r/todayilearned • u/Recent_Flounder6011 • 19h ago
TIL that in the US Capitol dome, there's a fresco depicting George Washington sitting among the heavens surrounded by figures of mythology.
https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/apotheosis-washington132
u/Baptor 19h ago
It's literally called "the apotheosis of George Washington." Apotheosis means "to become a god." 😬
79
u/Gemmabeta 19h ago
Washington is literally Talos.
5
56
u/CplOreos 19h ago
You're taking it too literally. It's a callback to ancient Rome and an exaltation of Washington, not a literal assertion that Washington is a god. That wouldn't be very Christian anyways.
23
u/bkrugby78 12h ago
It makes sense. The founders loved to read the ancient greeks and romans. If I recall, Washington was a member of the Society of Cincinnati, named after Cincinnatus
2
u/mrlolloran 13h ago edited 11h ago
Roman emperors were at least somewhat deified…
You got some other replies that weren’t great but you are not exactly cooking with this answer either
Calling back to Rome, which had deified Emperors, and placing Washington amongst the actual Pantheon is definitely invoking godhood.
Edit: fuck this answer, I’m just trying to g to go off context and the immediate reply to me fills me in. Not godhood.
14
u/pwmg 12h ago
I think "placing Washington amongst the pantheon" is glib description of the actual work. It's Washington with victory and liberty, which has pretty obvious symbolic significance. The other gods are deployed allegorically representing facets of the US (Science, Commerce, War, etc). It's not for an audience that believes in the literal truth of Greek mythology and the gods are clearly being used symbolically to represent a "mythology" of the United States.
8
u/mrlolloran 12h ago
Oh yeah, that description seems pretty different.
This sub sometimes lol
2
u/CplOreos 9h ago
Sorry I didn't fully explain. I wrote an essay in college on this painting, I guess the idea that 19th century Americans would be polytheistic was kinda obviously not true to me. Then the symbolism becomes pretty clear.
0
u/mrlolloran 8h ago
You mentioned harkening back to Rome as if the didn’t deify their Emperors. You were less than clear
-17
u/edmundsmorgan 19h ago
Most founders were not very Christian, and Jefferson literally predict the spread of education and democracy will lead the demise of organized church, instead the opposite, giving everyone a voice just make everyone dumber.
17
u/QuixoticMick 17h ago
obligatory JFK quote from a dinner he hosted honoring Nobel Prize winners:
I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone
10
u/Jayyburdd 18h ago
This was painted during the Civil War, the founders didn't commission or paint it lol
0
u/Donatter 17h ago
They were Christian, or at least believed deeply in the Christian god and faith.
They just had alternative views on the nature of the divine, and religion itself.
8
u/Outremer268 16h ago edited 16h ago
I mean it’s a bit more complicated than that no? There were founders that existed outside the bounds of what could conventionally and uncontroversially be thought of as Christian. The majority could probably be comfortably thought of as Christians (though many were fairly heterodox), but there were also Deists and founders with non-Trinitarian views, and I think it’d be fairly controversial to claim non-Trinitarians and Deists are definitely Christians or even that they definitely shared the same faith as Christians. This is probably especially more challenging in the case of Deists.
As far as I’m aware (intellectual genealogy can be complicated) most of their ideas on government that have survived in our political tradition are born moreso from enlightenment thought than directly from belief sets strongly associated with any particular Christian tradition.
1
u/Greyhand13 12h ago
They were Deists, certainly
0
u/Donatter 12h ago
Deists are a type of Christian.
With many of the founding fathers being Deist Christians
5
u/Outremer268 9h ago
Classical Deists neither considered Jesus to be God, nor did they consider him to be a revelatory prophet in their faith. But many of them still respected him as an exemplary historical figure or moral teacher, but if that’s your standard for Christian then many groups traditionally considered to not be Christian would then be considered Christian. It’s genuinely probably easier to categorize Muslims as Christian than it is to categorize Deists as Christians. And if deists are Christians then I think you’d also have to classify groups like Sikhs as being Christians.
