P 1 : JZP
0521551335 int 1 CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 9 : 28
THE DISPERSAL AND FORMATION OF SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE’S COLLECTION OF DRAWINGS 13It is difficult to be sure how many lots from the 1804
sale re-appeared in Ottley’s 1814 sale. Two have already
been mentioned: the ex-Lely drawing, lot 272 in 1804
which became lot15 8 8in 1814 , and 1804 - 275 ,contain-
ing two drawings, whose Buonarroti provenance given in
1804 was changed to Cicciaporci in 1814 , lot15 0 4(this
is no doubt identifiable with Cats. 45 and 48 ).Athird
was 1804 - 274 , containing two drawings stated as coming
from the Buonarroti Collection, which probably became
lot15 8 7in 1814 (and whose contents are identifiable with
Cats. 50 and 36 ). The fourth drawing, 1804 - 278 , claimed
as a study by Michelangelo for Sebastiano’s ViterboPiet`a
coming from the Spada Collection, was lot 826 in 1814 ;
it cannot now be traced. Two further drawings from the
1804 sale, which do not seem to have re-appeared in 1814 ,
may nevertheless be identifiable. One of these – “a sheet
with two torsos – free pen” in lot 279 , which comprised
three drawings (the other two were described as after
Michelangelo by Salviati) – might have been autograph
and, if so, may be identical with no. 2 in Woodburn’s
184 2prospectus, and with Cat. 2 here. In184 2its prove-
nance was given solely as Wicar, without mention either
of Buonarroti or Ottley. A further lot (lot 264 ) for which
no provenance is indicated, is not traceable in 1814 but
is probably to be identified with Cat. 107 , whose prove-
nance was given solely as Ottley in184 2.Ithas no claim
to be by Michelangelo.
Of the seventeen or twenty-five drawings given a
Buonarroti provenance in the sale of 1804 , therefore, only
four drawings, the contents of lots 274 and 275 , can be
identified with reasonable security. However, because lot
275 probably came from Cicciaporci rather than Casa
Buonarroti, this means that only two of the ex–Casa
Buonarroti drawings offered in 1804 can now be iden-
tified. Nevertheless, there is no reason to doubt the
autograph status of the remainder: In three cases it is
noted that the sheets contain inscriptions by Michelan-
gelo, “an account of money,” “some verses autograph,”
and “some of his writings” – and it is simply the skimpi-
ness of the descriptions that do not allow them to be
connected with drawings known either from Ottley’s
subsequent sale catalogues or the exhibition and sale
catalogues of Woodburn. Most of them were probably
relatively slight.
How many of the Michelangelos in the 1804 sale might
have been stolen from Wicar? Among the five putatively
identifiable drawings by Michelangelo (the contents of
lots 274 and 275 , each containing two drawings, and one
of the three in lot 279 ), only one (lot 274 i) was given
aprovenance including Wicar in Woodburn’s prospectus
of184 2(no. 28 ) followed by later catalogues, although itis probably safe to assume that this provenance was shared
byits companion then on the same mount (lot 274 ii) but
later separated. On the face of it, therefore, the total of
stolen drawings would seem to be three or four. Addi-
tional or changed information about provenances pro-
vided in 1836 and184 2byWoodburn, whose accounts
are generally repeated verbatim by Robinson and Parker,
may modify this total. But, as we shall see, the later infor-
mation is not invariably more accurate than that to be
gleaned from Ottley’s sale catalogues, and the assumption
that a provenance revealed later was one concealed earlier
is not one that can be made with confidence. Notwith-
standing this caveat, because it is certain that some of the
series of drawings by Raphael purloined from Wicar were
offered for sale by Ottley in 1804 ,itisobviously possible
that some of the Michelangelos had come the same way.
Ottley’s third sale, beginning on 6 July 1807 ,contained
only four lots ascribed to Michelangelo totalling five
drawings. Two lots were listed with English provenances:
one “from K. Cha. I cabinet” (i.e., the collection of King
Charles I; it probably bore one of the marks associated
with Nicholas or Jerome Lanier, then believed to be those
of the Collector-monarch^92 )and the other, lot 374 ,“a
study of three hands – masterly fine pen” from Sir Peter
Lely. The latter may be identifiable with Bartolommeo
Passerotti’s drawing, Cat. 114 .Ifso, then the provenance
givenfor this drawing in 1836 - 10 and184 2- 85 as Buonar-
roti (in any case suspicious for a drawing by Passerotti) and
Wicar, with no mention of Lely or Ottley, was an error.
A third, a “Descent from the Cross, many figures” in
black chalk came from “Count Geloso’s cabinet” – it re-
appeared in 1814 as lot 1764. None of these drawings is
particularly plausible as an autograph Michelangelo, and
only the two drawings in lot37 6, for which no prove-
nance is provided – a “fight of cavaliers” in black chalk
and pen, described as “capital,” and “a group of five
figures, half length” in pen – sound possible candidates.
Neither can now be identified with certainty, but the
“fight of cavaliers” might be that included in the 1814
sale as lot 1681 , with the provenance given as Buonarroti;
in which case, it would probably be the same drawing
(Cat. 6 ) that appears in184 2as no. 67 ;inthat and subse-
quent catalogues its provenance given solely as Wicar and
Lawrence, with both Buonarroti and Ottley omitted. If
this identification is correct, the total of ex-Wicar draw-
ings possessed by Ottley would rise to four or five (adding
the drawings offered in 1807 to those offered in 1804 ).
The most important of Ottley’s sales, and that with the
most informative catalogue, began on 6 June 1814 and
continued for fifteen days. The drawings by or attributed
to Michelangelo were divided into six groups, each group