See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273076280

Italian Gothic Sculpture, c. 1250-1400

Article in Sixteenth Century Journal · October 2003

DOI: 10.2307/2671531

CITATIONS READS

2 912

2 authors, including:

Anita Moskowitz
Stony Brook University
26 PUBLICATIONS 54 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Anita Moskowitz on 23 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Review: [untitled]
Author(s): Jane C. Long
Source: The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Autumn, 2001), pp. 807-808
Published by: The Sixteenth Century Journal
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2671531
Accessed: 06/10/2010 05:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=scj.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Sixteenth Century Journal is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Sixteenth Century Journal.

http://www.jstor.org
 Book Reviewvs 807

Italian Gothic Sculpture, c. 1250-1400. Anita FidererMoskowitz. Cambridge:

Cambridge UniversityPress,2001. xxvi + 401 pp. $95. ISBN 0521444837.
Anita Moskowitz has been publishing excellent work on Tuscan sculptors of the
Duecento and Trecento foryears.Her latestbook, ItaliatiGothicScuilptutre, c. 1250-1400,
aims to extend the geographic scope of her investigationsin order to explore "the era's
own, and surelyself-conscious,goals as expressedin sculpture."She positions her text in
relation to the seminal surveysof John Pope-Hennessy (Italiaii GothicSculptuire[1955;
1996]) and JohnWhite (Art atndArchitecureirlItaly,1250-1400 [1966; 1987]). Her goal,
she notes,is to give sculptureof thisera the prominenceit deservesin relationto painting
(which has been much more widely studied), and to go beyond the considerations of
formand connoisseurshipthatdominated those earliersurveys,to fitsculpturesinto their
social and religiouscontexts.
Moskowitz has produced a sorely needed book. For English-language students
Pope- Hennessy's and White's books continue to be the basic introductionto the sculp-
ture of this period, and they are sadly out of date. Much of the scholarship on Italian
sculptureis in the periodical literaturein a varietyof languages,and the authordoes a fine
job of consolidatingand summarizinga wide varietyof sources.While she continues the
canonical emphasis on Tuscan artists,chapters on northern Italy and on characteristic
formssuch as pulpits,tombs,and churchfacadesbroaden the range of discussionin useful
ways.The textis also exceptionallywell illustrated;although the photographsare all black
and white,theyare generallyclear and abundant,giving the reader ample opportunityto
follow the author'sarguments.
Moskowitz's familiaritywith the works is notable. Her discussionsof artists'sources
and formalconcerns are particularlymasterful.So, for example,she analyzes the facade of
Orvieto Cathedralin termsof the relationshipbetween the overallarchitecturalimpact-
massive,ornate,impressivefroma distance-and the effectof the sculpturalreliefs,which
are filledwith intricate,small-scaledetails thatare intended to be read close-up.The ten-
sion produced here is a central element of the effectof this most unusual of church
facades.In another instance,Moskowitz examines the Scaligeri tombs in Verona in terms
of their stylisticevolution fromn a local twelfth-century saintlysarcophagus and demon-
stratesthe ways in which the formsand iconographyserve the political ambitionsof that
ruling family;increasing intricacy combined with a constant iconic warrior presence
show the Scaligerilordsseekingto merge traditionwith novelty.
There is a disappointingelement to this text as well, however. In her introduction
Moskowitz notes thatthis surveywill differfromits predecessorsin giving greateratten-
tion to "broad questions of politics,patronage,and piety,"i.e., to social and religious con-
text.She does, in fact,scrupulouslyintroduce works with overviews of patrons,religious
settings,and historicalsituations.Yetthese contextualelementsare seldom integratedinto
the detailed analyses of the sculptures.A case in point is Nicola Pisano's Pisa Pulpit, a
"trulyrevolutionarymonument."The discussionbegins with an importantdescriptionof
the use of pulpitsin Duecento Italy.The author notes that thiswork was commissioned,
not for the usual church setting,but forthe baptistryat Pisa. She examines the formsand
materialsof the pulpit in relationto the architecturalsettingand then goes on to provide
stylisticanalysisof several of the individual reliefs.She describes how the contemporary
viewer might have experienced the pulpit, and concludes with a general assessmentof
how the monumentreflectsniid-Duecento Pisa. All of thisis extremelynice; to my mind
the problem lies not with what is here,but with what is missing.I would like to know
808 SixteenithCenturyJournal XXXII/3 (2001)

