P 1 : JZP
0521551335 int 1 b CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 9 : 36
THE DISPERSAL AND FORMATION OF SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE’S COLLECTION OF DRAWINGS 4315 4. See Szanto, 2002.
155. Ibid, p. 56.
15 6. BK 116 /Corpus 5 , 118 /Corpus 22 , 120 /Corpus 144 , 123 /
Corpus 53.
15 7. Schnapper, 1994 ,pp. 267 – 80.
15 8. Py, 2001 , nos.36 8,36 9, 764 – 9 ,112 9,[Portefeuille] P.
15 9. Thus, thePieta`in the Albertina (BK 103 /Corpus 432 ;red
chalk 404 × 233 mm), which was probably owned by Crozat and
Mariette, bears a large pen and ink inscription at lower left:Michel
Ange. The compiler has noticed the same inscription on four other
sheets:
1. Nationalmuseum, Stockholm; Bjurstrom, Loisel, and Pilliod, ̈
2002 ,no. 1110 ,asfollower of Bandinelli; pen and ink, 264 ×
162 mm
2. Nationalmuseum, Stockholm; Bjurstrom Loisel, and Pilliod, ̈
2002 ,no. 1201 ,asDomenico Beccafumi; pen and ink, 275 ×
164 mm
3. A copy after Michelangelo’s Morgan LibraryAnnunciation, for-
merly in the Sir Robert Mond Collection (L. 2813 a; Borenius and
Wittkower, 1937 ,no.15 6), sold Christie’s, London, 18 April 1989 ,
lot 7 ,asattributed to Giulio Clovio; black chalk, 318 × 248 mm
4. Astudio copy after lost sketches by Michelangelo drawn on
the verso of a portion of an autograph letter by Michelangelo, for-
merly Brussels, E. Wauters Collection; pen and ink, 220 × 160 mm
(K. Frey, 1909 – 11 , pl. 249 ).
The two Stockholm drawings were acquired as Michelangelos
byTessin at the Crozat sale ( 1201 waspart of lot 20 ), but the inscrip-
tion common to them and to the three other drawings implies that
all five were in the same French collection before Crozat acquired
them. Whether any one of these sheets was owned by Jabach, and
how those in Stockholm acquired the patently incorrect attribution
to Michelangelo, are matters for conjecture.
160. This exception is Haarlem A 17 /VT 52 /Corpus13 0;itmay
be that in this case Primaticcio knew not the original but a replica,
perhaps by Mini. Alternatively, it is possible that, as Van Tuyll
van Serooskerken suggests, this drawing could have returned to
Italy with the cartoons sent back to Michelangelo by Rustici.
If so, it would presumably have been given by Michelangelo to
Daniele.
161. Joannides, 2001.
162. For the inventory, see Lafranconi, 1998 ; for further discus-
sion, Lafranconi, 2003.
163. Haarlem A 18 /VT 46 /Corpus 51 .Treves, 2001 , who also
thought that Daniele may have owned the twoCascinadraw-
ings, nevertheless argued that theBaptismwas designed not by
Daniele but by Michele degli Alberti. As will be suggested later,
Michele degli Alberti may well have inherited this drawing, which
bears theBona Rotiinscription, after Daniele’s death. To the com-
piler, however, the sophistication with which drawings by Daniele
and Michelangelo, which had been generated for different pur-
poses, were combined in this panel suggests the mind of Daniele
himself.
164. Baglione, 1642 ,p. 66 : “Giacomo Rocca...al quale lascio`
Danielle bellissimi disegni non solo de’ suoi, ma anche di quelli
di Michelagnolo Buonarroti, li quali egli a tutti per maraviglia
mostrava. E dalla vista di questi grand’ utile apprese, e molto gusto
il Cavalier Giuseppe Cesari da Arpino, quando era giovane, & in
diversi lavori, che da Giacomo Rocca prendeva a fare, n’hebbeaiuto.” In his commentary, Rottgen suggests that a ̈ Crucifixionin
Galleria Borghese traditionally attributed to Cesari may have been
begun by Giacomo Rocca.
165. Vasari, 1759 – 60 , III, p.35 0. Bottari’s information came from
a letter received from Gaburri on 1 August 1741 (Fanfani,187 6,
pp. 97 – 8 ). This provides a little more information: “Una bellissima
collezione di disegni originali di Michelagnolo possede in Firenze il
Sig, Filipp. Cicciaporci, gentiluomo fiorentino, nella sua numerosa
collezione di eccellenti disegni tanto antichi che moderni. Questi
sono un gran parte della collezione che aveva gi`afatta in Roma il
Cav. Giuseppe Cesare d’Arpino; e molti altri sono andati dispersi.
Oltre ai disegni di Michel-Angelo, i quali sono 80 originali di studi
terminati e conclusi, parte a lapis rosso e parte a lapis nero, e alcuni
toccata a penna con quella diligenza, bravura e intelligenza come era
suo costume. Vi sono altresi alcuni nudi di man di quel Brachettone
(i.e., Daniele da Volterra) che coperse le nudit`adimolte di quelle
figure che dipinse M. A. nella Capella Sistina; e questi sono gli
studi per adattarvi i panni.”
166. The dragon was drawn on a teaching sheet – indeed, it
submerges sketches by Mini – which might well have gone with
Mini to France but the situation is complicated rather than clarified
bya copy in the Louvre (Inv. 693 /J 103 ), which bears inscriptions
both in Italian and French.
167. Clayton, 1996 – 8 ,pp. 208 – 9.
168. Ibid.
169. Cats. 1 , 2 , 5 , 20 , 26 , 45 , 57.
170. Va nTuyll van Serooskerken, nos. 228 – 43.
171. Noted by Treves, 2001 ,pp. 39 – 40. She further pointed
out that Casa Buonarroti 19 F/B15 0/Corpus36 8, with sketches for
Daniele’sSt. Johnand for the Laurenziana staircase, also contains a
sketch for theAeneas.
172. Feliciano di San Vito would also be a possibility for one
or the other of these owners, but because nothing is known about
him, and because Giacomo Rocca did make use of drawings by
Michelangelo, Rocca is a more likely candidate.
173. The study of a left leg, JBS 62 /Corpus 86 verso; red chalk,
212 × 283 mm; see L. Donati, 2002 ,pp. 326 – 9 .Apage of drawings
in the British Museum, W 86 ,red chalk, 306 × 202 mm, dated by
Wilde to “about 1600 or later,” contains a copy of the same left
leg made from the original, not the etching, plus a profile view of
aright leg from a drawing by Michelangelo, now lost, which must
have been on the same or a companion sheet.
174. Cat. 57 ; BMW 13 /Corpus 63 , the famous study forHaman,
bears neither aBona Rotiinscription nor an Irregular Number, but
the fact that it was copied together with members of the group
now in Haarlem (see n. 113 ) strongly suggests that it was part of
this collection but that it subsequently lost its number.
175. Louvre Inv. 727 /J 10 /Corpus 34. Lamentably, the compiler
omitted to record theArpinoinscription in his entry on that sheet
and the provenance there suggested for that sheet is wrong. It should
probably run: Michelangelo; Daniele da Volterra; Michele degli
Alberti; the Cavaliere d’Arpino; unidentified French collector;
Cabinet du Roi.
176. Va nTuyll van Serooskerken, no. 71.
177. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 24. 197. 2 /BT 131 /Corpus
15 6.
178. Annesley and Hirst, 1981 ; see the catalogue of Sotheby’s
sale for further discussion.
179. Vasari, ed., Bottari, III, 1760 ,p.35 0.