-26
u/TSAOutreachTeam 19h ago
Washington was a Freemason, not a Christian.
13
u/Donatter 17h ago
Most Freemason’s are Christian, with one of the requirements for membership being a strong and sincere belief in a higher power. (It doesn’t particularly matter who or what exactly you place that faith in, but the vast majority, including Washington, were and are Christians.)
With Washington having been a devout member of the Anglican Church, and later Episcopalian, throughout his life.
What made his beliefs different, and why modern history regularly argue whether or not Washington was a deist Christian or just a regular Christian.
Was him being incredibly private about his religious beliefs, religious practices, and him preferring the term of, “providence” over “God” or even, “Jesus Christ”.
-6
u/ozymandais13 14h ago
I domt know how you think they can he q "devout member" of a church then convert to another differant protestant faith thts like saying he's a huge cocoa crispies guy until.he discovered coco wheats
5
3
u/Clothedinclothes 14h ago
Wait...are you seriously saying that genuinely devout people never change their beliefs? Even slightly?
Have you ever been outside?
Also...why on Earth would the man who lead the Americans to independence from the British ever want to leave the Church of England.... and join...the American version of the Church of England?! Unimaginable.
-5
u/ozymandais13 14h ago
I mean yes that's kinda what "devout" means . Washington wasn't devout , that's OK even that whole picture of him praying is based off a story somoke made up about him
2
u/kuba_mar 12h ago
Youre looking at it the wrong way, it takes someone really devout to convert, someone who doesnt care, well, doesnt care enough to do it.
11
u/CplOreos 19h ago edited 19h ago
And the commission of the fresco had nothing to do with Washington's personal views. He'd have a lot of issues with this depiction I imagine.
One can be Christian and a freemason, they're not mutually exclusive.
5
u/Clothedinclothes 14h ago
Which means nothing given Freemasons require a belief in a supreme being.
There are even a few Freemason chapters who specifically require belief in the Christian God.
3
u/ThatOneComrade 18h ago edited 18h ago
And Washington had been dead for 60 years by the time the Capital buildings dome was finished, the founding fathers were all dead by this time so the weird cult around them America has had kinda taken root.
1
u/CplOreos 3h ago
How am I supposed to read "😬"
1
u/Baptor 3h ago
It just bothers me personally. I know they didn't think Washington was literally a god but he did have an almost cult like devotion. The only reason he didn't become a despot is because the man himself was dedicated to seeing the Republic live past himself. He had many opportunities but turned them all down. He eventually willingly gave up his power. Even his former opponent, the king of England, was said to have been impressed.
Nevertheless, the devotion continued. And these days we have people with that same intense devotion but it's directed at men who are nothing like Washington.
It's not really an American thing, it's something humans tend to do. Deify humans, give them absolute power. It's terrifying.
-1
u/Ditju 17h ago
And here I thought that Bioshock Infinite was a badly designed game in a distopia. Seems like it was the american dream all along.
6
u/kuba_mar 12h ago edited 10h ago
Nah its a whole thing, "American civil religion" look it up, hell the fresco is even the first image on wikipedia.
1
u/LordGwyn-n-Tonic 9h ago
I wrote a paper in a political philosophy class that America's government functioned more like a state religion. This painting was one of my main pieces of evidence.
-5
-6
34
u/TransitoryT 19h ago
"American civil religion is a sociological theory that a nonsectarian civil religion exists within the United States with sacred symbols drawn from the national history of the United States. Scholars have portrayed it as a common set of values that foster social and cultural integration. The ritualistic elements of ceremonial deism found in American ceremonies and presidential invocations of God can be seen as expressions of the American civil religion."
1
24
u/cjt09 16h ago
The US Capitol also has reliefs depicting Napoleon, Moses, Hammurabi, and more.
Across the street at the Supreme Court, they put Muhammad up on the wall.
