Kavka, J. (1980). Michelangelo's Moses: “Madonna Androgyna” (A Meaning of the Artis... Ann. Psychoanal., 8:291-315.

Welcome to PEP Web!

Viewing the full text of this document requires a subscription to PEP Web.

If you are coming in from a university from a registered IP address or secure referral page you should not need to log in. Contact your university librarian in the event of problems.

If you have a personal subscription on your own account or through a Society or Institute please put your username and password in the box below. Any difficulties should be reported to your group administrator.

Username:
Password:

Can't remember your username and/or password? If you have forgotten your username and/or password please click here and log in to the PaDS database. Once there you need to fill in your email address (this must be the email address that PEP has on record for you) and click "Send." Your username and password will be sent to this email address within a few minutes. If this does not work for you please contact your group organizer.

Athens user? Login here.

Not already a subscriber? Order a subscription today.

(1980). Annual of Psychoanalysis, 8:291-315

Michelangelo's Moses: “Madonna Androgyna” (A Meaning of the Artist's Use of Forefingers)


Jerome Kavka, M.D. Author Information

No piece of statuary made a stronger impression on Sigmund Freud than Michelangelo's Moses. He regarded this deeply moving work as inscrutable and requiring interpretation as to the basis for its strong effect as well as for the sculptor's intentions (Freud, 1914b, pp. 212-213). The many interpretations that had been offered did not satisfy him.

The statue portrays Moses in a particular posture and with a terrible expression of mingled anger, pain and scorn. It is evidently meant to represent a particular moment in his life, and most writers have connected this with the moment when on his descent from Mount Sinai bearing the Tables of the Law under his arm he catches sight of the backsliding Israelites dancing around their Golden Calf. But at that point interpretations diverge. Freud followed his usual method of delving deeper, not through the general impression of the whole, but through searching for minute and apparently casual clues. These he found by observing, which no one

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2010, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing. Help | About | Report a Problem

WARNING! This text is printed for the personal use of the subscriber to PEP Web and is copyright to the Journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to copy, distribute or circulate it in any form whatsoever.