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

THE DISPERSAL AND FORMATION OF SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE’S COLLECTION OF DRAWINGS 15

name had already been given in 1836 ,no. 80 ; the other

was184 2- 72 (“Three small studies on one mount”), not

shown in 1836. TheDream of Human Life, 1836 - 77 , had

been sold on to the King of Holland in the interim and

so did not appear in the184 2prospectus. The implica-

tion would seem to be, once again, that the remainder

had been acquired by Woodburn directly from Wicar.

When the works given a Buonarroti-Wicar provenance

in 1836 and184 2that are common to both catalogues

are added to those that appear only in one or the other,

it would seem that Woodburn possessed a total of fifty-

four mountings with a Buonarroti-Wicar provenance, of

which three (combining the information provided in the

1836 and184 2catalogues) were acknowledged also to have

been owned by Ottley.

In addition, Woodburn in184 2listed a further nine

mountings with Wicar as sole owner, presumably imply-

ing that they did not come from Casa Buonarroti.^96

Thus, combining the figures of 1836 and184 2,atotal

of sixty-three mountings would have come from Wicar.

Woodburn also listed fourteen mountings with Ott-

ley as sole owner.^97 A further mounting was given the

unique (and probably erroneous) provenance Buonarroti-

Ottley.^98 Finally the drawing on panel, Cat. 21 ,isstated

to have passed to Ottley from the King of Naples, and

two other drawings are said to have come to Ottley from

English collections.^99 If these references are taken at face

value, it would imply that fifty-five of the mountings

offered by Woodburn had come from Casa Buonarroti,

fifty-four via Wicar, and one via Ottley. Which ones and

how many of the group of nine mountings of which

Wicar is listed as sole source, or the group of fourteen

of which Ottley is listed as sole source, might also have

come from Casa Buonarroti is a question that can be

answered in part. Of the nine “Wicar alone” drawings,

five are not by Michelangelo, and it is unlikely that any of

them came from Casa Buonarroti.^100 It is probable that

all four of the autograph sheets came from Casa Buonar-

roti, but only one can be proved to have done so.^101 Of

the fifteen “Ottley alone” mountings, seven-and-a-half

are neither by Michelangelo nor from his studio, and it is

unlikely that any of them came from Casa Buonarroti.^102

Of the remaining seven-and-a-half, it seems probable that

one (184 2- 32 /Cat. 24 ), although autograph, had a non-

Buonarroti provenance (Cicciaporci is most likely), but

that the remainder, including one drawing by Antonio

Mini (184 2- 60 /Cat. 74 ) and another given here to Pietro

d’Argenta (184 2- 63 /Cat. 58 ), did indeed come from Casa

Buonarroti.^103 If the four Wicar mountings and the seven-

and-a-half Ottley mountings are added to the fifty-five,

we reach a total of sixty-six-and-a-half mountings by

Michelangelo and his immediate followers with a direct

provenance from Casa Buonarroti.

One example of which the provenance in184 2is given

solely as Ottley is particularly instructive: This is184 2- 47 ,

one of the two mountings of four sheets from Michelan-

gelo’s Sistine sketchbook (Cats. 9 – 16 ). Its pair, the other

gathering of four sheets,184 2- 66 ,isspecifically given

the provenance Casa Buonarroti and Wicar. However,

six years previously, in 1836 ,both mountings ( 1836 - 2 and

1836 - 50 ) had been listed as coming solely from Ottley’s

collection. Thus, the provenance of one had been revised

in the interim – the single change of provenance infor-

mation given for the same drawings between 1836 and

184 2. One of these two mountings of four leaves each

can be traced further back: It had previously appeared

in Ottley’s 1814 sale, and then it was divided into two

mountings of two sheets apiece ( 1814 - 264 and 1814 - 265 ),

both described as coming from the Buonarroti Collec-

tion. One of these two mountings must have included

Cat. 11 ,ofwhich Ottley had reproduced the recto in

hisItalian School of Design. The other four sketchbook

sheets, however, cannot be found in the 1814 sale. How is

this to be interpreted? Did Ottley own the second group

of four or did he not? In hisItalian School of Design,he

mentions possessing only four sheets, and there would

have been no good reason to conceal it had he owned

eight. It is probable, therefore, that Ottley did not possess

the second group. If so, and if the second group of four

really was acquired by Woodburn directly from Wicar,

it would imply that the provenance of both groups from

Ottley given by Woodburn in the 1836 catalogue was no

more than a typographical error, and that in184 2Wo o d -

burncorrected this for the group that Ottley had not

owned. What possible reason could Woodburn have had

for ignoring the Casa Buonarroti provenance for at least

one of the groups in 1836 while in184 2retaining the

provenance of one as Ottley, and giving the provenance

of the second as Buonarroti and Wicar, and excluding

Ottley? It is not as if in 1836 Woodburn was trying to

concealanytransfer Buonarroti-Wicar-Ottley, since he

had acknowledged this for two other drawings ( 1836 - 77

and 1836 - 80 ). And since a Buonarroti provenance had

been published for at least one of the two groups in

Ottley’s 1814 sale, what profit was there in attempting

to hide it in 1836 and184 2?Itisdifficult to elucidate any

consistent pattern in this, whether of openness or con-

cealment, and it is probably more reasonable – as well as

more charitable – to conclude that the discrepancies are

the result of confusion rather than conspiracy. Confusion

would also explain why the Cicciaporci-Cavaceppi prove-

nance given for two drawings in 1836 – nos. 63 and 84 ,