P 1 : JZP
0521551335 c 07 CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 13 : 37
37 6 MISCELLANEOUS CATALOGUES 106–107History
John Talman the younger, part of the Larger Talman
album (L. 2462 ); Christie’s sale, 13 March 1942 , lot 102 ,
H. Calmann, acquired in 1942.References
Parker, 1956 (Appendix A, p. 554 ; attributed by inscrip-
tion to I. B. Mola [c.15 8 8– 1665 ].).CATALOGUE 107bartolommeo passerotti(15 2 9–15 9 2)after baccio ban-
dinelli( 1493 – 15 6 0)
Portrait of Michelangelo
1944. 133 ;P.II 90
Dimensions: 375 × 272 mmMedium
Pen and ink.Condition
Single-sided solid museum mount.
The sheet shows heavy vertical undulations. There is
severe discolouration and ingrained surface dirt overall,
plus various patches of black spots. Brown lines are seen
at the bottom edge and lower left edge. There are repaired
tears and losses at all edges, especially the bottom edge.
The top corners have been filled, and there is a patch in
the top edge near the centre. There is a heavy horizontal
fold line across the sheet, below the centre. The lightest
areas of the medium may be beginning to fade.Discussion
The present drawing is a same-size copy of a drawing
in the Louvre (Inv. 2715 /J R 27 /Corpus 118 ; pen and ink
overblack chalk, 365 × 250 mm). This is widely attributed
to Michelangelo and, if accepted as such, would be a
self-portrait. The present drawing is free and vigorous in
handling and makes no attempt to reproduce the original
in every detail. It seems to the compiler very obviously
byPasserotti and may be compared with any number of
his studies of heads.
The Louvre original and the present drawing corre-
spond not to the image of Michelangelo presented in
four painted portraits by or after Michelangelo’s friend
Giuliano Bugiardini but to that presented in a fifth por-
trait, which is also in the Louvre (Inv. 874 ; oil on panel,
490 ×36 4mm). Indeed, the relation of the Louvre draw-ing and the Louvre painting is closer than one of simple
similarity: The external and internal dimensions of the
head in both drawing and painting are identical, and Inv.
2715 or a replica of it, must have served as the cartoon for
the painting.
The Louvre painting may be identical with, an exact
replica of, or exactly replicated in, a painting formerly in
the collection of the Duc d’Orleans, first catalogued in ́
that collection in 1728 byDu Bois de Saint-Gelais, who
gave it to Sebastiano del Piombo. The Orleans paint- ́
ing was engraved by Clairon Mondet in theGal ́erie du
Palais Royalin 1786 ,butitwasnot mentioned in theEtat
g ́en ́eral des tableaux appartenantaS` .A.R le duc d’Orl ́eans
drawn up in 1788 , and there seems to be no further
trace of it. When, in 1874 ,Fred ́eric Villot catalogued
the Louvre painting, he made no mention of the Orl ́eans
version and claimed that the Louvre painting came from
the collection of Louis XIV, and was identical with one
recorded at Fontainebleau by Bailly as “une copie du por-
trait de Michel-Ange.” However, although it is generally
accepted that the Louvre and Orl ́eans paintings are dis-
tinct, only the discovery of an “Orl ́eans” original could
prove that they are. Indeed, it seems to the compiler, as to
Garrault, more likely that the Orleans and Fontainebleau ́
paintings are in fact the same.
Villot gave the Louvre painting to Bugiardini rather
than Sebastiano. More recently, it has been attributed to
Daniele da Volterra and to Bandinelli. But although the
attribution to Sebastiano has long since been abandoned,
is ignored in recent literature on that artist, and clearly
cannot be sustained, it is nevertheless of interest in that
it registers a response to the geometrical simplification of
the forms and the sense of weight that the portrait con-
veys. Daniele’s authorship has found a recent supporter
in Pagnotta, 1987 ,no. 118 ,p. 235 ,but this view seems
untenable to the compiler. Because Daniele came into
contact with Michelangelo only c.15 4 5,itwould entail
accepting that he copied a portrait of the master made
some twenty or more years earlier, and it would still leave
open the question of who was responsible for the original
that he copied. Furthermore, Daniele’s portrait drawing
of Michelangelo (Haarlem, Teyler Museum, A 6 /VT 142 ;
black chalk and leadpoint, 295 × 218 mm) and his painted
version of this head in theAssumption of the Virginin the
chapel of Lucrezia della Rovere in the Trinita del Monte
show a man who is older and more elegantly clad and
whose features are envisaged differently. However, the
attribution to Daniele does, once more, register some-
thing of the plastic force of the Louvre painting.
The authorship of the Louvre painting and that of the
Louvre drawing need not be identical but probably is.