P 1 : JZP
0521551335 c 07 CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 13 : 37
CATALOGUE 113 MISCELLANEOUS 391Discussion
This and Cat. 70 – for which see further discussion – seem
to be the drawings recorded in Ottley’s sale of18 03as part
of lot 27. This contained four drawings, two of which,
“in pen and bistre,” were “from M. Angelo’s model for
restoring the celebrated antique torso.” These studies were
attributed by Ottley to “KENT,” by which he presum-
ably meant William Kent, the painter and, still more
famously, architect. If this attribution could be proved
to be correct, they would no doubt have been copied by
Kent after earlier drawings because they bear no obvious
relation to his known drawing style. Alternatively – the
view prefered by the compiler – they may simply have
been owned either by Kent, or his homonym, the dealer,
and ownership was mistaken for authorship by Ottley.
Indeed, no previous writer seems to have expressed any
doubts that this drawing and Cat. 70 are genuinely of the
sixteenth century. William Kent the architect certainly
had contact with Jonathan Richardson the Younger as
well as the elder – he is referred to personally by the for-
mer in 1722 (p.34 0)–and a drawing or drawings might
easily have passed between them. If the drawings are by
Kent, however, Parker’s inclusion of Lely? in the prove-
nance – a name not included by any other writer – would
have to be disregarded.
Parker’s tentative suggestion of Bandinelli as the author
of this drawing has not been taken up by later writers.
There is, however, a definite resemblance to the draw-
ing that he cites as a comparison (British Museum 1854 -
6 - 28 - 1 /Berenson 1681 ; pen and ink with wash,36 6×
187 mm [maximum, irregular]), both in their style of
handling and in the fact that they are both strongly
influenced by Michelangelo’s Sistineignudi. The present
drawing also seems to show knowledge of Michelan-
gelo’s New Sacristy figures, especiallyDayandDawn.
Whether or not it does copy a model, believed in the
eighteenth century to have been made by Michelangelo
with the aim of restoring theBelvedere Torso,isamat-
ter for conjecture. If so, the resemblance must be slight
because this figure has none of the muscular power of that
fragment.
The compiler is inclined to think that the present draw-
ing is of the153 0sor15 4 0s, and by a young sculptor
in Bandinelli’s circle, perhaps made to serve for a foun-
tain. This view is also that of an unidentified annota-
tor on the mount of the British Museum drawing, who
refers specifically to the present one. The British Museum
drawing, although on occasion in the past attributed to
Michelangelo or his school, is now given, rightly, in the
compiler’s view, to Baccio Bandinelli. However, it should
be noted that Nicholas Turner (in a personal communica-
tion) has suggested a radically different possibility: that thepresent drawing is by the Lombard artist Daniele Crespi,
and the compiler can see sufficient similarities with draw-
ings by Crespi to find that idea intriguing.Engraving
Afacsimile was engraved by W. W. Ryland, signed and
dated 1762. This was included in Rogers, 1778 ,I,facing
p. 39.History
Sir Peter Lely? (no stamp). Jonathan Richardson Senior
(L. 2184 ); Jonathan Richardson Junior? (no stamp);
Uvedale Price?; Sir Joshua Reynolds (L. 2364 ); William
Young Ottley? (probably his sale of 14 April18 03, part
of lot 27 (“Four – two of studies, pen, and two drawings
in pen and bistre by KENT, from M. Angelo’s model for
restoring the celebrated antique torso. See on the back,
quotations from Richardson and Wright” [the passage
from Wright, 1730 ,that Ottley refers to, and which – like
that of Richardson – is no longer attached to this draw-
ing, must be the following from his p. 268 “It is allow’d
byall to have been the Trunk of anHerculesand Some at
Romesuppose him to have been in the Act of Spinning;
butMich. Angeloseem’d to have been of another Opin-
ion, according to a Model we saw atFlorence, which he
made in order to restore it, as he was to have done had he
lived. In that Model, his right elbow rests upon his Thigh,
his Head is inclin’d as going to rest upon that hand, the
other Hand is lying loose upon the left Thigh. By this
it should be thatMich. Angelo’sOpinion was that it was
Herculesreposing himself, after his labours.”]); Sir Thomas
Lawrence (L. 2445 ); Samuel Woodburn.References
Richardson and Richardson, 1722 ,p. 75 (Seen in Florence
“The Model ofMich. Angelofor restoring theTorso;’tis in
Wax, about the same Size as the Drawing for it which my
Father has. It wasVasari’s , afterwardsFranceschino Volter-
ranohad it; and when he was very Old he brought it to the
Great Duke as a Present, that it might be for ever preserv’d
in that Collection: ’tis in Perfection.”). Rogers, 1778 , 1 ,
plate facing p. 39 (Michelangelo.). Ottley sale, 14 April
18 03, part of lot 27 ?(“Four – two of studies, pen, and two
drawings in pen and bistre by KENT, from M. Angelo’s
model for restoring the celebrated antique torso. See on
the back, quotations from Richardson and Wright.”).
Lawrence Inventory, 1830 ,M.A.Buonaroti Case 3 ,
Drawer 3 [ 1830 – 87 ] (“The Restoration of the Celebrated
To rso with a curious account at the back, annotated in
Roger [sic].”). Woodburn,184 2,no. 62 (“The restora-
tion of the Torso – pen and bistre wash. This Draw-
ing is copied in Mr Rogers’ imitations.”). Robinson,