of 106
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
its a bokk
  Daniel Szechi, 1715: The Great Jacobite Rebellion  1715: The Great Jacobite Rebellion by Daniel SzechiReview by: Bruce P. Lenman The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 80, No. 2 (June 2008), pp. 413-414Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: . Accessed: 19/10/2014 14:33 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at  .  . 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 formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact  . The University of Chicago Press  is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Modern History. This content downloaded from on Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:33:29 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions   Book Reviews Time’s Visible Surface: Alois Riegl and the Discourse on History andTemporality in Fin-de-Sie`cle Vienna.  By  Michael Gubser  . Kritik: GermanLiterary Theory and Cultural Studies. Edited by  Liliane Weissberg .Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2006. Pp. x  300. $54.95.In this admirably written book based on his dissertation, Michael Gubser seeks toilluminate certain aspects of the work of the Viennese art historian Alois Riegl(1858–1905). This is not a comprehensive intellectual biography—Gubser claims thathas already been done—but, rather, an analysis of Riegl’s views on history andtemporality, placing these in the context of European thought at the turn of the century,particularly in Austria. The book will be of interest primarily to intellectual historiansand those with an interest in theory. Within these confines, the book succeeds in whatit sets out to do.Since Riegl’s may not be a household name even to these delimited groups of readers, a word of introduction is in order. Riegl, like his colleagues in the Viennaschool of art history, was a major figure in steering that discipline toward a study of form. In this, he resembled his better-known Swiss contemporary Heinrich Wo¨lfflin,but Riegl’s frequently abstruse style and choice of seemingly recondite subjectsprevented him from gaining a comparable reputation outside the world of art histori-ans, where he was widely respected. He contributed to a reconceptualization of thediscipline of art history: not concerned primarily with documenting the history  of   art,Riegl considered art itself   as  history, treating visual materials as unique historicalsources that written documents could not always duplicate, just as with archaeology ornumismatics. Riegl did not shrink from the ultimate conclusion of this line of thinking,namely, that art history studied artifacts, whether judged to be beautiful or ugly, sinceaesthetic criteria were as historically conditioned as any other set of judgments. Hisstudies encompassed material culture as well as high art; in addition to being anacademic, he was curator of textiles at the Austrian Museum of Art and Industry andedited the journal of the Central Commission for the Research and Preservation of Artistic and Historical Monuments. Likewise, he was not one to judge certain historicalperiods as more elevated artistically than others; some of his most valuable contribu-tions lay in rehabilitating particular eras (such as the late Roman Empire) that hadpreviously been denigrated when measured by classical aesthetic criteria. All in all, heprided himself on approaching art scientifically and objectively—a textbook specimenof the positivism of his age.Riegl’s formalism led him away from iconography, that is, away from interpretingartistic content as illustrative of broader cultural trends in the manner of JakobBurckhardt or Johan Huizinga. Rather, he viewed the development of artistic formsthemselves as an independent variable in the historical process: changes in form  and  content, typically at different tempi, together made up the stuff of art history. Somescholars have noted the affinity of Riegl’s approach to linguistic structuralism; thesystems theorist Ludwig von Bertalanffy also paid him a complimentary nod. Gubser,however, de-emphasizes the structural aspects in favor of the temporal dimension that Permission to reprint a book review printed in this section may be obtained only from the author. This content downloaded from on Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:33:29 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  is embedded in Riegl’s thinking and finds affinities between it and the thought of Edmund Husserl, Henri Bergson, and Walter Benjamin.Following an initial plunge in chapter 1 into Riegl’s idea world with an in-depthanalysis of his early work on changes in calendar illustrations from the Hellenistic ageto the eleventh century, Gubser proceeds to depict the Austrian intellectual milieu inwhich Riegl thrived. There are chapters on each of the major figures with whom hestudied—the philosophers Franz Brentano and Robert Zimmerman, the historiansTheodor von Sickel and Max Bu¨dinger, the art historians Moritz Thausing and FranzWickhoff. Gubser takes exception to the generalization (which he attributes to CarlSchorske, William M. Johnston, and Alan Janik) that Austrian intellectuals neglectedhistorical studies, pointing to the Institute for Austrian Historical Research, founded in1854, as a deliberate attempt to promote them. Under von Sickel’s direction, thisinstitute came to specialize in the critical evaluation of documents; it was this approachthat, in turn, spawned the Vienna school of art history in the persons of Thausing,Wickhoff, Riegl, and later Max Dvorˇak. Gubser is also good at showing the affinitiesbetween Riegl’s formalism and the philosophical psychology of Brentano and hisstudents, among them Alexius Meinong and Husserl—although he could have inte-grated this discussion more thoroughly into the second part of the book, which dealswith Riegl’s own works. The notion of gestalt quality, for instance, as developed byChristian von Ehrenfels and Meinong, fittingly describes, to my mind, the immanentformalism that Riegl espoused.The centerpiece of Gubser’s discussion, which integrates the historical and psycho-logical aspects, is Riegl’s idea of temporality. It may seem paradoxical that a mediumas