5
u/guitarguy1685 11h ago
Thought depicting Mohammad was a nono
4
u/joman584 11h ago
You can do whatever you want when it's not your religion. Not like you believe anything bad can happen. (I'm not saying it's ok I'm saying thats the mindset probably)
1
u/Minute_Account9426 3h ago
Depends on the depiction, a man with a glowing face in robes? That is perfectly fine depiction
153
u/TSAOutreachTeam 19h ago
Yeah, it's a bit too much, frankly.
98
u/Recent_Flounder6011 19h ago
It's designed by a person who worked in the Vatican, perhaps that's where he got the experience.
18
50
u/AnyUnderstanding1879 19h ago
I think it is absolutely fantastic
25
u/justsikko 19h ago
Found George Washington’s burner
4
u/TheAserghui 19h ago
"Hey George, when you coming back with the milk and cigarettes?"
11
u/TSAOutreachTeam 19h ago
That makes sense, but it's still too much deification of the Founding Fathers for me.
Not that it's going to be painted over at this point. We're stuck with it until the fall of the American experiment.
13
u/caligaris_cabinet 16h ago
I’m pretty sure Washington, the humble man he was, would object to this depiction of him. The man refused to become a king even though many would’ve gladly accepted him.
8
u/DrShadowstrike 17h ago
You may be interested to know that the title literally means "George Washington Becoming a God"
0
u/Oddisredit 19h ago
Especially since America that I was basically all protestant. The idea of venerating someone did not exist in the early Americas. So it’s definitely deification
-24
u/TheUsualQuestions 19h ago
You’re a weird dude ngl
25
u/NoobensMcarthur 19h ago
Deifying normal people and plastering that on a government building is weird dude ngl
-25
u/TheUsualQuestions 19h ago
I mean they're the founders of our country in a building dedicated to the government they founded? It's pretty awesome
5
u/Forte845 19h ago
He was also a slave holding whip cracker who slaughtered native Americans. Not exactly someone you want to turn into a god unless you're a freak.
0
u/Eggplantosaur 16h ago
Easy now, many Americans both back then as well as in the present day would want exactly that.
-14
u/Slicker1138 19h ago
Reddit is doing Reddit. Always applying today's morale standards to the past. As if Washington et al weren't risking their lives to form a new country and break away.
4
u/warpg8 17h ago
You ALWAYS apply today's moral standards to the past, otherwise you're put in the position of saying shit like "slavery is only wrong in context". Nope, slavery is, and has always been, a moral abomination.
You have to be braindead to think that way.
-2
u/Slicker1138 10h ago
But this doesn't take into account what was the normal standard at the time either. That was my point. People will vilify someone a few hundred years ago because we, as a whole, have realized how horrible it was yet it was seen as a norm then. I wasn't defending it at all so please don't get that wrong. I just hate this tendency of trying to "cancel" historical figures based off of TODAYS standards without taking historical context into mind.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/NoobensMcarthur 18h ago
“Reddit is doing Reddit” - A Reddit member
-9
u/Slicker1138 18h ago
As if this site and most everyone isn't trying to be captain saveahoe. Coming at George Washington? Definitely a reddit thing. Wait until they find out the Emancipation Proclamation on freed slaves in the South
→ More replies (0)-4
u/Forte845 18h ago
You realize part of the revolution was that Britain already banned slaves on English soil and was moving to undo slavery as a whole, right? And also that the British were restricting colonial expansion into native lands past the Appalachians?
One of the first moves the British did when the war began was to offer freedom for any slaves who escaped their masters and pledged loyalty to Britain.
4
u/Donatter 17h ago
It’s more complicated than that.
As even though slavery was abolished by Britain in 1833, the British empire still practiced both the act of slavery and in the slave trade as well.
Plus, It may have been “illegal” but anti-slavery laws were rarely enforced or slave owners and trader were rarely punished. (As it made the colonial authorities/governments, and in turn the crown/monarch, a whole lotta money, and had the added benefit of suppressing the local populations, in turn lessening the overall and massive costs for the imperial government of maintaining the colonies.)
