This paper offers a comparative analysis of two landmark medieval sculptural works: Nicola Pisano's hexagonal pulpit in the Pisa Cathedral (c. mid-1200s) and Claus Sluter's Well of Moses (late 14th century). Despite being separated by over a century and by significant geographical and cultural differences, both works share a triumphal Christian narrative structure, a hexagonal form, and a commitment to naturalistic representation that anticipates the Renaissance. The paper examines differences in material (marble versus stone), supporting architecture, and artistic context, while also highlighting the shared Classical and Biblical inspirational sources that unite these two artists within a broader European Christian tradition.
The paper demonstrates comparative art historical analysis: it identifies points of similarity (hexagonal form, triumphal Christian narrative, naturalistic figures) and points of difference (material, supporting architecture, geographic tradition) and uses these as evidence for a unifying thesis — that both artists, despite temporal and geographic separation, participate in a shared European Christian artistic current that anticipates the Renaissance.
The essay opens with contextual and biographical framing, then moves to iconographic program and symbolic structure, followed by a close examination of material and architectural support. It then addresses naturalism as a shared quality before concluding with a synthesis. This structure mirrors a classic art history compare-and-contrast model: context → form → material → style → significance.
Nicola Pisano's pulpit in the Pisa Cathedral and Claus Sluter's Well of Moses are divided by more than 100 years as well as by significant geographical and cultural factors. In terms of temporal context, Pisano's pulpit belongs to the Early Renaissance in Tuscany and embodies many of the characteristics of mid-13th-century sculpture, including a powerful relationship with architecture. The pulpit can be considered an "architectonic sculpture" to a greater degree than Sluter's work, particularly through the grandeur expressed across its three distinct levels of representation.
Claus Sluter belongs to the Late Middle Ages and created his Well of Moses toward the end of the 14th century. In doing so, he brought to the art world a naturalism reminiscent of Classical Greek and Roman sculpture, which is clearly visible in this work. Strikingly, despite their temporal separation, both works retain this connection with the ancient world.
The geographical factors appear to impose more differentiation than the temporal ones. Sluter belongs to the Northern European tradition, while Pisano is an interesting reflection of 13th-century Tuscany, combined with his background in Southern Italy — research has shown that he may have been born in Southern Italy and may have worked on commissions for Emperor Frederick II. From this perspective, Pisano's work, including the pulpit, can be considered somewhat more eclectic in the elements it incorporates than Sluter's.
There is a connection between the two artists nonetheless. Pisano's Southern background and his association with the Ghibelline cause link him to the German world, part of the Northern dimension from which Sluter also occasionally drew inspiration. In summary, both works are fundamentally European and universal, drawing on a wide array of inspirational sources — ranging from Greek and Roman culture to Biblical subjects and into their respective present days, infused with the European spirit of the early Renaissance.
The shape of Pisano's pulpit is hexagonal, with three levels that portray lions and other figures on the lower section, Virtues and Prophets at the middle level, and scenes from the life of Christ at the upper level. The arrangement of the figures amounts to a gradual representation of the triumph of Christianity, one of the favored themes of Pisano's era. The lions on the lower level are depicted as defeated animals, symbolizing the defeat of paganism and the triumph of Christianity. The Prophets at the middle level announce the coming of Christ through the Old Testament, making it logical that they occupy an intermediate position, while the upper level concludes this sequence with representations from the life of Christ.
Despite the clear division of the sculptural group among three levels, the work remains unified in terms of overall perception. One reason for this is that the focus is drawn to the third level, composed of five panels with scenes from the life of Christ. The first and second levels — containing the lions and the statues of Prophets and Virtues — are smaller, almost as though they exist solely to direct the viewer's attention upward to the third level.
Sluter's Well of Moses follows a similar gradual construction of its characters. Also sculpted in hexagonal form, the fountain was originally completed by a crucifix and figures of the Virgin Mary, St. John, and Mary Magdalene. The only portion that survives is the base of the fountain, with six statues of Old Testament prophets. Nevertheless, the way the representations were conceived to culminate in figures of the New Testament and the triumph of Christianity reveals that both artists belonged to a unified European Christian artistic current.
An interesting difference that should be noted between the two works — one with important consequences for their underlying effects — is that Nicola Pisano's pulpit is carved from marble, while the Well of Moses is made of stone. This difference is expressed through the contrasting texture and appearance of each material. Stone is rough by nature, and many of the figures on Sluter's sculpture share this quality.
In Pisano's work, by contrast, marble lends some of its own characteristics back to the figures on the pulpit. This is perhaps most evident in some of the Virtue figures at the middle level, notably the figure of Charity. The marble also imparts a sense of majesty and monumentality, as can be seen in the figure of Hercules on the same level.
Frish, Teresa G. Gothic Art 1140c–1450: Sources and Documents. University Press, 1987.
You’re 56% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.