The Drawings of Michelangelo and His Followers in the Ashmolean Museum

P 1 : JZP
0521551335 int 1 CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 9 : 28

14 THE DRAWINGS OF MICHELANGELO AND HIS FOLLOWERS IN THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM

being sold on a different day. These groups comprised

forty-eight lots of drawings; a forty-ninth lot, 1762 ,wasan

unbound first edition of Michelangelo’s poems, coming

from the Buonarroti family. The forty-eight lots of draw-

ings contained a total of seventy sheets. From them must

be subtracted lot15 0 0, comprising two drawings that are

specifically stated to be copies. The forty-seven remain-

ing lots comprised sixty-eight drawings by or claimed

to be by Michelangelo. Even though this sale probably

included most of the drawings that Ottley considered to

be by Michelangelo, there is no reason to believe that

it exhausted his holdings completely. In total twenty-

six of the forty-eight lots are provided with provenances.

Nine lots ( 253 , 254 , 256 , 260 , 264 , 265 , 1679 , 1681 , 1758 )

and part of a tenth (15 8 7), comprising nineteen draw-

ings in total, were specifically listed as coming from the

Buonarroti collection, but it seems that – more probably

through oversight than deliberate concealment – other

lots originating from the Buonarroti collection were not

specifically indicated, and this total can be raised with

some confidence by four lots: 257 (claimed to come

from Casa Buonarroti in Woodburn’s exhibition of 1836 ,

no. 7 ), 261 (probably184 2- 72 , claimed to come from Casa

Buonarroti, Wicar, and Ottley), 1759 (recognised as from

Casa Buonarroti by Parker, II, 294 ), and 1760 (184 2- 9 ,

claimed to come from Casa Buonarroti and Wicar). These

four lots contained five drawings in all. Thus, it might be

reasonable to conclude that some twenty-four drawings,

comprising the whole or part of fourteen lots in the 1814

sale, came from Casa Buonarroti.

Several other collections are listed in 1814 as provid-

ing drawings by Michelangelo. From the Cicciaporci-

Cavaceppi collection came seven lots ( 263 , 823 , 824 , 825 ,

828 ,15 0 4, 1768 ), and part of an eighth (15 8 7)inwhich

an ex-Cicciaporci drawing was placed with a drawing

from the Buonarroti collection. These seven and a half

lots comprised eleven drawings. It is likely that all save

one of these lots, no. 263 (Cat. 102 ), were autograph.

From the collection of Lamberto Gori came six other

single-drawing lots:15 0 1,15 0 2, 1503 ,15 9 0, 1761 , 1765 ;

none of these was original.^93 Count Geloso’sDescent from

the Cross(lot 1764 )re-appeared from 1807 ,but nothing

from the Martelli Collection surfaced. The only other

sources listed – both English – were Lely, for lot15 8 8,“a

leaf of pen studies, head of a warrior etc, very fine in his

early manner,” probably, as noted earlier, identical with

1804 lot 272 , and with the drawing by Michelangelo now

in Hamburg, and lot 1766 , theThree Figures in Conversa-

tion(Cat. 33 ), whose provenance from the collection of

Jonathan Richardson the Elder was noted, but not from

that of Lord Spencer.

There are some minor discrepancies in the information

in Ottley’s sales, but none that might not be explained by

haste or lack of attention. Thus, as noted previously, lot

15 0 4in 1814 was said in 1804 , when it was lot 275 ,to

have come from the Buonarroti Collection, and whether

or not this is correct, it is probable that the change to Cic-

ciaporci in 1814 wasagenuine correction, not an attempt

at a subterfuge. According to Ottley’s own writings, lot

262 (W 29 /Corpus 97 ) also came from the Cicciaporci-

Cavaceppi Collection, and the omission of this prove-

nance in 1814 wasnodoubt accidental: There can have

been no reason to conceal it. The same must be true of

lot 1680 ,nowgiventoRaffaello da Montelupo (Cat. 77 ),

which, like lot 1766 , came from Richardson, but whose

name is not mentioned by Ottley.

In none of Ottley’s sales is Wicar’s name included in the

provenance of a drawing. It is only in Woodburn’s 1836

exhibition catalogue and184 2prospectus that Wicar, who

had, of course, died in 1834 ,isnamed. In 1836 Woodburn

acknowledged forty-nine of the one hundred mountings

of drawings on display to have come from Buonarroti

and Wicar.^94 In only two of these cases did he include

the name of Ottley after that of Wicar in these prove-

nances. The first of these, 1836 - 80 (Cat. 29 ), a red chalk

study of a man’s head “expressive of malevolence,” cannot

be identified in any of Ottley’s sales, and if he did own it –

which there is no particular reason to doubt – it either was

never offered at auction or was described so minimally

as to elude identification. The second, 1836 - 77 ,isthe

magnificentDream of Human Life, lot 1767 in 1814 (The

Prince’s Gate Collection of the Courtauld Institute). The

obvious presumption would be that Woodburn did not

mention Ottley’s ownership of a number of other draw-

ings that can be identified with items appearing in Ott-

ley’s 1814 sale because he wished to conceal that these had

been stolen from Wicar. It would be natural to conclude

that, save in the two cases in which Ottley’s name was

mentioned, Woodburn wished to convey the impression

that the drawings were among those that he himself had

bought directly from Wicar in 1823 .Forthose drawings

shown in the 1836 exhibition that re-appeared in the184 2

prospectus, the provenance information is unchanged in

all save one case, of which more later. From the descrip-

tions of those drawings included in the184 2prospectus

that had not been shown in 1836 ,alittle more information

can be gleaned.

In184 2Woodburn listed twenty-four mountings of

drawings with a Buonarroti-Wicar provenance.^95 For two

of these, he extended the sequence of ownership to

Ottley. One of these,184 2- 4 ,wastheHead of a Man

“strongly expressive of malevolence” for which Ottley’s