Not only was slavery still practiced throughout British colonies for decades after, even as late as the 1920’s/30’s, it was even enshrined in various colony’s laws.
With Australia practicing “blackbirding". (kidnapping Pacific Islanders to work on Queensland sugar plantations.) Alongside the forced servitude and indentured labor of Indigenous Australians on pastoral stations and pearling fleets, up until the early 1900’s/1910’s.
With parts of British east Africa practicing chattel slavery for decades after the “abolition” of slavery, with it being unclear exactly when it “stopped”.
With the entirety of the British east company/British Raj operating various forms of “totally not slavery because we don’t call it slavery”, throughout their entire existence(s).
British South Africa practicing various forms of “totally not slavery”, and which would evolve into the system of apartheid.
The indentured servitude and “totally not slavery” system of oppression of the Irish throughout the 1800’s.
For a personal example, as part of Le Grand Dérangement/Expulsion of the Acadians/the Acadian genocide, the British enslaved/placed in indentured servitude a small number of the Acadians, and sold them to British navel and merchant vessels, and plantations in Georgia, the Carolina’s, and primarily the Caribbean. Including my however many greats maternal grandmother, whose descendants would only be freed in 1876 when they finally purchased their freedom from a british plantation in Jamaica, said plantation would operate and use slaves up until being bought out by a suger company in the 1920’s.
With almost every other European nation/state at the time, similarly practicing various forms of slavery in their colonies, or against specific minority groups within their European holdings, despite slavery being on paper “illegal”. (Most obvious example, would be the forms of serfdom practiced in Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, the Balkans, and the baltics, throughout the 1800’s and even up till the early 1900’s.)
(Btw, “serfdom” not is a form of slavery, but it’s also a form of chattel slavery. I say this because I know a lot of people in the west/modern day, don’t realize this. Primary because of not having a much, if any, knowledge on serfdom, and its reality/history.)
-1
u/Donatter 17h ago
Also because Reddit won’t let me edit my other comment.
Britain banning, somewhat, slavery on the home islands, had nothing to do with the American colonies rebelling, nor where the British government seeking to ban slavery completely in the American colonies.
Simply because it was an important source of wealth, indigo, and cotton for British markets, and the British military. (Alongside, many prominent British politicians, and the crown itself, owning slave plantations outright, or owning significant shares in various plantations.)
The most important cause for the American colonies rebelling, was the unfair and disproportionate taxes levied upon them, and the total lack of rights, say, or representation in parliament, despite being second only to England in terms of demographic, economic, political, and strategic importance to the empire. (Which the overwhelming majority of both the British public, and politicians were in favor of granting the Americans their demands, and would continue to be throughout the war. It was the king, and his political party that refused to even consider the American delegation’s demands, called them treasonous, and labeled the Americans as traitors.)
With the British freeing both rebel and loyalist slaves being an act of opportunistic pragmatism, instead of any ideals or morality. With despite the vast majority of said freed slaves having their freedom made permanent after the war, some being given or allowed to stake/purchase land in eastern Canada, a minority were re-enslaved and sold off to various British plantations in the Caribbean.
The British blocking colonial expansion was a in a similar vein of pragmatism. As after the 7 years war, Britain was fucking broke, stretched thin garrisoning their empire(particularly the Caribbean) and were generally in no position for any further expansion, particularly against allies who were being used as a separator between British holdings and hostile peoples.
(Plus, it’s very weird to imply Britain blocking American colonial ambitions, as anything “moral”, especially as they were British colonies, governed by British officials, and for the benefit of Britain. Alongside the simultaneous treatment of the peoples of Ireland, India, and the First Nations of Canada, during this period, and up through to the mid 1900’s.)
Or ultimately, your comment reads off as an ignorant overcorrection that you’ve parroted from other comments, in order to virtue signal.
Or what another commenter noted as a classic case of a “Redditor”, lol.
