P 1 : JZP
0521551335 c 02 -p 4 CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 10 : 54
284 COPIES OF LOST OR PARTIALLY LOST DRAWINGS CATALOGUE 581859 and is likely to have been made by an artist close to
Michelangelo. Its handling is close to that of the others
in the group.
2. Oxford, Christ Church, Byam Shaw 704 and 705 ,one
sheet now divided into two, containing studies of lions
on the recto and a sketch of aPieta`on the verso; pen and
ink, 222 ×34 6mm, maximum, combined.
3. Paris, Louvre, Inv. 701 /J 46 ; pen and ink,37 8× 208
mm, with aBound Satyron the recto and a female nude
similar to that left of centre in the Chantilly drawing on
the verso.
4. Paris, Louvre, Inv. 846 /J 45 ; pen and ink, 232 × 329
mm, after Michelangelo’s much-copied model in the Casa
Buonarroti, variously connected with the marbleDavid
and the lostHercules.
5. Paris, Louvre,Hercules and the Nemean Lion,Inv. 687 /
J 44 /Corpus 12 ; pen and ink, 315 × 227 mm, sometimes
giventoMichelangelo himself and displaying intimate
knowledge of his style.
6. Vienna Albertina, Birke-Kertesz 133 /Corpus 13 ; pen
and ink, 275 × 385 mm.These drawings are closely interrelated, and some may
adapt lost Michelangelo originals.
Weknow from correspondence that Piero d’Argenta,
named from his home town near Ferrara, was with
Michelangelo from at least 1498 ;heremained friendly
with the master and wrote warmly to him as late as153 0.
Hirst ( 1994 - 5 ) suggested that he might be the executant
of the paintings attributed to the Master of the Man-
chester Madonna – with the exception of the name
piece – and this hypothesis is supported by the fact (Agosti
and Hirst, 1996 ) that Pablo de Cespedes named Piero
as the painter of the lostStigmatisation of Saint Francis,
designed by Michelangelo for the first chapel on the left
in the church of San Pietro in Montorio in Rome, and in
situ until c.15 9 0when it was replaced by the extant fresco
byGiovanni de’Vecchi. All the “Manchester” paintings
would seem to depend on drawings by Michelangelo, and
the pronounced angularity and slimness of their figures
may be the result of a conscious effort on Michelangelo’s
part to conform to his friend’s Ferrarese aesthetic (Louvre
RF 4112 recto/J 17 /Corpus 25 ; pen and ink, 392 × 284
mm, might have been made by Michelangelo for Piero:
The type of the Child is close to those of the paint-
ings). Because the relation between the two men was
evidently close, it is inherently probable that Piero drew
in a Michelangelesque style.
The subjects of this group of drawings fit well with
Michelangelo’s Roman work of the 1490 s. The recto
of 2 and 6 depict virtually identical lions. The former,which also carries a sketch of Michelangelo’sBacchus,
bears an inscription “Sandro di Domenico,” perhaps the
same “alessandro” named on the verso of Louvre, Inv.
726 /J 2 /Corpus 31. Drawing 2 carries on its verso a
rough sketch based on Michelangelo’sPiet`ain St. Peter’s,
plus a contemporary inscription which names “Baldassare
da Siena” (i.e., Baldassare Peruzzi), whom Michelangelo
could well have met when he visited Siena c.15 0 1to sur-
vey the Piccolomini altar in the Duomo, the setting for
the statues he was contracted to carve. It may be signifi-
cant that 5 links with another work in the same church:
the relief by Federighi ofHercules and the Nemean Lion.
Both drawings and inscriptions suggest that the draughts-
man knew the St. Peter’sPieta`,travelled with Michelan-
gelo, and was acquainted with Baldassare Peruzzi: All
this would fit well with what can be reconstructed of
Piero.Verso
This drawing is certainly by a later draughtsman. No
scholar since Robinson has considered it to be an orig-
inal, nor can any link be adduced with a known work
byMichelangelo. Robinson connected it tentatively with
the marble figure in the Victoria and Albert Museum,
then believed to be theCupidthat Michelangelo carved
for Jacop Galli. But that work has long been transferred to
its true author, Valerio Cioli, and the recent rediscovery
of Michelangelo’sCupidin the French Cultural Legation
in New York has eliminated any possible link with either
the statue or the present drawing. Taken by itself, it would
have been extremely difficult to date. However, since the
watermark strongly suggests a sixteenth-century origin, it
is presumably because the drawing is made in so naive and
direct a style that it acquires a quasi neo-classical look. A
comparable instance in the Ashmolean’s collection is per-
haps Parker II, 593 , whose date has been disputed between
the sixteenth and the eighteenth century.Drawn Copy
A copy of the figure on the right of the recto was made
bySir Edward Burne-Jones in186 6– 7 ,onfol. 8 recto of
his sketchbook in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge,
1070 - 2.History
William Young Ottley; Sir Thomas Lawrence (no stamp);
Samuel Woodburn.References
Ottley, 1808 – 23 ,p. 25 (“I have lately had the good for-
tune to meet with a drawing, which I am strongly of