P 1 : KsF
0521551331 apx 1 CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 13 : 45
404 APPENDIX 1. DRAWINGS IN WILLIAM YOUNG OTTLEY’S SALES256 i,ii,iii,iv.Unidentified. Perhaps this is 1804 - 270 minus
one drawing.- 1830 - 85 / 1836 - 7 /184 2- 58 /184 6- 26 /R. 75 /P.II 337 (all
of which include Casa Buonarroti and Wicar in the prove-
nance but omit Ottley)/Cat. 44.
258 i,ii,iii.Unidentified. - 1830 - 27 ?/ 1836 - 90 / 1838 - 54 / 1850 - 134 /bought by Roos/
Weimar, Sachsen-Weimar Collection Private Collection,
Switzerland/Phillips, London, 11 December 1996 , lot 239 ,
as follower of Daniele da Volterra, black chalk, 192 × 147
mm. See 1830 - 27 for further details.
260 i,ii.Perhaps 1804 - 265 i,ii,iii.
It seems likely that the two leaves specified in this lot in fact
comprised three drawings.Leaf 1
i. 186 0- 149 /Philipps-Fenwick/BM W 38 (provenance
givenbyWilde as Lawrence and Woodburn with Ottley
omitted).
ii.186 0- 149 /Philipps-Fenwick/BM W 84 (provenance
givenbyWilde as Lawrence and Woodburn with Ottley
omitted).
These two drawings were mounted together when they
entered the British Museum with the Philipps-Fenwick Col-
lection in 1946 and were later separated.Leaf 2
iii.184 2- 56 /R. 82 /P.II34 4(provenance given as Wicar
and Lawrence with Ottley omitted)/Cat. 54.
261 i,ii.
i.Probably identifiable with184 2- 72 /R. 48. 2 /P.II,31 2/
Cat. 19.
ii.Probably identifiable with 184 2- 72 /R. 48. 1 /P.II,
37 8∗/Cat. 75.
All these catalogues include Casa Buonarroti, Wicar, and
Ottley in the provenance. The main obstacle to this iden-
tification is that184 2- 72 contained three drawings on one
mount rather than two (the third being P.II 313 /Cat. 3 ). This
might be accounted for either by a post- 1814 remounting to
include a third scrap, or by a misdescription of the present
lot.
262.Bought by William Roscoe, for £ 21. 00 according
to an annotation in the sale catalogue; not in Roscoe’s
sale; presumably acquired either directly or indirectly from
Roscoe by Lawrence; 1830 - 52 / 1836 - 63 / 1838 - 34 / 1850 - 15 4,
misdescribed/186 0- 136 ,presented by Vaughan to the BM,
W 29. According to Ottley, 1811 - 23 ,p. 32 , this drawing
(reproduced on the facing page in an etching by G. Lewis
dated 1 August 1809 ) came from the Cicciaporci Collectionvia Cavaceppi, and this provenance was repeated in 1836 - 63
and subsequently. See 1850 - 15 4for further details.- 1830 -Unidentified/ 1836 - 53 /184 2- 45 (wrongly identi-
fied as theBattle of Cascina)/184 6- 41 (subject wrongly iden-
tified)/R. 78 (subject correctly identified)/P.II36 9/(all of
which include Wicar in the provenance but omit Ottley.
This was presumably an error by Woodburn; a Cicciaporci
provenance is much more plausible than a Buonarroti prove-
nance for this drawing.)/Cat. 103.
264 i,ii.No doubt half of 1830 - 61 / 1836 - 2 /184 2- 47 /R. 24 /
P.II 299 - 302 /Cat. 9 – 12.
265 i,ii.No doubt half of 1830 - 61 / 1836 - 2 /184 2- 47 /R. 24 /
P.II 299 - 302 /Cat. 9 – 12.
These two lots (i.e., 264 and 265 )are described as bearing
two double-sided sheets per mounting. It seems clear that
they were combined, or rejoined, in Lawrence’s collection
to form a mounting of four double-sided sheets. The other
four sheets ofconcettifor the Sistine ceiling (Cats. 13 – 16 )
do not seem to have been owned by Ottley and came to
Lawrence’s collection via Wicar and Woodburn.
Seventh Day (p. 74)
823 i,ii,iii.Probably 1804 - 273 i,ii,iii. Bought by William
Roscoe, his sale of September 1816 ,lot 59 /Bought by
Watson, a pseudonym of the London bookseller William
Carey, for 15 s/Sir Thomas Lawrence 1830 -unidentified/
184 2- 35 (combined with two other fragments, P.II36 8,
37 7/Cats. 101 and 73 ,tomake a mounting of five sheets/
184 6- 40 /R. 60 ( 1 , 2 , 3 )/P.II 334 , 335 , 336 (all these catalogues
givethe provenance as Buonarroti, Wicar, and Lawrence,
the Cicciaporci-Cavaceppi provenance omitted)/Cats. 53 ,
51 , 52. See 1804 - 273 for further details.
824.Part of 1830 - 81 i,ii,iii/ 1836 - 82 i,ii,iii/184 2- 64 i,ii,iii/
184 6- 35 i,ii,iii/R. 70 ( 2 )/P.II34 0(all of which give the prove-
nance solely as Ottley; the Cicciaporci–Cavaceppi prove-
nance omitted)/Cat. 47.
825.Part of 1830 - 81 i,ii,iii/ 1836 - 82 i,ii,iii/184 2- 64 i,ii,iii/
184 6- 35 i,ii,iii/R. 70 ( 1 )/P.II 339 (all of which give the prove-
nance solely as Ottley; the Cicciaporci-Cavaceppi prove-
nance omitted)/Cat. 48.
Lots 824 and 825 present a problem that needs to be
considered in relation to lot 1814 - 15 0 4.Itwould seem,
from Woodburn’s description of his exhibit 1836 - 82 , which
contained three leaves, that all four drawings (i.e., 1814 - 824 ,
1814 - 825 , and the two drawings comprised in 1814 - 15 0 4),
were mounted on these three leaves. This remounting was
presumably done by Lawrence since the brief description
provided in 1830 - 81 seems to tally with that provided in
1836 - 82. There would, of course, be nothing unusual in three
mountings carrying four drawings but against this in the
present case is that the number of individual drawings as