P 1 : JZP
0521551335 c 07 CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 13 : 37
37 8 MISCELLANEOUS CATALOGUE 107The drawing, although close to Michelangelo in style,
and much more accomplished than any drawing by any
of Michelangelo’s known pupils in this period, is not, in
the opinion of the compiler, by Michelangelo himself.
The very long pen-lines seen on the turban, the use of a
rather thick pen, and the systematic handling of the hatch-
ing, all contrast with Michelangelo’s most immediately
comparable pen drawings – chronologically, stylistically,
and iconographically – such as another drawing in the
Louvre (Inv. 684 /J 29 recto/Corpus 95 ; pen and ink over
red chalk, 275 × 211 mm). Pouncey’s 1964 attribution
of both drawing and painting to Bandinelli – implicitly
anticipated as far as Louvre 2715 is concerned, by Parker’s
placing of the present drawing – has been little noticed,
in part, perhaps, because, when it was made, no imme-
diately comparable drawings by Bandinelli were known.
However, with the discovery of Bandinelli’s drawn copy
of Leonardo’sAnnunciatory Angel(Christie’s, London, 1
July 1969 , lot 119 ; pen and ink, 356 × 265 mm, present
wherabouts unknown; reproduced by Ward, 1988 , fig. 5 ),
it is clear that such a drawing as Inv. 2715 is within his
capacity qualitatively, quite apart from its stylistic congru-
ence with that sheet. Pouncey’s attribution of the painting
to Bandinelli has likewise received little attention, perhaps
because of the paucity of paintings certainly by Bandinelli.
But Thode’s unsurpassed characterisation of the painting’s
style ( 1908 , II, pp. 546 – 7 )–“Der inkarnat is brustig rot,
was die fast brutale Wirkung des Ganzen mitbestimmt.
Der Farbe nach am Ernsten von einem Schuler aus dem
Kreis des Andrea del Sarto, aber nicht auf der Hohe der
Kunst etwa eines Pontormo” – disregarded by subsequent
critics, fits perfectly that of Bandinelli who, of course,
learned to paint with Andrea del Sarto. The establish-
ment of relief in masses formed of patches of light and
shade is appropriate to the work of a sculptor, appropri-
ate to a student of Sarto, and congruent with Bandinelli’s
own later Self-Portraitin the Isabella Stewart Gardner
Museum, Boston. The tendency, visible in the Louvre
portrait, to emphasise the planes of the face in a manner
that verges on faceting is also appropriate to the imagina-
tion of a sculptor, and specifically to one who had studied
closely the work of a painter and draughtsman known
greatly to have influenced Bandinelli: Giovanni Battista
Rosso.
Perhaps the well-known enmity between Bandinelli
and Michelangelo discouraged acceptance of Pouncey’s
attribution, but it should be remembered that in 1516 – 17
Michelangelo attempted to promote Bandinelli’s career,
at the cost of alienating Jacopo Sansovino, by recruiting
his aid with the sculpture for the fac ̧ade of San Lorenzo
(an accidental offset of a drawing by Bandinelli whichshows knowledge of Michelangelo’s design for a relief of
theMartyrdom of St Lawrenceis illustrated in Riley-Smith,
1998 ). At this time, the two men must have been close,
and hostility probably solidified only in15 2 4– 5 , when
Bandinelli took over theHercules and Antaeusblock that
Michelangelo considered his own. That Bandinelli should
have drawn a portrait of Michelangelo in 1522 is not
implausible; nor is it that he should have produced a
painted version of it, for it was precisely at this period that
he was attempting to enlarge his range to include paint-
ing. To the compiler, Pouncey’s attribution of the Louvre
painting and the Louvre drawing to Bandinelli seems self-
evidently correct. Given the subsequent hostility between
the two men, it is unsurprising that Michelangelo’s biog-
raphers omitted to mention his relatively brief friendship
with Bandinelli. In his autobiography, Bandinelli remarks
that his drawings were praised by Michelangelo, which, at
the very least, demonstrates that Michelangelo saw some
of them. For a drawing on a sheet with a provenance from
Michelangelo’s studio, which the compiler believes to be
byBandinelli, see Cat. 8 verso.
Passerotti was, of course, fascinated by the art of
Michelangelo, after which he made numerous copies,
and he was also interested in the personality of the
master. In addition to Bandinelli’s portrait drawing, he
copied Daniele da Volterra’s bust of the aged Michelan-
gelo in at least two drawings. That from the collections
of Richard Cosway and Sir Thomas Lawrence and for-
merly in the Grand Ducal Collection at Weimar is repro-
duced by Steinmann, 1913 , pl. 67 A; in 1990 it was with
Thomas le Claire, Hamburg (advertisement in theBurling-
ton Magazine,January 1990 ,p.v). The other, somewhat
more vivaciously rendered, is in the Louvre (Inv. 8485 ;
pen and ink, 155 × 140 mm; reproduced Steinmann,
1913 , pl. 67 B). A further portrait head of Michelan-
gelo by Passerotti, whose source is uncertain, is in the
British Museum (18 95- 9 - 15 - 1025 ; pen and ink, 388 ×
261 mm). Other artists also occupied his attention: In his
famous drawing ofMichelangelo’s Anatomy Lesson(Paris,
Louvre, Inv. 8472 ; pen and ink, brush and wash over lead
point? and black chalk, indented for engraving, 385 ×
498 mm), he included among the tributaries to the mas-
ter Raphael, Jacopo Sansovino and Baccio Bandinelli, of
whom he also made a portrait drawing (pen and ink,
420 × 275 mm), with Arnoldi-Livie, Munich, 2005 .It
is clear that the graphic work of Bandinelli held particu-
lar fascination for him. Indeed, Passerotti’s style as a pen
draughtsman is more closely based on that of Bandinelli
than of any other artist, and it is a reasonable presump-
tion that the two men were acquainted. Support for this
contention is provided by the present drawing, for which