P 1 : KsF
0521551331 c 01 b CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 6 : 36
CATALOGUE 21 WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AUTOGRAPH SHEETS 135ambulation – are similar, if less pronouncedly muscular,
to those of the first of the group of slaves that Michelan-
gelo carved during his third Florentine period, theYoung
Slaveand theBearded Slave. These relations too suggest a
date of around15 2 0. Sir John Pope-Hennessy, reviewing
Lloyd’s catalogue, remarked that the forms of the chil-
dren were “totally un-Michelangelesque,” and although
this is something of an exaggeration, it must be acknowl-
edged that no close parallel can be found at least for the
form of the Child in Michelangelo’s work. Neverthe-
less, the nature of the action – the Child is obviously
being taught to walk – is not one that Michelangelo illus-
trated elsewhere in painting or drawing (although His first
independent steps – and their inevitable consequence –
are a central conceit in the BrugesMadonna), and the
Child’s forms do not seem to the compiler to consti-
tute a strong argument against Michelangelo’s authorship.
Indeed, although Michelangelo’s responsibility cannot be
affirmed with certainty, it is clear that virtually every
aspect of this painting links more closely with his work
than with that of any other artist and, if it were removed
from him, would have to be given to a pupil following
his design. No known pupil, however, was capable of so
imposing and confident a formulation.
The technique of this underdrawing, with the figures
first indicated nude with a fairly broad brush, and then the
outlines of the Virgin’s garment superimposed in darker
wash, with a more incisive line, are similar to Michelan-
gelo’s method in some of his black chalk drawings of
c.15 2 0, such as those in the Louvre and Casa Buonarroti
as mentioned earlier, but it obviously cannot be paral-
leled in any of Michelangelo’s surviving paintings. The
only two unfinished panel paintings generally accepted as
his, the ManchesterMadonnaand theEntombment, display
different kinds of lower layers, and the unfinishedEpifania
painted by Condivi to Michelangelo’s design (Florence,
Casa Buonarroti) is different again. Nor is any of these
panels prepared with so rough a surface as the present
one, which would have created a disturbing effect had
pigment been applied directly over it. Michelangelo was
no doubt employing a transposed fresco technique: He
wastreating the rough layer as anarriccio,onwhich the
composition is laid out like thesinopiaof a fresco, and he
intended to cover this with a smoother layer, correspond-
ing to theintonacoof a fresco, on which he would work up
the final surface. Once again, this technical eccentricity
(Mr. Martin Wyld of the National Gallery, who kindly
examined this panel on behalf of the Ashmolean Museum,
remarked that he had never seen anything precisely like
it) counts in favour of Michelangelo’s authorship rather
than against it.If it is accepted as by Michelangelo, the purpose of this
panel is entirely conjectural. However, Michelangelo was
frequently asked for works by his friends and acquain-
tances, and as pointed out by Wilde ( 1953 a,p. 64 ), three
such requests are documented in 1522 – 3 alone. It seems
that Michelangelo rarely satisfied them but sometimes at
least considered doing so: It may be that the present work
is the relic of some such response.
It is necessary to address another issue, the panel’s
provenance. Although it has not been traced in any inven-
tory, there is no reason to doubt that it was in the collec-
tion of the King of Naples in the mid-eighteenth century.
The remains of the Farnese collection of drawings were
there as were the cartoons by Michelangelo once owned
byPaolo Orsini, in particular the famousEpifania.But
it is surprising if, as the compiler has sustained, there
is only a thematic link between the present panel and
theEpifaniacartoon, that both should have been in the
same collection. Taken at face value, the common proven-
ance could well be taken as indicating that the panel and
theEpifaniacartoon are roughly contemporary, and that
the compiler is wrong in his dating of the present panel to
c.15 2 0.Arelated – but not dependent – issue is the panel’s
place of origin. If it could be dated c. 1516 or earlier, or
c. 1532 or later, it could have been executed in Rome
rather than Florence, and if so, this would at least provide
a common geographical origin for the two works. But
Michelangelo did sometimes transport works from one
city to the other, and even if the panel was painted in
Florence, as the compiler thinks, there is no insuperable
barrier to its having migrated to Rome. In sum, although
the compiler would acknowledge that there are obstacles
to his views, he would continue to sustain that the panel
was laid in by Michelangelo in Florence c.15 2 0.
It is further surprising, even disconcerting, that another
sketch on panel, but one whose grounding is much
smoother than the present one, has also been claimed to
have been in the collection of the King of Naples. This
isChrist and the Woman of Samaria,nowinthe Walker
Art Gallery Liverpool (Inv. 2789 ;brownoil wash on
agrey-green gesso ground, on poplar, 777 × 692 mm).
This panel was exhibited at an imprecise date, but prob-
ably early in18 01,at 118 Pall Mall (the Milton Gallery)
as no. 52 , when its provenance was said to be uncertain.
It appeared at Ottley’s sale in London on 16 May18 01,as
lot 7 ,asascribed to Michelangelo, and was described as
follows:‘The Samaritan Woman at the Well’. The preparation for
a picture perhaps intended to be finished by himself. M.
Angelo is generally believed to have painted only two or