P 1 : KsF
0521551331 c 01 -p 2 CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 10 : 5
CATALOGUE 40 WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AUTOGRAPH SHEETS 209sheet. A further two-figurePiet`ain the Albertina (BK
103 /Corpus 432 ;red chalk on paper in part washed in
grey, 404 × 233 mm), comparable with the present sheet
in size, medium, and, in the compiler’s view, date, also
has a French provenance. Finally, an unpublished draw-
ing in the Schlossmuseum, Weimar, KK 8797 recto (red
chalk, 390 × 239 mm), which may well be by Antonio
Mini, seems to be after a lost preparatory study – or a
plastic model – made by Michelangelo for aPiet`awith
five figures, a design that provided the germ of the later
Piet`anow in Florence. If the attribution to Mini of the
Weimar drawing is correct, it must antedate his depar-
ture for France and would establish that the basic scheme
of the FlorencePieta`wasaready in Michelangelo’s mind
before 1532. The verso of Weimar KK 8797 bears another
version of Cat. 75.History
Baron Dominique-Vivant Denon (L. 779 ); Samuel
Woodburn; Sir Thomas Lawrence (L. 2445 ); Samuel
Woodburn.References
Woodburn, 1836 b,no. 76 (“[A] very splendid compo-
sition, most important, as no picture is known of this
subject.”). Woodburn,184 2,no. 28 (As 1836 .). Wood-
burn,184 6,no. 34 (As184 2.). Fisher,186 2,p. 4 , pl. 9 (As
Woodburn,184 2.). Fisher, 1865 , II, p. 22 , pl. 9 (As186 2.).
Robinson,187 0,no. 37 (Michel Angelo. “If intended
as the design for a finished work, the arrangement
of the figures suggests that it must have been for a
picture...certainly rather of the early than the later time
of the master.” c. 1511 –c.15 2 0. Some parts of the drawing
much more precisely defined than others.). Fisher,187 2,
II, p. 20 , pl. 9 (As186 2.). Black, 1875 ,p. 214 ,no. 34. Gotti,
1875 , II, p. 225. Springer,187 8,p. 455 (Similarity of theme
with National GalleryEntombment; implicitly dated to
Michelangelo’s third Florentine period.). Fisher,187 9,
XXVIII/ 30 (“[T]his particular rendering of the subject
is unique.”). Springer, 1883 , II, pp.31 0– 11 (As187 8.).
Berenson, 1903 ,I,pp. 234 – 5 ,no. 2491 (Sebastiano,
1515 – 18 .). Colvin, 1904 , II, no. 13 (Lists “weaknesses”;
agrees with Berenson’s attribution to Sebastiano.).
Borough Johnson, 1908 ,p. 10 , pl. XLV (Michelangelo.).
D’Achiardi, 1908 ,p. 324 (Sebastiano.). Thode, 1908 ,
II, pp. 408 – 9 , 499 , 502 (Michelangelo, perhaps made
for Sebastiano: criticism of Berenson’s attribution of this
and Albertina BK 102 /Corpus 269 ; link with Gathorne
Hardy drawing; relation to Piet`a with nine figures
recorded in Michelangelo’s posthumous inventory?.).K. Frey, 1909 – 11 ,no.15 0(Michelangelo in conception,
save for the right-hand figure, but not in handling; per-
haps but not certainly by Sebastiano; datable before the
Last Judgement.). Thode, 1913 ,no. 420 (Michelangelo, in
15 4 0s.). Brinckmann, 1925 ,no. 76 (Michelangelo, c.155 0.
Similar to Albertina BK 102 /Corpus 269 ; linked with
FlorencePiet`a.). Popp, 1925 b,p. 75 (Not Michelangelo.).
Venturi, 1926 , pl. CCXCI (Michelangelo.). Berenson,
1938 ,no. 2491 (As 1903 ;areminiscence of female figure
in Rosso’s VolterraDeposition.). Delacre, 1938 ,pp. 20 – 1
(Michelangelo; similarities with BM W 64 /Corpus 270 ,
and Albertina BK 102 /Corpus 269 and BK 103 /Corpus
432 ;critique of Berenson’s and Colvin’s attribution to
Sebastiano.). Dussler, 1942 ,p. 194 (By neither Michelan-
gelo nor Sebastiano.). Pallucchini, 1944 ,p. 82 (“v’e una`
insistenza nella definizione plastica specialmente delle
masse di primo piano, che certo transcende le intenzione
stilistiche di Sebastiano.”). Goldscheider, 1951 ,no. 88 (c.
15 4 2.). Wilde, 1953 exh., no. 95 (Michelangelo: Descent
from the Cross, c. 1555 .“Alarge cartoon of a Piet`a with
nine unfinished figures is noted in the [posthumous]
inventory of Michelangelo’s possessions.”). Parker, 1956 ,
no.34 2 (“There can be little doubt that the drawing
has been extensively reworked...perhaps not so late as
1555 .”). Dussler, 1959 ,no. 616 (Not by Michelangelo
or Sebastiano. Link with Albertina BK 102 /Corpus
269 .). De Tolnay, 1960 ,pp. 217 – 18 ,no. 227 (Prefers to
leave attribution open. Queries Parker’s view that the
drawing is re-worked. Date uncertain. Albertina BK
102 /Corpus 269 seems to be c. 1525 – 30 .). Berenson,
1961 ,no. 2491 (As 1903 / 1938 .). Clark, 1964 ,p. 443
(“[T]he central forms are modelled like bronze, but
the surrounding figures are indicated with a colouristic
freedom which might seem to argue a Venetian ori-
gin ...date[s] from a period later than that of his close
connexion with... [Sebastiano].”). De Tolnay, 1967 a,
p. 23 (Michelangelo, c.15 4 5– 50 .). Hartt, 1971 ,no. 456
(155 0– 5 ?. Composition linked with the FlorencePiet`a.
“[S]tarted by Michelangelo, finished in small part...and
then completed by another hand, possibly many years
later. There are appalling passages, especially the head
of Christ and the completely misunderstood lines
superimposed on His chest.”). Mantura, 1973 ,p. 200
(Favours earlier rather than later date.). Gere and Turner,
1975 ,no.15 9(Purpose unknown “unless it is a study for
the large unfinished cartoon of a Piet`a with nine figures
listed in the posthumous inventory of Michelangelo’s
effects.”). Pignatti, 1977 ,no. 22 (Survey of opinion
on attribution; datable in the155 0s.). De Tolnay, 1978 ,
Corpus III, no. 431 (Michelangelo, after 155 0.Some