P 1 : KsF
0521551331 c 01 -p 3 a CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 10 : 18
CATALOGUE 53 WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AUTOGRAPH SHEETS 253block-like structure of some kind with forms protruding
from it, seems less likely, and the compiler is unable to
conjecture what such a structure could be or what pur-
pose it could serve. If the first interpretation is correct,
then the structure, which is clearly simple, is unlikely to be
free-standing and probably extends an existing building.
If so, two obvious possibilities present themselves. One is
the Sforza Chapel, the other the chancel of Santa Maria
degli Angeli. Of the two, the former, which is properly
to be described as an attachment, seems always to have
been conceived as a complex space, and it is doubtful if
Michelangelo ever considered a ground plan as plain as
this. But the latter, although planned as plain and simple,
is not, so far as it can be reconstructed – Michelangelo’s
scheme was destroyed in the eighteenth century? – con-
gruent with this in form.History
The history of this sheet and of its companions, Cats. 51
and 52 , with which it was still mounted, together with
Cats. 73 and 101 , when it was catalogued by Robinson, is
not fully clear. If this drawing together with Cats. 51 and
52 comprised the mounting of three drawings in Ottley’s
sale catalogue of 11 April 1804 as lot 273 , “One ditto
[i.e., leaf] containing three studies of figures, all in black
chalk, from the Buonarroti collection,” then they would
apparently have come from Casa Buonarroti, probably but
not certainly, via Wicar. However, in Ottley’s sale begin-
ning 6 June 1814 ,the only item corresponding to such
a mounting was lot 823 , “Three on one leaf, studies in
black chalk – a figure on the back of one.” £ 6. 6. 0. And
lot 825 provides the information: “from the collection of
the Cicciaporci family of Florence to whom the contents
of the three above lots [i.e., including lot 823 ] formerly
belonged.” This, therefore, would be a correction of the
earlier statement and should probably be trusted, in which
case the provenance prior to Ottley should be Daniele da
Volterra; Giacomo Rocca; The Cavaliere d’Arpino; Fil-
ippo Cicciaporci; and Bartolommeo Cavaceppi. At Ott-
ley’s 1814 sale this mounting was purchased by William
Roscoe; it reappeared at his sale of September 1816 as lot
59 : “Three, Studies of a Figure, in black chalk; another
figure on the reverse of one of them. From the same
Collection” (as the previous lot, i.e., Mr. Ottley’s). It was
acquired by Watson, a pseudonym of the London book-
seller William Carey, for 15 s., and presumably then passed
to Sir Thomas Lawrence (L. 2445 ) and Woodburn. By
the time of the184 2prospectus, to complicate matters,
this mounting, no. 36 , had acquired two further drawings
[Cats. 73 and 101 ], which were probably added to it by
Lawrence or, less likely, by Woodburn himself. In184 2,Woodburn gave the provenance for the whole ensem-
bleasthe Buonarroti family and the Chevalier Wicar. In
this he was followed by Parker and Robinson. However,
while this provenance probably is true of Cat. 73 ,itis
unlikely to be true, as we have seen, either of the trio
comprised by the present drawing and Cats. 51 and 52 ,or
of Cat. 101 .Itseems likely that Woodburn simply trans-
ferred the probable provenance of Cat. 73 to the whole
group.References
Ottley sale?, 11 April 1804 , lot 273 (“One ditto [leaf] con-
taining three studies of figures, all in black chalk, from
the Buonarroti collection.”). Ottley sale, 6 June 1814 ,
etc. probably part of lot 823 (“Three on one leaf, studies
in black chalk – a figure on the back of one” [lot 825
adds the information: “from the collection of the Cic-
ciaporci family of Florence to whom the contents of the
three above lots formerly belonged, mentioned in the
preface to Condivi, Life of Michelangelo, published in
1746 , page xviii. This collection was sold and dispersed
about 1765 , and with others purchased of the Cav. Cava-
ceppi, 1792 – 3 ,bytheir present proprietor”].). Wood-
burn,184 2,no. 35 (“Five very fine studies on one Mount,
three of them in black chalk.”). Woodburn,184 6,no. 40
(As184 2.). Robinson,187 0,no. 60. 1 (Michel Angelo.
This drawing, and [Cats. 51 and 52 ] “of the later time
of the master...apparently all studies for the same work,
of which nothing is known.”). Gotti, 1875 ,II,p. 232.
Berenson, 1903 ,I,p. 222 ,no.15 6 9. 1 (For same purpose
as [Cats. 51 and 52 ] and Gathorne-Hardy drawing; per-
haps connected withCrucifixion of St. Peter.Verso: fig-
ure identified as female.). Thode, 1908 ,II,p. 80 (For a
Crucifixion of St. Peteror aDeposition, with [Cats. 51 and
52 ].). Thode, 1913 ,no. 436 (For anEntombment, with
[Cats. 51 , 52 ].). Berenson, 1938 ,I,no.15 6 9. 1 (As 1903 .).
Goldscheider, 1951 ,no. 121 (c. 15 4 2. Resemblance
both to figure on left of [Cat. 52 ] and angel support-
ing right arm of Christ inPiet`afor Vittoria Colonna.).
Wilde, 1953 a,pp. 114 , 116 (With [Cats. 51 and 52 ]; not
before155 0.). Wilde, 1953 exh., no. 127 A(With [Cats.
51 and 52 ]; resemblance to theEpifaniacartoon, but not
certainly for it.). Parker, 1956 ,no. 334 (155 0s, for the
same uncertain project as [Cats. 51 and 52 ]. Recto: fig-
ure male. Verso: figure female.). Dussler, 1959 ,no.34 7
(Ascribed. c.155 0.Maybe for aPieta`.). De Tolnay, 1960 ,
p. 205 ,no. 217 (With [Cats. 51 and 52 and Washington
1991. 217. 2 a- 3 b] for same project, perhaps theEpifaniaor
figures in fresco or mosaic in the interior of the dome of
St. Peter’s.). Berenson, 1961 ,no.15 6 9. 1 (As 1903 / 1938 .).
Hartt, 1971 ,no. 506 (Verso:15 4 6; female saint for the