P 1 : JZP
0521551335 int 1 a CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 9 : 33
THE DISPERSAL AND FORMATION OF SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE’S COLLECTION OF DRAWINGS 332. As a comparison may be cited the Pompeo Leoni album of
drawings by Leonardo, re-discovered in the Royal Collection in the
eighteenth century: According to Charles Rogers, writing in 1778
when the album was still intact, “In it are contained 234 Leaves on
which are pasted 779 Drawings” (pp. 4 – 5 ).
3. Woodburn,184 2.
4. Byam Shaw, 1976 ,no. 64 ; see n. 127.
5. Cat. 81.
6. Lawrence was conscious – and proud – of his place in a col-
lecting genealogy: He wrote to Woodburn on 17 December 1822
(Williams, 1831 , II, p. 232 ): “I am still the successor of Sir Peter
Lely, the Richardsons, Sir James Thornhill (the former possessor of
myRubens), Hudson, Sir Joshua Reynolds, and Benjamin West.”
7. An abstract of Lawrence’s will is in Williams, 1831 , II,
pp. 565 – 8.
8. A detailed discussion of Woodburn’s efforts to sell the
Lawrence Gallery to the Nation is the unpublished thesis by Denys
Sutton of 1938 ,ofwhich the Ashmolean houses the copy referred
to by Parker in the introduction to his 1956 catalogue. Material on
Lawrence’s collecting can be found in Williams, 1831 , although it
should be noted that he misdates some of Lawrence’s letters; further
information is in Lawrence’s letter-books, preserved in the library
of the Royal Academy. See also Robertson, 1963 ,pp. 52 – 3.
9. Thus, the famous study of a head, believed until Wilde, 1953 a,
no. 57 ,tobethat of St. Bartholomew in theLast Judgement, does
not bear the Lawrence dry stamp, although there is no doubt what-
soever that it was in his collection.
10. The compiler has been unable to locate the following
exhibits in the 1836 catalogue: 1836 - 18 , 1836 - 19 , 1836 - 34 , 1836 - 70 ,
1836 - 78 , 1836 - 99 ; all of these were sold to William II of Holland,
but 1836 - 18 ,atleast, is recorded in Woodburn’sLawrence Galleryof
1853 as plate 23.
11. Labb ́e and Bicart-S ́ee, 1996 ,p. 174.
12. Robinson,187 0,p.xx.
13. Ibid., p. xxiii.
14. 1836 - 18 , 1836 - 20 , 1836 - 43 , 1836 - 44 , 1836 - 48 , 1836 - 56 , 1836 -
75 , 1836 - 90 , 1836 - 94 , 1836 - 95 , 1836 - 98 , 1836 - 99 , 1836 - 100 .Of
these, seven either came from Michelangelo’s studio or are works
of such high standard that it would have been reasonable at that
time to consider them to be originals: 1836 - 18 (by Mini?), 1836 - 20
(by Salviati), 1836 - 43 (by Sebastiano), 1836 - 44 (by Pontormo),
1836 - 56 , 1836 - 75 (accepted as an original until Wilde’s catalogue of
1953 ), 1836 - 100 (by Mini?).
15. The untraced exhibits are listed in n. 10.
16. 1850 - 126 and 1850 - 13 0were wrongly given to Sebastiano;
1850 - 129 , 1850 - 132 , and 1850 - 133 were wrongly given to Venusti.
The seven further drawings not presently identifiable are 1850 - 114 ,
1850 - 15 0, 1850 - 160 , 1850 - 161 , 1850 - 165 , 1850 - 237 , and 1850 - 238.
17. Hinterding and Horsch, 1989.
18. Tu r ner et al., 1997 ,no. 28 ;inthat entry, the drawing’s prove-
nance is given as the Eustace Robb Collection, Oxfordshire.
19. Inv. IV. 7 /Corpus III, no. 399 ;black chalk, 383 × 296 mm.
20. 1836 - 2 and 1836 - 50 each comprised four drawings, and 1836 -
82 , three. All were separated post187 0and are treated individually
both in 1956 and in the present catalogue.
