In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

REVIEWS 239 superiority of classical art but also to surpass them. Similarly, they sought to appropriate the superior techniques or compositions of their peers and to surpass them. Through prints and literary accounts, all artists of that time were made aware of each other’s works, and the publicity further fanned the flames of rivalry. Part of what makes this such an entertaining read, and Goffen herself must have surely taken pleasure in the very compilation of this book, is learning of the moments when things went beyond a friendly competitive spirit and came to, or very close to, blows. Michelangelo was openly acknowledged and heralded as a genius during his own lifetime, and it was against him that so many later artists would be measured . His constant challenge with his peers and models from antiquity distinguished his early works. Goffen’s proclaimed the “protagonist” of her book is Michelangelo, whose competitive nature and longevity allowed for him to significantly pick fights with all the other major artists of the Renaissance. For instance, Michelangelo’s dislike and rivalry with Leonardo was rather famous, especially after the public commissioning of frescoes by each master on opposite walls in the Sala del Gran Consiglio of the Palazzo della Repubblica in Florence in 1503–1505. Also notable is Goffen’s examination of Michelangelo ’s Doni Tondo in comparison to and possibly as a response to Leonardo’s inventive series of compositions of the Virgin and Child with Saint Anne. Logically and chronologically following Michelangelo’s rivalry with Leonardo was his rivalry with the young Raphael, whose work in the Stanza della Segnatura was nearly next door to Michelangelo’s work on the Sistine Chapel. In a curious twist of events, Michelangelo went to such lengths to rival Raphael that he employed the brush and oils of Sebastiano del Piombo, providing the younger artist with sketches and compositions. The fierce competition ended in 1520, when Raphael died. Michelangelo’s third major “antagonist,” according to Goffen, was Titian, who in and of himself made for a fascinating case study of rivalry and dominance of the Venetian art scene, succeeding Giorgione and Bellini in the 1510s. Above all other artists, Titian dominated the art scene with his most impressive list of worldwide patrons. Goffen concludes her book with a discussion of the rivalries between Cellini and Bandinelli, who were bitter enemies and rivalries with each other as much as they tried to surpass the shadow of Michelangelo. The book includes nearly a hundred pages of dense notes and a substantial index that includes subjects, concepts, and names. For those who are visually inclined, the manuscript is copiously illustrated with over two hundred highquality reproductions, which vividly brings Goffen’s discussions to life. While the extensive detail and thoroughness of this book is not for the faint of heart, Goffen’s writing is clear and basically accessible to any reader with inclinations towards the Renaissance. Goffen’s meticulous attention to detail makes this book a definitive reference to the social circumstances of Renaissance art production. LISA TOM, Art History, UCLA Mary S. Hartman, The Household and the Making of History: A Subversive View of the Western Past (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004) xi + 297 pp. REVIEWS 240 In what she terms a “subversive” study of “the Western Past,” Mary S. Hartman undertakes to explore in broad terms the possible consequences of revisiting the history of northwestern European societies from the Middle Ages onward through the lens of the Western family pattern. The idea of the Western family pattern, which evolved in the 1970s from the work of John Hajnal, Peter Laslett, and the Cambridge Group for the History of Population and Social Structure, hinges on the discovery that as early as the Middle Ages, couples in northwestern Europe were marrying much later than is generally assumed (in their mid-twenties) and that women’s age at marriage was only slightly less than men’s. In contrast to the early-marriage pattern, wherein girls are typically married at around sixteen years of age and are incorporated into the groom’s household under the authority of her in-laws, young people in late-marriage societies came to marriage as...

pdf

Share