P 1 :KsF
0521551331 c 01 a CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 10 , 2007 22 : 25
CATALOGUE 18 WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AUTOGRAPH SHEETS 123the sadly ruined example in Berlin (Inv.153 0 5/Corpus 55
recto; pen and ink and brush and wash over stylus inden-
tation and black chalk, 525 × 343 mm) or that in quite
good condition in Florence (Uffizi 608 E/B 244 /Corpus
56 ;pen and ink, brush and wash over black chalk,
290 × 361 mm). There is, in fact, a direct link between
the verso of the present sheet and the verso of that in
Berlin: The study of a right knee on the present sheet
re-works part of the study of a right leg on that in Berlin.
This leg seems to be for the so-calledDying Slave,butthe
connection need not, in the last analysis, indicate more
than that the various drawings made by Michelangelo
in connection with the Julius Tomb were filed together.
Alternatively, the sketches ofprigionion the present sheet
might well have been made in connection with the waxes
that were no doubt added to a wooden model of the tomb
constructed in 1513.
None of theprigioniseen here recurs elsewhere in pre-
cisely the same form. A larger study, which reprises much
of the pose of the topmostprigione[D], is in the Royal
Collection (PW 421 verso/Corpus 61 ;red chalk over
stylus, 266 ×13 0mm), but the function of that draw-
ing, which would seem to be datable about 1516 ,is
uncertain: The figure shows no obvious indications of
physical restraint. Theprigioneimmediately below it to
the left [C] is, as has always been recognised, a sketch
for the so-calledRebellious Slave,onwhich Michelan-
gelo was working in151 4.The torsion of the pose here,
however, is somewhat less dynamic than that of the exe-
cuted statue, and in the statue the right arm is tied against
the right side rather than behind the back as here, which
adds to the figure’s constraint. It is evident that Michelan-
gelo’s ideas underwent development between this drawing
and the statue. This was iconographic as well as formal:
The present drawing shows the figure with a foot rest-
ing on what is probably a helmet, and standing before
acuirass; both are common attributes of figures of van-
quished opponents and of trophies in Roman art and
werestudied by Michelangelo himself around15 0 5in a
drawing in Casa Buonarroti (CB 42 F/B 241 /Corpus 59 ;
pen and ink, 197 × 114 mm), probably made directly after
aRoman relief. These features identify the figure as a
military captive, and it presumably responds to a moment
of optimism at the end of the reign of Julius II, when
foreign forces had briefly been expelled from Italy. The
cuirass and helmet are omitted from the statue as carved- which probably indicates both a less confident political
situation and Michelangelo’s usual tendency to simplify
his forms as work proceeded. This drawing is also notable
in that a face is indicated on the herm to which the pris-
oner is attached; the other two herms found on this sheet
are drawn in more abbreviated fashion.
The figure at the far right [E] seems to be a counterpart,
in reverse, of one drawn by Michelangelo some years ear-
lier, probably in15 0 5,onasheet in the Louvre (Inv. 688
verso/J 13 /Corpus 20 ;pen,38 7× 205 mm). This figure
has his left arm attached behind his head, and although it
is quite possible that what is seen here is a simple revision
of that form, it may be that here Michelangelo was con-
sidering a pendant to it, as he did with the two figures at
the lower left [F and G]. These figures, self-evidently con-
ceived as a slightly modified pair, are the most energetic of
the drawings here and those that most obviously anticipate
the second group ofprigioni,those now in the Accademia
in Florence, begun by Michelangelo after mid- 1516.
The figure at the lower right [H] is generally linked
with the so-calledDying Slave.This figure has both arms
clasped over his head, which is bent forward, and his
ankles are crossed like those of D, but without a visible
tie. In the Berlin and Uffizimodelli(in which theprigioni
although very similar are not identical), the arms and head
are raised, but the ankles remain crossed; in the statue as
carved, the torso and arms are close to those in themod-
elli,but the ankles are now uncrossed. In that case, this
figure would seem to be the first of a sequence of draw-
ings leading to theDying Slaveand thus preparatory to
the Berlin and Uffizimodelli.However, although this has
often been assumed – by the compiler among others – it
seems unlikely that this is the case.
The development of the Julius Tomb and the many
stages of its history is an extraordinarily complex issue that
cannot here be addressed in detail. Suffice it to say, how-
ever, that to the compiler it seems obvious that the present
drawings post-date rather than antedate the Berlin and
Uffizimodelli–aview considered by Echinger-Maurach
butrejected. The compiler has elsewhere attempted to
argue that the scheme represented in thosemodelliwas
arrived atbeforethe beginning of work on the Sistine
ceiling, and that the contracts for the tomb of April and
July 1513 represent a ratification of a change previously
decided, not a new development of that year. Thepri-
gionihere are in more developed and energetic poses than
the figures on themodelli,and it does not seem remotely
credible to the compiler that themodellicould succeed
them. As the development of theignudion the Sistine
ceiling and that of theprigionibetween the Louvre and
the Accademia statues makes clear, Michelangelo’s nude
figures consistently expanded in scale and energy, and
to postulate a temporary reversal of this pattern in 1513
seems perverse. Nor, unlike the present figures or the two
Louvre slaves largely carved by Michelangelo in 1513 –
14 ,dothemodellireveal the experience of the Sistine
ceiling. If the compiler’s view is correct, the present
drawings would represent, not preparations for the figural