P 1 : KsF
0521551331 c 01 -p 3 CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 10 : 14
234 WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AUTOGRAPH SHEETS CATALOGUE 48is truncated. Whether it was originally the same width as
Cat. 47 is conjectural.Watermark: Roberts Anchor A on the larger fragment.Medium
Black chalk.Condition
There is an abraded vertical “score” line, minor edge nicks
and tears, minor skinning, abrasion, and fibrous accre-
tions. The sheet has general discolouration and uneven
ingrained surface dirt, also uneven staining.Inscriptions
Recto: In pen and brown ink at lower right:Mic: Angelo
Buonaroti(cf. Cats. 45 [further discussion], 47 , 50 ).
Ve r so: On the smaller fragment: di Bona Roti and,
inverted,no. 6,orientated with the left and right edges of
this fragment before it was rejoined. On the larger frag-
mentno. 22,orientated with the left edge of this fragment
before it was rejoined.Description
A.Tr uncated by the left edge: a small figure from a ver-
sion of B.
B.One figure supporting another, related to theRon-
danini Pieta`, seen from half right. In this drawing, the
supporting figure seems to be looking upwards to his or
her left.
C.Just to the right of B: a small figure, too faint to elu-
cidate.
D.One figure supporting another, related to theRon-
danini Piet`a, seen frontally.
E.Two figures supporting a third between them, seen
frontally.
F. Two figures supporting a third between them, seen
frontally, on a larger scale.
G.Another version of C.Discussion
Although the drawings on this sheet have sometimes been
interpreted as a single sequence, in the view of the com-
piler, as of most other scholars, they represent two differ-
ent compositions. E and F, in which two figures support
the body of Christ in a “fireman’s lift,” are presumably
for aTr ansport of Christ’s Body to the TomborEntomb-
ment. The other drawings show a two-figure Pieta with`
a standing figure supporting the upright body of Christ
from behind. The two-figure group, as all students have
noted, links closely with theRondanini Piet`a,inwhichChrist is supported by a figure who in the final version of
the sculpture is no doubt the Virgin, but who may orig-
inally have been male (as remarked by Murray, 1980 ), in
an arrangement that recalls the simulated sculptures of
the Trinity – probably recording real ones – in paint-
ings by Robert Campin, Rogier van der Weyden, and
Janvan Eyck. In these, of course, the supporting figure is
God the Father, but the exposed left leg of the support-
ing figure in Michelangelo’s group, which would be even
more unusual for God the Father than for the Virgin, sug-
gests that a different figure was involved, perhaps Joseph
of Arimathea or Nicodemus. Michelangelo’s exploitation
of such archaic sources provides a further example of his
return to “primitive” forms at the end of his life.
TheRondanini Piet`ais, as has generally been acknowl-
edged, the result of at least two, or – in the compiler’s
view – at least three, distinct campaigns of work. It was
begun at an uncertain date, then, apparently, put to one
side, only to be taken up again, in Vasari’s account, after
Michelangelo had definitively abandoned the four-figure
Pieta`planned for his own tomb, now in the Museo del
Opera del Duomo in Florence. The four-figure group
was still an active project when Condivi’s life was pub-
lished in 1553 ; according to Vasari, it was the importu-
nity of his servant Urbino that provoked Michelangelo
accidentally to damage the block, and then to become
disgusted with it. If so, Urbino’s death in late 1555 would
be aterminus ante quem.Atthis point, it is generally pre-
sumed, Michelangelo returned to work on theRondanini
Pieta`and no doubt continued to do so intermittently; he
wasworking on the sculpture until a few days before his
death, and it was probably only at the very end of his life
that he attacked the group to produce, for its upper part,
the present spectral forms. However, the legs and thighs
of Christ were not cut back as fully as the upper part of
the group, and these, together with the right arm of an
earlier version that was left in place, show at least one and
probably two of its previous states (as does the contro-
versial fragment of Christ’s torso published by Mantura,
1973 ).
How do these correspond with the forms indicated
here? The redundant right arm in the sculpted group is
finely finished and graceful. It may have been carved in
the mid-155 0s, but it could well date earlier. It would
seem to demand that the head of Christ lolls upon it, as
indicated in the drawings B and D on the present sheet,
taking up an important motif of the four-figurePiet`a.
Thus, the present drawings would be studies for this ver-
sion. Further support for this can be adduced from de
Tolnay’s observation, that the Virgin’s face as it now is was
carved out of a larger head that was turned upwards to the