P 1 : KsF
0521551331 c 01 CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 10 , 2007 22 : 22
CATALOGUE 1 WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AUTOGRAPH SHEETS 63Michelangelo inspired by a motive of Leonardo da Vinci.”
Relates more closely to Leonardo’s earlier version of the
subject in the Royal Academy cartoon, than the later one
in the Louvre painting, studies by “the sullen and jealous
young genius just back from his four years of success-
ful work in Rome.”); no. 9 B(Ve r so: cites Berenson’s
view that it may be some years later than the recto.).
Thode, 1908 ,I,p. 114 ; II, p.34 0(15 0 4– 5. Recto: group
influenced by Leonardo. Verso: head of young man influ-
enced by Leonardo, to whomleardomay refer. Sim-
ilarity of pose to BM W 9 /Corpus 138 .). Justi, 1909 ,
pp. 173 – 4 (Recto: after Leonardo’s cartoon.). Thode,
1913 ,no. 406 (As 1908. Recto: cf. Louvre Inv. 685
recto/J 16 /Corpus 26 .Verso: male studies probably for
Cascina,c.15 0 4.). Panofsky, 1922 ,p. 8 (15 0 1– 4. Recto:
free interpretation of Leonardo’s15 0 1 cartoon. Verso:
the male nude [Cat. 2 ,verso, C] to be compared with
Leonardo’s study of a male nude from the rear at Wind-
sor [ 12 , 596 /CP p. 120 ] and the profile of the head
of a young man also related to Leonardo’s types. The
pen technique shows similarities to Leonardo’s.). Popp,
1925 b,p. 72 (With [Cat. 2 ] part of a sketchbook.). Popp,
1925 – 6 ,pp. 139 – 40 (Recto: inspired by Leonardo. Verso:
c.15 0 1.). Baumgart, 1935 a,p. 351 (Recto: “L’essenza
della composizion a gruppo, gli rimane ancora estranea.
Cio che gli sembr` o importante era la comprehensione`
della plasticit`a della figura e della composizione plas-
tica del gruppo che raggiunge, s`ı, une esteriore unit`a
formale priva pero` ancora dell’intimo compenetrarsi
ed equilibrarsi di singoli valori plastici.”). Baumgart,
1937 ,pp. 11 – 12 (Recto: drawn in response to Leonardo,
15 0 1– 2 .Very different from Doni tondo.); pp. 36 – 7
(Verso: after Michelangelo; clear differences in quality
from the authentic Cat. 2 .). Berenson, 1938 ,no. 1561 (As
1903 .). Bertini, 1942 ,p. 41 (Recto: drawn in response to
Leonardo.). De Tolnay, 1943 a, pp. 100 ,18 0,no. 9 (Recto:
spring–summer of15 0 1, when Leonardo’s cartoon was
displayed, but rather resembles Leonardo’s Louvre draw-
ing, Inv. RF 460. “[T]he figures are contained in an
oblong block set diagonally. Each figure acts indepen-
dently of the others – and indeed in opposition to them.
The whole is based on dissonances.”); pp. 101 ,18 0– 1 ,
no. 10 (Verso: inscription refers to Leonardo. [E] taken
up in Joseph ofDoni tondoand [F] in background youth.
A inspired in pose by Leonardo’s drawing at Windsor,
12593 /CP, p. 119 .). Popham and Pouncey, 1950 ,pp. 67 – 8
(Recto and verso: c.15 0 5; the recto’s “compact sculp-
tural composition” based on that of Leonardo’s National
Gallery cartoon. Verso: connected withCascina.). Gold-
scheider, 1951 ,no. 8 (Recto: a free copy of Leonardo’s
cartoon, c.15 0 1.); no. 7 (Verso: inscription should beread asleardo[dappled] orNardo, which would refer to
Michelangelo’s elder brother, Fra Leonardo.). De Tolnay,
1951 ,pp. 29 , 291 (Recto and verso: as 1943 / 1947 .).
Wilde, 1953 a,pp. 3 – 4 , 21 (one of a group of drawings,
perhaps leaves of the same sketchbook, which can be
dated with certainty in the period15 0 1– 3. Recto: pose
of Virgin related to BM W 9 /Corpus 138 ,for Sistine.).
Wilde, 1953 b, p. 66 (15 0 1– 3 .The “short, firm, paral-
lel strokes partly following the curve of the form do not
occur in earlier drawings by Michelangelo and are charac-
teristic of all Leonardo’s pen studies of this period...by
giving an entirely eccentric place to the Infant Christ
he imparted tension to the structure. The study may
well have been intended for a statuary group, for the
outlines are as closed as thePiet`aand the group needs
no setting: it is completely isolated. The centre of the
greatly increased plastic life has now been lifted to the
upper half where the main points lie in the foremost
plane.”). Wilde, 1953 exh., no. 12 (Recto:15 0 1– 3 ;may
have been inspired by Leonardo.). Parker, 1956 , II, no. 291
(With [Cat. 2 ] and Louvre Inv. 714 /J 4 /Corpus 19 , per-
haps from the same sketchbook. Datable15 0 1– 2. The
recto inspired by Leonardo, but his influence on the
verso generally overstated. “[I]mprobable too that the
study of a man’s back has any real relation to the marble
David.”). Dussler, 1959 ,no. 193 (Recto:15 0 1. Inspired
byLeonardo but more plastic in conception. Verso: con-
temporary with recto. Types and motifs also inspired by
Leonardo. Inscription cannot readLeardobutLe(n)ardo.
Probably part of the same sketchbook as [Cat. 2 ].). Beren-
son, 1961 ,no. 1561 (As 1903 / 1938 .). Barocchi, 1962 ,p. 4
(Michelangelo; compared with Uffizi 233 F/B 1 /Corpus
37 .). Barocchi, 1964 a (Recto: reaction to Leonardo, fol-
lowing15 0 1.Verso: contemporary with recto; connection
with AB II–III, 3 verso/B 287 /Corpus 15 .). Brugnoli,
1964 ,no. 5 (15 0 1– 2 ; influence of Leonardo, but a new
energy of mass. “The pen strokes, longer and more widely
separated...summarize the modeling...rapid sketch-
ing of Madonna’s left foot characteristic.”). De Tolnay,
1964 e, col. 873 (Paraphase of Leonardo’s St. Anne.).
Berti, 1965 ,pp. 392 – 4 , 402 (Both sides contemporary,
c.15 0 1. Recto: influenced by Leonardo, but more ener-
getic and angular; pictorial rather than sculptural. Verso:
name read as Leonardo. Ephebic head reminiscent of
those in theManchester Madonna.). Goldscheider, 1965 ,
no. 8 recto, no. 7 verso (Alternative readings dropped
andLeardoapparently accepted as Leonardo; “in parts
of the drawing even Leonardo’s left-handed hatching
lines are imitated.”). Weinberger, 1967 ,p. 104 (Recto:
c.15 0 2“reflects the impression of Leonardo’s cartoon.”);
p. 87 (Verso: linked with [Cat. 2 ]verso and Louvre