P 1 : KsF
0521551331 c 01 -p 2 CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 10 : 5
CATALOGUE 30 WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AUTOGRAPH SHEETS 171autograph outline sketch on a small scale, more in the
nature of aricordo–orperhaps a teaching drawing – than
aconcetto,isfound on a sheet in Casa Buonarroti (CB 53 F
recto/B 174 /Corpus 229 bis; red chalk, 353 × 242 mm).
And three pupil drawings no doubt reflect with greater
or lesser fidelity Michelangelo’s ideas:1. Casa Buonarroti CB 40 Averso/B 98 /Corpus 177 ;
black chalk, 398 × 243 mm. By Antonio Mini, and datable
c.15 2 4.
2. British Museum W 34 ; pen and ink, 162 × 145 mm,
reasonably attributed to Antonio Mini by Wilde, but
somewhat later than 1.
3. Lille, Mus ́ee des Beaux-Arts, Brejon de Lavergnee, no. ́
808 recto; pen and ink, 210 × 138 mm. This drawing by
Raffaello da Montelupo, on fol. 91 recto of the sketch-
book executed jointly by Raffaello and Francesco da San-
gallo, seems to represent Antaeus on the point of expiry.
It is difficult to determine whether it was made after a
prototype by Michelangelo dating from c.15 2 4,orafter
an idea of c.15 0 8.It was acutely noted by Wilde that one of Michelan-
gelo’s drawings or models ofHercules and Antaeuswas
employed by his friend Giuliano Bugiardini for the cen-
tral group in theRape of Dinah,acomposition begun
byFra Bartolommeo – another friend of Michelangelo –
but left unfinished at his death in 1517. The version of the
Rape of Dinahin the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna
(oil on canvas,15 8. 5 × 183 cm), seems to be an autograph
version of the lost original, which had been completed by
1531 ,but there is every reason to believe that it is identical
with it in form, and Wilde’s observation seems convinc-
ing to the compiler. But it is unlikely to be coincidence
that about this time Michelangelo made a drawing, now
in Haarlem (A 24 /VT 63 /Corpus 238 ;black chalk, 115 ×
95 mm), showing a man abducting a writhing figure who
is clearly female. Perhaps Michelangelo created this for
Bugiardini, but in the event his friend preferred an option
less violently dynamic.
Michelangelo was unsuccessful in his efforts to regain
the block which, in November 1525 , Clement allocated to
Baccio Bandinelli. Some years earlier, in 1517 , Bandinelli
had been favoured by Michelangelo, and the two men
no doubt remained on terms as late as 1522 (see Cat.
107 ). But his acceptance of this commission would have
eliminated whatever warmth remained. Bandinelli began
work in15 2 6and made rapid progress on aHercules and
Cacus, not aHercules and Antaeus.On 22 August15 2 8,
however, following the expulsion of the Medici from
Florence and the re-installation of a Republican govern-ment, Michelangelo was re-allocated the block by the
Signoria, and Bandinelli was compelled to relinquish it.
Michelangelo was given carte blanche to carve what he
wished. According to Vasari, what Bandinelli had done
in the interim prevented Michelangelo from realising his
original intentions, and he instead devised a new group,
ofSamson Killing Two Philistines,tofitthe block’s changed
shape. Preoccupied with his work for the defence of
Florence, he did not begin carving this, although he did
produce a masterly model in wax or clay. This was later
cast, probably in the workshop of Daniele da Volterra,
who reproduced it in both versions of his painting of
theMassacre of the Innocents.Itbecame very famous: Tin-
toretto and his pupils made numerous drawings after
it, and it was also copied by Naldini, among many
others.
With the fall of the last Republic in153 0 and the
definitive re-establishment of Medici rule, the block was
returned to Bandinelli, whose Hercules Victorious over
Cacuswascompleted in 1534 and set up, probably as
Soderini and Michelangelo had intended, beside the
Davidin Piazza della Signoria.
The other sketches on the recto and the verso of the
sheet are listed and described above with the compiler’s
views of their authorship appended. However, a few com-
ments follow on what seems to be the more interesting
of these.Recto
Although the small sketch of a perched owl is unlikely to
have been made in preparation for the bird that accom-
paniesNight,itwas probably based on it, to facilitate a
pupil copy. The profile head of the old woman is clearly
a teaching drawing, with a copy immediately beside it;
a similar juxtaposition, this time of the head of an old
man, is seen on the verso of Michelangelo’s famous draw-
ing ofZenobiain the Uffizi ( 598 E/B 185 /Corpus 307 ;
black chalk, 357 × 252 mm), made for his friend Gherardo
Per ini about 15 2 4. Michelangelo seems to have been
concerned to introduce his pupils to selective exag-
geration by the road of caricature. This profile of an
old woman bears a resemblance, as W. Dreesmann has
pointed out (personal communication), to another pro-
file of an old woman in Florence (CB 3 F/B 190 /Corpus
309 ;black chalk, 163 × 120 mm); this drawing, although
often excluded from Michelangelo’s oeuvre, does seem
to be by him, as de Tolnay recognised. Its portrait-like
objectivity suggests that it may represent one of Michelan-
gelo’s servants, and it probably served him as the starting-
point for the more exaggerated profile on the present
sheet.