P 1 : KsF
0521551335 c 04 -p 5 CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 11 : 34
316 STUDIO DRAWINGS AND DRAWINGS OF UNDETERMINED STATUS CATALOGUE 72the angle at which the horizontal bar of the cross is seen
has been modified.
The obvious assumption would be that Louvre 839
represents a preparatory sketch for a Golgotha composi-
tion, and that the present drawing is a copy of a section
of a worked-up version of that, on a larger scale. It would
seem that the draughtsman of the present drawing did not
allow himself enough space to make his copy and that,
after copying the mourning group and laying in with
aruler the upright of the cross of the bad thief at the
left, was compelled to insert the figure of the bad thief
directly above the Virgin and her companions. This anal-
ysis would imply that the two drawings are by different
hands, a contention that could be reinforced by noting
that it would be unlikely for one and the same artist to
create a composition and then to copy his own work inac-
curately. However, in the compiler’s view, there is little
to choose qualitatively between the two drawings, and he
tends to think that both probably are by the same hand.
If so, this would suggest that both drawings are copies of
a lost prototype: the Louvre drawing a sketch copy, the
present drawing a would-be same-size copy that the sheet
was too small to contain. Such an interpretation would
also reinforce the general assumption that both drawings
are copies after a lost composition by Michelangelo.
However, the compiler doubts whether this is the cor-
rect answer. Although the composition as laid out in
Louvre 839 shows numerous references to Michelan-
gelo’s drawings, it seems to be an assemblage of parts
from different Michelangelesque sources, rather than a
copy of any single composition. No parallel can be
found in Michelangelo’s work for the collision of the
crosses, nor for the grouping of the mourning figures,
where compositional coherence is slight, and the body
of the Virgin stiff and inexpressive. The same is true of
the details. The pose of Christ seems to derive from a
type with which Michelangelo experimented in a draw-
ing in Christ Church ( JBS 63 /Corpus 421 ;black chalk,
162 × 101 mm, perhaps the good thief, St. Dismas), and
the present artist has produced a version of this, elon-
gated in a way that anticipates El Greco. The right-hand
thief, with legs crossed, seems to show knowledge of stud-
ies for the Medici chapelEvening; the figure below with
raised hands is strongly reminiscent of the left-hand Heli-
ade in the British Museum version of theFall of Phaeton
(W 55 /Corpus34 0;black chalk, 313 × 217 mm); the fig-
ure supporting the Virgin, with one arm bent across
her face, comes close to the left-hand seated Sibyl of
the Metropolitan Museummodellofor the Julius Tomb
(Inv. 62931 /Corpus 489 ; pen and ink and wash over
black chalk, 509 × 318 mm); the female figure advancingfrom the left shows, in headdress and facial type, knowl-
edge of Presentation Drawings by Michelangelo such
as theThree Female Headsmade for Gherardo Perini in
the Uffizi ( 599 E/B 186 /Corpus 308 ;black chalk, 343 ×
236 mm). Such a melange, plus the compositional infelic- ́
ity of the design as a whole, suggests that although it is the
work of an artist with access to Michelangelo’s drawings,
it does not record a composition by the master. Indeed, a
Crucifixion shown obliquely is a conception more to be
expected from a Pordenone than a Michelangelo. Nev-
ertheless, given its close reflection of Michelangelesque
types, this drawing seems more appropriately included in
the section of copies after lost works by Michelangelo
than among the rejected drawings.
Compilations of this type were produced by Bacchi-
acca, but neither Louvre 839 nor the present drawing seem
to be by him, nor does anything similar survive among his
abundant painted production. A more likely possibility is
that both are the work of Giulio Clovio, which some of
the forms (such as the head of the left-hand female which
is close in type to that of the Virgin in Clovio’sAdora-
tion of the Magiin the Royal Collection (PW 241 ;grey
chalk, 308 × 215 mm) would also indicate, as would the
miniaturist refinement of execution; the lack of qualita-
tive discordance with the Louvre drawing, which suggests
an artist used to repetitive production; and the link with
El Greco, a prot ́egeo ́ fClovio’s in his late years.
It would still be difficult to explain the fact that in the
present drawing the bad thief was drawn in an inappropri-
ate position, but this might be accounted for by hypothe-
sizing that the artist was producing a partial replica of his
ownwork, for cannibalisation elsewhere.
A copy of the Louvre version appeared at Sotheby’s,
London, 2 July 1999 , lot 121 ;red chalk, 161 × 115 mm; it
is probable that this is identical with a drawing recorded
in Jabach’s 1695 inventory (Py, no. 764 ), which seems to
have been a same-size copy of the Louvre version and
might well have been cut down; the present version is
too large to correspond to Jabach’s drawing.History
Paignon-Dijonval; Sir Thomas Lawrence (L. 2445 );
Samuel Woodburn.References
Lawrence Inventory, 1830 ,M.A.Buonaroti Case 3 ,
Drawer 3 ,no. 9 [ 1830 - 12 ] (“Study for part of the Cru-
cifixion, the Virgin fainting. – red chalk.”). Wood-
burn,184 2,no. 36 (“[A] very highly finished design.’).
Woodburn,184 6,no. 44 (As184 2.). Robinson,187 0,
no. 38 (Michel Angelo “doubtless intended to assume the