P 1 : JZP
0521551335 c 02 -p 4 CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 10 : 54
CATALOGUE 67 COPIES OF SURVIVING DRAWINGS 307Julien de Parme was a copy and that it was Ottley’s
drawing, acquired directly or indirectly from Wicar’s
collection, which was the original. One would then have
to argue, supplementarily, that from Ottley the original
passed to Lawrence – either directly or via Roscoe –
and that after Lawrence’s death its provenance became
confused with that of the copy. However, the price that
Ottley’s drawing attained in 1814 is much too low for
the original of so famous a design, and it seems clear
that the drawing owned by Roscoe (unless one assumes
he owned two drawings, the original and a copy) had a
different provenance (see following discussion, copy 2 ).
Alternatively it could be proposed, since the present
drawing is listed in Woodburn’s184 2catalogue as com-
ing from Wicar, that Wicar, who was in Paris in 1794 ,
acquired a copy at the Julien de Parme sale, and that
the original, owned by Brunet, was acquired by Brunet
from some other source. However, this alternative also
seems unlikely because lot 10 at the Julien de Parme
sale – another of Michelangelo’s Presentation Drawings
for Vittoria Colonna, thePiet`anow in the Isabella Stewart
Gardner Museum in Boston – also appeared in Wood-
burn’s 1836 exhibition with its provenance given solely
as Brunet. It seems most probable that Brunet acquired
both drawings either directly at the 1794 sale or later
from some intermediary. Brunet is no doubt identical
with Louis-Charles Brunet ( 1746 – 1825 ), the brother-in-
law of Dominique-Vivant Denon, by whom he was pre-
sumably advised on his purchases. Brunet died in the same
year as Vivant Denon, and his collection seems to have
been acquired by Woodburn in Paris at around the same
time as he acquired drawings from the collection of Vivant
Denon himself, shortly after the latter’s death, on 28 April
1825.
Ottley may genuinely have believed that his version
ofChrist on the Crosswas that owned by the King of
Naples, but unless the King owned both the original and
a copy (not inconceivable – after all both the original
and the copy were later owned by Lawrence), it is more
likely that he was simply misinformed about the source
of his drawing. It is probable, therefore, that it was the
present drawing, not the original, that was owned by Ott-
ley, offered as lot15 9 1in his sale of 1814 , bought in, and
subsequently sold to Lawrence with the rest of Ottley’s
collection.
Other drawn copies of theChrist on the Crossdrawn for
Vittoria Colonna of which the compiler is aware are:1. Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts, Inv. K 67. 35 ;black
chalk, 410 × 270 mm. According to Dr. Lorand Zentai ́(letter of 30 January 2003 ) this is very similar to the Louvre
copy ( 7 in this list).
2. Cumberland, G. McKay Collection in 1955 (letter
and photograph in the files of the Ashmolean Museum);
black chalk, 394 × 267 mm. This drawing bears the stamp
of H. C. (“Dog”) Jennings ( 1731 – 1819 ) who, during a
sojourn in Rome between 1753 and 1761 ,acquired many
works of antique and modern art from the sculptor and
dealer Bartolomeo Cavaceppi. If the McKay drawing was
among these, it would thus have left Italy well before
the dispersals of the 1790 s. It was subsequently owned
byWilliam Roscoe, appearing in his sale of 1816 , lot 75
“Christ on the Cross, a Figure in the clouds on each side
of him, in attitudes of Lamentation. Exquisitely finished
in black chalk and undoubtedly designed for the Mar-
chesa di Pescara.15 1/ 2 ′′h.10 1/ 2 ′′w. F r o mthe Col-
lection of C. Jennings, Esq. with the ancient Print by
Niccolo Beatrizet after the same.”`
3. Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Kupferstich-
kabinett, Inv. C 1989 - 106 ,Guse and Perrig, ̈ 1997 ,no. 34 ;
black chalk,36 2× 250 mm. Acquired before 1756 from
the collection of Dr. Paul Ackermann, Dresden. It seems
to the compiler possible that this fine copy is also by Giulio
Clovio, but he does not know it in the original.
4. Lockinge, Loyd Collection, Loyd, 1999 ,no. 105 a;
black chalk, 413 × 267 mm. From the collection of Rev-
erend Gordon Kenworthy.
5. London, British Museum, W 93 ;black chalk, 400 ×
276 mm. Cracherode bequest, from the collection of
Jonathan Richardson the Elder. In this copy, the two
lamenting angels are omitted; if Perrig’s reconstruction of
events is correct, this copy might have been made before
Michelangelo added the angels, or the copyist deliberately
omitted them to restore Michelangelo original intentions,
which would imply a copyist close to the master. How-
ever, it is more likely a consequence of the fact that
the drawing is unfinished. Daniel Godfrey has pointed
out to the compiler that the forms in this drawing are
also nearly ten percent larger than those of the original,
which implies a copying process that expanded the image.
The mount carries Richardson’s inscriptionBartolommeo
Aretino, which, according to his explanatory annotation
on the rear, repeats an old attribution on the drawing’s
now-concealed verso.
6. London, formerly Mond Collection, Borenius and
Wittkower, no.15 7;black chalk, pen and bistre wash,
381 × 260 mm. Later, presumably, in the Brackley Collec-
tion, Norfolk, where other ex-Mond drawings migrated
and where Perrig, 1991 ,p. 47 ,refers to a copy of
Michelangelo’s drawing. As far as the compiler is aware,