P 1 : KsF
0521551331 c 01 -p 2 CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 10 : 5
182 WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AUTOGRAPH SHEETS CATALOGUE 33Discussion
This famous drawing shares features with some of the
other drawings catalogued here, and it too was dated by de
Tolnay to c.15 0 0. Although this is not acceptable, it is clear
why he thought so, since there are distinct similarities with
a drawing that probably is of that period, in Haarlem
(Teyler Museum A 22 /VT 45 /Corpus 10 ; pen and ink,
269 × 194 mm).
It seems unlikely that the drawing was made with a
specific project in mind. Obviously, in the case of an
artist like Michelangelo, who frequently surprises, dog-
matism would be unwise. Thus, the figures, who seem
to be dressed in stylised uniforms might, in principle, be
bystanders in a multi-figureCrucifixion,atleast one exam-
ple of which Michelangelo designed in this period, but
they seem too caricatural to make such an idea plausible.
Indeed Robinson’s description is too acute not to quote:
“The group seems to represent a soldier, with a sympa-
thising companion leaning on his shoulder, disputing or
arguing some knotty point with a civilian, whose cring-
ing and obsequious attitude, at the same time expressive of
feigned astonishment, is in almost ludicrous contrast with
the erect bearing and earnest yet bewildered expression
of the soldier.”
The figures may have been drawn simply with satiri-
cal intent, sending up individuals Michelangelo disliked,
possibly during the siege of Florence, when troops were
very visible. Alternatively, they could have been made for
Antonio Mini, or another student, to demonstrate the
absurdity of some types of discourse. What the draw-
ing does show is that to Michelangelo’s highly developed
gift for verbal satire was added one for graphic satire, but
drawings of this type, in which he relaxed, were proba-
bly among the first to be destroyed. The drawing’s car-
icatural qualities were well brought out by Robinson,
butitmust be admitted that the employment of two
of these figures by Battista Franco in his painting of the
Battle of Montemurlo,would seem to counteract such an
interpretation.
As noted by Parker and others, the inscriptions are
mutilated and show that the sheet was once larger. They
date to15 2 6and probably preceded the drawing. Frey, fol-
lowed by Dussler, placed thericordibetween others datable
between 23 June and 5 July15 2 6on sheets now in the
British Library.
Battista Franco’s knowledge of this drawing was prob-
ably direct, and not through a copy by Raffaello da Mon-
telupo. The provenance, however, provides no clues as to
the first owner of the drawing – only that it seems never
to have been in Casa Buonarroti.Drawn Copies
1. Christie’s sale, New York, 25 January 2005 , lot 32 ; pen
and ink,36 4× 239 mm, all four corners chamfered, the
lower left corner additionally cut and made up.
This drawing is identical with that owned and dis-
cussed by Jonathan Richardson Senior, who describes
the relation between it, which he believed to be by Bat-
tista Franco, and Michelangelo’s original which he also
owned (see following discussion). The sheet indeed bears
the stamp of the elder Richardson. On its reappearance,
its superiority to 2 was immediately evident, and it was
widely agreed to be by Battista Franco.
From the collections of Jonathan Richardson Senior,
John Barnard, Thomas Hudson, Sir Joshua Reynolds, Sir
Thomas Lawrence, and Samuel Woodburn. This version
was etched by J. Basire in 1763 in the same direction
and at precisely the same size as the original, inscribed:
Bat.a Franco del.t after Mic. Angelo.In the collection of Mr
Tho.s Hudson, Painter. J. Basire Sc.t, 1763 ,CRedid.t.
Republished by Rogers, 1778 ,I,facing p. 71 (Basire’s
etching shows the chamfered corners found both in this
version and 2 ,and the drawing is set on a Richardson-style
mount). Franco’s copy was evidently shown in Wood-
burn’s 1836 exhibition above the original.
2. Plymouth, City Art Gallery and Museum, Cottonian
Collection, CD 98 ; pen and ink,36 6× 246 mm, all four
corners chamfered (illustrated by Dussler, 1959 ,fig. 179 ),
acquired for the Cottonian Collection by the museum
in 1918. This drawing, whose mount bears a pencilled
inscription to Battista Franco, was, when it was purchased,
assumed to be identical with the copy by Franco described
byJonathan Richardson Senior, later owned by Charles
Rogers and etched by Basire. This seems generally to
have been accepted until Parker pointed out that there
werenumerous irreconcilable differences between the
Plymouth drawing – which bears no collectors’ marks –
and Basire’s etching and that it could not therefore be
the Richardson–Rogers version. The reappearance of 1
proved Parker correct. Given the fact that the corners of
the Plymouth sheet are chamfered in exactly the same
way as 1 ,itmight seem reasonable to conclude that it is a
copy after it, made to deceive, at some time between 1836
and 1918 ,aperiod when 1 was lost to sight. However,
although, as Parker noted, the presence of a pentiment
in the chin of the central figure in the Plymouth draw-
ing–apentiment not reproduced in Basire’s etching –
does suggest that the draughtsman knew Michelangelo’s
original, the penwork is otherwise sufficiently different
both from the original and Franco’s copy, 1 (or copies, 1
and 3 )tomake unlikely the possibility that it is a forgery.