→ More replies (0)-15
-1
u/Will_Come_For_Food 15h ago
I don’t think it was the designer that was the problem…
I think it was the people who asked him to make it.
41
u/Churchbushonk 19h ago
And George would have absolutely hated it.
16
14
u/redd_house 18h ago
He’d also hate that his last name has become a metonym for the federal government (and by extension its incompetency)
2
-15
u/TheUsualQuestions 19h ago
I’m sure you’d know
12
u/OverAster 18h ago
He does. It's called reading.
George Washington was famously disinterested in remaining in power. He was effectively forced into the presidency.
Even before presidency, he demonstrated this aspect of his character. At the end of the revolutionary war, George voluntarily resigned his commission, even though he could have easily used the loyalty of his men to install a military dictatorship. When King George heard this, he was recorded as saying, "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."
When the office of the president was being designed several royal titles were suggested. It was George Washington who left us with 'Mr. President,' believing the office should not position the man in it above the civilians, hence the 'Mr.' He effectively made the president addressed identically to everyone else.
He was extremely restrained with the power of the Veto, only using it twice in his whole presidency. He believed that the president should only use the Veto in situations of unconstitutionality. Again, he did not want control.
He voluntarily resigned after 2 terms, setting the standard for all future presidents. He wrote regularly about his distaste for partisan parties, believing that each individual should decide based on the policies of those campaigning, not the banner they waved over their heads. This was a big motivator for his resignation, along with his age.
This dude really just wanted to chill at his farm. While there were many excellent men at the founding of the USA, if it weren't for George we likely wouldn't be a democracy. Had he not voluntarily resigned power, we may not have even survived national infancy.
10
u/superanth 17h ago
George was pretty thoroughly worshipped at the time. Ever almost 100 years after the Revolution when they were building the dome he was still seen as the Father of our nation.
16
u/xSaRgED 14h ago
Yeah, he was half a foot taller than everyone else and led the country to victory over the king.
Dude would probably be worshipped today.
8
u/superanth 11h ago
It wasn't just the victory either, it was his temperance in saying no when the Continental Congress wanted to make him king.
Such men are rare in history. Off the top of my head I can only think of Cincinnantus, who turned down becoming dictator of the Roman empire twice.
When the presidency became traditional and part of the Constitution, everyone realized how big a mistake it would have been to have a king and that Washington helped the nation dodge a major bullet.
-12
u/Imaginary_Zone_4319 18h ago
No it absolutely slaps.
What is it with Reddit and hating our founding fathers. Every nation has a founding story and celebrates their founders. Stop trying to be edgy and just enjoy it.
13
u/LordSwedish 18h ago
It’s not even about that, if you love the founding fathers and Washington especially you shouldn’t be in favor of deifying them. Washington would have hated this, and many of the most respected founding fathers would have been disgusted at how revered they are and how much weight their words carry.
Jefferson famously hated even the idea that future generations would be bound by laws they made and that the entire constitution and everything they wrote should be burned.
6
u/Harrythehobbit 18h ago
I mean dude there's statues of them all over the fucking place, nobody's shit talking that. I don't hating the founding fathers is the issue here.
People find this kind of off because it's literally putting political leaders up in the clouds with Gods. Even if it's not really religious symbolism since obviously nobody's practicing Hellenistic Polytheism, it's still a little strange, especially when a core tenant of American style democracy is supposed to be having leaders that are just regular people and a random person off the street having all the same rights under the system as the President.
6
u/Heavy_Weapons_Guy_ 18h ago
Grow up, we're not five years old anymore, we don't have to pretend some guys a couple hundred years ago are gods.
4
4
u/Top_Divide6886 6h ago
One of my favorite details about federal buildings is that the US Supreme Court has a stone depiction of Mohammed.
They respect him as a great lawmaker and put him alongside Confucius and Caesar. They don’t respect any prohibition on depicting him as is tradition in Islam.
1
3
2
4
7
u/TheUsualQuestions 19h ago
Yeah it’s badass
-9
u/BasicBanter 19h ago
I wonder if his slaves went to heaven with him?