apparently static as painting or sculpture can generate a sense of change. Part of Riegl’s answer is that human perception is itself diachronic, taking in one part of anartwork at a time, shifting the view of it from one position to another. This was alsoHusserl’s position, which later inspired Jacques Derrida to make his famous pun of  diffe´rance  (differing and deferring), playing on the sense that the spatial and temporalaspects of making distinctions are inextricably interwoven. Just as shifting perceptionsof a single artwork help to create a sense of form of the work as a whole, so do shiftingperceptions of form over time create a sense of art history (as in the calendarillustrations). If this still seems rather remote from the kind of history that most of usdeal with, one can point to Riegl’s successor at Vienna, Max Dvorˇak, as havingreintegrated this formal analysis into broader cultural history.Gubser’s study is notable for its clear style, immensely helpful when dealing withsuch abstract and difficult ideas (with the exception of an inconclusive chapter onRiegl’s elusive notion of   Kunstwollen ). The reader may wish only for a few picturesto illustrate the main ideas—something on which Riegl himself would have insisted.D AVID  L INDENFELD  Louisiana State University War and the Law of Nations: A General History.  By  Stephen C. Neff  .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pp. xii  443. $95.00.Stephen C. Neff has set himself an ambitious task: to tell the story of the laws of warfrom the “misty beginnings” (3) all the way down to the present. To an impressivedegree, he has succeeded, providing a lucid summary that will be of great use toanyone seeking a quick, intelligent introduction to this thorny and complex subject.However, he also promises to tell this story while taking into account “the reciprocal 380  Book Reviews This content downloaded from on Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:33:29 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  impact of theory on practice and practice on theory” and the way “war has mouldedlaw” (2). On this score, he has not done quite so well. Too often, his tidy summariesof lawyers’ writings seem overly abstracted from the harsh realities of the battlefield.Neff divides his story into four principal parts. The first, which starts with those“misty beginnings” but centers on the Middle Ages, highlights the development of “just war” theory. After a rapid survey of the stoics and their ideas of natural law, anda short excursus into Chinese and Islamic thought, he concentrates on laying out thecomplex legal structures articulated by those medieval lawyers (largely clerics) whodefined war as permissible only when it met several stringent criteria. Most important,war had to be waged on behalf of a legitimate sovereign and by a defined class of persons, it had to have carefully defined objectives, and, above all, it had to be foughtwith the right intentions for a just cause. Neff stresses that these criteria essentiallydefined war as law enforcement rather than as conflict between states and that, as aresult, the authors in question paid relatively little attention to states as actors.Medieval thinkers also did relatively little to distinguish between formal periods of warand periods of peace. They defined peace as the natural condition of humankind, withwar as the unjust exception.Things began to change, however, in the second period, 1600–1815. Neff arguesthat starting with Grotius, and continuing with thinkers such as Hobbes, Wolff, andVattel, legal theorists began to define war in more formal terms as the voluntary actionof states to achieve goals by military means. Increasingly, they distinguished betweenformal periods of war and peace and put greater stress on the proper conduct of warthan on the cause for which it was waged (  jus in bello  as opposed to  jus ad bellum ).Neff characterizes this transitional period as quite complex: Hobbes articulated a newview of the “state of nature” as intrinsically warlike, while certain “contractural”thinkers remained true to older views of nature as peaceful but admitted as anexception cases in which two states agreed to carry out hostilities against each other(something Neff equates with a formal duel).Neff characterizes the third stage, dating from 1815 to World War I, as the heydayof “voluntarist” theories. International lawyers treated war in a fully Clausewitzianfashion as the continuation of politics by other means—an utterly ordinary part of human life. They sought not to outlaw it or restrict it to the defense of just causes butsimply to regulate it, a process that reached its climax in the Hague Conventions of thelast decades before World War I. Neff calls this period the great moment of “cabinetwars,” decided upon coolly and calmly by statesmen in their cabinets. The carnage of 1914–18, however, brought this phase to a quick and hideous end. Starting with thepostwar Paris peace conference and continuing with the foundation of the League of Nations, the Pact of Paris (i.e., the Kellogg-Briand treaty of 1928), and the foundationof the United Nations—Neff’s fourth period—international law reembraced a radicalversion of the just-law tradition, this time with war in theory outlawed altogether.Neff’s summary is lucid and judicious. He does have a penchant for complex, ratherabstract categorical schemes (e.g., “objective” and “subjective” variants of legalpositivism), and he gives precious little information about the backgrounds of most of the lawyers he quotes. Still, it is hard to see how else he might have organized his vastamounts of source material. While some of this material, and the general outline of thestory, will be familiar to specialists, there is also much that is fresh and interesting. Insum, the book has a good claim to become the standard one-volume introduction to itssubject.Yet in his concern to tell the story of the changing legal theories adequately in underfive hundred pages, Neff ends up slighting the “reciprocal impact” of law and war on  Book Reviews  381 This content downloaded from on Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:33:29 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks