P 1 : KsF
0521551335 c 04 -p 5 CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 11 : 34
CATALOGUES 81–82 COPIES OF SCULPTURES 341702 /J 47 ; both in pen and ink, respectively 329 × 166 mm,
401 ×15 7mm), these themselves are no more than con-
jectural attributions, and the differences do not absolutely
rule out the possibility of Pietro’s authorship of the present
sheet. Alternatively, several of the sculptors who worked
with Michelangelo in the New Sacristy, such as Silvio
Cosini, are entirely unknown as pen draughtsmen. A can-
didate who occurs to the compiler as a possibility is Gio-
vanni Montorsoli, in that there is a certain resemblance
between the face of the Hercules and that of the seated
Apollo in his tomb of Jacopo Sannazaro, in Naples, Santa
Maria del Parto, carved in the mid-153 0s. But only the
reappearance of further drawings by the same hand is
likely to throw light on this sheet’s authorship.History
William Young Ottley; Sir Thomas Lawrence (L. 2445 );
Samuel Woodburn.References
Lawrence Inventory, 1830 ,Varia, Case 6 , Drawer 1 [ 1830 -
136 ] (“Four:...entombment by Raffaelle; the Statute
[sic] of Hercules at Fontainebleau.”). Woodburn,184 2,
Raphael, no. 39 (“Study of Hercules with His club – Pen
drawing with figures on the back. Size, 1312 inches by
912 inches. From the Collection of W. Y. Ottley, Esq.”).
Robinson,187 0, Raphael, no. 151 (Ascribed to Raffaello.
“These studies are not by Raffaello nor do they seem to
have relation to any of his works.”). Parker, 1956 ,no. 624
(Hercules corresponds closely with a bronze statuette in
the Museo Estense, Modena; the verso figure from a
Marsyas Playing the Double Flute.). Radcliffe, 1979 – 80 ,
pp. 12 – 13 (Because statuettes of theHerculesand theGnudo
della Pauraare recorded in the Este Collection at Modena,
it is likely that the drawing was made there.). Radcliffe,
1994 ,p. 18 (“[T]he drawing is distinctly Florentine in
style and is more likely to have been made in Florence
[than Ferrara] where a version of theGnudo della Paurawas
in existence in the fifteenth century.”). Joannides, 1996 a,
pp. 31 – 2 (The drawing is Florentine in style, and all its
elements are Michelangelesque; the watermark suggests a
date c.15 2 0.). Joannides, 1997 ,p. 20 (Lawrence inventory
reference noted.).CATALOGUE 82Copy of the Julius Tomb
1963. 22 ; Macandrew 355 ADimensions: 487 × 388 mm
Watermark: Briquet no. 7111 ,Perugia15 4 4.Medium
Pen, ink, and brown wash over some establishing ruled
lines in black chalk.Condition
The sheet is undulating and generally uncomfortable.
There is a pressed-out central horizontal crease, other
minor corner creases, repaired holes, tears, and an infill
with ingrained edge dirt. A worn pin hole with tear
and edge stains is visible, also some abrasion, accretions,
local stains, some with tide-marked edges, foxing, surface
dirt, and discolouration. The secondary support has some
abrasion and fading, with its verso discoloured. The pri-
mary support is hinged to the secondary support, which
is drummed by its four edges to the backboard. It is lifting
in the lower right corner.Discussion
This drawing depicts the tomb of Julius II as it was set up
in San Pietro in Vincoli with its complement of statues in
15 4 5and as it remains. Its quality is not high: The figures
on the upper level are awkwardly drawn, although the
architecture, including the variety of grotesque carving,
is more sharply rendered. The accuracy with which the
architecture is depicted would suggest that the drawing
was made on site; the relative carelessness with which
the statues are drawn, especially those of the upper storey
(the heads that crown the herm-pilasters, for example, are
much prettified), would suggest the contrary, as would the
lack of underlying compass or stylus work. The copyist,
who may have been an architect rather than a sculptor,
wasmuch concerned, like Michelangelo himself in his
modelli,toestablish the structure’s varying depths of relief.
The watermark would suggest that the drawing was
made quite early, when there would have been widespread
interest in distributing knowledge of Michelangelo’s latest
and, as it transpired, final public sculptural work.
The attribution to Antonio da Ponteassieve, the sculp-
tor subcontracted to carve the front face lower storey of
the tomb in July 1513 ,iswithout basis.History
R. Bernal collection (inscription on mount); purchased
Eldon Fund, 1963.References
Robertson, 1963 ,p. 43 (Cannot be assigned to a spe-
cific hand; once attributed to Antonio da Ponteassieve,
butnoevidence to support this. The watermark sug-
gests that it was drawn at the time of the tomb’s comple-
tion in15 4 5. The draughtsmanship is of a higher standard
than that seen in the engraving published by Antonio