P 1 :KsF
0521551331 c 01 b CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 6 : 36
134 WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AUTOGRAPH SHEETS CATALOGUE 21provenance from the King of Naples, the present panel,
whether or not it is given to Michelangelo, is often placed
close to theEpifaniain date. The narrative appears to be
similar, and the four most important actors are presum-
ably identical in both, although the young man on the left
side of theEpifaniaand the subsidiary figures of whom
only the heads are visible behind the foreground group,
are not included here. However, even though the style of
theEpifaniais exceptionally heavy, with the figural forms
flattening out as they approach the front plane, like forms
pressed against glass, as Wilde observed, the figure-style
of the present panel is much less inflated; furthermore, the
figures are clearly advancing, unlike the ambiguous sta-
sis of those in theEpifania.Although its individual forms
differ from those in early pictorial designs by Michelan-
gelo, theEpifanialooks back, in its relief-like organisation,
avoidance of depth, and stress on surface, with several
vertically aligned figures placed side by side, to paint-
ings such as the ManchesterMadonna,probably of the
early 1490 s, and theEntombment,probably of shortly after
15 0 0,both now in the National Gallery, London (respec-
tively NG 809 ;tempera on wood, 104. 5 × 77 cm, and
NG 790 ;oil on wood, 161. 7 × 149. 9 cm). Michelangelo,
that is to say, was throughout his life consistent in his com-
mitment to a similar manner of treating certain types of
sacred themes. This treatment also informs the present
panel, and it seems more appropriate to consider this
as demonstrating Michelangelo’s continuity of approach
rather than seeing all works in which it appears as neces-
sarily contemporary. As noted by Lloyd, a weak drawing
in the Bloxam Collection of Rugby School,AWoman
Leading Two Children with One Held by the Hand(Inv. 19 ;
black chalk, 270 × 199 mm, ex-collection of Sir Thomas
Lawrence, purchased by Bloxam at Woodburn’s posthu-
mous sale of186 0,lot 106 for the far from princely sum
of £ 2. 0. 0 )shows a similar motif and, although it can-
not be attributed to an identifiable associate of the master
(we have no knowledge of the drawing style of Ascanio
Condivi, who is an obvious candidate), still less to
Michelangelo himself, it presumably reflects once again
his interest in this motif and may even copy a lost sketch
byhim of the155 0s.
There is further visual evidence that the basic arrange-
ment and central figural complement of theEpifaniawere
not new to Michelangelo c. 1553 .The recto of a large,
now dismembered, drawing of which two fragments sur-
vive in the Louvre (Inv. 710 and 725 /J 22 and 23 /Corpus
235 and 230 ;black chalk, respectively 375 ×13 0mm and
223 × 123 mm; this sheet must originally have measured
at least 500 ×35 0mm) showed a woman walking forward
holding a child in each hand. Her identity, and those ofthe children, of whom only parts survive, cannot be deter-
mined with certainty, but they are in all probability, the
Virgin, the Child, and St. John. This drawing, which is
generally dated c.15 2 0,indicates that at least some of the
central visual ideas of theEpifaniawereestablished some
thirty years before that was conceived. Like the Virgin
in the present panel, the woman in the Louvre drawing
is drawn nude, with a similar garment riding high under
her breasts, lightly indicated over her.
It is impossible to say whether the Louvre drawing
once contained further figures, such as the Joseph seen
at the left in the present panel, but the types of the fig-
ures and their arrangement in both are close enough to
suggest that the relation of the two works is tighter than
the simple sharing of a motif. The figures in the Louvre
drawing before it was dismembered were larger than those
in almost all surviving drawings by Michelangelo save his
cartoons, and although they do not match the size of
the present figures, they are not much smaller. The rela-
tion provides support for the view that the present panel
is datable at about the same time as the Louvre draw-
ing, c.15 2 0.And such a dating is reinforced by the fig-
ural types. The proportions of the figure of the Virgin
here are similar to those of Christ in Michelangelo’s
preparatory drawing of c. 1516 in the British Museum
for theFlagellation to be painted by his friend Sebas-
tiano in the Borgherini chapel of San Pietro in Montorio
in Rome (BM W 15 /Corpus 73 ;red chalk over sty-
lus indications, 235 × 236 mm). Among female figures
drawn by Michelangelo, she may be compared with the
mourning figures ofHeavenandEarthflanking the seated
Duke, in Michelangelo’s autographmodelloof15 2 0– 21 ,
also in the Louvre, for the tomb of Duke Giuliano (Inv.
838 /J 27 /Corpus 186 ;brush and brown wash over black
chalk and stylus work, 321 × 203 mm), and her elon-
gated and sinuous body, which could easily be that of
aVenus, is comparable to those of two female nudes
drawn by Michelangelo around the middle of the15 2 0s
one in the Casa Buonarroti (CB 53 Frecto/B 174 /Corpus
229 bis; red chalk; 353 × 242 mm) and the other in the
Uffizi ( 251 F/B 243 ;red and black chalk with pen and ink,
273 × 133 mm). Both of the drawings in Florence probably
represent Venus; the first was perhaps made in preparation
of a statue, the second is a sketch for a now-lost Presen-
tation Drawing recorded in a copy by Francesco Salviati
(Uffizi 14673 F,redchalk, 355 × 243 mm). The similarity
of these two figures to the Virgin in the present panel
demonstrates the overlapping of the divine and the erotic
in Michelangelo’s work of this time.
The relatively thick-waisted proportions of the
Joseph – tenderly attentive to the Child’s tentative