why a pulpit appearsin a baptistryinsteadof the usual church what is happeningin Pisa
at this time thatcalls forsuch an unusual decoration?Does the iconographyof individual
scenes reflectthe patrons,or is it tied to broader culturalconditions?The statementthat
the baptistryrepresentsthe archbishop's"civico-pastoral mission" is too general and, in
any case, remainsunsubstantiated.Should Nicola's profound debt to antiquitysimplybe
seen as a personalstylisticchoice? Can the noveltiesof his stylebe tied to the message the
patronsare presenting?Why isn't thereat least some discussion of the impact the excep-
tional nudityof the Fortittide
musthave exerted?
Certainly,as a generalsurvey,Italiatin c. 1250-1400, cannot answerev-
GothicScu-lptiure,
ery question. Moskowitz's sensitivityto form is undeniable, and she gives some truly
beautifulreadingsof works.However, the text is much closer to the approaches taken by
John Pope-Hennessy and JohnWhite than the author suggests.This is an excellent intro-
duction to the sculptureof this period fromthe perspectiveof formalissues; integrating
the artinto the societythatproduced it will be leftto the reader.
Jane C. Long ............. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ... . . Roanoke College

Kingship and Favoritism in the Spain of Philip III, 1598-1621. Antonio Feros.
Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,2000. 299 pp. $69.95. ISBN 0521561132.
This excellentstudyjoins other recentrevisionistanalysesof a period hithertoover-
looked or underestimated.Like Magdalena Sanchez and Paul Allen,Antonio Feros finds
thatthe court of Philip III, a king about whom few historianshave ever had a nice word,
was the site of politicaldevelopmentsof enormous consequence.
The prime reason forPhilip's sad legacy was his dependence on the duke of Lerma,
the royalfavorite,who, it was said, undermined the monarchyboth with his corruption
and his ineptness.Feros disagreesand he makes a strongcase thatLerma was not the weak
favoriteof a weak king but rather"the most powerfulfavoritein Spanish history"(91).
Furthermore,the presence of vtalidosin the Spanish Hapsburg courts (unofficiallywith
Philip II and blatantlywith Philip IV's immenselypowerfulcount duke of Olivares) did
not erode royalpower but enhanced it.The relativelyshort reign of Philip III, then,was
not a lamentable detour into frivolity; it was integralto the constructionof an absolutist
state.
Feros places Philip and Lerma's relationshipalongside theoreticalworks of the times.
Thus the early chapterson the education of the young prince,the governmentof his fa-
ther,the historicalantecedentsof royalfavorites,and Lerma's earlysteps towardpower are
packed with citationsfromcontemporarytreatises. This is useful,but the invariablerefer-
ence to the "context" can be annoying,particularlyas Feros appears sure he is the firsthis-
torian to make these connections and he seems to regardpolitical treatisesas a mirrorof
society.
Lerma got offto a bad startwith his earlymachinationsand soon faced the task of
promotinga theorythat could legitimize his increasinglyinfluentialposition.According
to the author,Lerma and his supporterstransformedthe discourse of royalauthorityand
favoritism.Unlike Philip II's powerfuladvisers,Lerma institutionalizedhis position and
was not shy about admittingit. Political theoristsdisagreed whether a king should rule
contractually, with the help of advisers,or alone, as befitsa being superior to all others.
The existence of a favoritecomplicated both theories;the king no longer listened to his
councils but neither was he ruling on his own. The challenge for Lerma was to bridge
these contradictions.The heart of the book is chapter 6, where Feros describes how

View publication stats