, R.W. (2003). "Samuel, books of". In Bromiley, Geoffrey W. The international standard Bible encyclopedia. Eerdmans. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=6OJvO2jMCr8C&pg=PA314&lpg=PA314&dq=narrative+sources+books+of+samuel#v=onepage&q=narrative%20sources%20books%20of%20samuel&f=false. 
• Knight, Douglas A (1995). "Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomists". In James Luther Mays, David L. Petersen and Kent Harold Richards. Old Testament Interpretation. T&T Clark. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=SNLN1nEEys0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Old+Testament+Interpretation+Mays+Peterson+Richards#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
• Knight, Douglas A (1991). "Sources". In Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard. Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. Mercer University Press. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=goq0VWw9rGIC&dq=Mercer+Bible+Dictionary&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
• Schleffer, Eben (2000). "Saving Saul from the Deuteronomist". In Johannes Cornelis de Moor and H.F. Van Rooy. Past, present, future: the Deuteronomistic history and the prophets. Brill. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uP22QHpnKq8C&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=Breytenbach+Who+is+behind+the+Samuel+narrative#v=onepage&q=Breytenbach%20Who%20is%20behind%20the%20Samuel%20narrative&f=false. 
• Soggin, Alberto (1987). Introduction to the Old Testament. Westminster John Knox Press. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=mqSNsKXnHQgC&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=Soggin+Introduction+to+the+Old+Testament#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
• Spieckerman, Hermann (2001). "The Deuteronomistic History". In Leo G. Perdue. The Blackwell companion to the Hebrew Bible. Blackwell. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=41_0okLzQJkC&pg=PA337&lpg=PA337&dq=The+Deuteronomistic+History+Hermann+Spieckermann#v=onepage&q=The%20Deuteronomistic%20History%20Hermann%20Spieckermann&f=false. 
• Van Seters, John (1997). In search of history: historiography in the ancient world and the origins of biblical history. Eisenbrauns. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=0-skPdXtewwC&pg=PA406&lpg=PA406&dq=Van+Seters+In+Search+of+History#v=onepage&q=Samuel&f=false. 
• Walton, John H (2009). "The Deuteronomistic History". In Andrew E. Hill, John H. Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. Zondervan. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=41_0okLzQJkC&pg=PA337&lpg=PA337&dq=The+Deuteronomistic+History+Hermann+Spieckermann#v=onepage&q=The%20Deuteronomistic%20History%20Hermann%20Spieckermann&f=false. 

Further reading[link]

• Alexander, David; Alexander, Pat, eds. (1983). Eerdmans' handbook to the Bible ([New, rev.]. ed.). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. ISBN 0-8028-3486-8. 
• Bright, John (1981). A history of Israel (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Westminster Press. ISBN 0-664-21381-2. 
• Bruce, F. F. (1963). Israel and the Nations. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 
• Harrison, R.K. (1969). An Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 
• Kidner, Derek (1973). The Psalms. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press. ISBN 0-87784-868-8. 
• Noll, K. L. (1997). The faces of David. Sheffield: Sheffield Acad. Press. ISBN 1-85075-659-7. 
• Thompson, J.A. (1986). Handbook of life in Bible times. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press. ISBN 0-87784-949-8. 

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: David

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: David

• Complete Bible Genealogy David's family tree
• Double Identity: Orpheus as David. Orpheus as Christ? Biblical Archaeology Review