21. Robinson,187 0,p.xxiii.
22. Louvre Inv. 714 /J 4 /Corpus 19 ; pen and ink with traces of
black chalk, 262 × 185 mm.
23. This publication poses a problem. By 1853 five of the thirty
drawings reproduced in it had found permanent homes: Three wereamong the drawings acquired by Oxford in184 6, and two others
had been bought by the Louvre at the sale of the King of Holland;
neither of these locations is given in the accompanying letter-press.
It seems likely that the volume was prepared for publication before
1838 , not then issued, only to be revived in 1853. The companion
volume of facsimiles of drawings by Raphael, published in 1841 ,
specifies those drawing that had been bought by William II.
24. McCullagh and Giles, 1997 ,no.35 0.
25. For Malcolm and his collecting, see Coppel, 1996.
26. Sotheby’s, London, 28 April and 24 November 1976. The
drawings by Michelangelo comprised lots 14 and 16 on 28 April
and lot 28 on 24 November; that attributed to Jacomo del Duca
waslot 15 on 28 April. None of the autograph Michelangelos,
all of which were acquired by Malcolm from Robinson, bears a
Lawrence stamp – or, indeed, any other indication of their earlier
provenance. The best suggestion that the compiler can offer is that
they may have formed part of the Cicciaporci group, and were
purchased privately by Robinson, perhaps in Italy. The exception
is lot 15 on 28 April, which bears the marks of Lanier (L. 2880 ) and
Cosway (L. 628 ). This sheet, incidentally, seems to be a double-
sided facsimile of a lost sheet by Michelangelo, probably made in
his studio in his lifetime; for a comparable instance, see Cat. 55.
27. A magnificent figure-study in pen presented to the Louvre
in 1881 byEdmond Gatteux (Inv. RF 1068 /J 11 /Corpus 21 ) bears
only Mariette’s stamp and probably did not come from Lawrence,
despite the temptation to identify it with lot 155 in the sale of
William of Holland,Etude d’homme, Superbe dessin`alaplume, bought
byBrondgeest for the high price of 400 guilders.
28. Catalogued by Bean, 1960 , nos. 65 – 70 ,towhich should be
added his no. 73 (for which see n. 146 ).
29. In a letter to Woodburn dated 29 June182 0(Williams, 1831 ,
II, p. 280 ), Lawrence refers to “that fine collection of drawings
which I owe to your judgment and vigilant attention.”
30. This may be the place to mention a letter written from
Naples at an uncertain date in the 1630 sbyRev.William Petty,
who acted as an agent for the Duke of Arundel and who informed
the Duke’s son that he had secured for Arundel “ 500 of Michelan-
gelo (with the bathers and all).” This reference (see Springell, 1963 ,
p. 250 )ismysterious. The fact that the letter was written from
Naples does not necessarily mean that the drawings were pur-
chased there, but that would be the obvious assumption. It is highly
improbable that the five hundred contained more than a small pro-
portion of drawings genuinely by Michelangelo, but there could
have been some originals among a host of copies. Even though they
did come to London (see Howarth, 1985 ,p. 134 ), there seems to
be no further trace of them. Whether any can be found among the
drawings owned by Everard Jabach, who seems to have acquired
the largest part of Arundel’s collection, is an open question.
31. Two autograph sheets owned by Lely are Princeton X 1947 -
134 (discussed by Joannides, 1995 a) and Hamburg 21094 /Corpus
35.
32. Ongpin, 2001 , passim.
33. Joannides, 1995 b and 2003 b.
34. On Reynolds’ collection of drawings, see Royalton-Kisch,
1978 .Anotherwise unpublished study of knees by Michelan-
gelo, bearing Reynolds’ stamp, was offered at Christie’s, London,
9 December 1982 , lot 144 ,black chalk, 185 ×15 9mm, and again at
Sotheby’s, London, 9 July 2003 , lot 9. This drawing, like two other
slight sketches owned by Reynolds now in the British Museum
(W 73 /Corpus 398 and W 79 /Corpus 405 ) and the fourDavid and