The Drawings of Michelangelo and His Followers in the Ashmolean Museum

P 1 : KsF
0521551331 c 01 -p 3 CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 10 : 14

230 WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AUTOGRAPH SHEETS CATALOGUE 47

Tolnay, 1960 ,pp. 201 – 2 ,no. 211 ([ 46 a]Samson Slaying

the PhilistinenotDavid and Goliath,155 0- 6 .Preceded by

Morgan Library sketches. [ 46 b]Cleansing of the Temple,

on a separate sheet. Verso: not Michelangelo.). Beren-

son, 1961 ,no.15 7 1 (As 1903 / 1938 .). Barocchi, 1962 ,

p. 173 (Samson.). Barocchi, 1964 c,no. 63 (Composed

from two pieces; all sketches after155 0.). Berti, 1965 ,

pp. 483 , 491 (Recto: fighting group, related to Mor-

gan Library drawings, representsSamson and a Philistine

notDavid and Goliath, although employed for aDavidby

Daniele da Volterra. Section upper right for theCleans-

ing of the Temple.Verso: not Michelangelo.). Goldschei-

der, 1965 ,no. 118 (As 1951 ,but redated to c.155 0.).

Hartt, 1971 ,no. 473 (Recto:155 0– 5 ?. Sketches for the

Cleansing of the Templeinserted into this sheet at a later

date. Main page showsHercules and Cacus, club clearly

visible, but close toDavid and Goliathsketches.); p. 390

(Verso: rejected.). Gere and Turner, 1975 ,no. 164 (Linked

with Morgan Library studies forDavid and Goliath; pur-

pose unknown, c.155 0– 5 ;sketches for theCleansing of

the Templeinserted upper right, linked with BM draw-

ings.). Hartt, 1975 ,no. 456 C(Ve r so: accepted.155 4?.).

De Tolnay, 1978 , Corpus III, no. 374 (As 1960 .). Perrig,

1991 ,pp. 105 – 7 , fig. 123 (Recto: by Daniele da Volterra;

representsDavid and Goliath.). Perrig, 1999 ,pp. 242 – 4

(Recto, as 1991 .Verso: not Michelangelo, from Farnese

Collection.).

CATALOGUE 47

Studies of Sleeping Apostles

184 6. 86 ;R. 70 ( 2 ); P.II34 0; Corpus 404

Dimensions: 107 × 325 mm

Avertical cut has been made 118 mm from the right

edge, and the sheet has then been rejoined. The cut,

which divides a figure, is difficult to explain unless it was

made by an owner or dealer to maximise the value of the

individual drawings. Nothing has been lost and the chain

lines in the paper run without break. It seems likely how-

ever, from the verso inscriptions, that the sheet remained

divided for a period because theBona Rotiinscription, on

the larger fragment, is made with the lower edge as the

base, and the Irregular Numbering, which was made on

the smaller fragment employed the left edge as the base.

However, one cannot be sure of this because the rela-

tion of the two inscriptions on undivided sheets is often

eccentric.

Afurther issue is whether this sheet and Cat. 48

wereonce joined, as some scholars believe. They were

mounted together and with Cat. 45 when in Lawrence’s

collection – but probably not when they were owned

byOttley – and all three drawings are the same height

and seem to be made on the same type of thin paper.

Cat. 48 bears a watermark, part of which has been cut,

but the remaining part is not to be found on either the

present sheet or on Cat. 45 ,soproof of direct physcial

connection is lacking. It seems to the compiler clear that

all three drawings were made on the same batch of paper

and approximately at the same time. It may also be the case

that the present sheet and Cat. 45 were once physically

parts of the same larger sheet. But if this is so, it neverthe-

less seems probable, from the way in which both sheets are

used, that they were separated before Michelangelo began

to draw upon them. The consistency with which designs

for the same or closely related scenes spread across the

page in both suggests that the sheets had found approxi-

mately their present shape before Michelangelo set chalk

to paper. It would be highly uncharacteristic of him to

use a large sheet in two neat and discrete horizontal strips.