P 1 : KsF
0521551331 c 01 a CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 10 , 2007 22 : 25
CATALOGUE 17 WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AUTOGRAPH SHEETS 11915 0× 122 mm), for the standing woman at the left of
theNaasonlunette, also often doubted. That drawing,
whose authenticity was strongly defended by Hirst, 1963 ,
although looser and rougher than the present sheet in
handling, shares with it the employment of hair-line pen-
timents. The facial type here may also be compared with
that of the head study forCumaeain the Biblioteca Reale,
Tu r i n(Inv.15 6 2 7recto/Corpus 155 ;black chalk and white
heightening, 230 × 315 mm) and of those of the two stud-
ies for female Ancestors on the verso of the same sheet.
The treatment of red chalk in this drawing is unusual in
Michelangelo’s work. Different types of rapid hatching –
long regular strokes, thinner strokes at sharper angles, and
thicker vertical strokes, are overlaid to establish the varying
depths of shadow and varying tones of colour in the drap-
ery. The head is established broadly and roughly, whereas
the breeches are smoothly treated, the chalk stumped, to
emphasise the long ridged folds, a feature Michelangelo
would exploit greatly in his later work and which would
appeal to artists of the generation of Fuseli and Ottley.
Aspects of this type of drawing affected Andrea del
Sarto, who seems to have been on friendly – if not inti-
mate – terms with Michelangelo. It is clear that Andrea
knew some drawings by the master and his handling of
red chalk bears considerable similarities to the manner
adopted by Michelangelo here. It might be remarked that
a drawing in the Musee des Beaux-Arts, Lille (Brejon de ́
Lavergnee, ́ 832 recto, red chalk, 179 × 113 mm) attributed
to Andrea by the compiler, which copies the twoputtiin
the left throne-arm ofLibica, can have been made only in
close proximity to the fresco or from a drawing for or after
it, and its handling suggests awareness of such drawings
byMichelangelo as the present study.
Lafranconi ( 1998 and 2003 ) has identified this draw-
ing with that recorded as A 48 byMichelangelo in the
1601 post-mortem inventory of the collection of Antonio
Tronsarelli and has established firmly that much of Tron-
sarelli’s collection eventually passed into that of the
Borghese. The present drawing would therefore have one
of the earliest recorded starting provenances outside Casa
Buonarroti.Copy
The version of this figure reproduced by Ottley ( 1808 -
23 ), plate following p. 32 , etched by Thomas Vivares,
dated 1819 , 272 × 223 mm, is stated by Ottley to have
been “formerly in the collection of Richardson and...at
present the property of Samuel Rogers Esq.” This draw-
ing, which was no doubt made after the fresco rather than
Cat. 17 , appeared in Samuel Rogers’ posthumous sale at
Christie’s on 28 April 1854 and following days, as lot 954 ,“m. angelo. a man in a cloak, seated, reading –black
chalk. A noble design; engraved in Ottley’s School of Design.”
Its present wherabouts are unknown to the compiler.History
Antonio Tronsarelli in 1601 ,A 48 ;Prince Borghese; Sir
Thomas Lawrence (no stamp); Samuel Woodburn.References
Woodburn, 1836 b,no. 4 (“This fine study is evidently
from nature...and has served...for the King Joram.”
Provenance given as Prince Borghese, Rome.). The
Athenaeum, 16 July 1836 (“this study for theKing Joram
is much nearer nature than that given in Ottley, which
has been idealised to its present state of noble abstrac-
tion on the Sistine vault. Michael’s spirit, however intol-
erant of meanness, is manifest even here, giving some-
what of monarchical grandeur to every fold and trait
in the mendicant sitter before him.”). Woodburn,184 2,
no. 83 (As 1836 .). Woodburn,184 6,no. 47 (As184 2.).
Fisher, 1852 ,p. 2 , pl. 18 (Michelangelo.). Fisher, 1865 ,
p. 17 ,I,pl. 18 (Michelangelo.). Robinson,187 0,no.
27 (Michel Angelo. “Another study in black chalk for
this same figure, formerly in the collection of the poet
Rogers, is engraved in facsimile in Ottley’sItalian Schools
of Design.”). Fisher,187 2,p. 15 , pl. 18 (Michelangelo.).
Black, 1875 ,p. 214 ,no. 27 .Gotti, 1875 , II, p. 221.
Fisher,187 9, XIX/ 22. Berenson, 1903 ,I,p. 184 ;no.
1563 (“[A]lmost an Andrea del Sarto in quality and han-
dling.” “[I]n the fresco, scarcely executed by Michelan-
gelo himself, the figure has lost much of its dignity and
refinement, and the action has undergone the very slight
change from reading to writing.”). Steinmann, 1905 ,
II, p. 603 ,no. 54 (Michelangelo.). Borough Johnson,
1908 ,p. 10 , pl. XLII (Michelangelo.). Thode, 1908 ,I,
p. 267 (Michelangelo.). Thode, 1913 ,no. 416 (Differ-
ences from fresco noted.). Berenson, 1938 ,I,p. 199 ;
no. 1563 (“[C]uriously like Andrea del Sarto in touch.”).
Delacre, 1938 ,pp. 447 – 8 (Michelangelo?. Perhaps over-
detailed.). Wilde, 1953 a,p. 30 (Michelangelo.). Wilde,
1953 exh., no. 26 (c.151 0– 12 ). Parker, 1956 ,no. 298
(“An element of doubt remains” about the authorship.).
Dussler, 1959 ,no. 612 (Rejected.). Berenson, 1961 ,no.
1563 (As 1938 .). Berti, 1965 ,p. 420 (Doubtful authen-
ticity.). Hartt, 1971 ,p. 390 (Rejected.). Joannides, 1975 ,
pp. 261 – 2 (By Michelangelo; queries the omission of this
drawing from the 1975 exhibition.). De Tolnay, 1975 ,
Corpus I, no. 161 (Probably a copy of a lost orig-
inal.). Joannides, 1981 b,p. 682 (Michelangelo; notes
pentiments; influence of this type of drawing on Sarto.).
Hirst, 1986 a,p. 217 (Reproduced as by Michelangelo,