P 1 : KsF
0521551331 c 01 -p 3 CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 10 : 14
CATALOGUE 46 WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AUTOGRAPH SHEETS 227table and the drawings made upon them within minutes
of each other.
In the course of developing his ideas, Michelangelo
referred back to his own earlier work. The defeated fig-
ure in the group at upper left recalls his designs for the
Leda; the group immediately to the right is a reprise of the
two fighting figures – perhapsHercules and Cacus–rep-
resented in the epaulet of the lost Presentation Drawing
of theCount of Canossa(the best surviving copy is in the
British Museum, W 87 ;black chalk, 410 × 263 mm), and
the group below this is reminiscent, although less closely,
of Michelangelo’sSamson and Delilah(Cat. 35 ). The most
developed drawings do not have such clear antecedents,
butintheir ferocity, they are reminiscent of the strug-
gling men beneath the hooves of the horses in Leonardo’s
Battle of Anghiari.Asthat composition generated by-
products in the form of terracotta groups of fighting fig-
ures on horseback, so the most developed studies here
would have made excellent small sculptures, compact and
dynamic.
The combatants have been identified asCain and Abel,
David and Goliath,Samson and a Philistine, andHercules
and Cacus.Anyof these pairs might be the subject, but
Michelangelo has taken no trouble to signal which: By
conventional standards of representation, the victorious
figure seems too large for David and insufficiently mature
for either Samson or Hercules. Nevertheless, although
one cannot be certain which of these pairs Michelan-
gelo intended to select, the overwhelming probability is
that the scene is that ofDavid and Goliathwith David
preparing to behead the stunned and floored, but still fee-
bly struggling Goliath, as in Michelangelo’s earlier treat-
ment of the subject on the Sistine ceiling. It is reasonable
to suppose that these drawings were made to assist his
friend and proteg ́ ́e, Daniele da Volterra, in the prepa-
ration of a double-sided painting of which both recto
and verso showDavid about to Behead Goliath, commis-
sioned from Daniele by Giovanni della Casa, and proba-
blyexecuted shortly before Giovanni’s death in Novem-
ber155 6 (Fontainebleau, Musee du Chateau/Barolsky ́
no. 17 ; oil on slate, 133 × 172 cm; see Thomas, 2001 , for
a discussion). Although neither the recto nor the verso
arrangement of Daniele’s painting corresponds exactly
to any of Michelangelo’s compositions – which would
also have made splendid sculptural groups in terracotta
or bronze – the similarities are sufficient to make it
unnecessary to search for alternative purposes for the
sketches.
However, it is clear that Daniele’s paintings were
not made directly from Michelangelo’s drawings, and
the artist produced his own variants on Michelangelo’sdesigns. There exists a small sketch by Daniele in the
British Museum (GP 90 ;black chalk,15 4× 112 mm),
which is probably an initial approach to the subject
and prior to any involvement by Michelangelo; and
there are three much larger, highly finished, but badly
damaged drawings, one in the Uffizi ( 1496 F; black
chalk, 300 × 400 mm) and two in the Louvre (Inv.
151 2, 1513 ; both black chalk, respectively38 0×38 0, and
375 × 455 mm). A fourth drawing, in the Vatican, also
highly finished (Inv. Vat. Lat1361 9 fol. 2 ;black chalk,
338 × 408 mm) seems to the compiler to be a copy, prob-
ably by a member of Daniele’s studio, but it is accepted
as autograph by Thomas, who added a fifth drawing,
also in the British Museum (GP 230 ,asProspero Orsi;
black chalk over stylus, 242 × 396 mm), which he plau-
sibly identified as a copy of a lost drawing by Daniele.
It seems reasonable to suppose that the larger drawings
were made to study the angles best suited to the paint-
ing, but their perfection of surface suggests that they were
intended also as works of art in their own right. The recto
and verso of the painting show the same action from dif-
ferent angles, but the fact that the configurations are not
identical implies that Daniele made at least two plastic
models, an implication that examination of the drawings
supports.
Daniele seems often to have made plastic models
for figures in his paintings, and this practice no doubt
was inspired by Michelangelo. Daniele may on occa-
sion have envisaged producing both sculptures and paint-
ings of the same groups. One bronze – perhaps cast by
Daniele himself – after a model for the reclining figure
of Dido in hisAeneas Commanded by Mercury to Relin-
quish Dido(a composition also designed by Michelan-
gelo) is known (Munich, Bayerisches Nationalmuseum,
64 / 24 ), and although the initial purpose of the model was
presumably to prepare the figure in that painting, it also
makes an impressive statuette in its own right. Daniele also
included representations of Michelangelo’sSamson and the
Two Philistinesfrom two different angles in both versions
of hisMassacre of the Innocents(the fresco in the Della
Rovere chapel of the Trinit`aalMonte and the slightly
varied painting in the Uffizi, 1890. 1429 ; oil on panel,
147 × 144 cm), and it is reasonable to suppose that some
of the bronzes of this subject were cast by Daniele.
The early inscription, which links this drawing with
theBattle of Cascina,isaninteresting error. Leonardo’s
companionBattle of Anghiaricertainly contained figures
fighting on the ground, and this may have prompted the
connection made here. Furthermore, if the conjectures as
to the early provenance of this sheet advanced later in this
discussion are correct, the link may reveal the inscriber’s