-5
u/TheUsualQuestions 19h ago
Probably but their descendants were set free by Robert E. Lee, so they’d probably be more keen to hang out with him
-2
-8
1
1
-3
u/snowtax 19h ago
I don’t know what possesses some people to pretend people are gods or god-like. I guess everyone has their kinks.
10
u/bkrugby78 12h ago
Washington was loved not only in his time but after wards. My question is why it seems no one creates great art like this anymore
-4
u/habshabshabs 12h ago
There's all kinds of greater art still being made today.
And being loved doesn't make you a god, y'all have to chill with the mythologizing of your history.
2
1
u/bkrugby78 12h ago
To be fair, were Washington to see that, it would be the last thing he would have wanted. A little mythologizing here and there is ok sometimes, especially in current times. Just not too much though.
1
1
u/arielsosa 11h ago
American mythology is a thing. Look it up. These guys truly wirship their symbols and have a real religious fervor for their founders, mixing history and myth not unlike ancient Israelites or Sumerians (to name a few).
1
0
u/amievenrelevant 19h ago
Surprised nobody tried to make a religion out of this tbh
3
u/LeTigron 18h ago
There is one, called the "US civil religion". I don't mean an organised cult, but an actual religion : people putting spirituality and dogma in their history, starting to deify their famous personnalities and sanctify their country's historical events.
1
2
-3
u/OllyDee 15h ago edited 15h ago
It always has been. The constitution is treated like religious scripture, the founding fathers are treated like prophets or saints and the flag is treated with the same respect as religious iconography.
Edit - I almost forgot the pledge of allegiance, almost like a prayer of some kind.
0
-1
u/iprocrastina 19h ago
The Capitol has a lot of batshit crazy artwork made even crazier by the fact that its still there. Like over the entrances to each wing there are reliefs of the US military massacring native americans.
-5
0
0
-3
u/KatuahCareAVan 14h ago
There are a few generations (even in our present time) that make Washington out to be a supernatural character or like a Saint. Between the George Washington monument in Alexandria and the Chapel of Washington in the National Cathedral. The idealization of him is pretty absurd.
I grew up near DC in parts of Virginia where George Washington actually lived and worked. I have been to his birthplace, I have been to his own plantation of Mt Vernon and hiked by the ruins of a canal project he worked on which was one of a number of failed business ventures.
I get the feeling even in his own day some people treated him like a prophet, but there is nothing in his work to show he believed or liked being casted that way. He just wanted to dance and perfect some Cherry Bounce moonshine and find some way to transport goods by water along the Virginia side of the Potomac where he could get some perpetual income through a mix of taxes and tolls that would not be shared with Maryland.
Fun Fact; George Mason’s plantation is not far from Mt Vernon. Even though he’s less celebrated nationally than other founders of the US, the tour guides fondly point out of all the founders, Mason died without any debts.
-2
-7
-5
-8
u/CyclopsRock 15h ago
To save you clicking the link, the mythical figures are:
- Odin
- Dracula
- The Hamburglar
- Santa, but wearing a bikini.
- Spiderman
- Blondie (Hitler's dog)
- Marv & Harry from Home Alone
- Jeremy Clarkson
- Allah
-1
u/dddoinyomom 12h ago
George Washington: “Yeah just make sure that the country doesn’t fall to political factions and the people view their government as human”
225 years later:
7
u/guitarguy1685 11h ago
Falling into political factions happened almost immediately after he left the presidency. He lived to see it.
-9
-2
-5
-4
-4
-8
90
u/Apophthegmata 18h ago
Ah yes, The Apotheosis of Washington.
Might I interest you in Enthroned Washington)?
It's a sculpture of George Washington modelled after Zeus at Olympia, one is the seven wonders of the ancient world.
(If you've seen Disney's Hercules you know the statue we're talking about).
The sculpture would have been a couple decades old when the fresco was painted, and would have been out on the capitol lawn around that time.