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 21are now in the Uffizi. These cannot be shown to have a
Buonarroti provenance and might already have been in
Grand Ducal possession when Commodi copied them.^125
But if Commodi had access to the Grand Ducal Collec-
tion, then it is strange that he should have chosen only
these slight sketches and ignored the famousIdeal Heads,
which were certainly in Medici possession by this time.
Another possibility is that they could have been part of a
different collection to which Commodi had access – per-
haps that of an artist friend – and only subsequently found
their way to the Uffizi. However, in the compiler’s opin-
ion, the most likely explanation is that these six sheets of
drawings too were in Buonarroti possession when Com-
modi copied them, but that they were part of a batch that
at some point left the collection: They may, for example,
have been gifts to friends of the Buonarroti family, and
thence have entered the Uffizi. Whatever the answer, it
is worth noting that the Uffizi sheets after which Com-
modi’s copies were made were ones that did not retain
their identity and were restored to Michelangelo only
around 1900 byFerri and Jacobsen.
Two other observations are relevant to this issue. On
one of the pages of his sketchbook, Commodi made a
slight copy of a mouth and a little dragon, which could
have come only from a drawing by Michelangelo now in
Hamburg. This drawing bears the stamp of Sir Peter Lely
and, therefore, if it was in Casa Buonarroti when Com-
modi copied it, it must have left there before Lely’s death
in 1680. But if it was in another collection, it too would
undermine the locational homogeneity of the sketchbook
copies. Second, on Uffizi 18632 F, Commodi copied, in
red chalk, Michelangelo’s black chalk sketch for the head
of theignudoleft aboveIsaiahon the Sistine ceiling, a
drawing now in the Louvre, which entered French Royal
possession with Jabach’s collection in 1671.^126 Commodi’s
copy is approximately the same size as the original and is
careful in its handling. It does seem – although it is impos-
sible to be certain – to have been made directly from the
original and not from an intermediate copy. But because
Commodi’s copy was not part of his sketchbook, even
could it be proved that the original was in a collection
other than that of the Buonarroti, it would not, unlike
the copy of the ex-Lely drawing or the Uffizi sketches,
affect our estimate of the source of the remainder of the
sketchbook copies. However, if the assumption that the
sheets now in the Uffizi, Hamburg, and the Louvre were
all in Casa Buonarroti when Commodi copied them is
correct, it would open a different avenue of investigation,
for it would argue that they left Casa Buonarroti at some
time between, at the outside, c.15 9 0and c. 1670 , more
probably between 1620 and 1670 , and that at least somedisposals were made during the seventeenth century from
the family collection.
In fact, it is not an unreasonable assumption that a few
drawings were exchanged for others or given to friends
or as diplomatic presents; others could have been sold,
or even stolen. There is, indeed, one certain instance
of a sheet of drawings that was in Buonarroti posses-
sion in the early 1620 s subsequently passing out of it.
This double-sided sheet, which also bears a burlesque
poem, was referred to by Michelangelo the Younger,
who printed the poem, as having been acquired for Casa
Buonarroti from Buontalenti. By the 1750 s, this sheet was
owned by the Baron Philipp von Stosch, a great collector
of, primarily, engraved gems, in whose collection it was
catalogued in 1758 byWinckelmann, a year after Stosch’s
death. It is now in the Louvre, RF. 4112 /J 17 /Corpus 25 ,
donated in 1912 by Leon Bonnat. Even though the pos- ́
sibility of theft cannot be ruled out, it seems more likely
that it was sold or gifted by a Buonarroti descendent, and
if this is so, it is unlikely to be an isolated case. Indeed,
some of the other drawings by or attributed to Michelan-
gelo described by Winckelmann in the Stosch Collection
wereclearly working studies with “conti di cassa” on
their versos, which again strongly suggests – although does
not prove – a provenance from Casa Buonarroti. Further
support for the hypothesis of leakage from Casa Buonar-
roti is provided by the single-copy drawing by Francesco
Buonarroti ( 5406 A[c]), which does not depend on a
known sheet by Michelangelo either still in, or with direct
recorded provenance from, Casa Buonarroti. This is his
copy after one of the sketches on the verso, preparing the
modelloof a monumental altar on the recto, on a sheet
from the collection of Filippo Baldinucci bequeathed by
General John Guise to Christ Church in 1765. The obvi-
ous inference is that this sheet too left Casa Buonarroti
at some time between the date of Francesco’s sketch and
Guise’s acquisition; it was probably given by a member of
the Buonarroti family to Baldinucci.^127
Commodi’s series of copies seems to be unique.
Although it might seem reasonable to suppose that access
to Casa Buonarroti was granted to artists and students
who wished to study the drawings, no groups of copies by
Florentine artists of the seventeenth or eighteenth century
have so far been identified. Rubens made a pair of copies
of theBattle of the Centaurs,probably during his sojourn
in Florence in late 1600 ,and as these show the relief lit
from opposite directions, he was presumably permitted to
manouevre an oil lamp before it.^128 But Rubens was an
artist with the highest and most powerful social connec-
tions, an accomplished diplomat, and an extraordinarily
forceful and resourceful personality, and no copies even