P 1 : KsF
0521551331 c 01 b CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 6 : 36
140 WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AUTOGRAPH SHEETS CATALOGUES 22–23very fine.”). Woodburn, 1836 b,no. 16 (“[A] noble study
for one of the figures in the Sistine Chapel.”). Wood-
burn,184 2,no. 41 (As 1836 .). Woodburn,184 6,no. 15
(As184 2.). Fisher, 1852 ,p. 5 , pl. 21 (“[F]or one of the
figures in the Sistine Chapel.”). Woodburn, 1853 ,no.
20 (Reproduced.). Fisher, 1865 ,I,p. 18 , pl. 21 (As
1852 .). Robinson,187 0,no. 30 (Michel Angelo. Some
similarity toDelphica. “Not improbably...prepared for
the Sistine, but...ultimately discarded.”). Fisher,187 2,
I, p. 16 , pl. 21 (As 1852 .). Black, 1875 ,p. 214 ,no. 30
(“A draped female figure resembling”Delphica.). Gotti,
1875 , II, p. 222. Fisher,187 9, XXI/ 23 (“[I]n the style
of the figures in the ceiling.”). Springer, 1883 ,I,p. 192
(For an unexecuted Sistine Sibyl.). Wickhoff, 18 91,
p. ccviii (Passerotti.). Berenson, 1903 ,I,p. 266 ,no. 1704
(Passerotti. “[A] forgery so brilliant and of so ancient a
date that until the other day it had never aroused the
slightest suspicion.”). Colvin, 1905 ,III,no. 9 (Imita-
tor of Michelangelo, probably Bartolommeo Passerotti.
Stands or falls with [Cat. 23 ], “a production, not of
the great master himself, but of the most effective and
most specious of his imitators in pen-work.”). Stein-
mann, 1905 , II, pp. 601 ,no. 45 , 651 (By Passerotti; free
copy ofDelphica;reproduced.). Jacobsen, 1907 ,p. 492
(Copy.). Thode, 1908 ,I,p. 255 (Study for a Sibyl; pos-
sibly a copy.). Thode, 1913 ,no. 418 (Not autograph;
probably a copy after a lost original.). De Tolnay, 1928 a,
p. 70 (Rejected.). Berenson, 1935 ,p. 264 (By Andrea di
Michelangelo who may be Stefano di Tommaso Lunetti.).
Berenson, 1938 ,I,pp. 266 ,36 2,no. 1704 (As 1935 .).
Delacre, 1938 ,pp. 79 , 108 (Michelangelo, not Passerotti;
“puissante ́etude.”). Wilde, 1953 a,p. 60 (Michelangelo
c. 1525 ;cf.BM W 29 recto/Corpus 97. Employed for
Samiain the painted ceiling of the Palazzo Sacchetti.).
Wilde, 1953 exh., no. 38 (“one of Michelangelo’s most
brilliant studies.” Contemporary with BM. W. 29 ,c.
15 2 0– 4 .). Parker, 1956 ,no. 325 (Michelangelo. Cer-
tainly connected with Palazzo SacchettiSamia.). Dus-
sler, 1959 ,no. 613 (Rejected. By same routine hand as
[Cat. 23 ] and the verso of drawing in [Prince’s Gate Col-
lection/Corpus 101 ]; not to be linked with BM W 29
recto/Corpus 97 ,asWilde claims.). Berenson, 1961 ,no.
1704 (As 1903 / 1938 .). Weinberger, 1967 ,p. 341 (Imita-
tor of Michelangelo, but not Passerotti.). Hartt, 1971 ,no.
160 ( 1517 – 18 ?. St. Reparata, perhaps for right return of the
mezzanine on the San Lorenzo fac ̧ade.). Gere and Turner,
1975 ,no. 99 (“one of Michelangelo’s most brilliant stud-
ies.” Contemporary with BM W 29 recto/Corpus 97 .).
De Tolnay, 1975 , Corpus I, no. 98 (Michelangelo, 1515 –
20 ,probably for the 1516 project of the Julius Tomb.).
Per rig, 1982 ,pp. 14 – 20 (By Antonio Mini, reflectingMichelangelo’s early drawing style. Mini also responsible
for the hatching on Louvre 685 recto/J 16 /Corpus 95 .).
Per rig, 1999 ,p. 282 (As 1982 .).CATALOGUE 23An Old Woman? and a Child
184 6. 70 ;R. 31 ;P.II 324 ; Corpus 83 bis (inadvertently
omitted)Dimensions: 329 × 192 mmMedium
Pen and ink, black chalk.Condition
The primary support is lined. There is a vertical crease, a
major toned infill, minor repairs, fractures from ink burn-
through, abrasion, and some skinning, together with
widespread discolouration.Description
There are a number of apparently connected pen lines
under the right forearm and the attached drapery of this
figure, which are covered by the figure, but the compiler
is unable to decipher these. Partly crossing the head of
the child, and then rising at an angle of about 45 ◦are two
lines that terminate in a two-pronged form that seems to
be supporting a round object seen in profile, on a level
with the aged person’s hand. If the compiler’s reading is
correct, this might indicate a right arm and hand holding
a mirror.
The lines and areas of black chalk appear to be over
rather than under the pen lines. It was not unknown for
Michelangelo to correct pen drawings in soft black chalk,
butitisuncertain whether what is seen here is correction,
or simply the marks of an offset from another drawing.Discussion
The purpose of this drawing is unknown, and the sex
of the main figure is disputed: It is indeed difficult to
be sure whether it is male or female, although the com-
piler would, on balance, opt for female. The drawing
obviously revives Michelangelo’s early interest in the
forms of Masaccio in its grand fall of draperies, but
the characterisation gives the figure a humorous, per-
haps sinister, edge. The hatching is less tight and deli-
cate than that of Michelangelo’s early exercises in cross-
hatched pen, and it was this bolder manner that younger