P 1 : KsF
0521551331 c 01 c CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 10 , 2007 22 : 14
160 WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AUTOGRAPH SHEETS CATALOGUE 28(Inv. 1724 /J 75 ;red chalk, 212 × 273 mm, irregular). From
these copies, it is clear that the lost drawing was a com-
panion to the present one and no doubt contemporary
with it. The second dragon, which also had two legs and
two wings, is shown energetically biting what may be a
serpent but what may also be its own tail.
As well as the probable Salamanders (see Cat. 36 )
Michelangelo also drew a monstrous animal on the verso
of one of hisResurrectiondrawings, datable to the early
153 0s (British Museum, Wilde 54 /Corpus 263 ;black
chalk, 414 × 274 mm). Whether any of these creatures
was intended for some commission is impossible to say.
This dragon would have served admirably in a composi-
tion ofSaint George and the Dragon,but there is no record
that Michelangelo planned one, and no complementary
studies are known.
The other hypotheses that have been advanced make
little sense. The monster’s forms do not seem appropriate
for a composition ofApollo Killing the Python(although
that was a subject that might well have occurred to
Michelangelo, whose statue in the Bargello is frequently
interpreted asApollo)oraPerseus Rescuing Andromedaand
are too complicated to have been executed as a relief
carving on the base of a candelabra. The drawing may, in
the last analysis, have been no more than ajeu d’espriton
Michelangelo’s part, perhaps warning his pupil(s) of what
might befall them if they failed to improve. Alternatively,
a possibility suggested to the compiler by H. Chapman
(personal communication), it might represent Michelan-
gelo mocking his own fearsome reputation, characterising
himself as a snarling dragon tying itself in knots; such a
concept would be very much in keeping with the master’s
bitter and ironic sense of humour.
Popp suggested that the profile in red chalk to the right
of the Dragon was corrected by Michelangelo. The out-
lines were certainly reworked at a second moment with
a more emphatic touch, but to the compiler the quality
of this retouching does not seem to be at Michelangelo’s
level. This head bears considerable similarity to a drawing
reproduced in Woodburn’s Lawrence Gallery of 1853 ,as
plate 27 ,but now unlocated, which might also have been
byMini.Verso
In the compiler’s opinion, three different hands can be
distinguished on the verso: those of Michelangelo, Anto-
nio Mini, and Andrea Quaratesi. Parker suggests that the
reference to Andrea is no more than the beginning of a
letter, but it seems rather to be an exhortation: Andrea
abbi pazienza is more appropriately an address to a pupildissatisfied with his own efforts than the opening phrase
of a letter, and it can be paralleled by a similar exhortation
to Mini written on a sheet dated by variousricordito15 2 4
in the British Museum (W 31 /Corpus 240 ; pen and ink
and red chalk, 396 × 270 mm). It would have been natural
for Michelangelo to have taught his young pupils in pairs,
and he perhaps wanted to encourage a friendly rivalry. It
is also worthy of note that in a number of instances Raf-
faello da Montelupo drew on sheets previously used by
Mini, and Michelangelo perhaps saw value in allowing
his pupils to work on sheets already used by other pupils,
to test their level. However, Antonio Mini, born in15 0 6,
was six years older than Andrea, born in151 2,soitisonly
natural that the latter’s drawings should have been still
weaker than Mini’s. Wallace ( 1995 ) paints a plausible and
rather charming picture of Michelangelo and his pupils
passing a sheet to one another around a table.
It seems clear that Michelangelo sketched out a series
of simple graphic models for his pupils to copy, exercises
in how to represent hair, eyes, and the like. Such interests
seem more appropriate to Leonardo than Michelangelo,
but the patterns that can be inferred from other drawings,
such as Cat. 30 verso, show that they figured large among
his instructional concerns.
Phrases invoking consolation occur also on a drawing
byAntonio Mini in the Louvre (Inv. 696 verso/J 51 ; pen
and ink, 317 × 211 mm), which probably dates from a little
earlier than the present sheet.Drawn Copies
Recto
1. Paris, Louvre, Inv. 693 /J 103 ; pen and ink and brown
wash, 232 × 328 mm, a faithful same-size copy, but omit-
ting Antonio Mini’s chalk sketches. It is noticeable, how-
ever, that in areas of the original that are not fully resolved,
and in some subsidiary elements, the draughtsman loses
confidence and produces lines lacking in control. To com-
pensate for the reduction in plasticity, the copyist silhou-
etted the dragon with a light wash. The compiler cannot
concur with Berenson’s (presumably verbal) attribution
of Inv. 693 to Battista Franco, which was reported by
Parker, 1956 ,p. 162 ; the view of F. Viatte (orally), who
sees similarities with the work of Toussaint Dubreuil and
believes the drawing to be French, seems more plausible.
AFrench origin for the copy – which does, however,
bear an inscription that seems to be by an Italian – is
also suggested by the pretentious inscription and coat of
arms on the verso, in the hand of a collector who seems to
have flourished in France in the later seventeenth century
and whose attributions – so far as they are known – are