P 1 : KsF
0521551331 c 01 b CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 6 : 36
126 WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AUTOGRAPH SHEETS CATALOGUES 18–19project. They form three pairs. As 1929 .). Wilde, 1954 ,
p. 10 (Presence of trophy in [C] supports Condivi’s inter-
pretation of the slaves as allegories of the arts.) Parker,
1956 ,no. 297 (Recto:151 2– 13 ,nogreat interval between
chalk and pen sketches. Figures identified. Sketches sup-
port view that slaves were tethered to herms, not columns.
Ve r so: knee perhaps forDying Slave; leg forRebellious
Slave.). Dussler, 1959 ,no. 194 (Chalk sketches first, then
pen. Link with MMA 24. 197. 2 /BT 131 /Corpus15 6.
De Tolnay’s positioning ofprigionipossible, but uncer-
tain. Verso: studies not forprigionias executed but for
recto figures.). Berenson, 1961 ,no.15 6 2(As 1903 / 1938 .).
Barocchi, 1962 ,p. 23 (Prigionisketches compared with
Uffizi 17379 F and 17380 F/B 13 , 14 /Corpus 151 ,15 2.).
Barbieri and Puppi, 1964 a,p. 1001. Barocchi, 1964 c,
no. 25 (Recto: the red chalk studies were made first; those
in pen are connected with the 1513 phase of the Julius
Tomb. The cornice was perhaps made after the antique.
Ve r so: linked with LouvreSlaves.). Brugnoli, 1964 ,no. 25
(Recto: not necessary to assume that pen sketches added
later.). Berti, 1965 ,pp. 417 , 424 (Recto:prigionistud-
ies subsequent toputto.Verso:perhaps for aprigione.).
De Tolnay, 1964 e, col. 889 (“All these [slave] sketches
are for corner figures.”). Goldscheider, 1965 ,no. 40 (As
1951 .). Coughlan, 1966 ,pp. 98 – 9 (Architecture and fig-
ures for the Julius Tomb and a figure for the Sistine on
the same sheet.). Weinberger, 1967 ,p. 145 (“[T]he helmet
and cuirass seen at the side of...[C] define him as a cap-
tive warrior.”). Hartt, 1971 ,no. 89 (Recto: 1511 and 1513.
“chalk drawings must have been done during the same
days as MMA 24. 197. 2 /BT 131 /Corpus15 6; pen sketches
for slaves added later.”); no. 54 (Verso:15 0 5.For left leg
ofRebellious Slave.). LeBrooy, 1972 ,p. 93 (Detail repro-
duced in comparison with a terra-cotta model where-
abouts unknown, attributed by LeBrooy to Michelangelo
and identified as a study for a slave.) Gere and Turner,
1975 ,no. 19 (Recto). Hibbard, 1975 ,p. 149 .Keller,
1975 ,no. 29 (Study for theputtoaccompanyingLibica,
c.151 0;sketches for the Julius Tomb, c. 1513 .). de Tolnay,
1975 ,pp. 81 – 2 (As 1951 .). De Tolnay, Corpus I, 1975 ,
no.15 7(Once part of same sheet as MMA 24. 197. 2 /BT
131 /Corpus15 6.Recto: as 1928 , 1954 .Verso: both stud-
ies for theRebellious Slave.). Keller, 1976 , fig. 153 (As
1975 .). Wilde, 1978 ,pp. 97 – 8 (Slavesketches drawn
on a sheet used for studies forLibica afew months
earlier “six sketches, more than were needed for the
front fac ̧ade then in preparation....[T]he second from
the left...seems to confirm Condivi’s interpretation
of the figures as allegories of the arts; there is a tro-
phy at the foot...and this can only mean the Art of
War. In the execution...this trophy has been changed
into a...block to be used as a capital...[changing]the figure...[into] an allegory of Sculpture or Archi-
tecture.”). Murray, 1980 ,p. 97. Lamarche-Vadel, 1981 ,
p. 51 ,no. 66 .Perrig, 1982 ,p. 18 (Recto: Michelangelo.).
Balas, 1983 ,p. 668 (Slave sketches demonstrate inclu-
sion of herm-pilasters.). Balas, 1984 a,p. 674 (Sketches
show that slaves were not intended as atlantes.). Guazzoni,
1984 , pl. 50 (Studies forprigioni.). Hirst, 1988 ,pp. 25 , 37
(Slave sketches added “a few months later...less cur-
sory [in] style” than the Sistineconcetti. “[T]he degree
of modelling achieved...without recourse to any hatch-
ing, is remarkable.”). Echinger-Maurach, 1991 ,pp. 239 –
46 , 267 – 70 (Detailed visual analysis of theprigioni: Notes
resemblance of [C] to Michelangelo’s drawing for the
bronzeDavid[Louvre Inv. 714 /J 4 /Corpus 19 ]; notes that
the figures are more energetic and complex than those
on the Berlin and Uffizimodelli[and attributes the latter
to Aristotile da Sangallo] but considers that these post-
date the present sketches.). Perrig, 1991 ,pp. 21 – 4 , 50 –
1 (Recto: Michelangelo.); pp. 58 , 134 (Verso: Cellini.).
Joannides, 1994 a,p. 20 (Figure [F] employed by Primat-
iccio in Louvre RF5302 9).Wallace, 1998 ,p. 90 (Studies
for the Sistine chapel; sketches for the Julius Tombpri-
gioni.).CATALOGUE 19Recto: Elevation and Plan of anAmbo
Ve r so: A Fragment of a Letter
184 6. 58 ;R. 48. 2 ;P.II31 2; Corpus 522Dimensions: 147 × 168 mm. The sheet has been divided
and subsequently rejoined. The left half and the upper
right-hand quarter were originally part of the same sheet,
although they were rejoined with a loss of some 10 mm.
Nothing essential is missing, as can be seen from the letter
fragment on the verso.Watermark: Fragmentary and unidentifiable.Medium
Pen and ink.Condition
Imperfections in pulp are visible, with local cockling and
repairs. There is a supported central join and a pressed-out
horizontal fold. There is skinning, paper remnants, and
adhesive discolouration around the edges. There are sev-
eral supported areas where the ink has burned through,
with severe show-through. Overall discolouration, fox-
ing, and extensive staining are visible.