P 1 : KsF
0521551331 c 01 b CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 6 : 36
15 6 WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AUTOGRAPH SHEETS CATALOGUE 27to the legs, decreasingly detailed as they approach the feet.
In this study from the model, Michelangelo was testing
the possibility, perhaps not previously envisaged for the
New Sacristy figures, of crossing the legs: He experi-
mented here with bringing the left leg across and over
the right leg, in an arrangement that closely prefigures the
extraordinary pose of the final marble, unprecedented in
expressive complexity outside Michelangelo’s own work.
Indeed, it is clear from these drawings and from the fig-
ure as executed that, in theDay, Michelangelo reworked
some of his ideas for the AccademiaPrigioni.
The lines at the right are probably reminders of the
shape of the block from which the figure was to be carved.
The drawing on the verso is different both in medium
and in style. The breadth and volumetric concern of the
recto drawing – and the others connected with it – has
given wayto an interest in smoothness and surface pol-
ish. It has been connected by scholars with the right arms
ofDay,Dawn, andVictory,butHirst ( 1988 – 9 a) demon-
strated that it was for the right arm ofNightand further
suggested that it was made from a female model. Whether
or not this is so, the motif, which suggests delicacy and
fastidiousness, appealed to Michelangelo sufficiently for
him to re-use it in modified form in theVictory,onwhich
he probably worked in15 2 7– 8 ,afurther example of con-
ceptual intersection between the New Sacristy and the
Julius Tomb.
In the present drawing, Michelangelo studies the sur-
face effect of a smooth columnar arm. By the time he
made it, he must have determined the pose ofNightand
may already have made progress with carving, as the indi-
cation of the plait of hair suggests. This drawing may
therefore have been made a little later than the recto study.
Fewer studies survive for theNightthan theDay: They
are in black chalk:
1. Florence, Uffizi 187 19F/B 76 /Corpus 210 ; 280 ×
34 2mm, drawn on recto and verso with studies for the
Night, including, on therecto,adrawing relating the figure
to the block.
2. London, BM W 48 verso/Corpus 208 recto; 178 ×
296 mm, connected by Wilde with theLedabut in the
compiler’s view made for theNightand, although some-
what rubbed, stylistically inseparable from Cat. 26.History
Casa Buonarroti; Jean-Baptiste Wicar; Samuel
Woodburn; Sir Thomas Lawrence (L. 2445 ); Samuel
Woodburn.References
Woodburn, 1836 b, no. 14 (Recto: “probably for one of
the figures in theLast Judgement.”). Woodburn,184 2,no. 13 (As 1836 .). Robinson,187 0,no. 6 (Michel Angelo.
“[P]ose...bears some resemblance to that of the man
putting on his hose, in the Cartoon of Pisa, but it is
turned in the opposite direction.” c.15 0 1.). Black, 1875 ,
p. 213 ,no. 6. Gotti, 1875 , II, p. 237 ?. Berenson, 1903 ,I,
p. 211 ,no.15 4 8(Recto: forNight,cf. [Cat. 26 ] “His way
of handling...[chalk] would suggest that he forgot that
he was not holding a pen.” Verso: not Michelangelo.).
Thode, 1908 ,I,p. 494 (Study for a River God, not the
Night.). K. Frey, 1909 – 11 , nos. 216 (Recto: doubtful, life
study related toDay.); 217 (Verso: not Michelangelo “zu
swach und f ̈ahrig.”). Thode, 1913 ,no. 390 (Recto: stud-
ies in preparation for one of the Times of Day; renounces
view that this is a study for a River God; verso: arm of
Dawn. Doubts about either side are unnecessary.). Popp,
1922 p. 144 (Recto: free copy ofDay“Typische Kopis-
tenarbeit.” Verso: copy of the right arm ofNight; the
draughtsman had the opportunity to see the statue from all
round.). Popham, 1930 a,no. 502 .Popham, 1931 ,no. 221.
Berenson, 1938 ,I,p. 221 ,no.15 4 8 (Verso: perhaps by
Michelangelo.). Wilde, 1953 a, p. 85 (Recto: forDay.
Ve r so: studies for right arm ofNight,15 2 4– 6 .Together
with [Cat. 26 ] associated with the series of studies in
the Uffizi and the Teyler Museum.). Wilde, 1953 exh.,
no. 42 .Wilde, 1954 ,pp. 15 – 16 (Recto: together with
[Cat. 26 ] and Haarlem A 33 and 33 /VT 58 and 59 /Corpus
218 and 219 “preparatory to, or accompanied the execu-
tion of...[the]Giorno[in]...15 2 4or 1525. The partic-
ular concern of all of them is the effect of the muscles
on the surface. A living model was posed in a posi-
tion near enough to the intended one, and the study
of the movement of form was begun. Details are ren-
dered with a varying degree of sharpness. There is only
one centre of interest, the torso; the other parts are sub-
ordinated to it or vanish altogether. And in this cen-
tre the details are summed up into larger units which,
moreover, are parts of an almost regular whole. The
form clearly movesaway from the accidents of natural
appearance, but without losing its organic character. The
use of chalk well serves this concentration on the life
of the surface. There are few parallel strokes and these
go in different directions; in most places the chalk is
handled like pastel, painting rather than drawing. Con-
tours are intermittent and in general almost neglected.”).
Parker, 1956 ,no. 309 (Despite weakness, probably by
Michelangelo; studies forDayandNight.). Dussler, 1959 ,
no. 598 (Recto and verso rejected; verso after theNight.).
Berenson, 1961 ,no.15 4 8 (As 1903 / 1938 .). Barocchi,
1962 ,p. 97 (Michelangelo, linked with Uffizi187 19F
and Teyler Museum A 35 ,A 336 ,A 33 .). Goldscheider
1965 ,p. 45 (The different opinions of Parker and Wilde
“show how difficult it is to determine...for which statues