P 1 : KsF
0521551331 c 01 CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 10 , 2007 22 : 22
68 WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AUTOGRAPH SHEETS CATALOGUE 2to decide whether this head is intended to form part of the
same group as the two heads indicated in outline to the
lower left. These, however, do appear to be connected,
and they may represent the Virgin and Child seen at an
oblique angle: Although the head of the putative Child
seems unduly large, this is a feature of the BrugesMadonna.
If so, the male head could be that of Saint Joseph, but it
is hard to feel confident of this interpretation since the
characterisation is not wholly sympathetic.
Alternatively, this head may have been used in a mod-
ified way in the Triton, A on Cat. 2 recto. The Triton is
clearly identified as such, and the younger figure on Cat. 1
verso, whose pose is very similar, is probably either a vari-
ant of the same figure or a companion: Both are based
veryloosely on the BelvedereTorso, which Michelan-
gelo would have seen during his first Roman sojourn.
The subject is specific, but no project is known for which
these figures might have been made. Their function might
have been as components of a decorative frieze, but none
such is known. It should also be noted that there may
be a link with a large charcoal drawing made directly
on a whitewashed wall of the Buonarroti Villa at Set-
tignano (Corpus 11 ; 940 × 1 , 335 mm) but now detached.
Although this controversial work was first connected with
Michelangelo in print only in 1746 ,itwasknown to
Andrea Commodi who drew a copy of it (Uffizi 18614 F;
pen and ink, 153 ×15 9mm) probably in the15 8 0s. The
attribution of the Settignano figure, variously identified
as a Satyr or a Triton, is disputed. Many scholars accept
it, but although it is of strongly Michelangelesque type, it
does not seem to the compiler to be autograph. It might
be by a pupil or associate working after Michelangelo’s
ideas: Commodi demonstrably copied pupil drawings as
well as originals by Michelangelo. Nevertheless, since the
Settignano drawing, whomever it is by, is both Michelan-
gelesque and drawn on property owned by his fam-
ily, it does support the idea that Michelangelo planned
some kind of aquatic composition, perhaps in emulation
of Mantegna’s famous print, theBattle of the Sea Gods.
Further – tenuous – evidence that Michelangelo may have
contemplated a composition of Tritons is provided by two
drawings attributed to Michelangelo recorded in Jabach’s
posthumous inventory of 1695 :Quatre tritons,alaplume,`
lav ́e sur papier bistre, long de 17 et haut de 8 2/3 pouces ́ , and
Un triton mort et d’autres qui le plaignent,`alaplume, lav ́e
sur papier bistre, long de 17 1/3 sur 8 1/2 pouces ́ (Py, 2001 ,
nos. 765 , 766 ). Trace of these drawings is lost after the
mid-eighteenth century, and while there is no means of
judging whether they were by, after, or entirely uncon-
nected with Michelangelo, the fact that such scenes were
associated with him should not be dismissed too lightly.Winged headdresses are found again in works by
Michelangelo, notably in a drawing of c.15 0 5– 6 in the
Louvre (Inv. 688 verso/J 13 /Corpus 20 ; pen and ink,
38 7× 205 mm), and another of the15 2 0sinthe Uffizi
( 251 Fverso/B 243 ;black and red chalk, 279 × 133 mm),
which is closely connected with a sketch on Cat. 30
verso, K.
The back view on Cat. 2 versoand the two studies of
the raised left arm cannot be connected securely with any
work by Michelangelo. However, one reconstruction of
the bronzeDavidsuggests that its right arm was raised,
and although this was certainly not true of the statue
as executed, this drawing at least shows that Michelan-
gelo experimented with such a motif. Further comparable
studies of a right arm are found on the sheet of drawings in
the Albertina (BK 132 /Corpus 14 ; pen and ink, 225 × 315
mm). And figures with raised left arms are represented in
drawings in the Albertina (BK 118 recto/Corpus 22 ; pen
and ink, 390 × 195 mm) and Rennes, Mus ́ee des Beaux-
Arts (Inv. 794. 1. 2913 /Corpus 632 ; pen and ink,35 0×
134 mm), a drawing which, although disputed, is in the
compiler’s view an autograph Michelangelo of c.15 0 4.History
Given the nature of the recto inscription, in which
Michelangelo’s Christian name appears to have been
added as an afterthought, the provenance is proba-
blytheBona RotiCollector; the Irregular Numbering
Collector; Joachim Sandrart; Pieter Van Silvfercroon;
Queen Christina; Dezzio Azzolini; Livio Odescalchi,
Duke of Bracciano; Pierre Crozat; Jean-Baptiste Wicar
(Wicar is the first owner recorded by Woodburn, fol-
lowed by Robinson and Parker, but it is doubtful that this
is correct); William Young Ottley (the drawing may have
been part of lot 279 in Ottley’s sale of 1804 , described as
“a sheet with two torsos, etc, free pen, and some of his
writing”); Sir Thomas Lawrence (L. 2445 on the verso);
Samuel Woodburn.References
Ottley sale?, 1804 , part of lot 279 (“Three – a sheet
with two torsos, etc. free pen, and some of his writ-
ing, and two others by Salviati etc. after Michael Angelo,
one in red the other in black chalk.”). Woodburn,184 2,
no. 2. Robinson,187 0,no. 21 (Michel Angelo. Recto
and verso, c.15 0 4.). Black, 1875 ,p. 213 ,no. 21. Gotti,
1875 , II, p. 234. Berenson, 1903 ,no.15 6 0 (c. 15 0 5.
Ve r so: A possibly for the figure lifting up his arm in the
Bathers.). Colvin, 1905 , III, no. 5 A (Recto: about the same
date,15 0 5,asthe verso of Cat. 1 .); no. 5 B(Verso: pur-
pose of Triton drawing conjectural; no close precedent