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

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

both sold by Woodburn to the King of Holland in 1839 –

was entirely ignored for the remaining drawings spring-

ing from this collection listed in the prospectus of184 2,

in which Cicciaporci and Cavaceppi are nowhere cited.

There was no reason whatsoever to have concealed this

provenance, which had, of course, been acknowledged in

Ottley’s 1814 sale catalogue, and presumably the origin of

this group of mostly late drawings by Michelangelo was

simply forgotten.

Correlating the provenances given in the listings of

1836 and184 2with drawings offered at auction by Ott-

ley in 1814 ,itwould seem on the face of the statements

made in the later catalogues that fifteen lots and two part-

lots offered in 1814 – comprising seventeen drawings –

wereamong those abstracted from Casa Buonarroti by

Filippo Buonarroti, passed to Wicar and then stolen from

Wicar by Fedi.^104 But, in fact, this correlation demon-

strates that the information provided in the 1836 and

184 2catalogues – and repeated subsequently – is not

fully trustworthy. It is unlikely that lot 259 in 1814 (“a

man’s head, profile”) ever came from Casa Buonarroti;

Cicciaporci-Cavaceppi is a much more likely provenance,

and in the same sale of 1814 Cicciaporci was the stated

and entirely plausible previous owner of lots 263 , 823 ,

824 , and 825 and the part-lot15 8 7a. Lot15 0 2 is stated

in 1814 to have come from Gori’s collection. It is also

unlikely that lot 1767 in 1814 , one of Michelangelo’s most

important and highly valued Presentation Drawings, had

either been owned by Wicar or come from Casa Buonar-

roti. Thus, of the fifteen lots and two part-lots in Ott-

ley’s sale of 1814 that were stated in the 1836 and184 2

listings to have come from Casa Buonarroti, five lots cer-

tainly and probably seven, plus a part-lot, did not do so.

This means that between six and eight of the seventeen

drawings did not have a Buonarroti provenance. This is

a high rate of error, which also reduces the sixty-five

mountings with a Buonarroti provenance – obtained by

adding the information provided in 1836 and184 2, calcu-

lated previously – to between fifty-seven and fifty-nine.

Even though it cannot positively be proved that these

lots did not at some time pass through Wicar’s hands –

he, like Ottley, had bought directly from Cavaceppi and

might also have done so from Gori and others – it is

unlikely that they did so. It is more probable that in

1836 Woodburn, who includes a Cicciaporci-Cavaceppi

provenance for only two drawings ( 1836 - 63 , theIsaiah

[BM W 29 /Corpus 97 ] which is 1814 lot 262 ,andthe

study for theLast Judgement[BM W 60 /Corpus35 0],

1836 - 84 , which is 1814 lot 1768 ), was confused about the

provenances of a number of drawings and opted for what

seemed to him the most likely. He made other errors:

Thus, aStudy of Hands184 2- 86 ,byPasserotti, is given a

provenance from Wicar whereas this drawing (P. II, 453 )

bears the stamp of Benjamin West and is unlikely ever to

have been owned by Wicar. Lot15 9 0in 1814 ,isstated as

coming from Gori, but it becomes simply Ottley in184 2-

1 (Cat. 99 ). As Pouncey and Gere noted, lot 828 in 1814 ,

stated as coming from Cicciaporci, is given a provenance

from Richardson in 1836 - 51 –aglaring mistake. And at

least one error was made in the opposite sense: A drawing

givenaBuonarroti provenance in 1814 , lot 1758 ,isgiven

aprovenance solely as Ottley in 1836 ,no. 55. Further-

more, the famousEpifaniacartoon, now in the British

Museum (W 75 /Corpus38 9), was stated in the 1836 cat-

alogue (no. 30 )tohavecome from Casa Buonarroti. It

had not. Recorded in 1600 in the inventory of Fulvio

Orsini, who bequeathed his collection to the Farnese, it

had remained in their possession until, on the extinction

of the family, their collections passed to Charles of Bour-

bon, King of the Two Sicilies. The cartoon was given by

Charles, in 1753 ,toCardinal Silvio Valenti.^105 This mis-

take was not repeated in the Woodburn sale of186 0,in

which at least part of the true provenance was given.

Nevertheless, even once Woodburn’s errors are taken

into account, it would still appear that in 1814 Ottley

sold eight lots and one half-lot – comprising nine sheets

of drawings – by Michelangelo that had previously been

owned by Wicar and had come from Casa Buonarroti.

These drawings, like a number of the Raphaels offered

in the same sale, would therefore have been part of the

booty of Fedi. But, once again, we return to the question

of how this assumption can be squared with Wicar’sEtat ́

of18 01,inwhich, to recall, he had included details of well

over thirty drawings or groups of drawings by Raphael but

nonebyMichelangelo. If, to return to an obvious example,

Wicar had lost by theft a drawing of such outstanding

importance as Michelangelo’sDream of Human Life,lot

1767 in Ottley’s sale of 1814 without any provenance,

but with the provenance given as Casa Buonarroti and

Wicar in 1836 ,itisinconceivable that he would not have

specified it. How should this situation be explained? It

may be significant that, after the exchange between Wicar

and Ottley via Humbert de Superville in18 01,nomore

is heard of the matter, and, as far as we know, Wicar

seems to have made no further attempt to recover the

drawings stolen from him that had been fenced to Ottley,

an inaction out of character for a man of his persistence,

nor does it seem that Ottley felt he was dealing in stolen

goods when he included drawings by Raphael that had

certainly been purloined from Wicar in his own sale of

1804 .Perhaps Wicar and Ottley reached some kind of

accommodation, which involved sales made directly by