P 1 : KsF
0521551331 c 01 b CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 6 : 36
136 WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AUTOGRAPH SHEETS CATALOGUE 21three pictures in oil: those small ones that we so frequently
see ascribed to him, are all painted by his scholars, from his
designs; many have been painted from his drawings, which
formerly had a place in the collection of the King of Naples,
at Capi di Monte. 1 ft 11 inches× 2 ft 7 inches on panel.This statement has subsequently been interpreted as indi-
cating that theChrist and the Woman of Samariacame from
the collection of the King of Naples, but that is not in
fact what Ottley says. It seems likely, therefore, that a
Neapolitan provenance can be discounted and that there
need be no historical connection between the Liverpool
panel and the present one.
Of course, whatever its history, the Liverpool panel
could, in principle, be an autograph work, but no recent
scholar has attempted seriously to sustain this view, nor
does it appear viable to the compiler. The forms of Christ,
the slackness of the drawing, the pedantry of detail and the
lack of breadth, indicate quite clearly that it is a copy, and
more probably the underpainting of one intended to be
coloured rather than a self-sufficient grisaille. Many artists
could have been responsible for such a work, but with vir-
tual certainty the more obvious painters in Michelangelo’s
circle – Giulio Clovio, Marcello Venusti, or Daniele da
Volterra – can be ruled out because the Liverpool panel’s
style corresponds to nothing in the work of any of them.
There is, of course, no warrant whatsoever for the belief
that Michelangelo actually produced a painting of the
subject: His gifts to Vittoria Colonna seem to have been
confined to drawings. Nor is it remotely likely, even had
Michelangelo decided to produce a painted version, that
he would have copied his own design exactly.
The LiverpoolChrist and the Woman of Samariawas
sold – or rather bought in – for 28 guineas in18 01,a
price that, while not derisory, is well below what even an
unfinished panel believed to be by Michelangelo would
have fetched. It seems to have remained with Ottley and at
its two reappearances in 1811 fetched less than 10 pounds.
However, it must be acknowledged that when it reap-
peared for a final time at William Roscoe’s sale, it fetched
the much healthier sum of £ 52. 10. 0 (see Morris and
Hopkinson, 1977 ).History
King of Naples; William Young Ottley; Sir Thomas
Lawrence; Samuel Woodburn.References
Ottley, 1808 – 23 ,p. 31 (The “return of the holy family
from Egypt (a sketch made by him on board, formerly in
the collection of the King of Naples at Capo di Monte,and now in my Possession)”; together with “the annun-
ciation, the holy family, Christ and the Samaritan woman
at the well; Christ praying in the garden, the crucifixion;
and thePieta,ofwhich he gave a version to the Marchesa
of Pescara,” “and the resurrection of Christ” part of a
series of designs preparing frescoes the side walls of the
Sistine chapel. The martyrdom of St. Peter and the con-
version of St. Paul were perhaps also originally intended
to be painted in the Sistine chapel.). Lawrence Inventory,
1830 ,no. 12 [ 1830 - 2 ] (“A grisaille in black and white in
oil, female with two children, etc.”). Woodburn, 1836 b,
no. 71 (“the returnofthe holy family from egypt–a
slight sketch in oil on board, highly interesting, as it shews
his progress of work, he has drawn the figures unclothed,
and has marked in some parts of the drapery over the
naked figures. This curious and indisputable grisaille is
probably unique.Size, 26 inches by 21 inches. From the Col-
lection of the King of Naples, at the Capo di Monti, and W. Y.
Ottley, Esq., it is mentioned in the Italian School of Design,
page 31.”). The Athenaeum, 16 July 1836 (“[T]he curious
oil sketch.”). Fisher, 1852 ,p. 5 , pl. 27 (“[A] sketch in oil
on board, very instructive as showing his mode of work-
ing.”). Fisher, 1865 ,p. 5 , pl. 27 (As 1852 .). Robinson,
187 0,no. 76 (It “should be ascribed to the later period
of Michelangelo’s career.” No indications in the work of
the role that Ottley suggests.). Fisher,187 2,I,p. 17 , pl. 27
(As 1852 .). Black, 1875 ,p. 215 ,no. 65 (The Return from
Egypt.). Fisher,187 9, XLVII/pl. 49 (“Joseph, following,
seems to be guiding the tottering steps of the infant. The
head of the ass is faintly indicated in the background at the
opposite side. The Virgin is clad in a tunic with a girdle
round her waist, but her figure, like the rest, was origi-
nally drawn in the nude, the outlines being discernible.”).
Berenson, 1938 ,no. 1725 a, p. 239 (“It is tempting to
givethis sketch to M. himself in a phase between the
Cavalieri compositions and theLast Judgement....It is
probably not by the great master himself,” but it can-
not be given to a specific follower. Obviously related
to theEpifaniacartoon, but “the forms are much more
elegant....If done before the BM cartoon, we must grant
that it is either M’s own, which is unlikely, or a fairly accu-
rate transcript of a drawing by him.” Subject enigmatic
“perhaps it develops the subject of Raphael’sMadonna
del Passeggio.”). Berenson, 1961 ,no. 1725 a, pp. 399 – 400
(As 1938 .). Hartt, 1964 ,p. 55. Lloyd, 1977 ,pp. 116 – 19
(Full account; cites different opinions.). Pope-Hennessy,
1977 ,p.31 9(“[W]hat appears to be the correct interpre-
tation of the subject is found in a footnote...the types
of the two children are totally un-Michelangelesque.”).
De Tolnay, 1978 ,Corpus III, p. 53 (Return from Egypt;by
an anonymous follower of Michelangelo, inspired by the